Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats

rhssasefs!

fps

Pad oer
fe:

8, 240

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois

http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat274illi

( 07 hes

NOS "60...

BOUNB.....

566346

LEON DAV TDGON »
Plaintiff? in orrer,
SRMGP W MUNICIPAL

We }
i GOvst OF Oitoanc,
}
}
)

GUAR GOMMENITY SPATS Bask,
a” 4 ie i

@ corporat ion,
vefendant im Srror.
oie PIS FTO MiomET

ia an action in the Municipal court upon contract,
ana apon trial wy the court, thexre wee ao finding for defendant
with judgment therewa, which plointiff ty thie writ ef error
seeks to reverage

The statement of claim averre: that on Jaby 4, 1997,
the Community “tate Sank, predecessor of defendant bank, (both
eorporstions having been organised under the Banking iawp ef
éhe State of illinois) seid to plaimiifi veal estate bonds of
the par walue of 259050, with eoupone attached, for whieh plein=
tiff paid te the bank O8,2)73 that as a part ef the transaction
the bank agreed it would repuremace the bontu ot the eam price
at amy time thercafterg that om Say 28, 1948) plaintiff tenderwe
the berds end demanded that defendamt repurchase the seme
aceerding to ite promise, wat that defendant falled ad retuned
to 46 so. By o leter amendment plaintiff aided a paragraph
demanding $9,000 fer money had anc received om or about May G8,

1958. An to thie Inst paragraph, defendant pleaded the fiveryear

ataiute of Limitations.
The affidevit of merits denied the execution ef the

time oe : Hy
Viad¥ te i

Cores wh Reels
“aasrogens ar a7 | i i
.ShybT ag to vewaD oe
| meee ae be:
2 AT Sve 4 oe a tigi

+ FAwOD eR %O HOLEISO BAY orc

stroménos neg *tune togtotea cd wh havi: az

ose

eoutenet. Tho affidavit aloe asserted that ac a tanking corporation
the execuiiom of this contract was wlixe vires the corporation; that
the qumiract «as contrary Go the by~laws of tae bank; that the
suceesser Sank had uo knowledge of the contract when it took over
the assets of ite predecessor; that defendant by eolivcting interest
en the bonta hac elected unconditiousily to reaffirm the eentract

of purehasey that the sffur te repurchase war not accepted by pisin-
tiff within a rensonable timey thet thes contract wun dilegal and
void ae vielsting scotion 3% of chapter 34 of the act entitled, “An
Aet for the protection of bank depoaltursg" that the demand te
yepurebage wee wes made within a recsonable bimeg SBat any agreement
ef any employee or agent of the benk jo repurchase said venda was
without authority from <efomiant or the Deard of diresters of defend-
ants that defendant had sc knexitedge of the «greement amd Bee st adi
times diaclaimed the suthorities ef such gorgim, employee or agent

ta antey inte any auch agreement, and tuat the oredeaecser of defend-
ant made uc such agretment; that the agent or servant of the pred¢e
eeeser bank had no suthority te make the game, amd that if 1% was
made it was unknow: Ge the board of directors of the predecessor banks

Ag already stated, the lacues were submitted te the court
and the eyidenee taken, roepecitions of insw were submitted by plain-
tiff, and some were held oe requested and othere refused, ia already
gtated, the finding wae for defendant with judgment thervon.

The controlling queation in the exse is whether the agree-
ment ts reperchace these bonds om demand wae velid and enforecables
Flaintift contends that 1% wae in the mature of a conditicenal sales
contract and wee neither ultra vires the corporation and contrery to
publie yelicy mor prohibited wy any stetute of thie state and on
this point relies on Freedman v- Madison & Kedzie State Bank, 259
Tlie Appe 529) swotin ve Atlas Exchange Jat'h Bank, 265 Tlie pps

aie

uatvereqxs yriktnad 2 22 tai bodvonse ooka ivebht ts ott? . doratnoo
_ tate fmebtocgyes ont geaky wath aay dontéooy eis Bu nohienons odd
ostt gett yaar’ ond to eradeye ec? G4 Yretdnoe env foanieee ona

neve anos tk nestw doewsnes od to subetwerd om Aa ape rou eypaR

soounent guitortion ys denboe'ted gots preneaveheny abt To eferse ant
toatinge oe coisaeiatele os Usesolsioovemm aosrete veld abmod odd ae
whale id detqores som auw sentoages o¢ twrko ads ted? topacio ag,
he dogo itt ass doatdaon oid duis gorks aidenon6o% Fe iin ed
ae abegesen don os ko G8 sedqede te 28 mnbdown: geiteetoty ‘ee ‘her
9? bun at tals *yarestaogeh tned Ye moteosdeng sith zt #mA
" gnemeetes ene soctt | ‘gamb? etadensot @ nde oheet ‘tow cow onesie meet
) mae aed bles oe cite sat ee sued ante ie Fabia *e bch cana ae te
ebro se gredeoctt 8 ened ons ae ‘inobmotee zest wehreskian daodt te
is te nag beim drome ras oa, 26 ogberverst ot bet fesbasteb ‘outd Aine
“dawg <q sevatque qimevsq dome 39 evksivestive ext ‘beaiheLoet 5 Lhd
sbasiod to Togewhe hon, add dad? ban gemeetae Hone om tet mk wrod te ee .
ephomy oft Ye dnavive 4a sone, ede date ssusmeetge Bone Om § ical ‘oie :
ssw 2h bi teed ome. cane off eden oF es vette on batt sie Lone HD

2 shad cynnoowhemg off to etadenshs I beret es? oe mmaantay Rae a stem
dxuop, at a6 aottientne, expe nakent ont? ohetade MPEUSES BA ogy >
| eabaky, WA netaiadva, sven mak te anoktheagers . «mains anehtye 9tt hae a
(Mme ad, aanettet gant, hus, beTene er ae Shed over te sid ry tha
" sites tarts aramempiel, at bor auanae’: ak aw siadiliig at ahore
mage oe aaeleds Ot game sult ae mnkinee
pt ideenretne Bae Biter aan panee®. 0 ott ale a
aelen REL a I MED — is C8

ete

#583 Enaee ve Madigon & Becate State Bank, @69 ULle Appe SAG%
Hoffman v. Sears Comunity “tate Banks 269 [11s Appe Gdty "olf
ve Met") Bank of {155 178 T1le 45. The authorities cited suppert
the proposition of lew fer whieh plaintiff contenda, but in the
Hmasg onee cited (a eertifiente of importance having been granted
by this court to the Gupreme court) the dceoree was reversed by that
court (Knags vs Nadigom & “edsie State Bank, 344 (Lie 854) the
sourt holding a contract of thia kind veld and unenfarcesble. Tt
ig the duty of this court te follew the law as declared By the
“wpreme court of the state, and in conformity with that opinion,
the judgment of the trizlk ecurt ia affirmed.

ASTTMBE De

Keourely and ("Comers JJ+, voneure

GOHe .qch «LIT GOS qMual bape oareX $ momhee + saaM
_- BASE WPNe aah «LET Ohm salad odede cis ais ov Sa
| $xoqe beste nod sbrodina ott BB 6 Ki STE ge i,

att set ud es hvta $109 vebembake eho tr 2% wok xe aetsteaaeg as

besarte wood undead sonad coq te odeol ti ree a) bette oan aRe
~ geata vd bouzeves enw esxoct nals (sx00 ouvra ott a twee eble t

“edd (080 -i11 126 dup odntt_stahot & menthol «v spout) sve
ae Se es ae

37026 ee }

P,3 ie
GLABRA OTTO, } we Le
Appellee, a ail é

(} \WPPEAL PROM SUPERIOR obURT
we. F

GUY A. RICHARDSOR, as Receiver,
eto. tJ at Hho g
Avpellants,.

eF cook county,

ad
=

274 1.A.649°

KR, PRESIDING JUATICH wATCHETT
DELIVERED THE OPILIGN OF TAR COUT,

I. In an aetion ueon the case for personel injuries and
upon trial by fury there wae a verdict for plaintiif in the eua of
$15,000, Plaintiff reaitted $5,000, and the court overruling mo-
tione for a new trial wend in arrest eitered judguent for piaintirf
in the sum of $16,000, whieh defendianta contend should be revereed,

It is argued teat the verdict is againet the manifest
weight of the evidenee; that the court erred in the giving and re.
Yaeing of inetructione and in ite ruiisgs upon the admission of
evidence, and that the damages are exorzenive,

The deelaration was in twe eounta. The fivest in substanee
allaged that on December 16, 1931, siaintiffY was o passenger fer
hire on one of Aeferndsntea’ street care; that 1t thereupon became
the duty ef defendants to excreine the highest degree of care, eta. ,
#6 as Hot te enuse injury er harm te ker; that they did net observe
their duty, but om the contrary “by their then agente snd servants”
80 carelesaly, negligentiy snd lepreperly managed, operated and eon-
trolled the car that plaintiff was tarewn from her position therean
te the street and injured,

The second count, sdeoting paragraphs of the firet, avers
that it became the duty of defendaite te keop aid maintain the
etreet car at a etandstill until plaintiff had sempletely bearded
the same; that they did net observe their daty but on the contrary
Gaaeed the ear te be moved forward with w sudden and viclent

Jerk, in sensequence of whieh slaintiff was thrown fren her

’ ‘ oe wa Ye a eos “pe iat of ical ma 4
OOsATE AY Se oot "att ———

r PATO: EE ao aaeaier eae

hen eosuutnd, Laaoureg 19% 9080 e6t weqt abhtee ae al : gh oe
“Yo mug grit af Y2dsalade 102 golbvow x enw eneds Rut ee Kale Healt

wom gablinxere tivo at bade , 00,80 betdtase Trhta bars eeesea™
IWitaleal tet toombal betesae georne at hew inte wea w tet emote

-beeteves ed bineds Suetann ataedae'leh Seicw ,000,02) te awe od? mh
feotinan ad3 feainye at solbrev-amd tase dooyee eb ax OO
0% bas qalvie ond ad hovse Sxu0s esl? ta89 peonmbive ond to teigdew
Yo melesiaba og noqw sgativ« e24 at bow enoltonrsent to geten't
| oviaeusxe sin eegenwh orl! ture hae ,soapblve
sormsedue af suxtt aft .agnwos ows at saw cottareioss eff
4e% Wyganeeay 2 vay Titiniale ,f6@L ,¥i aedemped a dust bogeiia
awnved soquetedd 24 decd jemme tortie ‘adughas'teh Te ome mo exh
+ -0tm Ota, to Sorgeh Paesdyd add saloxoae of staedco teh To youd one
evimede tom bh yout Jace? ped of ated te ytelal weaned oF Tom se 08
7 “ataayiee bas atneye avd uhedt yd" yeettato ond mo tw ub hee
<7 he betexoqe ,beyenan Ylusgetqel has yLiawyt Lyon eheas iene oe
(teeta? aeldives tod mot? nwoxst saw Tisalely terid “ao oct ellord
shoruhet han tee tte ”" va nr
stove ,fewit eat to erigartaortan aaldqobe .tiweo baones ont
edt aketalem fou gonad o siachup tab te weet eet wooed $2 daa
Rebawod ylsteteme bad Aabiaietg Litem Shioeenade vi, a6
_ te edt ne tid youb chedd ovneete pie 7 signet ines — A al

i
iM

ae Rh RE riteatece fodae * % “i wane

eoxition and injured,

Ii, Ye wili first consider the contention that the vérdict
is against the manifest weight of the evidence, While seme ef the
facts are eeneeded, there is a sharp confliet as te most material
matters. It ie eoneeded that plaintir! eee injured et the time ale
Leged (how aeversly is a mutter in dispute) at cr near the inter-
section of Hormal boulevard and 89th etreet in Chicago. Nerval
bpeulevard ie a public street extending nerth and south; S6th street
a public street extending emet and west; there are no street car
tracks in Kerual boulevard; toere are two atrest car tracks in 80th
atreet; westbound gare run ower the north traek; eastbound eare
ever the eouth track, ®laintiff, a widew, Lived at 3064 Yaelliace
street; 2 alister lived at $7th sireet and Parnell arenus about two
blocks from 69th street and keraal boulevard, Om the afternoon of
the day in queation plaintiff went to the Home of her siuter, taking
with her a little daughter, Lorraina, then aix yeere of age. Plaine
tiff left her sioter's home fust tefore dark, she says, and walked
south intending to take a Sth etreet westbound ear at Kormel bowle-
vard to Racine avenue and thenge home,

Plaixntisf gaye ane etecd for ewhile on the northeast corner ef
the interseetion; that a etreet car came from the east going west,
and stepped; that she then took the Little cirl by the hand and walked
toward the etreet ear to the bagk purt of it, pieked up the littie
girl, set her om the rear of the platform, and while holding the
arm of the child plaintiff tried to get on; she says, "I was getting
on with my foot, trying te get up, end the cur jerked and went and
I feli off snd that is all i know." She woke up, she saye, in St.
Bernard's heepital.

On the contrary Er, Palsh, the metoruan on the street ear
im question, testifies that the street car he was operating was a

payess-you-eenter car with vestibules at each end; that the conducter

19 Temes Seagidren en? no edlsime tO? Rootes ove wyee Thitekess 6) é 7
_4teer galog tase ef? mot? ones yoo goose » tadd prtehtomewatat ent o

outst bas nolstooe

telbrhy o43 deot agiianiaes ext whivane dart) ditw e@ he Banco
ad? ‘te onoe oftd® .eoashtye eid ‘to ouylow tne'thame od? teakege at
Latretan taom of 2a toLCinon quads @.id 910d hebowsen ote ednat
okie sale ot se desutat wow Tidniely gad hepeeaae ad #% spin ddan
| otpent ott te9t 10 ta (atuqath ai tAdtem a ai ylerevee west) bees
feorot .ogeelds ai teore a08 bin hiawe Luod Santo’ te aattooe
seexge 6308 jAtwos bine site gatonesne inert ohtang aot brave ised
tao gowits 06 axe wheds jaeew haw tone gakdnetan taotee otidug »
a3@8 gt ataatt tao teette off exe ost phievatwed Lewxed oh element

_oie%9@ Davediea® pleext Axon ant “879 ain wad bimedtecw tonto

woaiie’ 9205 te Rovtd wwabhw a , Misael saeest atwee seth Tene
et tuede auseve Liew has teonte ca $a bevel teiele 2 ;deetds
‘te seontetie ed oO .hievedwed tamtek bas deere (908 moet atoold
galdat ,tadale sod to smo ald of doe Tihtniadg metderop ak eat said

eniali se to evey ate anit ,enhertod ,wetequed aitgts # xed otto

bodlew hae ,syae eds ,Siwh ore'led text emo e'todeks tod Mok what
-oinod taste ta tao bauodisue goatde At « eset of gathawtal dtwoe
aac Gpmens bee exteve sabe of brav

otiaw bas drei oct ut Letg ofsthl edt Boot amit we dadd pbeqqgode tee

wkeehd edt qu beipiq , fi Te tree Yond ott ot tan gomse eat Imewet

efit wakbted oLtin bas ymrottete ely Le teen adh na ted teow qitehy

— gmiiteg maw T* ce yan one goo tog oF Hetet Wriseladg biirs et Xe wee

hae fnew bas bears! tea oct bow , au fey @@ guy? qton'h yen Mody ao

<t ab , ayes on . ow edow anf Sent: Sa een SF

‘xm gosttu wid ap aesciotou and , dale dds

yon palteiegs Ber 64 tee foomde walt ints mons groteuy

ale i

Was at the bask end ef the car; tint he himeelf wae in front; that
passengers got on at the rear but vould get off ah either end; that
as his car slewed down fer Sormsal boulevard he noticed plaintiff,
the little girl and a wan standing alengeide the car track about
threes feet “in the clear;"* that whee the street car wae about five
or eix feet frem plaintiff ehe fell deen on the track in frent of
the atreet car; taat he put on the emergeney brake and stopped the
ear slmest inutantly; that it ran over her and the fender pushed
her off the track; that when he get efY the ear she wae under the
front step where people get off, whieh fe on the right hand side
of the car; taat he picked her up and put her in a witting poaie
tion when twe police officers came along in a car: tat the ehiia
ran away esd the man who eas Waiting for a etrest ear with olaine
tiff went te look for Her when plaintiff wae put im the sousd car.
He says he neticed when plaintiff was Lifted wp that ene ef her
@lippere came off; that a man on the street pieked it up and
handed it te him; that the slioper was picked up sear the front
step; that the pelice scusd csee within three winates after the
aecigent; that when he firet saw plaintiff he was about 25 feet
eoet of the ermal boulevard eresewaik. UThe street car was sbeut
40 feet long; it was at this time lighted wp. He says that when
plaintiff wae picked up she seemed to be unconselous, and he aleo
gaye that he enamine’ the ground where she fell; that there wae a
hollew with tee in it and the ice was seratched,
Reese Frichka, s house to house canvesser, whe at this time
lived at 8907 Hormel boulevard, testifies for plaintafr/at the time ff
the accident she was walking north on the east side of Normal boulevara
on her way to a drugetore on the northwest corner of the intersee-

tion; that ahe guw the street car coming and saw plaintiff with
her little girl; that plaintiff was on the corner waiting for the

th
ear; that when/atreet ear stopped she (witness) creased the atreet

tad? pfwext ol eay Tegaid eof face jtae ane Ye hep dAoad ens te eae
gan? phase aestic fa Yto fey Biwos Sud test Odd de on 204 eveanoasag
, Viivalete Beolion od bisredued Lave cw ‘awek bewoia tae att oa
Gueda Aenad reo aid ‘ebleuacta yatbasse Mam 2° bio fly sa9he as
ovi't tueda saw tao toords anid “oat suatd "regato odd ae” tent vont
to #nott a2 soaxt odd no wwoh fie? ace Yh Sdake fe ave Soe? xin ho)
ect? hocqods bas odand ToAxs Hrs odd ao tes ad tess sae deente oat
bosinsq woh odd be tos tove ner ah sat ‘TWltastoat foate ts
$x} tehav saw ose tao eat ‘Pro toa ed node sasts ‘aeexd oui ne ma
‘hla baad diigha eit ae a2 vishaw (to ta, ‘piqoog ‘wei qote “tuo?
ataog yaltste a ab ted lad bas au tes tedete oa ‘dent yiee ods te
bili od? fa e 420° & ak ‘gue ta gaan stool Tee solteg ews male noi
“satate adie tao ‘teers a ‘vot paldiow ane out Bea ‘ent? ee come at
tes bawpe 99 al gu@ enw Tthiwiele uedw ‘gon ‘get xoot of tm tus

‘eek Yo ome Sand qu bevtil eae Vantete | node bos tion on. ‘ayer a
‘be qu 21 boxtole feorde e649 as maG 2 dats tte aun orecghle

taost odf tesa que bee ha ‘age xegqite “one ‘baad paket ed ‘th bobaad ;

edt weft eotunia sod) abetiw ames a ‘peltor ant decid ) rants

“Guede baw tao footde odT | .Alaweeote vigiie’ tacit nae Ye teas

mene faXS eyae Oh . qu bo tdght emt: otdd te aww #t vamol 90% “Oe

“gate of haa evelésadenu od ed bameee one ‘os ‘hexate saw wk .
: sy gu i
“3 saw etods ses? rite? ore eres baworg oni bond nexe ed tadt oan wes

ee ee
Nt

dedvdares asm ea! ont baw $2 at sob ale ots .*
eats shes ta osteo ose ,xsaesvaes onved od sawed a (lito Ext ‘eset
wo gat? aff deN Tibi alate tot bol tiewed ,btove od Laser git tea te bevel

wv
ar X

Bisvetudd Kaneot ‘to shin seas ont 0 déxen ‘gatiiew ter ‘ode tandtoos
er ier ai eras. al

-poereial off lo wetck teowwllsea ocd ” oxotoyurh a a of bi ‘tod )

"ad iw Vibdatede wee bie guimes ‘tos seouge oat v0 oe fonts isekt

aes oo Diy vy) me ¥

ont

eit 19% anti lew tomes outs no el Mubsatasg tana sista tt etter pad 3
° es

‘geente odd heasote (seoatiw) aria bequyote “wes teat

2g tees

to the north in front of the etreet ear and turned around to vee
if her huabend wae getting off the «treet car; she says she saw
plaintiff put the little girl om the rear platform of the ear and
geaw her start to get on the car hereaif; that aha had one feat on
the platform, but thet she didn't knew whether plaintiff's hand
wae on the gar then the street gar atarted "its a jerk and threw
her te the street, snd thet plaintiff fell with her feet teward the
north eurbing. The vitness says that it was o dark night and *you
oould net see everything Just exactly, just eo plain;" that che
gaw the donducter get off the back platform to hein plaintiff up;
that witness then hurried across the street and saw no more of the
aecident; she got seme medicine at the drugstore and then erossed
the intersection on the vost side of thea street; whe 414 not see
the meteruam step out of the car and ii4 not antics whether the
motorman opened the front dear; he would have been about three feet
from her, ahe saya, if he had done so; she (id not retlee any poliee
ear or equad; she did net see anyone take pisintiff oway;: ehe aian't
give her name te anyone, and she didm't sec any man siending trere
ready to get on the car; in briel’, the says she did net see anyone
“exeent the laty aid the little girl.” he aays that pleintirr's
feet were toward the north eurb ond har bead neer the rear waeela
of the street ear; that the ehild eereased with fright ond @etack
her head eut of the door of the street car. Fitness 414 net go near
the lady whe was hurt; she didn't know whether anybody took eare of
the child; whe Lived near this corner one year ond saw about ei ght
accidents at the eormer in two ai whieh peoole were killed,

dirs, Gertrude Sullivan, eho lived on the first fieor of the
frame bullding at the northeast corner of the intersection (the
eide of the house faced 8944 street, tne front faeed Noraal boule«
vard) eaid she was having dinner about this tise, heard a ohild

scream but didn't pay eny attentien to it fer a few minutes, when

goa o¢ Baveta Beatee ban Yee Peoxte edd Yo Faoxt ab doen oad os !

um oe yee ode ptmo Soosdu odd Yio galitey anv basdand coi 42
bite tao si ‘to arotietq tacx ody mo Eri) oLlFkL edt tug Trtvmbaly
no doot one hac ode todd ;theoted tes od? no fey of Peete ted wee

baad et Tttnlete tedtecte wood P'abih onfe Yas fod pare tbate OAt
weuds bos dtet w ddiv boduade te9 ¢ae7te OA? nedy ta0 Hd de wee
eit btewot too't tod Atiw ile? Ytdsaleto vent bas ,tooten oat od Yon
soy" bae tigia Yueh 2 owe 22 tect eyes seoagiw oat satis erg
esta tai *;akele oa fowl ,ylienns saul, dake) crave ona sen bidee
few ‘VRbinlala cisd of widitata send edt ‘vie doy <eboundod bad Wee
silt te oxom on wee bus Senase buf beets beet A ee
beencts oot? ban exoteguch oft je entolbew oon toy sae {toonlous
“gee don bib enn jdeerte oft Yo bin teow oad wo dohsosernsat ‘eae |
mat toddore @olfom fom bil bus tao ave ‘te due qote mawecoven autt
gost sons duede ased eved bluow on ‘pxoon ‘gach one beasee tuners $
eoklog ae seifoa don bib one roe ‘eaob bad oa oF ayae ode rod ‘ “t
tobe oda iyaws YrFaieig oiad suoyaa oan dom Bis ody phawpe 1 tae
ered) gsihncis aca you soe dt ablh exe Kae emecds aS sain tod B¥EY
exeyne aoe fen bis ant aye ote , te dod a ¢ yao odd ao tee ‘ot baer
a’ Yiisalete sedi oye on “fats ‘ofsear alt bob vies out demo
efoodw sa6t 03 ia098d bao t3d baw drwy trom walt | od | ‘pide WA
“Woute bas fijit't ddiw boonetes Aliso edt fedd pao douse if Yo
Tosa oD toa bib ceonf2® . ta teerse ont’ he toot ott te ‘Yue ‘aod ie aye
te oreo foot ydodyla Tedder weak F’ahit 6fe péuud sew outw ba :
stg be tuase Wee fine wey ono Tetnos ehdt taom howl! ade iene vod
‘aha sho litd ote olyorq dotde ig owt ab teaten ous ge ednenions
Way tooth ee 2y sittin Bawdl ote amexindle waeheed aa eNO?
get) motteseret a ert “te temtes seetiiton wit ‘te ganetiod omar
; piido @ Breed , out dine syade sonst gate ew ae an (na ae
— tewate eegmhe wet A OT TE OF nattied te Ye cag eae tad meson

i a

Pye sh,

she locked cut from the back bedreos window and say the car standing
there and saw a weman being picsed ap “rea the back end af the
atreet oar.® Ghe awxyet “I 4idn't see the ehild at thet time, *#
Ali I ceuld see, fust that they were earryisy Ker to the machine. *
Shae says that a few feet from the end of the ear the noticed a shee;
that ner mother went to the front of the house to sen what Red bee
gome of the child; there wan an are light on the coner: #he war nat
able to identify plaintiff or tae persona who picked her up. ithe
saye ake saw the forse ef poople picking ber uc and that they oar-
ried her te a machine that wae standing in baek of the street car
a little ways and facing wast; she sow some bundles on the curb;
the shoe, she gaye, wae lying four or five feet from the rear steps
of the car, The mother of this witness teztifiet thst ahe heard the
ehild seresam but 41d met see snything,

Ralph Stoner, 2 floor maneger ef the 4, & ?, Co, store at
GOS Fest Sth street, weet of Aorval boulevard, went te the inter.
section «ith another expleyes to teke the street car: he noticed
thet the street gar had mo orew and saw the car from the south side
of Sth street; he identifies the time as keing twenty minutes to
seven; he saw oe pair of ladies' sliovers alengeide the street sar,
about the middle ef it; ha suys the street car wae ctanding eat the
Teguisr Slace; there were some passengerg in Lt: the gliocpers were a
Littie baek of the center on the nerth side of the street gar and
we Tar as Re knew the autemoblie teat took slaintiff away had
already gone when he arrived,

Joseph Themes, a clerk in the same store, left the store
With Stoner and ran with him, as he gaye, to get te the street car;
there was, he saye a crowd around the bace and er the atreet car,
and he saw some fellews sieking the womer up and carrying her around
the back and of the street aar to the squad e@ar- As he and Bis com

panion aperoached the seene of the acciien’t the ear was between then

giibnecs tee ene enn fis wotute apethed deed ant mot!t fae bealogd: ane
ene ‘te fee deed ssi? won't" gp bevodge yaled ancow « tae bnew ened

4% wemtd Sent ta bits wit oon S'ablb I” payee oct % ce geome

* entiane wit o¢ ae galytins ster gadt fect feu! ,ooe biwop I LEA
joode = beolton ee tam gf ta fom oad sort goat wok « ad? wean ode
-o¢ had Jacw nes of wavod mAs to #nott ody af Saree zeszen cea dads
on ear asia jIsaes aut ce tli ote on anv owed (bliso eft To ammo
ost qtr east bavletg ase ameereg ede so Tidvatede Yt Lends of olde
“tan Yet saris ben qu tad paldaly eloeog ‘lo. eavet edz wee sale ayer
‘eo eerie ect to Ae af yaiboates aav tec aakipes 2 of tend bods

o gdtse edd ao selhaud eman woe ede pinew gated’! Aae syaw ebtthis
edeva ret eds wort gee) evil te trot goby are . eye osie yeede ex?
oi? Ser ods Jed te lRltaes weont lw att ‘to totem edt .eew alt Qo
walid~as o@0 fea Bh tod waetee Aide

oe erode 08.12 1A odd to Togenem Ae0l} & TOMO Mate

wietab ed? o} tase ,ftaveluod Leaves te taow ,ioonte cee teo®.dG8 |

Besltes eG jtee toes onf cael of aeyetowe testtene cttw asl dege
Shis stoce ond sott 120 add wea hae OTs om bas tee death ot tant
gt aodunin yonew? gaied a2 sul) @dd aeltivaeds al qleade 7 Yo
stao foerts wis Shimgnoin eteqgtia 'eelhal to tleq 6 wae ed paevbe
mi Je guihnads saw tay Joetts oc? eywe wf 2k Yo aLbhee edt Syeda
& Stay ategy tig ant ;oh ah etequesgeq emus eter ered? poaetq takegex

hte tau tooth: sf to ohis Aiton ae? 46 tetned ont te dows aftehs —

had yore Viktalatg dood tad eLideuotim edt wiak of on te? on
- shewkens od ance. oteg phmenke

exore ac¢ Htel ,~wtete ewe ant al Avoio weaned? Ageads o>...
Fab Jeeth wis oF fog at ogee On Oe mtd KT hw mothe meMOTe Me be
(tao Jeette edd Le bay decd add bavexe bwers w ogee et ,eaw omode
bagdte tol yalyeine ban gh Raney wed wae enka iia tina

«00d eli ham od eA tan hepa eet of ae Qeeute end " '

saat geeeted aex tao edt /imbless est to smape galt te

and the people om the north side of it; he cauldn't see anybody on
the north cide and couldn't say whethex there were suy slispers
lying there but was sure Stenger gid net picx taem up. He didn't
know anything that wae going om until the ¢rewd gutaered; he saw
the police squad take plaintiff away.

This is the substsiee of tastinony of witnesses called te
corroborate the narration of the plaintiff.

Cerrobating the testimony of Palsh, the motorman, is that
or tha gonducter Arauwe, Krause says that he slone was on the beek
platform of the street car at the time of this octurrenae; that he
felt a sudden jur; that he looked out Waem the eax sioppead snd saw
his motorman dewn in the etreet vita a man picking up o woman; that
they were @ littia eset ef the front step; toat he went right up to
them and helped ber get up; he sexys pesitiveiy thet me one get on
the atep or pletferm at the rear of the car; that a police efficer
came along ani eald that » squad car was cuore, enc that they took
her to the squad car whieh was in the year oi the etreet car; that
he, with the twe officers snd the woman, rede in the squad car to
St. Bernard's bogvitel; ne says he did mot age the Littie girl there;
that when the etrect car steyped ise front end wae abeut 26 er 84
feet east of the crosewaik; that he didn't know whether there wae any
ice or enow on the street ut thie time,

ir. turphy, a polieeman, testified that on that night he wae
driving a squad car east on the south side ef S¢th street; that
Officer Hagan wae with him, and thai as they apypreached Normal
boulevard the signal light was red; that ke came almest to e eouplete
stop and leoking in both directions he sav there was no tralfic
and continued eset; tuat leoking north he saw a ludy, = child and a
man standing on the nertheast comer of the intersection, waiting,
as he suppesed, for a street car wolek was apyreaching from the

ant; that when the squad car was about the middle of the aide ef

ybedyns ete 2! akuoo ad gil Lo ebie civea. em? ay gigoeq add baw
ateqgite Yue otew eiacd teagedw yar I'sbives ban ebhle diton est
tote o8 ys mod aolg Jan b28 tem0dd ste gew sud gteds gabyl
was of phatontoy bwowg eas divaw se grivg aew tadd? gabodyos woad
Yate VWiktolole olet beupe soddeq of@
Od basleo seagnis iv Io Yoouidess to Goumdodun elt ah REAR dads
sliliaieig o@¢ Ie solteziea ace siexadoties
fond ol ,gaarteden of) ,tadea¥ te yooutteot of guteedome? . ign
toed eff a6 aaw vals od Jade agen SeeMTA .oaKT totcehRoe add te
tbh tad peomemiumes ehdt Yo cmb? edt ta too lownte ort Yo mottat,
wee hae Seqgodn 120 6 men seo beloed of gedit gael aabhus w tis
said jncuaw 0 qu antugiq aus a dtle seoaga e467 al aweb aamvetem etd
Os qu ddght Saew od 3adi j goa ¢uort edt ‘We sone midi di a eyew gods
Ae 04 ome of Jails Yloviileog aya 5 {qu img ted hectod Bam eet
sagitio eolLeg @ iad jxRo ost Lo Kans aft Ze aeeeete xe qede onlt
toot yous taut bas, .stede aan tae deups a dad’ Bhee joe yoote ome
teed , tao teeite odd io taeg of ch saw dodow waa haups ed? of goat
Ot to bsupa ofs 4h Shot , anew act baw exo to ows ocd, HAW qa
peted? Indy asth oA? nen Pou BAS of axen oa gdotloged a nested $i,
QR 10. OR suede aaw bao da0vl odd oeqqede, mao toenia odd ande dade
UNA ABW etedt “eiedw wend J!uddsh od Pans phisweante of To tame Bont
| | } et ee
env ag tigi« tadd ao dads Poitidand ,hameediog a , elena oth.

Said gioetia H2 to chic Htues w6t mo sane ter hempe pati
fsuxet bedoaorcwe youd as sent hae, aa: 8 be: Saw Manel week T 2G
etelquge « of taoule ease +8 dadt phot nw fies inegde edt, duevetuod
kets on eae exes wea on anoitoonhh ted a2 gabsoed baa gore
# haw Dildo w yhed © wae os Motom gtidoeh deds ptone hewaldoon, baw
sBilsiaw .sohionetedai wae to ilies sang
lid ag yabdpnongss san volow res, seamte. « wd ¢boam

the street car he heard @ serean and steyped at the east and of
the etreet car; that after Offlecr Nagam got off he pulled the
equad gar down to the alley on the merth side of SGth street,
backed up and drove west, “hen he saw Ufficer Jagan, the sirees
gar conductor and a citizens carrying a wowan back toward the back
end of the atreet car; thet they out her in the squad ear; he

gays that the citizen sald tae enild rai sorta on Sormal boulevard.
This witness aino said that the front end of the atrest ear was
about 18 feet east of the erossvalk.

Officer Sagan testified that Kurphy wae driving the squad
ear at the time in questien; that tae first thing that attracted
his attention after they had paswed the atreet car was a person's
scream; that Zursky then drove << the ess end of the street car,
and he (witness) cot eut of the squad car and went around the
east ond of the etreet ear toe the agrts side, ani that semernere
petwean the conter and the front ef the street cur were the een-
auctor, the motorman and anether san by the name ef Seheeley; that
tuey asked for an ambulance; that Ke told them tha squad car was
there; that the wosan was earried beck to the squad ear which
Officer Murphy had turned arcund; that they tesk the xoman from
some position between the front snd the canter ef the street sar
back te the reser and put her in the equad car; that Seheeley vas
the only witness whose tame they get; he exye they had @& plein,
vnobstructed view ef the atreet and didn't see the street car hit
anybody; that the street was well lighted, and that there was
bevlevard iight om the corner; that they saw nobody knocked down
by the street ear, did net hear any grinding of brakes nor bell
sounded by the etreet oar but just Seard a ¢cremm wien the car had
not yet come to a step; he theugnt it was a indy werecaning; he
@ould net say whether piaintiff wae conecious er not when she was
garried,

iarion Sehecley testified that he was a fereman of the

’

« 30 NS 9am oe de Doquete bem mmwnowa: oroed vst tee Sootds vit
MY be ddlug es X60. t09 mega, WOktty tad he tare pews seetew bid
FOO? HEM Le Shia smd ody ne -yolte ene ios avoh ta0 haepe
#2P4IH S22 ,aogel teed TIO wae wut Oe See STOLe Gein get Boye
ged edt Suawod oad mamow « anhereen Witsoe hae cetewkeos’ ky
Od {189 bawpa asd wh SO tay posit sang pMee Seente wd ‘ty hoe
*hteveluod demzok ao arten mes Sddde On? bhen apebeis ag tims yen
BAY FRO F00TtS Mas RO Ame, Fimn’h maid: donate phew sale suet tw adat
, ry “ ka wae ote Ui irate
dang On} GULVLTD Aa’ YNOTEM dou? OL Lesned ieek- reee iy (CoO le i
betenrsts fay gahott gaak ong eee pMOLFORMy wt winks O87 8h yee
a aoer9 & G88 160 Joonty, ast horneg baw wade teeta nothatree aE
og ME F90%8e Out 20 das tenn pride overt - wot et tact” dainty
_ ot bawets Saw bu8 too Bewpe oud ‘te ee ee
Ptosiwenes tec? baw «Die Aa198 ott ot cad boemie otis : “he haw desu
Reo sls enow 189 toette ade Ww FHT 289 bow Goede oP ay.
Fauld jNPLooies to omen odd. ee mem cerdoue bee nated oe wait eatale
SAY TAS Lape OAs mped boos od, sone joo rue Lutes ae et a ee af
Make cep base ons oe Aoad beivies sew amo exe deity” OE
MOT? Monow OFF Mov? vent dead. thawora hauwrnag bed vagal weer”
OR A09T8e O01 30 Netmee end bam tnowd gate meat od eetiteog soe |
oe {0 Loorins fa0d j%ao peupe ony ah tek Tey he tae wd QR iad
aj LG a bed, Oak eye od team gods Pp Ai
ob 70 tu0t22 Oct 990 2! abt haw trade wit ky Weke fh

tis }
“a

iis

RAMOS TO wath ab yee Re Soe bab yt voonte way

bad weg att AOAW MANOR oe buawe deat staid Nas Sewn te wee poet fen
O48 jaabenenbe Yhed @ ame hh Jiigiond oc zymde owt ae to"
Cav Kin. “9K 20m x9 pasodperios nam. TMentety saaptans wiheasicqas an

ants te temo ot a maw oS tec he ilsend yotootes hai:

Rew York Central railroad; thet at the time in question he wae at
the northeast corner of 89th street end Formal boulevard waiting
for a street ear going west; that as the car approached he stood

25 or 36 feet east of the ercerwalk ef the street; that there was
a@ woman and a child waiting there close to him; that when he first
gaw them they were st the aurb, and that “hen tae ear wae coming
Plaintiff eaesed him sbeut three feet te the east; that she slicped
and fell in front of the car when it wae about three feet from him,
ana that when see fell and sit the pevement the car was so close
4t hit her practically at the same time; that when the car ateoned
she Was ander th« etep ef the ear, er practically uncer the front
step, and thet they pulled her out on the pavement; 2 estiuated
that the car went about five fect after it tame in contact with
her bedy, and that when the ear came te a atep tne Tren} end was
abeut £25 feet from the east crasewaik of iormal boulevard; he says
the motorman got eff the side se (wltness) wes on; that he and the |
motorman took her out; tisat ke sav nobody “lee right there at the
time; that the next persone whe came vere the pasnlie who got off
the street gar; that the conductor Came, and that the policeman,
the conductor and he (witness) took plaintiff into the squad ear;
that he gave his mame and address te the eenducter, the notennen
and the police officer; that in helping plaintiff they took her
@leng the north side ef the street car and put her inte the squad
ear, which was at the rear of the street car; that he lscked at the
place where she appesred te slip and found a dent er hole; he says
"dt waen't what you eall a hole either, in the pavement, a thin
eoat of ice in the betton of thie hele;* that he leoked to determine
what mode her fall. ie gays he was getting ready te weve from

8841 ermal avenue that night; that he had a couple ef bundles of
@lothes with him; that he 2i4 not aetualiy leave the glace that
night wut stayed there that night and the following day,

nen, a, ~

aa gay oc aoligoup mi seid ef? al toss ibsoudies fetéaed Seer ™
neltion bravelved lagzel bie doerte Abe? te Teutos fracstxog eas
hoote 2¢ betenotgqe tao mt ao terid ifeow adioeg oo toords 3 bay
any ated gad? ; footie ett to Alawase%s 083 Ye Saas teat 08, te a8

Ba a 1

seri? eet ging. dels pmks ot enol ornate aaidiow bLivo “ ban _ a
gatmon aaw Tao wid mnaiw tast baw ,dtwe od? te e108 vend pt. ae at

hogy te axle jad? {teae out of dont sanad buedh that beaneg “yh dale tg
abst aor? soot sera tuods eae $i node tao of4 ‘te daord at ‘thet bra
@agiv on aor “Ho exlt tasaeveg oad tha bas ‘its? aie eee twit Dian
hoqcote tee sit nariv casts pout 3 ‘amen of) $8 “Utes Beers rot ie a
tno? and tsbas ‘elisoliaare 10 ,ta9 edt to an oat cebu enw ade
_ beteattes ta {dnsae vag ond so tuo tod be iia ‘ens todd ‘bee dte
atts soetnos ab ones at rade deot ‘evtt “hieda’ ‘dew 08 ‘wdd ‘tage
ase bes amor? oend ‘qote 2 od some 10 out “meake fed? bas” “ebod “adel
BYee od rbuave Luod Aawsok te ‘Aiawenor. tees ae mint joot ag thide
| edt bas od dada pao baw “(sennsty) os ebte nit “Yte fon alanrté 4 oat” hits
169 om
te ‘$e oxi iqose ont otew omae ony eaowreg ean’ ach “bad ‘yous
estaeo9 Coq oxtd tox has samme 2 xofoubnoe odo “Yodt tao “geetre "eat
ites baupe oats ofa Yhtatsse deo? (seentiw) of tae rotoupinde’ ome
_ anrod ox ons Tosoubsow ems ot eaethbs foe omen ott oven’ on ones
test doo? eouis VrEdal ata saiqied at teed preof tio set tog odd Bie
boupe welt otal ext 184 baw 160 ‘teense outs w ohie stron wets aiita
exis ta boxoos ast dass jte0 toorte 6d ‘te cane « oft te naw tod sw ‘ie ;
ayes oi i yotos te tab Ps ; baw’ bar qite od ‘Gelliaaga” ade etede ‘onnite '
lee dey sade dal
salsteteb oo bedoot oe tacit * yefen bat to ‘sobbed wit at edt 6 $a00
Bort even of haar gatvton sew ‘oa wwe ‘ol iis? ‘tit obi ae
6. we tbawd 1 stave a hes ont vaste ala dest ouihe ve “Leto thee
text spate ont ‘ovmes ? som ALD od tae wd -nedgpnterey ag

Lauton ton nth
«web gutvedit eat howe dttg be tadd ro el

ost tu etess tights 0 ie whedon we od anit ite aod sont Ms

able ® staeme vag onit al , wostt fo ‘elod a

fev ap ge Sela mata ey Pat als

Plaintiff testified further than slready related that in the
aceldent she hurt the big tee ef the right feet; that she lest teth
of her sliispers; that the toe injury was the only injury to her
feet; she eaid she didn't know whether there was any injury te the
lege, tut afterward said there was an injury te the eye, the neck
and the back,

whe vas injured on Wednesday night, wae then taken te St,
Bernard's heepital where she etayed until Friday merning when she
Was rexoved to the Evangelical hospital. She said that «2 doster
teek care 6f her at St. Bernard's; that ake did not know that he
was Tr. Perterfielid. YFeur or five stitches were taken in her tee,
The Doctor did net do anytuing else fer her snd said she ween't
hurt. dhe said she had a eut or bruises ever ber right eye. Fhen
ehe vent to the Svangelical hegsital Or. Vineberg tock eare ef her.

Or. Porterfield, who exam ned elaintiff at ot. Bernard's
hospital testified that the eye reflexes, the tonzue, wouth, chest
and lewer extremities were exasined, and found that she nad »o
hematoma over the right eye, an ebrasion over the bridge ef her
nose, a bruised left shoulder, abrasiona of beth enees, a deep
severe laceration of the right tig tet, amd that these were all the
evidenees of recent injuries, He aays she nad ao typleal arthritis
deformane, had limited motion in beth knees and a etiff right albow;
that the hande were sharacteri¢ticaily deformed for arthritis
deformans. Ae explained that by hematoma ke meant disesloratien.
He furtner testified that there wae ne injury to the eye; tast she
Was not uneconecious while he saw her; tnat both pupils reacted te
Aight and saccemmedation. the nervous eysien reacted aormaily te
teste; the bladder and the bewels functioned nerenlly. Ee says
that when she left she told nim ehe was going te the County heenitel
te save expense; he slao says he inguilred of her ae te hew the aecie

gent happened; she told him she was waiting fer a westbound street

ait mh tadd bode lot chao le macs taddaet peltipeds Tri¢slerd

sted geo era fost ;d002 tigdx sds to sed ghd ott? itn bite Pabiode
toi od ytwhal yine et? ear yiotal eet og? tade peceqedia «ed Yo
oats os yrutal you saw eveds weitedw wont # ohth ade Shee one “(ooet
doen edi ,oys adi oF yYrNtal oc eae ened? hina canichantelonrl dues aeael
toad as ‘bite

+ a? ated serie ean ,tayia yabsonbe® ae berated ane ot Bie
efig ade galutom yabiad Ligue bayete oie etode fatiquos 2" beamed
tofooh # fan? bles ede - hos tenon fact iayaav® out of bovouot een
ea. tase word ton BLb ete Sass se! brewed tis ta t0d ‘to oreo does
ood 19M ph amigt orew sedoshia ort? Bt) wot his Krx93t8t at sew
e'meaw ate bise Sas sosi tot one Balctyae en form bib soteoe ‘eat
Bese ao the ra reve anetund =e fo 8 hast enim bine one tau
atest ‘te Shed doar aredonl® a fag hoaert ine bippuav aut eb same oate

e' Aaaaxed tS Ou Trigalels ben. naxe oxtw (Mg Prast208 ci vo
farce ,itvem ,eiyaed or9 ,aexe flex oye site ted be Puigesg etdqnest
&@ best ore tede bavot bay ,hoaiaexe oxow weldinnroxe ‘ores bas
tok to wphiid ait xeve toieatde as , ey asia ond x70 onoganed
qeoh £ ,aeend Atod Te emelsarda oh ixese Peer bestund a enon
odd ifs oxew oaesid Jar? ban ,set gad tdgis bad te noldarepal oxavon
altindite feolect « beit ocia exam ok saatambak sooner to aooneh ive
iwodin digia Biites 2 baw wood ated af aoltom bpstats hat ssanateteh
absizdiss tot hemro'tos ‘lise tteltetoatads aren band eat “gnats i
oktarcioowlh Sagem BH amiotennd yd tant howiedgxe oi .anamroled

“este ‘Fass joys eat oF crete on eae epesis tad’ bo tsteont . sau
Ot beteset aliong Biod vast et wae wai shor saoleenvomy sou sav
ot Yilewton bagonet mpteye auowten ot nal ne 1
ayes oh .¥ifearen Setel tonu't a iowod ont ene wabhals eas

Kad.dee ont yiened ant of gtlog sew ote ea as sie to ote

toon sit wos of am tog to Sothupmd pe - ye af es a

wus

oomele dass
GM siggosicrve

car and when it approached she walked up to 4% and etepped in a
hele or slipped and fell, an4 that the ear Rit her. He 414 net
tuke any «rays, The history at the hospital showed plaintiff
suffere’ some pain.

Re, Weinberger saw plaintiff for the first tine on Decem-
ber 18, 1951. He saye che compleined cf severe gain in the lumbar
region. eray pictures were taxen, and the battle ey the experte
begen.

Such is a summery of the evidence on the guesgtion of Liane
bility. Both ceunte ef the declaration were besed aren the theery
that plaintiffs was a passenger. It is net argued thet there is
any linbilLity é4leclesed by the evidence upen any other theery,

The cuestién herve ie whether the finding of ifabiiity is against
the elear an4 sanifest weight of the evidence, Yhie court is of
the opinion that it ie. The brievs adait thet there is perjury in
this case, There ia, but not ae te sll the witnesses. kre. Sul<«
liven, @r, Stoner and dr. Thomas were vitnesees whe tela the
truth undoubtedly as they eaw it. Plaintiff of course kas an ine
tane¢ pergomai interest. if tne sisry of her ceeurrence witness
is true, then Saleh, Krause, Surphy, Hagan and Seheoley are gulity
of wilful and deliberate perjury. YTaere ia sething in the narra.
tien they give which would juetify that eonclusien. Gn the con-
trary, wcile contradicted of some watiers, they are corroborated
by meat ef the facts and clreumsetances in evidenee, such, for
instane¢, ag the powitien of the slipper which plaintiff esye she
loet and which was found, aad also by smeh of the testimeny of
witnesses preduced by plaintirr.

She testineny ef Or. Ferterfialid as to tae cemdition ef
pleintiff's tody at the time of his examination and as te her
atetement to him of the manmuer in whieh the secident eesecrred are
mot without some weight. Summing it up, the anawer te this qv estéon

depends upen whether the partial and interested stery of plaintir¢

wie aeane
ee
‘

6 mi beqeodge bos #3 of ie boule heist besipnerace Hi anaty Soa tao
fox Hib oil “oni tin uae etit ted baw iat boa bowette ¥9, Phod

| Webtaials deeds tes bawod uit te yxosaia ott EYEE, yan, falng
iit _etthag emus delhouns

moped. 5 so erat: tout auld wok vebeabadg weit ‘aagnecatss we

andiaw i add fal ning wieves to isch Sepa ome atten oh ECL es on
atregne aft to oistud ods fam ,motad weow senutele yriek .nodgen
: fn 0 eae Rs
ME GES OMB i wine
Ytewss aad aouk hoasd oro" eitera toed wit te adaues Mtoe ‘ae.
al oteds feild pouiyts ton al ot .wgxsauag & Raw Ttitatete sad .
"roots Wedde Ys noqw soamhive add yd bosatoa ts wel itdet se ete
tentage ak ye tiidaks te antoatt aad tedtorte ah nod ad toegarp aa i
i a ox009 ant _seonebive oats te tty tow tes! planes San a.

wekt to not3n0 up eit “a9 ooneb ve salt X. phen

a ea

“tet eu snoaenad Ee ext as 8 a fon ths yr oe weap na a
ort pLod ‘ont aaae oad iw wiow snaoutt te aa panos?’ et aft <
«nt as ves eatue9 te vite tok A wth wae yas +“, et.
saest lw Sonortwa9s xox ‘te erode ees i deoreda. ds bemee
Wethug axe Ye Loouioe has ow gell swigr al poten Mote® peed geet a.
setts outa a pabdzon ai ovat | sctetteg ptatedifed bas ivftLiv te
| +n08 ont no -nozawsoaon jadd Visrent biuow sobde eva. Oh,
“hezetesorres oven conte s8t8 fen sapn Bo betothergnos eLidy ,exete
aot doe oounbive: ah aegostemignhe Lam em. ont to pension i
aria ‘ates Tritatalq ita tstw we gelte ant ta pL weg ret aa —— |
; He euontieny oat te ses sl cate ae «Dian a )
sre | .Mubteuede of Soguhors, sesene
te moi t tho wid ‘of as ‘béoL rod t0% MG Xe ‘qaostteed eoft i hedend
xe od ae ‘ban foituatinxe whe ve omed salt ca me: a ata

“$4e borr.n00 sanbioos ous ito bate ak toss ee * salt o@
sone! eae ue og "mae

‘ a dye vt Ry
| agdincuy elit of seman ‘out ai ante cg oe oe = on
“Meidatata te crate besenvaraa ie peitontt osit sexdsonw noqe ehaeged

sorreborated by the lasrobsatle story of another sewarrence witness
ia to be aceepted es agninat the teatineny of six witnesses disin-
terested aa te the matter in dispute and wo, as a matecer ef faet,
give a reatosatle aaqount of the agelient whies is cerreberated
hy many facts and eireusatanees and in gaany pointe alse by dips-
interested wlineases produged by plainilif, Sueh being the record
this court must held that the werdiet ia clearly and manifertly
against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment waet be re-
verent Ter that reasen.

Lil, Defendants scesplain of instruction Bo, 3 civen at
plaintiff's request. It is as Pollcrs:

*lt ta the éuty of common carriers te ds all that Ausan
eure, vigilanee and foresight can reasonably do, under the eireum-
etanees sa¢ in view of the sharacter and tae nede of conveyances
adopted and conelatent with the praeticai arosegution ef their
pueinest, reasonably to guard aguinet accidents and eonsequential
injuries to thely passengera, aid if tuey segieet to de ac they are
$2 be Aolé strietiy reaponsibie fer aii vonmequences waieh Flew
from such negieet; while the earrier is not an ineurer fer the
absolute safety of the passsiigersa, 1% dost, Kewever, in legs) cen-
templation, undertake to exercise the highest degree ef eare con~
sieiemt with the practical presecution of its bawinerss and the mede
of conveyance adopted, to secure the safety of the nasaenger, and
is responsible fer the slightest neglect, resulting im injury of the
passenger, if the pacsenger ie, at and before the time ef the injury
exercising ordinary ears ter his or her own safety, *

The inpirvrustieon ia eritioiged in the firet pleee beesuse it
is said that in giving it *withowt cuslifieatien"® the court assumed
that plaintiff was a pasvenger and thue igneref the teatineny ef
five witnesses whe testified as te faets whieh, if true, showed
conclusively that she wae mot ao paseengzer, The instruction is net
as to its form mandatory; that ia, ii does not in express vordg
direct a verdict. Flaintiff says in eubstanee that she agreos that
4f the inatruction assumes that olaintiff was a paseenger 14 tg
erroneoug, Dut pluintify eays that Li dees net asoume that the
relationanip of carrier aad pasaenger exlated, but moraly states
the rule of law applicable in eave the jury shewld eo find from the

evidence, She cites authorities stating the rule of law, net

eagativ eomettepoo wentoum Te ¥todn eiiedo teak ede «1 betetodetxve
~al@ih aousontiv xie ‘te yrouktacd ext fantaya en betceosr' of ot #2
,foe? ‘to tetsen e ee ose hae otueekh ml teefee oct of bo heteote?
betwiodorses si doldw daptings ant Yo cancepa elteatraet Bovey

walb YC o8ln ueitog Yasm mi bar weometemiseth fro atest yoom of
brooer oid ynled oid J tikiatato yf heowhevy Hedrons iv heteete dat

° iiteotinna bar yliasio et 2ottrey et? ted Mled teu tomed wet
~ox od taum gaemglut edt bas ,eoashlve odd Yo tigtew oat senbagn

. , ; sia Sets eet heater

@a aeviyg U ef ugidowsseat Yo mivkeuos atughaptec LL
‘tewotle? ee of oo .aiteapes re
wai Gadd ile eb oF exsltige worker Ty youh way ak 3E* hi
-motke ens tebay ,oh Yidancases aa yg eg ° ™

a viteo “to Shen ofl hig wesetady oily oo mie es
tiedt to moktvosnoxy, Lasiteasy edd dele fog jesoo hie bead yoke
faitmesyeteon bee a¢debiova faaiaye Braiy of “hia a .
ou yous o8 ob of Jatigen yeid th ban ,wtegnoasag Ged.
welt to few spon coovnee Ike ‘vo? sigtenoqess Ykte to
ons aot aotwent ae gon oi tolraes add aside
“Kgs Cogel at ,tevewo ,ueoh 31 ,ereyotecay ont
«fee eteo te conyeh feesigin ad? saietexe ef axed
eheu ent — seeniand #f2 Pg ype feos |
bas , Ts aut ta yae eat axupes of ,
ent ta ‘ f i Wats tuabs Seeigen Sangighie ad
what ed? to oni s od? pigted bas de , ol teqgeeneme
‘ “foles awe ved te obs! to ore pete tore:

fi weunced enefy fartt oct wi peakeitixe ef nebiowe¥ant ont
bewwens fives 49 “adttaet tifa twoddie™ £2 uniwhy at add bhab wb
to vnostdans oct betongl sunt bee egasvang o @ete Trivalety Halt
“geen ewid TE ,dotaw eto? of wm Kel tree ooW eoewedd Iw oP
ton ah aoffoursent ec! Stegasaceg # toa sow ecu edt yey lewheaoo
ipiyer enoteks ai fom ceob of ek faiid ase mah
gadt goerye one taut sebesodea al eyes Tiidahels vot
ei J) segneeerg « gew Yhientai¢ darts seinnicll pear
(gefats Eleva ged Ded aine segnbameg bre “te

We ei? mort batt os biwase gant, wt ont o@ag ab olde.
tod ,wol 1 slit ons yoltete ashy ixosdte

aa SN ae 9241 RMSE Wad See pi. a a

Aleputed, that inetrauctions are to be considered ae a series and
that omissions in one instruction which sre supplied in othere
will be considered harmless unless there i2 an obvieus tendency te
mislead the fury; and she say that manifestly in a cage where, a8
here, there are twe irreeencilable and conflicting thesries ag te
the manner and placa of the agcident, it ia imposrible for clain-
tiff te state ail tse law of the case embracing totn of the con-
Tilcting theories in ene instruction. An examination of the ine
@tructions ae s whele discloses that the jury by other instructions
were elesriy and repeatedly infermed by the court that »vlnintirfr
Rad alleged in her dedlaration that she vas a passenger for hire
upen the etreet gar and that unless she sad proved this by 4 pre
ponderanes of the evidence, ahe could not resever, There were at
ieast three eueh inetrustions, wille in still another inetreetion
the fury was told that there wee ne charge in sleaintiff's declarae-
tion that she was infured as a reeult of faiiing frem the atreet
ear or being struck by the front ef the street car, and that if
the jury believed from a preponderance of the evidenes that plain-
tiv? elther fell in front of the car or wae struek by the front of
the street car, there aculd be no recovery ii the case, Obviously,
as defendante suggest, this eritielan of the instruction would nave
been obviated by inserting at the beginuling of the iustruction a
Clause tc the effeet that "1s the jury believes from tas evidence
that plaintiff was o paceenger on the sar in queation, then the
jury are inetrusted tuat it is the duty ef goamen carriere,” ete.
Defendants cite a number of eages, some involving ¢riminal oreseeue
tions, where an inetruction sot in fers different from this one wag
held to he mislesding ag assuming a aantroliing fact which wag
clearly in dispute. The oxeee cited are too nuueroue fer review.
Peop man, 273 112, 864, ond People v. Hervey, 286 Lil.

593, are two of these cases involving erimicel proseeztions, and

fete eottes a me ferehbiondo of of oun enpltoutden? stadt dedwew tp
wimite «2 Rekiqgus ore doduw sulvourdeat sag wt emo testing ‘aids
Ot ~ormhned wuoivde ae wl ep at coe iow ete fanen beret tenes od Cf 0
aa, O%e8w wong 2 ol _ftestiawm gadd syee ode fee peut ede beo tela
of a@ aviteen? gaitel fia bus eldaLiesesortl ewt ate etead joteet
mtihete tot eidieseqml ai $i ,taphioue edt ‘bo eeadg Bac tema “edt
‘anidg ef ‘to Stod yatnardme enno od to wok ood Lhe edasa oo ‘tree
oui ent to toltetionge nA ,sobtourtenal wae a) ee tioed? qaaivehst
eteltortéent tose yd yout of gacdd soeglowlhs ekedw a ee aaultoneees
Ttiintety tadd Juego ef? yd Dewretal yLhetweaqsy ban ylxasio ov9ew
atid tcl tepgreaeec & aew erie Sarit welbvetefoeh Wed ab Boye Lie “fest
“ong & ve alas hevexg Bast Sila “aaekay Gods bas tae aaette edd mo

| te wrew omst tevous4 Ariel hiweo wre Hie vont v6 wer te voneranaoe
“Maitserssat edtoaw Lttte nt ofhow .enottevrsant dieue wont teas

oats leod at Trigate te 2 ey taco on saw ote taste tot wow ‘cut ome

- deexts eae want gable ‘to Fumes a aa homubak aaw site tals a

‘ fads hime pts sourde oat re riot ads wd towste gated 0 199

i ontaig tacts moaabive adi te onaarobacceny aor fawning erat oat
Ye saow! oft Yd dowede aw co tHe wat XH Saott wt Sher tods te Wee
‘~efewelvd® .o8eo edt oh yawreaes oa ed bvee otert yteo dootts wat

veved biwow molvoutiastt eid ‘io wetol¢ine aby ,deoggam atanhos ted oh

@ solvouxtent edz ‘te yolwuaed edd de yalerxeed) yd betalbeio mead
sunshive ait soxvt euvetiod yrut edd 12" gasls Sow Fhe oa? of oom

> gi? aedd ,dottseup ai tee odd ae tegneeeng ao caw Tittatele sede
Ode ",etelcrny comme to \tub ot wa ok tase Redeumdek wow ewe
epaoty Loakelte yalyioval saoe (eaneo To tod sotto vtasbue ted
new dota gos? gntiforvacs » ‘YyateGese ne ‘neat fio di ban eo of Boost
jwokves tot cucvenua god #te Bevo seasg emf —

bum, 153 211, 200, and Grifenkan vy.
Chicago Bailvays Uo., 299 Ili. S60, are twe of the causes involving

¢ivil actione where the rule has been diseumsed and applied, These
eases are to be distingulaked from these in which instruetions have
been held erroneous as emiiting certain «essential elements while
directing a verdict. Theat ig not the oriticgiom, but the contention
is that the inetruetion as a whele assumes a controlling md eontre-
verted fact. An instruction of this kind is net for this reasen
held te be reversibly errotieous in every case, but only where the
reviewing court must reach the conclusion woen an examination ef
the whele ease that 1t would prehabtly mielead the jury. The feet
that in sueh case anotier instruction was given stating the law
eorrectiy upon the particular watter assumed doas not cure the error
ef sue tmatruction. Ye think the instruetion subject te eriticiem
in this reseect.

befendantsalsee contend teat the instruction 41a wet Limit
tae apolicaticn ef the rule ef highest degree of practicable eare te
the evidence te which it could be properly applied, The jury, it is
Said, was not advised as to *hen under the law a person becomes a
Passenger and becomes eatitied te the pretestion ef this highest
degree of care, Defendants esy that no other inetruetion advised
the jury om thie point, and that fer aught that appears in the in.
struction the jury mey have undereteed that it aoplied te a person
whe atepped up te the traek for the pursese af boarding a particular
ear then appreashing. it dees not, hovever, appear that defendants
offered any instruction on this point, and if the jury was met ine
formed in that regard defentauts are er in & position to come

plain.
Another eriticiam of insirustion fic, 3 ig that while it sete

ferth the usual rule that a earrier is set an insurer of the abeo-

lute safety of the passenger, it qualified that rale by ssverting

of aingtiay ba ,0@e Afi Gal , .
galvioval seas ont te ows ote ,0@ .if1 8a a0 guniate manele

weed? .beifegs dan hostuanid aved aed olen ged erode anokson Sivio
eved enotsionzteat dolly sh egqad moxt bededegmigelh od 62 ote megeo
slide atgeuelo datiasaas aladine galilug.ag awcesotte, ied mood
folsapiage eit Jud ,metoisine add goa at dodd ,gothier a.gabieeskh
~otinigo bate Ba LLoxd nox 6 aeonere slow & a6 aehdewrioal od ged ot
Hoses aifs ist ton ad bails alse te acltewmtent m4 toa? betney
ost gxanw Yoo Jud ,aaeo Yiave at aves towne Gidiaxeves ed od Med
to dollentuaxe Ga mage Hoisuionce sai ageee dean diueo gaiwatves
dast edt .yxaul, sit barleke yidedoug finer 24 tacit eaag ofan end

, Med end pitirage mavig, sam, nottounsent wecifemm, peso siqum mh tagp

TetZS ans. ate joa asoh femusee Tosjan toluoi@teg acd acvn ¥ltoetias

mhotsixe of doeldee aotdputgeant pay dates a! .wosouxiant siowa to
eee sie Bay (oh D8 GAOT hs ak

dtu gon bib wabeesirnes et? Sead . per oadeepusbae tee by
of ete9 Sidasitoatg to eorged famigid Io sivt adt te. aotieoliqnn odd
el #2 .ervt eff sbeliqua viregong od Siuoo #2 dabile of somshive ea?
_@ enmoned mosxog & wel ead tabaw node ofan baatvhe fon. aan pblap
Inedgid @ias to apideasorg add of beitiiae apmeped bax teaupaneg
beeivba agitontieal twoso on feet yao stashaeted, 2189 te sasged
“ah odd Bt oteeqqe fans tigen 19) jend hae ,ftkeg eh2 ne yewhoade
neeieg # of bedicga 4 todd heoseyehaw eved yom ytwl en? settemnte
telualtseg # palbteed to osoqtHg ete tol doeet ons oF ay beggeda ede
atashastek gad? ta0qga ,tevewed ,fo0 Reob 31 sgpktenotage madd sae
wal oa eae [tel ont Th has ,talog atid. no, aottaugtent ae haan Te
_w809 of agltinag.a at apnet. ois atiabar tas baaget tert xt demre?®
i eape ae oo hee
bbs 239 Bhan mheaad

adore a silee Joh al. oa ee etl yy REDE EERO RA
woada evi? Yo Totuead us tom Ok wolunee 4 fast ia

padarogss ys olin tut ets 44 atom a san a

that the carrier wae obligated to exercise the highest degree of
practicable care to geeure the safaty of the pasvenger and was
‘responsible for the slighest negleet, resulting in injury ef the
passenger.* It is ssid that the effect of that rule is te minimize
and practically nullify the sen-insurer rule snd corres ondingly
enlarge the rule of highest degree of practicable care; thet the
rule that the carrier is net an insurer of the safety of the eassen-
ger in a limitation on the rule ef highest degree ef practicable
eare and that without the sen-linsurer rule a jury “ould be likely
to extend the application of the highest degree of »ractieable care
beyond ita proper limit; that the courts have always been careful
to limit the passenger rule of care se that juries will net be mis-
led and that the noneinsurer rule is intended to sarve thet purpese,
Sefendsnts point out that, im the application ef the rule
that a plaintiff must eetabliesh Ais case by @ wresenderance of the
evidence, limitation of the same by statecents ite the effeet that a
Blight preponderance ia safvficient has been held erroneous, and eite
Reivits v. Shicage Hapid transit vo,, 327 Ili, 20%; Boliey v. Chiseage
Repid Transit Co., 335 11]. 164; Hohegek v. Public Service Ge., 342
Tll. 482; Bunch v, Abbott, 256 ill. App. 34. the rules are not
neces#arily analogous. The prevonderance of evitence rule ia one
applicable to ail classes ef cases at ecmmen law, while the nen-
ineurer rule sews to have been developed in stating the law ane
pPileable te a sarticular kind ef a particular classe ef bailments.
Schouler on Bailnents, Part 1, sees, 18 - 16, tae rule originally
aid net, so far ae we are informed, eo sc far as te make a defendant
liable for the “slightest negiect.* ihe use ef toat werd in an ine
struction in o case of this kind wsuld seem te leave very Little
for a jury to decide, Lt would (if applied to thie elas of cases)
tend to impair the nen-insarer rule, In Webber v, Chisage City Hy.
So., 267 Th1. App. 605, thie court Beld that an instruction “hieh

te awrgeh teotyl! oAt oalovene od bo tagh ive dew veliine edd tadd
iow had tegudeseg ots Lo Yse'tan Oss otuyee OF oreo atdadieatg
oa9 ‘to euitet at gaid¢iusdt ,tedtgan sdoctytin eat vor of¢¥oasense*
eaiminio of al olvt tacit to SosTi® O49 tout Ohee of HI * kepedadag
qigaibao eortes Bae oLet tetWedlawen oad YER (Lin qlledb tant bite
OHS Sed? joras eldeolioary to oetgei ceodyid Ye olen ant aptatae
isdang wif to yvetas ea) ‘te setwank mi tod ef adbrtas eth daeld ent
eidaetioarg to serged tasitgid te ofet silt HO col tetiele @ wh aeg
Vietil ed hivew yiut # eivi terteal«no: et} Meettle todd bak oRED
ers eldaiiisatc ‘to sotgeh feedgid ad? to teddead igce oad pinied 88
iwiewe asd weewks over atusos SAf 2e8d pombe eogerg adh Meoqed
oaim o¢ ton Liiw aoltet dav? oe exae Ve oor neymeonng off Thert at
~enegrug tacd ovree of beabawdal al ser ‘tetunabeaon ont Saad Bee laa
gtivee o:9 “to aaltoatiogs OA at jad ghd takoq’ ‘areas he ce
eit to gonesphacoorg « yd geen ahd delidases damm vianabeaasevbemd
@ Sau? foots ex? af etneiotade yd omme edt ‘te weliodialt jeoasbive
631d Bao ,aveenorte Aled wend wad dmicl rice of np aiictes —
angeti. a” Xedos {POR LLT PRE, $i 2 BERERD 0
Set , 09 melvres ptidy Mosplg¥ :bOi 1161 Ab ,.99 dg
gon ots setox otf 86 wad eth eas \eeeuea »
oto af olive souphive "to sometehangesg otf Levdgelane “chresesoen
waton a? oLtdw ,wal agus ta somes to Seekald (ix of eideehigqa
266 tat odd gahtade ai heqoleveh mood eved of wxoenr aie Geemeet |
aaamaitvad te skele taduotsxeq « Yo bob® aeduelreee # OF @teodte
Yitemigixo kur oct et. OL ceva ,f duel ,atehtied ae SylwotoR
titbne eb @ odes of ae et Om oy heortvhal ete ow ee cat ob, hom DED
oh wh of vee tas? %o eos OAT “ Soatyen teadtyete* ent ret widetk
aktshe yxow evaol of meee bivow bud wbsie 2 eano @ at molsouaie
| Wage te eels afd oc Resin 2) Bkewe PE sobitnen OF exut @ aot
Ho. ete teredt-a9a sue ekegmt en ’
Horde Aottowrset me tect bind tawon wks EOD ele as 8 af

told the jury in substance that while a common carrier was net an
insurer of the ssafety of passengers that did met “in the slightest
degree” relieve the currier of its duty te exercise the nighert
degrees of sare, ¢tc., Yas erroneous, and that by auesh Ainetruction
the jury would be enceuraged te extend the rule requiring highest
degree of care beyond tue Lisitation ef the nen-ineurer rule, Plain-
tiff peints out that this court has refused to reveres “here aubetam
tially similar instruetione were given, ag in iliingis Southern Ay.
eo, v. Hubbard, 106 Til, Appe 462, where the inetruction ssid that
the eurrier was on insurer of the passenger ageinat any injtéry that
might befall him by reasen of ite negligent act, while he was in the
exercise of care; as in Kaghensid v. Ghicage Hy, Co., 210 Ill. App.
87, where an instruction stated that = carrier was reapensible te «
passenger for “the slightest negleet te exercise such care,* and as
in a still later case where this court refused te reverege for an ine
struction whieh anid the earrier was ebligated te use the highest
degree of practical care and was ‘responsible for the slighteat
neglect resulting in injury.”

We de not new Bold that the use of the phrase in an inetruee
tion ef this kind ia in 211 ecsees reversibly errensous, avertheless,
we do sol4 that such language is subject to the oriticiam thet it
may in some cases mislead the jury snd might in a Gae@ ciose upen
the facts require a reversal,

instruction Se. 3 is further eriticized, in that while
helding the carrier ressensibie fer the sligheat negleet resulting
in injury to the passenger, the instruction does net confine this
reaponsibility to the negligence charged in the dselaratien. It
ie pointed out that the rule te fundamental and witneut exeeption
that a plaintiff esn recover only upon proef af negligence which is
charged in the declaration, end that an instruction which pereites

& recovery on proof of negligence not charged in the declaration is

ts P08 GW toleten nomsion a eihiw jadd Gametedcs al ytut ead bhot
taegdglis of3 x2 fon bib seat wxeyaonaaq Ye yse'tas oat Ys tetwemt
taedgiy oc wateréxe oF ysuh eF1 to tolTtRA and evel let even

aoitewitent "8! desu yt tad? Sas ,ausonorts ase ,.930 ,oted to 664 st
doatyid yalilupet Give edt taofes 6% hepetnoone od Rivow Yawk ey
nuleit .6iut wwawaatemen G0 Yo eltnPtatl aa* Kadyed exes “te HdTges
atadun wrod outevet of bealiter aed Prvos abd Haid ano etateg tts
“whom tii as aa on orev enarduiiia ustinte pcynee

Pale Vtatal yle dentage’ vegase uid aid to sill Aap id Witte é

edt Wh eae or efiew ton taeyd gon att te noseet yd abe tinted’ ‘Fit, Lon

‘Waa EET OLE ys, ) »¥ biometnad at we petso Xe onlonste
® OF Widtanodeet saw telriey & Sele teotada aortbundeat aa etede |
ow bin ores dove wutytexe of tee tgen Fubddnite wie <0!
-dt ne to% setdVET of DoaWteY ‘Pruos bts wtnity odae tote.
deorghil ate oe oF bot wat fhe new toPerno of) Bhaw ao ite at¥eide
> ipeesstiyhie ene cot bitieneiioe naw bint otee tnoltnery Yo Gory
, ‘eure at Sale iver tye Kyer
aduetemk ot itt wasnt edt to baw Wad Fans hood wow ten oy ee OO"
“nes Ledtroved jeuconmrrs Yi iuever eewee Its Hi oh Kab whore Yo Holt
$L thily meloketao ous of teeteus et ogengaed coon bad bro Ob OW
megs eos sees © Bh sity le bas ane ot feefele eevee omen uF am
ereven « el arse ott
e eta sast Wk jbomtotthys xonert’s @Y & lot mo btowereaT ae
o ‘gale ivest dseigen geetyiia exe 16t — ‘wii et ‘git Fon
hud eatineo tou e404 selvoutsant edt ,teytese
at \mottetetoes ony at esa ve.

“—_ ws bs

#8 Ho tiie ebieyt gen T6 ‘Tedte seca Ethd th¥e
at tamed ate. ‘moleenedwkh Ae tend ——

ak Rottwreloeh eff at ‘pagtads pewre

Ea ats

i i ; oe ae my i i ;

erreneeus. There ie neo deubt of thie rule, Gf the innumerable
eases that might be cited, we refer to hatner v,. Chicage city fy,
€g., 233 Tl. 169; Lyons v, Ryereon & Yon, 242 Ill. 408, and

ie, Boe Til. 368,

DeTendantea point out that in each count of pleintiff'’s dee
laration the charge le that defenjants' negiivence was “by their
then agents and servante;* that the only negligenes sought to be
proved wae thet the car atarted ferward with « sudden jerk, that
there Was no evidence tending te #sow what caused the car to stars
forwara with a jerk or thet 1t was due te anything done or Left ume
done by the conductor or woterman; that the alleged start with a
jerk may have been due to the mechaniem of the esr “itheut any fault
on the part ofdefendsnte’ servants, They further point out, citing

Prisogli, 176 122, 3305 and Bide -

ie He Co. v. Conner, 217 fed. 956, that preaumptive nega
ligenece may net be indulged usless the declaration ia broad enough
te include every kind ef segiigence which might have euanne the ace
cident, aid that etherwiese the rulg that recovery may be had enly
em proof of the negligence charged in the declaration might be
violated. Gn tha ether Hand, sisintiff pointe out mumersus other
inatructions which covered this point and by wiich the jury wae
repeatediy told that plaintiff eould not reeover uniess ene had
proved negligence ae satsted in her deelaration, and she eays that in
view of the full, concise and gemplete inetructions given, it ia
preposterous te argue thet the jury might nave in any way been mis-
led by the imatruction.

When this inetruetion is carefully read, however, while not
4ireetly and expresely mandatery in form, it La in substanee mandatory
aince the jury is told that under the foete an atated defendants
are “responsible.” Thies does net in ferm amount te the direction of

& verdict, but it is entirely posealvle that it would be so understood

Oe ee ee a ee et

~208 atanealate 1 saues done ah Sane duo takow etaab a0%e

yen svisgawes te Paes 42a abet ce

iciitiaa ods 3 eke ahds Yo iduoh om ot oneme AuOs mE TtS
went «AY Bente of tetor ow shotie, | aa 2g a. sand ‘e889
we 90 SLL Gas ams amma 8% ALT ES oo)
“ae iy 5 MOM SET BBE 5 ot }

wheat yd" ay Somes igam ‘adias ‘ae teb Sal. ak , epteso asta person

wd od Atguons, seneutigns ydoo aft Ient "jadaewane ban siaege medt
tadd Atel aghdua « sade bxewgot pesiasa wwe ont fact Baw bevers
tase ot tao edd heaves Jasin worm oF gulbacs Snapbive om gaw snes
am Tek se sash aatdtyna af enh saw #2 ind xo Maal 4 ge huswie

& ditw tate hegotio of) fads jaamrodem to Tedewbans O89 mA ome
tine yu suontily tmp edd te AL nee i bad ot sub aed
aGisie ,tuo gated sodguwd yoat Latasvren + "eteanmeit

nb baw O66 441 avd

dguond beord ai: gL dasa dos b ond onoLow x hontioad a8 ton Pie ne “ at
+08 edt Daanss eved tdgdm dolaw seasyiigon te babk yuere eh is 7 |
‘yiae ba od yam yxoveoet daddy ous ot ouiwredte fase bas ' ta iba
AS tegie aclieraioeh ond ai hequane Moms gl igo i

ve ve Yeon a0

al fests ayse ose baw aphbenaeal toa as pve pon ae Bi igen

wh 2 ,aoviy ancifourtest oteiquos bas eatonoo ,fin? 9
“Alm aged yaw vas st syad autumn wuut oat taste

16 mates oad of. tame, me a tone aut some [Leman Fs

by the jury. We think the instruction is aubjest to criticiem in
thie reepect, but it eculd not mislead the jury in thie case,

Iv, A@ the judgment muet be revereed, 1% ie quite un-
necessary te discuss at length ether pointe raised in the veluwin-
eus briefs which are largely fevcted to eriiticismsa of inetructiona
given. The jury was fully instructed fro: the viewroe int ef beth
parties and at their request, und the instructions as a whele state
the law in substance as it hae frequmtly teen declared by this
court and the Supreme court of the State, Defendants complain of
Plaintiff's instruction be. 2, it seems to have been aspreved by
thie court in Reynolds v. Alton, Granite & Ot. i. Traction o.,
194 211. App. 87, alao of Ke, 4, which seeus te have deen sopraved
by the Gupreme court im Peterson wv

tien Go., 238
Til. 411. They complain of plaintiff's inatruetion ke. 6, by
which the fury was toid in substance that if plaintiff's injury re
sulted in the aggravation ef a previcus sickuess and disability,
the jury might allow damages for gach sggravation. Befendantse de
net question that such is the general rule of lew bet urge it was
erroneous to give the imetruecticon in this case beoause the 4¢eclarne
tion 414 net allege such damages, “ich are speciel. A mumber of
authorities are cited to thet effeet.

the instruction is taken alzest verbatim from Chicago Union
Erastion Co. v. Browdy, 106 il. Apo. 1%. Plaintiff cites Aiiiiara

i706 lll. Agp. SUT; Ld canbu ’

604; sil of whieh in substsnee heid that where the plaintiff was
at the time of receiving an injury sulfering from seme disease
and as a reault of the injury that disease is aggravated, damages

may be recovered for such aggravation, There is no doubt of that

rule, whieh is firaly established. The precise question raised

ai @atoigico of teotdca al meleontasak emf dnadsit o% .yaul act ed
saan aisd ok yiut ect baoints tom hiacea Gh ¢ed ,epeqeet etdd

oti atiap ai cl ,bomiavet od damm Poomehwt ete oA |. SFI.
-siwwloy ef) ot beulat otaleg ‘edie dtgael ta eeuoeih gf yuaveonen
eogiicuiseal io somlottize of betevel ylestael ets deisdw etet«ad eso
ated ‘ts tunleqwety edd sett betoarsemi yliut eow yavt emt .merty
steda lone o sa saoltouvient 44 bas ,tacupes thet? te bow aoiteay
aint ya betaiseh aoed ylimapetl sean 7) ae sometedue ah wal odd
te abaiqmeo adaxseete .etasG gsi? to saneo smetqul eat hae dns
yd bevetqas aed aved of emeoe 74. oh en ee
Pevorgas need eved of anaes dwadw ~b ooh to onde Ve pun Akt 0k
. : oO) @) draco emetqes scl? yd
oe ,8 .08 solsorctomt a'TrAtotety Re mhadgsoo yeme Lit ohSE
wot gtutal e'xritaielg Th iadd sotndedum eh bdod aoe yewhoont sokaw
axt@iiidaalh baa eeemiate awsedverq «2 lo aghtevetgna O6¢ mi Seehen
ob atustive te .seltavetgge dose tol segeceh Wolla ditgia tet edt
ane gi ogi ted wal ‘te elo Laveneg on at toms cadtd neltecup tom
~eteligoh off eaneved eeae @243 wl doldecitemh ef3 eviy oF exesmerte
te wodewa A slalonga axe doicte ,eepnmeb dowe onelix gon £1h aokd
«taeTia tai? of te¢ia st ae litetie

shalt esata mont asediov deqanke aniad ef apitesnieak off
ARAELIIE metic Titialelt .OL .qwe fil GOL .ybvorl 10199. sohfeaat

2200, st Ob200% ov swgoeds 20S saga Sik OOL .. 99 oeR ones tse ow

Sa ali tyadtad sh etal i tO .ggd idk OL
GGA LIT TEL , .9; aot ;896 «agh fit aE
ga Tisaleic oft oxeiw gad? o40d eonetedue at dadtw Re Lin ;)08
esecrih amoc avtt galieVive qtuhat ae gaivienns to nals ot te
wegaies ,-hetevwinge ef eeavelh tacts yawhal oe to dgomaes «8a bem
fate “to ddeob on at sand .sobvevergga wins 10) MeterooNt ed wn
powder mokteouy eeisory nal beste kidadeo yierst eb votde gate

‘9 #8 ¥

418

is whether a court may inetruet the jury to that effeet where sueh
damages are net specially claimed in the declaration. It seene,
however, that by inetruetion ke, #4, which was giver at the ree
quest of defendants, the Jury wae directed upen the theery that
this question was before it for ecnsiderstion, and Raving tried the
Case on that theory it would eeem defendants are now eatoppe? from
Yaleing the question for the iret time in this ecurt.

Vouplaint ie alse made ef plaintiff's inatruetion Ke, & as
te demages, Ke. ae te the right of the jury to disere4it the
testimony of plaintiff because she was the plaintiff, and Yo. il
as te the number of witnesees, and it is urxzed, with citation of
many authorities that plaintiff's exgerte were permitted te base
their epinions upon subjective ayeptess, It ia alsa urged that
the damages were exeessive, A full Aiscussion of these pointe
weuld unduly extend tuis opinion,

for the reasons siated, the jJudguent sust be reversed and
the egause remanded for another trial,

REVERSED AED HEWANDED.

O'Genner and ieSurely, JJ., eoneur.

tieae eed teo'tho tam? of ¢owk edt toutdenh wou Probe ew tecoedw af
samen $1 .audderskoes ocd af henkwds yfielosqa Jam ote sagndib
=9t aff a2 sovly saw Sodfcr (S8 sod wetteutgon? yd fads re vewed
ede Greed? of? mequ betoer th aaw Cteh ons jonah to seoap
edt Aelte gutvad bun ,aottetehionse ee) si wed ted eae del beens akas
Sext beqqotes wea ot ‘ataat 20S ween Sfoow SL yuoess sae oo eeen
|| deweo-cist ch Gulf gevd? oes 20% aatewods sue galatet

es 6.04 nelvourten! aT tkiatale 6 oheim sede wh ¢aladigea ~~ ©
odd Sheree hh of YtUt, oP To tty ts of OS Be & Lo jedgemsh OF
£2 /08 Rae ide atelo ocd ane oe oonnsed VYertalalg ‘Ye Yaomttase
te moltetio Silw , dea al 2 haw ,eoueoitiw te vedeun a of ae.
gaed of hedd lated wree Béxsexs o'Ttivalsig texte eo tt hodewe yom |
felt Regie outn ab tl sametquys evivsetdue moqu asetatge teas 0
atuiog oeert to moisevoats Ligt A. sevigavexs ots BegmoRd welt as
bag hearevet od teen Juam bat ett , hotate econo dl ale
op oe qiluadend te cigar octet: poneinnihwehes one ;

oe 2 gCCRAMRM: GUA CROMER «8 6) ies oO) Reo Peet .

A oe yi eee Re aw ee 200 ee es
giugaos sb) eeleretok hae weaned"
aan! iia ‘es ORT Oe.
Py mn jase Ke. eee a SYP veda ee aa Ora Ge Shiz ay | BEY) RAR RS Drab er ie

: Eh ae Rae xo a a yt ee oe ay
sas Gd ae bie OSE
Th, TERNAL, ie ERAN (SH fous a Es wht pew
i eimtwne wb Sele Bees 1,208

P . ‘ a ae "
Res ay BV Ree Ae. at i Oi 235, ae A AM EER a. t af. ee re Eh a
cpoow eh Sake gid. eat Ty RR ke eo Re

oo ey apa Ue. te eRe ee? geet

a iano ake ame cra Bey Ae Rak eeereaee ? ce teet ie ee ad ee, aN <i)

BTS re

87169 entation

In ve: S&TATE OF GRASLES BAG DONALD,
Appellee,

APTEAL FROM

v. CIRCUIT coun,

BMVY LOGAN REEVES, ae Axecutor ef the GOUK COUNTY.
Retate of CHARLES WACDGRALD, De-~
eensed,

ae cee i i etl Na Sree eae Mine et

Apvellant.

2'¢ 4 L.A. 649°

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MaATCHET?
OBLIVEREKD THE OPINION OF THE CouRT

The exeoutor by this appeal seeke to reverse a jucgment
in faver of the elaiment in the sum of 23,579.79 entered on the ver-
dict of a jury. The cause wes heard in the Circuit eourt om an ape
peal from the Prabate court by the executor, tre claim *¥ing been
allowed in that evurt also.

Macdonald, the deceesed, wae a physician and owned a bulkd-
ing at Gakwoocd boulevard and Cottace Greve enenue, in whieh he oon-
éueted hie practice. The Orexel “tate bank waa a tenant in thet
building. Dr. Macdonald kept a somiereisi account spd alse a savings
secount at this bank. He aleo used a safety deposit box re ted from
this bank. He ommed real estate in other carte of the elity ang was
acsustomed to trade eumewhet in that kind of property.

The claimant, iss talker, is a nurse. For mere than
twenty years she was closely aasueiated with Dr. Yeedenald in his
professional work snd siso in his varicus financial md bua ness
transactions. “he kept his books and managed in part at least some
of his real estate. che occupied a flat in one of the buildings
which he owned, In short, she scexe to ‘ave been trusted ond re~«
lied on by the doster in ali his orofescsionsl and business sffeirs.

Dr. Maedonald died on Setober 51, 1931, at the Sest Subur-

|
.

Mort. Lie ‘TA
CD TIVRATS

ST. nA of v2 Se rai ae

‘* ne
TTLNVTAM ROTTVUL ORIG TRAY wR
WNUOS WHT We loTMIee CORR Gameviaes OO
Eons aha: Ct ese f R
favasoi “ oateTet et sieve a knee ates « { xotvons. on ne
~297 ods a0 bowseae 8, 02.88 te mass, eat ae 4 wets, © wren a at

TUES,

~48 as a0 tives # tor to nay gh taped now veuuse ad *
aved itv af miale ota TERS ost “d oa

mo me Fou

“bhi | a eae hee eebeteyte a wate “donee ast, fons ae

ANCE HR Pe

~aoo ef doldw at eee over SaettoS bas Baeveized hoomiad ta gut

gade af janet a aw tacd etat® Lexen’ off peerengey, att beteus

agatvas » oale bap tnvwvos Lakexenmos # ted Lane 3
mort bad rwu xed diecged yiotas a pees onin oe mand atstt te pate
oay bane Ytle ed? to afueq tedto at efotes Saet bervo of .ainad elde

~Yireqerny to bald ted? at fasdwom 8 ebwtd ait Beuotaxo0n ah

Seag tom 19% eeu 6 al ,twllal aokit etannieio oat
“gta at binacbeo .0 stte betatoosas ydeneds een ode 0m, ware
geen bud bm Leloseatt sucitay oft at onis bas sxow Samods

gece tose $s fang at begenas hen exood att Agen ot? amekiomeme
egatbiivd ed? Yo ono mt talt s detqueos WM .otutop oes at, ‘to
“ot bas Sotewss aeed ovat oF anese ss fs si teed nd amet

had prneee’ oft, ment foo ;

ban hospital in Usk ark. The claim of Misa *alker as filed in the
Probate court is in the form of an aceount between Dr. Vecionald and
herseif, in which she charges him “by eash placed to the eredit
Gharles Nacdoneid in the Drexel “tate bank on Jetober 24, 1951, and
for money ten had and received from said Ann ‘elker by the said
Charles Macdonald .... $3579.75." There are other iteme in the ec-~
egunt which it seams were act allowed by the jury and which sre
therefore not involved in the appeal.

The Glainant wes incompetent to testify under the statute
as to any oceurrence with reference to the transaetion pier to the
@eath of Dr. Nagdonald. “he produced witnesses, however, vhose evi-
dence tended te show that five daye before the death w& Gr. Maeden-
ald, on Gotober 26, 1931, Kiss “alker took to him in the hospitsl in
Sek Park a certificate for 25 shares of stock in the Comeonweai th
Edison Co. This sertificate was in her nome. 4 photograph @ it is
in evidence, “She at thet time signed the blank form of assignment
on the usck of the certificate, and Mr. Yhitehesd, of the Cozmon-
wealth “dieon Co., at that time wrote his name on it as & Witness to
her signature. The gertificste upon its faee appeare to mMV¥e been
issued to the eleimant Getober 15, 1951. nm the day foliswing the
execution of the assicnment at the houpitai, the evidente shurs
Glaimant took thie certificate, together with another for 25 shares
in the same company fasued to or. Macdonald and endsursed by him, te
Mr. SoCarthy, sho was the manager of the Orexel ‘tate bank. UP. 'G=-
Carthy made out a “sell order” which ies *alker signed. In. Hacdon-
eld'’s signature aleo appears on thie order. This sele was thereupon
executed by the bank through e broker. One of the sertificsates mid
at $143 a share and the other et$l143p a share. This sell order siso
directed the sele of a hunéred shares of Imsull Utilities, whieh, it
appears, the bank likewise sold at this time at 712 3/6 a ehawe.

aft at belft 26 vedis! sald te ateie eff cual aed ot lotiqaed aad
bes Slanxehae8 .3° aeceted teyvepen aa te ate? od? at sl tuvee et¢edest

} Gtheto eft of beonle dase ¥6" ald seguede ety doldy ak Piaget

baw ,18@L ,88 codete0 mo dnad otet)) Lacon ‘wile af Blecoboat woken
Bias ods xC tediey nA Sbie aet? heviesot bas het moi? venom oT
~o2 off at amet tofto ors wrod *, PUTER) ways Slasabool soled

ote dotdy bas yout ed? yw bewolla gon’ otew’ ‘ameou tf doidy tae

ee EG

faoags et? et bevieval tax ovehorent 3

ooutate eds tobew Ytiiaet of tantegucen! sew that ale od?

eds of wing seldeeusatt off of eoaotetes a — vas of a
bos .xii te ‘ditaeb
is behaes voneb i
at Lo tigeod adv mt ott of doot tote” aur (aes 988. xevedas a9, ble .

a? inowaéamed ett at doote te secede Of tet sawed ttxo9 8 awl Beg

-lyve onote ,revewod ,seenentio beowbery of? Baer
—HoboaM sx % ftaoh edt vtoted syab oylt tant we f

al tt w dyomototg 3 + oma tet at sae adaottta mt

amommeS eff to ,.boedetity .we fate ete rbines oat to eae oat ue

ot aaoatie a 0s ot ne ane oh ator omid tate te e190 aeakhy ohne :
need eyat of eiusqys ont att segs atanltioxes ft. eran aa, |

, oft galwolio?® yab of? a ofOal .Gs sodeto | teva
awods eonehive ode ,latiquod odd te to
sotade 8s act softens agin qodteRe t wineries aide teed i

ot nee Yd besrobae ban blanchess . OF Seweat Wangaee ome, am,

-o4f . td oni etad® foxes at te TAHT eda aa aA" “Tne
~aoboay ui .Semle texted aut’ Kode "redxe sto" s tie aii ‘ ”

bic oiger rites oda “te Yond ove’ ti wm Xue
or is maha sioe anor + onda a Melgta toda ¢

fae peat Sai en
Wea
iy el
chia ma yal, “,

The proceetis after dediwting charges ancunted ts the sum of 06,368.
Ro part of this sum was paid to Mise Yelker, and all the money resi-
ized fram these sales was deposited to the ageounte of Dr. Masdonsld
in the bank.

when Sr. MeGarthy wes on the witnese stand he was asked by
the attomey for plaintiff to state the conversation with kies Yealker
at the time thia deposit was made. The attorney for the exesuter ob-
jeeted, and the objeetion was sustained. Beeause it wae a cart of the
actual transaction, we think the verbal statexent which aecomm nied
the aet of depositing this money should have been admitted in evidence,
On @ress examination the banker was asked by the attorney for defend- |
ant if the oroceeds were deposited in the account of Ir. Maedoneld at
Miss Salker's recucat. The attormey for sleimant objected, eteting
that if that question was allowed he would then ineist that the whole
conversation should be received. VYhereupen, the attermey for the
executor withdrew the evestion. Yhuse evidence wae kept out vhich
should have been admitted and which it is fir te infer would mve
been favorable to slaimant. On the evening af the day ty. Meedanald
died, James Macdonald hie son, Gertrude, his daughter, Miss Yel mr
and a Mp, Ammiger, were present. Mr. armiger says he suggested to
Jemes Macdonald that if the dootor had seeuritics or money in the
bank 1¢ would be well to «et them out before the bank was aware thet
the dostor had passed away. It wae ateated thet the dooter had money
on deposit in the benk and that the daughter Gertrede had power of
attorney to sign ehesks. Thereupon, Mr. Armiger had Gertrude draw a
ehesk in blank and handed it to Vies “elker. om the followin ay,
Sundey, Mise Welker wae at dinner at the home of Mr, Armiger, and
the testimony is that after dinner claimant took from & bag, money
amounting to 88,726.01. Arniger testified that ciainent placed this
money on the table seying that swat of br. Macdonald's money wes in

asttindhh t mauve ong af bormrose degen pate avee reste sbeenony ot
~iwet qoncm eff iin Son ,eevdn! as th @8 biag eos sue onde ‘te tx8g, Ov
blenmobea .ul te scdaegoos id o4 getisogee awe weien oaane mont best
sao ta
Ye Setes sow af Senate savatiw ade mo sae yt aor ‘eal atl sod : nao

sedist asl dike nolieatevroe sdf etete. ot ‘Want ate x02 yornotte: ‘edd
+o sesvooxs eft rot yortotse eM? oben naw Pkneqed ene sak adh te
ed? 29 s46q @ aew fi weueces -honistews ane notsseiée od ane shoteet,
Seknaymcoes doldy duemeteta dediey sd? ant we sokvoneneed Aoutes
sem0RLVO at hedtinke aesd syed biveds Yemom, obit aultiaeged 16 ton od
“hostob wt yout dia odd Ye Seen. caw soln ott molt entuexe asore, a0
ta bflasshen . te taweeds eff at fetlseqean one abeooers one ay tna
gaiteta ,betooido tanmiale wt yearotis ott steoucon etieakay wat
elodw oft fadt tatent aedt bLuow od bowolie paw xotsvoup ante at dade
‘eit 26} yoouotte off .woquetad? shavienes iad bivate notsaerevaes
hetdn tue tao8 ean aooeaive andT -Hohtqeny odd voubstte setveexe
at Sivew totai of ahet af #2 dotdw das ste xoad vad bivodte

Hinabboak al ad ont 20 galanve axl? a0 , ‘es
‘ted iad ents ysotdgead alk ,ehardse) wee an Ainacdoss seme sbotd

CSE ie #3
et betecngun. et ayes teqgioma . tH -tneaorg | e1s8 sephora ox 2 bon

ot th yemem to eeltiagaee bad xoroed aed TE texte bLancboak ‘aoa
tnd? crews ext dnod edd exoted dpe mtd fog et Ger od Siupe #8 anes
yomom fad seteob ecg tats botete sow gf _ «Wome faneee bad “eteod edd

vf teweg bad ebwitieh tatdyead ett rans oan ge ott mk theoger Bo

\ Roth obwtdseo bat gegdstta . 18 oequen a? of : mart mate oo wome
9 Wh cekwoLioh edd ao amis! avin of, wi ” hood 8 at er |
han aA SA Te one OE, Ae See rt a "Foto eat car
atts boon. saomteio tacts batitroes ig “ad : \# 18 oo
ai sew Youow a*bienoboaM wx % von Si iomeey Meee wat 0 non

ee + ae TAR

&
the savings account. The witness saya:
“I eaid that I was suxyprized at the amount of money ané
Hise Welker eeid that Or. Meedonsld happened to heave sa mueh
money from the seie of some stock -- whether she enid Common-
weelth ddisean, Insull Investment or wheat, I don’t know par i-
tively, but she stated that the stoek hed just been sold and
the doetor had not had @ chance to reinvast it; thet it wae
the prooceds of the sale of satoak the doetor bed sotten in
games and Gertrude’s page and in Mise “alker's neme oFing to
being umable to cet more than 85 shares in his own seme; but
he wanted all he soule get and osnsequently he teok it in
these different names,”
The money was plaged in a large envelope and given to Ure. araicer
for safekeeping until Hondey morning. The witness said on orese
exeminetion that he had svezested that “les ‘alker set this money
from the benk as she wae ¥G1l Known there, andttheat he told ties
Balker that es soon asi the benk learted the doctor wee desa 1¢ would
seal the vavuit; thet the children needed money af ocnee for funeral
and haseitel bilis, beceuse they were orvhers and bad no funds @
their own. This money wes eftervaris turned over te the execut Gr.
Jemes Maadonald testified that he had « eenversaticn with
the oleimant on Ceteber Sist at the hetrpitel after hie feather died
when Mr. and irs. Arciger, Gertrugée and « Vigs Neal were present:
that they all drove over to the Gek Park cavings bank; that on the
way Kise *elker seid that Gertrude had a joint checking aceaunt at
the jek Park Savings tbenk, and that the money there could be obtained;
thet leter in the day at the home of tiv. Armiger, Miss Walker said
that his sister, Gertrude, had a joint sheekin= aceoumt with Bis
father and thet Gartrude gould draw the money cut of the bank by
éiening a blunk cheek; that Gertrude thereuyen signed a cheek in
Bleak and hended it te Mies *alker who put it in her surse; that he
next ss¥ glalmant on Novemver 1, 1l#¢1, st lumeh time et Armiger’s
home, and that after lunch Miss alker tuck wa envelope from hor
puree saying that it sontained the money ane hod taken from the
Drexel State bank; thet when 1% was opened Zr. sraiger expressed

surprise at the amount of money and asked Wiss “alker haw it ba pened;

| oe

rayan Aovesie Oe ysmebOR agatvRe ont
foe Monee to heme eft 26 Soetuques anew f goede ties T° aie Ms
doc os oved of bomeqqad binsebesé .19 tet bhee vediew eek

some? bien eta tadiedw == deote octcm to sign exe moet | ee
~Liq woud ¢taeb I , tate sc feomtwown? Siverl .ecelh ttisew
bus blea seed sunt bat doots edd tedtotedete oe tud ypetevte 6!
asw ti todd ;3i teeveter of vortudes o bad tow bad wosoud po a rv

ai aptéen bed totecd eff NpetE te eles SH? te abooeerq of

od pl ppt ema e'iodle’ esl’ sk bn omen @*olwetasd bus p Baws f Mss

mal Hh ae amo alt a? eeuade UF made’ evect ton et oldaay gated © ~

#8 moet ent ‘ésnoupoonas baa toy bine af Lis 12 ene? igh

pena Paster th emote / 8

) pan cl ef nevis daa egadewme yatal « st heomly saw yonon emt
em ao Dias aaoutie off .gudmem patent fiw nitqeedeten Ler
Yeans eidd tng aedle® seks dete bofeeancs bert ad tat molteatmaxe:
aaiu. bled eof tedtibas ,wied?. awond Liew aw sie an Xnad of noe:
binoy $f baad aav cofoeb sd@ Benrgel shed ot? Ge meow an Jat” realei
Loveow? TeX come 29 youem Sebsom mesbLtde ot. rons Teer oe ieee
& abavt RH bid Paw Ansiyxo wtOW Yodd oauoed yALLtd Lustqued Bid”
<tadvogae add Of “ove bemad abvavretts saw: Rennes, wae? soo te
Stix asifausernee » bat ad ted? soxihteet hhemedesM seme 6 foo) 2x8
Beth ceftet els aodte Ludigaed odo fe tale vedeteo ao fusatare one
Passe ered deed seit » hae ebuTdred ,tegkosh 4 os dae ot mee
| odd we cad? jdnad wuntal wl da0 act 8 TOKO SOEs Lin yedd aude!
| te tawenes. paivwede Saket » Ast ebirctaed gant paw teal hat anki ome
— «themtst#se od bLueg exedt yomem eff. tad San pines. paiva skeet ahead wate
| Blow sokteW wake eho 2th Yo ome odt ta wil wae anh veteL sate
—Bkd ditte Janoves ywobieeds ¢glol 2 kat ehentre yxotste ee fete ~
My aed atf Ye. fu Cone nd enc hvu eReNND tute Re aNEO
«at dente @ beaala aoquereds eiumiied tet) paleo wnelé o yikes
ot tese. pmerg. tod mb ot aug ete toaiLan cal oat Sonos tne state
S\neptans ¢e onts denal @e .AbGh of ‘antenna iy genta te Sa ear

that "Mize ®alker told ue that my father had ordered her to sell 25
shares of stock in the Commonwealth dleon Company in his name end 26
heres of stock which vere in her name whieh he had paid for.” James
Macdonald further said: “as my father had bought all ef the CGommon-
wealth Sdison stook that he gould from a man by the nome of »hitehead,
who was selling the stock two or three doliars below the market pice,
and that ir. thiteheed yas not allowed to seli more than 25 mares to
any single customer, and for that reason he hed put 25 shares in vise
Palker's name. Mise talker then sald thet he omlered her to sell the
stock in his neme and in Siga@ talker's same and to put the money in
the secount eat the Grexel ‘tate bank, and thet wae the resson t here
Was 60 much money there.”

Ruth Neal, witness for defenduent, testified in wm bata nee
that she had a conversation with Miss “siker on October 31, lvl, st
about ten ofeleosk in the morning at the “est Ouburben hoa pital, imne-
diately after the death of Sr. ¥Yacdonaid; that Mies ‘slker wee gather-
ing up the effects of the doctor and sala she had same exvense in cer-
tain business matters and the doctor had been Very anxious to pay her
the money and had @ fered her «e cheek for her saiary, but thet Mise
Walker told him that she didn't need the money an on the firet of the
month she Would be solle@ting the rent and whe could take what noney
she needed and that Br, Masdonalé didn't owe her anything.

The @laimant being a competent witness as to ontters which
occurred after the death of the deotor, testified in rebuttal that she
@id not heave a conversation with Misa Noal in Or. iagdoneid's room at
the hospital, and that ashe did not make eny statement to the effect
thet the doetor did not owe her any money or thet be had paid her |
everything. She said she was at the home of Armiger on the evening
ef Getober Sist and that ahe showed James sacdonaid the anount of
money she had in the envelope and that he remarked there woe « let of

it and agked her where it came from; that Mr. armiger went t Or.

&
a& Lifer ef aod herebac Set todte? yu tate ew blod sod bY ante” -
S28 Sa oman sid at yaagme aoetg at Lnqumomame® ants as doote to woxade

ca. aay ON

ena’ ".tot biag batt ad te tow nuns net at prew fotse soot | ts

~aomod wd te Lit dae bast amttet um axe +Sine rdf dieneboat
chooitod tts ‘te cava af? YW aan @ mre Biztes ent tessa woot mont Adbaow
ool ay toxtcam ods woled araties oweds to ont stood ws pation ‘aoe ow
ot sea 38 wads ortiaes Siea. ot bowed tom oon besdnatds vk anit bas
wali at eetede 8 gq bad ot newoet tans tet one view fauo ofgate ‘ae

add fies of sod bovelie of dads bisa wens aeaLe? 8 ans - oma etuedias
ak yoaoa wt jay of bee omen al veakew abit mt ae amee “a fat sons
ered # season hae ast ass pas pases otad tenet" ot ta =
oon asad ink doritiaes vite buoteb x02 oda p Aa sha igen

" Ae cor Ga dened .

a fee is ‘sedated ee cwaloy aotie athe neh swany¥sve a =o bowed
: <P F k ie “ARE Se

-onnt ie ata aor mehendes Sook ‘ods ta aoheren ote at “gesio's net tuods

Re ity Tats

~tadisy ase alo male told {Dianebpat 0 te Stoo ‘ods vote ‘Ueeatp
~ae0 ad enneyxe CIO & bad ala blow hae reteed ‘odd Ye atoeti0 6 ony i pat
tet Yo oF evotans TY awed oad ret oo wd ban eof tne seoahend Ae

ous tad? tod tisles tod ‘a0? Hoods 4 tod bio? pad. baa yous ode

ods ‘to souks ode = as Years ot howe ‘#abke ani teat and bhet ‘senke
se a a RNR Be a
Yemen tare oalas hives ede bas ta0s ong paisoctsen od bivew ‘ote dénom
een TF
ogildeyan coal avo # abkh Bisnoveni oT) tanta bas ie
ae Ne 7s ait Haat ay

‘donde exostas ot ae anon te taoasgaoo 6 4 guded Srisuada Lo et? - les

ede sadt Lateuden Ph Bolitsues rodeos os te S000 eas setts be

fe moos a*binacbosis oi at Leow eek agtw ac Htapuovace 8 rer i
testis oda ad taemeate wo ota ton ry at a ‘ tothqnes 1 oi

ted bkog bast ad tate, x8 wenen we sed owe op

bad tol a “asi ‘ered boxtaaot at tats op 2 ot jolene
a, sem neptora, 2s tae a '

Maedonald's home and took the envelope with the money to his heme;
that the money wae taken out of the envelope end that she said: “You
must remember 25 shares of this ateek ie mine; T have my receipt to
show you. Your father was ili; the thecking aecount wee low; the
savings aceount wes lov. Yhe dector advised me -~ he was my banker,
he advised me to sell and put $1006.00 in the ehecking seeount and
the other in the savinge aevount and he wala: “'I wild take oare of
you next week.'" ‘She denics that ahe #aid at that time they the
doetor hed bought ateoek in his neme and in the nenes of Jmes, Ger-
trude and herself beexuse he could not cet so mush atoek in his oen
neme and denics that ehe said that the doctor had bourht es many
ahares of atoek as possible in his own neme out @¢ould not pet any
more and had purchased 85 shares in her name in order t get them
two or three éellarea cheaper. Ohne says that she did pay that Ger-

trude had a joint aceount with the doctor in the crexel otate venk;
that x. Armiger suggested thet Curtrude write out a check, agen it
end withdraw the money from the savings aseount; thet Gertrude
signed her father’s neme and right below she sigmed her name and
that check was used.

ux. Arcaiger on surrebuttal denied that “las falker had
seid to him im hia home on November 1, 1031, “You must remember thet
26 shares are mine,” and Jemes, alaw testifying on surrebuttal, de~
nied thet ahe had sald that.

Beeause of this divergent testimony the evidences ae ta
the purghase of this stoek in Migs Walker's neme besgomes important.

Kr. Steele, an employee of the Comsonweelth idlson ¢om
pany, had known Or. Macdonald for twenty yeare and elao knew Kiss
Walker well. fe testified that in 1941 be talked with them in the
gresence of eaoh other about the purehese of Commonwealth “dison
stock. We saya: “Mise “alker was present and the deetor seid t hat

ghe said that she was unable to buy any «tock et the wresent t ime,

: ate ape ; Te ae CM: Mole ie a 4
jouod aif of yertom ef? ttiw eqeleyae ot? Zend Ace emod a hienehest

wel" ;diee ofe tedt han sqoiervee est te tye aovind ase Youom ode ted
ov tqleser ye svat t jomku af gouge sist to esteds és Todmsnet tom
em? jwel age davosom gutwoad edt jade aan ‘watie? uy OE, wade
stedsag YH ase of -~ om healvds xoteub ott «wos oat taseees sgatveg
fee toucoes gnidoste ed¢ at. Ob OO0LG tay bea Aine ot on ben ve of
te es9o wis? ify i* ibies of baw feseoes Spee ont a edt ,
off fads wars dadd to Sieg one tatty volaed ot ved Xoew 08 UeX,
~ted nom te semea of? mk bane omas etd mt 003% iigund bat yotoos
avo okt mt xneve fou o8 dag fon Sivey ef opuood Uvered has ohwne
Yaem ee dfwred bot retook one tone Sioa ate tans aetneb oa oa
Wee fon fom Biwoe sud aman ame sid at eLdinvvy an Hoots % senate

_ Medd 93, ct reb% aL smog tock ah sagged a8 heswtosws Sat bas osom
=H00 edt you DEb ose todd wyoe ott erogenso exmtsos ovsdt, x0 owt

{Sime ofed® fexewi edd aE cetect amt ate Huai ener ® ‘bet eal
ot gage , deere s tve othew ehyitaet tet? bedeegpiin sey tata” oe tate!
ebwnsxop fone ptimwdee agatyes ade nect ‘poitom oie weubahiw Bia’
bites @nen tat msi ote Woled sai paa a gtoettet ded Denyte
Rea eee Deasssgeod

Balt vente’ sare tHe betaed letivderme mo aegtext se” * itis ot
ted? todmenwx eum woY" ,IACL ,f sedmwveld WO owed eht at ate ee eee
en ne cts gets ,oomt bon “ents ote sonede 28

| ; } ma dase bios Watt oy ait Beir

Gt ga evnehive sd’ yroutiee? Hegrevth otdd Te wersceg eal bat
rare somone’ euler oredie® sath ak adore hosel nt at
wiew sah aid

2 merit fitte bedist od HBGL wh art pee

fount 4s Laown to onetitey ont sewn ei fo
touts bhkh Yedpob ett hmw tawaer” enw contin sake rayne oF” Jabot
~eat? inesew oft ta Moode yas yd oF een wen ote tant bhi s

and the doster eaid that } he seid that he had

to take gure of the children at seheol.” “es further testified that
he saw the dootor again about three weeke before he died -- about
Gotebker iGth or Leth and "he told me thet he couldn't buy any « toek
ag he already purchased from Mr. thitehead.”

it seems that at this time the Utility “sewrities ¢com-
pany Was avting as selling agent for stock of the Commonwealth #di-
SOn Company and that the employees of the soucany vers used as a-
gente in making these sales. Wr. “hitehesd was an employee of the
Utility Securities company and effected the actuel sale of this
stosk, on Cotober G, 1931. Dr. iMaedenald tought 25 shares for each
ef hia children an¢ 8&8 shares for himself. Twenty-five sharea were
3016 te the claimant Ann ‘elker. A memorandum as of that dete was
issued en contract No. 5146, which is in evidenes as ¢isimant's ox
hibit S. It shows the purehase of 26 shares of Commonwealth idis on
company atock at the prise of {139 2 share, or « total of #5476, and
states that the stock vhen fully exid ia to be inwusd te “Anne *al~
ker, 765 Jekwood fivd., Ghieago, Tli.” The neme of “Anne Kalker*
is signed thereto as purchaser. The nenorandum shows an agrees nt
ta purchase stack; to pay cash within thirty days; the reesint of
$328, a statement that the sale was made sy Uhiteheed, and the ap-
proval of the Utility Seeurities company dated Setober 18, 1931.

thitehead testified that the lenghand writine on the
memorandum was his, and thet the memorandum was prepared on Goto ber
&, 1931, in Or. Meodonald’s office; that on Getober 9, 1951, he
again Galled at the office of Dr. Macdonald u:d asked him for an
affidavit thet the 25 shares of stook to be pleced in Miss Uolker's
neme was actually her orn; that Or. Macdonald replied thet 1% waa
Miss “alker's money, but that he would give an affidavit, which he
wrote and took to the next room where it was typed; thet when it
was returned to whitehead it had been signed by Mias falker and the
seal of the notary put upon it. The origins) appeara in the reeord

v
et i 280 os sada Blas 1etech eft bat
todd bektiesed xoddaut oF °. Leodde va xoubitite ot: te o¢eo oxer ee
fuudm <~ beth et ototed adeaw gwadd teode diage tétddd Sat and od
dood 2 yee wud ttabluoe of duds om Bled od” dan MINL co MdOL eoastad
“,beodotie® .ai sott peanmbuang Vann et mes
-m00 sotghuveos yiilavd edd omld wldd te gadd aden tt YO"
-ib5 dotsewnomn) edd ia deods 46% tangs nalicen te gotten kaw Yneg
=a a8 Seay cow ynacéns odd 20 sewyOidue off Hedy ban’ ynsqmee HOR
afd to seyalqan ao anew baedosia! .od .eelas suede guivem ab esiea
ald? tw eles {autos ost Dotectte hie Yaqdoe abitiaivet YH
dene tot seradu 8 dfswod Blencbeat ae steed (8 vededee aw” weewe
exex setads ovit-ydaew? .tiesald «et eerhde 8% tam wexbtide Al 6
aaw edeb todd to an avbeotemem A .TeRLAT mind tatntalte vot of bios
wx e'dnumtale ae ooaebtve al at dotdy ,e88 .0h Hetinos ae beteet
a6 abi Aileewscnmed 1e sovaefe 82 te sundouwt oft aweda ot LOE
bie .@0e8) to lade? s 26 ,enade 2 GEL) Te eetig odd te doote yumgam
vial ema”. et Bovaai ed @f at blag Yin? gede_ dots mit sed? eaters
“seiel ont." le oman as? “,itT ,ogwokdy 4. DVLE Roowmes Bor ton
idewatye ao erate avhastomen oT .tesedanyg sa etoumte beagle of
%o ¢clvoer ed? jayeb vyialdy nidbie fase Yad oF iioots so does, of
“48 off has ,deetetidé ye obam saw los etd dadt Ineaetate « 8884
- SBAL Rh radvtep betad qaagace saktiimpel yilieeu ede 3 0, Lavery ,
ett so politins basdtguod odd gait boliitaes baadesish! is
tedetoo he Seteqetq sew subaetomen ef) tadd boy ahd oom, gta oh “a
®t ABUL .@ todutad 20 dad? yootre a'hlenedenM 0G AR He o
YM MOR GLE deem Bow ALenedoo' oxi Nw oeitIe ef? ta dwLE
‘anton enti mb dopetg od ef dootn Xe cotate G8 esd tact
AMAL todd betiqas RLevobeak «wi sod? yume tod wilewtoe 2

bed od tects bise ed pega

Ah Hotty .tivablits aa ovty atogm ef and sud .Xo8 - 8 |
4h sate tate jdeqyd sew 42 oxedy moun txom ot on t |

edt ban x9ikae sabe meet Ale apap ides aa

8
as Exhibit 4 and is as follows:
“"'To “hom Tt May Coneern'

This is te eertify that I am buying
26 shares of Commonwealth Sdisonm stock in my name.

(signed) anne ‘alker
768 Cukwood hivéd.”

Attached thereto is the s¢ai of a notary public.

Mies Julie Uternberger, who saye thet ehe was an employee
af Dr. Maedonald at thie time, doing typinc, ete., was show this
exhisit and said that Or. Maedenald wrote it om « serap of vaper and
told her to copy it and that she took it into another room end copied
it. She also says that on the day before, Sr. ‘hitehead wes in the
office and that Mise yalker called her to type a letter, and that the
doctor seid, referring to vr. thitehead, "This pest ta eitting here
again and he wants you to buy some otock.” Ghe alse eaye that thite-
head returned the next day; that Or. Macdonald then gaid thet Hise
Walker wanted to buy some stock, and thet Khe was ready to give her
monscy $o buy it with; and that sas when she typed the peper.

y The testimony of “hitehesad is further to the effeet thet
he told Or. Masdonald that he was limited in selling the atoek to 26
shares to a sustemer; thet euch wee the rule ef the company, and that
was the reason vhy he took the affidavit; that the sompany required
him to do so. He gays thet the 25 shares for or. Matdonald, the #&
shares for hie son James and 25 for Gertrude were sola om the 8th,
and that the shares to Mises Yalker were #014 on the foll@ ing day.
The affidavit was requested because the advance payment on atecount
of Hiss Walker's stock wes to be taken out of the chesks of Dr. Mac-
@oneald. Fe says: “Dr. Meedonald enid thet he would gee ies tel ker
end would protest me. “hen I saw the dogter on Setober @th he sald
that he did not have the money loose, but would buy some shares
later on, and that for the shares s0id to Mise ‘elker be would give

his eheek or cash, as he wee taking ¢are of Miss *alker’s payments.”

a eee gle

| i “yaved.ter Le ‘ah pos » eaten, as
| taped wats #1 seat one

gated mo I Gade ‘risaes 08 ak &
Omar gm st deeds soetat debebeiteast to aetede OS

tox Le® emma “Peeve ig ll
* ay la peomiaa ant

sotidug | anton A te nen ost at oteredt &

eoreiase ans ast ate tect ayes ote ctegrodenaae elias netk

abst node aaw 080 eerekays antob cwhs wbde te ahaa, map
bas tegag ts qetee © so th storw &lanedoast anf saci bine bas Stésaxe
aetqos ba» 06% reddons ont at dowd ede sate bua tt Yano oF tod phos
ete ak aay baodod iat othe sighed yab eds pe dott ews gale ode «at
ed? fadt hns ,19dtet # Say? o# ind halioe soalei ante sede. ue oottic
or af yaksate at Gneg abdT* sboodod tity cat ot wisi tes shine gosoed
~adiats tat aye osle atts ",kooga ance we et gay atase of nee aleges
a abi tedd otee wast bissobonn a tage iYed txon att boweag = Deed
tet ovty of vhaes cow od todd baw “ploots enon wid of Dodson amides
i ‘stoqeg ott heey ada nodw saw Jads baw ;ddte th ws og yoaen
to at ‘footie ‘edt of sedturt at onortos batt te yaonkt et WAT
ag es agode ons patios ad portant now ‘ost tad? bho

eames, Ba, -

Psd bhot ed

tadd baa «Yaogsto0 ost ‘te olor ef? naw dove tase yxeaosaue, a. ot aytada

bar hupet Yusqnee ott honk fivabi tte oft dood eat raptor AORBOT edt aa
aa ont BLanoboak m at cerate: as att tate aye a «08 eb hd 0
at one xo bios stew obuxtr00 wr ag bap Bemct awe abd 76%, aortas
+¥eb gat wiLor exe ste bLoo otow nota awh of evredn wt ee Ca
iayoves a6 Faomyns ‘easavbs ‘att ° oauwond busaouper, Pa SAMRAT Te BE?
aoa 42 to sxoots wild %o tuo a9xes od of ane ts high an :
t9H bs walt eos bivow as tons biea biancbost a"

big .g Fats

bbs ‘ed Hee tedota0 no rogaed edd wee % meay a 3

aetade exon we Aivow tus sesped, enon ott rad, ton = ha ot
ovty Bibvow ef rin! anti of bios aerate oft ¥ ath part
MR ar Hh RR Aa see!

* sgmomws aneala’ aati 4 eure ah gee “lt
fat Daa fei phy iy

]

As a matter of fact, “hitehead had at various times before these par-
ticular transactions sold stock to the doctor and also to Mies Welker.
At a prior time she purchased eight shares of the Commonwealth ‘dison
company stock on the advice of Or. Maedonaid.

A temporary reeeipt upon a printed form uaed by the Utility
Securities company was issued to Ann Yelker on Jetober 15, 1931, on
sontract No. 5146. ‘The original is in the record as Exhibit 5 md
atates that the amount paid is $3150. At the bottom of the receipt
appears in large type a printed notice in substance that the reeeipt
is issued in lieu of recording payment on the invoice or security
savings account book and a request to keep the receipt and when son-
venient to present it with invoice or security savings account beok
for entry.

There. is evidence, too, from which the jury had a right
to infer that thie certificate of stock was dsiivered to cleimant and
that she held possession of same from that time until she delivered
it up to the bank to be sold.

The executor contends that the fect that the proceeds of
the sale were placed in Or. Macdonald's account and therefore in his
possession, creates a presumption of ownership which must be overcome
before the prima facie title will be dtvested. He cites Martin v.
Martin, 174 Iii. 571; Coffey v. Goffey, 179 Til. 285; Chestnut v.

Chestnut, 15 i11. app. 390, and other cases. He says that the infer-
enee to be drawn from the act of plaintiff in depositing the proceeds
in the sale of the stock in br. Macdonald's secount in the benk is
that he was entitled to the money and thet it belonged to hin. He

cites Miller & Graves v. Pratz, 179 Ill. App. 204; Kinahan v. butler,

133 Ill. app. 459. We do not understand that the law as stated in
these cases is questioned by claimant. This argument of the executor,
indi cates a disregard of the theory of claimant's suit which is that
she had a right to recover upon « quesi-centrast. See Restatenmt of
the Law, Contracts, vol. 1, sec. 5, p. 7a, where it is seid: “"guasi-

sontrsets, unlike true contracts, are not based on the apparert inten-

@
-taq ewveds exoted eauid aweiuev ta bad beefesin’ ,.fo2t to tetven « aa

.teiisi sath od cals bms tofeoh eft ef xoote bios adeldoassext naluott
acelh| aétlasewacwme. eft te se rete trigte bousdouua este omtt zohiq 8 ta

diacoheat ,xi te eolvbs oft no xdote Yaaguco
yelitey ode Us Beaw mer bodatnd a eemegar gqlesex ytowormed A

me ,l8@L af t9detoG ae ‘tonite th oY boveal eee Yoaqgmee ashi iuuoee

bee @ #tdided ee brcees od? nt at fpaty iro oft +818 oil toeTsnee
gateses eft to aotied ont oa “cates at bkaq twee ott tot ontate
tqisout ont tant one 3nd sa at votes hetatea 8 eqs ogxel ak wraeiys
Ydlavoea To setovnt orig FT.) smonysc gatoroves te went at boueat at
“00 asiy bas tqteset odd qeed ot teeupot 8 baw stood tmuooos ogatvas
wood fayeoos agnivars ysirwese te sotovat atte #t snoseng ot inotuev
: yuiae, mot

Rigit S bad vast ods sold meet oor voonsbive ed erent |
bas tusmtalo ot borevi (eh eew doose to ovaoltteiee onde ‘tat sont ‘et
Soxevileb eda itinw emit tad? most ona ‘to. nokaavasog Blew ote. a
+ntus od of dined oft o9 qu 8

to .mheove sy off said tend ett tant adeatee xotupexe oft 5
eid al exoteteds bas taveeos @' SlancboaN oa wt boost oTe# eta ode
BMG HTS VO as vaum dotdy qiferosmwe to aotiqavaoag t eetsero ace peae
wv Ne este of .betaovth od Litw oldie stop’ saul ost exotet
! dunseed) ;888 . {iT ere kettod “¥ xexiee ive iit ov ou ae
~tmiat od? dudd syne oft .80880 tsdtc bas 1008 “aaa “itt aL igs
abeooory est antttecqes st Tritnisig to ter ats Pee used oe et oon
al ined oat ai tavooes a SLanchosii oti at sioots ode t0 elae ‘pt

F ‘ eo ontd mk
on asta ot begneled $8 tots bre Yenom ode os botattce aon od todd

oo a
tod tu +¥ Madegth 208 .qqa .LiT evs ators v

ai betete as wel edt tadt bastexoiow ton ob ov ad au ard we

x Pais we
‘totuvexe ed¢ to dacmmte alet » tant o.£0 we hometteoup at aeeae ‘oxo

fadt at doldw tive atinamtale Ye yxooMt ont 2o Dasyouth « “i

Re Ra Fee
to tmmsetoon see . - Sout 200~Le sup bd noqu xereo07 os gta r) batt he
~hesup" :ekee at zt wredy st «G a 08 vy for vaseorsao0 preys

4s % Bt) MORES ‘ Pi tl
-seint tueusq¢a eff a0 ontunt toa ots steele earad arts

tion of the parties to undertake the performances in question, ner

are they promises. They ere obligations ercated by law for reazcons

ef justice.” Upon that theory oleiment cites Seterson v. Smith, ®11
Ill. App. 451; Laflin v. Home, 112 Ili. 25%; Nirst Net'l. Bank v.
Gatton, 172 Til. 625. She also points out, citing Jromwell v. Brom-
well ‘state, 139 Ill. 484; Peabody Cosi co. v¥. Industrial Com. 289 fil.
$35, that the presumptions upon whieh defendant relies are only preeum-
ptions of fact, which in the last analysis were for the jury te ¢onsider
in connection with all the evidenee and not presumptions of law to be
determined by the court. “e think this coustruction is gorrest. Con-
sidered as a rule of evidence the feet that the proseedsa of the sale of
Claimant's stook was placed in the benk agcount of decedent would prime
facie indieate the proceeds beionged to him, but the presumption wae
only prima facie. It was not an abaclute presumption. Tt wes a rule
ef evidence--a matter to be considered by the jury in the light of all
the other faetsa which appeared in evidence.

%e think, toe, the offered testimony of witnesses az to
statements made by claimant in revard te her ownership at the time the
stoek wae cold and at the time the stuek wae still in her peszession
was erroneously excluded, and that this ovidenes should have been ad~
mitted.

Pefendent also argues that since the claim was for « fixed
asount of money, it did not sall for the sxereise of equitable rules
by the Probate saurt and thet the ¢laimant ess therefore obliged te
prove a precise gum due. Nowhere, ssys deferiant, is there any proof
meade of any specific amount that claimant ever tured over to the de~
eedent. There is not, he says, a word of evidence to shor how such
money claimant ever lounéd Dr. Macdonsid, » nd the reeord is si lent
es to whether the lean waa tem or ten thousand dollars. Theres were
facts, he seya, which micht have been easily proved, and in this con-
nection he cites {chell v. Yeaver, 225 Ill. 159, where it wee heid

EMO! ig al
ton ,folieavy ah sepaamieTieg 6c sietuebay es aettusq aft te sett
aapaaes Sot «ef Yd heteoto santiagiicn osm yor? seceetmeryg yods eve.
Li? .A¢iad .¥ goetete: aetio taembale yioedd tedd nop *.o9ttust te
sv MiG Ltda Sarre BBR .L1T GAL ygrwit sv peieet 78) .qqa . Lf
wmg2g .¥ Liewsoxt puttte fue adaloq eela ait sO) sLk OL gegeeD
-LLT 88 . mod Letydewiet v¥ «9% _Sbodset y28a .LLT OGL . tetas thew
-weetq Yice vis aetloy tasinetes dokitw weeny snoliquvacicg © ft tds yoRe
tobksnee @ Yxul eft tok etew ateylone Yond ate at dodo ston% Te neoheg
ed OF Wal "to enoktqaseets ton ban eomodlvevott Lila sake aolivanmes at
-000 sfoortes a! xoifourtsqns eff antdt ev sucee ede yd Domtareteb
te wee oft te sheover: af¥ fad? foot ott cnveitve Yo efet 2 ae bexehbe
anteg bivew tnohoosh to tnveses aimed ond ak boonlg saw dsote etinashale
ane uctiqasott oct Sud gatt oF begnoled abedsong ont etnothal otoet
‘elut o dow 3T .moltadoweTy eieLouds ae tod wae aI’ stont auiee vine
{ia te vdekl ete af yust. ad? yd Devableme 9¢ ot tadtan aq-ennebite to
sopuehive af betaeqge deide aden? weate eas

‘98 @a agasensiv W Yromlinet feteTio af? ,oed aati? oW
of? ealt odd ta qidsvoars 1098 ef oxanet al teamtely q oben etnometage
weteseuvoy ted af LLlts euw doote off omte wid 3s bee blon cew dooge
-ba weed w¥ad Sivote seaehive ‘ald? jad? Sas ydodshoxe -scatecncordenn

= eon

Net ae

“fexit o tot sav akalo eft vecba tedd soup Gala: tom Sao'tet tvaty
-@eius aldatiage he esltetete eff dot Llaeotom bah 2. pes. ‘nome
od baglide etérexveds now Saentads odd tadd Sow duteo odedort. et
Toot Yak owed? wl ytastastos aye jovedwoRm veh mea: raninine ores
~ah 91% of Yo18 hoatyd cove taemlele tede feweom eltioogs yao
Hout tok wote Gd senoblve tesrow ws emieeeie ali pum |
retin at bmowe OMe bm! w bLamoboaRt xt borseL ove dnoutete yeRom
wtow om saint lob budmuad? net TO nee caw muod ent codtedwdd an
~soo eid mt bee deters Yhinae aeed ovat ennai masoemear =a
bdo ae ed erent (eOL .a0T- ae

Ye ee RR A

that the allowance of e elaim against an estate did not require the
exercise of ghancery povers ty the Frebate court and that the mis
upon review of eantroverted questions of fact is the same in such
eases ag in other actions et ia¥.

Here, sgain, this rule is not sontreverted. This cleim is
not for money icaned. As already said, the euit is based upon the
theory that as « matter of conscience clisimant iz entitied to recover
from the estate the auount of money which the decedent received fram
the sale of stook which telonsed to the claimant. “het sum ia defi-
nitely proved by the aziount reeeived from the sele of stock. The evi-e
dence is that one of these esrtificates broucht °S579.355 and the other
$3567.25. The certifieate of claimant broucht one or the other of
these amounta, and the difference is nat important.

The gontrolling question in the case isc #®ether the verdict
of the jury ie clearly and manifestiy sassinet the weight of the evi-
dence, ae defendant contends it is, Yhe decision of that question is
elese upon this record. In weichine the evidence we may not dierezard
the faet that two Judges, one in the Pretbete court and the other in the
Gireuit sourt, who sew and heeré the witnesses, have anproved the al=
lovanse of the @laini; thet a jury oy tweive mem wha sise eaw ma heard
the witnesses and those verticuier @uty it was to try the facts have
alwo decided these issues of fact in @laimant's fever. 8 sre not um-
minéful of the duty east upon courte to jesiously cuard the estates of
decedente from wnearranted cisims. In thie ease the trisl judge, ve
think, as airesdy stated, erred as agninst the gleiment in exeludi ne
ecompstent evidence offered sy tor whieh it is foir te vregume atronciy
tended to srove her ease. ‘¢ Sizht wish thet the reesrd di soles ed
more fully material facta as te the financial transsetione between
decedent and claimant. “e have not overlooked the testimony of Tanes
Kasdoneld, whieh is denied by claimant, but he, ae well as clelmnt,
is interested in the cease. Hr. amiiser too, seems to heave taken an

unusual interest in the matter which makes it 4iffiewlt to give full

eis wiiupen goa OLh states ne tenteae minds, 4 28. sanemlda ot 9m?

OL jm O08 fat ban davon piaden’ odd yd aseren YeveRed® 26 ealeupx
osm At sane att al ten% 29. Bachtoeurp: bettavaxiace te. eat 1. ategu
nin da sashes nade ot 9 soano

at, atals ala? _abetapransaen, tom, wt olus abte. etihoge comet bsp bu
i ‘e6d mow oand af 3tue edt biog yoawle 94 .domegs wuen xet ton
‘Keveo ox ot belthine at tanubado eougiognce to etiam a aia aad
_.. BR? bevieset Ineheoeh edt daidy yarom to daveme ats oted
_ritob ot mwa df? .fnomtate edd pt hopaeledg dette smote Re olaw wat
~tve Of? .deots, % alae off mort bevinges, jaune adi ye hevesq ylotta

Betta, ona his GS ET3C! Pipwone aeteoltdeier eaedt Ao ang anda at, nonep
_ % xodte off 20 eae tdaugd tnamtele to eiaeriigces odT «88, TaGRS
i stastuogat tea a eoaexetth ed? fae ,ataeome oxedt

AAI Aten A

soinuey one stedtope at oago ot wk apltaenp galilortace ad?
. pive edt, % ddglow ast fastepa, yiseatiann par plaaede of vunt od

ai seltseup tade Io molalesh ec? ,at 31 shantme suekneleh as ,oenel
Siageta th tox We ow sonpaive mit gutdglow al eRe, ands nog onolo

oft at xodte ad? dus f1900 asedoxt oMt ah 996, .eapbul, owt tadd Pond oft

-is oft Revougga oved .somneatiw ads prvsd one was ge gtvoo ¢iuosep
bused )@ was oale ot som avlewd 20 eael wo tad poet ast % evonwed

aved etost eid yi? of saw ti ytub usiveliceq eacdw has sonncatie, att :
“St Jum OIA GF . dove: e'danmtals ot toad ip aomwek onads bebtoeh oats —
to asiadeo ont Sravy YLavelsel ad abises sega tame youb ote Me. sisi

ev .dahwh Intud ai’ eaee atdd al .entole Setaetzamay meet ad
Ba tbusons ot dnealalia ate, dentene ae berse ,ketete theorts,
Vgaerss eavserg ed uiet af th dotdw aed ya boxed Ww, eanehtve

illaelad ie ae fotonans3. att. yey ee, peti at *
owl, 10, yaeuttned ole Aedposzave, son eves of. oft
_sfa satiate as Siew (88 ot fed .i marke,
SP APRS, OF 08.08 ENON. «OE. TOMER . bs assy
Livt evty of tLuelttie th acden olde ‘xottuw edt at teorotat oF

erederce to everything sald by bin, Taere is mthing te indiente
that claiman$ was indetted to Dr, Sacdoneid at the time ef his
decease, The evitence ali points in the otner direction. The
written evidence including the affidavit prepared by bim all tend
to show that Mier Valker was the owier of thes# 26 sharea of steck,
ana if ashe was, equity and good senseclenes dacand taat the eetate
whieh reeelved the preceeda from the gale ef her stock should ree
turn to Ker the amount received.

The Judgment te affirmed,

APFIRRED,

ReSurely, 7., sonenra.

O'Conner, J., spesialiy eoneurring:

i agree with the result but aot with ali that ie aaid
in the opinion.

ee. IN (4 eae ay

sgnotbad os “aubston at oxeat ts wa bee pats exons. at sonobe
ald te oaks ena $a bLenoboak 3 ot _baddebas A dal erentetn to
oat tod teonth sodteo edt al stale fis Msn a wh oa

ale hate

\soote 7 r0 aornsta as oanss <. sours ose eew aoe v pada 3 das ie
otetoe asid aasis haeaeb pone Lonaes hoag ban Ae. aa oa ad

Bs WN D aE i Nore ue

5 vA

eg! SN OH ee ee al
+ vigoas | desamn et, 904, 4,

CARR ITBA gai ake Y 3 i hata is
4 nvated Cia: See PYG Se mAs es TIE: Ma: See MR VBE is nt RT ae HE A say! yi ee * ¥ He “*
‘. % B ats SR, eS, teal
hs ltd \
i aS) ie \ bhi el 38) ah dis
a S se pe Tee, fae, ae ae eee Lee, aa

bie as sas iis spin, goa gut pony one ashe a Koi ae iy :

$7231
JOCEPH TARWLA, }
Appellee, }
|} APPEAL FRG SUPESICN Cover,
Ve
COOK COUnTY
VILLAGE OF RICHIOM PARK,
Appellants ;

Wi tag TA. ¢ 649’

Thies is an appeal by defendent village from a juégment
fex #309 entered upon the finding of the court im an action on
the cases
The declierstion alleged that on lecember 2, L¥S0, and
prior thereio, defendant follec to keep a highway within ite
goxporaie liailie in a reazensbly aefe comGition, in that it pere
mitted Geep, durgecxous oad open ditches Se be anc remain outaide
of the slab, sueulders asé irainage ditches ef tne highway, rendering
it weotes thet om that cate while piaintiil wae ridimg in an automobile
as @® gueet ef one Uhowas “leménha, anc «whiie he was in the exereinse of
oréinsry eare fer Hie on suitiy, the auscomebile ae a result of the
Begligence ccacribes wau previpitaisd inte the dite, injuring pleine
iff exteraally acd imterymally, causing great party Sheen ard taat
Plisimiiff cauly served aeiive ef tne sime and piace oF the injurys
etaes pen the Village of Mighteu Serk ac requived by the stetwige
Phe willange filed a ples of not gulity amd a further ples
that 44 did not own, oentsci oz poanene wae PYeMiees im qusation.
Defendant contends bast che caty te uniniain tae street
in queetion in safe condition 4: the time and place wag noi upon
the village, becouse the highway wax then within the exdlusive jurise

4
: ‘i _ AMES mein
+g PBIO9 AGTSETES Mote SABtd i peas
. ok a. yy Bs) ae me ao |
‘
Le bo Ook, tah an wpe

Pray ROL EUS
eT MOD TY a RG rete et er aeerieit

dreaghut, « awk epattie imshaeteh YE Lneqge ms sk eat

he soften an ah tio edd Yo yathott esis: shgwy barcode. OUCH 8R

sano oad

bus .OSCL oh xedmonwl wo dase bogeiia woddsraiowd ont :

| agt uisiste weurigid © good oF betlot anabawtes gavonnile ‘akg

waoq a2 ‘ase sh giles bers ‘whan yddottease’ a ak ahs eceoagn awd |
ebiadwe miauox bar od of nesiost® moge bun emoxsymnl «que bode
wuirobses gysududd aate to emsineds eyanint> fas eupbiaaie _Cake adt Bo
Skkdoaaius ca ak guibix kaw tigdnlalg elke etan dare mo Joule pe heat a
te satorexs et ah acy od vildw mma ,anommde semodt ome te tong a 6 oa

ede vo tiveot a as ehidemadaa Gals stietuu ano igh 20% one biti ‘,

entaiq guixuiet qiedis odd esol badadigioesg saw sodtuosa® : |

Gasid baa ac9d0 giing taazy yaieios vdaeiedad tea vftaa : e
aXoeubad eal te soatg bas omks aid ke “gi game povros View vatsatady

“ seamdada ada yu bouinyyt rvs) Bitat wodsig td to wgalLly oes nog ated

soe Ee, weld wi » bas YyLiny don ‘to wedg @ doth spotty aft 7

«Hod tawny mi woe Lane, oat seen og *2 Lowtane fire ton ib ba sect se

feoxta one minémsae of ih oils danke aiarwésre drinbaee bod es ,

negu tom es oowde brs oad s sale oe aud SBOS oten nu mole 8 i A wih '

cotuch, evlaufons dt aivhw modd wnw omiutd ed oaueued 961 teky odd

diction of the State of Iliinein, because @lainvif? did not prove
that he was im the exereiee of due care for his own safety, because
he was guilty ef contributory negligence and because the proof of
damages ig too indefinite to sustain the werdiet.

There ts little conflict in the evidence upon material
points. Uefendant village is located im the south part of Cook
county and was incorporated under the Cities and Villages acte ‘The
accident in which pleintiff was injured cceurred on leceuber 2y LGBG,
at the intersection ef Crewferd avenue anc Sauk fraile within the
corporate limits of the village at about seven Be Me 8 Crawford
avenue ig a public highway extending through and beyond the village
ins north and south direction. “auk Trail is also a publie highway
extending east and weet throuch the vi Liages Crawiord avenue had
been selected by the state department of rasds and bridges to becone
a part of the proposed right of way for state route Ree 49, known
ae the governor's highway (see “mithe-Hurd's I11. Reve Statwes 1933,
Ghape 121, pe 2536.) The route vhen completed was to run fren
Chicago to Monee and te pointe south through Richton Park. At
Ronee, atate route Nos 50 branched of f from route 49. At this time
route Noe 50 had been completed fram Bones north into Chicage and
extended through Oak Ferest and Oaklawn porallel with route Bo, ap
and about a mile distant from ite Pavement on reute Boe 49 bad
been leid in Crawford avenue ae for north as Sauk Tradl but had not
been laid on the north side of that trail. on the north adde of
Semk Tradl, at the end of the pavements wae an open ditch. It cowkd
not be seen at night by parties traveling north by automebiie sa
route Hoe 49 until they enme te the ond of the pavements the
Sestimeny for defendant tended to show that the aiteh io question
Was made by the state; thet for plaintiff, that 4t was made py the
village for use as a drain from east te the wesie The ditch wag

ake

wrong fon bib Vidimbely saison’: qatomtitt te oted? olf to mottoke
severed «yietes awe eld tol otAD” oe te eulovexs od? mt caw tal dant
te koong aff samoed bas sonsaiger Yrodmiixiees te “iting sew of
stokbvev etd miatane 09 egintiesat cod al sagaamb

I[shietesm sega eonmeblve aot at sotttawe efit at data
ond to sxnq dtaron ost wt hegaved af opatity tenssetes .aéatog
edt soo eopalliY inte geisro efe webew pagevogisom? anv Sis YaNeo
eOS2L gh sedamoed to bottupeS poutnl aaw Teieakads sto bite al gnobiers
a ahdbtw gttert shat bits somone brotwaud Ye molgewuseéns ond to
bio Lex ost o@ mevou 2 Inada sa epatitv oft Xe ptlatl efexoqree
SS brcyed baw stqwentt nents
bidig vats ak ftoxt aus © \wokteexth Aiden bas séson 2 md
ned ‘nuinova beoteaxd segattiv bad Mpvondi souw baa te08 att ooo
ampood of eeghtrd ban abdsaz to dtrem7taqed etoda ext qe deaddioa aood
- pewoent 9B wok eduor séada sor yaw lo dstghx Soaequay ode to sxsg @
ebe0L qonsade sve ott a! buns tn gon) youdatd ‘a*homxeven oft Gn
| woret mart of naw nedoignos nodw séwon edit (eae8S oq ofS oqaslo
| oh but ap ato 2 Agworsi? 1 domoe edutoq of bas cond 02 OBAdLHO
ont alas aA ote otuox aoxt Tho pestonatd O8 sot ‘odeos etste ‘spomolt
bata opnota® vant Aaven sesT0ll uovt bedeigues wood bat o8 v0 bao
“@d eo edmot Astw [ellarsg awatind ban dnotot dot sysrowls bOGmDaXO
past @b voll edu0t Bo snomevel “gat mort iniinns eth’ Wala
son bast gut Eker? detad on déton tat sa oomerR psorwerd wh ‘phat wotd
20 odie aaron? nO ohkexd tadt ‘Yo bbe Maxon end a0 ‘bat mood.
bLnoo at oso meqo sa wane Pe So fw odd tn eho asst
1% ekidomosus ‘ae séson gmbtowent eokoung detgt at ‘tae wooe bé gon
‘ost? smoreat 30 to ot ob went lib» ook ote
poktaouy 62 dosh eile dad woe of sobued taabmeted 26% gmat iee?
ott Y ebam one os sack: ‘eMentnte, wet Soild ietate ‘sas salt
naw dorks oft sao nal o honed ont iba oyatl

ba baal ow sot °
OR ah ye te tA sald Gy i eqn a o ae

ng
'

ote

abent three or four feet wide «t the betieom and about five or six
feet wide on the top, and ite averes@e depth wae four or five feet.
It van east aon the north side ef Sauk Trail a then turned toward
the north along the west side ef route Mos 4%.

The evidenee for pleintiff ta to the effect that there
wag only one warning sign om Crewford avenue within the Village.
Thie waa a detour sign placed fifty or sixty feet couth of Sauk
frail. Lefendant'a chief of police testified shat there wos oa
warming sign 560 feet south of Sauk Trail which wae marked
“Pavement endge® However, it is cenceded that there was no light
nesr this sien, and that it could wot be read 2t nicht. The open
dithh could not ve seen by a driver from the south on Grawford
avenas until he came to the end of the parement. These wae @
emall smudce Licht at the aide of the roxé known to recdmen ae @
"cannon ball light." This was om the went eide of route Mas 4%.
ang at the ond of the pavement there wee another similar Light om
the eset side which was, however, in fact net lighted a: the time
ef the secident. There was @ barricade on reute Nee 49 about ten
or twenty feet north of the end of the pavement. This was apparently
@ dangerous intersection, for in lees than six months from 2G to 31)
ewlomebiles bad tc be pulied out of this particular ditche ‘the
evicenee shows the chief of police reported the situation to the
willage beare but nothing wag done to better it. The state took
care of the lights, signe ont barricades, which were cowa much ef
the time.

Plaintiff's testimony ie to the effect that he wae riding
ae a guest with a Mr. Simons from Saxton, Illinois, to Uhicage.
The autemobi2e wes a Siudebaker. Flainiiff ant om the front seat
om the right side. Gimmons wis ¢riving. It was sbout seven o'clock
and getting dark. The headlights vere one The speed of the suto-

mobile (plaintiff says) wae sbout 35 miles on hour. Defendant's

wha xo ovlt sods bom mooted ods a0 obhe soe tw8t “o owt? reads
fost evtt to capt aaw diqeh epatows abt bas wqot ai! ao ehiw font
tamed Dott aodé due Liewt deat te she owen wll we team son OF
gt aot etme te obhe Coow ed? geeks’ Pen med
gradt dak? Sootte ede of wt Trbdakale cot wonohire otf
oBeLLee ode oisidiw quiere teretwrs? po mie vatterrew ome cleo wer
tus® Yo dives took quate re yttht bevmky mete si 700 ened whet
a now oxertd dat? bebitheeet solfeg te totite eldaeboeted « Thert
bolas: acw dodde LlexT aun te seen deat one wept igittiines
gig hh om aaw ovals dade beboonee of 1% erovewst «© “awhow seemioget”
nego, oft trinks te baon of Dom Aiwow oh secte bees gehe’ abe ed ‘ceo’
pee ten® ao Manon: oft work coviee a yd weed o@ tol hives weld Fo
dt ene-gxontt oduomovng oi? Ro bow ead OF Stee om LRdow entrown
gam membaet Of: tromk aot oT ocobRe Sete da Setpes epbime Linda
gto n0T, etuor Too whie tetw wt) wo" eer ater 0eebt Pied wontne*
pe deight uatioue vesttese wan wees Pe ee
omid. osld ge bodtight tom dowt nd « revered wean sus vite Fane wee
ot guode Ge ool sauor me Gbaoduted @ exw exer?” sfivebhose oat te
Ustnexrsqas oow elST 4» tomryng od Ye bu one to dined sook Gnowd to
08 4 Bs, amet welterom ake nade test m2 soo guotsovenodal aorta
ont edocih ssdugigseg alae te due bolting od ot had weltde 4
otis of mobtaudhe cae bedcoqet woileg We Bohso- or ion
Hood sada elt #2 tadted os eaah aew prhiret tot eins gant
re done awoh enow stp doly men iene wer —_ Lathadetratl
ant am oth, dnd) gpotta oat OF ah “onan tags wren” 1 6 Boe
) senngh@ af, OhOMhLE gttedxe% mmox't osrocsate vet te nee 48
$ave suost od¢ so goa TEEIOEALE — stedadobeey ‘a tow xs Y é wat |
“Hoote's, meres twode say at) Suivi 200 wreaks © hae tt i a8
oom oct RO, Somge eT ott oxey etstghihostt oat ‘oats aarti) j tone *
at tnabeeted + csed me eo kta ad dxode aew (ewe ‘yubomtetg) oxhsc

evidente is te the effect that if wae colug meerly twhee that
faete. this wae on iseue of fact for the trial court. Flsintiff
hed sever beer ever thic route bovere. Ee copys he ouw the dct cur
gign and warmed the driver om ther, wher it wee toe late te evedd
the necicent, cow the eileen. Tet oa they went Oote ity the car
tipped ever on the nersh end an’ then Curned overs

Plein iffts bees onc kmee were cut, an’ Kis face erm neek
wore bruteed . He hod « Yam imee, he aeya, for six monthe ont wae
auoy from hia work for six weeke on acount of if. He hire? & mam
fer that Aencth of time tg help Ria wife vum the ves jaurawt business
ie shieh he ws enpaged and palit for thie a <crice 330 a weok. Pag
déetor’s bill, he ange, wee $49. bho fincdnge of the catrt wan for
dutangen te Ghee wot of 7300. |

tm viaw ef ahi the fecha «ee wove related we thick ¢
quegtians of whetaer pleintiff wae cuilty ef coniriiutery nega igenes
and whether he extebliched the feet a*firastively that he wag in
the exercise ef due eore were Tar the court Tf there bed ben @
jury, the cucwtien weuld have been for the jury, emt the Pinoding ef
the eouri t« ertitie’ ta th: seme eefgkhi Reve ac the verdiet ef a4
gery would reesive. Defendant alters HePermo.t ve Rokeown Teuugs Coe,
265 Tile (Bis 326, where it woo held that the pleimii?t whe wee
viding with another sheul¢d bere secrlcived t+ the driver of Bie
mogligence in Griving ice fact and cewhe mot recover ualoer che
@ould shox @oare im that regard. The evideece here shown that
praintizf enlied te the attention of the 4river the fret that
thay were approaching = detour. Me could met see the diteh antil
they vere in it, and he was not gblige? im the exereice of ue ena
te advise the driver of sewethine obich neither of them cewhd act.

Petendamh relies very wuch won tte contention tht the

highway in question wae im the exclusive jurisdiction of the State

_ dots spt cieeon gateg sew th dude JooRae eds oF at aundatys

iagk. «tsnoo Jelyd od? cototewt to evewt ae vier watt!” J Witt
seek adhaennk won tie <eneted odvior Whe g9ve “dead twee fas
Stove of aval cod eaw 0S starter qmort? bee covieb walt Boece “Gh ages
$a oft g22 pdad ter weld oc Par a etal ty ome wa Yrodtees att
po ete Benue gett tee Gaederon Hie Re a
daatisine setath ten earn ae annie sid
sow. ios eddnom xin ~0), soya ont (tome me Whol ORO. bam tent wthw
non a hexkh oh .df Ye dmweos mecettow xtn cit ovo BHM moet Qadh
wsvataad drew cued uld mon otha wis qhad oF mks te ehgiee Paety Ho%
ORE. «egy o.O80-e0kr tee in tet eet Abn tote tein even’ det dtd Site a
| get paw.duues ad? fe arbastt o@f os RObca we dateen ert Erbe a adtens
ee ao ee ee (yOORS 34 sirens, Gah et _ cone
odd. tecteld ow bodadow vvat wo advo ons Thy al hits Lana
e2amgiigan Yaoiveismee Yo yetiuy wat WU tabeta troxttes My
ak env od dads yLavbtoettYts foot of Wate tttdne” nba’? ‘nee
a aed bad enode XE: stemtocnts ont eter exe onthe 6ebtwiiel git”
be gabhak oxfd iw ayeuh odd veTORADE vad BOW nobeetes “ad? tiwt
pee dalbsev-adt an @rmtnig tow amen ote 62 Soft? tin ‘a baie oe

i 78 ee i ie | Bis a

pita weokaw revecet ton Sins bas faa odd Gubviie son
gaete aeocte overt eonssiee oer eemyiel = tt aS ae maa

eb a eo ,

RY he ee Pen sl Rises
oii eae ee ;
me a

oteitt ‘id! to to nentotbebat ov aides Ga tae

» ay “3 SY Gawain sae ny Pir: iy fe

of Illimeis and it was therefore without ony duty in keeping 1s

in repair, and 14 cites in this comneecticn (mitheHurd’s Llle Neve
fitatees [9519 cChape 121, eeegs 3500 and 306. Seetion S00¢ denounees
any person whe wilfully cute, «xeavetes or otherwise damages any
impreved state highway whieh ia under the control of the department
of puvblie works and buildings, or for the maintenanee of whieh the
state is responsible. ‘ection 304 previdee that the department of
public works and buildings “after taking over reada er atrvets shall
ereet ond maintain standard guide and warning signe ond cistenee
benrds of wiiferm ¢esign.* From thease provisions of the statute
éefendant draws the inferenee, to use ite cwm wordm, "thet there
wag ne dut. upon the village in thie rewpact.” The duty of mine
teining highwuye is apecifiesily impesed wpom the local suthertites
by section 12 of the Citiss aud Viliages set. (‘mithe-lrd's Til.
Reve Statwes 1933, chaps Lal, secs 277+)

Seetion12 of the decond State Sond ieene act ef 1023
(SmithdHurd's Ille Hews Stataes 1955, chaps Lol, seGe 281) imposed
a similar duty upen the local autherities in the case ef an in-
completed highway. ection ? of the oyatom of ctate Bighwaya act
of 192% (“mith-Hurd's [lle Reve Statae, 19355 chaps 12h» wece 297)
provides im substance that mo rond ie yagardec ae taken over by the
state until notice im writing is filed «ith the village poesicent.
It hee also becn held im wumercus eases, in substances, that the
statutory duty imposed on villages to keep the strects rensonably
safe wag not remevee nor their jurisdiction in thet regard Leasened
by the hard roade statutes. Village of Slencoe vs Burford, 317
tlie 2039 Village of Northbrock vs Sterba, 516 ilie 3609 MeKean ve
Gounty of Carroll, 324 111. 2437 Villoge of Mariggs v- Jenegs 327

oma

Tile 180.
the evidenss for plaintiff is to the effect that the diteh

¥ :

Jd gnigewl as Gawd we duosstw emotes enw #2 bee gtembsst Yo
Sel of41 of badiinta tes moisopanee mide at aptio g4 toa gsiagen at
aconmmenth s00% meifesk 806 hae 98O€ sapen gf kl synco gfORL geatad®
Yne aegeush eelwredéo se eeduveowe andwe yilviiiv ole meet Yc
tondreqes eld Ye Loxtmps of? whew et delde qowigid fate hovongut
eid dotde Yo epmanetutan oft wah xe ysgecalind bape ecteew obideg to
% taastteqos ef’ daddy asdirow 8 moliget «eidiaeneques a2 odate
Sista atestés co wheot teve sttidad <o9dte" epabbtied ban atiow obideg
26% eoutage add To eoeltoirexy ened! sont ".mytess aeeltiow bo ebtacd
ounds ¢eds* gobtew awn ett ses of ,2oneuvint oft ewesh dawbera too

) miaptes te YWab ef2 *.dutqeo" eid? at egaliiy od? gogu \iwh on eer
eetilsodtiwa Lacol edt? moqu bosoqut yfieottioogs af ayerityld gatabed
whit gthemiediies) «dea wegaiill boa aeidt? odf Yo SL aeliosa WwW

, (6TVE 408 GAEL s@ado qGkOd aondads over

8@L 26 do euegh Sag sind: Sugoi alt Be SL metiged

. boseqms (L068 «oem giSd egado 71602 gaptatd aved ancien
ent ae %o oesg oaf ak aoltivesivus Lsvek ocd mnogu Qiu sekaabe «

toa @yardighh aged: to mday? att te f weksont —eigousighd bededgate
% ATER 268 2SGL ogee 468SL geadade evel «Lil et hratiqalt de) S8RE to
otd YS seve seled eo» dekunget eh baer of duce e9matadoR ab wedtvow |
sdmebieesg eyaliiy ad? dete best of gatétew at oobton Lhvaw otada
gilt Joe? goonsdadua at genes evotoma nt bled mesd gale aad st
vsdaswaacx adoatts alt geet od segetiiv Ho dousqml Yiub Yoedmtnte |
bonegast Stages dads at moliotbaduw) sheds som bovemst Jon saw shee
FES ahta PTW ov goomElG Yo oRALLEY «nededate ehaws weed ost yt

TAY RRMMOH 00% oT AEE gadtewhs ov RootdtsxoM Re wpeLLAY $808 itch

a Ee eee TODS ofl AGE g flowers? Yo re gad
Oe 9A

Minh us sat. dayne ot ot ak Red¢abaly aa ptm ee aie

ote

Was made by the village, but «“hether it wae or mot, the uncontrae
dicted evicenes shows that ite dangerous eomdition hed been known

to the village for such time <o vould constitute constructive setics
and imponed the duty of removing the denger. Yillege of Marseliles
Ve Howland, 124 111. 547; City of Phere v. Saneys 18¢ Thl. 454
Village of Palestine Ws Siler, 225 “ils 6307 Lawrenes v. Villiage of
Shanmahers 157 TLL. App. 5605 Talley v. 2s Co Go & She lie Re Ro Ces
231 Tlie Appe S133 44 Sows Jur. 039.

Sefendent sleo eontence with some plausibility thet che
proof of dowages stistained as a result ef the injury is incefinite,
There ity hewevers no confiiet in the evidence in this respeet, and
® fair inference from 16 is thet plsinsiff was unable to work fer
mix weeke} that he was obliged te pay out $82 for doctor's villa
and $130 fer someone to do his own work while he wae disabled, %e¢
think the court hed the right te assume hat injuries such az
Plaintiif received, slineugh he did not expresely BAY 80, would
result in diecemfort and painmy for which he ~owld be entitled te
som@ allowance. The amount of the damagea is net large, and
prebably upon sacther trial, still larger éomages would be awarded,
¥@ think avbetontial juctiece nes been dome ond fer that reacen the

jmignent is aff irmed,.
ABST RB a oe

MeSurely and O'Conner, djs, eoneure

} watever sha een “0 gaw ak sass oeke aud evgaitte aay re ‘whew sow
: sateen need hed wold iomos suo roges n$t gacté ewbite semwtivs boPRID

worsen ov sous em90 eiuttteanve bLwew en oak? foarn <0" opt tty ‘wale ‘ot
aeittonsei. he_wnslLty “yregmed etd guchvou+ co Yiws off Soewqell maw

| 1ab Lit BOL gona ov aunkt Yo WRG yThe TET bat gereteat Pg

Re apelLUly +v ¥ geno qoee ott eee Qetie sv batveotet te meeneEy
| ant sf oh i ot 288 doo et + woes goat -qqe VEEN POL yorpetnrtpate
SO ale et tat hb EL age eee Bee

ots dats qiditdinuate ‘cuca Médw ababthoo ‘onta niebawtet OO"
vetistrebad al euibat ‘esd Yo Efieot 2 ve nombstewe ‘Moyased “Yo Roony
ete stooges etdd al somodive od? ai soltides va gtevewsd gah ovad?
| ‘wot drow 63 of@nay var Vthintatg said @2 6 woth GomerdtAl theta
akthe e'xeseod «ot 98% duo we ‘ot ‘boghide gow ‘eel Sante spanmadiad

ee bodankh aes of olitw dtow wwe eid ob 07 seoomen tot S8L$ bas

aa sows aeiamtsdt tart’ ae ee

hiwow <n era Ueaorgxe tem b26 of Sovedite yvoyheoot Titvatalg

3 on ‘betsdsne od know off dotdw xoY githeg bios dxotmooehb wh diaeos
‘bas soured don af weigemab Sis ‘ho Phare ett ‘ obtnmetite enon

doin od bLsow eogomeh xogral Lokea 4 ind

wit Me59% ints xe? tne onob nwod wail bobvewt £

—_— — eg renemsS * iia
iS ¥ ‘ 7
Ree 9 gue fen) ay haw
MONG RS: Varun ears 7 pees 4 ae Sag 1s a ents wat
I Aa RRR NE RE SB oe KS
Ree PROT alle eh ANS | lla 4
hl ideal SEU aie RIS ae eget
¢ see
eek » Lt

;
HR RA IE a | ER SUA ht aa

2 a

2
E

a Re ES,

%
‘

State Pawners Ameociation, Lid., &
Limited Partnership,

BPRS . _
» Ws, %
lis

oad

ide NG EGLE

Appelice,._—-
INTERLOCUTORY
APPEAL sROE,
SUPERIGR COURT
OF COOK COURTY,

¥Se

TLLINGIS STATK PAWEARG ASGOCLATIGCN,
a Limited Partnership, and JOSEPH
B. RORSHUAR, et al.,

Ne eae ree

Def suidants.
Gn Appeal of BXARUEL &. ee @t She,
apaéliante. i TR ~ =
2 K 4 L.A. 60509'

wR, PRESIDING JUBTICR KATCHETT
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THS couRT,

Thie is sn appeal by Emanuel . Edeleon and certain other
Limited partners of the Lllineis State Pawners Association, Lt4.,
from an order entered pendente lite aneointing reeeivers for the
Asseciation upen the filing of a verified bill ef complaint ty
Beatrice Feldman. ‘The order was entered Fitheut soties unon the
day on which the bill was filed.

The merits of the issuce of fact ané of lnw involved in
this controversy are considered in an spinien this day filed in
cause No. 37413, in which Toreph b. Korabak, surviving general
partner, and others appealed frem the same order. The issues of
lew and of fuet are substantialiy similer, wid it is unnecessary
to repeat here the reasens stated in that epinion, en aegsount ef

which the order muat be reversed,
REVERSED,

O'Connor and BeSurely, J7., concur.

‘088 A. I b S iene nt

SLAVE

rouse ae —— ‘BOTATALA
6 teastet fe sheaki a howe
lt a bt ytedtabonoesa "gramel tiale
qhdere stra? bod tmtt

| FTKUOO mou9 XG { WLALOcess emmas staan weeds
‘ . me te vakderengaas bed ae
} ge de * gl

iarban'tac

a Be a ss Sie?

j ete 90 wobdmew 5a saint te Lasqea. 99

" PERMD TAM ROMLGUE GMLCERRME os 0) “> YOO
_ 2000 8H? Ye SOTAIGe BET CaMNViuee |

soutien ndastee hrm nosed Xk Lousemit yo tiwyda ae of oleh
obo, ,foltelponsd axgawal agase ebori 02 itr t0 etenttag bosimtt
sds tol expvisovr, gabtaleqw~ pois gion bese haretno ‘qehro ae ‘mort
“dS tutslqnog Io ithd kel tiner eto yak Lit off Heys aéttalooass
‘oe most outs on Seog in perades eaw wehte eat “5 tats Ln" ooltsaek
bay. ss easheepanpinrienetiot ct
ab beviovit ms 1 bes $002 to secap2 oo to ebiaer ext ” is
ab betit wh elie no tatge ae af bogedloaro exe eRxoventmes alde”
faxenss galvivive adoro t dgae at sedin ah, (S207 104 Sono
“¥o nausek ‘eat. xebue sta asd ikl beleeqqe srodea bane, pendtay
¢inaeeconay al ws hen ~eoktoke yilahiaatedse omy dow't Yo pas wad)
te éaucoon ao ,Helakee teat al Selata aneawat ots oted gaeqet oF
-boeteves of eum tohte off dedcw
SRBAVEA “spicy «cll seamed ite cr

YA ib 4, a Pa a

etuenee , 5% .Yletuiga haa tenaed! 0

S7ALS

BEATRICR PELDMAN, etc.,
Appellee,

VGe

eget ace Rete ne Nemgay Rn Nee winnie,
™.
Me

ORDER APPOT TRING GROETVERA

es!

ILLINGIS STATE PAPREERS asaceration,
a Limited Partnership, JOSEPH =,
EORSHAE et Gi.»

im Appeal of TLLIseLs STATE PASHEERS

ASSOCIATION, a Limited Partnership,
and JOSEPH E, KORGHAR,

Appellants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF coor
GOURTY.

274 1.A.650°

UR, PRESIDING JUSTICR BATCHETY
DELIVERED THE OPINIGL OF THY Count,

Thies is an appeal hy the Illinois State Pawners Asgociation,
a limited partnership, and Jeseph @. horehak, from an order antered
Bovember 27, 1933, appointing receivera for all the agsets and
property of the partuersaip. fhe orser "ae entered without notice
upon the verified bill of compicint ef Beatrice Feldman filed on
that date. The record discloses a motion by defendants to vacate
the order of Hovexber 27th and that the same was denied on Decen-
her 22, 1933. Defendants save agvigned and argued errers in that
regard, Mowever, the order of December 22nd was not avoealable,
and as a matter of fact uo apgeni haa been oF gould be taken fran
it. See Gmith-Hurats Ill. Rev. ®tate., ehap. 110, 266. i123, Tre
only question therefore before this court is whether the chaneel-
ley erred in entering the order ef Sevember 27th.

It appears free the bill that tae aggociation is a limited
partnership organised in 1919 under the Uniform Limited Partnership
act (see Suithellurd's [1]. Hey. Stats. 1935, ehap. 106), par. 7,
pp. 2123-27, Laws of 1917, B- 60¢.) ‘the articles of partnership
are attached te the bill of compisint. The purpese of the partner-
ship is stated to be te engage in iending money an taking real or
personal property as security therefor, ete. ‘the partnership, ins

faet, conducte a prosperous pawn-broking business at 140 Korth

Dearborn street in Chiecage. The tetal partnership contribution of

(
(Ns he : saste
: | a ee |
‘, ; " ‘ i ROALD rk ee ee CMe. As,

woltaIpoona CAIMMAG STATS
2 BISVOL , qideceadint bot da
oe hi saseio

VRVLUCOLHPTHY ORT JALTIA
ARAVITONG: OALPAIOTA AMTICO
Soop fo FAUOR KOI RZTUE

BARWIAT TIARE @IOULIAT “be Lovge
rahe teate hetiuhd a , 9PTALS
. ,AARDHON 3

sath Loegs

“0G9 AT SYS

PPSMUTAR BOTTA Balatemey HK
“TaUOD HEE YO VOFATIO SMT

, Molseloosad exsawet, eter’ ateoabifi edt ua feenes fem ah abst
betes iwhie as aot ,tedatod .& sqeeot hay. qbiasentiag bed hall #
bw agease oft iia io) srevieoot gabinteque ,f604 , 78 todaavel
eokiqn tcoWsle bevedae caw uphto etl .qiseteatiag oft te “iseqoud
reo HOLLY aautio% eclttaed to Seiaiowmee Be LLid beitivew edd aeqe
stanav of alusbue'toh yd aoliem s eseoioath buotes a8f .odab dt
~mo9C ao belash saw smse ot) test dee StS cmheved ‘te cette ae
ted? ai axoxts bovyte hoe herplesa evad etunhas tel .e8eL . 28 s0d

sett Mele? ef bivon <9 sped wad Lapcge on eet Yo th2eam @ ew hae

ont 684 .o0m OLD sqnde y.etatt v9 Lil at heels ah oot PR

igen om: tolsesv ef dume eisd soled etetetei¢ settuesp lew

«eve todmevell to tehte an? galretnw mt. bere tof
hetints a ef nolteleoues et tads Shas oe wort mteeude the oe

qidateatze4 hegieti miotiat edt tebay @1@i at besiapgte qidetsattaq
i?) meg .400L geste ,SECL .atase <VOH ASE oY breaHacht Laub wom) doa

3 nih a era i

eliletsatisg Yo vetoltis oft (. aan * Pres te awed (ta-bans td
~teating odd to svoqteq eff .taiaiquos be Litd e9 of betoedia ote
to feet gutiad ban youom galbaet at egagas of ed of hetate at qise
td ,akdexenttag ed? vote ,xotemdt yrixuese aa etreqong Lemouteq
Mirek ODL te evenluud gatiord-aweg aseteqaone a atowbago , teat

to nolsudixndnon qidetentteq fete? ent .ogentsdd at tootte arodiest pie:

the partuers ia mora than $600,005. The business Aas been sauce
eeentul and profitable, dispensing large dividends frem tine te
time to the partners, both general snd limited, It hes sutstanad.
ing loane ef mere than $800,006 amcly aeeured and, on the date the
bill wae Tiled, hed cash on Xund and in the bank emounting te
$78,000,

Ye to Oeteber 21, 1933, the Asevcintion seneieteéd ef
about forty limited partners and twe general parteers, nomely,
defendant Joseph B. Korahak and Harney Feldman. On that date
Barney Feldman died testate lesving Kia surviving bis wider,
YVeatrice, complainant, sud three sisor children, At the time of
hie death he held general partoerehip certificate ef the agers.
gate value ef $40,000, Hie wife Beatrice and the miner children
held certifiestes in sabstectinl ercunte, The totel centribut ions
ef Earney Peldwven and hie fwelly te the partuership saceunt te
$268,806, which is sowevhat leor then one~helf ef the tetal
capital.

fhe Lest will and testanent of Barney Feldman devised an
bequeathed all Als estate te cemelainant Sestrice and moaned her
ae exequtriz,

Sectien 20 ef the Uniform Partnershis aet prevides:

"The retireuent, deste or insanity of @ general partuer
Gispolves the gartnership, unless the business is continued by the
remaining general partners

{a) Under a right eo to ae stated in ine @erciileate, er

(we) ith tue comeent of 211 sembere.*

Hers, the articles specifically provide (nat death anall net aiae
solve the partnership. Article 8 of the partnership articles, in
Substance, provides tact a geversi partner may dievese of hie share
of the capital eltner by will or ty assignment in writing; that

sueh instrument shall be of centroliing effeet in the event ef the

~oie need eat eesatend ett (mG, 2Oae arett orem mt mente ow
at pels mort ehaehivis envad uitiansanth “shieitnes Aue pe a
ehaetedue sect $1 .hetiett bas Leweaey ated ,eeentsen wei ot quid
(get efah ad? ae .haw herwoss ysqmm 200, 0888 maid wxoa Te aneet gat
ot sattawenn Mnedoodt at ban hmet ne tans ‘batt. “bert ‘saw hth

te beta Lance aebiadgouad ont weet 8 eoroo ae ee
~elemen ,exoattog kevoaey ows bas oventueg hot hmar yovet tuota
otab tan) 00 ,mamb Let b viene fy che dediarod ras fooect taehantoh
,webhw abe gutvhvare mabet ‘pobvees eroresd: het sevah Lot ys ered
» Re omkt ont 2A saothiide tomie serdd hae ,fasatelouds ,eoistacd
ie +STQ38 247 Te oteathistes qiswreaiteg Levemey Ried wef déest abs
noTkidde soaks 942 haa eobvtase wtiw ai .000,088 24 onler etey
ateltudindnes (eros ast .adavens inttaududue mh setaateteres Mbox
er tememe qideieaducy 447 of yLiuat otf San avabiet xoartatt 20
fated sdf lo Diedeoae omits see ¢acwonne al ao btw 008 O0nt
bie doulvsh saehict yaar te fasuetees be Ldbw dead edt oo 2
aul | vn “oliaiiheaialeiiialll

| ceadeng berewwy ets al to deeb danse: ttow xd wate yh
ons ed bewal taco sana oud a, Pape Ghats 3: ead ¢
te yWasltisnes aad ab betade ob OF be Srigte & Toba: ts)

* exednem Se le tneease ene ae2F dap eer
<0 th den iia Ajesh tact ebtverq yliaed tiveqi eeteliue nt |, ered
“mh yewkotew qhdavenstag wit to © esndsia | saboerwnt ude sat orton

whuin oh To saoysth You seating Leweing 0 dwelt aehiver¢ ,somitedue

send ypaisiaw aL snomagione Wh xe LEbw yi wouishe ditions edt Ne

ath a nae ae sine GAA UE Ait |

Sed oe et ARERR | wl aath aaah tent

tushiverq soa qidatsattsl wxettal eat Hoot -aekteea’ i me

\
y
f

eee! eh fee a Bhim cand

a a

death, ineanity or imakility ef euch partner; that “the retirement,
death or ineanity of any general partner or limited partnere shall
net cause a disaolution, but the surviving general partser er part-
nere ghall have the right te continue the tusiness with all ef the
property of the Limited partnership, ererided, hevever, that in such
event, and within thirty (30) days after the happening of such
event, the interest of such general partner so besoming deecaged,
4isquelified or unable to act in the sifairs ef the limited partner~-
ship” may be put up for diepesition and sale and acquired by any
general or limited partner upon terme provided in a previous article;
that ether arrangesents may be wads with the consent of the Limited
pertnere represented by the atterseys in fact; that thse aselgnee or
legatee shall not besome a general partner unless the whole interest
has been assigned er bequeathed tc one pera: ant the gentral parte
ners renaining accept such person af & general garter with the ¢one
gent of the majority of the limited partners expreseed by the com
mittee of attormeye in fact.

A provision with reference to the manner in which the inter-
eet of limited sartners may be sold is contained im article 7. It
provides that any general or Llinited partner shall first have the
option te acquire the same at ite book value plus earnings.

The sele of « general partner's individusl interest ie pre-
vided for by article & apgerenily referreé to fin article 9. In sub-
stance, it provides that such interest may be sold but suet first be
effered to other general parteers at the book value or other price
mutually agreed upon aud if not taken in tes days the vender general
partner shall give thirty days written netice of his intention te
sell by posting a notiee and leaving a copy with the cther general
partners end thereupon the general partner shell be required te
aecept the kook value of the interest eo offered from any limited

partner and in default thereef may sell to any other persen

eet nae

,taeantiser ssit* baste premetag tieumg ‘te ws tLtdend te Winwent “tito
Siatle rtand cag bothuts 19 tondang Lesaney gaa te vl saast "0 séaok
«faq to Wattage taneney gabe iveae add Sedil sods ubowes e sate een
ef? to Ife ddkw- apsalaus eds sonisees of dig nat oven este aye
douse at tars , Taveras beblvene Clterensteg hevimbs oad ‘ta wagers
dose to yalnecesd eft 1ed%e ayeb (08) Dilated absig iw Baw .taeve
ebesascoeh galaoosd oa q9ndtag herons sto wa tw suotesai asta bhandhded
wont tag betiaif£ edt ‘te axlatte ans ad tea og eidany hong be dttLaupets
The YI borlupos bas ofLee hus aot dts ogats a0 w sue od A oad “qide

ey Ba

idfeséce ‘suoivetq # at bobivorg ames Bogs seas tag begtats exoney
betimts aid to tasamo asd tig te obum od wont dasas gant wate teat

wilt

te senglans oda tas i400 ab eysanerss out Xd bos.senonger wrote

teetotat efedw oud eee Lous roa 18g farensy « sa00% 5 +004 taste seaegot
edtaq Leteasy ont Bitte noa19q amo of boxtueuped xo boutons ond aad
“890 edt ag by tent teq lorene g a aa nosT9g dows 490008 aataincer area

-se sit yd hosaetoxs ex190t t6¢ hodink£ ests to et itobem ans te “tage

a Kot Bay

boat al stort et ta to sertin
— oat doldw at rennesg et of sour tater athe molelvore A

wag ot
ae},

$i .V efotéza at bentadnoo af Afoe od yan ‘exendis¢ bedtats * tae

ee Ne

edt vad $ox1? Llaste toastoq bediats ve Laccoeey Yuta taut oohivwey

; .
-egatotas sulq eulev Mood ‘eat ‘ta ome ons omhupea at aoltqo

-ouq al seourtak tauhivinad 8 'meatuag forenmy * te stow ome ehaupit hs

nN pone a ee

“due al .@ efolits al os bevie tes \isaotacas 6 vtoitae w xo poe

od soxit dain tud bLoe od yan taeda sto wa taut conven a eensse
toltq nasito Qe eulev dood ods ta atoning fexoney edt -e bote Tre

Ee EF RMR

Late ney tobney ost ays aed at aexet toa ua as soqK boerys yh Seud oem

at wottnesat ‘elit te eolten sere tow ayeh “eaehas oviy fr plete en) .
fete neg Tose esi ag dw yaoo a “gaivasl be a ng Jo “gataoed ‘oe oe
o¢ bettupet od fede toadiaq katenog odd sequen: Ag
betintt yar mot? berette o8 teors¢a) ef) to oulay doo

nooreq tnido yas of Lion yom tooted? dusted af base tones

a HF rae,

ee ea ‘ ‘Rieti ME

nen gas SNE

acceptable to a maferity ef the general partners, The srticle exe
presely provides:

“No gertifieate of membership ehall be issued at any tine,
mor ghall any person be admitted as 2 geval ex limited partner
Witbeut the censent of the geereal managing partners, or the sure
vivéer thereof in the event of death or disability."

eae bili sete up the erganixation of the partnerghip, the
provisions of the statute in cage of ine death of a general partner,
the right ef a limited pariner to have tie parineranip beoks kept
at the place of business ani ta inssest the same; that the Limited
partnereaip is operating under last esriificate dated July 1, 1987;
that thie certificate provides that contributions io the eapitel of
the lisited partuerehip shell set exceed a miiiden dullars; that ne
salary shall be paid to a general partner uwhiess uctusliy ompleyed
im the conduct eof the business; that « general partner hae the right
te dispose of his eentribution by will; that the suecesvera shall
have the right te participate in eonducting the tusinegs to the same
effeet ae the deesased general partner, orovided the general gartner
remaining accepts such gerson; thai any pergou degiring to become a
limited er general partner ghal2 execute, 2&8 a gendition oreeedent
therete, a joint and several warrant of attorney, nominating a come
mittee of two persone and their sugeeasors ae irreveeable attorneys
in fast of sueh person; that these atterieys in faet shall be gee
lected by the general partimers from acong the general er limited
partwers, aa that these attorieys shail have fuil pever to perform
all lawfui acte in veialf ef the limited partners; that Barney Feld.
man and Toseoh R, Korekek were sonatituted g@thersi partners and ape
peinted the committer of sttomeys in faet and eo continued until
_ the death of Barney Feldean,

The bili ales neta up the intereet of complainant and her
miner ehildren; avers that the partnership Ras heretofore been a
thriving and profitable one, ond states the aaah te be $75,000, the

inventery value of merchandise is $160,000, and outetanding personal

&
“ne @lelitn salt StS aitE8g —» ont te WW trob m a wntinsinnn
: sun inet vor visioiey
poy us tu henenh at diane gidiedenn ‘ko aganitiszas ot® ©”
: ing oat x0. Seca eae a eer ee
*soeliidealts 2 adeeb ‘lo toeve ach ab
eit ,@ideweatiag eis to wetigninngte edd qu agen Lfid ant...
,toaiiog Letensy # “ie ddesh edd to gaegQ ah otstets edt lo asoialverq
9qed atGod qlieteutiag ei) oved of toatteq botiniL« ta saga odd
Bebtahs of} ded ;eaee OAS Soogead oF hae, saemiend te eneig ode de
iVWBOL (Lf Elvi detab esas iisiss goal rehew galseusgs ot qiketeuiase
to Laskqen ont of anoldudinives tat eebtvesy otwedhigtee madd. tant
OM tant jataliob woliitm # beeone tom Linda qiseneutaag ‘hoaimlt ond
heyetqae yilavtes se@Lus toutteq Isveneg « 0d bheq od ifene, yeetoe
Piglet ect ea yearrsg Leteosy a Jatt jasomhand oft ko gSouhaop, omg, mt
flare etosebboue Gas duce 4 olde Yt nobtedindape abd Ro, saoceth of
eae writ oF evenieud odd galfouhuae ad etagtotiung of dityis odd, yet
contiay Leno dwy oY Beblveve ,1eniteg Lanesieg hoanewad. aid, 26, toate
@ @moned of gputiriead apexred yon tad? taoeteq dogs. atqsope galakamex
SReheoety Hols ibaws & as ,edxooKs Lian teatuag Leroanp xo bodhmbs
«neo # yulvenivon ~woterta lo factiew foreves boo taloh « softened
eyeniests Sidssoverts ae etosagveve “het? dee sagaig owe le egdtin
-90 od Llede test af ayeatetia seeks sand joonteg deue to gaat wt
fetinii «to ietesey oaf gocnn mon? etemitag letameg O62 et mnenet
“pre txoq of tOwOq Lint eved Lode -ayomtedte seeds tant him (one
abie® yewted tuck yar Astaq heviak£ edd to Userod wf. edog, Aabiaiette
“age baa erentieg Lareney Bedureionee ore seseted .h dqssol. dae, ans
Ttsnu bovatency os btw dont ad agerred tar ieecoed shen ommcmnnahen
tot si Thembetquos Yo seeetat exe aw atom caswillaicy 1
# weed Stotozemd Bait at sieanr ame ett tech eee iciaididiann
edo ,OO0,80e Od oF teaw wilt setnde bas one oilertiong Bae aakebuts
Iancaneg yatharsetwe bas ,000, 0088 ef watbinailorom to eatow sadamrat

property loans aggregate $560,000. the bill estates that Jeseph &,
Sorenak hag refuned and denied to cemplainant the right to exanine
the books, papers, records and aocounts ef ihe partuerenip, er per-
mit ser répresentative to make am investigation eo that she might
obtain information, It avern the execution of the last will and
testament of Harney Feldman; isat it hea been filed fer probate and
disposes of his property as heretufore siated, and "that your ora-
trix 4i4 thereby become aentitied to participate in the senduet of
the business to the game extent and witn tae game powers and privi-
legea as the easid Barney Feldman enjoyed at the time of bie death;*
that she negotiated with Joseph 2, soyshak, the vole eurviving part.
ner and surviving sttormey in fact to that end; that the general
partners ecapesed of Joseph 4. (orghak sad complainant were charged
with the duty of earrying on the buginess of the Limited gartner-
ship; that she served notice on Sovewber 20, 1955, upen Joseph ©,
Eorshak of the death of Feldman, «7 hie will snd ite bequests, and
averred that ehe became and vas a geteral partner with Aim and that
she requested in that notice that Joseph should net take any action
of any kind in respect tc the partrnerahip business, sxeept in the
usual course of business, untii she hod had an epportunity te ex-
amine the affairs of the tusiness wid be fully advined se toe ker
reseoneibilities; that on hovauber 22nd she personally visited the
office of the partnerexip ond advised Joseph that she would on the
following serning st nine o'clock appear and aseume her duties as a
general partner in conjunction with Sim; that Joseph in bad tenper
ond quarrelsome attitude stimted that he weuld not perait her te de
89 oF permit her to come 66 the offices of the company again, and
that rather than permit her to assume suck duties he would Alsacive
and wind up the affairs of the partnership, and that he was intend.
ing to de So at any rate; tiat he would use foree, if necessary, te

expel and eviet her from the preaises at any time thereafter if ane

.X dqgeol ddd andede Litd ost .000,008) etagetage smaed rego

amd os tilde ont dns min ques at bolus baw deautot am ana od

9G Re ,ehiarantt8e esta te agausaes bas shrooes seusqae oiieed ot
tigia ose tad? on nolJegiseoval mg ekeh od eviswdinesd yew ToK Wa!

baw Likw deal eug to welguseay a9 axeve #1 =, aeljawiolns abeddo
Ane gtade tg tot balit need aati 22 sons jaembie youted to fomeiiaee

eats “wey tat” bus ,bedede otelos sued aa YPasyqetg etd Te ereoeeth

‘te fonbnos end af atagioidxeg ot be tetiaw eaosed ydotedh KER wid”

eiving ban @tswou supe sug oitw has dnerxy tone ose oo venelene any ©

*:sigeob eho Te omld add ta boyotas sanhie® yormek bias set we ebget -
-ttaq yaivivrse ofon es ,Katioxveh .6 syeecl aiw beteltegea ete dedd ©
S@xsneg e467 dait ;bim tance of Goal at quocette galvivaw bas tom’
beginds Tew @anaivigses bas datatod .f sygoaol to beasqage erentiag-
-teaiweg hegimil sai Lo eaonised oss mE guivuwso te “etuh ont aohw
pil dggeok moqu 80 ,O8 todmevell ao endvon bewwen ede genie jade ©
hae ,agesuped @24 baw idiw ald to ,mombtel te aeaed ese to Mecteegl ©
fas? dos aid ithe tenttay iaromy & eer hee semen ote todd howtore”

aeléna Yow Oded fen binoia Ageeel seco. sotton dens at be his

edge ak tgeous ,eeeniond qlistendueg ant of teeqnet af bald coh we’
«my of uinmreqee as hod hod ode Lh¢aw ,osealerd wo oatkes’ Lake
gen of as heslvba yLiwt ed bas enentesd edt Yo athe Tia eft ontas
ot fetialy yLlanseteg oa0 Dats sndxavoel mo dadd jadky rikdteaceser x

ede mo bivow ode tade Aqnact. beeltyvBa bas qtoratteg odd te otto « :

2 bf wedeub 9d coMsae bas teegqe Dsois's vals ga _akorom gatwossot °
tequet bed oi dqesok sass jatd dghe mebtonsgace at toadwg Leteneg”
eb of tek dhatey tomhinew of tadd hetasn ghusieta domedertemp baa’

haa ,alese yacquos ed? Te ase Vio ent $d empo of ted dhorteqore a8.”
evicasth binow ed seddud Moun empaae of tort sherog aadd wedtos tend
~baotat saw a feds bas ,qldaiesdreg ena to ovkette eff qu Sabe bao

ov ,ytecaqges Th ,09%el enw Bivow.od gad podem yma ta oe ab ee a

aneuld present herseli there; tuat on hevember 20, 1954, she served
upon the Association a notice (a copy of which was attached te the
bill) stating that she had appointed an auditor as her attarney in
fact and authorized him te examine the books ef the esmpany in her
behalf, and demanding that ne be given the privilege to de #6: that
thie notice was served on Jeseph whe saic¢ that the auditer esuld
proceed the fellowing morning but that at taat time when the auditor
apyeared Joseph prevested sia frem delng his werk; that negetiations
and conferences between attcrneys af complainant and Joseph 3.
Kershak and the atterney fer the partnersaip follewed and it wees
agreed the auditor could begin an inspeetieon of the bocke and ree~
erds at two s'slock p. a. om Aoveuber $1, 1933; that the su@iter
presented himaclf, and that while he was examining the beeks Joseph
eaveed the books and records te &e taken from him and leeked in the
Yeult and refused te permit him ts orocesd; that contrary te the vore-
visions of the sartnership articles Jasep: had fren time to time
drawn large and exeessive amounts for salaries without rendering
employment in return; that he head aporopriated to hie ewn benefit
and personal use approximately 24,000 during the year 1933, without
the eonsent cf the other limited or general oartners; that he had
abeented himself from his pisee ef business, remeining in Europes
for upwards of fourteen weeks, and during that time wrongfully dree
large and fabulous eslaries; that it was bis duty under the partner-
anip articles to render reports of the business; that during a
period of fourtem years he at ne time rendered to the limited part-
ners sueh a revert; thet "several years uso” « “reserve fund* wae
created to pretect the partnership in ease af unfavorable decision
was rendered on certain mattere by the internal Kevanue devartment;
that this reserve fund new amounts to $156,000, which wae oreated
out of the prefits of the partnership ond should have been declared

anc paid as dividends; that altheugh the satters ef the Internal

beriee ofm ,f60L ,O8 aedewvell ao fone pereit “tieered tneeete hinete
eed of Bécee tts wee Mliw Yo cect o) solich A Beltetoosed OFF nOgE
nt yorusgtn t9d ae tTodtsea ae hetatogge Bek Oke thud gatdada” (EERE
“oa 2 ¥YMeqaeo oft To eto br? eal eeere ef mit seeteoriven Bem foNT
ted ;oo bh of ogetiviug eh? wovig ed of Jet? gation hee peated
bios totibue sd Tard biee ose Kqeadt ao bevese sew oet¥on ete
wodibwx Okt meriw owls tert ta geod Jed akloxol gubvolLe? ene nepeety
anbisattogen Yadd pitow ald gutch mot? add petnwrere dgoael Beendous
.2 dqbaot bar fnemic iquse 16 aypares se neseied eeone te tabs! hae
gee dbo bab hewolfot qidevenvang eu? tot Ywhterte edt daw! eeeEN
ego% bas aifiood SAY To wobtoowent as atged bivow tes hime oe hee tEe
Sortie et fart peter , 18 tw9teeved ao ie Vf deote'e owe Ge need
“Heeaet ailbod ant guliieex® new oh eltcw YeN? nae /Ttenen BOR

ei at betbot Sim mba wort wowed of oF ebeboot baw aod ore bewhieD
cory oie 09 textos tait ppbuviitg oF tt Phitey OF heneter Naw Filey

"quit? 9% ealt mort hak Nqewot eetotden qiirentueg wad Yo endtely
gnbvebier Sportive notueiea tot eaves ovlkedexw hom oyrat ‘neweb
S¥tomed owe ett of betetrqorens: hast Sif Yalte’ riensiten mt saneotloe
fuodthe CECE revy oil? yakumh GOW NY Yferenttornae oa Kattoerig bina
“Phe od tens peceaetae fevetey to dediabl conte oxo re daenien wae
‘eqotu® af qaictesior jcevatsud Ye sosty eb wort Tieemid bovnenva
Were ULL doew bate Cade yabevs Sh jekeew Westies Te
-tonsteo ent tebe Sot wid uew TL Fads jwolewiew oxoiudnt hav SBrat —

“ig gmtiod faite yaesnteud ox “to ebiocsy xebner 00 weleRW Gite

‘Pimy hegimil ody of hotobceT omty oo ta UH Wekoy meraUeT To HeteEg
daw “hnui't evtbeet® # “ayo etsy Lenevee” tend yevoowd A Hou ‘wien
nétaloeh eftatovatas ke cane at qidersivie edt fotote 6 BerewrD

“ pgdemdrnesh evteved Lemvetat wat Yo destin Aistxes do Betetaet Caw

‘potacts eaw aolae (000, 0048 of vriwene wel Kmu't dvtodie Witt “Fadt
Betafosh aded oved Biveid baw qhdeedditcd Cay to wttietg enh te Fue
gasttdaeat ont Yo weet tad’ wit Aglidite ta sas yatmnters wan day :

Revenue department had leng eines been decided favorably te the ase
scoietion and that there is ne lenger any neceaulty for the reten
tion of the fund, Joseph has conceived the achese of remalsing in
full eentrel of it end refuses and declinee ts congent to the dire
tribution thereof to the injury’ and prejudice ef eouplainant; that
aithough complainant has on numerous oceesions asked and demanded
that Josevh ¢iselese the amount withheld fron the general end
limited partners im the reserve fund, he Aas refused and declined
te give her information with reference te the same snd refused te
make any dietribetion therecf, and that he hae speeifieslly stated
that he would not make any distribution te commlainant er te her
children out eof the fund or out of any other moneys belonging te
the partnership because he intended to sreek vengeanee woon her and
destroy her financially and meke the eteck and interest of her
children and herself in the limited partnership werthleas and af ne
value; that he hae within the past few doys stated that ke intended
to “bust® cowpiaimant and that he would make her crswi on her “belly”
before she would get any benefit sut of the sartrerahin.

The 6111 further avers that sald Jeaesh fe aeting in a
fiduciary cavacity with the sroperty and asnete of the Association
and in violation cf there duties haa renestedly atated Rie intention
to operate the business oa he sees Fit eltiheut recard to the righte
of compiainant and others; that he is going to expend the money of
the partnership as « general partner under the powers of attorney
given te him end hes the right sq to fe without paying any attention
to the demands or rights of complsinant er any other of the limited
partrers, or his fiduciaries, and that if compisimant oné@ her at~
torney shoul4 come on the precisee of the Asseciutien he perronslly
would throw them out and if he could met do it, he would heve hie
assistants 40 #9; aiso that he ha@ exoressed an intextion thet he

has the right to sopeint without sonsent or acquiescence of come

was ond of yidatovel beblooh coed senis grol ber saemrtegek eaneyed
ssoten gals tot yeigeaosa yas tegaek on wt etedt rede hee modtatoes
Gk gaialensx to ousos oat bevieogoe end dapegt ,havt ont Xo mols
oath eid of taegugo of ssaliooh hae segstet bas tt eo Lersmem S13
ted? ;toantaiqawo Yo selbeterg dae Yyrehad odd of Tosedd aobtudias
bebuam) btw bedea ageleases suoteawa we ged daadtealqaos syaoddie
bao Levey od? moat bisrdtiw tavemm elt arefoeth dqeveh..sadd
beaifeeh fae beavter sad sd ,bawl evisset o8¢ of exentise hesioll
o¢ boswtet bas saan 944 of sometoler dtiv aghiecrotal woa.avts, of
botete yLinolitoea ean sii tadt bas ,tostedt aeltediitets yas. eaem
_ tas of to taealaiquon of soisatininih yas exam sen, bivew oa dads
ot antguoled ayengm aadto yas to duo to hawk eff to tue meghiide
bay tod aoqu soameguey deetw of hehnasat 96 sexgood qiderssd tag 9At
_ tee to Ieeretal bas doote sd? oem hos yLiatonsalt sed yostegh
om to bun seolditow qideteaitag hetintl od of Weeresd baa o zh |
bebaptal ed tact Sedase aysh wot taeq edt abddiw gad on ted? swan
“giled* tod ao fweto 194 oten Binow of duet han sagaletqnes "temd” 9?
-Gldeteatteg od Yo sue steed yoo fey Divow ace preted

ont guites at dgenot dies sede? oreva ted? LLid OF nn
folsaloocad sid Io afeene bag ytregeta eft dat inten

Koltcntat ald batata yLbetaeqe: sad cetivh ene? lo noigeloty ai.bae
atsylx esl of bteget dyed iv 227 agen oc en eanmtand sft starege..ot
to yecom ert baegxe of gatog at asf tars jenesito han tasalejenge te
Yearotie te exewoq eit tohay teattag Lateseg # 90 qitnremdseq alt
Selineste yre aaiveg suottiv oh of 08 dsadt oct ead bee, whit et aayvtp
betints adt to vedio yas 19 Ineaininwes te ateigit 29, ieliggaicbrinas
sta ted baa Inaatetquoo Tt dads has ,wetteteuhtt att to m4
ylisaorreg od moltelacred eit Ye sentmetg at 99 samp, pani wenger
kd eved Siwow ed ,¢i ob tom bSyo9 od 2h tae two conse i al
od fat? soltaesat ay heegetaxe bad od todd cate jae oh etas
sono XG soagoselupos To tavanog tagidhy ent a

plainant, his wife, Jeanette Korunak, as a general pariner; that
Jeanette ie wholly unfamiiiar wiih the business, but that Javeph
has stated hie iniention te appoint Ker as a general and wanaging
partour with bim, so that Joseph and Jeanette may be the sole and
only gineral parinere of the Aseuciation and in full, sonplete
gontrel and domination of ite sifaire. Complainant also expresses
her belief that Josesk &. Lovahak, unless restrained vy the court,
will carry hie threats into aifeet; thet ke will then be in come
plete control of «li the srepertiee, agsets and affairs of the
Aaseciation, to her great etd irvepersbie ices and injury.

Compisinant shewa that she la tue aluter «ef eald Josenk;
that her three miner children are bis neices and nephew: that she
hae isplored and entreated him te desist and vetreain from carrying
out Kis intentions, suit that he ineicis be ie the ecle and @xelu.
eive dictator ci tae affairs of the Aseociation; wit ehe atetes that
uplese he is restrained and anjoimed ke Fill iare steps te deeignate
and appoint Aie wife one of the general banagitg pertnera, end that
they will take control of the Assesiaticn So #6 cismanage or g@lesie
pate the affairs, besineeu, regerwa fund, property and offeete ae
te render the eame inaclvent or of little or se value,

ComGiainant, according te her bill, believes that ae
general partner Joneph nae been gudity ef eonduct prejudicial te
the Aswociation, persistently committed breaches af the partnership
ané ether agreesente and has vhown such anteagenies end hatred toward
her and the interests of herself’ and 93 her three miner children aa
to render a diseolutien of the Agecgiatian both imperative snd
equitable; that it will be te the best interests of all tue partners
beth general and limited to dieselwe, wind up ond Liguidate the
Business of the partnership and to distribute ite aveets te the
persons entitled thereto; that the beoke, records, personal property

and effects of the partnership are in the sole and exclusive

Q:
"
duet preattey Eeteneg » es )kkseted optensel (otiw wid \ghabbite

deponeb fade fod pawaciend of? Wi kw tab Lime ths ELLode ef oF tonne’
Bhigomes hae ieveaey @ bo yer teioeqe 2 MOROKes ct wid bethde watt
_ Die eloe sag od you ettenns) bus geeenl teas oe ,abi eh entre

eteiqued ,iivt ob bua soltedoowgA bu) Yo etbadeeg faxetey etn

eeunergxe onin tieateiqaed .etietie ag2 to doldaaimes tae Lotdned —

fives 902 Ys tonlatseed snedaw ,Aatete8R .@ agovel tans Yohied *ou
wmno m2 9d onsla Lilkwed suds ptoe'tiw etal Stoeead’ ede qeske! OLIe
pad ‘to exiaTta baa aseosee jaehsueqetq odd Lia VW Loviags” ete te
semwhlal Sa8 aso1 Sidetegemit baw Sesug weed oF (aeleeleoRRA

qiqeeot Blea te tetets eng ef sda tans evote Pastielquad “” hal
ode teds prodgow daw aocled aid o1h wethihte voeim eotd? tod taild
gatyxrse oot? alevtet has tetenbd ef atd besaereas baa betoleak dad
-¢fax@ bas cine adt #2 ed deetedlam saat Fed (wtetbae ta? Ora Fag
jet andar ode Baa ;Moteniosaed ti To eter ta odd Le todesots “evte
etaipioes of cesde oes ikke od aemtotas Bae toaleteded el ok ddeled
fede bne jersagteg gotyanen Levene, ‘ett “to sao STW ate dnked@y pad
elaeit t¢ egatsumia ea of dolteloosssé on¢ Ye Letiacd olay Shhw yome
an afoutta haw ytieeeta , bash ovededr jeesnteed , eu keV ta wid oteq
ouisw om co etalk “te xo Sheviowal mine wah eebned OF

@ eo far eoveliod ,Lild a6 of galficosss Ftettdigues® 8 pms

Qf Latatbeterg towkae: To eeliay aesd eae Mgoest cdattdg | —
qisietentw ait to sedonoid Aettlunon YEtarteiou@ ,wolde
biewed beriad bas aetnogetan dove nweie west baw sommaitgeiill few

ee aethlico rocks setdd Ywil to hae Viseted to ecersonat wit fae west

atonéaag one | is to eben sth send ot of of te #2 at tar

eit sonbhup ht bee que bakw ,evfowedh 08 Sertiaht ime” #
gig ot vteown ath waudireke os baw qghuteattie GH 10 te
Theeagat sastbnlcbg han VIN chheaad hnaownes ated Y daberod

te pe ene eee:

possession and under the contre] of Joseph {. Rershak; that ae as
anple opportunity to change and alter the besks and te dissoae of
the property; that woon a complete, trac and just aeeounting it will
be shown that Joseph ise indebted to the Agseelation fer a eam jas
she ie informed and believes to be) of sany thousands ef dollars;
that unless « receiver is appointed she will muffer great and ire
reparable lose and ¢amssge; that em injunction sheuld be iseued ree
straining wd enjoining Joseph &. Korshak from further ayplying
the funds and property of the Aseeciation te hit ewn use and from
changing the atatue of the partnerehip by accepting Jcanette
Eerahak, hie wife, as a general vartner, and that some competent
person should be apsointed receiver forthwith. She avers that sub-
atantially 213 the property censiste of cash on hand and ether
property of intrinsi¢ value, such se 4iamends and jewelry, all of
whieh is eaclly dieposed ef; that in the event neotiee was given,
Joseph =. Korshak would take steve to transfer the property and
effects of the Asseciation to her irreparable less ond injury, she
prayed an injunction te restrain Jeseph rem shenging the beokes,
disposing of the assets, or enoumbering or secreting the saue,

tueh is a summary ef the bill, consisting ef 54 printed
pages. The question fer our determination ia whether the ageaint-
ment of these receivers witheut notice was error. CGowplainant cone
tends that by reason of the death of her husband the partnership
theretofere existing was diesclved, She bases thie cantention on
& eonetruction of article 9 of the partnership articles, which we
are unable to follew. The article is lengthy and involved covering
many subjects, and eemelainant interprets the werd “srevided" which
ereceden certain caragraghs at expressing conditions with whieh she
eays 1t was necessary defendants sheuld comply in erder te prevent

@ disselution at her husband's death, In our opinion, thie eon-

etruction would be contrary te the intention of the partners as

aac gel fast piadered .2 cdiguaol ™, fortnos pad ‘sehmy ban Regenonees
te meegakk oF haw stood ed 4 ke ban sacwde ot qtlourcoqge 9 igaue
tiie #k gaicasoooa tout hae oNEt ,etelgnon & nome tans ANSte gers mig
aa) mye 4 xo% moltalooneA os? of betdabak ef dgeach tade 1 rade od
saxatioh to abaseuond yawn to (ed of eoveiiod baw bear trt aa pia
wth bas saetg tetive iitw ode begatoggn af Tevigees « i cd
-9% bougad od Adwede agizenubal aa gadis iogeua> hee onal eddenaye
MUYLAGS TAAITHT XT Ansiazod .& quack gutatahan bas golnberte
aokt ban 886 we, abd es Geisatooras add to ysenqoey bas ebuel ost
sitenes giifqaose yd qideteniieg est to atete od? pak
daaiegnon esea tak bas ,teadtag Leresy 6 a ,etiw ald a
~dun dads atove edi .igiwdero? teydeoos batatogga of hiseada men
AMO daw band wo done Yo atalenon yiregeta edt Le yikedtqets
to Lie .yitowel fe ebaomalh an dows ,enley ohvalztmk to ytuego:
stevia aw potion taeve eat al sadt je doweqalh yhtena parte
_ data eiteqorg eff Tolenet? of aante aad bLuae aster oA ale en ot
ach .qtulal ban scol ekderagetts 19d 92 polteisonad adi toe atoo tts
_ stieed oft gatgaade mare? dyecot aleardnor af apiteduhat an beyerg
Anan od pahte ras, x9 aniragayeme Te .Ainnen At Xe Qamkeeamth
detnizg 08 To palseledes ,tild a? te xramum @ at AoW. ee
stalogge ond tasiiedy #1 aglianorsiod tuo tot soltmeup sat mepaq
~tgn Iteaieiguod .t9%e anv aoiten ivedtiw guavieset ———

SOs, a

, eo ao ltaedaoo abet: aaaeds ont, groans: sae ‘aad rtohg R
i Mekiw ,onoligna qidareagie, sf? te 0 elaitue te noLeoetaney *
aniteyeo boviovat baa witaned wt efoline ost ,mpito?, ot ehfaan om
_ daldy "hobivote" Sou aiid adetqtodms taantelanen Dae adeetdve xnam
aria dodcw agiv amoltthace gatenenaxe es add
foevetq of tehte at yiaueo biveds stnahie’
no nee BERE., wtotata, 240. Bd

ae atenttag a3 to oolisetat od? ot aeahiaad nee sltsete 7

expressed in the entire articles of agacciation. The word “*nroridea”
may ehere auch meaning harmonizes vith the eontext have the effeet
of creating an exception, but, ordinarily, as wae said in Bonegay

¥. Rebinsgn, 210 5, ¥. 65%, it has ne other or greater significanes
than the word “but* or “amd.* Gee siso Souvier's Law Dietionery of

Words and Phrases and Madii v ~ 7a L, Be, S30.

Hereover, parts of the bili are inecneiatent with the theery thet
the partnership hare been in Cuct disesived, as in one gart of the
bill where i¢ is averred that coupiainsnt served netice tast ene
had become a general partner, Woiech comsiaimant} in ser brief aays
she 41d, “desiring to organize under the act for here¢lf and for
her brother Joseph emda for aii the Limited purtueres ani to prevent
a dissolution.” Again, the language of article § is not in any sense
mandatory, and the conetruction fer waich complainant gentends can
net reasonably be based upen Wie words used in it. Gowplainant's
conduct is aleo inconsistent with such conetrusction. “We held that
the death ef Feldman did net dissclve the purtvuerghip. indeed, the
bill of complaint is quite ingonslztent in this reepest. As a mate
ter ef facet, comelainant brings her suit and describes herself as
"beth ga Limited and general partner,” which she can not be if, as
she now contends, the death ef her usband bose fuctoe dicecived the
partnerghip. The allegations oi the biil are not sufficient te show
that ahe ia a general partner, far the reason that it falle te ale
lege thet she has been accepted aa such by the other partners,
What her exact relaticnahip te the partuerahip may be, it is net
necessary Tor ug te decide at thic time. Ane ia of course a limited
partner but whether she is a general partner Le not « controlling
fact concerning the precise question we are called upen to degide,
With the main iseues raised ty the bili and anewer we have
Nething te do an this angeal. The only question before ue concerns

the propriety of the erder appointing receivers pondente lite.

*asbiveta® Brow eff nottetevesn To ecichtus eiitas eff ni Semeetqne
footte 64 wed Pxeture ei Utiv eeulnomtad gofaden town eater yee
Ydeanot af bine eew ce ,yittealive .tod ,s0ltgeses ae galdeens To

eoneo filugia tofeo1g to Terite on sot G2 803 . 62 GES woetiee Wy
to vexneizolé wed e'aelvuol opie ged " tae* vo "Yad" Buew odd dante
062 ,.8 wf AY . 990 3 eivsoll ov ithed bad ebeeedt doe ebxel

tadd <steods off Giiw tuetelencemi ove Ifid wee lo sttaq ptevoetet
eid ‘to ting ene cl ax ,boviveulh soet ni aeod dad qhdessnting ene
ede tect eotteu bevtes tavalaiqaes tact hevvews af 3% saeiw Dfky
ayer ‘tolad ued ai fosnialoame sold ,watieq Loteaey @ naeoed Basel

qot bas Ifveted tot tes elf tokun Osinegto of qaaiziaes” ,heowde

taovere of Uinw wronetag SeFlall eM? Lie 40t bne-dgeest seaterd ned
gana Yas ai fou at @ eloifta To. sguuynel od? patagh "ao ltuiedeth e
aso whnothee tnaalsiquos deliv xo mobfewtdeads ade Nad ytetabian
s'eacmlalemed 122 at bean ebted sa) seqe Rows of Yidanadeey Yon
tadf bled s¥ .aglsocrseaes douse dtiw Iaededamoont oats al 2oabaeo
ed? ~hoobal .qldeveatus¢ ous sviswels Joa Ads camhiet to ritewn wat
ntat nae -te0qee?r @idd ai taeselanegal o¢lup at fadatgads Yo 10d

aa Lieered ee¢itgseh bus thus ted egaltd fnadleique, ,JeeY te Hee |

e¢ ,th ed son nao ode doldw ",teddasg Letedey bow bedints « dred"

wd? Hevfcenth ggost ongd Bncdew! tek ‘lo taeeh ott adaetnos woutiede

Woe of tmetelTtua dom exe [Lid edt to eaoliagetiv of? qideateatteg

«fs of sitet #4 sad nomese OY dct (xOrdung Sexeaig a a2 wee Peds

° yetentteq tedte odo yd dove ae bOsGsooR aned ned ota dade “oges

° gon at o2 jad (um givensatieg ons oF gidenshtalen sede tee tale

bogiasf a #etwoo to wt ode eats atdd Ga Sbigab oF au to? Cteeeeson

“gintttottacd a fon al touttag tetenog # a4 ote shidede ted Yoni —

\ehieeh of aegu beliaa ote OF Aglieeip” ‘oakousy ads ‘yateto omen: abi
eved ow tewaas bas Likd edt Ed beater aeueed Abe yt sane
antesnos au otdted maitesng ysao' oa’ lecumnans et eb ot satin

BSR gonobusg exevinewr

It 1s quite unneeeesary te discuss at length the Law apoli-
eable to a state of facts guch ae sre diselesed by the bill. The
business ia large. iieny persone are interested in it and have
eontributed considerable amounts ef money in order toe develen Lt.
These perpone aseoclated themesives under tae Uniferm Fartnership
act, apparently with the express intention of preventing the disea-
lution ef the Agseciation as & result of the death, disability or
ineanity of any sf the gartuers. Chief Justiee Geott said in the

ease of First ge, 7 Lil. B07:

“A receiver should be appointed in no case, unless Lt is
made to appear there ia an taperative neaenalty for the ates, to
preserve some particular preperty for such parties ae shall be
entitled to the benefit."

# @ourt will hesitate before canting apon ownera of a
busineges the exoenses of a receivership where the hueiness is a
geing and prospercus ene, where no cighte of erediters are involved
and where there 1@ no ¢laim that the gearties in eharge of the bueie
ness are inaclvent, Cemplainant insista (ae she rightfully may)
that we should comsider mo part of the reeerd in this esse showing
proceedings in the court beyend the (ise a} which the reesivers
were appointed. In ether words, ane demands Juégment uoon her bill.
We must exelude in comsidering it swerything staied ae mere conmelu-
gions, A gourt can rely only upon facie properly pleaded. tie BILL
sete up that defendante have wrongfully denied couolainant's right
to examine the books. @6r thia she hae 4 semplets resedy without a
reesiverssip. It questions the prepriety af the salaries drawn by
the general partners at a time when (if the allegations ef the bill
are true). the deceased husband sauct have aporoved. It comeleine of
the faijure of defendants to perform the duty ef isamuing statements
where it would seam if there was negligence the deceased husband

must have participated in it. It questions tne propriety of the

establishment an4 maintenance of the undivided profits seesunt, in

f te aatesenoe wh _sbavereas | ovad fou betes

«tiggs Wed af dtgued ga eewonls of cteaeovensy ative ei FE
et »kERG ald ce dewedouls wx we dene whee by otata 2 64 often
tied bas G2 at desertesad ore enooted Yost Legter et edentend
.t2 qoleved of aohto at comom Te eiavens oldatodbioasd besiledage
qideveatned anetiall edd rehay aevisomeds Setatoonva excateg Gendt
-o0nth oft galinevets te asltantal awetqze ade Atiw yftoetmeqa ,foa
o Yelitdeels ~dteoh ont Yo tineet 2 se asieinodss ond “te Woldus
eit ab dies gioe! solvent witd vaxsadted eAF ta — ‘te ‘vd taeeat
OR £1008 yp AE “te ase

gh @h aeeiay ,ee8n on xt Betiiogys o¢ Pivesiy teviecot 2°"
oe ene tot ydlearoes evitaveqal ma ol ote zit roses, of th

iisda sa eeldusg dows tt ee toqens prycene ye bgp 5 ms

& Xe axenwo mogts niase exerted otagtand tii ¢ du0e Me

rm ai aoonisud oxi erst: ahigxevisoe: od 26 avenge ont ar

bovioval ous asedibexs to at igix ont zest 209 ReOTeTE OTE bus, tea.
n Leu eit te sazade nk as Lat0g ould Rietind aheco oa ah Ste aS

“(yg wAdwtariy te one va) etetadk fanatetqepd -tusvienat pm ee
“galwoste eaae wdris ma ‘buever ods to heah on Febtaagg bivorie sll
wid areviooet ons do hsiw ge outs oats baoyed F499 ost at agathooas

atid ton wean teombat ¢ banned octn ehzow rote, at stetatonsa, aw
-nlones ora ae bedase gaits reve # aahrebtenos ah ebutowe ieee

hore ont “ hohae Le yLzeqord Bi oe foau tino vex sap Jtu09 A spaot
‘Sagts a! tneats Leno bolneb eLiutgaose evan 85 ob a0 0d sand ester

8 tuodtiv hones ete Lqnas 2 east oe eine 10h ‘aheed oaid pat as

vd | awn soltales oats to wolrgoxg oad ane2sesup aS am

a 3

bandeus beeasosh ont oral igen aa wxess 1 ah nea ble ee

ant ba efelrqore ent aneksesup # «#1, md

“a towooen asttore bobivibew ont Xe. 99

ae
ee ee

whieh action alae, apparently, the deceased must have participated,
It avere (stating cireumstances) an alleged threat of Joseph Korghak
te appoint hie wife Jeanette a general partner, and it may well be
that this is an event which sheuld be avolded, and if a0, there is
an obvious rmiedy vithout a receiversiip. it savers that the boake
and regords may be altered « a thing possivle but very isnrchable
under the facts as stated in the bill. It avers the right of come
plainant te eonpel Joseph =. korahak, or the limited partners, te
apocint her a general partner - 9 contention, a8 slrendy stated,
inconsistent with the theery that Feldman'a daath disealived the
partnership, In short, the bill discloses an unlertunate family
quarrel, in whieh more than ane woman is such interested and in
which rein is threatened to & pronperouRe buainess =~ the result of
years of labor and industry. Cemplainant teas rights, waieh ne court
will te slew te protect. She may have protection by aporopriate
orders, but the appointment ef receivers wae not aeeeseary te the
preservation of her rights or any one ef then, The order did aot
preserve the statug pending the Litigation but destroyed it, I¢
aid not preverve the corpus of the bueinees but tended to ite
deatruction,

We have exenined the cases cited by both earties, Kone of
them is at a1) similer to thie, ‘he appsintment of receivers upen

facets such ae here diselesed was unprecedented and conetituted an

abuse of diseretion., Original Vienne Bakery Go. +. Keleeler, 80
Till. App. 406; Husbaum vy, ioeke, $3 111. App. 242; Jxekeon v,
Metropeliten Sune Bye ten o, 863 211. App. 302,

Yor the reasons stated the order ie reversed,

REVERSED.

O'Connor and BeSurely, TJ., csoneur,

‘hodegtb ising ovadl Sean Sovcubeh xd \¢iiuwibdee’ , Uta kdlbee soAdw
dasexoA dqeact Yo tueth? hegella un (eeonedumuette aalvesa) eteve ot
ed ifer yout 4i bax ‘\tendaca Ieteceg @ sitenest site aid tatouga ‘ot
et esodi ,08 2 Bas , beblovs of biuode tle bw fasve ihe ll oted sate
ciood ‘odd gadd exeva $f vabieavisost « tuoddi= <hocws biel
. otiedonyat vier Swit oidtenog gated e ~ hotetin ad aa abxoven Baw

-n09 to digit ott eteve 2 .titd ‘ede “at hetede om ‘egour dh tobe
of yatsait8¢ be that f ods x9 osteo of sonst foe - Ny rote

sbeaate chao fs an 1ito.83 ne 39808 ‘hs tpadueg tote,

edd bavionn lh diach at ana fo%, dedd wroed? odd ths toads tengoat
yk diwn’t esansexetau on eevotonts iid ents, oaede: ak gi harem
nh hae Pedostetat deve gh aagow oto mid etem dalde al , soteanp

Xo tune, edt + anentand euoteqnotg © of beneteect reg ¢ aber ho.heiw
taues om dotin .addgis aed donate tqmed anthaubeh, bee, Aadet to omaey

_ fea bth sobre ool west to ene yaa 20 eitgis tod Ye aelter a0
$1 sth boyoataoh gud aelsegisit eds gathueg aadede edi eviasesg
a¢) of bohawt sud saenieud 063 Lo gugzoe wat evieaotg toa bth

: Me qmed .natsing died yd bette seane of peaiaane eta OF yi.) s
“goqu eteviooe: to samstatoggs off aad of toilake Lie de ah medt
_ te bOtwstsanes baa betagbegetqay saw beogtontn ered 08 diane atont
c Teaniibiieepcheasil ;

TS ne. Bisa aes

uh claw tad y
(CRBRAVER ay wos whine > eae ow SE ate cee te ele
BN or Sa pe B iat 1 ep ae

%
a

if
ARB.

Sexccan _ %
TM SERA erent
x

36962

CWARLEU STARCK, IRVING Le STARCK

and HMISNig de STARCK, complainanta,

ami FRANCIS MEAD, agsignes,
Defendants in’ Errer

BRRGR To

Veo
SOLGY GOLD and MILSOH LZVINSOR,
copartners, doing business as MOTOR

Cai. FINANCE COMPANY, net inee,s
MURRAY STEMPeL, CLAULE J. GULP

<< Paneaee cee laintiffe in Error. Bi? 4 TA. 6 050

Mke JUSTICE MeSUELY DELIVENE? THE OPINION OF THE Comet.

BUPER IGN COGRT»
GOO SOUHTY,

ll i le ee a eed

Complainants filed their b111 againat defendants volen
Geld and Hilton Levinsohn, deing business as Beter Gar Finance
Company, not incorporated, and certain of their agents, asking
for an accounting and praying for the purging of the socount of
Wumerous usurious charges, the restraint of certain replevin proe
ceedings, and the return ef wo cerimin truecke that had been
pledged to the defendants by chattel mortgages to eccure loaneg
enavers were file@ and the cause wae referred to a master whe took
evidence and mede hie report recommending a deerce in accerdanes
with the prayer of the complaimants' bills the chaneelier confirmed
this report and entered a deeree accordingly. Sy this writ of
etror the defendants ack for a reveraale

The master found that complainants purchased twe moter
trueks for approximately $5,900 eachg that Gold and Levineohn,
copartners, were dcing busizess se the Motor Car Finanee Companys
in the business of Lending money and taking av aceurity chattel
moxtgages upon motor cars and motor trucks; thet on Jomuary 31,
1929, these defendants made a lean to complainants, receiving from

‘oad ALASS

GR Foiks.
eTOG Avi wake
e¥TRBOG AGUO

SO GO ON i Gg

.T909 Mr W WrErso ay Gorm Waban vauateane wor seut peel

telet atnebne'to) dackagea Liid “beds nati’, 08 rik
eonsnkt xed oisthcen grenteet qutehcmteuieetaniiae hatin
gaan yetnoya aiedd Yo misdves dna ,dedaroquent dom «ymogmed
‘to ¢oyrecen ott to gatguvg odd v0? gulyewy bua gubtawevee ma. x0
~osg siveiqes Siadxee te salevdeon od? gaeygneds eased en awoxome
wood had és esloww? misses ew 20 mmes ode hme yoga dopo
gutmol sivoce 6S eegagdtom Leotindk yt eimobne los afd of tegoode
Hees wiv totaem « of boxtetes eaw oamay esld hon delit exow wtowns
sonabioois mt setech a get brcemenes suoqes aid ham dna vonsdive
burt too wi teers ade yotid Vatnaabatgmon wis Yo xwgnay este sity
ipdhmanmeadiags +Vigeh ito seresh « bovetue ous Seeqen whdhs
<Laenni att on <oehlacant Sal arte
totes ows beasdotwe atnantalymos Jedd beset cetens vet

vtioentvsl ta bLod sass qdoee 000408 Yet as 0 86 sewiele
swag? eoaentt tad woLeM oid on avKtiod yatod Oxew yexndraqos
pucpuusdbestemba dbamiand nt ie: ehesics badbenoaaa’ 9

eL8 Yreumal wo deed paslowsd soten ime tue soveu meq aaa
mx? yatvisoer yetasstalquos of maot 2 dbaw stusbasteh ened

_ /

them their note for $1,124.70, payuble in monthly installment«
with interest at the rate ef seven per cemt per aumummay to secure
Payment of the sote a chattel mortgage on the two trucks was given
te defendanta.

The mester's seaport then preceedia in detail to give the
transactions thereafter. ihen a wote matured or there was a
balance duc, sev notes and chattel mortgages were axceuted by
complainants and given te defendante. the report sete forth the
necounts between the partica invelwing the making of these various
notes an the amounts paid on account anc finds that when sn
indebtedness watured complainants vere compelled tc sigm a renewal
note far an smount substantially lesger than the amount due. The
master concluded tmat the tranesctions between the complainants
and these defendants were tainted by usury, and that the acceunting
ahewed that there was no money duc or owing from the complainants
to the defendante.

The mister further fewid that ceviain of these notes
were made payable to Murrey Stempel, one of the defendants (aet ing
for Gold and Levineobs} who inderse? the same to the Botor Gar
Finmanee Companyy that at thie time ac money was received by said
ecmplainants fer seid notes, end thet this was a colorable
transaction and net made in good fnithe The master further found
that some question hewing ardsen with reference to thia mortgage,
6a arrangement was made that the trucke should be sold st a chattel
mortgage sale and should be purchased by Otempel, and thereafter
gold te Minnie J» Stavek, one of the complainante, whe should
execute her notes and chattel mortgage; that thie arrangement was
carried out and Minnie Starek, the wife of Charles “Starck, ¢omplaine

ant, executed « series of notes to the order of ctempel, secured

<2 eee
eta ewteae! ne

ale
adniaiiadess yseowm mt addoyeg glT.dtdy ki 20% odom xdedd mode
Sxugey Of tae Xeq tno ug HOVE Te stot eM? tu daonedmt mohw
Mevis enw edowst ow? eslf wo egegexom Jottade « efon efit to smeacay
oe
edt evin of Ltaded ak ubeonetg wa ‘sxeqot oVsesnem a Mt
& caw suedY Te bouwda ofon a areas -r9dbensaité anal ésogetetd
4d betvonas sew wegens son isdies&e ane seton wen se somiet
ais d4uok edee dxeges salt ssdusneted aad wovig. fiom aera,
auetzey sued tq guiven ods eatviews? sohvtsq st spowded adi
, ‘a nade tat abl’ tno targa to had Wien et tn aoen
foweno: 2 ple of defteqmee sx9~ ainantatquos betdan seemdeagodut
agit .owh dawomm eed mals tegtet yilalteadedss toweee me cod efem
“Yduartaiquoy Bhd meowdrd anol ivcunmed oid task Debuts xeduom
pukdnvooos ot dors bee Cums Yh Sodettad ‘oxow atnebneteh suddd tem
erraramevtngd outs aia va 10 xb wont on ane m vias priafh ‘wii sf

“ensen neds ‘te niadxso das? base’ vont team ail wa
gat ten) ednadcetsd esi? te See slogan ee % cuit a z Rees % ae
ua xedoi oft ea ns 8 seh beaxobnd caw (mieontved pe wea

bios ue tevivoor sam comm Era oats odula an enstt " remega che
eldaxoies 4 oi inte sastt tae seeder Mos x0 ‘ednasialgnos
— rede xetenm edt edhe? 00m a oes ton ans cobsomenend
eteage tom ali? 09 somexe tex Hab tends patvot eotseesp om
fats acto & te bioe od hdwosta: siowea wd baete eho aw doemntonv thn
rodtooroits one efoqunas We decastoy 96 Diuede bas oon oguatzem
“title estw sednuntatence ede Yo ome sioxeds “st bh 2
a tnomegiiers eidi tas fopagecom fottede ‘tm esi
ont acqoe etoxsde sation we otlw rod vdorade po Ng te

+ ie ore
bowie ogues® % ebze oats os ¢ anton te ‘okmn o thee

MME wPoeteca a ge ‘mapa

ip fea poe cen cre

ose

by chattel mortgage; that subsequently Ctempei entered judgment
by confession om these netes, which judgment ie still in ferce
and uUentisfied; that subsequently otempel agcigned the mortg@age
end notes to Claud A. Sneed, one of the defendants, whe esucei a
writ of replevin to issue out of the Runicipal court ezainet
Minnie Starck, ond the trucks were taken out of the possession of
the eomplainants upon the replevim writ. ‘This suit was still
pending in the Municipal court ef Chieagce., The master found
that no consideration woe civen for these nates or she chattel
mortgage, that the replevin suit sh@uld be restrained and enjoined,
end that the judgment on the motes should be satisfied.

Apparently Sneed, acting ac the asclguee of OLempel,
held a sale of the trueke wider the terms of the chattel mortgage,
and although complainents geve metice thet they were the ocners
of the trueks, Sneed preeecded and scld the game to Chriet Slaeny
aieo one of the defendamte. The mister could properly conelude
thet in this tranacetion “tempol, “necd and Gleen vere acting as
the agents or servants of Seld enc Levineem, doing business as
Meter Gar FPinaree Company, and wore commiving and eoifedersting te
evade the usury laws, and thet sxid agelcnments anc sale were
merely s pretense for this purpose. The master slec fownd that
all the notes and vhattel mortgages exeeuted by the complainants,
avi whieh were retained by the defendants, should be celiveree up
and eancclied, amd that the defendants should be required te
gurrender the moter trucke takes by them.

While the sbetract notes that objections were filed te
this report, it fnile te show whet they were. Heither doses the
gbestract show the character of any exceptions filed, in the
brief for defendants counsel have undertaken to relate at consid

erable length the facts and the secounty between the parties,

Te Ties

srompost doretee Lequeds yitwoupeadwe sass poyeytcom Leddedo wW
oust at {Live 62 scsmphrt Moide gender eaads ab nébenehind ye
eyed rom ald Somgloea Loques) ~eowwpendes todd qhottetieetw baa
4 Seemenm otly gedaabaotes off Yo ond gbeont 1A huakS of coded bra
dantans tuseo Leqkolowi edd te éue evand of wheeiqed te dtxw
‘Ro meleeseseg eds to two woke? ovow walowrd odd She ytousde stank
iikee gow the oie? dite wiveiger ed? meqy e¢mentetgue ede
“Pewet cehems of? somwetsd? Yo eawee Meg tezmit odv mi gatbesq
Mestads ods 1 codon savds ww? movhy aay ‘Metter obtanos on nas
ebontotas me tentarteex od biwadle tive aivergen oily Sods 40
4bebtetéas ed Aiwerls aodom of? mo daompbst ons tosis onus

givqatese to ottmives ods an gudion ee
veamaston L80Vie wks Yo trent vats Oba wad wad Yo oad = Bind
‘pxwiwo et? ovew cout? dort wolton o¥ag atuant
| qeeefO gubutd OF ames! oe b£o8 to Wibevoog bend gated wb
pbutettes Ueeqe<g ffvod cedeee eff? sadnshneted sid bo ome one

ss grtios ozo" mnl0 hue heen? «fequmse ensevilil bi wit taste
eh wuvntend gutes .arlonived baa bfed te wdna ial to aiooye est
62 gut tetenctnss smn pitviinos oxow bah «Yheque? gesien: wed ore
exow ofow bea abnomemlas bine tadd ios qawak ‘conus aild obave
‘Ped? peiet vale tedecm ont sseoqamg etely so% bonnderg » clones
eainentatquen odd yd boditooke popegd som fedado bes avdon oat te
‘gr bovewhien of Sivorte ysihebmeted aad a bomtater puew duster fn
8 veatupen 9 biwaite Wimsbaotsb eild dadé be sbetteonan bam _

sod! Sole? walewsd xosom cok rebsexame

ed BNET ote ametioctdd saat’ sodon deauiads odd okay |
od weeh casket sso yt ity wed 64 attht 5 goroqee abe

eal? OI sbekl? amokoqouxs qa to tofoezade -

wblunoe t8 stafer oF bivcuapienpdigens eat

Ne es es eS dae ca

f yates

ade

without any reference to the sbatract or the reeerdé. heforence
should be made te the chetwact where the facets upen which counsel
rely appeate Unéer these circumstanees this gourt will not consider
aecigmmentse of error that the finding ia not oustained ky the
evidence. Town of Vegtern Bound v> Lopers LOS tlle Appe 609 and
we shall accume that the master's findings «of fact are eovrect.
Singers Mimiek & Cos vs Steeles 126 Ill. 426; Strayer v. Dickergams,
WLS Tile 4140

The auount of the first mote waz @1)124070, with interest
at seven pex centg the amount agtuelly leaned was 5855,59. The
amount of the accend note wae 91,275, with interest at aeven per
eent j the aout agbusily icamed was 51,0°). These were typieal
of the tzamesetions. Seetion 2 of the Interest cet, hop. 75,
permite a maximum rate of interest of sever per cont on money
leaned. Under the cirewugtanees referred to the loans were
wuouriouse Borrowers, @t@. v. Eklund, 19° [lle S67; Ulemens ve
Crane, 234 Ill. 215 Cobe v. Guyer, 257 Tlie S685 Levcedl vs
BGilliama, 256 Tlle Appe 489, Calling usurious charges
Cemmissiong, otu., d9es not velieve the trousaction from the teint
of usury. Maher +. Lemfromy G6 [lie 15g Uniom Bational Bank ve
Le No Ac & Gs Pye Soop 145 Tll. 208} Samford ve Hames 153 Tle 199
The giving of nev notes, the refinaneing of criginal leosns, taking
new paper an’ balaccing aceountea will aos wipe owt usurious cmargea,
ami eo long as any part ef the original loam is urnpald the usury
may be éeductsd therefrom. liugter ve Betehy 45 Tile 1783 Cobe ve
Guyer, 237 Tile 4683 Lobéel) ve Zilliame, 255 Ills App. 489; 39
Gye. 1005, para. 4 ani Ge

What purporte to be «a transcript of eertain proceedings
in the Susiecipal court wes introduced in evidence. It shows that
a Yepleyin suit wee sommencs4 in which Miiten Levinsohn, doing

bmg
tan.

a
ante ma

ts erat bend I

eae ae

ora ao

Se ein eed Seiireme—re eet a ee

eoiersto® brosur oi? 10 doadtiods oad es wererers we “twodale
Kennune Meidw noqu teat wed oxdsle teanbade alt ed oat oe bode
moieties gon ftw éruoo atdé aeenndaswexls eased ‘zabnt! -T994G9 “fer
| “gtd of bonteteme don at ‘gatbndt “elt dass xoxxe %0 s2eumrgiess
bas 90? sau htt Bal «xeqo! + bewelt oxei ce 38. mye sweseive
efootwe e148 font to agmbbatt eo? rodenm aka sacks ecnssae Lhaste ow
asoaxene hi “V zoxemse yORD of EK tel sakes: ov y 09 8 soda aemad
ius hth boon hss
deovedm Mile gOTe BOL, ff wow stem taxkt ett ‘to Fawtes oft ‘
“ed? 00.0084 caw hommel ylieveer Unwoms ote fiaeo tug YHNSE GF
xey moves ‘ts destedak dete gat y it vow oon Brbder od ‘be Vamsi
aobey! orow ovat +600429 wew bensod “ULiensen Sratoas oly pan
| gS? aga? pte Sescodal ond to B mideed senodisenmind ed de
‘Youom HO see isq caves te denvedR? Re odet sumheem a etiaeg
» @rew engol oft oF hoxcoltes seomdemmesto ott cehew . dotmbe
oF geemerO «y8OS gLLD O8L yhurtdl vy sete yetewores .anoredy
oF Ghaidst 3980t . 160 Ves abet eee POLIS oILt BES goo
peyreto erelave Wabi fed «= «OBR aga etrt Bee eorgueed
duiad and meet molivouastd at) everiok von weed .0Ye yard’
o¥ Anal Leaotinl tment) yeh? sift OB qmontyas Vv xede een
oG0L effi SOL gettet «¥ Hrokee) 4eOR »TLY tot 000 sy Poa ok
gitides ,enmol Lemtgixo te patonest tes edd ynetex wen to getviy af?
eaopizdo ehoiwver duo agtw Jom Lilw eiarbews yrbonsted bts one wom |
ewan oy bhaqne wi mack santyito ont Yo Freq yu ext DAO om Bee
o¥ gdod GOVE oLit 8 sdegell oy sede = wmteerberccde: bodouboe od yam
hs wrortinatbe ering «Sacco xO00 6fK0 VES axoyel
. ! Li pate onda dien tl og «toot » me
agalbovtory moive Yo sqbenenets 2 ed 02 etneqieg ted. ieadiaiin
twit awode ¢1 .2ombive a2 beowbetéal asw gouee naeamalanineed
gittob gmiovetved mos iil sindue ah pronemes wow diwe mbye.

business as Koter Car Finanee Company, wag plaintiff, and irving
Starek and John Dee were cafandants. The court found the right

of pouseszion of the preperty replevied to be im the pleintiff.

The transcript does noi show what property was replevied. Defendants
argue that this judgment is reg sijudieats ae te the ieewes im the
present ese.

The burden 14 upon the person whe aecerte res adjudlenta
in another proceedings Sawyer vs Helge, 160 Ille 620g Leepeld ve
Sity of Chiexeo, 156 Ills 5683 Paoghe v. Leckhinsg 27% Tlie 106.
The migter found that defendants hac falied te eetablich thet the
parties, subject metter end esuse of setion were the same in the
replevin cuit ae im the imstant omit, hemee there wasn ao former
adjudication preven, ard, woresyer, the osly issue determined in
the Kuniecipal eourt wag the right of possession at the time of the
institution of that gult, which cate goes mot appears this does
net determine the owwnerahip of ihe wroperty. se ckancelier eane
firmed thie, and, as we Wave anid eeiores, ne Sbjectiions or exeepe
tious thereto have been abctracted.

Defendants assert that there was a sole of the mortgaged
Property under a power of ele eontsined in the ehattel mortgage,
with the acquiesvence of the movtigecor, which bars him from suboge
quently precuring erecit of moneys alleged to have been usurigusly
charged im the crigimal tramanctiune. i 's supgert thie sasertion
defendants varrate at some Lleucth what are claimed te be the facta,
but witheut any reference to the abstract or rousrd. Je are
therefore unable to analyze their statement of the eupsomed factee
Complainants aseert and the master found there never had been a
bona fide enle.

The reverd dees not support the claim of defendemta that

they were acting merely as brokers and may therefore charge a

ete
eaiveul ben: giittnialg asw qyaweend comentt nol tedeM ae copmiand
ddgia ed? seuol fies oft + admhme ton grow von vateh toe aloxedé
_attbintetg eft mt ed.o¢ hotvelttvs yoroqeny add Ye eedapeawng Yo
adnshretad sbelvelgos saw Yireqeze fade wode fom aeebh Aqinaenand gaff
; st mt nownet sft 04 sn alge talina aux 0? Smomaiuh olde ont owas
too tbuks ax od keene ost Sowreg ot noqy al sonra ~ sie
6¥ piaeoet QORb Lit ObL gueatet ov seems skeen sella wt
sBOL efit EVR sab tioel sv gigeol y6b8 »L1t O81 souaekd) te vate
ott gots Aeifcotag ed befiat pal ssuenuoteh dadt Swot xodsom, ont
| od? of omae aft otew Gelder to panne bum aodtem doeidve qapiexeg
toRmeel om aaw exedd oompd gdton tuedenk ods st an ddee ab velges
Mi bowimiaiph exeak yinw asld gtovoecem yhne <MevS%G Beldortaetos
mi? te omit off ¥a modeeveney ho idtgix sid saw ¢useo Saghobamit-estt
aso eid, «tesq¢e dom aes odab deidw yiiwe dasityde moleesidans
o18¢ Wddovinne a8). «yrregowg af To Gideusiwo ons ondercede) son
“(apm to suolioride of goseled Glas rvae ow ae 4 Sm erry pomek’
ebeteotsede aod ava odoupeld emote
‘ bomeatvee, oi to tive & waw ovadd Sand o2ssne efeabow lod
stgrat tom defiade odd mh deniedaes efsa. 29. tomg,6 sohny ‘wegen
seadira mori mii axed dotey «copagd som sal? 26 ppmoemetupon ode ide
VWarolisay esd eved od. peneste agenom te shoore galasorg yLe mes
_ @eietease alt J veqgun of samdivennent damigiae edt mf bogie
“quégat 842 96 0f bombaie 9x0 tadu diymvd omen tm steviag, agnabaoteh |
gy SF, . ohtamet Ze senrpade, ait Of ponnse ten sgte seUee, # amd |
“theo oA? Ye supmodade xis oxyinna of eLdame oreroxestd |
4 Heed bast cove ered? basot te seam ous — a ee )
Sault atushneied w maka prs aemmdaneaie pes i, eal, sc,

& ogxashe ssehoendh Wet fn ston 9, xirnnm waldon. om ad

«ce

commission for investing funda. The evidenes fully ewtabliches
that ithe losue were wade by Geld ami Levinealm, Truc, the wother
of Gold and the wife of Levinachn cecavionally supp].ice these men
with money but they gave these woman their demand sebes fer euch
momeysp which were depositec in theiy own bank acvow:t >

Other pointe are made which ve hawe examined, but they
fail to present smy convineing reasen to disturb the deered.

The Gceree required the defendants to deliver the trucks
tc complainants within a ehert day, and in the event of their
fellure co do so Gompleinante’ duunges were assessed ot the ou
Of G5—0004 The commer, concerted ection of the defendanta,
Wilawfully te take these trucks in an endeaver te compel the
paywent of ugury, renders them jointly and severally liable.
howlhor Ve Loewt, 255 Ue So 5220

ae axe eof the opinion the mester*s report wae based
upon the records amd his legal conclusions are correct. The
éeerece wae justified and it is affirmed.

APPIN ie

Batehett, Fe Jey aad O'Connor, J4,; concurs

abe

@eeellvetas “Lint serehive att «ebme? gmhiaoved a6) sokankaay
Rem toot belkqqua Ylenotvast’ wMeantved Ye Ohiw ed? bem BieD Ye
‘these -x0% wedon Seamed chelt mnmdw sens? ovay yia! dee yam Mote
~ ded om ava dee ghost ae ‘eed saoqed aortas uumen
wn jud 4 bouimaxs avad on Mpldw oben o18 stntog xaltdd® :
‘~eaxeeh eft Guetb of nosost gubonivees yw sini as caw
“Welawed ots xovkieds od stasanetes oat bevdupet cenees ah? °C
ahead tw ceive edd wl baw eyed Itede & miditw edmank
jee exit fa denedase o1ew sognind ‘eonantatguee oa oh of wietRak
gu@agbaetsh add to noises bedrbents ghhamtie edt ” — hea
ait? Lequeo od towatlne a at aitowrd cue otae of tivities!
‘sehdats ullexveves tne vtatet meds wrobeten yea Ko Daou
- @RRO 28 AT O88 gone ov abies
bowed aaw otoqet o*vetusd o8) Wetatgo wat Be vue oh -
aa? .toorx0> ov attobaifones Logel td ban ybeteoe edt wom
nya i sees ri et dius arcs eT eww edmbeb

8k anal Re ae

Saree!

<P eaerien:

oA SMATGEA wi aa ante

POM ARUN

ee ytuwdgilen arcenlve Mone pyngt aie ot
Ps We Roe she so aie a iM Bae or ja

:. ER: BRE pe MS Frente ind On ay ‘
‘ die jada will ‘
ie al

ieee See, ee gest

37127
MICHAKL KARVID,
Appellee,
Vs,

ALBERT J. HORAN, Bailiff of the
Munieigal Caurt of Chicago, ot wl.,
Appellante,

::
f
]

274 1.A.6507

#ER, JUSTICE BOGURALY DALIVERED fae Grihios Of Tae Wout.

This ia an appeal by defendants in an action of reslewin
in which, upen trial by the court, the right to pooeseasion of the
preperty in question was found to be in plaintilY and his demagea
were asseused in the wwe of ene cont. Pleintiff claims te have
purchased at a sale under the foreclosure oF a chattel mortgage.
Defendante deny that the chattel mortgage was « lien wren the
property at tae time el the foreclosure.

The ehattel siertgnge Le dated Feb, 2, 1923, executed by
the Sandara Fubliening Company, a corvoration, aw mMortgacor, te
Deminikas Piwarcnas, sortyages, sonverving an assortment of heavy
printing machinery, tools, ,aqudgeent, asd niscellanecus furniture
and fixtures; the mortgager printe: « nawseueser culled “Sandara, *
fer the Lithuanian Hational League. The mortgage was civen te este
eure notes acaregating $4900, maturing i nm one year; at the expire
tien of the one year afYidavite of extension for anether year were
executed and recorded in the Kecorder's offiee of Cook county; this
Was pursuant te the statute which permite the extension of a chat.
tel mortgage. Subsecuently, at the expiration ef the yearly periods,
two more extension affidavite were mede and filed in the Mecorder's
office cf Coek county; this would make the last yearly extersion
run from veb, 2, 1932, tw Feb. 2, 1033, It wag within thie Last
extension year tai the oeeurrenee took place giving rise to touis
replevin suit,

The statute under whieh the mortgagee undartock to extend

e
; : il “ vip +99 Ltogca |
UGE AOL OTN, ay ) sige ,
gs = mae ay valle th
_ tYa Ree mae te ne
\ “edd te TrEEted eAKGR 2 ranaa
: ah ee Om inte
a DF ota. ay ;
ay is ai ie GARR a maga a
| "088 AERTS nee eae
a, . pi
i -tavan ant AOI AD SG BS — UV Aoki Loli dM MO LINEWE: ges Lio
My
| dibre keen be weltes a2 ah atashoo'les co Laseae an a shat
| My Gian et
ile O43 Yo meteasaseg 09 sajhy dae’ davon Bay ys tebe nogu ‘ ° hers
: ARR 8
negewsh eid bas Viidaiety as ed ad pavot waw ‘goltesup ad eieocene

i oved of wminle Yekiatel use wae te one Wad ab Sestoead ©
| -Onenttom ieiteds @ te wtueeioere? edt ebay othe o ta boas
aad MOM 802k a Rae oumetom: kettate ond tats Yb
-VtNwELOOTOR anid Ly owns wae Pm
td Setuoone MAL .t ode hetad od omandrom Leany wat
of ,Tegegtrom aa HOLIn tog en w# .tamqnat gabiel cet weahmde ae
wees 2 THOOPTOGES Me QOkyOT KOO .Segentrom , mmconanet soWlalmet
Wiwdteret atone (leoeke bee ,taesgeupe aloes VI aidens yaltabag
* e1mbtel” bellay tegageron hotel te tegegeeom et paetudat? paw
ae of maviy Saw oganttom ott O50 ROL, Laue sok ong sith Bul one eet”
etiqne of3 3a stacy eno a atlinianm ,9000% ga ltaretage anton erin
OTN TOsY Tetons rot aolacixe to wsivabd tie savy eno edt te welt
aldt ;ytawoo dowd To sei Tte se iebtoned ang ak behtewert fam bosuoexe
~tare ea to wolinaedxe ans atloreg aetdw adutaze ade ot Fanuenee naw
Whelteg ylisey sed ‘to meltertane etd ga Asma upmadet .2gege tom ted
a'IShtooeh ast at hott baw oban oxew efiymhttte ROL ect hee ona owe
Golamixe yitaey smal ong alan bisew wkea 1¥sawoe aood Yo oltre
tant aisdd alidgiw maw 35 (eeOE oh tat ag 880L m wot mort eakalll
akest od ealt galviy mete dood suamriweg@ its tent: mary aulnestom

|
;
|
‘

husdxe of Aoadm baw shaiitenn ont goeliiw qehag

eyes MD; nit bi ae suck {
AS hi neta a a Ue
i

Na Soy

hia lien provides that the maturity ef = debt aseured by « chattel
mortgage shall net sxeecd three years from the filing of euch in-
atriment fer reeard “unless within minety daye after the expiration
of said three years, ** the mortescor *** ghall file fer reeord in
the office of the reeorder of desde of the gounty where the original
mortgage ie recorded, an affidevit® stating the interest the mert-
gagee has by virtue of the mortgage in the property mentioned and
the amount remaining unpaid on the wertgage und the tiae whem Lt wil
become due by extensian or othervige, suek affidavit to be recorded
by the recorder, “and thereupon the merigage lien originally se-
quired shell be continued and extended untli ninety dsyse after the
expiration of such period of extension cf tue time of paywant:
Provided, such extension of the time oY payment aball not exeead

ene yaar from the filing of sueh effidawit.* Chap. 99, aec, 4,
fllinois Statutes (Cahill. )

Pilsintiff ¢ites iusch vy. setar, 271 iii. Apo. 3, in avonert
of hic claim that the lieu of hie mertgnge continued by reason of
the various exterpsigens, In the cited ease the mortgage e¢eured a
debt, the last installment of which did net mature until more than
three yeare therealter, ait 1% "ae cenimded that thie rendered the
mortgage void ab initio beeaune the statute iiwite the maturity ef
the debt secured Wy chattel mortgage to three years. The court held
against thie seeltion on the ground that ander the statute the
mortgagee could, et the expiration af tures years, extend the
mortgage for amether year by making the required affidavit. in the
instant ease there *ere tires yenrly aacessalwe sxtensiona. “e find
no dAeeided case in tois Stute construing this statute, bat in tre
cases in the Federal courte the atutute was held to authorize only
in Re; Xemgwall Us., 201 Fed. 82; Fullews v. Contie
nentel Savings Bank, @36 J. f, 300. The etatute in regard to

ene extension,

chattel mortuages is in d@regation of the comaen law and eheald be

i a a a a el i el i

1..4/ °\ i-~~—- ara

at at path ven. tte hetkupes rid aatien hi? tery te path t0't

Lottmio @ yd hetwses tdeh a te et itudem writ bautt aohiveng: weak oka
eith ioe To Qnkfit eld went et9eoy souwlt be tone den Eine opagi tom
aeiteariens si) setts eyeh Yieain abigiw eas ina” Baooey baile ‘tom area
at breoet t02 silt fiatle *** <e,enfaee oat: ee, mtang ‘ebeuh:-blee: te
feniyire ens etenw “‘Giies aif te eheuk to xobeebet wed ‘to eoltte a?
-ttoem os Seoisinl eds yalsade “sivebl tte ite ,behsooet oi sgegitoen
bar beaeli nea vote qeia st ah sgcadton ade Vooekbtiv Yd gad eonmy
Afktw ¢2 apse omits od? bas opayd som oid Be bheqan aniakanen aaa odd

hobiooe: ad of atvabl Tts Sseaaial eokeadio to mabe sxe. wom Dames?

ou Sie 2

rea VAlealiaito melt (eRaps ton 97 mequasent baa? _prabover areola
Fe Serge

o4d toftea ayeh ¥enka a28 cu hebue te ban. bouts ave od Latin

Wp Redk Ty Sk ye aR)

; fap ayag, 39 omit Sod te madace sxe, to botsog fame ® More:
ih oe died

2 eRe ee aa ebven te | sown x yuna vais aon mt» ono

svongpe at ® -9gh as v8 eset .¥ Sonus eoate Tibaatest
OM Meese we a
te Hosaet yd beuni aos Oya, From ena te ap he out tad mba Lo abd 20

/ berwose oyan? Tom oats 9849 bea te ods al “saneke soe ‘auoltey oss
asd stom Atay srtutan sou hs so bbe te daenstatont ‘dead eat Ngee
paid hers hien iad Sasts hebastaee naw tt bine "ee Ptaveads orang ‘tonal
_ te yiitatem ont astute stutess ea “oeusged gins Se Boy aso

bles sree aul? + PEMDY, vor 8 yeas ion Kegeaste w betueee sdeh
VS RR ane
ene atutere este rohaw tects haworg ie x6 ott tao ples Bion yer
eB ipae Temae
_, ME Paodxe aetaey ontdd % noldexigae 0s 4s shinee pe ae
ee ee

ogays Tom
aay «Shi aa ied
debs PIE sik €

owt af gud ,etutad aios pabiecsene: stare ales so boblowh

hy ae x i tg ott nf ogy ws oe He ype Fang
Ai .

tik eatredius ot bina eee Seutate asd is newoe, nana ag ee

Aart. ov eaoleasixe aylenseoue vitese sot ener etait

Bae

ot dunner at seusate ‘oat 908 7 _ aes ~ wgstvel sag mn

strictiy sonatrued. Porter v. Decent, 35 (11. 478. This ius been
applied te extensions, gris? ¥. Heuey, 99 T1i. Aon. TM. We
eld that the etatute gentempiactes enizy one extergion, aid that at
the time of the fellewing cesurrences the Lier of the chattel
mortgage, ae far as the rignte of tsird parties were consermed,
had expired,

April 19, 1932, the mortgages, Yomninikes Piesronas, vent
with his lawyer te the slege of buoinees of the mortgaver, the
Jandeara Sublishing Cempany, and told them that he wan tixved af
Waiting for his money and that he would foreplese the mortgage; the
agent ef tne Publishing company asked for further time but Piwarenas
stated tuat ke would take full contro. and sharge ef sll the goods
and chaitelLe, Thera was e@evidenes that Siwaronaa vas in ooeseasion
under the surtgage 4uring April, Kay, and part ef Juns, 1932; the

apparently
paper “Seandara* wan «tili printed out fiwaronas said the wages ef
the euployeee,

June 15, 1939, the aticrney -ho reeresente! the defendants
Gudsitie and Page, teld the attorney for Pivareneas that he expected
to take some action «gainet tue Publishing ecosipany on behalf of
Khiie eliente, who were crediters. cOiwarenas then inetructed his ate
terney to go shead with the foreclosure of the mertenge; bis at-
terney prepared noticer ef Taerscliceure and peated them apen the
premises; the notices were to the ei feet thal tae property sould
be gold om Jume 96th af public sale purguant to tus terme ef the
Mertgage. Unorn this date the sule was had, and Miehael Narvid, the
Plaintiff here, mude a written bid ef 34600, whiek was accepted; «
ehattel mortgage bill of sale wae prepared, delivered te Karvid as
wendee, and recorded; subsequently a repert oi the sale waa de0
adivered to the Gandara Sublisiing CUompumy.

Om the follewing day, June 2let, some deputy balliffe of

the Kunicipsal court game te the premises and informed the manager ef

by
ah

ame 5 est abet | BOD WALT Be dines 7 13839" “bow: seaon ebtotxan

oF ne aA efi GP NRapHL ae pevdtns .Ritg.inian 9x9 of bed ique
“te teed tra Hole moaxe one vine ansalgantsos etusarn ont Jana »fou

ek EE r We |

Losin odd Te note att seve TIND9e patwettot odd 6 ous ais
sDoueras.r90 ore | ao kerng ft Bais re site ss vd newt ad ne emeatnon
“tase sncotaeht aed ted aot eouasd ron ant seer vet aga

mea Rita

“eat “eTonsyt tom ot re naeah: sae te nonkiy ot or aevund abe aghe

6 Se Hey th re

Ny aecil tinw od tadtd woth hind bas seg patent ious atahawt
ext jogestrom ext seelgoret sivew os add ae enon ahd tot natsian

mack. | Raia ete Brie

sanotart® jot ‘gmt reddunt <st besten ungnes gab d ides ons Ye toege

A SETS AW

abocy ois tie to ‘gree hae Lovd.ans toe’ ome? hixow on tens bedase

aie. < Sees oien

nolsesence “ enw nasoaewhs ssi seasdive oew su0st | -eiodsaiis, baw

, ae ea

ott Beet enut ‘te dtoe hota mrt Rost gabe ryends om oie
ylsnexeqqs ee Ee ibs

to geyew edi Silay vediadeiialad jus bedabea Lihae | oan “atnbaae TOGKY

sosyotene a

atnabas tab ous he dene teet ont wennoite outs ite ek one

bosonaxe wal tants aanctem “ot uemotds ent biot by ala daw ‘sesteban
a Easing an euaquree ate rion exit tanteae nottoe mos, ins es 02
ota abs berouisant ast ence taw ht sexos thoes mi8w ite “jatnenze 9 ate

ate at jeaay tron eit “te erunecoxe? ast adie hawt 7 od eeaned
Bi ont moqe meds botees ete auaoowre? ve avotton ,

bLuow yexeqo re ‘eas dent pie oat ot i ean Pr Te Sp mrteene

ont te need edt od trewareg otee etidue oS dae oot me wes
sit} (bivinit Inncio kM how bast anw sien ost? ofen abi soa span a
a jhatqeoon any iakdw 00088 te bie messi a ire ome

we bivset ov ‘boveviies .Seceuong ‘aw ‘ofan ‘ne Lthd 9
iy se ase sites “oat iT ) Fro Ys ieasupe vue “lea
te Meliss dag prot jain ahehasl ti é: te 2 a

a vi ane

the Gandara Publishing company that they prepoeed to make a levy
on the property; they were inferme4d that the property had been e014
the previous tay at 2 foreclosure sale; the bailiffs left a card te
the effect that the wrégarty was in their eustedy,

July 16, 19352, the plaintiff filed pis affidavit for re-
plevin, alleging that on June 21, 1932, defendent Horan, Bailiff
ef the Municipal eourt, and Gudsitia and Fage, defendants, wrong-
fully took and detained the goode and chattele: slene were filed
and the case preceeded to trial, and the court found in faver of
Plaintiff,

While the lien of the chattel merteage, a8 ta third sergens,
had expired, yet, when the mortecacee, Piwsronag, teok asseession af
the chattels hefere the levy of the exeeutions, his gosseasion was
paramount. Upringer v,. Lipgie, 209 kl. 261; Firet bation
Np Baree Commiusion Ge., 198 Ill. 232; Se 2 :
Peoples Bank, 332 11. 362; Sols v, Zacher, 2% Ill, Agr. 193. Bven

where poseession is taken under an unacknowledged mertuage before

eu
Rit

porgeession ia taken under an exemition, posseraion under the morte

gage is good. Cope vy. Brentz, 190 Ill. App. 54; Doty v. O'Neil}

and O'Neil, 272 Til. App. 212; Fike ve Golwin, 67 ll, 227. A

mortgagee does net by extension waive hin right te take posasssion.
Rector, 8% (11. App. 850.

Appellants ween to sdwit in their argument thet possession
of the chattels is paramount, but argue taat the mortgagee must
openly and visibly take peysical poaseesion ef the sertgaged chat-
tele, citing Wiliiame v, Head, 219 T1l. App. 8; BR u, 8
Rubber Ce., 262 I121. App. 387, aid other gases, In the first of
these casea, after notices of sale were posted the wortgager was
left in poesession of the property, which censieted of implements
used on the farm; the foreclosure sale wae postponed indefinitely;

Judgment was obtained by a crediter and exeaution ieaued and the

sheriff levied on the property; the mortgagee breught suit for right

b
{vel # fom of heeegete yeas taney Yiaqaes wikdelidet etebaet ond
bies ased hes ytxecond of? tertd Somretat ager yet pytteceng edd mo
ot bias «© Htel eMiilted eas jelee equneloetel « te Wah avolwverg edd
xhotaue tied? at aew yttecony wnt taste soeTte oid

“OF Tot Sivablitie ald bell? Vilvalele odd ,BE@l .8f yint
Whdlad ,aateh garbusteh ,SERL , mE envi ao Jedd paipelin ,ahwete
“BaOTW ,etashasted ,eyot bac atttabed bas strues Lg he hemes oct te
beLtt erm saelg ieLotietio hie whooy off baatateh bas Moot y ity?
to tovet at bawet oti0 9 ont dae fabs? of hobseootg aeag ode fas
seanereg Salis e¢ a 1 g82 91001 feijate ett 2p godl ost. Liem | yeti )
to aoisasasog dood seahotarst ,wegegtrom odd wedy y toy. eli, bed
tee riolosesaog gist Hodsverxe oft be yvet edt exerted wiottamte ett
teal faoobte’s gost i098 .1T 008 ,elagh! v xempixg? .dawomexeg
aL n0l uietMe geodtued {88 «£47 80% ,.09 melee hase pana av
movi 685 ag fi TORS” ‘ides. econ s8OE LT SRE. weet ap kooet

eteted Sysyliow begholwontesny ax tehaw meted wf So lseemeem oxecde
«fiom off inbiw molereneoy ,solticema me Shee mexXet of solesseseq
AiteK'O _.y uted :202 .quh .£4% OL .atnend ot ego. «boon at anen
nen VSR LET TO ,gtyhed vy eAES 1858 oagA £6 Se + ditalle baw
sHotsaveseg ovat 92 dsig ts ald evtew aoleantne yf tom Roh smnrotnon
| O88 .amA LT 08 , mats |

metacenses Seis tnemvate thet ot tiebs of moon atmo icesoh nlite ted
|: FeuM Kegegtrom eit fads sugts sud Pid teats
steno heanatzen ould ‘te selsesaneq Laolaygg stat eldtaty has yLaege
afd a donk s@ sua .LEE OLe py LLLLY patito ,elet
te feck oct? at (s89GRe Xeldo daw TEE te efit COR , QP noddeh
aan ‘topagttos oats bateoe exav eine Yo weolion t8Pte eeace onesde
Staoaeluat to Deseinses sold ,yteecots ost Yo mpleasenog at tet
i¥AetisNenal baneqdaog Gar nine stuseloete? oct pommel ost aetna
eat has heuest aolivonxe bas x9tthem « yd paeveinianies aioamy bart,

‘tHglt ret thus fdguerd sogzatiom sd? pytreqose, mt mo: "

of property. It wae held that ae he had done nothing until after
the execution levy was mada, the mere posting of notices of fore-
elesure was insufficient te conetitute » taking ef possession, In
the second of the cited esses the levy of the execution was made
before the foreelorure sale. In the present case the levy vas not
made until after the fereclosure sale,

The preperty covered by the mortesge sas a gomplete printe
ing plant, made up of heavy maciinery and equipment used in printe
ing a newspaper; the sortgagee, FPiwarenas, was s baker by trade
and it was imoracticable fer him to remeve the graperty and etop
the publieation ef the paper; inspead, he took contre, in April
and therearter paid the wages of the employees, and permitted the
Lithuanian Rational League, waieh published tue paver “Sandara,*
to continue te erint the paper in thie printing plant. in Pirget
Eat. Bank of Croekett v. Berge Live “teck Commission Ug., 198
Til. 232, the court said:

“So particular mode of taking or retalning posses#ien is
required. ** ke rexoval of the cranerty from the mortgaged premi-
ses ie exsential if the mortgagee has actusl control of it tere,
(Jones en Chattel Mortgages, etc, 180.) What constitutes a change
of poresesaion depends much upon the character and situation of the
property. * * From an exacinetion of the autherities it clearly
appeara if the mortgagee «* have the greperty in hia view and under
his control, and by exercising contrel over it by virtue of his
mortgages indicates an intention of depriving the wortgagor of his
apparent ewneranip and possession, it is sufficient to proteet the
property from the claim ef third parties,”

The court could croperly Tind that the mertgegee was in poesession
of the chattels from the 15th of April, to and including the 26th
ef June,

The matned employed to foreclose conformed to the language
ef the mortgage and wae authorized by statute; proper netices rere
prepared and served upon the mortgager; uetilces were alse sested
on the dour of the prevsises and on three ether locations in the
vieinity eof the -reperty. Although seme witnesses testified that

they saw no notices, yet the court eould properly cencliude that the

pabse he ORY. 846: Me. TeQety af © i ** soyegtiem git t

tot'te thine gatiged oash bed 96 we tate Died ewe ot tregets 10

sbiet In avoisem te ygoiteog esem sad ,oham saw yet Rol dNoORe nate
al .felvapecog to gatdet # ebutitaman of dae lelTinent ane wrweot
Sbax gay aoliupexs ons to yves ede Boman hotlo ons To bases ont
tom saw yvel odd ona iapsote att ak een etue glee to? ont aseney
elas stumolog tot wit afte ditou then

-talze Stelquaa # baw agegtzom add yd hexeves ysteqetg: oat ore
-tiizg ad boos tasmgiope haa ytoniosa yvaee te qu shen tana at
shard yd worded @ saw ,aemotawhi ,segeygsdtom edd jtegaquwed « gat

» ete. baw ytieqetg eff arens: of ald +07 sideolsaszows BaF ot One
Lhtgh ut Lortnee dont od yhantenh ;xeqeq est Yo meltaohidua ant

ait Hoddiataq hee ,geeyaique 12 Yo eegay ooh hing wePlacnedt hae

ek itinnein arahages xa wings to ob lit

«teeter os a sings end bh yiteqet) bia sorn.guin't oa
.eteds 22.%o fevtnas datos sac nagegttom et? Th

epaeiio & distittoane ven? (065 se eer eee

ocd to aodéeutia haa twsteatada e679 spooesh. ea
ylreelo th soisixedtne eft to wold fir ae aor% 8 me
wi to ouatly yd $2 seve fotines galelorexe yw bax 4: _ os
(gid to togegsiom sad gaivigeeh bai | fied oi oo Siao Lhe
ier - ¥

ont Byecrreteid “ peneienalat af @) ,aclseeaseg ba we dau
*,eolizag butét to atete esd roe or

8802 edt yubdelond ban o¢ , tings ealiiianions etbaid -. e
ayaugaed ont 02 sandiians esetoese? of, ane, yrs ?., wih
stew eroison taqoty jatwleta yd deal tastam Baw dain pRe_dxom oat, 1 te

keteoy opin exer seolion ;tonagtxom aid aoqy heriee baw betarn te
ot mt anotieped testo sates aa hae anekonte acid to took ed? mo

tan? toitient agerontiw emes Agueitta .xttomere oft Ip ythalely

omen ma net

notices were croperly seeted as reeuired; pursuant te theese

notices the property wae seld June 2th to Narvid, the plaintiff,
whe received his bill of sale bearing taet date; that he paid the
money for it is e¢etahliehed by the evidende, and his nome subse-
quently appeared as the publisher of tic paper *Sendara.” Althoukh
the bong fides of this gale is questioned, we find netuing whieh
would justify u holding that it wae invalid.

Defendante filed ea plem uwlleging that at the time thie ae~
tien was breught in the Superior court of Goesk eounty, an aetion
Ser a Trial of Kight ef Preperty upon the same identical eause of
action and for the same identical property mentioned in the decla-
fatien in this cause wae brought by the plisintiff agsineat there
defendants, and was still pending in the Municipal court of chicago,
Upen the trial defentants seucht to intreduce the files in the
Bunicigal court case tut the court sustained am abjection te them.
The record shows that the cage in the Municipal court had been a41e-
missed or non-suited before the hearing in the inatant care, and
the raling wae «rover,

We all the attention of the attorney fer Aaeferdante te
the rule of this court with reeeeect te briefa,
Finding no reversible error, the judgment ie affirmed,
APFIRMGD,

Matehett, FP. J,, and O'Conner, J,, concur,

ied oo Fmevetog pMiLeek eo besedy Plteqets eer avelton
Privately oat ,biver® of A908 onal Biow taw qrteqote BAP Sooldon
wis Bley of Sant porwd fost gatreoe wlan te Lite aia bevlovet ose
aeedun ox wkd bee ,sbusbtew wad yo tevertdasee wa #2 vot Yonom
seunciste “,arohmed” Yoquy oil? Ye vemeloduy ed? va Keuesgaa yeaeup
dokdw gaistonm hatt ov ,Sonetteeup oF ofee oid) Yo Rabid ened ode
sbifeval euw ok gaud yaketed « hear biaww

«oo widt emt? eit te dads gatye tts asiq a best? etaebawea
settee se ,ytauoo Mood Te Paso tetroget of? al sxywerd saw ‘ait

te eaund ksoldmebt comme oid itoqu ybroquet to dag to Kale? @ tet
esineh eis ai bouoltann Yrroqery Unotimebk saa off to? hae Rottee
enedd 24ntage Tiivatele edt ed siywete aw ouved sind at whee
.ogaclad Ye deed Laqivinud ef? ot galbang (Lite saw bax ,otanbh
pu? nt gofPt O00 Gaubettak of daynon wtowhastos felt buataped
weds 69 mobtsetde aa hémladeue tice bad aed e000 Srmos thylonalt
«eth neod bel txveo Leqlehaut ond ak sang od? Yad) eters beooet we
bas joan taetont ‘pst wk gitason edd ptoted, Saiumiow *. henate,

se o et aah sass bet ere ‘st Xe ‘eaten: ‘eat ain -
iriya & * etened of etre maa l #asee ama 4,

Pe MT me CoM ie eM a)

Sew woe aos: SUP Aten. sale ee
samen, 4k ee ea He |

YES ae oar Bie Bay FF
; sg Niiate “ligt. | iia ai aE Oe URNA ase ts: tk ea ‘~~ Rs 4) at ane

a d 2 he Sah ee ‘ UC OS Tice ARDY Heh APOE } ¢ si a Ki by iain A A

Pe en a ee iy. balk went Get “an Rcd

B7B03

ANNIE VALDER,
BSefendant in Srror,

HS cae a

ROK TO CIRCUIT couRT
VR.

J. ¥, RICHARDS,
Plaintiff in frrer.

Sra esse

OF COOK COUNTY,

O74 T.A. 651

ee ee ee ee ee ee a

WK, JUSTICE MeSURELY DELIVERED {HE OPINIGE OF THR count,

Upen trial ef an action te recover megne grefite follewing
a Suceeerful action in ejeotment, sleintiff had & verdiat for
$2782.93, and fudgment against defendant was entered for this
amount. Defendeant seeks a reversal.

Im 1906 plaintiff purchased a 25 foet iet lecuted at 3620
Berth Yeetern avenue, Chicage, for 2400, and built a house on the
rear of the let at a cost ef B00.

Im 1924 defendant erected » building fer a gargge on the
tee lote imaecdiately south of plaintiff's property. Plaintiff,
¢laising that the nerth wali ef thie bellding enereached seven
inches on her property, broucht =o cult im efectment which reeul ted
in a vertict for plaintiff for these eeven inches,

Beeesber 1, 1930, which wae within o year after the judgment
in the ejeetwent preeeedinge, plaintiff filed a suggestion of dane
agee, pursuant to oeragresh 44, chaoter 48 - Ejectoent - iilineis
Statutes (Cahill.) ‘This statute provides that a suceessful
Plaintiff in an ejeeteent sroceciing, imatead of the action of tree.
pase for megane preofite te recever d4swages, shall, within one year
after the aejeetuent, sake and file » suggestion of a glalm for sesgne
prefite which shall be a continuation of the ajectuent pracesdinge,

This statute provides that such suggestion shall] be subatan-
tially in the same form sa « declaration in sn setien ef ssaumpeit
fer use and oceuration, and the ease pales of pleading shell be

observed as upen declarstions in peravnal aetions; that the dae.

SORTE

a —
stand shogambes Wwe... .....

a>: me eS

+L mveO 2 TONES et fos
4 ; &

om, fravoD 4000 to :
evi ma minbadass hse

14a A, I ASS at pert

Re deat ok wees

SONOS BHT GO. MOTAING BAR. GEMM LAGE. enact m*,

watweltor ast tous aseee wevooes of ‘olive ne to fatad nont casi
*o% tolbuey e basi vitals te nvmdoete ab soiton Ioteseoowe a

ut bas <tetibene

£0 | ane wot Rorotae saw fanbae'tat fankage ? a oa
| ‘daatoret s sieee ‘taabwtog betione

“ O88E te tetanot #01 soo as a | Bondo viifaisia i ee Hee

ontd no onatee & x0 path ithud « betvere Srabanted seer al int

Members sedroqore a titéntalg 2e davon “letadbomad | ate:
fi “eves betonotone qatbitud etde ‘te ise atron ‘ont tedd gm
hed Luees dobee seemteets a: ¢ive @ itgueed aetmeneg ‘ead se » aero nt

onndont ner 98 oaesid ‘ret Htatete ot te Ihxev bat
sas aghat ett aedta x28y a absitiw naw dio hat Ober of ‘Wodusoet .
=f te noltacanve # bossy vilsmietg “ auatbooners tonmtosts ‘edt at
atonttit - - suendoot® . Gh veduade .b) demagexae OF tuswered +s038
" Gvtensooun 0 tec$ eeblvete stusate ake? (.£f2aad) eotuters ;
«sett Te colton ond Yo hessact suathosoortg Margit me ok Milemtate
| aaegy ou aldziw . thai Aegoned Teve9e2 ‘9s ethtote fase 10 sang
ss gaan tot atelo « ‘to apttesggoe a elit bas whem dneadoste ot ‘ethe
sagatbsesarg sesutoste eff To noitavalinos « of fiaste so kaw at iterg
enngadum od Lintie aolteeggue done tae sebiveste asutete ents
dhaqawesa te aoltoe ae at aodtetafoeh 2 se a@ret omme add at vehtads
a” Linde yaibaeltg to ae tet ones oct baa ao liaquene ben Laid ™

a et sat isin toe Lanowreg nh amosseus teat | moun - hov

SS ee oe ss 2 fom oe ses

fendant may plead the general issue of noneaesumpsit. er way plead
specially, and if the issue be found fer the plaintiff the jury
"shall aseergs his damages to the asount of the mesne profite re~
ceived by the defendant since he entered inte possession ef the
premises”; that on the trial the titie when defendant entered inte
the possession of the preuisem must be proven, and the time during
whieh defendant “enjoyed the meane profits theresf, and the value
ef sueh srofite,* amd thst *the esurt shall render judgment as in
actions of aesumpeit fer use and occupation.”

AS ® peneral rule the revteal value of the premises is the
measure of the mesne profite, Testern Book Co. v, Jeyne, 179 Li.
Vi: rahy pmpegn, 42 211, 308; Calgh & ve ae « 4S

+ BSG 3

fll. App. 46.

Plaintiff alleged by her sugeeetion ef dananes that it wes
filed “according te the ferm cf the eiatute in sush caves wade and
provided,” and that @efendant was indebted ts piaintLir in the
gum of $8000 “for the use and occupation of the tesewente abeve in
the said Declaration end Judgment mentioned by the defendant, held,
used and ecoupied, at his resuest, for a long space of time," ma
in coneideratien theresf, defendant gromieet te pay her the eaid
sum of nioney on reyuest, but has refused to do so, te the damage
ef plaintiff in the amount of 75000. Defendant filed the plea of
general issue, and alice a specini plea asserting that be did net
uae and ocoupy the oreuiesees pursuant to any agreement, bat that a
4iepute existed reiative te the let line, “amd that net until the
judguent of thia esurt waz entered ln thie osuse wag it determined
that the defendant wrongfully withheld the premises in suestion
frem the plaintifr,*

Defendant ecenecedes that plaintiff ie mtitled te recover
the reasonatle rental value of the seven inches of ground occupied
by him for a peried ef five years ismedisately preceding the filing

of the suggestion of damages, whic he says is $43.75, This

%
heolg yam to .gieceyean-poe te eumel Lavecey one heolg yor demfeaet
qt ent Teheatesy ant wt duvet od aueel odd Yt Dae pybtekengs
“#1 editoxg aqyou ode 29 tmvome ot of segoned ahd oeeenm Lfade*
om? To asi sssaaog otat hoxsdns ad @odle Jashas tel ety ee bevioe
etal Betegar saohaa'tos aow ould ost Laled 00d ne tadd {*veckunee
auituh omid eit boa ,aeverq od tenn eeaioerq aff to aghenseseq ait
oxlav et? ban ,toerst? e¥2 tone gimex Od boyohne” Sashae teh HModdw
ak an sueuphul, eobaox Skese Suwop ef" dodge bae “att terg coum to
* sagt ipquooe hes oom sot tlageamea, to aaotios
edd ah aoniacig pat Le eulay fasaos at efn% fegoneg @ PA oy
HET OVE gavel wx .09 soo muptagt .ettroxg pounm nat to otuamem,
aes Ce ee ee (208 41) S35 , goggle eee pat
a Rb och ob SE,
aa " gang eenened Yo palibiinatiie sod, an Sntty Frlgadass og gy
bas ebas eenay dova ai sfusada ei? Io seo't odd ot yulbagons" pret
add ad Titsalate ed Heddabal saw Jawbae tok gad? hae * , bebivorg,
at evods as nsue aed ad te Moisequege baa ome ace ag" qt Bid ahd
biod <Sambas toh outa yd beaedsaom taomyhul bos agi teteteed btag edt.
bie “, seid To cose gael # 16% ,iaeupen eid te ,detquone bug beew,
biea edt tod, we of healmstg Sachagtoh ,teetesd aghtetehiades at
: oganat ait oo ,00 ob of daasiet ead dad ,oeeupes So yeaom Te ame |
Yo sede ext boll? doshas ted 00034 To tanpan oat at Whigalete Ie,
fom bib ost sasig gatexenes, aeig delooga # coeds baw ,ouged Leneaea.

tate tad ,stemetas Yas of fanuatag sondag ig gat WR APOE,

‘ont ftiay dea tat hae" ,oatt tof ad od svideies botelxe egaemn th
dethureteh ¢2 aqw eouen atdt ak beyesan aay syuee made ‘Yo tamghal |
fad daowp ab seatamig edd biasdtiw x wv saabasteh est dade.

ing We Raa i ke Fa *.Vebtalate nat? mort
revooet of ho.1828.00 a vultatatg sand ‘aohesacg tora

betauose bavoxy ‘te asdoat aovee outt to euler £ piomnns oh,

om) eakist outs aathaoong eiotatiowmat « euene ovtt ‘te dotted « to’ wt at i
ais? 2° ane ak eyeo od sie hdw iene v senaiinunain ont biel : By

heed .

oount was based woon the walue of G780G whieh plaintiff siseed
en her let. Vrom this 4efendant eetiosted the valine of the seven
inehee at #175, upon whieh, «f the rate of five ner emt for five
yeeres he extinnted the rental value at (45.78, Hla wotion te as
inetruct the fury rae denied,

Plaintizf® arecuea that she is met limited ta the rental
Yaiue im extimating her danaces but may reenvery extra damages ag

the parti¢culsr cireumetances of the ense demand; citing Ain:

wv. Remer, 63 111. 230, where it was held that there was ne sub-
etential aifferense between the action previded fer by the atatute
and the common lew action cf tresrags for megne erevite, Plaine
tiff cites cages holding that in « sommon law action ef treapaas
for meme profits, plaintiff te not confined to the mere rent of
the previses but the jury may give were 1f they ao pliesee, Gagd-
title vy, Zomba, 3 Wilson's Reporte (Sng.) 114; Oremeh v. Han, 2
Pa. St. B71; Town ef Gtayten, 45 Gregen, 301. is this

defentent recline that such extra damages may be recovered only
when specieily pleaded, and thet in this ense plaintify han made
BO claim for soselal damages but has Limited her elaim to damages
for the use and eceupation of the ecuugied piece of Land.

Se are of the opinion defendant's poritien ie wound. Ordie
merily, the measure of davages is the fair value of the uee ef the
premises Auring the ocoupaney of the defendant, but olaintiff ia not
confined to much demages but way recover all desages whieh he may
suffer fairly reeulting from the wrong complained oi, if specially
Pleaded, 20 Am. & Ung. Enc. Law (Gnd ed.) 547. This precise soint

was involved in Trotter v. Town af Stayton, supra. in that case, in
considering a atatute mush like ours, the cour$ aaid:

“At common law newline] damages anly were recoverable in an xction ef
ejegtsent, and a plaintiff, if he reeevered mere, was sbliged to
‘being an independent action in trespass to recover mesne profits,
The statute easbines these two agtione; but there is no ressqn why

& Mlaintiff may net olead and give in avidenee in an actian ta recover

“navies cf aatton mech ones ah ovis tm one

8
| Beem Se TYisentedg sade GOeTE Yo owiev ont woew booed mew Hewes
Govbe #87 to sitey S4e hetacdtee Peehaw'teh etd} wert der wee me
oui? <0) foee tHe OVID Te eea4 Bet fe (Heke noek (ROKR ge wee a
oe 62 aplte 2i% .60 009 be gulav toon eat Rade ses BE NES

b bniing weit ve /bebaeh sae Grok OS eeriead

\ febaet oat OF heskell Pow sl oie Few? etigne Trainee’ ©!

L) BF BNQcheh etdee TevNGeT Yen fed SogAmet Vhe gol fewksen wd eukav
Paeotemls paltic ;huaash stag O09 Tb eooteteavoxts tetoetirag odd
-¢ua of Sev o19s Seeds PROM enw s2 oxotw ,OOR £11 TO phenee wy
@tutate e63 qt 40% bohivory solion ed! aeweted some Tih Lebtante
(|) emhOlS. vedDiorg gages 18) Aengeosd td nelgee wet mainte wat fine
quaqset? Ta aoltea sed adoete'a al teat goaeptot segea ait te Vike

‘to duet siea alt of healings dom a} Tiktatel, eatery ping to?

oo aBGo8 seadele oe yess “TL wren avly gaa yint edt dad” ne

| Pio yeeter omens ;846 (act) advoqger sana essen ee

nhds oF .40E aogeto ee ary 42 eer
¢Lite “borer 9oes it gen ohdetsanens tiie ‘tans eoltart teehee tes
ebam aed VWibtslelg ean alts ak dadt has , dohaele VE Lehadde Wertw
‘Royaseh of ainke tod hoahakl aed fod weyers Litodew tet MhAED om
_ {bah ‘to seelg belqueee oid Te sokiaqiose Kar aio Ctr or

-lia0. .basos wh aoldlavg eeisbus teh nolaiqa o4f Te eve eH) OO,
‘ai? to seu od) to ouley tin) on al woynmab to orensm oh Utted
fom af Tiseledy tad ,dwhaw Ion ods to Yomnguoso sie gmeNs aamithinne

ne od dite eoyemsh Sha tvoueT yam Pod wayne Aven we hemitie

Qlialooge Id .to hoatélqnon yaote on weak gaktiuees etabet aeiine
tabeg eatoerq wltt ,fha (.bs! nani 9h | igipelannlied manihainn
ibaa sumee oft eto BALL Homme — = sora

te cereun ae ak eidetavones + | wok

ot boglica Raw , Pron botevonat oat i Tres whale r" pri
eS tet oo ‘mw .

aoyeox on al onesie tod inmeltoe

oad cyan «sh $oddw CO Se aol toga wat te

real property under the statute any dasages he may have suff ored,
fairly resulting from hie having been wrongfully kept out of ihe
poesession, in thie, as im ail casea, coupensation ig the wasasure
of damages, and if a plaintiff has been unnecessarily ainoyed er
harrassed and his bueinesa injured by tae wrongful acts of o
defendant in taking snd retaining peeseseion of real propurtiy,
there is ne reason wiy, ln on action te recover posuesslon tueroel,
he may kot plead and recover uch epsctial damages, *

The court held in that case that the pisintifY nad preperly speeially
Pleaded matters which entitled nim te damages in exeene of the were
rental value ef the property.

If plaintiff had, by especial pleadings, claimed daviages for
matters arising at the time of the original trespass, defendant
eould have suceessfully pleaded the five yaar statute ef Limitations
an to such special pleas, and even if the atatute had not ran, def end-
ant was entitled te notice that siaintirl weuld olaia more than the
rental value ac that :¢ might plead to the same and prepere to meet
#ueh claims upon the trial. Sflsintiiiy by her deglaration having
@laimed only for use and geeupstien, was net entitled to reeever
for extra dasager.

the court inatrected the gary that ite sele function in this
ease Was to fix the reasonable rental value ef the seven inchee ef
land. In substance, this was repeated im seme sight inatruetions
given to the fury. It ia evident that the jury entirely dleregarded
these inetruetions, an¢ whether moved by eympathy or fer seme eter
reanons, returned an excessive verdict. Swen if special damages
had been alleged, the evidence would not have justified the ameant
or the verdict.

Plaintiff's brief! concedes that im the somaon law action ef
trespass for mesng profits plaintif? ean recever apeclal damages
only if the same are pleaded, bul asserts that the damages preven
were not specialdamages but general damages, citing Glmstead v.
Burke, 28 111. 74. ‘this was a suit in covenant for breach ef «

Jease of a farm, the defeniant hawing evieted the plaintiff; the

bere thse 3 Yad yee out Seynswh yw esuente elt wad uy ae po

ewig ‘te ae @yex yLin'tgnorw ngs’ oe alive eit wert es ‘gis Lat

enue amt sh peidoaseunes gaease Lie ai oe ,9is} at .aodeeparog

wo beyouss ydicedweovany aged aad Tilrately a kt baw , ‘te

a ty ates iwigaoie ent ¥4d Sotwlei eeeniend ade bas beeperisd

> “"pebwteeeta fnet Yo uelsesenog yinietet Rap gubing nt wt oe
, bas tans solaaens oq ueveoes of golvea aa val , Dg ner an ef |
“ negames Lalseqe ove teveeet baw fv tea

¢iloisege Yiueyorg bad Ttivaieia sy tact ease tart af Bled Yaues offT
ers ot ko aveund mi weqeueb of mic bettizem sotdw @retine bebeety
“etoqery off To erivy Tedaes

tot aegeneh Seotule ,wynibasty Lelesga yo , haw tretnlade tL neh
emabme ted ,aeequerts iaaigivo os Yo emt¢ on? to galetca wee eten
encitesiail ta véutete weey ovit oft bebasie Yifo teaseoue eyed tfuon

-bae'tep, awit ton bed etutats ant Td cove bow ,etedy Teieene dole of a6

eit aguis @tem minis bisew Uitaluiq gadd solren of belettaw vaw tae
soem of Stoqerg bie mus on7 OF hooky diyter as erie o4 onlay Leone
yalvad agifataiabh tea yd Tilgatedt .tebr? eco apt enlede Mane
eeveaes oF bo Loisne Jou saw ,nakiuquese bus oe xe2 vlae Semteds
edit mi coitort ofee #2 tea goek ene bets wreak Pewee oak © 0%
to eevieal opvow ot to culey intoot sidawoweet ect x11 of few sand
anoldourtwal tigis omoe at hovaseot aaw choy ,ronatedue al beet
febtegotels YLortsne yx ott dad Jnepive al #2 .etwh end of morta
Tito Suen Tot 19 YrteqMLe YI howow TauLFeHW haw bite be ener

topeomh Intoewe tL nave .tolbtey evinevee aw bomtetes ‘eaihacane

Segoe oft Se rkivert ovec fen bisow soashive off ,hopoile aed belt
dobheee ae De

te aoigos wad meters ont wh Sarit pennies a Tetvatart whan re
angcveh deloogs Torp9e: mag Tihiniedg adi tesy papem ‘tol shaqnort
MvetG aeyoush oA? add atitosgs dud ,bohandq ete — emt 32 yim
honda aakeis: \sepeemh Sanna, teat goer wr

- ould. (hdtabady eatstenetee wnleed: sumanen 908 sent te atene

‘B
4
bi
Br
i
;
ir
r
“
q

ae ale.

@eolarstion alleged ne special gsmagee but the trial court adultied
evidenee of the probable value ef the ¢rep whieh plaintifr might
have raised. The Supreme court reversed the judgsent far the
Plaintiff, the opinion saying that generel damages are euch as tne
lawimplies and presumes to have accrusd iroa the wrong cemplained
ef = speciezl damages are auch a8 renily took place and are not
implied by law; and that in the latter ease unless the plaintiff
states the particular dewege ke hae sustained he wili net be per-
mitted to give evidence of it.

In the instant ease plaictiff gave evidence teiding to ahee
that defendant maiiciously enerosched on her property; that he tore
down a femee ehe had erected, and sver ner protest and ebjactians
Made an excavation om her property, and sltaough advised that this
was on her property he pereletad in #reciing the eall of hia garage
partially en her oroperty; whe alee cisima tnhat the paseageway was
thereby narrowed. These are @oecial dasages whieh sheald asve been
epeainlly pleaded. Ser declaration gakes sa elain for suck dasages
and she mast be confined to har deeiaration,

A mumber of things were creaented on the oral argument te
the court weick inclines us to believe that slaintiff? has seted ene
Yessonably in thie matter, the has bed & nuaber of atlormmeys, one
after the other, te handle her claim; at one time she danended that
defendant pay her $10,000 a yeur for the use and eccupancy of the
eeven ineses of land in question; eae aise admitted that at one time
«the told the atterney for defendant that sae wanted 930,000 for her
lot; it is in the reeord that the sticmey for defendant offered te
give her a selisy guaranteeing ner title te 25 feet of land, whi¢h
would <ive her a let ae wide ase the ene ehe had purehaseéd; upen oral
argument coungel for defendant informed the ceurt that he had, in
addition, offered siaintiff 52000 to tarninate thie Litigation. Ve

ean only aay that thie offer was sere than fair and we eannot

4
betsinds siuoo isisd on? — Seana rte t's oa hoge fhe sottets Loeb
- tats Nhkgmtade Rede eons eat te oukaw o ttadoxe wre eo semmintve
| oat 0% tanmyhet end Seatower taroe exxqut oat bee tow ovad
96% en sigue ain synod Larenon aad ambyow matabmo: ox ttabata
pentaLqnos gaxerw. edd mont dearesm. ova of a mveone Dae sehtembwet
tom exe bax aonke Agot yLleot em teue one eapeerh cabaege «Te
Tidinialg odd eseins sesp tetdel ost wh tal? See geet yt Mebdqet
“toy od tom iitw ed henlesawe sod of ogame tatwolitey eet onteda
i" ore : tt Yo somshive evi ef bede he
we ttac:0t: nib oss: compbie ave: Kidtatade epee: smademby edd lens #/ eke
Sunt Of said pYsKoqorE wad co heceneteue Yiswotedion gaabien teh) sant
anpttestde bas seedotg wer weve hac ,hesesne hectotie sous’h a! aod
pide tata besivhe dywoes in bas ,ytreqony tet ae cedeevanre am when
-epath, eth Yo Liaw eat gulfoous nt Seteieneq of Yreeqere Yor mo-wAW
Bae Yotogaceag oc Facd aminig cals ace peeroqete ted we ehatered
| Aoed oven biuede sotiw gognmeh colnaqe ote enedl .deworraa ydereds
: aegacnh dove to% alaio on aekeci moldatatooh xo hehas io ~Eetoote
He wh M os Molteraigan tes at Soallace ad deem ore bas
of tasmugsa Late ecg ap betsesetg etew agnidh te tegen A 6 >
op befon aad Tilvalele tadd oveliod of ew aoabiank eeidy foun ont
tag yaernodte Ye tedeua e bak aad ode rotten, odd ot Yldemwenet
_tasd Sebnaweh ede nais eno fa patale ted efiaad oF yReite eft tod te
out le Yousquepe hte ene ony set. isey @ 009,456 week toa Pombas ed
omii one 26 jad? bedtinbs opde oan gackieoyp a2 faet to mecgnk aevee |
tod xo? GOL, 08@ bedume otis Jans tashaoteh tot youtedta: ect boee ode
(ed bawito danhaelot cot qammodta oad dud peeoet pHtondial Hf 140r
Agise Boel Le took GR ef O172% xed gatestuwsany yodtog a ten ovdy
lore woqw pbesatoxsg bod once sao say ee Obtv ea dol woxer oviy binow
ol bes 2a todd Miwon Oct domreTal daakartoh tor demuns troewyts
MattoglOll ald) edeatiuss of OOORS Tredatalg: hove tte smedeibba

tense oF be Tiel nelt etom saw teXto alae fas yen eine: an

j
1
“A
v
4
ig

‘

by
9
q
a

|
i
]
i
i

underatend why plaintiff did not readiiy aceept it.

Koreever, it appeare that the sidetake with reference to the
lot line wae an henest wistaxe, Defendant evidently left the cone
struction of the building te hie esniractor and took no personal
part in lecating the north wall of the gareg@#; he vas in Virginia
when thia was done. Eefeore the work was racucneed a survey was
made and the sontraetcr started te wiace the wall acoarting ta the
let line sheen by thia survey; when the contractor was sottfled by
Plaintiff ef the encroachment on her lot tie work was stopoed, ond
it ie stated a new survey was made which Lecated the bet Line at
the same place, and relying upon thie the contractar ereeeeted with
the work. Pisintiff seems te Have satublianed her claim am te the
leeation of the let Line by digging wo sand igvating some ancient
atakes under the siderals,.

We reeite these things solely Tor the purcege of shewing
that in our opinion plaintiff shoul¢ confer rit defendant fer the
purpose of arriving at a settieuent of their alfYereness. Thhe
honest wintiee ves defendant aheuld mot ba made the ceeusion for
Mmuleting Kin im exeeesive damages. The defendant see shawn »
4iepositiem te be fsir. PlaintiiY whould be wiliing to meet him
kelf way and thue save further expense ts beth sartices,

Wor the reasons indicated the Judyment ie reversed and th
caure Temanded,

REVERS#)D AND REL ARDED,

Matehott, ». ¢., end O'Genneor, 7., concur.

Sa Sa

‘
ie
ri
te
’

Se a aa ee ee ee

ice di

att sqsaos yitheos toe bib Wittakety, ue ba
oid ot } eeueestos Atkw odateia ad} sand aracgge $f sereeres
nen ous et pitiob ive: sneha ten ohate he Peed oe sae atl to

| Lamworss an door bas raseuxtaoe us oF enh Ltd ar to adie:
“atatgrt¥ at ae en seqeteg off to Moy dicen ag? arhtnong, oi idee

naw YOrtuE A besapmucs any row (oH? e008 ,omeh cow eat goede .

Sat of gathroons Liaw of3 oneke.gt hatuade Enenenenes. Oat Nin amr
Ws Belttvou new xotorstage odd maw iyersen efed nt swore mak tof
na bowqate mp deine Pye) tet 2eA se Aaemivaoseue it Yo Vttatels
te eats tok act bodeoot Koldy shen aay Yovtuin Wem @. aeeate mt #2
si behooves totoatsane pat wld Ome any set. hte ,C8aLG cacen a
ont of aa mtaLo toast desiat fdotae svar of amano apart Sal
“tees ame yal topos bas au ant agi ¥ entt oi sd Te motias
“galwose ta seoctug outs xo la ton panne anestt | setae, 7 ic Sb
‘ou aot tnebastot iid bw te laee hineda Mihi wlela, Rolgige THe ab tase
if eke ,eoaaers Tt db host Xe doom ttte8 ® A nae, te SeORheE

va tot wabnanas one oka od tom binone fnebao teh, ait,

_ @ frets ana dawdan teh eat _ se aed ovisasone ak ata porte
mt a foun os yak tobe od biwoxe wihgake ls the od ae aetsieaga rs

oo hang Atod of eeasqne Seddte? ovec ewe fra caw Dhad
i Me

ous hae deotores ak 2 no mg buh mit beteginal anseng

\CXCTAMEA Cla CHQANVEH

; t 4 pid igo AE aga gs pepe as GR ary RA RE har ORR, wie APART
Pat Oia a i9 a PRS a id ae , Ce D i

7 mee wore we aaa wie
-tupaee nt ny ° as a ot ,d8ndloden

it PPO URE Ce MAS

ius wth aoe HO ea ae ers Ria

ee ay we aity > Gea nec ap pel Aileen Sates Indi ge RRR SRR rian. SRR Gs
a ! 14 % ad ea Pid NSP 8 FS SUSE ae 4 3

. ‘ a 2 tat at Mi ® Tee 4 ‘ ,

We: We ae A RRS ORS FR A aa Ee Mee: cRIRES
Pi pate By oi ss ¢ ae esi
ea bee

on Bh eth a TT, gt. mi ‘ya

eT a ke ee gow setae” «SU

Cat
X

5
coe Yes emer

36094 Va
f F iN ,
WORRIO KEMP, 5 A
Def ondant in Meror, f rae
Hj on w GiRguIT Wary,

¥G. 5

, “@uoK COUNTY ,)

Ron Sais,

;
/
Ivy ; i ante

£¢41.4A.651

DeLUZl HOTGR CAB COMPANY,
% selene pe

ae ce Ml ge Ran Mp ta gee

tiff in Mrrer,

BR, JUSTICE O'COKMOH DELIVERED THE OPINIGA OF THR COURT.

Plaintiif breught suit against the defendant to reeover
damages for neracnal injuries glauimed te have been austained by
him as a result of the eakh driver's negligener, while sleintifr
was rijing as a passenger in one of defendant's sabe, There van a
jury trial snf a verdiet and futwment in plaintiff's fover for
88,000 and the 4efendant apnesie,

The reeord discloses that about 6:46 on the morning of Bay
18, 1930, rlaintiff, who claime he was riding a@ a peasaenger in ene
ef d4eferdant's esba, was severely injured on the Outer Drive near
ite intersection with 23rd street in Ghieawe. The evidence further
shove that plaintiff was a taxiceh driver and had been driving one
of defendant's eaba; that abeut aix o'sieek on the morning of Kay
Sth, 19%, having finished hie night werk, he turned the cab aver
to the owner of it near Agckwell and Divisien streets in the north-
woat section of Chicago; that atter doing eo, plaintiff wanted te
go to the vieluity ef Gird street and Cottage Grove avenue in the
southesatern seetion of the city, and hail#d one of defendant's calen;
that the gab proceeded southward traveling in the Guter Drive, and
as it aporcached 24rd «tract there was o Fort ear going in the same
direetion; that the eab driver attempted te pase this Ford ear but
the eab collided with the left rear part ef the Ford and then ran

against a post, demolishing the cab and severely injuring plaintiff

and the driver of the eab. A few minutes thereafter they were both

' TS neene
4 i Pe
#%, ‘ cs ‘gi anou
}: * eTorsy af tunhen' ted :
j #Ivonto "= =
: B®

: ruo9 YSAGMQS Hay XOVOM FAV Mee
oer Ms puch sah “

“Ea38 op of iN ¥' g stad ab Trig¢abesi

iatyoo ait XO aOTUITS SET caunavL aie moKA00"o worayt Hi solve
{ pit gk win goeeie aat

seveoes of @aehas tes any toalega Slee tiyuersd Weddin ds » ie

yd hontoseun assed oven of bomiels ee livtal deserter: tol sega

titaiele efiaw ,soasgiiqen atiavish dap edt 2 tiewet age meet

@ tev erent ,ndao ai saahaeteb te eno al tegneseeg & ee gabhis aaw
90d Tove? ea Tikselely al dnesahel base gelbrer « how sais? geet,
ieecas faebr ted ent Bae GOO\a8

Ya te galazea ef so Gb:8 Swoda Sate ebnoloeih hupeer eafT
ene ch Tegneseeg w as guathin eew od amiats odw , thigatete pOCeCL ,al
tanh ovird rede e2 ae hotubat yLetever aay ,adeo oe! ineban'teh Bo
tectrwt senshive oft .ogmeleD al feerdse bxks fake noifosetetmt att
ono gaivicth oped bacl bee “xevtxh desixed a sew WUeatele teas swore
ya Yo galarom sat no Moelo!e xin tueda fact pedeo a! temboe toh to
weve dao off Pood on yuicow drigte eld bedelol? gatved ,O8¢k seat
«tition od? ai efeoute aoleiviC bus diewtieeh toon 31 Te tearo edt of
of ot betoaw Tilwaialq ,on galoh i9fte gad? jogeotd) te aglieer. fear
| et ah oumeva ever’, eyAstad bRe feotts MKE to ythuleiv edt of og
f estan a'fauhaotob to one ballad baw ,ythe sd? te agisoon ame segprisuoe

| fates ent at gatog tas brel 6 ssw omsdd toerte Hxth herlasonqqe #2 ae
| tud tae brol ele? saeq of hetgmetia tevich deo add sand ;melsoonth
soe edd ban brol sad te Hueg taex Yel ent Mew bebLE Lon dno exit
Ttlraiale gaivetad yletoves base deo ont anhéntioneb ,t00q a tenhaga

ee eh ied

{| bin erin’ we Pw ons mal ant iovert brgwidnen’ Pohemoere dae, , a *

“dted orem yout wwI'twomnds astunin wot A daw od? Yo wovinh ed? baw

taken to the hoepital where plalntif? remained fer a eensiderable
time,

There ia ne dispute eas te theee facta, exeept that defendant
eontends that plaintiff was being given a free ride in the cab:
that he wae “deadheading" and therefore defendant, under the law,
would not be liable unless it maliciously injured plaintiff, ef
which facet there ise ne evidence, and the sourt aheuld bheve 4ireaeted
® verdict in defendant's faver, as requested; that in any event the
verdict ef the fury in fover of plaintiff ie against the manifest
weight of the evidenes,

At the request of defemiant the eourt inetructed the Jury
that if they found from the evidence thet vlaintiff was net a nage~
enger for hire in ue eat at the time in question, their verdict
ehould be fer the deffemdant. There was evidence to the @ffect that
Pleintiff war » possenger for hire at the time he was injured, and
therefore the motien of defoncant for an instructed veordiet was
properly denied, The guegtion then is, le the finding of the fury
te the effect that plaintiff was such passenger acsinet the manifest
Weight of the evidence? Plaintiff testified that shortiy after eix
o'eleek in the morring he hafle@ the cab in question am4 cot inte
it an @ passenger, riding in the rear seat; that he had the money
in hie seeket ané expected to pay his fare; thet he fSirseted the
Ariver to take him te Bord street and Cotiage Grove avenue; that
he 4i¢ wet know the gab 4river; thet he (platmtigs) 444 oct wear
® ehauffeur's uniform when he drove the eab during the night, bat
were a chauffeur's cap which he tarned ever te the owner of the
eah ebout six o'eleck in the morning, as soove siated,

Defendant called two witmesere, ene « claim adjuster vho

lived in the nerthweet sectien of Cnhicage about fifteen miles from

the place of the accident, sne was notified shertly after the accidmnt

eidatthionne « 10% bothanex Ytkiniese exede Lettered pli ot metad
fmebne teh Sadt iqeome ,afoat onsitt ef sa adele en at —

idao od? at ois bert « movin gaked maw Wiateiets sacs whasds00

. vite eas xo bow ined: ata sioleteas hae “gal berdhoek" new ed sade

Yo ,Yrivalele hen tag ‘inwo tot Lam ah ene Law ofdens ad to binow

betowsts ovas Biveda s2u09 ona ban eoanbive on ad pe teak sty delw

ond Sneve yw at tact? ;Sedeeugex sa .teva't etomphne'boh at golbsev o

tagtinem eat tealegan of Yiitaletlg ‘te tose? af yew edd le tobbter

ree ety sormbive of Yo daghew
yl ofr Lesoindant gives ons gnobnoted Io dmenpat wxtoke Oo Loe

-saeq @ $08 kaw Tikialei¢ tedt sombive sd¢ mow? bewe? yal TE hails
vaibeov viess ,neliearp al emis os? 39 daw ect mh orld ae? tegme
dad goet% odd oS evapbiye aew ore .damhem'teb wnt vet od htwedte
bee ,hotehal caw en gomby ede da onle «at neguvaran # omw This abate
aay toibiey bosovigent ag Tok dambasled to aobtem edt ovoteted?
Rub. esd 20 gutbat peda jab aedtd, motseown: ‘As hedeoh yLueqoeg
deetiaas ons faulaoge iwatsseng stone naw Tikeataty sass: goo'tte ode et
i aia taf'te vitro tard fediltesd Thitwaies® fesaebiee’ ae he: ‘siighew
etek goog haw mobdeesp, ab das oat beLfadt att gabernowm edged) touts! @
COuom ont het oo teat 7e02 Taet ort ah gabbty ,toytonneg wee tt

fedd joumeve syotd egads00 has dentta bee Of mba eter oF een
coaloy See test bth (WUsstabala) of sade. provieh des: ont womt Pew KLD od

gt Lp temwe ef of cove boi? od dodtiw qen a? awe Theesto @ orev
ee shedede. evods eh .patorem odd ab: fooko'e xiv-sueds deo

git Toinuhhe. atate « ene ,eeeseatsw owe bedigo ¢aebaeted nn 60)
moet ae ite anezt kt guede egactsy to moltees teewstxom oa sb howd t

| fnath inca odd x9te. Larose, heRRLAeG Naw aun jdnedtoon rend Xe! o0aite’ ould

«) e4t betoes ls off tage ;ete't sist geq od hetoogee fae Sodpoy wht at aS

. geod ,Ssghs edd gatcteh deo ot everh of andw aeetiow af re tues: «

_— oe

he tentified that he took a street car and went te the asene of the
accident where he arrived some 26 or 3%) minutes after it had taken
place; that he found the eab demoliebed near the post and foun4
that the fiag on the meter hed mot been pulied - that 1% was
etraight uy - and therefore the meter did not ragister. The ether
witness testified that he saw the cak when ft wag taken to the gare
ag@, hich wae about three or fours hours after the sovident; that
the flag on the meter was broken off; that the meter was in an wpe
right pesition, whieh would indicate that the meter #sa not in use
prior te the accident. The driver of the eab in guestion waa net
galled ay w witness, There ls some savidence that the day before
the trial defendant tried to lecats oim but wee umeable te de ee.
There ies further eviderce to the effect thet plaintiff hed earned
during the night befere between taree avd four dellers sed thet the
fare he would be required te pay the eab driver weuld be about
$2.78; end it fe argued thet it would be unreasonable te ascune that
plaintiff would pay cut nearly ail of his night's wages when ke
eguld go te the place he desired for seven cents ctrect ear fere,

Rilsintiff testified that Re wished te gc to S4r¢ street
and Cettnge Grove uvenmue at the time in question to see a wan with a
view te purchasing from \im a taxieab and that he was informed the
Ben could be sceon in that vicinity between seven and eight o'eleek
in the worming; that he 414 mot went te adas the man and therefere
teok the cab.

The jury saw and heard the vitueceses testify; the issue was
fimple and ensily understood; they found in faver of the plaintiff;
thelr verdict was aporeved by the trial Judge, whe sino waw the
witnécces and heard them teatify. Upon a careful ceneideration of
#11 the evidence in the record, we are uratle te sey that the

Tinding ie againet the menifest weight ef the evidence,

= eS os OOS

Pacey 4 ea F iti. CET ae ‘ay ip aaa Uae Bry inated ot

and te sneos sais ot taew bas wo feonte ¢ * font o8 tant heltasest od

eee a if

mint boos iv ite ‘eoduahe or <0 of enon hoviwen on ‘ome tassios
,beoe® hae seeq edt teen hese tLomns doe one bawet on Ride oud seve ta
sew + tact? - boxing aood soa bod xefom at ao mie .
x9Kt0 out? : _sedeigen tou Nh setem ota oro tenons ae - ew ‘giants

~t83 add ot soled naw fh “wonte x0 oad wan on tant “borntsest 9

fase ;tandtooe ons wots wasiou x60 sd eeu oi sods. = as, aa Rs J
or ae ak ane xeses oui? Sasit ;Te aexord aor rena or fo gert ouit
eeu at ten saw aetox ois sat a0 that biuow Hotse “malt ines 2aghe

mM AR Ree PARAS RRR oo aR RRR

ton aw ply Ra ni ‘des oat <= svieh oat staebtoss ail at at
Lapeer i: Be Ye ee tino
Deda eas tec sven eommbive ammo 8 at eros wanad ie + bi se flee
} OEY te, Nae

03 ob 38 efdaau asw td ats etsoel 08 ho tas tan boos 29 yey oat

“a > nae yet Ba eR OE alee
betas bast Teds ale fg todd tosis oda Sd faaoblve wedoue? at gun pt
ons tans daw exaliob aot bus vouds ngowted ‘eteted Saute sat aun P
We twos od bivew moviad 4 dos ‘edt ve ag bextuper a Diwow out ove
acd omens ed 2 Sdauoasona ad bivow ab tastt bowens 82 4. 4 pero 387.39
od snd aogew at daty2a als 29 tia viseon vue a Stuer bi een

“wrt tHe texte tias9 usvon x81 horiaen ed eons octt af. oa gimme :
Rie RRS go ee ae te Be 2

sovite sate had am, of becdatw net taitt bo ttsees Veteatass

etude wake cal hag ad

r “a be an © “90 of ne: teaup at ouhd oss ta aante vs eroz0 ayatted -
' Uva tagian’ A ie: aes.
outs douretal aow ont add ban Geabaes a aid art gateasonug od wsty
e: AA ANE hh ae ae
Hoots" e tigke bats aaves avensod lately tad? at noes od ‘stuos aos .
FAR eT ‘ie
exetersd! ba nes ot neha of aa tom bib od tase jaateren out oh
Bh, RR Sty A ae RN
AD SANE AC aa Seislcih hl co
eaw une out “petdeaes senso) ts ont and bas wen ytut
es b Seren we
Mibsainca out te weve nk paws? ‘vous ‘booserebaw yltses bets
Avie a eS ee aR er
ents <i on fe oie vagbut felt ous xd beverage ane Niven che

WW) a Oe a
to aolteredtanos iutexo « og syilaaes ses? breed bus secsoadie
; Ri Aue ER ata NaN
one dans wea ot ofteas ome ow regs odd ek sonstive out ‘fte
Cae SRO Nae eRe oh howd £

_sponentye ona 0 sagtow faottooa om} tentnge af

*
acy

Defendant further contends thai the court erred in refueling
am inetraction tendered by it, by wate it wae cought te have the
court instruct the fury that if they found fro the switence thet
plaintiff wae riding in the cab at the invitation of the cab
driver without the intention ef paying my Gare, or to berome a
passenger for hire, then the plaintiff sould net reeever. The
argument in support ef this offered instruction ie, taat if slaine
tifs wane net & passenger but wae riding omly at the invitation
oY the éGriver, he could net recover unless he waa maliciously
injurad, and that thers wae ne ald egation in the d@olaration that
would warrant a verdict finding that pisintiff wae gnllelouely
injured, Be authority da cited in suppert of tide ereummt,

Yhe ineatruction was treperly refused becuase there was ac evidence
thet the piaintiff was riding si the invitation ef the Ariver,
Mereover, at abave etated, the jury was ingiructed at the regueet
ef defentant thet plaintiff could net resover unless the jury
believed from o preponderance of the evideneo that sialntiff, at
the time in question, was a pasmanger for hire, Ye think the
inetruction given sufficiently severed the point, amd that it

wae net errer te refuse the inatruectieon,

The fudgsent of the Clroult court eo Cock county is
affiraed,

JUDGMENT APFLAMED,

‘Batehott, FP. J., concurs,

Besuraly, 7., dissents,

(
|
I
!

fi’

gaievtor at here Sseae ead Jasid shaetacy ened 28 dawhasrot

eg ove of Pdynaoe cee ot ho bat ea wat @ pewebned sotsourteat ie
gust soneh hye iy moat haue? ad th fait vist, oad fourgoa fan08
dae wat? xe mobbed baad ext 28 dae edt ak gaitis ‘en0 Tittntate |

' ee

s poate we as te , etek ye atlas Ye noltaetat welt twentte aoviab
aut? stovansr jou Bluwe Viktateig ont cmelt orkid 0" sayananag

-niate ti ‘gada at aodtenasent hoteto ead 2 srozau ak toon

aeitativul oad ta elon natdsx aww tut TeRsOARER 4a toa aaw mus
wiovetel inn sew ed anedew a fea tives od storks oad Xe
sake aolsataioes em ak PR on naw teat taste baa boxutat
Glaweled tex exw Vebealedg dadt abbas sekbuey a fnew biuow
Sepang ae ald? to Suoqque ab bedke ae Ya sod os od " sbenwhat

Soaehive oa naw otult exuaged heaxtet cireqorg a ok toussant om

tevivh 94f Yo uclsadivat od? ta gaibes eer Vitsateca ont tacts
dueupex odd te besownsans ase vont, add ,botade oveds ae cweverst
eta esta ess inw reve0st tou biueo Tritatete taut Smhactes ‘xo

te Videubeig sass eons S99 aay Ye coamrebnogete * mort pave Liod
edd aided 98 .axka cot 4ogue sang 4 saw smolsuenp a ‘ontt ‘eat

th gad0 ban ptatog od? bexsveo Ysimicl Tiss asviy morsoursant
sHokfowtdask o¢ pavten of tocte tens lead

et wae ‘deed ‘to #xaeo “Hiuentd nas Bing samt eet

satu0 809 Lobo reedoeam
AD Be 3 Pi fa ee
_satnoanth ‘ack hoaidol

vt geht she
Wah one Awe

ay : NE
Feonmvtesy wet Lhe

Cr aera we yok ae | ;
cy iyi? ae

$7112

TH Re: BAPATS OF TORR WM. Gal
DEG KRASEH

j Appeni from Gireult

MABEL GC. VAN VLLCSINGEN
App el] art

Court, Cook County

Males! Mom Sec Nes Migr Tigger?

=s ss oo
Gp % > :
WALTER S. TASLSON, Breeutee, é ‘E tothe VU oO i

Appellee

BR. FIGILGK O'GONHOR GELIVERED TKR SPINTOR @ van cota

Mabel ¢. Van Vilasingon filed r wmended eclaiw in the
Probate court of Cook county agains’ the wstate of her father,
John . GCarleon, deceased, for $20,489.15, (11,784.20 of wnich
was the proceeds of an endowment life insurances polley iesued to
her father in which her mother, Gusie lL. Garlson, eas the bene-
ficlary. The balanee of the elaim (4,604.95, wia for interest
at 6 per sent per annum,from July ©, 1918, the day on whieh the
money was paid by the insurence comenny te John 4%. Uarison. There
was a hearing before the eourt, the claim ms disallowed, smi the
@leilmaat appealed to the Gireult court. [4 the Gireuit curt there
was 2 trial without «4 jury, the claim ves agnin disallowed, ond this
app eal follow ed.

The reoord diseloses thet dnly 8, 1903, the 7quiteble Life
Assurance dotlety issued ite policy of insurame to John #,. Carlaon,
by whieh it agreed, upon satisfactory proofa of his death, to pay
910,000 to his wits, Susie 1, Garlson, if living, or if she was not
then living, to the assure('a executors, administrators or sasigns.
The policy alec provided that if tne assured was living July 4,
1918, the 910,000 would be pald te him, if the policy waa then in
force. |
April 8, 1904, the sam asswronee soelety lasued sn oth er

5 Ye

BLING

ThE TOT 66s dun oaw rar

BM scabs OEE a ae Sm ORT Ree ly Ee
(HORM CM MON 26 re res aA MY

aso) HOOD, go uie8t

we ee wd cf

™
age

Be. FR IR -
v =

460. AT - cs 8

PO ON BPO en cml fie -

SOR ee ee My
Bsvgeni HOE TIAD ok x a
¢ pabteges. hee a Re EES.

“eager Po ty wad a
a ie 2) none ate * eat vhanaptbed ‘aoniene “as oes

apart dhangeye

way ied abide sini sa. poitt panini, af pas dooms aed
_, steele, tet to etaten edt, Jentaga “lave Xoe0 Me saaae,os adext
Mote 19 O97, LLG BL.80, 08) wr ,dogavoeh ,zoaktaD i Adel
of bowest wileg sumement otit tppumokne a Me abeavors att daw
~éaed of? vey .sonlre) 1 piavd .rodrom zat mide iagecioetl
teeters ml eew ,60,299,5) min te od) th, comeled | |
o6t doidw ne yeh os? ,MICL 4? ytot sh, ten Nh, ines, sec 8.90 |
erat? ,gogitad .M mdot of yanguns spew urand aft NS, Dleg, Bom, Np mee
exit haw ,dewellanlh gem nbate Sat 9FtwOd BAS ereted guises. a aaw
ered? tay eo, dhwertd edt af _stwoe a 2wesad eft. ot belsogga iuamteto
Shit hoo ,bewolLestd siege ane mials edt exw » tweds te Latte, 6 pom
howe beeen
wi bs sdet tap ea , (Boer ec 5 elyt fee? sooeles kb boom ont ao bil
toelind i asiet of ootetimat To yileg aff peumas lini ms ae oe

wed OF gaifeedh ald to whoore Ytot este Li ae ages, 2 baw A
tom amv ede Ui »aeivil UM ,soalted »2 eleet setae wt os mien
<Syiaan to mote wtebttwhs ,exmotusete etheress one ca spate ost

e? Ulvb nutvtt caw Denese ate Th ode bed tone cals york
“GE mes9 een Wotton ox 22 yubd of blag o¢ S.u0N _—— ?

policy for $10,000 to John M. Carlson, payable under the same ¢on-
ditions as those mentioned in tie first polley, except that it
agreed to pay the 710,0°0 to John M. Garlison December 26, 1918,
if the policy was then in force,

Susie lL. Carlson, the wife, died in 1910, and in July and
Décember of 1918, the assured, John M. Csrison, reeeived from ths
assurance society $11,784.30 in gatisfaction of each of the policl es.
The evidenee further shows tmit John M. Gerlson, ?rom tims to time
invested and reinvested the money raceive?d from the two policies in
real estate mortgages, some of which tore interest at § ver sent
and some at 7 per cent; thet in 19128 he remarried but he and his
second wife separated in November, 1930. He died April 7, 1931.
Mareh 14, 1925, John “. Carlson executed iis will whieh was admitted
to prdbate in the Probate cow? of Cook county, and the estate is
being administered by His executor, “alter 4. Uarison, a nephew.
By the terms @ the will his second wife, Idw N. Garlaon, and his
daughter, Mabel Carlson, now Mrs. Yan Vilssingen, the claimant, were
given the right *o oeeupy the homestead in Chienzo s8 long as elther
of them desired to do so, and after either of then seased to oeoupy
it as a hom, it was provided that it showld beeome a part of the
reaiduary estate. The wife, Ide A. Gurlson, ws given $50,000 to
be paid to her in cash or in roal estate loans at par, as she might
@leect, in liew of «11 eleaims she might mve seainst the estate,
including dower and widow's award. The residue of the ostate was
divided equally between the deceased's two daughters, Mloreme Carl
Lewis, and Mabe Garlsen Van Vlissineen. Mabel o@@upied the home
elite in Chiesgo until sometime softer she was mrried,

Walter i. Carlson testified that he was 2 nephew of ths
deceased and executor under the will; that he G14 gonsiderable bus

‘+ Stunned in hia lifetime md eas familiar vith his

ute

“too emew ort tebe ofdoxyeg wealvad uM nitot ei GOO, 01% 0% wtleg
th jet tqvoxe ~pllog tert? ont st Basel 3.6m erent? os enol.
eBleL St tedmavet aoa led «SM tight of 96 0,015 oat we ay dowxpe
seonet at a oe wifer est '
hoe yint nt ‘bas 0LeL nb be th thin odd (aoeten® at ohawe
i, mont Sov esex «somite? «Mi met ybetimas eat GOS % redo 0@t
288 bitoe mtd ‘te deoe w notdostaltine at O8 OY 5 L6G wWotos oom reese
amit of omit mot? , aon tusd .M sdol ¢ af? awods tedieet sone hive ete
nit aeteliog ows ait aovt boviesst waor oft Seteoratey bre besaovat
tows veg 3 fo fastetnt oied doldw Ww ese jeanenttom otsites Ino
ad ban edt ¢ wd be issaies es ‘ateL nb Peete Ets9g seq z fa spuee bas
+ibel a Linaa be tb ou +08er «ta ao oS nb Poterenne am’ A ne
bo? abo aoe tokiy tite abit ber neexe moa lsal ai eae
el of ate out baw conw8 wo0d, to 7 mree stadors ass a pore s
Mer 8 eoatnsd oe Sed Lav 1 totpeexe aks ww ba ore Le,

iis Ais
cia Tapia

waste. . anol Be Keays md beoteenon ott pica Cy phi ee en “Wi
qauuroee of beasoe ow ci te rents 1e ‘teste bas 208 bul ot Meeeh me : 4
edt *» sts a vmoaed Bivens $1 3 ete bebtvory pew an) mie! “
os 000, 08% norte se sHoslasd ol abt etle oat rotate | scsi eon
etete ede wo ,teq te amet otatae tees al 16 dase at ted of Sag of
_. setatee oft teateas svat tiple ere amtake ite To. ae. ae steele ‘
eaw efeteo edt To oubiees ont bisa e*wobiy bas xewob g Lomk
dx09 e mmrors ora? due ane at beaneoeb odd toute Lampe si vEh
mod at Seiqubee toda .noguter LY meV mp1 ve

‘g me

affaires; that a number of times his uncle, John &, Uarlaon, teld
him that before his first wife died she requested him to preserve
the life insurance for the two daughters, whieh he had promised to
do; that about eight yeara before John i. Carleen died, he ezain
mentioned the insurance money to the witnes¢ and stated Khe 4i4 net
know whether he would give the money at that tise to the girle and
that he was mentioning this matter so thet the witnese would be
“pested om things.” we further stated that the seney was seeumue
lating fast and he hed se ambition to double it for the cirle; that
en May 8 and on October 16, 1949, Jehn &. Carlson drew Kis tre
eheeks for $10,600 each payable to the orgéer of Krs, Lewie, and en
hie cheok stub neted, "For half paysent on life insurance poliey

and interest,” and on the other cieck stub, “Fer bal. payment on
life insurance oolicy and interest.* These sheeka were rseelved

and eashed by irs, Lewia, Ue further testified that John &. Carleon
444 business unter the name of John Kk. Garison & Co., ané carried
hie bank aecount in thie mame; that Jenn =. Garleon eaid the reason
he sent the checke te re, Lewis wae that her husboend hed made a
request for a lean; thet he weuld not lend Sim any seney: that he
would make a distribution of the insuranee money to Florence, *hich
he had been helding for ker; that on Hevewber %), 19K), the witness
wrote a letter for his unele at the uncle's request; thet the unele
then copied the letter in hie own handwriting and mest it to Heward
Lewis, ire, Lewis’ husband, whe was living in New York, The letter
was reeeived by Er. and ire, Lawis whe efterward mieleia it, but the
copy of it is in evidence. The letter refers to a misunderstanding
eoneerning income tax on the life insurance meney *«hieh was received
by Carlsen in 1918. That $10,660 waa fer the faee of the poliey and
the other $10,006 which he sent te Fierence wae for the accumulation,

over a nunber ef yeare, on this gum which he had invested, the

letter states: “Florence'a Mether wae the beneficiary of the matured

bie? ,noatzed .4 ado ,etons alr semis le soduwn @ tad? penteTte
evEsnety ed mba boteonpes nce hath wtiv tout e hai ateted aut wks

6d heataore bed od cutee sere tsiguat aw? oad at ronenwent “prt edt
atage on ,both aonited «i nstot ezoted w Ley diigo suede ‘tad 0b

fea bib os betatea Dow eaeativ edt 09 ysaom sonetweni ouis benot?ava
bas @itis ed) of walt gall te yonom ‘ods ovta binow on vost wond
od biuow saeatiw eae fans oe ted dam w tis ant ol#mem al ios taste

_ mieniepen awe Yemom end Fesi2 bodeze reste? ak * eyaldls a vod
tads jaizdg ong tot 32 gidwok of moka ida a ‘hast oa bas tant ‘aaksed
oxd aid worb sonteed a milet es eL at redor00 ae no howe 8 yal mo

ao bag ,etwed ,och to teht0 ed of afdoyag ioe 000,048 xt siiooris
ywiteg spanzuend eli no J asaneq 3 Last sot" hoten dwto fondo ‘ata

ae Inomyeq .iad 19%" ,dute 9: 2 ‘ertse ould sa hanes * ,tenmeent bas
heviooes ote esgoto onemt *,: pao e sek bra wi ker onmtvent ut
soadxed .i xdot, Jade hel iigess xeddrwt of vabwot anid “6 sexinns, ‘ban
hatutes bao ,.00 & monLusd 1 adobe oan edt xehaw envatons BED
soseet of blew moeizad .M asta tas? tema adds as sawoons ond ote
2 Siew Ses Soadaud tod Jastd naw aiwed etl od sdooso ott “tase os

ea tacit ¢ypaes yas ald booed soa hinew on dass jas e x0 “teouper
Heide ,sosetelt af yonem aonsteeal ants to mokdudtaseld * eden btoow
senaiiv edd , Mei , OS tedewvek ag test ited tot gatbcos 00d bet -
ofent ado tadt j;feouper atefoas ec3 fa ofoaw oid tot wgtek * sour
Rtawed of G1 daea haa galiiavband awe etd af todded oat betger ‘anas
segtet off ave wok af gatvil aow ocr ,haedend Vateed_ oat sete
ont tut ,tt btalebe buawsedts, ow gland -a7% hae, 24 yd AOIONOE BOF
guibasehauets oof wirolet witet sat, ,eemeblye a an 4 BI c

fetteaes saw rindi yous eonmivant whit ont 9 Bad gm oak rho OMe
baa yoltey et, Yo spat od TO? sew. 000,049 samt of ser | bone i aa °
Hottalmyoges ois Toh saw enagTelt ef ¢aos, ga seddw O00

edt ,bedoevat hed wt soddw awe e2dd we ,atooy Te

hetiten ost to vunkor toned eit eve eae tele ie nee

Cavey Bane ce

Endowment policy &@ requested that 1 de ag above stated - I Ao
not knew wheter or not this ie canstrued se a gift, imheri-
tance or insurance *«** It dees mot ween to me that it (ie).

an inheritance but rather a sert of trust fund in the girls
behalf decided upon by their Kother & myself - fhoir Rother
passed away in 1910, leng before the maturing of the policies,
and’ when the policies matureé 1 secured the woney and invested
it for the girls. Because of my income tax and questions re-
garding same, 1 an gure yeu will hear from the income tax bureau
in Hew York, and I auggeet you make your requeat te file am
amended etatecent. I am serry there has beer a mixup ever this,*

Clara G. Garson, 2 sister-in-law of deceased, testified
that during the war Jonn &. Garleon was reeciving some money from
life ineuranee and was giving some to his relatives, The witness
"asked about the girls and he ssid, "Yell, their mother's Life in«
surance ie in trust for taexn.' Thie wag after urs, Carlweon's death. ®
The witness slso testified that Carleon eeid that the money which
he had received from the tec insurance policies was secumlating
sq that new there wae about $19,500 fer gach of the girla; that he
pat it in trust for them; that on another eceasien ke told the
witness he had given Florence ber share and that Kabel would get
hers later.

Blia G. Carlaon, suother sister-in-law of Jenn &. Sarleon,
etated that im 1950 he teid her thet he had dome well vith *that
trust fund, thoee insurance policies held im a trust fund, I have
turned ever here to Flerence and 1 am just levking for a goed ine
veatment now to turn over Label ta."

Stella K, Coleman testified that she was sequainted with
John &. Carlson and visited at his home about Desember, 1929; that
he then showed her a letter written by hia firat wife Susie abeut

the ineurance policies, in wich Susie stated she wanted him te

eh £ « Sedare orede da oh I fexti bodes mpet & eo dfoy fomavobat

Pre sei , #324 2 9a Bbowr fanes ‘at elas dou xo sonderw womd gen

{al} $3 tead om 64 moon fon eooh #2 *** eoastseat te pened

afzly eat af bavt saws? to dyee a xositen Sud sound tesdat ae
tentox thos? - thodye 4 t0dted chest? yd mous Bobloet ‘asin
,satokier edd to guitwéam ot eteted aaet ,OL9E al wera veonag :
beoteovnt baa Yano #4? Aetwoow I benwdem este tion oar sonst bate

mx anoliecup bas mat omeont ye ‘te savesett saints outa 10% ah 4
decid xat emoonl edt att wed Lliw vey ewe aa i ves gatbaay
ns GLPt of Peouper Twoy eden sox facggue t baa ix Pod a

* a hag +eve quxtm 2 feed eect arens eries mm I aon Sate benaen
boltises? ,beeseseh To ¥a faa }atotete & ,orreS a etal oe |
mort Ywom soot gaiviesss aay neelie) oa auto’ rew one gard v
esendiw oat leevitates: ald oF oinos ‘patvis aw ben sonmtwent ete
ea} Stic se tedtest shecd , Liew ,blee ont baw erihy odt tuota boxina® :
sob @'Wortuad et t0dts saw bicT * edd x0? saurt al et conan

to Eeie yomow oS? Sal? bies aoetiad duct fot ivest o@ fe anoudiw oft

gatvefinwess ea avtoiloy eanetuent awd ode won't bovioost bast oa
ot teslt :atths of9 ‘Io dose 10% 008,824 suede sow sans won $08 on

‘pis BLos oh selemoos tesivoxe no doxtt “pmo 1a taut at a ag
fog biuow (4dak tadt ban eras vod sono Tost nov ast on { eamad iw
,toetin® 6M sdot to walsal-xedels nodd one ‘i 2 allt meat a :
add” ditw Liew each bad od Sand test B63 od cnet mt swiit betare a
@vad ft jhav't gaurd « at bled asiollog oonsteent Saodd , hawt wt deucd
“at béoy # tot galdool taut, sa T bin ooantert of ated hed’ it a” ag
* 0! fede rove mud ot heal tanadaoy
digtw betninuses aew onde saitt Soft itend mame ted it oF

(falg [ORCL jxednmend swede ainod etd ta betikiv bas diverted vee”
suede otewt otte seatt abd yt add iew ‘wader * eos voweda abd oil .

o F 3
g? mid betaew ori: fodeda elewt dictee at ‘ venient”

give the girle the ineuranes celicies; thet she wanted nin te

hold the money in trust for the girls “antil taey are o1¢4 enough
or until they seed it;* that John #. Userleon said at that time
that hie seeond wife said he ghould not have sent the $20,000 te
Florence, and he replied that 1% wae Plerence's money and that he
hed Mabel's and would give it to her when he thought she needed it.

In addition to the foregeing witnesses, the claimant ealled
L. P.Miller, an attorney whe Bad repreeanted Jenn #. Carlecs in a
mumber ef matters in 1956. the witness stated Ke wae willing te
teatify to conversations with John &. Carlsen, but Jid net want te
be criticized for reveaiing professional disclosures. ‘tnereupen
the executor stated he nad ne objection, but ceulieeh fer the exe~
cuter objeeted, and etated that ae bad no right te waive the ebjee-
tien; the chieetion was sustained, Counsel then made an offer te
ehew what the witmess would testify te, whieh waa in eubetenee thas
John KH. Carlson had stated he was holding the inauranee money in
trust for his daughters.

Glaimant's position seems to be that whan Jehn *. Carleen
in July and Geecember, 1915, received the money under the pelicies
from the assurance society, it wae received by him as a trustee fer
his two daughters, ani this sees to be predicated on the fact that
the policies, when they were i«sued, were made payable te Gusie i.
Garleon, the sesured's first wife, and thet #he requested Jehn &.
Garleon te keep the insurance solisier and the money fer the tve
daughters, and that afterward John i. Corieen stated te several
witnesses tist s« was helding the money regelved frem the insurance
company in trust for the dsugnters,

We think the eentention eannet be sustained. the policies
were issued in 1905 and 1904; they were payable te Gusie iL. Corleen,
the wife, in ease she curvived her husband; but they sles previded

that if the eesured, John &. Cerleon, was living 15 years after the

we oe

oF id dotanw ode Pang aakeliog sonotuant acid efeaa: yea ~~

t
i
|
|
¢

totus ble ot qent ibing* aiuts ahs 402 jure ok conem ons kod
onbe Pere, $a bias aoa kaad oil C ate dads "3s been wens fiom 0
at 600,086 edd gase avast ton btsvoste oa bine oie baooes aka tae
ed dat baa yea a! sonore naw ot seus be htge ‘ed hae sane t0t
22 beboen exe Ssigueds @ aa aosiw aed of ah orks biwow haw a! india bad
he Liao J oeais to ete \seazoat iw gateaece’ este os ‘not d tbbe ‘at
2 ab moe ta) at nstet be gnoaoxgo1 hesl oste vemnot fa ue Road pe
od pak ithe ear oul bodage azonz tw oat 1088S ak eredten % redawn
ot anew fou bib dud mea dead 4 adie’ uy bw angdtasroraos a eilsas, |
Roquersat eotuectautd tanoiaas org paliaover to baxkoss bao ad
“axe odd tot foassueo tus Wotto0 ide an hast oul hetete xotuvexe ‘eat
~ootde one eview ve ‘tight oa bad ‘as Saas bo dasa ron ‘bores tde wate
ot ‘aetto fie eban ‘ata conned sboaboreue ant neiteette * mis aaoke
saris sounsedue at saw ‘doddw ot elitesd biuow anoatiy ‘on 4 ‘daaw 9
a wean oonssusak ant patbied ane o4 hatate bad oa tea —
| sates ste xe ae ‘
moaitad eo cutet nenw suc od of Bi 8 net tiaeg at taneteso pnetiones

a eat ;
aoloiios ess xebac xeon. eat bevisoes 1040 vtedanoe aw ent an

aot sotawts 2 se mis qt bevieoss saw 32 yeoloon sonecumns outs son a
Sad? text et? ae betas thexg ad of eames ahaa bie setesiguat ont ne

‘a a nity “
| o iam ‘ot okdayag ‘ehaw oxew bound stew ‘wae edu “snolodtog ouls

rad @

“i miet boreeupor enn sadit bas ,otiw gert? 2! hewaes eas mn Ee
‘vd on? 16% yonom odd bas astottog ‘senetinat one aves 8 mea tiad

rad: Lo)
“[oteven of hosed moelaad oii alo buewisd te sass bas -ereaageah i

oe BS a ee

constua.sh ows ao tt hevisoos yesiout add ake fod sew od sack mee

ie , sexed squab asi xe sound ow : seuee °

soko log ent ehoatataue od tonnes salsaed 00 ous ‘sos con

aseixad wh oir us of akdayan ete% wens 00k ba soe Poa Soames, 990m ho
pebivete ate cd tae basse xd sevivive ode hcg hall og i gn a

eid wie Seond Fi aatyis ase anetad “ swt shorn bron ar Me 4

ae iy 18
A Pe i Sug

policies were issued, the money vould be paid to him. Guele L,
Carisen died in 1910; she waa survived by the assured hueband, and
the money was paid to him by the Ineuranee company 15 years after
the policies were issued, naxnely, in July ané Degoember, 1014. The
money “as his property under the exprese terse of the policies and
he ¢i4 set bold it aa truetes for Mie daughters or in any other ea~
pacity than owner. if he desire te make a gift af the insurance
money to his daugnters, chviously he eould have done oe. Bat the
evidence falls shert ef what the law requires to accomplish sueh a
result. KeCertney v, Ridgway, 160 i11. 129; Weaver vy. Yeaver, 182
Til. 287; 4) ain, 165 Ili. 2215,

in paseing on the saeetion as te what wae required te eon-
atitute a gift inter vives, the court in the KeCariney cease said,
(p. 186): “Te conetitute a valid gift inter vives, possesvion and
title must pass to and veet in the donee, or in a trustes for the
denec. If anything remains to be fome to complete the gift, what
eo remaine to be dene cannot be enforeed, an it im based npen no
consideration. *

In the Seaver case (182 111. 287), the aseured's widew and
hie mother esen claimed the benefit of an insurance policy upon the
life of the busband and eon, About a year after the aseured wae
Barried he went te the ineurance company and executed an ageigoment
of the policy te his mother and left ene eopy with the Insurance
company and togk the other, with the policy, te hia heme, About
four years later he made another assignment ef the poliey te his
wite, One scopy of the avelgnment was attached to the policy and
delivered by him to her, the other was delivere? te the Insurance
company after his death. The court anid (p. 290): "Both assigvments
are admitted by all parties to have been intended by the aseignor
as mere gifts." it was eontended by the assignment of the solicy te

the mother, the gift was complete and that the assured had exhausted

-i otes® ald of blag sd binow yroom sf ,heneel etew Beto tlog
bas ,bieadnusd howseee od yd bovivrwe wew ofa (O00 at Bobb iodo
aes'te etaey @L yAequoe seaetuent ods yf aid o¢ Shey new yonse ods
eal .810L ,redmeoed has yint at ,yloas« ,beuiel orew ae tod ted ode
baw a tolieg oad te autos aeetgre ed? tobas yotéqotg ala enw ‘Yetom
| oo note yas ab to euearigued wid 6% ostaund ‘ae #h Ofor gor BEA oat
eonetuact eid lo Ptly ao odem of etineh ex TL .asawo Mott ylseg
eve twil oer emeb avast bivoo and ylewol vdé .Stetsgueh’ aba od youn
a down tieilLemopoa of aetiuges wel ede fece led —— etia® ‘sanahive
$61 -zamagt_.v_zevae® :@8l ees as Yared Hee 99) “umes
ons .ff1 aes , i si tit

aso 0% boxtupex eaw fade 0? an aotteeup odd a0 ileal lily
shies sno MOAtTAION old wh tamos ad? ,woviy apie Pilg # eduyite
ben sphanecneg goviv aegat Huth bidov « odut tience ov sy (0ek .q)
eit tot sefvenxt # at to ,semob od at gany hos ov aga ‘tam orth:
tate .tthy add ets tenes ob oneh ot 60 ealamet gnliityde 28 S0neb
(on nogu beaad at th ee yhoose tae od Ponnme emoh od o¢ Kalaned on
+ cae oe vinta hanes
bas wohtw a'bexuane od ,(T8S .f11 S62) ened gevag¥ odd ot ‘ Pal

ald mou qyortiog somes waa au to shieosd odd hemlalo dons
: anv borwene odd 192s rasy a tuods noe bee hondowd ond “he ' tae

Smomial oa as hetveexe Bas yasques ‘eonetwant oad of tnow on bodes
sonatuent edt othe yqoe sao fel bon hit om ‘eid at “wolbieg ‘eat ‘te
faved ~euod ald of ,yeltog edi date esite art toot Ana yaeqres ;
ghd of xetiog ore to fusmngtaes xedtone hem ost uodel aant uo?
hou yollow odd a3 podoatts Row tavenghaee ods ‘t. yaeo est’ eee
, Seawiuedi att of hexevileh aaw toto oat teat ot mba xd horevi lob
“edagangtane toa (ve «¢) blow trvon ext std aeh hd et'te YAqASO
! tengtous oats yd bobawsat nod oved ot nelfted fhe vt “betiiabs ete
of yalles hel te Jamegi ona odd nw behassaoe ean a ‘*agtha ‘erea ea
botavacdes basi hozwaes eit feud bas esetonoe eae sity edd mondo oid

hie power of further aceigrment. In gonsidering thie surstion the
eourt said (p. 291): “The eorrectness of the contention desends
upon whether or not there was such a delivery ef the assigument as
te put the eontrol of it and the peliey eut of the power of the
aesigner during the remainder of hie life, It ie coneedes, as
@learly it must be, that unless there wag such delivery the gift

to the mother was net se perfected inter vives ax to give it validity
a6 against the second asmignment.* “he court held that the delivery
of the assignment to the mother was insurficlent, and ecantinuing
aaid, “Hoe controversy 1s wede upen the orc3esitien that an actual
Mmenuscl delivery was not necesuary, but it is admitted * = * that

@ g002 delivery may be misde by acts withent worde, by worde with-
out acta, or by beth; that «2 delivery may be legelly made to 5
third pereen for the benefit of a grantec, or, af im thie case,

the assignee. The usual mode of delivery is the sutual transfer
from the grantor te the grantee, But it le too well undsrstece be
@ell fer citation of authorities, that the deslaratione and conduct
of the grantor in relation te the instrueesnt sey be such an te bee
come equivaient te such actual delivery, and in every euch case the
erusisl test is the intent with which the acte or declarations were
made, and that intent is to be ascertained fren the donduct ef the
parties, particularly the grantor, amd all the surreunding cireum-
stances of the transaction.” And continuing (p. 992) the court, in
paseing on the question of delivery ef a <ift or deed, said: "It
is indispensable, whatever meane may be adapted to necomplish its
delivery, that the deed pase beyond the fdeminion and contrel of

the granter, for otherwise it can net he correctly sald to come
Within the power and contrel of the grentee. Their intersets are
diametrically eppesed, “oth cannet, consistently wlth ite sbjeete,
have control of the teed at the seme time, and until the grenter

parte with ali centre] ever it that of the grantee 4oes net attach.

eis notdesup ate? yatreblancs dl tasetgiaed tatitiet Yo dower ata”
dbaseoh motvasdnes edt ‘to aaeatdedtod ont* (ree 6g) biee Pewad
en _— ast ‘ro yroviteb « dunn eae etedt ten 46 tadsede moqu’
edt “to towed ont Yo two yolion ad? Be SEO Lottoien ody int veil

26 ,defieonds sf ¢I .exkf eid te tehalsuer eat gaireh temyivea

| Ftig ‘ont yisvifeh seve ew oxeie ous tan tans ‘ed $eum #h ytuawle
{ ytibitay gf eviy ot es goviy mgat hetcetxeq oe ten cbt sunbed al Ok”
ewvifoh de sat2 Sted tries okt “ saeaigléee Saeooe ott tenlagh ea” ;
“getedi¢ncs tox (saelsfTiudal sew reazom ond of dasmigtdee Sa7 to”
Lantos Oh todd aobstaoger edt woqy shamed yorariedias oll" | biaa
fan? # © * hotthuba eh ff gid ,etadddedn son dew yeeviios fauna
idtiw eptew yd ‘ehtow tyodtiw atee rd abet od ‘yam Yee hI heog «

g 6S Chea -ektaget of yom yxevttes 2 28a2 jeitad yd vo, crdn deo

\ g@ds Ate at ae to \sodnaty «to Frtedsd ent Yor noosa bend
retoaery Landon ont ob ereviton td ehod Laven oat “ledeg hain ont

od Sedeetehan ftw oof vi #2 fut Jeotnety OXF oF todmwty sae met
foudaes Bad aHEfetatoah ode fart pdoly tradt ie to neldadie tet Ties”

eed of an dovn ef you Saomuxteat of? of aoltatent at rotaery ait te” a
ot? Beas dnd Yreve al ban ~etevifed Lguted dow Oo tas Lav tope m0

otew anoitaretosh 46 atoa ody olde Atiw Inadak ode at fued teteures ” }
ocd Yo dsubuod odd mot? Dedlarrooaa od of #2 dustat Sods ban ebam
atigrin quibawerrie ont Efe Nas |totaety off “lteiislrtaq ,eokPiag”
at ,fewes ot? (R08 Je) gateatsans ‘had * nottveswantt sdf “te Bobadse
$I° PBine (hosh to #tly & te ytovhioh YW molrasap any rarer
eff deticatoan of hedqohe od yim etena toveraie” jeldaan
4g Lowdaes bas matataob eatt haoed weag Boos ot sade seteraten
“gmee 62 Stas Ciroeetss ed don aap $2 eatossrtrs ‘sot Mavis oat
| gen ateevesnt cdedt oodoary otf 6 tortase ~. ore
ede tte WER Ad 20 (rind ha tdnds ” (eaildo debe” a
sednery orte Lbseit baw jomes onde watt ‘ba bedt"eatd 20 ;
jdoadde fod woot s0tiinty eds to tat 92 HV" “toxtdos fee ashe sta”

wwe if the grantor retains dowinien and aontrol over it, the deed
ie ineffectual for any purpose as a conveyance." Im that case a
witness testified that om the date the aesured Filked out the
blamks .atthe sifice of the Insurance sempeny he directed the wit-
ness to infors the assuredt's mother that he “hed ageigned his
policy of life insurarnee in the Aetna Life ineurenee goxpany, of
2000, te her, gag Be woul’ keep She policy ond seelenment Sox
her;" that the ritness communicated thie te the mother and she ree
plied it wae very kind of her son. ‘The court sei@ (p. 295): *Thie
testimony, considered soot favorably to the appellee {the mother)
morely amounts to cayines that he made the aseignment, retained
possession of it, and sent word te his mether that he hed made it
and that he would ‘keep it for her.'” it wae held thie wae ineuf-
ficient te wake a vaild gift. The court continuing (p.997) quetea
fron the ease of Zadgley vy, Votrain, 64 111. 35, as follewa: "if
the trust is perfectly erated, #6 that the donor or settler has
nething more to de and the tersen seeking to erfoerce it has need ef
no further conveyance, *«* it will be carried into effeet, although
it wee witheut consiceration snd the oospeseion ef the property was
net changed, *

im Willigis ¥, Chamberlain, 165 11. 210, supra, it wea
held that to camstitute a valid gift inter vives *there ruet be a
delivery ef the subject of the gift or sete equivalent therete,”
In that case tee sieters claimed the insurance as gifte under twe
policies om the Life of their deceased brother. The pelicies were
payable te the asaured's legal representative end were found after
his death in a tin bom kent by him in a wesult, Attached ts the
policies were sesicrmente, one te each sister, The insured and his
wife were extranged, Witnesses testified te conversations they
had with the sesured in whieh he stated that he had assigned the

imeurenge to his two sisters on4 informed then of thet faet, and

7)
:

heob ed ,J4 teve Loxtaoe ban Bolsines eatasey teinety eg FE wer
(& onan leas ri * Senayevaos # 86 MOGiNG THe Ty douwteoi tend ot
3 oe rwe bist bowvane eas eter oat ag test beliistesd perres
atte nig besoexth oni ean genn sone twat eae Le ookt ia ast tee. alse

ei bomloas hast” nal Said weals out e'hotwaes eds sre hat oF “a

to a eneqs09 we neigh otha acded et3 oh paneruenk @Iid Te yehtog .
“Aol iuemunane hoe uolion gilt goed Blur aif how «1A of , 00088
sige “1 adn haw seddom aut of atdg boiaolauams sagatte ont saat "ime
ghee® {808 .4) Diese frmeo ont oe ted to Dakd yer Raw, $2, bokie

(xadsom | ould ) ooLivgas ost OF yidaravet Isom hevehlamoe eaonttont {
bealaser ,taoanylens oi shas ed tad? patyes o¢ apauewe tial

| aa oka baal on fads cals on eka. 0 hag Sope bie ath, ke a9

-twant aay a hats bios aw at *? tad “0% a geek! hivow al outs ne
bedoup (nes ea) gatualtaes srwo9 oat .8tby bhiey « odan_98 soni
i iuwe ties sa gt itl (88 .ghe

te ‘boon aad sk po 10%ns ot palsiens naeyed, ants hae ob ate oxen a sett

dguadtt Le dvertts ofai bolero od thby 2 2h 84 nome yerawe vane i :
naw r yetogore ods Yo notensanog of hie, aot term) taaoa suosshe aon a

* .otoxedts tupLeytupe avon 10 yon at, te snahden pony ai : cee .
ows Toba ests ae soneiueas si} bembate axon, ond, peng.a —
e1ew -aetp log ost resid ond heessoah thoeste to atLt ost ost om SE , aie

oxi? 08 “ bortontta ” .éduay ® ah ad ad wf soon xod ate cme gat
eid bna hoxuenl act -steveke sions of si0 eioeang iene | ial eolobios etl
yet enol tzexsvaoe od hedthdesd voneois 2Y sbogaettes. |

eds y bemginen bed out sass begage ee sohaw | at dexuene, “at ke b
; A stan JPR

te ties

‘ih

that they understeod he wished them te coliest inesuranee money for
the benefit of the aseured's daughter; that they bad agreed te de
eo. The controversy was whether the seoney went te the estate ar to
the aisters, The seurt held that the insurance money went to the
estate of the sesured and not te his sisters, and sadd (p. 217):

“We may regard it ae clearly estebilessed that it wee Willdans' ine
tentign that the petitioners should have thie ineurance, but if,
from mistake of law, he failed ta do these things waieh the law re}
quires to earry hie intention inte effset, mere proof of his intene
tion, however positive and cofivineing, sanhet change the title te
the property." The court there certinuing furtaer stated (p. 221);
"Her does the evidence showy that Wiliiems erested s troat or consti«
tuted Bimeelf the trustee of the petitioners, wid ao Held poeseesion
ef the policies for them, *** Vrom a nere imperfeet gilt a trust

cam not be deduced, (Badgley «. Vetrain, 65 111, 25.) Suepese the

policies head been endowment policies, payakle during the life of
Williame to Himself, Yould it be contended that wo suit sould have
been maintained against him by the setitioners, upon the evidence
in thie reeora, for the celicies, or the ereceeds sfter their cel-
leetien? And if net sagainet Sim, then why in this case againet his
adszinietratrix?

"The moat thet can be eaid, we think, is that Williams ine
tended to make a gift of the precescds of these noliciecs, or nerhape
the policies **# te the petitioners, and toek certain stene te age
ecmplish hie purpese, but left the matter incomplete, *

Of course Jonn &. Carlsen could have made a gift of the ine
guranee money to hic daughters by hie 2eelaration and set ond changed
relation from that of owner ef the weney to that of trustee fer the
@aughters. And this would have been suffieisnt fia held in Yokem vy,
Hieks, 9% i131. App. 667. In the inetant case, we think it clear thet

the most that can be weaid is that fehm &. Garieon intended to meke a

eel yoves vonmruaal Foolles as wale bedelv ei heotexehas yor? der?
oh of Bowrge bad you? Jud? ptetiigaah a betxnes ect Yo PL iened ens
of 4¢@ stadeo add of Jaew yonem ond tattedy ase qatevettaee of? ..08
edd af {a0~ YomON SomexHeRh o4% decd bied Iaues ofl -.atedgha ont
; (VER sq) Bhee Bae jetodula she of ton baw botseee vat Yo eteteo
and termiill® aaw ch tedd besedidntes yiaeedo a 22 dtagen yan eo
(UL tod peomatweat ghis oved dinate arenedttiag os9 tat aphiaed
aot wal on? deluiy agaist saan? ob of hodin? od .wes, 30 gheselm mort
labital eft to Toerg stem ,seoTie sdah colgaeeat adits wrese ot aextup
Of SLPkS ode ayaado Fence ,yAloalvage haw ovitiney rovpwod, ,Holt
1({£88.@) besarte wdidtant guinmis goo aeedd digs eit - “ereqota ont
siveaeo “s gautt # betwete aos itll said worse nocenive oat asob ok"
<motsdoneeg bdod oe bon evemdlatevg aNd Ro seteutg om Benmbh betes
dened #8. ¢tlyg tooksoqgal oro wo most te | awed 10% sete liog est Ye
‘oH suoqems (.a8 £42 88 jabested wv vedabell) sbooubeh: od om mao
pe ete ott patuah oldwyoq welotiog taeavebim asad ded eohedtog
vad bives Pio m sae Bobaegae ed fi Dine? .Uoamin of amehtie¥
eouebive ets neges ,wretelsitee a2 yt sin Jettene boniatainn aved
«fein Tedd tofta ebeesete oti co ,setediog add aot. ghee isa ot |
aid fantoys gone shed at vdlw meds oti dentoga ton 2h baa. ‘Faghdoos
42 tadilerdelalabe
> wad qmehtel® gesg at qaetad ow dive i amcinneteinla
ecsivee to ,seidifon eeedy ico sheosarg e442 to Pilg x» i
«ok 6? aeete aledeoa Yout baw ,er9emedd ivom anit ot 4% setodiog. ont
| * ctelquopal tediam at sol dud scooting ale Mekignoe 7
-ai ade to #tly & eben even Gieow Neaitad oh tot eaxwoe Who
begmatto Brin foo bre aoidetefoed els yd ststdguch etd o¢ YeHom SeneTuM
ghd 18 OvPeswed Yo Band oF eoson Hilt: Yo ome, Ye si moRY swhsator
LY edey ot BLoif aa drole LYE neve wvad bivew ette bak” sw |
tastt tanto $2 detid ew (east Powdeh eft at 6182 VaqA cs 00 pies

Ss Ofc O¢ boboosnt sowiesD . meh gard wf Diane od nay daselh aotimt ont

gift of the preceeds of the pelicsies te his daughtere but did net
a€o se. Neither of tne girls could Save mainteaines a suit against
hin at any time io rewover the preeeeds of the policies, From
1918, when he received the money under the pelicies, he head eame-
plete centrol over it. de invested and reinvested it in mortgages
and apparently kest hie money in iis own banking account. There ie
mo doubt he intended the money for hie two daughters; ho stated
thie fact on a number of ocensiong and he gave half of the money
te hie daughter Florence, Fut haying Peiled te waka a gift af the
remaining half te his dsughter babel, and heuwing died witheat
having done ec, the insurance meney will oases under the terme of
hie will.

We held the gift was ineompliete and therefore the claim ras
properly dieallowed, Tne result weuld Ge the same if the court
had poruitted the witness, Miller, to testify beenuse whet 1+ wap
prosesed te chow by thie witness wae merely cumulative, %a tainmk
the witness should have been perulited to testify. Phillips v.
GShase, 201 Maes. 444. in that case the court in discussing the
queation of privileged coumnicatione between attomey and client
said (p. 448): “It has heen reseatedly held that thie rule of
privilege sheulé be construed etristly. Foster v, Yail, 12 Pick.
So, @8. Hatten vy, Bobingen, 14 Pick. 414, 42%, It ia fer the
protection and benefit ef the elient, to that hie diseleeures may
not be used againet him in conmtreversiee with third gerscnsa. He
may waive it, and if there is a gontroversy after his death between
his estate and those elaiming adversely te it, the privilege may be

walved by his executer or advinistrater, (Sreeke vy, Helden, 176
Mass. 137) or by his heirs (Fossler v, Senriber, 36 111. 172,)*

the judgment of the Cireuit court ef Cook county is affirmed,
JULGREET AFFIRGAD,
HZatchett, *. J., and KeSurely, J., concur,

or ”

fou BIG Yud evedriguet hd of aedodteg ett ty wheeveny eet to Pty
tadioye Piwt # Sentadries oved hives wlity wat Yo tendhol ee Ob”
amet jeetokiog ods To abeeeete silt Teveset aS Sele yma de ott”
~mse fad sl ,eoleilow ely ebay Yonex oft bevineer on cote OreL ”
seyegrtem at $i betervaiet bas betesval ef (72 teve tovtites ‘ene’?
a2 ovnett Vtewecod yuna’ awe why at Yemen elif teex yLsnouMes tnt
badeta ex pimteddywad ow wt cot ywaow on? Bedeetal ed Pdeoh on” ”
“one edf ‘to Whew orey oo New eheteaneo to tedava 2 we Youd atav’”
ex? ‘te Pre_ w ollhe of do Lha’t gadvedt dwt aomeTett ceddgush whd ee”
‘feoddiw hele gatved hae , fede tetequeh abt of Yio gitdtamt
to ems? ex thay eake aaahameeiieemend ‘gat, 0a pods
enw miefo eis @ro'teted} has ofeLymoonl aaw s28y wie Box “ Sa tall
Peed ade VL sows od od Divew Siwaen ext dewytienls yhtequry ”
eaw 2 tale counbod YISIeeh oF \THLLE jnacwtiw of? betthithg bad
dane ef ,ovhiahawe ylexsee sew aeensiw elAr yd wate ef Aeeeirett: ae)
“Vw pabetigt aptivesd of betPlameg aged even piven aasattw oat”
om} ghi@nveelhy i tunes ef? asac Gacy ae bee mene eee és
tniekis baw yoRrodde aewied ene itestommmy hageiiving to nobtewsp
‘to efwa aid tand blow ethetnonee nood ems oT 1 (Oa Vag) tke!
sMoh? 82 ,Lfek .v segeot .ystolase bewrteson od nae’ ‘oye thei
edd *63 eb FI RSD , OED Lathe OT Lycow se netteh 00 .@
tty @eruaelosth Ghd Seat ve ,taedtw oH) tw tkaehiie ne nob everony”’
ol whore bebe Mttw aetevevertase mt mie toate howe od ton
awaused’ Monod oli teeta yatovoxtmeo & af oredd 12 bee ot pital ile

od wee er ast (oot nen gatatefo enous petro ged ald

a ‘ao Y at bo 4 a iat xe) I aa 4 ik tebm % th:
W(.9TE iil 68 andl ee r 29 fae PGurs

ee to |
soeetit: wh titans 600 to useo lw ede bial fammghet eaptenten: is

ett

TAMARA THM ‘ sate aes. ee yal Me
RuOMES aa amaieliis ue «2, ghee ta .
ia SF mee See swans ont *

Pn
Esa
be

HekBeeT De KYGHGFT, ) : |
Appellee, 2
APO@IAL FRG BUPINIOR GoURT,
Ve
Cock COUNTY.
GRACE HYCROPT COLOWELL, hy oy +4
Py » 274 i1.4.051

Mie JUSTICE O'COMNGK DELIVERED THE GPINION OF THE cour,

Grace Kyeroft Colonel] seeks te reverse an order cntered
by the “uperior court ef Cook county Jume 1, 1953, which among
other things, avarded the custedy of the ten-year old son ef the
parties to the father until the further order of court.

The record dineleses that suguet 22, 1925, Hervert be
Hyereft filed his bill fer divoree againes his wife, Grage &.
Byereft. She filed an anewer ami later a erese bill praying for
a diveree from hime After the issues were wade up the ease
woe heerd om the creas bill, complainant Kaving ebandoned hie
bill, and Geptomber 22, 1927, a dweree of civeree wae entered
im favor of the wife in accordance with the prayer of her ereas
bill. The eustody of their four-year old som wae awarded te
the mother from July lat to Secomber Bist ef eeckh year and to the
father for the remaining six months. ‘he deeree in reference to
the custedy of the child waa subsequently modified from time to
time, sometimes by agreement of the parties. There appears to
have been considerable trouble between the father and mother
ef the child in this respect.

April 21, 1933, the father of the child filed his
petition in «hich he set up the civorce proceeding ami the
provision ef the deeree in referenee to the eustedy of the

aa. Te
+ T8009 ROL AMS MDI LARGLA
wees Wis

eYvEveD Nod :
PA EI 8 a Ne a.

oTHVOS INT w mane am ceca meats SE at

hexoses 2079 ae oateveT of wihowe Sionods® storey! soar Maw |

pau Mold gCS@k f cowl ysauoo dood to duos solsogye | ' ra wt
ed Yo nes Bio tasy-ued di Lo Ydosnuo edi bodeaus guy) reste
sdmoe Yo wobra xedeswd ost LE tees sosta2 et} Oe beowovinae
ol dxedvol , GRRL Sh beurysi sats ponokanth brooes oft nme
af epexd cette ald tautaps epxertd cok S426 ols Dodd? Power
mY galysra Lid snow @ etek baa xeMEme ne PLE? dh 4M ROxOYE
seeo od Gu eben oreW womenl gas wothe — sath mowk
sid demphmads anived sustiatymoe giild yaar ent mo bemest | |
bevesne caw cores Bo eameed # gTRCL gh uodemsqne pom, «hte
seore aod to teyexq sli aviv seanbusove at eBtw oxi Ro xoyat at
6d Aohxoun aaw ton die ceeyravas aheds Ip Ybodawe agT 9 Lite
odd 09 Sra tasy dase ke tals cedincewh oF fal, valk work waddom ost i
OF eamrsotes mf ge70eh a? omaimos ade pabahomns oad wR wouter
Oo Smhd Mork Bel Bbom yLinoxpondwe eaw Riko ed To yoetnwo. ont
9d etneage oredt -aahsron ates demamoeae ‘E-mbOnre ico )
FSR tae ee 3

rae >

"she ee ln ab
he at Ata ant 30th en Bg is

+=
<a fe a aa

at? has gakbeoootg eotevt sd qu dos da stolah bong |
wid to Yhodeo od? OF sonwretex wt SoNoeh om? Ke mobedye mh

ote

Child; that he was in business in Chicago, had remarried subsequent
to the divere¢, that his former wife had alse Yemarried ami wow ree
sided in Baltimores that by agreement between them the child had been
part of the time with each of his parents; that on April 12, 1935, he
hat obiqimed an order from the court thet hia formexy wife deliver to
him the custody of the chile by ‘prid 15, 19335 thet she bring the
ehild from Baltimore to Chiesge for that Purposes The petition
further set up thet the eréer was not eomplied with; that it was fer
the best interests of the ehilé that he be delivered te the eustedy
of his father particulerly for the years in whieh the child was
attending echoolg that petitioner was finansieliy able te give the
ehild the benefit of the best eehoolay that the child's mother wag
net a fit person to have the eustedy of the child becouse of her
defiance of the order of the eourt enterec «pril 12, 1923; that he
had rented a summer home in “iseonein whe s he intended to take

his son during the swesex Vagabiong thet simee the divorce the mother
of the child had moved from Hew York to Cuba, to St, Lowis and to
Baltimore, where ahe/iow Living and 4% was not fer the best interest
of the child to be changing schools so frequently.

fhe prayer was that the bayments of alimony, au provided
for in the deeree, should be wuspended witil the child was brought
into the Jurisdiction of the court, and that the father be given
the custody of the child.

May 2, 1933, Grace “Myereft Colenell filed her anewer in
which she admitted the Giverees that che was willing ¢o comply with
the court order of April 12th, but that the ehild was unsble to
travel on account of illmesss; denied that it eas for the best
interest of the child that he be turned over te his father, but
Sverred that he remain with herg denied that the child was conetantly
Changing sehocls and averred that while the child was in the Custody

drompoedien Gekrisumey Seth ~ogantdd mb cacakend mt saw od gaat pbibeto
oss wot bos patccamet cals had sthy wemnot elt say enenovih O65 97
good bast Stketo ortf mode goowded Inemmewge yt dass goxqukoLall ot belts
ed g680L (ak kings mo daild yatmenag ahs To Mone sity ont ost Yo $t0q
od rorhioh otiw temo? aid dats ommerd oatd ork “eben ms gonkadde bot
eds gut«d ode tadé gOO@k ght Drage qd aitde ext to yaovawe edd mtd
solaead oat? severe daclt woh @gavddd ot orteanh Lee aoe phite
got asw sh Gane atakw ophiqave dom exw wobso adit doxio qa toe <eteett
qootuny odd o¢ noreviteh ed°ant dade b&hde ond To shunteent teed odd
gow bkito oft doldy nt atagy om? ve Veendvet dang, © tonite? atsl Lo
odd erie ot aide “dintonant? naw semotisieg | teste i ioedon aboned
enw undtom, at bitdo,osla, pncd, gakapdon feed ol? Xe, serene, ome '
gad to sawmeed blige galt so yoosaue ox oval of moet
edt dads, REARS, gh Lina’ bexpten, g2MO8, oft Xo sehen
edns of bohhegat ad oc mey skesmoak’ wt cao oem 5 bednes

aotton ade aotowkh ac? ease dsaté polizes” Temmem oaks gatas toe ata
od han abued. «A804 qatuo 02 Sx0k OK ape? coven iat BEte salt 20
suoredah sand ocd 70% 466 S08 42 baie gaiwit obtete » xed scout Lo8
| sektmaupent on, azoodon gaizudy of 09 thse eae 20

bobivexg af «yioutia Io etneaneg, ode dad? aw tee oft ohicad
fdgweord now ikde etd Lidaw bobaagele od wiworta svonpeb ods mh 08
perety od enaidec 88d Soaks, bean gf ates O88, 30 not soins w vt, td

shitieto edi Be gees an
! iy a

nay

om or amtisnw — wae tat, ‘ sb Ss vs Vier Ge 5 tea , ode
. ged egte tot aaw 22 Gnald bodme> 4 RAPP Eb, %e oti ; --
nt rab st sorb nats nt
hota ald tot ene! eat b oan pony necapye baa ao doe gotanad

23<

of his father he wan taken to Califernia for a years

May Sl, 1933, the matter came on for hearing; both
parties, their counsel and the chile were present, There was
considerable argument by eouneel fox beth parties in an endeavor
te explain the situation to the court. The court said that he
would give the custcdy of the ehild ta the father and upen
objection of counsel for the mother shat «0 witnesses had been
ewern and no evicence introduced the cowrt stated he would hear
the matter in September, but refused te set the petition ¢own for
hearing and direoted counsel for the father to prepare an order
ané to brimg it in the next morning, and thet the bey be turned
ever to the father inetanter, which wee €one. The next sorning
when the order was preeented there was more dicoussion and it
wae etateé that the mether had gone back heme te Baltimore. Her
counsel cbjceted to the draft of the order as presented to the
court by counsel for the father. One of the dedvetiom Was that
there was a finding im the order that the eourt hac heard the
testimony ef witnesses when thie was not the fact. There was
alse cbjeetion tc the finding that it wae fer the beat interest
of the child that hie eustedy be awarded to his father, but the
objection wee overruled and the ovder entered, and this appead
fellowed.

Gf eourve om order say sometimes properly he entered
in such a proceeding without having witnesses evorn if the facta
axe admitted by counsel, but an sxder showld never be entered
which finds that the court heard the testimony of witnessca when
this was contrary to the fact.

Wpen a careful consideration ef the record we o7e-

clearly of the opinion that the Bearing Was imeutfieleat io woxrrant
the court im entering the order appealed from.
¢he child was taken from the mether and given te the

By the order the

eugtoedy of

“tay a te? abuses set ae newna naw of xestta’ ene
sow gat none! mot ne onan rosven outs e600 i yet ,
aaw oxal? 1 ImBB OTE #300 bts aude bas Leaauer hes aos
“ oVasbas as wut solizeg aso zo £seinioe we daa eldensbtanee
ost Sasi bisa tes. oft a éxues ont of mols aude nuts mialqns oF
i mogu bas ueildet ass of ands out Yo ydosauy oat svhy Duow
hod bat asncsnétw om tasid vedtom on? ei Leameos 39 motteote
toed bisew af sedate cum ost aoounoxtat sowoctye - Pua Sent
‘got mwoh melst faq att don of bamuhoe Lal ete dae dqo8 a “spade aati
gadte us sraqorq od xoslde’ ‘ott 10% foanwes beteors one : cag
Diniswd OW yor eit) Yastd dum euutevom dxom sald mb ot gab rare
incyarons jxed od? eno enw Kolaw v0 funtoat reddtat ode oe ove
OF bus noteaveel> ron naw oxedé betaoenrg naedall ‘zobte eit woke
hal <oxom dia of emma toad nog ‘et xpaltom edi tata aaa any.
‘eit? of ‘pedeinog es xeb7e vote te fez vate of pete {

coal aan ametserbde as to eno 4s maaider oa xe? Avenue popeny
* gd Wined bat sxwoo ond fade x9%0 ows mi aelball s sew axed
ga Grad? ‘dont ods ‘tom eam white mle woeseniin 20 ymemigend
Peorsind dood ons rot new ae sets ‘pate ele oF toad don do onta .
edt sud «xottet ais of dobewe od vbosewe ato goss biteo ail? to
seinen ads doe vboxosne tebe erred beta botuxz0v6 aay, fonnlboret
Reredad of etseqorg ot Pay on xb20 se — ¥ ‘ i
event af2 ti crows evasondte wayne sasaate 28 i i
‘ potetns ed ‘even ‘bbe t90x0 ae oud ake *

one sy 2

“ten ote pe briny enter tee

ata tw bower vd To mel tec Mage a a ee

Sew Oe Peehos okie aw yak eo: Pale eh Peat mii» mr mk 8
Babe ReO1e at UE wwe? | eae ot ee ee ae

niall aovey bny teettcar ata “a ve lel

hy, a Me Bais i
Supe any be a DN

saw b£kno ott te KS ate

ote

father until the further order of the court. We think this was
Wiwarrentes ani that there ahewld heve been a much fuller hearing
om the mitter. Under the clrevummionees the deeree should not
have been modified without evidenee.

The order of the Superior eturt ef Cook county de
Feverace anc sho matter remanded for further proceedings net
inconsistent with the vierg herein expreseed.

BPVSNUSS AND PiMARnesS,

Matchett, fe Te, and Heturely, Te, coment.

tidwe oc
pat ne hg

gent

si ail a wet ah
i ae ‘ite

tpn “oe mie

eat

fm
1 A woah ie |
— ae envy ae

ea oe

y oP /
, |
a ‘4
x

we &

37150 j

REGINALD Ae uITTRY,
Appellant,
ve APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
MICHAUL He HitVMAM,
Jo Re TOTTEMHOFY and
GORDON Ce GILLLa, oor
members of the Fire a1
Pelice Commission of the
City of Park Ridge,
Appellees.

UGUNT, COOK COURTY.

Gp FY T \ > iE a
24 4. I.A. O51

Pa Mi ee a a ecient a tel Nm aco A A

MA. JUSTICRS OYCOREGK DRLIVSRED THE OPINION OF THY GOWRY.

, Reginald Ae Wittey, a sergeont of police of the ettiy
hs eg ‘cal eivil service employee, wae dischexged after a
hesering of charges made against sim by the proper offielale of
Park Ridge. He filed a petition im the Superior court ef Cook
gountys preying that 2 writ ef certiorari be lagued againat the
defendants, dirceting them te produce the reeerd of the proceed-
ings whieh resulted in hia discharge. ‘Sefendeante made a return
te the writ and ofter a hearing the writ we quashed, the
petition ciamissed, ami “ittcy appeals.

Yittey, in hiu petition filed Uareh 145) 195%», set up
verbatim, ameng other things, the proceedings of the Board of
Vire and Police Commissioners of Park \idge, from which 16 appears
that he wae charged with violating certain rules of the police
éepartment of Park Ridge. The charges were apecificd te bes
(1) that “ittey permitted certain persone te Lounge. eongregate
and loiter in and about the office of the police depnr iment,

(2) thet while on duty he “typed certain letters for a certain
colored man on the stationery of the Folice Bept."g (3) that he

bitte,

eXNETIS 24 AW BUH
Korseege woRe ATLA , é ” : es

haa AI BTS Ree gh
Wed AL ETS sess

sTAWOO BHT LO BWOTWIGO AKT GARAVIAME ACRHOOO MOLTOUL oft
tah.

Vito ed? Yo ooliog to smeogren # eeoosi oA eat ' 4
nan vanais as Wt

‘@ tothe bepuadoath sow gooyolqus ootvron Livie
te ofatelite toqetq ed? yd aid dankage saa sapsedo 20 abroad
dood Yo fuyeo tolrequa odd mk molgtieg a beftt off regain dun
ane deniage besuai ed inarehixes Yo shaw @ daots garyetg tines
-Sse0e%y oft te Biooot ots oowhowg of mate gat Sood seinmbasteb
Wxsiex 8 Siem simabiote. seyvetostd ald mt bediveot dois agat
oat? ,beresup naw thew odd gadxaud a tothe ham dbee ade ot
selooqqe YoIsh® bua , konotmald mot 3140q
@ dee eb2CL .OL Mort bOLtY mpitiseg oist at exosare
te Srsel ast te sgatbecsorg afd repandd cote gnome yatiodiey
eiooqge $2 Motsw mott yogbli axel To wremeheeimmmd eotfct tae ottt
sotfeg wad Yo sedi: utsi x9 mabtatery dite beqruaie saw od talld
ted od belthosge exow seyret ont sombhli fzes Ye sms cng0
sdagetanoo «opawel of srenteq mhedtoo vevtiereg Wess!’ does
gdtremd aeged soliog eat Ye aoktho est fueda baa at woatok bm
| akatxeo & iol exedsel aiadxon aoa" out ind mo othe ona ¢ '
oat esis @) $"stqo ootfet ade to weeuatiae oats 0 sn boxe vate *

o2e

“did give to one Howard Colburne, a certain photograph, the
property of said Police Depts"; and (4) that while in charge of
the police station he “permittec the eaié Howard Colburne to take
and remove a gertain photograph, the property of the said Police
Depie, from and out of the anid station.

Attached te the charges smi apecificntions ani aa «
pert thereof was the record of the proeecdingn, from which it
appesrs that June 15, 1932, charges were filed againat *ittey
; am served upon himy thet heerings were bad from time to time
from August 3, 1932, until September 12, 19323 that the Board of
Commissioners on September 20, 1932, rendered theiy decigion,
whieh is as follows: "Upon investigation of within charges,
we find that a notice ztating the time when and the place where
this investigation wae to be held, together with a capy of the
charges herein, wae duly served om the anid Re Ae Vitiey more
than five éuye prier to thie investigstion, by personal service
of a copy of said charges.

“fhe Board of Fire and Police Commissioners fing from
all the evidenee intredueed on the hearing of sai charges that
the onid Re Ae Vittey ie guilty oe cherged therein.

“It ig therefore ordered that the anid Ne As Vittey
be and he ie hereby discharged from the Police Department of the
City of Perk Ridge, Illinois, as of midmight, September 20, 1932."

Way 8, 1033, the reepondents filed their return te the
writ, in which they set up what they contend in a verbatim record
ef the proceedings agaimet Yittey, shich is identical with that set
up by the petitioner in his petition, except that in the petition the
éeeision of the Board of Fire and Police Commigsioners finds that
Wittey “te guilty ae charged therein,” while the procevdings set
up in the rezpondents' return find that ©ittey "ia guilty of the
followings" then follows verbatim the speedflestion of the |

ettt esigormptedg, akndtos 2 gsermdied yaasih omm o¢ orig bb"
te epruio af efldw Sadd (9) baa a" e2qed eetlod Stes to yrueqoug
oxed © omuwdiod baowol Shaw ed! desttaxeq” af mutsuse euttog wid
eotin’S bhas om? to Yuogenq oe giqgarpededg alataee 2 avomes fete
“snotiade dian eds te tm dam moet eeiqor
8 ap bita BMOtsaokiiosga ban aogzasto ous ee ‘pedeatea
#2 dotdw mort vemmtbossomg eas to brooes odd saw teoxods ona
wove fumtngs bofh) evew eepisdo sheer 5k ones taste oxesgga
wists G3 omtd Mort dart erow agehrsed sasid jak megs Daves mm
To Huse off sued QRSCL ghL sodmesqot kbéaw 88. 48 Some et
etotgioss «herd berebmes ght@L .08 nodentqet mo axvecol ag teamed
seogiato midziw to weliapiseownt meqg’* tewelfwt oa of sokstw
oxndw soalg on? tae mosey omts odd yabtode colton @ dusts dekh ow
ad? 2. WHO 8 Atty xostoned abhor! od eo nay aol sogtanaemd aide
tom YOPAEY 4A 4H Dion eeld wo doyzeE uid eon snore aspaady
worvice Lanoereq YO guoliaphiacvnt eidé of oh, ayed oyns mitt 3
| Wn soomcadlo Sine Yo wane a 30
“MWR ped wsemogvetamed golto% bun 92% Yo bxaee et” | |
tat avaredts dhas Ye gudaed od we boouborzal ‘sousatvo eed Sin
_ sttbewed’ degrade as Wikuy at yoossl oA 4H htoe watt
WILY oA oH Bdow odd Gadd Yoxedx exOtowed? wh YT
wad Sy fromixoqed opslol pals mort boyraionts yore ot 1 ct oo i
“868K (OR reduocel otiipiubta Xo 99 yntombst sabe ek ™y .

_ Masepmabtaeor, 4, 9h baptnnn, snd, teens o $n0 oy rT aake ae
tee dag? dtiw fookimedt ab solste aweseny sonbege nattd beaDe ners oe
odd cohitieg ot ak tess sqvexn vio tseg ola ak “tommtstie a 3 we .
tak? shah? exone tos tome gobtor ns onkt to seo ate ro é |
ton epalboooorg od? vitdy “yutored? bopeade ae vin att gerade

ots te ysAtua at® ypoety “ond hah jill : wee ie a ae ee
or We mob soot ttvoge as aban WoL

oje@

Gharges made.
it is coneeded by the reupcndente that if the true

record, of the procesdings before the Bourd of Fire and Solice
Comaleaiouers, wes that set up by the petitioner in his petitions
homely, that the cecision of the Joard woe that “ittey "te guilty
a8 ohaxged therein” this would be inguf{ietemt and therefers the
jucgment cf the superior court chowld be veversed ané a gucdgmert
enbex ed waking the reeerd ef the proceedings, On the other

hand , tt ide conesded by eawnsel for “iitey that if the trae record
ef whe proveeCings is ac shown im the return of the respondents te
the writ, the petitioner, fittey, yas properly divche>ged, and

the jucgment of the “uperier court should be affixmed.

She record discloses that ou the hearing before the
court the wmtisputec evidence shows that che record of the pro-
ceedings of the Beare of Pires aud “slice Commissioners of Park
Ridge, on the matter in question, sau idcniicsd with the reeore set
up in “dtcey*s petition wherein the finding asi cewisien of the
Board was that “ittey was “guilty ss ehorged.* ‘the undisputed
évidence further shows that after the petition im the ingtant
proceeding was filed, the record of the proeeccinga of the Board
wae prepared by the city clerk and eounsel, in the werce end
figures as appear im the reapomienie’ return to the writ on
shove mentioned. the respondents eontend that thie was property
dene because the finding and decision entezed by the Board on
(eptember ZUth was morely a semorancum or minute of the proceed ing
made ut thet time ami thas it was ontirely preper for the Beard
ufterwari te cnuse this minute to be properly ¢xpanced to show
the true record of the proceeding.

it is true that under the law, 5 ee ated be
corrected at omy time so thet it #111 conform to/real factee

People Vs Ugehold » 257 Ikle Apye 176% Shenicie ve Bas of

ened odd RL tald etnchacgaat ede yd bebeenee gh $B oo og my
ecilot ta o1kE te peace an? exeted agilbesgorg eds to ghxoesa
eoehehieg eid at sennickiog add ye qo ooe. todd cow ,etemeden tamed
oiling af” your’ gad? gow Deas ede to Bolbeleet ete Gadd «yoann
edt sxotexcdt? bos tehetitemet of bloow side “abouedd bogawle os
foanghu, « tes beeroves od Sfeote twoo velauqut 9d? do doampoat
vtedte of? m). sagmbroooe ig ads Yo .ave8e% als Qetdeanp doxedao
Heeost wad anf th dade yoda)? uet. Lone Ed: so boened head wbonet
oO? ninebmogac: ed? ty wivteu nald ot mvoleoas ab werhiweoeng ode) Re
ban gboyscttouds elseqeng sav ayotdl® yuenelilveg add.gdham ode
sham Yio of Adwede gxmes codisquh. ame bo seompoeh cess
eee oxeted ogakiasto ald mo sald avecdonib Suewes aff) ete oye
won ste to Sonos wale Gacy aworta varmbive aetiqekhne wae duo
Mitel to evvnmlegismed soilok bme exh ko baweG. wits Bo satheos
fon bieonu of? Aliw Deot@umhd saw quakseoup a) xoddam ome mol eaghhl
pid Yo Golalvod ime guisnik sale sloneahe mabe biog atgoame wk qa
beteyel ous ads *ekegely ae Yatleg" aan yordd’ date aew ixeel
teeteek oid mi weltiver edt catia date wrote: testa eonehhve
brnef sd to eyalbovscsy etd to busces old yb kl aaw miboeseoag
hte pouow off mi yleomee bas dweke Yrto odd Wd borsgeng esw
aa dha cy 04 window "edneGubgese and md apace
— wdvegety eae olsly fade Saudnoe etnesmuqued eg. bones wm
Re dune outs ‘ef besesne sokutund mow seOat a nfs: wamaved ened
‘Beth ionmouy ef9 Yo Otte HO sone tome @ viorae ae AIR oeedemnagna
| Sno odd <oX wagowy Yorhime new dk sods dum mambd dole on |
wedla of tubmrgKe Ylacgou od at oto atte pete 08: se

ade

Bevestions S86 tile 753 Lily of Ghicage ve MeClusrs 339 Tlle ely
People v. S¢ligy, 224 Wl. 408,

Tn she inetant eese, therefore, the omly cuestion for

Gtdision fe, Doea the recard as written up by the clerk oni counsel
for the city correetly state the Broceedings head on the hearing

Of the charges ogainst “ittey by the Board of Fire and Police
Camissioners? This question, of eourse, ene mbievet to prong

QS any other fact. ‘we im ouch s proeceding, on the return ef

the reeer@ te the court, the 'risl is het oy the recereé., The Lew
C066 BOL require a return of the eyléeneée or a gertti teste of the
facts outeide of the records i: being conlxany Go the praetlee te
form an issue of fast er bo hear or conaicer evicenee in relation

SOL This a5

BOE Fe i

te the original proceeding. Puibhouger ve cots
Sesroll, ve Soustam, 34, Mlle SS). oas where there is a vontegt
ae SO whes ig the true recerd, oovieusly thie must be determined

by evicenes, au any controverted Queebicne

Je He Tottenherf, ane of the Gomelecionerg, testified
that he signed the recerd of the procescing in which the finding
amd cecision of the comiasioners was anet Sitvey “was guilty ap
Charged,” that this decision vas rendered Sepuemvexr 2,5 LOS2, and
that document oct up im the petition was the only Cucweent before
the comeiasieners at that time. the ehinesse further ieetified
that after the petition in the inatant ease Wan filed, the renurdy
as submitted in respondents’ return te the writes wea written up
ame signed by him and the other commiesionerag that after / 414 Ley
filed his petition the seeretary ef the Bourd of Commiscsionera was
imetrugted to prepare a record of the preceedings ari minutes of
the Boardg that this proceeding is dated September 20, 1952,
although the paxtieular document waa not mae up util Long

afterwards

$OL8 ofLT GEC grawhOOR «Vv

00h LG MO amahiNd «v glmaes
nek wetteers wha writ qo heme ae ee) ea

Leamwen haus txeta edt ud qr moda er Ge vesnerait anual
guibwaert edt me bod egntor overs oil otede EApoer un: io ols. Tez,
gobto% bre ox2% Ro bueet ant yt yesh) daniaga, sogiate wiht te.
goorg ot taehder naw «reuree te atohtasap att, Terenbhnndeney,
te wate orf? oo qgaihenoomg 8 Aony m4 Ont: stor togto oh, «&
maf ef? stvopot odt mo hafal Solth cdf adaaae add Stopes ot
ade Yo Hho eteo @ 46 Soto DEye aa? Yo mmnten « oTbuaes demMORh
os swiiextg sl? of Wioriain gated ot ghassed aii “te whtecga atest
moitatox mk-eompbivo wribemog co aoed od go teat to eanad se mao
soe sik £08 gabtgoo ov apguoddusl sgutasoveug Loutgive adé of
geotnee 2 el wrod otedy iu 1fO0 sSE0 SbS -tadamel»¥ Aiea
beuterredeb od tome gike Yasotvde 4haonot cued orld md gesiy oF ae
nodieemp bedxoversney Yu on quomebive XE
Rettheerd qo'tenotwalumin end Le sm gTinsinesdgh heh oe
gabbek? oft doldw na yikboovoug ie 36 budoee eas Memgtarnd samt
an TWiing sow’ quidew dad? ane wconotominmee att to malades tems
bas (REEt .0k eedandqed dotedaes aaw telaiook aida cubase
ooted fasmeed Yled odd saw mobdliog aii alge goa”
bolthiced tomvau? asenaiw dof? wembhd dads da smminbat
ehiovey odd ,o0TP aa sane @uatank otto cok Holst iog. eos wed ha dade
qe wetiiee cow giltw ect od menier Yesoonoqees ab tedthmdse ee ;
aged! setts todd? qetent beatin “ontee wal tee abst ed Gomgte Bie
pow exbnohon ined to bode! erty he ekedertoe ade wobstovg eis vett :
te asduehs bus wantbeboos eM? ‘te bxover o oxaqemm of veseirntoat

: wane ad net | frends beh Ni owes:

sy Sey RE: kD Sep ad

a ua aaa a is a a ae agi a
TD Be Sa ee ee seas:

Miehael E. Sewman, alus a sember of the Beard, teutified
that he wae an atiorney ot laws that he signed the reeord af the
proceedings aa a meviber af the Beard hearing the chezges against
tittey, oc preduced by the petitioners ty reference te the
record ax predueed by the FeSpOM Guess he testified thet that
€eewnent vhich wos dated September 9: s LUS2, Alwo bore Aig signature
ang that 1% wes met sigeéd on the date it boxes Bub afeer the lastant
Precesvcing waa broughty that wefore ihe eceordg PprGuucsd by ihe ree
*poncests wus wmic up, he was culied oa ihe wiepnome by the city
attorney whe acvised that he wag sGucing OVEr reupeadentst return
tc the writ and that he wanted the sitnena te eign 1% that on
Scplcmper 20,5 l¥Se—9 he prepares ihe reverd of the Ppresecdinga of
the Board as precueed by ihe petitioners that the finding aud
de¢ision wave in hig mandwritings that the minuces of the meeting
were weiliea up afterward by tae aeeretary >

the court then put a qaeuiion to counsel fer the veapoudents
from whieh i¢ appears that aftex the reeere of September 26, as
procuged by the petitioner was made we and signed, Sittey wos dive
charged and uething furtuer waa dene wntil several months ister
when the minutes of the meciing were prepared. the court eon-
tinuing g2id: “Um what reverd was he étvehergel? on the recerd
that was im existenee oi the time he was ¢ischargea. That 46
the date of this ecsuse ef action. {ix montha later 4 corrected
regert was fixed up. lire Blim (counec] for responcents):. That
several wenths later the minutes were prepared."

Charles Gs. Lunk, an attorney at ies who wee aeoretary of
the Boare of Fire aud Police Commiguioners, testified that he was
Present on the evening of Sepiemer 20th when the petitioner was
@isechearged: that he mede minutes of the meeting at a later dates
that the revord of the procsesdings aa fileé by the respondents in

Sekthine? «tien ede Yo cegnem @ Cada youn! otf domed 6 00.

ods ko buseox add bomgia ot fads Pe da yawide ue wow al ols
fattage aoguots ed) gudtowd axeek ode to wen wae agel boreoTg
the of seasueter al seed cig og att we bemrdeng ca eohede
fait’ Sond woPtbseed od vedixs integers onls AO Soonnomy us rode
eudenalu Gtd ‘eted wale .SECL .oC cedkwtyed bodes waw MveHty deeded
dusdent o42 tod%e Jue coved Vi bénh acd ao bonyte ‘Yon aw FE Pete hae
-82 ed) UE Hooulowy etdnen ed wrolew dads Pidgeore aew bamunnnens
Wiio add qo wncdqeied ats mo belind saw od equ obam ame adae
wiwier ‘ddwobsogeox cove galbase aww onl dauly boudvbe ome yoimesta
te add ak ngie 08 asonshs odd dodkew od F442 “bas GOxe bese
Bo agnibusvemg add lo brevet ald Potegesg of GHEEL (OE aod
bua gaboath ed tact grouoisiing wii YW beowboxt ee btebtt oft
Bik Joom oti? To eoaunia ott tady qyntekrwoend abel ni Ouww module
seeder one Ye Beewtor hs qu wevitew ou87
etustnoqeut of? vet Lovnwos of tmsdeuny & deq wee Hukue ot!” OY
bh ok tocmm sees Ye denowr sae tedte texts wenequs oh Moidw mot
eal caw ysrdl” ghemeda tae qu whew aaw toNGhI tiem alterna
otek adsmom Lnteres Lives onob cow vedeau igmbulton baw bogie
-noe tiuey of? boungeny stew ation wid ‘te odin ity weir
‘DeoneT off me theyratpots aif air Seebds dated LRRME SRD
ab dnd? sooguedtonth cow oot mtd ets tx somosee a ai Salt

Redootsbo w-wodat waldnem x0 hotties to seuae enti ae ties ae
e Shs halie ak nes af
gad? hiwsscemanes 40% fouimoe) svar ~~ heii nor ts q

Re YrAl ores aaw odw wat din “eros ts “atl owas * ie Satin
sow off tals nePtiiesd yaxstelwetaned onkiet teed NTs Goad ad
wav tomwidbiog ost eedte dite xdchandaed ko Wades ‘adi’ “ |
tetod total a ty Qed sonen sete Yo eoduin obam Wet diate m gee

mt adivhmogess aft yt petit we gubbooneng ols e eee

~ ee ee

ote

their return te the writ wos prepared after the suit waa broughts
"I wee at Mr. Blin's (respendeets’ eeunsel) office, he went over
this matter with me. ‘Ye went over it all. He sald he would work
om it and i went beecke Mr. Blimt (+ “hy didgn's you prepnre

the minutes befere this? * * * A. There was me cause for its,

We have other actions where we have had police discharged teers
ami I newer prepared any mere minutes than thie here and there was
mo requent mede until one evening when Er. Yitiey eame in.”

The foregoing is substantially all the evidenee im the
reecréd, and upon a consideration of 1% we are of the opinion that
the record of the preseedings, before the Sonrd of Fire and ®olice
Commiasionera, ia that vhich wae introdueed by the petitioner,
getec Septenber 2%, 1952, and that there was no ether minute zede
of the meeting until several months thereefter. Thie sleerly
appeate fraw the ewidenee which we have abeve cueted, end was
stated by counsel for the respondents in response te a question
put to him by the court where he seid the minutes of the mecting
were prepored several monthe after the meeting, “his alaw
appears from the testimony of the witmeas, Lunk.

If a record of such procecdinge could be eorresteé or
expended, ag it is exlled, in the mamer in whieh i: wes dune by
the respondents, then every record in a civil service case could
be carreeted so an te make it invulnerable te amy legal attacks
Thies eavnet be dome. “f course the lew does net require the
spreading at large of a preceeding at the time the ection is
taken. This may be done if proper minute or memorandum is made
from whieh it ¢an be determined what action wos there taken.

The record of the preveedings of the Bonrd, finding
that fitty wxs *guilty ae charged” under the rule ameouneed in
Punkhouger ve Coffims 301 Thies 257, ie imaufticient and that being

od-

teagan sd saw ¢hve oad sud te betageng ean Siew ale a4 wepeen sheds
T8¥9 dmow on gaotito (Leeruwes teanehuoqnon) a tm 8 =o te oon bd
sao hdvew an Sion off hin oh Teve fnew oe soe dake scoot mbt
eageTe Ho%, @ "acta wae od boek £8. ual tod anaw i ites a i.
ott wk saueo on saw oxen? Ae * Fetae exotod eodunis on
asia Dapaastond b vol foq baal evad ew oxese artet dos waste evad all
naw oasis ore owed adits weal oedumin wrom ys bereqeay Tova T wand
“suk sie yeas » tH mode gatasvs one Sting 8mm tamper on
“ake a vous dive ene "ger Lat dans oti at antogere? oat :

dats wo. mo outs to wt ww al we no! Jersdlanoe 8 see baa drones
eoilot ines okt te er out onoted ramet boeo ong utd te buwoar oat
a venol #199 esl we hoowboxsat ane fia date seats at sorene! ve tuned
seen eduate aedde on naw vod toss oe sues 108 todanaqee dered
eit eid? ¢tedReoved? edtuent inzowos Shims waa ea? te

aa beta » betoup oveds rail 9 dodsty eonehtye dé moO) etooges
moitecup «a af parogens mt edmobaoqeo” esta 108 feaumros ve hotate
pntsvom ots Qe es dum oats tow fs wort saw00 out ee mahal of tea,
oak eset vgakeoom vate vets ast mt Lexovee eeegesg. 9 ont,

" pass snaonstw ont? os woot reo ase moe. HEHOE

0 hotvexxes od bites ‘wgatt bo003q town *e preee7 a je. - Pe ‘ i
WS ond naw sh Motsty at commen oats a gboLtan at ny es amine.

NRW iscsi

biuoo rer) ookvive Livte a mk ‘brooes vier sae entice

etoctén Leyet eta ag oldenondeves at oan et Ba ov bataersee of |
ei? ethupen Jon aseb wed outs oars ~ +o ‘9 tomes atdt ~
"a modton ont omt) oat ta “arboo coop 4% wares de yetbam aos
obam ef mbusseme xo adurta coqowg 1 emvb od rat els? jet
\aewnd oxadé paw wolion touts omtmss dot oe dune 48 Kota m wnt |

wed bat? ehusef exe to ogndbeeoo-g oss Ye sxoees bed "
at doomwoans ofux seta ‘eo ent "bepuaaio hes kia had way F att \
wated teas bas supe want at es ory oe | he

oJe

_ the only record properly befere us, the judgment of the Super ior

ouurt of Cook cowity will be reversed and the ease remanded
with direetions to quash the reserd of the proceedings had befere
the Fire and Pelice Comaiss Lonera >

REVAREES ANT: SEMABDES #2 LSP CT IONS,

Katehett, ©. ds, and Heourely, J.» sozeure

onset i a
shstiew ia hahaa, some papery!

eroled Bs pe com sit 39 hae

RaICUt,

ee ee waste eke wet aUET:

VA "
Se pra bial

cal es ans sane aaik aeheld

ant rset ise

roots oie?

sank ew 4 eC ony vee weed ce “Aeadale sie bey od

ee ranine a
ced nie

ei ial "ih

37166 a ee
JAKES Fours, ) ae
ve. ) of
ARWA MARCELLUS, )
Appell oe. }

- LsS>. "7 > 4 ; ;
Spry A YF PR ©

& 6 L.A. 6 52
ER, JUSTIGS GIGOENON DSLIVERED THE GFIRIOR GF THE COURT,

By this appeal James Fouts sesks to reverae an order en-
tered by the Cireuit court of Cesk county Hay 26, i945, yacating
an order entered Kay 3, 1933, by wsich defendant's appeal fram a
Judgment entered by a jastice ef th« paace was dismiesed fer want
of prosecution.

September 27, 1928, James *oute brought euli before a fuse
tice of the peace sgainet Anna Maresiius and Jehn Suliiwan te re-
ecever $293 wnuich he elaimed for damages te hic autasetile, There
wae a jury trial and a verdict and fudgment im plaintiff's favor
against the defendants for the eamount of hie ¢lalm, and defendants
appealed to the Cirenit court ef Coex evunty, The transecrist of
the precesdings wae filed in the elerk's oifice of the Circuit
court Getober 16, 1928. dune 2, 193G, the ease was reached fer
trial and the defendants failing to appear the court ordered the
appesi diamierse4 fer want ef sreseeution. June 9, 1930, the order
of dismissal was set agide and the eause reinetated. June 16, 1930,
there wae a jury trial and at the clewe of pisintiffts ease the
court inetructed the jury te find defendant Gullivan net guilty.
The jury disagreed as to defendant Harcellus and they were dia-
charged. S¢arly three yeare afterward, Bay @, 1935, the eage was
agein reached for trial ond an order wa@ exiered reelting that,
defendant Marcelius having failet te proseeute her anpeal, It was
dieziesed on motion of plaintiff's attorney for want ef proseeue

tion, and a writ of proeedende wae awarded, May 26, 1933,

‘fv
aa oe

Smmifeqaa - |

man Pole

Lari coo mnt ooo oat
S60 AIT DYS

.TRUOD ENT YO MOTHIGO NRT GUARVIURE NOMKOD'O MDITEUE

“th tebtoe te serevexr oF a60R steel aemat Lasaye etae e ey

galteoay ,£bei a8 yall yYsanee seed To fumes Shwerld eci¢ yd boxed
2 moti Leeqaqs s'tunhosteb dolaw yd ,Sh@L .@ eel Bevetse tebte an
tus tcl beeciualih aaw soneq oft Le soltaul eo yd bexedae danomdul,
Moltuaoneta te

“ust, @ ototed sive Shguord eto wemet ,SRCL ,TS sedaseqed
-9% of aovlifv® adel ban avilewted sank foaleys neaeq ons to eokt
etedt .ofidonotue ald of acqgemah 10% howlais od dofdw 88S) seven
tovet a'Tilraiele al Jusmbst bax toibier « how fabet yawt @ eaw
aidebueteh bas ,aloin ald to savomm etd 10% stashaeteh ont fantage
‘tte tqicsoenets eff .¥sawoo doo® te treed Fluor® ae oF ho leonee
tiuotl) ef te soltia u'diede eft wl folk? eae age iboeoety edt
tot hedesst anw egao sdf ,C82L ,f env O8OL , OL tadetad twes
edt bevebroe dxueo ett aseqqe of galiia't stonhoe teh edt baw felts
zebxe odd ,CECL ,@ eawt ,moisuoseotg lo taew t¢t beeeimath Lavaqn
,~OCeL Bf cowl .betetsciot eaves odd base abiae toe saw feealieats to
edt sage al Ttivalaly lo ssefo ed? ¢e Bae Malet past « eaw oxoale
“Viilwy fou saavillwt taabmetob Balt of viet ad? betousteal fruoe
“sib oxow youd haw Quilsoll dashes teh oF sa heergenth ytet eat
new sano ott LECL ,G Yo ,biewred'te exeoy eortd Theme .begtads
,tedd galtiver hexetus hew t0bvo se hue Lebst cot hedioset aleys
anw 32 ,dmeqge sod otuecaong oF heliat guived euiieote® tamdas tab
-vonzetyg te tasw tot youredta at ttisaiale te moitem ao howe tam hb

ECL .O8 YOK .bebrewa sow ebusbegong to Site 2 baw okt

a
ALS A

defendant filed a petition which set up the order of May 8, 1935,
diemissing the defendant's sagpeal, and averred that defendant's
attorney wae absent en aecount of iliness, amd «a copy of the ate
tending physician's certificate was atleaehed te the petiiien. Gn
the same day the court entered an order vacating the order of Hay
6th, and plaintiff proseeutes this appeai,

fhe order of May Sth dismissing the appeal for want of
Presecution with wreeedendo wus witered during the April term of
the Cireuit court of Cock county. “he kay term began Kay 15, 1933,
and the order apyealed from was net eiered until Kay 26th, which
wae éuring the Hay term. The order diesilesing the appeal was a
final erder and at the close ef the Aprii term the court wae

without authority to raeate or eet it aside.

Turivas, 338 111., 186. Se atteipt was mode by defendant te
bring hereelf within tae provisions of Gection 3 ef the old
Practice act. In these cirevmstances the court Sad ao pover,
after the April term, to enter the order appealed from and it is
therefore reversed,

GRDER REVERSED,

Batehett, ?. Jee atid beourely, Jor GOLA»

Ay ‘@
i e

,f5@h ,f yak Io rebz0 of7 cw fae setdw molilieg a be kts tanbasteb
aliashae'teb dad? bevisys bas ,tasqqe e/Sanhastob ont gatmeionth
wt of? to yoo 2 base ,aBeali2 to taweonn me demeda: any yarrotte.
rie) BOlstIeg oatd os hestoatia paw etacithexen a malo Leyste gaihass
yaw te t9br0 ast yattasar ‘taba me hoved aw ies ang wh omae aud
: deans abu aséveesetq Vibsabete ‘how ate

‘te énaw tet dees ons gateviuadh S66 Xm% to sebte ect
te axed Abaga sdf gaiiwh bexedoo sev ghapbegaty ety aoltooepety
CERL aL Yak segod aust yaad oak .ydaiet Heol To twee thawekh> ene
Holds ,8#68 yod Licas hetetmm som sev oogt beleorre webto oat fae
a saw faaqqe at goiaatonid tabte ed? ated ya otf gabe eam
anv fides e028 ames ised odd to eeotd ang! daha -eebto feakt
& waeire oy bseted abies sh ton te etedav of ytiveitam teoddie
(ot Soebseted yd shaw eee Sqaedsa- OK BEL , £2 BSE eevleet
. bo. dF, ke BB aehioss Lo eaghetresy ea? atativ ticarwd gait”
TOWOG OF Hes FXHOe ON? ROQUAtameotig Gand? ak .toe sokenard:
Bi FL dae mOX) desooqge Kobra ads Tedar 08 yomsd Lined edd teeta”
; ,heotevet erg Remedy»
A LRCARYRR ARTAG . Hii a eM Lda we
2 ; Yo duet atest Bek Bs abREs Bais: ila ae ge
etuaton got yydotndel bag, 6h ut ythedecat.
a kane “Re

mak, a mye Sete

\
~

(aos Soo goay
ET a Oe rae es a af a meee
is fod Mir es Ga i hens ih
eee A Kae | Na i ‘ " trhs Sat oSn

Ceres et PRR Rk ae

og
&
t
>

y) heck ee Pad.

‘ aaa ah meee eee

36785

BEN BRODSKY,
: o

APCESL FRO MORICTPAL COURT
ae OWL Ve

274 1.A.652

SRARS COMRVBITY STATE
BANK, a ¢orporation,
Appellant.

!
H

DSEIVaRip THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

By this appesl defendant seeks to reverse = judgment
for $1,218 rendered against it im faver of plaintiff in an
aotion on a written centract tried by the court without a jury.

Plaintif('s amended statement of claim alleged that
Suguat Sy 1923, he purchased certain real estate bonds from the
Commmity ctate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the old bank),
afterward consolidated with defendant, Sesrs Oommamity otate
Bank, for $91,202, plus $16.60 accrued interests that defendant
wae indebted te him for $19198, plus accrued interest, for meneys
due and owing to him under and by virtue of a written contract
executed by the old bank through ite egent, wherein it agreed
te repurchase the bomise at amy time at 99 snd accrued interest,
in consideration of which and in reliance upon ite agreement
to repurchase, he purchased from the old bank the first morigege
Yeal estate bonda described im the foliewing bill of sale and

memorandum agreements

THYOO SACIOLEUA MORY LAWEGA i -

Rs SEG kG

PL a EIA Gig Se Sa a ot

MAVEAIUE aol yeRy eazardare at
eT A? W Belwice sHt. pe

Pe tg RP

tanemeut, & vareves 02 eison snabaoreb Lesgqe ahd ye

fom mt ‘Beataig Yo rove? at at Juntage soxsbae BiG, £0 202
<Unul, & dwodstw Ixus ond YC Soted deandmos neste a mo ashton

failt begelie misko 20 saomerade bobeeme ar titentast it i |
oe met abead states Leet akasze9 boa seio xn oat 880 e faicgud
«(sued bfo ef ua o8 boxte tex t0¢ tendered) srt edad Asa
ied Elosmao cises ,émabaoieh Aji betabhioexen aie
tustesteb gad? ganovedak bearspos 00s0L8 amlg ,O0G—k4 302 siuat

foatseme mediauw a Ie eusciy Ss hen oben md of gatwe few ob
booms 42 utoracw .tuoge a¢t Kawotds Xuad bho at YS bodwoone
ateocetal bowtees ban OF sa omit wae te mined ol? senitoxmget oF - )

imemertgRs ati mogy oonalion wt bas doidw te nolievedianes mt
egegirem text? edt ainad bLo old moc? beansiomg 4m

“20

“COMMUNITY SPATS BARK
S600 Roosevelt de
BOBO AND MORTGAGE DS PARTRERT

Chicago
S‘aguet S$, 1928

BEN BROocEY
1435 &. Spaulding venue
For Sale of 120° Par Yalue
Apanoff @ FLOGeOO rere nceees eZ Rihi, 00
Agerued interest from June
15th ts py * Sth

1 mide 23 days 10266
"G10

Bond Kose 206-262-121 -119
Maturity 12/15/34

Comumity State Bank

Paid
Awzuat 8 1928
Bote Peller

Repurcharable at any time © 99 and scerue interest.

GOBMUNTTY State BAR
Per Le Ye Méilier*

Many Gefensee are set up in defendant's affidavit of
merits and many ressone sre urged by i: for the rewergal of the
judgment in this cause om the record presented, but in view of
the recent pronouncement of our Supreme court in Knagg v» Madison
Bonk, 354 ille 554, it is necessury i¢ consider

omly the question ao te whether the agreement alleged and reveived
in evidence, which we will sasume was an agreement by defendant ta
repurchase the bends from plaintiff "st any time 4 99 and » eorned
intercet,” is wltrs vires the power of ine wank and againet public
policy and, therefore, unenforceable.

Considering substantially the seme form ami character of
repurchase agreement and determining the identical question presented
in the instant ease aoc to the iliegality of some, the eourt in the
Kuaeg case, supra, held that such a repurchase agreement entered
inte by a bank, through ite officers or agent, was ulixve vires,
contrary to the statute of the State ef Lhiimois, and against

WAG wate Yerevan
abl SLewesoeh (ae
THAME, BEART AOR CHA
aqanksdtd

BECK 9G dwargasd

aukeY sat

Bayoe

— ObgO S45

_ aoorodmk esis Sed nse waa denen

: Sti ov ot 20 oW ot tot”
“to thvestrta atinabnotee mt qu den vue eoum |
ade'%e Laarevot oat 10% eT en ee
ho wete at ded yhedmowexq Broo ex att we panes one ca dom "
eetoaly .v pesug wt favo emexgett amo Yo tment fh
rarnstendngnenbedatetebacdeedic tte K adas:

od Senhotes Yd Peemeer—n ce new weeds LL2w ow dndide ern
wedito tn 'O0 ‘eet ‘endl 4a¥ “eit eatilng iain Stald as
bares — ‘baa aad “sr te aregd ‘ote geuky ae

prmaemnsmaabimaipiniuntsn sis 0

doniage ons yatomsiit Ye otads aad Be etwdete sult of yraxsane

ose

public policy and, therefore, void and unenforceable.
in conformity with the law applicuble to thie cause
as thus enunciated by our Supreme court, the judgment ef the

Municipal ecurt of Chicego ie reversed,
REVERSED.

Gridley and “ganlan, JJ+, coneure

wotwoud ty Gi soak ‘Lcvtiisiok Wada ‘pte edterneall

A
(yore Sl

Wise ener ra ae enyat, Hpi benpe ae

if Wag
We dnd
Rees wae Ne
ee ee

pee

cdmacndnd area, Syma WAS mae gi, fat gabibeatt

‘ er ass grey ewe M jf Upesatooiinae ik eas mee
aa Ne a ee ae | . MRA ee abl gab

ty yee i ieee 4 Le Se ee

ate Se Seeronct aah oa FEMA sian ue penn %

he SR ee
Pe a qa ee ee Pee eee a He
SORTS HE i oduwtn wk #f° get ei dt Rae pea
hovidsod ben kegels tampa aetele ae Qe
eh ee ee
te ee eee ee ond - Be
shlding Pa ategus ‘Poeea Witogal Vaety ee — wate saan a Ban

ie Sry ae ate Senibie Bee 3g warenn's Heeonee iia’ Leanne ibid aataes ; sel iY

oss we Beatty wall 9 esate te “ot tages ae wally Be ba he
et we ye ac onatentanein? a Staite dad witb
PO SEE.. ie see gate wh eet,
Heit cee ents ag bom SAR ae hates al ,

36813 fl \o

Ie HAVITZ, )

Appellee,

Ve ) i
5 APPUAL FROM MUNICIPAL

SUPRA IO LOAN & monTéaeE }
COMPAEY, - come 2 OF ¢ at Oe

Appellant /

ms . z ¢ é4 Dea o£ 1. oO 5 9°

BR. PASSIRIMG JUCTICH SULLIVAN
DMLIVEREO THE OPINION oF THE COURT,
This is an appeal by the Superior Lean & Mortgage
Company, & corporetion, defendant, from a judgment entered age inet
it on the verdict of a jury for $914.66.
Plaintiff's statement of clsim alleged thet Mareh 7,
1929, he lent $2000 to the Superior Loan & Mortgage Company, a
corporation (hereinafter designated as the corporation), then
Operating ac a cormon law trust under the name of the Super ior
loan & Mortgage Association (hereinafter referred to ao the
agsecintion); that the loan was repayable on demand with interest
at 7% per anmway that on or about “pril 1, 19%), he received on
account thereof $1336% thet on or about April 28, 1930, defendant
corporsiion wae formed with « espiteal stock of 6250,000, that all
of the assets of the ussociation were sesigned to the eorporation;
that among the liabilities szeumed by defendant wee the 2668
balance due on plaintiff's lean with 7% interest on $2,000 fren
Merch 7» 19295 to April 1, 1930, and 7% interest om $665 from
April 1, 1930, to the date of judgment.
Defendant's afficuwit of merits made in ite behalf by
«ite seeretary, Louis Sandler, denied that plaintiff lent defendant
$2000, or that he had been repaid $1335 on account of such loan.

anne Vt
Co
a¥
JALIL SLM er hd A,
ne Se Rvs
4

‘ead AL BY

acres.

epeaixok @ anal vohtoqad add qe Lonage ma at ote?
Jack ogs bevedas semmgoal a mort aitabre tod gHehloregeed & 2 URagae)
aa. df89 tot Yh o te sabbsow ods mo oa

oY dot Sold dogetin miato To teamtote of rrhemtalt
2 eye) opepdrell 4 magi tolsequ® seit of O00R) dnet of Cok
tect (metinrognee off uae betomploed oP tamiered) mets sco tes
colcoqul ext to omun ote cota tout wal aoameo a an pabboxeqe
ald an of bevtetet vot omtoted) gotistveca egagitel & aol
faowent diiw beamed mo oldayaqex ear naot ot? dade t(mot sat sesun
uo hovioowt ed ,OLOd wh fisgs saede xo mo dade qatmne La we ta
dunbasted ,O@k 98% Lhxgs tuode xo mo doit? 186eLs Yooradd moves
fie dans 4000,0088 to xogte Indiqad « dély hoa acw sottaroque
paottasegros add o¢ beaylean o10W nolsoieoeen ony to eéonor ext ‘ke
anal odd eow dnedastod qo bommmne woke hitdals ad? pone gots |
mort 000.80 mo saoroded RT dttw neo at eta dateta es ‘ouh eonskad
sort ERAS wo Seotedat KT dae gOCOL af Lhugs of -@HEL oF dota
efxeagaut, te etab ont? oo vO ak Ae
qf Tiaded ati mi obam athxem to shyabi the e?inabustet
inadaokon tued Yebintedg decid bateoh «s0Khael wteol eutadoxpen aft
wnsok Koon Xe Smrennn mo BELLE hoger soed Da ok sat x0 ,O00RH

“Re

Yhe affidavit sdmitted the orgenization of the corporation April
28, 1950, but denied that 211 of the assets of the anssociation
were assigned to the corporation, or that defendent acoumed amy
Liability toe pay plaintiff [665 with interest. it stated thet on
and before Merch 7, 1929, the aavecintion wae engaged in the business
of making small loaneg thet the capital fer these loans wax furnished
both by members of the caveciation and nonuenbers whe deposited funds
with the association im order to participate in its profitas that
the agsegintion lesued te nonmembers, who depoeitec funds for ine
veotment, a receipt designated a vertifieste of deposit, which con-
etituted the contract between the esseeiation and the normenbers
and that Mareh Vp 1929, vleintiff depoeited with the avsociation
$2000 and received the assectstien's certificate ef depesit for that
@BUaUT te

The affidavit alleged that ehertiy prier to April 23,
1930) it wee decided te reorganize the asaceiation aa a vorperation;
that eubseriptiona fer stock of the proposed corporation were signed
by “onmembers holding eertificates of deposit ae well ae by members
ef the assotistiong that thereupon defendant was organized as an
Tiiimeis cerperationg that plaintiff was ene of the erigimal sub-
seribers for 20 shares of the eaxpital stock of the corporation at
the per value of $2000, and by his subscripiion agreement transferred
and aszigned hig interest in his $2,000 ocertifieate of depoait in
the association in full payment of the capital stock of the core
poretion subseribed for by himg that pursuant to thie subseription
agreement defendant delivered to plaimtif? ite ecrtifieate of stock
dated April 35, 1930, for 20 shares of eapital sieck of defendant
of the par value ef $100 o share and received in payment therefor
plnintiff's ecertifiente ef deposit for $2000 im the asaeciotion.

The affidwrit alee averrec thet April 6, 1950, plaintiff

Liq: mebiareqzen and % colsvatnegse odd deddtabe thvedt Yin aft
nokgatoousae ald te aiwsde ofS to Lie ads bofued dad g0EEL 8s
Ye tienes teabareteb sas a¢ yaeoktincogtoe ade ef heaglena ow
te gat? bedate sl ssuexedal diiw 8080 Tikembalg you of ePhitdall
anenkevd af? ol hepegee aaw welictoouns oad geROk 9? Mesa oveted bes
Sosle eva t aow amood eaend t@% Lotiqns edt feds ganmet Liv geiden to
eo bew's bostaeged ody producmmon bows t@tiatoannn eat ‘to 5 tein ‘we dod
tess ugltong off at egagiotgug oF webto ut mottatioban ed? atiw
qaf cet asm? Setieoged omy «etedssenen ot fewond mei sakoooas ans
amon doisw gtisogeh to o¢onttslxwo a bedemyiaed iqtenes fo gionmteoy
(reduome: si ona neltelsogsn sad meoeded soetsavp, edt bosuette :
motistoosse sli fti¥ bodteogyd Trdembeky sRROL oF Moxa gadd tm
heats 80t ¢2eegeh to odavitivxse ataglecioene, wld. beviooss daw gouRe
Evel -erOma
se them, 3 “xetag sete: test. ante stmabi.the ent oats |
inolIianequec a ae BONolpenss add sainayxeos o¢ bedloah axe oh 90608 |
bomgte sw fetiazeqren dowogang add Yo Aveda tet uot schrondine, fast
axoduen VS an Liew se dtagged Yo wtenohthaxom garbled axa jae 'vu xe |
ae as houlmagTe aaw itabee lo segueted? gold gael eatoewne os. oe
~disa Laat gt x0 gosh) % one gay Tiktatale dads. 10k foxeqz9e dont LET
je wolderoqroe els Yo Aneta Letiqasote %» aonate 08 set exadinee
bexsolenst? tromecxgs aehiqttoadwe aid yt bas .200R) te ember eget
nt tiaoqsh Ye atenliitces O0%eRt ald ab taoxednt st mo a
“toe adit to seats Ladiqus edd to émeangeg Liat at modieks .
motigixoedse aidd of tmmexiug doce gmbel Dares oe .

:
s

tnabostes te deede Ladiqen 2a eoceds Of xet seine seta i
woloved? geemyay mt havens x ous ¢ cate a COL) YO ouLsiv eg, odd
oHokiakoonnm alt, ak GO0RE, saaeabermeaninedmnnsomienilen é!
Vilseakg gUlOk .6 Liq sels hertowe

~he

applied te defendant fer a loan of 15003 thet the lean was made
on that date and he executed and dehivered tc defendant hia
promissory note for $1500; and that defendant ise Bat imcebted te
Plaintiff in any sums, but plainsirf i ingebted to defendant in
the sum of $1500.

Defendant contends that Pisintiftf ig attempting te evade
the effect of hie signed agreement of April 7) 1930, to suber the
for enpital stock of the sorporationg that this agreement ia an
effevtual bar to hig reeevery in this cause; and that, inaswack ag
he purehaned 20 shares ef defendant's stoek with his S200 gertie
fieate of depesit in the neo ciations he cam net new revover that
$2000 er any part of it on the theory that 4 still remeaina in the
form of = lean or ceposit.

Plaintiff's theory is thet Merch Vo 1929, he lent the
agaeeintion $20003 that he was repaid $1358 of the loan im April,
1956, amd that the corporntion is still indebted te him for the S6a5
balance of the loan with interest; thet his signature to the stock
svubseription agreement and the note for 81500 were Brocured by fraud
and that he signed those documents ot che time he was repaid T1356,
after he had been advised by the secretary of the eorperation, in
whom he reposed confidence, that they were simply a receipt or paper
for the records} that he was illiterate end did net knew the cone
tents of the instruments: and that thease were questions of fact upon
which the determination of the jury and the judgment of the trial
court Kaawegu ahould be held te be conclusive.

For a proper underatanding and determinntion of the quese
sions presented by thie appenl it ia aeeesecry te detail the evi

denee somewhat fullye
It appeared that Lowie Sandler was secretary Of defendants

‘which wag incorporated April 28, 1950, and that prier therete he was

Gham usw moet ort? dost g008LG to maed « 0% amobusted of Setigae
ght dgobavkes of boreviled hug aotuowxe ext tee 989d Bart to
at peddotas tom ot teokaetos. dad tous (ORG wor odem Pe

dt duahmeton e¢ deddubad ak Tiitnbaty ted cme yun Teeetale
- ¢00ast emma wnat

-gperve od gakiqaedta at Tiliahedy tat? sheodees Jaubas tet | pea Os
| pdbesadia 08 2088L aT Shxqs to denmootga bengts. obs We. pone nae
po nd tragoonge abst tate quolaasgaes ord, 20 dopta Lattgan tot
as oman, ,teds ona gequco ald? at Yreveoes etd of xed Lautoetto
whine 00088 afd doky dood wtinabeeteh to setade Of donation tmg of
tas) co9vqoes won som sae of snotsatoones, ee mh dtmoge> to ofmght
ag ot antames Likon tt das? yroods pie wo ak Be frag, wae we 00088
, : hh ane eee neok, o es
etd lanef od ened wo dara tad ok sqroedta atrntunbast “
ehingh st mank aid Xe AGELO Dinaex anw wl gout? ysoose pare

Bond aft od aid gt dpddodat Litie at mobiexegues ott dacis =, sar

‘deodn até of emtomnin eis toed ateotedat 87hw aod att te sonntad

tart xe beuwoons, 9198 COR xo? efen ads bum JremeeseR | mab egte adie ks
LAEEEA bhagas naw af Oats eli 4a,atriomman conde Bombe ost tat es
_ mae ginal desoqneo orld So adoro se ot « an tet need baat ya
aeqeg xo tqieort « Ginate axow vi saute coment tne, megnent,

coinage foot te angttaeue * erow + pavds tosh ban 5 jetmemarctent et ceeds: g teres
Rabe tg Yo tawarybr ad? Sma pot, oats 2 aottontnsateh ar toa
; Ue aston he ej as

vovieusonos ot 0s ged ed Skworls on
weep ast te aot tantarotyd baa antonetexabeu mwa se :
hy odd Lhadab og Wesaesoen at an Loogqn wits ye & He 7 ee ‘

etaabuets > te weaturees ane xoEbaa? awed tnt Pelle n
ey a amit i hae

cow od poms ata fot Sam OEE 08 ny Into

nS Yc
sh ‘i wun “hi ni Ne PRaaiaa ei ms)
W $ f

oli wm ¢ i:

secretary of the same Company operating as a eommon lew trust
under the name of the Superior Loam & Hor tgage \seoelations thet
while secretary of the latter corporation ke met plaintif? in the
Community State Bank, and, upon ascertaining thet he hag @2000 on
Geposit there, urged him te deposit that amount with his agcagint len,
Promising him that it ould be withdrawn at any Sime and would é¢raw
interest at the rate of %% per annum, and thet if he left 4t with
the seceeiation for ome year or longer i+ wOLLG @raw interest at
the rate of 11% per aniums that cundler wrete oy: & ¢heck fer $2000,
whieh pleaintirr Simned and delivernd t@ him, and « few éays theree
after, March 79 1929, plainsire Fecelvec from the ResOcintion ite
certificate of deposit fer thet amount, which provided:

"This certifioate of éeposit beara interest from date
hereof at the rete of 7% per annem if eaid amount ie on deposts

for any period less than One yenr, and at the rate of 112 per
anwum for exch full year that amount is on eeposit with the undere

signed .*
It further appeared that plaintiff had been @& dry gonads

peddlers that he had resided in Chicago 16 Yenrs; that he had come
here from Canada where he had resided two or three years aubaequent
to hie arrival from “Wasiag thet he had S0meé Limited financial and
business experiences and that plaintiss had on three previouy
OCcasions deposited with er lent money to the sseecintion end in
these instances his money hac been repaid.

Plmintiff testified in his we behalf that all ef his
ienlings with either the «snociation or the corporation were with
‘Sandlers thot he waited & year before requesting payment of his
92060, #0 that he might get 12% interests that he then went to the
iseetnston’s effice and awked Sandier far his money, His teut imoeny
5

%o what cecurred on that and Kis maext visit te Candler's effice

best atated in his own languages, as follows:

“He oaid "Il ean't give you no money.’ He was caught in
bank - whet bank I don't know. I wnids "Mr. Sandler, when you
ing to give me money?' ie said, ‘fou knew me, you heve confidence

ferst wal does 2 8 gatiavsge yaecmes sans odd Te ystems
gore. anodgatoona’ sqens atl & meel aoksega was ‘ke tema aaa: aabew
od? ak Chiabeig oee oth modantegioe anatek ot Le wonde om otkstw
| se ct had af sods, ntmtotonsn. neste sel. eal A?
euetintonses eid dtiw tune vei? ghamgah od wae begee aaaedd. pheeged
ene dhe ben oaks xo do emanate 6 HANGS at dade ake gabe dmeeg
enn ab del wa eh dads aa etalios TOE RY to etee oF) Oe, son anbat
te srovaend worth Bhaow tf Tags TH Lay Bee BOL. reteatagans ots |
waned 20% Moedie » tap eter watbmns t0i7 pee og, SA ba ciaualhintl
mings went wot w tam al ov hosovhiod sme ROeRFe:” 2d 4
ast rabtntoouns nd apah.comkenes Takdmiady oth «Ff sini nade :
shabtvang Sadar «dearane sans so ebaeann 2 ro. sonok ae

stab mock seoredat axaed Ikweqeb te ng | ni
Heer Doe ai dewoms aie tf aaah TY

te mie Ad da Daa 5 ENT OO t on bet
weet) ot gies thnoqe® oe et Sontsenenes oe” hath iu’,

ome bet od aosid sem Gh ® wie ;
sryendss cLagy caualt sh Ome bebbe at ant cod : ait yam

# irre, souls op beast rubsebene sade eet ised s§
game wks oo YRS aie k me ‘ Saoged aness
n wn Bo ka as uated sone ets Ld obhhinae ast Wat tomas
pre prow PoligROgToe sik 38 medeapeee wae nee i aly

wontreid om pipe wet x coin | tat + oe i te otmebd
sekite etielbom®? a7 ot: ake Sci akih ede cane ws d Ce a

escuiiaes vead une oak “ae pre

oo fie

in me five years. Thirty days Inter you will get your mene;.!

"lt went away» Thirty daye later, [ think a month later,
I ¢ome up to Bre Sandler and ack him fer the monaye Me antd "Rts
Revits, you have te wait. “ee don't pay to nobodye! 1 say, ‘Mrs
SemdLer, 1 tuke your words I need the soneye’ 1 oaid, '! iaeue
eheckn; you said te do that, thirty days laters’ de anid, ‘How
much you issue checks?" I said, ‘thirteen hundred or some, I don’t
know how much, i didn't figures’ He eaid, 'I emam't do it, but you
know me a long timt, I give yous’ - He made cheek 01355. I anid,
‘How mick an amount ie 91335? “hy not even thirteen hundred or
thirteen fifty?' He enid, ‘Don's verry; you get your money.*

“He brought me paps and beeks to sign. I said, ‘How
much you want me te sicn for my money?’ He anid, ‘Arey you afraid?
You will get your money.'*

As te subsequent oecurrenees plaintify teeiified:

“So after that I seen him simost every two weeks; I was
Gepouiter in the some bank re Sandler. “very time 1 saw him he
gaid, 'You get it, you will get it, you wi1i get it.’

"He dragge¢ me slong here until 1931, I think Juneg i
some up rs i no gl "tr, SEMER 6 re sees me hereg 1 need the

‘ys © need money news 1 got : the ez rangement a
yarn all is going te get married ijth of dune; © need the +
You got to pay it, or 1 start guilt.’ He anid, ‘You stuart to sue mie,
Sed bless yous You start te sult me, we get a judgment sgninst
ef I galdy "Shat co you mean?’ Ue wald ‘Se corporates! I anid

‘When?’ ‘Last years’ I gnid, *i don't think so. if you heave a
corporation, other people's money.’ He mid, ‘the corporation
take ever and go to pay everybody after all,**
Plaintiff alee testified that “andler imaisted that he turn over te
him the $2000 gertificate of deposit befere ke would say him She
1.335 and he did a0.

Sandler tes:ified in defendant's behalf that following
a weeting of all eof the members of the agse¢intion April G», L8a0,
plaintif? came to the office of the company April 7, 1940, and in-
quired ae to what had happened at the meetings tact he told him they
deeided to incerporate and that everyone whe wighed to become «
ateckholder in the corporation had to subseribe for stock; ani that
plaintiff signed the “steek subscription agreement” at that tine.
(The agreement authorized certain trustees therein named te oct fer
the wubscriber and by its terms transferred and ascigned the $2600
certificate of deposit to them te be im effect aurrendered to

defendant in payment of 20 shares of its expital stock for the

. gieseriber.) He testified further that the next days April 3,

aaa intel

1930, plaintiff, having made no request or demand for hie 92000

¢ wpreeux ba fiw wey ceded oeeh est
azagak soo @ Bases abe pt gh soi *
oe! Bien of ie Me Rs
eee? Coe t goer ot Yon tig gy if sider oe &
nena! x? eer % tr pont gas peor .
wer" tony oh Save Be

: waa’ wpe 5 sans
thiewte weg gash’ sian Of

yp had et deo? 4d deckata page AWeNe seco ad og

aan 2 earn aes ¢tove sevate mid Por l dassle x08 et wii
ot aisl wow % Ri wie one ale te

a¥ daha 1 4
wate ore 7 srw oe
‘eR 2 oem: el

seanal av gale: oat
qe oa Ge unde scr! 4!
cross

ode whet you biwow aM quwied tigeges be wineries 8
te ot wu

pO82k 98 Rings sohdnionens ox BO weadaot ods TO Kia BO %
wsed bam, 9G8RL at Linge erage, astty te ooaviho sat at ome TRddets
qed? mtd bing ed seid tontvanm ed Se damaged Sat sate of Se
8 oeouwt o@ bedake ow saeqaere geld nae oemnaguect® oF beblo
tars hae goede xe? odixondion OF hod mebéecteq sen wut? ak ‘wolite feo
oats tat! do “Meremaqe aobtginendin anode” oe hoctpea ‘Tikit |
te 490, 03 doennn mioresty devesmd mbhesxoa conta damon
0084 odd demhuae hee ker cetmens mae ade Ae fins aod abode
ed Sprekenraim doette maoae oF mods OF — iu sroane

loan or d¢posit, or any part of it prior te that time, came to
deferdant's office and teld Sendicr the} he wantec te make a loamy
that Sendler tolé him he could have o lonn of $1900, which he

n@greed te take; thet after plaintiff signed the nete fer OL500 he

wae given a check fer $1535 and he deliversd to Sandler, upon hia
demand, hin 22000 certifiente of deposit (which umder the sub
seriptiow agreement ef the day before had been transferred and
assigned in payment of 20 shares of (efendent's sto¢k) ae sceurity
for payment of the pisaey that the $168 difference between the $1500
leen as evidenced by the note and 21345 received by plaintiff
represented a prepayment of interest on the loan for eieateen months
at the rate of 72% that the mote wee payable in 75 weeks at the rate
of $20 « weeky that plaintiff would have heen repaid hie $Rb00 deposit
any time upon his request or demondg and that he delivered te plaintity
persenelly the certificate for 20 chares of steek in defendant core
poration abeus april 30, 1930.

Om erese-examination Somiley tosiified that ne payment was
made ty plaintiff on the $1800 notes thet no effort wae made te exaet
payment of weme until December 24, LOSS, when jud@eent wes confenred
en it after action im the inetent cose had been instituted ard summons
served on plaintiff November 1a, 1932; ard thet the only letier re=
queating payment thet he distinctly rememberce sending plaintiff was
that eof July 22, 1932, after defendant hac reeeived plaintiff's
attorneys’ letters of July 3 and 20, 1932, demanding payment of the $665
valance due plaintifi.

in rebuttal plaintiff denied thet he eigned the subyeriphion
agreement April 7, 1930, or that he even sow Sandler em thet doy, and
he alse denied that he ever received = certificate for 20 shares of
eteek of defendant corporation. He testified thet when he signed the

mote in evidence there waa nothing om the paper exeept the amall

wim

OF mae qcukd dant od andtg a2 to Stomp pete oo yAangee co weet
taunt a wlow od Sedaew af dads godbews ofet “ase onthe gmenyrong
ok doko ROOREE To maok w ovad Divas oft whit oboe votuna daxtd

ead GOREE. 20k adan ade wanes Wil omberg seite ondls ‘tual ea oozes
add ongs gee Shhas we be homswkiob cat inte aSeee wi toads 2 nevty saw
mus itd sane dotzies) a beige ‘te wosertbares oR} wast ‘shasamie

hae betegteaes? oted oat axeted yah ia te Smsaneinge morsel te
VWs oe (Meede sanbmeted Ye wenate be Xe a, al bengtose

ae ons te ate BY oh ildeiia ist deat ite abl wine a
| ' diaaged Oey ata phages aad overt aisater Vilsatade todd tiene a 980 40
Vibentads oF aovavites of dade ena yonwan9 30 Seoupey als moqe oat uh
exee demoted mi xoote. te wezeie GR t6) senertidcon ote yhkene r
gE AE begs Ree eteeate

aew thameny ae dad? pektiiees Golan? metiontexe-asere BO mee
found of she aav Sxotts on dealt pedon CORRE este wh ft eal”
baasd'hwod daw Seventh mode eer ,ko todas tsa wens to sonny
giana bre betuthtent xeed bat odes ent eat te ten et
air vedtet ‘vine ead dans bod inath 6b vedios ini Be
saw Wihtalale guthws boxedinaed ‘obtener oid bach” siete eek bab

M4 atiivetete beviveot tat Fanbested withe sheer ~ re oa
[ tans al ilies wnt <tts Leah nan ® Daannited awed ig
metiqixoadee eid bonbhe ‘bit sill ilkdeh Wine ain wer

bmn «yao gait? ao xottne® wan stove GH Anal vo GORE 6° Ltagh daomiony
io wocasin Of ‘26% sdupbhtaduon a bovkooor tate ot dived — ) 7

ed? pempts ed modw doi botttiond OM smmtsnnerton Indl 7
kfemn ast? | dene ogna baw ted ae wy an ‘ote’

geese PAE Sia WRC Ni, Ripeeae ey Pitt .

ao fe

prints that the blank spnees were not filled in am that Sandler
told him, “this is a receipt fer the money what you cot" that,
when Sandler asked him to sign the inetrument in evidenee as a
steck subscription agreement, he asked Sandler how many signatures
he wanted him to sign and Sandler said, “we have to keep a reeord ~
you have full confidenee in me five er six yearn, and I wouldn't
cheat youg” and that he then wigned it. He further testified that
at the time he received the $1338 he signed both documents without
knowledge of their contents, relying entirely upon the honesty of
Sandler »

Defendont declares that the present status of the parties
is that defendant doea not owe plaintif¢ 466% or any other eum ef
moneys that plaintiff owns 20 shares ef stock in Gefendant corpore
ations and thet plaintiff owes defendant $1500 on the note, I
insists that pleintiff is bound by his signature te the aferenone
tioned subscription agreement, which moeificd his original centract
ae represented by his $2000 certificate ef deposit, and extinguished
any obligation on the part of either defendant oY Ate predecessor
aseo¢iation on that certifieste, and that thie is true even though
Plaintiff wae illiterate when he sigmed it. it ia urged thet «
written contract can not be voided, varied or contradicted by parol
evidence and several eases are cited to the effect thet even an
iliiterate is bound by his written contracts thet if he eon not
read it constitutes negligence on his part to sign «a contract
without heaving it read te him.

We fully agree that is the extebliched law, but none of
the enses cited is applicable to the situation presented by the
Case at bars inasmuch aa it did net appeor in any of them that the
Signature of the party was obtained by fraud, duress or mise
er esentas fons We are of the opinion that the rule vontrolling
the determination of the question presented in this enuse ip

reheat gett Yen Gh OGSLE) 368 COO neous Moab weld sauté qeateg
giade “9709 voy Jody Yoaom ott et tgkaoes « at dai” ats nies

a te wocnaive at tmeamademk eg mia of mad nenkes sukbunt woaty
aviudamite you wod aelknes betas gah yoga r TBA nokigh woods soore
~ Sons 2 goed of oved aa® estan sedbast tae aghe oo xk hodaaw ost
*pehteon X ham yauney aie we oth om ae oateehs tae Liat ved Oy
fate ettieand eadeawt oF «45 asegte mad? oat dots bee "4QHON saeso
teuatther etirenmeak ated Remmhe ol GL osle bhovkeoes os om? ot? te
we enn edt meme -ylontine petites axderndceo sheds %o sghekwom

xeiecag wid wo aatada SoeReTy os gusts cnsiclaah sasnaetes
to nan coulda ne ve Cobo Tilswdakg oe dae anol tiebm
aoqtey snakrotob pt sioode 20 negate OF aENe vendmboly, tat eon
gt vapor edt mo 008LG eoubastyd acme Titvabale, tame ons (stots
onemonehe etd os oumtannke afd ye hme al yidatale teste veatent
somnduwe Lavkgizo oll Sutton detain, «Seame tee, ankigh unedie poitmd
Redtedeyetian bee ,tlaoged te etantiheare COG odd YS bodasnenqut ms
emenepedorg 26h xo inadantod sosidhe to txmq add op satiagiide yar
ghgwodty wows ound ad aaele dasta wun antaok3aaces tadi_ mp potiaeones
beth bepes nt 4h ott bomale, oct anche otemeet ttt cow sadgatala
“forage UE eteleetinue to deicey gdodher OF fon ano daandmos meade: |

nn, mmo ania aonnkn ons a anane nn annan cacerna haa nehiT®
dom mao ae BR deale ttowntuen weoibew ais wt ames At

Hie es A

tomas 2 mete o6 tog abt ae aomogesaoe ! mnenore & ta a

ext deste menaid ‘ke wie ak senne tom an oa , dame tad |
cata 20 sxtrirh qhuax? wd bankeade eae wee oe. me rursonste
‘qatiseromn- brs, tush, ebabige oot 30 he, H+ é
at wanes alti al bodmuooty chien ot De saat

ode

correctly set forth in Fowler Gy orks ¥

110 Tllse Appe 186) 129-30, where the court

“The rule ie elementary in this etete, where the
distinetion between lew and equity is preserved, that the frend
whieh 111 defeat an action at law upon «a sealed?’ imatrument ia
wonfined to fraud in the oxequiien of the inotrument, such ag
the misreading of the imetrument, the substituiden ef one paper
for anothers, ox vhere, by other device or Wiekery, the maker
wae induced to sign and aeal it, Believing et the time he wis

eigning ond secsling a different paver.*
the seme rule ia enunciated in hd mey & Starvette Co.
Xsf' Rourke, 172 llie 177, 18283, where the fellewing language
is used by the court.
"But the evidenee shows that the appellee Was an ignerant
BSN, ond could not rend or write, and signed the receipt by ma
Kis mark. There ie evidence Gerding to shows that he did net under«
stand the paper signed by him te be a release of dummgesge The
q¥@otions whether ox not the appeliee underatood the paper signed
by him to be a release, or a mere receipt, wae sulmittied t¢ the jury
by instructions given beth fer the appellant and the appellee. The
Jury have found thet he did net widerstand it to be « release
Defendant's counsel atreases and reiterates the fact that
plaintiff did not testify thet he was unable te fend the ingliek

ienguage, That is trues But we are eonatrained te believe that

tao

when he wae interregated as te chether he waa able to read and
write the Ongligh language he wae net afierded fair opportunity
to amewer the question. ‘The question was fellewed ey objection and
extended colloquy between counsel and the court, and when the court
finally ¢ecided that he might anewer the question was not repeated
to him, ond hie anewer was “le, I cannot write,” Sowever,s hig
ability or inability to read “nglich ean not alene ¢ontrel the
éecision of this cause.

“hether or mot defendant's signature to the steck aub~
scription sgreement and the mete fer 21600 was proewred by fraud or -
trickery, at the time plaintily received the $1438, was peouldarly
& Question for the jury to determine from oll the facts and eire

_ CUmetances in evidenee.
: It was their duty to and they unquestionably did consider
7

ase rat ob ois tnt, Sins Site

Hy Bye eats mag sang omyfns emma her ee
% at dealt _ Soran : btad
“ged Seemers 2s nen ot ot ye me oe Masse Ke fosteb iEbe tol ee

ey he ee _ hodednene af nar ontae , st

eyawened yabwosto’ ot a ad e8B~8BE ath itt ers
eer pr we Soe ak

dmeronge mE dae SOS Legis aie ¢atd swore esapbsve end ll:
guise ye dyiones tale weeps baet .athur to oot For fom
ase? tom bie oil aati peur’ =

ew pre aype gh ei oxedT +
=* og ge act
“ensmkae a ee Oo Fe pacino roe beh

deaig donk oatt gofataiiet Soe aagnette Sanmaens sheuiaabitc: ‘on
pees
_ take oxniiod 02 beakaxtenes oie oe ane vost at Rael. Scien
ad
trowsroens niet a bobeuttie text wae nat gemamnt Megat edt ‘othe
bas mobtoside ye bewallct ane matioamp oat - snokiwonty wid Teese ot
nll
retanges ton ane mettenny sie tens Uiieher of faut webtown GLEAMRE
ais ysovoooli santhor denne K «9R" anu women ake he ale
ed Jovineo oneke dom nao dabiget band Ge Yt !
sans aids Yo iabatels

ain spode tts pt ommtanakn «Minginathos tnet xe sealed ey
<a immth 1 howwsone ener 008KK xo stom may Ana daaneene rag a
vArwtinneg aaw eBE6L9 wile baytoons UAtmbndg ombhedd te <euetabee
“the dein aden’ cue Lio monk orkeenedeh oe sainneltni pi -
tentang kb atten tonne qpeld hens Be wie att ae ‘s

wGe

that it wae Sandler who wrote out the eheek fer plaintiff at the
time of his ceposit er loan of $2000 te the asseeiationy that
plaintiff waited a year so that he would get 11% interest inctead
of 7% for hie money} that about pril 1, 1930, when he first ree
guested his money, he wen told to euse back in thirty daysz that
April 7, 1930, when it is claimed thet he signed the ateck sub-
seoripiion agreewent, transferring and assigning hie 62000 eertifie
Gate of deposit in payment of the 20 shares of stock in the eorpere
ation, he wae mot asked by Jandler for his eertifiente of deposit,
although the agreement iteelf provided thet it be turned ever to
the trustees for eeneelletion; that it kas met yet been cancelled
end that there wee mo warrent for the issuance of the corporation's
certifients ef stock te plaintiff until the eertifieate of depesit
was cene@liedy that the very next day, April S») 1950, according

to Sandler, plaintiff discovered that he needed money ond requested
@ loan from the sasociation and that he acquiesced in Sandler's
action in charging him $165 for the purported $1506 loan, allowing
him but $1335, when, again, according to “andler, he could have
eellected the face value of Bie $2000 certifiente of deposit plus
interest if he had mot avsigmed it the day beforeg thet “andler

testified that the $168 deduetion from the amount ef the loa

represented a prepayment of interest on the note at the rate ef 7%
for 18 monthe when, in fact, interest at 74 did not figure that
amount either for 16 months or for 75 weeka, the actual tera of
the note; that, according to Sandler, he demanded as security for
the note the cortifieate of depesit which he knew wae worthless,

it having been transferred and assigned the previous day by the
subscription agreement executed in candler'e presence and delivered
to himy that although the note wae payable at the rate of $20 a

week and not a single payment hod been made on it, no effort was

aie

oh te Thkiwhelg set Moodie odd oom otguw ety coftald naw 2h dere
futs posidasepune ote a8 GRORE Yo need we tiveqe® ald to embed
baodent daorstak Mk Jog biwow og dade om xeey @ Bedhnw Trddmbalg

wer duck? od mosis gOSOL gf Lhmys seeds toxit temo lst ot RY Be
Sasha inysh Wrulslé ul choad amoe of bios exw ool ygonom wkd $aou

dee deers aht bumgie sd dest pumate xk tf mbcte (OBOE fateh
«“Ktid¢sen O0uS! ald yeieghane ome ais io Raawens etme seligttoa
orgies ad mk doetn te aptaie OS os Te taaeyey wt dieogeh to edaa,
stiaoqes ‘ otenictbeen aid 2et asloea yd Geden ton saw ec gtokda
Gt teve homed od J¢ Jantt ophivera Leedt connie alt Mowatt S La
soi Leones node see dom boat ot aeele ‘gooksaltoomes ab avesouns ‘oot:
a'noitwroquve ei te bomumel ety sah seentew, on any ovadé sade oe
ttaonsd te stant 2tii00 aid hv TAdanaty 98 doode Yo. stanlnheroe
gaborosde g GEOL 4B Liew wea dom qxer odd tautd theLtveme aan
bwenapet im qyenoa bbbon ed sail? boxeveonsh rid tuba qsedbaet
a'2efben? of eeostupyn od ded) ee wat éatoosas agit woxk pale «
guiwo tie sian OOLLe bedveqnny aio xo OLD mie gectpemto ak molion
owed Bfbes ad ytetbas® of seb brooon viioge ytctv «ACECE cod mtd
aide déadqsb Te ehantticsoa COOKE aket to wuhev senk ssis vetootton
ge hhee® Sond gotwter yod one Ut vongtass fom bod of he saeceant
mek ote Lo dumm ett mott wekdowbab BBLO add dadd bert i tant
RY te odor sald Ga GoM Gis ab tootetnd WW dermmyeqeag & deduces
tod? weg? dom bah RY sa Sovsotnt ydowt mt gmedw aamom bi x00
Ww wed Lewtoe odd gmtvor 67 62 Ye eednom OL vot rodtte imean.
at Yhwoee sa ohuamed oof ytetbne® ot ahh biosea vied tegen oben hs
semeldorow eae word vat abies dtweged to odeodievee ote oven sat
ity ‘Ue Wal watered sit Silly bikin till Ciidailldiald sagt soe
bomriios ote aouedoug 2! cekbme wt bodawexe J my
a OF Te etex att te wkdingey saw oer oe Hueaddtn gente
anv ¢xptte om gtk mo shen mend oat Sommyeq ae Se aoe

9 ten ona ot

My ie ki

za Lapa ie

“10«

made te enforee its payment until after summons had been served

on defendant in thie enuseg and that Sendler, having in his
pesseseion the certifiente of deposit he knew te be worthless

aa security for the $1500 mete, testified that he personally
éelivered to plaintiff the evrtifieate for 26 shares of defendant's
stock instead ef substituting 4¢ fer the Worthless security on the
note held by him in the company's behalt.

Defendant positively asserted in both its original end
amenceé affidavit of merits that it reeeived plaintiff's jacos
eertifieate of deposit in payment ef 26 shares of the corporation's
stoek at the time of the execution of the subscription agreement ,
and there wae ne averment that sandler demanded and recelyed the
certifiente of deposit as security for the alleged $1590 Loan
represented by the note at the time that SYanssction was ¢laimed to
have taker places Defendant's original theory as te the time ef
the celivery ef the certificate of éeposit to it appears te have
been abandoned om the trial.

V@ are clearly of the epinion that the jury was duatiftied
im the ¢onolusions reeched by it. Practieally every circumstance in
the gage not enly indicates, but demonetrates, that plaintiff's,
signature te beth the nete and the ateek subceripiion agreement was
secured by deception or trickery. “e are eonvineed from a painstaking
examination and consideration of all the evidence that, beeause of
the confidenee reposed in him, plaimtify trusted “andler implicitly
When he sévised him that it was just a receipt and paper for the
records that he signede

There are go many significent admitted er preven facts

im this record that stand out as veritable beacons to light the way
to the truth that it was wellienigh impowsible for the jury te be
-* a in the trial of this eanuse. [t ie difficult te conceive

boven mood bact aconmam sede Thiow deneyeg att epretae of ena
nae et guibred ,xekines dase tne gonwoe elds ah prune Reh.
eeekérrow od o7 weed af seogeh To naan ls, catsennnet
‘nanerveg ed daslt bw dihioss soton 00825 af’ cok “iitenes es
a’ frimtanien Ro wereuie OG nwt adam didecom ent Themed at bowpvided
aay he COR veeteinow eet wet 28 pnttwt tvedien ia fondest moots
| , | A OAR Pe

pee Lantyhed 081 died nt berinens Clovietang tmobmeWE ) oy oseh
Coded a Pteniatg nevteors of dad? aakven to dtvebl te Delaerseie

a aotsotegies wit To eons OR Te tuned met sieaged Io means theee
cétamborge welighawedon ers te mab ineone add Ro onetd odd to toads
“hd itn eh yebmaaah vokbaa’s dels desarceva on new sed? bin

pemed soktg dugetta add -to¥ ehtevesd ax steoged! Re-eesorthenee
od pamdate oA ger tocwnaes gate cake tate te oeem oes) og Soduseo yet
Se mente add oF ws esbeds” ‘Senigiwe a! deans tet — cre depen
eva oi nnesaae gh et er ‘$y sbaeh those see “be qrowhs
F | fated one’ we ‘netinitel and
pobibier, vow eat ity duckd mpthdge ome Ye Ulres ke ows ah Oo
at soundemecte cinve Ulicaddostt .32 yf Melieaed unolemteney wid mi
aM ridontady Yads .an ford unomed se gmdate bet he son eure eae
ae jeman 990g not dqgktondse oer ods ban eset ose red et guanbn

anblagantay ‘a matt Seonivens wis oY kedodat wo cok co orare
te aumnond atasd wore bars ote ie to wins vibe ds .
hd ko hiqat wethen? bodes Yitiaiatg "
sald tok song ote sheave ry sei nai ui biased ee rio ‘al sepa
‘ * showate ‘ed tacts abteoe

dechincdgug ae

ses te

adoat nove, “ge botdhute cite ok ube ala
eae os8 siti ‘os enonand eas iry A st
ed 08 wa ots oh okdien i

wile

of an experienced officer of a company, engaged im the oma lean
business, overlooking or neglecting to imeist om the delivery to

it of a (2000 eertifieste of depomit, the delivery of which was
provided for im hin sieok subseripiion agrsement. It ta just ag
#iffioult to cenceive of the same officers the very mext day, take
ing the worthless inctrument, known by him te be euth, &s security
for a sete evidencing a $1800 leanne it is even more vigfiewLt to
toncelye of his permitting « $1500 loans payable at the vate of #20
weekly, £9 rum approximately two years and eight monte without
making any effort te ebllect it.

Then we behold the same seeretary graciously and benevoe
dently delivering te a $1500 debtor, from chom he had reewived
worthless security, a perfvetly geod certificate fer 20 shaven of
defendant's stock and permitting the note te remain usecured. Ty
it not alee incomprehensible that plaintift would on one day divest
himself ef = $2000 certifieate ef deposit, thet defendont ts secretary
testified was collectable at any time with 11° interest, and the very
next day discover that he had to berrow $1535 and pay [16% to the
peme company “er the privilege of making the loan?

Defendant's counsel coneedeg that Samdler made o mistake
im delivering the certificate of steck te plaimiif?, bat attempts
%@ exeuse Candler’s apparent lapse in conduct by stating on page 39
of defendont’s brief that Sandler, us secretary of the amoll lean
eompany, “did not know thet he had to keep 44 ce sollateral.® The
failure of defendant te attempt to enforce payment om the note
counsel cheracterizes om page 45 of (efendent's brief ag “a careless
@eley in demanding payments" Plaintiff's conduet in aecigning
| April % 1930, his $2000 certifieate of deposit for which Sandler
testified he would have been paid fwll value that day, the next day,
on in facet amy day, ic hardly reooncilable with plaintiff's request

maal tfc owl? mh hoganee eumngae a Ye week The Seomekreqy me ke

ot Yroviieb av og faiam? of gekieolgan om pahteolsere groomed

anew Motte Lo yrevhieds iv —¢2wege? to evandtiores 00089 w te at

ae dank af 6% s€ampoetg meliditeadve Seole okt ef ced hehivern

eted yyah than (ree oe gtewdtto aaeg ect to eetehe a Uteoryhes |
Wiha oa yious of of wih YA mvom ytemmrteet seelitrew odd get

at ¢ivestTih ott nove af ad emwad 08042 @ patogetive ofea' « Get
Ong he ater satt Je eidoyog gunk CORLG a galielmzeg als to evdeones
swottin atines diate bas exoet avd yletaséxorqges aya of eubloow

sek sestiod e¢ sere yaw onbalen

acvened ana yluealoarg Yostoveoe emes ani Miaded ew gat ooo *
bupteoes best eat mune sot sxmtdeh O0RLE w 08 eat rovk Lom homed

to wezatis OS sal e@nclkiexroe Sou Yiortawg & «ye hanes wantdevew

el sherwosems atemet ov ofom onl’ paldstuvey dan aeets ot nabaoted
Saeekh yeh ono wo binow Piiveialy tele eldtewedenqamont onta dow at
‘Emsoqoor at inebastss ¢ady «ohengeh te ogeeltiersn SOng> Yo Bebemi
yser af? bee ainevedet DLL Bihw omiy yan fe AEdatustion sow soktheeed
wt) oF PBES you haw TRL wonvhG os Gin Ont Faull ToEDEED yRb dem

Pauees enke pedo to ogetivivy oe rg? sapsidenes
Sdatate o cham tefben? tat? wetbenee teenies «inakew rer ee
ntquetds dud gYhbvatasy of Mebia to seedlttyxoo dd ya

tooupex attitintake Mikw edattonmeye eSivead of gyeb vite sia ke ' "

“1L2e

for a loan from the same company the very noxt day, and can not
be explained away by defendant's counsel’ « statement on page 44
of defendant's brief that “ever night and fellewing hig execution
of the s'ock aubseription agreement, Reivits may have repented of
Ais action." Such an argument ie illerienl and wicenvincing.
If a man im plaintiff's cireunetanees needed GSC, or O1S3H,
April Gy 1930, he wust have known that he meeded it /pril 7, 1950.
Tf Sandler's testimony that plaintirr could heve resliszed the full
value of his certifieante of deposit, plus 122 interest, April 7 er
Sy 1955, were true, what reasonable can eould or would believe that
imeteed of turning it im fer needed each he weuld have trated it in
for steck in the corporation and $6 60 the same company the very
mext day and pay $165 fer the privilege ef securing ©1355 on «
91500 loan, repayable at the rate of #20 @ week for 75 weeks.
We find no merit in defendant's contention anh are of
the opinion that every significant feet im the reverd aupperts
plaintiff's theory that both the subscription agreement ané the
note were signed by him when he wee repaid ©1535 on eccownt of
hide $2000 eertifieate of ceposit on the fraudulent representation
of Sandler, secretary ef éefendamt, and ite prececeasors that the
papers presented for his signature vere nothing more than « reeeipg
for the money paid and «a document necessary for the company's records.
The verdict im thie ense in net only not against the
manifesé weight ef the evidence but it ie cleerly and abundantly
supported by competent evidences.
4g 40 defendant's contention that imaumch as plaintiff's
money was deposited with or Lent to defendant's prodecesser agseciation
NO liability attached to defendant corporstion and none was akovn on
the trial, it ie sufficient answer te state that ¢efendant admitted
both im ite original and amended affidavit of morita that the officers

“im

fon aap Sam eyed axon Ter ode ymomAMmO amas A mors saad & tot

be gga mo Imnanvose & Leamaeee at tana hed We yun poniadgne of
nodiueane abt puivoliol aan étpin save" gadt Rotad elémabrete® 2»
te wesangye oven ‘qaa ngieieh _somme ras od eg t soning ao!e pete a
egutontvaosay hee Loptnottt at inemgre am som — “onmhgom ate
g8EEL7 KO ,0ORLE botoae aepmadwasre tle atribintesg, ah ae *

008k af Liagh #2 bobpon oak fads evar overt Pale on, AORRL, 9B thogh
Lhe wate beztiees ered bhwov yrdsubeda saat aan 2008 a! cothaed a
wo ¥ Shey atge todas vid nade atinoqo’ ba gener th C08 ak re ” ke
gudi wvoliod histor ue biwoo mau oldanocaet date abared anew 08eE @
nh 88 behend event hiwrew sit Hows nehews wed mt ok “yates 10 Sangam
ver esi WAKA METI ans ae e% ‘have ashantogmes ons xt stoote =

; 2 nh eeELe gat uioos to sap ikeb ag oat sot wake we imo we oxo

, sadoow oF net doow 2 ogg te aden oss am newest ‘es0k i:

sities

re ae

Ye o26 bate nerénesaes at arscbaetob at hom on bad ‘a
| etoqgn prgooa ota wt sow jnsoktingin yueve “gacks aointge “oat
ont) Se Smemersgs eet aqhsoadne ode sted Sass qxoott a Yebtnbate
Yo JuMovss me gaset phages an ok note matt ge Rompte oxew ston
aokietmens'sqo% dre Lis asset oats no sheago? te otal khse9e e008 aid
wah sass qtoenane nowy aah fn vtmabersted to quadoress “etolbaat ‘to
bgioon: a tend wos yabstaore exes orudamie old aot badmee o789
-abueoo7 at equi ate od Weanw mon dmomurso a ton hog ‘eonbe! fr]
"962 damhoge 200 ‘qiixo fem ab vaso os baal sinew’ bene sana
“dinate | bas a wine bo sl dvs res oe

noticloosae soudwovhorg riiecgeestvgth * + sua to tote vad 8 ‘bene
no nvde dew sown bom nokioweron | oot oo besides qoned

bo datmbe fuctero'tes salt wtete ot ewan” essnmmuntoted .
sano va? ‘att sad Ce le bon besos xe wo !

-130

and trustees of the asseeiution recommended that the aangeisation
be reorganized as e corporation and the corporation was orgenined.
The situction presented here is not that of the aele ef all or
Part of the ageets of a company or corporstion to another core
poration for a vuluable consideration, but is that of & successor
Gorporation taking over in their entirety all of the svete of ite
eeorganized predecessor. That the corporation recognized ite
responsibility end Lisbility is evidenced by Sandler's test imony
that defendant paid all of the nOlders of eortificntes of depoait,
who @id not subseribe for stock in the carporation, the amounts
represented by their certifiesntes.

he prineiple ig well established thet if the aseete of
& company (association operating as a common lew trust er gore
poration) which thereafter ceases to funotion, are turned over to
& Buccesner Corporation, without the payment of any value but
merely on an exchange ef steck, then the succeanex corporation
impliedly seuumes the debts of the Pretevenzor company .

This doctrine is well stated in skiryin Opersting co.

BEM ELectrig Soe, (Oklae) 174 Paes O69, 1073, where

"We are of the opinion that ouch a tranceetion was une
Gonscionsble; that it was in effeet an offers te defraud the
Greciters of the old eorporation, or that would operate og a
fraud sagainat sueh ereditore; that the new Corporation ig a mere
Continuation of the old one, under a slightly different namey and
that a crediter of the old eerporation may lock to the new one
for payment of ite claim. “¢ are supperted im these cenelusiong

the ablest writers of cur text=-becks and c¢eeinieons of our
| @heet courte. The rule is thas stated in ¢ eon om Core
Porstions (aa Bée) geese OO8Rs
e *cucceeding corporations sre net infrequently held
siable where there may sot be etrie¢tly a congelidetion. Generally,
& Hew corporation is organised by the steckholderg of an «ld
Concern and reeeived the property of the old, the orcditers of the
o corperaiion proceed directly against the new. ‘This rule
applied ¢apeei where guch arrangement and the transfer of
ne property ie mace for the purpose of defrauding the erecditera
the o1é company. Thus a corporation composed of vubstantinily
@ seme utockholders, receiving without considernt ion all the
Opertys including » certain contrect for the aule of goods, for

aeipainenss ote dal ion teats ‘pediukooens ais Ye atten ry
-deuimagte oa metinrey ie etd Wat mobi omegter ‘2 aa) 1 on ud
4e Lin to olen a Re ‘gest tom wt weit thus nti wt
tes tartans oF noldwroguae og conigans «ke wdeoea oad te tt
tounnoous & TO gadd ok dvd juodaete diane aitustey vot mos oem
Pt Fy te aienue ent ko kia qoutivne ghost be wero divi 7 |
dt dextugoess aeitetsqxen ofv” oath ow : &
enon daod aMnathaw? ye vepeebive oi cotenastt meres
qtheoqes Mi aud 0d Fade $s aundiel oad V4 Hite bho tantnoksd'é
adeno wd ‘ealeaites ‘pot af Weete vet “et water 9 a

ae stones ute “th tants businhidssus iiow ot Oighontae vail bil
‘wave to tent? wok nuneso A 88 gat evtqe neldakoonda a guy

at «eee omeread oe aot seam’ oe aaenee yottes ted? deity i thatae
er ee a danete tw pitebiategted toaserore &
padtateg'noe caneeuown vote nnd? qieetn te “ pigghesttinlen ty Ore ‘ieee
kh seupearsmcnsbehseho

ip paknekons mtwian wt voted Loew oF wntatyod obs?
‘eee i o“ vee AE — ann BewIO OE, Sone!

satpemtene’ ©

“a a santas =i

aUibacone? ek sobs Gonuno a
blo we te suentonineta

edt te exadiovsws ait woke, a
afes oth. WOM

“lie

the purpose and with the intent of defrauding the ereditore of
such former company, wan held Jiuble om a contract ef the old
comp entered into before the transfer ef the perty»

Where the concolidation results in terminating the existence

ef the constituent companies, ead there is ne agreement ee te
Liabilities, the consolidated corperstion will generally be
entitled t¢ sii ag yy weed and will be anewernble for 211 the
Liabilities ef the corporation. Aad if the successor ie
techuiesliy a new corporations and the eld hae agtually censed
to exiat, and ali ite aseete and franchises have passed to the
nev, ane it is & sere Continuation of the eld, the liabilit
continues. Seither inw mor equity will permit ome corporati

te take all the property of another, deprive it ef the meane of
eee debta, enable 1% to diasolve ite corpornte exintenee,
and eo tisel? preectieslly beyond the reach of ered iiora,
without essuming ite Liabilitien.*”

Yor the svengene stated herein the judgment of the

Municipal cours is affirmed.
SUPINE Ba

Gridley and Seanlean, dJa» coneure

Seas baat - ie ae

IMA Tel ata ee wa, a

di twee
abi

a ;
é Eg
TENBIN Le KOLB, ) / BoE
Apgellant» ; ae.
APPEAL PROM AUPERIGN (COURT,
Ve } N /
} Cook COUNTY.
SHO ERIAR We ar rot | |
APP@LLGE « . op ry T A fe

This eppeal seeks to reverse a juigment entered fer
defendant, Jeremiah ¥. Modraw, upon a directed werdiet in a
aetion fer fraud amd deceit brought by Jennie Le Kolb, plaintiff,

Plaintiff's decleration consists ef six scumta, The
first alleges that suguct 25, 1928, she owned real eeteate in
Yetroits Michigan, and Windsor, Onterioj that defendont represented
he had contracted to purchase and was about te seqaire title te
property oat 4715 Malden svenue, Chicages, subject to a first
mortgage of £115,000 and a second mortgage of 930,000 that he
alee represente< to her the Halden avenue property wae worth
$209,000, and was leased November 23, 1924, to certain tenants
4 under a valid written lease for a period of ten years ot a net
? anual rentel of $26,000, thet the tenante hed purehosed, owned
: and placed in the building furniture et a eget of 229000, were
i Pesponsible, had paid monthly rental wider the lease and mo rental
3 Concessions had been mide to themy thet ell of theee representations
Were falne and made by defendant knowingly and wilfully for the
‘purpose of inducing, misleading and defrauding plaintiffs that
| 4 Plaintiff, relying on these false representations, entered inte

a verbal agreement with defendant to give her Detredt, Michigan,

j 4
» Tata, apna MoM aaah : heh Abie
1620 AT 3 oes aera
A

tet Seusies taemport, o eaveres 66 axfeon pe eat? |
aa wi golauey bedoouts « asqa «wore »W dalmowt _émebao'teb
hy qgtRbOmkadg g6Let yd eteust qd vaigword Sebes bas buact tot meres
od? sadnuoo xin to etuianes telseraioed a Ti imtalt
at stegas Loox benwe eda ,3RGL 28h tangs sods aegetia terxkt
kotaeso agen soiree dead pebvata® gtondal? ta yaapddole gtlioried
o¢ shi3k0 walepos a¢ ayode saw hee onudntwg o¢ bodenntnoe bad ed.
fault 2 0d Posidva pogantsd sommeve sobLel CLT) ta yueqong
eel duds O00, 968 ‘ke ogegdrom smepen = Rete WOO, SLES to ogege- tos
Htrow sow YlioqetE eT GObLalK on) tot os SotmeNongD oaks
Binane? miadtey of «dECL »fS wodmewot Daeeed exw bem 4 0048088 |
fom # $2 wtasy wed to bedcoq @ tek eeeed modeior titan «sok
henwe gtosatomg bet edmowsd oft dostd 10009988 Yo Letnet Lounam
OOH gH00 ESS Io txoo a te ouevdacat yatbisit od nk bean dma
{stnox om due oaned sid tebe Ledeen yhdinwm bhag but » dilate J
anelénénonsiqrn ened? to Like sok? guaeetd od von wood hed aneteseonee
ess colt alennlenthamanpuegenesiets te teabegedes :
taste PYALSMi stg yakbuertod One yatawedeke gymtoubal Yo recy
. Oink boxmea gamotiotemannges vated veesd mo yatyor a saialaaiaialiee
eninge ti 4ttorsed xed vig 02 sanimoted dtiw sosmonga Lod , i

oge

and Windsor, Ontaric, property, one liberty bond and $49162.04 in
eesh for a one quarter interest im the Malden avenue proportyy
that August 27, 1928, she convoye’ her property and paid the
$8,362.04 to defendant, who éid not nor would not convey to her
the one quarter interest in the Malden avenue property, but did
give her a certifieate for 125 shares of capital esteek of the
Malden avenue Guilding Corporstien, which steek he falcely and
frauwiulently represented te her woe a one quarter imterest in the
real estates and that she discovered thereafter such atoek 44d net
represent a ont querter interest im the real ¢etate. The other
five counts contained averments to substantially the anme effect,
eoncluding with an allegation that plaintiff tad been domaged te
the extent of $26,0006

Befenéant filed a ples of met cuiliy to the declaratiane

Plaintiff, the osiy witmeses on the trial, testifiec that
she and defendant, and his wife, had been friends for fourteen or
fifteen years and had visited back ond ferth te the home ef each
other; that August 26, 1925, defendant called at her residence and
teld her he had wade a contract to purchese aud was sbout to acquire
® plece of property on Malden avenue valued at about P2009 ,000% that
he woe short $26,060 of the purchase price and thet it wee a very
good piece of propertys that it hed a first mortgage on it for
$115,900, and a second mortgage of $50,000, that 1+ wae Leased
Noverber 20, 1924, to Oxruce Feuchtwonger (aleo kmown ae Bras
Fisher) and Stephen Lucsak, under s valid written lease for a
term of ten yeore at $22,006 a yearg that ne concessions had been
made to the tenants under the leases that she asked cefendont if
it was = good Lease and he etated to her that he and Br, Jarrett,
hie attorney, had thoroughly exemines oni investigated the lease
end found it to be a valid Lease with responsible tenants who paid

mh bO.SOL,64 ban trod yecowld om getreqetg pohiated ,recbalY bee
“Pedceges vwE eokLall old aE deeredah tedzep ome @ TOR damm
whi bhag san YWroqew wed koyornso ante gBGOL qT Pamgard gmals
‘ved ef yormes fox biwow wer ftom 618 ottw ednndere tee ag 0583486
phe ime g¥ssoqomg cutters Hobhel ott ai Seorrederd, aod tawp eno ae
ane Ye doote Letiqns Io setmeta BSL sot sienititaee « tod ovig
bes yoda? od dvede teiaw «Moki axogzeo pulhtial eames toe Lale
ed? mb teovednt werewy wm o cow wed of betnoostqes Eine kubemet
fon bho dood sieane “fevkavwe? ierwvesn dh este dads bas qedetas Laet
sede off 8 «sefotns Lvox veld wt seeceent eetumap om # IneneIges
ptoeTts wane on! efkekdantudue ¢o adwoarrevea bomkateoo atanee beats
92 bepemel mond bet Tikdeaig dads re tea bw “geht

"000,088 to’ “jibes “Bile
noktarstoel ons od qi ftv, don 2o wolg & SoSES iuabavtes acai
fais bOetARSd qLaled and 46 aunatke ykod odd ,Yutdatai

te esse? wt whaekst werd hawt rewebrnchnces Fee
ier Yo nmad wit? 69 AEC? SnN Bowe bottady dart knw weowy woe HPD
bes seaebdinet to Co SeLken daluhee teh GOBOL QE Jeng Inde erste
Srinpse OF sudde unm tne otedtoey oF Poertnes m ohme Ret Cit ell REGE
Seid [OO GMORE saode Fu bokkor eMER hobknl om YsreqeNe to Hoo

Gree # onw Sh Saks dna seiey secckrung ene te 069,088 untae ,

Seat bin nile

wot Gh so opeydwmm twxdt e bet 22 tems GyregoNE to KOetg’ bam
bonsed ssw 22 Jot? O60—OE8 To RMR soN dawroe & bme OOO TEE

20x aa nov Geka) ssyuswtenad coed of parang
+ aE ee

aie

their rent monthly? that the tenants owned the furniture in the
building, valued ot $22,000 that the rent wag to be paid monthays
and that defendant made her an offer in writing te sell her a one
quarter interest in the preperty for $20,000, which offer was ag
felicwal
*Chieagd, lilinela,s
“I will give Pony ma ie ng in the buliding

at #4515 (4715) & 4517 (@77) Eeliden svemue, Chicago, for

ty'a"First of Sido, 000-00 nad a End nertgnge ofmatcay, Se

Theusamd Dollarse

(Signed) J, i+ KeGraw*

Plaintiff further testified that defendant requested her te visit
and inspeet the property with himj that on the eome dey uhe accompanied
him to the property, where he introduced her to Mra. Fisher, and the
three ef them went through various apartments of the building and
exomined the furniture, and that she was efforied an opportunity ef
inquiring pereonaliy aos to the truth ef the atetemernts made ta her
_ by cefendant concerning the lease; that she advised defendant that
p: the proposition looked good io her, Wut that che did net hawe $26,006
“oushg that che told him that she had property in letroit, Michigan,
and “indser, Ontario, which she would convey to him as pert ef the
_@onsiceration if that was acceptable to Himg that she ami defendant,
and hia wifes went to Detroit, Richigan, and “indoor, ‘Onteric, where
- the properties vere investigated an¢ that thereafter she conveyed
these properties te defendant aa part of euch consi¢eration after
4 eir reapective veluce bac been agreed upon; thet, upon their returm
te Chicago, plaintiff paid defendont 94,162+04, the balanes of the

29900 sonsideration for her owe quarter interest in the Malden
Averme propertyy shat August 29, 1925, defendunt ami his lawyer

, @livered to her a certificate ef steck for 125 shares of the
vital stoek of the Malden Avenue Building Corporation, which had
ineerporated with a eagiteliszetion ef 560 shares ef stock

tS Oe ~ — 2 ren A

ad? mk gaucho alt Domo gdtenne eae Aadd ayldinem gma xhodt
tvidiamom btag ad eo gaw Smey ocd tadd 99604859 de outer egubbtiod
ene a ted flog of gthiicy ah terto we tet obem dnobaotod dads baa

as saw cette sto dew sha Rh se? Q“insqeng eff at dnotedah sednamp

‘ es
ey
pe 2

tweegatt 6% ot (hemgeey !
botangmovoe ere Yd onmw sey mo Thels tlt Sitw Yrxeqnmy Mite Veomnet Bee
od thes gterict® suxil of tod brewboritadk ont pmtw yybisqotg wit Or ete
bus yakbiiue os? Yo admaerogs ewokrey dyuotl? enw mbdd to bot
‘be vapunberan te bobtotta caw foi al oe dhrcyrecerneder ite vophatexs

woo iy Giie"Wile i i Wi 5 hae Sea aaa tae :
wing tat Fi ed torsei at yreqnsg had sete “Gadd whe baer ete tua ny
‘eld ‘te foe aa mid 08 wvavs tow vite ‘deka (obe r
edhabitetos tte eile dad tats bs Wid ind tl A hell a
ezeily goitaind ‘eteobat! baa » gttaghdolt oioxse't of ‘teow conte ed tite
beyevnce ode teftesrsdd dat tas aici ‘ore aw |
setts nbiverahiams down to Pu “a iia
sussex theld meq oat fickegh Wouia ”
ant te sonatas vit Hhapessrnd sete slick

haat sot —

«{e=

at $100 par value ench to take title to the propertyy that she
teld defendant ond his lawyer she expected to receive o deed
representing her intorest im the property, but that she accepted
the eertificate for one quarter ef the capital ateck of the
corporation.

Plaintiff slee testified that shortly ofter the den}
Was closed, and shout the time she expected te reeeive some
money from the Halden avenue bulidings she wae adwiaed by
égefendent that he hud just been informed, for the firet times
by Sve0 Fieher, the tenant, that the purported lense of the
building was fraudulent amd that tut, vhe oened end acld the
property to defendant, hed induces’ Mra Fisher te enter inte the
lease so that the property wmicht be seld ot a higher price, and
that Wrese Fisher did not own the furniture at slig and that
defendant aleo informed plaintiff thet Mra. Fisher told him the
leesecs bad a private arrangement with “tut to pay ae rent, thet
they had paid no rent and were not in a financial position to pay
rent.

It appeared, om erceceexamination, thet when plein: iff
Wigited the promises with éefendent emi met Bra» Fisher she avked
no queetiong sbout the lessee. In reapemse to a question addressed
te her by the court, ee te «hether or not whe dleeussed any buciness.
concerning the preperty ox the lesce with Mree Fisher, she answered
“no,” and when the court asked “why,” plaintiff etated, “i had ae
object in talking to rn. Pichere” Plaimiiff waa then sxsmined

by the court ase foliowa:

a *“G. But you were buying some property Trem hes?
Ae Yous I tock Mr. HoGraw'e word.
4 Ge But you could have inquired about the Leanne and
. everything concerned about it?
Ae Yee
Qe Bothing prevented you from coing 1%?
Ae Bae*

:
Tt further appeared that om this wieit plaintiff exemined the furniture
{ but did not ask who owned it, that plaintiff was familiar with ite

ade tai: yescoqune ects Of OLA) wthed ao Mowe omoy mg COL de!
teed o oviseas of betongey ane t9gred aft bun tanker ted Kine’
dntgoren sale tut! tod yer iagong see ot deovedet mt gribinseowqen ©
wii to deeds Letigqze oat te setiony sep tok stent therem welt
sted tewogrem
fev> odd cotho yftreds dag’ Sedthvaed eeke Yihentelt :
eave evhseor Of bedovgze nal wake. ta ies a Veet ee areal
| ‘yd hosivie naw. tly apabbates amen soci a mo epee
yeute Baik of Sat sbomro'tck avo text bad. ast goats duataoted
et? te seosk be degra ots does a imenss Leal qencin tt die, ve
‘ate Akon hus bamwe adv ytude deste bane smo dubuas’ saw pik
os iat rodeo 0% Tsindt .axit boomtat Oat vtasbaoteh of we wi ”
bs yolig toifaid 2 f+ Loo od aafzte wirogeng edt and ga quand.
teas bee gita te rant Raves oat aw ton ry tose eat i ia
“fd a bates xestes® Wee heat ‘ademtelg domcotad ate "

teddy eno os war od Smt dite taewgaerts otavisg # Sed apenwed
we we wads ino fatomeutt « at ton osew bee foo om Bag fat ott

i pts

tut ond nig reste: sant jot Lantmnnoennon as pnts an,

“ati ya pere “Sein
oaakon oaks tosis d acs fom am sss io 0 8 dehy oosdeneng My ale.

beasesbae > mob tamup : Ao? younger: Of sonens ost seepil !

as bad a sintate wsntadg "ee
boatanne wands | aay ridemtase

ek Utdder eat # bere ane Chbenbnte Salt hd Ghee itech nea idl |

ape
Value, stating thet in her opinion it wae very goed furniture
and suitable for guch an apartment buflding.

Tt aleo ¢oveloped, on crosseexemination, that after
defendant a¢vieed plaintiff thet he bed fownd out the leaae wae
fraudulent, and that the tenant hed teen induewd to enter inte
it by ‘Gut for the purpowe of stliing the building at om exhaneed
price, and thet the furniture Mrae Fisher wae supposed te oon wae
not owned by her, and although he hod been advised by hig lower
that the lease wae in proper form ami told by (tut ond the tenante
Sheat 24 was m valid lease, iS turned cul te have been fraudulently
executed, and that he did mot know this o) the time af Bie trang.
action with her and thet nebody could bave aecortaimed the truth
about it at that Gime, plaintiff then eaid to defendant, *co ahend
and use your own judgment amc get the peuple oui if you emns”

I& also appeared that defendant Seld plaintiff, shortly
thereafter, that he bac geused “tut's arrest and was proeocul ing
him for fraud and obtaining money under fulee pretenses, and that
thereafter defendant kept her advised of the progrese of the various
wattere relating to the lease and the title te the property, amd thet
he was trying to straighten out the tangle caused by the fraudulent

lease and falee representations mace to him by “tute
; At the conclusion of her teotimony plaimt it? offered in
| evidences a certain declarotion, a bill of complaint, another bill
' of complaint, an amended bili of complaint, an anawer, & ples ond
” gb422 another bill of complaint. These pleadings had been filed in
‘ verious couses, by or in behalf of BoGraw ae an interested partys
3 Gn one wide or the other, in ao attempt to seeure redress against

‘ Stus for his frevudulent cenduet im the sale of the Malden avenue

ve property to hime
: The ¢xdal court suetained objections to the sdmission

@agt iat boon goer sew 02 sebekeo seoaf mk deat aehiets gomlay
sertediv’ Simawwsage me Mowe t0k etdatine dna
v9d%s tard groitrrigmmesgagw om . seqgekere> eafa PE ye
aed woeek wl? Cop Seve Dee oe desis Titemiotg teabybe seubasted
ees cedes of beowbnkt fosd fan deoned onft taal? tne y teeiubee?
aogmive wa Ja yebkikine edd cakifee te epey my ee ved dade qi a2
aaw tea of Seporeee eow tunelT wet exettirw't edd tard fea qendug
aegeetl ote qf beatves seed ted ed dgutaieke tae ted ql Some tom
adasesd od hun Geo yo BOY tee eetet ceigeng Wt daw oeneh wae fade
Ctnntubwert weed eved of Jue bewae 12 yOenel SLsev m Rawed gaete
eumert eld to omid afd tn wict went don Mbb em dade tue Vhedeoene
Héwsd ea bonter oes swat Biued Yodel gate den ted dédw motgos
imate ap” qtuobmetoh of Mae mad Whately gemhd said seek emdda
rine oy 2 cae egoog wd Fay Ome Smmpbary ord ang mn bee
eivats gWibiabaly bhot imnieelieb sate bowmeg@e oaks PE coho)
phbtwseset anx dun goons ut dues beens ee |
evehuay ead to svengeny ale te seadvin nk hand: danbaoton entteanedt
todd te eyo toqnny ete OF aENY ate fis wonsd ect OF yatintor axedsam
seen Leone? aad Yd beause ofynet ot wo woddatwete Oo yinkynd ne eat
aa. 2. etoRieeecaeveor HeLe Mo Oanek
at boxe Tie Tikenbely wramlinod thet adunemmendondiasl: weal we
{ike veitsone ytakeiquos te Liht « yoobietnteab alereed se |
ee Lib bene mo hae to
ai bedkt need hat agathesig wasdt vtubsiques Ye Lité wialsone Ehe
vetiog sotnevedat sy oe watGod to Miasied Ae oyunu “_

toonisis sd oF entevntéo bndatawe ‘90h Eat of am
ain eS wets igi “e

tigpil i edit aki ad diedaine mee Pye ae ny,

-6°

of these plesdinga. We de mot deem it neceusary to diveuse the
theory on which the court acted, or the prepriety or correctness
of his ruling, inasmuch en these decuments aprenr fully in the
record, have been carefully examined by we and have received eur
ceneiceration te the anme extent es if they hed been admitted in
evidence. :

Plaintiff contends that 211 of theae offered plendings,
excluded by the trial court, cantained admissiens by dofendant
that are competent end revelans te thie couse, and we, therefore,
eet forth in substenee the pertinent sliegeticna ef ene of them,
@s amended bill of complaint filec by Jeremiah ©. Meraw, ax his
wife, against “tut et 2l., in the Superior court, Jume eh, 1928,
as follows!

. Mainants represent that on July 1,» 1925, they
ewmneé certain Sisconsin property? that the defendants Gtut,
cvned the property known ac 4715 Raiden Street, -hicege;
thet Stut represented te orators thet the Halden Street
property waa worth in eseeus ef $210,000 and was leased by
a written lease to Peuchtwanger and “tephen iueszak at
yearly rental of $22,0003 that the tenants were finaneiaily
responsible; had paid their rent according to the lease fram
Movember 28, 1924, to September 1, 19453 that ne cenceasions
had been meade to said tenants, all of which representations
were falee and were known by “tut to be foiac, and were mace
for the purpose of inducing eratora te exchange their —
Videeonsin property and execute and deliver their note for
$4,000 for the Maiden ‘treet preperty: thet after the

' exchange craters Ciscovered that the lease aforeanid was made

; for the purpose of having the building ceceupied that 1% might

be wold; that the lessees were in exit building as agents of

. Stutg thet they had paid me rent under said lease from

| Rovember 28, 1924, to March 15, 19253 that from March 15,

i 1928, to September 1, 1925, they hed pais to Stut the net

income from said building, lees operating expenses; thet in-
atead of said property being worth $210,000, it wae worth not
to exceed $160,002"

The allegations of this amended bill are typical of the allegst ions
as to Stut's fraudulent representations to NeGraw, cantained im all
of the plendinge offered in evidenee, and we fail te discern what

pessible weight or foresee they add to the uncontradicted, undisputed
evidence of plaintiff alreadyin the record to practically the some

effect.

of; weseat® os iasaeeun $2 sem dom eb oF semmianetg eaneie Re
eaianannie te vtekagem Sd te gheton tawos osld Motsio me gree
edt «i viie® xevaae sdmemweeS egets oo demmmeck qypakiox eld Yo
tio Aeviooos ores Gne om Ys jecinene Yhrlemee meed avast 4 beens
at teddimhe sev bad qode Md om tmotee same af ed moltenesioaed
. el kee eh ek aang
aati ionle Seretto aueds To Lia dade otemdmoe WhdwbAsy. ooh oy
tisonetek yd aweltzeiais honlatnes ,tevoo Anktt st gd bobalone
aovoRowmily gM bee soakee alse O¢ sankeves tne Inedeqmes gum dadt
insis ‘to ene Te gankdegelte dimemkerag salt votndedee ak deco R dee
etd ten ,vertet .v rakwoxel yd aot dateiqnoe 29 Liid Soon em
O20 4 ER ons «ruuoy TanrNELS we MD qp kate 69% demthayn«ORhe

‘ bss t a

"ye bones caw has 2040 eben nee
‘Lfelsnent’ ex0r edward nal) fans pat t Lave

ext eeced ai of gatkisecom .
ens ei tavis pis Pe ek “adaniqe? 94
” hana ater tha yaaket >

dnnw wrevath es Lint ow das yomnoblye wt oexetite ay en 8
Aoivgat ban goetntnantooun sa) of bbe welt dorot to talntow ©.
nF A LN Ot ee te ‘a al

Le ORS Rea

; ab aw net By sd) oy iG)

dys ak
ae

ete

Tt io mot contended, nor even intimated, there waa any
intention on the pert of defendant to cither deceive er defraud
plainsiff.

Tymamuch ag plaintiff testified that the Valuation of
$209,000 placed upon the property by defendant wae merely his
opinion as to its velue, and that ne agrechen: was made by defendant
te give her anything representing her one gusrter interest in the
Property except the certificate for 125 shares ef eteek im the builde
ing corporation, «hich ahe accepted, it ig unnecessary to discuss
either of these matters.

Plaintiif's major contention is that defendant had not
thoreughly investigated the lease in question but relied aclely
upon Otut's representations te him, which subsequently proved te
be fxlee, and thet hig lack of knowleége of the frete, which he
stated to her, concerning the lease, established seienter in iti,
and therefore rendered him liable for damages resulting te her by
Teason of the tranenction.

Lefendant's theery is that there was properly me ground
Giselosed by the facts presented for an action of fraud smi deceit,

and that the baste elements vitel toc euch an action were not shown.

Plaintiff iuelate thet the various Pleadinge filed in

Other enuses by defendant, and offered in evidence wy her, show

“tint defendant relied eelely upon “tut's statements to Aim as to
the validity of the lease and the occupancy of the premises, and
. Cefendant wae not warranted in making the statements which

he made to plaintiff, based only on stut's statenente, but should
made a fuller and further investigation. Ib is ouffiecions
wer to atate that these plesd¢ings disecleve that falee otetee

ts were made to him by Stut and that he relied upon them, but
we ig nothing in any of these proferred plesdings that indicates

Sa ee
-~

ate

Pe. pe

wie sew oted: ,hedemisal sero Tow s hehoederes seer WR SEE woe we Re
hyoxiuh vo ovheoeh vedihe od dembeeted te desq oct mp medsuegat

5 9S se ebomtalg

to sotdontay off tate bolti tee? Vrkeniale ea dewmometles «oy wy

phd Uloton now Smebtte toh YS yesoqo me ae Rog papain
jucbow'ter yd sam Baw THOmMeTES OF én? See goutov a32 09 ea mekatge
eit a} deoredek sed ome wait gabterednqin’ galaeyte aed only oF
cattud edi wh dnote Yo seville OAL <eh odendtRGued sl? tqpoes WRNgERE

BAD i SRE ORTRII WEES

gexonib o8 Yxescbsudaw wt oF qoesqecse gle Meise yiodsexoqTeo: gat
| | awed ened? to cealthe

jou Sart traknotos Sadi ut muRsnevwne wobeet-o? Tet sath om om
qefos boiler sud wolddany at ios wit bateghoowvich eidauotads
oo bovesy: aienenpoudus Moidw gttkl 93 enol sadmons Tye% waut meq
on datde gadaat off 2 wpimntverl to deal eld dade tx seats of
anne a Se ee vd 0 oetate

Hom DobLon os taste Dum auto. stat ot oh cree
aedaol ont satis cerbnente, seein. sande to wn at mee '

“f=

that his investigation was Limited te atatements made by ctut or
that he relied upon them exclusively.
fe maintain an agtion fer frand and degeit 1% is generally
reeognized that the evidence must show the representations were |
that they were false, and mown te have been false by the party
making them, and made te deecsive the other Party, or made as pouitive
assertions, reckleesly, without knowledge ef their truthy thot the
other party believed them te be truey thet the person making the
purchsse, or entering into the comtrack, relied upon the representas
tienes and wae induced to net beesuse of (hemp and thet he suffered
damage thereby.
The determining question presented on this appeuk is
whether gelenter has beon established in defendent by the facts
appearing in the recoré im thia eauae,e
_Plainsirt ‘a teatimony was te the effect thet dofendont
told her he hod examined the property, lease and furniture, ine
terviewed the tenants and had his lewyer examine and investigate
the lense, and as o reqult of theiy combined exominations and
imvestigations he concluded the lease was valid, eontained ne
| concessions, vac for ten yours 26 am aveual reetal of Flag Ky

that the tenante paid their rent each month and shat the furniture
_ dm the building wea owned by the leavers and was worth $22» 000
‘The Pleadings heretefere referred to aimply disclose that cout
exhibited the lease to defendent and mado the same statementa con«
a Gerning the lease, furniture and occoupaney of the building an abeve
enumerated te defendant, and thet they were false and he relied

if upon

Defendant did not make the statements te plaintiff ae of
Matters within his om knewlecge, ond it must Kave Been just as
‘apparent *@ hex, ae it is te us, that he was merely relating to her
his belief or opinion formed ac « result of the examination of the

<b tud0 “whee eiowendate of Datars one moltegttaoral eid dads
svfevtawioxe mad? coqu hotios af fade
qliaxvenep of 22 stnoehr few base cet netios we wiatalax ef»
gobam evew anoliedmenssges One wette jou sonebiye ad? tans besiagoser
qiteg st yt ondat aed ovad oF worcmt due youdst wcow qos dada
| gvheteog en phar xe gyttoy seaide ost? wrteosh eo oben bie qmorts griden
otiy sake qslared “ckeatd te aghetwotsl sauielw «aneléoes yanedenveay
ett yoann wmecrog od dati yeared ad eo mone bovaliod yraq wate:
ssinsawmeet aly nog bekfes qfowntion emt otuk yxtredss to yooutiomt
I beeen oat dad Ome qeeds to sameond tos ox beowhet cow Bem ameke
ab fevcuw ehh co bedeoveny wotteuyp patntempses wl 0)
wiowk ede ‘1S tretaeted wb bednhidstes ood eet gebmetog wextdenbe
| th a wens ‘Ride wk Seuoed one ib mane
| dembacken dott adverts ote of caw enemizens at vaidateh 8"
ent qoumdiserw? bre wenn ,yexeqaug ety beaheene bed wot coed Bho?
etaghtoremt our onimexe teyred ald hast Sma etrowed oat sowelvsod
fen enottantmee tumbim chedt to dfieot 2 ee bee yoened, sal?
if ui! “gm Dontatuen 08S ww sen0% os oebetonbo on snake aghvail

Hy LALLA ALE LEI
£000 SEE sab vow tun aveoeAd BAH EE bone wn yk ae aa tee
{ute dodd canisakd equiv oF denweten aueteretut wpubberdy oat

-noo néceumsote saint ost shane hme snnbuoiod od onebs ede beddehtee

eveds ne pabbitun ott 20 Youoguceo nm exude? younek was gabwt
bentes a aun nist ose i 3a Mam cman inte

se ne taneahate shamantnte ecnenienncae: aun
as dave mond overt senm 21 hes gomboduncnt mow oftt miss tw 20s Sam
goal oS githingon eleven caw eat Sami pair Os of Gh wa eon OF tay

enema St, 1G
BN ae re),

| as to nottentunee od? Yo divest # em beunct mptatge wo Ietfed alt

py
‘9

i .
“
xh
Md

ove

lease by his lawyer and himself, ani their inmveetigation of all
available sources of information.

To warrant an actiom for dceeit i¢ is umiveraslly held
that falee representations must have been knowingly mace with an
intent to deceive. It is conceded by plaintiff that the state-
mente made to her by defendant conesrnimg the lease were not made
with kmowledge of their fsleity, and were not made with any actual
intent to cheat or defraud her. However, 16 ia urged thet an
intent to deceive will be imputed to ome whe maken positive and
wequelified assertione, recklessly, withewt knowledge ef their
truth for the purpose of inducing another to «act on them. Te bring
this cause within this latter rule it would not only be necessary te
show that defendent felsely stated az true that of which he head no
mmowledges but it «ould be incumbent om plaintiff’ to chow further
thas he so represented the matters as to incuce in her mind a belief
he Was eptaking from actual knewledge of the uattere represented.
The evidence eleorly demonstrates thet wach wasn not the fact. He
acted throughout as an honest mam end wan himeelf muleied by the
@eecit of Stut, whe was guilty of the omly fraud diccernible on thig
record. tefendent explored every source of informetion available,
eecking the truth as te the Lease ami the condition of this property,
and we ore aatiefied thet plaintiff wae fully stvised thet his state-

; mente te her were based entirely om Hie investigntions

It ie true that plaintiff invested im this property at
éefendant'e selicitetion. I: is sleo true that statement« made

‘by defendant te her concerning the lease were false. That these

dtatements were fealee was not diacovered by either of them until

: shortly after the decl wee clewed: ‘That the frauulent eharacter
of the leases affected irjurtously the velue of the property le net

open to questions That the fraud amd deceit of Stut resulted in

kin to mobtapiconvak thedt ina Rivamid den cowed abet ye sands
eteeceheat to seruiree efdelhere

fet <ileeveview ah £2 Siogod “eb mottos of duatsaw of
ma diiw »Sam yogmtoomd socd aver deme anohiatueonsqex on Lek tals
sedada eg% foods Tiivelelg wW bedaomes at 42 sevdooes ed samdnk
Sham dam ayew seeel wh pakoneee daetaekeh yet ted 62 wbam edeian
ievtes Gie Soivw sims fon ovew Soe yotiaket sie? to eghetwont! melw
as tak) hoe oh oh gsevews «xe hentted am dacde og daevek
Dae OVELineg aolen ony ame 6d awanqud o@ Lhbw ovbhwood 0 tuedmh
‘sheds tp ogbetvned swemtetw gyhesedioer .etobivousa bePthiampiw
paivd oT sme’ ae doo oc ventene getowint Bo eeogeeq ods woDuiewes
oo Yreeesnen od wre com New oF efew anteal ehae whdete oowee abs
on boul stl Molun 20 seal eed ae Qednde ~heede? danke wedi
wosidwwt wat, of YLidaindg ge édeedeawnd od bisow saint ipaaiaash
tilled 2 sate <od Gi sexsi o2 on onadtem wt Settmowergen oe on tant
sbetnuneiges sieiden os to ophadwerd Levies mont gatdeege enw ed
oH steal a? fon saw gone tant cotondecmms —qixeoto eomebiye aT
ot? WW bacalum Meamhs aa bee min doomed me ax svedtyuouty bodes
aii? ae eidignsosis samt ume wold Lo qe Lie ew oo teee Ww TRObOb
stidalicta meivnmotns Yo somes YTETe beTadgxe teabasket <brooes
atsxeyeng Gide Yo mahatines aul? bus sewed ety eg we Me One Qebevon
“date ait Gadd ogeivon yidet sew Thteatety gece weltebtos ome or ons
te Wregory able wt npc vba iia dh
seed? tad? soaked exow waned es conunnenine navbar
_ £ifus mods Yo xesttte yw demevonatd tom ase nt ner emda
ten sik howe eee eink cSevetertet veredted oui te
eR a ey sande

vdeitge mm Ted a

Gamage to plaintiff, as weli ag cafendant, ig aonesied, But was
defendant's comiuet guch ag rendered him Licble under the Ise te
anever in dawages to plaintitt?

the representations wed¢ by dcfendomt te plaintiff did
wot wurpert to be within his pergenal knowledge and he 244 net
ageume te 6 etate them. He noi enly advised plaintiff thet the
information related to her by Kim wae geines 416 A veeult of Bia
imvestigution, but he invited ker te imepeet the promicon ond the
furmiture, and accompanies her on sueh inepeotion when he twtree
Sueed her to the tenant amd afforded her an apportunity te test
or Verify the infermation he hed theretafere reevived cml tmperted
te her. Plaintiff wee a woman ef «t ieuet some expertenes in real
estate tranaccifens and the sanagement ef sreperty, and testified
#he yea familier vith the wauel metheds sf valuing real cateutes
While it is true thet che wes purchectes on intereet tm the oreperty

let J 4 1 ee

fameciately from defendant, the concern ef hercelf aed defendant as
to the velue and ether attributes of the property wae easentially
the au. “he waa offered the some epsortenity te exemine the
_ Premises ond lesa as Cefendant. the lew reauires incdivitualin,
| iu their dealings vith ench other, te exerdiee proper vigilance
. aut agply their etiention to theae poriieulara vhich are in reaoh
ef theiy ebecrvation an¢ Judgement, ant met eless theiy ayes te the
weane of information acceenttle te them. (Seckford Inge Gos Ve
Varnes, 22 This “pre 1%, 23.)

Theat ¢efendant and bis lewyer were Lied to and imposed
“pon cannot ¢etreact frem hie endesrvor to desk honestly with pleine
tife. That hic ctotemerts te her termed out te be false cannot
change their character frem honert opinions based on an honest
investigation with abeqlutely wo omgecetion of knowledge on his
part of their faisity. How coun there be any basis for an action -

€

act tue .Derhcmwen et yteubenten ai Sheer sits |
of vnk ot com ofdokS octet Goteotite aur dum doarbeioe a” AeeemeO
Peete he ed wlgiated at tow
Sth Rebewiadg of seonbe hos ed whee embeecnoeenges ett A ae
Cie SE ol bes photon Lanew coq udit nidte he od bY eeoteURr weeT
wht dots YWhintaty hovtyhe ghee den ot - sate one oe ont
eed te eteeey 2 ee bendag wre mid eet sed OF
| wt ennai ¢ Aegon ot dente
iF fave of U satinaheentinde-nctadeaeliscaiinl vito wou’
Ag aerate hts bevlooot evererrnutd pleabeenrsmonentoe So: poe

SHLAGaMs Ore CYP TECE My 1 apineaneniniin

cenatin kawn gelistee tnt eae ities wd Ret sanen wee

lig ahaa ingned wanna ann ataniid nes
a | oan at ee Mot winds wt ot Hh nian At °

ajje

af fraud and deceit im the ebsence of the essential element of
geienter? To held defendant cuilty of fraud anc deeeit under
the facts disclosed would be uewarranted by any authority which
has come umier our Bnoviedge or schservation.

The rule eg to the erxential elements of an ection for
fraué and deceit ie succintly oteted in Sntsley ve Johns, 120 Ilis
468, 479, as follewat

"The ground ef nection is fraud ond damages There must
be a ettenter, a misrepresentation, aud a consequent loss. Fraud
incl: #8 an iniention to deceive. if there ia ne such inventions
the purty bonestly <iving hie own Baers beLieving he ia stating
the truths is not Lisble, theugh the steteuent be shelly untruce
Where, however, he knowingly «tates what ia witruec, a fraudulent
purpose muct be inferred; ave when the atatement relates to the
matter incuiree of, and being relied om neoessearily brings ¢aemge
to the person so misled, hw having no Knowledge of iw untrutin,
the nttion will Lie.*

Im Billetrom vy. The triple Yrené Tire “oe, 226 Uli» sppe B80, BGR,

Pee NRA i

YA vevresentation to constitute the basin af an setion for

frawsi and deevit mast nos only be false and knaewn $0 be folee by the
person making it or, made as a porltive assertion | Fash eaay without

knowledge ae to ltw trubh, bul the person to whem it is mace aust
x ieve it to be true. and rely upon it, and be tnawueed by such ree
MMauce to onter into the cantyact or make the purchase in questions

| Herude Vso APbugkie, Gl Tlie 5513 Wachamuth vs Martinis, 154 Mie 5152"
Thie ia met @ case where stetements were wade by defendant

{ wnder special cireumetanees imposing « duty om him to knew the truthe
The seurees of hia information were e ousily aveiiable te here She was
2 interested in the purghace of the property, au well aa hes ami if she
@ew f1% to place her trust in the reault ef Bie investigacion ana that

| proved to be folse and erroneous, through no fault of his, the law

wit net reliewe her from her own “ont of ordimary prudenee. (nm the

“ether hand, 15 may well be that even the moct etavekine investigation

on her part would, in all probability, have beon no more aveiling
gainat the machinations of Stute

4 After full comsideration of 2231 the evidence, including

the plendings filed in other causes which were offered in evidence

Bes Bs,

te énumete fehiosaes oat te oomende val at shoged Led Aaarxk Bo

AN meee a

sobmu #60008 bne tunst Yo Yetiwp atebiehe> bod oT
fightin Yikvodion yn YW betaetipwm ed biwow bonesoath. tok, ai

wateormsde vo ombsiesmk mo tehaw mmoo eat
t92 wolsos ue to ateemele Isiiawes ats of aa oon om mrs

itt OSS sanaioh ov Modaba sh hotede ylamtoown ws {hope®, one, Sear

_ SawaLtet am 96Th am

Sem orm hee Aes ct pedsoe, 20 omwasy a” i ible

mem Sal estas’ tk” seeieens of msleansll Bt iieeds
Oe 9 * SoS

oir nadeT al a etgbied shabnigg tae sii oabehy iteomad
en cde e i
besiabest ‘g previ wi deuty 292 a5n <ieakwosel’ oat
oda of setdadot imumedatn od’ wete am goers ta ad oun suoqui

egewrh eyclta cLiveaanese au Sokfet qriad ban «to: Soedgnb waeden
eegaras im wad ‘ke egeedwoud on salves oat shahete ve ae ue

eRBR QRS vqys vt! O8S a0 ett Qnoel, efokst. oA? ov mental ihe at
tegempnnl wthd bee guues ead axedeoten Yo woktnenp od? subwauroe ki gh

wot watien te te alend ads efxtisenns of aoléatroperret A*
edt xd saiai of of mroml bus eohot o¢ ving dent fume Jee) ine ich
bee. ot neliconna evivinot # aa wham at ah 3 rs

dema sham ei 3: ays es Mopteq off jad ydjwrd ett af ae
“ox sioun 4S baouhat of et sige OS vin Reig

80 9fit POL akebina sv Aumont 408 Satis sabietea, oF, beso
abanteh yd than grow ataemdade oxedy saaw 2 Joa ef abt alle
ndsurcs kt wom 08 mid ao YrEb 2 pakoogat aeanatumoste Latogge vebaw
saw oo sxe of ohdalionva Wises aes mekcnmiotat ath te aeerwoE oMtt
tin tk due 40 an Lidy ae eytxoqong edt to euosthang wet? at

fads ons moksagtsgevas abd to shnens od Ri sound xed song 08 a2 wa
Wak od qaksh to Sivek on agawndd remoonnere tin aaked 0 08 boverg
etd ad voousbwag Tromkore Xe sayy ao sex MOxt sok WERLe som Lite

RolisRizecyad paiioxnsn teow wld seve toma od Ako yum o8 ebnat zodite

a Spee:
palitare Oxon on aad avast qylhidedery Sia mt ohio S0k see me

eee 20 aneksomtstons 88 ae
puldusvat gsomebive site Lie 20 mobvonebtawen Lari x98) ae a

eoavbive mt boxs'the oxeW doisty euaime xoslto mt bostt |
oe BRS a ¢

——

Wut exeluded by the trial court, and ali sessensble inferenee| that
might be drawn therefrom, ~¢ «re of the Opigicon that there waa ne
evidence im the record tending to prove the casensial aliegution of
Sehanter, and it was clearly the duty ef the arial court to direct
& Yordict for defendant.

It fas rule tee well established :5 eQykire sitatien af
authorities that, if the evidenee and the veusoneble inforeneon vhieh
may be Gramm therefrom do net tend io preve one or move maburial
averments of the ceclerotion, it Lo met ervey is give a peremptory
instruction. (Ziper v+ Green, 216 Ile App. 59%, 595.)

Other points have teen urged, but in the view © bake

ef this eause we deem it Uhicceesary to dincuse them.

Per the rensona indiextsd Ske jucgment ef the “wperier

@ourt is affirmed,

Gridley and s¢amlany Ide, concurs

A i ne A ane

pare

nee

ee en ne

toe, | reer APs Sa

een, ms, re
Wr pe anil bee
tes womens okdaninne’ iis eos stsuee ‘bere ostd) ed

es oan ‘prods Sauls anlatae nat te ave OF mortereds ewe ot onan

to aolsuge! in ‘Faldaeias att oveug 6d ‘gpitbub it bees peren

fovxks oF fumoo Letis aad %e gear ait Visio aa 28° ye "

re My MO is tN as BT ARGUS SUL kA ete ‘
hehe upping

tw moiiatte Uvinpex ot butelidadue ttew God ob en a cis f

aN CRE ey nots

_ yoy elie 48 moa oe we

Pgs elt HEARRUILCC M A RN es A am A — a
Mt yialry ,
i

mS 4
+
Mes ie
Mis. Siad,
y: J
m arte on’

os * bah Hy iy i

t ¥;

‘
aw : ey ty

ed i : . : ; : a
ph leisy uy epee f pes gai Uhadaiailieg Rh a MUR tra O Nt tid re ity Lphoeoe ‘sheet
ad, cake ee eR ont
eR, Tei 4 sats, Ree ie oe 4 4 uy ah aati: las i a Wie. wae a a

2a,
4
4
ss
at
—
x.

Dag

aflame UE Samah SE it ad a a sy a

e) # % F3 OR i
THAR ES Nike dane. I THERE Ge Sw ee Brie

goomenive at sesette aoe Bey ee Aa ‘oe Hoty ,

56770

FLORENCE Be MeGIELEY, alse

Enown ae Mres James fa \
Uedinley,

Appellee, APSEAL PROM CIRGUIT

Ve COURT, CUGOK COUNTY.

THE CORPORATICN OF TH ROYAL
BACHAWGE ASSURANCE,
‘epellant.

)
!
!

274 1.4. 653!

Wi, JUSTICK GRICLEY DSLIViRED THE OFISION OF THE cOUPT.

im an setion im gseumpett, commenced Moreh 6, 1950,
Dawec upon defendunt's policy ienued January 14, 1029, and
imeuring plaintiff againat lees of six pieees of jewelry of the
total specified value of $4,086, there wan a trial before a jury
im Maroh, 1935, resulting in a verdict and judgment sagainat
defendant fer 93050. The present aspeal followed.

Plaintiff's declaration conetated of two epecial counts
ef subetentially the same allege tions. 4 eopy of the policy is
set forth in heee verba,s vhereiay iz etated, inter slia, that the
amount imeured is $405043 that the premium ie $102.88 thet the
Corporations “hy this pelicy of inaurenee, does hereby inaure Mrae
Jomen Re Mediniey, whoge ad@rese io 19 Es Cedex Shep “hienwes Lows
if any payable te ageured, for the eum of $4050, om jewelry, from
Jomuary 13, 1929, st neon until Jomacry 14, 1930, at noong” and
that “this policy covers on jewelry * * as per echedule attached,
im sll situctions, ageinet 031 riske or loss or domage arising
from any eouse whatieoever, except as hereinafter provided.” ‘meng
the provisions er exceptions in the provision: “varranted thet

the assured de not engaged im or in sny way connected with any form

igo AT BTS

TXLUORTO MOTE Samia
‘eT ravos mete yea

(gOREL 40 dwvadl tonnes gdanemneR Mt meLIo® tm Pa 088
ena gOS VBL YeeuEsL Somme? yeetey a eiabeeted oe benad
ode Yo Yxfowol to meonte wile 16 newts Senteps Wedabetg gatwant
taut, « erected Kalet 2 ome oxdd qOR04h) do ones ‘pattioege faded
Juniage seems, Gna sosozev 2 we pati ivoot ott ome é ¢
showalio? Laagge tameone oa? 0808s tet
aanee tatvous owe ke bedntenos sot swtakon’ oY eeson ad
at qtiog ond to yaor A eats sms ot ase 9
ashy Sacte seensaruiie stedate wl | :

igs va a

+oue oumnet esl avod yoomonment te Wed Lon bate oO ge )
naodk sounotst os9 tabod 8 es ak avethhe ceade weotakoes of a
woe? gyckowe, mo yO8Oh BO dee oft 45% bataisia 6d sssavag :
bee “yaoen fo QOUCL gL yam’ Liny toon bad aeet Sel ‘
sdedioasis eLgrerion seq an ¢ © erlows,. Re ats7bo Wpblox 2
wittatin epemme x0 awet 49 otata ike sates «
gem %. hobiveng aeftontoredt au Seas aay i
éelt botuerme®® imate tort ws at we tqaanaee
xtot we site bodenanes Yaw om wt kh wt Bema

oRe

of professional entertaininge” Attached to the poliey is a
echedule or rider, deseribing the oix pletes of jewelry and stating
their respective values, - one of “hich is deseribed «¢ « lndies*
diamond ring of the value of $1000, Im the first count of the
declaration, after stating the execution and delivery of the pelicy,
etese, plinintiff alleged that om Hareh Lily 192%, vertain of the
jewelry so imoured (211 except sadd crime velued at 02000) was
stolen, taken and carecied away from the premises of plaintiff,*
of the value of 236503 thet forthwith after the aepponing ef the
dese ahe gave notice thereof te cefendwnt, amt within three months
ene presented to it her claim thersfer, et¢sj and that although
whe has kept and performed all things in ¢he policy contained on
her part te be kept and performed, and slihough she hay eusta ined
the loss, yet defendent ofter mumexous requeats has refused to pay
to her the amount of the less, ete.

to the declaration defendant filed « plee of the general
iewwe and three apecial pleags, vise, special plea Me» 1, an smended,
and special pleas Neee 2 and 3. ‘he court sustained plaintiff's
demurrer to special plea oo 4, ond before trial plaimtify filed
replications te toe ethers. In sapevial plea Noe ly S08 amended,
defendont alleged that plaintiff, for the purpose of precuring the
issuance of the policy, on or about January 10, 1920) presented
te it a written application therefor (copy of applicetion aet out
im full), ond slse a sehedule of the jewelry evbstentially the sane
as set forth in the policy; thai in the application she mace the
representations and statements as therein mentionedg and that
é@efendant, believing the same te be true and relying upon them
decued and delivered the policy. And defendant further alleged

in stbetaneces

se
@ at yoting welt ad hendoasOA "sgubutotietas Laaabeawtorg te
Seiiate ban yohlowet to segelg xia odd pridkiwesk guebts xe oLubedse
‘sotiad «oe Gedhtuewh af soksw Yo eno « saeathay evi jooques, shea
edd Ko Samos tort? add af +000LE to aukev od Ye gabe: rene
citte ad? Yo yrovkfed bus aobiwosxny odd gabiote soete x0} toxafoeh
att te shedamy .@OUL git douse ao susid bogeila Vadwhelg won
sav’ (G00L) to toukay gtths bike sqooxe Lis) docmmt os yxtewsl
"tittutely ko osetmnry at mex? yume dubutew San mosiad otto
ads Ye githwegges oe ood da as heating? seat 708080 Ye ouher os, te
eadmom souls abidclw bar ,inecbee tos vm tasted volves ova ete amet
Kguoitic dett San prods a uotorrwetd miele zed tt oe dogaoassg ose
FG honk adios wiieg wis wl ouside Lhe heatottag a tqet att od é
bomiatana sal ete duvedéin ore sdameot tog beg dqont ow od #08 ‘am
a ad heastes ont edeompet awercomars 1wI%e snnbne red asx ook ons
ite weed edt ‘te frome oaks sat oo
fasoneg ed2 to tote @ batt? tnobne'tnd woh toretowe wes oo
ghobmome ae gk ool wef iakoegs genkt oo deg Lakovga wares ors werent
a’ ttlsnlole Rewkng sire owes wat’ of hee & engl sean fstovgs. bas
helit Yitemiahy Iabx¢ exe bod nd at sor ade tatoos or rected
qbotmenn ao ef eel wel Eotoogs al + exertte wt of aio seston
ods gutcwooug to exeguag wie ret atthémtate feds bepedin atisterodod
deduennrg eChGL ,OL Wiaetie ined so 10 XetLoq os te vous
oe don not ook tage te woo) soteredd nok inaktege seadtew « a bot
wane ooft ekalinsdndu Tubowt ost te eluvadon s oate baz (ina
“ete @bam oate Bet sootdage sabe ak ans retiog eas ak oxo om ae.
serie tam qboitod suman atoxade ne vdcoiotats awe unmet taza . 6 ae
ety wane amiyton an ‘owsd od o atte ass antveb tes ote satay a
sale caet-aw? maneted oe owhtey ata t benetiton +a % ot

| That in said application plaintiff knowingly and
faleely ateted that she was Yegiding with her husbend, one
Jnmes Ae Hedinley, at Noe 19 Gast Cedar street, Chiesyes that
he Was an execubive, that the name of hig empleyer was the
Vent Penn Steel “es af Tarentums Pas, and that she wag not a
public entertainers that nl] ef eaid statements were mace for
the purpose of cecciving and did deeeive ity that im truth end
in fact plaintiff wes not reviding with Jomen B. UeGiniey at
ors age Sha% oe ee te meh gy of said Steel Coe,
she Was @ public entertainer Living separate and apart

from him, and at said 19 Saet Cedax Streets “hicagas, was
conducting “a place for the coneoctien anc sole ef alechelic
beverages, consisting of whiskey, ging beer and other aichhbolic
concoctions and othervine wntertaiming and amusing thove whe
Geaired to exllg” that sll of these fnets plaintiff well knew »
and thet cefendant, relying upon the otatemente in anid
applicetion isewed said poliey, which “hed it been adwised of
the true facte, it would not have ieswedy" that is did not be-
come advised of the true facts until on or about \pril Lk, 19294
that it then “eleeted to reseind ani caneel said policy;” and
that it then at Yaukeganm, llidmoie, in the county jail in that
eity, where plaintiff then wag, tendered te her written notice
of ite election te rescind and eancel the policy, and alee
tendered to her the eum of 0101.25, in le noney, being the
amount of premiua which ehe hed poid om the policy, and which
anid mwa defendant new here tenders in courte

In epeeial ples Toe 2, containing similar allegations,
it is charged that in ber apgpliection for the policy plaintiff
falaely represented that she woe residing with ecid Jomen i. KeGinley
as hie wife at enid 19 Bact Cedar street, that che “was not engaged
in any Businese, merenntile or prefesciomnl purnuites, ant thet her
duties were these of housewife," well knowing eaid representations
te be falee and untrue; that in truth and in fact ashe wee net then
and there reviding with eaid ZeGinley, or there performing the duties
of a housewife, but on the contrary “wee engaget in manufacturing,
purchasing, buying and selling whiskey, cin,» beer and slewhol, * *
and in the maintaining and operating ef a house for the sale and
distribution of sleohelie liquersy" ané that had defendant been
advised of the true facts it would not have ieoued the poliey
in question.

Gn the trial the policy, plaintiff's written appliention
therefor (which contained the representations cubatantially oe stated
in the pleas), amd certain other «ritings were introduced in evie
dence. Finintiff was her principal witness and ehe wae erous-exanined

i ee

Vd
(Ry
ec
\ ’
te Bl
Va et
lee;
Vag i
Wie Se
ani : nt
1) ee hy
M4 Bil
dat i
ff sis
my et

bus yfanivesd TYetiatele soneeniess & ion mat i i

| Ei athe ee fant of ot

eanel jngedio waking gtieslntenesdesaieuite tabenas th faa a:
Wsimieke yailog se ret moddnal igen wos wd Meats pis aie
Woks Ova of conte Oka Mole aRithsey now me tee HeTAMONQIE Ue
bogemt? inn ane" ade Fuld eloonde sabod Sak OL Shap go wRiw ald ae
tad dats Boe gatlee wey Lomdear tom x9 abieanorom eonentang weet
* siabititiesaiiaie. Sine pad wems Abo "Shred, be apows vow eolaue
weds tet waw ofa Soak wt Ome sidney ot setts eesatow fae eased of 04
selineg off gulmsetieg oreds xe yyotetver hing Giw gah Shomm emend » bee
agai msectenes sf tepapae aow" yxoxemey ad? ow, dod, sottvoenen.e.30
“© qhedyole bam wend sate «yndetde pak linn hee. gated |
han ehoe,.of2se%,. sone 7 Me
weed dmabawled had sol? dno

beeuade iad abisiiaibeaee: suedistmansees ae + a " Sees ae aie) sere ‘endo oe

ehya at heowsetsat exew wgaidliw case abandons oan ates os Sere
ETT NRE

hosimaxoegaety caw osbs nent noondte Lact acit tq weet all wenenn i 99 —

ode

at considerable length. In our «pinion her o ose examination

wae undwuly and improperly limited ty the court ag te certain matters
vearing upon the cefenees aa comtpained iu defendant's said pleade
Tor defendant eter We -ehoenberg and Ghexvles 7. Ucrting ineuranes
adjastera, testified at length ag to certain investigations made by
them, and aw te certain eonversetions they had with plaintifi ond
Gthers after plaintiff hac mace claim for leas wader the polieye

Ae Ge (illard, en Inspector for the United “tetes at Ghieages
testifies that he knew plaintiff “but not by the mame of Medinley,*
that “she said her name waa Florence skheeay* and timt the fires time
he saw hor “was on November G4, L928, ot Hos B16 Cuse street,
Chisage.” He wae then asked to “deseoribe the premices «t 816 Gses
etxeet,* but upen objvction was not saliewed by the cowrt te anawer
the question. Thereupom, the jury being temporarily exoused,
defendant's atticrney offered to prove by the witmexs the foliewing
facts in substance: That the premices »% 214 Case street consigted
of a one and one-half stery brick waildings that in the basement
thereof were a number ef amall tables with four chairs around ¢seh
table; thst on Yovember 24, 1928, the viiners, ac w representotive
ef the Uwited “tetew Kewenue Department, ande =» reid on the premises
aud took therefrom and confiseated large amounts of imtoxienting
Licuers, conciating of whiskey, gimygalcohol, epirita, Uanndian ale,
etess aleo lerge mumbers of Liquer stampa, whiskey anc gin lnbela,
ané numerous bettlea ond other labeley that at the time ef the raid
Plaintiff, in the presence of the witmees, “stated that phe wae the
Proprictor and had been in this business at said loextien for one
and « holf years, and thet she made sil of her liquer eut ef aleohol,
water ami eacences"” and thet ot the time and place of the raid

¢ plaintiff wae nrrested as Plorenee “keen, snd taken to the Federal
4 gourt 4m Chicage. Thereupon defendant's atterney presented and

ore adem hten at Ba re) od iodine ylutcesemt po tor bid

bedetanos doves saw’ ote te wowimeng ottd doa? vents

aot iambe me wae est matey ewe wl thegeen £ aldose ht

Se ee ‘e bitahae't ck Semkosaes ax anareted ea! sogw yoktes
doivent! 4d fa lt of s@feadt tim guvdawenta: +h wort roy %¢
Ww chee ‘wold stagl enavnd tiinitee oo we HAgring és borthiand 4 ERT OM
has Yikeniald Mote bad yutt RaOkesaterges miolver of aa ine ae
YOllog Salt sob gual sol atade eben iat Dialaty ihe
goaeelad ¢2 endads Qudhut add <o2 aadoogngt ae seat sha
+ yoanhvan De amen aes eS fam ee FH dbAdy wan od, daikd ba das
sshd eoWkd aks dneld Mae “grows eons oll wow oem ual blew ota” seats
aSvouds masd Bf 0K sx BEL oh imo Ho wa wt wm
aad 628 do eeu tmog wt oabemes®” oo erlen wold enw oR. “emgnokse
iewane 4 ames els yal Rewethn to naw Wedtosbee nomw ded “teenie
| gbeaiieins qltieteqesd gated yam, ott mecumeadt omnes we
wnkveiter vid kaomeiw say yi wrote at devotes baron @ " ‘

" (emmant wit ah ends a yait dures deine erode Unteune baa ono a Ye
iow bemoan ethno ‘wet dadw aodiing ston te “costa = OnoW esr

evi sotnesosque a wes weeonsiw wehd een «at asdavror ts) ‘teatd ‘soles
weakens ay eld Ko dLat o whan «taami aqOd emmEWOR wndedi! ‘pethad add 20
wahicotxotal te admarnme omtal bstaps aos bee movtoned> ‘dove “bre
atie Gatbene? gaahrigs soso Ee aii otal te nk fe meee ‘sot i" ot L
ealedal shy oan \esibe bab sear de aowirk Yo wcodmur syed eute toate
eter old Yo mtd of? ta ba? gudedad xeilbo. bits ekttod aor remy Bee
ake now ake dad? boteda” sonautiw edd Yo senso ts Ce { Yibtelelg
oie sot Mokinoed bios do euoabnad wide ad wowed hed aw : te e
eindosin Ye tue xouyhi wa Xo LEe whan ain Hou? bute yuneoy Dail w cm
Bhex ot ad wonky eva enti ¢ ans te fads Lid “poomaeny baw | " hae
Lavo volt oct? 0@ mealeg dew teow somot0S8 - boteerces as wutntate
ee ba deduscoug wom tea 2" damnbreted wequeset vane * be

«Se

offered in evidence a certified copy ef the veeord of cortodn
criminal, proceedings against plaintiff, under ihe wame of Yiorwnee
tkeensg had in the United (tates Distviet Court «§ Chieago, for
Violations by her on Aovember i4, 1928, of the Sattonai *rohibition
A@t, including the information (sworn to om Jonvary 2h, LORDG Leas
three daye ofter the policy in question «ae ieeued), certain eb
sequent proceedings, aud the judgment of her conviction on -pril 4,
1929, wherein she was sentenced te imprisonment in the eounty Joil
at Veukegan, [liineia, for ome year ané to pay a fime of [6fd, ette
aut the egurt, upon objections refused to allow the offered teutie
mony of the witness, «« Ge (Lllard, ta be edmitted in evidanee
before the Jury, and aleo refused sdmission in ovidence of the
certified eopy of sald record

Harold Ss» smgelig ¢efendgnt's witness and manager of
its Chicage office, «efter testifying thet defendant in issuing
policies insuring agsinut lowsen on jewelry in governed by certain
general rulee, wee not sllowed by the court, upon objection mice
by piaintiff’s attorney, to state whet the rule wos where it
appeered to the ewapany that the spphieom$ wae engaged in the
manufacture and sale ef alewhelic licsers. <‘efendent*s counsel
offered to show by the witnews that the company's underwriting
Yule waa that, where 24 wae digeleosed from the application or
otherwige thet the applicant wae engaged in the monufocture or
gale ef suoh liquers, a poliey sewld sot be iacued. The quurt,
im sustuiming plaintizf's ebjeetion te ihe offered testimony,
% stated in the jury's presence: “1 think \here ig ne ovidence here
| that she wold alcoholic Lijwors,* snd ") think any rule with
reference to that must be in the policy ibweit.”
4 after a careful conaideretion of «11 the admitted evicenees
4 including the tectimony of plaintiff, and of the rulings of the

1 ee ear
\ 2 Eearagerfine 3
Phe | ae a Ye

aevel ores af gy aatcals m9 of ‘ance nes tomate de wal Lomk |
~ts mbes tod o(berwat use ‘antigene wh wou wate “pee weet voutt
08 EF! we Holindwasd wid To demeighet oad bear search tooo, a
Etat, renee ‘wha mh Sioa 2 set ee newer 90 ease ale erie ge re
eo 40888 Ye with © yee ed Hew sive oa cat gelleek LET (nageahual
elise DorwTte Mt Walid ad enwher gieatectia meee sooo att ut |
detobive af tatdtets af e ahettie 8 16 eobonnnd? edt ty sotine
‘nate te sbiiebi ye we cline whe aelatey bead ta han bows ee
. Repeenas tia ewouchy e*isaneebes giteme: VT — salen nt
* ativvak at dnabunres sae jabgatewed vee quote agdekee wee
aiatioe YW teknevey of Yxtowel Mo wheat finbege ae vital ata
Gin walsortao nogy qdstiow ut? WH Keverty vox baw eaetare traney
#t exodw aew ofex andy tate wiade of erties a? PRR nb:
te ad Siegatgee cow Whee eee att fas? cages ade or bs te! 4 *
Lonnuoe wl ¥xabeete” " cesenpht wbtedtoo ts ‘tp ated tna Wied aaideale |
en ee ee ee
“eo Rebiodtkage ote wert ideotoaly cow 92 arene adada cine oat |
2¢ suudo okies aso wk bogey Bir aacivart Kegnila ue beomndl a ibe : * i
ettncw edt sound oo foe Aitude wttng » gakdapee meme ty
aioe Jaed Dowotte af) oy mek deugee wh PeEeaAd
evel enables ol of owed debay tY sented ey ‘nt stats
baw aut ue Rat Bek “ye da sad
ne ee ee ee
eserrbive hedtimew eat £80 Bo ehiaicinie teketa & ma
et Me gt te tt ha GB 3 )

-éo

eowrt againat the admission of ecrtndn evidenee effereé by cefent«
ants ve have reached the conclusion that the tutevesta of jurtice

wili be best served By a reverasl of the Jucgment ond the remendeent
of the eotuse for another trisl. The giet of cefandamt's defenas is
that plaintiff, by ceneceniing the fset in ber application of her

being of having recently bean engaged im & business prohibited by

daw, cosmmitted « frand upon ¢efendant, whereby 1¢ wae indueed te

igeue the policy, which 14 would nei have iacued, beomer of the
inereaced rink, ant 1% bees adwieod ef o¢ had 14 known the teve

faet. (See Hancock ve Knighta of \courdiy, 304 Tlie G¢, 714 Phelps

Bye 226 Uhl» 2845 260; Salligare vs Hidhand © ousdiy foo,
247 He Ye Roepe (Tiss) B46, B4Ry c& ws Sramkfort, ef¢s Img. Coos
L72 Calif's G61, 2679 Fork ve Pidebity & Ce ¥ <Geg 290 “e “» Bepe
(Sts Lowlms Moe, Court of Apps) 246, 24%; Beene we Fidelity & beposit
Ege, 156 Xs Yo uppe 25%, 410-) Amd ve are of the opinion that,
because oi the court's rulings rejecting certain of defendant's offered

evidenge avd limiting plaimiiff’s crean-exemination, defendant waa
usable te properly present ite eaid defense io the jury,
The judgment appealed from is reverse: md the eamee ie

Tttiand ed e
REVAP SSE ABD TABARUE Ge

MWidvats Pe Je, afd Seanlang Joy oonctits

i aA
fm
iz

atagteh gw hexvtte omashiys adaseoe ey oben tans oats Santana twee
‘we eonk, Re niseredad oat ducks wokas een ase poatenow ovat sy ade
dxegiemees af) os #barg on ots te keascoves @ ww bovase teas o sate
et sreetes of faxdasteb we iety ast vhabed redtdose prs easeo we to
on Yo mohtoshigan wed ad fe? ott nb cates wa eVueatate te tote

wi bevasisane auentaa’ ad beyyeo need ehsnooon sntved te antes

¢ Seumimt awe 48 sysoueie sdicebesstoh noes bicers’s ® hast tame amend

ede’ % Be meee of ebexwnt sepa Peo bime ae Aodsier owslog wt, eons
suns ould irene €h dad a0 te Seedvha mowd ot ot lok, beanie
ete, Mes abd 0 SLE BOE gee koa: aes nen i. SRR sae drawal
08h sane 988 (ont eae

. Jont, »v soont ae ae on oaenee:
at ats caine edit te ne oe Bea (ahs ited all oT oh OBL,

bowette atsuabneten te abalxse snbcor kor wpai see afameos wots J oat : |
| | ae tnabuvtsd quolsaninaanenece 9" Yiiaholy gaksials Aim guiceblys
ii a ee ee ee
of onmoa ads 8m domtanv Bh aw Loaauee Sem, OA

Hid ei .

ROL GR miacor

ke
/
#
|

eC eratree

36779

He Jeo GRIGOLSIT Goo, ry i

an Illinois corporstion, ¢ 74'y 6 ag
Complainant and Appellant,
Ve APPEAL FROM

THE GAIGOLZIT We», an illineis SEpCUI? coUnT,

nog dg igey HENay Ze GRIGOLEIT,

40h Ke BAKER, Fiche pt em ae COCR COUNTY.
BANGS and ROTELLE J. 1,

ere do pe pen Appellees.
UR, JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION oF “ME ceuRT,

By this appeal complainant seeke to reverse an order
or deeree of the circuit court ef Cock county, entered Kareh ie
1933, sustaining the general demurrer of the five above named
defendants to its second amended bill of complaint, filed Merch
BG, 1032, and ciemiseing that bill for want ef equity.

By complainant's original bill, filed September Be
1930, it prayed for an injunction, a discovery anc am accountings
in addition te the five defendants four other parties were mace
defendents, including the Reynolds Spring Coo, a Delaware gore
poration and ‘doing business at Javkeony Nichigan, but, apperently,
mone of these four other parties wes served with process er
entered an appesranee.s luring December, 1950, the general and
epecial demurrer of the five defendants to the eriginal b111 was
sustained. Thereafter compleinant filed evertsin amendmente,
and éuring January, 1932, said defendante?® general ane speqial
cemurrer to eaid bill as amended waa eustadned, and complainant
_ +Setained leave to file and filed said second amended bill, in
_ Which the allegations are in substance as fellowas
iat. That on and for several years prior te Sept enibexr

. airattog mE Re worunce wat Ganev Ean < rae wore co

val!

Ss ages he obeNre ed olose cammistgeme ksouun wilt 2 pe
se —. pwuetRe sa neal anal to aan thewrte ele Ld = sa

tye best? y aditntgees te ee Aotumnet Sioows vane we teat ste 4
eQitape Te a

¢@ ‘eoemnsqes vette ike Saatyixo efdaes ) be |
eh roo. ey aes qeovrasakh «& quod dounet eh = ts ' ox ' : th
: roam ewww enbinag sedde anak ata eth 04004 WRLAIDNG 1
osoe oxsmaled @ +9 qakage: athowyet ad ous coh .
ede ae sey , tad —— oer na: ant saiet 8 oan cate jas

hin enlace. 0s a pwndanes gehen veomenueaye el} ; ia 4
saw Lftd tombyt-re ob of admonition ovih wild Se tomtumnd Leloegt
A seduomnume ahedxo9 ostht dnembosegns wophesendt .
ri Latvnce ima Loxonep Yadasterated Ohoe Tata eos . a
evel gain iarem sbonkndoice aut bepirom ea whee ©
ak , {ihe dodwems Sroore bine DAMN |
sawolto® an wounded ate i
eedusdget of wie exeot Lotewnn. fecal ‘van ey ee co eck on

sie

Xp 1925, Henry J. Grigeleit (the principal defentant and hereine
after called Grigoleit) was a mechanical engineer of reeeaniszed
abilityy wee alse an inventor of new and useful deviees fer the
successful molding of phenolie products, suck as “pakelites;* was
also an expert engineer in the designing and developing of hydraulic
presses ant ether devices for the wolding of such produetss wag
alse ¢ in furnishing edvice and engineering ckill ts
manufacturers in this ert, which wac a new and rapidly expanding
ones was also engaged im Chigago in the business of wanufecturing
end selling hydraulie presses, &pparatuea fer preas eontrol and
ather machinery for the melcing o? anid procucts, under the ame
amd style of “He J. Grigoleit and \gsoctlatess" and was alne engaged
in performing services as an engineer for the Kellege Switeh Board
& Supply Coes a eerporatione

amde That prior to Septenbex de 1925, Grigeledt had been
giving advice to the Aeynolds opring Coe, whieh operated a meld ing
plant at Jackson, Wichigan, end «hich had great confidence in him,
Sue which was posseased of iarge cach resources.

Sré, That sboui September 2, 1925 eertain officers af
that company informed him that the compeny would consider a purchase
by it of the aggets ef *H. J, Grigoleit and Asseciates,” 211 of the
“Grigeleit patents," and “his exclusive services as an engineer,
éesigner, inventer and expert for a period of 5 years, ineluding the
exclusive right to the name *‘Grigeleit’ as a trade name in eonneotion
with the molding of phenolic products and the manufacture of pr ensces,
etee for such moldings* that negotintione were ducing whieh
Szicoleit “formed the intention to Sagege 2n Bis own behai? in the
field of molding bakelite and similar products, but immer thas to
establish a proper molding plant « capital of sbout $100,500 wag
necessary oni that he was without reecurees or capitalg” that,
thereupon, Grigoleit, with others, including -linor &. Baker and
Hebert Eo Burtons “formed « freuculent plan or scheme to acquire

the Keynolés oprimg Co. sufficient eapitel so that he might

@ngege im business as a manufecturer, designer and molder in the
bakelite trace and under the vane of Grigeleits" that they then
knew that the entire assets of He Jo Grigoledt and Asseciates were
net worth more than $5,000, but they nevertheless planned ¢o form
&® corporation with a paid up capital stock of $100,000, te be paid

th ead¢ ascete which were soit worth more than $5,0003 thet they
further plammed that this eopitel steck of the Prepesed new core
poration would be sold te the Keymelde Spring Cos for $100,000 and
thereby Grigeleit would chtain sufficiont eaplial, whereby he could
engage, “either on hig oun behalf ox throuck the inotrumentality
of another cerpsration, in the melcing of bekelite ané other
phenolie products for the trade @eneralir,® etes

4the That prier te Seteber 2, 1925, Srigeleit, Beker
anc Burton, as incorporaters, fileé an appliestion far the ox gank-
@ation in Illineis of esmpla. ianh worporati ~ it te have a«
ided inte 4,000 shares of the per

Capital stock of $100,500, diy
value of 225, #achy that in the application it is stated tha

the capital "paid in ecsh* is 19541027, that the capital “paid

in preperty" is $98,658.73, that the property is locate: at’ te,
2650 Jest Lake itreet, Chicages, ami that it consists of *Hachinery,
equipment, eteck, * # SO0lL a, fixtures, $entg and good-wilig*

end that on October 2, 19255 the Seuretary of State of tliinete
issued a charter te oomplainant as a corporation.

Sth. That on Gctcber 2) 1925, when complainant

epieted tee Innonustsd ioqgtoat ay was } smu ot es f
boatrgooes Lo Reankyse Laoinateon o eee (shodoyit png rit
| aid Yet aspiveds iutesa bua wet BR qotnevet ae cals saw
euw "gotiinded” ae dove gatowborg oikesesig Yo My ae heart
obdaersinel oq guagetsved bee gaboydees vals wai toeatgns susqxe fe ooia
gate Gatohe se down Yo wabetow ote cot rr eo Reverses grit
os Litve gukweorkyoe ie oofroe quan ekan Attar"
gathnegas yblget bs wen 2 aww Soistw oo pone J, seis mises
FPR mans 1 be e eeakesd ede wb ogonld ah
~~ ft Semace Sorte Gk anse tage peal: rent iso on
eet ade aebow gadonbety Siew Ie ye kita ia ee
~ ents eow tae “gredetoonas bits nae &Lakegaud « # *
“§rack dooket wyeilet ail tet yoomhnne ae ee poly lin:
<—- ergo ages & Shad

wed ase Gaedonhs® UROL of wotestese ad aabee, teat Ranh sca Pay.

git tlom o betexeqe solstw yoo) grbug? ankomges: i. qukvha |

eats, at eee duo dal doide bine qmeghaiod dows
smnestoos'’s Agana egret te be

te ae ee windioe GBEL 9 redesgee inode to8t Sidon eee.
sono, a sealwnes okmue % coqmuoe Saelt
ons te Lis # posal oonsA aeees gkake mal Ae oH” t eivesa wif 20 2. i
seeKLgs? AA sa agu dries avtsuioxy eie® oun “abo tag eholegts"

ods faktutont qomeey 8 to bodveg 8 sh) euoga: nye a spdeoviend
Bg wi euen ehats 2 oe teketegsve' eximm onis ;
ensongeg 20 euientenam Ono ban abpatee xa pve rigs te gna

ood ee ane nandsnaauen Swat, , 980

ass ah “tietod mmo me oe peg ot oh Fn, seinkd oy sto

ed satis ‘4900 4k auto. eat bans a etiieled utbsen te dies

ea Go DOLe on Ye Latiqgas @ + L openogy| Ege NG apne

state “gietigns 10 apatHoay T Lene baw er . :
bee sual » pene aig sean as.

eitapoe af peo e wale
tap im ect Ferd oe * caktean snotet ti
one at sobfom baw TF
peak yells tata pedo, ‘ay tet 30 oa porn ack
Das cg sedalooaes bes Shohowhnd «& of Te ssoaas

arek oF woummtig analodrreren dad leet Rect me aos Som |
oa Os gQ60,00.50 bs doave tae qu BE & — go. ik ded s
coat SoA FOUA_AD & geen Cites. Tet 8 Si hf
bene went HIG aQe LA odd te seein ps po tie oe }
bus 900—00L0 sot «80 guergs @ ® oat bs a. aren med ¢

wee

binoo of ydoretty glaiiges on.
Ceilatheerical el odd dtyucrrde
sete “ylleromes ohare gett a! eh Lone
gediat a tieLonts) Att ' | Sy ul iil
: Soe seus tte 3 Pinta te
= oaie to aetada GUC, ROOIVED 9 OO LG To eote *
ae coaarane 8 a oun
oa, Fe
dor err ofeaa
attack fit "fe 08 ae Stent, ob SORA q@ wedadne |
ah bigeye Per aie ~ a

43 ae . eens tek. ‘vadtae” «eae
somaa tans og kiswad te aah iat oie ak cvetsoneeras ‘ool 3
saa? edt wt nel sno thyaga
ped pedate of 3h ett |
ame 3 oe ete want
re od sg, «te Ta
eran algans west onek cl epdied 9 ~. » tna? ia |

e3=

eorporction wne organized, Grigcleit “had ne intention of epersting
it on Bie own behalZy er of paying it for seid «toe $100,000 tH
eaeh or in property» but thet his sole purposes as well as that

of Saker BUYVOns wae 46 enable him (Grigeleit) to geil Re te

| Plainant's eapiial steck to said Eeyoolda om G im order é9
Conugumuate | fvawi.®

Gt. That in the application tS erganize complainant
ae a ¢orporation Griguleit and Baker and Burton had named these
#eLvee ag coagiisuting ite firgt board af circeteres, avi that Baker
and Burten were agents and exployees of Srigelett and ware completely
under his dominion and contrei,

7th, Theat at the (iret meeting of co [pong heard
of directors, held on Yovenper L3, 1926, Grigolei: was sleeted
presideat and Burten vies=presidenty and Boker steretary and
Sreseurerg thet Grvigoleit presented 4 written preposs] whieh
he made various statesenta as to the sesste and ecudition of the
business of Hs. J+ Grigoleit & gaogdated, of which he we the sole
owner that therein he propowed, in eonsideration of pe reonally
receiving 34998 shares, fully paid, of the enpital steck ef
complainant, te transfer to it all of the preperty end business

of Gs ds Grigeleit & ‘\@ee@lates, including sill machinery, toohe
and equipment, all aaterisl and stock on hand, two Us, 2. Letters
Patents both isawed June wy L950, thvee pending applientions made
by him and three applications «bout te be made for ether patenta,
and alse moneys on deposit and S0ecunte and bills reecivable art
also the good will of said business.

Sth. That suid direceters accepted the proposal by
résolution paseed, in which 46 was atatec thet the fair value of
ali of said property was $100,000, and that in payment of the
Game, Gurtificates for 5,998 chaven of ¢Wiplsinant's «togk, parked
fully paid ene uGneaasesrables, be iasued ig Grigoleity and that
these tramsavéiome were ali “in eurnuehoe of enid fraudulent rlan
of Grigeleit, Daker and Burten ts cheat and ¢efvawd complainant
and vald Reynolds Spring Co."

~,
Be dy ia

Ota. That suid Letters Satents and aelé soplieations
on Sile “had no market Values” that He Js Srigeleit & Aggoelates
bed nO @avnings and ite goed will has go value “exeept naz it was
Connected with the engineering skill of suid Grigoleit;* that aid
aesete, so purported to be conveyed to complainant in saehanee for
sale 3,998 sharez of fully paid steok, were net worth PLOU~,ID, and
mot more tian $8,000, ag sai¢ eireetors well keews and thet ebout
Savember 18, 1928, Grigeleit reecived and bexome Pessegced of said
$9908 shores of fully psid stock,

sth, That on "svember a9, 1923, at snother meetine of

the board of directora a» vesclution was passed to the effect that
the transfer of 211 of said property to complainant, in consideration
of the issuance of said skares of B6OGK, Was aleo subject to the
Seeumption by complainant of eertais ebligatiens and liabilities
of Grigoleit, amounting to $12,443 that said obligations were then
and there aseumed by compleinants; that by anid resolution and eadd

ption complainant “was then and there renderce. insolvents* and
Shat the passage of gaid reralution was opposed fo complainant Ty
Best interests and wan in further purauance of ssid fraudulent plan
of wrsqeiests Saker and Burton “to cheat ond defraud complainant

Bnd said Yeynolés spring Coe”

gebiatege ‘te gsateaosak Of pat" sioLogis? ,Senlmegie aw aed Sa tog 268
a iy ae mete ee sek oe wi te te 4% ge yoo eh
gots ee Lie okon afrl gackd nk & q

N ome Li yd S Ueshae Log, fe pet pions 62. anw be oh Be
he ee Leh Te ee en.0i BaLInS patents wine 62 ere Las iges ‘at d
‘ Sotace't _ bears

dermechakeants ax keagra od noticolteys sf¢ ah paurt fila
| ante beam bed node bas seled bahogiwt - cee
seantantt taste bea Preripetys no bane suee’ piel & Benet acon oa HOVE
a stern eet ene bien 8 be kont x? Be gee ye! :

® neice Sas.

vennd s* domed aguos he gatecen gonkt ory oe gout “a sie
bogoske anc diokogkst _Gitl 9S) te caren yen mo béost ovat ‘te
een “ecto oe tae tate garhe eoeennyey wee bite seskiees
tot wk Ineorn ny medtiiw & hodmawsg Chologs a sakd qroueaete
wh? Fo wekahinge bee wdoens ‘ott of oa Bkipatete GRObeey 958 SE
sfoe ono aaw wl dodsiv Se seetaroouas & Ptetwudd pied si to eeomhe
Spoon yo woktarehlemer o qdoneqexg eal ateradt a0 oe

Sadiqse ads 10 ¢ Seat, Ps ct ape »
aa sebe tet Be: bout 3 oud ko Ein TF ct sekemts 4
efood a yxemkso ant get afond emeah sou & shed

exe diol «f «BU owe qheuash ea Rooke Habs inbustan Lie qhnoanlepe

ahem cap leostiage ht gore, owed ‘ 9ee cagt Qaueed aed ®
“quoimemy wetoe od o¢ ened enessoes fete bids i
ita’? ecuepecniaee ath hem rig eee os pia Aeaged & :

) gmat

we oy soseue wae baie Smoaet ea ott a |
— pot see y
hoster eae a? ccs: cee oe ewuade rn
“iasie OLS og | Dek homed oe a
matey srokots? base ag ey pee mo SAG LT ky
doeersonan buswthet bn eae a idling 4 ;

awatenos am Shaw base, “msoates axogdedt rere ag? ie
pe tatgounk & sadogh se: ole dante “genkey Sean of on hau" QheT
paw at aa dqpane” aaier oa kat LLb5 boty wi! dae See ‘i

one ay
biow dade “qttategin® khan tq Sidte gods gee
o% wpgaters af Sametatgyos of Rega rehee we of Sodnog’
ieue 4G00,00L8 alaaaw soa Star etoees See in Bei

¢uode seid hoe peoed Live re nl ceitt ol ;
bias tw Boswenna. beonptel ‘me: eosin ye eee

ye aetioon wnattons 48 ion ear nt
gaale ong oo oil oe:

ae stage emu te ni pe
mT cana ate aes amas taut ot ema

aden

Althe That the sbove action ef enid beard of directors
im issuing solid ateck to Grigeleii, for esid insufficient can«
siderations, etess left compleinant with inguffielent capital te
engage im the business for whieh it wee organiaed.

42th. That about ‘ovember 15, 1928, Grigeleit wee in
the employ of seid Kel ‘witehbeoard & Supply Coes as a eon~
sulting engineers that hie euid new inventions were being developed
by him “on the time of and at the expense of aid Kellogg Cosg®
that the prosecution of hic pending applieationg im $he Use fo
atent Offiee was done by patent soliciters euployed by eadd
Sellege Soe} that on “evomber 15, A925, four apphientiona eevering
his eaid inventions were pending in eaid patent effies; and that
thereefter three ether applications were Filed by Origeleis.

sth. That *from “ovember 14, 1925, until April Bi»
1926," Grigoleit acted as complainant's president, aad “thereafter
acted ae Vigeepresidext thereef until -weust i, L927, when he left
complainant's employs” that during eaid period he wag in charge
of its effaire and im the prosecution sf eaid patent agpliestieng
that “at el] times after Yebruary 10, 1926" he had the suatedy pet
aT a. uate gg van hcg the only —— — fe
COmpininants or with gsid ‘syneids “pring Gos, whe had any know! eige
of wnid spolications, or of the « ice t@ be taken tc protect com=
Plaisant in the securing of claims thereunder or in the procuring
of the igeusnoe thereof of valid patente, and that it wag his duty
to oo preeeeute cald applications that Vadid patente would iseue
te complainants" but thet “in pureusnee of hig cadd eomepiracy and
plan te chest and defraud gomplainant a i guid Meynolds 5 ANS Cota
and in pursuance of hie plan to secure for himge i the use the
inventions digelosed im said appliestiena free unc clear of the
patent monopoly atherwise the property ef complainant, aad in pure
suanee of sald te of his, and ef thet of anid Baker ané Burton,
to establish a business in competition with sompliinant sid eni¢

Waaih Bind i

og Bist is

melds Spring Uoe, under the name and aiyle of 'Grigeleit,’ and
© obtain far his enid businese when ee organised the benefit and
a¢vantage of acid inventions,* esid Grigeleit “wilfully ami inten

tionally failei to prosecute the said five patent applications
within ome year after the lest official setion ef said patent office
eonesrn the aomeg" and that thereby said agplicntions (treneferred
te complainant in patie eongiterstion for the iseuanee to Grigoleit
ef seid capital etuck) "became abandoned and were ieretrievahly lost
$0 Complainant, when it was anid Srigeleit's duty as auch vies
president of complainant to faithfully and ¢iligentiy prosecute

seid applications fex complainant's benef it.”

i4th.» That yete to “ptember ly L055, Grigeleit had
imetelled ecrtain of hie eeeeee devices in the molding plant of
the feyrolds Spring Coe at Javkwotty Michigan, and that thereafter
negetintione with 1% eonesrning the aule te it af gid the |

j : f rs
Scan He Ne a Me ae hs bad he

1Sthe That therenfter, about Sevember 15, aseee
Grigoleit and the Reynolds dpring Go. came to an agreement which,
Under date of December 22, 1926, at Chigego, wos embodied in «
certain “Memorandum of Agreement" duly signed by them (copy
attached, marked Exhibit A», and made a part of the bill) hay
which wau approved by the dirceters of maid “eynelds ogr “Be

munipent® te buaadt Stag Ye meheom meets. old 3 se ko
apo énebot tized hing, eet “toon ced ose ples pic. yetuaat ud
as febsaes gree Suxawh ae hw (yah t Be Shere guttiy. tit de volts
poe teagee apt ak Gatton “et sheath nae, wide C7 enna

eek meee rhetisate (ROE gah Segetare we sno death stage.
to @ Be ge? YR & aumedtiiodion gpediec tee BO cpique ‘eit
soqedawet pada oxgw amotcaewnl wax Maw re init pingakgae er ge
Sage wan dc, Sakae ke tag ee oe eae sual ge™ aha
ok 9h oee eh gemidook ie wit a
btow eet begrkestt fara weethe oo ts ing es om wae wend PER
weed ee rON geisweidere wet _8h ok so dat ta ee
gots bee goec tho due dog shan ae ‘ore <ceur aeinent Seraorend
wee enh ef foal) wnoe gu bie cdr Mo “ace — “ot tertel

ofS Binge Lhewe PAGK gil sademrve™ gee
eoxRepnaie” Ame 4 SeeGLawng a dod adore ~
$%eS ool waiter QTd oh Samy Abore Boe cathe aogeae vo se
gna ah Qow ve keke btam geek sacha age Hh we tae: ‘
qeasiiosiiqgs Smadnn bias ko nad sunrenss, salt tania hate nH a

hae hotgis act wank out “QGAPL. wok Qimendet
gale vodeaunes meewey peg wis we iy
woe kun ne: eats ft ipetiar Pee Se i mink WER ie:
ougn teaver, ¢ taal oo oF Be nie ta Te
gab meseg we et te pent ey
eiuh aia cow oh fads Gem ea Me
weet sivowr atastag thtav vue
sun we te gor seat isi “hs

‘a oe :
ge ts ating A oe
Ue, wk Othe g DHE isigeon ‘te yee
Stauth tats Poreet whee vy ate a

? | algun tie
| ahteand" wal bes Pi at oats amon
«goeal teu ite’ Saw* thos pase
acetinsifiique saree:
anktio Snedeg flan Ye aorioe ie
dovwetanatd) anak noliqua 4
dhetogix® ae eoomume! oa? “8 aks
feak etaroiiieres set ie eee.
weedy take wa WR e
nb wa eI RY diet, ‘bes tated wh \
Sec a cio ts

bat shoLogi xd mer ah worm east! 6? aw
te fnaty aul diem old ah soulveh Raves
agataseoed: dautd bee gma ko lt 9 hens sit
Lcd #hot shoo. weld gaeherme

| Beek 4 A .
sane ieee sedan bund ‘

* at yok bepclte m ear irons Og
odd Yt bemato

yikes ot Xo Jaag A Shem bro,
open ‘toda a biea be wees

aie

im anid copy of the agresmont attached to the bill it
is wtated im the preamble that Geigolett ia the owner of complain«
ant conipanys having ite plant at 285° vest Lake etreet, Chiengag
that Grigolelt, in additien $@ operating and meaneging the Company »
"is algo, personally and on Bis een accoumi,s doing advising er
eoneulting engineering work and reeoiving pay therefor ;* that
Grigeleit has supplied to the Raynelda Coe m finenetal gtatment,
showing the accounte seovivable and the uitilled orders of complains
ant ¢ompony ae of leeember 14, 1928, ales a balance sheet dated
Bovember 3°, 1928, alse m list of the 8. <- patente amd applications
for patents belonging to #a.id companys thas the heynolds Geos ig
engageé in the operation of # molding plant at Jacksen, Kiehigan,
and “desires to acquire the Satire eopital stoek of the ws J.
Grigoleit Cos in order te obtain the full bencfite of the patente,
inventions, trade marks and good will ef ssid Grigvleit and the
full benefit of kis entire times services, engineering skili and
inventive genius." 4nd, in eonsideration of exe telier amd the
mitual covenants herein, Grigeledt agzeed in subetanee :

(a) To eed and deliver to the Reynolds “pring Ge.
9106 19805 faqe value the ele eopital sieek of the

Je Grigelett ce. tunes being ite entire autheriaes and issued

stock), and te seeept im full poyment of the same the ame of
€100.000 im cashy and,

(ob) Im consideration of 260° shares of the commen
ateck of the Reynolds Spring Coes tc be Lawucd au fully paid and
non-nasesenbles and of a yearly aslavy Of @12,000—, to be oor in
semiomonthiy payment id : BOC each, on the gen laut day ef
@neh MERERe a 2. ¢ ante me a winding cont ie with anid

J i = ; ebER BBE peiems (should 1¢
: pecesaaay or dea rable x: ates er ite a aaeta to @ gore
peration chartered in some other Stat

the Dencfits of hia enbize < S pereiges aeilties Liven
company enefita of to service, a ¥s inven«-
tions, trace marke, and patents grow out of onic serviees,

ie inventive genius Meer © nexied of five wears fom the ashe
af @ agreement} ATM

(e) “hide ae porkenet marvin "30 diselese to oueh

opt or A plage ns ae, 62 ISO 400 5 & BE ing Soe

ing designate, Laven laa: om gis, trade-marks
pmente ao he may eotababe er praduce and any such

pther ‘Wael mering developmenia ani iuverntiems as may come io Bis
‘knowledge and which may be of interest or benefit te anid Be Jo

gt Like ak od fepalpaes de FSO TYE od re var? hhow wt
-niatgane to vere avid ot sbelouiee tate afineore ot at adate at
- joqelst? gfeotte amet deer Ones gx Pemby ooh ‘patina eringut09 ‘ans |
eyes ould pebyoram tos Qukdavege 08 ond 68 iio o1 vite. gnats

*q gutaivas ttt oe « RD HSE eg whe ao bose way

baad “puotered@ ery Biivicses bee arom pm ™ pit bane ti iwaton
pinsedate Laboeantt # 00 abheotet add of bel tegwe and ot 888 outed
extafqacd to eteixo beiiiiow cit foe otewviioet atmuoved odd ga re is

estas somte woutetod @ onfa , 000% at cadena to. an. remy 49
anokinotiqgn bee adundeg +8 «V7 att ‘xe fotd # cake qAR0L 406 x09 ae rot
ah 208 abtereets ods seid Caceall seed aa aetna mh

" eas ban uakkoh ene to not soxshkamee ae ates Santen | ® Lovee
veeneseden ot voorye sinteat® actors. ag weave

“t oi t bene oe ittened xe pele soch to od ig as

wie

Grteees’ Cee (complainant), ite suceessers and ascignsa, %
Coes ane to pign, seal and deliver any aa
oe a e which say be ceemed necessery or
desirable te eurry anid undertakings inte effect, including
applications fer patents, tradcemerks and acgignmeuts thereof

when end as the pame have been mutually agreed upons” and

(d@) Sedéd Grdgeleit “further yee sheuld the seme
be deemed necessary or sdviasble bythe 78 Lée © se We Cos.
the removal of eaid Hs de trigele meas nina ¥
Chieege to dacknon, Michigan, and to the dancing of his repid-
enee to Jnekson, and to use his influence te —— the con-
anes plone eadid Grigoleit Coe of such of ite — oyesa ae the
ak pr — desire to the moving ef é éeaired
oyees = Ro

Aué im enid agreement the heynolds Sprimg Coe, in
conaideration of the mutual cevananta, ete., agreed, subject to
the appreval of ite Boaré of Directors,

"To purchase” from ecid Srigoleit *the entire
authorized and "ined Bids ef 2199,000° of anid He Js
pty @leit Cos, and “ts pay to said Grigeleit therefer the sum

105,006 im engh on er before January 15,5 1926, te issue
ae deliver te said Grigeleit 2500 shares sf fully paid, non-
ageeseable common capital steek of the heynelds aprine Coe, ag

a tonciderstion for the signing, seteling and delivery - 90
five year employment comtract above enumerated cobs. entered inte
by saie Gricoleit with “Gehiy de Grigeledt “os as re “et
forth, “ened uteck te be de. — and pods eoatraes to Be €
before January 9 ** in the event of the ¢ eyrevel
af this contract by the beard “ae éirecters of the cuahas opr img
Coes thie contrnet ehall be wall and void.*

It ig further alleged im the 6111 ae follewat

icth. That after the signing of gaid xgrecmery
Grigeleit and the Keynolds “pring °o. “settled upem a maitiensien
eof it, wherein and vhereby the considerstion for the sale ef
complainant's said zteek, and for Srigeleit's cha mesial
said five yesr employment contract with eompleinant, wag mec 28 ;
im that the eush consideretion to be paid was reduced $0 075%
and, in lieu of the additional payment of $25,000 im cash and the
$00 shores of the eammen stock of the Scyroids Spring Soe,
er said eteek wae then being traféed im on the Hew York sieek
change at « wie ef about ¢10 per shure - eald Grigeles? was
is ont Me 5, shores of andd ateck of the Reynolds Opring Co«g
that o memorandum ef this supplementary agreement wne entered
into on becenber 30, 1928 (copy sliached and made a hy be the |
bill); ed anid supplementary agreement Zs ¢ingleve the
that the 5,000 shares of the commen aboek af said leyne las
Coe was to be applied one. as foz_ 32 _ vongiderstion fer
entering inte the peta for sale 6! lainant*s capital
stock, ep one-half = EE Ge SEA Foe

OAGL!

agreement of Lecember ia, 1925, iahibit rn nerete, is a momorinl),

2 49 getiytece bem empeceoeee OF). u(4nant tans) oe sheken =”
ary = teyifed bus Lave os ae one ane ae
tG Yiaeesoed heme h ‘eam Medi sFXoR

wibutont gfostts otal epeiiotte bay bdoe othe d - &
wesauets ednemgoese pete f ypaisodes gutuedeag wot case
ane “grogu beerge vito sium mond syoe ontey oft se, bos

omen est? Sivertn ,nee tage Bg! at sioLoyatsd dha. (b

}
oF 229° efidesivhs x Yteveosen bamesb od
a Ce aah aoe) op

efoske ab +E to LInvames. bed
~Siee¥ a ane te quatpamds ott o¢ bem ynegiitedt .nocdval of og»

~aen exls Ahan Bagge of eorputtat aid ons of one se ditw souanas?

arg peceuewege's atk te dowe te «6 aoteglad = aot
bestes? bine So geivom aff o? aakNeb Wee 2. ca aged ig

gt e009 gethuq! ebfemge ad¢@ daemoosge Sine mh bee
of foetdem aiownge .-0%0 getaeneves Lamtma ete to ¢ Lieto btesos

sanodoouk Le baeo@agh to aoe est

eviane ofd" shofopt<d petit ~~ “onantotay oF
e% oB bkew te "000,008

Ean ix fecigas teguet dee boat
son adi soto? dfotophal Gs 7 yng of" Bae g200 dhe
ouuul o2 Beer 4 OL yeanike’ sroted 6 mo few a2 a Be
atts | ohkat to asiade O68 Slokoghsh bhaw @2 |

ae iat guise? sbionge® etd te woods Ladiqne wommo efd —
~ to euavh ton hae gutless gaodemin eds xed sits bs
eked we ¢ betexremune erede soutémoy
ee 600 shaLayt 20 oh of anfe ool

staal we ae Agta, ahs botevi ded
seve tggasib © aig Hors ale a w © 28265 ft m1 18
Bak ue ohbamet ale te wmptownts te fised oa) X Tats as 3
*,ohov dam Liam of £Leibe, foqnaaee nist; 400,

teweliot an ikke wate wt —" ee inde at +

ge hea te.
votéastttbon @ a aoe ale dea we no De
oo

add "Sint

ont pols cod
“ote we Sielogt

! . 28 eared cz Leer ity oo2%
qoUUs 53 o: be ve Saw
ode. ie 8 ak eps ees

wean pe wot cane
age ote ight blax
ie a phe

ae Perec npr ee mel a

se pao

oye

and complainant cherges that if any anbbicuity existe, it hee
arisen through the wutual mistakes of the Reynolds opring So
and Gxigeleit in drafting seid supplementary agrecment, sné
that it wae the intention of the parties thereto at that time
thet the prevision in the agreement eof Decerber 22, 2928 (Reuse
(ep) of Sxhindt A ap hexveinabeve set forth) sacald be fully
maintained at all times, ond wes in ne way wodified by anid
supplementary | agreement of December 5°, 1925." 4nd complainent
avers that enid Griseleit, in executime both of coid cereemente,
eee rea sation ef complying vith or ftarrylucs out amy ef the
provisions bhereels but ene euted them beeouse auch execution was
ngetsenry $9 the ¢engumation ef his aforsssid frandulent plan,
and that of Beker ne Burton, to cheat ond defraud goald feynoldp

Bering Go and ¢empla ines; $.”

The copy of exl¢ supplementary egreement, sttcched te
the bI1lL as Exhibit B, is gated at Jackson, Michigan, Oscember #6,
2228, is ai ened by Grigoleit, end by the heynolds Spring Cos, by
its president, anc ig im pert se fellows:

"Wes the undersigned, parties to # memoranda of agree-
ment éatec at Chicags, illinoiz, lecember 22, 1925, copy of which
is herets attachec, herein «nd hereby agree as folios:

He Je Grigeleit * * herein and hereby agrees io the
meGifiesation of the sid agreement of Leoember 22, 1925, and te
sccept ae fula pay for the $100,000 faee aiue of the capital
etoek of the 5. J. Grigslett Coe, * * the eum of ¢ v6 9600 in cash

ape. §,000 shares of the gomuen enpitial eteck of the | eynedd s
ing Coes sald ctock amé 872,006 te be paié an ar oefore Jaduary

ope
15, 1926.

The Feynolées “mpring Co., * “ Herein and hereby agrees
te purehaese of seid He Je Griggleit all of the $400,000 faeces value
Capitel stock of the He dg. Srigoleit Cae, and to pay tuerefer the
gum of bd ded im neh a@6 5, 3J0 gkaeren of the common capital
eteek of the Reynolds Spring Coe om or before January 15, 1926.

it is mutualiy agreec by and ype tne yout ss
hereto that the ype ye ee, coe Haat Bes EO et =
furthey; examination of tar g ort on eachis re
Semeranes Sat eenent ge ahaa. » and to complete said ee

on or “oe Rg denuary ib, 1926, ae the enid Ha J. Urigelei:s wiih

effer full saceess to the said petemi reverés and te the xvecorda of
the corporntion sf the ds d+ Griggieit So. in erder that the
Reynolds “pring Oo. may be_asaures oe the representai mace in the
gaid memoranda of egrecment anc @ scope and vailoity of the
patents and potent applicstious herein involved. ee the
investigation, ebeve provided for, of the patente, ace ext ons Ee 2]

records ere got sotisfnetory when this spr coment ahs ae
feete abe the event ba a gee Scion and Boon : OE
vives _Breviced for pubstentlater t sppeare te Se actin
he porties hereto are ze mubuedly % bound and the said payment
9 ée ‘liveries “are to be made.

lt ie further slieged im the bill as Seliews:

2 :

aa L7th. That the consideration for the ‘eynolds ‘pring
Goe's entering inte the agreement with Grigoleit was his promise te
_ enter into a five yeor employment contract with complainant and te
give complainant his engineering skill end ali of his inventi ens
Pelating to seid molding arty that without this promise the hoynolds

maul Of qudeto gi hp ita ys. ‘$2 duaeig niiiable ideale igaea
# a0 egos nohenyes eue to odasedes Leen ode ae agaisea
Que <iaceocrse gradtomelggate bine atl iback al Jhologdcd baa
ouk® teed a OLSLENs awtiveq oof to waidapsm ng edo a.
savati) @20L 22k sedmeceS ‘to tepeagine odd at cote vex toa
yktet ad floods (ioe jo arodautoun as A ah aot
bias yd pndeadage vse On rt ven pos Gagner ile js ae
fren agaee bert 9 Stee Sedete o oid. sees he ai _ Wie datos, _
sires tie Siac. te med ‘ud dees tt .thodogiow blue, add. eteya
adi te Vite tue gabgerer xe Bie poly ignes be Belis he
gow ig Metts aoecusd sort sedacons due .« Tovseds ately. ror
paete top iohext tievwrots abd te wodhtcuuanes ond. “ee ba ya PRUE
abtement Bien heen teh ome omens as otis tame Secs mente le Reels lass
GE LOR: fm» te sod ES.

Riad
Sg eI

gd sedoudds sitomoe mys Ciadmoust fqque Shue ‘bo ware od
git ‘eo done 0 9 wsag beta nasato.st te edad 32 e tata as Lite ont
¥ 4200 gabrgs e bigerge 4 sets ve bie 1 PeLogtct ve demghe ak 88k

snwo i fo’t al dans wat at hse Bo rtentes att

“verge te @bste ramon e@ 8 oh kta «bette
dois ke ca yBSOL 780 sodmones puiens.

ive ifet ae venga opfeciad fe pea ‘boston’ ta.

wis eo ato ted Yderod sae nied © ee dtabughed au wh)

OF See ,a60£ , GR weewort to tnsaetgs Shee odd de i bBo:

fathgay ong Yo oedev ses 000\uOhG add cet yeq fink as dgeoon

> plane 4 OSG g BNE eo tw oot * 7 peed repro ok old, spat t oe rr)

oi? te doots ingiqao spanes até CQ_d bey
were . ' : i 20 me. blag oo ot Rt OS ae Store akon eon yt ae.

“goo eRe — brie ‘ohare © * , ved gabe astern se at”

enter 0h Cg ULE af le Lhe dag iegi at «hk ddee ote.

eid soteceds play od vigil ,vto dipLowie® % oH onli te Senta lav

fesigas Monme Ons bo gotate Uniged See dane ml COU—g ats to
sORG5 ats yinama’ exghod xe fo 00 wakage abLenye* 2 te

af d weowtod se = isvomya “idewsam ab

not sanfiiexs “pied iitlaeat oe be
a Sets theLlopt yt Chee Boos oa
% adaooex eft OF bare ed eee saodug
tt

edd sodt sobre: ree shelog :
wid mt gba 3

ee sor
seer ures #43

geek aye stoic. att 20% oe .
~ pire ait saw Bp sayy bd ntaee ited

aie

Coe woulé mot have paid to him the equivalent of $100,000 fer ald
the capital steck complainant; thet without the time, labor,
services and inventive ability ef Crigeleit anid steck was not
worth $100,000 te the Keynelds pe lng © and that the Neynelée
Spring Coe “had no notice or knowledge of the fraudulent nature
of the tranesetions between him ané complainant eorporstion, as
above outlined in paragraphs 4th to 10th hereof, but thet im
purchasing saic stock the heynelés Spring Cos * * relied upon the
representations of Grigeleit with reepect thereto.

: _ sath. That on January 15, 1926, the Neynolds Spring

Coe Gelivered te Griguleit ite cheek for 695,000 and a certiviente
fer 5,000 shares of ite common stock for which he executed and
célivered hia receipt; thet the emeumt of sold check was thereafter
reeeived by himj thet in and by eeic receipt “it is mot shown that
the 2600 gheares of the cowmon ataek of the leynelds “pring Soe,

eo delivered, waa the congiderntion of Grigeleit's entering inte

a five year employment contract with complainants” that °it was
through o mutual mistake onc oversights, on the purt ef the Neynelds
Spring Coe and Grigoleit, thet this fect wes no4 set forth in eaid
ree¢ipts" that that feature of the agreement between the parties
“hed net been abandoned but wae stil) in force and effect," and
that st the game time that Grigoleit delivered his eaié recekpt

fer gaid eheek and anid 69900 sheres of stock, he transferred md
delivered to the Reynolds “primg Cos the 4,000 shares of the
eapital stoek of complainant, “for which anid Meynolds (pring Cae
executed ami delivered to him ite receipt." (Copice of

veceipta are attached to and made a part of the bill, ag xhibdt C.)

The sald copier of both reevipta, so atinched to the

bill,» read es fellows:

*Chicegos Ilie dane 159 1926s

Reeeived of Reynolds Spring Coe of Jackson, Nichigniy
check, dated Jans 15, 1926, #3215 for 975,009, drawn on the
‘merican Truet Company, “ew Yorke Aleo, satoek ecertifiegte
#SYO 5637 fer 5,000 shares of common stcek, 411 im full comaideration
md ps for $100,000 face value of the enpital stock 6f th
He Je Grigoleit Coe, an Tllinoia corperationg said 9100,000 face
velue of eapital sioeck a paid and non-aseessabie and
constituting the entire euthort expitel stock of wald He Ja
Grigoleit Cos, seid cteek being dehivered in accor ange with the
memoranda of agreement, executed December Zang, 1925, amd eupple«
mentary memoranda of agreement signed end delivered iweomber 30,
1925, said memoranda of agreement and supplementary memoranda of
agreement veing between He. J. Grigoleit amé anid Seynolds “pring
S06

(Signed ) Ms 9 Grigoleit.

oY Sa 2 4

Received of He Js Grigeleit G100,000 fase value of the
capital stock of the H. Je Grigelelt Goo, an Oliimets corporation,
aaid $100,900 of eapited en ll gt ch calgon Mate
ef exnié [Llineis corperstion, said enpital ateck elivere
eration fox $75,000 in money ctentbt oN ag tn oy ey
of our company and certifiesate WYG-8637 fer 5,000 whores of cum
stock of our company, which ateck und cheek are delivered in
secordence with memoranda of agreement between H. J. drigeleit and
our Company, signed Dees 22nd, 1926 anc supplementary memoranda
ef agreement signed by H. J. Grigeleit and our company, Dege By

1035."

Lie wah (00,0022 Yo tnadariape od? = ‘*? aimave te ance #om@ Sinew 960
qtodek gout? ofS tacicly tonle ie devise Caches satt

20a eae Hoede Sbnat ig | ey ye toe aoobytes
shLewgat ade dads hie | ore, ad 28 nde bi

outer temiebaxt? 483 To epNat “e wlion A.
a? peideuequce duet algae bas pf nomwiad _—
i toed gant , tow cert ait os Psd plete gee vn &

ete mu ballet * * seo gaia site ee nbes

®,esered? Joagees dete siefegie® te onot date

» ehfouget att gBROL yi yremaet me Les weer ince:
Pe bd » Gem 0%, BPE =e% Meads cf} Btekogee® of sorewl Ted 06:
has todeeux ¢ ef Mokdw vot vente mous o8f to woradie 06 het Md
wise amw foetla bieo ke feuems: afd tele tiqheoot etd >
sais mwerle & ion ek #1* gaton es. nt at ve tee. wl on genta’ ?
eco gaity ebLonyge?! fo Rome aty Bo ao &
erm anretne wtetttontes . notdamatsnes ait sav aberev ited
abt? ~ feat Trager yen gaa oad Soarndneo eg ed tay muy
eblomyged adv te tung salt ce gtigierers dee edlega lar im & iG
nine me soae >’ tea tem gw fost aldo aevle yfloLogiad Ome oo
egkiaeg af? navwied gaxmeetga ad? To eumtawh dade tad” poqi
fun "givette Sne sesgt at ifite caw ted domonada peed gen
Sgievex diac abd bounwifel dtefonixd sed? omtt omns ed? oe : baat

— ae ag atecie te onnnde ae ] —_, fein Kurd pes 30
a oe oe ig |

eo: Oe

2 aeaes ee iid 1 stata Be apace ag teas
(.2 ve Biel 2s gi. oxtt eo B Siaee oan he eer vue ee 3 =

at ad rcormueiams a satqivoo: ain Be ners bow ott

—_— ” = Wan

\ eORRE 4 Sl suml «fil paged NG

qnegaeik yaeedpel te eet sat g" re @ %

ee ee EE = gSL
vee Liv 1236 ina

& _
og aais Br) ie toe : % yee "
— GSR g0OLE Biaa Frets
bain 8igeou0 ye. son Sets
a% Medoau Le
aut ‘ihe eenetcerse we ee
‘oekgae

aed sinccamea Gata ak ow ‘or Hs: ne ;

sétodogh<d 6% a (nomads)

dooce Py oil. ree
| lie ree id :

e dexovi Les be Rovip
ern sielontan o% «Hk meprded
Ota yGemes

Giada Ly se ee Bak 4 bac iY al . a j 4 wate ty a.
glk 0908 yymageso ue bas Piotegie 1b ge bongse Senate myo th

~be

Tt ig further slieged im the bill as follewa:

: 19th. That from dume, 1924, to Jamaary 15, 1026,
Grigeleit had maintained the plant of said "Ms Je Grigeleit &
Ageoedates” at 28350 ‘est Loke street, Chiesges that ome of the
conditions of eaid contract of sale wee that complainant's

plant showld be moved to Jsckaon, Michigans that Grigeleit
requestec that the Meynoldsa opring Cos grant him some time to
wing up hig affaire im Chicago and close some personal matters
wefore he began work for complainant and aeid (eynelds Spring
Coeg that for a number of years he had ceeupied a pesttion ac
sonsulting engineer with the Kellogg “witehbourd & Supply Coe,
including the time that he operated the business of "He Je
Grigeleit & ‘eecgiatess” that during the months of January,
February, Moreh and April, 1906, “as complainant ia infermed

and believtes” Grigoleit woe empleyed by anid Kellege Coe "on
full time,” and “wae further acting im the eapscity of consulting
eagineer for other erganizstions 8@ Hames are unknown te
Complainants" that “fer this reneom, the Reynolds Opring Ces
gid mot pay te him the salary of 91,0900 per manth

. i ‘ dari ae ented
four monthey snd that “beenuse of the understanding aferese td,
i the ature of She sonteact requiring the heynelds
m ihe salery sferces td.”

GY eletit Cds din ce Mik af
Spring Coe, oF compa!

20the That om April 24, 1926, Griceleit setified the
Reynolds “pring coe that he had elected to terminate Big andd
agreement with it because of ite breach im not paying hie on
for asic four months; that his position “wee witheut aerit and
taken ag a atep in the consummation ef hie said frowiulent (chemey”
that on May 7, 1926, suit company tendered to him four cheeka fer
$1,000 each far hia salary for eal four monthe and he aceapted
all ef aid checkag thai thereafter he continued to work fer

@@mplainant as ite vice-president ond general manager and was pate

}

bon,

:
hy

said menthly seslary by complainants taut ke haa claimed, amd ig
@laiming, thet anid contract of December 22, 1925 (Suhibis A) wae
forfeited and thereafter abandoned because ef said auppoeed breach
of the Keynelds Co. im mot paying aadd aslary? but that hie sadd
Glaime «re without merit and move attempts “so lay a feundstien for
® pretext to break sald contract, * * and emable him te carvy eue
his frauiulent plan aforesaid .*

Qiet. That “theresfter® (time act stated) “complainant
amd soid Keymeléds Coe” prepared « form of employment contract
between Grigelett and ¢ imant “in accordanee with guid agree- |
ment, 2xhibit A,” and requested him te execute the same, but that
he “fraudulently refused to enter inte the said five year wuployment
contract with complainant," wrongfully pretending that he waa
under nc contractual ebligation to compisinant or sald Seymelds |
Goe 60 to Gog and that when he signed said Uxhibit A, “he had no
intention of complying with ite terms," and his gigning ef the same
“was solely an a atep in the consummation of hie fraud to acquire
aufficient expltal te engage im the melding trade Jn sompebiiion
with complainant and said Seynolds “pring “ee*

Qind. That after May 15, 1926, and after canpleimant's
plant had been moved to Jackson, Michigan, and while Grigolett
was acting ae complainant's vice president and general manager
and "oetenaibly* performing the duties thereof, he “wae devoting
hie time to orguniaing a business to compete with complainant and
suid Reynolds “pring Coe in the manufscture of machinery,” ote of
that hes ingtesd of soliciting customers for complainant and seid

saweliet wa Lid ade mi jogetia soda ME, BE 2 ojo

gERE oS i Yrotttiol od ek eek merit gout Vas
A dteingiw +5 of" hive i Gade add bonbkeinian and ddoto;
oft to ome Jacl? togootdd gtoomta ade ges’ OGRE 2a ag.

eo tiem aiguto Jatt gow atau te tagtd nos age ‘te abots domme

Shulegix® teds innghdolh arated) of bevom ed Biwose
of emt) amon wh txorpy 485 yada ahiamges pore satis be
e2oti ms Laaonxey gimoe oeote Sie egaoi. a axtadte s. ae ad
gait: abferys: Slee bas eT eer duaw moged Seated
we Meith eots ” hesgmons hat ack. ‘te saewe & Bes seule g200

oe ysquih pies wana ist eels dale wow ye unt J Lave pet
ie ot ae 38 pers onlaue oes ge Le sbiaiees “aH pid fos cottd
Can LO soa Bhs eae & odnat bells oat Se
peacoat ef tmeckaignas ee” 0004 , Lays, baa me ada

wt ll eee Par ~~ by eragoss 4
finanse To Feng ae Sree oo
bed sod ee sad BH a.

Gee

bisa peed ar 2 ME RE
. soiaerrete ashaaeivnia
ehfoget ods gmbiinges sags on
“ehhaseteta ytelen ats 3

‘patd behthion shokost 2 .Oe8L os awe wo dett oR
inten ihe ipboee #0 a aa at te S aeaned th apie er
LIM ERE QTY My POS HE bis a ica
bere Sear te ite saw” mebhnog ald Anas fudtoom wet Stan oe
“goumele: @uodwheeth bien wld Be Rodd swnae BOS odd’ ai ¢otn & on we

0% ateute saek maid of re Ydeqaes Shep ,O0RL ¢T KM we om a
botyenee GM Dem auido too Shwe vo't ance tot ‘obits

9% dvow of beamkinos af tevtaored! tad? gate

ae -, er Brag Lnrewsy Sas tueblasageooty att
aelo aad ot ded? ginetalquwoe wh Ban Ba ks
name + selene) Sel git zoekaraad to chentune bine tage see oat o£
Hosted bosoggws Aisa Yo seuened Sompbaada soe potoAT Bote tle kro
Rypoee Phar 7 - grt oer ha ake a ee a.
79% Seliabmvet 2 ya @ tin oteK aa Lo
Sag eta OF ate oDeend i ll — bhoe Sasa of tedoag a
sdiazetats cake beaanapeciicr

onaisbjicnaie* (beotade gon ambi) *initiaaiied* font yet
soatians ¢nompoique to ate 2 deaage wg *400: Pty “i
heme Shag Hedw Pye rt mg at tate & bus Skofoyl xt
dons dal .emea oid edwnexe of ata taguneooa bua "A ghdh a:
tnsarye Lge br gp fe Svit Siena afi? sa teda2. ) ‘Beaune W ise 8 uss
gaw a8 dedi gakinade moo.) ml ag atl alqmee gt te
. on lat edt as bie %@ sieaotalanes vp heey many “ 66 ‘tebe
&, tea beagda yp # of 400.
time af? Te git = were naa “quoted off gidw eee . se, omk
wtivigos of bwort sid Io mohiammenson ast ak bry: & an Yolen a
aphiAisnmhe 2h bast Pe gpor soc eae i}

ot bagat tyme saan anita ae oe =.

“eyed pfieme re dae hdng aky wt otal
giiteves saw" off eigorets ioe pe ie ah we

were been Bn ote

“Lie

Reynolds Cees “solicited customers for the business he then
contemplated ergemizingy” that about ougust 1, 1927, he was in
readiness to engage in hie said new business, that on wast 1,
1#27, he left complainant's euploy ami “refused further to carry
out his contract with acid Seynelds Spring Ce. Sig sumpladuant z
that at all times thereafter both said beynolds Spring “oe and
compiainant have been willing and able to eurry out ¢ eontrect
with him? and that it “was only by reason of hia defa thet the
aforeenié contracts were broken.“

Q3rde That after ic complainant's employ,
Srigoleit purchased Jond and a faetvery budiding im Deeatur,
Tllinoie, “with the moneys proeured by him from complainant and
eaid Keynolés Spring Co. by virtue of his fraudg” chat after the
building had been equipped an a molding plant, he, isdividueliy,
began to mold Bakelite for the trade undex the name "Gr igeLeii,”
seliciting customers of complainant and said Deynolés GOeg that
in confederation with eid Burien acd one uehenry, he caused to
be organised the lliiuois cerporation of "The Grigeleit Co.*

(a defendent herein, and hereinafter ealled Defendant co.) on
Janucry &4, 19283 that originally ite capital steck wae $10,900,
consisting of 100 shares of the par velue of $100 exchg that
geid stock was paid for by “acid factory building at 746 Aagt
Herth etrect, Decatur, which was valued at G10,000;” thet, theree
after, om ipril 12, 1929, ssid eapital stock was inereased te
v017,0093 thot after January 24, 1923, Defendumt ce. engaged in
the business of manufeturing presses, machinery, ste. for the
molding of “bakelite,” and began te mold “bakeliie” for the
trade, “soliciting customers of euaplainant ; aadd Reynolds
Spring Cos, yp of whose names Grigele ad gained by
virtue of his ssseeiation with complainant and anid Peyaslds ©
Coog" that at the time of the filing of the originel b111 heved
(September 9» 1930) Grigoleit was prenident and a divecter of
Defendant Cosg that other gartier (naming thom) were other officers
amd direeterss that Grigoleit controlled and was practioslly the
eole owner of Defendant Coeg and that im fact 44 “wasn an ingtru.
mentality employed by Grigeleit in the eoneuwauntion of hia fraud
“pen complsinant and esi¢ Seynelds cprimg te.*

ath. That Grigeleit and Lefendant Co. have adopted
the word "Grigojite” as a trade neme, and are using it to
characterize their product; and thas said word “is the some or fe

gimiler te the were ‘@rigolgit,’ am’ that the aame are idem

@hth. That prier to Auguet 1, 192% Grigeleit invented
& new and useful device (deseriving it), in conneetion with the
axt of molding bakelitey that compleinant and said Leynolds Cos
Gaueee & patent application therefor to be Lok ooh to be filed
in the Us Ge Patent Offices thot when the application was completed,
Lainant amd gedd Reynolds Cos, om April 9, 1998, forwarded said
destion to Grigeleit «t Deeatur ph rages Ringe te sign the
some and to “execute an sevignment thereof te the Reynolds Spring
Coes" that Grigoleit attached his signatures te the paper, but
failed end refused upon repeated requests to personally £114 in
eerteain required blanks; and that an 2 result of seid refugee
“the benefits ef eaid invention were lost te complaimant ari esdd
Reynolds “pring Co.*
26the Theat from uguet 1, 1927, when Grigoleit left
Complainont *s employ, dewn to the present time (Maren 26, 1932),
he “hes wilfully refused to devete any of hie time, services and

eOh«

weit of ceontass od? tot etna eee botted ton eae aes
we wow at TROL gf dang Syeda tesit ©) knee m fate
ak see Mo tans *jeventan® went _— aha
b all a8 voaita? bam bet” one a a" peak LqRieo

ssf
St

: tt yoke oon Boog
seettmeo Bi rey oe vide bar pbiitw mead « vad
weld rat” 3 anes gid te meanest <. che one te Guae fate

maleal mt abcntee Man

@ ye dagne 0" anantexomne ates wabenet a, i
qweineed ak whee qrodaet 6
her sheet wig aes ee ye Seo RE
autt of ait oad. * ptm? okt 36 patron dg
seihiubbykbod ame 9 fnalg, unthion & On :
dtesegi al” gas ale tenn akaxs wild vie
‘teas a Thack ab tongs = hae “ee tant olga

6 af opEEeme oon been sera bho nok swe be
aot Hekeghes 9 ads" te MEE TH LE Sool heme eae A ores
aoe dnetoe tet aks |

abies a ee

o8® oeoke eth gosty ‘Lag tqns wet er prt 18 yr ope £ ae waa
, “baile - ook? 2 oukew Tag ae Te soto Yok te" gut? Samer
dusk Ob? #9 gatadiud (uesest dies” ys tOd bkaq Gee Boose Mae
uego! ,2ee%e Ate

ee otate “poco eokh ga seakev eow dolatw ‘ 7) Lol
tecewent aN doin Lage tae seek ahi —_~ me 4 tedda
on eee oe eae {ORE goe exaust, witha, trad (600NE

ett to% «poe oy veriAges aoa oes pat wots be asenteas Oh
wh oh tad oe iba «8 & maged Gres bran ved fest ‘to gui dion
Ben pe orng “Sunes aue® te romp teed gridtes foc* 3

on Se wey

eves noes ae rage sikeme) sekicag torkee
wit ydvetioe sons Sel Lead ees rer ag é
apitanh a8 aH 2 gout wb basis =o ts
fare’ ala to winks aan oD | wale wed wh os: ante
6,03 qebeq? atiowge

petqoss swat oo imadsshws re skekwpeed oad
of ¢f yakak oto Ste y tee + ie eo dl ® os *

to sem ost nk” Seow Shon antit aduRts
qagtds Se bs ots sme vate ald hem * —" tron was or wa

mateo éie he: fer. steer * -foeiah es
ate ote wet Tr aa Po a =

a@u a SLomye ee

back oe ‘oe eats wo ion

abode Laue war tlie igus ott met
‘phew ebamwenet gBEOL «4 L2ayd me an
ost wate o¢ ate uatinonpen 9 tiene
eptwa nekewges wt? of Ie@eent tram
ewe 4% “oa g¢ aetmtongie sit heioases |
‘gh LE% ee soy OF séuenyey rows wengs

be teeer” btw Yo Pest & ad Sate i
bhava sail tramiatqure of aqek orem #

aQteed «68 ‘l) ont may A088 ta — «olan
itm wvotveve «suke ake to we seared ot Roawtot %

elle

ability to the uee of complaimanty* thet in violation ef his
said contract, by his own acts and by means of hig inatrumen-
tality (Defendant Cos), Srigoleit “has devoted hia time to hie
own purposes in competition with eomplainnans
irreparable demagey" and that begause of h
sentract, he and the Defendant Co. “heave amassed great profits,
the amount of whieh during the paet two years eC@plainant hee
been wnable te diseever and are unknown to it,” Vherefore»
complainant prays that Grigeleit and Defendant Ga. "may be
required te anawer the interrogatories, hereinagter set forth.”
(the interregatories mentioned are seven in numbers}

S7the That complainant “ie informed and beli é
but has no knowledge of the fast,” That other mew and use? ul
inventions have been made by GrigoLeit Aigo appliestiong fer
patents upon the seme have been filed the Us Ss Patent
Offices and that complainant preys o éiscovery ag to sume, eto.

28th. ‘that new, at the time of the filing of this
bill (Barok 28, 1932), complainant *i insolvent and lacks the
requisite gapitel for eerrying on its corporate auteheneet” that
complainant "hae berrowed money from the heyreldsa opr Cap
end ig heavily indebted te it in the smount of £17,910, whieh
comiplaigant ig now unable te pays” amd that eamplainant “ig Het
now engaging it any business, except the helding of the aforesaid
Ppatentg.*

believe:

The bili prays (1) for a temporary and permanent
injunction enjoining Grigoleit and Defendant Company “from engaging
in the trade of moléing ‘Bakelite’ and/or any ether phenolic
procucte of gimiler nature, and im the mawufacture ané eale of
DTeSseG, apparatus, equipment and machinery fex the molding of
the some, in competition with complainant enjoining Defendant

Benet, See 0 er a as Rg ee

Company “from continuing te use as a part of its eorperste same

the word ‘Grigolggt* or ony mubetitute or imitation thereof ;*
enjoining Srigeleit “from using the name or word ‘Grigelgit' in any
way $0 compete with complainants" aed enjoining Origeleit and
Defendant Company “from using the word ‘Grigeljte® in eomo«ti tien
with complainant." ‘he bili ales prays

(2) For = deerse ordering Grigoleti, and the two
other and former stockholders (neming them) of complainant cor
poration to pay tc compleinant "sheee monies reaeomably and
equitably due te it in return for the ateek heretofore lesucd
8@ gaid Origoleit.*

St (unetar Seiet of Rusneieet sees, "ease
eteekholders wt of De: nu A

. gtook im said Defendant Company “in truat for complainant ,*
@md that sald Defendant Company “holds o11 of its property and
seeete ae a truatee for complainant.*

olin
Ma

ahd to mebindoty ma dans “penenbanagess. te paw ot oF b ohare
~nans tien? ete Ye mente Yl Son ae eR HO oe He 98 yeti

gid er mais nhd besoved ava? tinfogtr? ols Yaobubae : Led

ag taety — ni i *, fut babs eh. ood x EG at ak ae ae mn ~

aaetelne ey
Fae orks aioe Wie
cole add Be gudbiort ade a peal Se" ecombeed be ‘ab a
sesnseroy, hen peoragues s wet (4) ewse ane or: aie m8
ga lgagar sont eine! etn tee he one shotoyaee at ob sont
abtowady sade wie seine tad telat? aatbiom to ebott ad tt
“ya olny ten omutowenon of mt baw sorardan taht > edombo
“Yo gathiog edd so? wee § i sonnel ere + 29: a
tuabastiot yatniolan aduambatan aon fd

ime sou th ost mn "

a ae es ee ee

12e

(4) For a deeree “ausenuing the value of the patent
appiiestiones belonging ta complainant, so freudulentiy abandoned
by Grigoleits* and “assescing the value of the patent appliestions
whieh eaid Grigeleit refuped properly to execute,* and ordering
that Grigeleit "pay to complaiaant tne fair and reneenable value
of acid patent application."

{5) Fer an accounting "ef 11 profita, royaltiaus
monies ocx ineome," accruing to Grigeleit ami to Defendant company
by vwirtwe of their engeging in the business of molding Bakelite —
amd similar moldable products, and of the manufce¢ture and sale
of presses er, con \ Sanspnent for the molding of the some,

peti tic laipeant," from the date ihey firet began

te compete if at tion f the comtvaets aforesaid to the present
éays for on accounting “of all fers ami reyaitics in moneys
reeeived by Srigelelt by virtue of his engaging ae a eouaulting
engineer in afiy and all fields after lecember 22, 1925, and/or
reesived from the sale oe liesrwes of amy Us is Lettere Patent,
deaued to said Grigoleit and of righi belonging te complainaat.*

(6) Yor o dimeovery and that Griguleit and Defendant
Company be ordered to anower certain stated interrogatories
(seven in numbers)

(7) Fer an ie Commonding Grigeleit to aseign te
imant 211 invention ‘9er° patent applications, mace
= aequired by him subaequsn ta September 1, 1926.

(3) Yor an order that the contrast of December 30,
1928 (Exhibit 5) and the receipts poawing & between exigee’ nae
the Reynolds Spring Ce. on J (Exhibit ¢) “be

reformed so that brag low 4 way eorreotL show the true agreed:

between the partie retos" insofar so such contract aud

receipte “erente any ambiguity and do not refleet the agtuad

Acmchit wa end Pag pag: between Grigelelt, comple inant gi ented
s 2x 3009 op hereinbefore set forthe*

Complainant's counsel state in their printed brie? that

the bill im question, “taken as « whole, slinrges a genernd scheme
by Grigoleit te defraud the Reynolds “pring Coe," am they first
contend in substenee that the D111 shows such equity on ite fuga,
on the ground of fraud egeinet thet company, that the court should
not have susteined & general demurrer to it or diominsed it for
want of equity. It would seem that a sufficient snewer te this
gontention ia that the bill is not filed by the Neynolde Spring
Coe but by the He J+ Grigeleit Soo ‘hile it appears thet the
Reynolds Gos became the owner af all of the oapital stcek of

fie Je Geigoleit Coo, by purchase Tram Grigoleit individually»

the Reynolds Coe is not asking fer amy reliefs

ao dered: 3 Ped toni ge a a .
te aniod toaiiqga tania rene te a
at pairebse ban * meat oe

ae sadev eddanaeae’ ‘tte “shat |

ay edoliLayor esi tong te yo"
a S Sasbrre tod a Baeat cleat wae
a4 ediiloded gatdion te perv
a sien bue evetes Dem oct?
a qeaeea et to i bLow esd Ht
aa gaged Petit 4 b ald

: aut ¢ieung . a
1 he te\bas ,ORRL « iss i
a3 piaadat erated «8 oV te goer saenait oo oe we
13 ‘,dnantalgns @2 galguoled sight Xe bin Ptekegix® bt.
lee amcbeetad dus stoloysts tnd
1 pebzotagersegak betate =

“ot mateae 08 sea ‘psd'sdiiiets via wes aa wt TW) sous
® agnedan
as A ae a rome Ps n oe a 2 9 php : :

908 seinen te soxtsues adt 4 ast sat zobae na

i i, if oat ati sO indieaa) rie a &s TR er ae pd

i. sant ade wel so tatoank *, eS
I iat Ba ines banc Sey sisineare dane
ON ares’ dee saeteduleved of 4; ype eo! mh G8
HM dads sens bedutry ctod? af afada Loanwos a! imguiaigned
: omsdos Lnvoneg » aegraito q2hodw 2 90 snalaa" etnitas ereyen

taxi ends beta "1292 _nelsee abhomges oft buemtah of santo ab |
eSeet afi ite “iln90 done nwosis 4iid eee jess
twode ames edt gods gynngmoy tad toate

ecLLaubivi bar tptogts sort eae ad ms a ~

n das GD ee

“13-

Counsel sles contend tht She action ef compicinant't»
éirectors (Grigeleit, Beker ang Burton)» on November 19, 1928,
in issuing Preetieslly all of complainant's» enpite, ateck te
Grigoleits, in considerscion of the tranewer te 1¢ by him ef eer tain
ef hie property, patente, vie.) when they ae euch directors "knew
that Grigoleit could imme dotely ae@ll the stock fox G10 9000—" dp
euch a fraud on compls saames Onc sueh a viclation by them of their
fiduelary duties as much Girectora, as entitles it te minteain the
billie We find no merit in the contentions the bil1 dees net
@iselose on its face that there wae a freaudulens avervalustien of
Grigeleli's said property, patents, ete., because by the agreements
ef Cevember 22nd and Degamber 30h, 1928, between Grigeleit ang
the heynelde Cos, and the receipts Peesing between them ox Jatmary
15, 1926, it appears shat complainant's entire Gaplial «tock
(representing said property, patents, ete.) was aglually sold for
91009000, in money or money's worth te she Seymolda Ces, after it

ad been given “ple epportualiy te investigates, and had become
we Vieeds ae to ite real value.

Soumsel alee eontend thet the 11) it Beintadvable on
the theery thet "negative specific performanee by way of injunetien®
‘way be decresé “for breach of a Contract for uniupe persenad sere
-¥hees.” (Citing 4 Pomerey's Bq. dures 4th Mdey S@G0 L7LG, 2 gece)
And counsel ergue in substance that be@nuse of Grigeleit's covenant
With the Reynolds Ce. (as wet forth in Paragraph (b), above, of
the written agreement ef December 22, 1928) as to hig entering inte
inant compamy to give hie entire sere

& binding contract with Semple.
iteces, @tOe, for a period of five years from December 22, 1995, and
“Deenuse of the allegations in the ast Paragraph of the vill (to

“the effoet that at an unstated time x dreft of some kind ef a five
= euployment eontract was Presented to Grigeleit for hic sigmature

SS aa

—

e! emacs ndgaios ‘tq maktea salt gout hee aero wale Eos nuastann

sess 18k codarvalt a0 « (isetwwe wa ‘wouket eatekontwo)
oy deote Endiqas dténnitatqune Ye nee vebekeoon eine at
kat 190 go met ead Oh oe THORATe adit te rudd obRAMH wet ‘edtedopis
weed exogoent) sum ae yd? mow bee: cadet og yee rege me abd te

ak "00040088 #92. foe ts Kan ented bene nines stofoghed Sati

uhedt "te aud? 4h ne boakely x dowe be a teieehetoees . baer: @ sou

wate abotokors ot tt veda bine wat vesosnath ave en wenn: Tre
ois aoa cone eet? a seh hove
te sek amdaviee sap iubwertt 2 naw litt ’
stromsorge sl ee seunoed goede ¢xengtet age tego ae pas
tae theLogts® averted tats ash t00 edness fend
serene bro emacs noewtod eed etgasons al ah ee ao) ooyet aif

_ aloaee, ietiqay exhima st easmiatgnon 4 asqae ifs eed

4
ie
se
ii

i
Mi.

; Bah
ihe
vail

*
ay
bi
ay
| iit
|
id
ny
Ve
Ae:
an
;
il

to eidantasntam ob tbe oi satd bevduns weketenare?
vrmpk aorartat So yor ys eonnmotreq SF TtooKs orkingva" dette soncanioes

oxoa fanos coq sohma *0% 4 a0 deta

‘ epee te, «Ate 008 cabal sgh goth ok oh epteemet 6 gertett) a “00s ’
dumerewos ptatosegty® go patoned Yukd sondsedun ah oema am yoo D

ft wvods aie sega eg tet ak Mexo8 dod ao) this. 4

(age 698 odeeen Se decmmmorrya tne edo ost

pout gakxedne ald od ne
o198 oxhiae ald ovke ot yew os oa

i jem 90 488 soda 0 aortt exaiy ovtt % angot
a @) iid astd to sqoxgotng Tout oat Tt etree aasens
1 ia yet o to buts eoou to Jeeth ow baad senna one ”

ousdannd aks not thotogixo oe?

-L4ée

end he refused to sien the same}, the bill sufficiently shows

that complainant is entitled to the injunetional relief os prayede
In view of the entire allegations of the bill, we are of the
opinion that the contention and argument are lacking in sukstantial
merit, becaupe (1) it appears that Grigoleit remained in complain=
ant's employ as en officer for about a year and one-helf after

its entire ecspital steck had become the property of the Reynolds
Co.3 (2) sufficient facts, as distinguished from conclusions, are
not stated as to why he left complainant's employ; (3} the con+=
templated five-year term of his employment had neariy expired when
colpiainant's criginal bill was filed and the doctrine of lacheg
should here be applied; (4) and it appears affirmatively from the
28th paragraph of the bill that complainant is insolvent and it
does not sufficient appear that complainant was able to perform

ts pert cf an employment contract with Grigoleit.

Nor, in our opinion, can the bil) be maintained, or the
injunctional relief as prayed be granted, under the entire allegations
of the bill, on the theory that it is one to restrain unfair com=
petition by Grigoleit or the cefendant corporation, the Grigoleit
Company. It affirmatively appearing in said 28th paragreph of the
bill that complainant is insolvent and "is not now engaging in any
business except the holding of the aforesaid patents," it is difficult
to perceive how Grigoleit or the Grigoleit Coe ean be considered as
being engaged in unfair competition with complainants

Our conelusion is that the circuit court did not err
in entering the order or deeree in question, sustaining the general

demurrer to complainant's seeond amended bill and dismissing said
bill for want of equity. Accordingly the order or decree is affirmede

AFFIRMEDs
Sullivan, P. Je, and Seanlan, Js, concurs

awotie Ylineloiliue {Lid ond. ¢lomeg of mete ot beewtos of base
ebetenm ao toifer Innoltonuiai sad of deltiiae ei dnanhsiqaos tends
: eit to ste ow eilid oft to anotiecsolis etiias odd to wetv ni
Jaiinateduc at yaides! ars ineswate bus mebinetsoo odd teed mokatgo
wateigmoo at boateast stefogix® dedd excocge #2 (1) seesoed'tirim
meats tLed-ono bia ieey 2 tuods tot xeottto ne as yoiqus aténs
abforcest eft Yo Ydteqotq edd smcoed bed Aneta Latiqan sui tnd eet
8i8 setolastonos mort boteingniseais so .atost taotot trie (e) pe00
+409 ssid {g} gvolqus afinsniaiquos diol ent wiw oF as botata don
fedw botigxe Yirsen bed dusaryolgue gin to mod TeSyHsvit potalquat
sedostl to sutuiooh edd Sas belii esw Lid Sankgixo é #naniatquoo
ot mort yWovisamcitts arseqgs vt bus (Ah) qbetiqgs od oted bleeds
th bue.dneviosai ai tnaniteiquoo teat Litd of to dgetaassq 1388
miotreg of offs eaw duanisiqaoo sari Teeqqs ‘tmotok tive ‘som seek
stiofepird Mitw tose n09 thieetcts ms to tree aib
ed xo yhontstniem e¢ {£28 eft aoo pneimteo two at pzot —
iM “snolisas iia extias ect tebne , botnets od bets Tt es tekforx tenet sonutat
“moo tistaw misrisot ot omo ef Fi tant yYroott one nO Lite ‘sit “
tiofozics eft ~uotistoqtoo itabme'too eft to Hefostz) x no ttttey

Era iae pagh S ‘
eit to tigexpetsq ASS bise mf gttiseqge (fovttoar tts i + ynsqm09
es: YR
Wa wt grtgere wom tou ei” bre tusvfoent at susntaLgnoo fede ‘tte

eee hy

dIuotttibh et si "patmeteq bissetolse eft to gutblom exld Sqooxe seontawd

ete a

BS be rebiatioo ed med 400 skofogtsP offs to steLoaizd wou ovisozeg 08
ee Wek te zy er mal

atnemielqmoe déiw moive squoo nist ni -bogsgne yates
ax1o dom bib tx05d diwourko ‘edd sadt ef notasfomo 0

Epa el

fezenes add aninistave mottaeup mt 9e%05) to tebr0 ore pai sn0 Ml

bien uateeimsib Bue £Lid beberoms broose 2" trattaLqmos os * ch
ehemiiiis al eor0ed co 19b20 aid yfuntbioooA ae Yo drew ba I
| eACGMIUCA .

: _wontee asi uuatasot om gk msyh tt

FY
e

JOHN Hy. SHARDT,
Defendant im Srror, ‘
SBROR TO CIRCUIT GouUnT,
Cook COUNTY.

« BRO :
aig ee Ae 4 1.8. 653

MRe JUSIICK GEIPLEY DiLIVeeks THE OP IMIG OF “HE COURT.

The prosent writ of error eencerns a eoram nobis
proceeding arising under eection 89 of the former practice «ot
(Cohilite State 103, Chape 110, ps 215%.)

im Maroh Sl, 195¢, plaintic? cmaneneed an action in
the cireuit court to rewover damages fram defendant Sesause ef
the iatter having on Hareh 14, 19359 xe alieged, fxisely and
maliciously spoken and published ecrtain alanicrous and defamaiory
words of an¢ converning plaintiff. SGefendant's appearanee wae
entered by hie attorney, Fred Je Loyda, and a plea of not guilty
filed to the declaration. More than » year thereafter, om December
#4, AVSL» Upon Lenwe of court and with plainiiff'a consent, Ris
attorney withdrew from the cose and one Ben ‘romin entered hig
appearante ag plaintiff's aiterney, and on the same day, on motion
of Loyéa, Loyda “wae given leave to withdrew hie appenrance as
defendant's attorney, but it dows met appesr that thereafter any
ether attorney entered an appenranee ae tefendenmi's atoorneye
About a month thereafter, en duneary 20, 193%, 1% ic claimed that
aronin,g ae plaintiff's attorney, caused « writven notiee (tlms
the couse would be plawed on the trial eslendar) to be sent by
registered wail to defendent in eare of “Sity Hmll, Berwym, Lilinola"
that a registry return receipt, wigmed “Srank J. Krowcek, by

{ se fm
oe |
4 i ve \’ Lath a
yom. oy 1 Bi
\ = Taka “a sauce ,
etext’ m2 snebero hed ~
lalate siwodte Oe wala : “a
errs Boos , RB a
‘Bad AT RYS % soe

oTIAROD aR SN A SAYRE ARSE TAT, A

asides waroo @ eitesdos toured to dtew dxsneeg edt

hace bebseog ome? 962 %o 8S meidasn veka etieita pat

Poe (oWOLE oq gGth sgetd .keed .daad erst)

ae Abivon tat Semen Yuteatewe pCO (aR deme

‘Re savaged vaabHO% > mY? seed covewR ad Haren HOS Ode

eee Yoda? gbaneide ow gOS (82 detel ne gebved secvet ede

UtStamAIns tan yROIs SEE Hietwe Somebidug aon medoge YLevolet Lam

1. at Setieencgs ot mete he etittrtate gketekon be te whree

Ceituy Fou Yo woke o dm eakyes «4 noel geseosss ahh ‘gh borbeMe
sodmeoel ge setheords qooy o waste wCR enetsenabosb eds o¢ SOLER

abet ctnsenes BIBI atady ite dee dose Te oNeEL ROM LEGS
alt boretue alas nei ome Juco secs dé souk mmubvieiw -yenmaien

ety Boas: ew eUhd eoenG ale me inh .yneodse wT UMalg en senatacgaa :
BS SotLeGge aid wetivivke oF eveed servis asw ebynd eabyod Ye

We sefteoteds dads ceeege tom weed of tod equntedta ce!

NEY

#ysaeita al onobne tot 46 oGnerteeqan nw boteéne: vomtords tose
Gadd aembo le wh 8h glkOd 4 Oe QraMnRh os exee Tan UNs Memo

nasi) vokten aniiizw o StanaD pyMmEDted arnentag: ial he nen |
6 tno ed of (aabaosiee £absd ole 0 a8

Evelyn Cerny," was returned to Aronin; and that the cause wee
placed on the triel calendar. ower a yeur thereafter, on Kereh
16, 19335 the foliewing order in substane@e waa entered’

That, on motion ef plaintirf'y at
given to plaintiff to file his einilites
aM eis @

That thereupoms the cause being called fer trial ~
ere the plaintiff?’ comes by ailernmey; thats 1) appearing That
aeither plaintiff mer dufendant hme wade ésmand er paid for a
trial by jury, thie cause is cumitied te the eourt fer trial
without @ jury; that the court, after glee wll evidenee and
be adVieed, finds the defendant gui ty ad aevesgeg
the plinintiff's domoges st the eum Of 95,0003 that She court,

im answer to a special interregatory submitied by Plaintiff,
further findsthats the conduct of cefendants, Frank J» Brougelt,

“ae shown by a preponderange of the evidence," wag "expressly
mailicious and actuated by an eval, intent, design and purpose,”

gad that, therefore, it is considered by the court that the
plaintiff “do have and recover of amd from the dofendant » Frank
Broucek, his said damages of 655000, in form ax aforesaid asweaned,
Sogether with his coats and ehargen, and have exeentiion ¢thereyer.*

The common law record further discloses that 18 days
thereafter, om <pril 3, 1933, but after the expiration ef the

[Orney,y leave ig
Lier to plea herein

hereby

term of court during which the judgment woe entered, defendant

appeared by an attorney, named “hapire, and filed « written motion

tO Vaente the Judgments supported by cofendant's affidavits that

om the same dey, by leave of wort, three counter affidavite weve

filed, « one by plaintiff and the others by Plaintiff's attorney,

Aronin, amd an seeletent in hie office, named Harelikg and that

the stated grounde of defendant's motion are in subetanee ca follows:
That defendant has a complete defense on the merita to

the whele of plaintiff's demand.

That “no wetiee was ever ot any time served upon him or
hie former attorney, Loyda, * * to place thig cause upon @ trial
Celendar

That during the month of april, 1951, “plaimtirr promised
and «greed mot to proseeute this action but to diamiss the gone »*
aud that since that time plaintiff, “on oo egeasions (the
lest being during the month of March, 1922) etated to defendant
that the eause had duly been dismissed owt of court."

That the abeve facts did not and do mot appear of revered
in the couse, and were unimown te the court when waded judgment wag
entered, and, kad they been known, the equrt wowld not have entered
waié judgment.

alies

ew sonon aid galt Ome takaeTA OF bere det saw *gyete?d ayfows
Moxa wy gtaiReoiuwls taey 4 tev « teheraton Lait edt ao bopalg
soptetee aaw cemaladve wl webue yatwoiled ond gh8Oh qQk
ei evaei gyenterda s'ttivaieig te sofia mo ytadt
ateted seig ae * wetiiiete aan efr% i Tadéatatg of neve cetepad |

tnievd “ek tefles gabed sarwo ati gnequeretd 3 sat?
oan gery om at <— a yi agmtoe Piven ead
a %O% Diag ge falas oben maw danbaa tel ‘res tttemtane es
cee YOR 2% —" - Socdiavins 24 sastieo alte we ;
bax oumehive £ ‘teed Talkie «item ene dest wm teode he
aeugiese ban yo Lig oteb wld Ghelt 4 Ee guived
aftaeo ale duals 10s ; Ye ame eat ie scaund pth Pewee maid

YResak Ree dd Eaton togenreded Lateoge 2.6% vewems at
slvouwalt © Maer? iat ‘te iowbmes ot Pasiasat vo pe gn

eonebive sae be BERR? OOD RE
etn Bry peel atmaat Live on ud betenten peasants ule coats pres oh

el)? gadd ecmoo ost yd Becebianes ai 2b apeomeigge
henna rate oo Geek yee Py i cggrtiamdhy « yaaa
“ soloueds meiiveone eveul, em .oopiade bee atege utd dghw.condege’
wyod BL dal? asontoaks tedisnt haveec wel gece ent
gle Xo moiserigne ede vette sui 9TOOL of Lbaqs am gee haoreds
Icha toh gbo wins new shomshet, ot debe yb gee Te mee
mohéow weddixe 2 hoLtT tea-,estqud? Bonne yyormses an Wh howmndes
dale gthwehetin of tae led Ye Sedcougee gteamyhel elt ofeser et
eTew udivehtY%s vadeso sowht goto te eveed vet ateh ome st ap
| gearedde at Mtkeelate ve wredie orld tte Tatalq ye ono w ghekhr
dad? dns 4hi tera homed quedo oid at tuntetees we tae yates
rewellot an gamtadm ni eas mo ftom 2° deoheeted to abeuemy besate ead 14

@ agixem odd qo ecmetod etolomes # aan sttuamodg 30 cn
~ aun atte te tou ed

to mid moqu hovron embd yma ¢o 2e%p gee concen om” daatt
feiss @ goqu ganas aide opalg of * * aby ygemtedie tem

q
fi
pili at hi Ra BES
aan «
yore |
heey 4
oy ia

",oae on? animtk ed dud
ema) eno

isabre tot 94 badada | | e )

oh of frat. gets
¥ “ : of £ 7 _ Sap a Aas RS ; . a “ ah vf « Ba
an to ah ious lt dene a i - ee aeoeu ome ot ua “py se

salieri

bewteone Valémtaty* unas So te aim Sood Aner al .

The common law reoerd further diwelesea that on April
7p 1933, ofter a hearing upon defendent's metion, the court refused
te vadate the judgment and ordered that 1% stand in full foree and
effect as of the dute of its renditiong that on pri 14e L¥55_ on
a further heering defendent's motion for a recenaideratien Was
éemieds and that subsequently and within opt time defendant's vlad
ef exceptions, containing ail affidavits that were presented an the
hearings, Wau apsrewed ty the eourt and filed.
in defendant's affidavit, eworn to on Bareh Sl, and filed
om April 3, 1933, he slieved im substance thet he 44 nat tearn of
the entry of the ex parte judgment, rendered ageinet him on March
AGth, until March 20th) thet he hes @ complete defense se pieine
Sifts agtion in that he did sat apiak or publish om March 15th,
or 6% any other time, the slanderous words of or wonderning pleintifft,
ae chorged in plaintiff's deelaration; that when, on Deoesber By
1931, the court permitted defendant's then attorney te withdraw bie
appenranes in the cause defendant did not employ other counse’
“because of plaintiff's promises ant agreements,” namely, that
| "sometime during April, 1032," in a converention he had eith plein«
tiff about the pending eauaes “plaintiff promised and sgreed net te
prosecute thie action but to digmige the ermeg” that “eines that
fime, on several secession (the last during the month of Yarets
1952)» plaintiff statee te affiant that said cause had been duly
Giemiseed, and that offiant, welying thervon, took mo further actian
7 im connection with the defenee.* <4ad defendant further alieged that

he “hed no knowledge or motice of the withdraws. and substitutton

of attorneys for plaintiff," and that “no notice soa ewer at any time
} od upon him, ner upon his former attorney before hie withtrawal,
“Wy pleintire or his otwrney, to place the onuse upon a trial

Pritt
}
i
{)
1

| Kings oo tadé neeudoekh vaidart brew wed women ae
| lid honthet tuyos oly quatsom af dmohmetoh nage gabieed A oP ha ghORl 9f
( has cove? Litnh trade dh todd herebee hap ieomptat, eld oeamewy 0?
() nw g2tie ah Atego tact yeenksinn at: eo mtn seit Re om Hell
te aoe motiexohigaeost A x0? Bed su wt ama becoizas gab anes cadena 2
ii LEtd a tdrsbawke® pubs sige mitetstw be ekinoupenden aoailt rue gbedme®
ata ae dedeoney ewww dad dedendh te Lis qubahaiwen sanobsquons Ye
abeais ee ee asin se eed |
aah as ate itornit to! of ecto yabwoue ie a? sreibere mel m ‘at
te meted dont Ste od seks sonssedvn ui toypitn wt 00 nw 0
] doxait ao mid fotthige Soueodv® etateaget, stag xp ot te ‘get eats
esihitig o2 eamrtes pie Leoe 2 ast od anak aso8 svt it Lo

ae0S dovell me doidua xo dange doe Pie get dace Oh potion ‘armne |

attisntalg yalaceeres 39 to woraw esone beta od goats cadto yee, AB to
ad, xadaoned Go gies dod fmutdata dey ekuiiatela oh degsaste 4

aid warbdtaw o2 ywaxosie mods a'¢mahag te) gett beeg ee ose es

Sanmsoa aadeo -yolque foe, beh. tmasmote® SeRso att ok optats

Jedd gytomon “,asoomertgs ban sombeneng, at ruiatets, % paHUn®

omhaig ftw Mad ok ceolian ieee 9 sh “qhttt hbo gated oat aime

ot goa deetge bas toalmorg Visgielg" geamee gol omg od tude sats
a add vonte” todd “yomaa ie, agkogth ge aud motine vids © suse
qilgrsatl Yo amon, gale gntvurh saad, ost) agetaaone Lexaves
chub word had portse bien tote HRARA Be eos rei
wok sba vedtdaw2 om dood swodses) gubete .fanttta, indi bos _dequtemtt
$au2 bupeiie xaldwt taskested bai “sauceted ome athe mob aos 9 |
“ mokeuahtadan bea’ Luwaxbaddw od), Ye e08iom ” wabotive

|) cuts sun. t. ste som soli si dads boa "4342:

ghannnetty wid exoled weneruo sta ‘ourso? ahs oes Sf

SB it wee, Le

Dead 5 ou genes ot ont 08. ial a oie

The counter affidavits of plaintiff's attorsey, omit,
and of his sssistant, Harelik, are to the effeet that on January
299 19329 defendant wae net ified by a registered letter that the
Cause would be pleeed upen the trisl Culendery that the Letter ro
addressed to ¢eferdant in eare of “City Halle Berwyn, Tlidineis s*
ane that a regietry resurng reoe@ipts signed "Trank 7, Broucok, by
=vwelyn Cerny” eas returned te aremin. The eslient allegatione tn
plaintiff's counter affiduvit are that in January, 1032, the said
“Evelyn Cerny waq the sceretary in eharge of the office of Prank
Je Broucek, which wie at the time leoented im the City Hall ef
Rerwyn, Illineis3* thet he (plaintiff) "had never at omy time hele
any conversation with defendant in which I stated» indicated
er implied that I would Cigmige or eouse to be diemigsed the sbeve
entitled exuses or that I would vot presteute the eames” thet
Plaintiff, shortly after defendant hod spoken and publiehed anda
salnderous words, caused defendant to be crimimally presecuted and
fined therefor befere a dustioe of the pensey and that “Sohn 6.
jiruby, who appeared as defendant *s aiterney befere the oowmnt y
Court, attempting to avail for his client the benefite of the
Insolvent Debtor's Aety, teld thie affient thet the judewent would
be settled and odjusted."
The bill of exceptions further diseleees that on April

7, 1933, when defendant's motion te set aside the judgment first
eeme on for herring defendant avked leave te file three additienal
affidevita, for the purpose of eontrecioting certain strtemente
made by plaimtiff im hie seid vounter-affidavits, = one by defend-
ent, and the others by axid Hruby and ome Kchert Brown. Upon

| Objections being made by plaintiff's attormey, the court refused

* aliew said additional sffidavite te be filed, or to soneider

NX
Le

Dine, ané thereupon, «fter argument, entered the orcer in question,

a to set awide emid judgment against dafendent of $5 _000,

RGR! goed se errno aha to. mdb BA, eodeweo oat

el ae bald anette, oat OF ona stthetalt ataatetene ets 2o, Ane
awit dade mpdtud, beedalges # ud bottives amv dngamo tah 98th 905
anw wedded gaia Basis qiehaadag, Seknd a8) eae. monks of Riaow SAeee,
“pedomlscl gigrred giiah yoko" Be gomm oe dmabrotes a8 fagaete hs
ee edoowo nd, 4% amex” boda pigksast tag watokges @.d084 PAG,
ab sapidogatia demtsac ot ...cthaurss of jermioy sae “yave’, mytove.
phan wld _RHOL otuaumel me det one, dhystk Ths spam er rhh gekate

_ Mrawt to enkite end te sgyetio wm. qrotesone wenn gene? exter
Yo Aiak yoko ote, ab aod good coke Oat FH, OFM, Hodder «alecwont, ksh
bind omhe yam te semen Sed” (abt snkesa) oo dee “qudems ish, amprca
pedandind | eoetnde, 1 glntde ab tmebwa be, delw aeiinaxonnes, me
ovate wid: spate, WH euitae to sgdsmke akwow t dats bed Sqash 20,

aber, nota oe ns: tens penne eae xs ose
bus ‘soteunenen bonus od oF daahaoteb bonswe aniron auustadan
10. aol’ tate dun qooneg ade 20 ationh exared ro kota, bowel
_ yarueo att ora lod Yatatsa aitemistot as kermeqgge mite 4
att te eotioned oad tne ow Aor ob savestn ame
oar eee aeRO a NI SE |
ee Rd vatsten a6
Sings mo rr pec eats u0 ammkeqaaxe te
dmak> dmoeghal ats whhne dea ot gndkiam af eLAkHe el PT
Aagekithae oouls ohh ae owned byl pontine Rey pus es,
atmmesote miesrey gabsatoatsnon Ye sncquing of? mO%. 94h hk
-haptel yd ono = pediwan’ Cheese dames Bs
Mog smwenth @xade't ao hem, Nett at
venues dase, acts, wenn wt sabe ag ”

mils oe, Pa pie t

Kiweed

408,88 Yo serrdaakes somtage sreaagtut ota po ott bi of

f ! fi
Te We ey »

entered as above stated on March 16, 1933. |
faid additional affidavits are contained in the bill of
exceptions, The salient allegations ef defendant's affidavit are
that “Zvelyn Cerny, the perch who it is alleged signed « registry
reeeipt for a letter addressed to thie cefendent by pleintifets
StiCrneys wee sever pt any $i time Big seoxetary wor employed by him
in any mennerg” that neither éuring January, 1932) Her at any
other times, was she in charge of defendant's office or working
therein; that defendant RéVer Feeeived or say said ela imed regige
tered letters and that he “never aS any time mode any admission
that he Bad used the language attributed to him in the devlaration.”
in Hruby's affidavit, while emitting that he appeared ag defendant "5
attorney “before the county court," he alieged that he “newer at any
time told plaintiff or amy ome else that the judguwnt in this ease
would be wettled and adjusted.” In Srowa's affidevit he clieged
that “sometime im the latter part of the yeor 1931," he was prenens
ai & conversation between plaintiff? and defendant im the city hall
at Berwyn; that he heard plointirr ony to defendant thet he (laine
tiff) "wes grateful to defendont for what defendant had done for hig
in commection with reinetating him (pleintiff) as Felice Hagistrate,
that he expected mot to run agein when his term expired, thet he
would help defendant gvin the office ef Police Hogiletrates, thet
Be_woulé not prosecute tho suit he had filed but would diomies tt,
that he would forget ali that had securred during the eompaign, and
‘hat Broucek (defendant) should do Likewise."

After a eareful considorstion ef the present reeerd ey
have reached the conclusion that the court erred in refusing on
April 7, 1933, te grant defendant's motion to set aside said 8% parte
judgment fer 35,000, entered agninat defendant on March lé,y 1934.

It clearly appeare that eontrary .¢ rules Nowe 21 and 23

.oeak got moun bo boaads evade es bounds
ee ftie ou) af bonkutnon oxe sebveni ta ‘Hncobsbohe phos

ove thyabt tha etienbested to eantd mye ikn mation oft sannbiqeoxe

wie igen S bottyte oopelia at oh ole nowtog siti ayes “mutewit™ ‘gah

Pb ex rab aig ee gasteotes eidé ad pounetohe redder a tot ‘sqteoes |

sie xé_novoteas. om Sindoroos elas sub )_qus dn eewet eam “emote

7 qite as Sal «See eetawsiat syn att xeddtow indd “qramaa wo a

| “patil tow Br) gekric 4° dRobeto'to ‘te ay utis ot ode naw ude . 91 i

walgox bombals hkoa gaa 20 baptopen cages siabeewte’ asda tnkorodi

eakankoie ue thaw mtd one 36 uowon” ont dente ony ‘prota bere

a,mabigubtoos add mt abd of dodmdieiie ngairmnnt ost bea bat ot tad

aténabneteh as wpaaeage at gate cat sttebe othe satvebh ita “gh eegeeath al

yen de coven" of tal begolic wd *, ener tems “aa oxated® eettserts
wae ste nt Seromiat, et ped? sate sre yee “6 eiheetate ‘efor sis
pijatis et dhranrtin WYaes® wt eodawbon bee bolted | os b fue
ior daw od EE ‘aang old he gusq soddal odd Al om i
Lind “aie oo) wl thatato'ted te Videatabe fnowded matdsaxornos he |
entaia) of fall sdotextol ef Yb itvatotg tess at Yatd dpe et
ait vor ome bad Matstottoh tate vo? cqatmetos O¢ Ivteewry aad (REE
sesedin tga oot fet se fyeegadaty) mbt pee datenter datw eel ssoncae me
ad fade ghoxtqnn svnd oh tebe aboge mire OF fo dotovagew ol Gault’
fodd gotexdetgel soit te golvee silt — Lemwegee ol og poppe
aif selunth bfiow tnd onihh hed ot tne. ods odmwonnome ot plato
een ‘aalagmes wld patent porwevoe bad dete tha ere wer > a at
‘wy oakonttt ob Skint engueapeorh 9 uO%

aw Sipoos semaere ‘att ‘to woltateblawes Luthor

te ‘gateaton pk bows fate > ls hee - fe

- B80k 9k Hovteil no ia toe!

s bn a” enc sole oF sqoeinos + tat wrens Coney re ale

i to oe tanto
a

hes hae

ote

of the circuit court and of the proviclensa ef eection 1é ef

said former “reactice Act (in ferce prier to January ly 1934),
defendant (his former attorney having withérern «ce ouch in the
mlsnder suit) ¢ic not reveive persona) notice am dintingwiehed
from notice by mail that aiid comse wowlé be placed upon the

trial exlendars In our opinion suek personal metice ia required
amé@ the lock of it ecenulitutes an error of fact within the meaning
of section 39 of said former practice act. (See Risedorf ve Fyfe,
260 Ikie Appe 122, 126; EOs ve Nulopkns, 259 [lle App. 262, 2659
idee Rettnine She ¥s Jeuian S64 Tile Appe 163, 167-85 Chienge
Tithe & Trust Coo vs» lauletta, 265 111. App. 564, 568% Grebowaki y¥.
Nacleokeys 257 tlle Appe 484_ 4913 Hej ve omerigon Bottle Cos, 262
Ills 362) 364-5.) Furthermore, in our opinion, it sufficiently

appears that cefendant, personally, did not receive by mail a motive
that said ecuse would be placed upom the trisl enlender. Further«
more, in our opinion, it sufficiently appesrs thet after defendant's
former attorney hac withdrewn from the ease, plaintiff’, by his atate-
mente ami representations te defendant that the slander suit would
net further be progseeuted But would be dimmiesed, caused defendant

to entertain a belief that he need not teke amy further stepa in

the cefense of the guite (See Shapmen vs American Life Inge Coe,

292 Tlie 179, 189.) mé we are of the opinion thet the court,
im view of the statements contained in the counter affidavit of
Plaintiff, erred im refusing ioc consider defendant's additional
affidavis ané the effidavite of Hraby and Brown.

The order of the cirewit court of April 7, 1933, refusing
te vacate the ex parte judgment in the slander suit ageinst defendant
ef March ld, 1935, ie reversed, and the csuce te remanced with dire

eetions to the cireuilt court toe eet aside acid Judgment, anc io have

# trial of the elender suit upon ite meriteae
BVER SEE AMD HEMAMOED SITH DIAC CT ANS.

Et
Ow@llivan, P. Jeg and Scanlan, Jey concure

|) quae esas seuh 22th cae atoms

' ‘
i
i 7
h q te 5L noltoee te ase ket yo ag te ime Pxmog dtawsio of! te
q _ a(PEPk ok Yrounel of welsq vosnt at) fo opdtoets aoa Blew

i ont? at Hosa an mere chaste antvast auras S38 sours pabst) a a heh

badietematouth ae oehton iaiie 28 avisawe faa Ob {okie comele

wed mew beuaty oe biwow aad Bien dail’ Ehaa xd wp dion moet
borcksyyes ws wold son Lenow reg fase motetye ial or ocahas lay, data
1 petiiteot sald sist Saw tout, to Tonto a apledi denen a8 te deck edd ame

| ~sO2ME oY Raphosts eet) Cok. pohtonsg wommg? blog te 26 mabteen 20
yeaa AMES, 488K mit ie won

eS Sn

one Be gaa ace * “uh tet bas ,
a¥Atnwedezh (808 9b08 oags o Li! SOR

|) sae goo eksd0M eomtzamn oy hall 460 9200 a - 70s axelantaat

wtmetet ren sf ynotatqo we ak qeromodenat (oGq abe A886 hth
eolson a fise vi evisoes #ou bib aritoume reg gdmabestad sats sSPaOREe:
wre i vtabreton Labse add aoqe besala of ‘Biuow suweg bhne dont

i)
|) a* seabaoted sot%a sans axnoque Utes to Te ak _uedatge we Rad ome,
i

“odads and uw «Montesa enaee ead moet mwavieidie bat yortos ga xoarrey
aLvow oka toomnke ods $ agi taba tem S¢ BROdi aiaanetqsy dae eee

a
i) énabxo xed So mae sdowatmath od binow ta€ iedsomeng ef vodsaw? sqm:

| : ween Tams He Yous ond tort boom ge fad! Wehled 2 ategagdas, 62.
] _a209_ sal LL mepizoms oy maggad® 992) «dtwa md? te eusteted nah:

f etxwes ofl Gad? colatqe edt to exe ow bei (ORE ORL LET ROB. |
4 te divndi tia tesago ora P33 Henk edatew ) a |
| |

| Lang blobs v'snndgo%eb robles o¢ wduates a howe ae
I pubawioy gG8RL 40 Ling 3 sama — one a3 sebie et
tnabsotoo Santee stam cobwake sd? mk soomye

Ry ahd athe bodhrmiex af soateo ods dem 9! 7
. ota of dem ytaeemtyl tive ebtee Yon oF oti

) lito conan ww oeettzen oht megs Siam. PePeamn, 94

php ost ot os a
My Pues SRO "a

36ano ~/ / rd

\
uy
Ce le Te COUP ai 1a, /
Plaintirt and heiitiaal f

WILLIAM YERER, LUCILLE VERGE and
HRANCES SIVENS (gued ae Mary doe),

AePbaL YRC
BUMICIPAL 2QuURy

Defendants.
OP Cais
6}
FRANCES GIVENS 2%
. Appellee. ot 4 1 ofe 653°

weer ee ee er

Mie JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVEHED THE OPISIGN GF THE coun,

m September 19, L852, plainticr sommene¢d in the
municipal ewurt an eetien tn replewin to recover the poosesuian

of am sutomebile, deeeribes in the affidayit an « *Ssekne Gedan

(2952), Serial Hos CLATL, Motor Ko. Mexese, together with a1
equipment and accesveries.” frog the beiligr’s vcturn on the
erit 4% appecra that om September ecthe he replevied the aubomebile
ang Mdeliverce the game te plaintiff," ené that on the feliewing
day he wervee the writ om "YWre,. ¥, fivenn. sued es Bary Roe.
| Therenfter the joint =ppenranes of P4liiem ané imeille “eher and
Frances Givers sas entered by their attorneys, avd on Yebruery 4,
AOSD, the twe ebers filed om affiesvit of merite, swore te by
Beid Prances Sivens ne their esent. r Pebrupry 25, 1933, the
“court, “by sgrecnent of plntntit ant cofendente," ordered thet
the evit be g45 pete both “cherg. This left the suit
méing only ax ageinet Franeen Stivenn. Thereafter there ene a

S¥iei bevore the court without « jury, at whick « meen ef ore
Gocumentusy evidenee waa introduced, and at its eunclusion
the caise waa continued to April 7) 1933, for dceivion, on which

lay, after arguments, the court feud “the right of property

Bisson, LATOR
‘ay GOALS Ey

4 helt be

allemand convene om “g

“ mobonsn04, 8 ast wovooet es totes aus n | —e ‘

ek na bs sottapot 008i 10 rot0m Lp
: “efi ae wane o PEL oe he

ettvomste » oats wobvosere af aston oitrsa tes

_Babwotso® gala ne ‘sats bees seranentats ef — ont
* 908 Fats na bows “aerate is sone = ie ‘oft
tea wer “etftout ‘a8 matt he te eocsuroags “gatoy ad

” yrersdt tue bes ewe ft , ata “a bao a
_ Be OF eee, anebreet to pteninirtn ms vs a ae

“eat s5ECE | — wee a |

datdw mo enolotood io nee eer 0 esate , ar
wmicoasnee es geahy ante” beret pape or ‘een: i

-Se

in cefendant, Eres *+ Givens” and, efter denying ploimtifr'ts
motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, ed judged that
she “have and recover of the plaintiff the possession ef the
property involved," that "a erit of

that she recover her eoets, The present appeal by plaintir¢
followed »

Tm enid affidavit of morita, Frances Givens alleged that
"she is the ¢uly authorized agent of the defendants, ‘ilitem and
iuellle feber," thet she is acquainted with the facta, aad that she
believes that “sald defendants” have a good defense te the auit
upon the merits. che further alleged im substance:

That prier te May 14, 1932, *on Wehalf sf said defendants”
she wag in megotiationy in Chicago wlth the "Seyul tolea & lervice
See" (an wiineerporated company, of ee Jaeeb Se Goldenberg was
the preprietcr, hereinafter referred te the Seles (oe) for the

ee of a nee Reoekne Sedan autineibe. “with agcesseries at. the

price of 57159 that these necotistions wees had with « agest af
the Sales Coe, ene John Putiersen; that on may Lay LOS2 9 ake yee on
meeount the aum of (215 in cach, and alse the mam of $550, "yw dee
pores” t@ the Cales “oe of am usec Lincoln sedans” leaving a balance
wupald of $40%, “whieh said sum it one agree? ahold be eadd in
Monthly instalimente ever a yates ef one years” that Patterson
'Fepresented to her ané ta aa defenéente that anid sum of 845°
“would be carried by" the & that *atsersen presented ‘+e
the defendente (the “ebers) "an instrument : 1 bh whieh he «aked
them to sign, esying that he would fiil im the bleake the tore aud
eoenéitions of the «ele and the pawmenta te ie wade ae shove net
forths* Hat thereupon they, reay dig api Satierson's representations,
“executed anid inetrument in blank® (= comlitionwal axles contrset,
OH & printed Forms dated Hay it 2952, With said Lales Ge, ingles ing
anid defendant's nete fer the totel snout of enid mon shy inetali«-
enka, @ee.)i tat thereaiius cuichiants Beart that “piains acy
tea we the ascignes" of seid contract and note, andi» uper
perce igntions fewme she gas to be 46 plaintiff's posscanion,
beoring ¢ andante’ eignaturess “whieh ag effiant believes, are
semis gr mmag a Pee} Gi LGlombantus” Slabs howeves, gate contract
rts te initial payments of enly | » inatend of 9515 az
‘ jemualiy mace by aiiioni for the benefii of cefemiawts, aad alee a

ins nee charge of #800165 which was never agreeé to by dofenantes"
Ene ticks beonuse of the forezeing, aifiant "Jeules that piniat

the owner of the automobile degeribed ix the writ, or is ent itled
| $a¢ pessecuice thereof.”

Gn the trink pleistift, oc make aus ita gr:

——- a

@ SHAE»

led goid Geléowberg ae & witueas, Orv Imtrodumsd in evicenge ia)
® conditions] seles seentract with the Tales Co. fer tae antomcbdile
Question, signed by the twe “ebera at Milwaukee, Sisconsin, under

afte
a'kiiemisig gaebensd todte «ie “Senewi® +* sack ,inabacted at
o<cld bogtubhe gimoaghet te fawn ai i Leics won 2 0% esto! 20m
als % tehesoneoy old Tiliniate saz te tevecet bea overt™ ede
fiw “,ouent cbuedad onpofer te tiuw e* cade %, hoviovnd Ur reqong
titsatalg yO Laoqas suenpzy edt onduod ved covooes ode tnd
» « bewolfot

tad? bogetia anevi® 2eencrt qadtuom Yo ttvablite btee pl ce
bem satiii’ gavembretes aft to trope bout apate sn qtee ‘alt at ada"
asin dad bus gudoat off Aehw bedmtaupoa af sale todd “guode? eLitomt
“tise wd? of sented boog @ oved “etuahaelos bla" tals sivotted
teonasedie @i boygotia pro od sadirom od apqw

Biea to

soavsas A asia: ry on* “a “ast 9
gay Bre * oe 2% enim |
po Ppa (eo! setad op oo ae Pod o. ph ha ee aot

ge eoitesssess diiw eLitemeive sakes gmloet ven 2
te dnege oe tvie hed ever eeotipt tomer wpads staste
mo Shay eile ySS@L _hK Yad we dads paowrtesdx’ miot ome 5000 okae.

woh wh 46084 Yo see ext? axle bra steno wk OL05 Se ame ott

eetaled @ vook “grtebee aleoutd - oe
mt Bhan ac afwnie hooray nsw $2 ame, b i see caee fe ees

moeietigs Sas “gusey ome Te Sede Ee
moe gel + i os ew ta 2 rear seoneTg
of bedase monte ssa eres a
Wietian oh Hos a
baa qmued mid o a Shak x? ya tare
om a eves en hes of oe ad ‘¥e
a8 ROL o? oa s Brom eee
efostinan sefze Lanolsi bass ay “3 sad
gaiseloul goer wetwi biew déiw _Kee
Big by is moat bina To dames :

rn kM Secl ue
cise Sad? aglwal* faust a gigte
hoLittes af ce ytiew ot mk bowie
sense steak als ehh sun odam oF evitontatg dade wed 0° t
(s) oeematys ct benwherteb aco ponertiter ke we Ura stoe Boe
PAbMoiaine ons cor 400 antnd erie site tomeinwe metas Lente

robm pBhasoogsl svodluewlld ta wieder awe oats: et donate ¢ i

a hy

gate of Ray 14, 1932, and which hed attached thereto the «ritten
acgigmment ef the contract by the Onlew Coe $6 plaintiff, ef the
aume date, together with all itu right, title ani interest in and
to anid auiomedile; (%) the jucgment note of the “ebers, of the
Bome Gute, for G56G0LG, paywble to the order ef the “eles Cos in
22 equal monthiy installments of 046068, with interest, = the first
inetealiment being paynble ane month after said date at plaintiff's
office in Chicago, and the nets bearimg the indersement ef the
Sales Coe, without recourse, to pleintiffy amd (¢) toe original
receipts, procuced by “raneces Sivers, civen by glaintiivf te her,
under the respective catea of dame 15th anc July 2lute 193%, showing
Swe payments to it of 246068 each, + being for the ‘iret swe

tue on auid centract and sote. ‘Thereupen her attorney
admitted that “ug further payments were mecy” te plaintiff on ssid
gentyact and mete. The contract contains previsions oa are ucwally

fownd in cenditienal esles' cowtra te} the autemebile in question

is fully cescribed; the “gagk acliing price,* including the extra
equlgment, ie stated te he °715, and the “Sime priee,* which includes
a “fimance charge of J8)0l¢," is stated te be 2795016; ef the lat
mentioned price 16 is stated that a payment thervon of $225 hes been
unde, and that the balance due of 2560.16 (the amount ef eaid note)
ia to be poid in “12 equal monthly payments of 046068." Goldenberg,
proprieter of the Solee “o«, testified in sub scarce that he wae
present in hie Chicage office when the blake of the printed forms
ef the contract ond mote were filled in by sypeur it ings thas the
instruments, se filled ing were taken By Jehan Pebterecn te Bilwaukee,
Piseonein, to be there signed by the “obers and returned to him
(Soldenberg)? that the instruments were returnec to Sim bearing

4 the Yebers’ siguatures thereeng that he “sold the contract anc note
te plaimiiffy* that he signed the ossignment of the contract to
Plaintiff and indereed the notes that be then mace out a draft for

ate

Weds xs od CAorede kodoadta hod dolde hae BERL adL yh XO-odad
at 29 qBidentaig of 400 evfet a? Yo domsemoo ost Lo snommptene
fers mg duecedmt Bea oLed2 eiitgia aff ie saiw yvesianged «edad omg
ag? 29 gexede oe to otom smompont ott (¢) talidemmian obese od
Mi 209 guise edd Ye sobre end of eddoyoy 96400006 x02 gedab omen
‘text? edi ~ giesisdmi tiie ¢8d0$63 Bo ateomiLedent yisienom Sewpe BL
a'tisdsialg 3s star Seo ss¢ta dene exo addeyeg aoted #nemlfetenk
ods Yo énemsetohnd ed yrktned. vos ofs baw yogcnidd at solite
- hemtgize one (9) dae 12 itetodG oo arat@set spomtiw ¢90 sete,
sted ef Yikeaielg ww meviy yaneveo geomext ys Seowdotg gadgkeose
gaiwada g8h0L gtake ydol mum 96k sah to eodnd evi tooqaet ede” teeme
, ARTES edd 19d Abed ¢ adnng Reh: Bo: 8h ee ee haw
vonsadia wast moquotedl
biog wo Tihiakedg os | 28M, 3
Utawaih ora ag enetalvory vatatens Seantnes 4a. “seton taa toantaes:
sokiaony mt akidomasia sha fed-andeoo ‘avies Senstaioaoe wk 0
outs ed) gabbekeut “sertzg gubling gen” ont qeodiassed yLiet eh
aobulent detie *yootsq gate" sels ba aRETE ov of dotase et qummmytepy
Puss ott ts eaLeRery oe 0 basede a ef w became i ’ : om
need wn 2829 Yo aos touts trong, * saute betate of Jt volrg bemetineat
(ston dtoa Yo duwoma act?) BL+0986 ie wh pas daeh snes bm
sateduobied 6806809 te strong yee int, yal £° nt hteg wit od Wit

“att tnd teats omy ot A we MO com
soon 0P soso a stot yt clas selenite:

ys ys oa Bl i 3 eee: a og rv ee i we
et Hist a ioe ooan om ost doxtd colin wld oeexehes ise

#43) ané attached said note and sentract aa a0 assigned to aaid
Graftj ang that thereafter plaimiiff paid the draft and the Giles
Coe received Y4Bue

svancet Givens testified at eeneiderable longth beth
G8 direes and cress-eiaminubieg, and she called az a witness aadd
Ciiliam Veber. Vinimtift, in reputial, thereupon called as wite
h@seee anid sokm Pattiergen acd also Joan Ls, Weitiaus and BH. Me
Toate, xeeapectively bose attorney and eelleetion wenager fer
Plainci(f’, and introdueea in evidence vertain vritinge. in aur}
rebuttal franeom Givens ansé (eber gave further tectiseny anc ahe
intraduced in evidence oikex weiitinge. Fe useful. surpone will be
geryee im detallimg the teetimeny ef these witnesses. “wtf iee 46
to aay that frem She entire evidence, corel ané dommcnteary, the
foilowing salient facts apperred! Sarly im ‘pril, 1952, Frances
Givens Visited the calles <c¢e's place qf business Tes tae purpoed
ei purchasing tox Bereelf a new automotziiec pariiaiay om time pay-
wents akc partially by an siiewanee on Aexy o)d Lincéin susomebilees
She macy out and signed A istadiei “eredit appiie:tions” sowing
that the same sowid be suimisted te a0) Bulemeiie CAnance compiigts
{Wo ouch Gompauies rejeeiws the appidivation. Pinas.y, GAk oateaud
ts be filied owt smotherxy ayphicntion im the same of her neplets
Cihliem ieher, then in Nilesikec, giviag to ®stsersem oi. cotadde
es 36 Bin finmucial standings sie. “Mis appaicutiow proving +0
Be accepiable, the canditiomel scales’ cauivnet suc nohe aaars mene
tioned wers sigued by She “chers anc delivered. The contragt, te
fe woul in such dustrumentc, seucrved the title te and qvaerahip

of the new automobile im the “ales “oes or dbs negigugs, witil the

entixe deferred imdebtcdsess, amounting te $OGUs)lé, should be Cully
geicd. ‘Tele mmow:t wee te be padd tm Svelre oquad me ihiy ingjalle
mente of (46.60 each. fier the conireet and mele, Wy aeoagemeus

ang indorsenent, bad come inte the poaseseion of plainvirts an

ohm

Bhwe of Sommiane OG Be Toatteee eer nike bagdexian aw ObOG
wofad of? haa tare odd bhag Wegiadg wee hweweds cade dame g ahah
Med digaak aidasshianse te veal teased Re LO se Ora eho oe
hiss ascniiv « so belteu oie Sam .seii<aimaesseeTs bn, dee iiine
ojiw wa baliws aequasnals glaséeden Bh ghidenbalt «vedo mebline
oll +H bow TandtieW ». slot onde bas arecotte tot tine aoewee
( eo2 topemas mdliesiles dna ysmwdsa coved Yeviisogess qedeut
ome Gh .ageitise siaéie, eeneatye oh ocoubotiat nem »hhhomtaty
ada tee <nomtioes reddit covey sede be enovdd govmen’, Laddudon
od Likw onoqrwe Gitecw of «aptiihey sosve. comebheo, mt. sonubentat
at sollte ,eousondhy egods Yo ymombtoas sce yatdhaded ad Sownee
| ONE AYIntxemed dia Late ooo bive ethene. ole iain adie
Menaerth, «lbhia ore nt eieale # ints oeRp ,

. PRoq et Ot eeoakaue Xe, poalgvahed enine allele hail
“Yad tm? mo Yialiiag siitomedss soe & Manied vor yabeastrg, To
sie wits akogMld bLe sod mo evneRaiio as 4H Lhhasetog aan eae
“(pitbwowl “anoldvalfuge ditexe" bedteney.o beape, dum: ug minee ome
i nptagaos Boih: Phidamiae ae Of Onl slaw oe Blgoe og sts tad
_ benteo ole eyitont? .neligetigae pat aadmales eoluaquoe some ove
a wedigoa aacd lg enon ai? a aeltanllage smdtie due dOlLe? edad
aktaiod tks Houtveta® af gidvdy eeealmewhbd wl mods s8edoe maha

of galvom aeidasiiqgs ald? . .ade sailiee te ntenena ante
“SO oYous OOH Joie Fomziton 'apdus.. Lead
as afestiags ait sbysoyttob aay aang
ghicecouwo baa a ekeee Say DOVkrao% quieras en sowie mt
sets Lh do sisal 2th xo 4400 ontop at ak oLbdvaayeus
u's od bLiseate rode way oe weed a fem geunton td
witososh ‘esta scan kanye eriegt att ate oc o
Sessa es w stent jas fectime as nt iy

ia he Re a

a j a Widenbatg te wotenos00q vase

ale

automobile finacey sompay, 1% mailed te the Vebere at HLALWRUREe yg
wader date of Hay 1%, 1938, a Letter or notice, whisk shority
thereafter was zeceived by Franeen Givens by mil from the ‘eherm,
Siving full datailed particulars of the entire tranaact ton,
deseriving ths <utomesile is question, snd saying’ "“s are pleased
to netify you thas we Have purchased frem yours dealer * « Qe
ésouments you signed when tekin: eelivery of the coumedity deseribed
hereame For your cosvenienge was ave indigeted the amewst of
your olign tions BuOWNE of your inebuliments, an’ the des dates
Bake ench peyment ¢. ieGeh 5G eux office, * & ,* After thie letter
oF notice heé wenn tetcived by Frevces Sirens phe pata ia Dials ite
at ite efvier in Sleaze the first cen imestclinente ef $46.68 Cauchy
due veepeotively en June lish and July Iithe 195%, bet netiher eke
mer the “chery ever made any Surther paymerte em the mete ox gone
tract te plaintire.
; after a careful review =f aL] the evicenee we have renehed
_ the eomeluston shot the eeuri's finding and JEIPLINS, abhaye mont Loned»
are contrary te the elesr Pee poe cranea el tae svidenwse and tant the
| fessent must be vever avd, “LLG numy OF the evideage intrecuged on
) She tried by Frances Giveus tence: 4. “Mttedna Une celenses tu plainme

tiff's suit om wentionet te che alticavet of merates plaimeiifi,

évieence is overvhelminele i¢ the COUUEAS Fe SBP LRermgres ia our
Opinion, it wuct be hel@ thas ker BCLit, in paydsig te plaliasige withe
Gut sefeetion the exact snes ef the fizet tue LicteLimemig ag mene
tioned im the eunettioast ootest COMEISG4 GLEGE Bade comiwaect Bad
been asaiqned to plainsic’ Wy the Seles Seay amowried te a €eund Lentlon
Of waid contract ey hee agceriimg i¢ ite term,

Agr2eréinely, the fudgecah ef che BMBAeh ek oousk ef Age dy
7, 1888, fe reweraed, ane pepe: dy witured here Gat the rigmt te
the poratemion of the oniorebile is (VESl1GH Vas od ie in tke pledne

“bier Oe Ie Te Corporation
_— ." ' ROVERSK2 AND JUDQMENE BEA,
ivats Pe Jey and Seanlan, Js, COU Cite

oR.

covdietin tn etetes advo? bnthwm thus canesan,onaant® otidenetee,
shsxets dota spotter te wetted # edbRL @2h Wh Me sted xebow,
aaxede! ott autt than ye amers? asonart yd devivoss caw soz teonety,
° gpol¢osntand otiges ane Te wrmliod sing belied ed. Sivt peirig
hone ty ox a rgudqae bes asain na olisqumetua vat gretél- pes,

iggy * & ne dash seey xo Segeeorud eve Oo gaeléd moy MEL oR: am

bedixewel yahhonmew oa he enttegele natty berghy soe wersemae

%o Dovomn ots Heteed hak ovad oe gona corned aey THE anh:
sede web edd tite gyal cherh see 26 AMOI #8

se¢eol etd ete % * * _soktie mie ee Ieee
Meenas of btey ofa amovho Pe A i RG Bi
dias BODES Yo wiromt Latent amd sen wale opooksle mh oak te, af} £%
ede Yonsion Wie «Une LqhteL katy den Aaah oct me YEA 9988. PAE
eo do eso ate mo adape eR wk Re Re a9, ROT ui? ‘son
Ha Thetatelg, at toast
bedonoe Peak ow sondtive af ihm to wekwoe, GRID BTW say
qborohinem eyods gtmongho(, bear gritos whic ae dege, okeniguee, i.
ete Vid tha Verivhire bid Le wortaxomeengen conde, Of aF wots ote
pe hocsbokdit Sonndive ene Re wmow oFkel oehonnewes, od Saat teomghah,
emialy oi wodawtes ais abedewn oA uate? seta cooaatt ys fats! set
d'tivvsinig qadimen % dienttTin aff of bemeks nom 64, a hts apy
‘See wk coneubastocust so ytettano vehten cofeababedesaye at RRR
oghgie ‘¥ebiniadg et aakya ai gholsoa peat. ude. Bint od. toga 22, minty
enem uo paebbidsatch oud Gict1 ead Ye demoma Saame: ome tone ap
hadi Poddtine biow’ redte’ Goetdany ‘anton iocgtatione ett at honpes
mobases nail is OF Bysraronmy gee’ west. sali gh “tenteta et bomatnen om
a anime ef oo patoumote teat yt fonsseme i

ef telaks urls Said orks Gortsime ab psec, teat adomsowes at
nba “ue wk ad bycal wat nok dowiy ab Ede tom Mbt Te eelaaqen
kaa neem

S8a10

PISS OF Facte
We find a5 & feet that the right to the Ppeantes ion
of the automobile involved iu chia cane tea am ig ig the
PlBimbA( Ts Ce de Ye Corporation,

Pr rome

Au? a aa. eh

Dee age es Ba :
LOL ap REC HEME

? abe A a y ys INR MEOAN IRE RR
rte yd anette. Gat eR OR: Nena

itil i ie

sesicronr Cre

pis euioa MEY Shree hess

6 EY as ty aes tye bia ate ae ay est:

“okie l shew eo ci * ws

pias Ph

aa ERA eR ANAS! AR a

eos

wife cata Se eee! gach i ti ite HOR ge

nesiaht eed we wenNsTVo wad: ieee
bean) ged ae he set “e

ae al mae

wish ati ‘we ‘Winnie a ;
dt sini ale sane i bcos dew tioe sett en

us oi samnesttudls ee oes Oe

ghee i “led dnd aha alee “uel qaah aa he ind ie ei
oo ich + er iu i pen ‘ha i's “ti
cy Ree ? ens

Fe “age ya {abies scsi Mr

oe Msi ast sid oe

# J
# S
at cpedborey a

~~ ae { i,
{ Nel
THE WESTRER AND GOUTHERY LIA j ne

)
TSSUNANCK COe, & corporation,
(ecmpininant )» .
Appellant, APPEAL PROM
Ve GIncUlt COURT,
KAZIMIGRA TOMAS» ) GooK CouUnTY.
(defendant), } ) Two appeals
ppellee.s }
conselidated
5) 'S TOA f(s
4 ¢ 4 ofhe 653 for hesringe
37042
KAZTIMISEA TOMASUM, )
(plaintiff), APPEAL PROM
APPRLLEds Pe .
SUPRIGR SOURyY,
Ve

COOK GOON.

LIPE

INSURANCE ‘GOs ‘a "eaaratian j | he |

(defendant) » 4 ' } 2 '¢ 4 [I I. A. 6 54.
Appellant. )

Me JUSTICE GRIVLEY GALIVER Ad THE OPINION OF THE Coun ys

om June 5, 1928, complainant (hereinafter ealle the
ineurance So.) issued ite policy of inwuranee on the life of
Smiley fomasum of Cieero, Lliinois, for $2,000. Defendant, dauchter
ef insured, was named os benefieiury. The pelicy contained the
provisions that “thie policy and the apyglicotion herefer, 4» true
copy of which ia indersed hereon or securely attached hereto, con-
stitute the entire contract beteeen the parties, ami shall be
- incontestable after tye yeore from it=« date, except fer aen-payment
of premiumes" and that s11 statementa made by the incured im the
application “ahalie in the sueence of fraud, be devmed repregentationgs,
and Not warrantien, and me such statement shall avoid the policy,
WBless it ie gentained in the written ayoliestion." ‘The insured
Gied in a hoapital at Hacisen, “iseconsing om September 23, 1929,
less than two years after the policy was issued. On Jume 4, 1936

Ne a ’ Mi Vols oe
bw pie —/ ( A “Sua pa oa
® SO TOG ** stakapne)
MONE LABSEA ne se
arayod TrUeTD ev. is
elasqga owt ili aay a(sanbae i

boesabiloonce

egsiiiaed et ene, iy 2 i LYS

Bom LARVA
eTHUOO HOT mave
eX TEGO BoC

Nad AIT RTS

eT8OO SHY TO WOLKIGO ENT GAARVLENG YuRiae Ite a

edt Lellon wsdtentored) dmantalqums gBGOL 48 cat m0
te sti ef? se sonetenal te yetieg af2 bonaad (20d ooneuent
sewed ginadus ted 4000.84 te? estomiiil qaxvotd Xo musemoT yolhat -
a? Sentedaoe yediog aT »yxahetiawed aa bowen caw « boswent el
Ont? & gtolexed MoOksackigge orld See Yottog aide” dadld o ’ j
enee govoted Sendeattian ylomoes 1 mowred benxobdad af Hoist te were,
$d Lints ton peoléing onl? meowsed Poettnes etiias sa? twitter:
dneayeqeion ret dqeox yodab ofl moe? gEney ows Toste

syelfog ot blova Lasts Semibedadlain-an tom aalinas uss
bersent ofl “stpkievdiqua mestiuw ond wt Dnatasmon at
s2N0L Co toduvtqe no gntemoosth qnonddaM Ja Lodiqued,

OSL 9d cnmt a0 sbowant sam ong at soe wey ond ma

~Ze

(one @ay leas than two years after the pulicy was iesued) the
imeuranee Coe filed ite bill im the ecirewit court ef “cok county
againet defendent, slieging in subatenee that certain of the incured's
augwers te quegtiong on her application (aw given to the mediend
exeminer and ae eritten down by him on the spglication concerning the
present and past condition of Ser health), were falue ané fraudulent
and known by her to be sue@k, that if the Inewrenee Cee had news ef
their foleity 14 would not have leawed the policy, anc that 44 did
mot discover their falsity witil after her death, “he bill tendered
vack ail premiums paid, andi orayed that the poliey, because of anid
fraud, be declared to be null and void? that defendant, as benefheiary,
=iiher agents end aticrneys, be temporarily and permanently enjoined from
| prosecuting any suit om the policy! ani that it be ordered ta be
| @elivered up fer eanecllation. Gn June Lé, 1930, the sheriff returned
' the susaens “sefendant not found,” and apparently the Ineuranee Co.
made no further attempt to get weerviee upen defendant. On “optember
2a 1930, ene (epparently net yet being sdvieed of the pendemey of

: the chancery suit) eommeneed in the superior court ef Cook county

, an action in agewmpeit te recover the amount due om the policy, aiid»
after service, the Insurance Cos on becomber 45 1950, filec a plea

' getting up the pendency of the chumeery cult es o bay to the actions
“Me plea te the merits was filed. Februery Lé, 1951, the euperior
‘gowrt sustained a demurrer te the plea and gave the Inmeuwranee Co.

} leave to file an amended pleas Je the meentime, im the chanecry
gud, and after defendant hed entered her appesremor Sherving the
wranee Ces applied for « temporary injunction, after notice te
fendant, aud, on Yebrusry 26, 1931, the court iawuec © temporary
metion, enjoining her from the further presecuting ef the

it oult, or the prosecuting of omy oction im law er equity
inst the Insurance Coe, until the further order of the court.

! Sti (howond wow yotiog edt celta wxeoy ov? mast ound yb ona)

etawoy Soo! te treo Siworks wild mh LL2d ath BOLET 090 osenunnl

We a'doswank std So oletteo ead votietadua af ‘wbgelis edtabre te’ santane
| | Lom kowm ott od wevty an) mitwortgga gov amnbjeaee ‘et: vs a ss
‘ { eid gukvinenes moltootigge sd? ao ald yo guok medelew és aaa) td agate}

Ht deo.Le bees? tues eedet erow ,idtined xo Yo wedtthmes tang hea toners

to gwort bad ood soamtvedk” Os Th tuttt gstbwo o¢ aber (CS -
my & MED
nt _ bbb ¢h Soaked bee eypiteg od? bomant ovad Hom Bivow 12 whale?

(

|) bexoonse £chd eit saitand aod note Ltée wetute? cLedd aevwoatd soa
| q bkes te eekoood «yotiog ede tad? hogera bom ybiag — tin toed
1) | e(taie Mened as edriahee teh tads ghtev ban itu ov o7°' TT yw ed i ;

ie mort deatobss qLinewadieq baa yLhuaxoques OH ywyperre 2s a Roi ype cca od
Ae | 0d OF besoin ef thrtant tne Tense ay te tise Tae Leesunapats,
||) bouuidog 2itaaste oat q0C0E 4aL enue mo yemibMetKonmen xo gi bosbyli
We 00 potwtient edd Udworeqqe ban » chemist nites meomonre orld

wedeIqy: BO sseabusres moqu setvren toy oF squmsde toudtHt on wha
te Ynvinag ey Yo hentvoa antod jug ton Qlbneseqen) este oer qoe
Winmee eed to suuon aabwogwe adeeb byammane (ein: ereenads tlh

abuse «yotfeg ore ao exh txwoms ool) Tevenet Of slaamuona mh mobtom |
| wait a veLRr «GEC 4) sedanend mo +00 comment ait gumbyEee soMta
snotien aff Of tad a an dwn Yoweri eae te yaehasg edd qa gat uf
toktequn sH¢ _L60i dL yoowaiet mo abedt® aew ad trom elt of web |
, +0 comment ald ovaR bow ong sat of eet 2 semtogeim He

Wroesate silt at gombsnao ead a) ea@hiy boameue mm ont et

a vghten sedta seoanaihiamailial nek tte vo

.) Whateqmed 0 Semgal Suyes ad ELOOL GOO Whowndsy

a tt te SKhwobeeTG Tedeue') etdomerd sent ybebet

' VWitive to vol oh Kobdoe Ye to —RbiMeeeOTy ode ae gtton
L -sdMuO9 ols to eobTe Toddeet eM LhdeE Goo wi

ape" aye : BwOihe? ae BRS ei eas “ee gated ete

Thereafter, on February 26, 1931, the Inguraner Cos filed an anended
plea in the esqumpeit sutt, setting up the pendeney of the chancery
euit and the isauance ef acid injumetion an a bar. I¢ Gid met file
any plea te the morite. Thereafter, aaid beneficlory filed « general
and speoial demurrer te the b442 in the ehaneery Suits upon hich
mo aetion was taken until Curing Seoembers, 1032, when the demurrer
Was overruled, amd she filed an SHeWer Le the bill, im which she
Genied that the Insurance Cas was entitled te any ef the Yelie? prayed,
ete. Thereafter ¢ heorlag wee had in Spon court at whieh several
witnesses testified for the Ingutance Cos, the Seyositions es? other
Witnerctes were reads and one witness (rae onton) testifded for Gefend=
ante The policy end application and othe: writings were intraduced |
in evidence by the ineurance Gs. oy Spell Sp 19335 the Court entered
a decree in whieh, after miking numerous findinge, it is adjudged
‘SRat the temporary ingunetion (above referred ta) be dissolved, that
“the B11 “Be Clamissed fox want ef equitys* and tha: the Meuranes
Soe pay all coats. From the feeree the Insurance Coe prayed and pore
feetes the present apoe@al to ¢he June Term, 1933, of this appellate
Court (Gaze Ho. 36889).
| After the entry of the deeree, the prosucution ef the
“Beemepsit euit wax reowmed in the superior court. On <prdk 25, LESS»
- plaintire (beneficiary of the policy) apyeare: and moved the court te
iptrine the amended ples ef the Insurance Go, (filed Fetruary 2a,
1931) and after ergument of opposing counsel the eourt eustained the
me bien aud gave the Inguranee Coe leave te file an Smended plese, and
We Apri 27% 4t Fi204 wnat As ontitieas “Seeond amended Plea with
Notice and Affidavit ef Merite.* itt is a plen of the general iscue,
te tether with a notice that on the trial the Imewranee Ge. "intends
| S rely upon special matters of defense, which are e@¢ forth and sone
tite a in the foliewing affidavit of merite:" (Here foliews an

hebusau ie POLAR «00 wemmcomel aed aSRRE 48% quowcdel, no. 9 v9steored?
i¢roesasty ofl? To yormbmeg ot qu yabésos, 9A Rie dissawenm 0d) wh won
efit Gon DID 2h otad a ae mohdacwied. ting YH eomevmad geld, Cain, 6 Eine
Loronen «2 bodht qrotedionsd blag _iettees ikem, wih Oe ne
Soke moq «thee ysevasty ods wh Likd otd od + xommueeo ts fatooga, &
xorcaumed ost? code 9801 gyedemonS gabt, Liswe awshed vo olden 9
ete Moise mt oLihd etd ne somecn oe betty athe, Deut ¢ SARA TOE
ehoyeng. Regie wste to gre at hekdsders near 908 wpmumcceel ott tna | ah
farewen Hold on due nage ah pat gaw gahiaed & SOTERA
-xestto Yo gnobstears? st «soo samauiens ade ‘pt reknAaeet.' womens d
ebyotel wor bakticesd (nogmh «0iM) ancntiy amp bes, Hees #tey BPS ont
pourtotiah exaw agetelse uote bug cobiaotiqgs aru pdteg ont os
cody drug0 wilt (BLUE gh KETGA MO, ned eimrmRRh wee ws somentve m
eg tatee af of gamet hod? axoremas yeoltent epee, sii mi weg
gaits yhoviews2s od (0d doreeten oveds) mobsemmbnt ' ortt aa
pommnredt wit sods ban “eine to sane 80% sonata pe
oriq fae begere s02 oometweal od ceTOs ate moa .aeeed. the An se
—— Ro goOCd quot sath odd of daegge Sasnod ‘aiid Doo
sent ct ele mana < hen, eho: | "
eSSRL gBR Lim ao od tOR germany ond pee domme ee % a
pd samen of¢. boven ana. seagate (vol tog, mas te 2 ederim
ad? beutatema Swen ele Learases ane’ te » seamen, woe | et mt
ban .o0ky hotnems so eLhT of evaed 900 somndimel M6, ove bee woke
daiw nest bobs buoeee” shekehdne at doate nese ot ave £ bag
ssiteut Laconteg od to. welq 6 at ai Samed ne NAIM a 0
giaoded” .00 someneneh echt Sabst mat om sot sokton 2 43h
anes hen Seve? Sow ous wobdw esque heh Je emu dd,
ae awetLo® oe “secnbemte pon

afficevit aworn ta by ome of the attorneys of the incurenge Go, )

Te the affidavit there ere allegstions that he inoured made certoin
false angwers to the medieal examiner's gugetione ae set down im tke
epplicationj that abeve her signature on the application are certain
other atatements or declarations, and that some of the statenwnts
oF CeClarstions were felue, ete. the alicgations are substantially
the same as those alleged in the 9422 filed in the ehaneery suit,

On Key Sq 1935, plaintiff f41ec - dewmerer to saié special mattera
of cefenae, and for enuse af cemutrer stated thas by She terma of
the policy the some was te be incontestable after tv Yerwss except
fer nen-payment of premiums; that “said matters af defense pleaded
by defendant ce not set Up hen-poynent of premiums but seek to aveid
payment of the policy om eausen extrinsic theretog" and thet eadd
action in sesumpa!
more than twe years after the date of the policy, and that, henee,
She policy is incontestable. On June 4, 1935, after argument, the

te collest the amount of the policy was commenced

superior court entered an order and judgment in substance as fellexgs

That on plaintiff's motion the court orcerg that sodd amenied plea

of the Insurance Co. “be stricken fer vant of 4 euitieient afficavit
(Of special defenses” that defendant's defauls be entered; that *after
_hesring ali allegations and proofs sultitted," the court asseasesg
“Plaintiff's damgen at $2400 (amount of the policy and « eerued
eats ané@ thet judguwent be ontered ageinet the Inauranee coy
and in favorfplainvite im said sum. From She ducgment the ineuranee
Soe prayed and perfeetod an appeal te the Cetoker, 1922, Term of
this Court (Case Yo. 37048.)
| Thereafter, on Novenber 7 1953, on motion of the Insurance
supperted by the affidavit of one of its atcerneye, the twe
were here ordered SG be consolidated fer heering end te be
icered tegether. In said affidavit it ie slieged that "beth

® iuvolwe the same parties and the same subject matter and * *

(«02 semamwent ond Te ayertetie ed te eae yt of omoum dkvebhite
Bhat xo eben becuont edd Jasld amelcagoito ete wuede dtyeeh tie sad at
ak? of mot Jon on agniiasey e'xemimens Saphoow ele of wxewnam axa
. absi x9 ote motiaokiqas, ats ae ouiteapte xed orote dale tomlinks gue

aizeuetede ote to omue Jedd bas porphiatalass 5@ Bomembinte semee
wALat soni odin ors anotisneita ei? OHO geaiat oxew enphiatetere go

stiles yxoucndis odd ak bolt Like wis mh begakio gnods ae, men eed
medion Laboogs dtar of teTtewas @ well Tiddateld eG6OL. ab wa wo

‘Yo mura? add yd dats bedade t9EKMmed teeauee x), dom, eAnno tod. 26

dyooxe staey Or? Teste Sidateadmenn! of 96 ann pane sat, witog wad
bobon ta oameted Le ereasom bhaw* todd ammdmorg Le Lqumyeqrmon te?
“phowe od deoq sud amutewm Yo saeyograan.qu tox 49m 0% dmabaa ted gs
bine teed bum “tosexeds adamtcéas annie ao yoltog ald Xo. dammyeg
beonenmoe aew Yosfog adi Io Vamame eas doodton 43 diacmneg 2h aohios
eoaniod a dasis bea gyptiog ott Yo aah age vaste Ps at ae,
reed Bong teste natal 0 oral Le

“90g sebscome bike Sacks sxedt0 swe wile maheon o*? %. iv one
divabl'tte dmotot twa * %e émew wal medeiaia od” ~~ ‘

out ‘pononant ong votes boxe ee oe pu at,
vonmwent ons sagamgbul ons mow = sme Dow wh Tiidatal
: Dg sxe ceen a tedgdod said 2 daoggs Ba. beeee"

oD tet a am 2 an ; uy eae i SAAS .
one ass aeyennesee, otk

og at ban antaned 02 pesadhia vane
tiod” tots hopetta af ah ppt

abe

should be considered tegethers* 4 certificate of evidenee ang a
bili ef exceptions are contained in the reepeetive transoripte of
reoorde

Ia the cirewit eourt's deeree im the ghaneery sili,
entered April 39 1933, it ic stated thst *1t appesring te the court
that the answers te the questions in the sppliestion fer insurance

were made in good feith and were not known to be felee and untrue
ag % # thet the insured © *® wag iiitterate ang an

unintelligent woman, ineanpable of reading er critims the “welish

_ danguage and inenpable ef fully uncerstending the questions put

to herj * * that the medics) examiner end cecter for complainant
made « full and complete paysienl examination of the insured prder
te the imeuance of the polieyy and that the enurl, being fully scvised
im the premises and in considerstion thereof, doth finds" Thats the
equities are with the defendanty thet the complainant haz “failes to
sustain the material allegotioms* of ite Will; sa that it “do not
entitled te the relief, or enmy port thereof, demamied.* snd 4%
appears from the certifiente ef evidemes that, after all evidence

7 hed been introduced om the hesring, but Before the écerce had been
enterec, the vhanerliler made » statement as follewss

: ** wast te mske myself clear se that sny reviewing Court
+ * * will understand whet was im this Court's minds
: Here ic a report, eehinit VT, whieh is called o Mediead
*Bxaminer's Seport of the “eaterm and Couthern Life imevranee Company
taken by Dre Kellys whe wee a young phayrician, arg he agked her a
lot of Guestiona. How, ira. tomawun wee a Lithuanian and a sample
her lengumage and her understanding of the onglish language was
trated, | think, by the manner in which seme of the other
‘Witnesses testifies yesterday ef Lithuenian extraktion, There were
‘@0¥erel witnesses here whe said che couldn't read “n¢elieh and that
_ understood it very poorly ze psa asked har a lot ef ques
Bow, Mrae Anton sal : fee sont when these quogtiens
Were propounded te Mra. one aud vhe anid the Lester only seked
her tve or three questions. ‘There waa sume doubt in her mind as to
Whether he asked her anything about prior eperationa, and wo om, and
re fe Gongiderable dowet in my mind as to whether he did, and,
he did, whether she understood what he wae talking about.
Heve are some questions « there are ever twenty quest ions
‘Mm here thet he acked her, all avewered “Ho's You know and I mew
the wey these things are dene. ‘The medical examiner comes in and,

; ‘

4 dae Gavaakye Yo etuntthewe 2 © “yeuldoget nexsntvens wal biveie
te wdghrosmnd epizongeet ext mt tontadios wid uaebtqvexs We inthe
etiin Wrsenntio end xt covess stomas dtwerte oety wr
fume ent o¢ grktesqgs tf° gad? bodede et OF Qteed yt Tega bondi
eomawank to? soboottocs dé wi omotinene vite OF dianeadigerd
ms aan otouestith vay * * detweat wilt salt “* © yoomeeih eats
Matignl offi gatites co gaboese Pe ectequon! ymamow | pon
tq eteltceng ac? quid hen derebeas “effet Ye ekdaqaent “baa” . agi be
duattstynos xeh vetoed Bea resdmeRD Enotbow aos ant > # Ged ed

weed Rect aeuguh aly sxe tod dud gpitkroed ate he box ‘a
eevelio?® wes vanandate ‘” viet tea witovmavto as Seu

new

if you are thoreughly conversant with the “nelich Language amc he
aeke you all these queatione, you de pret ‘Y well to enewer ali of
them mecurately, if you ave therouchly honest ane falvly sonverannat
with the ongliah language. But Fou get & Ban epeaking “aelieh to
& woman of Lithuanian extraction, firing queations «t her, and
expect her to answer oll of them is expecting mere than anyone has
& Fight to expeot,

I doubt very much * * thet thin women underatesd what
wae going on when thie Seeter wat there firing questiony at her
ond Tiliing out thie report. Gne ‘Ming ie eertain, she couldn't
Tens, Deenuse the evidenee is undisputed ehe waen's fomilicr or
eonvereent with ugliah sutfielentiy so thet she could reed. Zhe
eaulé not read “ngligh, sq that the beater after filiine ou6 thease
,uent "tiene asking her ta eign Mere dents ft fe rend is. —
i 20 ¢VIGene@ anyone tranglatec it te her awa I dent bet eve whe
Under shoo Jat tele ware LOMAIT ¢ wee 4c What Wag Om it,» and aa
& regult of that i say there couldnt: have been ony fraui or deectt
oF intentional vithkeld ing or mierepergentation of any facts
ASS T think it was just like 4 mili. That is the way they
de these things and that is how thig was evicen@ly dene. Here are
& let of questions propounded io « -itnuanian women whe neither reade
Mor writes ngliah amc then ahe in ackod 46 sigh & document shiek
ohe soulda's read, and then you come in here after her death and try
ie charge her with fraud for “@6ng agmeiting whieh ag probably
édidu't under steals

That ia the feeling < have about this gaat. * * Mading
againgt the complainant; bill éiomicsed sec weet of equity.”

After garefully eonuidering the evidenee inmtreduesd in the
chancery enue, we are of the opinion shut che eourt’s etatenents and

findings in the deeres are sustained by the evidence. And #e are also
of the opinion that the abeve quoted ate tement of the court, ac te

what eecurred just prior te the insured ta signing and delivering of

the application, is alee sustained by the evidence.

4m urging « reversal ef the Geereg, as entered im the
Chancery causes counsel fer the Insuronee Cos contend im «ubetanes

that in an equitable action to eaneel a Lire ineuronee policy upen
the ground of folee representations ef facts materiel to the riak
“appearing in the ingured's appliestiony, auch cancellation should be
r ecrecs where it appears that the representations are folee in feeb,

n though it alse appears that they were not mmevingly ey fraudue
u Mitly mate by the insured. “¢ @re of the epinion that the ¢on=
tention ig lacking in substantial merit in view of the provisions
the policy ané the evidence. (See Saymer v |

tlle Apps GlGg 19620; Joseph v.

ort ee ohawymat Ao bigot ats mete hiievenane op istyuro tests: at soy Bh
Yo iis sowana of Llow Yong. #o apy gavel Jeary eee fife ne
deer rey Re ‘stat “Agen demsiont ~Ufatoieot ous grey
et etign! gmidesqs mom © t98 pany tag cogamannd a0 tiga rey
bum tot ta aretimenp yar sookioettxe 5 ol te ae

gaat BOER ads cme ght? ogy as sieeie ke m tte ‘sewene od ‘epet
‘ - «t ‘e@ éiyit

tose Bootatoors mmmow gist? dusts ** oma yx0 Meera &
‘gat fe wuotsastty gubtst oted? es conte og og + here eras
e*ahinvoo wis gtited 196 al grtkad ene Padre bt 9 aids swe ft
£0 pp eee! Hasna yon neduged ber aft eoire
ofa shoot Sinoo Sin malt O96 Miamelvivine 2
epnda owe yard Ea Losilaaet were ook eft gals on |

oe « * ones obs “tueda evant ©
“oye tape te Seen sot boun dam

etd eh pease Tams ponobive sid aabxentsmes Sia =

Re eR

fen edeomotadn at ganas oaks gnsts saiatge arid % ore 6% ‘wane %

cain ota ow bee s omirobive eat’ «at boakadnas ots sores ons ‘al er N
bal 8a 9) TARO es Re eased od hesoup vvads bald ‘aude “polatge | od i.
‘te gaknevi Led bets pabugte a? bowand ould o soltg asc re
: ‘ebameblye od: a basta’ owe as te ‘ot “qroktootiqus oa

oxie mb horeda ea qnoneos ost %® Lmesowes & ent gen yg wate axiep
genniadin a2 mooonos 00 sosmannst adh soi Loumaeh 9@shet eopaat
epg od Log: sore moat sib © Leann Of mabson whos Lape na ah. sot
eis edt 92 Satvesan saoa2 te asatsabase sme inked Re Rewe ry
od bineste wot tal fovnee stosee erok snob been oh bsmuan sth el
adeet ct gotet ou ore liai meee tgs sal coed areuse ‘

tie 3 eee ee ene F onsmase ah

Ps ee

oFe

Tide ADS« 4525 S66e7F 9 ACL ismeon in 4cé ahhe #34)
Ae to what oecurred im court in the as

aW@ipsit audit on

June €, 1933, subsequent to the entry ef she deere dm the chancery
wait, the d111 ef exceptions discloses in subetance: That the
wuperior court wae fully «ivieed by otatements ef opposing counse]
aa to the purport ef said decree, and an te the contentions made

in that suit by the Insurance Coe fer the osneeliation of the policy,
whieh were gubstantially the same es etated in said netics ef
“epecial matters of defense” file’ in the susumpsit eultg thet the
sours expressed the opinion that, oe the issues raised had been
adjudicated and settled adversely to the inewranes Cos, and oe it
hed not at first pleaded im the ausumpsit suit any defense Sethe
merits but had only pleaded the pendensy of the eheneery euit ac a
bar to the eggumns:
in the agaueps!
tended in wubstenee that, aa an appeal ind been taken te this apeeliate

salt, it was now too late to raise the suse iseoue

% aulty that the attorney for the Insurance Co. con<

egjart from the dceree rendered im the thaneury eult and asié deere
Might be reversed, no further avtion showld be token im the gua wape 4

eult until this appellate court had vondered « decision; that saad

_ + attormey presented and asked Lesve to file am “add ittonel plea »*
whith leave the court refused thot thie additional plea ecomtained

| mibetentially the same allegetione as were contained in the affidavit
) of the “‘pecial Batters of Defense” previously presented, and the

) further sllegation that sald shaneery ewit and ingumetion “are atihi
“pending and undisposed of* (whieh waa mot the faet)¢ thet it was wet
. Gisputed on esnid hear ing that the amount @f the pelicy eued woon

wae $2,000 and that the aeerucd interest thereon amounted ta about
gory and thet, fineliy, the superior court entered eaid avder on
June 6» 1933, thet said smended plea of the Ineuranee Coe, filed April
“R%— 1935, “be gtricken for want ef « guffietent affidavit of epecial
‘@efeneen”, that the default of the Ieeurenee Cos be entered, that

(+88 ott G8 mt Qomerehe aP-ser oO sgh + fat
fe shame Jinereeen ocfe me eweD wh beeeRS Susie OF wh o* nae
Uieornde sit ah exwpeb ol? be oans age oe seanpeoddee boat +2 oma
‘ond Saf? toomedetwn si aeaoLon is aitoLsqvOs0 te atte ar adtun
fserumo ariaogge To atnemmints a aeetein hat aune: sw68e wl tegina
oban anolinetne ed’ of as Sam yo2p0d hae et froqtwe wala of ws
evoikeg orld Yo melseliogens ots ye sod conmumET ot Yt thea! seat et
Ye eodsew bios af butade ce amon ast ehknt sondediew onnw sober
ead tacit yotws Lemans weld ak ‘eEY “wae bed Re. sredeam Letosqa®
go0d: bat dektet eoment od? as ¢indd wenhge ent bia rugRe 2

‘4h ae dum 4600 voremunt edd os Ytontowhe Butioon bad’ retool hut
dt pe varcted ye dive Stagman ade ml vent tts de had
& an Sis yteonado ox? %9 cemshaog ts oe ete he tn ab

Dab shih de br

eimai omen of} achat of edat 00% wor naw é ‘qtiwa q cute
~ted «00 sotenwent of? 26% yond al dost qodwe agen wai aut
if a ae Bed

sisileqgs aldt of ‘weed need fact Levaqs a na ydeaté oousdaden nb
‘ Sac ths Sh a

“‘getosh Bian bre Jige yroomesto sit? ah bored ven~ed anit wort

steqmmsnna ‘At at soled od biwods mottos sediurt on shoazoven od iia
bhew, dada qmateieod » bare bue% ‘hawt dsuren otal lequn aide Shows nas dts
Semele Lanotst ota” eos oLh% 08 ovnes baa See cesaoceng wornte
botasnor axig Lanolstdhe eis sald gboasrion ewes ode evant ohitw

tavant te ods ab bontaiace orow an HOLE omotin once ods vd

$wode ov bed mw oun moored? aevvesad bewres a ate faa so 9

tm aobxo bien bezedas gaueo teh egue ad ay OE edo
Liza hoL1? 4409 vonetuest ot ” sol be bmome, 0 r <a

kalvogs | 0 dFeabttie. eeier an

“Je

“after hearing allegations and proofs autmitteds" pleiniirr's comages
be ageesned at $2400, and that judgment in thet sun be entered aguingt
the Inguranee Co.

As grounds for a reversal of said diwigment in the ao0unpedé

suit, counsel fer the lueuranes Go. contend thet the court erred in
striking sald amended plese of speeial matters of defense of Februory
BB, LOS1, and ¢efeulting the Ineurange C@s, Because @ plea of the
general isswe also was on file and euch a plea ix not subjeet to
éemurrer, and also make other contentions which we deem to be of a
technical nature. Ye find se eubetential merit im the sontent ions,
in view of the fact thet the reel ingue involved in both evite wae
éecided after a full hearing néversely te the Inguranes Gos, by the
seeree entered in the shaneery sult, and ne different iseue wag
Breeented for decision in the Sesumpsis wuit,» and in view of the
further feet thet me trial by « jury wos demanded by che insurance
Coe im the eesiepeit suite ft: mey be, ae suggested by counsel fer
the Incurance Coe, that the naned beneficiary im the peliey (defend-
ent in the chancery suit) should have prayed by eresebiii filed in
‘that suit ouch affirmative relief as would have warranted the chaneery
Sourt im awarding to her a money dee-ee against the inwurenee Coe for
the amount ef the poliey and interest. However, she did net de thigs
‘ but wought that same relief by the resumed prosecution of her pend ing
ppeumpsit uit, in which euit the Insuramee Cos did not raive any
issues other then thove waich bad been devided adversely to it im the
’ meery auite And «es are of the opinion, wider he clvewmestanges
Aeelosed, thet the court in the eesiapait suit did not err is entering
ate orcer of June Gy 19339 appealed from, wherein it defsulted the
Maurang@e “Ge for reasone stated, ami entered the find ing amd jucgaent
ee St tht Veaseae Indioaels ae tees te le,
mvered April 3, 10%3, ie affirmed, and the juégment ef the superior
Mirt, entered June 6, 1933, ie alee affirmed,
ASY PBADe
Vatie Pe Joy and Commlan, Jey concur,

wogamal of P42 jckely Yq trad é karte wae fine wap hs eget te Qabtend, tothe"
dontaga sonnden od awa tose ae Fraaryoel, Seetis hers QhOhOE 4a oveagean 96
teceen mae ed soamatats how te ee & sah aber aA, 4, at
ni hours gumee ade dard dondae a0 eprcraut agit 29% Legemes. sess |
ereerdet to wanetoh Ty, aiatinm Lebesgs 30 aedg bobs, phae gad ue
tile 20 aokg @ onmabad 099 eananuestt ond gaks Sunde, ben, ABR, oR
od tuajdvm tom at astg @ dose dem ob) mo. ae vee wend 2 Pate
a Xo 9 09 mosd ov Anise anolinndaae, wedite ale, enka Bre «% es
eunotineamen ode at ahzom Labsansadis of wks of somsdan snp samp
now aphin déed ai baviownk puns Lows, one ake fon ptt Ro. smnty.
ods NA 40.07 agsstueet es »* Mranvene wataned tivt 6 smptte bapser?
moor gated, foe xetthy ote ban aitva Gsenciaite faidl al ooumiee sommes : °
pat mab a) ton ten A oa pa +

ae Lennie heduszaue ees et yeas a pone a A? 98?
abomtad) Wotton cult ah yestodtoned bemnm emit teat p02, . ce cuunt, ont
wk batit Ltidesow yd oegesg oyed Biwose (ahwe erepandg od? fh aa
qraenaste add botuerase wad biuvoe an Xebtox evtsamnn tts owe 4 "
sot se2 apnmunnl od tgatage on oeh qoctom a ted OF auboeows at ; 103
snicit ob tam O26 ote gtovewoll .¢aeredmh Bie Wises wel? a sce
gathng set to soliugoaety Aamunot add yd Rebiox mae, saath daha
wis outst som bth 900 samatumal oats stem datie 6h 9! bie 2s
edg at 11.08 Gleaxavhe boblevd Gund Aad Moldy sary nett wr + se
asonsdgmresto oct xobew qmelatgn oxlt 20.one ow bak ,.9ftme uRen
gubsedas ab xxe dem bkb ‘dive Ahacamunan oid mk asnen. salt fads. gaadon,
Ae dodtdunted 72 mtexaste qmmuh batoegan, aes tnt, 20 xebe0 a8
Swany ey at onty att besedne
aie ne
tact ots

bat fe

E aN <n
f / a
y 4
4 37042 ee
Co
_ + KALIUIERA tomacuy, 9 :
4 Appellee, ;
i )} APPRAL WROl pe
Ve ]
4 t E
| } COURT, COOK compry
TH wearin AND govrEu ; . ‘ r
Ive ARE Ces a ; <= Pa 7h =
; FF f F
werperation, , ¢ vi JA.
Mi. GULTICN GRIDLEY Pentverr: HE OPIETON OF -HE couP?,

The preeent appeal from a Judgment ef (2400, rend

rad
a by the superior court of Cock COUNTY against the lucuranes

Se eay
7 O4 June Gy 19335 wuss upon motion of the company and by order of
this court, consolidatee for hearing with the sppeai (case Hq.

a
$6639) of the ccupeny from a deerce of tne cireudit gourt of ceok Fe,

eeunty, entered april Se 1935, (lemlesing fer wast of equity the
Company's bi] in chancery agcingt =xeie Eoaimiocrs imam. ve have
Wiis dey filed on epinicn in cace Yo. 36989, affirming the d4ewi vant
said bill far want of Squity, anc in thet opinion we haw stated
Feagoms why maid judgment of 9240 cleo showld be of firmed s

| For the reagone atuted in cai¢ apigion, to which reference
MEAtGs, g6iG judemest ef ihe superiexr cours for GLGOO, verdered
6 the imeuranee company on June Ge 19239 ia of fives,

AYPISE Dy

hiven,» Pe Sey and Yeutleny Js, eoncure

4
paysipiee
g te

P | 4
ha t is, We a
. ,
i HRM

forums wot sas, ea OO
seOD #009 aTa00

Rg@AT PVS™ jon wre 2S

® Cae NOTE ag ACER ABM IE DAR al ies el

pega We HOLME a cena ant oamaneiialamak
ie es A

“en ok 3 te ek a mr
sgasquios son swartl até fentage eawoo soo te bawee ooh — ott
w seoue wei sa ‘eng. ve w ml fom sag ann s28UE °o maw’
st sant) Keoqus aé hv yabtand sot Sofeht Soon
“stood %» sues suet os » omoa a me Seed

Rig e” Reber

een on “pune srotatnad btes “isaiiae he ie &
i tae hoot had | wat coe +o oat sie =

booreit ts ‘od biwede ‘eala ‘ote ‘te 4 st aie
sone votes oer ry vwsiubge bkaw ohh nedets ainoaodt ae
“borates 2008 xt x0? cobrique ‘ons ‘te "

aes

Gs Oe es vi
; spent t9 os seeks ° ‘ots we “gigas

iar m
a4
eid 7
ist diy
P c j
yi
4
§
aby," j

CLARA Ge GIGHAU, fear _ ot

FREDRICK %e chi,
Appel lant , i

APORAL FROM MURICIPaAL

COUT GF CHIC AG,

O74 1.4. 6B4

PIRSY VRICN TRUST & saVIMGs
BANK, a corporation, Garnishes,
Appellees

aoe Hep Reese Mats ae

Wie JUSTICE SCAMLAN DELIVERED tHe optrroy OF THE cout,

An appeal from a finding and judgment diavherging the
garnishee. Clare, the beneficial plaintify (hereinafter called
Plaintiff), obtained @ judgment for $5,500 against Clara ¢. Gichau.
The inatant garnishment proceedings were afterward started againet
Piret Union Trust & Savings Bank, = corporation (hereinafter
@ollec the garnishee.) The answer of the garnishee states that
at the time of the service of the writ it wes not indebted to
Clara Giehau, nor did it have in ita possersion any righta,
erecitea, choses in action, effeets, tetates, property or moneys
belonging to her, save that "4t has a joint eecount in te seme
of Clara C. or Adolph Gichau, * « 4 having © present balance ef
$8.03 subjeet to withdrawal by either, and vhich thie garnichee
states is not aubject to garnishment herein.” The answer was
eontested and the enuse wae tried by the court. Counsel far the
Garnishees, at the outset of the heaving, stated that the gernichee
bank had in its posseerion a trust fund amounting to $1,900, which
had been deposited in five installments by Glara Gishaw and fer
which she aad been civen written receipts, The sole tasue tried

| Wes the nature of this fumd, plaintiff stating, in hie brief,
that “no point ie raised om the pleodings.®

fs . |
Py Ue ke

; Rt Ne A

) (fem pmeenarame

CARROT Mo Geta
> eG, 0INe TO DAG

BSD AT AVS} — onilagel slteme's Sate

a¥

aX5O2 SET YO WUUIGS ERY COMeVRaZA Wagmede wOrteUR sia

ot yrbytedoots saomgoul Gee perkbeth a meek Loegqe mA
beliow wetouternd) trsmteads Labettoned on? yotet? .perduhaxen
wader 9 axa? dembepe 008,68 rob smonmiiet, w oombatde 4 (detdataty ”
fantage botrede Mawistte eves epathveren towmdalereg tigedat aa?”
‘cotTamtoret) avisevogioe s giine® wgatved 2 duet nobel Jaett
fadd nodadn vostetintay oils Yo ewan oft (seedetieny oft bert”
@b Deedeber gow amy of View end Te eotvabn aad To omty od te
qadstat+ wer wolteveemog att mt evad 92 APs tom ywailek® aed ~
weedom “to YOueTORs eblades gadootts gucttes at aenads seth
oma od xi duivoows tabok # amt VE" dat oven youd oF yayuetoe ”
Ye vonstad gaberny w gutvad ¢* * quot’ MeLOBA we 60 wank? Yo
sedelirce; mtita otal one «ait ts w Lawaunte te wf dos nind e068
aid? wt Losewod stw9e odd ys Selné sow oes odt bus bedaodaon i
aosda texan wet tess bodade yynbrood edd te Yeoduo ois ta soso ery 7
Anisty 0084L? 02 gakiavoms bmit saint 0 a soteawence aot wet t bad 3 a
to baw waits anal? yd ainsi : 3 7

boktd suet efon sd sadgheser medthew nevhy wood Saul ote + dots -
stolid uit at ayuitste Yiieatnke eda widd te oxedae out cow
“smpit hoody esis o ontas a dndog on tal

iy
i

Plaintiff atates hie theory 2s follows; That the
garnishee “beoume Clara ¢. Gichau's agent to pay out oortein
funde deposited by her to the owners and holcers of certain first
mortgage Dond interest coupons which were &% thet time due and
payeble. The suns of money deposited were in the form of «
wpecinl or specifie ceposit whieh, when an entire sum had aecunlLated
sufficient to pay asid mortgage intberget, was to be paid by the
bank to the ownerg and holders of interest coupene whe would
present the same. There were two definite conditions or events
whieh must happen before ine Bank could properly pay out the
funda theretofere deposited. The first ef these conditions waa
that the entire eum neceaeery te pay sll intereat then due are
payable head been aocumulated by deposite te be made by Mrse Sichau,
The second of these conditions was she extension of the mae baad by
ef the principal of her indebtedness ane the reduetien of the
interest rate in eonnestion with enic indebtedness which was
secured by the trust deed to eertain Oremings “« * * te the State
Bank of Chicago, as trustee, either of weie eonditions took
Place. “he garnishee bank acting in the eapaeity ef an agent for
Eire. Gichau, the @epositer, and the deposit i¢selr being a gpeeifie
Geposit for a specific purpose to be paid out by the bank ag hey
agent om the happening of certain conditi 9085 permitied Mra. Gicshay
te revoke her instructions of payment and cemami the return of the
sums of money theretefore deposited as any times Hyee Gichau * * «
had a legal right to the cum ¢depontted with the bank and therefore
the plaintiff * * * hoes a egal right te funds «hich e141} Temaig
in the hends of the banks There is oly one question in this
Suse, and thet te whether er not the bank nt the time of the service

of summons in the attachment suit, had funée in ite hande belonging
$e or to which Clara Gichau, the duigment devter, had a right .*

ealj ded? tawoliot sa qrecd? eid asteda Thivater
wietiteo ta yer of Snege etieniold 19 eteld smaeed* seduintey
dazit misdwo ke atehled das atenwte edt a! tet ge bedleoqed BARN
bee oh emt? gal? ta oxew gohde amequne Soetedat bao bs sa ilabeoall
@ %o sro? of? af ovew bediuoqeb Yoram To wk ae sehdeyag
hotatumese bat mes extiwe ne dasiv qiolue tleoqed oi tioogs wo Leioege

. ed bing oe af Row etawre sot caegt Te bina yg od Saint at 2 ira
"twee erty amaguoo destoimt 26 wx ote “hen wrecme ett eo aime
aduere to aneliidnoe ofin?'teS ews eter ered? .eetee ond taoeeng
et) “Seo Yoq YLreqerG biden wend als oteted moqqed tena Mofntw
Baw anal Ji hero aoe te teeth ial : eboeteoqen Stotedecons abnast
, have oud sect toorpsnd Loa yay ot yronasoon se oxida oid —_
satel? «ail yd obem od oF atleoqes w petesemeng mead heat days
_ Nobtwtam ote Yo pelanotxn off aaw amok st amee eerie te ‘buvase edt
odd te soltevbes odd tne saunhesdobut ns ro Anghontag ent fo
_ ge se habe anenbosdnbet akan aa bor te! so9nso0 aes et funtesnh
otade ed¢ os * * * eoeimexg miagtse a2 boom dousd ols yo beteee
Hood aupisinnes dive he sedate® —-eatnired ae. eegan dd 10 teat
Sol save na to Yttoaqe eed mh patios aad vedi tinny wil _seende
ottlosge = guted Meat! tlecged erlé baa erotieogss ose esiesoh® at
wed an Anand add YS 49 blag o of onoey oLtiaean # zor Mmoqed—
watiei® egw boséinweg gene Wiksee Binsrog Te yAioeqmatt ene Ah :
ois To miwios oat names ben seemyeg to sande Zz yenee
* * * aasiok® se7il somtd ye sa bevimoged eustesesads 2 yonon 30 coe
oxetorontd opus ana ests debe bedtaoes satis ons es tity ‘ane Fels
_theers ights Moti abeart os tye Ssgod a aa “ * be ‘lvataty oat
ebe at ne lg eeup ene ina at neat sea ae pe etent
volves oa ‘Ye ombs on da owe asta teu to madiode ab tus ey lai
nrckanosos abaosi adl at aban. pari ohne ‘snsaioactn oats 5 1 anomare | a

“Sigh «bak ¢toide smemmbul ot st td ' -
tome Ghee on” Ba

~
A
R

“Se

The garnishee contends that Clata Gichau plaeed the fund in its
handsfor the specific Purpose of paying the past due interest
coupons which she oweds that she thereby ereated a trust in fuver
of the coupen holders and they beeame the veneficial emera of
the fund, and thet the Sarnishees, ag trustee, is bound to see thet
the purposes for which the trust was ereated mre earried GUS»

No propositions of law er fact were submitted te the
trial court and thig apptal presente but a simele question, vig:
fm there suffietent evidenes in the recerd te support the general
finding made by the couris the burden was, of COUurae, wpon the
exeoution erediter te prove that the fund wae wubjeet te gurnighe
ments (See Manowsky y. Conroys 33 [lle Appe Idl,y 143 » and cogeg
cited therein.) The burden of preof is om the sleinsity tx eormieghe
ment to entablish a gurnishable debt, (Harrie ye Bontag
Appe 89.)

Plaintiff, in hie TPES SavuMNeG & Mumber ef focte not
tUstained by the evidence. on Peorusry 7, 1927, Clare c, avd odolph
Sichau executed a trust deed to “tate Tank of Ghieege to secure a
bond igoue of $125,000 upon Gertain property commonly Imown as the

Pine Grove Apartments. That bank was thereafter songolidated with

Foreman Trust & Savings Bank and the consolidated bank tock the

name of YoremaneState Trugt & wavings Besk. ttn June, 1931» the

sernishee benk guaranteed the depowlte of Foreman-Gtate trust &

Savings Bank and the ausete of the Aatier “were pledged te the

PFiret Unien Trust & Savings Bank, and the remaining bueinese ef the
| Yereman Trust & Savings Bank wae moved to the Firat fatvicnal Bank

te preeeed to collect the principal and interest for bencheldera
aed holders of mortgages that were then outetendings" ineluding the

principal and interest on the Pine Greve Apartments tend iecue., on

gah wh peat ald soaaly sesh. waka dexke abiovens worlatevey oft
fowwednd aah que ould yebgsy te Droge 2ftiooga et 4 habe
‘eons wt temst 2 butawen ‘yp twalt osle, 4608 naneithn: tates ncealine
eo crane Lebotzened exd wammed yenele fae wiphies soquoe sal’ te
ged ong ot towed et sodden um gaoalatoney ole dad pee heart one
ylee Boke osm Sedaves oar tauad odd dodiw vet eonoqring, oc?
ats ad hed Abaca ov tent se wat 2 auntetsogerg @@
raty qnotiowy elite a aod adres Sameer otal beck PaO: poe
Lardorg ott ragga of tenet off at oommhtys temdolt tam exedd. at
eld Hoge asaevew Te amet moire ote eousao. ssid yt coms gah ook?
staiasey ov duotsive saw kewl ed? tad? wren o¢ neehiere ‘tik FIERO
sowcn Gan GOAL git aggy of ht Ss gi? 0% Maawonall 08) «tape
adgbovins ak Tiboatade wld mo mt wou, te webred oft (xmborveds poate —
(AE Tee gnsdneh ox abana) added aidadtuteren «aint Maken et tema
GRO 2G
tom atoe? se “ep etimanm ae sammmunenn ean tiki nelle sak
dqkobs dua «0 steak ROL «Sf exasradell ae cceiaaas tae seal |
a enmes ot ogeett? to amet apace 6? punh gaset & podeowme sapleko
ade on avaih pines yasegetg Rate Goer 0G, 9RLS Ye omen deed
date hederbonare wettaeted) cow dined dod sedcnadeeg eee os
‘exis dood ned bedektiownwo ald poe ee eecteatt i duaee'T camer
afd gikOL gout sh «thee egabvat & deme’, seaderanmp to 20 aman
) & tamed stedt~nemenet 86 atlavgek ocd heotmexmny dead sorta ienay
ae et oogbelg woow* cotint with ‘to ntonen att bua haat xgubett
gift Yo woentend gatataaex 003 tite alnad ognivas 6 sax! sola guett
arin Lawok svi dead’ ad of SovOm gow inst. ayndye! ao samba al
honwwasbin tat wperkwws a! gawe't wekad donk toads ga eo" aignttiaen
“genbfedenod 202 deorstat nw Leqtontag ead ‘teotios 09 swsooNg es
ae wick thot © q mand hace Fd ero anit wie + rennet wenn vs
#0 setend hood w¥eamed emg’ ¢ exh ei sats ”

wie

February 7, 1932, interest fell ¢ue om that ieee and Wat MOC paide
Thereafter Clara C. Giche: mage five depesite, ageregating 419950,
with the garnishee, aud she veetived from it the following reeripte:
"First Weion Trust and Savings Bagk
Chi¢ege, Illinete
Rend Netete Loan Depar trent
Chicase, Tllineia, 3«1G-«2%

Received from Clara C. Gichau check for $500.00 te apply
on interest due 27032 6x FS1 5286

Firet Union Trust ane S8vinge Bank
25000 By =. Thuern*®

“Firet Unien Truat and “evings Bank
Chicago, [Lidnedts
Real Kstate Loan epar tment

Chienge » ‘ilimeia, 4elexg
Received from As Gichau cheek fer Sa0G- ty appay on

FS « 16286
First Unien Trust and “eVings Sank
$3006 By Bs Fields”

"Mirest Union Trust ane —aivings Bank
Chiesge, ‘illinois
Real Ketate Loan @ par trent

Chienge@y Illimeis, 4<15032

Received from Clara c, Gighan check for $3006 ng part
Payment of interest due e739 on FS = 18286

First Union Trust and “aViage Ben
$30Ce By Es Fieldst

*Firet Union Crust and “avings Bank
Chiesge, lliineis
Real Exvtate Loan Department

Shienges Illinois, Sefegg

Reeeived from Clara ¢, Gicheau cheek for $400 ns paet
paynent ef interesas due e=(-32 on F & = 19886

Firat Gnien Trust and Havingso Bante
$4000 By E. Pielda*

“First Union Trust and Ssvings Bank
Béaxberusg Wonroe ari Glark Sta.
Chieegos Illinois

Keeelved remitiange (which is accepted subjeet te final
payment in exh or solvent eredit in accorcance with the notice
Printed on reverae wide hereof) to apply on account of principal

or interest on item due ae fellewa on account of real estate

a «Tod cy fon aow des camat dons me ah SL0% tnorodent ghbSL 4t Yueeeatiet
q 908 LS Bali eno me sadtocwed okt, ota cumelok® «2 ata teeta
Vi) _ taagnoes getwetiet edd dh act aewheans adie ao a todadeseg ose MALS

aoa MMalontist ol ‘pe Ba penlBh onus. ot

REoOLAT ohuabiti posh

views At 0992008 tot aoeste Pr ced ‘ol sericea sib dee Hs

dome? one quell stalin —
—_ —_— ‘bee oguatt ot a

open

dy ade ty
syns ‘ean enc th

tt. IN a RRR!

enkod satont ett “appeobe peer siti saan

_ we elage, of 0088 10% dood uosiod +A. sas beri saes <a eet

—— agatva: bie oe tte nota bs hore i oe a

a me
agudyad kee Gomext muted! seRO me

ah aoa alos Ledcaes cr ead a cee lags to a AR

“Reelted gotoutstigeneetma compre oxagalal

denqnnya008% 0% tat es m "eects emit :

ote har any!

oe ee

“ pevtes apie sagactay 1 hives aca ae

an ~yubh x0? desde wage £9 2. aust

ee
engiucrandiiel sebieat of ve

j ij iis fue se of ei ye | ies 2
Labi? yD <n A 9

mortgage on property at 2918 Pine Grove Ay

Zue Date 2=%032 _ Maker Gicham

seh hnieabidseseebarianunbaiens Di SON Dla eemraONR N see th nh hc in Re Ht

L@ AppAy (ANCApad 3 th Spay O8F -nberest § Lei dL Somittanee
Clara ¢ Gichean Date See%e32
2729 ine wreve Avr
Chicage 11 First Union Trust and Sevings Bank
CRidsages, “liineis

Partial Padunit neseies® ‘aaicas
on the pock of the jrush deed from the Giehap
Shiesgoe appesrs the following: "Is Se 15286.°% Clara Oichau, the
sole witness ¢olled by plaintiff, teatifies thet "the meney was

Ceposited tewards interest om a loan.” "9, (hy the court) Did
yO deposit this money im the aecount as « cepesiter fer the pure
pose of saving the money, or fer the specific purpose of paying the
interest on these vondg? A. i Beponited i: Just exactly what the
Eeeeipts called for. a» (ey coungel for plaintiff) kre. Cichats
will you teli the Court exactly the uierstuading wlth which you
éeposited this money? “hat wag the agreement that you had with
the bank in reapect te depoolting--? Ase The idga-= Tt wag &

bond iguu@, your Benor. < was in default. I wanted the bank te
wake an extengion ef the loan. [ bed some moneye I aaked CHOU,
"Will you let me take this money and pay it te the pondholéere

"het waa the adviee given me

and extend (me principal payment?
by & great many people. the Court. G. You gave thia money te
the bank for the purpose ef paying the interest on these vonda,
de that correct? As Yea, when ( took the money that f had and I
applied it to principal inatead of interent, and the reet of the
money went toward interest, aud i: wae wot suffigient, + (by
Did you tell the Bank at that ties Just

I did mot maxe any

eounsel for plaintiff)
why you were Leaving the money with them? A.

‘wh srexR sak Cher te ysaegiay: ko ogagitom

wew Ertan ae" tarts ype sedi ad buttae agsontiw efLos
bia . (tuwos edd yt) 42° “smabd & mo deexmtal wbrewod betieoges
aut of? vor toltenqed a ud Jaudves wef! of yomom utd? sdenqah woe
odd yatysg Ye eseqaiiq oitdioqe oof seb to evonom add yalvew te en0g
sit dette yidowne taut 12 betieoged - +A Sebned soot me daouedat
siasiok® vevk (Tiivetady xo? Losewoo we ae ey? betien edgts
woe dotdw dtiw patina dene bey. sit Ubdonka famdD Ged Liked wey Lkke
délw bed. soy todd cmeeetge af aew ged Cyonem ate? betiovged
ly wae 0% sweet aa yA bla chen al ad teeqeek at aod Died

od Kned vie bode 1 vélvetob wh ane 3 ‘tones mvey geued baed

cunts Vesion Tt srynemes site tehet 2 silat oad a: iedeenene i Saw
arebiodbued sit 6s 42 Yom baw youn mild wala’ |
om tevin sofvha add san oii 4

‘whwed Seed? mo énexeded este gabgag

T hua bag T fad’ ypu ods Moos 2 mosey 9A ene cage |
ots ko duos odd Seve sdoersdet te botnet Lagtont oe ak netiin’
W6) 4) staked tue com sum 6d ta saunied |

oa ots Sate tm sot este S08 woy $80 mbes
we + son ko Be th tats athe qintit dt pith

‘ i i sie Pe Nagy ey in! aR Daag "
‘ ge: Wet: os heya eR A “wi w ce pias

#Ge

atatement to that effect." She admitted that the only moneys

she ever paid on account of the interest in qiestion was by way

of the said deposits. The gornishee eslled as a witness 7. 6.
fathridge, an assintent suneger of ite real extate lean departe-
ment, and in ¢gonnection with his testimony introduced « photontatic
copy of the Gichau trust deed. Br. Guihridge testified, inter
adis, that the truetee in that trust deed was no lenger doing
business and thet the garnishee was trying to evlleet the money
under the trust deed for the bondholdersy thot he talked with
flare Gichau on or abouts “ebruary 7» 10329 in refereneve te the
Gepoaiting by her of the fund in qguestiong tuat “she sndd she was
baying thig money on account of the interest thet fell due * * #
“he said she was going to turn money over every mouth and exdenver
to pay her obligations. * * * che wanted the bank 4s endexyer to
waive the principal payment, or extend the principal peuyments (.
What did you tell her? A. 1! te]d her that was not possible,

that it in being worked through a bondholders committee, «= « «

She said she wanted te continue making the payments ag menmy others
Gide Qs (by counsel for plaimiiff) Let's have the terme of that
agreement. Ae The paymente-- che was coing te wake payments
och month to pay her obligniion, to avoid it being referred te

a bondholders committee. ¢.» That is all she told you? That is
the agreement? As That ig the baeis on which she was woking the
Gepomite * * * { om one of the officers, just sasictant manager
ef the Aeal Estate Loan Depertment, in an effort te collect the
money for holders tows * * * Js “Rak wore you supposed to do
with this money agsin? A. “e were helding it until the interest
and principed which fell due heé been paid, then would remit it
to the bondholders. “+ In other vwerds, the understanding you
had was this, * * * 4f I understand properly, that che hed interest

@oming due, she wne going im, moking payments duc from time te

See AS ee ine ae ei aon:

SSS ee

Hide

‘Nth
Me
Ki
\

sxonom qiee od dat bostinse sat "stestte sand of smemmiate
yey 4S aw tolivowy wi seguadad odd to sewooga mo bheg tens ote

+2 .% agendiv a os balliee senminnoy aff satioogob dh va wee te
ebtaged neck etatue Soot att be xoganen énatatesa aa sophtzdiall
cenwbentued ‘@ doowbetint ynemtsaxd gis dodw Hol dpatenoy ot bes adem
“ gadak ghortiaed oghtutie «ao. dee daust sninkh ett Ye yqee
pate ' regeed om new boob dawnt éonts wk eeternt alt dak? enita
Yonom alt Sellen od pays? aoe ondetminy veld fad? ine ementaud
shiiw oedies ef todd qevebherbacd adi vet boeb deutd oat oder

ogi af sonexston mt gS8OL gf Yrewdey tuude co po wactet® apekd
aaw eon bien sale" fact geotinewo at hart ocd Te ged 46 nattbaoged
Sr® * sou Lhed goss teovetmt eat Yo dewoaes me yooom e1d4 undyag
tovarhae Maw diner Yrers save Yeon syed oF gulep sew ade dle oct
et tevecies of duped aid Setaew ada” # * «ane! sayhlde west yoq at
op etromyng Lagiosivg sd? bustxs to qtoomyeq Legions 1g ot avhaw
soldinecg som saw dais ted Bhey L +A Tras Ltet soy bie sash

+ 8% aretdiomes exehLathnod » Myo? vedtow pated et 3h dtautt
docld 29 parced edd ove etied (TU vataig wok Lemewon yt) of oth
adrengeg alan ¢¢ gaiog gew sf -—asemyey ed? 2A a dneeetaa

o2 bevintet gated 2h 2tows at ooh ANE: 0 ON 8, SANE
ak dof? twoy bhod ate Lhy ot dad? of 0%

og, gation naw sila Aotity an alvad aad. eh tts. A, the to
tegen Gneteluas seuh sexeohtic ad? Yo ono amt # Ht ® oth ae
od Jookion of 9x0%29 ma at qionmbsoga! mued. afatsi kao.odd de
oh of bonoggue Hoy sxmm tad! of ** * wags exohind we% yorom
tonrodms oot Shoem 32 guthSot ovew oi aa pens

#4 time biwer madd yOteq eo das oth Liv dot oe —
Mey gnihantaroiew od? yotsow umtte oh.

teovodnt ht wes sant evicoqorg bradess ome r u * © perigee me ¥ ’ ap
ad ont mont owsh adeoeTyog asthatase ont auton one ale: ak outs o

\
if 0
+19.

=Te
time, am that money you were weing to pay to the bondholders?

&- The payment was made efter the interest was dues and to aveid
foreclosure setion here, che was making payeents en account ef
the interest on iteme thet were Past cue. Qs dd you pay it out
according to your underetending? A» We had no uniaratandings

It was mot te be paid oxt until the interest wae paid in fuli.

G+ Dic you pay it out et mtiy Gime? Ae It has not been paid in
full.” The witness further Seatified that shortly after the
assets of Yoremom-State Trust & Savings Bank had been pledged to
the garnichee "1t¢ was apparent that there wonld be a eevault under
quite a few of the bond Leasuss that head been issued at the State
Sank of Chicago" and that, following the custom that brevalled when
banks cesued to operate, a bontholdere committee was formed by
certain membore of Poreman-\itate Truet & Savings Sank in eermection
with the Chiesge Title & Trust Companys "Ge (by attorney for
Plaintiff) Did you turn the money over te them? As Nag wit.

We are holding the money to await the decision from thea as to the
Geaire of the bondholders, or Court action through the fereclogure
proceedings. * * * 4G. (by plaintiff's counsel) Aw a matter gf
fact, Mrs Guthridge, the only interest you hed in thie entire matter
is exnetly whet you have «:i¢ here, thet Hrese Gicheu eame te you
and depegited thie money with you and you were te pay 46 owt on this
past due interest. That is the only comection you had in thig
entire matter, ie it mot? A. Thet war our attitude.” The witnese
further testified that the fund in queetion waa mot subject to the
check of Clara Gichaw and that the garnishee bank expected te pay
the fund to the bondholders.

It ig clear from the bill of exceptions that the triaz
court wan ef the opinion that the evidence was not owfficient te
warrant « finding that the funds im the garnishee bank were subject
te garnishment, and after « careful consideration of all the oral

Qereniadoned orf 99 You OF aakeg ex9w wey yomoa fade bam oomlt
bieva of bas. gah enw dagsedah ods Tei he shan sow tasmyog edt «A
te tmumess mo adnsayey yoidas Baw a3 .9te0 moabdon exyaotoe tes
du dh Goq NOU DL. of «emda crew foals aeeed, no Sooxedal att
sgetimatare sas om. bad Gh vA Tpukbosda te bee wey OF gelois9es
whbass ab hte, aov dne@svdmt gels Shea Sue, biog ed of tom sew st
at bisq asod joe net fh. «A. tomtd yoo do tue at yg Moy SED oP
esit wodhe Uldwosde tad Dabiicesd xodden nganitey oft “+ Liat
od noghotg meod dad Xae€ agatyar & equ’ aissioane tot Yo ateans
wobrmt tlueieb a od biwow gies Fauld Jone naw ah” pode Lriey wale
afadi. etd ge Sosrmat soad back ducts qamnet haved okt ke wat # ottup
node beliave sy daddomdoun oft gaiwaLiek «feds nme “onoeth? 2e tank
gd demro% saw eottinues erodtodined # vederume oF ponane odand
nobtoonnoo mi anak aguivat 6 tart stadiqname io% te academe Bad 399
get yonxests qd) 92" «ymeamo® Some? & oho8S ageniny odd Atle
othe sch oA, Tandd of ovo qernm ocd oud soy htt (thhenkede
sat of as mods goxk tolalooh of shawn oF qonem ond gubhfod ozs o¥
osmeatoo te? sdf dyuouls olsen awed te eaxodtedieed eit te axkeed
te todten amd (heaavon eiamkadg Wh oP * * * augakbesee Ry
nodiont outsas efeld of hes soy daonecat vino gt? goght ute amt ee
yoy 04 amas waste hD «nc todd .otodt diag ovad wey, Satin Vitoane me
aid mo so $2 Ye ws amb cay, Gm ase btw orem aftd bedteogsd haa
uidd md bad wey mestoonnes vine ond at deat otnevedat |
gnouthw af? “eobwanede se aay dadtt. «A teem at al piri oti
ond 93 tnotdse tom cer mobtaeup at taw’t ads deste berthignd neaté 5M
engiod bednagne sind sadelexen uct test ta sadni® anat? eo Seadto
; rkodomed wi of sts oe
fukxd sei? fad? emokiqoom Yo Like aalt mth; mete WE ME cine een
od smotet? tum sor ome oemedtve at Patt motnign sai we eon ee
‘goekdwe Gxew Sued sosteleioy oft mh wdowt, ots dant yatoat® a. ER
kao salt “ibe to notserbtanay Kapheca > soa ne 9 do

and documentary evidemee, we feel that we would met be justified
in disturbing the finding ef the trial court. The burden wag upen
Plaintiff to eetablich a gernisheble debt, and when the entire
evidence te carefully anelysed the contention of Plaintiff’ that
the evidenge proves eLlearly that "there were two definite condition
or eveute which mst heppen before the bank could property pay out
the funds theretofore Gepoalteds” is not entlefactorily sustained by
the proofs Pleintiff cites » number of eases which would be
applicable if hia contention that “there were twe definite cond itd ene
GF events which must hagpen before the bank could properly pay ous
the funds theretofere deposited,” sere sustained by the proof.
Plaintiff contends that Meyers ve Nifkins 268 111, Appe
634 (abst.), recently deoiied by this division of the court, abaoe
lutely controle the instant apoeal, and in his faver. There at
appeared that the bank, at the time of the cepoalt wade by Safein,
stated, ia a letter, that the Ceposit was made for the purpose of
having the tank distribute che same to Heituan Trust Gos», in
connection with the firs$ mortgage an the premises in question:
thet euch payment was “subjeet to the understanding that the ssid
mertenge shall be extended for a peried af twe Yeora," and that
such extension “shall be subject to unpaid general taxes and special
agseoamentas* and the evidense entabliched thet the negotiations
Se to the proponed extension of the mortgage had failed and Ger sed,
and we held thet uncer such cireumstanees Sifkin sould properhy

‘ heave demanded the Fepsymant to him of the deposit and that sherefore

it would be wubjeet to garnishment by hig judgment oreditera. Rogers
) eomotive & wachine works vo Kelley, 08 1 Yo 284, te applicable te

the facts of the instant eas@ and sustains the Judgment of the trial}

EOinrt. ‘There the wourt, after holding that the bank held the fund

fin trust, eaids
“If the ercditere refused t@ assent to the trust, or if

sothizent of dom binow ow sect Leak ov ssagedive Yradmeaaod kre
nage ame wobrad ott otaeee Labee ead: 70 aedhes? oct pakdutald ssh
eben att cone dem ¢tded eidedaiatag « daliday ee of kradebaty
gode Vebentatig to saldmesnos ent. domolona qiiwiotss ef eomsbirs
gokgkhaes edialkel gat otew ores” taalt ylaaede sorotg gosmhivs eid
tue yaa “Uhreqong bkuoo dead od? suoted sequent seam Moditw’ otaere ae
of bettadaire ehisessatelion sou of *,betigogeh erekavexodd bow old
| od: Miwowtstotide xenon Ro codeien onthe Minhas: «Reewt a
eno ket deoe odin tod awh Stee ores” ¢ale modiaotane att. ts aidaaliqgs
te ye ULuegeg bisoe dnad od oupted waqyad deme Gotate. gd orre %o
teeny ont WS hemkaduae ator Te hagtaogeh exototacedé whom? oid
Solgggs oft 688 gnkies oy weenad saxit abewtmoo RaPEMARR Oy
coodd (true oxta Yo wudatys mts ee bObsoes ~sinooet efe dada) 268
ye wnes? etovat ata ah bea piaauqe seatant ons akontnos yotul
snicehee ohm taoged oss qo emda eat 36 gles edd tas? Retentyt
vo Sung tg odd tod ohat sow theoged ste teed qroddet # wh «botate
uot od gk gee taeet mandiet of emda eate oltgnttatek® wisad add gat test
ip da Reema ek eee Date wd tee saagexom deskt ont cele ses ORCAS
hieo ed? sorts qukbimtansiee’ ei? oF tevbelue” aa acevango dome tects
hett des thetany oe Be hobteg<@ wet be bree , of Lhasa wyeps ton
ampisaksenem-edd soct Aodnt kdatee,canobien ont Be “poduqemaeaes
shegose has bediet hed apagetem.eds Be, cobampans enaaqone add of 39
yfroge ny Dives abhei goonegmamo tio sae <9 O00 deta. died ow bas
axsteneds ¢arls. em shaogeb oat Ro. mb od arinneynmet att neonate ewasi
_granad senotthonw soremmbuh, cde ws sommmebeoay ot s00ln ad biwow at
ad sidentiqna at edt .¥ ot 08 sxettod ov easel RRRARAE 5 sub sopmae:
Latte ett Ro tememhwt, add smtateny bug nme dreamt eat to avon oid

er By a rf
i i a a

a, vi ‘ Yar
bhax : %
ae Hey Bihan rae ia sy i 4 + Vd «* afi : ;

i NM 00,94: ER NE ey vesoisie 2 se mim 6

st wttacae’ i

7 ad ah | Ps 2

= ye

their debits were Giherulee satiefieds a trust Would regult te

the cerporation in respect to the unexpended balance in the

haude of the trusteca. ut eo long ae the trust was cont ilvudng»
the sheriff's right, wider the altechment, if any, waa subord inate
to the rights of the holders of eoupons to have the fund ayplicd
te their liquidation, although the seupone bad not been premented
when the attachuent waa ievied, and the existenes of the trust
Was not then known te the kelderg. fhe eoupon helderg were
oreciters of the company, “he fund in question wes raised te pay
the coupons. the corporstion had a right to make the arrangement
in question to prevent = cefeawlt in meeting the interest on its
bonds, ami the Arrangement made Woe, we thinks effectual in Law,
ae agiinegt the elaims of other erediters.*

The gole anewer made by plaimtirt’ to that important esse ie that
it there appears that the purpose for whith the deposit wes made
“wae til) elive and capable of pertormence. Whereas im the
instant ease the purpose for vhieh the depesit wag made wag ineap=
able ef performance.* Had Plaintiff, in the inatant Che@, preven
that the rarnishee could net perterm the purpose ef the deporit,
a different situation vould be prenented. “¢ eannet sustain the
further argument of plaintiff thet there te eufficient evidence
to indileate 2 disclaimer an the part ef the bondholders. If the
recerd te preeticelly harren as te the attitude of the bondholders
in respect to the fund, the fault Lies with him. “wen after all
the evidence had been presented and the eourt bad stated that he
wae geatiefied that 14 wan his duty te make «a finding fer the gare
nishee, counsel for plaintiff etated that he wished to offer
acditiomal proof, and, thereupon, the court cont immed the further
hearing for = mumber of days for the sole purpose of giving plain-
tiff an opportunity te offer additional proof, bub when the hearing
wae resumed counsel announced that he hed no farther evidenes te
offer. The attitude of the garnishee in vefevenge to the fund in
Question wos plainly stated by Frank i. aul, one of its éounsel,
whe informed the court that the garmishee bank regerded the fund
a6 belonging to the bondholders and that the only reneon why it
hod not been paid over to them wag because the amount ef the fund

Was sufficient to make only partial payments on the eoupens held

, : i ip

éd Shwaex bivow guste 2 selte kiss ‘oad wradde’ ‘eeew godub Vet”

oes mh debuoqaenn ede ef doegeet ai atiaxousye ote
ygahentiaes exer é ‘(le a6 yt oa o tba se

start ovodue saw yyae th etmmamtoed de ea? we dew ert otis eat
poidgge baw ocd weesl oF ‘enegwoe Re wiebhot ode ‘Se pdityt e ws
bodenmete need dan Sal saagiee ost slqarostd Le erobtawblapht shodd ae
deur? wid to vonetaine eid om gburpel ger tnomioatia Oce
siew gtoblod edi aprebiod adt of meget cod? FOR aaw
od peetax saw seawy et best ear grag sats fe
gisria ett shaw of 2 4% bel moite? Ny onthe A
pth oo gaosedal aly ooo at ditotted « Store 2 aedegony whe
Ph hoe wt amen gaiit bs ow Cie igen tee od bee ,aanee
! *eredibee rade to anhels oid Jankage ea
doskd md aaxp duatwwgmk dadt of Sidelalg yt ohm teenae ofeo oft
, Sham eae Sigoged sit sotite got enogzuy ate dadt werogge gredd oh.
ed? mt aeasostl ~oensaxererg te aideqee baa evhia fiide enw?
agnonk aoe 9 has @aw Zinegeh ott sokde coh saggy std goat ditatnah
novesg adnan dntetadh off gst skttiniala bo «= ootrrttang te olde
athacgeh ode 30 spogsig, ahd sergiesg. dan ademo eniatemcey od dott >
orld, mistene Jenne 8h she dmegaxg. ed bluse gottantio sae tttds #
enmedive smetel Vine ek would, dale tuttatade Bo tremegte caelt oe
odd 2 arebleddued eal) 30.4385. nike pom combate kh 8: stant bak of
wiehlodomed wie 29 ebuditia galt od ea arsed. ehhoal doomg 2h, breowt
iia setts nevi «eid Mate aath shat od oheath sale ad dvogaes mb.
ost Gots. hodata had dae add bos heduene we neod bad eomebies ot
w2ay odd tot guisats & lem of Yin odel eae ah daatt, Sabigds em OAR 0
gotio ot mutade oof tate bateda vhapsiedg “o'r, foanuan open he,..
worttaart sats boamik enon samow, ose etnqaaTeds g bie «FOOT Lamers ibis
cnlala grivip 38 sada olen edd sok aah ke salina a 0% anhiset
getiasd, add mode dag «loess, fonghiihha steSte oF yainwaxoaae. meets
oF, some hive ema cat, ont, fami oh gest? F |
a seer, mht of ‘oonwsstex mh egdedmne,
sfosmuee add 20, orto, «fat od, Ant we ime ade:

emt ond papaaner, saad oscinkesam, e6?, ‘aaae, onsen
ah wie, monens vine efi? deds ona exebion® f aad, a2. pabgmeted 94.
eet ort? to denen odd saxconed oan anil et ore hoe sad f96, Bett

ated amoquoe ode ce vemomens. Sate, iw slam af fost oat

“t
EM |
a

lie

by all the bencholders. Amy guggestion thet the garnishee wag
actuated by improper or selfish motives in ite attitude as te the
mature of the fumd is wholly wowarrauted.

Plaintiff? urgee that he had the right to reach the funds
in question because there had been BO Seceptanse of the trust by
the beneficiaries. Segers Locomotive & Machine Yorke ve Kelley, _
Supra (ps 233)9 disposes ef that contention am adversely to it.

Plainiiff argues, ae we understand it,» that the case
ehoulad have been determined upon the receipte given Clara Gichay
and upon her testimony thet she hed tepesited with the garnishee
bank the amounts stated in she kee¢ipte, aud that the evidcenee
offered by the gurnishee sénding te show the nature and purpose of
the transsetion vielates the Statute of Fraudee It is « sufficient
anewer to thig centention ie ony that counsel fer plaintsire Questioned
Glara Gichau az to the uncerstanding and agreement she had with the
garnishee when she deposited the HOnSYs, ari he erosa-exasined
Guthridge fully as to the seid agreement and underutanding., the
instant ¢ontention that such evidense violates the dtatute ef
Frauds was not raived during the hearing and ig Pisiniy an
aftesthought. In amy event, there ke MO merit im it. The naotmption
in the inetent contention that ihe testimony of Clays
out a prima fagie case fox plaintife is uwivarranted »

Im conclusions we may state that i? in any further pre-
eeeding 1% appears that the bondholders have refused to agvent te

the truet, or if their ceBie were otherwise eeotiafied, or if it
should appear that if waa not peesidle for the garnishes to caray
out the purpeses of the ‘ruat, @ trust would then reawlt te Clare.
Giehsu im respeet to the fund im queation.
The judgment ef the Sunicipal court of Chieaga is off inmeds
AVPIRMID.s
MaLlivans Pe Jey and Gridley, Je, concurs,

wife

anw sede hercng ost gaaks ‘wat isegnMe wa sammacodhnod ode ie “a
sad ef os bowel yea ok ed. povilha Melee to roquagad. yt betaw res
, sboteer comme ited at fonts? outs ia oautian
cout onta thos oe sys oily bad of Hesit momar Pebeekass Oo os
ye! ramet sate to. PonaIgnors ak Mood bat wed sebad oe noiiteoup, at
__aNpSta% sv ste! ombalont 8 evktomonat axonal, «etselpliened, aaa
wit od Uleenovae dae woktmernas dash te Keene (eee “a see
‘poae oad ted 42k ‘petode-cotbeus ow ea enawgre ‘Vikdadels |
wasiok® axath mevig viqivows sid meus bontucedee ‘now’ ‘ovadl ‘p£irodte |
eetidiniey ond dow bedtacqut inset one datd qwomt ened sot aogn ‘bow
“bone have ould dad bas aadqieos oid ab dedate sé@omomn add stad
“ps dbedaue Bes oxudan ost? wails OF pabiaes vosubaaay odd W boxs¥ts
Va te stwande Gds pedagoly woldoaunotd ett
|) pemotitadup Ytlitelg oY Loatmon taslt vis OF woiinetme eitld of s xomaste
i ote ‘aiiw bast eile seosmorge brs pink onda ss ons edd of es waste.
© Sombhmacpennerre wal been atepmom oald bed inode ‘eke pa vedetenns
| att ‘Vantbantevobear bon teomsongs Star ot of an i! wal
*s edudee: edt eodnkoly somebive Aus aval Clea “omatuat
| ne uintady of tm pabrnedt wold nitive voalet to ua abort
net iqeninas os vik a “ghxow om at ound sens ws rt “ tilgued |
» gent x0 proath oun end sate netiussa0s ‘ne
hod ee sams wh ribend ate ‘got caso giant .
| “oxy reddit wus ab ‘he aude state yea o¥ yiatoutonos al
os texan 08 foawhot oval axobtaithnod ‘ost els exenaae oe ‘aabbbbe:
‘ oe ‘bh xe abodtat son salwesdio oxdw aio chew) 4d ow hawt sell
A ad od coder: odd <et oidianog too one Ob ‘tnatt wee th a0: s
“geekd 0s ahunox ‘oui? ikuow sauxd 6 stele) nth Yo! senoqiae Omi”
ae ee wih ; quot at
canna ua Gyno Ye 009 Seaamunierall e bey

off Sao OR Se aM cl SP 0 4 Rew Ait
Lt ie ‘bn

Soma ,

eat NOR

36708

4
BsWJAMIG KAPLAN,
Appellant.

JACOB POLLAGK, MINNIE PoLAcK,
ROSA Binoy aed PRILIP S.noy 4

i
|

GOONS OF CHICA,

274A 1A. 654

Bhs SUSTICN ACAMLAN ORLIVER EP pee OP DFIGN OF Tat corer.

im am setion of the firet eless, im the Munieipal eourt
of Chiesgs, plaintiff sued te vevever upou certain bende ond hae
appealed from timawampe judguent rendered ageinet him in « triad
by the court. Defemients heave not filed « brief in this court.

The sult was instituted en four bends of S00 #s.eMe
wigned by defendants (appellees) and Horry %. and Vebher Gordon,
dated Vebruary 1, 1023, maturing Yebruory le 2034, and secured by
& @eee of trust on certain real estate. The etatement of elaim
wae filed om August 9, 1932. Upon leave given, an amended state.
ment smd affidavit of claim was filed em Secenber Se 19384 I6 ig
provided in the bends that upon eefeul4 im the payment of interest
at the time and place specified the erineipai mey at the eLeetien
of the holder of any of said bends become due and payable berore
ite maturity, as previded im the truet deed and in aceordanee with
the terme and provisions thereof. ‘There ig a previeion in the
trust éeed te the effect thet im case of default im the due ami
punctual payment of any interest dus on any bond secured by anid
trust ¢ee¢ amd any sueh default shali contimue for « peried of
twenty deya, then the whole of the principal awe eccured by
gedd trust deed, together with the interest acerued thureatt,
ehali at once, without motic¢e, at the option of the solder of

( .
Bo a |

2 he. 3 \ ae | ue
“oe

| | ee? ath, Se, Oren

fe Prat a

pe peo RES os HES GRRE iy
acorn wa Ame ‘ Lene

OR tito #0 000 epiLn atenm , DAtdO% pe
P AR CEL hs WORE AOR,

; Rina ays 5%
ha Ay ATS rg ig taal
eT AUGD HHT To WEIS SEE COVE WARADE ROT TIOE: en
i os BM Rat

dase8 Langhodast esd a soende dack? lt te aotton oa ro re
eat Deas ahmed atasres noge xevenes af eww vidgatnte ‘ 30 9 30
Laktd 2 mk mis demos bexvheox duomyhet, emmmeamtt 9 mont bedeoggn
| aiusoo gid? ph Yeti » bese? tom ovad re satwos woe
sone (0088 to wbmed teh ne begutivam wen Stee oar oe
| amore nosde™ bme + ierreH Ona (moni teuiga) scl ue mate
WH Dorion ban gCHOL of Yxawetol pmbwsdnm HCL of yraie ante wd
whale to wemetede etl »pintes Lowe stadseo ae dams , seb i
~94 nits bodmome ce ghovle evens cogil 200K 98 dongs wo penne
ab $E SUC of wwdmvol mo beLIR xaw mdady to diwobi Ye Aen deme
éaonodah Yo damyey ocd Sh Phd MoqT some mtownd weld fd, Aone 2
Hottovle uit da yom Logkonteg oct pebtioage eoasg | no ome wkd toe
sietod widayag tne ox emooed edwad Siow te ‘Wee Re weRod wld to ‘
Hdiw apambtooem at das fooh dosnt one mh hebiveny mm yee tide eek
og? mi tolsivesg « ek ovedlY «+ lootedd eotetroty wie died

mam

any ome ef sald bonds then unpaid, beeome due and payedile >

In theiy affidavit of merits filed to the emended statement
of claim, defendents do net deny the execution ef the bende, war de
they claim payment ef the interest; they allege that the bank whieh
was the place of payment wae elosed and thet no demand fer soyment
had been made on them, but do not sllege that they bed tendered
payment ox that they had been er were ready, willing ond able ta
make paynent of interest thet beoume due on “wgueS 1» 19323 they
gemy thet there kad been « éefauls is payment of interest «hich hag
continued for a peried af twenty dayes amd allege thet slaintir¢
had no right te maimtein his <ction on ihe bends because of a
Provision im the trust deed that aly right of aetion under the

trust deod in vested tm the trustes,

SS Vee Te
EE ee ee ee eee ee ae ee > r

On January Bp 195%, eper molbien of Plaintiff, the ouit
wae Gimtigzed as te defendantea Herry %. Gorden and Nether Gordon,
and, upos the wome day, the couse come on in Yeguler eouree for
trial, before the court without « Jury, there having been no domnd
by either party fer a Jurys and the court heard She evidesee and

found the ie-:ues ageinet defendents and assessed plaintiff's
Gamage: in the sum ef $2,06% and judgment was thereupon entered
upon the finding. On January 20, 195%, upon an orel motion Wace

by defendants, unsupported by affidavit: er evidenge, tae eouré
| Votatec the finding and judgment of Jonuery 3d. Gm Boren ip L9SS5
when the couse again come on for trials qvidenee wan affered by
Plaintifs, but none by defendents, and the court found the ieeues
against plaintiff.

A&G the quiset of the hearing counsel for defendants

“sbjected $0 the intredustion of amy evidence by plaintiff upon the
‘@tound that if there was a default in the payment of interest cue
“cuguet Ls 1932) nevertheless, the trust deed provides that such

rOidayry bnn exh ampoed ghhegne medd absted dhe Yo ome Yo
tnnemtota Seven oft of SOLE adhuem Yo ivudhyte heme mT
ob som gubeed edf to molixeom off ysos Gou of admodasted eukiede *t0
Hosdw dawd odd Shs opolie quit pdeorodmd ot Yo sromyeq abate “yee
deparyer xol brameb om votd oon eee to naw demangen Yo exatg ett ear
betohued bad qed val? wgedie fom 0% Jud quads wo hem mood bet
62 efde me yabitiy ¢ybnrs exw 26 weed bast Yuna dacs wo eawargeg
* dgedid gQ0WE gx daiigur me oud omoned dasté daovetat Yo tronyea eolen
beet doled devvaded ‘to dmoarcog nt diuatod « mod hed exed?d dala quod
Miboadalg fod opelin ban .oyod Yoewd Yo Rekteg « wot boumhsmes
8 WW wauvacd snmod aiid mo moddes afd mtatutem of sight om bad
odd xsbew molten % dayix iin dedd bewd. deugs oct ot mobytveng
eseteund ety eh Seteeor at. heen aque
stu add gtihisiadg te melsom moqe gh0@L af exeome’. cond |
atiobiel raiey bee aotnod «iM Yxtal esuabneted of ao tooutmmd gow
wet cexwen cedager ch me wmwe gage ostd. vest sang a, gu. gan
bmamed en need gubved ered) «yuh a dvediie gteen odie. exeted gfakst
bap gomobye ax? mond games edd bes «yte # x02. al al
atti inisiy booseces hia Binabaetod antepe anuee! esd. damn
bonntnn seers oa fmomyboh bus ORR %s Xo mum behap | - }

einenpetes a .saneene saat ba anon tt th,
ste anata Sa + tones aepiaeapiiotany ‘ | sr fl

wo Se

defeult should contisue far a period ef teenty days before pleine
tiff hed the option t» declare the whele of the pringizal sax
secured by the trust deed, together with the interest acorued
thereon, due amd payable, and that ae the auit wae commeneed

and the original ctatement of claim filed on iuguat 9, 1093, it
wae prenisturely Drought}. The trial court eustadmed this eon-
tention, amd plaintiff here imsiete that hie action im thas
vegard wae erroneous. “# agres with glainti¢f.

Under the semen law practice the prematurity of amy
action ean be properly raised only by « plea in abatement unless
She prematurity appecrs affirmatively on the face ef the declaration,
when i$ may be teated ty demurrer. ‘the office of « plen in abate~
ment is to set up matter whiek merely defeats the present progecd ing
but dees not show that the plaimtiff ia forever eoneluded y and 4¢
must give the plaintiff a better «rit. “ule 12 ef the routes of
the Hunieipal court ef Chicege (in ferce at she time) reede ag
fellows?
abatement ay quistios Cer Perioainiies 2 the eourt : pig
present the same by a written motion specifying the greunds
thereot, end eaupport the some by an «ffidavit except where the
matters relied on te euppert the metion appear ef recerd. ;
such motion raines an ieeue ef fact dehera the record the
court Bhall hear evidenee presented by the respeetive parties,
pereere Ray Pag weeding?” gdemasce: the mather shall be eet
in the imstent ease defendants did net file a written metios in
accorésaee with rule 12, nex did they make & motion te strike,
but they saw f4t te file an affidevit of merits to the amended
statement ef cluim whiek hat been filed hong after the twenty=
day period hed passed. i in the setthed rule of lew im this
etate that where a party elects net to shide by his original
Geglarstion and files, upon leave given, «i amended declarntiun,
he abendons hie originel deelarstion awi the mult is regarded aa
having been commenced at the time of filing the amended cowl.

}
|
;
f
|
Ty)
Ue
Ae
ili
fl
wit
ae
>
Bh o
ity
iia
hes

“or =
SSSR pes.

ST SSS

satoly oxmted ayeh Weed te tekseg s 0% eomtémee Alveds Iimeteb
swe Laghowkag wld t9 oiodw até ointowd od mobiqe add bad Thee
hearroos teoxedal ola Ativ wpiteget ghoot tamsd odd yd sommes)
boemenmme aav Ikve add a guts one eoldeyag tne sab qnaeteds
Gh qNOCL 40 dawgwh as beklY what to tremedete Lankghte oda ban,
wnop alsid bombsduen omvep Laks’ eG? sdelgword elonudemerg new:
tuts at moiden off dastt sdubamt ovedt Witalely hue gmehined
ag tubvtbatg debe cexye oY. saueenowes erogeieme
ws to etiistameny edt soliucug mek someeee ont? soba veces
anelens Iusmncads ai iui i. heise tea siti
etokintafoeh ott Io een% acid oo yhovi tnmet Lhe ateeqas yihweds al
~sieds ai nig a to soitio edt «wermped qv hedand ot whe
ert bo se ong samesag et gteotod yLevem eine tes dem qa aoa as oe trem,
ét has edeburtones xavotot af Tiidakesg wt? tual? woste goa vob sad
Yo woint odd Yo Sf tw +abty sestod o ‘Metawlaly ed ovin deum
ea ebeot (omit en? do covet mt) openidd te gxmoo Lng

at wt0dd am ee ten oe aentesd
Slates od gt sate sity Ro motos

whdd tt wad Ye elux bedetoe odd et 24 +bowe pone sheet at

ode
It ie unnecessary te cite the numerscug authorities ehieh euctain
this fomilinr prineiple of law, Under the state of the recerd at
fs clesy thet the trial court erred in bolding that plaintifry eould
wet recover on the growed chef ¢he muit was prematurely brought,
and in arriving ot thie conclusion we have agsumeds, solely for the
PUr poses of thig appeal,» that the twentyeday period provieion in
the trust deed controle the right ef 2 holder ef bonds to sue thereon
in an action im aesumpsit.e |

AG the insistence of plaimtiif the trial eourt allewed hin
to offer evidence in supgert of his claim, and se are Seilefied, fram

@ reading ef the bill ef exeepiiena, that Be made out a prime Sacke

Gases Defendants offered ne evidence.

AG the conclusion of the heucring plaintiff aupmitied ta the
trial court eertain propositions ef lew, all of which were marked
“Overruled.” From an inepeetion of the seme it appears that the
trial court misconeeived the rules of law agplieeble to the taatant
tase. He held, in effect, ihet the plaintiff won barred froe waine
taining the action on the emended statement of claim because the
original atatement of claim wan filed prematurely. Se aiaxvked
“overruled” the following propeaition of laws

"the court helds ag a matter af law thet the boude
emecutec by the Gefencont anc gue’ on herein by plaintiff are
negotiable insicrumentea.*

The bende contain a definite promise to pay jo the order of bearer
(ey to the registered cener thereof) a fixed gum ef money ai « certain
Sime and place. ‘the referenees on the bonds to the trust deed do net
wake the bonds nonentgetiable. (See Jehmtskisa v, : Ls
267 Ills Apps 169; Yright ve stevens Brothera Corpes Gens Hoe

S6,649 Ills Appe 06.9 Gauge ve Simon sia Tlie ADRs L0¢; 2flueger ve
_ Broadway Tre & Say» Banks 351 111+ 1709 Fleming y. Gannon, 267 TLl.
Appe 163.) By marking plaintiff's Proposition ef lew pumber five
overruled, the court held, in effect, that certain provisions in

Kintesn soley api tluadinn avexomun gd otto of Mxesereonmy gh aT

dk auesex ws? te state pole webot «mel, to vigtoutug tad fined whee
binoo Rikimiule gests yokosod af Some dues Labed ods sant tenia, eh
odetquond Yhoad ease my, eow slice geld doy Sawote tly ae Tevogst ten

add so} qfolon gheminan oves ov setextense git oo muebyh ane ot den

Bi moloivewg bali wabeydaewe on’ decd eLergqe,alde To aogcqrey
sooxmld vue ot goted to sobded 2 te daipix odd ehoziaes boed samzd gfe
: _ eAteqmunae mh sokson mm mt

satel berusts Hawn Lola ads, aid emtads he seomielent ot aA

Stes t ebedketdns, ota ow baw quikate aie he teeggan od epaabtve rortte tt
| aah © tuo ehect oi deals ganmliquens Me £36 odd Yo, gathsota
ah sOotvadee om howole genabneted saeed-
Mt asl? 09 bets tetun ertambate gehacod of? te solewkones eb. 8A 9p gy yy
| buduces oxew Hedy to Lfe qwet to mmolsteeqoug ahosxeo ¢umoo Sakad
Sk? fond axcoque ¢1 omen odd Yo medsoequed aa mus . *>hoLexmewot
dnotaet off of oLdactinns wel to seten ef? dovivouccetn dxupe Labad
ties moxt bestad aow Tiliaioale ed? dads gdoette af ghied Oh. +san0
ald sasoged miele lo snameiase Seinome erie ae natdon ses aatmbed

# ean

boatman ox a eenert amor beAtX asw athado To dconmd te fonigtee

awed te fo} steoqony, wetenticn wie | :
. gbtted ott teste was ‘ta wsseuit & & ae abide +
ete Tiivatels ve slew mm dope beh nh

| retidd te teirme odd oF yay of Selumuy vate tod aintathod aha ott
i ttiatse: 2 #6 Younes to same Gomtt a (tected? wines Senstebkges edt oe)
fem on beow Gaui? oid oF nbtiod oi’ md eobeinndie eit (boat ‘bits ntti

WB biemuenos : tet ata eeu) Seearigecvimnniinnpebentyere

oLit' POS gitonnnd oy shia yore tit ie | ‘dunt svar 4.x?
ovit xedmmn wal 20 mediteogon Shinto sintq githticom yt (. 88d

“Be

the trust deed barred Plainiixf from ue intadning the inatant
action.» Ae we have heretofore poimted Cub, im Sohutekis
ARRTE. the purpose of euch Broviciona wag io Peauriet ind ividaa,
Section only in the institution or feureslosure Proceedings and yet
in the comzeneenent ef SH avéion sq Teeover Bpen & perecial

¥ & ip SE ey

thers

ebligetion of a signed muse or bond Steured BF @ trust devd.

*h@ trial eours, BpOm Sue und leputed Zaete, shouig
have found for plaintire, “be judgment is therefore Fever sed
and judgment ig en tered in thie sours againets telemdantes, Jacob
Pollack, Zimie Pollaeks Hous Baron and *hilip Buren, for GRgVOGy
the amount of the bonds, plus intereat, ae prevides therein, or
& S0te8l of 62,060,

RSVehgsh ATO JUcemeRT IW PAIS couse
ACATHST LEPSNDagta Jacag POLAT
MINNIZ POLLACEy ROSA BANOR Jotp PaILIP
BiO, POR O2,060,

| Sullivans ?. 3., and Gridley, J+, soneur.

oar ornfnreeorrentonrs
_ aaa epee re rode saint email

ancio)_aueslto’ f 095 )
“Rounded bat fohaduet 62 eae indivi thie ‘to wouqung ote Sal
“gen “is ‘ggaibsoootg emide. noted Ye wonsweroams sald ah piso eo batons
Lemonneg & nog wivewes of moldon ae te tenamnmomsen ack oh
“\peet dare 2 fomaes Sao cod nual yuagte ote aobeaghido
biwoute gaseet badge that: add segue «aii gased eat? oe po ae
doaiyhint, Gf SMRbHthety set a we

“boaroves omotonl ek ant

ee uses + she
Ba: het Rasp gore ,

et a ae Aeros Ait
rk. Sy tan ee a. eet eR ea cuitdonity Nea eeneain Staud
SiR ane he ci Ripa. aly SOO CARRRRT SE SEI Nea aig. take

ah ie ah aa set isonet ess
A ARew tine Ania ke aire iin so natie ath eee “~. -

Bile as SE sg)
‘nist atin bod

Oe ee OM MM a i ala ia X we cm

Pe Tse

t *
ef dary, Oy 1“) ‘i spat we ik “a \ it Mi. i
RC TROP NA RI, MRR IRR ale Na mer ore ke Bey \ wy hy

5 Le r
a 58 wee f
sears Sie.
sail : a ee & f
SAMUEL ROSEN, ) |
Appellant, ) :
i APPEAL PROM MUNICEPAL
We
ilies tai an COURT OF CHICAGO. '
: : + @ F LD ial y <
a Corporation, r i 2 G 4 I ° A, 6 R4
Appellee. }

ERe JUSTICN SCARLAN DELIVER’ D THE oOPINToR or THE COURT »

in an aetien fer rent the trial cours found for
éefenéemt and plaintiff has appealed fram the Judgments entered
upon the finding.

The statement of claim ulleges, in substance, that on
Yebruary 7, 1931, a lease, for the premiges knewn on 3218 Lawrenee
avenué, Chicage,for the term ef one year comuoncing May 1,» 1931,
was entered inte between plaintiff, as leseer, and defendant, as
lemseg, at e yearly rental of $2,400, paysble in monthly instalments,
in advanee, of £200 eachy that on Agril Sl» 1932, before the expirae
Sion of the leases plaintiff end defendant entered inte a written
agreement “extending the term of the aforesaid lease for the monthe
of kay end June, 1932, at the rental of 200 per momthg" thet “said
agreement further provided that all ef the other terme and cond itions
6f eaid lease should romain in full force and effect * » eg" that
thereafter defendant wrongfully held ever during the month of July,
21932, and plaintiff elected to trent the holdover as Gresting an
agditional term for one yeary that plaintiff sues te recover rent
fer the months of July» <ugust and September, 1932, ami thet defendant
is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $600 for rent for said months,
The affidavit of merits admits the making of the lease and the
agreements admite that defendant seeupied the premises during the

bs = :
é
bs

“ae
SAGLOXHUM MOG GAKWEA a
ee ee ee

JDAO VAT BY ‘S. ni opie

rato CRT RG WATS WE CELA MARR CORTATE a oF
x Pape he tae ee aie ie
wot havet Youd Eabas oki suet cot moivon wx at "
EG gS

* dered snomsbut nonh sens besaoaga ant Yekantade ons tuobasted

Hest id 43 waht ie LP Oe)

NG dente avoutinduy ai sawgolia mateo te susemtnde ont
comstmat S186 e mond esatmnny mid 40% ‘sooubh @ 4f80s Af eau
eLbCk ok yan sit onbaoe shox tow he sed ead wot ogeotao apres
as giiabustsh baw gxoneel os a tttentade avewdod oGnt borssne aw
an iconkas sad Asad wt eldayog 9!Obq%S to Ladess ehaney a te seoonod |

eautexs edt exerted oases eft Shape eo Ee ‘ae we”

astiiue a otah boxedue srmbesteh hae PUsatolq «eneet pote we sitiniy

uisnes ahs 16% vacol Stavouete aid te mies sss gark bers xe Pe
bhva” Seed “gadmom xoq GORS to Sateex ond te seen sont. fsa vot te
anoléiinos bun smnd xed ox? te Lin sass pentveng | oats art sommenas
godt %y* © © Jootte bas sete? Sint ah eden bLwode fas 0 " Ce
avin Lo donom oats gxtiuh ove bed ‘GLkeiguo-w sanonetod 509"
“ie gRkiaet® os sevebhax ets danet os ntoede decsunliiie

a9; wevee4 ed aie Teva | dusts saan pele wee

‘ios cara

“fe

erm ef the lease and during the months of May anc Jume, 1932,
but denies that it continued in possession Curing the month of
July} avers that it moved owt on July 109 19325 denies that
Plaintiff has the legal right te elect to treat the alleged
holdover as oreating a renewal of the term of said lease ae
extended, and denies that 14 became Liable te pay plsiniiff the
eum of $200 per month for the peried ef one year from July 1, 19325
alleges “that by heldine over during the first ten days ef July,
1932, said lease was extended for the term of iwo months only, * * #
ama ¢efendent avers that it hae heretefere tencered and now tenderg
to the plaintiff the sum ef $460 in full satiefnction and payment
of all rent due plaintife by ite® Suriug the trial defendant filed
an amended affidavit of merits im which it admits the meking of the
lense} avers that it moved out of the premises on July 1%, 19523
denies that plaintiff has the degai right to eleet to trent the
@llieged heldoever as ereating a renewal of the term of the Lease
ae extendeds denies that it is Liable to pay plaintiff the eum of
$200 per month for the period of one year from July ig 1932, and
Genies that it beeome or ig a holdevex tenant for any period of
i ime»

The following ig the agreement ef April 21, 1952:

"2549 ¥, Division

“thie Memorandum of sgreement made April Zleat, 1932,
by ané between Gamuel Rosen of Ghieegs, ILlineins first party,
; and Natiomal Tea Coes an Illincis Corporations eecond party:
5 : Vitnegseths

“Whereae, the first party is the Lesser and the scoond
party is the Leesee in a lease eevering premises situate at
S218 Lawrenee avenue for « term expir f APEAL 309 1932, at the
monthly rental ef Twe Humdred Deliars (£20. 405) o ANd,

“Whereas, it is the desire of the parties herete to
extend the term of this lense for the monthe of May and June of
1952 at the rental ef Two Hundred fellare ($260.06) a monthe

“How, Therefore, it is agreed by and between the
Parties herets as fellows:

“Firatt That the term of the aferementioned Lesage

between the parties herete covering premises situated at

$213 Lawrence avenue, Chicage, Sllinein, be extended for the
monthe of May and June, 2932, at the monthiy rental ;

Ce os

“a

oie

ghhee overt Cue “Get te cadena ont yoko fun oaaek od? to geved
te dtépom at? yotiwh mainosenoy me aawakiope ¢k dad eotave oud
todd gudmed gSheL Of yiwh no duo Divo 42 dott atom rt
gegetia wit #eord oF tvele 8 dtgex Leoged ons nat eeenkeds
as soeel bina te med wai to Lower # wahioees Be eve bios
oui PLD deeh she “oq of ehtali emwond 32 dog? aatreh hem ee
saeer gt vik mmx? teoy ene to Seley onle net inom sq 0089 Ye mie:
eyinh to eyed med goaks at? wali tore pubhiod ¥e dade* conetie
|) a6» gine eittnanl ont "30 mned esd <a elimina wna’ tna GENRE
| qasband won bas boredaed oxokodoned wat 6 foes gure inchmote® hae
dscaangany bes po tsostabaan Lise ab oong ‘Yo atin seta vet eataty oat? oF
bose? dumhaston Lakxd wold patna "oth yd WRAéatody owh snot Lhe te
eats Yo gotten ests asiebs 2h dotsy wh af been te a bvabt ta -potomn ~
BREEE Qik east os nonimerry and te ano boven tt seta oxove fensed
od? david of duets o2 sighs hogok wag ont yiintelg ata ern
ouaes adi to wrod ot 0 Lawvnes 8 ga inne ae xovohieg begelia | mh
te inet oad Tihewkala Yea 0# oLdath et ot sane asdaoe soohentn 99 tr
beim EGE 9h visi mots ta0y eee % petro, ovis xe Aveo en, Ro ity f
Yeo Dokwes we xo% named seventod 2 at an emnood $f sams wotmey

On ae ae
Bis eee

sages. fs pen to cA ERS ot, pe putuptte’. oT in
mobekyid, o® etal

i oe 4 5)

20k «teks Lhe) eben # iy
“ wert Sh me ag PR Fart
eee bavese pelea, nd

pe roto ere relied =e eos oe %
ad? svowded jae ed Seemed |

att
wreak tm’ Jacaixcka at? Ro stot ott eon

ta todmut lea sesinorm,pukeneen ote oan ae wee tae me

adé wos Swhwosae wet ye + SR

Ledaor Udinom oft ta yoy “ ty _—

of Two Hundred Deliars ($200.00).
"Second: That all ef the other terme one conditions
im aaid lease remain in full feree and effects
*In Witnese hereof, the perties herete heve exeowsed
thie instrument the ay an year firet abowe written.

“(Sigmed) Samuel Besen (See)
‘ , Mationnl Ten Cos
(Seal) “(Cigne¢) Th Asomussen"

It was stipulated that defendant remained in possession ef she
premises until “sometime between the tenth and the fifteenth of
July, 1932." On July ii, 1952, @ representative of defendant
hanced to plaintiff the following document with a request that

he sign same:
*Tuly Lith, 1942,

"Bational Tea Co.
"1000 Cresby ot.
"“Chiesgo, illinois.

“Gentlemen» .

This is to acknowledge receipt from you ef 2206.00
for the use and eceupation of premises a: $218 Lawrenes Aves,
Chieage, Illinois, for the month of diye, 1932.

“It is hereby cistinetly acknowledged by me that
reed lease covering these premises expired om the 30th of ‘pril,y
9329 and that you stayed there theouch the monthe of May and
dune under an extension sgrecment.

“I hereby agree thet your remaining there for the
month of July 1952 is as a tenant from month te month thet i¢
shall, under no circumetanees, be considered « renewal of your
lease and/or as creating a tenaney from year to years

*i further acknowledge receipt from yeu of notice
informing me that you are abanceming the premises on the Sist
Gay of July, 1932, thereby terminating absolutely your tenancy.

“Yours very truly,

Plainsiff refused te sign same and sent Gefendant the fellewing

lettert

"Chicago, Tllinoin,
July 1a, 1932.

“Hetional Tea Company,
*4000 ng Street,
"Chicago, Illineine

r : (oe. nome ‘wiatled bohm owt te
asetsaon0e, cette ban ere! ey dee ker ates
noses, meat Of vte Bee petht ware tan ce
coves) mma Louden Coemmnel) of |
e vse wm toe)" gt ea (asbee
cine

wale ‘on eabeovinnt 2 behaves smoboonnd tnt, vevatentee |
Yo Asneasts> oli one dined asit meowied, _— Ehime woe if
standard 2¢ evignamnanrget @.98E olf, ER abet suint |
Aarts taampar % Hike daomrng gahweslek® aly Hoes hed oa |

4 , oy ais

ee eee

an te. ery gz asve
aH eon ive. BLRE ta @

eg Bede

aa" ot ave “Mi “peas yea ahd
Se he mada eens aaa od rp yates.
ed? tot oxest$ yatataner twoy toil? boty

wiht
$f gates Mdsom of Mimom mavk Sear
ayey te Lewoues a ae ee aa
aia S

oo 2 wal
at ‘toy most D gern *,

sokéii te wey om e't parities
teit ond mo aa?

eyonaned mee ~ SERS ad oat }

Ue hea 8

o4e

“Gentlemens

‘a few days ago you left with me a letter dated July
ll, 1952) adcregeed to yourselves with referenee to the premises
known as 3216 Lawrence <venué, whieh you are new eeeupying sa my
tenant, and which letter you requested that I sten and return
to yoUe

“When you retained possession of the premises beyond
the expiration of the original lease an¢ the extension thereof,
i determined te treat you se a holdover tenant, and I am tal:
thie opportunity of acvising you of my election se te regard yous

“I shall, of courses continue te leek to you for the
payment ef rental ae provided for by the lease anc extension for

the balenee of the term.
"Youre very truly,
“Se Rogen®
Xt is undisputed thet the letter of July 21 was signed by Raamasen,
the secretary of defendant.

It appeare, from the bill of exceptions, thet the trial
court found fer defendant upon the theery that the agreement of
April 21 *killed" the written lease and ereated a new agreement
by the terms of which defendant “would hold aver for twe monthe
without obligating itvelf te go further then the two monthas” That
the court erred in so heldimg is clear, so plaineire contends,
“the written agreement of <pril 21) 1939, was in Legal effeet an
extenelon of the lease between the plaintiff and the defendants,”
it was made before the expiration of the leases and the language
used therein is plain and susceptible of but one constructions
the leage Was te contimue in full force and effect, subjeet only
te the mocifiestion thet tae term wis extended fox twe months.

Ié is, of courses the law thas a landlord ani tenent may enter
into an agreement whereby the terme of the original lease may
be changed. In Le¥rieost ve Syadleys 192 Hasse 346, the original
lease, dated May %, 1900, contained neither a covenant for a

Fenewel nor an agreement fer an additional term at the election
Of the legsee. Cx November 6» 1905, before the expiration of
the term, the parties entered imte the following agreocment :

ssalweny sit of setors tet
et an et) wen 28
werres bas age 2

broyed soaiasug ad? Re gel beniatey goy soxty*
gteoveds selewetua wid Se asa gt : ie:

me 1 bite atanmed aovoniod a a0 wey sevst wt ob I
ene Steget of os Boidonte we ho woy grieirhe te ‘Citanouegge soaend

«ad awk wey OF Beek Ge Gnd duos yooh, to yomte TY e%
“ot solenetxe hie ones att wt ToS molyens, But ae toepanes

Oooh bot eer oe a it “oiut
{HosMeERT Ye heegia sew LL pint te wedder wale duct sotmetoat at #"
Re i

Lakus oft dod gunmtoqeexs De Coed aly ooet swt at. + ea eee
te demmmenge exit Sauls yupods ont mega snebasted wet it Cr aed .

atiuom ows cok seve, ohed Meow" seebo 2a.
doe? *.ed?nonm ows sate hil eetbiite ae nk es A
sebriatone WiddMtalqg wm. stevie sf goubkdue qu wh ovrme fea09 a:
ta entre Lapel af enw o280L 9fS Shag’ te Sarma 2 notsiee ota
¥odmabiate b até tun Tiktstelg od? seoweed: oened eit to ‘wokewetae
epavunel alt hae yousod ade 29 Rol sautene wth owing ham eae fhe
sno keowidenp> ope tad Se ekdhiqonaes hme ohalg nh atenend bea:
Vise Jovidien steoRhe One oonwh Siw me c haenonduniateg aie <e
sein owt Ber bebandae oom mune ails fee oe

A tet ehameves & tetition neuhatenes 2 s90Rh tbe ot
Mehdeeds nds $0 seve) Lacmbetede us web seeanrngs. wa 108 2 Le elated mt |

es te crea ro rere 4
i es Aya o> dian

ofe

“It ia hereby agreed that the term of « certain lease
dated May Gy 1905, between /ichards Bradley, trustee under the
will of John 1. Yilidems, ae leseors and Silliem T. DeFri@at, ag
Aemsee, chail be extendec for the period of Ziwe yeara from the
expiration thereof, se thet the term ef seid lease as *atondecd
@hail extend te aml expire on the 30th Gay of Aprlie L910, ove
all provisiona, eal terms and conditions in enld Lease
and the aapignment thereef te he “ilidjem J. Lemp Brewing Company»
which agaignment ia dated bocember dSe A801, shall apply te saié
term ae extended »*

tm the opinion ef the court it is waid (pe 352)

"It Wage however, within the eontractusl power af the
parties by # later arrangement te preolomg the term although the
ease was silemt on this wubjeet, and thie was dene by an
instrument whieh has been referred to ag the agreement of exten.
sien, which wag execute: and became operative befere the term
provided for in the lease had expireds In legal effect this
agreement operated to extend the torm ag effectually as if ite
principal provision had bewn inwerted in the l¢ase in the form
of an option of extension for a further cefinite period at the
@leetion of the lessee, who subsequently made eueh an election,
By either way, then, the rewult ig she somes for the origine)
demise ia thereby lenghtemed te cover the iengest time named,
The lease and the agreement, therefore, must be conutrued together
and considered in their entirety as forming the contract between
She perties .”

See aleo Hartley vs Garnmhom, 196 ve Ys Se GOL, 4023 Klein ve Auto
Par@el Delivery Coss 192 Kye 593, 535; Sisleny we Enobleuch, 73
Minne LOG, 1134 Hiller wv. Albany Lodge, 168 BYe 7555 756. From the
aferesnid essea, and many others that might be cited, it da clear

that an extension of an original term ig mot » new comiee but a
continuation of the old one. the authorities point cut that some
courte recognize a technical difference between the effeet ef a
stipuiation for the "renewal" of a lease awi ame for ity “extengion,”
While other courts treat them as practigniiy the sume in Legal effet,
but they all held that an ugrooment for an extension ef the term isa
not & covenant to renew but a present demise which becomes operative
immediately upon the exereive of the opilon earnferred and takes
effect at the expiration thereof and ig subject to all the conditions
and covenants of the original lense, and that ne new lence ox other

| writing ia nesessery to extend the term. By the agreement ef April
: 21 the parties epecifieslly provided for an “extengion® of the term

+ Of the lease and that all the other conditions in the Lease sheula

Geno mingxee » Yo med efid sorts howxne vexed af #1"
ene sabi socenrxd yr Seat aivensind |, i aoa ed QlORL of

domi xGed oT owt LhW ine atogand MRELESE 4S ke Li

wees aout axasy svi. te nolasg, “at ‘ea’ ; ae Z ae.

hoineds) ea saaed Bien to mies ABT fome On. awernds Ps.

gee gOLGL gLiwga to Yab AS0E ad awe aatgxw aum oe meng nih

geod Slee ml mn ga gos Pe og ‘ _ anata

a aig gidwesd Seek.» a ® 92". # es

bkew ot Conte EAA, 9 AONE, ofA, HEMORE, SEMI SE

des Wii 4( 48% wy) Dtoe wh ei suwos ot Ye wobttee outta
eit. Lo siexeg actrees wh Mutts. ceeowert sie 7" me
ke wad
eae = senshi cla) ast

he ones saw tiie ga

oe saed oat Solete deemed sn
mired wl? oxvelke

rae) oa ainanod be beaNeUI mew debits
pe ¢ dnotie dope ak shatigue be k oxen edit m8 at be
adi aa ¥lkeuioo The ax arcof add bas tas |

iexe't on? ok onsel odd mt dad voeni ned | i BB

odé ga helbreq efiultab ae s pte
wets ne oda wie Bical
Lauiai xe
ahomsn ems oe

“erisoged bawxiates ae
Meended Suaedmea cas *gntasos aa a ca woslome

~#0Mh oe AEDES 80S gAOh Bok 90S tnt

oid movt 5060 288? 001 O21 aeebel yeedet oy me LEE GORE YOO an
faske af 62 yhoths o@ atgha tails etoddo-ymnde boos vabans binawsete
& tod Gutmos wom » som mb aneed Lautybee mas to elanodxw me ditt
“tie dnt? soe Jmkoy avielretiwe ett xbim Mo odd tome taMtdROD
‘a to deuths os meawead sonst itia tniieiivsd « sxdapooes avawos |
“sabindetes” edi Yet tao bee dawek wf Io “Gaweend” ott vel GehRatiite |
efvotte fegel at oman sit yltoetionny ao aad Gooed alana eet hha
ei sried edt 20 mehenetue ax 26? dtomebTgd as dade” Seam ee’ too
etivarsio eeanesd deldy ootmes diseow 2 Jad wered OF dxanevon a”
added Bike Sertetnes wotiyd ath to onteatay ae og Clout dium
amelihonoy eft Ife of tovldwe at baw tobeeds woktenlges oA) th sobre
seatde “iW canal wen of a#nétd hn bus gbawol hentai te wt YS aémenoy “be f
Kiaga ‘te Paomesege ote pol yatited ot Sere doce oo vtonavoen ‘ad - es
mired fit 26 “sotumudee” pa 2 ot boblveny vitealticdge attends wal sb

ofe

remain in full force and effeet., As poiwbed out in LePyiest ve
Bragleys supra: “In legrl effect thie sereement eporated to extend
the term ag effectually as if ite prineiped previvion head been
inserted im the lease in the form ef an option of extersian for a.
further ¢efimite period at the eleetien of the lessee, whe subaee
quently made wugh an oleetion. ‘Sy either Ways thems the result ig
the same, for the original demise ia thereby lengthened to covey
she longest time named. The lease and the agreement, therefore,
must be construed togethex: and congidered in their entirety as
forming the eontraet between the pertivs.® £6 is wignifiesnt thet
the @rafter er drafters of the sgreement of pri] 21 earefuliy
avelided using any language that wight indieate that the agreanent
Was one for a "renewnl.”

if we are right in our holding as to the nature and effect
of the agreement of april 21, 9329 it follows, from the admiteed
facta, that defendant wrongfully held over after the expiration of
the lease ge extended. It further Toliowes frem the umcontradioted
evidenee, that plaintiff eleeted seo hold cefendant for on aiditi onal
term of one year. Defendant thereby became Bound for an siciilonal
term of one your upen the same terme and conditions ag were contained
in the written lease. (See Ueise V+ lenilezike 262 Tlie Appe $82,
S56, and gages cited thereing Leek’ Lane Hotel Co s We Neinbergs, ILle
APRs Ctes Gens Nos 36807.)

@e any say, in conclusion, thit we regard defendant's
document of July Ll, 1932, as practically amownting te an admissien
that it recognised the leg»l effect of the agreement end thet by
remaining in the premises after June 50 44 was heldine ever woen
the terms of the original lease if plaintiff’ eleeted to treat 4+
as a tenant fer anether year, and it sought te escape responsibility
by having plaintiff eigu the doeument of duly lie This he refuced

tk fapksies ot sue taduide at {20006 Soe sew fOr tame
isons Ot bokeremge srasotas outs set og ae «its « 4
asd bat noted ren fegt scarey net tb ne ehfsureate coma ots
& tt wohexosae te wotsgs ais Te aut ad or ‘naed, cial ot Betcomat ©
casitht dite avueed ails *y ptvnte Olt aa sobaivg of] aiid te art |
ak siwaet wld gusds ewer voile i santioote me Meas sim Zeman,
Zovo9 BS bestndisynoK woes? AL anime Lanighno att rh ee st
oxoloied afnamotan att hem gaank ost bomen ont to at. . :
na Werkiag ‘abedtd ud botebtenoo ome cadlsoyed oowratesop. foam
$usté iam taaie eh. x "ened oto ae las ‘nate us

weeded Aeerdnee sft ae
detexes JR tami 20 tnemvenye sit 29 wupetech oa vores at
inomoetpa ont at stank ned aaaaueccbegctu: aonde
puattint bak etude od ot ‘ea pathtet wwe it hake weno Do Be
estate od? wort pewol far If qSOOL Le Tinga Ye daemons Sty wal
Yo netseriqes ods sodte rove died Ubvignem srmtewtsh sastt yooest
“padatberamseny ad moet pewosso? sedeailt 42 .hebued | a wed eh
Kau Wtttie the “tev ddetine'tes bien of ‘badeote UkdniNig dads”, demublve ©
(| keno tdtoka mir eo fitatod axsood yWozeds tandeotstt aie dite te mise
yhO0 saq’. + £40 800 ghfeo tte sy aetey 664) ceapet new ede a
ott eke ynereramncernntrmrenmralh laterets beéto asvad hea oes”
| “(teees eat uineeapled rhe 08 |
i tninbinhss Wiigik oe Hand cndiemnenn ae jeed ele! RP Me |
adkewlabs mse? gabtaitmm —teokseaeg ue gSEOL ght Yiwt L6 deateh
awdieaonds bua a et? a sos'rte —— |

#2 ‘gnoxd 62 bodoods ibjnblitte ‘th oanedt Lamy
BWLIddanogeox squoae of setyven gh hte oteey

* Rome: eal endl sik tas 9 1 > tromiood » ‘etd te ‘Vdemtoly antvad ye
; Sie Pigs Aye paaedt sit ve

zp @ ne Se a,

to Go» a2 appears from his letter of July 14, 3852, wherein
he elected te treat defendent as holdover tenant.
Under the admitted facts and the law plaintiff was

entitled te a finding and judgment im the totel eum of $600
for rent for the months of Twhrs august and September, L932.

‘The judgment of the Uunicipal eours of Chdeage will
be yeverned, with finding of facts, and Judgment will be entered
here, in faver ef plwintirs anc ogaingt @efendant, im the tetal
eum of $6006

REVENGED FITH PINLING OF PACTS amp TUG? BEAE,

Sullivan, P. Je, and Gridley, Je, concure

EUDING oF Pacts.
We find as ultimate facts that defendant is indebted
to plaintiff’ im the totel sum ef $00 fer rent fer the months
ef July, August and Ceptember, 1922.

“a. Hi;

eR 7
ae

"tomy soot «bx vit te woddes ott mot ssooues oo) o et

vinanos auvenkad a oe “embeoke taoxt on weer
eae wekdabaly wal ente bres eda rodiaibs oes robe

" ued erode sgor i ‘feugt. wba “ nat onee wees me a
“gto ‘ynake te fiwes Lngketoatt aid te secnugoe, ot iis

“bexedie a Sibw sso nat, nese te gut bud aw ebonseves “
i i Sia y i

e's

Estos oat mh qfrabiset0a fanaa us antata we wy ovat 7

va suse Ba iat « me eal wate ae

nae oe ar pais wah
cata SS io e THONG. a “euorbho brs ek +o + ca te ’

Ro a. eA RRR ie Hi
; en ‘ PEN ax
i " v Mtg ot)

A ak eta (ante if Tut

“paieotnt ok onobusteb vade ator’ ‘anita a tab 8# a
nab does a itt 0% dante ‘an deonidheedecas Ease we a as

Mes a a

4k
i
‘ MM i ‘ a + \
pt WER Aves MMA £5 em Ba ONtaive am - | laa
© e9
w yr) KS
wy
\ iy +4 Wit
Mik peas ted
Rs Sea Hs it ¥
q 4 q AY,
4 r Ri Abs Ay Hy (es
ae
3 Le # ia, rT
ey ae
i y te Typ

$6904 P ca

v4 gp 4
yw aa:
WILLIAM Me RICHARDS, = <> ;
vs APPBAL VROM MUMICIPAL 9“
BARRY KAPLAN, } GOURT OF CHICAdo,
Appellant. )

6) 7
me 6

4 1.A. 655.

ME» JUSTICR SCANLAN DELIVidiog® tHE OPINION GF THE COUNT.

Skis is an appesl froma judgment entered im the
Municipal eourt of Ghienge ageinat éefenéant im an ection ef
forcible detainer. |

Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that he ig
entitled to the possession ef Apartment ie 2142 North Kedzie
boulevards Chicsgo, Illinoias and that defendant UtiLeefully
withholds the possession thereof from him. In 4 hearing
before the court the evidenee for plaintiff consisted ef the
following elx exhibits: (1) A deed in trust by defendant and
wife to Foreman Trust and Cavinge Bank, ac trustee, conveying
certain renl estate im Cook county, Lliingis, deserived as Lota
#9 and 21 in Bloek 7 im “hipman, 8111 and Merrill's subdivision
of the eagt half of the northeast quarter of Jeetion S59 “ownship
4G» north, ‘ange 13, east of the 3¢ Frineipal Heridian. (8) A
trust agreement whereby said Bank, aa trustee, sereed to hold
title te said real cetate for the use and benefit ef fefendzart»
Herman Ke Lipman and Benjomin 4. Cenen as beneficinries. (3)
an aesignment by defendant of an undivided half interest wader
anid trust agreement te Ella lI. Lightfoote (4) An sasigument
by said Lipman of an undivided half interest umder gaid trust
agreement to acid Lightfoote (5) An order by said Lightfoot
to Foreman=itate Trust ang Savinga Bank, aa suecessor trustees,

a F

oat ; ae Ais oe iden were ve ee,’
a Yow gy ee eS, ore ome Eee ke Me ee Ge Smo

‘ y

no PemAMOL om waar
ee BES oy RHI

Eas ‘hk ‘ h Ta, ry Axe ba <r a ee ee

TROP Reis MO a ee

anf Say

oils mk howene dmmamoct # mont Laogge 0 ah gtitt ve
“Re motvon mn int triotwto dob tae eyontsty 2 ase Leg totam
aia rol ates! otatowt
at est dastd opel fs atutalgowe wisi at aPebenie st
etasex dé SALE of semen nay te Kolmmeae og wid od otetine
lu twatew sem here Rob tate nw endomtLst onnnts sbuavedued
pabiand & wt rik ox? Yovtuds Boduwencon ods; be ent
wrt? *e bedatenos Vusmirte tet aanoonye ad duu08 oat stole
hue inndwetes ye sawed wd heed & “@) ied rdtetns te ‘yilwedter .
pelyevaes ,aedeerd oe aieurl agekvet tne dae? memwnet of ottw |
ato. as bedisoned yatouhil ¢¢tnwos xed ab etaten Loox atesee
Nolabvtidye a iiiecel ben Le came al ¢ Moolt a bal tna 0 os

irae t

A (8) smetdéeeM Legtontyt BE on! Yo teow hk vant « ent |
fated oS Seotge peter? aa einet bles Qerdy dremees wa |
etanhswteds te ¢etened ban gen ost wet ‘tatne heer bios * nie
(8) saeitatedtemed sa soto? . mheabere ban « i i

: -tobna duexodnl ted bobiviony ae to tneba oh ye dan
tuecmmtens wi (4) stootddniat at ate os temssvenn towed bias”
- teerte hhes soem deetodnt Thad bedtethag me ti emikt dtee o

sootddtyt aiae ‘o Tooke aa® (a) stootateet thos oo . é

geoteur? tonesveew oa dual epatoes bua dart ve SESS

ole

to transfer title te the promises deseribed in enid trust agrees
ment to plaimtiff. (6) A trustee's deed by Foreman Trust and
Savinga Bank to plaintiff, couveying the north thirty feet ef Let
81 described im exhibit 1. After the intreduction of Uhe ae
exhibits plaintiff rested. iefendant offered no evidence. luring
the arguments te the trial court caunsel for defendant stated that
he would concede thet defendant “fight now" was living in Apartment
ds Plaintiff eoneedes that when the deed im trust by defendant

and wife to Foreman Truct and Savings Banksy ae trustee, (1) wag
executed the oremises conveyed were animpreved. The reverd deey
not disclose shen or upom what land the wuiléing im which
"Apartment 1, 214¢ Sorth Kedaie Boulevard," is loeated, was
erected, and it 1# slee silent ae ts how, when or from oho
¢efendant obtained possesion of Apartment i.

Defendant contends, inter alip, that “ihere ig ne proof
in the record that « demand in writing fer the poesession of the
premises deseribed in the eemplaint herein «as ewer made and served

on the cofendants, a9 required by statute,” Geetion & of the
Forcible “ntry and Detainer (et provides: "Seas 2. ‘The person
“entities $0 the poaseusion ef lands or tenements ay be restered
therete in the mammer hereafter provideds * * %," and clause

Sixth of the sume, ¢liminating therefrom such parts ae ave net
applicable to the instant case, provides: "Sixth » “hen jands or
tenements have been conveyed vy any grantor in POsceenions * * *

and the grantor im possession * * * refuses or neglects te currender
posession thereof after demand in writing by the person entiiled
thereto, or hig agent.” The parties agree that clause <ixth governs
this appeale it is conceded that there io no proof that o “demand
im «riting* was made and served upon defendant, but plaintiff con-
temds that the service of wach demand, under the statutes is merely

Seething

, "
i!
y
pe
Yael tes
4 i
bi ie
my
mg
i!
)
f

wostps dawxt bho ah bediuseed evelueng oo? o2 ofG2d aekemexd of
oan dau mempret yt ooh atendames A (8) stthimkalg od deem

sok te dea yrudsd céxom oft palyovnss @Tiivalalg of dual egeivet
euad? to wolfowhoxdeh et? vote of idiiiee at budtrones ts
quixvwl ,enetive om Bosetto dueiavted shetgor Piddatale at tdldxe
bate | botede tasbustes 20% Leemwes sayoe Lalvt ode es atrammges ett
sag «Pane Links" tanbeoted det whonnse Daven wl
smahuetes wt dewad wf Gees oft mast teald eohounes Teivadel oof
ae \4) ecosarTd ae edna ageatyal ben seat? aacawne Od othe nite
neod hreoet oat shovenqmbin ospe omqoraes eva tan ‘ont om
Holdw at yuthiiwe ef? band deme sega 29 aeaty ee

anw shotavas at “qhsovedegh olabek adaadid sna a outing?

anode mont $9 ) senater road ws ae smokes vote ‘a st en betvon
GD GOR gan a RE
ak apes cog, te notesrsnog bomb side 2 dabas Reb

a” toate ae smobae 200
toory ox oh orsdi eakle motes queen tae ti wheal ine

ed? Yo motonsacog oss rol pati tie mt dead 9 dats uover ot a
bevivs hia cham tove sew adocon en sLasoo odd we bedbsoas® -

oni to 8 H860 9 " sautats we bo eknoee an canbe ob oat a0
May rs O38
98794 ott 8 +902" Lasbivor si ontagod one wisn sidtoret |

_ feet 20,90 abyen Auk gitiocion aul baahetie ”
wo aintat sedy « danke" saobhroug eoane.

™ bs + stolaasas oq at Vode ty we we ib atic pate oY oe
‘ebnesiue 6% adosdgon x0 pryie. ae. —

~ e003 2éntate | and nen hee owies |
whore at aebudede oat xobau a bat dove te «

& condition precedent te the filing of a forcible deteiner mit
and thet “it has been held by our courte that such » condition
precedent may be waived" that ae the recerd feile te show that
defendant affirmatively raised the instant point curing the trial
he wili uot be heard to raise it in thie court. Nene ef the four
eaaee cited by plaintiff in suppert ef she eontention that the
services of a “demand in writing" ia merely a cendition precedent
applies to the question sow befere ues
“We nay premise by saying that the ection of forcible

entry and detainer, or fercible tetainers is a wpecis) stetutery
hcg | eumonry in ite nature end in Geregation of the common

e and it follows that the tonditiione snd requirements thet the

statute preacribes in confer: ing jJuriecietion must elearly exist
that the mode of procedure previced by 1¢ must be stirieily

and

Pr eae e gceesmer Ve Pridéy, 28 Ills 1705 Gchaumtoeffel v. Be

7 id. dd ren 126 fae : * pg ime
Tlle ARBe Be i

“PPe 48, 49-51, 16 ic aaids

"It has been repeatedly held thet an astion of foreibie
entry and detaimer is « special statutory proceed in x y in

ites nature and in derogation of the coun awe Yells 1
1 Til. (Breese) 3373 French ve “iller, 126 Ill. @11; 3
Ve “wing, 165 Ill. 354.

"In the @ | Chee, Which wac an action of foreibile
édetainer, the court ssid; The procesdings * * 4 being sinery,
amd contrary te the course of the Common laws wast strictly con.
ferm te the requisitions of the statute, *

"Im the Fre ease, which was alee an action of

foreible entry and detainer, the court hel¢ that a confession
of judgment, entered wider the terug of « iesse awarding possession
of the premises te plaintiff, was Unauthorised by low aud woedde It
Was there gaid (p. 618): ‘This action ig = special atasutery
a 9 stmmary in its natures, end in derogation ef the Comuag et

e @8¢ it ie a rule of wiivergsi ot Panga in such actions,
that the statute conferring Jurisdiction must be striethy yoresat
m the method of procedure preseribed by it, or the jurisé ection
set fail te attach, and the precceding be soram noh judive ang
void, * * &

"hile forcible entry and detaimer is a civil proceeding
for restitution it is based UPON, anc hee by modern legislation

alr A

arid
been evolved from the English forcible entry and cetainer, which

Wee @ o7isinal procecding merely. Ejectment, from ita alow
Ogrtss, Was an inadequate remedy te a dandlord, and the
Legiglature previded the sumcary remedy by which a speedy recovery
ef possession may be secured, but to prevent hasty action amd te
secure tonants and their families from she tanger and inconvenience
of being forcibly ejcoted without notice and reasonable time for
preparation, certain safeguards were provided by the stntute,?

«f<

whip We

dks rotates, ohdio ts # te Qehtss, ent 2. ineheseq. mak stones ?
mp9 t bet0e s Koy, tadd araves, we, y biod, wood, wed 32” Agee al
Sade wets 08 eliak broves wll ae dace “Ghoviaw, od Yau Hore howe ey
Keke? oli guburd istoq tmatans eid ben tat Towkigmst the. ‘dtabueteb
a0, etd bo eno -deune, ahtd, at ¢2 eaten o¢ maadt.o6 fon, LEM of
edd. geclt mokgnednoo, oat, to sromaus, ad Tibembels, We bodto seaee

_ ghebeparq mokslinoe « yhomat al “ards due, nk. doommh" a te sok
age arched wom Mebtastp oH, OF BO

aigioxet to seigoe oe
yuesntoes Estos r 8 af Ke

somnun

ost dasld pf oadassreees <4
tetoe yisaoto sone ae

peg ad deus 3

| gigteww’ to mason os 1 enw dolee yee pibe eda a saapuorieanatity

SSSR es be ey

#1209 aiide axel aommne ere
*,odedada oalt to si pads wi oe wa 7

>» fe meties. te by
re gpd ® date 2 aka Fae creel a ‘oh ay
te ba aOR Gy ‘Cawm eel & piead ciated De TARR ge A
aX shkev bua Sage panel. 3a aural nds 8 ie ign
Yrolmets Leloaga 3 }-mabten. ohm" :

nonsms ex to pomgerry-on ent

votes is .
ere pep ott

SRO hy ere ree

w4e

it was further said (pe 621): ‘Such court of recoré doen not
proeeed in forcible detainer ty wirsue of its power aa aR Court
of general jurisdiction, bus derives ite authority wholly from
the statute, end in such proceeding ig therefore to be treated
8 @ court of special and limited juriedietion.®

In City of Ghiesgo v. Steamship Lines, 323 tlie 308, SLB=G,. 4%
ie seids

“The eivil remedy im thie State fer the restitution of

premises, based on forgibie entry ant detainers wee unknown te
the common lew and ig purely etatujery in its origin, “hil
our statute on forcible entry end ¢etainer containg seme of the
ideas found in the “uclieh statutes aforesaid, particularly the
etatutes of Henry Vi, they de net embody all of the features ef
any of those statutes, and they caunot be aaid to be as adoption
of any of them in their entirety or of any other Smglish statute.
it hee been repeatedly decided by thie court that an aetion of
feoreible entry and detainer is « special etatutery precead

| in ita nature anc in devogetion of the commen iaw that
our courts do net proceed thereon by virtue of their power as
courts of general jurisdiction but derive their authority whelly
from the statute, ami in sush a proceeding they are to be considere
ané treated as a court of apecial asd limited Jurisdiction. (frened
cms 1eé [lle 613g ¢ We Began, Breese, S579 Fitegerale
« wiz 65 Tlie 3544 ae aGtion scing a apecial eta susory
Proceeding in deregation of the commen Law the statute must be
strictly fellowed as to the remedy pursued. *

The contention of defendant “thet such « demand is guriadietional*
anc that the failure ef plaimtiff to preve that he complied with

such statutory requirement ia fatal to Bis setien, sust be sug tninede
The Forefble intry and Detainer Aet ie sumeary in ite nature and in
@erogation ef the common law, and it is ne haréship to require a
ljanéloré whe seeks ite sesistenes to fellow sirietiy the mede ef
procedure provided by it, and the preef of the statutory demand is
an eaeential part of = ease brought wider the act. If the courte
did mot insist upon a strict compliames with the statute grout
injustices to tenants would inevitably fellow. In addit ion, we
may suy that the claim of plaintiff that he could have proved that
& eritten demand, in accordance with the atatute, waa actually
served on defendent Dut thet he was lulled te aleep by the conduct
of wounee] for defendant, is met justified by the recerd. Counsel
for defendant, at the clove of plaintiff's evidenee, mowed far «

finding fer deferdont on the grownd that plaintiff had failed te

: go" an soem hy Pag ay Ties ‘ea gaa sa). Statexes, te ere]

meen Xe ae hisadiue 8 ee wevizeh sant apg dag Ree

:omehgetbalant ‘pos hank £ bas Labooge 2 riety * “a8
tt aorate 4808 ed bad el.. Gipeees. oF Garo he,

= SS eS eee af peste pe

te wotinétéeex ons any oia0e a ans Bt heme iivie oat”
ot avorday anw peg ype yor “rue sidtoxel wo beaad »
aiid’ «suhuteo o¢t al yreteiote ylour a2 oa Wod moro
aut te eaos ustednon vonbare® chads
edd elteiveliiay gbiasesete cage en sae

to aoudcet aff to Lia
aehigebsa mc o¢ of bine Joie YO
+@éwieda Sabine rodeo wre ~ vig
be Nereis sade |

——— =

, 4
|

sie insitapan! oat “dadta are1g > ik dé vaisatagi’ Yo ound
ebtniloadeaue ef tems gmolioa akg of fats af inclines eds
nt bes @tigen ati ah Class. ak doa souk atet se que ke oaO
& exiupex of qidebura on ed 22 bee aad ewer ete eo mobésgoue
Ye show ony yhtolsis wokte® of vonnteisos vit saloon nb eo tomas
3 brawn Pwiwsoty weld “7 Reeng ita ees. ett Ld eontvosy urneneey
ada aid 22 tbo siti satan Sayer vase = te Ou E
ony onutate:* wsbe alo be wey as ; Sok tee ei me | Sebgwt |
ow enh dbdbe eck sweden wsethwout ako sone? ¢ e need out |
gould boven event Sines of date vebemtesy te minke ode o- ‘nts Wi
Whawiee enw peeene nate ity: am wabvewga wh » Bi q

feared tnover vat “ ‘sunt +o o a

ote

make out a prime facie eases, and he argued that to make out sueh
enue plaintiff had “to prove everything that Seetion (elause) 6
contains," and counsel then vead toe the court ¢lause “Sixth

There is also merit im the contention of defendant that
Plnimtiff has failed te prove that defendent waa » “*gramter in
posresaion” of the oremises degeribed im the complaint within the
meening ef clems? Sixth», ‘here is, undoubtedly, merit in the
argument of defendant that plaintiff, in answering the instant
contention, ia compelied te auysume alleged farts not sustained
by the receré and to draw inferenees noi worrented by the evi-
denee. Ge find ne proof im the recerd to show that Apartment 1,
ovoupied by defendant, ig locsted upen the property to vhich
Plaintiff cisime title by hia deere

We de not deem it neeexanry to pass upon several other
contentions raised by defendant.

The judgment of the Municipal court of Chiexnge is

reversed and the cause is remanded.
REVYSASES ARG REBAR E Ge

Sullivan, 2 Je, and Gridley, Je» vorncure

fase 390 oom os dens Serer OH bud guess gtoat @ tee ott
a {oaweds) notice! dusfi guikegeere even os* ‘ast eres dake mi
whint® sanaie Save silted pwen sem? Seamieo ona “e hate
Saks dstmvton Ye wolicetooy ote a terex aoke ak oct |
ak “oinety" « ear trwbnetod dale avecg of bette? antl vebawt atq
emt wadtiw tikalquos oAé a hetProyes coed ag ealt . Bis
cai mt s2com qySbovduemay qak ores Mieke easinto de
“thatenh asti ankyewmas we sPudebesy tag: duaboodbd de dommate
doubrdowe Jan abet bege tia twas 6) beLtogmos at “seb ine se
(ahve ait QC bodacetaw fom asap tnt uexh od ban, bxooon ale 8
“gh tuemireqs fads veri oo ‘ouoaca oat at Yoong om smth ov. “s90n98
ante ot heeaeny mat mag hornond ob eimsbeoted ys batgumos
- Sheed abe wd ost sale yh
‘ritde Laxeven ans mag 09 ceunoon 18 Moun ova 68:87" v0
3 sdunbew bos we heater sro 8 sae
at earott Yo s1HO8 Laqhodeatt oft ho angi ot

sdetnoans ok: tine ott Nae
carat viata ae

‘SRA ae, Seah Hien SA AA ig Me

i 49 IS Ce Mer ee ee Ds |
Bee ke Weel sii ee eka Soa eee SS Ha eae ge 54

i 2 nh mc

al
26450 aan / \ ; ( f
sf é My 4 a j
EW THE BATTEN OF THE PETITLOR OF ere a i \ i
OR. ALEX B. BAGHUG, 5 f =
HePCAL FRO oF |

DR. ALEX B, MAGNUS, nae Oe
é SOURTY COnR

Fe Cok Gaui.
HSAY 8, SOKNORS, Q2'~4 1.A. 65 o 5-
HOVELT OS»

Opinion filed Maroh 14, 1934

We PRESIOIRG JUSTIO“R TAL CSLETERRG PRE OPENICM OF TRE WOORT.
This is an acoeel from on order of the County Soart of
Gook Gaunty entered in a eroeeeding seeking the relesese of
petitioner unier the Ineclvent Gobters Aet. Petitioner hed been
arrested smi imprieoned under = gopice ad getisfociendyum issued by
the Gireult Court of Sock county upon « judguent of that eelixt in

faver of one Uary 8. Gormer in on seticn breught by her acniart
petitioner, charging sclicious wresemition and falae <rreet. by

the order socesled from, the Jounty Gourt found that mealies wes

the gist of the section in the sult in hich the judgment exe entered
in the Sireult Gourt, ordered the setitioner reuandéd to the custedy
of the sheriff, ond digmiesed the petition. The auit in the Givreuit
Gort wos ageoinet Alex &. Usgmu, setitioner herein, ors. Alex &.
Regmie omni Buelie Ke Whilieme. 40 originsily Tile’ in the GLrenit
Gourt, the declarstion contained three counts.

The first count wes against Emelie &. “iliiamea, slene.
The ection wee diemiase’ «=< to her.

The second count of the detiaration filed in the suit in
the Gireuit court, gherged in eubatanee that the three defendontes
falsely end asliciscusly, snd without any reneen or probable couse,
entered into « conspiracy to defeme snd esuse the unlawful arrest
and detention of pleimtiff, and with selicious intent, exreed
between theaseives to hove Gmelie 4. Silliams file « setition for

the iasuance of o Writ of Inquisition agcinst the plaintire:

} ste
1
j ty
: r
q t *
™, A ' P
4 é
if im Z ¥ Wa a age Ag | «GaRGE
fe paca eel YN } ,

mh NORTEAY, AT Yo seat

See ee” ig wa wae
, ARERR AR RELA oe

4 b

tale CoRR Panes tosh Sahel Wy
afanklonys
cs B8augo yoo

Bs sP@Lineya : i % a paar ‘
see L ae sorell belit vaihiicil Be, BSR RN Soe a ae

Nea ee ae af BA
ov
Bete is! RS bint

+TAIOR at %0 ROKHRGS BAY asnaviaien Lat worteus oanareans os a Be
to trod etawe’ od? te ‘tobr0 ae not sega ae ad eid? rg bi
‘to dotocer odd gations gaibessord » al boxbem eae ood
moed bad reaottite? #0 stoddel tuovLorat’ one ‘woke 3 r6n0 34)
‘W besnel mubpetostaiten he asia » rbbiw benbkdxend hak bei
al fron teat to trecghyt = sect ylavet goe8 Yo Fined tiuondd
teaieye ted yt téguerd wetter aa’ at conned 4a wo aa: é t01
i stairs Sadet Bae modewagenre “awathslow gaiy
ase shies deat Bawot rod Yeweh-adt \emhelemacnie )
beretne sow sewsgdeg edd doide Mt tive odd at mabter ait te tohy. ede,
Yotave add at hebmamet cemolsizeq edt berebae free an A
disorl? ome mi Slam edt no dhdteg add Soeaduegh baw 47%. |
-G xeli .oxk ~atored toneliiveq .swaye off aot tatiege gow tepeh
thuork® oat ak belit Yleaigive GA smunkiley fi esse fe congo
osnate somal Li2t o oifemlt teringe aow tayoe tote nd Le

tery 5. Comer, and withewt any reveensble er peebeble tuuse te
appear before the judge of the Gounty Court, and there falsely and
mliciougly and witho:t any reasonable esuse, ewoet te a petition in
writing cherging that the plaintiff woe insane and uneate te be of
lerge, aed et«ting i thie oetition thet the webitianer, tlex &.
Magnus, hed examined the oleintiff and found her to be mented ly
unsound and in need of institutional sare, all ef which wee falee,
1t ie further slleged in thia seeead count of the degieretion thet
by means of this congpiracy and falee ewearing, the petitioner and
the other defemients osused the Writ of Inoulsitien te iseue, and
thet, therefore, in sursuence of such consplrsey, the olaintiff woa
arrested and teken inte custedy unier a dit of Inculeition iseued
by the judge of the Gounty Gourt on the skewing aude oy these defend}:
ants. It is further alleged in this count thet the arrest ef pleine

ght her inte seandel ont disgrace, and out her to a arent

deal of expense in procuring her dievkerce,

The third count is substentinily the sage ss the ascend
count. is we read this count, it is <lleged therein thet the ate
of the defendants were msliciows «nd eithout any reesoneble or ore
beable csuse. fo the declarcstion Alex &. wages sal Ure, Alex A.
Sognus filed plese of the general iseve. Petitioner failed $e appeer
at the trial in the Cirouit Oourt and offered no defense to the
aotion brought there, The couse sao subaitted to < jury, end after
hearing the witnesses for the piaietift, the court instructed the
gery 2s follewa:

"The Jourt inetructs the juvy thet if yeu believe

from the evidence thet the defemiant, fsisely and wali-
Gigualy, and without eny reasonable or erebeble Suse,
Suused the gaid claintiff te be deprived of her diberty,
the Jury may «llew es dem.yves ony awe not exceeding the
amount gutd Tor even though the gum sillewed any exoeed
the amount of dossees AOUGSLLY OFOTOR:

the Court ingtruete the Jury thet if you beliers

from the evidence thet the aefendent, maliciously and
without any reagonable or probable oause inetituted or
Gcused to be instituted preeeedings, ov attwmoted to
adjudieste the olointifr ‘rein insane, o¢ derrive ser of
her linerty, the Jury are outheriged to find exemplary

j &

OF chews eldedenq vo ekdexeecey qua auedtiw box gxonae® .& yet
| bee Yhentet oxedd has .tr00 Viewed enie Yo eget sas sxoted mn egy

ti soltiseq « of toowe ,eageo eldasearsx ye Seiten ha. qavalot lon

ts of of etecau bas onsend aow Yidatete ene tonlt pitignreio paktits

» ‘gbdetaam od of rod bewot bow Wdtately edt Deakmete bat yawnyel
“S Sutet enw delea he lax ‘eetee Lomedtetivent te boow af baw demain
tad MeitersLoed ad? te Hauge haceoe eile af begets stuitewt at ot
hin Geelidiien 4 coches welsh on qunteunn anak ae w
Bids ,oumel of celtielupat ‘te tiv et bewone ataebaoted raddo ede
sew Tiidatela oat .yortiqeses deus to someweney at Ototeradt ete
| beowset aotvleluvcal te dig? ¢ xe leur yhodeue etal weald baw hoteeree
_ omhawteb ened? ye Sher gattode St mo temOe YeRot ant to omhut Sabo
| wttslg to teores ent cede tmved edit wt bege fie xodteet et HP sweme
aps edallevalne tant as ee ee ee ee

haovse’ ode eh omen oct staan ter fede dango k stg,
ates of Fede alerted? Rogella kt Ff tow whet eer veelouth - itatiree
" s07q to ofdanoseer Yue tuoitt iw bun saptotton oxow gnebsested edt to
oH KOLA yer hae euwgel’ oo keLk no ifovataes wat oT Soemed’ elead
Seaqqs od DéLte? vomelsise< cubed Lonnie GHP TO baelly Bey diniyom
add ot eadsteb on Bevotte ine fele® PisowtO adv wh Keket G8 te
tefte bas oct « of bedtindve den couse off woredd tignend coder
eds botourtent tni¢e ade ange Odd et | on wast hw dt gutteed
i * Ss ’ Boon wae ‘yeeoLlet es rit

, rer food —_ * idee beans

if ‘

stl xOLA yromoisiteq ot Soult medhtteg WhMt nt gudtdde bus pogral

a, Se ee oe

Or cunitive deasges, thet is, to mimish the defendant
amd to furnish an exemple to deter others frem like
praatioe.*

The erounde upon which defendant «ske for reverasl of
the Gounty Court are thot counts one and three of the desicr=tion
filed in the Sirewit Jourt did net eherge the defendent with msliee,
ther@fore, thet the judgment of the Gireuit Sourt wea net reg
% on that question; that defendant in the trisl in the

County Court, should hove been aliowed toe shee by soanetent evid ence
that malice was not the gist of the setion in the Giresuit Sourt, end
that in rejecting the efier of pregf on such cuestion, whieh it did,
the County Gourt wea in errer. it is insisted by setitioner that
insemuch es the jury were not instructed te disregard it, therefore,
the firet count in the declarstion, which did net cherge asliece, eas
before the jury in the trisi in the Gireuit Court. This judeaent

of the Circuit Yourt 219 reviewed on sppe¢sl to this enurt. (Connor v.
Msemug, S63 Til. Sop. G41.) The judguent eos «ffirsed, ond this
sourt there held os to the first count that by the diswiess] “ae te
Emelie HK. Hiiilams, ae dhe wes the only defeniont nemed in said sount,
thie eount fell, leaving the two reaciniag eounta whieh * * *

charged the defendent, Alex §. k-gnua.” Thia first count being out
of the ease, there wag no etension for the trial jwige in the Sireuit
Court or in the County Court to regerd it.

Ag stated, in the triol of the enge iu the Cireuit Court,
defendant wie not present and offersd ne evidence. In ite ruling
upon thke offer of preef on the heoring in the county Gourt, to the
effect thet defendent waa net guilty of aslies, ss charged in the
declaration, the Gounty Gourt bold thet setitioner wos confined te
the evidence offered in the trial court «nd refused te reeeive other
evijence. ss stated, the first count «ce owt, and the third sount
dees, in our opinion, sliege lice, Sewever, even if eetitionerts

ppiinnunecing out porte OF ,@i Sade _.esy:
edit mot? eredtc wares ire

te plein cat ates pane seni sodate eG prance st :
solteratoob ong te asté? bua sop ataweo salt ove atwel een oat
oo tLom atin taxbasteh et sgreno dom bth tamed tiveath ed at balse
(ARE tom wer Heh ttu9skO ond do Mnem~bat edt Rad gouPdered
ed? mt inte od? ad tuohasteb teat yapdgeawp ded? Ao ehapthubhe
cone kts tatsdcuidd ¥ dons” Of: Sivek. ane, ARH Ninh: 9 AD NNOND
baa qitwo0 ¢hunsto ot mi spdtes afd te tady OA? tod som ondtom
shih ti deide yrolisexy dove mo then to weble edt gaktueier.
(tnd? spwoltiteg yd botetess ot #1 . towse af. peas tevehcabaeeh et
attoneneds sik bregetels of beteursead doa oxen vewt edt ee, sdowmmoms
ase .oollen ogtedo tom bib dotdw ,ueitevedeet edt as taupe tant? onde
P tecmaegher, aidt .t2yeh divert ent at dedst Ot RA $3¢
|| -¥ xqnmoo) .taven aide oF Leon me Darel a faye, ° ) ast 20
| abst hee gdemettte cow tymaghert ott (ER 4a04. ere see ore
| ote denn st tat tg on han Me
i stavos bite Hk denen ¢asbastek YLae ast sox ote on gpmadistt 9h
i eae ot ataweo yalodenen ond edt gadwond
_ tue auted favo toxdt add? “yanmegait A xOL, atmabanreh edt
li ttvest6 ould wt optar Loixt odd 10% codnst0y oa new Suds gee
ait burger of txwod vinwon od mt ap tmmad
yee verso eat ak weno oct Ie dotee 9A3 BS gBPEMER PA on oy qvnina
gatlut att af .s0nebive on boxotte dae taoneeg tom gon gaakmeteh |
odd of .trwod ytawod LL Rogie nipinne eagnertymenel |

contention were justified »s to the first and tsird counts, it is
Omitted thet the aceand sount dees allece melise. The Sup rteae
Sourt in Buek v. Jiez, 6° fii. 167, anid:

"The term 'maliec' os used in the Insolvent Sebters

roe
ey = Eth

ASG, sppiies to that ¢isge af wrenga whieh are inflicted
with on €vil intent, design or swrcese, isvlies thet the
euiity perty wos agbuated by luproper or dishonest sotives,
am requires intentions re@tretion of en injury or

wrong on another. (Fire nk of Flore v. & oS

iGlL iil. 913 RP 2S4

poyweli, 122 idl. G87: Kollar, st: oe: ve Or}GRs
#238 ili, 356.) “pen th Beane setitien fer dig~
Gharge under the Inecivent cebtere act, if the declerstion
in the cmuse in whieh the judgment .:minst the vetitioner
wag Tendered did net charge aelice, evidences extrinsie te
the record of that eeuse le uot edmlesitle t6 shaw that
there wag maliee on the oart of the oetiticser in the erige
inel tranesetion on which the julenen bi
BiSZnser « 3 Ye BUSES: Bure

Shether the thivd count of the Gecloration does not
®entain en sllegetien af mealies, se oftitioser sentenda, or dees
sentein auch sm allegation, xs this court views it sakes no di fferenge,
amd we are ef the coiniesn thet the vounty Court sce not in errer in
rejecting the evidence ag to petiticnerta intent, sand in entering

the order sosesled from. fhe order ie, therefore,=t fireed.

AP PLMERD

WIiLSOs, de AND HEBEL, te GEN Uy

ef ¢i ,atmwco baivt bas taxit od? of ea botisieut. otae, aotuetn00
amergut ef? .oodten oselle seeb saves haved’ “one teil bed timbs
i thdow VOL iit O88 «BALA »¥ anu mt Prwod

ot tagvioes! ed? ai beew oa .tagdiou' sset ogt
ne or ry Hg ioiaw egaotw to yr toad ot
bf OE TORE LF PaOCTHG TC a
.eevitom seouodelh “a Temerge se we heteidan’ abe
te Ne ale a“ Xe ey vee J: :

TRRASLh a ee a aes
sega fa

teat weds oF. St

ton aoob We toseiiioh Sae'a dialen’ Werte’ oth saab
seoh xo ,ebasdaod reookt Bred pet yeah Lew te ae Ra rytis ae whedte

sono rortib on eels #1 ewbty tavkd cidt fs ynoseryoliv a dom wheres

‘gk vort dl gem ow Stig yaved OMY Pk? Koketoe Bar We ote ‘ow bats

guinvins ai ban .twotad® otrenetiiesy of ve bHRdRtwe edd Fie il

| sboaninhajeebtersde ghd tolee oxy © — Peleowoe tebne ode

‘ a iy Lie Ai ¥ haw Ba. Baek ake
stored a4¢ eo Ree He aie whee ane

th A ee a

‘i ka hs dabelcite 9 * nine: “at ona

f a 4 : eo ete “¢ } ES QAR BAG. aul e Pen er
Wit ee re ee Le ake ‘oa

Oe SOUT Oe gg PRB GM. si ailiaahd 4

——_, fo Py
36499 , ; Po 4 Pe ; i x
MERGHARTS ANG WANUPAGTURENS GECUSITIE® ,-“Tee, BHRG4 TO Les

CO., & Gorperation, a foo ni

Plaintiff in error, MUNICIPAL BouRT
Te i

: oF wiosce.
ES is ae el ae Z
(Age v4 4 A of @ 6 5 5

Opinion filed March 14, 1934
WR. FREQTDIRG JUSTICH BALL GELIVE®S THR OFT RION OF THE GOUKT,

BH. G. HABSOGK, Tracing ss S005 SOFT WATER
LAUNONY,

Gefendant im Lyrrore

By this writ of error sleintiffi seeks the vrevereal of
a judgment for seste entered sgainat it in the Municiosl court of
Ghieage. dudgsent es originally entered in fervor of plsintiff
and aguinat defonient on = judewent sete. 4 petitien end eetion
ef defendant to vacate the juiguent snd te ciwe defendant « hearing
was presentec te the court, the judgment wes voented, end as atated,
judgment entered agsinat plaintiff for seste. The trie] was by the
eourt without « jury.

fhe record shows that on Bey GOth, 1921, defendent
signed a promissory mete fer 399.95, sayable in instaliments, This
note contained a worrant of pewer ef attorney to confess judguent
thereon. The note wos paysble to the kneeKnit sonufseturing
Serperation ami by if sesignet to the plaintiff. The judgement wag
entered on Soreh 17th, 1935, and the sotion te vacete wae asde May
loth, 1932.

im hig petition ond setion te veeate,defendent reclies
in substance thet the Gude Soft “ster Leundry defendant, entered
Ante 2 contract with the imu-iinift Memufesturing Cerperction for a
machine to mend stockings, such as@hine te be leseed at « rentel
and thet upon psysent of the I=st instsliment of rent, the Knu-tnit
Manufacturing Corperstion sgreed te give « bill ef scle to the leasee;
that the uschine wee delivered to defendant ond was defective in
that it did not do the work for whigh it wee intended; thet it could
Ret be used by defendant in ite business; that the aechine wes of

PSs. in i

Lk OF Agama Bi ad WAASUTDA NUMAN A ATES
on ito Ltereg¢ed &

pe Jaro tee adenes wk Siar ant sty" Py ae iad
Ih % ‘ is ov iN ane (: 2 y

ret 0s 8 Sab /

jie Py tnateotor
eel ww fioteM belit noimiqO | ne
DINED me Yo Home WT CHearLate ater sorrae na reas ft
to Encrover eit exete Thiowinty gorts 14 Rimi High Ye .
Yo Hryot Leqkotnwit on? ai 2 tankege boxsten
Wiltntate ‘Yo rove? at beretas yitantyixe
patntod » puabartsd ody = oan — 3 ! bd saeeey of tm

-G000IND 49

‘Gao. AI DY

gittretestone’ takes? ait ot dda ‘eo ter en att
ein Imecghat eat .VtEtebate Oat of Somgtoud OF wet bun ‘nokesweqtsd
‘Qe eben Gad etueny oF we ldda at fine ener sated a i a

estioer tasbrotebstavey of watton Ime Moltited eit a om Speiting da |
berodme .tuatuetod yrhaued reds" P2e8 abut eld saslt conutedue at
“@ ot aeitetoq¢re® gabteremtamall $devkmanes out dite tonréa0o s otmh
fotnot « te heared ad of entdoas Move wsgnbstoge | 26 of we
tinkeuti edt faor to tagnlingent font sit Yo taomyee moqu
yemanes ad? of oie to Liad « eviy of boongs Hol Fexoqned aa

pppunprbedreye st schon

;
.

|
|

&
ho Yeiue to defendant and thet the note and eentraet wea nell end
void for the reesen that the consideration for euch note woolely
filed, It is further alleved thet the sesionnent ef the mete to
plaintif? was anode after snturity, and thet pleintiff es¢ and is
mot = bons fide holder before maturity of the nete im due seurae,
Plaintiff insists thet the judguent for coasts be reversed becouse
defendant wes not dilirest in mregouting hie metion ‘te veonte; thet
éefendant ia bound by « 4oousent signed by Ria and that defendens
éié not offer to return this saehine,

sefendent teatified thet at the time he ourchssed from
the Enmu-init banufeeturing Someeny the mechine referred to, be had
& Conversation with one Bornes, « scicasan for that coupiny; that
farnes seid he woe selling defendunt « mechine thet sould «end Silk
hose perfectly, but tict upon trying the meeking he found it ddd net
dq the work aa represented, and that he was eoupelied te resert te

hand eork on the stockings; thet the vnu-Knit iemutactaring lercera=

tion sent « demonstrster to defendent and thie Ssmonetrater could nat
weke the wschine scceaplish saythine in the wy of sending stockings;
thet the Kau-Enit fomafseturing Sorserition sent onether pergan te
defendent to try te overste it and premiaed thet the tnutnit Lonufagte
uring Corporstion would send another aechine to take the cleee of the
mechine in queetion, tut thet they did not 46 se ond the maghine ia
how in posveesion ef defendant <t hia hese and thet defendant hae net
been sble te operste it. defendant further testified on orege-examin~
ation thst befere the dauengtreter, a Kies Shite, left, after making
the demonetration, she presented defendant with « enrd end atated

thet “this card here shows my tive, I have to ghow thet i spent three
days heres* tat at her request he sled the errd, smi thie denonestrae
tor then ateted to the witness that “we will end you © new esehine.#
Defendant told her he did vet think the arehine wie eny good, wand

that he did not think it would VOrkK.

( qi

er |
bas Lfwe eow toertmon aes oto at? todt hace’ totaal ates’ vat cuiekon
Yetose efor Move tol nokterebiesos eit tert moasot ed? 6% Dhow
0? ston od? to dnrairy tae s oct teat begetin vedtevt at $f .betiet
ei bax exw Yktatale tote Ban .ythusdey sogts eben exw sit tabede 7
qbhtupe sub ait eto od te yeieudax oroted rehtod BEY ged «0 ‘tea
Saunoed re ad xteos rot atoveay ert ant tos? stebent Yrbtetes
toad jansory ‘of ‘nolton eid gedteaneee ad drag sith Sau sow snahastob
tnabavreb teds tar mist ye bomgts tuamuoeh » WS Hwed ef sanbeotes
on Laos, aide auton of roto tom bib
nett bevnsionuc sat ont oat te bouts bo rttvent fasbasret sae sca bi
ny wi i ont

gee, Reo &

hi Hite bee bisom tose sekioan 3 a tnabentob aati ton ov Co iow

ERS Ny Ga fH) PER

| i" drosor a boLieques naw on ust has ’ pile ¢ ca eae

||) -eroqte0 gadrutoetunten thatmaaN ede tard ieonsoots id 0 How
he ton Dawe xetersenamh bese ons Paspaeish of yoHR ome
jegahsoote pabbaos to Yow out at gattryas sedfcaooes ° ;

Hi et woe 9% zedtear save neki ore? getzudostiie tae tr
mtootamet dhaimunt ont feds beetwor bas #2 ote neae af we on

| tom aed taaknoteb tedt ban emod wid #9 tanksoted bo to mplapsoes a.

’ milanxo-eRror® ne Dottitest rediaut trenbaot ec et sero ot sk
s Sie - ey, ee
patdaton reste attet soaker ea i ’ “gtotentanooed one oaphed tae me

bstete bas broo B atte sushasros baa om prs, onoik
eas aR Ce ee ea ee ,
condi tnoge 1 tate wade of ovad I yank? * i

—

kether Henson, tae «ite ef the defenioant, stoted that
ehe woe 2 part auner of the busineas of defendant, and testified in
gubstenoe that the machine in cueation would not de the work which
the Knuednit comufacturing Corperction, through ite seent, ropre«
sented that 1% would de.

The contreet between the Emu-Rnit sonufecturing Gorpers~
tion ig in evidence, «mc es2 when exeouted a dooument of which the
note sued on wes «= onrt enti from whieh it wae term. This centraot
previces that upon seyment of the nobe sued on, the title te the
waghine in cuestion should seas to defendant, title im the interim
to remain in the *su-tnd@ Sonufseturing Cersorstion.

It ee¢eee to be «imitted thet olsintiff sequived title to
the note in question softer saturity, end thot defeniant say make
all the defenses thet he equid hore aade hed the title te the note
reusined in the originsl soyes. 46 to the ovcetion ef defendanti'a
a@iiigence in sresgenting his motion te yeeate, 6 note thet tue judge
went wes entered in the Bunicipal Seurt of Thiesge on Merch if th,
i832, and the aetion to veeste ena aije on Sey LOth, 195%. The
re¢erd shows thet defemient is not now, end «sa not st the time the
juégeent wee entered, a resident of Geck County, bat resided some

. Ghstance from TUhiesgo. There is nothing in the reeord te indicate

that the motion te vaeste was not mie in emple tine, ner thet sleine
tiff hes euffered sny ineonvenience or lese by reusen of the time
whieh elapeed between the entry of the judgment and the entry of

the motion to vaeate. There ia waothing in thie point.

Plaintiff's next woint is that defendant is beund te «
eritten atatenent delivered te s demonstrator of the muchine, such
demenstrater heving been sent by the seller of the mochine in question
to muke a demonstration 2nd ascertain whether the machine vould work
aatiafactorliy or not. Gefeniant atetes thet «ter euch demonatration
hed been mode, he woe requested by the demonetrater te sign » earg,

&
tadt Detote .tarhaotes ons Ye etd edd yaoemnl wedtes is
al heltitest hae ,tashasted te oseckou ond to ‘Teawo fa0q ee aw oe

Ho tebe drow ott ob ton bluow agitessp ad snidesn as deste womnt edie
morgen stangs | eg guest so kt orog me” gakrston ames theimwe ‘>,

__ seb bivew a weed betaes

~sraat06 gabxicton tare tase add meaetod tometnon oat sin si ciee
Of Koldw: Re. dgramnote m iveatrate:etshe gem bans seousbiva at o oid
foexduon ataT stot env #2 douse mort han tung 6 exw mo beue 9t0a

‘edd of Oi¢14 edtyno boun oton ait to ambaryny meq trait |

mbzotad edt at oitit atmbas tat of samy bhwote sekteogp at outore

sno itsneqrod gadeetos tony bbs Sonatas
ot okt ie ei to Wa seahade ade besdimbs wd * Se Oe a?

w! suebmoteb ‘te nekteouy eae ot oe 290, ; ct iad
~gbast ‘end torit ‘eton yr taney ot noitos end ta at sae
cate sone ne @yanssc to sted Loqtotaus vat at besenaes sow

re aN

ed? .880L ASO YR ao obew enw otosaw ot ac ktox ost faa 79
“et ontt ot tn ton aro ne wou fon at taoharted seat enode LOOSE

‘emon bebteet shar < hero soot to saabiaot a _sbareane 5 ae
‘ebaotbal ot beeees eat ak pabiter st orsdt eyo wort as

* ee D
te

1 wnkeLe sede Tos onit slaus ad oben ton aaw ednone at “sobton oat tot
ome odd %* noeses w eat to sompiavyneont wa bers tien aad we

Teer pam Dh aks

indiesting thet the time spent by her in her work eae setusily spent.
The card he signed conteined the follewing: "Thia is te sertify

thet your instructor, Kis« “se ‘hite, hea demonetrated aur Snu-Knit
Hosiery Sepair Machine «ni instractes guar operater to cur camplete
satisfsetion. “# further certify th=t our ine-Enit Msechine works
antisfaeterily «ni efficientiy.* He ssid thet he did mot rend the
ssrd and knew nothing cf ite soutents, mat toek the word of the
deuonstrater tast it ce only « record of wer time. His stetenent in
this regerd ia not Gicowted. No eltneases vere produced by pisintiff
to dispute the testiaony of defendant, hie wife snd on employe ef
defendant, to the effent thet the unchine in ~aestion weuld not de
the work elaised for it «ni which the seller premiesd it vould de,
end thet the mashbine wos uetless te the defendant.

It ie further insiates by olaintiff thet defendent cannot
urge bis defense te the note ec long ca the aschine in cuewtion re
maine in slaintiff's pesstasien. The defendent leased the seonine
from plaintiff, and the contract previded that the title would sages
only after the note in queetion seo weld. Fleintiff elites Genili's
Tllineia “eviaeé Stetutes, 1941, Thanter 141-4, sregreph 72, ae follies

*vhere goods heve been delivered to the bayer, he
sennet reseind the geile if he tnsw ef the breeeth of worrenty
when he eceepted the gooda, er if he fils te notify the
seller within 2 recsoncble time of the election te reseind,
or if he felis te return or offer te return the goods to
the seller * * *.#

There sas no sole ef the preverty, therefore, the statute
hes ne sppligation. The titie is still in the seller, «nd he sen
procure possession of it if he chogees. The jwiesent is «ffirmed.

APPLARESs

WILSGRAAND HEBEL, J. SONCUR.

i 4 efagen Yilewtor aew fees ved af ved wi geteqe ated ode dade mtb a0 bind
Yrioves oF eh efit" tynivelict out heniatres bengie od bree ed?
titSaunk wwo batertesoneh ocd .atid ool call yredoutiest tw0y dads
efalquoe wee of Todeweqe tae bartartent mea endilogs whaqget ote keg —
adtxow saidee’ timi-wnk tum fect YLiexweo sedtegh et | aobtestedtas
odt Loox fet Bh ad tad? Rise oH *.yltwedoztte dus qLbtedentatice
(od To Brow ade woot tad yatantuoo att ko gabdten wend bie dena
ai dvenetete uf! .audt ver ‘te Beetet oc yinw oew 2 teu setettemqemd
Tidatale YW heevbery exow asesemtiw ON .kedugmdd tem ah Rregon ebdt
“Ye eyokawe az has ottw etd ydoetaskeb te qromiteos edt atuqakb at
ob ton bluew acitsoum xt eaidesm eft text doekt bo ott of 4tnabaoted
ac ualh hanacaneemianie yshamiindutonsnainiibias:§ sein)
stinhastyh ait ot naekeow bow sakdonm ait ends chan
fonnae tiabavieh tede Tiitelele wi betetest wadieet wh tT 6! 1 ly
“dt moliesu ai saksine ad? ac grol oo tom wit ot osdetad tpi
Mikdem sit Secnel Susbasteh ont ymolemanmey ati hitatele a2 onsem
ansq diver wLeit anf vadt Sehivety Seextso> edt Bae .VEitadadg weet
shite sotio Btitihels .bhag cow ret ant mane We

iat {THye Git oF Roraesind aed oved oe + Pei pi
‘ss treed ece pe germane soe SE sass

eld oytetem ef efie? ef Li wo gahon, b hed
__shaignes of so ttve te ant to emtd afd en00
et shoo, od? ateter ot tetle vo eter of

i sae

stuteto ests sorotor ad ateraqore oss te sine on ie oxo |
neo ad bas R vivpwaged one at iitee a une ot es had

BE one ON ME? LMM) Sa Me nC apa we rh Qe od R

‘ sone ‘hall, a

aon Oe, Bs
ie Ree we & ne einy, Py ee bed g OE

ai ‘

38 al rte: i % Pa
365 we Passi |
JAMS POTINZI, if ) APPEAL ram

;
(Plaintiff) Agtelies, nt all
coal BUSISIPAL oQuet
We :
PATRICK “A8HUR JORSTAUCTIOS GO., ar gureago,

(Sefendant) Apveliants Q'7 4 I A. Gag

Opinion filed Mareh 14, 1934
MA. PAESIOING JUOTIOS HALL OFLIVERtD THE OPINION OF THE goUET.

By this sopeei defeniant sseke te reverne «= judesent for
$450.00 readered aguinat it in the Amicipsl deurt of chiesge, The
setion is for dam¢ges slieged to heve been susteined by plaintiff,
whe Glaims te Aeve worked ss 2 yatthmen on = bulliding being censtruc-
ted for tae County of Geok «t Sinehester <i Pelk Streete in the
Gity of Shiesge. §o Grief bee been filed by oleintiff, the uit
aa originsily cowngneed 1a syrinet Patrick ‘erren and Silliam 4.
Breri. An suended etaterent of claim ess filed in the Municipel
Sourt, wpon which the heering there wos hed, aceinet Petrick “arren,
William 4%. Grown, Yiliise 4. Jroen £ 3o., snd Potrisk “arren Construc-
tion Go. To this amended stutenent of slais, ®«triek “arren
Gonstruection Gee, apreliant, filed sn affidewit of merits, sherein
4t ie steted thet:

*Defendant denies that it ever empleyed the oleintiff

on or sbout February 25, 1554, er at any ether time, by
*entreet ef any kind, te work for it es alleced in said
statement of gisim, end denies thet visintif? werked fer
this defendant ae alleged therein. Sefemiant denies that
it is indebted to the cleintiff in sny sua whetesoever,#

Giliism 4. Srown, president of the S4liiem & Brown
Construction Co., *s¢ preduced 4¢ 2 witness fer the sleintiff,
testified in subgtones thet sis company bed = contract te seve a
Building at #inchester and Polk “treete, »=ad thet the work was being
done in February, 1932, He stated thet the vatriek darren Gongtruce
tion Gomosany was the principsl centracter on the jyb, sceording
to the understending of the witnegas, and thet he, Brown, hod sothing
te do with the employsent of laber efter Moreh Ath, 1932, end that

a, (thigarariy” °" om
‘OoseInd Ws (geG® MOT TOUS TOROt anriay Or "|
BED AT Rg t stsinec mien) re
BECL DL dove boLit moiniq® ee
THOS RAY FO ROTWETO @HY GinetEeM chan aorta eer pi Paces
‘Wo! tromatat » savsver of elaen tabbested Lewyye arde ye °! ONY
| ountemoe gute gathi ted & fe Hamiotes = we belvor svet of autele ome
thu od? .Yeitednde Yo beLEY aod wet tome oH oyrotdt to yt
Nm LET bee dorcel dodtee™ Fuekeys wt deerORKeD YLientytre as
Epephokett ots wt BOLRY dow miele Te dxometeiie Besitone ian” jmNeiel
| mturttenod morrey Aobrtet bas yJo0 8 moet oY mbt tdee yosont J nee tte
"pete dokutet Yate te Ye deunetate bobrient Wit ot © a
mhovene —" to sasinaahine an tow eat ivaitiiah eos note

is Dg os kasagn0m

i
it
hy

Matters itt a nie reve
%
oat? oer el
oa bestow pathy

£ vom of Seertaoe & had wear abs on evasion ab = sai
artod on tren act ill thie saponny® IVS Ka, SRN BA) ibd

} seiliiene ih tut ai SOM] ay .
aniston bas aitrorh ad ted? baw qanentiy eta — biti j
ted? bee OTOL 40 sonen ratte sede Yo tamayedene att dtr ob of

S
he, Brown, hed no contract for watehuen or isborere that were doing
any work, other than removing machicery.

Plaintiff? teatified in substunee that he bad 4 telLk sith
Wr. Grown about coing t@ cork on the jos et “inchester and Polk
Streeta about February “Oth, 1956, smd that he started te work there
on february 29a, «mi that Green left him on the job. He further
stated thet uething was eid abeut etges, and that come san whe
werked for “vown ould hia fer 19 dsys werk from reprusry “Oth te
Maroh “ed. Yhis witness «igo stated thet er. “orren's foreman
toid him he should wateh the eater cump. He testified further that
he taiked with Er. “srram «ni Er. “arren anid, “See frown", and
thet in Bereh he toek the sl«ce ewi thet Srown did net come on the
job any more, Om croge~examination he stoted that he esked Ar,
Werren for his check, «mi “ry Yorrem enid, "i ain’t got your Sheek,
Brown got te pay you.* Be stated thst et one tige ir. fsrren

offered to pay him (5,90, smother time $3./%5

and anether time 920.00,
Other witnesses testified te the arieet that they acv plaingiff

oa the job.

| Patrick ‘orren testified on behalf of the defendent cor

perstion, end atated taat it wx the general agntreeter for end that
he wag fomlliar with the work being done im moving the wuliding et
Ninehtater and folk Streets in the City of Caiespu, ond that the
Patrick ‘erren Gonetructian Gampany eublet the cexntract for this
werk to the Wiliiam 4. livewn Gonstruetice: Gamueny which did sii the
work. He atated thet he knew the plaintiff. This witness vos saked
whether, on behalf of the Patrick “erren Jonstroetion Sewceny, he
employed any men on this perticuler job at “inehester ond alk Streets,

snd bis anewer wis thet be did not de so. This «newer we objected

| to, and the objection wes sustained by the sourt, the court stuting

| thet “he might mot have definitely eaployed somebody, mat be might

Baton ereW Sade eTOTENL re \Mondoter Tot PomTIMOS Om baw gtment see
ferme tai | Drkvoren madd wade yatrow wna
ithe Mint 9 had On toad ocastedue ak boktitend Yi teebare ae
| aie’. bas seteadonl® te det xt} no, naw of yatey tuede wont sll
Sind? show ot bprrage Oe told dar 4SKOL QASO8 Tsun’ tuode teense
vedere? am. Gol edeune aid ed ewer! todd tee hats yeaa me
eile ime Smee tot Rue Ls9gew Iuode bise vow gakdinn tase, betes
| Gt APOR Ytowndel moxkt doe eysh OF wot att Mteg amore wot betvow
mamerret a mecrak 4a tate Betets cede senate ett «bas stoma |
tastt seasttrant botideet ali sqmer water add dider bivote od mid Bhot
‘bee *nwers O98" ybice mortar +2h hao Rome sai tbe dedi’ ob
Sif mo neo fox bib sworn dedtt hn Sooke elt Amet od dora md tale
| «tH here ot tute bedete of aedteatmnxe-aeore a deren yee dat
—gteade swoy toy dake I" yhhee movne® gx Dan gdeecde etd wok wormek,
fextal «xi ealt ano te @edd betate 28. Wisceiadincimaaladitea sit
| ACO8h omit? xeditane hae 06059 amt? sedtome _M_F) mit goa of Doxstte
Meketele con yoas Sect sootie. ant aannansitin mapas
attol, tt, sm
~ron dashaates edt Yo tiaded me hoktstaes sipraai pereng vad
ted? bose tot roteetinoe Larensy edt onw Ft tontt betate bos niin
te yaibliod at gatvon at eaoh gated taaw ect? dete gah tes? sow od
ode tei bute | sogsead to eno ‘sa nk steenit Abt hen cous
eidt wor domttaee exit toidow mate 0 btu fesod moves dosreed :
edt Lie bib do bete wanted coktour seared avon eT smhiite odd ot drow
Deion ace auontty alot .2italale odd vend Od edd Bedote OK xeon
: of gyaernot Ho L$ ourteno® aorta sointed ot te ‘vhs 0 9x tern
i einerte if0% bas retesdomh’ ts dot adoettreg ease ae se we ‘h
1 botostso ame te8wens etait one eb ‘tow “BLD es ‘trai eo 4 ’ . aks ;
watacte two ant “bei09 ont w ‘ponte tous on okadegede e sit eh
tate oni tus sxtodesen boyodane “Uns tnttes owed ‘tout

bab ie. TURF | we gn D tsgah cab ieguy adit * a
Ltt pe Aone tothe eed Be Pome nes eat ee i

3
heave been iisble fer his «cyvee if ne hed mot done sertnin things.*
Sr. warren further tectified that he aever had any eenveres tion
with the vleintiff in the monthe of Yebrusry, March, Avril, “ey or
dune of 1932, snd thet be did sot direet plsintiff to de saything
on behalf of the *atrick <rren Construction Company from February
20th, 13%2, down te the dey sf the trink.

From the entire evidenee, 1% ie apparent thet wisintiff,
Af employed, rie an ewsloyes of the “Aliiem 9%. “rewn Coaeany, sub
eontractorea under the defencent cemeany, and that there wos ne
privity of contract >eteeen olaintiff snd defendant, and that the
court waa in errer in entering the juigsent sesinet the defendant.
fhe judguent is, therefore, reversed and renended.

REVERSED 480 REMAHOND.

BELSON SBD Hackl, JJe GOHCURS

\
its Pou. eb " mig gdweiBoaey ay fhe 2 A Bae agents ont |
“sepaldd steteoe enob fou bed od Ti eeyon a2 ot aags ped v
a ADE CAG HE ape i :
__., Bettewsevsco yan bod rayon ot dada boxiiteet xedent a |
patatyne ob of Yaaatase goers ton bbe ea tea : ae a C J
wesw mont varanct aoitowesane® norte aeistst nat te
ir Seng Le eid RS Bis ees shone oat re J eae of ava 43 fe 8 4at0s
p*iitatele saat tneragae ek ek seomentre eakene pct 1 sia

xs mA wasn | so) era Sv ee.
qdiomaits ccna a a a oe A fee ae wT Rh COR,

“teats god We) oth feo we GA Rae Grn vem to mi

me \ Xe 7 Re SF. Mini ciy pA) Bes Weds warps Le & e : 4a , J
oy: tea es pee Ra, tes Se 9 vo ee em bi ee ane be ot Ree ae
? v4 fd
Bit Balle Me GB Ie I | OER ae

WR SESE Fel A eS a pak BONES

. 5 Bt eh lay | ee 4 ERE ss
Thee Hacks ; 4) ‘) rag

sl “exon iil:

see vata Rags > eR ate inti opi earls

xt in .

Bae rk ame Beene RR, oe sii ght Wes a F ‘aie wet * ae

ea go
rl

; . ind Woe We
“ ral Py ey # ,
( v BLS atv Miva
gt hae Baia
Re og MY TAS oe ee

yiseyet Sint Bea soreness. ee se cokoneraa aan in scisith

ha tnehle cox wnemman pial we tie: Bear ee is i eae sh
We asa hee Ri natin: ; fi) ea a
jeaterde tame math hie add, ae fonds hte ee apne

pyc: Ge Meal. gheaaet 9 he ncaa tore wee

$6539 :
AGNES OsTURAX, LA
(Plaintiff) Avoelies, *

BPPeah PROS
RUNLOLFAL downy
We

JORR NARCOCK BUTUAL LAPSE Tso eaRos
GOMPARY, & torporction,

‘ a
é fh ® Q
(Defendant) Avcelient. } 2 v4 4 I 6 A ° 6 5 5

Opinion filed March 14, 19354

OF GHIGAGG.

WA. PARSIGING JUGTIGR NALi GELIVEGSO FRE OF IRIOR OF TAX GcweT,

Sy this anseci defendent geeks ths reversal of « judg~
ment of the tunitical cCowrt of Chiesge seainest it in em action
brought by olsintifi oe beneficiery wader two sGlicies ef ineuranee
kasued to John Sziubon, ber gon, now decwaced. The trinl ees before
the court sna « jury.

The firet coliey wus tasued Ortober Lith, 1928, and
nunbered 19906424, and the cesond was issued Rovember 6th, 1992, end
mumbered 20106194. Yhe insured in sia sevliestion fer esth ef there
policies steted that be ess in gourd beelth, end free from all
physieal defects and infirmities. The solileies themeclves each
provide thet if the iueured, before the dnte of the policies ami
within two yesrs thereof, had ony colmenury disesee, then the colicies
weuld be void, The @efenee is that insesmuch ae the inewrad was, and
' hed been fer seme tiee prier te the epoidention for and the ieeuence
of these sclicies, suffering from mleenary eoneumvtion, therefore,
the beneficiary @ould not recover. in her statement ef cleim, plein~
tiff alleges that the insured 2s «t the time ef the apoliestion
fer the insuranee auffering from pulmonary coneumption, had been
repeatedly treated for this dise¢nee, emi that the agent of the defend
ant comoany ene fuliy acorized of the physieal condition of the
insured before the policies were tagued. fhe inewred died of tuber
Gulosis June 27th, 1930. Gne policy prevides that upon this death
the beneficiary should be paid 410.06, and the other policy provides

| os
va re, exe
BONG SATA LAG based
qboLinggh (2 mae en

Puy JAGIOIEGA -

= ekg Recae _— ae sage haan |
Geo As AYS stmativnch Ceaapartea)
BECL .dL doreM beLit moiniqd : | ,
‘Wise Wet WO aGEdtio wy Gee evi Jian eidten, iengervie all
‘waist = Yo Lexsovex ‘odd edose danbartet Diswe dade yt 9
‘soltee ae at #1 teniogs oganidt to taro sys Load pon 2
sonrrutal te adiclie; ost relms Yreiuitensd
eteted eae Leia? edt -bovaeont wor toe wad hea ig ii
oN jet & beak Pwo iw
ban ,8865 ,AvaL redefeO beyeet ase yolieg dealt od®
bas ,858L .i99 tovmevoK bowers ane aeons Sid ba ce: ous
enedd Yo Aoee rot noiteohigae etd mk peuvent edt be *
fie mextt cork ban cthteed: jaan a ties eee
foes anvioemed? eotoiloy od? .wodsterttal han stooted Laokayiq
has setetiog ont to eta ott vveted yhetumnl ed? Yt saat sbivere
| pekedlog add medd yoxeontd yromenivg Yaa hast looredd exney ont midhhw
ban ,aew borwent edd as dowmenth ted? of cnmwted edt .hkov od bigow |
eouswent 4% bas got nodteolione of of teieyg Gadd same tet awed bed -
2tOteteds oltquvemevyracoelwy mort gairetive ,erdetiog seed? Te |
wnkely yatelo to tuometote ved «i stoveex tom Dimoe wretettened add
toltesiiaga odd to omkd oft fo eaw bocwant oft todd sogeite eke 4
| mead bed ,Kottqmence Tranexlug wert gabreTive commumal edt met
| shasteb otit To taoya odd Gods has yousenth atdy sot bodewet yLootenqer
| ead Yo nokithnce Leokeyla oct Yo Resktaos Yikut wew Yanemee tae
“rode? te beth Soumas ect .bomead otow aetodiog edt oxeted bor 4
dteeb sido aoge tudd eobivetq yotiog oa 008k ; sealanhaeceail
eebiveny yollog tadte eit bam 00eOLt toe ot Smee ! : koite

thet she should be paid “S74.%. the verdiet and judguent were for
$974.00. The preimuus on the policies were payeble in senthly
installments. 4li srewiume were paid end reeeioted for by the
defendant company by ite agent, up te the time of the death ef the
ineured,

feon Koterich testified for plaintiff, in aubstance,
thet in 1929 he worked for the John Ganeeok Mutwal Life Inewranee
Gompeny a5 8 salegnan te eolle@et amd sell ineuranse oa an agent; that
he had « conversstion with the insured, John Oriubsn, about three
weonths before he rrote tne issuranecs; thet the insured then informed
the witness that he was siek and 4iad not think he wewld pess the
examination; that he Koteowieh, speke to Joseph “ieond, who wee the
then aegistent manager of defendant company, the next morning ofter
he hed talked with John Oziuben, and asked Sigeni to see the insured,
whieh Rigend aid; thot John Jsivuben the insured, then signed on
application for the ingursnee in the presence of genni, and that
Rigeni fiiled out the bisnuks in the aonlio«etion after the ineured't.«
namé@ wis signed therete. fhe witness further testified that he after-
werda delivered the ineurence seligies to the ingured. This witness
also stated that he told Josevh “igend thot the insured won in « sand=
tearium in #111 County, but thet the scent said *he ig ali right, ge
ahead end write sim, ~« need the business."

Joseph 4. Rigeni, a witness fer the defendant, testified
thet he «29 sesistant sanager for the dehm Meseoek Mutuel Life In-
gurance Compeny, had been for four yeors ond that Bis home #as in
doliet, lilinois. Thies sitnesa was sheen the sppliestion fer insure
ance mide by John Osiubans ‘he witness identified his om sien-ture
@igned to this document «s Assistant Gupsrintendent ef the Jon
Hanoosk Mutusl Life Inaurenece Somouny on this deeument below the
following certifieste:

"X hereby certify thet each of the abeve questions
waa anewered ee recorded, snd thet i witnessed the signoture

Shea ae

8
Tet eron smemyhut bac toLbxev ed? 00.2989 bhng 08 Mugde ede tale

Ustteroe ak aidayrn tee wpeng.ton ase ae ceruiti ant 00.875

ea? yd tet hetoleoer baz dbaq euew nots knore ia ‘sedasmListank

edt to dteeb add to emis oc? of a efange aa& ¥ wregmoe Rory:

‘ eras bow ah | yeiembabe tot hs2tideed dekeotex miet— |
consist oti Dieta stooleaew mae, ade rot Sodkow ae ORCL mt tad
tad? jimege se ee eouetwent Iles ban toulion of xreatian « an yreqmed
eondt fuede yneiuts® miol .fosweak @0% debe mokdewramnon @ had od
Bemroltal nad? hotyadt att decid potaweweat edt atonw ed sreted exitaom
att weey Sivow od xaidt Som bEb hus state eow Od trdd nonadte ede
“a8? ew ody .tnogit dqseot of edeqn .delnotox od tatt ptodiadinees
tote gulaten txen edd ,yiecmon tashasteb Te tegemnn insta iene neds
chorueah edt 890 6F inogih bevles bas yandubad wigt withe Sediod Bad od
fin beagte medt shorwont sd? aedutec ado teat (th kote conde

3 tent dus .inogie Ye sonvesre eit ct sometveat ont TOY aostantiqan
sthorumnt eit vetle moddeudions wid nt ednetd edt tod Dota Raw tit
edie af gait Delthiest redtruk ensadiv af sotetedt bomg en ane ome
— abemtie ats? .homent ond of e8intiog samemuect ad? Rarevited ebuew
ntase 8 mt oo betsent edt tnt? tnogl Aqdech Adet on tadt baaate lake
| oheeatiemnmialimmennniasasneisis inline’. |
“sneenient edd Deow av utd ebite baw Bette

«bestsdued .tachtetebh otf tet easatin w ylaeght «i devesh aetie She
| iit oA Reutsit sonnets aéal add wor regerien tictutone wee we tae
at exe omed eid dat? haw exeey swot tot mood Mae meee oomeAE
ustuk tot soigansiqus set mode enw nesntte etdl sedenklit goetios
“gtwtengie awe eid hetthinsbt epossiv est sanscbes sok 6 sheet sons
mfol. ef ko SeOhnstntwegee YoxTetaes as dremmrceh wtds a
A tt eae oO TE

thereto «nd enlileeted ons week's vremium on the 2rd
day of Csteber ly."

This witness elso testified thot he saw Osiuben when on inspection
was made of the condition of Gziuben, ond the witness identified

the report mde thereon; that he, the witness filled it out st the
address of the ingured on Uolling Otreet in Joliet; thet he ssked
the insured certain questions, and sa he Seiuban, anevered them, the
witness wrote down the enswers. He testified that prior to the

time of the appiiestion he did ast know thet the apclicent was sick,
or that he had been in » saniterium. fhe inereetion report signed
by Ueiuben ond the sagistent sanacer, ‘igeni, a6 set forth, contain
the stutenent that apciieant hed never suffered from tubereulesis,
There seems to be little doubt, however, but that @igond the seaietent
minager of this somouny, esa fully sporised of the eoclisent'ts eon
dition before the policies in question were issued, ond thet the
premiums payable were received by him under much circumetences. At
any rate, the jury evidently so found, ao that the only oucstion fer
this sourt to determine is whether or nob, ag a matter of dam, the
defencant is bound by the sesdition ite egent ereated. ene of the
Gases Cited by defendant are in point on this Suestion, aa age of
the facta in any of these cnsea are et 11 similar te those subaitted
te the jury in the instant ease,

in luke Grein 95. v. Jilingis Yankers 14 ao
by plaintiff
Tlie App. 276, elton, euk ort brought on en insurance poliey, end

the defense wos the geome, in effect, os that urged here. In thet TAGS,

‘the applicent fer insurenes eporiséd the «cent of the egupany of his
physioal condition and es te certein chysies] defeetes ond illnesses,
and in passing upon the question ae te the liability of the ineuranee
Company, the sourt said;

“From the facts in evidence, it ia sorarent thet

defendant wee apprised ef the ehysiesl sendition of Luke.
Kotwlthatending such knewledge, or, Bberaeie, medienl

oil edt mo avleony aiacoe aie |
he een Trett tedenee te ee

nottoequat as pre aoc bi wee ‘od tnt borttseer oats ‘seondiw tat

paptstaobs event he ast bane sunt t te nok? BAe out to ‘eben one
edt te two St DeLLIt evontle adt gad tant proorartt ebant froqer edt
beder od dastt itogsel ak toorde gntliod bad fanaa eat Ye “geothbe

add nest, in ompan giukes, of 9m ban ose btomup ‘mintass Jevest,

Bie Qed Poy: aay sae tone ‘ hea ae Pho
ged ot wodna fate Rertitens oF eremete ‘act myed stare wosude
lols eam tnensigen out? anait won tou bib od foktankiaae edt ‘te omkd

Gay

__ Demin tsocer aeitooreat, oat ad ‘s mh aped had ed tedd 30
abaseoe etre? tea #8 a taogtt «r0peans dastetens od? bas ‘ya

| seineluorsdw? gor? berettue sowed bas two Linas teat !

{ tmatekess ond tnog tt tent turd sovewod | daveb onsens od 4 of oan Oe :

tig wt tasedtaae edt to beatae wut ans evans or i Ye ugh

| ott todd bee sbuweed anew ag itesup ai "ile eat atetsd sotdib
A i sntonntemuor to fiose ‘xebaw mtd ye bevkeoor = a ant Om

x02 nottooue via oat add on awe? oF u ube

at wal te zegtam « as ston “ne xadsode a ‘omtwxossb oF | rs |
ote to enok -betaeno tnege ach ao #LD00 oul ? ‘banod aL tal

ve ened ae stortaoup eidt me ne tatog wh oe oxe tabasted a ‘botie ‘coal .

“bos bm enact at relimte iis ‘ta ora seven , seed te ue ad atvek

sono tno th .
ah ’ coast

FS 928

hae hae yessog ‘comeruant & as aa a itgaens 228 mee WBregpon
Tmo tess at ered fog tedt en atoorte, at 008 ae ame il

MER i Ma HP ‘locien

he to _yonqnee ont to droge ons ‘powtnege anasrsmt tat,
_anoneomiit bare aroeted inode, " Lsds0e oe ay Bs a isk

Re ee ee me

ae Be e ay

voaeiwest add re whibdenl eat oF ee a moktesuD id mnges

BA NH) a RY es fied ee Hide

“ieotdon seme wrt
top Hh ie Peet a NA sg ea
Te, de ee ier ae

director of defeniant coaceny, roped us the insured! s
age from 56 te 60 years smi the annual gremium fram
the regular rete of “S59 te 9689.90, sonreved the
appliestion, sad the seiiey wos desued. The soplicse
tion wee asrked ‘inted up one yeur on secount of shysicel
impeireent,' snd Or. Eheresle ededtted thet the imovire
ment m@ent the condition of the ingured’s heart. we
was what ia known a0 « aub-etonderd risk, and defendant
teek the ineressed riak far the inogre«s coucena= tion.
Shen defendent iequed the pcliey with the Enowledge
that the insured eos net in aeund health, it is not
entities to wail iteelf, ss s defense, of that previgion
of the poliey which Jimited its sdobi lity if the inewred wee
not in sound heelth at the tine the ueldey wea jawed, end it
is iometerial whet exused suck eondition of agal th on the
cart of the iueured, Be eae iad Ine. Ce 163
tide App. BG, 120 Lid. Avy ipagenti
The eleventh ples is based upon « @lewse in the
appiiestion for tue seliey whiak reads, "2 agree thet the
insurance herein aeciied fer 4911 net toke effeet until
the firet premium is sétueally paid and the polley is leouad
end delivered te xe ie ey Spoor b the

che non

Legimion ¥. (rudential Ine

ua’ > TLd. Ailes 388; Fe 2 ite
96 lille Avpe 7.) By defendant's course of tipsd=
Ange i= asgumed the wurden of oreving that the insured ras
kot in good health at the time of nig apeliection for ingure .
ones, snd thet defendant wos not apprised of thet feet. This
it failed te da, «nd is not in « paaition te claim that the
font ee in refusing-to direet a verdiet im its favor,

we, Ve SMORELIE Jig. Uo

aes Les 40 Tide Ande 1246)" (Italics ours)
in vlew of these Mutheritieg, and of 211 the ciroumstances

oh ee ij

lke »

gurrounding the iseulnge ef these ineuranee “GLiGL@a, and the feet
thet the genernl agent of the insurance SOepany stcnoted the oremiume
peysble, presumably with fali knowledge of the genditdon ef the
appligant, we feel thet the verdiet af the jety should net be
disturbed. The judguent of the Munieleal Gourt is, therefore,

APFL ERED,

WELGOS AND HEBEL, Ja. coweus,

othaniens wt? oy beeee .yteation ¢ antastn ime ratowrs
ae yo Aameas td onas a Sead at iay of
ca propery
fib gy nat howe ti Gus TiY oe cow YoRLog a hy _
oy hay] a OOM MA TMRY
ed? godt Segditnte ¥. antione Named rae.
esxnod etherusat aft Te moat hagn taht @
“Sratlien tf toe ,vely Brohasdeedae o ge .
oO Le sme Qioet ep dle wad me Aaks heaagnens | ee ae
Jon at fi. ye Be hey moray _ “ { ae tek ney

ay Derwent sce iter eit ie
eh ahhh t | sath ae
aS BO rybry * bareye fryer pont

Peek eb ;
‘ic raped oad dedé site's

ees

a So Reaaeeae
net Py folbuey 2
ii) (aau0_ eegeeee abet on ( 1m :
| peomsgemmorte edt Lie 29 dav seouttzodtnn, son) AY
. feet edt bas sroteiloy eommummat egodt To. Lived emt
perchan, aft, beeqeene, Yerame? eat ttt ear

alec er yon porn bt, t

wos
;

>” amd te8 4 ‘ial
snag! ‘ We ane
f as
a en "te ‘hae y
j } aN my, a
‘iy RU ane . Seal
uel i
: ewe Oy i Bosal le
Oh ¢ ORIN He oy NR on 2 tebe

26549 F caus i

ARTHA MORTGAGE &@ SSCUNITY Goer Ange

FIL@HER HAMILTON GAILY GOMrARY, = | oF sHidace.
Gorjorition, COVPIY A TT Rh f? ue g@
} 274 T.A. 656!

Opinion filed March 14, 1934
WA, PRHESTINEG JUCTICR SALL GELEVEGSO PHS OF LNLO% OF TRE COUNT.

Apotli set.

This ig om sovesl by defentiant frem = judgment of the
Menieiest Court of Vhieses in trover, sguinet defendant fer the eum
ef 9290,00. The trial «su before the seurt woon am smended stetement
of eisim.

The statewent of tleim «llegre thst the etme Mertwage 6
Aeeurity Jommany on the nd day of Hay, 198%, wea lawfully entitied
te op@aecaian of sertcin <oode «ni chattels deseribed of the reine
ef 6495.06, by virtue of = ehottel sertgsye executed on the ifta
day of Saroh, i@fi, by ‘nérew amivesem, <cknowlsdged by him before
the Clerk of the Sunisiesi Goeurt of Uhiesco and reeerded in the
Re@erder's Cfflee ef Gook Jounty om toe LYth dey ef Boreh, 18513 that
anid wertgece conveyed the oroperty deseribed, sseng other oreperties,
to &. G, isnéfield oe security for an wapeid belance due ef $1,890.0%;
thet on the 17th day of Exroh, 1931, the ehettel sertgnce, tocether
with the notes which it ere given te secure, were sacigned and
delivered te the ictus tertgege &§ Ueeurity Company, plaintiff; thet
with full knowledge ef the lien of the ehettel mertgace, defendant
teok the goudedeseribed wut of the sossecaion of the morteeger snd out
of the peeseesion of the oisiatiff, end thet defeninat, though often
requested, has refused to Celiver up te plaintiff the goods deseribed,

in ite affidevit of saerite defeniunt atated thet it had
obtained = judyuent in the Municior] Court ef Chieage on January 27th,
1931, sgeinet imdrew andresen for $22.25 and costs, obtained an
exeogution from the Ulerk of the *umigiou] Court of Gnieage on Kerah

PX { Ras |

Bory pare. span ineo YHIAWORS & Zo20TROM ANTON

- ss ; ra i eT pe
Bi 6 ty ts eat ee ae aicd sana

se steams oriaaal Detererrtovidert
| gtod tetoqgtae

kat sig wa.

} san xOanu

-doapen-xe:
crete) Al pyS

* ee Hewen

sa
) noel ae soca bert? sodnigd : ih eal
o THUGS ES x6 no rar 30 Rt bE Ca Lite aorz0ys ‘oeareand. €:

ait 20 taomgphot 8 ROTY fastened ye Lencus we Oh ORT ied: ay
mre eit wor. tanbareren: dontege coneng: at a AOEAD Yo tus J Ley do kere
_ transitnd bebaoms fe Moat tenes ott emted 5 ame od oe 0.00 te

a a opaytrott anitns add saat angeite atase ty eopengene od? : : ode in
' botditde vikitwed sev sees est Yo yak a .
outer od to Dodteeeso ekedeade bas shoo bxtve

Wi EH

GEL eth mo Seton pmatman fades =

‘Sih wh bebeconen hast eyeotse we reo te egletinet 66t' teody one
aaat te on ix to ye ages aud ne viauot toot + sotto t 2 rebre0s
| eektrocore rodeo ‘guome bed troneh veroCOT asa “Reyornve 9) “ousaete
100,008, £8 Ye wb seme Lod ‘bhagaw ms “wot Wwe on bieatbaod ‘8

“redemot eyegtron isttnse fod i500 _esoicet te wh satk od

oa eae
RE Mea signa Bagh wag onys

er" Mteded vena? views . oy

ays

| sotto vgrodt .tnebanted tact has writabein eas to .
ij shadinoeed edocs out Rh kemdadig ot qr nevi set ot banat ral
| bed #2 tod? bodode dashapteh etdxom Yo eayabette ot ak
sat¥8 Tsuaek ae oysotso to Pwo Ang todos ott at hawemig tert 4

ite beakotde Repabogucamgh rey: ee ne

Qnd, 1921, and placed the same in the hendz of the Salliff of the
Bunicipel Geurt of Chicago for service on “sreh 7th, i331; that

thia execution wis served on Andrew Andresen on Mereh 19th, 1921, by
the Sailiff ef the Sunicips! court; thet om seri 7th, i9%1, = levy
wes served on dmirew tndresen by euch Seiliff, and that the goods

snd chattels, for the conversion sf weich gleintif? brings thie action,
were teken posséscies of by auch Saliff end oy virtue ef the levy

end execution the -o41i7f aoid these shattela, te the defendant on

Koy lat, 1931, a8 provided by inv, for the sum of 38,09 and delivered
the oroperty to the defendent, tevether with - S111 af sale as
evidence thereof, efeniant further «lieges thet it hed ao hnewledgs
of snmy lien, ¢isim er rights of the claintiff to the chettels deseribed
prior to gsy Gnd, 1931, and denied that the sinintiff had the right -
ef sosaession of thease chattele, end denied thet it had sonverted

the same, «s silewed.

Fleintiff's theery is thet ite chattel sertg=se lien is
superior snd pricr te the iien of the defendant.

Defendant's theory is thet at the time of the reeerding ef
the chattel mertgrce on Moreh 17th, 1951, tucson which this suit is
prediested, = judgment hed been obtcined by the defendant smadnet
Andrey Andresen, the serte:gor, for the sum of 924,25 on Jonuery 27th,
i931, snd thet on sareh 7th, 1931, when defendant glaced ite exeoution
@ated Sareh Sed, 1971, in the hends of the Galliff of the Municipal
Seurt of Chiesge for service, it hed serfeeted its Lien on «ny
pergonsi property ef +ndree indréesen whieh he then owned and ehich he
became oener of, during the iife of the exeeution, and thot it hed the
Fight to scuse the Bailiff te wuke the Levy on the personal property
in the possession of Andrew aniresen on April L?th, 1952, and by
Virtue of any such levy to o¢11 the aame st publie sale, as was done,
Further, defendant's theory ie thet this liom «se suse®ier te the liea
Sbteined by the plodnmeity on Hareh L7th, 1951, by virtue of the chattel

.
met hits

if ee
1
a on? ‘te VELL bess edt te ohana oss a esiied ede bee nde nee hSOE a
i tads qisel de dese’ ao aoivren te? ogaoidt te éraok dag in insil

yd .f8OL QaIOL Aersd ao serothes werdwd no howesn Row sostuDERe Baste
evel B APOE KONE LExyA mo tout jorwOd Lnqiotauie ode To PYRE ER age 3
| bows edd? tadt har sTR2l bet down yd aenerbadt works ao fowros eow
_ auoltes erer wgabiet Sridakad Weide te moterorwoe one tot sesereuitn ban
| wed od? te suttiv ys Ane Vdlke Mowe W Yo sodsenneey ands ouOR
m0 tnabavied edt of wader tonto onadt Bios REbiged sus ae dtwoaxe has
beroviier bas 00,88) Yo muro ody vet wal ye Sehtweny an 4f86L snk ea
an eiss to Likd s ddl vedteyor vtachantab oat o# Wuscone ade
sybelwons on bad #2 dadt engeiin reddevt sanhastel seoredd © D0
bedixeest akertents and of titted od? be stegtt a miele eb kd = te
“tiga ont bed Vhisabady edt Susit bekaod baw ete ent yak of tedxg
begeovuoo Dad #2 tould boiash has yelodtods snadt ‘20 aatouannos 2 3

at mont speytzoe 103 tedto oti ‘det - coeed? etwinentads ;

ae if stontuored sla n eraa a cig th

i galbrooet, out te nis ede ta dads Sis yeoont : Hichwestemmerin sel vest aaa
i ad dive saad ote moa ‘Abed vist fetes t9 ‘yogetan por My

| seakeys danbastod od@ ve nen tedde ased nal teeta a a

aa 02 qenunst to B&405" to mise edt rot 20grsteom ante ne |

i fobtuooxe ati bevels tuabsoreb eater Wey ae Kors ao ‘teat _ *

Anqokmust oat Yo Ye2Ltee ods Yo whasd Odd mk DEL ‘

Ws mo mOLl ott begooteg bast ts noire re

eS WEL RAE BANS

? | ee Aobte bae ‘heawe aedt on oide asoor bas wore
\ ont bed ua torts baw toltuoere ade “to shh ald ‘gabeath y r

ited

me” Wrogone J anoexos 9 one ee “Wot edt save of Tait td

| " vaneb wee a6 eine oLLduy te ouee oe ‘toe * a Laas
gt ae mn Had “eit ag Sie anna 2 iy

eit edi of roltegim or modi olde feat of yro
ANae Hips Neca
Iettads ett Yo outtiv yt hel eel dees ao

mortgage aentiched, end that uniees plaintiff could shew 4¢ hed
title end reteined possession of the ehxttels desorited in the morte
@ag¢ until after its purported chattel mortgege woe filed for record
in the Sseerder's Office of Cook Gounty, defendant's lien ws< erier
and auperior te the lien cbteined by the olcintiff,

Gther than the notea and mertgage, the only proof offered
by the slaintiff #00 thet of = nersan emmleyed by hist loan departuent
of the Ketropeliten Credit Siscount Uorperetion, who testified thet
in his opinion, the «ir cogh aorket velee af the itema wentioned on
Mey 2nd, 1991, wee avout 9370.90; that on Mey Qnd, 1921, he ene
eapioyed by the plaintiff, and that on vey am, L3Sk, he gaw the
property in question in the possession sf Andree andresen,

it was stimulated thet the judgment of defendant against
Andrew Andresen had been entered on Jonunry 87th, LOSL, exeeution
isqued on Hareh Ind, 1US1, placed in the nands of the Sediif?y on
Mareh 7th, 1931, served on andrew Andresen on go r¢h 10th, 1321, «
return thergon wis wade by the SaLLiff of the Swmiclherd gowrt of
Chiesgo en dune 13th, 1971, «nd there is no diseate, but thet
defendant through this levy received « BILL of seis for the poreserty
mentioned from the Sniliff of the Humicipal Sourt of SnLGrgGe

Plaintiff_ ts veaitien is that, imtegueh ag the chattel
mortgex¢ in question ees given te the mortareee to aeeure the veysent
of the suount eloiwed te be due fer the shatkele ip udation, thek it
Crested s prior lien to tant ef the exeeution erediter, sven theugh
the @xeeution «ea in the hands of the “ellif? fer servies aml Levy
at the tine when the mortgece had not been ereeuted, snd vhen there
was nothing te show that the wortecger elaiwed « Lien thereunier, and
Zapes v-. nox, 252 Lil. ‘pp. 120, is eited as sethoritye in that ease,
the ehattel mortgages, which ws given to seeure ths curchase orice
fer the chattels involved, hed been executed and recorded before the
geeds in question were ielivered ts the mortecver. The regard here

: : 4
ba . wose biwae ges soe oneine tad? eg F veges oe

fet ;
Bh

“tron ut as ‘bad teooat ‘phos # oslo ‘ostd ‘te ‘no lesveson :
proves, sor pede ‘aay egegtrom hottede hetroctary ‘eth ‘soit liven
robs od Eo ‘e! anbaotoh ttawo® doot Yo settho a! eine salt” bal
5 Aceh ls sthloadeds eat vd box tide week ost et ‘aa Cs
bere2ze } oor vine odd ae ae sganydees bar © ston ‘gad ‘ned gaat oe slant
taonteaed ned ats We bevoigaw ual ® te todd paw fatal wiete | “oar @
i andt “bostitend enw _asdenadTe? tawov edt babes: artiiese tit
i a0 ‘booo sas: wang ett ‘te ou de¥ soseon dene ied ott ‘olga ‘pid aa
eae od ust aba el 8 bods ieesent ‘dnads’ wat janet bat
one wag of gBRGL gbnh YoH 0 poste tome baie YE tuaeds sae xd baw

: “aswarbas vonbath Ye so isesenes ody had £0 a

: i w 4ibex vases sored se aegechah workad | He
Mt te temo8 | Log ke dat odd Yo YRbised oa ws ore
taal tue sonra td ax eb orodt bas ste ave ae i
“ eotonera edt ‘ot eiae ke LLid © bevkeowr (wes abd du i
vn ‘opeobs® to sxuot Ear ho tai odd to Vhdlted
we Kedtode oud as sounsent send vt okt L006 dilate * ver ties
“gnome ‘eds wxu0ee Of souene ee at at “govly aa» so sdhoup ab .
“th sed saotseou ak aden sede outs xot eub ed of bee date duos
Ayo ‘Ov grea shoro noktuoone eat Ye ‘tet of a
(red as eotvaee not ‘ales ont to ebasd
“ exodt a1 sto ais. _gbetuooxs aoad too bed | | ah ties
“has ero bareredt mot p bau be io oapoatton sll :
yosee taste at sWetnoditss bra botde at et at at
onde ‘sectors oi oxu09e ed novia env doide 43
"ade exoted fiebxoowt bas "En iin tal { batt 's
tet? ate oo mete ee PA beee, fF
° sued Droown edt toyhatton #44

&
shows thet on Moreh 7th, 1941, the chattels in question sere in the
possession of the judgment debtor, 4ndrew andresen. The resord
further showe thet on th=t dete, te-wit: Horgh 7th, 1951, the execu
tion lesued on defenient's judgment sgsinst Andresen hed deen claced
in the hande of the “n1liiff ef the Muniaipsl Gourt for levy, end
that the chattel mortgage, on "hich thia sotien ise prediosted, had
not been exeeuted, so the gzuae cited ie not sutherity. From the
reeora in the inatant ause, #¢ drew the ecenelugien thet the geode in
question had been seid snd delivered to Andresen before any of the
tranasetions here hed taken piroé, thut st the time ef defendant's
Judguent snd the placing of the exeeution in the bende of the bailiff,
Sndresen =29 in possession of there chattels, and thet the bill of
gale and eortcage were an afterthought. In thia atate it hes
never been held otherwiee than that the lien of on srenution -ttashes
to personal property of « judgsent debtor when such exeeutien is
Geliverea to the sheriff, osiliff or cenetoble te execute. Legley
WV. Germak, 209 Ill. Avee 45k

We hoid thet the lien of the defeuient is ard wa
superior to the iien of the chettel aertesge., The judgoent of the
Munieizel Gourt ia, therefore, reversed with the direction th<=t the
eourt enter « fudzeent in conformity wits the viewa exeoresesd in
this ovinies,

REVERSE ANG SBGABOES,

SILSON ARG HEBEL, Jd. GONGUN.

edt ak erow nie ktessso ai aletiodo add Td an down ae tee ewod
| prosex ott “sueeanbak worked grotded tavmglut 91? te motssoeee
i} ~wonee odd LOL cet derek “theo yedab todd oo sass swoste ° tt
i - batiely mood bad aeeothah Pan dnye taougbut steanhaoreh a boueat ‘elt |
ban s¥voL aot tango eq sodawss edt te WRAL oe ost te shan oat ma
“hot abetoodbere ot aot Fnw tsi decay 0 eeuegt tom kord.odo act t
edd mort syhzadtus ton ak detty gone ect os <besmone aed fou
ak aboox edt gods neteulonen ed? wort ow qnnne snepnes edt at oxo
ode to wr oxoted meeerbe at Pesoetia® tne Adon wovd fe QI
i e'tnshaoteb %o emt o¢ te tad? ,aociy aman? bad oxed saotinapnens
|) gMiALund ane to atmest oft at ackonane ade Be yalnete att ban ’
te Lite ont tesid baw eeinedads eeadt to notensanog at gee pte ie
god te state weed al ‘stigwodrearia, ae ores speyteom das ofem

eedoatite felévedxo na 30 wot oid tosst aos on benoit bles nood neve
at no ttuooxe dewe nots xotdob saomy best ® Yo wangong, Let —
sell _sotuoone 9 oddntaaes % » TAL ded athinede ante ot bo

ats a0 sooo HHE 80, ama,

aon has wt ¢ushasteh sad Yo weld ocd tesit Rod of isd
“pdt to tasmghut edt .ayng ton kngtente ait to nett eat of 3 fedvegee.
edd taat soktoetio ade std bw oeteve seen, Does tod pe

GAG UAN I one Ga aVas

OH Nba socw ng

PROPLE OF THE STATE oF LLLINCIZ,
ex rel. JOUN ¥. GALHOUE,

Appellee, GLagur? sous

v 274 1.A.656-

RICHARD J, OOLLING, et al, Ook COUNTY.

~
S
™
ia
rN AA a ne of
a
Sone
Bs
i
uy
.F

Appelisnta.
Opinion filed March 14, 1934

MR. FARGLOING JUSTICE BAL GULIVEOZO TSR OPINIGEH OF Tae covaT.
Thies ease wea consoliduted with ease Bo. 36559. the
questions invelved there «re the same ac these invelved here, end
the views expressed im that opinion sre eonglusive sa toe the
suestiones reised here. fhe order of the court im this exse rill
be the ause se ie wade in gene fo. 36558, The jwipment of the

Gireult Gourt is reversed,
SeyENneD,

®1LSGH AND HEBEL, Jd. Josue,

msiey gare” ePbasait to ‘andve ais
er ee ge
y wane tt rises pute ppg Lew egy oe fy JGR

“tt e ae oct eid

BuO pewoure

St decid od Pre.

oFTRYOR BQN

d abpoy oot MOL gdindocay beds tmedalgO nin Corn, oe ae rope
edt BGO 0 Send thw Babunttonzes woe ven alt” neers
Rear ogc hpiiargubqun Borbapeliogngehren wwlewnt anotteasp

“add of #8 ovieuLonoe ots aolalyo tai? gk beaneiqxe ewely
cal dase eid? nd fxv0o edt te wabre ont ered Béekex enol
"sat 6 tnt ct” Seat i aS a8 on we

To ined ale of Soa while

Lins ‘ Vs ; Yo oc meath® ¥
2 P } Ridin vey
et ae gh Tis eye * 5 arbi a el r e

“satiaxen oh wt GA wORLIY

a \
wae Roe Pee ae 5: Shy ee g" lh oi

oe
¥

heey See ga,
.

whe See

———_—_ -

Sc
ae %
Ti estan th
%

38560

PEOPLE OF THE rare cr DiaieSts, 7) AvreAL Faow j
ex rel. ASTHUG 2, CLOMDETS, '

wag

rt,
ae
Teorey.

Apeeliee,
We

OOOR GOURTy.

hepa ll anti. 2 C 4 I.A. 6 5 6

Opinion filed March 14, 1934

WR, PREGIQVIRG JUSTICE HALL QRLIVESSG PRR GPISZTCH OF THE Gover,

This G4ae wee Senselideted sith exee Se. HGSHS. The
susetionsa involved there «re the smae as these invelvwed here, snd
the views expreseed in that opinion are sentlusive =e to the
epestions yoised here. ‘the order of the court in this oose will
be the seme as is mode in o-ge Bee 36558. The juduwent of the
Gireult vourt ia reversed.

YILGON AND HEBEL, J2. condus.

wort damasa e2WONL iat 49 aEATO Ber G0

ere ¥ ies 2 *

WIE MUCK ID she Lloons ia
. walle
aehe ae vSE.6008 a Gna 0: |

ded rn ro Lae

ekg no $900,
Fm

| ac d .A.I b : g
S8eL .Sf doteM belt? no tnta0 7 |
etavoe ant ad Hore tts Ah uavevradd “Kal mortees sateree wae
ot 488088 0% ween Attw bode ee
fas .osad Beviownt ssodt es oan® eft ote seedt heekevnt aseiteoup
38% of G6 selevioneo ere aeinige tert al Lerderqee awoke oat
{Liw aero etd? a2 ¢rue0 edd to sebxe OAT secet Bowker sxotosan
(ast Re saeagbet edt 8288S 20% seem mt chat ad a one 6Rd Od
SRO ETL sien oh some ee se

-RUOROD .bb .tkRER GBA WOOUTR

: Pee 2 sp bls,
3 . ae TNS a : . yey v DAD ae

B aise

at
ee i
é

etn.
ON lg SY

36561
PREPLE OF THR STATE OF
@x rel. JOUN %,. GAVIS,

ins

AyoellLee H
ee GANCULE GCouR?

%,
om y, )
SIRES THOR

Pe
SOs ay.

SITY GF CHICAGO, et al,
{ope Li ants. ; 2 ¢ 4 I WA. 6 56°

Opinion filed March 14, 1934
MR, PRESIDIBG JUSTION AALL GSLIVESED PSE COLREOR OF TEE gore.
{hie eee wee Gon@olidated with eeuwe He. S6808, The

questions invelwed there «re the same ss those involved here, ond

the views expressed in thet opinion sr4 sonmlusive «= te the
eu@etions reivead here. The orver of the sourt im thie ease will
fae Judgment of the

he the eeue os ig mode in enee Bo. HU50S.

Gireuit Court is revarced,

WILGON AND HEBKL, Jd. UoNcUR.

4 5
| Mone waaatA
t . ;
}

Tuco TIVORES
oW

| gkreyoe M08. | pelt te gOOADIKG WD VIR

ea A I RYS! eminent igeyk

ee “beeL aL forall ‘polit sun aa

o TAIQD. BAT. BO » KORE RT SEnSVRIRG. As wane, eurgzeae
Satta A: NOON ETI 5
iiiw ease. aidt ai fxvoo off Re teb79 ect nated |
et to tmemptut ect 20865 oR onso md, then os

eUARAAVHA

$6575

FRANE As ROSE, |
Appellos, f
? couar ; og

WALTER BH. EULOSOR, . f . pay OF 900K gousrr.
Appellant. ; fk @ 4h J. A. 605

Opinion filed March 14, 1934

MA. FPRESIOING JUSTIGE BALL DELIVERS THe GPTErox oF THE JOUR.

This is sn scopec] by the defendant fren a judewent of the
Gireult Court of Goek dounty fer —1,809.0% in « evit brenughnt by
Plaintiff against defeniast to recover for injuries sustained wy the
alleged négligence of the defenient. fae trial en¢ by 2 jury. There
is no question of slerding invelved, neither is there ony question
veised so to the ewount of the verdiet, nor objection ade te any
instruction given or refused. ‘The setion eree out ef = selldeion bee
tween the autemobiles of plaintiff snd defenimat at the intersection
of two oaved highways. it is insisted by defeniznt thet the verdiet
wae contrary to the genifest wehght sf tic evidence,

On Auguet ifth, 1921, plaintiff es driving on sutemebile
east an Onkton Street at the intersestion of Gekten Atreaet apd
Wiiweukee Avenue. Gukten Street runs a-st ond west. tliweukee ovenne
is « paved four liane traffie atote highway, degigneted ag *Stete
fighway 21,* and rune in » northerly direetien from the elty of
Ghiesgo. ‘the intersestion where the secident occurred ig in deine
Township, “ook “ounty, ond not within the ligite of any incervorsted
ehty or Village. Befewiont eg arkving north on GLiwaukes Avremue,
The regerd shows that the «ren surrounding the intersection ia sparsely
bullt up, ond thet there is sothing to obstruct the view agouth from
Gskton Street, except « large tign end sowe trees. The recerd shore
that the socident ceeurred between 5 ond 6 o'elock in the sfterneon
ef = bright gungshiny dey/

Plaintiff? testified in aubstanee that when he arrived
et thie intersection, he w-s sitting on the left gide of the ear end

ae TE yg

ee 2bf doreM boLlit nofimicd

odnnlingga
| MpGOD ANT WO HQINREO SHY OGHRVLGG, Joshi aexseur oaorsass 5
( i edd te dnseuy bart 4 mort sanbast os : ont hone xe ol fat
WE thyword tise 9 a O0n0084k6 at Yeaued 00d to ¢xu00 #ueedO
edt yt beateteun seirutat sot revoner oF fnehatee Tentege YWitabetq
axed? int «yd wow femee met atintasteh dg te vedeydinen bogetis
nokésous Wis Sredd ef sadtiow .Beviowrl gxtdeeig Yo solterup om wt
eens of ehen xeltootde ton tokiriy eat te tases ont of ef Deeten
“od Mélnilios # té duo wetg mites ad? Sauter ve oeviy cotoundemt
noivooetotnd est fe taxtaoted has ttstatete te ‘welidosoten dt atoowt
fotbrov od¢ fed? tnshaeted yd bedetaat a2 Ft” ayomdy td hevea ont Yo .
pombivs off te tigder feotinen ode ot rsx d909 aew ’
eLisonotws an yaivich ove ttkdainle £80k gL tomes wo ee
ete toout® meticS to aottooatedal edt go teaxd® motdno ms xo tone
- qUmeYA coduenL&M teow bas taeo anu tobet® Hored <ceunbel soduambba
| ated” ea botengiaeh .yourgia eters GLttert onad rwot bevag s at ;
to ytie ed? mott aodgoorsh yleodtaon « af anit bas ft cordgt
ents of et bermu0e0 taeDtone edt eredw noitowersdal edt -oynodde 4
bateveqroani yar to ethell end midtiw ton baw veheuo® woo ‘clsonwot a
stunevA ooauawLit so détoM yadvith enn tar iure ted segeliay 70 1 ner y
| Weereqe at noktooeredai ong gnibawortaa sexe Odd Seale erotie Duooot ott /
i mort ddwoe welvy att tourteds of gaidten et esos tndd Rew tlt a ts q
ewode brones odT .eeert omen Dna mgte ogred « do@oxe sfoentt ey s ¥

LAN bevtves od sets dat soantedun af besnhieed YeAensntt
bas «ee edt to obte thal edt mo guitste gow of 10 LtoouTe

4
44
Mit
-
y
i]

;

a
hie wife on the fight side, «nd »a they soorenehed “YLiwsukee Avenue
they were driving at « apeed of sbowt 70 siles om hour. ‘te alse
ateted that before Ke cane to Hilesukee 4venmme be stopoed and looked
avewund and did ant eee any car, @xeent tro core ¢oming from the north
going south, sed thet be then siartec east s¢reee Milwaukee Avenue
at s speed of sbeut 5 wiles on nen, ena thet juet ag he wag oressing
and nenrly over Silwsukes 4venue, iofendant's sce come ot high speed
and track plaintiff's env on the right side and threw it sreund
towards the north on Gliwaukes Avenue, ond that defendant's oar
gworved and went east of Guktem Street «nd te the nerih, He ateted
that defendent’s oar finaliy stepped on “skten Gtreet sbeut 290 fees
from the creasing on the curb, snd thet his oar we0 threen about 75
feet from the crossing; thet 14 went erebably 10° fest north after
4% wae etruck, and that plaintiff's esr flosiiy otepsed on the enat
side of Wilwaukee Avenue. He gtuted further thet hie esr wee atruek
on the right ice in the center. |
On Groswe~excminetion, claintiff testified that he had
lived in the vicinity of the north side of hienge fer 40 yeara;
that he had oeeagian to drive aut on Gskten “treet quite offen, snd
that he hed travelled that street = sumber of times during the sucmer
im question. He steted thal Onkton Street at the point in question
is about 190 feet wide, is » four lan@® highrsy, «4 is Milwaukee
Avenue at the sume point. He eleo eteated there were no cartiouler
obstacles at the intersection te ebatruct the vision of aeterists —
approaching the seint from either Milwaukee ‘venue or Ockten Street;
that bout 500 or GOO feet south of the intersection the road on
Milweukes Avenue ie deeper, that there is 4 kind of » awale in the
read, but thet 1t is not deep enough to obatruct the vision from
Gaktonm Street. Se alae stated thet there wae « atop sign, stopeing
traffic on Milwaukee Avenue before it entered the intersection to
creas Onkton Street. fieintiff alee testified that he knew Milwcukee

eynevh seduenlix Secderotgge yad? ae bets eth 2a tty ts or? xe etin ak
eele 68 .tiod as aslie OF dso te heeye & da alvin axew weet
bexool bar becuote ee ounsvs peniuawLeK eo? oxee od asotsd sat &

i Atron, ost mov? grimes sr89 ond tynoxe .KRe YA son ‘tom bib ban bawoxs

ownneve SeawenLbh saos0" taee toénate aed? 62 teat ba sfiduoe gakog
it yataeere aew ad es teot ted? bee ,.rwod ae solie @ tuods te moons 8 te
besea Ayid te sam tee e'é@nehasted ,aunews sipmanows LBM x8¥0 vitees kas
Bavote th woud? ban oBhe tiyit eit? ap wap o Mn dtaasta xourde a.
too dtonstasteb sed bad sore oedienws.bn ao stron oat ii
botcte oY dhron od of bax toorst aotaes a6, taro taxes bas | Aid
Pook OO8 Yuedes deers? mobded a0 bacaose wLima kt 188 etéuataston toad
a¥ duede mwerdd eee toe eid daad bas seam add ao Balaente ode, Dt
gette ditvba toot Cer visedors taen ti teal jgatenore, eat nett SP.
“Haas eit! nh Deqgote eLiantt 129 arttisabad Sede bas qlownt
q estaba ‘how ‘eee ahd ted rodtsuat? betote ca vssnaevs osdususan te pate
|) Mss © “ wedaes ade ne ‘ban tgs at m0
had od dade beltisned Ytitntale (cod sdemxemenore a 7
futher Ob 62 opsntdd to Obie Aeton oa te wintery nt a bot
hae ,tePto e#lup tears? nodded ae tuo owlsh ot aa ta29e9 bod

ie wat Ress S 3
| pemwive oft pitttud womit to cedawa 8 foonte dadt bakcovons bod ed | Le
moLtedip nt tutor ait ¥h forsee nodded + aait betese ous > .
Bae

sodvnnlEn at ee avenged coor * ab hte tout oad tues
xeduvobien ox orev Stat Botete ovis of vinden ce ot 2 ‘some
‘ TTR (27)

‘pPebteies to solely edt tourtedo ot wottowenesni odt te

& 5 eae
PETRA

tae rotted ro eum onan kod to sori tates sat

‘hawt aokety ois Fourdede of yoo ooh tt at

galgtote .oyie ‘gets 2 baw oxedt todd
of motdoweredat aati borsine Fade osoted |

ee aaapneercnlicrtenh oa a éhay ‘belt idaea +o L es
H ng geek > ae nage i

Avenue wos 8 etote highway «ni designated «5 mach by the offieiels

ef the Read Jepartment of the State of Lilimeie; that Be game te =
full etes stout 100 feet frem the edee of the cement elab on “ilwoukee
avenue, end proceeded et a rate of «bout & miles on hour until he

wag about teo thirds «¢ress Jilweukes Avenue, at whieh. peint defend-
ant's car wrem inte hie cor; tact he could see $90 or GOO feet down
Milwaukee Avenue from thet polat; that he saw ag ear in sight, thet
he looked again befure entering Milwaukee 'venue and centinued looking
#outh watil the aceldent happened; thet be did aot ese defendant's
car before 14 struck; thet defemiant's cor came so fest that ne did
not see it untli juet before it hit him. ie alse testified that he
newer told enybody «<t any tise eines the aveident thet be didn't step
before he sent on the povement, aml thet he never alened any statement
to that effect. 4t this peint, visintiff wo0 sheen defendant's
Smhibit So, i im the reeord, and he then ateted thet hie signature
appeared on both pages of this document, thet he signed both veges,
and thst Re id not understend the contents of 14 chen he aligned it,
thet he did not reed it aver, but tht asybe it «ss read te his, but
thet he did mot think so, that he signed the statement blindly, thet
the gen who presented the atutement to him seked him questions, vrete
the snewers doen ond then showed if te the plelatif?, thet he signed
At, and thet at that time he wou in the hosvitel.

Ray 3. Tiompeon, ¢ eltness srodueed on bebalf of picintiff,
teatified thet et the time and mesy the sisce im cuestian he was
driving = ear gouth on Sileaukee ¢venue and acrth of the intersestion
of BHilweukee Avenue ang Ockton Street at about 5 otoleck im the
evening; that chon he wos «bout 450 feet north of the intersection ef
Milwaukee ‘venue ani Gckton Street be saw « ony pull out direstly in
front of him coming from the west and going ast en Cskton dtreet;

- that he, the witness, was driving on the weat side of Milwoukee Avenue,
afd thet he saw tuo Give come together; that he wus about 180 feet

Loe va
ato

ifthe
iy

&
ainintrto ost ¥d down en | hatimgined bus oslgh odate | & ‘enw ener
# of oumo of teat yotontitt te etere sat Yo tnomtaages beow edt Ye
fi eeduer ity no dake tremee att to oybe ad? ont oot OOL tuods gate Liu
|| od Lktey xwod ae weLin 2 tunds be eter a Ye Bebeeoors bas ,eunovA |
baer sb Hide tiide whe pink vn ime LE sagan shukdt Owe toda ase
fieod 998% GOW xo 008 gee Binow oa neat ire eet osat mex xao 0 én
' togt stake at 100 om woe od anid itntos ted? mor? oumevk voaesne
Wa wivoos beunitaoe bes suovA eskuarith gatrsiar nueted atsyn berool rt
Ne Stiastaeteh vos ton bib od sonia boneqaad ‘taablons ont Liem hse

¥ Bkb ad taut sent oe ia 189 3" tanbustes tear iourte +i mated 20
ed test bert itaod oats ei wad tka ts erokad veut Shims 2) one ‘ton
qote. stabi od tos trdtene ast poate oust we as ybodyas ‘bhot ies

tapuogstn yar hengte roveu ad Saat bas vtaamorrig 98 me tno aa
| bavreb awode are ‘Yidntale otateg wide to

siaeetaadit sae Pest Rotate mode 8 hay gbroawe cul? mk £ sot Hib
ahoang, deed bangle ed todd “Sunauned aie Yo anger ated no boxesage.
ati Somgia of andy 2 Te etastaoo ocd baagereteas don bth od tudt has
Rdpclatiplabianhantarsgiecntal et!

fed qUibanld sngantets oft bongts ad tom? gon satse tom bab ed tate
“ etoxe aesoiteeup mid bedes mis of toanbtate ads betnonone ren adil ;
bomgis ed doxd Lbdatake odd of #2 howode anit bas aveh oxowens tt |

Biss sHetieood o0f at con ed Smit teat ta deat baw
i ythdtabats. to Minded. me beeubony eeomdiw etomqeact at wi on eee
ME Oe Gotten ak eocly eld tows bas ants ond is aad” oath C

moisooerotad ads e waders bas owas ecm oa > davoe es
be

pitt aa tes he
éead
i Galle Fis

4 :
north from the point of the ooeident when it Aapoened; that after the

@Ollision, claintiff's ear het been driven vest om Hilwaukes Avenue
perhaps 125 feet, oni thet defendant's oor awerved te the right ond
proceeded about 75 feet ever the sonerete to the dirt side of the
roads that before the »ecident defendant's esr wea coming worth, thet
he the witness, hed © Glesr Vision down “ilesukee Avenue beyond tae
Angeresetion, thet the imseot cemurred on the cnet side af Hlireukec
Avenue, emi thet plaintiff's eer hed aleost areased Eileeukee Avenue
at the time of the acrident. G¢ esteted taet slaintiffts. ear wes
going about 18 wiles en hour, «md thet se did not see defendant's
@ar until the tiae of the iapnot.

vefendant testified thet «§ the time of the aceident, he
“ae going north on Gilesukes Avemme, © four lane Bighway, and that
at the northecet corner of the interseotion of llenuken Avenmne ond
Gnktion jtrest there ig « reel eatete office, and thot there sre ne
wadidings of amy kind om the other corners, He stated there were as
etep signe at the interasetion of Milesukee ovenue ond Osktien Street
to ater the traffic on Uliweukee ivenme, Sut thot there vere atep
aigne to ater the traffic coing e.et and weet on Gokten Street, thet
he firet observed picintiff's car ae he rerohed the west side of
Mileoukete Swenme; thet there is * ierce eipm which obetructe the
vier « little bit snd « few tress slong the eost side of Ziivaukee
Avenue which sis@ ebetruct the view; that ne did nob see plaintiff's
mee wntil if ese quite close te Silecuker Avenue, ond at thet time
he was about 109 feet acuth of the eouth line ef the interseetion of
the teo streets. we atuted thet olointiff was traveling between 50
or GO miles =n bows, and that plaintiff 444 net ates at the inter-
seotion; that he, defendent, thought vieintiff wes geing te atep
er slow down because of the charnoter of the atreet, ond thet when
he saw pleintif{ coming at « fawt epted, he, defwiient, spclied the
brakes aa fast ea he could, that he tried te turn, bet could not
slear defendent's ocr, sud thet plaintiff nit his ear on the aide

|
ad? xedte tedt jhemeqqad #2 modmy taabdows ed? te toiog ef? mort |
Sunovs seiuerii ae tow aevich ayed bur uo eR itmkedy ymosekeE
bar adgde o6¢ of Dovxowe ‘tan oMandavieh tide baw eeet ORE ngikdes
» Alt Yo 9bkg Jubb adt of StorEmon acssnaabpedbc cag babe wee
aueays vesuo Ly heregr® teasle ba tne eovnavnnity rte he ‘oun: :
BOW a0, att Bakaly tens beeede a \eaebicne ett Ye beta |

_ oft oe von Sw om mt ta i il
bin ou wat font v1 Dissanendevtedemticatrryety |

od, g@mantone: edd ko omlt out se toat he Ltaswer navitae te nis foe |
edt hae gyendgad exok suet &° ounews eaten peer ® ‘ie
| | BAS GuROVA cedueudil Yo aodsoounstes ear to owemtan | om oe

| on exnat tat hea gaotthe en Love at onnee torn fee” :
OM 9xOu Sxadt Rotate oh. (euTonmee tebe odd OORT wie To wyal ' |
fenrah noted bar. oumers voxiumette te mostoeivesit ont bd atgid dati” .

a "tesa skandeeabmadnandacasusmaainesmeinein strate 9 nt dot OY" |
13st te woe me to eh
Odd, atourtade dotiw apts weet 6 8k rene that pounibwk Medel
seauer iii Ye abi teow aay yok voet wo ete ae onsen a ‘
a"Ptitaiels see ton bth Of gOee yooky of? Fo cide’ ‘wake’ - ii > hs " ' |
take tate tp bes yeusora sevuorE ie ot beet Fin tow Dh kite a
"Wp imittpeonnint: ert Te ontd dtube’ ome te Wines dent” noe i fi % aot
08 noswted gakievert anw WYidebaty dead hosede ok Sabworde ov
~rotnd eat om que on bab T2keaLAss sna aes Roel ilo
gote od natey enw Tthtniale tdywodtt yeanban tes {oe

Ss SUA Soe penta “ont hechantasemarhoutioden i

amd his ony swerved to the right scninet « lamp post. Pale witness
testified thet Milwaukee (venue ie level south of the intersection

for 3,050 feet or more; thet there ia ne dip in the road er perceptible
wise, and that the rout is oraetieslly isvel from Biles te the iater=-
gection, Sefeniant «leo introdused in evidenes, without objection,
plaintiff's exhibit 1 «herve referred te, = eritien atatenent signed
by the plaintiff in whieh it is stated thet prior to the soeldent in
question, plaintiff ese going exst an Gakton “treet at « eneed of
about 209 mijes an hour, «md thet «9 he aocrenched Mhiwnukee avenue

he looked both nerth end south and did net see sny cere oeming in
either direetion, ond that be 414 not setp ond went right on, that

he got « glance. of « car to his right and eteut 5 feet from hia ear,
and then the oragh eume, snd that ¢seh ocr ran sbeut @ feet after the

ageldent before they etoroed.
The only disinterested witness to the saecident w<¢ Thomp-

gon, the driver of the ol truck. He testified that plsintiffts ear
pulled inte Hilesukee venue slowly; thet it had «roeesed east over
the first, seoond anc third isnes of Hilesukee Avomme et shout 18 miles
en hour before the etoident, indiesting thet pleintiff wes driving
slevly «end wes using care in crossing Yilwevkee ‘venue, ond thet vlein-
tiff had net come inte the interseqtion at = high rate ef eseed, ag
testified by defendant. if it is true thet sleintiff bed resched
almest the extrene east side of dilwsukee Avenue, » four lene highwey,
before the sceldent securrad, this facet slene suggeste that defendant
hed ample space and ene driving in = negligent semmer, or the secident
@ould not hove happened, At any rete, the jury sar and heard the
witnesses ond ag the verdiet ic net suminet the senifeat weight ef
the evidence, »¢ see no ressen te distruh it. The judguent is,
therefore, affirmed.

LSP LRRD,
BILSOR AND HEBEL, JJ. CONCH.

peentin aidt “sfeoq cant 2 tankeyo ddghx weld ot bovsews a2 ast Bae
noltoverss id sft te tues fowas Bh omnes oodunn till Fecaht ‘pettatadd
idsdqowr og ro bso oat mt qih om af otadd dads jotens te test bob yt xet

Hi; Teatas, walt o¢ eolin more feveds yilestioury ei hae out ror eo oe ~
eHottootie tuodt is s20anb tvs ee feouborant eel: suskastec ‘stontebe

to iy | &, te foarte noted 8e teas patog eo * thhtnkelq P
pure ys podunw Lax badenorygs ot ae dost Base twos as eotin Of tues
od gitkeoo arse Ye see fon bib dete stuen kes dévoa dtod podeos ot
_ tet? no tighs teow bas Ghee ton bab ed todd fie ,sortoorth ‘medti
| gtat, Rd work goet 6 dodo bas tay adel of =09 8 Yo standy 9 2 tog od
i odd rests tort OF ¢uode ant 190 Aone tad? bas sence danve edt sede bine
iH »bayode yond onated taabtose
“quot? Bow sashsoos ad? é¢ veontiw Betnsretadede Geer eae Ores
‘tao e'ttigakela tec? bestldest a ,dourd £Be odd 2a sovixd oH? aoe |
ss towe tase bensots bed th ted? pylvota egkevA sexennlin otak DeLing .
| walle GL dwods te GunswA coxeewlae To wane Aeddd for bagowe gtaxst at
“gadvieh gow Tidtatalg an Geananeliies — ont lil

en gbooge to. eter pays ba nobtoonpetnd edt ones et oe tm ad TRAE

BS Wad

Redoset bed Yiidatedg dode att eh gh 2 ea,

Ae eS

prnpernete fastens alt mt 0 OP
ght soem hat ott fh Gstndh 98, MANATEE AMG

ery Hedy fue alah enh ad

$6583
WAURICE VEIS2,

Appell es, i
SUPranoR gourd? |
Fo ;
SILVER QAUEK CGAL GORPANY, » GOK COUNTY.

JOrPes TA Qey?
panna 2¢41.4.657°
Opinion filed March 14, 1934
MM. PRESUSING JUATICN 44Li, GeLIVeeos THe CYLeiCw OF PMR GOAT.
By this sppenl Gefeniant seeke the revyeresl of 2 judge
ment in 2 versonal injury «ult brought seninet it sy oleintiff, 4
trial wea had in the Superior court ef Jock Gounty before » jury,
and 9 verdict of (2,0% waa returned, woon “hich verdict the judgaent
wes anterede
The deelerstion in the seee contoins five seunte: ()
eherges genersl negligence; (9) operstion of » truck of defendant
at an excessive rete of speed; (3) operation of the truck «i theut
lights; (4) Vielstion of the right of =sy etetute, ond (8) sili fel

and wenton gverstion of the truak. flees ef the cenerel iseue

of mon-cenershio and aga-operstian vere filed by defendant. Sefendant
produced no witnesses, ond ot the clese of plnintiff'ts ease, moved

| the court to direst the jury to find the defenisent mot guilty, ehich

7 wotion waa denied. The couse wos submitted te the jury, whieh re<-

: turned the verdict »5 etvted. There ia no question reieed here as

| te the amount of damages, nor os to «ny instructions siven or

refused. The pointe urged «« grounds for reveresi ere thet plsintif?
wea guilty ef centri batery negligencs at the time and pines in
question, end thet the court erred in submitting the osuge te the
jury on 211 the counts of the decleretion, intluding the count
charging wilifulneas end wsntonness.

Wlaintiff testified in substance that on Noveaber 24th,
1920, he was driving an «utemobile west on the nerth aide of S7th
Street, near the intersection of that street end “abesh ovenue in

a
= eer
= Sa

pence? Nie hs ESM. ta
we we MH
Se hs is)

|
‘ OP ae

\ af OO, ROR CLEe yong ‘is
sYisyse Hon” ? he
“veo a1 ESS FT
ECL AL dorel beLlit notmtgO na : ) ‘vue in shy “ ;

A TRUOO ry WO MOTHING BAT GUKRVIGM Akan andthe sok 6H sm. anv
~ghut 2 Yo Leexeves oa) eaten, tagbsted Leacys ata Gn & 3 i eagied t
A ,itatsle yw ti tentegs ttyvord thwe yvtat Lenoersg. © mh, teem:
| gNWE © OFoTed YFRWOD dood Yo txuel xodsegM aHt nA bed. pow Ledeh
_ taomghat add totbray cist moc sDeorutes ao" Oob4Sl 30. ABbbeoy one
(0) ‘atmos orl enintnwe ones ‘oat amd 1 ni, san. ad tues
_.,taahreteb,te sgutt « toe nodtetede (8) goomegtigen stalin alii
ethis dows? ead to wolterece (4) phoerd te geo ovbemeere Re, ge
fvtiite (8) bes ,otuente yor To taydn ont to modtadode (+) Godage”
| immed Loneney baa Ro vhedt ibid with * ane hescnge nm
| duababted sthshested yd beilkt oewe ao ivne ymtte rage me
| fo tbeves sen antetnaste te anole ont ae ‘brie: ve isiwnntte ot beans

oe a ee PA ey se a CT

wet ‘iio. dete arnt ‘ont ot destinies ecw ware oat shake ben

" as evad bontow notdvoup on ai oredt stotete be oe — ' bn ,

eke to meviy saottourteat we of ae ‘rom ks |

“mk opeig bas outt ‘eat + “sonnytien etd rd ine :

anit oF seme edt geass bedire at berre tu0p aa pag “tt mt ory
dnwoo wet gothutont sso LtereLoeb etd Yo atrene

the Gity of Ghicsgo; thet when he came te the enat aide ef Yebaahk
avenue, he came to * atep, leeked st aii the eemmers, s\v nothing
Geming, and that he then proceeded to crese the street; thet the
next thing he knew se was undernesth the rear wheel of » truck «3% »
point ebout 15 feet north of S7th Street om the wast aide of *abash
Avenue; that he wa token from there to * dester; thet ot the time
of the accident, tae street iights had net been turned on, and thet
after the seeident he ese defendent's truck there with ne lighta on.
On oroge-exsmination, sinintifi steted tact he 434 net know whether
the lights were burning on S7th Street «t the tise ef the <ecident
oy not, ond that ag he eressed «bash ‘venue he was going 16 miles
an hour. He stated thet the true: im question cane from the south.

Lewis Dufenchard, « witneasn fer pleintiff, teetified is
gubetenee thet he wae on the corner of S7th Street and “abech Avenue
at the time of this secident; thut the nesrest light ta the alase
im quéation ese on the northwest corner ef the streets; thet sacn
pisintifl come te the sormer, he, plaintify, slowed down alaoat te
a step; thet the truck wes then coming north on Sebogh venue, end
thet on the left <r west side of the truck end eouesite te the dire
ection frow which plaintiff eos coming, he saw « Little lewters
hanging sbout & feet from the crownd, and thet the whtwess next gar
the track en top of plaintiff's sutomobiie. On erasg-exnmination,
thie witneas stated that the truck exe 2beut 69 feet from 57th Street
when plaintiff's esr came us te the eorner.

Ghile there is acthing in the re@erd te indicate the time
of the acoldent, it seems to be caeumed by beth cartier thet it waa
efter dark.

fhe firet question to be determined ia wchether or net ae
s matter of lew the record indientes thet plaintiff's sileged negli-
gence sppreximitely contributed to the aesident, or whether, in faek,
he was guilty of any negligence «t ally is already stated by the

Se en a ea

i
finedisw 16 ahs tens att of omne of meste todd jogaordd to wet bab
gutdton wee yexemmos edt Ile te Sadeed uote © of amso on pouawr’:

add todd jteerts of? agers of bshseo~ng anasto toke bmx esc

# os towed & to feode ta9% mit dteatebas” new ox wand oxi peat axes
donde 26 ebad deoe sed do Poorss aITE Yo dgmem tewt GL dueds salog
Omid ot ty tod? qreteek a otoeniif moxt agded oow od P6et poumevA

dele bas xo Hontet mvod don bed efdehs teowke edt gtmabioos edt te

AEE AE LOE LTE nN re eee

xeridorte wou tom bab wi tame hogade It Lindale gto ,
mediocre edi Xo oukt eat te oeutt s60RR s Qatanoot: ei nap tt
godin Of gateg exw on eunov’ donde deacons Oh we todd Bee tom to
efituge edt moxt onae nd tteow ak xoun? oft bats botole ho ede
al Boftitoos yWrhtataiy wet axenthe fm ,bradoastet e tue He |
only of of tigi ¢amnwen edt Fim piawhdeoe btee-te-euks edt te
ede edd poteatte oat Yo témeo teowtirae ed ae sow wottetap at
ot ¢eomls avob bovele ,Ititatel, geet .1RINs eat ef omse Witaketq 4
bin euawes dande® aq dtxom gakaso sod? sew Soar? oct told qqetes
aekb 889 of odteaqae bas doutt eft To ahha tome ow weet add 0 tect
avetent 9Lt2hi o wee ad yaakaye cov Witadeis Kole mort motte :
wou Seon nesntiy ed? tot Rar ~boweny add wort tosh @ dwode gatyaad
Holtentanxe~ensre a2 .elidommegs a 'thidakedg te got mg donne. *_
seaxdt KYvU-mie? #06200) tuede inte’ dawnt emh: beth hevete.amanlitash ae
‘bad : vreuron oat of ob wane nen #*TREtaEALE. aM |
a exit sd9 Stoolbat of breoet oat at gatdton meonndt ALM
i aow tt tai eettesy stot yo heavens of od meme #4 antoon a Re 4

ec rey ee pee

ae tom 9 lees ad pendmressh, od enineiiaes inti ealis sale

ek igen boyelie s'Ttithiely tote eetanthak droos
apne nt r0Ksedw co qtimbteos sat oF hodwdsttnas ¥
sd YS bated yhoowla wa ple te |

eee

—

3
witness Sufenchard, when gisintiff case ta the earner of the streeta,
he, cleintiff, came almost te 2 stom, ont then oreeseded alowly seat
nerosa dubash Avenue, and thet st thet time, defeniant'e truek ene
@ozine from the south «nd ees sbout 6) feet or mors south of the
intersection, thet ia to say, detemient's trusk exs coming from cisadne
tiff's left.

in Sigale vy. Es

“A dviver on the ieft gece « duty te the driver on

hie tignt te »onreneh am intersettion with i ica ps oaxe

to persit the latter to exercise hig Fight of EBBo]
Ve uke, B47 Lil. ADRs K :

264 lll. Avy. 68, the court seid:

372 Psy
406} HoCarthy v. Kadiz 236 THE hie trie gling
ae8 Lilie ‘PP: 26e: ji LS & a3 gs Le St ee
one one ¢ Is ae | _ RARE
VGorgn Gh

Sateen gbearve the ace ond
ig e Boeretein, 225 Lili. Apa. 208;
(itelics ura

The regerd indiextes that oleintiff had the right of sy,
and wee not guilty ef neglizence. .

The nezt point raised by 4efeni-nt is thet the esurt erred
in submitting the willful emi wenten count to the jury in the sbeense
of any proof of eliifulness «nd sentonnegss, There =-5 no aetion made
by defendent st the close ef slaletiff'« csae, ner wos sny instruction
offered by defendant directing the jury to disregard this eount in the
deeqiaration, The reeord dcea not show any evidence of wilifulnesas
wo? wantenness. dovever, there ia s8 ellegetion in the deelerstion te
the effect taat defenmient viciated the right of «sy etetute, and thet
he wos Griving without sufficient Lights, beth «ef ehieh sherges sre
supserted by evidence.
in Septet v. tarjin & or

Ss ula

"It ia settled in thie state thet one good sount in
* @¢elerstion which is susserted by the evidence will suetcin
2 Yordiet and et althesgh other counte in the dealar-
ation may net supsorted by the evidence,*

erent: ede be seatoR Sad of amas Thtewkelg ancy.bras
tee urate hobaapera sett Hes gota. «at teomle ome, ght LOSS, 48

aan sound sttaahaviok .oudd dood fe fads ban .2uaeTs. Meador nm 29
edt to ddyoe tom to to0t 08 dwada ger bits Keven Of mort salvo
eethady mort, yaks, gun HOet eieasbaeteh gina ad #4 Bede:

| A ial 1 x eae Bil iossinks tk ia nA ae oft
sbhaw dyugo ost ee pe itt Bae cnnetiill aM ate he
wy Lah ald : hj ‘ . fie a

“pans "Feels ites ‘iain br soleses sorbate

ager Bo ilies edt bed, _yhatnaade: teat nails icone png sassisho “"

, _ goonay bigest. te. othe. ea pes aoe

bevre seus anf sede at tackaobok id dendas tatgg taan o47 me ae
sonecdn edt ah yrwh. dd o¢ gaupo motuae bag Lot iste Bg, osetia wt
phen aokten-on saw ores? (qaeenaetaer dae gponiihitte 30, toveg. yaw To
soLiputde@at ume naw Kom goose a tiiseteiq te on: ot te taahesteb, x
ex? at. tauen vide daeporead of get, ott gakgqnnsy fem heb yw borexto
geosivtilie Io esovblve ye sede tom ny aeuins oat, : ebadl an

at nektessioad odt at mottagadio, aa. of; HERAT, g THVT, ., -BROMMAI IN)
dedd bas ,otutote, yer to. tigix oft batsloky tayhen ted, porn $903) : sf

one wogrods deide to Atpg,. anttatt angied ten tuosttw. gatverb, apy, ot
al wy auch

ot oa tik ae ree bs
q808 fff OES qh Jeol wisest + osu to weve wat Dette ts

Gee alee Gulanias v. Jegamy Con}

the Suprese Gowrt asia;

"the deeierstion gharged $hat the sovellast ‘negligently,
@areleesly ond wiilfuliy' did the Things eseclained of,

Ceusing the death ef Antenoveules. The orsck does not

tend to show thet the act wos willfully done, and seuncel

fer appelieant argues that there ess « vorlenee beteten the
proof and the desleratien, ad thet therefarr tha notion

made at the clest of sleintiff's avidense for sa inetrustien

te find appeliant not guilty should ‘eve RPG grented. In

tort the plaintiff may oveve = bert of Als oheuree if the
avermen’ ia divisible, snd proof of « vart af the sLlagas

tions, if gufficient te wustain « O286, LiL austeain «
gudguent. (ity of Jalie: Zab » A7? Laie LPB
5 a8 ad. O73 Sity of

we.

®, af the proef shoved that the ast ene asus by the
6 ao ey of eppéllant, reeavery could be hed even though
ne Te

gligence was not wenten or whliful.#
The eeuse wog fedirly aubaitted te tne yary, and ws see

nO Feaeon for disturbing the verdiet and judgment. The judguent is,
therefore, «ffilrmed,

APPLaSED,

NILGOR, Jo AKO 4USEL, 3. conous,

Scone ate LIT Sh a8

cuidnogtiaen’ daetiegan vit? tad |

Bet
‘t ron anob toorg on T

“at prada ty: yo "i

noitom oat evetetods tact eon
i es BS pe poaebive o Pts

ye tae a2 nts een "
of to free 2 To. loan

ee bw bab <enut ott of betentedare GAA?
sat taomgbul edi stonaphy, Sie tosbeey 967.

ii
Stel Aa Se wee
oH ee okt ak a ners ssi, 5 :
nk | ys . it at othe
i al 4

ia gh rat

25
ets ee

36592
HOWARD MENKIE,
Piadintiff-Anceliee,

BURLUE PALS GOURY

We : :

MURIEL GONNELLY and BENuAR Fe
WIRRELMAN, )

} oF aeidade,
sefendonts. )

nn ; 6) oA fa AW b ~~ Fi
satis alts fo © & Lefhe 05

Im fe Appesi of HERGAR Ff, “1 RKELMAR, ;
)

Defendent-Acceliont.
Opinions filed March 14, 1934
WR. PRESTOING JUSTIO“N WALL GZLIVERES THE GPTRLON OF Tek count,

This ia on sppesl by Sermon F. “inkelann from an order
of the Municipal Gourt ef “aiarwo entered after « hecring, denying
his motion *te expunge or raeste order of Sorember tnd, 1934,” in
eid seuse, ond denying defendant's motion for lesve ta file inetenter
em emended affidewit of merite. fhe order acoesled from eae entered
Gecember 3rd, 1938, on motion ef defenient guage pre fume 2s ef
Hovember 26th, 192%.

On Aordi 6th, 1922, unier worrent of attorney contained
in s lenge signed by defeniont ni Suriel Gomnelly, = fwlement wee
entered agcinet beth defendants fer the enm ef °656.99 for rent then
due and owing te the plaintiff by the terms of this leese. on
Petition of defeniant, “inkelaan, «n order mas entered giving him
leave to sprear ond make o defenge, snd ordering the judgment to
stand es seeurity, smd tint exeewtion be eteyed unthl the further
enter of the gourt. The petition spen whieh the order wis entered
resites agong other things thot the defendont, Tinkelman, is €@ years
of age end hea never hed any ¢uperience in baginesa; tact plainsirf
deafted the lease in pursuenes of on understanding had between oleine
tiff ond defend=nte; thet the defendant, Minkelamm, at the solicite-
tion ef the plaintiff, snd rithout resding the lesae, ond without
sny consideration, signed his name as guaranter, a6 he umlerstesd it,

sy \
= | mos Jax ’
“paddbeaiant rein tel is 7
ay

HOO LATIOLROM

cs ae eee a at ve
<stnsbaatet ’ cna "is ai brn 5

oth ~

Veo Ad eee: 4

Peas

seer Re dowel boLit bhosnege. ae
sTHT00 et WO BOTS TIO sie easny Tai” ia sat ‘i sm an x
setae ao bort aculesnb! 1 aneveit qW Lomwgr 2 62 eitT ” Fand
wanes wuikroed © Teste beredas enon io grvet Sogodmw $8t ‘te
i gh *y8SGL bat xedmevek Xo reine edoney To ouaeaee ot mottos wad
| -wetasdemd 94ik of eves tot molten otnabartod gaigand hie: (sonee Minw
i heretee ace mort belseqys tebvo edt .etkren to thvemhE Re bebo” Ra
Ye o° gous aug ou fmebeeteh to aottom mo .0BUL ,brt sedmenet

asw smomghet * .yiisnme? Lelret bee tusheetem yt hoagie encod # ak
weds gnox rot 00.088? to eve ody tet efaehasteb dead fanioga bexetae
#O .serol eidd to eae? att ei Ptidadeade: eit of aehwo hae ou

ef treagie, ef? galsedte bas .coneted 2 atin bea eaegys it

‘poredae ecw tobvo odd dotdw mouw sett iteq ott pee one te sone

entaly averted bad gatbardesobay an to vemevewm al sums ot
onthoiion ori #2 ete Lok stashoote’ ene sett ranean
tuadtte hme .oerek 94 yatheor tuodtiy bie hit
att booterohn ef ae rodnet eng wh geen al ahs

“a ‘seco see nung seta .

“onde “ soa Yo so doa oa

heakednoo Ytotts lo taertew why ROL co dbte® a ag PRET

wid aatvis bevedtee ew taite ac ,aemhoaak atashenteb Ye mousites 4

toidust ad? Ldtav heoyete od ac Ltuoexe tact tnd i nen ge

axesy 83 ch ,aomiedail ,tachastob set ed apnred redto gaoas eetioon —
YWieniniy dott jesontewd at sonod reqs ‘wae bod sews: and baw ce.

3
and for no other curpese; tht inkelesn ie obliged to use apeetecies
er eye glasses then recding, snd thet he did not heve the use thereof
at the time of the execution of the lessee; that he,defendont, steted
te plaintiff «§ th-t time hie need of glineses, and thet plsintiff
then stated to Sinkeimen thot 1% ese onageeeesry snd burriedly urged
$inkelman to sign the lecs#; thet “inkelmwen did net knew of the
provisions thereof, nor of the eooaeity in whieh ae signed the acme.
after the judpsent «1¢ epened ue, defendant on June 10th,
2932, flied what is re‘erved to «s sn amended atetenent of claim,
in whieh he sete uy smeng other things various alleged feete ton=
eerning the income ef the preperty deaeribed in the iexse, woon
which the judgment veg entered, aa sn 2lieged set-off agsinet
plaintiff's claim. nH Hevember ind, i932, on motion ef sleintiff,
this siieged set-off wee stricken, ond the court then «nd there
entered the foliowing order:
"dow Gomes the sleintiff in thie eouse, the defendant
veiling sbgent and net represented and thereucen thia couse
comes on in regular ceurse for trial before the court, with@ut
& jury, end the Court a=ving heard the evidenee, and the
arguaents of counsel, sad telme fully acvieed im the premises
enters the following finding, to-rht:
'The Gourt finds Six fundred Thirty Seven amd 50/100
Bellare (%627.80) due from defendants Muriel Connelly
and Herean ¥. *“inkelman at dete of judewent by confession.)
Gn November 28th, 195°, defeniuat moved the court to
vacate snd ¢xpungé the order entered Kovesber ond, 1932, and for
i@ave to file en sdditivmal «ffidevit of serits, -t whieh time the
erder appesied from denging defendent's sotion was entered,
Gbjgetions sre usde by defenisat te warieus proeerdings
hed before verious jwiges of the “unieipal Gourt, but there ie no
showing in the record which eugreets thet defendent was net socarded
_ & Fall and fair heoring by the judge she entered the order from ehish
this appesl ie teken. “is srincics] centention seems te be thet ine
a8 mh as he was 68 yeors of age nt the time he signed the lease,
he waa, a5 a matter ef course, superanmunted, or, a9 thie word is

ost
selestoeqs say of hey tide at mmm ledak fait ;Seequug =a, on wot hs

i, erent Ger ad? oved tom hab ef doula bre sna tbhans node seeuniy ow 4

ii beste etaeten' tod ged, fad? joared oat te sodtueers oat ™ emda ott a

— entetele tesa aw cereeety Yo bees wkd ontt test tn ‘Yiteabetg, *

bayra vibeternt bas YrsReeoentn cer FL txAd memkedats of bededw aes
edt to wont ton bib sealedals . tat Weruns oat pte of nentesnde

| comin exit beirgie ef dotdw me Wsangen ag? Ye cee sYoorndg snooty : 7

eAtOL tat no taebaeteb yqu bene oon txampi, sat wegts fh

qntake te Sopeeret? rn elt oe of bapeoton at Yade beLee emer

_ wee atoct, hegecia evobeey ogeids nose geome car wtee od dpkite at
, _ Romie geneed ant nt hoc penean. yopeennn 4. te. Sayed Mal apne

tee me “Oe ” ie
oat .
“ry 4

tentre tro~tex boyeite ae ae ohoreniee fe new 8
crtutateis * cotton so BOL one todaevon - oad

tacbastob ott nouns slat al Thies oa
a + has bovar jhstadeds ogg

sauee asst pap
su@dtia ,itue® sat eroted Lelxd ret eeenis ae wedges a2
add ive ,oomebive eds bread wis — det

ee a oe Cn ~

eeetnets add al al bealvie Hehe)
“008 \o2 bas sevee yteid? ;
** .nofoastnee aia te to ete cy 8. ree meas ba
ot "gesa0 ad? bowen tacknateb 288k cd rodue wok a0 oy
wot bax e8hGE yhae redxavel berets robe oat SQROYEe Das
odd mkt doidu te gntiree te tivebivbe Leno ivbis ag ‘ouke ot =e
. sbotedae new sotdom at anshapteb ganesh moet belesuas
ega tbaecorg avqitey of dnabao ted Le eben wee enol en
om at erodt tad .trve Loq te tiem edd Yo esha ne tn at
bebtecos tom enw tashasteh tad? eteoygun ps snopes ode at gatwode
deity mort rete off Betogne ase oghyt etd
wah tadd od of emone sphtmningn beg ton, ° 5 sips iF .
— gaenel ot bomgie ad ome eats oa ope ® Raney, Of
wt brow aide ae 7 sPodommaatogue oe :

defiued, *incapsciated by layge of years." The writer tekes the flat
position thet thie is not necessarily trae «2 te one resehing euoh on
age se thet of Gefeniant. Ales, eoungtl urcee a8 ground for revergel
that defendant could not read vithout glseses, and thet there wus

& misetatecent made ea to the contents of the inetrument whidh he
signed.

thie court aaids

"Shep & persen is not Liliterate, Blind.er wnace
quainted with our iengucee, it will net do to submit the
walidity of 2 written inatrusent to = jury uoon euch
hysotheses ag those in the inatruction umier eousiderntion.
Even on diliterste person wiii be bound if he exeoute
without requiring the inetrusent to be read, Thoroughgeod's
@nc6, 2 Voke, 9. Yhere one can read but does net, then te
void the instrument be must show sane artifice or trick by
whieh he was ¢revented, or in other words, the jury mast
he aatiefied thet the sign=eture wee obtained by fraud withe
gut negligence on the pert of the signer.*

‘4 RELBSOR Ve 4 PCAN EGR. 7 3G Tile H2Lhs
the record does not ahow thet any srtifiee or trick was

used by anyone in proguriug defendant's signasture te the lecwe in
question. The extent of bis ese* unde im Kies vetities te zet
eeide the judgeent in thie regerd ie thet he wae indvoed te

gign = eriting which &¢ did net resd, oni thie is ne defense.

The judgwent ia «ffiraed.

WILSON AKU HEEL, JJ, GORCUR,

‘.

tant out aeatad sadiew ont * A OTHOY te oaged ¥ bosntoaquoas® sbouttab
ae doe pabdwess one oF om hutd YLinnyosoes tem af einy tone “wott teog
ineroves set bawory ae eaytE ieanage ede ia otashaeteb te tant ae os

new eredt todd bas senorty firostd ke bere fon bivoo tusknsreb teata

‘of deine tammarrt Bett od? te ndansace aut of ae eben tusestatoeln s

: ye08 ong fit 8 cuted a®

ane to bathe woaeteet iit rrr es newer & ede
de ag oF of gem thde hk 4 ag < me
mons Yuk & gh fommultent anavie 9 te. We a
emiatetaneiaes Ao stows and & eer:
i atywooxe si Th ore yale Lity
zg Sooadguotedt shaer
ot mec? ,fom eeo0h tud beet set Gaa we ql
w torre 10 per upd oad woee tem tat detemurs
tonw yrre ont ee Taide ee TO he

pitt EE 408 spemabinalt meinen
nam antet te eomtaees eae teh wot ton etod roves edt lua
at soon ont af sxudongte ettashavtad gatroterey wk saoyae, “ys boew
‘Hee of aektived aid at hee ea sie te sastee, ae? | yaontenay
of ‘peowba! ane 4 eae 8A Beget cae a perteang dé ebtes
sonasted om et pide Sas yhoo toe. oan a de site yettere e ge
soe es et Paemghet, Ont

‘eee

' ih aes i re aie Sa C i
cee A “Shgl te RRA ay th eo eh

jCRNTVEA

a j
PAULINA RUZELOWIOZ, AerGaL Wpgat /
5 2
(Gomplaiusnt) Avpelies, i

. }

HASRY AURELOVIOG, ;
(Gefendant) Anvellant. )

Opinions filed March 14, 1934

Ma. PREGIDING JUSTICE HALL OFLIVERES PUR GPIBION OF THE OguRT.

This ie sm scoes] fram « decree ef the Suxerior Sourt ef
Cook County dissolving the morvicge of cossleinen$ and defendant.
the record shews thet «fter the desertion allesed in the Bill, the
sompininant upon reeeiving «hat to her wre suffielent svideace of
the faet thet tee defeniant hed died, had merried «nother, it
appesrs that she wea mistaken in this regerd. fhe deeree from which
thia eppeei ie teken, in ecdithen to disseiving the w=arringe vith
defendant, finds and decrees that the serricser to ber sacend end
iset husband now decensed, «xe lessl and welid. The bili cherged
desertion, which defenient by bis onewer, denies.

There sre seny metbers set forth both in the bill sad
aneeer, which are irrelevant to the lasue in the e:ae, which is,
whether or sot the cowploinant ie entitied ta « deeree of divorce
on the ground ef defemiont’'s desertion.

Sompiainant testified thet she mirried defendent in
ftuesia in 1699, sad thet he threw bar out in Sey, 1008, after which
ahe came te 4merion, bat sent beck te “uesin in 1867 end tried te
live with him evain, tut thet be would not heve ber. ‘the testified
that she then came tc Shiesge, hexnrd the complainant had been killed
in the “orld “or and married anetser. Ghe oreduged two #itneasss,
one of whom testified thet in Russis in 1905, 4 € or 7,ehe had heard
. the complainant sey, *I don't want to live with thet wife.* fhe

1 ae ‘ ae ye

Fi 3
t 3
bes a ‘ 4

“hey < nee eo

yo PAIR fea si Tee tox Lan ae

4 etediond (dnowkssowes) — ay ig
TaN oaaee BE ys ; ’ They de ee gas dee adept a % ¢ nals

S29 ae) A NY S'S ers (teat ama

eYTHUOD 1000 stasliaces (taehas tet) “yi wane
SECT SI dors beLtt ‘enofalqe 6606 L008 AR aS a,
«20000 BUT 4O BOIMIGO BNE GarIVEEM Jaay BOETeUL ‘mbnanmente ores
to dance cy te eles gates I —~—s a oasis

ne “etadvons Sebrenm bag. he ab had dealt Ha hosts to
dolde moxt seroeh od? sheeges wide ab shar one: Aer + ast am

tiv oycivtcs at) gulvieewséh et mottthin eh gnedes ab pais wlae
bee atemes cod af ogedrean ods. Ce etnabneteh
begrads [iid adi .BLiey Ann Isyed war ghetede
seoinak yrewene aid ud dembew tab dolde sannenaneet

bee Lhtd edt mt dtod APT? doe wrodtay Yiee ean ered)
{ot Motde yanee Bid al auand sat ot tmevedeors wa dotdw grewane
eoxerih to serweb « of DOLtiine ei amemtalaees o@t tom to emdtede
stoitcned atdackhested to Savery edd mo

at tunbastst herein ode tedt bertitoat eremtelqne® :

Hokdw rove .206L yok at te ed words om dutt ban O6OL at ateoun
of bated ture (ORL el shea of dhe faen tod enebroma ot amen ode q
beltétess of sted eved fom bivew ad tedt tod yobege mast ithe evit
boLlia seed bed teenkalqaoe sft brood seqrotdd ov once modd eae toute
ateunenthe on? heawbors edi .zotome obec haw 98 bérow ry at i

ed? “.ohlw todd dttw evil of tae ao id wen agers

2
other ateted thet in Yuseis in 1909 she heard defendant eay te
somplainant, “Get evt, i den*t went you.”

in wiew of the fact that the eovurt ene sitheut furia-
@ietion or power in thie sreteciiue te enter = deeree ta the ef feet
thet compleinent's secomi merrivge wos legel, and of the feet
thet the evidence offercd te suatciu the cherge of degertien is
wiestiafactery, the couse ia reversed and remanded for « new triel.

SEVE"SRO ABD ALBANDEO.

WILSOR AGD HEBEL, JJ, dosen,

a
Ot Ye Saabnated Brest site SORE nb about nk bany nonere dete i

* wo tiem #aab 1 ytue ton" etaentetemes i
~aitut, tuedtte wow tev0o edt nat toot 96s Yo wake at i

* ‘ae
Sys

Hid

is re hy 3 colts ir pit zace hy ee Be ih a Ae 1 the P
gr Pire x ye Rae BN ge au Se AS 0 oe ca a GR eI

ett orenne

ty op
+

botiza aied had Feercehgeas ees ee sas dangiit

ow &: Saye: Soka | Rte

“ Sipser

S666
E. &. MUALES,
Setenient in trror,

REM avenge

aes

MENTCIP AL SGA? or

ats peal orien, Daaieees ag e

Prudentivl Sealty Jomuany, Or i ”
2é¢4 1.484.657

Opinion filed March 14, 1934

We
ke M, ANGE ond H. F. RANOL, eo- aati
Pisintiffs in orrer. )

MA. JUUTIOK H

This ceuse is in this souri woom 4 erit of errer direated
te the Gunicipal Court ef Vook county, te rewiew the reserd in »
progeeding wherein 9 judgeent woe entered by the court, without «= jury,
in fevor of the oleintif?’ in the aum of °5,804, in on action for-
wreagh of contract.

Plaintiff's statement of clsim alleges that im the year
1928, he owned » let in Svenston, Tilinegis, whieh wee «old by the
defeninata for the sum of “7,004, end thet the transsation wae com
pleted and the money received vy the Sefendants on Coteber 16, 1928;
thet theresfter the defeniants invested acid sum in Donte or semuri-
ties, snd in 1959, the pleintiff weocived froe the defendants $166
seorued interest, and thit the cisintif’ demanded from the defendants
Plaintiffts aequrities or their oagh veine, whieh me refused.

The defenses set forth by the defendants in their offie
devit of merite ie a Genial thet the plaintiffs lot wee sold by the
defendants or defenients’ «sent, or thet the sale was sompleted on
Getober a5, 1928, and the further denial thet toe defeniante had any=
thing to do with the scie of olaintiff's let in “vaneten, or the
investment ef the cum of °2, 604.

There is evidence in the record thet the claintif’ was
employed by the Jencrel Plectrie Jeusany for = peried of twenty-two
years, and thet hie werk at the time of the trenazetien in cucatian
was thet of sn armature winder for thie eempxny} thet in 1927, the

ERIN Beye it oy ana a

ns ai
4 e
7 ~ |
1 r we SSBe8
| ‘er HONAT We Thaw sd oh of
, ( ROWS, aa. fasheaot yy
“ae robe Jairo.eum ibe saci

ony oe Pienne? CA. Pt Pn

| ORBIT, “RO gSORE «6%. oR hae TORAH 4H 2A
ae setaiend gaiob
yaa AT BYVS a
eFOTTR eh: OTT APAROAT! car ots
BSCL .SL dorsM beLit noiaiqd © Sac Ss et rt See

. |, THOCS BAY GO OLMIS SHY CAPRTEURE JEG SOLON pRB oo rtnte omy
beteetit terte te ticw & mee Pere e20f ME Bh eeuee neat }
| @ al-bieeer ed¢ weiver o@ oetrwel dood Yo frwot Iegtotau edt 08
qiut 8 tuediiw ,ftvee adt yl heredes eos tenmphel » ahewede gutbosoeny

80T Goltos ae ak 06,89 to mun otf mi Widinivig ott to vovet at
toottae te donors

teey eft af tedd aogolie mhalo te tuseeters aNYeaeagess
ad? ¥¢ Bier exw doddw yntomtiil ,seteare’ ai tod « baows od .8ROE

“909 exw noidcesnett edt ftadd bas 908,89 To awe edt tod atacbaekeb
{HSEL ,EL redotod ao sixehaetes act yW bevisews yeuom oft bas Betedy

~fiw908 16 ebnod at gem bie hefsorad atarieoteh edt sottooweds teat

CAL) utaebasteh odd moxt davteves Witnteig od¢ 4GEeL al ban yes
stanbastes ad? wort behasweh Yitalela ent todd’ ben yteerednt beytoor

sbeevter eow doldw .oulev dam whet? vo medtinwoon en atntaln

«Pts tied? at etnebmeted ode yf adtot ter eeastabd ed? > Bae

adt yd Dive anw tos atttitnsaig amt tant ixiaed « ad etivem to. ib

no besolason wow Sine od? tadt to ytayn Ineundusteh 40 atanbeeteb 4
ayne had ottisbasteb oct tad Ledmeb rodtaot ont ban ,O8@L OL redeteo i

edd t .wotenswi at tol et titniaic et ee 1

naw VRatwkel¢ edt gmt beooes odd ut pensbire ef exact
( peocrteve yo see see yemeaann neal
" > - mongenun uk nottecenert edt to omkt wae os oval aaa bigest e

plsintif? purchesed « let lessted in Svenetem, lilinois, osysbke in
dnetellments; thot in any, 1987, the sieintif? received = telegram
from the defendents doing biesiness sa the Prudentiel “silty Ceaccay
Stating that they had « ourehnser for the let in Bwamsten st 995.
per foot, te which the plsintiff replied that he was wiliing te
dispose of the lot st °=96 = faet; thet slisintiff alee received a
telegren from the frudentiel Seslty Cemoeny in May or June, 1927,
to the effect thet one .ittlefield would arrive to slose the @enls
that Littlefield did «rrive ot *%yandotte, Miohigan, in Mey or June,
1927, and the piaintiff signed «= contract fer the esle of the lot
amd gawe it to Littlefield.

It 2iso apcears that the cleintif’ esiled ot the 6ffice
ef the defendants ond turned ever coopers regarding this let te
Littlefield in the yeer 1e27, and the defenienis, vy their scent,
reoeipted for the cesers; thot the desl, by the seente of the flaine
tiff, was closed ani the considerstion fer the trenefer of his
interest ess received Sy the defendants throuch one of ite employess,.

There is ao diavute thst Littiefield «ss «eting as
defendants’ agent in the scie of the elsintiff's interest in the
Svenston iet, anid the defeniunte by their brief «dait thet the trane-
astion was with sittiefield, snd that ke eceupied «2 branch offiee of
the defendants at Howard Avenue end -estern svenue, in the City of
Shieago, while the sain office of the defendents «xs leemted at
Seven and “‘estern s4venue, in Chiesgo. This sdmission indiestea that
at the time of the treneection Littlefield ec net only the agent of
“the defendents, but continued as their agent until the cleintiff
@omplained sbout the sets of the defendants, sné their failure in
not eonounting for the money in their possession, snd thet thereupon,
in June, 1930, the defendants dismisced Littlefield «. an emsloyee.
The defendents seted aq the plaintiff's agent in the trensection, and
Littlefield together with the defendents received the geumiscion for

“—"
al sddeyuy gelomilil ,woeenars gi bagnoal tod » heandoywg Metatala
mevgelss » beviover tiisaiele oft ,TRRL gust al sade jateomlistent
wrecmod ytlen Lettneturri ot aq aetakeuw! geioh ataabgeteh ed? mont
ots te ngtanevi ai tol ode 7a? teasdenug # bed yont sods gaieoge
_ OF Babiite ene od tuit betiqns vhaenbedg 963 sotto ot Ateot seq
A Meviebor Gels Witakele test pfood 0 BB de tol dt. 20 owogadh
s TORE. pony TO Yoh. Of Yenuegy, ytseas Sadgnmbert ode aoxt morgelod
jLaeb edt anole of ovitxe bieow Bladeisisi ano fon} GoeIke odt of
qeish To YSN al ,eoyisiodt ,ottehmey? so eviore 61 Siedtelesid tade
tol edt Yo eine O89 72 faeréaeo « Homie Tatadedy et? Dea, PORE
i. , seiianierhantpeiiemmnatasd
i oontte eat ts belles Diatatelg ett todd etagags oude ah > at ae
i et tei eis? guticanet execog tere Senne sae saliiehabii oie te
qttogs thedt wl yetaniavted edt has ,¥ORL tay edt at bietretieht
anata odd Yo edaoge add ys gion edt pomd jevaceg mcd meh DenekeonE
ops S48 Te BOtnaend acd wal aolderebionads aid. bes. yeeoko eae athe
s8anyoiqun ett To ang dusondd adenbaoteb ett a
_ ae gakgor eam DiatteLtths fact otwamth om @2 weAdh gy You
| ed? ah taototat I izateds old, Ye alee, adi mi samme Iptaabapaen
| waneut edt test ttubs Yokxd sted? af stanbuntoh ext. bn, «tak
| * seltto Monexd = hetquere vd dads pur hininacsead atts com otter |
to tte edt at .ouaews arotae! be eumvs bua ta etanbawteb edt |
ts Detmoel cow etaahustsh ant 20 sostto ahem at sksw sopsosad, |
feds eotepibat motgatwhe idl onneedd nt sutidataleemrall
Yo tueye edt Yino fom ene Dindretsintd 4 Adwsmanens NE OO
Yhitndeds of Lhtay tuppe, chess, pn :omehtante tut gets 4
ah orwltet thet? doe ,eiaebaetob af te efen pt (0te nmbabanie 4
Moguered? gedt har aadielgealiels,-<s saomrqnanqeneneiettieed
spoyolgme aa ne Diehelteld de nae d
ao Ltonenext ont mi tage ofr? damkada nat ‘ne ‘ ' ‘ em
(——- xOT modeatames oft hovtonas educhastad odf, sain xedtayor Diathekethh:

3
getTviges rendered in the sxie of tae Gronston lot. fhe seney thet
waa received by the Gefendunte for the esle and trenafer ef the let
by the pleintif? ressined in the senda of the dofemiants, and
Littlefield sentinued in the offaee of tae defendants, used the
defengents’ etstlonery, snc from ell somesremees the vlisintiff had
the right to sascume thet Littlefield sae still aeting fer the defend-
saute, whieh inferenee wa justified froe the fact tat the defendants
diseharged Littlefield in dune, 1959, after somelsint e.@ ede by
the pieintif{ of the dishonesty of Littlefield. The rule of «geney
is well stated by the Guprewe Court im the aese of Sh

ion & 2immevwen Cos, 157 Lil. S54, aa fellows:

"One whe holds out enother ss his scent to act for hia in

& given Gapnelty, ani, by his hebite end eourse of desling,
justified the inference that auch other ig «authorized to eet
ag his agent, whether it be in « single tramazotion or in «
garies of trenssetions, will not be heard ta deny the ageney
to the orejudiee of sn innevent party, she hue been led te
rely upon the sopesronee of authority in the agent. (echen
on Agenny, sees. 63,84).*

The further rule thet the principal is bewnad by the coke of ite ocent,
unleas it appesrs to the contragy, i¢ sooreved im the aave of

Si. Ries Fi he S5. POM NY i Ge We Ra ot perm his y 2a4 Thi « aaa, in these wordas

"& Qompeny ie bound by the sote of ite agent in the exercise

of powers within the sopsrent acope af His sutherity, unless

special iimitstions upon hie powers «re brought to the notice
of the parties desling with him. (fnenix Ins. Go. v. Stecke,

249 Lil. 519; Yhenix Ine. Go. v. Wort, 149 14. 612; Hoble vy.

Waugent, @2 lil. S94 and & Sorpus Juris, 776.)*

im the instant esse the slaintiff's transsctiona #ith
Littlefield, who snpe-red and seted fer tae defendanta ae their
wepresentotive, were svoreved emi ratified, and the defendenta ere at
this tine estepped from denying the ageney and the authority ef
Littlefield, He, Littlefield, «speared sa the agent of the defend-
ants in their office until June, 1975, The defendente were charge~
able with the receipt of the conelderstion due the pleintiff, and aa
the pleintiff'’s gent 4% wes their duty te see thet the considerstion

due the plaintiff <<< sreperly eseounted for. However, as the

x
tett yonon od? .tol aatemevi aft Re ahs ade ad Deredeet \weedvets
tod ad? to tetoneré Sas oleae ong To Measheotah elt Yet evieder waly
Sts yetnekasiek of? to shined wit at dankesot Thatele ty ade
wid Loa {aenehos toh of Yo eolThe ode mt bevatdeod biotite treks —
hed Vebtabaly edd goonetsenge Lic wovk hae ytrewedtate ‘efnebeeteb
~bastsh git rot gmites iiivs sow biviieigeld teat qmvpeon ef Bayh welt
atunhae%tes edd dart toot ott aoxh SoLiitae) vew sonerstal doldw yates
Yd ohem sex tabeloman wodhs «OSL poor af bindbedrthd Begredoesd
naan to ober att shied edtted te yheominth ade Re Thistle wet
FV egh beh lease te sano ed¥ Bh tod suetqat ost YE hetete Lhe wt
a teroidet er qhd0 «SL VEL qa gaan 8 ao ame hate
(wih gid cot tes of guages aid aa eedteme tuo

“eee Sones se Bet:

i stave adi Yo vies aft yd bawotl 2 Lnetoiare vat ae Lhe

.
‘te ease od me hovorcas ab seer taoe a9 oe azsougs Ly. x shou
rebror oandt at 4 e8s shi 982 qguntened Yo anot te Seo eon ky, a
eT Rd ae eae 4
seorexe ort at duvge sf eat ‘Yo eto8 odd oe h i st poqmoo AY
ye freddie: 28 Fataqe ve tie Ca
- sokton gon of wed Poy om Bo ae Sah aati

aetna einen ante a

ses aesidetieie tt: bs spite ee aves aaa lie :
Tw ytinodtur dé bas yong 862 gatyaok mark segne
ohne teak eet ta ange ah 20 Semen NO aiid

mint no ne te !
_ eit we 4 teweToll | nt ta sn

_—~" —_- "9

defendants permitted Littlefield te continue «9 thelr agent ead
employes, «ith asoarent suteaerity te act fer the defentente, snd

the plaintiff, with knowledge of hig subherity te aet fer the defend.
mts, te desl with Littlefiel4 in the Jefendant"« offiees, they
GCannet be heard te deny the « yeney to the orejudiee of the pLadnei ff,
who wha an lanecent party soting im geod feath and ied by the
SPPOrPenee and the sete of Littlefield, .

The Gefondenty contend thet beenuse of % fatel variance
between the pleadings ond the ereof of fsete whieh digelese Slag
agedast whieh the stetute of limbtetions is « goad defense end whieh
ig = different mouse of cetion from that set forth in the plesdinga,
the plaintiff esnanot asintedn his astlon. fhe defendants point te
the date of 1929 og the date of tae, and the dete ef Seteber 1S, 19238,
mG ths dete when the deal was elesed tad the svuey received by the
defendants! agent. This court is of the Scinion thet the agency ef
Aittlefield for the Gefendenta wee 2 eontinuous We, Bd the clainkige
dealt with him wi theut knowledge thet Littlefiesla wes asting for Kise
eeif in the trensaction, snd we believe thet thie setion before ue is
well within the statutory peried. The cation es inetiteted on
september 7, 1939, and there is evidense thet the desl in cusation wag
eiesed on “uguat 21, L027, and thot the sete of the det oMsnte by their
agent Gontioved in september end Setober, Lage,

The ewidense established that the sseunt due the oleintify
was $2,604, and for the reoeaus stetad herein, it le the eon@lueion of
thie court thet Littlefield in tae Granssetion with the wiediatiry
seted for and on behalf of the defendante, end thet the court aia not
err in ite finding for the PLSLGEL ET, The judement entered therden ie

satordingly affirmed,
SUDGRERT APPL awpa,

bins fueye Tied? en Suetonbe OF Kieseterhd ber tinrey etnahaaten,
Hh hak seghaliawtsh ed? aot oa wt Yertontws droroogs ative .soqolqne
| cpaerab sdf cot Tod of eProdtus whit Yo ugbedwent date ghadtabeds one.
| qoit? een stro wtiisbustoh nat mt Risdtalee.s.dtie deok OF 9 Aih® :
tt Hintele sult to werkupery ott oF Woamee aie Yowh of Raned ac P08
eed sinadpebnetipahestin isos ix AA ARPLNGS So
hiattekadh To ates edt fas ennaxenggs
sohntvey Later o Yo wemened deat bavtsow esandekah BHF boo 0-coeth
bite © eelobsh Motte steer Be Teeny ede saaainiteiiedi asewted
sath nab cetbtab hoon’ s et suptocsimtl Lo osutede es? siokew tesiege
ame edt ah Wrct for tats Mott apdtas Be oases AngTA IO! ema
teihek, vtnadatten tet snokten v1 atntaibem tannee 32ktabela 6?
-aeed vine wedoted Yo otah ott bac olen To shah oat om BRBs to otab odd
, tne posta mp on
to ‘youbyn ext Heed moknide ome to wt Mee | | :
qhatatele 09 ban camp epoumiinen & Bem atashavteh ast att sot bindts “7
auld rot gattoe sow higitedseil teat mghelnont tuodtiw mkt ko | a
eh au axeted mottos olde toad vedios ow bite coitonanett oat at ©
_ me Ratutitens ese agktes oft obo fray wotusote edt ante ae
pew mg btiouy it feeb ote sade seannive ak oendt bor «He iF x0
ako? "ye etaatanted edt 20 eson sat tds he. S96 ott: ney
eet gredeted hae eocenetaye a sue
Vitenbale sat aud eavome vss saat |

“tom bid fx199, od anit ba
ek moorods berets treet, ot

a ape
rE Bo

se — SELB Perea, gi tele oy) si

Pe) ; n ‘ Gy
sie 4 bt hy UUM (RRC sea Co Te ee sb MID Hoe cies

Bey § RK POR.

jf j F f
; é é £
36604 7 ff an éé
HARY A, LAGEY, we / APPEAL FROM
Aoneliee, j sa
: surERtod

MARGASRT JASISGI, CITY OF cuigsce, Ook COUNTY.
& Bunicigeal Yorvercstion, €% sLe,

a oe aa
Appellants. ) ra 6 4. A ofle U aD 3
Opinion filed March 14, 1934

Ga. JUSTICN AUEEi, SELIVERES TAR OF TELOR OF rae SNt.

Thie i6 =n action Sy the sleintiff sgoimat the defendents
te receyer demcces for s¢reonel injuries, snd is befere thie sourt on
appesl. The gase wee tried before the equrt, with a jury, and
regulted in « verdict for the clsintiff and sgeinet the defendants
teargeret JenieBh, feoples Geo Light 4 Gek® “o., 4 serporstion, snd
the Jity of Shiesgs, in the wom of 10,990. The defendant Somdle
@rethers G¢6., » ¢orporstion, »~s found act euiity. “ubstcuently the
defendant *“eoples Gas Light @ Cake So. wes dismissed by the oourt.

After motions of the defendants sargsret danieeh and the
Gity ef Shieege for = new trinl and in trrest of judgeent were over~
tuled, judgment wee entered om the veriiet, from whieh judgwent the
Gity of Thieese preseontes thie spprel.e

the defeniont, Sorgoret Janiseh did not file a brief in
thia sourt, ond the only erief befere uz is thet of the defendant
the city of Ghiceco.

The plaintiff, on Sectember 13, 1035, filed an slternative
motion to dismies the apvesi, or affire the judgsent for fsilure on
the part of the defendemt, the city of Ghierse, to attach to or ake
a pert of the record =n ascigneent of errors. This aotion =e reserved
to s heoring, ond will be diseuseed later in the opinion.

The fasts are thet the vieintiff end the defendant,
Margaret Juniseh, sre sicters. fhe vlaintiff resided with thie sister
a% 16231 tiesoner (venue, nesr the intersection of cescher svenue ond

M338
4 eRAR +h MA
‘_@ei Lean.

ARE Eh: OM

— RH: : . (REO WS VIG .WOSLRAL TARAORA
on ia ae hTeveq Ton bigamy x0 *

Px. C ofc if & rg : “etre L100

seeL edl dorel beLltt ntointcd
atHHOL nt QO S0fRI%G Aw? Sze at. rae pak RUE YOO vk
ataobretead oat featene “Phen tein outs vg med tar me et oes

i Hi ie ees
i
\
}

no ate etd} gtoted al bax nobustat Lasouren sot eaynnoh roveoss pe
Bas , yeni ¢ dele ‘ewes od? otctad heir? wow se08 ‘oat sLnoae
GHRaBdsteb ea Paadeye bas Mbembods edt set ‘seibeay i fk botiueor
Bite woleeneyteo a 4.09 wed a aitghi aad aatgoot aMfataes, bexng
— ‘tasbasteb ant 200040! ‘Ye fom ede mk aogaozdd te wie: oe

and ¢ ide WydLtvy don havet gew .soldaseqves « 400 |

st ne i |

“edd tare dearest toxepeet etacknsted ett Yo enokton xoFtA | a

“Greve oxoF faveghut Yo Feores at hme Eels? wan s cod ogemtd Ye oye
a € ae

a bea %) any

‘ett —— elite ‘eet wtolproy add He borates vow taompbut 9b

| sfesuqe edit eetumenors ogsotde to |

mi telad © obs foe bt fooise’ somegtvk stanbaoted: oat | es

“ Hiabinwted 9x2 to tone as as noted ‘Yada ino sits } bas sfuee obit out

| wom Yo yeh oft

evidomtatic ae Desir seeer 9Bt rodga toe ate “tates ot, ee fe

| te eaulis® ot teromg bert eat exlita #9 gieogge on¢ apimeth oF nsloas 7

} tien to oF Sootts of ayoetdd Yo YER of tenbawdeh oad To Hebq WAP
i

+i)
Md Bins

bovroner ene sodton ait3 serotes to sadnng teow ite bteded GAP tan
_ smotniqe edt nt retel teeaveath ed Linw ban ¢ yankee |
vere ott bas vessndade edt tasit - aont or

eee nn ea

2
foulina Street. The cleintiff woo employed ae 2 night telepeone

eperstor by the Illineie ell Telepnene Company, snd om “ny 38, 1920,
about 2 7, H., the plaintifY, tesether with the defemiant dargaret
doniseh ami the inctter's daughter, Muriel Eeegan eighteen yeors of
ag@, #29 im the defendant's sutomeblie being driven by the defend=nt,
and in the front sent, sected with this defenient wae the defendant's
daughter, ami the plaintiff vos seated in the rear aeet a% the time
of the secident, whieh o¢ourred ot the intersection of the streete.
A& thig interseetion on exeavetion waa wade in Pouline Ctreet, sereea
tegoher Avenue, about five feet wide, in which gas usiue vere inetelled
and efter these weins were inid the trench wie Tilbed with (irk #hioak
had been romeved «t the time the exearation wis asda.

The sontreverted cueetion of fet te whether the exenra=
tion was properly filled wits the dirt that nod been removed from
this treneh go ae to make the interseetion weed by the pleintif? asfe
for trevel. There is evidence that the filling of the treneh raieed
the atreet ot the point where the accident ceeurred a9 26 te areate
a hump of from 3 to 12 inches sbeve the etrwet level; that the aute-
mobile in which the pandntiff we riding struck the bump, ond frem the
aheek the pleintiff ese threen to the flesrt

it sopeces from the evidences that the trench wae refilled
on May 4, 1930, and that = traeter wos rolled uoon amd over tne f111;
thet the f111 woe higher than the curfeee of the street level, and
that the hump mentioned by the witnesces was in thie condition on

‘the day of the secident, Hay 38, 19%0.

The evicence is controverted net slens az te the condition
of the street intersection, but vise os to knowledge ef the condition
ef the street both by the pleintiff ond the defendent, Gity of Chiesge,

There ig no complaint by the defendant se te the saount ef
the verdict uson which the julement sq entered. there are but two
questions called to the attention of the eeurt. The first ie thot the

snonye let digie # Bt Seyodume aw TRidnkale ot stort bie
OSCL (OE YR mo Dae Genoqued emodyDin’ Let sloakiit edt ibaa
tersyre! tnahastoh ed? atin vadteged .Ttidakedy Ont 4K ‘at & tuede
{ te eteny meetdgie aayes% Le bruit! Ceoditeg sin otaettat add tama oedast
( dambnered ont yd nevind gakod eLigonndue «"imabanteh adé a2 eew yoge
gp ltaabas tet Wt gine Gemhes teh epee HOEY beteoe .tooe dnort of ak bas
mkt ate te tee Tams Odd ah bedren ene Vettmbele ait hae .teddguab
sabeette odd Yo soltoeetedai oft to Gemyynee ABide staebioes od? te
BeesGea ,fe9tFo anklget «ch abou gow gelteveoes ae iubtosaseted shat is
Lintent exsy gnton eey doddy wf qwite fant evel dwods geuamrs TeHowA:
eke tego tigiv HOELEY aoe donor? edt biak etow wehmn ound 1%9 bas
he ethan ecw aedfovacee aft aett ed te aovenes, ala ad
~eveene eft xedeode as tog? to eoltnors hogeeoverégen edt eee aati
mort bevemer wed Sod sede dash edt Adu Dodi er lami cow molt
stag Widdninky mcr ye deay aodtqeatetat edt oxen of aa on Aomert what
heaters comerd off Ro yak ids ont tedd gonehdve a evadt) .Lovert x6t
-eteero of a9 02 bertuote tnebtooe et orate titog Ott so tvette edt
“ote ect tel? pleved deaute ett oveds wedet SL od € monk te mance
edt mot? ban qemu o4¢ seutte pathic enw Rhbembede ads Koddw ad ecko
(ee aes -. ( steodt ect oF seordt wee Petvadaly ont seone
i helittet ese demert sid tad sonwbive od? mork meooage Rh .orson ila
(«GAEL odd neve has moqy beLion vow sosjostd 2 eae: mpeg Me
|. ham gLoved deente ont tq Rockman edt godt wedgad wy ©
Me AB LIhnee Bhad ak saw woseemtin gt yi penat tuned 0.0 4
wien. 0 3 WOE: canienimeanecndionsiaaibenhendll :
| Mekhibaon ett at we anon fon kasenrentnot eh. SOmMbibND AAT: © ey :
| pelt tba ede to -oghedwens of 96 onke. ted ynontoeenonad trots act 4
sogotdd to YAH qtandapdeb of? hay WRktminke OE Bh dBtod A 4
| Necdawons esid of 26 dundaated ant vd takgsqnne med eat
ond di ons ond? shovadae uw tamayhert edt Mpadw sogir
| esd tort of tenth off steu0n edt Yo apdtnetts edt ot me

1 Pam a

trial court erred in refusing te direot » verdiet for the defeniant,
the Gity of Chienges, The City centenda that there is no evidense in
the record from whioh it een reasonsoly be inferred thet the defend-
ant, the city of Shicere, committed an «ct of negligence whith wos
the proximate or cantreliing osuse of the injury sustained by the

piaintift. .
The Sity ocints ta the evidenee of witnesses that the

beekfili ef the tremeh wae done in the usual and eeetowsry prootioe
used in work of thet choreeter, ‘There ie ao dispute that the trench
wee filied, onveing 2 hump of from 2 to 13 imehes, and the slisintiff's
@ase ig not predio«ted usen the ueusi and eugtomery way in ehich the
treneh eas filled, tut upon the fast that the ues wie the veeult

of the negligent filling, snd remeined for « time euffielent for the
Gity to bave notice of the condition of the street intersection in

Susetione ,
The defendant, tee Uity of Uhieege, in not on insurer af

the eafety of perecns useing the street, but nevertheless it is bound
%O use réecgonsble core ty “eer Lea wtreote im o yeagonsbly ecfe eone
dition for orginary travel thereen of persone why are in the exercise
of due ¢sre snd cuution fer their ewn sofety, ond it is lieble if the
obstructions or jefeots in the street or sidewclk are of euch « aoture
thet © person exerciging ordinary core cannet sveid danger or injury
in poasing over then, especinliy «here the defesta cannot reedily be
avoided or detected, Soender +. Sity of Horvey, 251 Ili. 228.

The City has suthority to permit the construction of gas
“maing in the atreets «nd to permit leprovedents, but the “ity is
disbhle in permitting auch eonstruction as weuld leove the atreet une
safe or dungerous for persons or vehicles to wese upon, City ef
Ghicese ¥. Bropay, 79 Lil. 2770

in the instant case it waa for the jury to decide chether
the hump «t the intersection of the streets was auffieient in height
to cmuse injury, ond whether the olaintif? exereiged due care end cou

&
( qdttetaeteb adt rel tolovev 4 goenth of Qutedbor mt bow dee dakee
i) RL eonebive on 22 erate tadt ahuetaos yPLO oc? gous bel? te qes0 ont
t wheisted att tedt hewrohil sd yidenesess Ane Of dois most breses edt
| exw doit: oomrgklyen to ton as tadtimmes yoyestal Yo Yee edt gdm

Sigel ccenaPeaaiy saul yin «TRigasety
oat? hid Sennoatie te voush iva ott oF stated wee ect ee

sostoesy rasa taue bas siidend ost at enob now sonord m8 to Lint r

, le

donoxt oat taat eduns on er saedy ssetontede # ost te ckiahel me

eee 8A

yp ott aon “goa ous ‘test doer ans aan tad eee am a ~~,
| gt tot tuatottive ealt © wot beatae bins ype bce taytigen ods te
Ih a ao liveetetal soente ont a sels thao vd te soadon vas Ret eta

To vetoed ae tom of poystid’ te yes edt .sushew ted aff eas Rae
breed et $2 esolonteowe tud yteorte wit patter atowted To yen at
<n0e thee “idenusex amt ateerte.atl nyedt-nt wean ebdateedon dere
oaterexe oft at ors ode eanetey Yo aoeredt Lovett youtiive ret noeekD
git tA eddad ab #2 Bue GUeten ae chedt teh Wekewet hewveres eater
| seniei a tat te one ALowshte ae Jooxts ous a2 afeEIet To nso kterttede
“yiutid 10 ‘Topaab Stove tonnes ore yranthre gubvienere ‘deoveg # fade
adh auanbdhommnbainsintamndvnattacnncianisamnlier:d<cnened
-oG8R LEE £45 yop to Mt

ed velo ost due sstieseveryad fists of Stn eteerdw oft im

wits taente add ave6l bivew aa eepnieenetennkenannees tt q

omens asunabapaadiorapnesi ise sr

peer tt “ar seu be oman assis a

| tepteaine tun tnttian meetin Sat y sto
if sas sie wee uh bnereien eee sh hee

“1 Rthiatiad detested Ge Rontows
nay To motvemtteces oft Atamreq oF “tivadius edt YOO GET ie | ‘

Boat N

|
;

4
tion for her own exfety in the use of the nAgiveny .

Finaliy, is the verdiet and jitiguent egainst the defond-
ante contrary to the aanifest weight of the evidenes? fue Sity con-
tends thet the cleintiff's evidence failed tu auetsin the burden af
preof on the question of care far her sen sefety, and thet the evi-
denee shows thet she ess suilty of ‘ORE bute ry negligence.

The defendants point te the avidense ta @atebligh that
the plaintiff knew thet the work Wee Seine done at the inkersestion
im question, and had tnorledec afi 4t © eonth eYier te the socident.
4gauming that the claintif’ knew thet the work was seing on, this
wurely would not justify the ins rence, when traffic wee cermltted by
the Gity to use the intersection ia Suestion, that the street wea
not ressonshly ssfe for use by the OUbLiS. The feet thet the plsintifr
gigned « ateatenent from wiigh it aguecrs thet abe knew the condition
of the etrest, and whieh was «mitted is eviienes, together with 211
the other feote and eireumetenses in the reoora, wie before the jury.

Gveeee ig laid by the Gity uwoon the feet thet there ie

evidenee in the record to the effect that the pheintif? while riding

iy, o

_ dn the sutomoblle of her siater <s5 telking with her niewe, who eae in
the front seat, end that xno turned in bey gent eo ee to CANey of
the eonversation; thes the pladnta £/ieek of sttention te the gneed
Of the car and the aurrcunding conditions, was guiity 6f oonk ls butery
4 négligence, The court hes indiested in its opinion thet it wasfor the
jury tc pose upem the cueetion of Contelbotery negligence of the
Plaintiff, af wall as the negligence of the Sity.
agen 50 Tile 450. Brennan v.
Cid. SMEOR2B, LAG ili, Apa. Bh«
in PORN the siternetive wotion filed ny the eisanti tt
on cestember 13, 192%, te dismiss the ssoel er te effiem the judgment
for the reogon that the Ofty of Yhieago, a eo-defendent, failed te
fale =n sscignment of errers, this court finds from the reeerd that

deh th sreemnninarenytimdacsmenryote e501
chasteb eit teategs tavmghat: hen tpabren galt ek gXLSOMi oo yh) 9p
magn tke oat Senmabiee add To aigénn, teothann ont ot NTAEACe » wee
ty meted eft nietem of bedict sonehire eetatededs act $ute, ohapt
sive edt tude hon extetan ano xed.nok omen Re woktoonn adh am SRR
-oantg Ligon yosudantnes Ye iiiwy exe ode tad? eponte Ott

tadé delidatee of sein ive ‘ont of saion “adnabea ten oat ‘yl
“moktoserodat ant te eiob gated oN anon oni@ sl ve Vedas
: step seo pid at roils ‘teow r tite agtndreoses Sang bre ited aun
‘abst 30 wieder ‘emw seo ‘pelt todd wood Thitnteds ‘eae eet 3 t eek
wre best tmess enw exter? sete aounenebad oat eedtoat tom biuow ytian
A anw soorde odd dastd anoiteswe ni monvosent rok odd oom of AAO ode
bentate oat tasit toni nat soning ‘este vd oe xo? Sind Udawe ‘on

wolstbace oft wend vie tone wxasgqe #1 desity mov? tanw tate A being |
Lis hte redesyot eonphive sth bebthane enw dnkse dae qtootde ‘Yo
penut, tt eroted eon ghrooes ult ah evometapunnhy ha t0e 04 0 st 7
og redhat anal ont monger YALO On? yet Shek wh BOOTHE ce yoy ail ;
genta Obasie Tratatake edd dade POOTKS, add oe Drones oct ak oqahhve
ne extn copeam “0d. 60-be mabsiod omnmatadn ade: Abdowatse -t |
oot use eaee ed an on dona cok & cece AN 4

qxotidtrines Yo wt dbup eam qeanoddslnge Beene m
edt tot cb th tats matnige etd mt bapog stank: ea pannel ve 49"
edt to eaungeiqon “cretudavanen: Re moasonny eae MOH! came of: yor
srigetehga® 2e.vhay .veas one Rovoonemetgan wat we. ibe aa. <itabale
“— aaah oMET OTE pearrrene 2 apcliie ror
|| Muatabatq ot vee Hoke motion sonnei gedaewe eth a
tasers, eagomad tte. wt te Laogee ott: vexabiny

the City of thiesge as » defendant was granted leove em April 28,
1883, to join in the easignment of errors filed by the defendant
Margaret Jenisth, shich wes agreed to by her, fhis sagignnent of
exversa by the defondant Morgerct Jonie@h was adewed by the dorgerctien
Soumeel and the City ‘tterney of the “ty ef Chicago, and by other:
perties to the suit, snd there ayoenrs abtecned te the reooerd the
City's joinder in the osulgnment of errere on behelf ef the oo
defendant, Sorgaret daniech,

On September 20, 19%’, the 2ity of Chiesgs saked for
deave to join nuns bre Supe se of Aprdl 98, 1224, im the aeaignment
of errors filed snd sope>ring in tse veoerd in thie prpeveds nite
Thig motion ig still sending.

Tae record sontelne not only the sscleneent of serrate
by Borgnret Jenieeh, one of tue defendents, but slee the joinder of
the city of UJhieage in the sesigneent of errers filed. The oreper
practice in this gesg, if the Jity ieeroperly joined in the essignaent
of errors, waa for the sleiutif?, wy mothen, {6 ccll the ottention ef
this court to the lmpreper preeedure, to whieh this court weuld give
due considerstion, but as it is, the igaues «re joinea uson the errere
assigned.

The motions pending will net be allewed, amd for the
réssone at<ted, the court has quagidersd the merits of the anceal.

Finding no error in the reeord whieh would justify a
revergel of the judgment, it ia affirued,

PUSGREAT AryIAaxs,

HALL, Pode S89 WILSON, 3. SueCu a,

8
86 Lixgs so svses botanne anew taabaeleabh o es eyaoddd ko id, ede
. saehesteh ont yd Baisi etowre te dapongdane ad? mh miot of ,eseL
| modgoxaqrad ost? yo homgin ean Mosinek tomegued daniuohod od? YW amewne
edd breoet odd of basneete puraqgs acodd hos gtiup ols of pekinxog
-oo edt to Tinded wo aterty te toemngiees ed? eh sebato, «'ytho
sipeinvh tatsyiok .fesbasted
"teh betas, eaendae Daten beh abh-aiiiie om tal
tasenpinns ose ak ,b58L ,8h Lingh to ae peep lingpeeneatete ina |
_ syadbeeeerg abd? al descor gat ml yalccogae bee bel exons Re
i gabe: Lidte wh eohgon onaY |
J yn os eeoste te troaugtons ay. ito tom eabesmne Weowst OMB onc fon
| Be sebatol edt vols tat .otacdastod edt te one ydeedank doregeal wt
_ geqong of? »DeLit exerre to dmomegdans edt md openidd to etee ade
tuemeytens o6? a2 bontot Yreqomand YD O62 kA yQeee eddd mh -eohtoarg
te Rodtuetss ott iLoo ot .ehdom ye ,Thidainig od} get sew yerorne to
| vag Sivow dues aid? delde of .esubeeeng togetamk ent of) ‘prwoo abde .
\ Brorne off aogyu heatel wry soueet edt yak Bh ey duel toddenpbhaneg enh ]
i it soln money q
ett.2it. die, deiantiniet ald aan i Cy a
_ eaaqqs ett Yo edhtom odt Davahiange esd tayon odd, shotote anaeoon 7
_ A Xbdtewt blues dolte roeet ot ms wOeES om BABE oc 5 boon iq
ee ee
sine “ g BHIET, = pea SP wee a, ies ee a teabie |

ae Sah aaa
ane a : ts eee price VM vA. MUN fy renee <2

;
*
i
1
{
;

NT 4 ax vain 2 ag wa “ets > RR” cap ake Sie I we gis

heir iat) ar oganmeneulal? hil ae Re ae ee

raed ae ments i sii 4 m

28711
SARLEL Of'GORROR,

;
Bg
:
f

HOWICIPAL pont
Ve

MARTIN AUTO PANTS OOMPARY, oF OHIO. 7

& gerporation, : 9 v4 4 T.A. ie 65 8

Appe@lLiant.
Opinion filed Maroh 14, 1934

BA, AGOTIC® WERE SELIVGReS THE CPIBTON GH Tak oot,

Tnie ia em so0esl by the defeniont frem «2 juiguent in
the eum of (238.95 in fever of the oleintiff entered in the Sunisipel
Court of Chié=ge in om seticn by the pleintifY acsinet the defendant
for damages to pleintiff's automobile. The ase ws tried by the
Sourt, without . jury.

fhe pisintiff in ode stetesent of cleia alleged, in sub-
stanos, that he wee the ewner of an suteugbile, which he waa dyiving
nherth on Ashiend avenue, in the City ef Chiesgn; that the defendant
was the owner of en automobile parked, without lights, an Ashland
Averue in the viainity of “once, chieh wa in vielation of the parking
ordinances of the ity of Ghiesss, ond thet se s result of the neglig-
ence of the defendant the sleintifft« oar was seuged te ron inte and
ageinat the automobile of the defenient, thereby dasmging olointi (fs

Cite
The defendsnt in ite =fiidevit of merits denies ownership,

possession or tontrel of the sutemebile sloaimed te be parked on
S@hlend Avene; denies the onrking of acid swtowobile, and denies nege

ligence,.
: it apvears from the evidence that on February 16, 1941,

img Xoseoe Street; that the tine of the accidemt we about € o'clock
Peep At was dark, and es the plaintiff aporesehed 3389 Seth aghiend
avenue nesr the northesst corner he passed a number of care oo rked

et sm angle with the ourb, and hie esr collided with 2 red vhich pre-

3 eee. a ns
pee
‘Gite.”
he

x diatroreom *

wotg geo r nrg”

i ged : yPereice: p ; si ips ate eee My eR Ogee ce 3 i Mt Rar rae J # i
pie ahr Yo votiirse ast exis amen gor Var

| ab tmomytut 2 mon? tusbasted ett yo soncit im df eae 9 OME
| ee ‘ott at bovetas Tstataly nd te ail ee sins to ore ont
oy + tite ‘vel

dus Ht {boys tle wtefo to gnecedare etn vue be
getty ih wow ed deity yolidemstie ax to thawe itt sia War ell alll
doeBnete ext Fett pounbtd® to YOLO wef ai pacoewh bast ope poner |
| COUR fie eatigkt intent ioe {Notes of Htomoa sti ite Ye tombe “SitF BT
= East itt Yo no tenteky kt tow ithe \voveol to whtntaty edt al Suilewl
ar, gityon sid to Hime & os deste bam ,opceid Yo GENO odd Yo epotentbie
| edie’ ea rie GF Beeuee ean Yee w*YELeNindy oud duenaeten Ot wie
avEaeadely paipemeh éores ytastente® wat Yai iibhdenipn ond deakags

i jubtespane.| oabeeh peti to tivebitta ate pr fina i a ee
i ao dedxeq of of homiele siisormague oat te Lowgeee. mo aoiaaseeoq 4
| > “son wolmeb bas ,elidomotar hiss te getters, oad, ils jauney basa .

Ny
FI)

_jrlosoregs .oummva banides ae dtroa ei tsoma re us «panei « ow Thidake

2
jected from « log used te jack uy the wreaked Linelon e«r, oma by
reeaen of eid Gelliision, plaintiff's esr was dawaged; thet the
aefendent's place of business was leented at that number om Aahlend
Avenue, end he wae engaped in a geners] automobile wrecking busines.
it sppears trom the evidenoe that during the eregrese of
the triai,the court entered on order mking an ante eoneern aging
Business under the anme of “Sedi Towing Gerviee, Ine.” en additionsl
perty defendant, which defendant filed ite sopearance and, at the
Clese of the heering, wou digmiesed aa « party to the litiection.

The following suestion is befere this court: Is there
evidenos guificient to sugtein the contention of the rleintiff thet
ownership of the ear in question w:8 in the defendant? Conerahd. p,
peastegion or control wae acde on isaue by the defendant in ite atti~
devit of merits. Upon this iewas, the evidenee relied wuoen by the
Plaintiff te esteblish ownership in the defendent was the fees thet
the automobile wag parked in the street 35 or 99 feet aauth af defend=
ant'e piace ef business. fhe defeniont, however, avsesred and dented
that the wrecked Lincoln gor wae owned by it, ot that it ever had
POSsSGsion or contre] of the suteasbile,.

fhe evidense uoen which the olsimtiff beses Abe contention

of eufficiensy of evidenne to exteblish ownerkaioc in the Acfendant
ia thias

"Ge Uhos@ gure were there parked diagounliy?
Ae Gare held by Kortin 4ute Parte Senuaywmany »®

Thies evidenee of the plaintiff is the only direct evidence
offered upon thie question. The defendant dented having any knowledge
ef the perked car, The evidence of the sheimtiff im the reeerd Le not
sufficient to establish ownership in the defendant, fhe faek that
Gar is parked in front ef a tuilding er clase of Dusiness dogs not in and
Of itself establish owusrshis in an aceupant of the building.

UPTO Ny ean

Dena Wau Solcat |

YW bas yes molonkd boioorw ods Qu vost of beow gel # moet Bexoet
ee? tat pdogameh sew ceo e'ttiraieky wolaliion bise to moaaen
baekdes ao vedmun tadt de betcoes aew seenteud To sald tideamnecnsine
sna sedemd gaidoers elidesotis Laveney a at Boysyato oom ‘pd Rae .oumer,
te xeorgete ong autrat fad? gomeb kee eit geet ateoyqe £2
guieb AMiced oft te Vr bios wHtie® no heretas tyooe edt yale? edt
Lanek¢ibba me “oat ,oolvso% gadwe? sboi* to oman oft vebay exonteud
add te has Cogetsegge ets DOOLEY tnsbgoheb Aoldu ,tachnsteh yhuaq
si@dtogasil att es vivax 9 wo Seesdmetd axe ,gakteed odf beanie
eredd ek ttrvoe ald? eyeted 22 sodtuenp gaivolte? ed? - a
tate Witalele od? Yo sodtastage wit akedeus of Ganzogrtun. none
etidexem Tasharteh off at ssw aoléneu ah nee od¢ Yo Cidgzemre
whthe eff 22 taadepted ett yd camel ae ode gow dopeuse to aolepeaneq
pit 4 mogy beiier seaphive oct youmms eit ao! yadheen |
iW hilt nds aht:ten tame ee eee manne
q =bavted Yo Mtwop sas OF no. 85 soothe ot ad Gaateg vow BLidometue oat
belmed bas hossegee gwverdd gtisbevtek edt .neaniand to, spats, pt fun q
pad nove th fedt xo tt yd beso. gow sxp alonaks, Daxoome edt te :
wainatonatin 8h Yo. sontnen we saletoge :
sokinednes aid seed tittately ess dotde gene OpMRbATe MOT
__ Masbate sat at qhitrene Aatidntee ot sommbive Ye “ontortign Yo :

se ae |
TyLlemagath bedree ovedt spew axes sod i ip it
Siete siesk cls aldo Ik ink ey ak Sed -

sonebive deexth vine wit ot YAdsntate ea? Yo vombeve abet
pba dtwost ae gakved belaoh sashasteb se sodden
fom 22 bros: out mi Ytsdaiele ott Yo heeanead alll i
| 8 tad got eat iowdaoieh ot at qbiterenes Maltas
‘as at tom ‘seek eesntnud to ‘enelg to lcd ts at
| se ah Sse

sig _ seni Llind oat te taqooes ‘ni a |

ree ee ee

a a

it avpeors from the record before thia eourt thet there
is a failure of evidence by the sleintif’ te setsblish emmershis,
posseaeicn or Goatrol of the wrecked cer in the defendent, and fer
that reagon it ees error for the court te enter judgment for the
plaintiff.
The judgaent la reverged and the couse remanded,
. SEVEASED ARO SRMSEDeD.

WALL, Fed ARG SL LSGh, gi GONE e,

te nreuete wee yeas wy Putt eee Coe Ae, eoehe ~~ nitabidy

Oe er titengbay ear ae ,
he soiree mney ORS sect be RRR we, ‘coal ce

Ge Re QEI ES QAR AE BORED DR DS -
etek. ewer ee mh OF. emcee oe
fase Peieekeds lt eee ee eee: 2 ore
girheiamarnt Pdiodevtek ach ah me BPO, nb 208
dg sed HENS GN, BO. Hak i NE ER:
Ae-wel schger Sake OREN LD, SR, MEN IN

fists ee eR ee ST DS EOE, EO
be Ca ai 1h: ion ty ee uu

een: ne. ea gH8k HR RH GG
cilia ee) ee a el ea ney io 8 |

Reo Oe ee eee Sate, oa eae ae 2, ES
ME Ses eis bs. hentia :
ii | pebteninee mad eomedt wunetaty it ei ane woe ——_

Saran th war ok keane ad RES

cere igi insolg wenn “Barer
ig gar atonnet? uae RH

| ter ae breve wee ‘a ‘st deudede eed “e
Loe pont watt gaan ale ab i

ay Eth ees

cs ton cont. gona bead es ‘oeate <0 BF a
* aha han h te pena ttg ae

Ne eae ee DS ass

: wi ue
fff ww es
a ris i P ogt

fg
F Ze #
36720 lf" 4
reer ae § say ie sian poo z or
ROBEAT UXMUTLGOR, /} read, wom t
3
:

Appellee, © .

MUNICIPAL GOURT =f
Ve :

OF GUIS AK.

; 4 yee 3
Agee LL wit e a v4 4 af othe ‘e) 5 8

Opinion filed March 14, 1934

CHARLES aUUOLER,

BS, FURTIC’ HEBEL ORLEVEMRD TE GPLALOR OF TER Gover.

Thie ie am sopesi by the defendent from s judgment entered
for the sisintiff in the Seniciool Court of Gndesge for the sam of
82
iseery note signed by the defencent, ¢-ted February 10, 1228, in the

OS. the onaa wag submitied for trisl, sithewt « jury, on 2 prom

evineive] eum of (1,005, seyable te the order of the olointiff, om

or befors three yeure after dote. “ubgecuentiy « sort onysent of

$100 was mde by the defeniant to the vlieintiff. The pleadings ere

not cuestioneg, and the defense is want of eeneiderstion by the

defendant in the exeeution af the note.

Yhe ferte are subetentioliy tact the sledintiffr wits eine

1 of the defeniant, » cresticiny stterney in Unicapge} thet the plaintiff
asked the defendent «hether be knew ehere the oledatiff sould invest
#1506, and the defendant advised him thet one Al 4. Selkind, whe
Seperated the Uoumercisl ‘ress, ints, degived to axke » iorn of Tisoo,
aad theresfter the loan wae ede by the pleintiff te Al galkinds
thet the defendant orepared the ocpere; that the cleintiff reeeived « ar
note fer 61500 Sr the loan, signed by the Comerginl fress, ine., Al
i. Salkind, Pres., doted donunry 9, 1925, due fifteen eonthe after
date, and paysble te the order ef the plaintiff, end in eddition, a
promissory note of the same date ond amount elened by 41 4. Selwind,
perecnally, aeoured by eclisteral @ensieting of the tock of the
Gommerciai Freas, ine. of the par voiue of (400; that the claintitf
Seposited the net amount of the lenn, §1909,eith the defeniant, whe
in turn paid te 41 4. Selkind this smount; thet the defendent aid

a ria:
Rt Behe ae ay ie 4

Te Se

ie patois
co eek eR

& Py ov CRE “Weis
ak. a - geigowme ananano
‘ga O.fal bY “a simestouas || VOL ali
| Ser The Weta elle eee OC Hheytae nal
| oTRUOD SRY to ROTATEG BAP WGAsvE2G Sh SOR TOUL one
) hexotas tromghet ¢ mect tanbavteh ett vf Leong me al efat
(Fo te edd TO? Ognoldd To trwod LeeRebitul One mE WERORALy ed
| “nor a ae gtrat o tuedtin ,icivd to? bertindwe cer seco ef 008
| od mk (SOUL OL Yrewndet Doteh tunrasted ete qd Domain oten Ytousd
g Me QWttontele sit te Tebvo sit oF oldeyer MOL? to were Leqdoatae
(Ye taemyey req # eUtroureedy® .atab vette exoey conte orored ~”

| gre apnthents oct .2Ttabasy sd? of tmabnoked edt ys oham sow COL)
‘ed? WW notterebignoe Yo thew ot esavte® ont bas shonottesns ton
soton oat to aeLtioexs ond ni teat .

tj tnoiio\gew titeledig ed¢ fost yLinltastedas ete weet edt : ue
| witatety ent toate fogevidd ak ynorotte yrlettoorm s eaners ted oat Yo é
| teewnd bivoo Tiitntese ott oxedw wend od vedteny taabaeted od? badee
| atte giatdafot JH LA emo teat mid beuteho tmebasted oft bas. 00a a
| 0082 Re meet » oixm of bottneh ,,00T ,eeert Intorenmod edt betatage —
‘| jhakdict £4 of Mitatele edt qh obew vow meal dt x ae

“rotte adtnos moss st ar vases e oss betab nent 4 son papel 5
& gfoddiods of bar .htaiedg ot te radee sdv et esdeyen, fam me te
battle? ee iA ve beagle tavomn bas oth sane ott te ‘ston Tees :

“ent Yo Moots ont 20 aetteienes: Lexstecion, bomuone q¥dieave

Pe
not reoeive = fee from cither party for the serviesa oerforued, and
thet there is evidenee thet the defendant verbcliy gueranteed the

iostis | F
it sleo tpeesrs thet upen aeturity ef the note, Selkind

or the Comercial Sresa, Ine. did aot pey tae principal ond interest
due to the plaintiff, but taat aubeequentiy and orier te the exeou~
tion of the note by the deveniant, the defeniont paid 220" to the
Pieintiff on secount of the “elikind lean,

The defenient cantenda that the alleged sromise te
guerantee the loan was net sn original Oremice, but « sellateral one,
and wes on undertaking to be responsible fer the defoult or aia-
carriage of another, snd aites in eupnert of thie esntention the aaa
ef Ve Subse, 269 ii. 870. This desision ia ney
kelpre in dispom@ing of the cuestion in this esse. The supreme Uourt
in its opinion en the suestion whether tae guaranty therein invelwed

wee % Collateral promlee, held tht te stend boek of 58 agreement

is to “stand cook ef ony obvligetion® ehieh the orincinal any incur

in 4 certain matter end is « gucranty soutrast, nat 2 eellateral
promise to be revengible for the debt of eHother, Other decleions

are oalled te aur attention aleng the esse line, This «ation is based
wpen the cremissery note in cuestion and BGG HPO A guaranty ef the
iean ts Selkind, fue aspesk invelves the “Bestion of songigeraticon
for the exeoution of the note.

Heving reoshed thie Geneiugien, we a7 case on te the
question of what, if any, considerstion induced the execution of the
note. From the fsete, it is Spperent that when the Golkind note was
not paid, the plaintiff oslied upon the defendant to aske ood
this defeult. The defendant upon demend af the plaintiff paid to him
#200 im different amounts te apply on eecount of the default in the
payment of the Salkind aste; thet uson the insistent demeznda of the
Plaintiff, and threat of « suit, the defendant signed the note, which

bas ,besnelag asolvies oft agt yetaq Tedtio monk 06% # evieoed,
edt bestnereny YLisdtev tachesteh edd todd onehive ot : ounae tat

bakdie® ,eton sat to yedrwten aoye dead? wreaagye one oF” aes
teoreta) bris Siege te att ess for bAf orl ,eawr'l Letegasned ‘eed te
~utoke adt Ot volta Dat ULbastpoadue toh tud Ytitadate ete od eed
ett of MERE hey Weeahuh adh SAR neted ate yo stom edt to wold
nel i " qntot Brbtiet ef9 Yo taoowh wo Yhttntata
‘ ” of belmony Beyerts sit doty ubadsaes daelineten ‘edt .
i atid Levetelion o ud yselwenq Lertgtvo ay fod enw wedd Gil oobieraeg
| “tha 40 thudteb oat tot sieisiodson $6 oF guateteétea a and hae
| gbed S48 “neltadtdos aide to Hog “gatio ben prodded porn
|| tem wf aoleioss iat 0668 xit 68 geal we xi ate
/ | ‘enbrqul edt .bax6 aids at no iSioue smd Ye! yer be
i pavioval aloveat yteseeg add veddade wo lines
tassesty© ae to deed baste of toad Ried .oaloon Stel
_ egh Yam Leg tontee est onde licihighag' we te > id nando
Eevbdelton « ten {oettiad ‘pdr ‘ye ek” ‘bai “‘g0dtea ‘nheteee ry as
“pndheioah vedio .xedtont ‘to faeb otf tet oiddenodoy od ‘oF ettnoti

i, bobhd et moitox eit? condi sade ond yaoke dabeneres tu “OH betes "de
od¢ to ¢umrewy 4 mbow don bch nolteedy at stem Yrodebmon? Gay Boas
mohtere tenon Yo nesteout kt cevtont: ‘Eheqen edt’ sessts of mot ig

ee een y tea
Sat tS ‘Sestuoexe oad Hooubnd ‘soltoribiteaos ante id 'te
aoe ‘bt00 Sabkthed"t ae seit bev net matte

is here in sontroversy. the rule ia well esteblished thet « scee=
promise of ® disputed eluia between partles is euffieient eanciderse
Sion to support = claim, or + act¢ exeouted in eettlesent therest,
There wis » dispute between the cleintiff ond the defendant in thi«
eae¢@ in regard to the defouit in the veyeent of the “slkind nete.

It wes insisted by the cledvtiff thet the defendont guaranteed the
paysent to the pleintiff. Thie fset was diaputed by the defendant,
aad upon denial of lisbility by the defendent, after cart payaent
wag medé by him, the pleintiff threstened suit. There ia no dispute
between the parties that the rule of lew is thet where there is «
bone fide dispute, the fact of the diasute ia auffieient eonsiderae
¥. jarvis, 79
Ill. 218, cited by the pleintiff, is somevhat snelozous, end the

tion for « settlement, The se6e ef a

degieion hag « material bearing on the e<se here on agveal, The
eourt in that eoae said:

"It ia net essentizl, te sustain the note, that it
be abaolutely certein apoeliants’ testeter es degeliy
iisble on the bond. The comsromice of « doubtful right,
though it afterwards turne out the right io on the ather
sice, «here there ia neither setusl ner constructive fraud,
amd the parties 2ot in good f<ith, with full knowledge of
the faets, is « eufficient ceneiderstion to supeort «. orate
ise. And it is, accordingly, ssid: "fhe real considerstion
which each party receives unier = eoupromise, belvg, not
the sacrifice of the right, but the settleaent of the dispute
ead the abandonaent of the claim it is no objection te the
velidity of the transaction, that the right was veeliy in
one of the parties only, ond thet the other o=¢ ne right
whatever, Yhe feet thet the ene easy heve hed neo elain, is
iumeterinl, if he was honestly wistuken as to hia clsim.?

i Chitty on Conts. (11 1m.%d.j note ‘me! und (1), po 4B,
And this ie the lew ag reeegnined by this eourt in BOL inley
ve. satking, 15 iil. 140, Sigewerth +. Goulter, 18 id, 794,
and Miller et 2] Ve Hawker, BO id. 128,

humerous Znglish ond Amerioon ezeee might be cited in
support of the princicle, mut we shell conelude vith « single
quetetion found in the reworks of Lord Bardwieke, in Stsnleton
Vv. Stapleton, 1 Atkyns, «t mp. 12. He #aid, following a
previous deelsaien ef Lerd wrealesfield; ‘in «mreement entered
inte upon * supcesition of «= ¥Yight, or of « doubtful right,
theugh it «fter comes out thot the right wes om the other
side, shall be binding, and the rient hell not prevsil sgeinet
the sgreement of the parties, fer the right suet siwsys be
Om the okéoside or the other, and tharefere the soapromise of
# doubtful right ie « sufficient found<tion ef an agreonent,'"

awoo # tril? bedehicates Ifew wt efor edt vevevortaee wk ened Bh
morebionos treltelttun ot nelieee moowted misln ‘beteqats is te ‘oetcora
steered? taomeitics at batyoone ston 2 xe wiiele s teogqwe of aos
edd? mt trobasted dt dar Midabedy pat opoveed etuqedh 9 gow, eredy
_ soto BablLad oct Yo Anewyeq oct wt shvateh od? of becges, ad. ono
Ont bsetqaneng taxhaatee got tart SRdtadsia odd ys detelenh, wey 9h
ctaebosteh ait ys beteysth gor ton% wtay. stRitadels 94g, of. tanmyag
dersaryng tur teste ,tnshasiad ont yd Wiitdak. to iednob woqy bas
stureth om et oredT tive homederrdd Wiwtely edt qukd yi Obom vow
8 ak ornit atede teat ot wad Yo elys Sah tent eobteog edt apmete
~steb Lemos taetoktiwe. wt ature ty edt fe that edt eos ere ke abt anos
GY siz -¥ $022 _sagnxeaoll de onge ne? |

tt peat eaten ed? aletess nae 3
el, eee veteshet St mk

* io

fe0a'F { & 2 thoggre af xo b GAOL hak, ‘ as 1B -* ze m ee i

| a Molitetebiares Leer ont ibize ae eign & al 23 ba

it . sega oaD ae Foot rt ogg Be dud Hy He ‘Yo SOiTivose oul

iy “st ot noitestdo om wt 4 3 te ‘3
I gi gore ty fe ead ged 8
éigin on bat tedto ont tant ‘ue eaitiog edt To.
ai ,atelo on > oved ‘Yen ono ait ’

yee “Sr ee gt af aH aoa fiona fm ieee

be ye
4

be at
ro dtin

Py moseigna® ats sont
|

4
The forbearence of the pisdatiff from suing the defendant

for eaynent of the money lounge’ by him te Orikind esa sauffielent son
sideration te gupsert the note exeented by the defendant. fhe seurt
ao held in the onae of lorter ve Sisigg, 192 1ii. 47%, where it was

aaids
"Soreover, in otapleten v. Stacie¢ton, 1 Atkyns, 12,
Lord Herdwieke seye: ‘in tae ease of Gann WV, Jann, it was
iaid down by Lore Yooclesfieid, that an csrerment entered inte
upon © guppo@ition of = right, ar ef s doubtful rigut, theugh
it often comes out thet the right «ee on the ether side,
shall be bindisg,' ete. ‘ind in BeRinley vw. ‘stkins, if fll.
i143, the court, in epecsking of this clase ef eetions eaid: '3+t
ig immaterial shether the sinintiff eould have resevered in
augh sation or act. if ke honestly supmesed taat he had a
good cruse of eeticn, the compromise of sueh right ess 2.
sufficient tonsicerstion te usceld ©» contract feirly ent«red
inte between the parties, irresvective af the question aa t6
who was in the right, ' The werd ‘suscese,' in the inatruce
tion, is used in the save senee thet "sunsesition’ end
‘eupposed® are ueed in theese casee, and, ve think, clearly
with og mich securncy. “¢ wast held this objeetion sles
untenable. eS
os + & F 2 B® BR HF
There wea, therefore, such = tieim on behslf of epsceliee
ag te lay « ressoncble cround for ise sece@llent asking the
promise. Huihcliand v. Sertieti, 74 tile G4; “ekiniey rv.
Watkine, supra. Amd the only cusetion to be settled vas,
whether the appelise henestiy suocesed or believed (using thease
words 2s convertible) thst he hed « cause of setion, and
whether the oremiasory note wes, in geod foith, given snd
aecepted se 4 gompromiae of thst eause ef setion. Mekinkky
Ve Satkines, supra; Sigarorth v. Uoulter, 18 Till. M4; Honeyaan

The esse before us woe desided by the trial esurt upen
% question of fact, which decision wea Based uncon the note im cuestion,

ond unleas the finding of the eourt «os agsinet the ax nifest weight of
the evidence thie sourt on apseci will net reverse the finding. In
finding for the plaintiff, the trial court did not err, for ite finding
ie justified by the evidence thet the note waa exeauted by the defend=
ant and supported by « sufficient sonsider=tione

For the reegsene exeresced Im this evinion the judimnent
is affirmed.

IQIGUTAT APTIREED,

HALL, Pade AG aL LGOR, He PERCU,

| tasbustet ods Balin moxt Witmdale ott Yo sonoxsedne? ont 7
| amos’ aeiokViue eow Boldlet of mid ed bonnet woe ‘eit te Peony tet
dives éat ,taabastod eds xa betueaes ‘pton ads troqaue at wokt: cebdi

Ct ae) >
uinw ti arode ate “iit for out “+ aadaiti Yo see eid at | tsa oe ;

ee ie

wes en EM ant rere grip aed af! te reyes 929 f beo Miia

a ee par gal gel sala hes “iol td mrt Bin mae

oe te ook he fia at a fm agen NB
it rien enoites ta mage

berevees: evad bLlune et Be santana ae iniestemni'st
ten at dest Be, ont

poqguee ylteaned of Pf. .tan to apktor stiwe .
a aow tdyiy doe to selmomanoo sae abites te seus booy
how tes yleaet to: boss of ced coat ane
ginal pa ag o Ov. i

moutt ad onnqe Daas ite “ oye
bas Teeitiostor? and earner ahi te ae ,

“oes abideeteo wlio bled teum ov emamer yogi 0
ee, a ote ee i die oil pee ee tone

bg eM “aie oe ‘tay

onlinuns ae Rinded, ae atae # wR gyi
fica tattoos al 4 " hiaddadlads faye
wee! Relation {86 oft a¥ wor bawvs «V Deed Lesidand

gear belstoe od of gol¢osur Road oid ba

omont a bevstiod se R
sepa he

snoiteni. at ofa: as ‘ogee bebo eee mole lose swaits

te tty hen, totes. ot tenkoas en feyen —
al

: sbastat: ed oo betuoons ow ‘stew ehinhe 01 <_

Wai 4g ie ae te
re ee ae 7 ee

ig
&
“essai enamine

ho. 36733
WILLIAM FELDMAN,

ayAT OF EPOOR TO 2"?

PRE WOWICTP AL copes f
#

Sefendent in Srrey,

ve
OF oHIcAGe, |

274 LA. 658t

Opinion filed March 14, 1934
BR, SUCTION BEVEL CRLAVEPEY TER OPINIOE OF THE COURT.

ALBERT PAUL 8EISS,
Plaintiff in trrer.

This eouce ie in thie court wen & «Pit of error

to review the record wherein “iliism feldmen is pledetifz and
élbert Poul “elise is the defendent. On dune 1, 1991, the esuse
wee ealled fer trick in the Municip«i Court ef Chiespo in the
absence of the defendant. 6 jury es: svorn end returned » ver=
@iet finding the ieaeues for the pisintifi and seswscing the
damages at $725, on which verdict judgment «s2 eatere® by the
court. The defendesnt sought to have the judgwent «hich ess en~
tered on June 1, 1931, veeete’,2nd filed e petition in euppert
of the defend nt's motion, “hich motion, om dumuery 19, 1232, wae
overruled by the court.

It appesre from the petition filed by the defendant that

the pleintiff filed hie euit on February 9, 1931; tast on FPebrucry

16, 1931, the 4efend=nt filed hie appesrance and affidavit of merits
and the omuse wae placed on the jury es'endar; thot en Mey 13,1931,
the esuse wis set for trisl by the Chicf Justice of ‘he Bunicips1
Court of Chicago, in the court room known =# 1112, June 1, 1921,
the csuse wae resohed for triel, «nd the defendemt heving falisd te
appear, judgment wee entered for the eleintiff,

It further spoeare that «hon the gexuce wae reached fer

qAYOO detlOlMuM aET Nec
2H Lhe ph 2x
Sap nase WW

i OS a Ba
ES ago co eSOER® Ua TEA
RAD ALE TS | ema, oe

“ peeL el forsK belit pakke: ss an + ae
. Ton 2uy. &O sigue ae salam sea matin. Coal
“noate Yo at a ey ton aiid af at esau att sit

Pht Na CL

ers brake ad asuAat clit atonede bnesos oad nalver ot

_ tawee od? 800 ft eal a9 ,tadtailieh a¢h oh aehow Aunt tredth
«wht mt ogedl@ Yo, #rw0d. Teqdokawt 285 fad tokte 30% bation sow

de « Deawdet ban atoes exe etal, x taban tiny b edt, Le gomeeds .

mit gaenecas Baw Plitetalg ons. TOR soueed ot gatbad t saeb

“bat Yd botedae ger fannie: ‘canind taki as ATH, fa segemed

te oe Motte daema! OFM ot Sih, : ea tas Boned eat . tue |

‘Frocque nl sabelibae 0 bohy a Ey outrt 20 boxes 4

wah PORE EL yreganh wp podgom apsd * Me ao teb q

ee a

tad? taxbasreb off yd DOLLY poststen ant weed OrveMNe AL 0 5
_Qtowedet ap tad? 7JEOL ,@ yrewade! ao thew as6 belt PEdakelg oft
giitee to Ptvabsite bas eoastcoqes ett best t tashae ted edt AECL GOL
(HEGEL You. we feet peobas vo ert set ae bodetg wbw onene eit bas

Logtotmet exe 2 sebtowl Yoato ot eo tate or the sea Saree te

EOL gf oaut 20 SILT ae nome moo Hues yoqnoti eed

ot berber gutved dxchicodes ot hinw’ touey OR hedenres

smnbeatolg edt x08 ncenknn ven 0

tot berosax son gauze ae wate taeda axrceqas tHe bret

oem
trial, neither the petitioner ner sis attorney wae notified
of the order of Mny 12, 1951, oy the Ghief Juetice of the Manietieot
Court, setting the cuce for tricl on dune 1, 1941, im Room 1112
ef the City Hall of Chiesgo, amd that the only metice the peti-
tioner hed that the cauee had been tried eae by service, on
duly 6, 1931, of the exeoution by the boiLiff ef the ‘amicinoel
Sourt; that the cetitioner ond “is etterney rere vitheat secli-
gence, end that the petitioner wae prevented from presenting
hie meritorious defense to the slaintiff's elein.

The plsintiif im hie st2tement of cleim slleges thet
he performed legal services in the execution of « les#e and other
egrecments between the jefendent snd sie brother Siehard &, ‘elea,
ehiech were prepered during Borch, 1929, and that the plointiff
appeared for the defendent before the Atterney Geners1 of the
State of Tliimoie, in rageré te Inheritenee Toves during June ond
Jaly, 1929, and that the plaintiff rendered legs] services in
gettlement of the matter of “chesmielek cgcsinst the defendant on
Ayguet 1, 1929, =nd thet by reason of said serviees there wes
due the plaintiff from the defend=nt $795,

As @ defense to thie setio:, the petitioner averse that
the servicer alleged te have been rendered in the oraparstion
® lesee and agreemente -etween the petitioner end bis brother
Richerd 4. ‘sles, vere renderet in connection with the Probate
Court proeecdings in the setter ef the fetate of Bertha hs Seles,
- decenged, and that the services befors the ittorney General were
likewise performed in connection with the prebating of seid eetate;
and the petiti@ner avers thet sfter anid estate wae probated, the
plaintiff requested « losn frow the defendent of $1,000 from the
funde of the satate, ond the petitioner, oreviowk te the elosing

ef the estate, ~equested the pleintiff te return this loen of

alle i ad
bektiton ane Youtetie atk. com tomotthteg edt todsiod eke?
Luqknkmek edt Yo goktewk tekdd edt qd fer AE yxu te ratte edt te
RELE moos mk ~f8@L ,f eavt no ole? cot ween act patter ,¢x00?
«iteq od¢ settom ulus oft todd bac ogeois Yo Lie ytt ‘edt to

ao polvres qd oae Bains deed bed enmag adt tadt cod teseit :
Toqhetmul od? Yo VLELGd. odd wt aoltvonxe oft Yo .f80r 0 ylet
~iiges mare xyy orate Youtetts ade baw memodtiton oft taat ¢daw0d
yattaoseze aca kph a aoe wonohstaeg: out sagt bee ,eoneg
miata g* ttntatals ed? of onae ten evoitetixvem aid

tadd negeiis abot te dunmnbate aie - ‘shaman ‘ea?
xedte has easel s Yo aokéwouxe off at seotvree Lagel eaatpeebes
,sabow .H tradelt reddowd att bao Paeactet St mmawted wenemeetys
Riwatelg odd fade hes OSCL dork gabewh herequeg aroW dati
adt Yo Levened qouTerts sit oroted tevcbas'teh edd tox botwegge
bas saul yedtuh sors eomterstal of brags « at cave sft Yo si 4
at aeedvren Leger borehaet Vettahite od? “tedd Ome OBOL tee
no tacka teh O49 fentoys Sefohanedy® to vetten dt to tabaoriien 4
Ase oved? sopde<se bine te aghast ee ther Kae jOs0T ft te sie
BANE tasbasteh ont ont vinta ot! ‘bed

it ba Derrwees>
tel? ateve tomohi fio off ,ookton aiar ot oneineal s mn

b notenxeqerg ont wh borebnet aesd Sead SF hogette donkeren ont
‘aedtord abd baa tenektited edt asewted ttaoaneras Sar boas

|
|
,
|
|
|
;

_ gear vA ndtt9@ Yo ofeted edt Yo woddow odd ab :

ated Lereacd yearotés ed? ateked aeotwres edt fadt aa seri

jodntoa dies te yottadote odt Mtkw wottooanon ar bomtdtted oat
edt ,bevadery one ofeten bine torte eae sills: “iia

odd mor’ 200,18 Yo shawna ft woth set + badesdpibe YHenltdly

gatsote edt ot auckverg eraaolsitog one baw .otagne, one te shaw

| mak alas austen of Tattadode se betueupe: eaten 888 Yo

@1,000, leoe euch eum ue wight be due the plaintiff fer services

performed ss ettcrney for the petitioner. Yhe frabate Court sere

mitted the pleintiff to retain the $1,0°° ss eowpeneation in full

Zor hie services se stteorney in the aetter ef waid eatete; thet

the servicee rendered in settlement ef the judgeent in the exe¢

of Sehwandelek agzinet your petitioner censiatei of the saying

off of & emaller ju¢ement in full by cheek.

it alse appenre from the petition thet by reimon of the

gongeeted condition of the jury exvlendar, « calendar woe orinted

every second year; thet the petitioner see informed thet seme

of the pending cases on the jury oslendar cere oe: Lled from time

te time by the Chief Justice ei the Mumicinsl Court, and during

one of euch calla, the cose wee set for trisl on dune 1, 1931;

that the petitiener incuired, through hin atterney, of one of the

Glezke of the Wunicipsl Court, prier to the entry of ssid judgment,

and was informed thot the next jury eciend«r would not be isened

until the £211 eeavon of 1931. Yoie eatior of the defendant <e

waeste the judgment in veetion ese sade se orevided for by Than.

37, “ec. 21 of the Mumniecipsi Cmurt Act. (Cehilil'e 111. “ev. “tate.
10512.) The motion te wee te the judvacnt #ae not ade until
q fovember 9, 1931, some wonths after the renditien ef the judcment
on dune 1, 1931. Geetion 71 orevides for the filing of « petition
in the mature ef 5 bill in eculity from which it awet evogor thet
there were equitable grounds for the weestics of the judgment, other-
Wise thet « eotion te vecete the judgment must be wade within thirty
aeye frou the dete of the rendition of the jucgeent. In a diecue-
sion of the fete, it should sepear thet the defendant wee diligent,

Me lin i ce gti te ES oe i _ a a

ané that no fraud, secident or misteke interfered with hie being
present at the trini ef his case,
The coint at iseue ie whether the defendent wee micled

wert

Pay eed ‘i;

AOOEVIOS TOT IWPiielo ea? avh od Mgde-e8 wee dows anal .500,56
-19q Pad? etoders edt 9sedsidag ode tol qeatette ae heerotweg
iigt as aeisaracquen 26 000,18 ed? gate: of Thitaandg edt bette

$id? petcdas Shea lo totem edt ad youtedts as veotries g2d.20%

onan @d¢ af daovgtul off to tromelitac mh boxehaer quadvres ode
gakyng G4? Yo hatebeuee tesehttene coee smatege dalohaoriak Yo
«oer vd Sig? 22 enengiat melisae 9 3¢ (Rte

od? 86 aoneet va tact aedshten oft wont eteegqe oskertEe prem -

Heialtg soe wokwslos 4 ~wwohaoLan GABt adh Yo acl sshaod betesgans

emer tudd- boutokad sie temeitiieq aft weae: “7rowy kaeses yrs.
emit mont befiew yr9e rabmelag bio ect ae pone “wathase adt to
gatteh bas »fx019° Leghodmws, aat io voltoy reid at bal ao
a if0@t af peut ae faked ror Fina! sae irks edt st leo sous De oe
ody 20. eng to reese tts ned kyuoras hoxtupak toaoititeg ¢ edt adit
tromyhut bios 0 yrtae eat of xoltg, tO Legh Laat ea wee nize “of

bowent od ton hivon tobeasoo enue, tree ses tae DomvoRat aow hi a

oe tasbaote ede to seaten abst “50E te momees ‘Tak 63 hi
063 wd x0 bebavoxq ast bem anu aos taen: st tasmadat, a obiosy

aged! ve £41 atELhdoo) .$04 #1090 ‘eqhocau ode Yo eee Ae
Litaw oben on enw taonabat ons at ov oa askven ‘ett a
teeegtyt ed? to senekhaon oat softe adtaow onve .te@r eo ca
“abkdhseq © to guLik? ett tod nohiverg Fi noktost. AECL yf cau ao
todd Sopeon deme Gh sete mer k a Ei <7 orp wih

rite.

Cer1Me abate Ghats wd onder Gemeniey Seite e makina ett one
“wvonts = at. dabaghbt edt to nertthney oy Re tab oat monk ash 4
{Hest ger taebae teh ent Font tasqus biveda 32 yatook oft ke.nade

ied als itiw boretesat otetate xe Inedgnee — mah ane

‘ Gi.

tind
by the etatemont of the clerk in he office of the Tlerk ef
the Munioipal Court thet no further chlendar of jury ences
woul be issued. The clerk testified te the fact that in
Wereh, 1931, uson incuiry,he stated te the defendant's
attorney thet there would be no jury oslendar until the f211
term. From the evidence of the witness it is net eleer whether
the clerk referred to the srinting of eslendare or the auce

penelon of the eall of fury cases,

shen the deZondant entered his sopecrance he alee
mode a demand for « jury, 5nd the ease wae then oleoed en the
next jury eslendar. The imewance of the jury onletidar was
amnounced in the Sumicioc! Court Record, a newspeper ef general
eireulation «mong the leeyora practicing in ~hieage, and the
oulendare were distributed on #oy 1, 1931. The ease in owection
wis troneferred from the eslendar on June 1, 1921, and see tried
hefere a jury in the absenee of the cefendent, end judgment wes
entered woon the verdict, ss e¢ heve already stated is thie
Qpinion.

The affidavit of the atterney for the deiendant wae filed
in support of defendant's motion, in whieh 4% is stated thet affient
inquired of one George Mofsrlane, she wee atetioned in the office of
the Chief Justi#e of the Hunicipsl “ours, snd he, afiient wap
informed by tee clerk thet there would be no jury calendars iseued
witil the foliew ng Geteber. Frow the record, nothing was done by
affient se the attorney for the defendont until Soveaher 8, 1951.
Bffienmt, in an s4ditienal effidevit steted thet he had not telked
with ReFerlane, but did talk «ith one Pewl Krahn, from chom he
reeeived information th<t no jury cxlen@der would be issued util the

folloving Ootobver.

dwice John J. lupe, one ef the judges of the ¥unicinal
Gourt ef Ghiesge, heard defondent's motion, oné he states in open

E OA Se me ay sk, OD, Be
os imOf9 eht Yo solthe ox me sore adt te tenauitsite odey
esmem put te wehaslée vadttuvl as seth Pune Ceqdoda

ah Onde Souk edt oF Box tEsens steko so? sbeuent thie

a dunbonted edt of beteds ef, etheras meow eer: Chall

£fe% ond Bima rete loe geet om ed Blows owed? sede qe !
gedtedw toelo gon ad % yeontin at to somebive sd aort ie

-mimt sit to amhaeien bo yattateg edt ot hoatetes deele ede

2 Fh AIM eee gene emi he |

Me FL

nie af sonetsence ead hexane tacbanted out wos pee |
eRe

add no bovela aud? aon wseo dt bas .ynut ‘fw Sacmod # sham

' son tebitolen yumt od? to oomawyed walt Tabane Yew xem
Inteneg Yo meqeqawen 4 iweeu true? fogbedanas ams ab 7 {
eat haw seaveid mt autobioate emyrst odt “mom: nose: ;

| ned enom: ah ove om .£08E ,f yaw x0 votudexeed over r baokeo

‘
nee samegherk baw Pasha as | ot eine serait — et wt ry rtoted
Bis? od beteee qhentle oved ox ee stonhsor ad? nogy bee eo

x4 HONEY act if
Rat a

beflt ese taabaoteh ody TORE
toekthe tedt besaea et oe dot | 4
Bo ookito ade at haw tote caw ode yomntustek oytoed end to Rentapah
Rew dae the od hae poewed Eaghetaee eae 40 eabawt beamed 4
bewesd areheolse ytut oo ed Shear wredd Ted dente ont et bameatal
46 saab cow yaiddomhuen0t od wert sxedeee? ga Meet hod ons cite
8G! ,9 todeseed Litas seedme ted otf tod qnatonee oat Oa tastthe
hodied tom had of tude Aototy devendTLs Kemoktiobhy me me eede wT
od sins woe moet Sued auo dite ise $28 aad jomerdetaw:
od? L2dnw home, ef Mow tadeelag yet om tect aebtanohit

Teqhotmm edt te toghwl ed? to eam Peed +b ates oprah
nas ok bodate ed bee soliton a deta bob pened Opon sat we >

w= Bee
gourt, after the judge and lawyers virited the chief dustice,
thet be @id not remewher ever telling Frakbnm there weckd be no
jury oslendsr until the foliewing Getoter, Out om the eowerory,
the Chief Justice stated thet there were Jury oslendars Leousd
4n ereh, Hay and dune, 1951, and thie wea e@mitted se © fact by
the Clerk, foul ©. Kreha.

The court nearad the evidence ond peered upon the aotion
toa vacate the judgment, and wnlees the exder entered Le ageinet
the eonifect weight of the evidence, thie court wonld not be
justified ia reversing the judgment of the tril COUT e

from the record, 1% doce not eppert thet teers ese diligence
eaxereiee’ by the attorney for the defendent, exept thet be relied
woon the elleged ataeemont of a clerk in tas affies ef the (Leth
of the Municipal Court. The evidenee of the clerk is contt:-
aseted, from the feet thet jury oclendare were iswned fer the
months indiested above, and jury oteee were heard in the Huni-
gipsl Gaurt of “hicsge during thet time.

The order of the court ia offirmec.
Orgy APY ERERS.

HALL, F. dq ABB RILGOR, J, CORCUR,

¢ x90 ne ns 7 a vA
on od bE.ew ered aiden patties reve = adaouox 4 tea 2 vids

seTOTeHOS ade ao oud etedorsd gatwoi Lod vais Ahbae cokiae Ls » aw Y
Beane d atnbaatee yout oxox ened fade hetate sontome 2 abs ade, 4
¢7 vost o ae * finetimhs nes aba bee Leer sce baa Nett aia! Me: Y

seek 9 ket

Sottcm ad? nose hondaq baw wombive ese erwin nana bill bint ey at 1
taukege of etnies sebeo ott onsitinw Ka samgliat side once ed”

ot #00 Sivow twee ekdd ,eommhive one te Sato tnpdtann eae
sttw00 Iota ad te tasambet cd antonever nk ott |

eamegilih wow ores fait xeagen dow ened ae Preset eae! son eer
okie os tett devers .daabnoted wdt tet roardeew sat ee :

A289 Odd to epttte at? at teeleow Yo dyomdody Bue

wee af axote ede te SeenB hee oat ° —

ies sea Oe staat ann 6 0 |
iguthediahaienionbohames! ’

He De NE ik ¥
Byes i ae yh) e 4 ‘4 a y}
SOMES, a name MS) ia” Moa 4
: \ re ie
ri ie 4 i Ai ‘ings
ey fe a wi Sean
‘a iy ie Mal i p
dye i Ree A
143 shine at i i" LA
ay Sy } he a pF
" vee i}
ry al ae bh -

37433

EVA GONBK, / ;
Tee SRL APE ag 4
Semplainent, :
Ve
} Pesos EPR a ahs 3
JULIUS A. POLIEOFF, es Trustee, et nl., }
DETOUR ESe ;
} Mets iy Pay wey ie

On Appesl of THY FIDELITY 400 Oo 2QALTY 78
GOEPAHY OF BR: YORK, 2 Fd

4 1.A. 659
Someliant.
Opinion filed March 14, 1934
MH. GUGTIOR HEEL BELIVESSO THE Gripice oF THE dows,
Thig setion ig in thie eourt uoon an interloecutery spo@el
from an order entered in the Suserior Geurt of Gock Gounty ucon
the setition of ¥, T, Sustin, = receiver heretofsere -apoeinted in
the above esust, in whith petition he orsyed that « restroining order
be entered restraining The Fidelity ond Oseusity Comoeny of Lee
Yerk from proseouting in the Bunicipol Soert of “hieexe ite then
pending suit sgednst the reseiver,.
The fete ere substentinily thet on Secember 31, 1981,
the compliaiuant filed «gainet the defendants her bill to foreclese
® #¢¢6ond mortgsge upen eertain oreaise: therein deaeribed. The
egurt spsointed F. 7. Justia «s reeeiver of the oremises, ond he
filed = receiver's tend in the sue of 919,000 vith The Fidelity
and Gaguslty Company of Hex York, «a surety. this bond eae «poreved
by the court. The reesivershin wes subsecuentiy extended te include

_& audit by the “hiesge Title é Truat Jeavany, ac Trustes, v. Byron <.

Giliens, et al. involving the forsoleewre of the first sortgere uren
the game premiecs, The sondition of the bond ia a= follews:

"Now, Therefore, if the enid Ff. fT. Sustin ah<1, doly apceunt
fer what shall come to hia hands or control ss eueh reeeiver,
and vay and spply the same from time to time as he way be
@ireeted by anid Gourt, ond ebey auch ordere ae seid Court
may make in reletions to acid truet, end in sali respects
faithfully discharge the duties of esid trust, then the above
—— to be void, otherwise tc remain in fall feree and
Be

ant

jAwsaa EMOTUOOIRATUL

sPontadegned
Too AoLeTaye wom OS SCRAP io em ah
sole 8% gontauet de” (TWONIAOT , en,
i Hobe?
SYrMuon 2000” | ee By vi

TRAUBAG, GHA vonage ant te te
. ey ae WO

y
ea AD b> eames aecagegena a

‘BCL AL dove beltt mobmtqo”
ETRE 8G MAIRID BNE MATE LOE ORETS OM
| keseed qotumakentnd ae.noqy fuen sit ah an fo kt ait sgh
| inoge yoo vooe Yo sxved ToxeRaul ag at dexotae wabao as > oni
i. Al hetatogqe \etelesoved tovieess & ate ¥ * 2e mottitoe +

tehto gabnhettaet 9 tent bevesq ed mittted mote nd Pere’ ovods wall
: OW Yo hem Yheneel dan YELLODL, OMT yutadonteen be
edt th epeokdd te two Legtahast edit ab gaa ma on
eTevisoo: oe tentage ¢iom
qdBOL (IE tednsced so teat elLobinatedwe see adeeteeT ol. 4
ancioerot of iLit to etaabavheh edt temkagr Dalit tagntnlqmon ot
as? .bediroesd agoxdt ootteeng adwmroo wens ethane al
of bas ,aseimerq ost Ro tevesbed db abtau! JT 60 Retatouge gemgo
Ytiiebsi ed? deity 000,00) to wen sat af booed a serionen & peste
‘bevers: ecw Bnod eld? .ytoume or pieet wel te piaqmed Yedewend bas
«ghufomt of bebaotxo YLinevpoedun cow qidetevieser ef? .teuen ae
4B mori .¥ gooteuet 26 oquegma® feu? 4 OLt2T eggedsl edt Wh time
foxy onepdvom textt edt to exueetpere? otf gaiviowal oko te yomeLtie
tevellet an el baod edd to molt ihage edt ,aeckaieng omne ont
*ovowoe YLub LLede witewd .¥ .t bien ade UF eee avon
,tevisoer dove ee Loxtooe to ehand ald | ot aneo

od yew of es omkd of omit :
ago biee aa erebto cous ee bao 4?

, afeoqeet Ile mi bme 4 ply ogy =
wvods ei? medt atowrt bise te sat
bas @ovet Lit at mhemon of oy dwradte

Ages

4% the tige ef the arpliestion fer the bond, the reeeiver
signed an epeliestion doted Jnnuery 4, 1952, shich sonteined a pre-
Vision to save The Fidelity smd Csauaity Gemseny ef few Yor’ horalega
and indewmify 1% fer smy ond «11 damege, lose or expence for which
it may become lisble. n or about Horch 29, 1905, Justin, as
receiver, filed hie Secort end Account «ith the court, secaunting fer
the receiot and expenditure of meneys in Sis bende mounting te
03,899.08. thereafter, the court entered an order on Jevtember 6,
1932, thet the sum in ‘ustin'’s hands, ea receiver, be raid in redue-
tion of the indebtedmess due the comelainent uoder the terme of the
deores entered in the cnae.

On September 19, 1955, Sustin filed with the court a
petition steting that ne, the receiver, wea unable te comply with the
order of September 6, 1922, veesuse ericor te the date of the entry
of this order he hed deposited the receiveresip funds with the
Gitisens State Sank of Vhiesgo, which bank wan olesed on Moy 25, 1953,
by the Suditor af Public secpunte of the state of Illinois, sad
offered to sasign to ive Uohen bis cisim «gsiest the benk for the sum
of $2,498.04, nd erayed for » solifiestion of the ordter of Sestesber
6 1932. ‘hie motion is «till vending and is not diseased of.

Sn Geteber 2, 10a, “satin filed = netitien in this seuee,
from which it eppesrs thet the sowoleinant “vs Uohen wee entitled te
the aum of °5,904.02, revrésenting seneys duc her by the teres of the
decree of foreclosure ani asic, which amount the receiver ves uneble = _
to psy on secount of the closing of the Citisens Stet« Gunk of Chieage.
fhe petition praye that = rule be entered on The fidelity ond Cosuelty
Goupany of New York te ahow cause why on order should not be entered
Gompeliing the surety company to pry “wa @ehen the sum of (2,884.02.

4 rule wae entered by the court, returnable on Ceteber 6, 1923,
Thereafter this rule wis eentinued severe] times, ond finally tne
Cause wae submitted to the sgurt s2 to whether, under the siroumst=nees,

«evens: ad? .baod edt sot dations Laue ode Yo omit edd es ——

-on # bantetacs dotde ,28CL ,) yrounel hoteb moRtmeing® 1 ‘=m + bomgte

eeeinnal droY wok to yasqual YtLewen bas ytsiene® edt evme of motely :
dois «Gt soneqxe to seed ,yugemad Lis hate wae rot ae “Yetanebat bas
ae gtiteut! ,s0eL ,GF core Pueie 4 a ssidadt snooed Yam 32

tot gabtgvecees ,teweo ef? MF be rasooot fan trognsi eid bolt atevi Oo%

gt apitayom, abneg ain me eyenen Yo wrt thueerte hae ‘tuleone ede

ag: redusdqe? te rabte a erste ewan oad ereslasred? 04068459

| mosbet at Bioy eah greene ha qitinah teehee! mi mre igbe tect o8eeL

sed ho eued ot tebax geantedgmen edt out tit annabetdobsi oa? Yo mold

| , seams aut al horodne soxanb

& tren edt ddim DALAY qbteud g6ECL 4@L odmedged Boys oo

ad? dttn Yiquae of ekduow gow revseoes ost ght Sault yattoea meas 80

_yttae add Yo ofeh od? of Boley nusded .OREL 2 tadmntqod te cebee

edt dtiin ghawt qlietevisory ot winks bed et sume |

<edgatee’ Xo ehao. ost Re ankteotsben 4 edt Brymee: pices! 2 4
sho Resogadb fon ad Rus gadiney fhnte ef wottem wel? saapond 2

yooure hdd mh wodedter 9 Peli nktent 280h 4S mlleseO mis fee
ot beksidae vow meted svt taanteiomoe edt deutt vena Hose wh q
arid te ered wid ys SOK out rence tlie vase tomume |

UtLeweed Ham yt Liebst Ait no beeen 06. okie: tebe ateuty ols.
berosno ed ton bloods robro an ‘Uw seueo wade of x07 wll Ye me
HO-dGRSH KO mow M Dnaesee see

Rae ee

the surety wae liable, and written briefs were filed ee the osrties
t@ this preceeding. ‘the sourt tock the eatter under aovi aeuent,
mud the question is stili undetermined,

Ca Jsnuary 25, 193%, » suit wee filed in the SunieinealL
Seurt of Chiesge on the receiver's bend exeouted by Ougtin and the
surety Comvany, @utitled, “Tne reorle ef the State of fiiineia for
the use of Eve Cohen, agsinst The fidelity ond Casualty demsoany ef
lew York.* The atatexent filed by the claintis? “ileges the faets
appesring in the reeard, which «re herein set forth. the defendant
surety sompeny flied on «ffidewit of merits alleging non~Liability
under the bond, on the ground thet the vreeeiver had ceeesited the
regéeivership funds with the bank, met in his individuel eapecity,
tut in hie sapselty ae reeeiver, and thet the reoeiver's failure te
pay was due to the ineslweney of the wenk.

On May &, 1925, on motion of the oleintif’, wa Gehen, the
surety soaseany !s ASEREAYEN 02 Meehhe wae stricken, The Fidelity and
Vasunity Comoany of few York/to stand by ite sffidevit ef merits, ond
on Mey 17, 1USs, the defendant surety Comuany wee defaulted, and
judgment wae entered seainet i¢ Gh slsintiff's sffidewit of claim fer
$2,584.37. ‘his judgment wae settled by the defendant surety cossany
for 1,855.

On Cetober 2, 1933, The Fidelity and Cs@ualty Geanany of
Sew York filed a quit in the Municinsl Seurt of Shissge, sesinet
¥. Te “uatin to recover the less wusteined by the oleintiff as surety
on “ugtin's bond, and on Octeber So, 1933, Sustin filled = vetition
in the Superior Court of dock vounty, preying th<t fae Pidelity ond
Caguaity Company of New York be restrained from preseeuting seid #uit
agoingt Ouetin.

From the feets set forth in the petition filed by Dustin

q it sppecre, aubstantisliy, thet the surety coupany’s euit ageinet
Bustin is upen an slleged contract @f indesgnity given by Sustin et

ot node, ay, _Mugmbade | oat, te nokton Ho MRE Qe you 0 Dine ite i
| a, wetted! ad? erode knse wee ng 2s divebsthe eb 08 b se
ban 280 Emm. ta tiabstte aol x baote reaNaer wea ‘te yen Le 5H BN)

‘geet

i mn ~ red, rossi va ai, aise - '-

¢
&
_pebines edt yd belit exon ataird aettian bas sodas Row oe oat
staonenivhe sobs 107 8am add te03 Pryyo ed? -gatbeovor stds As
1, if

ii sen tart ebew iit. et neitaoup oat ‘baa
prairie adt ai beltt eaw the a tend tt ernment a0 oe mg
edt bas ads aut w hgawoare baed orev tenet wa ¢ ead eqeond te > tue
“moh etombLit to stose ont Yo sigees ett bods ita ‘sWeonee viene
Yo yuacmed xttawee? tae yee boned ont temtny > enw eM

gtoot odd sopeiic Ttitaaady edt ys best tgesdete et tom

eaiedien panera ative 10 > tvsbants Lad » beLet y YaaqHOs, | i
edt botiveqe! bad rovieost aid dealt pawory ode BO bapa Se
aXtterges, Leubivibal okt at ton etsed gett, eal ebnart qidesov lone

wh oustiel a! tevienes oad aie be atovinwet ay Wivoges okd as gh gud

ae a ay fe ey

ei: a , _ shed ost te yoanyioasl od? of of Bat!

baw antiereh, acm aoe worse snsbavted Cad fori : Ey} pps °

Jheatane aapnnks® te gewed Lg as its at the 8 ;
e wr *3tEsete ant vt beaatome ones. ait x070007

bate whee oe ‘tne ae a

Wa p, He ae ane ae

ade aN ye he

ta, abteus wf avis wh sigh me A EE 3

&
the time of his applisation for the reetiver's bond; thet the surety

company ¢lelas Jemogee from Uuetin for meneys poid te the helder
of the senond mortence, st whose ilastenes “ustin 28 appointed reeeie~
er of the vurocerty in question; that the weneys due the eid agolder
of the second wortgige «re on deposlt wits the “itivens @tate dank
of Ghiesge; thet said bank wna clesec oy the suditer af Public
Accounts of the itate of Lliidnoia, «nd that oid famds sre net now
available ond wil not be until the senete of goid Donk are liquidated,
the Fidelity and Ossunlty Jompany of New York filed ite
verified anewer, cad on Jemuary 4, 1994, the court entered an order
reatraining the gurety company from oresecuting the esuse sending in
the Municipel Court of “hicrge ageinet f. Tt. distin.

the law ie ei] settled thet if « aurety hes ouffered
a logs by resson of ite guretyahip, the aurety le entitled te have
the principal named in the bond mke good the logs. The surety
eomcany in this eage paid 91,860 by reagon of the feliure of Sustin
te pey the acmitted amount in the honde of the receiver to Sve Cohen,
and the surety sompeny 44d not sey the 91,850 until Bve Gohen filed
& guilt againat the surety eompeny snd tebe blish the eaount due end
judgwent wee entered for $2,498.04, ond the surety eompany by compro-
wise settled thie julgment fer (1,850.

The petition filed by Juetin dees not oharge foete which
would warrant the gronting of equiteple relief by the court, and the
eourt erroneously entered the restraining order vreventing the surety
company from preseouting iis suit in the Cunigipal Sourt ayoinat
Quetin, whe, se receiver, simitted thot he oollected the ameunt in
question. The petition dees not stste feota whieh are « defense te
this sotion in the Municipsl Gourt, and the petition is utterly devoid
of any quitsble grounds thet would justify the entry of « reetraining
order, The receiver «ssusee that the eurety ¢ompany wae « sarty te

. >
Users edt todd ~huod evovivesr aiff tet vobtenttegn cit ‘i “ie
i eobLow ede of Dang eynton Tot atten mor? segment amtato yoeqmos
myhener hetaiougn exw aljas! somstert stodw gm yegenetom haobes bad Ye
eon Ddew Whe end. wypaoM set Tame yHoLtenws RE YtEQeRG odt te to
Kee OteIh eawettlo eed cede Pheogsh ay ore opey teow baoven’ ot Yo
| phidv to nodthws ost ye beselo wey sme bine totl® poyroddd Ye
H ea Feet wa: eheah: hiat Se tall (aE ah SNORE SF I Sa
| .betebhupli oxa xand bisw Ye eteres sit Lita bo tom ELA bas vii
iy eet BOLO strat... Yo yeegael yievenk bar yriTohit ont i BOR I
PebkO ah Leretae gauee et ,SSCL yd Yewmrt wo her sore taster
sec hunccondbagpaeoa gaituoezorg mort yetoqmen qarwe od? gabaher
COL ytiboentt WP. tetttege o_eokdY be gemed Lee debnis
\peeetive eed Yroree ¢ 22 tents besetse Liew at wet oft
ovad of besthine at yYWerme ont .careyteebe WE te nobeor ets
_Gorue edt spook of? bony ‘iat tithe At sie Za hpettng: at
iin ‘$a tinh WU43" hae eae Nine Wa ET ee
Seciod’ PR’ od ciebeebe’ cite neki bth Ll’ Paadinn bus bthhl hal’ lad
DOLE mastod avi Lidan 686,8 odd you Me BRE Yoaumcs Ghote eA? bae 4
‘hits sib taaerks odd Wettéadae hhe! Yatmos yon at Feiligi sedi j
aerqnes yd Yasomos yest ons had ,OOSRRLSE RET Horotae aoe Htomgdas
<088, 48 xot smomyoy, etd netihies oie 7
Moldy afoot Sguado son c00b ahtat Yo holst woliiter edt ii
ond han yitwen oct yd Yoder oidutiugs 16 gektawrg edt ha cacelrge a
YsoIwe Off gaddasvors tebto palntortest ead HovowAd Ustos !
tantege terme? Leqtogns edt at thie ets guntetonery aie
tk tuidome dt botoeliee od todd hodtiabs ytevidwwr os ote siti :
ob ennateh 6 eth doin ashok eteta tom a6eb meteLIed ad?” .dodtebup
hieveh ylvetén eh sokdiveg oft bas teed Seq botawt vaplaod sitee'e
wennlentont # te apiece anne ic: - ow eet wor) &

ie not «= fact, exeect thet the surety wae celled inte the tuperier
Gourt woon sotion of the receiver for « restraining order, and the
theory of the receiver that » court of equity bovine jurisdiction of
a sauee has the power to grent euch aneiliary or incidents] relief
ae would be necesyery te de teaplete justice between the v= rties,
dees not apply in this proceeding.

In this ease the regeiver ocmitted by hie seseunting the
amount due and thet he esa unable to poy te the complainant in the
original exes the amount te be noid oy order of court, for the reasen
thet the amqunt was deyogited in an ingeivent back. The surety
Company on the reeeiver's bond weg required te meke good the default

ef the reoeiver, os ssere set forth, ond although the surety company

Gove notice to the receiver of the setion of the court, the receiver
took ne steps to protest oie rights, ar te serfeet en acpeal from
the judgment entered for the @unlsinent Sve Cohen in the creceeding
inetituted by her in the Municipal dourt.

Yor the revgena indiented in eur opinion, the order
restraining fhe Fidelity sad oO csuelty ceacany of Kew York from
prosecuting ite suit in the Hunieinel Court of “niesge sgainet F. fT.
Dustin, is reversed,

CAVER MEVEREEO.

&
aif .Dotuleges eew TevESS6e of? MOidw at yegetbovong Sankgate at
wotreqe! odd otmt belinn enw ylouws eae todt sqenee ytoat 6 Pomes
~- $h$ bat gredto griniotdeot « «ot vovisoe?e ed? te nekeom aogs seu60
to mehtokbelcwt grtved yeione Yo devod FAY aHRLedee GHD Te yest
YoLion Lotesbisal xo yteliions dowe siovg oF yewey Od ait onNhD
~eoheray od adeetad Seliae) SIelqno® of et Preenenet Of SlwOW he
yt syakoeeoeny etd? si Yeas tom wbed
(3 et gakinaoon ahi ys bertiges wovioved ent ean what ME 666
tiie ak Paankalques oct ot Yor ws idan ney ed teat hes euh tevoms
(| Yeenwe od salned tepvlosad a mi Rotkooqeh wow sawn edd dade
siueteb edd boos totem af Hortepet eew bacd etvevierst edt ae opmeqeee
Wrsqaee Ytotwa oct dyvedtle bus ,derot doe genes ae geevionet on? to

yeviepor ¢d¢ gftmeo edt to motior edd te-mevieest O92 enkton ee 7

woxt fneqca ae goetred of te etsy te als tondoxs ot aqeta én 0st

setae eat at ante een emi NNR: ann |

pepatneenenrinediantb cours

Seth,

| tobe en? yrokatgo two ni botnothat eieaewe ade met

max? 2roY wor Yo Yass yYeLeweet Bae YPRIOLET ott

“pf sR tarttage oganwt Ye Praof pengayisicniis tive ot gettvonen q

mt Wel

rf ig Res aad Dae Ae al

OR , et wee. Pee re

go) aR att a. aes oe

eideak Melero eae 7. pha %, ‘ity Piss, wee

4s qiewan ytedon Go fede Beat rete aR

mie Fs ct aa RRR, iad etaow 4
tse oh quence ames aaa 4

A Bi bi zy Yo See a ig haar sh i ane Ca ae aaa, eee re peste i

257 3 ty
a Hite “et Geto ied Gh Poult Sree lila Oe Tae wis bo BS

7
4
:
4
:
‘
%

36691
ANTON TISGROIE,
(Piadntiff) Agpeliee,

GAGE PAS BUILOISG LOA ARD Ge GHDW Ae
HOMESTEAD ASCGUTATIUN, » Uerrey

: 2
(Sefendant) Awotiiont. e i k He oA. 6 5 y)

Opinion filed Mareh 14, 1934

MA. JUSTICE 8ILSGR DELIVRSES THE OFINTOR OF THE SOURT.

Fleintiff secured « judgzent in the tunieipsl Court in
the ssiount of €2,546 against the defendent fer the wrongful conversion
of a trust dead, prineipsl nete and other egunested papers. The
aetion eas originally eve for replevin.

Frew the fects it «opeera that the “age Park Suilding
hosn and Homestesd Association, & copporstion, exgenized under the
Wuilding Loan and Momesteed tet ef the State of Illineie had in ite
employ one Joserh Tomnin, whe wns alao the elected seeretary for the
Corooretion. The offices of the sorporstien Gonesiated of one reem which
was elso ootupled by the secretary she spnears te have been the only
officer in e¢harge of «and present =t the offices of the company.

4% & Teguler secting of the besrd of directers of the
defendant corporation on suguet 1%, igfs, the beard suthorized the
purchase of whet ie known as the Suguet Soltes lean on eertein preperty
leented in Chicago, “his lean smounted te (2500, for whieh the
defendant issued its sheck, paynble to the order of “ngust oeltes and
delivered it to him et the time he endoracd the note in question. The
trust deed wee Gsted duiy 56, 1233, by which Seltes, a widower, in
Goneideration of (2200 te deseoh fomoia, trustes, somveyed certain
described real estatecte secure thie note tegether with six interest
coupons of (69 ech.

When thetrust deed wor produeed at the trie] it bere on
on its baek the rubber stemp notetion in red ink, “Gage Perk Budiding

WOT AL Min

Pe way

neiios JASIO Tete

» w@GAOTRO tO OB BAK ORLA MBAs
eons’ © g@0(T6100284 GAATORMOR

ea ut 2 Vo} -Sia eee

— peeL BL doweM beLlit fo aq

« TRUOU amt 0 wosnee ET canavnise nowLIS aorreut ik
7 “ath trod Lagivimss edt ad tasiesbut, | e boru0se Mibtatelt me er
i nolerorce Lutgnorw od? not tmahest ob ae doabeye biound to favems :
| ‘F ouneqag bevoanaee radte hae ston Keg bonds “ebe0d tua sph * Ms
} sadvaieen sot oe Wilonigive eo $
‘paki Aret en edt tone exaoege te stent add mont,
ode ‘soba beataayte wiodt -nogeoe ¢ eoitnsogees | beoveamal bee

oik & iy GD: oe hot ol

ath ai bed shomiiit to ota98 ads to Bh boutenectt das aod aR Etat
| oat ‘ot vestoro98 betnete ont oske aew ‘ocr vsone? seneeh eno yom”
‘delda moot eno %o Satsianos nota sroctes ont ‘te aenitte eat . rat ore 199°
ne edt miod ead at exnmuge ony wegeroes ont « datqueea ie aa
Taegan eat te aseltte oat $s sapnerg “hae te eotailo ad as
oni? to wrofostth to dened ald ‘te pubtoen relegot 2 ts
edt Bosivoctas brood ode ,€80 22 temgut oo oboe ee .f rane :
| Wreqote aistreo ae aeol aetie® teugud od? os muon ‘at ade Yo ae

edt doidw cok ,OOSS! of Soca eae nae oye heO mk

lean and Homestead Aase@iation.” ‘he principel acte iteelf contained
the not«tion, “Peysent of this note ia semurei by truat deed of even
date to Joseph 7. Tomelat. On the beck of the note wag the same |
rubber stanp notation siresdy referred to.

The check in cuestion wae enderged by Coltes, eashed by
the Sepesiters Gtate¢ Sank and cherged te defendant's secount. The
proceeds were used by Goltes in oaying for « previously exieting
mortgage on the same oreperty.

in sddition te acting ss seeretery of the defendant,
Tommla wan operating a reol estete end mortgece isan Gusiness of hig
own on the premises end operated end rented « nuaber of safety deposit
boxes, “here ia evidence in the reeerd te the effeet thet plaintirr
had been sequainted with fomein for seversi yeers snc hed bought other
mortgages from hia. in the jatter pert of duue, 1951, olaintiff met
fomals at the Sepesitore Site Hank by prearrengewent and withdrer
S300 from bie secount whies he exve te Towels end received therefor
the trust deed ond notes in cucation. The tee then srueseeded te
Towsla's office where cisintifi curcheeed » safety iesosit bex in
which he then plesed the papers. (n or shout the aiddle of Februsry,
1932, plaintiff went to Tomale's office, which «<6 alse the office
ef the Gage fark Suilding Lown ond Yomestesd Association and teok out

the trust deed end noteg ond gave them to Tomala, ae trustes, for the
purpose of hoving 2 foreclosure suit started »gninat the oreperty.
While the trust decd rune te Tomalso, a9 trustee, the note iteelf wae
payable to the maker anc by him enderced im Blank and orevided thet
payments from te tise vere te be aede at the office of the legal helder,
At the time the plaintiff geve the nate «nd the truet deed
to Tomales for the purpese of having foreclosure proneedings started, he
received from him » receiot vhich ateted that the note and trust deed
were reogived by him from the slaintiff fer the sole and enly purpese
ef such foreclosure proeeedings, frior to thie fommla hed already
Sellected one of the interest coupen netes and ad psid the preceeds

Dealatmes tieati ofom Lectontxg ofl *.xottstoones basteomell dus ames
move Yo hook tautt yo berwder oi ston wld? Yo summyet™ stoltetom oat
oube edt paw ston ont to fond edt a0 .Metemot a deb ot oteb
oot hirresker yhoorta weltaten qaede asdders

- yd Sadeso hori yd herroiae pew ankromy at aporo ost
ae stayopoe a' tantasteb ot bey ade bie aed ‘ssete wtetinagee eat
* Spalteans Wdvetvord * <6? quiver at sothot yt beow otew ebescorg
roi CCL LY 20 TOS tener ones alt oO Oyayirem

gtuahmsteh aad to geatereon oe gatteon ot sedeiibe at

eht to eteakaud neol egngties bee erates Loon # gaatareqo sew alamoT
| gheeqed yseten to coda 6 betaer dae bererage han eoutmong edd momen
UWedndele Feds therre ete of Prosser OM al emebive at ovat! -.9omed
cate tigued bot bas ersey Lerevee ae? skews? agix betataupes: neod’ had
fom Rtheniniy .[80L oan to trey wetted eat -m2 .ote wott ovgeutron

oe a

werbitiv baw ¢asuagerricore YW dank sack qrotivege? ext tx sLamet
wien tenet! ka: ial Wt: Urea ak SR NRCS SA RR ND :

“ee Debesoone ede ovr est wnotteows at wegen Ba boob taunt eit

gk xbd timeced yovtan o deenstoney Tt eakeke wredw bodtto ated

“erauaee Yo abhhibs: bat Puede “ca a0 etm ee Renny wet oot dee
ate R Re eit Onle now sOLitw Qholtto etateaet ef taaw Weetededy {over
two toot baw nolteiosesd bestankol hen amel gwbbhtws Sexi oged edt Yo
ei To ysetourd ou qriomol of madi ovng then eten bax hook teuet ot
“WXeueqord oY fondegs hotaede dle onwaetaene? o gakvait Yo eseqEEq
vow Wheott wom ane .eedautd ve yodaws® of ees boob teurnt ott othe

ee re

ever to the plaintifi. Sometime in april, 1952, Towals disappeared
and gle private business wos closed. The trust deed and netes

were found by the stote examiner in March or Aprll,1992, smeng the
aasete of the Suilding and Loon Agsoe@istion. The state bank examiner
testified thet chen he wie tie exeminetion of the assests of the
defendant somgany fomaia srezented these papera 2a nanete of that
agasogiation.

it is defendent's ewntention thet the trust deed and
notes were at no time the property of female amd thet he fraudulently
converted them to bis oem use et the time ef the sele ta the plaine
tiff and therefore the sisintiff wes net = bone fide ourehaser for
vaiue; thet the plaintiff «leo hed motiece that Tommie 2s net the emer
bpeoouge ef the rubber stuap endorsement in red ink ween the pepera
end the fact thet Tomain wea newed ca trustee in the truest deed.

The plaintiff testified on direst examination that all
the cavers were in the sem@ condition when predueed «6 the trial as
they were at the tine he wureh«wed thes. In rebuttal, hesever, he
testified that they were the aece exegot that the rubser steap
hetetion #96 not on the doqusents. This begame « controverted question
ef fact.

in sucpert of the propesition that the trust dead shored
on ita face thet Tomales wee the trustee named therein, counsel eite

foliifeen v. widdie

Hegel, 334 121. 96,

Im the onse of feliifeen vy. Middle States Investaent

Supra, while it held thet euch faete should place the ourehseer upon
notice, neverthelecs, it sleo held that thie was 2 question of fact
for the Gensiderstion of the tris] seurt er the jury in the event
the onse ess tried by = jury.

In the cose of Ovens

Ve Soge@l, gupta, there wae a directed
verdiot in the trial court in favor of the defendant in errer and the

bexeoqqeelh sical .6hGs ,firgh ai euldmtes .Yiidadels eft ot gaye,
eetos, bas boph denst od? . .boveto seu aptohewd etevigg eid bam,
oft gaome .S8CL ings to AprAK af wimheore ante edt yo Bawot oxen.
tentmexe das ofet— si? .totiainose aead doe yothiint ad? Yo atecas
ed? toe eteeas ef? to sodteahunxe atc abe el most test Bestee
fodt Yo gd@ers ve erence seed? botaescag slang? yaammoe Inahaeted,
. ; e | sae ; tii stg htehoones,
bina boab fect aut tone postentnas, atenabagned ne. i
UsaeLshuert oH tot bas ates? Ro. Wagons Ait omit ox te. oxan emda,
_ metaka, 040 of alee edd Lo salt ode to oom so. ahd of meat Ber
rok teepdorey BRE sued. * san now Thsimtade odd guotersdd bas at,
mo edt gon sow siaoel tedd voiton bad ools ttitalalg oat todd joudey.
oy att soqu Aat bey ai sagoeereese. pli

- anes ’

sa idatha at utili os ag bea
ne kal"tattt.dn. noes. ade “ethene el
od gtovewod. .lestiniot al .weds benodorsy ad Oat edd to 9598, NOM
nate cation o8t. taht SORES, SOR, AER: SRS AE AN |

a ee i SRA AE: Os ss aes oi

fp entionpiors paar toa. tase nw Leocona wie tN he ee
steiner astoth Natt SON RA OAT
sh seeeden 48 ebb cable eal yale sonal
en ineetaairs se ens ite one et A 8

@nuse wee reversed innemugh as the note mis oayeble te the trustee end
ae endorsed, und thig 720 « warning te the defemlant in errer. That
therefore the Gourt erred in direeting = Werdiet. The Supreme court
im effeet seld tact thie was 5 cueetion of fact whieh sheuld heve
been submitted te the jury.

The trisi ¢ourt in the ¢see st ber held 2s 9% proposition
of law thet “if plaintiff at the tise be semuired anid trust deed nete
and aecompanying pacers from Tosasla bad notice, either frem the note
iteelf or any of the atcomecnying papers, «f ony feet indicating that
the owmnerehip ef azid note sag in Gage “ark Buliding ond Loan Assoeiae~
tion, then the plaintiff did not then and there become on owner in
aut Gourse.* This wie = Gorreet crevesition of inw ond evidenced
the fact that the triei court took thie question inte considerstion
in srriving st ite finding.

On the other hand i$ cannet be guid that the defendant
Company wat Sutirely «itheut feult in the trenesetion. It sutherized
and directed Temala, its eseretecy, to segotiate the losn te Seltes
and to take the trust deed in sie own mane as trustes. ‘The orineipal
and soupon notes were aside payable to the asker ond endersed in blank,
and sonteined no reference to the trust deed. Fisintiff held the doeu-
ments in tis own voesession in hie aafety deposit bex for a considereble
period of tias, during which s¢ salleeted ane of the saupon notes.

Any eudit by the defendant eomseny wight beve diselesed the true
situction awd the plaintiff aight heve been able te heve =rotected
himself agoinat fomsla.

The seoretary of * Building and Lean Aasogiction, is ite
agent through whem the corper:tion ordinarily eoaeuniestes te the
public. “hinkle v. Knoll, 0? Il. Amps 274; Prairie tate Loan Agen

~+Sorrae, 167 lid. 414, If the plaintiff in thia case hed seucht te
make inquiries in regard to the oenerahin ef the trust deed ond note,

he would neturally heve mde guch inquiries of the seeretery whe ms

(.
ae
i hat @odnurd 02 $2 SLanyey eew ator odd ee Hemeent bewrever baw obeRe

ted? torte ni tashasteb of? of gateres » cow abet hak Shewebie Ge

feioo astro! sHT .telovev 2 yedtoorl> it bores drmod sae Ho betent

, “Wvhit tied sts ee Hireapliedinannengivageduanonselbesssebse sph: |

| woke eoqbtg & bb DRed ted te ones UAE it marneennnes peniea

i, eton heab fautt Sine betiueed et omfe ede ox Thidalaig YA Seah wee 6

atom bet MOeY Yousts ,eotvon bad alamot wort wrested gakyneqedon ban

| Padi gabdo kerk Fiek Ye to <erormy gab yieeaninds ott Yo Ye 40 tee

| watiiovta aBot tne yukhttet a opie ak ety otek Bins te YhkeeeRNe Me

. ndbcenialanenndiensdiabeadcninadbocnmmuadeeeivavedinces |
heoustive has whl Yo soltineverd seeeneo © Ber eldt % eeu |

sateidahaniseanel ‘otar a wkae tit wend hound ue tt th

Sich Mlle“ kk Wi Wit WE nd Sle, ie)
bextreddus #% .noltornmde? ed} ae Chast tuodsre Yhor sew ont Gaal ;
aodtee od nook si oFeitopon Oo yettitoo, utd alent hegeeene Rae
| keatomieg SAT “sedative wil enitt Biro Wie ar Roh! tered at alt ih ;
| (tet at boetiokes bam conten att of wiktsyI who extn Site indeniCO it
| mood ef? Bod Yetinaeki shed goa? ad? ot soneretet on bentetiee A
| glsersbiones » tot xod #teonad etetnw ali at aclbeiidod ime okt Ak aimee
| falntone Heieuad Wit Ye ‘tne! Deteetitee St Sabin ‘tint eet Yo ponte
genet ont Beneionth event” ; i :
Detostens eves of aids mond ered ighn tented wat faa <6 monte
Wei af yrottstooned axed bee eiganntie wt ‘(indie ene er eee
guts ot - ens-cokmmaoe Uiromtite neltorersoo with motte dais tasyn
esate oleters I sti unet ee ‘vorteug

———

ee ee

Se ag re

6
the ohiy officer of the corcorstion in charge af ite afferis, The
teetiogny diseleses thet none of the other offielsie of the coucany
were ever present st its offices exeert at rare intervaige

while ® persen Gon trenefer ao better titie then he hes,
nevertheless, the rule is th«t where a true orner peradte snether
to appear s¢ such and glothe« wim with aoparent emmerahio sai suthor
ity to deal with preperty so thst an inugcent third persen is misalesd,
the true owner will be estenpped from dieputing the title whieh eid
geul owner hae csused cr sliqwed to spoeer te be veeted in snether,
Benin ve

of two inmecent persons «ust ecuffer, the rule ig that the one whe

293 Til. $20. in & omae shere one

yinesay the power of e third vereen the anportunity to cousit the
wrong should bear the lowe, FEstton ve. Youny, 252 111. Aum. $15,

ALL hese foetes had te be tensidered in order te arrive
at a just soneiveion s¢ to where the loss ehould fail, fhe couse
waa tried by the court without 2 jury. 411 the feete ond dlreuse
atenees were before the court for hie sonsiderstion. ‘e are af the
opinion that there wse evicence te justify ite finding ont we cannot
aay ite finding ic se menifestiy ecainet the weight of the evidence
aa to Gauge us to held otherwiaes.

W@ G&G he Feesen for Giaturbing the judgment ond fer
that reason the judguent of the “unicipsl Court is affireed,

SUSGNENY APFIAMOG.

HALL, Ped. S80 HESEL, J. CORCUM,

ied ics We

ce Bee ia

eat | wnbuete set to suxnto at potteroares, ou, Lae rode, xl, ode
-peacmoe oi? Ye shainiiie sorte edt te anon tadt aeeelomth yows
_saieviotal ging fe tyepna poedt ito eh. tet

auad et tui? eltis cotted oa setanent aee soatag, mw oitey.».. ‘anil
tadions atiateg ronce orrd « eum godt ad Out odg ,reeledéreven

_crostus bas gidersame tamteyes aein mia oettole Bee dove ae xeoqge at

sheotote ei sootss buist tapconeh an tedd om Wrsqon ie oh oF
_ bhea aide 21342 94h gattuced® mow beqgoten od 46x comme, owe at
_ pioittone, ah boteoy og 09. liseli ont preys, egy
2 a E.R A ponding ame |
este — et. wthentvewse. ” on0g, bakes, f. ie act \
— oBL2 oytk . LT ESS yyay »¥ gadtcl § »naed ost mnad Bien
eyizus of tale ai bexabiaaes od of bad eteet poodd tke
Sao os? Lilet biveds exol edt oupdw of x» aokpwlnnen a
| _ ThWorko bus atost of? 114 pytel «.taodtin Pane gute 6 beds? noe q
bil 29 8.0% qnaddoredienop etd to} Prume gat Aeted oxpm. aopmate
- tonmee oy tao gadbast edt Yiiteu, pt eoasidye oey ovedt temt mokmhgo
_pampbive oft to Pigtew ot ote Sacha on ad iiiphinesil ” !
sot bas srnmaba, 968 wuenehnd aan te ment 4
sdemritte ef ered tegted — paren enc 7
oi TMAITEA, TURGETE Hinde Ue orockene Man 7

juiced Bad wen kta ne Pessasessy raale 2d hy ti a oe
Ko tee thane: elie coll Raga aa gn ey dione

wae ad
LILLIA BERENS, Ai f APOCAL FROK y

E oe ; B
fw y 7 Bie
Fs # : :
i il 2
q o 2
% er 5 2

AUVHELIANY » Lo anew ; i f
GROUT GouRt, i ¢
BE Nd

}
Ge ; ;
GAWRERSE AVEWUE SATICwAl. SARK OF } Sook COUNTY.

GHISAGG, & Gorporsticn, and

FRONK J. G1M2AL, Aeceiver thereof, S741.A.6 & 9°
eLKE

Appellees.
Opinions filed March 14, 1934

Mie JUSTICE S1L8GR DULIVESSS THE GPIRZOCR GF THE COURT,

This ec an agtion breught by the sleintiff to recever
the sum of 53,90°, being the omownt deposited by her in ene of the
gefety deposit boxes under the contrel 2nd sensgesent ef the defend-
ant by virtue of * lesse or sontroot end which sum it vas charged
wae lost through the cerelegon@es and neglisenes of the defendant
Gomoany. Tae triel wes before the court withovt « jury, resulting
in « finding by the court in faver of the defendant oad judement on
the finding, frem whigh judgment this appe0l hes been taken.

The feet thet the plaintiff bed this sscunt of money in
the deposit bex rented by ber is not disputed, tut from the evidence
it appeara thst on Jenusry 1, 13901, turglere beeke inte the vault ef
the defendant company ané@ opened snd demelighed certain deposit boxes
loected on the oreaises, «mong which eas the bex leesed by the
Plaintiff.

Vefendante claim thet at the time of the burglary the
bank wae @xereising ordinary care in and sbeut the custedy of plain-
tiff's depoeit and was, therefore, not lisble for the less.

The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant bank
provided, among other things: “The iisbility of the Genk is expressly
Aimited to the exercise of ordinary diligenee to srevent the opening
of the within mentioned esfe during the within mentioned tera, or any
extension or renewal thereof, by any person other then the renter er
his Quly authorized representative, * * * * This stipulation in the

BORG WA, ia » | PKR B, Laake

} hbk emt ia anna duiles
rv 4 (tvoo trveere Sm LORRY Nee RIMS
ae ae
“ yhm9e Noon hcsin aan baa ECAR a

eee dicy

‘Qed cAI avg: | eet oe
noe saunh... ak Wath bis ee
seed ebl dorsi beltt enotatco a en ee

oTAUOH ANT AO AOLNISO ERY GAHRVE LAE HORALH aor Teae, ae were

reveoss of Uiktalele ode WW sdéguens wokdos me ane BEAT nn. Pow

A248, 908. hh BPE, Wh DROP: PUNE. EE a SAO SE P
a~basteh edt to Inomagenem ban dexeaes ont saben, aemed thm

hogtsd® oxy th mvp. doldy baa ppenipet. te eared 4 20, peta apa

daahestsh eit to acnegiizen hae exemaeferse ad MpneTA? FeoL Raw,

aaktiveot .ytwt » tuedtiw tav00 adit orotes eee isis’ enT .|Yaequeo

Ho toemgte, bas tashaated od to row as Srwee ode We pathak® muh,

_ stetat med eed Looqqe else tamaybyt woide port, wn

ak yonom to tascme aid bed Urttabndg ode tots food, oft ,

— agnebive ent moxt tad ydotugeth lp en ee pi [Sh ml

to Fiuev oct otmt oxerd ereLgrad .S5HL 4) yresnnh, mo pain 4 ;

Boxed dheogsh alsdren bedeilonsd hun deaage fae yasunee smahaeted, ody, —

oat yd bonsed xod edt eo deidy yaumn ,ooedmerg ads so aeesons 4

sath
gies es Py

at ‘ealgnin dt Yo. uit aff fe dade adele otustaatet ste. Same

~atsig ‘to yboteue odé tueds bus ak sveo yteakbro galeesoxe sow ae j

enaol odd rot sidatl ton sorotpned? yee baw tee diced

daed tashbmoteh ott bae Titatele edd soowted tooxtnoe mt i

ouorexe af ast ond Yo WALddest ad?” regaidd sedto gaome ,bobtve
qaineqo sft stnovenq od peasy iLtb yreathre to aetorexd edt of be

yrs 10 yured benoitaom aldéie edd gukach obese beaostxea alates. ‘
to tetnes odd melt Tedeo onTeq Yar YH stoorods is reenk FO

edd ak nottaiugite alat " * * * gavktcanenenqur besdzed

8
agreement ie simply sn exoresvion of the cewmen lew Linbliity of
the defeniente.

The defencent, The Lawrence svenue Netianel Genk of
Chicage, 3 torporstion, clioeed ite doore on January “=, 1951, the day
after the robbery, anc the receiver tec been joined in thie eetion
a8 eo~defenient.

The building of the defeudent benk =sa leeated st the
eorner of Lawrence and Sawyer svemnes, two intoresetting streets in
the City of Chiesge, sith its min entrance on Lawrence avenue and
a gide entrance on Sawyer avenue, Om January 1, 1931, ite officiels
were George 1, Piist, oresident, John J. defiries, viee=-nresident ond
ovehier, emi John =. tslloy, sssistemt ecahier.

The entrances to the benk hed three deors, two of which
were held in position by s@ene of belte in the flecr ond the middle
one hed s leek. ‘here «1s «lees in the widdle deer eo thet 14 was
possible to see in or out of it. “Sithin the bank there wee s voult
with two docrs. fhe front vortion of the vweult wae used for oafety
depesit bexer and the other portion wee used for the «ash belonging
to the defeniont end between the tee there wae a sertition «ad a ateel
door. @Athin the vault there wae en eleetric light which eould net,
however, be seen from the ctreet. The ledgers «nd beokse of -eserd were
kept in the north end of the rumlt, while the books «ni recorde ef the
gafety deposit divielon were kept sliengside of the aafety deposit
box vault in the fremt end of the benk.

Oa the dey of the burglary in question, Asiley head been
taking off « statement of the affairs of the bonk and for thet surpese
had opened the vault ond token the general record becke out and pleeed
them on the bookkeeper's desk im the north end ef the bank where he
was at works

| The benk did net empley 4 evecinl police offieer sither
4 by day or nicht, but they had « een on the bank fleer during the day

ll
te WLiseLe nal monho oat Ye mnnennene aa set oi et traaeerae
2s Ahek Lecokeal cones oobnnmed od8 stasbanton eat. isi:

yeb off .L20L 4S yxawnet ao steph sth Seago quntememened a sogconse :
mottos gant wh poatet 4 weed mg! revinens ‘ond ame ayrsciiog eas 20 te

4 siuetasteb-oo ea

ott tx Heatseal etn net Partae Yeh Gas to getbLigd ed

ab edoorte guitoserstal ort yesumove ceyHet Bin asapEIed Yo romeo

Ait Sumeve SameTHEL Ho OoRNTEAD whem BOL Mity yop=edi To WO elt
eletoltto e¢2 4f8GL yk yreenet ne. sduanys xeyeR ae soNestee ehie &

bee teoblieeeq~eovdvy ,eeittiet 4 atigt ,imebiserg gfelat 41 syrost sow
reoldese fanpetoss Rodin’ «5 asl ha greddone

teide te eve .steek cents Gat aned ent ef wemergae eM | nae

shite obs east adn wtlet th wintens wiminttamenth bash

‘ow th tail oo cosh ethblw odd at enety vow onadit oad = ait sa

CY Re EE OE SE: BOT Ve ih te a ate ee idiom

i toot: b'has inte itemy a ane sent oot. eet hs: tara 7
- gfom Divan dossy dtytt olvteets me gon aTodit Hee oat mbt x00 |

gt ‘Yo wbrosor tne stood oat elbaw heer od? Yo baw dren ost no |

sianate teak in thabeanth uate alia ee
inate he safes ions lly Oe ane aE

ss ur una enivene rk

and another one whe cleaned ws at night, whe also sched as night
eatohuen. the receiving telier's cages were on the left side of
the benk cs one entered the door and there eae an alarm bitten in
the receiving teliecr’sa sage. There eere clee buttons sennested with
& Signoi siLarm which could be goeruted from every officer's desk

emd the oagee, Dut no button at the entranse door.

The bank hed been in bai Fimeneiel share for somotine
and during the last fer doye of Jecesber negotictions were pending in
the hope of perfecting = tonsclidetion of the defendant Sank with
the Hantrose Trust 4 Sevings “onk. In order to effeet this conseli-
dation it was necessery to secure the sign=tures ef the Gouptroiler
of Currency ant that of the Otate suditer of fliimeise The capital
ef the bomk wae badly imosaired and it was operating at = deficit.
it had to do ite dsily clesvcnnes on « geek beste. Leyburn, the
mational Sank examiner wis meking every effert to effect the congeald-
dation and Mslloy had teen required by the oresident, Filet, te
prepare 2 statenent on December 31, 1950, which wos neesesary te
present 2t = sesting of the atate bonk exeminer, at the effiee af
the national benk examiner on Jomusry 1, 192]. It was this eork
that teok Sailey te the bank on the day of the robbery ond be wae
prepering this etrtesent at the time.

Balloy téetified that he hed been direeted by the sresi~
dent of the bunk te set the time lotks te oven «t three o'sleck on
the afternoon of Jenunry 1, L9%1, and that he arrived «¢ the benk
sb@ut 10 ofcleck on the acrning of that dey and took uo the books
and prepered toe drae the statesent; that about 11 efaleck the
telephone rang and thet seme person claiming te be Leyburn, the chief
bank ¢xamduer, saked if the time look wes set for Pridey serning,
$o whieh Mulley replied that they were set te vun off that same
afternoon; thet this persen ssid: “%e are coing to clese your tenk ond
I am going to send tee men aut te seek the vomit." Yailey teatified

tigin we botor oate odtw atigia te ow Seavele oft ea bat
to obke ‘Pel e409 mo eter Bh aao o"veilet gakvssoo ont " aad
at nottud wets ns cen ered? bus xoob odd Dexotme a0 a2 “ded ‘eat
athe & hetoenser anottud onle o18" axa co eteedios puta os bP acnll
teed ‘atuaokte rove moet betensge od bivoe ote mals inn ins
to0b sommTeNs ot Ye motte on urd 420388. oe i
onitemoe sot aqome istonenst fed ah aond neg. mae’ ‘eat
at gatbasy drew "enolveizognn rodeos Yo eysh wat ‘feet eas ape
“Hd bw Land inabaeted ost Yo Malteiseonos » yaitoteog to eget aut “
~tleenoo alae ‘foette of tobxe al saan apttwes a does? voxtnon os
| “ee Ltosbened ont to ssvut angie ed suo 2 or “Yeanepora err rit mi
“Latins eat sabonibitt to ‘nod Roush etoee ont Ww ‘todd bas anes
sthotres a ts patserege asw t baie dortmet bed enw ‘tard ont + te
“edd ver yo sained tiene 8 Ho seomexeads einen at eb ee ee
“Leases outs footie: ‘ grotie yrove gntsen vow rontanne an annd
: ot ‘taht fae creon ede w beriupes mood dot ypdko tae cm ft ki
‘of yuseveoen aes sotste ‘<80 +i odme0s’ ae snesstete tS E :
Ye ealtto add oe Teatance aod etate ett te pattern 9 te eee
, “tow ante cw tH oTECL yi vesuain’ ao ‘renteaxe Zaod Leno faao20as edt
se aon od bas eseddor st to wre ont ne asd ont oe Ye. fou Hoot tae |
‘ me omit oat ts ‘tnomogote eed =
“sheen out YW Betoors® mond bas ox Pett tates Woke sill ack ,
ao ionjo'o sex? 2 meqo of exoos ox it oat ive oe Bog J jan med
Se inks Oa |

et
yy Doe HDi

Youits ost? ‘unis ed ot yulnisio seeven ae, a hee
% Crag

a = te sees ae

Ad be Me

further that he went te work on the books for shout on howr and 4
helf and thet he then hesrd the fremt door rattle «nd he went te the
front door which wos locked ond there were tre men standing on the
outside; thet he ocened the doar vithest questioning them and let
them in; that «a he lecked the door «esin anc turned sround he

found himself cevered by two revolvers; thet one of the tvo men
went to the rear dwor of the benk ond let in two other wen whe carried
burlap bags; thet they then forced him to try the combinstion on the
Gosh vault, but it 414 not epem ond they then compelled him to try
the combinstion on the eafety depoait vault ond thie dear opened at
i o'eleck; thet they then crocesded te gpen ani rifle the safety
deposit bexee until shout © e'eleek in the evenings.

Walley testified further thet after the cen left the
pank he wis foreéd te stcoapany thea =f the ooint ef 2 gum end that
they then placed him in the front sext of hie om ony and forced
him to drive te Hileaukee, where the tee sen jumped out and disspnear
eds; thst he thereupon dreve te the polices stetion -t Uilecukee and
reported the rebbery.

Gganeel fer plaintiff point aut certein fsets whisk he
Chains are significent, nowely, thet there wee no watehman or sacle
tent with isiloy 2% the time of the burglary; thet Melley did net
interrogate the person whom he oleimed salied him on the teleshene
in order to find out whether it wea Leyburn, the antional bank
examiner; thet he did net qwestion the tse men who eppecared af the
door or ack for oredentiols before letting them in; thet Gulley
sdmltted thet he made « wistcke in setting the time clock on the
aatety depesit vault ot 1 e'eloek instead of 2 e'elock; that the bank
should hove provided a sere effisient ayatem ef burglar sineme and
that from the evidence it appears thet in addition to taking the eaeh
and contente of the ssfety deposit boxes, the burelers took a number
of pages of the ledgers of the bank. It is areued from this lsat

a has wed as tueds 10% edeod sat ae deem oF tan od ade xedieat
ont oF fier ed dan OLtton Tooh saoud oat Mrened medt od tot haw thed
alt mo gribaste aoe evs ever evsat bas Detood eow Poldy xg0b toon?
tol hae matt puknottaowp tuodtin took edt beneqe an duet gebbedwe
96 hawene bemtst one atone Taah ad? Padook om am fads yak mode
i | tom Ont edt Yo ono dads yaxoviover ont ys Aovowes Moet amet
«Deke ees esl om cedto ous mi tek bas dined out to woah ewe odd of tame
(edt ne mo Randiins edt Ed ot Rit hedeeD mat yout Ondt janet qudmand
Vet of mit betieqaoo madd yest das nego fon SED $2 dud gtluny dann
ite Renage toeb etd? ba tlusy tteoneh yetee edt no soktsakdmoo amt
‘Wolee sat oft hae anqy ot Dekesoory sade yout tult pieetote £
# boar ! cinta WA st. adie te ease en na aia
elkteak mannii tealt comitoat Aneta natal é: +h
add Dae myo to tntor add to and? yegmqnos of dhe igs ind
_ door bum x00 awo Bb 2a dase sont Loduasaoeniede:

ai ote atest sane tea tahog eb etaiti init lle oe +4 mies |
~nioss 16 nandotar ot sow avedd todd .ykemen eimsottogte 0 antes }
tort bib yoLLe tadt jyralyrngl ott ke omtd oct te yokinn shin tna
pnedqesot odd a0 mht bekion tautede od mode aoansq ent otegorretnh
dad Seoobten edt yiuadyed aoe th waditesy two bad of aebee at j
| tit Pe Dereonge nv cae aut ont apitocun tou hth of tet ywentmane
yeliot ted? gat wedt yahetol qroted eleltasdere wet ase owe 90) 4
pd go Aooko omdt odd yuketoe mk naladede w shew of tote hotinbs ;
Soin: ad t0dd qaveLo'e £ Yo dowienk AnaLote L de tev tnogoh —ywheS
bas amnls talgud te apdays dastedtts onom 2 Doh iverq ovat Saree

dese edd gadint @@ aedtibde al dadd eenocye 4h nomenes eat work

(ied weit mort Begs oh eh wand wait ke coghes od

&
facet thet there aay heve been something thot Selley er the efficisis
desired to have covered uje

Om the other hamid it is contended by defendent thet the
effieisia of the sank, including Malley, sere verking under 4 strain
ami Nelley knew thet the president ond vies-presicent were aeeting
with the stete benk examiner ct the effiee of the national bank
examiner on that day and were very liable te keep in touch with bim
in order to effect the econaglidetion: thet 16 «e2 aot unrensoneble
for Malley te believe thet the sen who scresented thencelves were from
the offiee af the bank examiner oe the defeniont benk hod feared for
& muaber ef days thet it would be sleaed by the oublie officiels.

fhe wuie of isw in this state ls clear, The defendant
was engaged in the business of opercsting = anfety desosit veult ond
was *# taliee for hire. Under such ¢enditione sa these the defendant
received the property «nd ite failure to return it, raises « presump-
tion that the less woe due to ite nmiglicense and the lew imnesed
upon it the Durden of showing th=t Lt exeroleed the depres of sare
requiread by the nature of the beiiment, The defendant eas reculred
to exercise ordinary diligenee snd that degree of sore or coution
thet os aan of ordinery prudence er dissrstion sould use with reference
to the esre of the purticular thing, were it his own property.
Sehnefer v. Sa C@vogit Soe, 281 Tile 424
The @euse hoving bean tried by the court witheut a jury,

it is presumed that the court had in mind these rules of lew in asking
ats deeision, the ouse resolves itself inte «2 suestion of feet ond
were it before us in the firgt inetance we uicht heve neld gontrary
to the holding of the trial court, but we ore ligited in our censider~
ation of the enuse by the rule which reoulres ue te give full faith
and eredence to the finding of the trisl court who heard and asw the
witnesses and hed a better eovertunity to pass ueon the foeta than
#@ would heve upon review, it canmot be said that the finding of the

#
alstokbhov od? xe Yehiel ted qatdtonon.amed egad Yan a

edt: tad seabaproh. ~i.bebsets09..0h, th, Send, nadte. adh po ie nape
aiexte 2 robe sudteor oxen QNedées pilin gAned oat, Yo winded? |
galieed exon tnehiuerq-aoiy dan taebleosg add todd weed voles bap
dani Lenetton ont to enkto odd te reckume toed obete edt AEE
mhe dite domot ad qoed ot sided. yey expe boa yeh god? oo tomkegee
tidenoenemne dex ney OL Jett geo dubiloases aa teaite og tobse ab
Bork sex enykvanadt hetmerery ottt awn ott Aaa, erakted of yaLLoi war
wot Denest bad sand trabasies od? ne tomhmnns dowd odd to Modi Ro malt
spletoitte oitdwr edt yi Deowie ad hiwow 44 toa ayah to xodmae s
tgebastel ed? ,.tenie ai atage eidt a) wal, te Shack aad Kae Kasco
ban timmy ¢iseceh yielen = gattaxege Le epouten’ sag al begegae gee
squuuetg © odetnx .Pk mutex of oxuStad ett ban yorogany edt Davtenes
| bemoans wed edt has seomptinen ett of auh new weak eit sade, mate
amen te sacegeh set, entowane At fet. anton em. maiieNt Otek May .
boriupes aew tacbsoivh oft .tmemiied oct to wemten ett yt bends
mitian-ententnsegth tedh, edi on nae
seanistes ity seu Rinoe goiter9e4> 10 eamohemg yreaibro to nam 2 tase
© sebveqqug wo gid 34 esa Ie SOS AS eae |
! : Sh ik Si geal thnecel weelee «¥ Tehesdes
cUrat & suedsdy tava edd yd bodes aded worl ousse at, ee
palden af wed 2e aofye snods Sndm ak And deve add todd Romwaeng ah At
bas tos 20 mostsqup.» Otas Linedh gaviones oeem. eT. th
serpent an tiingdanagiiiptabiasinorapesieninese

ait wee bee breed ode gayoo > takes ode ‘nn . me ut est of bas
asd? stock edt goa sBeg, oF ipeanpea gies me. ponanadh

6
trial sourt io ao aanifestly sgcinet the »eight of the evidence ag
€@ neeegsitate = revercel of the juigment. cestions s2 to the
degree of cere in cages euch os this ore @einently cucstions for
the trial eourt or the jury.

For the reasons stated in thie opinion, the judgwent of
the Gireuit Court is offirmed.

JUG

HAL, Re de Ane Maal, de SUR

. BRS eee eke ie ag DOs alc te sak sakes
Grice: Kovtwn da vine. cabal Say: MI ae 4 ‘
tt: Ae te ATTEN ORME f° Ge ONE as |
shdxienrmenpndeee ae Gh) 090, Reem R TR sia il

wee pees Rew: Dted, aes OS. Eas, MM Re ae. ” Yo Aaa
sphere Gi bleg Hee oe Penn. Bao Rh ae ew te, ne

Peale oe oad esoR be oe WS eee ies Be. PAS Bs ae seash > aa

at aeee mito Gentine ian ae?

Hegn RRER Nhe) eb saa, o hebroNeRS

teprbetest ode asakt at atone ing Sey 20 ”

i peta eRe afd eRe oh rled er
PHGME Ashe, et? Ana Mwee digs eee eh Web

aeae go Seek Oe Rawk Bs PON eee

eile, Bae a neni kare

Agios 1 HKD te omepe Rate, hae SRY

meee wet ate ae EpeAs GEER AR BRS sic

we"t EGER TY i

Ba i? ES x Py

eC LUGS RAE BE MORRIS BVM ME: ANE 5 at Pie
Stich ahiss, gig wk we ah whlinhd vn ot |
BERD NI RE. awe Milne nator ROM)
ay ehh CHE GOON TNS, CF BESRIE
ality ars aS, oe dade: seis some a

26795 } —
LERA HiOwAN,

io
Ge ti 3 o Lae ‘ a
Ye APOSAL PROM
OsRL 8. OLS0a, ef 41,
defendants. GLACWLy souat
RN omy a RT

GYeRs-VGepininante, _%
OK COUNTY,

Ape lLionte,
Te
7aRL A. SLSO8, et al T A Q)
ge *creme-tefendantn. yd ¢ 4 we lke 6 o ef
Lens Sherman,
Agee, Leng.

Opinion filed March 14, 1934

BR. JUSTICE SILGGS SELEVEREO THE GPIBLOR OF THE CAHIRT,

Thie is an sgpesl frem en order sustaining « Gemurrer
ef the complainant te 4 srogs=-bili Mled in the ouuee in which she
wae meade crose-defendsant. The oreae-blli wie ordered stricken from
the files end from this order om apres) #25 taken to thie court.

The origins] bill sroyed the forecloeure of + trust
deed. Gouplainant anc oroge-compieinaats were owners of bonds
secured by this trust deed ond their intersste were identical,

It ig the gentention of Grase-coeplcinante thet seetion
47 of the lilinois Mortgage Act provides thet in « Yereclesure muit,
@® deficiency may be entered for sny Galenee aut the compleinant ever
ond ebevre the preceeds of the gale, and thet therefore 1t becomes
necesuary to b@ a Gomelalnant or Greseetompiclvent in omier ta erali
oneself of the benefits of thie ennetwent. The anewer to thie lies
in the originsl bi11 in which it ie oreayed thet the bendholders
(whieh include ecrese-complainante,) hove » <efielensy decree in fever
ef the person or persons entitled therete. the relief Sreyed for in
the ereee-bill is «iresdy sdked for in the eFiginal bill. The
tights of the defendentse ta the bill wader their «newer in which
their interests fully eppeur will be proteeted efter hecring by the
deoree entered in the vrecerdings, Where the rights of » defendant

RRA eine WLP Ns
de ENN

MORe aeweGa

ey
wevow TIBOR KO

eVTAUOU xOOC

‘02d .ALATS

BECL SL doteM beltt aofmiqd
THUGS SAT ) BOLKIGO BHT CAMAVEMEE BPELTE BOLT i
Tertsesh 2 yoiaisveue tehto ao motk Leagge ae al aid? Se ek
ode doidw ot enune off oi bOLt Limos 2 08 tuantatani tt
mort medeitte berebze sew (Lid~-esore edt .tanhosteb-aeore obam os
sfx eidt of apdet cow Leaqys ae rebyo widt mow bas og Lit ede
gaunt to orweeLoste't exit beyory iité isaigivo of
abaod 29 eae etew atuentelgnon-esote baw tansdedguod bead
elagktaebs exew atootetad siedt bas beab tamed? eldd yo boruoee
sottose teat etnentsiquoo-gaem te coltapineo edt et ME
vtiue srueokoeret 6 ak #58 wsttrers tok opratzol aLomAsck at to VE
teve taorleiqnes edd exh eoneind yo 102 Seretae od yam yone Z
sesooed ¢2 evotetedt tree haw olor grit 1s sdeteeetid alt toa
Lieve of seivte at tnsalelqmoe-ceero to taaniahenos © ad OF Yrsenooee
eels wise ot vewene adT tnentoces efdt to abitensd edt %o tieeeme —
atebLodhacd ocd tect boyrng ef #2 dedety md eonadeesn cieturndors

|
|

nt yok beyerg toiier ot everett Saltioeen sinininn 0 tii: lat
amt .Litd Leakpine et nk tot boxe yboorts wt Likd-nsoro amt 2
fede at vewene tied? tobaw Likd oct oF stmebmoted aft to stdghe

od? yd gatesed tovts havoetorg e Litw wesqqs Llu ateoredat siedt
tushasted © Yo ohtghe eat wena eaenlaaens a a Moa ae

3
appear from his enewer they wili be fuliy oroteated.
Fielg@, %54 Tlie Glide

Croge-Comeisinanie uree thet their oreag-biil was

necensery in order to extend the-receliverchip se xe te inelude their
bonds and afford them the erotection of the receivership. ‘the
preyer of the originsl S111, however, seks for « reseivership for
the benefit of 211 the bondholders and this incinudes eress-comel«in-
ante. Gy order of ecmirt this ees dene. Gpeee-cemcloinante sould
obtein no gore relief? by their ertesbill. Their righte ere already
asfegunrded by erder of eourt.

In our opinion the sileg«tion in the original bill te
the effeot thet Sefenmiants «lived «ll rights under the nemeetesd
lawe of the State of lllinoie tevcether with « deserintion of the
trust decd and proffer of the inatrusent on the hearing, sufficient
ay Govers the silerction of wolver of semestesd. The enewer of the
omers of the equity not being abetracted oc ere net advised ehether
this sllegetion is or ie set «ontrererted.

The originei bill sovesring te pesy the onae relief as
that preyed for in the cress-bill the letter ie not neeesenry and
the demurrer te the erese=—biil wie therefore ereperly sustained.
Beky v. igmrae, 352 Ill. S78.

Yor the reagone aet out in thie solalon, the order of
the Circuit Court ia affirsed.

GiSkh APPISEEG,

WALicg Peds AHO HEBEL, Jd. GORCUR,

ahs Eat ae binds
aew ILid-aneve tied? tad? oyrw atnon ke lgaoeeene ott AY
rides? sbuloni of cx on @ideroviooer weit hastye of tebto al yroeeeoes
tat sqiderevinoor vit ta sottnndery et met bretts fates ahnod
sat qidewetzooes ¢ tot else ,vevneedt , fide ‘Eoaidytvo ond to reyerg
Tatatgeperenyse eebdulent wise hes exebLodhaod ont ifs te ‘thread edt
| Bkeeo sdrertsiqneo-enerd 28nob ear ent Hoe Ye seize ¥., obhae
Wheorls ere atdgis tle cunainaabidieanandl ‘qe Teliot exom on alatdo
HEGL ,bL MOtee 2as5 ” pike ta vrebte ve bolvrsugeton
-@¢ L146 Lewtgive st at mottepeiie att molntee tee af
‘besteemot odd rola etifgit Lin berkes snsheotsn t89 gostte eat
edt Ww mebtyrxeesd & Ht dw redsegot semanas ~ ce
mteelolt tie (saktood od? ao daetertant et Yes —
and to towbae oft “sheoreemed to dhnntayptioviee pry LL

«¥ camttis .boteotong YLiut ed LLtw yodt tom

es Yekiet seas oft ybrq of qaltotnge Lied &
pate yreensoen fou of verted Gat cheiaeions sit bm nt.

‘pCR EVES Pt ae Fe sgh aa ARS ROT

ze
€
rs

a :

ee fx an i me nae ne tea
a tid we dope:

‘
va
z
1
‘
“
:
P
4

J Pd

Pe
GEWPRAL BEPUBLIG SARK AND TADeT
COMPANY,

Sounlsinant - Acnelles, GLstVIt COURT,”
Ve

A Gia counry.|
AROYLE-KERHORE BUILDING,

hed defendant. Q27¢T4T.A.6 5 9

GE APPEAL OF GLIVER J. GALISOUA,
Avoelliant.
Opinion filed March 14, 1934

Mae JUSTICN GILSON GELIVERGO THe OrTeice oF THE daueT.

Thie is om appesl from om order ef the Giresit Court
denying Selinger, the holder of 2 39° bond, leave to intervene in
a fTereglowure quit breught by semplalnont, as trnetec, te foreclass
2 firet mortgsge bond issue amounting te 7219,0°0. fhe bend owned
by the petitioner wos ef the a me iasue equght te be foreclesed
in the eriginel proceeding, fhe setition centeine vertrin allegations
to the effeet that he, Galinger, has now lesrned for the firet time
that the mortgege 20 in defsult for « leng time; that he wea seid
interest to august 1, 1951, in order te ounces, from him the default;
that complainants with knowledge ef thease foots fuiled to acke bond=
holders parties, tut tosk crecf before the daster in Shancery where
it sought to place all bende on a parity; thet for the mirvere of
enersing the bondholdera te vinee their bonds vith « somittes
s@lected, they, the bondholders, were threatened that the eooumittee
would purchase the property st 2 nowinel eid; thet the complsinant
wee not © proper trustee to act for the reason that it esa resresented
on the comaittes by one of ite officers; that it woa negligent in its
Guties to permit defeult in woenthly depesite end nonssyment of taxes
and in eoneesling the fsete from the bend owners; thet ite interests
wert in Gonfliet with these of the aurchasers of beuda ond that it

/ whe Gisquelified to set ss trustes beosuse it ned pledged ite assets

ag security with the ‘econstructieon Finenes Gorperstion for 2 lean

Nae Voters ate
Nin. Lh Sst

wt
ae

Teva Trune@s ehepteaeet “ bls 4 iaek'd
ih sapere owas
Odo ALL MS. | torte 6 sevtue Wo dara ne
"pee BE dove beLit metmtqo = ste
“ fu00 amt 8 ROTHTYO ant CRRVEING WORLEE SOR PeNE ge Om ef oote
rund tivorsd adt te sabre as mext Exeqge ae ef ake? sort ote
ab ersvrotnl of ovast boos CCR? o te cebtad wes preget tee nakyinh
eeateoutint sooseutd es gtnrakeiawen xo Peed Flaw onde
_ hemo hired oat O60, 0108 oF yattimems tient heed aged tem sent
Deer “bssoloerot od of Piguee saved tm-e Ott 6 nos alhoenndente’ wht
ano Ltaye.Lt> akstxoo eatodaed mobs iden hail api bbe oneng i
"omkt texth oft 20% bemtaol woa aad , eye
ogee Fr aon of dace =— aot ® Dai teh iaial ‘wow Sang

4
:

baad ote ot bekier ‘etost osed? to
eredw “pxsonedt ni vetesl edt exoved Yoore Tod 2
Yo seoanim vat to? dat retbeey 8 we ; |

. settinnos » déte bund weédt conte bt erehfodbabd aft yatorooe —
| qettinmes odt tai? heantesrat exes ,brobloubaed areuah
tnentslqmon eit tact jhid Lenknon # on yiegeny att onsdonmy bivow q
hegaseerqe: sow $f ted? moanet ad? tot ton of opfeuntt seqetg # tom ase j
et! ml tnogiigon vow #2 ted? yexsodtko efi Yo one Ww eottinaoe eae ao
sexst Yo dnesyeqnon bas etteounb yLddnow at ttusted tiered o¢ wokth
etvoretal sei 221% jorsevo bood 9a? wort ‘piest ae pikiseones mt ‘
+h tadd bes abood Yo ersandori ott to sonny at ew soLitaos nt ome

2
ami was,therefore, out ef the trugt business.

The eilegetions in the petition consisted westly ef
conclusions unsupported by “liegetians of eny perticular faeta.
Ne bendhoider hae an absolute right of intervention esoecially in
the sbsence of freut, wisfesannce or bed faith on the pert of the

trustes. Agerionn, ets Lee 4 Beds idine Bory
Sion, st ai, 765 Lil. Avy. S7e Bondholders are not neceseary oF
proper parties te a foreclicsure proceeting. Eirebsugh v. Ireff,
363 Ill. 82. |

The motion wee eddre@sed te the sound diseretion ef
the chancellor, The metter wes semiing nefore him and he was
familiar with the plesdings in the suse «nd sueh other steps as
had been perfected, Fetitioner's slisim saounted te » very amali
fractional per centece of the tetel vend isaue and there wae in the
opinion of the cheaneellor evidently aa purpese in ineresaing the
ooat and aiding to the delay of the foreclosure creceeding. Fetitien-
er‘a interests should be protected fully by the ehenesller. If
the sele price is enly sewinsl, 28 petitioner eleims it will be,
it ean be serrected by the sourt on the objection of amy bondhelder.

$@ 88 no reaeon for diaturbing the order ef the
Sireuit Court in refusing petitioner lesve to intervene.

Fer the reagens stated in this opinion, the order

ef the chenceller denying setitioner leowe to intervenes is affirmed,
GAUEN APFI euRR.

HALL, Fede ARR HEEL, de Swe Th,

seaaiiouwd tevtd eed te tue yovoteredignes baw

te Yiteos hetelanso aoltitoy od? ai saoktegelioa wat a af
oettet ‘Telum toned yrs te arto tt nynk io bi betreqqunay ‘ane tewioues
at ylielesqee woktaevretct to dagit stulende me ead 2

TS EReceoen ten ots erobledbaoti ; at ane eae pvp
ot emperor ee #90 enbiue togeey

_» st 9 Ltt BRE

to noiteroase bawoe odd o bogeouhha aN weston oat

i ie cacen e p ait?
i | sos 220% syaitheeoery stumoLoozot ode be valeb be cll gash Ds '.
7 ™ st0Linonade edt yd eae) betoosorg oa buven e wi

pe ee Bigs peat Sie Bee. amhe’s amie als vem ie

hed Ch Sopa Peeweee ba Po wee

on cM eo)

Soo aaa Aitblanaternseiee
gt
: no aaa
: : Peg

APLE BAWOR BLOG, GONPQRATION, }

® Vorperotion, - APPEAL FROM

Aveellent,
GIASUIT COURT
Ve
ORG. KR. WGUENGRAY CRGANTAATICa, se sais

IkG., &@ Gorcerstian,
Appellee, ard G4 1.A. 6 6 ‘th
Opinion filed March 14, 1934

#&. JUNTIGE #11508 OMLIVEs2o TRE GPIBIORK OF THE GOUaT,

fhe pieintiff, Hiole Bemey Bldg. Corporation, resovered
a judgment before = justice of the seece of Arlington deighte,
@ock County, Secesber 21, 197%, sgeinet the defendant Seo. &.
Hemingway Orgenisation, Inc.

denuary G, 193%, the defendant filed lise sevesd bond
te the Cireuit Court of 6 veunty im the gam af (200.06 and at
the aeme time left ite check for "17.55 to cover the aeats of Filling
in the Gireuit Court. Thre bond «nd shack were left with the son of
the justice of the penne «t Arlington Heights at the realdenee of
the justice ef the pesoe, he, Kimeelf, being out of town. ‘This
was done within the tiae for filing send and oerfecting the eppeal.

Gn danuery 10, 1955, the justice ef the pesce oaghed
the oheok intended to cover the costs of the saopent. Thies alee wee
within the time. fhe jusaties of the sees, however, friled te
appreve the bond within the time. Jubeecuently, the defeniant
appeared im the Circuit Gourt smd the jwige ef thet court dircoted
the justice of the peage te send the papers fo the Direuit ceurt fer
tae purpose of a trial on spresl and this wea done. Yhereugen the
pisintiff moved te diemies the «spend on the ground thot the court
had no power to direet the justice of the pecee to cond the sepera
te thet court. “ven though this order might set ave been enforce~
able, neverBheless, the supers were filed by the justices of the
péaee@, ond the Sireuit vourt sonsecuentiy hed jurisdiction of the
GAUSS e

wont Leeern”

‘MYOD TreUNTD

‘oa 39. iba lalsew S
nu BBL AL dorel belt? nointao
.THUOO AY TO KOIMIVO AMY GRRUVLEM pauaH sores, a.
herevoees «to LEsr0qe0 op ban tones ofenk stutatese oat Sh whch: IR
caddy ink wodgadies te e050q wait te endtext a oroted Sesser bart, s
a dad tantaoted est fenkens s88ed aff tedaensti Sere.

baos keoqas « et bosst tachastes oat wai row

| te bas 00.008), to ave oxy mt Wawed #000 te Pues thvetso

| BELLY to efs0o edt rev00 of 08,925 xO foe sth thet entt, nem Oe

| 39, mee ond tte fel orer anode baw baod edt etre tivork8 odd ak

to consbieer osit te efitgtol aptgatiza te seq oct Be wtert,, eat

eldT sawed te to gated tieomid od sanneg add Yo wodtan 8,

afenaye | oud putgostrag bas Bad gatite zo? mde edt ahdtiw ane’ a
bedeno eares one te oo 48 out ode reek a0 veranel £8

wav oats alot »Laoaqe ont to tage edt 19 FOe oF bebasjat seede at

ot berier arovewod shone one te hacia ont me ong abatte

ES Ea Ae ee a ae

pedoer st ‘eeabe er Yo Pier aie pi me bhowett ‘an henwogas
sot frvet Pisertd od? of exeqeg oat have ed SR oie edt to wotteat ont

ed? socue ror? -oaob cow elit han Lnvagn mo Lett # Yo ewoqtuy edt

exvcnc ot hs of wovng et Yo neiteut oft toordh of savas oH Bad
apntotas mead oved tou tytn vobte nkdd dyued? oows atau00 toad of
adt 20 eokteut odt qW DoLit orew eveqaq edt eneie@itneren olds y
od? to motterbetrwt bad yLdwawponnve tamed tivork6 adit bas ,eoceg

it is slee ivelated that the bond wos not filed end
approved within the time ellered by the etetate. the record shows
thet the bond «na filed within the time oi evidently came inte the
possesion of the justice of the peaed, beonuce of the feet thet he
Ooghed the cheek which socomeanied it, whteh «se ta sey for the
expense ef the appesi. ‘All thie ess done within the time.
~The deTendent should net be pemtlised oeanuse of the
feilure of the justice te do thet which the lew impesed uson him
Herteturg v. Seceen, “37 1. Son. 205.
the order of the court qrerruling the metion to diguise
the appesl wee not 2 finel order. if the trial sowrt Aad sllewed
the sotion and bed dismissed tue sonesl, the situation would save
been Gifferent oe it %
. Per the ressens ateted in thie ooinion the sovesl will
be and hereby io dismissed.

guid heve heen « final order.

APOEEL, GPOMP SERED.

HELL, Peds AND HEBEL, J, conc.

("s

th Sar Pe Age a

wrote brewer ott .otetste ed? yt boeedla omiy odd midtinw bovexgge
odt etait omno yLtneblve bac emt od? midtiw Belk ecw booed edt tame

od tet tos? 949 Yo eauvoed gases gid To wodtaut edt To
oat nor yer OF now Mode yth Detmonmoone dotdw toado add” :
. omte ete whats Bnod enw etde LEA .teogge on? Yo semeaxe
ode $5 datticied Boatlonse sd don bimase Sembested ot

"amb mocu omega wal sult sotde taat ob oF sontaut okt Yo suuttey

aes aga alt ves ere “

a thee, &
ssindlh of nolton edt yalivereve treo oat Yo vabse edt ae
poe aoe j ih fae

bewSlis bud ¢xwoo Leixe oct ti vistre feat? « toa she 3 :
evad bivor aostautie ad? yiapoqs etd ‘bowedmest bast d Ban a
sani sat ed writ lac 44 a demnente

Eeved Envews ost notntoe aka at betate ancesor mace pire

fea MAT

“3 Dh met ae
Pit a nto aart. oe

eR EN ei Se ee fe
ctu ate tore at Seeded sigue ae
wee eee bidtte

Slee gual TR oR ie Dae Ne) aik eay iad wAY na,

! ny ae
weriyi: dpe Wie Gate ae wa. ae Te wo taba, ge

‘ 5) ¢: emt s ¢ EP NN = Pee Em iid Ch ae wee cs ERM sind ; “ 4
ives cee Sh ty ees cat Sar Gy aie GA vad ie ake bom wiieakeng :
Ce Be & Re: x fifa zie %) hs ig give iS cM: i att ‘reno nis bt ey ey

ieius oad weer ve ibha wabee aa kag aie? rene sl

ott ho woshewe oor wh BAAD eter chery Gre vm

=
“

Bile iW

-
eS a Ne
t

eek onstt Sa Pina Pee oe ee Rae ae a a

avg 8 ba 7 i

$6933
(Pisintiff) Sefendent in Errer,

MURICIPAL GOR?

Ve j
ILLIAN GAURGA, j OF THIGAGO
sa ae ‘ ‘ ; Bina QI fF Ty I é
(Oefendent) Pleintiff in error. QA YT. A. 5 6 Q°

Opinién filed March 14, 1934
MA. GUSTION WILSON OGL. 1VENRG THE OFINLON OF THE coUuRT.
This ia «a writ ef ¢rrer te review = judgment of the
Municipel Gourt of Yhieage finding the defendant evilty of pandering
and imeesing a sentence in the house of serxreetion snd ¢ fine. A
jury was esived by the defendant and tee ssuse wae heard by the court.
The evidence ie not oreserved ond the aetters are oresented on the
comaon low reeerd,
I$ is insisted thet the information upon ehich the charge
was beged is insufficient in thet it fadis to allege the name of
the women from whom the money wo¢ obteined. fhe inforaetion is in
the language of the st=tute and ia brought by one Garsh Gell Bliss,
& prostkiute, from whom the money wos taken. “hile the nume of the
femele ia net set out in the information, it is ehereed thet the
money wes cart of the @urninge of Garsh Geli Slias, the inferment.
In our opinion the inforestion shows won ite faee thet the nsme ef
the female wie Garth “eli Gliese. It is insisted alao that the reeerd
fails to show that the defendant wou furnighed with « covy ef the
Anformetion prior to the trisl.
The Suprese Court of this etate in the onse of The Feonle
We Cleeya, 252 Tile 436, in ite opinion, says:
"The requirexent of the stetute thet ewery defend-
ent charged with » felony shall be furnishedy before his
sad extnance An Alesutevys eakys cmd fn onder te’ make tas
omission to comply rith thie recuirenent avalloble on error

the defendant wust demand « cosy of the indictment and »
List of witnesses «nd preserve the evidence of such demand

Ga, 5 sxead
see pli we write wer Yo RamORG
gets’ - nna ee ise
: ppt Gree ony aad
| 88 itetiny xg Daa ee _ one ssa 5
| 038 -A.T Sb See C+ Sa it SeeteT Ceaeleen*
; SSCL LOT ‘ote belts aOiatgo °° 8 Pe eee
vreaoo Wit to HOTATtS ENT omev dee Koeize SeRTEDT ce
edt to Saba hart & wedvex of torts Yo doe0 oe nat 6 eutane
gutxoharg to Yeling tmabantob eat goithas? e5.bint Yo aev08 Low 2odeu
TR” emit 2 bee mbttoernee Yo bavadl sat ay Sonornen ‘ yrtoogas han
ptus0o 88 YE Broad any Seune de ban” diobs |
| a te ig
egrate edt do dstw ‘neti iho tt sichishe’t ‘ety tone senewams oe v8
‘te emea dt egelie of oiet #2 sade at deeb e Yuna et beens wim
ai al moitanrothi oct .Bentetds sen neem ect eae mae raow ae
eeella Lind count smo W tiguord ef has etutets edt to opsuyant eat
ad? to een est oid’ .medat aew yoaok eno molly sort letmili a
edt tut bogeeds wi *2 quohtoerotak wit ak duo ten fom ad oLemwt
etacuwrotsi odd ,aeitd Life sezet te egeineee ed? To Praq sia Yeston
‘te nman adt feds eoat ett nogx evode Moktmmetai od? netatqo tue at
broest ad¢ gadt ois betetent @f #f .eadii List done? ecw olenet edt —
ed? to yoo 2 ditiw bedeimevt asw dushastob ade tod? woele of after
sfotid ect of todty moltaanotah ’
Aisee! eff to oece edt al otate widt to faved saerqys oT Me 4
reyoe yooimigo ett nt BED Lit REE qgmallt ow
SAL Bl
aide dt

, fee trois

im 4 bill of exeeptivuns. (fegple v. fer 387 ile

45.)*
There is nothing in the record sefore ue which sheers that « demand

wee meade fer * eooy of the information «nd denied.

It ig aiso urged for reveresl thet the inferm=tion
fsiled to charge 2 crime. fhe informetion wos in the language of
the atatute, He motion «ac sce before trisl te quzghe Teehniert)
objections te indietmente «re wiived by croceeding te triei.
teohnieal objections to the inéiotmwent can act be raised by motion
in arrest of judgment. The fsople v. Giesgbere, 3262 lile 270.

8¢ ser ne roasen fer disturbing the judement of the
Mundeipal court and for the revsens ateted is this eoinion the
judgaent is affirued.

TUBGMERT AvFIAwED.

HaLiy Peds ABO BZBEL, da GUNGDR,

7) 98 wpeupess oat ai cay ane
* kendetent * yim eate oF Tate? eee ohinn aes cereal * _sebutote owe
aii shetet ot L cpanel: “ om oa $090 a ;

TR eT

sec ee alse: eon ie aS inch wis ,
ete te OBS esa SRY Re AT RI ae stetdivone | 4 ;
Va ee ae fe ey” GaNR ie ‘st toa

SE RN dh CM By ran SONOMA Ae
cae AG ieee nee cs at MOT Be ae % fant di

ee ee me ot est “
bie ie Poche poe Bean: ARS eR ial st oe |

“iF
Ep:

| i ee 7
ie ie: yd.
Sy lhe
a

gt
36957 ‘eg ey, a z
MAAY E. SULLIVAN, Adednistrsirix of eaeOn TO i :
the ketate of Bery Lundy, Jeeossed, ; "
Seferient in Error, fGe JOURR,
We ‘
Ss ine

SOPHIA LISRTANSTEIR, 9 9 A T TA S 56 Qo

Plaintiff in errer,
Opinion filed March 14, 1934

GA. JUSTICE WILSOR ORLIFSE0 THE OFIRICH CF THE COURT,

Thig csuse comes to this court on a «rit of errer to
review = judiguent entered in tae Superior “ourt of Juok County for
$6,000 in fever of the plaintiff, Gary ©. Guliifenm, »duinistretrix,
agninat the defendant, Sophia iicktenstein. The testimony not boving
been preserved by @ bili of exeeptions, © reverend ia seket on the
common law rescera alone. © motion for = new trial apresrs in the
Common law recerd. Eotiona for 4 uew trial and in arreat sf judgment
should be preserved in the bili of exeertions.

it ia ingiated that the declarstion did not etate = ecuse
@f action. ‘he original deaisrstion consiated of one count ond ene
filed Say 29, 1329, and alleged thet the defendent was the owner of
amd operated an automobile on “ay 27, LBGh, im Vhiesga, snd thet
@evy Lundy, the decenssd, wos invited to beeome 2 peagenger in said
sutemebile and the defendant undertosk te tranescort ber froa one
pisee in the clty te another, but inet the defendent negligently «nd
eerelesely opersted the sutemebile and that by ressen thereof it
esme into « Goliiaion with «nother «utemebile «nd thet Mary Lundy
was thrown from the cor ana injured, «8 ® result af which she died
an Hay 35, L92e.

The deelaration «verred that plsintiff ned been sppointed
aiminiestratrix of the estete «nd thet the deceased left her surviving
certain heirs at isx, neming them, and seked tuot the next of kin
be rererded beesuse of ber deoth. fhe desluretion sige shorges thot

i _-esw Bae tauoe ome te hetelameo sotiexekoeh Laatgixe edt

| N : OF ONE ” te o xird sxdezalms HATE IIOG ¥RAR
‘ 4 abeneooet Eats ere to oF sell
Hwee sola renee at tsbawr es en ee

| .
s¥favee weo0 F

Pie | | “RTO pooped

ODO A TAVS 4, inka © On

i beeL al dorel be Lit so tmtcO a eT eee.
ota90 aT Vo WOLHINO ABT GAHUVEIGG BORAT aotratr, a oe
ot torts te thes 4 a0 fewe0 aids ot ‘snmee oor eid?
set ytmued Xoo? to feud? Yokweque $49 at beretas tamodut > welver
| gabetentatatmbs teh LL oa vrei btabels add to towst at 004)
if i gatvad tow yeomtieed ext “aletaastses aiiigo® ,tnshavteb ony teabige
|| atte’ to bade #2 Loaraver « yenodtqvone Yo Liat & WW hevreneny d06u
edt mt exeoqge Leint waa s tot aoltom 4 tele brooer wal nommeo
tnomytut to dnexxe at be tata? waa © cot emetden -broget met someon
sacteitqeoxe te Like ond as borrvserg of bi Lire fe
z sayen & oteta ton bib aokteteiesh edt dent bedekeni oi #1 |

* b, 2 ;
emer bt
ane Ait Psy ll PRONE a »

se lane 906 bes 9 itakeLy gone horrors aobinas Lao ont

oie ib ha my

a
the next of kin suffersd sceauniagy less ty recson of the death of
the deoeased.

in ama@nded declerstion wos filed danuery 15, 1981, whieh
wae praectiosliy in the worde of the wriginal deoloretion, exeept
thet i¢ etstes thes sleintiff's intestate at the time of the secident
wae in the exercise of sue eore fer her oom oafety. The saended
declarstion was flied over « yeuor after the dasth of sicantiff's
intestets, tut the azuse of «ation is the stme as thot set ont in
the original declerstion. ‘the time aml eieoe of the socident,
injuries suctsined, the asnuner of desth, the sherge that the defendant
was guilty of negligenes in theepercticn of the suteomevile snd the
fact that tae decesaed Lert ter surviving next of kin whe auffered
secunicry logs by reanen of her desth, sre identlesi, as origimally

eharged. . .
It is ureea tant the deciarction does not state = emouae

ef setion in that it dees uct «var; Tiret, the exiatence ef =» tuty om
the part of tre defenmiant te proteet the claintiiff's istestete fram
the injury comoisined of}; sesend, « fsiiure ef the defendent te serferm
thst duty; third, an injury to tae sisintiff's intestate frea such
fatiure; «nd fourth, there if no aliewstion in the dtelerstien that

the next of kin er vonefielicries “ere free fron neclivence.

Defendant strenucusiy urges thet it woe the duty of the
plaintiff? te ost forth in her desleretica wh«t duty the defendant awed
the plaintiff's intestate, 4 nusber of saves invelWAMEo the lisbility
of eeployers by rerson of theiy fsliuve te furnish « gate slaee te
work and proper apclianees, arc elted, tut these gegen sre whally
foreign to thie sert of = precesding. there wag uc duty on the sart
of the driver of the er, the defendant here, te croteet slebmtiff's
intestate, wut thers was » duty to dvive the cor in « voreful, preper
fanner 8H thet cleintiffte intestste would not be injured. This
allegation is eontsined in the deelorstion.

to Rests a 2 ee YG au
eo ae
= i? Vite p.
ANE
, Ded in als Wey 3

te Siterh ent Yo toacet yd ‘smog. ui nis pese

‘

Motdw A865 gi yYrounet hassy cow ao kienceeb bebaape «
pn, BROS aad tore ipsb Avndybte eis to vbrow ent a2 ylies
p AR Kel Sd? Yo wndd ot @e ofntuapad al assndate dadt words tt teat
H bobase Qf. ae her mr jet) Wieet eb to ontorexs edt ml een
» BI etataks to dteeh edt cathe xeey 2 neve Gelst pew —
Ak tuo #90 dole ae rem esd as ao koi Serene a addi

"ont ven eliceadn. aiid 6. Semen a eonny

told totdenstooh ode it slowed ou ove erat Ao

si svonsy tigen mov? ext ores, “eet | han
tt ‘te ‘yiud ait sow Ww ded sogte Uewounete dani i
{ dove tnabas'te oat wee teow hesimapegen ie wt on rh thay ]

ph,

“Ulosin os td eee ee im
ianey edt me ‘Yeah on baw OORT” pees Pe
ha ee i ‘
otht itary sosstorq ot wrod dante farbaoted edt 92 2 od te 2 a

The 2lleged fallare of the cisintiff te clesd in ite
declaration the segond slieged error, namely, the failure of the
defendant to verform the duty of protecting the sleinsiff's intestote
and alee the third assignaent ef errer, namely, thet the deceleration
Senteined uo gharge thet pisintiff's intestate m9 iajwred by reasen
of the feilure of the defendant te furnish the oreper pretestion,
are ali based upon the mile snneunced im the eapleyer saces and,
a8 Siresdy stated, these oneca sre not eustedming or in seoint in an
agtion euch se the ane before we.

sefendant ingliste thet the deeloretion sentelned ne
shorge that the next of kin er beneficisrlee vere free from negligenes,
in augpert of this sontention defendont sites © number of eseea ine
volving injuries to ohiidren «here the negligence of the cerente is

® quéstian to be considered, ond relies uvon the some of Selden v.
Seniey, 271 fli. App. 158, and siwlisr exces. These aeses invelved

facets from whieh it appeared thet the «utemobile eae driven by the
next of kin of the desaxeed, Thera is nothing in the reeerd before
us which would indieete in any senner thet the defendant seehia
Lichtenstein ese in any wey releted to clainthif's imteetate or
numbered ageng her next af kin.

There appeurs to huve been teo trisle resulting in
fever of the plaintiff. “%¢ see no receen fer disturbing the present
judguent end for the recsons stated in this opinion the judonent
of the Superior Court ia affirmed.

: JUIGSERF APPTIANED,

HAbb, Peds BUG Te BB ley Ps WEAR ie

ati ai Beale o¢ Uieldnteia et to sxmliet boyeile eit
| sud to oruiint edt .ylemen .rorrs “Dogette bnotwe eft aod ‘ ‘ oat
«ftetestak et iivately sid yaitostoug to yYud sae axetiae "os baakusteb
| febbbsedtons dud dead .yloned yeorse Yo drdumpdoda Behdd ott cake hen
neeeet yd béxubal enw stetesdnl otYhidmiels todd sptode on beakednes
eo ktootety +8q0te eg ‘Aginrat of taabasteb att Yo oruliat odd to
«be eonds rewlqns sa? 22 beenvenae elar ode aoge beusd ifs exe
me ai babee #2 vo gelniotanve ton ets #oane onde eboitote yboorie se
way sroted eto emt ex aon notte
om dDenketmoe aoigeraioeh sit pede atetiat taebastet a
senogtines moxt oext ere asireiesteaed to als te $00 out fot + egaal
<i esses to esduun 2 astio taabasteb nokta toe elds to #recawe aI
al pion art Yo sousgliven ets exes arbi ide ot seduubect sseist
Sv geblor to dase adt aocs setlex bee eberabienco ‘ed 0b mokdaonp a
hevleval goes9 ooed? apace taikute dee g@Ol ngg® 6 ltt rey 29, s
edé yi mevir so aLitomeeua ait todd daxeseqe #2 cindy moet efor?
eroted broeet sd? ai gakddon ai axed? .Segonemh ef? be ait to teem |
aliget gastesteh edt dod? tome yan af otaedbal bisow dodde em
xO sfndeotal et semkols wt Sadstos You yas mL saw atotonstsods
paid ke doe tod yagma hewedae
wi unten: en ont seed ovad of avanqgs eradt © ou, 5
taveer1g edt gaidcudeth tot soacoy of ona of ¢thitabaty act Yo vent
duewghy, off goluiqo eis? af bytete enousee ad? tot bac enemghat
cae aa ik free cn ont 30 ]
| ptt RA i ttt

3 % 58 ,
itt ondige tiga 4

aie

ye haat * Son Nee Pedi Pe
ergs wl Caw Bite ‘oye? Cai a oe

sega) ey, (os
é
Be

GALT Bie OGRrs ARY » LR ay & ; fk oe
Serporstion,

ABOLLMEs

GORTIHENT 43, GASUALTY S0x0:
a Sorperstion,

oe Lhe

ippeliont.e 2 ¢ 4 I. JA. 6 60"

Opinion filed March 14, 1934
Win DUSTICN S108 GSLEVEREe THA OPLeioe UF The GOUAT,

fhe isht orug Vemcony, ine., © Gergerstion, vreuckt
ite setian on an ineursnee poliley aceinst the defend=nt Gontinent«eL
Gesvelty Gomceny, under waich the siaiatiff waa ineured ageinet
lose by roboery. The sourt found sxsinst defendant end ageessed
demeges of 505, A Sony of the coliey waa ctteo ed to the etatenent
of ginim. ‘The woliey centsine the orevisien thet the sresf of Lees
shell be furnished the oououny within O°: dnye after the diesevery
of the Lowa.

Gpen the trisl one Gimmens testitied thet he wa the
manager ef the company snd taist he was hele uy ip sn slley took of
his howe anit robbed of “G5, white it a0 slsined «ue the aoney ef
the plaintiff. He testified that ee setified the selice and the
ingurenes camgany; thet he never filed spy legs in «riting but gore
* gianed state ent to the adjuster of the defenicnt cowsany; thet
he €id not read the etetenent eigned by him. ‘thie was the only
teatimeny Gunterning proof of loeas aé teoulred by the ooiiey.

At the ena of the pleintiff'’s exse the Gefendent cought
to introdues ia evidenes a signed statement by the witneas a6 te
whet teok plate, whith th court refused to «<dmit in evidence. This
Signed atetezsnt wa the only @videnes af 2» praof ef lewa by the

Plaintiff and in our eoinion wee essentinl far the curpese of proof

fuihes Letapattaod ) taehaetod ¢ omg sandonge SMS:

Jom ates

Tact gaukotmua
Vi Fee i Ri wu C fe 4

$e Se Tv

agit oxy0 thys

ws me seer yh doe beLtt “notntao
Me 2, ie i

.PiUOO ANE YO HOLATGO ane aana¥ Lis nea verry wa ) Of
: I on Ga Soak ie
adguord eho dtavan ses & yaOek steno word te sat sah

¥ Rid ae ce

a8 bas dusbaoted $e

wares Testy

cae ould of hovontte ir me ut Ye
peed to 2eors., eae tosis fo kesvory, end ak

cele 4 a

“yreveoeth oat negte eyEb 08 akdtin Yameman oFi4

ERG MORON Oe Me Mee Sees ORR Ta) > Nees
odt eam au tod tertatest acount Oe .
i

te woud wise, we ak ass Mad ver. od feat} A rege

oi? tne aotlog ode beiti¢on oq toate ne kk
areg fut atte Ad erol yao belit copes cs . ‘4
tet aYooemen snehaeted oat Rial rete be ont oF te see 904 is
vino edt sew eid’ be phate ody hove fom
eNollog ont ys boxdupes ee cook te taoen gaierseace a
teuos taabastob ont oeno ‘etttgatese ent to bie one tA

of oe seentin edd yd tnenet ete bom te, & BF ase

2
in compliance with the selicy. ‘The eeuse ene tried by the eeurt
without « jury «nd there wen no reeson for not sdmitting thia in
evidence. It helped te bear out pisintiff's avn enas end we eannet
understand why an abjection was asde te ite eimiestbhlity. It
eonteained the stxtement that Siamens eca the owner of the business
nad took the money for his omn uss. hile it w2e contradictery te
the etatement that the money waa thet of the sleintif’, it woe alse
evidenee of the fact of notice of raebbery to the defendant end this
neotioe wr2 in vritinge
The sleim ia for 0.65 ond it is unfortunste that «
gegend trinld showld be recuired tut, in our ccinior, the judguent
should be reversed,
a6 S78 HOt aided in arriving ot ovr ¢oneluaion by
briefs on the part of the slsintiff.
guent af the Munidginsl Ceurt ie reversed snd
the csuse is remanded fur « sew trinle
SUAIMERT ACVERSED AWD GAUGE 4RMANDED.

HALL, Fade ENDS WEBEL, die EHS Sty

Penal ov has enue sme aireitutaty den: uanghian tented #8 s2e00blve
hs tLkitee inde ett of sham esw moktontdo mn yin baeterebaw
nasateud ait Yo tamwe Od? as euomNte Sect trenadede edt benkebnwe
Sebortmon ene $f Bei toy ano elit vot yorion oat oo? hae
eolk” ‘eew tk eres ard te sant ane yatom ott dent taomotate ett
etsy tar saabantob | of Yredder to seston te toe? edt to vomebave
1a sapitece nt con satton

8 todd otenutrotay of 9 bale 88 aOR af minke sift |

wee > Say Uae aha ase
suomabut, ould swodnice 0 ad atu borkuner ad Bivode inixt mag

“ moleuionas mae to gukebrss aa
if OS eatimiade edt to teeq odd ae

and teeters vt tweed Lon tolau® odd Yo turegbet
mm oes jkebs? wen 2 vot Dh
-ORGHAREN SEUAD GUA GSRRSTIS THENORUE

} i F q a od, ¥ f, ry Popo ied a
ag va vy if Fish bade Mee Cia aea eae So a

otk ait al

nos f vk HAR
Magee She SOS eh oll rea
| | Or ATR Mhey He
ay Reed i capri Bias ee a aati | aN sacle site ubecoab ay or poe “ yi i pg
: bail
vel to Scare # tw aiARws eae het ne |

Ret murs Rok Sa oR ei imeRs) Mia: Seis bal m8 nosed we i

‘
wh

a. ie

N fe

37040
BILOREO A. JAY1ES,

SUPERLON GOCRE,

27 FTN 661

Opinion filed March 14, 1934

MARKS BACTHESS PHUESTALS, 2
Serperstion,

~
Appellee, *
ApoP@la ant
BR, JAUGTIC’ SILSGR CELIVEReD THE GFIBics GF Tak Gaver.
Plaiptiff reeevered 2 juienent seainet the defendant in
the Superior Vourt for 1590 in sm 2etien in treseass on the cage
fer sersonsi injuries.
The evidence ahora that the oleintiff while walking
aLeng s sidewslk in the Jity of Chieses sdjacent to the theatre
building crned snd spercted sy the defendant, waa atruck by a
heevy sign whieh fell from the buliding ond injured ber. Upen the
trial the jury found the iecuca in fever of the claiatiff end assesced
her dewages ot the sum of 9,0. Fisintiff entered =< remitti¢ur ef
8500 snd « judguent ese entered on the verdiet after remittitur.
Thie oage hee been twiee tried acd in ec¢h inetence
resulted in favor of the plaintiff. the firet judgment wes fer 13,590
and on eppesl to this seurt the judgment »=s reveraed. The onus
is sow here on ® s@nend sppesi, ‘The eriginel setion wx. reversed
beenuse of the testimony of en expert eitmess besed upon an x-rey
phétare which indiested « fracture of the foet of the slsintiff. This
witness testified thet in his cvinicn, from an exemination of the x=ray
gdoture, the fracture ete the result of the eanident. ‘Another and
Sifferent pleture txken on the day of the seaident eas intredweed in
evidence shich showed the frecture wae en old end not » new fracture.
Cefendent contemis here that the cleaintiff esnnet reeever

on the doctrine of res jose loguitur besouse of the feat that specific

eats of negligence were charged in the voricus counts of the deslera-
tion; thet the evidence dees not supsert the verdict; that the verdict

x | | :
oo onote

she : age? ~ ee
hcomeaath pe t ‘ Siew s v

sTHUOD sonny

YaOthrE ys

séeLl .Sf dorsM beLlit ao tatqo

stnasiogas ish Whe
otauen WUT WO KOTMIAG ANT HRC TT TE sons KorTeus, mu nae

ak tnebaoted ong tenden: saemgiat + bexsvoone ar ea aa
FS) OR pee

‘ean0 si? 20 pRequor? xt mottos as ef ORBL! wor trol redzequs wt
RS RE

? woe data iesooreg set
publine eLbdw Tibtabesg eit tats erode commbaye gat

ee pei red tri ty bas pking, one most £20, stele ys
||| Beagease ban Btidatelg 9? ko covet mk powok oct baneso® eat ae Lotet
| to euttetinos © boretae Mitades 2000468 Yo mine, ae t8 seyemel . °
stent hee ines sedis tesbuev ot. m0 hosetas aw bateiagherk: 2 s pony ’
| Gonetenk dene ai bin belt? eetut seed eat snen eae
008,52 tot eoy snemghwt teett odt .ttededy oe te rove? mh etiveer
Gene oT abaotreves anv danagin oat? tren eke ov eee i
heerever new motfor Lentgine edt «lengge beeper 4 a0 oret ena ;
/ York se mou boast oxantin droyen an Yo YromAteed edt To sanodd
ald? .¥tdtaiels oft to seot edt to seuteett. » hetootbak — oxurate
|) Yer-x edt Yo soltentmers ax mort wolaigo etd at fads oitatend :
Hh bas tedtoa’ .dnobtoos ot Yo tiuser at ow sxutenc? edt

ssrutoes? wea o tox Bac bo ae eew etetoes? ade hawode detdw
sevens: gore Thitainle edt ted? ored ahrodnoo aanccounel

-—errleoh edé Be siteuroo awnksoy ad ak hnguaee one: vomege
I tebbasy edt dost prothrer oft Pranqun toa sock ooneb ive 4

2
is exeeasive and thet the court admitted iaprener evidense. fac¢h
of these objeetions wis presented on the former sso8al ts this eourt.
We held in that esse, Jen. Ko. 26199, Jovies v. Sorke Srothers
Thectreg, that the evidence wou admiseible under the dealaration, and
the same situstion ¢@xzists uwoon thie agoeel, ‘© sec no reseon for
ehanging cur opinion in thet regard, The evidense upon the tricl in
the cause now pending before us is very much the same «¢ thet upon
the eriginel hearing and we eee no reason for disturbing the verdict
by reason thersef,

fae first vwargict wus for 94,599 and the second verdiet
was for ©9,000. %e# do not sensider this verdict excessive. The
game evidence objected te on the previous hearing exsept that gert«in«
ing to the x-rsy gieture wes «ddueed st the trisl below om the second
hearing ef the cause end the reasons edyaneed for sustaining the
rulings thereon in the first ense are sopliesble to the situation as
it ie new presented to us on the second aovesl. foo juries have
sagaeé upon the questions of negiisence ond their verdiets heve been
sustcsined in each inatenee. fhe error in the former ease heving been
corrested ani there being no new or different cmestions raised on
this eppesl from these presented on the origins] hearing «f the couse
in this court, the jwigment of the Superier Sourt is sffirmed.

JUGGHERT AFFPIREED.

ees
.

doe! ,ssnebive receroas boddiabe orweo add? teat baw ovlessexe ie
stron aldt of Lesces temve? ef? ao batneeéeq sew snolteetdo ened to
4 ~tiadier sdzat “¥ godrcl sO8L0S vod omod 8589 vim 8 Sie
| me Holteralook odd cobay pidiseiahs een eauebive ade ted f toed’
| Toh cme ner a6 AK Oo cht MLK aOGe wtedee sostoutie omen odd
ai Laivt oft now oonebive off .bregen dete wi motntge tuo goiguade
goo tedt ev tooe oft dow yvev aL ev aanted gudbasg. woa tages ed?
fobbroy off gnisinude it rel aonnet on oon gw feo patresd dendgiso edt
_shoorode: amnegns it
tolbsey haoore off ban OC4,52 tol eer, sitiidinith on
edd .avisasoxe teibrev aldé? tebinaoe toa ab af it ee
watedreg dad? sqoone gaitaed evodveny od¢ me af iS iiians ehive emes
dit gaintedeue 102 hesanvbe enoacot oat bas seuso ad? Yo. gabzand
ae coltouthe 63 of aideaiieage ors pene dwndt adt ab anetedt s r mt
evad asitat ov? sleaqne Sappes ad? an ev oF beduonerg wom ah p2
stead ovat edviduey tiedt bur seasgtigen te aaedtennp odé moqa besmeq
| toed gukwsdt Ouse reemOt odd wt tome OAT ySonnteRt dome at hembatwm
| #0 bowler enottwaup tasxatRth xo wen on waded exodt han hetevene
anuse edt to gaiteod Leatgdes wid oo betaorave wabddd wert Lengqe.,
»bemtkia et tuve0 ceteequl edt Ye tomo st ara att
OAUMATIAA PRAMOOWE «. , ,

37013 a i”

¥,. #7, BACKSTROR and FF, BACKSTHUM, o>
doing business as FF. ¥F. BACKS THOM & BOM,

I
i
)
a
z
5

Defendants in Srrer, # ft.
| BAROR TO svar AL GOURT
ve, }
} OF altaan’
WATIONAL WATCH ANB JEWRLAY COMPARY, } k

a Corporatian, ;
Plaintiff in krrer. ) &® Py + OR
OV ATA

KR. PRESIDING JUSTICR RATCHKTT
DELIVERED Ti OPTERION OF THE COURT,

Plaintiffs sued in an action ef contract for the purdhace
price as agreed of « speelally constructed gathering magiine manue
factured for defendant under the terme of a written contract dated
Jaly 31, 1928. In their statement of claim they set up the written
eontract verbatin, and averred that the machine was constructed in
conforsity with ite terme and wae delivered te defendant September
7, 1985, and aceected by it; that defendant used the machine fer
some months tut refused to pay for it as agreed,

The affidavit of merite admite the execution of the contract
and the delivery of the machine on Geptesber 7, 1926, (seven days
later than the time named in the contract), but alleges that the
machine was defective and failed to perform the werk for whieh it 7
was deeigned; that plaintiffs attempted to repair the same but were
unable to make it comply with the terme of the contract; that de-
fendant then tendered it back, but that piaintiffe refused te ace
gent it, whereupon defeniant stored it in a public warehouse and
notified plaintiffe of ite aetion. ‘The affidavit denied that any-
thing wae due,

There was a trial by jury and a werdict fer plaintiffs in
the sum of $2000 (the gontract price of the machine), upon which
the court, everruling motions fer a new trial and in arrest, entered

Sadgment, to reverse whieh defendant sued out this writ of errer.

Defendant argues that the verdict is contrary te the manifest

a } j cs “a manptbat 3 fae BOHTGAVAG ,F%
4 i » WO A MONTSAGAL . 4% an euenland nie
town ad ad nahae ted

ev mek

om i THAR TOIAVEL ema roaav ll
ry a0 A T AY el a. Yitswiast whip ny
® o A “ a. PW avn ait

i ee

TPUROTAM UPIZGCL BRKGIAERS ea
TRU RT YO HOLeEEO SET CHAKV TLE

eeadotig x? x0’! Sowrtaos ‘te seltoe ma af boue wruisatacs |

» RAS

sutiem saidoum galtedéay hetosiwteaes ¢iiatoecs a to beetye. “ en
betab teats nee Misia a te sored ent thaw tog sae leh 20% betutent
neiticr sy qu ee yeuid aialo te 2 pasta en thot al 680s Sad yeast
me betourdance nae onbrioane oad facia horrevs he sahtadgor .

xodassqos Saebao led at hetevilon aew hae ented adh Moke eterna
bi sak osm aly beau Sanbae too tute isi got hetqueen hue .B30L 4f
~beotge ea a tot weg ot haas tot oud. aGs hos OmOR

doatines edd Yo aoltusens acid eatube eelrem 16 Shwabivas OFF oo yw)
aysh meven ) O38L .? we ding 3 g88 a0 eaksionas ont ‘to previ ied, Pah hme
ond tut seynits tud , (dnentae oat a hogan quht out. onde. nt

tk dolaw uot xvew one sro'te¢ ay be thw heap grtganyzes ee ®

orev tud eswe vai ahem of hetanezes wriaead wig tas simi me
“oh Sax? joes a00 eety te aunted ons cithe gioues #h odam 2 otdagm

-o0 of ‘beeutex athisalete teitd sud goad +h ‘iraned me cid inabast

Baa eeupsiotow oliduq # a $i Beuede fiaahas tab Roc uete er #2 me

wyte tact pelvod styebirte est xylose ef2 te ehtealate okt ha,
at wttignteda 12 tolhxev a baa yuwl, gt falas « eow oni:
dolde aoqu ,(oatdoam oft to eoixg soantaoo sit) O0RE to ae
heteian ,feorxe at ban Lait? wea a tot enoltom yablarerew oe
torte to sizw elds tue howe saghaeted dotede saree ot hea

teortnnn edt of ytnttaos a2 tolbuey eds fant sevgia dimhae tod a

weight of the evidence; that the court erred in its ruling on the
aduiesion and rejection of evidense, in denying the motion of de-
fendant te declare a sistrial, im refusing to give inetructions
@ubmitted by defendant and in refueling te mark certain eritten
instructions submitted by defendant ae “given” or “refused,” as
Yeguired by seetion 74 af chap, 110 ef Cabill's Tll+ Kev. Siete, 1999.

As to thie lsat peint it is sufficient te ray that tke
record discloses that the court instructed the fury erally secerd-
ing to the oraeties ef the Hunicipsl court in thet resgest, and
that no objestion was made or exeeotion taken to the same ae
given nor request wade by defendant fer further oral instruetiens,
Further, an exacinatlon of the record indicates that the written
instructions wiich appear thorein vere never in fact presented te
the trial judge at all. There wae a request in writing at the
close of all the evidenee for an instructed verdict fer defendant,
whieh was denied, Apparentiy neither the court ner spvesing
eounsel was ever given the oopertuniiy te see the sileged written
inetruetions tendered, Such being the state of the reeerd, the
Point is wholly witheut merit.

The peint urged aa to the dtnisai of the motion for the
withdrawal of a juror and for a deciaration ef a mistrial is sise
witheut merit, The ground for the motion was an answer meade by
witness Jenn Condon, a former empleyee of defendant, whe had
charge of the machine during the time it wae used by defendant.
Condon's evidence sheuld have been preduced as a part of plain-
tiffe’ original case, but the court in the exereise of ite dis-
eretion permitted his to testify in rebuttal. His testineny was
very favorable to plaintiffs, and he was subjected to a severe
exrose exemination, in the course of which soungel ror defendant
guestioned him as follews:

*Q. Backstrom gave you some money, didn’t he? A. No,eir.
Qe Promised you some, didn't he? A. Se, ®ir, only Ben
Ritholz,*

salt ae putivux afi al bere smo» one all jegreb hye ont te ? ,
“oh te Bolton odd garynoh ‘pl ,wouk ve te melvootet ban antenkehe
enoljounseat evita of pilevtet at ,leintete # exelobh ef hen

aetiiiw uistieo Aram ot yater‘tet al haa tmehan'tas er hese] Bs f ‘
| ga * benctor so “aévig" oa tantmeteh ye bert tncwe anol sootiaat
ORCL ed8 ves *£IE e' £2hded Yo OLE Gets to av aeltoes yd hewkopet
ect Sass Yeo of taplol tue of th taieg fend elit ef eA
ehteosa eliero vtet Sid setisiebeni Saves on? fer? pexofoalh brevet
“bis Sosqeex Jad? uF twos foyintad ode ‘te onltewry oH of gat
ge omen ea? of amtier aoltyhoks te chet ame wpstedide 6h Pant”
Jeueitowniant seve ‘Terre? sot tnesen eb Ya ohae Haoimer Toit BOWE
‘ae¥ehaw ot} sail? totwolbnt trooe anit th nebtentnaxs an were
et Levheeste toot at aeven Grow hletédd dengik’ ded ane bryetrenl
gay Ga giketaw at deokpen @ asl breath © ie te oybul faked ext
faebus'teh tot tolixvey bofewrtemt me to? oakesive ewe Lika to esets
gateoqeo toa Cribs och tengton Yldesuagy@k Jbatites’ ene tobe
gbsitaw begeile edt bow oF yPinerronye wd Rerdy 29ve mew Lennwos
‘pitt [buoner ex? ve odate on? y gated ‘out kexohaed onottonannt
wally | tives tuodslw yitede wk sae
‘edt tor aeivon adt 10 Lelooh odd of an beyee tml oq wall oon
‘pris ab fetveetm » to meltetvfoed » vet baa Semel « te Tewwtbagty
‘Yd whos towame Re baw sottow oAv XOT Huwwty OMT toed onthe
Bad ofr | sobbasrhh te seye Lene wentrot 2 ,abbsnd mist agony h
Vthobie'teb YW beew eaw $2 omit oi yatiut eateoaa 6H2' to: april
indietig Yo dng w be baokndty Oe OFA bLwets eonOe hve ot hat
egib afi to eelovexe ond al dtuen oft Sad one kents)te "eRe
anw Yacsiteet eth .iettucer th _titasd of ate saiahmnetaial pe
‘proves B of basset new st baw ne eins f

}
{
H
4
;
}
!
Dy
hilt!
a:
i
|
4 i
Rey
aa eed
ne. Bs!
ya
\
ui
1 i
Pail
ie
any
ana

—————— =

CASO NS Pea TENE hate me te ells expebatelte’ ‘pee
wet ylno tie ,of 4A fet et ahibh ,ome pero ob

Ben Hithelz was the secretary of defendant, ond the anewer was an
accusation that he tad tried to bribe tne witness. Defendant made
a motion to strike out the anewer, and the court erdered that the
last part of it should be etricken as mot respensive., Defendant
then made its motion to vltairay a juror and to declare a mistrial,
which was denied. As & watter of Tast, upon re-examination the
witnees Cendon, without objection by defendant, teztified in detail
to an interview with Rithele, in which KRithols offored witness
money for faverable testimeny and suggeztsd that he might go out of
town te avoid testifying. Defendant cress-exacined Condon as to
thia conversation, and Benjasin Hithelaz in surrebuttal testifbed,
denying that any such conversation took plaee. Prebably the
testisony had much influsnee upon tie verdict of the jury, but the
conversation was material and relevant, and it was for the jury to
pass upon the facts.

Pisintiffes offered evidence tending te shew that «et the
time the machine wae delivered te defendant a one-half horse-pewer
moter was attached therete; that the power furnished by this motot
was ineulficient and wae the cause of the failure of the machine te
do the work as previded by the contract; that plaintiffs thereupon
purchased and delivered a three horse-power motor with a speed ree
ducer, ani that when this waa attached the maguine functioned
properly. it is urged that this evidense wae inadwiseible upon
the theery that 1% waried the terme of the written esontract. The
eontract said nothing whatever about what kind of moter sheuld be
atteched to the machine, aud the transaction with reference to the
substitution of motors ocourred Leng after the execution of the
contract and after the aachiine was delivered. The admission of
this evidence 414 met viclate the rule againet receiving parol

evidense to vary the terme of the written eontract, since the

transaction was not prier te or gontenporaneous with the making

| a

me eeW tewens of? has , sashes teh to qratetess ond saw elodted met
Sham ganhusted .aaratiw odd edbad of ‘beitd hed ad daca meldasion”
ext sat hoxebxe éxioo ef? baa townie add Jug atitia 9 nolicn a
dnabmetet cevienoques fen ta meiolede ef hivede #1 26 suka Saal”
efatiteta 2 etalsob ot bas sort & werbsd be og cotson "aah ehom anne
exit ‘netésntaaxe=o7 noqx dot to woddem & oA bolaoh naw Hobie
Ltetoh at heliisost ,sasbae'ted yd molioetds thediiw ,acbned eeeatiw
| sevatin bow The aiosia ia dodcw mi ,wfeteha atte wolvrstal an 6”
te tuo oy 9 bm od dusis hethewmun haw ymoaiseed eiveveve’t ot yoann
ot ei ‘pobaod boa! naxe-cnaxs ‘Pasbuoted \pabytieesd hheve’ od" awed’
hoktizece fatéuderrue ak alodsha mobos tenet hae .tokdaeteraao akag

ae ous Yidadort 2098 Le oot noliserevato itoue yaa tant gatyus
ous ed wut one ‘te solbiey ‘ond opqis some ltak 89 wi bart aonmtined
on yuh | ond sot. sew aa bas Sentara bus tabieden bow ‘ol sana wo
| " atoe® odd oi ses
est te tens ‘wee of gntboss ‘sonebive bore'tte ettivatate °°?”
aevoq-se700 Risd-sno a tashasteh of bereviles ene entioom odd wuld
tovom alss ed bese horvut Torey act tastt jo¢eredd bettost$e aaw “cofoa
et walAoae erg to oiwtist edt to seuwe ont sew hae gastolYieead av
moquetasit eriismiaig gadd séentdaes oi? Yd behivetq as ‘htow odd ob
29% beage a ifiw totem rewon~sared works » hover! tes has baanigaag
bouol Sonn ont puss ails bedead an ase atdt aedw cade ba Coed
oven oldtasiubaat anew sonebive ‘ehuy tase fags al a ¢
ant ‘stowns soe angaice es to amzed odd boteev 42 tasd yt :

od bivede xovem Yo babs jade tueda tovedade yakdson Bisa aed
ons ot soawre to dotw nelévsnaatd ‘ed? baa .eakdpan ond oF + be. an
‘ent te soltunexe sid ‘soften anos betiwose exedon te ‘wal tus Hhadite
ts aoluciabs oat .henevileh saw edi dons ong wha poe ¥ a
Loreen aatylesex dealeye eden ‘ead lacy tou pie’ iui ty

eas soaks 1 Soarsnee augg2 tee ert? to awusd oe bral ‘of ‘eoashive

: Airs ch ae
Neer ade naae euccmace quednes 008 faire maw sign

ieee: ie:

ef the contract.

The contrelliing question in the onae is raised by the dete
fendent's firet point (wiien we consider last), namely, that the
verdict of the jury ie eontrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence, Many ensee ars cited in the brief te the effeet that
dt im the duty of this court te reverse a Judgment besed upen euch
®& verdict. ‘there ie ne doubt that this Lo the rule, Here, the
evidence shewe that thie gechine was conatructed aceording te the
terme of ao written contract; thai Lt was delivered te defendant snd
used by 1t for aoue comeiderabie time. ‘the torme of the contract
ealied for a “postal card gathering waviine to coneieat of five
unite,” woieh when completed wae “to be fully capadle of gathering
tuirty (3) different pestal cards or similiar watter, se that opera«
ters engaged at the aid of the delivery ciiain of this machine may
be able to viek wo wnite esneisting of thirty (30) sarde or sixniler
watter and insert thes in envelopes fer audling,® The written eon-
tract further provided that the machine was to have a speed of 8
R, P, &., aod that the feed was te be we constructed that only ene
gard, or #elmiler matter, would come out at a time; that the double
chain wan to be we arranged and timed that a eard, or einilar mate
ter, eoming out of the firet feed tox would, by the time it reached
the jast feed box, have a Tull assortment of 30 saris, or similar
sniiun, ‘erin each Teed box,

The gontraet reeited that 14 was the intention to eonstruet
the gachine in «a manner based ugon “a erude uwedel* sede by plain-
tiffe, but that it wae made « condition that thie model was merely
& suggestion and wet to be sonetrued ag binding defendant im amy
way. The contract stated:

"You are te cometragt « magnine teat will de tue werk we
intend te get fraw it, vis.; to gather thirty (50) pest carde or
similar matter at the epeed mentioned, snd in & marmer stated abeve,
“tn witt danubtieos. neeeasitate a large number ef changes in the

site
Can

i :
tft ee

F re Be ony fj PO aN
“aed orld w banter al enao ostt wh wodtanwy gad Efarsaeo ett
UNS FRG ee
“eet Sade etoaea (tend wh tasoa ow sio2ow) tatog fast ® ‘gaahaay
gilt Ye tidy tow susitace est of Cuattaee ut cut, nas. t9 fal as

tend ‘favtte ond of Ywind bd at begs one sence awit sbonnbive
eh MEY

alone age heasd dnomubut « sea von os Jxm0s nue te xten as a at
‘anid ‘orsl oehet odd as has baad tasor on ak oundtt _sodieney 4
ans oe palbrocos bedoursoaen aaw oltiaon ohais fade “amass epanbt 8
hows tnabae’tob of bore vistas eer 2 dats Hosssaoo mond tee « 10 8 tae
toarines ‘ody %e ates oat : wink okies bhanon od aot ¢ ww zat

4 PRE
i i eek *
“exh? te dslenco of seam antredl iad bxse inteon" 8 Restle: 4
gabtestag % pidages’ yee} nd at mew beveigaoa sancioe oohow Bi

~at0G0. bald o@ 1 Td dest 6 fide x0 abtos taveoa done ab (E 7 gate
wou ‘@ahipsn aid? 29 mbes canvh Sed ons ve bine eats a Segense tet

reeks a

telinle t@ abtas (08) eerisia Xe pabealenme edtaw bio dotg of 6ida od
«nop mpgtiaw oat * wal then aot agnokevie an aed repent sae tetas
1G Yo beags @ ered of saw onlsons out suits hapiverg rsd? re)

ait xine dadd hetowrten09 on ni of? taw bee ode rest See at A =!
‘pkduob edd Sasi? jones o ta tH dal biwow stadies XeLinis me ama
tas telials 1a shuns a dade beans haw baguette oe a of aww miods phede
hedowet of anil 5 ‘eait “s shisow xod boot sand ps te fig aed
testa ‘0 sebreo | 08 we anna ouse Liat & ova! eH08 eg ?
nord boot ivan wore a
towsdanon of molt omg ad xis oo gk toss begiens, teesdao0 oat
nate te x shaw *fobos anwte ae aoge | boas some at advan
ulbxen aew foboa odds seule woas sbaoe 2 aha sas ab tat o ” le

“ao at baabaohe’ sabbaid as » brurdenen of a fon hae aed

3 ae th Ae. ®

Page

aw as otis ‘eb tit jada’ ‘onkinan. a ‘tovnnee 2
| te shaeo. tang (02), yanked settee? Pow

mv ods fetase seanem a al ban ,beaoliaem &

asi? gd aaqemato 2a wodmum equal 6"

Benjamin hithelz, e@ecretary ef defeniant corveration and
aleo a lawyer, drew this centract with suggestions from /.
Backetrom. vefeniant produced many witnesses, for the sest part
ite own saployees, “ho tezgititied to facts tending te shew that the
machine did net *uiriai the veguirements ubove stated, The tes-
timony of ¥. Baskatrom, whe had charge of the matter fer plain-
tiffs, was to the effect, a5 already stated, that when the msehine
wae Tiret delivered a one-huil serse-gewer motor waa aiteoahed
weich sik /attisient, aud that wneu the thres heree-power whick he
gupriied was attached ith a speed reducer the machine worked in
euch a way as te ecompls vith all the requirenente of the sontract,
He testifies in evukstance that the machine wae declared te be
aatisfactory; that he was promised payagent by Rithels, and that
it wae only after frequent requests fer the purehase priee, and as
late ae February of the following year, that the defense was
raise’ which was interpoved at the trial. Jie is correborated by
the testimony of John Condon, at the time ef the trial empleyed
ae manager ef the multigraph devarteent of Sears, Roehuek & Game
pany, and whe had werked for defendant from Gepteaher 20, 1926, te
Boveuber 15, 1924, hen he left ite expleyuent.

Condom says that when the meciine wae delivered he was put
in charge of it by Ben Kithela; that when the ewiteh was turned on
the machine would net run; thai 14 was impossible to run it with
the moter that was hooked up with it; that they (Backetrom, Yilliam
Deckert and the witness) dismantled the macsine te see whether
there was anything wreng with the meter, or whether any scart wae

binding; that they found thet the parte moved frecly and decided to

put a three horse-pover moter on the machine; that this was done and

& *peed reducer put om; tat the maghine ran and that the result

of the teste wae omtirely satisfeetery; that the machine was run

approezinately two monthe until the work of the season was Soup] eted.

——————__— -

bas aelistociow goxhae leh to yiudetese ,alodthA ahantoed
(2 mor? ancldeoggwe Atl seaxtase alsa work (toywel @ cola
“Peay feom ett tot jseaeoasiw yams Besubowg duadro'teC .mottedont
add tuit Woke of gnidned edoct vi aeliidasd ollw ,wedyetame twe adh
eased eat .bedate Svoda atoeamcinpet ext Lihidwt gem bis anions
«eho £4 tot witaw ead te eyiade bud oct jabtdedeat .v th \aomls
Witold CA? dw tae jbotadd \Sadatn ax ,Joativ ode od egw yaTrhd
betsadia aew tos om tewog-satox Yivdwead w berevitoh dealt daw
et doliiw tewot-eptod Se2ng oat new fad! bee ebeatian et dole
“ab hodtow elise ont sesuboxr besga & déliv badostia saw bottanue
fsattaos ond to a4 coum tLupet ade ife dtiv etewes ot ge ‘aw 2 foue
‘ed of hotatoeh aew onidvoi ood tad? soneteduy ai anbtisesd of
doit tos Reith yd tasnyeq boekmorg saw of Jaks pyrotoetelien
as hae ,eoitq odasiotug ed “sey ateaupet Sasayert teste “eine anw $t
Gaw genwlod oft Sead pumey gatwolto? add 1¢ yahendet wa obal
e¢é betersdotice wf SR felts od? te SOubote tad sae doldw heeled
hoteique keiz? od? to omit odd be ,abbaCo axol tS yoonIbeed and
ano) 4 vomddok erase Yo faealtayed sqorgiiion ety to tagemea 4a
bf SSCL O08 toxuet qed Sort sannae Ish rel Bedvow hud oat Kas (ynsG
| tasmyelqmy oti FOL ort ansiw ,O8CL BL vedaavel.
oq eae Od Ketdvites adw'eikcodst oad heb tide egie ‘tobibed” °O*
(wo Becca? eae codiwe edd made feat fetons 1h nek yd 22 °%0 byxacty ‘at
diw $i me of e6flecoqat etw #1 tact pat tou 'bivow Satdonm Odd
makisiW ,sottaxeed) youd sant ;42 thw qu Betdod ent dedt ‘xotom ot
qedtenw eon 62 onttgew estt be 3 nested (wwwstt ie hase ‘ae ig
saw Prog Yee seddedw to ,tofom oi? ati gacxe gal 7
ot bentooh bre Langa devou aig ad Fal bane? deol ‘tbat i

ie fa, sti tt asit syredactensa | Mi i vs gms naw ats
| sBidde tases ‘saw Ttowsen ost To Axow oid Khemu wiemoR owe Y Lota

William Deckert (who at the tine ef the trial wee in buele
neaes for himeelf but whe in Sentember, 1924, was eupleyed hy de-
fendant and had werked for it or for véeracne aasociated with it
for nearly eight years) testified that im the fall of 1928 he was
ferewan ef defendant snd took care of Gli the ganufacturing machinery
and mechanical werk, and that witha @ Litthe hein from Conden he made
the model which wae furnished b) defendant aid by which the machine
was constructed, He corroborated ¥, Hecketrom with reference te the
substitution of a three borte-porer apter for the ont-half horse-
power motor, and eald that the use of the one-half horee-power
meter ae a mistake; that «hen he found the one-half herree-porer
moter would not work he called backatrom on the ‘ohene and that
Hacketrom cane to defendant's olace and put on the aa. P. motor with
a ageed reducer, after whick the machine ran and wart operated, he
thougit, about Five days after delivery. He alse said that the uotor
was tesporarily cennseted with an cla wire lying there so that it
was net povsible te get out the ao HR. P. Roy thet the eleetrie Line
wae overiouded and could not give the power needed; toast when gurrie
eient power wae furnished the machine would wake trem $80 io 82 reve-
lutions per ainute. i@ enw Condos rum the mnenine Per about two
monthe, and he neticed Sovak yunning the maghine after Cendan Left.

On the other hand, Frank Deckert, who Agseribea hiws¢if a8 @
teolmaker, and Wovak testify that there were a1] kinds of trouble
with the machine. Ne says, *“Sonetines it was vorking; sometimes
they got eards out of there, tometimee they dif net get any at all.
Semnetiner @ half a dozen in one. i knew that the machine wae sup
posed to knock out thirty earde at one time, it 414 not knock out
thirty eards, not all the time.” His testimony a to the precise
time, waieh wae important, was quite indefinite.

Mre. Kay Barry, Fo was in September, 1926, on amployee ef

the defendant sonpany in charge ef the girie whe worked there,

~teud RE enw fetus ods ‘to pald wat He one) Fxorved mubifie

-9b ys Beyelque now ORCL ,tedestqee wt ont Jud “Livamtd aot enon
“9k dite betatveuee waoaxed tet <0 #f tot Bodrow Marl wile “Fas Bee
“gaw of B8CL ‘te Livy bay ad fad? bo rtidesd (eee ddgie Yhiaen ‘ae
reaitodm gut wios'turas ei? tle 4 stay deed Naw Pseboe'teb te maustet
obam oH mobood stot? qied oLftit a deiw tan) waa odtow Lay beucitowat Bele
enidens od dotiy Ye baa studas'teb cd bodatar't aaw debe Loom ost
edd of oxete Tox ritiw morteteet NN teswredseron ot “Bedawtd anon ‘aate
‘<oitsa tfeiesie #2 tGt todem toveq-nened seeds 4 Yo nots Sede

“ tewog-oer oud “VWod-aae of? Yo. ‘eeu ods Todt bles doe ‘\eotea | 190
“‘tewog~eetod ‘tivd-an ode asset oH nese deutt sesetela # eaw tote
Fi sass has node’ 68% a6 worsedent Boies OA Xeon Fond Bivow tasom

Hil ag tw totea .T il € ws ao s8q how oa ty eteaabinted of eames mottestlat
. : ry | bad ete qo enw ‘eal cuss eainesa sa) voldv warts Sxeeuber iitee a .
Hh aoson edd fais bias ‘Gdn sit JYtOvELOR teste ages ovit tuede .fiigalasty
ik oh dard of ortery yaiys eile blo ae ¢ttv Bedananos Utiotiqaef ‘tile
eatf oftvense out fete {2% [8 od ode Guo 209 69 osdtvecq Fon Baw
= Prise nee teas ‘TheBeed “HOG oil} ots ton bidoe tue pdbsétieve die
~oved $2 of 08 nox? odan Bivew satdoon oily pertataadt naw vewog taste
ows tvode rot satvious eft nut dofact woe eh” Jetuake 40q enodsul
ftef aobned defies saidona $a? yakanwe dave® beulddu sa has et om |
a ae Phonatt aediioash edw ,Stedcet diwst ,huan xsieg oid a” ”
éiddeis Ye ebdta ted stew Salad '2adh ceeveed ‘deve Vad bdiadeds
went ronon faalicen sew $2 admtdeaon* joes ie ediliad Gad itis
fie te yaa #64 son Sib yeaa dsuttemet “joxedd “th dud ebase deg ‘ened
oque sew oatdpan Gat tox's wont 1° led a ndvoh # Utes Walia
“gag selon ‘don Bi 92 Somtd Wad te edets CONE Gee Soviet of Seven
rs, ‘esd 02 #a- cesehaced eit * dake ball fiw ton ,ebees etehits
orsnsnintn fai teba F ‘etiup saw ta asa eqn. tow etdo vault
1! wot nn (eres deidun dt 'ni'dae ell eet wR ‘ven at M8
- orate bodtoe ‘ow eftly ett Xe eytario ‘ae ‘eens fasbae'ts ile

out
testified that the carde never cang/right fros the machine; reme-

times there would be thirteen carda to a set, sometinea thirty,
sonetiner forty, ond sometimes they would alli ecue and buneh up on
the belt so they eould net be used; thut ehe repertied te hovak that
the machine wea out of order but they 414 not wey any attention

to wheat Bovak did about it. Gre eays they worked on the machine
and it would mot go; that they had te hire 75 girle toe do tne work
by hand, and that the machine wae allowed to stand idle. She had
taiked the case over «ith Nithels, snd she said Ae teld her that
all she had to do wae te teli the truth, Some sight er nine girls
employed at the place gave siailar testiaeny, which we shail net
undertake to disouss in detail.

Benjanin Kitholz testified sentradicting the testimeny ef
Backstrom at every point, se identified alleged eouies of lettere
whien hie stenographer teetified she sent on September 15, October
2 amd GOetober 12, 1928, im substance informing slaintiifs that the
machine was wholly unsatisfactory. settere dated February 4, Mareh
7, and September 14, 19%, Yacketrom said were received, but denied
that the other letters were ever received by gialntiffres.

Fitheut diseusaing ali the evidence tr detalii, it may be

summed up by asying thet several witnesses wuat have testified cither

falsely or without knowledge. Delendunt argues that the preponder
anee of the evidence ig in ite favor becauge it enlled a larger
auniber of witnesses, Ye have, however, often etated that this
court does net count evidence but weighe 1t. Ae 2 matter of feet,
Cendon and William Deckert were two withessen whe were apparently
finaneially disinterestéd «id whe had complete knowledge of what
trangpired., If the testimony of Hithels ie true (lawyer se he was)
it seene highly prebsable that upem rejecting the machine in
feptemder (if he 444 vredjeet it) he weuld have done we in a manner

that could have left no doubt of the fact, The eviderice here tends

sue
“omnes jomkslonm edt most digit\ pane nevea ahtee 82 tend boltisacs

fe Ah Pi ? bo

aya ent Somos stor * of shane agnetiag os hiwow weed? ae

mo qe Band has exos Raetes bLuew rece anal demon baw ero “sont soa0e
sand daw oi 8 bedroqes nae Sasi jhean af fon binog wat, on tied ort
motasnsta Ye YeG 2 ont bap xen sud xepr te ano ear oat tows

tins ae
eatdones tind ae hewtow youd ayss eae with twode bab aavolk same Lot

had oil eth brads ot bewotta new cabdoon oad tenia haw sDauast _
ai x Pb ets ae
sactt oe bLos ox bias ada bate eetodtia Ht lw tare nea ‘aut bexing

win ee: Tate

aiaty enta xa datgte wna wsidued oa ad a) sae oh ot be oats tie

8. a uA
ton Liade ow dia Baim reuontsont toLiate oven oonte eas tn “bevotene
t & ~

iteson sd wawoadh oo Primerica

te oalzass ong pil sotherdaes bettisess whens i hab al is. ie
, exerse£ Ro ae haes boge Lia Bests abd eis saiog ere 40 aotinioed

Pe te aa Y Soa

redo 200 aed Hedawtqo8 ad soon ita bee ti eees seddrargonsse aA shite
weit ‘aastt avitsadaty yadarrortut domes ads ah BRO (RL ‘xeiote0 ae | 8
Motes ,& Yrevadet botab awpstod _aytonpe te ttenns ehtowte raw ontsionat

Pie Me 23)
botned sud dovisos. ove bhas mows exon Oe ot endo tant hon we

ers Gar

; seth isatala xd bevinows vere did azerres ‘sedte brad fae
‘ wn he _ thated at soashtve ods he sateauontt tone te
WA aT

a aterlt Sp peliisens eyed xs souesad te ieweves saute autyas we co bosnaws
stepoogets oxit sana “esugta das haw'twe aye Leones tuosld te x9 rionter

_toptad a be Lao st vanno od ovat ati ak wa sonenive one te 9 ’
f 4h CAMEO
ates sand berate noe a Tavewad -sovass Ys saeeaont ty ‘to bo

sdost te woddnn © ah th seater ud sonshive aawas fon ‘aseb fuses

(aur on 80 sreyend) oud at fod ti ‘w caoausees ut uw exper
as Py Re wees

Pe Re eee eee ae os AM 2 MY

_Nomnam a ak 08 omobd svat bimow on vt seston ‘Sit od th) rede 08

ee Ly 4 Rae a ee

NOMI HS > a 3

ORE:

ax08 oxtt ob 0 ateis ay ouid og act ceais eacit +a ton bivow fr a.

Way ee

Sy PRe 4 %% fa rsd os P ee

3 He Ph ra Wine 4
‘i noreges or0w ass oneeat ie ow s188 srexnea mati ban nebaed
A aa AA. ' eas Lae ERs a
dase 20 eats iwons #90.£qa09 “Bast aie bas t » ys salonmat?
oe Seis oy Re Raw

tat entdoom aed att tt on hor gage todd skdedortg eLaly bet smpon 48

oneee onan soneb ive ont doe ous cr sduob oa ates , i wid i
ne : fii oy ; ne

to phow that the machine was not finally rejeeted until after the
end of the season for the work It waa intended to corferm, If the
machine would net do the work for which it wag designed there should
have been an unqualified rejestien of 1t within a reasonable tine,
Appatently the jury wae conviseed tast the whinesses for olaintilfYrs
@ave wn accurate account of the transaetion, Ye asve neither seen
nor heard the witnesses and are net gersuaded that we should rejeet
the verdict which the jury returned anid the triah court approved,
The judgment is affiraed.
AFFIHNED,

O'Conner and Medurely, (J., senour,

wipwod

eas redte Liseu botontes ehtaat an | eav oatdonm ue tas piel os
shh apart
ode ae: sets ot bebaedal enw ok wrow ene rot ‘geeaee ‘ede t0 ‘bile

yD. eeapaler

biwoste osenid bong leet now ss ito at te Xxow ocd oh don binew ontoen
wnaks * kianesaes a abaghw at ve Hoh as bor bot tt Yeupew na ved ovad

yo
z ay

eviyaiere « “o'r apanoat tw on? sens besuivaes eae eaait ‘paid ‘‘E
ee Mey

meee resivion eves oF mot sens net? nat ‘Ye smxo00s ssatuo0m 7“ all

seotex bivode ow faut bebaueteg Jon oxs fas aeavontie ost bamout ‘ten

Devercae S200 tabet ent baa beaaueoe wot, wa dw golbwe wv out

MATRA Say
Ger sk deaehve ) ee Spe ey) i aid :

y Hi we hind ee tate j

sw0Keo ot seioraston ba

SB AB pate Beg ‘ ea RoR hoe iaene es ate aaah Bikege rN gic. & oe
Aire oad 4 Ried oa Ranuat aie ae Wat See Uae i ta yf Pe $48 oti
cba Mt Mp edith peel
F8 Bytes CAR SRR GURL ein > CTE ponae ae pee ik ie a aan eae

Baka EP RA vier ae Ane . ena thay Be Se gi 7 .

CORR AOR hee Eee aealt siete

J ~
ME & “a¥ ‘ ‘ a a , SAD hi RNS EN: Ba ala 2c i PAA Ses Hs Baer ag ® gio tat
pene ar J PY 8 ’ Ye ab Sir Ave eh sug Pe a Pee 5 wens

BE aatoe haat Sy aT err f ak abs

ey es a ; | a RES Ae UMS dk i: 8 cee re | fom m sa rae

“ea h ie ra evn: oye

Haat mit

HORE, BR” PRN. ae wesaehe ab: "a jada a

UE SE. as EE GRA OS RGU iam As ro _ahvonts rant

37022
aes
DANI: L, BADDES and j ra
SDGARD J, KELLBY, } , oe
Appellecs, } gf z :
) you SUPERIOR count = {
we. } :
} OF GGG GOUNTY.
SARAH L,. JOHROOR, ) 4
Appellant, )

QA TA Crt
eed é oy fl ofie O 6 1
@R, PREGIDING JUSTIGR MATCHETT
DELIVERED THM OPLSIGR GF THR GOUNT,
thie gauge wae before tiie esurt on a former aopeal,

eiden vy. Jehpson, 287 111. Anp. 839%. The original bil was

filed in the Superior court January ¢7, 1928, by Madden and Kelley
for the purposes ef securing thigire rights in a contract with de.
fendant Sarah Joknesn, under which they performed Valuable sere
vides in her behalf in oroeeouting an action in eeuity in that
eourt snd in defending i: the Supreme court 4 deores whieh was

obtained in faver ef kre. Jehueon in the trial aourt.

Bepnard, 323 111. 527. The services were not deuied, but ra,
Johnsen filed a eroe@-bill, in whien she set up that a written
sontract with complainanta executed by hor on Auguet 17, 1996, was
presumptively frauduient ond orayed that the asme might be set
aside, she offering te pay te compiainantea a feasonable fee, The
Cause was put et issue as te ceth Bill and orese-bill, the evidence
taken by the chancellor, and en June 86, 1920, a dearce wna entered
(finding that the equities were with defendant), setting aside the
contract upon condition that defendant pay in addition te eertain
eoste and expenses the sun ef 87500 for seliciters’ fees end dise
missing complainants’ bill for want ef equity. Complainants ap-
Pealed to thie court, where after a review of o11 the evidence the
decree wan reversed and the cause remanded.

In the opinion we stated:

, aX THUD AOD, "5.

“£90 Bel BY S
oar

“ hesqes teerct @ mo Pads ekad exerted eam : i

ben Likd inoigixe oat 08D sag RET Cee ,apeailol, .y gopher
VILor hee swhdod yd .880L TS yraumel gases selasemt oad ah boli?
~eh délw senxtaco a al warigts siese ant tupse ‘te euegug eae tot
"Las otsewkelv boana'tteg yeuls Aoluhe Be Bian nonenaet torcati danbion’ .
gadt ad ytiueo ah solves on yabdugoners at “theviod woul ok sendy

aaw odin. aetow “ @%eoe saesque ey ai aattaeted ah haw suw09

at gonaie’ tine eins on? al moeadiel .etk be covet ak dentetde
stl ted ,pelueb foa tev aeoivase amt G8 .2t ane stam
ees : Matakee a jas? qu toe oay siohaw md fitdaan one @ beet spect
: wae ,O8RL Ph feng oo tod yd betusexne etonniadenes seiw foattage
os oF Agia some oss lads heyorg bam Jomobwast yovdequreeng

ad? .99% sldancasor « atnaniatquos oF yea eo gahuette ade ones
sonekiow oft ,iiid~anota bam Lid dred of ae ounek em tee enw ens ‘
bocetae aay cetuok a CHAE 08 paul ae haw ,telinonwdy ame yd sf o
odd eblea yulsten ,(tanbw@ eb tin anew neledupe. one said gat ar)
alesres oe agidibga ai you toebaa'teb Gace nels shnes meee tnont om
~@hd baw won't ‘ere? iet iow tot COARY Te ana watt apuce cee am, eam :
“on stasate.qmod *tiiope to damw vet Lhd ‘etanatateve oe an tn
wo sonshivs adt Lie te wolvet a teats onesie re eney ot t i 0%

ee 5 Sage eae

"The case of aroasecomolalinant ayaineat Jnnder and ethers
wae orsetieally created through the services rendered by her
aelieltors. “hey performed thane services upon the contingency
that their labore weuld be without eeupenention uniees they saee
ceeded in getting taek the vreperty which ereat-complainen? sen«
veyed to Bernard, it is apparent that if the market vaiue of the
real getate had deartase’ instead of increased thin contrevoerayg
would never have ariegen,

"Creevedefendante are entitied te receive as compensation
for their services, in cenforwity with the agreement between the
parties, one-third of the real estate reeovere? or the eouiwal ent
ef ite value in money, Leas 93,206, What teat ameunt in eannot be
satiefactorily determine’ trem thin recerd. Bor that reason the
decree is reversed and the onuce rewanded with direetione for
further preesedings in conformity wit the views herein expreeeed, *
tires. Johneon petitioned the Supreme court for gertinrari, which was
dentiod.

The eaus¢ war redecketed in the Savericr ecurt and the
ehanealier keard evidence ag io the walue of the real estate re+
eovered in the @ult conducted fer her by complainants, and April
26, 1933, entered a deerce finding that taare wae a Walld con-
tract under which oowplainants were enililed te recever ene-third
of the fair csah value ef the eroperty recevered in exeans of
$3206; that for the opurgese of arriving at an equitable adjustment
Madden and Kelley had offered to pay $5200 te ove. Johnson upon
reeelving « deed to a one-third interest in the sroperty, bat that
ahe had abeclutely refused te accept the arrangement; that ¢oemolatne
ante were entitied ts « lien upem the premises fer the amount of
the feces due to them; that the value of the preperty recovered in
the suit in the Superier ceurt of Gook euunty, which was affirmed
by the Supreme court at the time ef the recovery thoreol, wes
$50,000; that ecesiplainante were entitled te one-third of this eum,
leee $3260, making a total ewe das of $15,600; that ecomolaivants
were entitiea to payment ef that sum, or in lieu therset te a one-
third interest in the land, subject to one-third of €3260, er the
eum of $1066.67, It wae therefore erdere4 and adjudged that de-
fendant pey to eoupisinants that wus, er convey a one-third in-

terest of the preperty, subject to the saymattet 91066.67 within

wrotty bw tebass tonlage teotike(quopecsors to mgr oe 075 i
ted yd Semehust oosiveea aht Mywotd? hetawte ul
Yesgatiace add aoqy weolvree gamit howto tog sseatahl tes iad aw
epua you? eaelas nelteansquce Suadtiw ad 4 ve Yracat' ahead
etoo frathasquoo-unges dalsin ydooqe'sg att desd gaiiteg af Dehese -
ett ‘Yo otlev Sewtan oat “th sade Faeusgga Bk 34 sbraamad ot leyev
Yaterettnes whay Pmenotank te Baedaus rose gon oterer. _—

‘“

toltaane gags 2 evipoet of baisiiae ote eduanonhetons ee sas
GAs HOsWied Pagemsnyge ett Athw ysherdlaes al ,assivaee lane ont
«shy Laovined oF co hexewooes Fares fees aot To brtrigeeso ne
ed 2oanay ai fmweme tac? #ot@ O08, 2@ anes , Yocom al aulev aot
ad? Aonset fale to ,hrooey aisd work hawiereiok yLisotoa tals
tot muokieothh dglw tebeotet senna Smt hue over ef sexo
* poxeorgxe aheted eweiy ace Kohw b> secon al ayathoevorg redeaw

sav doide ,dactaldies tot fiweg sowiged edt beanttideg aoendel .etk
odd hue txuen Yetisgull 48% at hetodochor on onseo od?

Me a ee

wo etsdeo test edt Yo oulay st ef eo sombiye buns d ‘toLteoando
Siagh bac adnantalquor ef tei eel be teuhmes thwe odd rt boveves
«tod bilev 4 saw orsnt Send galbalt eerneb w hove ran etek 408
bekdi-nue tevoser O¢ boLi line eee sbasatetques doide tebaw eet
‘ts wanoxe al her vooer viieweia 6A? Yo outev dan iba’ oat to
dimavoutha eldedings aa te gubvisin ‘to sveqine eat set sactd posted
aoqu dosados sod of CORRE yin of Bowe The fed Yoited han mabball
i | $dde “dud peacecere at ad tentedad bildasnan a of boob # galvless!

6 fnweme odo “OT aneioerg ons noew meld a of Bedi tome etow stew
al betevoset utte gee odd ‘WW euler edt eat pends oF ‘out ‘eoet ond
peastrte saw tote ,ytades xoed te Puen rehiequi odd at hua odd

i? ,@ub vtdd ‘to briat~sae of bolilias ere ainaato tones dusts 1000,086
-— abewnde tonne sade 7000,024 Lo oud mua Late? « yaldlen 0088 ane. i
=0n0 @ 6¢ ‘tooxeud wekk ai to ai dant te dnemgay ee. petetons: wee
edt <0 ,O08tG Yo Gridd—omn of sootdwe ,haal oe a soommiat baked

ath dest? beghathe bas bexebee etglois? ger dull vO. to me

ahitiw T2.000L8 Xosramyeg of8 oF teohene aaa bse

|) sstatomed datt prammynenta wad tqsu0e od bemlton Ulerutoada bed ote

wat bubdt-ono » yornse te awe tad oc wei sondae? 4

aaw ,tovzeds Ytevesnx ont to amis oni te dxude ‘sudnqud edt yd .

ten daye from the entry of the deeree; that in default of the
execution of sueh deed, or of the exking of such payment, the
property sheuld be sold by = sacter subject to defendant's right
ef re¢ecption. The Aserce reeltes other weterial fucte in detedi,

The enly evidence in the tremeeript is thet taken by the
eianceller uren the cueetion ef the value of the preniees, Free
the deeres of april 20th Mra. Jebnaon prayed snt ean allowed an
appeal to the Appellate court upen Miing Pond in the sum ef
2100¢ within thirty daya te be sugoreved by the court.

April 28, 1035, defendant moved teat the deerae of April
20th “be vacate? , changed and sodified,* and that the tine epsoie
fied in the deeres within ehien defendant sheuld pay the aseunt
fourd duc with interest theres or convey to ¢omplainants her
eneethixd interest showl4 Eo extended. This motion wae continued
frem time te time, wid on June 7, 1947, an “smnended decree” wae
entered by the court which the reeord recites to be Yon motion of
defendant and erogs-compiainanta* ron thie awended decreas (which
algo recites the facts in 4etail) finding the aum due to be 715,660
aed directing sale in ease ef default is payment er the exceugion
oF the desd, defendant likewise grayed ond wes allowed an appeal te
this court upon filing mer bond within thirty days. The bond sae
filed ond, a¢ a matter of fart, recites the entry of the dearse
on April 26th, "fram #hieh deeree and anended deeres af tho said
Suserior court of Cook County the said Garah L. Johnacn hae srayad
for and ebtalned an augesl te the Apesliate Gourt within and fer
the Wiret Distriet in sald state.” The bend goes on te say that
if defendant shall duly prosaeute her “sald appeal with effeet,*
ete., the obligation #hall be veld, ctherwise to remain in fall
feree anit effect.

Complainants arguo that defendant may net oreseeute an ape

peal from a deeree whieh was entered on her own motion, ond this

at Yo Ftvatwh ad Pasi reese oir te yutae 09 ot aye oot

oct? doomed dower watson sett Ww 6 bees oun "heh nottuoety
tity ot guabe'ted ae toeteue matase Fy edt niten ot Sfuntty: yeeqora
Liated of ete? Labrodan wilto seeteed idaitihall all snotyqunter Ye

we set Wasind Satie’ ws Seeroued was at soupbtve sing —<—

one Lenebeong ant Yo wuber one bi se ihony el sar tos fopienty
fw bows ke war bre beers nonatee wut MOR LIGA tO cornen tt

te ave ont al bued gustts sens Fauoe ota timed wile or teas
sanon off yt Merengge Of BP wgnb gone abteiw ooo
Livqs To sasesh eff tes? hovon drmban tes ,68Ot ,O8 red 0% = ,
alongs emts elf tore San * he Stthen bie Denes Metnoey og A208

- fueion’ 9A eRe bivoie tuwbas ed wohitw wisebw goxeen elt! ate toh
md etaantakemob ef veraos to moBTed? fraverad the aut ry
heuatines ean rotten aig! hebostxe ed bdwete tamer puadens

. “nate Somrent feboone* ne ,Sker ,t sta aw fae Sal od seks mot
te ddttos ao” of of sediowx froees eat dadiw dewow orig’ ‘te pewetas
Retver) eetoah Beduom ain mort “gianeiaiemoeonseth baw teebow tes
1) goa; eu ed-ca wah ann ons Hakbatt (Kheles ah adeat add aethoew onth
| | : ‘goltunsxe ent <~ famayeg at stored te onee Af blew gatsootto dan
| i (oo Kanqne ae bevels eer dan bouirre Sodwotnr Faabub'ten (hewn wily te 7
| naw band sAT wwceh Yeas able tw Baod eee! galtt? soo Maxed ebm
‘gateeb ont ‘to yttie ord teetoer .tdet Yo seddan @ wa {bon BoE
baa BAy To soxeud Hobapien hha soTOe volte nxt” 8908 Chega! te

40t haa ahd sxe odelleuga aa? at taeene na Denteddo Rae cet
jaded Yee of ne asog nod ott “,o9n¢e Sthe wt Hobede de verb ont
Sy deste tlw faeqge Bhas® som educosote ete Rlaste thabaeteho tt
_ £igd si slaset of sedweedse (biov oe, Keay oe we i

ie bine wodLoot comm cted silicide sh

beyate nod svaculol .f dete? stan ott “tnwod Mend Te ree Tebtéqet : ie

econtection de net without slameibility. However, we orefer to put
our decirion of the agpeal wren ether ereunts,

Pefendent argues fer reverted (eiting seny outhoritier)
that the finel deeree ie errenecus in granting @ tien on the prope
erty dégcerited in the bil] Deesuse it ts aet sepperted by alle-
gations of feat; that # eemelainent murt recever on ths case made
by his bill], sn? treat mere congivueione ef the pleader vill net
euppert & decree; that of rerren lew an attermey dear net have &
Lien uron the vreperty resevered in a sult canductes ty hiey that
an atierner's iden ¢eee net aries under the Attormmeve’ Lien set
without the service ef the netiee therein preveribet; that « @@=
eres carmot rest om the prayer alone; thst the eantract (eer net
ereate a specific lien; thet the finel decree is erroneous in
finding thet complninents are @mtitied te an interest In the prope
erty described im the b111 of campieint; thet che alLiaced contract
dese net belong te the clase ef aentrasts wnies are apeolfically
esforeced in eaulty. :

All these scints are exgoed at length with mumercus elteeq
tiens ef authorities, but sene of thes wae presented fer onne i era-
tion uron the former appeal, afd 211 ef thes might have been sree
sented nt thet time. Thies court and the Supreme ceurt hove many
times Hela in eubetance that upem the second appeal of a carr,
either te thie court or to the Supreme court, the Judguert of the
gourt rendered en the firet apresl is ree adjudicate sa te oli
pereens whe were parties te the procescding, Hot only ae to cutBe
tione aetuslly decided “ut ee to all questions which might have
been decided, if properly presented, af Was enid in Davis v. Juneig
Agmr., 140 TL1. App. 22s

“Were the parties, the issues and the evidence are substan

tially the sexe, ‘the decision upen one appesi is ree udi
upen a s#cond sppeal in the sume case notes th tanding adcitionad

ateignmente of errer may be made reiving upon the second appewal
questions hich were net raived upon the fixyet.'*

*
4
) a aeey e tetetn a ,tevewoh iierialeiniine ‘ie fundaiw 290 ek otoansaee
| MHSVOTA ee Seneae ‘ott. 2 soietons, 00
Asetebradeas yas, anttte) Lemaownn ast rome Pondaehet ; |
agony ant ae melt o aateceng at axamcunt ng at aga} taak® on dng by |
ap lia yf Mesxoquve ten wb st smumsed Lik ate, ab heddeates |
aban saan of? a9 *erooet dame tusntetqaps. go tant steak xe saohten |
| fan, thie aehawtq welsh anataxfonse een tact Kew UAE, wht gt
# ever fea ened wimeabtie sea: wad sorvang os, Sastt. omnes 2» tongue
feds yatd q4 betowhaoe #2mm a ak Domvonen, yrengety oad moet so be
gos ankd 'wyperoeta oc? xeban pokes tom naah weht at yeonarea on
sph @ taxi? jhowlaneag stered? eobton oda To ooberpe, nat punsig bee |
ten aren domntios 268 tects. penece, seyorg. ey) ao duet foones ome
sh nko GUT TS at oorooh faygehs cht sald pret oitinega « otanee
ayetg eff at fooragal me oe bate kee wa damaraigwon, tact sathadt 3
foergaon hegutia ost sade, ptateteums te OEE ost Ad bad tavand te
S aeaatsinanal re ote sivaniinn ‘te anes, ott of aaeiod ton, ane |
P : j vet Rew at: dooretten |
athe naomomse Hehe teas tl ta SeunEn ota Rooke eeemh LEA. oot,
meet Lames rot hesesqere gow ott he vaen ded eb brid oe te suott
OEY. ano aved jagic wed ‘te fe dee ,taorge cene? ene woutt nol "i
Wem. gyad PruOD suOTGWE eHd dus tawes RAMS amb dad, fo bonnes ,
qnese @. 20. Lovage haoven, off neqe Jot oomesedon ab nut anatt :
MAF NO apommdut alt rxwon vn rqul et of to Dees ante of sedhie
fle ot ap atonibelbe got et faonge Rett wnt ap beteboes femme "
bc aid at as yfeo tom shakboonetg, aut of eodotag one, ote ' $ ; ee
pee tetghe: sity ater r.Aamktoone ike ef en oars dabtosh, VEinwtea. 6 a

\ttefatee ets pocebive oxy bine eoueds alt ,owkeuag ihe ai
si Lavcan ono noqn molaissh ene? yeoman |
tha gribsactodsdelon eaes) oer’ oe of et
Soeen ay gitlelet shes od tort me
toes manarereront “rrapeen rere Yo) wor

‘oxG, 106 Lil. 864;

¥. Berton, 100 Ili. 63; Seeks
Sabash, 8. bs & Pee, Dy, CG. Vs Potergon, 115 fii, 897; Smyth v.
Heft, 125 TLL, BG; Sabeort » 259 ILi. WS: Zewt we.
Doughas, 145 111. 164; Kean @, 146 112. 305; Untes

i, 149 131. 836; CRBSGtt a echoes,
on Bridge Ue. v. Pecole, 198 tli. 276;

151 Ill. 184; E
Moron San) & 00 #0..2.. Bere’, #27 Ili. 190; Bapiner v, ingrahem,
@SG Tll. 136; Jagkeen y, Glows, 48 112. Siu,

Ae & matter of fact, ufter the csuse wae redoeketed in the
trish court, no ametdment to the pleadings ns made, and the only
evidence taren wae directed toward the iasae an te the value ef the
property at the time it wae recovered. Thie is the only evidence
preserved in the recor’. It ie urged that tae evidence doen cat
sustain the finding ef the deerge in thia respeet, and thie is the
only error sasigned and argued which we regard ae open te cur sen}
sideration, The finding ie that the ereperty in queation waa of
the value of $50,000, and there is expert evidence whieh surtains
the finding, As a meatier of feet, compbainants heave ageignes
erese-errers on this findiag of the Aeeree. Ree. Jennean in her
ewern anrwer placed the vaiue ef the eroperty at 21 40,000, = a
Valine witch tende te very mach dieeredit the opinions ef come of
her experts. The question in teis egurt on this eoint is whether
the finding of the decrees is clearly and manifestly orrenecue.
the chancellor gaw the experi witnesses ond Reard them teetify. Fe

are not disnesed te substitute eur judgment for his.
The decree ia aff iraed.
AVTIEEES.

O'Genner and Eeturely, JJ., soncur.

daadnehr? ¥ eLaoe4 ete bev 'vhe, oo old ot eels treséua orca
te hima se@ GGA .£i8 age Raheem
y0G@ ffi OGL

tun ds £8 wee 38 AEE OL setaabat
Mime TOE ASL OLE eeante ho Lh BOR . |

HY SRF 3808 413 eek
Babel 7008 4141 Bel gabe

oti tit fil Pos gee iy op 08s it en
oat oh ho texooher enw ouned wiht tH Sa teat te seem cy anny es
vine ony ha» ,ehem sae egathepte odd of fonapnoms om #1009 pan

ehh ty ane iis
wet “ke oulay ent of ox swaet ot wiewad hevoesth ad en sas womb ave

eooebive gluon ait ed ak tt shexovooen ow th outs sais ta wencorg
fou agoh ogaghive ons tea? bogie oh =

brane oat at bovesentg

we
ed? wi aide ban tonaeet a? st gaxen suit 1g gudbal2 edd atedeue

MM LF ute) ;
a6e tHe OF MOqe ae beeen ow dp taw heute bee ecydonm verse ¥

ee
Vike
ds WR ate r

te enw agiteony at yrmqors ods dadt @2 gakbalt ost? swohterehae ‘
, amotawe te dw eomehive Preqne at wxsdd baa 1288 998 te outev at 7

hosmglnae ered etanaiadques ton te wos dam % a :

“auatbatt st i
Se at aoeatiol .axk

.orKpah walt 10 watson whee we “ewornessno39

Fah. IB ae ie
&* p OU, O48 LG te “rreqorg #9 ™ eutsy oe peace sowane oF

wat? cir wi “baton macs m1 x09 anes aed anidanus net “atone x ac

{ ge
SUOR TTS htep thm bate Elson te a noteob ose te grist a =f . a
ef ,vtitae? words hueest bee nese aed Sw regne oat woe weLtoonaso

SE na TR.
ante to Sanibel, suo etus Landaa eo doeeenth ar

By
fae ba

GEM EA ; BAe ae): yodpuity ay feo) ih

e pop 0A £60 ver |

37053 fe

THE LOKAX COUPAKY, so Delaware Cea rpors on,
and THe GREBR LANTERN BEVERAGE CORPARE;” ”
an Illinois Cervoration, a é

Appellees,

Da
1
a s

Pie,
Ferree
fer eis,

VS.

LOHAL BAGS. BEVERAGHS, IkU., a Corperation,
FRAKE &, LOMAZ, Individually aud doimg
business as FRAKK B. LOWAR COKPANY, J. A.
LOMAX, THE GREAT WESTERN AOTTLING COMPARY ,
a Corporation, HELBAR SYEULURD, Oo. A,
BERKLEY, LUCILLE SCHAUER, HAHRY LAAGKARD,
HOVARD KR. ROBERTS, JOus J, HexAHON, EDVARD
J, HUGHES, as Secretary of State; and LOMAX
COMPANY, an Dllineie Cerveration,
Apoetllants,

COURT OF Cook GouNTY,
64 1.4.66 i

SR, PREGIDING JUSTICE BATCARTT
DELIVERED THE OPISTON OF TUE COURT.

Complainant corporations an Loweuber @0, 1932, filed their
bill in chancery against defendante, setting up in detail facts
tending to ehow unfair competition, and praying fer a temporary
injunction pending the Rearing and thet a decree for a permanent
injunction, an secsounting and other relief might be granted, A
temporary injunction iseued ae prayed. Defendants aspeared and
auewered the bill. The cause was put at iseue and referred te a
‘manter wha filed hie resert finding thet the enuities were with
eemplainante and the facts averrea in the bill true, To this re-
port defendants filed objections whieh uoon the hearing before the
chanecelior stood as exeeptions. The axcentions were overruled, and
June 28, 19235, a decree was entered in eonformity with the reson.
mendations or the master. This appeal hae been perfected from that
deeree, The bill alleges and the saster's repert and the deeree
find the fasts in substance ae Tellers:

The business complainants conduct at Uhicago was founded by
John D. Lomax, the grandfather ef defendante Frank %,, William L.
and J, A. Lomax, im 1851, and was thereafter continued under the

name ef John A, Lomax & Son until about 1987, Joun A. Lomax &

wat
TF

ax wept GR euswe tot # ,YUAT@NO ZAMOT Uhr
See) HOA HRVER wurrwad aaan@ BHT Saw

‘ scheaabctige oe ae

hoa lingga i :

-CRRAREVER ,GORM
aku Si tidnuelvibal Kawod oh SAE

3 3 i
(wee owner soo sBonkicl aa muse
OF mk LoqmA

--PESROTAM ROTreUL ORIELENHe
TAOS BY To UOTELGO RUT canes

aied? ball? SEL 68 Sedurvot ao ano lietagres Pusha fqan0d
efont Ltateh ak as gultias Boas hue'tes Ggeniags yroomarts at eas
eee tequed » “tol gabyerg baie halt Lreqeoo ‘ahetaw woite on a ro
reamareg & xot HeToeh a Saxld Dae qudtandi 947 satan aptveautat
A ecnang od tly te IS Riet reso tae yakrauoeed ‘oe iota otal
Bie Deteoges einabac'tet boyetg ae bewwat sob tone bat ete som :
# of beves'ted bie egeck te tiq Sew eased ‘ont ‘Akl ont Be 1 na
dste orew sols inpe wat fete yathntt Prover «he bo ait este woftan |
~o4 aidd of .sitd LLhd 989 ak boTrevA otoet ot baw adits fus09
edd sxoted gatised vat noew Hotow eaottontae bettt adaabaareh Hie
batts be Luxxeve orev anéivevots ot waeltgoors rr heate 16.1 fo
anges Of MIlw Uthote tags aL hesodue dew eomoeh a CeOr ves et
tad? matt betes tisg ated set Jaogde whet xegeam otf to snot sabasa
aetesh ont baa Tears a aetind Ome Bowe nego lla LLRd sett” sowesen
io (tama ot na sanatndin 98 ats eit er
tt behaval wew sqnoia® ts Jouhaoo ibe — sieatand et
od, mnhseat .-G daart atnebae tod ane

Son was succeeded by the Chicago Consolidated Bettiing Uo., which
eonductet the seme business, nomely, that of manufacturing and
selling non-alcoholie beverages, ete. Yhe Congolidated Battling
Co. sold out the business te The Lomax vo. ef Kksine. The presisesr
weed by the Consolidated Bettling Co, were ewned by George Lomax
ang rented from him. Therearter Boe Lomax Co. of Aaine bought
these premises from George Lomax, At that time George Lomax, J,A.
Lomax and %. iL. Lomax were officere and direetera of the Kaine
company. Subsequently, sil the members of the Lomax fanily except
J. A. Lomax severed their conneetion with this Lomax Ce. of Maine.
in January, 1924, the Kaine compony entered inte a contract with
the Indian Hill Co., = corporation, whereby it was given the right
te use the trademark “Indian Hi11" and certain fermula rights bee
longing te that company, wid later the iaine company purchased ail
the outstanding eteek of the Indian 11) So. Therealter ihe Lomax
So., ® sorporation, eas erganized under the laws of the state ef
Pelaware, In Vebruary, 1931, the Delaware company purchaaed all
the aesete of The Lomax Cc. of Kaine except its resi estate and
machinery, and the Maine company changed its name to The Paulina-
Kingie Gorroration. At that time J. A. Lomax wae the president of
The Paulina-Kingie Gorperation and vice-president of The Lomax Ge.
of Delaware, In August, 195%, the Delaware corporation executed
its chattel mortgage covering aii of ites property, ineluding trade
names ang trademarks, to one Ada KR. Bronsen to secure an indebtede
ness of $5,346.07 to J. ¥. Jones and an indebtedness of $5,006 to
Charles G. Palmer, About August 3, 1932, complainant, the Green
Lentern Beverage Go., bought the trademarks, trade names, ete., of
the Delavare corveration for $2,600 sabject to release by Ata A.
Bronesen of her intereet therein. The chattel mortgage wae fore-
elesed, and J, G. Jollicoeur purchased the preperty for $11,150

and thereafter sold the same to complainant Green Lantern Deverage

< eS

findiy ,.09 pabitiot hodab lioamed eyaabt ob ye babeensun enw 308
freer gal tusostwasm te damt ,yiegen seponlaud ota ‘eat jeteahiens
—gahssro8 betabiiosned ext 1094 ,weganeved eliodeete-non gatifen

datamte ef? anked to .@d xamed eff of posniond at dug okee. eee

xewol ogtoed yd tenes stew 02 aabsd so Sedat tfonmgd oaid we deans
Sigued ovata to .90 xamol oa ueVtasrant mid wort’ Crd san
coke xaerol ORQOD wme? Sued HA katied egived mont aoatoore aed
: ‘eakan ‘as to atedostd! fae aue0el The etaw mecigd ot sal fine ‘waaeds
tqvoxe yileat xamot ad¢ to axedue ay iis ,¢ltoesgoedsl =. ynaqmse

s@tisk io oS camel aint dike weiteeanoe sins bere vee namod a :
Atiw foariace » afad botadue yragmee aated ang ahBad sVewnet wt.
tints ent aoviy aew $2 qsortesdw tolieregrae « a LLB ous bb ad ode
ope Sddgit ada? aiadiws bas "LEEK we tpat* atsno bared edd enw of.
Lie bewedorwe Yanques eatuh ald cotar biws 1 Yaingno® ‘gana of saiyand
xemo.t ort aed tasre ct | 00 £22 nethal ond ‘te doors ‘gatbasgetue me
‘te eteta off ‘to ewel 689 ebay hawtneyto new mobtaroetes a ae
ike devssiotgg yRbeuie stewated ads «Sh-2E weswidet ai ‘ete
Bae Ofates fees eth dqeene dale to 09 ausont sat ‘te ‘edeena ‘edges
wantisat off of esma edt heguads yeas ‘ania ot ‘bas yore
te taphieerq #49 aaw xamed .A .b auld fadt tA choltaxeqsed arene x
00 aeaod saf to Enshtoouqewely Bae aotterooxe2 eteatinent fast ont
tHduosxe modtexocres oxowaled of ECL ,Saogvd oI .erewated to
ehene yulbuisat ,ydroqoxrg 68% Yo Lie yattevos egaydxom Inesado sf si
ehotdehal ae ores of aonaurk 1A @hA wtg of oxtaso batt baw ‘nomea. “a
8 000,24 To edesnbetdotal ha haw ome + oe to. abe ae wo sen

aeerd od? (faediniymos Seer .e teveua dueda takes a se

Ye geDSe yanmom obard Cemented ode fame — ad :

-ot6T gar santsan date wore t smtoan st

ee Se Se

finite i aber? Xi bs: wit i
ated

Cc., whereby it became vested with the right te use ahi the trade-
marks, (rade nawes and formulas fermerly owned by John Lomax. The
predecessors of the Green Lentera Uo. at various times registered
eertain trhdenarke. the Green Lantern Co. sand ite predecessers
have continuously espleyed the vord “Lomax® en certain of its labels,
About Rovember 17, 1951, The Lemax Go. of Delaware registered ite
trademark with the Seeretary of the State of Tilineiz, using the
arbitrary word “Lomax.” About April 11, 192%, The iemax to. of
Delaware registered ite tradesark wits the Coumissioner of Patente
of the United States for “Old Tom Lime Hiekey." The predecessors
ef the Green Lantern Heverage Co, have used the worde “Lomax Con
pany" and the word “Lomax” became aesouciated thereby in the minds
ef the publie with the products of Tae bemax Co. The use af the
word “Lomax” beeane vested in The Lemax Cc. of Delaware and the
Green Lantern Beverage “eo. A large and profitable business wae
built up. The Lomax Cc. of Delaware was suthorised to do business
in Tilineis February 14, 1931, and Jay Piesing Jones was the pregie
dent of that company and the owner ef the common stock ef the core
poration. 7. A. Lomax, defendait, wae sonmnected with this business
for many years, and after the death of Jones January, 1, 1942, he
became the principal managing head in charge of the company. A
dispute thereafter aroeve in vhien J. A. Lemax was ousted from The
Lomax Co., and thereafter, together with his brothers, he rormed
the Lomax bros. Beverages, Imc., wid alee beught tha steek of the
Great Vestern Bottling to. e ia new in charge of the sales depart-
ment of Lomax Breas. Beverages, inc., end that eorperstion is an-
gaged in the business of manufseturing and selling ginger ale and
other beverages under labels containing the name “Lomax Sros."
Various fermer employees of The iomax Co. of Delaware eclieited

by defendants are now employed by Lomax Bros. Beverages, ine., and

the business ef that corseration gompetes direatly with eomplainante.

~shaut 02 Lia das 09 Italt Wht Aide Kofaev emsoed Si —gdotede 560d
oat "ein nigt yd bemwe yireare? @aiemrelt bas toman. @bans .evuent
Bexsselyet semis ubsluav ea .b0 atedned meeed ode ty. etesasosbeng
‘Wtedaoveheta ati hoe’ .00 wtetasd obee0 exf en pmmedecrdl
wafedel sti to atadxeo mo “kemed” baow out peQetque edewountinde ores
ee boretaiges erewale® %¢ 140 xnmed 4eT ECL (C2 tedmevel smeda
“sas gudeu “bbemhsit te etet® off to Crnde tone BAd thw deomwhas
to .00 xamot edY , fees fx Liga thot * eee pow yuauthita
adage to teaclantased est Wile deonhowe WPL hewetetaen eaawate
stoaavoshorg sult *.yocoit omit se¥ BLO” wot wowwet DeetAT ott. Yo
“ang? xanol” shrew bas been evar .oW ageterst mevsaml neo add Yo
‘ahaim edd wt ydeorus hetatooses veweed “xaos” brow edt baw “yng
“edd Ye eu on? 00 aindiod oat ty atowbord sie atiw obttue ent Ro
’ ot bee otaitn Lott to .o0 xamod ol a2 bodeow anneed "xamed* bape
"gan sasalaud ¢idatPterq has egret A 162 egeteved mmctaed aogt
seemtaud of of beutrveddna tar eteteleg to .02 2emod eat au. ‘gehud
oles ty odd eae socal natag it yot bas , OL. (AL yuwecdtat alomtsst” sik
o19o off 16 doote mowkes afd ‘te toate axe Ane Aiea sails Yo ta9b
asoaland aitt the botooance eew | PAbhaw tes ptemed LA bee smoldoroe
ed \BEeL of ctw seact to dtaot ot wd tw bak jeune wise 402
A .ymnqadd ast Yo dgtaiy at boot gudgenia Keqhenieg ene onaibiod
oat wort hefeve saw xandt .A Lt det mt Store ebahwotwe ot uem th
howto? od , odors seth ad be pero anes on anath h ised yours

eae ad aoltareeweo fads tne |, eat \nogutin
fos ole xogaly yitt tise bas srituteetutin Yo wusntent aa ad Sage

* gota xasiod"” emact ‘edd palutatno betel tobeu jing : a a .

| aa pebleniin orratod te fad deveven hel w eit as toe on

Shortly eftor the death of Jay Fieming Jones, presidert ef The
Lomax Co., J. A. Lomax organized a eampariy known ag Drinke, Ine.,
and used the office formerly eceuvied by Jone in sommection with
it. By reason of this organization business was diverted from

the Lemax Co. of Delaware ta thet ef Drinks, Ine. Drinke, Ine,
continued to use the premises of the Delaware cowpany far the
conduet of businass and the directors of that eempany inetrueted
J. A. Lowax to resove Drinks, ine., from the pramiaeg, Decanter
1G, 1952, defendants filed with the ‘seretary of State of Tliineis
an application for the incorporation of o company to be known aa
The Lomax Co. for the purpose of wanufacturing and selling bever~
ages, January 20, 1933, the Seeretery of State ef Tahineis teeued a
certificate of incerrerstien to that conpany. The Delaware ecorsera-
tion falled to pay ite franeuice tax wolech was due July 1, 1938, end
for this reagon ite lieeies te dc business in lLlinéis was revoked,
Defendants knew this fact and thereupon applied te the Secretary of
State to be ineorperated under that mame, and a eartifieate ef ine
corseration was issued to them. Subsequently the Delawere company
paid ite franchize tax ani penalties and was restored te good atande
ing. This action by defendants for the incorvoratien of a company
te use the werd “Lemax” was in furtherance of their plan to Eee a Da
priate the business of complainants.

The master's report alee finds that a s.atenent on the label
used by The Lomax Co. of Geleware aud ite predecessora thet Lomax
Pepsin Ginger Ale ia ande from pure Jamaica ginger combined with
pepsin and aromatics ie untrue, since pepsin ie met used af on ine
gredient but pure Jamaica ginger foot in small quantities wae used
instead; and other eimilar statements uven its labels were net
true; that these misdeseriptions of ingredients ere net made fer
the purcese of daeeiving the publie ond that the publie whe pur-

ehased the beyersges relied upen the word “Lomax" rather than

eat ‘to fashiaerq »semot gatay £4 yas Xe Asaoh ond wette %
,-oMl ,aaiatel se oerond YASquOS a basioagte xamed .A .% ar? ame
as hw meltpemioo af senel x belcusag Yltomso't saitte oid beam, fae
moet hedtevih aaw saanioud otter iaegte aks te soaeet vi tt
oak ,akabxd sont , salar ‘to tacit ot oxawalec to +00 xomol eat

ed? uot YRequos ezawele sie ta ona taney ont ean at bounl sng
hatositent yageae sant te arosoaetl& et hatte aupaieud to. _fenbem
tndeoool .goninetg ocd mox't , oni setae orem od Racod re
abook tit te ezngk to “indore edd sia bw bess’ adnabaere® SECL RY
ae mreak od oF Yanyans & te aetsaroyinpat oat ok noiisotigga se
waved gubiioe have gal wid nant te evegrng wit set hd ‘Kemod Se

& honest ehomt ££1 te esede te vtnteroee ass GE Ch 38 umwoel, hone

eeroqtos axawaled ox Wuisgsoo fal? of aol@eteqronal To etaortigzee
hae ,SEGL ,f yin’ out aaw Mo brie xat eotunsest eth yaq oF bottay molt
stadover saw atoattel at aneataud ob of gaseoti att aomnex ety. am

nk te etaolt itnoe & baw . omen ‘geds soham beta xoetoont od ot at is
qasqene oroma foc ext! eLdnoupemdut tom at doveet saw moltareqrge
chaste hooy of berotaet aaw baa welt keane has mat salignatt eth. bh
‘yaeqaon « to no tte1eq tess ens tet ed ambas'tes ed noises ner sea
ada al ot nek tent bid Sonne Ata at at saw “nessa iow ont on hid
eduentatqore ke savadawd out 9 neem

iedel ent #0 Ineusiaie # sass eb on Ls freger a " wedeom eat

xawol desi? erenssooheTg ath bow otenwiee Ye -99 manned $0 en 4

sil il

at iw pomeune wogndy wstemet oune wart whoes at ofa

ere

pail ot

toa exe ‘alates est mons stusupeets Japhets, esto, OOM
Tot ohas toa stey atuetdetgat te snolsqizonsbate oneks test tet sont,
wees eaiy edidua aut tant hae obidue one patheieg be

“oats xentax *xamo.? btor ot RoR holier asgatayed: edt honado ;

| te ot |

Se A

upon the descriptive mutter foliowing the name of the beverage; that
the publie was net deceived ner were eoupleinunte guilty of any
fraud whieh would vitiste or nullify their right to wee the werd
“Lomax; " that the word “Lomax” as conmected with the use of ginger
ale and other beverages manufactured ky the Delaware company and
ite wredecessore wae a valiebie asset; toat the use ef the wera
"Lomax" by defendants *ither in scenneetion with the words “Lomax
Bros." or “Lomax Broe, Beverages, inc.,* is an infringement of the
proprietary rights of oumpaninandag ate result in deceiving the
public as to the manufacturers of the beverages purchased by them
amd will ereate the belief in the minds of the public thet the
products sold by Lomax Sree, Leverages, Inc., is that of complains
sapnte; that euch use of the werd “Lomax” by deferdente would result
in financial lese te compiainents; that the eeta ef defendante in
soliciting customers of complainents aud hiring salesmen, drivers
and stenographer would tend te 4eetroy the businees cf somplain-
ents and were acts of unfelr oractieos; that the continuation of the
uve of the werd “Lomax” by defendants vould eavee irreparable @emage;
that therefore the teunorary injunction theretefore issued by the
oeurt ahould be sade permanent.

The decree finds that certain citations lor conteapt against
defendants fer vielaticon ef the temporary injunction should tbe aige
missed; that compisinante were net barred by unclean hands, tor the
reaeen that there war no fraud upon the publie. befendants were
therefore perpetuaily and permanently em joined frem using in connee-
tien with the business of nanufecturing ginger aie, non-sicehelic
beverages and beveracer ef every deeeription, the name “Lemax” or

the arbitrary word “Lomax,” er the name "Lomax" «liner alene or in
combination in corporate mames or in advertisenents, ete., oF the

names “Lomax Eroa.,” “Lomax Bros. Beverages, loc.,* “Lemax Company ,*

“Lonax Coupany of Iliineis;" @rom infringing on the trademark “Lomax"

tad? jeyateved ad3 to omed edt gulvelio’® uestact evidehioeeh oct aogy
gia To Yilivg fuscia lqugo grew REM bevieveb teu naw abiduq ale
Btow eds eew of tiyix 16M YLLSTeR ce OfebFlv Binow viside budt®
toyaty ‘te oon odd Adie botuennos aa “named? biew oot Face ” pte
bus Yaaqaes etavalel 249 yd hetudoe inne cogateved: “ernie bne eke |
hrow otf Le een ocd fay pseten Sidewiay & saw wronadsehote ett
kanod” afrow sat Atiw noidveduee at teddies etaahow'tes cd "xemed®
ed? Xo Pieneghivtat aa ef ", io | weyeteres .coee xem 49 * ond
ed? galvisesS al siueet Lfie\ggnenialemes ‘to wihrigts piedsitqort
wedd yd hogasiovuq Begateved Bat Yo avetwton teaen eat oF oo ohicue
ads tuxid obidwg act to shakm od? of teh led edt esoet Like bam
stielgues ‘te gadz ok sal ,asgareved eer’ nated ed hhow atousong

tiveet Binow efucbw lok yd “anmed* btew e473 “to seu cove Gel? feta

Ai génshue'ted to atoe odf taut jetmsabsiqgos of seol Leteanat tak
etevith ,semeoine galtid bas atasdiaiqnos to exemodaee gabtiel ied
-thalqaeo to aeenieud s43 quusees of beet tivew ‘redgexgoasdauiae
eas “id meltnualiaes wif saad pooltewi¢ thvtae ‘te ates orew ban ete .
i. peyattet eidatagerti seuss biver efaebastat yt “aaeed™ Brow weld Yo ow
otf yd Beweet sietose sends wot soautak ‘Ytetaqent att oxetorety sade
tuenemrse wheat ed Slade susted
Seataga Iqeosaeo tot ancisvtle atudves sadt whadt edtoen oft! 6% OF
cath of biveda netsanutal ytereqdief ade “te doltetaly ae! etdaiie tem
ede tot ,shuwtk nam Low Yd berted ded erew atemate que tadd ;bemalm
erew shtahweted .ebidug add aege Sum? on saw omer as ~
-oennes at gaive agri bealot a ylinenemieq iow Yl laudeqieg soto |
eilovooia-men (ois ‘eyaiy gnhidtes lense to seemtewd sey str mate
20 "aanod” eutac od? ,coltq?taeed yore To esgeteved San eegetdved
at «¢@ ele vedeis “xemod* saw one a6 ” pcmuted* weve sche enema
and * «do ~ndasmeaituevha ak 19. ws pit i Hpi i

a a, ee

registered with the Geeretary of the State of Lilineia; from
using the seeret forsules of manufacture of preducts by complaine
ante; from geliciteation for and sale ef sald preducte under the
nome and etyle "Lomax"; from ic sny manner interfering vith the
business, including the trademark and vatent rightea, labele,
trade nawe and good will of conolainante; frem holding out or repe
resenting that they are the representatives of or in any way con-
Reeted with commiainants; fron operating in eonneetion with the
manufacture and saie of said preluete under amy seme and style
whereby they use the word “Lomax” in ite eesendary meaning in ¢one
nection with tae business ef eemploinantea; from simulating the
signe and color schemes adogtad by comolainante sna used in cone
neotion with their business, wherein the arbitrary word “Lomax*

is displayed, snd from eimulating the appearence, eonatrugtion,
aeoler echeme and d4erign of complainante’ sutemebile trucks or
falesman cars ani the signe therean by the uss of the erbitrary
word “Lomax, *

Defendenta ocentend that the decrees shoul be reversed in
the first place, beesuse it interferes with the absolute right,
whieh every person has, to ase hie ovr mame aonestliy in hie own
business, and they cite a large numker of canes, such as Singer
Mfg, Co, v. June Bfe, Co., 163 U. & 169, where it ie said that
everyone has such absolute right, even though thereby incidentally
he may interfere with snd injure the business af another whe has
the esme name, thie ease wae cited with aperoval by the some

@ourt in the later ense of Howe

Benediet, 198 U. & 118, where it was held that euch right exieted

in the absence of contrast, freut or extennel. The onoinion cites

Mtg, Ge., 3 163 Ue. 8. 169; tigin Matt. Va on CS. ¥ A iii. Paton vate
Co., 17 U. &. 665. Defendante alea cite Warshaveky vy. 4, Sar ghawsky

mont paloni iil te esas afd Yo Yrosetoes BAF Atiw hovesetgen
otilafesss yd adonhere “te wintee tune “te Gafwurst totes ost -yaken
ad? tebe atowherg dias Ye bles Aap tot nokéatioios mort jweaa
ens dtiw yadvoteeéal teem qan ok wort ;*semed” efygs tos soma
,@iedel ,ateyit teetegG hae Mtewmebout wd gubfelea!d ,seentaad
“oot #0 tuo qulblod mort jatawntedques te {Lie booq bag omen ebare
“es Yaw (ue of to to Berifetanaerteet off ete qeee. dent paldasast
of} StiW nettesanes ah yubterons mewt pesamtie tamoe attw hetoom
givyds bee eset ne tehay @forbote Stee ‘to eine bee puntos Teme
<n0o tk gukiovet ytobsosee adi at “Rama” teow ese cow yodt yletose
ett gnttedumte mex? jetneninlqgmas te eeondand exit teks Kottom |
«men wh hoaw bie atnerleleass Yd bes gohe sxomeew toLoo fee anyde .
tame brew eter thdre of abetestw panontend thet ashe nettoom
noktorstens ,somomeqqs ots gubtefunke wot tae ,begeteaKh ah
to eXGWit eLideontye 'ataealwioxwes to agimeh how emaion telee
en ate ‘Lo pew ott.vd heetecs aeale off 50 efne anvane Lom
= ol f2on,
sk beetreret od bivode owtesh eat tect Bretagne etoile 6) fom.
taiait etulcete aff Mtliw aeretaegal ¢2 sovneet , «onde geek? omf
awo Ghd al vftectod oxen owe eid BOW OF RAM GooTed YtETS wekele
" PeunkS aa down ,aenes Ye ted agral a etlo yes baw,
| ¢ate Die wk $2 etode (WOE Oo .U eet, ee. | 1
¢ifstnebiont ydereds Mwods neve ,tdyiy etwieeds ceen wart onnyene.
‘wed oe TeHifoun tw etettiond eff otwhnd bar «ole ene tredal yomed _
eats oft ud Levotene deiw Aetly tae gene aia eee one nes
rot ke sone tebe l wrt” id
bevahte vipit done tek? ote waw SR wtedie ,BEE O° 0 BOL™ | }
aete ances cute cneadenee te Ruaeet genesis dacnguesvaitetied |

& Co., 257 Lil. app. 571, where thie court eaid in substance that
it was well settled that a perecnel nase could net he exelueively
appropriated by anyone as against othere huving «a right te usa it,
and that an erdinary family gurname wae manifestiy incapable ef
exclusive apprepriction ae a vslid trademark and ite registration
ae such could mot itself give it validity.

The proposition has received unusual snd careful considerae
tion in Denneli v, Herringelinilelarvin Sef) to., #8 J. 5. 867,
where the U. & Supreme eourt in an epimion by Br, Justice Holmes
hela that under the elreunstances wiieh existed in tat eaee "on
injunction agsinst aging any name, mark or sdvertisenent indicating
that the plaintiff fe the suceesser of the orivinal coupany er thet
ite goede are the preduet of that coupany or ite successors, or ine
terfering with the good wil tougnt from it, will vretest the right
ef the Herring-HalieHaryvin Gaffe Cowpany, apd is ali that it de @ne
titled te dewend.* in thet sass, of couree, there was no contention,
as here, that the neme was baing used with the intent te defraud or
for other than an honest and legitimate purpesce,

We think there is orectically ms confliet in the esses which
eonaider this erevosition, ae will be seen by an @zanination of
Jemieson & Go. vy. daxiegon, 18 8. P. G. 169, here the court in sub-
etancé eaid that a wan ought not te be restrained frem doing busi-
nees in his own neme becaure there were people whe were doing the
eome and whe would be injureé by “hat he wae doing, addiny that it
would be intelersble if the esurt were to interfere and crevent
prople from carrving om busismese in their ewn names in rivalry with
ethers of the sume mane, In the sume case one af the ceneurring
JuAges sald thet he 414 aot tink there wae any case, or ever had
been one, Where it had been held’ thet = mem whe hanoened to beer o
particular name was 4ebarre4 fram antering Inte any trade merely

beenuse there was somebody clee of the same nane who had acquired

oy
ted? eouetedye ok bine tiueg etth verede ) att Lee fr vee, ea
¢leviewlone ed gon Bives suse Lemveree # fad? hoketew nee eew $2
2h sew et Sighs & gotvad wrostto demtage ow eneyon ed hetehreOteee
‘to eidacepnh Yiteo tiwen saw eausne YLbas't quash hes) me fade ote
noltes¢etyex eft ban Saewbar? biiar a ae aeltetigetoes evbebtone
*Uthélov Fh oFhy Tioed? Jom hives Mout he
-ateblieaes fs'terae baa Laweory Bev iovet amt naanceatitl whE see
,fOS 18 60 BGR (sa ete8 AbyteM~ciekngnlagel wv eEes _-
sesloll settauh . ru yd aodaiqo me at drNde Sabrque Ve died
te” sgas tet at Bedebx® ao hdw” ametie edt toby salt bie
gaitasthal toowelerevhe 16 dian jomen yew gihew tenlowd moldialile
dans to Ynoqeoo Lanlygtte eds Bo tocenseee sah Wh TrDeabere ead Walls
eat "0 jwtodeenoun aff te yotqued tae) Ye Pouhore HAP andere
digke @4t Pootore Likw , Fi mort sdywed Elie Bees oot atte y ;
one eh oh tod? Lin #2 bee (ymeyen® oted atvreterretogatieet Gat Yo
Mohinesnot Gn sev ered? ew ters te eats Gadd xt * bmenee ot betty
to Suaxtteb of Paostak ede Adie boss pated oew owen ode tad oxait he
(ener stemdhyek baw pastoris
tigity gone ont af dobftace om ylieottoete af eveid aetdt oF
te noitesionse ax yd meen od LOlw an euanetirene tly etl
ndist ak Suwon et? oyerie (20h 9. LN OE , eee tpt 4
-lend galoh aext boatettert ed of tom daique snivaende ahaha :
AEE SY NE EE SO ee ee |
th gadd oathhs ,patob wow od smite ys Bocutnd oo havew wule haw edie —
taoveta san oxsTtodal 9% etew si8o sr aot Wt he
dtiw yukavis ot aon ovo ehedt ah ameatet Wo gatettas mort efor
wdecanninc pants ain ewan watee oe ok Eeatecones ae

whinaee. of Peewee sam =. tt Pia maa hat #8 sis
herdugha bee extr smmit oma ont Ye bate Ybodomes parecriy 4

yt pr wall te: ay
Ps Rage

@ great reputation in the manurseture of the parileular goods dealt
with in hie trade. Yhie general rale wae adhered te by the Supreme
eeurt of Thiineie in Jobneca 3

ate Co., *13 Til.
106, where Lt was argued that the name “Jonneon” was a facdiy name
in ordinary use which might net be aporapriated as a tradecark, and
the court, aporeving the centention, said that the use of a fauily
mame by a corseration etoed apes the same focting as ite use by an
us Syekert, ete.,
198 U, 5. 118 To the same effect is Hilton v. Giiton, 164 Ati.378.

Theae eares aleo held that in the absence of fraud, contraet

individual er «a firm, sand eited Sewe ©

er estoppel the prosoritien is apolicable, even though ineldentalily
eueh use may interfere with and injure the business of another whe
hae the same neme; that uncer like circumstances the use of the
fonily nase by a correrstion ferned by the menbere ef the family is
a rightful uee ef Lt, and that in the abeenuce of negative cevenanta
a defendant may not be barred from se weing the facdly name. These
cases held, as deferndante centeid, that) the law dows net reeegrice
AM ex¢lusive right te uee a surname as againet others whe hear that
nam@, ond that prierity in time in the uee of such meme ee a trade
name ie met @ eontreliing eirevmetanee, The rule, however, ic net
withest ite limitations, ae an examination ef these caees will shew,
In the firet plece, it 19 an honest use of such a name thet the law
permite, not a dishonest or an unreasonable use, Thia lisitation
ie alee stated in Sineor Vig, Ge, ¥. June Bie. Go., 163 0. 5. 169,
where the opinion states:

"But although he may thus ace his name, he cannot resort
to any artifice, or 49 any act calculated te wisicad the public
as to the identity of the business, fire or extablishxent, er ef
tina! Gas wien weedy frie h alenliy a aes

The case of ligwe & @ {o. ¥. Syekotr, Seamans & Menediet, 198 9.5,
118, also receagnises the Limitation, eaying:

£ "A

fies ebony twaiuetiteg ads ‘te etates tuna sts ad sol te sunes te07e, A
ouorgyt alt yd ot betethe eaw afvt tewemy abd . whan abd ab sidtdw
Shi $46 , 92 tea mondo’ ¥ 180 ath mosis al atentitl Ye sxyoe |
eann yLine® # saw “aonmigh” aman ott tect bevgte maw at atedw .00L
bos ,ttaoghart o 92 betaltgoryge od tom trigim tsdcw mew yregthto mb
tiiast a te oan of? stadt bine ,ooisaetans ont gaiverqes atrwoe, ont,
ae yf sae ath es yalteot omer adi noqu boots acidatecien «4d omen
o28ie.. Uhaderl .¥ 280 ohape ayel bedie bos ,artt ete Leubivthas
AVE LGA DOL .pO2S2H .¥ motsAh a deoTto same aft ef 812.08 ,0 695.
josrsacs ,huatt to eaneada oat uh tad? bled cate akeas eenat . .»
Vilssaehtont dquesd nave ,eideotiqgn ak goitineantg sat Loqgedee t9.
ow neditoaa te sesuiend edt ouutal has dgiw ese tendat OM:
add Ye neu ot epomdaauosto oltl tohaw Jade jpoane emma gat aad
at, Lian? oss ‘9 etaduan ad? yt beaet Adtorecxon a yd gman yihne?
ataaneves evigayes Yo seusada ef? mk fads bas ,42 To. SA,
eaedt, omen yikoet ads yateu oe mort housed of tom yam tm
ontxgoovt Som oneh wnt edayints ,bustage efashasted ae ,BLo e,
dadt ta0d only axedto toulons na sanetwe @ oma ot Pdgis ertenione 99,
Obet? 2 2a saga coun io gan ony at emt? mt yoinedta ted? fan ,tmnm
ton et yeavewond. .eLvt od? ,sonetampnte galiiontcps « tam at, omes,
Yoda. £29 aeaew ceed? Yo saitaninexe ae apeiriggnicarcie me

mettetioki atdl sen sidaaeraetay ae to Jaenos

; » 0 = start

te x0. imetanaages etn a rr
de @ Sat og Lak sovhorq Taal pu
Te. "Saenee RO AAPAARRRE MP:

wong a YOR. GREW ERs Ae Se a aba Grek ah

fe held that in the gtsence of ey mest we OF
any sen way use hie own Rane, in 1k legitinate ways, anc
whole or a part of u sermeorete name.*

Tale exception, tee, was been reeceriszed by the Supreme court ef
Gilineis in A
it is seid:

shea Cae, are ahi. 129, where

“If defendants established their new business and sought te
eonduet it with the fraudulent and wromgrul intention of attracting
ta themecives the austom lntesded fer aspellee, thie is clearly a
fraud upen the rights ef the latier,*

The United States Gusreme court, scnin speaxing through Br. fustiee
Holmes, in Waterman v, Mojern Pen Co., 885 U, &. 38, said im aube
Stance that there was ne distinction betewoen vorseratices and natue
fal persone in the principle which ie to prowens Yraud, and that
mo additional immunity ie derived frem the fact thet the corserate

mame is that of one or more of the inversoraters; that the name

must nevertheless be honestly and fairly used, citing Zee

So., 155 app. Div. 564, wedifying 214 |. ¥. 676. ‘the seme rule

hee been reeoguized in the ecurts ef FPeunsylvania and Sichiven

(Hixes Co, v. Hixes, 182 Pa. St., 346; Lelding Cleaners & Dyers
X, Belding, 245 Wich. 243), and depkine! Unfair Competition, 4th

@2., Be. IM, states the limitatien with refers se te the wae af a
surnare, saying that *voneent by an incerperater te the use of his
mame snd the adoption theresf in naming the corporation gives the
name « trade or business identity and estopa tie déedicater from
thereafter using hic name in a competing ousiness.” Cee alee

EG. Ve Tierney Bros., ine,, 130 dive. 425, 224

The English esses aleo are to the cume ef faet.

2 Chane, (Eng.) L913, Be 545, val, Rs

Aay extended discussion of these eases would unduly extend

as the

\ €

hi a.
@

Hi wary a

| desmetan 19 pues? to ee ee aatt at tas «bios ot

Th ‘ ent. 88 On8 ,eyew efeakd gid oy Yad few Yea

1 * sae obaoctos, a Ne teag a te afore

%6 fxdea Gmesgu® eft xd daadigoast ewe wad 1908 .Hohtqeoxs at.

ous , OSL oat wre 490 nen ofa deos_y_Jtgmaye te ak sont La

thea hg ah

ot fdyuor Das eacataud wea thet? bedet tfaan0 sbiahin ek ure
giisessige te solsuntes fo tyaotw due dee ivbaeet weld teiw ok ¢eubtee
& ¢ineele al abas on Llagna <a hehastal motawo est seviaamat of
“,sevfad ond ‘te etigts eA? apy bar?

ante eet. th aout ysidenge Akape ,ftwee oawrcnt aednes etased boss

whee. wh Alae Bh 6B etl @6& | «eo net see bom

autss bat SHoltarenios moreed meltealverh om aaw wgend 26K: sient
tata ban dwech dasvety of af solswoaketonine one ab Sndethe tae”
atetoyiee.ond gent dnot edt apt} device ef etinwamt tenoteibha ow
«ean ed? gous petodetonxeond AF TO Heed tO OmD to dash oh imme”
eZ SeiadeeY guisio ~heew ektlet bin yasdowee of selaciarith tier

sey iioid pao alaavineausS %@ a¢usoo ete me nate satshaeeeill

auth ‘dead tena seta 'eatdeok bao (O08 toe ae | penpunrt
@ t0 Seu aad Of gouees tes sate aoliatiots oc? eosetn ,18e 1a ‘Vober

als te saw suid oF tofexequonst me ud faesmeo” fedd gadyen jedewtie

edg govlgy aoiverogusee ed? gations of Roewert awieqoda ott how batket!
aot xoteothob old aqodan ban Ytiénebt deanbwke ee ral aa

o% how Odd oq .hLOk ‘att eotmat? ©, 2me'towt AL oes ' at
hk Wi sae perry
due dee eudan hivow eeene gacis bid soteesogkh Apbun tne Se om,

eee
¢

79H aX .009,.a9h: as snes snananell
List gcma oath. OPO oF ok OAR gatytthon \SOa 12a Vega BOL [ge

the opinion and is unnecessary since the controlling erineiples

are, ag we view it, siusie and clear, A man hae the right te the
use of his own name, amt if he uses it honestly, but he hae no |
Tight te use his own nase where he haw lewfully centrected that he
will net 40 se, nor where the use ef Lt will amount te the perpetra-
tien ef a fraud, ner under circumstances vhere by the rules of Law
he woul’ be eatorsed from aging it,

The evidenes in thie esse sagtiains by an overwhelming
preponderance the allegation ef the bLli tse the effeet that the
ape of thie fasily name was for such unlawful parsoee, If ale
leges and showa gractically without centradietion thst J, A.
Lomax while sresident and manager of the plaintiff Delewere core
poration proceeded with other defendants to conspire te apprepri-
ate to his own use and secure for himself and othera whe were
acting with his the businese of that corperation. Defendants say
that the decree ig net susportes by the evidence, but ae te this
particular point there if ne discussion of the evidence, defende-
ante velying solely unon the technical ecntentiens that the title
of complainants ae to trademarks, ste., Yas net guifleientiy es-
teblicked, and that Bim evidence wae net introduced te shew af
firmeatively that conswsers of the goods had been confused or de-
ceived by the ecenduct ef defeniants, 48 a Satter of fast, com-
Plainante claim title through the shettel mortgage executed ty J,
A. Lemax when he was the president ef the piaintiff Selawore cere
poration, and his execution of the sertgage seeme te have been
aperoved by the directors of the concany, There ie ne evidence
to the contrary, and thin is, we think, prima facle sufficient,

The mere facet, whieh is senceded, that the Delaware corporation had
been adjudged a bonkrust and a trustee asreinted woul’ mot be suf}

ficient te diapreve that title, in the abeence of any bill filed

by the trustee in erder te recover the erepersy: Eiymeuth County
Trust Co. v, MacDonald, 53 Fed. (2nd) 827. Neither does the
Trust fac: oe) Beier. ee ae ie

eeigioniug gulifeziaes sd? avake Yieoaeseans al bas selatae sat
edt of tdgts ext wad cum A seen dy ban skqate ,at miy ev oe om
om nad od tud ,yftsenod tf abew of ‘Th tem ,omat we ahi to sau

ex gad} bedoaztn0s Yitetuet ead od etedy euew awe alk sek 0 Sify he

~etFOUTeG ade of tawolss 2Liw $2 ‘te eae edt wued~ Tem ,ow of Ten tite

@et te reins end sel exoste eooumsommtie tehan tom ,huakY & 6 welt
tt paler oett hecaatas o¢ af ow oat

: gutelsstrrneye ae yd ales eum ease, whe ak somite ce nl Rs
out fast soothe sat of ALig edt Lo maltogetio oft eomete - @
-ia @ ,cnoqeng inten inn dove 192 saw pmec yline? e2st 20, 9a
sA Jk das? sobtotharzune toositw ylLeattoarg ewods baa gsoged
_steo etewaled Tlitalalc etd ‘te cegsamm hs fapbtegre 9 Lise xemod
abzqezaqa of etiqanes 92 atishoaieh tito dete hebessgny melsas sto"

. wee sl arasli a hun Teale tet steaen bem oo are ald © of ote
Men aissbusted ,aolsereqres tant to paantand eat ald Agdw antiee
aids of aa ind ,ponehive ong Mi Sen mee ah pent a ae

esid ocd tact aed nes noe prenrennaey ast aus sie pater ane
ono Viderloltiva 204 2a0 , 2930 ,sdtauehat? Of ae staaele semen
qn wore. 0§ Deouhars ad Sag.08" APRERIME ME. Aa BRO *
sh te beesteos aged bed abeog este to ateavenes Anes ; ° has

~noe ~toat te 1dtan@ 4. .etaahae ted Yo toubaoo Add, of bayiee
ok yd bedapone egagitom iesiade adt Agen? efit atate - Memes

sTeo oreWeled Titsnlely edt to Inebigqoig ade aew et neste memed 4A

sped svad of anos egegd tom edt te agktuvens ahd has ,molterog
enaehive en ef oxegl ORS one to. igrtighag ont xe af :

mamnccncesnieisssmiil rman tricia: Ry
«~ “ £

ee, ek ee

mere adjudication of bankruptey destrey the sarnerate identity,
eertainly not in the absence of sebeduling its good wihl zs a

part of the aesete, which the bankrugtey set does net compel the
banrupt scerseration to deo. In that eaae, the trustve in bank.
ruptey takes only the tangible asagte, aceounte receivable, ete,
leaving the coroerate entity intact, and, indeed, the bankrupt being
@iseharged of ite devts may continue te do businepe if ite steak-

holders are able to finance such a vwexture.

>, “55 Fed, 2O. Bere than thie, it ie

undiaputed that comelsinente were in possereion of the preperty, and
deSendante are in no povition te ruise any elbfection to tha title
under the ¢ircumatences. King on Uniaix Caugetition & Pradevarke,
Sra ed., par. 344, wp. 74.

As to the proof of confusion os to the sanufseturer of the
wocds scold, evidence of that kind wae offered and ebiested to by Age
fendants, and their objection was sustained, Javing ebdeated te
such evidence, defendants are not nov in o position te suecesatully
eomtend that they were injured beesaues sueh evidence is net in the
217 Ill. 89; Chioage &

ums, @26 T11. 380,

reeord,.

Finally, defendants eomti@ld that cemplaineute may mot suc
tain thie suit, beeauss they come inte court with unelean hands.
The rule of equity that they vhe elaim relicf againet frauda of

others must theuselvee be free from imputation of framéd is uneuese

45), but that rule,toe, nas its chvisus ond neeessery limitations.

it has never been construed to mean that the richts of a eomplainant
in = court of equity srould be determined by Lia general character
for just end fair desling, ‘he rule is Lisited te unfair an@ ine

equitable conduct with referenee to the particular transactions

a rs
—

“yetheaobs esax0cx00 eute eouraeb wiqwrotans 10 nottaatnuton ova

& ae Like boon att wai Lebecies te comneda oxig ak ton cinterees

ods Logue fea asob tas yosqurtond ‘exit sia Leto oremen eel te tt06
wiinad at eevautd of? ,seno tail} ai .ob of noltexoeres tonnes

, 299 ,oldavieogst atauoose sasnave eidignat watt eine sodad wotqut
geied fquetand eg ~beobad baw tontal Wisas pias ovx09 eats antvaot
«pote asf Dhass aenmnane ob of wud taoa ean aeceb ag to bogresion th
.oxutaey « down ons xf of oda ota ; eae
ak 32 ees | aatiadl atom 92 bat ges , ‘ ae”

iz - SSS he
a9 ee

SSE

bas ehiogerrs ont te nolanouede ai etew dsoutatanbe # e
eLake eis oF aolteatde yas eulet of aoty tq oa ety ow y ate a fetes

peiranebet? * nol? iteqzod eho tet ao eat apo soouetke oa eb

A ee adhe re Set YG ee

208 088 .t8q oehe tnt
wets te werudon"twaee ode oe ae notestaes 6 rears ‘eds ot hy ee
wah Y. 03 osoetse bate boxe tte aaw bald dost te ‘ooasadve +biow
of bedostdo pat val sbontatesa adel noitootde ateds hie abi
ULlv'teeooove of sotthes « eat ven ten +15 aged teh apap
ould ak ton gi eousbive dome oaueaed borwhak erew wont sant | ninbiae
Aonsohse ; :428 .fL1 TES pve wv .ooae ml , :
088 5 £11 ase ,dawadmus) oo a s20a AAT to "a lk
«ene ten you aéuanie iques tasis buhs.ase adaninotep Videatt .
sabes nee Loa itiw dusce egal sses could enumaod \thwe sia a |
“Yo whunst teniege toliox abate onlw yond tact citwpe ‘te tun on
msoupiw wl bowrt te sod tesuqak aor sort od nov Leunnts + deine weno
aX uthevowtell geo poms rad “ 8 } 00k ar 2 inal) bon
“saa pied ots saat J satze r ive

BAS ¥ fas

taastatce 2 pig yt abet ont ‘auld sao on ee be
Yap BEGN Nes ge Beaters
wosoetesis fereney nm bxl vi boalrstes od Sswone ystu9e te damon " ak
; ok md
“st fe tietan ot bottats ak ohe anit ations ated Wana, ‘
Wk | Me eat | AR: wa

anotioanrwet wALiols6@ rey someday a nl bf
ease shasta spe mer it

oh dogs stbeoett

eoncerning which he ake the ald of the court. LDefendante say

that complainants and their sredeceeserem assed Lebels making une
true etatesentea aa to the ingredienta of seme of the beverages
sold. tt is ae14 that “Lomax Peasin Ginger Ale" wee eold to the
publie with a label containing the statement, “Lomax Pepain

Q@inger Ale is made from pure Jameien ginger combined with pepein
aud aromatios,* and that this statenest ie untrus, the master
heving found neither sure Jamalea ginger ner pepein wae used as

an ingredient, Another of the products s014 by comolsinants wae
known we "Old Tom Lime Hickey,” and it is said that it was fold

by complainacts in bettier bearing lsbels “hich sentained the
stetevent, “Bade from Vest Indian limee, pure ginger toot, lemons
and oreggee from California, Uowalian euger, ozonated weter;*

that this statescent was untrue, ené that the waster ee found,
Defendants sises suy that another areduct sold by sompleinente
under the name ef “Lemax Club Root Beer” was marketed with o
label containing the statenent, “A sembination of reote, herbe awd
vatke erectened with eane sugar,” oni thet this stntenent slse wae
untrue. the usster, however, was of the cpinien ond found that
there was ne froud upon the public in thage respecte, Defendantea
gay that there ie ne bacie in the reserd for the opinion that there
was no fraud usen the public “as there wes we testinany whatemever
concerning that matter.” It is elowmterr, hevever, thet fraud
mast be extablisned by affiraative preof om the partrof the party
whe pleads and relies woen it. There was such proof in the cases
weon whion defendants rely: Aseley v. Hargreaves, 246 Ill. 316;
beach v, Saaxtf, 146 Pet. 444; Lervection hte, Go. w. B. Goleuan
Silver's Cs., 270 Fes. 574, snd other gases, The mere proef that a
etatement ie untrue doom not, of coures, estehidah thet 24 is fraudue

Lent in charagter, sereover, even if there were ough preef, the

‘ea

Si, 4

yes atashaste® .o1uet ong Vo Khe ont ekae oA vindaw gahathanes: <
ant jaktax aleiat beee avacsensheng thvey Kaw etanaletnmos testo
aegatéred ait to daog To atrethergat ec? of on ataemodate) ened.
edt OF bles paw “ath tegadl akeqet named" dads haw et #1 sbtnnes
nteqed xawed* | drsnetade nett yslintetars fedel a dele a btdipc
Bieqse dtiv bealdmos tegaty solawel exog sev ahem o2 eA tomes ©
‘eoFeem Odd ,ourdey wi topwetete afd? deete fos * wold cron See >
te hoaw saw ningee toe toy y selamd etue tection howet gntvet —
aew ednmiictomes Yo blow atuvhoty dt Ye selfoms: .tuothenaah: co
#fiou sav ¢2 Jed? bee ek FE fae “, yodeth outs set 820" be tees
amt bentatsnes doicw sfedal yalveed eelited of atsaniatgnon yo
sages t | stood tonniy Steg ,senll sathal doa% moet ebee* oe
* rede hedeause stegua al Lowell ahesotd Lae meet seganto bas
aiiet o¢ Wisse edt Fast bas powednt aow dmowsdare elds tans re a
| phrinackefewon yf blow dnahotg aedtente tate er oaks ateanaved :
an t¢ie feteties sew “eee! Fool defO zeal” To ona od eobas me
Bie adted ,eteor to meldmatdued A” ,dasmogate wae yatatesnes hedake. .
anv o¢te fxountata etd? dad? boo * tage satig iw hatter eer vateaden.
| Fate Pact bas seities edo Yo saw ,tevewsd ,seoadem we mare on
ataghee tot .atooquor seedd wi shituq ons ange buch art naw weep
ests tar? molateo welt a0 bitoos elt nt akon at AE WROME ‘tan? van
reve on tate ehont tent oe ame nteds ou” obténg ete mécw duet. - Land
putic't Saat, towointct waa owas te at Ok > seettom tan? paleteaneds
iene Bet TeyFtAG OMT mo Roots OvItann te YO MecReaMedeD ed vat 4
eenne ont ph Roots, cose ae eroatt th oan Haddon: bam whee et }
“pore cee ne ‘aevae , ae haneboe ren eon
bible naeter chiara snaab-tapucer jipauanielee
euhiie’ at $2 des Mater ded joerues Yo (ow kebet whtende wh paren +
bat \"toowe dine atew erbe? ‘Lh aeve ,toveones swenpermte, ahianell ,

sen eran A
‘ ;

‘<>
A
ba owe
™~
»
¢
>
Csh
€
7
ed
.:
{3
Lal
eS
ae
¥
X

evidence indicates that these transactions were had at a time when
the principal defendant was the manager sid in eonircl ef the
plaintiff corporaticn, and he and the defendants who have aeted
with him are hardly in 2 position to set it up. Further, the sale
of these articles is not shown to save been directly eenneeted vith
the subject matter ef this Litigation,

Upon the controlling issue in tiie ease, namely, that of
the fraudulent intention amd conduct of these adstendanta, the
proof in the record eustaines the findisg of the esurt.

The only serious doubt we entertain upon thie record con-
e@rns whether the a@eeres should aave granted to counlasinante the
relief te which they rere entitled witheut making the injunetion
against the use of their own name absolute. Upon reiéearing a
majority of the ecurt - the writer mot concurring « hold that the
deeree should be medified so as te allow the defendants to engage
in the beverage businese, either as individuals, a scorseration, or
ag 4 partnership, to ewploy avy and ail servante necessary to cen-
duct the business, and te do any and all acte incidental to tae
conduct ef the business go lesg as their labels, advertizing and
other printed matter affirmativeiy indicate te prospective customers
that their ereducte are set manufactured or seld by cowmslainants
or either of them, or their predecessors. the modification should be

of the character indicated in Allegrettl vy, thacelate Cream Co., 177

Tli. 129, and Johngon Ce., 543 11. 106,

Tre eeate of this pent will ce taxed ageinet defendants
ané@ the 4eeree reversed «nd the cause remanded with 4ireetions to
the Chancellor to modify the same in confernity with the views
herein expresced,

REVERSED AND REMANDED VITH DIRECTIONS,
O'Conner and MeSurely, JJ,, soneur,

Be)

“y

sedw emit a fe hed ev9ew aenolisesaets euerdl? tant osteolbn! sonebive
eds ‘to Loxvame al bow weyeuem edt wew Faabie toh Leqtenity edt
hevou ovod civ atexboeteh aft tas ef bow delta tervoo Trisataly
alee edt yxoddret .qw of teu Of agifiueq « oh y ices ote min Atle
Aghe hereornes YLdverih ased svat of awolle tou af weLolita usd? To
MokTeylTLe ehat to tostem soohdwe ade
‘te des? ,yleaten 0403 eve WE ever! galiferties ett neq °°
aN? ,e¢ombesteb eeod? te Soubtoo bak sottee dat tae tuheett ont
.itvoo of Yo yothals eae anleteua breget od¥ ab Toor
toe broeey el awoqu slaitetee ow ¢dvobh ewolaea yino of?
etd atnoutalemos of bednery B¥aH kivoda sorash ei? tovede aietee
| gohtomutat ed gation ¢uodgiw bert bine exw yort oo tidw ef ties
g yattobiier mogl. .odutondy wman owe thent ty one ont tumbaye
edd Sard blow » gatvivomes sow setkew oad & Heme OF to csttotam
ognan of adtabm ed edd wWolle 09 so oe baltthom ed tivere ebtee
to ,aottateqtos & ,efeubivital es tadile ,esentand eqeteved’ 6 - al
‘wags of exXseesoon ageevtes Lin bee un Yolues of pqidetenivaq a ‘jo
eft of fetucbiont atee Lf bam ys of od Bae , vaentaed eft Goud

bie gulelisovhs ,aledai tisas oe gaod o8 aadnited af9 Yo soubaoo
eremotaue evidseqaoud of Sdaoibul yLevistanritte wedtem betnlag wedto
‘etvehlalomso yd SLoe ve becetse tuna dem ota Stonbhete eteds sacs
oo Biwoda sobteol tives ost .erexssovboty “ied? ve jnadt te temehe re

_ginsbhastab ges beonae os Iie be
“ot etoitoatit tie behasary seasp off Sne cag ings
evely adt sijlw yeioretnes mh omen amv Vithom of !
REOLIORALG RTIW CRGBAMTA CHA CARRERA cree it, Covad

pth og 6. sade Ko MAOD! |

sl
i

“
4

37306 ‘
: a
WILLIAR oO, FRAALS, j ia
Plaintiff in irror, } we
j MOR TG SUPGAEOR gop
Te } 5
y OF COOK codury,
CUICAGG AUTOROAILE ALP LAL ea lae t/ ,
PORES, IBC,, a Corcoration, i Pee ar et
Joanea H, ThivuL and J. ¥, 'neampane,) 2'7 4 | A. OGZ
Defendante in trrer.

BR, PRESIDING JFSTICO“N BATCHETT
DULIVERRD THe GPIKICH OF THA OOURT,

By thie writ of «rrer cosviainant secks te reverae a de-
eree of the Superior court entered July 125, 1035, whieh dismiseed
the B41] of compisint vitheut eoetea for want of prosecution. The
deoree recitus that the setion was Feguiarly eslled fer trial;
thet me one apceared to prosecute, and that the dismissal wae
upon the setien of the eourt.

The bill was filled saren 6, 1928, and alleges that seme
Qisinant trisge auvit im besal? of himself ond other ereditera whe
might eheose to jein to secure the appointment of « receiver, the
marehaliing of eeaete and an accounting. It prayet that eertain
S&efendantea whould be decreed te pay the indebtedmese te the extent
of the unpaid portion ef their capital steck; that the eo rpora-
tien might bea weund ap, and for general relief. The cause was
put at ismue July 14, 1928, and en the eume date an order wag
entered referring the cause to © master in chancery. The couse
was pending tefere the master on thie reference at the time the
erder wus entered dismineing the bili, Hovesber 20, 1945, the
master filled a report recommending that the decree sheuld be
entered in favor of cewplainant against al. the defendante,
except one,

That it ie reversible errer under such cireumetances to
enter « decree digseiesing the blii Le settled by the sathorities
and dose not require discus#ion, “Yell v, Mulvaney, 26% T11. 198;

t ilgatesk
“tora ak Hauesk

Raed f a4 ae a ats

a q

eae wry
wave Sa Gu ssawrs

; sahara ees a
| ar “+t haa sari

% “a “MBAS

pian. ake Mas AS Rg CT A re a
ae ee ;

by anaes

TRRBOTAM SOLTHOL DMTCIOEME Ve
» 28009 Mak] 9 KSEE oy eR ER wd r we
AT

ob & oaxevex ot edeos Suma e feo xorte te awe elas we yi seh

bows tase kb ite kit 18680 fod hai here sas faa tolvoque ety *% nom,

watt -a0t jvooners te saa x0 asaon suosis hw tataiouce * to cand per
pias x8 ne Lae Nite laget naw notion one tact aedtoos, pote yy

any Aneatents vs sasit bm » stuogaeag | on beuangos ono

NV aes batia
bt +i Gi i Bi ee a: Poet wR

rs ee ay Wits AE ap as EE ¥ “hy Ay eee ee ‘

cae ae Teenie

: : -n00 nia ange iin baw ses 2 “axad bod ¢ ates "eet ore

ssid ‘binde’ _

oe srordbow ‘wise hae Yuseats r9 Vianed at aus | a eve Inet
ie iy Cie at ek ee ue EL

parses Fis
atagze toss ‘boyoug a1 “gate auosen an bow rivera te Bake, “tah
poe aie MM eae Pee Muley Wel

tuo te0 nats ot ‘eusnbesdebat outa ob) ‘ ot . as fod
“ g Reick ee hae | Muede ae etary
_ spreWioo acid asst idoote kas boas xios 8 xoltceg bhaqan add %o

shy ae oat aa
Deas 26: : i ae oe

s “ae ence ont Wohin Laxene 9 x9? Lonweg! 8 banow od ge molt

: ee RAS Bed
saw ‘obt0 a edad emee ais ne ‘bats ‘ater ay at pra My 6 tee
Beare Nay ‘ 3 a Ae ft 8.

enue ont sete ounio a 19 tan e 0 “vaueo ome antvaetor pereray ae
PRE RAE RR A RE
. ont “oats” oat te sommzoten ast ne toteas uty oo. paihaog saw

of ¢o0netamvetio dent stehoe HenTe , stdiouever at * * — ke
wehtivodsom ead yt bodtion af [itd add ciel rob os o ”

ike yore Sohe lee ahs

Bil) 8. %. Go. vy. MeCavahan, 180 122. App. 525; MeGlay v. Wipisem-
Bem, B47 Til. Ago, 1414, DSafondants practically comeede that this
fe the jaw but seen te contend tnat the deeree sheuld mot be ree
versed, becmuse, ao they say, somplainant 414 net exhaust bie
renedy in the trial sourt betore apsgeniing, They site eo nusher of
pmo & Ge., 28) Lik. App. B47;
Craser v. 111, Conmereial Man's Assoo., 206 111. 916; Bagden y.
City of Chieago, 283 111. 145) to the effeet that the trial court

bas power at & subsequent tere to act agide an order dismiesing

authorities (To Semues Py

the eause under weeotion 89 of the Praatice act, and urge that emm-
gieineant showld Keve firet seugit relief under that seatian. Une
fortunately fer this wentestion, the Supreme court hae held that
the vorececding under section $9 le not apvlieable to » decree one
tered in chancery, Tgeetti 5. to, v. Beenier, 200 t11. 369, Hwen
if euch remedy had been available, it weuld by he mean fellow that
somplainast wae ebligutied te seek relief under it rather then by
writ of error.

For these reatens the decree le reversed and the onuse
Foemanded for proceedinge conel stent with this opinion,

HEVARSED ABD REMANDED WITs DIRsoT ions,

O'Sennor end Eofurely, '7., comeur.

aid? fect ohroucn llantiaena wtaabadted thf wrod 527 TOR age . :

-Ot od fon dinate ooveeh ol? tame honda ef moos duet hd “od ig j
ahi dauetes ton hh tamsaleman yan gait aa aad a :
a ee cuit onc ergted Mans, fee ak 4

géterHumlt webse ie ablws toe ot ted seeseoaden « ts pan sot

Ae pe af :

ie “mou das? agie bow dae snide! at to ee nbd tinke vetew tava bob PY
ea aokzeue anne aobans et toe Peo four ‘Gren Miwon ‘Sneninde.

ainte
fart Mest tad fivoe edovyut atte pauls set oe bat tet eiotaumd tot oi
(he aetaeb 6 of akdaed tugs tom ot OF Ha tone cohen + aabboonote = ot *

er +008 666 o8 coe : :

abba ui hy Foe i ic

i aisabinesal eae aataion st i ce Pee i bw)

i eB: dee i) EO vith smn san

* i
i
x cS eA PACS Oday
Sane i | eu ial a( aa
4 eh Cn ae CRE AE! UIN RR IN SEER IRIE (sr Tite eae, i F) by ‘
MSA Bacecs

iar; : Bo Ut ed ee hai wae ‘
Pe Ch AR Mi Gor EON SR ATS RUN
PEA evly yh et

37044

RICHARD NEYTOR, Administrator of ) / f a
Eetate of JOGRPEINE ASWich, Ya 4 od
Deceased, é {
Aopellee, Yr ae
j¢ APMEAL FROM MUNTCLP ae
VE. 7 ;
} ov CHICAGG,
METROPOLITAN LIVE —-
COMPASY, 2 Corporation, Yy AT AR ast a
os ah ataatiad } pd 3 ae oA 2 O 6 3

MR, JUSTICH MeSUKELY DELIVERZD THe GPIKICNR OF THE COURT.

Plaintiff, bringing suit en an induetrial insurance poliey
issued by defendant upen the Life of Josephine Rewton, upean trial
had a verdict fer @360, upon whieh jJudyment wae entered, The péliey,
wherein defendant promised to pay to the aduindetrator of Josephine
Kewton upon her death tae sum of 9000, wae issued im Tolede, Ohio,
December 1, 1928. re. hewton died September 29, 1930. The poliey
provided that if it shewld lapse for cen-epaynent of premium and if
net more than two years of prewiumg were due end unpaid, it might ve
revived upon payment ef all arresare “and the presentation of evi-
dence satisfactory to the company of the ineurability of the insured."

The defendant agrerted that the soliey had iapsed fer none
payment of premiume and was not in feree when the insured died;
that there was an attemst, by fraud and misrepresentation, to have
the policy reinstated; that it was oot reinatated, and the prenium
fer the reinetatesent was tendered back to plaintiff and refused
by hin.

Richard Sewton and Josephine Sewton, residing in Chicago,
were divorced in 1927, and Jeseehine thereupon took us her resie
dence in Toledo, Ghio, Richard remaining in Cuicago; kre, Kewton
took out the policy im question from the Teledeo office of the
defendant, whose home office is in Hew York City; she paid the
monthly premiuse ef $2.07 esch to an agent ef the Teledo office,
to and including the month of Zarch, 1940, when the payment of

: Ge 6 Re sedertetatena , nore mkA
ie Ki NE HOTWE EMINVESOS te

hea on ga a: 19 Ligena
THUOS UATLOTMUM mon Jat \{)
| 7 t

OBAGI EO

ay
BGMARUeZI ANIA WaT TaesoRten

SQOO ALT RTS | maine’ ¢eaee

,PRQOO CHT 4 AOLMAGO SHY GUATVIUGS CpeeoeeM BOITEUE. veo

woileq sonarueat Laltteubad aa inte Pe gutguied PLgaiass if ‘ 5
fainxs soqgu gHOnwOR, padi aol ‘te orhe asia a al saabao tod oe ‘ ve.
eYelleg eft batetae aa 3 mpaay bast, kia baie Bags 2066 tat tobbrey a hod
gabdqesot te ‘ansextstatabe od od Yaq OF beaiootg tonbae teh abexedw
,0ldd ,eheiel mt bewask aaw ,008e ‘to mee oct adeeb t3m soqe motwek
yet log oat .O00L ,2h cede qot bodh Botwed ant BS OL Tal rodeo ee
th bow mulomag te Jimaneqetton x0 orgnt bisess tt 32 taxis bone ve '

oe taigim 23 , diego fe ub oxow enka 49 te ore owt aad orto doa
4 ee

lve te soltatneaosty ed? bas” eteonta ife to rapwreq ange RO)
*.perwaai oft te yihitdenwant odd to ymaqmon ese a8 rot patakean soned
“nea Tot bescat hat yoilog end sand hettescs samhaeted ect i
jbeth betuen2 ont sede $etet at fon oxy bus wauluoxg Yo peared

oved of ,moltasaceorgatstin bus bund't es .ouuedte ma oew weeds std

mutant od Bae ,betotedion gon wew F2 eds pRedadentet yokfod Sat |
beater bas Tikiately of dead borehesd cow teometesaniet odd ret
oad os ul

,agaokd? af gaiiises ,modvek ealsdgercl bee asewell buadohi
elest 198 aw does nequeteds edingesel baa ,TROL at bootovth oxow
aesiwek wee joyastan al galaieuos ieadedi , old aboLe? at omen 4
ett oO @oltte obelat edt mont mold faa ak yollog one ‘ue oe.

ed? dtaq ode pyeto da0¥ weit at ef 992tto aainsi beac’ im asteh
ssoitte abolo? oi? Io duege aa oe | sions 10.94 Yo. whe as 6 hasan :
Be tonne oh one SCO oa Yo nee at tbat ba

premiums geavsed,
September 17, 1940, the insured was taien 111 and om the

foliewing day, the 15th, she wae taken te the Maternity hospital

in Telege shere on that date ahe was operate’ on fer gallstones and
am infected gall bladder; on the evening of the 2th Aienerd Bewton
with ire. Rose, a sister of insured, ealied st the home ef Filiiem
Davie in fTelede, as agent ef defendant. avis testified that Ars,
Ress reorerented that she was Josephine Sewton, the insured; thet
Richard Sewton, the plaintiff, way her husband, and that she wished
to revive her ingurance in the defendant company by paying all are
reare of premium; Davie thereupen, after computing the amount of
premium necessary to revive the nelicy, reowived $12.42 and gave «
receipt for the saxe in nzic name; this receipt reade that the
amount received is

“9 tende® of paet due and unpaid weekly premiums, made in connection
with application to the Metropolitan Life insurance Company fer
Revival of above numbered POLICY woich Ans Lapsed. ko obligation
under sugh POLICY te incurred by said Company by reason of sueh
tender. if such application is appreved by said Company, said
POLICY will be reinstated and placed in full feres, otherwise the
gum eo tendered will be returmed,"

On the reverge elide is the Pellowing:

"if the holder of this reevipt is net sotified that the Peliey
stated on the reverse side hereof has been revived, or ihe amount
receipted for herein is not returned within four weeke, write,
stating name of Agent and particulars to

BETROPULITAH LIV INSURABGE COMPANY,
1 Sadison Avenue, Hew York ¢City.*

At the same time Mra, Hoss signed the name “Joaephine Aewten*® te a
revival application, waich contained, among ether things, the
follewing:

"The above described policy having lapeed for nen-paywent of
prenium, the undersigned hereby appliee for a revival of augh
Polley; and te induce the Metropolitan Life Ineuranee Cempany to
revive the same, hereby represeste and deelares that the live
heretofore insured under said policy has not, since 1t was issued,
been sick of afflicted with any disesee, or met with any secident
or sonmuilted er been presoribed for by any physician, except as
stated on thie application. And the undersigned expressly agrees

that the said company, because of thie application, incure no liae

bility until saif company shell heve approved this application for
revival.*

ohetase * “ ce
ext ad baw ££k alae enw hn twant sie ,08et ele tedand qed °°

fatiqeed yiiaredeM odd Od andes sew cin ASOL ot ,qab aaitwoc to?
fae eonctealiay tt ae bedstege saw ote ata said ae ated eho Lot al

dihd dnl

aetwed buasoli Ag0R edd Ie palaeys edt oe prebba le ‘kiay peted tad: ae
meEtrr® to saod #43 Ya beilae ,foxweai Lo aeteke « -neok , eal ite
eth Gadd baktisaes sivad sfushbaeteh be tuege ss ,obo Lye od a tvast
gad? ;houwani et? ,aetwed eal deoost anew oie dass sesneentens soak
Bédetw ede tadd tow ,baadend tea gew , Tt abeta edt ,aepeet ivasind A
~ta Ife gabe “dt Yastacs Masha ted edt al soaeevent aed sviver of
to drone #4F yolsaqeos tedta paeqievedy wived paaskaorg te aieet
& 4¥ay Site TA.OL4 Hevleoss ,yoifoe Ot eviver of ctamasten tse
ead fad? ataet teheget alt? jean oth ab amme aad tr tateoen
i af beviesot fawome
solfeenios al Shan ,anolesey yLisew Bhagew hak ook same te eehaed a"

_ « €6T YaRquod commivent etld aaiiiogotted eit of meltaoliqga A¢iw
‘ g@ekeegiide of beeqet ead dolisw VOLO be {eee OV OTe to tavt rad

dove To Goaget Yd Erte bise yd Soyameak Gf ai YOLLOT dove |

bias ,ysequed bhen vd bovetwqge 82 neldackicgs Mae TE =

ass saiwredse ,eotet Lfyt at hove le hoa Sesetenior od ary ce

“ Sewtutet wd fLiw hevebasd ot”

tgaivetiot aig al @hia extevet gig a0

Collet off gad? Seltdton fom ab dqleget sad? Ve eebtem oar We”
fauoms od to ,fevivet aed aud towred Ohie sutevet sc? ao setae
| bohew ,arlsow tuet mist bw Seatetet soa at sng ‘got ree
of atelualsieg bus faega to eine ft sade
<PAAUHS AOMARVSHE ENTS Sar laotes Ks
TTT) atoY woh ,owmevA soaibaa £

& ot *nogweil ealdqeaol” aman esi? boogie axel .ark oan ana eas an
edt. ,ayalds tonto yaoms ,bealatnos Hokie etdoot Lege tevivee

‘to 400 fe “ae: bomen £ ved yotlew
“ts soon se ‘ eka Tue tors
é gonetwHal 2 MEER BOO
cieenes tudd astalosh bows ad aso:
,bengad paw fi “pat 20a ued yoliey 41
gogbiaoa Yum eo of om ts ,e r seas ty :
as tqno ote fe 4 tet Heat
“ gteuge i rataleee Prheeg Me Sokal as ane bead
~sii ec eimoal ,woliaoliqan ald? t0 pale “aYanqaoa Be
Tol seltectiqgs eldd bevetgqa eved Liade yasqaee dice

davis says that at this interview be did ast Bnew that tre,
Rose wae not Jeseshine bewten; that the foliowing day, beenuse of
gome thinge which aroused hie suspicions, he want to the neighbere
hood im Telede where these people lived and apparently then Learned
that the woman who signe’ the application was not Josephine Kewton
tut was her eister, Rrs. Kona,

Mra. Rees testified, contradicting Davie’ version of «hat
happened. Ghe says she informed Davis that she game te pay her
siater's insurance « Joveshine hewton's; that Oavis said, “Hew is
Kra.Bewtont"® that she replied, “re, hevten iantt so well * * she
ie eick in bed,* and that thereupon Davie said, “All right,” and
teld her to sign ineured's name on tae revival application. The
ineured died September 29th foliewing the operation.

October 3rd plaintiff filed a elaim en the policy with preef
of death with a dr. Warrington, an agent for defendant in Chicage;
Barrington told seleintiff te ¢all back in about teelve daya; that
when he called at this time he was tol¢ mething Kad been heard from
defendant; Oetober 28th he again enlied on Harrington and was then
tola the coupany would not pay under the purtey, and Harrington
tendered te plaintiff « refund of tie premium pald en the applieee
tien for revival, which plaintitf refused.

If Davie’ testimony was true there was obviously a Traud
attempted by the posing ef kre. Hose ae the insured, fosephine
Bewten. In such a eaee vlieintiff eould net recover, Hangook y.

303 711. 66. Piszintiff argues, however, that
the jury was justified in secenting Bre, Aose' version, and that
when Davis aecepted the tendered preadum and defendant teok no
action thereon until Geteber 28th, when it refused payment on the

polloy, defendant waived any right te claim that the policy had not

been revived and waa not in foree ana effect at the time ef the

hun arid hes Ge Oy

ork ged? wok 3 out bih ed wolvantak eist sa darts agen abves

le seumeed , Keb palwoliet es tasi? pao ewe i om dae 0% Jon one seek
-tedigion ext of i nee on 80 toige wa eit herve ta ‘to kite enahss once
boatael nend vitnetaqes haa bavi sigoe¢ saeds onnitw oh Lo? at ‘boot
aoswoie euldgeset tom saw apkseoiiggn o4¢ beagte odw aemew outt tase
— oat totale most sav w oud

sede to molaser tatvad acitelbarsuce bot iliast suok oe 3
ted yaq of ones atts fasts abvatt hemistai ess eye ouie “bone gear
ab yee" o hiss ak vae dass 70° mesdweu ani desegt - sonetust At negate
outs # * Liew os t'nad od wo it aa" pbotiges waka sus "tap tesi. «eH
baa ",2iglx ith" ,dhen nivel asquoredd Seslt baa * bed ab ‘ole oh
‘eat sHabine Liege kav iver ont ae satan 8 a! hetumed mde ¢ o@ Be bios
sMtobtoxeqe ade yaiwoi sot id a wodune qos dete souweat

Teorg a3iw wilog ent m9 miele bo i2%t Wabmhnde bat xsd0900 iy : ae
ponent at tasbaw ted a0 $00 5s stu pos yada ek ti ae nis. , anvi Be
tate yaya aviows Sunde vk owt sino os reagade te bios “nods bene
mevk Sused need bast gntiitoa bios new od ome oket te be Lkep ot bait
sett aaw bie ao Fan ivisk ao botine abaye on bad 1940300 1 tnabaste
aotgalzxal bas ,yallog eutt Tehs Yea toa biuow qaseog edt bho
~aohiyee — ne blag hry ode te bate i Wutende be of devabaed
homeo Vebdntaly oko hav boas: oss eat

bustt « eseutede wae exer gud saw cau tees ‘aivad BW -

- guidyooos ,botweal ocd se Geek ,atl Ye gaineg ed? wh iene
-YAgoona .1everot tom bivee Vihialedg saq9 2 some ml ymtwel
tedd ,zovewed ,aounte Tliteatesi’ .88 .£iL EOE axsizuoe? to sacha
tant hon eopanare ranen looky efi ini ab Sines wn 00
anit a0 seeaneee, beaten ry apse rbd ads
ton hast wottos euit dai? alike of Saige oie barker

eld !

insured's death.

There have bee many gasee touciing waiver by an agert of
an ineurance company, but moat of them laivolve the question ef the
payment of « premium some ilitle time after the dat¢ of payment
etated in the pelicy, in such cases, waere the custom has been
for am sgent te receive premiume a fee daye after the due date,
the company will be Held te Bave waived ite right te declare a
ferfelture for nom prowpt payeent. Chigsage Life Ine, Co. ¥, Yarner,
8) Til. 416; cee, 157 il. 194;

i e Lif ¥ » 8OO Ti. 448.

In the present esse we aave a policy, admbttediy lapsed,

whieh there is an attexpt te revive. Ey the terme ef the policy
the revival say be accomplished upon the presentation of satiaface«
tory evidence te the company of the ineurability of the inwured;
the receipt given for the arrears ef premiums expreasiy states that
this te e tenter and the eccupany ascumes no obligationa under the
policy until the epplication for revival has been approved by the
company; the revival apolicatios is upon the esnditien that the
ineured has not been sick, affiieted with any disease or treated
by any physician since the solicy was issued. But it is argued tha t
Davis, the agent ef defendant, and tue defendant, by reeeiving and
retaining the presmiume for a iine, waived compliance with these
conditicnes, Among the many cases touching the subject of vaiver,
under similar circametances, one of the test statements is Pound
in the onee of Ferrero v. knisits of Security, 209 [11. 476, where
the court said:
“A waiver is the intestienal relinquisehment ef = known right, and
there must be beth knowledge ef the existence of the right and the
-saktcspage bes relinquish it. (Zerds ¥. Park 126 ILL. 201.) In
K 4 44 Mere R, 262 111, 300, @

5 ver —e "set up, and the curt hela that knowl edge is always a
necessary clement te constitute a waiver, and that receiving

sseteements with the knowledge that the insured wee 111 ot the

heamgue Ne keh oe Rede wat? altek. omen milage oe

1h stad exh edt ssdte ayeh wet « sembeata sriseet of tanga ae tot
i @ Stalgoh o¢ Siig ie aék beview “vad of bood oo Li Ry (yng ess
«teed teeotq mot tet enirte trek

7 . hae od er

foe 420 MeL, |
(i ere ee or ae eee f
My jowegint edbaShRdba gutted: cheer Wede Vnsawrd due wt oie OF
i Tohlog end te | mannd ety ‘a sovivon vt dqum tte oe et otect nebaw
«oa'tetias to nolsasunaeta ead Weep ‘bow tqan evn ed “ean toviwven eat
SS opbetwend ena Ye ytbiidwanant arte ty ll ‘edt of *oaehive yet
task? Medase ylosetqae eawtuetg te etaprts edt tot noviy Iqtegen wet
. | ane xe haw etos rapt tbe (i temiege yoo ale bas neh? @ ok eit
ais YE hovoxqgs mead wad Lavbwwt set noitealiggs edt ibtaw ye hte
i

| ged Sede agtiiiuss e469 aoge et aelemetings Leekver axe ryeqnad
i bedwerd to snewadh yas dsly Redoditts ,ele med ton wet berodmk:
ll ¢ aft beugte al oh dui sbounet wee YoORLeG eM eoata abot aye ns ed
it hos gil vieost ‘e tashas teh wilt haw | Olah ae lee “To sooge ody Seabed’
suas idle evaaliqnos peview dul? « tot oavinente “edt Qatcleter
! teviaw te dootdwe edt yaldoust seo6y yt od godwaA © vesotentdeo
i) Dat ab ataonevese teed sit "to site ,eeonedomorts to finte ate
| | @t0ity a HEEL ROE '¢; Simupe# to sivutot .¥ ovemte toes: scrum
il bas téy2s amocal 8 to sogasetupal fox Leng Lvs) at ony rat va
@ 008 fii & oS satan ry BSOIOR Dawe ape rtog tus

i ere Senesbatan: | cpRR TS ihge
i "gntvisees fade baw cape hae a r grr yo - dams Ls
|
(ja
i

te tmege as yd teview yalionss eames yan eed eve eteT oo eet
{| edt it noltenup 943 evioval and} Lo seas ted .yusqmen voswumad me

| tered ea moteue os Stes ,awens store ato syodteq ont nk notene

at 29 LES sew horveaD edd sans ogheLvomt wilt aah! itaedeneda

}

a
a
,

time could nave mo signifieance if the agent was ignorant of the
fact that the insured war in bad health when the certificate was
delivered and the first asseagment paid, Yo conetitute a waiver
it da essential that there is an existing right, bemofit or ad=
vantage, knewliedge, aetual of conetructive of ite existence, and an
intentien te relinquish it, and the burden of proes ile upon the
party claiming # waiver to prove that the one charged to have
Waived the right mew of the fact that entitied nim te the right
ant the fasts uven which he relies for sugh raiver.*

frie element of knowledge of 11 the facte om the part of the par-
gon glaimed te have waived o@ right ie Aeid essential in sii of the
decided easen whleh we have seen,

Plaintiff in hie brief repestedly asserts that Davia and
defentant knew all the faots as to the insured’s physical condition
The record before ue dees net sagoort thia. At the tine ra. fees
interviewed Davis, Josephine Newton ned undergone a majer operation
threatening her Life, which, with wo falling heart, rewuited in her
death within a few days, re. Kesa, according to hor teatineny,
told Davis enly that “Hrs, Sevten is siek in bed.” This ie far
from tuparting to Davie oll tke facts ae toe the condition ef the
ineured, It is inconetiveble that if intend, Gabe that the ine
sured was in facet on her death bed that the request for revival of
the polley would have been approved. According to this reeord,
the firet time the defendant company knew all the faete waa then
the proofs of claim were reeeived by it, which wae some time in
Getober, Under such cirdumeatanees the 4efendant cannet be said te
heave waived ite right te withheld syoreval of the application for
revival.

The inatraetions iven the jury were very misleading. Une
attempted to define the duties ef a general agent, indicating that
Davie had power to waive conditiona in the policy. Wurther, that
if the jury should find that Davie saecested paynents of preaiums
on the soliey ef Joseriine Newton and *that esld general agent had,
or then and there received, knowledge as to the com@ition of

tesephine Hewton's health,* and if he accepted payment of presiume

eit to tomtougl saw tmaga ont ‘TA epaeaitingia on evad Aivoo amit
sew eteoktitrss eff ues AQLwond bod al exw betwent add Sad soe?
teviaw # etutitjaneo of .blay saomengner Jost asd bam betevl Lob
be ee TEisoed digit gatintes ae ef aradd — kalingses af ai
ae Das ,eonedaiann ati to evisoutiacon to dewtea ,oghe irom ,opeta
euy mea wi Ytwory to aebtud af? Bae .t! phar Poe fax af aetar
avad oc hegiade eno og tak? overg of tevhew, #

piintote yee
Sighs ody oF mid be lvtirae taxes fost ocd “to went 2iigylx edd boviaw

_“toviow done tT setior og Sodew age egowt ert, han
~ieg ons ‘te ung ous fo efor? ons fie io ogbe frend To taemsfe ebaT
ott te ihe mi Latsunene bier ef trois » heavier oved of bemiels moe

sheen eyed ow piste aoane Sehioed
hoe as vat tathd ‘dzp9ae tlhe taeawn Reked, eid at Pretalels |
pre oy oe inoiovse a? bonuend eee os oa boost ont bis yout it

aged ark amie ace Fé oaks sroqaate don eeoh aa oroied, bxonet oat |

aeliateqo team « eaugteb aN bad oorwed enidqaeot ,aivet bowslveoda,
Bao mn boo Luwos fad palin? * hiadieiel atid ste sit twat gad os
smoatgens ted of yaihrooss 288 vor -eyeb wet # abdtlw dtae

| te at alct "hed at dole at andrew ona" tame ying stved pied
ont “Ye mots thaoe sett at ea atoxt ono fhe sive oF gat Spaguel ast
oud oss dads eee apebco' ‘th tatt eldovivongont | sh Si. .bovwsat
‘to Lavives rot teospent oft godt hed Steck ws te Beat al ank Rowse
s brass: eis ot Balbrooed ,hevetaqe od ovad bLuow yoliog ae
asiw sew emo ant ile weet yneqene taabeteseh ocd emt souk gat
‘sk outs moe kaw solide tk xd bevieos new miedo To stoorg asd
0? bkae of Senase seahee Yop erly RORMRERENO KES, Hovn tohal .tedetao

x0? not teot fees oni te kav onage biodiaiw ot tisit 222 Seviaw aya

eo gulbestebs Ie eTew east, ens wee an iSaust ant oat ats gd
dass gatineihal «ditt pee ‘faceeey x ‘te a0 keun oid oat to, ot bose i

Saris «coset Uallog weld ak anelsihmoe evden ot teres bet eave F

anutaong, to wteomon besqooon ak vit bauia bare efoode yt. AY 32
.ba semys ticolee'y bane aeas® baw fytaed ox bile os neo tenet aie

re apis ibhoo outs 09 am oighe twoict bart oxo baa

ey tern aome

aainore to haenenet "hedqnene wel “2 baa » sth tees ‘@! antwet snlagosot 4

in arrears uneonditionaliy and ferwarded them ta defendant unsen-
ditionally, then, in law, the general agent is heid te have
waived any forfeiture and to have waived ang conditions in the
policy az te the insurability of the ineured, and that the de-«
fenudant «ae bound by said waiver, shd under suck eenditions the
jury should find the issues fer the plaintiff, the viee in these
instructions 12 apparent. ‘here was ag evidenes that Davis wae o
general agent or that Ae received the payment ef the sreuiume
uneenditienally, or hed knewledge of tae fegte of Jesenhine Kewe
ton's health, or forwarded the prewiums to tae defendant uneondi-
tienally.

For the reasons that the verdict is against tae manifest
weight of the evidence, that the verdict shovid have been fer the
defendant, and that the inetructions tended to wiealead the jury,
the ju4gment ia reversed and the casues remanded,

REVERSED AND REMANORD,

O'Conner, J., concurs,

Hatohett,©. J., dissents. (See next page.)

srirndanel fants tea wo sapien! sehuewtat: am: ‘<i fomet? bhennns bak ore ra ieee’
event Ot basal wt anena taveney, ont: wnat at nasi “een 9 ks

eat ag eaotstoacs we heviaw owed, ee ome erssistre? wae bevda
ob ene tout bina Dorunat ess te ye Ldtdamwamd ott of sa voniog

Ce pea

ant ‘etolétation: Thee “kesh his \fevier bled. ve hao oon ae i

gee a ee

eons a2 goty add .TMissieds a6? te? sexved oe fal? biwode wut

@ eaw aivel tedd opacbive on anv wtedd .toetagea nb ametse veteut .
senicexy edt To taemyag ont hevievet en sods to Soene Loxeneg

ekhnouts @habastes sie af atelewag ond aobuawie?t 19 ,deLacd atnet ee
| i vehtangae

\ Sgetiaais 42 Pantogn ef foipvee eco feast anonast at tot! wieder

ode ‘19% mod Svad hiwate todbuor ace gate | -eoanbive ent te tigtew

a heotats o¢ hehaod ane Mowttanl ese tac? baa ,

(eager omen o0e) aod meth 4 ole eal

¥
cs

2
ey
ee

%
Seis La
‘ Wg tees

S7O44 BR, PREGLIDING JUSTICH BATCHETT DISSENT Ing,

This cause wae cenaglidated in this ceurt with Bo. 37045,
and I agree with the suggestion of the eajority epinien that if
agein tried the same should be conselidated in the trial sourt.
The parties, the lesues and the material evidence in beth cases
are in substance the same, i do uel agret with the majority of
the court that the werdicts of the twe Juries vho sat in these
cases are manifestly against the evidence, but 1 do not reet my
aiseent upen that point selene.

Theee eaees were of the fourth clase in the Bunieipal
court where pleadings ere set required, and eseh gape is whatever
the evidence makes 1t. Sdeerton v. C.F, 2. & ?. Ry. 0
Till. 321; Bruner vy. Grand Tramk Sestern Ry, So., 319 Til. 421,

Assuming, a8 the opinion ef the court seeme te indicate, that

Riehard Newton and kre, KRoas perpetrated a fraud en the insurance
company through Mre. Koes posing and repreesemting herself te be
in fact Josephine Newton, I think the fury under the evidence
eould reasonably find that the forfelture of each of the policies
was thereafter waived. Davie teatifice that he reperted the facte
ag to the traneaction of Septeaber ROth in writing te defendant
company at ite office in Telede en the day after ite sceurrence,
hamely, September 21, 1930. Defendant then muet be Keld te have
known from that date thet Joaeshine kewton was in the hoepital at
Teledo, Ohio, and that up te the time she died she could have
been reached there. The «evidence alao showe thet its agent knew
the home adiress of her family in that city. Se far ae this record
discloses the first resudiation of the transaetion was 37 days
thereafter, There ie not a scintilla of evidence in the reeerd

that defendant during all that time tesk any atepa vhatever te

return the premium en these policies which ite agent nad accenoted,

oat TRE Te rr Tm morsaut oararosRs ae

F Raley

2hNE .0 Mie fue alas, at petabAtenane AOS N35 abet van
th Sad aetaiqe ytixnolaa ect to seigaoggue oat palpate per
»sxvoa fsird ant al botaii tosses ef bivade eae edt belts abaya
“agnne sted af soamhive iaixetam ad? has asuaat edt yaoitnoq oat
he ythtelam sald gio eemge tem ob 1 .amsa edt sonsdeden oh eta
seed? sh tat ety seiael owt od? to atoiitey ed? sade Jsune ae
_gm $ee% Son of I fod ,oompaive edt teaiegs pitas tinea. eres

«ouele tabog galt soqu, sn
seatnkautl oid al onsio digect aft to o19" senan ogedt .

Tes hie 5 y
tevatadw at ens9 dese han ,bethogot fom ots agutheota prose at dl

“oe pln (

wo cs tue th od a aaa & boterteateq eagk .at@ baw pat

ef of Meated yatiosagzeot bem galeeq eeo4 . std mgwotsis

eonetlve ea% tebaw yawt ond amted 2 ,astwed sataqeaot, teen. a

eeiciiog es te does Ie wtetislie? emt tact fekl yldenosees Atme,

i
s
steat sdf bedieqe? ssi dade eolilgees nivel .Aheelew te? laeteds i

fasbaoteb of gaigine at d20R aedaetert ‘ia woiisaeaats oct ot ay
,eonerreese efi 1680 yah od ao obele? oi eoitte ath fa yeu
aves of bied ad deum nest tombagted ,OL0L ,6 aodmetqel ,ysoma
te tushqnod acs a2 anw mowed sabsiqneot dad? stub sade moxt am

evad biuoo oie Boss oni malt sit ef eu Sodt ban ,oblO ,obed

werd Jonge aff tact avede onta sonehive oa? .oed? besieeot m1
Prone aAed wa t0t O8 .ytio gods af ytlunt ad Yo suethha nme, Os
aysh VE naw mobtoaanat? off Yo soltettuqne sext't act?
bropex edt ad oonabive to affisaioe « ten at oxent .%

of tevetadw agote you Meet emt? ted? Lie gatiwh sneer tod
~bogqeons fa Qaege aft doldv solcliog sears ao auieetg ett

In theese days when information is apeedily transmitted by madl and
telegraph and telerhone, I think the jury could reaeonably find
that the delay wae unteasonable,

» 200 Thi. 359,

it was held that the acceptance of preefe ef death after full
knowledge szewed an Intention en the part ef defendant te waive
the alleged ferfelture, hat waiver may be based upen Laferwatien
gives te an agent autheriszed to solicit buginess wae held in a
sult based on a fire insurance contract in Phenix Fire ins, Us.

NN. Grove, #215 111. S09. ‘che same rule wae aain ansiied to a

Life insurance policy by toe third division ef thie court in Agam

be,, 213 11). App. 54, in an opinion
delivered by #r., dustice O'Cennor, Yaese canes in my apinion exe
preee the law apolicatle (sot alone to ineuraice policies bat te
all eomtracts) that « defendant whe wishes te dileevew a traneac-
tion on the ground of fraud must aot vith the uteest preaptners.
There is a wealth ef authority to that effeet walieh I deem it une
neceasary te review at length. The controlling question, aa =
see it, is one of waiver, ond not whether the contract was reine
atated in sonfermity with (ite own provielons. There is ne doubt
that Davie wae the sgent of the defendant company, and if there
were any dcubt in that respeot it ia made immaterial by bie
uncontradicted evidence that the Toledo eifice of the defendant
company was fully informed of the whole tranesetion on Gepteaber
fist.

The prevailing opinion make#e much of alleged errere in the
inetructione, An examination dincleses, however, that the eourt
instructed the jury orally and that there was no speeifie objection

by defendant te any one of these instructions, in ene ef the

bas Liem yd hottivenen? yliboeqe es asisanrelal aedw syab seedta)
B ceoty psnguoncsrngn th cg Ytet on? Antd? I ,onediee les baw dgatye let
fais wEianoenetat ane vale ads sede

108 iat 00 om 4 ante

‘oviaw of inabusteb Yo axaq edt mo noliostal ne Sewelle vabelwe ns
aottautetnt secu bean’ ad yen toview sax? .otud ko tx0t hogetie rd
@ a2 bled saw waealard ghoifoe oF boxtredd sa — net Sh ner

4 hed bed ings utawa sew @isrt mane ant tee et nell

netatqe ae at ee a wisn) Ee *
axs moldtqe Ya af weaas sera?” nonsed’ > selgent sta yd boreviies

of tus vetoliog esitetnaat of exbte duc) etéootsaan war edt seneq

wosenaxd & sevanth oF aortalw ‘one tastantoh 8 dadd (aseorsaen “tte :

sanoad goer feud y ode id bw ton fen beans" ‘te batiory odd a0 molt
ee

ony $k meh 1 dotaw gostte sade sd eat noni we te si too « eb edt
i em tot $apup gat itontase ont dog t fe volver ‘oe. mi "

onies ae” tagadnes ons ested dan he teview te sae et are ie ;
dduob ou at exent eisoled vorg awe avi agdw ‘‘tlarte tage "at botate
ernds u be | waeqtes dnabasted oat ‘ta saese ead caw whved sa .

"ahd qd kattedamnt ghee al #1 sooqnet fant at $duob {na ot

" “Saabae%eb esis ‘to aolt2o obo lot ed} tase eoaphive bedothdndasi

radanaqes se nottoaadess odode od? te boutetak hag aaw

é debts nity

ous nt ero hows Sie te rip sat aedan ‘wotutge pak Laverne a”

The pags
s1W00 out Sass , 9 ro wadl teeioade a6 Laentnons ak aoltourte:
oS eeeoiogs

nekteotde obtbosaa oa naw onesis tans bate ultere eet, ont vem
axa. we RAR Lae ie
on? te ono ok vanotdoortaat pense to one as a Saabs tod

Trypan Reeth eee

iw avicowy a? goes

eases there is a general objection wiich under that praectiee ia
wholly inauffielent., Rule 6 of the Kumicipsi court, of whien we
take judicial notice, requires that ebiectioans to inetructiona suet
be meade specific. The brief of defendent dasere not point eut any
perticuler ineatraction which is said te be erronesus, Yhis ie
supplied by the opinion ef the court which plaintiff has mot psd
the envertunity te see or disease, and we are therefore without
the benefit of his observations thereon. At any rate, the ageney
of Davie wae more extensive than that of the agent whese authority
was questioned in Germania Life ins, Co. v, Boehier, 165 111. 2938,
where the defeniant esmoany wae held liabie. As I understand it,
a forfeiture is rightly odieus and should never be favored by

the courte, Umited States Life ins. Co, v. Rees, 159 Lil. 476.

Yor these, as well as cther reasene, I dissent,

®
af solgsong taut soba shicw agsdestde Leweney @ 82 wart pewao

(a sinks 29, AseH0 Koatptows ost To ® aLuk .tamke Swrwaid ehcoae
$eum anoijoursen! of saoitowtde tat aariapen ,sokton Lato thet, edat

(Xee tue ¢aiog doa egah tuphar'teh to tetsd edi aettioege shan od

ai wid? .emmoaort of of bien al sodow mokteureaal tudweldang

hus soc. pad Thidele ig sobs favoo oat to aotaiee eft qo hokiogee
suodtiw exoteies) ete oe bee ,ienoeds To. eee oo eahautteqae and
youge ott, otex yee 2A Meotend enobierseede aid Be F723ea0d orld
Utixed?us saodw loage ef? Ie tact ane oviwaetes oxen saw etvatl tp
s2@R .LLE COE yup isons. 2.89) wish eioearted at bemolsadap eae
fh bnedewobay es .widels bled sew yaaqmon tushasteh off atedie
XG Betoval ad weven hivesie ban auethe ylidglx ak wretteteta
ote. S44 OGL 2008 vo Sd Nd eT eotese beshas adtues ant

is Si

5 opbiae

1 PR Oe

———

37048 Sf) or yi

RIGHARD HEWPON, Administrator i) gf | 4
ef Eetate of JOSEPHINE NEWTOER, Fo “ -
Deceased, pA fA a :
Appell ee, 1 ; i

y APPEAL FROK MURTqIPAY

TR.
a Nit ne RE oF CH Icago. *
METROPOLITAN LIFR INSURARGR COMPARY,

a Corperation, ;
Avp@llent, By + OR 6G
5 g A A ts oO 6°

WR, JUSTICR MOGURELY DELIVERED THE GPIRIO OF THE COURT.

By thie appeal defendant seeks the reversal of a judgment
fer $528.45, extered upon a verdict after a trial in whieh olein-
tiff elaimed upen an insurance policy ieaued by defendant on the
Life of Iesephine Kewton,

We have this day flied an opinion in ease Ko. $7044, in»
volving the same parties, where 4 cisller elein wae sada usen
another relicy iesued by the d4efendent comeany unen the life of
Josevhine Eewton, In that cases, as in this, the ouestion Le
whether the plaintiff was sasceasful in bis sttempt to buve a
Lapee4 solicy revived,

Pleintiff, a resident of Chicago, waa divereed from Joza~
phine Sewton in March, 1927; thereuson she moved to Toledo, Ghie,
and lived there until ner death at that olaee: vlaintiff rexained
in Chicago and resarried,

January 9, 1928, Urs. Kewton received the policy in ques-
tien frow the Telede office ef the defendant, whose home office
ia in Kew York City. Theresfiter ene paid to an agent of the Telede
eTffiee the weskly presium of forty-five sents until seme time in
Kay, 1930, when the paywente seared.

The poliey provided that it esuld net be varied except by
the exerese agreement of the company, evidenced ty the signature of

ites president or seeretary; also, that agents were net authorised

and had no pewer*to valve forfeitures er te reecive premiums on

ri pasa f anore

vm (oy , Sedertetabmba ,worwE GAAS
> hey. aorrnst cuTeRedt 2 ossa7ea Ye

weeseBgS ron F240 fia
oa

Ps te siege bine Bae 8 EO cin Ne
; wasEb Taune wont cast | : igi
ze ce j 4 : ‘ re ; So Sth eee
,ODACLHD Yo TaUOD ) 7 |
| VEATHOD SOUARSENL WEA Bart otonraw
AG setogte? #
hea

£809 SKE 80 “aorazto sat aaxav Lu acide j ADETOUY, “n
gaemghut a te iewtevet eu exinee fanhon teh doeqgew abas Yo. ooo y
-tlealq solide af Satis 2 tfte tolbrey a aoqm hotetam- 228886 set

é8t me Saabao led yd dedeel YOLLeu seaxweat aa coq bantats TMS
(ao ewell snidgeael IWowths

«al (808 .o nay ak agdated awohedl tab edhe eyed eBeoc oe
Rowe eho asw oleld TIKI A exkae las hPaagoenne ond ‘anal
to SLL odd moqu yomqwon Saehas'ted ant yd heusel whier srostg oma
ek wotdesup ent ,aldt at ae ,2e8e0 teat af Jaetestt palates ot
# eyed ot tomettec ata at Sifieroonva Sew Yihiniole oat tedttorte
cboviwen yotfoe seeqmt

eseel moxt hogxevid ane ,oguolad Yo doehleet w ,Vihental® he
.oLRO ,ohelol of feven ome senwetedd ;°SCL soe mt morwel ontele
honianet Wtisalelg weedy Seas te dfaeb toe Lhiow etod? hewit bin
-bolvrames hes ogeetdd at

easwo at yalfeg etd hovinges aoswek uta ,O80L ,@ yreumat =”
aoltte omod sseiy ,tawbacieh eit ‘te eol'tte obeicT eas mort noth
ohetot edd to taege ca of Biag ote gevRacwdy .¥ 21D axeY wot aa ak
at outs emon fiiaw etuese ovit«ueaet T6 suhestg YLloow oft oot'the
sheeens ssasuyag ont node phan al
qo dqsoxe beltov od You bLuoe $2 sast benhbvene Yotheg ent ~~

% oriteagis st yd Beoashive pyasquen ec? To apse gS éuoeens rey
boatrodsus fen stew edunge dadd ,onle Tetatotese 70 corny ann 7 :

: ae ancien et evisoet o? 20 aninsiotw't eview os r9won om n tat Y

— =

—— Ne —EeeEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeee EE —

policies more than four weeks in arrears or to recript Yer the same,
and tue payment to the «gent of any much arresre shall be at the
sole riek of the sereon making such payment and shall net be
eredited as & payment upon the policy, whether reecipt be given

for such payment or not." it was alee provided thet if the policy
begame void in econgeequence ef nonesayment of premiums 14 might be
revived, 1f not more than fifty-twe premiums are dus, “upen payment
ef all arreare and the presentation of evidence satiefactery te the
company of the acund Besith of the insured." Thue, when the ate
tempt was made by plaintiff te have the policy revived it had
already lapsed for seme months past, subject, hewever, to rewiwal
if the insured complied with the conditions uumed in the policy.

On the evening ef September BC, 1930, plaintiif, with Mre.
Ress, # sieter of the insured, calied at the home of a zr. Davis,
whe ie described as an “independent agent® for the defendant company.
Pinintiff testified tnaat he told Davie that he came to reinstate
Jomeghine Kewten'e poliey; teat Davie sald that it weuld take [2.45
to reinstate 1%; that he asked slaintiff, "Where is Ere, kewten?*
and plaintiff reslied, “She ie in the heepital;" that Davis said,
“What hoapital?* ehereupyer Zeeten reslied, “The Maternity Nospital
in Toledo," and Davie said, “For 39.49 I will reinstate the poliey;"
that plaintiff then gave Gavyis thie amount of money and the same was
entered in the weekly preslax reecipt book whieh slaintiff haa in
hie poesession. Plmintiiy taeraupon returned to Chicago.

Davis teatified that plaintiff’ and a women came to his house
the evening of September 20th, snd the wowan introduced Aewton as
her husband, saying that he had just come from Chicago and wanted
"te pay up my inaurance;* that Davie inquired if she was Kre.
Hewton and she replied, "Yes, ”* avis saye that he cemputed the
amount necessary to reinetate the peliey and reeeived the same from

Bewton; thet the woman signed am application fer the reinstatement

,ouee odd Ot fqluoor OF Ae SXenitHe wt sewOw THOR cast sx om, ge torre
adt tn od ifade etestam owe Yas to faega odd a8 fapayeg oaf bike
o¢ g0% Liat bite Soeayeq sve gatvam aeateq of? te dott ofoe
govig of teylieoes Tas ody Teiiog amt moan faomyeg « ae basibote
yoltog sit Tt gas hobivetg onic sew #L "20m 40 Samay doun rot
od tiatia th rominoetg to feearyagetoa Ye sooaupeence ah blev omaged
taseyag segs” ,oub ote suukety ows-yel? ands wtom tea th ,bevivet
oad of Prodantalioe womwhive tq wolyetansety 423 ‘hee etaowd Lhe te
719 eat cade .gamt. " hesunad ol? te A2laed. damee.odd 2q yamueee
Bod Oh bovivet yaitog aa7 ved os Thidatatg yd. ahaa sar toned
faviver of ,tevewod ,Joohdua ates eas oon exten Tot heaqad yhawt,
“alloy edt ai bomsa aagisiouos att agiw boligqaee horwostadt. u
$14 dokw ,Tikiaiade ,%6ef ,O8 tseasaes te galaeve ode ad
Sivad “tk @ to ego out to Relies ,letweal eff lo tedale a b08
Yaunaaion tanhae to ead xo" iad al Pitehasqehal" as ae beditoaeb ah. ose
oiateator of sana od Jad} ahve Kiet va date botligesd Tae
6o.¢0 oees binoe $k dasiz? bias oboe sacs jyptlog | a netwed @

"“tootwek .exd ok st9 de® .Thitelade bedew wai csi aah staseaier “
cbiaa elvad ted? “jfoslqned edd ak af oo0" ,hedigns Thitsialg bau

"syotiog and otetuates Liiw I 86,26 sk" , dive advad bas ",ohefo? mb
eew eke sas hae youom te tnvem ait? alvet eyag nodt Titately sade
at bast Trisatale Aoidw shod tqloser salwetg yhisew act ak hoteday

.opheim® at heatytet aoquened? TRigatal® ,antenseneq ahd

aauodl eld ot ‘emnp sumw a baw Thigateda sass beltigaeds ehweG . .. «)
ia aoswod beaubetIud snnow ast dan s208 eeduodge® to yakaove amt
betasw bas o,aoldd aot? emes tout bad od fade guhyne LE

_, “otk paw oe th hethupa ebvat susie jsometomak YR ee YG et*

3 act Besuquoo ou sas exae adve + su? ae, op ban soteo
nov? sae eds hovteoex baw weoldog oat stecnaien on ron _——

fatiquok ysharesod edl® ,helicnt modvek nequevedy "tLatlenad tad?

pannnsaseaner | ea 70% aohteoLiqea ae boaule menue md sust *. ne ev a

ay
jo

"Taner

ee eS ee ee

af the insurenes, signing the name, “Josephine kewton.” After
they ieft, Davis, whe kad not seen Are. kewten for about two
years, waif that he rewemkered that she stuttered and that she was
much heavier than the woman who posed as kre, hewton; that the
follewing day he went to the nélghterhoed where irs, Keeton had
lived, wade some inquiries, and then wae teld by a nelghber that
Josephine Kerten was in the Laternity hospital; that ke then
hunted ap her sieter, Ere. Hose, whe had posed us kre. Newton, and
reproached her for “pesing as your sister," te which kre, Kees
Only said, “Yee, 1 know;* that Savis told her that the ecoxpany
eould mot "go shead with that,” that “people can't revive ineurance
when they are ready te die;* he then inguired «here the man wag
who was with her - that he wanted te give the menay back te him and
canee)] the transaction, and wae told by 2rae, Hoss that he had gene
right back te Chicago. Bre. Kewton and her gister are eolered
people and Pavia eaid that five ef them Lived in ene bleck in
Telede and that it wae very difficult to Keep track of them; that
*they just doubled wp among one anether;"” that he bead known bore,
Rese when he collected presiums from her in 1925, but did not know
her when she called in the evening of Geptember 20th; that he 414
mot return the money to plaintiff because be Bad Left Telede; that
he asked ire. Hees for kewtan's Chicage address but waa te14 by her
that she 434 net know wiat it was. Oavia testified that on the
Siet or 22nd he calied wp the dector at the Raternity hospital and
reported the matter te the manager and the easbier of defendant's
Toledpcoffice and gave te the cashier the maney he had reeelved
frou Sewton.

re, Ress testified in rebuttal om behalf os the plaintifr,
Ko questions were asked her concerning her peaing as Mre. Newton
when she interviewed Davis, und she made no denial of hia yere ion

of what happened on this oecasion; she denied that anytolng wag

f
iq

I
ae
ie)
f f
i of
dl

|
ii)
ap i

EE ee

en Ee

<a ee
aes

peta ER

: MetA “ aedwed eatagoact" ,enea cal? gologie ,eeamiteend of2 Be
ows {eae 162 nodwek ath woes ton host ede ,civad Mel yeas

naw edo fac3 Bow Sotes sue exe cade boradaoaet ef Gadd blag ,acagg
ot Jac paadwed wed ga Lengg of Ramow O48 aast toivaed dows
ped modwell .228 sandy hoodroddyion od9 of ga90 en yok gakwokig?

. dast todmpicn & yd hie! wee aecd bow ,apdusupal enos ehom ,bewhs
aes Of gad jLedioved ysiaresed 28 af sow agtred saldgoaeh

has ,odwed .atd Os boeen bo ctw ,s90d .at gsetele tod. qa bas ciguat
seed word sokde of “,eotale tTyOy ae galeay” tel tec bedagenges
vegans eft edd soi dLow atvad sede *ywamd Leek" bien, ghao

somimaent eviver @' ano sigowg" dace “ dame Mele bagde og", tom dinee

ear nen oid otedy betivest apda a “edb af, ybaor ate yodd. medy
has aid Of doad ysaem eat ovly of bedaew of geet «ter tide enw only
emg hed wi tance onok .wus yd Biles sew hae ,melsonanand ot Lene
hexeloo ors sefele rest buy Aotwed . eck sogeo tae: ot daod. tdgdat
mt deeld exo ni havi aes Yo ovlt dad bias eivatl, hax etnoug
sane prods te deetd quedl ot Five lTtib view aew 44 dude doe: obeket
ek cron Sad ed sane *:t0si$onn efe, paws oe beidvob Jaul, goede”
wend fen bib dod ,@804 ab aed aott savkagtq besos Lion. ort ance, aged
Ds ont tame. {KSOR tadagtqe’ to gaducvs e@f ab boLison ode agde ted
fog jobeLot sil ped ok woumood Vidduledy of, yamom add autos, 208
soa yd biet saw fad seenthe oyendse at oogrek “et aang ts bodes oe
edd to dadi deitidast abya .aaw ot deaw woul dom bib ote Fust
daw Latiqned yIintated ot 60 cateod ef? qu dotiao pd DASE ne dake
a'imabaeted ke rokiinag est bes thynnom et of tedsee odd hedteqet
bevicoes hal aif owen Xd TPlsiges ent at oven bua eolVieiabede
Vetgaletd ety ‘Yo Uaded ae) Levvudor al pettigesa eaek endl oo ill
Hodwell etd ae gaivog ‘ten yatansodeo ted Joules oxew aantsaony ot
“polwtev aid Yo ialued om ebew ode bax ,whvat powols
ear yatdeyas fast? bokewh enn jaotamepe elds my henegge

said at that meeting concerning the condition of Mre, Rewton's
health, thus direcstiy centradicting pleintiff's testimeny in this
respect.

Mre. Davie, wife of Viliiam Davis, sho was present at the
interview the evening of September 80th, testified that when kre,
Reas came in she introduced plaintiff, er. Kewton, to Br. Davis as
her husband; the witness Heard So cenvereation to the effet that
ira. Kewton was aick in the hespitel; she eaid tuat tae parties
were present in their \ome about ten or ifteen minutes,

Plaintiff testified that Josephine Lewton died in Telede,
Ohio, September 29, 1930; that about October 3rd be surrendered
the policy sith preef ef death, and the receipt, to kr. Harrington,
defendant's agent in Chicaze, who tel4d plainti?Y’ that in eboat twe
weeks he, Harrington, «ould notify him; slaintiff called again at
Harrington's office Setober 24th and was told that the company re~
fused to pay wren the policy, and the revival premium galid was
tendered to plaintiff, whe refused it.

fhie record ie barren of any preef as to what caused the
death of Ere. Revton. The witnesses and the attorneys refer te
the proofs of death whieh were introduced in evidenee in the other
ease, ko. 37044, but no proof of death or ¢laivant's statenent is
in the present record,

Reduced te ite simplest eleucits, ani cemeidering enly the
evidence in the present record, we Rave & Cage where, through
fraud and misresresentation, an agent of the defendant was induced
to accept premiums te revive a lapsed poliey while the insured ras
in a hospital and died shertly thereafter,

fhe express prevision ef the selicy was, that the agent had
no suthority te reinstate a lapsed poliey and that any payment wade
to an agent should be at the sole risk ef tne person making the

Payment and ehould set be eredited az a payment upen the policy,

at notwou er ‘te aelytbaoy aff gabewones gaiteom tate te! Phew
aide af ynoalSuod at ttiintele gutiotherincs yltoorth euce ae taet
edt fe snseete av oct ,wlvhd meh ff¥ te ethw petvet® Jeet e OOo
.ord asde fous Belt fees AOR cedeetes? Yo gotneye ex? wtv iat
as ekvad Yi 6f (nodwe Lx ,TEEGaleLy eeowherend ote ut eine Weel
feds Spots ef Of wébiaereynes of Haaed cosad iw on? “pbnadeed Wort
getiveq oa? tad? Sie ose yfadiqden edt at sighe daw aude ae
‘\eesuule osedtk® to nod fuote owed tlede ak feeoty ote
,opeld’ ai bike Aédaee RF AQOECL Padd ba Mase Veitaiagt Vee
Ss eongerigs an Bas “tedstoo suede fudd ;OeL ,UF toduesqed jones
swodgelrrae 40 od debeoer ods bar {died te Yooxe dtbw ystioe wit
‘ged “Suede AT tad Pivniate aot ofe jweke LAG at eaegn 6 ened TOD
“fa nlogn Kotiao Ttitately fata VIiven biwow /modgaftad® jen ew
8% yeeglioo ed} gndd Ried wew Baw Met’ eedored BS2Tto at aoeyatonell
sey deer ene tavivet af fae ,yottoq sit abqe yee os SoaeT
02 boavtex one (Tisalete of botehdey
‘Qld boauno testy of ta toore yhe tH hotisd ab wieeed ete POOR”
“S$ Heres eyenssté etd faa vedewadiw ea? “laodwed era te aeese
aeitge ed? ub gouebtve al Betahorte? evew Metue Mast ve areeTG one
at tagaesate “8 tanita te x6 dined Ye rune on Hiaf {pbOCe Lol jebad
ii ite ll - lhxoser sanaere Ome @E
near aeabenans hits sbinitiibaiian ad} of beobet 8 °*
Bbolbat aw tanto tO buy te Fuego ni ,WOLIatnombrteeea beh’ Bua
enw boivent dt Ohad Ysrtoy badeat a WeIvew OF olkihubay Dquibel ed
ted eomwd? vlirede be lh fae intdatod # me
bail Febah OHS 158d leew ~WEiby eM Yo buletvere agetqme. we 0
abate Gosmyey qa sort haw YOLLoe Henger Wenedwrber BF qOReodtme wh
git) padiew howe belt Ye Mery wos exit Go oe MENeHA thege! Awe
Leet Loy onl nue Cavinyag « on Neotoey od Few Rivome hed Enemy

except ae evidenced by the signature of the prealdent or secretary
of defendant, Davie therefere had ne perer to reinstate the poliey.
Koreover, the ocolicy provided, #4 one of the eonditiona of
revival, that evidence of the sound health ef the insured must be
Presented, Certainly Mrs, iewton, virtually uson Aer death bed
when the arrears of premium was paid to Davie, cowld mot be eadd

te be in sound health. Im Aanegei » 303 Tik.

66, a misreorésentation wae defined as « statesent of something as a
fact whiech ia untrue and material te the risa, the persen waking the
statement knowing it to be untrue, in ai sttepet te deceive. This
is applicable to the present onse,

Plaintiff argues tiat defendunt, by net acting premptly
after Davis paid in the money received by him ta the Telede affice
and reported the conditions, «sived the conditiens fer revival named
in the policy. nme sanewer te thie is the fact that the address of
Plaintiff wae unknown to the Telede offier and that attempts te
aseertain it failed, ke elaim on tne poiiey wae made through the
isauing office at Toledo, but was made threugh a Chicage office
which knew nothing about the tranesction. Shen the claim reached
ew York from Chicago it is reasonable te ansume that the New York
office would weuke an investigation a9 io the facts through the
Toledo office. Under such circumstances we cannot concede that eo
great a period of time elapsed between the date plaintiff filed his
@laim and the date when he was inforeed that the eoupany refused te
Pay upon the polley ae to axeunt to a waiver of defendant's right to
refuse to approve the revival ef the pelicy.

On the evening of September 20th Davis gave « receipt for
the revival of the poliey involved in ease io. 37044, and alee o
revival application in eomnection with that policy. Beth of these
decusente are in the present reeord, The court inetrueted the jury

that they had ne direet bearing upon the iseuer in this case and

Yrstorese x0 fashinery et Ye owitangia ads yd beanehive as sgeons
“Wilog at stadenket af terog on had etatesads eyed ,tamhaateh to
i i to emmlsibaoe ef? Io nua ee ,hobivougiyediog ad? ovaweeted ..... 04
i aa" teum betwent 943 Ye dtioet hemoe ed? te eomhivea tedt ,favivet
| : «hed dieeb td Roge Yitaqitiv ,Aotwes .ert yhmbadaes . -hodton
: phase ef tom dive sakved of bieqg saw aint mania
; | ate S06 .yeteupe’ Jo stcutad .v deoesel al. .diteod dovoe ab od oF
# 8% yalitemon 20 Item cede mmm >i dina new So igatuendsqeuada a , 09
edt yatian soexeg add ,abu esis ot Leltesan bas, auntun oh doddw deat

aint ovinarh of dapetia an a) ,aettan of of S1 yuinons gusmsade

Hie sai sbene dimeetg ene of oidaodiqge ah
einen aaitoa tou we mice tek sans seugam Wiiteiedh ©. a6)

: soltte obete? od? o3 mid ys hoviegen yemom oft at. blag prenatiors
bemsa faviver rat angi ibacs ond beview ,anoitibaps sas. bedreqen: hme
at. ee ee ee ee
ot atquesie tacd fae eettio ofalot ody of avonine saw Ti ralede

as? siqwetdi? ahem nee yoliog edt a0 miata of .betia’ $2. chateeban

poltto oper isd o dywerdy phon caw sud ,obefot am goditte gaivent
hoon? whale ode aes .oeltonenant att duede gatston west daddy
ssn HOM dt toch savers OF hiamsaen wh Gh euapded mort alex wall
et gwen sont 9119 92 96 wakvoutteevad ae ofan dLuow opkiKe
i eo Jadt eheonos senso 8¥ stenntexvetio dove tebAU. oOo L8Te obe Lok
add ett Thisaiake esah ot megueed beagaie eats to. boiteg # tao%y
of beastor Yauques on? fads beatetnd sew ed andw ofeh ony dae, stele —
2 sHylr a! tanhieted Yo terley 4.97 saunum. Of aa yoliog,.od2 .npUM. weG
9 sddog ent te Sevivet est evenaqe of. eeetet

10% relnoes 6 ovag alvad AGOR Tadmedgek Io galaeve edd a6 6)

& gaa bas ,dd0VE 0% onan at Roviovai venseneehae sawivex ot

‘guess te Maok .ypttog suet Sky aeitnounao at agdtestings avivex
Yrut ont Befourtont t1us9 ol .bugeet saeanny sult hea ateonaee

ban seco olds af ansmal oft cogy yatrasd tant th om hed yous todd

eee eet eel nara a Ss SS a Sea

SS ee Senne ee

ee SS
ea

SPT SET

were edmitted only for the purrese of explaining what took place
at thie interview in Mr. Davia’ heme, Davie testified that it was
not necessary te have mere than one applicatien for revivhl, as
the save examination that would de te revive one policy veuld
revive the other pelley. in ¢taer words, the one application was
understoed to apply te both selieles, ae that the inetruetien ef
the ecurt in tule respeot wae incorrest.

The inatructions were galculatsd te mislead the jury in
implying that Devie wus a general agent, having autherity te waive
conditions in the peliey, and kad or showld heve had Enewledge as
to the condition ef Josephine Xewton's health, oid that ith euch
knowledge he secepted payment of premiuws in afrears and trane-
ferred the same to the defendsnt company, whe retained the enne;
that if the jury should «6 find, then “as a emitter of Low it sheuld
find the iesues for the plaintif?Y,* Ve find ne instructions refer-
ring to or teuching upen the slileged impereonution of the insured
by her alater ané the nisresresestation as te the facts ef the ine
eured'w health,

For the reasons that the verdict is againot the sanifeet
Weight of the evidence, tint the verdict sheuld have been for the
defendant, and that the instructions tended te mislead the Jury,
the judgment ie reversed and the cause remanded,

if there should be snether trial, these cases, nwebered
$7044 and 537046 in thie court, sheuld be consolidated in the trial
eourt for hearing so that there may be omly one trial.

REVERSED ABD REXARTED,
G'Gonnor, 7,, concurs.
BA, PRESIDING JUATIO“ RATCHETT Diewenting: Yer the reasonea stuted

in the prensa opinion in he, S7644, whien was this day filed,
here, ao there, reepectively dierent,

: ode
Oonia doo) sede gatasesque 2a. sooqrwm, eds, wi? xine, bestiabe,emem,
ey 1h fod Oy2Ldp0$ shat wpe 'adved oh Od medvupend ahdd te,
fe ,Mitvhven 30% aeltaalings 900 ads oXom ove oF yannenoDS tom
_ BLU YoLLang Ono SRl¥ex oF ab RANoY. tact apdtentomne sues. pile,
tov, aelvaoitage sae ede , gitar dente of ,ypkiog godso od OviYNT,
Ye Gebsenpiaat edt tant of ,ayhoiies Sted. of, claqe.e¢. hooterehen:
eo ORL Bae FOOTER ShAd ah stepD, oda.
aa Fes ot perinia of hate iedoo ayo socdtoutemd wh.
Sview of Nétvedine gated .deoge Lowes, « wae ahead, sone, pero
tt Bb Hees bes owed Poeote te bet bie yeokiog add mt emghs dame
dass dtiy tant bas , dd Leos oon etkdnenel Ye HOLIt bane oc? 08)
ewe + ant, exiaten ote, a kaagune fashion teh eile os See ot G8.
|| biwode 22 wed Yo x9ttea a wa” onds gdad® om bEvene YRh ast TA otndd.
“ta tet gaohteuideal oa Hass oF °. Teniele est sot movges oot, had,
Setyead O49 Yo sotdoauateqnd. daasie. OED AGS QALNOLos Ba OF » asta,
atk sd te. vbweidini pliahaonsige nds ods how yote ta we ee.
EES | wine an oth Lona et hae:
teeriaas, nid cuahunn wa alone. at, fast ReReOS OF BOW Oaigiy
ais iol meed oved biveae golatey st dear ,somebsve eas seanien
etwh, 98 deeds lm oF Dobans aaehtoucoal Add toss has gdaabaw kody
sia chest eGR AAGO SReeo afd bas Aeguavet wf Ol ae
beredaum pagans aged? pated tadione of Miyede suede Wy 6 js que
iahtd O87 ah peteblionnge a Ritads, CHG. OIht. Ad MOTE dem DOOM: ~
shaded eae (ine ed com ayaa? Jad? on pakrand 02 teaege
TRUM CHA PERM el ye ad gwen of Aaah
foe a he ORR gel acgbi

beta anosags ont act, ae seen.
ght yes whats wae Bes:

Ee re
=
=

SS eS rrr

pla Rare sires

Soon A renin romtah

RR RRM HS ER AO MER RN
PG. SS wah tas Bs mh Rost Sov rh qiosid, Me ,
: j 0 : ‘ [

37223 Jo ff oo
f & . : j at
ELLEN ORIVIN, |
Appellee, i
APPEAL sReM WUBI CIPAL
ve, f :

f/f) GouRT oF Gutcace.
AGAR PACKING AND PROVISION CORP ALY 4 :
a Corporation,

Appellant.

| s> ‘sie A T i &
fs © K Le fa @ 6 6 9
BR. JUSTICE MeSURELY DA. IVBRED THR OPIEIGH OF THE GouvRT.

Plaintiff, tringing a section in assuepelit upen a pramis-
sory note mede by defendant, upon triel by the court Aad judgment
for $526.25, from whieh defendant apneals.

The note eued on was one of a series executed by defendant
and secured by a deed of trust conveying ceriain real estate. Bee
fendant says that the note and irust deed shewld he eenstrued to~
gether ae parte of the same gentract, and that a previsien of the
trust deed prohibite any bomdhelder bringing sny sult at lew on any
bond of coupon held by Kim, and that thie right is vested exelu-
tively in the trustee,

This is the familiar “Ho-Action”™ clause which the courts

heve had ecession to consider in several cases. Pflueger y.

Broadway trust & Saving wk, 353 Lik. L170; Sturgis Aational Bank
vo. Harris Trust & Savings Bemk, 351 £11. 465, in these casee it

was held that vhile a tend and trust deed securing the same will tbe
conetrued tegether wherever the question as to the nature of the
actual traneaction becomes material, this dess net mean that the
mortgage will be ineorsoratad inte the nete, and the holder of the
note may disregard the sertgags entirely snd sue and recover on

the mete. In the reeent ease of Cowianz

sented. After reviewing the eases in point, we held that the

promise to pay was unconditional snd that the provisions in the

note referring to the trust deed relates te the security and the

is apenas agile

i \ wesw, uotezvons an. purapas net ea

‘90 A, i hye: nar tint loqad nati nti

fs op ere ag
.TAU09 ENT GO HOTHINO am? annave. re ‘Yauiuaom a wpsreut at ‘ities
optmorq @ suga Fisqaueea wt «iivow aw gaigated | Tieate lt
antl had tewoo odd ed Lites noqu , saaddo re YY ohne esea Yibe
sthinese Sanhuc'ten te kiw aot age
gnshnsted yf botuvere eelies 2 ‘tc ome eee ad hove doa ost a
«9% Sindee Last whudies gakovacs vaed Yo heat a yd ‘bemides ‘hae
«ot bewrdanos $4 bivode beth faust hak aten act sadd weed doiae?
add? %é aefeivoig » fan} Bae ,fSattinos smn ny te aiteg ea xeon
qe ao Wel da dive Yon Yalgalad totioehaed ye adididotg beob seuse
adloxe bedaev ak dagia olde Fed? had jold yo Bod dequoo to Bnew
-oesduut edt at ¢fevle
esruey edt dokdw seuede “aetioa-o8” tehtimet edd G2 afar’ —
-Etenegst® eaten Lnvever al teblodoo 64 aelaeood bad aren
dees fesotdet aiyagdt ;ONE Aci cee , heat
tk sonao Ohad? aX .086 JKT SOC \ die pada , shana 5
ed Litw emma o9 gakaveon heeh Pewtd baw badd a oLtdy decd bade enw
ad? ‘to oriden on} of a8 meldaeup att coveiwdw secteged benttemee —
sis Sasi? noom ton aeob abt Leleden seided notdoaunett Laxton
ade ‘to tebLéd odd foe (Oddm bad SORE Hesnteqrtdad OO LEtw epagde
AO Tevoeet bis Sie bak YLOLETeD egeqrvom oat Stegetalh yom oben
+ 2GL ALOnAOe & se LaeeY av semakend Yo esag sider eae “at » eden ott
| nergy Won Heltleggeg alt hexebienon truny wbild .082 .qqd tht ete
edt gust Glow ow ,satoq iit bikie “Qil lied ee "las edie
eds at enoieivorg ost sad? dae Seaoitthacsow saw yaq of estmotg
eit bas ysixwes ond of antetny ooh dart wo of gubrrstet stom

a ee

ee a= =
Ta Fa
SS

manner of proegeding againet thie seearity. Fellowing the reneons
stated in these cases, we hold im the inetent case thet the plaine
tiff could preperly commence Ker sult at jaw on the bond,

Defendant claime it wasn errer on the part of the trial
eeurt to sustain an objection te the sdmiesion of the trust deed
and alse sustain an objeetion te the offer of seme oral testineny
with relation te whether or not sotiee head been served by the
bondholder on the trustee to take aetion on the trust deed, The
court proporly exeluded this evidence, For the reasons we have
infieated the judgment ite affirmed,

AVFIRMED,

Matehett, ». J., and O'Cennor, J., soncur,

tire ean
¥ ——

1 a A al hry tam

PRAVE

wialg 2 fac? nag Jangeal ext m2 biod ow jones Seodtt at hedate
hood ad? ag was te Shwe r9d eomemwon YLtoqotE ese vue

totes oui? Ye suse wl? mo rete wow oP emtats tanbavtet Mig

Capea

tee

— ca ue loc

UWtoutsaad fate onan to saVie oft of aglinetde an alavewa wate bne
ed Yd bovis hed bad seiten Son te Teddenw of Hotdaten dttw
ont .booh tamat edt ap aolive oat of seteutt oft a0. Dateien

A AAO RS SR

bear 2%, ab Sopmbut ost deter toad

aairene — aera

: ree
sarees mtie
€ £5.
ee

Suewe Leh See
RY S88 ORS

Sa? Be eee

yet Saas

ae
es

o DUE ak kee Saal ah Nae Soule A a ct ae rae! hoe a ies Sede a May Chon ami Peg th ate”

wey ot woe ke drove eG mall bee seer heehee iy Saeed adware

Gy ge MEAT hur Rue. SR Uae a 1 eg Lesa & B Ab eae BN Ve meh alia ; Ft ;
5 ea

snosaot edt gaiwolle® .yiiiueoa adss Seataye galieeoorg te temaem
“) RoGb Seurt edt te aokns snbe ont ot sattostdd ae’ Mateus of yee

svad aw anoeaet ons 19% ,spawhive obie hehaloxe yineqorg . supe :

Piags oe wey es cart Mae's Oa ON ee MR AM 6 Rb
‘F..

Sm,

(itt Kee APs Seeds a Bem ee ay att
A ae a whore
FMA OF RH

wet EER ase ; : 2 ee ; Np R RLISe Saye Cie eae -

es LOE NR SENET Se ea Sa.
c® Fite egagithieme

fo tae ea kb oO

Scandi Sapa! MI gee: RR eg RS Ae, eh whe: Se Be
eye ea eR POM IR aM ORR NS eR a ae as BN o Detucl orts a
1 Wer at

37288 Yo pe yy

PEOPLE OF THE STATS OF InLIWols, (). —. y ie
Defendant in drrer, —}; x “sé 4
) BRAOR TO CRIMINAL CoRR
WS. ) :
} OF COOK COUNTY.
JUAN HARD, ae :
Plaintiff in Srror. 97ATA C2rol
@#ék ioe OGS

BR. JUSTICE MeSUHELY DELIVEARD THE OFIHIGE OF TEE COURT.

By this whit ef errer the defwidant seeke the reversal of a
Judgment in the Criminal court finding kim guilty ef nensupnert of
hide wife and ordering him te pay $7 a week to her,

Defendant was ehargeda with Raving vielated tha statute
(Griminal Code) Chap. 38, para. &, see. 1, which provides: *That
every person whe shall, without any reascaable cause, negieet or
refuse te provide for the supvert or maintenance of hie wife, said
wile being in dentitate or in necensitous cirscussianees, *** shell
be deemed guilty of a mesdemennor *." The siatute ales provides
that when a fine is imposed it say be directed by the eourt te be
paid, in whole or in gart, to the wife for a term not exereding
ene year. Para. 5, see, i, Illinois Statutes {Gahili).

Like any other criminal ease, befere « conviction can stand
in thie case the evidenee must preve the guilt of the defendant bee
yond # reasonnble doubt. This case was tried by the court, and we
hold that the evidence failed te mest the required degree of ereef.

Juan Hand, the defendant, end Mary A. Hand were married in
1898; they had ne children, but two nieces of defendant Lived with
them from childhoed at the residence erned by defendant in Blue
Isiand, Cook county, lilineis,

Defendant ie @ railroad engineer, wersing for the Uhicage,
Zoek Ieland & Pacific Auilresd, and in about the year 1916 wae
traneferred from the Chicage district te Peoria; defendant subse+

quently requested Are. Hand te come to Peoria and live with hin,

iE | _ = “yoxtar Jerr wo dekh ens ennai
‘outer ae ial is ee? At ganbaeted. bg Ride

w¥¥audo' nooe"to © Y ot na a

4 Ryalbye

t ae) ° 928 t £ VS oer tort aE Yetta le hota

SvHuoD tary Yo aOTeTeO et cM Lame YoORCOeeR werraue' je

tot aepaee
8 Xs. Saatevet eas aldal $ nai ve 2ab oie tours. Le they, o vr xe

Ye dtoqquasen Te qe tdig, mie pitt hat srneg Laahat ed ost at sap
tod of dow a TE yaa oF ete sai tp bt0 Pap Pra se
etadaia mes dbatetety gunk vodk agin hegiads baw tnaabas ted .

dedt® iaahivoty sie bate £ .o98 48 ooteg 88 and {ebou fontatrd)
ae tooigen Sauer ddanoages yous hates fal ae aster AOores, Sage
biee ,wiiw aid te sanenetuien x Proeqse ens tot oblvore ed oau'ten
Liasds *ee Seo toomerioe awothoneoen ni te edusisaen ab galed ouly
aehtvorte eels stugate ant *.* tomenseea a Ie ytiley hemes oo
ad ef gimeo ed? ¥d hevoetid ed yam ¢t besegnk al ent't a mosko dads
gatherers fou wand # ret etiw om? of ,steq ab to eLosiw al ,

(fiktad) wetugase afomtifi ,> .oos ,@ omtat oBaey, ene
baste mee aeiteivnee a wioled ,#en9 Aaiwlye tedie yaw edid
~od dusbas'teh oat To Lise sit evoxe tuum sonebive odt esao elds mt
ow bue ,otwoe sao yd bela? paw eawo skint .ddwed stdanonaet a heey
-toorg to oeryed hexrkupet ad? teem of Sofiat sonodive ond tact bled
ai holriem erow husk .3 ys bee ,Foehoeted odd yhank anve
asiw hbevit dasbaete’ to seeelm owt tud ,smrbiide om how yon 1004
sulk al susdaotes yf hanwo soaeblesy ods ta baodbi£hiis nee't wens
_ etbentitt ,etaues seed ybnetel
vogao hao eid to't anor «ronntgae five hat « at Saebae tee ae
enw BIOL “aey eld suede ad bax haga ited ottaeat * buetod too
oondue Jnabietod jaixoed of takxsarh oppotal eae agrt ‘ x18 dll
ambit ait be old bus airoo% of sa08 of kenk «998 peanouper eon :

and though ehe presiwed to de thie ehe never ¢14 so but remained

in the Home at Plue Ieland, During the first two years thet de-
fendant Lived in Peoria he and his wife st certain times leosked for
a house there where they aignt iive and eelected one with which
Ere. Hand was apparently satisfied; hewever, she did net comme te
Peoria and tol’ 4efendmit that whe would sove to Peoria an seen ae
the older niece was tarough scheal; defaident again asked dre. Mand
to cone to Peoria to Live with him bul she refused; two *itnasses
teetified that she guve as @ reason that si¢ did met thine Peoria
was a 6it place for giris te iive.

Subsequently ore, Sand ery eee proceeding at
Peoria, Tilinois. The record does net Alsciess vhat begame ef thie
suit but apparently she 4id net obtain a deorse. Delendant wae
subsequently traneferred by bis eepleyer te Joliot, Tilinede, where
he worked se a ewiteh engineer. Ure. Hand dnstiiated anether die
verae preeeeding against defendant im Jeliet in the gummer of 1932,
eharging desertion; wren the hearing of the seeend divorce auit
she wae denied a J4ivere@; acparently ahe then agreed to ge te
Toliet to Live with her huaband.

Buring all these yeare rn. Mand was Living in defendant's
heuse in Blue Island with the two nieces, who in the meantime had
arrived at maturity; one of them, thirty-two yoare o1¢, Wee married
at the time of the trial and Aer husband alee Lived with Mra. Sand
in the Blue island residenee. Ars. Hand supperted Kherealf by keen-
ing boarders, aud there ie no evidence tast she sver asked the de-
fendant for money.

The oceasion for the rupture between the husband and wife
wae hie unwlliingness te eontinue the suspert ef the twe nieces
and toe hueband of one of thes,

After the termination ef the eeecont diverer preceeding Mre.

Hand went with the married niece te Jeliet; apparentiy the nieee

boninmex Sod oo Sih taven gsin ates * oF haa taaee ote, Mquodt &
“oh tust etaay owt sack? ost sou dmaett ‘baotel ould ‘On emo ade a

ie bet dane ane betes ine bus eril Migim gods exede event ented 4 « ;
o} smeo “toa hi osia ,tevowort thet teistas ¢ hs net aages aev bask a
ee coge na witoad oF evom biuow ota tasly fuehae tes bLod baa pixoot
bask 81k bodes akaps fuahm teh jioodoa sigmoid sew soeta tebLo ont
eoeueativ owe pheautew ode gud obs sig tw ovis at abioed o¢ $a09 ey
airost satds ton bah die colt aonses o ba O¥a5 ode tand rd
r Avil O8 etnies 0? onety oad ai
te gaihossor sorovt\hedee dart burst eit ‘Ldaoupeadue

atds ‘te sien ad $ acive seosodth doa anor basse ost “atonal tet cakzos
s ear saabastes “eeT988 e “abesde fom bi ose ‘visanzecea tue thee
erode ,ehoaiiit ,folict 09 rexoiqa ata yd porte tacos eauon Scadn
ait ‘tosis one neguahtoat ‘baal cond ooskgoo ‘sodiwa, ‘sea ideon
8bUL ‘te Tomes od ‘at teityt at Saabs tab tontesa aathonoors owe
thus, soxovld paces eng re galtaed add sons imoldxo seb nk yee,

"wa
’

“of ey of beers neds ote yhtactaqns ‘yeotovik @ bolnoh helt
hrted@uel ‘naa sake ‘evs oi denioe
‘a'gunbasteb al galyti aew bant ori etnoy eaedd isa ‘galrett
hed eaivaaen ede ak uw aosela owt old ddiw boetel oul ak oes
falstas saw bL0 tae 8% Pereer ci Tm wos te eae rehtwdee ‘a “pevicwa
boa .oxk dtlw bavas oa Le bowdaun tot bax Lebid odd to sais” ‘Sa a
-vaeu ¥e Vested bedrocews bask vax swonobiaet bestel ovlé ad? ak ~
oh ext bexae “89 sis sosis # sonehtve on at ound bow erinaod gal
“gemom 20 if inal nabaet
eliw bas bandeud ens avewdod ours are Cd ae" fol axeoe oat
seoetn one any te ) Foire aa oualsnoe ad “soma Eth vas eld sow
P boa we IJ Gh edie, Me Se es
‘0m “te ane ‘To baadawed heetaal nat’ ‘hie
ve hen d ec
ot satboooorg ‘ooxevih ‘haoves oid te aoiteatexed ont ae3tA
= ti in ;
ooela sit yitnetequs “paaliol of eoela botruam eat nttw be

pin %
ORE dy

Der
+, eae eg)

was denied admiselon te the place where defendant Lived and they
returned to Blue Isiand, Shertiy thereafter kre, Hand hed defend-
ant arrested, sharging hin with nensupvert, and thha eriminal
preceeding folleved.

The evidence faile te suew that defendant ever refused to
gupvert his wife. Gn tae contrary he repeatedly raqueeted she
should come and live with him, both in Peerin and Joliet. Ye
think he very croperiy wight refuee to gupcert the nieees and
the husband,

Mere. Hand could sot refuse te live with her husband in
Peeria or Jnilet, the places: of Rie eepleynent, and maintein a
criminal prosecution charging his with nonsupyert., A husband ie
obliged te suyeert his wife emily at his demiolie and net at such
place 29 she may choose te live, The People vw. Howeil, 214 i211.
App. 372,

Attention is culled to the irregularity in the Judyment
in that {t doe not Limit the time of weekly payments te one year,
ae preseribed by the statute, This would mecensitate a rever@nl
ant remandment in erder te huve the jud@sent corrected,

However, w¢ hold that the evidenes Palled te prove den
fendeant guilty of the charge and the judgeent is therefere
reversed and the eause remanded,

BEVERSED ALD RGMANDED,

Batohett, *. J., and O'Cenmor, J., cencur.

“yods bua bovl. taabae' teh oxsciv pentg oat os “olor Lede ‘pelaes naw
“baotsb hail bask .oek 194'taerests qitreda ‘sbaater auk oe ‘boatston
| Aasknire whist haw « Froqquane iain abs palgrade sbosaorie bus

sboweiie? gulbsooong

eeaehe oR

at Aguuter xeve tnabiae ted sesté woos of alia? sonebive ‘ent |

| ode ‘bedseupor Cbsisoar oa eter gine aus ad elle ata Fsecque
hut. eee

ee .tobiot baw abroe® ad dtod vital sigh avis am sm00 diwewe
ban ‘eopeka nia #toqque od onsites ta rogers wer on dab
al baedews tea Stiw.erli o@ ‘eua'tet ‘ton. ‘biuoo ‘aah ow ex “ “—
« alatnion baa , trentge Lene sin ‘te ensate ould Veeliot ‘to ateeett
al bowdeud A .dtoqqumaom Asiv «tel ith grease aolisoovoxy how L
foun da ton “bra otto tmeb aks ge viao @liw eke srogeue ‘et ‘teghide
ood ‘BES ihe 2% ptt vee ot ouoeils. ven ‘ea »soate
“gedmghwk end at yelzatugetth sx 06 belies of acidaceex® one
tase eno of asanaeac ¢ideew Yo suds aad thats Pon ‘ueeb ah Pe it, :

Lasrevex a eves isesesa bimow eter enutats oat Os hedixaneng a0

ba feorrer susaabet, edd evan ot web st fasubnanee aw
"eed averg ot belie soachive o9 saat bios ow tovewoit

P< ol” @eaid
oreo reds ak cepa ent aw aytado oats 10 vi ihon, ‘tuabue coho
pep nay “paw Pe
; ‘ bobanumet eauae salt ba bas eT
ay

ses aaa ctiba ciwatve
rb iod ook oath ak ~

xwomes eas tonnes" ha at “at ease
wae tak aie ane

al ie
“eugene, RS BY eetneee Bee

f h
. Ny Rima Meng ay @ RA a ee wee Ret ae
; ‘ ka st ha
ay ah ‘ F IA » =)
ye be oton Ve Selim mee) Doak
; pte bY Pedro’ nt | Bent a
, , par ” (i
ra *. ae Pee | se ‘a
woolh tenpen sath te ve lewheiek ae sa SRA

Pe SE ee ens
‘ a BY Nopaydth Ia
i p i. Mae enh ‘ od a. Bri ie i)
Pe ae Wy SUM ca om ie 9, TR ie a aoeew i
1 qty yu

$7338 ra Va

SALVATORE GENUALDI and VIRGINEA /- af
GERUALDI, fr
ApeRilees, -

¥8.
METROPOLITAN LIFE IASURARCE

GOMPAXY, a Sorceration,
Apseliiant.

epee ame i? ac Ng

(® (A
563

BK, JUSTICH HeSURELY DELIVERAD THE OPEAION OF £HR COURT,

Plnintiffs were named ac beoePiciaries in a Life ineure
ance poliey iseued by defendant on the life of their daughter,
Mamie Genualdi; usen the death of insured defensant declined to
pay the anount of the policy smd this suit fellewed; usen trial
by a jury plaintiffe ha@ a verdiet for 62880, and defendant ape
peals from the Judgment.

@ are goenstrsine4 te reverse the judgment for the reason
the evidence shows that the poliey wag preeured through a misrepe
resentation of the cenditien «ef ineured# health at the time the
aeplication for the soliley wae eigned snd tae policy issued,

August 29, 1930, Rese Genualdi, « sister of the insured,
died of tuberculosis at the Municipal Tubereulesia Saniteriun.
Ramie Genualdi Lived with her parents and her troether Themes at
626 Hebtbie street, Chicage; Zhemas was in the Life imgurance
buginees, an agent for the Glebe Life I[neuranecs Company; Sestember
8, 19505, whieh would be about ten days after the sieter died of
tuberculosis, Kanie went te the effiee ef Or, Corbet: with her
mether and her brother Thomas; she wae there examined by Dr.
Corbett, who found that cue had pauleonary tuberevleais in beth
apiees of the lunge; that she had seist rales, indicating sulmenary
tubercuiosia; she wae scughing quite profusely; the Beeter tel 4
the mother and brether ehe wan suffering from tuberculosis; he

then ordered that ehe be taken to the Hunigisal Tuberewlosis

Scere
oe Nene baa Idea Sata

af rn | ans an
eke ss vO = i oi oy
02. cae isoigetorsed 2 fast

etmek seowad ave: Bike . Nes isa ee

ote

Se %, N ; r
~ * a a alee .
‘

me Vege ee ae ge eal whose
+TAU0G HY WO AOLKPA FAL CURKV IEE, VARA Wed ROL Vh AM Coane

-teanl oti a «i aelteks Staced oe foawen oxew eV iates | heiress
~roddyusd shed? to eUld wale ae faa bine ted wi howwes wohiog 3

od beakises Sandao'teb Hetirend te dddes | aut neaw 4 2cauned hs om 4
iaisd gage ‘thwwetto® ine tia ‘haw vektor ane te faweae ey
ad ‘faasaote baa i et heaped a ben ‘eVitatele tale
iain am, Spit a Ee Safa o4
aouwex 6x tev Vononjtiut ‘oii beewer od bentautanes baa 6 “i ve ae
“qvesis * guernitt netmong | aur voiten ond Sesd ewedte 60 ieee:
‘gitd tht Ons Bn Madar abboscead Yo aeks thdon eat} deere’ :*

ered elie aad ae pena la ane wodtos « out “g0% a coli par

betwen att Yo stele @ hawaii coat .o8er “a Bode —e

Mead er
wmubcted bal eleoluosadut: Ingto dew ade ‘ ‘alnofueteded 2 belt

wrt ndesicaty. \ pas

‘te sane tt geddoud tet des etonta; ‘we tee bovil ‘Yessenmed ve 7
ate UR Se eanie hs fy
sourrwenk Ott ost ab naw aamnc(y 0) ee rr ma fonsae?

pease: ar a meer A
Tedavice® ;yanque) sonatueal eed efoto any i ae ,seomlend.

te both xetete oi xedte ayab ant aed deen dae
aoa aviw ¢ dodsoe 7d Re oOlto ent of new okmal «@

Sa he taal
40 qf bontzaxe exodd enw end sabaibll Goligailih ai Jad aes

dtod at sleoiseundud yianaming hed.oem sacs Rawat nae, ghteeeee:

ianongeg yaliaoibat ,wekex gaton bed oxy tavld payaud wnt » Staal i
Phot wodved on? pyfeav iow othap. east sbiil ada jmieotuoteds | * A,
| ghawkuetedul Legtolauia ent tors A 10 ms

ee —

Dierensary for an ieray; Geoteuher Lith Massie went to the Kuniele
pal Tuberculesis Sisveneary.

Apverentiy under the guidanee of her brother Themaa,
Mamie, taen eighteen years of age, signe! an egvlieation for an
inearance policy om September 72, 1930. It is significant that
this application wns not made to the life insurance company of
whieh Thomas wee an agent, but wae made te the defendast. Geteber
10th written questions vere erepousded te Bamie Genusldi by the
medianl examiner of tae defendant aonpuny, to woich she made
ahewers. Among thease questions she wae asked i? eke had ever had
eoneumption or diseas« of the lungs, or had been attended by &
physician within the last five years or had any treatment aAuring
this time at any 4ispereary, hoapital or saniteriuzm, To ene of
theae questions she sanerered “ho.* ‘She gave her present ecaditien
ae “goed,* and to the question, "®hen iaet sick?* anewered "Sever. *
¥o the cueetion whether she had any shysicul infiresity she anewered
"Yo." And to the auestion whether she had resided or had been
intimately aescelated with any pereeme suffering from vonsumptien,
she enewered "Se.* And te the question whether any of her paraite,
brethers or sisters had ever had tuberculeais, sae anavered “he. *
the application centained the provision ae Toligrs:

*I¢ de underatecd and agreed that the foregoing stutenents
and aneware are correct sad thoelliy trues, smd, tegether with the
ansvere and questions en Fart B hereof, tiey suali form the bavie
of the contract of insurance if one be Lesued, *

She alee anewered te the recuesi te give her Paxily ree-
ord, etating thet she Aad ne Living sisters but two sisters hed
4ie4 in infaney. ‘he policy wae iasued Cutober 10th and she died
of tubereuiosia on Fevrusry 22, 1931, ¢ little over Tour months
after the policy wse issued, Heither the father nor mother, the
plaintiffs, testified upen the trial; the brether, Themes, testi-

fied that the premium on the pelicy was paid by him frow hia “own

wiviawl est of teow olmad sei aaieetqek ;yeeek as det yoann
ae ! -Yteemyale aleoteeredyt —_
« Mibexgai £ neddond “on To eeaebing off sehen yhdi weqya
me vot seléeeiiqes ax Seayle ,ega te i dontdgte send tee
gate Samet ilugle wh 32. .O8RL Be eochas Sere ag yahtog sonorueste
‘to ynaqane sametweaal otif oe ef ebaw tea new aoltean! faqe whee
sodetod ,Smtbaoteh @f¢ of chat caw Ged ,daege ae eet Samed? dobide
aad yd dbLasaed Sd aces oF bod caconene oxew anolsaoup sets haw SOL
thes exe chidw of , yurqeue Suton t9 sit Ye wai ounce ee
bet weve bes oe ta boven vaw wie Bae ra0wy neds baa erp eae
2 PE Bedaesia song baw xe. ant ot Yo snaneld te sold qauanee
griavh soenisons we, das xe ebeatiie owl: gent oat hos wedsial tian Ris Eat
te Mowe of ,aubtetionr ‘te. das huoad .ctaye qadh, ded oat Zs r :
Aeisihnes taser ted vag mite Ps bail aero we am rte sacitesup. porte
*suMyyst Doron, “inks dang nad" ,anitoany oh of tue" howa"
berewsee ode ytiont tal Inolagidg yas bes sete xodtene goltooup. bunt sel |
mend dad to bableat bas osm wortyode saksnewp wilt oF bad * oat
Aoldquaesee mows geiow Tow emvatog yan weae ponnpeenes, cletantont
ate tOg ‘ed bo yas tauis ecw tpsseoug esis ay bina a oi" herevene otis
—# eK" Retewane vile eivotuetedut Banat wire rer excrete 7 bieacts of
ieroikel ae natatvors ene bookerase Agh ds aia
atom oetade sahenene’ ods fod? heoxqe ‘hina boosasehau en pi
~ soy sale

ets cihw ‘reddegot , bi ao veormee: or
shaad oalt wene’t wi Ric if

Pt ass aie
had aredate oes tu erste ivEE oa hott wit” batt anleate te

hoth oie hi MFO tadarbO Sevwrd enw Yolbtee ad” got tnt! ae
Gahage tet seve orks a (L08r Be eee oe abteo fuernateh bond
AME \eeUGon cen MOLINA AE COAT LOH Haient Sew yohTod ait tHe
“nkdeoe vnamen jtodtoud out’ ythihe Aer teglh Baitrivses erbbater
mto* wkd mod ahh YS Bheg waw ORL eH er mmbiniewte aaly” it

personal money.” There wae ne denial of Dr, Gorbett's teatimeny
that Ramie wae suffering from tuberquicnsie en September Sth.

it was a miarepresentation fer the inewred to deny that
ghe had resided withis the past year with any peraon auffering
from consumption, an¢ thai ease never had sty sister who had tabher~
gulosis. the eiater Aose, eho was four years older than liamde,
resided i+ the same Home with her, wits their parenta.

vounge: for plaintiffea arque that the word “attendea" by a
puysicgian in the application does not mean a were galling at a
aector's offiee for reilef from aome slight indissasition, elting
eertain canes to this affect, Certainly « disgnesio ef tubereie-~
Sis was 4 sericus condition, and good faith required the disciasare
ef the faet that she had been @xeminead and her iliness diagneaed
ae tuberculosis.

Moreover, the insurer dees not expeet the inaured te be
the judge of whether or not her physical sendition is aericus, Tre
ineurer has the right to knew whether the ineured has had cecaeion
to corigult a physician fer any reason whatenever eo that the ine
ourer might consult any physician eomsultea by the insured, This

is the rule as applied in the reeent case of Peru i:

Q.-, decided by the United States Sireult Ceurt of Ape
pesis for the Seventh Cireuit, eaee bo. 4979.

We ennnat agree with the apesertien that there is ne evi-
denoe that the insured reaited with er even aaw her sicter Kose
during the year preeeting the date of the epplicatien. asc we have
already neted, they lived tagether in the same home,

The brief? om behalf ef plaintiffs is mere ingenious than
convineing, Ag Beamim Genweldi 414 notmake a truthful diselesure of

the facte to the defendant eomeany, bat of the contrary wierepre-

sented them by giving false anewers, 1t follows that thie Jadgment

‘waonkine’ ei isedned at Ye ‘fatahh om ae wren " (inom danooriog
4g8 tednerges ae ahoolanredus won't Se aaw etait brierys

fad? Yueh oF hevwenk eae cot wetead ene rqoem tee @ naw ced ”
gutta tive meweed yas Api, taeg Saag alr ‘ae bw besterr ‘out ae
tadut bel ety wetela yee deol even oy Canty Bae wodsqavanan wert
» wbnenit aid todie Winey “ol saw wit joeON tote le eat satnoton
susamtag Thest adhe Jeet thw wiad sme wie ab: ~ ot
a yd *hehuedse" biew eis Jnuh wugae wVEbate Sy wet eased | oy
a Ai nnn ete man th sont mabdastige ontoba toe
URIFES HOLT som ibul Faiytin aes Kort Yellow wot Gur To otuwtood
-~olweredud “te abeycayakh a ‘efakareee toe tte way or soeee akadnos
eruseteats sdt sevivuget Atta? heey Bee mele thage amvltoe owe ate
chat Romksd tod deus bemtuase aed Bast wala aie toe walt 20
digelegiedsd sa

ed of bewwen) edd teoqxe fon @ock toxment off ptevowreN 0” oF
ed? vewoltsn af wali thace Lepinedty «od tem ve Gedode Ye one
aoteaued bot Gat Berwra? el? torvendw wernt of dayte ene eae noteeal
«tt af fade oe TevdendasW aoweet ge te? nedelegdiq a tLvaneo OF
eld? detaat ad yo Bedtvaney nelotegay yaw dtumadin tig km wetee
ational .¢ saraied to sueo terney ved ah Reh tege as ofue wd ee
~gA to sad Shur sD e6da7e boFtnt ame yd dadlowd: + -92_sompsupad
eanee ok oORe gehen kD Aonwees ante: boa a

Woe ae

dues mee - sted tosis uel sveoes ons athe: isnt st ‘Fone , tel nyo ee
1 Pgh ee “aise
SaoH tata ie ‘29d wee neve Xo Gite bepieet Bewnak wilt tacit someh
ovead ow aA ‘sfte hwo Saga oat te oseb ats narnoosny, moy ‘ott vie
aman wie oetd ah xedumao? howss wnat atotom :
: pees eustomgat, OOS at sttis alata % Lewied ao Yorn ont
at te otwnetont® se tulderrs a elaaten Beh tinwane tiows oA. anton

serge geareao9 aut ae sud “eraname sa baste nd 6 t afoot oat ti

Os Wat

i a Lae aniria ef a |

OT” le ha

Swe 7

wie a

tromaboh atid sodd avmetfet th 4 wTSHN

Gannett stand,
At the elese ef all the evidence the defendant meved that

the oourt instruet the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendant,
whiek metion wae refused. In a number of cases involving facts
like these before us, the ceuria ef review have ruled that anch a
motion should have been sllered,
ing, Ge., 237 fll. Apo. BBO; Se!
Zil. Age. 346:

Upon the trial defeniant tendered toe plaintiff $96.90,
the asount of oretiues geid, whieh siaintiff refuse@, Slaintiff
is entitled te reeover this smount,

The jJudgmert is reverged witu s Finding ef facet, and fudge
ment fer plinintiff fer 928.90 is antered im this sourt,

HSVERSHG WITH FIR DLIEG GF FACT
ARS JUNGREET HERE,

Matehett, ?. d., and O'Cenuer, J., eoneur,

FIBPING C¥ FACT.
We fine as a fact that the policy unen which slaintiffe are
guing “ae procured by freud and misaresresentation, and therefore

is net emforeeavia,

ote of
Sede beware ‘geahuetod ont sonnddes ant tke te oeese oats “a oy

Sues a ih epee AN a a .
tnabae toh ott «9% tettrey a al sabe wd ‘aa ‘ade fowntent ‘frw0o ode }

eta atv fovns ponae Yo odovun “ ak -beew'ier enw ok Foo sehae
: be Sa Ray aA ee a hy Bs
& sin an aut boku oval wolves te adawes ons va vebied: oagud
EEMSEY ee a (8 | i fe vie

steal ka npad ove Stuer aoktom 4
Mi ep ie Beth aa
; Tal “gk ed vee . Sp
FREY ROE SS ae
02.886 Mibsatase | or cornet 90: mote fetes ont mae oe

eR samy

Tbtabast _ stanuftor Visiate An ketw hha avtewte bind sougme

bale hy

“toueme whee tavoen of as 2
abut dew fot te amtpat’t s siehw bewiecnm at tnemghut ott

Tu68 “otas wa bese tes at ob.one x0 Plumtate ‘et ae
sis Dis Ie aa ai * hy _

TOM %O oaIgRLY BOTY axasve | aie
HEN Tae w cA. “gtk Bice ts oso “

Ree ey | Re at poy Ih me ee oe BZ B.S ey Bus lian Te aah aa ge ay ay oe i ‘he i e
f Wess bi: ; Wi

hadiaad sate uenannil hae gah of er
Baki ai ioe ALE ae SU a Me MEI rt sme Bc aie 6

ees ae Ea

ane ts

URS, aS i Pa RR Rae Ape:
5 SCONE

aa” 7" fs

“ets tilda token aoe wehtow os ras yo a te

NT ae hata Ec

Sytk AtonoeiPion dl
edinaoninin

Pie ieace (E Mcpues a nt é 4 Day ea ORK) SR Vesa Ih ay PEON a) HY ge Dihicaiaal ors |

ae ya

Pe Ruthiok Loe ot V6 ARNE wie Kae eek nae eh ieee

i be ye fMererae (e petty 4 i!

ete mee ee ee ee ew .onyon, vor

dey ! RW ;

seh adultos somktes 4h) wei: enlelk Qe satel

|
!

37387 f /

ERMA MARTIN, / a
Appellee, ff M g
APYCAL #RGM MUI GIPal: COURT
WRe : a ]

oF cutcaco. #
ERVASG PUR GOkPASY, a Vorporation,
A. Lb. WELTZER, M. M. MELTZER,

H. BVANS and C, LELDY,

Appellants. yYATR ORE’
— 2¢41.4.663

BR, JUGTICH MeGURELY DELIVERED THE GOPINIGH OF THR COURT.

Plaintiff brought suit claiming a conversion by defendanta
of a fur seat belonging te her, amd upen trial by the aourt had a
judgment for $75, frou whieh defendants appeal. ;

The defendants ore in the fur garment business, VPisintiffr
testified that she went te their plaee of business te nate a fur
eoarf gleaned; they solicited Aer te buy a new fur coat, of fering
te take her ol4 fur eoat, hich she wae Wearing, in partial exehange
and eredit her with $60 for the ol4 coat, the balange of the price
of the new coat to be paid in portial Llogtaliments, the new esat
not to be delivered until paysnents were completed; ahe agreed with
thie but on condition that sheuld she net be able to meet the pay-
ments on the new coat the sale would be eslled off and her ela coat
returned to her. Ghe testified that defendanta, through Rr. Meltzer,
president of 4efendant company, aid a Kies Leidy, a anles woman,
agreed to this. Defendants permitted slaintis? te wear her cid
eoat for a tine, then she left the o3d4 cost with them; subsequently,
finding that she could net keep up the paymente fer the new eoat,
she ee netified the defendants ant asked for the return ef the old
coat, which was refused. Pisintifr's teatixeny was eerreborated by
her alster, wno testified that she was present at the time and
heard defendants say that if plaintiff eeuld not make the payaente

on the new coat they would return the eld ene. Defendant A. i.

Keltzer testified, in substance denying the agreement to return

eRETKA AME
ete Liogas — sa Mi ai
t eee on # ys

“ | ev
snitenh e a9 au ‘SUAVE
‘ RES ‘gt 9H Lge ees

Maral & bane ae. -

bar ee

“TAyOD aHY 20 aonarso Rey crams r.nauees worry sa

atnabastsh yf délevevass » galatals fiwe @igsotd Tiitalest —
a bed sxmoy otf yd Iettd soqh han and od pakgacted taov whe
tavqas efauhue'tat Hobde movt ,8ve xo? ——
‘“tieaieli | Jeeeniaud Jdoowrtag tet ectt ak ote stacebaetes off
tut 2 eved af eeeaiand to venta viens oF taee ame decid bobtkteas
gaivetts ,geoo wt wea a qwd of ise betlokioe yedt jheneole Ytaes
eguedexe falftey al Balenew new outs ig tite, taoo tut blo tor oxtet oF
woitg eff ‘Lo canniad may aoe bie aay tat 08g ete tos sihete bun
Seas wen asi? ,esnent intent Lalsese ed biag od oe face won ont ‘te
Atie beewge ede jhoadesomes axrow afoowgan Lifaw beteviioh od of @ea
“qeq ed? 2o0m ef ide ed tea ore hduigie ted? aelsitnoe ao tad abdt
Ne faom Sic ten bas The felisa od biueow ofee 282 Yeon worn a43 fo atmo
i ,<teetied .a aguoink? ,atachasteb Jad Sal titess ase tad of bentytes
| Mater seine o .ebhed aed aw dae ,ymegeie faebee leh te dashiverq
‘Bio aod xeew of TRdudete bettictee etaebante® .eket ot reetpe
eYtaoupeedue jaod? dtiew taoe bie elt Tiel ene oode lenis & ced dena ~
tage wen aay tot afaowyer sl? gw geet toe Siven oe dedd yalbat't
bie ef? Yo atuter od3 to? bedem baw edamhoe teh eff Soltiton oe aie
ed@ hetesodexi0o vaw yooulsae? eo Tiktaiel® § .fees'‘tet saw doldw .tae0
baa ould ent Se taoaety sew ado dad? Meltiteed ofw ,tedela cod
stummyae od? exam fox bLwos Yittalele 1! Sedt yee etaahae toh breed
1 A tnehaeted ene bio ont aredex Bloor yeds taoe wea odd m0
mruiet of tasmmerge off galyaoh soaudedor al he kthvess wendsou Pe

the old event te Ser,

in this court defendants argue that the old coat wag xe-~
eelved by defentants in pert payment for the new garment, ond
deny any agreement to return it,

The ease turns upon the eredibility of the wltmesees. The
trial court heard them and is beiter suelified than we are to
judge of their oredibility. %¢ cannet say that hie conelusion
te accept the stery of the pladntirr and her wliness le manifestly
againet the greater weight of ene evi¢genees.

The judgment i# therffere affirmed,

AFFIRMED,

Batehett, ». J., and U'Senner, J., concur.

A ed
Vee aS £

ha a, Nt

edt oF ba bLo ast
~or Baw ‘ines héo ae taste ewgta atnebno tes gxvoo alat ‘nl

base ,tmetey wee od tot Paomyag Pavey ‘BE bdaetice Tad, w

oth cuutes af trom orrge ‘yan yah
eat ) dduoekt te ont: "te: rene tithiadis ea? aequ GAte? aeae eft
of 948 ow and? boliiesp wasted at bac medt bused dewon Seltd

sotautnaeg ett tant yer fone BY .cettictbete “ious ‘to eghut

Yldaotioam ak aneosin ted hae ‘Vikdaleto ong ‘to yxose ents Jquooe of
spemenies atte tales seer A See

A) Aman, ronan

oman at

ae mally eae nies ites

wii sne Ee , eis ae a ae ? 1s ea gE ene
wouter soe camer hap ot at , ddpsioda:
mek ee BE: ue , es oe i ASL aw e0beeh nee
ee: See
SILT COV LS 4 Rae vie SR Kaa Nis Reve ehh Se ag aga
Logo Be Da « ees

: ve: Bes wee Be hea

“oe Se haerertae

RS eS eI ee a Re i o PSR AOR AS PRAM RS
Koow af OY Coe Re OR he ARR ee eRe Gee
vite Se yeaa RT sae,

tase eon 4 DVB > egy Sh alte tie oud ree Aig AK , RR, ouiaiige Rte oa ae omabat's
pat ‘+ es a Ma RMS ES AMOI Re a SS Daa ai i ae

i ie aa on SR Cor Wea VEO ERE Mea i AB Ne Rs Rey ues alae egy Rta rs
Wipes ee te eT ame fe ein a ks phe naa aka mpeg ~ SIS cdc OM | € ta ee hit) meat |
Harpee vadte | eau Bogue easy - “RNR Re as ae 0 a GAS: elle ot omhcn tek peaee

ca 2 pe Ranks Bs ie tas eee YEO Se wr te eas Es 1]

een Pete Na
Sy ee eM RR ee OM hee ae es aes Pra sene raed Sink

BTL 36

PRED O3ER et sl., }
Appellants, )
}
We } :
} OF COUR COUnTY, | ae,
THOMAS XN, MALOY et ok., 4 A
AVVSLL See, | =r Ps ‘ E
“ 274 1.A.663

MB, TUBTIC’ G'CGHHOR DELIVEARD THK OPINION GF THE GUAT,

By this appeal the complainants seek te ravereo « deoree
of the Guperioxs court of Cook county diwmisaing tasir b111 ef
eomplaint for want ef aguity.

January 19, 1943, sowpisinents, #ke allege that they are
menbers of the Chicage *oving Ficture Auchine Operators’ Union,
Leemk So. 110, a voluntary assogiation, emt siao mesherea of the
International Alllanee cf Thestrivgal Stage Gupleyen und Roving
Pheture Bachine Operators of the United Uistes and Canada, alee
a volustery aeseciation, filed their seeond amended bill on behaf
of themselves and a1] other smambere Of the unions whe sight shoose
te join with them, againet the defendants, ali ef waem | axgept
three who ware sity sweloyes@) are alleged te be officers and agente
of the unions, charging then with fllegaily scuonssiring to attempt
te ouet them from the unions and whe exeluded thea fron the benelite
ef the unions, fnay also charged the defendants with ether alleged
wrong@eings woich will be hereinafter referred ts, and prayed for an
injunction, the agpointwent of a reeeiver, fer an ageguating, and i
other relief,

Fobruary 6, 1945, two defendante, employees of the City,
Tiled their general demurrer, February @th the ether def eidsnte
filed thely joint amd eaveral anewer, denying the charges of wrong.
doing made against them and setting up =aat they designate as
“matters of affirmative defense.“ February 11, 1955, comsi«inante
moved for a tenporary injunction and an erder was ntered continu.

ing the metion te February 16, 1933, Vebruary 17, 1933, camplaine

memee-

| for ip Ps : BELTS
Ph, i \ ‘\ { s «te vied Heng Papen
hy i Co { sfasiioega . 2 se so web
f) tuyoo 3 SOIREE tant =f c
is at, ‘Seraues wdoo 46 { . sats
} cele 86 YOdAA .i anon,

‘pn 0 TA. T iN A G | ae hiarrgenaed ids alaal

tUOD ait %sS or “tao on ame VI cae alee ‘werredt wna
= 4 ree week bee Perey ak ud.

aeteeh #& sersvet of adeos sinetiaie we: ediatiadiliaadis “20a

: sil ty te nag

ote Yes sat eyoiia ore, sOismithy mane gO . eh yaaa es

Selal- ‘eregeteq? ealaged oigels gaives egasisd eis te aredaen

e43 to atedaom oule fan ,aoltalsonsa yradueiov a ,OLL oil faced
galved bas esyolqui egert Lowtugacat te evashi ts fanol tonsa

ate ,abanwd ban aetede Aeshal ot to, suodenen?, sakiioek atwéed ;
Yeded ae LLid behoswe hoones alec? beiit ,aolisioessa uasawtoy @

eeeods taiyim ortw anolaw end to gredmma xodte Lhe baw sevisameds Yo. |
sqooxs) mosiw to Lie ,ednehao'tebh ocd @eakege ,medt dtiw alet of
asnexye ban atositio ed of beyetia ete (sooyedgeue ytlo etew ow comdd
Squetsu oF gaitiganoa yiingsiil dgie aode pal g tae eSatok aw ons 3.
sditeasd ef? won? male heobulece osv ban euolay odd mex? mode tuo et
hegeila teste dtlv sfashaw'led ei3 hegiade ante yaa? enol aw oad to

‘ Aik hee re

|| a 10% Aeyerg ban 0% berre'tes wesieatored oF LLlw dabiw agaten ts

baa ,aaliaceoes os t6% ,tevieset a Te i meagakeqqe ont sao! $03 ng ;
-tohion rend e
LUPLD oils LO EaMyoienoe ,atsubus lod ows ,LERL ,o yrawtde®

: aes
stashm ted redte oda sis @ Yteerde% eeu Knee saveney, thes tent

~gaotw lo segtade ods yaiyorh ,tewens Lateven brew satot alos bel
as otnnglewh yeas sasie gH gh see ban want jentege has 7
sinantetqus ,ECCL LL yrautde® * eno ted ovitnan 27a to ,
unt sae betnta saw tebte oe baw wet dean bak eumrogmas a roe |
stisiques ,c6eL ,Tk yuwwsde® § .f60L Ok vrewsdet or wotton

ants filed their replication to the anewer of the defendants,
¥ebruary 21st an order was antered upon motion of the complainants,
with the consent of the corseration counsel, @lasissing the bill as
to Joseph Kaloy and A. %, Jackson, clty ewployees. aren 6th come
Plainante, by leave of court, snended their second amended bill.
July 12, 1953, an order wae entered on metion of the couplainante
suggesting the 4eath of cempiainant, Fred Geer, and aubsetituting
Gladys Oper, a2 nie adminietrstrix. August 11, 1953, eouslainante
moved for a temporary injuncticn and the defendants med@ a eoanter
motien that the bill be diewiseed “for want of equity and jurin-
diction in the Court," for the reasons set forth in derendante!
angwer as mattere ef affirmative defense, The defendants’ motion
Was pwllewed, the bill dismissed and tnis appeal followed.

The procedure follewed in thie case, of disuiseing sam-
Plainents' seeond amended bili after issue wae joined by defendants'
anewver and plaintiff's reslication therete, is anomalous and is not
to be apvreved.

Defendants contend that thelr eral moetion to dismise the
bill for want ef aquity and Yer lack of juriedisctieon was in legal
effect a demurrer ore tempus. Sut tne inw is that a demurrer org
Senus will not be aliewed unlees thers is a demurrer en record.

1 Goas's Putertvaugh Ch. 71. 4 Pr., Tth ed., page 185. hile the
eroceture was irreguler, we prefer ie deoide the questions on
their merits. The matters alleged in the anewer are not to be
considered, tut the enly question is whether the somplsinants
state a cause of action in their bill of complaint.

The allegations of tae bill, eo far as it ls necessary to
state them, sre that complainants were members of the Chicago
Seving Picture Machine Operatere'’ Union Leeal oc. 110, aid members
of the International Allianee of Theatrical Giage Haployes and
Moving Picture Kachine Operators of the United States and Canada,

estaabee toh eff to 190m me at? oF aeiseot Laon the dt Bolrr agen
stnauleiqnos os Yo agitea seqw brista» saw tobxe as gei8 crsitsot
ee Litd eit paiesioath ,feanwes molteroqree ed? ‘to dneaiine ost apie
stom AID Hotell .eosyoiqus veto ,aomioat 5 aA baw yotait” dqoact of
titd hebes ae bhosed tlerii bebaows .txmes ‘te seme d yd agns ake tg
Sinatlalquos ond Io meljem so hetedan saw tehte oe ,S6RL 84 ust
galiviitedue bas ,teed beti ,faentatqme To Adeeb std sntteonawe
ebbakie tance SEL LE caugud § wwkadetieiniabe ak oo 11980, ve! ‘
<egawee @ sham stoshae'teb ont hr agttoavint yastoeae .
eeizut, bus ytlupe to daew tot" beandow ts of tre outs “padi no bt om
“Vegasbao'teh at Adto? doe eavaner edd tot “,d2me9 ocd a wo doin
nolgom ‘atnntie'toh off .eeae'tob avigecont'rta ‘te eretian 6 "gewene
“Shewettet Laoqua aide han baaebawth Lthd oAd pbéwe fh" be
moe palaclunth to ,emes wit} al bowelfot exubssotd ‘out’
'sttahasteh yd boalet aewr oual radte Lhd bebooks baeoee ‘ed: . C ‘i
toa ai bie evolamome at eas sgl ‘mpltesiivss sthiantesy tad ‘baa a
» shoves waa ie
ef? salseth of aolfou Lato tioat fant baadaos’ ePibpad tee”

‘Kegel si sav aoitotbatust Yo Aeet tot bas yetupe te daew ‘Yoi” “ihe
gan tovtumeh 2 fads ok wal ede tol .euged wad aettwnbh 9 ‘goo tte
“abst: ed w0Ctinenh hs ‘ab’ otbdie Bieta Séwétha SS sha kde’ uae

“eat otiat leer agag ,.b9 det (inte 0% 10d dgundtadid ef eal

i me iit tt

ib ved

ne akolsaeup ali sbloob of telere ow ‘eta Ligerth an tube oon

6d of Jon wre tewnnd ont al Deyolio etettan oat pete
ataantelquoo ond wsltede at aetiesup “ine edt tid (bore an x
“\daletqned Ye itd ited) ui aptten Ye éalns « otate
ot Visgasoon al st ae tet de thie ods or "wilh bape tte Fa te th?
oyenidd bas to exosmvst axaw Btasaic tones toad ete sans “Silke
eredain bas’ OLE 0% Lasel oelal Vetesareg? ontda tt’ band ie ant vou
baw eeyotqait eyatd Lao tigasat “te ‘one ttiA Aaaotdamssat sit Ye

"aan ‘Bas sosate bodhau au? lo exedermG endioaid exttelt +
Oe ORT ie Ree sie i nee one ont at got ie a

and therefore entitled te the privileges and benefits of the union,
some of which are a fair rate of wages, ageurance ef competent ap-
prentices, slection ef officers and members in sccordance with the
constitution and by-lawa of the union, the exclusion af nen-meabers
from the union, death beneFit ef £2,000, sick benefit of $30 a
week if incapacitated, ctc. The bill further slleged that there
were 496 meabers of the lecal union, toat 540 pereone were working
in the moving pieture* business “he vere net menbera of the unien
bat who were znewn ae “Permit men", having wrongfully been given
permite by officers of the unian without any exanination of the
applicant; that continususly eines 1920, the defendants conspired
with other unknown persons to violate the comatitution and by-laws
ef the lecal ucion for the puroose of obtaining and maintaining
econtrel of the unions Tor the benefit of the defendantea, and per-
mitting them fraudulently to explicit the usien snd ta eonvert ites
ageeta to their own use; that in furtherance of such cousplracy
the defendants in 1925, 1827 and 1932 esnducted unfsir elections so
that they could continue in centroi of the union fer taeir own
benerit; that to accomplish tunis result they enpleyed gunmen whe
intimidated the meabers of the union by threats a¢ that there was
not a free or fair eleetion of officers by the members; that they,
by intimidation and threats, cerpetuated themselves in ofiiece and
eontrol ef the union, employing gunmen Yor this purpese and
threatening anyone whe dared te seek any offiee without their
favor; that defendanta, in furtherance of the conspiracy, issued
Lieenses autherizing perrons to operate moving pieture machines
whe were wholly unqualified; tost they alse issued “?ermits® per-
mitting others to dco the werk ¢f union men for their own benefit;
that im 1951, defendantea received 9100,000 te combat a leck-out

by the Allied Theatre Owners Association but refused to secount

fer this money; that defendants also refused to account fer other

Ripe aN

a
ae

re ee ne ee

Sa Nea

,tolnw on9 To ot itened baw segeitviag eat ot bald Lime eretetests sae
ote suetoymoo Yo eokniweese ae yew ‘te #2at ulat a ote sg tee to enon
si} dttw sonabteooa al etedmem bas exeoltre to noidoeLe ano enotg
aratowmeaot ‘ta adiuuloxe t27 ,molaw od? ‘te owalayd bax molus tienes
w O£9 ta Pi'toced diy be 000,84 te sitieaed igawb mre kiow one: wort
@redt tadt bowgeatia tative? ifid ea? .ode dotettoscavat 2 Leow
galxiow exow Amer (OS tadd ,wohay Laoet eile ‘te axodmea aee oxew
dota ef? Yo wiedsex fon stew ode sanateudvervtate antvon pee
nevig aeod yiintpaoaw galvas , * ape $deaa® ea woot onew ove ud
eat 16 seliteniaexs yao Sisauid dw aot ont to oes to we soteog

pexigdnod afachis'tob eda ones oath efewount$.ao0 rads itanot toga

awaleyd bac tolgusitewen ond osatoly ef aaoate 4 amon es tsiite at
gelaleialee baw ankaiaddo to eadg tg outa tot mo kum tnoos ott te
at0q hne ,Gieabasteb eff “te 2 Pts aed eui aot aedcew ‘ods 10 headend y 9
Aoi Seevaeo of bao aolau oad dtoLoxe of ¢ltae dubuan? meait yatagta

ca eA

‘Yyoeulgtaeo Meus to eomatedtis't a2 tastd yeas ewe uhedd of stoonm ‘
as ancigoste xia‘tay Befouhaes SOCL bua CROL AOL at aganbao tes ote
fiwe tdoud tot aetaw end to Lotéwoo nd euatiaon hives weatt fade

ow newaiy Leyolqus yods #Lueer what Hie | Lgaweoe of suslt i2Ptened
eew otedd td) on e$a0tds ys apiow es2 Yo x0 daa va bogabtattat

Xeds Jad? j;aiedasa ens yd etse lt'te te nolvaede the’t 0 oon a iar
ban eellto ot eovieamecd? bedeomtagrae ataorss hese “nol Sabha tnd wv
bite oagcig alt 19% soos gatyotqne +0 ht outs ‘te fourass

xkost deodtiw sotitre eas ‘hoon of bora ests omoyas gabacsaonts =
heunsl ,yoatloanes ould te peste Tesi d tart ek eedaanas top gests ‘teva?

a
Mole

soultionm etuselg gatvom otakous ot aaneuse gakabxon? va tonmolt
“tog “ad tacke S* housat oaLe yosid Pad shen? Ltawpaw ehiose orow Lae st
roitaned nwo “naa <ot mem nolan ‘te tor ont ob et nrodse pantie 3

lave a a
sndateor' a thdmde' od 006, 60L8 bewkeont etnabasten i608 ah tess a 4
pen i Sl
sawonoe ot boas'ter gud heldalocoka Bx9 WO exiasdt ‘beLLtA aad

a Wu Wy a bdiides ehh
edt tet saioosa oF beabter cole ‘etasbas ted tadd i yeaon ain

moneye they had received in other official capacities, which be-
longed te the union; thet in 1951 the grand jury of Cook county
took cognizance of the defentants' wrengdoing and indicted some ef
them; thet through the #rong?ful saete of the defendants a number of
theaters «hich eaploeyed union men were wrongfully glossed, and in
making this wrongful contest against the theater oxners defendants
apent apvroximately $206,000 of the union's money; that defendants
had falsely charged compisinantes and other meabers of the union
with vielating certain sdctions of the conetitation and by-laws,
and there was a purported hearing witneut notice te the agcused;
that the charges made were baseless; that ot the Bearing certain
menbers of the union were denied orepar representation; denied the
ust of a eourt reverter; and denied the right to eresas exauine the
witnesses tastifying agsinat then; that after such neerings def end-
ants purported te enter judgawnt againet mexbera of the union, ime
posing a fine of $6,006 against many of trem, and the leas ef
voles and vete fer a period af tee years; that such mechere were
fexied the right to appeal; ~ a11 contrary te the provisions of
the conatitutien an’ the by-lawa of the uniene; that defendanta
have threatened complainante and intimidated them because they

are demanding their rignts under the conetitution and the by-laws,
and that defendants, unleas restrained by an erder of eourt, will
aseign or dispose of the assets of tie lecal union; that defentante
have extravagantly ran the affaires of the union, having an overhead
of over $75,000, while the income was only about $44,000; that de-
fendanta voted themselves large salaries; thet defendant business
manager Wasa in 1928 paid $228 a week, whieh tas later inecressed te
$300 a week and atill later te $500 a week. Kany ether charges

are made, but we de not refer te them here, the prayer of the

bill was that certain of the pretended elections of the officers

be declared null asd wold, and thet wesitionea be filled st an

gd doldw jaeitheaqas LaiplYie seate at bevkeves, had yest eyston
etnuce aoed to yrol, haat. ot £2 wt Secs paokaw opt oc hogaot
te sao beteibai ban gnbobgasiw 'escchap'ted ede to eenesiagos soot
“te sedan @ atmahie lab sc) Le etoa Le'tyaow outs yur? ead jee
at bos yboaelo yLivoTaasty svew fen apioe heyolque dodde gxoteods
atachce'teb ateard teseeit off @ralege doednog Latyaotw alat galslem
atnshaetsh Jadt pyenou at aghas edt to 000,908% ylatemixzetoqs Janda
tetms ef to exsdama tomo ban atuantelamoe hegraio yLeate? bait
,aweingd bos aebtne ites odd “ie saoltege aladxen gatiatody athe
phessoon tid of solson duagdtin ynitesd hedteqieg @ aew exadt Bete
aatien galxeod od? Ya demth peaniewed eraw eben aegiads oft tant
etd foliod ;moldatumaerqex teqote hedaeh etew aglaw o2 to stedupm
odd enicate esos of Srila ans Delowh baw j49d teqet Sauee @ “to ow
chow'ted aqaltend down sodte gone pamld gealeys gatylideas anne ad kw
ead ptokne of ty exredaom teatags daemoul tedae of Nebreiune htne
ote eeel 867 bus yaad To Yoon Poakeye 000,48 to eatt a galore
“Wwtew-etedans stows dent patsey owt to Golteq # te? eso¥ dan ow
‘to enotatvorg 982002 yrenteen Lia ~ ; leeqga of drigit ost ehe
« “edaabastod tant janehew ‘edt to awaterd oda notin? igeuee, ast
‘ods Gausoed moat hotalimital bas etaadleqmos honeteesh? ovat
pewelegd one hae codtusitemoy ets vehay etegls aisdt gatbasseb wre
iit , Stuer Yo tebxe a yd heniotiess enelow ,etaehbua ton fadt pas
stushoeteh tact puokuw dapod end te steeen oft Yo ceogalh 10 og ivew
haotwere aa yaiived ,solew el? Lo otheThe odd aur yLiaeyovertee pve ~
eh tag: 1000, 088 tueda yiao gew samwond ode oLide 000,078. zero, to
evanioud sinhusted said peolieiae sgtet seviousmals borer etnebaset
of beenntnnl wlol eae Koliw ,aemw BREE bibs SR0L nt eam repane
neytatio somite Vas aeow © OEE oF note t Likde bee dow x, ogee
etd: keegan wall | otagh mkt, oF BO tm a: ee mn .
eteattie sie to enodtoole hehaetoty edt ta alnere ;

election properly held; that the oretended Judgment and finer
isaued ageinst the complainants ond ether mexbere of the unien be
vacated and held for naught, that complainantea be restored te full
memberehip im the unions, and that om aocounting be had,

Defendants contend that the deerwe sheuld be affirmed te-
cause there is no aliegation that complainants had been exealled
from menbersiiip in the lecal union, amd that there is no allegation
that comvlainanta were put en trial fer any offenses resulting in
thelr expuleien, but that the thaory of compiainante, and their
coungel's argument, is that eompiainante hove bean expelled Trem
the loeal union and that the primary ebject of the bili te ts ree
astere then to menberaghip. <A further contention of the defendantea
is that a court of equity is without Jurisdiction te restore a
person te a membership in « local unien,

Whether mlilegations of the bill sre auffictlent te shew
that sompisinante and other mevhers vere wrongfully exvelied from
the union, they sre, we think, sufficient te shov that complainants
and other marbers were excluded from the benefits of the union.
They were unable to obtsin employment because of the sets of the
officers of the anion; mary lliegsl permits, it ia charged, were
deeued so that there were not places encug: to go around; charges
are made of acts of defendants in intimidating comeiainente and
other members so that Tair elections sould not be held, and further,
that the moneys belonging to the union were wrongfully expended,

Ve think these allegationa are gafficient te warrant the
interposition of a eourt of equity. Hut counsel fer defendants say
that there le no sliegation that complainants Bave exhausted their
remedy within the Local or international union, amd that it is
elementary one cannot go into eauity until he has exhausted hia

rights within the union. Ye think it sufYicientiy apyeare from

the allegations that an appeal would have been futile, i+ is

genli bas savambul, hehaetete ect dans i bied yinegoiq agi¢eate
od golan edt Lo aipdues, talie bas atoncielgnog edt sonlage bogead
fist of hetateet od stusnlatqmes Sedd ,daysme tet bier bas bedeouw
hed ed antinuovoe a» deadt has ,uaokay ess at gisetedmem
asd hawtlTis ed Adwode e@rneb a2 Ladd bootone ad sehaeted 9.09
belivgue daaed bas. siaaniedguon Jade moliegolia on al eteds eauas
apitegetia on ai aneds jacds bas ,aolew deved att ah gidetodms moat
ai golyiemer agese Te Yas 4ot tamitd ag Jug atew stastintomes, Gadd
_sieie bas ,atacniaigques to ytoedt oft sect tod ,moletuqme thedd
“inet Soliegxs saed eyed atoauiatqwoe dads af ,sosmuyte a fooameo
~et ot ai {itd os2 te Joeldo vinmitg edd Jodt bar solaw fened edd
piaabie teh adt tq aeliaadaen woultuyt A .cideusdaem of weds, eteda
& etotaes 92 aoltothaitet suedtiw ot ytiupe Ie angen a tend at
hem wee PHAR LANDS Mh, A AE REO M 8 POI
wots 02 tanioittue ers {old ait to anotsegntia tented...
Sort baliogrs qitutgaerw e.ew ayedma tecdio boa etsnalelqmes gent
atoanieliqauoe godt vein of caehotitus datas ow ,etea yout ,aatan edd
modmy esi Lo agttoned edd aos bobulone suew etedaea tedte hae
aid Lo efon ost ‘to passved tnesyalqas aiatde of eideay etaw yaad? |
atew ,hegtedio ab #1 ,a¢ioseg fegeiii yoom itetay odd ‘26 onoaltte
— Royrado phawors 9g Of Laxcas smoot fou etew etedd tue ob boused
bas ajoanintquee yoliadbialsal xi atashagted to atea te abam ote
| gtotsut has ,biad od doa Sdveo cunigoois tiet tadd os aro dmem xedto
shobasqxe Ylinlgaeaw sie” sola eit of gaignoied syenom edt sant —
ent tumtsaw 92 taslolthun etm aseitegetitio agedt Ambsld @F 00. ys
YO8 atuehapteh tot ieoauos Jud ethane le t1ueo.6 Te nett ivoqredat
‘tiedd betausixe ovat stasclelqnoo todd soiteyr iia om ah wrens dtadt
ai th tect bane ,sokaw Leaolseaxedal te favot ede aldttw yhomer
sisi hetewadng aed of Lito yelupe otat oy soanao eae ytataouate
_ weett ewequs yliselolTiva 21 daksd oF .sotay ont Redd lw eddghe
aici ,ei¢w#t seed eved hivew inoqas ma Jedd amoltepetio ott

i ' Wenn ¢ ?

alleged that defendants ware Aeiied the right of appealing, end
while the allegations are not specific, we tiink they wre sufficient
te warrant a court of equity in inquiring inte the merite ef the
matter, Yrom the allegstion# of the bili we think any attempt to
appeal would have been unavailing. Ve therefore bold that the
second amanded bill of sgompiaint stated a ewusne for euultable
relief, and the decree of the Superior eourt of Cook coumty ie
reversed and the cause remanded fcr trial.

REVERSED AD REMANDED,

Katehett, P. J., and MoSurely, J., coneour.

bad (galiaoqga To Hiylt oid feolteh stow adagboe top dais’
snoks ifiws ow yous Saidt oe joFteege fon ote etoltayetie ond ethitw
“gate “Ye @ahueR ed? otal galetepat ai ysinpe Ye xtton & tnerraw of

ob symseaYiie”inhih bw tebe ak te wae engabee Ob aberdeen
“ens foxls BLod sto'twtadd of .gaiiievans ased svat bisow Laeqqe
eldssluse set osnes 2 bodega saleiqros te {Ltd bebweme beopeR
qd yeatios fod? ‘to gives telto4Ke OxY Te aeroeh OnP Bae jToblet
Oe UT EA hated 2Ot hebaamen camer OH? hae boerévet
ee Ce

even ue
de et Re aa [eanwie

EK:

Nee HS Re Pa NR) wait iit 4 ae Raters ere SR Ge “Ra odohe:

a us

0 Ge CN ROC RR, REN i wa Seon. ie BO a ae ae

By OMe Me aN Pvt eae § og peal

Ra ds % a BG ih Sei i RROCHS Be REGS BTR yom

‘ ‘ rs ve ena laa

Se a Boe ek pee ROY ae 8 ee a 1

ge eee

oxen Sect tose oh pee?

Seda tees tet emi tes ok dooetos tad a aie te aha

: Pies YB ats § Z Pak me aot Yh DA eg is, Ry Ye by Mears) c as mane a werner shea, —,
ey eee ee , . . ‘ a Kiera ’ 2a i: wining pain Be <i tay A “i py, at ta

amma glk ii) rAd awl: aie. che gaanere dae? eeeoee ae

Sk Ra NN Mee pie eth Al

Wee hie ANN Cees j ee eA Whe ne ia aa a: A Se ne Sm geo NAR RS Pes hese Fay ih ian all
a 3 re ABE Se EE) OA A a Beg f Ya ARIE of Ra eh oh RMR ei | RG! rae ae Sm oa a ye wiensit oth

: ie

eee ih bury a CRE aoe Rid ¢ a "a us
GR BSA ag PER RMP RPI ORR RIE AR A: a a RUS we nin |

mie Aetewrsios and oF Lhame BRR BOPP Ce ee Se aden te
opvk sioenda oiredn thine 2h ee Oe a Rea Ad aleaie, ena’

teat chee haat Amster tie Ra

ie
37139 \ ae
Pa x
CHIGAGO MORTGAGE GouPORATION, )} ff aé
a Corporation, vive é
Agnellee, er Le
APPEAL FROM BUNT UIPAL Cot

we. 4 f
liars ¢. veies PY COOR COUNTY.

Appellant. } -

9741.4. 663°

BBR, JUSTICS O'CONNOR DALIVERSH THE OPINION OF THE COAT,

Plaintiff, ae owner of certain notem secured by & trnat
deed on preperty in Gook county, Lilimrele, breugh? suit agsinet the
defendant whe had purchased the eneweboread property aubiest te the
mortgage, which encumbrmiee the Aaefendant aaeumed ond agreed to
pay, plaintiff elsiming there wae o belasce due ef 34600, with
certain interest. The defendant denied liebllity and there wae «
trisi witheut a fury ond « finding and Judement in slaintiff's
favor vor $2487.76, being the smeunt remaining unpaid at the
time ef the trisl, and the defendnnt sppeals.

The record discloses that on August 1%, 1020, Lewis Karns
and wife, and? Jesevhine Kerenstein ond wife, exequted a Junior xert-
gage on eal estate im Cook county te Chorlos ©. Brill, trustee,
securing aw indebtiedmege of 310,000, and to evidence the indabteds
nees the Kernos and Bosensteins exeauted their teontyefour principal.
promissory notes due on wpecific dates @entiensd, The Last uste for
$6400 was due and payable on August 15, 199). It is to reeever the
balanee due on thie note thet the imatant sult was brewght.

duly 1, 1931, the defendant, fushman, entered into a written

contract with Leule karme, one of the makers af the notes and truat
dead, whe owned the real estate severed by the mortwage, to exchenge
certain propertign owned by Puskman ard located tn DuPage squnty,
Tllineia, The property in question wae te be sonveved subseet te
the junior mortgage abeve mentioned and om whieh chere wae then a

ray
~,
Fg
J

he Ys. \ { BO TARONKOG 2 asian
i “ae
AEE: 2 ohare
Ae a RAS
oy Meapa Daeg RPRPRE:

& 00 A. IL HN » S ‘haul Wie? Gael, Baer eee
ab wae Sage
THO) EE AO MOTRING SEY CURAVRIME ROMMNS'® REEVE MN

sue fy Lie ats sgt agaR
feort « yd hoxnons ae ton abate te ‘remmre we “Musas sonia

mrit tantage siwe anoxd shoal ii » ¢eawes zoe aa Witeqotg &

oo
et af fostdme eorsooty hen dieu ae based bows dorreg baat — saab
ao) Ge eee
oo Aeotye ban temueee medieval ait os ne tdamwe ne ‘io tide eying Tom
atte Te marie Ltt @ ome ete ot pabeke se hte ee

* saw e-se ste bass eeedtdots beatae fastan'tph ast deen tat =

at ttdeaiaig Mh sreaig hart, how qakond't & bow cust, “ teeth be

ee (ott ta hloguy qed Laonet Sake qa maid pated 87 Renee 10 T0}
| alneoge sasdve'teh aff bas ciated edt x ots
, rane eit, :

emted oived , 06 OL yee $sugeh ae fal? woacioath irogen afl. ai sie
Ce tid tolaut & habueane idler hag wletnce set saksqes ot tae athe | Aaa
sseteuny thine .f eo fxedd of Ytawon deed at adases fast we na
shetvebal eat sometlve of bre ,U00, 050 Ye meoabotdohal ae ami awape
iagionicg tHoleysomes aieay hetwoexy anledeaered bye sowie ond —

xe't sion font off amotetem gate ob iteaye ae veh sesen croeed Oke
see’ ae Yat oe et ot « 48 Of fe FR QMA He + Leeyeg hats ouh so Ove
stigucrd aaw tive Panteud at taste atom ektd mo oud aia

eyratoxe od rds out yd honoree while: tui oat
leit eyed ah bedaoek baw pn cars plpene te

balanee due ef $3900 whieh the defendant, Puehman, expressly ag-
gumed and agreed to pay. July 19, 1931, Zarue and nie wife by
Warrantydeed conveyed the property du suestion to defentent,
Pushmen, gureuant to the terms ef the written eentract. The deed
rYeeitad that the sonveyanes wae mada gubject to the trust deed of
August 15, 1920, en4 that Pushman assumed and ayreed te pay the
balance of the indebtedness secured hy that trust deed. July 22,
3921, defendant Pushman and wife conveyed the preperty te Selma
Stein by warranty deed, subject to tae balanee of the indebtedness
secured by the trust deed, *hieh the grantees ageumedt and agreed to
pay. Thie deed was reeoried august 10, 194i,

August. 41, defendant, Puasman,erote « Letter ad«
4resced to Louis Karno, stating that the Baleanes of the debt se-
cured by the sertcage would fall due august 15, 1952, ond request.
ing Xarne te aseiet defendant in obtelsing a extension ef tae time
ef payment ef the indebtedness, The letter mentions the mortgage
of Auguet 14, 1929, and the indebtednese whien Pushwon says, *1
apeumed and agreed te pay at the tine I sequired the property
from you;"® that there wae a balonee then due ef $8400, and ree
guested Karne te “de whatever you possikiy ean te aesiet me in
obtaining an extension of the tims within whieh te pay the vame;*
that he would indemnify Karne against sny and all clielwe that might
be apeerted against him for non-payment ef the indebtedness; that
fushbwan weuld pay a ¢cosmmiceion of $276 fer the extension and that
in the event Pushmen paid the entire indebtedaaaa, *1 shall be
gubrogated te such righte, lf any, that you may have in and toe the
paid mortgage. *

The evidence further tends to show that the letter juat
referred te was delivered by eounsel fer defendant to Joseph
Heuenstein, sbove mentioned’, whe wae an atieriey at law snd one of

the makers of the pote and trust deod in question, requesting him

ane Cieeataxe ,aaden’ , tena tos with seine ovate ‘te nith sone ind
ee BTLw etd baw gume ,A20L JBL Yin sqnq oF Rootyn baw beam
haahag' ted oF medtaanpe ah Yiaeqoty Ont heerage Soonytaorsas
posh eit .tentimey aestinw sat to aoed @Ae at saowense ‘ nate
te kent fawtd ort? of tontdin shew new enmegeernen of Sasit batons
ods yoq of Beetys Baw Leomenm mmemiewS fade hex, ORAL RL tasyeh
82 YLnl .boob test sanr qb texupes suenhetdohal ad? Ye eoanled
anlo® oF ysioqend ovals beyernne etiv bee asortent fambao Yeh AeeR s
aneadssvobnt ea Xe anna tad eid 0% ton |sun oon (easctaw ua tose 7
ot boorya saw bemune wataety auld sie Relwe sboab desert ‘alt yo hetes8@
1th 0k od sass. | hoknooen | aw rineh ant

oat? eit lo solenexe sn gatatesde wh ¢aanee'teb tuions r. bet |
ogags 9m asia suoltanm xagees act? venwabesdobat odd fe tamarynn
a eee nundawS sohio anoanetdenas eae hie eer ee : bs wu ‘.

_ yere gate wid bortupaa t mts oad te eee o bsorrpe ban he a wt ,

0 Sate 0888 ee neh ta skt wonslad a ad ests aad ‘ive mg
“eh Oo talene or ska vidinews voy seridede eb” oa ‘onto boteox

* pens ode yan of iio Late wtdthw onl? one Ye aciane axe n “yatian abd
Poko tact anta te fs nes baad taaleve owned _ilanebad btuee iia daedt
fast jpasndosdebat edt Ye taoamusdwsen T6t aba tentane boda vine
test? han modece dan oe? x0 one be tetwndacne a wee ‘siivew mas te

sorts et si
Five Siesta ” venvabat debut ee ond i hag nena ‘baove oat

oe
it Sag

ee ee

te endenver to fave the time eatended for the payagnt of the bal-
ance due under the werigage. The evidence further shews that is
Taly, 1951, #hem the defendant, Puskean, was negotiating for the
Purchase of the property from Aarne he had o prospective gurehaser,
Selma Siein, and that about Auguet lst, i931, when he wrete the
Letter adiréesed to Aarne abeve mentioned, he fan net eertain
whether the proposed asle by \im of tne property in suestion te
Stein would be eongnusated, and he thereupon wrote the Letter ree
queeting thet the time of payment of the balenee due be eatended.
Baile the deed from Pusamas te Jtein la dated July 23, 1932, it
was not recorded untili auguet 106, 1933, amd there is evidenae te
the effect that 1% vas net delivered untll the laet mentioned date.
There ia other evidence to the offeet tuat after the property was
conveyed to Selma Stein abe sequred an agreewent fron slaintirr,
the owner of the sete, and from Harne, one of the makers of the
nete, thareby the time of paynent was extended siz months. There
was mo written agreement preparnd but it is ageumed by tveryone,
and the testimony shows, ihat the time ef payment wae se extended.
Tae defendant contends that the lean, when it gas made in
1926, the time of the execution of the notes and trust deed, was
tainted with uweury begause the evidence shows pisintif? was paid
16 per cent commission, snd defeidentogays that the lean was ultra
wires siainiiff eoergeration. There is ne merit in these sontene
tiens because the evidence shows that after the exeqution of the
note and truet deed the eroperty waa conveyed subject te the morte
gage which the grantees seaune¢ and agxeed te pay. In theae circum
etances the question of usury is eut of the omee, and the question
of ultye vires wae net in the caee begsuse such a question was net
interposed as a defense, and the denial ef defendant's request, mode

Hear the close of the case, Ter leave te sleed augh defense, was

properly denied. it is certain tant we would not be Warranted in

oiled oat +9 Hatageq vet tet bobie tes ‘pil} ead evad a¢ xoveshne 0
wt cult ewes wondset ediobive aa? .opegttom esd vehaw out ‘ooun
ont <6 yaito biogea enw rt. ae ‘tauhee tos wad” iin cw te te
toaddxug Ovidooqeosy & hat od omtal mov? ydueqota oat Ye ‘smedor :
* et odatw of node ,200L [aed Pecgua Guess ded? bow ide! at
aladxos toa dow od ,beabidwen ovéde bared of Seudethhe webs:

Gf tobdweup wt edteqede ale “Yo Mic Ve wien Beseqoty ont es i

“e¢ “ebtel ad} asoaw moc co as nai baw shesamwenos ‘ad Meow ated?
Sotestaa od ouh vonelad pad Yo taomyaq %6 eaubt bat tant abd ne
VE (deed! a0 edt Govah "st mbes of domiaut mort hood io) ys) ae
of oonmbive et ones baa , 060k ot seta theo habd<ooor per
.odeh honottanm geal orld ifaw Bewortioh fon aaw 2h reat daotts ' od be
aw ett Tht oct wPte dand fone ont ot bonedive ‘weuto Ce 78 +
“Wititalaty wovt mometys ae Bernoee solu nted® anise of Snase o"
sit? 29 eredem oft Yo sao lortal aout hae ,oton odd to oe
weed? vadduon ete Behastxe eaw tarecag to mle one pereeerrns
nels Qa" Maainidln Wk YE Fae Beeegerg satesetga cede hew ‘eh oe
sbotmdxe o8 aaw tanmdwg “te omki asl fads \eredy ‘yandties’ add
at hax Gow $f aedW ool bY RAI @hasddve tuebae toh ott =
new boob Sues bow neven od Yo nellsvexe oA Lo omld od a a
biaq exw Viltatate eweds Soimhive ede saben etwas délw perynye |
axtle ssw Neot od? satld eqendaaiac ted ibaa Robes tumos “Yoon “eth ie
sieges pabds oh thtem om ek oveat stodsexoc tes “Whiaas, oe |
“pat “te sib ioe oatd Sond tas “esoile — hat pousoed an a

<tivexio 9a989 wh “ae aa bo oepn ew ‘peeuhon wotanty ad
serait eat hoe senee am Yo ane of etm +e nottasup “ote

Ve) ee
hi 5 Bh Reg

fou ase Agldeoup W down wsusodd onan od? ab don aaw
hum ,deotpes e'dashes'tes ‘to fateh at? baw “seemmtioh a @ on bi ocak
yl ee a shoo of a
‘sew sane toh dowe beote a owned ‘wot jouse ony to cnels eit?

Co ee ee
ab betowetew od on hanes ow baal ‘mhaoes a ‘en sbotned |

helding teat the court abused hie diseretion in refusing leave te

make such a defense at thet time. Valemtine v. Vien, 45 Til. 462;
Grawford v. Binmong, 100 111, 143; Wiheon ¥, Reed, 262 221, Ape.
230; Oreenceard vy. Kate, 276 111. ape. 88%,

In the Greangard case we dieausaed the above authorities
on thie question and 4214 that shore property ie gold asubtcet te an
inewebrance whieh the grantee aseumes and agrace to pay au part ef
the purchase price, the question of usury ia eut of the exes, And
on page 232 we quotes the rule ae announced in the Valentine sass
(45 Ill. 468), which fe as fellows: ‘the doctrine ia wall estab
lished, that the evner cf land whe has given a usurieus mer tgage
upen it, may 2411 or mortgage the land to anether, generally, and
give to such surchaser er mortgages, by express agreement, the game
richt te eontest the walidity of the firet aerteage ae he had Rime
eelf, Hut he may affirm tas walidity of the usurious meritgage by
e@lling emly the equity of rejeaption in the mortgeged premises, or
by selling or mortgaging the Lend, subjieet im express terms te the
previous mortgace; im whieh ease the pureiaser or subsequent mort.
eagee Will be entitlet to the aquity of redemption serely, and
eapnot question the validity ef ihe préer mortgage. *

The only «ueeticn in the case Yer decision ie whether the
time ef payment of the balanee fue se thea note in question was ex-
tended st defendant's request or with nie Knoviedge and ¢oument.
The evidenee on this cueetion wae net fully brought out and there
in some eenfiiet. “Yhether the trish Judge had this point specifie~
ally in mind when he decided the cage ie not clear, ‘Shen the suea.
tion wae firet brought imte the case during the hearing by ecunee)
fer defendant - evidence which tended to shew that the time of paye
mant had been extended without defendant's knowledge or request «
ccuncel for plaintiff ebjectedt that euch evidence wae not relevant,

and the court seems to have been of the same view, but ruled that

: et evans gaiasten mi sot toaeG dh ata beauda Piu09 ama taste anteced
12d fil Ob Het, ot ed seniay smite tect tn onnm tod @ doe orem

wilt AY bili nf

GA fit BOS boat gt moe dse pObs es CB ,mngmeh ae SE
sV8Y sega ASE OTR MOL .x fxmacnen 100

eetsligdiue evede edt beescseth ow cage baagunes) ost ht ae Mela
as of doahine bios ad yetequsy onesie Gade bisd hae wokteoup “Am
to fteq oa yo of goer ge hOR gonads and anty wilt vig btw .
bak eae off Ty dun ai quan Le Koltweup od? ,sottq svacorwe co
faao aatiante’ sii ut broawenae Ge aig end ofeup ow RES egag Ae
~igder ifew @s sabato aii’ jewoliot ae ef Ante A800 fet 8b PS
Syegd Loa pstod wwe & werd wat seatte ated te asawe oat tale x bon a i
bas ,yLiatesss ,tedena vt bees eng vung test xe fine yout ath oe
Smee OAt ,FaDimATaR GavIHKY YE .wRHKH? ROM TO tonwdo ty foun of evi wi
mttihal Sagat we an Sembilan gaxd? oe bo pI toy oat taeeasn of bi te

act at rs eaexges nt any «boat ons abana “e oot

wane ote sip at? ends en et aaa . beninen ot coe bat
iepaneo i Babine ong gardai eone one otek ; fy 009 q tent)

“(xq Be 9MLS Od tact wode OF Bahand cokdw 909 nb. ve

' + teeugex <9 ogho twoent @* Sanbem'tob Pups ho ken dae

dave Lex tou new spasbive dom gedit berentse
tned ho dor sad ,wolv amma ote To amad ved oF

he would let ¢efendant @e inte that question, snd it wae aceordingly
fone. We must assume, however, that o6 this question the court

found that the time af payment hed been extended at defendant's

request. Otherwise ke Would net nave entered fudguent fer plaintiff.

Geen a careful qonsideration of ali the evidence in the
record on this question, se are of opinion thet the finding of the
trial Judge is agsinet the manifeat welt ef the evidence. Ya
think the evidence ehexs tuat tue time of payment waa extended at
Stein’s recueat and mot at the request of the defendant. Selma
Stein, who purchseed the groperty from defendant, was represented

by Ker husband, Joseeh Stein, a luwyer. te testified that he nee

gotiated for the extension threugn Jom J, task, whe was in the

reai ¢gtate fineieing buciness, and that thea the agreeuent waa
made te extend the time of payment Rein paid Cherlea Brili,
president of plaintiff company, $276 an commission for the extene
eion of the lean, smd his ganesiled eheek is in evidence, ALL the
subsequent paymentswere of course wade by Stein, tie new gener,
Maek testified that he represented Stein and a kr. Yallach
in negotiationa with Brili fer tne extensien ef the lean, Just
what connection Yallach had docs not apsear, Xaek testified that
he talked to Brill over the teleghene, that he asked Brill te have
the time «f payment extended and Brili teld him te teke the matter
up with Sarno and Aseenetein, maxere of the trust deed and notes;
that aceurdingly he took the sutter up vith Resenastein, #ho is alae
a jawyer, and told Rim tint Srili hed referred him te Karna and
himself, and thereupen Aosenetein weaid Ae would take the matter
wp with Earne and Brill; that he later sew Kesensiein, whe teld
him the lean would be extended for six months previded there wee
a ¢omoiesion ef $270 paid Brill; that afterward Stein agreed to do
this, the commission was paid by Stein, and the lean extended,

Brill testified that he never Heard of Rack; thet he re-

Eigaibroovs eaw 42 baw ,weltesup dade otal O% tnadsetoh awk Aton, op
drw0s welt ii taal uo saad 4 He vewod 9 SHG Oe Aaa oF one.
“a! Snehantob te fepanixa ahod desl Soumgeg lo mht ome dadt bau

ks *Tigai ade ‘tet df covey as, boxn tae eves tom bigow aus aadwrass@ “fmm.
: edi wh eoimpbhive eas faa 9 universblaaoa LsNoxes * moet.

exis to “gat bad? ond saute ovlaled te eis on pao sdeonp absy ae

oY ,eaapb? ve es to sry tow tae thawa odd toakope pb opbot taixt,
ta bodoe sxe sev Ianoyeg To aech t ois tens sods oommblve edt Fo ae
amie’ sdanboe' tes ond te toyaper ate 2 toa bow seoupos, #) heey,

* at eS

begneaetges ase _ daahan Tb nove yategoty ond hewectonuy outw ott

<0 on sae be Ditdaad on eee * ahedh depe ot pbesetauna 108
ang ak sew oulw , saws +s sista gator Red amd ae oie tot betetooy
aw somamorge sat wade tat ‘ate seuomdeud gutonaat’ stares a

: Leaes eotietd btag ateah twee Yo amis ost bawtae of ren

nn 19 als 40 aotastangs ee OTER oe gs09- Wily adade to teabia

nar She suapbive ak ok woods de iivgnas afd hae , meet ost 29.90,
(yoar wea vif ,atede yw shes sugeon Lo atewet nanny Feemwp

Moe Ltn xa a bee ass hodassoioes ga Jars bokiraed $008 Lots
dent ery ons te ag bane dx eae wo? ifiee ca de anoliatiogs

feud pektiawd apa Tasqye fon aeet bed tisad iad meltoanace tage,

vad of Lhiak ovina aol Pmals abated fod oat tere LLink 9 bealiad. oat
teddnm oes vane ot aid bio? itkwt tae hadmedas sopagag y pe ont
isoren a baok sours ont 2 unis enkozenmaol bas souk

bioa wat atoranenos % wae Err os nuts | {AEN ha my
. fom ewous hohiverq auigxon ube sot bebao ine od Ae, | ” i 7 | a

Hesas Le

apt of teat j sai po hips taven apelin * ten ent .

—-

eaived the Stein cheek for $270 fer sommiesion fer extending the
jean and he thought the eheex was brought in by Aarne, He fure
ther testified that he had » sonversation with Davidson, ecureel
for defendant, whe avked for an exteneion of the time of payment,
“but I would not saree te it;" that we never spoke te Puahoen
about the extension of time «ef sayment af the loan.

Davidson testified tant he represented tue defendant;
that he prepared the letter above referred te, whieh Le signed by
defendant and addressed to Karno, requesting that the tise of paye
ment be extended beeanuse he was net sure whether the sale from

Fusnnen te Stein weuld be consuumated; that he delivered the Letter

te Jeseph Rosenstein and avked Kim to make arrangmeats for the

@atensien of the lean vith Srill and barne for Pustwen; that Resen-
Stein later teld him Ae gould Ret got Karng te make any definite
arrangesente with Brill en seceunt of the faust that Srili wanted
commissions and that at «a luter ectiversation the witness told Rosen-
stein that the intter 414 not get the sertgage extended for Pasnean
The avicecee further ghers that after the inetant sult was breught,
dune 4, 1932, Stein precured a purehaser fer the oreperty and at
that time $1600 wae eaid en aecount ef the indeviedness and tae
t¥ust feed reiensed uncer the exoreas agreement that 14 sheula net
affeet plaintiff's rightea sgainet the defendant in the inetant enee.
Other paynente were mode #6 that at the time of the trial the ine
debtednese was reduced te the smeunt for whieh the judyaent was
entered,

Rosenstein teetilied that he wee a partner of Sarne and
wae interested in the property in question whe: tie acte and trust
deed were executed; thut bo wae asked by Davidson ta get an exten
gien of the lean for defeadant, «hieh he ugreed to do if Pushman
Would pay commienion for the extension, teoause fushman had seaumed

and agreed to pay the balance of the indebteanese; that he would

eid yalbasdxne wet aoleatamos vet WRG a0 dpods alere eas bevhew
wt ef .omted qd al dgunee aoe deere odd ddywodd On ban eed
Kdaauos javdbivedt atte seltaexevenn a bad of dais setiivdus tilde
faemyen Yo euit odo Yo atlewedes ae tol bode ode .tusbae'teh SOE
Saalnwt of sdega tevin en tedt "152 of serge doa bivow. 3 aud®
omeok ant Ye Tame ‘te ombt ‘te anlamerxe ote oh rete
jpivieime'ieh sc? bodawaeteer 68 SoHo HoViisend modprvet <*”
Us beegie wh dedtw ,oF hevuelet vada weadeL edt betagese ad wae
<qaq ‘te omkd BAY suai? Bah isonpor atetad of beaperbbe Bas saab toh
mont een Odi Aoddecw oxwe You aaw of oaneoed hehastxe | od tues a
qedtet sed Boreri ie od fede jbetwmaaees od bivew atest of canst, ‘ wt
ait 26% stasmygaatis Siac oF ml bodes Sax aies ameagi sigonot o .

|. mmm dit tae {omni tot owed pad Lake ott anos ee 26 noteendee |

etialted yas dum of owred doy Fea Biwia of mid Dsod soho aiase
Bodum hide souls tout oot Lo Tawoson mo Chite déhw efnsaegaet |
-t9e0d biog sacallv sid aghtawxevage tetas & 34 ‘Yeo foe enotenten
amantal 40% bebuotas syagrton ody fog tor Sh wedtad sult Perry |
,asgsotd daw tive taedomt edd t8dte aaile ewada vadhig?t gonehive oat
te han YoxdquTg oad 261 deRadeteG 2 Eoidoong ataee ,S80L [Cm
eds ban teoahadtsbat ort Yo Favcosa no dive tow OOULE ade Sade
| | em btvocle ¢h ona? Jamwowtge eattqee eat tohay Devas iot posh Feud
| esse tadbnh ode at inmbow es sd? seakeye adds aOYebalare tote
| ak ato twas ond “td eats ede tu dante oo shaw oxow nbiaitelal Te
aae Sermagy hist aad Mpdie 29k savonn disiyl oe suena ball a9 rhs ion

ite eared Lo Yoataeg « pew 64 saith be R tenga sia &
Seuts bad vten odd and Aotewenp ah ~indote Odd al nodiex
sabixe ds soy of nesbivad yw bade sew on died {bedwboNe wr
ae absent Th gh ot sbatge od diddw (tadhun tes ved news Sat oe
| pemans bait noatewt senaded jstooindda dah 0% adltanhalind” gag Bihew : ne
yh Aiwew od fads feeedheddoins wat “te sotitind sas aad of fomae »

take the matter up vith Zarno and thereupon Dovideom prepared the
Letter whieh wae signed by fushwan ond sddreesed to carte and it
wae delivered to the «witness. Se further testified, "I get the
extension for sim,” but woat he 444 or whem Be aaw does net ape
pear in the record, ex¢est that be negetiatea ‘he mutter through
Rack,

It eopeare froe the feregeing evideree that Stain teatie
Sind he precured the extension for ire, Stein through Mask,
Back correberates thie and sithough Brill testifies he newer
hearé of Mack, he further teciified tat he refused to grant
Pyushean an extension ehen eslied upon by Derideen to Ao ea.
The teatiuony ef #11 the vitnesser on this cuestion, except
Reeenatein, ig that the time «f payment wae extended Tor Giein
ana thet it was net extended for defendant, Pusrwen. Agvenstein
tertified that he got the extension fer Pushwen, but hew Be dia
this does net appear, Stein said toe comminaion of G27. Te are
therefore of epinuion that the overwhelwing weight of the evidence
ie te the effect that the extescion was orseured Tor “tela wliseut
the Knewledge er aeneent of Pushoom, tn these oireumatances Peshe~
tan Was relanssed fron hie Linbility to cay the Balanee of the
wortgage indebtedness which he assumed end agreed to pay it when
he purchased the preperty. Albeo vw. Groes, 250 Tli, App. Ba;
Migts vy, Dionne, 26 Til. Any. 368; :
112, Apo., 148; Binge y, 7el1, 28° T12. App. 261; Farmers 2.
ierghante Bank v. Narvid, {50 Thi. App. 44,

Holding ag we 40, that the finding ie against the manifest

weight of the evidence, and eines there was me fury, the Judoment

ef the Bumicipal eourt ef Chicage iv rewerecd with a finding of raat,
REVERSED PITH A FISDIRG OF FACT,

Batonett, ®. J., amd BeSurely, J., coneur,

{Hee next page.)

od? Lexaqdte moahivet aoquetnae tow enna Kew qu Teddue oct Het
92 bao ote of booeerhhe bee aucvieg? yd beayte eew so tite wetted
ods doy T® (BOL tiswodt tePaet eH eee ntiw ale 93 bevevites ‘saw
“qe fom wagh Wad ec mode ve Bib oa dane Sod" he tet tolace dee
dguerds wdtom edd hadahtegen od toctt teeexe (todo: odd no? tang
ekgnot alee gad avvehlvs gatoyers? off matt exavdgqa FI
i, dog dgxors abegs (ave tot welenotus ot terete of Beet
aeven em aehthtuad Live® Mgooks te Sas aldd eoterqtories Hoa
faeny od honctor of todd har i¥ood weetrw? et jen x6 Dened
‘oe of Of howbivet y@ neg dating here mobaiodne md deuidiiyt
Jqooxrs ,aohtacny sled se deeuswdiw end tiv Yo yaowtened gat
ales cot heberas sev taemyadr Yo watt ef? dad? ot , ated easebe
aistonsooR .oaciewt ,Youbap'ten Tyr Mebantke tom daw 2 dad Kan
Rib 6h wed tet ,spheleut tot apleadne at te off todd pORVERSe
‘go of OPS Dy abtostane SAI bhat sles anetqn Fon aseb eae
Qonobive aH? te figiew yatafetivrere sat dead aotnkae Te ete tered
‘$uodeis wlet® tot Bexvserg sew aalensdes Okt todd goaTre 948 ore
stiou% aoonhtanuerin seed? al .neatiewd Yo ¢hoeaen to egheiwomt sat
“ett to @banTa@ ec? ene of YP ETEdett ate aoe? teens ley” “aaw tat
aes GL Yeo of Booege bus bomunee oF Modety eennboddehat ogeud tom
“y8E .Gek .Lfl OR gees O eo peetA eirenere ont yoru ot
Oe \depvena lid wy eomtaues 79OR aed one one . age
“ B eromte p08 .eA VOLT CO . tree yy eee er leek eer

SUE qh .ch ORF atc 2. ati y
deotinae 043 tentega ab gotbalt oat tadd ob ew ea pak see

} Premgbat odd otut om maw wavale boats baw ,epnnntys’ ede Ye Mxgtew a
|) dont Yo gubsalt « dtbw hwexeved WP ogealay Te ecmeo enemmabadieds

ON CO TICE A BTL ER ie a ae
ace cen ok tt
By A tga ¢ SOR aed } ; ears ! iv Gam’ Re ae ee ” i Beta ass i oe Ce

S7LEG #IBDIBG OF Fact.

We find ae a feet that the time of payment of the balaneoe
of the indebtedness secured by the martgenge wean sxtorded without
| the knewle4ge or consent of the defenident, Pushsien.
|
|

ers

SESE

ah ae watt ‘ashecaraaeG? ti

sages Soe es

gh Weenie

pres he ean See

eee? eee 4

aged

ee ae ep

5 With

4 om vsti Wd) ae pi bah

vA do i

we sein ei at wc
a ais - saw

on™

$7243

MARGAARST T, MeGOVERN ond Jouxpn vy, / }/ f
MOGOVARN, as #zecutriz and “Tiowg ! a i
/ :

ef the Estate of Kichsel 5. xaGevarn,
Deceased,

a
APPEAL if Se COURT
ve.
OF COOK COUNTY.

274 1.4. 664)

BR, JUSTICE O'GOBRGK DALIVERED THR GPINION GF THER cowry.

Claim of DR. GEORGE ¥, Hak,

ye
Aposilants,

}

}
: }
Appellee, }

Judgment fer 9430 wae entered on the verdiet of a jury in
favor of Sr, George ¥. Jax, bailing the aount Re slaimed fer dental
services performed for A. &. Ford at tre request of Kichael i. Ke
Gevern, tue deceased, and for waieh it ie elaimed Ar. Koovern
agreed to pay.

the reeord discloses that Highael 4. Keuevern died testiate
Octoter 36, 1950, and bie estate was probated in the Probate eourt
ef Cook county; that April 8, 1931, clalmeant filled hie itenized
Claim against the entate for 748. It purserte to be for dental work
dene fer Melovern portonally. ‘the first charge is Kay Sth and the
last Goteber 28, 1929, amd the nusber of hours 27, <A shetestatie
eopy of this elala is in the record. beth parties seem to agree that
thie ia the first claim filed by claimant and that Ke afterward riled

another elaim in lieu ef the firs: one for $48 for dental work he
Claimed he had performed om Ferd, who was eldevernta barber, at Be«
Govern's apacial inatence and request and for which MeGevern agreed
to pay; this second sluim, “hich ie itemised, shows the first item
as of October 23, 1929, ani the last August 22, i930, and « tetal
ef $14 hours. either tiie second cluim nor any copy ef Lt a8 filed
in the Probate court in in the recerd, but the facts converning it
seen te have been agreed te on the trial. CGounsel fer tae estate
stated on a number of secasions during the trial that the seeond

@laim “was filed in the Probate court, cons up for hearing en

rer
at
Ld

weave

“d .¥ BSNMOt Sas MEEVODO .T TRRADAAM

oe \etesent ban xitiupoak ax q
‘Dae Volek .H Lealetd Yo oneal edt To

| * tana Lloggh

TRG (LeORLO HORT hE A,
: a
THUD 4000 wo

pXa .e-SOR0T0 Ae te’ ntett

OO 2 Le ere
‘t 0 a oA. I d $ c sag " vara. a oh See Ee Tan
£AMOo BHT &h 4UIKIGO ERT CHARVEGec AOMmOUTO norreut e

at ew 2 to folbvev wf? ao totegan one Ghee cot taemg hut
Ipdaeb <0ot bomlels ea favomm od? grated .xek .Y aytce® .1 to. sews
ook wi Some ie to teoupex one ta bust .& .A to? beatotreq asolyree
atevoUek th bewlelo @2 $i Mekew ved bas ,deeoeneh one loxwved
wed of beotge
etasaes belh axoveiiad .2 Loadgt dod eoeoteeks Mropes emt Oe
fuveo efaderS add ad betadorg ae esodny ald bao ,CLOL ,Co arododed
bextaeth oki Doli? gasslelo ,fOCL .8 Lirgd dad? pydaven xoed RS
dtow Latmeb iol of of atnogqivy i =. Oba) tat odetee ect sealage mate
add bas Av@ yoN al agxedy textt est .¢Liadowtsy eteveisd 10% ened
gi¢etactodg A .vS wtwod to sodium aud has , QOL ,88 sedoted teak
gat? setge of wwoa aolicwqg dtod .bxeoer ouft af ef wtale alat Yo y@oo
| peLkt brwwid'ta od sud? bas tuemtate yd bokkt mtake gett? odd eb white
ot duow Latand x0 0624 Yet ome dati? ead Yo welt at miate seddone—
“oll fa ,todied e'arevelot! paw ode , biel ae bemre’eg bed of bomhake
“ peetys axe veleu Meldw 19% baw gesupet haw sonndent Latoogn a! mreved ~
mesi fartt edt evode ,boatoog af dodiw ,abalo Bagoen elit yyoq od
Latod & bas ,OCGL 88 Femgud tant edt bas , CBOE oe endorsed Yo wa
hott @2 Sh te Yaoo Ys YoN aloto hmoser olds codtlok .exwor $48 Yo
#2 gakweepseo toot odd duet wien ous #2 ab stwbe sdereniiaaniatines
eters of? tol Losanyd

Janusry 11, 1931, and was diamiosed,* Obvieusiy thia date da er-
reneous because the firet claim was mot riled wntild Apréi 8, 1931.
But the discrepancy is net Llpertant and we base our opinion on the
facts as they seem to Auve been agreed on by counsel, amd that they
are that the firet claim was fer ¢430 based upon dental werk done
for tevoworn personally, the tteus of whieh are entirely 4\cferent
from the items mentioned im the secema elaim, whieh is for 6486 fer
work claimed to have beer fone for Ferd at LeGovern's request,

Gm the hearing in the Cirewit court when the estate wae
putting in ite 4efenea, it developed that the claim certified by the
Probate sourt in the traneeript in the srenord filed im the Sireuit
eourt wae the firet claim instead of the second, VUounsel Yer ciaime
ant then, by leave of court and over ebjestion of counael for the
estate, amended the claim to show that the work was done on Ferd
and that the iteme aggregated S14 houre ae iteaized in the seeond
elain.

it ie contended by coureel Sor the estate that thie sasendment
Was erroneously allewed, %« tuink thie cemtention eminet be sustained,
Seunse) for the estate was not taxen by surprise becauce this smended
Glaim had been filed secondly in the Probate court. Seth claime
were for $420 and the evidenee tends to show tuat the Piret claim,
which wag for vork claimed to have heen dene for kr. keGevern, was
prepared in the manner at the suggeetion ef lir., Holevern's seere-
tary so as ta make 1% anvear that the verk was done ver kr. Mee
Govern personally, and not for kr. Ford, The elsim in substance
was not changed, the setate was in ne way injured by the smendment
and, under the lew, the amendment wae proveriy allewed, J2lsair y,
Semmott, 254 011. 78; bet. of Jonnson vy. Silpatrick, 280 I1l.App. 416.

Couneel fer the eetate further contends that the el reumetanees
whieh surround the claim “cover it with grave wuepiciton® as to ite

merite; that the work claimed te have been done for BH. A. Fora

~te wl efeh aids ylevolvdd "“.beeehaeih anv deo ,fCL Lk yume
AEGL ,8 fdxqaA Ligas heLit tom saw ‘tate eit et? oecaced pres
ect mo aolaiqa ten asad ow bas soetioeet sou af younqetoatS ‘eaa” ew
qed gers bar ,deunvoo yd oo hootys assed ovac of mon yod? os atost

nteh Siew fatoeh moquy hetad O6b§ 16% saw alate garit ot docs whe
daoyoe Tih ylow ita are de hie te waesi of ,ellenverteq aromedek cet
¢o°% CBSE tot eh Mobaw ~aiele Sacoee att of henolgaam ewett ant moet
deevpet a atevovet te biol tet sunt ased evad of honkaty stow

eaw esudee ett amdw droge immaio ent af galaaod oad wo | me

eat ed bor itixes atedo out Saks Regedeveh ah ,eean'teh off af aobseme
thwokd ost wt beLtt Weve: edt at dattennert odd mt arveg atadedtt
ondite tot fenawed ,faoone ef? to bantent wtefe tarts oat aay SiMe
eit tot fennvoe to avlsoside weve bux gxvoo Ye evasl ud , melt one

_ Biel ao ooh eaw dtow of ted? wede of oheto oft bebaome ,otates
bnoose ond nt Posies! as wad 448 hotagerane amest odd tad Rew

il $agech stair whit sad wtad wo ont xo? Lanawon my hobastaos ob O28. okey
| -bentateus od teamo aolsnesace etdg Anis eV .bowolln Viencesout®. saw
it hohnewn sist envsood sultgtee y¢ uedas fon gaw agedeo odd 16? fecaued

stulato saytt exo fans wore of abaed eguobive ods baw 08d) to? stew
yom sMtevo0ol ,zu vol saoh mod evar of hemtalo zor tot paw cp Rete,
soxoes e'atevolipd . til to, aol ¢aeagee ond te. seneem odd of hexegeer
+04 1H Te? onOh saw drow gt tad? xwoqqn, + exe of ax. on ened

_ Souaindya ab mieto oA. .bge% . TH sot tom, daw «etLenoaaeg, axeved
psn odd yd detehal yaw ea ai aaw atntne, , «degaedto tom caw
| abe dS sbovolte wpa 2a* faomhuorm on? » Med O82 todAN dam

| LOEB ho f8 OBR goles | momcdeb to fal ;O0 Li bes, somes
i soonesemuor}>, edt jads abartaoe » eenteat erates eae xet cenawed .. ii alte
abt of 20 “aotetgaus evera atiw #2 reves" abose wnaeecieiiane
bol .A .H 40% omoh cased ova of homiaty xrow odd tad sethnom

aminto A208 .ttwoo ofedet edt oh ysheoore botit t beet mb ait

covered a period of shout a year from Cetober 23, 1950, to August
22, 1930; that the claim ahowld bave been presented during ir.
keGevern's Lifetime, ard that "It does not eeom rengonable that the
decedent would let such 6 matter stend unpaid if he (MeGevern) was
the liberal charseter that weuld sseaume se large « 4¢bt in behalf
of kis barber;* that sueh bills are paid with ereat sromptness, We
think tiere ie merit in tais contention, bat we would net be war-
ranted im finding that the verdict and judgment are against the mand.
fest weight of the evidence in view ef the positive, uneontradicted
evidence given by apparently disinterested -itmesses that kr. Mee
GCeverm requested that tae work be done and omid he would Pay fer it.
Roreover, the decedent's seeretary, wio might Rave been able te
threw some light on the matter, var not cailed aos a witness, |

What we have said 4iseoses of the ep tentien that the court
erred in refusing an inetruction offered by the estete,

A further contention is made by the estate that the court
erred in permitting Dr. Corsant, a dentist, to give expert tastinony
ae te the value of the dental work 4one by plaintiff on the ground
that the witness was net qualified, the wiltnees testified that he
Ware & licensed dentiet im this State and hed practiced Kie professian
generally from 1902 to 1914, sinee whie: time he hed specialized on
investigations, He further testified that he was fanilier with the
usual, custemary charge in Uhieago for work ef the kind performed

by Plaintit£’; and further, that he had examined Ford's mouth and

teeth before the work was dome; thal he saw glaintiff perferm creme
ef the work and had examined ford's teeth after the work was completed.
in these circumetances, we think the objection was properly everruled.

the judgaent of the Cireult eourt of Cook county is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
Matehett, ?. J., and Medurely, J., seneur,

feogml of , CUCL 88 aeege9 onx't rey @ toeda Re Selwg w honoree

.t4 yalvih betaseeng mead owed Biuos wtalo emt aacd pOERE BR

eat fact widanonset avee Sou seah PL" dmit daa ,emlse thd at orsevetod
ane (wreroted) a4 Ii Biagqaw bowers tedtes 2 cous tos binow tawbooeh —

Binded ak toh & ewtel of euwes Kiger tend wetownane Satedhs odd

6Y \aseatqueta taety Adie bheqg evr OLind caee sedd- * psedted abd te

-uee od 2e0 Kigow ew gud ,moliaggaus eis? wd o item 64 ovedd vakds

eénax off Senkayge ote S4emyhul bas tuthaey est godt gnibnlt al bedaas

bedeibavtaosse ,evltiaes oad to waiy of ooaphive ef3 to tiigtew tae

age .a som? sevecatin Setastetabakh. yistaeqaqas qd wovin sonpbiye
oh eet “Vad hisew of Dine bee oto o¢ Siew aad tacd Apleenpet etey

of eka mend uved Cayis ouK ,YEAFeTees a fachegeh oad stevooxell

‘,aneniwa so so Lkeo' Joc saw ,tedtem one op degli omen wend

F2R6o OMT Tass: aobtnetneo elt Te song ie bla ered ow. Kame: oSminw
| hate odd Yd dere Tie mlloursend me gakades mh berms
fxuoo end sexs sdaseo oi? yd sham at solsimmsaos weddtwt A.) (>
‘Qaewitasds duecae evig of ,telined a ,@neuied sth gales hateqg al bere
Ptirery edd oo Telsalaicg ye aooh Brow fesaeh ete Yo peler ost 02. em
@ ett heltisae? neem ir ont ebeliliaep som ame seondie ond. tnalt
minuetorg st heottvarg hast one otadt oki? mi datsesd deanends # mae
ae besiinioega had of oat? dokee oonia ,§f0i eo ROVE mock vileteaeg
edt Agtw sabikue? sat af cade hebhasent tesidewt of. wenottontisorms
bemtetieg hidd ods Lo Atew iah oganls) af ayaa. Yieenseue .fasgey

bun diwot at hred berlanree het on Sate. ,cecetet. baa ARR LI nie dg, Ye
1 iu oman mtotzeg Tiktnhela wee sai sads jacoh aew daow of! ere led aoa
| ,Sa0efqmen enw xtew oct we tte dived @' oto’ Bovikune Bed baa Stow bit

| | bedi we YLtogoty sa Hotdootde ent Antes av ,esemntamuente enadd at
: a Ladi x Me 4 Purse.

-bewt hile af yiauen. dowv te dayoe tivetie edd to Ja

AEA TAEMOTUC at ae MPN | oF ep A gestalt
oR 80%,, ey jes ae ak, 4 tioiosei
& Ce ae te Gi haha

a7 A ay ew Bebb enue VO RE Rey Ki

37312
PAUL LAZAR, ) f
Plaintiff in Error, )
}) ERAQGK TO ABURLCIPAL COURT
ve. ; 7
} OF CHICAGO,

FIRST URICH TRUST AbD baVinegs
BARK, » Corporation,
Defendant in Ervrer.

BR, JUSTICR GO 'COREGA DELIVERSD THE OFLNLOR OF THE CouRT,

April 19, 1933, slaintisf trought sult against toe defend-
ent to raeover $800 with interest at 3° per annum from December 5,
1936, te December §, 1931, and 57 thereafter, There waexa 4ireeted
verdict in favor of the defendant, and slaintif? proseecutes this
writ of error.

The gubstence ef slaintiff's statement ef claim ta that on
December 5, 1930, he deposited $600 with the defendant and thereupen
the defendont issued its certificate of depowit for $500, payable
te plaintiff's wife twelve months ufter date, with intereat at 3¢
until maturity and §° theresarter; that at the time it was agreed
between plaintiff end defendant that defendant would pay the ecer-
tificate of devesit te claintiff'’s wife twelve months after 4ate
wpon condition that plaintiff's wife continuously lives with him
as hueband and wife for a year; that if gleintiff and his wife aid
not continue te so Live together, defendant would retura the 8800
te plaintiff.

[It io further alicged that at the tise of the issuance of
the certificate of deposit it wee delivered te a third party in
eperow, who wae to keep it safely during the twelve menthea an? there-
after deliver it to plaintirfts wife in ease she lived continucualy
with plaintiff for a year; that February 1, 1931, pliaintiif's
wife left him witheut cause and refused te live with him there.

after; thet defendant knew vlaintiff's wife had Left nim and

refused te live with him, and that December 8, 1941, plaintiff?

8 £E08

fog Wore ak Tbs ahess | Le Re

Z ate a ee We US

Bec 7 e moana eT a ‘at
00 As L P § * @ bi +18ECR ad Soeboe Tod,

, Bch! Fh ge sigs we inn ape ‘ fi
i cha

,UDADTHS “RE

j : y ’ ‘ We 3 4 re Pee Me Sa pers
‘ Sbae'teb aay tialege thus dtguerd Yidalete 2heL wet tixgs ia

a xedunosit mort outa tem 88 Se teezo dict dhe nag xovose7 re ‘ta

‘ Ebhowe
Bedeetih a tes etext .t9g'taoredd ba bas Heat a redone ot Obek

“ahs Botuoenose Yildabesa | hoe .Saiahan Yoh ong te xovet ‘at “sotbaew
eure San -toTts “toe shoe

fe tacit ai wiais ‘to jaldtiads Waals by dehotedsh ont pie.
asyieredd has taoduetod adg Agdw OBE betiesush od ,OEeE Bi todanoot
eidaysa , 0028 «ot slags Yo oiacttitves abt bavand Vuobus ten: oat
ee te tanxegul iziw jodeb tag'te esdaom eviews othw af Tttdniele of
“‘peerge saw $i omits ont’ de Sad pees inetads 2a Some ei Ftudaat aioe
ete0 ad Yad SLiow Yaehow'toh gad tanhseied bas Pittalale moowsed
Stab tote artdnom eviews otiw aM idaiaty of ttaogeb te obaotthy
wid dete bewlt ylauowaltace oiiw at ttisatote asit ‘aortinaye | &
bhp thw ahd ban Vitdmlelg 2 tach pracy # to stiw bie bieder aa
aro add atudex bhuow saubas eb aoaivoned svit on of "suatbhies’ tou

rE? i Ey late
BA g al % ‘
to donauaed out ‘te aks ont fs fault bevy Lhe reste ab Pf RE

oa wet, Baxdsis # 08. Sanevhsen: nev th ¢heoqad Yo sound eto a:
\| aetott bin itd nin eviews “ae vata ‘elo'tee 91 ghee ot naw ¢ ¢ dw \worees.
ni ylawouatsa09 bovis oma sean at otie Wi ivevenied 0 at By) sovk zon snr

g! Yhivata nite er , L etavidet tard Shaan: ry ‘tet basi
: P4atadam
-etens mid ddiw awts of ‘beastet ‘peak paven “queda tw mbit {vier po hg
fue mid Stel ted etiw o' Viivulele woad taabaeteb tats yt

Yiktaboly ,{8CL 8 aodmsoed dastt baw ,akes Medword t 0d deantet Be

|
!

demanded the return of the $906, whies demand wae refused,

taly 28, 1935, deferdant filed its second anended alfiégevit
of merits in whie it denied that Ueeember 5, 1930, plaintiff de-
povited 3506 with it, eae he alleged, bat averred the faet te be
that the 3400 was deposited vith defendant by glaintiff's wife. I¢
further denied teat 1% entered inte any agreonent with slaiatirf
that it would psy him $500) conditioned aven plaintiff's wife cone
tinuing to live with bin fer one yeer, It further set up that at
the time the certificate was issued by defendant 1¢ wan requested te
plaee on its record the notation that the eeriifigate war held by ao
third party; and that defendant was requgated sot to pay the egere
tificate in case it was icat, without its presentetion, sli of
Which it alleged was in furtneranee of some ce racnsgl arrangement
between plaintiff? and sis wife, the detaile of whieh were unknown te
deTendant.

Tae affidavit of merite further set up that February 6,
1931, plaintiff's wife, with the tuird party, presented the eertifig
eate of deposit whieh defendant paid te plaintiff's wife,

Cotober 31, 1933, thea case came on for trial before a cudge
and a jury and at that time defendant wae given leave toe apd it
filed an additienal affidavit of merits in whieh it sas averred that
daugust 24, i931, a Judgment wae entered in fever ef the defendant
and agaimet plaintiff, in «hich it was s@t up that in o suit brought
by plaintiff againet defendant, wherele plaintiff cought te reesver
the sume $600, rlaintiff's statecent ef elaim was stricken fer ine
sufficieney and judsment was mtered in faver of the defendant fer
costs; that after the certificate cf depesit for $506 waa Llesued,
and before the year hed expired, it was said to plaintiff's wife at
her requeet and the request of the third party whe held it in ea.

crew. The affidavit of merite further set up that the foctea in

Plaintiff's atetement of claim, “even if proven, discloss that the

douvtex aaw Hamah doddw GOR watt te wane en odd

tives Tie behave haones WIE BOLIY Sushoe'teb Rot); at vehi
th Pibeniete ,O8eL 4 tedmened gust belneb $2 oldw at ‘athtom to
ad of sont add bowteve tud henelle wu ae ah site oat ‘betioeg:
$i othe e' Yt ated ye iep hare heh bio hed Lecgnd asw ‘oae edt tant
‘TenlelG Mite snemeeryR Yas egai heoxetas #2 sai? bokash orto
seo eiiw a' ritgatete Ona uw hensksibaw Qoes ‘mba wee ‘binow oh “gottt
oe dans qu tee wecieawt 22 pteey soy vot ate dhtw avis ad aatuads
ot betes une raw 22 Pawbae teh US houned aaw ateolthexoe ene oot ae
Yd biod enw otebltisado’ Hy YeHe nolyurom ae brvseT ut mo pon
otey aitt YRg oF ton be taeugas wee Santce'leb tattt hme ieetag betas
to {fa ,uoldedneanta ef sweds iv feo wav £2 oxanomh 4 ved
fenmaneexa Lanseree omon “te sbaateitnrt mb-aaw bee tie ot Mohs
oF mwdpine erew ristiw te wLietsh ont weber wa bow ese Rew

Ae
Ka tats

(8 erate’ fect qu fee teddiwd weisee Yo shvndbttte wdt
-Liidte9 od? hesuseore Vebieg Bids sity ANEW eo Th et Ttksbate (weRE
“ law a Yiiselale 69 oteq faakus'teh dy lir tinogeh ‘te een
sgiat = Ototed falts Yet ao Seas Sawe 28 ,LECL (£8 sedosod > Nek i.
fi fas of “svadt nevi enw Sadbaoteh oud? sad? te bas emt & has
fai? hextova wow ¢! doldw al agixem Yo sivebiTia tenoleibha ae fe
‘guapaetos ot 26 vovet th Seneeed eew Poomyhut oe ben: b8 demgua
digword tioe a ai fads ow dee sew $2 dgivw al Mitalese ‘bandage The
se¥obet of Pegs Tritaka ly ateredw ,tawteoleh sentege. Mebaele we
ont et Hedehive Gow mtate Xd dammerede: wi trhealale 4208G> tase: aie
‘Rot tacbay teh 682 Yo tore ak hotmeaw mana Sep mybat, bre quae) .
sSouinet eae Goes to? Bfeoted te atkelvitees oat teste Heed yateoo |

te otiv oi vebeaiete of hiay eaw #2 ,bexteny het tomy oul ‘exited bie

“ae al sk ied one wie BxlMd odd Yo Peewper eat” baw seoups |

at duct ond duct qu dou raesi/t od ttnie ‘we vad DVT psa vox

ox? Jad enotonlh ,wevozq Yi neve™ waite te hig biainalt aa pt ered a

Plaintiff's cisim le ene in the nature of a parel trust in peregonal
property, and the Municipal eourt of Chicage dager net have juris-
dietion to emferece a parol trust in peracnal property, and a court
of chancery would be the only court ao having jurisdiction. *

fhe defenge set up wae that the Judgeent entered in the
firet suit was ree adjudicate. In supsert of this defendant intro-
duced in evidence plaintiff's tuird amended statement ef claim filed
in the first suit, and the Judgwent of the court sustaining defend-
ant'e metion to strike such «atatcvent of claim, and the judgment
entered in favor of the defendant for coste. in the third amended
statewent of claim plaintiff?’ alleged that en December &, 1930, ke
devesited $800 with the defendent; that it issued ite ¢ortifieate
of depesit for that sum, payable te plmintift's wife within one
year upon condition that sse lived continucusly with him during the
year; that she left him December 10, 1930, without fault on his
part, and that February §, 1931, he demanded the $500 fren the tenk.

On the trial slaintiff contended that plaintiff's third
amended statement of eleim was stricken on the ground that the euit
wae prematurely breught because 1% was brought and detersined with
in a year after the ieeuance of the certificate of desealt. On the
other hand, defendant contended that wlaintiff's third umented
atatement ef alaim and judgment entered in ite favar waa on the
ground that plaintiff's claim invelved wae a “trast claim” of which
the Municipal court had no Jurisdiction, aid o witness testified
for plaintiff and amether witneaa for defendant, tending to
@appert thelr respective centeitions.

The trial Judge stated that in the firet suit he had stricken
Plaintiff's firet and second amended etatements of claim, “and I
weuld not have given the plaintiff leave to amend hie Statement of

Glaim if I decided the euit wae premature,” and thereupon he direeted

the verdict for defendant, judgment was rendered on the verdict, avd

fanowusg ai geuxs Lotae ae to etdad asi ai emp af ‘mt lo ah tte

<a", owas ton asob ogno tao » sxwee ham he tah, watt hae atireqorg
duos » bas Oh Salli lah Somerton at daure foxme a oetotas af Mabte aR

ost rt beredae sasagbat matt deas anv qu tee sade tod oar vad

wou? at tnabsn teh a hsid te fronque aa -aiaeibul.be Aer enw hye text,
balk’ utelo te fuametade Rohagenn bald wi Visite ig eoush ive uh poouh
ohie ted palates eve srw ons Ye oes arg ioe, Ibsvid one atten sous oy ah
: daoug but aud baw abate re thn tas oun exit a8 votgen _o! tap
‘bebasas babs aut al 23003 ret sno ne toh auit to wove? at honed

seo pein
“pi (ober a xedesoed bt) tod pogo Lin et salase abate te B evreg 1 | 8

siaoitiates oak howonk #h sais $nnbuss 1088 ext Btw oe | es tnogeb
emo abide eile ei Tiemetg o8 aktegen 1a sass wo? nego) Ve,

oat anita sia datw ‘Wevount sage haves wha fasts ‘mols2b200 90 k om, SAeY
ata ao tive ‘duedd be 980L ,vs tednnn oft min Stel sts vas AO,
ciliad sid aot GORE ostz hohanuek on eet ¢% greatdet toad hae pitag
badaia et Ytdsaielg dacs habae2av0 Tidatelq, Aokrs dt 00

‘ vp heel
$iww “nals ass pawors ez an meiotiae saw miko in te. jasaesate | tages,

ay id
odsiw bea) sexe ssb bas ‘Sitguond sew 2 eanaged ddquord Reaatenere naw
ens wo ssi heowed 1 ogaotthixe0 outs te eanownel ont ‘segta Wey. & st.

boheme bunag ar Yutate te sue be haw t109 tnshaetas baat reste,

add a6 sew rovat att ak beregaa Aaorghoh, baa abate 8 *

sta btw to “stato sautt” 2 onw haviowal sbinke at riisaiace tad - fe vo
4 See Oe me EGO

of alban :#uabaston ‘102 anecs tw weKions bo ta

, 2 Bee
80s 9100 ovis

oqeat at Rrem: o0 See.
He “moe ts hast ot ‘tive text oxit at sac posase gout kabee a OE

T bas" sete fo ) si xonasais boduome bite ew bas dart? oN ttten :
To Iuoussnse ets bans oe owner Tebeatale eat wets ovat ton biuow
my bagoorib od neque Test has * ,oxwtane rg sow thus wat | 4 E12 ates.

pes

ee i

“bostisesd aenat iw ® hae nol sotbetrut on ew twos Laqtot Lica a 908

" aotgorbatrut gatved oe $108 hove eat o¢ BLaow “wresaaide @. .

Maw Faber ort xe borehars ee + Paneybat, sfaeban rob ‘x0T dolbaey, of . |

plaintiff preseeates thie writ of errer.

Plalatifr'e third anended statewent ef cleim in the firat
@uit wae stricken by anether Judge ef the Runicinal court. The
trial Judge in the inetant ease struck the firet and seeoend state.
mente ef claim filed ty the siatntiff in the firet audit. The
reagen for etriking viaintiff’s third awended statement ef oladm
aves het appear.

Ypon what theory plaintiff's claim was contended te be a
"trust claim” we are unable to comprehend. It wag a clain, ordinary
gait Tor the return ef $506 in accordance with the terme of on exe
press agreenent and abvicusly the Bunisipal court hud Juriedietien
ef the first ease, Fe sleo think it ebwigus that plaintiff's firet
sult wae net prematurely brought beemuee under pleimatift'a theery
ws shoen ty hie statecente of cluim he wae entitled to the retum
ef the @800 from the defendant bank if and when hia wife did net eane
¢imue to live with him for « year after December $, 19630, when the
eertifieate of deposit was iavued. And glaintiff alleged that she
Left him without eause December 20, 1936, and that he demanded the
money Trow the tank February 5, 1931, if Bis theory of the cage
@ue right, he was then entitied to his mansy and, ae stated, his
first sult was not prewaturely brought. Unleres the firat mult was
premeatursiy breught, the judgaent rendered in that ease would be
res adjuiiestsa in the instant esse even if that judgment was errone-
ous, ~ the Judgment being etili in faree and sffeet.

In these circusstances the directed verdict was warranted,
and the judgment of the Kunicipsi sourt of Chicago must be affirmed,

JUDGMENT APFIRERS,

Matehett, FP. J+, and Keturely, J., coneur.

‘ners ‘te tine abst easuneaera vibe
dertt oat nt aiato la fassatars besusas bride ot titeatast iia
“oat fuss Leotolavit ant to aghut toddons vw aviebete saw thee
ontage haeooe baa atl? ‘odd Yourse seao fastant ‘end ak on “tatad
ea? .thum saxl? ott al Yrigaiete ama ve hort abate * —
; bake Yo: fuemjege bebsean Naitdt eretitalete aatitee tot mavast
i vtascae ton wom
| a ed ae bobap sae aaw aha ko a VibdateLe wtoodt taste aoqd |
eran beo abel & aow $f shes 0 THB ‘o¢ sidaun ote ow “abate tewse®
“x9 aw ‘te aareg seit ats agashtoose wt aad te muutor oil ot shue:
nolteibe ixut hed gauen Laqigtau® exit nwetrds baw gusaestye rove
_torkt a! Trlsatelg sada sxotvdo as Makes ants oF “eune f sont? out we
einssdd a ttiealeiq sebmu pavsood teigwond eietusanery ton saw tw
4 “pendent alt o¢ boftisas enw on alain Xo siaonet ade aat wt areata “a
| i atten fom bib etiw ela wane hae th done aw t0 Tod ods ont oad oad we
| "Gib aoa (Obed .a Sedmnned costa Bi9y a xe subst so bw orks of pun
otin tests bone tLe ¥EbtatsLe bad howto l saw "}taeqes to oteorusts:
at fehacemh ei tacit baw O8OL OL aetunpe® sence tuorit tw ata 9
i ene esd ‘te mene abst tz + f5@ a erowndtet dans arts “et youom
| ‘sie botasa BO . dun yason alt at eveser anit enw ot ais naw
saw sion texk? ants esetau .tityuord vere ont tos av ‘Stee terks
od bigew Ree est at bovehaet tosmatut ext? . tiguord dowsenere
ssaotTs ese taomybirt ‘binds te v8 nano sangeak edt wk beans: a
, oe

does firkas pate’ ak iitte pated txsaybut Lend - agen
ig bp

ih hes anrcew ane golbioy hetoorth edt enanatecrorto overt a
| 1 : we ty Oy Pe oy
Vee a ov Jaum ogee be te sruuee Gage Rae ent te fonmobut ead vo

Re RS RT eo Pan Pte say
LA renbat
pie Re we oR aiete,
twetion yeh. alee tae Sal sftedosai
a: ten aeye mle piu & te eho ED

oe a ke eS Se | do lbaor re

S7400

Ae Aa HOPPRAR,
Apveiles,
ve,

POWER GARAGE CORPARY,
a Corporation,
Appallant.

EN, SUSTICR O'CORBOR DALIVERED THR OPITRZON OF THE SQUAT,

Plaiatiff breagkt an action against the defendant to reo
eever the value of on autowobile rebe while he ehaimed wae in Hise
aatesetvile when 44 wae gut in defendant carage snd that when Be
get the esr the next day the rebe was aleving. He claimed $110,
The defendant denied Liability and filed a set-off, alleging taat
after plaintiff elaimed to haye loet the wobe defendant leaned bin
two ether robes of the value of 340. Afterward, on sotien of
Plaintiff, the seteeff was etricken end me eomelaint ja made in
this respect. The case Gas tried before the court sithout a jury
and there wan « finding and Jucguent in plaintiffte faver far 2116
and the defendant apocals,

The regord discloues that om February 4, 19435, plaintiff,
who lived in Kansas City, and whe was atooping at the Lake Shore
Athletic Club, delivered his Cadiiise sutcosetile ta the doorman
ef the club, whe eslied up the defendant garage and one of ite
ompleyees came ts the ciub and drove sleintiff's eutemmbile te
the garage where it wae kept during the might. vn the next fay
the autenoehile wae returned te the club and eshertiy thereafter
plaintiff disceversd thet the rebe was «ome and netified the
garage of thie facet, Search was made or the rube, bat it was not
found.

The avidenee further shows that plaintiff's mather bought

the robe froa Rondel Bree. fer $1062, and gave i+ te her som for a

Charistmwas present im 1932, There ia me dispute as te the foregoing
Taete.

HAMTRON GA ok

Mi yar

Syuieeasyi gil
sous ANG

vs ae

A i,

> pe rd
ytd Bh os
A ag

cas: bs i ay Lace a Xie CR RAR he Oi RN RR. ee
eTAUOO SHY YO MOLEC MT CURVE AOKweOo!O GOlveut .ae

| Rae aes:
1 NOS I

«ot of Itebme ted ol? Paidage BOlfoe ae tdguend Thavaiose

| whi of eee baateds oc cde eden sitdquedss me Te ior. emt: :
ik ea eats Bee Sera diniiailiahdedl eh Peg Gaw es) anew estonoten

, 64f£8 bemiats © .yilaelo sew aoe aot yet ee ‘wads cna 2
Pane nikge fle TG sea M Sa lit Ae QPltideks bedoah thodae teh Dod
Kit Domded deihas leh eter alt sek armed of pombe de “Tutatete rode
te Abliem Bo ,PteeTOIIA LEE Te acta Osh ‘te eodon wate .

2 sha ef tale timeg om bag medipdets aa eeat80 ae Thee

slbenys Siredt te semoy eel eteled bela? aoe eaee ont © stooneo abate
Silt gut stewed of Yiitalote at saeanent san gether? & 2a oteds: —
av ake sone SiR Set | a ete sanbi tob! 6S ham
ietentace ae — at Satie seawlve th br ober oat: we eK Balk

iba deen pedo a0 JN bm ei Qetee broom dinetnaaed —s.
Aegtaswedy yLiveds bas dulo eat oF ohouUteS enw OLddoantes wd
at eer we ae eee
foe daw! Hh gud’ AtOy oct 202 eham saw seman’ a ete

ie aa

A witness for defendant testified that he waa night manager
ot defendant garage and #ehruary 4th, when plaistir¢'s ear was
brougnt inte the garage he examined 14 aA there waa no rebo in
the car at that tine; that "1 exauined #11 the automebiles that
ere delivered at the garage; thai is my duty. i exasined beth
the ineide ond outside ef a14 care delivered to the gerage;* that
he exacined about 60 or 70 care each nignt; that he rewewbered the
particular car because it was a guod Uedilies car.

Piaintiff and his metner teatified that shortly after the
robe wes lost they called at the garage anf telkad with ke. Barnard,
the general wanager of the garage; tin’ he told them tuat the garage
Wasa respengible; thet it was defendant's fends tant they Bould make
goed the lowe; that Ae was gatiefled the less gecurred in the garage.

Barnard decied taat he had made sug etatenenta and denied
he had admitted any lisbility om the part of defendant, but stated
he told pisiatiff and his wether that ha would try to legate the
robe and gave instrugtiona te defendant's exployees te see if it
eouid be Taeund,

she eourt, in deeiding tae case, expresely found that the
rebe waa lost in tne garage. “hile plaintiff testified hy deseei-
tien, his mother testified in eoan eourt, In these clreuswtances
we find the contention ef defendant that tae finding end judgment
are aguinat the manifest welght ef the evitence, cannet be susteined
en4 therefore, under the low, we are net warranted in 4icturbing the
finding and Judgwent in plaintiff's favor.

The defendant farther contends that the court sheuld have
found for the defendant aa a sntter of law, beoenuce "There is ne
evidence ef acceptance by the défendent of the autemebiie reve in
guootion, and the duties and responsivilitien of a bailes caonet be

thrust upon the defeudent witseut ite knowledge er consent:" that

there ie mo evidence defendant hed motice that the rebe was in the

toQeanen eng te wew wf dade ho Steed deasehesn "ted set weand tw A rae
naw io of ULbtatedg wbity Med yuaWnde't bin ‘sgeteg: satan iy
al odor on Baw ered hits 7h bendtwws ef ogetag odd ofat ‘Pilger i
tate e¢2idouedus odd Lie Boatunan 2 sad pealld tadd te X90 8
died hoalcaxe a youd ha al ied {agen ‘odd $a ‘buco vitel i
ausie * tegirnag - One wd: perovitoh wine tle 26 ehletue baa eblewd odd
sit paradise a's ot teed poryla done, wane, ot a6 BB. twede bemkeane at
tao GeliibwS bows « ame of wausoed wo untucliteg
eit? testa ~ibvede fads SaTi¢ded thulden abd bas Tilinieks ma
»taatad. ttt daly felled bas syrtay wis ax belies rend “geot ‘Soe edet
ayezay eile dud wade Shot ad é att peyemy and to ‘we ganast sensi od
ana bfvew yuele nln ghat’ ‘wt danbne tok enw $2 todd "\eidianbe Bi ‘a
| sogatay sad at hewwwpeo ood ant polYeiges aa om Sastd Lisaned rue
| ult) is’ iting “Hide ‘Wilant ‘alt “Ut rads We Dende OP
Betata duit ,fintinotes "to Freq ond ho WhEdaLL yaw belt taba bale WE
alld shaded of Yt Sivow on tad¥ dediow eka paw Wekedderd DEW
* TE ed of ieh ome a? a ad saahucialing = ‘tl aie
“ett gad? have? yLiessgxe ,oseo oat gitiiigek af ~ftuoo map? nai ‘sta
alaoyeh ¢f bextithes Wisately OL segetny odd ak toot saw 06 <
625 a0} easier le ager? al Sas00 aoae om wt itaod todd om ala
tami fut het gakbat? odd oad Suabuwted * :
Restetsvn 9d tounes sotto’ den ye te ily teow “feo Lbean ong ‘ten. one +
est aatdeudalh al ‘Setnertaw fou stn ow mel att aehew .er0! weak hi
“aovet a Vievatete at domaghul, ‘baa pat
ovod Divolie xyes Sd tuclt ebundand toddiat tnabew teh ont
on at ‘prot pawaoed Wek Vo ta sgai a be a ae
wh odor bEtWentua ont) ro guehaeteb oc ¥a oon’ % obs
ad tonnes outiad a Ye aols tLidianeqnst Cry ‘ao ktus ott ham. vm ki ay
sans *irasanes Coe sphe toa eet suena te — vandhal deur iy

‘k gk, ey

aw ak ai’ ole ade Thad Seton’ Beit sa hsre'ta i

ge at oe mee | a
AY fh AR bene ok ea

ee ae

aatemebile and that in the absence ef sueh netiee, the defendant
eanmnet be sharged as bailee, In sunpert of these contentions the
defendant cites Lienican € ral =. H. Coe v. Carrow, 75 112, 348,

and other cases. in the Michigan Central §, 5. ease, & passenger
om a Pailread teok his trunk, whieh centained jewelry of the value

of $30,000,to the station. Se gave the railread ne notice of the
eontents but cheeked the trunk as baggage. The trumk end ite eontente
were destroyed by fire while being traneserted snd it waz held that
the railroad company wae not liable, it net having been shewn that
it wae guilty of grees neglicence in respeet te the erixin ef the
fire. Ubvieusly that case ie not im point. ‘here was nothing te
indicates that there wae fewelry valued at $30,000 or at any other
eum in the trumk, while in the instant case Lt is commen practice
for rebea to be in sutemoeblies, This ia ehown by the fuet that dew
fendent'« night canager testified, a8 abeve quoted, thet it was his
duty te exanine beth the inside and outeide of all care delivered ts
the garage and that he did ee in the inetant case. Yhe other oasee
cited by the defendant are tc the same effeet and ebviously are not
in saint.

Pefendant alec scentends that the damages “are groesly exe
essaive;* that there is mot a acint\ lla ef avidenee in the reeerd
aes to the value of the rebe; that claintiff's mether, on being agked
ma te the value of the rebe, was not vermitted to anewer, on 4efande
ant's ebjection.

The court 414 @rroneeusly sustain objections tq questions
put te plaintiff's mether as te the value ef the robe, but she did
testify, without obgection, end vroverly so, thet she paid 2262
for it a little more than a month before the wehbe was lost. Ye
have a number of timer held that im ordinary business transactions

the price paid for an article is evidence of ite value, there being

no evidenee which easts suspicion on the transmetion. Cloyes we.

ss
treated sit ,solten dowe Ye werede elt mt tant hae oLidonodun ot

od? emoline tion seed? to tresque ai .eelied ae egies. od Ae
GbE LAT ET .Beuted ov pe. nl od Lo :

Toymeseeg # ,eneo i

gaa 2 49829 aadto 7
‘ealav elt to Yilewst, bo miarnog pid dort sist dood baotller ® me
acs Io olson om haoriias acy evey ali aoktade ent of 000,086 to
agnetses ef) haw Ams od? genyed an howe? ods boxeade dud asustnes

@ndt bied saw 3f bee betionmmart paied ofldaw ent Ww boyonteok wiew
fads fewotn asad gadvead fon #i ,@itali tos vew wanqmee baortten herd
ovis te akpizo oad Of sooqtex af ganegiigen anoty to ttitva nail a
et galaten sew @1sx? .fatoq ak fon st wena sndd eawelrda ount
‘Torito yas fo to GOU,06G fa baw Lew ysiewel sew areas seis ‘atas tbat
eotsoate nigmese af tf sane tanger! out af efide Aerts aust os mee
~oh sass font ost oe mnevie ai atat .aettdongtus al ef ot veges tet
aid saw th soc? ,betoup eveda ae ,bali ivan? weganan tiyhar a! tnebas?
oe herevi Lon etao fiw to sbleiwe hus sbiani gate Hood oalmexe ot yuh
eonap socio ef .oneo faednal es? «i ge bd od tart? bas Se tay ond
fou ona ydewolrde Sas toes ouee one at ata taabas top ont yd bette
| cs ot toad RE

“me elavers ous" aeganah out feast shentone cole sumhaetee
‘baapet oat al eonshive te aii. aon & Jon wh saedd sands *yevtanso
bodes aaied as « Tesid oa et rrtsabsle ‘tert index ent Yo ouley elt o8 =
shane tos fe .tewsan of nhs grt, fom maw ,ades ane Mes ouley nett, ow 1
- ? sok 2o9bso attaa

anoltesup of suo itoatse atesews ‘Aangenors® bib du0e oat
bis ote gud andor ond "to. euler oats ot we Tortt om at Wibtalacy *, om
: , ROLE biag ods dass , oa yesogerg baw saniteonde esac bw swaasent
of tok aaw odes eis otated Minow # Hedd otom oregts a dh a0
" anoitoseasx? anenheud visa bre at fads bios awmnts 10. sodewer 1 4, ovas
Balog armas ouLey ath te sonwb ve et efoigts oe tot bhag aot re. dag Sa

ay sexesd moltoouantt ond mo wots hqase stuns mone somehive en a

Plaatie, 231 121. App. 185.

While the point ie net made, we are unable to wideretand
hew the court found and entered Jecument in alaintiff's faver fer
$116 when the only evidence in the resord of the value of the
robe wan that it eo#et 2162, fhe judgment ebvicusly is fer toe mum,

the fudgment will tuerefore be reversed and judgment entered
in thie court in plaintiff's ruver against the defendant fer 9102;
ail eosts are te be pald by the defendant,

SUDGRERT REVERSED AMD JUDGRENT HERR.

Matehett, *. d., and MeSuraiy, J., goneour,

ih | thos auee Ye rome oft OF setbanbsn
i hepieonbe ot uifeus, a prety fon oh saieq ods ofiih 2 Oona
Tok Bovet atYithintele ak Inwaphel Lexedae bas bawet games os, wad,
aot to enter of3 To btoget oot ah somebive yiae gat, oat OEE

- thaw ood rot st ylexotvde saomahyt 98s, o8GL5 deea tL fadt cs edot.,
| betedpe dapaghul bag Deazewes.oF stg tazeds ifta sagambat OMT). oe) up
(ASORE to tad we I9o oats teanhage seve? a UAtatelg ad sgu0@ Nts
fh ) ebeebasted oe of blag 26.08 018, 02900, hay»
MATE, nen Mbp TEORAVER BERRI. cy yoovwwa hewn khan rd
ge pip, at eaety Be “tlie eas

ooo «Rumaes gab ye ieiuied, bap - oy a asendetelics

Cones ei ge %s Ode oe baeder toc ga wtedtt pee giant
ath a3 Foot se go eos 2 eo i Wrenn RR teh ag behiiedey aot
Ree oer 5 Ms AD. HPAES RC UR. Gg PER IN Maunsell Sh RG xt taebeel
oe beter i fom etes Fie Da Bhiadee, Ra siege pike Ahad Poe ei ae: Coal
Sona Ge oe. Ne Pee WA OE OR Wel Ga bie e
Ai ue gS are Wet ean a sae ‘ed bathe

: Lhd
£ ite H%

SB Se PEER. | RIEU RE |: A a FUSE aa Qe fe hee Pa 5
e

ee i a es ae AOE AR Gali Sop, RE ee bie Gay AE ame of bral

‘HHS TAR Be ,~Rees RF PEPER, Oe RE | iW Re RE 2 Reha er wat aa .
Aree ery oll

MARL RS Ay aR see Pie Hw, PE ES el NR eT Rh eee Psi tah cle Bane at
bib ada .gwd ,etys alt De utes a oo ae Bede of Whi aba ot foe
Dies gate Gas! aa Je Ce ee phate ci weet dw evtesans

POE CIR MNE S BRIDE ARS NOR Me eke RRR || Pieces xsi ° Be 4 Mega’ ne

pot wht ah obey te wakoKates a tw wh awee eute * erhaage :

ine teehee. ae ee aay tag a) RReiae gs a fe UE RY ots te i, si oh “et

37085
HANS E, LSHRAR,

}

Appellee,

vs.

GRACE HSiL.Eh LENKAR,
Appeliant.

2'¢ 4 1.A.6 oO 364
BR, PHESISING JUSTICe BATUHRTT
DELIVERED THE OF INIGH OF THE COUNT.

This ie a appeal by dofondant and cress semplainant, Grace
figlen Lehman, Trem om order entered Bay 3, 1935, denying her motion
that a deeree entered at « forner term of the court ahiould be vacated
and set aside and denying the orayer of her verified petition fer
leave te file a bili ef review,

The cause ia not a stranger to thie eourt. Lehman v. Lehman,
268 Ill. Ago. 665. ‘The cause was then here upen «a writ ef errer sued
eut by complainant, Hans Lehman, to review « decree which digsissed
his bil] and granted kre, iehman a divorce on her creas-bili, a8 well
at the custedy of their three childrem - two daughtera, one thirteen
years of age, the other six, snd a son ten years ef age. thie court
affirmed that decree, The ease went tc the Gupreme court. Lehman ye.
Lehman, 345 111. 530. YTaat court reversed the deeree and renanded
the couse for further preceedinga in accordange with the views exe
pressed in the opinion, The cause was reinstated in the trial court
on December 18, 1931, and the scertifieate of avidenes shewns that the
cause cave on for hearing on February 7, 1933, befere a fudge ather
than the one whe cenducted the former trial. Se one appeared fer
defendant. The court asked soliciter fer complainant whether the
ease was going te be tried se a default, te which he replied, *Yes,
your Honor, we were prepared for «6 contest, but we will submit such
testimony as your Sener thinks sufficient te suspert this deeree,*

Complsinant, his brother Alfred and a friend, arthur Diez,
testified, and at the conclusion ef the evidence on that date, the

court directed seliciter ‘or cemplainant te write up the evidenes,

: c
ee KAM, .h BWA
. OR: sr ernst
m aoe Omen: ELE. eA 8” oY ‘sapag he
| haa ADD BG roc cm na
pause seine

Treotan ao 1TH panciauiy rel
12000 ER? NO Got uaeeen ant CURE Lad

‘eeuto ,tmontalgmee awends Saw tavhan tos yd Lowgqe ae eb aka!
Sottom tou galyned 20 .f YAR Deretar rab<o ae kort ,adedied aofok
betavay wf hivere Miwon sad Yo axed aewTeT & de betetae setesh # Sastd
tet aolsgiteq te fiitev tea to seyetg e243 yalyoweh base ebiga éo0 beta
selves to fntd 2 whit OP dvaet

femial .v semiel .ituoo eidd of wegnette @ fon ot teva edt ;

hewt tovre to diaw 2 coqw tied mead Gow Seuns ool 809 .eqA .LLT BUS
bouctaels{ deide eetoeb a wolves of , sevgint aaah denna tele ed two
Liee as ,ilideseure ted ao eotevl a amemied .ot betnetg hae (ibd wkd
wintenat one .wiatdguah ove 4 mribiie seett 4d te mete
susoo etal oe te eieey aot noe & bie , xin tanto oat ope to BtKOYy
‘BY Bamiad .dxv0e vewxqnl e0% of taew Qeao e8T .eeTeOR todd tomrltte
behaoaes hus seveeh ede howrevet frags tant .UE Lil Bde . gemed
oxo awely 1% tiv sowwbteoon ab aguihboseety sedsapt cet ease any

dewee Lalet ec? at deseteater sav oeawe eal .aokatge odd at bes ilies

edd Sect avete oonsbive ‘to efaolileaee add ame a0 eL ,84 todaeoet ao
nodio eghut @ oreted ,6ces ,f yiewrde so gutvsed tot ao omen eanen

tet hereogqa ene of ieltd seene? off betoniuas ode ono one att

dd toideriw daoniolqnos tot webtoties Soxee twos edT .tashawtob
8X" dodger ot soiiy of flush & 9s vuvelh og of yaloy aay oano
dows thadom £fbe ow tid ,feetare 7 ow + Tenor awOy

* wetoch elxs srecuie ot tne to PYtwe odabds ‘vont tu0y ae tecnica a

(sold cusieta (boo dr? o hae box tLA tedhoes abst stnamkealemed
a8? jotnb godt ao sonehive od? Ye aolenfenoa wat to bme ehertisasd
-eousbive odd qu odiaw of tranlaiquen tot tested ion boseonte oe

The following proceedings then tock plage:

“uy, Juron (solicitor for complainant): If yeur Noner
please, 1 am golny to sumait « decree here with reference te the
adultery charge and ask that the sustedy af the two other ehildren
be awarded te him «+

The Ceurt: i am afraid you 111 have a lot of trouble,

tr. Jurem: hie ease bas been in litigation for eight
years and hee been up te the bighest court ané bask agaim, and 7
fool that from the evidence presented and the court's knowl e4ge
of the fseta, that the court is warranted and justified in entering
that order,

The Court: (Off the record.)

(Dieguesion «ff the reeord)
The Court: Yrite up the eviderce, *

¥ebruery 74th therenalter the deoree was entered finding the
jurisdictional facts and finding that the defendant wife had come
mitted adultery as charged in cowglainant's bill of cermlaint; that
her crozs bill wae without equity and should be dlemiseed; that ashe
was not a fit and preper person to have the eare avd custody of the
minor children; further, that complainant hed purchased real eatate
deeeribed: that he purchagedit with his own funds, an¢ that the title
therete wae fer convenienes taken in sie nawe and thet of hie wife;
that she 414 net pay any purt ef the purchase srice and is net, in
fact, the owner of ary part thereof, The decree disaclved the mare
rises, avarded the sustedy of the three ghildren te somplainent, ore
dered that the title te the premises should be confirmed in the name
of eemplainnnt, 4ireeted defendant to eanvey the legal title ef the
presaieecs to comelainant ferthwith; further found that defendant had
refused te meke the conveyanee and ordered & master in shancery to
make the canveyanes for her and directed that upon her failure and
refuanl to surrender poesession eomolainant should be let inte
possession and a writ of agsistance be issued for that purpose,
The hearing was hel4 and finished in the February term. The de«
eres wae entered February 84th thereafter without notice and without
submitting the doerse te defendant's solialtere of reeerd.

Rule 20 ef the Superier court, of which thie court will tak

jadicial notice by reason ef the statute, provided at that time tha

sth eet oo eel
Weg oa Fy

TweaLe kod 9 a8 sack boovang: galwolfet ‘eat
Toael Tey Lh. $e etip wee todielion) worn . xi"

ad? of souets'ter dfiw axed gexpeh @ tiowwe 62 gatoy am + r oeasee
KSThLise wedte ows a2 le vbeheds wt dadd dog me ead Ly

od Bah

-ehdwwts to tel # eve Lite woe blur ‘tes sia a hie ant
figie wot woldegty ts ee egg hae e2e0 wht? tagenh .4M

A Set ,@hage vood fom ¢ TOO Pedy be ase od ew ‘wed tek Any To

wgbe iwomdk at Seugn arte ote fe taveore eanehive ef$ mart tadd foe’

eikeetao al boltiiant bas het te aoe et trun Hat tad? ,ado0% ont te

i stehte sade

Cf ae rro) rage ie .

(iteoe+ ome rye aeteaweeMey vs
"son hive ont qu make taneohy pen

Ono gate’ boresae caw lahdadel at ted twora se AGOR yrageieh | ia
eftom baat thw ‘dnaheo%eb ast tests wekbart hae s$oe% Lenpdtoebutew

saxtd j@oladonse ‘te iid 8! tanita teams hill hoy rate (a Ytetinhe, thie

O88 test phen los te ed ‘bfwoda hae “ytlupe suodtie See Lik esors wad
OR Le Ybateie nun os09 ont ova Of nomaq teqate hae #12 0 tom ean
“‘ghatae Laer besasotwe bad ‘Sawada Lessa Saad .amdsTKY paoth thao com!
eithe 949 dads bao seb awe #1 S¢hy 3 thesedanug os tesa yb

iettw dist to dusts bata ain asi we neues fae Lov vane ‘TOT saw ote
re Pon at baw sohng anaciouwe ot To Steg yam yng fom bth oats aaa
‘wae ais beviounsh risen oat owen a tag yong te Tearg odd, . a

“te a Pana w teins od noah kate eons ontt i’ Lootens he bebtans MBaL
wenn walt ne bows tase od fh Luraite Sechanrg ot? of LIL? galt, tess Soman
ens to ecete Lege: ante SOvHOD of AHAhaE Od hotonate ihiateohanennd
bout Saabastes Sass hawo% sont ait ral beetge't Mmente tems ot. segte
“@s ¢ teased at totanm a berehte Hates NOim YD Ree O29. essen ot, bs
baw erul te} woe aoqw dass besooate bam tot Tet PO aMLA NEED vee os
“etnk tok od béweda SRantalenoe setanner ag Whaerree oF tanner,
anoqwe dents zor bowen od sonntotenn ™ thaw * bee 0 taenaneg.,

yen ett ‘tered ewido ons aa home hayy bon Aiog. eaten “a,
fouls iw saa eoivon tiiostt bw rosteoxese ORS Ba

sbro9e to arostotfoa ‘8 sasbae ey ot neree

pent ee os? patestadwe
fied Lidw ‘$e00 alae do btw ee Tata Tol wwqet oat Yo oe ellsanisanied
eats oot aie fa sebiverg setutede 982 9 aonage ot solson Lodo,

"ne motion will te heard or order mude in ahy cause without ne tice
to the onpcosite party, When an appearance af such garty has been
antered, exeent where & party ig in default, ae ssewn by an order
ef record or when a cause is resehed on the aali of the trial cal-
endar.* Sule 2) prevides for the manner in wich notice shall be
served requiring it to be in writing and te be served upon the
opposite party or his attorsey oF @cliciter ef recerd in the man-
ner specified in the ruic, with the farther provision that where a
party is in default fer want of appearance, ne Retiee shail be req
quired except upon the order of the wourt.

the deeree wae apparentiy entered ta this eaee woon the
motion of acliciter fer complainast, but} ng netiee waatever was
served either apan defendant or ser soiigiter. Aaving Learned of
the decree om Bareb 20, 122°, selLieltors for defendant gave netics
that on the following day, st the opening ef court, they would pree
sent the verified petition of defendant, supported by affidavits,
and ask that en order be entered vacating er medifying the decree
and weuld alee ask that the custedy of the eniidren be giver te
their mother, Gm the sae day ai undated notice wae filed, direotda
to defendant and Willias Fye inat compiaineant would en Hareb Sist
ask for a writ of assletanes to be ieeued te put eeapiainent inte
possession of tae praaises. Sef -ndent im support of her petition
recitad the histery of tho case, including tne apoéals te the
Appellate and Supreme ecarte, ané stated taal she Kad prepared te
defend the case shen it sheuld come up, end Had had interviews wit
her golielters relative te the evideses ana vitmesses, She stated
that her husbemd paid $20 a week aliseny for the weeks ending
February llth, 18th, 26t5 and 4areh iat, whieh she believed wae for
the purpose ef goneea:ing tren ner that a hearing hed been had with=
out her knowledge on Fovruary 7th; that melither she nor her aelici-+

tors had any knowledge or information ef the fact that the cage wae

*
& r

solson dwould tw Reusy Yao ad alae hee 40 bias ad itiw molten on”
stead ted YitKe Mow te eo eE KIER A nat ertog, ‘padnogas add 99,
T9S26 sm ed mweule wat hineted ok wh Ying e@ evade dqeoxe see
aie Saas ons te item ens Ho besioawa wa onune # aacie 50 bxoves Ye
ed Kiksin @oivom detiw at onus oft wr aobivarq M8 oft * tabaw
wats ans bovis od of bre wald dee al od of t2 gaivlugas be at
nttian $$ uh bieses to tedietios xo getedva aid ao (Frag § sheanee
a Stedw fads notstvorg cadisat odd adhe ‘pduca ont Bh Dettiongs toa
“set ef [hada eobtes on yesnateeqgs to gnu 20% divated ab et yeraq
wos sd ie ebro ey Moyw 3qnaxe siti
‘eds seg e905 wldt ah botetae _dingiegqe saw epteeh oct | we
gav sevetedr eaiten an sud aaahadques ue} sodioiles eA
Re pomtesl gnivsh .tediaiion sed He fasal co tad aipqu tends Lo dovses
Colton evdy Sanhas teh tot wrod tehsog ,£i0L .UR sozed we vonnsd., oa
“e@tg bivow you? ,otweo Lo gntmeqe eat te 4 ead palwoifo® ade. 9. guid
ehlveb Te Ys hodiogqua ,tankacled No agidsveg batiivey, od, Anon
Ser|ebh oH) galytihee ae gaigeosay botegas ef t9hte me dactd dee, ae
ot revi of serhiide oad Le. ybosuay nas sang Han onde Shur bas
hibtoetth ,beilt sew waivem bodabau me Yah owen oF OO «sess om thos?
‘tad8 dora no biwow Sanniosqaon said oyh ooALLA® dan snabap ted of
e4at tanuiatqnos uy 92 devant od 08 soastatnen to glum & 10% Xa
aoltivey tod ke sroqque af daha jal .saatwe sy ed Le se teapasag
ett od wleweqe edd yaibeioai, ohne Ooh, RA, A AOE
OF ewewre bad pin sous dedade bam asus enpaged bam of

iw avel¥udsad hod be bem qu ems Aiwede £1 ands aane ait ue,
hesate 9a .aecurathy has conehsve vid oF evddetet ated tod fon, ea
at bise ahoewy ar wet wonkle eon a wag bday bands Test test

5 ak

7. “wt gav bevelled aay vokdw yind, dann be 988 OL the, eurer™.

adobe gad ROM Bed guiwoes & sont nod week gakiacgae Pid agents, oct
eto lzes od tom ote wedtlem sonit 4A8¥) wuawtsol | ste ane rrae ba bere
lathe! wile Da’ dont odo Le aesecno'tas ‘te, aghod | .

on trial on February 7ih; that the statement that she or her soli-
eitore had abandoned the caee wae Talee snd wade for the cursese
of deceiving the court; that if the true facts had been eabiead te
the attention of the court it would not Auve preceeded te the trial
ef the cause; that the residenee and home cecusied by her and the
children was purehaeed end naid fer by their foint earcinge and
the title wae held in foint tenoney; that the bill for divores
filed by compleinant stated thet the oroperty wae #6 Ael4 and
preyed that the property owned in joint teneney may be partitioned
and #ol4, referring to the bili whieh wae filed Auguet 16, 1926;
that the court erred in decresing that comelsinent was the eener ef
the real estate; that there wae ne prayer fer sossession in his
bill for diveree; that the court would mot have found the ownership
ef the real extate and the use and osocupetion thereof te be in gam.
plsinent, if the court had been advised of the true condition ef the
pieadings and the facte and represents that the court was withert
Jurisdiction te #0 judge and deeres. he further state that she
hee a good and meritorious defense to the bill of esmelaint, and
that she could establish her inxeeenes of the charge of adultery
and establish her righte in the reali estate if given a hearing;
that eemplaimant's eseliciter failed to keen bie sereement and
underatanding with her sclicitors; that the twe youngest children
are living with and being supoorted by her and have refuses te

live in the home of complainant; that en Eareh 10, 1933, complainant
came to her home intoxiested and drunk ond threatened to take the
ehildrenm frem her and she is presared to oreve ell this on «a hear.
ing; that she has ne sioney to pay moving expences and rent if e«
writ of asaistance ie granted complainant; thet she hae net been
served with any eopy of the decree ant that she appeals to the
equitable jurisdiction omd conscience of the court te aseiet her

in her distress and eiefertune,

Attached te this petition is the affidavit of one of Age

| eas 2 noi? tbmoo owes ot Ww doetvba need ass rw08 wus ” “ tawatos

a
yr
a

“ates ted te aie tase sams soe oats dasla ait ‘esawede’, had daist bal
exagtue oxid x08 eho hae outa® saw sean writ bemebaade bea exosto
et pester neod bre atont sur? ody uM tes } f1He8o ous aatvisosh 1
faite all o2 bebuecore avad tai Sines ae ttaen eid © mottassss ons.

ons bits sod vd pekquove BRU haw aonebless heard sass egmns one te

hee Ssetenne satot aisny od nat Sieg ban bonadtonwe seatae ariblide
sotovlh <0? Lite at? tect? i qonones Sater me bisa eae onany htond

} bas Biex ov ter veiee oxg walt fad? peters trasteigqmes: we bonny,
hestot? £2166 od van yoann a mbot, at bo amo Winger ast tent _ Paver a.
(OSOL , OL tevges SeLt? ll Ho kw fite oat oF patreeies pbfoa. San
te tonwe etd new fue atetqaos ans anioorses ai sorte tu00 Road jad?
att ak aolereasog co? teyata oa sew esosis fast3 iesagne inet ee,

qldexonave edt bavet eves toa biwew f1w08. ats tact ieotoves sot “ute

i ie ha 4
“800 a od os rowxo ad ok 2equoee bas wow as bow etetan leo ode be
= re] wir ot ie *

ag ry dees

tuodahe any fuses out? deas stan get has s2o0% eat ‘ae “canthante,

+3 i AA peyd

oats tear betate ror oa .o91peh baw oahu on oe wottotbebrat

ena

bas a fnie Lewon te eid pals es pen eb euottot em hae bony a and

t
77 i al

_ Cet iobe to og tase aa? Yo sonmoosnt 04 iia Lin oae _Biw09 exe saat
: jantxond a mov ha 2 osnden fae oat me agate sont fn ttansen ‘bue
hme Jas 9% 9a nist aeox oo basin Totiotion ‘8! pannt tence 2,
eth Lio Foe QmHoy ast add ass jetegte hho nest atte wat baw. exvebes
Hi of beawtox ova. fea 0H ed peytamees | gaked at Rai ied patent, om
nt snsata tonoo FECL Or dort mo tas? jiieaie canes Yo 9, saxod ons at orth .
1 edt ous? of bese dae std baw siws'th baw besaeteotat emoxt wi ae
“09 s a0 ais ths ayers oF doregere at ode hae wt wot

oe Rast ORR

ee vee
su sam be | soumpane ‘yatvom ya of cosas om and one tad? 4

Pee ae ma elated aby chal van

need ton eed oe tact jtanateLqnoe Dotasry | a onnere

fi yal, cag 4
a ot atasqan ods sass baa soroeh — we vaoe wan ae ae ey to a

Lae F ri het * La ms.
ws 3 dulsan ot rxwos edt te oonotoasieo bene gto} iM tpedaut

PA whe be) ARE ht ee ae oy

_ seamen Dae wactiath

Ph ;
P tend A ee, oe 4 Pies al

: «ib he ‘eno to ‘dhuablvte pov ot mene eels oe seapenris i

th * ae

fendant's soliciters, Ernest Stout, in whieh he saya that he
watened thie case in the Law Bulletin snd on the contested trish
ealender; that he obeerved that there were a number of cases shead
ef it; that on the day when the ease ease on for hearing om a peti
tion Sor solicitors’ fees, he had an agresment with the seliciter
for complainant that they would beth wateh tue call ef the ease and
Weuld notify @each other hon the cage would be reached for trial;
that in the event either one o7 them would gies the eall, the ease
would not preceed to trial witheut such noties, and that he relied
on thie agreement and wae taken by rurprise shen «fter the february
term of court had passed Se called complainant's ecliciter soncern~
ing the time the ene* would be eslled ter trial and wae informed
it had been tried Pebrusry 7th end a dearee entered; that the state.
ment made to the court that he had sbendened the couse of defendant
wae not true, but that together with Kis sseeciate Be had made
preparation te try it; Shat he belisves a great injustice and wrong
has been done defeniant and thet she has a moriterioue defense te
the charge of adultery sade aceinat ker,

the affidavit of Wilidam 4, Stahl, anether apliciter ef
defendant, estates that after the ease had been set for trial he
Watened the call frem day to day and week to week during Deeember,
January and February; thet on eeveral ogeasions he vent over te the
court and checked up on the case, endeavoring te find out when it
ekould be reached; that on February Gth he was engeged busily in «#
contexpt matter ageinet a Bilent ef bis which came ou fer hearing
Fetruary th before Judge Kelcerty, and that he apparently ever~
levked the fact that this cnse appeared on the trial call eon that
day; that om subsequent days threugheut the month ef February and
the first week in Haroh Ae Looked up the Law Bulletin fer the trial
eall of tha sane; that he did net know until he was called up by
defendant on or shout March 12, 1933, and told that the case had

been heard and a decree fer diverce granted; that the statement that

ley riage

od cade myee of doddw at , teres foes seteriotion at famhas't

fabst beteetaos df so bee afeeilet? wei edt mh omen @ bt bein dew
beods gwen bo tedawd » evew sted! teat hevreeds of Jans ‘pushin kao
eiteq «a a0 galtaed tet a6 Gian Gacy Oc) mode yeh ot? ag tat 3h e
‘Otlotins edt dilv tasseea tgs an bee od peers ‘ener iotioa metonehe
bie span gs te ideo ef¢ dosaw Adod tdwew yous dade dannde qnos ceo
jieLed te? Bedeces e¢ bigew cans ace ascly teste dogo ythtes Meow
aneo ef? ,iiao ots tala Biwer «ode te exe weit ie saove ede vk gene
holier 94 te4? Bae ,esiieu dows twadtinw Letts of Seaver 100 biwew
Tiewidet ed? wed le sede velagtirt yd elise gee bam Foementge wade 9
eatsenen toileiies e'saealalqaen bhelice ed heaseq bead tavoe ‘to ame
hoattetal vaw bas deity welt bo fies ad Aivew eames odd narie. cuts gat
onjute ed? gait phorwdan eenoeh w han AeY qxeotdel betes goed oat
Behan byte has? to gene of bemobaade bed om Farts faved wae o2 shea Jae
whan bed od ateiossan Gh Ati wettegn?d tent tod turd ton enw
Btguw tae esifestai saexy # sevetiog ed fads pth yet of cet dataqay
ef seac'teh eugitotizan = ead ete tose baw Gawhew les oman: ned art
ten taalage eben yout tuba To ogiedy oat

Re tedinifoe tadiena , Liet# 68 ami Lilt Ye sivabht ta et mide
od tgite 10% for ased Dad een att ine'be Send eotate | etaabastad
Todanoed galinh Xoow of anew haw yeh od ae aos Lhe ems. bortoame
ode OF Yeve tan of aaolemoee Leveren no dass peed’, baa exe aaal
| #t nome tue bali of yrinwrveehan »oeee e4e wo aw. estoeds fre 180
| oa Yhieud hegngm gan ed dO ytowies ay desi y hodawen od b4uode
( gebeand 202 wo samo su haw whet Re Ans £64 a denkege tedden squedmeo
omteve yliawtegge em tacit has .yetenier eghut eto d Ate erauetatl
tact ng Lino deta edd na potaeqye cane wis? sade toa ert) bedaes
dita YRuuTdel te sitaow ais tportymoress erymts taruemmdve wo teed pea
fabts eld 10% abded ih wad ost ew besse k a Host at Meow sexkY welt
ud qu beiias saw od Sav mw werd ton bib 9 tent yonme watt ty tay
| bak oun oct gass Biot haw SEE (8h Sata 4w0ke we ne Seabee D
(tatld tnemetats odd send thotawry ponent 59% sirenb 2 ban bases we

@efendant and ner atterieys hed abandoned the case wae net true:
that the court had been deceived and ispesed upen; that there wae
an understanding an4 sereaaent between comolainant's and defendant's
Solicitors that they would waten the aw Bulletin and taat if either
of the parties ebserved the case he would natify the ether: tuat
this agreement wae made abeut the time the arder was entered for
$78 on aseount of golicitorat fees; test he tad taken up with the
Bolicitor fer cempisinant the question ef whether they sould use
the testimony ef defendant's sother, Mrs. Ainnie Peiterson, at a
foraer trial, enld witnese having suffered « paralytie sitréke; that
the soliciter said ne would Lock ever the testimony and let Bim
knew; that he hat never receive? an anewer; that he and hie agage
eliate had prepared to tiske 2 defense in the esee and had cheeked up
the witnesses and held eanferences with defendant, sud that 4t was
believed a great injustice would be done if deFendant is net given
a hearing in the came, oliciter for arwplialnent PMlled on affidavit
danying wi agreement with golioiters for defendant, as averred in
these affidavits,

Bay 3, 1924, defeniant presentet Ker bili fer review in
whieh she set up the whole preceedinge in the former eumuise, tee
gether with 211 the ewidenes taken; that the decree wae sntered
without notice, oe war aleo an order for «= writ ef assistence, She
peints eut that comelciment's bill elieged that the resi estate on
whieh she rerided wae cened by beth ef tham in joint tenancy, and
that the prayer of the bill wae that the property aneuld ce partie
tiene? and ola; that in her answer te the bill she adwitted that
they were Joint ownere and «verred that the oreperty and buliding
were purchased through their Joint industry; thet ake made thie
aame allegation in the eroce bill and that conmliainant in hls
anaver to the eros biil stated that he "sdmite that he and the
eress-compiainant held joint tithe in the fel owing deseribed

veal eatate. wiz.": that the deeres is therefore erraneous in

e
4

. ef $ RES: ey
poured ton enw aso ocd benohaads bad ayourterts x91 bie Sombag tos
: oid. Soe:
enw euedd tuild : tog boweank bus bovivowt need bed sien oat tat
: Sy See Aye
a'dneborteh bas a! saaale Lemos aeowind fam or98 bas _yadbangevobaw ris
' sii he

tis be 42 tatd ban altos ind wad ais wo gam ‘biuow oad bas atotioltfoa —

wt? emet do Die ee ee
“Fort fxeddo edt eiiven bivew ai aan wos bevrendo ae 1¢%6s ont oa

5 SUR he AOD ae
“£0% betséo» naw <obce ost emis eat snes shes exw Rasta) olde
2 9 ase. he eae ;
ode dg hw ae ase ‘bad on tee + aoe tonot lotion 0 Sagones 10, OF :

“pan “biwos ‘yess cast oite ce ueeeoup ony snantetenoe yng ot ts o8
; LOE Oe GS
a he .naa103 40% etanti atk .tedt om 8? suas 29h te euonttaed ome

tant jemand oly Latag s ‘bow Thee ‘salved sent ty Dae ake oe
“ali ae bas ‘qnoulbend od ‘wre aol bivow on Bins tet tone a
cones eff bas oi Jods j tow ne me heviego ‘eve Parl on tase swonat
“wo bowosite bad fone aene auld nd sam teb £ aa ae tevacetg bad State
daw fh Yond pew \ sapbae tod ag be seem ta'tto9 biod ban eoangueae adt
nerds ‘dou ry: diabis toh ai onoh of lvoe soktautat tants ‘a heveLiod

GF LCL AOTOSORS

sivabitia me betht Sur alatqaos “ged ‘settles Smeo ‘oat at gated a
go has eetnade ome cmb?
ak bérreve ae jhobca toh wor sr03tel Los athe r Seeun eye aa

Pia By OS
wad ivab tt woot

“al ‘velvex 103 “ie ‘ned beanseots pkortes seer (e “yall
gadiog. gi RE eat ee ie rem Pe ees res
~as +980 ‘aeurset one tah eunibessots ofose ott qe toe eee Be: 4
: aSehy Wo SAM.
heregas gew ‘e9zp9h oat sade mates aoamnb bye outs Sie thw
tj Agee pi nat. Ya
oxit “Veoaatealeaa ‘te sive e 701 rebre 8 vate ene ee s2ht0m twottty
hes Le i Ate ee Rach) cae We Bt
Ke Stadue Loox oid ‘gone beyetie rth wt ganmte tqmoo sedt tue , a2atog
4:0 oath Rialiteaies as 3, eg 18%

‘baw +Keanned tikot mt mpsta vo isos “é beawo sas hebluer oat cate N

Pair ath LS fit mean le Ree base
~iduee 6d bineds cite got oat seas wan Lud oa 9 seyetq esta jor
Sees a ey Oreo
tes Bedtinhs ste Lite ‘pale os teenua cenet ab tact thfloe hor ee
f Ae ieee: geenal” ‘tans
gakbidwd bee. yi weqerg os tad hertewe bas wraeo fatcl eww

“yhdy shou ede dads pertavbal “baker now squonas
bee

i fae iar eee
* Ne UF jee tome fads hae iti seeue war ak meijayetin oman

ape pe Beale peek ua
oror

Oe ee ee a

sits baw on teild wthabe” od sont “betete itd anose od of toWsKe
fe ce eos yp ° Se TA pop Ae
“bedtxooeb gatwo. cet eat ob oath ‘datel boon tommlalae oD

saa RS RN ea ay ae desea yeepiny me A

pi ss ennamuectts aes Py coxesd add sade abe -atatee |

UN
rie WS

finding that the title waa takes fer convenience, and that she
should convey the same te hin, ete,

Wve. Lebaan comtends in the first oslaee that the court ex-
ceeds ite jurisdigtion in that the prayer af the bill was to partie
tien and wel) the real setate, alleging that the same wae held in
Joint tenancy, while the dweree Finds the land to be the exolusive
Property of sompiainant, & claim net made in the bili; that the mae
ner in whic) the deerse was chtained amounted ta a fraud om the
eourt; that the entry of the 4earte -vitheut nelice was fatal to the
Jurisdiction of the eourt and that the eourt erred in refusing te
grant the motion te vacate the decree ond in denying te her the
right te file her bili af review.

Compiainant haa appeared by his eolieltere im thie court and
Fequested and obtained additicmal tine in which te acewer the brief
of defendant, He has ast, horvaver, seen Tit to make use of the
privilege thus granted, sitheough requested but net ordered ge te de.
In the absence of any agciatence by # brief fron the party was eb-
tained the 4eeres, we ore Aivsoased te Tollewv the rules af thie ecurt
that a stuterent made by an appelisnt may be tuken as agecurate and
sufficient unles* the oopoging sarty pointe out #eherein it is image
eurate or ineutfieient,

The failure to cive notice te defendant ef the entry of the
decree ae prepared after the hearing ae required by the rales ef the
court, the sericugnees ef the charges mode ugulnst defendant and her
evident intention, maniferted at ai) times, to dafend againat then,
the interest of theee minor childrem whieh 14 is the duty of the
State te protect, the fact that the deerse without prior netice and
without even the claim being sade in the 6411 deprives defendant and
her foeily of the neme in whiek ehe renides, the evident purpore te
coneaal the fact dusing the term the deeree had been entered, + #11

ceonetituted fraud upen the furigdiction of the court whieh eannet be

ada tad baw ,eonsdne vase sot conan’ ame esens wad gant ‘peta
099 mht ot ones aut eovnes ‘buon

_, ee Stoo oui ses ene he tants asf ws abaesace imeasiod , "
ehéieg of sev Lhid ons In teyany aie tod a noiteideirwt att neve

al Bled sew ome edt dase page tte oregon toon eae tion ae ——

+ a

evinuloxe edt od es hawk suit ehatt or resh ould ekanw seaeaed rater
oHaa ede tests ithe edt ai ebum ten mteto o yfteal 3 £100 16 eixsqere
ode ne buert # of batasomn bemias te saw sotneb wis oh id abe
ont os ister ser gol) or smote te peruse wad ‘te wares ante tend euee
ot padeston at bovis S098 oat tars Soe FIwes wad to -aozsatbn seat
eds 19d 03 sa inn a dow soraeh ond atasny of ‘aolton wats snes
so tven to i Lid wet oft of tans

dun #xuee wuts al axon o2 ion ald ef betevaae ens taste komed a
Yo ix was ewes od iodaw ub outa Lonokt tibhe beatesde ba bodasupen
out to ous sua of 34% nical stavsrod «20m ad on stasbne Yeh 20
nab es 98 botobxo fom gud Sd Agworit ke begmetp ands ouetivizg
ode vite WIteg on2 out ‘toind a ws eonata ieee waa Ye eoaenda ont at
fuuoe eli to wsiut ont wotler of henennth ats oF nera9f ous bontes
bas ofatueen ee aeind od Yau saaiiones am yd obare tuswetete 6 ‘tard
-ommk ef ai abetede eo ataiog vites wiki eogne ait nee Law tan totttas
dnote £¥tweat *0 stems

oat te E32 me axis “ #aahae ob ot soteon evlg eg et oinfle? oat cht
ed? te aoiue ext? “ besdwpor Bas aultacd ao? tet'ta dewsaerg sa corset

‘wed hae Sctedan teh deniags oboe eogtece tar ‘te aseanuoktes one ities

nat saakoys bus 'tes at ,aomie ‘kha aa hesae thane sMoitne dm tam bave
eds t yah ert af aa de iaie wth Lie xenke omeals te saorodat eat

‘oe

bas ma bd ons tolaq twos a ereab eat tact doar oats sostory eo s4038
bas aabue ted aovizgeh dud one ak dos ated miass esis sev tuna be
at eseoqiug taob ive wsig sponiant ode so asin us onan edt te eta ‘sea

7 SEAS ee NER
fie ~ anim aod bas aoroob exis et ont anh tot eae
ne es #2 ew ‘te fla

Met Ee 88 iqnebensote

wee dei 3 ‘ake werere) tame

oath

tolerated, The suthorities are overwhelming ‘ the affest that
even after the term a judgment or decree entered under much eire
cumstances will be set aside, Caswell v. Caswe}i, 220 Ill. 385;
Burton v. Perry, 146 111. 108; Korth Avenus
986 111. 375, and see numerous authorities cited, Amerisam @ Engiish

Enev, of Law, vel. 17, pe. S28 te 427,

Boe these reasons the erder denying deSendant's motion te
get aside the deerce will be reversed and the gause remanded with
directions to the ¢hancsller te set the deevee aside and tae
gause for hearing om the serite.

REVEAGED ARD RERARDED YITN DIARETIONS,

O'Gennor and MeSurely, J¢., coneur,

eo) ail A od a
fad wen ees

gad? gooTie edt of gotatecwipve «te aed? boon? ne ed? \bederetes
ete dpum tohse haredne eespeb te sapeminh ao ened o4¢ teats weve

1h: ofik O8L »Adoson? o¢ sisuaeS shine dom od ALie sooie2 nau

A 00 LE OPE TNO Oke

dskiga’ & maoliesA ,hetig seat ineitum avotesma ome bas, BNE LLL BO

TRG Of BBS .am Nh fev wed to ogee

o¢ wihen ni sonpeeden gaigaeh sebne el? cnwneen. eaods woh ci5
Stiv bebacant sayan ocs. bas heatewes of seiainiacicaliniaiiia
ast ban ohies eereed edt dea oF 1a Livonade ond of aaektownth

Neate odd ae patteed 202 See

CHOLTORALG MEIY CROMAMEH GHA GUSAMWEH 66 co @8F% OF Oriyha
ie See

Le MRI gS seLotwGoK be TommeD'@

# att “bei: athe

spline bos eewe eels s woke

4 enn Ki cont nk

Be wees BUR Be ee) NM ot a Sor CHE Se MUD Me A 7 Cale eee te aesyo Ph

i ly ES Pe a Ret esas oP er eae Pe Saale f

oath ais om ee So tt? wee tees Oo tele
ae? Ve ofan
pay 2 eo aiwitie® ett
Emo Oe seroet
wana 9 Aeeseund em ole e800
beet 8 ; ds i y RS + Roe i EROS. , Hehe va eRe taming
mers Liss eoahe -ehadh. Re sawed vi uid
ay See Vee om. hee he Pe sage
1b Ried anak Minky make ae puncte
mare hes old e eibant wal
Miah oh dna omy taconee

fy ae

ra . . nN *
tas Sa WEE oy RE NE > ales

, Oe ae rie a) Ee BROS ART eat vib ee te ae Th hia rE i ed Fue fi aguante

37187 ra

SUSTAVE EK, LOVEGREN, as Administ f
of the Setate of DES LOVEGKEK, ees
Yefendant in of ‘ord

BRROR TO ws Loge
Vie

)

) goURT oF CHICAGO.
BULL DARLERHG,

Piaiatiff in Brrer.
& Bb | ay Aa Ti fi a) ed

WR, PRESTDLIRG JUGTIGR BASCHeTT
DELIVERED TN OFLAIGR GF TAR GOURT,

Th an action on centract of the firet clase in the Hunielpal
eourt, at the elose ef all the evidenes, upen motion ef plaintiff
the court inetructe: the jury to returm « werdiet in faver of olaime
tiff for $7468.50, everruled motiene of defendant for a Jadgment in
his favor non obstante veresicte wii entered Judguent for that
ameunt. Defendant srayed an seueal, whiecn was sliewed on filing «
bond for #8006. The apgenl was not verfected, bul tiie waht ar
error of a later date wae sued out, Defendant arguee that the
judgment should be reveraed.

the etatecent ef claim in substonee everrad that DPecomher
13, 1927, Hlisabeth 7, Uni, as evidence of uw just indertedness,
executed two promissory motes duenwribed ag A and 8; that A Wee
for the sum of $244) due ene yearn saiter date, amd B for the aum of
$7600, dae five yeures after date; that both netes provided that
until maturity they would draw interest at 6% per annum and after
maturity at 7% per annum; that to secure the payment of these notes
she, on the same data, conveyed to Henry 7, Jseger ag trustee cere
tain presiees situated in Cook county, tllineie; that thie indebted.
nese rewaining uipaid, kre. Jhl on February #0, 1929, by warranty
deed conveyed theses presises to defendant Ami Sskiberg and his
wife, athilda, since deceaned; that defendant accepted the dead
and then and thereby ageumed and agreed te gay the indebtedness; that

plaintiff ie the owner of the note for $7000 and the interest eoupen

———— SS

t
TOsTE

en MGMIOKVOd bint BRE Ie esadeH we to ~
«! ak Sneha ted

4 tna me |
, C caaatoees ay TAVOS i Pein iat " ; ape 2 De Phe ¥ ia WEN

-toeet wl Tiemielt 3 Le x, we

B90 A. LTS signer see reonrcese:

TTRBITAM AVLITESL aurciwand Aa
PHUGD SBT VO MOLQINO GN? GRAEVIGat

faqistas’ eff at aeats cwxtt ea Yo Youttase ae nob¥or ae WE 6» 65
TYiigatate to asitom aoyw ,eehive af? Lig To weele ont da, oeuEe >
-aiale to tovet a2 golbievy » wtvden ad Yewh ode bePourdeRk gxves eile >
a2 Soemghwt # tot tasbaeteh Yo eavhiow betuxiewe . Ot BabVE sot reht
tedd tet saemyphot betetao tae ptodterery sinesjede gem tovat oka
@ gpalilt mo bewelia eew dobiw , Lasgge we boqatg anh ted tawoms
te ghew abas oud ~hevoe'lsog fon tow dasqqe ed? 00086 tet bacd
odd todd wougte fanhaw'tod dup bows aaw ofeb tosel » Yo teTTe
sheaxeves od bLagsea Suemghut,
wedaeosS dae bevieva agavtedee ai mhalea to taommtede ont
,aeoabeddobat taut a lo sonehive ae , fav 0% déedemksh ROL EL
eaw A fase (4 baa A ga bodiroesed eaton yteusiagsg ows ba suoexs
‘te awe off tot 2 bas , eth ted 'lo steey owe oub GOSS Po awe ac? rot
dads hobivetq eetea Atod Judd peated a9Fta etaoy evlt enh ,000T$
tefta hae awane ie NO te seetedal werh biwew veds YWirwtan Litas
eedeoa ee0ds to simayag eaf eruese of tet payne tog PT ga viiwwtam
ote9 obseuts Ba Tegoat .i yxael of beyevies ,ovab omee oad ao yesin |
ehetdebal ald? fadt ;aloaliil ,ytawos den? at perautie aoe tootg ated
eaariew yd , WL ,O8 yrawidet me L40 .oee ,bieqaw gataleast seen
ahd haw yredised Lim fanbastoh of seataerq owed hagevass bask
heed sas hedqevoe thabas toh saad ;deaaweed sonia sab Lbtta othe |

“tasts juasahotdebat ead Yoq oF beotys ban bomuooe wore: fone snout rer

| maquea Setsbat 24d dno Q0OTS Ho? wou gal To eaMe wid at TiAeaete

representing interest which matured thereon December 15, 1952, in
the sum ef $210. The etatexent averred thet plaintiff claimed
$7210, with interest at the rate of 7% per snuum from December 15,
1932, Copies of the principal nete, interest nete aid warranty
deed vere attached te the statement of claim and madé « part of it.
Defendant filed an affidavit of merite which wse stricken
end later an amended affidavit which in sibstance averred that
he and hia wife dutnilda merely purehoeed from Bre. Uni, « wides,
on Pebruary 6, 1929, her eculty is the real estate ¢eseribed; that
neither defendant ner his wife assumed and agreed to pay ony ine
dettedness secured by any encumbranes se part of tue conaideration
relating to the purchase; that it wae newer understesd and agreed
beteeen Elizabeth #7. Uhl and defondsnt and his lete wife that they
should ascume and agree to pay any encumbrances referred te, and
in particular that they 414 not assume or agree te pay the indebte
ednesn sevured by the trust dead to Jaeger,

; Sefendant averred he wes corm im Sweden and reade Enyiieh
with great difficulty; that Ae wae net represented by any attorney
or person having knovledge sf reai seetate mattere in the treneace
tion in question; that om aliermey ef the law firm representing
Plaintiff teek and reeeried the warranty deed witheut reading or
explaining the nature ef ita centente te defeidmnt er hie wife;
that he 414 net read the deod and A214 net know and was net infermed
that it contained any alleged aseueptien and agreement on their part
to pay ony indebtedness secured by existing encumbrances, ond de-
fendant never wae wiliing te accept and would net knowingly ses=pt
any Warranty deed containing such aseumption; that the granter in
the warranty deed ware not entitied te nave inserted any such aseump-
tion because the grantor had not bargained for the same; that the
indebtedness wae inserted in the warranty deed threugh freud er ine

advertence and was net sinding.

at ,8£¢f ,2f t9dmsned mow ron: Sexadas bute Sater seosatal galgasacrqes
hemialy Bitwiale desde beryave dusnodere wat OL te ase oat
ats r9dueoet ox? ane xoq EY te egar vet Je seoxsetok Ati anne
ceaerxay hrs shen seorosad ,osoa ingioatig of Yo asdqed sREQL
»32 te stag 2 bbaw Hn sgake te nem tate nite o? bedondia orew boob
mado lata the she hth ajliem to ¢ivebiti« ao ball? sanbee ted
sad? herse ve sonadodae co 2 ae sa babew ma me total baw
.Vobliw o ,fdl .au eink bens nwtKy coven whi kita othe ete ban sm
sasit ined emmane asctee iner ens al etiaecs tea OR OL 18 craw ido ao
} ond wae ead og heerye bam homuace otiw eis 08 deo 2 warlon
aod tatehlonce ons to sas aa omer danas ae wa peruse neaabessen :
| heorye bas boosarshay ‘qeved sow ok sant jeans tHe out os gulteten
yous tid otiw eteL hd bax tombe ab nas 06 “ Adedant Ix bee
ane ot herreter asonetdmons kas tae og nrg ba omens iwonte
tdonat outs we oF corps x0 oavene toa bib youd tautd etuotoeag ab F
stageal of boob sawn weld tl horses saoabe
dal fgan eheet howe gebewt af wied awe en herteve Samba toe

vemrodae we x bs $amnotgo% ten anv on sauté refuel Tt santa ighe

~oawassd ata ak wand dam esadns taot Xe sabe twoad aalvedt mares +
patinees too aukt wal odd te yorad se a teat te tveaup a i af
te gather sword tw beoh yéaestaw oat bebeenes Soe hood ‘tuttateta

yettw ald te Jasbas toh oe a3u 3199 vk te orudect ‘ost atatexe:
i” . ga F4 $a

houre tat ten eaw Saez moms toa bah ‘ne Book oats hows tea bth oe refill
9 Bi aN

faq ‘ahed? ae $920 oT ban Hoi? comes bee Ltn ye “beataguon an some: rs
| eb ‘bas | Beauetdasn aatsates x boruoe eaeahoddnbad ue we “a

oe Hee
“tqvone eigalwons fon biwow eu tqnuoe 93 gabitte aon teven Fy oa ie
oct Rat sae

al totners, exit test iho ht qauaae Hows amtsns 09 bead

aa Peano hae

~qavene aows eae ‘bed woont evan of potent tan saw boo Siren ped A cdl ;
ay tw
ens éeuls joeme ons sgt beatuyrad son basi vobnerg or oe

ts eS Rea paver Rake x
eat to buat? dguortt bows S ouh one ‘ab sorenent ane iepgoncoeionarn
ae ORS eR ab Sg

Ce a

0 ae le i US ee

eee ee

The amended affidavit of merits further averred that he
firet obtained knowledge of thie assumption clause in the deed in
Geteber, 1952, wid thereupon he wae and et11i ie ready, willing and
able to rescind the deal for the purchase of the equity but that
Blisabeth *. Uni ia unable te return any consideration paid by him
for the conveyance te him and hie wife,

The affidavit eet uo the further defense that the notes ne
longer evidenoe any existing indeetednesa, because plaintiff brought
euit on these notes against Midgabeth ¥. Uhl and judcmont was ene
tered in faver eof plaintiff sgainet her wpen said notes and the
netes have been merged in the Judgment; that defendani did net knew
whether plaintiff was still the ewner sf the fudement.

The cause wae tried by a fury with results ae heretofore
stated. Defendant cettends in the firet claee teat when a Judgoent
hae been taken om a prosiiseory nete, the note bevcmes merged inte
the judgment; that it le no longer evidence of indebtednesea, and
thereatter no guilt at law can tbe maintsined on such note. He
cites authority sueh as Bart v. Seyomur, 147 Til. 890; Jogeiyn v.
Shite, 261 11. 16; Sears v. Kiehela, 175 tli, apo. 440; Kelley v.
Mopks, 264 111. App. 408,

he general rule of law for which defendant contends is net
to be contreverted, hen a note is put in juduament, the note La,
of course, merged in the judgment. However, here, plaintiff's
suit is net breught om the netes., The suit isa breucht upon the al-
lage’ promise ef defendant to aseume ond pay the encumbrances «hich
existed sgainst the preperty at the time he reesived his deed and
which are deseribed im the deed, Toe mere Pact that a judgment has
been antered upon notes docu net render them inecempetent evidence
for the purposes of proving any material facet. That was the purpose
for which we assume they were admitted here. Such notes, although

merged in a judgment, reusin competent ae items of evidence se far

“~™
1

ed dads howteva toutinl adives Ve divas Tie Sohnewa OsD 9
al bOob 6a? ab Soule nettennees Ghd ty aybolbwout Beakagde seul?
has galifiw ,yhoot ei iff94 has see of mognetets De {SEeL ,sederso
tad? fod yelaps odd To enastovag 24? cet faok odd bedeoe’e of GEda
‘mid yd blag GeRetedivnse yaa orwiew oF oidony of Ca0.% eoedenhEe
setie ef@ tow wie oF @omeyerage ed? to?

Om BO8On Ot J08) Senwkad wecddeel om aw to0 PdvedtYta esl (69>
figuord Vikgataly aruneed ,esenberdatm palsaize vas etaekive vegas
=e @a¥ Seemm bot bow £40 24 deedeakde duotage aetow ovedt av’ thee
edt ban geodon bine neqe 8A fonkage- Lit¢aiedg te a9ve't ad here?
wons for did Juabaeted dad? jrasmyheh ent of haytem seed over agen
, teomyhwt ee lo tome eat kite sew Viltalalg sedtetie

putea ws ee adinats dole yur woe fo fet aawmenme) GafB 6 oop
Shibem tat a apie gat? agety text? ott oh ehungnce dachaete@® vhedete
‘peal begtom semeced Oto of9 jeden CrueRi not w mo weet need Oba
hoe ,aeeahesdebal te senehive degnet on ef #2 gad poapahel wale
Ko edna ese to Bomtotnkar ee tine kek de Shwe ety tod tae tems
AY Medepel 7800 407 TAL ,evowye’ WW Peel we done! yFirodtue GePto
“¥xetted PhP Wea hLD ASL aioe ks x eeaek pon ELT £08 yggbate
eerie SOP gk hE bas ated

tou at ehasduoe srmhus'toh dy tiie tot wal te odleer kere g ania as

(et Tiltaelq ,ored ,rvewel .toemyiwl et at begin nai
‘wih ott moqu Setaratd a2 oine adh seeder edt a0 tigsord tom eh then
Hotdy eeosmtiaceae 509 you hne omens of Caabated Yo satdore dager.

“baie howd elt Sevicoe ad oul ult du vrmGoNG add santape hegmbxe
sad Seomyiwh # taie tout etem ent bow 910 ak hedinomeb wxe dydsta }
Sha dhve Inesoquoom? wats vohaeT Sou aoe avtoe nog beTesay ood
SdeqsiG tS aaw Sat? tout abe dow Yow galvery Te eweqtag edt ‘to?
gloria, aeden vous S aechaahimerbanadhsnntirrnanta:tntits
tat of womobive to euot? os santequay wiauee , saoeghet @ at

as they are waterisl to the iesues, Brows v, hints, 203 ili. 136.

In view of the instruction given by the court at the clese
ef all the evidenee, the controlling quest.en in the sage ig whether
under the evidenee as a wutter ef lav plaintiz? le entitled te re-
eover from defendant the smount ef the fjudgoent., the facts are
practically undisputed, om and prier te february 6, i9@Se, Slizae
beth F. Uni was the owner of the real evtate deseribed, which is
improved with a two-flat tuiiding. 4% was eubject to the trust
deed donerited in the statexant of eleim and a junior mortgage fer
#0600, Defendant and his wife satuil4ds owned « bungalow at 322
East 80th place, Ghicage, and thie sroperty wes encumbered by 3
mertgage for $4000,

Mrs. Ghl and the Dahiberge on that date sitered inte an
agreement in writing by which ers, “hl, party ef the firet part,
in consideration ef the covenants and egreesents of the party of
the second part, the Dahibergs, agreed to cunvey ta the pin bergs
by statutory €eheral warranty desd, including 611 eetates of home-
stead and all rights ef dower therein, a5 2 ¢ongi 9 oretsg eae
the following @oseribed real cotate,* ete. The agrement recited:

“All iuterest, insuranee proaluas, taxer, ¢te., are to be
pro-rated to date of ciowing. Seetion ¢1, Townahip 36 serth, ange
14, Bast of the Third Prineipai Keridian. ‘Subject to {1) all ex-
isting leases expiring as are, the purcas#er to be entitied toe the
rests accruing after the delivery o? the deed hereunder, (2) all
general taxes levied after the year 1927; (3) a2 unpaid special
taxes and aecesements levied fer imerevesments not completed at the
date hereof, end any unpaid instalinents of special taxes and epe-
ial assesacents for imprevenents completed at the date hereof,
falling due subsequent to the date hereel; (4) any party “all
agreements of record, te bullding line reatrieticns and tuliding
restrictions ef reeerd, od te a first mortgage of $7500.00, 3800,.06
4ue December 13, 1999 and the balance ef $7UCO,00 due becember 13,
1939, with interest at the rate of 6% per antum, payable seule
annualiy; an@ te an unpaid balance of second wortoage ef aporexi-

mately $2606,00, due and payable at the rate ef 3100.0 per month
or were, ond interest at the rate of 6% per annum, payable son thiy, *

The Dsahlbergs on their part agreed te convey by statutery general
warranty deed, including all estates of homestesnd and rights of

dower, for « consideration of 88000, the bungalow at 532 Bast

OEE .£iT COS ,azahedl Vv amend cpus ot? of falzoden one. ved an
eaoly od? Se siwoo only ? nevkes aelieuateal of3 te wei ad, bane?
wacizedy ah ease ots ai agisseup paiilowtacs ety ,eonablve, all Me. te,
“0% of beLsisa ai Tikshialg wei 29 «tinm a te Oonedive oss sitio
um eioat ont, et teaghwl eas te Peasame ong sasbas tab wor reo
rye eR es ,8 enc ad seteg bas 40 .bodwqetbay chteobbouia
si tig Laie sboditoseh tates ino of3 io tenwo of? saw Ld 4 ded
teens ont of dontdee wow $4 .ymibitud teDieowd dthw hevongms .
‘02 sangsx0m ed asl, a dae theca 16 duommtete odd Gh hedizoeed boob,
68 de welnanud « beuwe obiivtek Oliv etd han danke tes ,0ORF,
ee ad beteduuea new YPTAGO TG ELM? bao ,opaoisd ,soatg M103 seek,
, : 1000K§ 16% eaagevom.
ge etal bore soe stan tadt ao eynedises oat bas S40 0x8. ‘
Py gern? oat to YTAG ¢ fas .e48 dois yd ani¢iow ab Poets
te _yhtwe eid te sinowset as bas aS mene ros oat te totterchiegen ab.
sgted ined es of Kovaee of haexge sByted aed ery are Sais om:
<0 MGs! ‘te godaten ake gakbatoad heat eT Soran 3 v

thettoet sunaserye odt soto " *sateten, dies. :

od of Ste ,.0t% , sored ,sawiem iq nies wh SEA
eget ,ddr0% BE qituawet [£9 nolsone seit ne Oran Or fade

«xo ifs (i) of Sootdet .aelbixed Beas x4 29.408 at
ait ot siete ods? tose to reg Leas oitstch eanes tsa
Lia (8) ,twehaweted heeh a2 to pel yoy pa eghe atone ade
feteoge Singau Lin (2) ;*ROL ‘any alt ovina botvel nexus La

eit tn hetetques Joa icone vo tgms ivel gained eo
_ a8 bus vexed felerqe to atnen! Hageat)Boncau ae bas , Te

eerer, eteb esd 7 begolg a Faas an . a
oe api w Yeoq ye (8) (Rosse bah ans migoadan
eo.0e bee bas saoltetxsivat mat

to syeyeiom tet
mt 4 tedaooed eur 09,0007! te, seeded fal
ee — ey to efet Ant fa

Bc o yetom baooes Yo ponsted |
tiiaee ase 0 00nt Xo efor aay Fu nas 40

* “init mom oldayeg , mune tog 28 to eter ont te pre femal ny ae
Lexoug yrotwrate yd yeynae of hewiys tag Kind? oe apmed ied eah,.
Re edayls daw baotasuod 29 e9zaiae ike galouseat | initiative

i aiid siabeentn a9 rewah.

otic

Sth place, the contract containing a netation of the right te in-«~
wert the legsl descriytion of tke premises later, The agreement
further provided that this conveyance should be subject te existing
lessees, cmerel taxes, unpaid special taxes and sesesmmentes end
party “sll agreements and building lime restrictions of reeerd *and
te a first mortgage eof 94000, 3250 due in July, 1922, 2256 in July,
19030, and the talance of $580: due im July, 1991, with interest at
the rate of 6€ per annum, nayeble semieannually.® ‘The Dahlberge
aleo agreed te pay ut the date of the delivery ef the deeds the sum
ef $1900 enth., The parities further sereed that eaeh would furcieh
gertifieate of title, serehantable sbetract ef title, er merchante
able guaranty colicy te the reavective precise to be cenveyed, The
eontract contained ether usual provisions of the real estate beard
for> of centract and was sxecuted by tne reapeetive varties under
seal, Pursuant te that coutract on February 23, 1929, Flizahbeth ¥,
Unl executed a warranty deed of that date conveying to Seblberg and
his wife, for a consideration of 310 and ether geod and valuable
eonsideratiane, ag joint tenante the sroperty owned ty her. The
deed stated that it wae “subject to all tames and aasersoents due
after the year 1924, and to a firet mortzcage of 37500 secured by
trust deed te Henry ?, Jaeger, trustes, dated December 13, 19°97,
Becument ke, 9871557, snd to the unpaid balasee ef tue junior
mortgage trust deed te Henry F. Jaeger, iruceten, dated April is,

1926, Decument Ho. 9995080, a1] of which the grantees borein assumed
¢," The deed wae duly signed end seknowledged be-

fere @ notary publie and recorded in the reeorder’s offices ef Cook
gounty on Pebruary 25, 19%.

The transaction between thease sarties eneme te have been
closed Barch 2, 1920, at the Guarantee Truet & Savings Bomk, now a
part ef the Chieage City Bank & Trust Us. tr, bietfer, «he wae the
aitormey for the tank, took eare ef the transaction, and Mra, Ubi

testitied, “Hr. Kieffer explained the thinge to us," A statement

Mh of dty)x e6f Yo aokiaden » yalnietace teattave off ,eocig as
‘@hameetye ef .tedal esgioo xm e84 be setiqiveged dagel edd Sune
‘gattatxe of tentdue od bivgesle egawqerunn okie tone Aobhvorg t9ddtH?
bra Boutenaeesa ban sexed Saiergs Bhagew ,eexnad fateneg ,ooanet

han® Bioves Yo auolteludest endl gathided bag edeemsetgs ifaw ytiag
VLot at GORE , ORL peel wd ond CBSE 00034 to opegttom tenkt.« of
da de@eetal aghe .£0e£ ,yteh o. onb GORES te eanetnd oct Bap: ,OROL
eyvedide® eA * yileunew<beec eideved ,mwins seq 20 To stat, amt
sea ent? sheoh eft to qteviieb en? ie adah on? fe yoq 2. bees onde
Ag kits? Sino sions sadd hoonye wedituct eels tag est chem “coe te
ofan iotem to ,eitio lo soantede eisadomrlo tem ,@f721 Lo steal? Ltaee
ott .deyovnos of of sealasiq evideeowet ont ef Yokoo ysantany ahda
bined otadew Laat ed? “io ettoleiverg dpuse wecto bonkal ace. toartaoe

tehnt aelrrog ov iseeqent at YC SotoRwRD Baw Dee Soetien Te «tot

.t wdedmetsev (OSOL (CR yRawedet ae deatzeeo tad? of gaouerat ...tese

baa wisditieG of gulyersce aah Jedd be honh qaayiey # bedweane Lau

Sidenlav dar hooy isle hae OL8 Te solsavebtenos » x91, @ thy, add
. S€2 . eel US beawo Chteqerg ent elneced Salo h ea saelterehianon
‘Q08 WPuseeeoess bad cexat ite of tooldue” ew th fadd botate bagh

‘we hotse se GGaTS te. oyag?tom taut a a> Bee hh OE deporte bestng
emer «et adnaead hotak onteares ptopoat a eink os see

| teint ont te eonated blaqaw nat od tame etaarag ere 103

a itga bosah- qondawnt oat i adel et band Jautd a3

“00 honhe rwonion haw hoot, lah nay howb ot * uae od |
“lood te solire etzobeooet oat aa seouener ete ston ‘ies
‘mmed Seek cot aan aedtiay seedid. lates, sedibenioal: oO a
& Wen ,- kao egatveal & gaswe ootnagen® oat? te , ORCL .& done! oho
ont eaw ait USTIOLe eM 90 Saunt, & slawG, gP20 epee IMD, cid, to sn08
[dU set Dae ,moddowunat? ed2 Xo ote9 Mood sie 963 102 YorEdeS
faoustats A “ow of agai? 949 hoatatqxe wetted ti" ebotissaos

fa 9808008 0k timaseot atte :

(prepared by the attorney) was rendered of the transaction. Mrs.
Ul wee named as the aelier amd was credited with the purchase
price of her real estate, $16,000, and wae charged with items euch
ae taxes, insurance, ste., of the tetal ameunt ef 914,650.01 and
debited with a first mortgage ef 37500, a eeeond mortgage of $2600,
acerucd interest on the firet mertgege of $43,75, aceruced interest
on the secend mortgage of 29,66, general tuxes srorated $131.21,
epecial assesanents of $1600, cash paid $5,6309.%. ‘the parties
ehared the expenze of Xr. Aleatfer's gervices, he, apparentiy, repe
resenting beta ef then,

Dahlberg's testiaeny is to the affest that nething whatever
Was aid at amy time sbout the payee! of the encumbrances on the
premises conveyed. The deed Trem Eres. UAL te the Dahlbergs eas
taken to the recorder's office and after being reeerded was depomited
in the tex belonging to the Guarantee Trust & Sevings Dank, Gehlberg
gaye that the deed was taxon to the reeorder's office by some eupleyee
of that bank. The oricinal eontract fer the exehsnge ef these prope
erties wae drawn by = clerk in the bank ond was signed by Dehlberg
there. de saye that nothing was said about paying the aortvage on
the Uhl property; that he never read anything in the deed when he
get it at the bank and that he did net anew ahout the aseuaption
Clause in the deed untii he wan sued. At the time of the triel he
wae 72 years of age, He was bern in Sweden and was 23 yeara ef age
when he came te thie country. He left the preparation of the dewd
and the etatexnqmts to br, Lieffer, te whom beth he and Ars, Uhl
paid atterney's fees, ie hoe owned some real estate, cuned a store
on Waleted etreet, wulit three bulidinge and had been im the hard-
ware business for about 22 yeare. Ae got the deed From the bank
after it wae recorded, took posseasion of the two-?lat building,
rented out the tep flat te lire, Ubi fer sla months, cell¢eted the

rents from the other flat amd paid taxee for the years 1925 ada 1926,

Se a rr

SPSS A RTO

{ | eeeoLgne omen yt oolTie «'xehsane et oF odes new book auld tend, exan

+84 .aolsogncars a? Yo hoanhoms nae (yoanadse od yt barageng)

/ MeetoIeR aM) tle podliets aay hay teliee edt em bomng saw Lo)
Moun ameii ditiw beytede gar bu ,0oe, 01) ,etades ines aad Yo oodng
has 19,080,040 2e ¢aupme invot ome Yo , 080 ,opcmuanh ,eonad se
,CR8RS Io sangitem hassea 2 VOTE Le ageatrom gant « At be betidad
tesiesak powroos ,2° 586 Ie eauydtom Jeatt adf a9 teonesak hewteoa
AS AEAG hogerote goxa2 Lmvenyy 89,68 Yo epnarxom haoons sdf ne
welazeg ot 86.080, 68 Bag Samp .0ORL' To einermpense Leheoge

80 .Visaetaggs ed ,Rogivees Bae Told .1k Io samsgee oad benasp

, meds 2e aed Pasiealaad

wxntade anisien sast poate, Rat of oh yaomhsens opted AM, 0:0 oy
eds #0 agonaidausm eat Ie fupmyen ett guede eas. you Ja, ntoe, paw
_se® egtadidad og? of 169 etd mest beh oS hogeraco aeniagzs
hstnaaas aaw bediege: galad nese hie oof The 8! tebzepet, ome of. ld
atedides not agatvel & toatl gedanzan? an? of palaneied xed ert. ah

-“qet¢ seers te syandoxe 642 292 sosataca Iaaigiae eff. lied, tutto
stedidet yd beaten car bas Aned od? ah faele « ys omen ner, se27n9
#o egcattem add gaiyeq iuods biog aaw gjaliden tadt eyes eh owned

od code Beeb ond al galityne heer tevea od dont gydteaotg LAU watt
Reliqmase sat tuate woae gon BLD ea dost hae daed oat te $2 ton
od fats? on? Lo omhd od 2A .baue gow ont hem baod ont at wamnls
S30 Te Sieey ES sew bas aohews at srod sew eX . .ogs to emacy SP sew

_ deeb od To motteragexg oS? S19L OK .eetawon atte Of omen od miity

_ LE ER daw 94 M0d mode od .TOTIOLA xX 9d atopmetnde ont
Store # baaw ,odaten, Lens ompe bomwe wal oil .nee?. at pe natin Dba
stad 903 at naed bod ban eyathitnd woud skied ,teende i

Asad a3 wort beak ocd toy oh Oe HM: tel ononteut oxaw
eds Retee lion ,essnom nin sot LAY .9yk OF sekt got edt, tuo hotaoy
Os bhe REL ataey ost x62. NAR MRI Aste LI RAS
sha tees weebeds Qo bade tae

/
nad

the g#eend mortgage of $2600 on the property, $500 en the firet
mortgage and the interest avery six sonths on the first mertgage
until the Secenber prior te tue trial. He reecived from the bank
a copy of the etatement and netiaed tual it eaid, “Firet mertgage
$7506, *

fhe question for determination here ile whether on the une
eontradieted avidence defendant is liatle. A@ already sald, he is,
ef course, net liable om the netes besause he did net execute then,
and if he ia to be held lisble it must be by reason ef the contreet,
express er impliecd, whereby he assamed and agreed to pay the oneume
brances against the preperty he received from Are, UAL.

in the comparatively early case ef Lemetees

Thi. 642, our Gupreme esurt anid saiter reviewing autherities fren
other atatess

"411 the cases cited on thie point are to the same effect.
Shere the payment of an outetanding mertgege is part of the our-
chase price sf the land, the lew will imply on agreament te vay ite
fhie ease is entirely different.”

in Drury vy. Helden, 121 [1l. 130, the court seid in sub-
etanee that when a party purchased presises which sre engumbersa
and aneumed the paywent of the indebtedness as a part of the pur-
chase heney, the premises purchased were in nie hands a primary
fund for the payment ef the debt, and thet it was hia duty to pay
it, amd added: “and the rule is the same, although there be no

ateunotion of payment of the indebtedness, if the purchase be made

expreesly subject te the incumbrance, and the amount ef the in
od 48 ingluded in and forse a part of the

: jon of the convey ibhy Vv. Saluer, supra; coms togk
¥_ Hitt, 37 Lil. 542; fowler v. Fay, 62 id. 375; Huggeli v. Pistor,
supra; Ferris v. Crawford, ®? Denio, 5P4.* This seems to be the
rule folloved in eubsequent eases.

Defendant cites Rapp v. Stoner, 164 131. 614, where there

wae & contraet between the parties for the exchange of land. The

gerth end ae O80 ,ydxeqorg ea? mo G0086 “to epentxoa haves ‘ons
ogegécem datht edt a0 editaon ate yréve daotednt ot ban opagdtem
dad orf wont boviesss oH .fatt? add of xoltq xedasoet ald fide
eganited ceili” ,b2a0 Sf 200d beskion bas tuemetade od to veee &
aw oct no sedéadw of ered nobdaniaxedab x92 noltesup ont
yaa “oat blao ‘gheetts wa eden bE ek Faia hiae teh oamebi ve seteinactnse

1). its ak tk te

,ooa) Gunes dom bi ad gouaoed soso etd no etdnli dea 3

, toad a0 ext Ye mo@aos ¢q@ od sane ‘Ok eftabt bind of od ah oa 1 ban
ae ees

-migae ef You of heeige bee hemwedn on qdere de bok tga to 4
{80 .ax8 goxt heviesex ef yeteqedg oils denies neonars
Te .2i28 av eeotemes ‘te sese Ulxse ‘deri seteqene ang ax oe

oxi sob trodd us ees theta bise seo ‘omignt “we hee. y

"yaodede wedi
“foe Tie ‘ams od? of ote talog elds to hedio aodao odd [eae | a
ate OF ansanomae" alent Ci rat aah ‘a Pe adem ot oma
S «tant PRs yfertene af osae ofat

ofan i Dies fase dt ,0CL .£41 (84 ,gphiol sy yoess al.
betedauen oto doide aselum iq bosadowwg yoteg # uedw fads Mer
stig of) io tag & an wevaheidghal ent to sageyeq ods homvege beiaad
‘gtantiqg a ebasd aid od tee besaceteg eoelanrg asd . aeesed anda
weg of yeuh ald age 3h ted? dae. 240m ast Yo dunmyeq esd x07, baw
OG ed oteds dguodtin ,omes edt wi sua ort baa” thobhe bao yo
eham ef secdorug Odd Ih ,etoabetdohal add to sanngag te agli gauase,

ah odd, to 2avome onf ban nonerdmuant od? of soohdua, piiboaod

b anetnaan ONE cht 8B asunaiel yaee, ALE SE tbteat
| ado od e@ aaone chit "602 ,ohaed & ,kaotwers vy eteze’ sengup
toa dmmypoadca of nares Ronee

Mrteds exedw eR ofAt POL 05s cd edie gas ert EoD, EROS
oat baat to sygaedexe eff 1t0t icon mets ponte toertsae ® on i

conveyance stated that the tlile was canveyed subjest to the ene
eumbrances, The deed there, unlike thie ene, however, 414 net con-
tain any elause whieh aeoumed and agresd te pay.

Defendant aleo cites Siegel vy. Herland, 161 111. 107, where
there had likewise teen an exchange of property and several eubse-
quent grantees, The eeurt said, siting autheri ties:

"Je sustain the deersa, the acts proved must smount te an
agreement to pay the $28,060 upon the debt secured by the trust
deed. It is true that « eentrast say be implied, snd that if the
amount of an encumbrance is included in and forme a part ef the
consideration which a grantee promises to pay for premises, and ne
retains that sart of the purchase price, the Law will create a pere
sonal ilability sagainet hin, ¢n the ground that he hae agreed te
pay such indettedneas, In sueh a ease the Law eregumes that the
grantee has agres’ te apply the money so retained fer the purpese
ef paying the encumbrance, “Gither there must be an exoress age
suaption of the indebtedness, or the amount suet be ellewed in the
purchase price mo thet the law will imply the promise, *
the defendants there were not held liable, the epinien pointing out
that “neither in the contrast ser im the deed, sor in the subse-
waomt deed te the Silegels, wae there any aewumption whatever af the
debt seeured by the trust deed or ony syreement te pay it er any
part of it.*

Eay v. hobdell, 213 i11. 369, is sited by defendant, bat
that ie @ case where the title ta the property conveyed was taken
in truet for eertain orediiers at an agreed price and the party
taking title was hel4 not lisble under the ecireumetonces, The
court said:

“The rule te be deduced fron the autherities ia, if the
vendee of land enewabered by mortgage or trust deed purchases only
the vendor's equity of redemption, he is net pereonally liabie te
pay the encumbrance resting upon the land unless he expressly an-
gumed and agreed te pay the same, if, however, he purchases Land
Tor ite full value and retains in his hends, out of the considera.
tien, a sufficient aus to satisly the encumbrance, he may be held
personally liable for the payment thereef, even theugh he has net
expressly agreed to pay tue eneuwsbrunee reating upem the Land, *
the deed in thin case did not contain any agreement that the grantees
should assume the enowsabrances,

Fearn, 107 1h). G2, the question was

s a ees

ote elt vf toaldue eye vane eaw else od tacts be fade sonayornes
«a ton bib stovenodt a9 aks oil Sein .onedd heed wat “evaded
“weg of bowrye pons ‘pomwess rio ketw sour ae aad

oxesty TOL £4i sek vhuekiet oy foneke anéis onLe Iashas ted aati
“eaten see baa ‘Waenesa ‘he apetene sad ene ihe gg has oxeal
teelt tretd ua auisie hias Sxn08 ont 2eetnerg dnsup

re Pe ob soma

mot Joe ee cp gear
‘ aug? on? ¥ Se iterate
e4g tk Saad Bae holiqud of yam Pontiacs « Sand? cant ai si ,.beeb
eid ‘to dtaqy # amtot bag uh bebulest ai senpadewoas aa De
od has ,eoaluetg tet yeq of Gealmetg esfucrg - doldw maple
<19g 4 Odmeto iLiv wei oct ,ogiaqg seadarug alt To ttee gad? |
oe? beorge ead 96 dads bawety es ao ,eld genlage yibiidaks yoy
ont sacs qoauee te wal of? cane « tows al Sdoduk | eae
io bi eit 201 hoaiageoz ce Yeaor eid wayne of hoetge me
HOOTERS Ge OF Jaum OXeHT Youll epee estt ey
eg yo" howe lle ad Stim Sawowe od? to ,deocheddebal ent te moléqaum
a * oolowtg at? yloms Shdw wal ads Jods oo weltq seactotag
gue yritniog solmies otf ,eddelt biad on stew ex9eds cdanbastod oat
eoedus ods af ton ,beoh wce ah SoG. SEaTIaeN, aig a2 vende tean* sade
add Yo teyeiadw aelzqnuuna qan erect ane ‘Siege odd-ob boob tanwe
pars wo #2 Ya bad sapere wer 16 ‘bast desma eatd w borwess taob
ey Was bo ve
dud ,tachasted Yo betta a2 ,@6e iit &ie Stee e ange
aosad “ow ‘becavacs coreqore ‘ost o¢ ecear add orede sumo “si bab
ci ute
etuse ‘odd Saw oof te boots ‘thie ‘te whet thore ataviae tot Smit mh
galt stooncteavorto oi whaw okdons ton bins axe oreas aat
cel a F hay,” ‘oe : ie
tbhes eal

a re Ke a ey: : ; Ho Oe ot oy Bie, 4 0 Pie chy ? eps 3 ab Wo a “aaa
ond t2 ,2 welsisoxttea e863 mort hooubad of of ofex i ee

wine, sletlt wilanertig ten Font t one ae Fl Lief

pg ne ast mae
baat paoagera es meerowes a

due whew
Bied od a's eit peouaiawone &

oft on signed? apyo ,loeaads 2,
“tba ent — write enaagans

gue noleusep df \se 220 8Or jiygaeine ye

whether a defenaant who had defaulted could be held liable ucon a
foreclosure for a aeficiency decree. The court held sgeainst the
eontention of the defeniant that the statute of frauds was not
apolicable, but as the bi}2 41d not allege that the defendant had
signed or sealed his deed, or that tie deed was delivered to nis
and he had aceepted it, he wae held not Llisble. That ease alse
held that the mere recording of the deed did mot constitute an
acceptance under the clreunetances thore spo¢aring, although three
of the fudgee dissented, Similar in effect was Kreidjer v, Myde,
120 Lil. App. $05, whieh defendant aise cites,

Bpler, 196 113. App. 615, the defendent was
held not liable where it appeared thet the eleuse was fraudulently
placed in the deed by the sgent of the plaintiff. The defendant

was alao Held net liable in Ber

t, 211 Tir. 263,
where the purperted deed which contained the afeusption clause wae
in fact net an absolute deed bul a morteage and hed newer been in
fact delivered.

Wilson v. Mundy, 232 111. App. 575, ie another case where
the defendant wae held mot liable on « defieieney deeres by the
Appellate court for the Second district in an epinien which reviewe
many of the cases on thie subject, it wan undisputed there, however,
that the question of whether the defendant shewld assume was dige
cussed, and that the defendant had stated distinetly that he would
net enter inte sny contract by wuieh Me would a¢sume the mortgages.
There wae aleo evidence tending to show that the clause was inserted
surreptitiously and @witheut the defendant's knewledge. Moreover,
it there appeared that the defendant hat never reeognized the ine
debtedness by making amy paymente on it.

The eum and substarice of all the cases seems to be that

where it appears that the transaction ie in every reepect free from

fraud or mistake, wi4 ehere it further appears that the purehare

a gore eideti biet of biuee bodine'teh bad onw taahae ten & sedtome
a3 fanisgs bled given edt .eeteed yonetolteb e 10% oso ssere?
son caw whuat't ‘te etutads ott Sads fant ae tes ent te aolsaeenen
bad toahax toh sat ted? ogetia dom bib Lild end we ted .stdeok een
‘gle oF beto v2 LAb baw hook Sd Peat xo ‘booh ‘ais beleoe <0 bougie
oeta tenn tadt .eidelf toa bier ear eet at hedqoons had on bas

au adutitanoo Jom BID hesh a4 ‘to gabbxoser exsis ont dealt biod
sernt sguody Le aalten gee erat seomatemuoute oat am baws sonasanone
abl oY apshiord av dnote a} ualbet® .bedaoenth ayaa eit 40

ROR io onde tasbaeteb sig die toe tok 4k OB
tp ws

ane pce oad ,8L8 .ogk £17 Ber iho% oe Dieatod at. |
yitnetuhuat? anv earn te ant ted? begebeea 21 etede wddnds don. ‘wt

ee sik a

“paubow'teh ot .Teidaletg ost Yo tudge odd yd hooh on ab bes
S8e £40 LER 1A at oLdals ton dion nin enw

nw gauets seliquenna edt boalesnos sigdde boob botreqtng, oad oxy dr
at wed teven bad boa eyagtiam @ sod heeb aiukeada. ee tox tout ak
| sbounviied soot

etedw agen Tedsom ef ,U8 .egk oti BEF eho wy moe the fey,
ond yd egtens yooelolteh « ag aidelt tea bisa aaw tnabasteb vid

ewolyet daise seluigo am a soiniahs finesed eat tol tawee etatte aw

tevewed ,exed? hadwqelhow saw 22 .doohdan abig a9 anno. ott Yo yawm
ath sa” muses Siueds ioabanleh edt weitadw Ip notterup act dade
hivew of tadd \“Lioniselh betais het janhusteb edt todd bae,.honeme

-gagdtom sdf omen sianieinied mtitegpes fonenan: eeerrerpne

fast od of omoaa genase oui \ 1h 2 ened iad wet?

moth saxt deoqeet yxeve af ah nolioanaent walt, anae ¥ ameensn th et
, te ° haa

1 acl

price of the oreperty is definitely agreed upon and upem the comphe-
tion 4f the transaction the oneumbrance ig treated by the parties as
a part of the consideration smd the grantee secepts a deed eentain-
ing a specific agreexent te pay the *hcumbraices and thereafter
reecsguizes the ebligation by making paymerte thereon, he will be
held liable upon the theery that Ke Bas assumed and agreed te poy.
in i am ¥, Pingkerd, 304 Til, 449, the defendant had been

held lishle by the trial court fer a deficieney decree, and the
Supreme court sald thet the only question involved in the esee was
whether or net the sesenting ef title te the pregerty ana taking
the benefit of the rente arising therefrem, together Fith payment
ef $1000 on the mortgage, smounted to en acceptance or ratification
ef the clause in the dee4 reciting tast the tonveyance wae mamde sube
geet to sil encusbrances of record, Waich the grantee assumed and
agreed to pay. The court then went on to say thet such agreement
must be based on oufficlent comaiteration, and that sometuing mere
than the mere insertion of the glauce that the grantee assumed wae
neceewary. The court sai4 that wiless it be sheen that the grantee
in s deed has some reagon te surpese that the deed te hin contained
& personal contract om Hie part to pay = Rortvage or other lien on
the property traneferred, wid that he ecsented tierets, he cannot
be held, at a matter of law, to have aseuned such obligation, and

*Apolying the above rules to the ease <t bar, we come te
the question whether or sot there ie in the record evidence shoving
m delivery and acceptance «f the decd containing the aseumption
Glaus¢ and asesnt therete. Sefendant in errer offered no evidences,
and, a8 we have esen, the plaintiff in errer's evidenee shows that
the 4efendast in error nad nothing to 4¢ with the tranefer of the
property to her. There ie ne direet evyidenee showing that ehe knew
anything about the ansunuption clause in the deed te her, the took
title to the property, horever, received the rents therefrom and
paid taxes theresn, and while she, under the rues herein referred
to, had constructive notice of all the eonditiona ef the dead, such
Tules 40 not co to the extent ¢f entablisaimg an agreement on her
part to be personally listle fer tae payment of incumbrances against
the ot in the absence of orvel ef some fact or clreumetance
fram eh ouch agreement on her part can be shown. The evidence
shows that by letter she sent a payment of $1000 en this mortgage.
While the Letter is not in the recerd, from the testimony relat
thereto it is evident that it vee written by dafendent in error
and the money sent by her personaliy te apsiy on this mortcage, It

OL
"tie

ewiguge sid sogw baa moqu beakye dos beak tod as yetoqete out te Rete
ee sehttag pdt ys bedeetd #2 gonerdeumm asta woltoseasss nas 28 nots
-tiniges heph asgeone 09 aerry wats baw aphereh tengo eds ‘te oq “

be fA

teftestedt bam pone dauame ect yog oF dor sanege ‘altooge 4 vd gal
S Lipa

ag Liiw of ,ageied? ag usayeg padmau woleoastde ond eoxtngeaat :

Wig of Boozer ban haauagg ees oa tact wrens, ont soqN aidebt ‘pind

Ne ae a chat

seed bas jonbas teh salt 9 fee hak aoc , at a 5 m
tat Boe

geld bre ,oetaed yoretol tes: # tol ItHoo fats ous xe ‘ofan 2 btoa

Rae Ghee ome at how Loved sa tieous ~hag ost band bisa sues oamzen
gabiad has eerogorg was OF pdike to aaitasooa ott, toa Ro _reditone
sapageg Ashe sadiegod eos bei ad waka ite, asaex ont te iPod end
agtiealiiias to sauriqesas ma of bed azome seasat ton ons mo | 0048 29
“ua Ghee saw SOMeYSYAAD dal tans aatsigns book odd at oenese ane ~

Sin thee Or

bois hoaieas oetaata ont Solan Arne a8 sevaetdauoas ‘ts os sae
ee oh De’ At Set
, aeemmetys down Fans yen Py ae ‘uae acts i oat see os |

ae of *
DP aay

: rt
exon aatszonos dais baa «to Lsaxeb Lemon tap ok Thao no boaad ed fa:
i Puen ese | oa
aw hemieas setnatyg oft dads eeneto ony Te ao ltaeant gene a hi
oe ‘Sah Beet
eetagty edt Jedd mwas od 22 eootan sad poten s1w0e oat ctassonen

hoataiace wuld of Seat ont gait eaoqque ot notars omen ‘aad boob 2 at
9 pmas ‘outs %o wget toe & Yad ad Doh ake a0 fauxtace anes »
_ denna of ,atetons hetagass od tant hae _borre taawa ae, ee ef
bee ,coltend {te dom beawesn. ved os ed, to waitem a an

8 A809 OF , tod do erage of of eotet overa nets
galeods eonesive dtoset oi? mi of send

RA
sant on boasts <or%9 ad S aeteaened
f.avoce seneblys a teste * ve trad ov oe
Sse het iti aa
wen elt wasle ogg ne: fomxth ow acd
dood oii8 aon of bewh off ab pithy 1 wr 8 E rege
bra sotinxeds gear edt, boviesen ,teveTas ,ysteqoTs ed ot wfel
bores tex alowed selon oe weorw , ore ofhiw han , meres abeed
doue ,bewb off to anoliibacy oct Lin to woldom a grieauesace sans bes
124 fo saemnonys * ail ce Ridades one ye ¥ titanoe't 2 sou ob Sate
tenlegs, apgaasdanenl Te Jaomyed ocd Lot esd wang ®
ps a gtd to doxt amce te Toor ‘ty eonbeds om “aa
, gocenecr oat .nwowe od age tte fot oo Poe ye *. ii. tt
gite@ lat mo GOOLE To shemey & pessed Yd face
$elet _ysoulined oXf woxt ,hiseet ed? al fon wk wossek oad @
gerte af Goiebor tek yt fesiiew asw Jb foul) ¢aoptew ab th

Po segouszom sid? ae ylaqe of yilanoursg tod yd fabs wor ost ed ,

4
7
ee

does not anpear that the money came rem tae reuts of the property
or from any other seuree axeept the personal funde of defendant in
error. She contends, hewevar, - and im tale she in supported by
the Appellate court, - that this is merely an evidence of a desire
on her part to free the property of the lien and not ewidenee ef
agveptance on her part of the agsumptien clause of the deed. 41th
this we eannet agree. In the absence ef any proof Limiting the
effect of suck paynent, we are of the opinion that it must be taken
ae an set of assent on her part to the assuaptien clause ef the
quiteclaim deed te her. ‘his payment undoubtedly establishes actual
knowledge on Aer part of the existence of thia mortgage, It alee
negatives any repadiaticn of the angumstien clause in the deed and
eonstitutee evidence of gondact om har eart denuting on aceeptance
of such clause,"

Applying theee rulcs to the Peete of thig case it appears
from the uncuntryadieted proses that tae purchase price of this
property wag $16,080; tint the enewabrancee on the property were
eredited to defendant as a part of the esmeaideration fer the anus;
that he tesk « deed after it was reeerded ond tuek nosteesion of
the premises and for several years continued to make payments upen
these snoumbrancea, Sin conduct speaks such Louder than any words
end shees conclusively the acceptance by him ef tas dard with knowk
edge, a& 6 must presume, of the assusetion clause, The ecenveyanee
by the grantor wae o sufficient comsiderstice for his promise,
Dean vy. Yalker, 107 111. 540: Daub y. Hnghebagh, 109 111. 867; Bay_
Mo Wilisaee, 112 1ll. $1; Yebster v. Fieaing, 179 f21. 140, The
amount due was preved by competent evidence, and toore ia no error
in this record shies reqgaires a revergal. The judoment ia therefom
affirmed,

A? LAMIED,

6'Cennor and ReGurciy, J7., #ohour.

sh
cee

ae Wah

we gor ens ‘Le adao% i pax #4 S viene oadz pernger mage oak
a} 3 cette to abiut Langeseq 92 fom ae THOSE shite em yaa most 46
ad betueqque at eda elas ah baw ~ .terecan ,abastaes smo .enTe
aeb w to panehive te yLovem ai eisd fads ~ ,f2nes eta LieggA elf
~~ somblve tox bae anil ef3 te o> <a aad eax ti bade ® wed
aoi® .boek ed? ‘Ye Suselo weliqguwene eet to neg tH
odd golsiai£ toorg te Soaseda ect al .oetge ” bane oF 8
neied od taun 04 tads agiulqe end “te Hin ow , tomy dove “to toeTte’
ens te ceuels wolsquwene ais oF MB tia » og te ee a a
fewses astelidudas yiboddwohay ¢ lates
eeia 21 .egagst6m rig ‘ta Pring % auig + iy ey ana ag tc
fas bead ait ai enaato walsqawnee eey te doidaiiaget
PONAIEwODS Me atisonmh S%eq tod Go soahase Yo. ee (pe sedii sense

ae.

wunegqe th vexo aint to evea't ams oF oe ivr oasce gatytaga 9°"

wig ‘to selte eeedgtwa ed? vest Yeore betel hexsnvenw one meet

eter YrisnoTG Gil¥ ue BvDANtinawAD ore Yost 7600018 aaw Yeeydt

james edf tot noltatebieios eda to daby 2 ve Cehas'teb oF bot these”
“ye antenseeog soos baw bobtoved new EY ts'ta Boob » Midi bd Fade
asyh atimmyeq ete of Bowalt noe areey Lenevee wet hie vow tao ty te
shrew Yn WAY YebwOk Mowm exkoye Foublion vEF .weonntdniett Deby
tdeict atv bees odd Yo ale eo wonetquben nat elovtndtoaey Wedlle BHR”
esinyevade sit .eanelo noliquveua Oat Ye ,snieety Seum bw ae sabe

‘\eataong aid tet noltavetteaon stakelYtue « aa doing Lopiinet

gaitt {woe 246% Wot Mate tumk ov duet Hele .c0r vor
‘edt Lobe .cor ott petee® . eogeitor ye Veer ser” omeki tie iy
sorte bh AL oad hme ,ssetiwe saedegebe od hevoty Sew aut’ favsme

moteredt at jams en?” .daeeever amid athe neg ebay dead

fre ulate.

’ ‘ ‘5 “i sins z ii ee A oT
Ee ms Ge a if) PRS eh ES See
ay yy k ; ae PROS RD Mee POS PF AR RR
‘ hie ag vit 4 teen tml Gt te hee
oR eS Gy riggs * eet

t CER Al ”

. 4 ee ! 4 hy er “ : vy f
Ci MRA RN yeni ie nena od hay
er rr , ot
i na ay” OREM aa tane

F ‘ ; . F wal ret Urey my! ag Eabawns
meee Ra RE Ree Ge

_ ye wee Men tc. ee peg ee

ie Le ee
wee 4B Way oe ba cf oliav

Beg ees ai ear aah ais ania ssa SS aie ah Hd. rn

‘<. $oeend tee eh Ecetues. a ei haieey ash Se feu, Spine Maake han

37244 ro,

PAYBOF¥ TINKOVY, Ff / f
Appellant, f f &
APPEAL FR MURECIFAL COURT i

: af ei

OF CHICAGO. ira :
ey F7 Ty A pat ae
2¢4T.A.665) J

BR, PRESIDING JUSTICE RATCHETT
DELIVERED FHS OPINIO® OF THR COURT,

GEORGS ¥. GRIFFITHS,

}

;

v8. j
|

Appellee. }

February 16, 1955, plaintisr, Paysell ‘inkeff, an attorney
and sceountant, sued defeodant, George ¥. Griffiths, in an action of
contract in the Bunicipsl court. ‘he etatecent of claim alleged a
balance due on account of services rendered in penalf ef a certain
estate of which defendant was trustee. The claim was for 5702.65,
and the affidavit of Wr. Tinkeff wae attached to the statement, in
whieh he everred that this amount was due after allewing a11 eredite,
The statement wae stricken on setion of defendant, ond May 19, 1933,
plaintiff filed an amended statement setting up the alleged services
in detail and naming George ®. Griffiths, trustee, as defendant. AB
affidavit eisiier to the former one av to the umount cue, ate., as
attached to this amended statement.

June 1, 1933, defendant, as trustee, filed an affidavit ef
merits te this amended atatesent, in waich in substance he denied
the making of a contract of employwent, such a8 es alieged in the
statement of claim, but averred that 4t head been agreed that the ser-
vices of plaintiff should be paid for by the different beneficiaries
ef the trust, defendant nimeelf teing one of these beneficiaries and
the property of the trust having peen dietrituted te theae resoeetive
Reneficiaries, ‘The affidavit of merits averred that plaintiff had
renderea a bill for defendant's share for these services to defendant
in the eum of $692.43, which defendant paid, and that he was therefere
net indebted.

There was a motion for plaintiff to etrike the affidavit of

merits, which was denied, Tas cause was set for nearing but continued

} “ \ 7 ss Saeed ( . 1 _
sin, { partes Pn uaa i... coe » ef
ORAaED Xp | : eae sud eae

390 AIRS t: pe fa

rrweo rag talk HOLT ORIGLGRMY, HA eo . ~ be
es) Sas 6 Motes uy cstv Teo us hee —
a Oe het
ogpanen sn ha, THOMASY Troeyat . Mindat bes abt poner oo,

‘% aoiten ae al ,adseittin® .¥ soi .?aehop tab bawe fant ou2008, bas
@ begetile warm to iteoetadse ‘ext att ueE feqho tau ody a a
aledate #8 14 tested al boxehasy aoolwrns te tavoves re out

ne toe 4 =

685 8008 det caw aiete eff leeteccs wow Saabae eb da tate "wen
Gt (dnaaetals e497 4% bedoedin aaw Pioaak? te ‘te Stvabrrts ae he
sadipers ffs yaleotte tite cub caw ‘tanese nbiid tadt herseve os i .
YSOOL UL YeM bas (tombaetes Yo aelton ao aviotssa ssw tom date | at
toolvin# beyoile at gu gaisien snesseatn benassi ae box? “Tututate
“A ,Paebaw teh be pwotaury leds Pt bias .v ser000 antana dos hate at
ee , ote a Prem BAY oF ea one sonts? ong of “aLtate Ca
stiman tas bobaoms whee had
Ye ¢ivesitte yodipnon stp seotant? es en Peabo toh eee ry eh ae
‘Belaeh on soansadwe wt ab biw ak since ase bobavan ahaa et a
‘eae wh Beye lic eaw aa dows » Fetpaneo daze Ys ents noo a te > gals ua fen gat
fa On? fed? hewrgs ased hed th ‘tans boxsete duet ‘stale vo 4 tne}
astiaiot teaed tnpse Ti 2h at yt tot hing ed hiwode Vtdalete Yo asoty
hoa sottelolioaed aecde t9 eng yaled Pioaunt if saa hae heb ofaurd oa »
ovisosqaet saedt of Segudliselb need gated sewed hy te « nogens. Ap
hed Yiidulele sad? Serseve ation to dived tte eat soltale! tome
| thehae teh of wen ttiws seett to? eters a* tambo Vb to sae e i on Ma
Hy erolersds gaw oc dust ban , diag daskae'tob sw hate Eb RODS te ae eit at
ih sbotdonat ten
te tivabitta oud sollte of Tiddatesq tot nol tom s sow ona

Pi Me
Dn nelle Oe te ‘4 7

4, Peutktace tad yatiosd 102 fon saw ewan eat .holneh saw Mose dhin i

from time to time, and on July 14th, in the absence of defendant
oY anyone revresesting sim, the esase was ivied before the sourt,
There was a finding fer plaintiff in the eum ef 9709.25, and Judge
ment entered therefor,

dAuguet 19th thereafter defendant saved te vacate tae
Judgment, and Aauguat aiet defendant by Leave filed hie patition
with certain affidavits in support of his motion. Plaintiff aade
& motion te reassign the case to Judge Lyle, who entered the fudze
ment, and hie motion was detiied av wae also » petition for a
change ef venue from Chief Justice Soneteby, whieh wae Plled later.
The Bearing on the motion was continued from time to time. Plaine
tiff made o motion te strike the petition, whieh was denied. the
mammer of the hearing was anomeious, in that while censidering the
motion to eatrike, the court st the requcet of plaintifY aise heard
oral evidence, At the consiusion of the Hearing he entered an order
vaesting the judgment and eetting the cause fer trial. From that
erder plaintiff preoseeutes thie «wepeal.

While the hearing snd precmedings are in some resseete une
usual (fer whieh plaintiff was largely responeible), we think the
sontreliing facta are not doubtful. Oefendant bad Tiled an affida-
wit of merite, which if true wae « complete defense to plaintiff's
Glaim, fhe enuse had bean get for trial, and defendant's attorney
hed appeared from time to time indicating ap intention te defend
againet the claim. Une continuance, at least, was made at the ree
quest of plaintiff, The cause Sod been set for trial in reom @02
before Judge Lyle July 14, 19335, weies was Friday. friday and
Saturday were the closing daya ef court preceding the summer recess
fer cases in which, Like thie, the omeunt invclved exceeded $200.
Such eases, agecrding te the practice ef the court, would be eon-
tinued autematicaliy te seme day in the fail (or during the summer

set for some certain day in the fall), ond at that time a general

os
ae

Puabawtoh Xo Sousede eat od (det Eh mo ban ,emtd of ents sort
eftwoo of otoied bolas Gav ctweo add ,ahd gals aanetees naoyus be
a<ghut bas 8.06 Yo mun acid ab Yiitalata ce pathatt a ane ovodt
-Sotersss bersetas taom
of ¢isvay of bevem teunbae tee ‘westaoreds HaOE tusrgmh

obs kien ais hott? overt yi sgaxiae toh sets davyua bas i soumbal
han TiiatelS .nektem eh Yo Pxoqqes ah a2 trablYts bette ag te
ans tad Sounten ety ,ogl aghyl af game vd aghansox os noiten @ 2

» an 9 tig is
a 20% taisiieg & outa gew ee belagh ene seiton abs bas

a See cv

.toted heilt ane doisde ,ydetouat ma boewl, Ye.Lstd monk eamey to ”
“ahaly oie 3 og amie mers't bounds acs aaw toh om ead ue patroed a
oak ha ined saw a bite make ited oud editge of aokdam s oben “whe
ont aatzabinaoo oddite Sasa at “seueLenome saw aalsasdt one % ‘yomam

brand en la VeidateLe te sesupoa ani te $uues oda ° ‘ot rite

ee EP Bit

tebto as bored as ea gat raod ons de as isnioaws ods th eoashive ‘ine
F eth ah * +

sees mort takes “ot essa on@ ‘patoten ‘ban 2 0 say bit outs aaltassy

i § op: ete
Laeqas als? aetuesacna Tehemeta aed

ee he

“at Stoeqaet sacs ab ae wus boavare hae aoliend ouly orasie ju
ond daha? ow (eidienogert inane d aoe Vibsaedg so sin tat) fame
wabiTe Aw boLtt bad Iaabaetod inteduod Jon ots ogon gal Lona.
a'Yitdutele of omneted ogo Lqaoy “ eon sirt3 at dodaw seeltoa a thy
| Keres sa a! gasbao toh 5s odahes sot dee need bas eevee edt sateo
_ hated of aoltaegar as sittdooboat ani? of omit ax? Deraegee tad
pet ssid ta ebaa auw sfanod to Pomewal die say vate odd tenkeps 2
Roe moot al dakst x02 toe noes baad eauae oat widtatale rated
bas wanes svabar naw so hetw 60k fa it ond i
eneoet ‘Toman ont aaihooure $uss08 te vad aat.acts outs o10# |
oQO88 bebovoxe bevioval Jase esi7 yoked eait ‘(elde a2 genes ve
ed od biuow Pau oa te solsontq Loud ov an aa i

Wy so Hae ge

osmue 94d gatwd <9) {iat sus at yab ome of yilestdnnctus hownkt

ploy settee

Laceney © cubs tat te bon ,(Lin% ead mh eab whadeee

erder of the Kunieipsl court advised atterneys to check up the files
im August or early in Septenber in order that these dates might be
ascertained.

The petition of defendant averred that on different days
prier to July 14th, one of defendant's atterneys made inquiry of
the clerk and was informed by bi« that the case "ould net be tried
on the 14th but thet he sheald exanine the filbos in August or early
in September to learn upen whet day the case woul? be tried. it
alee averred that defendant's attorney sopesred im court personaily
July 14th ond inquired of the clerk an to the dienosition of the
esuse and wae inforeed that 1% hed een continued until fell. The
averment of the petition that defendant had no agtuel knewledge of
the entry of thie judgsent until the service of am exeevtion on him
on Auguet 17, 1934, is not contradicted, al theugh practically ef the
end of the preceeding leave wae given glaintiff te file an anewer to
the petition.

fhe clerk of the court testified that ke did met have any
reevllection of talking with defendant's attormeys. The reeerd
shows, however, thet §1 cases were on Judge iyle's Gali at this
time and that thia one was Ko. 26. Reeslleection by the clerk ef
everything that occurred in eonnestion with these eases on this hot
July day would be unusual. In addition te the testimony of the clerk
plaintiff hiweelf testified, and his testioeny gives a quite vivid
picture of what actually cecurred, In brief, 4 cisrk from hie of
flee teok eare of the ease before Judge Lyle while nieintiff ware in
the Prabate court engaged in » matter there with Kr, fischer, whe
had charge of the case for 4efendant before Judge Lyle, Plaintiff
gaye thet he 414 mot know that Ur, Fiseher was personally hendling
the case, but he ¢i4 know that the firm of Campbell, Chithere &

Fischer represented defendant, Plaintiff went from the Probate

;

te meet
asitt eds qu deeds of ayentotss boalvbs $1s100 taqté tows ont “te rebte

ad ee. @oaab ouodts tes teite of Tash tqon ak heneed 26 fi gud a
i . ‘22 wenwe
ayeb sastTiib ao teddy hervewe gaahas'teh Yo ‘maksisng sat Tr
to Ctiupal sham agdaréeds a faabac'tes te one Adak wint et toltg
hoidd od don hIuo¥ wend ond Jedd min yo bomtotal aaw bas dzolo at

yttee ae faugud of go ttt od? oudmmon stwods wit ‘tana gud aane tu) on.
“gt .betxd be Biwow deme ont tab tee aoay axeot ef i
Vilamnang Peis ai beteoqus youroten af jasbasted tad? bovreve ‘tie |
gay 46 ‘dost tdeqeth ond 0d ‘xu wuets ode Yo bendupat bas aden 1 ks
eaY .ffet Cita bodatiaes aad ‘bed ¢2 add heonotad naw bio vam ®
te sphefvend isuton oa bod dapbas'tes ait motstteq ont 1° sanmtave
att ag molfveexe aa ‘to scivc0ea od Livan taomahat adds Ye etine oat
oad ta yltas ttnwty riyiodfke ,betalbetencs tom al ,aeel VL fexguh m0 a0
oF tewane ne oft ot phage oe sev want emaairi etd te t 4
7 " sak shiog + oly
ene eva ton bth od sade noxtivded sui Old Ye Mabee dale °™.
Brroswx elit eyoinotea wt yasiiietns dtiw gubited Yo molsoottonet
aide go fiae a’otgl egbut mo ete seams 18 sails ivan ya og

hy trots ant cd notibeltenek BR of sav ono abde tas ba

! foi whit wo eease wands ditty aokieanavs mh bertwo20 “gaidy gatas

| gxnth’ Wate Ye Gababbiel bayer Netthahe ot” tewednl od Kivew we tut
pave Behup’ a" bevy Gaokbsued GH bas bot taees® Iieatd ‘saa %
“46 abit woud wee le \Yetea al ’ Vbextus8s ehiauten take to wrwiolg
at baw Tittalece oLiaw o.£g4 ogbab oxetrd ano ‘atte Ey ot
odw jtodos tl law dihy oxedd ahdtam' an at benesae ie olor % oct
ee re ee ee ee
gatibusd (ttenoereq tae tokdal® dn sniy wean Yon BES pryeeen
“arene to; cebighan' te aa bit Hiedl’ wolee BEN GH Vier Voaee Od

s j ee ffl hy Eo sang a, ay an d
” Paweu® a? mort snow ttttalel ,tashmeeted |
i caine tt sect @ Dae ghiiet ae me Me oe er peepee tet ‘tea

i " tie
Soa ee a

ecurt te the courtroom of Judge Lyle but aid net make any effert te
inform defendant's attorneys aither by ‘phone or etherwise, He saya
that when ke apseared before Judge Lyle the case was ealied and dee
fendent wae called; that the Judge aeked bim (pisintiff} what wae
the nature of the claim and that he replied it was fer accounting
fees and the amount was $702.65; that the Judge agked if there was
any interest claimed and he replied there wae 5 per cent, and that
the Judge directed the judgment be sntered fer the avount of
$702.65, plus interest; that subsequently upon rechecking the
amount, “we netieed that there wae =n error, snd the correst amount
should have teen $709 and that wae the ameunt that wae finaliy
entered on July 14th. *

it does not appear that any wituees was sworn, although
there wan an affidavit of serite on Pile woleh decided that anything
whatever wae 4ue. An ex@iination ef or, TinkeSf enieh aeppvare from
an additional abetraet: filed ie aa Followe;

"fhe Ceurt: @. Mr. Fitness, you knew whe the attorneys
for the defendant were, did you not

A. I knew who the attorneys vere, yea, sir,

% Did you nake any effort to reach then by telephones
or otherwise?

A. Ho, six; because ve were busy on the 14th of July;
that morning I was tusy im a hearing with this ecuneel, Kr. Fiagher, |
in the Probate court, and we had cur «« one of our clarke upetairs
te keep the calendar open on thie account, and the fact i new re-
member that the cage wae vat down for seme subsequent duy and then
wee sat anide.

q& You mean the 14th’ Ae Tes,

&% it wae set fer some subsequent date? A. Yau."

Cress examination by Br. Fischer:

“ir, Fischer: ¢ And you gaid ssthing whatever te me that
morning aheut having thie case on call er making any motion fer an
8s parte judgment, did you’

Ae I didn't know that you were revrementing him.

& Yeu knew--the firm of Campbell, Cliituere & Fischer, of
which firm I am a mecber, were the attorneys for the defendant in
thie case? fe You, eir.*

The plaintivf aaye that the Judge directed that the judgment

should be entered for $702.65, plus interest; that ha first eomputed

_ oF atothe yas oda som bb twa eigd ogbul te moots tucD oud of omee

ayes ab soelwieste 79 bogeys. ws Teste myourrod ta a? saabaetsh wzoiat
9h ban holla saw ouae on eLeui eghub exo'ted poteoues on prt oy ‘asd
aaw tate (Tilsaiate ) ated heden egbul ond fads ibs Lise nay ‘deadas®
actymuoooe tol aww i bediger ad teat bow ints £0 od? 10 ouwdan ont
saw exond tL hedna oyu adt sant 00.806 anv sawome add bas 002
4a03 | bes ,tHeo tag 0 Baw ness fe £ Liga oad baa Dontasto seoxotat y
te sawoms oi? tot Boxed ae od sasaghst rig hotoos tb oar ig

odd yativedos7 aoqu cis asupendia tosis ‘sSeow sat aig “fo.nor8
imams seot10g Ris Han y TORTS se aw ortosis tast beottoa ‘ow | tauoms
yiieatt enw tasé Snes uta aw sane bine eer’ aad ovat twos

: * ABBE tut a6 “bexedm

Fae “ose a OP its

ques Le, .atows hdl susasiv ya ‘att ange sen ead <

gakdgas fad? bekash do tie ott ap ag bem te atin aa ‘aw ‘oxen
ee “fae ee
ert araaqan Bo kee Vedas? 7 % motsuatoaxe ata sub etd
rae 4 Wipy Adio,
rewnhie’ ae ad foi . ‘tpaxseda tanolithba ae
Fite ea?
_Seomeste ens ew weak soy ,aeemett .xe . ie? ‘oatt®
Teed way BES , ftebee tab edt xet
«tie geek, 8s Star ayraretia sis oun week fh
‘eaotinsies ed aoe Kener oF Facts ye wlan wey bids wpe) 6) oe
?oe bexedso ‘te
“Teint To MAL ett oo Youd enew ew wemeoed Gxde .eH uA ce
etedoalt .1M ,fosnvoo alse Atiw galaess @ of Besa: gaw i aniates
evisteqw exeeie tee Io enw «+ tue bo ow how oe nr ae
“0% wea i goet ond Baw ,tesoene ein? ou wege tabarian edt a?
get? box Yael tasuperdve emow “et meot Me ear caso et? dane
sehina tos saw
: “ yeah ae WHIRL wae meow wel . * ath sa % atte
: * wey ++ Vota fonupnndon amos tet $90 bon 4a Ath

i wostog £Y Shed wi Holtantonne enor)

Sad : aa 0 wovesate yids on bteo “st pat “peeaeale ae
fe tet aotten ye gilda te ifeo ae Taio
a or 2 aa b25 ,tupmghel atten Ee
hago ae ee, pa fee” te ahley
o ,Sesosr ® Be
al tuabasteh edd to? wore a Ons oxeW ,tedena @ me vat’ ore
i a Bidccal ome Al sia

Sinigidh wit fasts saenanit taba. ons tant myen Weaiate oft

pete ne aime

i we wate

hesugmon taxtt on dealt peeomeal aute 88 .86TG xo portato “ane

thie as $824, ond om reehecking neticed that there was an error,
and that the amount should have been ¢7799, and judgeent fer that.
amount was finally entered. Se witnegs Wase avorn in the cage,
That the whole procecding aesianted te a fraud ie apparent Trem
an exacination of this reeord,

A woluminous brief bus been Filed citime the i sading
gases on proceedings under eection $9 of the Practiee act and
ville in equity te aet aside judmaents, Aone of them is agpli-
sable to @ situation like this where share srnetics was indulged
in and where the record indicates that the Judgment wae entered
without jurisdietion. Courts have inherent power to protect
themselves from this kind of wraetice and should exercine it
without fear or favor, the order enterad dows not deprive
plaintiff of any substantial right. It nerely provides that he
may present hie case end have it determined according to the law
of the Land - a right of which he was giad to deprive the dee
Tendast.

¥or the reasons indicated thie Judgment ef the trial court
ie affirmed,

ABYI RED,

O'Genner and Xetureiy, JJ,, concur,

.T9%XT Me sow ested? gan? booltow enindenn no Bem ,b88¢ ee ebdt
° pad? xot tavagbut hae ,0e0d ood ved bivoria fasion wd sasig Sen :
.eeno ba2 al crows aw seonti® oil bexedme etionkt aaw a

net we al buwx't a oF betawome gaibeooorg aioe odd “pout
wedi: Vie 8 aol renksexe Pi
eee Se ee ee ee dr een
“pits don eoltone< of? Yo @@ Holswou Yebaw ngaidoosorg uo 'eecnn
‘hbiqna af meds ‘to sani 8d wiowiong bs, ‘ehine tea pe “thus ab okie

boyiubat ae® solteacy cxacde weeds gilda adit molteueie a or often

Lae
heredae saw fopembwh odd ders poder thud brooes ‘ose otedy ban’ ak

ef hy

‘Pobtorg of teweq seexesiad owas sdx¥ed sat sobbe Pst, suet ee
‘* | Slee
$k oelorexe Afwoda hae 90 tiger: to treba olus wort eovionmeds
be suse ty $y
avirges son soo% batetas Tebhte val nore «9 ‘sue? tuontae

ed fadd esbivera eles 42 stright te teaatedon vas ‘te ‘hisatele

ao wae seca
wet aff 2 yaibiedes beaiuteied 34 eved how onao etd stati: ton

“aGb Ged ovliqed 0 haly saw ba ‘Setew Wo ‘figs ae - bing ott te

t <Poge te de ne vs os) ae
gxuée Lbtet edt Ye Yasmphut ony ) betastins anieaet ot a ak aah
| ne ee Toe Ga ae cry see os

ee. Repiy aieind ; eee geben “io 2 2 asteton sant

Baia tah ad face! vee
_ Pes aOR vi EXECS at ma
Se ee mee | ‘ ee ae

teal to. stab
i Shit de we nut 8 Ree.
Pit g SRR ONASAY G, ATER ie

Spinetti SPR UES 6 gas
6 . |
by Mi AR eae || yiladh Ae REMI Be sg _"
: | thin at
Toma wer
Pa
i x
3 Be Fhe, ALR RNG UR ra hae iis nae

SHS ROMaP See Be 9 } oe RV Reel me Rey oie eh ve ® a yA OR es caine

37296

IDA HITCHCOCK BLOOD,
Apeellee,

}
)
H
ve. } f
} of coos COUNTY,
THe WK, MAYER OCOMPARY, )
a Corporation, }
Appeliant. }

} ¥

665

BR, PRESIDING JUSTICR BATCHRYT
GELIVERED THE OPINION GY THK GauRT,

This is an appeal by deferdant fres a deereo awarding te
complainant an accounting fer balf of the gross preceede arising
from the sale ef a book known a6 “The Ocesetiate,”* and reereferring
the couse te a maeter to state the account betvreen the parties,

The cause fae Keard upon e@xeoptione of defendant te the re-
port cf « master in chancery, te “hom it Sed been referred. These
exceptions were overruled, and « deeree entered in conforaity with
the recommendatione of the master,

The faets aa alleged in the bili and found by the master
are as follows;

in April, 1928, and fer severei years prier therete, come
Plainant was engeged in tesehing atid demonstrating the art knewn
as “Beauty Culture.* Defendant corporation was engaged in the
businese ef sanufsacturing, teenstrating and selling beauty ecultare
equipment and machinery. William Meyer waa the president and mana
ger of the corperation and Hud full charge of ite business. fhile
compleinant was engaged in teaching and demonstrating she compiled
a set of notes covering the art, whieh were used by her in teach
ing and desonstrating. Ghe taught at the Weneel Yay Sehool of
Beauty Culture and ele#ehere,

In the early part of April, 1925, ehe had comferencee with
Meyer, who represented defendent, concerning the cenpllation and
publication of her notes in tack form fer sale to the general pub-
lic. On or about April 14, 1925, an oral eoutract was entered inte

— wat
| eae rs 8, ORD east
cnipiniies einai insu ¢ damon wed ty aia.
q a uaa 1 Site 22 gituae ‘aw oe
& “Pets, ‘ fe “steifeah iy nar
_4 AUD ae “so Aout o ia ie aa mane

Ok OLE aE.

| of “galburs setoos és oot Saabon'ten od taoqun ae el ‘sist
antatie ahoonorg aaoty eas te Teel ‘tat snttauseoa te ‘none eion
gabrxe 201-07 baw *,saltemeos ‘oat ee moa hood a te oy eal nen
.20Ret0G ead neared tavcoon ents osage ot hues « ‘oe eauao eae
«ot ont a Snediio tor Yo eaolsqnaxe Og ss ised ew nears ‘ont en
onosti shorn tex ‘med bod 22 0a es sere aiaite ah tefsen fofuan a Te Ree
Pie ee em te =

std bw Ytowotaee ab dexpeas anaeah a hae sDeterteve
* Pat a rige S
steteea ast 10 ‘anol ta ‘a

fg ape. ¥ g
eeteen ont ee ‘bawet bas Lhd oda ad hogetin ie aban, od? more

ede sa a

Saye ys te
aa oS

: porn , ogee? toltq waney Leteves 262 bain .esee , tbxga
awomk Ld wats goisertanoeh hae gakdenos nt hegogns aaw
its ma begeane war noltereqtos faohoo tet ° enw ted a oo

etht uo ysuwed gatiion bie seen _——— ‘te sanalaud
Lat he gia Pps te oer '

i phd es
ane 2

-stas: Bae Sanhblesig ed? anw veyed wn bEA® ersahionn
eLin® ,agenioud ati to ogredo ifwvt her baa solsateqios ols to 123

ete taaes

kettqaos oe yaltarzanpuoh baw gations? of begegae sew trantatgaee ~

eigas? ah war ed heoaw otew codne ,f94 ef yolueves. aston to ten a
20 Loaiiee ya eunoW oat Ya digund ats mepatpnionide bend ant
Hflw eeanetetaod Red ode ,OROL ,Lhaga to teen y fear — . laced
bas noltaligess sat guiwteenes if oebae tok bedaeaetqer octw se
-duq Leweapy 9a¢ of Len 9% meet Xood ak eodor ans Ye aelsaod a

otal here2eo saw Sonxctmen fete oa 860 bk Lheek dwode te 0

between the parties whereby it wae agreed that eoeslaiaant weuld
permit defendant te uee her netes in and about the eompilation and
publication of the teek; that she would enter the employ of de-
fendant and would teach and demenstrate the art of beauty evlture
under the direction of Meyer; that she woul4 demonatrate and reeem-
mend exclusively the equinnent auwifactured and sold by defendant
and that in eoneideration of her netes and her services defendant
would pay her and she would accept an Tull compensation half of the
grease proceeds srieing from the sale ef the beoks, plue a drawing
aecount of $38.8 week and expenses whan out ef the sity ef Chieage.
Pareuant te the contract she delivered the notes to Meyer
and under his direetion wrote a texi book known ae *The Goemetiete, *
whieh was copyrighted under the nase of tha defendant. Defendant
eaused seven editions of the book te be issued, im ali averoximately
28,000 copies, These wore printed and offered tor sale snd were seld
te the pablis. Gemvlaimant hae fully nerfermed her part of the ¢on-
tract and hag no kneowledg® as te the sxset number of copies or the
exact price at which they wore sold, or the exact anount received
by defendant, ae she kept ne books of secount in relation therete,
bat all the faets are sithin the knowledge eY Reyer and defendant
kept bocke ef aceount showing the fasts. After the completion sand
@ale of these seven efiticne of the beok comuliainant fron time te
time dexanded from defendant om secounting and that it pay te her
her share of the green proceods arising frem the gales, tut de~W~
fendant neglected to make such accounting or te pay such money. In
September, 1931, complainant left tae empley of defendant and Keyer
refused te segount to her fer the preceeds from the eale ef the
book amd teld her that the book was in fact the property of defendant.
The anewer of defendant #et up a nucher of defenses, De-
fenédant aaserte that the finding tust the centraet was executed is

against the preponderance of the evidence and urges that, if made,

biwew tanalalqusn dent hoerge eee $f qdeusde agttteg oa? noowdad
hex achinliqnos sat tuodes bie at esfon ted ean of Inabastoh tiaise
~0b ‘to yolame old todan Kinow orn sods pdood ext 6 mol
etvifeo ysueod to tue SAS Sdeusanoed has sowed bingo ‘hae bidisitet
BOD OR bas eiatsenoneh bhuow ode seat pieced Yo nelsoorlh ef? tobag

tnahsetebh yd diee are po-cadinatbiinindl taonqlepe eff yLeviaevloxe base
favheteh asolvrea tsa baa @etoa sea to wal tarwhtence at ted? bos
ei? To Tied aokteanoume Lint sa tanune bivew ade baa sed yoq bivew
giivath » eulg ,exsod oc? ‘to elas om? mort patetia ahorootg eeerm
,oyao tess to yoke ed? le axe none aoaanqee hee doww a: AEE te tasoena
TeyeK oF andom oat hetewhsoh site somnines ead of tmaseted +i
*,e¢etteonsod eai* an avoml dood ixed @ sete apigortth eid xebnw bane
faabaetes ,inabastedh sag Xo emmsi ane wohaw Seliaisygen eae At
Yietoutsorqgs ifs at ,bewee! e¢ of sosd ay te maoliiba mever baawag
Aion etow bas efas sot beve Tie how Bogakeg ssew ge0AT ate kyon O00 8s
aos of? Yo aq tex bawtetreg Yllwt ant dunniademed .otidaq sae ot
odd 1@ aeiqoe te tdaun tooxs oft oo ae eyho twos on sed ban Poaee
bovieoot savenw tonxe sit To ,biee otew yout Moriw de oltre soawe
,oteandd welteaies of tasosea le adeod am tasd ons sa ,tnobaoiok od
Tash ted han ceyedl to sale Lwenl oats ciseie ote etont ends Lin tut
baa colisiques eds t9F%A .atont eat gnivovis smmonoe Yo asond sro
ot emt? mex? ganatalgmon dood add Io exoldibe mavee vend? to ofan
sod od Yeg $2 goed due gatiasonse ae Sandee ted mort Rebaamed, wate
sob tad ,andee oi) oT galelia abeoootg epoty pad To, wxesin wert
al _ ekesom seve Yaq oo te anlsavooes tigen oson oF boson Laon saateey
woven bas dasdseteh te yotque edt Sol gunaleiquoe LCL ,modamrqed
ont to elem edd mott abeoverq ed? 10% ted oF tamoone (oF hea tes.
“stasbay ob ‘to ysxegoxg ont fost ah anv Xood salt Sant tod PLO mers
-of .apgneteh Yo tedaum # qu foe faubaeted Te teweme oat ; Sabiad
al beduonxe naw seatdmoo ods Jaad gatbat?, 97 gest 9 "
ham Th fas? goats baw soaehive est to gem

the agreement wae ultra vires the corporation; that Seyer as presie
dent wae without sutherity te sake such gontreet, aid that ne such
authority wae conferred upen him; tist eomplainuit cannet sttain
equitable relief because of unclean hands, and that the cause of age
tion is barred by the etatute of Limitaticns,

The eehtentien ef defendant as te unclean handa is based
upon the alleget fxet that the material whieh compiainant furnished
te defendant was not her own but was taken from other hooks and ane
thoritics.

There are tre anewers tc thig sontentien, Im the firet
place, the rule ie applicatie enly where the inenulty of whieh come
pinint ie meade concerns the very matter about which relief is sought,
Aesusing that the findings cf the mawter and the decree are correet.,
the supcesed inequitable eondust ie in our epinien tes remete te bar
complainant from her aetion. in the second place, the notes she
furnished m4 the beck abe aenisted in preparing fer publication de
net purport te be more than « compilation of knoviedge on the subject.
She made no particular claims to being an original investigater aleng
these lines, but the evidence tends te estublish that with the
aseletmee of delendant's preeident thie material gathered from 4if-
ferent scurces was compiled inte a treatise on the subfect ehich was
mere or Llese uxefal, but whiah at any rate served the evident pur-
pose for whieh 1t was designed, tiat is, advertising (at the ax-
pense cf the purchasers) machines, equipment, ets., of defendant
company. Indeed, it seane te have been a sucgeseful venture. Meyer
says that compiainant quit the service: 6f defendant voluntarily,
and that defendant would heave been willing te make use of her ser-
vices for s lenger time had she wished to remain, We hold that come
Plainant ie net precluded by any inecuity in her conduct from raine
taining her suit.

Again, defendant contends that the alleged agreement was

&
ue

«teeth ga toyed dade pawtiavectoo watt goniy gas iv new Juomorgn edt
deve On Past ban ,foertaoe Seu ede ot ePliodsee Ivete dy eer: deb
Aletda sounan saeainiqans gady pels apes Setrelizos ear ef i todtan

-on Yo S6ee6 eA teat baa abant aeokon» to omuesod tobiot,oldathupe
. nkoltiotints Ye eeviate ent qd dered eb. mess

besed ef ahnet aseieun of a0 danhieteh Io aokinedaoe edE pan
betvletw? fannie lyms ae liv Lekentem oct todd feat bope ile ed? mogqy
avs bas aiood taito entt sedes aew fod ave ted soe gow. Jnehas teb,o
- FeUT ads al casks ence Bist oF wtewoRe OM ete WIOMT 6 oon:
aan tp iee to ysiupoad ant evede gino eidmoliqna al otut ost oondg
-dsigvoe #2 Toliot daldw tude tesiem yROv sat eameOnOD shan wh Cabede

+ TOSTTED ts OUTORS oH bas Toten BAe “Lo ogadhent’t pee pont, gaimenea

aad oF efemm" oot moialqe ise at al fovisies atdedhepaal hesorque wit
Sie sated of9 eon biwooe otf al ,saidea ten mex? taontedqmee
98 Meltest doy xg? gairveyeta af bedeiese ede dined oct, haw hodehagyt
(i feetdus edd ao vyhoivomil to aelvaltquee « cent stom ad of tterteg gen
goo ke tedeglimevat Laakyixo ae yated of satade tehveleteq en eham.edd
qld aehe dett dailiasee of ehaed eonwhive ect dod ,eeakt eagdt
-t£8 gezt hetsdteg saltoten slat gapdivarg a tacdag'ied Yo gomeatena
Bat Higkdy footdua od? ag salsaent @ otat beilqwoo aay enotue,taege?
atuq saehivs of hevsee ofa Yau ta caddie ted totes. anal x0. omen
aus odd te) qabaltrevbs yok dat ,bengteoh aaw.a2 do body. x0 gees
faebseted to ,.098 ,tasmqiups .seationm (exonedanwg eat 29 pamna
Teco .owwiasy Letuesoces « mend ved oF sasen 42, boobal,, = etn qaseo
- (ekbaerautoy Soanne Led ‘te veodvaae gat dbey saanteseney Aah ame
All roe TH To ot alee Of BULILin awed eved Ainew tanhan tes tod oh
| sive tact hkod OF salawbe bo Resebw ost Dak Oak? tegaete tet epodv
-tian mye? @obhaco ved m2 ytiwpend REE Hy suanhatg
pee tremerge Beguile ##d Jacks Bheetaoe senbaw'ted- lane

Fe
hi

;

ultra wires the corperation. The charter was put in evidence end
estates, “The object fer whieh 4t le formed is te manulaetere elec
trical, medical and selentifie apparatus, inetramente and applie
ances and to engagé in buying oid s@liing same," Aes already

stated, this took seme tc Have been well designed for the promee
tien of the saie of defendant's machines aid apparatus and therefore
was (we hold) well within the implied if net tha capress powere for
whieh the corperation wae formed. Defendant cites ts this peint
Hational tome Bldg. Agsoe. Vv, lowe Savings Sank, 19, Lll. 38;

Converse v, Mmergon Co., 24% 111. 610; United dtates Brewing Go.
Yo Delese 4 Sheopard co., 259 1li. 274; Afyicund jome Purghepe &

Loan Assoc. v. Carroll, 267 211. 346. ‘The lise on this eubjeet as
develeped in the jurisdictions of the different states and the
federal jurisdiction ie not altegetner Khareenious ss will appear
from an interesting diseusnion of the subject in fletener Cyele-
pedia Corporations, permanent edition, vol. 7, okep, 40. Although
some decisions in Illinois foliew the ruhe of the federal jurisdic.
tien that a contract properiy ultrs vires is void, that dectrine
has been mueh modified, in s#ctien 3546 of the work just quoted,
the author saya:

"Adding to the cenfusien and confliet in regard to the doe
trine of Blire vires, many courte distinguleah between (1) traneace
tiens wholly outside the cape of the sautnerity of a corporation,
and (2) transactions whuch, under eome cirewistences, are within
the authority of the corseoration but, in the particular caee, are
im excess of the authority ef the serporation beeauze of the pure
pose of the transaction or otherwise, Stated in suether way, the
Classification ia (1) agts which cre an abuse er an exeeesive use
ef powers gratited, ond (2%) acts outside tne chjects of the corsera-
tion and whelly beyond the servorate perers; er (a) aduse of rower
as distinguished from {b) eant of power. In ether vorde, the clase
of ecaseca now under consiieration exbrace theese where the aet ie
within the powers of the scerporatien fer some purposes but outside
the powers of the ecrsoration in the particular case, WMiferent
rules are apciied, in certain conditions, to the two classes,”

in suppert of thie statenent the author sites euthorities from
many other estates; these cited frem illineis are Sherrard Jtate

Dank vy. Vernon, #45 Lili. App. 122; Pac

dae coaohive ni sey saw wdeats edt = aeldetegzes ett getty epithe
<00i6 @tutes'tuaem of wl Rowse? eh 22 aoiow cot Sostte eAf* peuedte
-kigte Ste atusavttent ,outete¢qe ottitue tee bas Leolbow ,Ladied
( ebaetia 8h “onde yakiion the galuid al syegad of baa donne”
-ouotq ed3 16% bengieeh Llew meed etad of am be Méed GLA ,Bésehe”
sxeleved? dae gudvatoqas bin aentionws a! icuhacted te Slaw ef? Yo molt
x6t etewoq seedque anf fon Th Hobkewk sit aladiw Liew (ied av) daw”
“Pakee alist of eadhe saxhae'ted Jbeweot sat neldarogtes ‘eat sta
388 £42 18 . goed ayntyet pmot .v .egenA spb :

102 aaivesd sores? postal ;@8 .Lf7 OS , 109 goes

$B epedp tui ewok dase dsté pote £27 e8¢ | 90 8

ea Sostdie whdd no Wol edt OOS KET VOR LL } ‘
gat Dae dotate Paes TELb ene te eno svenmeient ott ab soeetvay)
—heada LLiw en guoknewied ‘serliegotia ton af solsethaitet feaxvene?
<Gl9y9 Yeiingeli nt tootdwe ard To solenueatt gatreetedal ad meat”
aguddtia .OP .qado .V .f6¥ ,aoldhie taecameog jeusliwtegie? aligq:
we ibebret Lavette? edt to eivk ¢42 weifot whoa tit at anoiaiood amet ’
@mivdoob gale , tow of pertiy eee le vhieqony toeteade « ‘Padt nels
.bodaus gad) Aree ond To BRIE adkioos AT BOM HSed Homi need aad”

yah rm, ee Ay wnsrian?
so0h Gd? of Hosges al Jodltacs bts cated igo Oat oF gal | reas

~paemate (£) asowted rl be alain Yass ‘o oaks

ee iereentie # to CF Peedt ae edF “te a one <ilvdw « of,

Pre yh ¢ta ,aegogntanotio @exog Belay nao goe at (& 1
Ste ,8eaD toLveisteg ‘mh dud pairs Roan ody te ¥sire

edt te euscosd aoliaxrogtve a4 io ye ivediua %
oat eae ‘thett Gus ad bedase oon bere wabe ee Rok hppa!

wale een i <lerace te to eande me ote aeide as a(t) a
Wiegtov o9 To mot ond ebiwtud avon (*

Po Be! te aiede {a} 19 Siare dt reneee risa had Soe id bane xi siw nel?
eh ton re ppt og oa itd eri # i vey Be te
esting bud wonoeg snot. Sot a sStocsee 26h to te ae iit if
A9t9 Sean telwolixa RO LER az t ie
got ‘ecnnehh wes end oF fae 0) ads lad eue at’, ed : a
‘movt aoksbuifus andte tedtue ‘edd Sapo fede wide “Yo ieient ‘aa
ajatt Drexxed@ ore shonktil moxt bette one? jasdade tate abil

‘ee oi ts a Lit Oba ,

Bationei bive & Ansuity Yo., 46 G11. App. 34, ‘Mven if we enneider
the contrast Aere made as af abugte of the poewere granted, it would
net be whelly void, and in view of the fuct that perfereenee on

the part of ¢couplsinant bas beer sempleted, we cannot doubt her
right te recever upen it.

In the mext place, defendant contends that as the cuppoaed
contract is not an ordinary eercserate tranvaction ite sresident had
ne sutuority merely by virtue of nie offlee te enter inte it, and
no authority was conferred ween Sin. In eupsert ef this contention
defendant eites C. 2, d& Ye H. He Uo. ve. Coleman, 19 ILL. 298; Bere
shan$'s bationgl 2apk v, jisnols & Uo., 325 111. 41; Independent
Gli, etc. v, Port Dearborn, ¢to., 311 til, 274. ‘the general rule
in Tiliaeis ie that the president of « aorperation by virtue ef Ale
effice is recegnized a6 the Guiness head of the coupeny and eny
contract executed by him on betel of the corporation pertaining te
ecrgorate affaires and withia ite geiverai powerw will, in the she
sence of proof te the contrary, be presumed te have been done hy

sathority of the cerzoratien and be binding upon it. Guiseley v.

@e, S23 Lll. 124, We bold teat presumptively the
president of thie company hed power te sxeeute the contract in
question and that thie preauspiion Kae net been overcome by other
evidence,

The prinelpal ocatention of defendant ie that the burden of
proof was wpen complainant te make out ner oase by « preponderance
ef the evidence; that she has Got estabiiened it by sheh orepender-
anes. in the dansidersiien ef thie question we must consider in
the iret place the weight whieh sheuld be given te the repert of
the waster, There hae been some sonfusion in the sutheritier usen
thie question and seme of the older decisions were te the effeet
that the finding of a chaneeller appreving the report of & aaster

Wat entitled to the game weight in ws court of review ag the verdict

sob hewoo ee TE wove Se vga VET o8m . p95 Wana BoE ket Fies
bivow ¢k ,betantg uiwwoy O19 Ye enidd an wh’ obibl Orda Soarfoe CHI
#@ Somcerse Pree Farle sou't Wi? to wot¥ AF Baw iar Meat
teat tdveh Senses ow sitinanel ieed aad tradte fare
: : enti de ali 92 eel devenes of igh:
hewecque sit ae tat? whanyaeo Keehavteh ,oaly’ teow oi at’ “**
‘Ses dneblaste 292 mot temsansd ebaxee«6s yreabbto na sen eh Youd¥ilbs
haw ,92 o8sk thud of 09 tte eld ty aurety Yo eLoten’ wont bn
aolsapiance elad to. deeqqwe we ets — ‘gaw qeivedtue’ on
saphaggebal (40 skit 882° 4 OQ. perme ‘we a
piew Laveceg oct VOPR . ti S28 , 99h teedutee gaet sy 10
ahd Yo o~tti¥ YW aclsarogios a Yo Cusstantg odd Sedd' so penne:
Ce Das Yaeqess ed? To best akeataud oa ae bealagosey af aeltie
0? -gababnttwe’ néleotogees ous 46 tiLome Nada QR WS
wd Oat OF ,Li8v atoweg iateaey ari abitiv ‘na erties Chae

ge ames meee vad 69 pemendd #0 Sehaatitdd “Sle Ss HAE RE

LMORAIKY 92 noqd gathila'Sd fas aab terested oMtt To’ ‘Wide
‘eer Clevitqumteta send Biot we eae cert Be og we i 7
af Soatiace eAf efeooxe of a9wOd hed Yotqamos —

“at awh Lacow ee i
oes MOAT : va outer
ICE EB RC
tootie eff wt sxew anote poh tol Le hesavesionetl stolte

o Yo oaey Ske

ofa jury. Thies is net the law, the findings of s asester in
ehaneery are enly prime Fogle vcrreet, ané wnere the evidenee, as
here, was all taken before the master and nene before the chancel-~
ler and the chamecller 414 not ses er hear the witnesses, this

Sourt ie aot bound te apvly the ruie that « Pinding of the ehane
eelior wili set be set azide unless it ie ¢learly ond manifestly
against the weight oi the evidence, Ghiver v. Hope, 289 11]. 624,
But while thie is the rule the finding of the master io prima feele
Gorrect and ainee the masier secme and bears the witnesses, that

faet alec is entitled te proper weight, altheuge net the weight
which would be given te a verdict ef the jury. Thin is particularpy
true in a eaee Like thie, “here complainant relies upen en eral sone
traet and there the evidence ta @ great extent ceneiste af atatenents
made by her en the one site which are denied by « witnare for defends
ant en the other, each of the witnesses being unizneached, «neh ef
them having the aume opportunity for knowledge and each ef them
being equally interested is the regult of the auit. The contention
ef defendant is that im such cape the burden ef preeft being upon
eomplainant, e reviewing court gust Aeld a8 & matter ef law that

the burden of preef as required of cuevlainant to eatabligh her cage
has not been met. The cases are rare indeed te which such @& rule
might be applied. fae resuonableness of the testiseny of witnesses
and the probability of the tra thfuluese of the narration ef events
to which they teetify, are, «it many others, satters wsich sheuld
be taken inte consideration and whieh asy in « proper case away the
finding te one side or the ether. We have eureYulily reed over the
evidence of complainsnt and icnat ef defendant, and are iwpressed with
the faet that her narration is the sere reesonable and probable. A
perewneive, if net oomireliing, feet ie that she hed prepared this
material lsrgely before the beginning ef her service with defeniant
and that defendant appropriated and made use of it and, in fact, in

’
a voteom « te agaihal? oat awed one fon 2 abit, yh ee
aa ,Sonobive od? ovedy haw ,tpettey shoe) ABIEg Ying ois yxeuaede
«-fagnerig eff eigied gron baa Voiaea Bas giolnd netnt Sia new ore
ekt? ,sersentin eG) Yad to ove toe LLb ToL svonede one. ban set
enade off lo yalbait « tad oles ase yYlgge at haved don a fume
“iteetioew bas ¢fisedo ad 34 watLon andan ges om goa ilk r9ikeo
Oh oLLi OOS ,oeek ay nawtds .wemohive ote 1o tdytew baad ides ibe m
sive? gsizg st aedecs eas to yaibadl and edwt ode a2 ine, oListe aa
dais yunaeo atin ocd erage bas aege Teteae OAs sante ben, tneveg
tiakew eit ten cgwortds ,siylow aeqetq at belts tne, at sate saat
Vtaieoi@rag eh wil veut oft Yo dothsov « of sevtg ad Ahuos ' ae
-193 i216 an voqy solin: Jnoniatqmes orcs ahi SLL onan ab eed
sicometate Lo etelnaeg Jnotee teorg @ od evaobive sit aes par toa >
-hno'tes tok eneacie o yf botard oma dats eile eae edd ae xed ‘i baw
‘te case ,hedonaqutas gaied segsentiv off te Hone tense eae #0. 9a
weit te tone bas ogheiveal sot Yiisudiogge saea edt aret Daten
aotensesos ea tine ond To siumet ont ab beteeredal yLseupo pated
Moqu gated toot io aebied ad? geen own at Inds of Jomhas a fib
eds tal to wetied a ea biew Jeun Saupe gsiwelvor a. tame
een tel daiidades of sonalaiques to beviepet ee teeta Xo Mester hci
‘oLst a denn colde of beohal gtes ss apene gat .tom need fon vad
seusoas iv Yo yaoulsess ods to anne dtnncsaey AT boliqgn of sagt
einer ke nokdetten eae to aeoniuitaswas eet De qt ALAdedore ont bow
biveds fabew atetion ,sted20 yao tlw ,ot ,yllenes Kets aig be oP od
ods gave cane Yecory & ah yaw Mode bre sabsare biomes, 096, aed
oad reve beet VEL eras eves oe atbat’
td bw heanenqink ore hae ,Pandanted eed ghar.
A .cidadoxg bas eidanocaus otom of) ai aoltenan tad sedd doe? vslt
eidd beiaqeig had eda gas? al dock .galifewoges dom tL sev iaaneneg
tuobasteb tiv solvier td Io yatauiged aay oreted yloutad |
at ,toct ah ,bas 22 to cay obam bas betaligo®

each ef the editions acknowledged her situcranip on the tithe page.
in this commercial day it is usual fer » persan te pay Ter what he
receives and unreasonable te suppose that valuable material and
services will be given vithout compensation.

& second consideration whieh tipe the agales in raver ef
eomplainant’s eomtention is the ineonsistency of perts of the evie
dence of defendant's president, ine fellowing ace unt ef the exe
asination ef defendant's president will illustrate:

“ge Lt ie your contention that when you hired her the aue
therghip of the book was to be part af her duty? A. Eo, wir.

Ge Weal, you hired her at 753 o week; *hat was she supe
poaed to 467 A. Firat of all, desenetrate apparatus; jesend.
write some instructions fer the acpratue showing partioularly the
mode of » plication of that avpuratus; amd tuird, efter I had dee
€ided that it would eost more te get out the different bulietias
covering these instructions, the: to cempiie it in « besk form and
one Was te write certsein articiee #ith wuien she was familiar and
i was te write otser articles anc alee te euperviee the work of
getting out this compendium, *

im addition te this is the undisputed fact apgearing frem the evie
denes that at the time compiainant entered inte tha contract with
defendant she wae then empleyed ty ametuer soncerm for whieh she fas
reeviving 256 a week. It seems hardly poosible she would relinquish
this te accept on empleyment in wiieh she reuld receive enly 635 a
week, the former empleyer was not finsncisily impeccable and some
time later quit business, but ecmplainant's undisputed teatimeny is
te the effect that up to the time che geit hor sulary wae pald in ful

Added te these fucts in the farther one, already sentioned,
that the master saw and heard the witnesses, woleh mast be given
some weight. After a review cf aii the record we conclude that we
eanmuct bold the decree te be againet tne weight of the evidence, and

for that reason it is affirmed,
A¥VIRME?,

Genser and BeSarely, J7., eoxnour.

fa Sh
ogaq ofits esa ao aq tie 0K? ast hages wonton anoitibs ony ve sae

ed tice rot rag os aoeteq a x02 taweu vi tk yeh te tonwmoe prs wl
.% ig.
* ns ielxedam pidawiey tans endequx ot oftenosaetay bas ‘soviveer
fate. Se
’ sHotisnasames twotsiw gevis od ike re nbs .
ee

‘te tovet af esinos wd sqkt Hoban aotseted taaes buonee a
pew

~ivs ont Ye ‘sot8q ‘to couse lenoomd edt ef welsaedace #' tavatelqnee
9 po “te ¢au oba ntkes fle? eutt sain ely 8 ' fasbaeted v0 comsh

‘jederdeulls ££4W daeblevte 8 ' dnsbae tob 20 no ten tue
9. me : Ce ae |
ete oft tod hosid wey aony Jad? agitagdxan tuo of re oe"
etha., ee, Pa tygteb me oe pd of Bev aged. ae ey gqistazedd
egue sau eew Sasi tioow # 86 te oi howkd woy ,itet
. Boao dtatisnowh . dia te. os 4 ae
ie hy galvesta audetgne ye 46 = meldowstent re
eh Daal ne shhhei. & Sabie saentende ama te oe] bo 94
sete tibe"s ry tar ; yo Bae yagi age «A perl rome wipes FY
» ee ee dood & th Bh wh aseut ates
“boa tehilae? saw ofy feicw ag Beg A ag wlel<oe “we a
to aeoe off oulrsoqun at ont ba Gohie waite etlaw oe eared
* Aiea ine qe slat two rent
aalg ae
«lve ost mor? aaltsoaas toot bed waa baw ott ok shit ‘of ‘nots thie |
, A Sa
athe toattnos ‘wit ogak beretan ‘$apatstomes emis dt te tani someh
i pa ge
ee one doldw tot axeonse ‘weston w boyosens esis aww oie “sunbas'teb
oh ie Sade TR
de ivpat ier biuew oats eldtaveg eibued tone ox ad * ‘6a gaty vot
ee Mae $e be CED
a ath xine hevieoet bivew ede tisdaw at 480 aco Sqm a tqooos 2 _—
‘ Dn: ae)
‘eson ‘ban eidaoveqed Ylivloowal? tes eaew xo yorqas ‘vemxo1 eat

es ‘gnoatiass ‘pedugqal haw ‘a! dnankalques aud ssoenioud éhup “setal waht |
i att al blog eer yralee tod J hog @tie emis 9262 of ass sada ton tte at ot :
toto jun yboor te use tedda0t ea? si atact ened? of ‘bsbha it

“Hevig ad gaim doi iiw ‘| keasoatiw ‘od? Suded blo wee ‘ae dean odd dads >

dw fed shilonos ow brovex oat ka Yo wolver a teats — ‘shay. ov embe
ban ,eeaabive add Le Jdghew oat? sontoms: ot sions The’ ed ae
bol aoaeot oe

gi EMAL TGA bal ake ee ae if " saath. RG eth nohhwe

;
’
;

Pak?
tenes ,.0b ,ylormlel bes *
Ko nage iey eel we Sih el aR gael ae ae Spe fe pemrvrenti

eee tN Ma ee: See DM Te | iB) GAs RATS ie eae Ye Qs. fareegan “1

-f

, Pwdeducirincees a aoatiiae h9 b sae -

37328

CHICAGO TIZLE ap YAUST CUMPABY, ~~ J A
a Corporation, } a

Defendant in Error, / } (x E
te “ TT fo wUNLotRx
ve. } i
} OF CALCAM
RSLEK G, HESLEY and SUGxe 4, HABLAY, 3}
Pisintiffe in srrer.

} Lams, = Es
24 TAL

BAH, PRESIDING JURTICR RATCHETT
DRLIVERED THE CPISTOR OF TRE CounT,

In en action in contract, upon trial by jury, at the cloee
ef all the evidence after a wetion by defendants fer sn inatructed
verdiet in their faver had been ¢enied, the court usem siotien af
Plaintiff? directed the jury to raturn a verdict for glisintitf in
the eum of $1176.35. The verdict was returned, ond the court overs
ruling wotione for a new trial end im arrest, entered judgmont in
faver of pleintiff for the smeunt ef the verdict. Melendante ask
that thie Judguent be reversed with = finding ef Taet.

there 1s praeticaiiy xo conPliet in the evidence, Sugene
H. Henley ie the husbsad of J#len G, ieniey; they were the owners of
certain lend ia Cook esunty., Ceteobar 1, i924, they entered inte a
contract in writing to #eli this land to the Aetna all Bearing Banwe
facturing Co.; tieir agent and breker im that behalf was one a, KM,
Bevry; in fact Rre. Henley had shortly before purehased this pare
tieular piece of preperty through DeVry whe aoted as ner brexer and
agent, Vetober 1, 1923, DeVry, in the presence of Rugene 4, Kenley
and by his dirsetion, eigned an application te plnintiff fer a
guaranty policy in its usual form and in the gum of 9130,i0. The
application states that the tithe «as veeted in Helen G, Helier,
“now Helen G. Henley;* that the party te be guaranteed was the Aetna
Ball Bearing Bfg. Co., a corceration of Illineis, the application
was signed, “A, i, DeVry, wpplicant, addrees 474 Wrigley Pidg., on
behalf of Helen G. Healey, or Helen U, Helier.” Kr. Serdneld, ute

torney for the purchasing corpersiion, was present at the time Br.

os
%

ss ae ravay <ds Ricit epapine
; motdator tame «
more ad Zaha 20

Hine He Re aE
= +8 a
ae oy tg DRY Ny a yore IR
» PLR ok uutoUR i: vain 2 MDE
yore mb e8theata lh 6.6% halve»

‘aaa ALL. ae: Ne oy ik Cea

“WPRROTAM @ORTECT BMLETUMMT jMB 6 6! doo ats Lemme
PRUE ANT YO UGLATS Et “HARV LE 5. hla
5 Kok “2 Be

oenis oi #a ctw a kabaa sou Peartnos at wolitoa & rani al ct
vy LP eee
beteus¢ent Pus x0 atzedas teh Ww aeitoa 2 wadte soushive nae tha ™

Yo wold oe soit woe est bosaan aed Sem rove? ahead abe roubaes
ak: Wadd alate tet fobbrev a amen abl cst aa. betoerte “phe

fae Bee Cu

-108¥0 anos ot: bas homies sum destroy our BE RLEE 0 : e

: os hate ®

ak davmatet ‘pera, ans ak: baw taint ven ‘ne smolvow gard ro
20 Ste OF Sore

den Atusbastet ».sdetheer ena ‘ie sawawe at: uot Mtatahesg tw wns |

Pe ee ee
etoat 1 pathary P at bw beatover ed tunag bat alas toad
cs

enogu sananlve: ost at toi staas oa Ulapieoang a creat .
bei exoamo os oxem yout sue cae a mo ke te pnadesst ene at ‘ein oe
' a ofat bers aiea yece eo aL 3 we soseo “eave go a ‘baad 1 nt ay

vat patuesit Lait amen avail sda hand ats Lipa “gutta bina

ok a oto eax ‘Whasad tase ah sedoxd oe sate atedd 7 a0 ge phot
ite I ee Mahe ‘@
-109 alsa beaasorte oreo trode baa we danli ok gost al

ik : ER Ree Pbk “Ae Bk S
:: bas tedond 8st ne beam w ov 9

as itt x “i sy aed wasaotg te 990 oneey | wath 5
VoAaeit a ono gust te somoaetg ang a uated s0R@r at “aosoto ie
duit CORR, oe Sa Ne ie
* “16 Mudalasg at wolsnok tugs we samats pot tours aid ¥ ae see
Ces isin aR ea i et a ange ahaa }
ett +0004 98.8 0 awe odd aah ban wit lave eat at y te
is oe hea ath Re Sey “ee iy) L j

"¢uaddeaeyb ala ab domed inds: whens ah: 8 sata aeeasa nhhege
POM of ap xthkeot tate eee
angoa of) anv beetasitavy od of Yitey nuit Swuid *yyetael * dougie vane” :

aeoijacliqgs of2 .ehoeailil ‘te Hohtaceasey, B ged mtd alkiaed
YS we wy be #y)

ab «ahhh. weleinl. ith. dhinbhn aeteliens “yeries ot oa ’ :

“2¢ sdioubied .aM ".tetiok »0 aeieh xe veto! 0 ante te hadad aa

ot omits ait ta sapas tg ane smmbooraunee attendee ong “ your

Htemley diracted DeYry te sign thie application, UleVry had a charge
account with plaintiff, ond the esiley woe iseusd and delivered and
charged to hie account, Henthhy bills or stetenents for services
were rendered to kim, in these etatexents were included tne Shur ges
for the guaranty poliey, services, ete., retidered, om account of
whieh plaintiff seeks to revover, Several such bills were mailed te
Devry. iater plaintiff mailes a bill fer these services te Sugene
kh. Henley, and thereafter & bil for the sage was gent te Helen G,
and Bugene &. Henley. #lalntiftY 414 net carry & charge aceount with
defendants oY either of trem, The contract between the Henloye and
the Manufneturing Co., by *hies the Hebleys agreed to convey thie
eal estate is in evidence. It srevidew tha: the venders agreed te
deliver s "guarantee oolicy of the Chicege Tithe & Truet Us., in ite
usual ferm.* It eontaines ne srevigion by «hich either an abstraet
er a eertifiaste of titie from the Terrene' office might be subatie
tuted, Thies contract, with a cheek fer 25,000 to tae order of
Bugene 5. Henley, leas $5 escrow fee, wae on the date of the centragt
deposited in eserow with glaintifY,

there ig preel that the poliey was delivered to attormey
Berdheld, and that the emount fer which pluintiff sues is the ueuak,
eustemary and reasonable eharges Tor the services rendered,

One Hamiilten ras sredaced az «o wlingss for the wuxvose of
proving conversations and agreements bateeen Amley ond DeVry eene
eerning the terwe under whieh DeVry wae espleyed to s#@ll the real
#etate., An objection te this evidence was suvteined. Defendants then
offered to prove by Hamilton that the agreement between DeVry and
Henley wae that DeVry wav to receive se coupenestion for bis serviees
everything over and above $125,000 obtained fron the sale of the
property and te pay all expenses of the transaction including the cost
of a guaranty poliey; further, that slaintiff insued billie te DeVry,

which Hamilton auw, and that DeVry regarded the debt as sie personal

vplyhe ua]

egtade « bed ysVod ao lteniiqgs efhs angie oF waved bedooadh eine
bom Seveviick bag fewagt eae wohiog ents fi tas .TRis abe Le déiiw tauxeove
aevivies 29% afaeaetoce 4¢ eiihd yittdaok ,dnweasn eis of beytado
aegtads of3 bebuloat etsw ageoomdete eeeds al. sale of besohion oxew
‘to dawboos wo ,bepebaet ,.08% ,sooivaes .yehloq ysuetaw, oMt 16?

63 beilam erew silid tose igvovet .xere7es of stene Yihinialq doldw
enegwt of avoivtes owen? te? Lhid « bo thow Tileatale wsad “erven
.) avfel od dan saw omes ond tot Lfl4 » iP esteds ban Ro a
Aehw saseoes eRteas # yULe9 toa bee “Yebsebedt yen oli one gant ‘om
2 aus aye Lapit ade asewood gaaxdi00 ent sat “te coutha to saat 0 toh
eas yerace af heewge axolaen eats sim dete yd 2 +02 gab rutoetamalt oa

ot beorne stobay vend fads sobiveng au seoaeblve ab a2 eaasee i
ati at +00 tous ab ocokt opas ta out We woleg « ondawtauy® My evi ob

Led yo ae Cent
doatsada ite sense ‘tian vd nelatvore au eniasnon a * see roe

whtedua ad fy dae eslTie 'eserne? edt ost arsis re stanitisr9 ; ‘se

Yo xeh10 etd of 000 88 0% 49 9¢to & athe Sowttse aia sboaut
NB pl
denctans edt 20 e0ab oft no nav eek wernee BO seed ee Lael a eo

ce + eas a ‘

-Vibsalnte aghw worwee at met

| Waatcot sa oa bevevileh sew votieg xd taal? room, at oxett

fawew odd ol sous Yitdaialg dokde teh davome ode satid how sbiodbrell

shore bat asotrtes ait 20k ‘eegrede ee Ss g29 a mt

“tte enogruc oss to" cued tw & Be beouborg sow ‘sab Lamait “—

eteo YiVell bee Yelm asewted 88 83h 598 fan oo} zuaxevaes
inet ait Live og bexoseaw saw vied Ho baw ‘sobsw eur0s ‘eal ane ie
= ad anbas toe sheakadeun aew soaeheve dats oF ‘netsootso ‘wh “etanes

A a abi eres be Pid is sk

bane ervod agewied due mpecge one post aot Ehmat ed ovete
Let. it tae to, eae?
aeotvres ans a0 tobtanxvqaes ae eviese od oaw w ive’ tats tant eaw olen

pe tee

ext to eae ox? ioxt boateddo 000,88.46 ovets hae eve, aaisryrors

Mt yn &
|) saeo ont yathutoat aottenvansa ont to soxavare ie woe os bas rors
hia ) Bite be Chaos —
verve 08 iti beuent Tilonlela teat ,cedbiwt pepliog ysantame aa © 0

jet hai BN eae: Se

kanoot9¢ old ea sdb ocd bohreget guvet ted? hom ywae wane not tinn

obligation. This evidence was sxeladed.

¥ebruary 9, 1999, sleintiff erete &. &, Heniey in oubetanice
that DeYry had ordered the guaranty goliey in betel? of Helen @,
Henley; that the item wee past due wid that if it was not pald
further setion weuld be taxen. Henley reslied that the services
Were charged to Se¥ry'a account; that SeVey had beon pal’ the smeunt
neeeorery te say the aecount, Te tuia Leiter pladatirt replied that
the files shoved that the guaranty coliey »as erdered in tehaif of
hra. Henley and inalsted that che reat.

This cult was begun Lay 4, 2b59, againet Se¥ry, Holanm 4,
and “azene 4, Henley, The death ef Sevry wae suggeated June lo,
1929. The cause cave on Yor trial December 21, 1932, but a jurer
was withdrawn ond leave wae given plalntiiY te Plie an soendeg states
mens of claim in ten days. The awended etatenmt of wialm was filed
Beeexber 24, 1932, againet only Helen ©. sad fagene &, Senley. April
84, 1931, a 4edinun teoued frou the office of the clerk of the Buni-
eisai eourt te take the 4epesitions of defendants in the City «ef Sen
York, emd their ¢deseritions were tsben amd returned (so the eourt, Om
the trial platatiif, ever the ebjection of defenianita, reat parte of
these devowitionse, At the time the decoeitions were taken evidenes
had been offered by defendamte concerning the agreements of defendants
with DeVry, Plaintiff objected at that time ond renewed Ite objection
upon the trial, and ite sbjectione were eusteined by the trial court,
At the econelusien ef a1) the evidence taere war an inetructed verdiet
as heretefere stated.

Defendants argue in the Pirest clace, that asmuming CeYry had
autherity te bind Helen @. Henley, it was «t412 possible for tim to
Beke a contract with plaintiff en Ais ewn reepensibhility, and they
eite a number of cages to the affeet tant the addition te the signa

ture of the word “agmt,” or elmiilar @ords, sre mere deucriptio

personae, ‘hey cite Besd v. ALtgeid, 136 111. 206; thicage Title asd

Pan ‘ ae pe, wieeetomne see poaphive ohat moh’
enmmietes ad satel i ok gto Tivalele 9 PR OE a® erawede’.

2 eG ah

ot aetel 30 Vasted, a2 yiing etawanig ett hetebrto Pe 8 I

ANS RR RAMEE

whom, ais ‘atk sabtion “a. meies og nares ororom Aone
seven oft bing mand hed yxVad doe? penueaen aya Ver os, hogy ade oxew
fads Ded igor TR toate he aeated aig ef .danooea mat yeq of creamepan
Yo Based m2 howebas say yadton xénetECR ge ted? deworn aeLER wMd

i »thvews ots dadt Dotaleat baw wanen ed
er —— funtona CRU ok gee suped pew thus what oe!
_nOf naul Dotoongue saw yRVee Yo adesh aft .yokael of onsqat bine
towh # tud ,080L ,£8 sedapeed fetxt wat ne saeo prieo Ms 088
sosats hebromy, ma 9Ltt ot Viitatete novia gam svaek ban wmerhit te

best? caw mtele 19 sansnsva9 hobanue eat .eyah ned at oan a
tml. 9? to reso 989 Lo polit t aM mex sousas gumtsod a aaa
_ Bed to Gtl2 eft af atanhastor Yo xayltisgask oat pang ot Sto feqts ‘
mo .fauos st of ematet hae wedad exe anaktivensh thes? fae ter
Yo atteq beet ,nisnhactoh to ootiectve ait eve ,Thivatetg latat emt
Aouehive aster s19¥ aadttisegnh 9G? omy ald 4A ,emolttongns geadt
stashay toh Io ataagoetys odd yakareonco atouhaotes yd nore ne ;
mohéas to ath howeaax tay oats fad fo botnetae lost .erved tie

dupe Leded, odd yd bealetum ener anotivotde a@2. an tet = a

wy
RN? ot

bac. eittet: alii tadd = poeree oe oh aargee a tie a

ot abt wot akdinnag Lite eae th .yedaye .@ ota sted bas
i tort bow, .yttiidlasogues ove abd mo, sistas 4 Athw tomstang a.
(nettle oat oF wok tsbba, ods Soci erin ot | |

et RS A

$36 Tl. 822; Anes v. Garo!

Lu et w 3 He oa,

Botfman, In¢g., $36 111. S43, aud many other eagee, Yhey say that
Henleys had no aecount with olaintiff; thet $5,000 was deneaited
in ew¢rew; that plaintiff? eculd have retained the price of tne
gveranty policy, if 14 wished, oid instead ef thie, it eleeted te
Yeleage the funds im ite porsecsien and to look te beVry fer pay-
ment. They furtaer eay that sialntiff ewald Bave recovered from
Devry.

Fe think it quite unmneceseary to review the eases cited.
They ar® clearly distinguishable upon the facte and not at 211 sone
trolling here, The mere fact that tse itene mued for wore charged
to DeVry'sa sceount would net greoiude a sult thereafter against Je-

Tendante. White Oak Coal Ga, v. Yortringtan, 15% lil. Ape. 86%.

In the absonce of proof to the sentrary the contract with slaintiff
will be interpreted an the agsiication of deYendants, net of DeVry,
@ince 1t clearly sopeare that Devry acted in the tramesction fer
disclosed principals. See Kestaieeent of the Law of Ageney, sects,
155 and 156, There wae mo orcef here, cor offer to prove, thet
Plaintiff or ites agente handling tiie transaetion were informed that
DeVry was to pay these cogte ani expenees, if guen knovledge hed
been brought home te plaintiif, different questien would be eree
sented, The uncontradicted evidenor chews that defendants with
knowledge requested and secepted the services of plaintiff and the
papers and decunente produced by such services; that by written gon.
tract they hed expresely obligated themaelves to deliver sech
doguments se prepared by glaintiff. Um the plainest orinciples of
equity and justice they are obligated te pay fer that which they
have reecived and used, The conversations between defendants and
their agent DeVry in the abeence ef representatives of plaintirr
eould met in any way be binding upon plaintiff anlere there wee an

offer to shew that such conversations or arrangenent had been made

ui (ON WAL! SEE gmemee in” oy ee deeet.

sacit yos yout .seeao. Yedso Yow baw ,FEN 260) OSL _ pal , aagtiek
botimoweh saw 000,09 gacdt ;Viksmloig sinw tances on bad aye Lag
aid io wolug ot? Reakatet sven binoe Tikialadg dasit pwotemm mh
of Beton ly £2 ,eis? to hardeat doe .beniatw a2 th ,yoitog ydaptaug.
tyr tei ytVed e¢ seed of bus agiesseneg of4 ah about ad? eae
sort bexrsveeRt wind biases Viddriaic tgue you teddinl yoat i
: , i pi | » on cee
shetlo aseae odd welveat of qimeeepeuay otiap 82 AGRE OF ooo ce
90 Lia gn fod tae edowk edd noqe eiducminguitale yitaedo etm yout
bogies wtew vot bewa euedl as? Bed 2o0% atom oat, oped pabitent
«Ah Satlege Tod tam ds tive a shutoors tea bkvow danopem et ytVeGomd
OO "FOS senm VEIT BAL pptaabsece® sed adapt
Wiliatefa dtle toattace odd qswtimen es! o¢ lootg to somende edd al
a YtVed te ten ,ataahwe iss to cettaniiouy e0¢ an hedesqtesal.od shde
tot noltesadans ect al baton yu¥ed gard eragcus eisacte thypomke
(Staee ,yourgd Te wei oHS ‘to fanepeateos soe ,aheqgioaita. hesoigads |
. fade ,everg of cette toa ,~etet Toute om cay epost. «DOL heme BEE |
add pewretat srew mettonenst2 chs?) patLonad. etaoge, esi xo Tiitetete |
pas agbekwomd eos Th .senangne hme eee oneal yoq od. Rew mater
nrg od bisew solverep sate tts m , Tidtaiolg of amet drigug’ |
Hd br atusbee'leh teds ewerla sommbive bedelbertagoaw edt. abotags :
git hue Tittalaig te eeokviss ent betqenge bap beteouper, ephodngad
‘nha note tow yd Jad? joootviss sour yo hoovhexg Aiasamooh hme Raeqag
toga tevilob og sev Lemme? beioglide yleseugae, bask “pst, dount ;
te aelqioaiie gaente iq anf ad .TRidaletg yd beisgetq eo etaesuped 7
You? rio tew varie xet Yaq OF Netaphive om yet godtewh baw yehepe
pits wenahie'ted asonsed anetamanavacs oat post dam beviener avad
Tiidntal; to eeritatassetaet to eomewds 982 at paved sanye, whet ‘
ae Bow etd agefnt Wiseateds moge SN AE I sheen oie

known te plaintiff prier te ar duriag the time tiet ite services
were rendered, Such «evidence wae self-serving and inadmisaible,

it ia suggested that the court erred in permitting plaine
tiff toe use the devesitions which Aad theratofore heen taken and
lodged in the ey Sean he Leave wae asked by defendants
te withdraw these devositiongs erier te the beginning of the trial,
ana there is abundant autserity to the eifeet that plaintiff sight,
if it cheese, introduce evidence under these circumetaness, Adages
Y. Husseld, 85 li. 204; Gogsett v. Greene, 254 111. 14; MaCommiak
He Ms Go. ve bagter, @2 11, App. 316; Penn, 4. Noo. v. Ande Co.,
131 Ili. App. 486; Gugtus v. Murdeok, 154 131. Avo. O70. Indeed,

there is authority te the «ffeet that it vould have been arrar fer
the court te have permitted their withdraws] over the objection of
plaintiff, Agme Paste aper Co. v. . 3, Paper Supply Se., 233 11.
App. 262. At the same time, the court could sustain vroper objece
tienes te vartes of the desasitiony which were ineougetent, irrelevant
and immaterial, jiyan v. Brant, 42 i114. 73, Where the sane Levee
ar@ invelved, d¢positicns tekai in «a former #uit may croperly be
read in evidenee. Doyle v. Uiley, 18 221. 576; EeGennel +, Smith,
S7 Til. 232; #: Kendig, 188 111. 804; Biiior vw. Calumet i... &
My Go., 122 IL. App. 56.

Defendants cite a number of cases to the effect that ageney

cannot be preven by the statwonts or scté of the agent, and that
the burden ef preving agency is on the one Wn@ alleges it. Thie te
& correct «tatement of & general rule of law, but thie rele dees net
render inadmissible evitenes a9 te vets performed by am agent in
behalf of his principal ner atatemente made by him under eireume
stanees whieh weuld cetep the principal from denying the ageney,

She rule for which defendants contend ie inapiaifcable te o reeerd

euek an this, of the mumersus cases eo holding, we alte enly «

few. Gadwell vy. Meek, 17 111. #20; 2, C. 6. # Bt, L, Ry. Uo. ¥,

asolvise adh tant onl) 948 9admmd ce od tolng Weealete oF seo

idlesluhest baa galviene-lion may eoaehive Hose ,horehaet stew
-tlsig palsiinisg al Serie J1ee9 OM Jens Dedeaggee ab Fh) cin
fee Rodet used etotoleneu! bas oo har ii aaa oat gen OF De

aioabnetedh yd beden saw evesd ait Abin tenes oto ah bophok

feiad amt to snlauignd evs ef sethe aagltincess seeds wotbssiw of
tiyla Tiiinels dudd tovtioe edt of ytirast se daabauda of oveds- Bre
gushs .aevmeteaverto seeds tehaw soasbive eowubortal ,aeode 6 YF
Hodemovesd ;hoL «iit MS epee ey ow gieened pees WALT ae theta
0D MDL BR oth oh, OOS: TE mh oT EB. Ve
sbosbat .088. .g0h AL O04 sanotaal we muted 708d seq cet Ker
tot soxae aeod syed bivow fh tam? soot ie os¢ of ytlrediwe wt etedt’
‘te aolsoetse eds rove Lemenhele be thoes Antenne: even at 2xwee oxi?’
~oabde saqe%9 1 Rtetaue bivog PaNOR O02 PMT SmDa CAs GA ROR -qQAY
saave fecal ,faatequesal stew Agiiw amyrtiveged eat to ataeg of amabd’
sovert come out gtedW OY .féd Gb re ae ee
ed qineqetg yar dius Teaiel a Gi ode? gacdthuegsd ,hevlevabeeta’
aged ;OTE .i1k Bh yeRsie av weixee soomebive al past®
Susittunlah sah abba 1608 .ci, OOS pgbhaee we teens RES ER:
08 seed shOR £82 Gogh”
Weatys @adt sine tio ef) of aeane Le rdeum & wate ednabse'ted eraeee
Sand bao ,taage o03 lo ates ao etanwtnee edd yd wever@ ed Sonmee”

ai aidt....¢h angeiio ose onm ast aa ad Yanege yakvorg te neki’ we

fou seob aint alist dud ,wd te edu Saw @ To ooneee ate: sowriel ie!
at tnege ae, qd, bomelieg Bien ah em wad hee eidiaskmboal tebaee —

*mU9Tlo TObAY mth Yd Shae atonundete tom Laginakee: anaiiceicane veal
‘btege2 « of efdaaliqaant ai Lagiaes a¢mebac lee ype ao oak
a se, oslo ow ,gathiod 99 nomen avoremem oot 2) pam tas meh

ms
ee
ee oe

Gage, 286 Tli., 21%.
Upen thie recerd, as a mutter of law 4efendante were
Clearly liskle, snd the court taeorelore 4i/ nes err in directing
@ Verdict for plaintiff. Libhy, Bebeil) A iibby v. Seok, 229 111.
266; Eewles vy, Bryan, 254 [11. 149; Grants v. Granta, 314 fil. 243,
The Judgment is affirued,
AVFI REED.

O'Genner and ieSurely, 77., cameur.

| si? oat wr @

ine Pere A ee
ig RE ines

teehee 22 ARORA ere ie BU aR Re ee sue ee ee
"I
ie ye er HOY ae annie: e og

RL ke Moi

wien Me EN Pee Pee

Wh bia Fs s yee ch ee ch at =
setae WP oe RS Si a> Abe gr Ra 4 ij

Re dapee nn FR Bi ett OE SONS SS ee

ei ibe bea |
A eens rd ut eee RE

ool vel Nee pdt
pv nhens a. sth) ohh AE REMI 0 ee,

ns. ee ek We Da RR Ree oe

ane: hay

te Kelion tse ee nina gs, Savmurctebly Rae 2

iit Bales

ete. ALAND, AeA ieee PAN tats

" i Ae aE is ’ oe kee Cece Sus ean® Ss

ORIG, NR

Pepete Mee kp SAGER SGOT Ss ee

anuee sd engee.. poh BE pO gh

wit tal an ta Takeout wy

oT eRe:
AVS ge te ls, SG

&... ane ee st "4 ia fs x Dicaanle meh

| Kas PLY PH TRS BA Ny

mah ia Bei ie OR ma RS

AR RR nh Dana kasany aM HI idiot

» Pinae taecete alee BaP ote, y ME) ee okee Rate: a Ae ant aOR .

Cy ee ame suas AE, Gre tae

J Miwe othe Be ares fad oe, poe, ae

ate is Tegra tlh

37336 __
PAM@AVERIGAN WALL PAPER (2 .

PAIKT CO., es:
dope... A

Va.

higgecse
i
i
ie
bt

i aa ait!
AVPEAL ¥ROM BURP IOE |
GUAT OF COOK Count a

;

#
a _ |
ZAK

DAVIS G. MeGARK, SUTHS MeCAKL,
MITORELL DAWSON and FLGIE STANSBURY,
Exeoutrix of the Estate eof Kalph ¥,
Stansbary, Seceaved,

Agpelle«ca,

MR. PREGSIDINU JUSTICR RATUMSTT
DELIVERED THk CPINIC! GF THe COURT,

Thie appeal ie by eazpliainant trem « deerec *hieh medified
@ restraining order theretefore issued om complainant's motion and
Giesiseed the bil] end aupolesental bill fer want of aquity, taxing
eosts of proceeding sguinst complainant, The cause was heard wpen
@xeeptions te the repert of the master. Certain evidence wae aise
taken in open court upon the hearing before the chaneellor. De-«
fendantdé? exceptions were in part sustained, and the report of the
Master wag in all other respects ccnfirsed. Complainant filed me
objections te the repert.

The suit waa by way 6f a oroditer's bill flled February 16,
1932, and baged on & Judgment rendered in faver ef comploinant and
ageinet defendant, Davie GU. KeCarn, om October 27, 1921, for the
gum of $9500.67 and cote.

The bili averred taat there was a balance due on the judge
ment in the evm ef 95572 end coats of the suit; that at the time
the indetiedneea wae incurred and for years prier therete Dawie G,
MeGarn wae the ener of 200 shares of the Star-Peerleas Yali Paper
Hilla, an Illineis corperation; thet in April, 1931, *hile thie In-
debtedness «es ewing, SeCarn enused thin steck te be tranererred te
fefentant Stanebury withent eqnvideration; that thie transfer was
made with the intent to defraud complainspt ond other erediters,
an4 that complainant wae informed and believed that the steck was

in the vesecasion of either Stanabury or Ruth kevarn, defendant's

wie

Wiadem RYUR WADeM o alvag
Wmaaniziee Jou EK ARMOON 59 SEY

| adele bebeS Sad 0" Ph oe eee

i ar08togga ais

7 x09 KO tHito

T2RAKVTAM KOLVAVG VaLcieUund Be
~TAWOO GMT YO 2eTeIaG ast CHAKVI

haltibes dolde sexesh a wort dmalatiney ud ef tao gyn altar 02s" 9

bas colton a'insatetques ae houeal sretosertedd tehto gciaiertest &

guine? ecehupe ‘lo gane tot ifid tndeweoleque bas Likd ene boantan 2
neoqe buacd aew souay off .tmeniaiquae tenlage galboeneta to ateoo

cele anv ooasbhive alataeo .teteat ots te Fanqet oA7 oF ancteqesxe

ool ,tolleocate atf oro ted gatuzed ode aeqw dameo meqe se sotat

edd Yo troqer ot bao ,boaiatoun drag a! oxew ameliqoons ' "

Be ben

‘98 Sefit gnenielqms) .boanktace @foseent tetde LLa al me wotaen
| «Stayer odd of —
as samen hoLlt ££id attodibety «te yee ql saw Slwe OMT
has tnantaigues To tove't al borebaes toeemhet ao ag hosad bac e8eE
oa teoY ,f88L ,@ todotod ae ,areOat .o shvat ,dnehne ted tentage
wtuoo bas VO.0080¢ to awa
“abut odo ae ouh aeusLed # aww Oued? omeis betieve ILid edt
omits esl% Sa dwAt {Stun a83 to anon baw RVG To mum ode at ta0m
@ giwad oteteds tela wisey tol baw dertweak aoe seoutordebat ede
Wont Lfe® seolrwetetmss en ‘te wediaicle GOR te teme6 ony aww mtaioX b
nat atst efise ,t60L ,ituqa ak enn {agi satoyze9 whoatsst ae are
et hevreteaexd od of Seota shdf baaswo orale ,gaiwo nar wrx®
gay tetummrt efhi Janie jaolsa TOR eene twads bw Verdunes® alibi ;
.@ ted thew tesit's bac tunaie Lenes buweteh oe saatnt edt atte oben
baw 10098 012 Saslt beveliod baa bemne'tat enw SaentoLomss tant haw

a'ftaebowteh ,atalell div te ytndeawté nedeke ‘te aii a $ ‘a :

wife, and that they held the sawe in trust fer kedarn,

Davis &. KeGarn and Ruth MeUarn, naxed as defendantea,
answered denying the «liegations of the bill, Stensbury answered
that om april 16, 1951, Savin &. eCarn aesigned and delivered te
him certificate &o. 22 for 335 shares of Glace B stock of the
StarePeeriess Yall Paper Siilis in trust fer Ruth ReCorn according
tm the terme of a declarsiion eof trast in eriting, “hich he at.
tached te hic answers that the certificate was traneferreé eon the
books ef the corporation; thet at that time he bad no knovledge
ef any indebtedness due froe Davie &. AcCurn to cexplainunt. He
denied that the transfer wage made with fraudulent intention and
asserted that it was set & sham ae allege? and wae mot made in
trust for KkeCarn or te prevent a levy on i%.

the master reperted April 11, 1945, finding the recovery
of the judgment, the iesunnmee of an execution, ita delivery on
Kovember 3, 1951, to the eseriff ona the return by the sheriff en
Vebruary 3, 1932, endereed that oe Bad aeld steck ef defendant in
eouplainant company, lewied an Tor $4006 and pald $5927 to aelied-e
ter for comnlainant and returned the exeeution unaaticfied are to
the belanee; that there was then due usen the judgment $5672.67
aad geste, tegether with interest from the date of its rendition,

Yhe moater further feun’ that the judgment was entered upan
a ¢ertain promissory note for $11,006, dated Cotoher 17, 1930,
signed by defendant Kevarn and payable te time order of complainant
on or before Oetober 17, 1935; that the note contsuined & pewer to
eonfecs judgment aad that payments were sndoreed thereoan to the
aggregate amount of 92000, the last endorsement being fer 41000 on
Hargh $l, 1232.

The master also found that simultaneously with tae execution

of the note, KeCarn sxecuted a eollateral pledge agreement of the

sane date, scouring the nete; tuat the agreement pledged as col-

reed to% sawt? G2 mmee wate bled yoels gait, wer sibe
sadnabae ted as bomen ,otedes AdvA bak meade .o eiveG mia
berrowesie gtude nade Ltd ede ‘to snottegeiia ef? gatyaeh botewena
ot heroyt fet hae bougisen miedo «@ wi wosh aie +f. fiaes ue sams:
| ad? tq dnote & gaske to eetain eee aot a8. ok bao tiletes mae :
ndivisced miado% Awl t6l dens al aLfees t9qah La’ pemg rds ime
ofa ad dolde ,yaltine af deer? ‘to meteetadosh «a ‘te awted edd oF
ods a9 Serre tenets? eae stool iizan eat jade pLawsan ala of bedees
egbe Lwoms on god on omti Sand te tans ; tw hte voqtee ye ‘te axood
ai ‘duane kqeas ed aredod “a abyal wert ol aneubeddebat Ya te.
“bun moktaetal taeiubuet? fidhw sbam aan ‘ae tamerd oat tact ny hey
md shaw fon aaw bow boge iia ea mani a fon ame rs ‘tad bettovee
42 a0 evel a dapyerq of 10 imiaded zo tautd
eH voost odd gnibalt ,t8er |, th Lita bedroqt wedean ‘eat. wiry ie

mo yteviles aat ao ldweexs he te eodmunel “wath ‘, daomgbot ab ph te

& tee atl he ote Me
Pee Dal OR, S)

io Ytixodn one ed axeder ef? baw Ytiveda odd of heed ae

ni gashacted to deeds bico bait od seca ‘beetobas eee o va
a5) 3 ii se
alo lion od THeLE Shag aie Go0es tot ae belwef 1 eaIRgEOS taeates
‘of be bodtelsenay sok tuoexe add bomwter hae tneateLqaoe x0? 0?

i we Me Sak
€d. EV aeS doomgbut esig aoa ‘ouh sods ae wrtect seats jeosu tad ent
Sexe toe SP ewehseew

molsthaet adh ‘ke ofan exid aer't taotesast 9 ie ‘reddoyor sateee bas
oe. te hiss
eee enhagheeed vay Smemybet eno tact Senuo't xe taut sedwom ont Baa
he Boma
\ ,O8@£ .SL sedofoo bese 1000, £08 tor ston croes tare stadves a
ne wR Ris csi

frente tqaoe to tebte ear of 2 idagea haw ee jotk saahae en ee
od asvoq Pi botisdaas oson exit todd 8B 6 ava ‘sedode0 "ead as - i
edt of noe reds bewtobas eter a dan sogne deed bas Aaoaghst savtiace :
ae ones tok aaive tasmeaxohaa taal nets 0008) to ‘taveme | ae
| aes
noitvgexe of} nilw elevovandtumte sede iio ety te : a edt : xo neato ‘
add “te eterna sabe ig fareselioo ry ‘Walidens resol 4a? oe nde te”

A gy 2 ga Pek E 4 tars ype Long ‘t
-£00 aa beabe se Lanse sit ait qeden om yalwvose , &
¥ eek eee May wes lseunnne. ‘oe

Miho ers
i ea

lateral 160 shares Class E stock of the Pan-American Yall Paper 4&
Paint Co. of Delavrare evidenced by certificate be. 19 and author=
ized couplainent te deduct from the salary of MeCarn $200 «
month, to apsly om the -rinetpal cum ef the obligation, and alee
authorized the helder of the note and complainant, upen spy dee
faclt in the payment of interest or in the payment ofany of the
monthly partial crincival sayxents as stipulated, te sell the
steck at any public or srivetes sale witheut netice and without
dexanding payment ef the nete or interest and to spply the prae
¢eceds oF the sale after dedusting all esate and expenges in gaye
mont of the sate with interest thereon, returning the residue to
Davis G. HeCarn; farther, that in cas@ the eroceeda of the aade
eheula fail te sever the amcunt dus apen the nete snd interest
and expenses, KoCarmn shenld poy the deficileney.

The master found that the five payments of 92600 each
eredited on the note were th: asounte deducted from the salary
of 4efendant Welarn while be was empleyed by cauiplainant corpgerae
tien; that prior to April 1, 1°31, Davie G. MeCarn was presifent
ef complainant serpeoration ond had been ageeciuted with it from
the time of ite incerporstion in 1916; that his resignation as
president wae in the peaseseion of the scempany for seme time, and
that 1% wae accented Bareh 31, 1952, at whieh time an additional
eredit of 31000 was agplied to the nete; thet no further paymente
were made on the note and the entire unpaid baisnee was thereafter
declared due und the fudgeest entered; that April 16, 1831, Davis
G. KeGarn transferred 355 asares cf common steck of the Star-
Peerless ®s11 Pager kille, of which he was the owner, te Stansbury
in truat for Ruth BeCarn, hie wife; that the transfer was made
without any coneideration and was solely fer her benefit; that at
that time MeCarn had on interest in the home oceupled by him in

Winnetka, Illincis, which he purchased under contract dated Kay

i
nt :

I A toqel Lle¥ ane tromieawel of? To deede & neet> eerste OOF Leneging
| “totem bets Of vot steal iiviss 4d Seeoehive weewnde? to 9? sated
| -# ORS wade Yo Yte Lae ond MOTE Gowheh oF tanntalewoo> teak
if : oeiw bus ,aolteyiide ag to mea Legiealt, e432 as “loge od, dem
| son ye noqu .toenkalqnuen bee efen guy Yo cObiod ent boxhuodtee —
| q eit te Yan 'ty samayeq eat ah so seegetal Te saseyse oat ab shea
ite gmt ies of ,betaiwqisea ae stasageun factoniveg Le Wise yf oom
i | fwedsiw bas eoitom Juqueiv whee edering te siidug you se cleete
i 4 wots eff. vicus o2 has ¢sexetulh to ode act to daouved gat based
\ / "se th aesiegme bua adage ile gaidontieh 29d .e ofa off 16 aboep
r: oo oubloas ac? pelaieeent paeetet? gaew dak dtke sdte oof “te tae
a 5 eine of te ehoeooty odd @oa0 alten? ,2eciewt? poamdsee 10 wivell

feetedial has efon eft meen sub Parcon sot teves oF Ile? blworth
Weagielted oe) Yeu Pipotie arelo! jspeeedee bie

ieee BOSE ‘to atuesag evd? ot ged? bavct tedeemen® O86 bs
Yrslew eid ark bedoubed cdmveme ott exew ofon edt oo Betihess
epTEgros Pieninlquoo yd boyetque gaw ad efidw mtadel Joehes'tow te
fimbiaete aew wzsled 10 aivetl GSE9L .£ LhagA of tebe) taut pooks
mori 24 dtév Sotaioounn mood had ban meldaseqses Imente Loving te

ne noltangisvet sid teds ; 818i ai adie teqzveeat ati %e eas ett

bas ents oman tot yauques out lo amelsaanee ost at naw snoblaong
fameisipss oa awks dolsw dn , ROL ko sowed botenens awe 3h tard
otnoegag Thiivt on asd poten ps of botigge aew OOOLE Lo dAhet
med tented? ese sonoiad blaqun xtiae est bun ofom est on phan one
alva® ,f60L OL Evga Sest jboredine Brmawhwh wut bees ont) bemwtosh
-“t284 eH? to dont acwwwe ‘to eetate TEE berretenet? wobst 6
viudemes2 oF ,tomve ald war ex aeliw Te ,eLLEM teest De® eae teeet
ebem aaw tetenats ad? tadt jotiw atd .eIoN déyit Te? dewey? wa
te goals paE Obed ton vo? Uletoa few haw cobterebiemes ym tuedthe ,
ab al ed bedguove emod exY at Sastedint ae hed wrel0M emky Bait

26, 1930; that he agreed te pay for it the sum ef 216,000, of
whieh $1000 wae paid in eash, he assuming a first mortgage of
$8560; thst the balance was payable im monthly installments of
$100 each, of which 875 was to be applied em account of interest
end the balance of the priticipsl; that the agreement war thet the
title tc the sreperty waz to be conveyed to keCarn and his wife as
Jeint tenante,

fhe master feund the value ef this home as of aAprii is,
1931, te be $12,272; that at that time defandante had yaid in op.
proximately 91306 on account of vrincipal and alse paid the ine
terest to that tate.

The ciaim of comslainant was that the transfer of the 333
eharecf stock constituted a fraud upon compleinant aa a erediter
of defendant; that defendant was insolvent om April 16, 1931, and
the transfer should’ taerefere be set aside; that defendant claimed
he was not insolvent at that time and hed sufficient property te
pay all hie dette and therefore the transior te Ale wife wae valid,

The master alse found the value of defendant's interest in
his home on April 16, 131, wae Nalf ef $4320 or 2650; that the
stock of defendant in sompiainant cgorperation (and pledged ae eele
lateral te it) had no market vaiue or that date; that the book value
on that date was about 392 s share, making a total value ef 19200;
that defendant had insurance policics which had a casi surrender
value ef $2748.95, againet which there was a loan ef $1550, leaving
anet value of 91194.95; that he wlee had $560, the smeunt ef
Salary due om Mareh 31, 1931, and $499.56, which was the suvunt ka
ef the dividend he reecived frou the Star-Peerless Company; that he
alse had a balance in the bank of 3226.43 whieh war in his mame and
that of hie wife jointly; that tae highest possible value that could
be placed om ali the assete of Davie G. BeGarn on april 16, 1931,

Was $12,274.93; that all but $2574.93 of that eum wae the book

‘be 000,016 Toe mua oc) 22 TH yor oF bawtge wa tanh pOCOL ~Oe
%6 syay stom tel 2 yaboveea of yuleen at bleq Raw GOOLE doddw
te asapmilasent yLiinom al eidaqwy saw conelad est dade ; 00086

teoretal to sawonea as bo tiaae od. ot wae a0@ cekiw Ye , dene GOSS
ose Sade sar sovootge elt pasa tieghouitg of3 me eaneled add Bae

as etlw ait hak aieIei of hoyevace od of sow ytisgete od? of ahtbt
nae titans de aebeh,

,oh Shree ‘be wa. ideale aidd ke sadav ens hawey, ‘tetaas ef :. wits
~qeuh biag bad afvmbaetod oakd tam te sade Ore, as6. 00. at hh ek

—wak o93 Dlag scale base daglidaive to fawcsen me BOLE. win seminong
smdeh Sanit ot dneneg

So& ois Bo te lene? off 4H06 gee Javaiaicans to minke OMT gin)
W97hbetw 2 ee taedialgmos mequ bust) w boetetis*enos zeote Yo arnada
baw ,f80L ,0f itis a9 Sao viowas saw sunken teh tend ji mmbdae tad Re
bomlels sauhne teh tenis pobica fee ed ex tert Adwords ae ta ae tt ond
@? Yotsqoxg sacle Vine bad bas omd? dans te tmovionnt ton eaw ef
bidevoaaw wthy wis of wileewsd ods estotomss? fue wtdod aka Lis yng
ah Sedeeent a onebas ted Yo-oushy 6d haset wale wevesm edd 55%
ae Jade ;OROe To VREAG Wo Bid naw , kel OL brgh wo omedoakd
-{eo se begheke bee} agléeteqtoo sanakeduncn ab daabon'toh bo toota
aulev dood eid set jodah Sead ao Salar sera om Beet: {eh 0¢ areas
pOGKOS Re ewlay fates a gnisen, setasia #& 88> Sueda asew stab Jad? ae
tebaerwe dees e bod dotdw seieilog eousinemt bed. saabae tsb tacit

gabvaet , 08849 “lo eel « ean ama doldw demiape . *oQsOarRs, he. oniay
‘to, taneme add , 0089 hat opie ot tans 140.80628 To oxtev tone

au @auess off ear Hoddiw ,O8 CORPS ban ,lees ait data we eub Ytalas
8a Sado ;yRequpd Maeluveianete esld art bewkoaen ea hoebivih ode te
bac suas eid af aow doldw 65.0884) Te Atad 689 ah somekodm bed oxts

| | ples fod? oo lav ofddeaog teemyls oat dads pykeaiol elt ahd Yo.eedd |

1806 (ak Shagh Bo Minded 0 abved Te steane ade iis ag beoala.ot
dood edt saw gue dedd to GRPTERG gud tha tadd eal

walue of the 100 pledged shares af eteck of somplainant company;
thet this eum was a great deal more than anyone ae willing te pay
for the atesk, including defeniant, ng was oresent at the sheriff's
gale and failed to bid mere than the saeunt fer which the stock
wan finelly sold by the sheriff,

The master coneluded that the tranefer by defendant of the
B33 shares of stoek on Apri: 16th left hin im failing fPinaneial
ciremeatances; that he wae out of auploysent antii the felleving
December and during that time nie only souree of income vas the
4ividens that wight be paid on the Star-Peerless Wall Paper ¥ilis
eteock; that complainant vas defendant's enly creditor; that the
trenefer of this eteck to Huth éeGarn resulted in defendant's inae
pility to pay the amount due te semplaivant and consequently was
delaying, bindering and defrauding defendant's creditor and mast
therefore be regarded af fraudulent and should be set aside.

Ag slready etated, eouplaimant Filed ne ebjection to the
report ef the master,

ne deerse sustaining exception to tne renort found that
Davie G. Mearn wan ecivent at the time ef the tramefer of thie
eto@t on April 16, 1931; that the equities of the cause were with
defendents, Devise %. selarn and Auth BeCarn; that the bili of come
plaint apd supplemental bill should be @lesiesed ond the restraine
ing order entered upen the fiiing ef the BALL be modified to the
end end purvese that the transferees of the eteck should be en-
titled te receive wll dividends acctued and declared and thereafter

te accrue end be deciareé on the Star-Peeriene stock.

it ie the contention of complainant that the transfer of
the 335 shares of Clees & Star-Peerless gieck om April 16, 173i, Was
fraudulent ae ageinet the erediters of Davie G. HeCarn because he

Aid not retain sufficiat property te provide fer the payment oF

hie then exieting indebtedness.

The testimony taken before the master shows .bat Davis 4.

“3

iyMuGESY Ioalalquos Te KHase Yo Roadie Kage Ly OOL sat 'ontay
Cag OF Baki liw saw snogne And? orem feed shexg wade me Ohad” bids
a Wabkene ene tu Sasewty aHe ow, sabes Oh gatiytsat japere oat en
atsote odd detdw se’ saves aad ment stom bEd od Dakter bao alee |
ok ae | Mise ok yet Bhoe ‘itsaaly Gay ae
St RG Fambietes YC ro tanetd bli adds “hosdtedes Yéduen ead” on
Sakooaalt guiile? abu ret gL Chega me donta to ‘lide ‘see
atiwette’? ol? £2dnw gay 2a Lean ‘'8 fee wad od dade sapperenioge
‘Ome anv omeost Ys terion Ylne ela abs tad ‘patioh baa rodanovt .
skh tege% Lia¥ ane tron tease wnt ad Bing od dolgbal dl che
edt Sait ;iesibot yuo af samhastoh eaw daaidte Lemon ‘fade ioode
“sah 6! tauhawtob ak betiuvet axmdet Mp of Meote efile te aeteneat
bee YLdneMpeonos Bre Tinnts tqmdy od wah sven Sag” Yaa on viiitte
(Pee baw 168 kere of tashne ted patbunrteh haw galls mkit ', ga ated
sehles $60 od bivede baw Fos tusvbtt oe hebvayee we aa
ont ehimentoetco on best tenia ttine ‘fie cite hee Ht’ gh OO"
te deem noid ‘w beaety
| FeGe bauer Moaost asd OF AoLdYyouee BHGtedawe bexsed | ,
eat 26 wthewts ost Lo ould oe He dnevtow haw AeLDS)
ddiw etie eushs oad te ablttepe add dune s geek [BE cheb i ad ote
atte Ye LES oid todd pereadow dow Sie dendow Lo abvatt’ adnab, ere |
sHhevdaet ONF Kad hoowlow th od wtdona teid atin tees ‘bin’ takai
SAS OF Boktibom'ed Lita ads “26 gat Let bad Rbgw bbtadee cabs soho git |
‘atte od hivods tosee 949 “ts Rowretehard 4 Yad} smoot yy’ - cor
tot eoteds bie how Loh baw bewtosn ebdvhiven tte ‘évissed ‘et ‘petdy
nial Moora weolrootawde wld ao Botdfoes 64 has bebe
te telomere 989 Gedd dowels tends te ‘aotF nw dios ‘ead WE A> saialhd
Bae, MRL OL Legh ne iverd wad Linetonede & Went “Ye ne tack ‘eee ode

Se a a ee See aa =

at SoumDed menIelt 60 eve Ro wrev ites wild Penlege eh sae fubuart
ey, tmaaag wet wet AYO Od ‘eeteqond rr whads ‘Yad a

KeCern had been associated with couplweinant eompany since ite ine-
sorperation in 1016, Frew that time te April i, 1931, he wae ite
president. However, His resignation from that effiee had been in
possession of the company Tor some time and was secentead by it
Mareh 31, 1931. ‘The oromiceory nete upon “hich judgment was ene
tered was for $11,000, executed Oetober 17, 1936, paysble te the
order of couipisainant and by ite terms would cet fal dae until
Oetober 17, 1935. The note drow interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from date ead contained the power to confess Judgment “in
term time or vacation, at any time hereafter witheut process, *
Judgment wae entered by virtue ef thie clause en Getober 2, 1941,
nearly four years prier im the maturity of the note, At the time
of the execution of the sete Mevarn aleo executed and delivered a
Colisteral agreement in and by whieh he transferred certificate Se.
19 fer 160 ahupes of the complainant eompany steek, This eellateral
agreewent autherized and firsected eompiainent te deduct from his
Salary while in its empley the sum of $200 o wonth on the Lith

day of each month thereafter sand apply sane om the note, The eel«
lateral agreesent alec provided that if there wae any default in
the payment ef any of the monthiy partial principal payments as
stipulated, the note should at the option of the holder beeome ime
mediately due and puysble and complainant or ite agent might there.
after sell the preperty or any part of it et sublie or private sale
without netice or discount and without demasding payment of the note
or interest and apply the preceeds after deducting costa and expences
to the payment ef note and interest, and that if the preceeds were
Ret sufficient to pay the aseunt due on the note, defendant promised
to make up the deficiency. Complainant was expressly given the right
to purghase in ease of sale. After leaving the empley of complainant
Bareh 31, 1931, MeCarn did not secure other empleyment until in Dee
cenber of that year, After the recovery ef judgment, -eomplainant

4i4 not undertake to sell the steck under the porer of sale contained

3
a.

~Ht e¢) @anie yanquoe J ate ha Lepae ait ke beistoonaa need had misioX
i ; SS RRA.
a2 sew af eh BE of Lhega of om s batt mot 00k al “aolgaroniee

ae ol
ak aged bei epi Tio toss ag sot tanyiews ald tevewo Huohiecta

RAY Sey
ai yd betqeace saw bas outs oes Kok eaaqaoe ‘ould ‘to soteneaeoq

«09 sav tJnompbst, delde mocw eton ¥toar Late ed? be fe soe
ant of eidegag GEOL ,Th tedodoo Retusexe 19005158 x62 sow ‘hexed
fitgas eh S£a% #ou hiner amie? oak we baw daaaie temo te tehte

soy 08 To etax wets so saoredas wah ston eat? REOL Ay: ‘sedeied
ai* tnomghut, amples oF xewoq auid boata2 noo bas ‘edah ort ‘mune

* ngenong weds bw rod lest9d osals “8 da me lteoay co) ‘emit Cased

ABO WS isdedev me sennto oe bsie 1° nutty “a bexane ¢ cam top a

_pmki ade 24 .otoa aus ‘te ei ttutan ans os soln exn0y must ata
& hateriied baw hedupexe esis axaoom ofan oily te wel tuooxe. wxia “te
+ Osan tisiee horre'teauxt od sobs we bas ag imeneotps Lette oto

‘ ey Ba Pry Hees ae Lak
Lerwedtcifos aidt deate eaeeaes faoate.Loen oss te aoaade 001 mot OL

i oe Biers FL
Bis aoxt soubed of namie Sgemo bosons bas hentrods wa saan 9tRa

. M28L eds ue staom @ ORG to ave ont Yoianes eat at ota yantae
{90 98% . hon eid ae Some ehage haa wor tontedt stom ome ‘te eas

Hh Biawleb Yaa aaw atnds tb fasit bahtvors on ta Aamosonge Latotas
Be at oneneg Lac toahag foktwe Aston sais % ws te ‘tnemeaq ‘at
ond onoond tohiod ome te Holt go one te phwoda ston oat “ betaiuadie

a 4 a

ontods date Sieh 36 | agi to fawntssonos baw eldayed bas out

S Sea Sinks ‘
iss staving to atidug ta 2% To $109 ae aa wareqore ode pe wod'ta
atom one te fasargng patbanaes tuoutiy bas bae sawcontb x0 9 eo lsea fei ll

| @@8m axe baa esace galiouheob x04%e nbeooere ons &% baa deoxed

soph Sey ae
etew ahavoorg eas a ars baw ,Suoxotad haw ston * dnoaee § Me

ea Pui se Bh
Hie hoe kuot ahabao Yah sos ou ond ae oub fawn eas we ae te oi don
| that ot fowte yesoxgxe ae snewinsamed “tou teh ot qu owes ot
Ve eM
«de miatgueo To xelqen wale aatvact we sees Xe e200 at , .
RS YR Rae a pan eas Sate i
a8 af Liduy sanayelqam redte wtunen toa bap awom ,
Sh Rane dhutys ‘Pau bre
tneateloucs) ,taeaghut to yr vest ould wosta oTawy sestd to tedmes
f + PTD 2 SO SUNT ie Re MR
te bettatnos ofaa te sewed ont swebaw aeate gl Live ‘of ounstobaw
hi; ews Peed Het

in the collateral agreement bul caused an execution te be isaued
and levied on thie certificate ef stock in complainant eempany,
Davie G. KeCarn Was present at the sale December 1, 1931, amd the
steck was purchased by Peter J, Blagserich, then a stoekhelider and
afterwarda slected « direstor of complainant,

The master found thai the value of these 100 shares on
April 14th, 1631, was #92 «a share, Complainent hewing filed ne
objection before the master nor exesption before the chancellor te
thie finding, ie therefore oreecluded trem argutag, to the contrary
here, Harble v, Thomas, 178 tll. 540; Genrke v. Geurke, 190 111.
166; Barney v. Comre, of Lincoln Park, 295 111. 397. Assuming thie
to be the value of the ateek on that date, the proof befare the
master shows that defenident retained an ameunt of property on April
16th sufficlent to meet Nis obligation, and that practically the
@ntire amount of property se retained was in the posecagion of come
plainant,

The bALL ae filed eens to be based upon the theory that it
was the intention of the jJudgeant debter te defraud eomplainant by
the tromefer in trust. The cage hare, however, ie orgued uren a
aifferent theory, Bemely, sat of « ecqnstructive trust, and it is
urged that it ie pet meceseary to show a¢tusl ioselveney in order
to render a voluntary tranefer to o wife or child wold, tit that
the true teat is whether or not the tranefer direetly Mmtended to
er 41d impair the rights of existing erediters. Cemplainant sites
Birney vy. Selomen, 348 111. 410, in whieh the Lilinois cases are
reviewed, It is there held that the established rule in this State
deee not require proof sf actual inscivenecy in order te render a
voluntary conveyance veid where the tame is made from a husband te
a eife or from a parent te a ehiid. The eourt said:

"The doctrine ia firsly deelered toe be that ene must be just

before he is generous. Bhat may be in the mind of the granter when
he makeea a voluntary conveyance to hie wife or ohild is immaterial,

1 nS
e

| Fi
Hi

| t a
iy :

beuwok od et noi suoene tm ‘beauas dad tanseotys fewsattos ae at

Ren wt”
i% 1 eae

enwasiee Fite re Laos ab doods to otantt iste ene ae bolvel ‘has

eutd taisse tees “—f xedasoad else oat te sassorg ‘enw “awedod .® abvad
Hite ‘ob Lome ote 4 aed? cobwoqe si f 90% w Renasowwe cov toate
| -#amai s Leno to rodpnate a bezoets abtaeretts

ae , woreda oud sai? 10 sutay ead tale bawor ‘weteom oat pape
on beth pabwuat dani £209 -ezads & ne6 anv eek a0 Aixga

st tolivonssio asi ws gia’ nettqeoxs tom wetasn out oro'ind _metsee oh ge |
wists sto ond 02 patirgte won't babuleorg scorers ob gatbal neee
itt oer gate) ¥ sain pore tik ars Arn y:

abds gatmvend P88 fat E08 ual agen. cS a ARES at
| if edd oreted Soong ‘ose Stab todd ae atoore oat 20 ‘eutey ase ad od

I | itaga no ew qoU te fauonn a boataser Samamieb sat ae team
we est) ultes toate aad bem dolsegtido eke on " dmetokrive tot
: on00 ‘te aoleaeesog odd ah aaw poatazon 9s omeqorg te truome othi ae
pu ee onan
; e0 tote pete
$i tad? erosdié ons monet berad sd od sone he Lee 8a ibd i Noe
ee Paolo Lomo buawta ot tordeb dames at wae ‘ oteaesad ade Bl

@ nous heuyte af Tevewos ted samo ot saute al ‘totonett
bie Oh bine ,fauns ov itowizease “ ie Saat toma “a ekeedt sams
rebt0 at qwusyfovak Loudon wode ee Ylnosooon soa a at oS 0

tad? gud blow pitao 19 etiw a os we Iaawtd ytntastor * ‘tehast ot
«a babes ok wisoortd wo taunt eas ton te ‘teste ie at feet aun? oy
setts gmat Lae 10108 ibore aieubxs te eonighs sat x
ore BPR elont £11 ‘ont sig Law at one ial abe HARB e ee
stare elds al aint hese Lidesee ‘ent tad ied exes a ry she :

Ve rho, Bowe ad aa

s bast ot tebxe mt yoneyfornk tautou te roorg euluper veeh

kG weer eet pay *

et pamtouss F) owt han ak omne os oman bhov “seaeys aoe . Sy 4
: tbbae Tu9e out bkide * « sa0 tH om hay pie eo ae

geut a¢ youn ono tadd of of hetsLoob yer at saixteob ext®

aay sodcery edd RO hale edt nh ed yom sane Lamveensy “G2 esl weeeed
tairedasat at Bitdo 1 oti ski of seanyevaee Senate “ Ser he
ita ch te s nie Mayes oh? Tht ak amar ey &

eget A ap

for if it results in hindering, delaying or defrauding crediters,
it must be regartet an fraudulent, A donor may make a conveyanees
with the most upright datentions, an¢ yet, if the transfer hinders,
delays «r defrauds his erediters it may be set aside as freudulent,
(Hanuen Sa OSFI624, 124 012. 164; Mekey v. Metoid, 298 id. 666.)

Of such feree is this rule that where ane is feand to be insolvent
after having made a voluntary eonveyanee te his wife the burden ef
dispelling the implication of fraud ae agalnet pre-exiating
ereciteors is upen hia grantee. Dilisan Ya. Sadehhect aes 463 maa
wani Hority v. Hoifmen, 55 id. $53; Batterson v. Bebinney, supra.”

Defendants do net ouéetion thie rule of law but argue that
the fects woieh appear in thie ease bring it within an exeention
te the general rule, tamely, that « erediter whe ie fully eeeured
at the time of a voluntary cenveyanee may not nave the same set
aside upon the technical presusption raised merely ty eatablishing
the faet of a debtor's indebtedness, cut teat i such case the
erediter should be required te plead and preve other cirequssatances
from which the debtor's intent to defraud might be reasonably ine
ferred. Defendants Say that the oroof shews that at the date ef the
transfer ¢oxplainant was Tully sveoured by the stoek of the Pane
American Yall Paper © Paint Ge., which nad «a book value of $92 a
share and which the master has found eaetusliy hed that value;
that tiles finding is suvperted by ctatenenta in evidence refleeting
the financial eenditien ef scemeininant; that it appears that the
stock of complainant ie cleséely held; that 1¢ is a "chose corpo rae
tion*®; that the financial statecnents in evidence indicate ne in-
Yliation of values; that tiere are ne sueh inflated items as "good
will" or “*patente"® appearing in the balanee sheet; that complainant
has done business ever the eompsrativéely ieng peried of sixteen
years, end that it le apparent that ¢xeept for the subnermeal and
distressed market for securiiles of ali kinds compisinant would
have readily realised ite indebtedness from an orderly sale ef the
shares of steck; that ae a matter ef equity cooplainant corseration
should have set off the value of ite sharee of stoek against de«
fendant MeCarn's intebtednees, and that if the eorporation iteeif

had purehated the stock instead ef permitting one of its principal

¢>

6 ¥

,atetibors qrlhustteh ie gal yetob aie mh ationet DE Tb nd i
Seaeya ties « eias Yea Tonok A tian bebuer't as hetteget ad geum t
stshatt Wiaers odd Th , toy One ,estohioetel diglrqe teem ech st de.

tae Luhvet? ae ebies foe od you $2 wintibere wks Bkuaz tab te oye
sanvLoent ad oF bavet al eae #%5 iw sana oive ehie Py egret

‘le aeberwd ed? stiv ebd of aarayovade yrstaelor « / ¥ a
gaultaixe-9%q Seakage ea buast To «pltaok tems no et ge TF
tt a roe ee ‘eid gene ‘ah otet

tsc2 9uyts dud wal te oLut ald3 woldesay shied ab etanbae tod
aeitqooxe me abdsiw $f yated essa aba at ueegas ‘dabiw'abean oat
ait aria ai ondw Cetlbets & gunt st Awaus voir fewaes ‘ond oT
tee Ms agate oni ovad son yaa souayoviias yxadauloy a te ‘mia et ‘a
guides idazes yd eioree hoe ha noltquusece faotusign’’ “poly “nog etléa
ont gneo iowa al dads aud “seuonborsebrd at totded Py ‘te ‘Boat ia’
apoasdeoworia aeateo everq baw haw Le of poskupen od bhwode cebhhoen
oat Yidanoanet of $etytn buexter of anetat at xosdob ace doen 0% q
erie to stab sata ed dons —__ roorg ene dass we odaehae tes es ae

7 gSicah ee WEA CO
aust ods te deote ond «d heuese iis saw ate Phy Rees i)

«tea lady
+ eg te duiev dood # dean ci iho di 4 taiad 4 cage? Lis W anoltems
jeuiay feds bed ¢ikewtos daus’d eos aefena ott sobs ban ereste
salsaelier sonable al atanm sede ee bo dxoutue at aatbat® ohes alt
Bie Fag, B ‘d xh
_ eae tant etacqas on taits bementacquee te nets tbaos Aatonaah’
aerorte0 paote® # at th tnd ph inal ylevads et Snake Lqaoo te woote.
ond om efaoihal oonobive ad af ans tad iatoanal? ott test “yfeokt
rh j
_ beeg? ae ame dd bege fmt owe on ous eteRs todd aewlay ‘te nolvatt
tae ni aiquoe aris yseesa eons ind oid at waltosage “Sadandeg™ 1» *ethe
needa te te hoktag auod qisvisatecnop aia ve sosntend ‘pmok eed
bas Lemiendum oid wot sqnoxe sans surrauan a ot yaad ‘pin ea8y
iA. yt Joppa
ainew Senta Leu abate Lis Ye sets unen ‘tot ‘toxsom
ty sidaties doa wmwt
ael2 Ye ian eorobte ae mont eoouhesdetal eas boatioes elibeor eves
Cee aa os Catia ayn Hs Ray
not tateqros $n xt oka thee ‘to wesenu pe te sont +
we [ isan “Ere am
“oh teakags doore vo sere sto vat te outer ans ‘Me tos eg ovat sue
Pe aK”

tesa? wotdaradrve wis we ants ae “omaates sana «
fagisalixg eat te ano gate lence Aa pantunt ‘deeta pene

viCe A we

: = es =
ee eee

steckheldergs ts de so, it would Have been in the strange position
ei aequiring for ite treasury shares having a book value of

$92 o share, while still ineieting on collecting a deficiency,
Befendants point out thet MeGarm had ne other ereditors than eome
Plainent; that we waa not in faet in default under his contract

but that that default wee created through the exergise on the part
of complainant of ite right of forfeiture whieh haa resulted in a
hardehip te nim; that comolcinant fellewed ite legal righte
atrietiy, confeased Judgment upon the note, procesdad to levy upon
the security, and defendants sey that while this course was legally
permicsible it was met calculated to procure the best price for the
eharee of stock because it emphasized and aeve moteriety to the
fereed charseter ef the Liquidation. The original contract between
the curties 414 net contemplate the full recaynent of this lean
until Getober, 4955. They further point out that the parties had
in contemplation that the revayment would be made out of the eslaried
earnings of defendant; that revaynent wae fer the time being stopped
by the acceptance of defendant's resignation and hie teaporary un}
saploynent.

A gonelideration of all the faets seama to Justify the gon-
clusion that complainant wae taking advantage of all ite legal
Fights ond in particular of ite legal right ts declare the aabt
due and te enforce a forfeiture at a time when the reoult wae an
oppression of defendant, These etrict legal rights ere net quese
tioned, but o oourt of equity ie slew under sueh elreoumetanees te
agtneis to those whe thus insist upon purely legal rights which
will bring a renault of that Kind. <A forfelture is always regarded
by & court of equity with great abhorence,

Defendants eontend that wider two ¢ireumetances the une
Goubted general rule as te transfers of this kind is net applicable;

that ome of these is where the facts aa shewn by the evidence are

aole ison agttinxte ot at adod ovad biwow 32 208 ob of S19 bLordyese
to sklev toot # ynived setae Yxiaaent ast aot © “gt paixtupon te
eastertes # guivootios mo yalvatount kita: ptlew soteda a a6
acto marl? wed thee teste om best mua fart gue Iatog sgaebue haa
soaréisas: eld webuy ¢ine%eh mk foot wt ton BAR Oe teM? jddenbal
fq ens ao ‘sulotexe outs Spweids hedaero eew Givateh fads jadt tad
wm th bes tuner agi delve @tws iets? 19 deyit ath to susslatquos, te
ws etiglt Loget atl kewoliot tanmintemne tagt judd of, qhinbted
ome gver, of behsopotg ,efom gle aogh Saeayhal hoes tave . sthtottte
‘ileget aaw eatweo Bint pide fad) you etpedae ten dan ,ytinu—ee, ome
ont tot Golrq teed od? exucotq of hetedwotae tem saw 44 old ieehsaag
sj of yYselsoton oveg baw besisedgen 72 taysend doode. te, wosee
aserted soertnos Laniyine eat ,aoksahivphd oc? iq rotourtadg hegget
wot Ode 9 Faomyaqex Lut ot oteigmetace tom bib potereg ane
: i Batt welsteg, wate feud sue taheq weed gaat OSCE ene EA
a helisics ody Je fue eben od Ainow saomeneet a2 samt ao
i bequoga galed ead? odd cet sew tuemyaqet Page { $awbise'teh 1. yates
~ay yRaT0qmay BAK bag aeldangtery at daub aw tO To geandneoay out
aoe ead vittant ‘ot ewes aapat oad ‘ te euttineh iil Ay @, Keene
ingot gf fia to egatowvhs auiiet ea taantetqane ta6$ mokepho

#doh ott wimtgeh o¢ aight Inged off to tedualtizeq at har atdgin
ag wow tiveot ad? node pale @ fa emt ie lie) « egaetaw oF baie ath
toup Son ete asiytx ingel toluse wnad? .tumraeted to wolegetgge

of geoustemuatle douse tohay wode at Ythupe Ie saue8e m sud gh on

do tity atight Legss yletuq aeqe talent awit pow sagdt of qlod\erly
habtayet, ayeria al ouuiiotiet A bad dad? Yo sioner a gatas ‘aise
shoneedda tary eke ethene Yo Fxm09, a yd
oir pit? eooaesomuas bo ows tehmu sade Dantes atmanee tS, 6 cuore
jeldeokiqga dom et bald efi) Yo ate Xeanyd of am, oLue Laxoneg bedduab
pia sonsbive ond yd mwodn pn ston? amd, gasdy a egedt te apm. Jags,

that the couplaining crediter hee become such erediter subsequent
to the time of the tranefer, and ike other where an exieting
orediter is fully secured at the time 63 the transfer.

The exceptions are diggussed by Chancelier Aent in an exe
heustive opinien filed in heada, Admatr. v. Livingsten, 3 Johnaon's
Gnaneery Reporte (/.¥. 1418) 441. ‘The opinion in that ease reviews
the Englieh and American sautherliies ond, while stating the general
rule which hae been follewed in lliineis (asd helding in that par-
ticular case that the transfer ip trust was fraudulent as ageinet
the creditors) pointed oul that as to claims of subsequent ereditera
there was sore 417fieculty in arriving at a deficitive opinion. That
@reat Judge sise etated by way of dictum the better opinien te be
“that the presuaptien of fraud as ie these erediters arising from
the cireumetance, that the party was indebted at the time, ia re-
pelied by the fact of these debts being edeuiid by sertgage, or by a
provision in the settlement; taat if ne such cireumetonece existe,
they are entitied te impeach the settiemont by a blll preperly
adapted to their purpose, and charging and proving indebtedness at
the time, #6 that their rights will not depend on the mere cleasure
ef the prior creditors, whether they will 6r 7111 net impeach the
settlement."

As defendants point cut, thue early in tne bistery of the law
the fact that a erediter was fully secured sae reengrized as a ele
Qumatance that would rebut the praeuption of fraud waich would
otherwise arise from a voluntary conveyanee by a debter, and tais
dictua of Chancelior Lent seems to heve been followed in mony
Gases in different jurisdictions, Without undertaking to 4iseuse
the facts in detail, we quote from deme Life & Accident Co. vy,
Sehietl, 17% ark.,, Si, where the geurt maid that the reason fer
indulging presumetions did net avply under sirewnetances where the

erediter held full security, smd further waid:

Sine LOT ES a

pe a aR A RIE RE

a} deoapsedua totlherp Move emoedd aad toe thors antatetqses ‘odd tand
1p once ge an wxéide sete edi San Cortarrndly wa bn od dt of
axe ae ni and os Loos) w4 benesonih ‘ta saoliqeoxe oat”

a'aonaiot & fia ect

«req ted! al yaiSiow ban} ahewiist ak bewoilot nood Brevinrger rhe
| dantess 26 taelobuer'l dew Seiad ai we lemets oat ‘Jadt wend tatoold
id etoyttero “dso wpeudien ‘to amdals of ea fadd fue betateq (ates hex ot
a gad? .aolales evisial'teh » te yatvivw ak Wivo rite oten saw oxide
nd ef deluge todied saz mitels ‘te yoo qo totale oaks Sgpdt badey
“wott gatabta exodibexe seeds ad da butt ro motdqaveddy ba Faae™
“#2 al , ind t ait dm betdonits ane ethag oid godt ‘ens semonls ont

a vf to ,oynntien yd Se uidbe yaied adves eanat Re ‘toar ‘old vw bettea
legalize senaduseor te dome on LY dane faci ction ods ah" ax i

| elte gore ikid « xd ‘fuewe Lede aah teas guk of betbiond “a wut
de wenxnietdebok gaivozq baw atl _ tanec fete Seoqtbe | chad
exseasioa etem ef2 no haonwh fon Lllw edxigit ates toads oe yom ;
tlt _ ton Eile 2 Aktw = ante vexed tbo prose) ode

| ee va avce [9008
ay wal edd to yrotald ads St ulise wmdt ,Ju0 falow iusto a eal
| «tie @ a4 Bexlagosss aaw boivece ELivt ase ‘taoibeas s dead soa oat
“pitow Molde huax't Yo molsqiinere wee tuded bibow leybeere a
ia? bas ,toddeb a od sonayevnes gmtaiter # wort selva ‘ba.
“nem ak beweLLot deed oved of eanee end to wie ;
gaunels 6¢ gabsegrsbay duodtk® .eaelto tba ret, easier alt

Serpe eo enne eayseryr sit cay enn oe _o

net ey UES
PERO

"The reeaon for this dictinetion in putting seeured eredie
tere in the some entegery os subsequent ereditera is that, whatever
presuxption ie te be indulged, the erediter, in aelecting nie seque
rity, hae, unlike a general erediter, disregarded esther oroperty of
the debter and locked eniy ta hie security for the calleetion ef
hie debt, hence he is entitied te ne presumption ef fraud in the hee:
eonveyarnce ef other sroperty. uch « erediter ia one whe hes
already been given a preference over ethere, ond ia not in the ate
titude ef an existing gemeral erediter, henee his relianee is
deemed to have bean founded on Kis seeurity rether Luan on the
solvyesey of the 4ebter.* ;

in Van Wyek v. Seward, 6 Paige's Chuocery Heports 62 (8.Y.)
affirmed ic 18 Yend. 475, a bili brought to set seide an alleged
fraudulent conveyance was dismissed. Chancellor Yalworth, discuaeing
the faets, esid that it appeared that doupiainant had failed te shew
that defendant had an intention te Aefraud complainant by his volun.
tary settlement ef hic preperty which had tuken plaee before 4t was
aseerteaines that the Judgment could net be coliestsd out of the
property upon which it wags 4 lien. he sabds

“and I think the evidenes seews, ost conclusively, that the
property upon which the assigned juigeent was « lien, 17 gold fer
anytuing Like ite falr cash value, vould have been suificiernt te
eatisfy the whole amount of that Judgment. The eompluinant, pere
haps, Kad the technical right te out up the preperty for sale wpe
the execution, and bid if in fer a nominal oum if ne bidders at-
tended to run it up to ite feir value, and then te sold Fillies
Seward, who had guaranteed the coliection of the Judmeot, liable
for the deficieney. Sat must we oresume that Willian Seward anti-
cipated that gues a course of pree¢eding would kave been adepted by
the complainant; and hold Aiea settieaent ef his property smong the
afferent meubers of his family «he Aad claime upon Sie bounty,
fraudulent for that reason? If taere vas ample property beund ky
the lien of the jJudguent to pay the debt, at the fair cash value,
and the guaranter had ae reasen te believe he would be charged with
ony thing under hie guaranty, that is sufficient te rebut #11 pre-
@uaption of fraad. Under the circuwetances of this ease, I do net
believe the complainant would huve permitted a strauger toe bid in
the property bound by the agvigned judgment at the asvunt due
thereon; leaving his own subsequent judgeent unpaid, The sevsigner,
therefore, could not reasonably have anticipated the @#vente whieh
afterwards cceurred.*

the same rule secue to have been follewed in Kellilian y.
Egkilien, 245 Pac. Kes. 98 (Idehe 1926), where the court said:

“Thatever the general rule way be with respect te the burden
of proof in actions to set aside eonyeyences alleged te be in fraud

of erecitors, it must be kept in mind that this action ia by a
secured creditor, one who held mortynge seourity for the payment ef

Mi aebiid off of Josqued Mtv ad ‘qn ots Lara ast ‘snveta

ebbexo hetupes galitug at agisoalge dd wis. to% seoaox aat*

aevedaiy ,dnit af ertosiheros @uesperdun xe oe omen ont mt ‘wane

oLoo8 aki guisjesiss si ,setitete edt ,hogivbal af of 92. modteu

‘to ysueqgery tedfa hebtagorelh , tog thors hog eo @ilfan ,pas hs
to mes roekiae eit rot ctinwese els oF ice pytves ong biee atied a
ea? a Buavt ‘te aotsquowetg om of Sei¢iram # dab

and of emp af tgdkkesto « dent .uiius gong tedve. ‘te (Se eye CRD

«#8 O4¢ ai gon si has ,@%edso Yeve seavte tery @ jaken nood yhaot le
wi @oasiioy eid oaner ,codibote Leteag, ae ge 3g phat
pals ev.

ad ae’ MBit tetidey aisha aia oo bshaxo
* tetdeb add to, weer

( Ye) RY asteqed yreo nes a'ogaes 8 anaes oe tote all, Ae
bogelis se ebine toe 92 ddygwond Lfid @ ,8te .bae¥ OL a siienainl

putegvanth yostowdel teiieoued) .dediionth aw gonnysynoe Inatubuayt

|| odie of odin? ja Sunatetgnoo Aadé devsogua $4 sade Bhan. ,etee allt
atetov afd Yo tonaiatqnos byarteb at xoktaeges og bad. dnabae toh Jae
_- aaw $2 etoled works aeket bad sghie yreeqets obs to frou L929e gad }

_ #82 to Jue desasiioe ed tom Bauce toamghuh a6? dads pomiadaeega
deel , ihies of «medi # enw a) stodnw eatihataicin’
edt stadt ,ylovleslome saea pene mosebive edt salad 1. _ posing.

get Blow tL ell s eer dmoesyiot Seaniene en? dolde

of doetolVive aeed avad bisew sa 2. alal £2
‘eq ,fminialqmos edt =. sasayhy oat eS *

eiee yor « as que St igh np inaant Bee sd
ur neds yp 9 eae hm Se bee eh : ott, Ve i onelduaeh

hd Ay * ae | OF Bt
oiiiit “jiaaubit a te age any > wel Sodaes bod ete ke

~isaa brawed melifi® dade Oeste Uy p Bathory omy ae
‘ea aged e¥ezi eats gal be seers ai ety a Sogn

edt gloss Yrteqoig & © dima leeen a , .

Saad 9 ti meee awiets had > “ia Pe 18" y's

uF bowed yltecetg oique aaw oned? taeeee2 jad? t0% ses,

,eaiay dees tle't eff 2a ,ddod ees ae al ad use eat ‘te sare eit red
agiw begrade ed bivew oc eredind BLES OM

~etq iia guded of gaeloiTive of feat” , Ay > ye ges im en

_ san oh 1 pane aid? to tap ke
Wh Bad Pe teguetsa a badd Eaaea | ; .

| euh sno asl? ta. a ra rig soos
tomleea edt bleqin taongbul, danupeadi we abd
daidw asasve edd padeglolinn eves) Pek

wa need
oe naked al Kewollot aed svad of eaven ein ome ont

“Ybkaw duwos ont wince (aker odiabt) 8e sao 3a aos

ee a} hip ng
tyne 4

dues? ml od of hoyetle sencoweniae aah Beacdnseror§ rte wp!
x vd wi moftee aldi fan? mt sees ad wyt yg *-- #t at .
‘te snemyaq edt 102 ytiteoem ageyetem bied ete wae store:

: Hii, Ivins s ptr he barril
cays ‘ ee bf ‘ i {49 ik \
« Ree Sat ; s fee o
is he ac PON £ oA SG it net bea. N

hie debt, the tranefer in no manner endangered the mortgage secu.
rity. ‘The erediter neither alleged nor proved that the sortgesged
preperty wae net of suffieient walue to pay the debt when the ine
staliment payseente fer the purchase of the land were made and the
gift was made to respondent, in such « gaee, to make 1% necessary
for the grantss to prevs that the dener waa solvent when the trans
fer wae msde, we are of the epinion that it is net sufficient fer
a wecurea ereditor te merely preve the transfer, the dabt, and the
subsequent foreclasure and éeficieney Judgment. Keither a gift
from « man to hie wife, ror a conveyance to aretier without cene-
sideration, ie srima faele fraudulent. ¢€. &. sae. 8435, *

In Polk County Sational Bunk v,. Beet

the court said:

"if the only debt the grantor owes at the time of the cift
is fully secured, the conveyance must be held velid, for he is thm
in the same condition legally ae if he vere free from debt. the
evidence shewe that at the time Seett made the deed te bie wife the
debt to the bank wae weli secured, {4 apoears that the bank rested
eatiofied with the security for more than eight yeara,. It is net
even now shown affirmatively that the property in the hande ef the
trustees is net sufficient te seeure the debt.*

In Steakel vy. Billion, 210 In, 1138, 232 N. W. 387, the
Supreme court of that state said in substance that the debtor was
entitled in equity te have the seeurity held by the erediter applied
on the indebtedness; that if it bead been sa applied there woulda be
mo deficit and witheut euch deficit the ereditor was uct prejudiced
nor damaged by the slleged intended fread of the debter whe wade
the conveyance, In Stephenson v. Demahue, 4: Ohio St. hep. 184,
the same rule vas apolied,

In Kational City Bank v, Cowdin, 343 111. 436, a subsequent
erediter sought to eet aside o conveyanoe made by the debier te his
wife prior te the time the indebtedness originated, the triai court
held the conveysnee vold on the ground that the debtor waa heavily
indebted when he made the eonveyence; cut our Supreme eourt reversed
the judgment on the authority of Boritz v, Hoffman, 56 lil. 583,
saying that while the evidence ehowed that the debter Had considere
able indebtedness at the time he made the conveyance, it was largely
centingent as surety for others, enti while the trial ceurt had found

thet his asneta were insufficient te discharge or satisi'y his debts

and liabilities, nevertheless the evidence failed te aupoert the

<00Rn Agsgitom eds hotegnahas tonnes om af Tetadest |Hh.sdeb a,
nde giton ot fois bevorg ton bageita tedtien totibere ad? ef!
nae ens agdiw gdad ont yom oF sulay tan ted t tue to fon es yttognn
Ot bas chem pew bask ots to ppadotog otf tot af | Pao Ga
“Wlbensesn tf oda of ,pae0 0 Mowe al roscoe. ot ohban, paw 22
éaa:¢ oct aoly srovtlon saw Zonob OAs Jndt a ad entrar 9 ‘

tot gaololtiun tea al @ Jand aglmico add Ya ous, ow , cha ant ¥

ad? bee .ddeb oly , te tenes? of over: Ylawem of |
3tip @ teitied ,topmmbsl, yoretes eh baa emp of Pi

= Qo duoritiw Wejeds of setagerien « ton. my
*.8£08 .one .B Do .taodehuntt stop t amixg, #,

Pee op i obe't. BEL, ptt Oor 2 VF Rie.

tha, iapoor td

bi asd ‘te onl’ e632 Bowe todmare ond toh ion,
mat? af or rot , Syl ype od Wg ve sate erEoS eae |
oe OAT dob sett, oath oxew x &. Mog

‘ond othe eid oF beeh ad 2 teaos"s seal “alow 2 ‘Sand 4 a

_jbetaot. doad sat fad? oraesgae ob Breese * aan

goa ai #1 .ecrsey tegte madd ates tel ¥Fixeoss cnet a aaae
ont Le abtasd any at {Me teqo te emt dase ylovita
*.2deh edt etteee of dan ioly

od? ,ved wv wee bit wal i

» sant ode toided wad te hic ii si
whi oh. we eae ae + 2 Fah 8 al r :

a"
ae grein
mes tat

bioicoondie A 82 iit £20 ,gbbwod .v gino wt iy tonetéa!
abe of soddek. oud. Ya ahase sitio Gleal a ob taa ‘Re a $ die, ;
Stuns ‘totf exit ikon eh penned om lage ‘at mide bs

atdeb ela eid dal ae \aataittile F Valdemar didbat wna tats
edd troqqua of beiiet eonebive od? aneteddxeven vaabehendatt all

—s — a

court's findings in that respect; that 1% wee arrived at only by
charging the debtor ix fult for ai, direct an4 contingent liabilie
ties, a very large vortion of which was nore than covered by a
Tiret-glase collateral eeourity, and that as to other sortions en
whieu he head a comtingent Liability ae surety, the orinecipal and
other sureties were Tinwicisily aouna,

the evidence in thie case showa the master feund (and com
Plainosnt may not in the abeence of objestion argue against the
finding of the waster) that at the time this gonveyanee wae wade
the orediter held in ite Sande apple security te meet the entire
indebtedness. This indebtedness beeame due only by reagon of come
Pleinwit's eleetien to deciure it dae, For « esurt ef equity te
render ite assistence te aomplininant ander these eiresietonces
would be te aid in moanures epvrrecsive in their nature, On thie
reeord it must be held that at the time tae transfer van made gone
plsinant held in tte possession seourity and proserty suffloelent in
value te cover the indebtedness of defendant to complainant, and
such an uncontradicted fact rebuts any sresumption of fraud on the
part of defendant at the time he senveyed the stock in queetion
fer the benefit of hie wits, [t te urged thet the sourt erred in
hearing evidence in addition to that reyerted by the saster, Egan
¥. Zeon, 244 111. App. 497, and Central Lliinoiy Public Service Ge.
vw. Sullivan, 204 211. Lil, are cited. Ye have disregarded this

evidence, “Ye presume the chanee@llor alee disregarded it, wince

the record indicates the evidence was taken only for the pursese of
determining whether there should be a re-reSerence to the master,
and after hearing 1¢ the chancellor stated in aubstanse that it was
not material,

The decree of the Superior court will be affissed,

IMCREE AFFI AED,

O'Conner ant Yedurely, J7,, soneur,

‘ea ylao te bowtie sav ‘tt Galli jideased salt at ouathart ese
eRLideit taagaisace tine to0thh tha xt ftw wh w3sage SHY aatoedde
“a ‘Yt hoteven ast otom sew soksw Te marie ree, wr 4 aie

ia saoiitan tonto oF ua tat ite 4% itugee Setejation meaty. i

bas Enqloatia ssid ,ytouus os we hiidens bawgattaos & bed on |
sbumee eficlsaent? excew és towend: canibe

wavy bie) bret teteae aay ewosde eaae e24d al SOneb ive off?

ott genlage sugwe moiveetdo te epateds ett ak 20a Gam ee
Sham aaw goneyevtios atx eal? eae te sada hesiee ont te |

‘Rao ADFeKWOTLS ounde wohau san ae tgene 98 emesadena er obeer
elas a0 .ruSs8 ahaa ai evienetege seteaen ak bie ot 6 ew
amen oham gan “ae Tasker d outs omit oni ta seit Ofaa a sqm ab snes,

‘” fants) Ywe viteqotg ban <sienors sadenoes og ead wk dled $

«baw 1 Sata mbe Lgmow @2 inshim'teb Yo ‘amends s tobal exis T8708, ot outay

wad a0 buaxt to aottqacetg wa agudes, Fest Ratethaxtace an bal toe
no kao. ad Kote oad heyernes oe ants ont aa, tunbas tab °
ni bexte fines esis gaslt baguw at ve wethe old te $8 1nand ant 0%

es ot hy é

Aaa oteteen wsit wa eaten’ sans ot moks thba at souobive gattava
polyno? obidul sont 6h Lextaas ban shoe 194 fre ae ,
olde babraseredh eves ov ‘sheeie. ons, 408 +442 498

| sonte 2k babdtagetels vate xo isenote one amuo%g oF ‘ ‘

t% seogie¢ od Tt ylao neaay saw Sonabive ems sodnotbat a on: bs
“tedeam ott of eoawie'tex-en a od bike weed

saw 21 tast egasdedum at hetate tollevneds edt $2. seianed aefhe tae

hin ivia od fiw dunes steaperpere ont ve homantentes ssi a
bbgige ; ; y oe ty yt th y gad
mas Teta aunoan | none. ee
was of Kw} Ft eee ee AAQNes ay
i SES Cee te eo 3% eee ban, sanne0"9

sate SE Bade :

Spee yh ze SS Aas «eee Ltda st tte Me

37346 fo
bef
CHARLES BE, GIBSON, } ys
Appellant, } £ is
APPRAL ¥¥OR CLRGULT COURT ;
ve.
} OF COOK COUNTY.
Appellees, )

Zz v4 4 1A. ‘ene’ D
;
RAR, PREBIDING JUSTIGH RaTCHRTT
DELIVERED THE OPIRIO“ OF THR OGUET,

thie is an appeal by cosplsinant from oe deeree whieh dise
solved a tesperary injunction theretefere issued and digiissed Ais
bili of complaint for want of equity. The cause was heard upen
exeeptione te the resort of a master, The excertiona were over-
ruled, the injunction diseclved and the bil) dlemiesed ae reeome
mended by the report.

the biLL in gubsctaned alleged that comslainsat and hie wife
were ovners of premises demoribed, whieh were subjeet ta a trust
deed given to one Iwert, an officer of A. Helinger & Co., te secure
am issue of bonda in the eum of $112,000, which were nogetiated and
#ol1d through Holinger & Co.; that complainant and hie «ife executed
anether trust deed conveying the precises to the Chieage Title and
Trust Co. to secure additional indebtedmess, ond s third truet deed
te the Phillip State Bank & Trust Co. to seoure further and other
indebtedness; that the laet twe deseribed trust deeds were foreclosed
in a proceeding in which the decree found the sum of $28,603.90 was
due with interest from Geeember &, 1931; that Eolinger & Ge. pur-
chased the certificate of snle for $2,000, and that this purehase
Was made by Nolinger © Co, a6 agent and attomey for comslalnant
and hie wife te maintain thelr pessesmion of the prewises as provided
in an agreenent deseribed ae Exhibit 1; that the saster's eertifi-
cate ef gale was aszigned to Alexander J, Seer and Paul J, Senlandt,
agents and employees of dolinger & Co.; that Mareh 10, 1933, Selinger

& Co. advised complainant that it would assign the certifieate of

avers

: ; ae 1 URHAKD
Ms. ¥ PneLinagh
TAvOS TKOORED LaleWe i @ yeas

aN “ev Rae
E AT Sa Lae yy e sit ye pe
»ste 9% ,09 & AMDALION ,A

Yrauoe xOde Yo
G0 Le yo

TUMROTAM BDIVSUL waLOTewAt VAN oF vee wont
thou EET BQ HORATNO EAT CRERV ES A

~aib doliw gotooh © antt tneais Lqmse ov Lavace as at aust aN
ais bomelue lh bas bevuad ete ledersad so ltonwbat raxooaet * 5 Dov ios
Raq brasd ase vasne eh ea dupe ‘to don tot tate teuoo 1° tae

“tye otew saeiigoone eit statase F % trogen oats Ce

Sheva i bf Hed ys

_smeeet 86 Seeaiwehs Libs aaa bate beviowa2h neisoauad at oa
| ne __st0qen 9a vd _—
etiw aid bas tnetlasanes test haye td soungedue iy ,fite oat ‘=
tent? @ of toeidue exew do dete sbedirane teeknatg = a insert
emnees of ,.09 2 topaiiol ,A te edt a i ae ytxowt ong 8 np, Ay
base betalioges wxoy dotey , 00,8144 to com ons at hnod Yo sumed a
betugens @Tiw sisi bas fanaleiqang take 1200 _tepal soli Mgsotds Bien
bas L213 egaotdd oid of aontnaty ost yatyovace head tamed yam
beh sovt? Hridt # has ,eagaberdebat canaistoba owyne of oe ? fem
_ Sedo bane todesel etuges at 190 denne # waat chee dail ttt oer
tecoisexot exow adowh tours Sedixgask owe font oct tet, tie
Say 98.808,255 Tea aye siz paue't eexesh age Aotay at | atbseoers #, oo
~aug 009 & wo gthion ass iheRk o@ ‘THea oe , woret Sages mh date ous
_ weadonug wide Sadt ban ,G99,89 107 oten %e steht irsoe eat |
i, tnente Lge xe eons ogee oe fatae ee se Aceh
pet Hs amen held ‘ts np kenonaee ubewe ‘alatalen ‘od: ithe 0 ok he
atiisvee exe teew et tone yi shetel as Dodixoenh ganaperys me 6 ok

thaw trie 0 fuel bee week .t xobasxetk of boagtass enw olan Witten
sin SECL .OL dete tase * eantien Yo 9 awerotens bas

ia sat Jas ae 1 wales fog tacenge!, |
he ofeoFtheweo ed? aghena biwow 22 test vaaste tones heetvbe eo :

CaS fy

cM
oe
ar

pale upon repayment of the 92,000 ad other moneys advanced; that
complainant renewed his former promise to pay te dolinger & Co.,
but was unable to 46 se, ani that the master's deed Lesucd te Zser
and Sehlundt April £1, 1931; that Seer and Schlunét demanded vossese
sion of cenplainsnt's flat in said prewises and netified the tenants
mot to pay further rente to csmpiainant. The bill prayed for an see-
gounting and that the deed should be construed tc be a mortgare.

Defendants snevwered tae iil, admitting the forser ownership
of complainant and hie wife, the execution of the aubsequent trust
deeds, the exeeution of the nesignment of rents whieh was attached
te the bili, the fereclasure of the truet deeds and the lasussee of
the certificate of eals aud ite aesigument te Zeer ani Sehlundt, but
denied that the aseianmeaent *as then in effect or that A. Heolinger &
Co. acted as agent ef complecinant. Gn the contrary, defendante said
that they took action in the matter and bought this certificate fer
the benefit of the holders cf the first mortgage bonds in furtheranee
of plaus underway to reorganize the property. Defeodante admit they
effered te assign the certificate te compiuinast om different condie
tione as te paywents which complainant newer is fact made. They set
ap in the anewer a iatter in whieh the offer was made, but upen hich
conpluinant never scted, They adeit that the deed finally issued
and that the elders ef the deed deaanded pesteesien of the preniaes
and notified the occupants net te pay the rente, Defendente deny
that they ever ected se the agente ef compleinsnmt and say that they
hold the master's deed adversely to eomplainent, ‘They alao deny that
complainant wae entities te am aeecunting.

The evidence taken by the master waa largely submitted by
stipulation, aad there is practienlly ne dispute as ts the controle
ling facts, Indeed, complainant does net argue that any particular
finding of fact by the aaster ie manifestly againat the evidence,
and the findings of the gaster are prise facie serrect, He found

8
sent pdeomavha syenom tedse hun 000,86 ort Le ¢momanes noqu ¢kax
4-90 & tegaksoli oF yxq oe salagta toured wed devwaes tuantalqune
task wt doueel hook 'aatoxe odd Secld bas .oe ob Of ofdatiy caw dud
-s9s80g belcemund thaw ides bam toed dans ; LCL ES diegA thasidot bad
atasagt oui? daliivgs bow eeeiaese bles ai galt e'iaentaiques to sole
«oa Me tot hbeyetq L£id west odnashn Semne ot stams ‘goeca’ yeq ef tem
-eycgiton a od af Sains tito od tine boob ous sae? ban qgaléaweo
qidetedro seme? et yukerinks ,fftd wae botowine afnabasted
Jewitt taswpendue adv ‘to nelsvewae oad .o'thw wit foe Seentalaes WW
hadoutie sae dodnw wtaer Yo iovmidae sot Te woltueexs ity laneel”
Ie souwuae? OF due chewh tents ocF Yo auzeotgare? ont cftd eA oP
dud ,thuw£io® oa week of Pammmgiewe ef bee oLae Ye ereok TY re9 WHF
& tegaiiok .A dedi to gosTto a meas eae iow mgisna ont Fede pobaen
bine egombueted pyswteaos of? oO .ouemtictgmes Wo tayye sa betes 00)

| dokiw aque ted ,ehom eee ve Te eit cokaw ah weeded @ townan onf ab gah
i bounst YLinalt beeh end sant dtobe yea \hetee sever sabato tgnes!

Boh etiahasted tay ott yoq of ton siaequose ent bortetom he

gadt wrod — “ tueklakqnen of Clonw he bewk ate teaa gar Ntom
er

lettage oct ct 92 etaqel oa mata ak —— ‘hoe ja

segenhi ve: ac? Jeniaga ¢ifesliaan sh nedenm wee teu

| tel ageoltivass wise saved baw TooseH wit at aoliow Xoo YoKy eee”
|| epawuestenut ab abso syagiton sextt oat Ye wxobited ae to ¢FnNe fill
Ht yas Pinks odaahos ted .¢dteqotg, ef emhanyigot 00 pint
| som Seis Sexe th th oo taesindgues of eteed ti veeo 2) agione of bette
| son you .ohow goek of teven saenks Lome Heise etrmyny oF as weeRe
al

bostinrg oi! 19 uekseorvog bobraanh bawh oud te etobLor salt sand Name

qed! sacs yao bow Jusatoiquod Ye eeuone oH an bbtow xeve yond Salle

Ud hettiogse elogral aaw teduem oa) YC Gedud eonwhive batt” bins, bine. ie

bavot 98 .,foevxeo ghee? gud sg ots wedaem one) ne agatatt eas | “ ‘

———

that complainant and wife heid titie to the property August 4, 1941,
and foumdé the execution of the firat, sesend ond third mortgages as
averred; that August 4, 1931, being im default, complainant executed
an assigoment ef the rerite accruing frou the prewisee and authorized
A Helinger & Ge. ta collect the rents and to use the same te pay the
costo and d4iebursexentes of eperating the sresises and apply the bale
ance upon interest, taxes and principal om the first mortgage; that
August 6, 1931, A. Holinger 4 Co, apovinted complainant ite agent te
eclleet the rents and te aveount fer the same every month; that suit
was brenght to feoreciese the segond and third mertgages; that gome
plainant and hie wife app«ared and centested the sale, and a deeree
of sale was entered Decawker 24, 1953, finding the sum ef 325,698, 25
due te Snglehart &@ Kregwan, the sortaagees; tuat the interest of all
ether parties to that suit were subordinate; tuat « sale was held
January 20, 1932, and the prenivee sold te Englehart &« Krogman fer
$28,000, the sale appreved, a deticieney decree entered, and a master's
eertificute of aale issued to the purchasers on or about January 20,
1932; that A. Holinger & Go. wan the house of iasue of the firat
mortgage bond issue and om Auguat 4, 1951, was developing slane for
the purpose of protecting the first mortgage tendheldera; that ap-
proximately one year after the certificate ef sale had been lesued
Helinger & Co. advised complainant of the expiration of the redemption
period and advised ‘him te purchase the certifiente; that complainant
advised Holinger 4 Co, that it was impossible for him te do so, be- —
eause he had ne money with whieh ts effect such a purchase or redemp~
tion; that thereafter the bondholders of the firet mortgage trust deed
considered the saatter and reached an agreenent with A. Holinger & Go.
to purehage the certificate at a disesunt for their bemefit, for the
purpese of avoiding another forecienure; taat pureuent te that plan
Helinger & Ge., threugi its employees Seer and Gehlundt, in January,

1933, purchased the certificate for $2,660; that the sole purpose of

ACCL ,P Pouuuea “Pveqeig O09 OF w17LE Hiod Oi bua trotialgnas data
as Wegegetod Hrids baw Dooped , seth sci? le welisesxe odd daso't aan
Aeduonxe dnsatatomos ,#ineted aa yaheod , £60k () deagua sede phoveeve
pecktadtue bam sootmetg sat mot? yaliticos ataot edt te tmamuglaas ae
oa? Yaq OF oom sao vee of bas @FasT 6x9 oseilod OF 163 d -tegabLel vA
-fod edt yloca bus aealowre odd gaitatéqe Le atuedsetedeih bnew efaoo
gad? regeudiom texto ede ao faqioakte bar sexe? ,festeltal aegu eens
a? fasyuo #Fi Saettinlemad setiiouge .08 8 weymtich ,A (L002 ,0 teugad
dive tax? jA¥nom yteve ome oe? Te? Saweeee of bax after edt toolkep
«neo ¢a0$ jeoqeys tom brid? ban bacgee en sao ineve? ed sguond waw
gerseh a bac ,ofee off bedeesucw has betaeqen wtiw ald baw?
@8.800,88% To mun 0s Bolhast 2604 {C8 tedeeced deregae eewre how?
fie te séeuetal off Pad? jesegnyteos eco lneegetd & Itetedgay ob ou
pied enw eles 6 Sadd (Oloathvoden otee Flee sane ot aoitieg redo
| Stet camer & trait tga oF blow eoelawtg bt bine: REEL JOR yenmmal
ie a'totjeew a bae ,boretim se1bdh qomisi'thh « ,beverqe olee ead , 3 a -
; .oS yseniet dude 14 ne steentotee oft oo» bowser shaw to eteottneeee
gent? tas to avant to sated oh aay ed R Segaklok .A sed qROGL
‘tet enstt gakeoeveh aaw 220i ,b Paupud ao bes sueat bod egngseom
Lega tus jovebtodhaod ogegsitom fork? ony pabtoototy te’ Piles -
bsusct mood Bad fer to stant tivvee edt weFta sey eno Yletn
He gmotiqanber art ‘to aolietiaxe of? Te fextbetgnew ealvha .69 owipaian
ag ihe taonlelqoos tats jolaoliiixwe edt seade'thg oF min) ben tvha dae bolteq
{i <6d (0a ob of mid tot oidteooqmt saw at Gadd 9d & ‘toyntion boolvbs
Pity ‘smebot 76 vecdo mug @ Aeue soeTie af dy law ithe yonow om het of omneD
| i] beek fawts ogags toe Saxvlt ed? To etebinodhad wae to PLaete dt: todd gmokt
ee ee re Le wortan ode horebtanee
eet 40 I fteaed uiwnd “ot Sorownls a te wtagh tides eas we wor
“Baty tal? oF sankerig toss ;oteweloore'? “tHe ean yatntove to evevaig
Ciawaw at |, Thaw Ltoe baw 198 eos gelyaw nei eyeotds Pod se pat tol
te ssouxkg oLow sid sane 7 ORO, RG “ot east iitrse ede Ho B20

ietBiR:

the purchase wan to orevent another Sorecloaure,

The master further found thet tae proof did net shew that
A Holinger & te. acted as agent or attcrney fer complainant; that
the purchase wae aude toe tervinate the rights and interests ef come
pPlainant and other parties, exeepting the first mortgage bondholdera;
that an aceount had teen rendered ani the accounting shewed that neo
part of the $2,000 used ip the purchase was obtained from the rents
of the premises; trat Helinger & Ue. 4i4 net owe any money to ¢ome
Plalinant; that, on tae contrary, complainant is indebted te dolinger
& Co, for a large gum of soney; that ¢esoiainant was net entitled te
a ageountiag, sid that the biLi ef cernpisint was defective and
should be dismissed because comeisinant 410 net effer to dae equity
by the return of ony swe of soney advanced by Kelinger 4 Gs.: that
the evidence did net shew that the maeter'e deed war to be hela ae a
morigage; that the rente eoliected ponding the injumetion sheuld be
turned over te defeniants, Zser and Sehlunat.

Se already stated, it ie net arguad that ang faet found by
the master is centrary te the evidence, Further, it ie quite a4iffie
cult to understand the tavery upon which eemplainant proceeds, He
cites eases, many of which are net ieeunned, to the pointe thet the
Felationehip of princleal and agent existed between complainant and
defendants; that a fiduciary relationship was ereated by the aete of
the parties at the time of the acquisitien of the aesignmente ef rente
by A. Holinger & Co.; that the burden was ugsen the assignee to show
that no fiduciary relatienship existed and that it had completely
performed ite obligation, and thet a Fiduciary relation may exist in
ail cases in which influence has been aequired and abused, or in “hich
confidence has been repesed and petrayed; and, finally, cites an su.
thority te the peint that here a transaction ts originally intended
te be @ mortgage, it will continue se until legally otherwise ae«

termined, Searesa v, Ford, 108 T1i. 16. This last proposition, ef

etueoloete? tedteons Sasvete 62 naw .

“alld Woitk dou’ bib Yoorg bith said bawe'y «wastih’ Vedian dae"
sade “\enente tqnes “abt ‘ybarotia 48 dasqe eh begos 10d 3 vente 2
<p “te a¢edtodul bas why et efeitioxed 09 oben daw saaderbe’ oft
jerehLodbaot ogsyixom ¥etkt ons galigeaxe jaolitee wilde bad Sabllete
ou te4d bowers gaitawodea eae bus betehaos wood halt tiieied" a’ 1D
whaex ext wort bealedde sew oaacete ond at beau OOO, 88 edt Ye FQ
ak of youl Yow ewe Fou HIS J90 d xegadiel dace powaleodg SPOR
aeynttell oF pidieth! af dakalatenos $gtaethos off 0b Yadd SRR
es bets hine Hea baw dtwtbétqets® 0d feeen Ye Me ait PE
hie svidoe ton eaw radi tenes to 121d Uae bekd haa gadadbda’ heb

“qa dipe ob os verte fox nih resntecyoen Ueuedod benalaa sh be ihe

i ee

gant : 69S Sohahiok yo bebnavbs Yohkom VO ave yan th mee
4 ab Blox of 6} saw ooh Atxotenk ode “Sally vehe You bis
of hued Harcherkanl oid b shaban wtengage din abaor show! a ae

‘yd hmiot font Qns tat? bewyie tom ei FE saben ‘haere ‘co
-Pvtih eetup at £2 jrontxdl aodebive otf ot caunavade ie pions
“eh” sesesiore eonmrnas io baw ad afirsoerenl persion ed

Bre funalofqmes seowted Setetxe tieye haw Lecholte, wi een
he Stee ode yo petnets aw Ginanette fot peAtohEY B Yad fh 7 uit
“etter to etneserytewe oxy ‘to motYtetupes edt Ys windy ety He aati
Wore ‘oF eeiyives oft dog How mesxue oxy “Hout Led be ce wh te i
Bi sorinicxmeh = $2 Dame ae arene theses stot %

On tn weeks yiinalt , fixe © Roveger wed eat WETS
Kobwedat ytieaivite wt a ® bncsasthyren roto - | ' f

‘Soh eotwredss utfeqget OFan on wun aie tei pa
" tg “\gelelwoqetq teak oat *,04 ica Tan tT a

course, ie not as a matter of law in digeute. The 4iffiguity is
that there ia pot ao Scintilla of svidence in the record from which a
eourt gould find that the transaction ot the time of the purchase of
the master's deed was ever intended by amwyone te be o mertgage, Gee
foendante gomplain that comsisinant in wie argumest has not Pellewed
the rales of this court, sid we are of the eplnion that the oomnliaint
ie not without reagen. any caece are cited, but only a Sew of them
are atialysed er shown to Lave any coesible apecliamtion te the fuaete
appearing here. Such presentation oniy a€4a to the burdene ef the
court,

Ae defendants point out, A. Hslingsr & Us. wae net (ae dome
plainant assumes 1¢ was) the agent in the transacticn im gqueetion. On
the contrary, it was the agent of the bondholders sheers bonds were geo
cured by the firet mertgage. Then defoult was made in payments under
that mortgage, A. folinger & Co, seught and ebtained from eomplainant
as additional eecurity an eesignment of the rente of the eroperty. A
day or two toeresfter it employed cowelsinant te eoliscet the rente
Tor it, sgreeing te pay him compensation of thres per sent snd permit
him te secupy se apartment in tke premises. It ie now anoarentiy eone-
tended that the effect ef this was to create the relationship of
Principal and agent as between A, Keliuger & Ce. and tomeluimant. If
it could be auld tuat such relationship wae thereby ormate’, it would
seem clear that Holinger 4 Co. would be the prineipai, sinee it hired
and poid complainant te set in its behalf im making seliections, Upen
| this theery, we would have the atomeleus situation ef the agent claim.
ing that it was the ‘uty of the principal te aet for the agent's
| benefit, whieh, ef couree, would be absurd, As a matter of fact and
| of law, of gourse, A. Holinger & Co. was obligate¢ te Look after the
intereste of the first mortgage bendheldere.
8 Wed. (2n¢) 16; Zrnzes

263. In securing the agesignmente ef renta Selinger & Co. acted in the

ak ysinelViih ef .wducelb mk Wek to teSiam 6 en fom ak ed

a doide sox trioees oa a enoaphive te aliisales & som ok erent bast
Ye eeasintug pat to omit a? te wotdoenasts Of sect halt Sivoo, oases

~ol ,sjeptice o od oF canna Yd bebeeted cove gew beob a’ veda oad

mw ee Be

tuiniqgaeo eff fads solsiqe off io st ee bas .ftwon eis te eokwn ele

beroifel son ead docmuyte ehh af dapain Lomep eid sila Sasno9 ave

mois te wot a yino gud ,beiis ote aenee (ied .~MoaROT Awodaae tomas
ates? of3 of aoltanliqgs eidianag tt fre of weds To Pent ”
ode, to exabiyd ang of Shae yine wolsatangnsq spat sexes gatbts

" a
iy bd oa

~ReD bad tom saw 09 & tgallod A . sue taleg atnabue teh ah ahha
a? ,aolverup a) soifosnumr? ene al tung, ot (eap 7) eomunne aiid

+08 #iew Shaad seedy, atehlonbagd elt Te sre oft ciel hy

TehAY AF agayeq ak sham aaw diuated neat soanmrren sand eatt ws “peru
Saaake Lomos soak hoalesda haw Idguoe Cbd wgelted od +%geud tom Band
A .xfuegetg sdf Io staet ont Yo Tmomnglene mH ytiivese Leaolsibba we
‘gdaet ons ipetics of tnenlalyaoa hayoique 2% tet iaetecd ows ‘to yah
tteteg bas tmoo HE oensis te sol tensoquoe mis a9, ae aatootps, es mek
“ROG ylenasagee wou ai di ,aeaimetg odd ai Sanna nee (8h KaLOe OF gm
‘to gitiameizalos ot spats ot saw alae to foatie iad fads, tonsa?
a -fanate Lowmoe bag 699 & togai Loli h spewed eH frome, bag, Lagtonk ss
heer ah ,doteete ydetea? saw qideacivetax Mowe, sud? bios of, BM ade ,
betta $2 sonle ,ingloatig 947 o¢ bisow .a) & tegatiok sade andes
seg! ,enolfoolies puidem af Besed add at foe 09 on hheg bee
omlake taoye oft to moliausie euetemons wld ovax biwow oe amie aaa
: at tangs wad Tot son of Leqioning eae to tay edd new oh tase a
Bae goo To tovsam a Gh .btuRdn oF DSuow, sauno— Xp, «Hosen. .fPOmE
(2 othe deol of | A tonsh lel, .A ,9etu00 Te gmat Be
aanasigenenpnaiaanen , saat Lciginpiallans Dipti: ae

way of fulfilling ite obligation te the bondholders to whom it had
sold the securities: wid it cam hardly be said thet when it arranged
to bave complainant collect the rents that it, as agent for eomplaine
ant, Bired cespisinant te agt as its agent.

Gther autnorities citai by eomeleinsnt proeeed uper the
theery that a fiduciary relationship existed setweeen Molinger 4 Ce.
and ecuelainent. There is no doubt that sueh rélutionship existe.
in all cases “here influence kas been accuired and abused or where
confidence hes been recesed and betrayed. Eut here, again, there is
met a @gcintilia ef evidence in tae recert tanding to establish such
fiduelary relatienship; on the contrary, tie record quite conclueively
shoves that complainant 414 net repose ceafitence in or rely upon
Belinger & Ce. in these transactions. hen he gave the seel enment
of the rente he was made the agent a8 part si the consideration te
Gellest the rents with the previeion that he should reeeive conpense
tion for collecting them. Ae kept monthly accounte of the traneae.
tions, and he deducted nie commissions before delivering the money to
Molinger & Co. te be applied on the dette. In all the transactions
this ceuplainant aamifested considexvatie sbility in the vay of Leoke
ing out fer Kis own interesie«. He was intelligent and he was exe
perienced, he cages ali Sold thet semetsing mere taan the abeve
atate of fsetse in required te eresxte « fiduciary relationship.
Sleland v, Fish, 43 111. 282; Hoshe v, Hoche, 24¢ 111. 336; Higgins

Chicago Tithe and trust Ge., 512 LLl. 11; Catherwood v. Horrig,
345 lil. 617. There are no facts in this record which will justify

the theory of a fiduciary relationship in any way.

Bat ewen if it «ould be ssmumedt that such relationshis ex-
isted, the evidence, in sur opinion, would rebut any vereaumption of
fraud. There is nothing here that shewe any convealment. The une
contradicted fuet in that defendant A, Holinger 4 Ge. gave te cone

plainant the eppertwity to purehese the certificate; that it #trong

best #h wore oF erehlonbsted vA? of meldaghide a@t gaklLitiet louse,
begakvte th oedw get? bles of yLited geo oh bum pesitixneee ons Blea.
-cielgmes tot Swgs ea ,it tat clos gat? teoilen Imenkelques vad @&)
-taege ati es don of tovmteiques beta «tae,
#88 aequ boevsi¢ fasalelquos Yo 2edko wolddveneua tang 86): we)
-99 & wyaklok mowted Seteine qisesoleniex yaotoublt « Sasid yoondsy
@uteixe qidenotiaie douse ded? §deod en of otedt stasaladgeoo bxe-
@fede 10 bowuds haw bexkupoe med ant somustal exede seese, Lhe aby
eh oradd siege ,sied fui heyeuted bao weeeqex meod aac eoasbl tna
ie Soug dalidetes of gnibaed bageet off ok goasbive Yo aliiiatos # Sem
i! |) Yleviawfouns a¢ivp broves a9 ,cuettses ede ap jqistenshtelon qrateubsd
i Kegs yYlor to mt soasbl taco eaeget fem bib taenielques tal? awedee
| fame teen oft oveg of ued! jadelionsaexd seas a2 08 d-myahiol:
OF mMebteredisano o09 lo ting Ge taoge ot chem sew ed edawr aed Bee
eensqaeg evieur:s hivode ef dais noleivetg ecr athe atuex edt tention
agnanent et To atavcoon YLesaem Syed oR aes? gattows les wet moke-
ot yodtem eat yabtovides steted ouelen ime ate fe towbet aa baw ,emolge
enotgoanant? ef? Lie al .uddeb edd ap boliqga ad o¢ 69.4 segdbted §
wool Yo "nw ont mi ytilide efdexedionss Bosae tina danatetqass had”
-x# gav of has Pog liietal eav eh .xcewnetal wee ght 167 tue gab
evede off mnitd orem gadidone Saat died die aeeey edt \beemebreg \
,qtdedoideien yrulevts't 4 eteows of boudepee Gl whee? ‘to state”
aciggll (ace . (fi 088 , doe sy gulag ROR Loh ee meee
sBieted .v boowssdged 7 IC -LST GiB y, ork, hase
oetigest Libe dolitw bruset olay ab wtaet an ote xed esa otk BR!
\gew yas af qisometgeied yraboubt? « te yeoeds ede
«to qidenohts fet dove tac? hemueen ed floes $2 th news Se. / home!
‘te motiqauaete yao tudor biuow ,agtuteo swe ab ,oonebive odd bee de
_ sty oft Fommtenomes yas evoke tard ated yaltton Bk otedtl 9 shame)
mop 02 2vKg .00 @ THyal hell oh SamdaeIOh taah me dan badothursaos —
yacttn dh todd petenRitues ed¢ seadanem of yehmuduogga exit taunted”

—_—--

advised him te gurenmase it and tuck ne action in the direetion of
purchasing the same until eompleinant Ged refused te make the pure
ehase. tiven if it were aeeumed that “olinger & Gc, was the agent
ef compisinant, Holinger & Ge. would kave oeen perfectiv Justified
in purehasing the certificate after comolsinant refused toe @o wo.
Syar Mountain Bining to. vy, Schwerin, 305 111. &P. The mere exe
istenee of « confidential reiaticonsiip dose met wake every treneac-
tion ineao faete vold without regard te the setual facts of the
eases, Unir ¥ e, 1 fil. 499; taciede 2:
109 Tll. 398; Heagle v. Heliuljen, 334 211i. i165, iiere, eorvieinant

wee Tully sdvieed of every fuct material to kis imiecrests. There

Wee he concealment; there wae ne fraud, wid comolainant head Pall
knowleige of the entire trateaction, liven «haere the relationship
Was much eleser than any woich could be said te exiet here under
similar facts, the ceaurte have held transactions witainted, Hess
YW. Voag, $2 112. 472; Grisfin v. Marine Go., 8% Ili. 150; Roberta
y. Vlesing, 53 111. 196; Surner v. iittierieid, 142 111. 630,

The purechage of af Gutstanding title Br a mortgagee in
pesseasion where the mortgagor Aas Led the eppertunity to buy and
decline? to de #0, wili not justify a court of equity in imposing a
trust in faver of the mortgagor ex the property purehased. Griffin
x, Merine Go,, 5% Til. 130.

There ie no merit on this record in complainant's case,
Indeed, the bill ie defective in that it fails anyrhere in the
pleadings to assert that complsinsnt ever offered te repsy 92,000
paid fer the certifiextes, or to repay any Gus whatewer te defend-
ants. om the contrary, ooepisinant nimealf testifies that it
would be impossible for hia toe raise the money. Complainant argues
that the certificate aust Gave teen purchased op Gia behalf, because

he says, it was witheut value to the bendheolders. Se one Fhe hes

te agiseorlh 64 4 wolton a d603 bee 12 sunderay ed wha hou lvbs
wig ef? ofem Of easter had Jantlaiquas Lio ames oA) galdadotig
$eege edt caw .ot 4 tegalick fed? Hemwane grew #2 14 wove “.enaalp
beliivest elivetzeg need geod Rivew .09 4 tegakigh ,taeshaiqued to
+0% ob ef deawlex Imetia houses telta elas iisees wat eiealietieisi wd
axe otem eff .,80% .f42 808 , nivewdsd
~enntes? Yio? elas Soa aeab giduagivaiet Lettabliaes @ te woman
att te ateel Loston az of tage freddie so a
Seiond ov Ames, chatess 7 88h .fkk fo- liemenammmnenneiil

-@aeentaiones ,o%eh .GaL (442 O88 red. (gBRE LL£T QUE
@e9eet .etaeceiad aid of Laiwetam deel vieve to Beebvhe vite? saw
AIST bad tacaiolqgees San ,bwat't of saw ered jonemtanenes oa saw
gideneisalex odd pisiy sevi .noldoentent sitios odd te eyheiwont
tebeu vied telee of hima ed Shveo dokiy yaw aut? teedle vem saw
Q998 vhetnlelay eaol@oosnars bio eved etases eit , atone wotiete
« psedoR (08S ALL BO, og Y gave S£ET Be gae¥ iy
HO LEA ROL (OOS oad be jemand

md popentsom w ud eL2is poaisastadue ae to onectetug ont © Ha-

baw yt of vohaudieqge af8 hat aad texKgrves @ds eros neta
. guieeqs! al qlven Yo tevoe « Wtitewt gem BLiw (ee of of ponk feeb
Bitiin® .bdomasoirg Yaerere ond oo tehoyetom OAs “to Tost BY Sabet
ObL set RE ee

.9ekhe o Fannie lquee. at Pieatr eit ag ¢haam em eb omeat 000%.)
wale at wtonwete elielt $2 s00% ab ovider ted camneieaanl
- POO, 88 qos af howsTie vers taenislyows surly tudece oF epithas te
shaeteh of wevVededie oem ym YaQET at ee ,eedawlLidceo ott met Mba
$8 Sadt ooltieacd Beeman teanialquep ycurrtuen ont oO .atne
anugie favaieiqamd .yenem ocd Gator of wha set eldineoqul od Kivew —
eeuaged ,Tesed «16 ae bensdousy ceed oven demm Soaodtiowes ent catt
aad es oo gil .exebedbaod ode of euler deett iw eaw oh eee ot
eta nieeeee BaF) J sess boa

he@ experience in traneactions involving real estate can regard
thie argument ceriously. it Lu perfestiy aoparent that Aelinger
& Ce. ecould serve ite cliente in ne better #ay.
The decree is just and will be alfirmed,
AVVIRWED.

O4Genner and HeSurely, J7,, cencux,

Sera:

WV
Hie
id
}

t B.2 { eT ae hs ’ ee ines ‘ pe . Bar oy ee ‘: ee
ee thsaeh gli ee tn ta St Criw hoe tut

i. wang ee: Pee kgaeey specnaginn ste

Dmege- wes qe. «2d % we ot tea Bigs bs i ,

O° erimmmeh wie’ PS meet Lente eR e asiine R a vi min
ey ee a ee a a, oa
SR ee eed we
a Se Bae Non ee

Ce ALA RES spntpaiaieiss ete fh nee eT Bw!
ee sual eaesnad er vance i
ag sod eho eevee ae! Rone eed: sn netlist nee :
ae stems mca ng peop anges
vain RO penn gala al "
EO ane lyke od bomen, aaa ao eae eRe)
& aan ao oeeaie ee Pe pen aoied
ae ee a Blab penn

ie $0 8RS ood .omaknly

H Sy thoghina at ay ae

37393 yo mass

WHITE SERVICE STAYIoN, INc., Lf ey}
a Corsoration,
Appelles,

Wa,

WILLIak FP, KeCUBRIA, doing business

ae Wiseonela Terzinal & Yarehoune Ce.

and Wisconsin “arehouse & Track Terminal,
Agpeliant. t

cy FY T A 5 rap
3 41.4. 666

Mone one! Mit Be eg age Fi

BR, FRSBIDING JUSTICR MafCuet?
DELIVERED THR GPIAIGN GF THE GOURT.

This appeal is by defencast from a judgient in the eum of
$266.16 eutered upen the finding ef the court. the setion was in
contract 264 wae begun by attachment whieh iusued out ef the Sunde
cipal court Sentewber &, 1935. The affidevit alleged that defend-
ant wae indebted in the sum of 6555.27 en epen account Yor gae, oil
and other merenandise eeld and delivered, Yhe ground fer attachment
wae the nen-reagidence of defendant.

She statenent of glaim was filed Gestember 15, 1953, and
in substance avers that plaintiff wae an Illineis corseration: that
about bay 1, 1951, defendant wae engaged in the hauling, trucking
and expreseing business operating under the mame of Kedisen-Cni cage
Keter Express canpany; that May @7, L051, the business sonducted
ty defendent was incorperated under the lawe of the state of Tine
conein under the name of kadioon Chieage sotex Szprese, ine.; that
thie name was chunged July 21, 1951, te Bedisen Chicage VYarehouse @
¥reight Co.; thet neither of these cerserations had ever complied
with the provisions ¢f the act to regulate the adelesien of foreign
corporations for prefit te de business in the state of ILlinsis;
that from May 1, 1921, up te Nay 27, 1931, defendant KeCubbin
purchased from plaintilf certain gas, oils and other merchandise;
that from Kay 27, 1931, up te September 12, 1951, defendant wae an
officer, agent and direetor of these Wisconsin companies; and that
from Hay 1 to Kay 27, 1931, plaintiff sold and delivered te defendar

{ a a ne ~ reeves
+ ee «OM, HOLYATG AjLVHRE bi a
: —_—

Ua MORY JASdiA +e reatocaa

6 THUOD

‘h,,
i

+ Se

“ay
aneatand ates ,HIKWTOeM % aiLaakw

i ‘1 ( +00 e¢aoteta® & LeakaseT akeacoal® aa

,Jandotey dowsT 4 ee a aisnooal® baa
- sant Logg

Oo Jao bd ES

to awe odt a2 soemyhal, a mort $ast aston vd af faeage alee
at sew aoides oti .fusos ate to paibalt e4% soqu heretas 84.0888
~tault ocd to duo Hewes deidw sasadigndte yd auged saw ban Somudaae
~hueted ged Hogeiia tivabitte edt .88¢L ,0 isdmedge’ true faqts
ito ,aeq tol Jauovee ange ao TS .C22¢ Yo ave odd ah botdebal eew dua
sasmiset$s 10t bavery eft .beteviteh daw bfom seihanderem wedso bem
.fnehae tes lo senshlast-aen od? ser
hae S204 ,cL todeodqee boll? saw miade be taemosatea oft inci
ted? ;acitatenton aieuilil se saw ‘ttitateds facts eteva oonetdadua at
gattowr? ,yalised ef9 a! boyegms sew taobue'tod , (OL ,f qo tueda
ogaoimienpeibok to ema ed? tohas yaisetsge eecatand galnaetgee bas

betdoubnoe ganaiand off , L601 , TS qe daite ieRaguos ssetqnd noted

“iW Yo sinte ofS te awei mit soba Sedererteeal saw sundae teh at

tadt ;.90i ,asorgxd toved egavlt) aoe lbad to emma edt ishaw aiesoe

& oevedexte? ogpaoisd apelbak of ,f80f , £8 yiwk Segaade aaw ome whad
beliques xeve hud saoitateqres seeds to tadtlea jade 7.00 rdghowe —
aghorst to agieatshe edt osaiuyet of doa ai? te enotaivory watt ta be
pelow2isl to otosm ocd ah aseaiand ob of 2) tong 10? anolteteqtesd
atddu0ol saphue'toh ,L9L ,VS yall ot qu ACCS .L YOM mort send

sosthnasiovem testo bas alte ,aey alates Vikdaiatg aoxt dexedouwg —

ma saw foahaetob ,L6@L . 8h xredmetqet of qu ,f0@L ,T8 yal mont sadd
tadd has ;aelangues algacont® eaeds Lo toteorts bas tase , to lTIe

Kshm teh of hetevdieh bas hie Yilinialg ,seeL ,T8 ye of £ yall aoe |

—)

at hie request gus, cil and other merehendine; taet alee fren May
27th we te and including September 12, 1931, slaintisf seld and
Gelivered to defendant in the name of theses cerporatione gan, e412
and other merehenjise, which was used in the hauling, trucking and
@zpressing overationa; thxi there wae taen due glaintiff frea dee.
fendent $395.67, whieh Aefaniant wad refused te pay.

Phe affidavit ef uerite averred ike incorporation at the
Wiscensin corporations at the ¢inecs named; tust defendant was a
director and stoekholder of the Sadiaen Chicago “arahouse & Preight
Ge., wiieh was organized to earry on a business of interstate Kawule
ing, trusking and expressing; denied that he purchased any gaa,
ei1 or cther marchandise frem plaintirfr between Bay 1, 19%, and
Bay 27, 1931, or at any other tine,

The affidavit furtiuer averreé that the Sileconein cerpera=
tion aesume’ au indebtedness of $189, “hich was ewing t¢ plaiatirr
by the Kadiuvon Caicage Kotor bxpress, wnese acseto and business
were taken over by the Madison Chiesge Sarehouse & ¥reight Ce.,
and that from Hay 27, 1931, to September 1, 1931, & period when
defoudant wae director of the corporation, the Yarchouse sompany
paid eash for ali the gas, oi] and merchandise purehased by it
from plnzintiff sn4 alee a certain wequnt on the o14 acesunt as-
gumed by 1%; that there wae so unpeid indebtedness owing te piscine
tiff inmeurred vy the corveration while defendant waa direetor and
eteckhol4er; that he was not on May ist, or at any other time, en-
gaged in the businese of hauling, trucking wid expressing, and
operating said business as Madisen Chieage Beter Mxpreese; that in
the early part of Septesver, 1931, he eeld and assigned nie stock
in the ¥arehouse company, resigned as director und informed plain-
tiff of the fact; that about Hovember 2), 1951, the Sarehouse eor~
poration ceased doing business and its aseets were taken over by

Raemeish, Sabe & Ec¥ariand, doing vusiness as Kadisen Motor ixprese,

wail mart cote todd jontbanderen sente bad tee Leng ‘tenner pad te
‘bas bhoa Ytivalale ,f8ef .c4 dodmetaes ‘pathy sont hae of qu dete

Ihe ,sey adolieregtes eaed? Yo omen ead al tantean ot hetevised
yee

boa yaideurt ,gativued off ni none eon doidw +00 Rosado e
ash govt Mivalele sub mekis enw wxetd dead ae atoGo %
shin none od Meawon bail taphaeted dobre ,12 0086 taabaet
eit te nolserogxoums wale bartere. otaaen te tiveb} Te act
& saw saabneted jact pheana eeels o#9 3% stat dee oat 09 alanoos IW
fig tor’ 4 eevodous’ quasidd moaihall od Ye teh Coduboda’ ska xoseents
alumi edudaretak to sebaband a ao cttae of besisayte aaw i ewe ee
“46am Par boseso tg od fads botmeb serail haw gatsberd (yak
“ae Koabel aaah arewied Tilialaly Mont eulanadotaa sears” ee the
: ents aaa yan te ce reer ee eke
“nateqzoo dheavgel® of) geil berieve wasret ssdaaevineinanliil' sil
ttitalele of yaivo asw dotdw 918 Le neendasdobal aa bomen’
dented War adedsa beodw {Geetqns THOM ogee LNW noe that add yd
‘\ sb) ddgioxt & savoddte” ogagiad doatba vty <i Yerd heey ves
“pedw Botteg « . £0 ,£ todimiged o@ ,teer ,e ealt nore ‘youd Sit
eed sauoterw® eA? ,aotiereqreo eae Yo xesoutts ‘caw triste tee
“G1 Ud hesadoing ee ttasdovem tan fh any sty tte it ae a
“soa sauenoa bio elt x6 taveme slatdes 2 oeta Kaa “sifaldtg at
anloig@ 0d griiwo usentatdohal blacas on ber oxen? bal? 92 Ye
"bis desoorlh ssw secbaotet Sifdw notdasesves odd” wW wtanend wt
ao out! tedse Yoo da xd ,o0L yell no gem sew Oo deity pa¥b Ee
“Pas ,yaleestaxe Sad gulvein¥ amt tied Ye wudnt ant a nae
at 7403 jaeexext toteM ogac td) moethall an eawatund bidw yale
doota eld bomiden bas Blea ot ,L00L Seediiecded
~ihaite Bowretnt bas todoerts wa shnanwaped eas OR ‘ate ae
ad ‘pedetounld bus, ter lof tal pipet wud? stout tarts Hey
. i evo notnt wxew wdowns err suodieud yatob heades aol: a g
Sct sie noite enn pled nna # te fet

whick entered inte a0 agreement with plaintiff whereby 1t sgreed
to pay $10 a week on the indebtedness to pleintili, wid that it
thereal tor made euch payments,

the @ourt heard the evidenee and aade a finding amd entered
judgment as hereinbefore set forth. Gefendiant argaes but ome poeist
for reveresl, nanely, that t1¢ motion Ter &® new trial shoald have
been granted. in substance, the contetiiien is that the Tinding
ef the court is aguinst the manifest weight of the evidenee, ince
the trial was by the court, the finding oF tne court is eniitled
Upon review to the eame weight ae the verdiet ef wu jury.

Aa to mony of the facts, however, taere is practically ne
eenflict in the evidences. rier te the allaged trateactione bee
tween claintiff and defendant, one ueriing emanated & trucking
hueiness under the ssme Gf Radiaon Cnicage Betor Sxurees, Gp
Bay 2, 1631, Be sold thie business, us Ke asyu, to defendant Me-
Cubbin but, as NeCubbin saya, to the Kadisen taleage Motor “sprees
Co., Inc., whose nace ware later chenged to Madison Chicage Yaree
house & freight Co, As a matter of faet, “he Badiesen Chieago Meter
Express Uo, vas not ineorperated. under the iawes of Wieecusin until
May 27, 1951. The uegotiations for the transfer of Herling's
business were conducted by defendant keCGubbin, the evidenee drdie
cates that at that time there wae a balance dug Tor ef], stea.,
from Heriing's aempany te pisintiff te the amount ef 647.55. There
is evidence to the effect tiat defendant at the Jine the agreesent
for tranefer wae unde agreed te pay tnis baiance. Ketubbin denies,
however, that ae assumed any personal liability, bui the evidence
tends to show that plaintiff eentinued te furnish ofl, ete., to
the trucks whien the ~corporation veok over when it war finally
ineorporated. A suspesed copy of the agreement which is in evidence
indloates that the corporation to be organized was to asauae and pay

this prier indebtednese. Apparently, it was not included in the

|
Se
eS

2 %

rn retreat
Seep
SEAT
=

reas

ea — —

deoige If Ydeande Tiisaiela adie gapmeetga on odnt benadae se bite
af djast bea ,Tiivaieiq ef aesabeddehal edt ae deow 6 OL6 qa Or
: , ae onayeq down shes tod'teomeds
Seiotae bas palisii # ahew dae aowahive ad biased axaeo Af - ce
tales sae dud eougte dopdoetel apt ten etaledsioned ae depepeet
eved bivede Lala? wea # sak aedsom ot sods, yieune ghaeteves tot
Balbalt odd dase af apiinedaoa wid ,goradadue cl. begnaty seed
gonke ,eenehive ed? lo idglou Jeoilaam one teninge wd druem, oth Be
edd iso ah ¢aueo off Xe gadbal? wee ,2xuoo, dd YS maw Sabmh ont,
«(Sel « lo geibiew eat se deigdow emma ods OF walvor ogee |
oa ylicoijousg #4 exe? ,soreeosl, mene: oes LO Yee OF Bho out
“9S erolionsaess tagedle ott of seleh oommbsve ead. ah todtiaep
gultewts a Setoubaes yalizel sae ,tmabmo los bas Tiignialg meewe
ao Ret GR sede eyne td) aon dbo Re coum add) webew veoniend
~ok Puelae led es ,eyne o4 86 ,eeeulend vice b£oa om hed {Soya
Leesgud sesod ogendsd ageibeld ess 09 ,oywe addin em ytad abddgd
-o7a¥ ogavidd soelbad od bepuade tetel wav etem opedw yack yapd
toto oyseis® mogtbal od: tas Ye s9¢tem 8 BA .00 aoieter ts weno
fiiay aiaccaak® Te eyed 969 vohau hetetoutecnt tom saw .o3 eaeTgRe
e'galliad ko cotaucts oad 16% egoteitayas edf, «AOL PR yal
aibal eoaadive sd% .aiddwded dondanteh yt beteubaps etew aeentand
..0¢2 ,ite tot exh opanted sew axed? gait todd do dudd eogen
angat ,82.T69 to savgme et of Tiliniadg of ‘edaqewe of pabital ot
fmonwetys ot only vie gu andes teh saad teeBte od) ot eoaeblve eh
aotooh aidimved eoaniad alae ysq of heevaa oben Gew eeleaeth cot
goiniive old dud ,ydtildess Knsv9n sng, 40 Desumme es Ande, ceovewont
at ,.ofo .tte delmut of dewtttnen Titinhetg fast wode gd abaed
‘{ldenst maw 22 node aove Xeot aetdaxeureas ane do dew eden odd
eoashive ai al Andcy dapmmowge one 4e gree basoqeue ay. sdadereqtooas
wad bite aminca of naw beztuagte ed oF amthaxegres ed? gadt sodaothak :
_ eit ni hodwieat ten saw 2h ppltaomnqes mana Eiht:

amount found by the court to be jue from defendont. The evidenee
indicates, hovever, thai the trueke comtinued te 4o bupginess, and
that from the time they paseed gut ef the eentrel of Herling on May
apa up to Bay 27th, plaiutiff furniesnaed gas and oll te an amount of
the vaiue ter which the juiguent wae smtered,

Several witnesses teetified fer plaintir? that defendant
agreed te pay for this oil und gua, Defendant's theery eeens to be
that the Fisceusin corperation alone waa liable, At that time,
however, 1% 4id met have 4 legal exisience, snd defendant in ¢on-
ducting negotiations in ite beisif seems te have been in the peaie
tion of an agent whe buys without representing an sgtual prineipal.
it is net remaonable ts munpose that claintifs would furnish gad and
ell without ecme arrangement ux to who should pay rer it. The orige
imal siips sade at the time of the asle and delivery of the differ-
ent itene were offered in evidence bat Bave not been preserved in
the bill of exeentiens. Ye woul’ suppose it necessary te preaume
that these exnibite, if preserved, would have juetified the finding
of the court. Moréover, 2 letter of plaintiff dated July 86, 1931,
addressed te the Madison Chicage .evler Sagress eat Madison, Vireonsin,
is in evidenee with @ personal reply of tne defendant taerson, wiioh,
we thinx, téende te cerrebcrate the testimeny of several witnesses
preduced by plaintiff? te the sifect tuai defendant wae to be person
ally liable,

tne trial Judge apparently “ave careful attention te the tage
timeny. He saw ond heard the witaeases, smd we sre satisfied that
substantial justice in the matter hea been attained,

Fer these reasons the judgment ef the triel eourt ie affirmed,

AFY1 REED.
O'Genner and MeSurely, J4., concur,

sousbive ea? .Pinhasteb aoxt avb oY oY dees odd yd Biwo't duoc
bie dweatawd of of hemattade valdert ods Jedd ,derdwdd ,nedaol hal
qeli ae yalixel Yo Lottaco eff ie tue foveeg youd Gale ens mov? dads
‘te fawome ae OF Lio baw sey bode lawl VWivealsty Adee yes et qu bak
shoxotan axe tamaghet ody db hee cot ovtew was

gachneted dudé T1Lsatety cot poktbiaes asandadty Leteved”"
ed of aweoe Yrosd? o'Faebasted .ecy ond fio abde vot Gag Gd neetge
jomkt dads GA ,oddeEL Baw oaots Holteredies Midaoda FT wah sand
-100 nh smebistah Bam ,tomeielne Ligek o svat tou HEN "et”, storewed
eheog ot Hh mood ovad of dnnbe Sindee Gtx dt edd shisdgee Galles
isqtoatsg tactos aa yatsnsestase sueitiw weed ot taege ite Yo woke
hue bay delet biuow Tilvatete dens digg 89 bates dow'ad #2
«gite es? .¢2 to yay Bivode adw oF aw Pneueyaerta sauce dole le! Eke
ousttih od? Te yueviteb Bae ofee oh? Ye amt) ode te Oban aah te Rea
ai Ravteusta ased fen ered tud somehive at dexeTro o1ew ened dae
pateaony of Crmesenea 22 oeeugia Sivew WY Jemdituoeee te cae ems
guibalt ot petthtast owed biwow ,sovtbowng 22 jattetdke eweds, oily
‘ster (Be ylet betad Trhewlaty te tebdel & (cevedtell Pooe SAP Re
,atameoetY ,seatha $e anerged cedex oyacin eve lhe on? of Denaethha
aotew ,weeredd saebaoteb one ‘te ylger Lnaesveq & Hahw eokebive wh’ ad
geaasatiw Lerevesa Yo yaouitusd oft Otarovertes oF abab} (eh aw
<nowzee OF OF baw Qouhun'ted daciy gots sat of Tridiniera yt bebbbetg
209 849 6d nobsmosts Murer 2d evay ULIReebens aphet Lobes oaR er" OS
“geht pottatdag ove bw hus peeoasagly OMY Med Nak’ woe” OB Seabieks F
: sbonetic aved wait veteen sit? RY Golsent Lettantaiin
shown ta at tawed” tated one 6 vat ane’ Jemaattienndionl annie
aire baa) ae Ae a Be i ReeE ey Bee

- yaatenoo” iy vena

Bi aD eS, ose sam dbind,

YR Oe ea) (ce aa ee ekg we

yar ig

$7309

JAMES BE, CLOY & SONS, w Corperation, V9,
Aspellant,

wa,
230 RORTH BIGHIGAN AVENUS BULL Dine

GORPORATION et al.,
AOPeLL Ges.

BR, JUSTICR ReSURELY DALIVENED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,

Gomplainant Piled its bili seeking « weghanie'ts Lien on
the premises at 230 forth Zickigen Avenue, Ghaieago, Ter a balance
of $13,663.54, revreseiting plucking materiel inatalled in the builde
ing. Tne cauee wae referred to a saunter in gluuncery who, after heare
ing evidence, reported, recommeniing a deere? in agwordanse with th
prayer of the complainant's 6111; upen hearing exceptions te the
report the chanceller slievwed eompiainant a lien for $1216.93, with
interest, and disallewed the balanee of the lain. Vong) mina t
appeals te thie sourt, aeking that 1% be allewed the full amount,
Defeidante fo net gueetion the lien for the emslier amount.

Apparentiy the echancelicr was ef the opinien that there was
® Variance between certain allegations of ¢ompiainant'ts bill and the
proof, and aise that conpleinant Had two contracts for plusaving and
that the bill wae net filed anti after four monthe frem the last
delivery under the first eontract, aeuee tow late umier the
etatute - Mechanic's Lien Statute, chap. 84, para. 7, (Candis)
widen requires the bili to be filed within four menthe after Last
delivery, Complainant contends inet it hed only one eontract and
that the bill wae flied within four months fron the date of Last
delivery, thereby complying vite the statute,

The master found that on January 1, 19°7, the owners of the
fee of the preniger im question sade a 99 year lease te denty U,
Pasehen, *hieh lease ov Kay 15, 1924, was asoigned by Paschen to
the 230 Herth Wiehigan Avenue Building Corporation; that eubsecqusntly

mabearoet oy ao .0iit # OUD 2 BANKS
abe Be gga ee Pintle

aad

CEC BE ETRE Bree One
Tl t* be sagas
eet lowuga,

man 7 A I bY y Sg. ; wok oie whieh

<2AUOO MAY XO MOTAIGO ART CHASE VERUGOM MOTTRUL

aps Re

besa NY
Goo] ROLARTUE MOA SS. :
hs e es ey

ytehel ecu i Lice

ne S6Rf aloldatons # gaikeas ILid s@2 bo 4)t daaahadgae® (66 boy)
povalod a tok pegnedd? jasieva gaghsiodd ats0k G88 ga aoehowaq ede
ahilad ef¢ ah Re tdegeal faltetam gabdawsg gabinesotent ,00 600,650 Be
-1ae8 teeta, octe ‘yrouscie af sedene # of beveetes exw eaues ont. gah
wie Adie soushtooss sl evt9es @ galhaamenoed ,bodceqed ,oooebivel ans — |
‘gt? 02 eaOitocone gricesa aoe 7 ee Te
atte (BR OL8kR cok aks & sammie Louse bowaike se! teoomale ont’ orres
‘sakatetened salads wid 6 oounted ons Sowodtonts ton (seotiend
struc List ot? Sewelle 6 $2 te0R Quiles ptasew ehde od Wkeseae
Savoie tothe este tet meld eat anliieup. dow ob <a :
aid Gtdd Ged? aphnkes ot Yo aoe reLfeoneds edt qitmwamgghs 6 8% >
ails bee LLkd OF Snead iqwes Xo amelsegetio aiateey neowted somikear a
| bon yaldaule tot avoartace owl had foamhaiquge éead cate baw. ,se0ey
Seek sit mort aheace weot teste Litam kell? ten new Mh sd dade
eit tabau etedt oof eouss ,semutoms So72% of8. totam wrevkiod
(iffes?) ,f .taq .80 .qede ,etasnes weds atoloninet = arutete |
(Yael wedta ens uon aye’ why br boLit ee ot CLAM welt” oerkupen tokio
him Soartnee seo vino Red vk Susit wheel mop Hoaledeae .yrewkse:
geal Yo stus Md wos eircom awe mittee KOT sanitinaveunetie.
enters ay otter Qeiedaorn ydete dy, Adamo
ond TH uate ost? SSCL ,£ YenUIAT hd Fad? bmwel sefemm eat
1) quell of sanol ta0y 0 a whew api tantiy. sh anetanoe outta ot 4
ot meuioee yd beoglace aoe ,O0OL 04 ya ao onan lt puonausl ry rei ot
eee speedtun fad? jaolderegtod gulp line OUneVA aay tde, ORR

a
oath

BS a pee ee ee

gertsin trust deeds conveying the premises were made whieh are
not material to the present controversy. in Kay, 1999, Henry
Paschen, doing businese as Paachen Srotaers, eutered into o write
ten contract as general contractors with the 840 herth Biehigan
Avenue Bullding Corporation fer the construction of an office
building om the premises.

duguet 22, 1925, Pasehen made a written contract with
Jenn Degnan, Inc., whereby the latter for $102,000 was te provide
all materiale and perform all work fer the plumbing to be ine
atalied in the building,

Complainant is a eerperation in the business of manufaeter-
ing and ve@lling pipe, plumbing fixtures and supplies. in Kay end
Faly, 19298, complainant sent to John Degman, inc., written gquotae
tiene of prices on itexe ef plumbing, and John Degnan, ine,
bought some “roughing in* waterial, said te be pipes enclesed in
the structure of a building, net the ordinary plumbing Pixtures
such as water closets and lavateries, Apparently this "roughing
in” material has been paid fer, and the present claim for lien is
for fixtures,

Decesber 11, 1928, John Degnan, tne., in writing ordered
from complainant certain fixtures for the lump sun of $15,000, with
the understanding that any additions or deductions should be made
at the prices of the items contained in the quotations, Subse
quently, certain other orders for fixtures and euppiies were given
te eomplainant. These goods ware furnished by complsinant and ine
eerperated in the bulliding.

in way, 1929, there wae due complainant Tor such fixtures,
after allowing eredite, $32,449.36; about thie time John Degran,
Ine., became financially exbarrassed and was not able to pay the
pills of complainant and it refused te deliver any mere material
er fixtures, whereupen Paschen Brothers, the gmeral ecentracters,

wrote a letter to compisinant cuaranteeing to pay for the reseinder

‘
we RR |
mae

ose inde show exaw gevtanry Bal? godyevaes’ abseb. taurt ntadeso
eraed S2OL yak al .ymkevontass Mnoeeng ott of ialietes gon.
-thiw « oénk beastns ,atediord aedeng ee seemhewd, amhen sendenalis
Megksindl citrol O88 ect AILY etegomutae Laxsadh oe toeréncg. ned ,
aoltta oe Ie soksorstanes gut tot agléwstoqred gathiiett Ahad .

-ttelomrg add ae iit
isie toatiaos masticw @ ohaw desea’ USGL (28 seuyud on
shivetg oF saw O0O,%04) tel cote ome ytouade ,.90% ,~mamget autel .
oak od steer ody tot dice Lia axetieg han etatuetem tia,

) Mb iswe ott Bh be Lhasa
-raton tuna Yo aaenivsd wd ak neitaxenten 8 ah tavaisdguan,
hae yak a me tLe baw sexu eee

“nd oup ese tam 9 oak ,asaget ano 98 ten,

ig poghq gatifon ban gab.
asiakgmas .S8Ot welts
908 a pieayedt auto’ din antdmnte ‘te eaatt co anolsa Re amebdoy
at doaosons aoqiq o¢ ad blew ,lelvesen "al gittigues” omen ddggod)
eonwens' partdinaete Visalhes od fom .yakhiiud « Wp eumtourtayede.
yetitguon® aids ytinstegas ee licdaval han cioeelo. sesee em, ewan)
ad mp dt ent mbat faone ig ons haw, , 203 Diag sod sek fabsotom "ak
berehte paisizw af ,.par ,camedt ntob ROL ,1f godepoed uty
dite ,000,848 Ye swe qaud ot 19% poxvexs® mhertep ¢mnatasunen met:
‘obews od b Suara amol?anteh (MO Gaels kha. yoe hae Gatband empha may.
spades § anolingeuy ed? ab heniadmoe meedi ont tg aonleg odd, tien
nevis oxew 1 aaliqqua Hite BOTHIKZT 3e% atehig weahe ALOT Reo Kets De
ak bine fanainiqnos yd boreiort stew eheoy onal. stanton ated

veovuaet dig we “0% tmanta.Lonm ob, wee prea samns pening eee tie |
“aiienged aulol only 47s swan 502-0D ER yaeahene gatwosia meste
ete yoq oe okie fon gaw boo besaetaadag Yiietonsar? Pied 5 a ne
Katietan exom yim TOvLLob of banuton #2 0 Aeraintarat 30 phi
; eterna tine0 igtonsy 989 sBRodtonst ROBES OGM TEM 4 ARE
| aehadonrs ad? set yaq of grufeotastany tusatatqnen sll 183

ef the work. The letter saya: “We guarantee payment for plumbing
material needed threughout the remaimder of the work that ie ore
dered from you by eur representative at the inetigation of John
Degnan or hie sutherigzed representative." The letter alee ine
structed that the orders should be billed "te Pasehen Brothers,
e/e Jom Degnon." Thereafter complainant delivered plumbing sup-
plies ss ordered by Paschen Bratiers at the prices agreed upon
between comslainant and Johm BDegnan, Ime. The material delivered
after thie letter was written amounts te $1221.45, and the lien
fer thie is not questioned,

The master found that sil the plumbing material was
wrought inte and became a permanent part of the structure, en-
hancing its value in excess of the amount claimed by complainant.
The master aleo found that the last delivery ef material, prier
te the letter of Baschen Ercthers guaranteeing the acecunt, was
in Bay, 1999, and the last material delivered after that letter was
om August 2, 19%; that due noticesor the mechanic's liens were
served, ani that all the parties interested knowingly permitted
compleinent to furnieh materials and supclies to the building;
the waster found that all eof the material allegations of the bili
an? amendments and supplementa therete hag been proven, and reeome
mended a degree aceordingly.

Defendante argue that there was a material variance between
complainant's pleadings and the proof, in that complainant alleged
the centract was made December 11, 1924, while the proof shewed it
Was made May 11, 1928.

Ve do not regard the point as ispertant, The evidence
amply shows that the eonutract was made December 11, 1928. In
equity oractice the rule concerning variance is not strictly en-
forced and cannet be inveked ageinat a decree where the eroor is

sufficient te suprert a claim for relief, although the bil] may

“g

wiidesia to? Imenyee oobnetauy, oO jequn teseet eat ukow HP Re
ate ut de? Xxow ont Yo tobblaabd ocd Pvotyworay bobesw’ Litxeiae
net Yo moltagident odd $a oFibA¥nbeweaey Yee UF boy mee DD
sad ote todtel oot *.evitataseeroor bewltodfule wht 40 netiget
~etadtor’ aedesed o¢” beliid of biveiiz watbeo ent sorlt netonere
«que gaidawle boteviics tueniaiqnss cotte<teet " amogett det Wo
nioow boetge gesitg ots fa ete: tore aevignat “vd betebtse se noliq
hevevifeh Lattetes off oat ,aeaged ach Bac taetlefysos noewied
neil sdf baw ,@h.420L8 of adeoms nest iow daw aodgel Whit wits
relteoup dom eh ‘esis tot
gow inbtetun gotdmwte ety tin fads Bawet wader OAT
«mo ,@2s¢ousde ea¢ to dteg Insiewied a seaged Ane sone daw
txentelqnoe yd heatels tavema off te ensexe a2 gutav af gabon
abhsq ,tnitedam ‘to yisviteh gaat odd fe8% pawet gale teedaw dat
sav ,tusonae off galoesnatan) atedtex<S mdoeed te teetet ato
esw tojd¢et fads wotta betovifoh Laltedam feat ote baw , OR OL pam wt
| ote amit s'olnedpeom ett toasoliaa veh Facts ; eet a seugah mo
hettioneg Yigulveml bedeomwsal eslareg wey 48 Fast} him” powtee
pmahbiled er? of esticewe has alaivesen dedere? ot Sehrda Tekeo
“£itd ond ‘te onoliageiia Iattodem afd to ffa tetd Bawlt teteam add
eneoet ban stevere 26o9 ~ otetbar oe Ane edasmhnems : bine
| sUlgai cobs eeroeh —
asewsed ootsltev Iakteden « ver exedd sett sontea ebanbae'ted ”
‘bee fla tanate tomoe test ak ,Yoowg aHt bas wytene ty’ et dnkats Demon”
“$4 Bewade Yoore oct? otidw ,oReL \ it Sedinebd’ wham whw Yoeebine OHD
‘gonshive odt vdastroqet a2 dulog bile Naaper toa oh ew
ni 8205 .if tedomeet oBaw aaY Ponninton ot Fort owed YTQus
one eldotite ton ol evnaivoy yalwtvones efve ot ob ffeere Yiupe
ot ‘hociq ont etocy eoresh » Sattage Retoval WW Yelle Bue Het?
"yom LRG odd iaititt te stskisx xe? |
yo Be Ree me otonw ig

be incorrect or mistaken in some of ite detaila. Stregt vy, Thompson,
131 Ill. App. 546; Beaver v, Slanker, 94 111. 175; Mgorehead vy. _

alvays
Eggmann, 190 lil. App. 578. “Squity/looke to tne real substanee

of matters put in evidence, and will disregard sere techeical ob-
jectione that do net affect the merits of the controversy. *
Holman ve Gil}, 107 fil. 467.

Apesrently the chanceller was of the epinion that the cone
tracts vere made Kay 11, 1925, or July 5, 1924. The Letters written
en these days by complainant te John Degnan, Ine. ,were simply quetae
tion letters offering ite supplice at certain prices for any pre-
posed work. At the time these letters were reesived John Degnan,
Ine., had no contraet for the plusbing work on this building; ite
ecentract for this work was not made until Auguet 22, 1925. Complaine
ant furnished the fixtures in accordance with the order of John
Degnan, Inc., of December 11, 1°24.

We eanmet agree with the eontention of def dante that there
were two contracts, Manifestly there was only one contract te fure
nish the plusting and fixtures for the building in queation. The
fact that after complainant had executed most of the comtract and had
refused te deliver the remainder ef the goods unless it sheuld be ase
sured of receiving payment, woleh assurance was given by Paschen
Brothers, the general contractors, 4id net divide the contract inte
two eontracte, The materials were delivered in econneet Lon with ene
joo in one building and cannet reasonably be d4iviczed inte twe sepae
rate contracts, A somewhat sinilear cueetion wae raised in Balleable
Iron Co, y, Brennan,174 Ill, App. 33, where it was contended there
were two seoarate contracts, one for the installation ef a bath and
toilet and the other for the installation of a heating plant. ‘The
court held against this on the ground thet beth jobs were Jene on
the same building, fer the same owners, and usually done by the esme
workmen ani sre known as plumbers' jobs. See also Seiji _v, Somash,
237 Ill. App. 844.

Heamwon? WY searss .elieteh oft Yo vm ah nedateta xe Jeerteomh od
Ebardesons 204.161 00 amped ot seven 1968 aed WAIT 4B
wonsstadwa Lees ods of 8 oon\xtiupe® V8 598 efit OOL og

“te faoiacion 2 esau bisgoresh Eiger hora tonebive ak 19 erstion 14
"qamevorsaog edt to a¢izem erie tenths to ob Seas aaolsooh

TOR -ff2 TOL hi

OR oat teste motaige and 10 eet Toliag nase nas tag seges

ay Be ig
mae) kore axedred gate HORE 2 whut +o sed eit yeu bast vee wr :

sad aug ylquia orev, oak ota ge asia’ ot tasmintqmos , xe ayah anedt ge
-o%q Yaa tot aenitq slaties ta aolsqgus adh gatre tto etetiet alt
eitaagel mig Bevinges etow eretied eae? emis ott 24 .ktow boagg
eat tenth Lind eked ae dt0¥ weikdmnig eels sat soars M02 oe bast yok
watodqmed .280L ,88 fenyuk {1tay oben gem ga~ Anew ehtt cor tegntans
nm tebte ed ite sometresse af serutett psf hodeto : 1 toe
nig. SRA fd tetmeoet To ,,o51 , aamged

weeds Sass atoas etes Ye nels aosaos ead athe aeige fone, oF

wee wa
ott ef s2eIi nes eno Yiee BAY oteds vider thine einatsagn owe, er
ent .fetteeus al anibitud ait 101 eeteixtt ae amidase, ont fede
: | hed baw toatiave ssl? to vom hodueoxe bari Sense Leygaoe tad te oe a fea}
oan o¢ biuede #2 eealnw ahoog ad? Yo tebnionmer one wovdion oF boast
aadosat xe nev ty Ree HOGS Tae dohow gtmornog aaiviooes cont to berue
fmt semxéace sit obivth fon bkh ,atedsasénog Lateany edt 2 suxongent
ono Agkw solsosanes ak boxeviion hada eka kee dam Ro (as oeTI AG awd
“ego ews otal hablvik od qdenounss tesmeo ban guthtiug @ a nl
sidan sigs xt beatnt sew mobtasue toliete dgimare A
@tedt hebastaos saw $2 onestw at ott. tat O° 6 apa

bua t9ad # te Noltailes@ad add tek ene eBtoatd nog promiocetpnr otew
ext ,danig yatiaed a te mottetiogent mit se Miss ceiidletiigth sana
Ho Aneh oTew sdot Atod sade boweny 962 wo ated taateys

omee ont yd oooh YLiaunu bas ,etecre omen, iad egathit

nome? at Ligk osla sow

pei —
SESS

Defendant says complainant seuld set have stated the age
count as beginning April 1, 1990, but should bays eommenced the
acecunt st the dates when 1t first gesuenced delivering *rouguing
in*®* material to John Degnen, Inc., and that semplainant hed ne right
te apply payments received from John Degnan, inc,, on this account,
ae the richts of third parties, Paschen Brothers, are involved, The
master preverly found thet, commencing September 1, 1924, and at
intervels thereafter, cowplaineant delivered large amounte of
"roughing in” materinl te John Degran, inc., but taat complainant
was paid in full for this material and none of it is inciuded in
the claim for mechanic's lien. ¥urthermere, there was np éewigna-
tion as to hor the paymerte received by complainant sheuld be ape
plied. it is the rule that where the debtor does not so indicate,
the creditor may apply such paywmeats where he chooses, idese y,
Hentze, 326 111. 634.

As a further defense it is asserted that certain quantities
of pipe delivered te John Degman, inc., on September 1, 1925, were
net used in the building. The evidence shewe that the materials
were delivered to the slace of business 6F John Degnan, inc., and
were used by 1% in enother buliding upon wliien it then had the
plumbing contract; complainant had no motice that said meterials
were to be used in thia other building and they were bilied te the
general secount ef John Degnan, Ine, The evidence shows that John
Degnan, Inc., paid this inveice and no lien is claimed for it.

Other points are sreaented upon wiieh we de net think it
necensary te comment as they do not affect the merite of the cause.
The master found the facte and stated the account correetly, and it
was errer to sustain the exceotions te hin repert,

decres is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with

directions to enter a decree in accordance with the recommendations
of the master in chancery.

ERSZSD ASD RENANDLD VITH PIRECTIO“S,
Matchett, P. J., and O'Connor, J,, concur,

oa 642 fatete ove! tem Mew e dagai«e lames Wyse Pdchortet ~~ ack
etd heomestes oved biveors ted eet. ff Bega gatuct ged on ‘sie
aticgues® guiteviish heoapamen Larkt £f aestw epdeh edt ge deine
Seigts oo haat Summtetquon Facly bow , 00% ,tmmpell iatol of tatiecaw "ot
tavooed wit ne ,.o0k ,nenget mel wort pevkeoet athmotesd ‘tinge be
eat ,hevicval exe ,ateizor’ andoast .we lire Bxidt to etrytt ald em
foe ben OhOL x gota soat gutvasinos , seid basto't ekeeeetc whens
~ te atevama syead bevevliss taentotqmos tos Yaoteds aleve
Saanteleues tas ta , ond , neiye® mist af Cette sem Mad) getbignot®
eh bebwlont ef 42 te omen hee Lelvetem sits ae (tet at blag’ wew
-angheeh am naw stele pereccedeent lantt stetneigem 10t mtaty’ bee
«qe o@ bivede dawnletoxs ys bevlener edaveyey ott vor ot ea aold
,Qinethal oa tos svob tesdeh oft state tens otwt eft 22° FT beREG
aLAgeht .necoods of etodw etoomyng Nowe qiqqe yem cotinede Oa?
(888 LE B8e a euenet
eeldlinewp siadise tect hetwesee of ot eeue'teh wedtet @ aA
e19W ,O80L ,f toduedqed ao ,-ezl jaeaged adet of heteviiod eghe tb
Gisiiwies sft tad? swote oguebive 6a .gelbiftud ede ia hesw tot
| bes gs00l ,namged ach IS senuiand te egnde oct os bitevites stew
ocd hed madd gh cols aoqe galhtiot wavttone ab eh yd head otee
elsttatan blac Sant eottoa 64 bend Fewako tow poheetaes gon nah Re
td of be idid otew qed? fan gathibud aedéo atet at Sede ed OF Aide
aso’ tad? swore gecehive edt sank ,namget titel te snudosa Letodsy
Jt tot boatefo of sos! ow tue welewnt @f0? Dteq |) oT, damged ~
Qh Mats tom Ob seuigtoaw moqu Retaseety wee wtdton “tamye > 9)!
Seung one Te atbiew od? ¢ooTie tom ob yodt aa toni od yraundaen

We «oh baw ,eiseerxes Smoons ede detate hae eet ore ‘See "ip tin Oat
Mb: aJtieqet wid of atolsqecus of ok wana P-sge? fect

re at Sa alata

wt gah ded Att eb ;

er bobimanes asiag ent bax beswevet
a atontcenacsrtgunnaie hea weighed re a

é BOL TOMNI BRIN CMA CAA cnsaven,.
teOneR oak. 9! 5

37263
MINKIE GREEREEAG,
Defendant in irrer,
ve,
CHICAGG CAB COUPASY,

a Corooration,
Plaintiff in 2rror.

ee Sire aoe ate Renee iain Shiner” hea
os

ER, JUSTICE C'CONKOR DALIVERER THE OPINION GF THE COURT.

Plaintiff brought an aetion againet the Chi cage Gab Company
and Leen S4e11, te recover demages for oeracnal injuries claimed ta
have resulted from a collision between an automobile in which plain
tiff wee riding, and @ eab belenging to the defendant sab coupany
and driven by defendant Sdeil, at the interesction of ieGalle and
Division etraete, Chicage. fhe jury returned a verdict finding
defendant Chicage Cab Company guilty snd asseesing plaintiffte
damages at $21,280, and finding defendent Bdell not guilty. Judge
ment was entered on the verdiet and the cab company presecutes
this writ of errer.

The reeord disclenes that shortly before mine o'oleek, day-
light saving time, om the evening ef July 2, 19M, there was = cole
listen between «a Dedge sutonebile im welch plaintiff and five ethers
were riding, and s tazieab belen ing tea the 4efondant cab company,
in or near the northeast corner of the intersection of Lagalie
street, a north anid south street, and Division street, an east and
weat street, in Ghicage; one ef the porsene riding in the Dedge
was killed and the ether five, whieh included plaintiff, testified.

The substance of the testimony of these five witnesees is
that on the evening of the day in question Gam Blender, 53 yoars
old, woe lived in Evensten, teok his Seige eutoxebile te drive te
the Seneca hotel, whieh is nearly a half mile south of Divi sien

street, aid cast of Michigan avenue, He took his wife, two

Saare

2 BSR Oe at a Ge
tae GHA eE RAO entrees
{ atines we ecubas tet et Deus
Ne sellin ; ae

owen wa hia voen99 a
Te Te Ai: eee te

ng ATES:

2009. KAT.49 AOLMISG HR amavis ae aortaut a
giaqted dad iin 140 e683 tantaye aolfon at “pagword “Vuttatest: red gael
os heatele/svixutat Loaeaveg xe? seqembh tordser Od (Lieb ‘need: Saws
ately deliv Al oLidomotue an mented motes (iso's nowt beeluede ‘evadtt

YaRqaod Geo ahawteh oft of gatyanteé dow # baa’ (Qakotr aaw That!
bas OLidtad te aolfoowtotal edd se hehe taebae teh yo aevinke bawe
gathalt yolbioy a hemreden ytut oat -oyeoide ,etoorse mohatvad:
a'Tiisuialy galoseens baw ys tleg yRoqued de® eyeottd Saedan tobe
mabat “eee thy you tian dmabie res a a asgeaad
i “etuasnor Enagisos fad ons Bes’ tebiiter' ene ae eT
cab ,Nbeto'e olin exeted (Leroi Gadd wbeeron th + wniaiceall oo ‘er
-loo @ Baw ‘xed? eee \e Feit Ye yntee MY aw , ud guhvaw oayet’
atodso ovit hae ‘Ttititaly Motuw ab eftdovdbun exhet W twewten Makedlhy
«Yate tao Gad Sarbiistes oct oF tino twit Gee reed # hee wathen eee
gi feGad to noldoewietak edt to wires deuedteen ont tno to mt
has seas mm ,foeths agtety ic bas ,deeuse Mave bite ton B re <oe)
agbot ods 4) yalhiy wacetey ea? te wan pegestde nt (teette tow
hl tease aispecezel Babu let ‘itn tel | pstmt

ee
ae hae Aim ul ive ate Bans ;

ee kt “preg

sie si i 4 h.
es tie ald dood of _ameeion an tita saat

brothere-inelaw and their tws wives. The three ~omen were sisters,
After creceeding some Aietence they dreve southeast in Sisten
avenue until they reached Bivisien street, which is about e mile
weet of Lataile street where the accident securred, The ear vas
then driven east in Bivision etrest until it raeched LaSalle
etreet +here it was stopped, Latalie being a through street,
Blender then started his car across Laislie« street, geing at about
fifteen miles an hour. Aw Be {14 Bs, he saw the 4eferndant’s scab
coming north in LaSalie atreet at about forty or forty-five miles
an hour, Elender theaght he had time ta pase in front of the cat
but found he vas aot able te de ge and turned hie ear teward the
nertheast te aveid « eellision, but the cars eoliided and sisintiff
Was reverely injured,

Jack L. Rogere, called by defendant, testified that be and
hie wife were etaiding in front ef their home at 1206 Herth Lae
Salle street, which wes a few doors north of Division street; that
the De¢ge cer wee coaxing south practically in the middle of La@alle
etreet at about forty or forty-five miles an hour; that there was
a Westbound strest car in Divisien etreet (there being a double
line of etreet care in that etrest); that the driver of the Sedge
car applied his brakes to aveld Sitting the street car bat could
MOt% etop; that the brakes “howled”; that he sade s turn toward the
east three or four feet back and east ef the etreet car, and at
that time the collisien ecourred; that &« did net aee the north
bound cab until just at the time af the geliision beeause the
atreet car vas crossing Division street.

Ailsa Hogers, wife of Jack L, Aegers, gave testineny sub-
stantially the same ac that of her nasband.

Rverett Lee, called by defendant, teatified that at the time
ef the accident he wae walking west on the nerth sidewalk ef Sivisien

street about sixty feet east of Lajalle street and saw the collision;

evegela atew aomox setts eff eerie owF tlawtd baw wo fantnorodtond
Sekai ob Seandtnes ovorh you? oonmteth ang unt beesore xeeta
olin = gwotn ef Mokdw ,teerde HoiniviG bedonet yads Ihren ouneve
gow ten ec? bertus90 goehlose edt stedw doeree siiated diet buco
SLisked Sofooer #2 Livew teoxde sotetvie mi dase pane sos
-eotte dguotwdd a anied elletat ,benvnds sew £2 etesie seetse ;
tuods te gatog ,tearte » iLwtmd tavtom Tap ehd borrase oats tebme sé
dae o'tnabca'teh add wee os .oe Hah wat wd <tned ae eothe: ayegtrt
eella evltegsio% te ystot goods Ju feeute |elivfad ad adeon galaoo
dae ext Yo tuye2 af swag of emke Sad od taguedd tebme LE steed as
‘ei¢ Stawet tao aid booted Sum 96 ob 62 dda tom: saw od banat sud
VYidiaiola bua ‘hebhtios wtee ots tud gmeipdiion « bhewa aa Ssaedtues
her takad: Uaexaven: —
bas eek fous ha kitseot ,taabae'tes yd boi ine ,awiged 4h dea ia yttt
aad Ateok BOGL de amod Shas te soewd HA yadoaase oro hin’ wane
fad ;$e07te agbalviW Yo ddvow etaoh wet « aaw fa tee sfoerte sites
eliatgi te efibin edd at eliselionsg Mixes guiiacs ser tee oghosl a2
eaw ted? gand piwet ax soiin evll-<oaol ge ysro? tude ta townte
eiduei « ymied steas) gserde weteivil ab sas feorvde buwodteew a
oxhet att Te tevish sit decls j(saoude sad? at ated sootsa to wakt
Sines thd v99 geowle ott yatiedd bhowe oF amdacd eld hed ings ‘en
ot bunwel ax? a sham of todd {*bebwod* woxard oid teu jaotw ton
#2 bee ,ieo Seeute e623 To seas ban ised aot auot co ond odnee
dgiom att e8e fon Bh od sacs, (RewRmoe aatedd ion: aoe healt a
at aanaded aolaiifon eis te amde exe je tout, thane deo based
| -foo1se come¥sa gukasore Saw tae Soenta
dia Yomdsas? veg .emeged oi dosl to oie eataged emis
oe shat o Me Re Tease ae ese un aed
sake ocd Bo dads bebtioes? ,danbastob yd, beiies ett deeteva 3
aolstvhG to diavehle dizem edt aor Jasw yalsitaw: aw ed tapbios. is ‘
paohakifos eff wee baa goents Olietad te tao det yenie 2 90 - '

that the Sedge car came acuth on LaSalle street; that a westbound
street car in Divielon etreet was ereseing Laiaile street; that he
sew the cob coming nerth at shout twenty or twentyelive siles an
heur; that “Wheat made mie notice the sadam (the Osage car) was the
squeal of the brakes;”" that i: was cewing seutn in Lalsllie street
at about thirty or thirty-five silee an heur; that at the time Be
was abeut eixty feet from the Sedge sax; thet the tbrekee on the
Dedge “equesied;* that it turned enut to avoid the weathound street
ear, missed the sireet car, and cellided «ith the eab; and that the
Fear end of the street car wae about the middie of Lagaile street
when the collision scourred.

George KR. Bolkau, called by defendant, testivied that at
the tine in guestion Khe was talking with a friesd in frent ef 1209
Leslie street, of the east side of the street and a few doors notth
of Division street; that be saw the Dodge car coming south at about
forty or rerty-Sive miles ao hour, practically in the center of Lae
Qalie street; that he want te the sesne of the accident and saw Kr,
ang sre. Regere and Lee there; that « street car vas going weat in
Bivielon wxtreet and the Dedzce car turmed te the east in Divisten
street and that the eollision cecurred im the south or eastbound
street car trecks; that “I heard equesking braxes:* that the ¢river
ef the Sedge ear turned araund just before the collivien and was
talking te the passengers ix the oar, This is eubstentiaily all
the evidence in the resord as to how the accident securred,

Defendant eontende the basis ef plaintiff's case was the
negligenee of the driver of the taxiesb, and therefere defendant
could be held liable eniy wander the doctrine of respondeat gunerier:
that wince the jury by ite verdict found the driver of the sab
net guilty and judgrest hewing been entered on the verdict and ne
appeal having been taxon, the judgment is conclusive in faver ef

the defendant cab company, It is obvicus that if the driver of the

Pivedées* w dad} ;feetta wLinGal ae econ ema teo eahet edt tant
od tedd {tote ofivted gateror bow toorse uetetelt al deo deena

fie welia avliegasws to YYnews dnede fo stivom gaiimes deo edt waa
ef eo (deo oytot oY) addon Ot Setdon om sham Yad” Saat emed

george wiiviid ut Htvoe’ gatacs asw fi dadd “jeollerd bite Ye Ladupe

si oatt oct t2 add ptsed mp Botha ove tagPikdtd Yo Yrtdi swede ve

feerte bavottase ons bheve (03 tana Bemat #2 sang “* he taupe” | eabo
ed? Sarid bie {awe ott di tw bebttien’ bax’ vide foerte 883 Socata ies
seorte efinew.d to ofpbde ott Fweds tev wos Hooxg8 od? to baw tant ‘it

“ ) .Sertiepe Hote Lifes ll oid

yi dat betrbeeed ,eaebue ted yt bodies ,uedfoxt 6 egread “ree
GORE te tuord at hadtx? 0 dite padatad aan oc LTD MT odd
Aeaow arsoh wer & baw Soouts oct Lo wbie Yass 487 av Joos eLiatiod
suede ta Hive yabrod wd wyboil oMd woe ba tant jtooxte nelatvat we
end te rataes sit nt GLisolineiq \twomt Ga onda avii-ysrol te yee
28 w2b Bow Probiows ost} te eiioe a4) oF Paow aa Sard rhea stad
ak dke® gato) saw tao Swords « gan? joweH? oad bane oteg
notelvit ai tees 44% ef Boirted cho eybom eal Kaa beorte aehdiine
bawedtine 20 Adsoa edd at bexiesde motel ites vai Pond baa deatdee

daw bite notetifes oH? ototed tent Sawin belted tan eabot eae w
Lis ciieisnigadid at abet tee ef% at ere_ueeeed ote of hh

oud S20 Saa0 a’ Tittatety “10 sised 64d hostaee Yaeboater””° Koneeed
fanbasteh eroterd? Sas ,dadhind sty t6 eviis ead to ‘soa yitaba”
rapiseue Bdlebeognes to ealiioch sd ‘tédas ylad ofdals ‘bibH O€ Biwoo

Gk hind donbxey bad ‘de here die dade piel Hiimghit aaldsnal bien
26 tove't at eviawfomee @f ateughut ent , asad uded gatve

Se aaa

edd no wedend et Yacd yoo aydet ofF mott took tele twode see

‘govktb ons fact *;e0Kterd gabvesupe budad I ded¥ Yotoesd cad” ‘Hie? i

\Setre0d0 duobioga etfs wor of ea Beowex eae al ssemb ive wal

ve odd ‘to tovixh ode badst eotbres dot yd yeet etd ednte badd”

tit! “te wovixs did TE tad? abolvds eh FE yitoqene tee tooth ot i

cab was not guilty of negligence in driving the eab at the time is
question, the defendant cab eccxpany ceule net be Held iiatbie ou
the doctrine of regpendes Superior. CRAGHEO 2625 UO» Ve layer,
X21 Ill. Anp. 314;
Ill. 329; Hilletres vy.

686. The contention of defendent in this respect ie net eontre-
verted by osuneel for plaintiff in their brief, but they contend
that since it was charged in the fourth egumt of the declaration
that the defendant taxieab sompany pereitted the taxicab in
question te be overated Without good and sufficient brakes, in
direct vieleticn of the atatute, this constituted negligcenes on
the part of the eab caupany irrespeetive of the sendact of the
ariver of the aab, for whieh pisintiff waa cititled te reeever.
The 44fficulty with thie eentention le that there is ne evidence
in the resord tending, in any wasmer, to shov that the brakes ef
the taxicab were not in good working crver, nor is there any
evidence in the record that the brakes om the Sedge car were not
in good condition. The only evidence om the question of brakes is
that they “howled” or “squeaked” when the driver ef the Dodge ear
eppiied them, Thies in no vay indicated that tavy vere aut of
repair,

While counsel for defendant argues at consiserable lesgth
that the fury might weal believe that the “squeak” of the brakes
came from the brakee of the tasicab aid net from the brakes of the
Pedge car, ve think this eontention ia centrary te all the evidense
on thie question, Sut im no event gould it be materisi because
there is me evidence that the brakes were out ef order or Jdofective
merely beenuse they "equesaked® when applied. Hapealaily is this
true ae anolied te tae evidence is the instant case,

Suet we have just asid im regard to the brakes is suffi-
sient aliswer to plaintiff's ecententien that the eourt ecommitted no

ai emid of7 3 dao otf guiviah ai Qnaeettnnn to ¢tilvm toa saw das
ue videli bivd o¢ doa hives Yanqnon dad danhabtes edt ,nolseoup
cottons, Bd abs wsabansas dal apaues Yo eatrtoob ait
oy emes Daw Swine sea eet ek
““eeudeioo toa ek sovqeer vlad af danba ton re vara lh oir © cow
pied aoe ‘yeds sud ,teicd chods wk “hs abe ty “o'r townios eit hetwey
sol tarasoeb edt te fatwoo Hdxwot oad’ a? hogreis aaw 24 woke” seid

: ak dav ixat ia bord bana yangnon dap teat Sanbie rob eat =
zh ab Roker $aeloltive baw hoa duoatt IX aafovenn ‘ae ‘of no} omeitp
ae soaegt ison besusizencs eidd .wdudate ald Ye nelteatety’ soorth

based te Souhaoe ens le evissoquerts zeqmoe ‘doo ‘oy ‘Ye fuag’ }
“'geveoes ef bettivae saw Trdaleta ig titw ‘et das one te xevitd

| ‘camnive | on at oted? todd ef nokdavands elt? dt te yt tof Yith ate
ete. sexed oss sand wede ef ,tommam yuo ot saatbasy Wiles sa

“ao ccedl ak Gea \t95t0 galdvee poy at som wxow Gee
ton etew tas sgbed odd ao an tard ond todd baener eld ixt
“ah sexexd Yo soigasve sd¢ ao spasblve clas ot ‘lne.dtiaes ‘béeg Ht
“‘aae nybou aiid ‘to tevixh ad: node “sedneupe” ao *betwor” ydiy 4G
te fue e1ew yond fund bo tie fia yee on ae all teal ‘pet keae
“"ddgasd sidare? faaca ‘ta Gougte daabastos tet ‘teadudé ‘octal toon iv
“eesdand edd ‘to “tooupat ‘odd Sudd evelsed Liew ttyla ent, ‘odode
ert? 29 sedaxd od? most fea bilo dablcad eas Yo anilend add movt ‘sie
eoushtve ‘od? Lis of ‘cuetiace ok doliaetuee aide antdd ov ‘yta9 93
; on ucondt intiston ud $2 btvoo dueve on at gu@ stot Jaaup alas a9
ovtiastes to conne te suo exew aodatd rer dealt sombive « ea ‘al ‘oteds
aie ak \lisloaged “bok ian mo ew *“peaweupe” edd pauneo yleorem
“ " (enao tietnal ede a) eoawh ive ead os SoLieue Ba owt?
itive G2 eosard oie of DYaget Al bide deol Ovad ileal sd chandlt
oa bedthauce d20eg sid sads aoktnedady a TR ESA LAG oF Néwend dante

a ee tiny eee “9 p He pe CRS tit at awe sy ge +h, iia fe “wa

error in refueing te imetruct the wilfel an4 wanten count, out ef
the declaration, a8 reqeeste? by defendant, because the declara-
tien charged that the taxicab ware permitted to ce operated oF
the street without being ereperly equipped with brakes. inere
wae no evidence to sustain thie allegation.

From what we have said it ie alee unnecearary to Paes
on defendant's eontention tat the court erred im not permitting
Aefendant cab company te @zohain why wwe texieak driver vas not
ealled aa & *liness.

Sines the fury found the taxivab driver tiot gulity, ta
defendant cab company coul4 not be neid lisble on the deetrine of

puperier, aid since the plaintiff in tule court precie

cates her wight te sastein the juaguent en tae ground that the
brakes of the taxicab were Aefeative, and since we uve habd
there was no evidence chat they were in apy Fay dafective, tacre
ie nothing in the reeerd to sustain the jJudgeent; therefore the
retion in arrest, mode by defendan® when ite motlen Ter a new
trisl wae overruled, esould have been surteained.

Plaintiff, ucfortunately, 734 very severely and pervaanenty
injured; but in view ef the reaerd in thie case the judasent ean
net atand. the sudgnent of the Superior court is reverged,.

REVERGAD.

Matchett, F. J., ond Kedureiy, I,, eoueur.

a
bi
Lo Suh nuco notaew bas wide was founseas oo yalsuiter ag tow |

Pe Me

wataivah get oe waned stasbaoien we besaouper a “sHolset0 L098 ods
‘ay Sareisgs ae ‘of bestiar y ene deotany ota jas beartads aeae

tae

“eteat re oie yer heaps vitearrg aked Suadehw teorte fat
abn hoy shod toga dln edits atoreue ae souenive an gen

eaag 08 eae as oR ae oals at ah Sieg ovads ‘am taste ie on Li
Emme Re Bale iar
Balielowg soa af boace salon exit ‘toad at2.a03.09 e ayy sre ” 7

cf Bway |
tem saw toviab doolned oad we ale tee ” F qaegnos Sao tea

i Aide ARS Yn nid
ay r4 F Bek Be ny

eihetg Muce eh ak Pathe wll : * |
eed Jans hawony esi? a0 tisoaaburt ae atezeue of a od tiistx ™

PN sie Pig? 9 ek f yy ii |

"babe brad ow aoale haw bas evbiyoteh wun dso ined - Peg Ey ney :

wield \avid oot uae yam ot! ener woud tans sounbive on a on sav omat "
Nh te PR 2, men 4

ons org toto Me :damoobac walt atagnwve of od ent ry :

Be ty

weet a 10 ison e¢h maxtw ahaa eh ee he store , .
Bi shoal sémue need evan bAwonta she Lorzeve cow cay iatne a

eRe

Pte nants fas elorte ren yey few sClnra sete Maat
fen tibayout oft ease obne ad ‘ineoen, niet te waty nt

sbeureven ek txoee an egyve ont te tepepou a busts ton

Vis Luin tudor enue nat hoes
19809 oe eto bas at 2 tte TG ie
; ee ae ae ree
Gas : tae N Ping PMG 3) MRE A a mets o Biss hie Ae aba ae on.
ley Fi ; Diep) a % i
a ae ji and Vio
“pen There wie Vl ede Dee Mae we elt tes we wen id
TS aE mM SRD I NAN ro AM ARR Pa " oe he yee eee’ va

‘teh bawdy an PERG tal he oe ‘etme ta 9

SED,

BRS. GHARLSS STORE, alias
BARY STEAK, and CHaeLAS oF 2he,
AQpetLiants.

30g

37361 fF é a #
HOWARD EVANS, VA f
Appellee i a
. } AF peat’ ‘eno BUPA IO fogunt
5, } - |
} OF GOGK couUnTY. 7 i
f |
}

a4 4 1.4. '667'

MR, JUSTICE G'CGONNGR DELIVERED JHE GPIRIGR OF YSH COURT,

Plaintiff brought an action egainst tae defenudante te ree
evver damages claimed to have been suetained by Kim on aecount eof
being injured in an sutemeblie eollivion, through defendante'
negligence, There wag a jury trial and a verdict and Judgment in
Plaintiff's fuwer for $6,000, ond defendants appeal,

The regord discloses that ahout 6:4. o'eleck in the even-
ing of July 17, 1932, plaintiff wae driving hie sautenebile sguth
in State atreet snd at the tine defendant Bary Stern waa driving
ah sutemerile weet in 75th street; the care eoliided acd plaintiff
Wae severely injured,

The evidence shows that at the time in question the do.
fendant Sra, Gterm and several women sowpanions had been bathing
at the 75th street bathing beseh and were returning heme, fra,
Stern driving the sutsuebile west in 75th atreet, *hon the two
eare collided as abeve stated,

Courisel for defendants contend that defendant Charles
Stern had no knowledge ef the use of the ear by Bre, Stern at the
time in question, and had net authorised or knewingly permitted
the use of the car by her; thet “in feet, threughout the mtire
record the naxe of defendant Charles otern is net mentioned at any

time by any witness," and thie pesition of defendente is not ¢on-

troverted,
The only contention made by 4efendants on this appeal is

that the declaration charged Joint operation, management and cone

| ye he aida onan
| ee Fes ile Ml ky
KOLAMIUE MOAT LARS TA i hd beeen eee toe
»¥7S4UO5. BOOS Uo
&

SOaLAT BYS bow? Siete
.TAUOD wT WO woTaiao ai. | Cu VTALBE woman" 0 eorret

I HANES Ry eh neh)

“9% of atdebsn ted ot? toulaye sioktiip: ‘bee rene itatety

‘baat

‘to samoces ao mid yd beatesaus ased eves of beatoto segenad A?
fuk

‘stants leh Myuestd ,aelaiiles eiideuetus bial at boxutat t

a tasaghet das tothxay s bao telx? gust « saw oxett rere
sieogus HIashse ter bas, ,000,8§ to2 goyet aT

odeve att ak aeoleta O40 dvede stake aowotawlkh boo oe 60

Agudm olidoaeism aid gaivith sew VIL) aisty ated até xia Bat

YAlVIXh awe sass yIAK Jashaw led emls asi? 2a hoe 2eotte anh, at

Vitsalalg how behtiion axwo oad paatte A98t at taaw oLidenod ma bd
3 obotmhad viexemee ete
~ob oat sottnouy mt ome add te fat? vgn qoaabive oft os

mr
| gakited med het saetoeqaiog gomew Laroree bate age ac trabaet

Wt Ome gatasadet otew ban dgced galidad soonte lial edt *
ows Ghd monde ,teotsa APBY at Seow eLideargua oMd aatyith mont
eee shodate eveds aa bobiifco ete.

eel tuebne'teb tadd buenos etuabas'teh to? foamed
odd 3a mtetG .ail YS too ox? To oon Ost To phe frond om een
hetginieq vigaiwend to heslteddue soa bad One ,aolfeorp wk wet
exis oft tvedyworts ,toe2% at* gaa? pred yt tan ost to oon ee
ye de benoliase gon wt atesk aolxadd tamboeteh to eaea ‘edt ptose
-tiod ¢ou af efaabsw'tod to meltlenq aldd has *yanongtw ene vt om :
ee, cbosevent

al Laeqas ald? ao etnshus toh Be shaw ag ltaetaoo vine ost i,

ooo bas Sasosyenam ,nolsategs talel, begrado Ho lterelooh ras ‘i oy i

trol of the sutosobile by defendante; that thie charge was out in
issue sy the defendunts' plea of the genersi fesue and that plein-
tiff'a proof failed te establish any joint liability because there
Was ne evidence tending te shew that defendant Charles Stern had
any connectdon with the case, and therefore the judgment being
@rreneous as to him it suet, ander the law ae it existed at the
time the cause of action arose, July 17, 1932, and prior te January
1, 1954, be reversed as te beth defendants,

The declaration wae in five counts, ‘The seeond, fourth and
Fitts esunte were withdrawn and the case tried en counte ene and
three. These counts ehourged that tae “defendante ware the oreners
and in possession of a certain weter renicle which the defendants
and their agents were then and there maintaining, eperating and eon
trolling in to-wit a weaterly direetio: upon sand aleng 75th street,
ete,, *** that the defendants and their agente se carelessly, neg-
ligentiy and recklessly maintained, overgied and gentrolled said
weetbound metor vebkcle,* that by reascr thereof defendente' sutoe
mobile dollided with the meteor vehiaie of plaintiff,

On the other hand, plaintiff'e sosition is that the defend.
ante by the mles of general ienue admit the ownerenip sand operation
er the automobile at the time in question, and in suonert of this
cites Zusller v. Hayes, 321 Til. 275; Carlson vw, Jonson, 263 E11.
$56; Shicage Union Traction Co. vw. Jerka, 227 I1k. 05; Belulte wv,
Logkridge, 137 Iii. 276; Bates vw. Drainage ¢ 8, 273 Thi,
app. 435, and ether oases,

eanissione

The Ryeller ease was an setion to recover damages for vere
sonal injuries growing cut of = eollision between an autecebile and
& motorcyole at etreet interseetions in Chieage. Floyd Hayes, son
of George &. Hayes, the defendant, was driving the sutomebile at

the time ef the enliisien. The father alene wae sued, The declare

tien alleged that the father and sen were partners in the coal

mh See sav eytade sidt fe) jetordbaue Doe ed atidountem nett ) fone

aahaig susie bite ouge t fornia y ocd te wale ‘ edanbaston ods ye ouant

stax? setmood eelildels tarot re) Had ideas of heliet teoty ernnis

bari mind aeLred sanhaetnd tad? woxie at ‘pathos toasbive oa aa

. gated tanmghat, oda exotatedd hae ,saeo 649 dbhe robtoe unos ee

en? ga bataixe 24 au wai ef2 tobe ,fawe 3! wld ot ba auonaorte

vtauaet @2 toliq han ,SheL tL ytet ,ererw tetdse to seu ote ems

mint i satnchantwd ged of ee banuever of EOL 4£

baw sibewo’ sbanooee sath Masson ovht mh aa Neitetaloeh oft aeTER.
ban 9m0 agauoe ao belts gage os? bug mona hdt iw acer atayen atts)
Stamre ed? stew ad ng hie te bY walt fade _baweaca efnuny Onedt .. GSM.
atashas tes outt ig Rice elolder 197 am RLas tho * ‘Ms gotenonseg Pap Sent
soo bow aatterego. aGiaiatalan exeds die pene S398 ataege a, feed
steonte Atav yitole bas aegu onbdoed® eiternee @ tiwegt at pabitont
“yom cians Lora oe st aeye ahens hie afashss tab out saad ih ven gn

_ bhew he llortace baw betetsge healed mien Yiage las et hime qh

~ofes ‘etushasteh leetedt aoaaon et Jang * ,etoddey. saton, aod 4

_- s¥iktatadg Ye efaddey gages eal 48ty Aadttten orden

shaoleb oft Jadt at agitiong a ttitaialg ,baed godt | er) ae Pope ig:

aolgetego hue qiderenwo ged sisha ewok Lewoeg To anh sat ed aay.

kit ‘te trougue ak Sem ,Aelieoup at amis edt da elidons tan ott

-4iT £08 ,Qoemio’k py moe tan) pS .457 L88 | peheiagaemeatiganpede

a Bt ihad 760 of) TRS wate 2, tem Ata 2 eee
-£{2 ESS ,otenotes dane? sngalexS .v gedel ors he anny oe

ha x0 png sevenns as nottos ie oa Dome atin ae oie ‘i i
bas Siidovetus ae asevted moietiios « to sys yalwo aoltutal famoe
woe anced byes oogna kee saad ao LI oeeteeRk seotee fa te ploxoreson

fn eLideuotue O82 goivith ear ,danhae'ted oat pores + agree? To
fngo edd ok wisAsTAg Ose soe bre Tedsar odd, sade hanette aghh —

~staiaeh acl hove sow note asceek adh oa

business under the name of Jefferson Yark feal Co., wid that the

#on was driving the automobile at the (ime on the business af the
partnership. in another count Lt was alleged that defendant,

Hayes, was engaged in the coal business ond empleyed bie sen Yleyd
ae his agent ond thet Fleyd was operating the autexebile in the
perforsanece of hin duties as the agent of hie father at the time

of the secident; and the third count was en the theery of the fandly
autwobile, ‘he defendant filec the geiersai iswue and during the
progrese of the trial seca) leave ta Lilie speviai pleas, which pleas
were tendered with his wotion, The piesa davied the @xiatence ef
the partnership, daied that the autemoblie was belug cperated in
the tuginess« of the alleged surtnerehip, denied that the defendant
Was engaged in the coal business under the sane of the Jurf ereen
Park Coal Ca., and that the son was epersting the autezebile as
@efendant's agent and denied that the gon was a weber ef defendant's
family. Another of the pleas set up that tne JofYersen Park Ceal Co.
wae # corporation ef whieh the eon was « stockholder, offieer and
eepleyee and was net an employes er servant ef hie father, tae
defendast., The court deiied defendant's agtien fer Leave to file
the pleas, ‘The court seid (p. #278); “ho evidesee wae introduced
by the plaintiff tending te prove thet the Jefftreon Park Goal Com=
pany Was a partneresip eof whiem Fieyd was a sember, or that ae wag
operating the autowoblle as on agent ey servant ef the defendant or
en bugliness ef tue defendant, «**

"Yor many yeare this gourt hae held the deoetrine that in
setions on the ease the general issue denies only the wrongtul act
@lleged te have been cemuitted an¢ dees not put in desue the owner-
ship, powesesion or eperation of the property or inetrumontalities
whieh have exuged the injury, Allegations of gueh evnership, po@te

easion oF operation are regarded ag matters of inducement, only,

waieh are not traversed by a vlea of the seneral issue, ond if the

aay tas) Sue y.02 nod eed nontetiot Yo sana oid Taha eaoale
7 ome ig saeaieud oa ay aut # watt da oiitomos ua ‘on saivixs | on’ ‘non
, Jasbae Yah sacs beupiis any +h Sie9 to ddeae ‘al ‘ qidereadtag

byork aoe wld beyolqus bas asvutaud Toco ont ab hogagao sew “nega

orig ‘at elideastus est ani satege ane ayes tas bee “jasge aid be

wit e439 ta teddet wth to sage edt eo ae tiod ‘aid to eoneutetieg
gilmet adz to yr00n? eos ae aaw sauvs “fer dae oatd ‘bus ‘pdnabloos ‘odd te
edd yokiuh has euset iexesey ods ballt taabueteh edt “letidgdediie
eae fe sia ketw ~weety ialowqs eLl't oF ovees be dae, ‘faind” ‘eule ‘te saetyeTg

te sonetates ont belunb aovsa ext .noliow eld déiw hoxehusd ov
ai hetaxeqe yated aaw eiidomedua ests dads beta -qhieteariag oie
$nebanteb reed tea? be knob thle toad 489 boxe Lie ‘eatd to “snsatend oie
nae Trot oust ho ome edd xebay vamutasid faoo ot al begeaae 9a saw
| aa o Lis ome we ott} gal sarego enw nw na past ‘bas 108 ined ies
8! Sanbas eb ‘te “woduw xa @ say aoe aus oust ‘bolach baw Says 2" Janine

09 fned xte% aoere'tret ans suas aw dea naoky od ‘te ‘qodsoma )

baa x002T 0 {Wehleticcte e& saw nea ord th bw he ee,
said , toda eid ‘to deevtee te seqolqu fe ‘ten awe bi ae
e£it ef evasl wt deiiou attaabastes Miud gisoo sav | dasbasteb
‘beouborsat naw soushive oi" : (Bes a) ‘bien Stwoe oat ‘nant outs
ox09 900 kta% moaxBitst asd toad vvore of yathued Tildalaty vas ee
sew on saad X6 tidtin a 6 tee byeft totum 29 qhiwxbareeg e waW Ylleg
18 fasbaotod xed to dawvasa Ww siio'ye os a ‘elivenbt ue ony yatsatege
won ,Snabaw'ted ot Ye eeeubnid to

mh Sactd anlisoob ox? Biod eed usno abd exeoy yawe xo }
toe futgaorw ett yiao aeineh event Lowney odd weao aid no enottos

a Se ane ee
oth awe ora suns d ai sae sou avob baw petsiuaos aged | F oven od —

PLEA ae
goth tteraemctent xe wregorg odd ‘Le mot detoge | x wotneonuag

“neq qidersawe owe te ametsaneLia “yemtat
eine ,dubupoukat Yo atedian an bebusyer

edt ti bas ,ouant faxeme, sat Yo eotg ae

defendant desires to take issue on guch partioular facta, he must
ao it by especial plea.” ‘The court then cites a number of autherie
ties and in atating the nature of the rule eatd (p.279): “It is net
@ rule which applies oniy te railresd and municipal eorgeration and
guasi public corporations.“ ihe court there further said (p.28%):
"The pleintiff in errer (defendant) complsaiae of tas refusal of
three inetructions asked, They were properiy refused, Tor they
were eredicated on the theory that the relutionship ef Fleyd (4e-
foudant's sen) te the plaintiff in error, as his servant and agent,
in driving the autemebile wae not admitted, whiah wafnuad to be
ineorrest.*

We think the Bueller case was decided on the theory that
the son, in driving the automobile ot the time in cueetion, was the
agent of hie father and it wae Aeld that this fset wae not denied
by plea of the general iesue; while in the instant case, the eharge
in the declaration ie that beth defendsnts committed the #rongiul
act. They are charged to be joint tort feasors, the question of
principal and agesit ie net in the case,

In Carlson v. Joineon, wupra, (263 ILL. 586) whieh wae an
action for pereonal injuries, the cowrt said the axended declare.
tien charged that the defendant “by his servante and agente, wea
engaged in resedeling and repairing s bullding ewned by him and
that certain men were engaged in working upen the reef of said
building; that defendant “ey his guid servants and agents did a6
carelessly and negligently preceed clth the work” that slaintifr
wae injured, The plea was not guilty. Befere the écmneunenh of
the trial defendant asked lenve te file a special plea by which he
sought te set up that defendant, Johneon, wae an independent son-
tractor. from what we guid, we think it ebvieus tuat the allega-

tienes of the declaration in the Jobnson ease are net at ail similar

to the charge sade in the declaration in the ease at bar.

seam od ,tioat tedvolitag seve Ge anges oad of getingh saahaeteb
~itedtsa In xedmam # tetiy aedd given aa? *.aelg taloage. td 219m
tos ek ti" 2(GPh.q) Bian oLog oad Lo otmtan of3 anttete ma bag sate
bug aoliategies Liagioinum how tegzicex of yiso seidega deddy oien ao
1(888.q) Dive qoddawt ered? fomee ek * emeliaseqses oisdwe £ene
to Lanutex eild..‘bo aaiaiqnde (shehwo teh) tots ah Bitatelq eA”
yous t9t ,boewtet yitecetg stew vee? .bedes emolteutiant oords
“oh) byolt to qidenohialex edt dead yuond? odd ao bedectbong exee
atiege bow tence wid ae ,T9TtM ai Tiltaletg est of (nce a dnahan?
pe of planer soksiw ~bodtlabs gon sew alidameiua ot? yaly doh ah
tedd yaoed? off a0 bebioeh aay eano ati, odd daisy ou, Lasuot wmutly
uit naw ,8olsaonp at owls ot fa Oiidecotva edt galvich af ,aom ond,
bolaed toa naw so0% old Judd Dhak naw OL bam wedtet abe Yo dongs

— Sytate of? ,sang tasseak od? mi ofidwv reamed Laveneg of? Lo antq xd
_Aittgact ef Detikanoa staehastes tod sasit at Aolduralovh ont ot,
to mulseeup off .etonset dof fale ed of boguade ota yoet 4am

: — gPaee ont ak don at taepe ban Logtentag
fa saw do die Aone tt £28) ~@AGut .SOeSegh of MAGLIO? AE oi vas
“Atalosh hebasun eas bise ttuao add ,aelruiad fampereg tot soldon
aw ,aimoge hae atanvien ald qd* adambawtes ead fast hegredo mods
baat aid eo homo gaibilud « gatitinget bas gallekeust af begegee
hse te Yoot sat age gatixey af hegaacn szow apm atadtee sadt
oe &iS adaege bax sdaaviee bias aha yd" tupsasted fade "jyathised —
Viteniaty dede “arow saa iin hoseetg yivanghigns bas yingelerao

Yo Papanodeaos att orored .Yiitey don sew ole oft ,berwhled maw
ot akan vd aoiq inkosga # e213 9 evant badan Sepa takst oat
<809 sambaaqebat aa naw aoniek ,saahantab tout qu soe oF sdguag,

: nage tie pat dant auoiyie, $4 datas ow blag oe dare mage _ sotommt,
mellate Lin 0 400 914 ease nownse’ odd ak badd Xe maods,

_ stad 4a suse ant at, nettataiogh ah se eM

in the Bates case, supra, (#73 Ill. App, 335) the dewlara-
tion charged defendant with the commisaion of a tert by ite agent,
acd it was held that the plea ef the general iseue did net put in
iseve the questior of ageney. The ether eases cited are to the
game effect.

thie eourt hae held that in & personel injury ease where
the decleration charges that defendants Jointly committed the
wrong?ul act, tue plea of mot guilty decs net adait the joint
oenership and eperation of the instrumentality involved. kgisle
we. Moguizg, 236 Til. App. 295; 3) #t. Dearborn Elda,
Corp., 243 Ill. App. 484; Bebermott v. Aub. Vil J E
Sorp., @te,, 266 Thi. App. 115.

the kgisle case sult war brought te recover daneges against

te of

kr, and Ure. MeQuigg, oleintiff ¢laining dasages um a result ef
being struck and injuredé by on sutespbhiie. The court there said
(pp. 207-093): “there ie a total losk of evidence ae to any cone
eert of action or common intent of defendants with refereice te the
operation cf the autenebile at the time of this aeeldent, Se far
ae the reeord shows, the defendant or, Somigg neither owned the
Cay nor overated it at any time and was iiirely unaware ef and
unconnected with this peurticuier trip, “*«*

"We held that the defendante in thie case canmmet be made
the eubject ef a joint fudguent unlens it ean be held thet their
plea of general issue admita joint operation ef the sauteoneblie
when it etruek pisintiif.

"Plaintiff alleged joint ewnership and operation, and argues
that the genersi Lesue adwite both allegatione under the rule an~
nounced im Chigage Union Tragtion Co. v. Jerka, 227 I21. App. @5,
and meny ether similar casee,* The court then discusses sne ther
ease and continuing sald: “Under the rule ef pleading long felliewea

in thie State, where the charge is joint liebliity, the proper plea

ners fovb sits (ees sith «EAI eve) adele oode gute wif wy 8°
18038 att yd Sxof a to colashuwea ode (tie Piuban'teab Bogue oi

"st ¢uq toa Bih eveet Iaremes od? to aské od} sant Bida bow 92 Woe
pdt of ota bedle souce Teds SAT .yvaoye “to setteeap ole Suaed
Bl | shmiandinee

eres? onan gauthad tonosteg s al fed? Stow aed tamov widt |
at herslomes yLealol efuadae'teh Susie eeyandy meldetatoed ote
' gndot od? dtuba fon aeoh Grtlay dda ‘te dole Wad [tee Byer
peatiod havdoval qehisscemmsent eat Ye nolfarege nd qideniand
ee ee | ;GG% .qqa fit BES bee sy
satetiod jab euqa .££1 abt’) igted

ae ne ae ee

tantae doyeieb teveses Of ditywexd Haw Flue eoao sates ¢ mt: AY, BBR.
“te dfuset 2 su segeweh galudago Tikiaicsa jgghupel Leta Bek ae
“phew ‘puede fume ett voidoust ve Bey w Setubal dae are galed
ston yale of on ‘soasblvs ‘to deel fates w bi oxedt® 1 (eRe gt ge)
ott g2 eoustetot adhe ednnbaeteb ‘te Jnedal neands 46 adlsed Yo sb
tet e8 .daebioes etds te oul? off de efidoswtan bas Yo aolserseo
ony henwe te. thom aalugos ee Ynehastes war “yaebiie bre9et edt ae

: “haa ‘te etewnnw seni new ban aut? que de $f beterege coal ‘ei
eee ,gltd tofvoldcey elds Atiw bevournodan

abes of témtoo onso KbGd Af adanbae'teh sx) sand bio g¥® © HOD

abot vada bied od aso st avetay deere oe ato ities’ ae

oswgte ‘bas Hol Fate ge bas qideremve fateh Boye tia Vetansa sie 80"
wae olut i xehau ent digi apdenee ang oncrenheapcn
80 saad .f40 TRO gmake 00 dailies ed se. i Seomw
“Whsttoae aecauoath ned? sty0s itt” i cova abe te qe Bia
AeWoLLy'? yuol yalteoly Te eter ese tebal™ Thtew gakealy bas eano
note reqoty odd yyibitdets dutoh ak wyteite wat oteaw nee waite at |

for thore net guilty is the g@merai Llasue.

Se. ve. Bemean, 202 Lil. App. 185,
“'{t is leid down im ali werke on pleading that if two ex

more persons are seed ror a tort committed by one snly, a miajoinder

eannot be pleaded; the praper ghea for those not guilty is the gen»

eral issue.’ Yeosel v. Alexunder, 63 111. #84; Beenomy Light &
ver Co Et » 203 122, 824,

So are referred to 50 eases ehonging this rule. It would
‘be unreasonable to stretch the rule ip the Jerka ease to include the
eharge of foimt lisbility." And the judgoent ageinet beth defer danke
wae reversed aii the cause remanded,

The Blade case, supra, (245 141. App. 464) wae an appeal from
a jutgvent for $25,000 fer injuries received by being struck while
on the street by @ plank er beard which it was alleged fell frem the
eeaffelding of a building then in srocee#a of construction. it was
thare held that the general igsue was the proper plea toe 4 eharge ef
Joint liability. The court there aaid (9.489): “Ye have held, toe,
that where the eharge is jolnt lisbility the proper plea fer theese
not guilty 1a the general issue, set that Lt is unreseenabie te
atretoh the rule in the Jefkea ease t4 include the charge of Joint
lfebility. (eliale v. Hewigg, 936 314. App. B98, 29.)*

The Uadetuott case, supra, (266 444. Apo. 115) was on append
by the defendants to reveree a judenent for damages te plaietiff's
real eotate by the Agetruction of four Large trees,and Lt wae held the
where tro or more defendanta ore jointiy eharged with the count selon
of a tort, the joint action of the defendants is negatived by a plea
of net guilty. On this point the court said (p. 120): “At the oute
set it ia contended by plaintiff's counsel that sines the autonatie
Corroration pleaded only the getieral issue, plaintiff was not required
to prove that the Autowatio Corperation Participated in the trane-
action between the piseintiff and the gales Sorperation. The point

teix® Lisdmiieustanizngs ,ommel Ietewey sae of ytilig tea seeds wet
s8OL 0A LL ROL sammdo® wv 190

%@ ows Th god) gulbaelq ag einew Lin ad uwod bhek ad ot ,

gobatelaia 2 ,ylao one yt betéiames gues «2 tal howe ots wanted tom

A sayid yoomogt 802 .1k1 68 xed rams oe 'euuel fave
| ae £0% BO se ate

bixew $i .efea aldd gulqneds seen ov e? bevietes aie oH" inl
edt obukoak of sean pixph eco mh wir sce soterda of ottoman ee
stasho'teh died dunkaye tarayghul mit bon “yeh eded stator, ‘te wore.

if pre pee ag saw (hab .ogh tS] @00) ,aagee ,omeo phat ode
alide dewtte galed yf hevieoet sxitxiul wet GOO, 888 aed tacit
eas mest Ifo) beyelia aaw ¢h Apide Saeed. £0 danke w yt teetde oat 0

te ayrade a eo aniq teqorg ona sew puest tevemey ost dade died oth

oved? Toi ania taps end YPAihdadt satel af eysane wilh oxosle gualt
et oldeagesetay vi #2 ga hoe ,eaged Lexoasg ont ab vet thieg 90
dnatot te egtade ed? shaloat of ease gaget add af efor on tobowe
*(, 262 00% awd .£02 B28 putea pe efaliod) eencheant

|| edd bind aw 2k bug, nown? opted wot Yo maitewndued ane he ormdee tat

| ih otue of @a" . 1 (084 .q) Bien tease eet Seon hae ad sail vate
gkteeodach odd conte tact Lonamos et eliningy qt debabtuoe awn oe

sh fmt eg GAT .aektetegted weivs ont skein’ ware pen Ss meee

~aoy of¢ @h Gi iieg ton eaods set @ele sages ody phobeoiq od founas

shobaur oman sult no heemwreR ww

wav gi .woltourvages to asesoug ak made galhited # Be amis ser ewe

00? , died oved a8" 3488.) Shan oxen? ftuen eat” .yebiidnds tabet

Levu ax sow (8Lf sgh .£48 998) senoxe .oene Zeoweedaw ea vi
a'ttlvoiale ©f seyemsh Te? teemmaet # sevever oF ‘aPaebostes ont we

Lh BSL eet uie re ee we

is not weli taken, Slaintiff's olaim te founded uson and the deco
laration charges that the twe defendants ceumitted = tert,««* I¢
has always been the law that where tes or more defendante are
jeintly charged with the commieeion of & tort the Joint action ef
the defendants is negatived by 2 pien of net guilty. (Yeagel vy.
Alexander, 59 111. 254; Peters v, Howard, 206 Il]. App. 616; Koilahe
¥. Mequigg, 736 113. App. 296, 294; Blade v. Site of Pt, Dearborn
Bidg. GCorp., 245 th]. Ape. 494, 499.)*

In the inetact case we held that the plea of mot guilty
negutived the joint tart charged against the defendants «4 sinee
there was no proof made againet defendant Charles Stern, end sinee
under the o14 law which ie applicable te the instant eare, which
holds that the judgment sca net several defendents ts a unit, it
Gannot be reversed aa te one defendant and affirmed as ta the other,

WQe, 20 Lil, 218,) the judgaent

must be reverged snd the eause rewarded,

Plaintiff centends that it is the law that one way net try a
ease in the trial court en one theory ani then shift te anether
theory in a court of review snd that thie le what defendants attempt
te de in the imeatant case; that they beth joined ina ples of net
aailty and in # speoisl plea, in weich they denied they owned, ope
erated or controlled the autemobile in queetien; end that en the
day of the trial, after the jury had been sworn, the des endants
withdrew tieir special plea and the ease went te trial on geferdants '
Joint plea of the general iesue. And plaintiff further eontends
that at the close of plaintiff's ease both defendants Joined in a
motion to exclude all the evidence and te instruct the jury te fing
the defendants net guilty, sccowpanded by a #ingle inetructien, and
that at the close of aJ1 the evidence they made a similiar metion and
tendered « similar instruction te find beth defmdante net guilty;

that the defendante yresented a number of imetruetions, 411 ef which

g
a

“906 oa2 Sue sogw hebawo't at atest, a vunsaias® sions tiew tou at
#1 ***,320% # Dodtimmon etaad ookeb aw oni tase negtato notional
at Giimbaeteh etom te ow? ate tie fact wat oats aed eyewss oon

‘te moltee satel ent f403 2 Io note bos ads ds bw bayrasia cttatot
az_Ananed) setting goa to foig a ee bovivanen ot ntaahasted ode

th Raves

afeliod {OL8 .qqd .fh2 ace sbxawok_.x evege% eee he oa - Tobe ih
phatS ;8@8 8% oud tit ‘Bee, sands
7 , "(.@68 , dee aga 61 aes 1 <c10_ abe
giv, toa te pep a wuld dacs ied a sone tnetend oulg al ws:
geate hoe etaabus'teh exit fantogs bogtnds axoe tatot one bovtemyen
eotia baa ,smess a6 fede daabhas tob tenlaya obna Yeotg on aoe r oes
olde ,oaey tontoal ot of odaabsoos al sdokite. ad bo ode ‘tebay

#2 ,taw ¢ ah ataebaoteh Lerevee sem eyne sasmadat ony tosis ansos

mato edt of ae boat Tie baw Jnsbaetes Biko ” ne bonsever ss teanwo

ee Yash ie

dromghet edt (818 .4k aes 0 +8 2628 2 ra
sbebraaes SPUN oats baa bovssver pe teua

wi t ys ret

& Ets toa Yow ome dutit wet os? ot 82 daca edaagaca vitomtess

sedienn of S2isis asd baw Ytoosts ne ae du fakes oat - ‘ease
£ EN # et

squegie atanhanteh ged of atag sede bow wats Ye sau00 ‘ at xveoa?
ecg 4

doa te aotg on beakal aiod yards tans _ienas Anagund ent a ob og
MD it Pe Qe thes

“qo ,bemwo yads heluoh yodt sip ie ab 0.6 fatonge * at fae Xi Line
aes te Jadd ban ;woliaene at aLidenotue wale bofhoxsneo 7 pete
“ adundne ten 90%. .%ewe weed bed yout nad teste phase | oat ‘Ye wae

a: a
aiaabastoh ao dabas of iow paeo one bam 0g, Aatosge went woubald tw

Bhaatano retitwt Thialaig baa onan) Setonon ont te. sete x tats
& ah Sealol etaghomteh siod sane at ‘Nivateds 1 svete ons te gee
halt of yuut on? tourseak rn em ARR .
bos ,soisourdant efgals « yi belnequonea ,¢tiliy den adaabaeteb odd

fre aeiion tellata a sham yoad sonabive at kin 19 penin of t0 saat |

FRI Lies fom acaba ted died batt oF modgoutteat tafiake « pexebaes
doivw te ike ,anoliouttea! te sedan «© betaveesg ataabaeteh edt odd

ake, Bas
Ber ONT | i

were given @xeest twee which the ceurt refused; that one of these
inetructions wae a feint instruction om behalf ef beth defendants
and aid net indicate te the jury “that the jury should consider
S@parately the liability of elther defendant." ‘There ie some merit
in plaintiff's contention. After the jury was eworn, the defendants
aid withdraw their special plea, denying special ernership, operation
and control ef the autarobiie, ond meade a Joint motion at the sleee
of plaintiff's evidence and at the close of ali the evidenee tendered
an instrustion to find “the defendanta® net guilty. But whether
this action on the part of tie defendants lulled plaintiff into the
belief that the ownership and operation of the autonebile by beth
defendants wae net controverted and that only tke ercnecfwl set was
denied, does not acpear, ner is there any intimation tuat claintiff
eould have produced witneeres or evidence of any eharaeter tending
te show that defendant Charles Stern wae in any way Liable fer the
unfortunate secident in which plaintiff was severely injured and Bie
autexsobile grestiy damaged, Kereover, defo: dante, by their offered
instruction whieh the court refused, seught te have the court tell
the jury that the charge made by plaintiif againet defendants was
that defendants owned and operated the autemwhile at the time of the
@ollision, and umless the jury believed from the ‘evidence that the
automobile wae operated and sontrolled by beth defendanta, as
oharged, then they should find the defendants set ,ulity.

Se think the resord falle to dis¢lese that piaintirr was
prejudiced by the defendants’ action im withdrawing their special
Plea. Since the law in effect at the time of tre aceident in this
case and at the time ef the trial srevente a fudgment against two
perame te be affirmed where it is wrong againet one of them, and
singe ve hold tuat there is ne #vidwmee against the defendant charles
Stern, the judgment eannet stand.

the judgment of the Superior court of Geok esunty is reversed
and the cause remanded,

REVERSED AND REMARDED,
Matchett, ?. J., ond MeSurely, 7., coneur,

peed? ‘te eno jad? jheantes tymen edt a habe ew? tqvexe cevlg ete
atashueteh ciod te thadad uo aod tour dant @aiet « saw saoldtouzdenk
webiaaog biveds yaul elt teds® gral, ect 08 oieulbal goa Alb baw
strom emge ei atedi °*.taghasted tedtie te "itlideldl edt ~iodetagee
efashasteh eds ,@tows new ytal, ot setts .melioetaes a! Tiiéalete od
mot taxeqo sqistetcare Jalaeges gaiyaeb eign ta laege thes mrad be BS
eeols eas ta aeisem Jato « sham has ethdous.tun ant ts Lovaas ‘Bae
betobans sombive ot Lia to onete eis 24 Soe senohive al Tiksalelg de
tedjadw Sui «yi tiuy toa “eduahag tes ot" Balt of meitoutteal me
ont ofa Trh aislg badivd ataehre eh ods te tang ocd ag moddem ahd
Atod yi vLidowius sit Le soitetage bee qldaseawe ot aastd, Yeliod
enw tee intgaor aad vino toda hae bettevetiaen 368, saw strohas teh
Tisaiete tacs molsnaival yoo stadt ef toa .tarqge tom aoch ,botombr:
galivwed tseentade yaa lo eeiehive ra geesentio paniheng oval bkwem
as 10% sitehd Yow Ys G2 gow ete th eodradt tanhro eb sans ons OF
eid ban betwtal yloveves eaw MWiidniate seid oh taebloon etanud tetas
bexetie tied? yd ,einahveteh ,tovoeto® Dagoumh yigaory OL douodue
Lied 22yce ext eves a2 doyson ,borwtox trw0o edt dati nolsoustant,
Sew ainaboo led goulegs Viktalels yd ohen pytasip odd sedi teh, ot
ol? to emtt od? te elidowosun oti hesareqgo han heave efunh meted suds
ext sald seaahhys odd mont bevetiod yual ott avefay bas, Hotal tion
_ 8% ,ednahae tab died yd detloninos is botexede saw olidomme ae.
st ftug 404 a2ambaa zed, pdt batt bduede. yous megs, sbepresio
- eee y Tittabaig, tes evolerih of eitnt brewer od, dala oF ». aed ee |
‘akeege «test yatwerbialtiw af saison. ‘eguabnetsd, odd e6 boodbutere |
eidd at taphiore 9% to omiy ont 2e seotte at wal edt monks onan: |
Gus tanlege saomut @ stevorg Lebxt ge 20 okt 902.46 Das onan ‘
bac ,mod? te amo daclape gore ab. ah sted home The of of amateg: F
amized) sanhaeteh add tactage sachs “4 ng aad tes weesig’ 3
besrever af yimion dood te dima wat *e feet ve: grin’
CRANE CAA CERATVGR wtee wieeae stat ack ast

oT HG RGD ual porns at i stoedetel

36737

THE PROPLZ OF THS GTtaki OF

ILLINOIS « OSCAR He

CAPLOTROM, .tiermey General,
Defendant in “rrer, BRROR TO SUPERIOR

GGUNT, GOOK COUNTY.

264 I.A. 667

MRe PANSIDIHG JUSTICR GLLIvar
DELIVERER LHR GPINIGN OF THE ¢omtT,

ILLIMGIG staYe AUrCMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, a corporation,
Plaintiff in srrere

This writ of error veeke the revereel of a deeree of
Gisesolution cf the Illinois Ctate Automebvile ssceintion, a
eorporation (hereinafter referred te ae defendant), entered by
the “uperior court ‘pril 17, 1931. An information in the nature
of a bill in chancery was filed Yebruary 10, 1951, against
defendant by the attorney general fer and om Behalf cf the
People of the {tete of Tllinois (hereinafter referred te as
complainant) for such diseolutien, under the provisions of
paregraphs 195 and 196, chapter 32, Cohili‘'a ive) heviesed
Statutes of Illincis, which are aa follows:

"Pare 195. That shenever He board of direcetors,
minagersa, trustees or officere ef any corporation extat tug
by virtue of any general or apecial law of thig State, or
any corporation heresfter organised by virtue of any law
of thie State, has ceased to do business as & corporations
er has diseontinued the exercise of corporate functions,
auch carporation shall be deemed to have abandoned its
torpurate franchises and it shall be lawful for the
Atvorney General to institute proceedings, *** for the
dinzsolution of sueh ¢orporntion.”

“Pore 196. Such procecdings shall be commenced
by filing im such court an information in the nature of a
bill in chancery, stating te name and date of the
erganiaation of such corporation, the location of its
principal office and the namea of ity cireetore, managers,
trustees or officers, if knowns thet it has ceased to do

ROLMAOS OF ROARK seven taelewae? too pe
e¥Patoo Mocs gTHGee 8° ov nh nha
| Vaod.ALATS| et aaah ath
it Bi ve es

Yo ser09d « Yo keorsv9 ae axioon ror, te chur eta at alles
r) tok satovew: (eLidemedms adage homt it ould % wots 3
xs bereéar altnstneted ae e¢ bexseten xe¢temtoned) mob iat
oas art oss wi Mekiomroin’ a4 +4h60£ oFh Ling cumop goktogarl wut,
Pastiage £082 04 Yroarndo® DeLtT gem yrmomedie mt Ld @ Ye

eet Re Lede? an bee wel Loveney Yorensde eas yd snake ted

aa of hertwten xoflewtoxed) stonthsi we esadi add to, olquell

te emetolvoug od ocho , med cuhowad dose cet (soembatgeoe
hewkvoR HACE Dt LiAta® RE wodqadlo oI tm MOL astigattgarig:

eal std to sumed cu! wovewedy tad? «GL eet ,

to was pf ms 4 p ag
“wal ‘wa to oueaty we ree boctaaese withered mohas I
ig a ast gee 20 eo SemOD Gait pr, re A a
“aang Eonar bea agy at peed aed Poe ned Al

on ewe

business ag a corporation, and hae diseontinued the exercise
of sorporate funetiona, and praying for ite disselution.*

The pertinent end material portiona of the ceeree are

as fcliewsas

‘snd new on thie day comes the complainant, the People
of the “tate of Lilineins upom ihe information of (sear Be
Carletrom, attorney General, and it appearing to the eourt
from the writ leowed herein te the ekeriff of Cook County,
Tllinols, and hig return theroon, that the dufendnat, the
gaid ILGIROLS State aAVOMOG EL AncOGlsTION, o corporation,
hes been duly served with summons ten doys before the return day
thereoty *** 46 is therefore ordered, adjudged and deereed
that the seid bili be taken eo confeneed ageinut the waid
ILLINOIS Stat: AUP MOBILE associ. TI, a eorporation.

“ond thereupon tails esuve coming on for final hearing
upon the bill taken an confesued by the enid defendant, apen
the exhibits and testimony heard in epen court, and the cause
heaving been argued by counsel, «no the court being fully sdviged
im the premises, doth find, that the court has juriadiction ef
the subjeet matter of this esuse and of all the parties herein
named, that the material aliegatiens contained in the complain-
ant‘'s bill are true ac therein etated and that the equity of
the eouge ie with the complainant»

"The court further finds thet the ILLINGiL “Tat
AQT OMOU ILE ASSOCIATION wae ineorpernted in the ywar 1908, under
and im accordanee with the provisions of an act of the General
AseemBly of the “tate of Jllimeis governing corporations nat
fer pecuniary profit. ***

"That tne said defendant and its boord of directors
have since the year 1906 ceased to tranecct business xe a
corporation, and discontinued the exercise of corporate fune+
tiong,. ***

“Tt IS PURTHER GEDEKTD, ALTUDGLD AM DOGRESD by the
gourt that the esid defendant eorporstian, the TL IMOI) otstk
AUTOMOBILE ASCOULATION, be and the aaae is hereby cisaolved,
end that the charter and suthority of anid corporation be,
and the same ig hereby deelored ta be mull and vold, ***
that the eler: of this court certify the foet of such
diseolution to the deeretary of the Jtate of [llimeia.®*

April 23, 1932, defendant appeared im the cause and filed
a petition signed and verified by one Fe Be Byrtumann ae ite seeree
tary, asking that the deorce of dissolution of the corporation entered
April 17, 1931, be vaeated and set aside. Thia petition alleged
thet defendant wae ineorperated July 22, 1905, ac a corpormtint,
mot for profit, and that since thet date it continuously transected
business under ite chartery that it omly recently wae advised of
the dcoree of @issslution of pril 17, 19313 that it wan mot at
any time served with summonsg that the two writs of summons iasued

whe

eetowese af? tomnidewsads sacl dee queisategsse 4 ga soeniond
*,ngiéwicuels eff wt gatyetg bus gondléonyh esarogtos te

#te @exuseh ode to anoldrig Lebzedae ban feonkiteq edt
smvotLet aa

olgous oid ,dmonlelqmod wait wemns Yad abdd ao wom baa*

i “ade? te solsemiehad ola why Bae: Pangan vote psasl. one wee ‘

dunce ots oF gaiteacqcus ¢2 dun «iosowsl qoruedda qumténtiad —
ateraed aced Viseuele od? o8 “ghetodt pomeed | ster ate wont

#0$ ytaebestod ods deald »noeted? mendet etd han Bey atemtiii
silivnogies @ «WoT TalDOweA BILE BVA BLOB Biae
yah Wrvdex ed exeled weet med encamun diiwy beviee eins aped aad

heoresh ita begiuiba ,bexobee wxeterald ef ¢2 #e* ttoowed? :

hy Ee bhaw

ih:

bies ols tenlage Seees' tao aa ome See
. \shobtemeqtee @ .WOlt» roo —— HEATH OT -
yekuset Lands t2o3 wo gerbe pewow whwe toqwerteds be." en
oq génobueted Stas adf’qd Seocetwee ae molad Lhid ast
Gunes sft ban ,fawee mega mk sipgeree toed baie e@idisne math,
bontrha ytin't gated Pelee 6 ‘od hae 4 Hoge ond eee patved e
te soltolastwt cad tsuneo ald mes pe ous at
wheredt esivxe od Lis to bus seneo abd a ps xa nee ez

ego tat gf Soatainos emeitagoila Ietuntem ond CS ee

to Ytinpo od? duit ona bevate abo wst oe oMsd axa kite alin

stamisakumes wid adinw wt esvee ade |

é BEARS BROMTAAN veeld tests wart. #2 sae odTF ie len, >
eho g BORE in Ry wig mf Hype peme: gaw NOLTALSOCEA LEGON TOA

insoned ote te gee ae to amode wis dtiw

Pott empl Soz0g 406 gute re vey ads 4 state one te

aweseotid te sroed ati bese iuehioten | bipe

dole Saatoqr9e te estanexs <s houmliueaelb | | ee

s oat ‘ye gti at tha passae Sparse aera et ex ach vuttiaicall

MTA TE KECMLIAL weld Sita have: oF me

vee te ae rT; oe ae

of gatsenes ae hs ee atin

te a i730.
“/glombiet te BS gE ea

men fens omao od mh beiomngt ngevaped a brea nag satin sé
senate wintasopees site eet 1 teat re sar ind stata
boaette a sabsten ela? conte ton 8 saa on yaad ek ed

ja ton aoe 3k dase “alee ih a

ve yer hee er hey sata Ss, anon sda

ate

herein - one dated Fobrusry 10, 1951, recurmeable to the April,
1951, term of the Superior court, which commenced April @, 1951,
ané enether dated Februcxy 28, 1931, returnable ¢o the same term e-
were served on ome Sidney ¢.» Gorham ae atcretary and agent of
éefendant March 31, 193513 that <idmey &. Gorham was net on said
Gate, at any time sinmee mor for ten yeara priery therets an officer
or agent of defendant corporation suthorized or empowered te accept
services of process, that ome Te Jo ‘chmidt was president and Fe Be
Bytemann wae weeréiary of defendant, that each of auch write of
summons wan served lewa than ten daya before the first day ef the
April, 1951, term ef the Superior sourt sf Cook county, and that
the court was therefore without jurisdietion te enter the deereeg
anc that the preeceding woo had witheut knowledge or netite to
defendant end the court wee without jurisdiction ever it. the
petition soncluded with a prayer that ecithex: the deerce be yaented
and servies of mummome quashed oy that the petition be permitted to
gtemd o¢ an anewer and defendant allewed to appesr and defend.
Leave waz granted by the court te cefend ond thet she petition
stand as am anewer te the bill of complaint.

Thereafter on June 16, 1932, pursuent to leeve of sourt,
complainant filed ite senuwer te the petition. The anerer ees
verified by William C. Clausen, so assiotent attorney general, and
denied that defendant had earried on its business under ite charter
aince July 22, 19083 and denied that defendant had not ceased to
function az a corporations It averred that defendant corporation
had mot functioned for more then twenty four years amc that it
eeased te do business under ite shorter on or before July 22, 1907%
that the board of directors and officers and agents of defentant
have cessed to function as such since that dates that there have
‘peom no regular or apeeial meetings of the members of defendant
sinee that time, ond that it has in no way exercised any of its

*.
eM Oe

efisgs oct of ohdnmeudsx gfERL 404 eon haga oom ~ @ionent
eXeGL gd Lyd Neomsaee dotsty ahruee sodceque ote te wend 9 h0@L
- 2xe3 owax act of ofdonurdou 4 LSOL ght youredel sete vorliome base
% dmege hme yYtateneen em matteD .) Youbli eso mo Sovgen oter
bina mo dos sar muleoO 68 youmte Sewlt GReCL ght domed teabee ied
aeoltig me ooo mmate ‘woke ateny fed a0 ‘eet Gore tants ‘an sis gotub
ier ae here reggae g howkeoaleate nettaregxen senda te to nope “8
“\a st hme dobtewsg oow shbmiot 66 68 Geo sna? tunoborg Ye obri88
‘to stixw dove Yo dead vast qomabee ted to YResorben maw mia
att 20 Yoh duxky ood ered een moe wadd oaet bewses sew wooo
Geils dam a Giiatiog Xoo Ye #reo tobrwge we to wee ‘tees othags
Easily eld xed of Moksoli=lorh exewltiw evoteradtd aw vii aul
| 88 eden wo eghelvomd iuedéiv hati wow yekoseoerg! ans ‘taitt toee
att 49% t9re smbdotoatusl, toasty gar Sos at Doe dato
badoeny ad soxseh odd wsddte desid xoyery o dite otansone motdhe
of eréleneg od molting add dad x0 as seo te oa , sin
shneteh dee ret gge et dewolle frnbos 229 bee cower onilid
ones. at tats bas bewteh of sxar69 wats bednerg sew sven
3 | stalatgme to £166 auld of somone sa we. bas
eftutoe . OFoeE OF immu REEL OL onl we wos toeredt tee
sow twuns of? .nabd zen osty co soweam oof beet aethalemes
nes qisroney Yonosis tmotataun an “emepasado ” mab site we ‘betkiune |
t9dxude nat ‘sohoeeas sanelond wee no bo taco bet dnabmote peg yh bekneb
ef hencse Son aad dacs dots me “aoe se an 7

mekisroat0s smabuoled salle borseva x smokawroqron a a0 ‘ ots as)
a& fats ime wEoey xHe? Winent se oom 20% Semcon $0 ba

drabe'te to exeduen ott ‘te agutions £

i are, ae

Gt Se bole See

ose

eherter powers or performed any of the functions for whieh it was
ehartered for more than twenty four years It denies that
defendant only reeentiy learned of the ontry of the dveren of
April 17, 1951, and averse that the last legebly cleected directors
ef defendant had setual knowledge of the entry of the écere¢

and in effeet consented te the entry of memes

The atiawer admits that the returne on the swasoncea eet
forth in the petition show that they were served less than tem days
before the firet day of the April, 19%1, term of the Superior ecurt,
but avers that a writ of summoms w.s served on a director and agent
of defendant more than ten days before the first day ef the pril,
19315 term of that court, end that this summome with the proper
return of the sheriff os to serviee theresf wee exhibited to the
@ours at the Gime the default was taken and the @ceree of digaclution
entered»

The alawer allegea that before the imatitution of the
dissolution procecdings the matter of dissolving the defendant
corporation woe discusced with Mr» (idney 5. dorham amd other,
the last known members ef the board of directers ef defemiant,
and that representatives of compis inant sige aan that defendant
had leng aince cenged to do businese oe a corperation, and thet
there wae mo ebjeetion on the part of defendant or ite regularly
elected effieere to such dissolution. I: demies that <idmey Se
Gorham was met an officer, director or agent of éefendant at the
time of service of sumszeme upom him and avers that there ig on
file in the office of the reeorder ef deeds ef Cook county,
Tlidmois, the eertifiests of organisation ef defencent under the
seal of the corporation giving the nemes of the persons elected
directors of defendant ae required under the Corporation act,
and that sueh recorded certifieate discloses thot Gidney 3+ Gorham,
among others, wae elected a director of defendant corporation.

Baw $2 stulstw xo% anah¢oaw? ods ko Yun hoamedaeg to exeweg aaduade
3 Gods molmeh si satawy Bek Yimawd male soem tot, based sede
ae ooroed sas YQ Brim oss Bo Semseak Yldacoss qine sates bed
pecan tedoote Yilayed goad ond tees whowe bee 2hi@k oTh Shays
chchalaled nae Ye Yt wid lo e@helwonsk Lauton dna dete hate ds & .
# BG te Vine ode o8 Rodmweroe Joatke mz fasts
tes Rhy MANNER eats ne eBEsEe 9 ons date atime ewans ott

SSE
eyed aos wast’ wood bovies stow qodds tegelt works Mokshdeq asia ah. - Maer

cftiey tobxega® ost Bo mues fies Liens ost ke we doakt one. ean
nega dee cetgett> & Ro been saw smemmE he ¢haw @ sedd areve fad
etiag ost? te pao out? was axoted wee ues ak? one énubaeted bid

_ seyong edt datw artemis alae duit Gan 4 tune sans Bo sake ath

oats ed Aedtdhdxs auw Ieosens solve ef oo Sticoeie head ie Di cehhdad
telsuiozet® te oexgoh este ons nolod ia ite wale Gaeks wld Aa Sd

ten a ; i REA

add okbiett sans ous oxored fast paler Sawant —s

RR geet
Stan bate toh eae galvioweih Do noah apis boepo tg, aad

fasts oes “moteoxoneen 2 A ae | enoutent § eh of | he oe, Aime ats
Dadar ett eei To smshnetoh te drag ets my ays d90i08 | ” om
of mnie ted? wotued $i snokengouss> Mowe 08 reeedte na
ond tn thadtotsd de moon *e xodooubs erveh tte 8 ton Ba amen’ t
™ a2 ovens sas overs, bens wats ome ota % ootyen on ae ;
died wood to udsob to awdtope4 ads te anh 7S
wets ohn tunbao tod to mobsonkangee % agsot there » :

ietoots anoareg eutz ‘20 amen ote walrig moksnsoguen | Mpg
_ ste sotaexogre® iit xchat norhuper 0 ce satan ten 0 yiesowst

Ee we: sas

MMOD oh Yeahs Fold epectoustb necorihsnoe beoeg
ato ttategeeg sesbaetod te woseont 4

«he

The anower further avers that there hag been no other oe rtifieate
filed in the ofiiee of the recordar of ceedu of Cock commty, Illinois,
showing the eleetion of sny other directors or officers zines the :
original eertificate wis filed with such recordar.

«Tk abmo Gemfee that vs Jo Schmidt or 7s Bo Brtmmam vere
then or ever had been duly elected ami quelified as president and
aevretary of defendant, that either of them hed sutherity te sign
the petition presented te the court, or that either of them haw
authority te prosecute the petition t¢ yeeate the deere of
Giasvolution entered spril 17, 1931.

it then averse that after the entry of the deeree Spri)
17, 1931, a new corporation unter the mame of the ILlincis “tate
Sutomobile Aseeciction wae chartered by the secretary of states
that the mew corporntion proececdad vith ite organization and at
enee engaged im the business for which 1% was orgamixed; that it
has expenced large quma of money im the suiicing up ef ite businesag
and that it acquired thousands of uewbera anc Sas been netively
engaged in the perfarmanee of its functions ever since the date of
ite incorporation. 14 further avers that defendant and all persons
who were its officers prior to ‘pri 17, 1952, had knowledge of the
entry of the deoree of éineolution and of the setivitier ef the new
corporstion in the building up of ite pueinerss, and preye that the
petition be dimminsed and the decree confixmeds

Defendant's principal contention is that tne trial court
Was without jurisdiction to enter the decree in question or any
decree, insemuch as the record @iseleses that summons was soryed
March Bl, 1931, for the ‘pril, 1951, term ef court, which service
wes less than ten deys before the firet day of shat terms Come
plainant's theory is that ite anewer (te defendent's petition to

vacate the dcexvse of dissolution) alleging that a owanons other

}
i &
HI

| hemo theeeoe reddo ow moe and otesd Sout) Seben xedeut comand OMe
| anton etitwos 200% Yo nheeh Yo aeiieben oni Ye selYio ode al bo hts
add conke erseftto co evedootdh tees ems Yo mebtoode bald petwoile
edcesox doa diiw ie ZIT vow otek id ces pene
exew pcauedat SE OM ve Hbdielos 60 67 geste weds’ oaks ft ae
hue dusblesq as betthfawy bas bedvets civh mood hod “eve to must
pin of “Sixodiva host mend no tadébe dad? .teedastod Yo yatorees
auil seed ‘Ye saddle dads wo adem edt of bodasnotg motéiveg sit
‘te eezmss odd odzemy of dolikong ext stuooseg ot Chxosttus
ok@ed gff Linge toredss wotincouath
ee ee ne a a oe
obeee ubowhEXt oad Ye emer one xobe Modveregos wont 4 keer (WE
podate to Yratouens ail? GE HowEdtAtO Oow mBbFaksona okbdedodl
$a hes molsaatasgre abt Midw pebeobory motdvtogzce wow amd geile
le $£ toms {hoskmeyxo wow 2% dokdw vet esontond edt mi bogegen cond
fementend oti Ye ger gabbthvd sty mt Vonei ‘to sha oyzat bobuegne whit
i Usrlias wow aad ben wasdn to gliniwodd borkwpda at ast ie
i} to biab ony diebs tows emadvon? alt Ye onaarcok tog sae a hee or
| etoneek te baw aeebaobnd gadt axove xedltow) st smotiaxoquonml |
| edi 0 wabe twoint Sat (tery tE Hiegi ot xoneg oxssl tte sh i pnt te
I woe Ht B6 nob divEve® wd to! bre mohtuionnd® to sorecd ase to iy 0
Ah eld dats ail ban seaondaud ast to @u pabbcws oat wh woh exoqras
(shine onteh ons tae onntmatd of molttieg
gusoo Lata add tutd ot nodsnosmov Lagtoaboe atiumbeotet
ts ty molsuenpy ut sern¥d es avsKD oF Molto hedwh “dueditte ann |
bovs0s saw wamman init sesotoeds tracer uff? on Mommmunt 490% |

Os he eee dhs 4 A
soivien Holuw yiusco to ame? 4L80L ghtuy! eld wor 4£b0L 95 fe ivi io
R wise “sored dacs to eb techy oe exotod wpb aor madd awe ow
it ef mekeiteq a tisinineton os) evens eat dots aa wont ‘ota Rey ,

| | :
? 3 aaakto arcana a tasty anyotis wotsuouat> to

bid ee eee

(Wye hy cheesiest ges ti sae
Ws ak a : ee al DA

age

than those appearing im the rewerd was served om defondent mare
than ten days before the firet day of the April, 1021, term, and
that thie eusmome with tho sheriff's return thexveon wae oxhivited
te the ehaneeller before the deeree war entered, vaised an isoue

of fact on the queution of the serviee of summons whieh, vith all
Sther qGueetiens of fue presented by the plesdingas is «2223 pond ing
im the trial court for disposition by the eheneellor vgen eubmiesion
of proper proofs. i

Defendant made its first apyearenee im thie couse more
then « year after the dceree waa entered amd then asserted that
it wae appearing specicliy and for the aole purpoye of securing
leave to file ite petition and urging ite motion therein contained
te Vacate and set uside the deeree af ¢iveclution. ‘fter issue
wae joined on its petition by complainamt’s answer 1% not omly ddd
met requert a hearing but when the couse wage renched fer trial
April 27, 1933, ¢efendant's motion te eemtinue the esuse generally
wae granted by the court.

The record filed here by defendont dees not contain its
petition ts vaeate the deeree nor comelainant's answer therete.
These proceedings were furniched to this court by on additional
record filed by complainent. By omitting ite petition te waeate
and ¢omplaimant’s emawer from the record 1% is cbvious that
defendant did not desire to have the ame considered om the laoue
presented for our determina’ tome

In view of the recital in the deorce that the "Tliinsis
State Autemobile Aasoeiction, a ccrporation, hes beer duly served
with guemens ten days before the return day thereof," and in view
ef the avermente of complainant's anewer that « swanemes (other than
the two shown by the record te have been served upon oidney S-

' Gorham less than ten days before the firat day of the April, i331,
term of eourt) was served em a director and agent of dufendemt more

nok sae

, eine davbaetes ao bevees gew aebowr oils mb gab caonge wands mate
iw eed QTTGL gktaqge wid 2o Gab Werk? ede oweted aya modem
bediditine aew mescedd sudou et Yetwede ond Atte como ate ded
Suse? ne boalat ybewdm aew cowed wit eveled olivecate od? oh
fa dike qholde wnomme Ro salve ode to mobtersy ott mo oat Ye
gathueg £42in of gngniboeiqg aff yet Setmeeovg gon Qo anniieerp vedee

i | okeatmdie aoqy woLLepaute aid ‘Ww webtduege:t set duree Labed mid ah

ae satoorg, a

oom seven aid ak spnatasyqs ve oth vient dmabre ol | eine
taut Setxoens node bea Hoist aaw second end todta emiseed io
Bthuvces Ye seogreg loa a4 toh. hee chinkwege lineage ea 88.
hoxiaiaoe mheved? motiom a#t guigi ome suivlieg abt £2 inlet i
ouoad soth) smoieuionels te evyaeh «id vbiae toe boa otnoey ae
‘bike Yao son at yosene at fapmtalguog ye sold iveg eth me eens:
hated 10% dodeant sav gewne of? poly cud getreed » soped sem”
tereney genes ant cmekdnos 92 codtom ottastastod. gSter 498 tte
a rae i ia o Pee att a
Bak akasmes sem 2009 tonraatod Wo ered wit Gueoet dT 6
setvit? sown atinemthafesos tom. graawh ots otoony of abating
— hanettighe.ms ye tones obit vt hodetuwt econ eget: % oo0rt .
etepny of mel thang adh guté sion gf. «dhemtagemes ot bot byoeet
(dah quokedo wk th biveHs add mo aowERD Aone kgm ee
sient vst wo dotohiaNOR ame end eee at astoph gum, te tenn |
? is ado eubianttase49 19 te bedomeors, |
wephiii” ed? todd gouneh elt at deetoos wt te woky ah
Sevces Viwh need gal gMotionoqeas @ «maldotoonas ott someewh tage
my mt bus “i Bonseds Yoh switys fe opted eyab woe amomue Atte
tectd.xodde) empmaie » sate. ane athe sethdsieils sth so
MO WREL: mo Deven ped eyed. of beg9es pit mvedy fer
itil aston ems Yo yok taskt ots poked | th wed want ¢ i

Rie Lab Raita

@u0m gmebatled io sdausye baw eodeouts » we hovuss ner (4 oe to me col

than ten days before the firet day of the (pril, 1031 term, and
that sueh summona, including the sheriff's return the eon, vag
exhibited to the court at the time the d¢favlt wae taken and the
Geeree entered, we are uneble to egree with defendant's eentent ton
that the deeree should be reversee by uz om a question of leew
while the cnuse is pendimg in the “uperier court on uncetexmined
issues of fact on the identical ouestion presented here, av wohl
ee On other questions raised im the trial ecurt om defendant ta
petition te vacate the decrees “e are of the apinion, rather,
that thie writ of errer is unjustified in view ef the fact that
éefendant on its own motion secured leave to defend and in defending
this cause om ite merits in the Superior court. ‘The esse new
etangs contimued generally im the cours below om ¢efendant's motien
and it may on notice of either party be called up and reinatated
for final determination. “@ ara compelled te the conclucion that
in the present state of the reeard the deeree ef “pril 17» 1931,
is not final ond that the enuse is «till pending and undictermined
im the Cuperior court.

Im the view we take of thig couse we deem it unnecessary
to discuss other points vhich have been urged.

Por the rensona imdigeted the writ of error should be

and it ina diamissed.
PRIT GS BRRGR BISMISGEE,

Gridley and Seanlany JJs, guneure

aoy gxeqrads ovaes af ohana wily gaibeLeg) 4smoommm girlie!

‘e80 bea aedet sow sivete® ost omts ett de dueo ond 09 bedhd icine
mohtaadnes atimetanted Atlw eoxpo a2 efdow ota ew gbonedie eerged
wah te aphiseng » mo a8 Yd oeatores od Binede owxoeh ecto: dads
bontwpedebny ae daveg seisegy? ait md qutbaeq a2 eumng oslt efter
Siw «8 ewrod hedewaosq todtaawy Lagioned’ off oe steak to aennnl

a inotaeteh a duvoe Leisd als of bexlas aaokdnenp testo ae ee
qtetten guoiatqe vd? to ove of .eneons off ehasay of molsiteg
‘acts donk ove te weber Mi Bek tieawtaw et worse Ye ¢itwetdd dame
gakheeted o£ ban awteh of sveel Remwss tolsom nwo @th xe cenbuobeh
Went wasEs OAT 6 AD NOkTOGE ons M2 OTE toO att mb eamad eh
to Stem elinetastob ac woled t1ges ost ah ULiareneg Roemideey ohonde
fetatomtes tea gu hoLies af qytunq teteae Io eodion mo yea eh Sam
dat metantenos end of sedieqmos sxe a8 — «nokdamtesede® Lemkt me?
( gK6RL gE Linge Yo seteeb ual? brevet odd Yo edatgoenoegng gatpm
hewlereschay ne gatheog Lilte of eaten wid pate dae Lemth gon eh
a “8 Caf hom

Wsenssgane 48, monb ow, gatien hdd 20. silat. wm oby. aa? a fo

pre <anwsahapestaepii ic uae

od biwoe gerne Ye shaw os bedantond atogase. edd et) » To a
eo | ctamusenanaaionedl
Si, ae

em ce *

| sen We avon ne

wa duleaye \ 0 ae? #

CHIME AM TS TLgw

atid Ae he: 34

i ica fe ae pean Wet
Ths Se ete we eee: 4
ee i: ily et esa

Gf RE, palit Rf LO RG REE Gate Ma as an Bh di wag Sl Si o
PRY aE Be ts i Bf ie here cat tree we oF

fi pe a i
‘ . ff : i : il
|
$6961 rd
A a Z
saute
THE PROFLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ; :
efendant in lerar, : :

Fi
SRRGE TO MUNICIPAL |
wwer Oe a ee CAG.
274 1A. 667
‘Ez Lele VO

}
Te ;
Pisintiff in oyrer.

Upem a trial by the owurt sithowt a jury seth 2. dlader
was found guilty of violating seetion 9 of the Blue “hy Law (Gh,
32, Cahil's 1932 Tllinois Sevisd “MRCUbGS, pers 254 st seg.),
and judgment was enter ad sentencing him to pay 2 fine of $1,000
ané Gosta. He cocks by thie writ ef errer te reverse the finding
and judgment.

November 1, 193%, the etate's atierney ef Cook county,
upon the compleint amd affidewit of one Cherles Le Deling,
filed an information sdleging that July la, 1932) Flader,
am officer of the Glader GSorperation, di¢ unlawfully aell
te Ubeling securitica defines in ame by the Sllincis
securities at, without compliance with and im vieletion ef
the previetons ef that act, and without having filed in the
offiee ef the secretary ef stale of lllineis the necessary
atatement aud documents pursuant te the provisions of sevtion
9 of the acts and that defendant sald Loo shores of the capita,
ateek of the Glader Corporation to “beling, which securities
Were not exempt from complianee with the previgions ef the
est, and met exempt from that provision whieh required that
| the statement and documents of the iscuer,s specified in and

Se mm

pat eRAWMELEL 3 SLATE AAT 1 SasORe x 7
‘ EARLY THUM OT AULAE gett wh eae CER RET AS NEI
? ¥ ; ‘ $ : a a wa

gant odOnDT TO THVDD t peiaegmenenicimaoninmrse
SBD bedsdS Sobers AMM INES, ses anni

wav tive AOFTHUL GRECEAARE PRE Neo THe ee Re ie
i et Roo gay %O BMOTMtS. rt a GALEV REA S

sewhath oi ‘eels Chl! sivas tw debe welt a Reaee: atten? BR
OS nit! gilt emittt eats te © neh veon gaitoledy te yetkuy beww® aaw
(open ge bee .xeig (ewtedat ty oa lyer atomtet? £20 ef £otded Bh
“ght Yo amt’! < ‘yak br shat gictonestmet dhocosme: aan deme yout, a.
aia’ Sold odbdbve's OY “eit to VEE WINE Oe eaten a> <etneme ban
“Sepasde stood ‘Yo ‘tonto dra eVogaty ede GaUtk (£9 medmeven: wth
8 Sabkoat eat wekteio one 16 shone tte bse ¢ubeicme ot) meqe
qrobald g8SCk gSi viet fadd gutnetio nohsserrotek ma bokeh

tres’ etutwakan tth <donsanediw® ‘eonant’ att’ 20 neektte A
tourist of? ‘qf bad th Bonktes aeeharsee gubiowl of

te unddadety mi bun aikw somuntiqnes “Suata tw 4 #0% aotebaees

edt} mt beth) yakvail tworttiw baa qten sacl Te enotebromy ett
qucsaeved edd wiontiii to stan 2 qeatonoes odd te otto

goivesa to enolaives eid o@ tnege Tey ateemmok ban ¢ i |
sarngin nis to avsain Oot Diet Shiota ant ys Sai MWS
wokskwoes Molde .ynbiod® oF Wohi ecoqne 5 xeband ond ve 2
ede to asotetverg sda Mohw sonatiquos moxt tquoxe ton 9x08
Smid doxkupes Mo ksw wetatverg sade mex sqmexe vou bas a |
ban mt boltivoge «xeueal ott 0 ginal sation re aa

wie

by the act, be filed in the office of the seeretury ¢f state
ae @ cendition precedent te the right to sell or offer for esle
euch steek within the “tate of [Liineis. iefendant entered

@ ples of met guilty.
the state offered in evidemee the certificate of the

secretary of state ahowing noncompliance with the provisions of
section 9 of the act requiring the filing of the statement ond
documents preseribed im that section. It appeared that defendant
had been engaged in the emplayment ageney business for mony yeots
under the name of Gledexr Tmpleyment sgeney wtil June, 19232, «hen
the Glader Ceorporstion was ineorpornted and suceeried to the
businessg thet ¢efencant wae presidest ami the principal
ateckholder of euch corporationy thet after mony visita ta
defendant's office seeking placement in a position, beth Befere
and after the ineorparaiion «f ¢efendert's businees, and after
many interviews with defendant, a vritte ecoutracé was entered
inte between “heling and the Olacer Cerporviion wherein “beling
agreed to purchsce from the corporsiiom ami the eorporatican agreed
te geil and issue te him 100 sheres of ite aomeaon ateok far 01.00%,
ané the corporation 2lso agreed to employ “im a9 a placement man
nt 5159 m month ond to repurchsce the sicek feom him for $1,000
upon bis giving 1t sixty days notice of hic sestre to divpose ef
gums within rincty days from July 12) 1932, the date of the
exceution of the contract; ¢hnt defeméont exeented the eontract
for the Glader Cerporction as its president; that when “beling
paid fer the stock he was given the corporstiom's receipt signed
ty ¢efentent aa president and that She reaeidpt reeltied “the
@idergiawiing *** ig that $1,000 iv to be paid to the Glader
Sorporstiong* that the (1,000 wae depenited in the corporetion

| pank account umd the eortitieate for vv shares ef stock Fas

| inewed ané delivered to ~belings that after a short time “beling

@hade te wretenese ods te sekhte este mt DGLtt of —toe wm? yh
Sion xe3 reYie to Lisa of digin ols Od dupdenorg selsibace «ae
permiae anabasto’ ealomhixi te ededt eels mistgdw doode atl
ait to efapi tides od opeobdve at norwotte staas ptt ,
to aupisivery ad? ttiw tonsiiqaeomen yulwods s8nd9 to ween,
Mee tem teda oct, to aaLit eat gattinees foe ot to © nottoen
guilt dod? Bersegge $3 speldoee dedi at dedttosetq sdeomeoh
eecoy yum x02 easniaed yonsys sonditogme watt it Bepeqne mood dat
medy g8h0L ones Lhiny ‘woneg) sremclen: sebat® te oman as tei

ve Pi a Big pil
Rd et | dodeanene ae aay y LAE

pation stewate pot sexogred wath, ez nn of

Bris ati eA ud

aa me i sonegroe ost me ST, Be #8. reerte ann

Gah

a
ae

GQiI—ele tor mis pie 4 ‘Hoote “wits ausstocint ¢

Bae Res ot tae a8 “ol 2.0048, 4a

te oaoqars ’t ‘gulacd old %e ‘golten Fad, sind inte at aatyty ats

oitd wi odo sutt” ,280r VS cove mort "Wiah Yiontn masta) pone
domusned Watt Wihvitide *Hictatied Mal” vieelians eat te Walia
pulieit wind? taitt fasseing ee "tia cccen aenaee
bomb Veh uver Waclyneegres tat marly aan ene, co x0 |
atte” butlowt sleds" “od? tent de tee fcbiang ea arth ne
THdekh oft winebotphiatin ES tas
noid omogras with ah bo¥taoybn’ hue’ O00, wh
sows ta thntsh Wak MLAS wat ten’

Beh Led wats vts's sive a

“=

was discharged from hie position; and that thereafter he tendered
the sivek te defendant ond demanded the return of hie money, whieh
demand waa refused.

Defendant's evidence wea to the effeet that the entire
$10,006 eapital ateek of the corporation wae subseribed end issued
at the time of its incorporations that the etoek sold te “beling
belonged to defendant and not to the cerperationg and that «lihough
the $1,000 paid by “beling for the stock was origimally deposited
in the Glader Corporation bank account, it was thereafter apyre-
priated by the corporation te defendant's personal use,

Defendant contends that the finding anc judgment are

against the sianifest weight of the evicenese; that the scale vas
within the exemption ef class "5" securities (par. 2596, svbseeti on
Xp section 5 of the act), in thet it was an iselated or individual
gale by an owner of his own property for hie own account; and thet
the state fniled to prove that the wtoek sold to “Geling by
defendant wae ef the class that required the filing in the effice
of the secretary of state of the statement im writing and the
documents required under section } os o condition pregedent te

the sole of sugh stock.

The theery of the abate in that the sale of the stoek
under consideration did not come within the exemption ef class
"B” securities as previded im subsevtion 1 ef section 5, ami that
din any event the burden was on cofendant te prove such exemption,
which 1% entirely failed to de,

Mwhetantially the ease questions «e are presented fer
deteruination in the instant ease wore deeided by eur Supreme
Court im the Ysople v. Johyeons $55 L1lLs 380, where, in reversing
the jucgments of both the 4ppellate and Municipal courts entered
im « wimiler prosecution for violation of the Blue Sky Law, the

ve Pky eerie

oo
hocekies od <oPReowontd Sartt Sed Gubtetaeg eld aoet Seytalonkd daw
Aelite goonce oid to mivtox edt? boheumeh bor Pore ted of Mpove' ents
2 ee
othime odd date sovtte os ov naw eonebies Witmaine Pe Oo ©
wowaul Bae hedkiovdve sew aokiarogzes ans te etal Sad tenn 200,0n8
gntledy ey bfon wooty oat? Yaad YOtvadegveoNt BIE Yo ent! oid de
Aguestite tad? Bete qroteweoqsen edt oF Hot haw snubsetos o¢ SuanelteN
beiteoloh Uikartgtxe kaw foots wat) ret yetedt ye bkag’ Ova ald
semua odtao cats sew ¢ ginwoook daad porennysgl ‘wats ce 3
eu Eenomveq a! featinsted ef net wtoqied said ot bodied
ein trsmmhsl, Sen gekbol of dace abelnemos v2
usw eho wld toxtt goouedive odd te tigior snot hc ott ‘ bas ¥
co nna ves wea) eid busoon “ wants fe sat. wid be

doote ode 2 ofpe ous galt ot otats ats te ceed ot
sgalo ta wolsgpous ost aiddte moo soa “heb moksoteb uses
facts Bem 3 meligen to £ wat ivendion a hal

et ne ee |

TO% hesnoneTy ota we aneksoup vaca by Uaronasadye . ‘
connate YF Dedowh oxo eae Mmadenk ould an | 10 3A sas

autexoves mt «ered OBS of ft 286 “saommtek oy alae ots a

"Stat samen

ole

eourt held 2b ppe 338 nnd 4O9s

"This ense must be decided under the previsions ef the
lilineis Cecuritier act in feree at the time of the sale, and
ail veferences to such aet are to the set in feree at euch time.
* * * There was no evideneg by the People te ehow whether the
ateck traded to ‘oucherty wan claam 'Ay’ 'By' *U° ox ‘Set The
record is barren of the finanelal stending ef the cangeny in.
either July er ay Cann. i920, what its agsete and lisbilitée
were and whether it was solvent or imselvent. © * ®

“While the certifiente of the feerctary of dtate offered
in evidence proved prime fecie that the Pairfax Company had not
complied with either parsgraph (ns) or (») of section 7 of the
Tilinois Securities set, yet it did net prove that the securities
of the company were in either elnes "0° er elese "2’ nor ddd it
prove that such certificates were class ‘At er class 'B' securities
Swidence must be produged by the Scople showing im what classes the
securities belonged in a proseeubiem under the eet. If the preef
ehowe that the esourities were class 'C' or @lass 'D* geeurities,
then the certificate of the Jecretary of ‘tates, aes provided
paregraph 5 of section 57, becomes material ane otmpetent, but
without evidence to ehow that the scouritiesr in <uestien are claas
‘C! or clase *h* the ecertiv‘iente of sueh secretary is neither
material nor cempetent. The burden Was wot on the defendant te
prove within what otatutery definition the securities of the Pairfax
Company fell, but 1: waa the duty ef the ‘eople te prove beyoudt a
veagonable doubt that the securities were cither ¢lass ‘'C" or elass
*S' securities. This could be done by direct proef of that fact
or by proof that the securities were not in cither elses 'A® or
@lase 'B.' ve: 19 SIO Tile 55S, doee not hold» ae von-
tended by the “eople, *% the burden ig upon the defendant to
prove that the stocks in question were not cleae 'C' or elass 'h*
securities. We may be very esuepicious that the securities in
question were elasa ‘U* securities, but Jaweuilte eanmet be devided
on gurmis@, conjecture or suppositi « Sefere the burden wan east
on the defendant te prove that the sele mete By Aim wee within any
of the exemptions provided ty paragraph 2 of seetion 57 of the
Illimeie “ecurlifes act, the “eeple must first have mace out a prime
ease proving the defendant's guilt os charged, beyond a
reagonable doubt.

es * & * *

“It ig not neceneory in the stete of this reeeré em She

court to decide whether elags '0' securities may be eold by ¢
fice amer thereof for hia own secount, se under the exemption

@ fer ¢laas ‘'S,'
“The evidenee €i4 net prove the guilt of the ¢efendant

ag therged, beyond all reasonable doubt.”
The intreduetien of the eeriifieate ef the secretary of

atate te the effect that seetiow ¢ ef the set had not been oamplied

with wae no preef whatever, and there wae me other evidence offered

tending to show im what eless the sieek invelved here pelonged. if

4t belonged in cither class “A” or clase “By,” compliance with secetion

9 was unnecesearys The burden Wass therefore, upon the Peeple to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Glader Corperstion stock

ede

Be i) ow SS8 egy oa Sheol Sd

eG te ametabvesy eff wooeat Debheoh eG Soom sume GEAR Co oo hh
bus gelesen od? to omte odd 2s eaxe?t oh t98 enhatavent ‘etonhiit
-ouds aorta ge eetet al tea alé of wum dee sous ad woomese tee dis
eas <otifedw weds o¢ elgorl oe 8 pouebive en new evedt * * *
wae teil? ay 1D" gM? 44° o gow Yttedgees 2 Seber? deods
rom ry age ko ore snemdt odd te mexsead af a
CRLiGaks fowe ateuan o&h daciy 42@S@h ete
st * * © ,§movkonak te avedoa a $ rates La OI98

229 Sends Ve YLadotese » ote of bate oy
— Soe moo xehtlel esf2 aude re, soasbive ‘at

ee te nektoos ae. (0 (Si ie

er ae bg Boag B aVG ty

apa fate mabe.
ivy foe ton "delsdawoet cioaltis
wabbituere ‘a seato ve 'A' ovale sxew » seotssen ane ts vores
pends Po ba ge “Ai on te wok éw eal de "
eiuses a guieds eanks ary
tO pando as on " Pr mapirind - ‘te tion a at
usdomt womoood 2 ff tolsove cory

agate es fon 0} se bs Ma yy siee att goat were Of vonohive ~ inte

woddien of pisee Moun te stort sine ot ‘at we so 'O!
od éuabasiod vd wo don anw moied eet

matrie®t oslo Ie sehiiurove ons modsind ted ediaane jane jo a
@ weoged ewig ef olqeet ots te Kind wht auw GE dot yhied

tealo 40 °D* vento sodgio exer pehéiunpon ale tact? sewed siesetet
fea't fads oO Beene toarks vd eset otf Binge ale? sagidiuuesa

£0 °A*? gueko sodie mh gon gxer golst zaea ols Sanka be a wi id
emee ae ghLed sow eoGd ¢S98 «ffi O£8 |

Of énebneted off meqe of sobumd oct2 eo — 9 wate bo bnad
’c' vanle to *O' esate te¢a oxew nobiaaup at adoota. ot? SVSSg
2 woidicwoon eff gad avoted seer od yom oF -aolsboen
Sodiees og jecuan stivawal ane 4 taoea “i! geaode. seem no
tan ser mebiud as sxoted. rie jth oi
eee rey eae min wd ohem.odnn ond

Te goitoes te & peek . 4 wedivoue a ieee mr al ee ,
amiss #2 ue give ered dank? dau .

& heeyed ghoguads az ‘tlua'sVenshoesat ay

said alt? wooes piste to oe she at oe at te
‘et ata ee Yaw oetéd tunoen HE isses ‘atadds ev aoe og poner .
nakiquiny bine toh ae siampona ewe gis sah wen,

dma berate sale to aLiuy ont Mand... fou oth S,fos 2b opment
sagan

‘te Yxateres eats to sono Ata te modes Sucoill

-5e

belonged to either class *C" or clase "D," ae defined by the
Seeurities A@ie

The evidence in this ense did not preve the eublt
of defendant, Ginder, as charged, beyend a reasonable ¢oubt.
The judgment ef the Mugicipal court ic reversed and the came
remanded.

#
tot
s

HETUR SEE fe
wehe Wo ce se ARMS

Gridley and Semnlan, Jie, soneure

tas} oN torn Mie
Ay TF aus.

Fas WSS So aah ase
Sirs tet
tales
tf a Pyeyioe
Ue ai Sen pring
ganda Posten vit pall
eohe gecmeatn Paeser ik
see ha: seatil 8

a nee
Ra OE Ree Sie
wen hua Gk Yvan sees Ne
ad Wanse tee ae ae Ga eat «
By kat i es Tek py We a age ais a od
KX teaged prey ehoalaaet ade Ge wien
wonts we 2° wantin saldde exwe gods
Rat sue ee: eee RE eee tae: ae
a AS Re ke WMS ae ole axe
ee mn meal say
OS setetene Sa wel Pees sae
1) poate . oy: “o git Pam Preven
RE satel d dese
itchy > oe dacs ?
on ha ae ees eae sus

ak i gall : re ce | mee a Mea
a rome a pee: Sade a tt hab bas.

i] Er
ed YEE Degas ty 4h oS 48 al we
a Rhos Se er mee tus |
soiled a Only ‘Sey aie ane seta ee ee eas,

ciliata ro nile ie €8hey cht wei
My REN

36976

GILLIAN My BOLLE,
Appriless
APPEAL FRG MUOMICIAAL

COUR? GF GHTaaca.
274 1.4. 667'

Bie PUGSERING JVOTICN OUI Val
Sabah THB GPINGU OF Ths UODRT.

Vea

Ws 7 MADNICK and 3. BALHIGH,

doing business ag Lakewood

Developers Organization,
Appellants.

ican he a ce Bit Pee line ee Aces

By tunis appewl cefenudamte Ne Ge Nolniek ond B, Malnick,
doing business ux Lakewood Sevelopere Organization, seek to
revéerné @ judguent in faver of plaintiff’, “illiem ii+ Neelle, for
2199 entered in tue Mumivipal cwurt Jume 14, 1935, on the verdiet
ef a jury.

Sisinsifi’s statement of eloim alleged that Jume 3%, 1951,
he entered inte « eritten couteset with defendants for the con-
eiruetion of & ¢welling house at Bégerton, “isvonein, whereby they
agreed te build same im a goed end workmanlike mamer with “¢ inch
eedar porta, crecsote painted, sumk in cement ***3 tengue amd grovve
fir siding, free of eracks «mi piteky Hentolater face brick fire
Pince inside} a1] material, laber, haréware furnished by the builder
wee ef goed aubetantial materisig;” thet defendante did net comply
with tee contract in that they failed te ereasote the ecdur poste
before setting them in the coment to pleimsiff'a domage ef $1605
that they furnished and imetalleé « wracked mantel im the fireplace
8$@ plaintiff's damage of 5155 thet they failed te properly seal the
eit ines voor aud walle adjacent te the chimney in a good and worke
amiike manner to plaintiff's damege of 915; omé that although

HAN ee: Ly re 11% i

Fes Pee en
aH wee EY Wi

yee acy |

AAGIO TRON BORE TARAS.
sQOADTHO- FO Tin

‘gga AI AYS

etotnteX .% hits Mudd 8 Kt apnabaotad Lawewe ate ye
od Meme guokicalmegr( araqedoyo’ boomers es wnat :

od qoLtvak 6M matitty qYetvataty to covet at temambet @ Oetavee
dokwiny ode an <E0CL Ox om oes Loytelnmi aie ak needa OLE

e168L gO% news fais bogedia wteke te smanetabu sie a a ‘
enoo ot wt atnmbdrotsd déty doanduoe mavOber » oveh beet ee”
Codd Worse ymbanovet? qnocvepe to casa gukiiews @ to hottertiy” |
Houk 9° déte xem etttvantcow faa boy » mt oman thew of be rt f 3
ovo Ome ewgnes >" ravine m2 sien .dodmtor sranoeeD gaeneg tahoe
ORE volad vext retuLovae gatodtg amo eilemro to wey ygetbhe

qigeeo tow bib adambnetod hacks + *yatorenean satenatetoe toon

| gheeg sabee ek? eFoadow ot Batted ered pak i bonne
100k! Ye oMemAd a IME OF Ame oy mh me
“eds Lane coencong of hotbed tt 083 wee _
| sattow tae boom a mk yonmito ad OF 7
_ Kpectaca taste pms GREE Ye ogauman ot

age

repeatedly requested to moke sulteble repeira te fulfill the terms
of their contract defendants have refused te do ae to Plaintifits
damage of $190. lefendonts neither filed em affidevit of mex ite
mor effered any evidence upon the trial.

Plaintiff's theory in that he had a right te reeever for
breach of the contract by defendants in failing te provide essential
items of vonstruetion ae epecified, and by reason of defeetive
materials furnished and poor workmunship employed an eertain parte
of the building, and that there was ample competent evidence te
justify the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court.

Defendemts contend that demages due to the alleged defeots
vere mot proven upom the trial by competent evidenees, and that the
trial court erred in foiling to sive ony imetructiona ts the jury.
To the contention of defendants that the trial court fatleo te
inatruet the jury it is aufficient emexer te way that no inetruetions
vere olther offered cr suggested te the cewrt by them, and inasmuch
@s Ghe bill of exeeption: feila ts disclece any obicetion on the
part of ¢efendamtea to the Zollure of the court te lmetruet the jury
they cannot be henrd to urge that point here for the first time.

The aelient frets as they sppocred from the evidenee are
that the gedar posta were net painted with ereosote; that the mantel
Wage Grucked when the building was turned over to plaintiff, thet the
sidings reef and walls adjoiming the cuimmcy were not properly sealed,
thereby permitting the rain to enter, that, inasmuch ae the lower
portion of the buildimg wae fully enclosed, pleimtirf did not diseower
the fuilure to creosote the eeder ports under (he building until a
few months after he tock pessession of same «whem he dug under the
budiding te construct a storage room? that many complaints were made
and defendants requested to remedy the defeets in constructiong that
upon dcfendante’ demand for the laat £37 duc them om the contract

for the erection of the ouiiding, plaintiff insisted that before he

euved ac¢ LLktint o¢ atiaget ofdediwe dtenar betaea pee yibetasget
e'ttttmtata of of 05 04 dente t evel aduabtete® ¢oandmon chedé to
afiwem to Jiventiia ae beLlt veddien etmatne tot s0@L% Yo wacnnd
akaix? off aoqge eowebive Yo sovettte ‘tom
sok veyeoes of ddyis o Sad of feild ab yroods we BEReeieG 8
Sniéavene obkvetg of unilialt at atnabaoteh <a icoxdmos oats ‘Ye sonowd
ovitecteh to moenet Ys tre «hotitoogs es avi sovsseuso ‘te someat
andre nlaiie¢ ao hoya tgns gideramtisow veoq tent verde tera sad eotnin
o¢ someblve snedeqmoo olqua wow wxoett Jade tad yonkhtiad att So
sixmoe oct? Yo Inamgbus acd dee ose} sdf So sobbtoy ocd yRheowh
afoetes bogetia edt ef exo sogemah fend. Aastneo atirbas ted oi RES
ons gad? has ,oemebive suedegnon qd Letse ony KOEN AOTOTE tom ster
Crh sdf og ammiygutians wis gyi, os galiies at berxe ¢ampe dott
OF beLtod fxmoe Ladys ost ted? adtnbaetod Ye motemeznog ae
wnekioaaiant om dald you OF tawams JeotolYiwe wt af yxwh ede, "

Hommeant bus mots vd soo od) of hedwengue ae Sexe Ro xodiths | cer

edit a getieotde yxs ougtoats 63 ghiat euckéqesne Ie Lid odd ea
Yuet of? sowrgent of tumoo oct to omahdet. odd o 4 - setviteits te ton
pee. He IRR 0). we epee. Amnon Heme mpi. ae: dane, sssmeels |
ota enneblys afd most hetesqge Youd ae wdond smedtow aft. |
foiuam al? tote jodeucore dilw sodmiag dom wrew. csovm aon at tae |
o#d tadé gVittatelg ef zove comms sow pakoliwd add nouw, boat -
shetave Yireqerg Jen gave Gommlsto vs? gebatoton nkbie: Weeitene pai wo

Rewel wis as Mommonmk géadd guages of shat odd yabitioweg vdeo
aeareonsh Jos RLS Vismole _deeckens YAdet ame gebbibed wdde ter,
a Atoms padbiiud sat soon eteog. saben odd efoacoxe of oxwbted: sy
eas seheN BHD oo wade omas. 70.edARoOROR dented, sete gale
Chat exow cinkaiqone yanm, dade gmoot eparete a domrdemen:
fads quotesusdangs at adootob om? Yoemen 94 betueupen «
Sounéare et ao sini? aud YEE. taad edd net, dammod.re nesbab
ot aoted Gadd bodetumt thimiadg egaukbLinw ads te monsoons eat ,

pals some defendsnts must agree im eritine to make the necenvary
repoirs and replacementsy thet they geve him euch written sgreenent
Oeteber 24, LOT, at which time he poic them the 9892 that painting
with ereosote bhout doubles the life of cedar porte that te
preperly ereosote the cedar poste the siding “ould have to be
removed from the houses the house rodaed om jacks, moot of the
fleor removed, the poets removed fram the cement foot ings where
they were imbedded, the foctings removed aad new ones put in their
Place, the poste reset im the footings after they were ercescted ané
the siding and floor replaced after the Jncks were removed and the
building lowered te the cedar post suyporte.

The evidence ig undisputeble that the building as turned
over to plaintiff did wet comply with the epeciftientions of the
contrect and waa cefcutive in ihe respects heretefere ses for th.
Plaintiff never accepted it from defené=nt until they ¢awe him the
following written stipulation:

"The iakewood Developers Organisstion agroen ae per

letter semt to the loyon lumber Company uncer date of

October 24th, in the event etete¢ cefeets in house owned by

Mre Noelle anc erected by the Joyem lamber Company exiate

and if mot repaired, or repleged by the Doyen Lumber Company,

the Lakewood ceveleperg Organiantion agrees to do gee

mekewood Developers Craunimatian,
py 8s Balnick.”
+Sefendants refused to make good on both their origival

eontraet and supplemental agreements but inwist thet plaint ittta
domages were not proven with the exactitude and preciaion they
aasert the low damands im this chersctor ef ease. An exper teneed
gentractor testified that 14 would take even more than the amount
the jury eaw 24% to allow au damages to make the repairs and
Yeplaceomentes necessary to have she building contorm $e the require-
mente of the comtrnct., Hie testimeny staméis umoontradicted and
it furnished a basie for the Jurore, testing it by their own

experiences, to make « reasonable allewanee of dammgece

Tenses eA oe vtant OF pamka iene tb oorgpe tus gtasbasts> mma dtag
daamowrge sind tiew sown att ovsy yedd sat favemacomlges ee cil
gakinkag gare aver ade mods) Diag ot gmbe cintcw te qht@L 498, vadnge

od dast? padsog taboo Bo @kke oct aoidned tae agoncete aitw

od-08 wand biuaw guide: edt ntneg xobee na ndomnone VitOGo Ta

ede Woo tuom yetont me Sooke exand oo eousost oct? sooth bevomex

qonute vgn teo't sme cad amt tavomec otuod ont _ bevoume rood

bas hotannmte array yet mda anaksoo’ weit ai Conon adacg eet «o0a

ed? Waahorvontet otme-walantt walt othe Aeendaet ‘oxet). hte peck nke ate

| sndroggm deg tion ond of betewt er

herded oa gedetiunt wt? dnels pitotwgubbms ut weed ve ee ae
welt % gxotten kitovgy ert? sibs yhgnes few Wb: Siddetale of tere
tere? Row eretor seat edanqees cabal De ee soerduae
othe ats ere ast iiteu Inedas'toh sey @2 bedgaora Soyer wut wks os

_amottekughin magioy gale resto

ver 50 ae Ler
pipe. sphinsinays ae 2 anaanierss att ete

shia ere 5 sears ie ites as tee ae
wou. “pi woyot ode yd & berhages i som 32 ia

nga Like dy —
mn ieksial .% Xo
Lonkgize tied? dlod me boog edam od Soomtox adarbre ted 08 ve
‘etetlenlate gaat delant tad (ememoonye ietoomelgqye fs feetonen
tee moteloote bua obutteonxe odo Coie sore Ry tom ere eogiaiah
beeueitegxs aio Suane “Ro -rodasaiioty uits et adommed: wad owt? pones
byes olf meld ote nore olet bioew 0% anaes Hest ined ToTQOTAHS
Bical sbinepitel als via oo hogAmos wa wOlLa’ ot TEE i tat

Defendants contend that -he veréiet wae againet the
manifest weight of the evidenes both ae te thede lisbility and
the award of dumages. ‘his Jury heard the witnesses Lestify
and it wag preeminently «ithin its power ta determine if they
were worthy of beliew. Th: tr iat dutge sleo heen! and saw the
witnesses amd approved of the verdict of the jury. In thet
state of the reeers thie cous) will mot disturb the weretet
UBles« it ie Bamifestly againet the weight of the evidenes
which is mot the ense here, (Bradley v. Bahwer, 193 lle 152}

We are of the opinion that substantial Justice hag
Deen done between the parties. She judgment of the Wanicipal

court ie affirmed.
JUDGMENT AWVIRMED,

Gridley ana Ganlene TJs, comeure

MARR alee ye

st i ah hs en

as fentane apy Sobbsey oat a basis 9, MANA TET, acatigi .
ie Witildadt shed of ae Hod.» a 20 aaaten os i

if yee «5 8 ty ,
RSs: veh ei salt let ton a2, iia 4

| we ™, —- tub ie Sod

“ a ba ims

a ay ye
Me ae
r nya: ARS # eh Rae eis ae AN Ry ae fey’ Mt
;

vase 8h anatanne,

: — me

% any sibs

Ni 3 iS ie R
, a BM ae aS erg ae ye
: “i
, baat mere? A E ; Facial oso 5 wd %
i” te 53 } wy ; Ve Ama Mh, Sina Keay Ghat ee ra ad

alae Sm

Tepe we ect
AS DR AN

ieee 8 ie ‘bate.
avin Sia ot IMR re.

a3 grind ;

HS I RA aS Sino

od meas by Sa! eid et uiaain salt

S788 Fe Meer <—

ARTHA LIFE INSURANCE CO oy
a Corporetian,s
Appellec,
Ve

MATTIE MARSH #t mle
COUNT, COOK COUNTY,

On appeal of HATTI“ BacsH,

}
APPEAL Pri CLRGUIT
Appellant. )

Mie PALCTDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN
ERLLVERSD THA OPIMIOCN OF THE COUNT.

This appeal seeks to reveree a deeree of the Cireuds
ecurt entered Hay 11, 19349 ordering the payment te Lucy “mith
of $904.24, the preeeeds of « Life imeuranee policy. Complaine
ant, \etmoa Life Ineurnnee Company, filed a bill of interpleader
alleging that Mattie Mareh and lucy mith, dcfenidanta, were
Claimants te $1,250 inewranee on the life «f Gus Hero, who
@ied January 3, 1935, and thet it desired to bring the money
into court te be paid to the party determined by the court to be
rightfully entitied therete. Beth defendants filed anewers
asserting their respective claima, am the fund wes deposited
with the clerk of the court.

From the undisputed evidenee it appeared thet Juguet
2%, 1926, the deeecent, Gus Barak, was a wewber of Swift &
Company Employes' Benefit Assveiution (hereinafter referred to
as the association) and as such mace an application for @ 21st ©
group life insurance policy, which ehertly thereafter was iaeucd
to him by complainant; that in hin appliestion for such policy —
Lucy Pi¢kett (iucy Guith), his then mistress, wes named

| , oe |
\ ‘ \ ’
4 : \ ™ \
| | t pool tones ‘i i
vedi Boas Qasr ) OF. nu saapky:
TUES AO FIR | ‘i ‘Ha to an aaa
fi i ha Bo bey a
899, ALY 5 wits Yo Shoat

ee apxecil ber carcioe oe
» TAWOY ANT, Oo ROTM WAS LEAL ES” >

thwouk® aay Io voroed a enteves ef wieon Longe a Ny
Ao tone youht 08 serommyae, ond qetbrobee gGbOL gE yell berger » 90
eniaipand «ytiog sonatas wit he! bad edosneny ont 18 Pee : _
eben digne ne to ifid @ belit erase eons crant oth antes ‘ae”
WHOw gadtebmo toh geht Am! quad ice dha ase @RS dh mabe yal pein

ost? gintall ow To etal ald to @pmmawerd 0090 oF gtmmmbade
Wetow odd guicd of Bexlewh 22 cad Bee ghOOL gf Yeaumt pekb

od of duwno ests YC benterreded Yitoq ed? of Stag od of Fae ey
atewune bolt? oitabacteh Asek. seers. poked ties ef |
bedtnoqed enw buy ssid be sustale e¥hicsquws ehecte wateroone

a” ethwe to. ween a eae ‘dani = stuobensd — ROL
vs beuTD Rox 1elentere) Mrakeveas ettonal tasyotga _—
OMe @ wl MOkcorigge me sham soe am bme (motsateovan onte
bowen! anv tes tow sony yhtseds Meldn yyoktog sommorent wre quowy
Wotleg Aous xo% nold sp tLaqe aid a2 soate i tnantedgmos
. bones oar samen aed ai (aa at) tm

ale

beneficiary uncer the é¢elguntion "Lucy Moves wifes” but that

So beneficiary was named im the origina? Gertifiente or policy

of insurance iswued te him pursuant te such Spplicationg that
Horch 29, 1923, Gus Boren applied for an additionnat $19000 tneure
anee wnder the terme of the same areup insurance contract betucen
the sevociation and Complainants that Lucy Piekett, whe vas Living
with him ase his “wife” at the time he made applicctien for the
first policy, had separated from him in February, 1927, and married
one Tan Omith Wareh 169 1927— that Hattie Mareh wae married te
Gus limreh Way 4, 198, and lived with him ac hie wife up to the
time of his death; and that the appliention for the additional
#19000 policy when Presented to the inewred for hiv signature
contained substantially the fellowing printed ang typewritten

language:
"Qwitt & Company A@tne Life Ingwrange Scmpeuny Ge hi GBF
BaBeAe Application for Group Life
‘ sia: 5 ne
‘SRR at ae ae enter gimpinitnin ARONA M See aRSt a.
- 6
Se29e28 AOD

pply Ler sdditional group life imvuranee in the

= hereby «
amount of P1—loc, subject to and in aecordange with the termes of
Group Life Incuranes Pelley Noe 3380, and riders, lasued to “witt
& Company loyes Benefit <ececiation by the Aetna Life inouranes

pean ta Hartfords Commeetiout, and i gree to teke and hereby make

appliextion for such additional inouranee ie vhich I may hereafter,

from time to time, be entitled under asid plan.»
~ Signature af Appl ieant.*

Tt further appeared that Marghy before signing thie second

Spplication, serntched out with ink the word “lacy” and wrote in the

Word “Eatites* ond thet a policy fer the additional $1,000 inourance

“we issued to him bearing the some date as the appliention with Mattie

tute aud “gotie ,datak youd* aokiamareed estd cons grate hroned |
qeiiog x elaniitesen Lackgt ao et? at Senet sew Yolo tioned om

badd qookientiggs somn of Imemowwg mit ad homawt oom ienk to
otents O—gko Lamettthba co tet betigge cecatl out Sih hid morals
mented éowctmon sonorunt quony vote oi to emnes OAs canbe ONtA
pahwdd aor cele qttuale ks quad Maite piosttioigacs ten sobiekeonas Pro
aft tot mebtawdiqne wham es omke oth Ue Wgtho* whet no ms ath |

hod rime Due eTROL cyneiedat mt abd stow hotanmgen ose ayplloy te ott
od pobrnam azw deve shite fete atnes ah sotan dttm “eae ono,

add od qu Rb niet nid wets dahw DowEE Bua yOReL > Qed dat oe
kenetethtn ons ok mobeastigan ett tanie ee gene ated sae oaks
qrudemyte etd 10% bosmenh of 69 betmuotg ody wettog oath

motttxoogeé ona, boémbeg onbeoliyt watt chtadvandade Seutmanen

om? at seid orte query |

"bes msi a oat du dw

ake

Wiarah named ag beneficiary on the face of the eertifieate,

The group life insurance policy contract between the
association and complainant containes the following among other
provisionas

“This policy, the application of the assceistion and
the incivicual applieutione, if any, of the members insured,
comatitute the entire contract between the parties hereto.”

‘amy member insured hereunder gay upon uriiten request
signed by the member designate a new beneficiary aa often ag
é¢siredg such dewlgnation to become effective emly upon receipt
of same at the Home Office of the Comparny

The certificates of insurance icsued te the seeotient
under the group pelicy or contract contained thie provisions

“In the event of the death of any insured member at any
time or place, from any cause whetevever, the amount of insurance
then in foree upon hie lite will be paid to the last duly deaige
mated beneficiary or beneficlaries., The beneficiary may be changed
at any time uncer and subject te the terme of the policy .*

It nleo appeared that complainant paid to Hattic Marehts
wife of cecedent, the $1,900 ineuranee covered by the weeond ceortie
ficate, and that the basis ef thie action is the GL,0Oo covered by
the first certificate which the chancellor ordered paic to Lucy
Malthe

Defendant Hattie Mersh contends that when the insured
made hig application for the additional £1,500 insurence he
Gefinitely intended to make her the benefieiary of the original
91,000 as well as the additional @1,000 insuraneeg that veoth
snouts aa well as the name of Lucey Hargh, benefieinzy, appeared
om the application card presented to him for the additional
insurance, and that before signims some he struck owt the mame
“Lusy" and wrote in the name “Mettie*; that with the name of imey
Marsh stricken cut and the amount of insurance of whieh she way
beneficiary remaining in she was thereby intentionally eliminated
as @ beneficiary; that under the terme of the group policy the
- dmeured could change beneficiaries as he pleased, simply by filing

& written request with the company; that his application for

ate
sodagsitizse ad? ta seek wid mo Yreiotiensé a beeen seta

es navwd od Joatinoy yoiloy sememvent eltt quote oft ee
tosléo anome gritwottos aie Sendudmoo dieileiqaes Dna sold alvogas

Igtas maken hpeone adi to aofgoc * eas
dango md

awiteg aidt®
Py axodment ad¢ te gyn” yarol aul da Lawblvibet eit?
*,otorved welsiag waa arewled Seatdaoe wslden ald inal

davspet mosdiue ts sobeeted boxvesh xedaeai ye
on esto ae i, Hone teat Pager yo 0 — - vat : wt bengts

saat cy eva dee ® omoeced of woltomgies
” pect *.—sqae! ed Xo sekYRO onto ods dx =e

dushooeb oft ot hovend oonauwent to nedoed itv eft SM:

snotelvorg etd seaknines doaxtia wy Yodfoy query elt conta

‘tna da tedmen Sy «wend pe Aaa ye eli homey i 2, ee Selle
eomemant Yo dean, eld 9%

aha eae oats one aaa sealg xe to ‘entd
h e Sidw
hoped sd Noo sett, tteusd eat® eft «eehualektened to eralertoued ogee

) Sayed keg edd Yo omsad asl of tooidem hae sober end gaa ide
etlarcM otgiel of blag émanialguoe tare hotesagqe ome FL. yyoinug

eiixeg baoooe oe yd boxevoo sanstwams Oat) ons stagheaed te ehiv
Vi Dexevon 060,47 ole at tokio ald? Yo stead ont tasty ote gadaodt
wat of hing bexedze not Lovends ba Meise of nohts ase Pisia

hesimeck oc? oslo > beaks utente ox eetald snatne tod ngs
oe Oomwrwand 000—L6 Lanetehbbe vele x0 moissatiggs wid. aan
Lontgive oft to vistoltened od? wok exam of bobmroest vied or
ada Sond geome mand O00¢k) Lamps Luva elt: 2 Lio an O0akD
hetaega sviniodionnd ea tal Kobl. Xo wae ond hasdisae' aa ’
Lanelstrie est sok ai oe vedmecss Been. sdisei lage

‘woud Yo taux ed Atte dnels tobsan ie vt hh eelvur halt nate”
naw ode Solty Ro oomexdekk to ¢eniame off ina two sedelate dere
hedantwife yYLkanohtacsnd ydeseds wax wee mt baker anon ntodteneg
ois YokLog query sed Ye ames wcly cabin dosti peenins od
‘BERET YS ylqnie abenvetg of an eobsatodiomed epnado | ¥

,
wind SOF ohss Ae:

Wot mokteettqgs abd tend Ptegatno ‘odd Keke dteoupe mteher a,

ode

acéitional ineuranee conatituted auch written request as to the
original policy; ond thet inaemuch as the applicntion wag
apecifieslly wade a part of the Gomtract of insurance 4t wag
intended to and éid cover 511 of the inaurance whieh he carried
with complainant under tts aroup policy contract with the
aeseciction.

Defendant Lucy Smith’ « theory is that she was made
beneficiary of the original 19000 certifieate before Nettie
Marsh beenme decedent! g wife; that the application for and the
iguuenee of the certifieate tor 49000 additional ingurence in
no way affected herrighte; thet the fact that Mattie Harsh was
the last named bencfieciory in point of time aid not eanecel the
original declaration of venefi¢iaryseoncerning Liself with the
segond policy onlyg that the provisions of the inouranes contract
apecified that a member might “upon «ritten request sigaed by
the menber designate a new benefielarys" that it was necencary
te order and direet the company formuily, in writings, te change
the beneficiary befere such chemge sould ve efferted, that this
wag not Gone by decedents and that therefore the first appliceticn
Genignating lucy March aw beneficiary waz still im full foree and
effect ot the time of ineured's doathe

There ia wething im the record te inétieate that when
decedent signed the application for additional ineuwrenee he had in
contemplation anything except the additional imewrance. It is
true that the application form filled owt as heretefere set Lox tit,
before it wae prenented te him for his signature, esrried a
memorandum of the original group policy showing the amount of
game, the date applied for and the amoumt of the weekly premium.
However, in the absenee af evidence to the contrary it is a
'xyengomable inference that the only purpose of complainant in
listing the originel imeurange on thia e¢eond application waa for

etd of an taeupes worti<w dows hedwStéancs sonetweet Lanwhir hed
‘gaw aobtsekiqgn ond ea stoic sist tad! bec prolteq Sonkgive
caw 3% oonmxient to doardabo edt to drag & Obaw eiieee toad
bobase ext otsty vamurnwnnt edd %o ia woven heb hae of “‘Dehaedet
| etd as be dont wey wo son, were nt: robe twat asgome the
ae dala
“ober awe acts tad? si wraesle nis tee oan Arabees 0m es
otitall oroted ofnGP News COOGLS Lonkutee ous te ealsiaibnia
ai) bam xe? wolsneiigus wdd ands pwhto etaeebeveh emooed Merrell
nk eamrciewk Lotatetoan So0ekO aot stnulthecoe ed? To eomnuend
ld alk adh wl oc gear eer
“ait? Keptno fos DIG sist To Pekog et yReteRt MER Dome sun -eal
ond date Srootk yntuxobnove yell tioned’ to noreimeazuew Me
Fooutace womarinnek oat ‘4 skoda tvery oft Paxil yulee YolLeg drones
ud bougis fevapex methtus mogul sae hae ‘edawat a toe? tePtbooys
“Qranapeen waw FF fod? *yytadePiened ove a ‘#tamyteob codietnd’
sgmady of syntitaw wt yybiawo't Yaagnss set Yeerks’ tina’ wobee b
tid? salt poutostts of binwo wganile Mou oxotod yxotol bombil Wile
sokteoilggns Fox! odd orotoiedd taste boos {insboosh yor shod Jon four
bus epxot tty wu fitdy saw vrersbtonted ae ‘acid lect ginal
sa “ sidash a*hexvoat to emte ony: pad alae
mse daid etvottak 32 oxodwz ote it vebitdow @ great Ud |
at béet ott sbnetvent Lonold2bhe ot moti vot tgya ents ‘erate dnebinetiy
at 8t seomanmwant Konol shite vy seamen hsemalooati tt
eft 20% ‘fod erotodsiudt ae gue bokthY bro Hytdaott ett ae
8 bebviad \etudeitgie nit woT mid oe Biemoney Kaw FE GubteE
Yo Samom: oi gelwortd Ypttog qiex_ Eantnio ad to’ siutbieeendele
smisitnes nny YEvoW ead To Seen wet baw ea Hobie NS ek (ita
a ak Se Getta ate (OY aumnnatibonnctiasis ites
“git deanth akeuns ts “esersing ‘a i at ree F
tot sow mottnotivga téaoow Leaadladl poe rae:

“ ea ,

ate
ite ewn convenience in heving «11 of deesdent's insurance shown
em one record. “hen complaimext prepare? this application for
the vignature of the insured 14 umquentionably copied “Lucy Bareh,
wife,” os benefigiary from hie ayplieetion fer the first group
policy, natursily aseumings, having received no request theresefore
te change his beneficiary, that lucy wee Bie wife and that he
would desire te name hey beneficiary of his second poliey sles.

it ie earnestly contended that the inaured intended ey
his set in changing the names to climisate Lucy mith entirely
aud make Mattie Margh the beneficinry of both policies. ‘The
aifficulty of thie position fe that beth in waking the change and
eftfixing his eignature to the agplieetion he wae dealing only with
the second poliey. Complainant never considered the second
application as affeeting she first poliey. ‘liheuch when issued
the polloies bore the same nugber, in our opinion, they were
eeparate and diatinet comtracts, ¢6 Gail the eoaduet ef decedent
in changing the same of the beneficiary om hin second applieation
a written request on cumplainant to change the beneficiary of his
tixet poliey would be by a forged conwiruetion to make 1% something
whieh it dees not purport and was not intended to Ga, auc we can
not reeoguise 1% es such. (Highland v+ Highland, 109 Tlie S664)
We fail te eee any more legal wignificsnce in hie ehamging the
name om this application fer additiomal iasureanee than if the
wpace thereos fox the name of the beneficiery had been blank end
he had written therein the wame of Mattie Borek.

it my be eonceded, wider all the facta ami olretmatancems
that the desedent had goad reason to supplant Luey Gaith ae hig
beneficiary, and he may, in fact, have intended te do mG,» but
unless that intention wes manifested in the manner prescribed by
the terme of the contxact 16 wae of no avedl to sewompiish hia

object. The contract of insurance proviced s simple method of

enna sonommant u'tmoayyot Te Liha, gsivad nh agmekmoreie
set notseoi tcus sidd SoTagn ey PRamlalgmos mite, bu a

otha ak out hetgos "kdaawkd nenpe $2 bemwonk opt, ~ ommaonia.stt
query daxtt eds vot motsootiqus ale ment GiaioLioneg ao "ee khw
exoloveverld damspey om dowlvoss patvesl «gatsmeca Vilemwdam «wohdeg

om acta hae otiw wid oow youd dete .yuodelioard afd ppomis oF
route cohioy beepes aid tp yeledtourd rad amen oF gulesd Siuew

Ys beboorad beaact et? daté aabandnoe whtaversas 8h. 430 cca
- ehoutene se tas vppan etaniei iy od enexet any gutptade, a posi |

_ ent _ saptedsog dévd 29 yiokud taney ocd Meee Ohodeld oom bam
Hein eka godsend uw of nolierlégan pelt ob amutengte net pabee ana
_ baeaee mis hocehiones garam ted o Lega elie, saaiitad |
Rewank mode yooh, «yettog desk whe git vee the... oa, Reta
acow Yad? geoinige Guo af givens sous ols ond | dott

dasvened Ye Pawdnoe acy Lhe ot. sadeantac combdndh focal”
colisniiuga duopen aid mo Yaksdioand 2 ty ome odd yebgende nh
024 20 Winteh eure ens sprain 02 Smee Rinne, ae eo
Wikdiwna el vig oF mliowxianoe dvonek o Yh wih ssapdbqeinaicced
Rad ov ite gad ev iobaotah tow our Dew txeqamy dom woe! :
(08% ofl OGL gbaginull o¥ Sambal). scesbiansabe-aianiiaiiiiie
ed galyanis nid ch gumeel inate Lagrd once Ye-oee oe Late:

wee e, AMEE SBmmcROR: AOD LADDNR A, mannentinen aie “ne

ona, hI Re a: Welle sieuneieiianiii scale
iene. bus ate? odd die cobew ~he dente edge ah 66 a
Wid no Nik. Yul Juadgane oF Moune deny dad dusdsoad 4 |
(Ae 9a oh ak ohnahwned eteahmn ame ee: Maa
of ieebzaqeTy Veaunn eld oh dedooRines maw embed
ald, Soliqmvons of Liawe on 3 wow oh ovakenee

te hodien aigate a Rebkeeng uted: iiaiiaie .

changing beneficiaries, 41 shat was recwived waa the receipt
by she insurer of « written regueat from the ineured Gteignat ing
& Rew beneficiary. Wo such request was ever reecived by the
Complainant and the eubatituiion ef the name “Hattie* Tex the
name “lmey” im the second applications im our opinion, cannst
by any stretch of reasoning be held to effect a change of
beneficiaries by the insured under the Yiest group polley. Rig
Seb was met cuffietent im law te avocmplion the purpose even
though we aguume 14 waa his Parpoue to make sueh change.

36 in strenuously urged thet beocuse Satiie Wareh wag
éGegedent's wife wi the time of hic centh ana aey mith was
hie mistress at the time he applied fer the ficst thousand dollar
invuranee, and designeteé her ag “lucy Kayak, wife,” in hig
appliestion, public policy will prcohisit her from Feaping any
benefit under the polieys The game argument might be advange
with almect @qual foree ex te Mattie Maresh. At the time insured
signed the opplicatiom fer the seeond policy and struck out the
name “luoy* and designated “Mattie Marah, wits,” ag his bencfleiary,
he wos met his wife either. ‘ounwel for Matile Barsh exeoriate
huey for her relations with deeessed end throughout their brief and
argument ¢eelare and reiterate the superior position of Mattie ag
the lawful wife of the imeured st the time of his seqond application,
but a” Gxamination of the record dixeleses that Mattie was uot
dececent's wife at the time ae signed the second application and
Gig not garry Lim until the fullewiag Maye

ie is act urged that Marek actually made or that ecm
Plaimant received at tte nome office a written request to change

the beneficiary of hia first policy im compliance with its
provisions, but it ig contended that hie set in substituting the

/ ame “Mattie* for “Lucy* im Bis application fer additional ineur-

égiowss ait aaw hee E nex aww same £0) “soedeckel komad yathpate
gikvargignd bowinak oat mort deawpex oedilxw = ho Pomseeh exe ge
"gts yd bevtooes weve bow Ceauped dive of eyreteh toned wee
aul? sud "elotoe” once wid to weltupideden ene bow Soothe
fonane yadtatqy ws #2 guatdavbiggn Groeew soy at “geal CR
to sutedys oc foetts of Met ef gutnosaer to dotewte gm
oiR .yekfoq quot dortt ad? tet Semon we yd vetceted ional
“mene snoquay odd doligncove ot Wa Gl saehor ive gon sew den
epmeto down oso oF eooqung’ etl aew 2 amen! peoutpebdle
new dered elbea& seaord sade bapiw ylouommetta.€2 a4 oo come
sew Mite YOuK bua Rech ahd Nornesly oc d.gm wtwonh aaa
Cocke Beamwests toukh og wel bellgqa sa amit ade to soomin dee
fied ad “yeti ydeuek youl" ga tod kotanptorh sam amt as
rs HAkgawT AY wel seGidery Liby yisoy ol Lewy gmok 7
berwavin Od teipivs saemeyae oman aa “seh at ea AR
horwnak amie ef? A sderseil of del ot ac. sea, Saupe seeme aie |
ets Gao tewte ane Yod toy bemere walt col. sol esoA696 aah dpmghe
stanky Remod eld aa “,@3he etinunl chedei” botnapiesh Sma, “gee |
sheila hace abet sls dees eta aeaiieniie
bux Tohad tieds Jauhweult baa boxawgob Ati emolintes eal, nak rgMeL
(Ge obstail Yo aotdiooy sokteqen ext eiexedlet dua atakoo dime
emolinvkiqgs Atcoed eid te emit ef¢ ta waren osteo. wette tate ot
dom saw vidal dass avendoat> wroows nad So aeeomtommn,
bes MOhIel tyes Daoewe woe bemake WA emkd ute poem

mo Dold to otam Ginsu dae naa £06 a8 AE 5: a
oRtaiy as deenpen sostber 4 sakihe od ath tartans drama

mel dibw oomabieame ab eakdog sant ate tes
ets galtasttedie at dou abt RCNA ae “ aaa |

~Je

anee disclosed his intention to mike such change. “ven though
thet was his intention ond he meant to so dieelose it by hie
conduet, nothing that he did, in oury opinion, had the offset of
designating « mew beneficiury under the firat policy. The
provisions of his contract of incuronee set forth the plan by
which the reserved right to change the beneficiary might be
made effective. The generai rule supported by the great weight
of authority ie that where the policy prescribes am’ reagulates
the method of changing beneficiaries any attempt or amy imtent
to make such change im any other manner is ineffeetuaie (Retxge
politan Life ines Cos ve Brown, 222 Ey. 2lie} ‘he right to
change the beneficiary, while permitted by the policy, ia Limited
by ite terms, @ substantial compliance with which eomnet be dispensed
withe Freund ve Freund, 214 [lis 18%, states the doctrine on this
aubjeet which, in ite application to this ease, inhibite our holding
that any change of beneficiary of the firet peliey wae offeebed by
deeedent’s acts im conneetion with the application for the ecound
policy. (Geghey ve Miller, 157 [ile Appe 278+)

It appeared that Lucey “mith never had the firet poliey
im her posseesion and did not even know of ite exiatence. The
fact of the policy never having been deliveres to her, but remnining
im the posseevion of Mereh, detractea nothing from the effeet of hia
dircetion fer the payment of its proecevda te her. Her olaim of
right to the fund does not reat upon gontract, but upon a direotion
for ite payment te here (Highiand v. Highland, gupra.) We are
constrained to hold that there waa ample justifiontion for the
court's conclaugion that lucy ‘mith wae the rightful beneficiary

wuder the first policy>
The motion of defendent Imey “mith (appellee) heretofore

Agvoré mova segnetto dove exam oF moktunsel all benctoeth ite
abst ye ak enefoed> om 0% enaem eet Ons nodsaeeah: aut ‘eae sal
to go0R%o ve deal qtoimign ao mh y bbe ec sand ontsven ySoubmo0
eg? eqatlog dexkt sid askew preted ened wom o qwatdanyiesd

¢0 nat add dixet gon esmerwurh Re Procter Ate Ne CURE
ad jdgie ytalvilessd esd egeatld at dxighe beveeane ond dodetw
tigiow Snes ase YC posvegede ofan Lexowy of? sovitoe'the obam
setategez bre sediuscwey yoblog et oxedy tad of yeltotine oe

~ogoeH) sdeusontionl of a ee wpetnuis Hose ten a0
Gf dépex ofl (6458 oh OUR gimme, ov 499. sneT otk nadeog
Beddali of gypiing acts qh keddiueny ALlde eytotedionnd sat egniate
bennoquid o¢ sontoa aoiay seke sean lyme Leternsedia w yumned aah
aids mo ORlyeood odd wodatn QUOL o1Sh CLA ghemprd + powermt vddlw
gukiled qo etidided geang skid a2 moddneliqns ght mt dotdy doohewe
{Wi dedeotle caw YoLiog sett} sald ty Yoder toned to opmade Yow dade
bmeews od’ col asttosifigns eta Atte motiseneee ah néoa oT hoanbopee
(oAPK oopgh of LY ee ape’

‘mation exit off dad vever dviati yoel sade bovesgge ot - veh)

_ OT seemedates s2h Ye worl move doe kts bmw aohapooweg wedi
gcinisams dud yued of bevevilel mood gatvad seven qeltog ett te dealt
aid to Saotte sod? weed paddven adoendah phere te welsteeceq add ai”
to @inla tel »ted of sheovery eft to sapayeq oe cot medsornts”

ore oF (qanguy shmodeatl ow fmuetetatit) «amd od dmomgeg ett eot ”
ait wl mokiogd tank ehgem aew weeds dad osod of hontetdumeo
Wioiianed Lrhiigks edt aew dhe gwd teks aobaw fond ates

’ otiog tenth ott eoha :
owtatoned, lenttonnnd ine York traiartet to eweheome eT

4
oie BRE 4 ae bive

if opal Pitas de aca tRE g Oe ae
Raa SS PM Oi aaa cee

meade to dlemiss the appeal of Battie Marsh and to assess
atatutery damages against her, which was reserved to the
hearings ia denied.
Yor the renesors imciested herein the deeree of the
Cireuit court is «ffirmed.
APP IAMS te

ee ee ae ee a ae

Grigley and Seanlan, JJe_ concurs

hg reer wes yet Mae

Oe Sundae

ee
SRN Bt ante
esta tinge: dius ©

a Sg

RTS A Mee,

Sankt

PORAIweeS oF oe

whee me. aeed TeHah HRs smsay ee AES

BRESARG, G: STANTS eeanye hae eee saan s.

ee beta ita gice

Sates ode

Baa

ea ee

f oe a ky
Oe eras AMES:

i OGRE Se aka suede

Beever. fot eta. eh seeedital: aque ip

Te he Soe te vals aes quae Se ant

SEL oh RY ORE. Puce inion ita edie esol eis
ean a lean abe ne: aa
wal TR wrk uy Whey

€ é i z - s
Ry a ad
Pa ie me 8
37098 é A ;
ROBERT GO. FARRELL and } : f
THOWAS R. CONDOR, } f
Appellante, APPEAL FROM GIRCDIT
¥e COUNT, COOK cowNTY.
TRVEN He “ILSEY, cp FY A T R we ee
. fh ; ’ Eteny
Appellee. Pe 4 = oy dk @ fA @ °@’) oO &

DALIVERED THE CPTBION OF THE COURT.

This was an action in sewumpeit brought by plaintiffs,
Keobert O. Farrell and thomas A. Condon, againat Irven He ‘Lleey,
defendant, te reeover the price ef a beat. Judgment wen entered
by the court om the verdict of the jury finding the issues for
defendant. This apyeal fellewed» The declarotion conoista ef
the consolidated counts and ome special counts

The especial count alleged that im September, 19239,
plaintiffs sold to defendant a certain motor best of the cruiser
type for (9,250, which was the price defendant agreed to pays
and thet plaintiffs delivered such moter boat, iogether with ite
appurtenant equipment and « bill ef sale therefor, to defonim t,
whe failed and refused te pay any part of said purchase price.
To plaintiffe' declaration was sttisched an affidavit ef claim
verified by one of the plaintiffs end atating that their cemans
was for the agreed purchase price of $9,28¢ fer the boaty that
mo part of same had been paié by cefendant; and thet there was
due plaintiffs from defendant, after allowing him all just
eredite, deduetions and sst-offe, 09,2506

Defendant filed a ples of the general issue and a
apecial plea ef payment. “ith hie pleas he filed an affigevit

eohasn mn wanna | setnatsoges |
ie eX TRIOS ROOD y TRICO ‘ me) i
ihe |

1890 .AL LYS ssoLLouah

|
ie
i | Bay sc USETAVE SKRCEONTNE

pa am

T8800 ERY %O BODO MY

i sathesadate yd tcqwerd dioqmeass af motion ne aaw abet om
ayeettY ol movil gantome yombmed . nome? hme Lorna’ +0 suede!
heoxetee saw dnsagiwl .dand 2 te wotag ate sevooes OF at a ;
Fok sowed ot yatonts wml elt de dobhrey vals no heehee ay"
Ye aéeiomon wotiaralyed om «howellet Laeque ata? -tnadaotoh
siren Letooge omo fms aézm0s tetabhtounoe edd
ROL yeedntgne wt feds dugete tewoe Lelong aft
xealwte ef? te geod iotem miaduse & dabei ob oe biou artis e ’ r a
rer ot hovme Sutcdestss epday odd caw te kid 08S 9&5 eet
afi dilw sedtegod ,taod wedem dou ooxevedeb ettltniaty Zt in
of mbnetod of qxotoued? efen to Lttd 0 tas imemplupe énemnexs —
+ochwy easdotay bhae te ¢amg ye Yor oF beaster hun bethat ese
tule 26 tivobl te ws betbadd» enw motiaxakeed ‘ethteutaty
Deremos xtodt todd gubtode ine wViembals ould Yo ome wh bok
fads 2n0d oss 10% DBRGRD Ye natag snedewy bewrys ode wet
waw pred? sod ban pémedeotwh oh kag weed bau ome ‘Yo txeq on ;
taut Lio mid yutwotke sods stuido ob aor? etRdimialg
20S 928 yutto-200 fas smetsoubed ¢ th
4 tan simet Laxedvg old 20 aofy @ beciY insbaeted .

Sivabhtie me helt? et sevtg etd dehy + tm, ” names Ls

a a

ee a ee nll Fie SO ee a ae —
SoS Er mening ne mnt Eas ae ee a E

2 SSSR ORAS IAIN Sepa TET

of merite stating that he received the beet and alee « vill of
waley that he paid the fuii considerstion therefar; that the
consideration was not the alleged $9,280% that ne definite UR
was eg@reee upon and thet the murket value ef the Bont at the time
of its “tranefer” wae lese thon $692005 that the consideration
for the “tranefer"® of the pent Wen work done and te be done oy
éefendunt and his Grgatiiantions ané the use of hia effies in
reference to perfecting certain models and other work in connection
with such moéelay that defendant wetformed a1] the work he agreed
“to do and kept his agreements that such work done by defendant
amd bis organization and the use of his office wns worth $12,000,
which amount was greatly im oxeers of the warko: value of the beat
amé ite alleged price; and thet there is nothing duc plaintiffs,
or either of them, fren defendant.
Mlaintiffs both testified substantially that in Ceptember,
1929, defendant stated to each of them thet he would purchaze their
boat for $9,250; that septembex 27, 19209 the beat and an SAoumpanye
ing bill of sole were delivered to defentieantg that thereafter, trem
time to time, they damanded payment for the best and that he failed
and refused to comply with such demands, protesting on at least one
ccension hie then inability te Paya
Defendant testified in effect that he at no time agreed
to pay plaintiffe £9,286 fer the boats that he, an inventer by

: profession, had entered inte certain license agreements with the
| futile Souipment Company, s sorperntion, in which plaintiffs were
interested, for the manuf: cture by 2% om a royclty baste ef gour
= invented by defendant, thet the “ubtle Squd pment Company,
‘8 consideration for such License agreewente, agreed te and ad

éefendant $20,000 as advance royalties; that, subsequent te
execution ef the license ogreexents, defendant advised

te Lite » geka See feed ont Sueteres ed tat gutiate aiivem Yo
ede ¢adé qto'tonsta aolsdavebiance Efwr este bleq of Sarit polee

wie e¢inktod om tals 7OHSg@G bogetin of? den naw moséetbénaes
eorke anf? $e taod eft Ye oukav socuas vd? Gard bas tgs Seeape say
motgaredtenon est? dart? $900,968 madd aaed saw. *qutenaud” gdh to

‘ye ones od oF bas snnb suew sav sand aaé 20 “setanesd" off wot

at soztte ahd te sow ads bus .wotdon sega ots baw sunbasted
gobtsonsbo at tow ‘teslte Bae afobom nbagsiee’ qubtestzeq of semexeet
bewngs at xuow of? Lip hearee'treg Saber te> sade getohem seme 00H
debated yd onoh wxow dowe dads pimmosxge elt sqad bas of OF
9000_.8k6 sever amv voltie als te me ost ous mokian inate aid ame
hand ads Yo ater vokvom alt 20 snyens ai ktenee oar snmune dake
ee 10 A SE

seiiienancet ckbabemntetes prenae ioe atemtess, koma
chedd snnsowwg binew ed dade move to soas @¢ betate ARANAN » s@aed
~wrngmyana Hs oem dned ails Lak «Th woeuntgoR tdi 1002490 50% Sand
mort qtavtaounds San? giexbawten ef Sereyite®: vmww sinc 19 404 pat
setie a anda tom todos xo amearan sequen “aa? yout OF ©

one fesel Ja mo guiveoteng vancnas dove dake gues of Deester ba

; otgoy, of qriiidens aust abd 8 "
: Reap nis a
beoxgs wnt? om tm ost tat? sovtte wh balthvend snnbaw tod ee

eh: odgevad. ma yo tail, 14006 sit 293, 088,08 smtate mas

62 anougondivs dads tendstayor oust 3 2s consent tnstentes }

q Pee a Dy Fie bed

— beedvbs snetewten. hearer ya sumvont att te

cba ho be acte Lafoous
* » a

=30

Plaintiff Condon that the Suttle Zyuipment Company was mot properly
equipped or engineered to earry the invextions to procugtiony that
Conden preposed te defendant that plaintiffs would give him the boat
as payment if he would carry the inventions throuch to psreduetion
and “I stated that fer the boat < would preesed te work and use my
effiee and help for the nevessory yeriod, “hich t Setimated to be
about six months, te carry these things inte geod predugtion.*
Pefendant's other two witnesses testified t¢ eubsetantioday the

seme effect.

Plaintiffs contend that by defendant's epecial plea ef
payment and hie affidavit of merits in weppert ef seme, he odmlig
the purchase ef the boat ond ia Limited in hie éefense i@ shew
payment and that the burden of proof wee on him on that Leones
that, insemach na he esserted im his affidavit of merdte thet the
payment was made by the rendition ef services “in perfecting certain
medele and ether work in counection eith sach meGelas” the trial
court erred in admitting evidence az te the service @isimed to have
been performed other than as stated in Rie affidavit of merite; that
the cours erred in giving te the jury eertain repugnant instruetionas
amd that, even hed the pleadings ond «ffidavit of merite permitted
& showing by defendant that the considerstion for she beat we hig
services te the extent necessary te permit the “itéle Equipment
Company te carry the inventions te a ce“aplete production standpoint,
the proof 44d mot sustain sueh a defense.

Defendant's theory is that instead ef the werk and services
of defendant being the consideration for the 968%, the boat wea the
| Semeiderstion fer the work and services, and that defendant did net
| PUrchavs the bont frem plaintiffs.

Defendant urges that his special plea of payment ens filed
simply as a preenution, and his counsel states on page 6 of defenéiw th

dasid grotéorbony of ctebtmermh edt quae ef Roxoemtyes «we hogy tee
daed sd¢ mit ovite Alvar oRRieRiake teat suakee Yoh oF beneqory MelAeD
Mokionteg of Myuordt punkiusrEs ont Were Sluew of RE Tomiyne wb
Ut Gus hee Meow es beoneng GEeow T dood exte co diakd Betnde oO Kelp
$¢ eo? Aetautine t teltle ghotesy groaeeben ocd «at efit bre solr
ee
og Ulhatinntedua od beltbtaws eeaseat tw eet perobeiby
Waren ‘ote

1 e9kg Kaioage atteadan ten eC Saste Seaedee wPEbtebant 6 6! 8

gdlaba od gomes te saoqiwn mt ahve ty jhvanette att bee ¢ a

Wed 06 amp 20d wid md Sebinbt et dae sae edt 29 sandomuy-ame
proueery Seals ao ahd we aoe Toewg ke wbhmP edt saat 8 aoa ’

edi duds odbiom Je *h¥shhiis odd-md Qobwoana eat wo Goimmemek qted

pea Ob, Wakphe 08 edom. Vat oF ve Wome’ wihtatied ot bese 5 vie i
dads qedduee Bo sivebdite eda ti etole os aadd atte SomnO died |
isnehiowtien! dsanmmgws Bistten Yot, ottoad prdvke at borse tune id
hedéiemog e&igem Ye And tote ANNE SE TOE PS
att aow dood acl? xet meListobdlines sad Saeld’ Rashawtod yw igeeliveial
fmomgivg! shite old therng bo yRnewEsoN gee seN wMtt wd es obve
ofatochgose maninstne Sennen Be? WAnenttt i, SE Z

belli sev inemgeg to sofy abeege ated hehe emg te treed .
as moneted too Beng Me eHiee Seamed mist oe ota

EE a

brief that thin court whould dileregare 44 ae ne preeft was offered
under it. efendant them ineista that hig afficavis of merits
refutes the idea of tne aude eof the best io him and contains ne
aesertion ef payment for it by wim. tf: is ewfficient anewer te
thie contention to quete from bie afiicayit of merite oo fcllews:
Geyeoes ant naye theh he ke the Ssfendans ia. tne chore entitled
qnueej -Bat he xeowlyedc the suid moter teat in sadé declaration
wentioned amd sleo reecived » bik of cole for the somey that

he paid the full consideration therefexy * © *.”

That cefeadant's insistence here and om the trial that
imetesc of hie work being the sancideration for the boat, the
Voat was the consideration fer kis werk, vase and is an afterthought,
is demonstrated by the follewing feem Rie affidavit of merite: * thet
the conaiderstion fer the trenefexy of the boat sas work deme and te
be dome by this affiant, #ie."

It is obvious to us and the plain language of the affidavit
of merits supports our conclusion, that when the «ffidavit ef merits
was filed 1% was defendant's purpese be and he did admit the purchase
and delivery of the boat, but disputed the priee amd the methed and
Ghavacter of payment.

His effidavit of merite sintes “that the consideration
for said boat waa mot the alieged man of 99,250; that mo definite
wum wee fixedy that the market value of said boat 2% the time of the
transfer wes less than $6,000." An inegection of the affidavit of
merits demonetrates conclusively that it eet forth the defense of
payment and only that defense.

Plaintiffs made qut o prims fnute case by presenting
evidenes that defendant agreed and premised to pay them $9,250
eash for the beat. ‘The burden then devolved upen cefendamt under
his affiduvit of merits to chow, if he could, that the amount and
character of the consideration to be paid by him were different

cb:

Theres waw toowy eH te EF Seager hh Mtwelle Aveo uit? sod) YePae
woivew 26 divedttte wid dade “aeehond neds Jntabovted — at haven!
i entlasids dun wis Os feed wnt Yo Show aad

ed downs deodtobttee of Pt “Gebd ed GF Wet deayay to ‘Mittin dt
sawoLLo? vat etteotn Yo Fimsk Mie cb aid Vous of moldarines ‘aia

ats ne oe
step Bs yecrods o¢ «yoetty Cpl
“hekibone Phogeedl 3 nied ak perc: : ‘
ce

: oh os 3

fet Lolxd ante wo baw wed eeundsiend ot tnebvetob ere cd

ate aeaasemamadlaasdrantansacdiiustnoigl aakewest
fads" sedinon! to bwhite ald moe? aalbwetto? wd) WW be
ae eR oe stsnas dad”
Sivabh tha wit saitamaiaaieaiiiasa Sie
agliom te divatiita sx wade sons gmeterEewes wd sf rocgua 4

m ait
Cf ini eee
} ie reat ee

Motiarekiemes ait dady* ebdndy atiiom te savabrvia me OO
SHkTed om Caddd PORLGe? Te mew Begerte ott fon kaw dod teen”
out adacntsheaditaaadbmnliatinncidhiruambuntineedirseyir- aa
to Chvahitis eae Yo wOLiovguel mi | ~~EOG.e9 fe
Yo sanvieh pad stéxot tou oF Sade ot
Pc aN A SR Pi aa ae Ma me

rehns iushosted mequ SevLoved woid mobund ed? .dnee iy

‘hme sioin dd’ shitdhitos eid 3 | bre! . she ea 1

Hany ¢ tae See Perey ae @
“dues622Eb oxow ail Yo bhog o¢ 0d moktaxobtawoe ed 20 wedes

ect sions ‘welt ti siebtiseontamee ede yatea sie VEE Le heeded
sttwtsbl prggerlveion

ans aiabicanapanaiuanabnalantes: te odndanpeee’ wet te itty” nf :
sis ; ARE PREY a3 ‘ie shen a wat {

i
alta eo

ee ee” tlté“

=fe

than plaintiffs claimed and thet he wade payment accordingly.

The purpose of reuuiring the affidavit of merits te
eet gut the nature of the defense relied upon tu te give the
plaintiffs notice of the reel defense presented, te limit the
iseues to be tried te the defense act out in the affidavit and
te de away with sham pleas and rezatious @elayee All defenses,
the nature of which ere mei set ap im the atfidawit, are considered
waived and are not available on the trial. (Sedison v+ Fortune

Bros. Brew ifs Voeg 163 Ill. ‘Ppe 763 Segper Te Jpeereon, 246
Tile ‘ppe Le)
McGovern v+ City ef “hieugo, £62 Ills Apps 13%) wes an

aetion in ssaumpsit te reaever the centract price for strect repairs.
in that onase, in response te plaintiff's declaration laid in twe
special counts and the commen counts, aecompanied by en «ifidavit

ef claim, the defendant filed a plen ef the general issue supported
by an affidavit of merits nagerting payment a6 ite defense, and
thereafter file: severe] special pleas, none of which alleged payment,
and thia court in holding that the defendant was rea trieted te the
Gefense set up in its affidavit of merits, weed the falliowing

language, at pps 145, 1496804

“By section 55 of chapter 110, Hevs St. (Je & Ae

=: 8592) and the decisions of our courts of review sonstruing

is section, a defendant in restricted te the defense set up in
his sffidavit of meritorious defense. The defense in the cif 's
mifidavit of merite was that of payment, ami if sbjections
been made upon the trial te all ovidenee tendered defenae
other than that of payment, it would have been the duty of the
court te have sustaine: such objections. “etwithetend mg all
the pleadings in the reecerd, the eMly defena¢ available te
defendant was the one of payment mace in ite affidavit of
merite@. * #

*in Ve Ye tume i
Appe 276, the couee may t

‘By seetion 55 of the Practice Act (J. & Ae pare BSV2)»
At ig provided that when the plaimiiff ohall file with his
'@eclarntion an affidavit of claim, the sefendant, in erder te
prevent # judgment as by default, #hall file with hie ples an
~Sfficavit, ‘stating that he verily believes the def endant haga
@eec Gefenve te seid guit upon the merits te whee or portion

of the plaintiff's demand and specitying the mature of auch defense,

aE aE IES 2S = Sa a eee

1
i
eis 8
2)
. '
i f
i ;
Bet
i) iq
Wg
i (
Ah ,
Hit | aa
25) ii; | eae
Bt} f
“alt :
TP hfe
a | a
Hie >
| n
Biel. 4 J
HY
ry i
on q
THE
Wea
L| 5
Bedi ae
eae
Ly
1 a
1 ea
Aiea
a
H

@d etixom ta divwosthe ons qarvthages, To enogteg, ae: ve oil
. ett owen Od wh mega bation vaunted olf To aurdne ahd tum, 9 q
Gkati ad gbodmoneng eavelkwe door ond TO eohjon, oF : ite oe

pe dkeebkVa ott wh due doo speeh wll 08 bodes od a8 | . sat :
A vay eeendenmcilineh cial beware ane sane am tts yawe ov of

| patna ot alba alate ad on etéation 5 ta,
nas «7 weaned 4ONS emus LEC FOL an aetnent same

te eer REL ogg Lt S08 geueheRL OE 4 ,
sexiagex foamy 20% opdag soagsGed, me “soyoeer ae ¢tegaey
ond mi biel, mottareteod eo tkipmate 08 eanoqees nt Tied
dtyadstia an Ye dotneqaeose sxtmeey semewe ont ete stmace 3 kaleog
peteegque oneak Leneney ode to pay * bE) Seabee ted ats saints 0
ban joensen’ oft aa dusayny ahi roees, 27 Krom Xo, s2yehh ”

‘gies fugetio dokte to eter anak dakonge AOINVPR OGM.

\getd 08 batokttees cow dmabap vib walt dante nied. mt sanoo att bm
gntweltet ad? teow sacbrem bo tivebhtte att mt qe tM | Beets
Be a ee —

> gl ek yor te nies ‘af
grivteenss wae ae
gt qu dee egtereR® OS NST ee
a! % ond oth eon itt ,

eS eR be i,
gay ge thvabh ite asi 9
“okt? Gat ss00

eo
ee ad

ee eS ee eee eee ee ee Ct

othe

amd if a portion, specifying the amount,

“ * 2 * The part ef section 85 abeve guested has been
im foree for mony years with the exeeption of the werde in
italics. * * * Opior to the addition ol these werda, it ung
held that an aliidavits stating thet the defendent had « foe
@efenue te the euit Upon the merits, was sufficiens to entitle
the defenfant te preve any defense he had that was well Plendet.
The addition of the words ‘and specify the nature of such defenge*
ie net imadvertently made. The purpose ef requiring the afrie
davit of merite to set out the nature of the defense relied on
was te give the vlnintif’ netics of the reel defense ta be
presentec and to Limit the iaaues te be trieg to the defense set
out im the sffidewit. <11 éufenges, the uature of which are vot
set up in the affidavit, are considered vadvec amd are unavailable
om the trial.'*

HoMhersey v- Board of Sduestien, 225 ills Appe 484, cited
by defendant's counsel, ic not Spplicable to the situation presented

here inawuch as plaintiffe dic offe: evidence in suppert of the
Material allegstions ef their special count. hile thia court in
the Cooper Cnc, supra, Gelimitely refused te accept or fellew the
interpretation of section 55 of the Pyactiee Aet, as anmouneed in
the ZeSherson cnet, even the latter case recogmizes the prinegiple
that a defendant is Limited te the defense #e6 out im Rie affidavit
ef merits.

inammioch ag the affidevit of merits in this cause oxpresaly
@enied thet there wes any specific osacunt agreed upon between the
perties as the purcdhsse price ef the Went, the burden was upon Piaine
tiffs to prove by = preponderance of the ewidenee the agreed price,
if any.

Gmether the sale price of the beat was fixed by agrecment
of the parties or vhether defendant's Cbligetion wae te pay the market
Yelue of the beat om the day of ite delivery to him, defendant having
interposed the defense of payment, the burden waa om him te ghow
payment. ‘he rule is well entablished shat payment must be mace
is money unlens there ia an eapress stipulation for payaent in some
Other mediug. in ihe cans at Bar defendaas asserts that the parties

agreed that he was te pay for the beat in services and the burden is

eg ae

+, ie é
con ya soa snot" tanh Se EE amy
abwew ests oJ a sear “
‘paw 82 gebeos oneal. Le cote obe ais oh cee ve raat

boom © feud pnabuekel ont ob aghe f yates stars as ¢ darts
choot hae dmotelttwe sox dive : > ie é moqw dime end of one?
w gow Saphi Rare to
reaneiys ane he Be canny ina saison i nal ‘Ye mors
= ¢ 20 on a
wo holies poche 4 odd ‘Te edi ame asa of abieen orks ha

eva bineten tar oa hodae oy i ae cohen Baad ban” Sadana
obatsFayaar oss a tovia™ buonbanee vas vote comes a ons
beste bse +t ott Bes Sakioged. io. iaod oe
bodmouexg mold asi tu ad of ofGenbtque ton at ateenses eH fanbanned
wis lo ssegqNe Al SPasbive aeTie b&b aTBhdalelg ea dosmani oted
me at99. abit okay. «incon Leteags «iss? r0 empl ieystis Lalieiam
ont wedfoR te sqes7s ey Sone yhodand lab eagaun a2e00 zemgen odd
ab dagmvanns a9 gtos cohinett st Jo. 84 mntioge 29 mudiadonaseemh
_ adhontsg ade weaduporss suas spddek asd move atene suscep
tivedsvie ald wh go ive sameked ont @¢ bodimts at tanbae'

— eniiep wid? oh adtran io tkeeneane. ails pape scr eealt: pen
wis meewted meay Seetyo Janome ot tteeqs Ws gam oweds tails, fete
wnialg woqe saw cehrud ond giagd odd Ye godty saadomeg gale, Det
contng soqmne one eenubhys osty ne. suerohenanny. #.'UH gn Of TNR

obte od Samm someon tans ode lbdoses Low at obs ot soem

ye ae ©

“WP aed

aediaeg ‘ents seal emacs shoe bs ” ve pas 0

Rie

oS ae

on him te prove such agreement. fhe burden is likewise upon him
te prove services ef the kind awd charseter stated in hia affie
davii, euf*ietent in scope and value te pay for the beat, either
a> ite ogreed prise, as sentended by plaintiffs, if same ig
eufficlemtiy shan by the evidenes, or at ite fair markes Yalue,
if the evidescs shows that 8408 Nerket value wee the pries center-
plated in the transaction between the parties,

Ve sgree with plaintiffs? eonsention thet inetrugtions
were given to the jury on the question of the burden ef preef thee
were wot ouly conflicting bul were repugnant, ard eeuld heve ne
ether effect than te mislead and coufane She jurye Ab the request
ef plaintiffs the trial court inatrueted the jury that che Garden
ef preef was upon defendant io akew beyments and om behaly of
Gefendant that im erder te entitie plaintiffs to vecever Shey must
preve their case by the preponderanee ar @renter weight of the
evidenee. The latter instruetion entirely overleekec the facet that
all ef plaintiffs’ esee was admdiied by the defense ef payment
soverted im the special plea of payment anc affidewis of merite,
exeept the price of the boat, and the errer in giving it was pre}
judieiai. |

Seither the ingenuity dieplayeé in froming the affidavit
of merits nox plausible argument can alter the fact that pleinciffs
ownec the boat; that the affidavit of merits adaite thet defendant
Purchased 1% from themg and thet the GHly defense seserted wader
the affidavit of merits was paymelit, shich, wicer the elearest
principles of justices, he ws veund bo Breves

Gther pointa bave been urged and while we have voneiéered

/ all of them, in the view we toke of the case it de unuecesuaxy
@imouge them furthes. As the case will im all likelinoed be tried

ageing we refrain from expressing any opinion as te the facte ox

‘t

mid nequ velwedit af moband as? «dnammongs doue everg of mbt
ebite eid ch betate zoagetads due Seat oft to onotyson a¥oug o
Tedidie geod ad? cod won oF oukay ona agen eb sambot rive nd bea
ak omen 2k en thes ebay betwedaen ea wooing poompa neh oa
sate Sort “ha adt ae we ytemebive oly “ mores ‘tme ted ue
-s0 4109 ening edd ceo suger Seem down asad nvorte soavatye eas ut
| antony edt rwwted mot sosenent ade mi ro
" eieaktouttent dads noldmegaee 'o th) tutaic agiw oongia. 4ue aad tO
‘Seda Yeewg te cobited «4 ta maisseup ade ae yin| ah et sevig erew

ow eva Bivoo bee .faamgiget 41¢n fad yates neo (ite sek onde
dusnper odd GA oyteh ofie Gautuse bus baotebe os mais doetto ceded

ooese wild Badd Yul of Revereieds Panen Laled ond ebitintale o6
‘to Liaded wo bea qétheey vod Oo teabmetel soqw saw Soong ‘YO
tamer yeasty Nevooor eo! oftiimtaty atetime of sobre mk tade eaerery
ld te tigieey Tideorg 26 vonetebanyeng oi? YC face.
fad? feet add Sexetrore Ulbitiae welisuvtund ogdet of* svonebiys
deomysy To sunetod sat “ed botebaby now geen ‘oe Ybasatale ‘te £6
‘ehdbrom 30 Ekabitie ona anoampe Yo solg Lalooge odd ah bodvenan

esq aaw at ueivis ad torts ast? bas sduod auto to Ieper ats tevese

sabodial

‘givebttta sta patmer’ tt shai eilumsgad ead woddbow © ©"
aYiiintaty tat donk ous xotkn wad sasenrgen ekdteuaty wom oo bien 2
Sdahmotss dartd od duha atbron te dbpobitie ote Yad fiaod até Seamre
‘geStur bottecas eaibted Une wdd Sadé toa axouts sort #2 beans

‘i a a crobnar dobste «dimounpeq som abtasa ‘to dhvabtite “i |

sever 3 bined saw vat, SEU Bs

betobiaoeo evan ew often bra bogut ceed eva atakoy ‘seteo went

“ed Vroenesoumm ah 22 sann oxd Ye Silad oy woke oat Gb (mcd Ye

weight of the evidenee,

Yor the reasons indieated the dudgment of the Cirews
court will be revermed and the euiee remanded,

REVERSES ABD REMAIIED,

Sridleyoand seanlany JJe5 concurs

2 GEN

ran Po

onsen ese ass neg iat
nate? 7 a ig aut: ari. Hahier a
Wy hese th 2 : gains
| P- a ebateomvagee diets wed i
Bee) ity ee ee
oo ;

er ? ee hue

a te negra awry >
Hate dont ay ownabeieD 6h
Seay oe Ge eae

ie 2 rape tn

yeh ys ; Pl
eg a ; é §
a |
Ge : .
aThos f
ARTHUR SLLZASOM, } . 8
Appel Lea,
ARV. FROM WOELOT: ed
Pe
tg ee ie CALs Rie Py
he Ge 2 aye ; ae ie a ee “i + 3
Appellant, #64 1.4. 668

Vay 2%, 1932, pleintire secured « Jucoment by come
fesaion for (927.86 ageinet éefondamt om his promissery nete.
Sune 15, 1935, defendant fiied bie verified petition to vaente
the Judgment and suguet %o 93%, after leave eronted, Pied
am omemded potition for the same Marpese, Auguet 10, 1935,
bie motion te vaecte the Judgment wes demied, This appeal
seeks te reverse the order overruling defendant's motion te
Vatete the Juignuent by cont eoed or.

The statemamt ef claim and cegnevit are in the usual
form, The mote for / 804.26 dated March AS, 1955, payoble forty.
five gaye efter date, was signed ami iméersed by defendant and
contained © warrent to confess juiguent., The jadquent for
°G2%.60 included interest ang attorney's fees of “lle.9s,

tht miterial allegtions ef the amended petition to
Yaoute the Judgment, pertinent to the determination ef the
issues presented om this aypesl, are that defendant was the
agoured Under certain peldctes ef ineuranee upon his Life
iseued by the Union Central Lifes Insurance Company (hereinafter
referred te ae the Unies Company) sgeregating €49,630; that
De f+ Punch ami J, ¢. Punch, agente of the Columbian National

‘Af Insurance Company (hereimafter referred to as the

PeCe ee | _— Seta
‘ eV GTO EO TR.
‘890 AT AYS

BA VELEN, copra MESES a : wives:
aA GAT WO EOEISO ERT canaveaa i oe

Ob Eee

noo wh Inemmeuy » bersses Thats tate 20d 88 yt
wodon Yroesbweny wh so Stebmstod Pomkeps OF PSR! wot a foe a
ofan of mote tteg bette’ all DOLKY tantueteb ,2Oek SE oti
BOER qbovaney ovset s0¥rtr seen ° pears ona 19 romain, .
“Enon 8st chiuad sav tersmybut, ost taney ot madsen wht
OF mokion stémetaeted gatiierove ware at ooueves dis one
Laan ett mh one thomnghe time ithaly So temndabe ett as
were? oldowy _beeL 1k Moet tite 90.0002 awk atom at
hate tnabnetos yl Dowsohek tas serkn caw ghtah Teds eye w
| TOR eneoyiet eat. temepin, aaetaen ot Seewrme oben
| qR@eREL! Yo u98 e ynarsets s fiths teorsgnt sobezent |
of moktiteq honmes odd Ye eawbioyohia Sabeotan ont
eit 20 woltanturoseh ost } sataiireon gtanalit, eat
ORE ot soe posuruantik % sotntag mise te ole eve

oes

ee ee

age

Columbian Compemy) solicited defendant to oubseribe fer life

insuronce with the Columbian Jompamy agerege ting £ By O00,

falsely representing te im that Bis Uniem Company policies

had 4 Gash surrender value ef 6,000) that they alse falsely

represented te him that the Union Compeny was im a weak

financial condition, end atrised that he should realize what

he could om hie policies with that company before it crashed,

ae did the Illineis Life Insuranes Cospeny; teat, relying upon

these false representations, defendant signed the application

for the Columbian policies and submitted to a mediesd examination;

that, theresfter, March 13, 1933, J. ¢. Punch presented solictes

for °25,000 of the Columbian Company to defendant, whe acvised

Pumch that the insurance morateriwa waich bed been declorad by

the state superimtondent of Imeurenece of Tllineis precluded hiw

from aoneclling his Union Compayy policies and securing their

cash gurrender value, and thet he 44 not core to otdigete himselr

&@ pay (804.26 premium om the new policies unless: ho coulé resldse

BSS money on the Union Compony coliciess that, thertupen, Soneh

entered into « written sereemont with him whick provided thet

af he accepted delivery 6f the Colubhinn Ciipeny policies and

executed the note im cvestion in payment of the premiums, note

withetanding its terme, the note would net be cayoble unless ond

watii defemiant actuelly recefved the cash surrender value of

his Union Company policies; awd thet when defemiant discovered

that the onsh currender velue of the tmion Cempasy policies was

omly about $2,000, and thet the Union Compemy wae in soumi Simamedal

coudition, contrary to the revresentations ef the Punches, he

rescinéed hie contract for the insurance emi esneclled the
Defendant comtends that the ollegations of his

petition are sufficient te shew that Pladmtif?, the assignes

(eb Bes pink oT ‘Sphenngaes /- us. taltsac@®> ead kebe
sebolges gence’ mest ahet aekd outed of yatiassores

Mog gerbuions bust pesecnan? woneremanl eth ;
| bad — an so bastacnorges eats? bor

bentyne ete gtashoe'ios 4¢ plagned sadmsted. etn 6 Sie

Wi Senekooh geed oxi Soduby supbredarye amnrnnt otha
mbt hebahoohe, ekeatEtX Ye gqemrorent te oo aie
Rooms stuaiive,s ov oreo sos ats af taut baa nator, Tohmety
oxbfanr Mime oil esetey, aeloding weet ad? se Jaskmony BS.266
sine: gromicrenat? tale pote deg regen? ni mt me
test, bobivawy okebr miss lt ker

te putsy - rnbecursien pa te. fe ca ie Oa
beseveomhs Preset smastw sa nis je hod low

of the note uyon which Jaigeent wes confaased, wags not a holder
in due course ond thet as egeinet such a holder the emended
petition te vaeate set forth the fellowing defenses that should
completely bar the claim on the note, vine, that the note was
procured by froudulent representations made in the sourse of
the megotiations for the colwsdan ‘Gm@pery polietes; that the
eomsideration for the nete whelly fudled; und thet the mete was
mot duc and payable at the time the dvigment wes confessed
because ef the agreement between Je Co Sumeh amd defendant as
te the time of payment, “efendent cmtemis further that ander
seetions 59 and 66 of the Negotinble Smetewmments Aet the burden
ig upon plaintiff te preve that he te % Kelder in due course,
becsuse the title of the Aanches who megotiated the mete te
Plaintiff is shown to be defective, imoemch aa the note wag
procured by fraud and wee negotiated in breach of faith and
under clreumstances amounting to fran.

Plaintiff's theory 46 that the nete was mot secured
by froudy that there was ne failure of eensideration; that 1+
wae Ga¢ umd peyeble at the time of the entry of the judgement;
thet the petition dees net allege a good defense, even agoinat
one who Wes mot a holder in cue course; that altpouch 1t was
incumbent upen defendant ¢s allege pesitivaly facte te chow
that plaimtaff wae met a helder in due eourae, Bie alleges tions
in that regard were insufficient as being upot information and
belief or sare conelusioney thet in the sbcence of proper
pouitive allegations plaintitt mot be deemed to be? bolder in
“ue course; amd that there are no such allegations of fraud in
procuring the execution of the mote os would east the burden
upon uiaimtiff of preving thet he @& aome person under whem he
elsims scquired the title as o holder im due course as rrevided

in section 59 of the Negotieble Instruments Aube
That portion of defendant's petition im which he

[See Sa aE = ae
aN

ate

cay

ctebled a #o saw ,houns ines sant Samaaghart, stout moqs otem edit te
Nobama ext xohioxt 2 ous teeitega eo tault Sax somo exh ih
biwods tosis apaneteb gathwolfo? onl agro $90 otonsy OF wont! fo
enw ton axle foil genkv yoson ait a misko ott aad vied ognme
0 sees ost ma ober uno bt ateperqot SeoLusws we : Hoe q
edt gust) peokobiog yreqe® mubieatl9o ed? x0 ‘emo bs ab2egom .
sow whom ont Sault iin ghoditen ~whtodw aden as xt sate: “robbetios

po ont #94, otemetet otdoktopet oat ‘w se baw» es ae dads
seen, 2 sk bth a at roto tas

, cia a
és th test quobsonohtenoe Ye cxuttet om sow overt taalt
“tmempbery, ost Yo rime ex? to omy oat to akdawen tee
fenkaya s0v9 seaered heey » opeln ton eeak mets: |

neh, ato ea rewnies ou ak uoled a tom

new

sought to allege that plaimiarre was net » holder im due course
i@ a6 follows:

*fhnt Hotwithatendine the agreement ef the gsadd Jy Oe
eunuch with thie affdant that the note should met be payable until
thie affiamt sheuld receive the eagh surremicr value of his Unter
Policies and in breach af Telth whth this offlent, as tld.
affiemt ie informed and believes, the said >. T. furch end do Os
wach transferred and negotiated sald nete but without ondorse
to the plaimtir? hereimy thet thas afliemt fo iaformed and believes
amd Upon auch invermition and belder alleges the fact te be that
the slaimtirl bereim accuired the julia wote more than 48 days after
March 13, 1933, end <i th knowledge that the sadd note had ae
procured by fraud ami was transferred in violation of om agreement
with thie affianty that the pladmtitS ie met o Welder in aus mares
of the said note and — not at the aire of the entry of the

fete, *

Tt will be noted that every one ar these allegations is
on intoruation ami belies SkCept the last, ami the allegation that
“Plaintiff is not « Aelder in cus tire OF gald mete" ds a mere
ounclusion of law, I% ig imoosdble to cotermine frem it whieh
of the comiitions specified in tis Segotdable Inetrweente Act
eonetituting a helder in due oourse have mot been complied with,
(Seger v. Mo: hom, 95 8. Y. Supp. 49, )

if it were a necessary ererequisite te the otatement
of & Meriterious defense im this conse that sefemiant make posd tive
ailegutione of fact shewine that plaintif? was met « elder in due
CHULE®, We could be compelled te held that the sllegetiens ef hia

Aeendad potition to weeate the Jucguent wore imeutlieient. “e arg

het, hovevers with the question os te whether, simee the vordiied :
petition contadmed such matters as wenld comptitute, if established,
% Beams Zacks showing of « dofewtive titze im the cumehes, who
Regttiated the mote te Sinimtif?, it was necssaary to allege at
Ohi that plaintire was mot « helder in duc CREO»

“setion 59 of the Negotiable Inetawents ACC, Cahdins
Tilineis Reve St.ey chs UB, pare 79, provides:
i “avery nahdow af. ordme facade to ye —— -
wc Jet aigottated the instrument was defective, the buedon de

hoider to prove that he or some yerson under whom he
Chaim sequired the title as a holder in due course. * cn

ae: mnonmenesinces ean NN AES
sewoisot os ek

ak euoks ome Lis eau “We One ‘Eco Hedd nse are sie
tatt Mobiagokto vat Sine rant wih tyebme Pobtod hee Bobte vi 7
evn o Bk “vltom bina tO settee ‘ox nh sxsihiioet a dee wk 2 Sabie
Mokdw $2 soe? sastiretoh of elttewogut es 3% yeat to mokaumbel

fh staomnnstect enema at seal powitoban enn t rk

nar
PPR weet Ca

(8h saqua o¥ oH OO qiintus

Soneatnd atu eat o8 ad letweerong Tiaateoes “ oxow hk a

ovieined calum drabee'tod dat suurs whdd Mi benwted iiss air.

rw didnt iano ah BAS yh
eb te enati.qeits wll taild Diet ot bettogmd of biker

wie @ a baad i onsen fy baie a

section 56 of the act, Cahdll’s [lldmeis fev. Stee
Gh» 98, pare 7S, defines when the thide is defective:
“the tithe of « gercon whe segotistes om ine trument

is defective within the mouming of thig \2t when he obtained
tie instrument, er any sionature terete, by fread, dureas

ov force ami fear, or other unlawful mesa, or fer an illesad
Wadler such ciroustanoes as aeuse tha tee se Of fekithy oF

the matters alleged in the petitiom, if establiched,
would ¢learly show thet defendant waa a Vietim of the frond ond
aeeedt of the Pumehes. iy their false representation that the
Usion Company was in a weak financis) condition, (when in fact
it was soumd) upon vhich representetion detemiont relied, they
imowleated fear in the mind of defendant thot that Sigeny wold
fail ag bed the Illimeis Life Insurance Company, which they
held up ae on exemple of what «se likely to hewoon. By their
false statement that deofemiont could realise 26,090 ag the cash
surrender value (it was im fact about 25,900) ef hia Union
Company policies, they engendered koe in the éefemient that he
eould secure that smount before the mbtly predieted crash of
the Union Company took place, These representations were mnde
2@ that he would assent amd accede te thedr pregrom and eign
the application fer policies amounting te 025,00 in the
Golumbien Company of which they were the se ents,

The situation is mot presented of « man “he wanted
or was anxious to get miditional incuranee, bat of a man we
wes prevailed upom, according to the ellem tiene ef the
petition, by umscruguleus egente to get out of a tottering
compemy before it crashed, ami take o lesser emeunt of insurance
in « soumi company which «ac te be paid for out of the cash
surrender value of the cuneclicd veldcdes in the Undon Compass

Shen the Columbian policies were presented for delivery

~+(Giiit the note in cucstden wae presented fer defendant’s sienature,

me Smeursnee moratorium het intervened, rentering 4¢ supe sotbie

goto o¥od efeMhlil ef iiitied gtea 288 Dh G8 modteei oo we
| 1e"is netsh ef eehd ote mere comdtod SP swtag ght ado —

sbodadtgatea wists Died ost ek Regeste ened e8t ris
han Sawrk ods to attoly 2 now Suaheneb dadd woke petal pie
ents. Gaukt wobtasaswrages ae xhodd ve seen aa
doa fi aed) wots these fotanant® teow and ear ynigmne
Wid _bolior tanhaeleh medictceconzen debte mous (Sema ot
Mivow Yeeqowo Sami godt Paniee ted Ye ARAN at mh tat Repeokwattt
wale doar eisai? spon? ThA okembesK ey beet ‘ad tak
edt oe. a ‘ aoe
we ln ahd he {e00gud duets dock ah wow ‘ei tay ‘al i
ad fadt travmetod wit a2 aged horehnonms walt quote on ,
Ye deseo batokiong Ybtdm ae avated tameme geld women Beco
obax grew eaeliatnesere: giedT .eselg iowa eee ete oils
tyis tea wegour that? o¢ choses bo feodee bows a rer ;
att mk 200gttt a8 pabtmmene esbnttog et abt ad
siiheeaechi'tnin ts hn: tilibidaniasaitiah ailiieiiaa eae aah
A Ps ih AE SN GA ES
con 8 i ki rah:
eVitngate stoke alt mk embod tor lillie sts 20 outer

Utevekes toy betascwny srow wabotlog |

aot areas

eee i La ae

eoutamte at drabawts o cece atc Ris

for cefendamt te vealiue the cash ourremder value ef hig Vind on
vompany policies. Confronted with this eLtuation J. co Punch
agrecs that if defemiant sfened the note 44 would net be payable
wilous amd until defendant collected the cash ourrender value

ef hia Uniou Compamy policies, regardless of the terms af the
note. At thie time defendant #ti2l placed full reliance on

the falee representations of the “wnches thet the Unien i ng aay
was in weak fimenedal condition and that he could secure 06, OOD
aS the coh surrender value of his Unien Compeny policies with
which he might pey the promiums om the mew soldodes,

Under the provisions ef wertions 59 end 65 ef the

Negotiable Imetrumonte set, supra, a defemiamwt hae a righ

prove, if he dam, thet the tithe of the pyyeo whe negotiated a
note was defective undor section 55, and if such a showing is
made them the burdon would be om the holder te shew = holding
in due course a» required by section 59. (Justice ve Stoneetune
267 11. 448) fern Stete Boy 250 Tle Apoe BR2e)
Uetdl such « site it mate the holder would be
omtitled te the presumption umier section 99 that he wae a
holier im due course, ami wiless euch presumpidon is overcame
ho would be entitled te a directed verdict.

iy 256 Tie Appe 1.)
in our opinion, uwler the facta and eirceumstanees of
thie case, it was mot ebligatery upon de@damt to «Llege that
Plaimtif? was not a holder in duc course.
+Ie passing won this preposition im Bears
@42 Tlie Apps 485, the court asdd at page 4068
egg at a2 RP leat
or the note and and that the —, Satis to gedd note was at all

‘ames defective, (B91) v, va 08 1 ) & being
sesen'1S Spent trate pre tat Ret raat Serta nae

whom he claims, asquired the tithe et : er in Que course,
(Geetion 89 of Hagetiahis Instrumente Act, Cohdill's Ste, cle 98,

pers 797 Boll v. Made 227 Ile Apps 1205 some enna, 108

wots okt To askev rebewree dgan ade datlent et dmnbrotod woe
Monit 5D sk moktaes ke akdy kw buthortaed .adkedteq wtuyasl
elder: of tom Aivow $8 agen eid Somyte éaubastoh RE testd doomye
euler sahuorum Aue sth Rede iLos Saahemtes Leder baa alo feas
ati Ao mmed att Ge eomsdroqex wwekettog wap? meaM wht KO
£9 consbios LEM tepaty Liite suabasted abt abit oh sates

Were mek ond tout emctonsr’ odd 0 emottsimoeomen sole’ calf
C004de erxose Mune st tah ime aA Anaoe Lntomant? dee 9 sh now
pie satahing woouey 08 ob No eat wanmen Siet 2 Te

ene yee td

“ eatd' to 08 tae Be mibves 29 wontnivone wid cele
of dighs 2 sat tmsimote® & aguas 404 omonarst oa ae

& betottogon este oop, welt Ne ofthe eit tasts so a de.
eh pakvede » dom 2k “tase 88 seken08 robs oyhtnetteh t atlas
gakbicd » wore of xo fs ade mo of buoy aobund edt mest. oem
exasihnemed. «v go.dtext§) 298 Roboues W dorkues an she ‘ow ‘
(G88 cogs otEE Os shew + Mia oats aes vob Li Yas
06 biwowr obfest oiit ohae of gatrads 5 saan Lisa ipionaiagt 8

eo naw adt dust 28 BOI pe oe hee so Rt ems ald ‘ot both tins

OHO STOVE sk mobiqsarscey slow soudam Amp qoowes exh Bk te E

+ secon} tap cone 1 be 8 Sat

hood MRO Ny
| bok, Gk KET BBR !
to noonataniorts tas afoo® ad “ole guodmdro wo At

fad vgatte of imaddioh goqu vormpebic to aaw $k youen ¢

i dee a “.
eoonume om st tehfod « fom ear :

cata «+ aa mbt wth awk went ao

= te

Tlie 329.)
"im the opinion of thie court the pleiatat? ia errer,

by affidavits ond pool, Geen Mot have te show matters, the '

Wardem of proef af whieh is upem the helder ef the Bote, defend-

a8t im erver im tate case, *

Ch page 488 the court endd:
Le rr ag Re

af defendant is able te establish by evidemee the
wllegations of hie petition te veesate thon Be will hove shown a
éefeetive title in the payee, ami the burden will be thrown upon
plaintiff’ te justify hie good fatth and t6 shor that he d¢ 2
helier in due course.

if the aliegstions ef defendant's petition te vacate
the judgment are true ami these properly pleaded must be sonside
ered go for the purpese ef this appeal, defendant shenld be
erantec eon opportunity to present hie defense om the meorite,.
mplated ty the Negetixnblie Ine truments
M@t, Mor any other law, that a defendant woule be forscloged from

it wae never cent:

making o defence if he has ome ami offers to present it im apt
time.

“8 Save comeidered all points urged by opoeaime ecounse)
amd all esses cited, aleng with sany others, tut in the view we
take of this procesding we deam further discussion Wihecessarys

Sor the reasons imiieated the judgacnt of the *hendcipead
court should be reversed amd the couse remanded with directions
that the judgsent be opened end execution etayed, amd that defend.
amt be permitted te file em affidavit of merits and defend, the
juégment and execution to stam ez securt t¥e

REVERS. AND REMANDED YITH DINECTIONS,
Gridley and ceanlam, 27.5 conowr,

The OR gee

eases Yebpae vues Galt tc wat ae
winatist «Shoe 2 WW Hees to moni!

ekit ah waste ab Bo
Koc al gre ip can Dg Aig

ens ees

aaa ese see ma oan, ace Tor ment
ld anmObee CL AnLidntes oF oda Oh tmabeo rob Yt se ae
pees eval Lite ot sect stacey of wokiitog eit to amen? yak. }
nous tevould of Like otal god bn goeyag oat mt ofthe eyhe outs
a ak of fast worts a} Ae Atte hoop wht Yiitaw, of Vitsmtaly
pteosr. 08 | mete s*¢mokenire> 2 cam kiagotte sie a ih - a

Dera? ra La - hee

GAMERS Ge CLAnH,
Plaintif? im kyrer,
SRBOR TQ Chocyre COURT »

COOK, COUNTY»

&yp Fy 7 r Ly ‘
fest & A T.A 6 6G 8

Me SISTICH GRIDtey DELIVERY THE GRINTOR os THE CoUn tT,

NCABAW Be Barnta, .
Veteniant im Errey.

SN Ra ha cali Og Hl
ae

By this writ ef error plaantil’ seeks to rewerse an
Orcery oF Judgment of che eireuts COU’, Catered Gegember 1g»
1952, im subsianes as follows:

Thig enuse coming on i¢ be heard an Plaingic?'s motion
te file ten additional counts, ané on éefendant's motions to deny
eueh leave and te diomias Plaintiff's guit on the erounds thet
“the proposed ten accitional counts * * * show thas the embire
#uit io based upon an alleged agresmant aim transnetion which are
antagonistic to the interests ef the Publics injurious to the
interests of society in general, anc corrupt amd veidg* and tne
court “heving founc from an examination of the proposed ten
aéditional counts and the affieowit of ioe Ritman (plointar? ts
attorney) thet the emtire sult is baged upon an alleged agreement
anc trateaction whieh are antagonistic tu the intereates ot the
Public, injurious to the interests of eocivky im general, and
corrupt aad wuld s”

"ET 18 GRPERND, firat, that leave iy denied to file the
ten scditional countess; seconds iont the “entire auit ia hereby
Gismiased * « * a» being aguinat publie poliey seesuee based on @
eorrups,» iilegui and inmorsi trananetion, ageording to the
milegations of anid ten additionsi eountea, the truth of whieh ie
verified by affidavits" SBird, thet leave is given to derendant
"to puereste into the record by Bill of Reeeptions said tem
scditions1 gountes” fourth, that leave ie gives te defendant to
incorporute inte the record by Bill of Skeeptions the certified
opy of Givoree proeeetings heretefare identified as Sefend ant "9
Exbieite 1 and @5* Fifth, that leave is given to defendant “te
incorporate in eaid #1. af Sxewptione the vritten opinion of the
eourt heresofere filed om Deowsber 4, 19325" and gizt at
denwe is given "te pluiwtiff to file a B41i of iaeupti
6) dayne”

Within the required time « bill of exceptions wae marked
“prevented* by the trial Judge. It inckudes (a) the tem additional
counts; (b) the opinion of the court, and (¢) certified copies of

the Dill, anever, tevtimony heard am? cceres entered Sesober Ear)

a "
( rm i . \ ae ‘ ita SOs.
L axl |
i er ec
eTeod TYUO OF Homer 3 : : ee na
Le | ates Acts { s
) ¥ une
800 ATS see ae ot ¢

eh ee

2 hee

a2atoo Tt ae MORK as asnavnaaa rekinap OL

us oniewer of oslese VWddnbalg terme Ye fixe abate ™
wed aodepoed pereiee «rie saorke odd Yo dem

43 pei ‘Gens
eS a
suwaitet as vonatede hes EOL '
a RS

oo btom p'Yrdsabatg me — Pag ai Re getave 9 ouuss els?

& o@ encdios 2 danbuetes SNe Sele siete ot ts a
wn ta Sa wold ye YE: —S egieats o¢ bne eyed,
ash a 4 * gétaoe damolélesa med beneg

om :

ee on age 4 ph hrc

wats on » *abhor

o!Sthemtate ream a arene to @ pe tl } ee
one abeoveian edd of & eloctetaaaee oo » toldw NSE
buts ,latoneg ai yéelvon to ataerodms aaid os “ert

ost’ eit of etuod ot at eves dust sZacchh
al tise Eee
a BG nage penn yok ey hen’ oy 2 2
as = to ose odd «sanaoe Lag Lanetdl a
ag « poner Sul dgvaxt aay tones ahd oat
02" ¢nahamia stost sreek gas se2t *
“pohtiszes. std yin

ae auabere Bel «. @ bathhined ok 8% 1 is: % :
yo Suabastes od seve; i chesorea joss ah

Le tie oe!
face “sees ‘3 py aah fh a oxo
#quexnt %o LAR 6 £23, a8, Shafearkt oo? aera ef a
bettas aew “abiod tesoxe te vive 5 ‘ook | bow: :. :
Lanotstobe mot ext (a) onbutoal $i ‘veghut kala? ode +

” ‘
98 sedesao Sevedie esuesh nee Senet momiesd ie tee 3

midgie ane

eke

1931, in certain Pracevdings for Giverce, inatituted in = eourt
at Rene, Nevatia, by Dorethy Funk Clark against her husband,
Jomes G. Glark, and in which she wae grambed « civeree. Therontter
om Pebrucnry 1%, 1935, the bili of exceptions wag signed and eert ified
by the judge and filed. Sy atipulation the orivineal bill of
exceptions wos incorporated in the transeript.

The present action in AGCUMpRIS Wan commenced on Bay 1%,
1952. im the seme day plaintirr filec a dvelaration, soneks ting
ef « apecial count and the common HCMRIS, and alae fled a oritten
Gemand for & jury trial, in the speeial count plaintiff, a resident
of the State of Sew York, complained of defendant, a resident of
Tiitmets, and siiegeds

*That defendant, on, towwht, ‘uguat 4») 1941, in the
“tate of Viseonsin, duly contracted and sgreeds for = yslid eone-
eiderstion, te pay to plaintiff on the het day of exch and every
wonth thereafter, commencing an the Let day of Septombers, 1931,
and continuime during the Lifetime of plaimsiff, the awa of 88503
by menns whereef defendant thon and there deeume iieble te yay
«te plaintiff the satd sume of money on the Let day of cach
every month au afeoreasidy and being so lishle defendunt, in eon-
wideration thereof, thereafter pais te plaintiff the eum of Yb,
| Ofig towwdt, She let days of Yaptember, ogteber, “overiber and
December, 1931, amd on, to-wit, the Let days of Jomaary and
Februsty, 1952. Yet, although the deye of payment of anid scum
oF GH0G— omy towwlt, the let deye of Mureh, pril and o lWSz,
Rave ¢lupsed, def & hao sot paid $e plaintiff the sald swe
of mo nor any part thereof, but refusse wo te de» and Howe
epudiated ie ta § liability ané obligations in that regards
e the dumsge ef plaintiff in the eum of BB ,060) ands therei ares
he Orings hig cult, ete.”

To thia desleration defendant filed a plea of the

ee le Oe

generel igeues On September 24, 1932, the attorneys whe had
commenced the cult and filed the declaration withdrew as plaintiff's
atiorueye, and Lioyd ©, “hitmen wae substituted and entered hia

fee Se

appearames ag plaintiff's attorneys Om Cetober D4, 1938, after
é@ue noties te defendant's sttormeye, plaintiff presented hie writtes
motion fer leave te file the ten aéiitiosual coumtec, exhibited to

Ph ese EPS

the courte Yartous grounde for the metion are atated and to the
HM motion ie attoched the affidavit of “hitman thet “the foregoing

oho

gues « eh begwlicant , vexevis «et aperd ds o9g2y @iatsem wi gLteL
eaten sor tonbege atoll) deat yitenet yo qshevell gow ga
wotterred? .entevis « Sedmetg caw osu dolde m2 hme gttad? 60 wom’
i bektitcse bnew boonte sew amodiqgecse ‘to iLid offs _ SOL OL Cente gF Me
| te Lid Landytre ori? mottekuqits yf © sbettt tie egbet out wo
| .t¢kveamesd afd mi beseroqroont aow emolsqnoxe
O eR yet ne beongues gov FiageWese at webtoe pnseotg wer
" qubtetancd ynotdetalavd a pedir Vutsatere yh oman edt od -REOE
iedthiw @ OLE onte seo sndamos sumo ant tne fines Latveqe a Ro
dephivet # eitsmbele dimes Sakeoge ond at _ hake wet, a eh ines
to dnobians as _ gittadbine tae Xe bontalques eAre¥ wok by od 8 |

bed ote eyonr ssa oan ewer a ands
a YEtdadete ee woubstg te aoeatatoes oe
he meeene 20s, tate ya

‘| nosthew eke basaacong mabey em COnTOD ta a dro hmets
et beshd tite Feemos rape

| | “8 femot ston rod 9 ony oe ret wm |
ore ot bets betada ota mo dome oats sek ty

- aadoyex0% eta tad? 2 maa tas te ‘ : te ,

ote

grounds are true to the begt of hie knowledge and information and
judgment as an stteormeyent~law.* The grounca axes

“fhe original declaration herein wae filed herein im the
form in which it ig under the iepreesion (which wow erroneous) that
the claim of pleinmtify, fer which this vase was ané wae intended
te be brought, teuld be reseversd ou under the common cousta, and
that it was unuccessary ic present im express aliegation the various
_* legal tutendments of the anticipated procfa upom the trial

Sate

Gaié propeced ten additional toudia, ani each of than,
aré Recerzgory to be filed herein in order te enable pslaintifrr to
sustain the section fer the cleim fer whieh this case was ami was
intended to be brought, and in furtheranee of justice in the
premises to claimant, and im order ta preacnt allegation
peseible werietions in the proofg rasacrnable and preperly to be
anticipated upon the trial hereof and various intendments of such
proofs properly to be antic tac by plaintiff as renaenably or
agar gered éecuctbie from ow reefs im the opinion ef the Court
or of the atvermeya for ene or re of the parties har¢ies
a Papa nilegations of ry preponed additional eouetas

ef each of thems ore true gon get he ¢videnee pur
ne trial hereof wili tend to ee Be “evidentiary facts
meaning, the pure focta aa stan Geeuieed from mixed law and
faets) presented im each and «11 of said additional counte, and
every allegation of pure f«et in acid propowed ten sec ditional
eoumia, ot im any ef then, iv true, and evicenee wiil be effered
by plaintiff upen the trie. heresf tending te ou cert the eame.®

The bill ef ecacepgtiens diasloses t#at «f the additional,
eounies the first ie aimiler to the erigimal eprcial count, except
that it is <lleged that om Awrust 4) 1922, at Motizons “iscenslmy,
"iy congideration of plaintiff's promise * * net to me defendant
for elienntion from plaimtiff ef the affeotions of plaintiff's wifes
berethy Punk Glerk,” defendeut “orally promised plaim:ify to pay
to him on the let day ci exch anc every month thereafter, commeneing
on the ist day of “evtember, 1931, and continuing curing the Lifetime
ef piaintiff, the sum of $50 5" ete. The second count is substantially
the name an the first, except that the comaideration for defandamt's
eral promise iw elaintiff's promise not to sue defendant “for
mifenation from plaintiff of the affeetions of plaintiff's wife o
for sefenéant's slekediy debsuching, 2 a 3
paid wifes" ‘The third ond fourth eowite are similar to the seoond
except thet ot the beginnimg of the counts ore allegations of the
warriage of plaintiff, on June 8, 1917, to Dorothy Yasky of the birth

bae mattameted ben vpbotwawml ald to teod edt of omed one whewoey

texe auuvroty of? “swaleta-yertaiin ao ee daoang bert,

ab orval Seitt wow atone aeitviaigoh Lapigkxe i”
ae! aueotoure sev dolse) meleuowgek ofS xobaw a? 22° soldw ab wrod
petment now bre saw ogeo alald dotsdw set «Vilinbelg te sale ods
| fem gestures maamee of7 tebe we betevoner af Binge Pg peg fi “ oe
awoltsv oid moliegolin aaviges wi gaveoty od YLatesesmay
fatud wld mage gtoerg bedagivlins od? te ataumbanéat Lagot ne oigianog

gmads io dooe hes ,adtaven Samptdloom me hedsygord ahaa”
eo? Thivataly olgans of teove ot ntexed belli of of YtaceooeN —
_ haw Bie aaw eene Beivy - Egos gforadl tek mel tha Gas ‘2
pet me evitex’ ke oon mak a fnueeee © 85 = LOGE.

depeiin @ dros swe ag tobi ee bom

od ga ye oe efdancavet whoorg ould anodsat a eoot
ag fF aervapmpenys oy ree "tg bovoqton ina ed 04 els bedagioltne
$0 RGR OBL Ales fa 9 o7 _ BSe0%G
siues aif bo qyiniee.s net ‘ae Pen > ge eas i es in
oder ott Leno) sibs. 9s te coalona <0 wife ork ayorsiia sei aoe ‘o

Ne eaghtageiia off

boretto ox kite wito ak age Pay
* «aati oad req | ; Settent'S “oa

Kanto £32 ties Meh “So Sad? wountoedy. ‘Pikigeeds ni bisa ae
tqnoxd 4 trues fates Soaks a 49 chico sn
sMitomeont® ywogtdak te geOE Wh om ‘a
daabaeieb gate ae jon * * seitore — dinkase

i Simoes aft ot aelintes ete olin tienda tele als aces:
he ot? Ye amoliogelio oxm atemom gid Re antaniantpah.An At POOR 6
ddukd ald Yo polos Whlowel of 4PLGL 9B awh aay

de : ae
abit aed asi 5
N Protig hy a ; P|
Y ¥ id

il ii ti ee

ode

thereafter of thety twa dnughtera, Jane and Judith, respecs ively

on January 23, 1623, and Pebruary 25, LOS6, thet Pleintiid’? ant pds
wife lived together watil about July 27, 19313 and that "Om, toewlt,
Jetieary 15, 1931, and on divers ether daye between that time and

the waking of defendant's oral promise te plaimsirr here tnatter

#66 Lurthy” defendant aliwnnted Plaimsitt's wie» at feet lors,
"plaintiff in no vive Soneenting thereio,s* and devuuched her, ete.
fhe fifth eount is similar $@ the third, an@ hae the Pellowing
ullegationgs

"That on, toewit, Jommry 2, 1931, deferdant be,

paying persennal «merous attention tc plaintiff's anid A gl
Gomtinueé se te do on divers other daye in the pericd between
that time ard the making of defendants oral promiee te pleaintigg
hereinafter aet forth, any goowit, January 15, 1952, februcry 15»
193k, and saly a 2942 » Bk» SO-WiEs Vinnetka, Tliinoie, Rec Loon»
Viseonging iske Ferest, lilinois, ave Chieagos Tllinedet that
éuring avid Last mentioned porlods ony so=rLi, Suly 15, 203k» at,
Sowwit, Hew York City, plainiis¢ Bes infoweed and advised in

iting by plaintiff's said wife that curing plninvif?'s abasnee
uring acid last mentlined periad from plaintity's home (which —
wae then im dedieon, “Viseonoin,) * *, defendants hed ve ea bodly
Visited amt paid persenal RaOrGUs AlLentions te plaintiff's ante
wife, had fallen deaperately im leve with her, and hed represented
to her thet if she we accept defendant! S eenens ettentiong ae
would richly provige financially for kee children, and bad repeatedly
weg. and begged her to Givoree plaintiff and marry defendant, and
beGuuse o. the great leve fer her expressed by defendant and
éefenéant's attentions, representations and implerings, ae lsat

hy Sie

aforeanids she (plaintiff's wife) was tavers ispoged bow
$etendant and_townre a ia te GG inet oforesaid 5 ci

Gal Gel, chy Sowwit, Joly [65 193519 ab sbows Midnight (to-wit,
LLeso Pete! on aaid lust mentioned ates, plaimtif? retur
Bmannouseed from Sew Yerk Clty (where he Red been continuously
@F one month) to the home of plaintify ané his said wife at
Beacigon, “iseonzin, anc shere found in the company of ¢sch other
pleintife's, anid wife and defendant, ami also feund personal

@, Wonrlag apparel, imeludine chunges of underwear anc aight

elothes, cf deferienty that, thereuper OMy toewlt, duly 27, LODL,
Sip to-wit,» Gacicom, ‘iscenmin,y plaintiff imfermed defendant that
Plaimsiff would promptly imetitute enit ageinat cefendant te
recover from him for the alde@oation from plaintiff ef the effeotiona
of plointiff's seid wife ami the debauching and enrnolly knowing of

Oa gromiee not to sue defenmiant “ * defendant orehly promiced
Bistaticf te pay te him om the let day of sesh and every month
thereafter, coumeveing on the let day of September, 1851, and gone
timuing during the Lifeiime of plaintif?, the sum of O50", ote.”

Tae sixth eoumt is cimilar te the fifth. The seventh
ie wise similar to the fifth, cxeept that, instead of the allegation |

ae to plaintiff being “ingermed and edvised in writing by plains

ial we

ba wy teal eae Ys cid satake. on eR geen ber er ‘ate we

‘elowkiveqaet ,ae Liat om agel qraotdignnh owe short? te redRnonads
wit San Tihimkele dade 28801 .fR qicsrede’ bam etal 2&8 ermal a
teeat ee” gad dee E4005 afh vbw twoda Lianw Tests aged beved ohiw
at oui. esd noweeod aged cadde atoTiS me baa eAGOL att “eran

| oe taukecod Rigemiadg oF se harem fate a iuabatieh te gebion oaks
euxoidovtts o'etiw af ite akela botanelia Janke tes * eet tae

vote 2 eoud bedoued ob bas "sg eun apes paiiaenmen e¢hy oct, at Tismiedg*

‘geiweiso® els oat neta eburdé eed ot sokhini a sal tone wast head

Say

a raunl tox got)

‘mee thn peste SBEL gh yroumcl ythwea? gso a a
Sim potiv blue e*Pnidwate od weidee¢éa sxotems Lamenwig ge
weewsed Soluce edd a2 axed ‘acho exevel ool oF e- men
VWiiwlaty of sebmory Lore af itiebreieh te. gabsam et? Sus om
Gk Qvowidet gltRl . OL yunutiel ydivwet gam. ive fom 290%
atourant. ,g hentia amb sonwk® gtivrod aim 2lfOk «VS. edit Bi
wn! felomiiil gepondnt dem gebouiLis. séuoxekt aahed.
o Fe ‘a biti hearst et inoes ane Lg ge beret temor damd

ree | Bisa 12 eo
| SORE ate yen ee ee ee eet Eres ~ Hitt a

Moise) amet et etitmtntq wevs Fon coy dono l saan bbe
yibodacqex bad ¢nobeetah a * (,etumepal! vooal a t
tive a xtidetate es etecimetia eae tome Lanog eg ite begl
dei nvoesgen hat ome . tal davies owed wm? ylotarogeeh maliat bat *
ef wold Seeedds exe ryan et hunieeny* aq pee afeer: one 2 dad’. xed.e

Sr hed be sho rkiinn L mee
ee ce wun es : cs
Ye becaeTexe 14 . oy

teak be gegmiteigal fas Sand ¢ oe tree Ste 9

wehleged Sree) As paren ame |

sbhewos) tigluphe Stoda ox

eiineanliaee need’ baat

te. ohtw bher akd Sra (adie

igs PE Parra seer
anes Tey ‘ 4

teint iaowreieas Le emo og :

GAERE, aT Eli g dhwene AB apr ecd

wre
fats tanbes tom Soare te “ni ‘at, #2) oe ager |
of tmobrstes gaskene ; catty ihie :

3 ULlonas one ankdowsten ae otiw dtew ef
a*iitewteiq To mikiaeitedte at oe Shute Yale tia si bs

bemtmorg ykface deohasteb # * et too ope oF tom
ainom ters tire Mote to Yoo sat tals to whe ‘02 Rep Od

aie “08 Pee oleae scadweigea® To yes tet ote we yatonemave
Mate goO0O Rs oe mde peas dakete, ‘te embsetes :

ainever of sAtth2 acts ot aakiahe od dewes sixte ony tahini
_— ed? bastenk sted? sqooxs ee: eHtooF edad onde a
wi ady yd paiziae me deedvia ns Soaresak® yates. bi baad

awSeo

bAff*e said wife, stess* 14 As alleged thet "ons to-wit, July i P
19329 plaintiff had reasonable growede for beliovine amd believed
that he hed reasonable growids for ouime defendant for sldomation
from plaimtirt ef the offeetions of hin said wife ané Lose By him
of the services and oswiety of enid wife im plainiiyy's demeatie
atfairne*

in the eighth, ninth ami tenth counts, besides alleging
éefencant's corel promise to pay to plaintiff $500 a momth, ettes
there sxe allegations «a to defendant's further premises te set up
a trust fund for the benefit of plaimsit? and plaimtiff's childres
and te make a certain will. <né in the ninth and tenth counte a
Gertain ictter, =ritten by dcfencent to plaintiff under date ef
saguaet 4,5 1931. and a copy of o curtain will ef defendant, are set
forth, In the cighth cows, efter setting forth whe warclage eof
pleintit? and voerethy Puuk, the bivsh of theiv two ehilldewa, the
slienatien of the affections aad the oeteuching of giaintiffts wife
by defendant, and plaintify's a.td eral promise not tc mae defende
ant, @ie., 1t is alleged:

"That thereafter on, tcewit, uguat 4, 15k, Gig Gemwht,
Medison, “iscencing in consideration of pleintiff's saie arak
promise not tc sue dafenc: unt 9 tee, Ecfeméant arally promised
plaintiff thet at defendani’ tr ons Feasenabie is exe ohh he
would pat im trust for plaintics amd pleintic?' sais twe children
a fund of at least $800,c0C,; the income of which trust fund would
be puynble to plaintiff fer life, ané the sriastens of which truat
fund, subjeet to plaintiff's Life interest, vaulé beleme to gaia
two children, amd upon plaimiiff's danth would be divided ecwuily
betrecn aaté two children, their heirs and persone] representatives,

suimiiig, and wotil «<id fusd wae put im trust by defendant

fer ylaint ane Fig cated children (ns promised wy ge genes
defendant would pay plaintife om the ist day of each and pity Hoon sy

goo: eomnene ing ge1y. the let ény bp gry weedy Pee at
ited : Sh) teh. ar oo Bs ee aaa FO of foe
until the erestlon of snid | or the de se af fit vidaahy 8 & dast
UL are | in a by watale ¢¢y ondant Bex th bs

xo that im cone:

= ‘ghiviran st :

Lantementionad proiiees yiriniitt, ot, ete, ‘ie "ees orally,
promived defendamt not to sue him, * *, which promise plaimiirf has
ever keptg cnat by meona thereof defendant then and there become

iisble to put in trust © * » fund of nt least 925,000, * * and
meanehile * * te pay to plaintiff on the let dey of each ond ewery
month * * at least (50G, and immediately om, toowit, August 49 1951»
make * * @ last will and testament, * “7 and that being se Liable,
defendant, in comaiterstion thereef, * * thereafter on, to-wit,

ll
eth wilet. gftberod ane" gnaly Soyelde ah of * pote yetiw dhaw er tee
bevskiod hue yakvokiod wet ohewetp eirnoonen bat Tibsetaey _AEOk

wettemed fn vot smeteokad yeiive ast ebowery eidemmamet bast eal dsle:
ait vs enel Sas OBE Blow ald to emedtootte wats bo Ded sibele- eek
otistms a tilatatg at elie Shes le yistvor ta weotrtem ott Te
yeahs:

grtyetie oohiaed aatnnes dined ie dimka gattainte ot wt
qcoee giiinom mw OOOG Thienbate af gag 2 enlmong Love a? encore ted
qu deo of sentmeng voctwwt w*érsbietod of an anoltage tia eve enemy
Seth Linty. et ribeniale brie Thee ake: to tkteaed wit tek baud sowed e
a atuwoo Mensd tims tender este ot fas st mingcn 9 woe oF ta
Re Stub tobeat wid sataly os Satie we mogetae etateok nteores
Gon ev (insMns tye Yo Kilw wlagebe i Ye Yen ed aoe a sessed
Yo eget me bilo Mtvat yeLeiae whet «ramOD. tasks ons a ad
std gitoxbttts ow) ated? to Mivhd ode ality wlferet hee Vinge
watw erat mata, * Ln bse “Witiet nase > et re te

ane dos te Yah Por “3 nt
A te: se os pest plortner yi. igi ;

porto, np aha useee
aati “eee pg a ee

vmaped arett (om cecte dante te te

ENP on Con tunel dn To:

9SdakL ve aulod sade. pend fae
gtiwood (mo ted teosads 9 * ton

ojo

February 1, 193%9 paid plaintiff 93,05. Yet defendent hes never
erented anid txuet ond hag Mot made and kept im foree and effect
& dest will and tectament * *, and althe aéditional payments
of $600 eneh have aecerued * *, defendant hag not paid te Wleintify
amy of them * *, but has wholly failed and refused se to ao, and
On, toowit, February 2, 1032, * * wepudiated hig Linbility and
obligntion * * end metified and advised plaintiff that he would
not make any further payments to plainsif? as any times and would
% ereate gaid trust * *, ond would wot make * * any augh Lest
Al and testament * “3; to plaintiff's damage in the sum of
GIO —I0G, etoe®

the tenth eount is more comprehensive, 1 contains
eubstantially the some allegations as in the eighth count, and
| aise many of the allegations of the other counts, including thoae
of the fifth (as above set forth) relative to the infermation
Plaimtit? received from-hie wife, in writings om July 1%, 1991,
| and to his returm “wannouneed" to bie nome at Madison about
| midnight on July 26, 1951, and what he then and there @iscovered,
|

Oe a Ss

ete. In the tenth count, sleo, ae well ac im the ninth, are set
forth (following appropriate aliegntione) photeatatic eopy of
. defendant's letier ta plaintiff, bearing date of ugust 4, 1931,
and a copy (enclosed in the letter) of "Last /111 amd Teotament*
) of éefendant. The copy of the letter, written in lomg Band, ia
as follewsst
\ *Cnieage, susuat 4) 19316

i wiah to confirm our verbal understonéing that I wild
gontribute $500 a month indefinitely towards the supper’ and
eduestion of Jane and Jwiith Clark, beginning Copts > a

it is underateod that there will be no
above agreement except by mutual compent. i am entleming copy
ef will I have just executec whieh shows that they will be omply
provided for in the event Po my oe within the next few montiee
SAMG er Oly y
Borman ‘« Hasviae®

By Article @ of exid will defendant gives to kis wife,
Josephine Re Harris, 411 Rewuavhold furnitures, etee, leented on
premieee known se 594 “gruee “treet, Vinnmetke, Uliimois; by
ixtiole 3 he gives to hig “dear friend, borethy Fe Clark, to whem

i em greatly indebted,” his “farm at Gilliema Bay, “isconaing

ane
wavem sad. gusbasted 30Y shige vadent alg hag ght
SeeTte base eose? ah dqet tna ohem 3 br deus
yo pa Senates hoa : hae “ . ote
Thah por he o¢ blag gon eat sansie red 4 3 O08 .
ee a oa beawivs tae Sedat viteae nad ai étude pre mi pr Rete Big
bas Sil tigatt = betalhaged © Moar cn a eradet atiwaes . mo
flew od Gok) Tibdatesle beadeke bee weEtiden tea +" gokdaptivo
forts qg weak d po oa 6 ee ae o# Per“ eld tot =,

teed. sown * #, * geste Stee
te pong atk propa de etry Gniate % g* * fremsiaet. ba San tite

etiteteos 21 .ewkasedesgsme sien ef ganoe dime? oat
hata qdruoo Masyle add al oe smodiogelio omen sds wiahénatedwe
geeks gutoulond «atmos sortdn eff Yo amobtagelin vt te Yom eale
mokinmotes ao o¢ oviinkon (dtw% don avedo en) Mets> ons te
efECL 40S vloh me qgetider wh gate alder? bevtooes, wbembaty
tuode acnthet 2e cami ald e¢ “heeomonmens” avéer sli ef hee
_ghereveges® exudd Sap sestd oof toute Som gSo0L gOS yi my setgtecbbe
toa exe limits sé at a0 Liaw ne gongs gfammy dined mit at, gate
We Wee siatanvady 6 (asinkengeste odabsqosige wibweLsed) stser
_, ehBRE gh tawye Yo atah gatueed ,Tihdataly ad seeded a smohesten
“teomatos® bas L12Y tead* @ Yo (need os mh bonetens) yqoe.e ome
2 shmmt quod at woeeier yreseek ests te yao edt, stanbaetes Yo

nit -tewolla® ga
aga lS bly sptned ES ‘a i

cane ee

he t fe season natok we 4 %

pea porte Ben Spiga ey}
WE tadomt Les sadteand gtooeal dine shila Sea epmalccieadianan.

- iii, Olay oe vate ey ob aM os sonia a & eiviies

~ atttsino wn BW vee amet te grat” gh “ghontened we:

«Fe

together with ail household furnishings and furniture ,*
located on the premises, and “alse i)

@EG ey
personal effeete, ineluding
Pictures and old prints * * looted at my office, oom 401, 112

Vest Monroe Street, shiesgog” by artiele 4 he devises and bequeaths

“eme~third of the rest, residue ang remainder" of his eutabe te his
said wife, Josephine, “if ahe shali wurvive mes ae her absolute

Propertys"” and by article 5 he coviges and bequeaths the * reminding
twewthirds” of the residue of hie estate,

his wife does not survive tide

oF sli of eaid residue a¢
to the Harris Trust & Savings Bank
of Chiesge, as Trustee, im trust S@ pay the net income to Dero thy
¥, Clark during her Life, and, upon her death and that of the
testator, to divide the trust estate imie two equal funda, one for
Jane Clark and ome te Judith Clark, daughters of berothy #, Ghar ity
ané to pay the imcome theres? to them until they attain the age of
25 years, and then to pey te them the eor + But that if Dergthy
¥e Clark an¢ beth of said children and the beateter die before
either of esid children becomes 26 years sf age, She oerpug ig ta
be distributed to the heirs ef the shila iast surviving, er,» in
Gefault of such heirs, ta the teutater'> leviul deseendsnts.
fhe b412 of exceptions further discloses thet om Sovember

27, 19325 the couse came on far hearing upon plaintiff's motion far
leave to file the a¢di.ional coumte, and the twa eumiter motions of
@efendant (a) that such leave be denied and (b) that plaiatirfts

wuit be diamissed “on the ground that 08 the faee of the proposed
Sen additions) countg ssid cause ig based upon an alleged agreaacnt
and transaction antagonistic to the interests of the public and
‘injurious to the interests of sectety in general anc corrupt and
‘Yoid." YPuring the arguments on the motions, J. Pred Neeve

(attorsey for defendant) stated in subetanee that, imaamuch as
« Whitman (attorney for plainiif®) “had seen f4¢ te go eutnide

a vendo! ® , oeisd heraar’ bens omgindaie hacer odedeawed Ll Baers oo
antincood ‘edesthe Lammnteg Lin ovke® bam qetetasg out ay met aeo,

SEE fob must ‘oobi Wa te beanoer # ¢ daha td adh
ods asmped be asetyoe ot & gdntecs * sanbtit qiteende’ 9 ee
adel of etetax east ‘te a bysd.cse pees gublods pen im 3 "7 Rison ‘

odntonds sash Oa 9 Mt svbvawe ifanto vale ut 4 outs aot ki! i %
gainteaes” od adtsonped daw aoatved ec @ sioldxa ‘wt has Monit
3a eubhans phan x6 the we Tall eh to oublaee hd La : ee Se

tas apetyan & toms® akveed ocd ‘et “aha | ovivaue
wivoved o# mash fon odd om 0 turns Ht evoteint of
ada to decke omm siaod snk, ene ist eels one
ok 9m anor, Lage ond 92a vaagen toned ‘ts Barb *

BS i$ Wigred, te pretitgad eats sit out et one ome tone
to ape old atnadn yee Shawne mest? oe ‘vevcadd eames
pitored a vaste gud quumren one measly ‘of yom 09 med :
_ preted abb sadadaed wat hve apenttdo hae. we sted

Se Ce Mi

“duane awa To acose 2S aamoned mt wah aan
ak 920 agelvivre teak Slide ot 16 withod ‘sé of toc ah yak

eotaateooneh Lvtwal «tsotataee eit of aarckod sowe ‘te ‘Suateb

codwevot ge fade aoeotonlh wndiuart aamivqeoxs Te mandy" a

aa owen nat cesd eevee vitiee (deenkereb”

of the record,” and make curtain statements concerning prior
megotiutions fer a eettiement of the eause made before Mre “hitman
had been substituted aa plaintiff's atisrmey, he (Reeve) believed
he had the right to acqueint the court concerning eertain facts

siso outeicge of the record. ima thereupon the following statee
mente in part were made by opposing counsels

“Mie HEEVEs * * # T have before me, your Honor,
sertified copies of a proeesding im a court ef Keno, Hevada,
from which 1t appeare thet om a aworn bill, charging extreme
ané repented eruelty, Mre. Clark civoresd her husband a few
months after this alleged occurrence of the discovery of
Korman Hearria in the home * *,

Wie REEVE (omtinuing): How, Mre “hitmen's argument
a@emec to proceed upon the theory that the questien befere the
court was the sufficiency of these various cowrte on demurrer,
oy whether he had yet to siete hie cause of section in esversh
éifferent counts and im any nusher of inconsivtent matters.

That I conceive is not the questiom im the esse. The question
ng we — iss primes ™ _e ie of _— eau ts»
when you put them & aefe Cisclese « troanuavtion veld ae
agains aniie otter. * * re Clark comes in with a eworn
declaration, aiter his wife has divorced him for emuelty in «
proeeecing in «hich he was 4 party, repreeented by counsel and
echwenting to the deeoree. He comes in here for money end brends
hie wife, ami the mother of hie twe children, as a eonfir
aéultertas, * #

Mie HITMAN: i am not diapered, your Homer, to pursue
ecuneel's argument shout divorees im ‘ene and outside things heree
the matter before your Honer has got to be aceided upon the fnee
of the documents before you.”

The bill of exceptions further diucloses that after the
axgueents on the motions were comeluded, the court toek the questions
raiseé by the motions under adviecument end thereafter, om December
Be 1932, delivered » somewhet Lengiky opinion er deeiatom, in whieh
in conclusion he directed thet an exier or Judgment be érefted and
entered (substantially in accord with the order er judgment that
wom gubsequently entered a2 first abeve mentioned), sad in which he
further directed that “the certified copy of the divoree proceedings
im the eaue ef Dorethy Punk Clerk v. Jomes G. Clark im the Hewada

gourt be admitted im evigenge, and be ineerporated im the bill ef

exeeptionee" mm the mame Gays after the rendition of the decision,

the fellowing eccurred?

Hee BELVEs I have
1 and 2, the proceedings of the

marked, as tefendant's Sahioite
vag shone Judieial District Court of

Seitg palmiscee atmoueiecn Medios. ne one gtr

ne pe gett eee ee

awd heh! oth oxoled chan goes at) To Peomigdes & xO: acoks addogon
develsed (oveoll) of aywecedde a tilvalalg sa Sede di iodia aod ‘Boot

atent miogio animsessen damon odd Intampos oF eet wilt wolond
eotata gulwolick od? mo@nee bes - .

tigacwnmes attlaogge yd eiessiaiiliia bie

Conus gakguacde « a atone 2 AG sisogye ¥

‘wet 2 dmagesct Sed paecevtt Hold one ig beter ed
to yioveseib amg Te aaah begeiia a

femoris etriemtid® ox gaok be
edi exoted aaliasuy ad?
etetiee > me ates aue Die ots
fLeteves at wolten to gunne ald bla
oe tess. ane wah tings gO ag elven
‘tatiqers afl .Gaa0 ent sek san
ee ae peg wl elias aKeR

@ Bb etienwe set ahd bescavis amt sttw ata ved
tea ieutaos vd ae eee ey lag 8 new of doidw

Kort tks 2 wae a Rt i > Sa eke Ne aesifont

oun tay OF , iene ary cael & som am 2 erage att
“— Bg orirygd ebdu tare py

fi aevrewks Lesnar:
ose mig bentVeh ad oF Foy “ood ak oe 50% -

“HON, oxo tad are )

eal g “et'te jon? sogolonsh vediuw) smmktgeose to, Lfid seh Lisa wy

ancksesup oft Moos Ixuoe wit ,bebvlynes oxvew smodtom etd ae ateasuyte |
rodiaye 0 Ho «teticereds one Immmeivins coho anehsom ete. we a ota eat |
deise at eet! ‘atoen se mbekge Qlepnot tachwomeg @ berewtiod seabhoghs :
bits hedtexh ed rom cal, KO KHhe Ho Gale oeteeths od mo hartonee me’

Fass treme to obc9 onke ae bw presen ak \ilotoneéadie)
sal gobsiw md hens 4{ bemed dora

ody fait? am dorotaw \inawesedue wos ed
wgetboovorg eoxovkd adi 29 yROD doe ULE Tw uct" tamd oeoverth xecitn’

abewor sta mt axats +D nomeb ov atvago Ar ee Yo seam ata
Yo Like wd as setoxogroomt of baw

emotaloos ead to tot¢2 bao asta ‘weeta veh oe m . Momma —
o beak cam oxen ovat
bat bageet pty Pima, ahnk

atidiix® # teebes ted ae
38 SxmeS foi zig ld mi ed

i elie eel

lee del

a
=

«Qe

the State of Yevade, County of “sshow, ta the matter of Dorethy
Vo Clark, plaintiff, vi Jamee Ge Clarks defomlanit,s which we
| submit so the court amd f Rave vhe rogers shay Were.
Lneory wpa

itted prior to the euury ef the order pap
they are Sct otteren te thet 13 ia within the Court's

diseretion te permit or deny ths filing of amendmentas and,
these being eertified scepics of the proevedinga, we believe
they are proper to be before the courte
Ris VHITHANS These twe cocumente were referred te

by Mr. Heewe in his argument om the motion, but they were not
offered in evidence, The heoring was not open to she axfer of
Byigence, in ether words, the matien heard your Homer waa
& motion to dimmies this euit om the faee ef the records Ye
did mot have a hearing on offer and reecipt of evicenee. In
thet eomocetion, sleo, your Homer, im your opinionssteted that
certain statements were made By counsel et this hearing ana were
uncontradicted by me. * * smong the statenents your Henor quoted
wad atiributed te counsel sare atatewemta with reference te the
diveree sult, the reeord of which he says is here, bul abowt
pps i ee pe alee exeepi se counsel —— me. * *

cannot be concluded by evidemee mot offered or evidenee net
reeciyable upon the motion which has wees thasd »”

Im the court's said opinion or decision, after mewt toming

the three metions and outlining seme of the differences im the
allegations of the tem edditional ceounte, it ie steted im purt
eubetantiially eas feliewss

That the point made by defendant's counsel om the oral
argument, and in their written brie? suumittec, is that fer
vertous stated reasons “the agrevment ges up in the propeeed
additional eounte in void," amd thet “the transaction is againes
public policy and public morale.”

Theat the court states that “the law is that if at
sheae of the procevdings it appesra Se the court that the sgree~
ment sued upon ia agaimet public pclicy beouuse of corruption,
it ig the cuty of the court te digmice the suit om its own motions*
that the decisions in the cases of Ceeamyan vs Vinehester i2me vos,
203 Us Se 362, amd Gum 9413 Coe ve Gorretig S61 Ill» spp. B13, "held
that such is the Laws”

hat the court pointa out that the truth ef whe

allegntione in the proposed additional counts in evorm to by
plaintiff's attorney, an officer of the court, ami that, therefore,
the gourt ig of the opinion that *if any °° the adéitional counta
alose (in spite of the allegations of other counta) sets up a
tranecetion whieh is cerrupt ané agaimat publie poliey, the entire
Suit becouse ayers rh esis would ~~ te er Passi

fist Fav ditional counta"sannet be considered apart fre
the gree ee the remeining countess" that the “cumulative
effeot" of the facta a» alieged im al) ef the towunts discloses
“gellusion between plaintiff and hig wife," and leads the eourt te

believe that they *arranged piggies bey — . ane tint

in the court's opinion “these two people were operating &

epee anc the jeune ie anny: ene ane “ye shocked at tig audseity
plaintiff coming into ‘his ecurt anc teying to Use

to golleet damages from defendant »*

sored to so¢tnw od? Gt ,eoiee’ te abaro®. So etads. od?
w okww sinehue tod B eleed vo el ‘y P é

‘es ‘eae ode st dees Sf *
paler cat este ade

‘ ee eS es bi
b Ap hig nha Ae *
a

5 oa tobmt Wiad
glue tetnembemaus Re yeeis't ead ened @ Fezeq ot notistosts
eveiied vw o egal hones xq ad’ to esitqeos Soltiiaeo ealed.

. +See os stele a oa legeor eta Yor
od hexietet exew atepmiccl awe enna? tHAMTIRG «Ut .

fon eiew Yous ged geettom salt me La a oid eh ewost out

dads sodefe minty
S228 send
$ejors tenal

std od et ie 4 canal ie

oo FUG ROL ay
fgodn fed .o% foe 3 Be oe Soak cae at tive
* * 99m posrag had Tess 3" age en wok rs

ia red “toe wa ihe doise ior ‘wat ee

dxaq Mt Detnte @8 ee yetmuen kamok $t0ne ase a ® vem pie: f

| | tuwotte? an wim i recite
fore afd mo Toned enc Craner ebom tubo tl? sect )
Fae geste ad sit, Sey Say kad mod saixy aoa tts

gaan ae fe Satte Gimnant

je Uh dacid ai wai onle* dacis gotete thoes? ote 5 sit 2
“7oxuno O8e Gets Ovevod add Gt ate

selignittes te sadonod
ton tom ae _ ms # Bia rungs ae oad om ti
gut sodaulonty «y savages 2 sgeas odd mi tap al ta
ee gehe a gee am PLO 4 e ate y fOR 60
aene Net » wai edd ot sown dads
ads to Sexe wid seete sue eturog ruses wad saat ae ve
‘wi os mows af otros Semottiiee kesegong sft ml ekelteget io
a@seletendy ,tuld bug yexaen ects alt wep lhe Ba ¢Yyenuorts a Bien
admos Lanekeibda ate Re faa 14" » Sats modmiqe oft te at diem 2
s rel alse (eaeureo * te geo olie 68% Ye o¢ien wt) aole
atisne od syotlog wilting samtoge ab gotre sebsoaenand
fans “{honaigmis od of eve aioe 22 te

w ery
* “Geanee ates ;
wn evitotnee™ raat yee oe }

6 ‘
geo loath eteses ott Re te tia mb tape lla + Raves Me emi te. * doe!

oF — emt aboot bus *,otinw aid bs bene peer ee fot war tee

sade Saggy Ny seepmewnggpnn

ee depot Sh Stedignee. ST
oan 0 m bantrgwie at.
®

EE ——— ———<—

aioe

‘hat the court “dees not believe that these oounte
(ninth and tenth) can be aepuraied oe that wich counts as do not
eet Up thie lilegei transection gun giand where Ahe othore falls
It iw represented te the eourt by the affidavit of Pinintiffts
dawyer that sil of the facts set up im @oeh of the counts are
true. the counts are cumulacive, the ninth and tenth counts
seueribe the entire trensuction, and she court helé@ that cheae
vountes set & t®auesction which is sbselutely voids immoral seg
ehecking to the eourt,®

“Another thing whieh has impressed the court is the fact
ghieh is Ot e¢% up im the adcitiensl eounts, and whieh was brought
erth in the oral argument, Vigey counsel for defendant, without
ebjection, resd te he court from a cersified copy of certain
diveree procsedings in lenc, Nevada, in whieh plnimtire'e wige
obtained a decree of divoree from plainuiff en the ground of oruel
and ishuman couduet. Thies ¢ivorce was Gbinine vhertly after
the trameoetion eet wp im the adéitdonal counte,. Counce) fer
éefendant announced om ihe argument that sinimtiff was gz porty te
these ¢ivorce proceedings, that he wee represented by counse, therein,
and that he consented thereto. ‘the eourt hew mot examined gadd

certifieddiverse proecedings, but eouneel ® » etatement wae not)
disputed,"

After carefully reviewing the present records and cone
aidering the court's opimion or deeision and the briefe ond argu-
ments of opposing councel, we have recehed the conclusion that the
cours erred im enterimg the order or Judgment in qveations wherein
Plaimtizf wos denied leave te file the Sen additions] counts
presented, and plaintiff's sult w.5 dlemiased, “as being tee Lee S
public policy beewse based on a corrupt, illegal end tomeral
tWangeetion according to the silegetions of anid ten additional
Sounte, the truth of uhieh is verified by atfidavit.®

It is our opinion that the original epecial eount (bere
eet forth), an filed by plaintiff's former attorneys on the day the
sulk was commen@ed on May 17y 295k, states @ gooi enuse of action.
Defendant id met demur te is but filed a plea of the general iasue.
On “october 24, 1932, after Mr. ‘hitman bad been substituted as
Plaintiff's attorney, ke filed « written metion im plaintiff's

; behalf for leave to file the Sen additionol counts, supporting the
tion ty certain written groude aut bis affidavit. among the
a grounds it fe stated that the filing ef the a¢ditionsi counts was
neteseary te enable plaintiff to oustaim his acticm, ete.) amd that

i sabe snd ets nd gee

adnoo pens dose aves ted sou ases” tears Tanah
Bo Ae tote ome god oe reoys: ae RB, bos
a rete as sive Bleue ye ourer was than
ots sanuoo only ‘te Gy ten pono ade he dee
atuvoo fives Om diate efT seviseliauwy esa mdemee ef. «ou
seeds faii ubled giveo ett sue sueltoamenws ontiog gn) edi tans
gen Lotosest “ey Usiaieads wl 3 Sel sonanets _- doa

rd wiiate g Bastd
— a0e poole oP a* Seamarow ia bg adh a er gett re
ave hne ,220993 Ineevrq add yatwoiver YLEvtems we is con
<ugie bite eel oft bey seielood 4s neimige wttrwes ett anbsohie
oi? Sad molawlaten od? batieset svar ow ytoannos prtavago So ntasm
atvrade exolsavup at Sorvmgint fo aebao mde geteodns mt bere —
“GimKo% Kano két ote wad MMe OLEY OF wAOL doined eam Tibet
Gamtage yalod sa" ybonatmetD «ow sine a "Pibamtady ‘ble ebeemaenn

wrod} same Latosgn kantytae ads por easils - sab tg ” « dae...
phedethe meray sree boty

“a! taamtadg nt med sons negekue we belts.
8 aatoog aes Sones ade
aie eT |
our stimen temmibtasen ede te ‘mY ta growed Se.
tat? baw 12 98e stoltoe gis tisteve of er

elie

the allegations of the PSSPesee counts were true 8 @ paxrtdowlarly _
Stated senee.s in hie affidavit 16 is atated that aaia grounds
“are true to the best of big mowiedge and information and Juéguent
no Om attiormey at law,” Under the previsiens of seetion 29 of
Gur formexy practice aet then in force (imi ls State, ASSL Canpe
ALG, pe 2176), and the prevailing practice im this and other Statea,
it was plainiirg's right to onke a motion to file the additional
sounte.s In 49 Corpus Juris, eee, LV@» pe 158, it is anid: *the
statement of the ense gouge of action in different saya or forme,
eoch in a seperate count, sx ax to meet citferent pousthie phuges
of the evidenee ag it iggy be Goveloped eo the triel, ox #0 ae to
meet cifferent poeeible legal Views, ig permissible, net omy at
commen law, but alee under some statutes,” ka L Chitey's Fhep pe
424, it ie anid: “Before she pleaging Fules, Bile Te 4 Ws 4a Be BS,
& declaration might eonniet of sawerous cuuntes, © * and i$ wae
usual, perticulerly in assumpeit and in actions on the guage, ta get
forth the plaintiff's seme cause of actien Ag various shape im
6ifferent cowmta, so that if he failed im the proef of one cout he
might sugceed on amother. euch additions) Counbe have been aptly
termed gufety valves .* smé 1% te owr opinion, after exeniming
the allegations of the tem additional counts presented, that each
on its faee discloses « goue guuwe ef net lome

Yrem the written deoigion «f the eeurt it appeare that
the court was of the opinion that the niash and tenth eounte disclosed
& Gontract or transnetion “which ie absolutely void, immoral sane
shocking to the courte” oven if this were uo, we do net think 4t
would justify the court im refusing te aliew pinimtiff te file the
ether eight counte and in disuiasimy the entire sult. tn 49 ent pak
Purie, ees 12k, pe 128, the writer anyeat “hile the party should
be bound by sliegations of his Pieodings deliberately made, * #
the general rule is that, where there are several counts in the

wh ie

xAivosiiag o gh owxd exer ag nweD ween OT, edd ke snob tngaiin. oatt

abemory dtoe Joti Betings ut 92 stvabhYta wh wk © 4
deamghu, Max oltame Val bes sydoLvons wi to tee wad oF owe brat
te GL noltoon te eautalven: adf tebe ~ *.wak Ga Yohmose a ren dit

ogaio gheOk gotods at Littad) pixet mt medt tee, vation a sooty tt |
eneiads verte bas gidé at seisowm gal iiaveng wt yn Lahn “ baer:

fompidtbno edd 21% os aehtom « eden od ihtyhs oS

nfT* tbien ab a) ¢B8l “8 (ghE aooe gulene ances. er a cinta

eaesok Mo eUS. dnenedhse at mites te saan ose asd te ’ oe date

ananitt eldlaaeg sapist the teens ee aa as dame sdetogon enh se

of wn op ne qhabtd ade de tiegotovos s¢ yam # an sonobive aiff 6

dn Une tom catdicaloneg eb severly Lagel eidtescq snorsiRih dow

og Gott oh ESD LRT “Seedeeede seme xebew ond sue Qwat womnos

8 ot gb of Bet ott punkoy Qablnate eee oxeIeE” ahdaw wt Ok eth

se 62 49509 oc? We eweltaa MD tom Megan af ebackeoi feng » fone

mt gognel) evnltag Gh mation Te enwde ome o'REteMote odd Meco

ad discs ewe Yo Youtg edd ad Bacio’ od Me Paki co yatmueo sews Rehd

fous desl? qhotwseong edmion Dedelerhbe mad oct ‘to emebeaye dt wild

, . 901 Joy TH onAEe kooy a oneness dh hth

$hed axasdqe 22 ¢useo ods Te aohaieed eeaesew edd movi 66 oo 26

beaolonts wéawed Aimed bea etal paw Seale medeige ede be oom eee tt

ben Levent yhlov qeduloues #2 aide nottensaerd to dom

SE Walid som Oh ow eon gee ehh he awe. Witte ecmian

one bat stlee exten vat yatvnbae sae ate ai
* # sooam eel atedetes “nto te online ) mwod 2
ott na atone Loteved wae oundd geese 9t nom ei

ew} SS ee

“lige

same ctclaraitons or a variety of pleas, an aiiegation in ene
count or plea eamnct be insisted upon by the adverse party ee
Qn RGmission of fact for » purpose cletines from the procf of
such count or plea.” ond in gee, 180, De 162, the writer alge
says: “The theory of separate counts ie thet each ie a complete
Cause of setions «a dietinet tram others ne if it stood alone in
the plesding, * * Genernily speaking, cach count er aeparately
stated enuse ef aetion must be Campicte im itself and set out a
Complete cause of setiong its sufficiency is te be tested by ite
Sun_avermentes and it eannet be either Sided or defeated by aver-
ments in another count or separately stated enuse of agtion, which
are net repeated or incorporated by referenee im the count in
questione® (See Porter v. ironing, 12 ills ippe 362, 4653 Komp
Ve Ghleages Ole. Re Cos, 225 ide 633, 638) Durkee v. Bank, 13 is.
£16, 2224 Irein v. Guerson, 127 Ga. TS— Fa.)

im said written decision the esurt ekpresnes the further
Spinion that “ir Bt amy stage of the proceedings it appeare to the
court that the ogreement sued upon is against publie poliey because
ef corruption, 1% ig the duty of the court te dismiss the auit of
its own motion.” ve have reviewed the twe ences eited in eadd
Gecision, but, in our opinion, they ¢o met suppert 46 or the
judgment now in question. Both of che cited eases concern setions
of a trisl court after the pleedings had been settled and the case
was on for trial before a jury. in the Sweanyen cone (105 Us oe
261) it ie held that where it is shown by the opening Tes
Plaintiff's counsel that the contract om whieh the suit is brought

is void, as being either in violation of law or agninet public
Policy, the court way direct the jury to find « verdiet for
defendant. The Court anya (pe 263)+ “The power of the court te
set in the disposition of a trial upon facts conceded by counsel
is ss plein se ite power to set upon the evidence produced. The

sao mi woléepoiie me gaan to Walter # 20 ghtolsaxaleeh sane

fo Yiteg cenerhe of? YC meqe Retake ed tonnes soly 20 JARND
_ fe loswy od? mes? tontsatd onequng « got, soak Yo notwalmte een
cule tosixe odd ghOL of 5 (NM ottn a dmurpe stone
siwigamo « sh dae seds nd odmmes egotogye ne faye
mt emote doofe $f Tt an suede mx? sonbiadd ag qmodson Yo, seuad
“xfodaraqes 26 tuyoo anaes gamideags Yio roned . ¥ opnthest off
& tue ton ban Boast mt stofquee ed toum motion 20 ens bytase
Rika bedaed og of ut yomeieh ties att yaetten Ye veuee oto mt
~rove Wi betavteb x0 bnbta vosldts od tonnae ¢2 Imo Agdweutoye. se
eidw gnoltes we gavop botuds otenegos % smms0® xadgoue, at sam
as seed ot? al gomncetet we bedaroqtooal ‘te betesqes Aon, ou
gaol 4805 «S35 «Gur oLf1 Gh gummmestt «y zadugt 995) Saas
| Ok EL anak ov gamtrasd 4869 9MBD +3 BSS as a
, (a6? 908 v0 TEL esonanasl o¥ ast, a
| ess me ad? eosaysqae tunoe wid meteiood metizy bias ml
ads 92 axenque 42 opnidopeung att Re amady yaa de Tk" ta swohatge
sauased wiles eifcuq Jatkoge ak moqy dows dnesowtge oat tadd sue
to flue add selmeth of ¢xwoe ade to yowe gad ot th enobiquetee te
bhow ah bette agaco gut wht howalwen oved OF "emah OH, att

wat zo th sroqaun ton ob. amt amokmheo ao.mt odd omotatns
atolien mupates genase bathe eds te ated saakigonp mt woe, ——
gene oni bite heledvs seed bad age hor sq seid geite dames Labxs @ to
8 “9089 oy samme. OCIS a gree Lotsd x02, no ame
eainiate nekwegs ent yo auore mt ¢4 syndy dete Bhed gf. a2 Agog .
tuhywond at 4wa- 2c? dodtx 9 foantmon emt dans. panuce ot Riéabadg |
oiling dactogs to wel to wokiokoly mk weddie yatod os, adler at
ot deborey 2 Mat? of Yawk OHS Goessd yam dame Mt oyekiog —
of dtyoe oft Ye owog oMh" (288.96) wxnm tamed ae ‘stab
Lonawey yl babsones stan goqe tatsdo Re mabstaeqads ws me too

| MET, shonuborg gemwbten edt co f00-06 sm att ne state |

~Lie

Question im either ene must Be whether the facts upon which it

in exlled te imetruet the jury be ciesrly watablished.s, Ef a dount
existe es te the atatement of couisels the court will withhele ite
directions, as where the evidence is conflicting, and leave the
matter te the deteruin«tion of the jury.” In Bum O41 Gos ve
Garren, 261 Llis Appe 513, plaintiff sought to reeever in, Agoumpsit
the sum of about $150 for merchandise sold to defendant wider 4
written ¢ontract, and defendant had filed « plen of seteof? Gis uaing

éomeges in a greater amount. Upon a trial before a jury counsel
for the opposing parties exch wade agening statementa. after
defendant's counsel bad mace hig atatemext, in shiek he outlined tn
substance tio allegstiang of defendant's plea of set~aff aud the
facts he expected to provi, the court, swomarily anc of ite ows
motion, directed the jury te return a verdi¢t in faver of phe intirg
amg entered judgment ageinut defentent on the verdiet. The appeliate
eourt reverséd the judgment and remanded the cause. In ite opinion
the court comments on the Jscamyan case, and ether exees, including
Phetsch vs Piectgoh, 443 Tlie 434, from “hich quotations are maces

Im the Pleteeh eaee the action vas in farelble deteiners on the
trial plaintiff's attorney wade an opening atatement toe the jury,
outlining the facte he proposed ta prove, and, iu turn, defemiant's
attorney atajed the facts he expected to shew im deafened. Thereupon,
immediately following defendant's «tiorney's etatement, the eoart
instructed the jury to resurn » verciet finding defendant guilty

ef unlawfully withholding possescion of the premises and that the
right of poaseeeton was in plaintiff. The evurt entered jadguent

The Jadgment wae affirmed by the appelinte eours

om the verdict.
fox thig Giatriet, bat on eurtifieate of importance and further
udgment and reminded the

append the -upreme court vaversed the J

4 e qi ‘1
im the written égeeieion of the court in the present cause

SI egg

tf detsw hogy wien’ ots vnald wate od foun ouae zedlte at moi sooup
atyvoh ot ‘phedubidadus Ylacele of weet oda gourdand es bettas at
edt ekdddely Lhiw duwoo nde siswaneo te duemod ofa ods of as oguze
Witt eveel bua ‘epith dod Lhisee wh sonsutvs ode oad a0 aa semoidoonds
0 490 £20 wut at *apzay wks te ol sankans9 ee wld of red 2am ;
_fhacmmons | at tovesen ef idqwoe Yebsatarg exe van’ fir ie
a vebas dusbasted of blow vadbanioxen tot cose suede v9 mse ont
pittadnt® Yewten to sel 2 bektt Bad snebaoted hes stooeinoe ‘nods tes
“Kewanee Ys, « vetoed Lakes a weg | ttacome woteons a a? eopemed
qedth sednemetedte gatmee whew deoo woe nag autacqae odd ot
at bamitine at doisiy mt ,2oommsade ait ooam bad Loneaee ‘et aaabnetss
td ban tto-se0 te sale stonnbanted Yo awsl sayetts eid venatcdin

“pwe ad? Te fe Lb commas “tui i covong od Devoe. ateat
tibtaiaty to covet ab ao) buoy & awiies 0s ext ‘utd hodoots motsom
Siaiisqge att .toletey odd ke fuctns toh sentoys suemgbct bexeeae ‘one
wokntge a2 at .euias ont bobmintr tere darerp si, od ‘Bherover re
guthulont sasine aeatde. bes oes sta ol we wtaocm0p woe
+Oh2k Oe aneltatenp spdiw ona? bap 4a ane oe v toe

etd wos tonked ns | afdlect ed mare naso0m a: ‘seae Keates » e "
eUtel ots of dnamsiade anknaqe Ne woe werroisa erratintasa oe

o' Sxobie tes pated nt y hes suve3g et osaegeny ‘ed agent te vataloue
seoquered’ .earetet at wee of boeougas od wien? ‘edt odedu weniotde
Hive and ¢ Ixodsedy alyonredde watts htworse® Uistatbeamt
WLiy seorbasted ‘guihiddy solovey a wien e8 eat dt be betowzten?
att doaté dos seatmoxg ‘edt to Rolawesecy al bcedlt: bw Lis ta Se
teeaghet, horses tues od? Means on ed otevscang — pera

ss,
ye ee, ao
Joe $tallegge oats ve dear tls naw ‘Seema bt, eit "ebolieny ads

weds xe. bee verasrogadd ehape pines dortnapdl § ebtéuib hits vi
eis ba heccemes bina rr one hee vive fio ke a chs a ad | ,

he ie & ra Se BaeeE LD Ss

seune whining,

wlie

the @ourt alse ¢xpressed the opinion that the "cumulative effeet"
of the facte aa aileged im all ef the coumte Giaclesec “eoliusios
between plaintiif and hie wife," that they “srronged te entrap the
defendant*® and thet they “were operating a vbedger game.* Fe are
unable to say thai the allegationea of cither the ninth or tenth
acditienal ecunis, or of these ef any ether count, can be helé t+
justify wack an opinion, in view of the shove quoted paragraph
eof the court's opinion reletive to the eertified copy of the
diverce preeeedings imatituted by plaintiff's wife in Nene, Vevada,
which cdecument it appecre wae “read to the court” om the heorimg of
the motions, we think the court probably was influeneed by the
document in resehing his conolusiom am¢ decision. «nd it ia elear
to Ue that the court, in passing upom the three motions as firat
above mentioned, should have limited iteelf solely te the consid
erntion of the then existing record (wine, the proposed ten
additicnal couste exhibited, the stated groumés for their filings
@tes)» and should wot have allowed gnid document te have been
exhibited and read. As aptly anid by plaintiff's attorney
(during the argument as above sentioned): “the hearing eas not
open to the offer of evidence.”

for the vouachs indicated the order or Judgment of the
Girquit court of Lecember 12, 1932, ie reverand, and the eouse is
remanded with direvtiong to allow plaintiff's metiom te file the
ten additional counte as presented, and fer further preceed ings
im accordance with law and exisiime praetiee and procedures

REVERSED AND REMAMLED PITH DINSCTIONS.

oie

*goutie evidatuswea" sold gate motnigo ante beanorgas cata txweo outt
soltawilos” ganaleets gtrwon ene to Lig at degetia as adpah ode to
att qacdae of hogeacin” “ole deat “yeh ada bao Lidéaialy seamed
ore OF “spany caghed « yahtamnge omew® yard fast. ban "snake dod
dtees «so Méukm of? toddho to sawltopetio edd, dod yoo 48 idem
of Mad og sap .tmuas andde qn te ones Re xo emdmmne moat ebes
| tgaryatog ketewp eveda ats to wale wl enodntge sn sass, clvout
sat Xo sane berhherey wely o? orbtalon wotntqe a'dqmen att Ro.
alee insets etin ai tiientela yo seduilinmt ayatbeoossg soueyhh
te pakucosd, oft xo “Semon add oF Saon". orm eran #8, drome aon
wacko ef 2 bm stoletaed bre molevtone gtd yattonet at saomoeb,
gosh? ca amokiom eoudd ge? moqu gadumng mh »iten ade bans Hat
~hiunes ol? 64 Yleloe Meath patios evad bivorts, «Sempttoem gvede,
wns aad, boacqe rm ott geaiv) brover antialxe res a te mntins,
_aBSLLEL theds s0% adauoxg begate pele »bodidistve ,
mend ovmt po smemmol bhex cowol.le, oval, To won
rrredte af tibialet¢ YW die yhiqe eA. » haps, : dco

fom gow gabxecs off? 1 (dommtione wvede, 20; érpensptn, Prt
fear toby ke rete, ost we meme

oetd. 20; Aeeoemghonk, xb subse, auld Dedwot beth, wevhnee, edb WH, 6d
ah canon off. bam .booreywa of KOS oii cedmeget to dunce ‘shoeate.
eAd oftt of wobtom a tilemhalg wniia ot anelfownd® deiw pebmasoe
agatiersong wosiduw? col hue ghesacereg ae eétuveo Lamotte 19d
settbpoey hme settoong gebsekx pam ak tte oomabnonne at

A PMOLTON EG HITE GRAMDIR ORG, CAR MEWEEL,.. y., ta |

MR, CR rdoa Lf “v

NN — ————_————— = eee Oo lhl

ca a ee ae Pee ee ee ean
PIES, = 49 ee

gj ; a xs

: f AY ? aie BR

‘ } reg eR z

? y Fa PS ie @

i j J md i a
3 j y s i"

¥ oY ; ¢
a eae 3

VIRST BATIGEAL Bik OF BAZ :
ISLAND, & eorperctions, ax
aéministrater @f the estate }
of Theedere tee dovensed, AVPEAL FROM CLRGULT
\ppellee }
j - GOURT, COOK couNrY.
Ve } F
) oye ens es
THE CHICAGO, KOCK Tehamp amp op [.A. 6@9
PAGIPIG RALLSAY COMPANY, @ fk © 4 elie 1 39
corporation,
Appelianit «

BR. JUSTICE GHLLLEY O23. VERRY THR OFTNIGCH OF TH: COUNT,
APis& RGMASIMG GEANTEDs

in an action for damages for negligently cousing the
desth of plaintiff's iatestete there wae « trial before a Jury
in Yebrucary, 1935, resulting in a verdict finding the defendent
guilty and assessing plaintiff's domgens ot 06,000. On Mateh Ll,
2933, judgment wae entered against defendant for that amount and
the present appeal followed.

On Margh 6, 1934, thie court reversed the judgment md
remanded the couse om account of errere of the trial court in the
giving of certain instructions effered by plaintiff. Thereafter
plaintiff's petition for a reheoring was allowed, to which defendant
filed an enewer, ané plaintiff's ceunsel, by leave of court, filed
a wemorencum of additional cuthoriiies.s We have again reuchec the
conclusion thet the judgment should be reversed anc the cause
Temanced becsuse of the giving ef two of valid instructions, herein-
after mentioned.

Plaintiff's declaration consisted ef five counta, to
whieh ¢efendent filed a plen of the genersl ineue. uring the
trial the plaintiff withdrew from the jury's consideration the

ae
Ses

A Se eg
SS

ert fin nn
SO SI GEST mel —
= i Se

eS — — —— Se Se a ee EE —a _ -
a-ak auhtaisaoenineiiees: atone == ——— ae — SS a aS ee = nda = ~= =

etna LB TR

TWVAKID Most LARwia
eLTRTOR MVGO ¢ TAVOD

290 ATDYS

OU Guage A68 4ONAO THO AUR
& oman TAWA WiLAa DIRTOAT
sioksareqnee

4 a

“_TMod CHT €O ROMO Bar fue < MaucE00 BETO ol
oQRiMATE err BATEA x

etld guinges ciinegtigen: tok eenemeb tek wolsne na ak
yruk @ ezeled Lebit o wew oxedi edadeotsh e' Ttligtelg » ane “

miRaetetT + tiktakedg YS howto meenenaen anton 0 envte

Ieabrares siv kaw of phowolLe aew yukeowlor 2 Ot naktideq al PUImke a ye
SeLit gi tos Lo evand Yt eLognmee »'Thistelg bee » sewed a ! s
ws deleawe aiage ovasd oW san ke duosidss Sametilobs te ‘ ns Se : = ‘a

emi sid Oke Seatewed od Bfwenia dmoumial oat dant [ n08 e.

~atowd quneiioustemt bine Ye on? Yo gutvly wilt Yo semwoed bate amet

&5 gnanwen eFil te bovaieuso usbtiinamins: arresemtess IE Sh tila

tas gubawc onset Lerenoy ed? 20 aokg a petit snebnars> fo

ed? mottatedianes «cmt el? mov? woubdétw Tittle ef a

CC SC Crm

a Here ee 8

ele

eecond cout, which cherged willful and Wanten meghigenwe. in
the first count it is alleged that ex Bay Te 1VA0, defentant, a
reilread corporation, was posueesed of sivers yards, rights of
Way ame traeke, over which 1t entwed to be operated and propelled
Givers locomotives and cars used in the canveyanee of paseengers
and freight; that en oaid day plainuirs's intestate wee a gueat,s
viding in a certain moter Veliele, then being operated im a
weaterly dixeetion upern a public highway anown as Grove street

im 2lue luland, Sook ‘ounty, iliineis, aud acresa defendant's
tracke; chai plaintify's intestate “wes at eli timer in the
exereive of ordinary esre for Bie oven sufeiys” that defendant then
ang there “negligentiy Gale@a, permitted and allewed a certain
locomotive and tender, then an¢ there Operates by defemlant over
eeid tracks, to forcibly ond vielentiy rum inte and etrike ageinat
esid moter vehicle, in which Pleisstiff's intestate wos then and
there riding in the exercise of ordinary eare for his own patetys*
Gant thereby plaintiff's iniestate «5 ag greatly eut and injured
that he then and there diegs ane that ke Left nim gurviving his
widow anc several children (maming chem), ete.

The other counts contained similar adlegutdiens. the
third count charged that defendans's Plugent,s siationed at the
pablie crossing, negligently invited plaintiff's imgcatate and
other persona to cross ever the eeilrosd Gracke, aiid negligeutly
failed te give prope: signals ani warnings af the « perench ef the
Locomotive and tendur. The fourth cout charged that éofesdant
negligently enused the lovomsiive to be backed across the hi chway

: without maintaining on ithe teudex of she loceneltive cuffietent

} and proper Lights, signals oy warnings, “he Tifth count cherged
that defendant negligently esused the icsometive to be backed
Ringes the highway witheut giving sufficient ané proper signals

» wht Be mnenene add to agukewy bo0 oho wm ovis, oF ee os :

o8e

ai. -conepsinen sotaew bac Inttibr beyroae deisiv ates Sueone
B qdtta dace te b qOned of yo no dad) dogeife al 2h dnwow dort ot?
Ye astylt yabusy axovlh Xo beensesnG wow qheseoregiOD yeh bw

keliege my baa betawsqe od OF Seamer ad ho dete "eve endostd iittn ‘ew
Stegtocnsg YH semeyernos ese mk bomen wae tm, novicomues « axe ’
aiken & sav Siagoutms a etisahade yak. bias wa teste ‘sddebest ‘i
2 al Potervye gated watv .eioitev <otem Gind zen a we goths
deoxds o¥ORe aa sree winiged ofkdvg « mage aot sont viuetaew
a’ gaabae tes anex2s em gadeasilt eed: soa qhnetat “wu
esld M2 aoutd iis so ase* edatontal of Mhadatady jadi qailentt
weds inabuareh tadd "sysoten pee sid C03, e159 q tant oso te sale tone
nindies a bowolla bin opgvimeag «renee yLenegi igen” geod wad

down danone en YA Gesacoge eres’ Dem renal stobnet ate

‘guatege asduda nae, eon mux hamotery bun ueghoss® of qniiostd bites

fie cand saw atpgavtad a Wikeclete dedde Bt aeteaiey, rosea ha

‘“gysntes mee edd apt orne Yuembhre Je esdotoxe add mb eees a :

aguas koe doe Ties om gow otadwotmt ai tilinials yen f

add gakvivum sid otek od teks bon gaekh ovedé bes gest oe tae

) sete (ands staan) aemakite Lovenee tne wehbe
eal? aneiaediie retin AOmAmeane, AANR® AINE ME 2

Yb
hay

tu statuctnd a !2Arehade Rett Saueatlgen vont ey nap
~Lisoghigod ua aateat? sagehiot ose cove exet? O4 . ‘

ba sont, ioc ipipeoaeces Ke beanies Bye i"
teatektiva ovivonmoed sald ko uehewd ond no
heprute gwen. @22AS oa? omgmbnane x

or warnings of ite approach.

Om the trial five witnesves testified im plaintiff's
behalf, vis+, Yilliam Biege (the driver ef the meteor vehicle
or automsbile); ustin Sreese (a passenger therein); Jot Me
and Harry “icherfsen, feather ené som (eyewitnesses to the
aecident), and Agnes Mees {a daughter of plaintiff's inteatete. }
Vor defendent eight witmesses gave testimony, including the firee
man and engineer of the lecommetive (whieh colliced with the eute<-
mosile}), the flagman at the eroseimg at the times, and other
tuployers of fefencant. SNunersue photegraphe, shoring the place
of the accident and eurrouncinge, were introduced in evidence.

Slue ieland ic 2 avburb of Chieaco, about 16 wiles from
defendant's main atetion iu Chiesge. Greve atreet in Bine Island
is & paves street, runing «92% ond weet, about 27 fact wide frem
eure to curb, and with sidewolke on exch side shout 5 feet distant
from the eure. It eveeres cight tracks ef defendant proctieally
at right engles. Comeeneing ot the eaat there sare three “main
line” tracks, then two "suburban® tracks and ten three *swi teh*
tracks. ‘Yhe width of the three main line tracks in sbout 54 feet,
end the dictanee between them ond the suburban tracks $5 the west
ia about 70 feet. About 160 feet north of Grove street and between
the main line tracks and the subuxban tracks ie ¢efendant's Glue
Ielan4 paseenger depot, conzected with Greve strect by «a briek
pavement. the firat etrest south of Grove sireet is Pulten
etjreet, the next is Union street amd the mext is ‘eetern avenue.
South of che south sidewalk of Grove aitreet and immediately vest
ef the main Line tracks ig leested a small flagman's shanty. in
the vicinity ef Pulten street the main line tracks and the suburban
tracks converge. In the triangle mace by Grave street ae its bage
and the main line tracks and the suburban tracks as ite sices,

there are no buildings except the fisguan's shanty. nd from

Nan ts te

.norrgge wae te equtetaw ~~ !
a'rtldmtaly wt bolthe and asmaqmd de owt fakes ant me

diotdev codes sli te r8rheh oct) opord mai Lee waty stated
eB valet ¢(miovedts raRnoneag pe) cusoxe mbna’ t( o£tdomosue 70.
ett 0¢ sosnondiweye) mee bea xesttar ssn heeds crm been
(,etatoedat wo ttiiaiels te ee tehgeonh e) seen aonyh. one o(2etone,
week afd prtboutowt gymomtiae? oveg asonend hy tigte tnctas tod oT
«us edt silw bobdlfos a tae) avis omweod ost to rooerb gate bas Cs
qeetde hes qomkd sete és BARwaore oft be nage lt, outa af Lt ve
eonkg odd gubwosis sostqerye vont wate Roce a danbavty® 0. ova codes
seomebive ak boonborint oxew eared bmwo cee bes anohteos oa *
mot? sett 8£ suede yognokt? te Suse nat bmatoz auke tne i

se ek

prakel owll at dcorte evord somes tet nt montade reba at eegbuoren
mock whtw goe2 VE suode .eeow bie soon wechene .doonte boven, 4 * ok
diatath dort @ inode oble done co) ‘wiLewsbhe sate bn ; ene ae up
VLavitesty tashbveteb te ‘wloard sdipte senners ‘t en ont WH,

exdians” _ ain yet? ged ots te watoaoma0> )

ofeet 88 funds sh wlests onal wham eons odd te Prive fot ea

feew odd @f adonts nadundvs oad Sine ond noontod oonnt axe ot? hol
meevted hue deerds evor® te ‘doxon ‘toot bes fared 398% of tod

Pe 8 Sic A) a. bi oF

eatd e*onahas ws hes ove nodrudie head | a weet oats a

souteve azeduel ok gxom ona Sete sounds no bet ok axve ous th Met
faew ‘Uetatbount pen s90nde ovexd to ‘Aimwobhe even on by fe vs

Ki Yoke weal Linum a began wf wear salt mten or 1%
RAY SE Ratt ng & lbw

nedudee off haa store ond hau ata sorte ost “ “winter es i
: : ee vb fs

Soae asi an seonds vend xe abou oye é rt ‘ns 4m:
gr a

eaedia ete on eivatt nade ‘etd baw BB en sh

wovk bah .Yvaulile o nompakt odd dqeome agaththud

ete

Grove street, aleng both Linge of tracky chere is nothing te oh-
etruet one's view te the ssuth fer = lemg dietanes, exeeps astd
shanty.

The neei¢ent happened after dark, on « eleer night,
akewt F465 pe tay central ctandara Sime, on the north side ef Grove
atreet and where it ta interaseted by the mest westerly ef defend«
ant'g two euburben tracks, he Heareet electric atreet Light te
the place of the accident was ong cbout 46 feet vay, suapended
from a pole, about 25 feet sheve the grow, at the avuthveat inter-
eeetion of Crove etreet an defendant's tracks. the @reesing and
tracke were etherwize iliwsinates wy other eleeirie lighta in the
visinity.

Biege, the driver of the altteompebile, testified in sub.
stance that vhertly prior te the sevigent, he met Bresse and
Vibvelamn at « soft drink parler en Grove streets eagt of she
traeke; that he offered te take them te their respeetive homes in
Rie sutemebiles thai they started and went West on Greve etveat, «
"ibbelaian sitting on the right of the frent sent ang Breese on the
Feor s@atj thet ae the ear appresehed the traeks he (the eitneaa)
Reoticed a freight train coming from the north on ene of ihe mada
line tracks, but he drove the ear across ihe wein dime tracks in
front of the oncoming train, and, juat before reaching the
seburborn treeke, stopped the car and “Looked both wayss” that
“Tibbelamen, from hie place in the front e¢at had juat as good a
View of the surroundings in frent ef uy Gar ne I dids* that although
there was nothing t¢ obatruct the view te the south, he (the witness)
@12 net knew thet there was a locometive appr@nching the croscing
) from the south; thet he dic not hear arty bell or whistle er "see
} omy hee’ light or Lickte of omy kind upon the lecemotive;” that
| he preceeded to cross the suburban tyagke, and that just ac he

“Fenched the second track, “I game in contact with the engine, ana

“#9 of gubsditen «2 wise’ etoend Yo oaetht. Kod anela gtootste @yosd
bine tqoxe jounnielh guok «med twee olf 0% welv.e'one sounds
eights mate « wo aaah oaths konegeadd PINES ot. i
ever? Te white acer ass mm , ome, Siahuste PRE O W oonga
-haw ee to viredewes tema elt qd hedoemragat ef a2 onedy one deosde
ed sight tevrin wliseats duwrea sft ..eolent) medvedue oot a! dem
hodeaqate eyews teat 68 Jaewe ace ao seobloon add te epaky wt
~gotml teomilson ede te ghewexg odd erods do0t 26 tweds «ofloq «mort
bes yekawere omt .alnnre etdiebaeled dee doatde evex® te modigos
oe ad ose birinelo sein ww oatenhewsit salwiedio giew adeast
eine UL balticae? ekidowmodnn, ats To caaiiall ost sane, ~
bow aovend tom of yinobives oat of tebag yLivede. tad ona
(908 Te daay gseouda eeexS ne coLing aolch Stee @. fe, mame ts
enna: enbtnenpnare bit hiciandt: teh. 04, eee. od balls tadiie
» etecuta eyotd ce deew goow bee: Setueds yatld. fart isle pha
ous MO wanes See grou dmnta ads ko datgha vet wo geksele want sae
(omonditw eds) ef ativare oid. Aainwpngae Rap wild ea dusts ttenn, xe0e
Ries ui? te ose oe disor oul) mex _aimoo thax? talptort a dbagheon
wt padoews vatl wise od¢ eaetos cas wid avard ad dud yadaots onht
tid geitdpows oxoied dank chon gehawd ateme-tan 944,26 Apes |
fast? *1wyew deed hevteod” saw ceo wilt Reqgese gudeatd mada fi
n body be Saut how Huon suowt MAY Mb wonky wht wort qnaamdeddt
Agwadiie duds “hte f ‘ae Tho WS Saeet wk wyeh bawerty oiit.20.sety |
(naoadiw odd) od qiitwds of of Wey ate deuetudo: ot wabsisen ann gxsde |
gitteners of! ytitucones srilémosel & usw ateds: taste work dem. ob
“eon” 20 ekehbdw te iied we tned fen 24h asf dons tines etd amor? f
taitd “qouktommool oie megs bite ya he stenincncataenie |
a aa bass) saitt bei anni epamuantteets enor a et

i ei i i i a MB

I dieén't imew aryrthing more until I weke up im the hoepital.”
The teatimony of Breese wea to the eame effeet. Metther Siege
nor Breese gave any textimony ac te any euyinge or actions of
ivbeleman efter the sutemebile had reached defendant'e tracks
ené was crossing them. Seeene testified: “As I vent aereas
the reilrosé treeke I 4id set see whet “Ybbeleman wae éoing.*
The testimony of plaintiff's ettnesses, John S. and
Marry Sichardeens was to the effeet thet they were sented in an
automobile, etending just south of defeudent's etation, ené wit-
messed the cocident frem thet point? treet they sew the sutemobile
eress Gefendant'’s main Line traekr, are the locemative epporench
the scroasing asd sew the collisions th<-t taey €1¢ net matics
any headlight om the locomotive or hear any bell or ehictle,
but that when they went te the place of the sovident, imoediately
efter its oeourrenec, they noticed thet beth herdlighte es the
locomotive were burning, ~ one ‘aver the eow-eatcher" and the
other “on the tack eof the tender.”
eefendant's principal witness woe Genjemin Gormans,
the fireman ef the locomotive, she wee seated on the east or left
gide ef the enb. He teetified im parts
When we arrived ai Blue iceland that might from Chieage,
the engine *pulied” the treim in. * * {ter the traim had been
“eneked* tavarde the north and imio the yards, and after the ears
hed Been uncouplea from the enyine, we went south te “eastern
avenur, and efter getting « signal, “ve & up to Greve sixreet
and then the accident happened.” * * Tnere were head Lighta on
each end, + one on the tank and ome om the engines Seth -
highte were bursing. * * These headlights are eleetrie and are
turned om und off by a eviteh im the cabs in the engine there
are other Light«a, including “the deck-licht ever the roof of the
eebe” * * Om our way to Greve street from ‘extern avenue we
were geing about 7 or 2 miles on Mour. “I was sitting én the
seat bex hanging eut of the windew om the enat side of the engine.
* * 4 gaw the srossing flagman and bearé his whistle. * * <bout
that time our exgine was about on the south cidewalk of Grove
atreet. * * i seen this autonobile coming ahead of the freight
train om the westbound maim Line, ond ali i coulé de was to Let

a squewk end pull the shietle, «hes ne bit the beck of the
ag * * r should judge the automobile was going about 45 or

6G miles an hour. « * It did not stop at any time from the time
I first sew it umtil the collision happened. Itdi¢ not draw up

pc nee OT Er ES ee
ST =

= Se SSS SS

“A phathgnest eth wh qr alee D Lbteas oinen gaksingie wetat aaah m

got endstet «testis see ony of nav enoorl To ymnmbiesd os
to gneties xo egulyes Gee o¢ ee ynomkieasd que oveR ononet 460

edoat? a onabueled aadoxer bev ekidomedne off ‘seeto mematodety
wenten tmew Kook" sholthiee? enseut | caeetd qeteetrd Gan bia”
“gated sow maaetecdty deal oon tor bP} I adgere beotktat oa

_- Bite +8 mfel .esesentie at%hintely Yooyreubenes edt wi" Be
ne ah beboen wsow Yee! Sutidwetto se of aa yuan duedo he eexall”
wtb tne quoliada aldunhosted be sitvan tent gahtaade vsLidomnsa
elidemsca ot wan yas? futl pemtow Coke mee saeetooe os bowagme
dacemyge Seicomeend gilt me. sgina tt mat che a MeasbiotoD moe
eoltem yen Sib yodd 4089 PuOleliiow omd wae. bas suteworts eid

tte tie oe Shed yee wnat eh er bcomenes edd mo” Sgttband ae

Peel ww éoa0 WY oe kodeow eat Oty,

“pouny G2 boPthiees 6H bvediaed te au
adaone went

aeyeoleo mex tdyke cnet toekel eul® sa ete
weed bad alatd off sagt * * al sna dine

wise odd Keita faa yalay ait oad Oe

‘ maadeo® of divou faew ow gaeiyie
eotse

wa aaa oe Kate. taco
Fratice eae

ste

and etep within 5 ex 6 feet of the suburban tracke. i anw 46

try to awede the engine. Li wae a Little bai further merth then
the eunter of the street. © * It looked iO Me so Sheugh he

tried to go om at an angle 5@ @o% around the engine end he Bit

the back buffer ef the tank." © * The ear ismded between the
curb ang the sidewalk on the nexth alde of Greve street juet elear
ef the south bound suburban Avacke * * The beLL on the cryine wag
Simging. © * It ie operated automatioally by adc. « - 16 eome
oe go Ree ‘ivGugheul the trip from bhe otasdon end a8

we Went te “egters avenue and =e we eame beek., ‘nd 16 ene singin
at the time ef the eollivien. ties

the we given dustruectiona referced tO» offered by
plaintiff, are fone 1 and 3. sueivuetion Bee 1 reade ac fellows:

“2s The jury are inwtructed that a¢ you find from the
evidence, under the inetructions of she V@Urts that the deeeaced
WAS @ guest in the autemebile in which he was viding, and that
he had ne contrel ever the operation of said automobile, mud 4¢
you further find from a presenderanee of the evideners, that at
and before the time of the happening of the aeciiens complained
ef im this ease, the decenced was in ihe exereioe ef erdinary
care for his own persona), safety, and if you further find fren
the evidenee, that the ingury and death of the degessed were
taueed oe & proximate result and im consequence of the negligenes
of the éetenken Ss if any, as charged in plainsiff's deeleras ®
then you are inetrueted that she faet, if it be o feat, that the
ériver or operster ef the cutomebile in whieh the deceased was ,
riding, wae guilty of seme wegligenee, which contributed te cauzing
the injary ond desth ef the deceased, ihe weghigente, if amr, of
the driver of the automobile in which the deceased wae ede ings
commot be imputed or charged to him in this suit. (Given, )°

While the giving of « wimilar inetruetion micht not be
eoneidered ag error in geome cageu, we are ef the pinion thag
uncer the particular evidence im the prevent came 46a giving was
prejugicial to defesiant im thet it tended te mislon’ ami vonfuge
the juxy. It was an ewsentieal part of plainiiff's esee te preve
that at and iesedietely before the time of the agcident (ibvelemen
wae in the exereiee of erdinery eare for hie own anfety, (Opp v-
_ Bryor, 204 122. 5385 5475 bee ve City of Bemis 343 11s Gy 41+)
Ae seid in the Bee cnet, plaintiff “nad the burden of affirmtbively
; shoving that decenced was in the exereiee of due enre ond eaution
for his own safety at the time of the sevident which resulted in
hike death, ore in the absence of direct testimony, showing such
. ave that reasonable inferences ef euch due care and enubion might

be drawn from the cireumstonces disclosed by the evidence.” Im

:
:
:
Ff

th waw % sasinex? wadatdes ody Yo #
man? A ses | gorda 280 alist & sav

yen Ree cy Bagg mynd oa gtiy™ y #
a oe % é Bn SPR aa te
a i eri bohaalae aae" =, Taaaed eit eset ee
CHS. SOAR pede S¥ory i & : © RGR eae &
sooty touh #0 i oo Ried on? # & * siveid teadcadwe daaed dius
omoo @i © * sake qo Yihoudieseiun bedexoge eh fi * * «
wm Bem tebiata ed moet Qixd 17 suemsiguetd? [ha gagn ot.
grkgatt eeaw if Bet dood we oF on bon guaeve maodee” of 2
teh Brg denbab bon: edhe ea otbne
‘gd hexetRo ga? bevaetex ereitouséand eeviy ows aff
tewelien ae ehoet £ oe wetdersiact§ 6f tia £ a
fp Breer deep heer fag es yh gg coger see ve yuh ot? 4 z*
Aepaosr? eid sogld gfumed ade to cua urcsaad ede usbow a!
3a ane yunbare’ ¢"° ta ota 0 walé salt ou
eitdemeiua Shea te 7
Miaah jooueahes. is

oe dette ‘te. & moa
ate cond faebioos od? Sipe conn ye hy te oats na
Sup tered enien ar Fe Cem penne Ser Ameen > mh

mex? butt vests an? 2 doa Seamus Lsnon ald m2 02
gee ag yy ane en ati eet

bere
eapaan a ob atdseaaie orp
“eas of reais : 3
"(.novea) sda ios ha Pray be a 2 44-4, 8
of des itnim madconséend todterin & te gave ode ebbste

tats sotntge ett 2% 920 Ow yH9N88 smwe Gh sosTe ne |

é
a
r8eF

i
is
es
a
sete
re

at by

gav guivia adh sane Simm ong | ose as Sonebive Reduedtaeg oss xaeu
_ Pawttnes one auedete ef hohues 42 dole a2 iagia29b 99 katohiuterg
WiOsg OF e898 A Mb indate ‘WO fsa fakinonee od ae 8T os

tants Los gh smpokoon (ee 9 Sat deed Saachbat
97 GAO) ayeeRon swe Sbiin oe tnd
(fd. 98h. ah ht the vawh to we roa
Vsvitemd the 34 moiaud ait bat 3 smboky 9p
_ wakiven bt tag ed te ootorexe. ah
: Mbestaan sabi, te he

a Sei il rr adh apenagnane

the present ease there wae no evidence an to whet “ibbelemwn eadd
er @id at er immediately before the time of the necldwnt, or heb
he and@ or did onything at all. And we think thet it wae errer fer
the court to give aon iugiruetion te the jury which told them, 4”
effeot, thai <Lihough Siege (the ¢river of the autemebile) aignt be
@ality of negligence, s1112 ‘dbbelmeeanm (whe act om the fromt seat
plongaide she driver) might wet Beg im a ease where there was
absolutely “@ evidemot that 6) the tiwe “ibbelemin odd er did anye
thimg at ell. ‘The giving ef a gimiler imctiruction, in «a sense where

the faste were similar, woe held to be error im Opp v. Prypr,

334] oe 5.

The other tawtruetion, No. %) ie ec follows (Atelies oura)s

"3. thether the decease wae cuilty af contrimiery

a oe was a qae¢etion of fact te be passed upon by the Jury,
mG walle the burden of proof wee upen the plaimiiff te shey thet
the deceased waa in the exerciae of due eare for hie oer eafetys
it dig mot devolve upon the ginintiff te establish wich ewe enxve
by direct and positive teetimeny, but wich due care wight be ine
ferred from gli the eixeumplaceesn or evicenee, if any, oF farts
shown to exiat prior te and st the time ef the tajury, end in
determining such question the jury mic Bhp gost dy take inte

sideration the ingtinets prompting to Ske preser sion of
at inv our epimion thst the giving of thie inatruction

alee comatituted errer prejwii¢iel te defendant. Thie de net a
gase where there were no eywelinesses to the aceldents, Bul one
where acyoral sudh whimesves testifiec te the dctaiie thervak.

S@ stated im tne bee Goer, gupres pleintisd “hei tae burden ef
affirmatively asowing that deceased wow iu the waureipe af cue
eave asd enution fer hiv own safety a¥ the time of the nevident
which resulted in hig denth,” ete. ‘The dnesrustion told tie

jury, in effeet, that altheugh there may have been ne direst

ara positive testimony ef the exercise of cut eare on Wibbelewan' s
port, 26112 they might find thet he wee im the exercive of sueh
care by taking fate considerstion the "Anatincts prompting to the
preservation ef life sud sveidance of danger.* “wch an inwtruction
gennet be considered proper under the evidence ix the present cage

bias snenfoddt” tasty 02 ae sanvhivs tx une evedi wane divuoey sith

4 seed 3 26 standhoon oe 40 okt wat exwted yfodukbeat te dw hth te
102 OTIS caw 92 Aesld ausbsld ow ami ie tie paststargr BED eo bts
“wh gamit nhee Kokate yeah ond 02 nofeawtiant na evty od Semee eth”

od drinks (niidempave ade de wis act? ) eyed Aguedtite Saks eee
feed dmett oft ao fen one) emo inde? $ihee Gnoneyht gen ‘we ybtliog”
use ord? exede oun @ Of god tow taigta (acevieh ad? obtegnota

-yie bth 30 Stan sametoddie emt 2 lian meedhneementhnimtnaeel
erty osa8 a wh ysoldowerant sahtanadhindine acento here vita sa wala
asm aE +7 sh a en ee

so Reema coment teensy Eg ro anc

meitegstant aidt ty grtvig wil dete ‘otaminimapancdie®
o tom ad gid? stastna tae of Saneanniout-entin SONNE tea
ane fud yénebivec mie ae sanatnciweys on stew exase etesie’ ‘
stored? alindes vid oo tebtiiwot eoouentiw deca Lowen obeaber
‘te mowed colo Sad” Tiddmtady qemy vou get sate ae Budate et
6h ke celonay edt af gaw Seeowees cate gekwerdte Yovboerneeaae!
teehiews eat De eed add de Yew hes cow hed TOR RP eaee tee Orie Oe
(SL Mod sedtorieat afl pte “yaldees wht at Detivedd debian |
— eeenke oe Mod wen You emis Ayomlets gods etoette of ee
a'someleddt? ge wine su ke enkwrae att Se wuoabzeed wwhitoog Btn
fom ko audonexe asd mk mew oct 2a WDD stint epetd KS gteag”
edi OF mabiqmang adomhienk” ott moldowhhwaey oat mbiat 9 om prs
fpkdoanee nd tm almati. Lneneaathaaheet:cntcmutncmatees rege
eet, RN nN :

eid “here oyeviinesses tectified te the fetaile of the necident,
Mid, &2 we read dt, the dmetruetign Virtually telé the jury that
Su0h instinety of *tbbelamen shvisted the neveevity ef plnintig¢g
making proper proof of “ibbelaman's dus eare fer his own safety
at wed immediately before the time of the oectdent, ext Lhoreby
Minled the jury.

‘ounsel fer defendant, in their eritien anewer tq
Panintiff's seticten fer Vehoorlogs reopen’ ihety qmicniion (mode
im their origine] twrief and ‘a guwent) that thie coars should nee
retard Gat cxaee wul here entwr Simal judgment agedinet Plaintiff,
because the evidences intrveduaed upon the trial die moe oatiielently
whet negligence on the bart of coleudant's servants in Spurs ting
the Lecumotive, ex ihe exerelae of due gare fer Ris own sufety ex
the part ef the deevased, \ibbelwsan. “« are of the opinion that
thie ig eueh a case as sugeesto that im the intereate e¢ jie tie |
plaintii? should ve given an eppertuntiy of heving anether tr lal.
ef the issues, if 14 2 ecesiregs

aes the on ef the trial eourt ix giving to the dury
ione

the two abeve/inetsuetions the Jucgment of the etrewdlt court ds

vevergec aad the cause remanded.
) REVORSED AWE PRMANIED,

Sulidvans Fe Jey and Sesnlan, de, foneure

‘Lymebkion at) Ye URtereh site OF Deebhowed semanatdeoren,.exede Bae
POT das
(Pip ebebatg we Getescoew tent Govehvde: man indddt Se atomhsamt Sane
‘aggatticu rine a Sit “eo ort og o'netstnddhe "te Reon soqerng ack
Be, onan kta dew diowa all Yo oak aff weoted ekadakvorwnd ante
gd towers whee ier cheeks m2 _deusbatwtsd cok sient iota
“—_ sbteneaee dbadd Jacges gyttaeodet: vob modal seg meaeie
Godt btw sniteo alte tacit (damenqra: dem todas Ronikee: thadlg at
Oo Vtitebaty tendage trsewhel Lentt codes sanat do sane ot fom
(saints ‘Hie Gkb Satya wate droge honsbontar weaubive eit samened |
_ pe tecede BE atnawaes 6" ap agree thceamtn => semptigen sate |
go sir Ma aces hed sree enti te |
Bates odd tw oe |

wt ay ay gerty cb bors a ay Do wera wa
a
xpos gacevenepe esas stein snotsoe ‘ouiyress: out si

aw hetegrt wanen we aiemmetal

— aa, heer FG ES ee hae ale ®, slice ea

a Pen at ee AOR ay Kk DAREN ae th bia’ :
ar “4 eh SER ee eae Ra: orig
&% 4 Ca, a tai 0 hee awk j re
wi ‘

a ERTS AG SE gal IM ee Pr) aa

rT igh Bend 8 ‘ ¢ pce y
WR RRA ly ies Seta baa ot Mes ads %

siieewaul re se asi RNR 7a TAR Aang ie ear eek oie wy ea
a ‘ ' SRY PACER bia HHA siiey ' ci ius

ny RRC HLOOR My (Tne tte aa in \ ft Cia
SMR Csi ween Mm Mn 2 ae
» * y

at saa! hit iatea yey vate wid!

ws hteirearece

e f H f ‘
Ff a z
£ z 2 e #

CLARENCE KIQVERT, by Charles { ) | /
ie Kiewert, his father and : = ; :
next friend» Z i ‘
}; APPEAL
!
}

36985

aise
Zoe"
ee
iy
i
;
y

Appellee, ee
FROM oUPeRioR
Te
COURT OF COOk couNrY.
Je Ge eo yest a
eorporatlen, eaded =F
with hebert Hs a 5 AT R APA
Appellant. we 1t.Ae OG

MB, JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THR GPINTON oF THE coURT,

Gm April 225 1055, plaintiff recovered a judgment for
$5,600, follewing the verdict ef a jury, against the J. 0. Stell
Companys & corperstion (hereinafter enlled the Stoll ¢es,) in an
action for damages for personal injuries, reecived in an sutemebile
accident on the afternoon of Yctober 7p 1951, on Addinen “treet
(an east and west street) near ite intersection with duccola

avenue (a north and south street) in Chiesgo. By this appesd the
Stoll Co» seeks to reverse the judgment.

The setion was originally comseneed ageinat “ebert He
Ginter, as scle defendant, om Cecember 4) 1931. In the original
Geelarations covigluting ef one count, Gleintiff alleged that on
the day named he, a minor of six yeors of age and in the exervise
of ordinary eare for his own safety, “was ereoscing Oseeola evenue

at or near its intersection with ‘ddison ntreets* that Ginter was
the owner of an automobile which he permitted hie lS-year old con
(Harry Ginter) to drives and that Ginter by hie son so carelessly
éyeve the sutemobile thet it then end there struck plaintiff and
seriously and permanently injured him.

On Jomiary 8, 19352, plaintiff wae granted leave te make

| mn : o «This 0 LION 00.

je Jal ek @ et sveaes Ahn

ee a

+O MT to aonins sa aun YaarHo wrrey +t ae
wat, somes & doxononet Thigmteke geek »88 Lhaqh wo” prolly
Abeth 50 +b oct damheye eyawl, « YM sebouy ond gettwettot rye

tie ae (4100 Sheds old oebinn vot tunkened) Woks vsoyTEe vega
elidouaiaa se af bayivess gaetwimt Laspexeq «ot eayauad set aotes ,
Seond Moakods ae Ald of ‘doses Yo aeomeadia ad sw suohives
alesse” déiv weltesavedat of toon (tooute tsew faa gue te)

- ont fnsiees edd ye + on i nt (seers dtwes bein, sfn0m.¢) sumeve ounreve
sewer, esha ouroror of axlba +00 Mote
oN Suede, denkege beonenses qiiauigivé baw Molten AE
Lantyixe odd wt. £E0L 4b xodmos ao qtanbaoted Sion as «te And
oo dads bepoitn Yitentoty gémmen ome Yo pildutenve emattonaheny

exneve afoves® yalasete waw* g¢fetee wee etd vot oxae ‘quantons te

naw wedndd dase “yloouge aoehds Atkw aabdooarsent wee ‘xa0m a0 ae
wes bLo is0y~6h add deddinneg ox dedale oLiiemine mn Ro comme end
<lenslewo en ma wast yt todnee tosis an gevtsh of (xmdat® exalt)
ne tikdmelg Hewste oxeds one mest af todd oktdemotus edé ovesd

adam ef ovnel hofiaty aaw Tihimkate seed ) woes a

I as eaiaeag S

-Re

@he “toll OG. an additional party defendant} and te file an amended
éeelaration. ‘his declaration consisted of two eeunte. In the
firet it is ealiegerd that om Uetober 7, 1931, Ginter gened and cone
trolled on automobile, kept by him fer the plescure and sonvenienes
ef hie fawily and whieh wae thes being driven by bis minor von, of
the age of 17 years, on a certuin miscion with his consuntg that
She Stoll Cos owned and contrelied « certain other cutemebiic whieh
wag then being riven and operated by one of ite agents *on and
slong diesen strevt, at and near ite intersection ith Osceola
avenue;* that plaimtifys « mimer ef seven years of age and in the
exercise of ordinary care for his ow: enfcty at the times was
lawfully “ersscing bhe street ot or near the intersection of wWdisen
street ond Saceole svenues” thet defendants (Ginter ami “toll <s.)
thea and there “se negligently and lupreperly controlled, operated
and managed their respective sutemobiles that * * phainsirt ‘wees
eauned te and did fall with great force ané vielence upon the
street,” anc then amd there eustained serious amd peremnent ine
juries; te his damage, ete. in the sceomé count the se¢ligence
sharged im that, st the time and piace and whdle plsimtiff was
lsefully erescing the ctreet, defendania negligentiy operated their
respective automebiles "at s greatex rate of apted than allowed by
the statutes © the “tate of Lllineis anc by the erdinanes of the
City ef Shiesgoe®

T@ thie declaration Ginter filed a plen of the general
iegue and a especial ples cenying ownerahip, operation ex eontrel
of the automobile, “whieh ie wlieged te have injured plaintiff.”
The Stell Ce. filed a plea ef the general issue and also a plea
denying its ownerships oper«tiem er contre] ef the automobile “az
eet forth im plaintiff's deelearation.®

The cauee wie Called fer trial befere « jury on the
igsues sace by the ebove pleadings on (pril 2G, 1955, and, after
several witnesses had te-tified in plaintiff's behalf, plaintire

kodvomn un OLEX of San thabma'tys yYduoy Lumekeende ne eo Lede alld
od ai sateen owe Yo bedelones molsetetesh al? medtosatond
“0eo fim home wodek® gf8CL aT waders an todd hoyetia wd Oh daekt
conckenyuen ben ormanin O60 WH mit Uh tyed gekitempina mn bation
26 amon sonia wis uf ROvEKh oRbas bed aw sade bon Yt etd Be

#4,

Sane he Pe

tad Ginwnags oth dike medeoin atadxoe ato gwusey VE te ope eae
dobdu elaine sas temte miadies « belioxtepe See deme 699: fLoee exe
bets wo" atnoge adh te on YS Setacnege ar hind renee |
maewoss sb bw aol towenes nt eek snc tind te doneen: noednbe gaeds
ads ni om ene te onary cron Ye woter # ‘sTiastale tans *Pewneys.
tuit gtedd ets do Gietee me okt TOL tad Guantbnd te ee lezemD,

sine PGBS. te aes ivee vesms onid tae te by sowete eh prtenene® wWivrvad
(202 Eee teen ‘xogne0) arena sod taste youn ve sau kao Sooeee
bebatone sbektertns ebeoqonqact fae ‘Wonoyhtgee c on* ort San au
‘aay Pikembekg * © ‘jade eo kee ee ovlavaqeat xiedd bs r = :
“tuld mogs soneoty bad sovot suns sitiw fet bib ona of boawen.
with tmonaasen bee avOlroe Sualasore ered? be wed? baw vsoeue
eramphiinen oft tevoy Mabaen et ai sete erpamnd ehh 0 fe wh
he Vidtatadg OLide ome eoeky baw mts aoe ta ata wh depeadte.
atone bederoqe <Linontinen aiuokeeteh gtvoute edd quiwere yhtvtwal

YC bewekls aust? soege 20 vise IHteom, 4 do* aekidemetas evldonqaor
aris De wo nawt ee a
Larcoung ett Ye 20ky @ badd abbr webematecs ebtt eRe? 2) ae
dovines tw mattmiogs splieteae getyart auly Lelooge oe
"sRidsmbaty douwtad eves of egetin wh sto dstw” aehideneiua ott

Cit ees Be
Be Re dete he

oje

Gimmiswed the cause es to dovendant, Robert m. Qinter, and the
StOl1l So. withdrew its ssic speoial plen, and plaintiff wae granted
leave to file by the following merning « secend amended ce@laration
against the “toll Coo, se sole defendant.

On April ll, 1932, thie seeond anended detloration was
filed, to which the Stell Go. imagiintely filec « plea ef the general
iseue and alee a apecial plea, alleging that, at the time and plece

of the elsimed grievanees, it “did net OWH,e OPtrate ox centre] aaté
autemobile os set forth in pleinticfts Gecierstion.* luring the
Same €sy giaintiff intreduced further evicence ané rested. There-
Upon the “toll “eo. moved for « directed verdict in ite fuver, but
the uotien wus denied, and, after the “G01l COs sheeted not
introduee any cvicence, the ¢aae went te the jury under torteain
given inatructions offered vy the reapective parties. Gn april la,
2933, the jury returned the feliswing verdie:: *%@ fing defendants
Js Ge Stell Ce., guilty, ané osseas plaintif('s cuseges at the eum
eof 55,000." After metions fer a new trial and in arrest of judg-
ment bet been everruled, the court entered the judgment against the

Stl Co. as first abeve montioned,

Smid second amended dvelarstion, on which with the two
Pleas of the “tell Co. therets the case went to the jury, vonaiets
of two counts: The allegstions of the first are sueatantially
ae fellewes |

That on Yotober 7, 1931, the 2toll Co. was posse sued y
had control ef and was operating a certain automebile in a
postsrly ¢irestion upon ami along Addison street, near ites
Teection with Osceola avenue; thnt it wae ite duty, in the
Seperation of the automobile, to have due Tegaré te the rights
and eafety of all persons lewfully upon eadd street, and te
+preopel the autemch *to the r of the eonter line of said
~gtreety”’ that on the Gay reamed, # plaintiff, ae a pedestrian
and in the exercise of duce care for one of hie tendur yearn, was
lawfully ergesing «ddisen street in a a rtherly direction,
Gefendant, by its agent, “negligently” Greve seid autemebile in
-Géiwon street, and “suddenly turned” 4t from the perth side te
the south side of suid etree’, near ite intersection with Csecola
—B¥enue, without giving any warming to other vehicles appr eaching
from the opposite directions in violstion ef the atatuse of

OAS Qos gtednsd si duende gdmeansios ef sa sense of? dose duad
Sodasre aav Pikemickg bes yoekq Lateoge ding ath weabddiy sep. Agere
Ghistaieve besieme bxopoe « putoxam gatwoliot eds yt oL22 of ovead
sinshooyed efoa ae 4499 L£e08 ont 38

“Rae Wigetalaes tote acvenn OES g SCRE ohh Shwe mp. |
fearenen afd te ask @ seft) ylodsdoouut 902 feet a2, topae pt «pena?
enely dem getd off Ou etag? golpedia yondg Jelaeys 4 cade baa ouged

ie io +4 ’ ’
ar
we
‘i AP aoe ees
° "

bass ferne0 %6 sdaxeqo yawn fou oto" i peesaevebry be
ents gebet “sel dans looh attitintete at dézot de an of tite
~exedt? shosaet baie ounesive tadd aut bpowbordad “thalale vv a : i
sud exeyal ag? at dabbrer betoorts 3 tet boveu 00 Leeda heal eeu
: At ten botnke +98 shore wi Aivgerhng «baa cheered tae mebtox

sw ota ta s eepamnd a'ri inate apenas bee sttie’ Sek
wadut ve toexra at bas feted wax os 1H snodsonm hacduat

«Ramos sero, sail pas fat ape £ - ie
gud ald Moke dots no ,nekietetoad bobaeme bugsen Bhat
etalreee: conhetecohinen.seentih aete dea ae
Utelsinstadue sve #axkk of? ba ametiagelin os? . _ sad swen one to |

A al |
onang: naw iets elt : eee
dg aut olhienossn masts 3 ay bi — ‘aater bies
ett ok eqteh ary saw @ renee ae :
pai ght eff? 08 busy debian noe oS
ee — pete ol b ,

pe Pa ha evan tag

qubteaowre ontehlev sw OR
ee etmdnca odd de metankoty ahs ett

“he

tliinois concerning moter vVéeiiclesy that, ao “the direet and
croximate Guuine of defendant's enig negligence," defendant
then amc there cauaed another sulamoblles, ehieh was being
run Sn Operated in an Sastezly direvtion, te Suerve rem lig
and to run inte nud over Plaimtitt with grent vig enee g”
thereby slaimtiry guetuined 2 broken leg and wag otherwise
eeorieously and Pttmanently injuredg te hig GmUee, etes

The particular negiigenee ehorged in the Second count
Of seid declaration 4s as ivllewas

“That gaid defendant, oy ite agent, nosy regarding its
éuty in the premises, so Hogligently and improperly Parkeé the
front ef ite sutemebile ia a gontheceter) ¥ ¢ireetion. st an
angle other than parallel wi: * ecg@ of the vostway, and
had it in a cireetion ether than the diregtien ef the traffie
and nos with the curb aide of the vehicle within six inchea of
the roadway, as provided in seetion 2018, Article 6, of
Traffie and Vehicle Ordinance of the Revised Chieoge Cede 6f the
year 1921, vhieh said seotion Provises os fellews:

“*8 vehicle cheli be perked with the left side of
sald vehtole next to the eurb, and dt shall be unlewfnl to stand
or k any vehiele in a resdway other than Pernllel with the
curd and with the twe right wheels of the vehicle vithin six
inches of the usquiariy *tteblished eurb Line, exept that upon
these strects which have been werked fer angle parking, ag
provided in this sections, vehicles shall be parked at the suele
$0 the curb indicated by such marke,

“amd, as a direet and preximete reeult thersef and ia
conercuenee of the Violation of defendant by its agent, then and
there caused the view of the driver of & certain other automobile,
apprGaching frem the fanterly directions to become #¢ Obatructed
that said driver failed te observe Pleimtil ts, whe wae then and
there ero¢sing aid public highway aa sfere sadd ah @ veint
immeciately te the east ef defendant's sxtomebile perked ag
aferesei¢d, and thereby the driver of said ether autegobile ray
ageinet and over plaintiff with great vielenge,* ete,

Om the trial plaintirrts witneesen, oe te the éetsile af
the accident and the phystenl eurroundings, were Alex Heston, Harry
Ginter aud John 4. ‘mith, and eneh was examined and erese~exominad
at considerable length. 16 appeare from their teatimeny in sub
etanee that on the Boutheast corner of ddiszom atrect and Sreeola
avenue (otherwise known as 74th Couct) there Wie a drugeatores and
Gast thereof on Addicen street was « barber shop, facing north,

of which the Whinesa, Newtons wae the proprietor and who witneased
the accidents that <aéison street, running east amd west, wae paved
with cement, but that between the cement pavement and the south
: sidewalk there was « dirt pavement. or “shoulder,” about 15 fect
in widths in which it was saslomary to park kutomebiles end aute<

‘

bax sport, od oa" on fast’ tgesoiter 30 sodom aabnr0sNo9 sloatitt
aed Janabeeied Io sawed ogg
hes Seal soit etlidaae! we ‘yest s ont nomen re
“eyeon’ |

sob ioends see Ea ate sis
ke ee AEE
. Sebytesido ome bre gol mialeté & prs wai aa io dai?

adie Vibdw ake Ti
sil gognae is whet Ee ad eLa pein a tern Ylew
tears baoore wud ay bowee ond vonwgh igen “eave ld x0 elt
sawasiot on ud aokfetotoeb won i.
ati gat onnaet gon dampe “gah ee Pasbueted ‘bine ‘iat
odd Lepage re ra gee woe dang sad xa
ie SAG eh. deaniua oid 38 ae

eobtnaxd ond rae 4 hn Penk. “pad nesle uated gibns &, ma o est
39 oor xia siddiw eioldov aie Ye a itiw dom bet

a eae, Beeler goowe a2 Hebivots, ee 2%
om bed _ eee! pete? ve saiseee, Bd oo dena.

ees or oe pale et iisatelg ovrgn "of beste’ rh Bae ind
Dee fares ORT He of ET EM
an ag oLidomo sng af fits Gre ot dane Uber ad hen.

poet oLivomedus <edée eae to Yori io a qeor colt hue _ Skane
wate Y,oonaioly das aiaw & reve ty, mm

te witateb off o2 an enengmndhy atwsetele fakes. at
grid grodeat xefs oar aagatiesoran Seandecdg odd Res 309s
homtdexeencons hme homies ame cine ie gti hads ad sins nated
adua ak yromtiood winded mot axmeqgs #4 ealtgaet oldginhianes te
mage I aserbh ne gees Sa

FE a ae

aes ee

trucks? that jJuet price te the sevieemt someboiy's truek wae
parked om the south side of déisen street, sbout in front of
the barber shop, at an angle, with ite front wheels facing
southwesterlyy thet no part of asy of she wheele of the truck
rested upon the coment pavementy that proctilediy ali, if net
oll, of the truck was within and ever the dirt “shoulders” thet
at the time of the necident _— ehileren, coming from achool,
were erossing dédicon otrect; thet iarey Ginter, a boy of about.
i? yeers of age, wan driving hig fother’s cuvemebiie goxterky on
i\ddiwom etreety thet just after he Aac eresecc Oeersla avenue and
wae eoutinuing te seve easterly en 4ddigen strest with hia left

wheels "partly over the center lime of the road," piaintis?,
hey about six years ef age and on bie wey home from vohood, cuddenly
appeared from behind the purked truck; anc thet in attempting te
cress the atreet he was etruck by the Ginter autemebile aud injured.
Neither of plaimtiffts two witmesees, Veriton er Ginter, wis sable te
positively idontify the porked truek ae being enc aumed or operated
by defendant, “toll Co. “wheequentiy, during the trial, John Ae
Smith, the driver of a truck of defendant wis onlied as plaintiff's
wituers, and he testified in eubsiange iuot shortly prier te the
agelésnt he drove defendant's truck westerdy on (ddivon streets
that upon reaching Oeeeola avenue he turned te the south and, paseing
gouthvest eormer of the two wtrects, parked the truck, facing
oouths, on the weet side ef Seeegie avenues, Just south ef dlicon
etreety thet the {tell Soe ig im the mageaine business j that after
eo porkimg his truek he delivered some magetines to the drug «tere
em the goutheast vormerg and that after the dolivery of the
eagesines he vitueersec the haggening of the aceident. His teetimeny
wes contradictory in some particulars, especially ow to the place
from which he witnesacd the acchdent - whether from the southeset
or the squthwest corner of the two atreeta,

naw koutd g xbedemen snohivoc edt 08 tolty soul dade fatoend

to Woe mh fuera «duende noaihbs Rooke siwoa ond my Qeiteon

_ Sabvat alors sooth ats Ste gakgee an da eyes OR coed ant

sours? galt Ye meee lt 30 un te omg om Sad iroder

dom 22 eka etkneliveng facts ienemevag seaetes 7) nog betens

fete “7tedkwette’ Ftd ald corre fis mbctstw ear somsd elt te pike

eeodon: mot? yaimes gmerhiinty emons trobioon ont te emit ake -
sien To oe a oXodnd® Gute Sad yoowrte wossnb\ gatgdets on a

co Ykxvine sStdompixe e*muitot wid gnivbeh eam eoye 16 we 1
bate outore afvons® tusmeres busi oof mecha duet ode YeOrete hi
Sol wht Mitw souEta, amalbb eo yore ove oF ants oan

® g¥itontets “yhioey’ ‘adi Ye SHE totmne ade ro9We cote ®
Unedbae qkoodbs myst naw Yaw GA mo tna oye 20 easey xe 4 ,
@2 wutiqusia at ae ouzag ale Resled swt

$8 olde sxe vente 20 een, ymannsier ted | to sodtion
botetagy ue dead ns watt ep Soiens verte aa Wem tovis het
ot istatake aur erie) ae, dscns os one a 3e sevtco ott, pte ee
wid os xohsg “irons Fate bommdadwe mh nibhadene-ent-tne'vendalla®
ganoxde noelie my ylvodaen aigaras ol @tshaetem o7erh of srobicoa
gitsoag sbas dims eats OF boca? ec oun: alnwmet pmbaowns meget Fumie
patton’ oleae ad? hodung gatoanta ee odd ke xuamow Soteittvon wilt
moat bb te Aswoe son, comove ghogned te ike gewe ond ip — ay
Sette tats bt usontaund sHbnageat add BE mb Ge kOe:
etOds wb oad OF condanyan sae bexovides sat euxd etd gutted 60°
‘edd be perdgon vie node Judd tne Qrserwo dngademeg Ott mo

‘itor Jaws ed sénoblote and Ye eberoggand ects bonaontdibe at, SNA wm
cosy ot oF ex UEnsongee eetattohtiee omee wet «

eon
nh RE A G teh
os eee iy te

bannannel weeding hel sarees a eae mtiann, ot =

byes apap 3)! a wae OE at ial od usta ee ‘

After = enreful review of the evidence and of the briefs
ond argimento ef opposing coungul, we have reached the eonelual on
tat the judgment apyeale: fom should net be ollewed te stamd and
taat there showld be another trial ef the exne, Aw we vier the
pleadings aud evidencey there are two major issues involved, vis?
(1) “hether any truck ewoed er operated by defendant was in any
way involved in the seeldout, und (2), even if ik be conceded that
@ truck of defendant waa segligentiy and improperly parked on
Addison atrest in front of the barber shop im the wasaer chewr,
whether auch truek, ao parked, proximately cauced ex contributed
to the necident and té plaintiff's injuries. Ga beth of theee
issues, im our opinion, the verdict is net sufficiently sustained
ty the evidence.

in view of our heldings ag above, it is unececnaary for
us to dlseues defendant*s esuneeis' further contemtious, (1) that
she court erred in giving to the jury evriaiu imetructionsa offered
by plaintiff; (2) that the dammges awarded by the jury are greasly
exeeavives and (3) that certain sentec concuet of the judge curing
the trinl wee prejudicial te defendant.

After the transcript of the reverd was here filed,
plieintiff meved te atrikeecertain parte of it,» and the motion wos
reserved to the hearing. It io now denied.

The judgment eof the “aperior court of -prid 22, 1033,
is reversed smé the esuse ie remmided+

BEVukGke AMD WEMARDEs

Swllivens Fo deg tut Seanian, Jo, coneure

ras

atolad vis Ww toe aemehive oy To wowed Lette x este oe
sa lsvtonsn add hotter evad co sioenmes gakesyge We edaeutyun bow
bus bunds of bewoetls od Son Lived amt seKasdge tone hud bade eante
edd sety ew eA ‘sease Oz %o Babe? xodfoos of Biweds vine ‘tad
tai ‘sberkovnt esvent token cod ore o4edd peemebive tox esky
wa nk ser dunbrete ye bodornge qe bekwe Kewxt yas madtgode @
dacs ‘esheongs od 32 Ub move al) Sno ‘stavbboas oe ‘Bh hovievanl yoi
ws bed tag udvego mai Saha ubinmgitges © naw smabire 20 ‘te sound 4
euereds soma ana at aeete se deat ods 28 anos? ai seoxte nonin:
hosed aison te deanna otombveng sboxzeg ea owes axe “soittede
agus te died aie +aodoebat at iddntalg M ans, dnoatove vas °
: benked vse yAsowkod tine tom at eokoee OMe swings xe at entice h
_spompbhye, ‘ott “

Be ee play am oy pee iia i

2% Emageoe ue, wi #4, ie enna ea ‘

fowette ometioutiemt skhuiken werk odd of gabytg wb bonne draree ont
visneey O10 Yew, old GS hebaeme asgemed ade dads (a) eURtemtad
ad 3 wgae adv Ye Jeunes Hotern Risbrow dads (2) Oem peviseonRe
staetesteh os Kuittiwheng enw Lakes ods

Vance evel gue Oresex ate Do ne eed are siaiutaidhhe

just (1) saraisasines naigiwd ‘ateomues a! daxbneteh ramp td of ae

ey 5

“5 ; ae orca hee
sialon ot oui" indS |
A as: Me ‘ i i) m ‘e eae i mers gee mths weer’ ee "

Ce URE SSR ie eee ake Spice OR Beh ~" si

: ee eS “earo R09 ras suatneo ne ek ta .

a seat a bes 0 AH ead

ek ha et And as seth
rH) 4

or ie
53

Po e ris a i
VA A 74 4 ia

\ Ga ar fe i Pai

£ j #4 es we

S70uL gf of 4 : iy ot
pi c = ., 3 E

@hoRCR F, WAY, 7 j ; |

APPEAL PROM SUPERIOR

Ve
COUnT, SOK COUNTY,
ILLINGI SG “a ‘8D LIGH?

MR. JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED Tee oprNroe or Tae COURT.

in an action for damages for personel injuries
received by plaintiff in an automebile ateddens SM ugMEt Gy
1931, in the city of Urbana, Cheemaign county, lilineis,
there was @ trial before = jury im the superior court of
Sook county during June, 1935, resulting in « verdict in
Plaintiff's favor for $35,000, Om July 7, 1933, the court,
after overruling defendant's motion fer « new trial, entered
judguent om tae verdict egsinst defendant im eadd ame and
the pesent appeal fellowed,

Plaintiff's deeleration consisted ef twe counts,
%6 which defendent filed « plea of the general isone. Daring
the trial plaintiff withdrew the second count. In the first
count, ao amended, plaintiff averred in substenee thot en

Magust 6, 1951, defendant, an illincis eorporntion, was engaged

in the operation upon certain streets in the City ef Urbans
of metor veliicles, commonly called busses; that one of the
etrestes upon wiieh the busses ran wc Inddiame avenue (an east
and weat strect), which intersected Orchard street (» north
and south street) practienLiy at right angles; thet om the day
mentioned plaintiff, exercising dw: eare for his ewn vafety,
was driving hie automobile on Orchard street in a Borthorly

eirection towards snd across its intersection with Indians

CORPORATI ja = ~~ we
Appellant. bd ¢ a 3 Lgiise O ) J

aaa & cS spa eT ie Aaa

wee “soma Letnnog ‘eat t0 aoe sot trae
ferkt ef? ml stemoo taooen sai ooebiliy ‘Til
me fait vomatuden ak howtote vibewtitey mye ii
Begeui a git hderogro akeasitt 6 ba gtteoaeleab” part
ae ee me idebibe encdeed tet’
ail) te moo Suid thonduet be
toa, un) eucove. auakiel eam mur ‘on oo na tobi wo ; |
sata 0) teen, wa able i ie

-ie

ayYemmes that thon and there defemiant oo negligently ¢rere end
operated ome of ite bDugces in 2 westerly (irection upon Indians
avenue toward ami scrosa its intersection with Orehard etreet
that 2¢ colliced with ploimtiff's «tomebile within the inter-
eection, and vinimiiff ese vielently threwn ageinst the interior
of hie automoblie and out upon the atreet amd sidewnlkg and
that ae a direet result ef dufemiont’s negligence plaimtift was
seriously snd permunently injured, ete.

&@ to deteile of the accident, which occurred abeut 8
o'eleck om the morning of a clenr doy ond whem the etreats were
ary» plaintéff testified at considerable Length both om direet
amd ereas examination, and several other witmeases called by him
also gave testimey. Ocfendant’'s orineipal witmess wee the
driver ef the bus and his testimony was corroborated by that of
goveral passengers in the bus at the time, some of the physical
facts, as Giselosed frem the evidones, ere a9 follows: Orchard
street, rumiinc nerth ond south, ia 25 feet, % imohes, wide from
eure to curd, and Indiems svemus, cumming east and wet, is 25
feet, 5 inches, wide. Between the curbs and the sidewalks there
are porkways of varying widtha, In the parkway at the nerthwest
corner of the intersection stood « cedar telephone pole; it was
6-1/2 feet north of the north curb line of Imidjame evenue end
avout & inches west of the west curb line of Orchard street.
befondent's bus was 30 feet, 6 inches lenge ani weighed 11,800
pounds, PMiaintiff's mtometile was an Becylinder, 2~passenger
COD, with a length overeail of «bout 15 feat, and weighed «beat
3e600 pounds. A plat of the intersection (offered by plaintiff
amd admitted in evidence, emi dram © the scale ef 1/10th of on
inoh ecuclling 1 foot) discloses thet there was no pudlding
atemling at the southeast corner of the intersection clese te
either ef the streets, 80 that on sutamebiliet approcehing the

intersection om Orchard street from the south had praeeti¢cally no

we
bos vrovh yLoregtigen oa dumnhmetoh wre? Bete most det? pommee
annie’ moqy moktoostt yivedeaw a ak wecemd att Yo one hoterege
teette bradow dtin nolsovecetsk adh geome feta brewed amy
~regak oft misitiy oLkdoume a a Ytieniely Mtiw bebhifes #h dattt
vehre¢mt asf guttiega sword? yiteolely saw Visa holy bra ,~mokdooe
fue Pilswebke deme teoxte acid moqu to bre ekRiomoswe abs OM
daw Fidiakalg eomegdsgen w'inebueteh to Ffever FoeTkh » aol dchg
aide _howuhek hrnsnoateg oes ehome bees
@ dueds Serumes dotsy gtmohlooe aif Yo skates of mA a
Sor ab qents eit mosiv ne Yo awoke 6 Le saben eat we deokihe
Soorkts mo dtod Atennt efdoxediaman te balriseod vitentate od
mh Wf Belieo sonsontty sonite Levevee Sue gimokuekuex agony Smt
‘edt wow sonmtbr Legtonte, attnchasted .ymmtteoe ore outs
Ro tat “el batacedenccs omy eombteed ake has aunt ould 20 xevich
Espteyiq ows to ome omit ent te mat out mt srepmecteg Senaron
dosenndandl ‘saweLio? sa ore qsnnoblve edt moxt beseLoakh ag. ot
mont cihke yuoslomt T gteot EC ot gitwon Ams APvon valor tow
&& ef gdeow baw $aeo yickemne ome es atte Lott thee ean ot fe 7
etiild wtKewabte oft tan edbeam odd meouto abty gsodont & yheat
femetiven cl? $e yomitag ate a mathe onigrer Yo eyateag a
tow 22 gotag saniqeie? sabes « sovtu meksoorvotak ett Ye ames
Sie oumovs emathnt te omkt du iran eit to Mtxom seek

He Line ie «

stoonts bratosd Yo subd Guo Soow alt 10 teow portent & a ia

tuods bedykow bua toot Us tuodta Ye Lin-rovw arma 0 on ns ola
baag'e erage hah — monvoserateh wuts w ate a = :
Becual oat Bar oxo toate enolate (von & . ws | one “ .

oat wehbe hts hese — ostt we fooute eel = mn :

obstruction te his wiew for - commicerable distange ef wehicles
approaching the intersection ou Indians avemme from the eust,

wc VAcoqVergge

Pisiatarft wae about 16 years of age ahd a plgsuielen
anmé SUrgeOn, practicing im the Chiy of Urbemsa, ste vareicn of
the accident, as testified te om direst tenination, is in abe
stance ag follows;

Any Lng ae Soar Rich Woe om Orchard street and
south of ite intersection with Michigan aveme (one block south

avenue), he drove Kia ear Hortherly on Grehard street
at an speed of “about 17 or 16 miles an hour,” As he approached
indiana avenue wml “wae about 46 or 45 feet from the imter~
section” he “netieed the bus coming from the enwt on Indiana
avenue," ‘hen he “firet noticed te We it was 96 to 100 feet
from the intersection,” “hen he was about 45 fect from the
intersection he was oper: tang his autemebile about 18 sdles per
hour and he “begam te slew downy" am’ when ke wag sbout oo feet
from the intersection he way Gevimg “possibly 15 or 14 miles an
hour” and the epeoed ef the las was "about &3 miles an howr,*
AS he Cached the intersection be noticed that the bus
“began slewine down when it was about 30 feet from the inter=
section,” thet it "drew erex te the north side of the otreet
towards the curb)" ani that he (plaintiff) was then "at the side~
walk on the south side of Imiiana evorme and geing not te exceed
25 miles om hour." That whom he sew the bus aleving down amd

tovards the curb he “sterted te crosn the intersection
ec goin,” That when he was “about 10 or 12 feet .
out in the intersection the bus picked wp epoed rapidly, straight
aheadg” thet he “soumied bie horn amd trd re Ne et. rese;” that
there “was a cay comime from the north 2o south” 2 ae “seule

: bus hit wy ear dt bit the
fender ami the rear bumper on the right hend siceg* and that “the

"The distance from my garage te Indiana aveme is about

525 feat * « My brakes were in good workine comiiiion thet 2
re + # Pges i first saw bug ¢ we Sate. tae Anteresc ti on,
Was yhout 45 feat Ge OF tee Sete e: my * ce ot"
2 of uy Gar bat the elephene pole, * * 1 think I sadd previc
% the telephone pole was oplit up s few fect fram the ground)
i tuduk I seid they replaced the pole. * * “hen I enw the

bas dow in indiana strect sast of the rnnaigae iy yay ie oy
sons baat it was going 25 miles om hour, * * Just befere
% Yeachsd the intersection it hed slowed dem te 4 or 5 miles an
hour, * * ‘hen ib came imate the intersection 4¢ came in wd th
Se put on Ba»

So Why were you wotching that bus #0 closely at
that time, DPeeter?
i Why wae I?

che
Ae ‘Jelly it was a reguler cross street for the bus

Ge
teiokdov le vountels eldrxeiteroo » 36% walv aki 62 soktousade
etend af? nett anna Ys sgthtbal se goksooetetal wid gnidecewge

| oguaynbaky Aasm

ihn ‘itd if "A anaane 08" send aan enbndinade: |
th oe lossy efi amd “to Ghko adh wk gnbbttoey geogma ame
wie wt ab ameamned scenes dliamamaendbe vinohioon atid
“eeeLLO% as sonata

lata doeste Itedow mo see Poe sa rary sat no
atime tooté ano} sumers msg

yp mcg a Me bi wont a. Baugh eo ‘ea te are
&: sad Gre, & aseoda baog &
pees fw ee ek if aa) 08 oaeds ta aie enmeven eeu kind

ouatak aft gost 2 me und oat
testis off ohbx |

Assamese oF Jon o3 2c el

ane ac? eoots oF Podand &

b 2 “i Se

ds al gh e29 one ey Pg al

BH 4

Pj
Ae eae tees

fs Lowel oy dent declt gebutogew:
iS eer nee te thiewe %

Ati,
,

tet st 0%, Soest sore alge 2 80" 28

4
oe a : vi 5

= %, are eronched that cerner wiih the thought im mind
=e wield we ° & Ws comime slemeg and then Bde rate of
ead figured jd would reach the yg saotd on i would

ie thee Mp the game speed I hed been coime, whow or 18
am Khoury a. the there was @ cox gamma tes from. the ier th.

+ dom’t know uke was im thet car comings from the
merth, i gen’? knew what became of 4t. I au abeolutity ware
Glere Wns & Gar coming from tke north, It was a Adttle, Light
eedam, I don't know we alee y waeg 1 did mot lock at 14
diresctiy, but it was missy I could see 1% was coming .loag
there, I was rigkt at td ehigom avyome when I first shoorvad
it; thot de a bleek from the poimt ef the accident. ‘This other
ear vse fully « block down the atreaty I heat a oleer view ali
the way down Orchard Street, | ai this antamebile vas caning
tiverd me on Orchard street.

befendant's witness, J, 3. Conover, 82 yeaxra of age
ama tae driver ef the Dus, testified on direct exominetion in

part «as fsllewe:

“S Rave been im the empley of defendant in Champaign
am Urbane since 1909, as 2 bums driver amd utreet car eoterman.
** * She last time I a oe the hue prier te the sccident
ves at the intersce tion a bioek enat of Grehord street, chen a
yesvenger (Mra. ‘ilsen) got om the bus. * * * Z them proceeded
west on-Imédama averme, amd im the mddcle ef the bleck I probably
— fins LE te 26 miloe om heury and I comtimucd ot that rate of
ed wnitl ubout 20 feet cast of Orchard ytreet, * * ? 1 then
: ed down to probably 12 miles per hour, beewuse there is 6
raise? crowsing with «& ‘hum! in t on the north kalf of indiana
eveme, = © » The bus waa travelling probobly 4 feet out from
the merth curb line of the avenue, % & %, i did met at any tine
A tewnrd toc ourh, “ © * Ag i apereached Orchard atreet I
ecked beth te my Left kwh to my right for teaffie ce ond saw
motaing, * * ust about the Mi sy trent wheels bed Bit the
east cure lime of Orehard street my ayes cought an gy at
She aut ectine from the south, godmg a Sk Sh TY
eye pe —~ cae EY oF = eh south of oa
ba ens ek Piss fl a ee s

R ae . ee Th is Bu Lomas bile eweeea oO My Lelt, arene ‘a front
of we and sbowt in the aiddie ef the ae 5 am its peap
Speck waa odie asl ket the se caged, never a the bus.

a mever netices aim

Le DOOR % on the northwest
hes Looe cee vee for aome

reason, * * # He utruck Ws head * * * on the curb, * This

sutemsbile begem to swerve just about the time I saw nas, wm
he wae probably 20 fect or ao from the curb Lins; it smimg te the
vest around in fromt of mr Dus thie way (imdiestdue). * 7 *

There was mot any other car prior to or at the time of the
aecident, thet syprenched the iuterscotion frou the werthe * * *
‘a I approached Orehard street I did mot mike any andtt in genres
me shift im gesrs wie made until after the eccidont, « = * The
brakes om my bus were im 4 Bee 2 gomdd them, «* *# * AS the time the
Wue Rit the cutemerita, it ain ets * * = eee
mot @rer a mile an hour. 4 “the impact onifted back inte
pe ger ami sulle? nsereas a the eggs M one. of ty Was wee
about at the wees oro 9 where
“mem i firet saw bre Yay'a ens Rg

*** my best Judguent is he vas coime 46 miles yor hour, end

ibe

Ske ek teqsote af? dh tw teueswo Jade woske: ayerla I Rene
to oder what mais ln pike eon and & od the crac dua
et x a soisovesoeeh ol? deapx Myew aff Loewy ks I meet

sede gyhon: mew fat Se ae sito I
gt ee sets a ¥a5 2 Sak Ox

: ete Ment gales cay sor as caw eae woud F*aak Z
eis vletuiends me 1 eth t¢ omeocd gady worl o'anb ttle
@ieil goksrhi » sav gel whinne ald ech gitiswe tae anew weds
#2 ga doal tom £24 2 jouw 32 oteae 2. Boog o'ash I ,eeben
pL ce oo ge $2 tee Mipee 2. pb poof ag mg ay
heveoude fark: I mesdte antes tag tis bt ta tiigtt saw T
audéo gic? ,tavbtoes ey to gahoy ad? moxk aoetd a #2. ait bold
iia wor boot od 3 Aok = phesyds ost —_ woald a we ares es
Sibwes ear os ieuedaes stud Bia Pe 2 ecew> ae
Stoorte Dusted 13 ht

nes Yo stesy AE yrevoned .K 4b gndone se atemanaotes gn died

= ‘me bt anbao temnts te bettetast ad oats ‘8 stoves ade ia
senetne? co ae

“iglsyeas> wh inataetas 26 glee mit ak meee ont’ te GPR we

Rammdioom t20 Joarts Mita corte! cad w ee gSOCE worrku wats
frotiosn eat ot sedve gat ult eget Snt‘t oath deat at.
ie

& mete ghowtte Duster? Ww tan tak ait de pa
Soheougugy wei 2 *-* © cast od? ao fon ven mc a
Meo ge a egbd ws We wi bbdix — oo ottstiel any tes
‘to téwt fal? ga boumtiaes 1 feew of ot SL galas
godt 3° * .de0nke bation cater io te 2 2008 8 deeds LRimm bewege
# eb evade sammood yuma + £ eMiedery ae peed ivig f

mein hbak ‘ta that tee Ses ae ok ah pnlba & Bi be peveee Son
Berk See eee + peg geicioncnd naw awd * eae
wake Ye ia Som bee x toe
= teeta feadond rosiawers ey oa os As pony seg $ fim;
me oy yew akvion? 30% Jays ys od md tek » : thee beteas

Sit dak adacdyw knew we emi ois eueda. ee te
ts rs ee gy nat Fig ese — er seeps fratton® Ye prt é = eee

Bake dee i die ™ a "er . ws st ait ¢ sev? ontem: 8
JuGe fas 2 BOE AS a pil eaw ‘
ee pit t mit ve TF teatem, g nae “8 ease
dmoxt mk te gfkal om oF Sevres ede ome oe

Beez oft bac gwlioscreduk ade etoake ont we funda:
tin ett Bo -ceqemd ett Mw “tat dtekt oft yd sine aw

Oe 4

“ sees pont ont @
i, abl. wnt ith oc emo Be zat a 4
| ci ste cB nekon Bow ex aR

we
jeg ie mo change in thet speed aa he swerved in front of
| Plaintiff's witness, Odeeas oshkby, o snesenger in
| the bus seated om ite right homd side, testified that ehe 44a
not see the sutomobiie before the collisions that she *heerd a
wetien seresm end at the oase instant tho erash cameg" that "the
bus driver jumped up and coye ‘Phere did that car come from I
heard someone eeresm, but I did mot see the car,* or words te
that effect;" amd that she got eff the bua and theresfter
venders agsistanes to plaintiff until an smvulanes came.
Wledmtisr's witmeas, “. J. Renikiny clae « passenger
on tho bus, soated “on the front seat right up by the door om
the right heml side,” testifies thatas the Due neared the
intersection ite speed bed been lessened te “about 5 miles per
hourg” that ao it emtercd the interseetion ite speed wes
*soneldcrably" ineressed; that se did mot eee the onteomot Le
watdl it wae “dirertly in front* of the tua? thet it wee then
"gaat of the middle of the otrevt and within probably 5 feet of
the east curbs" that he waw the bus « trike the car; thet “the
front of the right front tire struck the carj” that the oar "sldd
to the west and when the wheels struck the curbing the top toppled
ever agninet a pole « strikimg it just back of the door of the
eary” that the deor came open and a mam fell owt; that he (the
witness) left the bus and discovers that the man was “re Yay}
and that when the ambulance came the “ecter wae etili in an une
; conscious condi tiene
| ; Plaintiff's witness, Rey ¢. Freeman, formerly a judge
. ef the county court, testified thet he Lived at the southenst
eorner of the imtersection; thot hie residence building stood
« bout 36 feet back of 2th curb lines of the strestay that his
attention was attracted by a cresh and he immediately went te

the scene of the accident, that “the bas was portly within the

Ye snort sk dowuewe ad eM penn Ain ‘AA. some, 9m, grees a a

ait TegUONEET B 5 yes! mows? sent bo erthemeat inal
hidiode tanh bokibveed caite teal tM ot ie we me vi ra a
& iemeel dake: sank ghetebicon ane eee hes of bet ood ne alt oon sou.
ant” tact *yeads sinew oad faadhert sates oat is. hea Reor9s newex
X quer two cnn Sas kb onsae ayn iis oat ll aut
obsabeng vo 4 uae-ea the S08. ¥ to: iets ae ynoe Bases

atts hid ae ens one bstadiiondh om “ee he

ot fer uistabieat wt ins soore

*
ie gt 1 SRE) hes gat

awit absee vine ¢ tae ot t= fast 42

oie

iatersestion, with the frant of the Wat, hounded west, beyond

the curd line aml perhana S088 With the sidewalk runn iac Morth
maW2outee” thet Se neticed the comididen ef the +akepneite

itis waieh oui been craghkeds that mear the bottem ef the pele,
avout 12 inches above the areund, there wes « deep tmureesion

om it, 1/2 te 3/4 of an inoh deep, wowre it hed Beon treated

with tar or ersesotes; ami that “on the left bub of the cutomebile
there wae @ black substance of tar or ercozote on the lath cap.”

| Pisintift's witness, Theron Neverts, seaaecer of a
garage and repair shoty wha towed the autemedtiie avay amd after.
ward meade repairs om it, testified tHet when be firet soe the cay
it we ct the northwest corner of the aAmterseeticong mext te the
weet curb of Orchard street emt faa ng Rerthy that ite rear ep
“mG near the sidewkk and “we had to 1aft up the back and in onder
te tow 1t;" that the enr was moar he telephone pele: thet he
“noticed that the hub cay of the Yeer vieel Rad auched tate the
telephone pole and the imorint of it was on the pales" that chere
the iuprint waa there was ereosete ov tar m the pole om “the
leit reer tub cup had ereovote or tar on its” that the right
femier was damaged and the rear bumper hed been “marked upg? that
the Jett rear fender was smashed ani the twe rear wheels were
badly bent; and that the Jett deor was tormm off ite binges,

Sefendant's witness, Mrs. Sesske “Aleem, whe bearded the

tus ome block eaet of the imtersestion, testified that «t the time
of the acckdent she was geuted “three seats teck on the rent

of the busy” that as 4¢ approached the intersection 4t was treveling
about im the middle of the etreet at a “mederace rete ef speeds*
that as she looked out of tha vindew che ecw "on sutemebdle coming
north from Nichigen avenues” that it wee coming at a “pretty cudok
speed" amd “going faater than tue buss” that st this time “the bus

had gotten to about the east line of Orchard street;” that as

ne. sn ER Oe ee

: “snodantot tt 30.seaseinns ale eohdon od tat “*inee

qehag od te awtgod galt same duit ee ee

to ee goevrecge qonh o sow geod? ,hemtory, edt evode aestoek ee bods

eae haere ant Tee
ethssomsisn od %0 disk Has wis m0" Seas inn yodaeaens x0 tab 1

“cn, dias sid ae eewonee xe and YO onnatedia Soatd o eaw baw @

# Ye seqomes gudsmea! mowedT yseend kv ereaeakees oe

ul oaaass,

~zattn. him atdeeatin, A tonne fits eit shea Mk

ay oe we ey

Sauapees : *
MPO Kahl Cals Rie -

or ar

1) ee a Re

tetey wiow” «. te ombeoo oom ab 8 vec ‘ 2
want oat aaah whe te Rade nt oe

oFe

the automobile vontinued te come om “44 swerved slightly ae it
reached the buss" that she "did net hear emy horm or other signal
given wy the eutomebhle ané thet she did met see ony other m toe
that efter the colliolonm and after —

indione svermer® that she “cammet tell whether the tyes slowed down

its speed when 4t got within <5 fect of the intersections" bat that
she "knows that it is not se that when tae bus got within 10 or 15

feet of Orchard street it inerecsed its speed,"

Defendant's witness, Frieda Setzolk, « paseenger im the
bus “sitting on the south or left~hand side,” testified in part
that as the bus waz abowt to enter the intersection she sow Die
Yay's eax “coming north” ani it wac coming “Like nobedy*s businesag”
thet at this time the car was “about half « block away" ami it
continued ong that it did net sound « horn, and as 1% entered the
intersection it “sverved" and "out right in ahead of the busy"
which was “going rather slow;" that she id mot see the actual
impant bat she “did seo him hit the telephone pole, amd hie ear
reboundeds" that the bus did not stop ot the oressings thet it
was traveling abowt 30 or 12 miles per howrg that jost before it
reached the interseetion, ani while crossing it, the bus “wae
travelling on the north side of the pavement, 50 that Iwas sitting
about over the center of the road;* that 2c the bue neared the
intersection “it did net cull up to the curb om the right bend
eides* that when the collisiom securre: the whtmess “did not see
any car st all coming from the north om Orchard strect;" that the
speed of Dr. Yay's car was “about 40 miles per houry* and that
“J 444 not see any change in Bis sveed from the time I sew him
until the accident occurred.”

Defendant's witness, Mrs. Prank Helbling, « niece of

Judge Freeman who previously woe eolied as a witness for plaine

$2 as eskehie sovnews 22° go omen at penaehduee oftdenote ae
Latte ‘esto wo tiost yaa ‘ned ton AEhY ain tastt “paid add dortonet
“agi si an Recap

oti SNS ‘ois Wie SO HUD Wile Gill, Die anette,

_ wad'bs bien Moledilon ett ein tats

ecrads povets wigf oct aided List semuce” adn gash *yemovs anethat
teuld oud “yroltoosxemms at Ye feo Of mbtetw top 28 cont Seeqe wht
two, it Hn, a wt fp el, Sst 9, ay

nutt mk ropeonany P _eftontes abe tet vereas by atanstaeted

dung Mt bokiddued "able Amat tat wo diwos ec? ae pabetie ond
od me oils mo toesrndmd ext natn of foto exw oat it oa tah

dene dae anata er set lao ala

2 tadt (umboonss ot fo ude tom AED emt acd dole “ybodemdon
$k axoted taut dns prwest “tee ‘pete ae ws x toda 2 ne 7 s
ase aunt eal gtk gmtawere ether ten yim o bah ‘gt
mitshe « enw I todd on Sahin! eats te ote ‘sive aus mo att et

368 ose bth” essuddw ade Somkuone & moiekey Lyme
od dosti “iteunts Bender ae sista tie to ade

PD hs EN ake eit

Foatd tas * gravasl coe wokhm 08 fede" ane aa0 et yale oad

mnt wid Tad a mick heegs tat somes we ons + tan bib 2 B4

= —— ait

_ ="

tiff, testified that she wis a cassenger im the tus, “seated about
im the center om the left hemi side?" thet she firet netiead Dr.
Gay's car coming north on Orehard street when it was about half a
block from the intersection; that he “was comime ot whet I weald
say was a high rate ef speed?” that he kept om and “ererved in
front of and ts the roet ef the busy” that “frem the time I oaw

it until 4: cot doen there, there wat mo chonge in the speed of

the cary” thet che ddd met hear omy siene) from the automobile 3
thet “after the accident wee ever and the bus hed stopyed, the
section,” and “we got off the Dus right omte the sidewalk there,"
that there was no other automobile there at the time, and that "Z
é1.4 not see any sutemobile comin: from

aecidenty" that as the but entered the intersection it was travelling
at a “moderate rate of specds* abowt im the middle of the street;
ami thet the bus “did mot pull up te the curb anywhere alone there
in that bleck befere 4t get to the imtersection.*

One of the somtantions of dcfendent’s coumech da that
the jury's verdict is against the monifest weight ef the evidenee
on the issue of plaintiff's negligenre at and immediately before
the time of the accident. After 2 careful review ef the entire
evidence besring upom thie issue, we ave of the ovision thet the
contention is a moriterdoas one ani that the judgment spcealed
from, based upon the verdiet, should net be allowedte stand.
it sufficiently appears that the wreximate eause of the collisions
ai vlaintiff's resultime injuries was hie negligent disregard of
subesection 4 of section 35 ef the Tllinela Motor Vehicles Act
(CabdLL"s State 1991, Chaps Vimy pare 4, pe 1950) which reads
as follows: ‘“Exeept a« heveimafter vrevide: moter vehieles
travelling upon public Kicghways shnll give the right-of-way to
velicles approaching slong interses ting hichveys from the

over those approaching

tgs beteoe” yuint ett mt caynmena: » aow adn geld hekthtaee Rh
(st@ Bostzom fark sste Sud) “pohie Naot tol edt mo coseeg odd ee
8 Pak toda ou th tose nonte inatoxy me Atrom gmboe eR9.atye
binew I tady to yuhmoe ase” od tadt inekrosountes wht most a)
ML Soyxoewe” haw mo eyelet tent “thongs 2 ofan Melt « 996 ee
wae t quit odd mock” tule “youd ed? to gue ot gd bam te deyy
‘Qo Loom at md epmasie om age ovat yonedd mveb ton Oh Lktmw &
(elidamedsa off mast Loatyhs ote tood fom bkb gala satis Bl oad
LN SAGAN Alaa lig NA dbr distin a

i Souls ate ete ose rte yar sttcsran autre on, epeai m4
ie patitovint aay $8 mobteonsntat sit lita npc Ve Gee
| {teenie crit to oLohte out? wk ouodie “shence Ye ater otaseb

ovens woke, energie: due odd 09 = a

orote “Yintakbsomt fame, it | venemaigon gt22.katala ie es nek wee eo

exkiie of te wetvox Luterse a a8tt\ _,tmebhova . to om 2. ae
wis tod aoinico als WO oem or apstomt «itt maqy Y at oe

_ bakeangs sees od Susi one cate usehzot tram ask Me LEE ORD

shasta efhevolia of tom hbwnde er ee sal
wmokndiion adit corey. someone a nett an of

o Dae

fram the Left.” Amd a clesy Sreponderaie Of the evidenes dige
C2.0688 that claintirf, approaching the imterscetion 4m hic axte=
mobile trem the south at on excessive rate of speedy and sbeerving
that defondent’s bus om bis right
intersection from cast to west at a elew er Meccrate rate of apeed
regligoutly dreve his sutewobiie that at contimed on with ae
wleskening of speed, amd that, du Gaking the atteert to paee in
fromt of the moving wus, a rear porllon of the automebile was strudk
by the bus, vhorohy and alee beexuue of the cutemeiije’s excegetvs
sp@ed, 1¢ eellided with the telepkens pele 3m the
nortivest corner of the intersection, uch Sibi: the aleer pre=
porieranee of the Ovicene@, plaintafl sheald we semsiiored aw
being guilty of negligenee wees frequent decisions of the appellate
ecurtes of thin district, (Lenerts v. SMG, 4 Tile Appa, ails
125; Partridge ROXEECI Ys BEE id, 20% 21G~3p Solmen v. y
£27 4d. 28, 2685 cant Ve Matton, £20 ide 406, 408; Eagesy
ZBcis 256 1d, 500, BOh~3,) And in view of the evidence we repeat
it ar our duty to reverse the seégment «mi remand the SERGE in
MOMSLEGRVs Gust cts Louise otes Eye Soe, £35 T1], 628, 628, it dn
enid: "The constitution valith: provides taat the right ef terdal
by jury a8 previsusly fajeyed hall reesdn imvielates dese mot mke
the Jury the fined fudgss of the eehget of the evidences and if a
verdict is manifestly aadmet the weight ef the evidemee, it ia the
duty of the trial judge te ast ae aside ami grant a mer trisl,
ana ea feilure te de 20 ts error, fer walea a suigint must be
reverssad,.” (See, also Belden + | i
» 144 1h, Apo 100 4035 st ve Exam

REL Tlde Arp. B13, $22; Baw
R71 Tlle Appe S32, 336.)

‘Mother contention of defendant's counsel is that the

Was preteciing te ereas the

verdiet of the jury of 2389900 is ae grossly excessive as te

agth ootosivs ond te sameiinoyeay aero e bel *4t0L ot die
~titaus abet w2 Bokvevezodah ott yabtokeeege pYibemtare dat aseokS
carehetaihenatiaeteadnaiualasi cnumtathbalaseatdiadivanlber sic
gtd wages of gatbeooer: saw genbs abt ao ned a toadne ted Gade
samcting fremedparrenoapeinge shhh’ Cant tai scesdin 0%
thet Naltides Wh Hiller eee eee Lines inne

fh wallq Of Igmerts ett yesw mt gett hmm’ ,Sowts do pnbnoatonta
seria ew atbfomosiey eff Yo aetcog toot w yeNM gubvedt eitd Yo ther?
“evkensdzs e'eiieomedn: ox? We esmeend pote Bn yertstr’ gemd ono
edd de yyrtnen ott oh oor sredtatey oct Hake nob kckes de \heeee
we ‘Taaihe Wit getked Sat soseandevonnemateesdiindlbuaaaadoiivtesns

|| ehaikitwaign oid ‘te shinee Tushiow® ote Wake iigen yt wie
Hh gOBL woah ofET DoS gions wv goat) debedals wkd? to edavee
| ats 7 epuaids E R aO koa atl aa yee
Sn ea dk
bunget ow Sembbive otf Yo obly mt Suh (,8eR08 4,008 BE OSS gutdal
at abe ada”) ylang Loose Bais.
of #2 yes gk jttr Mts goes ome | J -Vgalones
faded to eights ‘ald tacts Seuiveviit da haintinieals a hikes
ie omut See aoth gotsietval alouer Lfee toyolen “Wensirese ea week ow
i; a Tt Mae ,vonebive elt 26 dilghor att I cegnul Laake edt yawpoedd
ait uk th ,oomvhtvs ait ‘to tigtow amy Geshaye Ute Rn ar tokinty
Keli em 8 drurey this obten Of tee We opel Abt SMe Yogi
‘O0 fenm thamphat « dots col yromis ef o8 eh ot otmtint = oma
: Afanpctit ve bY .20T MM gubet +¥ mb aka hpi *beoteyet
: | bead <7 yaad 1808 s00z ee Lt pokes
aeaeuel «7 netusmmnl il ined seo eNotes
mit ¢rsid bE Sowa a esdintanest8 wntnimeni onan. ‘wtih, bay

ee ee

a” seal ®

eS SS ee ee

Amdieate passion and prejudice on the part of the Jury. Yuch
ef the evidence ceninined im the vresent racerd relates te the |
Mature om extent of plaintiff's injuries, «nmi it is conflicting,
From « careful review of it we ave comvimes’ thet there is cub-
stential merit in counsel's comtention, However, sa tha judg-
ment must be reverse? for the rensone abowe stated, and ae the
gause may be tried again, it 19 urmeceseary for ue te dincuse
the evicenee bearing urom the issue of axcessive verdLote

The judgment of the superior court of July 7, 1953,
iz reversed ani the couse is remanded,

RAVERSED ABD ARMANDED»

Sullivan, Pe Jey AM Fearlan, J., eomeur.

Mow eat ett Le trey wih Mo eokdujeny dae moleuag
wit of states . Suscon, $40 RR Dembatnog eeKoAkrs ont 30
fokiimos ok £2 hae ynohuloh ao Mittatels Qe, seetee ten eae
“wigs eh eredtt deld, Rooehynoy. ome sx 42 Yo, watyor Lateran «mest
ee act on ON I TON ER
tt ap Ran, shotetn steam oh a

angoalh 02 mS ’ tigate ‘

as Se hee. a “as uonbomatiae greased

eee Be Pabeonini
PR ee oF wate ke) br |

menor " : 908
Pra int lt Bek wilde

he ey gee Thee te Sere ee sage a fe

k eee OF r i
me
sae box ahah goratehral shoot GR Ro can Ries ee Ta ae
ee ee wag vty pa ee
ae wt 22 wether wae be Bae ate YAP E eR NE eatialll
:
ede le A tee tee whee Oo eh oo ghee ee eae oe “eae i

2 ie SS ke ee ea guatione me See at am w oe
wot shh FS eee oe Hehe Me si! a acesmensll

Wy Sah ai A A RIGS, ye AIR a Ae
AeA gS pees eee ES
Toy

oe ag ey ey OR ier
Mio BS Bh LRA

py eh MME CRRA yam tok, ap Fy eee ewe aye ea Ste ie

F se ea a é
v4 f f Pe i
Va ist & F 2 f |
5 f ff f = f &
3 f f Pid . > j Fa é ie
j ; fi Fa ff tA
jon ji y ya
SLSCTRIC SEMVICK EWGINRAINA ) ; i
CORPANY» @ ourpera tien, H i
Ampel leas . y
APCEAL PROM WOWLCI PAL
¥e
COURT oF ee
Ree = CENTRAL RADLAOAD yr + Ce \
i My a eo ti ZA tL i ft 6 .
. ae ; { fee € 4 1A. G9

WR, JUSTICE GRIDLZY DeLryeae THE OPTHIGN GY THE COURT,

Om say 15, 1933, plaintit’ comsenced af setien in
replevin te recerer posseasion of “ome Curtis Steam Turbin
#235222 awi G. 2. Generator #2608713," of the claimed y-lue of
‘180, and which, az alleged in the affidavit, delomient had
wrongfully detained from plaintit?, The Belld?f took the
praperty umier the writ ami delivered it te piaimtd??., on
Jume 1, 1055, efter defendant Asc eitered its apseoranece,
there wae a trial before the goeurt =i shout a jury, resulting
im the court “finding the raght ef property im vladatirr and
agaeasing plaintiff's dumages at the oum of S100." Amd the
court on the came day sijudged that “sladetarr have Jncguent
om the finding ond have amd retain boscescion of the preperty
replovied," aud further adjudged that “plmintif? have and recover
of and from defendant the damages of plointitr naountine te the
gum of 5100, in form az aforesaid Saseshed, together with
seats," ete.

By the present appeal defendant aseks to reverse the
second Part of tse Judgment, wherein vlaimtire was awarded the
oum Gf 9200 an damages. efendant's coumte] state in their
brie? hars tiled that “mo iswue arises upon the right of plaintiff’

«$0 the POBSGscion of the preperty; the only question ta the

we Bi wseques A. MOD
yoatonch sat Peal Lisa anh

ER WS pie x pate.

sQDADTEO. LO ZAWOD.
oe es nWO9 bao
arr 9 VHA

Chke dLb VS
: - bape oe

0 SKY 9 HONG AE REYES KADCND AOETEUY «

LALO, BORE TART,

#i aoiios ae beomemmeg Tiitmbedg sPRRE BE
nidusT mwoti ekitsd smo" to mibedoteog vevboer ot mbt
to onkey beatets off te “,cxTa0OR) wedatened of ot. pm *
hevt fmateoloh g@iveb&tie ott mt dopotls aa gfokdw fine
ec? Moot Viklisd wif .?Vitiakely movk beakatoh %
eo tthtmbaly of $2 heaovkied dae Shuw ests nohew Ydten
rsemrienas Ot hembme hart dunbaetad wots «80k of Sha
gas Leet unit a dueds tw ase edt otored Lalit « a ows ' |
ait hei *.00L5 Yo moe ectt ¢u cogened a ttiomtaly “a Bs
taomys{, avert re Sats ao we pou aut 7 oo ts
4 tovenot han veut Btitmialy* suds ‘Seateibi xeddawt ‘ani oe hes : *
sa cr capeae tassel aan
| near inanteantncromnapele sranvenitaticsecmisie
add serovor of ailosa tmabioted Loans susweng ast - : sae |
' att Sebniccn saw Tikbebete mbeuse stxowg hat, ace ko 00 ao six

p ahott ak atets Learns ot teuabane 00 sSogamah os 0K? te ame f
i; “ btmdaty Ye tuighs oft mou soakea euvek ont tad heLkX exe Yoke
| sb uh. uuhtoneep “hte ath rormene tt nn a :

“Secife hes nt covgared mor filed ea.

Sensuare of dames,
brief in this court.

Tag bill of exceptions disclose: that on the trial the
porties aprcared by their reapective attormeye, that plaintiff
culled tvo witmesats + Clyde Moore, ite president, and Mw. Ve
orein:, a foramen in its sapley; but that defendant 444 not offer
omy evideaoe. Moore's teetimeny, correberated im vart by that of
Bareing, ia substuitially as fellews: |

Om Vednegday mornine, Mey 10, 1933, in company with

Boreing, he went to defendant's Taylor serest Varehouse in CRicage
aml aw v, O. Fargueony mamager for defendant af the warehouses
About 10:56 e'elook, « "turbe-generater® was them offersd fer sale
te the highest bidder. “nm behaif of cisiniiff Beore bid *16C fer
the machine and, mo other bid belne received, the machine was aeakd
to plaimtic’ for thet aux, amd “oore gave to ——— pleintife's
check, payoble to defendant's arder for 2160, in torn Ferguson
mors haat ? Reore defendant's bill of sals to plaimtirt of the ~
machine, » “1 Curtis Steam “urbin #23222, and gd. -. Generator,
gacos7as” "teihs 6f sale intrecuced im evidence.) Ferguson eadd
that plaintiff sauld mot teke the machine _ovay until he hed hac
the check Erba. eni Zoore thon told Ferguson “te held the
machine until the next morning,” when slaintiff “weald then come
ame get it.* JForgusom saié “ali right,~ am@ st the time delivered
te Snore a “slip authorising the ress) & the machine by plain-
tiff from the warehouse, ° On Thursday morning, me * oe Keore

employed a “cartage cone » Going bDusinese ag 4. Mis
ams g6t the suchine,” ted, Soreing ani four of e vlaimeler’n
empleyees" went te a Sceeheane with Maeted's truck for that
purpose, but later returned omi informed Keere that defendant had
Ce is te deliver up the machine.” ‘% the following morning
rg Mecgecce Secre sent Sereing ané four :? plaintiff's emoleyees
warehouse te get the sechine upen Boreing's domend
@efendant again refused te deliver Ngee sachine. Later in — aay
Moore and Horeing attended « meeting at the office of Je Pe
Pat teraoms aefuadani’s aesietent freight traffic =anager, at
defendant's Chicage depet. ther agents ef defendant and
@efundant’s attormey sere progent, ac were cdward Heller and
Vaarice et whe Glaimed that am option bod been given te thes
by defendant purchase the machine, After uuek discussion
Pattersom suid that defendent would inter oe to hom the
Machine would be celivered, mit mo amaouncement of the decision
was made, On daturdey morning, ‘ay 1th, are interviewed
defendant's Pre solr oe. ie S607G—J0HOG, axl demanded inforua tion
as to when defendant would doliver the Sechine te plaintiff,
The otter gaic that “attereon had @ me out of torn Friday
ea ee witheut leavine any imetructions «< te what disposition
machine should be made, afi requested Moore te “wait untii
lh od morning when Pottercon would return.” Moore refused the
request om during the afternoon of Mey 15th the present replevin
wuit was comseneed and the property wos taken under the «rit ond
deliverci tea pladmtiff.
%

® Salhi com benwtces dom tal Tikiatnm = * .ongomnd 16 eae
ghewes okt wk Dobe

@te Iabsd ost? ae tocte sosoLonts emetiqoente “G6 Ifi¢ adt paces
Yiigmhals fads geysrtetin eFhioeqeas thedd yi howoqgs ssbfong
oi Stee qimebhacsg aff yotord sito «+ asouert By owg 9 pad lig
cette Pax Oh Smoductoh sade tod ryolase oth on nemexe? # wohtewed

to Satis ef tung ab botavetecseo yoromitesd steroe ,enmpbive au
“egecit® at samaderte? Peon? “oieet 6 oe a. sel x ;
we% O8L? hid estes! Tilenkais te akactod a | |6opehbid sonia 5
Mi ghaits s
gooriet sud mt oe 1 wh tense aiatuotoh @@ og af
bhas soaugis% (,o9stai dre ah heowmontad ae. =e.
deme gods Bivew* ot a smuvetve eee coe
BTOON, gAILL Gah seatherson woewy Pag *
add cet dowd? o'hedeel dike sevodieser
aooyelome a iittaialg Ie sae? dee éaae avo0k ©
T .t Se o627ks wit de gakioer « bebeet¢n gabysot, be iat &
ta eTapana: lila gigdes? gaetedete e's wh ghoes
fn
meds 62 nevts meed hat aobtys ae
BA TIRES ;
bowetrseenk exon trol eal

ugh 2 a

rawatio’t on Udabsmatedae a2 9 Lotoe
ad be a Mi geSRL gi You open | Yebsonbe Pm
pe mena n de
evanciotew eft Yo inclsteS 4ok segatiom gbeny
afsa tet bereits But aor “role abeuag™ & epost. obser 4
Sfee sav eahdoam act ,hovivset aahod ag sestte om ghana 9
s*Riltatalg sew gat. of syey weRek f sa get Be
ei? to, 2% tabalg gare Tate shdw ie! Pemba hed:
exote eal ss 0 fan e2GRERY whee? mood’ wise I i at. :
pa het os Litee qews onbdoe: etd atid fon
eft bog oc" aonupret died spd? oxeok ion t ebelttbice
bosevifes gals off te Suc prises on Seawgiet * th of
sfielc Yi axidsan od? Sy fq wire <a on geek Bh scoot "
b tend gatos ag
CFeNT »f dar COREE DN gi BO AO
atrtleniclg ‘te wet gsewe®. ,hoteni* haa *
bei tuabariok todd pty fosria ta dts Dormsdon tetel fed 4 Bienas
ankevem aniwslict aif a ee aed ger soviled of ;
Bram > a "pti kerodt Bogs Sime » oat att Joan od eowortetan
yah wt si gotal .¢aidaon off govdiad of. Seeetet .
ly fiebratoh ‘to admega vedt¢
Sun walle Suanhs o1ew au page ag
agtesupeti dom vad pion eS
Oed morte of of feak eabtone tm
Relakosh au Se tome

Bele wenotak Sabrmamad days bl gl 4

etthintele af amido goo taviivd bEmow a

qabiet eve? Yo @uo G8 ® hem. a bolt Shae
moliieoqaks tatfy of ov amehi ord ant 3
itéau thew’ 22 agooit yas wig or dite gthea af
oi} beavtey erock *wenstot ry

aivetqos dmaceny oe SdTE yell te yo
Sas Fee ned selec Banal oe yore oF

“Se

Moore alse testified, over cefenmiant's ehjection, as
te moneys paad by plaintiff to Husted fer the wee of Bis truck
on Sey Lith amd lite, and as to moneye pedd to Boreimg amd
pasdataif's four eaployees for their timeapenied in making tueie
fruitless trips te the warchouse on thet day (shop alips cxhibited)s
adee as to moneys paid by claimtif< tc Gasted fer use ef hie truck,
amd to Sereing ami said four omplieyese for overtime on oa terdag
afterynoun, May ASthy in procuring tha mochine wider the writ and
teking 1¢ te plaintiff's warehouse, Tne various sume se paié
tetelled $125.78, of which tet.) ay £2.95 wan cedd fer overtime
om oadd Seturdey afternoon. he court deoemled deferniont’s motiom
+e gtrike frome the recor’ 212 of “eore's textimemy, ac to moneys
expended wy pleimti’? for the purpeses mentions’ on each of tac
three daye, “as being jrmeterinl to the ieene amd az being
dneompetent te prove dam-ens," ‘nd the comrt, at the conclusion
ef the trial, assessed plaintiff's demeagen at (100, oc firet above
mentioned.

After considering the waiieputed evidence am! reviewkmg
tae authorities we have resched the comeluaeton thet the jndoont
in cweation should be offirmed in ite entirety, ~efendiant's
counsel do met contend thet that part ef the judgment, that
pisintit? “have and reteim posveseion of the preperty replevied,"
is erroneous, their contention ia thet pleintifr “fciled te moke
out o cose for demeges,” and in support theres? they quote from
portions of section 1144 ef 4 Sutherland on emages, 4th Eds,
4312, as foliows (italics oura):

Where the ploiutarf obteizw ocaseeston on hie writ.
of revievin, ss ie ve lle the guee where the def — has me
legal right te reteim it Wy sivivg bon’, amd om the trick
mintsine kis right to it, if the property is cbtaimed without
injury or deteriorationg ke in oly entitles te domacese for
its i i mis igi gee ** binsg eee menware ef these

wensure of asmages ruler use of the eer detained is
« The owner de entitled te recever the value of the nee,

Su ,roktootde aldmedeetas cave ,bektitwes ela exten ©” Hh iid
dows als Yo caw alt xo% deduai of tritmbedy yi bing wyouma od

hits gkewel oo Atey ayowom of an bes gadGl hea AMPLE yell ae

wkedd gotdex of bebeeywm ots what? cet esdyotgee awe’ wl Yhivabote

a { Redid Baixo ote qorla) Yad godt wo saeedecuy ole of ative eve) kext
eMowrt ube to sow tot badvsll of Pranmledy gf Sieg wwaom of ws Geli
Yuta so emidseve s0t aceyedqus see? bie fain wadero 0 ad
hive diuw ot? tohme onkioom at gabueoong a2 ists yall ydomebs te
hieg om ame ewoluor odtt thuedinaw a Tdintelg ot #2 3 wei
cnisveve wat nkog sav Et T8} mm. Leto Moby Ye QAY ERED ith ies
aniten s'gnateeteh betaoh fave ad! — .timomind'i, yabust.si eta at
Seno of an comembjens otendh ie Lie besos at weit ‘sikiite,
ath 0 shone mo howe ttinem memorse sit wet Yidtmbaty We
gated on hws oapuk ot oY Ludwubaowk puted aa° 4 °
mokaniseos ot} to ytaweo od Di! “hepa syong OF smetegme
wrede tek? aa vO 5 da eines orcas Aavnnin: eich

snbvokres tn ettcive dotentinw ot reno s _
trompbal edt tadt wotevkonss ey Seelnew nd oe cela
alénahawtet «yeothien afb ab edie bt. ad Shweta x
fad qtmomabut end Ye teoq teed soil) beotems de ob Sogmes
"sbokvetzon vinogone est) le ibkewnmey alia one baatn daly
wile ob hoLtet* Yabtmtale belt St wm 2a
ert shew. wt Wore Peaoqer A

pangs
ue aouams ;
‘ios % pom ot bol
Saerednt * = oyereres: ; ‘=
ott fom of fas modi oieqmoe o8 oe fom Ilav om
Ub’ baehebuh eonceue G0 St Gao : aap
gem, cult De satay oad Teveoes oF Seteiien 6h Sains Sak a

ose
af he prefers it te interest, during the time he wae deprived
of posession. *

Amd counsel argic in substance icky ae es pleimtiff aid
met intreduse any evidence shoving the xolu use of the
waehine for the three or four deys that rleimtarf was depréved
of 1t by the acts ef defemient, the court erred im slicwing pisine
taf? amy demmges beyond mere nominal damages. “s fimi ne sube
stenticl merit in counsels’ contention or argument. ind we do
net think thet the rule as © the measure of dummges, as above
atated in said text book, iz to be applied te the facets as dise
elosed frem plaintiff's undisputed ovidenee im the present case.
Other rules or vcrinciples ore more properly to be applied. In
QA Smey. Of Law, Sed Edsg te Silly im discussing “Damages for the
tuking or Detention," it de said: “Uhile the action ef replevin
ie primarily for the recovery of the poecession of the property,
the plaintiff is entitled in such ection te recover the damages
he has suffered by reseon of the uwnlarful tlkimg a ( otention.*

Amd it 4a further caida ae 622): "fe plaintiff ia entitled te
resever such damiges se wil. somecte big fer all the detriment
proximately eoused by the rencful taking or detention by the
defendant, imeluding special demages." md 4% ie further onid
(pe S24): “Im some inetemees the expenses inourred by § sLaimtis
before the institution of the reclevin nuttin in attempting to
lecate amé secure possession of the preperty, have been «ligwed te
him aa damages for ite detention." 4nd it ie further said (pe
‘$16): “Where the unlewful taking or detention by the cefendant
was the recult of malice er wantommens, the plaintiff may, es in
other tort actions, recever gremplary dan: “ Im See. 23 of
the Tlldnois Benlevin sct ldinbians Stat. 1031, Chap. 10, p-
2509) it is provided: “If judgment ic civen for the plsintaff in
repleving he shall recover damages for the detention of the property

Primo nt nth aro

me al

BRD vebinket: ‘Re caged sonnv adie ee Reins Tecate ath
entre Ee ee Ee
| sukaty ghtwatin et bowre Samen xt | adacbevtol to afbe att 3h te

abvotier Ye mitted it oknee™

“Reyne off veveder 6s aokine owe nb betshens ‘et veh hake enti
- Seattaeds ose yeditd Giatey ott te donner Ye boteviwe eal
7 baste beta bee of tabemtals este hi msg “a booed 6 ree :

and So
|; * is Merl Si ae Sdyeaee Be ke
feed hae i
is * & 3s aide et * Raa ie opm
fides Be eis tee i tage ABER panty Si Sit Pee Pm SU Madictek
edt Yo welts Te
° ty oS AME Lond a
cL: Sire ae oy i Tas esti ie
: P Ba 2 Solpaianad Mie San) ine
ie 1 Seiie (ie A Toad. 5 oe OBE ‘3 fi : ath Oe Hu ie

tab

OF Denote» meet ovad erect of
of) hae sates? oh $2 Be. * ae bheend ee
tasdetes arly wr mo kenegoh ait ‘Wutand 2 " Ya sak He a | ,

mh oa g yan -ineperm ects enrenreapet ™ seinnped .~ “tharcoe
Ae.” pegs: coe

et wahibade eds “= svt ie ewe ; bat cate ses

aonter A “ge it ety ee Moe ryoeae GME

peasy heehy

ohm

wade the same was wromeCully detained by the dofenfient.” This
section of the set vox comeidered in the cose ef Sresmap
O89 111. G4, where im on sction in revlevin commenced before «
justice of the peace sleiniiff's damages was asaeseed ot $200, and.
the judgvent exe affirmed. $fter quoting the section of the
statute the court anid (p. 66%): “Yhie includes, mot only
eumponvation for any (deterioration im the value of the goods ree
plevied while they were in the bande of the defendant, but alee for
the time lest ami expenses incurred by plaintiff in searching for
hie property." <né in the case of Epionauch v. Sedliys 13% Til.
Appe 563, where o jury fourm! the right of soseoscion of the
replevied property te be im olointif?f and assessed her demiges at
°400 end the court entered Judgwent on the vardiet sgeimet defend=
anit, the appellate court for thie district, in «f"irminge the judge
ment, oaid (p. 656): “Sumages my be aeseesed by the jury in «
replevin suit fer deterioration om injury te the good«e ond other
damages imeurrec through the «rengful teking.” (See, alse Ldve~
: ublishine co, Indon Steckyerds Gon, 14 Calif. 447, 450-
ie) Im view of the above authorities «nd the evidence in the
present case we sre unable to eny that the asegeument of plaintiff's
demages at $100 is eacescive, even though it ayveare that plaintiff
my paid $150 for the machine, Eations) urchase -omvers ties
igvorsiek, 264 Ille ‘pre G3, 69.) Ami if amy portion of the i
desing were assessed om the thoory that unior the circumstances
plaintiff was entitled te exemplary damages, we caret aay thet thie
ia wuch o case where exemplary domoges showld net hove been allewed,
The judgeent of the mmicipal court of Chicage, appealed
from, showld be ond is affirmed,

APE TREE.

Gallivat, >, J.9 ami Jeunlan, J., coneure

widen

ety <stmahewied ld Wh Donikstob ataneae nr amas st wae
able «v gounerl to eons old mk bewablemwe caw $04 add Yo sebtons
“n ereted boonomtive mivekgen wt aolton as wk eundw glOB ALT G8

fins _208 6 $a beeeenas civ woasad ot TRttmbety eco edd Yo onksust,
wld Yo mektooe ast pabtoup esd | hoo esw seacgbet, ott

vine fon wehuLont ebstre 1(208 sq) Bee sumo aif odubete

o9% ehoog esti Yo onkey olf mh maRiowabtesos yas re? mols asmequne

s0% eats dant einetantoh ad? Ye edams of wk onow Youd afkstw J pony
10% guhdoxeon wh Whhemdols ws Sorummt ooumegne Site Fook ombt asd
~E at lkdas -» emma wove oS aes

BS Seatcleertegtear acy

-@¢R4 eka ,6%5) ig dileeehs lig eee
08 «toh “hte? AEE gat nbmanata | A

Mbit dat oa a
rch ob ieitins Gre TN age es
Sesastamuoxts csld xeheut test yxaostt onl mo hoveowaa oxoe
pad aprnpes aga ene af
beteosie woop u 0 raw > Eoctokmns « oat wes 3 PA OR aye : tt

VLG ie eieages aaah - ct

f a

< é

£ é

é ‘

/ :

J /

f £ &

Pi £ f §

4 e nal a
56788 é i
A

ape se
ty i
i
its
e
x
4

PROPLS OF THE STATE CF ILLIMOTE, ;
Nefendant in Srrer,

Ve
COOGRT af CHIC kis

9274 1.A.669°

Mie JUGTICN SCANLAN BchIVoAeD THE OPINION OF THE Gover.

ROBALD Ce Chi

WACK To MURISTEAL
Plaimtir? im Orrore !

Ronald Ce Cl¢hem, pinimtiff im errer, hereinafter
ealled defendant, wae tried om an infermetion charging tim with
a Wlolation ef see. 1, pars 298 of the Criminel sode ( mith-
Hurd tilimeie Reviaed otatutem, L920). Defendants, phesding
not sudlty, enived @ jury trial, and after « hesring there was
@® finding that he «ae guilty az cherged in the infermation. :
He hee sued cut thie «rit of error te review a juigwent sentoneing
him to pay a fina of $800 and conte.

Seetion 1 of par. 294 reeds oo fellewa:

*PYyaeticing without license.) * * © That any persen
residing in this State not being regularly licensed te practice
dew im the courte of thie state, who shail in any mamner haid
himself out ac an attorney at law or solicitor im chancery ar
Fepresent himself either verbally or im «ritimgs dir -ctly sr
indirectly, as authorized te practice lew, shall be —.

ity of a mindemeomor and upon conviction sheil be punished
a fine of aot less twenty-five (026.0) dollares ner
wore than five hundred ((600.)0) ¢olleare, ey impFisonment’in
the county jail sot exeeeding one year, oF oy both fine and
isomment, ot the diserection ef the eourt, fer each and
every efienac, snid misdemeanor 4c be prosecuted ané costes
aeceseed ag in other oanee of misdemeanor uncer chapter 38 of
the Newiset “tatubes of Tlitnota.”

The infermation charesd thet “Heland C. 0léham hereto-

fexre, Gomwiti om the Oth day of G¢iwber Ae Ds 193% at the City
ef thicago county of Geok afereenid Then anc “here being a reeident
of this State and net then aud there being regularly licensed to

aX
~

eee : hy N bon N io Pee oye oh Sea even 2 sot i fing
~~ Mi * Ne \ : i ei a RR
Tests wht \ Si ee Nig ' ae } a % res Py use,
ee ” vate 12. eps a) aasens
AHATOLMOL, oF BOM ~ of: Seat Me
95 gO ae RIOD «
00 Be Ll be VS

arpa a A wna mT assets, Rana sit of

i aS i

Sl al

ays i sie neat

wi yoann ak ack nbbchecammaindiay’s Mail thi Lal
ite wie sabykatio nedcam@ tek ax ne Roetd sonvtnahen'ne lel
eet ta) OSes Lorkateh ged Seo aie oy ad 2080 de mo tiacelye
Se ee Re ed call

ginw eYeely gudesod & vette bmw , cabee qth, a bevler ogetien
tet taker tat ale ee Neypnaty eo yy ante Wah sate gh
brerggsihns =— antes: OF teree he Er ehae wee ttt

2 Vik

ES gL Diy Te aan wits eee
sodeunat mmfhi .D bores Lom” fads wey: ried :
eee oatd Sa ta geet a ak vadede te | wot 2s me

he dt

drubbing 2 gited eeente baie ceashacubionedenad bed ethan
ad beanooll yksedugex uit ‘yeahs "

WS oi 4a : cas ERE:

sels

ollie

preotice law in the Courta ig this State cid Unlawlally, am
wilfully, verbelly amd in wrdting held himself sat as am hiermey
et Ine and dif then ané there in marmer and in form aa aloveandd
act ac an attorney at law for the said Barry Be Yarren vithows his
then an¢ there heaving « reguier Livence ae to de in violetion of
Gection 1 Pars 298 Che 36 Bs GS. Gontrary tc the form of the Statute
im euch cane mace and previded, and against the poses and dignkiy
af the People of the “tate of Tilinein.*

The etate's attorney hes filed a motion here to «trike
from the reeoré the b411 of execptiona in thia cawces, and while
the motion is net vithoet merit we heave eoneluded to evneider the
bill.» The motion tc strike ie therefore denied.

Ve have earefuliy read the entire B11 of exeeptiions
and we find that mo defense, upon the meritas, ena tnterpored.
Your witnesees tentified for the prosecution. He Ne “arrens the
proeecuting witmess, testified that he fire? met oefondont im the
Amtter'a effiee at LOO Herth Latalle street, Ohierro, an? lect eav
him there sbowt October #9 19309 that he talke¢ with éefendent
about an invention and » is« suit m6 the letter seid he vould
handle it for the witmess “with Mr, O'Sarag*® tht Br» and Mirae
Deen vere preaent at the talk; thei the witness explained te cefendant
about his invention and defendant “ea-ic that we vould Beave to take
action against the John 1. Kellogg & (oof! that he would introduce
the witness te ottiorney “Hare: thei he sew defendant in the latter's
office «= masber of times «bout the motier; thet a contract (People's
Rxhibit 1) ese drawn up by defendant. ‘hie gantroctsdatec uguet 2%
1930, reeites thet it is entered inte “between Harry %» “arren, of
Gnieagos cook County, lllineia, ac firet party, and Barratt Hera and
Fonald ¢. Gldham, atterneye-ct-law, with low offiees in Chitogs,
Thhineisa, as segond part." 14 states thet the witness “hee sought
and employed second parties ae hin soley and only attorneys te

Mein a ehbudwaced BLS Stade aldt mt etxwo et mh wel eptioeng
Yaw its we so das Mouwhd Shek gabides wh one yliadxoy echiet eke
biseaxels a8 arvet mi den wacmem mE sted? bre mot? ALD bre wat te
add @wodlilw merae’ +f ‘(uel bien ct tot wat de GaerKodr gs 0 tn a cd
te mohigtody mi ob of O8 vomeni fs takiget « ged rook oreds eg, = .
sdutes: adf ko ang od} of qraxtany "38 +f OS 289 ‘eee oust £ mented
_— has epecg ald witihas ban ghablvesg Saw © Dame one ewe ah 2
aa) "sabenRlel ty odads vat Ye wfqoot wilt Be
‘lta od onal aebtom a belt saat Wwasot da ot etads i ee : :
ghisia Mim goatee edaf ak anndicoeite to ilad atld bxooet eat : :
wis xebivnon o¢ bohwdetes eve oe dhaom dugds dy ten at akin | a: i
\ shohaee® exvoberteds gf quilsta of, wok som ont, ad ut y
| ata kegonae tw chia eubeers. she, eves hd eo PRk, oe ere 4. es
; sdewaqrssat new qativom cwls og yeunptod om ands fo's oie |
asia seperti a3 wif eee Sate ete ee: ‘wet x92 hedtbaned senpvii te
edi mt tnntaotyh tom taxk? ost basin, bokiivees goncasty gat

fmonnoted Mitw exked a dnd - RORRK gf codbio gunds mat td

bivew af blow aelent edt Am @hve cal nea met tmorwsch all
4 ont lite oa date “passant WH at2be* amend vets. ad an
i dnadpe'to os bentataxs. enoneby wae bead olives wilt 0 dusasq _

nis ae ove ‘en ow dads. tow nsanotind one * Wokanonst i 4

etaedias cits: ah deontvio ta wa: ait Batt 3 ape sas
e wegen) doorda0e pe toda teste wt su a
Rk eh inant vadnbedanndeon etdy stunbeehes
o ameta’ +f P\ idhaeas! cwows ot” ovek be . a |
Brn tol data bmn team SoHtY om gMBOMEEEE ee A000 «
eoeeetAl ak aswel te mt aitw vaeige " ae)
scutes nee. semetn ath Aa 3 |

aie

investigate the facts and cirewastanevs attending the said matter
above set os am to represent firat party and te ineticute euch
procecding or proecadings er te take such step or stepe aa may eecum
to gecond parties te be necessary ané preper and ta the beat inmtere
eete of Firat partys and firet party hereby binds biguelf and hie
sucveraors, heirg and assigns to pay te seeend parties for their sere
viecs hereunder and herein a sum equal to fifty pereent of ony ame
all sums ef money, shares of corporate steok, bille or notes, thing
or thinga of voiue such sa may be realixed by sali, or atherwiae,
beestuse of the premines, The eid Barrat (‘Here and Sonaldé Oldam,
attorneyes bind themeclves to vender best services in the panags
hereinbefore indiestes." hia contract wan signed by the witneas
and “Barratt (°‘Heare HKomald GC. Oldham eeomi Partieas* Feoplets
Bubibis 2 ie a atipaleation fer substitution of counsel in the tee
of Julia S» Boone ve Job io Kellogg 2+ mie, im the superior court
ef Cook county. In thie atipuletion Barratt \‘Hare and Xemald Os
Slchem vithdras from the above Gaut “as attorneys of reeord for the
Plaimtizf®,* and certain cther atianeys enter theiy appesrance in
the cause. People’s Exninit 5 is a eentrset of employment similar
to Pecple'tsa Axhibit 2, iu which defendsni ome O'Hara ugrer to
fepresent Kye. bean as her atierneys im the above case. Freople's
Exhibit 6 is a copy of a motion to diamiss @ case entitled Barry Re
Werren ve» Joby Ls Xellege ¢6 ales, Cave Doe GSG0%1, im the Cuperioer
@ourt of Cock county, and is signee by Cefendent and “Barratt ©'Hera®
*attorneye fox Plaintiffs.” ceple's Exhibit 7 is « stipulation amd
agreement cigeed by defandunt ond the atwefupy who represented him
at the Srial of this couse, im chich defendant atipulates ant sgrees

“y am mot now end newer have been Licenwed te preeties the profesaion
of Attoxeyestelaw in the State of tilineia, by the cuprems womrt

af the State of Illinoie; and further admit that my same does mot

eat das Gtedudt abate qdovnt eitom totts daa eedene ‘Bin ‘" “i
oven het: wt seating Snesew OF YRg Se sighted boo antert porte
ies yas to seaoreg WY oY Bane ae o abowed ten col
guide geodon ve wliid qtaoda ebgcqine vo sored eto te

pata ‘ite

(betwrotte xd gdve Ud sextinns od ou on dove eutey te ayuidé we
esest Of ak wrest ipesat eta? Laren’, ole wash senciaesg ont ret ston

Wy ice as
MT ae

“Iehestow ots m2 geotwass deed deli be abefvoudd tad’
eanmddy sate w baegte one toamaios a eegponees aie
a eigos *.aeldsat mamas wanihinds ahora auto tana ‘fas
went ond Gi Les aneo to nchiustongie set wodtatogtie a ‘a 3 "a “

a HEE y Bagi Bis’ “eR Geis

Gaus ‘oltequs ett mt sche be woke ok pal ¥ nate
20 péeooit bon wealit texvastt noksntoq ise wide ‘ak ee mgoe oe’
ait} wet oxoaet te wyomtedsa as feces svede ott ‘moxk want
at woratanags ated? sods eemwids ‘aldo nisizos od sank |
tetieds smouncetyas Ys tomdmon @ af & ‘hoki a*ekqost wate
‘ga ‘sega omati" + baa sanhaston Pare wh of seta wt engor’

a’etgcst scans e¥ods ibs nd yearns 34 sae as ma em #

sik Sez aoktivae eas & oadunah os noloom # te wee 4 a i

wobtoqul ote we oteteld cet vont ands 2% 9BAS0% a eel, ”
“opok*! giauxod® tae ddasnoted ¥ ook ui el samo 00d 3
bus tic Hadeytie a ad ¥ shddded lh tigen 29
” aia Sotupedale cle uated aa matt the Sete
verge bate nodadungay dnabustes we at onase

“totem te-xy ons wekdouty os ‘Neches vere og on Brits game

obese warned ota xe pamitoee a ;

fies Em. i f

Al ates i
BA dle

ee ee eee ae ee

whe

appear of the Boll of ‘ttorneys, a resaré kept By che Supreme
Court af the State of TLidnoles, 2+ Sprine?tele, lliiaeis, for the
eele and only purypore af showing shows whe gre admitted an’ Reve
been admitted te practices law is Sm “tate of Tlidtweds by the
Supreme Court of the State o+ Didmoheg and l furthex admit shat
om the hearing of the above ontditnd couse, vhevein and whereng
I em charger with Praetieinag law in the “tote of tiiinsia witness
firet having obtained a lieenas ne 6o ¢o by the Supreme Court of
Tllineias thet % «ill testify as hereinaboys Cbateis and shat this
atatement may be offered ond atmdtted in evidence by the People of
the “tate of Tllineia without ejection on my part er in ny behalf,"
Peopleta Dxhtvit 99 dated Lecomber 3, AMS sy is an order from dofende
ant to “The Aewben H. Semnelley Corporstiens” « printing iirmy te
Place in “The Chieego Claecifies Telephone Dirvetory, Comes Ling
Sith the Jane 1052 famouse and ecntinuing thevenfter until notifies
t® Ciseertinuc by ue in writings" defendant's neme and JeLephone
number, “under the heading of Lawyere.” The TAHOE, RYT ER,
further testified that defendant eeid, "I am sm atcermeys* and
that he would have te got things im shape, snc disewss with Hrs
O'limee what to de with the ease “Gf ky. ‘there takes the ence z*
thet cefendant sévieeé the «iteees kegelly in veferenee its the
oulizg thet the next day defendant mede an Sppeintwemt for the
Witness to meet Mx. ('Hara and that he then met the Latter,» whe
eedd thet he would take the eoneeg Ghat Br, o'ilara anids “Sadge
Clénem ig e better lawyer thon I amy and I want hie 60 help we
in the case. hen you oume here te talk about the o>9e talk to
Myo Oldham and it will we Just the aeme chine as talkine to me 5"
that the witness newer talked with Me. ¢'Hare about employing the
imtter im the ese@. All of the exhibits were adwitted without

_ @bjeetion by defendant. Ure. Geerge Sem testified thet she

met defendant in (uguet, 1920; thet ehe told him thet *“they*

y i

poogue od} yt dgek banoes @ yaymmmsgs Yo Chom ott ae taogge

ads x02 gotontist yoLertgubaye de yutomBset Yo ded? att Yo dmnaD
, Vaal bite bet dimbe ene ety ewowly grdbwodn Xe Piss at, vite en, ‘efor
| _ tals Yt adomise? So aia’ ott et wet oottorsg ef ‘pesetuma nod
rn o Lams goede srt I bas gudomt.sez te gdnse ot % myo and
aaorzote hao alerede qvamed bediline evods att ‘te mechs ons

ipo

dmonsiw whomiill te maat® aah id wnt antehton na aadw Degree 1
Yo duwot semague ots yd ob 03 ae eased ® bentnade aakved a :
ads tous ses 4 opbade svodaahs ses nw WReaeo?, ithe F asta ay ayae4
Re odgeot odd ye somadive ad. Seiiimbs baw noxoito od vam an :
"6 Reasted Ws ak ta Pung ype oe mokoowgee davoata bw adomk tir Ye leh ‘
wbaoted amet wodno ma wh gi8Ol eh redmoae% dodab 9f iat sa :
o@ wea gnksatg a *ymadite cong 1a Whom ” urdu oa 9: tae
“pal suvnane atrosoostd sitociqa koe bottineato eased “ ak Pere) )
thetRtyon Aticis 19 .acasdt gottantanes ain owas toot saat w i
paige Les vee omnes at anabee tod. Nypndedon at as oa si uae ones ' i
eherse. ~aaeniiy whi = “stig To wpa oeed ‘ate ‘wie ee
» We “ayeertessn me me 1” 4 bhag «pli baba

oh ees by ad ,
gi: i ;

ode ad onuexetox mt | hagas snvaite wale beatvan anaaniet Z
A nal ‘tot sagataloqqe iad whos dun tatse wo aoe ald at thee

eet totee aga eu sie rd ote wet let blur ¢ | ad
oat Ghedt oe ma tnoe T ona ae nee mound vested @ pt

oe BLos Cane ate suede Mine fad ors Sn 7
' Pe, aol oe petdtog ae gebste ome Lond Peark, oa

ERRAND, 3 iy
its Rew: ah Cah i

- ous onde Lgen taode etek") es aithy oo ‘wren. a0
Miso aw s072mhe oi08 ethan ps rappel’ ci rs
“otly Sod? hott tenes gest * agrond vot pet reer crsger ot

emt told mh nod uta did

=="

Ps a

~5e

needed an aticormey at ence as the Sellege Company had threatened
te go inte bankruptey; that defendant teld her te bring Mre Warren
in the neat day and he would have My. O'Hare meot img that the next
Gay the witness, her husband and ire “arren met Mr. ©'Hayai that
"the sign on the door was Law offices af Baryatt ©‘Harn, then there
was & line uncer thet end beneath the line was several other sames
and the weme of Er» Oldham waa the lest om the Lietg* that she
hed a talk with defendant in the presenge of Mrs O'Hara about
representing her in the enseg thot she eaw defendant im hia office
about twenty times and talked with him in reference te her legai
rights pertaining to an action im the “upericr court ageinet The
dotm Le Kellogg Company, ‘There waa "0 croseeexemination of this
witneess Seerge Dean testified taut he first met defendant in
Auguat, 19230, im hie effiee at 1°: North Ladalle etreet, Noam 61045
that he Rad a talk with Mre O'Hare and therenfter the witness wae
prevent on twenty or more ocensions when defendant tolked with ané
advised “arren relative te hic litigation and legal righte against
the Kellege Companys that che witmess went with defendant to the
Superier court upon the eceasion when exs¢ No» 55408] wae filed in
that court. At this point defendont's counsel sdmitted that that
auit was filed for “arren agadmet “he Acliegg Company by Berratt
O'Hagan and Bonmld Ce Oldham, attorneys, and that the documents im
gommeetion with the came were filed by cefendent aq am attorneys
The witness further testified that on each scension that he went te
the office defendant advised him about his rights, that he heard
defendant advise Warren about hie legal rights and that Bre O Fara
teld the witness te do whatever defendant told him to ao. There
wae no erese-examination of this witness. G- Livingston testified
that he was an employee of the Donnelley Company, publichers of the
telephone dircetery, and thet the name of gefendant appearec in the

directory on an attorney °6 law im the city of Chicage and county

bis
| J
hh
hie?

eae

A eS a ees

= SS

benedeni) bad ymaqamt gaedklok wale ws vote 3a YwRTedde Sa bewoom
seni’ ci gabed os wel Aded ¢enhoodes dads jyesqueizad osmk yes

gxon mie Gattd tabs doom wua'O a owed adwow of bee Yeb Samm el) Mh
Said jogail!o oti som KeTKe yo hae bandamt wad qeaodhwoeds yee
Stags coms qusal's dhorzall Ye wees ree wal ese woos dat ae tial )

oie dod? "qtulh ocd 0 Gok one sow ween £0 nat te pate ake ed
a ee ee este Mind a Saat
“eed220 sist at dondnoton wan ade dot Peeed od wt od QubdesegeR
| haga l cod 68 seeweetes mt abet ichw awilies ten wonte inert ted
eM? gemtegs Fuse sektogee wt) wt wekioe na Bd wrtataerog asdgis

Widd 2O Weliontmem-caers Of Baw wend y quageDd wactiox + aot
Bh Gastmoved tom tock? val dale boPRtaend teil aptoed cenenthe
{ORB a0 gdeeesy oListad meen ONL ge soteo wid’ at .OERe cod

ae
¥ pes =
a

not. aeomtiy ett xodRecteds ban sees oil He kw teu a basi ot tale e

dey sdtw DeNies Jaleo Tol ee aeoleseoy HOM Re YON! He deebey
tentign widyix dogek haa mottegiats. et ot shales wat ae nat ed

Gusts Prethe tate Ambir duane athens duteq eta ‘i’
Share <F yregod nc ah en wi NT
Mk atrsauonb wid daitd bas gwyptine tie eamacthed 6D Otome! one 9 AHN

‘WeHW IIe aa os Jusbeotod ya hes! orow sown odd dby wok soeameD
eg enow ae tans mvhaneod mae ae seus saribiesd as fiat ky a a she Vee

bostivaga mitinntvik +B sanoudhw ‘tds te ‘aie
edi 0 natdakeag, somone od 20 we |
oats at besanage snabavien Ye wan ody sats, ben

Wonres bet eynedea No Wile od ad wat tn yornaste wa an

Seat Shue Re | ea "a
(se A er POV Str os whee

i it oS ee
wien “i “th E

Eee ee eC

oGeo

of Cooke ‘there wae mo cxoeseexemination of thie witnesses lefende
ant,» the sele witness for the dufenges testified that he was Living
at 2D Saet Delaware places, “hioage; thet ke had Aived there for
mesrly a year apé that he bat lived im Chieops about thirteen or
fourteen months; that he wag in Mrs © ‘Hare's lew office “in the
enpacity of a law glerk until I am admitted to the barge’ chat he
vas ageleting Mrs O'Hara and was working on & eelaryy thot he had
known i. O'Hara sinee he met him im Kencucky, about 1942, in @
Kentucky case in which eth were interested. Defendant then intro
duged a certificate of the e¢lerk of the Kemiucky Gourt of Appeale,
éated Barch 12, 1928, ahowing that on Zuxreh 29 2925, “Comald Cawet
Oldham, of the Clark County, Kentucky bar was intreduesd te the
Court by Han, Charles Carrell and took the onth preneribed by the
vonetitulion and iswea of thie Commonwesith, whereupon ho wag
admitted to practice as an attorney at law in thie Uourt.* the
oertifieate alee certified that defendant is sn attorney at iaw

in geo standing in anid court. Uetendant alee intrecuceé a
eertifiecate of the elerk ef the wpreme Court of the United “tates,
dated opril 26, 1950, cersifyimg that defendant, om \prik 20, 19a1,
upen motion, wae sdmitied to praetiee se en attorney of the supreme
Court of the United Gtaten. Sefendant alwo iatrocucec a certificate
of the elerk ef the United States Cireait Gourt of Appesde for the
Geventh District eertifying thet om “pril 20, 1924, defendent vas
a@mitted te praetice im that court. Defendant testified that he
met “erven in “uguet, 1990; that Mre. dean came to the office and
he told her that he wowlé arrange « meeting with Br. ©'Harag that
at ten otelock the next morning Mr» and Hiras bean and ‘arren Come
to the office and went immediately into Mr, O'Hara's private office
ant the latter requested defendomt te remain during the conferences

that, after a telky Br. (*iaxa telé them that he would take the ¢oa€

wbewted soasaviw aid te a6ttenieixe<nsotw ox dew wtetT “vleod Re
gutwit caw od garle Seftiseed psoadton wll volt aaowtlw afew vite gees
cok exude Revtl bee a Uodd Poptel devele wrawalet Year OR
to) eodetls seede agebhd? mt heviy seit et dadd bab caee' a Qheee
pte aS Gobo war atinwilto ee mb Gow Od tet femenee eee |
“get gaat? gear edd of Retdhahe ae ¢ Sivas dele wal a ke yeiogad
tad tai drut qetedeo 6 me yitnow wow Den ewelt'O orl yiliietods aie
mid (ReOL duets Poteutnin AE add 20m Ut wenbe ‘weanto” ‘se
wovieh weeds tHabnetat .badaorvetad row sed deide ab easd “ylenieml
saliva’ to Puwdd YPlomiad std xo deed dé te etowt tees a bee
foted Bowe GoeeL U8 MoveX as site Godwarte gboeE yas tare he
Mite 62 soeubsidnd wae wel Gourd ¢ydemed atatO wats To ate
bats Qa taettodeng dono wily soos one Live Worttadl ina Te de oo
aw ad nopreRed \HILebwtece® 4M? Yo awat hee odds tHeROO
‘vet +L dawol alse nd weit fd ywetovae he Ha! voltoone o@ pedelatie
“wa do Yat isn as ok sasbnetss date SoPReTee écite ofaakthieae
“ge peswtowtad sets davtevted .¢cpew Bhan at aatbaads neg’ ae
aoornse lescuadbentieahindiasiactiiendibathenenduation pds
ei0Gk 408 Buy! wo ,taohattos teas gukyiides eoeee +38 diag i ay
ewergu? aie 26 yoertod ds he ne “wotsoer, od thse bebe wow gael eder ae
essortiiicee a Keoborint sath mnibhebet igddadd edhe add SOO
wat) Sut akavqu te dived dewatd wodase so ehuy- ene YO deute we
ase ttsbes tos gdaL 98S Livgs oe told geeyetines fateial itis wren
ef Hatt bedi vand Hewbewtt sion Ca wh dessert “pore!

eS ee

om S ¢Comtingent basin and they were to return the following day

to pign she eontruct; that they returned om the feliceing day

and by that time “we hed learned that the ‘arrenteen Seed Company
and the John L. Kellogg Company, vere a foreign eexporation and
that we could file the suit in the nited States Court. Ey, o*Hara
explained to Hre Yarren, thet I hod just eome te Chienge from
Kentucky and that he would like to have me in the ease with him,
and, explained to Hr. “arren further thot it would eost Mee Yarren
Bo mere to heve me ageiet Mr. ("Hers ant Ere Vvarren agreed te thiag*
that there was a suit filed im tke Guperisry ecurt ef Cook eounty
"by Barratt ©‘Hare, and Ronald C. Oldébem, and all that eos ever
gone was the filing of praeeipe and an order diomissing the wut,

HO stupe were ever taken im ity" that *we had several negotistions
with attyoes for Mire Kellogg about a settlement of Br. “arren's
Gleim. Ere Vurren, told me t¢ deal through Mr. Jules Oppenheim,
Prege,y of the ‘moriecan Cera] Coffer Cee, who wag a friend of Mr.
Warren's and «t the same time was 6 directer im the “arrentead Seed
Company. I talked with him several times and fimelly through By,
Ruseh Ce Butler, Attys for Mr. Eelleogs, tke claim was adjusted and
eettled and Mr. Yarren signed a release. “hen the matter was
eettled Mx. Yarren was there and so wac Mire Barratt O'Hara, and he,
of evurse, was consulted all through im the emtire matter. * * *
The Courtt Then you were practicing lew? A.» Yes, and without

an Illiveis Idcense, The Court: Sid you mean to held yourself

out as a lawyer im Tllinoie, “hen your meme was put in the Telephone
Ddrectery? As “hye of course not,» Judge, you knew how that
happeneds My. o‘Hara, had me put that in that for sonvenience for
taking eslle for me thet come to hie office and they were ealis
from his cliente and it was hie telephone number. 1 am not listed
in that Dircetory now. As te the Law Direetory I knew nothing

about that listing until I saw it in the Directory. The name was

Wad umt vaste? aslo meter of ore yor bne stand snepet smog My
Wh aubwolled ste mo Homeden yale sede gdowtdnos ad mts og
Gngae? bent mRaseerrsal’ ody Gard Demos haat on" sate Soalt ‘ed ban
‘bis mobtaroqie syiecel a eter _qegeed paoliok 41 adok wld dns

mek opopht® of enon tomb aoc 1 dacs omerzeY «2K of bomb
i td Metw onan void wh om oem of ndbhptnow, om faut bon ‘lepteet
| Revie! «tM deco biuow Jt duct aeatrt Oba” «Ti OF healatqne, 9 Dae
| Menke of deoxpe sora” +XK fae amet: 60 fetume om ved od. prpen om
: ‘Yiawoe dood Yo umes telveqw? of mi beLtt sive & aew oredd pads
sev) maw dems Lio bum qmmdas. «2 bkaaot Bum yaxeli’) deguell yet
sites ons yotertont» mote am bus egtooarg Yo yALltt odd sow omob
amisotiogen Laxoven bed ow* dati "402 Sh amled tore wnt agese om
at gorse «iM Ye dnowediten 2 dugde yyodtel a zot ‘se0utde date
enct oaiereqq© relat ut Moworie Laos of oa bios Hotes ste stthede
+H Xo Beekxy # gow asiw yee oo8Red Lamed mopdeo eda te ‘ nor

i book hesanorss’ add ah tovewsie « aow oaks hse ea 4a its ata |
‘ ox Agito tubs qiiants bas wants § ioseves whet std bw beuitea x oa” :
fa Dadanbde saw mbnto odd yupetton +x¥ x02 outa en tat £4 doou
i wow <aetam aA) cord! .amentex « dongte more ¥ out a bes 19
| ade bus ,oxal'0 tarred +7 Gam See ores sow morta” axl Rexéas ,
une rtoddem oxime old ah dysiots Le beddnanoe usw etexmes to
swodsiv One eaaX 4A twal golatinnng axew soy mot? §2uwed lll

Rdonzwoy bfod of mam soy Oba sf aaed welt seanoe bt whoa Lat

omusigatol a? mk nq aew emt awOy sade qubenttst mk a mi ae tu
dan¢ wed wort wey eeabae ator sexo , 20 wet gm ; 10208 "

te sono! novos sot faut wh gael samy a bat eso ow " nea
siiee sxew yndi has op#io iM 64 ne Maild om ued eine gaidey
beat tom mm x sedan grado ait wan £m amet at moet
oS aaldton vam < qeadorstS wel ad of 0h sre wee " r
q Raw Ome ett .yrOvoentd odd mi Of won I Stem gadis ay

We"? «2h a dsme® asdede_ eee. ati af Mtwe odd e£i2 Afeoe ow dads

——Tu-°. 7

cory

given, eo I ivarned, by the gird in the offlee and Af you will Leck
in the next dircetery, the new one, you will find thet it te net
there.* The foliowing then ecourred: * tty. Roe (attorney for
Gefendant): Zhe fact thet ne hes « * * beet admitted to the bar in
guother state entitles him to proctiee here while his aplication
AS pending »* Ree then fursher questioned defemdast ag followes
“Have you msde appliection fo: odmiceion te the Bar im the Stete of
Ailinois? As Yous * * * Atty. Noet “hen did you make application?
Ae I don't knew when I gent the papera in, but {I think it wag in
Wereh or april, ieom after | eame here and tefore I deeided ta
atay here i wrote to .uimey, ULies for the blamka ané they recudred
that a certificate be signed by a Judge in Sentucky, whe wae in
turopes i fimally got the certificate sigued Wy anether tudge of
the sourt of Appeals of Kentuekys and then ! delayed until I detere
tained to leeste heres G+ “hen did you make up your mind te loeste
im Ghicage? A+ Theat would be hard to fix ihe date, if I had te
aay When I definitely decided i would soy sometime im Cocenber, 19306
fhe Gourtt {0 for as I undermtand £6 Mre hoe, he admits that he

has preotieed iaw. Attys Roet Yer, in a cause of Bre Barrats O*Hawms,
a lieenged Tliineis lewyer, and ne bes e@ right te fo thet under the
lew of Iliimeia and cf Aentucky. “he Sourtt ‘re you familiar with
the etatutes of Kentucky? Mr. (\ldhemt 1 am. To be gure about i+

i levked the statute up yesterday and I would Like to reac you what

4t says -* Upon the crosseexamination the following oecurred? "Ge

Pell, you a4d4 practice law in the “arren euse and were an sttorney
@ xvecord in the Superior Court’ «<. I was am as torney ef yeeord in
that case with Mr. Barratt O'Hara. Q+ ‘nd im thie case for Brae
Teen? Ae Yea, but mething wee ever done im that by ua exeept to
sign a substitution ef counsel when theee people brought their case

te yous Gs How many eases did you have prior to the date of this

Moot Lliw voy V2 bee ovetto od wk Rafy dele qo sy botrened Foe Getiwly

gow ad of Guts Seth Cidw owe yon wen one .qENGeREG Fea Odd OE

(a aeineititn) See a a Sonreeee mms genie ce est ime

| mb soit ote 02 nesetmon pied © © + nme nd nde dont net CC banbaOLeD
| Seo tanh iaae wit elite onad Wottvens of wit aehitine otnee wemiede

tewofict on Mabaeled heomsi deem telowmel aett Gel- > Ka peteed ee

to abase acd at well we ot codnmtarts u6% hobtw diggs obese mew

Pmodsant tend dake vey MO nem Her Qe ee # eer va tenomete
gh wae 28 shake Tt sud qed enmgen oid Btieg T mete wont a ted DN

68 Bebhoes To exehee bea oe cease i geete weet 5 ety! to doweat

\ th wow one poforvaet RE oglat & Gt bungle ev Otaet tities w samt

oo tieweo ee Fox KitaRkt T wegen

te ar bainestiund

awe onde’ “ea! Maman a
o080E , cedars wh Gmticucs you Riwee T KoOhoed Yet taftes t dete Git | :
tit fae) eae OH 9 PR RRO Te ce RE

gaat “Chatio 08 We ieee aw wb T roe OR! ‘vast vot daf eel
cult ote fits “oh voi iityht o Was on tne veMyued BrONASET Boa ae
Make sekitee® wey wee reded nett seen ote wh 4
th titeda opie wt oF sme X seudtede yt’ iincansslee iid .
dante erg hee De OUR L Bassa Site Yared |
29" dawraeoe gadvo Lien sate fet
eis: me stow bre pee POeeT ssh th Yes lb tania at . .
at brooex To yunner aH aw eae Eo ya! Te ae a eat mB
ppunbctehanicanedeatons papi miigh:sicn se i

od hot 1 th ‘got ah mts xt ot” ta wii

eo Se - lL eo r_

=Se

Warren one? A+ “one in the State Courts. f reesll ome im the
federal Court where I heve a right te praettee ona t believe the
whole time thet I have been with Br, O' Haga, I joimed him in theee
ox four cases ineluding these two that Fou are Gomplaiging about.
Ge Hox many times did you appear in enees for Ye. Oi Bara? As Ip
every inotence when I appenred in Caurt on a motion on ome 6f Hee
O'Hara's gcaee, 1 alwaye auneumeed te the Court that thie ie wy.
‘'Hera's enee and I om appeoring for hime { have appeared in not
& single ease in [Llineis, where [ filed my appesrance alome se
counsel therein.” The cowisel fer defendant asked lexve to submdé
the euge om briefs an he wanted an opyertunisy to “set ferth the
Jew of Kentucky end ‘liimoia, «s te comity between states ani the
dustificajien fer the acts of the defendant in this exes." Tho
Gaee Woe then eubmitied to the court em?’ the parties were allowed
te submit briefas
Defendant contends that “thie ie a receré of « sixrietly

private presecution.* %¢ assume from the argument in supports of
the vontention that it is net very s«ricusly made, aa in the brief
it i@ stated, im suppert of the contentien: “Ye mention thia in
poseing in erder that thie Gaurt est the proper ‘picture’ ef this
presccution.” The sbile ami experieness eounsel far defendem: seem
éo think that it ie proper for them te state in their brief that
the stete's attorney <¢dvised them “that he never hear’ ef the ¢ase

until monthe efter the conviction." “here te rething in the reserd

te Justify this atetement. The bili of except ions states that
"ny, John EK. Hogan, appeared for the People of TllLinela,” and no
ebjeetion was made at te time of the trial te hie teking pert in
the proegedings amd no guch poini wae raised in the assignment of
errora, and therefore is not properly before this court. (ceople
Ve Qmith, 313 This Lid, 127.) Yor aught that sppeare in this
yeeord, Mrs Hogan may have been an aesistant atatets attorney.

aed wt one Ligne 2, «tua ccna ome at ome he) ‘tee mers a
pet gyekiod 1 bum colssang oF, ddgiw.e evod 7, axede fume? tageten —
soudid ai mbt bearet, | saeell'y) 9a ahdw oped ened 4, dade cmt sds
Lado patetaiguee ose soy daa vd aod! yabhudand essnm mma k me
ee ee ee ee
| oxi es Geo Oe codiom o ne ded at dessogge T cade comatant Tere
oH wh elite dade s2Uel, ald of ReMmMT pyoNia 1 eemage, a taeeihe
Son uh howenage wat i sated qe gtx ngge me 1 bee ppg @amellty
ge sreka emurmeggn $m balk A wamin enon Sct wh pase atunte @
Steniue 92 oyues dete iaonesies wh ecovee att “-mhoned steam
a8? ManeX tee” of Yimnrcogge an tedase of go tet ad 2 gee aed
Sid Ren acters papeted Giiawy we em. «nkomesil ENO iS
a *:eese etd oS dawdueded wots te adem oxlt set, mold iy
. Sella exew eakine ond tee Maxey att op Destine sate So
iniabe Py _ mono 2 ws 2 staan, na sheretaoe. cave eanar ane .
Re steggve ch damages cnt: med camo we ‘ Sawer
Quied of? wf ee ohne ylaeolyee Yur fom pb at sonid vet narmme at
mt elds nolnom oF" rnodiusames one to dzogue ot ghotaimmba
elite ko ‘oumineg! “ago off Soy dxawd ehds Sade. snienancaitane
OOS. Imaha eee 32% Lonmiee Imonehnees. ous ede nat , | MeSebteoonee |
Sols telad akete of afeda od made net coqeeg ed: O42, sagtdyal /— | |
99% att Yo. Wiper rewen on tasd® emats eevee woerein at ebate as
Stones elf of yalaton af ayant! “ynetembenes add soaks - | he
Ld aotoda amuligners te Lhkd. eat oelaselinccntiaed Li ) ial.
On Ae “vakoctty $9 ekgost nati FO}, boancaga, 4
mt dxag eatiies plot oo Lake, at he sade par nen :
30 seemnalons oct at. aii om, aa Sita 9 ymnk by

toh Gee

Throughout the common Law reserd it eopeare thet the stetet
attorney represented the Teeple im the preesedingse the Judgment
ovder veecites that the (copie were represemted by the state's
attemmey, In this gourt the etete's atigeney ie defending the
seoord. There ta mot the slightest merit im the inatumt contest lon,
if it ean be enlled a contentian.

Defendant contends tet “the cours erred in atuiicing
imcompetent evidenee .* ‘ter a gareful reading of the reeard we
find that we evijenee ean introduced on bevels of the Seople over
the objection of defendant, lvfendant pecially refere to the
introduction of ®weple's Uxhibite @ and 9. The rocerd shows that
counsel for cefendunt stated that he bad me cesvetion te the
intreduetion of Exhibit 9 ane conceded the facet sought te ve pre wed
oy the exhibit. Ko ebjeetion wae made te Uxhinit 8 end the
fact sought te be proved by that exhibit was undisputed, in Fant,
it is in securd with the testimeny of defendent. In mapper’ of
the inetent ¢ontention defendant ineigte thet there is ne vhowing
thet} the witnesses for the prosecution were sworn befere they
testified. There is no merit im this contention, The bill ef
exceptions showe thet at the commencement of the proeeecing all ef
tie witnesses, including defendant, were sworn, Im additian, the
bhLi of exceptions ahews that all of the witnesses "“tentd fied »”
wid, therefore, in the sheence of « showing te the eowtrary, the
| presumption cf lew la that they weve sworm. (Preple v. Zrotas
S41 ULle Zl4y 229.) That enae ellen holds thet if witnesses are
Bet aworn, but no objection is interpesed te thedr testimony om that
Ground, the porty le deemed to have waived that point, and in the
ingtent ¢esxt the record shews that no objeetion wan interposed to
| the testimony of any witness on the ground thet Re or she wan not

| gwoxne

‘platete tid fond ateeqye C2 Seoved wed menmoe of” tuothiwerd?

‘Puscilael efT e@pntosooere odd BE Mlgoet ond Sedmoadryer yeneetes

atadads oa2 yt betmewonges eer oiqoot ete dott ged toon abe,

‘ gdd nathbrstoS gt yduxelse otutade elf caves elded ety Comeeeea

apne ftetamk ott wt tiven danditylie at? gett et eridt Obeepey

‘ey Beopda O89 46 griseet Detdxne & cee) * sene thee Hea peQmOnT
sore efqoet afd Yo Dieked se beowbetink wow eonehiwe on ade tat ;

- gMF of aebtet Uiistooge: Ueuhie to? i atabaoted to aod see towel
Jats ewiuin Giooer oR 60 Bee & aoldhtet a engeot 16 netterteNh
gat od otteo ges on eet et Soild betate srebow tes vet Regeés —

bean ad od fitpuon dont af Bebvorns Seo @ Siéleek to weseeienell

* gate tere G Picket Od Sham eae malsedywe of . dhddxe amie
staat mt qhotnqetonw enw sidides dacs yd bevexq: ed oF sdgeoms deat
oe Proqqua at taobeoteh te qrombeced ade dite wrobes mt anal
-patbwod’s om eh oveet? Sarl atulunt tended ied mektmetwao omawemd) amt
sei ‘tou? eattod tee ete; ahi dteossong ene xeh aonnmadw este amt
“fo Ltfe on? — sentced non GK ak ¢tdour it ek wikeat oo 4 NeRERNeS

to Lis yak roveog of? te teiarestemme ont Sa teats ena ach aS
ods ynotithhe at smvows VroW \tenbeitey gatoafont yaseubmntv in
““poltbiews” wosaumeky oft tw Ltw tueff’ aivgate’ omenegeoute Ber Enh ;
Rid eeterinoe ond 62 put wort @ te momMbidle eete Wh yeeMl |
autora +¥ gion) — sertowa eee abet deste bi wall hoo ame jm
ous eocandhe 42 fof? safer ote oon Rad a etittccuty j i . ti
Seas 9 wombdand civil) ot becciredd af atdvobse ‘ot sul witio ya
“ otts tt has gdtibog dant Rovio sad 6H immed ab eek wtf ate
8t bavcqredat aex motteeten Gm Sait) Gite troser ait weno it
; “fete nen vn x0 eit aiid" diecabied welondienpsatiiis chinne

ee pres

a eee

“lle

The mext contention ia that the weople fafled ts prove
that defendant wea a revidert of the state of TLlimeis, and thet
therefore the eewrt erred in demying the motion ef defendant tea
€iemiee the complaint at the clese of the Svople's evidence as in
support ef thie contention ¢<fendent calle attention te the fect
that the atntute applies oniy to resi¢ente of the estate af
fliineiase There ta ne merit in the inetent contention. The
informetion wae filed Februcry 6, 1O%1, and the trial teok place
dume G4, 1932. Defendemi teetified thet he Lived at 2 Beet
Delaware places, Chicsgs, ami had Liwed there for nearly « yeorg
thet he hed lived in “hies~c sabeut thirteen or fourteen momthag
that he wee practicing lew there; thet he hee wede appliestion for
atmiesion to the ber of the etete of Tliinete. “he evicenes further
shove thet he bad « jaw offices im Chie-go and «se engaceé im the
preetice of hie prefeanion frem at leest Auguet, 1940, to Jaminry,
193). He gave an order te the Chiexge Clageified Telephone Sire
ectery te place hig name in the List of lewvera and to eentinue to
eo pince his nome until netifies te cisesntinue, in writing. The
imetens eentention la without merit.

The finel contention ef defendant is that “the jucament
of the Court is absolutely volé sines the penalty fined ie five
times the maximum senalty provided by low for the offense the
dudgment edjudges the defendant te be gufity of." Defendant eon-
tends thet «hile the inform tien ig based upom section 1» pare
248, che 3%, the judgment, im effect, finds defendant guilty of
a violation of seetion 1 ef chapter 13 of the statutes. Ye fing
mo merit in thie contention. ceatlon Ls pare 298», che 50,
orovider thet “upen convigtion shxll be punished by « fine of net
Levee than twentyefive ($26.00) dollars, ner more than five hundred
(9890.00) dollars, or imprivonment im the county jail not exeeed ing
one year, or by both fine and imprisonment, o° the diseretion of

evox 69 Sokiat olga’ mf} Gadd ak moktneenoe txen ed? 0
fads bom qetonilO Yo stata até Te toehiner & mow dmabmoted Gaus
od dmabeotes to solvom aff echyteb al cores oes ante ero%e walt
ai aa opaobive wtetgos% ae to eneke sf? a5 dakatgmeo sift omlaal’
fest edt of nok tundda alton dqutee tod gatdneinne abdé Qo toque
, % e¢n2a et? Yo atmphtasx of qiee ged Lage atutnde edt geatd
af? .nokinodaop tuatent sat mi threw om ef axadt sakombst
spay, Mood Satue sft fr g L502 4% coredet fehl? sew, rot tameso et
Peat 08. dm bovlL at decd Oektheees awabaetet «acBOL al omit
{298e o YLEsOM tat opAMs HOWEL dest tae gogsold? gaonkg osematet
‘fadenen aveswel vo meertld? awete oguetd? af doves hast ort a th
tot mobdaakdque thaw bed pt Sadi aeiedd wad putudtoane. vow al att
senisxwt poaebive wil snlonhlts YW vende odd te nad ote od me
odd mk ooganne aay bax omso2X) oh omtte uel» had od tadd wwpelar
eetaamel oF 060k qtauema deel da most melage tos. ola 0 et te ot:
waht prendige Le? bottingads ogegtsy agh of S00e9 aa eeg oh
eo ouettnes of bam anrgent Yo Godt od wh nmes gddoeonky. at ees:
as? opmbetxw mt gountingow’® oo bo ttdom Lhtaw aman etd ooney oe
, ; | sAbven ¢uedele at mobieadaos es
geapags st wats teaté a instaeled te sohimeonae Lands ad® of
OvEt sk dunt? yiLoung act anata bier yeausoats al paihepriner
ets Senetio oly tt wek YM doniveny Yrlaneg maine? vce os :
089 seeabae 20d "Bo vein oof 8 aetchawtnd ome, aepbatie im
+ teq vf aot gove Ange dened ah mohsomrotnt edt edaety dp
te arery deebne ko anet?, + feo ke md ,drenerpaut, sade Died
‘bat, 9 moniatats ee De £5. madman, Sed

abe vs, eBRS otng ad mokd
tem to Rte we boate tng ae Aeae, sotgodemon me
borioust owed wants oeom tom setaiton A008 ss " , ,
Bhdessne con Kak Yenwow eae ed Smanten tweak x0 ha
te mebtevsato ods oe seatctaeos bgt ae, ont sis

re
tite

«al Ge

the eourt »*

befendamt, throuch hin otlorneyas has moved fer Leave
to file whet purports to be an effidewit of Kerry 0. Yarreuy the
Presecuting witness in the came, “ani that suid affidavit be wade
@& port of the record im thie ¢uee." This affidavit states that
éefenégent ie sm honest and fair man and that “arren had wronged
him in procuring the warrant for hia arrest in the present precesde
inge end decired “te help him in am poesible menner eo that he will
not Se further hormed becouse of any set af ming.” The affidawit
alee contains certein statements of alleged facta in the matter of
the relatienghip between defendant and -arren, ‘fhe able counsel
for defendent musi know that such on affidavit haa no proper place
im the peoeeedings im thig court, and the motion to file the geome
will be denied. ‘hie vas a praseeution by the Seaple of the otete
of lllineia, and we may add that the onterial facts preven by the
prouccution were not ciaputed by defendant. He was represented a%
(ne trial by on able attorney, and the sacle ¢efenses interpoued
were (@) that ag he had been admitted to the bar in Seniwoky thie
feet entitled nim te practiee im (Liimeis “Mile bis agphiestion was
ponding, ard (&) that comity between the wtiates Justified the sete
gharged against defendant. either of these positions ia sounds

“The enforcement of this statute will have no «effect
upon a reputable lesyer reeiding ins foreign “Gate who may
Soporasiey feriss so merce Seacas tel acrestiheat
waLdecnsed yesomeagps will sot come into thiw State te penae ee

ee 0

dew, and if 4 quld, by reasen of their non-recidenge ar

went ef a permanent location and lack of sequalasances tas)

would be unabie to find vietime upon whem to praotice chet wiles.
ne unlideneed non-resident, therefore, who might dwaire to penetice
lew iu this “teste differs from the non-resident drummer or pedcler
who goes into a State ether then that im which he weuldes bo #@11
hia goo¢s and woreg, ond the principles of law vhieh apply te the
latter elassee have no application to the nou~reeicent sho Boe not
heen ateltted te the bar, and who, posolbly, might desire to practice
isw in this Gtate. fhe statute applies 30 every veaident of this
Stete #ho Bolda himself aut os om attorney at low or who rapresents
himeelf ne authorized to practice law aad who bas not heen rembarky
Licensed to proetice lew or whoge license has been revoked.

eophe V+ Schreiber, 850 Lis 345, 548-9+)
The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago is ocfismede
Sullivans Pe dos and Gridiew. Je. aanann ABT DMS te

iw Ray vy eA
‘ 1”)

*. de® By
weed vet hovers sal anyontetin abt awerestt tuabustes, "
Out «teTtse’ «A xual to divehi he ae od OF altogauy sane oats ot
shan ad tfyesi iia bles Sune baw” geaag ext mk aout iw aid soe eT
dade wotads iivabtste gift “steno ahd as baovet noms ‘te hs Si 3
‘poner aad aetia® geld bam seam the} dts geoned ge ak sdaduoted
“ebosoosg snosexg ed? at sgecta sid “ed tmcnsn os phd wroemg Sh mbs
SLiw of dodd on xenane eldiaoog Ww bi mid Ghod ot" boeken d bin opal
divabhvia ad “souks Yo tae yao te cement bomsed xasldset od | oll
te qottem ods sl eéoet heyelin Yu atuemedade nledtoe eahadane ookn
Keennoo aida ef) = .a0uTa Rhee saaber tod neowded Giiamoteaten one
eoalg x9qerd ot aad Sivebl tke wa stone dads wornl seam Sebo kod 29%
oun edo #112 of mohvom ett tam _f cues ade sad Sol beoae my ookt mk
aad edd lo efgor' ade yt medgworeorg @ naw olat ete demo cial bi J
até ys oovony stuot fabiresen eid Salt Soe, Kom ow bmg euhomi Ley ae
2a hetemgorgen saw C8 « finbretes sd egange fo tow wrner,, meds
heaogredms aganels® ofos gad dae ,yonselsa sida ae .w faire “
eld? “aloatmed at tae edi of Deddimie seed bet od om tee (a) ore
aaw nolseghiqge old slide alomtiti a eatyeany o¢ als belddaae $on2
etre mts bai ttre, ardeta alt neowred yeimog dade (g) dam dam 9 pad deg
shoe ob amabeleog seeds Yo nadie’. + dnaone tod santaae Dnpnade

OS oa 20g edd ety + a AR Yas OH

guohtiexenon tite 1s me ma test age ie 58 p+ Dutisigt

9 Oz oe @ & e aw 3G

oe eae vues Mweds

HUGG RS Hi wN pas Or) a meni. | io ;

oaektw theme be ae oS" ,22 Meh, Hom melunees f ot |

wkivexy af sizes “ita ashy pda pty dp tk ceawerie ee

wathheg wa cometh ¢aebl aarenen aytt PEE os oar wh
five of a¢htoox af dott wl 3 osha puanadid Kaas @ wads * oan

ett 0 ykqge sodsie weak Qo tug ot! fim 4

_ dot wast dy tie b) wou aqui eds of Hold ng dgqn wrad at
eolsnergy GF etieod Jayha guldton oa 9 Mkt her tet eds at |

ain? %o savblaws Yr We eo wet oo ote eo ws ow”, .

udnpenuian: oolw we wet de Monmends ay dant Riwegethet att aot
Yixelone” crow fou nad ow dae wel oeidonuy od beat tontiua an Leven

9) “shnloves moed sel euneet£ emesu xe wad, ned

SS sens hat ee

ohemttta ab egeetad Yo faane owt keatt ess te &
Pies when to

destin, om ovsd £2 ote ere
Man nae bea nanovet 3 aval utibmaoe sogend si6otu bi @ tog

2G9L0 if
é # q Pd le
QnONGE KAUMAS, We

Refendant in Error, i.
SRWOK FG wi fiCleAS
# ‘

GOUT OF CHICA, ”

274 1.A.679!

Mis FULTICS SOAMLAN DELIVSRSh THE OFAMION Ge TRA COULT s

We
JACM LIVTZMAN, CAM LINTuMAN
amd ABS LIATABAR,

Plaintiffs in orrer.

George Soufacs recovered » judgment of 660° againet
Jaood Lirtaaan, “ne Lirteman and be Lirtemar in the Bumietpal
court of Chiengoe The onae wae tried by the court without «
jury and the action woe Preughkt to recever 265° paid for the
purchese ef ctoek, whieh aele pleintif?f eletwm wee in visl«iion
ef the [llineis “ecurlties Law.

iefendante contend: (1) “The s-le of five ehares of
the caplial stoek of Lirtaman Brces, Ince, by docsy Lirtwman,
defendant, the comer thereut, to the cofendemt im ersor, woe not
iu vielntion of the Seeurities Lew of the “tate of TLlinoie,*
ant (2) *“e ewidenee «29 introduced t¢ auctain a jJocgment
age bast ime Ligteman and be Lirlaman, amder any theerys” We
have read the entire bill et «xeeptiome im this ease ame after
a vareful examination of the evidenge we are gitialien vis
there ig no werlt im the tee contextions raised wy defcniante.

The judgment of the Musicipal ecurt of -Nivage ie &

just one and it should be and 1h is of firmed.
ASP IAMER +

Sullivans Ps Je, and Gridley, J+, cumelire

.0tkg ss isa

i fe seve CLA RA Sane Ae
gga fvek VSS nova o ve
{ Ye hag baal ese
q 7 ae sus kt .- ted a6 LASTER AHA, Sie 2 . os

ES
it, 2

1 et went

sh capeaeaRaelbn de tampash unionist

4 anedshwe sevoy tt of outa woe sn wt vegnenae eceate
wld coh bhag FONG eeyoRNN Ge Sitiguond sow metton sill bei |
‘motsetoty at ex amtale Toi miaty see Motee ykoehs to weblli
sokhaaai vend weisinsoes ebonakst ang
to comme wya Be eLea wt (1) senamed” eceacaell hotrns m 7

fox ome gtecse af dewdmotwh ede oe , Weavods aanishithak “é
“eahouk At Ye odode ody Ye wal sedated: ede to mods
tHoagintl & Madera ot boowhortal, wer pia |

ee Riis ical fee oak gnats whe seen tee a

my e ANS

———- lle

|
|
|
)

ii / 2 j
/é ~
360232 f § ; “irae,
ARYOR Pacseuy
riadataste in kyrer, |
vs BAROR TO CIRCUTT
LOUIS CARABELLE, PIA canamertz COUNT OF COOK COMET
and PAUL Ce AdaTy ew (\>
" Do" Aj aS fie U ¢ 0

Mk. TURTICS SCAMLAM OLIV FHE OLRIOR OF TES copRt,

A b411 of review was filed in the Cireudt Court of
Geek county by Antom ‘reserm, plaintiff im error, against
Louis Gerabelli, Mia Carabelld om4 Sauline Carabvelld, dofend-
ante in orrer. A demurrer to the bill was sustained ami a
decree entered diamivaing the 0111 for wamt ef equity. This
writ of errer followed.

The bill of review seeke te review vertainm proceedings
that tock place im the case of Capubell3 wells 6t ale
pending in the Cireult court sf Cook county, tebnantite the
filing of a mondate of this court im that cose {
Capmbelld et mle, 266 I1le Avpe 453). To quote from plain-
tiff in srror's brief: It secks “partiewlarly te review 6
deores entored by the Circuit Court on December 15, 1952,
ordering, emong other things, that a jucgu nt in the sum of
$3,654.69 be entered aguimet ‘resern, on the ground that the
said deeree wae erroncous on the face of the record, and because

the same was mot im conformity with the spinion and maniate of
this Honorable Court rewiered im eedd comse." The opinion we
Carabells ¢¢ al. states fully the
pPlesdings ond essential facts in the cause ami also the various
oriers that had been entered up to the time that the instant

bt Eye Shad desde

fs,
Ps

z - %
| ‘i

fe abe

4 :
| | com im
PAVKND OT MORAA

aR FHSS BOD FW TAVES EXSUMAGAG ATL ,LIASGARAD BIOL
) i tose am

tod a <n Se
cemo09 tt G0 ROUSE RE NTE WASNASE RRA

eee
~~

FL EP EE ec RD SCN Pa EI ME

Sotto

i:
i

to sume tduertd edt #b BoLth sew wolves Be tike A
Soatege yxores ak Vikvalskg giemsert mosm\ es mes AooD
sheowts® qhffodera ombSauw! ta Ritedetod at Ahiedered adwod
a ine demksteue now Like td eo TOMO A toeMS mE Bete
gat? .ytlwoe te tmow 10% LL otf yubeatensh henetme, opened
sdewottor one Ye dm

egakhonsmg mlutiee wekven of cslope webwor Re Lhd ett ch ee
asla.t8 Adedand «y RSodatae Yo once ott mh sonty Mood, tadd
ad? gatweliot »yhees gop Ro ¢amoo thupek exit mk gabbiro,
ov BEivdeugp) vane tad mk dump RAM! Yo otsinam 9 39, gRAL
skola ax? ofoup oF (GBD ames offI O98 gs, avian,

8 vohwor of \funtuotineg" xeon #2 sRedud af uorne at 7 nay
e8ERL 92 pith ead Ae A. a

apenas gasp pa

ov sekntge act nanan hive sh ential. bla |
tt vetun satete in. ARERR SERRARR A POE
oer a ws et ee sill eT

ala

éefendante in error appenle: from the original deeree, Per the
purposes ef this writ of errer it la meceasery te suete only the
Seliowing from our opinion:

“Se mow come to the claim ef the appellants (Louis
Garabelli amd im Carabelli) that the chanesller erred in net
providing in the dweres thet they were entitled to contri tution

sinst appellee (Anton ?resern) for the wroportion of the

ewligations which appellee legally and ecuitebly shewld have
peid, appeliece centeméing Iomone was « mere volunteer ami was
mot ontitlec te be subreceted to any richts «hich Coburn en
Buchhelster had egaiast him, and thet by redeeming nis title is
freed of the Coburn Iniebtedness and the Buchheister judgment,
anc he retains Ris original statue in the real estate, ‘Ue
think there is mo merit im appellee's contention. The sbligntion
to diucharge the Coburn indebtudmess was mutual, the appellees as
well as the appellents being equclly bound te pay that indebted
HGSs, ani the Suchhelster judgment was the acle obligation of the
appellee, and a redeeming creditor whe redesme in conformity with
the statute is mot 6 mers volunteer, The right of contri ttien
rests upon the principle that where all sre ecually liable fer
the payment of 2 debt ell are hound ecusliy te contribute to that

(hedge ¥. Dobbs, 254 Ill. 1309 133); ami where one
tenant im caamom hac remered an incumbranes from the common
estate the other tenents must contritute te the extent of their
reapective interests, and to secure each contrilution an eowitabhe
lien upon their intersats of the sem character with that <hich
has been removed will be enforced by a court of chantery, The

tenant im common, in order to secure contribution,
substitated to the seme lien which he hasredeemed (Titsvorth
~iSihs 49 ill. 78, 80), ami the principle is equally applies
rs) sutount diter of » tenant in com-on,
oSLamans

ere
@& Til, 85.)
“The mister’s repert «ac correct im finding that the
appellants were entitled te recover from the apyellec ‘4945.88.
m4 the decree the chancellor has absolved appellee fram mg
2 obligntions. Te upheld thet deeree would give the appellee
ah unconscionable advontage and work great injustice to the
appellants. i¢ ¢annet concur in the action of the chameelior,
“The deeree of the circuit court will be reversec and
the cause remonded with directions te enter a decree that the
appellants are equitably entitled te recover from appellee
$49945.85, together with interest from October 23, 1930, as
recomsonied by the mazter.

REVERSED AND AMMANOLD YITH DIMKCTIOgs,*

Pleintiff in error did met, ofter the filing of our opinion, petie
‘thom for a rehearing, nor did he petition the Supreme court for a
_ writ of sertiorart. our decision, therefore, ws the lav of the
_-« @ase and binding upon the parties, “RGR our mamiate me filed in
i the Cireuit court the chanecller entered a dcerce finding, inter

i Siia, that the Carabellis were esuitably entitled te recover

ihe

ea? “ei .ovneed Lamigivo of maak boelascgw sores at ad to dise hs
eay Yite adap o2 Yrseepeen 82 7h Years te thew kid Te eosequeg
imotatca ace mart yubwohtet

aksot) etreliegus off te miaic adt of amon wor of?
out m2 Sorse zrollsomein adi facid (BMiedare? wht Ooi at cathe aetedired
moisadiugeos of Aelskins ever wort fads sexbe
eet MS wekdseqese ate 203 (emwsort modms sakistes tamk Pema
eved Aivede vdetimpe bee ylionel eetieqqe dokdw atte i ati
tow bia Usadeeigr tyem & baw s@ommel gakiaodmoe eeilogis hha
i REGAS abt anteohen Sh taal tien cuba Funan tal
‘ek o eis wes den othe foaiogs bad oe
etireteyhet, xotetemdon® welt Axe peel ee 9 br SBIeO el ps pene
ef ,etetee feoor edi ak axiuts fankgive aka oniatot ans
at

nottagitde acl am iewednes otped th 225 on . wy
ae eeiiogae ste glavteme mew eeanooddutes wines oA? hy
Prag rage B 2 aut? — Dera Y soca “@ girkoe? soley a ea Lkew
Oo 2 © oS Bal sar & Shae
Maaw Gi terre Laos ak somsber ode uae yeisenet 2: & Bite 'y
mkt iatene Ro tteds otf sentence saa a dom al
ok gideil ef fase 7 om iis peso — oly Boe ety
sas? of w@uiiudwes of whivans bowod cae ita tdod 2.
ene starter be g(@ei ver ffi 25s aeons av
ngage mene marek Doegtteat 5 eis
tied? ws tnedxe afd of edad icine deus: oe saaie aay”
sidatinss aa sited lvtees Som wtwees at AG gH ASS evi
Moise fet dtiw tredoetecis ewer ocd “te woo roeak
o¥xreemede Yo Frm « e i oe ogee Be

oSetstnth tte Md ares core St cache ee at
SR # Vets % #3 vet iid 5
* Bit ist was eS egg aeviewda acct otewb ostt warts
solo uae See evan bisigy suyaeh, pet AE si lad oh ds
of seitextakh taeey Geew ey Tinton be
omifosmado.alt: Taumetics off a2 egos, ring 7

bas Souvevex of ity guweo thuetie ad? So woteeh: aft*
or $oett spseee & Sessa ad mkisorks gt kw SNS se
aaa mor? cayoot oF beks dime bap i

ta gdtOL Ys veda? a ahead voutsent se

> aupae acts mete CMR, GA, a: ny

vin 5 hos
ohieq erotics wo te yabtin od <eb ti ser ab ceil
a» ro% Sued omiveyl bHS Bont beer et LAD Yon ‘gaitialalne wcnaelaiee

amt te wal ott ane (eee Wweeite | aretokoeh isd - eeambtse 6 thaw
wi bab “her ‘ont edit heventanciionto i 1

ery aa see RE Ns RPE ee er erage ‘

fram Fresern $4,943.88, with interest from ceteber 83, 1930, and
ordering Presern te pay the sadd smount with interes t, and that
upon hie failure so te de the preperty alletted to him by the
decree be sold to satisfy the sald smount. ‘The preperty elictted
$0 Prevern wus a¢la for iigl00, leaving a deficiency in the oum
of (3,654.69, The choncellor then omtered an erder finding that
there wae still due the carabellie from fresern the sum of
$3,689-09, with interest from the date of the sale, and judgment
was entered therefor ant exeeution ordered. This lact order was
entered December 15, 1932. *flaimtiff im errer teok ne netion
to have reviewed any erder entered by the chancellor in the
original preceeding, after oar mamiate wae filed in that court.
with wuedtin davai on ka the astaee pte wg ya
trial court it do the duty of thet court t follew these dircee

suect umd mn deeree entered in accorianee with euch directions
_ Sereusets oe! 15; inad the <ireetions may bee

¥ SES ia. ES03
senternec) ae irws ts x OLS Te Boyt,
ante, Pe 6.) "b Aaeres hae been “reversed ami the couse
Yemand od with senate Sdvestiaue tex the ent of g decree,
of am appeal from the dooree so entered the Yueetion

pre@ented ing Yas the duerce in mene enaee vd th ‘the Mandate and
oe phet ag of a — {oh pA twee i: oud prem) Be Va

a ot - & tcdad court Ls za
i otk Big mast be regerded as free prog
error, tt 1 iss in ‘in fas udguent of thia court promulgated
throug: coat cae 3 final and conclusive upon ol] the
pert sae. “ae ache Ve Gilmer, 5 Gilm. 242.)" (2mith +. ugar,
* ®

"It wae the duty of the ciroudt cowrt te fellow the
directions of the Appellete Court end enter a 4eeree whieh edie
formed t the directions of the ppalleate ceurt. It de te be
presumed that the eireuit court intended te do Wade» wut whether
the court intended to foliew the direetiona of the <ppellate Court
or mot, the deorse entered by it wes mot veid. if it 444 not
conform te =e Stresteeue tke the seme pn tine duoree Was

Bak ours.)

If plaintiff in error coneidered that ony order entered by the
chancellor efter we had remanded the couse wan mot in conformity
with our montate he hed the right te have thet order reviewed by

this court by appeal or writ of error, but he sew f4t to ignore

ite g068L 438 cedote mowk tuerstat Aphe gfe She yhS sronerl aoet
Smad hon ytewradut Abbe Serer: Dies ott Yor of aweeotl peteedon
ald yd whi of baddeiin ywroqer: elt ob of ou oumhaet mb meg
Sestelin wrroawng nek tawaga hak aclt Valine ot bow of oetesh
magne, waghd ak yea ho kket ey yanbraned alge t0? hes. cow eae OF
dastt amine nolre Be Bevediae ask we LSapcae oe PD REDRE BO
he me od eased went BRL ico ate sit Eads ouse wr
sevmptashus, bev woken alt tm at ab od max #ooxoded sv 4eDe00D4ES
ene webio tad att. decode mokswuone fim, satosedd erste see
mokton of dood verte mt Wibemiali 880k gBk sodmooet huetes
- qalt mk woktoonete aid gh heotme cebup gn. bowedver, ovat si
strate tosis bene ser m talon “0 ott rere Lage ign

s * i , es y
css nets “8% eaeecia
“io mei? Aoyadme on saveek oa aor 4
Hos Beebe nar wet ve

une? yet:
toa bbs a ohioy dost aco os
ess fapeo whets

thos Bye

ohterormes sh fom ase O68 ate ?. open 8 bask oe pony wot sshe
WE Dewetvex pine toxlt owl of dufpkn crit haat. mt aeuhmcm aya,
oxemek of $27 won on dat grey Ye thew we deem get oe

onde

the ueusl methods of review afforded nina by the law amd filed
the inetemt 6111 of review, on Horch uy 1933, “lthouch he might
them Rave aued out a writ of error, & bil of review ie not
intended te aid anyone whe deliberstely sleene upon his alleged
rights or who refuses to follow the metheds of review atforied
tim ty the low,

A bill of review lies for errer «ppurent on the revert,
for frauc, or for material evidence not known in time for nee at
the former trial ami not diseevered by reasonable aiiigenes at
that time, Plaintiff im error dees net eloim thet the 41% is
baued upon either of ithe laet twe grounds. iis peeition io thus
stated in hie brief: “There is ne intention on the part of the
complainant to aevk by these procesdings to have this Sonoroble
‘eurt in effect review or reverse the decision rendered in
Cavabelii v. Carybelld et ale, 266 Ill. Ayo. 453. ‘He BAL] of
review in the court belew was filed fer the purcese of agtttdme
aadde these proceciings whieh tranavirs< subsequent to tae 'iliag

of the momiecte iseued pursuant te the opinion filed by thie
Sonorsble Court in the original a-geal, because these srocecd imge
were net presumably had in secerdamee with the directions of this
domercble Court. It is the contm don of the complainant thet
by the decision in Carabelld v. Carabellid, aupra, this donorable
Court 44d met direet that ony proceedings ahewld be bad er tok en
which would result im a personal fudemont against tho comp ladmant,
anton Presern, * * * Nowhere im thet opinion dees this Monorable
Court say that & personal jwigreent should be entered ageinst
Sreserm upon hie failure to contrimte the cacunt ao expended ly
Tannone, therefore, when Presern's interest im the land wae sold
se as to enable Carabelli 2s Iannene's gramtee and aoodgnee to
obtain tithe thereto, the proceedings should have thus terminated
instead of continuimg so ae te result in», deficiency Judgment

against Fresern and the issues ef an exeoution thereon," The

| beck? tne wal, afd vik mts RekmeRa wadwon 29 sbostt om. caieeee is
hiboho os siguadtSe 28S oh sesh wo ywekver 10 Ltd suetanh oat
fom oh walves te ike A .meere ie dlaw 9 tao beme ovat, por
Sopella okd moa aqecks ylotapadiion otw anoutn Ake of behuadact
_ dobre te wokves to skedion ods weliot of semetes ole ce ate |
| | vik toh muh
halons Wit ‘tn aleeen week nl vib th ae A ite de
$8 omy tei oaks at sword don wsmphkyn Latvatest 102 xo etmek 8
de geneghiRs eidexosnss yi Sowwreaeth ton bas Laks comem® ond
Bh ALLS dt felt miele tom seek worse mh TEktakeds .emht taglt
wend ek seokt kong Bi endpaledsrephasaedacbosipiet nnn 4
NE PN 8 OR PTD. ‘

nes sane en aha a.
Milib en idk bib ne indies open

—— ee |

wes ee.

daw le settled thet «hem tue chomecLler, woom readeemt of a
sause ith direction, dees net cemform to the Afreetione of the
Appellate court the arier anterc: te tim will be reversed om
appesl or wett of error, Vieintif? in oerer is fomoed te the
position that be s7uld ovels « review ef the order im neetion
Wy appeal er erat of evrer aut obtain relief by 2 bill ef review
4f 4% agpeare: thet the entey of the cerserel Judgment «cateet
hit was avt in conformity with the dfrcetiem of thie court. Be
ease with a record Like the tnetant «ne hes been edted te we
whercin a bill of rewlew wae omtertsaime’ where the sole grew
urged im suypgert ef tue bi1l wes fiat the chemecdler hod met come
form i te the semanding or cr.
ut even af vo aecume thet « “41. would li ween aueh

& ground, neverthelercs, there weuld be mo merit ie the dnetent
weit. Cur comemding orier seat: “he deerme of the edronit
eeurt W112 be reversed ond the causes rememied with directions te
enter a doeree that tie appel lente ere geuitebhy ameitied t¢ ree
cover from appelier © hg 042.8%, together with interest Crem Coteker
ie 193% ge eecmmsanted by the mater.” The mister bot found
thet the Copubullda vere equdtably ontdtled to resever from cresem
the som of $4,915.88, ami he bat roeeamenied “thet there be a ooke
da partitdem ef the premiage ami if the share Of “reser ceraved
therefrom be anf ‘dotemt, the game showkt be applded to the paces
of tim amount hercim fowl, If there be a defdetency the emoumt
should be applisd se for ae it «lil resch, ant sxceution foams
against ?resern im favor of «oid lowie amt Pa Corebe2ld for the
xecoveyy of any Balance remeining wipedé.” The shuneclior suse
teines exertions te the findings on¢ recomendations of the Raster
Wut we upheld the mester, The chuneeller efter the remandtuent,
*Sntormed to cur mumate im entering the order that forme the wube

geet matter of gleimtiff im erver's only corplciat.

a eeedines he aaeteen nt STE ME Come went ts Vie
dmatent procecdings ie affirmed,
Sullivan, Pe aoe aml Gridley, Jeg Gomeur, " _ AvFIRED,

A
Ae "7
“Moen

eT eee le alte
ead Te smatomerth sh et. weetitee Sem whod yuan booAhY iF belie

i Seeceven: af (2dw arts qh DeNeeans TRIAS coy hed ‘it edies
eet 99 Sevmet ct corse ae VeEeRee sates te hee ae Ried,

ektern Rt etx wl te tener tows ntiee at Hate neti keeg

weber to Lite o yt tekion mhalee ime gevee te ober so Lookge W
tembone tegoet, Coneeeey eet tn pete Galt fastd Necnonge #2 Th
“OR turag ms Weome teed iar athe ybbmwcotheds mi geet Wine atte
bs ibanengiaatiens ants tegen oto etal Grose a Hehe ebay
one gan kad maou Hee Got caw “ite ute * Hiverebers ow

teoteat oid mh stron on 8 tro cat yet : |

sevens Mesh nuvneen OF Mey Remy bt -”
alae a st ene? goth” Ee
tmeaoe ost 68 boktene of Mids wie it i r

we Ete aft as tte Me Re aan ‘

mcs mt gran’ sve? 30 Pe Pawo alte |

rai ais a 4
eee i at dy o mE

het hy ‘
ok a, Ne ORR AY
Lad - en aa
’ ayath iakts Un
SoU DF La nL :
e Hear ey Hee
%

36966
SLIA LEVY, }
"Tinigiatieens ) Appellant » }
Vo
REBEQCA LSVY,
(Defendant ) Appellee. )
3
PEBECCA LaVY
(Cresu-Complainamt) agpeilee ® }
}
Ve

oo LEVY,
Crose-Defendant )- Appel Lent.

Mie JUSTICN

ni,
Shy
“ey
pa
F i
: “NBs,
ie
ta,
ty
5
4 2
3 Bip a
3 s Ee
F i,
Sa y FF
"Sesal

APPRAL Wie
GIncurr counr,
COOK COUNTY,

Fy A

6 LA

SG°GLA DLLIVERER €@R OPINION oF TRG COURT.

#iie Levy filed his bill fer diveree against his wife,
Rebeces Levy. The defendant filed an atewer to the b411 and

tle® » @ress-bill for separate Ra INtenanee .

The ¢honcelior,

after s hearings dieminsed the oviginel bill and the eroas~bi12

for want of equity.
aupealed.

The complcimant in the original bill has

tse origimal bill alleges, Apter sling thet che perties
were married at Jerugulem, in Palestine, on January Oy 1900, by a
rabbis thet three children were bern of the warriage, Ohirley,
Cighteen years olég Wathen, fifteen ¥eare old, and Bartha, ten
yeors elds thet complainant had been a good and true spouse and
had provided defendemt with the necessities of Life? thet defendant
had been guilty ef eruel and intemen treatment toward compl« inant
and had adopted a course of physical vieolenes against himg that,
epecivieslly, om Mureh 26, 19339 and again on Wareh 27, A9h4, ahe
Wsed such force and viclenge againet him a» to jeopardise hie Life.
The bili proye that the ourriage be disvolwed.

ae ACs) eater PE,
ei ak

pt oe cst

as aoe ee oe phism diane ets alagpinn See
es
"as
SR

« Setnd Seqya >

TOO MIE KO MOLIOSO ART LAGNVEDEE SAMKAQS TOLTENG i

( , ne ia ae

| gethy elf sualegs oocerth tei Lite wid beLth qed abet jie

eee LELG ods oo townie Me Dotty Ymabee buries alt — egred aoa

a toLswosreate adt .eeendatar shatagey tot iLidenaets « cafe
“ELhdensore ost bas Lite Kemtgtvo and ooeubare th eek cod o tesete

Mi wh bbe Santyh ve wate Rad eeratannid ot Ragen ae wesc we a

eee

“wokding wt dad? gohin vadat «amputie sate bahyie eas? or at
av 1800. OL isnot ts coabsaokis at EGR ik Sa a

- ataate batt tatmae cwmotedy Me RRR Sake Se

ane

‘he erese-bili allegew, inter alia, that the erene-
eonplainant hed alwaya treated the eroseedefeniant with kindness
ung forbearenees; that = few monithe after the mcvlage he commenced
& course of unkind, cruel ond inhuman conduet toward ner, vhieh
continued uvtil she fimaliy separated fr eqn Him on Roreh 27, 1933,
ané thet om divera svensions Ke wax @uiliy of such extreme and
repeated erueliy toward her ce te render it winafe for her to Live
with bimj that om Moreh 26, 19359 he bent her, and again on Seren
27» 19359 struek her over the head with an iron griddle, using
« deep laceration in her scalp #0 that i become necesaary for her
tc De taken to a heapitels that Oress-ccefuncant ie a man ef
Vielent pacsion and ungovernable iemper ami that on many ccensiong
he used the moat opprebricous epithets toward her and made threats
of persomal violenes, and Sepeatedly threntened te take her Life
ae wil as him oeny that om ome cecauion, while whe and the vhiléren
were seleep, he spemed all ef the gaw jets im the kitchen, went
beck inte his own roomy oloae¢ and wenled the door Sight ami opened
the window im hig rooms that she wos awekened by the emell ey gan
enenping from the gue jet» and arose and elened the jete, sims
etopping the escape of gas» The erova-bill further cho rgee that
ereanecefendant hed for a considersble time given himself up to
adulterous and licentioue practices with Lewd women, whoee names
were unknown to croes-complainent.

Vompleinent eontende "that he was prejudiced by the
improper and unprofesaiomal coniuet cf the scliciter for the
Gefendant and eress complaimant." tb ig a sufficient anewer te
this contention to say that complaimant hos not assigned as errer
the alleged conduet of the seliciter for eressecomplaiment. A
question raised in the argument ie not open to review where there

ia no saseigument ef error which presente such question. (Viliage

‘ansexo od tauld guile godut enyyotie Litd~seots oft
anpahels Athw dunbistebeeaene Gt Yedeand ayewio Saef Sant ademoe
hesrecme’ esl ogalrsam odd Yyedn oatvwom vet o fade geoncrsedso? baa |
ahs i she tad Sewer soubnes exmmlad Ge Lew « dabsiaw a ewan,
ef8@L 7h Aout te ats aot bedetecas éttentt ‘este Ehdsw boun at bito0
tea @muxdme sown to eile, aaw od amolaoese atevtd te gaetd eee
avi o2 “ox cod ohagny st tobnws o¢ an tout bunwed qi Leanne beeaeqes
dora me hepa haw ved ined of yOEGL .SS doxeK mo sade tate A8hw
naaven oloniig tort am dite have sald seve ted sowede —_
<od sot quseweoett emened ff saets on-qiece <a mt ‘pokéorooad qoeb 2
to em 2 6) Imetie teb-ogote tacts iaestqvad a ot odad 46
etelaavec yYram mp sad? ite sega’ etantevege haw noteuee a idk
atowals obra han wet Menwod sdodtiqe ntoludo rege snows bed bie od
ORLL ted chat od heandoodl) "Lbedongoy bes suveetoty Lnaoe we, ‘te
Serbitads afc bus ate atidw queiaeses ame me @emte bee etn BH fiow os fi
Gaew gaedovtd sti et adel awn of! Ye fie besiege a (awten ‘vibe
herege fan wtgte tooh ott Hadwen dna Saves sawex wwe wid dont stead
ee tamer ett mi womb
eats yudeh say Seueds nw atote ine ash aay ‘aut ott itqaves
tad negate ueddwt Lhideeyom off sang to eqanes ont ‘satgaote
$8 ge Mv saatet aovis outs oLGatokianos @ cet bad tube dobousen
pom Soe _HOmN SEL Aly Soul Joong aitoltanolt Bae w vod ke |
, fiat ations es e » end Ye :
‘edt QS houkiwhoug dnw wx Sale” endedins sdonlatgued dopwanecs ae
| dtd WX TOdLaELow wte ro eidiuel tae | oqor ut
of tomes emstotttne i oo meoze Onn daa 1or8

| siattyy) ha twee eines pies ours mg:

cy aa RP ee age Ne) j HRS emit catia Re ie ae a

e350

of Northbrook vs sterba, 315 Cle 360, 362-35 Edxvohner We
Horrigoms, 32° Mlle BBG, 24004 aaayeee Ve Sediwr, S22 LLLe 268,
RYO) Eley of ROMs “orkes SH) Lhle 264, 271.)

Moreover, the cave was tried before the ohewe@ellor, ani we are

ectiefled that the alleged improper eomduet, if there wan auoh
soncugts did not xffeet his Judement in any way, ‘The wriet of
Complainant conteinea a number ef stateaents praising the chanvellor,
wuoh as, “The Chaneelior she heard thig case 19 & Sitlewen of
Umquestioned integrity and honer;” “the vhaneellor, @ man of
learning und integrity,” and “the writer of thie brief bas a éeap
ang genuine reepeet for the legal learming, high charscter and
integrity of the Chaseelior.*

Complainant vomtenda,"ik was errar to admit the teat leony
of Huthan Levy, attempting te prove atultery over the objection of
the complainant amd eresa defendant." It appears that the parties
te the imetemt preeeeding had been previously involved in another
édiveree action and that sudge Cabath, «ho presided ot the hen ing
of that cause, affected & reconviliation of the parties, I& fur ther
apptare that the wife alleged im thn$ cauae that the huchand had beon
guilty of adultery, and Complainant argues that crogs-conpla inant»
by reguwainen the mortint relationships had eomionead the alleged
adultery, and that, therefore, lt was erver for she chanveller in
the instant procecdings ta permit ovidcnee au te the alleged
asultery “without acme proof that the alleged oeffenme had heen
repented after condonation or explain the éeley ia woking complaint
about it. No such evidence was ever tendered im thie enee.e” The
argument of somplatnent Sreceeds, apparently, upon the seoupiion
that to revive the old ehorge af odulioxy 14 was nechasary to
prove thst complainant wabsequently gemitted the same offense.

Ough is mot the laws

PF hie ohn Ste azatios vate anne one ia, one : ie mt
(sas. ahah oh fs oes

pnd aoe | eveds “3 + 20uchuee werd bagsiie one sat mas att8
“Ye Yohw ont 6 yaw win ah Seamer, eka toon fou bib vu | nn
pxolioonsds Od? gitater, aiaensiade Yo serum 9 audegnos $0 —s ~"
Ll grrr ger: air dae Miura eae Micaela Ye vel Sooaad ear" ane a “
Etetlcmntetierlettcta

PP saneionpr paltecning ¢y Aefmabavion saeuy tan & temon eit
soditona at bowlers (lauolrosg mood bac amtboosong pains. He.
_Meisoer site tn bebtnory cme galvadm® oginh sade bow motion » - evth

sedswh 21 gantriog ad? Yo malgubiionoson a bogewtte eee i
need batt buadeut ois davis oasioy daete ts boupdta ote oat ted wr aieecee

Ve. ay ee

md wosLonnests oaks 108 comes mam ot esswtezeds cease + un gust :

bogetse ots of ao doaebive ddoetrg ae apes orsong Cova 4
need bad oumette bugette, ots adi Yourg ones twcaittet oA 2

tnietqmee yrtien nt yaten odd makers co mettemace aoits ee

ont *seaae aids we borehaes tort sow sonontes stove, on ae oer
Sok igamang edt sooy + isneraqgn gubeaeorg “rom ocgnae Ye sem |

oe cinsenoen, ean ot wresiade te pros bfs vate “ovtyer of 0 Ed
seme the ata maa beet tewoe vmupenden snentetgace yered io f

a ee, ee | Pee —_

whe

“He (the husband) insistgs, however, that she condoned
hie adulterous sets in april, L963, anc thereafter ethabited with
him ac hia wife. Gondonatian, in the iaw of éiverees is the
forgiveness of an antecedent Matrimonial offense om comd ition
that 1% shall mot be repeated and ‘hat the offender shall there

after treat the forgiving party with conjugal siadneses (jherp v.
a oar i

ey 426 file 800; Be te Ba 75 ids 4975 Davin yy.
4Visy 10 ids 354.) th conden tts implies & eord | on

MAGA wild permit the original chorge to be gone dered is

ecnnection with @ subsequeny eflenee avainet the marital reloiiony
iater ualecoméuet mus ¢ amounts &S more than cms acte of

coldness or unkingness ox were quarreling. (abbots ¥. bbptie 192

ever:

chile the faecte of #28 pertieulear cose mug: b

Fitelens to form on incep mi

gates wpouge haa « rient Jud g i ; Sat ure

hit Court will wewnect the whole of the unfaithful

ust in order te reach o corset SOHGLUSiONs Sharp
eee Vs Fayvnhem, ey Poa} 2 Sehouler on”

s (Operation and

‘.

ae OB Nk :
-emectlG Delations, (6th #d.)
“ (Xoume v. Youngs 323 IL1,

SR
‘iveree

luck

"“Condemetion is aways aecimpanted with the lwp h Led
comfition that the injury ehsll net be repeated, Thugs cruelty
fepl edly contones fa Ss" (Totetoane Cecetet, falters
(7th eds) Vole ly po S72» and cases eited therein.)

We may add that after reading the reoord we ere anitefled that the
Blieged adultery was net congidersd by the changellor im the deters
mination of thia ense.s

Complainant oomtende that “ihe find img ef the Chance lier
digmigeing the original bikl ie sgninet the manifest weight of the
evidence and im defiance of ali of the éisinterestied teat uony in
the regord.* After a eareful reading of the entire evidesee we
are gatiefleé that thie contention is without merit, In considering
thie contention 1% must be remenbered that ihe @roge-complainant
charged im her eresg-bill thet sompisinant (eroga=defendawt) was
gutity of extreme and repested Srueliy towamt her. Ye learn fran
the reeord that the final separation of the poriieon to thig prosesde
ing was the third one in their marital Life. Divorce is « remedy
previded for an inmecent purty, ami when euch party hae eause fer
| diveree egeaimat the ethers of the same statutory charseter, neither

mete! ett mf tolliegdeds off ¥¢ Betehtamos fog an Urea kake

| Babisblamoe mi i dhuem auodsew at medenermnn eis ant menage o

igrobaes ete darts + tovennd ‘setatont ‘Cicootenat acts) “oie”
aéiw aodldatoe sai tecwds sme ,Gahs ghtags, a2 adow o:

edt af gortect® to wel e89 OF _mOl dane bed “03
tiene ae soociio Leloeaiviem vaobopetua me % 9%

7 als) nae aah te nen Sa te nog aedYtNy oe jonas xed
ehG ah ee i “ag La Foy Re O38

"Paina" ave.) : ict aquieagt o¥ peanut | a:
5 5 Bo rah it ae oko. aM, Ree Pa.
ai howebienes ed ov spice beni od. die +t rrr’
seals = died bee “4 sanlays "canecke duompeadae a th |

aése dityd pape blended ino a, :

RES edged. ov 489 3 ) sR sextape 268 Fe 8 cena as
ins er tnd tane foot Le usbad vad eLtde At:
4 ot pend wed tr po Wis cde med dewey

% sWied aiihasixe sas evens dues peadar och ial, a,
es . Rd ere

ch.

ett tad dathad ine axe 9x wreaes sale gathows wsifte tats be wer

| »eeae aiid Ye mie “et
“Senttoonedt ode Ye ankint?, he” heats ountmog deupel adagae®
was to setgloy dua tins ols Ce@toge wt iotd somtgtse odd getomtan
ak ymomttact bedeeyetaiais etd Ye Lhe be worst Yoh ad ba — i

ov @omehive orisms ef) to godbook fetenan. a ota,

aerlelgaoseraass wt) tals Bowe

ase (den bet9 to imam one ) supctaiquee sah Agen | 028 ee et dose

“50

gon B4 granted a ¢divoree, me charged wiih extreme and repeated
eruclty any show in ¢efomne that the compleinent was #gually eruele
Yhere the evidense ahowa that uoth purities were guilty of eruehiy
neither is entities te = diverge from the other. (Dubcratoin +.
Dubersieins 171 Tlie 1355 Garrett vs Garrett, 252 (lia Sly 4280)
Souneel for complainant is compelled to admit that there was daily
strife between the eouple and he aseky te exeuge the conduct ef
compininant im that regard upon the grown shat the wife wae wleoye
the aggressor. The following exeerpts from the brief ef eomplaine
ant will serve to give eame idea of the eonditicne in the pneme ef
thig couplet “luring the period of the murriage, the parties were
eontimunlly quarreling and frejwently indulged in physiesi violence.“
*Thet the home ceoupied by the purties was the serene of iadeseribable
profanity, cbacentiy and earmage.” “That om the morning of March
26th, a battle between the compleimant, “lin lewy, and the defenénnt,
Rebecen Levy, oeeurred in their home, reuniting in physleal violence
to “lie Levy.* That on the nicht of March O4hs the home wae the
acene ef carnage, whidh sent “lie icvy to s physician and lebegen
Levy to a hevpital for fires aid.” Ye will seoame, for the purposes
of thig appeal, that the oross-compleinant was ewmetiaes cullty ef
exuelty toward complainant. in fact, the ehaneellor se found or he
would not have dlemiseed hey ereose-bilis Oragsecomplainent and the
three children of the couple teotified that complainant desired a
éivoree from hia wife ami that he frequently beat her beenuse she
refaaed te allow him te obtain « divoree. Grose-complininant testified
that complainant told her that he wae going to make life miserable
fer her Beenuse she wowlé sot cive him hie freedom and enable him te
marry the women he loveds ‘hiskey levy, a daughter, tevtified that
her father and wether were srguing sbout divoree 211 the time and
that the father said he would not give the mether any more money

wnlees she gave kim a divorece

NE ee ee ee reorDven mt Bestiary of map |
10 Claws caw trent atgues ott tent some had ni weds: want toa
“eta te ‘waive pve ate rog sees taste, awoste agnebtee oy pues
Mivsassdea) — onesies aed acyl agyetin « ef sekenone. a rene
(ei aBie str BER ghiquead ov gterig® 384 ist EK, pita ei
{hiab enw oxedd feds slmde oP bedlogune at sents kgmwe oY fovausd
Sy Reshaoe sitd wasteam o@ walewe ok’ baw olgnee eat avon otf uate
oyna saw atthe wile tack sees eds weg Deeg tale Ot f : vi 9 Kia
wakaiqaes to telus wit met alquvens gabvagtet ont Caoheoitiye lth
to amd eds et eudsPhawe ile I avdt mime vdy oF ors98 | 5 ttte's |
wie wed ruin aad gapadrtam tlt to bolaeg: ae web eioe $68 gue o |
“ooustoly Lebtewig at tegtaned ¢liepupes? bea ght teirreuy etinimbh
e | ekdadi cone bat to sae0s odd saw eeiting off Yt haaieibb’’ oot oat
Hora Lo gitwiom aid mo gad — *yaganman bee winnade.
a teehee tab ants awn evi enh stnaateigmos od noawdod oi snd i
wamloty <aoteyely at geeks tira ot eomat tiocdly at beruee vere anand
ats wae dmod oft .tetC doset te tthe at? mo “anstee “yet anké 0%
aooodwi bah antolawig « of yvat 066! due Mbsw rgerene Yo ombS
weoeegumg ed? Ot sommmen Lite oH = "“ehke Sack’ wt Ladiqvodt we ob wed
te uiiins eumivema caw tamnlaiquee-caeie siti soske + Leoaes rent Ri
eet 0 haired oe witovneds oct? etoad ot daamtelyaos baawas Wi fours
edt bee suai siquoowenox + Lidessown com boustanth vvad tom row
& hextaod tmenlaigaws dats beetiroas ekgsoo eas te wo sade Read
| ele Sekincod worl tovd Usaow per? a diets oi otte ais most weer
|! , Seeeaeere énant algmooengon® sontews a & at nade of aati woLts of boawitor. |
aidersstm wLlk alan o¢ yateg naw st tons watt bios toautetguoe sade
of mid eens hom moboort ott mid wwly son oluew ate “omucond vo wot |
asta borthinod gredited a weved wom shoved ot meno ents Y ar
te eke ett Eee sexevkh taeda getinne sree odds ova media o
Daal wenen “eee tadtoa oat tory tem Shuew wt dies ‘oie a3 et

: ‘etexerth ‘ena ove

om fame

We entively ogree with the find img of the chancellor
that complainant wae guilty of extrewe orueliy toward hie wife.
Compiainent argues thet the three ehilcrem hate Kim ani thaté
their testimomy as te hig oonduet should “66 be believed. The
children justify theix feelings toward the father apom the ground
that he was eruel and wokind to the mother amd to them, They
testified that besides the acta ef sruclty committed by complainant
against the mother he aleo had a habit o? atvriking them. If the
testimony ef crogs-complainan: and the ehiléren ig te be believed,
it i@ not surprising that the children sad Ceneeé toa leve the
father, and it te quite plain fram ¢he réegerd amt from the brief
filed by complainant that the father has evased ta heave any
atfeetion fer the childrens

The deeree of the Gireudt sourt of Cook county ia a
dast one and 14 whould ee and it ts aft irmed »

APRIFMS De

“ULLivaria Pe Tes and Gridley, Js» comers

rea hgan gil 5 UGLY Ae. : : ERK, ARs THe Ne bd ‘Sy rt

ERAT piel et teen entiucile. 98, bactatoa,to,. fawse am |
fusntalquce yt aediimae yYdeure Ye sdoa ott aebined fade be reas
edt TL smmald gulatia Yo side @ ded code of xadttom ond gam aa
-aboratted tab: embetter eppeanone 2a, se

mv Pasa ae oh

x vagteal Bade igs ; nt te ni
+

mo ko eae vite

Cee teeth ye ee My

* a y
Te ASAE eae ollie ioe » % fy. a
ROP RG Re gS BOP aaa al ii

He UOTE ED

36976

Te BAGUIN & COMPANY, }
& torporation, ) 7 i
Appellant» } E
) APS@aL PRow orecerr
¥e
WOUnT OF COUR cotry,
MARI LUBIW et ale, aw aT pat
Aporitioons 2¢41.A. 679"

Mie JUSTICE SCABLAW DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE couRT,

Complainants, a judgment erediter of defendant Barte
tubing filed its bi11 te scewre satiafaction of a juwignent
rendered againet her on July 2B, 1952, for 96,721.89, Deer erg
to the original bill were sustained and comiplainant then filed
an amended bill, to whieh demurrers were Wustaineds, and complain-
ant electing to gtand by thie bill, 1: wae diemisued for want of
equity. Cenmplainant hag appealed.

The amended bill alleges the judguent in fover of
complainant and ageinet defendant Kauride iubing that exeeation
fevued ond was returned unsatioafied,

FAnintiff's theory of the amended bill int

*Phadntiff's theory ef the cave La thet complad nant »
though ite eluim aeerued against Marie Lubin subsequent to the
exeoution of the Trust Agreement, way, nevertheless, have the
Traat Agreement oet aside ond so much of the corpus of the trust
ae be pr aay tor ts ” ~ eo a te ll pod payment I
emplainant’s judgment. s theory is based largely upon ¢
allegations in aphe 7 and @ of the mended Hill, uhi¢h
eontaing the general averment thst Hervert Lubing the original
owner of the corpus of the trust, and Marie lain, his wife,
who executed the Deeleration of Trust, devised a anc schen @
whereby Herbert Lubin trausferred the corpue ef trust te
Harte Lubin without consideration, and she in turn exeouted tle
Deslaratten of Trust by wey of am attempt to pus the corpus of
the trust beyond the present and future ersditers of Herbert
Lubin, ead the pregent and future creditors ef Marie Lubing it
being the theory of complainant that under such cir cumatangeas
% wubesquent crediter of Marie Lubiny may atiack the corpus of

‘

\ D sic. eine oh: gets! a PRAM ot

ta nema
| : steatioggr — mel ea

WIGONIS BORE LASS IA

R i e a ' ae. ¥ eA
sYTEveS BOOS Fe TaVES a
soho Go WIBUE MDIAM

‘OoyO AT AYS sennkioen

oT00 BMT CQ MOTEING, GUT GAMY LE, MATRADE, IDEA: 9AM

Kvagt 4 Sap!

i aheee
else tasbastes te ved iioxre 2 aemamgtar, " etnantetqmed Wicibir g

imoupout 2 %e aebtootebine owen of £L8¢ oth bos’ entéat

ave cree) led hkl Ot ghOOL th yhet me ‘ort tuntage otedne
bellt medd tnentakexos baa bomkat aise ovww Litt Lontgteo edt O¢
-—thalquos bus ghentedsun ote9 wxottiec$ dekte ot ‘ithe hohaneed ins
te dew vot beoatoe ds wow 22 gLite abst yo bande of wadtvege ana

bs woveh ut denentuh Gas Sule ithe sobmins- att: a
molsuoaxe jotd (uidul efisd fuwbooted gantene ban dnantotamoo
suetiakicems bomwder sow bao bownnd

tad L126 bobosme os Yo bcosmaiee o'hentalt "
ethankelqmoo dett af onoo a? te ’ } a? PR emkelT*

awd of tueupoedua utdmi give & bewters alato sth sgsreds

etd eved gaesleditewen ¢ jJubaNeNyA doneT odd 20 Mabdnnome
fewsd ods te amqxes ons te ‘ue ee btn

bias fea 4 deux?
bod aa ow ley ot daeiaiuqgeuge Soe Fas od tiie

ii «EiH osha oa Past

tt
Ez.
i
ef si

ae anbdad etxall te wtosvibors auydat
esoStntomurewis fess aebmy docks

te sayies sald feasts yam guidul ofxall

<2e

the trust an4 have it apgrepriated te the payment ef the Judgaent
against Zarie Lubin.

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the anented bili ore as follows:

"9, That shertly prior to the Gist Aay of June, 1627, the
gaid Herbert Lubin and Sarie Lubin, his wife, fer the purpose of
hindering, delaying, and defracdine the oreatnt and future eredi+
ters of the said Herbert Jubin and Marie Lubin, ineluding one
Simen Hirsch, to wham the said ferbeart Lubin was then indebted
in a large sum, wid te attexupi te put the property of the said
Herbert Lutin beyond the reash of Sis present snt fature erediters
and the present ond future creditors ef iiarie Lubla, devised a
plan or scheme to convey $1,749,000 of eaid funds due from said
Seaboard Jational Bank, of Kew York City, to Aarle Lubin, his wife,
without consideration, und then have her oreate 2 anvendthrift truet
for the benefit of eaid Herbert Lubin and darie Lubin, snd certain
other contingent beneficiaries, as more fully appears from a cepy
ef said Trust indenture, with the Usieage Title and Trust Ceupany
as trustee, hereto attaehed, sarked ‘Exhibit A' and wade a part
herect; that purduant te said glan amd conspiracy between himself
and his wife, the said fierbert Lubin did, thertiy prior to the
Slat day of June, 1027, waxe, execute and deliver te tae aaid warie
iubtin, hie wile, without any coneideration moving from the said
Marie iubin to the sald Herbert iubin therefor, a eeriain assign-
ment of anit gums reeeivatlie ty Kim from the aald Sesbeard Sntional
Bank, ef Hew York City, sagregating 91,749,000, The precive nature
of ssid aesignemt is unknown to your orater, snd therefore your
Orater ie unable te attach « copy tuaresi te ite Bill ef Complaint.
Thereby the said Sarie Lubin beean’ tue legal owner of said funda,
gubjest to the rights of the ereditors ef Herbert Lubin and her
ow: creditors.

"8. and your Grater further reeresente thet therearter
and om or about the @lst day of June, 1927, the said Surie Lubin,
pursuant te said cenepiracy between Herself and her husband, ‘erbert
lubin, s# Dener, @xecuted and delivered te the Ghicage Title and
Trust Company, a esroeration duly organized and? szieting under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of Lilineis, with ite chief of-—
fiee and place ef business in the Gity of Chieage, County ef Ceek,
and State of illinois, ss Trustee, the Trust Agrewment, scopy of
woieh ie hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit A‘ and made @ part khereof.*

Yueh ef the trust agreament (Szhibit A) aay be stated in a
general way. 1% describes the property tranaferred to the trustee
by the domer and the powers and duties of the trustee in respect
thereto. The second saragreann provides:

"So long as Herbert Lubin Bugband ef the Senor shall be
living, said Trustee shail pay over and deliver ic the Donor, out
ef the net treome derived from the Truet *reperty, the sus of
$16,000 per annum as and fer the absolute property ef the Donor
ferever anid ahall pay over and deliver to said Herbert Lubin
quarterly or eitener in the diserstion of aaid Trustee, the balanee
ef suck net inesme, as and for the absolute sroperty of the said
Herbert Lubin forever.

"¥pom and after the date of the death of said derbert Lubin,

ofa

Scpoxyhut, oxo Io staoeyeq edd of Setebs getaqa as even baa 2esrd ant
* sldel eital onlage

tewolflet aa erm [LPH hehoomas sett to A has extqgengediet

wis TROL ,emt To wh teL8 eft oF tebte vitcede tasT T°
te eseqisg on? 101 ,Siiw ald ,atded olteM bay aided saedser |
ofhoxe evatvt bas toprety ef ynibuerteh ban ,ganiyaded \g'
emo gutbutoat ,cldwi witeX hae algad dtedseH blee ond te
beddebat cont saw aldwd deedeee tive 49 aptie of .toatix
biak @29 Zo ySeoqorg ons dua oF sqentia of ban , awe Som mt
axotibneto exude? Sea faoseta eit To deaet ont bnoyed alg
e Beeiveh ,nidwsi bask te axed howe etude? tenewng dc Bou
Alge mort enh abac't Siew Te G00, HT A of updom to ae tg
eXKG aha ,wldud shsod of ,xtlO duot wed to ,Maed Lamodtad & B
feud Vilidtbacqe & ¢3ne7. ted ever andd hax Pd derary een ao
aledtes bas aided elied baw afdad err yc o2teard ert |
Yqeo « mot? atasgee “lint oom oe . 88 Tae taraaitnos
yequed tawxt bas o£ iT egay 2nd eis ote weenie tae ah bioe te
itaqg * #bam bee *éA tidised’ bextes a

tiecuha meewsed yout lignan Baa aelg © sice or of Prete sions 1 ine eevee
eas of tolsg yirrese ,B/k aided dneduek pace. eet i aie an sete
eitek biee ead ef iovided bon btuoexe ,ohem Teer
Slew wai mest » pe aolfmiebhicwos yme tuodtiw’ yet 8 ;
~yives alas seo @ «x9 Teredt Ghdud tueduek bie wild ot i
feaoktet Prsodaet blae eas mex? @ic qd eldavieosos emun pte #
etuien asiootg ott .000, OT, £8 gaiiagrtage (yeild wt oe! 33
THOy Hig taieks Hae ,tosat) tHey of areminw ef tnemagtoea bhae Yo
taieliqmed ‘te 11iG agh of Loomend you a deattn oF 6 istics ak tod
ae bkan to ‘tone Bon gh ods oompad abdied eaeen gat

tes teousd? fads etowoastent tverete't totax0 cuex -_ i oar
Wded eliss bine odd ,VRSL .eiwh te yeh dais edd duede (toe ao “bow
gisdi0f ,bastend tec bee 4

fected dsonded Qoutiqenos hiss of somwet
bite yest) ogeoidd es of beteviied bux

ban t8shas pabseixe Bao beskacgte yieh ants tip me om
“ko Yoldn otf igiw ,ehoatiil to eaas2 oft to « oat
Hood Te ytanod ,oRanidd toe pig LS cE ‘eaennas

to Yaoo ,seempotgA Fawrl we

eetacs? aa ,at hy 6 seas ‘ban
® tested gaaeq & ohesn Bae *A tht taew? Raw tems ta ttoat ety
a st betede od yam (4 #iddeink). sneneetye eReeT wae to owt

4
Bd m eet hossngeined
‘ eed

ootaucd pif of bexie tener? veregene aut sedixoasd et ee chee
tose af ovat ans te oa bub ban ax9e0: ene: baw pay aa

ry f

blew otf to 14 ia Staten erty my be fated d
Dass 4 * PRaaso ee

abdind secdeds Wit ti dei apne tis ott ‘ale Pav ‘aod

Mert “ieebhrog soavgetac baegee 9a oe ee i
ed (teie date add te banded apecnes ae gaol sometet: NO Py
suo ,toase at if had geenete “” ni ea Madewtl batstenlrek bon
$6 aut goss douse edt sont. ei
xonw au nt Bee ava ada ocd, 20 pon =
eorziad ot Jy i Be oie! otis sh mee ad te

Sateen

woke

eeaid Trustee ohall pay over and deliver unte Smilia lundberg, af
the city of Cmicago, County of Coek snd State of Tilineis, mother
ef the Sener, {f she shall be iiving st such time, the sum of 9100
per week during #ach and every week anid ensubtig suberquent te the
date of death of said Herbert iubin and prier te the 4ate of the
death of enid Smilia Lundberg and shell pay over aad deliver o
hike sum of 2100 per week jointly te Kax Lubin ond Annie Lubin,
parente of the eanid Aerbert iubin, and to the eurviver ef then,
af they or the surviver ef them shall be living at such time,
during each and every week ensuing subsequent te the date ef the
death of the sald Herbert Lubin and priscr te the date af the death
of the surviver of said Asx iubin and Annie iubin; srevided new
ever, that so long ae either kyron 5. lubia oF Sarney Lubin,
brethers of said ferbert iubis shuil survive, daring the Lifetise
ei the eurviver of gnid liam Lubin and annie Lubin, the payeente
hereinahove provided te be sade te said Maz Lubin and Anais Lebin
enail Ge paid #iteer ta 2044 Byrom A, Lubin or Aarne iubin Tor
the account of said Bax iutin and Ansie Lubin anp4 the surviver ef
them and the receipt therefor by either said Syren 5S, Lubin er
said Barney iwbin shall comstitate a Tull disesarge and sequite
tance of tae Trustee, to the sximt taeres!.

"Turing each mid every year ehauing aubsequent to the date
ef the death of snid Herbert Lubin (if the Boner shali be the eure
viving wife ef asid Kerbart Lubin) snd prier to the date of the
death or resarriage of the Poner, the Trustee shall pay over and
deliver to ¢aid Domer as and fer her abaslute proserty forever,
quarterly or oftener, in the diseretioen of said Trustee the bal-
ange of the mat income derived from the Trast Property (amd ine
eluding the sume sereinabeve previded to be paid te anid Emilia
Lundberg, afd “ax Lubin and Annie Lubin from and after the date
eY the reeosetive deaths of the said Emilia Lundberg avd the
surviver of thea said Max Lubin «4 Annia Lubin, }*

fae third garagraph relates te the distribution of the areserty in
ease of the death of Maria Lubin and Serbert Gubin. the fourth
relates to sentingenit beneficiaries, The Fifth and sixth make
eertein srovisions in case of tae racarrlage ef Zarie Lubin. Thre
eOwents aakes certain provisions to take effeet is case of the
4eath ¢f Sarle Lubin. The eigath provides:

“Zach and every payment by the Trastes, sither of income
er principal, to ony beneFiciary Aerounder, sheali be paid, trane-
ferred, Aelivered an4 eenveyed te Aix or Ker in pereacn and not
upon any wrliten or verbal order ner upon omy aselanment or
transfer by seid beneficiary. *

It ie unnecessary te refer to the provieions eontained in the ninth
and tents paragraphs, The prayer of the amentet bill is that the
trast agreement (Exhibit A) “he deolaret null and vold ae te your
Grater, and that the Ghiesgo Title and Trust Company, Trustee. se

aforessid, be ordered and directed to pay te your Grator the esid

ts adhani al tint etns ts¥i fob a Ae nds
ie Wk ctontttt to of228 ban wdoey saris vagapaitl ta ait tie’
QOL% te com edt ,omt? down de Bs By + tfede oda *t. and”
ei? of @npw adv paivene fae seow TOv5 bre done

adit ‘he seat tus or age ate mda roa pt si gg Mh gal 9 Aras
@ toviled bug teve ye gre ere, eigen ee ae ‘te dtaeh
patted » bath Bas Phi ¢ yaa ate asow is eels mua @Eh.
meat Le kovivewe eat of bow fiat aay to 2 Ae as

<emtt Moun fe gatvilt Pury: ny al te eee: bd xo yess
oié"o siab ait of dannpowiue gaiceme Meow yreve boa, gal ae
Meech att Xo mn ar2 of Prngs Bn bax oidut ttedtel flag eds Yo Jas
awed heblyera ge ret kite atdud me@ bias to tovivive ode 7.
nites > croft oa eh nmol Toddlea as .

ai
rake ‘co .

fits Bate mis mat bias ta.

_ Ria ag ag. Yaiasifil. pats way ve
Sei, eat od Lilita aan 07 abides
ate "te piab Day af ag Si ee

ak rte odd Ye webtuatxao th ead of wpbatet Mgeianrak bukit ech

| dee? vet .addnd seine pee abdud obeei Yo dtseb, oe te pene :
a ot dtxte hee yar oat te tte tof ten g daopalr wes. ‘o} nodekex
‘WHE need 9 trell to ogettamues ou) to Shed ate hie | i :

‘eed te ‘enag &t Soothe wte¥ ot bavial very alettes bexen itd tee

“rwebtwoty Heeite edt Laldwt afaed Yo diteeb—

wieanitns to told he Bota? say ¥¢ oe od aie sha aesue fat adie

natt ,bivg ed Siede ,tebave ted
“7 cu kab’ searoe ce Wear te kat SRT ci
wa ) Iapanylone (ite Kogu Tom wens J
intron Se ga2its ve ns

dinin ott a bepiataes sree Ivers, ont of telex wt aNehisbompebt a

od tady ot Fike bebnews, old Yo reyetg oH Lady
_ twey oF Ba. blev hw tien. hore toeh oe” {a ab titer) 4
ae ps duint ued shirt kee eteEt epee ho tt, tedy
biae 9g toles9 «wor of ag of bedoen th dae heen

a)
cd
a)

gum of $9,721.59, tegether with interest and costs of aald eult
in which judguent eae obtained,"*

Complainant contends, in its original brie®, that "under
the sllegatione in Paragraphe 7 and & ef the Amended BLLL, tae
gonveyance by Herbert Lubin te Karie Lubin, and the conveyanee in
trust by karie Lubin to the Chicage Title and Trust Company, eon
atituted, ae between Herbert iubin ont Barie lubin, one and the
same transaction. Likewhee, uhder these allegutions, the convey-
anee from Herbert Lubin to Maric Lubin wae for the purpose ef net
only defrauding the crediters of Aerbert Lubin, but Karfe Lubin
‘oresent and future.' therefore, under the allegations of the
bill, the two conveyances, constituting ene and the same trangage
tien, so far ae derbert iubin and barie imbin are concerned, vere
for the pursose of defrauding the erediters of karte Lubin ‘sresent
and future.'* Defendants stube that they are willing te adopt, for
the purveses of this appeal, *the contention of the sesplainent thet
the tranefer of funds from Herbert iubin to Karie Lubin snd from her
to the Ghieago Title and Trust Gemcpany, as Trustee, constituted an
entire and indivisible traneaastien ani beeame in fact o transfer
from Herbert Lutin direetiy to Chicage Title and Trust Company, as
Fruetes, Upen that eseumptien se may regard Zarie Llubin's partici-~
pation in the transaction in the nature ef a conduit through which
the funds easeed.” It wlll be noted toast while the comelainant
eontends that the conveyance from Herbert Lubin to varie Lubin,
and from her to the Chicage Title and Trust Company, as trustee,
was “one and the same transaction,* it does net ask that the sesign-
ment from Herbert Lubin of the funda in the Sesbeard National Bank,
of Kew York, to Harie iubin be volded, but merely esecke to have the
property invelved reveat in Marie Lubin #6 that it may beeome avali-
able for the satisfaction ef compluimantte judgment. in ite original
brief complainant justified thie povition usen the grownd that Karle

sks

ahae biew Yo atsen har towurdal ese Aaideges 0 98,- SRS, OB ome
bake saw tamerghort sokse a
Nite? bate «(te bed tanks bee agi od abaesnee Sapte iqned w
ais ALLE babanah eat ne 8 tna * ‘aceainonat ak enotingsta il )
ai RomeKe rae ‘ant Seong absied shiois od nubdiad Prado M xd soaays rage
-a00 ,tenqner fewet baw efs2T éqne td ont ot aattand siren at teues
“ante dav ono ,midud otro hime absied froduoi amended 88 shoauditn
aeveee eae somo Esege Lis Od ebay onbeeat -maktonaaeus ane

whewd aired pan gubded suodank to weethhoss preg aathi wi wi " ; ae
ont te snalsayedia ado codsw ‘sesatonat a exudet foe. be

oxow yboatneaoo o%a a dink aimed, han hak succes Tt sat sekied
gaoeens! wketwsd ehaed o amg do%0 at wih berton to. onennie, oa t
a0 +taobe at ged ike axe eens sad? atotuetabhantes. .*¢ om i3uk a
gard taactalqnes ents to noting a9 whe haouge aka ‘te, seuogriig sa
red mort bas atiw.c bined OF mbtud JuedeoH ment aba Yo te tenend, eae
Ac betutithnen ,ooteorT as ,euaqsed semet daw oL627 ouesdd® odd pt
to'tenke? 2 fest al smeend bes aoitemewnnd afdieivibal baa. evtine
ge ,Cmqnes SaunT bie ofF2T ogeotdd of ehieethh abdwd taodugh, moet
abeticeay a atdel alte’ buyer yen ow aeleqnaan gas? meq. ,eotamrT
tig tx syworld tubnoe p to exutem edt at aoltosanatt off nt aokteg
towsiolques ode oLidw See bedea ad Aitw of * beneng gbawt. odd
Hkdnd obtwsl of sided Itedrel mort snangernoe elt tat uhatmme
dove? ae enegiead asec baa aceat yay itd awit oS, xed mer bee
-aylena edit sae dee sow ened th © moktponaent some esid Dae, 9 0 Re
ita Inmotdait pxsedes® ed mh eau oft to akdud dusdiad mock som
ot svad of winee yloma tad ,doblov od mbdwl obra of ,AteK weil to
atave sxcesd yaw $2 said ou abdied otto o2 never hevLawal xeunqexa
istigite at) al .dawayhul a! faantelquon Ye mel tentedias eas icalauidil
eitet tuds Sauory ad? moqe sold iaeg akde bodilvent, @

ee ee

iubin is estepped from claiming, as to complainant, that the grop-
erty, the subject matter of the trust, is net her property, bat in
ite reply brief it abandene thie theory of estoppel.

The amended bill aslleges that the Judguent wae obtained
five years after the creation of tae trust, but is silent as te
when the indebtedness, upen whieh the judgment was baged, was in»
curred, tut complaimant eoneedes tist 16 was subsequent to the
ereation ef the trust. fe are oi tie opinien taat under the facta
alleged in the amended 6112 the creation ef the trust in question
was not fraudulent a6 te coxipisinant, = subsequent erediter, and
that therefore tne action of the chaneelier in dissiesing the
ank ve Coudin,
343 Ini. 430, oud cases cited therein; Chicage Dolly Jere ts. wv,
Siegel, 212 Ill. 617, 620; Jones vy, cliften, LOL &. &. 225; Eebride
Vv. Bortseh, 33 Fed. (24) 797.)

in the reply brief ef ceuplainant it states tact we may

amended bill waa justified. (dee Rational cit

ignere ail allegations of fraud comtained in the asended bill; thet
the trust eréated by Burie Lubin ia in the nature of a soondthrift
trust for ker benefit, in part, aid as to sues part is vweid as te
complainant, o subsequent erediteor, regardless ef the intent of
Marie Lubin in ereating the trust, and ecomplaimant agske as to ree
gard the amended bill as em attack upon a spendthrift truss. In
reesense to thie mew position ef complainant defendants state that
the amended bill ie set predicated upen a conetruction of the
ependthrift trust prevision of the trust, ner #as there prayer
im the amended bill te reach the income of Hrs, Lubin under the
alleged ependthrift trust; thai tne amended bili was predisated
solely upen the theery teat the establishment of the trust iteelf
was a fraud on future creditors, whieh entitled eemplainant te
Yeach the corpus of the estate. Defendantes' interpretation of the
amended bill is undoubtedly eerrect, indeed, eompiainant, in its

“32.

«qote ea dads ,deenletgnee of ee ,gatatsto wert peqgotes a2 and
al tus .ystoqorg aod tom od ,taunt odd to tosdou satdia oft Peete
: toceodeo le Yxoads efar enobanda #2 teled ‘Views eal

pealatde saw sdomyhut, od Favs soyelte Nid pobmee oat! 9°)

‘pd se dnetin ot dud ,Paukd one ‘to doktewre’ OAd 89th ssi
wal sav ,Soasd saw saskghwt and deliw aoe jeaenbestebul oar’ kenw
oad of Stoupsedcs aaw $2 Fens aphooneds Inewia like’ dad /boneed
staat odd Tehab feu! wolakee bus To bie BY LYewes OKh te HohsNOED
motvcoup at tauxd odd Yo molinoes oat tho hepnoma’ ony tt hogeatte
bas ,tolihere #asupeadoa & Janalotqudy ov ae tne tebuedt Word bh
sia antistaaith aa toLiebiinss ‘ois Ve molena with vote ele Waal

B : A VeiS Komodee® ast) perio) sew Tore henna

\ catnan bette eeeed bie’ 6th “lror ene
oh bina tae Sa tre cease

qem ew julie aetada $2 dieale leven te Wiad Yleed oad ADO 8"
dadd ; 16d bebooa ot? af Sentesson bisrt Yo sneltage lie O60 exengs
Pirdsdaoge # To orvdas CAs Wh et widvd ettaa qh Rogdwte Pad ode
of ae Bkev af @tnq dove of we Bee Oued BE PE teded ded Yor Games
‘te Suedai odd ‘te euslbreged ,torlsero Saxupentdd's *
a9 of ey éxee dabatatgmmes Sia ,daite oY ganteore it nidud ohiek
Spt “Wadsd Pizarbasqe w done Keetse vues ERT Ho teteind Ode Stay
tors wtata efaahaoteh @adulatenss “to aetelecq wou Bhd oF wiodeds

ert Yo motsourFeawe « does Bodaothery dom el irtd hesneed Wits ~

‘geyerg @ oédi Gav TOK seat? odd Ito aotetveiy suns Prdedenadige
add cehnw aldid ces Yo omooat ody duoet of Iikd nobtiomd ead Wd

“ peteotberg saw Lid bebaman ode jade jeaund Padé banda Beastie
Road? foun? eft lo dommlnbideden OAs Jade yxonde “oad tidqw Ufelén

03 tnestalquon bets iiae dolaw ,orotinews Studi Ho haett 4 eaw

@it to aolsaserqtedal ‘eshaban ted | etatae - ‘te swutoa - inéirs
eh ab Jasalelquos ,boobal ,destxoo YLhoddue

=6e

eFiginal brief, stated that the income of Barie Lubin in the trast
fund was not subjest to the payment of her debte “unless there vas
fraud, real or econetructive, in the execution of the Trust agree
ment.* if the amended bill were oan attack woor a apendtirift
truest an aliegation eof fraudulent intent would not be necessary,

Ye are aware of the well setablished rule that a doner
eammet, even in juriadictions where spmdthrift traste are al.
lowed, so daiapese of his sreeerty for his om uae, banefit, or
suppert, ag te put it beyond the reacs of lisbility for hie future
@ebta. (See 265 8. G, L. mp. 365; 26 Am, & ing. Bney. of Law (2 e4.)

ui, 110 Ya, 918; Jaméson vy.
a0? S, We 768; Hoxbeg vy. Unow, 245

th, 149 “a. 844; Jsekeon v. Von 3

156 Kass. 342.) Meny other eases to the same af'feet might be eited
4f it were necessary. If the complainant wishes te reach the in-
terest Marie Lubin reserved te heraelf in the trast it hoe the
undoubted right te ¢6 #6 by filling « preper blil.
The decree of the Cirenit court ef Ceek county is affirmed,
APPIREED,

Sullivan, ?. J. and Gridiey, J., soneur.

, fe
ade

49 ef

Fee

gauss ont ab ab dint obnau 0 emoasd oe sonst Dedade doa prey
now orssds ‘peo kan* atded vd re danageq at? ef doaldim tom eae Ae.
-oetgA dau? ast te nolscnens ould ai ,oviseunteges 19 Laon, wine
Pibxdthavan Be noqM duadse a wer tikd bohaema, edt mu.
“Guenennen od ton bivow tretat tee labuer? Te aattayetia, ie anes
tonod a sand ofert decal ldsdas fiow off To, O16 OTA OH yr ym
~fa on adauid Stiass dae ge tone anoitaibelizul ak seve, diate

te ,d2tened eau me sis aot yrteqere ais le saocalh om, tonal.
onus atid sot eftitdens 9 sone aad buoyed #2 tay of aa, .¢tagpam..
(be &) wed Te “ou «0K A oh OE 168% og ad 2D pf 8S ont) . -maeded,

at Bb +dasara s' aoesienn, uae oi ® oGddaned ot se 60, ria
ys j208 oY OLL ,gubeea tows 2 ;
.wend, .v gedxol :88° * “a von, Smet) gies, -.

eth ibol soy nopinel ;008 wa OBL diiah a ane sth 8 aes
bostte or] tAyha soe't'te bain aie of sanwe todto Neri (BRE nei BEL.»
“ak ens tones of wosle te Iacninignes ei Th .vreneeged, exow dh Th.

| att wed $2 tens 968 a2 Uewrod of bowromen midis ohne snowed,

efihd togetg « waters ov) on ob Gf Atighs betdvohay
homed the ad ytawoo xed *e o1s09 shaavis and “Le eeteeh aah.) wht

‘ee . stone Gee Ue aici nds bites

Rees” We Fae yeysn ay a

Tk seems «aoe its soe ORMGER 6L 90 BR 36. tae, hs, in

OKMALTRA A a ae Yay Baar ORB pee
‘ 4 aig SY 2 eae we Ory Rite Sek
Jinks oan ee meme ah seashae feast oh eS Ei oe
ag ee ay cae ey SRP AS See Fe eyo hate |
eo Ge dee? Mae See oy aa” Eee sient we
shen fihexi gus ae ek Di hla igs ah hi Nora osuthlele™ #e yy Aig Reena pew ite :

iat eke none Ceoton

hattdcae Sate” are hit RATE, e% ad eee

SS ee

57082

THs WAITCOME LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY, } ee
& corporstion, ) APPRAL FROM /UPa@IOR
Appellant » ) ; 7
) GOURT, cooM coUuNTY.
Va ; %
WILLIAM Ge WHITCOUB, ‘ TA TA 2

| Me JUSTICR ACAMLAN SELIVERED THE OPIMIOW oF YHE com,

The “hitcemb Locemctive Company, a corporation, sued
Giliiom 0. Yhiteomb in aveumpoit. Dlsimtiff elaime that defendant
in indebted to it im the sum of $13,902.42 for moneys of the Geo.
D, “hitecmb) Company withdraen by defendant for hia serscnal wee
while he waa president of thet company. m Wareh By 1931, «
voluntary petition in baskruptey was filed in betalf of the Geo.
Be Whitcomb Company (hereinsfter alec enlled the Compeny), purauant
to @ resolution ef the directare, and the Company wae adjudged a
bankrupt om that dnte and Henry (. Varner beeame trustee in penke
ruptey for it pursuant to ordere entered in the United tates
Distriet Court fer the Horthern Distriet of Ullimele, eastern
Division. The trustee solé, anaigned ond traneferreé the eseete
of the Company te The Uhitecmh Locomotive Company, plaintiff.
Ameng the aseetea wo gold waa the claim of the Company aguinst
defendant, «hieh eleim forms the bacia ef the inatent suit, plain-
tiff suing as the assignee of the truatee im baukruptey. A jury
returned a werdiet finding tae iasuee for dofendunt amd plaintiff
hae appealed from a judgment entered upon the verdict.

Om duly 6, 1931, defendent filei a ples of nom aseumpsit
and on Lecewber 12, 1932, the day before the trial camneneed, the
trinl court allowed defendant to file, instanter, 2 notice of set-oFf

%
7 te —.
? z

a ye SVE TODOS exoortEy ‘a

saatioggs *
Arya eAod LY Ss ncn maria

stiiGs any 4 worurse aay GRARVIIEG wATHAdE aorrevt sat

Wa a oa el
beua sreliexoqros = .yunquel evi aatowl paneres eae hoagie
Srabmoteh Sad? pabele Veta stteqenteae ab deme det 4d anita
cof af? Yo wtonon tel Bh. COG RES te mee ode mF ab of beadeint ah
eon Lemoniey ahd tet dade teh Ys newwtaidhw yaaa” Gaondite we
oa a ee degen aaieal ithe

| 000 ost Bo Liated ai doit? saw yoda jt wokde .
4 omasso, ( yuogmes anit poties onto “soe tonto ted) \yuagan “don sid? oa 3
a boghurt hm aan yasgao ors bre eatesoouth odé te sotiutonoy hal
wilting at sedourd oanbod out 6D Carat Oma sdab dats mo ds aki
bs esgagt busin ett ak bousdne srebre 09 4 minara sag ab “wot wa By
__ Reade! stout Lc zo senate wreosts a0 ond 12 txu09 “tobe iG
attens one bexxotenert dete hongiens Akon vecaues “a snotelvia
eUdemtelg 4 ynquod evitonove. dmortdy od od yRngaod od to
Sentage Yrogmod esi ‘te mtate malt ne ae oop al eae

~ntela yting inedant ets % stand edt gomet wtato dokde »danbasteb

YL A eybtqediaad mt soceuxd end to somyhane ead as pita Te
aie subate bas ttodasted <0% eaweet sod gebbatt tetitev a becuse
stolbsov od? moqu bowed dreamy ut Fa mrt betevage aad
tiagmeta mon to aelq @ bell? teebneted reer y utut o vee
ec? boomnmmoo Latzd eid srehvd yh edd .SOOL ot tase mo ts 4
_ Mosdee Yo ection a yxoduadent pekht of Mabtetes dowolle: ae tak paw!

age

Wider the general issue and an aflidavit of merits im suppert
thereof, The neties epecified three items a! set-orf aga inet
plaintiff. Pisintire conesdes that the firet item was a proper
subject of seteors but insists thas the evidence dees not suppert
ite the seeond item ie a elaim for 9 9834.36, Popresenting the
balance of salary alleged to be due cefendont from the angen

for the period from Hargh S» 1921, tie Gate of the Voluntary
Petition in benkruptey, to Degembex Sl, 1951» purewent to a ceriain
Gontraect of CMployment entered inte Between the bonrd of tiireecterg
of the Company and defendant whereby the beard Served to gay ap
Salary te defendant the oum of Si2,COO per Yeur, and thet defendant
received for the year L951 429166.68 in payment t Haren 5, leaving
the anid balanee due him aS above stated. The motion te file thig
item of the set-orr Wis allowed, over the objection of pleimtire,
item three is 2 claim for the eum of $12,222 ,0¢ whieh, it is
nileged, repreaents the amount of « ducgment secured on SURG Be
1931, by the Sochelle Trust & Gavings Bank against defendant and
ene Carl Heim, in the Girewit cours of “ge county, whieh Jie gment »

it ie wllegeés wou jaken on a Motes Usted December Sy 19O, exeouted

by “hitecmb Comtra<ting Company and Card Heim of which note
Gefendant and Heim were suarantera fer the aecommedation of She
Companys that the Company received the Money OR the note but failed
to poy seme nt maturity, whereupon judgment won token by the Kecholle
Trust 2A Savings Bank, ae the helder ef the motes ecuinet Heim and
Gefendants ae above ctated.

Plaintiff states ite theery as follewe: “the terendent for
many years vhile president of the G@oe Ds hiteamd ohpany had maine
tained a personal Secount on the evmpany' s beoke, on which he was
eredited with various moneys, such ax wiloty, amd wag Likewise debited

} with moneys received by him or otherwise expended by the company for

ohm

dxeqqua mt atiiem to divest tte we bas omapt Lexeney odd TOomY
Sand eye tro~ses ‘to amr! opis bettivoega soi sort ork «het

oqo eaw opdh dexkt ony tect? soheonos tresatos® aetennate.
troqate don win’ womedive oa? taste ada sons dud Bem }as 46. soahente
odd Qabsinowodyen GOCE) tO? wiate oat mosh dbaoove ott odd
ae oat et mort & daghastes ou of oF begets ‘inken Xo sometad
qrsdnusor add to tdnh odd 9f8Ok 8 owni mor poiteq odd 10%
utaires 8 of teinamwg fits ahi eodaroo oth os cyodquraitad | ai mohetine
axegoest® to bined eis menerad odat hecocee drremnye Lean Re. “goueenoe
as orl os vant wand gt? ‘etoceder Fetateme teh” ieetis erga? al? 20
tnniaetoh 3 taste bos 90 dee D00eREe Ye mene Gis Tanda TOD: of EBRD
gabvant a8 toual b doomeng oi BB. 0dL Ae LEOL Anoy ont? rot bowk ape
e tits Ltt 08 mold om ott Wee ate eyed xe mht dr ‘poneiad bhon add
sibs ol eo meivonheo wei yore ohiwolle ew Ve dee oct" Wai amek
ak ak gall 0, ahaa te sas Str soo eta wt orate se)
a orl mo bous08 “paomphlt » ‘te ‘eeecrmens teak ntraae get okies

“ban dnnbastad santoue tint sativa Jair Lindow! oft gs eA

a deena Ho bate eX siaie8 éigi to hudow dimou’ ‘ads wh -embot Aexmi m9

bedvonss woued et nods on ‘pedeh gotten o ad maateh mew 9

: “aden dolity ao estioh fied tw Yengmdo gal soendeed
“geld Ya meddaboakoson odd 40% exotetm ocaw abel beta ge |
betta ond oton ett He vo ate See boo oe emg omelet - fied venen |
attodsel ‘one ye moked cow Simoianybirl, Momence Re oe
bas itsit deatinus «Sten ss 2 eos as air ntl a wt

" “paw oa sokdw is neve mn Legs
| besides oaiwodtl ane ona” + bie sete,

ote

hie us@s Om May 3, 192%, the defeudeat'y account wos oredited
with $10,840 caghe “hen the books of the Company were sudited
in February, 1921, just prior to the bankruptey, thie eredit was
removed fram the sceount and a corresponding ¢obit wag entered on
the account, as of lecember 409 19300 It ie the phaintiff's
theory that the reversal of this item wae Justified ineeaach ae
the original eredit of 910,440 vancelled sorrespending cebtte on
the account, which debite represented compemy moneys actually reeetved
by the cefenden: fer which he showld have accounteds and further,
the eredit of 010,840 wns merely a credit of moneys mot paid by
¢efendant but sctually belonging te the Geo. be Yhiteem company
heving been preeured om a comparry nete. Consecuenily #he oredit
@f (209840 ehould nover have been allowede If the eredit of
$10,846 remained im the seccount, the finel and undisputed balance
@ue from the defendant to the eccmpany wae (3,063.48, But if the
eredit 6f $10,840 was removed from the cecownt, aa the plaissiff
insisted it should be, then the fimei bolamee due from the defendant
to the company, and therefore to the olaintiff as asaignee of the
company, Wee $15,905.48. Yor thie ssaunt uit wa drought.*
Plaintiff eontenda tunt the Company 4i¢ met release ite clais
againet defendants

tefendant states hia theory as follews: “the defendant's
theory of the eaat is that defendant wos net indebted to the Geoe De
Uhiteomb Co. im amy eum of money whatseever} that plaintiff ug
newignee of the trustee in bankruptey of the Gea. f. “hitcomb Gos
hed mo greater rights than the Geo. J+ "hiteomb Coe had, and that,
therefore, defendant was wot indebted te the plaintiffs that ae eB
matter ef fact the Geos oo “hiteomy Co» was ingebted to the defendant
in the cum of €9,933035 representing the balance of salary cue him
from the Geos vs YRiteomd Coos av well ae the sum of 7815.50 for

moneys had and receive: being the proceeds of 100 shares of

ea
hte

basiaere now ImyoveT GtIRedamted wad WOLEL go YR nO. Ou hd
botibus erew yaogmes sft to aNoed wuld mot! siene Ob, OKF ttle
saw Stoo etd? aypsqurdnad wid of xobuy tout _l0Ok yetauridet et
ao boxadne waw jhdoh pabbacgesrsee # dem deweves see moat bovonds ;
a'Ditiatadg ed? ad #1 e080 git undoped! to ae’ y sionen’ bits
an dommennt bolttieul, caw most ates to kensover odd diate kode
Ho stddod vai dgoquentoy boLLooanm COgOL0 to shdore Lantgtto Ode
heviowet Vileuios ayesom YRegtes bodnonerges etideh Mo iste eérweose outa
- gtodd-wt bus ghetampens eved biwete et aeldw ek sasbawted ods Ye
‘e Bhoy fon ayant te {ikem # YhetsM waM OREVOLI Loe beRe olf
eayaee dmsetiat’ 6S past ons ad gabymoled yilerton: wrchemeorernn
siden ett, VWseenppened sete Yragaot 2 go hewoorg fy
» ‘ebbore odd %2 sbewodta weed ovarl eewen biwoda Ody 026 Ye
omalad Hetuze haw bas Lenk od qtomerom ante at bentanee OnegOLs
eute 2 send 18d CA0e 68 ack Yamgeoe ots of dushaetoh etd width Bee
vibvat ate ase fo qitwongn of2 MOU? SeveeDT caw OMB OLE Re VEtieey
inaban'te’ os most oth conmiad Lomkh od maid yet Bkvoda 22 Setetient
ass te compings ap Tikinbade auf? as ocoteunds tna yyneqmon bad OF
Se Salyirond ow the dmaeay whet neo RDKBOR REE ww Sad |
‘abade a4} enoetog.4en Att emeqmed aah ta? | atnednoo Yhidmbelt
at snsbae2s on Anwodier AR YRovds ait yotnta porn ‘sie ale
“ +000 et of bedmobnt fom weg snoteehon dna wi sane cite Ne Aetis
go Tiktately Sats povesndede yume Yo mem ym et VOU aimee
20D dmondis® «M coed we 2e ‘osqweimed at astewce wit to | oagtien
state is ghnat 09 smoes LOY 4% 9 ¢98 ould: matte nddgls eda om hat
: # @a fate A tatate add of bos@ehad son enw tmadaotel vod toteds””
Snabasdon nad of Wetdobnt ow 00 dmgn tial ot soed-eds gout dodta!
mid su yinlen Yo sonatag gy setonmewege 52208900 erin td at
TOE 086088 Yo muy ous an Loe am 100 dmpmedat wit se cote tt
Yo aerate COL To sheoveng asd pated bovhooe ba ba ' ’

x a
The eile a

ode

Baytheen eteek belonging to the cofendantel

Plaintiff ie justified in contending that in order te
reach @ verdict for defemiocnt the jury must have considercd items
two and three of the seteoff. the second item of che seteore
Wae for salary claimed by defendant te be duc him for the balance
of the year 1931, after the bankruptey of the Company on Boreh Be
19Sle efendent was employed by the Compony, as President, under
& Teaclutien séocpted by the board af direciere in Pebrucry, LORS,
fer « period of one year, or until Bic cuecessor should be eleeted,
or until the further erder of the boord, ai GLa,O0 per years
Without any further resolution of the bourd he served uo precident
during 1¥2¥ and 193¢, and umtil Meroh &, L931, he date when the
Company woe adjudicated a bankrupt. Hie necount wae eredites with
aslery ot 1,000 a month for Januery and Februsry, 1941, avd with
4166.64 for salary from Karen 1 to Moreh 5S, 1931. Ke was paid
me galery by the Company efter the last date.

The following instruction, ziven te the jury «% the
instenee of defendant (defendant's Noe 4), gives the theory upon
which defendant's claim, uncer item t=e, in baneds

: "the Sours instructs the ~~ that if you believe irom
a preponderanee of the evidener that the defendants, “« Ss “Mi teduil,
wae the duly elected president of the Gene Oe “hiteomd Company for
the year 10231 anc that it wae agreed by and between the defendant
%e Ce Uhiteamb, and the wnid Geos “+ “hitcomb Compan

20
through ite beard ef direetora, that the Geos )« “hitoomh Company
pay the defendent a salary ae president of sald Settee “Bi teams

Gompany of $12,000 per year, beginnings, to-wit, Janggry 1, i551
amd ending om,» to-wit, Secember 31, 1951, amc unt er order
ef the beara of directors, and if you further believe from the

evidence that the defendant performed ali of Bie cuties as
president of exid corporntian, antil, Sowwit, Bareh Se 2951, and
that on or sbout said date the said Geoe + “hitcemb : filed
its voluntary petition in bankruptey im the United states Dintriet
Court for the Forthern District ef Hliimeia, “esters ah and
Was OM, to-wit, Moreh S» 1931, duly a¢judiented & bakes

That tho anid Geos 2+ mitcomb Company thereby prevented asd
defendant from continuing to age stl ae -< a0 Wrteee a0 A! .

: and that the de eae ® ea Fe
<1 oorPetiling $0 perform hin agreement om his eb yt
performed, and that eaié Geos + ee ag Company, Boi‘ $e bs
defendant, salary only to and ineludin ren 6S,

“etphowkon edt oF aahgnoted Heese

oe webte mh dart patbasgnos wt boktheaut, wl vidembalt wre soil ma
conn bomeblanes ovine aust eat, esis snabae ted ze?, totveor £905,
‘Porton ost? to moet butooee att + Momse2 ‘els to woul Riel ot
sortsios edz 267% mia ows o¢ oe éaabas tsa bill be ny vretee Qe oaw
Py He tek te ysecgiea® elt to cedures od 198% + 1884 aa9y sta 0
so bes gum bioory Be 9 Rage) eat? ve bexe dius aan candae ted eek

sener eUscuedet aa erocnerth te based ae ot mesqobe no ssukonen *

| sbovvese od OBLondas Teae Oo RIG mde -eaieineal tS 2 tay emo to bot eg a ™.,
otasy x9g OO RKe fm qbtaod eid to webte wads uu ont game =.
tanbisong au bevtna ae axeed ete ke nok suLooet seats? . suede tw
eate teat sien oat. efews a8 dourd Liga tinal 40608 baa ones, wala
A3ty westbow wav savoosa abt + ogaratand cy bosagi buibe oor ee
iélw boa tees roomie ke cxmmme’ we? ati eors & O00 0 ts ‘ , knw
bag, wow OM LECL 98 donor ths £ sorek 603 yralan 10% abepand,
then Sh Oe, Oe
ads tn aut ad! of gevin amabtorst nat asiwollot pitt . Brey
toqs YRoed! arts eovis a(d e@H a! dando tra) rene Papirnsonary
theued ef one weed me dea ned aienabeded dodge,
seSThaTTUSS S.Atot PLS ate aa

tot wragaoo dames’ +S .ovd od? to dumbhsoxug bods
—— aid onder ban o. hoo 'tys ew ry te Ps pee

o ynaqme? eased k S 9682 ba od
Wagan) tel” of seo ade @ i eaiadotsera
Gapotid® «Gedeii Bien Bo pth ye #6 Ytelou a sua

S26L al % gtiwegd aE eae
eee Cr of 4 wo oe ee

at Sete ant eh guy c sec0 oo i

btaq ald ety tetg

of Smee

’

ot? ated Dope haw hawt 2 Yemen nie

wum of $29166.65, then you are instructed that the defendant was
entitled to vegeive from the Geo. De “hitcoms Campany the eum of
$12,060 Legs the sum of $29166.65 theretofere paid to ihe cefenda
fete
*

ané less such oum, if «ny, you believe from the evidenee the
Hed» OF it by réneonavle diligence nave earned, subseg

eh BEE pe D 09 ~ GCOMOGL oh g wee x
eiructec thai the defendant ia entitled ta aet off sueh aum, if

any, as againgt auch amount, if any, you say find from the evidenee
there be due from the defendant to the plaintiff.*

Plaintiff contends thet “the court committed reversible
error in permitcimg the filing ef the seteoff for supposed antieipatery
breach of ‘hiteomb's contract of cmpleyment as president of the cer-
poration, amd tm allowing the set-off te ga to the jury,* and in
giving te the jury deferdent's ingtruetian mumber four.

Tt ie eetties Athat if a seteoff ia improper, the court
should cither etrike it from the files upon motion (Duncan Lumber
Soe Ve imonard Lumber Coe, B32 Till. Add, 106) or exchude 012
evidence on it upon objeetion made (Higpie vs. dust, 211 [lis 533).
In the instant ease both forme ef chjeetion were made by plaintiff
ané @n¢h was overruled by the court. Im iunegan Lumber Sos ve

Leonard lamber Cos, supra, the court said (pps lié-7)2

“Gur eatatute (Uehill's State 192375 chape Liv, sete 475 pe
19465), authorizes a defendant ‘heving claims or demande sgsinst the
plaintiff in eueh netion,® to plesd the same, @ie. Thet statute hag
been construed in nusorous cases by this court te mot autherize
unliquidated dawsages ariging out of 2 goniraet, not eomnected with
the subject matter of the pininiiif's suit, to be set off egainat
the plaintiff's claim. (Hawks ve Lemis, 3 Gilm. 2273; argeant ve
Be LLogE Perory oat paer, 428 Thle GOCE Rgoeisom Ve

eff claima fer unliquidated damages growing out of transactions net
connected with the transsetien eued om. (Lungnn Lumber Sos v-

Leonard Lumber Go+, supra.) Im boherty v+ Se)
Ills 128, the eourt said (p. 132)s

*It ig well settled that in nig = aeeeret is tl
ehar without cause before hia term ci employmen o €z a
and ag — paid in fall i the time when he ia diccharged,
he may treat the contrcact of hiring as continuing and br an
netion for a breach of the contract of employment against his
employer for ¢ischarging him, ane if the suit is not commenced,
or if commenced before but net tried, until his term of employment

aew duatooted odd tot bea iewesant re # rep et
te mua edd ynagmo he: ~ 080 sd et iy due
Ke aa I oe us wv Tek i iP ay ie
tee id Sash valle Hat 4 Wie SE ad aes ow

f fo% Mim gfECE Le cagigpes eed weive ba Ze Tr ce giv
% we foue he fou at RataTiae ot #aenng ted, satis ry y

eenobiys ox? micckd Oak¥ you wey «ie Bf , fname dowa tention en 4 us
*, Bhi ostaly out ad emabmeteh eis moxk ab ed wands

oidterever beddianoe suse suis" sos abmei aoe Tiksatass , vty
| protagtol ian honogque ot Wtowsee ey Re gubdst axté, ine Dey: ones
i ~aee oxtd te dusbleowg as Snesyedys to soettnon ofdmoatide te dpaesd
mh, boa "oun add of og 08 Movie ad) palwoils mh Sum enol toncy
+WWOT satus codveustonk aliowrawted eat ate oF aalvie

daa odd pxegotqad sf Vivetes o te sal SeLtoes ee, ee had
eederel enocw’) wediom moge aaLid eg? moxt 22. odlate aodtie bfweds
Lie ohufoxe. we (80L SOS £6 BO gp00 nedmeh deaneet sarge
(GEE SLI 108 ginal ov Qhinlt) wham moigoutdo moqm at: sinieseaiabil
TMismalq Yd skam orev moldovide Ro ammo? dtod sage: inegaat ego ot
*¥ 00 sodet sagem, at Saves ads 4 bolerxove gon see ban

H(YaO0L sqm) Bhea door sa? gexguy va2S Aedes Pramod

eG oT 2090 g0LL «geste arent tase. at iltcels tate wor
eis Seni ome shane o 10 aabeto’ an? pom) a aoaltodign
eau oduiady satt .9l@ » oma hawig od *snohdon s shale
osiiedinus tom 7 Juwos aide eee Sa otountt
diie bedvoumoe dom gioasicos »
sattieus Tre il es ‘pee eo? Flas:

ton to Yan dng ated ® fins? ott. ‘al he wet sotene as oo
tow ent tomas te tue. pateoey agen vote ius .

as ar rat ras SENT (gee aes
= = ait ie Se ee ee

<iaeemase

OF lr kr UCL TIT

axe heen within 3

tanlagas Toumtahan, fate $2 » ot to Bomex

eSeoronmes Jor ak divy ae 2 Som emthd wbasedteth aot’ <
tromgoiges To aed ald Liiou phelxt tom sud ‘ooreed bow

ae aes

y
|

“Ge

hag ey hey Be may recover the ble aiit _ of his ay
Sar 2 Feanonabd 20 Grd ioe Ae SAVES sored

ether employment bsequentk to his 4 laugh: =o {

go's V+ (@idenmanns 139 Ilie 67+)" (italios oures)”

the eourt said yp 430) 9

“where an employer ig wrongfully discharged ana brits
an action for breech ef conterset after his term of employment
expired, he may recover the contract price, deve whet he
ba rned SF £8: casnapie ppltenge 22 goude have earned. jee
Weent wubse o Ble dis + wsoherty Ve Sehippes &
nis "ise ye ect eH fale)

It will be noticed that defendunt’s instruction number four ia Based
upon the theory that 1% was fer the jury te deeiée chat selendant did

@ara oF could have warned im other employment during the perted fer
whieh he elaime damages, Defendant, in the inetons cage, could net
have Brought an aetion of debt, and sbeebliatus secumpsls could not
have been maintained, and it woe necesenry for him to declare
specially om the slieged Bremeh cf contract. (‘ee Trustees of |
felélere! Orphang' Home ve Sheffer, 63 Tlie 243.) ‘The text in
éetermining whether the claim ie sufficiently Licuigeted to be a
proper claim under indebitetus a¢
the sum iz certain or iv expable ef being yendily reduced to a
otrtainty. (The People wel eo 274 ile GBT, 646.) The claka
in the inetont ense ig mot fer aslary earned, beoouse it te oad thed

umipait or of seteoff te whether

that defendant woo paid for oli services aviusliy rendered, but che
item in question ia fur demagea for om alleged breach af contract.
ve find mo merit im the contention of defendant thet the seteot?
aroge out of the same transaction upon wnieh plaintiff sues.
Plaintiff sues te recover moneys belenzing to i4 whieh it ¢lis ime
éefendant taproverly reeeivec. Defendant alee eontends that the
Clsim ig liquidated becnuse bad ke brought an original setion for
the alleged breach of contract the compensation ngreed upon woule
be prima focle the mencure of damages and the burden would be upom
——__

the Company to prove what the employes earned oF might have earned

“So @ gee lyons

tf is pitheoee elon antod tw akéngow a8 me at R scan
at ide (690, Pea +AET TR oxen efane’. ey
bodgkmba uk az Doucond eben Yxrdee Wt fou ah Baas 3

+e wa ey Pee

bas tad ybexwhenen “koutyn avetween tin a0 hag em ame

etoartaes to Asner hogelta me 3 aomemss 08 at ) med wos A oe |
Visdea out dente _daadasreb Xe fol inssec8 ose mt phe ents F

_ poeta Vibistelg detiy wegy solsyaasens emme ate tease

: wala at sotsty at 98 eeteneteg ee = on Mpeg fe Prien: mls ‘. | mt !
ots fade airs snes wala saobasted, sovdesss | va cal ot sebastien
mh aegis isinhy Coe Awe? i Leta ere. bedabtuois a2 aint

S48 Ne 2 Ey:
: ie GE as ee ene ee eae

-e
after the diseharge, but this principle of law has no spplieatia
to the question under conmsiderstion. icfendant alee contends that
his right ef set~off arises under section 14 (¢ehe 110) of the
fractioe aet, which previde: thet in ony sult brought by an
aesignee Gf « chose im action, not megoticble, "there shall be
allewed all just aet-offs, diccoounts and defenses, not only ageinat
the plaintiff, but alze against the aecigner or sesiqnors, before
notice of such assignment shell ee given to the defendent,” and
éefendant argues “that Seetion 14 of the Pructice .et which governs
the right of seteeff im thie ence, ia much wore Liberal in ite
provisions then Gvetiom 47, gsuprae There ie no limitation that
the right of set-off whall be confined te a suit upon = contract,
either exprees or tmplicc, ami 16 expressly prevides thet ‘there
ghali de aliewed all just set~«offe, discounts ané ¢efeneesg’” and
defendant further argues “that the eleim of the defenéant herein
wae properly seliewed as a just set-off, discount amd defense uncer
Seetion 18, irrespective of whether or not it wes liquidated or
wunlicguidateds or arose out of the same subjeet matter as plaimiiff's
auite® There ig mo merit im this contention. Geetion 15 is mot
intended to give a defendant greater rights of set-off against an
assignee than he would have had against the ageigner, bul the
ebject of the section is te allew a person cued by on ascignee the
seme right ef set-off a6 if be bad been sued by the aaelgnors thus
preventing the degtruction of o Walid set-off by « mere ascignment.

We are satiefied that the claim eet up im ttem two was
one for wiliquidated dameges, and that the trial court erred in
mot atviking the item from the flies, in allowing evidence bearing
upon the some, and im giving the inetruction in queetiome

Plaintiff aleo argues that under the facts the board
of directors of the Company, at the time they voted te file a
voluntury petition im bonkruptey, had the undoubted right to

dhe
mhiontiqne ot vat wal Yo elatentag elt? sue egrndondh ons ‘190%
ante wbemenon ends sruo bee T : aod wo dkmBeD eo brae nobdaouy ote ‘oa
edi (oxe esto) 8 mer sese se swutte Yess9s wo dighs ota
Re ww adgwoud ‘She une mi dul ambi veg, sozae toe soltann?
of Lintts press” eaddatsogem don week tage a seers a de esnennnd
danione eine dom gavansiot bay utinoots aetho-doa, dank Lia” ei cs
owoted aetonyison to Thiyives att funtepa eoke doe titstiate, a
Sitka *, dnahee bob ee OF naetp oe Kivate suoumigt vod Hoere Ye ‘eottin
dexoven Hblnw d6) sofdbnke’ cae’ te ek wubsode' thas’ boagio daabuoted
at ni exedil exom doom ot yeucn ede wi Yre-den te kya ie
‘gndld wnldodiadi om et oral igo “tb mol dose ‘masid aobeivor
‘Ol gemkdieoe io ogy thwe a od boutinos o@ Kkads Fo-tae te ‘tag ot
‘exe’? daft eostverq Youwryas i: paw «Dod dal ve sactqne it's
bes *" geonvotsd dan atuvonntt qatto<doe sant, tie bewelie oe Staite
_— Tiahive ty ete te ® thao wale ‘ate wougte wetter a ake

ta tanhige $te-Hoa 26 editgts sonia smabaetet 2 orta of dbdatans

ome gard es “eat feat ape ‘het ove btu ast t ahs oad

saw od most mt qe son mist wad tend bottaldas one da _ maqOR
Ni ne t's ncaa
eaktvod eonnsive gulwolte mi gxolit out? ious most ods ‘pantie 9 aes
itn Saray wee tol Sowstont este priviy amt loa voane ie

Steed sh avont of¢ xobaw dadd sourte ote eb seck ee at
‘@ OSE% 08 beter Kael aad od 30 om uu aa” ig oe tt

oF dignity Syed 3 diazes ever ale buat ie age ee rr ae

“Be

change or sbolish the splary of the presidunt, and that the theory
of defendant, ae stated in his instruction maber four, that by -
the filing of the petition ané the adjudication in benkrugtey the
Company “prevented said Géfendant from continuing ts perform bie
@uties se president ef asié corporation" and that therefore he esa
entitlec ta reeover damages, in not tenable. Rile this conten-
tion is argued with great foree, we éo not deem it necessory te
pases upon the sume.

Plaintiff eontende: “She court eumaitted reversible
errer in permitting the defense that Kitcemb wae released by
Heim’s aacwaption of hie obligations and sles erred in presenting
such defenge in Instruction Noe le” Sefendnmt'e instruetion mumber

ome reat aw felicws:t

"fhe Court imetruets the jury that ewen if you believe
from the evidence thet the defendant's aecount with the Geoe« Te
Shiteomb © ny Wage spyarently erecited with the cum of 91%,840
and that said money belonged to the Gees oo “hiteamss Company,
nevertheless if you alec believe frem the evidenee that Carl He im
agrees te seeume and did gasume and agree te pay anid sum of
$10,849 to the Geos Te “hitcowb Company, ami that said Cari He im
did thereafter execute and deliver te the Geos + “hitcomb Company
his promissory note therefor and if you further believe from the
evidence that said company accepted anc retaine: aed promissory
note and thaé said company release the defendant from any
obligation to the company for enid eum of 010,840, then you are
instructed thet the slaintiff eannet recover from the defendant
anid gue of 610,846 oe aforesaid.“

4g this esse may be tried again, we refrain from snalyzing and
commenting upon the facte and clrewnetaneces hearing upon the
eubjoct watter of the aforesaid imetruetion, although we have
pronowneed views in referenee te the seme. ft lu neeescary for
un to atate, however, that the giving of the above instruction,
under the evidence, wou highly impreper. Heim was the vice-presiéent
and treasurer of the Company and the evidence elearly shows that

he and dufendant engaged in a joint venture for personal
gain im the sioek market, during the course - whieh ey
funds and Company eres its were used> vhen defendant

ims
necepted, from Heim, Company checks in payment ef Be

‘roan ods daild bre ctneniootg etd to Neeles wit detloda ww sginmads
ed darts «mH coediassn mohtoues ant ane eh bedass (Be 4 thes bae

gale wor guratiins a wo ttn stub be odd gun molstene on? To aabise eat
aah mretxsg oe petaned tenon mot seiaioern Yo b haan bed movers” | esse

ane wat stetexodd pada bl *mokastoqros one te tmobhaorg | ar ere

oe HRS

soodacy aid ons saldanss dons wa reogened ‘TevoseT of sheen
, 7 os woos foe
efdtaxover fs 32 Lasoo suse eae” sbasdane Teabags

63 Crewneaer 32 awed ton or oir ceOo? Sony aahw

he Fei)

Sate VOD

ve besnaLer aan tnons het sacks vamvten oats wake chanog a: es
gat saone ak borne weds ‘ug ornsgeas. te sid te _woliqm

sveikod may : eat | 4 re :
obama cee pies sg Fest
mi ag sone Etre oS mit sails

eas — ica Sb ows oars Rov etd bing im 1 ates
# a% on mak
ip outeed fre ‘edd mort tevones ¢ aunt’ takeliate sae'e bast

“ol Maoxo de. Be D9BE DES Re to me Bhan

“haan gad ryan, mo? Rlnxte on yiape tod of vos tee ahah,

waht eoges galsaed Roonasamorts bane edewk oft ogee git ines
Svat oy Ayvodate «nokvoustunt Blevonete edd Yo r94tam 20

$0} Yxouseoen sf 2 ae somea di of somesvion ct anely beomonesg
atelioustent eveds ey to mis wl! ¢akd gyevowed eatede od ev
axis ere Chxeete., pomebiy: tg | rm poms oo t, Lo Tita st rtd beim
Lanvaxog 10% ouniney ‘émbos, & RE bog aaa ‘tnaben ten bene at,
Wagod dole 20 oe zuee wilt sath steam So0tq ponerse

pamper ee ¥ +S00u one w#t00x9 wumgmd dns
Satan te BS RE

iets Bi aad 3 COU tee ee eee ae
ct alae Bhai m ha Sasa eee oR Ea i bi ie ;

nits
ed ;
[ae eed

personal indebtedness to defendant, a fundamental principle of

lew deelarea that cefendant beeome Liable to the eorporetion fer

the proceeds of the cheeks, ani tne later asqumaption ef cefendant's
wnid cbligstion to the Company by Heim, arranged between these two
officers, could not relieve defendant from hig personal Lisbility

te the corperniion. 1) is hardly seceegsary to estate that these

two officers, whese interest im the alleged novation ox cubatitution
was of a purely pergomel cature, could not bind the cerperntian

by an understanding between ikemeelves aad by Bookkeeping methods

in furtherance of thet underatanding. There was ne proof thet the
officers of the Jompeny, ceide fram Reim and defendant, were parties
to the alleged novation or substitution and yet defendant's inetruction
Mumber one iz eo worded that it “ould permit the jury to aecume

from the conduct of Meim ami defemiant that the Jompany thereby
eoneented to the alleged novation or substitution and that therefore
éefendont was released from his obligation te the Company, The giving
ef this instruction constituted reversible error.

Plaintiff eomtends that the verdiet of the juxy is
manifestiy against the scight of the eridence. e are in entire
aecoré with thig contention. “laintiff further contends thet we
ahoald reverse the judgwent and ester judgment here for plaimiiff,
sfter a onreful consideration of thia contention we have reaghed
the conelusion thet the tause shovld be remanded.

The judgment ef the Cuperter eeurti of Couk county te
reversed ané the ¢ause is remunded for further proesedings aot

incengistent with thia opinion.
REVEPIRS AND RAMAN De

Sallivany fe dey and Cridley, Jo, concurs

te efqtootxy Fadueuebast « ytuwtinetud 7 saenbead
wet aolsovegcos om? of ofdadi eansed Mrobneteh dale anasto!
a? guabesteh Yo mobiqmmas THial wut Sih yuxteale oil? 20 aboovorg eds
owe ‘naertd moewdod beguerin catel Yo qunqand ety oF motiayiide Bins
“@gektdel£ Lonoeted ekst modt sasbeeYob evelfox fox Bivee yeatselYto |
gwond fad? oad of ‘Yrandoved <ittted «i PT sadttaxegsoo et? ge
wotivsidadku to wolreven Segetin ons wh fertedat seouty ,2to0ttid owe
nobiaxoqioe of’ Sald ten diweo .owder Lamow ing youd 8 te Baw
abarison gmiqomitued ys due sevtonust? newvted patinsterohay ae yl
aeidtag srew .inetee tod bee hol mut wbien qnegaet orf Re atest tte
| moksontivint et tksbee tod 2oy tek amt Jee sede: to mat tnvod béyatin old a
i omieen 0 aut wit simeng fun #b dads Subtey ve of vay ted
“Netoxqald queen? oad dastt eetoban ned “Gowe mika 26 ape
atte! cee im sisitaews te oe wad ey

aaa
Seg

wk met ests te Sebbrew as Pipher wadéntats eh Fs
erbsms ei erm oF seomahty efé Bo aitplow wee tamtags . ov i
ev ‘este ahiesree ieddwh ritvahad mot ewormon isd stig yeaenn
YEeniady we? east temamgeul, Totne ane daemphut sae sevewer sbfarede
bodes oved ev melonetree wtdt bo mad taveiiewoo Svtosae 2 cet
sttobremet o¢ BLiwoty sauce otf ton: raluatenos wit

et Edowon Ze09 Yo sises cebeoget sft. to ee
_ on apmtbessong tualtcst i¢f fobammey oh qusag sit dae begwever
setae aad tein atdnes ails athe soovetemoomd

Ain: Gea bit PN aide Ns 3 SR

Phacsengcneneradienel ic

a ana"

fe a Gee? Steere Rawle Bate at
4 Pesnsand Kags PU na gt sera

RF GPR Rago

Isai psi , bed hd

PROGINS ah sh sec eee Bp te
.

ical

(i @)

#™
j
!

: }

\ i
H

=e
%
ener an
poe.

AT A TERM OF THE APPEELATE CO

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, thé sixth day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:

Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the

Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

: gionand
fe biod ea
yh iat.

“486° to 109y ad

el tot ‘Bos Bes,

Y th ot as

2 Led. ALN ow!
er nee ees cn
Pe Eade 3 wyte Sole,

MOE mit ot sur

att ‘ Ris w es

athe oe Re oy

20.

Kio helit

‘

aetugti baw efuiw edt ah ‘Fepot, eye

Gen. No. 8690 Agenda No. 2.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

<2 ae coe

February Term, A.D. 1954.

The People of the State of
Illinois,

Defendant in irror

Writ of Error to the County
VS. Court of Lake County.

James Ryan and John Twohig,

Plaintiffs in Error.
DOVE, Jd.

A jury in the County Court of Lake County found plaintiffs
in error guilty of removing the manufacturer's serial number on
an Automatic Remingtm rifle, as charged in an Information there-
tofore filed in that court, After denying motions for a new
trial and in arrest of judgnent, each defendant was, by the cuurt,
sentenced to the Illinois State Farm at Vandalia, to serve ninety
days and to pay a fine of $100.00. To review this judgment, each
defendant sued out this Writ of Error and contends that the verdict
is contrary to the evidence, that the trial court erroneously in-
structed the jury and that their motion for a new trial should
have been granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The evidence discloses that about four o'clock in the afternoon
of April 25, 1933, plaintiffs in error were in an automobile and
drove through the Village of Wauconda on Route 176, At the inter-
section of Route 80, there was a stop sign which they passed
unheeded. <A highway police officer overtook them and placed them
under arrest. At that time Ryan was driving and Two_hig was sitting
in the rear seat of the automobile and an Automatic high-powered
Remington rifle, Model 8, was on the floor at Twohig's feet. It

was loaded with five dum dum bullets and an identifying manufacturer's

ae) Oe eae

«8 ,o% ahaoga 0¢68 .oW . ned
SHT “I

2IOULIII FO THUOO HTALIETIA
TOIAT2IC aMooze

oDSOL .d.A ,mteT yrersdet

to ststa edt to elfqoel oft .
8 fomki iT
TOTUTH nik tasbastoed
wayod edt of torte to J ich
eviarod sxsil To vre00 ,48V

,gidowT oifot Sans asyA aomst
+ Torte al ettitatals

-& ,avod
etiitaisl¢ bayot Waived esl to ¢vtyod yYiavod edv at yiut A sepa
no tedayn [sitee e'retutostvasa edd gaotvomet to yiitug torte ai

-~sieit motvsiroial as at beatedo es ,eltit miésgaimel oltsmotsé as

wor s tot anoltom aniyoob tefTA .i moo Fsdt at belit 9 t0Tot

,tivoo edt yd ,asw dasbactod dose ,toempby, to tasrre of bos Isiat
Ywonin eviee o¢ ,SiiebasY ts mrsi etsia efontiil edt ot Beonetmos
doses ,tnominst akdt wotvet oT .00.00L@ to omit s ysq ot bas eysb
tolbtev edt ¢tsdt ebmetnoo bas tor1i to timW atdd tuo bewe tusbaeteb

-ni ylavcenorte fasoo Leitt edt tat ,somebive edt ot Ytsttmoo at

A Oe ae a ee a

Sivota Isttt wen 8 tot sotvom aled? tedt bas ywt edt betovtte
-eonsbive betevoseif yivea to Bbayotg oft oo beotusrs aood ever
foontetts edt at Aoofo'o tyot twods isedt eexoloetbh oomebive eT :
bos eltdomotys as nit etew totre ai ettitatet[q ,cceL .@S LixagA To
~totat edt tA ,8NL etwoh ap sbnooyal to oss lliV odt davotdt evorb 7

beaasg yedt doidw ote gota s esw eredt ,08 etyoh to 10 itoes }

medt beoslq bas medé dootreve tesitto soifeq yswisid A .bebeediay —
galttie asw gid_owT Snes gnivith esw wey omit tsdd tA .teort1s Toba 4
betewog-dzid oldamotyA os bas efidomotus eft to tsce rset ont at f

tI .teet atgidowl ts soolt oft mo asw ,8 Lebo , sltiz sovgaimes j
a'uetutostuaem gatyititaebit as bas ateliud mb mub svit ditiw bobeol asw

— ee

ae
serial number was completely obliterated. Both were drunk and
in reply to a question by the officer as to what they were doing
with the rifle, said they were hunting pheasants. Plaintiffs
in error thereupon assaulted the officer, attempted to run over
him with their automobile in their emdeavor to escape, and it
was only after a ten mile chase over a gravel road at a rapid
rate of spped, approximately 70 miles per hour, that they were
re-captured.

Counsel for plaintiffs in error insist that the People in
this case relied upon the provision of the Statute to the effect
that possession of a firearm upon which a number has been defaced
is prima facie evidence that the person in whose possession the
gun is found has made the alteration and inasmuch as both defendants
denied that they obliterated the number, this presumption was thereby
overcome and the court should have directed a verdict in their favor.
Plaintiffs in error did testify in their own behalf. Mr. Ryan
testified that he was driving the car; that he first saw the gun
in the office of the Justice of the Peace in Wauconda after his
arrest; that it was not his gun and he did not know whose it was
and that he did not remove or obliterate any number therefram.
Mr. Twohig testified that he did not see the gun in the car the
day he was arrested or know it was there, but that he first saw
it at Wauconda after his arrest. He admitted that he attempted
there to hide it under his coat, but said he was drunk and was
acting in fun at the time. He likewise testified that he did
not remove or obliterate any number thereon. Whether or not this
presumption that the defendants, in whose possession this gun Was
fourid, altered the number thereon, was overcame by the evidence
was a question of fact for the jury to determine and its verdict
indicates that the jury refused to accept the testimony of either
defendant ani we are unable to say they were not warranted in so

doing. While each defendant, on the trial, testified that he did

ts Shes
Bre Aovrs stew dtotl ,botaned tide yletelamo s asw codmusct farted
gitoh stew yedt tadw cat ag tTooltte ett ve toitaesp s ot yiget ak
ettitatsli .aetosasedd gatinod etew yet bise ,oltia edt tt be
Tovo mut ot betqmetts ,tesiito shi betivseas moquersedit torre at
tf bas ,eqsoee of toveobao tiet} mt efidomotus ttedd dtiw mt

bigest s ts bsot levete s teve casdo ofim sot s tetts yino arid
ae hi RIE: aS

etew yods vadt ,twod teg aelim OT ylotamtxomes begga to ‘ete7

_shetutgso~or

at elgoes oft tait tatast torte at ni Site ome. aot a bie iae aN

toetts edt ot stwtat2 odt to soletvote ett noqu befiss easo aldt

Heosteh need est tedmwe s sain focy misetrit ea to fo feaear og stadt

edt soleescaog seodw ai mosteq oft tedt eomebive otost aml g “
atnebaetsb dtod 4s dovemant 64h motteedis od¥ ebam eed pavot eat ows
yderedd aew nottomesi eli? .codmire ott petarot i ido” vente tedt botmeb

wove? then mt tokbyov s BetooctiD ovat Sivore frpds oat ‘prs: iit eA

aeyf .aM .tfated mo «crett at ‘tivaod ‘bib torts of ethitatetd ‘
a ee a Ce a ee a ae porrisaad }

aid tts sbroopsl” nt sopet Srit to ssttent’ eit to edtt ss” oat tt
“gew #f Seow word ton B36 ed Bre firs eid ton est Pe ‘teat “yteorts
““jmorteratt redmon yas sfetetifide 1 evower tom bib Sa death bite
ad} <a0 od¢ Ar nro odd see ton Bre of Farld Seftivees’ gion it

wee tetit af tent tud , ctedd aew fi word 10 befaert a asw eit’ ‘yab i

bodqmetts of Fudd bot timée oh .teetts eta teste sendoweN" sett
2ew bas Anwxbh sew of biee tud .fsoo @in tebmsr +P shld es: etesdt

“pte of dad? bortiveed odtwewit of emt? 6a Fs owt ot! pateda a
“ali? som ro totter? Ltoetedt tedmun yas eteretifdo oe" svdmet’ ‘tei 4
esv MWY atid notassesog eadiw at ,etnablieteb eft tet’ mo enietg
doasbive eft yd omoowwyd abw , MoStedt tedhwir’ sit‘ botet ie” «bite

aude

toibtey tt So5 enimtoted of ywt ect tot toet Yo antteoup a ein .
tert ies 6 ~nomttaet oft tyeoos ot bewstet Cw odt edt GersoLet if

oe mk botnertaw’ fom Siow vont wed ot ‘brdbear ots ow ins tors
“BER of godt betrivaed (te Hts eit ao’ Fannie

Se eR eh ae Ga ey ee a a ee Seen

—_.

iin
not know the gun was in the car and that the first time he saw

it was in Wauconda after his arrest, it was also in evidence that
when questioned at the time of their arrest, by the officer who
made the arrest, they did not deny the ownership of the gun but
stated that they had it for the purpose of hunting pheasants.

It is true they were drunk, but they were sober enough to under-
stand they were being arrested and they endeavored to effectuate

an escape. The jury were the judges of the facts in this case and
the credibility of the witmesses and unless there appears fram all
the evidence a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants,

the jury were warranted in finding them guilty. There was no error
in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty for the defendants,
nor can it be said that the verdict is contrary to the weight of
the evidence,

It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction
number nine, which embodied the statutory definition of an accessory
and then concluded "and if the jury find fram the evidence, beyond
a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, James Ryan, did aid, abet,
assist, advise or encourage the perpetration of the crime as charged
in the information, then the jury are justified in finding said
defendant guilty." Counsel admits that this instruction has been
approved in People v. Nowicki, 330 111. 381, but insist that it
was error to give it because it names James Ryan, and by so doing
assumes that the erime was committed by Twohig. According to the
testimony of the highway officers, the gun was at the feet of Twohig
in the car which Ryan was driving. Under all the evidence and facts
and circumstances in evidence, we do not believe that this instruction
is subject to the criticism directed against it and the court did
not err in giving it. The People v. Arbuthnot, 355 Ill. 577.

The instruction upon circumstantial evidence properly stated
the law as counsel for plaintiffs in error concede and it is not

pointed out in what particular it could have been misleading to

ton
Wse od ‘emit ter Et odd todt Bas tso off at asw mys odd won ton
tent eonebive at oafs daw ti ,taotts ald ‘sodTs sbacouall ot esw th
odw teottto edt ud ~taetts ttodd to anit ¢ ott ts bom Heeyp so siw
wud ovs edt to qidetenw ods hag fos Bib er feetrs outs eben
eatdnsessig gait oud to eaoqive oft rot tf ‘bert yo dé # eat betade
-tehny o¢ davone todoe Sisw yodt iud ,aneth ei6ew yout ewit ei or
stsutostte of betovsebse yedt bas Soteotrs an ted otew yeds busta
has 9aso eidt ia atost edt 7. aeedsf, sil Stsw VIE oat “segsees 1 ae
Ife mxt exsscas otedd iielke bas ‘sinunat ie ‘eit to WiLtd tbore pe
~atmabmoteb edgy to tifug eff To tduob ° tdancases a" sonehive a a
ToTTS on asw otenT — ‘ vdtios mest t gat beet t sit Mavenkenae erow vwt ott
vadisbste%e eds tot utlivg tou ‘to Palkuey 8 toethh od aatester at
to ddetew edt o¢ yret#aoo ef Fotbtev ane + sit bine od ti aso on
7 “soomob ive ‘ont

Hy ey we

ono ttoutt amt aa ivts mt borte dutoo ont deat hobnbtnos icon al oS.

yrosaésob ns ‘to wolttattob yrodudtet a ott hetbodme ‘do Eetw enka xe sm
baovad Menebive eit oxt belt cist odd br bas" bebstonoo nodd bas
.teds bis bib may ae nel tne haeteb ‘edt taild .t dood ol danonset 8
hostado es emits sit to ao Hatt eqtog adit ouetuo ose To oelvbs vteteas
bisa gatbolt oi bortiveut STs yur re; nent ord sarzo AE ort ‘qt
seed est soktouttent aint $ asi adimbs Leanvod "eywlieg jasbas'teb

tk tedt teieat tod . £58 sifI 0&0 , tio two vo faves wt hevoxees
goiob oa yd bas , oeyt gaunt. ae nett th eausoed ot ovis ‘ot. nore eew |
edt ot entb30008 “aldow? yd bod ¢tamp 9 asw emito ous vane nomena
gidow? to foot cit $s aw tos edd (8150 He tomighd edt to veomiieed
atost bre eonobiys edt (fe tebat cont ives asw kanet “dos atw ~e0 oat ak

q
ine el baa eidt tact eveited tom ob ow —: ne ceonsiemott o bab q
:

WWE .LIT 888 ysonsdedtA .v elqood oT ae atv al ‘19 ‘ton
botste vlveqora eoneb ive fatt neta moths stor nokta emt aa
ton ai t+ bas ebeomoo torte mi attitatel¢ ot lel uwce’ 28 wal aus 4

ye
og saibsola tm need oved Aluoo tt talvo téteq dene ‘at Yeo beta bog

Nie a

=f
the jury. Instruction number eight told the jury that flight of
a defendant soon after the commission of an offense is to be
considered by the jury with the other evidence in the case in
determining the question of guilt. Counsel for plaintiffs in
error say there was no flight shown after the commission of the
erime charged in this information. The evidence, however, is that
after the officer placed plaintiffs in error under arrest and
had had the conversation about the gun and took possession of
it that then plaintiffs in error sought to escape. There was
no error in giving this instruction. People v. White, 3$1 Ill. 356.

Instruetion number seven is as follows: "The court im tructs
you in the language of the Statute, that no person shall change,
alter, remove or obliterate the name of the maker, model, manufactur-
er's number or other mark of identification on any firearm. Possess-=
ion of any firearm upon which any such mark shall have been changed,
altered, removed or obliterated, shall be prima facie evidence that
the possessor has changed, altered, removed or obliterated the same."
Counsel for plaintiffs in error insists that this instruction defines
more than one offense and by not including any definition or meaning
of the words 'prim facie', it would be likely to confuse and mis-
lead the jury. The use of the words 'prima facie’ in instructi ons
has frequently been condemned. People v. MeCurrie, 337 Ill. 290:
People v. Sikes, 328 Ill. 64: Grosh v. Acom, 525 Ill. 474: Johnson
v. Pendergast, 308 Ill. 255: People v. Tate, 316 Ill. 52 and
Riddle v. Mansager, 254 Ill. App. 68, In People v. Beck, 505 Ill.
595, however, an instruction using these words was approved, and
while this instruction does define more than one offense, it is
in the language of the Statute and in our opinion no reversible
error was committed in giving this instruction.

In support of plaintiffs in error's motion for a new trial,
the affidavit of Lillian Ryan and Wm. Scott Stewart, the attorney
representing plaintiffs in error,was submitted to the Court. In
her affidavit, Miss Ryan stated that shortly after the arrest of

her brother, she visited Wauconda and the surrounding territory and

ee | colin
| to ¢dgitt tadt yout edt blot tdyte wedmun no btowatenl . wart oth
o@ O8 @i esnetto ws to oo feeimmo jettt 16d s coos Puehiaeted ia

gi saso ett xt eonsbive tonto oft diw yout oft nd Hetebl ancy
mt att itntale vot LeanveD ) witvg ho metteerp edt gat oterceteal

eft. te aoleetamoo oe! tovts awoidle tigi ft on esw oredt yge sorte

bas deserts Tebayr tows ai cttiteisle beosl¢ tooLt to ait tedte

to motagesaog dood base ou ead tuods sobtaerevaon odt- bat back

oo ‘on otedil..eqaoke of tdavea terre of -atttiaiels aed? gett at
0888 ,LfT LAS ,~ed LAY ov ofqoet. .sottornisni atdé satvip al torte on

|
|
|

ptoutt act tuvao edt” sewollot as ef. aceves tedaum aocitomiteanh: a¢¢
egueds [fede nosteq on tedt ,stutats edt to egeygmel -edt tt vor
-ivtosinnem ,fsbow ,votsm edt to onan edt efatettide so svomet qiat tiie
~egeeesod .mreetit yas so aottsottitaeht To trea redto ta codmart 2 Mt)
dbonnedo need ovat {lede Ate dose yoe ‘dotdy moqy mrsetét pote Yo mot
ted? eonehive elost amitg od Diede .botetetiide: to bevromet: detetis:
",emse ont Setstetilido te fevomet potetia .fesnaio mad soneoesog at:
eegitebh aciteoriteant aint tedt edatent torte ai etiLinisiq sot Ts
gtinsem to woitinived yao adh info? ton ydo hes eanetto ead hedt’etom 2
~eim Baa eataca ot yfetil od Binow ti yfetoet agtag’ aftow ‘edt ‘te!
ato Douttent <i ‘afost estitc’ abrew ed¢ To: ear velT. sya ste eean®
7008. LIT VSS ,ektawdoN :.v =ali¢aet ~barinabn 9 ta od ~eetmenip owromads
noamdiot BVA, ELE @82. moons vereeth 1285, ,£22°888 pwede '.+ eidoet"
bots SACLET OLS geteT ov shoe 18ee wtLt B08 -dasgtebaet care

~LLP 808 post wv eiqoed mf p89 .oeh .£TT d68 (repeal). v efibea?

ai ti ,eanetto oso ntctt 6tom aniteh eeoh mottourt ent ant ‘e.bhdw)
vald terevet on noisgiqe wo mt bie atts eo2. att To: og sug at “ede vot t
wWOobtodntes! etid galvis ot .betttimds son ato

eisits wens tat agbtom a'totte at atiiteielq ‘to troqqua al
yemnothe ont ytrewet® tose val) bob eye We LELAT Mo strep itnsledt!

to taevts edt totts yitrofa tadt beotete ney ae th tivebitts to

base ytotictet gatbawotiwe ent bas shnoous! bet In iv ede

tadt et ,tovowod ,sonebivoved? ,aoltenyotnt atdt al-begreds edtiva

ae ,boverqqé waw abiow comedy? outer nottount ant nao prevewod > Bee!

alo ,tuo0 end of Bothindvea asaw, torte ‘at ettitarale | wh Binessteet ;

—

made inquiry of various persons in an endeavor to learn the move-
ments of her brother during the day of his arrest. That her brother
had informed her that at the time of his arrest, he was so drunk

that he had no recollection of the places he visited except that

he remembered going to several road houses and drank beer and whiskey
therein, That following his conviction by the jury on May 25, 1955,
the Chicago American, on the following day, carried a news article
concerning the trial and at noon on that day she received a telephone
call from someone who refused to give his name, advising her that

the rifle which was offered and admitted in evidence upon the trial
of this cause, had been purchased from Hibbard, Spencer and Bartlett,
wholesale hardware dealers in Chicago, some years before. Thah an
examination of the gun would disclose that it also had sergal numbers
on the inside, and that from these the name of the person who owned
the gun at the time the outside serial number was removed could be
ascertained, as the then ower had taken the gun to a gunsmith for
repairs, but that affiant had been unable to locate this gunsmith
but coneluded that if she was given an oppatmity to run down this
informatio, she would be in a position to prove that the numbers

on this gun had been removed a long time prior to the time that the
law under which this Infomation was drawn went into effect. Mr.
Stewart, in his affidavit, stated that on May 26, 1935, as soon as

he received the information contained in the affidavit of Miss Ryan,
he immediately got in touch with Mr. Setchel, a gun expert in the
employ of Hibbard, Spencer and Bartlett Company and was informed

that his company hed discontinued keeping any record of any serial
numbers of guns similar to the one od fered in evidence in this case
and had no record of the purchase of any rifle similar to the one
involved. In this affidavit Mr. Stewart states that Mr. Setchel
explained to him the manner in which serial numbers were placed
inside of guns of this model and thereafter affiant went to Waukegan
and in the wesence of the State's Attorney inspected the gun and

found that it bore on the inside in two places and also stamped on tke

> no, bemstea ols bas eeoslg owt ai ebleat sdé oo, ot ec

~G=

« ee
a)

~svom oft omsel of tovsebne, a6 ai anoateq avoinsy to XN tivpaL of sat

1
M
‘y
4

tedvoid tod ¢sdT -.t¢eoerrs aid te. ysh ant: aniwwb tedtexd. ted 2e RAR OE
doth on sawed ,taoute aid Fo omit ent ta dedt math, bommuch bad

tadt tgeoxe betiaiv er seosly asl: to moitootiooes on Ded eat. tent
yodaidw hos seed. dasrd das noawosl bsonr Letever ot guies beredmemes.od
ELL GS Yall co YINt aft xd sido Lynoo.eis gatweLlod tadT,.tenerds
elotiisa awea s beiwiso, .ysh gnivollot edt no .meoizomA ogsoidd, odd
enodgoled, s bevisocest ode yeb, tadd ao neon ts bas Ietat.edt. eatane ange
t silt, ted anteivis.,omsx sid evin of heavtet ow. enoomoe, mort; Lime |
het tt ent poqu eonshive ni bett tobs bas betelio aor. Hak ta, oLtht oni
.ttelttsd bas teoreqe .itaddill spit bee sdouug mead. bad ),savaso ad 20
ms fedT .otoied aiasy ems ,oqseidd. «at atelseb etewhusd, etosetose |
ateduys Lottes bat oala ti tait eaoloa bb brow, surg o lt 10. It entmexe
hemre ony moateq eff to emat oft esedt mott tedt bos.,chtaal. odd 0
# Uwoo bovomet enw tedawa Leitee ebiatwo edd, amt oct ts, aug eatt

> Mat dvlewavg 2 ot sg edd nexet Jed yeawo aedt odd as sbeonbatioons
>, oid Lomog etdt efsool of oldenu acasd Sad taattis a
aids awoh aut o¢ ytimt pago ae covig aew oda- BL tact bebsLono.o., tud
_atodma of? todd evowr.ot moLtiaog smh od bivow eda, cold smxetat

eit Tsdt eait edt ot colwq otd gaol s beyomet aeed. dst aug aidt go
oT ,foette otat, txow aweth asm mottesmotgl aldt doidw tebay.wal
88 fooe Bs ,280L .62 Ye mo steuit betate giiveblite atd at trewole

Wsy aeiM fivshitts edt a! deaistaod acitammotal edt, boy loaet.ed ;
edd asf ttegze aug s ,fedote® xi min dovot atdog Uetsibemmt et —
bommotni 2ew dae yxeqmod tteliied bas toomeq’, .Sreddih to, yotqms

isitea yrs to Sroses ye gxigeoX heumitnooalb bed ynagmoo eid ated a
oxso add mi esnehive at bere?» oso odt.of telimia eowg to, axedmya
ono eft.ot,tslimta olliz yas To. easdom,” edt. to, ost Dail Bas q
fedote? . 1M tadt aetate txewet®.. 1M, tivebitte eidt.ol . .beyLoyat 4

, beoalg otow. exedaara Leiiss doidw ob tennem edd mtd od, hontalqxe a

tagodue ot tasw dasttts tediseredt Sos Lebom als Lo agua, to, ebiaut a
bas oug edd Sevoegant yenwittsA aletst®.odt To. eomeee Atte bedee

Say alee ee)
Se we

af the stock, serial No. 64523. That affiant thereupon wired the
manufacturers at Bridgeport, Connecticut, requesting the name

of the dealer and date of sale of this gun as shown by the records
of that Company, but was informed by the company that it lad not
kept such a record for several years. By this affidavit it also
appears that Mr. Stewart was not affarded an opportunity of
examining the gun prior to the trial.

The only suggestion made by counsel in connection with the
showing made by plaintiffs in error for a new trial on the gound
of newly discovered evidence is that the witness for the People
who testified that the serial number of this gun did not appear
on the inside of this model was mistaken, as the subsequent
examination of the gun demonstrated. Neither this fact or any
other matter contained in the affidavits of Lillian Ryan a@
plaintiffs in error's distinguished counsel would have warranted
the trial cow t in awarding a new trial.

This record is free from reversible error and the judgment
of the County Court of Lake County is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

edt wW bonnet! eaw “tnd .vaoqn8 tact to
; tet Dagetd ph eames
oals te tivabtrts atidt ve -2-15Y Lorevee ‘103 br0087 F ‘dove tqow a

et yeep eee et. :
meh A EEF vrs > Sn

to We invtteqao ms bebntts tom naw oawed? vat ‘ted? arseqqs —

Ps 4 PA ede Sai
ieitt o sit ot moire arg edt gainimsxe

bit), aly

ont tin to aanast ut Leanuoo w ob sut nottaes aya “nm oft

#2 h a % #7 k re ee
; s £ &

2 puso ent feel teint ‘Wom s tot ‘torte at ottitatale ate ebsm ait Lwo

alqoet exit tot enon tw oat tant at eouobive besovooeib \irex
ees bs Pans 4

SER DATS 5 a Ki

Botnsrisw oved Plow Toadies Bodatupm tens al \aorre 4 2 att ae
ay it, BE egy rly NL i
isha Wort 8 aatbrews at d mee Leind od

fnemgbut edd ‘bus Toure eldtarevet work gort ¢ at Sr00st oF hate
Cie nee | ¥ i pele nigeted wyts pea a
| sbomittts al ‘yinir09 oie to ‘109

=a t
COTTA THEMOCG ;

——

SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court. in and

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

SS.
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.

of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Appellate Court. at Ottawa. this day of

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—8-32) «7

beg"

: i is psy)
oan Car

Higed tor aris! afd zit, Wie i lh tai ‘age «tin we
vu a aa

pf ie Phr engred esac ty se

verity Lricay Att ante frit.

7 $40 : gas |

2 as

ae, ~ f : a
AT A TERM OF THE APPEEDATE COURT Yi
4 ; f or Ps A 5

day of February, in

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, ) e
| the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. ZTATA. Ge e
7 =

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APk 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

_ . PCR Wrest Cad

ia Ny % ey AN -
, nh at A Doe AL ee he die eG50eanT am, anateo t2 bled Ba,

giv = (°rhut bas Sathivd sin Bagevods sno fared

; senident® 2700-28 iT CAMARS aio =
i eee - 2 ie “wy

is softeut (RACOTOR SHIAIN .nok

i € - ie on se T3lO vnc A ovr iCh rts aut eU0t : *
4 ; : x ie a ee
. stkitaia ,ASTIE¥

oe rn 2 ene ’ tt tof eb oe etn tn cette pn eetinsee

uw i7lw-o: ,sbhisrveioe oo ia ts ads

7 Bat nf Aelit saw trusod edt io neat edt...
= ~ 7 qi. Se Ley gee

h?ow § ti jéxvod Sise

"Gen. No. 8707 Agenda No. 5
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
4 February Term, A. D. 1934
- John H. Rusch, Receiver of the
First National Bank of Polo,
j Appellee,
VS. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Ray D. Hedrick, Administrator of Ogle County
_ the Estate of Martha C, Hedrick,
deceased,

Appellant,

DOVE-J,

Prior to April 2, 1930, Ross R, Hedrick was indebted to the
_ Exchange National Bank of Polo, Illinois in the sum of $9,250.00,
and on that date, as evidencing said indebtedness, he executed and
delivered to said bank four notes, each dated April 2, 1950, one
| for $6,000.00, one for $1,500.00, one for $1,000.00 and one for
' $750.00. On May 19, 1930 the $1,500.00 note and the $750.00 note
; were combined and 2 renewal note taken for $2,250.00, and this note
Was executed by Ross Hedrick and his mother, Martha ¢. Hedrick, and
@éelivered to and accepted by the bank. Subsequently, Martha Hed-
Tick executed and delivered to the Exchange National Bank of Polo,

Illinois the following instrument, viz:
"Guaranty to Benk July 3, 1930

fo the Exchange National Bank
Polo, Illinois
Gentlemens:

In consideration that you will make advancements
from time to time to Ross R. Hedrick, I hereby
guarantee the payment of any future balance that may
be due to you from said Ross R. Hedrick on account of
Notes, bills, loans, payments or advancements, grow-
ing out of financial transactions whereby the said
Ross R. Hedrick shall become indebted to you. I also

guarantee payment of notes now owed to you by said
Ross R. Hedrick in the amount of $9,250.00.

a ae

|
;
@ .of sbasyé Fors .on 8) |
etomillt to tod etslleqqa eft at
tolxteaid baooos

ASOL .d@ .A ymKeT YtswidsT zi

edt to tevisoef ,doenh .H aslo
,ofeg to ansd@ Isaottst texlt
,oslisaqa .
to tivod stivorid edt mort Iseqqa av r
yinwod els0 to to¢extetaimba ,aottbeH c YS
AoitbeH .0 sdézsil to etstam adit

‘ ae ae

a
ae
bos ©

,melloqga

edt ot betdebat asw AoitbeH .A aaom ,O8CL .& Lhxqa of stoked
,00.088 ,@% to me ot mt atomt{Ir ,ofo% to Ansh Lanottst egnado!
bas betuosxe ed ,aasnbetdebat btsa xatomebive as .etsb tedt m0 &
emo ,08@L .S Litqa betsbh dose ,seton wot Ansd bise of berevites
tot emo bas 00.000,[% tot emo ,00.008,1f3 tet ome ,00.000,8% 0%
stor 00,08%$ edt Sas stom 00.008,18 edt OSCE CL yam ao .00,08%4
ston atdt bas .00.088,.8# tot asast eton I[swenet s bas beatdnos ecee
bas ,otubel .0 sdéisM ,xedtom atid bas doitbe aaoh yd betioexe a

~beH sivas ,ylinasypsedye .iained edt yd betqeoos bas of borevileb

,oloY to asd Isnoidsi egasdox¥ edt ot betevileb bas betuoexe 20M
:siv ,éveourtant gaiwollot edt atontit
O&eL .& yLut inseh§ ot yinetasp" «v6

dansG§ Isnoitsu egasdoxgi edt of one
efomifIl ,olo¢ "
iftemeltmep

atnemsonsvhs exsm [ftw voy tadt aotistebiemos aI es
ydeted I ,joitvbeH . esol of omit o¢ omit mort

yeu tedt sonsled eiutut yoa to taemysq oft setnstsuyg
to tavooos mo dofiitbeH .Al aeofl bisa mort yoy ot eub od
-worg ,etaemeonsvbhbs 10 atmemysq ,ansol ,allid ,setoxv
bisa sdt ydetedtw anottosansrd I[stonsnit to two gat
oefs I .soy ot betdebat smooed [isda AotibeH .f e808
bisa yd voy ot bewo wom eeton to taemysq eetns by
-00.02@8,.08 to tavome edd ot AoitbeH .f

It is understood, however, that my liability under
this agreement shall not exceed $9,250.00 Dollars and
that it shall continue only for a period of two years
from the date of this instrument.

MARTHA C. HEDRICK
ROSS H. HEDRICK
Witness"

On July 5, 1930, Ross Hedrick renewed his $1,000.00 note and
on October 3, 1930 he again renewed it, delivering the renewal notes
to the Exchange National Bank. On August 26, 1930, the $6,000.00
note was renewed by Ross Hedrick and these instruments and the
$2250.00 note executed by Ross Hedrick and his mother Martha Cc.
Hedrick upon which his mother had paid $750.00 on October 9, 1930
were held by the Exchange Natkonal Bank of Polo when it went into
liquidation prior to October 20, 1930. Subsequently The First
National Bank of Polo, Illinois was organized, and on October 20,
1930 some of the assets of the Exchange National Bank were, for a
valuable consideration, duly assigned and transferred by the Exchange

—

Netional Bank to the First National Bank of Polo. A mong the

—

assets so assigned were these notes of Ross Hedrick and his mother
and this instrument of guaranty dated July 2, 1950. On February 28,
1931 Ross Hedrick executed and delivered to the First National Bank
of Polo his note for $6,000.00 in renewal of his former note for a
like amount, and on May 19, 1931 executed and delivered to The First
National Bank of Polo his note for $1500.00 representing the balance
due on the note which had been signed by himself and his mother.
Subsequently Martha C. Hedrick died and The Fyrst National Bank of
Polo having gone into the hands of a Receiver, appellee, as such
Receiver, filed in the County Court of Ogle County its claim against
her dutete. The claim as filed had attached thereto a copy of the

: note of February 28, 1931 for $6,600.00 and a copy of the note of

| May 19, 1931 for $1500.00, and recited that the amount represented

P by these notes wes due and unpaid and is a claim against the estate

of Martha G. Hedrick because she guaranteed to the Exchange National

CUS pte! eee i
b tira Ae we ly wes eh

tebau ytiltdetl vm. tadt ..teveved. Sootatebas ef tI
bas atellod 00.088,03 hesoxe tom Ifsde tnomeetgs etd? .
arssy owt to botieg as tok yfao ewmitmoo IIsda ti tadé
acasaugoiondiainayl aldd to etsbh sit mort —

MOIRGEH .D AHTHAM Pie og
AOLHCGH: Ki. 2208 tiet
"aaond LW
bas stom 00,000,1¢ aid bewenet tolrben anon oeer a it ‘10
aston Lswesnet ade anitevileh ,ti Dewenet ntsss “ont O&CL .€ tedetoo mo

00.000,d% od¢ 088 (98 tavaua m0 vinsé Leno ltsi egasitoxe ode of
vee

edt bas nderomared ants eaedt bas dotsbor anos ‘wd bowene iad ‘od i

10 sdéusli todtom aid bas dotcbell aac yd ‘betwoexe ston 0.0 :
OseL ,.€ redetoO mo 00,0878 bisq bed tedt ou etd doidw soqst “sor bor
otai toew ti medw ofot to amet Iesoktan euitedoxe ect yd Died wane
taxiq eft yvitaempeadue .0c@L ,C& redoted of tolrq nokta kupht

,O8 “1edots0 moans jbeainagno ase atosff{{l ,olot<te Ans Lemott sn

& Tet ,etew dared Isnottst: ¢gnsdoxk odt<To aveons edd to omen
eunadoxk: edtoxyd betietansut bas beagises yinh ,sokteteblanoo. eldess
ent: gstont A “,0Lo@ Ro unset Isnofitst tery edt) oF, dag),

sodtom ats bas wolnheH aaeh to estoa .seadt exew beme teas ons
,88UrsKideT sO .086L Bylot betab viastews to dmeaustant ekdthb
ainsi [encitsy gatlt edt of bexevifok bas betwoexs wottheHispon J
& Tot stom tsmtot eff To Lewemet mi 00.000,3¢ set otom etd.efot, 2
vexed Sot ot berevideb bas Hetysers £40L Cfo yelomo bas a
eomslsd ect gaivnesetget 00.008L¢ tet etom. ad: ofot) ie Kaos 0%
-tedtom eid bus tleamtd yd bemgte meed bad dotawietom, edd -mor

to dasd Leniitsy teat; % oq bas beib doithsHo4 do add raeek t Lips 2
fovea as ,selleqqe ,tevigost s te Bbiedo oni) od atk: iperys uatved
teanisys mislo ati ytanwod efs0 to t10d yhewod edd mt "satan

set frye
etstes ont Pentssa mist . s ak bas btag ons pegsre or

a ee a

Bank of Polo, assignor of The First National Bank of Polo, the pay-
ment thereof, The claim then set forth the guaranty verbatim and
stated that the original notes were made payable to the Exchange
National Bank, but tefore they became due they were purchased, with
other assets, by the First National Bank of Polo and were renewed
in the name of The First National Bank.

In order to reduce Ross's indebtedness to the maximum sum
allowed by law and thus permit the newly organized First National Bank
to take over his notes as assets, Martha Hedrick executed and de-
livered to the First National Bank her note for $1750.00. Approximately
a year later the First National Bank tock judgment ageinst Ross upon
his several notes and this resulted in Ross filing a voluntary peti«
tion in bankruptcy and he was subsequently edjudged a bankruot. The
Hearing in the County Court resulted in a judgment for the Adminis-
trator and upon an appeal to the Circuit Court a jury was waived
and a judgment rendered in favor of the claimant for $6492.41, and
the Administrator of the Estate of Martha Hedrick, deceased, brings
the record to this court for review by appeal.

Appellant first insists that this was a conditional guaranty
on the part of Marthe ¢. Hedrick and unless and until the Exchange
National Bank advanced or loaned additional money to Ross Hedrick,
she was not liable upon this instrument. That the word "advancements"
as therein used meant future loans and that inasmuch as the evidence
disclosed that no additional sums were loaned Ross Hedrick, the
guaranty was without consideration.

In the construction of contracts, courts will give to the
language employed the meaning intended by the parties. At the time
this instrument was executed Ross Hedrick was indebted to the Bank
in the sum of $9250.00 as therein stated. The Bank wanted this loan
secured. When two of the notes matured, Martha Hedrick signed them

with her son and the guaranty was obtained in order to obviate the

tg WOM leer! Se eee
A Oe ie Sa ake

ODL IP EL A | Sen

Se Se

> Us#tsmixorgca .00,080L% rot etom red snag Lenoltel terit, ong ot, borer

pe Re

—yaq edt oLod to atest Leno téei textt ost te omg lane alot he.
has mivadtov Ytasxasry oid dtro® tes ode po ect “wtosiedt 4 anes
eansdox: edd ot efdsysq eism eiew eetosm tanigizo eat add beiste

ditiw .Deasdotuq stew yedt omb smsoed yedt exoted isd: inst ‘Lenoltst :

beyenes. sxew bas ofot to Aneq Leasoitsy. tanit: sds yd 4838585 terito i

. -tnal Isnoitsh: tatrt eat Xo sree alt abs

dash Issotist tari Deatnegro yiwen edt timmeq audd bas wal, vd. home.

eb bas bejwoexs Agithek site .aveeas es aeton ald. vevo, sast ot

moqy aeof fansises dmomgbut Moot dosd Lepotist, terty, odd. Kegel, Taey,

oat sicseie 5 bes soy Lbe sieeve aie hich etasduaied a
~eisimhsé odf tot toembyt a at betfvaet, dusop y#awed ead ok :
., Seview asw Yigt 2 timed ¢ivettO. edt.ot Leeqqs, a8,,c0qR. bas.
bas ,f, sense zot tagalelo edt to tovet at, betebser trompburt Bish
agnitd .SDsessoeb ,dolshel adftsM. to. etstad.edd.to soterte tuba, ead:
nee _siseqge yd welvet tot ¢iv0e aidd.o¢ spROngR aah:
ytestsiy tae: tibses s.ese asdt teat atatecd decit, taslleaga )
egtedomd edt Litmy bas eastay bas. softball, .O edsneM te, freq edt m0
.AoizbeH.eaos ot yao Lanoliibhs,bsasel to beogsvds Agsd ».
EARERAS Siow sat gedl ,ineowrtent aldt aoqu eldetl an i

ait eee ane henent Stow ame Meeathline Ont nrg ¢ ;

so, fotteteblancg pala: ast

ails ot nite, Ltn, siz2109 tastizos Lo sottouneno9 ent Ak. cree

ontt ent tA _snettzsg, oat yo behnetal gatosem ont bey xetame. Dod MS
ned odd ot betdebat esw dotthel saof bedvoaxe acy, tnoaureteat . at
asol eist betray Ansa oft . -betete aigtsdt as 00, QBSRE To swe

mods bem ta Aoitber sities dewtse aston. pat. ig, 2S A
eat Sisivde ot xebto at bentatdo. _ aay a Taig <

necessity of having the mother sign each note or a renewal thereof

as they became due. At the time the assets of the Exchange Bank
were transferred to the newly organized First National Bank, Mrs.
Hedrick gave her further note in order to reduce the indebtedness

of her son. In our opinion this guaranty was absolute and uncon-
ditional. It recited that Ross Hedrick owed the Exchange Bank
$2250.00 at the time the instrument was signed. It contained an
absolute, unqualified guaranty on the part of Mrs. Hedrick to pay

the notes evidencing that amount. The notes evidencing these

amounts were canceled and surrendered and new instruments extending
the time of payment thereof were executed by Ross and accepted by the
Bank, This guaranty was assigned, for a valuable consideration, by
the Exchange Bank to the First National Bank, and thereafter the First
National Bank, relying upon this instrument and being the beneficiary
thereof, surrendered to Ross the notes which he had executed to the
Exchange Bank, and accepted from himnew notes due at future dates.
The principal debtor became a bankrupt and the indebtedness having
matured, the estate of the guarantor is liable therefor. Any act which
ts a benefit to one party and a disadvantazce to the other is a val-
uable consideration. Schlatter v. Triebel, 284 Ill. 412; Pedaple v.
Commercial Life Insurance Co., 247 Ill, 92; Buchanan v. International
Bank, 78 Ill. 500; Byrch v. Hubbard, 148 Ill. 164. Martha Hedrick
executed and delivered this guaranty to the Exchange National Bank

in lieu of executing renewal notes as the several notes of her son
which the bank then held became due. Mrs. Hedrick knew of the in-
debtedness of her son to the bank. She must have gonsidered it to

be to her advantage to assume the obligation ccnteined in this in-
strument by reason of which the bank did not press her son for pay-
ment or require her signature to the renewal notes, but was content
to meky rely upon her guaranty instead, and this benefit to Mrs.
Hedrick and the corresponding disadvantage to the bank constituted

von

nO oP pba Te a an
LE eee of), Sea Peas itu
‘cope ie
Nite? J

abe
toereiit CaweasY « ro stom Moss opie xédton ed? galved te ytleasosn
Mnet eghadoxat ext to atseas sAd amtd ont ta ‘sub sisood Yedt as.
a0 ,aned Lendtten tackt bestissro Ylwen 6d? ef boxzetamant stew
‘ghonbStdehkt ext eoubex of tehto nt stom sdfxwt tell gia! forsbeH
_noonb bus atuloads sev ritistacy ett motatqo tuo aT “moa weit to |
ined egmedoxd edt bewo Hobehoh aeoH tends hottoer tr ‘Heaoteth

ns bemksinos ¢I beste asw tnetwioteat ont sutt edt te 90. Osseo
Veq of Aolubeh .acM to txs¢ edt ao ténetairy beitileupay ‘ohutoads

easat grtoned tre eeton sit + Freon tedt gutomshive sedon 8 a. |

4 rant

“watbhsstxs ainenirttent wea bas betebaerive bas befeomso exew ‘gia :
ert yd Stiqecss bas 208 “ud bedvesxe eto ‘toeredd daeavn 20 onl? ot

“yd \wottetebtenoe efdauley s tot ,bamises wer Cematite ait oo ae
daxiY off redtsevedd bar inet Ianottew gaxit eff of dns ‘egandoxt ak
yratottsned edt airted has tusmerrten! aidt stocsis ghivien Healt reno ts ‘ae

eit ot Ketyoexs bed eX doth aeton atts BRonk of bovebme tae Toot

Me ory
ean

.86¢e8b otutvt te sub eeton wom mid mox <t batcesos bis (nse ‘S t
“gtrived easnbstdebrt adt bite Janwestned < 8 dinosd sotdeb Yeetontey oat si)
doidw tos yaa »totetedt SL0et! ef votmetasy edt Yo sts aves ‘bald cbeutan "
~fe% a oP vette bcfF 6e eskinevbserh & phe” Gied bno oF FERRY 2 at
.v SlaSed ;SF4 .fE7 SBg [fedeten wv tettstioe Vxoltstébtades eidau
fenottentetal .¥ mansdout j8@ TIT Tae (.00 sometheat oth Latoneateo
Aeinber sditew bef ILI Shr .baaddya iv doup,a | 008° .ffy 8 tm a .
wins Isnoitet svtihdosg edt of Vinsiaey ated berevise® bas betuoexs

moe ted to astom Istevea edt es adtom Tawenet gattvoaxs to te wort mt
~ti sit te wand doitbeH .2tM .enh omaoed bred nedé “aasd eat ati
ot th beted steno ‘eved Fesn ade ‘ahed et of nog ‘aed to caenheddeb
-at atdt wt beatstnoo mottagildo ‘end siweas ot agavanvbs “naa are

soe Re OM fet er
-yeq tot sos toe ‘anette ton bib anad sd doldw to onset “ed ee wn

a me REM

dnetmoo aew tid .aétom Lawénoy oft OF siwtomste ert stipes to ¢neam
wo scr

VD RES eT

au of ateasd wane brs Sudedaatt eisai ned phy onl pou

oe San

the consideration for the execution of this guaranty.

This instrument of guaranty, while not negotiable, could be
assigned so as to give the assignee an equitable title thereto, and
it passed as an incident to the assignment of the notes, 28 ¢. J.
943. Usually the transfer of a debt carries with it, as an incident,
all the securities which the assignor may have for its payment.

SR. Cc. L. 979. The assignment of these notes by the Exchange Bank
to the First National Bank carried with it the guaranty, and vested
in the assignee a right to sue upon the guaranty in its own name.
Elisworth v. Harmon, 101 Ill. 374.

fhe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed,

# ott

seman awe ett nk sideciicrtio’ oie e's nm. no

. ¥

af eh oth

y Sia eran, dak Mal

NSIS ee

al bomzsita toughest

fh ate IE)
WAR BAe

TATE OF ILLINOIS, i
Ss

SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.
of record in my office.

. In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Appellate Court, at Ottawa. this day of

_____in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
3815—5M—3-32) f3bo7

Gee eon beak tire dearly grb) yey

ofthe doe bse. atl alba bet Fortaanl’ 714, Jk alowed tthe

Ba ap Dyacnauke lt A ash ea ith orci

Sint Euaneninetinnna bated se Te Tha eld, Ane yan

er Co

mh sists") ebay tyarey &

perc ir

ae 61 oe Cee

SEP reser
%,

U4/

spbage couRT,

}

Begun and held at Ottawa, ow Tuesday, fhe eo day of February, in

the year of our Lord o thousand ing’ funaped and thirty-four,

within and for the Setond Distrig¢t of: State of Illinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Leen age Justice.

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.

BE. J. WELTER, Sheriff. 2'¢ 6 4 | I.A. 6 ra i

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the

Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

? ? _
im _, ' i ale _
| ' . 77

sles ey ier mk
i * \ *

Ge inte iced: Sou ted tees ws ~~ qeboant go - eer te biter tad

P
~
af
hee
ak
Tee om
=
me
s ad

ie ‘

it bebesods age brod to fo TEBE

sarttat® Hrosel ety tok bam

7 pivot yeihigert a LLOF we CaaS,
sited. » FYOG* “hbo

<eottast ,MAMSUUN gutate

snort

i a a

Gen. No. 8571 Agenda Noe 9.

IN THE
APPELLATE C OURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

October Term, AD. 1952.

Lawrence H. Williams, Admr. of the
Estate of Stanley Buches, degeased,
Plaintiff in Error,
VSe irror to Circuit Court,
MeHenry County.
Chicago and Northwestern Railway
Company, a carporation,
Defendant in error.
HUFFMAN =J 5

This writ of error is prosecuted by plaintiff in error, as
administrator of the estate of Stanley Buches, from the giving by
the trial court of a peremptory instruction at the close of all
the evidence, on behalf of the defendant in error,

The case arose out of e railroad crossing aecident which
occurred in the city of Harvard, in MeHenry county, Illinois,
on October 24, 1929, at about six o'clock in the evening.

The tracks of defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant,
at the crossing in question consisted of two main tracks and seven
switch tracks. The min tracks were in the center of the crossing
with three switch tracks on one side and four upon the other. State
Highway number nineteen and twenty-three intersect and join about
one mile south of this erossing. The tracks at the crossing run
in an east and west direction and the state highway rus north and
south. On the evening in question plaintiff's intestate was driving
his automobile north upon the above hishway. When he came to this
erossing, the same was blocked by a switch engine and a train af
freight cars. The deceased brought his car to a stop. Two motor

vehicles were between his car and this crossing. The first of these

was a truck. Immediately in front of the deceased's car was a

»@ ,.o sbrezi £va8 .om aed fre:

aHT AI
GLOWVLITL TO THUOD ATALLAITA
TOMTeard aMoore

eSSCL .G.A ymreT tedotod

edt to .xmbA ,emsilliv .H eometwsl
~Deesete) ,sefonG yelast2 to otstal
,TOTTH ai TrWatslT
~tmod tivettd o¢ torr | +2v
sYioued yrasHol
yewlish nretaewdiro base opsotdd
,folisiogms B ,YAsqmo
stotte ai toasineted
G-WAMT WH
es ,torte at tiitatsiq yd betyooro1rq at torte to tim aldT
yd uaivin off mort ,esdosd yeluste to etstas edt to rotsitetaimbs
ffs to saofo sdt ts nottourttant yrotamsteq s to tawoo Isirt odd
»Torrs ai tashbaeteh edt To tLaded no ,sonobive ont
doidw tnebioos znataeots baeotlist s Ito tyo saots saso oAT
.stontifl ,ytaveo yimeHoM at ,bisvisH to yio edt ak betuss90 © a
spoineve oft mt aoofo'o xia tyods ts ,eSeL .S8 tedofs0 mo
~insbhaoteh boliso settsniered ,10Tre mi tasbasteb to sxoaitt eAT
nevee bas exosisy atem owt To hbetatanoo aotteerp at antaroro edt ts 4
siteaote oft to tetaeo oft at etew exostt atan edT .exoett dotiwa
etet& .asdto eft aoqy tvot bas shia sno mo adtostt dotiwe setdt dtiw
tuods aiot Bus toeatetnt serdt-ytoows bos mostonta tedmyna yawigih

mur gotasote edt ts avostt ofT .aniesoto atdd to ditwoa olim eno a

aoivith esw otstzetat atttitais{q aotteoup af gatneve odt a0 .dtyor ¥
eidt ot emeo of med .yewdetd evods edt moqu dtren olidomotys etd
} nist? 8s bas eninne dotiwe s yd bexeoold esw omse odd ,anteaoto 4
tofom owl .qote s of te9 ald tisyord beassoeh eff .etso tdatert
esaadt to darit od? .gnieaoto etdt bas tso eid meowted stew acloidev j

B asw 180 e'hbeasessh odt to tnortt ait yletaibemml .aoutt s asw

eS
passenger car. Cars were also lined up on the north side of the
crossing, waiting an opportunity to proceed south. Defendant's
switch engine was stending with the freight cars upon the main
track that is desigmted as the north main track, upon which east
bound traffie was carried. Defendant's main track upon which west
bound traffic is carried is on the south side of this track upon
which the freight train was standing. This south main track must
first be crossed by deceased tefore he could cross the track upon
which the train of freight cars was standing,

Defendant company had a watchman or crossing flagman at this

crossing, who was in possession cf a red lantern and who was direct-
ing traffie at that time. He had stopped the traffic on account of
the switeh engine and train of freight cars that were then across
tne crossing. About five minutes after the truck had stopped, the
switching crew cut the train of freight cars for the purpose of
opening the crossing to traffic. The locomotive pulled the cars

to which it was attached, far enough to clear the crossing, where=-
upon defendant's crossing flagman or watchman, walked out upon the
crossing, looked to the east and west, and then with his red lantern
Signaled the ears on both sides of the crossing to proceed. The
three cars upon the south side of the crossing, which were headed
by the truek, proceeded to cross over the tracks. The evidence
shows that they proceeded together as one car, with about four

feet between cach car, and that they moved in this manner upon and
across the tracks of defendant company. Cars from the north side
were crossing to the south. When the deceased reached the defendant's
south main track upon which the west bound traffic was carried, his
ear was struck by a fast passenger train and he was killed. The
erossing watchman did not see the approach of this train when he

Signalled the traffic to proceed across the crossing. He does claim

x Bh a a

I a tal
i “a fi

edt tevsbiad¢ron edt no qu bemil oals etew aiad TOS togtoessy
, e'iasbasted .dtgoa beesomy ot yinsttogce as gnitiew ,3gnleeors c
| Xtem edt soqu etso dipiert eur itt padbants esw onizne dot twa -
| tase doidw noqu ,xoatt oi me dttos out 3 as bed arg leo et tedt atosit a

teow doidw soqu wostt atem o'tasbneted bolaxse sew oltisit bavod

sogu Hwosit atdt to ebte dtwoe eft ao at POAsane et (oltisit ei, oa
oR we Og Bs aa if

taom tostt miam divoe erdT 4 RRRAE RE acy abort tuesedi bai dorindete 4
—e wostt edy BROTO Sieo ed exoted houmecah yd heeacto ed tetit 7
‘yamtbrete esw arse dily stort to shen ond do Law ay

aids ts emp alt anisecto to namilotan 2 Dest Erie. punbaote< >. 7
-JoetiSf esw ofw bas mretgasfl ber s To mo fegoe aog ak asw odw .prieseorto a

to taymeos so ofttstt edt beqcota bed eH .omtd stadt ts ofteeeeo gat e
neotos aeft stow teddoetess: dMplett To atertobms ‘on igne: dette oft
eft .Seqc¢ote bat Nougd- ent retin esinuim evit tuodk> yonretetsiene E
to saoqiurg edd tot ated titext To mbhert: edt Iwo? wero geitsod twe a
atso edt helliug evivonoodlL eff yotttertd od gafazor9 edd gminege 4

-stedw ,piieeors edt aseLe ot! debone tet. (badoette sew si aidtdw of 4
edt sequ tro bexfew ynomiovew te nem elt poate cote: et tnehacteobinmgmy a
etetasl bow wtd atiw medt bre ,teew bre tase ort. OF betoé li yonteeors 4

.°. @fT .beeootq oF arieeors eft to esbbe dtoe noleree ens Seiiengia e.

* Sebsed ovtew dotdw yyotehors oft to ebie Atmon> elt moments oe cenit a
@snbbive ed? edoart edt reve anore’ ot hbebosdo1q, Galowns ont ee

wot trode dthe ,tas omdlas wdtegot Kebheoobig vont ata awole

bie segs tonram ektt mt Sovem yen thats fas "tise: Ho so: ioewred) tet
ebfe Aston eds mot? etad",_ynbqnoo t+ aphrsStob to arfoert edt e2oTos
attaabioted edd bedoret boarsoeh eft med: Lifdwoe! offf> od guleeotoreraw

(eli Sottrss asw otter! biwod qoew! eit dolitwabqurdostt msm Aton
en?” .bellid' eswiet bas aint wepmesasqutast! qd soit sew aed
ox nodw misrt sidt to mohotgqas ett esa tom Sth meniotey, grubeanrs

- misfo aeob eH -4,nttarom ont asordE besoorg ot) wTITstT ont bollangre
Peo that hon 2ho ald nosing ed: otew as lotdew

mort at yLeteibensl.. led) 4 oe

-S=
that he saw the passenger train before it struck the deceased's
ear and that he blew a whistle and called to the deceased in an
effort to warn him. The deceased was then upon the tracks
following the cars in front of him. Defendant's crossing watch-
mn was standing upon the west side of the highway, and a car
passing directly in front of him from the north side of the
erossing to the south, prevented his going to the east side of

the highway where the deceased was traveling.

The peremptory instruction was siven to the jury on behalf
of the defendant upon the grounds that plaintiff's intestate was
guilty of such contributory negligence as to bar a recovery.
Defendant's servant, the crossing watehman @ flagman, in charge
of this crossing was there for the purpose of warning traffic of
approaching danger. ‘The train of freight cars was cut in @ der
to open this crossing to the traffic that was then passing over
the crossing. Upon the cutting of the train of freight cars,
defendant's servant walked out into the crossing and looked to
see if the tracks were clear, and thereupon gave the signal for
traffic to cross. Plaintiff's intestate was in the act of cross-
ing pursuant to the signal of defendant's watchman. In the absence
of any independent knowledge of danger upon his part, he had the
right to rely upon the directiions as given him by defendant's
servant, who was stationed there for that particular purpose.

C & A Ry. Co. v. Winters 175 Ill. 293, 303; C & A Ry. Cow Ve

Gore 202 Til. 188. After a careful review of this case we are of
the opinion that sufficient questions of fact were involved as to
the negligence of deflendant's servant and that of plaintiff's
intestate, as to require a submission thereof to a jury.

The motion of the defendant in error herein, the defendant
below, for a peremptory instruction should have been denied, and
the evidence should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

an” :
u*heaseses oft aoutta ¢i ereted abett toanecesq odt wee cod tade
fis of Boaseoos edt of Pelfeo Hae olvetiw » weld en st edt Bos tBs
etoart oat togy nedt sav SeaRooeh eit. wmtd nrsw ot Fae TYO
adotow saisecto e*sisbhasted jsotd to taoxt ah stag edt watwolLLot
a89 8 bos ,vewinid edd to sbis saew oft hogy nathbast as aswienet
ad? to ebfa dion edd mexrt mitt to teert of yitostis antew ng
® ohie tase ont ot satog.sid betnoverg myo edd ot gatesors
snatlevett asw besseoeh oct etedwoyswigid edt
tisdsd so yvort edt.o¢ cevix zgaw mtitomtent ytotqmetéq edt 9 7
‘esw etsteetal ps !ttitaisiq ted? ebavoten sit mogh tashaetef edt to
8Vtevoset so tad ot 26 Soneatinen qrotud titnooe dova to “ytiius
esredo mi .Asmgoli wo namriotew anlewoto. end ,deavres att ashaoted 4
to eittats saterew to szeqire oft wt srohs ao witiende aint oto
tTehw at tuo sswevse Sdgiett to nheati-od? © ~tegmsb antdosorqas
‘ove Sakeas¢ fott saw tadf obiters odd ot anunlaaoror aid to neqé of
(ets tistert te afserd edt To .geitéee ont noqv” sambasore ‘odd
oot bexool Bas aniseots edt otat tuo hetlaw taevisea att mebasteb
“OT Istete ent even moquetent tos ,tselo stew exboerd ents Ti esa
-BeoTo to tos eddy sb aswoetateestni e'’Tiitabsls -,aasreloy orttesd i
eorpades eft al ,vemdotew attasbastebh To Lemia eit ot tusvanigq eat : ‘
end Bet ef ,ttec atd necw venieb to oabelwondt ¢nobmegebat yas to , q
e'tasboeteh yd mid cevin ee aad hee tib ed mqy yler etodigtt a
vetogurg telvel{itsq dant sot etould bexoivave caw oiw ,toerise
Lev sodcegt AS O' poOS VeeR VILL CYL exvotail sv. obos yaya a.)
TO ets owrease wit to wetver Loterso: BS wetta’. BEL sffT 808 etd :
‘ot aa beviovat siew gost % ano ltessp taoteil im Pedd mobmtgqo> ext }
attivaislg to dsdt Sus fasetes (d'¢ mainohkebTéoetkogh ine temdt ;
«Yul 8 of Tooweds nofsetaive eo sti spet ot as (etateotat -

Toabueteb vit ,cteted sorts ai-tashaetobh edt to mottom efTsso15 é

boa Selnob.mesd evad bilyode moltounteant yrotqmeteq 8 tot .woled
Tmt edd of bottindse mood evad blvode eonsbive edt
-bobusset caves odt bas bearevet erotewdt at tem hut edT

bebaeme x bas bostovell

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court. in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois. and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.

of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellates Court. at Otiaikas thiseess esses ee ee day 0b
__CC“‘(#RUCOC*CNCNCin:éthe year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

. Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-82) ogS307

aed te

ee ee

Avie’ aintivan

nel Fs bro sua} BAIN) ;
aaiaoate ‘abit

Wks, Peas ae
iy hate Tarad ont ive td tao iid

Liat Dring ANG fal ‘ERG. |b TAN, only Alcea rear a

aL ey rent a |
| i hi vis ial Hiei bei onan
jatar hake ody ot ii hi oboe falta tind recente Ns

i a wehai

ee et ee a

it Ne Shh i

Baits is ’ "
key :
ah Me ek ai Sal
Ba A Ae ae eee ih ey) io
at ’ ’ : i : y
Pia rates “af
= J i we
Vie 7
V } if i
‘
fares
Ra
g
Ai ne ree pineal "7
ei 4 aes
hy ene
y @, Rite TF
—¥
eA
\ § ¥ * , ij i
o Py Dey
i ae
Pag wns Mie K Pwd ‘Was
i eed uu
i" fi hear
ea esis Yucoaaing

f Saar

na. pam bet
sie ma’ :

\
Zz
\
s
mS)
—
—
ee

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURP, 7

aay a

en
.
‘
a
Ae
"i
A:

ys
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, tHe pixth . gy of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand rand tanteoe and thirty-four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice

FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

Hon.

Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff. Qe A +r 1
274 1.4. 679

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APK 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the

Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

ia
fit
is ore fey “hy
- ¢ BPR TES
y \ 5)
ry ‘
N)
{|
| Qi .vvanvis’d to veh Atets
|i
/ ; :
@ qtVGOE-YStiNT bus Deronvd
ah
: mel eT F Fess. ens
}
i [ae 9uarnn, en
\ .o — BS 4
ie
| Pa ba «
I ay
4

Ce ee

By A OG Ue

ett: .vehesp? po yswedto ts bied bra
ist Besevodd etd Brod t¥o to Taey ef

brosec eds tot fue’ atatiw

tHleetd ,WICOW .0 Ck8T .cod ett —ade
sagG ,EVOd «8 RICA, wok:
sigort ,KAMUEOH EYTATE .cok

- ~ bs -
HOW of 2UTSUG

Gen. No. 8579 Agenda No. 12

IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

Februsry Term, AY’. 1933.

Luella Hollenbeck and
Hildegard Hollenbeck,

Appellees,
Appeal from County Court,
Vs. Grundy County.
Grundy County National
Bank,
Appellant.
HUFFMAN-J.

On January 25, 1952, appellant took judgment by confession
in the County Court of Grundy County against William Hollenbeck,
upon a note in the principal sum of $1250. William Hollenbeck
and his wife lived on a farm near the city of Seneca. Appellees
herein are their two daughters.

Hildegard Hollenbeck works for the Western Electric Co., at
Chieago, where she has been employed sine 1923. Luella Hollenbeck
teaches school in Grundy County, and lives at home with her parents
on the farm. She began teaching in September 1928.

Pursuant to the aforesaid judsment by appellant against
William Hollenbeck, execution issued end the sheriff levied upon
certain livestock, consisting of horses, cows, brood sows, calves,
pigs and sheep; and also upon corn, harness, wagons,and divers
farming implements. Appellees served notice upon the sheriff that
they claimed the ownership to certain of the live stock levied
upon, and this case was a trial of the rights of property in such
livestock, before the judge of the County Court of Grundy county.

It appears from the evidence offered by appellees that they
had advanced money to their mother to the extent of $850, and that
on October 15, 1929, the mother in consideration of the money so
advanced by appellees, signed and delivered to them the followir

paper:

Sf .oW sboosa evasS .o .men od

aHT UT
alOuLItl LO THUCS ATALIIMTA
TOITATGIG Moka

ceer L.A ymreT yisutdel

bas woodnelfoH sifesI
,XoednelfoH bregeblin
,2eolleqga

.eTHOD Seseue mort Lseqqé
eVWrayod yYSnwt 68V

{sop tt el vowed ybayt)
etaslfeqqa ¥
nokasetnoo vd toombint woot taalleqqe ,SteL .28 yrevaet 20 |
~Xoodnelfol metl{ilW tentags ytavod ybartd To tryod © yinesd ont ak
HosdsolloH meitiiitw ,06Sf@ to mye Leqtoning eft at oton 8 nogy
gseslisaqqA .sosnmec to yio edt TSsem mist s mo bevil etiw ath bas
etetdeusb owt ttedt ets ntoted

ts ,.00 ofttoelt aretacW edt tot adtew xoedmelloH ireguir et?
aMoedneffloH sf{fertl .&8@f gorte beyolqmse ased asd onde oteiw .ogsotdo
atnoteq ted dtiw emod ts eevil bus ,ytnvod yhaund mi foodoa nedosst
-S8@l tedmetqee ni gotdoset assed eff . met edt fo

teantens tasifecce vd toomebut biseexots eft ot tnevatwt :
nogs betvel Tttrede ect bas bewaet nolttyooxe ,doodmeLfloH metiliw
.20vis5 ,awog booid ,ewoo ,asatod wm aniteteanoo ,Asotaevil sistise Bs)

atevibd bas,enossw ,zacntsd ,mtoo moqr oals bas ;qseeda bas aalg

eit

tedt ttitede edt ooqr cotton bevise acelflecqA .atnemefqmt gotorrst ‘
ae:
betvel xoota evil edt to aistreo ot qtdatomw ent bemisis yes —

iat

foue ak wateqotq to atdiatt ent to fsitt 8 esw easo aidt bas mom

Yisuoe YSauT) To twod ytowod odt To exgbut ont etoted ,Aooteevil

ee ee oo

yeit tait aseflLeqqas Yd betetto eonebtve edt mort atseqqs #1

—

tedt bas ,0&8% to tmetxe edd o¢ tedtom tledt o¢ yenom beonsybs bod

Be eet xe
Pe ioe

on Yonom edt to aottetehbtamoo at testom edt ,C8eL .eL tedoto0 mo
. giiwolfot ott medi of boteviteb bac henptea ,eselleqqs yd beonevbs

ravine iy

sais

"Seneca, Illinois
October 15, 1929

Sold to Hildegard and Tuas Hollenbeck
8 head of cows and 2 brood sows for the sum
of 5830.00 which I have reeeived during the
last 4 years.

Carrie Hollenbeck."

It is not disputed that appellees advanced the money as
claimed, The evidence further shows thet appellee, Luella
Hollenbeck, advanced money to buy the grey mare named, "Betty."
She claims to own this mare and a colt which is an offspring.
After hearing the evidence, the court found in favor of appellees
with reference to the above mare and colt, seven milk cows and
six calves which were offsprings, six brood sows and forty-six
pigs, by virtue of the foregoing instrument; and ardered a writ
of retorno to issue as to such livestock, Appellant brings this
appeal from the judgment of the court herein.

Appellant urges that the bill of sale was invalid, that it
should have been acknowledged and recorded, that the same was
void as to appellant, that the burden was upon appellees to
establish superior title to appellant, and that in this, they
failed. Ona trial of the right of property under the statute,
the burden is upon appellees to prove their right to the property,
and they are bound to show that the property belongs to them and
is not subject to sale upon execution . Appellees stated positively
that this livestock belonged to them. It appears that the farm upon
which they lived belonged to the mother. No one disputes the mother's
ownership of the animals covered by her bill of sale, and no one
disputes Luella's claim that she advanced the money with which to
purchase the grey mare.

It appears by appellant's evidence that the father, William
Hollenbeck, made a property statement to appellant on January 31,
1931, showing a net worth of $7395, and that the sum of #1653 in

such statement was represented by livestock. Thereis nothing to

Hien

@lomil[ll ,sosnea”
CSef .ar Tottod 00

doodgelloy alieud Das HSteseblih ot bLoe rhidcat Nea
mia eit tot ewoe, Sootd & bas ewoo to beed 8 ;

edt arith beyteset eved I rst dw 00.088% ‘to

satsey + taal

",Moodnelfol sirrsd

&8 yotom edt Beonsvhs eeelfenqs tant heotugeath tom ei tT mt Coot
sileul ,selleqqs tsdt ewore saad ses _90nsh tye ett abe sage
VMS SE" bemad ove Yers ext yd of yoaom bs onsvhs 4 toed nel Lok
.aattqetto a8 at foidw tfloo s bas stem atsit coro od cunt alo ode

ae allsqqs to tovat mt bayot tuvoo edt Sone hive eft gaitsed 1k

Sas awoo Alkm meves ,tfoo bas etem svods edt of eonetetet Attw.

rg A Ae bas awoe Bood xia shail tae tig ATOW alo Latw 2evlso xte

tit s botebap baw toot eat Safogetot sit to, euttiv. yd | ig
aire aga tad tmeLfeqca stootaev ht dove of as. eyget of pmtotes, X09,

: _ alerted tryoo 2dt To drommbut edd spxt sidithana

+t tedt bt lever t sew sfse to Llid edd, tedt, seg cm Taal logqa.«

88¥ omea oft Ped ebebwoet Bas Seale [won 2.8. eed sv.ad b Luo de

of seelloqas no qt aew, me bru. ont Sand <tasllergs. ost ae Blow

Neds 22idt ot tsdt bas taal forge ot oLttt tolreqya. de bidatee,

etirt ate 9 it rea Utteqotg to. ty iptz, Sat to Isizt 3 m0. -p So Itst.
Vitoqorg ould of tdata tlosdt evo tg od seollaggs, foqy al. gebousd ent
bas ave nh ot egmoted ytxeqotg ont todg woul gs, oF Sasod. 28, Yodt bap,
Yevit tao betata a ase Fioggs » Koltuoexs oo qu else ot Tosi dua ton, af.
moqu mre? ort 3 fads tatgt da cal smedd ot begao led Aootaevil edt teit.
&' te dtom oud sotuce tb ono olf , Tedto.m ont oF Seanoled. Sevit. Yoda. 0A
emo on bas oLea ‘to Lit ret yd betevoe elemigs edt to. Midatenwo ,

ot dotitw ft tw Youom ost boomsyba efe tsdt aisfo g'slleud aetuents,

| _ 99 TBM Yor, edt saedomug L
ment toy csedtet | odd tod, eoaebive aliaalleqqe Xd. PTS G8. a1.

sical

LE MS Foti 9 taal Leqas ot taemot ste Ntogotg 2. ehsm , zoe

AMY

‘]

f
“
:
ba

=
show that appellees had any notice or knowledge of this property
statement made by William Hollenbeck to appellant. The bill of
sale from the mother to appellees for the livestock in question
was made on October 15, 1929. The note upon which judgment was
taken against the father was dated October 26, 1931. The execution
of the bill of sale by the mother to appellees was too remote to
the execution of the note by the father, to attribute a wronsful
intention on the part of the mother and appellees.

Appellees both reeeived a substantiah monthly salary. It is
not unusual that they should advance money to their mother as
claimed in this case, nor is it uncommon for them to leave the
livestock together with its offspring, upon the farm.

The trial court saw the witnesses and ward them testify.
Appellant offered no evidence to impugm the acts and conduct of
the motther and appellees. Appellees swore the animals in questbon
belonged to them, and no witness disputes their claim. Upon tl
whole of the record we are not prepared to say that the judgment
of the trial cow t is contrary to the law or against the weight
of the evidence.

The judgment of the County Court of Grundy County is there-
fore affirmed.

Judement affirmed.

yiteqotq atslt to. sabe fworat 10. abv vrs ee soectecas tdi
to [ffd ant

| bigniiecso! Ot MoedaslloN mail r iw bil ohm * troméave

Bay A essaahsss® ib tite? anew rey eit sng ar ‘reo¥o0 a nO “oben ¢ “ie

nottueexe eT ,L80L 188 wdote boteb asw tedtet oid binckan a Diced

dphencee 8 gtudiatie ot .todse% auld ve eton. oat, 30, petals a

n, i Dias

-aveltogas 51s ed tour ody to deeg. oat. 10 Het te

al #r oUreise vidt nom Aeitnstedue 8 bev iooes atod. aeolleqas

a «7 one

a3 seldom ttodd oe Yestom sonevbs S.luo de _Yedt t edt oA Eh

edt eveel ot meds tot Pqumoosy tt at som (18889. plat at.

2st ead _mpqy. saaitgqatto, es! Adin _redtezod

Weiveed megs bre at pis Beesoad tw odé NS8 | fxwoo Leite edt

ahd Me: 4h

t9 tovBooe Dawe ates ott erat Fi 29 1196 ive, On berette As aed
sodtacsp at afnmtns oid ,otowe evel leqqa _sPeeiloggs bas Bars, OL

alt MOgy wapect ttodt eetuaqaid Seend Ly on, Sas edt o

100! biv

i ATR,

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.

of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Appellate Court,.at Ottawa, this= === = S = day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
73815—5M—3-32) ociS07

brik int Vet atte & ot Wo dyst AOB Ment

vincad af worl! fae heey what ode hy:

a : 3
io oe omens bat tia avi sit atl pry mathe hs Sine of Jal at
No : ; Dog eN ef

Oa, iitmerlionmes hawt rit Me me

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

i |
ey, IJ
February, in

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth aay a)
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

| Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. ep FY 4 T A G
E. J. WELTER, Sheriff. / a eth eae

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

: “
hase ;
He ye or peti 2 ears ay or re 4 a
. r? ‘ Miu eS il | iJ K, \d u
asa Mel hd Whe eta te f Eat a) MAR &
es
> Monsees
oz « . “7 . 2 + it
3 . 1 Ry * te en
; ‘ r bas
¢ 7 ‘ *, : 3 bya pet eet
‘| ‘
? i mh ce = a tee HOE ee |
| ’ _ suG: | ’ : igs i a
if : ~ :
_ ¥ ie Ee DP os I Tt vray i
y { ~ iS tone a A Pye ¥ < fe
| wa me ea he Ip hieon A) 2 te ee qt SMAI afi Cae shOs
i! ¥ .

ia | ecituch Qo st Whoa. ioe

~ a4 aie tA OTE =
EO rc I sul . Fe dhs
é
ie a “ag SO tt veeten ey ye
_ ag axe law AC Terre < ai At ah
4 ="
: & toa ne
eek b OIG «% nell
oe
i
- a. ee ee ee ee eee

NM, os Jiweot .SyTeetatisa Padi 7

esiuuit faa ehtaw sat @l. ,3reed Dige Xe 90th ae ¥

i ; 2S EW Od) see Q,

a
'

| = ak reali

aaliadiameia
Ps
é
‘
.
/
P
oy,
‘
G =

Vee a ae

Ba) nq

Se EN SS IED Oe Fe
a

Gen. No. 8709 Agenda No. 6.

IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
February Term, A.D. 1934.

Harris Brothers Company,
a Delaware Corporation,

Appellant,
Appeal from Circuit Court,
VSe Will County.
Hinkamp & Company, et al.,
Appellees,
HUFFMAN<=d.6

Appellant on June 25, 1950, filed its bill in the Circuit
Court of Will county, to foreclose a mechanics lien. The
matter remained on the docket without a hearing until on May 8,
1931, when appellees filed their motion to require appellant
to obtain service on Hinkamp & Co., and on other necessary
parties, within such time that the court might have the jurisdict-
ion to proceed with the hearing of the cause during the September
term, 1931, thereof, and that upon failure of appellant to so
complete service as aforesaid, the bill be dismissed as without
equity. The court entered its order directing appellant to
obtain service as prayed in appellees’ motion.

On October 13, 1931, the court found that appellant had
failed to canplete service on Hinkamp & Co., as previously
ordered on May 8Sth., and dismissed the bill of complaint as
without equity. Appellant thereafter filed its petition to
vacate the above order dismissing its bill. Upon motion of
appellees made on February 2, 1933, the petition of appellant
as above filed, was set for hearing on February 15, 1933.

Upon a hearing of the matter on that date, the court took
same under advisement and on Juve 7, 1933, entered its order
denying the petition of appellant to vacate the order of court

entered on October 15, 1931, dismissing the bill of complaint

~8 .of shinesA @0TS .of . nev

SHAT UI
GlOMLItI FO THUCO APALIAITA
TOIATET dMioora

eASOL ,C,4 ,mreT yresrdet

eVteqmod avedtord aitish

,nottstogrod etsweled s :

ptoelleqaa bar

eiuyod tive md mrt LeeqcA }
Utmuod LLiw +8V ;

wets to ,ymeqmod & qmednti
~enolleqqa '

.G-MAMT WH
tivortd ont mi [Iftd ati hefit ,OceLl ,c& enyt no tasileqgA
eft .noetfl aotasdosem s seol{senot o¢ ,ytmvoo ILLW To toned
2 Yall mo Litew satrsed s tyosndt iw texoob oft mo hontonie tetiam

tasileaqgs etivpet of notvfom ttodt beltt eseelLeqqs nodw fel

i ma SS

vieesseen todio go bas ,,00 & qmaewtatH so eetviroe aisitdo ot 3
~Soibeiaut edt svead tdatm tivoo eft tedt omtt dova nidt¢iw eottzsg ‘
toedmetqe2 edt natiy5 eavso eft to xynicsed edt iviw boessoorg ot mot
oe ot taslieqqs to omltst soqy tect bas ,Wwetedt , eel _mrred |
tuonttiw es beaatmath ed Ilid edt ,hbtesents es esotvise ot ofginos Biss

oe
a ae

ot tosiloqqs sxttoetth tobto ett betetas tives exT .ttivpe '
-Moitom ‘aselfeqas at beystq as eolvtes mtatdo
bed tasfleqqs tedt hewot duos edd ,LECL ,eL tedoted 20
ylevotvetq es ,.00 % qmednth no estvree etelqmo ot boltst
es tais([qmoo to [lid edt beaetmeatd bas ,.dt8 yal nao beteb x

re
ae

¥ 4
‘

rk i"
ae

f A
a),

ot sottiteq ati bellt wettsetedt taelleqqA ,.ytinpe tuodtiw
% noltom nogU .iftd ati antealtmetb tebro evods off eteosv
toslileqge To mottiveg eft ,SéeL .S yrevidel oo ebem aselleqqs

2Sc@L ,éEL yisuvrdel mo guitsed tot tee sew ,belit evods as
woot txvoo sit ,stsh tedt mo tottem o ttt to goiteed 8 cnet

tebto ati betetse ,geeL .V sivt mo bas tnemoativbs Tobaw enee

vasoo to tebte edt otsosv ot taslleqys to moltite edt gntyaes
tutalgmoo to Llid edt snteatmerb ,LO@f .8£ tedetoO mo beteine 8

Bm
as without equity. Appellant excepted to this ruling and
prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant insists that this appeal is directed toward
the dismissing of the suit for failure to prosecute with
diligence. Appellees insist that the only question for review
is the order of the court refusing to vacate a previous order,
and that this is the only alleged error covered by appellant's
assignment of errors. Appellant assigns error that the denial
of its motion to set aside the dismissal order of October 135th.,
was an abuse of the court's judicial discretion.

The motion of appellees filed on May 8, 19351, to eanpel
appellant to complete service was made under sec. 11 of the
Lien Act, and the order entered thereon was entered pursuant
to such section of said act. The pertinent portion of this
section provides as follows: "The complainant or petitioner
shall make all parties interested, of whose interest he is
notified or has knowledge, parties defendant, and summons shall
issue and service thereof be had as in suits in chancery; and
when any defendant resides or has gone out of the state, or on
inguiry can not be found, or is concealed within this state,
so that process can not be served on him, the complainant or
petitioner shall cause a notice to be given to him in like
manner and upon the same conditions as is provided in suits
in chancery, and his failure to so act with regard to summons
or notice shall be ground for judgment or decree against him
as upon the merits. The same rule shall prevail with cross-
petitioners with regard to any person of whose interest they
have knowledge, and who are not already parties to the suit or
action." Sec. 21, ch. 110 Cahill's St. 1951, contains a

somewhat similar provision in regard to suits in equity.

~ Qu

hire sect Lunt aur ot botqsoxe seuuhenss eYtinups thro sit tw as
+feeqqe aidt actsoszonq

Stewed betoerib et tance a fine tent avetent vaelleqqa ;
dtiw etyosaor of Siutist to% sree act to onlealoe tb odt

wetvet tot wolteeup ¢lno edt tad tat amt Bpetlogah -oomeg tits

4 Thro avolverq s staosv of sotartet 800 adit to tebto edt at

e'tiwlloga s yd pc ihind TORS bemella cfs est at ae id vedt Sos

Serie

fsigeh edt tedd Totte antes s vaallegga +8 torts JP, ‘non teas

Crore i

24HEL tedoyo0 to tehw Ieaatmeth oct shies toa. od. mo Hew att to

sfolvetoeth Istothyt e'téruos ont <0 cand § 18, el

Moni tad ot ee 8 OT 10 beltt poor logan. To a ios ot om
ont 0 a 1008 sto Buty ebaut ew eotytoa ef oLqm 9 ed tmalf engs
teow betes me 280 _moez9d9 bored ne sob70 out pate, sta, 0 Lat
: ald? to no tttoq tented adT tos bisa 0, nolto08 hat iad
tenoly lveq tO tnamt sfgmoo exit” tewoll ot 8s s0bivo x Hg htooe

at ori tested eeonw to. Detaesotat Reitzeg fis. a, . $ede

Lede Bnto mau 8 Sas . tmebaeteb ee litaq ssudelwomd eed to Detttiog

bas Yreemadio mi ative a es Sad ed toorestt cotvree Das arent
re ¢ Toba

{0 "to rotate edt to two fox aed zo eobiaot nabaoteb yas. rosdw
rotate Sidt abst in bolas ous on) at to bawor of vor igo erty pat
to tase tetqnos auld gail ao povaoa od toa 89 eeeon ny tedt 98
exkt eh othe ot ovis od ot eoiton Sane 9 Lede ono it tog
shtie at pia al as anol ttbxoo, ems. edt #OUm Sos Toni ec
anonny 2 ot brsget aise 798 08 oF emitter aah ‘fae aVteonedo. at
meal fantene eetoed LO Miler eid keds basen, od Lede eotton 3 oa
BBO sit tw Ltevery f Latta elu omsa edt satizog ont toques eee ea
Xeds teeter at eaortw n spetag we of buager | att by arom it tteq
TO tua ont od a0 brag vbaecis ton exe Oster bas + Gabe twond ved
8 attad x09 Loe! te e" Li do9 OL sito 8. —, ca Matto tion
+Wspe at ay ive of anger at fo latvoug: alin ie taiwemoa

i fC RER

AE Sc Cpe eer ea Tg garynel

i: be a ee eee Gee Ht al dl
NA lq a) SACRE ai fie
a i, i me R

ee ne ee ee eee ee S Ses

~Be

The substance of appellant's contentions is that the
Court in its dismissal of this action was guilty of an ebuse
of judicial discretion. Tc go into a discussion of the dispute
of the parties herein upon this question would unduly extend
this opinion and serve no good purpose. ‘We have examined the
record and the evidence in this respect, and we do not fhna
therefrom that the trial court committed an abuse of its
discretion, as claimed by appellant. Courts must necessarily
be clothed with some latitude in handling the business that
comes before them; end in the dispatch of such business,
matters within the discretionary powers of the court, will
not be interferred with upm review, unless an abuse of such
discretion appears to have been committed. The authorities
on this point are abundant.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the order and
decree of the trial court is affirmed.

Order and decree affirmed.

ered “Sil aot ‘ara
‘baht tom ob aw bas. \ioodeot aldt ot eonedive eas” ‘bie Sidbel
‘atl to eauds as bedétmmoo #109 teint etd teil ‘bot elt iM
vittasseoen | Penet ‘adaued ‘nal Toque “yd Bémtefo as. ‘to 1eto8 ES ai,
; “tadt aeontaud oft aakibaed at ebudtest onto Ease bert: df of
.220eniand done to dod oqa iD bity it Bae ‘yoredd digiba eons Ne
“ttiw ¢t Broo itt” ao! etoWog Yaoi Fox oweb ott gidt tw atedtom 4
toss So ands ne aeeloar ewelvet soos dtiw bottotretat of tou

rat

aot tromty s edt bod timo 6 ased ev att of ‘eteogqs” ‘no tteroe: ae
ip | Fate Beard | etre siete sisidlaal :

+ bomiitta sompeb Bas =

STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
SS
SECOND DISTRICT

I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
rtify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,

f record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court,.at. Ottaway, this ee ee ee day ot
eee in the year of our, Wordone thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
73815—5M—8-82) okG507

“4
ts ah)
} *
re 4 :
i ‘
i
5
mi,
iv!
hy
} it
my
al > , M
- .
uns es i $y , e
a i b
Sh day
eee
ia ;
i i BF
rh
ies
i d
OT] 7
i
vy Merge "ts
’ i “Att "
ie
1 i” ’ ¥
1
¥ i ,
mahi) Fr i
ee
“
I
wt 4
1
i
i)
'

Fark ae ruta st ocqig A mld Ya aealt) MORRO Ke beara

; a av nae d i Li at ea re

ee elaine on teeta ee ee em a peter a ater ar

ues oF sagt oAT Ag iat

si, mecs

pc.

AT A mau (OF rus aa COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, Nenl o . | sixth day of een in
the year of our Lord oa iy thousayid | nundred and thirty-four,
within and for the Second ie ict of the State of Illinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. D) —

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
~ APR25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the

Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

Soria | 2 i
- mater, :

THUOD MPALIACIA | 0) Maa AM

: / - ¥ aa

ye eee venagi0 fe bled ba

pisotTtti tt bas Seber * St <r bs sd peo RioOv «7a to 08

i. satunt lt te stews add to fotaset x bhoset en Race Gan
rie ootiegh qathipes? Gut0% 40 €a% 0H, Ais =

i eukIewt: ,2¥00 .7 AL THEART -oR
eoiteet ,TAMeyn MHLAGE wok
sutel) ,MOSHHOL. if BUTauy.

x “~ A y h a iLe@ Mi ’ . al |

| ae - fi 4 hs d ~ _ spn
i is @8 25 5 ttitede grit Tale ard TY Wek

rah

ia edt ot Befit esw rood etd ta notsiqa sat
7 - : a si

fried. hise ‘So!

a Le
Siow aif? af

Gen. No. 8734 Agenda No. 15
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

February Term, A.D. 1934,

M. H.Fitzsimmons,

Appellee,
Appeal from Circuit Court,
VS. MeHenry County.

William Cowan, et al.,
(Fred Siebel,
Appellant )

HUF FMAN+-J.

This appeal is prosecuted by appellant from the order
of the Circuit Court of McHenry county entered therein pur-
suant to the mandate and specific directions of the appellate
Court, wherein this cause was reversed and remmed with
directions, in the case of li. H. Fitzsimmons, appellee, v.
William Cowan, et al., defendant, Fred Siebel, appellant,
265 Ill. App. 660. The question in that appeal was the dis-
position of the sum of $1107.96 held by the Master, and for
which appellant and the MeHenry County State Bank, (now
Woodstock Natioal Bank) were contending.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether
the lower court entered its decree in conformity with the
mandate and directions of the Appellate Court, as made at
the time this case was reversed and remanded as aforesaid.

In the opinion of the Appellate Court reversing and
renanding this eause, it was provided that appellant should
receive from the master the sum of $1000, and also the value
of the dower right of Magzie Cowan in the balance of $107.96,
and that the lower court determine the value of such dower
right by reference to standard mortality tables. The dower

right was fixed and determined at $35.98, and no camplaint

@f .o sbooega SETS ol .nen
HT UL

elouligil TO TAVOD APA LITISA
TOT ard quowwe

G1 AMT

poel dc... ,mreT yravrdst
|
,enommileastit.t .M
,eetieqqa ; .
etmvod tivorld mort [seqqA Po ;
+VWiaod yrashol av
,-is ve ,f@swod meilliv
,ledela bert)
{taslfoqcA
|

tebro edt mat tualleqqs vd het useaow ef Leeqas etdT :
-wg atetedt bersitne yayvoo yrosHeoM to fuyod ¢gimortd edt To if
evsifeqqs edt to amoitositd olttoege bas efshbasm edt ot taspa
fitiw bo framet 601s beatevet asw sauseo eidt nietedw ,t wed
«Vv ,coifecqes ,2monmiastit .H .M to saso edt at ,anotftoextd
eiaslifeqqs ,fedeta bert ,tusbretsb ,.,is te aewod met Ltw
-elb edt asw (seqqs tsdé at nottaeup efT .088 .qqA .Lfl 888
tot bos ,YetesM ott yd Bled 8, VOLLE to mre oft to mrereee”.
wom) ,wnsd etst2 yiawod yrneMoM edt bus tneffeqqs dotdw ne
santbaetnos etew (ainsi fenottet SootabooW 4
. tedtedw at f[eecqs attt ni bevlovnt oottasyp y{m edt a .
edt dtiw ywimtotsoo ai setoeb ati hevetus tryoo tewol aft |
ts obam aes ,t1vo0o0 ofelleqqA edt to anottoertib bas etshasm _ }
-Diseetots es bebnsmet bas beetovet asw saso aitdt emit edt ~
bas gntatever iwod etslleqgA edt to motmiqo edt ot
biuode tasileqqs tadt bebtverq asw vt ,eeuso eldt gatbasmt
exyfsv eft oafs bas ,000L¢ to muve ont soteasm eft mort evieoet
,O@.V0LG to sonsisd eft ot mswod elsasM to tdatr rewob edt

sowob dove to oplsv oft onmtmretob tis09 tewol edt ¢ anit bas

towoh ofT ,aoldet yilstwom Btsbasta of coneteter yd tight
tateiqmpo om bas ,8@,c8$ ts bemimreteb bas bexitt asw tt

————s

«2.
is made of the camputation of this item. Appellant objects
herein because of the fact that the Circuit Court of McHenry
county in entering its decree under the directions of the
opinion of the Appellate Court, did not allow said appellant
interest upon the above sum of money.

We have examined the opinion of the Appellate Court in
the above case wherein this cause was reversed and remanded
with directions to the lower court, and the mandate as issued
therein. There is no provision for the payment of any money
to appellant under the decree to be entered by the said Circit
Court, except the sum of $1000 and the said Maggie Cowan's
dower right in the balance of 3107.96.

Where a judgment is reversed «nd the cause is remanded,
with specific directions as to the action to be taken by the
trial court, it is the duty of that court to follow those
directions, and it cannot err in doing so. Trustees of Schools
ve Hoyt, 318 Ill. 60. Upon appeal fra the decree of a lower
court so entered, the only question presented on such appeal,
is whether the decree is in accordance with the mandate and
directios of the court of review. Trustees of Schools v.
Hoyt, supra; Smith v. Dugser 318 T1l. 215; Wolkau v. Wolkau
217 Ill. App. 471, 474; Dunlap v. Pierce, 260 Ill. App. 149,
154; Ry. Equipment Co. v. Brell€-Beam Co., 259 I11, 111, 115.

From an examination of the opinion of the Appellate Court
entered in the above case, we find that the lower court was
directed to enter its decree providing for the payment of $1000
to said appellant, together with the dower interest as aforesaid
in the sum of $107.96, which amounts were the final balances
found to be due to said appellant. The Circuit Court had no
power to enter any other decree.

The judgment of the Circuit Court, mrely carrying into
execution the judgnent of the Appellate Court, was the only
judgment which the Circuit Court had any authority to enter,

and the same is affirmed.
is Judgnent affirmed.

5 “S-

atostdo. tneiileqqA .mett efdt to moitstsamo ent to, ebam.at
YInsHoM To duvod ttwyotlo odt Wadd Yost elt to savsoed nieted
edd To emoitosrihs edt te beuy earosh att 3nite tis af yiavoo
tausfleqas Bisa wolle tom hib ,dayo0 etelLegqs edt to solatqo
evettom to mya evods eft moqu taototat

mit tryod ste lleqqA edt to notnitqo odt henimaxe. evag) oil,
bebasmet Soe beatevet esw seuvso einft mietedw saso ovods edt

beveat ac otebaan edt Soe .fIw0. tewol odd ot enottgetib dtiw

yYenom yxs to tnosysec oft tot notsivotgq om ak e1eat sedecrase .

timontO Bisa edt yd betetus ed ot setae ant tebow jnatteaqs ‘ot
a'aswod etensM Bree odd Sus COOOL to swa edt tgsoxe tod
.d.50L@ to eonslsd edt ni tdstuxemob

,beinsmat eb sauso edt Lac beatsvet ai taomhuhs eter

ait yd sevet od ot notten edtvod as atoliooilh obitioega «lh iw

seodt wollot ot tuon d¢sdt te wb odd eb dt dtyo00 » Lebat
efooea To sestesiT 02 gutoh ai mie teunse Fi bas ,anottoenkh
towel .s Id°esteeb edd mitt Lseqqs soqU: 00 slil 81S tye: sv
.issdqs dove co botasesta sgottseup ying . oat» betetae ep t1989
Pte -etsinan edt dtiw somehtooos ai at eotosh odd aedtedwoet
vo aloodoa to sestayil waives to taseo,cdt to ,emlvoetib
gextfoW .v uextfoW 7alS efit Sk teysuG.v déinG jemque 4tyol
,@dl .qqA .Ifl CdS. geetedt sv qefheud-'pb¥A INS eqqans SLL, NSS
eSiL gill sLiT@b8 ,.0d maadeslacd,.v 409. tganqizpd. wyt p bet
trvoo etelleqgaé. ont to molaigo elt: 1o sotteaimexe as.mett ..+

aiw ¢moo tewol edt ¢aft batt-ow yeeee evods edt.al.bemedme |
OOOL$ fo tremysq edt tot gatbivomq- estseb ath retme oF.betoankd (

Sisactots ex tesseiant tewob-odt davie redtegot jtaeileqqa bise ot
seonelsd fanitedt erewoetavomm dotdw ,d@sVOl?: to ae edt-at
oa fed tovod tivertd edt «tos leqqe: bisa of sub. ed of bawot

vy GOT9SH: Toslto, NEP TORRE: OF OMPE .

otiai patyates yleten ,tavel sivorto; edd teodmeomby ty edT ein .
vino edt eew ,diw0d! dtelfeqqa: ott to trombr{,- ‘edt soi nooxe

. ted | ov ywitouity a yore B sf dusted» dupont LO» ert footie. sromabet

ehomtitts tse mp but 7 wanlagl So as sul sind

‘STATE OF ILLINOIS,

SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court. in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,

of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

AppellatenCourt. at (Ottawa, thiss == = eS day
Cin the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
(738155 M—3-32) «B07

haa ah Wot abel in a,

LE het) ROR ARON Od AGE tpn

yoleitad oly oagedd Jyer tenn etre ht ale Fe beeeoitnd sydd Walaa

extra holtiteanw ore

hese 4 nan ed ee Re
TO vale

oer Uinietoylt on

5 . a ee, ih A>)
ey MEL ae! RE ho mt nin a Hane sah

Wo} eee igh aa HAT

i
x
=
S
as

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, peg
eee eee

| f g I

2 E a j }

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, oe day of February, in

(a3 of i

the year of our Lord one thousand nine hindred and thirty-four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
resent-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.

Spl AT A fe,
42¢(4].A.67

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APK 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

foliowing, to-wit:

. \eRuoe erknsaess SRT MERE LS

| x :
Al are! idee Tar yah Fie i eae fo wewetto te bfeit } bas 2

mpus=yetlee Biter ber eDatoet euis iieenons ano aod tuo TG" raSy
feleielis WT ateste elf Io Talttett heogec out toT bor al

wh atihseett. IO we } THAT

<eutteg YOD ah TAMAR. .a0l
,antdart. ,CAMRTOE MATE 80H

} | oe sxyafd OSTHOL ft gursut 5

a Eh Sr

ao Ao ost we oF ehrawietts fads tans
af mi Delit raw Ituedeeds: To nohnige et,

7 ‘> r¢ > a, Oras: » wh ~
estyar. Dts Sorrow etd. A,

ee
i
a
>
£3
Fs]
iv
ay
G
ai
oc
10

See pte.

Gen. No.8743 Agenda No. 18.

IN THE
COURT OF ILLINOIS
WD DISTRICT

February Term, A.D. 1954.

Ae L,. Fogle, Receiver,
Defendant in =Zrror,
Error to Circuit Court,
vs. Ogle County.
Charles E. Hayes,

Plaintiff in Error.

HUFFMAN-J.

Defendant in error was appointed receiver in a foreclosure
proceeding for a certain eighty acre tract of land. He qualified
as such receiver. This land at the time was rented to a tenant
by the name of King, who had the premises rented for the perid
from March 1, 19351, to March 1, 1932, at the sum of $5.00 per
acre, cash rental. King sold his crops upon this tract of land
to plaintiff in error in June 1931. King had not paid the rent.
The evidence shows the rent was to be paid in tw equal install-
ments.

Defendant in error called upon plaintiff in error about the
payment of this rent upon several occasions, at which times te
discussed with plaintiff in error the payment of the same. He
states that plaintiff in error said that he was to pay the rent
but it wasn't due yet; that it was cash rent of $5.00 an acre
making a total of $400. Defendant in error claims that plaintiff
in error agreed upon various times he would pay the rent, that
half would be due December 1, 1931, and half due March 1, 1952.
It appears fram the evidence thst plaintiff in error later refused
to pay defendant in error the rent, claiming that he had no in-
formation or proof that defendant in error was the receiver and

entitled to collect same. The evidence shows that defendant in

BL Oo BHreaA

BHT WL
SIOWLIIT W TAV00 BTALIIITA
TOTATGIA aucore

oh20L .G,A rel yraurde®

<tovieseH ,efs0T% .I «A
<TOTTE al tashnotedi |
,7tv00 tiyoxttd of xorr®
«YWROD ala0 eaV
0YSH . eolradd

etOTI of tTtitatels

T-UAMEDUH
etveofLosrot s nmi tevisoer bev mtogqs asw torre of tashasted }
bottt Les el .baaf to tosrt eros vidgie atstteo « tot an Lbseoo tg
toetet s ot botnet asw omtt eft +s basl atdT »Tevisoet dosa a8
fo iteq edt tot boetnor eeeimorg sit bed osfw eau To emer edt vd
teq 00.2% to mya ost ts .S8CL Lf domsM ot ,L8CL ,f dove mort

bosf to tostd aids ooqy agots atd blog sat .Istner daso (9T9s8

etnet eft blag tom bed gxkX ,£80L savt at torres nt Yittmislq of

-if{stent [eype owt mt bisq ed ot aaw tmet add ewode subiehive oft
einem

edt tyods torte mt Tiitnielq moqu bellso torre at +neb noted

ai gemit dotdw ts ,anotagooo Ieteves moqu tuner etds to + memry eq
SH ,omse edt to tnemysa oct sotte ot tiitvaislq dtiw beaayoath i

toot edt yeq ot esw ed tedt Btea torre mt tiitntelq tandt eetate

SsTos is 00.8% to tner daso asw tt tent itey oub t'aesw tl tud
Titinislg tedt emitslo torre at tusboeted 00S? to Latot e¢ antoxtem
tsa ,taer ont veq Alyow oc cemit avotisvy noqy beerss torte at
»Séel .f doteM ovbh tled bas ,Lleel lt tedmeced exh od Sluyow ten
beeutet tetel torre ot itmtsly tadt somebtve eft mrt etseqqs tI
“mi on Bed sd tadt ootmtels .inet edt torre mi ¢ msbaoteb Veg ot
bus teviesst oft esw torre ot tnedbneteb tatt toorq to mold amrot |

mi ivebaoteb tedt eawola eomehtve ofT .emsa toollos ot beltiine

«2.
error then submitted his credentials to plaintiff in error

at which time plaintiff in error deferred psyment stating

that he did not know whether defendant in error was the proper
party to whom he should pay the rent. The evidence shows re-
peated trips by defendant in error to see plaintiff in error,

and conversations be tween them regarding the payment of this rent.

Plaintiff in error received the crops but did not pay the
rent, and his testimony upon the trial of this cause is highly
unsatisfactory as to any reason for not paying it. He claims
that defendant in error upon his visits, "never threatened to
go into court," with the account. The rent was not paid and
the plaintiff in error offered no legal reason why he should not
pay it.

This suit was originally instituted in a Justice of the
Peace court where defendant in error herein, recovered a judgment
for the sum of $400 as rent upon these premises. Plaintiff in
error herein, appealed from that judement to the Cireuit Court
of Ogle County, where a jury was waived and the cause was tried
before the Court. The Court rendered judgnent in favor of
defendant in error and against plaintiff in error for $400
and costs. From an examination of this record we are of tle
opinion that the judgnent of the trial court was correct, and
the same is hereby affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

i) 7
iP Ge OT ftk)

corre mi " aitetate ot aleifneheto aid bottimdue noddt torre
griteta taemcs¢ betzeTeb TOTS ae tie oa emit doldw te
tecotg edt asw torre mt ¢ nabiae Tab: ‘hee dete: worst tom bf5 ef tad
-et ewode eocebive oft “fs abs eddy ag binode od monw of yoteq — ue
,<torre mi Ttivaisl¢ see of torte ni toshbneteb yd aqiat betseq |

einet aldt to tuserveq odd gotitsner meds neent woenel fedtevne 6 bas
ei? ysq tom bid tod agoto edt beyteoss torres Hiertitoieltl

CLs te ak eats skid 6 fetus ont moqy yoomisveot ata bas toot

amtafe eH tk anived tom tot moagset yas of eo vytotiste itmediy Mi

ot benstsetnt toven" ,attely atid megs morts ib taab meteb todd

bas bisq ton esw tnet eT .tauooos edt atin * FOO odmt be

WE aip:

fon bivode on sl 108 89% Sara on RexEss® ‘Torre at nitatatg ont
a ia ib RES EW 4 OK f eho kt, Sore | oa ‘cn is ut “7

es oid to 99 ivan 8 at botuditeat get Mo Hag ky asw te tine akan u

# nom burt 8 botevovet _at ore 1 10 TTe at danbeoten eres #1709 e004
At Az : + wore OE

re ‘Wintel +308 tose weatt moqy 19% as oon To mya exit cot

ett

%. bis) JEM!

F090 theotto edt o¢ é nomabst, dass work helsecas "stoned toTI9S

x GD : ~eroe
boise 288 eanse ed t bas beviaw esw wut 2 otena raed ‘olee to.
oe é Sitsateig oe
‘to ovst tt # oe mp burt berobas4 t1u700 eT «#900 oy etoted
ra te oexsohivie att

: “00nd “ot torre mt ttt melo Fant eb ny torts ae fnabasteh
ee ait to OTS OW Sr000% oer to Sie an eRe as mote | vetnoo faa ahh
va ans {toerr09 a8 ta0 9 ietat ont ‘to ‘trompei, ‘edd tact molnkgo

| ON Ie Tae a “sbowaht? s ‘veers et ons out
« a ia fea mae Ripe be hese wnat

ee ee ae i ee

ltclale todd aetete

a PO wae. a ake ee
; 20a 306 Lagat ez
iiey mous jeans
‘ 4 DE a i PRR eG
Wwiet werel won of Thigetetgy dat saxehive wat moe ik aeaivas

eit Youve wE F wabre'reh

Gy NM On F

STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
8s
I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby

SECOND DISTRICT

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,

of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at. Ottawa, this ay of
Cin the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—8-82) otZBb07

are fl
|
i]
ai
ie
rg
fir, Bak

ey
oak bo drat Oe Valent eid te 1 i 1

( REOMTQIL 0 SRE

mak CTP AIG CODER
ae. baw aleaongh oft Koy cal Hein stout to ofote att Yo" pohetarQh bao Boge a0)
»BAY-al Huta’ at ethane tite grein crete Bile en ¥aOD OU? dat Seeks eih Die deny “hte
ilo wet wh Brower
Pity Fuiawt vate doa iohuorad T insist) viroiktes® rf i ’ , ‘
fi and wan hy ao) ahaliedes ‘ ej 1
feo pes ay PIE OS Ec ee ce aT ae i
rN ea heath frre bro dseeanth . ory ; re.
eae Tet) eae
verre aes aks ea sk i Ee = x ; o a a
(Eo (Ete BEY

a
ao

& —
poor >

Lf }
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE”“COURT,
x seinen

Vee

¢
5
k

{
2

f §
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the /six day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.
ea

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. a7 4IA 672°
Zz: athe

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 29 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

Pine

fh
A
Bn
Eo
xa
ra so te
“ ep te ‘ns
* “ve hw

sutomPiti Ya e¢ere att te suerte’ baj0a2 aes 70T, ee
softanl giiiteord S220" 0 CRT ane gah.

soldeut BVO ff chante il

vse tteo’ RAMSURGRTAIE ool

; | a XAGL5 are: J, BYEEEE
wats aoe me LEfrede tera Jee

co
we.
>
4

I ah Eat al aR eI wn On A he em he

mG skiw-ot ,ebt ‘awte tte Jade fore
ent ol betit gew dro) edd to sotnics ond

agtimit. bie. absow edt af sexsod Dies to.
; ~~ ie

IN THE
AVPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

February Term, A.D, 1954.

Leslie C. Morgan, Supervisor for
and on behalf of Township of Bonus,
Boone County, Illinois,

Appellee,
Appeal from the Circuit
VS. Court, Boone County.
The Estate of A. Gates White,
Deceased,
Appellant.
| HUFFMAN-J.

A, Gates white, deceased, had been a former supervisor of
the township of Bonus, in Boone County, Illinois,and as such
officer had custody and charge of the township funds and of the
road and bridge funds of said town. He died, having in his
possession a balance of $3698.95, belonging to said township.
Appellee herein succeeded said deceased as supervisor of said
township, and appellee as such supervisor for and on behalf of
said township filed a claim against the estate of said deceased
for $2838.25, being the above amount less a credit of $860.70 receiv-
ed from said estate.

There is no dispute that the deceased had the money in his
hands at the time of his death. The only question involved in
this case is whether the claim as filed by appellee, in his
capacity as supervisor for and on behalf of said township of
Bonus, was sufficient to entitle the court to allow same against
said estate. The claim was filed by appellee in the County Court
of said county, in words and figures as follows:

"IN THE
COUNTY COURT OF BOONE COUNTY
September Term, A.D, 1931
In Probate

State of Illinois : ,,
County of Boone :

ofS .OM sbhirep! 8638 ,o . men

aT wr ie |

2IOWULLIT 4O TAVOO BALE A Rt
TOIRTEI amooTe

SSCL CLA .orrel yrasrdet

Tot toaivroque ,meay10oM .9 etfeel ~
,aunod to qidenwoT to tiated mo bas
s@ionilfiIl ,ytayod enood
,celloqqa

tiyottd edt? mort fseeqqA
eYtayoD efood trod 2av

,otidW aetsd ,A to etstel edt

.5easeoed
-taslleqqa a3

« G-MAMTYUE |
to toa tyvroque Tomiot s aoed bed ,beaseoob ,otinw seted ,A

dove es bas,atonif{{l ,ytawod enmood mi <aun0d To qideawot edt
aft to bos about qidanwot edt to egisdo fos ybotano beat too Itto
eid ai gaived beth ol .mvot btea to abmut esbiad bas beot
-Gidenwot bise ot goignoled .a@,8edc$ to sonsied s oo Lsaezz0q
Sisa to toziviequa aes bearseoah bipe bebeooove oisvod becoming. 2
to tisded no bas tot toa ivieque dove es eelleqqs bas aha nnot
Heaseoeh bise to states ent tentege misfo s he Lit at danwot bisa
Seteiee Ov.088¢ to tibeto s aeel tavoms evods odd ‘gited ,é&, Brest, Tot
-otstee Hise m1 be

afd ai yenom edt bar beaseoeh edt tadt etugqaib om at ered? oa ,

ai bevfovnt notteesp vino edT .dtseb aif to omtd ont te ebaad : 7
afd ot ,eelleqqs yd S5eltt as mislo edt todtenw al seso edit

to qidanwot bisa to tieded mo bas tot toatvregmea 2B Wiosrso >

tan isgs omes wolls ot tmroo adt jeltistae ot doo loltina asw «8HH08

viwoo ytavod edt at eelleqas vd baltt asw mtefo off sot atee bisa
iewollot as aematt bas ehtow at vere tia 0

SHT “I* Nf
YTHUOO MMOod YO TAVOD YMMV ‘bOI A
féel .G.4 ,mreT todmetqed hae

etadortl at

*
.
*
Bs

ithe.

Leslie C. Morgan, supervisor for and on behalf
of the Township of Bonus, Boone County, Illinois,
being duly sworn on oath says that the annexed claim
against the estate of A. Gates White, deceased, amount-
ing to the sum of $2,838.25 is just after allowing all
just claims, and is now due and unpaid
Leslie ©. Morgan

Subseribed and sworn to before me

this 21st day of September, A.D. 1931

(Seal )
Alexander J, Strom
Notary Publie
Boone Co. Ill.

The above claim referred to in said affidavit is’
founded as follows: To amount of trust funds entrusted
to said decedent, who was for a number of years super-
visor for said township, county, and State, and at the
time of his death had said funds in his possession be-
longing to said township as follows:
Township RUPE b 6.5; wierels a wreeliw eevee $2,457 «27
Road and bridge fund......... 1,261.68
Total e@eoeeseevpeoeevvseaeveaeeeee $5,698.95
Less credit received from the estate of 4. Gates
White which has been credited on the township fund,
said payment was in the sum of $860.70, leaving the
account as follows:
Due trust fund on account of the
road and bridge fund ...seeeese- $1,261.68
Balance due on trust fund on
account of township fund ....... 1,576.57
Total @eseeoervoeeopeoa@e*eeenstkeee8e2sd 2,858.25"
Objections were made to the claim in the County Court by
the Second National Bank of Belvidere, which claimed to have
judgments amounting to $4418.35; and by the Peoples Bank of
Belvidere, which claimed to have a judgment for $2782; and by the
Keene Belvidere Canning Co., which claimed to have a judgment
of $9830.72; and by the Farmers State Bank o Belvidere, which
had filed a claim against said estate to the sum of $15,000;
and by the administrator of the estate of the said A. Gates White,
deceased. The position of the objectors was that there was nothing
in said claim to show who presented it or upon whose behalf it was
presented; and further challenging the right of appellee to file
the claim for and on behalf of the township, and urging that the

same was improperly filed and should have been filed in the name of

‘ie

tiated co bas tot tox ivreque eWsgtoM 2 eifaey -
e2@iontitl .yvtnwod anoomf atmos to qidanwoT ons ay

mislo bexenns oat tedt ayee dtso xo mows viub anted j
-invoms ,beaseoeh) (ot taW wets) sa to sistas oft tanleng
{fs satwolle totte text at Bs. ees «82 Yo mye ont ot ae

bisqay bese) oub won ef aa ,2mielo tent
MegT0M 0 Jabieed),.. . i

om arated ot mtowe bas bed troedya

feel .a.A Apevia ® ee fe BLE hy
ves Leweper

MOTTE 4 Tei tebmsxeLa’ Bi A nl eat
oifdel yaatoll . mo aa Lg eR “‘aeool
-LfI .00 eneo »

Be ee a Se

‘et ditvabitts biea al ot betreter mislo svode’ exT yh Ci

Setevtice ebnut teytt to tavome oT :awollfet es Sobnvot
~Toque Btsey To Tedmyn 8 10%, aw Ow i tnebedeb Aieh: og i
sdv ts bas ,stet® bos ,vinvos 6Gidaswot bse tot, see bro!
-od Molteeseaog atd at ehinet bbhow’ Hani diseb atd to emit.
‘awollot es qidanwot Bise o¢ ayn

“4
‘a
“a

TS. Ves, 5 Bt) CRUE a eee ee ew eOOET gidenwot: POR homie ie

8a, £88 £ seercenes DOU? opbinrd bas beso °°" > Bie: ag!

ee. BCG be Oe ORR oeavaneaene es {stot hee
ROT SD. to etatas oAt> mor? Seviesas, tibet o Reel . eee Aa!
bust qidenwot edt mo bettSero mood sed notecw othdaw Hiei

6 tht: apiveal’ ,Ov, 088% tocmya eft gt vay t momyeey twee
fawollo% as tasooos

; : PRAT A a. (By eat eta we: A
aiid to ‘Sntenia mo haut dauxt omc
GO, LOE , Le: CY on o lt bawt OR DE wd. ‘DS 7a bsot Ay
fo bart teyntt mo ovb eonsl ad

ol Rie mens VEL ONCgt wikewaied pmeey qiifactwo dt) to” dr o@ om) bn TE GORE
"ee.e 8 BF S MW ae eT Saree i

POTS 2 aS | earls

we trs109 ywaod ont act atelo edt ot bse oxen ‘an0tto0t do

Ce gh ake swag
“eved ot bemtsio so Be ,etobivied to tas Lenott ai boooec edt

ma SiC owes bao,»

to Asse esiqood ode ve bats (28. OL of gal tmwone ite yard

mipliy ele 2: Cee be Ay {
eit va bas :S8VSh tot ¢nOmb ut 8 ever ot bentet 9 dole Stebivied —
ee Me se BT |

oe B evan oF fautsts haprial A nl patrined orebivied wee

ae ayy g at ¢ oi! ee Gy

mtn elt oF

OFLA eotad oA ‘Bisa eld to ‘sttae edt to ro# osolminbe a yo bas i
ik at rh Re PR Bae lhe eh

gatdton Baw owily astt aew arotoetso od to ‘tt teog eT .beaseo
Vi SPOR A aH ME Re ty BERGE: i
asw ft ‘YWesod oxo ts nou to hls betaoaesy ‘outw wore ot mis tlo bisa at

31 fe Mas BT he
of it i eolleqce to digit edt amignal Leto jongrviltor Sas dy f
Twa oreo: Ghee. Be

etd teadt on iouys pe athteewne eit to ‘ated fo Sas 10% misto ont

to omen edd ot belit peod oved Siete Dap + bone reeeoagn asw :

~3-
the Township of Bonus. The County Court allowed the claim as

of the fourth class. The objectors took an appeal to the Circuit
Court of said county. The Circuit Court allowed the claim as of
the fourth class, to be paid in due coursé of administration.

The above objectors have now brought this appeal from the judgment
of the Circuit Court of Boone County.

An examination of the claim and affidavit as made thereto
by appellee in this case, leaves no question as to the purpose
of the filing of the claim, or upon whose behalf the claim is
filed. It sets out the amounts the deceased supervisor had, both
in the road and bridge fund and in the township fund, at the time
of his death. It further appears from the claim that these were,
"trust funds entrusted to said decedent, who was for a number of
years supervisor for said township, county, and state, and at the
time of his death had said funds in his possession belonging to
said township ***,"

Appellee is the proper custodian of the money due under the
claim filed herein. A question similar to the one now urged by
appellant, that all suits or proceedinzs of this kind and character
must be brought in the name of the town, was under cors id erati on
in the case of Highway Comrs. v. Bloomington, 255 Til. 164. The
court with reference to this question on mge 167 of its opinion
uses the following language: "The appellant contends that this
suit was improperly brought in the name of the cammissioners of
hivhways; that the suit should have been brought either in the
name of the town, under paragraph 46 of chapter 139 of Hurd's
Statutes of 1909, or in the name of the township treasurer, for the
reason that the money, being public funds belonging to the township,
would be payable to such treasurer. There is no force in this
objection. The township is the beneficial plaintiff and real
claimant of the money sued for. A recovery of a judgment and a
satisfaction thereof in the present action would be a bar to any
further action, either in the name of the town or any other agent

thereof, for this cause of action."

as mistlo ed? Sewolls x00 Waroo oT * eurOe to Tet odd
tivettd oft os tsedds Fs Fe) Aoos eter oe ido: eat 0 ert tao itt To
to ae misfe oiF: Bower ts Fuw09 ieuest ob vee “ettavos bide to taw00 :
-ditattainimbe to bacece oud at Fine od Of \ amate (as tor 0% ent
tihomabet ext mort Cnecren atid ‘tilgvord won ov sel naar eet ey evods iT
-» YtanOD eseed to Feesad #190819 ‘ods to
otetedt+ obem as SIiVBHFPITs » apie misio eit To sold sc tuexe mA
Sacgiug eft ot es sottaero om aovaer 0869 aint at eelleqqs yd
et mt alo ont tLestod 6 Os w mois’ to aac 9 9) "to hg og ont to
dtod ,Srif Toa ivtsane ° ‘Bewnsves ent atasome eat 40! atee $2” “be Ltt
emit eft 5°, breve: aitenwos ot mt b ses ‘Bast oxbind ban Boor ‘ont ot
,OteW east + ant ate £2 outs mont ategge, wad tn #1 ‘irae aid to
to tsdmun s ao een wate. (t29b0005 Aiea o bedauntme about tescée
edt ts Bis’ eter: Bate Xanwe9 ‘qhdeawor btes Tot Apvte sivas irik BTBSY
ot gmteno fed: to Fada abe - ald at abast Biss bad it 20m abs'to: omlt
m, eee * qidaswot bise
edt tebay sub. ténom eite . to. me thot ai: as¢0 af odd ar ealloqqa |
vd begis wom. otto; ent od. arene foite snp i” -atetsd ‘belit mialo
tot .etado Bas prix alidt to Bx nibeooorg TO ad tue ia east shat i
0 tere ht eroo tebay asw ¢ ot ent to omer out mt avo od rg
ent eats: aes , tty mimoo Le oV hood yowdg tH to ease esis ai
aolnigo att to ¥aLl en a mo netfee 2 iat oF eoretotes at tw x09
gered $ act ahtetnos Toslleqgs oat” : opaupast gatwoLtor ont seas |
to atonotaatnmo out To Satan edt or #lgwo a vexeyongmt ew $ tue
ey, ad toitie bape neo oved blwodia tive od t tect pe yamde bt
2" bail to ear cetqatio to 8 dgerzereq obey <td ont ‘to een
out tot cotmactd qiitenwot edt ‘0 omen ont mt i 008! to eetut ata
ghia mwod ond ot suinao fed eset otidva pated Venom, © ont teat no2.set
alae at eotot om at orod'? -tomasott Hose: ot 2 dovyan od ‘bivow
faek ban 11 itntele Latottened ort al ideamod ont “smotsoot do a
8 bas ¥ compa} & to yrovooer , A 10% bewe Yoo m ‘eit 10 a: dusmts£o My

4h RAG ecg SAW OMe
ws ot 18d s ed biyow nottos dnesose: edt mt eorestd mitosta tise Se

imege todto yne to awot edt to oman oft mt todd te Hottos rodtayt

",foltes to eavso ealdt ‘tot owns?

Furthermore we do not understand that the presentation of
a claim against an estate need conform to common law practice
or be presented in the technical legal form which applies to
suits at law. Thomson v. Black, 200 Ill, 465, 468.

Some criticism might be offered as to the form and manner
in which the claim filed herein, was drawn; but as above stated
we do not understand that the same strictness is required ina
proceeding of this kind with reference to the technital manner
and form of the written claim, as is required in suits af law.
There can be no doubt as to the purpose of the claim and upon
whose behalf it is filed. We are of the opinion that a payment
and satisfaction of this claim, would be a bar to any further
action, either in the name of the town or any other agent thereff.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

cis A

“ te Ba atin % a ae ey Bai aa fel 2) ayers % audt x , arte
te nottatmeaors out etd, Sasterebay tom ob e t
eottoaag wal aommos ot myo I99. boon etatue, et Be ethene 5 Haid

od! eeilage ilo £ cw. TOT, tage £, Asaladoos edt, at Detnece.m od i ;

Pe ae

Re 2688.8) , LIT 008 .aoeld .v gona Wal te ative
ni i Ds a :

Tennsm bas wtot edt ot ag betetto ¢ oI i tdate matoitire aun, i
betste syods as tod jawath esw, tleted belly nielo edt dotdw mt

8 at Aetivypet ak eB? ontetata ome oat, A att, mates, 208 9 f
Te Ao Km {S$ taged odd, ot SOte tote x, ft Ea Agit. , aba, »19,,a9 thee :
asl +: ating at beater at as atiteto agdd edt Yo.orr io
oy MOTH. bas mis te eat to, S20g ig | eit oF BS tdtrob ong. 4.089, @
taemyag 48 tadt Mo katgo. edt To. ots ow. oo Petht. al, sft nig

» Today t Yas oF ted e od Sisow ambeto, aide to. Aottost hi

Gf a it

stored 1 m98 8 ‘terlto XS, TQ aod oat. te, om act, 2 ae pais
sbomriite at ytayoo emood te woo A hyorto ati Re tage

ey
‘ oat.
stig ea) A na ME
Mis Btn
<
x

ade ~opoe oth OUEltte trombul || : ch lends aaah esl aks
eimai hie Feet: mgt tt. Saas ie, ty ANE | hese vet eee e eoLivaga

xy sh ah ae Sy Sci % 8 t \
Eh ane Nr els wd i Hy oth RS SD rae Pie, m d
rain can ee % a aF Be Aa) RNR Sah Bib e va
. 1 fe Go Bead, RRR MRR RTS US So ht a a
¥ $. ld
} ‘ A Sie f »
ear b
'
i bee Ta 4 P
os hed +. by
, ey oy 1 pve “tg
mC ) Lara ty
ie mn
nk * oe oF ty 4
% ; fe
+ we 5 }
j t ivy SWANS OMe RS
hs hs Sa bi
i
f r bi lau m
A f ey CRY FAY il
a % ate: f
An at ‘ are SB fala a Ss ae aa Tey
Meh b Re iio el ae SS aN
r" Bie ih ia a i a va m ig ,
i we rie uN t ts HA ian SR ES AS kay My om a
‘ eR By! eg we ey Met YY
‘de ae vue é "
Le Sol wisl |
ane ‘ay i EE ih
i att “ ne a i) Bad Oh AY
4 1a | any ma *

oSiwy DPT ‘ bak
AR Oe LER oe Bee Ree ple oh ly ere omy ey

Wain sp - ‘i - ,! #
1 Oe BR PE ey air epi: 'eiel able’ fin, otis

COM ER Se RON ect ha sane aay a

STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
Ss
SECOND DISTRICT

I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court. in and
for said Second District of the State of Ilinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,

of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate (Courtavat: Ottawa, this = day ok

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-82) ostBp07

te aa

ae dl

Acie
ae 8

hiraat hier wha icity h wit bev oatet r, Ave pot ey Hi} yn biadaat

bitin aby: irised id het, bit diye rst wit tu royal Hite Bram sit We wee a to.

hii, ha, st aie ida fra ty Anil We si ter t doar, ‘tonnes ah
ie yeb=, mare coe atonal Soret non, ts | anit, —

‘tit bits ‘ait on teas ern te inate et

- Fi # #

oo and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, e sixth day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand rine hundred and thirty- four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:

Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.

BE. Jd. WELTER, Sheriff. GPFY A : ee
2 & g T.A. 6739

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 25 1934 tne opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

i
ae
-

ate ed? So Seber euie rer os af act bua

i : (JfLi° 25 32

E Phe Be S eras > (is tee rt aoe

Firs =

i OGhiens ered ail ERO ane

: ent feut vit ELM@EUE. SULT ALTE ee

iA = 7

a) > Azad ,MOSMEOE Lh SUYSUT

— x _7y ROW <ttiseie ja se ae

i
»~

Se a cman = eS ee eeree ee

‘SOTKBIT bas shiow eid ar <tted hiss

7a Loi ae
: oe

| Gen. No. 8761 Agenda No. 42
|

:
le

IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOT
SECOND DISTRICT

igs)

February Term, A.D. 1934,

Wiliiam C. Hubbell,and the
First National Bank of
Libertyville, a corporation,
Trustee,
Appeal from Circuit Court,
Anpellant Lake County.
VS.
Mary C. DeVault, et al.,

Appellees.

HUFIMAN-J,

This is an action Wein by appellees to foreclose a trust
deed and five notes secured thereby, executed by appellants The
trust deed and notes bore date of August 12, 1928, and were due
three years after date.

The defense urged by appellants upon the hearing of this
cause, was that each o the five notes after its execution by
appellants, had been materially altered and changed by appellees,
@ some one on their behalf and at their direction, without
appellants’ knowledge or consent; by causing to be stamped
upon the face @ each of said notes the following words: "The
makers hereof reserve the privilege of paying this note on any
interest day, upon giving to the trustee sixty days previous
notice in writing and payiag a premium of 2% of the amount of
the principal thereof." The abare statement was stamped upon
each note by way of a rubber stamp, and was placed on each note
immediately above the first line provided for the signature of
the said makers. Mary C. DeVault was the first signer upon
each note and her signature extends into and through the wording

place thereon by the rubber stamp. It is insisted by appellants

A
ie

,O shoega {88 .o . 20D

HHT Ur
2ICnIIIT GO TAOS FTALIGISTA
TOTATEIA GMoore

DECL .2.A , rel yrentdet

edt bae,lfedduil .0 mail LEW
to wns Isnottsi tertt
,Moktetoqtoo s ,oliivytedil
esteurt
gPmod tivestO mort Lseqqs :
evisrod exnel tasiloqca
sav
~»is to ,tiveVed .0 _YreM

aselleqqsA

-CMANTIVH
yastt s eeolserot ot eoolisequs yd deapeanes nottos as at eldT :
edT etnsileqqs yd bSetyoexe ,.ydewmdt bowie sevon evit Bue beeb
esb otew Bus ,B8S0L .&8f teyavA to sish eted seston bes besh Faust
2stsb rotts aisey oonit
eftdy to aniteed edt moqu aetuslleqqs yd begin eanetod eat if
vd sottyooxes ati tetts easton svit edd ® dose Tadd asw . 92190" ‘ts
,2eelleqqs yd bexrsado bane botetie yilslrotsm moed bad .atuslleqge
wodtiw ,00 Hoetibf tiedt ts bas tisded «todd fo 90 oMo8 D
beomsta ed of guteveo yd jtneenoo to ephelwondt tatnal feqae
ext” :abtow gniwolfot eft aston bisa to tose }® eost edt nog
yrs vo ston atdt antysq to sneliving edt evirseet Toeted atezan
avotvetg eysbh yxie setemrt odt ot gatvis noq ,ysb testetar-
to tavoms ent ‘to R8 to myimerg s geaiyer bas suttiaew at cotton
noqy bequste esw vaometste ewds ofT ". tootedt ise iatenul ot
etjon dose go boosiq sew bas .qmsta aeddyx s to yew yd ston ‘dose
to otvtssate edt rot bebtvetg enti texrtt edt ovods yletaibenmt
mnogu tengie tartt edt esw tivsVed .D yrs .atodem ise oat
arthtow edt dsvotdd bas ota! ebnetxe emtangie ted bas ston ffoso

adnelleqqs yd betatemi at tl .qmste seddwt edt yd mooreitt ovate

ies peat:

~~ as Sa

SS ee ee

that this red stamp placed upon each note as aforesaid is super-
imposed upon the signature of the said Mary C. DeVault, thereby
demonstrating the fact that the said stamp had been placed upon
the several notes after their execution. ‘The color of the rubber
stamp upon the notes is referred to by appellants as red. It is
in fact of a purple color, but for convenience herein we shall
hereafter refer to the same as red. Appellants urged that by
virtue of Sees. 145 and 146 ch. 98 Cahill's St. 1931, the alleged
alteration rendered the notes and trust deed void, and therefore
they are not liable thereunder.

The cause was heard by the Chancellor and he decreed fore-
closure as prayed. Appellants prosecute this appeal uping
for reversal the above alleged alteration of the notes by the
placing of the red stamp thereon.

Complainants’ exhibit nine was an application for loan of
five thousand dollars for three years and contained the follow-
ing clause: "Prepayments: any note callable at 102 on any inter-
est date on sixty days prior notice." Complainants’ exhibit ten
was the application for extension of this loan, signed by appel-
lants and contained the following clause: "Prepayments: any note
callable at 102 on any interest date on sixty days prior notice.”
An extension agreement was entered into pursuant to the above
application therefor.

The trust deed herein was mailed to Helmer, Molten, Whitman,
and Holten, attorneys, in Chicago, for execution. It was recorded
before it was returned to the office of appellees, The notes were
mailed directly to Mrs. Mary C. DeVault, in Chicago, and she re-
turned them to the office of appellees, in person. From the time
the trust deed and notes were prepared and mailed as above, for
execution, they were never back in the office of appellees, or in
the hands of any one representing appellees, until after they had
been executed, and the trust deed recorded.

The trust deed recites: “The grantors herein reserve the

= wn

~tequea et Biseerots as eton dose sogy beoseiq qmste bet atdd tat

detedt ,tiveVed .0 yreM bisa oft to sautenyta eft ooqu besoqut
neq: hoosl¢ seed bed gqmsiva iine edt tedt test edt polisitenomeb
redder edt to tofoo sd? .ncityvoexe tot tefts aeton Letevee ont |
ai vi .ber as ataslisqqs yd of bexrtetet st aston ont ss, of quate |

{isda ew atetond sorsinsvans tot tud .to.Leo ee a te toe mt

yd tends besxy etnefleqqA .bat as ase edt od tetet <asosauict
bozalis odt ,LECL ste. ali ftded S@ .do Ohh damm BM .eoe? to euttiy
etotetent bus ,btev feeb teutt bas asdon oft betebmet soltststie
stobaxetent efdail dan ete jyedt

-otot Joetoeb ed 5ne tollsenai) odt yd, bteed eaw esyso edt

anignw [seqqe aint stvoseotg atasifleqaA .heysta¢ as emeoLo
out x a9 jon eat to he oauscigdars beatlin overs at Leateves 2%
bet, de . | ssoeradt qmsie Dor out 0 galoata

to. neol to % mottsotiags : as asw entna ‘thd Lixo ‘adnan teLqmo0 ie
“WO J ‘fot edi bent stnoo bus atsey serdd To ataltob Danewoit evi
“ted at yas go SOL ts s{dellso ston Mon of nemyaqexs" :eaxreLo ‘ont
nov tidt dire ‘a atnsute lg) ",o9iton rola aves vxte m0 et ab fee
~feqas td bemste , aeol etait t0 no Laneéxe 10% ott 90 Lage edt eam

> stor yas : at nomyeqer" roasealo tt wo | (Lot edt bomtetsos baa aaa

" sotton zo fea’ ayes vixis go of fo ovet at wae 10 sor sd oidstiso
Fay bie auf fg
evods ant ot in aes otal be sot ae asw ( tnomenge a9 fanetxe sth

rotoresis ao ttaotiaas
,ftamd fofW (10 Lol , remloH ‘o deLtam ¢ aew alowed peed seunt ont ie

bebrooer asw + foihoexe 10% cogsoisto at avert tot ok fool

eo tion \
Stew eevon oxtit -20oLleqas to eoltto ont aa bemtitor od tt eitoted
ioe gale
~er iin han rogaoiso al ¢iueved +0 cre emit ot ‘Utoorts SeLtem
LS head Hae ;

omt? oat mort 108794 at ost loqas to eoltto odd ot mod Sent ©
10% evods as pelion ‘bar Sorsaona o1ew eston ies. ‘heak ote Oe
ak ro ,aosttoqus te soltto ot al dosd teven etew “Youd qsotéveexe
bad verti Totts Lita _sseeLtoaas “aniinoaesqet en. ws To aban @ ‘at
He Ny aa) at Wh Uf A ae Se Me

.bebtooss boob canes edd “bas betuoex

edd eviszet aieted atotnsig eT” :aettoet Beek. tay. od

ee ee

privilege of paying any of the notes above described, on any
interest day, upon giving to the trustee, sixty days previous
notice in writing, and paying a premium of 2% of the amount of
the principal thereof." It is admitted by the appellants that
the alleged alteration of the trust deed by the incorporation
therein of the above quoted words, was not made after the re-
cording of said trust deed.

William C. Hubbell testified he prepared the notes and that
the ted stamp upon the fact of each note was placed thereon when
the notes were prepared and before they were mailed for execution,
Elsie Huss, an employee of the attorney of appellee bank, testi-
fied she prepared the trust deed and that it was in the same
condition at the time of the hearing as it was at the time she
prepared it, except for the signatures and the filing mark.
Florence Klepper, an employee of appellee, states she paw the
trust deed and notes before they were executed, that she checked
them before they left the bank, and after they were executed and
returned. She states that the red stamp was upon the notes before
they left the bank, and that she mailed them directly to Mrs. De
Vault in Chicago, for execution, and that they are in the same
condition now as they were at the time she mailed them, except
for the sienatures. She states that the above clause was in the
trust deed.

The above wording as it appears in the trust deed, undoubtedly
was written with the same typewriter that was used to prepare
the instrument. livery indication points to this fact. Hach
member of this court examined the red stamp as placed upon the
several notes, with reference to the signature of Mary C. DeVault,
which extends into and through the wording of said stamp, in many
places. This examination was made with an excellent magnifying
glass, free from distortion, and from such examination this court
was of the unanimous opinion that the signature of Mary C. DeVault
is superimposed upon the red stamp, and not the red stamp super-

imposed upon her signature. The trial court also used a glass in

yas no ,bediveesl evedse aeton sdi to Yits + ware 20 errant ; é
avotveny éy¥sb vixte ,setertt edd ot antvis, roa ceed Yeorstat
to tmmome eft ‘to 8S to mrimet¢ s ankyett dite Boke baw ‘HE eeiton
tadd e¢nelfeaqs of? yo bettinba et #2 *,toeredt “fsqte wire ont
nolvetoqtoont eft yd Beeb taint ont to ndltetetls begets’ if
~er eit tests ebsm tom sew .2btow betovd évods one to mieteit
-heeb temrd Sise’ to sek rdd
tedt bus sefom odd Leteqety of bottitest Lfodesn 0 wer reewroo”
cenw fosted# Bevel eaw étéd tose “to t¥st ont Moor ‘Ghinte bot ‘ent
toltroexe ‘no agitem evow yedd oroted bas betsqstic evew Bedod ode A
~itast ,uasd eelleqas to yerrotts sd % sevolyns' as (eect elart
emse off ai asw tt tett Sus beoh dau+d add “osrsdete Se bott |
eda ontit edt te sew tt ws ankrsed odt TS omits Sf Goo Ehed
etter sottit add bas eotut ansie end rot Y¢edxs (FF beteqet”

edt wee oda eetsta ,celleqqs “to eovoldms ns ,teqrelt estetolt
hoxdedssrtd Yndl {Heer Wekb Wrdw ene ote We taal bite’ Neu Yaout
has hetyooxs stew yedt retts fas (aisd edt Ftof yout eteted mont
eroted eefon oft moqu asw gmote bet odd tadt aetete ode ° jHeamitet
ed ,ett! of yidoetib med} boltaw ede éadd nds aded ‘att stel yods
“emsa eft at ote yodt tact fae \cottysexd tof ,ogselde nk Yiesv
fgeoxe jmedt beftem ede omtd adt Fe otow yeild es wort sto bt tbeGo _
64t at eew sascts ovode oft tat astate oft dertitang fe ete 40 |
et eee svigie ° \poed Faved
ylbetduohay ,S5eeb tewrt ont ot arseqys ti ss gakbvowsvods 6d?! oi" | 3
‘ atagety ot bear sar t4dt tetitweaet entse oil? ag tw mead baw asw |
dost fost’ eint 6f avdiog delvecthat yrewe “ {detomaitd ant ott
ent hog Beoalg eB qmeta bet Sift BHeatmixs Prod akdg te cedinest
~tigsvet’,o qrail to otutean ie sat ot ebnetoter ‘dgiw aston’ Ieneves
yuem ot ,qamete Skat to amtbyow eff Aaroritt bas ovat ‘ebitetxe donee
aatvitase Yroffooxs ma’ dehw efsm ab nb ttekimare: ener’ 0: veeonte
gavoo aie aottAaimexs dowe mort pre sotto rath mort! oott eeele
dtraved 9 vrs to eiudanite edt sede notntgo vom ont 20 F
“toque quste fer oft fom bre « eit bor ‘onl nowt |
mt eapfg 8 boas cafe twee Istct edt ° Lortehe be tot

i Hee

his examination of these notes,

We find herein as 4 matter of fact, that the trust deed
and notes involved in this case were not altered after their
execution, as claimed by appellants herein.

The judgment and decree of the circuit court of Lake county

is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

ao eho

seston seedt to goltsatmexe aid

boob tard oift ted? (teat 40 <odtom eee ntenod bat? of
“Say at waked fon lbw ast chii'at hovtovad coven haa
ho Poe ald “no. te Bae vaattocts wi fom } sto wes i ven
yinvoo ewst to ‘00! tien’ wy ak’ sikoes" ‘bee ef, abr

Rote woog honk att We Mes deody ent te Bet Penge Le! penn oe

d ouer calvtedr Seton sred eis ke abe

MS ieee” Wks ae

tee Peed Bia? ae ae essde Me
9 wee RAO |
oo Pratt) ole oe atta Ce eee

wit paottied Ab Sete eet pity wre wad

witent .orad eollecre 6 ~weermedte. wie Se Weoley Wi et ‘oe
exige afd Hi daw tt vec? See Sous dukes ee here, ae bale oy

ote sit oat Pa naw FL oe nod et Te out Ge ea eee
‘ahde'e ewtt et ade here’ wom eae Be eG na ‘SAR IeS tt ‘povepony ‘

eid wee. ede eotata, .sellagar tw serartivegs pede ae eaneroey,

beadoeds ‘ode tant | batyides onow Wh eae ted eden Sa Gane Pnaree
hai Sahyrosns tio vate tutte fas Goa ode Mol vet anetod meer

BCG ® aes
Ba aay GF Lee Bh wet Beek Punt pete ree vate” 5 bat aa a ‘yeae |
“"gekee edt ad ote vets Fant fae (eevee ieee wet cage es ae ikea

tooowe ceble battow ede werd ede Ps sen a ae ‘ee welet sie BO bao

eee ave weade hot edt tate vehaty eat bemiemey

éf? ut sae seule srete wit fat? aofars “eet! oe ‘ale oe
ave” feet

qisstdvotay ,bted Feet att We ateagae Pf ae gutinee areas: ‘th

ateqenr Se Saray ase FAs es ative’ na iy a ie wien ite, now. Rae
grotto Sua eter Ge eee: dil

oUy ROGh Heoaks Be Cite bas

ates ia ee tuatraoxh te ae tor whe Bae” -notohtihee Panis wes

Groen aire ae bias bate bad
oo ati

sabi anaes Dor weet ron jhe ‘sett to ‘a jokin iki
‘nt Beets W ous bate eee” ‘paver ame * ‘erie i

eee WS haea's eee nb el) | ba) Mi

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

SECOND DISTRICT fs I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court. in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.

of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Atppellates Courtaraun Ottawa. itl sass seen ae nae ee eS dayaor
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-82) «S307

i ¢(

‘ali br saront oneto ee 40 ne rai oh in
‘ Bat
ow eee ee —

a pe ae ave te inp Alali ster omc llnes pice Ne

Fe, ch ni % i

a st

|
H
f f yi rai iss , ? :
H Z 5
a
:
3
:
|
n

oo ;
i a 2
AT A TERM OF THE a Ca OURT, De

Begun and held at Ottawa, on 2 sixth day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:

Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APK 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

)

TOS apna iy
‘e ai
ERG ‘ ai i, f
. See Re
X a : yr
Es aE 7 es rer -
oF sieges a’
Eby wosieeey So yet “a¥SbEc att #O vias 0 tar 8)
Gta ee LST es crak tear ate Bro. orb £5 then ag ?
Ny
aria tae PEATE edi to foln Par Basa]
OORERD SY Be See a SOL TOR ed Cae
Py ee * Sete 4 ae
SETS SG att enbataas ad1ORe)
: 78O so Re eM: Ha EAde
oe MOLEEOL . a ‘agitate
i - 2 ph TEM aie a0 aw te 5
iO :tiy-oF (efieetsdéts Jad? -CaSGeee

sit mi fo 07% -daw*ttyok odd Mo" aetdige eae:

£,

Gen. No. 8771 Agenda No. 33
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

FEBRUARY TERM, A.D. 1934.

Jacob Draves,
Appellee,
VS. | Appeal from the Circuit
Court, Knox County.
Galesburg Horse and Mule Co.,
a corporation of Galesburg,
Illinois, et al,
Appellants.
HUF FMAN=J «

This was a suit by appellee against appellant based upon
the common counts, including the count for money had and received.
Trial by jury was had in the Circuit Court of Knox County. The
jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee for the amount claimed,
and judgment was entered thereon. Appellant prosecutes this appeal
from the judgment of that court,

Appellee lives in Ontario, New York. Appellant corporation
is engaged in the horse and mule business at Galesburg, Illinois.
Appellee used Charles Mills as his buyer and field man in the
purchase and sale of horses. The said Mills lives in Coldwater,
New York. He states that he had no interest in the horses and
that appellee furnished the money with which to buy game. Appellee
and Mills were both acquainted with the managing officers of
appellant corporation, Mills had done business upon his own
accord with the appellant for seven years. He had also done
business for appellant on behalf of Mr. Roach who is the president
thereof. Mills was personally indebted to appellant in the sum @
about $4000.

In April 19352, appellee and Mills came to Galesburg for the
purpose of buying horses. Appellee had a draft payable to his
order for $1000 issued by his bank in Ontario, New York. He and

Mills crossed over into Iowa and purchased two horses near the city

2 Mee A hehe Tia \

ee naan I". |
j i

Ae Fee |

S8 .of shnregaA Iv%8 ,ow ,me0

SHT “1
GIOWULIIL WO TAUCD ATA LIGIIA
TOISTaId dioote

DEOL .C.A MALT YAAU ASE

2evstd doost
,selleaqga
tivowzid adit mort Lseqqs | | ev
eYtnvoD xonmd ,t100
.-O0 elyM Bos satoH gredas{sd
*Biudeslsd To mitetogmo s
<is ve ,e@fontiit
eatnellogqaé
» L-HAMT OH |
fogs bored tasifeqas tentsas eelleqqs yd tive s asw akdT
sbevisoss fas bel yssom tel tavos edt ant bolont vases fOMOTO 9 anid
edt .ytmvod xonX to trvod tiuoxtd edt ai bad esw youst vd Latat |
ebemtsfo tnyoms odt rot eslleqqs to tovet mi tothbrev s henrstet vu
Lseqqe aidt eetyvoesotg tusf{legqt ,nootsdt beoretme ssw tnoambut pms
,stivoo gsadt to taembut edt mort ‘
noltstoqres tusileqaA .dt0Y well ,orusts0 al esevil sefleqqa | |
eatontiti ,atudaceiso ws eesntesd oinm Sus satod edt at beassae ek
edt at osm blott bas teysd aid as elliM eeltsd) boa collegga
,tetswhfod ni sevil affiIm Bisa od? -ceatod To olas has ea along
bas geerod ort of taotetat on bad eof tedt eetste oH + xt0Y vou
eslleqqA .omes wd ot dotdw dtiw yeoom oft bedetawt eelleqqs oo)
to-ateoitto anotasrem oft ditw betnisypos died etew elit bas
nwo atd goqy aeenteyd enob bsd al{IM ,.mottstoqtoo tnalleqas
enob oals Bad sh .atssy nevee tot tnelleqqs eft diiw br0008 hy
taeSteerq edd at ow dosoh .xM to tiated mo tnalleqqs tot eacntend
wb me edt ot tnslieqqs ot betdebat yiisnoaieq eaw allimM ,Tootedd 7
2 000R3 tuods
edt tot arudael{sd ot omeo alliM bas eelffeqqs ,SteL LtagA al 7
etd ot sidsaysa ttetb s bed eolfeqaa se29gtod gatyud to onogiyg | |
hos si ,woY well ,ottstnO at Ansd atd yd beseat OOOL$ tot teb10 ,

vito edt rsen esetod owt boasdomwd bas swol otmt tevo besaoro alti

-~2-
of Fairfield. The banks in that town were closed and appellee
eould not get his draft cashed. A sight draft was drawn by these
parties upon appellant company for the sum of $280 to pay for these
horses, The horses were then transported to appellant's barns by-
one of its trucks, together with five other horses that had been

purchased by one ‘filton Preston.

J, Le Roach was president, F. L, Meeker vice-president and
R.B. Sharp secretary anc treasurer, of appellant company. These
men were in the active management of the business. The next day
after the horses had been purchased in Iowa, the parties returmd
to Galesburg where they talked with Mr. Sharp and Mr. Meeker regard-
ing the transaction of the previous day. Appellee at this time
owed a balance on account to apovellant of $379, upon which Mr. Sharp
had entered a credit of 865, reducing the balance to $314. Mills
had sold a team of horses for appellee for $225 and save appellant
a check for this amount to apply upon appellee's account. This
reduced appellee's balance to $89.

Appellee wanted to return home, and claims that he left Mills
at Galesburg in possessim of the $1000 draft for the purpose of
buying more horses to ship east. Appellee claims he had an under-=
standing with Mr. Sharp and Mr. Meeker, of appellant ompany, that
he would leave the $1000 draft with Mills for the purpose of pur-
chasing more horses, and to pay the balance of $89 which he owed
appellant. He claims that Sharp gave him his pen to indorse the
draft to leave with Mills for the purchase of the horses and the
payment of the balance of his account. Milto Preston lives in
Wheaton, New York, and he had the five horses at appellant's barn,
which he had purchased. He was going home because of his father's
death, and appellee was returning with him. Appellee left the
draft with Mills, and Mills left the draft with the officers of
appellant company. Appellant company deposited the draft to its

eredit and credited the personal account of Mills therefor.

oe ee PP ORAS te

bLortziet to
saeati vd ove tbh eew rst tig ts A -bodase distb aid tos, ton ‘Bis09

sefloqqs bus beeclo) etew) sod ‘ted? rt avaad edt

eeedd tot ysq ot 088% %D owe add xo% Ymaqinos ‘fealteqas neqy eottase

yc soisd e'instiloqqs of hetztoqenstt medt orew esetond edT snentod a

it abe
need bad tant aeased tedio evit dtiw wdtezot exoirnd ‘edt. :

« fovea orl aod LE ‘eno yd Session

hee tupbtnewa—sety toxgoM .1 .T aptuiitiete asw fin. aa vt *% : |
i guedpetap. ;

yseb txen siT .2zeentasd oft to tnomes ansst, evito's. ond at erow rom
ae ne
hbertutet aeiiteay oft ,swol at heaesdowdg seed Sed acantod edt tte

~btsnje 1 texiseM .1tM bos qred& .mi dtiw bedist eet ete rw siudeotsd at

eb Sl he ae

emis atdd te eeLteqas web ato HveT¢ ot to “natvesaner? ¢ edt got
aved? ti tio tatw nog Ovee te dusiLeaqs of “favooo's ito Soceted » te
attiw aree ot eoneled edd patouber 888 to ‘fibers: on
“Guetteags VAD baa asst to% eslteras =¥ semean’ t0 ‘meet 8 brow bed
aid? "beeen a hoot save nog viags of favons aid ey 5 ng 8
888 ot sonal af eteottogas beoub gt

at Lik Hel ot tod eft emtato ‘bn i om mt ot bodnaw ‘Settoaca a ‘
“to. enoqiyg ‘ont “tot stew 00 Le edd to mi sae: .20q i ae oo te a

-T9 bay fs bad ed ants fo eeileqgh teso aide oF a i |
tact eeu taelteqas to texleott wit brs ated® ti thw gate fe |

' reg is “ip q
~mwa +0. ssogtud ent 10% alt hl itd fw tend oooh edd ovsel | zal ;
Y gilt % eafierqia saw: |
bewo od dot ste eae no eonsisd od? eq ot bas 200 erom nile sto
eco BPM pate

odd petobat od neq obt mbt ova quel Fede emt ato oll staal Longs i
nat Tiger

ott bins aan tod ede ey ea afoxwe edt ye ef iiit ‘dite avaet ot #%:

r te by i Are ony

mt aevit rot eert mod LEM stavovos ‘etd to conatod ‘ont Xo Saenys

; me fe ® Tt y Pea on y
rsd al snetleage te neexod ovis ont bed. oe i (tro wen , fot ee dW

r iyi feet “ r

8 Tn

e'tenitst elf 16 oawecsd enod satog apn olf “hea ntowg hed a eke
edt ¢tel eolfeqqs mtd dt iw gulnutet ase section bie hy.
to 8 an99 ito odt ite ther outt tet atten sins fetid

i ® ve re

att oF itetb ‘oat bodteoged | vase Beierieccal

ns . im
LY elt A) AS i Sox ads heoe awel ovat Teve hema

Bm
Whereupon appellee instituted this suit as aforesaid for the
recovery of the proceeds from the said draft less the balance
of S89 owed by him to appellant.

The evidence of Milis, the appellee, and Preston is to the
effect that appellant's officers knew and understood the draft
was the property of appellee and that he left it with Mills for
the purpose of buying horses for him, to be shipped out with those
already purchased by himself and Preston, and which were then at
appellant's barns. The officers of appellant company admit con-
versations were had at these times claimed by appellee, but deny
knowledge that appellee left the draft for the purpose claimed.

This was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Where
the evidence is conflicting, and that of appellee when considered
alone fairly authorizes the verdict, the same will not be disturbed.
It is the province of the jury to weigh and consider the evidence,
determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to te
given their testimony; and unless the verdict is contrary to the
weight of the evidence a court of review will not substitute its
judgement for that of the jury and reverse a case merely because the
evidence is emflicting. Appellant's objection that the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence is not well taken.

Appellant claims of appellee's given instructions five, six and
seven. We have examined these instructions and we do not emsider
the cbjection as made thereto constitutes reversible error, The
question in this case is whether the appellant had knowledge of
appellee's title and ownership to the draft and the purpose for which
it had been left by him with Mills, as claimed, at the time they re-—
ceived the same from Mills. From an examination of the record we are
of the opinion that the jury was fairly and properly instructed as
to the law, and that their verdict is not the result of passion @&
prejudice and can not be said to te contrary to the manifest weight
of the evidence.

The judgnent of the Circuit Court of Knox County is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed .

Baa al

EE ase Spam

ent tot biseerots Be ¢ kira atid bedudiy ant wen ae moqueredt
soneled ot cael #tetd bisa oft ork Bdesoomg out ‘to “yrows =

¥ stant Loa ® of mi ve bowo “28 0

edt ot af noteerd bas ,oeLteqas ent at Lin 10 sonobive oft : a
#retb edt bootaxe bay bas wenx ateoitto e'taattoras todt “footie
‘0% ea Slim dttw th Stef ed felt ns solloqas. to anscier ott eee t.
sao nt dAtiw tuo heqq ite od ot ,mid sot aeetod aniwd te ‘scormy od

c
;
ik
;

ts nods etew foie 5 16 moter bas Tleamtd vd boaadonug vosorls
LS 4 high

web tud ssolteaga. yd bemtslo. aout t oz sold ts Bat aTew anolteatey_

bet ui sto anes edd 10% vterb out ref colle s todd eabeLnomt a

| sted eu ont ud bortmtod ob od od vont ‘to mitaoup ry 2 enw ana?

beteble MOD Aosky oolieqas to todd pon {Buttorltace ai ‘soushive ost
Ja a Bowe
shedud 2 bb od tom Li tw ones edt foLbaey ony sostiositus vinis® emia oe

\eomeb ive: oat sobbanoo bas fg tow ot Rea eat ‘to sontvorg or as #1 ‘

fag Daas: Y

ad ot tigkew end, hts eousentiw ost ‘Yo Wilidibers oad exlumted
rege: as

ott of TIsttH00 at tethuey eft eae Ly bn ‘ywomiteed thods novia

+ ELM Th gy

Bt od it St adua tout <iin waiver to tare 8 comsbtve edt to tdgtew
edt oaugoed vLeres e889 8 gerevor ane cust uid to @ at ‘mot tne empbut
tk ard we oa

ai tokbuov e! it tui fo Lt 901, d0 a ‘mel Leqaa “galt ebstap 9 tap ‘omnebive

SS a Re i A put

bas xte * oukt esokt outae mi nevis. & "eo Ltogan to natbato taal
raat BLarew ast

te bios 9 ee ab ow bas malo itowsteni seat bo mimexe ov avi eW meee
tor anata te one

ont -ToTIO eidietsves eetsrd Henop of oes osm as so thouhae. edt

0 enb awons final nas one: ott oait beni ak oaso abit ak a0 bse
f hp ol Ot eteen
ot cher 10% seoqusg edt hrs ster ond ot qtdetonwo bas oltis ator seek

“Or ‘xedi emit edt te Houiele a8 +e LLiM fdbw wit vd Fed need
ots ow brovet ony to nokds mtusxe {8 m0 =% aL LM sent omen ‘ond
as betoytt ant qlreqorg bas viztst enw cmt ot yoy so kao

hegre Aas ye

1b soles ay to tiusex ostit tom ak tolbtev ried todd bre wal edt o

Bay i | Cit 3 ag a
+datem saetiaem out of xeetmo ed od bee ee toa oso hrs ‘
» oeeks Hee a CIAO oS 7

Me SMe tee le a ee ae

.bomritts al yaved xom¥ to tavod shsontd edt to :
+ bomriTtTA toom bot

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

SECOND DISTRICT fs I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,

of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Appellate Court, at Ottawa. this day of

_in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court
— (13815—5M—3-32) kB07

Lyset, asf 9

fete ait

ni nee ;
aainie ee, ay dont 4 lig bint a

* 2

; i yw
faa ee es ‘ a)

Arik oa eee: the: ‘baa bia! hae wiv alae tL

ta wid eh

’

PATA, Ply Aeoe a eeaT a Upp eevee

Hagel) sama te em

geeeun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of February,

D o
- 3 fo
7 ra ff
\ ra é
SZ” Pr
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLAT# coun,
4 ee

in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four,

within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:

Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

i as

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

& > FY Pe a " ve. =
JUSTUS L, JOHNSON, Clerk. awé4J1.A. O73

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 25 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Glerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

—

PHU 7 ER Ad

re:

“ae atts te brod 5

war aa

wae ‘9 ftOR

a0 rod, aoo Yo a8 ad

on peer:
Ol, ot ~

josie
ett

Gen. No. 8776 Agenda No. 36
In the Appellate Gourt of Illinois
Second District
February Term, A. D. 19354
H. F. Gehant Banking Company,
Appellee,
Appeal from the Circuit Court
vig of Lee County
M. Bradshaw and Mae Bradshaw,

Appellants,

HUFFMAN-J,

Judgment by confession was taken by appellee against appellants
on October 10, 1932, in open court, in the circuit court of Lee
County, for the sum of $9241.80. Execution issued, and on October
12, 1932, service of execution was had upon each of appellanis.
Approximately one year later, and to-wit: On October 16, 1933,
appellants filed their motion to set aside the above judgment, allegt

ing lack of jurisdiction upon the part of the court to enter same.

This is the a@nly question in this appeal.
The warrant of attorney contained in said note is as follows:

"The undersigned hereby, jointly and severally,

empower any attorney of any court of record to appear

\ for them, or either or any of them, in such court in
term time or vacation, at any time hereafter and

confess a judgment without process ageinst them, or

either or any of them, in favor of the legal holder

thereof for such sum as may appear to be unpaid thereon
with interest, costs and ten per cent attorney's fees,
with minimum attorney fee of $25.00 and to waive and

: release all errors which may interven@® in such proceeding
and consent to immediate execution."

;

The cognovit contained the following language, to which
appellants object:

8 "The defendants further agree that no writ of error

or appeal shall be prosecuted on the judgment entered by

virtue hereof, nor any bill in equity filed to interfere

in any manner with the operation of judgment."

Appellants insist that the warrant of attorney included in
the note, not containing the phrase just above set out, which was

incérporated in the cognovit, the court was therefore without

ba. a AM

85 .of shmega ; SvVS ,ou .me0
efomiI{l to trod etslleqak edt aI | |
tofrtalig bacosek
bee .¢ .A ,mIST YIsvidet .
eUseqmod entdasd tnedep 7 .E
,selleaqa | |

trod tisgoxid sat mort Iseqqa
yinvod s¢.I to zie eAltad
,wedebstq esi bas wadabsvd .M

,ednsileqga

-, L-MAMTIUR
atvasileqqs tantsys seelleggs yd aeist esw noisastnaoo yd toembsu

eel to tuvoo Sivotio edt ai ,dtwoo meqo afi ,SteL ,OL tedoto0 ae

tsdotoO mo bas ,beveai motéucexa .08.[a&86%. To asa oft rot ,ytawod

.etoslifeqas to dose moqy bed esw notsyoexe to eotyree {SSCL , af

,coeLl ,df xsdotoO m0 :tiw-ot bas ,retsl tsey ero yYietamtxorqqa

#esiis ,inemgbut evods et shies toa ot moittom rledt belit atasileqqs
-9use tefne ot tryoo edt to tisq edt moqy acitoibaiztwt to desi gat
.lseqqs efdt at motteesp yine edi at ible

:ewolfot as at stom Bisa ak benistnoo yenrotts to tnertew oft

.Vfisteves bas yitatot ,ydered bemytatebay edt" EOE

atseaqqs o¢ broost to grivoo yas to ysatotis Yas tewoqme
ai ¢ivoo dove ai ,medt to yas to tedéte to .medt rot
bas tetiseted omid yas ts ,nolisosv ro emit mret
<O ,ment temisas agsecotq tuodtinw iaemebu, s easinoo. —
wohblod Iszel edt to tovst at ,medt to yas to teditie
nosteds Disqus ed od tseqgs yea ss mua dove tot tosredt ~
,298t afyenmtotts taeo req met bas ateoo ,teoretat déiw
bes svisw ot bas 00.688 to est yesarotis mumtaim diiw
gaibeeoota dove ni Snevisiat yam doidw srotte Ife eesslot

“.scoitroexe otsibemmt ot tmeamoo bas a

sioidw of ,egsupnal gntwollot edt benistnoo sivomgeo edt

:tos{tdo atusileqas |

totte to Jicw on tedt estes redtxpt atnsbmeteb eden rat
yd berstme taeugbut edt mo betwoeaorg ed Ifsde Iseqqs mo |
stestietat ot belit yiinpe at ILid yas tom ,tosred eutaiv
",fmemgbyut to noltsreqo sat dgiw’ tTemmsm yas at

at bebsloni yentotts to tastrsw edt tedt teateant atasilegqga

asw dotdw sto toe evods taut sastdq edt gmintstaco tom ,etor ont

Seastiibe etotetedt esw tusoo edt ,tivompoo edt mt bets

|
4

-9-

jurisdiction to enter the judgment. They presented their motion to
set aside the judgment herein as aforesaid, which motion was based
solely upon an alleged lack of jurisdiction upon the part of the
court to enter samé. T,e question of any defense to the note is in
no way involved in this proceeding,

We understand the rule to be that the filing of a declaration,
note and warrant of attorney, affidavit of its execution, and cognovit,
brings the defendant before the court, and is enough to confer juris-
diction upon the court to enter judgwent. Bush v. Hanson, 70 J11l. 480.
The court in that case on page 483 of its opinion states; "It appears,
from the judgment order, that a declaration, the warrant of attorney,
and affidavit of its execution, the note and cognovit by the attorney
authorized, were filed. The defendant in the judgment was before
the court by appearance by his duly authorized attorney. A case
of jurisdiction was then presented." I+ thus appears that where a
note containing a warrant of attorney is filed with affidavit of
its execution, together with a declaration and a cognovit, the court
acquires jurisdiction to enter up a judgment. In further reference
to this matter it will be found that the Supreme Court in the case of
Fields v. Brown, 188 I11. 111, on page 113 of its opinion uses the
following language: "fhe power to confess a judgment being clearly
given in the writing signed and sealed by the appellant, the circuit
court was fully justified in accepting it as sufficient to authorize
the entry of appearance and confession of a judgment. Type filing
of the declaration, lease and warrant of attorney, and affidavit
of its execution, and cognévit, presented a case of jurksdiction. "

While it is the settled doctrine that the authority to confess
a judgment without process must be clear and explicit and strictly
pursued, yet this rule has its reasonable limitations, and must not
be applied with such strictness as to defeat the obvious intentions
of the party granting the power .Holmes v. Parker, 125 Ill. 478,481;
Sharp v. Barr, 234 Ill. App. 214, 217.

of sottom tiedd betmeaexg yedT ptremgou f. eis tetne of waive Lbabewt

beasd asw sottom doidw ,bisastots as ntezed tremsburt edt shies tee

eat to trsg edt mnogu nottotbetwt ‘to dost begelis as moqy ylsloa |

mt at eton edt ot eanstsb yas to ‘go ttasup ogt +9482 gprs rue
<gatbeboorg atdt ‘nt ‘beviernt yew ll

,aoitetslosh.# to, gnilit ont, ¢edt ed of eter edt bastarebay ov

,sivonges bas ,aoltpoexs ati to tivsbitis ,yeatotis to tnstsen aan wae
-~agitet tetmoo ot dyuome ai bas ,trsoo odd exoted tnabaeteb edt ‘axial
-O&8 .[fI OF ,moansH .v dev .toomgbhut nedne ‘of tusoo edt mequ moftotb
,atseqqes TI" sasista nointgo ati to S83 egsq oo easo tadd ol peppered?
.xentotids. to dastiev elt ,colisielosh a tadt) ,cebro: tmempbsrt edt mort
yentotts: sdi vd ¢ivemseo bus eton edt ,notswooxe ett to. divebitte aw

etoted asw dasipbuf.edt nk tasbasteb. set: .belih sxew qbeutrodses
saso.4 ,youtedts besitodive Yin aid yd sonesiseqas: yd taw00 gilt

8 etedw tsdt axsegys aust. tl .". betassenq: modt- eer goltothbatapt a6

to ¢ivs)itia ditw bSeltt al. yearotts to taertew)s gainistmooetox
tivoo edt ,tivemgeo 2 bas meitsrslosb:s dtiw- sedtegot. ,noltusex® edt

eonstsisr zedviit al .tnesgbeg. a ay. rstas-ot: soitoibastet) setinpas 4
to aso edt ai tryed swexrqua odd, dade bavot ed LLtwott settematat of
edt seau noiatge.atéi to.éLlL-eyse mo: ahhh shh 66L pipes ablelt

flute

yitselo uated. daemgiut 3. seeisoo o@ zewog edeh sepeuanal: gntwollot

site oy GP

tivorto edt ,tmsllieqas edt yd, belser bas, bengte paid haw edt ne omeviy

exitodiing ot tre to rive as ti. amttqeoss ak bostitent, Lat act tusoo 4
over ms Me Lye

gatlit eqT » tarsus bot “ to gotesert0o: ‘baa, senszseqas, ‘to vitae edt
tivebitts bas ‘remedies ‘Yo, ineurew bea mened sottstalosh edt to.

" moitoibetxy; to saso 6 betmessig ytivéomgoo bas _eetrer daring to
sestnoo ot ytirodinus edt tsdd enittoob bolsson ontd al ‘gt otk
vitottée ons, thotlexe, bas asso ed tas. aneoorg tufocé tw. dmomgbut *
ton tex bas emoited mis oidsneases att aad. olwt- abahuoegs <bean d
ancltasial avoivde edt tseteh ot es anentoizte uiowa dtiw oetiqas ed

There is no pretense made here that the judgment was not confessdd
for the exact amount honestly due to appellee from appellants. The
Warrant of attorney clearly contained the power to confess judgment
against appellants at any time, in favor of the legal holxder of the
note, for such sum as was due thereon, and with a provision to waive
and release all errors which may have intervened in such proceeding
and the consent to immediate execution.

With respect to appellants! contention that the court was without

jurisdiction to enter this judgment, because of the incorporation of

the above phrase in the cognovit, which was not expressly set out in
the warrant of attorney, we are of the opinion that the following

' Cases are decisive of this question. Hansen et al v. S,hlesinger,

et al, 125 Ill. 230; Long v. Coffman, 230 Ill. App. 527. In the
Hansen case, the court on page 237 of its opinion states; "In respéct
to the other branch of the motion, unless some equitable ground was

shown, the judgment could not be set aside and the execution quashed,

(Citing cases). None has been shown in this case. There is no pre-
tense the judgment was not confessed for the exact amount honestly
due to plaintiff from defendants. If the attorney waived more than
he was authorized to do by the warrant of attorney, in respect to
defendants' right to an appeal or writ of error it is obvious it did
them no harm, for they have now had their day in court, notwithstanding
the aétion of their attorney of which complaint is made." Jn the
Long case, supra, the court on page 531 of its opinion &teates; "The
cognovit expressly released all errors in entering the judgment.

The warrant of attorney did not, in terms, authorize the attorney

to release errors, and it is contended that the powers conferred

by the instrument must be strictly pursued and that any material
deviation therefrom has the effect of rendering the judgment void.
Counsel has stated the rule of law correctly but its application

cannot be made to this case, because every confession of a judgment

bbeaotaco: ton seq troenmgbut adit tsdd eted shes saastetq og ef emeat. a
ed? ,atasileggqe mott eolfsqgs ot sgh: yltasnod tatvoma: TORER edd : o
¢ronghet aesetaoo. of sewed et bentastmoo yiuselo. yemrottse: To» dapeage

edt to teb¢fod Isgel edt to tovst.a£ yomid yos: tS atnalleqqs: sentags

evisw ot: notaivorq 2 Aifw bre ,mdetedt exh esw) as sre dove. ot <oton
gaibsocer¢ doya al. beaeviedni- evel yeu, detdw acorrs. Ife: semton

res -doijveexe etetheuut of tasameo: edt bas 2
dsodtiv-esw tuyos. edi. tedd colimetnoa 'staslleqqs of» tosqeem, we goss 7 22
ote: soiteroqropat edg te. enueoed ,trengbyl. aids: tetas, of aD. rod t
al tuo toe Viagergze. don ssw doidm .tivemgoo, edt mal, sasidq, _ovods eat

gaiwolict. ed? tadd.nciniqo, edd. te 928: oH. 4yentetts. to) VaRTTaR eae

,tegoiesldne..v Is t@ mosash .solvaeup eidy te: evintooh: omg: $3
edt al, -ST&C..gqga. LT O88) .aemttod. 6 v: gated 4088. «LLE: eBh: iste
vosqaet aI" :aetede Goiaige aff te Tes egeq no tivoo sdf yoese aeemel
asw Lovetg oldstivps saoe eaelay ,sotiom eds, 2 donaxd xedvo. et. 08
-bsdasup moltvoexe edt bas shies tea sd ton bivop daemghut | Be de
~etq. on at siog? .-.aes0 aidt af awode ase’ aed saol, “+ (aeaso, ts :
yitasnod tavons togxe esd rot bessstaga ten asw saempbut, ode: ceenet |
cadé exom beyisw.yemtotie edd.2I. .atnabgeted mort thitatslg of ond

_ ot itgeqguet al, .yearotts to. dasizew edt yd.ob- ot, beatxodtua wow ced
bib ti avotvdo af ti sours to tixw,to Leeqqs as of ddgdt tetnebaeted
gatbastadtintos ,tryeo.st qeb xiedt Sad won Sved youd. 20% wasd om mods |
edt at “,ebsw af tuisiqmoo doldw to. vearotis.tieds te motthe )
oct", :astaté moinigo att to {83 egsq.mo.duyge edt ,orque seco amed
simemghut ed? gaksesae at ecosse {1s beaselex xleaezame,ttvemsop
Yeatetts edt extrodiue ,enced al ,gom bio yertotts to tastzew edt
Setrgince atewog ost tadt bebnetaoo atch has parotte easeten ot

. ctaitetem yas tedt bos bevetug citotrte od tecu treme tact, (eit sill
-biov tnamgbut ait gaizebast to toelig,edt.esd mottered? gotisiveb

_» Mottsoilqas atl tad yitoerroo wel te elux edt betsia seit Loaauen
tnemgbui, « to moteasiaoo yreve .eassged ,enso atid ot amet LD

}
;
;
:
:

ee eee ee ee ee

ethics,

operates as a release of errors. (23 Cyc. 721). Therefore the
statement in the cognovit that all errors are releaged amounts to
nothing mare than a mere recital of what the law is and the result
is the same whether the cognovit contains such a statement or not.
Because a judgment by confession operates as a release of errors,
the law is made to provide that courts of law shall have equitable
powers in determining motions to vacate or open up such judgments
and that appeals and writs of error may be prosecuted to review the
judgment of the court in granting or denying such motions. In
addition to this the plaintiff in error has not been prejudiced

by such alleged release of errors and there is no legal or equitable
reason assigned why the judgment should be vacated on account of
such release." OCertiorari in this case was denied by the Supreme
Court.

The appellants do not question the correctness of this judgment,
er advance any legal or equitable objections to same, They urge
there was such a material deviation between the warrant of attorney
and the cognovit, as to destroy the court's jurisdiction to enter
judgment, and that therefore the same is void. We do not adopt this
view of the case.

The judgment of the circuit court herein is atfirmed,

Judgement affirmed.

{ fiat bus vad Itade ‘wal “to atusoo dedd ‘sabre oF ‘obaa lt

edd wetver of beduossorg sd (an xotrs ‘to. at ia ‘bos si

: at Icicle dowe aatyaeb ro aadiaess at #2v09 > eda t

¥ 4 % ot Seige

Hint Sa a7

romgbut « ant to aasatoett00 ‘est oltasup ton ob etnettege

: DA LTE SOUR eee e's te Peo eae Ay me "4 Leth

est ‘yea -emize ot _anofv98 [do eldat taps: ‘to Esso t was 8
i Pe he SE fest ‘

“yeutorts to tnazzsy alt Reewted motisivel istretan 8 ‘doxre” “asw e@
7 te! kel ¥ pitt} is ey waits i
_Tetme or ott fobbe tut ‘a! 3x00 “ailt F yortaab of as | troigeo

ia) DF, ae]
t

se
>

Be!

“sbomatthe at alered | #100 Stuosto: ‘ott to tmemgart

shes ree oe a By ess a = ee BG

-bowrt3s mong but

STATE OF ILLINOIS, i
ss.

SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,

of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Appellate (Court at Ottawa; this = ee day of
—_ SCS. the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

b Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—2-32) e587

q ba \
~ . |
* ¥ or
: i oe i HS { ? 7
my f ft 4 i
; ' re Py
» y i 7 -
‘ 3 7 Pe
¥ 1 uy
Te i -
1
Dag a
i /
a ;
ue i
:
. > 5 ie ¥
i
7 V
i ! 4 y
~ Bs,
iD . 7 i y
i
f ‘
3 ‘ae
7 ‘ ; :
Girt = -
f pn ne
7 f
i i
i
j
i
i
. Ny »
ay i
j a
: I f
a
ge
a : f
j
5 “4
I
hy a
i Ps
‘
be
j
f
P
, ‘ :
Mh p
a ie
7
ra
f
, f
i
ie
1 1°
J

bina us Huo alnllogyA adit Sie stool’ » HiaienON. 21 PUTA, #
oud: mrt di: Aoarrants fant ae be ba ohh Ce congo nit se reuse bw. ote wt

Jeter healtitaw avode om

ike Wd Enis ile

a ‘tah. ae eee

oar bust t Asis tsk “He 1, ‘ayn roth oh

Pee aS gut ‘A

Ly:

wire, mex,

# ¢
ee £ ; are
2 £
£
Z

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE’ couRT,/ =

Le ia
¥ é

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, fae aaa f day of February, in

the year of our Lord one thousand hike hundred and thirty-four,
2

within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:

‘Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.

Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. as
D'7/ AT ‘Be
E. J. WELTER, Sheriff. 2 4 Ale B

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On

APR 2.5 1934 the opinion of the Court was filed in the

Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

~
a*

st as

ath aL aeee sae mo ro wt
(Lae Mee . .

ees fees) dcr ai Seat ad pa
~ NN “aa So ee e 7 ' . , atte 6
diete- adh ;gabeoth® na awesto Ga Siem

£54 Bei "Np ee ete Siok igo
asHie ais ree) ie Fedak Sacaed i Si
iat valbiaarh RULdP)geames

,eotianws ,1V90 2H WED eat) sok ee

acvisteuh ,TAMTRUH. GATAde 4 a68 *
; ak
tei ,WOSRHOL. fg eueat
% :
Lt inert qaotua «tam |
s <
SS nen eens ba a a rn ot em 0 2 om nr

‘sitw-ot ,ehitewisdtasteae 2 6a)
halt tex itveD okt to wetebgo-eday ci

bts sitow eff nb ,siv00 Bise to se

Gen e Noe 8411 Agenda No. 45
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SRCOND DISTRICT

Oetober Term, AD. 19526

ANTONIA BURCAR,
Appellee,
.ppeal from the Circuit
VSe
Cowt of LaSalle County.
ALBERT L. ROBERTS,

Appellant.

PER CURIAM: =
Antcnia Burear, hereinafter referred to as appellee,
instituted this proceeding against Albert L. Roberts, hereafter
ealled appellant, in an action based on fraud and deceit, averred
to have been practiced by the appellant upon appellee in the sale
of a stock of merchandise and fixtures in a grocery store in Streator,
The declaration consists of two original and three amended counts,
in all of which it is charged that the appellant deweived and defraud-
ed appellee by misrepresenting to her the quantity and quality of the
stock of groceries sold. To the declaration the general issue was
pleaded.
It appears that in February 1926 the appellant owned a stock
of groceries in the City of Streator; that he purchased the stock
in October 1925, and that his sister irs. O'Neil and his wife
managed the store from October until the following February.
Appellee lived in Kangley, near Streator, with her sons and daughters;
one of her daughters who attended the streator High School near
the store learned the stock was for sale and on Sunday, February
14th, 1926, Ralph Burear, twenty-two years of age, and his brother
Peter, twenty-six years of age, sons of appellee, called at the

home of appellant and went with him to the store and examined the

-GS .olf sbooepA If{s8 .oU . 10D
CHT UI |
@LOULIGI LO TAVOD STALINITA
TOIATATG dwoore

eSSOL .d.A ,atteT tedoto0

,AAOAUE ATMOTWA
,sellsqqA
tivoeriod sdt mort L[seqqi
2V
eqenvod el[f{sasi to turo0d
,CTHIGOR .1 TARGA

.tnalloqga

~:MAIAUS Ay

,esifeqqs es ot berrster rettentoted ,rsemd siootma
tstiseted ,cetisdoH .1 trediA tenisgs snathesoorq atdt botutitant
berteve ,titeosh bas busxt mo beesd mites as at ,tnsalleqqs beiise
efse sdt ai seffscqs oogu tusileqqs edt yd beottosiq oosd evad ot
» TOF sorte at stotea yreoor, s at asautxit boas eatbasdotem to doote a to
Sivas 5ehaeme ssetdt has [snigtro owt to atetanoo noitsralosb sAT :
-bystieoh bas hevtewveb tnsif{scqs sdt tsdt bBenteado at ti dofdw to fis at

eft to witenp bas yihitnaersp edt ted ot anitnezemstetm yd selleqqs be

esw oyeet [siscnen sdt soitsirsfoeb eft of .bloe asitesots to aoote f

.bebsela

Moota s benwo taslloqqs oft SSCL yrayvidet at tadt ataeqqs tI
dwoote edt heessotuq sd tsoit j;rotsetta To yFID edt at zeires0Tg To
stiw aid bas [teM%'0 .atM setete aid tedt bos ,2sel redoto ml
-Utsuidel satwollot ont Litauy tedoyvoO mort etote edt besenem

yatetdayshb bas eanoe ted dtiw ,wotsette teem , veltaned at bovil sellLeqqA —

teen foode& duihH tofseis2 edt hebnetts odw atotdsysh ted To 60 —

Yisuidel ,ysbauve no bus efse rot asw woota edt bentsel etote edt

tedterd ald bas ,ege to atsey owl-ytnowt ,rs0Twd dqiel ,asel , dt MN

edt ts Bef{iso ,eeifeqqs To anos .,eas to etsoy xla~ytnews ,tetet

edt bentmexe Sas etote edt o¢ mid dtiw tuow bas taalleaqes to emod

i a ea or

=Dea

stock, According to the theory of appellant the stock was fresh
and clean and apparently appellee was pleased with the report
made to her by her sons for on the following morning she went
to the store and remained examining the stock and observing the
trade.

The record further discloses that appellee testified that
she resolved on Monday morning to buy the stock. Appellant in-
quired whether she wanted to buy for a lump sum or on an inventory
basis. It appears that an inventory had lately been taken. Appellee
said she would not buy for a lump sum nor accept an inventory unless
it was made in her presence. She returned on Tuesday with her son
Ralph and again examined the stock and watched the trade,

It further appears that she and her said son Ralph returned
on Wednesday morning following and arranged with Mrs. O'Neil to
have an inventory of the stock taken by a disinterested outsider,
and by agreement George Page, a salesman for a wholesale grocery
house, was called and an inventory was made by him and under his
direction. Appellee and her son Ralph were present throughout the
entire taking of the inventory and Ralph assisted Page in taking
it. The inventory was largely in the handwriting of Ralph Burcar

and was in the possession of appellee from the time the inventory

was taken until the trial. The inventory of the value of the stock
was in the neighborhood of $900 and the shelves and fixtures around
$300. Appellee paid appellant the total inventory value of the

stock and fixtures on Thursday, Februsry 18th, and immediately

.
;

went into possession of the stock and the store.

a ae ee

The evidenee discloses on the part of appellee as well as

—————

appellant, except for a few minor exceptions, as to which there
is a conflict in the testimony, that appellee received all the
items of goods and property listed in the inventory.

It is the contention of appellee that the groceries were not

ith tl ne jee Rll i aaa ae

clean and fresh at the time of the sale. Her son Ralph testified

that the store was clean and neat; that the stock was clean and

: Ey pe Pat ae wn

deertt aesw aoote edt tasileage to nee? edt of snbbt000k sfoota i
trtoget odd Atiw beaseale now eotterqs i eatin be bus aselo bas i |
toow ede naAtotom pitiwoLfo? ont 0 Tot 08 ted yd ted ot obam

* J + * Ai aie

edt anivirsedo fas wtooss edt autcteexe beatouwe Das exote odd 7,

tadd heltites > oot l eta # test aeaoloe lt “indtaet broset ofT

“mf taal feqqs eioot 2 od yd of antmtom yabhmoM oo bevioset ote
Ve Sp i te

cred nevat tS fo > soem gqmul s wt wd of betasew ede todtosta ibertp

el ti

eelfeqqi .mexst seed yietal bat yaotnevrt as Peds @teoqgqs tI seiesd—

eeeloy ytotnevat me tqeoos ton mee qayt s tot yed tom bilyow ate bisa

om RAE He AY ne

foe ted wed yshaout fide) houtyio% po Pel brent 9 Toa ai eben esw tik
i RuMip's cas Kec ero a ae

“obort aait bodotsw bas oote oad bonimexe atags nes dqisi

, Sorat eae aa?

ak agian ow bie tort bas eda tat exseqce ott wt Oe ia i“ ,
its ot Lte'o. acs ate beaaerts: bas autrofiot ‘gularom yabasabel m >
_ rtobtatvoe hodeorodatels 8d rowed ote ould - win ta nee ee

aid tebay bas mid xd ebsm enw »recnevet AB xe belisa 2eW pene

eee he eS eee
edt todtaworts tnocesa erTew alot oe vod bas settegga ‘snoltootth

Rien Se ‘

Ph foley ai 2388 bot aines dq ish ae vwtueva! add to un bas exitne gen

: Decree: We ey, ce

TeoTmd fiqi ef to cult hawker edt ak vlosisl BBW ‘yrotmevant Oy eee:

Oak omter dake

pero tmeval ont os odt m0 X% ae ae the to faaeaRog eas at asw bas 4 x

F at Thegye FL. 69) Me

sore, ody to. oulsv oat to yrotne vat on slats ode Lisaw mpi vag i

i3 EATS SOT BE op,

Savors, eenitxl? bers acvlote et bas ooey to. boosraddgten ait ot eaw %
ry fet od ee a)

ontt to oulev yrosaeyat Latot ont ‘tnalleqas bheg eoltoqaa +0088 a
tt Domearann Mee:

Plot etbomnt bas ,teL vt wget sTebemid? 0 sowdxtt bas doote
evil wed Lega iA.

serota ot baa fore ont ‘to ‘Ho leeousog otal taow

oh ton Wo emer’

BS. Ltew as eolleqgs to tr0eg eat fo sozotoats oonsb ive eit ;
pas © os0 bourse! exodts edt wi
“erent goniw ot Bs exo tiqeoxe son 8% 8 LOT FqGoore « aA
AL ate AOL me .

eit iis bey toes seltengs tend qnomiteet ne al totitmos
BOY £ie-v Paemt «rp

sytodneynt. edt ut bod att Wroqorg | has abooy te
i ct ph Sax alt Seer &

tom stow Y iaheibiods edt + attt aay pon to noktaet noo oat at 1

belttteest dale moe teh .alss sft to omtt eft ts inert bas

bas asefo esw woota edt ¢adt jtsen bus melo asw etote

|
|

atic.
that the cans were clean and not rusty; and that the whole place
looked attractive. There is evidence in the record, however, to

the effect by appellee and her son Ralph that some time after the

Sale was made some of the goods were found to be spoiled. The
evidence of the son Raloh is that the total value of all goods

claimed to have been spoiled, including goods claimed to have been
found spoiled something like eicht months after the sale was $315.90.
The judgment was for %848.00.

It is the contention of anvpellant that the judgment of the
Circuit Court should be reversed and the cause remanded because the
evidence shows that appellee received the goods described in the
inventory and that the stock at that time was clean and fresh and
the cans free of dust; that the evidence does not prove fraud on
the part of appellant as alleged in the declaration; that the Court
admitted improper evidence which tended to confuse the jury; that
the Court erred in its instructions to the jury and that the dameges,
even if plaintiff was entitled to recover, are excessive.

On an examination of the declaration it will be found that
appellee avers that appellant deceived and defrauded her in the tw
following particulars; first, as to the cuantity of stock of groceries
in the store; that it was less than shown by the inventory; Second,
as to the quality of the stock of groceries in the store; that an
indefinite part of it was spoiled and unmerchantable.

The evidence discloses that the entire stock of groceries was
inventoried by a under the supervision of an experienced and dis-
interested wholesale grocery salesman; that the inventory was made
in the presence of appellee and her son Ralph, a young business man;
that the greater part of the inventory was in the handwriting of the
son of appellee, who assisted through out in the taking of it, and
it appears from the evidence of Ralph himself that there was no
material shortage but the items on the inventory were substantial ly

correct in so far as he could remember. Cf

ee j

eoaic crake edt stadt bee iwent don bra solo stew ‘emo hae fade
“i pea 4 a) sii! hte
ot ,tevewod ,brose edt al somoblve ek ered? sovivontiis bevtoot

i of aha
edt tetts omit omoe. tact ta Lot mog ted poe eefleqgs we tosis ont
20F'a oat Oe
edt sbettoge ed ot “bas ot otew aboos ‘edt “to emoa "baat asw elise —
we Fi win

aboos ifs to sulsv Istot oat vedd et awe goa sdt to sombive

need oval o¢ bemtato aboos satba font beLlioga food ‘oved of ‘bemtelo
TARDE) GR

,0@,af8@ asw else edt totts arftnom dite sia exkl antddema beltogs Bao ;
y ¢ 7 fies cee a

100. 828% Tot sew tmeayhwt edt.

«feed he
etd to t stomp bast, end tad foalteqas to nokdnet noo edt ‘at #1 Ai
cr aly See
edd eunsosd hobnem + eereo edt bis bawxevex od bivoda tr00 thyerto
i ae #e

' odt ak bedttoaeb aboor exit bevievet selteqcs tedtt ne a
fags Bree cee
sts desert Bae naelo asw emit fads ts Hote orit tant bos

no bustt svotg tom eeob sonebive elt toute ifenb ‘to ‘sort ‘aks ont

w weber a HF Sey! 4

ts09 od teat ;mottoeloeb ent mt pepolte as naflorga to fray a.
: if se aya
“tedt ‘vert ont eeuin09 ot Sobnes dotdw oonebive qe mumt as a

een ame ‘edd dads bas wt, ont of anctforst an! att nt bewrs 00 ont ‘i

‘soviensoxe ets «To vooe ot bold ine saw tridotel¢ ‘nt rah
tend Aayot od Lite dk nottstsLoeb exit to rot entkmaxs ‘nee
ort enti ni cod bobuowteb bos hovisosb dual Loner ‘nae emeve colina N
a9 irs0078 to doote To ‘ye ttnay p exit of as terit iene ivotstaq . ie

, biro9682 I aa ey edt vd ong sia sastt aaol egw tt dada jenote

“ge ted¢ feToda ort st eo in9s079 to facta uid 0 vt Lew por § Pe B
dior ele +) ee

. aldstnedoremoy baa beLtoge 28W tt 0 rr2g othat

‘ f Eerie fh te

asw aottecory i doors orld ne ett # salt eozolos i eonebive ce

{Mem aeeniasd ‘BnrOY 8B te basi ob ‘ted bop ‘seftorgs 30 ‘eon 1

5 &e fs * P I
sit to ‘aid trwband ext at asw wrod newt ‘ont to daeq ‘tet sory 8.
Y of Gas itn
bos ,tt to aubtet art? nk ‘tye aiayotdt hed eizas oxtw eo
4 j time a Pecan

ow esw otedt ‘ailt Teamkst iqiaft 0 sousbive ne benvig

'S gy i ak

ye eit astadwa oxtow viotmevn! ‘oat a0 anod E ot f and egedto:
of to mere
az ‘stodnom Liroe od as cad 08

wm hcs
The evidence offered by appellee on the question of the
quality of the goods and bearing upon the charge of fraud and
deceit is meagre. The evidence on the part of appellee on this
part of the case was given by herself and her two sons, Ralph
and Peter. They failed to testify that the stock of goods was
spoiled in whole or in part at the time of the sale. Appellee
testified that she went to the store every other day after she
bought it and that she found nothing wrong with any of the stock
until fow or five days after the purchase. The son Ralph
testified that he knew of some items of the goods which he
claimed were spoiled two days after the sale and about all of
them not later than five days after the sale. The record fails

to disclose, however, that if he did observe anything with re-

ference to there being any spoiled goods he did not disclose that
fact to his mother, the appellee.

It is also urged by appellant that the Court admitted in
evidence over his objection, a certain Exhibit. Apparently the
Exhibit was an inventory of the stock made some time prior to the
sale. It does not appear when the inventory was made, or by whom.
It is quite apparent that it had no bearing on the ease. The
record discloses that appellee testified that she refused to
accept any other inventory than her own or to deal on the basis
of any other. An inventory made at sme time prior would not show
the same goods that would be shown in an inventory made at the tim
of the purchase by appellee and to introduce ea former inventory,
especially without proof as to who made it or when it was made,
necessarily tended to mislead the jury and gave it to understand
that it should consider any discrepancies which might appear in
the two inventories in making up its verdict. We think the cowt
erred in admitting the Exhibit.

It is contended also by the appellant that the Court erred
in giving instruetion number Three. In instruction number Three,

instead of informing the jury that the masure of damages was

“>

oot to molteenp alt mo eollogga. yd paged od eonsbive on gp
nike “eh agers .

hae byett to on rade ont fog gititeed. ba 2 boos outs ‘To ba,
Ps ike ay T

yen!

atdt mo selleqgs to $15 eal 0 gombive ‘en -eTRs0m al hoses

“delat pee ows ted baa tise ted ‘xd nevis | asw paso ‘only ‘to freq |
esw 200g +0 woo ta edt todd Ytiteot ot bo List wat fetes bas
nad Longa ose oat to omit ong te Ptaq ud to o Lorin al bottoge
eda sotta yee testo yueve axose adit ot dn0¥ outa t alt bottivact
Meret

xoote ont to une it tw ac0'tw ari item aaa % ena tad bus tt tiguod
dqlsi moa edt soa alotug ead wotis eyeb evit 0 ‘wot f Litas

ed do tifw aboos edd To amotl emioa to wood eal fortt bertttacd

to fis i ud s bas iss ox t nodts Sxak ows peltoge orew “homhslo

my bgapen ee a? he rite Bs Pare ;
lh ate brovet ont ot aut ett s aya ovit aod tod of toa modt —
} Sau dps ss Ev eae f
“oT atin nbd 2 eves do Sib ef xt todd sTovewod cos foals ot
Bet be appt ;

‘wads eaoloats ton Hib oa abodp boLltoge Yas atiod ore dt od eanore?
ae -ooliscas odd ‘tedden ‘ale of fost

y Uy MRT Ct & ate Sete
nt ‘Bost ims , x09 adi ‘test tnelLoga vd bear osla at i

a SL ES am irs FR

eit Vitnersqc ot kd brixdi nist390 6 uicttoetdo eld sey oonmh asp

Re Tae Oe aere

edt oF rolzg of neh moe ob an oot 2 out to yiotne mi a8 osm ahd tix

5 ENE
pace ir an

ano rf rd To 2D ou ea yrodupwitt adi nest ‘e0q qs tou ‘3908 iH an *
eh. SY

ont +9289 odd 10 guttsed om Bail tt tarld ‘dnoxsaqs “ot inp ak Lae
o¢ boaute x edz tadt hottiteet esiteqas dads serofoals Kenai

orth a ae
‘ya Be Ee

atesd ost 10 Is seb of ‘to imwe tort aadd wrod neval exido Yas habia a A |

weet toa bisow rola omte ema ts oben yrotaevat mA - stedto us to ‘f
«3 a Pir oe,

ants ost ts obsm wodne vn te si armors od hisow # act aboos omsa edt

“wotmevmt ‘tomo 8 sovborded of bua vetLeags w esadorg ‘oath 2 aa

f ek Nae

25 st aaw ot ode to tL oben ont ot as Tooxg duodd tw viletoogas
pdnamer ey

Suedere boar ot # oven bas. vant. outs beelsia od: babaes <ibemenscem
ve *o eocumeter. gbl at

al zeoqc2 4% holies eo Lanagonve 1D tas xab Lenco bLyorle $i todd

7 Sn ‘ ‘y Feat
+ woo orig ait en stotbzey aul qe ‘gat aan at cobsotaomat owt out
3 f ; t ia a Ty jaa
std tas aut pat ié tubs ak bette
borts tau509 ast ‘taitt ‘taaitoras odd we ale ‘bebnot moo a 1

LR te

dso ie te Peed
,oeult tedapa gottooutent al - oeuitt edit nots ouxteat aatvl rs

ith

asw asgemeh to etwasen ost veds ‘var, one auimrotat 0

the difference between the value of the goods as they were and
as they were represented, the instruction informed them that they
"May allow to the plaintiff such fair and reasonable sum as will
fairly and reasonably reimburse the plaintiff for any actual
lesses *** she may have unavoiidably sustained as a direct result
of the alleged false and fraudulent statements and representations
made by the defendant to the plaintiff."

The record discloses that Ralph Burear, son of appellee, was
the only witness who testified on the subject that the total value
of all the gcods which were of inferior quality or spoiled was
5315,90. That figure would represent the difference between the
value of the goods as they were and as they were represented to
be if appellant had been guilty of fraud and deceit as averred.
The verdict was for $775.00, but it appears thst quite a considerable
length of time elapsed before judgment was rendered on the verdict
end judement was subsequently rendered for the sum of %848.00. If
appellee was entitled to recover the measure of her damsges would
be the difference between the value of the stock as it was and

what it would be worth if the alleged false representations con-

cerning it had been trve. The measure of damages in an action for
fraud and deceit is the difference in the worth of the property as
represented and its real value. Or as it is sometimes stated, it
is the difference between the value of the property as it is and
what it would be worth if the representations had been true.
Schwitters vs. Springer, 236 Iil. 271; Siltz vs. Springer, 256
Ill. 2763; Stewart vs. Clark, 194 Ill. App. 2.

We are of the opinion that reversible error was committed
in the trial of this cause and the ivigment of the Circuit Court
of LaSalle County is reversed and the cause remanded.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

eis

bre otew vodd 28 shboon ot ‘to ofey edd eewted eoneret its ont mi
yeds tant “medt Beoorrotat no ttouttent ou! ie <bet meee otew wort as i
Iftw as ma el[danoaset bas tist dove tid atele sud oF “worts en" :
Isutos Yas “0% Ttitatsle aif satudmtet vid anoaset Bae tiatat
tliset tooth 8 28 heatstaue yidebhovens sven “Yrut ede ini ‘eenaol
anoltatnexouet has etnometote tnetubyert Sas eafet beaetis oft to Pr
x sttitatsic ent ot dusbhasteb edt a a ‘eben
Baw “eel fecas to toe rao figt 8H dant seno lost: Peaben “eat” sik aa
eifey Istot odd fad¥ tostdie ad? mo bobtivued ode Goodin Vow Um
asw beltoge to ytiieup totvetat to exow dot iw aboog edt ffs to
ait neewted eametettib edd jneRezGe x binow ourait tatt CR
od botnozorqort stew yeds es Bare etew vedi en ‘aboog. ‘eit? to. ulev
sborteys BB divoeh Bas bust to vt Lime need bss dnatt oq as “hy ed
eldstebianos " etiuo ted exescge tt fud 00,809 tot ‘aaw ‘tolbrer “eat
tolbtev sit mo shades 2sy # ane Barf ‘oroted beadele ‘Smt J to. ide
tI .00, 8d8% to me ‘eit rot botebne+ yttmexpeede ae ‘fname bit bre
| 5 Luow nog aah sa to stvasem afd tovoder of ‘poltttne ‘2sw os Leda ize
bas asw 9% as fonda ede to axlev odd moauioe pone t bb” ‘eat gg
et snot 6s neaomqot aatat pon atte edt tk dtzow od “Bivow ‘tt “date
got gottos me at gesameb to étwagem ont batt ead ‘bed tk satmres
as udtecota ot to dttow od nt eanerett th Got a) Findon “bas ae,
ti (boteta aemtienoa ei ¢i ae 10 .eutav non att fits Detaeseamet ‘a
bre si ¢i 82 ysireqorg ait to autay ‘edt seewted oometet tts oat eb

,outd neod badd ano it stmsaonget artt ab détow ad SLuow 2 aie ;
Bug Tepatage .ay stite “sis Vit 062 \tosmtore .a7 arose twsoe i
8 .qqd .ftT Bef pttald Jay frewete ets Hs

betd tmmoo aew TOTTS oldtararet text wiaivo oo" ‘Bo ors on

Fuy0d ‘thro ab edt to poten rt oe bus enced | shai te 6 tats oe i:

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,

of record in my office. :
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Appellate Court, at Ottawa. this day of

BEE ee ein) the year! of our, Word (one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerk of the Appellate Court

- (73815—5 M—8-32) B07

6 elt Mer tare

; a
; pod ft
Mie vO oe ae tency 6

4:3

if ah

AGA he mae jane i a

4 iin, g E # Sis
Ze “ie i é Z

# r ra :

Lula A. Blaék, Appetice, v. William T. ne 3 Mabel
McCoy, Mabel Walker, Inez N. Blith, John R.
McCoy, and R. L. Webber, Administrator
with the will annexed of the estate

of Mary A. Barton, deceased, oy |=»

Appellants. ka & vA |

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Brown County,
Illinois.

January Term, A. D, 1934.
Gen. No. 8791 Agenda No. 3

Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the
court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Cireuit Court
of Brown County, rendered on the hearing of a bill
filed by appellee to construe the last will and testament
of her mother, Mary A. Barton, deceased.

Mary A. Barton died testate in the city of Mt.
Sterling, Illinois, on December 15, 1930, and the pro-
visions of her last will and testament which was ad-
mitted to probate and record in the county court of
Brown County, Illinois, are as follows:

FIRST: It is my will that my funeral expenses and
all my just debts be fully paid.

SECOND: I give and devise to my son, William T.
Barton, the east half of the south east quarter of See.
No. 15 in Tp. one south range three (3) West of the 4”
P. M. in Brown County State of Illinois for and during
his natural life and at his death I give & devise said
lands to my two daughters viz Lula A. Black and
Mabel McCoy share and share alike to them and their
heirs forever.

3Rd. I give and devise to my daughter Mabel McCoy
the east 80 acres of the south west quarter of sec. 23,
in Tp. one south range three west of the 4” P. M. in the
County of Brown and State of Illinois during her
natural life and at her death I give and devise said
land to her two children John R. McCoy and Inis May
Blith to them share and share alike and to their heirs
forever.

4” I give and devise to my daughter Lula A. Black
the east half of the south west quarter of sec. 6 and the
north west quarter of the south east quarter of said
Sec. 6 in Tp. one south range four west of the 4” P. M.
in Brown County State of Illinois during her natural
life and at her death I give and devise said land to her
daughter Mabel Walker and her heirs forever.

z
i

| amey £ £
pe inAggtract 4 4

lode! poe mailliW wv oe bran |
cdot 288 Ko sent soils W fede ,yoOoM
wmieseicinbsA jsdisW A bas yovoM
giateo ods to bexonms [tw edit sti
~ 9 wy gy bosesosh wot .2 yieht io
3 & sinslisgg

agenol) aaron Yo duwoD dine a sald arog] feaqah
Stones

ACCT LA eae rear
§ wh shuogd fev3. .off noe

edt to roligo ac} hetoriloh era goreaut all
A109
danot} tivotiD oft 30 sexseb 4 mort fssqqe oe at atiT
fiid « to goirsed oft no botobrot eNTHOD vores to:
jaonrateot bos Siw jeal ont oirtianoe of sollogas qd bell
cbogesosh wottsdl A cteM raidtost asi Yo
JM Yo yhio oft sistas! boi motte A ris
oT ont Been 08SL CL todaroe so jaionilil wgerth rote
be 2ew saids tnantsteat bas.fliv tae! red to emolety —
to Huron yéones edt oi hioset bug stacorg of bottiat
rewollol as ors clonal wtunoD mwork,
Dirs eseasqze Intonut yom dade [iw yon ai YE PARR
Aisq vind of aided temp-yor Ir.
TT canilliW aoe vor o} saiveb bas evig 1 : MOONE
098% to isitsnp tese dtyoe alt Io Had tase odt wodsael:
“b oft Yo Jeo W (&) so1di ogasy digoe sito af gi ST eV
eniih Dus rot atoaiiil to ateia gan meord, tM, AL
bina avivob & eviz I dtasb sid js has oti! [etetan elf
hea oorl .A slml xiv etoldgnah ow vex of ebsal
rtoilt bas cxadi ot sdile svarle bia otede voDoM feds
: xerstot miod
yoOoM fade wsttuuah pero} seiveh baa ovig f DHE
£8 092 to votiwop teow dives sd? to adres US tess od}
on} of MES odd Yo Jeew sotilt epast dtgon oso gl at
wad wunitub esomifll to stet@ baz aworl te plano
hise vsiveh hos avg T dissh red is bore otf lamtem
yait giol bes yoOoM MH adol nworblidy owt rod of baci
axied viedt of bers oofife oisdle bua stada coodd of AUG
TAVOTOT
Hoaid ,A sim? wotileneb ver of setrob bag evig TY “hb
ott bas 8 ose lo tehranp teow divee att Io Ted tene ont
bine to rotisnp tesa disea ill to aolisep jeaw divom | |
Ms odt to leew usot ovaer dives ono .gT aid 288
[ersten ‘tod yaiink sion to aleid yinooD aver at.
sof of busl bisa ostveb has ovig I diesh ted-ta bea oll
Tover0t atled ved bra todinW iadeM rotdgned | woe

Page 2 Gen. No. 8791

5 I give the rents from the west half of the north
east quarter of Sec. 14 Tp. one south range four west
of the 4” P. M. in Brown County State of Illinois to
my said three children William T. Barton Lula A.
Black and Mabel McCoy they to share equally in same
& they to rent said land until such a time as they can
sell same for a fair price when they are to sell same
and make a proper deed for same and divide the con-
sideration for same equally among them.

6th My home, Lot No. three (3) in Block No. Three
(3) in A. Curry and R. H. Hurlbuts Add. to the town
(now city) of Mt. Sterling Ilinois I direct my execu-
tors hereinafter named to sell said lot and I authorize
them to make and execute a proper deed for same & I
also authorize my said executors to sell and execute
any and all necessary papers to pass title to such
property sold that may be necessary to properly settle
my estate. No order of court is to be required and
after the payment and satisfying clause one herein my
said three children are to have the remainder of the
proceeds from said lot and any personal property I
may own they to share equally therein any note or
notes I may hold against either of my said children is
to be considered an advancement against Shuch child
and is to be deducted from such childs share in my
estate.

I have made this will as I want it and as I consider
just and fair taking into consideration the various
things that have preceded this will and should either
of my said children attempt to prevent the execution
of this will or try to break it such child is to forfeit
what is herein given him or her & he or she is to have
no part there in & such non offending child or children
are to have the estate same to be received as herein
given only the part received is to be enlarged and such
offending child is not to act as executor.

LASTLY, I hereby nominate and appoint my said
three children William T, Barton, Lula A. Black and
Mabel McCoy to be the executors of this my last will
and testament, hereby revoking all former wills by
me made.

Mary A. Barton left surviving her Lula A. Black, a
daughter and appellee herein, and William T. Barton,
a son, Mabel McCoy, a daughter, Mabel Walker and
Inis M. Blith, granddaughters, and John R. McCoy, a
grandson, as her sole and only heirs at law.

R. L. Webber was duly appointed by the county
court of Brown county, Illinois, administrator with the
will annexed of the estate of said Mary A. Barton, de-
ceased, and all of said parties with the exception of
Lula A. Black, appellee, were made defendants to the
bill of complaint filed by appellee.

‘ Oe ee a
161 oh we haenat as

dixon ont to Med iaow oft meri ataet od} see i a
juow anot sgray dirios oxo .qT #L .99% to ‘talisirp Pe
of sioni(l Yo otst@ viene avo ai MA ne edt ‘to
A pind soixef PT ameiliW sevblits said! bins yar
ousse oi ylsnps ateda of a ‘add yoUSM fada lh hae Joel
neo vodt en sentt s dose {ideas bas! hise ter of yodlt a
amge fies of ots vedi nodw sottq visi 6 10t outas [ioe
-09 aiff abivib has sora 10? boob toqo1g 6 odsar bas
a medi goons vilesps sctea tot noitsrebia
agtdT of As0ll ui (2) soudt of tod emod yM - dia
awe} od? of .bhA sindicnll HA be qi) AL tt (8)
-upexo Yor toosih I aioailll gaifror JM to (xis won)
gtivodine T bas Jol bisa ilsa of bomen tatianioted ated
1% smxwee 102 baeh raqory 8 sitmoexo bas odser of orodt

otiyexo bia ‘[fea of atoinpaxo bigs yer ositoiine off
dona ot offif aaaq of exoqeq yisasovant [lp baa. a

olttea ylroqoTg of yTRenoven od Tait jad} blow ghragotg
bis fotispsr ad of af divoo lo tobso of elated Yon
ed nieiad otto sausio gaivietiea bas jnoarzac, orld code
edt to tbaigarss act oved of ots netblide ooxd} bine
I vheaerg [esoatsg vas box tol biae mort aboonory —
+o elon tan «datedi ulsups oda of godt two gant

ai sexbinle biea yan 26 t9dtia tenivea blod yaor Daston

Glide toute taaiegs tromsonpybs re bovebiames od of
vex ai oxad2 ebfidg done ator? baioub: of ad oF af ban
“pislaa
sobiamoy T an bie Hi teow 1 ae fiw sid aban ered I
arouiay ant soitersbianos ofai goilat sist bas tant
omitio Bivods Bae fiw aidt babeserq ovad Jat eganit
noivesxe alt dnevoxg of iqmoetta noxblido bisa war to
distsal of at Hlide done ti Asesd of Tu #0 itiw aidd to —
sved of st ode to od B vod to oid woviy toned ai tack
tothlite 19 blide gaibaeite mom dove A wi sted} Iraq or
miatsd se bevioos1 od of anise oteies olf oved of a8

doe bos begrelas od ot i bevissst Jaq off qino cavig

olsvexe B& tos of Jon ef biide gatbnsito:

bise yor jaioggs bus ainsimon ydornt 1 YITAAT
bos don A sind cotied .T meilli sexblide soxutt
lliw deal yar aldd to evoinoexe oil} od ot yoDoM fedalt
vd elliv toarrot [le gablover qdoted fuomupaos bre
sbsot oar

6 doa A als l cod guivivine Nol oof cot A aM
wolisd T malliW bas sisted osllegge bre rotitgush

bus woileW isdeM sottgoah 2 oOo fodaM jqoa 2 : Sie

& “oOo 2 sdol bus arehtaushbaer dle, “ dink

wel te eried tno bas ston mort. ae <noshatsers eo anit

vines of yd bettieggs Woh esw toddoW wT”

oft tive sotertainiotbs gionllll ciaoo creradl to. ake Ma

-9b otis A yialé ise to siates-ody to hexeang fiw

to. seitqsoxe ot dttw aaidtaq bias to He bre ,bowsso es

oil} of etashasteb ubnar ovow ee qs foalt A glint
sellegaa we be scapes ba slid

Page 3 Gen. No. 8791

In her bill of complaint appellee alleges that on or
about May 5, 1923, she was indebted to said Mary A.
Barton, deceased, in the sum of $5680.00, which was
evidenced by a promissory note for said sum with in-
terest at the rate of 6% per annum from date until
paid and was then due and payable, that William S.
Black, the husband of appellee, and Hattie H. Black,
his sister, were sureties on said note; that on Novem-
ber 1, 1927, all indebtedness of appellee including said
promissory note as aforesaid was extinguished and
liquidated in the following manner:

William 8. Black and Hattie H. Black were at that
time the owners of the east half of the southwest quar-
ter of section six and the northwest quarter of the
southeast quarter of said section six in township one
south, range four west of the fourth principal meridi-
an, in Brown County, State of Illinois, said lands be-
ing occupied at the time by appellee and her husband,
William S. Black, and said Hattie H. Black; that the
fair cash market value of said real estate at that time
was twenty thousand dollars, subject to a mortgage
securing the sum of seventy-five hundred dollars; that
appellee and her husband were at that time indebted
to the Timewell State Bank, the Timewell Farmers
Cooperative Company and M. E. McCabe in the total
sum of $2832.40; that the said Mary A. Barton on said
November 1, 1927, agreed, in consideration of the con-
veyance to her of the above described real estate, that
she would assume the payment of said mortgage, pay
the said indebtedness amounting to the sum of
$2832.40 and also release and discharge appellee and
said William S. Black and Hattie H. Black from all
liability from the indebtedness due and owing from
appellee and her husband, William 8. Black, and
Hattie H. Black to her, including said note above de-
scribed and would cancel and deliver said note to ap-
pellee; that, relying upon said promise of said Mary
A. Barton, appellee and her husband, William S.
Black, and said Hattie H. Black, on November 1, 1927,
executed and acknowledged and delivered a deed to
said real estate to said Mary A. Barton, who from that
time on has been the owner thereof and that the same
has been inventoried as part of her estate.

That the relations between appellee and her mother
at that time and continuously until her death were
tender, affectionate and amicable, and that appellee
relying upon the promise of her mother and believing
that she would surrender and cancel said note within
a reasonable time did not insist upon the immediate
surrender and cancellation of the same, but thereafter,
while visiting her mother, requested her to deliver and
cancel said note, and her mother who claimed she kept

.. % 7 ae

reya ae OER

ba noted) eouslis yalisqgs suldigrane 40) ‘he: oft ri
A wreath Biss of heddobat pew Sila BERL 6 ys tooda
2B W po detdw LAEE Yo mint edt at -bulsnates ‘choressel,”
-ui dir gua hina dot ston yroartony 8 ¥d: hyosebire
fens {tah moi? musi we AR. IO Stet oi te dated

4 modlhW tadt sidsvedq! pane onh audit anw dab biey
Hoait) HW ediell bos »allsquye to busdesd ot glosla
anovevl wo 4d? ;a)o0 bisa #O sdtlotss otaw wotaie aul
Biss gaspaisanr antlones Io exolibeltobwi fis SEE he 90
hi Dodsingaiize asw binasita ea Siow YOnROTY
rionesi siwollo? of? at bed shispil

‘ a te giser Aol HT elite Kap dosll 2 ew
aap Vawdious edi to Hed tens ad} to averwo il} ear

ais te a6isenp Jeuwditon sft bee xia uodsow to ot
gio gidaneot wi tix aorows bise to telsepdassdicoe
~ibitear lagiocrny sitvuot oad te dace 100% one artes
-sf ehaet bing pianil to vit wine «wordt ae te
fissdaud rad bers sellogge ot soxtt edt 1m heiquraoo gut
ail} nid? <dosl Ho alish bie hrs ould. 4 mail
seit in 18 siptes taog bina La ontay godiose tas gist.
ecautrome & oj tostdon jtallob Birsenoitd yinewi aaw
tid saveilos bedicnd avi. yicovee to tena eit girity9oE.
intwobat aoTkt fed? te oraw farecdansdl worl fos golisepys
aseris’é fie: gamit add donk star foweril att ol
lggot clk a adeQold O&M ban yoarmol) vviismaqaed
bina ne otra A viel Diss at Joh QE Skee tes arte
“luo af? To sehlevsieaos i Hoerss rf Ref Drader
teal olatao [not badinseeb oveds. elt to tof of-sanaver
itt eyeshroas ies to dnoncceq ott ormpesa Sluow ‘eda
jo- oma od} of paiianomus atanbotdebui bige off
hun sollecgs ourndoeil ban oenaler o#is hire’ Od. Seeee
fia ssovt dosifl, site bus dosifl A aceilliW, bine
imetr guivwe Dos eth smibeddsbar adt mow wifidadi
joa giosid vc. meiliW Jbnaderdt sod baie sallegqa
ah gvode oto bisa aah ori (aor of doptd Ja inte
“jf of glow fies t9¢ish hire icone bigew bas bodiqe
viel, bias to satiety bisa cape guigion gbadt ;aotleg —
& pads bundand wl Doe eatogga ia A
Tae tf soditavalt go torltt Ho ofiell bigs bre goalt
| hoa s hewritel hea Boyhelworlod: Bie: hatandgee,
sails ntott ody wot gt be ‘CoO, Lise ob afeien lor bisa
suvae edt tedt haa toswdt veawo ob caod earl ete oamit
wistes tod Io Haq és bolxotdaval aod wed
tediog: wl bas solloqye ssowiad simiialor oft ted 0

giaw iltesh tod Uteo ylenovattaoa bug omit dad® te.
svilogqs Jott bos oidasias fis oterottesie ptobrat
weceniod birs 4odtopy tad to onisserg od) noi acigion _.
isin ster biee loses bees wobownwa birow ete fadt
stathenust od? sou Misot Jou bib sinh didemoasei & -
oTissiad? tid porua oht To doitslfeores Hae yabaveisa
bine sovileb of +6ai netsaopeT toddore tot walliary olidhay
iqud sda hoatinls odw vedio tod bas ston bine fsoan

Page 4 Gen. No. 8791

said note in a purse, which at that time was in the
possession of said William T. Barton requested the
said Barton to deliver said note to appellee; that he
never delivered said note to appellee but that after her
mother’s death the note was found in the possession
of said Barton and that from thence hitherto it has
been and still is in his possession; that said Barton
paid nothing for said note and that he is not a bona
fide holder of said note in due course, nor was the same
assigned or transferred to him by said decedent in her
life time; that appellee was not indebted to her mother
at the time of the execution of her will nor at the time
of her death; that the other children of deceased now
claim that the notes mentioned in the sixth clause of
said will of deceased includes the said note which had
been liquidated as aforesaid and is to be considered
evidence of an advancement against the interest pro-
vided for appellee by the said last will and testament
and that under the second paragraph of said sixth
clause she will forfeit all her interest in said estate
unless she pays said note and interest thereon down
to the present time to be deducted from appellee’s
share in said estate; and that the other children now
contend that the refusal of appellee to either pay said
note, or permit the supposed indebtedness evidenced
by it to be deducted from her interest in said estate
subjects her said interest to forfeiture under the sixth
paragraph of said will which provides that ‘‘should
either of my said children attempt to prevent the exe-
eution of this will such child shall forfeit what is here
given to him or her;’’ that said other children now
insist that it was the intention of decedent to include,
at the time of the execution of the will, all notes
formerly held or owned by her, whether paid or un-
paid; that in view of the circumstances surrounding
the testatrix, at the time of the execution of the will,
she meant, by use of the words ‘‘execution of the will’’
the probate of the will; that she did not intend that
any child’s interest in her estate should be charged
with the payment of any paid or liquidated notes
which might be in her possession at the time of her
death; that the said sixth clause of said will is ambigu-
ous and uncertain, and its true meaning and intent
should be rendered certain by a construction of this
court; appellee prays that the court will construe said
will and that she may have such other and further re-
lief in the premises as equity may require, ete.

The defendant, R. L. Webber, adminstrator with
the will annexed, answered the bill and denied that ap-
pellee is entitled to the relief or any part thereof, and
prays that the bill be dismissed, ete.

on i a AT OEY la

Sia . a
@ —_
PTA oA ners,

of? gt eaw oosbt Jadt ta doit Saag 5 at abete aa
gil) Daterpos woliw .T uae him 20 OIgHSe EOE
sd tag} :eotloqge ot aion bike Toviteh. of sofa bite
vat tolls jadi ted colfaqgs of ojon bles hoyevileb seven — -
alae eaog sdt at Gao? enw ator od! dtsoh 8 ‘sentanst ?
and di ohwdstdd oad! cork toll bos noid, fies te
mottert fviee fei) ; aolascezag ei nb at Iija base aged ©
pitod a fom si od tadt Dis’ tou, bisa 101 ynidiom brag:
otras add enweios Seruod ash af sion bine ‘io ssbtos: ve
rot ai harobeeeb hiss ‘yd todd of hero lamin 1h
codlinas toil of botdabat jou saw eallogge pad; A ott
ocytt adit $5 109 Hie wil t6 woltaseze add to omit oilt te
wor Boesoonh to asrbiide vodio odf jadt ;uiaeb rol fo
tn ontonlo dizi od? of bonotasus wotan off tadt aisle
Sad doidew otem biag oli esbeloul hoseseck to Iw bisa
-horgbianoo. od of af bun bisaviote ae hotebinpil seod
“iq tTitoisi sd? Jeaiega tooumanebs ns Io. obwobbre
fitenisten! ban Ww tual biss edt yd sollsqqa sot. bobiv
vie bine to dgasgeisg bovsse sift; toban jadi ban
eintes Biase ai teotaiat qed ile sisbrel Mie ede sansle
nwob moeridt Javteiad bax olor bias ayag ove assole
voslcags sroxt Setoubab sd of smit tavagag. dt of
eon authlids todd od? tadi bas sotetes bina of atesdte
Dine Lag Ioaltia of soled ‘to feas'loy odt tad? baatses
boon srs sxbiheidabat besogque odd, Saved to {stor
ointes bie at teagotat tod. cxnst bal satieh od oF te ed-
Ajzia 023 velar gretio'tre? of dawxsiut Higa tad. nicabt ae
hisedte*’ indt asbivouy doliw Urw Dine to tyerasiady
exe off tasvoerg Gi fgantie aerhiide bine you te todtie~
‘aed at inidw Hieloi fade blids gous fiw allt to gotten:
won nealfite tiie biwe fodt Peau to. cote ut HOTg
ebulons al toghowh to weilwotieat ods onw Ji tadh Joke sr
aoron Un Jlbw edt to wettuooxe alt Yo saxtt odd tH
-ait 10 Him vedtedw god gd howxva +0 biod ylreartot
Wibdsorsng aonisiantsintis oll do weiv sa taal ¢ bisd |
iw atl to soihiecy sdi To aml) edt de pcubetie galt
mil tw adt to deitnsese” shrew ail! to san yd daemon ade
jad? fain? ton bib ads todd piliv off? to oladony. ant
h: eral a Sitads olaie ad 4 Jeoteias, y'biniy yore
gaton hajabipil te bieq qn do ‘aoseeai. ont hive
vod te seit add dx HATEANABOR so of of debyies. donde
~ingidisin ei Cliw Dime bo neueloadtrte Digs elt, dtl patooh ~~
toronhiyt f, int Qaitgsor ogth ett bas iad teaey bas:
ait! to soflargeros a d aiaises betebae'r od. biaode
isa emtienus iltw isos oft dealt aEeay sallages. puro
-yt wired bus tsdto ova wread sat ofa tad ben lie
ots stipe Yam Tipe as estamos aiff ai
re soistauiohs aaddeW ol 2 gnabsastob off
ga tedi baineh bre iid od} bevawaun boxeaga, ifew, nd
bas « tootodd dad ye to-tellor afi af hobitwa af oallaq
ee) eis od ffi had jet aden

Page 5 Gen. No. 8791

Defendants, William T, Barton and Mabel McCoy,
answered and deny that the note executed by appel-
lee was ever paid by her in any manner or that the
conveyance of the real estate mentioned therein was
in payment of said note, but allege that said note
never has been paid; that it was always in the posses-
sion of the testatrix up to the time of her death and
that she never promised appellee in her life time that
she would cancel the same; that under the sixth clause
of the will the note is evidence of an advancement to
appellee and must be deducted from her share of the
estate; that appellee is trying to contest the validity
of the will under the guise of a construction thereof
and that its provisions are clear and unambiguous and
need no construction, whereby the court is without
jurisdiction of the subject matter.

On account of the fact that the regular master in
chancery of said court was disqualified because of be-
ing interested in said suit the cause was referred to
Vernon Briggs, as Special Master, to take the evidence
and report the same together with his findings of fact
and conclusions of law.

The master found that on or about May 17, 1923,
Lula A. Black was indebted to said Mary A. Barton
in the sum of $5680.00, which was evidenced by a note
bearing interest at the rate of 6% per annum and upon
which note her husband, William S. Black, and Hattie
H. Black were sureties; that said William 8S. Black and
Hattie H. Black were, on November 1, 1927, the own-
ers of the east half of the southwest quarter and the
northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section
six in Township one south, range four west of the
fourth principal meridian in Brown County, Illinois,
and that at that said time the fair cash market value
of the same was $18000.00; that the same was subject
to a mortgage in favor of the State Savings, Loan and
Trust Company, Quincy, Illinois, securing an indebted-
ness of Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars; that
on said date appellee and her husband, William S.
Black, were indebted to the Timewell State Bank in the
sum of $2090.69, to the Timewell Farmers Co-oper-
ative Company in the sum of $431.78, and to M. E.
McCabe in the sum of $131.19; said last three items of
indebtedness having been reduced to judgment in the
Cireuit Court of Brown County, Mlinois.

That on November 1, 1927, said William S. Black
and Lula A. Black, his wife, and Hattie H. Black made,
executed and delivered to Mary A. Barton a warranty
deed for said real estate for the stated consideration
of one dollar and other considerations; that at said
time Mary A. Barton satisfied the indebtedness of
William S. Black, Lula A. Black and Hattie H. Black

TOT of ald ed

woud fede hoe noleél oT ssottttr me or
Asqqe wh lelusoxo ston oft ted qaob bie beioweas
oil) ted! 20 wookeon Zoe wi tol yd bieg tHe ecw ool
new misisd? benoiieor atetes Igor odd to Sota yreo9 :
alon bina jadi oyolle jad phen bine ja tronryng at
~nganoy ati a acewie naw ti dadt ;bisy seed aad wVen
bas itwat rei to ett oft o) yu xithsjea) ad} to more
pact eri) oil sod af oofleqqa heehmorg teved ada Jaddt
surals dete odd vol jal? ;suea oft foomss Dloow ode
+ Memeosavhe ne to édcubive af atom ad! Utw add to
oth to otndy red exork Betoubob od terns han 99
whibiles edi jasinoy ot yaiyrt «i gollewan tat substan
fostsd? aoltouttetoa & I, ealivg elt aebnu iilw odi Yo
Srna ass argicliesaanas bas saolo.onns ecoisivorg ehh der ten
jgodtiny at dimoo off gdatode worteutiancs Gn Boat
; wrod hatr jovisiva od? o mottatiabnart,
SL westisgere sais ont tedd Jowi acto dawoses Oh: .
-of io semnond belilanpeib aaw Jasoo bisa to yraoutls
of bovwtey eaw canny odi tine bisa of hotgoretsi gai.
socobrre elt adet oF sothelf Inisoge 2a .wexinG cons ¥
joni to syaibad ated Gi igiitteyot enrmc ath dioqe: bre
"wollte exolenionor bas
2er TE yell toda +o ao jadlt honot miesor od'T
‘noted A. stall bine of beidebat asw abel -A alot
ei0t 8 gel heonebive abst dolidw OURS to awa odd ai
irodyis Derk wrest: ied 8 98 Yo Sher oft in Seo voIN guiraed
gitiald has glaslf @ aasilllW bandend tod sto doidw
bite tooltt 4 mati bige isd) pzotteie stew dosldl
save ott J8OL 1 ssdsero ao wow dealt BF sitet
ai! has tatieop teowntvoa of? to Tad bene sit to ars
sattose ‘ie solzetp tansdicos alt Yo Taitaup feowmuiiqon:
ot te teow suc oggat .Guoa sto qulaipwoT mi aia
aon waned sewror ab entbFron leqgisning dhe
olay todanor dans ia’ ait ossid hina tadd js tad. baa
joojilna aew ouese adi iad) ;00.00081%-eaw ame tht to
Hes osal .2gaive® otetd edi to towel of saegtiom a dt
-haidehal us sotimece sioutlll yaning® gusqaoD tearT
jadi gexsiloh hotbusH ovtl baskvedt neve te ensx
maiiiWy jonadesd tod bas sefloqae elsh bisa mo -
oft ai 2ae& state Howomtl ot of Dotdebai ovew dosid
“aqo-00 vised fewsoard'l! oft eb ,BOO0COls to anus
LM of bs BTIOM to. cure act i yarsemoD : ovis
#0 atrott sovdt ier! bias sb FESS t0 anme ost ii edaOolt
od ai Iagarghe|, 03 Bonahas wood guived asanbaidobut
eionil: ange) evortl Io due) diastiD
Aoal& A omilli¥e bina Teer 1 ‘odenavolt ‘go tadT
bans vost A otttell fins cothw: aid ost A itmllbpek
vise Tusw 6 moms A.yiaM of heiavitob Sime Letuooxa
neipiabianos bolgte odt 1oX ahvteo.daed hige 10d. heb
Idee is ted? ;encltwwhienos sodto hea salted pmo do
Yo esonheldabat od} boiteites wotid JA oral oon”
woul H outed bas dpalti-A sit sta a onal

Page 6 Gen. No. 8791

above mentioned to the Timewell State Bank, the
Timewell Farmers Co-operative Company and to
M. EK. McCabe. That the note for the sum of $5680. 00,
payable to the order of Mary A. Barton, was never de-
livered to either William S. Black, ula A. Black or
Hattie H. Black, but that said note remained in the
unconscious possession of said Mary A. Barton. That
from and after the acceptance of said warranty deed
to said real estate said Mary A. Barton did not con-
sider her said daughter, Lula A. Black, nor her hus-
band nor said Hattie H. Black indebted to her by
reason of and on account of the execution of said
$5680.00 note.

The Master concludes that said note for $5680.00,
executed by Lula A. Black, William S. Black and
Hattie H. Black and payable to Mary A. Barton,
should not be considered evidence of an advancement
against the interest of Lula A. Black in and to the
estate of Mary A. Barton, deceased, under the terms
of her last will and testament and that the same is not
an asset of the estate of Mary A. Barton, deceased.

That the word ‘‘hold’’ in the first paragraph of the
sixth clause of the said last will and testament of said
Mary A. Barton, deceased, should be construed not to
mean mere possession of liquidated obligations but
ownership of valid existing and unliquidated obliga-
tions, if any. That in the second paragraph of said
sixth clause of said last will and testament of Mary
A. Barton, deceased, the words ‘‘attempt to prevent
the execution of this will,’? should be construed to
mean ‘‘attempt to prevent the probate of this will,’’
and that the filing of the bill by appellee should not
operate as a forfeiture of her interest in the estate of
said Mary A. Barton, deceased.

Exceptions to the report of the master were over-
ruled and a decree was entered in said cause,

The court found that the note for $5680.00, which was
owned by appellee to the deceased, Mary A. Barton,
was extinguished and liquidated by a conveyance from
William S. Black and Hattie H. Black to deceased of
the real estate which was described in the bill of com-
plaint and that the fair cash market value of said real
estate at the time of the conveyance thereof was $20,-
000.00, subject to a mortgage securing an indebtedness
of $7,500.00, and that appellee and her husband were in-
debted to the Timewell State Bank, the Timewell
Farmers Co-Operative Company and M. E. McCabe
in the total sum of $2,832.40, and that on November 1,
1927, deceased agreed, in consideration of the convey-
ance to her of the said real estate, that she would as-
sume the payment of said mortgage, pay the indebted-
ness of said bank, Co-operative Company and said M.E.

jRv8 ok 08) d ogeT

off clos 9ist@ ilsweoil! od} of bodoiinent ovoda
of fies vragen evitstogo-00 aisarre’l UowemiT
OG.08088 to are sd} vot stom edt tadT .odaDoM
“of rover sew doriatl A yisM to shire oft ot oldayeg »
ro dosl A sin dositi 1 ateilli¥7 wilig ot bervil
edt ui bortiemer slo bisa tedt td soci H stich
jad? codssi.A vis bine to aviazscaug anoloenoons
heeh yiaetisw biss to somsiqeoses sii 14)ie bas mori
609 jon bib sotiwd .A yieli bisa etetes lest bisa of
~agd toi tom Moalfi .A afl xeidyseb bisa ted. s9bis
yd ied ot betdebri doclh A sitisH. Bise ton bead
bina Yo motigosxe oft to tutooon oo bas Jo coset
sion 00.08868
OU.ORESR vot atom fiina tlt sobilenba totesM ad’E |
bes dosll 4 oailiW ooel@ A aint yd Setpveze
“wotisd A vishl of olde bun dosl JH ottalt
hromipoanavbs ae te oonebive bsrwehieros sd tou bliody
adi of Bae at docl@ .A sisd to jazorsini od? daniags
ranted oft tobas ,boensooh woiisd .A yisil to oisles
jon ef ontse odt Jet bus teoursiaot bas {liw les! ted to
Asexoveb otis A wis to otetze oli To tozas os
oft to dgsigstaq teatit adi ai **Slon* Brow off jedT
bisa to iaonmsstast bus {iw tael biss od} to senels dixie
oF ton beriedoo ed blyode beesooeb .rolisd A crelt
ind amoieeido belebigpil To neélassg2a0q tom mast
-gyildo bsisblopitay bos unteizo bdav to gideroswo
Hing to dqerestsq Saooas od} gi ted oye He enon
yieM to inemalae? bar iliv jes! hise to sauale dixie
dussvorq ot iqnroiis** ebrow od? ,bosssseh totus A
ot bewttasen od Dfisode *' ili sidd to mothcsexs ‘ot
'* fiw aidt Yo atadorgy od} Jgoverq of hyaotte™ oxen
fox bineda seilsqgs vd iid odf to undit edt jad} bas .
to sissies sdi ai teorsiai 19d to stmtisirot ¢ ay otetago
sesso ois A via bie
“i970 stew visser edi Te irogqet od} 6} anottqeoxtif
oeise bisa nt beroime aew setosh a hua holu'e
nsw ioidw 00.0806? sof ston aft tadt havo? tyos oT
4omed A yah beesseob od? of oolisaqe vd bonwe
soit soaevevios a wd hetsbinpil bus bsdeingatizea saw
to beasososb of del FT ottish bas doelh 2 mailliW
-nte9 to [lid oft ni betioaob asw daisiw otaias leot ont
laot bine 3o sulay tediaar dano vikt odt Jadt bare trishg
- O88 asw Tooredt sompvevaoo odt to cenit af} im states
sanhellobal me gatinege ogextton 8 of jostdre 00.000
-fii svow Daadand tod fins oalleq¢s tadt Dive ,00.008, 18 to
Uowoedt od? sas ost Uowomi® alt of betdeb
sdsGoM a LM Row ‘caegeno Bis tin acai weet
4 redmovolt no tact Dow Ob 888,88 to ote Letod odd at
<wevitos st ‘to aoitarsbienos si Darras beasooeh WSeL
-12 hluow edz ied? sistas [nov fise off to teil of sone
-hetdebur od} vaq ,eegtrom bise to jnsarynq od? one
ALTA bisa bas yoaqeroD etitstaqo-o09 sled bise to aeon

Page 7 Gen. No. 8791

McCabe, and also release and discharge appellee and
her husband, William 8. Black, and Hattie H. Black
from all liability on said indebtedness then due and ow-
ing from appellee and her husband, William 8. Black,
and Hattie H. Black to said deceased, including the
note for $5,680.00, and that said conveyance was exe-
cuted upon that consideration.

The court further found that a dispute had arisen
between the defendants, Mabel McCoy and William T.
Barton, and appellee as to the proper construction to
be placed upon the sixth clause of said will; that said
William T, Barton and Mabel McCoy claim that, unless
the note for $5,680.00 with accrued interest from its
date until the time of the death of the testatrix is paid
by appellee, that she will forfeit all right to any devise
or legacy under said last will and testament and that
it was proper that said clause should be construed and
that the said suit is brought in good faith for the pur-
pose of enabling the estate to be properly administered
and settled; that said William T, Barton and Mabel
McCoy claim that under the following language in said
last will and testament, namely: ‘‘any note or notes
I may hold against either of my said children is to be
considered an advancement against such child and is to
be deducted from such child’s share in my estate’’,
the said note of $5,680.00 and accrued interest, although
paid and extinguished, must be considered an advance-
ment and deducted from appellee’s share in said estate,
and found that it was not the intention of the testatrix
that said amount was to be deducted from the share of
appellee.

It was ordered by the court that said indebtedness
of appellee in the sum of $5,680.00, evidenced by said
promissory note, has been and the same is declared to
be liquidated, cancelled, discharged and paid and is
not an asset of said estate and that none of the makers
thereof are indebted thereon to said estate; that the
language in said will, ‘‘any note or notes I may hold
against either of my said children is to be considered
an advancement against such child and is to be de-
ducted from such child’s share in my estate’’, be, and
the same is hereby construed to mean any unpaid notes;
that appellee has not attempted to prevent the execu-
tion of the last will and testament of deceased or tried
to break such will and that appellee has done nothing
to forfeit her interest in any devise or legacy under
said will.

The defendants, William T. Barton and Mabel Mc-
Coy, prayed an appeal to this court and perfected the
same by giving bond as required by the order of said
court and are the sole appellants in this court.

*
TVS wh iD

hag ssilegqe ogtadnaiy bas kandi oats bas
wosl tk ontell bas doaith A oveiliW sha [rod
wo Dike such nad) evachetdelni bisa go wilidsil Va arort
a val eeesiliw Soademt vod bassollugge aot: Poe
ii ysiiuiont boxseosh binaret doll A elie bes
~969 eH? somatavaoe bine tedt his OiL080 88 40% show
MOB stobiewos sect ogy hada
movin. bed stoquibh stadt bavot sedis taos ag’:
‘T essiil® bia yoOoM fxtoM alaghaolsh ody wonwiod
of noteeresos reqory wt of ea sallugga bas ge,
bisa tec} ;iow biea to oarale dézia ad} moos, Heoala od
groin dad) calsls voOuM isda been sored JT omit rae
ali grort desioiat bawrvss diw 0, (8d, 8% rot stom, alt
hieq st Zintaized adh to digab adit “bo: gamit aiff lito ota.
oeiveb ya of ibuia ike tiokeet Uhr ode tad) colloquy gal |
edd Bre dresses: jaot hie Uiw Jeet hiss tebuim voegsl, no |
Sap beutiaaoo od binods oatrale Digs, silt TOMO NG Baw tt
“rag adj rol diet hooy ai ddynoxd ai dise bias pe ak
borataisinhe yYbroqorgs af of otsian adi gaildaie to dig
jodeMt bas nolistl JT cepiliW hike teddy aes Bie
bine ol esergosl yurwolled edi tabu fad? seelastie qoUaNe
anton vo atoit uns? :efooten eemsinet ban iw duet
of ot et aviblivio biaw “ne Fo satin teniega blod teac t
‘ot ai huts Dido slosre patie tirecmonavba cr horsbianoo
‘ohelae Tet of oiads 8 “Pits - Sogra apo7} hatoabeh ot:
dgaodiis Jepttal iousoos bur (088 220 sion bisa ott
~somn7he sa betahissos at fae builainauiixe bios bieg
Sista bine ctorsde s selleqae arth boosbeb baw tpate
zinielest ert to vostneini ott joa eaw HF Yad? bawok fre
Yo otade of font hajonhek ad. of abw icrfronne bina tend
. pallacepe’
nsonboliabat bite tedt troe add. rf herahive pew Te
bise vd haswshive 00.080,08 te sxe od ai aslleqaa ‘to
of betaloo6 vi oorac of? has mead and atom Grometmow
at bas hisq hea begiadexih belloomas belsbinpit sd
eroxsen oft To ero tad hog otpieo bier Io ddeee ne jou
at ted} paistes hike of asatodt botdshist ous Yootarlt
blod var f soled yo slow yiat* [er bisa of Saiangitel
boisbiauns of of al soxbide bik ven to rodlie Janiege —
#b ad a ai bas hilals dese denione todmeonsvbe 8
bee ed “otstes var at etedy avblids deme mort hoterb ;
jaoton bisque ye wgom o8 bosidedés qievid ai ompe gut
“obese od iootesg of Betqmoltis tom aad eollaqae teat
iottd vo Goxssoob Yo dnomelest bin Low Jul @ to oit
anidion onol dei saflogqe tui bien Miw Hoga dnond of
tober yongel to onivals UM ip Saotelid Ton Y ii ia}

‘olf tacoMt ita wobind 0 quill eaeaat Nb if eae
edt Sodnotiaq-ban tos efi of inaqen si heteny ye”
hiae to rabto oft wd bertupet ae baad gulvig yo sma

Sites eid} at atinallogga ‘foe oll ome ti dro

Page 8 Gen. No. 8791

The principal reason urged for a reversal of said
decree is that appellee had a full, adequate and com-
plete remedy at law, and that the language contained
in said will had a certain definite legal meaning and
was not ambiguous and that there is no latent ambig-
uity in said will and that the bill should therefore have
been dismissed for want of equity.

No trust being involved in this will, jurisdiction to
construe the same must then depend upon the Act of
June 5, 1911, Cahill’s St. Ch. 22 Par. 50, which con-
ferred jurisdiction upon courts of equity to hear and
determine bills in equity to construe wills notwithstand-
ing no question of a trust is involved therein.

While such authority is conferred by said amend-
ment, yet it is error for a court of equity to assume
jurisdiction to construe a will when there is no doubt
or uncertainty as to the rights and interests of the par-
ties arising from ambiguous language in the will.
Bimslager v. Bimslager, 323 Il. 303.

Equity will entertain a bill for the construction of a
will which, though clear on its face, discloses a latent
ambiguity when read in the light of extrinsic facts.
Heckler v. Young, 264 Til. App. 34.

A reading of the will discloses that it is very crudely
drawn and that it presents sufficient ambiguity in the
language used to give the court jurisdiction to construe
it.

The evidence which includes the testimony of disin-
terested witnesses fully sustains the findings of the
Master and the Court that the conveyance of the real
estate made to testatrix was in liquidation of the in-
debtedness of appellee. The court will not construe
an indebtedness of a devisee or legatee which was paid
to the testatrix in her life time to be an advancement
to be deducted from such devise or legacy.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

(Ten pages in original opinion.)

(25261—4-5-34) 14 ED

1018 of tod

bina Zo Ieays ott 8 102 eS soneo's iscionixg
-ntoo bak sianpohs din? s bed eolleqye tefd al te"
hontslwos egsoset Jott tach Bee wel te thoar sisi:
bre ‘eiiaeors | otiniteh misiwo 2 bert iliw bie ni
-gidord teste! oa ai ated) ted} bas esowgitiose fou aaw
avail srotetedt Bluoda Mid oft tedd bas iw dias wioctio
“ctitp9 10 tew toi beeeioxaih sroad
ot donistborast iv ait of hoviovai geiad ieaxt o%
to toA edt moqr bueqeb ned taunt osmea odd aotiamod.
-59 doit 02 as S§ 0 32 aliteD FOr 6 onnt-
bia sged of Yinpe to alzuos mogur notieiberat horiat
-buajadiivies elt sirienoo of wllinpo mt silid onierisieb
missed! bevlovas ai Jeni 6 to moiisenpon pri
bronze biae ud hevialuos at yinodten doua slid A
autuees of vipa To dures s sot Torro 2f ti Jog dtioor
idnob ou si ead) aedw Unw a autiason of soltoibelust
“tag otf io alzateii han 2idgit of) ote valaisenun 10
Jiw edt af sgangnal escuaidexs ott guleite wait
SOG ITE GSE opnlessith + veneeant tl
rs to robortiedos att rot {lid wn utétrotice How winpol
tratal e eazoloaih ost ali co teelo taped? gloidw Iliw
alog? sanitize Yo ie ai? ai beet soder visgidores
8 woqA. LIL £88 (gswol ¢ ashion Hh
labia rev Bt Uf wie sasolaeth Kiw ad? to yaibeat A.
edi of Vlingides topioiiiia aeooeetg of Jad? bos owerb
arytenan af gongihetat, teroo elt ove of Dean ogaccorcal
7 alld
eth to vroattact of! sobuloni doidw somehive edT .
silt fo excibah od? agintage vind asaeoniia heteoust:
Jnot oct Yo sanetavioo od Jarit trwoD odt bre totaal
-i gi} Fo aoitebisswil ni caw xintatest of sbant-sdeles
autiance jou ive tines ad'l’ selleqqs to, eaenboidsh
hisa saw dott ootogel to soeiveh s te esenhetdebai as
jnoersonevha ce sd of oaxtt ati tod of xisdatesd ait of
srorgel ro salgeh dowa srost Aelogheb ad at
hoartilis 2i puso jissiD oft to o9tosh od'T
donvi'ho setg9
(.aeigion Issighe ci soyeq meT)

BE (BR+b-4--- 20908)
veer”

gr
Se

PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT oye.

oa er

William L. Patton, Appellee’ v. Mary Ann Adams,
AppeHants.

Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County.
S Y ‘os
January Term, A. D, 1934, 2 "4 Lr
Gen. No. 8818 Agenda No. 12

Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the
court.

By this appeal appellant is seeking to reverse an
order of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, sus-
taining an order entered by the Probate Court of said
county, in a matter arising in the administration of
the estate of Harriet Kerneghen, deceased.

In March, 1932, the law firm of Follansbee, Shorey
& Schupp, of Chicago, Illinois, received a letter from
Thomas Elliott, a solicitor residing at Newry, Ireland,
concerning the estate of Harriet Kerneghen, deceased,
in which he stated that he was acting for Mary Ann
Adams, of Lisadian, Ireland, and that Thomas Jarrett,
of Springfield, Illinois, was the solicitor dealing with
the estate, and stating that no money had been paid
over to his clients and that they were getting old and
are in poor circumstances, and requesting said firm
to ascertain the full particulars of the estate and write
him concerning the matter.

The firm of Follansbee, Shorey & Schupp wrote a let-
ter to William L. Patton, appellee, referring the mat-
ter to him and asking him to investigate. Harriet Ker-
neghen died testate on May 1, 1928, and letters testa-
mentary were issued to Thomas L. Jarrett on June
28, 1928, upon his giving bond in the penal sum of
$40,000.00. He inventoried personal assets amounting
to the sum of $23,000.00.

By the terms of her will the money was to be divided
equally between a number of legatees, one of whom
was appellant, Mary Ann Adams. Jarrett filed no
report until January 10, 1931. Appellee entered his
appearance for appellant in said estate and proceeded
to investigate the same and filed objections to said
report, alleging that it contained improper charges,
excessive claims by the executor for fees and expenses
and false credits for alleged payments of legacies
which had not in fact been paid. Another report was
filed by the executor on August 12, 1932, to which ap-
pellee also filed objections. The results of these pro-
ceedings was that Jarrett as such executor was forced
to make settlement by the Probate Court.

eee powonuo® {o- uo: Youd on ieagh :
, _ 7 7 a os : ot ys
: + ee By t £ > ¢ MORE A. onal waar nh We 2 gts ee
St of shoes A (ghee on 0

efi to noiniqa edi hertavileh aryatl aorreol Pe
7 ee: :
fa aeiovex of yeblesa af taslloggs — sat} Exel See en
7 -ane Sasol sestsgeet to mao firstlD od¢ Towebra -- <. ae
Hise to teD stadorl odf vd bereine rel oe geiniat 9
‘lo notiatiatiiorbs off ni geiaite seltes, 6. ahygiames |
Jesnouh utentyonss 20 tlre tottelneedt 9
yetord esdeaaliot to cmd. wal odt REQE ome wh
moil Titel g bovesess toni ,, equsid) to gquis® Bo
unter ~prveit be. yatibieas qadisilogd.e atoiltt Pics A
hanesbab otgoumed toimelt te atates sift emteroaeren ee
sik winkt eat giiton aew od jolt boteig ad doidw mb | -
ddors51, cadiolD tad} bane HaclotEcalien, Wo emebA |
iw poilseb sotistes-en! aew eipnifll blotenmgh to
hing, asad: bask wean tans eaeine Sree satgtan alt es:
bua blo gaiitew owew vod? tedy bie asnailezid of av "oy
wit bing gudesgos: bag. Aectatam@notin toog af 96 Se,
otivey bug sistas ott to areleorttaq lol oft chefrengeeoe
Tsien of) geintesnes mid
-lol 2 slow equiles & yosod? ssdanslicd to ant off. : bee
“tear ofl gariioioy ostleqqa atofiel sl ai oth
0A ioirvighl wateyiteoval of até gatlan baw mettt of at a
-eivot asofiel hs AGG! UJ ysl mo.etejzot hers cefaon he
sast, co Morb lL acarod? of howaat orev TUstirone
to ue Incog oft i? hued yrivig eid meq. O8@t BS
goUnnons atoaee Ijgoatsg boiteigeraieotl 0O00R UE _
DOOORESS Yo ty adit of
bebivih od of eaw yooonr oil) Hw ted to dexvet ody
asodw te eno asoiexel to todensit 8 aeswtod ylasps
on bola Honab ameb& sak vie, tuelloags any...
eid bowlee sallegy A TOL OF vrecast ite brogett :
bahossety bea sistas hime tt tecaaltoeqeyi sot pipers
hina ot enpitos(do hata Hira gene adt oteyitasved oF
‘“seytato aegotymi hadisteoo ti tadt yeigelin, J aye
Bonurayxe ae eet +03 volnsexe ad) vi ated avianodzs an
eatoxnal te abtomveq bayolla 102 efihoy sels? bea
7: auw Moget todloas. bing asad Sent af dea bad doidw
~<ys dobiw ot £80F OF fecal ae rotueexa od) yd balk >
-o1; seutt Io silyzet of .anditeeyda bolt oels gallag
hoose) enw sotnesee dows se Heriok tnd tice arabia
dra sindosd oft vd janinalaing opal

Page 2 Gen. No. 8818

Thomas Jarrett, the executor, procured an order to
make partial distribution to appellant in the sum of
$2000.00, which was paid by the executor by a check
payable to the order of appellee, who remitted the same
to Follansbee, Shorey & Schupp, who advised Elliott
of the payment and that they would forward the same
to him as soon as his client, the appellant, should sign
and return a receipt and agree that they should receive
as a fee for their services performed the sum of
$300.00. From the correspondence introduced in evi-
dence, it appears that appellant refused to agree to
pay the $300.00 as a fee and repudiated Elliott’s em-
ployment as her solicitor. Elliott advised Follansbee,
Shorey & Schupp of these facts and they returned the
$2000.00 to appellee, who filed his petition in the Pro-
bate Court for leave to deposit the fund with the clerk
and for an order fixing appellee’s solicitor’s fee at
$300.00, and that the clerk be directed to pay the fee
out of the fund. The Probate Court entered an order
in accordance with the prayer of the petition, and the
Circuit upon appeal entered a_ similar order.
Depositions of Elliott, appellant, and other witnesses
were taken in Ireland and read in evidence upon the
hearing on said petition. It was stipulated on the hear-
ing by counsel for appellant that a fee of $300.00 was
a reasonable fee, and that the amount of the fee was not
disputed.

Appellant relies upon two errors for a reversal of
the order of the Circuit Court: First, that the Pro-
bate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order en-
tered by it, and that for such reason the Cireuit Court
was without jurisdiction; second, that the evidence
failed so show employment of Elliott, and hence ap-
pellee was without authority to act on behalf of appel-
lant.

Appellee stated in his petition, filed in the Probate
Court, that he brings into court a check for $2,000.00
and prays that he may be allowed to deposit the same
with the clerk of said court and that the clerk be in-
structed and authorized to procure payment of said
check and hold the proceeds subject to the further or-
der of the court, and that the clerk be authorized, or-
dered and directed to pay petitioner out of said pro-
ceeds the sum of $300.00, in full for services rendered
by petitioner on behalf of said Mary Ann Adams.

Appellant moved the court to strike the petition of
appellee from the files for the reason that the court
had no jurisdiction to hear said petition or adjudicate
the same, and for the further reason that the petition
shows no employment of appellee. After a similar
motion was overruled by the Cireuit Court appellant,
by leave of court, filed an answer to said petition, in
which she says: That appellee was, at no time or in

ite “a :
ihe

WEBB Lol are k}

o) thse ue bergeotg tornssxe odt Northt asorolt
te vrta oft ai inelloggs o} melisditie:b leitisg saan -
deado a yd totusexe add vd beeg ania doidie (GO.00082
qurs2 oct hertlarwr ofw ootloggs ‘jo she adf of oldayag
HoiiG besivhs olw .qqudsa b yorode sadenalfot of
saree alt hyewied blucw vadt tacdt haw teonrcsq odd to
“gis Blooia jcallegas oft faetis aid 2a cooa 2a arid oF
gviseo! blirods vet! jadi s9%ge bas tqieost s tute bas
to tose- od! Losrietmay asaivise stisd!-461 ost & as
-tva of Gooshestui sonsbangartrwes adi cord 10,.0088-
Gi osige of heeton faslfaqgs ient aissqqe tk .eormeb
~1o a oll betetbeqa: ban oat 6 as U0.O0ES oft vag
_ oadeceifiod bosivha Hoilil todioiias vor 26 tromrzolg
git bortutot yodt Dia etoat opalt eo quate & vada
“OTT sHi mi nonileg etd halt ofw ollegqs at 0),)00ke
ttoly od} Mii bawd ed? deoqeh ob avast vot dane) aled
ti oot a'zolisifoa atosiiauge paix ib an tot far
got oft vay. oF botnet His ad state ad dnd? fire 00.0068
gelro up bowsise toro!) stadord oft band od? to duo |
ail; uc swoltited aft to soiasy odd dtiw sodabrogsa ut
aeiia izliois x baesstag fees moir tion
eontontiw sodte bare Jnelioqae Jol te eaotieoystt
ady «toa soitsbive of baer hit ti valet, 1 edad ony
“nl att ao betalogite asw tt meltibed iiea co gareed
enw CUM0SS to eet 3 tedt danileqas qt lsention yd pie
‘dive eae Kot att I derepogen off tad! fats sot eldaaoanat 2
ehadmgeib

to fuste7ot « tot aoc owt cogqy eaos tralloggA
-en4 seh dectt oP d4g0D tot adit to tobe sd
-rs vabro oat user of gotiethamnrp: on bed drivel} ated -
Po") jieaeh > ant poxier dove to? Sadd haw Af yd Beret
evnabire odt ded? Sigeosa ;noiiotheltop tuodinvw srw
~yn soded fig fill ta tracrgolqats work o@ holist
-lecge le Usted to top of atitodes toodtiw saw oalleq
shoal

alador? sit af belli .aeititog aid at betata salfeqa st.
HO.OCOSSA set dlosds ep tes ohrt epurd of badd dare)
gui ol Hanged oj howolle od yeor an dat arene bus
“of ad gxsis-odt Jadt haw ire fiae te taef edi dtive
wise to dnoureng exexntg of bastrodiae fas hatowtte
-30 rod}rai od? of toogdiig abodeotts ost Bind Hite deado
aw baxirosliog ad dials alt dedi. ‘bie Jutos at Tosh
-o1) jise to don aecottitag vary of botoatib Bite hoteh
hervbuar 294 sleca 702 fli tf 20088 Jo ecm sift absao,
acebh ank val bias to ewe (ro -roeeorhitage ed

fo iiliiec add oy Mate ol pints af bovoer teeallegqa
ixgaa of} tadt roesay cali aut eolit-edf avork ssileqqa
sigoibiths re sotized bids 1d of gotisibatrag on had
noititey odf badt meesot todhrod ad? to? fae coma ait
Saltire a ttl alte Yo tnecryolyims o awode
jiaisibage Tue) jimouit) oft vd belie ase mofanr
ni oiled biae of towkes ms helt ~toe to ovasl wd
rid amit on ta sew salleqqe tadT sexes ode dort

Page 3 Gen. No. 8818

any manner, expressly or impliedly retained or employ-
ed or instructed to act for her in the matters alleged
in the petition. The questions, that were presented to
the Probate Court for hearing and determination, were
as to whether appellee was ever retained by appellant
or had authority to represent her and look after her
interests in said estate, and, if so, the fixing of a proper
allowance for such services.

None of the acts of appellee in representing the in-
terest of appellant in said estate in said Probate Court
were repudiated by appellant or called to the attention
of the court, and said dispute did not affect or inter-
fere with the proper administration of said estate in
any way. Appellant, upon being informed that ap-
pellee had obtained the sum of $2,000.00, which was
ordered by the court to be paid to her, did not come into
court and charge that appellee was without authority
to represent her and that, by virtue of his appearance
as her solicitor, he had obtained the $2,000.00 that was
ordered paid to her, and refused to pay the same over
unless she consented to pay him the sum of $300.00 for
his services in so representing her, and thus give the
court jurisdiction to investigate such charges and de-
termine whether appellee was employed and was au-
thorized to represent appellant.

The Probate Court is concerned in no way with the
dispute that has arisen between Mary Ann Adams and
appellee, William L. Patton, as to whether he was em-
ployed or in any way authorized to guard the interests
of appellant in said estate, or if so, as to what would be
reasonable compensation for such services as he had
performed.

The fact that the court was in control of said fund
would not give its jurisdiction to hear and determine
the questions in dispute between appellant and appel-
lee. It would have no more jurisdiction to hear and de-
termine the dispute as to the employment of appellee
and the fixing of proper solicitor’s fees than it would
have in any other case where some matter of dispute
arose between a legatee and his attorney in the settle-
ment of an estate.

If as a matter of fact appellee was employed by
appellant as her solicitor, to guard her interests in said
estate, he had a right to collect the $2,000.00 for his
client, retain his reasonable compensation for his serv-
ices, and remit the balance to his client without the aid
of any court.

The Cireuit and Probate Courts being without juris-
diction to hear and determine the petition of appellee,
the order of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause
remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the
petition for want of jurisdiction.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

(Four pages in original opinion)
(25261—4-5-34) lt <>

BERS oo weds

-qolqrna xo boricios cfiviladt nae ieohes
boyoits exsttieer alt aiccod tot dos od te
of beinsesig s1ow jad} moiivenp of LT ,20t
otow wiolleninnsteb bas yittrHod sot pre ote
tecallogae qd beristet teve- aw sollogqs tented:
vod wis dook ban ved laeuonger of irodina: ‘bad ° 70. -
sogoig 6 te aaizh oct om ti baa oteteo bing ui atesroist
weuotvise done rol 7

-ti silt gatineasyqer wi sotisqaa to elon off to ono a
i109 aedord bise at oletes bina ai jaaileqga tojesiet
novinsita edt of ballss 10 tusllogqu yd beaibagor: erow - eel
-1oini To Seefis tom bib ofngqaiy hiss baa dios sit to
ni-ststes bisa to coihvsteinterbe seqoxg ot itiw oro
-qs jedi bourtota! gried nape jmalloggh: yaw 2
_ -Biew dlotdur ,20.000,8¢ ‘bo steamed bonisido bad 60 fog.
‘tai onr09 ton bib pred of hing od of dition ol} yd Botob10
VWiroligs inodiiw sew sollaqqedadt sgrado- bee smo,
escn'esegga all to entity ed tad hue wilimosenqot of
agw ted) 00.000,84 ont boaiatdo bad orf ¢totinilon tod Be -
sovo amise odd esq et beantot bas ved of bieg bexebhro
tot 00.0064 to ccua ort ovied wa of hoduosnos oie seahir : .
off ovig eudt bes jo giriteogergey oe mi peorrtes eit
-ab hus aagrads dome otoniteovat of nolteibaitet faves | I
“V8 saw bas iano asw eellaqye sedtodw smtarted

. Jnallegqa tnoasiyor ot bestvod? -
odt dtier cee or at howrenane ef drao) atader alt
bare corebA maA yisM soowted ngaita and Jadd staqeib.
mo naw od vetlodw of ee sOttsT al msilliW joslleggqe
eleorsint od! biasg of bositodine yew yan af 10 bezolq
od bluow sade ot ss 921i 1 oteleo hiee ni ioellogqe to
had of a asaivier dowa cot moi ganeqaioe oldaceenet

hav? biee to fowteos af aaw Jt05 oil} sadt Jon? Fit Cd fg
auiaviesed bas tecd ot molloibsiast vit ovig jon blaow — \ a are
-loqae bas instloqee sigowied olwqaih af arolleoiy oft —
-of bas sed of aoilcilelmt stent On ovad bivow 3] wel
eolfoggs to troarrolqme edi of aa stadqaib ont ettinntet: 9 Be)
Eicow ti mart e991 a tetistton taqotq Yo -gnizfodt bre -
eisyaif) to wetieor smioe ovedw sano todte wae ni ovad
-oltise oni si iced ald bus ootayel » aoowted segs
« atateo ne To ga
td bevolqano. aw salle joat-to rotten aan We ree
bina wt efaoretai voi Denny of wolivifeg tod 8 Inplfagqe
ait rot 00.0004 odd instion ot tdgit » bait od! state
-y192 wid tol coMasnsqness oféimoeser wid atetor dmatle -
fie oxlt dmostiivr sasibo aid od gonalad ant siseeas none oar
watery dsostive ied atsgoD- obec ini irra odT
selloggs ‘to noltideg odt axioxsaioh bas «aod of motel:
oaned ott fine heateverai treo divwri) odt to rebt0 edt
edt eeimeih o3 enottestib udtiw toes tel of K
_ koitoiBairat to tnaw vol mete
eoltvotih diiw hobasator baw alr .
(aviaiqo Lantgito ci xegeq HoH)

ie"! (83-4-0—15ha2)

gt Oo ge .
& s
a d
= iene =

Sah y - Py ap
BeAr ee
PousuisHep iy ABSTRACT

neral Motors Acceptance Corporation, a Corpora-
tion, Appellant, v. Richard Vaughn and
Emmet C, Vaughn, Appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Edgar County.

Ocroser TERM, 1933. } Py
foe &

Gen. No. 8777 Agenda No. 23

Mr. Justice Fuuron delivered the opinion of the
court.

On June 15, 1931, Appellee, Richard Vaughn, who
was then a minor, and Emmett C. Vaughn, purchased
a Chevrolet Truck from the Simpson Chevrolet Com-
pany. The purchase price was $948.00. Part payment
was made by turning over to the vendor a 1930 Chev-
rolet Coupe, at a value of $324.00 and the balance of
$624.00 was to be paid in monthly installments of $52.00
until paid. Both Appellees signed a conditional sales
contract. On the same date Appellant purchased the
contract and note. Thereafter the Vaughns made one
payment of $52.00 which was the total amount paid
under the contract. Because of the default and failure
to make further monthly payments, Appellant insti-
tuted this replevin suit on November 3, 1931, to re-
cover possession of the truck. Ona trial in the Edgar
County Cireuit Court an alternative judgment was
rendered against Appellant which in substance found
Appellee Richard Vaughn entitled to the possession of
the property in question and required Appellant to pay
Richard Vaughn the sum of $377.00 and interest with-
in ten days or return the property to said Appellee.

Before the commencement of the replevin suit a rep-
resentative of Appellant demanded possession of the
truck from Richard Vaughn and testifies he was told
that ‘‘if’’ and ‘‘when’’ he paid back to the minor what
the latter had paid on the car he could have it. While
other questions are argued the controlling one was
whether or not an adult can sell personal property to
a minor on a conditional sales contract, receive part
payment, and upon default by the minor and refusal
to complete the payments due, take the property in an
action of replevin, and compel the minor to start an
independent suit for the recovery of payments made.

It is insisted by Appellant that there was no repudia-
tion of the contract by the minor, but the testimony of
Appellant’s agent that he demanded the truck from
Appellee Vaughn and was told he could have it when
the payment made by Vaughn was returned to him, is
sufficient proof of repudiation.

~pioqeod s tat olistogioD somadyagod ‘etoo
bas ndlose¥ iiadsi& w dasileygch ,
ssaliogg A gs VY, 0 foams

7 Ako tog Jes Het atotk torah

Py =

4 , ¢ oH ae 2601 wand acaorsQ

nik at 4 %

& > oF i a a % eget

é8 of abaegA | TTS of nad

adi te meisiqn oi boxevileb rors somavl «it Tees
Jiyoo
ody tare brstioit pale reef ok sath a
Dadaist 4 thysea YO Home Me bite Cui § god) aaa
and isiovret aaa janie wih a poy’ dowst jelorvadt. s
7 Insany sey trast DOCbed eaw soiag pwarstorag ant wise
-vedU WEL » wobusy off of sevo soins vw sbacg aew
te somaisd od? bre DOLSEE to eulsy 2 tu.9qgo0 islor
GOS8S to uiemtlielent cid tom st bray od of saw OOALaR ee
wine lenod iDOd f borin asellegqéA dict ,bieg Inti ie
eat bei yaaa inellaggA sish come oft nO pea MOD .
env sbrmamtouaY of tefisetedl .ejon has doatiaos
bis Jowiae lstol ed: eew steiiw O88 to taoorzaq
ovnlist § be thusten aft to seneett odeowrtiros edi sofas
-hani inclisggA airomtsq vilicone todtim odae of
4 of atc a iedinsvow we Shey sivelqor aids bots
Saeahil od} aiinini oO lori edi io ucienoveeg tevoo L
asi twa ber avitswraiis ie tgo0D tiyortD chao.
bnuct ssagtedra at ioidw toallogqé faniags harebren
io woissemaed su! of Koltites odana¥ brasil gallsgqe A.
Fay Gl: jisbogg & peeinyey Die cottesnp mf coo ests ty.
~Siiw deototnd has OO.378& to mua od? subare¥ Liens
jollsazs bist of vtoyoug olf cisdes 16 eum iat al
6% Rime nivelqor ot Yo trommostemtios od? wiettetl
: sit lo aemesasog Debiscotah jaslleaqg A 16 avilaiieees =i
ftw! gio of sortiias) hiss plane’ btadoGl smoxt dams.
tedharcronim edt oF dosd Digg oa “aod 7 Bare 0? apa
slid ¥7 ti over bins ed veo od} xo fiag bel tettal edt
new 36 aitiilotinos oft haugts, ore eeoileanp ‘tate
of yhisqesg tsaoetag Use mao ilubs ite joa to yodigdw
May ovis ADRS LOS solge Imoti lines BO TOdiot g
lnaslor Fura pouise od? yd Hosteh woqe Bure Rhcrsct iti pe
Hs Gi yieqoig ot ods) sub atiserceg ols sbilqains of
ues tats oF tevin adi luqeroo ban ,tivelyet le softge
bse at masts i] te vrevoue' oft wih dime trohuaqebar ;
-aibocist og ue otadl Jadt ‘alleges, yd botatagt ai gh . mo a
Jocpiomitess odd td sonin.od? yd toastaon godt Yo molt |
imort Hout ed) Jeboscs’ of bedt trope etactioggA —
sot 3: oved binee of Mot anw bas otgueY ostlegq&
ai seid 08 hartisior saw odnen ? ee ohen Joong edt a ta
sisacomges So tooty. taaaiaatal a

Page 2 Gen. No. 8777

It is further contended by Appellant that there can
be no repudiation without a return of the property and
there is no authority in law for an infant to hold the
property as security for the return of his payments.
It is conceded that upon the repudiation of a contract
by a minor because of infancy, the rights of the parties
are wholly governed by law, and not by their contract.
Fuller v. Pool, 258 App. 513. To hold that an infant
must consent to the replevin, return the property and
then start a new and independent suit for the payments
made, places the minor at a great disadvantage and
would entail needless delay and expense. We believe
the adjustment of rights between parties growing out
of the same transaction should be determined in one
action if permitted under the law. In an action of
replevin by a mortgagor where the mortgagee set up by
plea the notes and mortgage, alleging the non-payment
of the last of the series of notes, the mortgagor replied
that in making a sale of the property to him the mort-
gagee had made a warranty in respect thereto, of which
there had been a breach, and that the damages arising
from such breach equaled in amount the unpaid note,
it was held that such a defense to the note was admis-
sible. Hutt v. Bruckman et al, 55 Tl. 441. In Hamilton
v. Singer Manufacturing Co. 54 Ill. 370, the court held
that a machine delivered to an adult upon which a part
payment had been made could not be recovered in re-
plevin without the returning of the payment made by
the defendant. To the same effect is O. & M. Ry. Co. v.
Noe, 77 Il. 518. It is our judgment that Richard
Vaughn being a minor had a legal right to repudiate
his contract: that having made payments upon the pur-
chase price of the truck he had a special property in
the truck and was rightfully in possession until the
$377.00 was paid to him.

The alternative judgment entered by the Court was
proper under the facts in this case and the judgment of
the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

(Three pages in original opinion.)

(25261—4-5-84) 14>

uno ovodi tadt dnelloqgA yd bobratuon a6dirat st 0
Bae yviroqozy edt te moter s Suodliw aotsibuqe: of
ont biod of tustni as aol wal at vitiodive Om at orodt
atnomeiq bid To intnia: off tot etiauen’ 2s Uheqong
tyasisoo «to cottsibuqes eit cogs tedi hobsoncoai 1”
eoiitag ond lo abitaiv of? yometat To ssonced sonia a yd
Jdogiinos usd) 7d jon bas wal qd boavaveg qlodw ota
jasial as iad} Dlod oT 886 .gq@A 88h Joel vy sath
has zitsqore of} oiuisy .nivaleor alli of huoenon denne
tnyarysy odd x67 Hine tcobseqabmi haa wos 8 trate peut
bon sosiusvbaeih jmoreg 6 Ia toulor off egesiq shar
availed oH .sarsqxea bus Wilob azelboon Hstas bluow:
dun acisnryg asittaq meawlod aifgtt te tdonmtuathe off
ono ni bodigeveish ed bigods wolteaans zh sorsa edt to |
to sroitee an af ornl ood robtos boftineeg Te goites
yd Gir doa ooturgtiom off btodw roasehron syd divaldet
hiserragumor od? garecUle wang irom bree astor od? soley
holiqs+ cogastrosty, aft oto to eetros oft to taal aif to
~Kross ont acid of yMoqo1g oft to olve 8 winidens et dn
side te ,ototodt dodges: ai vinettow ae shen bad sypeg
uaigiie eayenieh off tad! bus doaord 8 ased bed suoddt
ston biagrs odt towoera ai felaupe roseil dome oovk
-eisahes aow ote oli of sanetoh 4 fone tadt blod eae it
SollisenE of IM 10 68 Mn io wnacdowel 7 took ald
Biod jusog ot OTE JIE £6 0D qatistn awl cone 7
Sasy e dole oq Subs us of barsvileb onidosas & fact
57 ab hersvoosy ad jon binos ehact seed hed daomrreq
yd sbacu Jusurzedq edi Yo guitustet edt tuodtiw orveig
7.00 asi Mi & .O aj foots open of}-oT trabasiob sift
rede tads taenrebut uso ai JE Bre 1. VY ook
etsibeqeys ot idgic eael « bet ronta a gnied mdyieT
ung od? soon etnowrcer obeor gation tell tonne elit
gi wheqote [sisaqs » bed od dosst of) to sottg sestlo
odi lites solaasasog it ylutigir enw bie dowsd odd
wchit ot bine anew OG.TTER
aew fro) ed? yd horolae jnoarobut avidanile afT
to tesarg5ut odt bre oso eld nt aos adi rohan teqote

aver)

Smarties ai tpoO Huorit? edi
ee av tak 7 ~Honedky se

- (.toiniqo Isnigizo at esgeqsetdT} *

ater te (62-4—Te88e)

PusuLisHED In ABSTRACT

H. Fr Zelle, Appellee, v. The Morton State Bank,
a7

5 Appellant.
Yoveal from Circuit Court, Tazewell County. '
January Term, A. D. 1934. yb é
Gen. No. 8786 Agenda No. 2

Mr. Justicn Fuiron delivered the opinion of the
court.

This was a suit in assumpsit brought by Appellee,
H. F. Zelle, against the Morton State Bank, a corpora-
tion, Appellant. The declaration consisted of the com-
mon counts and attached to the declaration was the
verified affidavit of Appellee’s claim. The affidavit in
substance recites that the demand of Appellee is for
money due him upon an agreement to repurchase bonds
sold to him by Appellant bank through its agent and
cashier, Fred Reuling Jr.; that subsequent to making
the purchase of certain bonds the Appellee made de-
mand upon Appellant to repurchase said bonds and to
pay him the sum of $4,125.38, representing the amount
paid by Appellee to Appellant for said bonds, together
with accrued interest; also that the bonds were tend-
ered back to Appellant at the time the demand for re-
payment was made.

Appellant filed a plea of general issue supported by
an affidavit of meritorious defense, in which a denial
was made of the making of the agreement to repur-
chase. The Appellant also filed an additional plea of
the Statute of Frauds reciting that the agreement set
forth in Appellee’s declaration was not in writing; that
it was not to be performed within one year from the
time of the making thereof and was therefore void.
Both at the close of the plaintiffs evidence and at the
close of all the testimony, Appellant moved the Court
to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defend-
ant and submitted an instruction for that purpose. In
each instance the motion was denied and the instruction
refused. The jury returned a verdict for Appellee as-
sessing his damages at $4,250.12. Motion for new trial
was overruled and judgment was entered on the ver-
dict from which Appellant prosecutes this appeal.

The facts are directly in dispute. Appellee testified
that he had long been a stockholder and a customer of
the Appellant bank; that on May 1, 1929 he spoke to
Fred Reuling Jr. the cashier, about the purchase of
some Morton Paving bonds, to which Reuling replied
they had none. Appellee then replied that in that event

~~ “=* >

" ot sdoge ad C801 f yal wo dail atned HeadlaggA ont

auiayo'd Bsoset bo) cy ie a naa ’ a
vent & 3 Pe ye it

y ee DEOL Gt seas weataal |
& off ebaogA tie tee "sora om etd

sil}, to goin gift howsvilek ee i gorre | a.
£199
polled. yd tdeaowd Heqmaese et tina & ae at; >
-siocion a nad oil sotiol sdf taniegs giles a
~u109 silt ‘lo beteieags soitrralbeb alt dusllaag a, (Ont
arly sow sotetiooh oft of burlesltie Sits ateatoo mont
ni‘Jivebiite off orislo ataaliaagA to diralaftis: bofltrey
101 ai sollotA tw bosnrS edt tad} vetiocs sonnsudae
shaod gasdotaget of asmestys oo. woon aud sab yacout
Bein. tdogn ti dasorstt tend tunlisqagdA, xd. osid of bios
yoblen ct taospeadie tad pth. gailuod hex! sidaao
of sham eolloggA alt ehaod aigixae ty ceadyiy. odd
ot bus ebued hiss oxsdorager o} traliaggé nog hitaut
dieioosn ost oriteomonyon SECO to coe oft anid aq
sedivgnd shod bree sol, tsallogah ¢ oF eallaggé. xd Blas
iter sisw spied oid tact coisas placed | bores ALN
ot yot beamols edt amit odt 38 inalloga A. 04 trad bers
bam asw tireriry sig.
yi hestoaque osst favenog to soley a holft jnolleqaé.
(play o-deidew nd senstely asoivotizem to siveblin os
“wires of troaseras odi to sublaar adi fo shea asw
Jo nolg larcitibhs as belt cole inellaqgé ol? .cpeds
jou Inomoorge od! dad? gattinor abugr'l to atudeté oft
tall :anilirw ci tom eew aofletshab soalloqqaé wt dime?
eit mnoyt wast ano ciftiv heorotreq:ed ot Jom aaw 31.
‘biov ovolusod) anw has toorod! guolsm oni ty omit
oft tn fan soaobive eAivaialg adt Yo enols odt ty dlofl
tro") 4idt hover tuallaggA ,ztwathest afi dla Yo seals
-bratal oft vo? foibwv 6 ust of tinh odh doatient of
al aaogig jedd tot gofonttes! ae bediiordps hus tae.
rottorrdeni adt bas beineh eaw wastout al? sountant doas
-as sallaqa A tet foiliiey « honistor moj edt beamter
lsiet wea 10% nolo .SL.0CC MM te segecush ald goieene
~rav otf} no hexodus enw Inodrgbat bre bolirrra 79 BBY,
dvoqere eid astusoeoty inaltoggA doiiler exvost doth
hefleiast safleqgé oingeib nk gisoihiere coated
fo temtotzne 4 bie tebloddooiv 2 nead gaol bait ad tart

fo ovadorng gilt inods gividane nit th gailnedt hort F oH
hoilyot guitooh doidw of sbued sive aoltoM sare
1apye tad? al indi hailgoes nodt ad 604K Pee

Page 2 Gen. No. 8786

he would like to buy some Morton Grade School bonds.
Reuling replied they had none of those but that they
had other bonds just as good. After considerable con-
versation Appellee said he would not be interested in
any other bonds unless the Appellant bank would agree
to repurchase them at any time Appellee desired to
sell them; that Reuling replied that he would only be
too glad to agree to such an arrangement; that there-
upon on two different occasions under the same agree-
ment Appellee purchased bonds from the bank and
paid for them; that late in the fall of 1931 and before
there was any default in interest upon the bonds so
purchased he applied to Fred Reuling to cash one or
two of the bonds as per the agreement of the bank to
buy them back at any time. Mr. Reuling informed him
that they had no funds available for that purpose just
then but probably could later on; that on many more
occasions Appellee applied to Mr. Reuling to repur-
chase the bonds under the agreemnt but the bank re-
fused to take them over.

In behalf of Appellant, Fred Reuling Jr., testified
and denied making the agreement to repurchase the
bonds. While appellant argues other reasons for re-
versing the judgment, it is apparent from the opinion
of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Knass v.
Madison & Kedzie Bank 354 Tl. 554, that the contract
here relied upon by Appellee is void as against public
policy, and that it was entirely outside of the power of
the bank to make any such contract. No plea of ultra
vires was filed in the instant case but a motion at the
close of Appellee’s evidence to return a verdict in favor
of Appellant raised the question of the sufficiency of
the evidence and should have been granted by the
Court because Appellee’s case was dependent upon a
void contract which the Court did not have the power
to enforce. In accordance with the Knass ease above
cited the Appellee was charged with notice that the
bank was utterly without power to make the repur-
chase agreements,

Because the Appellee failed to make out a sufficient
case it was error for the Court to deny the peremptory
motion made at the close of Appellee’s proof and the
case is therefore reversed.

Reversed.

(Three pages in original opinion.)

(25261—4-5-34) 1} QB

7
+ ae

ants off rar aa

abrod lode obits soto ap wud ¢
rault ted} Jud eed) to arom Basel you? boilq
-noy aidarsblaado taht. hoog ab jess abaod pal
ti huleetstai ed Jom blaovw eit Bisa sallougé ae
sora, bloow sand ten flagqy A oft enaliice ebod a9ilio york.
ot botiash ssflegrrA sniit tik te ord oantloraqer of > |
ad yigo bhrow-odl dard boilgs', goin dey jorodi Tea
-g1oit Isdi ; Inemopmetis 4s dope of co7|a8 of balg oot :
-ov'rgs ofise sit soho acomacse jroretih owt mo dogg
hes wead af} orovt abaod heesdetsq sellaqqgA dnsor
: sioisd ban ISCT to ei ofl ci olel Madi :mved? rot biaq-
on shrad sdf woqe jasreint ni Wosteh wus eow-stedt . +"
“vo sno dees of gotined ford of bailcus od besadoriq
at diaed edt to taormsaTas 3 edt tot} Be ebaod edt to owt
sssist unrroiat aE aifvor 7M saci qis ia ton wade gpd
: jeuf aeoctod (eri rok siteliavel abit” of fed vod) tat
- a som Yaem ao iad} ;uo satel bhieo qidedosq farbtedy.. :
“ingot of qacilssil aM od baileys sufleqq A anotasogo re
-ot dasd odt jf Jemoargn alt tohens abaed oft sasds et Ae ae
ovo ata) odetel heesY
: Hollitest .oG yiilvol Bosl jnefleqqA to Headed ot Ta
gilt ougdvisqer ot tnomoeetas of} yablenr beinsh fie i Sean,
-o1 wl egossot audio aengis tasilegqs oliniW vbrod - ‘
7 frolaigo off met tnexeeae wi Hi fnvsrebn], ont eateroy
v azn ty eres dessa od? ni iso smorquel sd? to
Jontinos sit Sesh oe UT $6€ Aww svahe A 4 seonthevth
vildng Jeaises as bio? 2 i goiisqqA. yd nog beilat oved
fo -ewor ¢ ot fo sbistvo eiviites eaw ji jadt bos SeoOg
BIilir to eal of tosytnoo dona wis osfncr of Anad edt -
ac) He mogem ee oaeo trateni of} ai bol aawessiv = _
4ov8) of toibtev B ister of ssaabova atsolloqqA to ve “A
io ysnotniiive di ‘to moiteoup oft bovine Jasilsqaé
eds yd botnere esd oved Blyeds Sits smebive a
& soc taafpee aqab saw akeo staaffoga A oanssed tool)
wowog ad} avad tom bib d1s00 odt doidw tosrhaoo hioy —
syoda oago aesHll od} diiw sonshtoces af .eoxotus of
We edi tnt sotto dity boynedo daw soffaqgé ort bolia
ee 2: “te elit ove of towog ivodinw qreitu saw dongscf
Be eae ee - asian oer OTE SLD «
fustuiicte fR ea atid ot halist oalonrs. atl} aang
~iotinatec odd yesh of disoD edt tot Serie aaw dr 3285
od} bra Too 3 ‘golly A jo deoks sil te hen seneny. © a
. Sovrevet s1otoredt af eeny
+ hoerageil |
(.coiniqe Lenigizo «i cogeq send?)

‘

PusuisHEeD in ABsTRAeT =

Jack T. Reynolds, a Minor, by Merle -Reyxolds, his
Father and next friend, Defendants “inError, v.
C. O. Wedeberg, Doing Business as ‘‘The
Medical Clinic,’ and Adolph Jacob
Newman, Plaintiffs in Error.

Error to the Circuit Court, Sangamon County.

SEFY A
Octoser Term, A. D. 1933. 2 "4 4h

Gen. No. 8795 Agenda No. 11

Mr. Justicn Fuuron delivered the opinion of the
court.

This was an action of trespass on the case brought
by Jack T. Reynolds, a minor, of the age of eight
years, by his father and next friend for personal in-
juries sustained by said minor on June 17, 1932, by
reason of the negligent operation of an X-ray machine
by the Plaintiffs in Error.

A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for defendant
in error for the sum of $7500.00 which by order of the
trial court and consented to by the Defendant in Error
was reduced by remittitur to $2000.00 and for the
latter amount judgment was entered. From that judg-
ment Plaintiffs in Error have prosecuted this writ of
error,

The declaration in substance charges that at the
time of the injury the Plaintiffs in Error conducted
and operated, in the City of Springfield, an institution
known as the ‘‘Medical Clinic’; that Plaintiff in
Error, Dr. Wedeberg, owned and managed said Medi-
cal Clinic, and that Dr. Newman, the other Plaintiff
in Error, actually operated the said clinic as the agent
of Wedeberg; that in said Medical Clinic was an X-ray
machine; that the said Jack T. Reynolds with all due
care went to said Medical Clinic for examination and
treatment and that Plaintiffs in Error accepted said
employment; that the said Dr. Adolph Jacob Newman,
as the agent and servant of Dr. Wedeberg then con-
ducted such examination and treatment of the said
minor by the use of said X-ray machine, but that Dr.
Newman so negligently and carelessly operated the
same in such a manner as to cause the Defendant in
Error to be severely burned about the head, face and
arms, and that he suffered a severe shock and injury
to his nervous system. The Plaintiffs in Error pleaded
the general issue and in addition each of them filed
separate pleas denying the joint ownership and opera-
tion of said Medical Clinic, and further denying that

Wy
th
Fs

a, x
He
“uf

- bee's,

ir Ray ue) bet a)

sblotczai of'telt zd ten 2 ‘btonentt " saat
\¥ orl gf etalboote brett deen bee redtet
oft? ag eagalava gui wiedsbeW .O DB .
doast “fylobé. hes “ait feothelt
0CRE sf aftitetel scence

whined) seomenpions Sven Masaiee Digs? of south

one
a S2et A .eaaT asagmd
tl oH abaega Gals off 108).

adi tw goitigo oft Beroviloh norroa, gorrectl wll

: 4909
y ot my eeageet! te itotan a maw oid T

ots Shit to estan e 2blongeil TD abal yi
pees Tan yo} Praiti tren brae-rodtsi, aid wd , aTsSY.
“i eaot no toni bine vd Bowiptena. eottey
oiidagey qst-4 os to otssegs-inogiaer as? to sneer

wou ree eas nielS eit %
Sat) wean yen; vd [erat A
oj thsi VM Oar 4 3 meus add 4ot LOT MI
torr! of janbrotstl adi-qd of betwanoo baw Pros Lain
add vei hoe OO a atitiiets: gd heaybot anv
obopisd! mov betvhre sew dear hual Jedenee oltal
to dirw eit balgsesetg eyed rowtl ai eRtiatalD sent

tiheatah to

iki

HLS
ad} 3s fat scrgiy sometedua of poitarelsat ‘ed’?
betsiais cca rut Be eGideiel 5 sdt-u apr asl} To esrit

WoLtusitr ay fg ite 94 Facer) odd itt ote bis
gi ‘PHitnus! bind: 2 * oil LispibaM® edt en ave
ik peu fise Logatacr bus beewe ~qredobaW iO toma
tuinid tenia off earmweV, 1G tadt bia. 0 olndfO Tee
et ag Oinifo Hies ect heteregqerifentos sorrel of
JOR EW rainee Jissibelt hiss argedi <4 sedeheW ‘ta
san lig feo shlowges SL dost, bine onl feat} sq TE OMNE
bas KOT AMIAIAES “(62 SKN teotball bine of faaw ones
fige hotyjoos tore of etiam’ ted} bas treme
sores dot nal denoh&. ve bige sil daa + erie eee
-oo colt erodobeW xh de Ipierse bow Tieigeat j

bise sd} Yo joontecie bar oottenionxy dom bated
miGe tai i? tint ,anidoenrt yai-2 fise to oat ail} eh rohit
gilt jo viesoles Hee vitnegiigon on covanell
HE Jeehet i adi sags of on- totem 2 ifone of omsa
har ARE DES d adit droda borrind thizavsa + od of teeth
ttt fre Aoordle ovevos. 4 borstios ed tedd Bos jor
bebusly vot at staal oft setae asovien aid ol
belt orsdi to doxe goitibbs of fits. siesi Ievonay odd
-wioc¢o bus gidarsewo jetot 41 gaiywoh aeslg etetaqex
jady yoiyesh tdiro% bis cinilD [nobel Aina Yo wort

re <j *
=

ead STD!

trie ae>

Page 2 Gen. No. 8795

in the operation thereof the Plaintiff in Error New-
man was acting as the agent of Dr. Wedeberg.

Plaintiffs in Error urge two grounds for reversal.
First, that at the time of the injury Wedeberg was no
longer connected with the operation of the Medical
Clinic, and that a judgment against both Plaintiffs in
Error is contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence.

In support of the joint liability the Defendant in
Error introduced testimony showing that Dr. Wede-
berg, a dentist by profession, maintained his private
office at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Monroe and Fitth streets in the City of Springfield.
At the northwest corner of this same intersection was
located a brick building owned by one Claypool, on the
first floor of which was conducted Claypool’s drug
store. At some time before the injury Dr. Wedeberg
rented the rooms above the drug store and began the
operation of what is described as the ‘‘ Medical
Clinic’’, One room was used as a reception room, the
rooms to the north were occupied by the ‘‘Medical
Clinic’’ and those to the south by the ‘‘ Dental Clinic’’.
Dr. Wedeberg paid the rent on all of the rooms to
Claypool. He also employed the janitor and paid him.
This janitor also cared for Dr. Wedeberg’s private
office. He employed an office girl who served both
clinics. The advertising for the Medical Clinic was
submitted to Dr. Wedeberg upon which he placed his
O. K. for the credit of same. Dr. Meyer, an employe
of the Medical Clinic before the re-arrangement in
March 1932, and from that point on with the ‘‘Dental
Clinic’’ testified that both he and Dr. Newman made
weekly reports to Dr. Wedeberg, down to July, 1932,
at which time Dr. Meyer severed his connection with
the ‘‘Dental Clinic’’.

He also testified that Dr. Wedeberg told him in the
latter part of June 1932, that he was going to cut all
their salaries including Dr. Newman. On this issue
Plaintiff in Error proved by Dr. Wedeberg and Dr.
Newman that the latter was employed on a salary
from January 6, 1932, until March 14, 1932, to operate
the Medical Clinic. That on the latter date Dr. New-
man took over the Medical Clinic as his own, paying
rent for the office space and equipment: that he was
furnished janitor service as part of the rental agree-
ment, and that Dr. Wedeberg was only the landlord on
June 17, 1932, at the time of the injury. This testi-
mony about the change in management on March 14,
1932, was corroborated by Mr. Ransdell and Dr.
Marshack.

While the testimony of the defendant in error is
somewhat circumstantial in its nature, there were suf-

Ope tere Wann ty 4 TST

out £0 |]

‘? POON OCHS

Peeples,
aes Aba PH
fd GTO

Fe
hoe A 1h

foo

era” 4 uae
8 asst PeysishowW 4 wi hereo o¢in toting, endl

1 Syed sate
“gt tuo"

DSTBUTT

Page 3 Gen. No. 8795

ficient facts proven to warrant the court in submitting
to the jury the question of whether or not Dr. Wede-
burg was interested as an owner of the Medical Clinic
on June 17, 1932, and having found that issue of fact
in favor of the defendant in error, there is nothing so
convincing about the proof of Plaintiffs in Error as to
justify this Court in finding that the verdict was con-
trary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

The other assignment of error relied on by Plain-
tiffs in Error was that the verdict of the jury was ex-
cessive and that the action of the Court in ordering a
remittitur from $7500.00 to $2000.00 indicated that the
verdict was the result of passion and prejudice and
should be set aside. In this case the defendant in
error, a boy eight years of age, had injured his arm
and desired an X-ray picture taken to ascertain
whether the arm was broken. His mother took him to
the medical clinic where Dr. Newman was in charge
and he proceeded to take the picture. We think the
evidence clearly shows that Dr. Newman negligently
permitted the spark-gap to be placed too close to the
boy’s head and when the current in the X-ray machine
was turned on it caused an intense spark to jump from
the end of the tube to the left side of the boy’s head
and out from his left arm to the metallic cone attached
to the tube. The boy immediately fainted, became
unconscious and fell from the chair in which he was
placed to the floor. The incident occurred in the fore-
noon and the boy did not regain complete conscious-
ness until evening. In addition to the shock, the hair
on the left side of his head was singed off and burned
for an area about the size of the palm of a hand and
there were severe burns about the head and arms. The
burns did not heal for about three months. The shock
affected the boys nervous system so that he could not
sleep well at night, was extremely nervous, lost weight,
tired easily and was not so robust as before the injury.
The doctors were unable to state how long this condi-
tion might continue. We do not think the judgment
for $2000.00 was so excessive under these circum-
stances as to warrant the Court in setting it aside.

‘‘Remittiturs in action ex delicto, by the trial and
Appellate Courts have been approved by this Court
numbers of times’’. Sandy v. Lake St. El. R. R. Co.,
935 Ill. 194, citing Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Gemmill,
209 Ill. 638.

We do not find any substantial error in this record
and the judgment of the lower court is therefore af-
firmed. Affirmed,

(Four pages in original opinion)

(25261—4-5-34) ll <>

i@ oF .ask ‘

- 7

epee ai tusoo sad tar vise of £39 (OUT edogt dite dint
~she'f <1 tom 10 todtedw to nollesnp odt rut add of
owl) is »ihalé sili Io xosevo ive ag belasrotai aw grt uO
togit to sweat Jatt foot eoived bag S8@l TL onpb t
of wutidies ei ord} sorte gitnabasteb olf to 1ovet ik
ot ss wot at sivaialt to Yourg adi Sis piioniviros
-a0a sow doibyevy off tedt quthudl ni Yaiol) aittt yitiany
onobize oft to tiésiow lectiian od} of ying
init yt uo beilot wore to taomureieas sade oT
-k) asm yuu ot lo Jothyev od) Jali caw tor of ait)

& wumebio af fusoD adt to mottos sdt ted? bas svigeso ;
ath: ia Fotmetient OOSUGE of USLOURTR exock nod dior -
J ¥ _

Sad poilhotory bus noleesey to dest off egw totiisy

ie uireiebh oil eas9 le af cohias Joa od blyode
Fett aid botujai bad sus to ayney ddsiy vod x storie a
sitonas ol ES } otuzioig q yeek fri -borigob lets
G! gu leet vodtone alll rualotd gew oven ot sedteily
gerade ol asw ee, 3G orsiw onsilo [soiboar ott
ei dirt) off Sait ad! sini of bebssaurtq off bite
yYaesigon nemo 141 init ewode elaasin eonebive
a4) OF S#ele OOF sont od of qusg- ssa Hat Lottie
aiiinsat E61-K al tk tioitaes oft cotw bie heed stvod
‘ ety, ot shesee < pee ne hoarse trae beri saw
‘so0 sak Yo sabia Taf edt of vdut edt to bas ot
sis oes sillsiony oi? of ori Hel aid morl doo his
pibsmuse wed on out of) et
is alt mort Ust hae asoioanoons
pare 2iT .so0f! adi ot heontq
of uw! tan bib wad ona Date (OOK
rind oli stood off} of moHiehe ni .gciseve Hing sac
Deuwrisd bea To bevnis anw basi sid to obie Hol edt ao
mis fonds to misc ott Yo oxig oft toods ests me tot
alt vores bas heed adj inods anu staves stay eredt
node sf? edinous sort fuods iot lesd tom bib arid
Fag al ist on rrajaye apovten azod add Hofostia
dilpiow jel gtovise vismetize saw didgints flaw qadte
iiivot ov ied us Jaudoi oe jon saw baw viiege batit
ius eit geol wod stets of sldsan atow atoteob ad’?
fronrehut od? anid} jou ob 6W cepattunn idan soit
“PROT vest sabasy ovigayoxs on sew O0DSOSR wot
~Obiag TH patties oi Huo sd) jawtew of as AODTRIS

Bus Lett out vd ojoieh xo mottos mt etatitigesl’*

sso ehilt qo bevorggy neat evad abu stalleyqA
wD A ME A oslad wv wheed J "aomtt Yo evadarne
Wiswst iv od eh ag agnor) guatio POE Jf aes +.
BE LOS
feeosey gidd gi yori inivautadcs yor butt ton ob oW ;
-ts eke ai dinoo towel sdi to Joveebut od} bag -
sacri besreit
(uoiniyo Inuigize wi soyaq 190%)

whee OL ol
asiihvy fet
oa isi GILL

“CTO 9B BT4 tire

ere bE -(bL-G-i-—D0LEE)

PusuisHeD In ApsrRact A ys ‘

L. H. Hulan, et al, Defendants ah Error/v. Lester
Goodman, et al, Plaintiffs in

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Greene County.

Oe A
January Term, A. D. 19384. 4; 4 “@

Gen. No. 8816 Agenda No, 11

Mr. Justicr Fuuron delivered the opinion of the
court.

Defendants in Error filed their bill in aid of execu-
tion to set aside two deeds executed by Lester G.
Goodman and his wife to D. J. Williams and to sub-
ject the premises therein described to a sale under an

alias execution. The decree of the Circuit Court found -

that the deeds were made without consideration, with
intent to hinder, delay and defraud the grantor’s
creditors and that the grantee D. J. Williams, held the
title to the real estate for the use and benefit of Lester
G. Goodman. Plaintiffs in Error insist there is no evi-
dence in the record to support any of said findings.
The proof shows that Lester G. Goodman was a son-
in-law of D. J. Williams; that on November 29, 1928,
Goodman and his wife conveyed the real estate in con-
troversy to the said D. J. Williams by two deeds which
were filed for record on August 8, 1930; that Lester G.
Goodman was also a stockholder and director for
many years in the Kane State & Savings Bank of
Kane, Illinois, which closed its doors and ceased to do
any business on August 14, 1930; that subsequently the
Defendants in Error, as creditors of said bank brought
suit to enforce the liability of the bank’s stockholders
and on September 17, 1931, recovered a decree against
Goodman for $2000.00, he being the owner of twenty
shares of stock in the closed bank; that an execution
was issued thereon and returned nulla bona by order
of complainants attorney. The testimony of the
Plaintiffs in Error shows quite conclusively that at the
time of the conveyances in November 1928, Lester G.
Goodman was indebted to his father-in-law in the sum
of $4700.00 which was cancelled at the time the deeds
were delivered, and that the said amount was a reason-
able consideration for the land conveyed. While the
fact that the deeds were dated in November 1928, and
not recorded until August 8, 1930, might, because of
the relationship of the parties be considered a sus-
picious circumstance, still the execution of the deeds

TonetedA wx com rest hs

sednend sont TK etnabasted dete sels Ba
nhs ni atthtaislS ts so tembood

Umtiae’ 3) spat) deo farsi OF tori, (or tov
yee

PEEL A aeaa'l teauwt
I off nbeogd Stes cf «ed

adt to seiaige of} baraviish “ora mora / ht
. {P09
-ugoxs te bie ai Tad tisdd Delft OTHE sh -etemoute tat,
wosze abe owt obias Jen of sok
disi iW AL of stew etd hos dinhoa ty,
us sefun elaa 6 0? badiioseb mero} 208) eis: ond Teel
ane’ trad ino -od'T) .coligsezs aetla
try ..oen a Tey he aaeee aber #10: “ehodb ott tradi
ne yah webmnl oh taster

a Totnes

Wit Glo pelea ofl} pail hire exoiibete
tohoxt ty ifiemoed tee sag odd yet striaa taay oft of oltid

-ivo cur et ated Jelent wind cieeatuiaid erchoon 2
Ber titeariy Dise to Wis PIONS os biases sit Ai aoiob
O wtenl tei sworn toons aft
HME AD to wel-ni

205 ct sistas daar sill beveraces sthiv aid Das aaashoo
Woidw ebeoh owt vd amily .G Al bing ad? oc yerevord
40 soleod get) OGG! 8 Jaren£ so bieset tot belli giaw
hag toblodwduete -s oahk sew seanheot)
Yo aust agsive] & oferta sua a sti oe sreay ‘Saar
ob ot bssaes bia atuoh «tt beseto doiidw sion, eaaa
gal eliseupsadina tai) ;USOt £F jenaA. 1 esentasd Ye
jifesord dued bisg lo eottbetaes. zo me wt atunbaotott
atebloricote x dued wl Jo thadaded! doreine of ida
jenins ooizeb a betevong: Sit 3f sechaotyeh ao bas
r to redwo of! sitied ad AOQU0SS 104 aenthoo’d
moinsgxo ua Jedd jfant bosolo ed) ai Andie te goxpile
Tob tH WU Hata nila bowie? bus souteds Boreet aga
ail! Yo GaarTi jan su’? cromohe epieeielomey fo
iunfones ollun avods rowel mf sThthel sd
jfewvol, of adoyereypnoy ot Te ani)
pi-paitis’) miboet bokiohap etn qureijook
ohh tes iallemes saw dotdy (OOOREE to
hones bigs sali sad) Dee hotarileh etew
aii sid ¥¥ heveveers Gant 9 st sot poltgvebiacos alda
big SGi rediavevl at bate evew abut oi) dedi tok
to oephooed dein SEeOr A lawomak finn bebtoser tou
ue g hotabi: nd Bonner ast te gitlenwortaley oat
@bseb oft 1 aovesxe edt. Hide Sotetentiiorio. anoteig

Yok tolsati 5

“MO art & Baty

“B

Page 2 Gen. No. 8816

in 1928 is quite definitely established by the testimony
of the Notary who took the acknowledgment and the
party who attested the deed as a witness.

The evidence presented on the part of the Defend-
ants in Hrror tends to show that the bank had not paid
dividends for many years; that Goodman had attended
directors meetings and knew something about the af-
fairs of the bank which had not been particularly pros-
perous for several years before closing; that an assess-
ment of 50% was levied upon all the stockholders in
September 1929; that the report of the examiner under
date of June 19, 1930, showed the condition of the bank
to be unsatisfactory and that the children of Goodman
and certain officers of the bank had withdrawn small
deposits from the bank shortly before it closed.

While the testimony disclosed the financial condition
of the Kane State & Savings Bank and that it was not
flournishing it is reasonable to infer from all the evi-
dence that its officers and directors did not feel that
it would have to close its doors until the last few days
before August 14, 1930. The deeds were executed and
delivered in 1928, about one year before the sensa-
tional collapse in prices and general business affairs,
and almost two years before the bank closed.

We do not feel that the facts proven are sufficient to
warrant a finding of fraudulent intent on the part of
Goodman and against his creditors in the making of
these deeds. Fraud will not be presumed but must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence, Garrett v.
Garrett, 343 Ill. 577. Where a conveyance is made
upon a valuable consideration and is alleged to be
fraudulent as against the grantor’s creditors, an actu-
al and express fraudulent intent must be proved with-
out the aid of any legal presumptions, and it must ap-
pear that both parties participated in the fraud; it is
not enough that the conveyance may have the effect
to delay and hinder creditors, Behrens v. Steidley, 198
Ill. 803. State Bank of Mansfield v. Moore State Bank,
249 App. 237.

The fact that the parties were related is no proof of
fraud or that there was no bona fide indebtedness.
Ayers National Bank v. Barber, 287 Til. 182.

In the present case the conveyances were to Mrs.
Goodman’s father, but he lived twenty miles distant
from Kane and there is no testimony showing that he
had any knowledge whatever of the bank’s condition
or that he was in any way connected with its business
affairs. He was employed by the Burlington Railroad
as a bridge and building foreman and was away from
home at least six days every week.

It is our judgment that the evidence does not sup-
port the finding that the deeds in this case were made

‘stiup & CoM
ot ine. (ae daletalont out ees ote ae € ail Yo
cotter 8 ag beab afi beleotis our ye

Dobustis bed osishbook) tent -eayoy raars tot abrobrrtis.
“ia silt tooda poidtouros saeatit Pits: eenitoor srotee tt
eee. viishsitiag used jon bad dotdw deed ad) to etek

ussean fs {adi pyieols gioted seer inteves tot amore

oi i evabivdslnod at [fn neq betvel amw JG te hosor
yohute temiauxe edt to Wore olf tad? eCeL pedvetqaat
dead ad? to notitbuos edt bowords OOGT CF onnl, te otah
ftamshood ta aaiblide adi tadt bos yrodastetiaasny od oF
Usa avethdiive bed deemed of! fo esootts cuytteo bas
Aporoly H steted vitiode sas edt arotl atieogeb

goiifwos Latwineekt ot} boaaloaib vicoorilest oft slid W
en anv ti dadt hea Jost egnivak Anise ened adh te
es set ffs oeorl wtet of oldanossed #1 tt eatdainteok
jest fas) dor bi wit siostih bes at salle O aii tml sons
evah wat teal ois. (itr aout ali esols oF ovad blogw 3
hun boiwesze s1sw absel: ed’l’ .0Se ne age th, oxoted
-seiian ot wioted in9y sae jute Esl oi Derevitop
uals eavciend fesamee hin aesirg oi oagellos Lemoit
.Dbeecls virad olf syotad exaoy ovd deoatis. bas
ad tuainiive oie sevorq wioat oil) Jatt nel tou ab oW
io fey ot AG gasher tn sinha to suiihen 2 ticastaw
16 yobhun od? it arodihaie wid isaiepes fata meottioot)
ed jan al bawensty vt dos Uiw beet wabeebh easdi
Vv Mev) ssaehive suites bins thei vd hovorg
ebaot at wscayavneos @ ert) YG 1D 886 Mori
ad of haysils #i bes some ebiemoo: sldasiay 8 sogs
“Whos af srotibess ae vaitete sit feewa ae taslohuart
ity boverer od tevta Jitetni prolebaext ees¢qxe fee fa
roe Jagat = hire wrwonameari Iago) yee te bis oft dao
ai di ; bie’s Lat belaqienta eailieg dtod jadi seaq
insite si) ora ¥ans suievouite off jadd shanones fou
GEL wolbisse ov asd vadthess gabaid! hie celob of
JAsotl aint aio wv bk Re oW, to dead apie AOE EE
Ps rot Obs

to Toor ot ef bedalos sow aoiited, onlt | deft ‘wat % ol
weinhiidebyt eb anod ot gaw oted? fadt iw boat
JEL TRE vrothin o¢ loonth fous

Tt Gt anew LOMB TOUS vill BERD JRQEY IE ota aT
trste .

vile

git tHolk wy

wirewt bevil od tod sodtel a aeanbeaid

wane VoomGeat of ai o'redt has one ovoit
nd adit lo nevoledw oyhetword yaa heal
saute) et! ithe Setoemios yew yos mb eawood tedd 20
Prortinit noatatont & oti zd boyolgine saw 6 wristis-
mett vires eee hice noses’ aaiblind bes. saghind sas
sew visve exyeb. xia jessl be armed
-dime ton asob eonsbivra ode badd howmngbat wwe apa

ofmey sisw oso eid of abosb of! jaff yoribait edt ie 7

-pitste adi ia iveq edt ao botageeng. aorabina afT —_
Bing joo had fend od Jad? weds of phe} town ot ehita

hv weak. Ba

Page 3 Gen. No. 8816

without consideration and with intent to hinder delay
and defraud the grantor’s creditors and that the
grantee holds the title to the real estate for the use
and benefit of the grantor and the decree of the Cir-
cuit Court is therefore reversed.
Reversed.
(Three pages in original opinion)

(25261—4-5-84) 14 Bo

OIER wo weed

~
isbirtd ot iasden iw hes 0! bianoo ta tri
lend bes aretibers a! todas i byatieb Baa

ed a3 leat odi-od eitlt of} ebled sstwerd

—_

fis s
“iL INO 18, F (LIE (0)

oa MAR 12 1934
(rally Bueklaanans,

STRICT. CLERK @F THE APPELLATE COURT

FOURTH DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

October Term, 1933.

Agenda 13.

ibn, |
oe TOA
y, wd A hehe 67 5

Appeal from Circuit Court of

we B. Douhitt,

Appsliee,

Madison County.
Je Be Van Preters, et al.,

)
)
)
)
VS. )
)
)
)
)

EDRARDS, Fe Je

This appeal is to review a decree of the Madison County Circuit
Court, awarding a mechanic's lien, in the sum of $2,500.00, in favor of
appellee, and against the appellants, J. B. Van FPreters and Luella R.

Van Preters, growing out of a contract to install a heating system in the
garage of the Van Preters, by the eppellee, and which “it was claimed did
not conform to, nor fulfill, the terms of the contract.

In August, 1929, appellant, J. B. Van Preters, contracted with
appellee to install for him, in his garage then in course of construction,
a heating plant consisting of a steam, air-driven with fan, system, which
should heat the building to a temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit during
outside zero weather. The contract price was to be $2,500.0G. The manner
of payment was in dispute, and as to same, the testimony sharply conflict-
ed. The heating plant was completed about January 30, 1930. No payments
were made on the contract; p oper claims for lien were filed, and the fail-
ure to pay is the basis of this suit.

Appellants, the Van Preters, contend that the heating system did

w Se) eee) ‘Sa a a

4 i ™“ ~ Ty
fi A Ls es.
, J @ 10H lit Ae at aete “+ See
a

BECt SERAM gf HU 0.) I ", Add a g-Gia:
nena real)

TRUS 314 SIME SHT IO x50

BOWL Tourraia HISUC .

GEC ,atet wedetoO ve

of abaepa

‘Pay,

asa AT ATS
29 tan00 tinotio mort LseqgA

eYIhso) nonlbak

LON LOL OP ge |

of ataall f ouga

| bed 2 8e as
tiuoxtd ytrweS .sosibsi sf43 to gerosh 2 welvez of si Lasqda. ates 32
to tovsival ,00.008,8% to ave oft at ,mollt 6 olnsitess ra authrens
oH silsul bis ester asY .f »% ,atasileqqa odd -tantapa ius yoolle

sit. RL wetaye snttsed s iletentl o¢ toattcoo a-to swo gabrorg ote seet,
bib bemts(s ssw iP dotdy pms. selior Ge edt wd ,etetest? as¥ ade 20 8
»douttaoa outs To sr ods i Pi iet ton ,0F: wot

. dtiw. betosidnos eretex? sav .f . ,thelloggs 1280 | yteagua ak
foitouttenco to -sauseo at hod ‘sus Leh ated. ai. ated Tok fistant. head :
istds ,mstove ,ast-dtiw nevinb-tts ,Mastas “Ro. gatttetonos tnala

gaisuh thodaetdst -zestyob @Y ro stutetequet a ot aathliud” ond nt

tensat aif .00.008,S) ed of esw sotxq tostineo ed? .tedtpem

not comply with the contract; that it would not, in zero weather, heat the
building to anywhere near the 70 degrees; while appellee insists that, if
properly fired, it would heat the garage to the required degree; that it
was so proven by test, and that examination of the boiler and grates dis-=-
closed that appellants did not properly tend the fire, nor did they use a
sufficient amount of coal therefor. After a reference to the Master, he
reported that the system was sufficient in all regards, except that the
boiler was too small, and recommended that appellee be given 90 days time
in which to make certain additions thereto, and that upon same being done,
that appeliee should be entitled to a lien therefor.

Upon hearing of the report before the Chancellor, the latter sus=
tained certain exceptions to the Haster's report; made a general finding
that the heating system was adequate, and conformed to the terms of the
contract; that appellee should have his lien, and that same should be prior
to the rights of appellant, Benid Loan Association, holder of a mortgage
upon the garage property. From such decree this appeal is prosecuted.

The heating plant consisted of a Capital Smokeless Steam Boiler,
Noe 1127, with steam pipes leading -o five radiators. Behind these were
motor-driven fans which blew the air through the rediators, thereoy heating
the air and discharging it into the building. The boiler furnished the
steam to the fans, placed in various positions in the building, by steam
pressure from such boiler. The air from the fans cooled the radiators, con-
densed the steam to water, and the water then returned to the boiler by
2ravity through return pipes. The fans were suspended from the ceiling by
brackets, and the boiler was located in the basement of the building, which
was divided into two rooms, consisting of a front or show room, and a rear
or repair and work shop. The building wes 75 feet in length, the front of
which was all glass, set in copper frames, to form what is called frost-
-proof windows; at the base of which were air slots, one-eighth of an inch
high, five-eighths of an inch long, and spaced five inches apart, along the

entire front of the bullding.

oad send stodtoon ores at ;toa oLarow a fads jtaazdaoo od Atte etanoe
at fast? pdainat « eolleggs eltdw jusetgsh OF edt seem sredeyae ot By
gP asks so0Tee eb betiupet ane oF onsteg eit tad bisow tt beatt |

~eld ae bus toLltod | ant to cottentnaxe teas boa teed wd aevora,
S&S sm yols blo ton yet p ¢ odd bast xireqeny gon BLD atnalteqgs tsdt

* Bit eu ods ot eonete tex & tettA .toteredt tseo to tassoms took as

Sena matical adé<caoliéoaadd wat arcied #rogex edi to 3 steed
¢

ga fbr tt fexeneg a sham troget. ea xodaghi odg ot enolsqoone. aisitoo
od Yo aecrod ent of ‘bawzotaoe mite 1e8supeba aw woteye ‘getters
Toise od bone emse “fade ‘bas afte tt, aid ova pLuode estioqga ame

Lie

oseudiom 8 to rebLod Hols foonea fisonl ‘ALned tashleags ‘te. sidglt ss
wAHagsvoesorg at Laeqas aidt ge toob dose mone sxexeqosg' om;
stolkod asose ave lexoue Lat.iqad 5 te betetemoo eelg gaktaed ‘
ener seer Bardot etodatbex vit o galbast seatg mate date:
gattsod ydexent arodsiiiox amt Aguowit Ths eal weld: dobdw ads?
edt bedetatut teltod sa? apatbi hed edt otat tf entkgzadtantb.
acets xe .sathl bast ont gl. Onn se LOG amoliew ft boaatq: j
“109 erbisibat odt beLloos enet oft sont tts. oi? axeltod Kowa,
~ xd toliod out ot bomiuges: mont tedaw ont, ‘bas tetaw |

ew patites edd’ mort pebaoges stow ane? oat

sco et

The testimony as to the salient features of the case, is sharply and
irreconcilably conflicting. Appellant, J. B. Van Preters, and certain of
his helpers, testified that they were unable to heat the building to 70
degrees in zero weather, due to the fact, as they claimed, that when the
boiler had sufficient steam, and the fans were turned on, that in about 15
minutes the steam would go down; after which the fans would blow cold air,
and they would have to be shut off to await a sufficient aghievement of
steam in the boiler; that same was too small to keep a reserve of steam
and constant pressure at the fans. There was also testimony offered by
eppellant tending to show that the boiler was too small to furnish suffi-
cient radiation for the building.

For the appellee, the proof was to the effect that the boiler was
of sufficient size, when properly fired, to furnish enough steam of constant
quantity to suvply ali the necessary radiation; that investigation revealed
that Van Preters did not properly tend the furnace, nor use sufficient coal.
That on one occasion, a witness for appellee, who went to inspect the system,
found that onlyabout one-fourth of the grates were covered with coal, which
was not enough; that he inguired of the perty in charge, as to what was
wrong with the boiler, and the latter replied: "Well, we don't want to burn
a ton of coal a day."

Appellee, himself, testified that he had personally fired the boiler,
and that it responded by giving sufficient heat; that he found the pit rather
choked with ashes, and on one occasion had removed three loads therefron.

There was also evidence of a test made at the instance of appeilee,
in February, 1930, on a morning when the temperature was about 10 degrees
above zero; the result of which was, that the boiler fired by appellee, in
two and one-half hours produced heat sufficient to raise the temperature of
the building, in the sales room, to 75 degrees, and in the garage to 77 de-
‘grees, as shown by calibrated thermometers teken there especially to record

the result of the test.

Bia Yiqueie sf ,sea0 silF To asziteot gnmofice edd of as vaonttaed off?
to ata?zeo bes seresexd ma¥ .8 4b Sant tecad: pattolltnos ‘yldsft {100
os ‘ot P Baibl tad edd teed ot eldsast eter yedt todd boltiteed” yexsqt
edt cere tudd {NomtsLo vent as fat adt oF sub - ~teittsow ores “at
ar tuods at tarts «ito pond srew anst ort bas sede ino lontture ‘Bad
,rts bLlos wot fd binow arist odt doldw retta qarmab OR bigow opete ‘odd

_te taoweve ite srefLoiTise 8 disws os £0 tints ed od vad bison ad ay

moots. to svvenex s qsed ot ffsme oot saw emaa tent yteLtod oat aE
Ve hexstio <irontt a0 oals aaw oredT ast edt +2 etueseTg “Has
tio. Satis 08 Liame ood aaw xoLtod edt todd woe ot ‘aatbas® “fs
| | gb“ bad sit rot oitetba

AW softod eit tant toetts ‘edt ot ast roond one seLfoage ‘edt
iS¥ Shoo to. piesa Aguone datas. ot borit viteqorg “gode “esis pe 5
eisevor aottagiicevat tadt jmottsthst ‘Vise 2900 eat its ssa
LBOD tao loitive Gals TON soanrist odt baat uUxegorg. oe Bib areses
ae BNE aad soeqant of snow owe sllequs rot ‘geentin a eaten: 22
{obi L800 AotW berovoo exsw aatary edd to ¥aus02-0110 tuod
uaw tadwot es eyed at vitag. edt to pox iupat ea fadd j

tuc Of tase ¢'nob ow flow" “thekgot rottal od bas Pr.

sLtod ed? beztt vilenoeten hed ort tent bebzivens Raserei is

Age

(eottegge te oonutant ost ta ebeu soot 8 ro eonebtve outs
aenTssh of tuods sew stutetoans? odd node: ‘alntom s en a
at seotingua we bextt xolked oad fat yaar ;

41 ae: ies

Appellant sought to minimize the force of the test by offering proof
that one of the thermometers was placed on the radiator of an automobile,
in direct line with the air current from one of the fans, and that the tem-
perature varied in different parts of the building at the time, as much 4s
10 degrees.

There was also expert testimony, for appeliee, to the effect that the

boiler was of sufficient size, if properly fired, to heat the building to a
temperature of 70 degrees, when it stood at zero out of doors; also, that
the air coming in through the slot apertures at the base of the frost-proof
windows along the front of the building, would render it more difficult to
heat than if the windows were of the ordinary closed type; while for the
appellants, there was also the testimony of experts, to the contrary.

Appellee claimed that at the time the contract was entered into, he
did not know, nor was he told, that the windows were to be of this frost-
proof variety, but that he supposed they were to be of ordinary kinde Ap-
pellant, J. B. Van Preters, and Otis Grover, testified that appellee admitted
to them that the heating system was not right, but that he had done ail in
his power to make 1t 60+ These statements esppeilee denied.

Whether the boiler was of adeauate size to heat the building to the
required temperature, if properly fired; whether appellant tended it rightly
or not, and whether it did in fact heat the building, as required by the con-
tract, were all questions of fact.

“here a decree has been entered, based upon findings of fact, after
consideration by the Chancellor of a voluminous record of conflicting testi-
nony, as in this case, it must clearly appear that the conclusions were
palpably and manifestly against ‘he weight of the evidence, ia order to
warrant a reversal of the decree. Cook ve Wolf, 296 I1l., 27. In the state

-of this record, we are not prepa ed to say that the manifest weight of the

testimony is contrary to ths findings o

ies)
hy

the decree.

onbiane
P

teers ‘galzatte vd ¢2od sit to sotot edt ont bie 3 os tiguoe tnestequa

r ; 2 ; 2 i ;

eEtdowotus as to rodsibse sig go peasy : eaw etosemouxedt on8., 0 eno

ese

amet oft vail? brs hat aif To sito OT} frersive tis eng ste ontl top:

Fee 3-1

es doum a6 ,oett odd ts yatbfind oft +0 ‘sétsq tnerstttb, nh betray f

edt dest toeite ont ot seiledgs 1 rot - penonttaot treaxe cata aa 2% fa

im oc yak iid odd teed o¢ ,berkt ylxeqosq bag ,exia tastottiwe to 3

tilt orks ial to tuo oxves fs boots tt feds cBOOTBOD 8 ag

100%G-3 R021 ots to asad etd ts getudts 8. tole odd tauoliss at Be

Bae
FIZ

pF fiportity Tou Ht tTebnies biyow , auth ltud hay to ta0rt eds Res

eid tot erhda 4 ayy besolo yianitdo ect Yo exow: ewobctw ont: Bt

RESTS LOO site of edteqxe to. Vs soudteg? odd ‘onLa S6y ot

gt 2 or os

ef ,ofnt pave fee BW Prrer? oo. sag eats od ts ‘tedé hamtglo seit

efaeth aiid to ed of atow awobulw ead dant <bLot ed enw x TOR avend tox
=A atk yssutbro to ad of ere yodt bonoaque od todd tod ste fi toon
dFinmba ostieqqs dacs betiivesd ,xevor) effO hap ,21etstT HAV, of rb RAE
mi fig onob bad ad gact tod ,tlyts jon auw neteye aoivscd one todd mots

»woineh saliedes atmematata saedT «G8 vt este od SFOs
Sdy of ganibi iva sat fTaeod of oxia stsaupsha To saw Sader old sontadW pet de
rhday by $i bebast tosiisaqgs tadtenw jberit yl reget ti puuNseToqmed det

tod edt Wd betiupet an ,Raibliud ‘edt tood toast nf bib t TOsSSaN pas 0h aa
»toat To envitsenp, iis oxew 4h

levis ,tost to sycibatt aoqy hesad ,Setetus aosd ead voxosd 8, stom. ihe

sBset anifoiltnoa to boos: evontnuiley 8 To tofLeonsnt0: exit bt noltny ate

sve aid al 47S alll aek {thow ov food + veoroet oft to Lnszov

ond to tiygew teeticsm sift dant qe ot boveaste ton ons oF Bo

ale

.aonoeh edd? te agntbatt ont ov weo7809, :
nye oa : ro: Al.
aly crud

Appellant, Benld Loan Association, placed a loan, secured by a mort—
gage, upon the premises, on Sept. 38, 1989, or more than a month after
appellee and the Van Preters entered into their contract. The rule is,
that a mechanic's lien attaches from the date the contract is entered into,
and whoever thereafter acquires an interest in the premises, takes same
subject to the lien under the contract, and his rights are postponed to
those of the lien holder. Crowen v. lieyer, 3428 Ill., 46. After the lien
hes attached, whoever deals with the property, does so at his peril, and is
under the duty of taking such msans as may be at his command, to ascertain
whether the premises are incumbered by the lien, and whatever interest he
may obtain therein is subject to such lien. Clark v. Moore, 64 Ill.e, 275.
The decree rightfully adjudged the lien of appellee superior to that of the
Benid Loan Association's mortzage.

For the reasons stated, the decree is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Ab Ad be nwdrtvabeal wir ub

spc 6 Yd betuces ,nsol 2 Leoziq ,aoldeioossé asod bined dualteqad 2,
Yetta dianem s asdf stom 16 ,860L ,B& .tqe8 xo yasetnesg oft ogy 48
~at sles od? »tostinos tied? otat betedne atotexi nsV¥ ed? bas 08
yount bsxsine at tosttaoo edt stab odt mort aodostta weit atotnasoont
suse asist ,sentmenq ed? at teeretat as sexinoos ted taeredt

of benouteoq ets sidaiz sid bne »fostt 09 ond tebau nell ‘Sis
ashi edt tostA 28h ,-Lil She {Tayou »¥ BeWoOT) wroblod aeki ‘eid Yo

at ons. fits sq sid ts of noch svaseqerg ong adie ele toveodn

ed$ to tadd of solr oF traqas. te neil ont betegihe 2 lett ,
»eyayT700 . etacksatooash

»bomtiite st seteeh odd betas envasst et” xot

sbemzitts vetoed

\ ~
th Lb

eee oe

APPELLATE COURT“ wy MAR 1 2 1934
FOURTH DIstRIcT f // Porter Baatea—.

Fe at “AF cueRK OF THE APPELLATE “OUPT
“OCTOBER TERM, A. D./1932.° f FOURTH DISTRICI OF iLLiNCIS

ti EAA NIE

ayy
q } be
Term No. 23. ook Agenda No. 18.
Helen C. Pollard, |
Appelle
he ne ) Appeal from the pry avr an re a wae
a f ef y fi, Me ae x
we city court or © 4 “ke Lolke OF O
Broadway Central Hotel ) :
Corporation, ) East St. Louis.
Appellant. )
MURPHY, J:

This case was before this court at a previous term. Several
errors were assigned but the court, being of the opinion that
appellee was not at the time of the accident in the exercise of due
care and caution for her own safety, reversed the judgment of the
lower court with a finding of fact to that effect and did not pass
upon the other errors assigned. 269 I11. App. 77. The Supreme
Court granted a certiorari and upon a hearing reversed the judgment
of this court and remanded the cause with directions to consider
the other errors assigneé and to either affirm the judgment or

reverse the judgment and remand the cause. 353 Ill. 312,

The facts bearing upon the question of negligence of appellant
and contributory negligence of appellee are fully set forth in
those opinions and will not be restated here. We will confine our
statement of facts to that part of the evidence which we deem necessary
to consider in connection with the other errors assigned,

The remaining errors assigned are in reference to the ruiings
of the court of the court on the admission and rejection of evidence
in the giving of certain instructions tendered by appellee and that
the verdict, after remittitur, is excessive.

At the time appellee was injured, an employee of the hotel com-
pany, called Dr. Griffith to treat her. On the trial, appellee call-
ed the doctor as her witness. He testified as to the nature and extent

of the injury and the treatment he administered. The record shows on

rebuttal the following questions and answers.
Q. “Did you make a charge for your services?"
A. "I looked for it from the insurance company."
Q@. “Was it paiat"
ee

fhe
a

Oh ue

1a AAG

—4

as)

A. "I don't recollect--I know the first aid fee
was paid.”

Appellant made no objection at the time that the questions and
answers were given, but later during the trial, made a motion to
withdraw a juror and declare a mis-trial and assigned as a reason
the witness* reference to an insurance company. It was a voluntary
statement. The witness’ reference to the insurance company was not
responsive to the question and was not brought into the case by
appellee or her attorney. Appellant madeno motion to strike the
evidence and did not ask the court to instruct the jury to disregard
it. Had such motion been made, no doubt it would have been granted.
The court did not err in overruling the motion to withdraw a juror
and declare a mistrial. Savage v. Hayes Bros. Co., 142 Ill. App. 316,

Appellant sought to prove by witness Widmer, an architect of
many years experience, that the steps-up in the floor of the corridor,
leading to the Fourth Street entrance, was a safe method of construc-
tion and one that was usuaily followed in the erection of hotels and

other public buildings in that vicinity. The court sustained ob-
jection to such offer. The question for the jury did not call fora

test of the sufficiency of such construction as compared with the
construction of other publie buildings in that community but whether
there was negligence in the keeping and maintaining of these steps-
up under the conditions and surrounding circumstances that existed
at the time of the accident. The solution of such a question by the
jury did not lead them into a consideration of such intricate facts
or matters that they needed the opinion of an expert to aid them in

form'ng a jucgment thereon. There was no error in rejecting this
expert testimony. People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534; Siegel, Cooper

eerCe. Ve. Ireka, 218-TI11l. 559.

Error is assigned on the giving of instructions numbered 21 and
22 tendered by appellee. These instructions were in reference to
the measure of damages and are the same as have been considered and
approved many times by the courts of review of this state. Chic.
emdeMAl. Blee. Ry. Co. v. Ullrich, 215 Ill. 170; Parmelee Co. Vv.
Wheelock, 224 Ill. 194; Brennan v. City of Streator, 256 Ill. 468;
Caughey v. Peoria Ry. Co., 164 Ill. App. 455.
to the

Appellant contends that the reference in the instruction

declaration was prejudicial error, This particular objection to a

similar instruction was passed upon adversely to appellant's contention

in Bernier v. Ill. Cen. R. R. Co., 296 Ill. 464 and Bonato v. Peabody

Coal Co., 248 Ill. 422. That part of instruction 21 which told the
no a

H an
uF Tell
ed

an at

TaN

Tair
i

tie
Ae:

i
i
i]

" rk Bi Waa ia
ef pec Cape.
thas d Ny
Parran bss : F

1
wy OY

:
pit

x)
i
‘j

Nr fl ‘
TH aay ell i ys q
BEM a Y Ser keutia RR tie

a ary
i BLA
{ tae
1 i

- jury in determining the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was

entitled, they had a right to and should take into consideration
all the facts and circumstances, was criticized in Garvey Vv. Chicago
Rys. Co., 359 Ill. 276, but held not to be reversible error.

The remaining error assigned is as to the amount of the verdict.
The verdict was for $9000. and the trial court required a remittitur
of $1500. A remittitur was filed and judgment entered for $7500,

The evidence shows that appellee's fall resulted in the fracture
of the left forearm at or near the wrist. Ex-ray pictures were taken
at the time of the accident and disclosed a fracture of the distal
end of the radius extending approximately into the wrist joint and
also a fracture of the styloid process at the end of the ulna bone.
The bones in the region of the fracture were broken into parts causing

greater pain and suffering and requiring longer period for recovery

than is usual in an ordinary fracture. Immediately after the fracture

had been reduced, appellee was taken to her home in Qmaha where she
entered her husband's hospital for care and treatment, remaining

there for a period of six weeks. After leaving the hospital, she was
confined to her bed most of the time for @ period of six months. Dr.
Schrock, a bone specialist in Omaha and Dr. Rubnitz, a pathologist on
diseases of the blood and stomach, gave her medical attention, This
extended over a long period of time. The injury was followed by cer-
tain nervous disorders. After leaving the hospital, appellee wore a
splint until July, 1931. The evidence shows that as a result of the
injury, the bones were atrophied and weakened and that during all this
time she suffered pain from the injury. Appellee's age is not shown
in the abstract but from facts appearing in the record, we assume that
she is middle age or .ast. Prior to the accident, she drove a car,
did sewing and a part of her household duties in caring for her own
home. The doctors, testifying for appellee, gave it as their opinion
that the injury was permanent and that appellee would lose one-third
the usefulness of that arm. It appears that further medical treatment
would be necessary and thet at the time of the trial, the total pecuniary
loss for medicine, medical bills and violet ray treatments wes in excess
of $900. From a consideration of all the evidence, we cannot say that
the verdict was the result of bias or prejudice of the jury or that it

is so excessive as to demand a reversal on that ground.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court will be

affirmed. Judgment Affirmed.

Not to be published in full. -5-

fei
ORL
i, Nine

APPELLATE “GOURT™

MAR 12 1934
2 alley Bucklo —

CLERK @F THE APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Term No. 28 4genda No. 26.

IVA RAGLAND
Defendant in Error

VS.
City Court of

Ae T. RAGLAND
Plaintiff in Error.

)
)
)
)
)
)

of this Court an opinion was filed

West Frankfort.

Stone, J:

At the May Term, 1933
in the above entitled cause, sustaining the demurrer to Plaintiff
in Error's replicaticns to the pleas of Defendant in Error alleg-=
ing that Plaintiff in Error was in contempt of the trial Court
and therefore could not be heard here on his writ of error by
reason of that fact Plaintiff in Error was given leave to file
amended replications which he did.Demurrer was interposed to
these aod upon further consideration, we filed an opinion on

December 26th, 1933 holding that the amended replications did

not answer the pleas. Being anxious, however, that no injustice

be done, Plaintiff in Error, we said:
"The trial ccurt is in better position than this
eourt to determine what equity requires to purge plain-

tiff in error of contempt. His present aiility to pay

the amounts now unpaid is a question proper for that

court to consider. WNo evidence on that subject is pre-~

served for our inspection.

As his answer to the original bill was rejected by
the trial court on his first contempt in refusing to
pay, and the dismissing of his writ of error would per-
haps deprive him of any right of review, (the decree being

two years old, and a new law of practice takins effect

January 1, next,) and as the lapse of time may have de-

veloped facts which should be considered in a court of

Error to the 2 Pi, 4 T: A @)
re € ~At i “ q »

oe #STATE OF ILLINOIS eal all | | 5 i |

7
4
ean aniersen Fate te a v
a as | Lae es i | Bee
ee ee i
: eo
ow Af ‘ { i |
i oat ¢
i anued § | {7
n pit an
piraareore an an © ol
Or y U7 & a "
BOGE Sopa a
z €
i “ rr, Lae
ott als Ke
BAVAL OSA NY IO) D833
iP RG TASTE AYR: fi = i ~
é .
4 4
_ aa. @ *
ry 4
i
Sai
a
>
2/2 j Lae f
are! ; Las Les f ae
A +3
*/ a)
oe
4 a pany 4 y - SD,
a a ee ae ed bee .
a, tS s =
kc va Sd
ar Sk Pas 1
Ee? <3 Garg Tax
fh, MRE AE chee Ot, (002 220 cee ee dy A Dog ON i or;

: weep tote. on enene ob of
whe key eT bon Serer ate Si SL ol TR ho ae Sey ' ce

Ste See SEES pont Sess ste Teh ve i oes

Coe - ce Betis te
peiret st Fone ith re

ay re Fo Few wry

3 ai tiias sold uwiy Se tod want @ bas
CA ened “se ened wel is: ra
us a: Fee ayes sorcas tmeres By mer

SS,

equity with respect to the amount plaintiff in error

ousht now to be required to pay, it is ordered that pro-

ceedings in this court on the present writ of error be

stayed until the first day of the next February term of
this court.

In the interim between nw and thet date, plaintiff
in error, if he be so advised, may apply to the trial court
for such modification of the existing orders concerning
alimony and expense money to be paid by him, as equity
may require, may make such showing to that court as the
facts justify and purge himself of contempt. That court
still retains jurisdiction of the questions of alimony
and expense money involved in the original suit, in their
application to the matter of contempt."

In response to the above quoted part of our last opinion.
Plaintiff in Error comes into Court with a lone report of con-
troversies with the trial Court. He is in no better shape than
he was on his wirt of error at the October Term or the May Tern,
1933. We have made no progress.

Je feel that we have been generous with Plaintiff in Error
in this matter. We do not feel warranted in holding any longer
the issue before us waiting for adjustment of matters which are
cognizable only in the trial Court.

As stated in ovr former opinion the replications do not
answer the pleas and are obnoxous to demurrer. The demurrer to
the replications is sustained; judgment is awarded upon the pleas
and the writ of error is dismissed,

WRIT DISMISSED

WR Ti bt Iwrtrodud wm foul)

| ,
Hy

) hie
$

ate abs 1}

+ Weebl

sAigtath eit At

edeeyg anni ys oe

nate + J

Sryrvaresoraratesne 2 oN
Soria ahawneiee ive wsnt obterinen of

4 oee oho ye edo
Sued ere rte

ee
ceri
tip prs ny *

“ey tf

Pete
bf gle

“ere hapek changeit ite ha
aragon

eet
vate ee ee “
eee see
eats : Benn
Siren = 2
se me
ise ae

seats
eb ict
a ian

ievooget dy)
sos iiregations

eres =

x
ee
saa
(i

eho Wve gh?
Patseare scot 4
a

reat puanasiar Reveryecy gr

eae

Wie ti
“i

peat atti Tana

ote .

5) % ¥
ae wee aie
nent i
aha

sof seaceoes aay ST tabewartie vee a rr ne
Apstaning bs cht Pema sandy ket tidy ta ersece ts
ctor ie Harpe My bee a ar Ue
eoreeeer
dort han Sy Sree nels a
“Eau se eleva

boa
ey

uty
Miiiibhe tis,

tie
Ai iabigiiee

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

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

See other formats