{ :
HI Bs
shelby
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat279illi
( FI24S
tS
Lc
pOe
@i\\—
S?769S F Ni
WILMA FOY, f
Appellea, ) Pd
) APPHAL THON SUPERIOR COURy
va. ‘ ‘gi
DeALARS TRANSPORT COUP ANY,
a eee. 2 v4 G T.A. G
WR, PRESIDIEG JUNTIGN O*CORKOR
DELIVERED “HE OPINION OF THE CoUNT,
Plaintiff brought an aetion to recever dansges for persona)
injuries syainet Daslere Tranepert Company, a eorporation, and 0.¥.
Thomas, plaintiff's breather, Yuere was a jury trial und a verdict
Judgment for 88760 against beth defendente; defendant Dealers Trane.
pert Cenpany appeals.
the reeord discleses that shout four o'elock on the morning
of Kay 18, 1631, plaintiff, s married tosan, with her baby, was
riding im « ¥erd coupe with her brother, the defendant G. ¥. Themes,
and Leyal Fairall, a young man, They started from Latrange, Illineis,
te drive to Corydéen, iowa, the former hewe of the three adults, When
they reached «a goint between the viliages of Laweille and Dever,
Tlidneis, about 100 silee from LaGrange, the Ford struck the rear —
end of « truck, infuring pisintirr, ‘the Ford belonged to deFendant
Thomas, “he drove the car frou tne time they started on their jour-
ney until they resched Meadota, whem Pairall took tie wheel and was
driving the autonebile at the tize of the collision. 7
Plaintiff, her brother, the @efondant Thomae, and #airail
mil testified fer plaintiff, and their teatimeny is that the taree
gree up tegether in Covyéen, Lowra; that at the tise in question
Plaintiff lived at Hinedale, lllinels, her brether Thomas at LaGrange,
and Fairall in iowa City, Lowa, ‘They were driving to Corydon te
. “tenes & graduation in that eity.
The might wae dark emd clear; the pavesent of the road, about
18 feet wide, wae dry and in good condition, ‘The brakes of the
tet 5 De wa”
SS we | a
a Dory
) P ‘7
AR ROLES .
Stages &
ra kO.ATeVS
£aseers¢ tol weijoce> teveset of noktor as onagunh vetensats
2,0 bat ,eoiteiaote 4 ,yaeqned Moqeaet? ste Loa Peatnms
tolbbiey 4 bm slat yteh a caw oved! ysedtend Ee
<oaert At¢iaey axhuetead jetashan'teh ated teateys Oras wwf
gone ao doole’o weet tuods tasit woceteess a 7
Used cet Sele ,aeuow dobre « \Titdate te _ teat
seme .F 00 soehaeted ond stodsord at dgkw sexto
ahem LE ogmetied aot hedteye yea? ont GANON &
ee et tehe aonly ae ‘te sued tomo! ot yawel ,
s , tered has offiomad ‘te sopeLity ant ananted sehen
ee eat owxte Btet aay ,egaetded wt “aetdm aGL ty
— Hineneted of Segaoted brel edt .Titctoty gatiwhak sown
| weet ‘thewle ae belwets qeult emks oe wort tae Ont vend @
aa ime Keewte ont xood Liwtdat mestw ,avobenll Resign yaad staan
ae a9luiifoo ad? Ye emls ott ta okhde wom mad 5
=
tanta te wnaelt duadaeten ete stat ond —
iL word oi? sess ol yrowbtend ahend bao , ite stand
re melteoup ad omts nit de tant paved sere
: “ i te sesedT tector xed sabonk set hed abit
8 main ot anion ome vane ane
witomeobile were alee in good condition.
¥aivrall testified that just before the agcl@dast he saw red
lighter on the highway between three and tour Aundred yards aneoad;
that he waa ‘driving at about forty to forty>Sfive miles oan hour «ad
knew that the red Lights were on some vehicle but could not see
the vehiele; that as soon ae Re saw the lighte he sleved up a
little but 414 net apply bie brakes; that when he was about three
hundred feet avay he sav that there wae more than oné vehicle in
the road shead of him but thought there ras sufficient reom to
permit the Ferd to paes betreen them; that he eav o wan in the
road leaning against one of the vehicles; that the two vehielees
appeared to be om the onpomite shoulders of the pavement; that
ehen he vag about three hundred feet avay Ae put on hia brakes a
Littles that the trucke same in full view when he wae from seventye
five te ene hundred feet away; that the read af that place ren
about ¢ast and weat and tve wheele ef the truck on the nerth side
were on the shoulder; that the other truck wae standing in the left
lane on the pavesent about parallel with the ether traek; that |
when he war about seventy-five feet aray he applied Sis brakes, ald
Thomas applied the emergency brake; ke turmed te the Left te avoid
the truck but waa unshia to de ao, ond the automobile as iAdwd
around and afruck the truck standing in the left lane, injuring
plaintirr, |
Thomas teatified that at the time of the secident all three
were witting in the one seat of the oar, hic siater te the right
heldaing the baby in her lap, himself in the center, and Faireail
| driving; that he first aaw the red Lights ahead on the read when
they were shout 1500 feet away; that when they were about 3 0.
away hie sister asked Falrall if he ese the red lighte; that the
Ford wan about seventy-five to one hundred feet away frou the red
Lights when he realized that two trucks were shead of then in the
fy ogee
Melihixen beay al onia he econstaa
" a ahig: mn
her wow ao Geeklog et oxeiod dem sacd heritonwd leery he:
pbeaite ete, PAH wept fae ends avented wamtghat wit “ zie
bre xwon te ae 3 dm re had uteet oma fu trian mae vied st
at @indsdev en 208% @tom eae epost tang wninaundli
(OF amet Saigi ine haw guane Seawads ted waka Tee Renlle Beart soll
HO ok Bom a mam Oh ede gud aoOwded moon «t otetion: : orem
“Aadaldoy ors ont sais jaotodsor ede 30 mn os
road; that he pulied the emergency brake, Fairall anyhied the feat
brake, and the car elid around and collided with the syaek ip the
left lane; that at the time of the collision Fairall wan driving
from 25 te 30 miles an hour, fhe evidence further shows that there
were twe trucka with trailers traneperting new automobiles te Davene
port, lowa, ‘he witness further testified thet the trucke were both
etanding et111 at the time of the esllision and that he ear this
when he wae about 75 feet from them,
Plaintiff? testified that shen shefiret saw the red lights in
the road s:ea4 af them they were shout two aity blecke away: that when
she firet law the Lights whe seked Fairell if he eaw them and he ree
plied thet he 441d; thet the Ferd was treveling "sretty fast,” che
eould not judge the speed; that when they were about 76 ar 30 feet
from the red Lights ehe could diatinguieh twe big truacke in the
road; that she then told Fairail te slew down and that he heard her;
whe then saw there wae going to be « collision snd seraamed,
Csri Jonneon, oalled by defendant, testified that he was
driving one of the trucks; that Zarl Pitkin was driving the other;
that on the evening of Key 14th they left Hegwisen, lilincis, which
is part of Chicago; that the twe trucks were leaded with new Ferd
autowobiles for Davengert, lows; that wher they reached Sandvich,
Tilineta, they stopped and hed eomething te ent; that the aceidéent
heprened shout 4:30 o'elock in the aercing, dust bafore daybreak,
near Dover, [llingia, about 146 miles from Chicarzo; that the truek
Ariven by Fitkin wae shead ef Jehreon; that Fitkin had pulled the
track to the nerth of the pavement and was parked on the shoulder;
that as he appresched Fitkin's truek he could pee red Lights about
three-quarters ef a mile sbead on the truek; that there were five
red lights on the rear of each tru¢k; that when he was about %o0
feet away he could reeegnize the outlines of Fitkin's truek; that
it wae standing still, Vitkin had bis left arm out waving for the
font edt hotiegn Liartol ,etard yeoogeame ont LOK OC. aM sheet
_ sit mk Mound pt thy DOALKIQD bax hnugte HhLe aD gmt hmm yesland
BaveKd sav Llowtel mokebtion odt Yo eae oat te duct ramet Mok
munis sad? ange wate gonehive oat sued cm EO
| <m9¥eS gi aetidaaaive Wea gatirogquacts atediars dite atownd owe atew
deed eter eXout? esi? tome bobtiteot agddruaft aaoarte od aeol, vee i
otst qs oc ted) haw mobo lifer att to omtt ant ¢4 Abite yt |
Leet 07 ton AY tuo 20y. oH, pade |
Se eh ae
made test pyawe aluokd vthe owe swede ore daprtecinper ge nt | i
uatan mod? wan ou 2 Lhovkel Satan ode ate wad ts a
* font yovete” gakiovert aay feet od tat, BRD i,
an ate suods wtaw YOds ussw tad? phoege ems sabhel..geq t
ont sh quart gid ow? canton hk aa
"fh Nemes ot toed eum mmeh wate 90 L fare, 7 ‘ any
heme hee sokenttoa « ssnin wr me ma mene ‘
MAT toe DeAIaNd, taba) OF MA SLan RONNIE AMAD oog
ay ‘teas ous gay iKh sam aks@l Ses Medd jaxouss gM¢ Ye ome yabyhab
ie ne PboakLsh .towkogek Pol yedt Gel yak Yo, gators salt ne aed
x Pra whe debe Kobanl oxew mxqwes owt ot say pogan had “Lins “ in
ee rHodwhaak Bevlgaon yess ovde ted? jowel .Proqme ovat tet epkidenetus —
“ dmehiens eat Sede rhwp ot pithdtemes hed bax beqoute wed? .atamhest —
viawniged ewrsied seat ,gobetem eat at fooiste ath wm :
AOE et pene mort aeitea OAS soode sed
ee Ded ing Dec MEAEES Hea pqpene’ le heoe we ae ee
ten My oKt om Roryan one. ime Aqpaninen ate pat tres odt of sexe
ng wea astra ane mee 114 ot et une ack
4
witnese to pane Aim and toe yo shead; ny a passed the truck he
was driving on the right or mnerth lane of the pavement; that nae
he was paecing Khe heard a squeaking of brakes and humediately after
the Yord smaghed into the back of his truck; that at the time of
the e@liision nie truck wee «cing ebeut 25 or 14 wiles an kowr,
Pitkin teatified that Ke was driving cna of the trucks
leaded with autexmoblies to Davenport; that Jennueon wee driving the
ether; tast after leaving Kedgwisch they met at Sandwich where they
had aguething t¢ gat; that whem he wae between Laxollie and Dover
he estopped becauee he did set see Joineen tehind him; that Jonnaon's
truck was slower than the one the witness wae driving; thet he pulled
eff the pavement io the nerts and parked on the ahoulder end walted
about eight or ten wizutes for Johnsen to come up; thet #«hen Johneen
approached he was driving itt the nerth or right lane; thet he mo-
tlened for Jebnaon te come ahesd and tuke the lead; that he etuek
his left arm cat ef the window smd eigualled Gin to pese Bins that
at Johnson war paneing he vas traveling in the sorth lane, and there
wae a oraeh. This is eubstantiaily all the evidence an te how the
accifent cecurred,
Defendant contendm that it wae guilty ef ne uagiigenee bee
@ause the evidence shows that one of itm trucks wae etanding aorth
ef the pavement on the shoulder, ond the other traveling in the
nerth lane and did not stop vrior te the accidant; that even if it
be astumed that the question of defendant's negiigenee wae for the
jury, such negiigense, if smy, was not the proxiaate exuse af the
eollision with the resulting injuries ts plaintiff, and therefore
the court should have directed a werdiet for defendant, aa requested,
It seems te be the theory of sclaintiff that Valrall, at the
time in question, wae driving the ford ear aa sgeant of Themat ang
therefore toth Theoman and Fairall were guilty of esntribatery negii-
@emmee, but that suck negligence ia not iuputable to plaintiff whe
eit owed ont Soanaiy wi\gnid yhebiti ey 0" bine’ ibil'eese at seeneaw
go Lead jpaeebvey on to whine Adsed Se eee bat eb gilvied Gee
cogts: Usd oVienkd ved evens We ghbtabbgt's htand eat yaleeee aaw oat
hg ant) ot hy dant pMuwet ota Ye dod wie ort Neda! pete
‘yrvod’ ae ee fhe 60 Ve OF dunde pinioy Raw Woetd 81 HERR IT EO OME ee
“giowtt a2 Yo ome gulviey mew on dame PORT tie atate! oe
ait galvive te aoemiet test poqaevel cP aetidomosie Mehw bepeet
qed? stone datvhew® ge fom yodd aoe ivgiel yutvell dette dacs pees
devel bau oCthenidit Heowskd sow ed eva tally ythe OF piROnOe dod "
a aowavet Sant ywts baled moeacigt vow tol bin wi seuaohe beggar wa NG a
elie av tad? pgnlvith saw eavayte eat 08 EE
bebler tae wtivotie et ao bevtey baw often OF of Paww
menndet aeite Yate p qe bev oF @ovaitet co’? sevtaind atti edie tte 7 |
-te of fed? jomek Jah Vo iotod wif WP yal va ew an berwnondoen
“teeta sa ded? phos t add oad fio hewald weay of Ryeutsl to? somone |
tet? 020 wey af sdk We fteagte Waa’ weninte cn Wo te is a.
walt bits wees Huon oath “at yniktivett die vt / il
Devudiiiesiias BA eomeb tee oxi te isantcayeon 2 What” odes
Pe ; i
baw ‘sone gtigen oa etna hee “th edt atten
hed gubydias naw Gab urs ae Pte de edd tee 98 ‘ocit
(gdh nd gatfovent sedto wit ae tp Lvie Wir ne SaOwad eas Me
oa es ee oe ‘toy Gee Fon S45 ' st ; ‘ :
_ et a9 saan? Quer @ trahasteh Yo Adtideup wp dale
‘gaa te si ude aettaesy ‘ors S80 eae yy S org eegea
eo eee eee ee
RNupey Sa Fadbae teh ZO Folie eo MMOeERD oven
att de Dtetiat sand vibbatase to esceuiangin “aha + :
i i wiendied trait han bro oD
waa riding ae a gaost in the Yord. Under the low the nerlivends
of Yaugmaw or Falrail onuld not be imputed to plaintiff. Mut han
fore she sould recover she must prove that eho wae in the axereice
ef ordinary sare for her own cafety (Onn v. Bryer, 04 121. 599),
and mast aleo grove by A srependerance of the evidence that the
defendant wae guilty of neglisenes “hich proximately contributed
to her infury.
Par, 16%, (2), oage 2496, Cailli's 1943 Statutes, srovidee
that "Ho driver of a vehicle shell stop the same on any durable
hard surface State iigheay er ellew it te etand in such peoition
that there io not amole room fer two vehicles te pase avon the
road, nor shall any peracn unlead hie corge er tranofer it from
one vehicle to ancther, exeent in cate ef emergenay, won suck
highway."
Plaintiff's evidence tends to chow thut defendant violated
this etatute at the time in question, Defendontts evidence wae
te the contrary. Plaintiff's evidence tends further to shew thet
Plaintiff was in the exereise of 4ue care Yor her own safety, haviag
salied the attention ef the driver te the lights shead ef them in
the resd, In these slrausataices, tie queationes? defendtont's nege
ligence, and whether plaintiff was in the exercise of 4us care fer
her orn safety, wore questions Tor the fury. By ite werdtiet it
found in favor of plaintiff's contention, and upen « consideration
of ail the evidenes in the record ws think we are net warranted in
Aistarbing the finding of the fury on these questions.
But aseuming that slaintiff preved she was in the @exereiee
of due sare for her own eafety, and that 4ofendant wae pulity ef
negliizenee, the question remains whether the negligence of 4efendant
Wae the proximate enuse of plaintiff's injuries, Defendant strenue
susly contends that ite magiigenee, if any, war rot the proxizate
@auee of plaintiff's injury; that such negligesee at wont merely
aN
Pomnlignn ost wi ast Tete shot edt wh froKg, a ROD RE ROR
ond fet .TRatotg of Satamet of aan Rien Ltanke se neal we, | ina
miorexe att at now ode tect ovetg teum ode tevooe: Adwea pale. oth ; ‘i
(ORR HEL AGP soe 1 geo) qletar ave qed Kok enem vagathee Te)
od? dat? toepbdve ott to aa wetehaoqerg « YF aveug cade, team baa
batudsxsnoa Yiossalneny dosae anomyinnd Ve yt bhay tev .genben eb, Ae
MAbiroTs ,eatadeds EOL of LEbgo ans, sane o(@) thi iexatus ee
Shieh Yon a0 omnes 98d gore Hada atoldev « te xwvith oY dt
ReRSieoG down ah hands of Eh walle co yew, ota2% ene tnwe wad ‘i
_ et so ageg of retegiagy owt 183 aget ofamm fon ot omedé ag ~
ae ah wero? t¢ ages nid. bonkan sanane.om Hated TO OE
a
Re aeaehtve a! farbimtes .welianwe ah omhe ott, pity sta
inst ace at orkut ofeet eoambaye a NUAALELS 4
os fokinee eth yl amet ot “a aneMinney ‘90%. -
oeioae » nme ne atimenns «ANNs 8
‘ah padaere Aa Sl. em RO AAR, 88)
ARE
furnished « condition which made the collielon possible and that
plaintiff was injured taroeugh the independent negligenes of the
driver of the Vord, ond in these circumstances defendant ie not
lisble,
What is the proximate couse of actionable negiiwence haa
been the subject of many decisions of thia court and of our Supreme
eourt, in Seith + Oo, 241 ITLL, 252, the oourt in 4ie-
cussing thie question, speaking by Hr. Chief Justice Cartwright
said (p. 286): "Yo constitute proxiwate eause the injury must be
the naturel ond prebacle woneeguence of the negligence, and be ef
such charketer ae an ordisurlly prudent person eught te have fore.
seen wight probably occur aw a rewult of the negiigenee.***(p, 260.)
The test is whetner the party guilty ef the first act or oxziselon
might reasonably have autieipated the intervening couse ae & natural
and prebable consequence of his own negligence, and if a9, the eon-
neetion is sat breken, *
In Hel e@,, SHE Tl. 466, the court,
speaking by Br. Juntioe Dunn, aaid (p. 471): “if it can reasonably
be concluded from the evidence that the aceldent would not probably
have happened except fer the failure of the appellant te fenee ite
track, then it fellews that the neglect te fenee war the proxinate
@ause of the accident, wilens seme other disesnmnected efficient
eause which sould not have teen foreseen by the exereiee of ordinary
eare has intervened.*
Te the same effect is Hortoe peton Store of Cnicags
265 Ill, 331, where it is said (». or “inat constitutes proxi-
mate cause has been devined in numerous decivions, and there is
practically nc difference of opinion as te whet the rule is, The
injury must %« the naturel and probable result of the negligent act
@r omission and be of such a character as an ordinarily prudent
person ought te have foreseen might probably eccur as a result ef
t-
dent? hem sidiseon melaliien ef? obama dotaw astsinene a” hea Linu
eat te tore gligon saebaseebad et dawerss boxstat aee ‘vulsntaty
‘fon wa tants eb eeu avd coup eto seas? wt baw beet nat te vevixb
“wat eonoulines citeaphioa to oeune otantnorg ong eb teat 2 | .
emmantt tae te bow dxwee eesty te saolsteuh coho Ye. Soo tdue oat aged
agth wd @uwoe ode SEC .akT 2a +20 andl tian ainden ak dete
_tagherriwd soituss tela 2H yd palunege \, snodseoup whiit puulsasia
oa foun YIUEA os Manes otamtnong ofeth saaoe or 3 (eas a) nae
te od base , 00 y4 tgea outs te sous upoenoS shisdorg ban feruton oat
“Otek sved oF Idyio aoeteg Jashirig ebeealbxe me 22 wopedunm an.
(.808 .g)***.enanghiges wei? To Siomet © es tuose videdeng s0gta meee | in
| thetestae xe fon daw? of to wiley ceune oes aiid ose at tad oat ches
ferstan 2 tz eaury gabaorsegal eid betaqtolsas ovast eideasaaer ohn
<—- eae ,oe ES bas ,euaegiigan awe ald te somenpeenee otadeomm bus
rr) edt ,d0d .£4i S28 sai aRfh oS A shelled o¥ aathel al x v4,
_— gum 92 BA (RED oq) Bien yee ootzant 8k gt ahiwoge
Uiledors tan Bisow tapb been oe) Sas soamhive exe sent bone te aoe p om
wh eure s oF fan Lieqne eas te wrwdiel ea? tet lad benee ard ot
- etentzow ony saw wa oo of fon Lge watt (add swakie® a one teat ;
ide Ete besvansces ts 19829 Seon wee Lom iaabiooe ome 2 oe 7
wage ¥e ou torexe ous of meer mad ered sau pewoe ae a , ons - Pach
_ Mehmaown dat ad 900 |
ened) Y, $8 _ sera 32 Hs et seers ome Oct e.. , ‘oth if
“oan evretitanos sot” “soe 1) bes at 22 otode £06 aan baal ene
fs a etedt bite stiviniosh avetnaus Of Seal? a halite | ;
et sth fm wad Soaiw ot am aolaige Ye wont 1ub om thie
oe sees
i ara
Aandurts YLiteckix no a6 Tasomtade # down Ye 96 daw motnahag xe
i re ttwers ne eee Witetesa, sky be om | ;
oy,
OD Me
7
the negligence, although 1t ie not esvential that the peraon charged
with negligence should have feresem the preeine injury wiieh sight
result from hie act."
int im the Seiting case, supra, the court, further diseussing
the question of the preximate cause of an injury, eaid (pp. 475e474) s
"In casee involving quite similiar foets different courts have arrived
at oppowite conclusions, “he question for our determination is
whether there was any evidenee requiring the submission of the
question ef proximate cause to a fury, ond if the facts are meh
that men of ordinary Judgment may arrive at dfforent convlusiens as
to whether or not a fence would probably have prewented the secident,
thes the condition was such as required the submiseion of the ease
te the jury. *
Im the inatent case, the night was dark but clear; there
was evidence te the offeet that beth lanes of the pavecent were oe-
cupied by the two trucks ond the question for iselelen then ie,
Bight an ordinarily pradent person have foreneen that =» cpliivien
might probably coeur? We think this question was for the jury. In
these cilrewmstances the court 414 mot err in denying defendant's
mation for a directed verdict,
Complaint ie alac mode that the court erred in refusing to
inetruect the jury «et defendant's request, that the statute of
Tllineis required meter vehicies to be equipped with headlights
Visible at least 206 feet im the direation the vehicle ts sppreach-
ing, and that this statute was intended te provide a light for the
guidance and benefit of the person driving the aatowoblle as well as
fer the srotection of others whe use the highway, The court instruct
ed the jury on this statute exeept that 14 4id not tela the fury thu
lighte were for the benefit of the pereen driving the automobile as
well as for others who were using the highway. The argument is tha’
the evidence chews the lighte on the Ford sautemobile threr Light
‘Whe
ogtacs sounsie ad! gad? Lo ivoonew don wl $2 mpatele some tigen addy
digte do fee Yewtek ahoong wf co oebreR ered bivedd womey Llyn ashe
* de eid wert ofumen
igaven Ld neu teem 880 .oegee ,oooo peleiol eid af bod.
ee oT Cwies Yo tame oombimony ea) be welvawmap nae
vitae eves eoiuwee Pao EDS of0nt Saliade ofinp gabvievad seaee wi”
ti Mghdnaioteess roe 18? aodieouy ol semodemfadee Oflnogge te
edt ‘fo mbfacdadve o@y gafukupet eeaebive yao Gav ered? weddode
‘dene Gt ede Oe DE baa ~ytHt w OF saueo odehtaete to elton
5 Cubientoaee Same TM te ayiaee gem Seragbut Yrankbro Ye em sede
me bivas ont hefanewrg oved (Luderq Kivew boast 2 Jon 4e Todoodeed
bovadhens ‘te sotetbedsa ed3 bethepet ea dove eaw Bedet haga ado ned ;
| | "ett ome ot a
© Geass puede Oecd nab tae vey oud joewe Faded meaty ie
+90 ot8 PBnMNAG ond To BAe, ATOK Fasd MOTD OndrOd MORentE aaw 3
»32 aedd seolaioed 10% gotfeesy edt baw Rdawee owe: esit oh hinhqa
“ Helek ites # caatd cbeaetet ovad mented teobone YetNhalhTe aa yet
at seueh oa? set taw weddeonp oh? dake w% Meebo welt (tytn |
| ia acarmmetaaal gatyeee of bid ten bib damen ae ‘ pecnhsnaiense: ceeds —
tolbtey beteowih # set aoheens
| se _—— af teres sewew pny ade oho oo in ab aobeLqad Rak
ee eae
@iigh het iw Seymhape od oF Gotelven sunen bomtagen gigas
apawovnge ef efotdorvedd aolsownah odo of teehee, sened tee tibety
edd ae MBE w w6bromy OF bohcesak mew oowop se whe Sas bam vant
j ftww vn eiMowsuw oe yRavhib mowtag on Yo SE ToNe New wonmll
werseaENPewes wx Yow wet uN oe wumnin’ wmneneneN ,
dd exwh OM Lier sen LG 22 tam PomDRe cembNeE WED sehanhentall ri
a WEiiomsrne Ont QalvInb Monney we Yo Vaened omy 50 oem wht
° Mid tamer Hee ety te nse ye ou OMNW ate wOK Gm law oe
* tet world CLidewed an peek ele ae eaeQhs ct engin snannive en
. ih a
enly about 100 feet ahead of the ford, oe dafendont Themas testified;
that these lights were not in compliance with the vtatute. Ye think
the instruction was properly refused sines no request was made thet
the eourt apply the instruction te the evidence in the ease, ore~
ever, the three adultes in the ford teetified they saw the trucks
when they were several hundred feet ahead of them, it io certain
that in no event wae defendant prejudieiolly alfected by the req
fuenl te give thie offered inetruction.
It is alee senteoded that the eourt erred dy refusing te
dnetruct the jury (ae def ox Amat requested) that the emoreise of
ordinary care by the driver of the vehicle in a public highway
only required bi» te lowk suead while driving end thet there was
ne duty upon hin to look backward to agsegertain the position of par
sone appresching from the rear, We think .t obvious taat ne juror
whe is presused to have the qualifications required by our statute
would surmise that it waa the duty ef the driver of the truek in
question to icek back te ees #hether there might be a rear-end
@ollision. We tidnk thie isaetruction eould serve no useful purpsere,
After the verdict was returned the court permitted plaintiff
te fille three additionsl counts of her declaration, over the ob-
feetion of defendant, and this action is eoupiained of on the
ground that the omended cownts introduced new aatter inte the case,
In thie comneetion it ie said that the second and third adéitienas
eounte charged it wae the duty ef the defendant, Desiera Transport
Company, not te stop either of its acter tracks on the paved sortion
ef the highway, ete, But thie identical allegation wae sade in the
eotnts that were-in the d¢cleration when the case vent to the jury.
There _ no ditrerent charge in the additions. counts in this
respect.
The Judgment ef the Guperier court of Cook ceunty ia
affirmed.
JUHORERT AFF IRMEE,
HeGurely ond Batchett, 3¢,, concur.
be | ay be | vane
if _stannanecs Satie Sebbiee'tady ne See one To paibelie’ ‘90D OU tit ete
tthe oF Seoutate acs ity woNEbiesioy KE dom wow eM would dled i
ae - ebaw Bae Keevpet Cu ogitin heww ied wine waw pre gpley: xe
‘ ‘AO atr-an qatenomnerwn dota wateran,
"kee (Rare el et (ee Tw hawiln tewr hixhaint teen bine WOW dale
f cellnndintiennativigiaon sedonsawetienct
sto ktomwsian Bexerte etd ovlh’ oF alk
OP Qalew ter od Some MWeo: ONE sad) nobieraey GetA Ud aos:
ey ea Roeemd Oat Cane {naveouper Foubastes ab’) iceet ait Fo
es HOt atelesd awd "te apes” anelarnaet or
esa Yo henaaseieee ob annie BAF Hina er
pone abd at
wemee eT Ke kant Ataencen ad Te exh st) one 18 baa bat
Bova ast se adowtd upton neh to xyite ed # te
Shee wer ae Settautate devltnadl abe dutt
| i's Sn inaeisihhe oa ~ ‘tara fae
Mine La % som et rf
Pah sciaiabiianl ee Le Regn iit A i inde
iH
S7827
PROP: E OF THE STATK OF LLLIKOTS,
Defendant in Srror,
vs.
ROBERT BOPKAN, }
Plaintiff io brror. )
}
279 TA: 6152
wR, PRESIDING JVUTICR O'CONKOR
PALIVERED TH GPIRIGH OF THE CoAT,
Theedere Groark and KRebert Eowuan were indicted by the
errand jury of Ceck county for a comepiragy to take pribes, ete,
The Jury returned separate verdicts finding each guilty as charged
amd the defendants were eenteneed to a term of one year in the House
of Cerrestion, “ne fine and ne eests.* Groark 4id not seek & Fe-
yereal of the fadigvent, efendant Sewman hee eued out this erit of
error. The indietwment ie in seven counts, The firet charged that
the tro defeniants senevired with diverse other persone unknown
wmlawfully to extert money from the public by verbally threatening
to accuse thes of driving asutenmssiles at excessive syeed and in dine
regard of traffic lights.
in the aeeond count it was gharged taut the Yiliage of Alles
Center was incorporated and that ordinances were in feras “nich were
auly adopted by the President ond Seard of Trustees of the Village
ereating the offiewof Maraball, Captain ef Folies, and Felice orfi-
sere of the Villege; that Groark wae appcinted and soted as Village
marehall and police officer, «4 Sowmen wae appointed acting eauptain
and police efficer; that divers persons were unlawfully driving au-
tomobiles at unreasonable speed and vitheut regard te traffie lighte
and otherwise in violation ef luw; thet it became the defendants
duty to arrest such persons or eause thea te be arrented and proee-
euted, But the defendants betrayed their trust «wid conspired with
eaen other and with ether persons te eerruptiy acecpt money as
bribes from the persene whe were violating the law in driving
era. AE ey s A Te ea
BOMBOS' O AGLELUL OSIMATRSTE MM nee ee 8 es
Tees CHT Ava ta a: UTA VE .
4 a x & i yy
wake Ud hevelbaul otaw thie wreath Puodes bau Ato |
hte ~aedindosdad of yet gegen. “ x02 mee ante
bogies em YIituy deae yathacd atotoxoy ataqes anentet, Sh
panel ot Gh tany One to aaee a 97 booassaes (Stem afaadae ted aA vg wa
Ot esi dem DA dead "asa hand ame 0 ogi Ra Mo: ved
te tiww ates owe Bows Gad anaool $aadao 2a sfanmabah at are —
Pest bogrece spstt eat ,weuaog, am von at at pena
apna GReatey Tense eeneved agiw erstgegen af pee ne oy
gtisnieo tal sisetten we ohidug sit sont. wren
| trotxe oF
ty hake ay a mee
wats = bus Avege oytaacane fa settvososue aaivice he
vrs
nee Seite
det ie had
—
po
raf
Daa a eh pes ie peer ‘ange ee
vette Ye, eeesiiv oy tat Jogsnde saw at sauce — bed
had H sy
spoil nator hie ,sobint 1° esate, + Kase domes oe
Sete eng
aie sc gy one tawre ata, -%
automobiles.
In the toird eeunt 44 wae charged that defendants were ape
pointed police officers under certain ordinanees of the village;
that it was their duty “to arrest, to cause to be arrested, tea
prosecute and to cause to be oresseuted" the persona unlarfully
driving sutomebiles; that the defendants vonepired with #ach
other to take bribes fron sich Law viclators oo that auch violae
tore would not be preseauted,
The fourth eount ofiarged that the defendants were police
officers; that they knew arrest slire bed been given to sersens
for traffic viclations by ather police officers; that it was de-
fendants' duty te prepare compisinte in writing before the felice
lingistrate charging ouch offenders with such viglutions, but that
@efendante cenepired tegetier and failed to present such complaints
and were thereby guilty of compounding such offenses,
the fifth count was nelle sreavsed by the State.
in the sixth eount the defesdantes were charged with conspi-
raoy te obtain $1000 from the cublis by weane of the condidence
game; and in the seventh eount, that they conapireda te obtain
$1006 from the oublic by weans of false pretenses,
Twenty-three witnasses tentivied Yor the State, Ten of
these testified to money payments made te Grourk and thet charges
af traffie violation wsade by other pelice officers of tne Village
were dronped, Of the twenty-three witnosese called by the State
two testified they gave money to defendant, Sewmen, and that the
charges wade against thea were not brought before the follies Uagia-
trate of the Villiage. Bowman denied he tad received any mesey from
the two persone whe gove testimony against hin, snd dented he had
received any money at omy time frem anyene in econneetion with any
traffic visliations by sutemobiliate.
Bowman was bern in lilineis, wae thirty-six years old and
1 ta" va i ei)
7 +e Sidem sue \ i
“qe Chew etuabseted fads Aeyxede saw th faue0 pune edt at ‘ foo tg
jegeiiiv sis To sevacatite miagape vehaw ateaiTle egiieg betakeg Wh
od ,bodeown ef oF Semi e& ,dnomn of" Yawh ehedto maw eh dame
LiWtenkaw enoarag sit “Besuebaorn 94 of buime OF bin aommoneng i‘
signs Gtiw Seriqados gtanharted eff tart jeotidonetua gatvich
cahely Sour dart om enodaioly wes shes omit eodind exad of soto
sheduvenore of dom date t
doktee ecw wtiahne wh odd PoKt do_raMe snvoe iewot or : .
aiowrey Of aeviy ased hed agile seerre weed yond dont Tiedt m sa iy
Neb mew 22 tate ywHeLtte oot Leg wedte We aaolteroly olitaxd mee
‘Poh seM ostd wroled gabsiew oi atntateuos wrmgete OF uth 'edouh a x
did tot noottately owe uthv axobaette wom gaint’ ebanded
mene due deonntge oc? be link baw teitene? bertqesws nae
sedentre doth gaibauognos “to ys thug edotedd”
spewed exid ve niacin aban saw shinee 3 *
\agecit® ate 10 eteott to ‘ietitih Wend ‘et thei
_ re ity dbl bat ine ssenhaete’ heeneutingoneet “we niin
wae brought by hie parents to Cook county when one your oid, Ke
@nlieted in the United States army in wales he served five and «
half years, He saw service in the Palilipgines and was overseas fer
tre yeare ond four menthe during the World war and was angoged in
@ munber of battles in France. After his return he aoved to
Wheeling where he was auief of poiiee for more than a year, In
2923 he waa employed by the Villiage of Liles Center, thrmagh the
prenident of the hoard of Trustees of that village, Se served on
the police feree of the villoge until the time of the trial; during
part of that period he acted as chief ef police; at the tine the
indictment was returned againet Bie he was tight eaptein ef police,
gubfect to the erdersef Greark, the chief of police, fe bad never
been arrested and hed never had any trouble of any wind until the
indietwent was returned, Sixteen witnesnen teetified that prier to
the indictuent his reputation for henesty ond integrity was good.
There was no evidence to the gontrary,
The evidence disclosed that during Kay, June and July, 1943,
wolice efficera of the village arrested «4 number of peraons charged
with driving autemoebiles in violation of traffic regulations, such
as excessive speed, running through ved Lighte, Liiegal garxing,
ete.; that most of such persons were given arrest slips by whieh
they were notified to apvoer before the police magistrate of the
villege at certain times; that mary of the persons who had been
given such slips rere not preseouted and that no charge was lodged
againet them before the magistrate; that in many instances the are
reat slips were “pulled” at the request of divers persone and that
in many of such cages no woney wae given for such fallure te proce~
oute,
the two witnesses whe teetified they gave money te the de-
fendunt, Bewaen, te prevent the pressing of traffic violations
agsinet them were Harold &. Watecn and Stuart Letterhoim.
et bho to9y emo user Eaves dood of wdweraq ahd qd Sityword aaw
@ bie ovt't Bowtes ad coke mk yeee wed eshaT se ad Bods tion
wt aoswtevo sav uw aeniegh {te ont of oodvene wee Gh veteey Bad
a2 bagagee anv bee tow fine” ena gahtwh atiaem cet Baw wiedy lowe
a? berew ef aeugen eid ae8ta = yeenotl af molited te Eada aw
ei .feee 6 cml? even tet sebfes te Bole aew od eveutw gatlond®
ots yack? ,weeewee ee hki Le egadi ll ets of begeique new od e8eg
an hewnse G1 .wyetilv sed? ‘te asedaut? “te aunot wit ‘te goedtaete
ubted ;ieant oni to ult ed? Livay eyelhte edd Ye ware? wetfog edt i? Gf
adt- oak? odd 82 ined fon ‘te Take as Bedos on hoting sails My Hi
eetter ‘te aiatges tighn saw ad aba tastena bemrudor www Sanus Ihab
Wess bes 8 6 Woodiog ta Tolwo wid ,heeoss Yootebue aly of soteun
60) Leen dukd ere 2 ORhOTs GHo Sod HOVER bod God setewens a p ~
# Roive Inds Sel Tidsed eosveusie aeesKde deutEder wae ad at
sboog saw Ysiryodut Sas yseened NOT welded ger eh geonds toad coi es
euersnee odd of seandive oa daw ont ”
20 ,eiud bas emul ,yOX paruh gudt RenoLoetD eoambive om i ah
Syteke atearey lo teCaum m boteetie egellie at ‘te susetine sohteg
Howe ,kamd te Leyes 2 tens ro. asiteioty at eetideansus ani vine Pere a i
gehts Sogo Lhh .atight bax Agent gateune deege eviensoxe ea
Kottw af agkin deere sevky oxi sewed viowe te seem dail os :
“et Ie atewts kya eeblog edt erected sesnge at beLteson wee gm x it
sind Bask abe anewrng wits a quinat dnatt poms — Ape thy
Watson testified that on July 1, 1934, he was driving throug
the village of Biles Canter om ale way to play golf; that he passed
through a ref light at a street intersection and wae arrested by
motereycle officer Griffin, eho gave him a ticket or arreat slip;
that Griffin eslied his attention to driving tarceugn the red Light
whieh witness “readily admitted’ he had dome; that aven receiving
the ticket witness put {ft into hio pocke} and went on his way; later
he examined the ticket and metivced thet it calied fer his «appearance
on the following Guturday at the Tows bali im bilee Center, before
the Police Xegistrate. de further testified that he was going te
be out of the city at that tine, and he them dreve te the Town hall
im Biles Center and spoke to defendant, sowuen, sheved him the ticket
and told Nim hea would not be able te appear on Gaturday as he was
geing te leave the city, and asked if the matter cuuld not be are
ranged “rt ut away"; thet Mowmenm «tated that if he appeared in
sourt it woul4 orebably coat wlimese 615 er 320, but Bownan said,
"Fix it wp with $5; that he then gave Bownan $5 and the ticket;
there ‘s evidence in the record to the eifegt that mo complaint was
Fiied snd nothing further done in the watter, | |
Officer Griffin testified that he wee a metoreycle officer;
that he rode a motorcycle for the purpose of making arrests for
violation of village ordinances; *we have speed ordinances and red
Aight ordimances;" taat he want to work for the Viliege in June,
1933, but mede no arrests 4uring that month; that he arrested Yateon
faly ist for runing through s red Light in the village; that he
gave tim « ticket and tusmed in « duplicate at tis effice of the
ehief ef police in the town hall; test the tieket eslled for the
attendance of Yatson in the town hall on July ath, ot 3 p. m.; that
he 414 not go te court that day; that prier to that time he asked
defendant, Lowaen, if the ticket would be in eourt end that fewuan
said "ke,* that tae ticket had been “pulled”; that he afterward
talked to the chief of police, Groark, about the case and asked if
pexds geivich saw on eSbRL , £ viet aed eaatd bar iisaes rare wren
bennea wal Sesid : doy yete od yee old ~~ redued ache ve ‘eoe.Lahy
a begat egw ben aolsonened ni fonts & te tight aoe 2 mat
| +ahfe #aetie to tedols # bss evay enw al tbe moi tie asoyore! os
diy hi ben sind siganotae guivinh a8 aoltued ia ST al batten abrttx 9 sods
anivtsoss tiem Feat yemob feet asi “edd kaibo wired ‘anomaly sehay
£ Hae IS Re
ssal yaw eia Ge tase baw ions eke eval an hdd snout ty fried, Red »
3 ve
oasteouas eid tet Bethe #2 dase boo tsen baw teiods othe abeque on hh
* va eet ; x
a 4;
OXI ,x8SeN) BoLd al LLod awoT ost $a abrutas 9 patwoLie® oct mo
a gatoy aaw od tects bottitasd xosidan' ob “sotante iyek von ay i a
thos ame ® outs av overs aus oxi how: . ake tas ta begat R oy ‘ :
dohe and as heweuia , mantod sfanbae toh o none hue aod @
Mery ae ee a eae del
er oe feeh ebraadd ae tascue ot aida *s son Ryan oa nist bioe ‘oe
ee adaleabtidhee
. wie ad ton Lees weddsn oat u ‘bexias i rxehe. oud ovaod SP
iF We, Sa Pyihe ITE
"at beawonce on BY basis besade nerod tend 1 yen. nat er
phen anne ouid A xe oy ansas bw Saee Udedorg bien bsaan Siw 2 samy
By ey MP Bo al
a yeumons ane bas a6 Lemathete orea aon on toute "308 tate au =i
wie GL ey aay eA Pa et
wes ecg iene on dnitt sees sit o@ bros oat nil bce ait Ce ; ?
stotsen ons ak “ah wedawt Baal ae
yao okayores on a ase oa sone bethigees uta 09 fy i —
“te? eferrts wath das te enogeng ons aot vio yaresen a rt —
bet hee eennsaihte beens evad owt reeoaantbro suecaiy had
i mk muni taV odd vot atew of sae vd fact “a io ~~
>t
eee CE
5 MS
ea esis some cine wai a2 Care box a ‘dguo ut stone mo
iets ae che See
ra “eas %» vatrie edt te sino ttewd “ a bamut om sexes o mks
tt P rae Ficnp todd sor"
foituo oi ewkt Suds oF tekte saa al sacs stuns me i) ¢
rere
Sect a th a
4 Tee
twit warn
Ua hoses bane sano od? suode ,txooed ‘oi hin
; he was to appear in court at the time mentioned; that tna ehief ree
plied no, the ticket was fixed; that he 4id pot sppear because he
understood the tieket hed been withdrawn, Gm crore azaninuation he
teetified he reeeived hin appointment as police of floer through a
trustee of the Viliage and that 1t wae customary in the Yillage to
do political favers by often withdrawing arrest clips,
Stuart Setterholm, calied by the People, testified that
about ten or eleven o’Glock on tee night of Jume 24, 1945, he was
arrested for speeding in Silea Center by efficar ile and taken te
the pelice sistion where he wae kept until about one e’eleck that
migat, at whign time a friend sf bie browght eighteen doliars te
the gtatien, whie® ~ae put up and ho wae released on bond; that
the next day, Sunday, Be went back to the tewn hall in bilea Center
Pureusnt te « telephone @ali te nis noce, of whieh he wag notified
by hie sister; that he eaw Chies Grosrk im the latter's office; that
Groart asked the witness if he would be ahle to be in eourt on
Saturday; witness replied that he could but it would be "kind of
hard,” ond that Groark asked him if se eould do anything for bim;
that Greark then drew a beok out of the dravrer of hin desk ond
showed bin the agount of come fines which had been deposed for
Tunsing threugh lights and speeding in other cance, “and he asked
me if he took out the $8 for the fine if it wowl4 be ail right ith
me;" that witness «nid it would; that jaet then Captain f2orman
came in; thereupon Groark explained ta Sewnan what he had done for
witness; Groark then left the reom and Sewaan apened the drawer and
geve witness $10 of the $18 whieh had been deposited; that he never
received the ether $4 and never went te court. Fitness further
testified that the $18 wae brought to the station by a friend of
his, Kini Lewis, ny
Lewie teetified that in resvenee te a cali he towk $38 to
the police station at Kiles Center at the time in question and
left the money toore to bali cut Setterholm; tuat he get.a receipt
Ht Yello On? Sext Thombltanw ombt ext do dues AE MBOqRE OR owe
‘ee Geunped teegqe Sob DRL va Gast Phowht daw sounds oa yon Beh Ee en Me
ai Goheeealowes enero | 6 jawetieitie ase bad 2098s on hoosexedam vi My
oe Kgwordt @oolTte eellog aw tnvataicggs ald boviebes od daha taihahdalll By ,
of omen: sed ot Yimacdass gow th Sods hax ogaile¥ was to: ‘eotemns’ i
2qhis teowss gabuwrbad lw neste ye @sevat webdtion o6
Galt Bab ltsees \elgoot aNd ed baLian ,mbodan tse trans ¢ ott
eared (CaS (88 onwt Bo do_ke od a0 daede' o ove Le cr 0d aneter
of hAUAY Bd LLLW adOLTte QO endano°COLIE AD galbooge wt ‘bsseerra fy
S8Ke Moolote ome Suede Lid aw sqoX caw SM Orsay motsage ‘ophteg”
‘gt #4050 omesigle guards cha io bbe LET b 0
si i
Dies ‘New send teed fad de lae eo att mee te diem pe
tetee’ ot Pxe* ewene teite at galbengn tas seeyhd sige ne yea ssi
Siw setts The ee Bhaow ot HE asthe onto Of Oat tay Hae it TE wie
hast schetqnd mac Sua tart yodioww bb Metin cee tn
mercer cmtbeanaatndessinspaseiewceeds rs
eee
s
| vow iv tan? yhoo heoems ammd deah lie Bit we % ‘ett ve |
— Ree? othe co fue e covet batt et want . aN
fer the meney; that the next day he gave ietterhelim the reecipt
and that some daye afterward Letterholm paid him back the $16.
Officer Biles testified that during Jume he was a goterayele
efficer of Kiles Center, patroliing atreeote, de identified a copy
ef the arrest ealip he had given Setternol@ Jane 34th in which Zete
terholm wae charged with apeeding; that he arrested Setterhelm and
teck him to the station md Be waa locked up,
Greark tostified that he did net tale te Jetternolm af the
station and aay, “1 hed w list of fines and thet I oowld fix it ap;*
that he did not remember a cegh bond being dapowited by ge tternolm
‘er a friend of his by the name of Kink Lewis, a colored gentiesnan;*
that he 414 not resember Setterhcim afterward, seking him about the
$18 that head been put ap for the bend; that he never saw Zetterhelm
umtil the tried.
Bowman teatified that he was a polle@s officer in files Center
since 1923; that 1% sae the gmiers) pragtice in Riles Center te with-
draw arrest tickets or Keve them fixed witheut any eonalderation;
that this wae done as a political favor; that he never teek any seney
from anybody fer “pulling* a tleket; that Wateon 444 net give him
$8; that he never saw Yatsen or had any xnowledge of hew hie ticket
wae fixed; that he never tock any eoney from Zetterhola; that he
Teuenmbered nothing in connivction with “hie cage; that it was the
peactice wien cauh bond wae civen te give a receipt for the agney,
and that later when the matter was diasesed ef, te return the money
to the ¢epositer; that he was net at the palice station the afternoon
ef fume 26th, “hen Setierhelm testified he went te the station and
received the $106; that his hours were from @ «6. mw, until 4 a. m.;
that he 4id net give Zettertolm $16 which had bean deposited as a
cash bond by Zetterholm; that it wae the practice to return any
money shich was put up for cash bond, not to the person who gave the
bend, but to the pereon making the depocit, unless the latter gave a
pecans aud alodiesies e¥ey od y sxen ont baa ‘youos ‘est ™
_ ehG oct Aped ale Dhow akpstuedtod Drawiar ia eyab omen tant Das
efeqetedoa # sav od enul yatuwh duct be Pthteas ath woot tho ‘adi
_ Wee » heliitaebs ok ,asnotda galiiosiag ,t92a0d seth Yo t99t To
“eben Hodse ai vd6S oamh Bigstegias mevhy bad od qtie seoqse eat Yo
han MigResIoS hatactis of feds jygalneege athe beynade ame aloes
1G bedvot san od bas aoltats od? ef mid dood a .
os? t# alodmedeoS oF Ahad toa bth od sate bokriveed Areosd hee
"sqm #2 242 bivow I godt bas seal? Yo teli o had I" yen baw modteze
miagaetiak yd bediseged anied bned isso # sedanmet fos bao oa Coan :
*;asuaitoeg borolog # ,eived dalé Ye emea edt yd abs %e stint iy -
omen avdbh af, tool tte fear Pres # saw of dedi bolittacd ne we Snisane . r
ithe gf Yeeeod aeiid ai eplsdatq Lewenoy of aaw aa rads jones, one
_pebsetehianee wie duodsiw box tt weds ova hid atedule fore, : " Pein
pean, ea dnod teven oa tea? prove't, tse tdh tog # se enob aoe. ebay S |
sha orig fon Lh agate tan? ; todos a “y ail tet otgae mov
foxiy.ds ain wot Ie syho tegen ene. hes 79 monsa wae seven 6 tad tt
ef fed gedesdzedteS sect yonem ype. Sond, xeven oe Sasa sesh pow "
mid men 21 fasts poraw old: civ motdeonson al yabiton ber |
Paen ef? got sqboent a evita of savy sev baad damp age
ee ost panies of To bewsqeth aew median yor - ody x84
7 ko
7
written order to the contrary; thet at so time urior to the ins Lot-
ment Was any charge made ageinet hin of jerwaisins,
There ie considerable other evidenee in the record, some of
whieh wili be hereinafter referred to.
Defendant contends that there io mo evidence wnuieh tenda to
preve that Bowsen was guilty of conspiracy with Greerk or with any
ether person, The essence of a coneplraey ie the unlawful combina.
tien or agreement to acesmeliesh & eriminal or unleaeful purpose,
Pecole vy. Urary, 335 111. 839. We think there ie some evidence
that would tend to suppert the charge of conepiracy, Seotterieale's
teatineny, which we have heretofere diseuesed, wight tend te ehew
an sereoment between the two defendants to unlawfully accept money
from him, this iz conceded by counsel fer defendant, but it is
said that Setterholm wae an sceouplice and therefore his testimony
ie entitied to little weight; that hia teetiveny ie “se full ef
ineonsieteicien and conflicting statesente as to be unbelievable; *
that it is impossible to reconcile his teatineny with that ef
Lewin, whoue tevtinony sige has been heretofore aentioned, Fe
think the question was que er the jury in the first instance, but
whether, usen « consideration of all the ewildenge there is a roascne
able doubt on this phase of the cape obviously io far the ecurt,
Complaint 19 alee made that the evidence was insufficient
te sustain the allegations of the second count (wHich changed the
vielstion of ordinanees ef the Village of Niles Genter) fer the
resson that no ordinences or any ether evidenes «ne offered on thie
question. in this connection eoubeel for defendant say that ae a
matter of fact there are no ordinances of the Village of Niles
Center defining the duthes of Captain ef Felice, the vielation of
whieh waa alleged in the seecnd count. Under the provisions of
e¢etion 1 of chapter Sl, Candll's 1945 Statutes, page 1410, every
court of original Jurisdiction is required te take fudiclal notice
totvmh ao of Tabiy pads om te dads jetatsaop pals oF sash ee
: spatodgnor’\ Ze sada dan dene ebew omnanp ye now t9a
to. smes ,b2000n 97 42 Aoumpiye toute eidmisbiaaog ot wat
oF borne ton rofhaslems » of kt ner
at Bhaes dohse oonmbive 4 om al qipds Sods abapinoe taabun ted
by hes ca
i Hee ve a a)
ye ddiv x aiaex® Atiw qpartqemoo lo yt ibog maw aaawok Fats ovene
es rs)
onidees Ltwalas ot at cant iqanco at sonsnne oat
_ steoqteg dvtwmtas to Lpaiadye » saliquaas of sapmne: |
soambive amon ot oxedd dakdt OW GbR LL SER yea
a! mioias 40s -YoRtigarce te wyxede et? Itoqque of bane |
Yesem Sge00n ey ing as atssaboo 29s ome ese ane
wh sh sud ,tandaeted 10% Iaeauoe xd per abs
eweuouttens G10 exotoxeds baw seliquoses as uw mlodted mics
te (Adel om” eh qtonliaed ahd dad? {tdylow oaaans ns ‘ |
£8
2 2} aa
_*peideveliodag ed ot so tana sada aattor Sace baie weto
Re Amdt aohe ytaahtaet eli eLlenqoes 09 okdtavogat wh #2
9 Mt sRemoliaos erotetetad need ead ents ynoul sen? caging an
het seeratt taxi? 943 nt yaw ost not on eam aokse mp one &
nme td ia st ylewedvde onne ond 19 een s: tae Avon oie
_ Lav, iment sos u esate at) we reangalhey Ye
tae Je dew tIg coy Spe ere, oes wee Ne “ a or - .
ae tet ee saadseteb 40% Leadves aeltevanc
| ReAEY to ogektaY ont to evoue ron ongne.s eodd tout Yo tedtam
= sottaloiy ont gokiot 20 yt beanie oe: ebage eee?
* enolatvorg ial whet Baoan ho yet.
‘ my
of all general ordinances of mw wuanielpality, ond by see. © of that
Aet this court is Likewise required te take Judleial notioe of ail
matters of whieh the trial court was required to take judicial noe
tice, But wsueh ordinances, if any, should be brougnt to our atten-
tien in the briel, or otherwise, The statans:t of weunsel for dao
fendant that there are no such ordinances how not been challenged
by counsel for the People. Under the secend vount we think 14 was
neecessary Sor the People to make groef of the provisions of the
Villiage Ordimances on the question alleged in the aeeund count,
Defendant further contends that the gourt erronseuely per-
mitted police officers to testify, ever his objection, that only
certain peroentages of the number of peracns given arrest slips by
them appeared in court; that this evidence was incompetent and
highly prejudicial because the evidence shows that a great many are
rest slips hed been withdrawn or “fixzed" at the request of » number
of persone other than the police ferce of the Village. Yo think thie
content ion must be gaatained, The fact that » large number ef arrest
slips were given by selice officers te persons charged with violate
ing traffic regulations asd thst a great many of such pergone ¢id
net apoear in court, would in no way tend to prove that Jeownan was
. Peaponeible for the failure of sues yersons to appear before the
police magiatrate, and yet the Jury might huve theught he wae to
blame.
Offieer Harrer was asked, “What percent of persane apy cared
in court se a result of tickets that you issued?" and over defend-
ant's objection he answered, "About fifty per cent." A number of
ether police officers were asked similar questions and answered,
giving vericus pereentages. We think all such evidence was er~
Fonecusly aduitted ond waa prejudicial to defendant.
tn the inatent case the defendant, bowaan, wae 36 years
eld, had been om the police force in the Viliage of Biles Center
fact Jo R .ooe han ,Bidasiotiwm ate abonnniicd thkends tie BY
ila ‘to wolson Lakelhnt stad oe borkuget oobiwael el dred adds Ped
not dalodbal aing o¢ hoxkupes sue Simon Seley edd dodtw hd erestam
~tetie 10 OF Ikoword od binedm ,yme 82° ebeannt hed sone out .eokd
Oh 16) Keane Yo Sesaetnde od? loatweatte te ,totre SAF ab mohe
Beyreiiade ased 204 tet eeeaendiao Mons om ote een? todd taste?
ew ih Aalds ow fuveo Huvoen adt todd .eleeet td rot Leditvcs “Yt
arid le sdetedvorg este Le leer eden of efgoed od¥ Yat Yuddboden
sree ferent mh ana SIR oAN ot Jol Seen
whey Yleweaaotte P1geo ote Sucld whi oaos Touetwt fasbaeted
tino Gadd ,sotsooido etd weve .YRIGeOd of wuDsTTIO ae.
wi agh{* deere mevig enosi9e YW tedaua Gus Yo HeQe
hes toocequconk sav eoushive efrit tatit 7etwoe mt borenosibi’ aes
“te yen savrg a dads sxoce sonobive od nusved Lelethutery Yndyhd
teduwa a To Saeepex oid te “hoxt't"* co owmthsthw oeed pad balTe toot
Add Amkdd oF oyeLsLV ect 26 e010? Snd.Log wid ‘wast telite aabeeee he.
sore Ye odmun ogtal # fadd dost oft toadetaue wa bébm nebtneseie
ctutoty div hegrace aaowre¢ o¢ Steel Tte aBttog ¥¢ aovig o¥eW nettle
bis eaoaneqg Aeee Yo Yen taetg 2 sand Ban amd Maluged 6Yrtert ‘vat
Bae maawed fads @votG Of hasé (au oa at bivew ,txnee nt Yaoeda 104°
Od eteted ta0qus of savatee dows Yo etwite® ond +0r dtdigiegdod ”
@2 Qa OA Ayuons eves Sigdm YrEk wad Pen setiog
™~
cd
fexae qe aeTEE Te dapeta, seAR" jboken baw tenet wees” ”
| andi wee ne Mecenet my sate conden tevllie aed
‘to weve A Fone eq yet Swot” ,berewenn od melsbetds algae
RP Rae noneniVe soak Kio Aue 9 veventiniett 0 wo ra i
cnt Unenmnndunins dane rane
| qutne anattene exetsav sas mb semen eke a8 no mbodhai’ A a
for about ten years; he had wiwaye borne » good reputation for
honesty and integrity and at a laweabiding eitisen; ke had newer
been charged with any offense prior te the returning ef the ine
dietment in the instant ease, and the only evidence against hin
is thet en ome eccanion he received « few dollare. Keet of the
evidenee of wrongdoing intreduced on the trial was againet the
other defendant, Greark.
for the reagone stated the Judgment of the Orininal eourt
ef Cock county le reversed and the cause remanded,
JUDGEENT REVERBED ABD CAUSE REBRANDED,
MeSurely and Ratehett, J7,, oaneur,
«
pets ty BR gor of lbee cee dibheehee 3° te eee _ Ft
Pa aon s.seet Sens 6 ¢
at agy ae print Gere, meena tae a nm
ot h pond af Memon oo ae ay ¥, Meee pane e ws
we V pawn Mae ee Sere ee am, nen, ee 0 ome a0
Pen § Med food _.euedton wo RN + bertones » Rdinthe
. Ae Sete pee Ab S, Le a
oR hee Yate ee a Dy soning Ih Sukh hae on ae nF hark any ered j is ws oe ant a
is
Senonnwy geueo ait San beeover te
a ee ee ie Mn wee MR aoet wets
OE er A veg cen
“2. aa0 fA éoease keri, waooten Yo Sbtinam OMe be |
a @-=.
at hae
Stee
HG AL Beg ace
tee nee 9% af
tin Frwlegnene’ saw ehartiaw whet a ay
ey: ae RP sr haw Y
jaties = “ho setaree set Oe "homrt” ee inves! "at st
eile we segnd LY nate Ya yt oebeey’ phe Pergo ae ' . .
fie Dis totes sated « fb dead pare 5 fetiia tos nam a
bhe Sheehy Awe “Te year one ar ay wie serio ok ee
tam wrote ef tnt aw aa we Poee ‘(ota i
iit hig wa Te ot ay. Me hy uwkew’y ante “eute’ ,
Se wk Gh. Sapa ae? Fake eet exe Mee: ae ‘Iisa Pr
are Jyh age’ a
RG? a RARE Te ee Gel ese eer aera
agate tar. we Mew eee pee Rate sei 998 ; caltianss
g Remar Cah Lee anes SNe eR URS + Fe
wee tee ocala ae ohn eee ge
’
37585
THE PROPLY OF THE UTaTY
OF ILLINOIS,
Defendant in Errgr” } mRAOR PO
ve, . OF
me hastathte te tevew, | 29% 9 | L ASG Ss
MR, JUSTICR MeSURZLY DELIVEARD THES GPIRIGN OF THR COURT,
Defendant was sharged with gontributing to the delinquency
of a miner child and upon trial by the court wae found guilty,
sentenced to isprisonment in the houge of correction for one your
and fined $200, He secke « reversal, :
Ceunsel for defendant first says thal the court erred in
overruling defendant's metion to quash the information upen the
alleged ground that the eharge is uncertain « that the inferiation
charges that defendant wilfully enecuraged the complaining vitness,
Betty Kgdeen, “to be or to become” a delinguent child. Lt ie argued
that the use of the word “or” le a fatal defect. The word “or* in
an indictsaent is = fatal defect oniy when ite use renders the state.
2, 349 Tl. Lee.
ment of the offence uncertain, ole v. varre)
The offense charged im the information in question itm not made un-
certain by the useof the word “‘or", and ie in the language of the
statute,
Mereover, the motion to quash was made orally, witheut desig~
Rating any particular part ef the information as defective. Thie
motion ancunted te a general demurrer waieh calls in question defeats
in substanee only and net these merely of form. — People v. Fox, 346
Til, 374,
The enly substantial defence preegited is the Ldentifieation
of the defendant as the person guilty of the sets charged. The of-
fense was alleged as having occurred September 16, 1933. Betty Jone
Rydeen testified that she waa eleven yuere oF age st that time, in
of i Oo Hel © y g Tone at wrtsotesd ck. Ree ree ES
PAWS BEY XO WOLALGO BT CHRAYTIM, resavoom worreut .o
wasupal Leb est? of yaitudiuenes déiw be grotto bay sembee ted | wthe t
“(ytilug bane? eae fimoe odd Yt Ladle? nett bie bikie’ toad rt 1. a
wey sao x0 nottoeriee te saved odd iat tow niioe Heya ot hewawidon if
neta vor & adoee oR 0088 domtt ba ae
at bowre tinoe of? tod? eyse toxkt saebastoh rod nergy ye ae iN
eff ooew aoléiamtotal «f¢ doawp of aoitem a* saabay A
moltemiclat ent sass - aleadzooow 6) ograde etfs tact paveep, Soest ie:
,wooaliw galaislquoa eff begetwonne qihwtiiw saab ae ob sass oii ‘
ougee of 81 .bilde fanupatiod » “oapeed of to od of" moony eten i)
wt ee" Raow osff .toetsh tntet » 94 “20” brow out To one eat sant a
atwts eof erebaex een e¢1 apdw yfae oa eh att 8 Sh O nee
teeh tuedtiw ,yilere ohem caw dnawy of aoltom oxy omens ne
| hat .avkten teh an websomretat add Yo 430g senaeisiibis tae maison if)
pe set <heyrade ween oar neti
y Bidvgnsell OERE sah a0
yi
the sixth grade at egheol; that on that date ehe saw the defendant
at 4th etreet and Calumet avenue at 10:30 or 11:00 etfeleek in the
morning; he had hie ear parked and wae walking around; that he
galled her to come over to Ais car and said te her, "De you want
to see something funny?;" that ae opened Lis trousers, exposing
his private parte, «nd ande s most obseene sugge@ution te her; that
ehe ran sway frau thie car and to Ser Some and told her mother what
had hapeened. She next oaw him January 4, 1934, shen he was Locked
up; she identified him as the man she had seen September 16th; ahe
was cositive he wae the man ae both times he was in a dirty eclered
greon Plymouth esr « a two door sedan; she did not remember the kind
ef clothes he wore but remenberad that he wore a green het.
Upen the trial ahe was asked whether she saw the defendant
in the eourt room and first eald she did not see hin, but a few
minutes later ehe eald she “just saw him* « the man eltting over there
| Bennie Heyer, ten years of age, wae with Betty Hydeen on
Septenber 16th and heard the defendant call Betty, saying he wanted
to ask her a question; teat she did not pay any attention until she
heard Betty exelain, “Ghi* and her face turned white, and Betty te1ld
her what the oan had dene. oth girls teld their wethers, She aleo
testified that she next suw defendant January Srd; that he wae in a
green Plymouth ear and ‘oume quteide the eur and beckened te her;
that she went home and told her mother, who watehed the defendant cut
of the windes and told eomeone im the house to cali a policemen, The
police came to the houge and the witness, Bennie, deweribed the san
to them, The police then arrested defendant and brought him te the
house where the witness tdentified the defendant, Yitnese says she
ie positive that the man arrested wae the wan ehe hed seen who ac~
eonted Betty Rydeen on Septenber 16th,
Willias Kasterson testified that he was a poliee officer of
the city and that he knew beth Betty Rydeen and Lennie Hoyer; that
danbam eh ene wus one wseh doe wo secs ;hoores Be ehaty WKe Hat
ade wk Aoelotn 003 £4 to O820L ta GueweR Soruiled Wud deerts dts be
ad Jac? phuwere yalbiiew enw bow bedteq tee ala bed oA ppoleren
faaw woy 66" taal os blee bist tao obs ef ove emo OF “6H hotties
qalagrume ,exvadond etn bene qo ost tastt *;?yanet galdiemos sox of
sane ted of aolsceygue eneoade Seon # bem hme hae .8o%eg mtarkig a kal
teste testdom ved bled baw ened cel of Ste see oct sent youn mex bale
hetood sae od neste ,9E0L ,) yrounst atl wan fee OD \Beheqaad bad
ody pHhOL tedesas got neee bust octane bHt oa uti bettitnest ede yaw
bewwhoo yItth @ at sew os tombs Sted wh aw edt aw on bvivitvon tow
hakt ocd tadenanx dou bib ode jeboe seoh owt a = to Hitmen tl ahety
sted mpety © O10ew od add bovedmemeT dud exow Of wextele to ;
fneher'teh ef3 eae sito tailed beian dew eatin taked oa? neg"? ‘
wet & dud paid oon tom hth ode Hier foxkt nae moor Mies She AL
nih wove gabOtte sam ed? = YadiC nom daet* onlo Shad oan wAtEL Hoel
ho Meee ystek ashe vow ,age to etaey ae? stood eniagm aot
beraaw ed yaiyoe , usted Lidm saebems lob ‘est exe Bae WaOE eedastqde
wpa LBfaw woltaetie yaa Yor doa bh odd Yedt fatale esep tod tae OF
blot ysend haw ,otldiw bemiwd one tos fan “told” abe tons Ytook nine ; os
sate oi ewndson sted biog withy stot Jea0b bait sae 9a Yate tt i
a aE daw ool case ;R4t Yuswast Paahas'tes wee tuo ode Yat Dor tHOD i
(tes of hanson baw tao 012 oblasue onse haa rao Adwomelt idea:
aio Poadse teh ofc Aedprew odw , Herd ax tod Bhot fae east Cawe one dat
se Meisoding © Lay of wawest oud ah emooriee Bked date Snbitty Viti “tH
tom edt Kediresh etnaot seuendie ed bre vane ody oF nia wht toy
HHS OF okt styserd daw Toate teh deteowns aes woven oxT ‘sts
ole eyes cesar le tanbae Wh ame dettigowds eet esl? mst ev H ¥
he saw Jetty Kydeen January Jrd at the hurnaide police station;
that he called on bre. ieyer, wo deseribed the defandent, whom
the officer arrested and brought beck to Mre, Heyer's home and avked
Bonnie if thie was the mum; that ehe eaild he was and that he was the
game man who had nedded to her “today” ond tried te eall her ever to
his car, and that he was the aan who had @¢xpoeed himaelf toe Betty
Rydeen; that Khe told Kis fellew officer te take the defendant to
the police station and he went te the home of Betty Kydeen; that
at the station both children positively i4eatified the defendant.
Defendant testified in his own behalf that he worked at a
booking place on Cottage Greve avenue; that he got to work every
morning at ebout 11:30; he denied the offense; denied ne wae in the
vicinity of 44th and Calunet avenue September 16th, but said Khe was
there January 4th end was waiting for his sister-in-law to come ont
ef the church «hen he was arrested by the eohios efrficers; ne Aenied
that he exposed his persen to the Rydeen givh Geptaaber 16th, danied
he had ever said anytiing to hey, and sald he had never seen either
eof the girls before he wae arrented.
7 Another witness, o girh thirteen years of age, in the eighth
grade of school, usom the trial seinted cut the ¢efendant op the men
who about the middie ef Septesber ake had seen on the sidewalk at
85th and Prairie avenue; that at this time he cot cut of hin car and
etcod up ond whistivd; that se epened hie trousers, expecing hinmeeif;
that she was about thirty feet from Aim when he 414 this, mi the
witness ran away. Another girl ritness, twelve years old, testified
that she saw the defendant Septeaber 16th at about 19:06 a. m., on
Sth street, tetween Indians and Michigan avenues; that ahe saw hin
unbutten his trousers and expose himmelf, This witness identified
the defendant in the court room st the time of the trial.
This ie « case where the eredibilityref the witnesses is
peculiarly within the province of the trial court te judge. the
skin’: biiabiacthb: aah’ séatebeeh bite Venti toe am Maas Ui ball
bedae tum omad &*¥exel Jaci od dood tdguotd baa bedastas seok¥ie oid
wit ene bH tot? baw eew of bine ode todd jamm add saw wba? 2 Stn
of wave tod ILeo ¢) bolts ban “gabor* vod of? bobhon bad ocr nom apes
‘géve% of Lineald benoaxe bad ode mam 9469 saw eit Gait Shs it a a
‘Phed paeedeh “ero To gue of) oF Paow ort baw Wieads’ al: De :
“paniilneted watt Bakrtduond Uviz lade woxbiiie’ Mw helbade aa ta
hte hedtvow et tosh Lieited ave old wh be P2de0d" dabietec roy eae
sieeve Sev 62 fog out tah powmve ovesd sgatied’ ao wate ii he
ait? at wow sof hoki’ poume tte 649 bebkoh 6H ,08:£% dbotta Ya gator ny
oi’ Gil Shas dia”. teSt weGindiea’ outewi' dokiitad hk Mie’ Yo yttutoty
fue tues oF we Landen dete ‘ett wot saltiow aew dan dd) yeoune oe)
bitodé ba Tews HTS oottee old yd bodebirs daw bi abe ldoruito’ ait “YS
hotilin GbE todsoveel L21) mbeby oad OF Howrdg aba bocstes of Sl
Wiit't4 ‘tehew" nweor bait’ bet’ Nie’ Wom” eeu 60 palin abe Geme Ba oa
‘ botestte ene bd otter ataty oat % ai
Gnhts wet uk ope Yo wikey westeled Inky o “another ce lla i
ees oF oe fants toh 943 tive bedatew Kalu” oad meow , , toomen te oe |
| pe Whawwhee ste Bo neon Sot one radius tqet te ‘othbbiu ott ee ee
an tad WRX 20 Yeo You bl Bit) alee te dont jaumeve statard oo) ae 5
Miesaitat galvouke lerpebbad aft belwgo ot fant ibectetew bie o ‘pesee
eae hae jaded Ste od abte ati mot Geet \oabed steele Baw ode bast
perth inss bio Steey ovtows’ enoad bs ints teodsomk gawk fet tr
"te ce ce COTS tude a MOOL Soden tga guaban'es ‘oats 0 Oto ted
bit tin! ote teat jwounmta digtiier® bao ua tba woswiad staiade ‘ee
| farreesest aeeayiw akat Afeautd sdodae tae wtokant? ,
talet etd te wat gal ‘to mba’
bel ee. wath ‘Bebigd £0) osingedeat
4
court had the opportunity to observe the demeaner of the witnesses
on the atand, their intelligence ond the reasonableness of their
etories. The identification of the defendant by the witnesses was
positive, We would not be justified on o review of the evidence
in disturbing the eonelugion of the court em thie queetien. In
Peoole vy. Schladweiler, 31% 111, 653, where the identification of
the defendant was in gueetion, the court said that since the ident’
fieation in that case was positive the reviewing court would net
aisturd the judgment of the trial court. Thie ie applicable to the
instant case, omd the judgment ie affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
O'Gennor, ?. J., and Watohett, J,, coneur,
woakentito ody tw ndttansio® nel brides ds of Yitnrteque silt had’ Fives
Tht YW ener Ltaitanany ot Hae wommptitiosnd stay” ,hhube bai de
“Sew soRcKe lw act Et Pasdxeteb ene to nol sooltioabhd eat ‘nebo
Weebive ot Yo weiver « no te Httet od don below be avabhiey
a a reyohenndminscnndinalindercanepnh y/o.
© boLiaolthouads edt wrome 808 Sor ae os ¥.
Stwoht Ott Gone tndt Dia sevon ony Vaotdebkp Ad” ah siti Sk" bad
ton biwew a2u0e iaiworver eat ovithieg daw e6ed Pith ad Wea!
ott oe psa ces sh aha iaube tabiy bid te sanianit wit’ desbad
wi _—or wt er oid Siw endo tantent
— : “ ogatte! te wha Ze dats a
aC are q Hay ) (imi See oe ho? ee on 9 ‘ae heals bm Sa Re ipipe
Me pycoy SY RMN FE an Gt oll ba ae ve mesiy Sew Se as yin?
ie ey A oe eae rea BAP ee Re Pree Bay A rey Neer erie ai ‘es
Sidhe a yd ry z Goris: MAF of Gobwies asa bine bot om. Fseahy
we hhen mui ow od
,Oeines Ray jie wea Ga" 4 iiebe alt es
ee fie ae ‘ey WROD pea Se de ones iw “ann
ee he ae Tas foe COS ey SePaP Ba OEE 5 RH “ue he obexy
| On Hilo Pu te ae eee ‘ast uate ost
eon mkt S80 fe Beth “Caen dint has Po
Pichia 4 Rae: aCe ile bi iit baie
hey SE SS OR OEE NS mA "fers pee iiger wie badd
Haan 5 Ah Hi po " fhe Po wi , oes Nek TRESS eee sid ah neoad bw
he MELT Gate eet Mee wi Gad ‘ae ‘hie uty ‘bol
Oy Bex tiene dees sone pay RUMOR 4: Sime ehe aha :
% evs BES uae eet emia. ae heionicniivy WAT ude 2 at eady
ar hae alia” nal sy Pianta v9 bad
EL MESS PP MRT OR ual eRe ae aia INE alana ea sma & Pa ‘via |
ee Ge ee CMe gree Hye ian WE WAY wand with aw ytemd bicsweiy
37610
tw ws TALISHD,
Avpellant,
¥a.
JACOB G, LEVINGON and
SADIE LEVIUSOE,
Defendante.
LOUIG LINELISG, Interverning )
Petithoaner, APPRAL PROM WURICIPAL GOURT
Appellee,
Ov CHICAGO,
REYWAL BUILDING GCORPORATIO“,
a Corporation, 279 I.A. 616!
BA, JUGTICS MeSURELY DELIVERED THS OPITRION GF THE COURT,
Plaintime, J. ?. Friend, having @ Judgment against Jageb 6G.
and Sadie Levinson, garnisheed the Reywal Buiiding Cersoration; Leuis
Liebling filed an intervening petition claiming the ameunt due Trom
the garnishee; upon hearing the court found for the intervening peti-
tieoner and gave judgment sgainat the garnishee for 71516.50, for the
use of the intervening petitioner,
Plaintiff appeals, firet making the point that the Judgment
is irregular in form, asserting thet it ie not proper te enter jJudg-
ells, 40 Lil,
at ¢. oetrolt Gooner & Breage Holiing Bilin, 37
iil. App. 264. Counsel for the intervening petitioner properly re-
ment in favor of an intearpleader, clting Glover
App. 380, and Walter
plies that at the time these cases were decided there was ne stutue
tery authority for the entry of judgment direetiy in fover of an
intervening setitioner exeepting fer sesta, tut that subsequently
the Legislature, im 1931, by amendments to both the garnishment and
attachment acta, permitted euch judgments, Chap, 62, mee. 1%,
Tilinois Statutes (Gahil1), the etatute en garnishment, and ehap, li,
eee. 2%, Ullineia Statutes (Caniil), the etatute on attachments,
Theee statutes authorise the entry of judgment direetly in faver ef
the intervenor, The judgment in this case was entered in reper fora,
Peale ORI ITS ey aa
(a a Ge
ee
7
Teal Re yj x
ae cl ‘
nnit Senmebih
ris fe” & gaete bey ee ae | ab
bas DOLKSVEL 0 MODAS
aves 4b SORA
satanbaeted pay
ay J” wi eta te us
gataevredal , SRLIaTd .
eatin tks
lara BL eVs~ ' pegerenetiini
; c ha he i ee adh :
TAGOD GALYTNVY MOE GAIA
GADIND TO
ite fae
i al
\
«TAUOY, ERX Yo aolanao aut rn TIMUBOK ont
0 devel teatage sssumtut o gatved sbeoiat 4 .t ,wiiteteit ae ;
piwol paoltoxerral gale wth Lwgen este beose korea ,aonddved sibae dow
aext vub favemm od? gabealate molditeq yatsevindal ae behtt palidets
iteq yakomwveotal ent ret bawot gxee0 ett yakaood aoqu joocia horney oat
nid cet ,08.8L826 x0? sestelaray eff tonkege taeayhul ovag baw ‘wanokt
Toso? 130g yntnoveetat oitt To ud
fuewyhwt ent ted? dudeq odt paldan text? ,eleeqen Vittate rt
huh tehes ef weqote toa of th dace gabdeoeen pare? ad Wiidich at te
-fLE Ob sabie8_ at aerate galtie swaheoneeabik ta 0 sore at ~ eS
“9 qiveqots teneleiteq gabmevietat ef tet Leeawed ban Seiie tt re i
— Ont ea ered? boblosh oxew seeno seed? omls ont te tals vette a ‘
aie ae te toret ab yktootls sommghol, to qetae ont at ‘erin eres i ve
, “Ld we wpeaden fue tud ,2tvew to? gabiqesme an ap kt ttag yak owes ne
btn Poona tinny old tod of utosabuene Yo ,te0L ab jorudekalyel ‘a
| (fl .o0n 80 ,qadd .edammyheh deme hodtioney ,abon ove nets
PF LE guste bae ,Josmindaung a otuteta ont » (£4heie9) aesutete atoutt. a
saimomionste ao osurits bid ,(LékeKO) uedured® steak ert , a on i
we town ‘ah vitoorts snomphul te yxtae watt ‘oxivodtom astusns | |
- hil at hersdne saw peace abtd mh taoimphu out “not
Plaintiff's erineipal contention is that the clain ef
Louie Liebling, intervening petitioner, wae based upon « fraudulent
transaction, Te consider this peint necessitates « resital ef the
transactions,
Kovewber 22, 1932, ®11 liermam executed hie chattel mortgage
eonveying to Jaech 4, Levineom gertain chattels, conaisting mainly
of lav books leeated in «a room of the building controlled ty the
Reywal Building Gerperation, of which Herman was a tenant.
Suguat 26, 1933, the plaintiff, Friend, recovered a judgment
against the defendante Jagor G. and Gedie Levingen for 916,196.95.
About Sctober 16, 1653, the Keywal Building Corporation
distrained for rent againet Aernan and seized the oroperty deseribed
in the chattel mortgage te |ovinsen.
Levineen, a8 mortgagee of the Lerman mortgage, filed a
replevin euit fer possession of tne diatrained ghattels segainet the
Reywal Building Cerne ration, ;
Oeteber 23, 1933, Levinson executed his note in the eum ef
$1800, payable to the intervening petitioner, Liebling, and te se-
eure ites payment executed hie e¢olliateral agreement pledging te
jdebling the Hersan note sad chattel mortgage, above seted.
January 19, 1934, Levinaon recevered « Judgment in trever
fer $1500 in his replevin sult againet the Reywal Building Corpora
tion. On this ease day Friend, by virtue ef his Judgment againet
the Levineona, served the Keywal Buiiding Corperation with garnishee
muvmone, tut on the same day, befors the servier ef the garnishee
summons, Levineon aseigned the Judgment in trover obtained against
the Reywal Building Corvoration to Liebling, the intervening peti-
tioner, and « motise of thie assignment wae later on the same day
served upon this corperation, the garnishee,
January 2%, 1054, Liebling filed his verified intervening
petition setting ferth the above facts and asserting that by reason
usage
te alelo on? fang wo nak ino? oe saqionbhty we’ Pubvatert
ehubwet? # fogs besed aaw ,romeiti¢og galoovietal ,galidelts ulwol
one to Jathoos a sededlegeosn fauleg eld? t9h ease oe eto Rtowe mast
phar -naottosnnett
eeystem Iszzasio old hedwoone mowewll Lik S604 PR wdunvor arcing
qinkow yalsetnans ,ainttaty alestoe avantved .0 dove ef wattiida’
one yd SoLiovioos gahhtind od? to soot # ak bndagol silood wat 2e.
. -tanned # ney mapa Molde to .S0iatoqtoD aarbitet Lowen”
amp but # ‘porsveset bunker’ | VWikdalete emt ,€60L ,G8 sawyer
90,881, 0£6 tot soantved eibat bas .0 doael atnabemn'tod ort tantaga |
aottateqtad yaibliv@ Eweye odd ter ,OL aedeted ted
Miizogeb ysangota edt hexiee bao aactell Sanleye amet tor bontotteth i
po RRA VOL OF, spapstom Lestecde, oat, Mh
_* hott opens ton amish el to ooyngs ton oe MODAL VO o pideee .
-
si feakage wind sass beniersaib ont ta aolavouang ot anil abyolaes,
tod Sa oe t09 POEL:
te wim ox ab fon ats betvooxe nosasved oEEG% ER womogee® on
“oe od ban ,gaiidett ,temelsiieg antne rte sms ods of eideyeq 00nd
08 yabydota tannvetgs Leteretioe ald daduoene gasmyag fh etyo,
«hoten ovede ,epanitox Sos sata bas ofes Sewell ad gakideds _
Tver? Ht trompdul « hetevesos wont vou ohbOL 0 OL exe ama pres hk
akouto) pribitue Lewyeh esd duslage dhwe mbvesgey adsl ad OOBLY ter,
fan beye Sassybwt, abel te ourahy A shoots Wh waee whee a Oke |
inkeesy dsiv apltetoqiod salpitwd Laeyed oat bovree ,enosatved i
weste bias 35 wae Yo golvage G12 wigied eed oman O83 mg dd gerry:
soutewe bealetde tevott al ¢uoayhol eas demgiene mpenived sagem »
sido yahuvrnetat sao palideht of moltexoqxed gabbitvk Larges oat,
, wae act 49 ode new sammmghene, cued te dle us —
of the assignment of the trover judgment by Levicwen to him he was
the legal and hens Fide owner of the judgment rendered against the
Reywal Building Corporation; that by virtue of hie statue as pledges
of the ferman note and mortgage, which was the baeie of the judge-
mont in Leyiusen v.Reywal Nullfing Sergoration, tae petitioner was
the equitable owner of eaild judgment and in equity and goed con
science was entitled to receive the proceads of the sane, Ag we
have said, judgwent was entered in acoordance with the prayer of
the intervening petition.
It is well settled sy numercus decided cagen that fraud
will not be presumed tut must be proved, Like any other feet, by
¢lear aud eenvinelng evidense. verry, 242 221.
117, an¢ cages there clited,
Gouneeh for plaintiff make various attacks upon the bone
Tides of the tranenction, They sway that the original ehattel morte
gage made by Kerwan wae fraudulent. ‘There is no evidense that this
is so, and, moreover, the judguent obtained in the trover eait by
Levineon, the mertgagee, based upon the validity of the Jerman note
and chattel mertgage, would seem to estabiieh their genuine charact
Plaintiff argues againet the walldity of the ioan of etoba
23, 1924, by Liebling to Levicsen, and the collateral agreesent to
eecure the sane pledging the Herwen note wnd chattel mortgage. It
ie alleged that it te highly improbable that Liebling, whe was in
the restaurant businese, would make a loan te Levineon, = young
Peetor, There wae evidenee supporting the goed faith af the
transsetion, These parties had been acquainted for many years and
Liebling teetified that Levwineon had befriended md aided him durin
hie sehool 4duys. Furthermore, the cheek evidencing the amount of ¢
loan wae intro¢uce4 in evidence. This wan signed by Liebling te
the order of Levinson for $1500 and bears Levinson's indersenent
ond the notation that it has been paid. Plaintiff argues as te
eae of uid of nogndwad yd Saeagbet tevets oct Le teengdaen ont? Bo
Ad Suulega hevedson Jagmybut de te tomwO BbLI pang das Logot odd
ogiele ee owtete bhai te onduty qt Gadd jaedsexegtod yaledded taweea
epbwt ed? te sieved of? sew dotdw ,syagtvon bon oton seateh ond, to
eer wRoksiies acs ppd sagoe Let, Lawrer wad
eis Boog Dax dhotsindstideaedeanama a
we Sh | Sue et Le Ghoepouy edd ovionwE Of beititne sew sone tog
‘ts wens ok elw sonabiooes af boredae alana
fuer? seoo aonee behloeh oxstgena ys telson oiww eh dk igen .
ye ,@os3 tedde yom oil ,bevonge od Semen ed bommeenG OG Fem LLiw ,
62 89S , erred fede lt .v semmetos .tonebhive galenivaos tap teeta
ebotiv orede sneer,
saad, bh nage Aeinaten annie eine igeinke emo re
fam Ledinsio Cnalaive eas Jesd yar yodt aabinenmint: iad Seeamahe
sid? Jess eomebive of os oxedt ,taeiuhunwh ao ooereel Xo Cham egey
Fon Neseh ada Wo "IIbLiey EMF aequ dened ,pepenisom ont ,mopabved
dete te wool oly To yetlbilav ent seaioge aougte Vesatase add,
Of Foovorye Leweselloe eae bee ,mowalwed of guided yo S6eL ee
th enw oot ,pakLdold ass Oldadorqmh YLight 02 4 sh home toa ut
ast? te vole? beet en? gaterocqum Oommbtve sew oxen? veedeet
hate attawe emow 46% he taleupos waned bed selecne eee! .solsennneye
2ivs itt bob in baw Shaw ered baw aonebwed Patt Kee Vitesd yelléokd
+ Ya Pewune an? yithonohive deed ede , orecndsent heninenaniual
ed guiideld yd hoagie sav ehut .oomaies wh '
Scovqnguautsjmenceragpecapmesn.atisacsptiiestuan maya
ile sneree PibeakeM shboe meet pel da dens |
4
many miner detalles which he ageerty indicate that the traneastion
Was not bone fide. Fa do not find sufficient eubsetuntial evidence
te justify the conclusion that the transaction was met in good
faith, free from ony fraud,
Ye find ao reversible error in the rulings of the court in
sustaining objeations te questions by piaistiff's counsel. The only
ebjection shown by the abstract to Gave been sustained by the court
Was ¢o6 a guestion relating te certain books to be takem in the ree
plevin suit. the objeetion went to the form of the question, which
was subsequently repeated and anewered,
The righte of Liebling arising out of the assigmaent to him
of the judguent in Levineou v. Reyes
precedence over the rights ef the ninintiff bused apen servies of
the garnisiment process. It hae been neld that the fact thet a
Sarnisnes wat aot netivied that the Jatgment hed beem aagigned until
after the service of the garnishee gusmens will not defeat the aseign
ment. _ Peace 199 11a, 87; Kaight wy
Griffey, 161 Ll. 38; Prig¢ 6 Til. App. 418;
3 Yo.ounnam, 81 21k. App. 240,
The trial eaurt wae fastified in sueteining the intervening
petitioner's claim thai he wae the equitable sener of the judguent
againat the Building Cervoration and thet ite agulagnument te him was
valid, “e would not be Justified in disturbing the conclusion of
the court, and the judgment ie affirmed,
APPIPMED,
G'Gennor, P. J., and BMatehett, J., soneur.
Vs
{ ,
*
“Mektuunemett ode dane stoo that erriied ox Horde SSD Yonkn yoke
eoushivs fokinededie tastot tie kali ten ob 6? .ehet aged ton daw
“goo4 a2 fon saw coi Jonnnerd ent fast Holevtemie off etirent be
hnet't yeh ett eae ae dat
“wt detieg aah Yo eneabive sat we aes ehalaanaateunialte ge Rest.
faq att .feeewon wo T2isalety yt exolesenp of wdoltortde yataiadana
frses vhs US Boalasene aeed veed 6t dvetiuds ott yd swede mol teetde
-o4 #28 Bt audet od of otecd niedues oF galtator asiteoup A op ‘daw
folds ,aektecup odd To ata? act of daew aolteetdd eat © idle nero
betewrena baa Dosawuet YLiaonpoedua env
secetnadecnannntannatanatinadilentinscetigbaapesicvaniiet stis::°!9°°% x tohw ‘
| eT m siiyed ot faeyiat dl? To
te estvre moqw deand Yitdalala ed? olsen le SONAR
Siig dante Wome ail daiste Biwi teed ead #2" Lunneoty divine tony ost
Law Redgivas wood Bact Snmergbot, dis sett HOP LLGo Few wav ooudiitily
ratvalmnuahiatempbecmmnpeamnesphinicistinss Op
ahowwre tad oad yotatesous wae ae |
ae ery ey so a me
Xe actrutonse ott yabtrwtath awnninne eerie
| pameamaboiieceivesidiesciyjuench
meaakahianiins: abet ee ee
Ae ine ee a ON aL A EDR R TR MM a a 1 Selene Pee une d SMT
im Base pas oh cS cmt
ih cf
a ri ay, , ka ne ba eine, wee re | non
Cie RR ab Sas a ad Ee ag ORM RS' RE roc: Gi aa armel ee Sa Nee wera Rced ey) eh te eke lee
i Mey : e.
‘
mekiwentua RE ek w. 8 Jee wee petit aie fe ea
~~.
ted ag: glee ee) ae
le i i
Seiler a eee her ee
B76B4 an
OSWALD ¥. KOURER, j
Appellant, LA
}
v5.
MIB-CIT¥Y TAUST AND SAVINGS HAWK }
OF GUICAGO, « banking eorp¢ration, j
end MIDeCITY BATIOBAL BAKE OF )
CHICAGG, a banking corporation, j
Appelieos, }
WR, JUSTICE MeHURELY ORLIVERED THR GPIRIGK OF THY COURT.
Complainent filed his bill seeking an ageounting of eertain
notarial fees snd for sn order on defendants te pay the sane to
him. Defendants resneetively riled general. and epegial desmurrers;
the trial court overruled the dewurrerea of the HideGity Trust and
Savings Rank and ruled it to smewer; the dewurrere of the Uid-City
Satienal Bank were guetained and the BILL ae te it was disuiesed
for want of equity, Cewpliainant apceale from thie latter order,
The Gill alleges that he wae a duly appointed ap¢4 qualified
notary publie in Geek county, Tlliineis, and entitied to the fees of
euch office; that the Gavings Sank was an Lilineis corporation, and
the Batiensl Hank a nationsl busking eereeration, both deing busi+
ness in Chlevego; that the davings Sank received fron ita eo rrespoend-
ents comercial paper for presentation to varlous parties fer pay-
ment or protest; thet from April 1, 1926, te Kareh 30, 1933, com-
Plainant was selected by the Gavings Hank as «a notary public for
Pretesting suck commercial paper as required protesting ond that ae
ouch netary public he wade euch protests, whieh work took part of
his time, the bank furnishing him desk recom without charge; that
complainant kept no itezised recerd of charges for such notarial
services anf thet the same vere retained by the Savings Benk, which
now has poosession of auch resords; that both defendants have re-
fused to deliver said records to the cospleinant,
That on or about May &, 1953, by a written agreement the
ae
aos y”
Sites: y
BOONE,
\ ch HARON .W GlAweo
fe MOE LATA rm weer dale —— Ce
wie BS OLED “putin 28
ve Bak ees
anksazoctas a8 B,
Pe ad
ip Ke, AL e Y ¢
Eh i ae RS Pa Bee ead
aie ti te seueaas eee mean meainetiaa Bou
: a W in cae
aites te pale soaps nae ‘galiose itd ais bolt? pa Be di
i eS a ay
ot hume ode Yan of adaaban ton | wo tebro ae Te haw set fe
jetertomeS katooge haa save belt Levi tescnor oh aha’ as a
“ban towel ysiD-hid odd Yo aterxumed ond he Luvteve tu00 tan ond
eehd-bi4 out ‘16 wrowrened ony yxseene oF PF be tie haw + dali ailkealt
bovaiaeih ea 34 of an ifid eat bas bonletave ‘otew ‘dea lone
iobte redial wtay wort ofercqn tasaiatqudd .xthupe te ¥
ee ki eB
witiiaup hae bodatocgs ¥luh a baw vd bast eogetla tne wet
8 eet od? of boiitvae bus jelemi Lit Gates xeod ak Gilad ve
ie Waltexeqtos aloal isT as’ saw Kant egatves: dy tout yoottre lay
‘aban’ giioh drew ‘Mer teortes acktund gabbtbae 5 vac katte ot
emnqnews oe ath sort beviesss dacd nyakves ‘ott tat yoyne te rae
eee Pri ashinea auoksev of solsagaoeerg 10? wee intowemee ase
eu grey
-n09 beer 108 doxelt of Oke Lf Liga mowt Fadi tee
“t08 ot fdne yxaton “ ee kine aasivad edt ‘‘e ‘tebon toe aa
sok aye ce i Wp ‘ fre 5 3 v P
14 tass hewn gaidwesorg ‘bexinpes an wae Eatovomune ‘iw nabtentore
te Ptee Noct tuew sod aw ahedete iewe than “od wt kau ‘ inte ¢ sour
penis pepenete Suaueiw sno kaos mata gatinduratt aad ost vente abd
tol
oa
faliaton vous Tel aeyissty Be dxowb, hetioat? an qos Pambe Lente b,
dotitw ,tant oyeive® ad? yd bealetey etew omnes od? nat bam aootwxen
-tianiokgase oat of mbxooet blew work tod ~ - |
eat fuemeengs aadtiaw @ ye AECL ,G yolk tueda to a0 tout 1
¥
Ft , it
it eds ovnel ugmabaeteh sited tale pehxooet down te aoleasowog sod won 1
National bank took over all the aneete of the Savings Bonk of overy
king sand aleo the quarters formerly occupied by the Javiage Bank;
that sald contract between the banks contained, aiong other things,
the folleving previelena;:
"h. Purchaser agrees:
2. To and does hereby guarantee to pay, in aecerdanee with the
terms thereof, ail of the liabilities of the Selier of every kind,
nature and deseription, ineluding all liabilities growing out of
any trust relationships seaumed by Seller ae a result ef the
operation of ite trust department, but exeluding ite® liabilities
to its steckholders as sugh.*
That by this sgreowent the Sationsl Bank agsumed the ine
4ebtedness of the Savings Sank, ineluding geeplainent's slaim for
notary fees,
That witheut reference to the records couplainent in unable
te state the syecifie number of items protested by him and the spa-
eifie amount ef fees due him or the swounte to be credited to the
Savings Bank; thet the Gavings Sank has newer paid ecoplainant ony
of the notarial fees collected by 1t for tin, snd taat approximately
$10,000 Ls due him from defendante for such fees,
That somplainant hes ¢ecanded from defendentea his netarial
Fecerds and aecountea, *hich have been refused, and complainant hae
been refused inepeetion of such sceounts and recerds.
Yae b411 prayed for an accounting and an order om d4efend-
antes te pay complainant sueh sume as may be found due kim,
The trial court evidently wae of the opinion that the bils
stated s good case as te the Gavings Bank, ond that Yank hae not
appealed from the order overruling ite deourrer., The only question
then presented ic the propriety of the order sustaining the de~
gurrere of the Kationel Bans.
The theery of the bill ie based upes the opinion to Pitaeb
¥. Continental Bank, 30% X11. 265, where it was held that a notary
employed by a tank to protest ite commercial paper in ontitied te
|
i ye kia {> PY)
crave Ta Homi egadvel oat t0 atowsn edt Lie seve Xeod dank tanoltat
aad apt wae ond yd boterase ELiemr9? oredremp watt oa baa bald
—" godte gnosw ,bealetade evend oat naowted . : ey SPT or Es P
: ‘an SCN
pf i x we
ady dtive apashtooos ay ef Sad aeteny ao gn, Bo y of
gbald quevs te apes A] te 5 aa ad Yo ike
% RYtH Be Sim aacnetons
’ ao Fae dLuaet & a settee % Serta? Spe, owwten uta
s2 kid as ei bulexe awe foe Fag 4 to mot
ae oti 22 gu 5 nga ee ee ate
oad oct bomen tewk tongital ext peemense slid 06 00,
$oh ebede o' saealodqueo palhuiont amet agaleet ent, semaine
efdann wd sionis Lqnae stiesitin Nite tne dalam - 2
-sen O89 ban mis yd heotaedone omeel, se south lil
oat of heskboxe ad of stavemm ott go ahs awh te? Lo avons otto
yaa fasniodqnoe blag reves goat Maat agaived odd tast raat eynived
Geiouinammee tadt dae ,whs tet Hh yd boseeifos ene, intenton att to
” , ee
‘fobvator old ataghurleh ment Behance gad fannie hemes tad?
Gat Aneatetques haa ,beeuter navd owed stabs imal
rene ~abIESRy das ad nwooee dave Yo nokdeaqual hoster mead
bora op sabe an hae aatémworee an aa opens ERE Ae sthoe ie
gh en) Sow, od en ae came Bowe tanake | 9h 9890
Abbe 983 tedd modaigo aud be sae _Ltanb ae dmon takRe eat. ras 2,
Feet mad dod davis bee hnek apatves off oo a0 ouse Sonu a 1 rie 2
aokdseuy yito Act .toTmENMS OF) gellvaxove aeixe ed? Tt besoegga
8b ade Qalciatong rabse.ed? Xe ytedngeng et wh edang seat
: oe op eet teat dale 42 79. eerum
‘ pore st wenatee, ond agen beees at FEES OM? Re penn OF as on ou a
| ae # dant biked wat Gh tony ,208 LE BOE» gang : ng ea
| PA betthiay at sageg, Lateromans aad sander ot sad 0 xt boyotane |
dp
a
all the fees as notary publie in that conneetion,
The Hational Bank in this esurt firet contends that the bill
joes not show the statutory steps whereby complainant became a duly
qualified and acting notary publie entitied te collect fees pursaant
to the statute, There is no morit in thie peint. The bill alleged
that he wae a duly appointed, qualified and sgting notary public.
Te have pleaded the stepe which remulted in bio appointment would
gum, 213
Tli, 466, cited by the defendant Rutiomal Hank, 1) wae contended
be to have pleaded the evidenee, In Poople vy,
that an snewer sworn to by a votary public was inveild because the
Rotary had not registered Bis notary certificate vith the County
eourt, fhe court held that o pereon meting ss & notary under eoler
of autherity will te held te be m motary de foeto. In Eetermick y.
Higgins, 190 [1l. App. “41, om affidavit was attacked on the ground
that the sotury taking guch affidevit hed net filed the certificate
ef hie appointment im the offiee of the sounty clerk, The eninion
holde that 1t does net follow that gis sets winll be void beeuuse
of thie failure. We hold that the silegution of emeplainant that
he wee « duly appointed notary public was 4 stutasent ef facet and
net «a sonclusion of law,
¥e do net see upon what theory defendant Hotions Bank ean
eseape the explicit Lanuguagé@ eantained in the NEw 8 Ges et vaeraby
it sequired the aveete of the Savings Yank and agreed to pay "ald
of the liabilities of the Selier of avery kind, nature and donerip-
tion,” excesting only the Golier's Liabilities to ite eteckholders,
Ag we have said, under the decision in Pitser |
supra, the notary public protesting eommereial paper for the bank
is entitled te all ef the notery fees. Complainant wllegea that
the davings Benz, for whies be acted as netary public, has retained
and kept all euch Tees, There can be no doubt bul that it was
obligated to turn them over to compininant and ke was mmtitled to
<>
Ti
>
stolionmaoa tats wk olldag ‘eaten os geet odd ihe
the om: sags shuns tage rout? ftu00 shag at dant koaoisat oat en |
ist * namo od Pubudadaues YSate ne ‘eqede wretitads ex route ton ava
aietag aent doeilon od beiditus oltsug reson patior howe howe 7 Laxp
eyeita {hid eff tateq ald? al dias on ad ores sntutaga ‘ond ‘o
selideg yietea palios bax bolitionp sbotateqea olub a now od tans
hive dueutaheges wld wh bed bene sto btw acosa wat Sonesta owed ah
8% sauniiatdsores at abeoe's al sanaehten odd boneaty ovade as
bebastavs eaw ¢1 ,dmed Lanoldoi Famba» ted es w potle yt
P
i 2S
ony ‘gaueced bhiaval saw olidua etaton s xf ot srows tomas - sass
Lhe a2 e
“fused oat dtiv stasltirxes (tston ali hovesalger ‘ten } hoen4 eaten
olen wehaw YIntoa & Ra Zalios aeneeg a said bied umes oer eens WN
2 Apiaaodad al tect ab vis toa “ os o bind vs fe 4 ei lrostne ve | i
wong od) a0 boioadta saw tivablYie ms ,fD0 .qgh «SET OOF om at |
tani isr0 end boil? toa bad otvebh Ye sioue andes bi eon edt te
aolaigo ext exe le _sauos oad S eoltte ont ab tanndad ngs | a
“pauened blov od iteds ates ols. ‘bass woltet son eon ae sant “eld
dons tomate Lasao ‘te nob tage Lhe ous ‘tent ‘bio oth) ot abdi Yo
Bre toe to jaemdade a naw obidug weedon ALS LEY encie
“ts aed te notesiones ve
re yiis ps Be iz teste a4) f oie
gee dant lausisen Sand im toh erosas “gatie ace ove tea ob ow
“era fom 0 0 tye ois al beutedzon epovanel ‘Hod saxe oat »
Dee See
Sin* we ae Boorse haa inwid agatvad oft Yo ndnane sed nn .
toh hes wren , babal crews Ye tol foe oat he wed aRhdott oat te
exebiedsvers agi af selsttidnis a’ aeLios et ao | ae
‘ABBE Aodomakeng) 2 sont’ ae ae knead oat sebau sbtew vend oH o 0h Aa
Bee ante aan nyt a
- tnaid na) tor nomen Eatorension yabrwedore obiduy yeston ont tne
fat soyelia tusutelqmed mee? eed on ost? 20 ‘ihe © ab bechivm & io ty
pony aad ol idwa Ctndon 66 eden od cotdw ted eed -— mi
tee 4h dad suit Sdwob om od dee “othatt ‘eve doue £6 . a
& pelttiee caw ed bite tusnhotuncs of ‘wove table eames
wa
se
* 3) Se
1
4
recover thes, or at least a part of than, im thie aetion, which is
essentially an setion for money had and recelyved by tha Sovings
Kank for hie use, Thier obligation wae a liability of the Sayings
Bank whieh the Hational Bank agreed te pay. In Seefield vy, State
Bat’) Bank, $7 fet. 23%, the court beld that a comtroet by a
national tbenk te aseame and pay the ilabiiities ef another bank in
coneideration of the transfer tu it by the other bank of ite office
furniture, lease snd cash acveate is not wltrs vices, tat ie within
ite powere conferred by statute to aonduct a general banking bued-
noes. it aheuld net require argument te euptert the conclusion
that when a bunk takes over the entire assets of an old corporation
ite seuets are impressed with « trust in Paver ef ite creditors,
and where, ae here, there was a @xerese agre@aunt Yor the pure
Ghasing bank (the Heationul) to ssewe the Linbilities of the eeli-
ing bank (the Savings), thie ineludes the Lieabliity of the Latter
bank to the coapleinant fer motary fees @arned by him and collected
by the Savings Genk and retained by it.
Compliainamt in not eetepped from anverting hie cleim ageinet
the National Bark. Useee cited whieh have teen held te present an
equitable eetoprel inrelve seme conduct on the part ef the eomplain-
ant whieh saaounted to 2 participation ia the tranguctions, Such «
ense is Chigsco Titie & Trust Co. v, Promidergest, 3468 t11. 546,
where gouplainant wae held @ateoped te question a asuter's gale
from the fact that fe waa actuslly present at the sale and pertici-
pated therein, And again, in Beng 333 11. $45, cited
by the defendant, it wae held that complsimant would be estepped
where by hie etatenente and conduct he leads anether to do something
he woulda not have dome but fer auch statements and eaenduat. In the
euse at bar nothing that compiainant 414 or did sot de had any
connection vith or relation te the tranefer of the aasete of the
Savings Sank te the Bational Bank. As far aa the bill thegioses
ai colsiw ,aolten abd mi ,and? te ttaqg © Qeeek ta co 4 aod) weveeRt
Syeived sat yt Revieses ban Asc yesom to? coldos ne yLiattasese
‘ Shalvat ety Yo Wiiidell » eae notteyl (de até? soww add 162 tne
Boar .v bie Meine al .yoq of bowtye Mae farcttal ent dgdde Need
a ed t9,ttmoo # ducld bled Seu0o ade ,8O% shot VO gael feet
ai vaed weriicae to eels liidads af Yaqg tte oneeee Of ined Len hten
serits eff Yo Mand tedte oct yd of of tetenent ode Yo moltetettencs
sidtlw #4 fuel ygexky aati fon ot atoune dese hun seaek potthaw?
oheed ythined Leteany 2 Soxduan of etutnta qd hette tase atewee ath
avhewieace ey Jreceus af teemegta etivpes toa Hives 41.2008
we teeteqtes Bio as ‘to etegee exléne ost? were oedet domed « genw dade i
yatedliiers 222 Io tevel ah Jeund ae sohw Lense xqad ote stonan add i
| wwe old 167 dapanorge RevtERe no ev era) ~oTEee orm beR
Shien ea Lo aoliLiRéalt ed? omvosn of (Laaoheak edt} daed gatendo—
Pebiat edd to yelildals ed? sabulomt cide , (egaivet-ond) shred end
tov ie han att qd beacee aeet yxesom vol Inst texemon ont of tasd
s ShogdoKeatetes’ NMRA :
eats mies ohx guldcesaa mend heqgetee soa of tanatatened © ‘
tie toseete Of bied need ered ceishe Dette debe wand Lanotind oxit
itetemes om? te tung ocd ae foubaon oman oviovat Lecqeter eftas tips
& Hest .aaoligesustd O6¢ wl neldagloldioy @ of botamom: ‘galde fas
tke ete teom a ayivaoup eda hamne nets ati halal
etitey bes vise cf 2a Seseete eLieutos saw eG Past tee? elt ered
petae HOR LAS ECE plone. WY chMee mb mbege Sah. enbsnach Nedew
yOt® 1427 808 ,demaapde
Peggeres ee hLwor tamtedemes save Dien saw Od ,tanhae ted ect wt
Uivemoy Ob a wasiten abacted poabaee baw wdanemtese alt xe onede
oth at ‘scotia hoe etvemesage cous xo sus eavh eyed tom béwOw of
qq tt 6 Sim hes me hb emcees te: PANO Te AE ;
OME Goan at No wa TameEd ld “ee btn th
ren ) LES wud a ma» tat ated tad + |
complainant had no knowledge that such a transfer wae contemplated
and knew sething of At until 4¢ wan completed.
Defentant argues that complainant ia gulity ef laches in
filing hia bill, Wereh B), 1955, ean the termination of the
eeven year period in which compleinant performed netarial services
fer the avinge Kank; Ray @, 1954, the transfer of the assets of
the Savinge Bank to the Hational Bank oeeurred; the bili of com
piaint was filed June 22, 1953. ‘The special demurrer allegee,
ameng other things, that if complainant ever bad any cluime.cr de.
Sands aguinet defendante, “the sume oF some part taerecf have ace
erucd more than five yeare prier to the filing of said bili,"
This ia in effeet a plea of the statute of lisitations, Chap. 83,
eec, 15, Tlidneins Statuter (Cahill) which says that such efwil
actione must be commenced within five yoara nex: after the cage
of aetien acerued4. This demurrer wont only to the firet two
yeare of the veried covered by complainant's bill and in effeet
‘e@mite thet Liability, if any, can be fer the fees secruing during
the five yesare next gricr ts the riliag of the bill.
In Evana v. Moore, 247 111. 46, it was said that eourts
of equity adopt the limitstion wrevided by statute for analogens
Tenedies at lew an fixing the poried beyond whieh any delay ree
quires exciaration. kyen, 586 lll. 20, repeated the
ancient axiom that “equity follews the iav” and held that only
when the delay renders it imequitable will isches bar the right
within the statutory lisitation.
We do not see how the pertion of complainant's ¢laim
arising during the five years just prier te filing the bill would
be barred by any statute of limitations. Boreover, the Katigqnal
Bank took over oll the assets, records, and place of business of
the Savings Benk, thus practically putting it cut of business end
Leaving nothing to may ite erediters, An examinatien of the
footac Lene com aw eee? « deve tacit eghe tweak om Deal Sandie laaee
otekqmos anew 2h Litew th Lo gakdtes wank eve
at wastouk 26 (tiieg of tesmtalguas tadd eoayte tanbae ted.) 49)
gid We dottoukatod oct an , S008 08 Mowe hike ahs yeahhh?
ssvivase Lattadon bomietieg Souniaiquos dotdr at belted tan aovee
43 adonen ad¢ Yo wlanatd om ,SEOL .B yot pinadegnivad, edd )t92
amoe Yo (Lf eA phowtusce Maal Lenotdatcntt of sant egatved, act
| \ahye Lie tontanet Leloagt eat ,€6¢i 88 trata, few LAK nam snhede
aod 19 nate le ys bad “ove Fanniatques Td rect yegekas notte. gnome
1 8 erhd blew Yo gubee? ontt of cabrq eneey avid madd epee hOwTe
“8 stud sohoweENtE Xe boubede 088 20 ‘nete mtoeNRa ah ab abst
Rivio cove pect wees pte (Litre) sudetut® wheabi£l yeh oe
¢vuee edt caa'ts Seow eteey Owl? ntdi lw heoneees ae Cane anolien
pe? gard? edt oF fie frtow tormaeh slat bowen moktoe, ko
f$ee'tte at tue (£24 o Saetiaigwe yd hetero holtey oie Ye otaey
hosongy gaivesea @o9% oft 19t of mao yyme Th WMMRGads tote a@tabe
hdd walt “Lo gakis® edt of rodty oxen arene Ovi add
sities teed Dies cow ok 0B LOL TP pened sree AB ok
Migeleas KOT etnteds YF hebtvere weltothals emt seebs, gthepe Te
ees yeted com aohaw Baoyed bolxreq ost. gata? cetemneiieiindhinl
wnt’ togeooex ,Oo ASI 808 yapemiged se eenel
et. ee sow tb taiiarnneknpiens nian
a ext Tod eosens Kibw eldadingeal ¢& eesheet yaieh omt,aode
. ; saagecmemEan 12H
wtate o tiene tyos te aolived ost wod abe, tomo ah
an BARE? oF aaaanncosretnpeintessen econ
“ fanentint otf rovedeam: ‘vimelearbale Ye stmtade wane ween aM,
Ye wanakont te wbate baw aivrosen usrnenetaiae sagen oo am
i pbanthnd to te #2 gabewne: soeee ahve
i “ees ww hoenemmeael oe see stone OF eee 3
iia
6
beoke of the Savings Kenk would have shown, as the Will alleges,
that the notary fees carned by complainant ware retained by the
Savings Bank. Under the decision in the Fitech osse, the bank
had no legal right to do this, fhe tational Bank must be pre-
sumed to knew that these fees were unlawfully retained by the
Sevings Bank, which was obligated to pay them te complainant,
It must be presumed that the Netiotial Bank agreed to pay the
Liabilities of the Savings Bank with knowledge of thie obligation.
in the light of these facte no equitable coneiderations appear
which wonl4 bar cowniainant's right to reeover against the Rational
Bank.
It wae error to sustain the deourreres of the Aatiumel Bank,
ee the bill states a case for complainant against beth defendants,
The decree diauiseing the bili is reversed and the couse
is renanded for further proceedings coueistent with what we have
gaid in thie opinion.
O'Conner, ©. J., and Matehett, J., coneur.
vavgslta Lid 96 ee wade pvad Dino” Aaah apalves att Ro'edeed
add yd beaiatot expe foamlatoans yt bert Beek erorom wt tas Y
daed oa .9eee goaaly odd ab aelodowh ase soda skewed agarvas
~eng od tem Maed Lomalsad att sabes wb 08 Haute Lage hat
odd yd Aontadon LAA ivndan atom ase? wooKd sadt wom! of biawe
tanstoignes of andy Yay of Petughide as desde jae galede
ictal ai we of DevtyA Aaah Kenolteh add sone Doman od font dT
otegttte, aid? to oybsivens atiw dap sgaivet odd to wots bidet ;
(abaya anokioiedteage odn2 dupe 9m avon eands Ye She ade aE
Hive
be
we Real
Konoieat ous faniege users of figs Bi tasate sexes tad bkoow ae kete
enn ee es, eet
ves kano 903 ous te snamenets att povoninang aseaataaii hub ener 7
: a Ys a, | EY es ae ec
I) 8 DH REN Nagy SOMBRE eT ae aaa LikcBRe fi
2, Osco eee Ne ae
He RP SaS eee We ie PR
Pee ee ee ae eee deen m. ani
Pane Ne ae aa RS RONEN ai te ST RR
37750 fi
ALBERY 6, GUITH,
or
pi
Appellant, é
APPRAL FPROR CLAOULT COURT
va. f st
) ? DY COOK couUNTY,
ORRA GREKNABAUI } ae
i
i
~ot
;
279 1.8.67"
UR, TUSTICKE BESURELY DELIVERED THE GPINIO“K OF THE COURT,
st
: Appellee,
Complainant filed his bili te restrain the collection of
& nete axeoutied by Sim and held by defendant; answer was filed;
Gefondent also filed a erema-bill asking for judgment on the note;
Complainant answered thie; «a deores wae entered diswiseing eom-
plainant’s bill fer want of aquity and granting the prayer of the
cross-bili, holding that defendent recover from complainant $2366.75
with interest, Complainant apnenis,
The controversy arrives out of the asle te complainant of a
Perpetual Kemberekip in the <edinah Athletie Club of Chicage formerly
in the mome of Alexander 1. Ureenabaum *ho hed died leaving Bie
wides, the defendant, holder of this nenbdarenig, whieh she desired
to sell.
The Sedineh Athletie Club, originally » defendant, wae de-
faulted and shortly thereafter wont inte vba kraptey and the parties
were restrained from further preoeeeding against it.
The R111 allegee that complainant was induced to buy this
Perpetual Membership by slerepreseniations made to hia by ene ef
the officers of the club as to ita finsneial semdition; that the
Club wae defendont's agent in the transaction snd reasoneible fer
these misresresentstions,
Refendant's crogs-bi}l alleged that she was the widow or
Alexander i. Greenabeum; that om Movember LG, 19%, she received
fron the Medinah Athletic Club a note fer $2206 signed by complain-
aut, which was tendered and accepted by her in payment of the Pere
petual Kemberehip in the club owned by her deceased husband, seid
eee atte 2 a
4 rae (opie: hg 2 weary oa 1 aae
‘Ras09, me « BR NR ee eae Secret me]
‘
e a 3. a Ld velaniy hk Seged ae obs
va ii ey) i eR ; i Pee (OPE ie pee
.2HU09 RET Wo MOTRTGO au ameri ae xsmtuex OTT, tH sil
AD . Fy Rs
to acttocites elt alerted of fftd wld bettt duewdutginad © 7%
phate’? wow tower poonbaw'ted yd Bivd baw ati qe betudite tema
snout ag treargdut to? satdee Ikidsneors e ROLE? cute erates
suey gaiaehusis hewdne oow sonveh a pets hetewdian prey ae
eit Yo seyatg O0¢ galtowty bun yYsiupe To daar aot tite erensatate
sosaiad tnaate Lance ott toveoss taahieteb ‘ae deine ttie-esor — ste
4 atdewqa tne 98 - steotitnt tat a" i
a 46 diematatewon of law o49 to tae eed tea youlvotsiee aay
canis oginidd Le dutd Bhvettsa dockaek ony af ‘tank haat
phd yotverd hoth host ote muedaneetd yi sonmte EA "toe Wath
petiaed oda dotew ,qtdaredsem ofa? to tobLed ,snadaeted. aad eWobhe ee
ation of
“oh aun ,fasboe'teoh o yitenighte ydwto ‘aneatais: inten enone
poling ad) dae yorautatwd oat tanw sed towered? cients bas bation |
#1 Joatege galbssoory seddawt wowk honiavioos ewe on
_ ahs Wet 09 Deoubat anv suantetenen sash onmnsla’ £86 Sa” a
he oso vd nde of ehom anoliadaseor gorge yo qfaeuedned siete
et Bentt jaoisinase Ladoawart ati of ao dulo if te wtenttte odd
wm matin bene nokseasnert oid at ttepa at danheeten gar dake
eee emo asneaeroete le onay ’
~ wobiw one aaw ge fad? hegelia Cildwawot ef doubaw tet a
| Rowkeaee one ,OkeL OL TdnevoN ao duct pamndmmet® Wt rORmeRetA ;
ateione Wi Aeaple OUERS wet aan 8 dedD ettnste anton ot not
Se en va 8
menbership having been sold by the club te cosiplainant; that on or
abeut Decesber &, 1930, she received Trem complainant $220, the
payment of the First installment en the note. Ghe sileger that the
whole of the mote le mar due and unpaid and aske the ceurt that
eomplainant be required to pay the amount due thereon.
The cause wae referred te a macter in chancery to take
evidenee and report. The master found that the material sallega-
tiene ef the till of complaint were proven, that the ersee-bill
wan without equity, and recesmended a decree in aceerdance with
these findings.
A preliminary point ef practices arises with relation to
orders upon the waater's report,
Sovember 15, 1955, tha ghanecslior on am 9x parte hearing
overruled the defendant's exeeptiens to the manter's revert and
entered an order aperoving the resert. ihe last day of the term
was fievenber léth. theresfter, os Deéewker 7th, the court ontored
@n order Yaenting the order of soveaber 15th appreving ‘he report,
and the matter was set dewn for further hearing. January 4, 1934,
the court susteined the exeeptione to the repert and «tered a dee
eree accordingly.
Complainant argues thet the order of Sovenber Lith evere
Fuling the sxeeptions and approving the muster's report is a fins)
order which sannet be vacated after term, citing Barnes 3 ™
226 111. 605. That ease, however, is net in point. it inveived
@ partition suit and the order held to be final wee one apsroving
the uacter's repert of sale under a prior deeree entered by son-
gent,
The master's repert possesses no slesente of a judgaent.
It 1s merely advisery. An order approving 1¢ is merely interlocu-
tory and subjeet te Fevieion. The court has sewer to agcept o> Pre
Jeet the report at any Gime until there has been @ Final deeree,
Welw
to a9 dads ;Juaatatqce of duls oti yd Bhow aged gates qdetedaen
ade ,ose4 # aw el Semon nowt bev indies ota ,OfCL ,6 Tedeeget tuode
od? fakd nonetio ont .oteu odd no tasmiledaat Jar2¥ est to doomean
tat fayec ods oem bie Mean bom ond won ot efom #2 Ya olody
oto @T6 SY oub ‘towens edt yoq of Read 0), ta i meal
oted 6? yxeometo al uefeom o of heteelet saw onuno ant
‘sayelio intrested o8% todd Havel wdeee edt oveqeT Bae semebive —
Lildoonore OA fend jaevorg orew Satatquow To Lthd ond Yo wmole
dgiw eonehta0—s al 6e199h # bebanmnased venison sieds iy naw
Peay ee sis iw spabbal't ome
Jee: motte ler Stiwnentia soltuerg To #nkog ‘yteatat teoeq’ A atta an
+? ae a +) ,Suoges @!totsam os prerny
gaixeed efieg xn an oe tollevdady edt yotel ,k aodaoved: he
8 hae Pteqet ef teseam oA? Of eal qvaxe 8! Snabae teh ose be Gort
(O maet ods Bo Yoh daod GAT .Jt9—eT Odd yarvoNdas TOTO ne seeatie |
PSTHEAY ETHOS Od AIT WECOEd He (to TaeTERT ae EA ae re:
yeteqet wl: gAlveitgy 296K aedaovod Te sabvo sit yaleeoay ;
sPEGL ,) ysewns’ .galised tondawt “vod Aweh tes sew cosseaitdiae is wri
Dirssadl we heweene ban Froqet en) 42. mnsabstented peaass stb saa oat |
<Wre d#i wdsevek Io tohte end “Sedd eougne + tmoanatennd sore |
‘ccntebpipnanniplupmavarbansinvenis agise reed
% ope aalvio .ewd ween hedanad ad” S09
Desuaed Ode nae Lett ed ed ied vebte vaaenaalii |
ue wtioe Yd beresa seiaeh wette # tebe edaw Tee oumne: whee
a way fi rd beni te ‘Nanas ‘ tat ified
Moghul # iv acoso dit: vn
wou at an ae snare gts WONG BA:
Simons v. Morzis, 525 111. 199; Adkingen vw, Sent, 88 By. 628; Pitmepm
Yo. Theraton, 65 Kaine 95; K i Ringshyry, 70 Bioh. 222,
The evidence shews that in Septenber, 1950, defendant tele~
phoned the club asking sbout the Sorgetual Homberahip of her husband
whe hod died » few menthe before. She was told that it was custenary
for the club te take ever the maeberenip ix ease of the death ef a
member; that the widew would be taken eare of, Ghe subsequently
Learned that the san with whoa she talked over the telephone wae kr,
Crippen, at efflicer of the elub, She haard nothing further frem the
glub until the Latter part of Kovenber, 19%), when Crigven handed
her complainant's nete for $200, telling her that the nete tad been
given to the club for « mewbersadlp ond that 1t Kad im turn bean sent
te her by the club and give to her for her huchbend's mexberehip.
About Decenber Sth she reseived through the mail complainant's eheek
for $220, representing the firet ineataliment on the note of eonplaine
ant, tegether with a letter te this effect. #he: the second inetalle
ment of $226 cane due she telephoned eompluimant asking for a remit.
tence ani vas told by eomplsuinumt that he 4id met intend te pay an
he had lest euite « sux of money, and olso becauge the conditiens
under whieh he hed purehased the membership had been mierepresested
to him by tae elub.
voupiainant's testiseny te that he was & resident member ef
the club; that he regeived a letter from Crippen dated Oetober 17,
1950, stating that "A desth bas occurred sucng ‘The §00' ~ Gur
Perpetual Bonbership Roater;® that the xembership wae free from
dues, taxes and assesenente; thai he vas invited to f1i1 the
Vacancy; the letter said “This rester hae been closed for nearly
two yeare"; that the resident senbershiip of comploinant cowld be
applied torard the purchase of the Zeppetual Kembership ond terms
te sult compivinent's ecnvenience arranged, Complainant testi fied
that he attended a aceting of the officers of the club Getober
meat yom) ht Be of-.¥-_ in date fit O0® wbsy 2
ie tote OF Lye ata jhe satew 26 nodorg
ntfsd Tombawted ,OFCL ,wodwesyet wt gay wireite epaebbye ea OO”
paedwadl tos To Ghinveduel Landoqwt eft gvete gaives eto one Sonate,
preceteus naw 22 fund bied ast ant Vorolted eovaom wet a beth bad GHW
a te dtawd oA V6 wave at Wdircodund OXY deve Sidd OF dil> oa x0t
Ytbaeupeedive eff Yo ereo maxet eo Ninow wonky bot soitt Yaad’
18 eb Witortye ted ody <eve Bextas bite testy WEY bho Ad eee bee
got mort aechrt gatiton Mow oO duo Hd Yo week tte as lib
febted moqekaS acdw Coe ,teduevel Yo dung wetaot SHO Petnw Cite
need Wert Oda outs Youd Wat yatteay ,COvRe rod Odell UY huluta Lemos sed —
fuen seed ated at bad 2h toss Gao qhaattodionm e ‘aot duly edt wo wig :
GPtrtodiee e haddand reel cot Yt of nevis hae iil Se
doodla W'beinitts Fysee thea 6) deity WV VT aaa
witha Lane te eton eit ae vabuk tatuel Yox!t oft yati eben tgex ote te :
ntkatout fownse off oot? .Se0%ts aft oF xwazet » ce tw oildvgot sda ‘
thu @ WY gotten tnentatoned betedeo tet pis ous once O88E Yo tieeat rs |
at le Wt Nie ink cot tty ot Fait tite Avo YG BEDE a
: seek ihwen ext enuneed we Le has vunaon Yo aie a betep toot bunt id ty
| es set Tak Gane a eat it he a
ee Feb lie « enw oof duct wk mara ivrrschanttsst jak re
te redone bwtab aoquixd wort 102/81 # bevieoer wt tuitt paulo Wie
oo ee ek a nn ee ee vatiere out se
Bc “ort wert Wow qlderedan aa saat one at Mares |
4
tng wns again invited by dr. Grigpen of the waxberehnip committee
to become a member of the “Vive dundred Club." Ge waa iwld by
Orippen that the club was in « seund Sinemcinl condition, that
every departeent showed a profit «ad that he knew of no investment
that would earn ag large « return as this Perpetual Meuberwhip,
Thereupon eoruplainant signed an application addressed te
the Medinah Athietle Club wherein he wade appiivation for Perpetual
Kembeorehio in the club, screving te pay therefer 63660, Un the
same date he gave his cheek fer 2400 and turned im hie resident
menbership at $1000 and geve his pete wherein ho promised te pay to
the order of the Redinah Athletic Club $2214) in monthly instaliments
of $2720 eneh.
Some Any after elguing 4n4 delivery of this nete te the
gliub, somelainant at Crinpen's request, chacged the payee of the
note frou Medingsh Athletic Club te Xre, Alexander 1. Greenabaum,
the 4efendant., ‘Thie ia the note that Grippen subsequently delivered
te defendant. Uo to the time that eemplainant wee ached to change
the name of the payee in the nete complainant did not know of Are,
Greenabaum, Several days after this, purduant to w letter, come
plainant attended a meeting of the slub om Sovember Ldthy he then
learned that 496 Peroetual Bemberekips, and not WA, had been geld;
that several of the departments of the elub were not waking soney;
that the ¢lub wae in debt om the bends Mleuted te bulld the new
club heures.
Boverber 2let complainant wrete te the elak, returning his
Perpetual Zembership card, snd etating that en seceunt of financial
feverses he could not make the peynenta on the note given in payment
ef the Terpetual Besberanip. fe seked fer the return of the $4610
paid and the return of bis nete, to this Er, Fyfe, sheiroan af
the menbership coomittee, replied that it was impoosibie te retract
the mesbership transaction as the agote had been turned evar te the
ca
, eeatdamos qiteredapa ont Yo aoggisd oF Bf, Segprm atone
yd diet saw ol dD Denke. ov att eat Wo tein & enoond of
(fas ,agiiibaon Latoaeakt pasos e ah age duke eae sadly
fosatesves oa te wows af fond die Fb lowg @ bowexie sms caged, yee
a gbilexeday is, Japieqsys sid? pa arses a eprel on. atap pimew ta
_ OF hennetdde gettooktnge ee beagle saaiiaiquos moqueTeNt ia an
fast ogi’ 4et poiartigua shaw od atoweny dud olteteis «Kaba ast
Oe 80 .00REF Teletey yaq oF anicotae ,dulo oft ak qiterndaed
_ -ttobbees att ah bowie ban OOM 162 doesn ols omy ed stmh gnaw ‘
® Yee 0? bostaorg ad akoredy ofom ald eveg bam GOOLE te qidevedamm
atromisateak (isdoem a1 SRG dulo ettoldts dankhek ot Ip Bona ot
| ‘ 5 OPO, PEE, X9
eae of ston ain? te conhien how papery @is — Fo wit
ode Lo SOAR sud bopansio ,seoupet e'mmaalxd ta guamtelamen Ate
1 stieneneeTR 4A rebneKe tA .axl oF AUK vito tdta Mantbol 2oxt fon
“bowwrdiek ehinaripoadue coqghx® godt ota wt a algs, bane 1 tall crf :
|, Mynadlo 92 boxas naw Puamiatgnen tad? ats edi of ol _ sfamban ts ‘.
4.804 Ye wont Pom bib Jaeniodyavs egon ont al soueg ond octsd
mee 4 teTSeL & of danwatug ymdee sofia awh iasoyes sie
Maat ok 4aabS Todmpvol, me duio odd Le ynideom @ behupste 7
jotow weed bad ,008 toa bax ,eqlidaredmed causoes 200 gods, ensues Ae
9 d¥eten gatdan sen etew duia od? Yo stunngtageh ocd Ye senpves tome
MO Oat BL Rad OF betwokd wbawd 9 we adh mk tb .
: ahi te tele ah 4, Ss apse an , ee
me te fanqose ne stadt yaiseade fig ashton at
defendant, Mro. Greenbbeum, a4 cowplainant's resident mesbership
traneferre4 to ancther, Caomplaimeant then had a conforener with
Vyfe and Crippen, at whieh eomplainant charged Crippen with mierep-
regenting as to the fineneial conditiom of the elub. eo teatified
that he 414 not charge Crippen vith freud., At this eenference it
Was ogreed that Fyfe vould undertake to eei1 the Perpetual benber-+
ship for complainant, whe sgresd to pay the December inetaliment on
the note held by Mra. Greenabaum provided hie Perpetual Yemberghip
hed not been sold by that time. Aa we have seid, the Decexber ine
stalinent was paid, but the installment faiiing due in January wae
mot paid,
There is mo norticular sconfliet as te the feets, The ques
tien is largely one of low, There is also very liitie diepute as
te the luw, The queetion is ae te the applicability ef the law te
the facts,
Complainant argues that the ¢lub wae the avent, representing
defenfant in the sale of her hasbend'’s Perpetual Zemberahip te hin.
fhe chancellor wae ef the opinion that the Glub beught the seubere
ship from defendant and #el4 it to eemplainegt, Under the constltu-
tion sand by-lava of the elub, art. 8, #e¢. 3, the club Bad the right
to purchese the cesbereship, at thie time there were three er four
vaeancies in the Pergetual Hemberehip reeter, The ciub e214 come
Plainent » Perpetua] Yemberehip fer $3600, accepting in payment his
resident mewberaktp at 910600, hie cheek fer 2400 ond neta for $2266
payatle to the club. Complainant's resident nesibershnip Was then
transferred by the club to another, Three er four ‘aye later the
Glub requeeted complainant to ciange tae name of the payee in his
mote fren the Medinoh Athietia Giub to the defendant. It alse
ghouls be meted that while the club recsived 43600 fer the Greene.
baum membership, defmdant received only $2000, ‘whis is ineomeietest —
with ageey of the club; ir if were her agent it should have aeeounted
| iy | ie Foy Pim many 7
al a ye NNT
: Sy ee ae ic
1h ete ‘ayy ne 4
Sa Be han [
i
‘a
qitet=dosa tosbinen a! toenlalqees ban paxeddaedeD o9ek soabhaitins
dele goaetetwoo « far moat Pamatelgmod ,tnd¥ona of Bovis todd
<yotaio ASY nsewtsd bogretle Fuunhn gave Mélée ta yaegG hes Baa Pye
BePERTerd OK dive ore Vo neteinaes Fobenanht Hat OF ee galdnddes
$k genet Iaos nit? th beet? Adby tocute? eptars ton Be bd Fade
<todans teutoquet odd Live of wiatcwhne biuaw eh EE Beotge aaw
me Coen intant <eduooed ait yaq 09 ‘Bewrgs ade \/sanatdcened HOt ime
giderades’ feugoqtet eld heblveta aaedeasoth sort yo biiet when wee
oat tedusoeT off hive ovad ow uA Veaitt dactt yd Wiow hawt Yon Ted
ae vases at ed gatice’d fomaltotnad edt dud elnaerielrabancatg
temp otf = .efoat of? of Ga tolLiaca tadwolixaq om ob erat” i
ak Atuqeld afte l Rw woke at orony swat Ye one ytiyret et io
oo wel sit %o winaatbee ‘edt wd ea ak ooleveay wat jwer stot
, ; oe @akS pivatdta toni haw DW scundond
| yak tamee cor nnd a ae
mist of qhiferedaee Laudeqret #' buncdaunt thd Yo eter eh fowRhs'ton
weedanat eit? tigued funy eile tant nile Sat Oy EN
aushtence oft coho .dpintalquen of 92 bfow bad Yathe DMO Ye
Pee ee ee ee er
aes tp eee? etew ened onthe whe fA sebelnredtinain edt er dioreatyy OF
ate bone Cule an peetect qitersdae’ wteqres bay at Sebenehy
at feomyed eb yatiquoba ,OOReH tot eidehehenthiatindheiaaalll
anaes at afon base Gong ‘at woods atd ,O00St de qos f drebtees
a aew elumvedesm Laps ter @ dawihetgmed © eee oe er i
ROE se OER! ewoT re wbudT ancl one OF hake WHT qe ort ae
| ate a eo at ee a eu AF ata pet be
ee er —
a soe oe sok ORDEH Hetboet dnt’ sarenile Wear potion |
te her fer the entire proceeds of the sale. There in etrony aup-
pert for the conelusion that the club was merely an internediary
through which defendant received complainant's note.
The rule sutherizing the res¢elecion of « contraet or ag~
count of fraudulest wiereypresentations is well eutablighed, There
must be a false statenent of a material feet, -neown or believed
by the party making it te be untrue. It must be made Sor the pure
poses of inducing action by the cther party, and the party seeking
rescission must believe the representation te be true and rely
upon it to hie injury. Peout vy. Hoy G4) Ug., 263 111. 84; Arankewskd
¥.Enapp, 268 Ti. 143,
it ig not clear that the representations were knowingly
false and that conplainent relied upen them in purchasing the Per-
petual Menberehip. The particular statement sald te be ao waierepre~
sentation wae that the club wae is a sound fimevciel senditien, ewery
departeent shewing a profit. the halanee gheet of the club, intro-
duced im evideses, shove that every departeent was auking a profit
exeeot «a few like the barber shop, magazines, billiard reom and
telephone; that the lees from these departments was 911,006 per annum
ae againat a profit eof $256,485 per annua from the ether depariwente,
Complainant argues that it wae falee to state that the roster
ef $00 Perpetusl Meaberships wan closed, The resord dees net show
the number of Perpetual Kemberships on Qetober 17th, when the state-
ment was made, but it doos appesr that on Hoveuber 27th there were
enly four out of the five hundred undispoéea of. Complainant tox-
tified he 4i4d not buy the Perpetual Kewberchip because he vas told
the Five Hundred rester waa full.
The language used by Crippen may reasenebly be characterised
ae “puffing etatecente,” being merely his opinion of vaiue and ae te
sdventages te be derived by complainant in trensferring bis menber-
ship fram the resident aeabershin clase te the Perpetual Kemberahip
“que goers a sk exes? eine ox? Yo ehoesong oxdtap oma tox, ‘98 oF
exaibonne dad an (iown oaw dude ond sass aotsssoae» one 10% #t0g,
sedge o' don ako Lemme bevioons taabae to ais hate Apvense,,
. _" a9 teordaes a re agive tones ona eahalipgous skirt oat Sie”
etent .barinkidatas Liew a2 aaolictassetqotasa sapinbuee® re james,
bovekiod 20 awons ghewt kabisgaw ste Jone saga eelat . oot foun
ei emt xo% obs od joum 2) ,owntae oc of 31 gnkten viaeg oad ye
gations Ceteg ods due ,yetag seddo ont YO mottos antowbad 2p emeg,
. vier dav mars ad 08 aolsatanaexqer ed? ovellod tum spleslonet
ddarodnexs ihe £62 GOS ,.92 420 vel wv seed | yuwbed ofd of 2s aogy,
EOL 153 B88 goed ay
Vsalvout exes saoliatasaqiqer off sant taeke fom eh sh
~tof ens galeecoing ah ands og bodion tasatalqsge sad? bas @
auqeseta & od of 5ise tnoassada talvoliteg eat ghia seal
Yieve ,mobsihaoo ietoasalt bayoa # ai saw dulo ste saad oaw 4 robs
eortal ,dulo ad? Yo feedy comaied ofS sttotq # gaiwede tanassanen
a2ioxs # gnbiag saw sopasiageh ytove sads swede ,sondive ab wasn
bas ager biebiihd sseatangen .osss rodtad edt ofS Oat a me
avery, OPiS. cae Siereet cons Fh PRL ORM
code tom eso neeves, oak .besoly enw agtsinredmes
| sedate sit aoote , mets aedoreg ne nqhdnredaei auioyee®
sew ead A208 wodmever mo tasis neoqan aneh $f tus, atom, sam tana |
ated siimekecomed 20 besogedbalr hethawal ovAT suit te aq tet xhae
biog sum i teunood thie rode Loudoqint etd ant 4a 80 SAAR,»
nee a Mis ie
eri ead see en |
clage.
Complainant teetified to the effect that what mevad him te
the purchase of the Perpetual Seubership wae hie epinion that it
would be an exeellent investaent, "1 bought it purely for invest-
ment,” - and that one of the ressone in making the purchase was
the expectation that the Perpetual kewbership would greatly ine
crease in value. It is 4i1fiewlt to escape ihe conelualon that
complsinant wae induced, by the eoay terne and hie cope ef profits
in the future, to purchase the ferpetual Remberahip,
@ven if the foregoing reasons are not whelly conclusive,
we are of the apinion the faet that camplainant ratified the pur-
chase of the Greonabsum membership is eufficient te deny sim the
Fight to rescind the transaction, ovember “7ta, after ful
knevledge that all ef the Perpetual Kembersnips had net been eld,
that severel departwents ef the club were not making money, and
that the fineicial condition wae anecund, the complsinant aade a
new agreexent with Fyfe, chairuwan of the meubership comalttee,
whereby Fyfe agreed to resell ecuplainent's aenbership if compiaine
ant would pay the first inmatalimest on his note in the hands of the
defendant. Thies agrecummt opersied ag a waiver of ony fraud and
a9 an abandonment of any claim te @quiciable reiief,
In Reger ng, S87 TLL. 244, the complainant had
knowletge of the fraud which she claimed bat wade a new sentract
te dispore of her interest. The court held that where a party has
knowledge that he hue been defrauded but aubsequentiy confiras the
original contract by making new agreenents respecting it, he there}
by waives the fraud and sbandons his claim to equitable relief, A
party defrauded camnot be allowed to deal with the subject matter
of s contract ond afterward reseind. See alse Brewn
242 Til. 409; Donian v, Jou, 170 Til. App. 41. Pursuant to this
agreement with Fyfe to dispose of couplsinant's Perpetual Kexber-
ship complainant remitted te defonéant bie cheek for $2230, accom-
ee wis betes tesiw fade gouTre ods of Soktignes Cnamhaiqae® <<) 9)
tk tad? wetalays utd caw Gitesedae® davtequel edd Yo enede tag ond.
oteoval 6% qLorwd Th sngwed I" ,Jaseewe, tonlieete na od Sivew
aay eeadereg od guidam af eaehaet oad Yo wae Pads Danie * oom
ett ylteety bivew eldeusduod Lasgoqgtet 048 ted? aobietosane ef»
tatt agisulonss 80: ogeoee oF Adve sTthh of OL .oakey wh Onee te,
eéitetg to eqed sid kee Goud esse O89 Ed ,Ronehal gew tamale lenen—
qt rede dt Lanteqtet eff agedousg of ,etwtet edt mb»
.eviewlones yiled? joa ots sapsast galegeres O49 TE meV yoy e
( wthaeg aed HOLLter Malalgsor fadt fomY ode mpiadee OA Io otarew:
ede mic Yaob of daololTive si qitecedmem amidaneoed oct Re eset)
{int aegte 208 tedeevew .aeksensaatd eft padgest of sitgte -
sbice meed son bed aqiceteduel Invteqnes exe Yo Lie sods opbe fwont:
Bae ,Yonom gotina Jon erow Guo OAs Lo Siadestaqed LateveR sent
# Sham Mnmtotymoo ont ,bamcet saw Moletbaee Letomentt edt sas
\Potbinncs Giserodnein orld te moc tedd e1YS site semupengar wpe
saiistques tf giiavedhow w'inewlatquoa Lienert of booty ety qworste
edd ‘to abead oft ab often oid ae Soemidasend gecdt ont! gay River: one
teeta RE PO AT ELI nn sSnndam ten
tekiox eidaikeps of mtato yas Yo teesmohakde ap ea
ped Pemeke qmoe ery ,Ode SLT TO ‘epleyth yom ak |
| teatns on hn 8 Stade nna a M6 sma
aed ystag @ erode deat bios Puer ett .teotrdak geal Te comets wh
oMY Kerk teos YLtawepoutve Jed Debusrvked med ema ot tent egtetwoml
-on0d Gd tf gniscegeot BtameTyS wen gulvme YF toetiae Lantgdeo
i. a etkey sitedinye 08 uiwlly aid snobinde bua booed od? seview yd
Me, i toeldne oni activ Leah of howekie ot Feeney diashiihidainen
‘ia of trimwetwt 668 eek sane aaeaniee c when im
| ae eetoen fd seiebur ed oF hore duo
"sedan tanta X* tnwitin fence Te euogeks of WY dey summers ;
~~
panied by « letter in which he says that tale is fer the firat ine
stallment on the note given in payment “of Perpetual Kewherehip in
Medinah Athletic Club whieh was recently purchased by me." This
Was an seknewledsment of reesgnitien ef the validity of the sale,
made after complainest hed full knowledge of the Tinsnetal condition
of the elub.
& final sensideration whieh is conclusive againet complaine
ant ie that defendant became « holder in due course of tne note,
free fron any defenses to 1%, when she accepted It from the elab
without knowledge of any fraud whieh the elub asy have praeticed te
induce ¢emplainant to make the note and te subsequently make defend-
ant the payee. bee, 365 111.505, ie in
point. in that case Yorber lent imeberten some money, reewiving
hLeamberton's note for 99%) secured by & chattel mortgages; wren the
note fe11 due Forbes called on Lavberton, whe told him ke would
get « cheek fron the Drumm Gonetruetion company to pay Forbes in
full; Lawberten then faleely represented te Drane, president ef
the company, that he could secure a used uutozoblile from Forbes for
($050; Dracm agreeing to thie gure Lambertem a cheek Ter $950 signed
by the Drumm company payable to the order of Yorbea; Lawberton gave
the cheek to Ferbes, receiving bie note and chattel mertgage; forbes
eavhed the check but Sruom never received tae wutorobiie; the Drasm
Genetruction company sued Forbes to recover the smount eollected
by him om the sheek. The Supreme court Meld that piaintiff eould
not recover, suying that when Forbes received tie cheek from Lane
berton there was nothing in the character of the inetrument to
charge hia with knowledge of any iafircsity or te put his en ine
quiry; that Forbes beoame the holder of the cheek in geod faith
and for value ond therefore it was not subject te any of the
defenses claimed by the Prusm Construction company, the maker
of the cheek,
+9 wT
‘Lint gout ons tot 2 ott? tame eyon oA Molde ul Teder as w be
at girersdwt Lenteqret te” tnbayee ak tevin fen ont ke dhamtte
Ghat “Loe vd heweiotwg yLeseoot enw Holde dot® obde Ga Montbell
olan wit Te ysthtsay ond te Bold injoset bow Paemybekwemion ah wee
aks thaas tatomatt ole Le narnaner! Ett veal duomletqnns tote shai
aalte 98 Ve
atte Lquee tohtoge ovkewlomos af ulaw noltardhienss pany a
{Sten odd to betwed dub ak aebtod ik oumbed” stmbive tes gad bt) gah
dito Mf mov't 2 botqvods ote able (92 ot noons'teb yhh Mott sent
of bé5i feared ovat yam Mako ody cokdw buat? yao te oybe tenet suede
abaetheh Gite Ut4 tinge dda’ of” bald’ ‘oton head olen hel dipecapiyreet
mh ok ooelied B08 yaa
gabvissed ,yonom bebe bea be bedi taek dodvot sees said al” tate
el? Aoliw oyeyitan LUteds & borunee otee ‘tot otha e andredied
ethel ox ato b£6) ade ,nobeedied ae berries bodtee Gah’ ee GOUR
ak aatset yaq oF yauques solfeut toned naire llama ton
$e Shobtobsq , caret oF bodueaexqes ELoute? went Aedeodomdk
Hot aodtol not? eLtdenotus book & bumdea bives 5d daMd ee |
penile G80G eet wood) « hodtodiad ove and? oF “aittontiye ernest
Svey modieduad O0G40 Yo hb4O Sad of SXdeyse yheqeDD ale odd Ye
_ eeduot ‘yeuendtam tediads bam O95m ald gabvienen jbedael oF Apede oat
ened aif yolivonetun oA} Revtvne ewved mult Sod Meds with’ Monee
bate tion Iavoms edt avert ef asduek bore Ynaabs metbietbundd
— Viiialelg tad bien tech emwzgee oo logmty O29 ke ae.
nical MOU Medes 68d fovioset Sodaol deme dads pabyad jeovon |
gh Smabedwnd ase to Thtectade bds ak gatieg ow aaw oteild’ modued
st ne abet doy of vo yeBiattar yam to bgnetrem div wid egraite
| ERE ing ak nite oad to -sieb Lox oat amine wbieot Sky tekhinp
git) Yo yee od Soo hduw tem daw $2 HeoreENMD bie tithe et ban
til outs Cenand pepo mow wt beh bonito
a anisheayee as Hp 4 ‘ a gt yi ey Rae
an. % ‘oat Ohh
oe
Substituting complainent Guith for Drusm, the Medinah Club
for Lamberton, Kra, Greenabaum for Forbes, ond a note inetoad of
a cheek, and applying the holding in that case, the conelueien ie
slear that whon defendant received compleinant'a note payable to
her ghe received it a8 « complete instrument, Tree from any de-
fenses arising sut ef any infirwity in the waking of the note.
She never anew the compleinant before she received the note ond
knew nothing of any representations which the club might have
made to couplainant, The mete tas a nogetinkle inetrusent, come
plying with oi) the reqguireseats of seetion 82 of the Kegotiable
Instruments act, chap, 94, lilimoie Stetetes (Cahill) snd was
d@livered to defendant before maturity, She ie # solder in due
course for value ageinet whem ne perevial defense, such as the
defense of fraud in croeuring it, ceuld be sucesesfully aeserted.
The chane#llier's deeree iw clearly sustained by the
evidence ond is seeurding toe law, afd it fa tueretore affirmed,
AVVI REED,
O'Conner, *, J., coneurs,
Batohett, J., diseenta/
&
dwt Sentbex odd mune vot dein tnastaymos guttathtedw® ......
(Ye beodaat stom 6 hae ,eodted ne% anmdsanend .928 ,andredamd, aOR
#h aptewlenes off onan dav? ah gutdsod ons yabytege, be, Nowa &
(Me Shdereg atom al tnemiolgnoe feviaoes goetaateh sedy tant gooke
~8b Yas Rett werk ,fevawtiaad oleiques ¢ se 3k bovlesey ede. tod
Ofon edt te gatkom on? at YiortIak yaw to tue antotan goene}
baa efon esa bovis? ein emwied Jantlatomey om? week geveR OMB
| ovat dyin dude eat dioktw eHetdadapgougets, yas Ko aabddom wm
cnee ,AnowIeM! Sidwlropen # gow nea OMT, .tuentetquon of phew
Siselsoyes one Ye Mh Keltee0 Te stunwetiupet ode Lo Atty, painte
naw Dew (4ibded) wotutas® wioatsar 188 Gato foe shaeutgess —
oh 82 Tehies © ah one .yshiwten o1oted tanbup toh of porevtign —
i Be owe enaeleh LounieG Of sonw Pealnge OuLey TO? oRRMDD
sborxseed YLivtasgoeue of biuee .¢2 yalieoore af heart pe sawed
Ode UF homietess —lanede as ootemh #! wokivomery ptt |).
rhomth a Micletads wh Id daw ,eed OF yMbropes ef haw, pmngdd ye
_ A ATE b tiohetey Vhoaket add eel Ahlan
wee , deecipeh a? bite at
Re hea MM my MM a Mea alin okt . eee Maa
owt ies teeny aah
Pea ARE UE. sea) ERR ee ‘ee
eee ee ee ee ee
phew oe ew weed? meek
ee ee wipes
j eS Beh & i
|
; erie TE Mea Rog SNARE aN all RN a 3; ity isi A AMM che a ye hats ie baa igihoin
; De mS A re cg PL GRR fig ie kare Ieee wetaie” nee Hinks
| pay i Beiter ei Fue SO CRS dha jgoinexale ie Mgt Bontaks Wem: f +
if , +
1"
| \ se
——
\
37812
BANKYURG TAVET COMPANY, a foreign corpo-
ration, ae Trustee under « Traet Agree~
ment dated Mareh 25, 1929,
Apealleec,
rma
GUAT OF CGOK COUNTY,
7
1979 I.A.616
' BR. JUSTICK MOGURALY DRLIVERGD THR OPINION OF THE CoUnY,
a.
JRERIK J, JGOHRGOR, PRARS G6, JOHN Soa
and THRLAER V, JOUNGOH,
Ape@ilante,
Compieinant filed e@ bill to foreeloee o deed of trast;
enewers were filed, the cause referred to «a master in chancery whe
heard evidence and made a report recommending a doeree in accord.
ance vith the prayer of the bi21; exceptions te the report were
everruled ond # decree eutered, Crea whiek defendants appeak.
The firet point made by the defeisiants challenger the trust
deed on the sliege4d ground thet the acknowledgment waa taken before
a Rotary publie who wae an officer of the tank wiieh sade the morte
goge. There ia ne oreo! that the netary public was an officer or
etockhol4er in the bank, He testified he was a alerk in the rem
estate loan department of the bank, Ke ense ia eited, and we doubt
if ome qould be eited, holding that on seknowledguent by a slerk not
penefictally interested in the inetrament is invalid.
it ia next asserted that there fe ne competent evidence that
4efendante executed the prowlesery notes or ecupans in question.
There was ample evidenoe to thin effect, One witness testified he
was faniliar with the signatures of the defendants and that each
ef the notes bere their signatures. Defendants did net deny this
testimony, Moreover, complainant makes a prima facie case in a
foreciooure proveeding vy introducing the trust deed and netes,
Fereman vy. Gohm, 542 111, 280, and preef of execution of the notes
is not neoeseary in the absence of s eworn snewer denying their
execution. Dean v. Jord, 180 Ill. 9.
It ie nekt eaid to have been error to s4mit in evidence
4,
as S808
mM EBA Fee"? taker cates Buses
PEGE OR sana boda sas,
, #2 Lisgqa
4
Apases &
WorAatuE MORN casesa eh toan.pie
~t¥
es a avenmot .© SHARR ,WOGKBOt .t mTMuat
010° ALT ey ag fie sadaationeh J ART Ae
cian a hae
.THWOO BRT WO HOLAIGO GRP GABAVL ARG fsnswtu sorta, a ae
rdaued to boosh « eeeleerot of Lihd « potht dmontasqued mn
ante cred ante al todeom a od beyae tor ines nat bo te? ote" o*
«btoooe at setood ® gulhanmmeoss droget & obam btm onebive ‘praed ,
@xow Sxeqet OM? of anelsqooxe piild eat ‘Ye ‘rewrite “end athe rome Jy
“donqae atoubae'teb dobte wot't ,boradas eetoeb # baa bole
gourd ex? angie listo staat natoh ost “d show ‘galog dort? elt
etcted mlat saw Suasiyhoiwentos oat Jatt havory boys tiv odd ao bows
from eit oboe Hedow And od? to woltte an saw odw obideq croton «
Tae aR oe y aN
*
ene Bs sa
to woltie we sew otidug qtsdon oat fact Qoore ¢ on et
saet oolt suk Edy # saw od bottiieed ef stand of? at tebiodie
ddwoh ew baa ,bofin ef eons of = sinad ext to Sanmeteqed meek atatee .
toc Bxolo » <t Snamghotwouten me saith yath hen “hot he! ad bitwise ons th
biioval al daomwrdent ony ab boteows tat’ ettate. * onee
“tastt osmebive tuegaques om af avedd fet bodteene sxon ok 9% |
| statiaowe at enegies 10 Rotem yroen uote walt he tuomae Bdanhrw ted
od DePLidend eaontiw ond .tos'tte ahnd of eonphive sigan saw wxed?
hen fast ban atinbao'teb of7 Yo aoredangte edd atiw waht twat caw |
aide ynob tou Kih adanhos tC .abeetenghe chad? ered eaten ead divs
a at ones eion? emisa « podem fonate Semen ,tevewmne =, . Ln
todon hae boob dautd edt gakeuborsat qd aaliesoong ecunoteorot
tegen a6? to doltwooms Te toot bas 068 itt Rae iodo
thod? gulynob xowens otowe # te egannde odd af issusoen toa at ae
| a ee a ae ror
“poathive at subs of sere seed ovad of Bien then at # ins Ye
the application Ter the loan and o supplement therete beacause these
documents were not set wp in the bill, We de not think the pelint
ie important as no prejudice could reavit frem taelr introtiection,
Jennie 7, Johnson teetified that she 414 not sign any oaper. auther.
izing the bank te hold money for the payment of taxes and these
docucents were coupetent te impeach tails testimony,
Defendants reine the question of consideration for the
mertgage. The record shows that the antire pregeeda of the lean
were used te pay prier mertgages, taxes and expenses,
It i euggercted that complainant welved the option to ae
ece@lerate the maturity of the loan, citing a cause where it was held
that acceleration must be tisely exercised upon the sosurrenee of
the default. Trinity County Bank v. Hage, 18) Omi, S64. But in
the inutent ceee new defaulte ocaurred avery cix monthe, The exere
eige of the option to saceelerate the maturity was timely.
Defendante peat aay that there ie ne proof that the mert-
@agere, decnie J,, and Frene G, Jetmeon, had title te the prenises
at the date of the trust deed. In Wahi vy, Zeeiok, 77 111. App. 226,
6 Similar point was wade ond the eeurt held that thiv eould not
avail the defendants; that ol) that was sought by the bill wae te
subject to the payment of the indebteiness “whatever tithe the
mortgagore had, and the extent of that title is not here open te
inquiry *.*
Hereover, defendemt Thelmer ¥. Jehngen testified tat he
wan the present holder and took title subject to unpaid texes and
the merteage and foreclosure,
Defendants seem to argue that because no money physically
came inte their hands owt of the sreceede of the loan, the trust
deed is set a lien sgainet the preperty. Yae statment of the
argument refutes iteeif.
Seme complaint ia sade as to an iter of $652.55 appearing
| Mast Seasons osetode Show ggue a han neod ond 20% modda |
/ gudley es Ants? ton ob OY TERM BAP af ge tue _ ton ore nesnmae ob
sottoubersat ties? aor't thoaor biwes bedoutows ou ae taadroqak at
stadt .tagad Yas nals 708 bib eda sans ho Ptitees aoansiot .% stone’
; a ead bas noned ‘te Padargag en? zo? yemom bLos oF meg, ar path
' | a eit? deasqut of snadoquos ouew adaocsoed
edt 29% aoiswtebisnes Ye dolseenp Ont seieor Gana asi:
Meo ed ‘Io sheoveote eulioe ocd tas? wwesdn bows oft soon ttom
‘ soonmogxe bun sexe? ,asyagirvem toltq Yue ie eee otew
Lea bY Wathed old Wevrbw' dant tdhbe” 4d Dibenkbie' cH © “ae
pied aww $2 Orde enon 2 galito aot bay Yo <irtwiak out cell
eo doaortives ont nog bentowexe ‘deat of bebx noise canon
ui txt eed’ tod TRE Lape : ney peace
aw8x0 eat edd mom nie UIEve betteve adfvetoh won ones Vaivont ext
1S SS cwahe gale qhMtded od oFexd todbe be wObTEs oft th Pry
“Levelt oad fad} Yoong om wt otsdd” tad yor txon vtnaburtec “°" °
abate ee oa bis ty ben jtowaitel” 0 ameek bin | ie orkt evden
BOW Veqh 11. 80 [ee koeS ov Laie aT .ohed seabed bee To Sbhb OK Te
yom pies wkat gens biod trevs bag Bim Obolt Rew dito Sethe se
“9d eaw Lfie od? yd engboe caw Pend fis dD {honed toh site" Eteiee
4 edt 9L9L? wevexaue® sdoubstdebnt eirte thienigaly bod OF ohatihh
‘ co hye ved sou ui ive Dade ro" tanta ond - planar
rll Ss eee ie
oe aot” weet
nt pace Beat Peed abdasiet that mati
2 | all noma? nanyed ot waded eerhy eoenl on ahi Sa
_Linoleydty yYeoom ou eanwsel Jak? saya ot owe aFaete a
Bical ext? ,ahok on) to wheedore oc be Foo warns
“aah to delhi ate oaY _ ettbeoite one raniags! ett Coe
em a ee a
- aakewoeee BE .ReD Yo meet the ef’ al oboie wh on ee
— ny « od we sem at Shee Stee ef +i sk “s
is the master's report which it ia sald should not be charged te
the defendants. The recerd shews that of thie aseunt $104 wae
ueed te pay insurance premiums om the property and def sndante
were given credit fer the balaiee ae ahewn in the master's atatee
ment of aecount.
Gther eolnte are made whien are not of substantial ime
portance.
The dearee bas been entered, tale bac been Kad end the
period ef redeuption is raniing, At the conclusion of the brief
fer comslainant counsel saye, “ren the mowt oharitabie viewseint
whieh we can aezume, we are wiglily anable te anderetaad the reason
fer this appeal.”® fhie exeresses our own thougut.
The degree ia affirned,
| ANYLRMED,
G'Gonner, 7. J., and Satehett, J,, eoncur.
:
%
gg hegtade od Jom btwasts Side ab ¥2 Hitaw dnogen ateddddal Wad m2
"aadete at tote ald | it atl ed eon tad od te ad eoviy ioe
aah braner youn te tom ‘te domend ‘eben bend dantoa oat” =
etd wa dae ig i get i
“gad baw bad Mood wast ofon oti lo
sad 4° yatanwe Ob Aon
‘tekxd edt to solduloass 62
‘Patogwely aldedixess boom odd aort eee
i
“nonaet as basterebas 09 ofdany’ (ilouw sxe ow ,ohumee epee
uabtaiak stain aes othe pdoregges age. “sual ober 200
ish a Lite ebb »b watt ead
ah ch ee , “ice Dovtioivods 84 Deetes Ste bo eg tbat a wth
sé wie ct odots tenn ba ael¥ar wd "> > ele
af Bilis hee j weal 0 neve bee [Fe eee cain .
ie tt pee he” =e Pe ae Te ag al i
Ae oF ead. ee Rie Be, ce Toa Hee ee a mivoee ae a ney te ee
ried £0" Pee Tiina es wie hl
F gee saaiw™ “aie ae eR Me Rape Peas eae” ros | a
oe Bbcs ered cae Wi WORE) how iw Peete WY ee aiieh Wesnsiod om
ee eK gant 0 Wiad pent Bie) a pepe At
Me eer eas Be Ne We RE ee wi Eu P pgnalininty th abe
wheats @ Rant Seb web idan oath
iy (preter lh We Yaa” Ree A ee eee i: vb
uth had a Vb sherk whe te Pie a ae ee
eee a Vetere eae CR ee POOR het eee ae ‘bre
: eeie ee teenie
; | PN i ape ise Ti OT aS Dik ane
views BE eee te wart he OF Ra eho OS AS eopeniow aii
2 . . eo er
$7836 \ fp
TRUST CGMPANY OF CHICAGO, Cerporation,
Adminietrater of the Estate ef AUBH ¥,
VASS, Deceased,
Appellee,
AUPAAL FROM
ean (orPAL
GOUAT OF y up fe
2 { 9 I.A. 617
BR. JUATICR BeINiRALY DSLIVERED THE OPINION OF THY coURT,
Ve.
EDWARD UM. CRAIG,
Appellant,
Rush ¥, Vase brought a suit against defendant claiming «
balance due of $19,490 on account of hie written contract with
defendant, The jury returned a werdict for plaintiff ror $12,000;
defendant appeals from the judgucnt thereon.
After suit wae commenced bat before trial plaintiff died
and the Trust Gompany of Uhieago wae duly sypeinted administrater
ef hie se2tate, The deata of the plaintif? wae suggested and the
substitution ef the adwinictrater wae mute, the clerk of the
court, in recording the mane of the adninietretor, by errer wrote
the nowe "She Caicago Trast Company," Upon the trial the plain-
tiff introduced a certified copy ef the letters of aduinistration
granted te The Truet Company of uhicage. However, in writing up
the judueemt the clerk again erroneously entered the name of the
Plointifr's administrator ae “The Ghicage Truet Company. *
Defendant in tale court argaes that the judgment in faver
ef “fhe Chieage Trast Compony* is irregular and void, as the
preef shows that *She Yrust Sempeny of Culeago* wae the adminia«
: trator, A mistake in the nowe of the adminietrater is not grounde
for reversol. See, 6, ebay. 7, LLlinois Utatutes (Cahill) provides
that mo judgment shall be arrested or reversed fer errer in a name
where the correct name appeara ence in the procecdings, The copy
of the letters of aduinistration introduced in evidence is part of
the proceedings and these shew correétiy the naze of the aduinie-
i), Rem DRM ue eas if
7% cS ny
aan ae
eat slismtagTod # COONS To VeRO |
i -% HOUR te eeatat oy * te a
| Csoueat “ .
ad atte ; inthe Aye, “gage et a
y
iY
,@tano i CAs
‘ stan Sinq@a at NO ae
es [ 5 abs ] @ nh war or me ba 3.6 rl Nig a
or ee | ae
«THUGS BRT To molurao Gut CRANE Ime peer a Pentelrag i
nad ah tb
* anintels fumboy toh ¢ediage diov # tegeetd sea. ho dewh bikie
_ Bthy toasiaes wetylve ata to samoone ae 9Ob,eLd 2 ub wonnsod
7099,S46 to" Thivaiels 1 sokbsev # hemetoe Ch eat «taal ie
Rens Paoaganh oa aos? & Sepqer saat
both Veivatesg Laixd exoted sad beosnamne gov Stim med tA i f
( tetessialahs dotaloqas yinb caw egnelad to yanqued suunt oad ta
gd hae Seanogque saw Trkeatot edt Yo deeab eat wetasen ad Ye
te ae Lo od Johem gam todettehahahe alt to cobtaphredel
ie etexe tours ys ,tetertalalaba ea7 to eawa add gabbroset as Ms
waite ty em Labned edt aggl *.yanquod taut ogevka ect* omen ot im
— goktextolaiade Yo wrested odd to yeon bette! @ heombordml Tht
x qw gaiiiew ak ,tevewol .ogental to yneqeed gant oat ot toto
" edt To tunn out beretas Ylewoonorte mtays ureto eat tamaphat os ee
y ee
1G *,yamgae® sewst ogeolsd eX?" as rotendataboibe — okg
8 torn? tid tanombyt aay tad? evayne Pawo ehdt ah taahoe tet
aa? we {Slew bas tedegovst of “qaaqued guuret egret at? aat® te
mahedahe sid ver oyaate® Yo Yavqnod dmunt Omt® te n° ewouin y tee
_ehawors toa nd tetetintalube ert Yo vane Sule = satis teball.
ati . 26 sen eM eidoort00 woith wade ae 1
trater, Mereover, by order of court all the records in the ease
were corrected ao a to Kame the plaintiff os The Trust Company of
Chicago, adminietrater of the estate of Rush ¥, Vase, deceased,
Plaintiff claims thet under his contract with defendant he
sold defendant am interest in a patent fer the eum of $25,600, on
whieh there is 919,400 «till due and unpaid, Befondant replies
that under the terme of the contract defimdant was to pey the bale
anee of the purchase price for an iaterest in the patent out of
the profits of the corporation, and aleo that plaintiff hae breached
the contract by failing to ageign bis interert in the patent te the
corporation meztioned in the agreement,
Ypon the trial the construction of the contract was asubaitted
te the jury. ‘his was errer. where there is no sabiguity in « eon-
tract ite interpretation and the rights and liabilities of the parties
under it are matters of law resting exelusively in the court, Carsten @
uo», 286 Tli. 355; Dunn v, Urionfieid,
se AEA te
#14 11d. 298,
Although it was error to submit the contract in question to
the jury fer econetruction, yet if ite conetruction wae correct we
would not be 4iavesed to reverse for thig ressenm, as counee) for de~
fendant 414 net object bat seemingly acquiesced in the subaiasion to
the fury.
Ve muat therefore censider the entire centract, whieh is
as follows:
by and between Rush 7. Vase ef thicags, County of Gosk and State ef
inois, hereinafter ealled the VNDOR and Baward X. Graig of Chi-
ot aa of Cook and State of Thlineisa, hereinafter aalied the
: 3
WITKRSSENH: WHERSAS THR VENDOR ie now the sole owner of the
tent and all rights and interests thereunder for a new ond useful
rovenent in ‘Sxpansion Plugs’ originally isaued to Pidridge s.
Hertem ef CGhieage, Illineis, by the United States and numbered
1,587317 and bearing date of June 4.0. 1926, ond whereas the VEKDRE
is desiroue of acquiring an interest in the said invention, Sov, If
GONSIDERATION of the sum of TTANTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000)
gaan ef? at abrosex ed? Lie fayod to weds0 4 \twroerel \revers
‘te YaeGuod tavxT sf? en Tisaiele dy comm Of ae oe DeteeTIOO OteW
qpenpeses ona? .% dent to agnteo ed? Te Tosartad mk wha sogacim
ot tnahne tos dokw toaxtues etd xabaw sadd emtele Yiteniely
te ,OGO, URE Ie msm One ‘tol Fastaq a Mk teetefah ma Cnasas'teh bios
| eee tusbhue tet bhaeeus hme oud L£itn OOb, O29 at wren? Ag dso
~{fad ed? you of any Para oh soarsnor out To sand aad veda Sade
to fue tuetaq an? af teexsdal ae tol oslng edadotng oF te sons
“besisaoxd cad Thitatetq gad oale but ,nokiateqtey elt to est iong ont
sud 08 fap 204 ‘ea? al ¢e@rsdmd oid aglees oF gakhtat yd somrtaas wat
— fitentonge ead ad ‘nus ivmnn annotate
borttadue now goattace od) to moltoursande ofl Loktd ony neq
«a0 2 at ytiwgidee on et atid eted® torte ‘eae akat “aot eae os
aekéteq oud to apbetitdels bas sbayix bad bas sottasmeretak ft sean
parigted .oss08 edd al elovinw.foxs pone wei 16 ‘teestan ouerth: wana
~bieiidols? .y save ;606 .1ti 96d | +9080 ,
alates
ot no iseouy a tomttaoe ous thades of rox aw oh dpronsta
ew doertes sav neltevegancs of) th tex marbsivebanee’ Wt Wei’ ons
“hb x07 fasuson 20 wORnoT ahd? tot obtevex of bonogale ad tow biwow
of agtectudas ect? ak besesiuyse vigalaeen seed Brent om hey tit a0
“eeu! ott
@k te hite tomziaoe ouksue eas weblanee Dchdantel fan eW
‘ante ea |
: et pees cose egies th uae eerie
wd ae
ots belles tod icdloved veleabitt ‘te eta Rae ‘hood te
@if Yo asawg eiow edd wen at FOUARV See Nas ae
istenu Daa woa a 20% tebiaveneds ateors Se teen wd
(> «BE gyhdThlE of bowead | Sieaiad ats : a vee
botedaua bun aedadé
| SUR eet egonedw bas al enh,
& 708 .weltonwak Bhow nad ad pene ig
</ (oongand) SRALRK CAACYGES. BVIG —_—
(AEOL oh qtscnst 16 cab SY ody abdd ohom Dae
ae
te:
the VENDOR agrees to #11 absolutely,to said VENDKE, FLYTY-TVO gor
eent (82%) in the anid invention with ali the rights, tithe «nd
interest, royolties, privileges and powers belonging or avpertaine
ing therete,
If 18 AGRERD that uson the signing of this agreement which
hereinafter acknowledges obligation and agrees te and eutiimes the
arrangenent of payment by the VEADER, the VERDOR sagreem to exoaute
an effectual assignment of FIPLTY-T#O (59%) per seat Anserest in the
patent se eutlined ateve,
Lt 18 AGHEZD AND UNDERSTOOD by the VEHDOR and VERDE that
® corperation in te be formed ond that the VERUOR and VERDRE shall
@ach execute an effaetual agsignment of bie entire interest in the
patent to the vorporation and reoeive therefor stock in the eane
cervorstion in prerata value of hie interest. the presesed naxe of
the ¢orperation is “Herton Yoeden Sxpeneion Piug Cs.'
PAYRERT by the VSNDEE te the VENDOR is to be met ae fellews:
THIRTY<FIVE HURDRED (93,860) dollere tn cash on date of
this contract together with twe notes for of THOUeAND ($1,600)
dollare each bearing same date, first sete payable siaty days from
date, eecond note payable one hundred and twenty days frem date,
Tue VeEDES agrees te advance fundies to meet paynent on axrder
for $00 ,00UG sete of Aarton Yoodon Bapaneion Pluge, s@ per eontract
of VEBDOR with Sidridge H. Herten of Amelia, Va,
Shipment to be made as follewe; 100,000 sete ef plugs shipped
during the month of February, and $0,000 each month thereafter
wntil the total amount has been whipped, Ghipsents are to be made
with invoices which shall bear dating of not leas than thirty days
from receipt of goods, The eoet agreed on this order is te be
twelve deliare (912.00) per thousand, hie coat is to be antered
om the books of the gorperation ae cost te it and credited te the
VEBDBE'S persenal account.
TRE VARORR agrees te advance moneys fer the current ox
penees of the functioning of the corporation, in aainialning a
representative office, advertising, sad saierics to sulemen, sane
to be charged the corporation ond credited to the VEREEE,
fo further liquidate the obligetion the VEkEDuE agrees te
Let all returning principal, together with o11 orefite ereditable
te him remain intact, «nd pay the eame over te the VaDUR until, the
balence has been cleared.
iH TMSTIQORY SHEREGP, Ye have hereunte eet our hande aad
geal this 7th day of January 4.0, 1051.
Kush °, Vas pet
@ITNESS: % & Craig ( GAL
A. ¥. Howe,* . Edward M. Craig."
Prom ite consideration we are of the epinion that tne de-
fondent's interoretation of the contract wast be suatained,
Evemining the centraet a8 5 whole, whieh we mast do te
arrive at ite weaning, it will be neted that while the vendor, Vass,
for a coneideration of $25,000 egress to sell te the vende, the
defendant, 52 per cent interest in the patent for the *‘exoansion
Pluge,* there is no unconditional agrewsent of the vendee te pay
this ameunt for this interest.
The third elause refers to the provision, “which herein-
\ RTL) amet
r ; Ce ee
‘oq OWP-¥TEIT , SRCMRV Kies of Vere a of avenpe SOCWEV
bam piste y tae om iin tiv notganrval bine ak (28g).
@ gntgholed eisvey sigelivite i Stayer feos
Seite guveestge oie Yo yatugie on igo CawBA i
ec? eeniisas bax of aeetyge ban eo
adueeee 6 erate Get srt end yd p72 ee te Enenogawra
ee ab Jeotsdnd Pawo TOG (eee } “VRTATTAIY Yo. 2
4 oun iat cee bie ae rr iatos
dads BRANV Soe SOGMKY ode yd GeOTe An
Liasin Se ee eeraly tis” tsll “tel Paes el ee edtcoeeene
ods at taowdal exisae eld te Jonangloee tavteo De ag eésnene cane
eats ef? at toate xotetett pags bite : esas 6? daeteq
to gama eer tt. od = .tuotodal o 6 Okay ataiote
7 aug natant cy aotral’ ef nol taceqroe ¢
teveiict an tem oy - oh ROGRRY +e
ta efe® ac demo ek ate ties (008 "Ee erent etree
(000, 4¢) GHASUONT HHO. xed anton owt atin wasitenes towetiine.
abet ayad tixiten eitayer Sten fattt ,etad emma evga ted done rh r=
-otab o0%t ayab yldews bas hethaul ono Sten tenant
tehec me Saeuyeg team oF aba? or ype As Tk
£4 agte
Soansaoo TE an ae siete aoe menery: ell moda tne eine Og oat
bouqidce eyalg Lo atea 000,004 towosie? eraee eae oe
torneo? KtHom tease oon, 08 bra , at ‘
-_ be dee at "hea eee 23 act two. tas Steves f
od of sl tebe aiad ae beexge tees oat por
oo Letegen ed Ot at 2008 elt ~ baeevodd tog a 60,6 os wuel
_ was 08 bediboxa be G2 ef seme a8 aol
“<e dno s1K9 eas %Ol Syenom semevbe oF
Ҥ gabtiattlan al ,Mostetocted eft td putes
tee ,eewmeios oF suitseian ban ,palelsne ifat
SAAS ad? of tocbh ans hae aclfaitoqtoo 803 begued
8 @oetne RAHA ene Meitegl ide emt @ gr TST: cgi
ehdatihets asttete Ile adie tittegos giontee sal
eet chdean KOGGEY on? OF KEVO fmt Ot} wnt baw re hy %
bie hans tue see etnworen gras ot soneien. i Luge
eeOL tlk geese bs Ad ges ,
= eee .% dap cab ve eae pM
hit ) gto? Jae bite: te kg
" 3istd .M biewbhd j ape or ea?
~oh eat Gasis wolnkye silt ‘to ote ow Sota tenon 592 nox’ e
VOLES at
Aentatens od Jaume teec@ang ef7 te matatonerstad wn at
al dup a baw “é
ny i) cael ee
gue er exe Chit tot we a Like * ssh sada t ‘ovin
eae tL ee.
ans ce S 7
after scknowledges obligation and agrees te and outiines the arrange}
@ent of payment by the VANORE.* This clearly indlestes that we must
heok farther into the contract to ascertain what "the arrangenent of
payment by the vendee”* may be.
It is next previded that a cerperation Le to be formed, to
whieh beth the vendor snd the vendee shail ansign respectively his
entire interest in the patent, recelving stock therefor,
The next provision “outlines tae arrangement" whereby the
vendee is te pay the vender for the interest in the patent. It says
this payment "ie te be set ae foliews.® There is to be a $3500 gaye
ment in cash ond two notes for 41606 ench, paynble 60 ond 1# days
from date, The vendee then agreea to advance funde to weet eupenees
on an order of $06,000 sete of expanelon pluge as per a pending con-
tract of the veuder, The cost of this order wae agreed upon and it
Was agreed thie coat was te be entered om the bowke of the corperae-
tion snd ereditedA te the vendee’s perecial seccunt,
The vendee ales agrees te sdvanee money for current expenses
ef the corporation, including e/fice rent, advertising and ssisrics,
apd these amounte ore to be credited to the vender,
4nd, finally, the contract provides that "Yo further Liqui-
date the obligatien” (referring to amy Welamce due on the contract
price of the interest in the patent sol¢ to the veridee), the vendee
agreed that oll of the imeene, both orincipsal and prefite coming to
him frem the business of the corporation sheuld remain intact, te be
paid ever te the vender, Vass, untii the balenece of the contract
price was paid,
These worde ere unasbiguous and cléesriy mess that the de-
fendant would pay the balance due the vender by reesiving eredit
fer the advances just stated, the balance te be paid out of the ine
eome coming to defendant from the business of the corporation,
The evidence shows that in addition te the initial paynent
“ad vn shan nes ve : lt |
of ,hemca ae asad amb soxooroen daald abl veg tae eek at we av
eka YOUitoogaot agian Linge ashaev eff bre wens oait sdod ie Rete
“ "(arterial aloota waty teow starting ons ah tenaetat ‘ocd
i ans esatnety * tee QaoTS oad evadsttue” aotakrotg ston eat
a yen at cdnang ed? at seeuntad od? 10% cotnev aay gag OF ar onder
eae 00RBE A od of oh axedT *.awelior da adle'nd ot 'WA™ tnomigdy ahah Re
en i
eeab OBL ban 08 sfdaqey «snes O9OLE wel eaten wnt Aid dna ah Ye a
aenunque deem of ahast eoanvia of aveiaa nedlt oHbKOY Ott” ae e
~A09 gathoeg « svq aa Syulq doleangxe “te. ‘ehoe detticy:.; |
th baw aoee beatys eau Tob te aide Le faod ont .x0be:
natonts: wy te adeod edd fe betodim a oe ‘eaW. “std pin AS
q |. ation teaeaieg at tebunt 8at of botteete.t “
whaeoene' smopawe tel, yeaon eaaseha oF obras. oaks pohoee oi nee
cL all al
veokrates bae aatetsrevde Lape atte p Sanetint Lee uitad C798 .
whupik tedeie't of” dad? ashiveta, toastaos ae yetteaty ont ne ie
toattnes oat aq Oa peaks ye of gatrretet) “aoltoghido ot eteb
oobaey eat , (webaDy bu9 6) Bho tasteq adt ak seanodhk end YO woke
' oF palaws ati teng dae tegioatag dtgd ,omooat om? to fie tadt beonge
OS OF .doetak mtames bLuods moLtesoqien Mt te sepminad of? are ate
dpprtaen oct, 20 gnaeled ond Siam ona, «Ahi a ae drm
"altace: nats ‘te casas. ote. + sort taabseton oy
woaysg tatttnd oat of molsinne at tas ewes ponenive » -
Wi debccanllh ® ‘i
of $5500 tn eash and the twa notes of 1000 each, which were paid,
@efendant advanced, on account ef the expenees of the sontract for
$06, G00 sets of pluge and for current expenses of the corporation,
between $7000 and $8006, The jury correctly conatrued the contract
in thia respect by allowing defeniant eredit fer these asoeunte, this
awarding plaintiff $12,000 inetend of $19,400, cluimed by im,
fue jury, however, did not ao fer enough and sheuld have
gonetrued the last provision as we Keve indicated. fhe evidence
aheved that the corporation never made any profit but that there was
a ‘\ @ lees ef asp roximately $8006, There was, therefore, no income coming
Hiv / te defendant out of whieh he ovuld vay the balanee ef tae purchase
ai / prion get —eewtese
y another factor whieh necessitates a revereal of the judgment
ie the failure of the vendor, Vase, to keep hie agreement to seaiga
ever to the enrneration hie 44 yer cenit interest in the patent. There
was testimony that he wae repeatedly recuested te do se, wid that ke
replied “he waa coing te held off to see hew it went, tbacause under
the patent iaw, if he held it new, be still had « right to «tart a
separate corporation with hie interest in the patent, ®
Ver the reason that the contract provided that defendant
would poy plaintiff the balenee «hen his profits, aecumuleted in the
treseury of the corporation, should be euffieient te pay, sad there
were no profits, and beonuse, alac, plaintiff decidned te carry out
Bis agreesent ase to the aseiguient of ble toterest in the patent te
the corporation, there can be ne recovery in this ease.
Defendant made a motion at the elose of plaintiff's caac for
a 4irected verdict for defendant, ond sigo after verdict fer a judge
ment non obstante verediets. The lsiter motion should have been al-~
lewed. the judgment is therefore reversed, and, a8 upon a oroper
eonstruction of the contract and the undisputed evidence plaintifrr
cannot recover, the cause will not be remanded, a
EVERSES,
O'Comer, *. J., amd Katehett, J., concur.
} shiag wus fo hate hae GOOLE To softon owe? ono ben dene ad O8UTE to
gt Poatdaed edt Yo weumeqas odd ‘to taboos mo, bookevba thande toh
' \aaddeten x00 aay Io aoe mare fisoitse tet son vant 'e wiee 000 cod
‘Goartacs od byuvtanco yLtoottee Ytut, 6HT 00085 baw OOOTE asented
bat ,otaveun enont vol Sihove tanbas hb aulve in yw teseuet eidd at
ye aaa “a bemtelte ,OOb 0£0 Yo bartank ood 289 ‘bsahaty noe
ovail “Aioode “ban elgivons wet oy don bah (covewot jvant’ ont’ ech fiat a
eomebive ot sbedadibak evad sw ad Holelvorg inet” aid be 3
aoe eeestt Sart tod dPtore eae ‘haan seven no bse togred ode ‘pasts bowedte
aalsion eaceat on o ete rons ae “ome 00088 vindentzoreee to ano. ; %
’ te 150 nasa o
Ly ie
sansiorac ou? te eoaated sry ye | woo ea so ete
daemptut ais ‘to Lap taver ” assashoenona ie bie ‘aodent wa ton eee
agheoe at dusmnetge ali qeest ot oan \tohaey ‘oat Yo haebtit lt a
ered? dagdng est af tootetal gion 199 bd ahd Herter
OA Sad? bam ,en ob of bodeonper Ubsdasaet
Eh
ag daadn 0d dight « bod Sikte of ywom 31 bei od 18°
; lec * davteg odd ak teoreaad aha athe aolieveques |
fashaetoh todd bebivose teaxthes bad’ shia” noehet’ ‘jae ‘i
ods al boda Luawoos eadtioxwg ald tote wodated oi? ‘ube oe seed
_— exestt bin weg of Faole Mive od shvode ,notban
| i erie oe bosk Soot Vidinlote ante ‘seaunoed baa eh ion
o. on fenbee aid ab suewsad wid to treaia hoes edt 0 ood bubknne
‘( , \wewe aad al yrevoves on of now emi wohter
wot chase a Tt ivatety Yo euele ome te Aothen & abom dun!
3 @ tet dolbiey t20ts opie baw ,@aebaateb wot Solin
aged ered hisede auldom enw oat
ae m3 aka couebiv’ gm a ont? Bite | Sis “oe
4 -) ghekuser ad fae tone. Seren
i; ah s re fy a .
AROS ia yl
Ws Gad a FY Ch. ae aera a ye ik aa nal
%, :
ec ee a all
37459
TR cece
Re Fe WILSON & COMPANY,
a corporation,
Appellant, APORAL FROM CIRCUIT
COURT, GOOK COUNTY.
279 I.A.617
Ve
Te Me “HIT? COMPANY,
@ corporation,
att irae eee ett ela in eal
Appellee.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEIDLSY DELIVERED THE OGPIZION OF THE COURT.
On February 23, 1933, plaintiff, as the contractor,
commenced an action in assumpsit against defendant, as the aub-
contractor, for damages for the claimed breach of » written con-
tract, executed by the parties on Deecmber 15, 1951, for the doing
by defendant of the general excavation work and the removal from
the premises of all excavated materials for a new office building
for the Illinois Bell Telephone Company at 1333-45 Yest Monroe
street, Chieago. Plaintiff's declaration consisted of a special
eount and the commen counts, to which originally defendant filed
@ plea of the general issue and two special pleas. ‘Gubsequently,
after replications had been filed, defendant filed two additional
special pleas and a plea of set-off, to which replications alse
were filed. Plaintiff claimed damages in the sum of $5,549.52.
‘The cause was tried before a jury during November, 1933, at which
much oral and written evidence was introduced by the parties,
resulting in the jury “finding the issues for defendant and assessing
defendant's damages on ite set-off at the sum of $200." On January
22, 1934, defendant moved that the court remit from the verdict the
gum of $199.99, the remittitur was allowed, and the court sntered
judgment against plaintiff “for damages in the sum of one cent,
’ Pa eh ee
i
a fed ,
| a
| Sa Cees OO atte
} | I iad
RIGSALS MOAY JASTIA ettiallogga peri
s¥UMUOO HOCD , TAUOD
PLO A ess | pst
2 Sarr Pewee
THUGS DHT TG WOIRIIO ANT Ararviaea Year nOreUt cera sat
erodonrdinoe off os ,Tiliaialy recy 288 vis
~dyo off wa ,taabroteb tentape iisqmumas at nettss na a
“neo nedsixw « to dosetd hewtalo of x0 eonennh mhi9 otoa'
moult Isvomst edd bas izow nettevsexn teneeny a8 > faahe
gatb£iud pot22e wr a vot afettegan hedavaoxe tts to apakensg ot
somes tye" nachind. nna eater Sak a |
istooqa 8 20 bedutenoo voltoraleoh a'titiaielt »ogaeddtd .teents
‘bell snabae teh ULlesiudxe dobiw o¢ ,atnuee sonme end bun doo
eUisneupendse .aaetg Letoeqe owe bre owaek Lonmaep ed? to alg
isneisthbe owt beftt tacbavteb .heltt seed bed anhtsetiges udts—
cade enolismaigot dotedw od ¢Yte-toa io seig.o hme aaelq dalvogs
+88+Ob0,29 to aus acl? ot segemeh bamtalo Pt isekelt bE etow
dotde 30 @2S0L eyodmevell gaisah yxwl # excited bebe gay enna as
vuokimeg ent UF Seoubordat caw sonshive nevi ban f a
Bitegons ban sndbitetes ror wedeat: td pack tt 2 gates
exaunal a9 *, 008 Yo sum edt to Yo-don oft mo sotianah tyne i
b nd tekkeoy edt moxt 3 imo due > osts hast? have itis" Yee
" petesne tuwoo ents bra showers sew ‘ewes die eats | 0080828 20 sa |
’ Fo be eh prey eT a
einoy ono Yo mun ed? mt wememab 102" ‘telat faces whet iy
3
By
end costs of suit." Plaintiff by this appeal seeks to reverse the
judgment.
A eopy of the sub-contract sued upon wes set forth vere
vatim in plaintiff's special count, and on the tricl the original
was introduced in evidence. It is on a printed form, drafted and
in common use by it in its business a5 a general contractor, but
before its execution certain additional provisions were added in
typewriting - one to the lst paragraph and another to the 24th
paragraph. The present controversy arises largely because of these
provisions, which in the lst paragraph may for convenience be termed
the “rider” or the “five day clause," and are av follows (italies ours):
"It is underetood that the contractor (plaintiff) is to
earry on its work on this job in certain trades on the 0 ag
peeiee commonly known as the Landis Award. <And the ei igi
defendant) agrees to carry on his work with Union mech and
2 of
hereby guarantees that there will be BOS 0 sie 8 ware for
any reason heaps ttt and haved subcontractor ther agrees that
shoul ee xyeluge to work on this job, in
3 event he will secure other men 6. mplete the w and if he
faile to penuae Mi Fk al thin five days after any stoppage, the
contractor, at his option, can take over and complete the sub-con-
tractor's Seite as he may see fits at the expense of the sub-con-
tractor, using the sub-contractor's equipment for such completion
without charge."
Im the 24th paragraph, after it is wtated in printed type
that "the sub-contractor shall complete the several portions am the
whole of the work comprehended in this agreement by and at the time
or times steted below," there are the following provisions in type-
writing, which may for convenience be termed the "“4-hour eleugce®
{italies ours):
efter not sittansion by ve comnnoed tthtn, twenty-four (24) aa
. It is further understood and agreed that the sub-con-
tracter will pny the general excavation as directed, within
four tece (14 any3 fa Soe a a Ok and shail instali the
equired er of steam ¢s s an equipment necessary to accomplish
this purpose.”
tm plaintiff's special count, after alleging the execution
ef the sub-contract on Pecember 15, 1931, it is averred in part thet
well
eft ogxevex of aceon Ieoqce aids yd Titeniali “stiwa te adaoo bane
+ Srigary hal,
“sey siixet dee caw noge bewe sootingo-due eft to ygoe A
fentgixo ef? Lait? en? no bas .tra08 fateoeqa s*tiisatetg at mtéad
bne Bed torh yoret bedntny 2 m0 at 42 .ebnehtve et toowboxtad aw
dud yxotootdsos taxoneg # aa anomthied 438i HE $2 YC eau sonmos mt
gt bebbe stew emoleivotg Lanoléibds sintieo mobiusexd ‘etl exroted
Adds etd O8 tosidens tne Aqsipexag dof edd 0d Ono, - gatitaweays
Sued? to caltsoed yLegtal noalita Yerovortsoo tmovezq eff .lgexpeteg
heared ed oocoinevnes ot Ysu Aqetgetaq Jal edd of dod. »enelatvorg
s(amwe aotisd!) ewollot ca ota hue ",onuelo yeb evil" ed? to "rebts" and
a al setshcese) tosoardmoo od Jods Nha at g
edé mo sebetd mingree at + we ¥
astinoe-dua end hes sbtewA aibned OD «
Laid sith xo nist : lin
peed squose en o¢ ILkw aes Gey wed
aGO7Ba TOMI INI IolostInoodus :
nt ped aad no x 53° ys
te eas ag das
edd «Da code w oriette vat vit au iiw x ys whe
“10 ont etelgace bus : omar ,
=itbe ene eay to ORnegnre a sa goa ;
neiielques dase sot stay olliny a Tpatnashenerdne a Cae
ro bw
eet he ted xq at hodete ef 92 teste qXkgetgetney gee ost’ Wt ei nerd
edd to anotdveg Lsvovee ote stelquon Linde sotoorinoosdue edd” ads
‘ot? oft #6 bas ye tnomeotys ald? at hohebrterqmoe stew ott Bo ‘eLedw
ou! at anoleivotq getwolfot oiff wre wend “,woled hedadw semty co
“enue ‘stod-bO” ond bourfed od eenorme yee TOY Yout do kee yyntetrr
enge~dis eid tard oe — santaen z
y se go Rm ee evegie ed
+ | bre £
“me itupexs eds prize Lhe x08ts ‘stnuvs > tatooge stitontadg at ti :
is 0 Eg o> she
cine Ta gi bexvtovs at ry; 1450 ad ‘todas 9044 so doettnoo=dus teastesotns ad te
te LT cntaigs "danas sit Sard,
Se
“on or about Deceniber 24, 1931, plaintiff notified defendant to
Commence work under the contract within 24 hours efter the receipt
of said netice;* that defendant failed and neglected so to do;
that thereafter, “on December 29, 1931, plaintiff netified defendant
in writing that by reason of its failure to carry out the provisions
of the contract, plaintiff would proceed to employ others to do the
werk and would held defendant liable for domages suffered by it by
reason of such failures" that thereafter “plaintiff contracted with
the ValparaisoConatruetion Co. to de the work called fer under the
contract at a cost of $6,365.82;" that the total yardage exonvated,
as determined by a cross-section plotting, amounted te 6020 cubic
yarda; that by the contract defendant had agreed to make the exeavations
on a basis of 80 cents per cuble yard, amounting to $4,8163 that by
reason of defendant's ects ani its breach of the vontract it has
become lisble to plaintiff in the sum of $3,549.52 (the difference
between $3,365.52 and $4,816); that plaintiff was always ready and
willing to perform ite part of the contract; and that by reason of
defendant's failure end refusal te carry out ite terms, plaintiff
has been damaged in said sum of $3,549.52.
in defendant's original two special pleas the defense is
in substance that no demage was suffered by plaintiff. in one it is
averred that plaintiff was net obliged to be put to the necessity of
paying any sum in excess of (4,816, for the cost of the work, ete.
in the other it is averred that the amount of $3,365.52, paid by
Plaintiff for procuring the work to be dene, wis in excess of the
amount for whieh it, in the exereise of ordinary diligence, could
have procured persons other than defendant te have done the work.
Defendant's twe additional special pleas set forth other defenses
which were not stressed upon the trial. Defendant's main defense,
atrenucously urged upen the trial, is also stated in ite said plea
)
<= ;
od tnatuotsh bettidon Yiidatale .LE@L .d8 cedeed s¥eds 6 oO"
éqiavs« sdf s92%6 ered Mi middiw foatiaes ond robs Mvow eomemmbe |
feb OF we Setoelgen dae belie? teinbmeted dad ";aotton biee Yo
duabaeteb hettiven tilsesely ,Lo@l eR twodmooed no” gteeteoned? Sade.
anotatveca ef? ino yrtag of owhiat wk Yo noeeon Yd dade gateiar mb
oa? ob ef etenes yolqnus of Soeotig Sivew Wiinialg .deetéaes ait To
eS #2 YS bovs¥tue segausd vel oLdeil tnanoleh RLod bkwow dee ateew
dgiw bedontinen YtLinkadg® sodYeoreds eadt "yorulted down to menaet
add tebew cot BoLlas Arew odd eb o¢ .00 mohioussaneDosistegie’ efé.
chedsvanns sgabtey tadod od? Sanlt "488.806.6¢ To tae0 w to doausano:
Gidas 0860 #8 bedawens yynlsIody nokioue-eneTo o Yd benimeoted an
enoliavacxe or: aku of hoonge had sehnotes Souttnoe oe ye dads AOS,
xd tesa qogeune of gotinnese «bret edie xeq npn! Ae 2 ae
Wuttatety vow? off two yume of Lenutot bas outa ats sat
88. @dBy 8 to musa bias at ponent need oat
ad oumetob orig eae ta Latoace ows Lonte!te 2" taboeteb - ‘alate
ai #2 eno ml =. Tttémtele ye here tiae Rae epgamsb on tadé sonazedie ak
to YWisaecer: odd of tuq od oF bogttce Jom ane Ditentstg tants dads boreers:
i Se y RS
1999 qltew wad Yo teo9 cul? 102 .918,58 Yo uno at ae ws borat
dk: 5k: sinatss akeabscaas ot 40 eamaleaaaae ete
bive® .ouneniith Cieskhte be stoners eld at ingens rs) txvemn
AxoW sls 9n08 ova 0% seahanto® made oto 1 bes
“penneted combo £670% foe vende hadvegs inmesehien ont pelea
( gaknetOD mtaw aténebae tea cubed ott inte Nititir'Heat'Guay Meter
sedg Bhow aft mt betade oats at kebrd aay Ogu beats etiownode
iho
of aet-off, in which it is averred in substance,
that defendant was ready and able to perform the excavating work »
required to be done by it under the contract, when notified to
ity according to its terms; that plaintiff, in violation of said
terms, “entered with men, machinery and equipment, of plaintiff's
own procurement and hiring, upon the work," undertaken and agreed
te be done by defendant under said contract, phen dese than ea
“ ereviaed for in said contract, whereby defendant was ered
and prevented from performing the work to be dome by 1t under anid con-
tract, slthough it, “within less than the period of 5 daye,” was ready
and able,” with a full force and equipment of machinery and union
mechanics," to perform all the work required by the contract; ani that
by reason of plaintiff's conduct and its breach of said contract, and
Mos no fault of defendant, defendant was unjustly deprived of
large profits, and suffered damages.
On the trial plaintiff's principal witness was ite president,
Robert F. Yilson. several other witnesses testified for it, including
ite superintendent, Fred Nelson, ami several officials of the
Valparaiso Construction Co. Defendant's principal witness was Thomas
ie Russel, its secretary. Other witnesses testified for it, including
Lloyd B. Little (business agent of Local, 150, international Union of
Hoisting Ungineere, affiliated with the American Federation of Laber)
and George Long (a steam shovel engineer and » mewber of said Local
Union.) Several letters, passing between the parties, and other
writings were introduced in evidence. The material facets disclosed
are in substance as follews:
On December 24, 1931, plaintiff sent a letter by registered
mail to defendant, which was received by defendant on Saturday,
December 26th, - the day after Christmas. The letter, after referring
te the contract of Deoomber lbth, ia ae follows (italies ours):
You are hereby notified that oe site wil Lea:
for you at 7:00 AsMey Monday, Decomber 28th, 1951, and that
we desire you to have your i.uipment on the premises at Set time,
reacy and to proceed with the completion of your cone
Tact without further delay.
Ve are advised by your Representative, Mr. Russells that
Chauff are on strike ageinst this particule
We wish to eall your attention to the paragraph contained
rider (or s’ elause) attached se bee contract,
pEOVsC2Ne 10% contingency Of strike or refusel of any of your men
This is to notify you that unless you can settle your
=b-
sgonsdadva mt beztevs et oa do kdw ai ,tie-sea to
y
gator aritavaoxs eft mxetzeg of elds brs ya" 7. denna sb aie
e of Doreen now ,foeitnee ee tebrw 3 33
biee to notiafety as avthiete le jaeld Ye J ak i Pt ets sat x0 a
Mensng ony aotecedt te gy pene
nedatis tow
hott web Hud ee Ranh: cia na, Som
hoxeba aaw inebneteb Ydeternw atostines weber nk tot sbabtvert
ange bine’ rebel $f WS GOW v6 OF Bebe esd getavotvog
yYsor sow "yuyoh @ Io belteq add madd aeotl niddiw® ne
nots ban Ytentioas to tawgtvps baa evr? roy
gods bee ptoaxdnoo od yd betinpet drow oft Iie srotaeg 02. -solmtoeg
fan ytoatines biae io dovexd efi hme Jowbnoo a EEL
Xo beyizqoh wAsemins anw sunbwoteb staabreteh bo via Bodom on
swegamah bertetinn bas qrettony
einebieotg e3i sew auentiv Leqienite eitivnialy Latwd aR was
guibyfont qél xot bektiveos wocaehtiw welide Larevet »noalit, .% dxeded
git to aLatottte Iarevee tee «moalel bev .sapbnesmtaoque abt
” Gao? cow eaondiw Legtontsy a*2aubso%ed 400 moktourianOd patsneetel
gnébufont (ti vot beltitsed wossenthw xeds0 etetenose ett «fonantl od
to nolnt! Innvtisrredad .O8L Looe Xo sdnoys umonkued) esedel» & frgekl
(xedht Ye noijawbe% sasitems edd diiv betalittis .otoesiged gnidatell
Invok bine ‘to sedwew 4 bas veontgne Loveds wsose, ab 20m sore de
povofoeth vdoet Lobistem off soemobhve nt heoshortmh ore palette
led smveilo? asa eonodadue ob one
botesaigot W totfel a Ince Yitdmiely .L6€L «OQ aodaseed 10 )
eysbtnded Go Miehnsteb yd bevieost cow sdoldw seantuniee: ot them
gilureter wdte «zeddod ed? samm@aiutd tedte Yebiedd + fdas redineqoT
, vivpaatath aoiiadi}) awoilet sa xf _.A0Gl todo ont te toortmms ade oF
| ON. gis Gn |
woy 20% ; t
ganiatmes.
2 toHTIN 09 8
aux ofiden noo woy enetny tod? woy Yttion oF at ait
«S<
labor tro — @ arrangementa te preesed with thie contract
aes specified in the contract, we aha ¥
@ | th whatever equipment and men we gaa are
oe ape ane conditions may be necessary in order to "sianaeke
this Exeavation and that we will charge to your account any expense
er cost of this work over and above the 80 cente per yard ealled for
in the contract to your account and teke any icgai steps necessary
to collect any balanee due us because of coat for the work over and
above the 80 cents per yard prescribed in the contract.
We would appreciate your advising us by return mail just
vhat you propose to do» so that we may net be put to the expense of
Ordering 2quipment to the job, if you can arrange to go shend w
She contract
°
Immediately after the reeeipt of this letter defendant »
by ite representatives, took steps ito overcome the labor troubles
that it was having as to the particular job, and of which troubles
plaintiff had been advised. iumerous talephene conversations were
hed with representatives of plaintiff regarding the progress being
made therein, but on Tuesday afternoon, Decosber 29th, (about one day
after the time that defendant hed been directed by plaintiff to start
work), and without avsiting the outcome of defendant's negetistions tw
overcome said ishor treubles, plaintiff entered inte a contract with
the Valparaiso Construction Co. for the doing by it of the exeavation
work, and on the seme day caused oy allowed that company to move its .
equipment on to the job-site, ready for work on the fellewing days
That compeny was a non-union Landis «ward Company, and did ‘emergency*
work. On the afternoon of the seme day (December 29th) Russell,
defendant's main representative in the ponding negotietiens, had a
telephone conversction with plaintiff's president, ‘ileon, and
advised him of the progress of the negotictions, and «tated that the
outloek of a succesrful terminetion thereef was goed, that the Loesl
Union was going to have a mecting that evening about the matter and
that all labor troubles probably would then be settled. in this
conversation, according to Russell's testimony, Yilson expressed
indifference as to whether the troubles were settled or net. On
the same evening said Lecal Union came to an agreement ani directed
tastiaoo ae Ad dw tee ons Pager cont
oe Saeig a ¢ ok bekiio
tinea lupe <eve ey sie € 7
temas oe sete ro ee Yisvaaron od yaw weokits “OVO?
enneqn Yne tnueves cusy od egxatin Likw
Zot holioe huey teq edie O08 geld wyods hak pigs
Ctansoovor aqede i ene edad bre tewopen *
bee tavo vite aig tot tuop Ye eewaned ax web
/ eieetonee etfs tub bth 9 yan.
ae Distt iti oOo tat eet e
page eh zt i dA My hy lh
te nae
4 bettinate® eebtel ahlt Wy ‘teenead prene (erst iat?” NOR
eelduert redel edd wmdsxeve of aqedo Kood cabvitednbaWtqer att Ww
aaidivont dndsw to bem qo, wolwetiray taf) OF ao stitved’ wow ot tail
tow anoiiaurevese® enolqetnd avotcmt sboatvha ime bat THtkthte
|. ‘pitted esergeng eile gatbxaget Yekenbale to ebetvannensiqe: dehy Md
“B® ome svods) .AsGR cedeeoet ygpeonied te yehaont ao tud ynteredd sham
Sunde of Videntaty YS hedoo rth mood Beit sxnnew'¥ed hdd womb eid eoi te
oH omoLsndiogan alexetmeteh Ye emosdwe onl? vetstiwe’ duet ta (tov
Kéiw teotdnod a oink serene Yrktelalq yweléverd pases 6 eT OT
moksasons ‘alt, Yo 41 Ue SatOb ed AO oo ment Wt toung tiv bits
Way
| a hs os em
pefoexky bus énemotge ae 64 eae molnd Koos 0.
ofe
certain of ite particular men, whom defendant wanted for the par-
ticular excavating wor§, to go om the job, ete., and the existing
@isputes apparently were ended, ami beeeuse of this outcome defendant
ordered ite steam shovel, manned by union meehanies (as mentioned in
the contract sued upon), te be moved onto the job-site, and te be
ready to proceed with the exewvation work on Yednesday morning,
Deeember SCth. On that morning representatives of the ieecal Union
found the Valparaiso Censtruetion Co. in possession, carrying on the
excavation work with ite steem shovel and other equipment. There-
after defendant's further efferts te proceed with the job under the
contract sued upon proved unaveiling.
On the morning of Tuesday, December 20th, plaintiff, by
seid Yilsen as president, sent te defendant the following letter
{itelies ours)+
Following up our ictter to you ef December 24th, we beg
to advise for aE, ee
nasmuch an you have mot lived up to the terms of the
contract of December 15th, “in commencing work Ae 24 hours after
by the undersigned to you te start wer t e
appare ignered the notification," and “have thereby failed to
live to said contract,” it “will be ne ory (7) for the
ln, Pel to employ others te do the wor supply the materials
Seiten fer in said contreet, and the undersigned advises you that
4t will proceed to employ others to 40 said work and supply said
materials, and will held you responsible and liable fer any ami all
ged sand om = then kind % gv wy g the terms and_ Se as . yes y
nb Fac! shargé to you the cost we :
igned has to euploy ethers te do bedause of your aferesnid
failure te ive up to the terms of the contract."
On Thursday, December Slst, defendent sent the following
letter te plaintiff (itelies ours)+
“You are hereby notified that under the terms of the
contract of December 15, 19351, by and between the undersigned and
your corporation, wherein the said T. Me White Coe was referred to
as the Subcontreetor, and wherein it wae covenanted that the
Subcontractor was obligated to carry on the werk therein mentioned
—, pechentese a eondition hee arisen between your corporation
nion jurisdiction over the mechanics necesssry to be
pa od in eonnsetion with this operretion by reason of cortain acta
ef yours, er fer which pnt are Bhar gore ppg end as & consequence
thereef said ill not t seid mechanics te peitoum the
werk oceieed” waler tiie oa a ge ‘ter the undersigned
Cc
ate
“tog odd spt betnaw dnabneteb sso. mam malenha wee. ork st » nieene.
gniveine edt bes eoo20 dog ots #0 om OF xen ant a wekuoks
tnabneted eamotue elds Yo sauncod kus shots orew vituersces ‘lverll
nt benoltnon ea) goinadoom vote yt bonaem «Lovee moots ait boxsine
Od 04 dns yatte-dot ost ose hovom od of a(moqy hewm deaxeney ent
sgcietest Yobsenhe’ mo drew molievacme sale ate een of yhaoz
rpind Lopod edt to aevitednone wes peterem add mo 908 xediaroe
ods no yeigrxso «motguoceoq nt .09 motdouts and oetanagta¥ oat baru’
-ovedt « dereeng tupe soto na Levee masts a82 thy Sipe mebsevacxe,
add reheat dot, onl? saitiw beonong 02 sixette roddus’ *'#aabmeton, rete
sgatitevanys beworg moqe Some to
ve Mudabala ait eS Tedmn 990) ewabaont xe AEST 9 m0 tow ‘a
testes gabwetins of? tnabmotoh 0% tnen »tashhoetg o6 a
: nec)
ws yes eens i
gad ow atid as xedms sec te voy 2 xedtos m0
oie cos ott Sea oS u cmeaant
drow gatosmmseg at” tedmooes to 3
TOW Bode st ria Se 03 pers rong ay tf arias {
oF bette’ getedt eves” VF trey a*
sateegan gat okt), eau ae ra Bee 0? ben ieee
jest woy aoutvis bengiatebaw < pd te al x0 ‘etine
bien oe bin Axvew blag ) dw gh
iin ime yma tot efdatl rg otehen
fo bs j ae n@o vex 0% saa
biaustite 0% to oaweped Ob of a8
"“eFOStI NOD eda
ba i menage
ot ee
: eds 4p axed ait sole sant ted ‘08 Keeton
twa bemplatobme et toe i ord
ot bexeetes saw aod ofr’. < aT pt ty thes ‘nist fy itot
ent tot teleseetey naw 32 shosentw tre ator se Tea
benolinos nicredd dcow oe Bo YXtRO beaath ie
nolsgeteq eo wwoy méswied meelue cat ae ee 2 S Sede
ed of Visageven seinotoom aft reve anbdbibe Siw give ein off bee
siog miodtes to aonnet, yd anceonnete ebale dite met mos, nk hoyelqme
Sotenpesno> o an bh cog ‘rym yl vig = k . ‘ _ =
oe
You are further nae t>08 that by reason of your actions
pet acts for which you ar gible your company has made
impouedb le ous tha i signed e .ubecontractor under ba
agreement» to proceed” under bhe terms of the contract»
You are further notified that unless» the conditions which
by heave caused which have made it impossible for this Subcontractor
te proceed with the work under said contract are remedied at once @
as to permit the undersigned to procead under said centract, the
undersigned 5 _ eonsider treet ed and
iable es whic ergsigned 8 sustain by
Feason of your corporation making it impossible for the undersigned
to perform its agreement."
On January 28, 1932, plaintiff sent « letter to defendant
in which, after referring to the subecontrect of Decenber 15, 1931,
end plaintiff's letters of Decernber 24th and December 29th, it is
stated as follows (italics ours):
"On aecount ef your feilure to proceed with this work,
in aecord with the terms of your contract, we were ob
e-let (7) this contract to the Valparaiso Construction Ce. s
eontracteor has now completed your work in a satisfactory manner
and the cost to us of this work amounts to $6,365.52 as evidenced
by the enclosed bill from the Valparaiso Construction Co.
We also enclose herewith, copy of Cross Section Plat
pared by He He James & Cos, showing - total yardage for this
re o) 6,020 yards, whieh, at your contract price of 80 cents
per yard, ld have coct us $4,816.
The excess eeat te us, therefore, OM. 89M OS YOME
are youx contract, amounta te vo,544.
@: cost an guest ¢ you ac 3 se UB lately he en you :
opose ° ake care of this ; thee ioe, chould we fail to hear
rom you within a reasonable time, steting when and how you will
take eure of this &, we will turn the matter over te our
attorneys for collection without further notice."
Counsel for plaintiff first contend that the “verdict
and judgment are contrary to the undicputed evidence.” After
eareful comsideration of the evidence, and of the comments thereon
made by the respeetive counsel in their briefs, we ere unable te
agree with the contention.
Counsel for plaintiff slso contend that the verdict and
judgment cannet be sustained under a proper construction of the
provisions of the contract of December 15, 1931, sued upon. The
argument is, as we understand it, that the provisions contained
ae
ig sats battiven bag vat om ney
5, Sais Ss TD 3f. a 4 :
pfigieebail eds at ie dicwogs mogul 2
gdotee anattitues ed? eae tnw tests bob then tends’ pe a
Todeextnoodue aidd sol eldiesogut si ebem evadulolew heaves ovasl
@ gong 3a bolbemex ota doatineo bias tebay Mow of? Siku
axis ghonvioee. Ate bien pom me te of gy tec we
A ‘s : as Sir J
bom toob gel ey vj ome th me oe nD 78 16q 70 “ae te i ae
Py, fl ath 2 BP aoe
tngirioteh of tediel s jnec Tilintasg gSS9L._88, gammmel M9909 oo)
4Lo@L «Sf tadusas% to soazinoedua odd of ambuxehet teste dotdy at
at 2k .de@S sedaves hae did, tedagoed to eretial£. attthiadade bee
a (enue noblest!) avoltek ry dodate
eitow aldi dite beasotg of eufial 3a caved i
93 bene orow oF ,soatines «oY to eure
8 205 molioutieme> extereq{aY en? of 2 als
tonteam yrotostalias & mit dttew iwoy
hoonsbive as S8.886,6¢ of simone atow ald of ew 92
400 seltogiisne? oalateqinY oft mort saad
#s£¢ notdoe% waord to ved wddtwovred 6 i ol 5 re
aldt cot ogee Ietot a fates 20D 4 p ol ol yd box Tq
‘ein 08 cc ee : ae 20 ge!
“ey teats eta bond
ibe ey weet tie
ie? ri ey ee
sha *, ook son *
xed% = * womebive hedogdinny end OF Y |
noeteds einomes oft to baa ,oonabive vite be noliazebteneo 4
oe olden ow ow patelcd wings at ‘samsod ev ie:
Bhs datas ath jinitd tasdaoe owta hadi x0 fonaued
a te Ge eA we. Riis nL
‘eid 26 mahiouiganan tegona, a abe beat nt are Achim inommgbst
i ita’ Segue ial ‘san bil +s hoa bid
anata haw ahGRk oIL vodmunot 20 yore,
ieee fel $ ; SelM e357: : soi S32 s ee) .
bentetnes wnotstvorg od? dnelt oft pemtoxs how wes baal pad sromgte
~Be
in the 24th paragraph (or 24 hour clause) slone should govern,
without taking inte considerstion the typewritten provisions
(er five day clause) as contained in the lst paragraph of the con-
tract. “e esnnot agres with the contention or thie argument. All
provisions of the contract should be conecidsred together. And
we ecammet agree with plaintiff's counsels* further argument that
the provisions of said “five day clouse," or rider, “do net apply
to the time that werk shull be co:menced in the first instance,
but only apply after thea work had been Q ommenced, and there is
thereafter a stoppage of such serk, in which event the subcontractor
(defendant) shali be allowed five days to reewme work." In view of
ail the provisions of the contract, ani considering the peculiar
facts aad circumstances as diselosed from the evitenet, we regard
such a conetruction as strained and hypereritieal. And such a
construction wus denied sy the court, as ts evidenoed by the court's
medifiestion of plaintiff's instruction Noe 1, as tendered, and
giving it to the jury as modified. fhe instruction as tendered
wae as follownss
"fhe Court imetructs the jury thet the contract dated
December 1S, 1931, between KR. Fe Wilson & Company and {. Me. white
Company provides, ameng other things, thot the sub-contracter
agrees to cerry on his work with Union mechanics and guarantees
that there will be ao saree tak of his work for any reason whatse-
ever, and further % should his men strike er otherwise
refuse to werk on the 3 job, that in thet event he will secure ether
men t0 complete the work, and if he fails to resume his «ork
within five duys after any stoppage, the contracter, at his eption,
ean take over and complete the sub-contracter’s work, as he may see
fit, at the nag toner of se jects the fury thet. this
th ~con #ygubcoomtre ctor han eGnanesd
sunt fe ie Star pedlers Coon 6
ore ee of the y idence, Of he Vourt,
ut be. 2: Bite c | mever commented works the said
Brevision does not apply."
The court modified this temicred instruction by striking
out the second clause, (above in italics). Ye de mot think that
this modifiention constituted error, eo plaintiff's counsel contend.
Counsel also contend that the court committed reversible
Wy
<a
_ atzeveg bLuede enede (seuedo swirl DA ro) dqoryatng HP dS oda at
AnOLokvoug geddtaweged sks fo ti ono han i Spee ais kw
“OD outs 0 dqatgerag sok ote wi bemtsdnes as Sg
bat’ Seetigonoe heres.tence ef phos doansnge ea te wn - wie
told 2 6a assttcst teLeanies ort ribs ohh athy
‘Yigga #@on oh” otebhx 7? *,onuate Yad ovat aren "abhi
aeatndant text? of? mt beones-oo od fads aebw side amks edt of
wt ored? bra ghoornmnoh reed bat drow eid sutta vlan eae fut
odeatimordua ext tmove dotty ef «krow dowa to ggeqgeta » tafbaer
to wely ni ".dtow amuses of eysh evit tewotia od dada (a
maltwoog etd yntrod teres tha sfontinod pd 20 totatvoxq od tte:
rege oon qoonshhys | Wit? ot? teeoLeakd me avonadnanoate we ins sabi
> £ peu bre fasts tieregysl bow bentoste \ae cattoucsene® 4 sous
e'tuues pdt xe beopobive at 2% atzmon wee w betnad as
we? Na S-
aca a Wy
hos .desobued aa af 0K oidoustant eNakamtaly 20 he
bore bne as seitvartent eat +e thboa as ve a 0448 one
Regesane O68 2008 atow: eae "> ae
| edit ih po - bas YRacpee® & a@ a)
ie SHpo~ding mrid Sets weer
ie hte ao imetoen mole! detw :
Gately Mexaet ere xOt aon aid oo
euhwitaadeo ie F yg yp aro w: |
geudde wruren en treve tedi nm lf Be
weow eis enweet of afin? of naeaie nd wo.
smolsqe aid ta ,xodoatdnoe oof yapnqgots oo) Weal? rasta ay
Son Yau ed ac giow a 'teto ie oid ‘
phan ge bee ,
watibede ql noivonxsans bore heed nats baton smo oc
BRE RENO EE SS. ae nthe
dente saoctels ‘tom ob @¥ «(aebtaha mk eves) soamate baboon bmooee effs otro
se REST eth) ie nak erm
o buedaoo Lonasoo af iiinbaly ‘he vtoxte teduat canon tbe
took tipo
I na eee
oidterevs: hod tome dmo9 outa tas baedews onte |
ay te
pa
oe ded
error in giving te the jury instructions Mos. 6 and 8, as tendered
by defendant. ‘¢ have eavefully considered these inatructions, in
eonnection with all tke given instructions, with the provisions of
the contract sued upen aud with the facts and circumstances as
diselosed by the evidenee, and are of the opinion that voth in-
atructions were preperly given. And we do mot think taat any
prejudicial errer was committed by the court in refusing to give
plaintiff's refused instruction No. 2. Amd it is our opinion,
considering all the given instructions, that the jury were fully
and fairly instructed.
Vinding ne reversible errer in the recerd, the judgment
ageinet plaintiff ef January 22, 1954, appesled from, is affirmed.
APY RMA De
Seanlan and Sullivans iJe» concurs
a bereaned nn afi hen ® ameall anoltest ant yxilt ree 37 n wh xotte
wi sumotiourxtant eaodd bovebiombo Ututems oval bY Phabneted yd
Ey te sngde tvo1 edd Aiiw gandliguisend movig by Ltn Keiw Koldeonnoo
in os avenedomorte bas atest odd Kélw bun hoyw beww oarsne oft
¢
ae wnt lied sai netaige add Yo ozs tne .wodbhhwe vai! ye ‘boul &
‘i 7 é | ae sass ands Jon ob ow baa snovisisogent ver omeboncta
“guia ef patoster mi sues od WW bedé bane ssw rots Labykt
sHoluige wo si 22 be «8 sok mobvoussant bekitor's :
aes one out atid ‘tesit senoksourceant sori bead hid
“yet owes.
“noma, ns “gbuooet esl ai sorxe ofdtoxeve? «
bomekYha ak qmox? beLesags shrer gk8 Yael
MENGES "ee Qe Y oad ast Inne ak a pimnligal :
Het y
i
ay
ren
e
*
" ‘
. * § 4 ; al
he
*
* , 3
f sh
< * + a
: iy iN
i
is : 2 i
yy
he 3 ear ae x
a
i 2 ~
'
y
= = BS =
— oe
=
had
bey
a
&
“
CLIO TER? Wee Pig hewseron wet |
'
{
A
i
Se
E
Seep eee Be
ne Se
ae. a
“e
ess
if
if
ar
f
a
ae
wk
Riese:
5
a nn
37468 H |
PRANK GALLO, Bot
Appellee, oa
APPRAL FROM MUWICIPAL
v
: COURT OF CHICAGO.
METROPOLITAN LIFTS a > ra 7.
COMPANY, a corporation, | rR %
9 Appellant. Fed 9 i AG 6 ] Pe
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE GRIDLSY DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE COURT.
By this appeal defendant seckse to reverse a judgment
for $1100, rendered against it on December 27, 1933, following
a trial before the court without a jury. The action, commenced
on September 6, 1933, was based upon a cortifiecate of life
insurance, issued by defendant to Zrnest Galle on February 7,
1932, under the provisions of defendant's group policy on the
lives of the employees of the National Biscuit Company (herein-
after called the Biseuit Co.) Ernest Galle died on Yovember
21, 1952, and plaintiff was the beneficiary named in the
certificate.
Among the allegations in plaintiff's etatement of
Claim ere: (1) That Ernest Gallo was a policy holder in the
defendant company and had paid all premiums up to the time of
his death, and (2) that at that time he "was employed" by the
Biseuit Co. Defendant's defense, as stated in its affidavit
of merits, was that in accordance with the terms of the group
policy “the said certifieate of insuranee was not in foree" on
the date of the death of Ernest Gallo “because he had left the
guploy of his omployer"(the Biscuit Co.)
“prior te November 9,
19323" thet his insurance “wag cancelled on November 15, 19323"
i Aa
? om : } . : \
| 1 KA |
; . : 1
TATIOINUM HOTT TADTTA
| av
| eSRad TS TO TG
| ¢ A ; ielistog soo 2
.2HUO0 REY Go ROTMIGe ART CUVLO YRAMIAD caret ouraiies «
t kr a ee > he P
treapvet @ sotever of alsea taabnoteh aoges emi
PAivolLot ~,4GeL _VR eademest mo 32 damtage sempeemnntnkbhh wai,
beorgmueo ~oldoe efT .yuwi, a duodtiv ézyoo edd exoted Inixd “ 4
etil te steoltitves a mequ beaad saw sCECL 4d todmedqo’ 80
WS Ulawree’ ao oLis taser of tmabmeteb qt beunat y sone ment
ad? mo Yoileg qvoxg e'inehawteh to anotelvorg end mohmy »SECL
~nteied) ysequod divoold Lametial edd To seoyolgme edt To aeves
vedmevet mo beth ofleP gaemei (400 thwoeh® off befiao ced'te
ed? af bomen yretoltened ed? asw — 880L £8
To imasteta atthitatedg at wnedtagetta extt prea pote
ett? mi woSLod yotLog o ew offa® dnomti tad (£) . “soxe mate
Ye ents estd of qn exwiuwny Lie bheq sad nw Yueguen sxaheuteh
ads qd *heyoLyse aaw” of omit Sune on tant (8) ‘bmn asldnod abet
divebitte aéi nt bedads ea .senoteh a'émebnoted . +00. ‘thupad ce
querg ef? Yo amet oft dikw sonabtesss badd ean «adiven 20
ro “optot ak son ace gomswant Yo edaattidxes bine ost" yohtog
td fret tnt ot oeusdod" OLtad dnonxt Yo Aéaeh oxtt 30 obab wolf
(.09 gtmai ould) *zoypiyme ak ‘to vod am
6 EE a cs
eo xoduevell ot rotxg"
eysuen 28 sedans von mo beLfeonss saw" sonerwonk wa seat fee
and that “within 31 days after his lay-off, this defendsnt was
notified that said lay-off was to be considered a termination of
his employment ina ceordanece with the provisions of asi.d group
poliey.*
On the trial the group policy, the certificate of
ingurence and certain other writings were admitted in evidence,
Plaintiff's only witness was Frederick 3. Wye, employment manager
at Chicago of the Biseuit Co. For defendant three witnesses terti-
fied, viz: Joseph Dasaro (foreman of the ieing department of the
Biseuit Co. at its Lexington street plant in Chicago): Prank J.
Cathamer (eashier of the Biscuit Coe at the plant); and Lowis R.
Appleton (superintendent of the plant.) And defendant also intro-
guged in evidence the depositiona of two other witnesses taken in
New York. Some of the facts as disclosed from the evidence
are in substance ae follows:
Ernest Gallo commenced working am an employee of the
Biseult Ce», at ite Laxington street plant about ugust 7, 1931.
After working there for over six months the certificate of insur-
anes under the group policy wos issued to him by defendant under
date of February 7, 1932. At that time enc thereafter the regular
employees (Gallo being one) of the Bisenit Co. did not work con-
tinuously. Sometimes they were temporarily laid off. As one
witness testified: “Seme days they (the Biseuit Co.) worked
fifty-five men and the next day only four.” The policy provided
that the major portion of the premiums fer the insurance should
be paid by each employee insured and the balance (at Least 257)
by the Biseuit Co. It wae the usual practice that the amount of
the monthly premiums were deducted from the payments due for
Wages or salary. ‘Sowetime during the month of October, 1932,
Gallo and other employees working under the foreman, Dasare, were
notified verbally that all insurance premiums should be paid by
the 15th day of the month. DBasaro testified: "1 told each
oyee that unless the insurance premium was paid on the 15th
of the month, and no later than the 15th, the insurance would be
cancelled, and that if they did mot have any woney coming for this
particular period they should come down personally and pay the
rifty cents 80 thet they would be assured of holding their ingur-
QNeee o's insurance premium for the month of October was paid,
On November 9, 1952, he worked as a regular employee for three
hours and was paid therefor on November llth. it dees not appear
that the insurance premium payable November 15th was deduct
therefrom, on whieh particular date no money was coming to him
for work done, and he did not pay in cash on thet date the monthly
premium. He again worked as a regular employee en November 18th
for nine hours, but he was not paid for that work, end ot the time
ain”
aww trsbmeted whit »Ytow~ad whe xetts aveb £6 mbdtiw" dod bee
20 pOtgeninzed « Sereblence od of saw Tto~yal bias sane betktion
query bice %© anoletvenq edd Adiw sonebrooe s mi Sneerco Lume abe
eat GAG
te steoitiereo add «yotLog quote odd Lated mde nO
seorehtve mi bevtinha otew apateinw todte ahadtes ona constwent
soyanan tnomyotaare (oy +8 dofrehox® saw sey et vine wrescar:
SO “AB: ae. eh a 9 Pe
live? eeecersiw oerts tadbrat b tot 0d bievaltl Seng: ‘to ogsotil ta
oft to tnomgungeh geio? osft te nanoxg?} expend age eney bert
ab tnert tlopeotdd at tole doords antentesl eek és seo Sheoare |
oH @iaed bee ¢(deef¢ end $a 26D slvoetd ote ‘to tezsdino) temmttad
-owtet ove inshreteh ber (.denty odd Yo trebadteliegue) madedgyn
vi soolae weavandiw tertte ows lo anodtleodsd edd wonebiwe al booth —
serolivs oft sort beneLoath os atest odd to omed waltoY wen
Pawo Lok 26 Sonadadue mt ote
st? To sevelqne nea es gabivov hedrompy oLiat duet els
»LOUL . 7 towgar\ guods tmalq teense notpaixel ati was
capers: bo ateoitivcse oft stidaom xke seve rot 202 peat ¥
tele ipeboete® YT mis oF beweal aw ag F | Mi
vadgot. aid ~giteated? oma emtd Pads dA Qt ytewuda®
“seo sow f40 Ib 4o0 dimoul® odd to. (ono emled
ono at .tte dfed witerequed wtew, |
sebbenee ta ear no io on? xen ald
woug Y wet %
cy, Senet oats 40% ee ee ast te.
mate wee hii 1 fod olde gen! ond oS 6 ;
eink WY RREEIO BS eA B Fe is 3' 3
vxosttttt wrodete. 26's dino a ges cals
Orava: Sieh 0 ees art He ONE d
va bing s¢ bivoss she nines ie once dena ot
biog i" 4% id 4
wee spat ering
ae Looe Ope sas ane wake terry aa rane 3
efsd se? arffomo “vamos h Ue
wt a We Glan ares Gaoo biwerte vould |
~wianh viels gx bled 26 bemeus od Btwow yore ©
shisg eew wsded00 to snes oft tot mulmeng eon:
aenid rol exyedtgoe rere. ua
me som avobh of ey
etoshe ls a7 4 Siteyag muse ay
pe ast pdcgh ened ncr an by
jot off efeh BO kg
cash Stat as Seton ah ee foe oe nieye oH
ont edd 32 bite ene tet hee bt fi fan, jor one id «eT
WG Oe aes ee BE RRS SEA RN aN
ou
of his death three days later on Yovember @lst, thore was a credit
to him on the books of the Biscuit Coe more than sufficient to pay
the premium for his insurance payable on November 15th. In the
meontime the Biscuit Coe, on VYovewbor Lith, by its cashier, cauced
Galle's insurance card to be stamped “eaneelied,” and thereafter
mailec to New Yerk, where it was received by defendant on Hovenber
23rd (two deye after Galle's death), and a few days thereafter
defendont cancelled Galle's insurance ae of November 15, 1952
The policy also provides in substance that tipon the *ferninntion®
of the employment of en empleyee hie insurance was to terminate.
But it dees not appenr that Gallo was ever notified during hia
lifetime by anyone that his employment with the Biscuit Coe had
been terminated. ‘the pelicy also provided in substance that a
grace of 31 days should be granted to the omployer for the payment
of premiums after the first, during which period the insuranee
should contimie in force.
At the conelusion of the trial defendant's motion for a
directed verdict in its faver was dented, and the court found the
issues ageinst it, assessed plaintifi'n dameges in the sum of
$1100, and, after motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment
had been overruled, entered the judgment against defendant as first
above mentioned. It was not disputed that if plaintiff was
entitled to recover anything of defendant, the amount should be
$1100. The bill of exceptions discloses that prior to the entry
of the finding the court made in part the following statements in
substance:
I am going to find in this ease as follows: That this
man wee in the employ of the Biscuit wt at the time of the eupposed
eancellation o ne cert eates; that this ia shown by the evidence
amd particularly by the fact that he worked for the Biscuit Co.
after said eupposed cancellationg that nothing in the record dis-
eleses that he was laid off permanently on November ¥, 19423 that
no notice was given to him, after the supposed termination of his
employment, or supposed cancellation of hie certificate, of those
pomeened, that on the contrary, he wag telephoned to by the foreman
(Dasare) on November 17th or 18th, with reference to again reporting
fer work; and that by virtue of the wording of the policy he “had
eertain rights" as to his insurance, becouse he either contributed
to the premiums therefor by deductions from his salary, or
voluntarily paid theme
"I realize that under the law one wust pay his premiums
im order to have his insurance, but under the policy in question
I think that they (the employees of the Biscuit Co.) are entitled
to notice, even after a certain time, that they have not paid
theix insurance. There employees actually contribute. * * * From
the evidence I am goimg to find the issues for plaintiff.*
Counsel for defendant here wake two eententions, as
greunds for » reversal of the judgment, viz., (1) Pleintif? aid
-
tiber « now exerts atels todmevel, so tedal ayeb oerd? stack ais m to
“sg o¢ Jneiottive mets #tém-soD Algont® ese ‘to oe
eit mt ,.d¢0L zodcmevek ao aldeyeq eomatsent ald to Mer apt» Red
howmen « tetdeano aft ed eAveL codwevot mo geod) thupekt-ont
sadtoorerds bas *,boileonao" hequada ed ot bree eoneatuant o*oLLe®
tocktevelk mo dusbacter yd hevieget saw th ovede he pgiteoy oF be
tofteoted? aysh wot a baw ¢(dtaod atolls’ shen 2h owd
aaraee of ‘Ta dne vor ounstivent 2 'olLad
* st eihe ae add oometiadua at gh
sieninnwed G) caw eonatirens : —
aig anivezh bebtisos stove ear Ripey fete sae
bag. «09 tigate on ilw deamyolqme aid todd
a éscit somadedwe mi ge ben sale yoileg Haag
Soeayeq etd 2h sey. eds 0? becom ed biwode ,
sonement at holreq sotdw aude eftatit off te pool
oor mk gimkinen. b
2 40% moktom aVashsoteb Laive one Yo nolaulonos MEA BAe eR
ons tares tuapo add bee ghbetros was rove % adi mt totszey hetoerth
So. mwa add sd wegomat a titembedy bounsoun tt: tathase wewebd:
tromghut Yo taenxe at hue ketgt wen & rok snoitom zedke «hee 4@0Ltt
#uzit eo tnshiosieh tansage $ sro bss od? bexedno «bekuneeve apo. hat
agw titindadq Yi dass haduqats Jom, een $<. shenolinan. eveds
of Biwosie omrone af? gtnebaeteb to gudrigyns sovoass of hakdiimne
Uitee e? oF eeing dard werokoaib anolsqooxe to Libd od -OOLte
at atnomedads aatwaisox ess arog ab sham Son eats amid old Bo
Pai ck 6 NS t} be Dye
we “g 4 oa ae yas “gay
ghit dedf seweliet se 2359. eiss as » ay of 3 a
ph end to ems aid 48 you 3 a3 Ms i} at
tyy odd yO muodw ei aide dadd yedsoltiazes
20D Siwrati edd yok beaeor. of tall dost ww
a eee aay mb Le nas
ait ue a eet es
eenet = pa pstge tassel
tunel” Pr py 9 ag Beth
vedas! e200 i Fire ‘oak. oe : a
565 - ee shal ee tabi voueo w 0)
te tae ay Bias exe tpse os) ant ad
abe
mot eufficiently prove thet ornest Gallo wes insured on the date
of his deeth: and (2) the finding and judgment are against the
menifest weight of the evidence. After earefully reviewing the
present record, the briefs and arguments of opposing counsel and
numerous authorities cited therein, we are unable to agree with
either contention. ve are of the opinion that the trial court's
finding and judgment ia emply sustained by the evidence and by the
law. in this connection the following adjudicated cases may
appropriately be citet: Cogsdill v. Metropolitam Life Ins. Soo,
158 So. Care S71, 375-43 lease v. Traveller's Ince Soe, 204
No.» Care 214, 215-62
The judé@ment of the municipal court against defendant
should be and is affirmed.
APPIPMED
Seanlan dnd Sullivan, JJ., concurs
Rake MD ost GUAR gt
37493
GUNSVISVE KENNEDY,
Appellee ,
Ve APPZAL FROM SUPERIOR couRT,
PRANK BE. CARRY, COOK COUNTY.
Appellant. 2 ¢ 9 Tne 6] wl
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICN GRIDLEY DELIVERS) THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
In an action for damages for personal injuries received
by plaintiff in an automobile accident about 2730 o'elock on the
morning of December 18, 1932, there was a trial before a jury,
at which «a wass of oral evidence and photographs and X-ray pice
tures were introduced, resulting in the « eturn of a verdict
finding defendent guilty and assessing plaintiff's damges at
$12,500. On January 20, 1934, the court required plaintiff to
remit $4,000, and entered a judgment against defendant for $6500,
which by the present appeal is sought te be reversed.
Plaintiff's declaration consisted of four counts, to
whieh defendant filed ea plea of not guilty. In the first count
it is averred in substance that on Uscember 18, 1932, defendant
was in possession ani contre] of an autemobile (a Packard ear),
being opersted on a public highway, known eas Reosevelt read, or
Route No. 6, im or near to the City of Geneva, Kane County,
Tllinois; that plaintiff was riding in another sutomobile (a
Ford exr), being driven in an easterly direction over said highway
there; that defendant should have seen plaintiff and the automobile
in which she was riding as it approached defendant's automobiles
that defendant so negligently operated his automobile “that the
automobile in which plaintiff wuc riding was enused to strike md
ne [ 9 ch Tt e oO% 7X. F Tee ee ects eek ae ee as
+THUGD BMT TO KOLMIGO GAT GUARVLICG YUMA ADETOUL GALORE fy»
aaa ne eh OHA
hevieoo: aotiytat fenoorey x 10% espana b tot woitos ne “a
add no toofo's Of:8 suede dmoblova perigee ne at thteniste we
ett, & eveted Lalxd 2 saw exesté saeeL at wedaood 19 eae
col Yr-X bra asiqergotedy base senebtve Leto to eeam © dette hie ja
totbvoy o te auto: odd at gettiovet pboowberiat orev cout
te aepemes a ttiinial¢ patonseas ous WLiue thee ; r
of Tihisielg Setisoot Sampo od eer ,O8 yams “0 pe
700885 49% aasdsotoh senkege tnemgbut « betaine baa .O00,5¢ thnot
cdoutevesx o€ O¢ talguon at Leoqus tnosste oft yt dtolatn
@} .edmoo wot to hetatemes aniiereioed o'ttitntali
@euee geri? ef? ml .yetlen tom te aety » betlt snikiilad’ aka
faabavted «SEL ,0L xeGmwoed ap det souetedve mi herueve at $2
e(tae byetoc% 2) eLidemedwe me to Loximeo hms RO Lawensog wt usw
to cheer JLeveqoe! as aworl «yawigtt olfeue a ae be texaqo aniod
ryinse® ene evens) to ysl ent ot t0@m te ME 4d ot eds )
a) eiidompdua xetlfone at gathit acw tenn torte patontcet
‘yowrigid bien rove melteenth yLretace mo at maekebd anted (x00 prot
olidemotu: aft bus tiitaielg mops eve hiwade srishasteb tart tered
‘{ekidomotus a'inshse ted bedoaougge +4 as patbex sow ode Aoki at
aid ted" olidomesun ald dedereqe “ldnegs gon oe susdaerer shored
bem ettede of deauen naw gabhis aw Yitentate | |
o2e
collide with defendant's automobile on said highway3" and that
Plaintiff, being then and there in the exercise of dus care for
her own safety, was thereby thrown against divers objects in the
automobile in which she was riding end seriously and permanently
injured, ete. in the second count the charge is that defendant
negligently opereted and controlled his automobile in said highway,
*without exhibiting on ssid vehicle two lighted lemps of a white
light or lighte of a yellow or ogiber tint, visible at least 200
feet in the direction in which hiavvehicle was precesding, and one
lighted lamp so situsted as te throw « red light visible in the
reverse direction,” contrary to the statute, ete. In the third
count the charge is that defendent negligently caused his automobile
"to stand on said public highway there, without displaying any lights
on the front or the reer of the vehicle, although it was then during
the period from one hour efter sunset to sunrise,” contrary te the
statute, etc. In the fourth count the charge is that defendant,
“although it was then night time and dark on said highvay there,
negligently and carelessly caused and permitted his sald motor
vehicle to stend on said highway there, without giving plaintiff,
or the person operating the moter vehicie in which she «as riding,
eny warning, by means of lights or any other means, of the presence
of his said motor vehicle on said highway there,” etc.
On the trial plaintiff was a witness in her own behalf
and she testified as te the details of the accident. She was an
occupant of the Ford car, sitting on the front seat ot the time
to the right of its owner and operator, Walter Sauber, who tenti-
fied as her witnees at considersble length. Two other occupants
of the car, sitting on the bask seat, also testified for her.
Yefendant, the owner ami operator of the Packard car, was his
principal witness. Your other occupants of the Pack=rd ear, called
as his witnesses, gave their versions of the accident. From the
Ui
| 7 tev? bee "syomiulrt bes mo elidewotua attnntmotwed dilw obiilos
; ¥e% oreo off le calenexe ood mi eted? hae modt gmied ,Tiltiniai¢
ald ni efookd® exovih deniage evox? wloreld onw pytetaa awd tod
| Ylioonemieg bas YLasnites bom yribit aew sale flo taw gt oftdescine
| ‘*esbnotes fads et ogres at? imuoo smoven* itd ait atte « boreal
ss gumstigtet bine st SLivewotme att belforénee bua bo dexeqe Ytomyttgon
etide « To agmal todtigtl owt efotdov hives mo gatvadhdiae suoddiw*
| 90% dueet ts ofdtuly .satd vodms to wollwy « to etstght ne sight
| ene hus qantbsooorg saw efoldevvatn dotdw mt mottoorth ef? at ook
at mt eldiely iaigih bes o words o¢ se bedeutie on qual bodsight
pride ade wl .ofo yoduseda odd of yxextnos * nottooulh saxoves
atidesnfas atl hoowns Yteeglfgen taabeoteh tadd at sprado walt seargp
adsisit ye gaivelqall suadtin soon? yomiatd obtdua pian wo bmate of
gatas mot eow Ui dguadete .oteidev oft 29 t89T, iba
ad Ytotieoo "~oaalumwn 92 donne torts Mod ONO mT? & tog,
cinaiaetes text at oyxado edt tnuoo dimer add at de votutad
seemed? Yortlpid dion wo ates baa sats silgtn west, gow ah dgsrost
todos hbiew abd botthered bea reper, ylaneoan snk, ePtmnahtael
ii isebasg cavity swosd ow yor eed Youtghd Phos mo heege o¢ ofotdev
ractbold ae cis doddy ot ofetsiev vote od? yatiamge ante v1.9
SIAR: SR. HSE DE a |
| soto “yenuls yourgid Sioa 9 ofe Oidm bkns 19 pt 20
tiated nwo yet si seentiv s ew Pidahelg dates ne ering pad
na ww of? daehtooe ond Io ahkate beds ov an botiitaed ¢ tn oa
amt? oad de daea tmext oft ae gakeete “908 A, Oe to thageoe9
widens ons qrodve® cote ytoteusge hus wae ett te od c ut of
_ Seneaenoe cate ows dank stdetebtanoe iio ‘onan ted os
ik ws bys ee 4 sigh.
stmt tot bobtddned os Le vtae8 wad ota 0 antyete Ey) oe ,
ae fi Kye 4 j
ld ann yxa0 bumtost edt Yo xotsx0 tag comwe ona
Po nL mre a WN ay aat ya ite teh |
betes c20 banloot eilt Yo stmequoo cede wor sanentiw & rhonkig
i ome Ce cihebae mek or
“a wen ~tnabkows ult ta Waebourr cleat ovey yesueontiv abd es
evidence it appears in substance that the Packard ear, coming
foom the west, entered the elty of Geneva and waa travelling
@arterly through it on Roosevelt road; that near the gent Limits
of the city there was a curve im the road te the lefts; thet just
after the car had rounded the curve it stopped because its supply
of gasoline had become exhausted; that shortly thereafter the Ford
ear, also having come from the west and having travelicd exsterly
through Geneva on the some road, spproache said curves that before
it reached the curve ite driver did not and could mot sce the stand-
ing Packard carj that after the Ford ear hat rounded the curve,
travelling at the rate of about 25 miles an hour, ite driver did
not see the Peckard ear in time to avoid a collision; and that a
front part of the Yerd car violently collided with a rear part of
the Peeks rd ear, esusing plaintiff's injuries. The testimony of
plsintiff's witnesses was in irreconcilable conflict with that of
defendant's wiinesses on the questions (a) whether the ecollici on:
occurred a few feet beyond the curve or many feet beyond it where
the road wa» straight, (b) whether or not the tail-light on the
Pagkerd ear wos burning at the time, and (¢) whether or not the
street lights on the road were lighted. 2 to the front lichts
om the Pord car its driver, Sauber, testified on crose-examination
that he did not see any ear ahead of him until he got within 25
feet of the Packard car and that he then saw it becaise his “bright
lights” shone upon it, which lights throw light shead 40 or 506
feet, and thet his front Lights had two beams, “one straight ahead
and one down-tilt."
The main contention of defendant's counsel is in sube
stance thet the jury's verdict is manifestly against the weight
of the evidence om the questions of defendont'’s negligence and
Plaintiff's contributery negligence. “¢ eannot agree with the
NL GI
ee PO SED
Ee emmys a me ee
pitmos steo hicdeeT oft dal? sometedua wh eaeogqe ¢h eonebtye
gitiievart sev bus evens) to yehe cult horedae _daew onl? moot
atiatl tose oft sao tod? phage Sfevesood mo 34 Ayuorsid Ultotaae
desl, dots Gatel edd 9% baot edd at eviwo » aew odd Ytto add to
Waegwe eth cousved beqqots #2 oyswo edd bebdeuyen bert neo edt todte
ydmetease belfovard yaived hae Juew ed mozt emoo ombvad eute «mee
wroled tad? qevine hiss hedosotags ghaot amen afd go spanned styvomtd
-haata eft eee som hives bna Jon bbh revied adi oweno oft hooson of
ALb gevinh att «tor! on vole B8 duods Yo efox ald Jo gabilevand
& ted bon 1gnotalifoo » biows of emtd ak a0 baton’ eM? woe tom
to dusq taet a sie deLtlLoo YLinelety ree bro edt to trey ¢mort
to womtseet off .avisubad a tthintele gmtauee god ferstoe’ ent
te sult Aviw toLLIw09 siéeLtenovert? at asw nemnontte #'ttenkee
~MOteiiies ed? tedderdw (2) enoliaeug ot 0 woseon: ty ol énahmeteb
sted $2 Saoyed tool yom te ert ed? droyed took wet » howmuego
eid Bo stiglinLlad sae don vo watdorw (d) tlgderta wae bage eet
est? som 20 sosivesd (0) bas yorkd od? Je yatmwd now too wemipatt
nittip ht dnewt edt of 9% +bedsight exvew beet odd po mteiyht tootte
“mobawatemne-dver co letktteed ytedual Seevith att en bto% atom
Bi aecteiw Gon eof Livam mite Re hoade m9 Ye oom dom BES ont taste
digind" oll eemmosd $f wea moss ost dade brie ted BeoMeet edd to toot
OF x0 OD Aawihe Jeg S worms wiutged sotety «tt age onode “addyht
bosabs wna eo” yamaed awe bet widyhs cnet ein Mi
‘ oS gthantecetion Bib AERA ett ins
wide nk at Leenwon «Simba tot Y mokdee sme teal eaT ae bod
dfgtow oxy bentaaja Vitwottaad ef fetover etenuh ‘ous ducts wonate
bra peneg! tae eMaobre teh Yo enokive india stito tv. itt ‘Re
td adie compe tennss eo
Lares Cprerr ray ee a ina
Ya ro Aor Fey weed wom Y
whe
contention. We think that in view of all the evidence these
questions were peculiarly within the provinee of the jury to
determine, and thot the verdict as te them should not be disturbede
Defendant's counsel also contends that the court committe
reversible error “in refusing to withdraw a juror ami continua the
case beceuse of the deliberate act of plaintiff's attorney in bring-
ing out the fact of defendant being insured." Ye find no sub-
stantial merit in the contention. The incident occurred while
defendant's witness, Comba, was being cross-examined by plaintiff's
attorney, but the recerd dees not show that sald attorney wos
blame for the perticular statement of the witness complained of.
Furthermore, the record does not disclose that defendant's attorney
obteined « ruling on his motion to withdrew a juror, or asked that
the particular statement of the witness be atricken, or asked that
the jury be instructed to disregard it. (See Williams v. Consumers
Cos, 352 tli. 51, 55.)
Reuslly witheut merit, in our opinion, is defendant's
eounsel’s further contention that the judgwent sheuld be reveraad
becouse of certain remarks of the trisl court, claimed to be pre-
judicial te defendant. As it appears to us the remrke complained
of were directed against plaintiff's attorney and were in no wise
prejudicial to defendant.
It is finally contended (a) that the jury’s verdict of
($12,500 was so excessive as to show passion and prejudice on their
part, and (b) that even with the remitiitur of $4,000 the judgment
of $8,500 is emeessive. Considering plaintiff's testimony snd
that of her two physicianz, Dre. Forrester and Killeen, as to the
nature, extent and permanency of her injuries, which was uncontra-
dieted, we find no merit in either of the contentions.
The judgment against defendant of January 20, 1954,
appealed from, should in our opinion be affirmed, and as 4 is 8 80 entered.
Seanlan and Sullivan, JJ., coneurs
“abowobxo on ef 4t tne ghomti2 of wotatee mo at |
whe
“
enacts gonebive ed Lhe 16 woky ai godt Amid? oW .metieedans
ot Yewh od? Lo eontvouy ode siddiw “Urativesg etew anoltaegp
sboduméent> ed som bdwore med? of en sodnaey add sold bum » ochutegeb
eidionye guyoo ed? Gets obmetmoe oude Ieegwen a'éimebmeled .
ott sonkigno bee sot, « wethitin of poiewleox ai" setee, oldlerever
-yntud at yertetio a 'iisateda te jon giauedi tek ods to onseged gene
wwe om batt oe «=p Rotwent antod saabgseted te toad edd suo aut
elisy botevece gnpbtent eT smetiaedmoo oft at throm tetinede
@tiRiintely ys hestmexs-esoeto patie’ enw yoda) .eaonitiw oénabmotod
of tow Yorvo2d « tee esd weds don veob bro90T ord due axommosts
sto bentefquen asertiw ent Yo Snametate taivetisaq od’ cot emeld
Yenselts wNinabeoted dade enekso tb som B20b hugoor ods «oxomnodt et
dosid denles ve . VOTH, # wWexhidlw-o¢ mossom ate mo sativus « hontaddo
taht heaian xo amstolzta od aneadiw os Yo dmemptate xekvoldzay odd
QAOTANMOD 4 OIRELLLE e@H) 82 biegorst) of botairytemt ef quwh silt
, (228 oft 0 5 8 ae
poonnennng at .selago wo ai ytisom duedd br sdiehdatedes ee
omy Od 02 Domingo .2mwoo datré est do cumin
tamtaigues ottemes ed? ov OY atangge 44 84 stmabs
te got busy a yuh ede ‘tana, fad foveal yo yttant® af * |
3; 26 foot
| chon so oeibuieve hts aolemeq wore 0) as eviaseone, 28 enw 008,SL5
trombut ed? 000406 Ye mutssatany edt diddy nove gadd (4) bam ateeg
bon YNowiiest e'Titintel¢ gatrsbtenod aagome ef 008,8% to
ef of ao ytoelLIN kung todnezpt sod senate tegig a: ce te desld
~stdeeonw wan deine saatruiai ted te Yoronameg tine snods comudan
-anot inetno9 odte ‘x0 xastaie ad esa att 2 ow «betosh
‘ebb 08 crus te sessba Yoo tenkeys |
Cee a Asi ead gl ea ee eee
ties a Cateebadig
2 EE
OSC ay
ae f , ra
37507 So
foe, £
i
ACORM BUILDING AND LOAN ) i H
ASSOCIATION, a corporation, ; H
Appellant» APPEAL FROM BUWICIPAL
Ve COURT OF CHICAGO,
CHARLES SPALENKA and cy iy ¢ <a
AWWA SPALEMKA, wtQ 1. GI?
Appellees. é
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
in an action of the ist class in assumpsit, coumenced
against defendants on July 26, 1933, upon their promissory note
for $6,000, dated January 26, 1931, there was a second trial
vefore a jury at which much oral and written evidence was intro-
duced by the parties. At the conclusion of e211 the evidence and
upon defendants! motion the court, on December 15, 1933, directed
the jury to find the issues against plaintiff and such verdict
was returned. On January 5, 1934, a judgment for costs was entered
against plaintiff, which by the present appeal it seeks to reverse.
The first trial before s jury wees had under the original
Pleadings during November, 1933, resulting alse in a directed ver-
dict against plaintiff and the entry of a judgment for costs against
it. Thereafter that judgment wos vaeated, plaintiff was given
leave to file on amended statement of claim and defendants an amended
affidavit of merits thereto, andthe second trial was comuenced on
December 12, 1933.
Plaintiff's amended statement of claim is in the form of
two special counts and the common counts. Im each of the special
counts the note sued upon is set out in full. In one special count
it is averred in substance that on January 26, 1931, defendants
*
etohdn @ gMOTTAZOORA
poe moat cametA ft C. ddinensl tee
co ee a a a eee
be en ale bao AMBTAGA ‘BaLAABLD
2 Mivnwwt » Ad aiipaapaaen
* { 2) fied G savoLtones |
$25, cRdae Teh
»TMWOO BAT TO MOINTIGG ENT iSVR TUM BOTTAVt OuIdtenet LAM!”
a whe
boonacnes diag st santo tak os “Yo mobion ma wt j
eten yrevnlmozg aiedd nog €E@L gdh ut rr) stnatanieh 4 a :
fadss Enovee 2 saw ones eee 238 Wweunst bots pe
verted ese eons hive nod 2 tw baa Leto sous fo ldw te emt a on
bus wonwbtve od fle to motautoneo oft tA ssoktuag oa? yd boo h
_ botootth ees od rods 9, ao atueg os moksom tadaabao ted nog
_teioxev dewe bne titintetq femkege nement edd batt of our, od.
beteine kev ataoo set suonpoul.o MOL of yraunal x0 ‘ Domearton, gam,
eORTevex od suave Is iseqge ixeaotq edt qd doldw «Mitintels. teriaps —
ienigize ed? «phius hed cee yah @ exo%ed fabxd. teak? ad? » %
~xev bedeotib a at eals guteLunet , Stel .rodmowey. gotieb rssteess,
fantens ateoo <0 tnemehet a to ystne ealt bee Wtintatg Jantens goth
movts anv Viddatelg «deteoay aev taemgbul tadd xedtsoxedy +44,
bebmons am stsaboate® tne atete 26 facemtats boheme me OAT Of, epmek,
no teonecnes naw Lets) baoove eddie ~otoreds ahve Yt thvebstte,
eg + 8k. entoneats
to axed aa ai at mhato ey oeheame.!9Aehnth ec.
sivoge edd Yo dose at sags some ect tas adeuen Latooge owt
srures fptovgs, qno al. At bevated
- pimabaeten ECE 628, exaust, Ho tad sonst
xis
o2e
executed their note and “delivered the some to one John 0. Bastear,*
whereby they promised to pay on or before one year after date to
bearer the sum of $6,000, with interest before maturity st the rade
of 6% per annum, payable semi-annually, ete.3; that on January 26,
1951, said Bastear “sold ani delivered the note to plaintiff, for
value and before maturity, and without giving any information to
plaintiff as to the circumstances of its execution and delivery to
said Bastear, and without plaintiff having any notice of any kind
whatsoever of any defense which said defendants had or might have to
a suit thereon by said Bastear against themj” and that the mote bee
ceme the property of plaintiff and has remained in its possession
ever since. in the other special count it is averred in part that
after the execution and delivery of the mote te Bastear, he
“negotiated” it to plaintiff, and plaintiff is now the owner thereof.
in plaintiff's affidavit of claim, by its attorney, it is stated in
substance that the nature of its demand is for money due and owing
to it as the owner of said note; that no part of the note has been
paid, and thet there is now due thereen to plaintiff from defendants
the sum of £7,147.50.
In defendants! amended affidavit of merits they admitted
their execution of the note, but denied that they delivered it to
said Bastear individually, and alleged that they delivered it, with
a trust deed, to him “as an officer, agent and director of plaintiff
corporation.“ They further denied that on the day of its date
Bastear negotiated it te plaintiff or that plaintiff is the legal
holder and owner thereof; alleged thet Bastear, in receiving it,
“acted as an officer, agent and director of plaintiffs" denied that
Bastear, at any time, sold and delivered it toe plaintiff; and alleged
that plaintiff gave no value for it and “is not an innecent holder
thereof for value before maturity, or without knowledge of any -
#f-
*‘ woutont 0 slot enn Oo? cane ed boreyifed" bua stom aedt bedueoxe
ot esteh sotte taey ono oveted vo me yaq Of beehmpugq yor? yéotedw
6 mt cfd ¢o Utbmdew oretod fuexeiat ditw ,000,86 to mame oft Ywined
(Oe Yranist so fois goods »uliaunne-imes oLdeyag aa :
tot «Titete dy of ota ost ray * Seetub bina . Lee
of noida int yu gatvly tueddiw hae .yshiutem ertod bus rn
ot YIeviLul dom oedivonee aft To aoonatamvorty, ont of: a0 Senin
batt yrs Yo vetion ene “ qaiwed vil dmtalg Awaddte dein ot tn,
ot owe! tuyia to bod egmwhneteh biea dottv oxneton wis 8 coventat
oad odor ot todd? ban “qmotd tantege zadteak Bias Yo meron ‘tive E
soinewseng ott ah tenteass aad ban dudtate 20 yesegeTE osld om
jai? tung af jorrewa af 42 Jouon Satesqn sotto out oi soanke z0¥:
ot sinetuel of etom edt to yxovtton ‘an, masemeoe 90. sal
rtovredd Teno ad¢ wen ad Btdntelg baw _itiatete of 2° sda
Bt hetate ah st yomtotse adh yd amtalo, te thyahAthy. atethembatg. a
gsthvo fm omh Yemom 0% a inamoh a9f Yo oxutan od Jas, eomatadin
seed anit ston od? Yo jung om said yoson Dhan Xe cme alt me Oi
(Bimakactod mort Witintele af aoowds oxb wan ak ezadd tad, dem, ba
TAP 1
a
nettiata yod adizom to bivah tty, hetwweme * a a
a? at bewavifeb yes todd belmed td .otom oat wm F =
(fiiby qth bowmvede® yaad tans bogeliq ham «eitauhevtons te ;
Vitsiatg to weJowrth bam tage yreeltio ga ga" mb od
_ Stab ath to yak oot mo. tadd botmoh xoddau? oat Posse
pad peiphaberinyeliygeess Sper :
ael gatviooes mt ,teedeok tans begetle i iverecd, yecwe Pane®
Gait? dotnoh "4 TRitekels te xedoonth bas Anope nen no betog’
doyle ina ,2Ubtntesa of tt berevELos fmm dom, oemhs xan, dm, qtantnel
Robot iaovenal pm Jom a2" peo ¢2 19% elev om yen, 22hdmta
efte Te egbeLvent tuettie to.
aie
defenses,” ete. They further alleged in substance
That on and prior te January 26, 1931, Bastear, as an
officer, director and agent of plaintiff, “was engaged in
negotinting and soliciting mortgages for and on behalf of plain-
tiffs" that he, acting as such officer and agent, “did negotiate
with these defendants for the mking of a loan by plaintiff on
certain property owned | them, and did agree that plaintiff weuld
loan to them the sum of $6,000, provided that said lean was secured
by a trust deed om defendents' property, - said money to be paid toe
defendants when the title had been brought down by the Chkeago Title
& Trust Go. and a guaranty policy issued, and that said note and
trust deed were not to be considered as the obligation ef defendants
unless and until said title was so brought down, ete., and the money
to mT) that relying upon said agreement ani promise defend-
ants executed said mote and trust deed, and delivered them to
Bastear, “who received them as the officer and agent of plaintiff ;"
that plaintiff, upon their receipt, “failed and refused to pay said
sum of $6,000 to defendents, and failed and refused to return upon
demand the seid mote to them, - all with the intent to cheat and
defraud themj" and that by reason thereof said note and trust deed
“did not become an obligstion of these defendants."
That on April 28, 1932, plaintiff promised te return seid
note to defendants provided that they would pay the bill of the
Title & Trust Co. fer said guaranty policy, ete.j that relying upon
said promise defendants paid said billig but that thereafter, in
ao said promise, it refused te return the note to
éefendants.
That a meeting of the “stockholders” of plaintiff cor-
poration was held (time of meeting not stated), at which meeting ssid
stockholders “adopted «2 resolution” to the effect that, “sinee plein-
tiff had not paid to defendants the amount of seid note, the note
should be cancelled end returned to defendants, and did by said
resolution direct the officers of plaintiff corporation to return
seid note and trust deed to themy” but that in spite of the resolution
plaintiff's officers have failed and refused to comply with the
resolution or to return the note ani trust deed te defendants.
That *no consideration ever was paid to defendants by
plaintiff or any other person for said note;" and that defendants
are not indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $7)147¢50, or in any
other sum, om account of the note or otherwise.
On the trial the principal issue was whether er not plain-
tiff became a bona fide holder of the note before maturity in due
course and for value, and without notice of any infirmity in the in-
etrument or defect in the title of Bastear to whom it was originally
delivered. On this issue the evidence introduced by the respective
parties is in irreconcilable conflict, but, after considering the
mass of Oral and documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that
such evidence ae Was offered by plaintiff and admitted by the court,
Standing alone, wos sufficient te have warranted a jury in returning
wr
owindadve at hegeile xed Yemt ots *, amen te
to Os ,teetecll ,tées ,&& qrnwmel of solag bon oo Penne
at bopenne cow” ,TiFdntefa to negs baa tee e too ltt
~nintg 26 tinded me hie 10% aegepitom gutiiotion dae eS ae
eéstivoger S25" ,io~ga bre teotTYe Mowe wax waltos gad
mo tikttntatq yt neol a to potdaw edd +02 etaabmotod oe pir
tiwow ttivntealy daft cere bib See sword qd heme Ydcovond Ahetre
beuueee saw saol bles gadd bebivosq .000,64 to mae esd meld of mao.
oe? bisq od oF yYenom thea ~ ,ystueqota ‘sdusbrieteh Be beeb Jarre 2 %
eit? ogeedai odd yd awoke idgweud meod bad ofits eff mena stuehae te:
bua eton biaa Jivld Deve ,bewaal yolLog ewratayg @ be 60 Caw? 4
etnebretebh te coltepifde ald as betebianos od of ton oxew booed ber ba
Yonom eit bem .soto , nod dnfgwotd oo maw afte biaw Die a
~hne Leb eaiawtg tue snemeenge bise mogy gniyiet fads
@@ orig hevavifeh fam 4bosh Juuxd bon etom blew oinexe ve
"etitvaiatg Te decoys bas veelilte edd sa aodd rayon hy 5
Dios You ed hbeewles knoe boLiat* »éqhoows hath coat snus” tad
mogN NiNtey oF beewies ban beLtal ban Wh org wn oy ‘ee be o mu
has taede of tnedoh edd diiw ila - gamete of prod Ne
book tautd bun often bise teased nesses yd fond bre + husk
‘,minabsotes sand? le noltaghise am smeped tom ee
bias seESY oe o¢ hoaimoetq tilintale .8bEL ,8& Lhaqi mo Salt
eds to Ifid acd yaa en yous sate yet etre :
soqe privieot gaits g.ade «ypifog Yrorteug bias ean’
i ,2eS testes Jacit yn qiltd bles diag Sehtaad tou Oe Be
_ Of eton ed? numtox of honntor 32 von imate, my fe UP ie
«roo Tiivatal, To "ote hioddoese" oft ‘to pnkvecm 2 Gad
bigs paivoen doidw t2 ,( betdats ton ey te eute ; w solinte
-nialg eattie" qian’ tootte ef? of “notiulonet @ hetqpba* arenio:
oton oi$ ,edon bien te dnwome od? atnabneted of bing
blo yd BL tne ,etnabreted of benxwtost fata o
muvser of moiveteqzres Ttisniaig To stooltie eds tooukh me fous
eertaleans off to wtign mi deuld donk “qeumsls oe beso temtt hue eton b
om? city ylqnoo of beew'itex baw belie? eval estes ) @ PST 291
sdinahseteh o¢ Sood Sewtd kee fon ald oxedet o¢ ao mod
4d adoeine tet od. Stag ar twvo aolde:
“pushastod gard bem “tefon bine tot mooted
aU mt co Wa PHL VE te mre edd mi PEdd
sseiwredise xo oFom oat
maha ty ton xo xotdeto amw opant fsqtonbig ode tated eat nd”
oun ms Witwirs told etor ea % tet 9 er = ere
valida’ eid YW beduborint eonobive wits emant ‘end eo
edt? patrobtamos twits .s0d .sorlinds efdattonoverst fit a poe
tests vena eat to eta ew Lesesntes ar es ine "38 a
ohe
a verdict im plaintiff's favor. And the record discloses that other
evidenes was offered by plaintiff (refused admission by the court)
tending to sustain its theory that it became a holder of the note in
due course. And we are further of the opinion that the court erred
in not submitting the case to the jury, in directing a verdict for
defendants, and in entering the judgment against plaintiff upen the
verdiet, and that the judgment should be reversed and the cause ree
manded for another trial. As the eeee ony be tried agnin we refrain
from a discussion of the evidenes-
in Libby, MeNeill & Likby vs Cook, 282 11le 206, 213, it
is said (itelies ours):
"When a motion for a peremptory instruction is made by
the defendant, if the court is of the opinion that in ense a verdict
is returned for the plaintiff it must be set aside for want of se
evidence in the record to suctain it, a verdict should be directed.
If the court is of the opinion that there ie evidence in the record,
which, Sanding oLones is eufficiont te sustain such a verdict, but
that such a verdict, if returned,;must be set aside becouse against
the manifest weight of all the evidenee, then the motion es d_be
enied. * * er
3
Genied, po hele oonexuise te to deny te pleintite §
pi trial jurye re may be in & record evidence w
stendis g2L0ne, tends te preve all the material averments of the
deceleration, and which is therefore sufficient te support, warrant
or sustain a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and yet, upon the whole
record, the evidence may so prepondcrate against the plaintiff that
a dye or ne in his favor cannot stand when tested by a motion for a
new ® :
See, alse, Alien v. Ue 5, Fidelity Co., 269 Ile 234, 243;
Ghiengo City Rye Coo v. Martensen, 198 id. S11, 512. in the Martensen
case it is seid (italics ours):
“and we have decided very many times that on o motion te
take a case from the jury, either at the close of plaintiff's evidence
or at the clese of all the evidence, the naked legal question thereby
Yeised in this court is whether or not thera is any evidence in the
record fairly tending to suppert the plaintiff's cause of action.
i @ weight the test: Ip would
be useless to attempt te reitera @ reason for S Trulee If,
ts contended by counsel for appellant, the trial court may, at the
‘lose of 211 the evidence, take a case from the jury merely because
@ regards the clear preponderance of the evidence, - or the over-
helming preponderance of the evidence, - as being in fevor of the
efendant, then the right of trial by jury is left to the judgmumt
a diseretion of the courts and no one would seriously insist upon
@ rules
The judgment of the Municipal court of January 6, 1934, is
versed ami the cause is remanded. REVERSED AND RSMANDED.
atlen amd Sulliven, JJ., concurs
<oside fait? eeaoKoath brovet exff ba stovet oe tkhimtetg af ielhtev se”
(gumbo etd yd métuatete power) Yrtenkaly ye totette ear oomeblye |
at efeo edt to tobted 4 omoeed 42 dade greens att sisiowe ot pabhand
sexio .dxuon act fasta motaige add to wkexh ote oy BRA sootHEe oath
wot dathxev o qoaiconks ml gyre att ot daao odd gntadtacr ton a2
eid moyw Tiiintelq feniogs ‘{aompdut edt gabseine ak bins. wstenbastod
ae ounes es bms beetewst ed bivede dnampiel, erie. dost tages atonbany
niotlet of 1 age pek<d oo yuu nese of? @ takes voridonn 29% betmast
seonebive est: 9 notsasouts a sont
$k GUIS OOS VILE SES gHOND +¥ YS A tea a “au
%
bal Fy
phect at no kvorvdont Teg & 2at
tolbree 8 BB 2O ai said me e ode = ek
, eaters diene aot © Bie ton 3d dnmm of at
soxrih od bivode @orbmv & PY 3 unease sum Oe
, Hrovet ols nt wornshive a2 sunt godt aebaiqe .
“ond folhtey o sows aiségese 3 oo et
saniags easagnd odhas #as of sammeponeee 3
a noksor m pee gre
pS0K gdOR WALL ss aaeeeaamaial oy sob. coe a
et tS a oasot
| soso wanted!) men pay 4
et motien « mo todd oomkd yr wun toy bebtbeb sad of bake
sonobive a’ ritimbedg be ane’ seqio ot te i ott os
xgerds seldargr Lage ad? ef .cene®: at P
ado nt ooo hive iS Be gerd Jon TO, TORARAW
savitoa to vase? Beet iatontade oad reqeyie
° piwseer af a ae to. vs a ak ‘
a tk eines : di at ouch
et te etRem 2 aro Lekst odd Pe 2
‘epuaosd vlerom igo ens moxt vero 8 @
=nevo ahs 3O * __gomebies ofa bi CORALODHOTS TE TEs
gd to covet ot gute? ea - 4 ive asi
sapomhuy, odd oF hed af eb. vil, ws Sete? yo, ddgt
snes dotent gid bio 9 ont bee t
{*
at wees hd Grsusal tO ¢uHOo » Lamp beel oft
“GRAM CLA qunenan “ebiohetarot a
——. - |
Sat eceeecnromenee?
,
37293 “* ;
Ke BLANKS TRIN, ) f F
Defendant in Error,
Ve
BRPROR TO MUNICIPAL
ALBERT Je HOFAN, Beiliff of the
Municipal Court of Chicago, and QOURT OF CHICAGO,
WILLIAM KLDINE, Doing Business es }
LOYOLA GAKAGE, Io yo 7
Plaintiffs in frror. 2 6 9 Tk. 6 l g!
MR. JUSTICH SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
A tort action. In « trial by the court both defendants
were found guilty as alleged in plaintiff's statement of claim and
plaintiff's damages were assessed in the sim of $650. A joint
judgment was entered against defendants in that sum. This writ
of error followed.
Plaintiff rented an ap2rtment to one Charles Harrisy
and on Mareh 29, 1953, there being due her an arrearage of rent
in the sum of $220, she caused the seizure of certain persenal
property of Harris under the authority of a distress warrant, and
upon the same day a custodian appointed by plaintiif removed said
personal property, which included a Chevrolet automebile, to the
Loyola garage, operated by defendant Kleine. The inventory made
by the custodien failed to include, as part of the property dis-
trained, the automobile. A distress suit was filed in the
Municipal court of Chiesge by plaintiff against Harris. On april
iO, 1953, Harris filed a replevin suit in said court against
plaintiff, John Doe, Mary Roe and defendant Kleine, doing business
es Loyola Garage, for the recovery ef the possession of the automobile
in question and other personal property. On the same date, a
f
bs
‘4
\
an ;
SAVIO OT sOCNEr
“;Oos0mo To TAwOS
IBTd.ALeysS
ea ry 2S 5 Biwi ww te
etnebovteh siod jtyeo edt yd Lestat « mi onited ieina ,
“Mine bat WW thomodads a tittabate ad onesie ae din uso
#itol A 088% Yo mua ode nh honvenss oxew 6 wad e
‘ as ae sous dsatd- at admnbeso dob temtese 5x
© aon ibechetict ms en
bea ginavamy aaeedath » Le Wsxosiue ait. tebe ‘shaste vesacore
ape erg oa.
btow bovouys tisedede ve ile bie 5 om
oO o> xtsosoa id Yo dxag be yobs rn
, ies gi butt He aes ee
tunkase eae uae at diwe nbvedaes ns
rrr od wth i "
epont aut sehoo somtosa taobmatob tise oni
Yh cai Nits am Fike nies it he Br as
| ethdenatin ool? te noiawnco seeenshins
ui. # (8dab emoa ost) m0
» bh wer ae ie ua hee PM WU ets 9 has Ny L0,8
replevin writ was issued, which was received on April ll, 1933,
by dofendant Noren, bailiff of the Municipal court, who executed
the writ on ‘pril 14, 1933, by serving it on defendant Kleine,
doing business as Loyola Garage, with the result that the automobile
wes held by Kleine subject to the order of the tenant, Harris,
pending the disposition of the replevin suite On April 15, 1933,
in the distress suit, upen motion of plaintiff, she wes given Leave
to amend the distress inventory on its faee, mune pro tune, as of
March 30, 1933, so as to include in the inventory “one Chevrolet
Sedan.” On May 20, 1935, en order was entered in the replevin
suit finding right of property in Harris, plaintiff in said enuee,
but that the said property was held by the defendant in that suit,
Ke Blankenstein, plaintiff herein, for the payment of the sum of
$220; that Harris pay to plaintiff, within ten days, the sum of
$220 and interest; thet if payment should be so made, Harrie should
retain the property replevied, but that in default of payment
Plaintiff in the instent suit should recover possession of the
property from Harris and that a writ ef retorne habende should
iseue for said return. After the service of the replevin writ but
prior to the entry of the judgment in that case, plaintiff presented,
at the Loyola garage, a claim cheek for the automobile and demanded
the return of the ear, which was refused upon the ground that the
Car was then being held for the bailiff, unter the writ, and that
therefore they could not deliver the oar to plaintiff. Plaintiff
offered evidenee to the effeet that prior to the execution of the
replevin writ the bailiff wee apprised of the existenee of the
éistress claim.
Plaintiff contends that "this court cennot properly pase
upon the question of liability or non-liability of these defendants
sinee the record shows they submitted no written propesitions of
law to the trial court. Vor thie reason the judgment ef the trial
ia
O6@L , lf Linqs a hevieoot sew doldw ,boweet gaw thaw mivelget
bedeoexs ote «Sao Legtodne! edd Yo Piilted «mexoll gashastod yd
genie ti ineiamteh op 24 gabraone yo .oeek .b£ Linq mo thuw uae
OLlidemoiwn edd galt tineor odd didw .epete® sLoyod aa snonteud sates
eaivtat ,tnomed ond Yo cob off oF tos Ldwa pane Ne ioe vow
gSb0l 4@£ Lingi nO thee aiveltqet edd to nettteoguth exis gui bneg
eveel movin aow ode ,Tilentat¢ Yo moitom mnogu etive eeortuls pat al
to ee gests OG opm ~eoet att mo Crotmovet ewotéa tb de bens 08
Pelperedd exo” Yrétneval ot at obuLfont of 48 O@. seer ee dotati
wiveiqex odd al bevedes eau tetrte me ,f80L .0S yall 20 *.anboe
sous Sten a? Tibkeatele pabotedl at eexeqony te iitgit yahoo? the
tine tede at teedweten edt YC bled aay ytteqong hen pat santa ioe |
Xo me sd? Yo sremyne of? sOT entovod IWhéntaly se
edt te moteunpscy severed tivede thie motor 7 ™ 1
hisvode ghmednd proton to tine © teil? bie ebyaal, apst YotegotG
tne tixy atveiges ot ko ontrroe edd aedd) » snus os, Nhe, 20k guna :
ehedae gong, RitiHinlg <vene decd ok tnmagoat, aus bi ¥ etree $f toby
bobrameS btm elidguedne eat cot doadto sihute a ia Lay
ont ted peor oli soqu deauten aon Mo dsly 9 tee bn ads te SPAY, 26
dots fame gt ioe ede tebe sS2hibad we woh bio guied ms Ws w 3 °
ti ontely ahead, of isa off teviteb son, |
¢ sia ie BS ov
x
Res fs0c0s4 seuss awe aa? ‘aut sis asi ‘ - ~ nh
_adnabustop nent to Wiltdeif-non | to Wiiidall to makes
to steht kaagesg ceva ben om potttadws walt woah
Saixd et No emounbul, ost sonnet abd aot fe)
ose
court should be affirmed." There is no merit im this contention,
It is the settled law of this ctate that it is our duty te detere-
mine whether the judgment is in accordance with the law and the
evidence, even though ne propositions of law were submitted to the
trial court. (See Pe, Coy Co & Ste Ie Ry» ve Chiesgo Rye, 300 IL1.
1623 Gentrnl Trust Coe v» Hagen, 249 Tlle Appe 507+)
Defendants contend “a judicial officer is protected by a
writ of replevin deeeribing specific property which has been duly
-dgsued and which ie regular upon ite faces; henee the beiliff committed
no tort by execution of the writ of replevin in this ense.” This
contention is a meritorious one. In Sample v. Broadwell, 87 ill.
617, 919, the court evotes, with approvel, the following:
“In Wilmer ve eee 7 Vete. 257, Shaws Che Je sayse
‘As @& general e, the officer is bound only to see that the
process which he is ealled upon to execute iw in due and regular
form, and issues from a court having jurisdiction of the subject.
In such ease he is justified in obeying his precept, and it is
highly necessary to the due, prompt end energetic execution of
the commands of the lew, that he should be so.! 'tt is
Beviabs "ho ony that 2 person shalt be cqasti ied tas itapancer
who acts under the process of the court.'*
(See also Boyden ve Bxanks, 26 Ille Appe 169, 173-5, wherein a number
of authorities bearing upon the subject are citedy see algo Gilbert
ve Buffalo Bill's Wild West Coe, 70 Ille Apps 326, 328¢9,) Many
decisions of the sister states supporting the rule laid down by our
eourts might be cited, if it were necessary. it must be borne in
mind that in the instant case plaintiff dees not claim that the writ
of replevin was void nor that the Municipal court was without juris-
diction to issue the seme. The writ was regular upon its face
and the wunicipal court had full jurisdiction in the premises, and
the only knowledge that came to the bailiff related to the merits
ef the cause of sction in the replevin suit. As stated in Watson Ve
Zabeon, 9 Conne 140, and State v» Weed, 21 Ne He 262, an officer
cannot assume judicial functions and decide questions judicial in
character. Parties sre entitled to a trial before the court
eneidvesaog add al ufvuie oo ah -ovet?’ “.eeteltte ed Sivodw semen
“tatobh of Yuh seo af 25 derlt otate aldd Yo wal batddas ed? at 9T
ai? Ane wal edi diiw gonsbiovcom nf af Soongoul odd tondoriw onda
ped od beddimdim exew wod to naoltleeqerq om mpvedd meve ywonghive
ef£IGGE 404M Onmeidd ov oN oh 099 BoD ged gel O98) sdumeo Lnbad
(FOS say Gill CSR yregal av wed 4 de9
Yd hedesdetq ef ss0ltto Latothet 2” hmodvoe adanbretet . |
Vint ased and sotdw ytindoty oftlooqy gakdivors> sthvedges: to tiew
hestiomes TILLI6 ood wormed toont est meqw tetepet of dodsw bob Bowens -
eift “.ees0 adds al nivetqot Yo ¢iew eff ‘To tbitwooms ys seodcon
.££1 98 .Lfovbeor! .v often al .6n0 avotretixes'# af mobdaedins
ai sgnkwoliol es ,Levergg¢s Atty yeetewp semoo oft ¢@ld a
“pEyee eb oth , wads «Tae soda y a?
ets Jarl? of ufeo hawod ef & 7 . ;
talimet tem sub mt wt Siusexd of moqe beLLay at eh {28007
ine thts ao Mae Sib pe gedved ¢ Bae $e Bn oo & «rot
. dt bas tyooeng att go mt f oan some o.
%o solfuvexe oitegzons bin ¢qmorq .onh por ot Yrsage:
gs oe — ed 6£notls ed tuald. @ why
TEs mi eaergred oad, ayan, ‘es Lakes
feaasq: Sas: sos enhoo of Lisde geareg 8 gerd.
#8, duos eit te anovotg aed
weenie 5 xheibibe c@80L «WOE vqae o£f1 08 sainaxt oy ‘pebse 262
#edEID vein wos {hodiy ote dookéus ads moqw’ Sait a icsbe Babatbit” he
‘weed (06882 .bR2 wqqi oLLI OF g20d taey Silty a tLste ote thu ay
“ud 4S mb bial odes edd yabixoqque abdeda «ddets aft to andberyen
bi emed 06 thu 61 .essunoonm exon VFR VBbdD of diated Atlin
siete asia asetd miele Jon seob “‘thbnbalg sano ihebent ef ab Laead onde ;
maka, Gwedeiw sow dies Lagteinil wil? tests ton Dov saw nive. .
gent ad? soe ‘taluges aaw gia” edt iia oct into matin
atizem edd 09 bedelon S2hited edt of aman dante cabot vine a
wY aoaisi ai bededs wa .dkste abvelqes bd KE odtow to’ eeano edt te
* gedtto ms o8BS sl VK 2k Cay Sv Boede ‘ane ORE seco © wate:
it katexhart anoitest) oblgob ome anbloonil fekoibe, esuraas —
ee shin’)
“peneo odd sveted Lalsd & of Bete tine ove wots | 9% pens
a tal
and an officer holding = writ or a warrant is net liable for ite
execution although he knows that the plaintiff or complainant
will be unable to make out his case or even that the case is not
prosecuted in good faith. The cases cited by plaintif?s de not
apply to the facts of the instent cases
It is unnecessary for us to consider defendsntat eon-
tention that, under the fects of this conse, defendant Kleine wag
fully justified in refusing to turn over the automobile to plaintiff,
fer even if the facts mate out = prima facie case ageinst him it
wes the settled law of this state that a joint judgment sogainst
several defendants could not be reversed as to one and affirmed as
te others. As we have held thet there wag ne liability on the part
ef the bailiff, the judgment, therefore, must be reversed as to both
defendunts. (See Livak v. Shicogo & Urle Rt. Re Goo, 209 Ill. 218,
226.) In connection with this ruling as te defendant “eine, it
must be remenbered that the instant ease was tried in 1955 and the
present Prectiee sect did not take effect until January l, 1934.
The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicage ia reversed
and the cause is remanded.
| RUVENSED AMD REMANDED.
Gridley, Pe Joy and Sullivan, Jes concurs
gti vot ofdelr Yon ef daettae » to ddxw a gihbtod tov tie m1 one ‘bith
‘gnatislquoy rd Vktnintg att ted? twork eM dyloitte Hoksveexe
Son uP bane odd Jedd nov 6 caso bei ro wate oF wtiaeal be Htky
ton ob desmueed ud tedte woeso amt WOE Seog HY nvtioeebey
ee gtane domtnmes ett to Beoat eld ee Ytage
-seo ‘adawbnetel cobtumos oF at OT voreasoonne at HT" om: +a
tow arbntY trobue tod poors atdt To wtdet ata eioiy | tate ronaned
eMiitabete bf oftdomotuc off tovo mut od gittewted ar bb
Oe ht viwaieoe hatdenpmammneitt dato ee edt
ao bantPi2s ‘Bete bab of GA boextyer BU'FON bebes” Betti
prog, ect tania on baw bred? hut sal Wit wa F "
voit +t : wee Li | 0
Baby! ai Gudiaadt ‘Hise nad a eter jos,
fagteve tad agaoid) to suo or ma
pes onde St ( x
We ‘ase
4, ii
i
: yd ay
5
md ny a
aS
‘ ele ng ’
i WB) ai te aoe
se bi 9
rv poe
q 4 3 Ve
¥ af "r
ve ret ¥:
GSAT he SEH oy & ?
A WR SP MMR Deal he aR or Bib Sesinil GR TEE 6 5 Ba
he a wa he ae he
ae
$7424
VIRST WATICHWAL BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY (of Fargo, Worth Dekota),
a corporation, Yn+rTrA fg »Z.
‘ Appellant, 2 6 Y beoNe, 6 1 §
BAKER, FONTRESS & COMPANY, a APPRAL FROM
corporation, CONTINGHTAL ILLINOIS
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, @ corporation,
individually and as depositary under
an agreement between it and Joseph
Ae Auchter et ale, dated May S1, 1929,
COEUR D'ALENE PINE COMPAHY, a COOK COUNTY.
corporation, JOSEPH Ae AUCHTEN,
HAERY Re CHANEY, JAMES FENTRASS,
AUSTIN JENNEE and Le Fe STEVENSON,
Appellees.
SUPERIOR COURT,
Pine et et
MR. JUSTICE SCAMLAN DELIVER2ZD THE OPINION OF THe COURT.
Complainant filed its bill against defendants amd after
answers had been filed by all of the defendants the cause was
referred to a master in chancery upon a stipulation of facts.
The master filed a report recommending that the bill be dismissed
for want of equity. The chancellor confirmed the report and
entered a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity. Complainant
appeals. Defeniant Continental Illinois Bank and Trust Company
yas dismissed out of the case by stipulation. Wo question is
Yeised as to the pleadings.
The master found from the stipulation of facts, the
follewingt That complainant was a corporation organized and
existing under the national banking iaws of the United States;
that prior to, and for some time after April 1, 1925, the Coeur
PD’ Alene Mill Company of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, @ corperstion
(hereinafter ealled Mill Company), owned large tracts ef timber
land, approximating 36,000 acres, and a certain saw mill, all.
ee ale
4
oR ad AY TSS
Oe 8 na gttotdaxenxen @
Bio AsLeOVS | baw l fog’ “a . |
» REL Je ee
WORT JARUTA oul + ASOD r nae | '
(koltexoqtos a Bee EA
aes ee + aeovred NOTA Me
PSL 4ih Yak bodad yale 96 ted me
aXTHGOS BOO a opal SHIT SSA ac
4 am, ¥, p
SQEATHIE CEUAL ) ofl
‘ ‘ wa
oLAIOD BHT Co MONHI4O OT EVE HAMLDE AOI
zagis tan edasbootoh dentays Liis ati he £22 srantatgno® i
ear oawie esd adushnotod edt to Lie ys beLtt mos { bee oxowens |
.Gdont te olistuqtts » moqu yxeenade ai weduem 5 of on
Pewelnath ef LLid edd gods antbneamoves aoqer a ‘both Yedenn oT
See BT eS
bas $voqox oid hems tres oLLooamcsto “nal? suttups i) imaw 0%
bee ne
tiaxiotgnuod .ygiwpe to gxow tet Lite ots gutaudmads seteed « boxstae
aaqMoS FewuT ts donk atoniL{l Indsomkined tashwoted a ae
af noideuyp off swottaiughts wd oenn eae 2 fie Sonktense sam
edd padont © solveLugiée odd sott bagot tedean ost
hia boainegio soltereyion a saw tmamtelguos tadT tyatwotto? —
{sodade bodtal on Xo aval gabiand Sanotenn odd xohnw gattalxe
moo? ed BSL 4L Langs codhe mid emma ror bas yor cotte dadt
ee ey anheeell
Mian xedut? to nivaxd emret domme «(yoqmed Sts boLiee woftamtoree pe
ws fie «ilim woe miegtes » bum (200A 000 — 82 pick eonitiiin eee - :
~2e
/
located in the state of Idaho, from which lends it was cutting and
marketing large quantities of timber; that Fred Horriek wan the
preci¢ent of anid corporation and ite principal stockholder, and
Re We. Mller, ite secretary and treasurer, thet Merrick and Mller
were ite principal managing officersy that defendant Baker, Fentress
& Company was “ongaged in the fineneing of diverse and sundry timber
eorporations, association and organizations, the marketing and the
selling of bonds and mortgages secured by timber lands or tinber
properties;" that about april 1, 1925, Herriek, Bilex and Mill
Company, being indebted in the sum of $800,000, executed and delivered
to Baker, Fentress & Company their joint and several obligutions,
“which were first mortgages 64 por cent serial Geld Bonds in denemi-
mations of $1000, $500 and $1009" whereby they ond ench of them
jointly and severally agreed to pay to the holders ami owners of the
bonds $50,000, ebeolutely ond uncontitionally, on April 1, 1926, and
a like sum on the seme day of each year thereafter to ani including
the year 1934, end $350,000 om (pril 1, 1935, together with interest
on sll of said sums at 6 per cent, payable semi-annually that to
eeeure the payment of the bonds Mill Company executed and delivered
its trust deed or mortgage, whereby it conveyed to @xchange Wetional
Bank of Gpokane, ‘ashingion, and Calvin Fentress, as trustees, the
eaid eew mill plant and the 36,000 acres of timber lands, together
with certain water rights, railronds and other privileges ani
franchises; that Baker, Ventrese & Company offered the bonds for
sale, through ite sales organization an? through banks and other
bond houses, and the entire issue of the bonds was thus eolds that
about May 1, 1926, complainant purchased, in the open market, tm
of the bonds of the face value of $1,000 exch for approximately
$10,000 an¢ssecrued interesty that prier to June 14, 1829, Mil2
Compeny, Merrick and Sller paid $150,000 face value of the bonds,
wt.
\
bre nmition aaw $k ebitet Aotdw moxt yodabt to state aft at betavol
et apy totrxel bert Sactt pvedehs to eetstinewp ogtal paltoy rem
boa ytobloddoofa Laqiontmy s2i tre mottetoqtoe bien Yo tmehbeerg
velie bee deobrtoM tel? Ptetwenosd bow Tmwnsoxoes att Meng ot 8
asytingt gtedell tmehmetebd fads petealtte galgenam staqhent an orb
wedak? qrhmim Soe sverth Te petonad!® ettmt togmyno” Y naw ened &
esi? one yrttedtiam esd yengiiontnegzo bas mottateguen senots tog 2
asdut? ro etaal rodmt? yd Seuuvee abgagived bas “abaad’ te ambts
‘£eu pee weLkd gdodutsd .480L ,t Tings duods dade 3 Be to xeq one
botevited baw beduoexe .006,008$ to ala aff mt seaditat yated <yaaquod
eemOliagilde Lazoves ban smtoj, xed “enagued a: a “ not “sedated
ntuqed 2 aheo® BOO Labtee doco 19g 40 eegeye som deci eae dae
maid to Sone bao yodd Ydetedw ".00L9 base v0ae .000Lt 20 enettan
ett? to evenwo ee stedded att oF yaq of boorga YLtoroves bas “Eintol
fee 4BSOLof L2NGA ao qxddamotsitnoom: hea pedwhoad’s 4000,089 shaed
gattwdent tee o¢ tedteered? t3esy dose te Ysbd emma out me mun ott os
doowdad dike weddopot ,8fOL .£ Livg) me 0004086) am seek easy et
ef dust? TefLomenonInoe afdeysg gtese Koq Bote gue bias Ro Ste se
hoxevii6b bas boduoere Yoequed ILI etmod odd 20 Secure odd exes
Sasiolem sypastoxt 0d hegewneo of fo weite segagiamn Te “host Seuns abt
ete gaseteunt Ga gotontnet wtveeo tne gttad geting eeretogs to staat
wedteyod cahmal vedalt Ye dorse 990.68 add paimanbenasuncal
fru soyetiviny veddo bra sheotiew gadiight + (io athe
tot abaod ade Sotetto taaqned & sesxsast jpenein-enttt qa hia! a
r9t9O be eitied Rysorte san auipontengio ‘oneeateth dendtpsitite.
dud? yoEOe amts aow ebmed add Yo mwand exbims. old bag enoused baad
ms gfortran aoqe oft wt ,hoemitocg dawninkgues «P8OE ok Wak ee
| Vhedamixe rege wl Mons OG0yko 20 oudey seek. ade 20 a r
FAME QUEL 4 oomt o2 cobeg, dame gdagredad, bowsoge tan
eebmoxd eft to only Soak GOO,00L8 bing necLi hes ays exol
oS~
and paid to compleinant and other holders interest on the bonds
maturing on ond prior to Octeber 1, 1928; that at the time of the
default hereinafter mentioned there were outstanding $650,000 of
the bonds, whieh included the bonds owned by complainant; that on
March 23, 1929, Baker, Yentress & Company forwarded te complainant
and other holders of the bends a printed notice. The master here
inoludes in his report the notice, which, in substance, informed
the bondholders that default would occur in the payment of the
principal and interest due spril 1, 1929, due primarily to the fact
that Herrick, the chief stockholder of the company and one of the
joint makers of the bonds, “hed failed financially." The notice
also states certain facts and circumstances thet led up to the
failure and various efforte mate by Baker, Fentress & Company to
work out the situation without dieturbing the bond issue. The
meotice then proeeeiz os follows:
“We are faced with the problem of determining the best
method of protecting the first mortgage debt, which, as nearly az
we ean now determine, aggregates about %700,000, including interest,
unpaid taxes, insurances, expenses, etc. We believe the first step
is to get title to the mortgage property through foreclosure,
thereby eliminating the claims of all o ereditors relative
thereto; and that the outstanding bonds and coupons should be used
te buy in the property at the foreclosure sale, in case no one
@lse bids sufficient thereat to pay off the mortgege debt, including
interest and costs. uch a suit will soon be instituted, A year
for redemption after the sale is allowed under Idaho law,
"You will soon reecsive a draft of an agreement creating
a Bondholders’ Protective Committee. if the committee should become
the purchaser of the property at such foreclosure sale, we recommend
that as soon as it aequires good title thereto, it should attempt
stly to scll the property for cash as » whole, for an amount
sufficient to pay the mortgage debt; or, failing this, to sell it
on terms to some experienced operator willing to take over the
operation and work out the mor debt on a basis satisfactory
te the security holders. in briel, to provide a live obligation
as soon as possible.
"Our stockholders, their familios end immediate
connections hold approximately one-fifth of the $650,000 of bonds
now outstanding. ‘Ye will neither buy nor sell these bonds at the
present time. You be assured thet we will exert our best
efforts to work out this situation satisfeeterily and av speedily
- possible, and we count on your fullest eo-operation to this
-o
gained ai om teexetni exobied sedfo dae tnamthalques of bieq bas
cult %o omits exe de dud 7OROL yd xodoto® os tobmg dee nq gabrrdam
to 0O0.edH yalbnoraywo oxow execs Renolisem vedtanisted Iiustob
Mo tacd pdmantetyroy y¢ homee abcod ods bobaonk dolidw yabnod edt
deni siymes of beleertel yasqued & asvsdmeT qteded ,OSOL 46S Apwall
wre totes ofS .seidon sednlag o ahned ot Yo wtedLod xedgo Ame
noesetat peenaiodna si stele eaoiten edt \dteqet ald st sianoadll
ett ko daamyeq malo ah tse blvow tluaton amd | exit
| dent odd oF “ibrqmlag cmb . MORE yf Lorq, exd teotedm) be seqtoadey
ed? Yo ene dee Yanguoe edd? To sobledtoose else eds A abeike Sead
_eotten of® "»ylinionani? bedtet hes” ,eberod eal? Yo acoder sates
_ ede of qu Bol dasty usoned astoonty haa ston} aiatren aeinte gets
od EXeqwed & avotdnst eroded yf otem etx tte oweltay fre 9th
aff .»ewant baad od? petdewtath tess kw wettaan te oat wo stro
ravoteg? a5 eft aoe
: a sm % ‘4 a
gE ES a gatauerstol 30 » te misors ent Helo aig to ses
. tepaedal gabtiad ragincor’ ie ae soteun ne ateuese
wi apimedorseh fyse thao 7shs ia isegote euageves of “s ot aes
bees ed hivedu amoques tno ebnod grthbasdedao ¢
ene wr auae nk ,»afeer erueeLoe%o% | as
pal iuioat « e@ ee rereteen one tie wu 08 ¢
Se Sine ea Or ae,
ameved. pod mamteye a. Se 0 Feaxb & wvieest a ah =, ‘Sam
grate "er Sasa
# iat at of ettat aabils Nagy oo et oe
oni ovo vigor oF oni
tod gr abbag 4
Peni
¢ vate adaod @
Res wo bon vitrosestattoe a
ae ;
aids 08 nohsereqo-on Seodio®
whe.
The master further found that about May 31, 1929, “at the request
of Baker, Fentress & Company, James A. Auchter, Henry 7. Chaney,
James Fentress, .ustin Jenner and Le F. Stevenson as a bondholders
protective coumittees entered into » Bondholders Protective Agree-
ment, which Agreement is in evidenee;” that sbout that date a copy
ef the agreement and a notice were forworded to complainant and
other holders of the bondss that complainant received copies of
the notice and the agreement aml “accepted the terme of said
depository agreement and * * * forwarded to the Continental Illinois
Bank and Trust Company its bonds as aforesaid, and on * * * June l4y
1929, deposited with the Continental Illinois Bank and Trust Company
its bonds ac aforesaid, * * * and that * * * Continental Illinois
Bank and Trust Company issued and delivered te complainant its
ecertifieate of deposit thereunder * * *, That of the {650,900 of
bonds outstanding (645,000 thereof (including complainant's) were
éeposited with said depository and like certifieates of deposit
issued therefor;" that thereafter Calvin Fentress, as trustee of the
mortgage secuxing the bonds, instituted a foreclosure suit in Idaho
egainet Mill Company and others for the foreclosure of the mortgage
or trust deed given te secure the bonds, and in 1929 Mill Company
was adjudicated a benkrupt and J. A» MeGovern was elected and
Qualified ss truetee in bankruptey of the estate of Mill Companys
that on June 2, 1930, Fentress, on behalf of Auchter et ale, as the
Protective Committee, purchaced from MeGovern, trustee, all the
right, title ané interest of Mill Company in and to the 38,000
acres of timber land, saw mill, water rights, railroad, and certain
ether franchises and privileges, which were all conveyed to Fentress
as trustee for said Committees that in November, 1950, Chaney and
Pentress made a decd eonveying to Coeur D'Alene Pine Company, a
Delaware corporation, the properties conveyed to them by eaid
teowpens ol? dn” ,e50L «Lo yolk sugde deme bowot zeddau? ffeiny agy '
yen?» yseeh yseddew. .A somel gynmqmed & gnoxtnet .zoled to
erehfodbaed a on moamevede «TF et baa sonnel miege suerte womeh
~sorg evidegtoxrt eyebfecsmok « oimi bevedne 9edd imag pei fl sig
Wop # stab Jed? suede ded’ “jeunphive at af dnomegays deidw gtnem
bite instiaiqnes od pebtowse? etew eokion # has fugmeqtge O€8 30...
te ewiges bevicoes twamlalguge tedd gatmod odd Xo ere bLost todge.
bee to aered adi betqacgn” bee. sqempetye od? tee option ae...
aloniifi Ladnentined sid of bahtawsel * * * bug tremeonge waee teegee |... -
edt era * * go bua ablasexots ea shaed ati ynequed deur tne anol
ynequos tour! ome uno etontiil Lataenkhiaod ont dddw bed tgoged 528 0L....
GhoukLlt Ladnensiged *.* * teks daw % * *, * sdlane7g2g 2a abped wah.
ati énsmlalquoo e& bevevilod tue ei apebilrg yore i |
20 GOC~08d? eas Lo fadt .* * * aeheawetedd diseqeh te edeal )
oxow (x 'taatialqmos yrtbufent) townads 006,839 peisensie 8
¢ banged to setaclitdsves efit ms ‘wont nage bhee i ot
ed? %o cedeatd aa eanetgnsit nev iat wwetaoneds dade, "an alge
ont bt at $ Esme + oumeotoena? ® ‘botst tant voteod aoa ia
5 weit
wma reat exer oo ner ethno’ ante Solel we nots vie » damn awed
hes Setubte hw nebvesow <0 oh his tqinicied a bod wotbata e
A wisiguo LEN te states ont to Yotqumctined tt we dowe? Prone dy
odd eh este te wotefows te se fe vteaten Nee If ee meas
edt Ii3 «besuirce errrevonoit mort beoadoruy vost! m2 wy imedpnetes
cg hatha Mt 2 ane see 0 eiccnatest Et "ts de Pet,
-Se
sheriff's deed and said trustees’ deed; thet about October 4,
1930, said Protective Committee forwarded to complainant and other
persons who had deposited bonds, a certain notice; that complainant,
after receiving it, forwarded to the Protective Committee its pro-
test in writing; that notwithstanding the protests of complainant
the Protective Committee thereafter esused 2 corporation to be
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, known os the
Coeur DP’Alene Pine Company, with an euthorized capital ef 8,600
shares of common stock of the par value of $100 each, and 1,400
shares of preferred stock which have uot been issued; that the
officers and directors of emid corporstion were the members of the
Bondholders! Protective Committee, C. @. “iddall, the office
manager of Baker, Fentress & Company, and his assistant, Ramsay
Vebsters that the deed from Chaney end Fentress to Coeur D'Alene
Pine Company wes made in consideration of $260,000 par value of its
common stock, 75 per cent fully paid and 25 per cent unpraid, md
$38,470.29 evidenced by the grantee's promism ry note which
represented moneys which the comuittee hed borrowed to pay the
expenses of the fereclesure, including the amount distributed to
the $5,000 par value of bends not deposited with it; that thereupon
the $860,000 of said common stock was issued te the holders of the
eertifieetes of deposit iseued by the depositary of esid committh e,
“to exch certificete holder a certificate for 133-1/5% of the par
value represented by their respective certificates of deposits These
certificates were delivered to the Continentel Illinois Bank and
Trust Company whieh in turn delivered them in exchange for the
eertificates of deposit, but complainant did not exchange the
certificate of deposit issued in its neme for said stock;" that
at the seme time the directors of Coeur I'Alene Pine Company adopted
the following resolution: |
yh thdedbO suede fore phess *soddained b¥oe ins boos a *ttbrede
tetys Sera tmetialanes of bebtawiot ooF8 tanted evivor Jon Biew “oeek
ethenieiguts sadt peotien tietcoo a .ahtod hodicoqed ‘beat od anoateg
“ory td} soddineeD ovidoetert otf of nobrawet (fF gakvioser xeeth
thantnignes to stuotone wd gaitbnededetwsen dads pyhidtiw of baud
ed of nelisteytos s beuwets red‘teovertd’ oetdimad evissosox® eit
eit ac nrent yetaated to efade ed? Te omod ons ebm boatnayxo
O02 to Led iqeo bosteedsen ma débe yynsqnod salt ens titd Lead
OU L tke howe OLS Ye avEav xoq ont? to Xoods homme Xe &
o89 tals {basset weed fon ovedt delde doose borxetong 2 aotade
ee Yo uTenen oto ovew molterdqreo Bian to aveseenth baa wend tho |
‘gsitte ost iteee .© 49 coodetemed wvidopdedt |
Yroned ,matetene ald tee eyequod & ‘wasrdnet qtedlatt Yo eponan
eeefi" awe02 of aneuioeT bas yormel? mot heoh ont gnats wader 0
ad: t® elev isy¢ Quo, dad te noltsse hi ants ih phen aw ae “eeinge o ent
bres dings joo teq Of few blag tier tres oe nme8
doi:ty ston Xt ma inorg ¢ ‘sednany ont xe boone div '
wild han ad bowwrsed hus eetilemon etd Hetale paca
“ed bedudivieto teams eats mutt batosd «ommatoons’, se anoque
moquosods said ist ditw bedisoged don shaod Yo suday tag 06048) ads
ex? % exobLed add od bom! sew Xoode somaoe biee to 000,088 exit ot
to Stiimes bina to yYtadlaaged sid vd bowrent ‘ataoge’ 20 astnoltitses
tag ed? to RENIASEL sok atani ites a rohtodt tant itexes co shan rare
aed .tieoqess Yo aodeoltisteo sviseaqaot stot wa uunoens poems *
fos tad whom irr Lstwont ined ond at hovavtieh oer | ae
ad? ot ennntoxe ‘a erostd hovovt Lob Perry at ‘datde'™ aise up
. Lier es ree i o
| etd egeatioxs gon 6th onan atquae tud shaogo to ae }
teat “loots bEse aot ose adt nt boumat theoged 2 8
"tae atte
betev a aap? ‘oxts onokA'd uso ® onaeoort® até ome ease oft ta
. ee praia oat ba
-6~
"Be It Purther Resolved, that in the judgment of this
Board anid property is necessary for the purposes of the cor-
poration; the same is the full consideration of the issue of
said steck, 75% paid and nen~assesseble and the directors dewres
and adjudge thet eeid property is of the value of $617,000."
Also the following resolution:
"Be It Further Resolved thet this corperetion will |
bring ne suit anda esert no personal liability against any helder
of such stock certificates of stock for the colicetion of unpsid
portion thereof.” é
That on November 12, 1950, Coeur D'Alene Yine Company mailed to each
holder of the certificates issued by the Continental Iliinois Bank
and Trust Company as depositary of Bondhelders' Protective Committea,
a @all fer the payment of 7} per cent of the par value of the stock
and a call for a stockholders’ meeting; thet in the same communication
there was contained the following nottieer
2 *Shie company will bring no suit and assert ne personal
liability for ny unpaid ealis, but will look to the remedies
against the etock itself fer collection."
Theat on the back of the commmicetion certain seetione of the gancral
corporation lew of Delaware vere printed, snd saleo the followings
"The Coeur D* Alene Pine Company in iseuing this « teck
has agreed not to bring suit and not to assert personal liability
against holders but to look only to the stock for collection of
the enils.*
That complainant, in respomse to this comuumication, sent a letter
stating that 1t ¢ould net end would not accept the ateck, protesting
against the assessment mentioned, and objecting to the entire plang
that on February 25, 1931, complainant received a communication from
Coeur D’Aleme Pine Company which notified it that it was the holder
of 1351/3 shares in the said company and that there was an unpaid
assesoment of $1,000; that the Coeur b* Alene Pine Company would, on
Mareh 13, 1951, preoeed to sell at public smle such pert of the
shares “of each of seid delinquent stockholders as will pay said
eall, with interest and incidental expenses and will transfer the
shares so sold to the reepective purchesers who will then be
entitled to certificates therefor;" that upon receipt of this
* -
a me
4
wine te: srr cont stk sate, str
—ga0 ae Oo eenogung edd > oP idee brass
i emumd aly Se mole RAY ye
Siweee axot youth od toe algaagae oH
"OOO, 7400 te autavy ody to ah ydregenq Biae oahaida fhm
samhintonn ett wat OmbA
site soitaverroe eft tat beview (ies Haase
‘aghiod yur tamioge Etiitdels goog Ryall tow ie Pe dime Ox aatad
htuqaw te moitveifos ead set seat
tons mokt
Meee 69 bellem eneqaod only ometla'd taped 080s oe Tedusves ao deifT
deme afer If fndtertinod 069 xd bovent codashitsPepo ws Ye dobhed
esattinne® orisoosort twrehkeddaed Ye Yeedisogeh ox YeQued sett ban
foots oi to eufew woe oft to énrve ‘cog GY Do tmemyeq eds Kot Shae a
roLsayinmmes ames ed? of dads pamtioom ‘wxebkoddoote a seh Lkaete hae
reoitan geiwediet ade bemieimen aaw ae
fasoxsey on dtenea bee ive on Pa oa =e: iLie ‘yuaqugs.. 6 i eee
ekeeson ect at stool iiiw ond nbageus ee titdels
9 BOL tes ay * ieee wr
kexoneg 963 Yo enokdeoe alstion mottacdmmmog ot to aped ett mb tant
igntwolio? add coin hm ybedntyy otnw oxsmated 29 wah nebiawog
dooes cide pntsend nt yooqued emt? se ot i na a
Witidslt lanoeveq duesax oF Jor re oh ae. Stys
te meiveeiles «*o% doove ef? of vine
“Babveeterg sloota exit tqevca ton bivow hme tem hf aaa’ -
tielg oxties vslt G9 grbtoohdo hem «benottasm tedmnovens edd tentags
mort soitaolaweanen 2 bevkewst ditamintgnon 4 LOOL BS veewsdeT me desld |
wwhtod wi? met go) Sosty Of Sort hion adehdw Umogeo® eats eoedAtd tweed
bdege ng aoe ones? dualy bas wtageee blew ald ak nosade 8\E8EL
mo whine yung Smet pwede ts: -tewod.ertd tastt 100008 te. tres
ada Yo Som Howe olen oitéeg tm Lion 0d heoowny « Ked Ah doen
pha qoq: Lhkw aa axobsorbiveta ‘tmonpabsed: bhog De tone toh hn
abit to syiovet mogu dass *;2o tend as doohtheree 02 : —" ; ae
o}=
conmmnication complainant again protested, and the sxle was
postponed from time to time by an agresment batween the partieas
that at the time of the foreclosure of the mortgage and the said
sale of said property to Coeur D'Alene Pine Company, “the complainant
was the holder of 10/645ths of the entire bended indsbbcdness. That
the fair value of complainant's equitable interest in said property
of November 1» 1950 was 10/645ths of said sum of $617,000, which was
She value of said property as offered by the trustees and the Coeur eS
Blalene Pine Company in the trenuefer of said property to anid core ,
poration or $9,255.82;" that upon the enll for the payment of %e
per gent of the face or par value of the steck, the holdere of all
of tae stoek except about 1,575 sheres immediately paid said ageesse
ment and before the sale oecurred the nusber ef shores upon which
She assessment had not been paid had bean further redueed to 869_
Shares; that since November 1, 1950, Coeur i’ Alene Pine Company
hes undertaken no operation whataver; has wade a second call upon
its stockholdera, and from the two ealle has realized the sum of
©101,132, and with the -pprovel ef beth directors and stockholders,
dismantled the mill originelly covered by the mortgage, thereby
reducing insurance and elimineting the expense of caretakers; has
ceased to pay taxes on 11,450 acres of land regarded as valueless
has sold 5,471 seres af land for 63,9603 has paid all of its
debts, and on Decomber 31, 1932, had $29,945.31 in its treasury to
defray the carrying chorges for the year 1932, “hich were eatimated
at $23,515. The report continues: “It is contended on behalf of
the complainant, that the amendment te Section 12 of said Bonde
holders’ Protcetive Committee agreement, by adding the followings
‘Such espiteal stock may be issued as in part unpaid, and to that
extent payable on the call of the Board of Directors,’ was not
binding upon the complainant by reason of the protest made by it te
at
eew afes cet? Dime cho teatong ainge tonatndypos BOLE sokrunmne 9
jootiang off soewded trsa8 ys er ye om’ og sats mor: vemaganog
Shan sid Lew wgoptuom ons ie ‘Wnnina viet ‘ad ah alll itd “deep
daantatgnon esi” .ynqwo! omii onteta'd saved of YOxegome biaa to eta
Ho, anaes, a 102 hee oft aga, ta pee nare eatin
fie to otebLou ody edoota od! io opley sag ae @omd ould 30 sav, tog.
~sevees bier bieq Viedetbout amugla Sea, dweda iqoaxe shops es to
ene nen ee ne wa
— breoes & shee aput meentatin wddecenh 4 on ee ad toh )
Sesaee ems bexiiaet vod elles ows osld. aor? bun. aesebfodioorn aft
at 4 We: Cua Aa
eaxwhipridoads fen ayedoetth aéed te levetca odd sdb bee . ‘ 2
Som Sate
\Gereds <opent rom eit w bere rE vhLonkytro Ltt wth te ‘
eee! TO gy Ee. ee Rane
: neti tetedntorss te cxmsaxe oa aattantmt ie hess heads ered pab bes *
Higher MRR SFR ITY ~UERGRN MSE >, COMER oR SRN ROARS” SACRA ORD aia PARR UNG UWE: ar tiie St Nay b oe s Be ae rs
_yrnedoutey ar bubnaget bral te seton Ono, tt so ‘one we 98
‘gal sity Sete om
ate te tte ta andl 1900608 xo bane =) ewan S142 ew ned
: 0 yureaerd edt mt Lena0ayint onsl efOCE oft Tadao 90st i oe °!
bedamites omen sto tate SECE Boy ent 20% sopra | at he f
Yo Latte’ ao beturadmos ai si" wount da
haath . riety oa
| sbuoil bine 16 GE mabvon! of ameubsomn exit test? y onan? que
Shika eh hel ili Ete IN
sgnkwollot oat gerdihbe “e sthemen tes wort heme? ovistoo dort
| » Soak Benet sae a hate
asd 09 ben ¢bingaes soe at en pemen? od am foots coe
way
Vheotily
“den aan t atodoetid to brent ott re theo aid mo
MEE 8
of 0h of vin tertene oat Ye neath &
Pie oy? "
/
fen
goid amendment. It is further contended that the only pewer said
Bondholders’ Cemmittee had, was to supply deficiencies in the
original agreement that would necessarily carry out the original
intent of the parties, and that the provision regarding amendments
wae not intended ac an sutherity te permit medifiestion of the
plan thet would definitely atrike out the Original undertakings
of the parties: thet seid original agreement expressly provided
*vregiatere? holders of certificates of depesit shall act he per-
sonally lisble for such compensation, expenses or indebtedness, or
for any action taken by the Committees’ that the altered plan as
edopted imposes a contingent stockholders’ Liability upen those
who accept the stocks that the complainant, being a National Bank,
is prehibited from entering inte any stock venture whereby it would
become liable to assessment on the steck, The complainant further
contends that the Bondholders’ Protective Conmittee were trustees
for the benefit of all the bondholders; thet ae such trustees, they
were bound by the terms of such agreament so long ae they continued
to act, and that they had no pewer to emend the agreement after the
sale? thet having used complainant's bonds for the purchase of the
mortgaged promises on a plan waterially different from the one in
foree at the time of the sale, the defendant, as menubers of the
committee and the new corporation as s purchaser with notice, are
lisble to the complainant for the face value of the bonds and interest
coupons, vith interest thereon. On behalf of the defendants it is
contended that the defendants who constitute the Protective Committee
aeted in good faith, with an honest desire to do what wae best for
the interests of all ceneerned. That the complainant has not
proven any fraudulent, collusive or wrongful conduct on the part
ef any of the defendants, and that on the contrary, the acts,
eonduct and proceedings of the defendants, as chown in the pleadings
cr
bine wewoe yfeo of? Sacld boteesemo vemiwt ef FL .aeeerbronia Hen
on? ai eofenmiatteh yieqws of ace yhett voestiamot 'erethiedhnet
fenigizo ed tye. Utes viiteseeven bitow Jedd tremeetyn Lente Pro
aixawhneas gaibreget noteivorg etd eadd bus .aekiung oft to Saddnt
of? Yo Moers ELbom stuxoy of ysbtertiem ma a0 tobmoderk fbn iin
ABKbind robes Lenknite atid ano oofbrte ydotiabted piwow tort saky
bebivery Lonexaxs tacumoran Sastteixo bien dee phottrag bit Yo
“ey od on LLmie Skangoh To sodeortherse 2 orshtod hexedalyor*
40 ysnenboddennt ro seanoexe yrelccansenos Home to? SLGHEL UlLstios
ao nakq bevedis ond dest? 'yoortimned ett yO minke? gotten Yo tOt
aod! aogu YStLidetl ‘etohfortuese diegmtienoed & sevogmt botqobr
yiHed Lewotio » gmbed ,imertatqmoo edd gard tloote od tqwooe only
bien ot ierour cusnor dots ne oft untretne mont bovteding at
setidiwit duenielquos em? oxoote ext? wi fnemevowen of efdatt ouooo
acotmixt crew co’dtamel evtiovter’ ‘ore bLodhned | emt tadls brodsy
Ress pecetuurd ffove ac sats qaxeblodhaed on? ‘th to threned eat! 10?
a le Se ee ave
benttewoo Yen? es ume os emomenes doue 10 amet wl? YS bned exer
reser |
dakw wae
ont todtc sromormes odd bateme of teweq on ta oat sets “bre vee 04
oni 20 sandorug end ot ebaod wo ‘suanialeuee bomar sath ost poh he vote
oe os he
tek afte asit wort snocatthe vi felts ten make - te soataory
ous eoobton Adiw teandowmg « on moddoxoquen wen nie hero eodd temao
were sett ors whaod esld to sukiw sys off tot dmamdalquno aid 02
a ai $i sdachne'tod et te tated nO .noereds soocedal Hehe oe
easS tamed evivoatérd ond seuetienoe oie ainshaeteh ald tadts bo! od
get ned vaw adv ob 08 sréewd acne fs hs kw ate beoy at “
hy By Ans
ton ued tant alguoo ona daa? » bentaones Ae ® Sond ad
feng ad ne douteon Larignoxn 20 avenues «emal one!
sedan edd D oaalanie oats RO tect fae sotmstnotob ast
sate Ga 4 recy ee a
mpathooi add th mvedé ah ene to pone a tas 4 a 9 é
bana vo Ws
ext ‘to axe daroct as etmatare teh etd qtlvs ads ‘to omy att 9 ts eorot
fabs ce a,
ad
and exhibits end by the facts stipulated, indieste thorough
impartiality toward former bondholders of the Coeur D'Alene Pine
Company, ani that the complainant has at all times had due notice
ef all plans. That the defendants who constitute the Protective
Committee in all respects acted within the seope of their agency
as created and defined by the Protective igreement and the amendment
thereof. That under the terms of the protective agreement, the
depositors submitted themselves te the control of the majority,
including the right to amend the agreement in any way thet was
germane to the original sgreement. That the amendment eas duly
and regularly adopted by a majority of the depositors of the bonds,
and that it was in all respects germane to the plan and purposes
of the agreement. That said comaittes hai the power to iasue the
asseesable stock without the sentence added by the amendment, but
if it did not have such power without the amendment, it certainly
had it by reason of the added sentence. That the terms of the
original agreement are being carried out and thet therefore com-
Pisinant hes not suffered any damages and the bill of complaint
should be dismissed. The Master finds that under the terms of
said original agreement, said Bondholders’ Protective Comittee
had the pewer, whenever in ite judgment it might be aiviszble, and
from time to time, to amend the seid agreement and that unless
within a period of fifteen (15) days from the mailing of notice of
any amendment, the registere? holders ef eertificates of deposit
representing more than 50% of the aggregate principal amount of
the deposited bonds er eoupons, filed with the depositary, written
notice of dissent, or if at any time within the period, registered
holders of such certificates of deposit, representing 51% of the
aggregate principal amount of the deposited bonds and coupons,
filed with the depositary written notice of their consent to
we
darqrol? edwollnt ptetelagita etost oft yd bas etididz bas
anit eneli’? imeo® off te exobledhnod .teatrot teewed yeiteltaoget
soften owh tel sent? Lie fa eet tmonialques ef? gadé han cymeqaed
avicoetort off egutidanes ode stnobasteh edd tad seneig Ife. to
-‘Yompae ales Ro sqoowe ede stdeio dedee adoogaet Ske at oeddtmued
dneubeoms tee bee Sremwerg eviveotoxi end yt hexhieb, tne beteetp se
odd ,orkameernn eviioadexq end To worsed est? tebe dad? » howreds
vetivotaw od? Yo Lotdaob aad of aeviocmed? teotdtiadsa exodteoged
Gav Fase yor wre mt dreameonge one tome ob defytt éxlt aint barkomd
Yih ee thombroms edd dal .daomesrge fanighro aff et enmurreg
eshued @ft te ntodicogeh off to eitotam aed bedgobe YPratupet: bas
epkoqey Ane oodq ed? of smawrey adseqeet Le nb aad gad’ bie
emt omect of towoq edt het cotSiamod Dies tetT sdhemeb ge eft To.
Utero Mt _seowbrom odd semitlw xeweg down ovat Jom bhbr dk RL
ot? Yo amvod end taltT ,oometase bedbe off to monet yd dt bas
{nkelgwes Ye Litd edd bee gegamab yaw betetiee tom sud dnamtol¢
$0 enrred atl? cote Jack? halt cetea of? shonntumtd ed hirede
| ebtdtamed ovtteotesT terwbiodhnoS blot ,imemoomges Sontaixo bton
hits ,oLduatwhe od sagt $i seemphul eff mk sovesedw yxewog oxfd hast
needa todd dee teamowTys bten ahd heme of gemtd oF omttimoxt
(he bolton to gebEtam oot work ageh (86) moeetet Ro hotteg.« atddly
| $heoyeh To eeteolttestes te exbbted boxedetgor afd pimemhpemags
(teen dingtoming staponye odd te ROO meuls anon guhemoeges
moddien eyrndinoyed ec? Sitw doLkt yamoquoo te whnod bedtaoqeh mat
beredadgox gbotreg add sidsiv omits yw to be XO «invaake Ye spon i
wilt 26 Kil puddnoaeqor qhtsogeh ko avdoniiituaouteste te erohted
A ee aR Se .
96 tnatinet eked’ Ye WoteoM motstnr yuatts
-10-
such amendment, then in cither case would such amendment be binding
upon all the holders of certificates of deposit. The complainant
who owns 10/650ths of the face value of all the bonds, is the only
party te said agreement that is now objecting to the method pursued
by the seid Bondholders’ Committee in carrying out the reorganization
plan. wen though the amendment to said Section 12 materially
changed the terms of the original agreement, eaid amendment was valid
and binding on the various holders of the certifiestes of deposit,
unless 60% of such holders objected thereto in accordance with the
provisions of said agreement. The complainant being the only
ebjactor, and owning only 10/650ths of the face value of said
bends so deposited, is bound by the said agreement and the fact
that the complainant is a Nationel Bonk and prohibited from entering
inte any venture which might make it liable to acsenament on the
stock, eannot be considered because there is no shade daniel the
complainant for the recovery of eny stock liebility. The defendants
are merely seeking to enforce the asgesement levied ageainat the
stock apportioned to the defendant and which hae mot been paid in
full. The Heater further finds that the Bondholders’ Protective
Committee wae faced with either forcing the eile of the property
given te sccure said bond iseue at a seaerifice price, or holding it
until such time ac it could be sold for a more reasonable price.
The plan adopted by the Bondholders’ Committee appears to be for the
equal benefit and protection of ali of the bendholders and shows that
the Committee acted in absolute good faith." The master recommended
that the bill be dismissed for want of equity.
The Bondholders' Protective ‘greement contained, inter
glia, the following:
"(6) The Committee may supply dsfects and omissions
in this Agreement and may make such modifications as in its
judgment may be deemed necessary or proper to carry out the same
properly and effectively; and its judgment as to expediency or
~ole
getintd o¢ teowhremn tome olwow eaay coddte mf med? (toeabaome some
taseielgnues of? «iiooger to estan heres te atehied eft 1a moqe
vinw af ot yard add Lhe Yo owLary vont odd to misOeR\OL emwo lade
beavis hedtom ott e3 untveetde wor ul sats Inemeetys blew as Yerag
solisstusgrows sae duo satytves #f vedthase? letebiodbaed bhae addogd
{iintvotem 8f mobdoe® than of énomhavma edt Mgtodd m9vd. cml
bitey wav tenuous Siow ,imencotgs Lamtyteo est to meted of? hegaedo
etignqed to codsoltiedeo off to avehted ssottey add mo. gabbald has
edt dite sonebyeces mi ofetadd getsotde suebLed sowe to ROR coetnw
yino afd antod wngatniquos off .dAaemenye Bhar te eH bak vong
bien to euloy soe asta ro a3080\0L “lao gekave due «rodoetde
font wf? tno dtomeetge bten aft yd hewod at «botheoge® on.abad
gaiteding nox? hotistdory has ans? £esokiel » 9), dmemhalgnas ont dade
ott o@ inouencene e¢ ofdetf a2 oem tdgie doldw oumtney ys oink
expt hemhapantndi en af otetd euassed boweblanes od tonnes «iota |
atncbas tet edY .ysvitidall doodle ene fe yrevooet edd x0 tnontasonoo
edt Suntayr Dolved tnecasues ont wexotan of gatalnen texan dee
mf Bis mec ¢om amt dylde dag anchnoted afd of beneliveqqs aeote
aviteoter? ‘atehLedsned acd? das’ baht xesidw? xedagl eft Saad ,
oo etreqenG eft to etre dé gatow? aedtte din bee’ aw cetttunad
th gaibfod we .eohrg softness 0 te oneal Smad bhee emse os aovkg
tohsg eidenossen eto s rot Stes od bieos 2s as -emlé dose Lidaw ,
| ett sot od of eeeegge eodtd tamod ‘enee heemeetiast Acetate smite
‘ted? awed tne eteblodhned ol! to kia te nekteodome tats. |
pohnemitvet tetonmad? *.kotut seog. etutesds ab:veten settimehatt
: vettwye Yo tan x02 heawbm th ad Ltd ed dastd
todat ~Sentainoo Imei ovkvoodort terohtodemo® od® 60 itis baer
ieeatten ntti
Ettoloaie te a¢osteh. ylaqwe you eett heed off |.
ade am @ = smerers oats ph ghar at
#Lie
necessity shall be final, The Committee shall also have the
ower, whenever in its judgment it may be aivisable ami from
ime to time, to amend this Agreement. All amendments shall
be filed with the Depositary. If it be the judgment of the
Committes, which shell be conclusive, that any such amenduents
will materially affect the rights of the holders of certificates
of deposit, notice of such filing and of the nature of such
amendments shall be given to such holdere by United States
registercd mail at theiy last known addresses, Unless within a
period of fifteen days from the mailing of auch notice, registered
holders of certificates of deposit representing more than fifty
per cent of the sgeregate principal amount of the deposited Bonds
and coupons file with the Depositary written notice of dissent,
er if at any time within soid period, registered holders of
eertificates of deposit, representing fifty-one per cont of the
ageregate principal smount of the deposited Bonds and coupons shall
file with the ap toga Minh netice of their consent te such
amendments, then in either case such amendments shall be binding
on all holders of certificates of deposits; and 211 of them shall
be finally and conelusively deemed for all purposes to have
assented to said amendments whether they received actual notice
or not, and shall be irrevoesbly bound ond concluded by the same,
and thig agreement shall be modified accor¢dingly>
he &
"(8) The Committee chali have a first lien on all
deposited Bonds and eo @, and om all property which it may
purchase, acquire or hold, or which may come into its bands, for
eompensation and expenses (including the compensation and expenses
of the Depositary and of such counsel, sgents and employes as it
may select) and for any and all indebtedness incurred by the
Committee. Registered holders of certificntes of deposit shal i
not be persohally liable for such compensation, expenses or in-
cebtedness, or for any action taken by the Committee.
oe & +
"(11) The full legel and equitable title to all
deposited Bonds and coupene and any property received hereunder
shall, for ali the purposes hereof, vest in the Committee
immediately upon the deposit thereof hereunder, but the
Depositors respectively agree at any time or times, on demand of
the Committee, to execute ani deliver to the Conmmittes any and
all other transfers, assignments and euthorizations required
by the Committee to evidence the venting of the ownership of said
Bonds ani coupens in the Committee or its nominees. The Committee
shall have and may exercise, in ite diseretion, all rights and
powers of the respective owners or holders of ssid Bonds and
coupons deposited hereunder. Immediately upon the deposit of
their Bonds and coupons hereunder, all right, title and interest,
legal and equitable, of the Depositors in ond to the money now
or hereafter in the Sinking Fund provided fer in said Mortgaze
shall vest in the Committee; and the Depositors, so far as they
lawfully ean, hereby authorize the Trustee under said Mortgage
to turn such Sinking Fund woneys over to the Committee, or to
pay the same, in whole or in part, upon its order.
"(12) Witheut limiting the other provisions hereof, the
Depositors fully authorize the Committee, in its discretion:
wh Le
wd eves evdo Ifede endiiomed edt. «Lani Pat Hew sagoven
wort tis efdwatvhe ef tae Ji Sroastgbst edi ai tevemesdtw . tow
iiesia sieowbreme Lin .tmemeotgs alae brome of pamtd ft.0%
ots to tnoegou, old od 2k Tl oe ytadheoqet ef? deiw ted
sixguincus deve you iad? ,evinutopee ed iLada dodsiv 120tiore
@etnoltiduse To evebLod end to alegix off S08T¥S yiislisten
foun to wtaten oe? to bae aaiilt dowe to a tia siiwoged to
aéced’ aodio’ yt arabfod mowe oJ ge? ad & eine breasts
& tititiew aveieU preagevbhs avemd taal xt od? paretetans
betetutges .ooistex doge to onllian ed? mow pom ety os
Wii seed orem witdnecexqget fineqoh., to pe hae tg es to sashes
hao betlasyeh off ‘to — sy | eset phy agin 4
esmenaih ke outten aedsiuw yxatioeged Ww ® neo
te wteBbiod bereve bye * i Bbicee tres ivishe emt? 2, has
ge to. dneg soq ame-ytts? yatineoerges » 7 he 2, <8 to#ept hn
i ehoguow bro shrot totleogeb edd to dtavome
ws @2 tneerten tied? to cotton, sodtiur won Poo ey eat a hw pak
sabeate od finde e¢nembness Hooe ones teritie al made
iiewis med? to Lie bee piieegeh to eetaottitres to arabia Lie no
ered oF seeoyre¢ Ife vo? bemeed yeviebLones baw Y od
eaten tawion bevivoss yvodd tesderw edmomhnema blee od bednsaas
qaaee sale YO Sehwferon hes Need yLdeooverr! of Tiadw > oll eft ve
«ytgni>vecea Sektibom od Lints snpeuee Ty aed bet
r
I vee
elit
fie me weit tori? « eved Lads ve2 nod ott (ei
yet ¢i Bute yrovene Ile ne hes snemoques. ee
tot gabigi. edi of@i ameo yem doidw vo ,hbled to eas
aperngxt ie tatvoansqaeo esi gaibutess } "So'ben gone a ans
$i cm seyelome baa elmoge ylemnwoe dowa To
eric xe bexsvont sgembeddohml {Le an
Llada iiseqoh to eadeelitiizes te sxeblod bevetely
=k %o noenoare sel iceneqmon dows tot sidetl vf.
ei¢tmme® afd yd neties wolton -—
Sg gt egumnbegse: es Shay a
| fis of ofth? of@etiwoe ten feget ffvt oat tegen’ isa
vohmeted SeVieowt YHiegetg Ye bre anoquen bus | ce, Simei bes
sottinen off nt tyoy Noovert aneoyrey sits ‘ter
atid tud ,vebhwoved toetedd theeget mid moqu (Ledalben
Ro trameh ao ,eouks *o emit ye he oonge Yhovisooquet aved teoged
ine yn cot¢dimsot) add of toviied fos edavexe of gooddiaued add —
oe thoes amiscubrotine bre adepatytees qaceeRuanud caste Lhe
bien to qitezenvo eat ta selene exis ro 0 wg 6) oeddtumed end “
@ertinwcd eff secenisen eft se eettiawod aft mh enoqguer hae |
fan nteigit iLe queljeronhh edt md geatoxexe You bre even J
fit; obew® bhen te oxebier we eran evbdosqeet oe ho axe
te tigeqoh ed soqe yLodaibensl . ehaneted vodtecqeh RB
gteomedni fey off ,idgit Lie «sebrensed smegien bas phere!
wor Yorom od oF fms oi axotieeqed alt Xe veldad Inps
eyeniroN btae al. wh hobhverg hei. :
yeads as ust oe gatodleoged etd ban ond ¢ iasod ad be
Sodas pid nota aedeuee wait
at to geedtinwed old of to¥O aypeOn gpl
sxshte ati soqu .2teq ni to ; oie. r¢
of? «teers enoiniverqg wetdo oie gal thos,
‘ so Gye rapt mek wt sotd kame? wet oi
“(a) To foreclose said Mortgage; and, if the Committee
deems it necessary or advisable, to purchase the mortgaged
property st the foreclosure sale, using in payment theref or
the Ronds and coupons outstounding under said Mortgage in
accordance with Sections 11 and 12 ef Article V of said
Mortgage (to which reference is hereby made), and also using
seid Sinking Fund moneys (if eny) for the purpose of making
such payment and for the purpose of paying the costs and
expenses incident to such sale or ineurred hereunder by the
Committee;
“(p) Im ease of purchase by the Committee at such
fereclosure sale, to dispose of the mortgaged property in
such manner and for such price and upon such terms and con-
ditions as the Committee msy deem advisable; or, it no such
sale is in prospect by the time the title to the mortgaged
property, free of redemption, is thus acquired by the
Committee, to organize a new corporation to acquire title
thereto and distribute its eapital stock or securities ratably
among the Depositorse
RY &
"“(g) To do or cause to be done whatever the Conmmittee,
in its diseretion, may deem expedient to preserve, protect
er enforces the rights and interests of the Depositors, in
such manner and om such terms os the Committee shall think
preper; te enfores by legal proceedings or otherwise, in
respect to the deposited Bonds and coupons, all powers vested
in or conferred upon the owners and holders thereof by the
terms of said Mortgece or otherwise; and, in genersl, to
execute such papers and to do such acts as the Committec,
in ites diseretion, may deem proper in order to carry out fully
and effectively the purposes of this Agreement,"
The Bondholders! Proceective Committee amended clause (b) ef ssetion
(12) by adding to it the following words: “Suen eapitel stork may
be issued as im part unpaid and to that extent payable om the call
of the Board of Directors.*®
Complainant states that "this attenpted amendment is the
erux of the whole matter," ani contends: "I. The bondhslders?
protective committee had no power to smend the bondholders!
protective agreement after the sale of the mortgaged premises,"
and “IIe The defendants had no authovity under the bondholders?
protective agreement: {a) To organize a corporation with
assessable stock. (b) To attempt to waive the personal liability
te the corporate ereditors for the assessable portion of the stock.
{e) To require a national bank bondhelder to accept rssessable
steck in lieu of its securities."
‘-aL-
eesiimend edt ti eke 3 LopagsioN ok btie ta sua odear dt “eg yn ;
rete cage wed “gogne $e ak a a4
to tercald 2 aittes es phan te ero aa |
eS ites eho brite tye not feet ih abnot 6
oY bie: dc. te Bf bre {Lf amor ‘Bit * sanabeoven’
get aur good bite . (eben “yefexed ot penne Be doldy of) 9 fi
gitiiant Yo oeoqig eft rot (yas tt} gutae ioe i
Maia atéeoo oft yaiver to seoqing t ban Y ee —
ptt YE wobnweten beTtuont to else dows 03 oP snetont oo Te
* si 2@ sedtiomod ald yd vari | to eneo ‘2 («)*, chy
OF yiregory begayttom efi to seogeib od .aiea Stuag teen
~f10.0 pp atvet dove moge baa pe Me gh ~_ oe Sea TIA
dove on tt .x6 obdeaty nit add
Sueur? 2 old of ofthe ‘dis
ts best Pere @ to out
¢ is fais taxeqz04 oe m9 oF
yidedex asisituose x0 feats eli aE: seul fad baa
eoottiameS ed reves aw omoh od oF cathe to gg
doostorg .evreasrq oF Inslhbaqxe mee — : sete
wet eatod Laoged edi ko ataetedat fair
ae ffetie sogz tanto d ait eo wns
Me adele XO ayhihssoorg. eset”
betaey « Lewog Ifa .emecues bite shaok be
YW tooteis axtablos bra atenwe @
i efeterey at .haa 494. @ TO:
; ae oy peg dove ob of Ro eqaq dove od exe
“leet Ho YtIgo of ite ae oe ame ivetonth inact
stnemeetga ald! iat ont ULevttesys Bits
motives te (cd) cauein bebaome asd timed evttwosindl ‘qt tedtneeat
wan vcote dap tom awwe" pebrow haat on hai oF Samael hed 90)
*ecee fareme begegdzom end To - ott sete 4 ow 9 a
tare blodpnod ont realness weston “on batt he dh ak
a. at, gpolsozeqros: # oat rf ar
oof Lo) dane
ysitiastt Ianosreq ond eview o@ samedta of 4a
sinote oes Se: meh tend. © Sdgame ‘
eldaassnac tqpas of asta cherad
W.eottitwoen ad? to eae pean 100.
olde
Defendants have argued that the organization of the
Coeur D’Alene Pine Company with sgsessable stock was within the
power of the Protective Committee “even without the amendment
of the agreement," but we do not deem it necessary to pases upon
this contention. We agree with the following, from the report
of the master, “that under the terms of said original agreement,
ssid Bondholders’ Protective Committee had the power, whenever
in ite judement it might be advisable, and from time te time, to
amend the said agreement and that unless within a period of fifteen
(15) days from the mailing of notice of eny amendment, the regia-
tered holders of certificates of deposit representing more than 50%
of the aggregate principal amount of the deposited bonds or coupons,
filed with the depositary, written notice cf diasent, or if at any
time within the period, registered holders ef such certificates of
deposit, representing 51% of the aggregate principal amount of the
deposited bonds and coupons, filed with the depositary written
notice of their consent te such ewendment, then in either case would
such amendment be binding upon all the holders of certificates of
deposit. The complainant who owns 10/650ths of the face value of
ell the bonds, is the only party to said agreement that is now
Objecting to the method pursued by the sald Bondholders’ Committee
in carrying out the reorganization plan. ‘ven though the amendment
to seid Seetion 12 materially changed the terme of the original
agreement,ssid amendment was valid and binding on the various holders
of the eertifiestes of deposit, unless 50% of euch holders objected
thereto in »sccordance with the provisions of said agreement» The
complainant being the only objector, and owning only 10/650ths of
the face value of said bonds so deposited, is bound by the said
agreement." The eases cited by complainant in support of its cone
tention I may be readily distinguished under the facts. That the
Protective Committee had the right, under clause (bd) of aeetion
wit.
ef <@ meisecinagro said dads howgze oval gtaabas tod
ed ciddiw asw soode ekdoagcene déty yueqnod ont? enela'c ‘e009
dnebooine ont deodtinv smye” seddimapd evidowdert ad! Yo reweq
rags wang od Yraweeoen sf moet ion ob ow dud " tmoneerge oad to
_axoqet oft mot gamtwolfo? ext dilw cemge oY snottneenee ais?
cinometge Lantgiro hice to emxet ed? tebew sete" vtodsom edd to
nevenstw ,sowoy odd basi aetdiamod evi sontort tanebLod bao. bias
od yaerke oF mts sece ew sofdanives oF Saf tin th tneeaber eet at
meeetk? to bolxeq o niteiw enoine tad bee inners bow watt brome
epines ond .teemhnsae Yaw TO bobtom te eee et ona mort wqab: (2)
R08 mods eto pelinosexges diuogeb te asdéanithecee bo axebtod boxed
cemaqwos to ahmed heticogss ody le sevonie Maen, esngetays edt te
Wis ie TH vo .inomnth Yo votvon metiixw «yaad toons bale dutw bets?
to wedont tiers Mowe to wseblod horwFalger host
om verted onté
odd Yo Cassone Lnqtont 1g etagevage od We ALE yatdnesbrg
nugeixe Yrodtunqed wit tw BeLhY yenouuos er eh it
biver wens reidio mt mudd qtrombnone fowa of skbunpo rhedd % :
. 9 BP Mefaas those Te AtUbsed aMt Lie BORN. REMEEE. OG: DARREN MO:
3o eulay sant sili Yo wIOKO\OL eawe oHw snamiotgmes ede »dtgoqob
won a dod doomoeme diese ot yeuag elmo end a gubood oft tha:
eessinwo? ‘exrebLonived blow oxt yet hatateq hostiow otf?.09 aatsootdo,
drowinems ond Apeadd caw .omdg wohdechnaysoet wild dio onrerine a ;
annie anotzav end ne guibetd tm biker paw taainenn on tmacerye
(— bedooide exebLodt toon Xe OA onetay qhtengoh Yo nedeotthexey: eat te:
ER, RUSE NUN ON ARS per Se dotodd
te adt02a\ps chun wusane time xopenhdd vind, elt: pebed sammbadghes
bien edd yd bowed af phodineged on mined bhew vaiesealipibnuall |
008 eas te dsequue at tnemiolawon WW hedio eouse sill “soremeonge
edt teatt eaten’ ef? xebsar detutmgatteth wibbact | ea yume Es ates . ie
noltesa 10 (¢) cnundo cohmw ,toybx aid had oodd tame pvhinede < |
4 GM %
“L4e
(12), to organize a new corporation cannot be questioned.
Complainant argues that it is «9 national bank and that
defendants knew it te be suchs that under the federal iaws it
eould not accept assessable ateock snd that the Bondholders'
Protective Cownsittee had no pewer to require it te accept assessable
stock in lieu of its seeurities. Az an answer te this contention
we quote from complainant's reply brief the following statements
"The plaintiff concedes that the powers of the covumittee are not
eontrolled or limited by the charter powers of the complainant."
In couneetion with the instant contention it is well to note what
complainant asks us to do. fo quote from the conclusion of come
plainant's brief: “We, therefore, submit that in so for ae the
decree of the trial court dismissing the Continental Illinois Bank
and Trust Company, it sheuld be affirmed, but in all other reapects
it should be reversed and that this court showld enter a judgment
ageinst Joseph A. *uchter, Henry =. Chaney, James Fentress, ‘uotin
Jenner and L. ¥. Stevenson, the members of this Bondholders!
| Protective Committee, Baker, Fentress & Company ani the Cocur
D* Alene Pine Company, the Delaware corporation whe took the
property with notice of its trust and character, for the sum of
$9,255.82 with interest from and after Wovenber lat, 1930 at 5%
pursuant to the statute in such cases made and provided." Come
pleinamt reiterates the foregoing in its reply brief. The conten-
tion that the Protective Committee had ne power to compel complainant,
a federal national bank, to accept assessable stock in Liew of its
securities, is not urged by complainant merely to save itself from
a judgment, for in its brief it does not ask us to reverse and
remand the deeree with directions to award complainant a permanent
injunetion restraining defendants from ever enforeing any stock
liability against complainant, nor dees complainant ask us to
hone hiaews ef tonnes melesteqres wera Wetitegto 02 ,(82)
geld tow aned Lewettxn » ab $2 dodd compen Poamhiteaed © woe
ti ave dexebot es? vehnw ted? idoue of of 02 wont adttebne teh
‘atch Lovbneat old gait bee deode eLdeuatinae Hyoeos Pom Blade
eldsenooms Sqeeta of Jk exiwsat of ssweq on bat setdteed svivesdert
seitinesnoo ald? cf reweme me a) ,avhibereern wt Yo wort nb doots
(inomedede yeiveliel edd tebiw ulgor teapetakqueds mot? S¥oup ow
don exe cotitunes ens to axevbg sft seult eebeoneo Wisalely’ eat”
*.Gnnetalquen ed Yo etoweq velvety om q bathed fae peltornes
dutty efor of Lhow af Jf mol teetnow seetomt ext Méhw neleoeatod tt
ano %6 sOlawienos off mort ateup of 0d O¢ om Bind tnbtbalgewd
ert a owt oe mi dat? thaive petetoxedd ow «thted a MmanbelG
het wionitt: tatnentsned st yeltentaate: drues’ Heber ete te" eotbeh
adosqaey cedte £14 st deo yhomtitia o¢ Biieds ea eniigt Sharet ha
dheawhit & tedke Siwete Pedos ehis Jad ome berbved Od ptvode #?
siscin atesdes® seaat (yemdfd .t yenot” (pedal la abbot beliags
Yerebladinek std? Yo wiedase ad? toemvede 7 nak roast
tNCOD off ine esque & stottast ytoded podthiane? ovitestert
edt¢ Hoos ow mottoreeros owned etd puRbgied enkt sabi tt
Rese est? Sot crotoatnts ed stared eb hte Ob nt ee avy eigeee
oe ge ober , Hk code vin vedaw paw OTS HbeeRal ote OLORR ED
an8d ".oobbve1g bas cham doeae down A Sdodede edt oF Analg
sénastitqwos Leqmes oF ie60q om bad codtiawod evivoesort edd GANT RORT
‘adi to wid ei Mudse eldavacdee tqodon 6% .taid LdRStian Lareber a 3
mori kodd2 ores oF ULotedt Mmantatknss out soa ak aonb
: Sp eas Io tetatne sos tantalqnoo ii Y
~L5<
Teverse and remand the cause with directions to the chanceller
te enter a decree holding that the amendment to elause (b) of
section (12) was beyond the power granted the Protective Committee
under the Bondholders’ Agreement and order the Committee to proceed
in secordance with the agreement. Complainant would upset the plan
that seems to be satisfactory to all of the stockholders sare itself
in order that it misht chtain a persenal judgment against the
members of the Protective Comittee, Baker, Yentresas & Company, and
the Cocur P'Alene Pine Company. It now seeks to justify ite
attitude in this court by insisting that matters have progressed
to a point where they cennot be returned to status gue and theree
fore nothing remains but to grant it the judgment it new seeks.
This is a wide departure from the purpeses and prayer of the bill.
One of the objects of o protective committee is to guard against
the evil that « smsll minority of the bendholders would have the
power to resist arrangements which would be for the equal, venefits
of all unless superior adventages ure conceded to them, at the
expense of their fellows. The only ense cited by complainant in
support of its instent contention is First Nationa] Bank ve Converse,
200 Ue. Se 425. Im that case it wae held that notwithstanding ite
subscription, a nntional bank, taking stock in «4 corporation
organized for purely speculative purposes, may plead ite want of
eutherity so to de as 2 defense to the claim of a reeeiver of such
corporation ‘or the double liability imposed by a state statute on
the stockholders thereof. The court, in that decision, did not
ehange or modify its former holding that
‘As tneidental to the power to lom money on personal
security, a bank may in the usual course of doing —_ business
accept stoek of another corporstion as collateral, and by the
enforcement of ite rights as pl it may become the owner of
the collateral anid be subject to liebility as other stockholders.
SeWE tanettek sa patocgn ihe testieated pewst of necepcing i
good faith stock of another corporation as security for e
previous indebtedness. * * * First Watienal Bank vy. National
teilevoagy oli od anottoustio diiw gapeo, add hmowet bre, eatevet
to (d) omvado of inowhoome ed? dod? patdlod setegs » codme of
settingo) svidosdox. odd betnaxy rowog od? bagyed aay (SL) masdaca
beasesg at eodtitesod eld tohto hes JremeetyA ‘wrehLocbnos edy to hes
ely edd Joegu iivor inorialgan) «tnemeptge off9 Mity eonshrooen a
tions? e¥as exeblomients ods to ite of quedgetatien ed o¢ semen dadt
: edt Jeniage srempamt, Lemquieg s atagdo ddyia th todd wobze at
hes gysiequo & ase téme? etourd 2063 3d himrgd eviseodety ent te exedwem
ett YLivawi 9 eloee wom 21 + yRegnOo ext? emetAtt amogd ead
Henaergoig eval eravtom Jose yaivetont yd twee mid? mt ebuthtta
coxedd brn OBe auads of bemruder od Jonuao Yad oxedw datog # of
seaves wom of toomplal ed? tt taamy oF dad, antanne aehiton want
-Litd ede to meyetq bee aoeeqing eff most wrmecagad ohty 4. at ate?
#enloys brury ef at aodtinnee evitestoxg 2 te atoetde sd? to and
‘edi overt Aivow stobsononed oat to ytieontm Lfene 2 and thee edt
nftinaed Lass etd sot o¢ bivow daisy atnomegnatte tetgex of sameg
| edt da eundy os debeanog ous segniaerhs robsemwe enotey Le ke
at tnamielgmes xd betig exyo yin at sawal ted thes 29 gameqxe
erwne : gijeh tacit si solinsteoo deetent adh to sr0qque
Bit gusseted: inion iats bled sow ¢h eweq dadd mt), +200 09 41 908
aoisiazeg1oe 2 a1 dvote gnitet ined Lonetéon s .motiqhwedua —
te mew wth bacdg Yas noseqiug ovidatusegy, Vem wot Scenes :
dove te royiooos o to mato eal of seme toh & a Ob oF 04 yths |
a. siaata odeta s WW hewequt yilitdall efdued edt xo% sm
ep _ f0m HID yaoheiooh Io! at gtisor oH .toenedd exehtetloose ot,
_. Path pat econ peu lsaninlens : 1 ‘a
mt te ot 92
vet ae 4
vt eo
sad deoed inne iceue
mt eye
@] Ge
Bxchange Bank, 92 Us 5. 128."
The court, in the Converse case, bases its decision upon California
Bank v- Ke » 167 Ue Se 362, wherein Mr. Justice Harlan dissented,
and in the Conyerse case that justice states that he coneurs in the
opinion of the majority solely beesause of the majority decision in
the Kennedy casee In the Converse cane Wr. Justice Brewer strongly
dissents from the conclusion of the majority, and in hia opinion
(pp. 441-2) quotes the following from the opinion of Mr. Chief
em
92 U. %. 122 (126, 127, 128):
"*vhether a national bank, organized under the nations
banking act, May, in a fair and ¢onpromise of a contested
claim against 1% growing out of a legi te banking transaction,
pay a larger sum than would have been exacted in satisfretion of
the demand, so as to obtain by the arrangement « transfer of
certain stocks in railroad and other corporations; it being honestly
believed at the time, that, by turmins the stocks into money under
more favorable cirewsstanees than then existed, a leas, which would
otherwise accrue from the transaction, might be averted er diminish-
ede* And answering thet question in the affirmetive, it was saids
‘Its own obligetions must be met, and debts due to it collected or
peoured. The power to adept reasonable and appropriate measures
for these purposes is an incident to the power to incur the —
Liability o¢ become the creditor. Obligations may be assumed that
result unfortunately. Losns or discounts may be made thet cannet
be met at maturity. ‘ompromises to aveid or reduce losses are
oftentimes the necessery results of this condition of things. These
compromises come within the general scope of the powers committed
to the bourd of directors and the officers and sgente of the bank,
and are submitted to their judgment and diseretion, except to the
extent that they are restrained by the charter or by-laws. Banke
way do, in this behel?’, whatever natural persone could do under
like circumstances. * * * Deabing in stocks is not expressly
prohibited; but such a prohibition is implied from the failure to
erent the power. in the honest exercise of the power 49 compromise
a doubtful debt oving to a bank, it ean hardly be doubte’ that
stocks way be accepted in payment and satisfaction, with a view to
their subsequent sale er convergion inte money so as to make good
or reduce an anticipated loss. <uch a transaction would not amount
te a dealing ins toeks. 16 was, in effect, so decided in Yleckner
ea eriog
v> Bank of United States, & ‘heat. S51, where it was held thet a
prohibition againat trading and 4 ealing was nothing more than a
prohibition against engaging in the ordinary business of buying ma
sélling for profit, and did not include purchases resulting from
ordinary banking transactions.*"
Mx. Justice Brown concurred in the dissenting opinion of Mv. Justiee
Brewers But whether or not the couplainant in a suit wherein it
‘Was sought te held it for a stock Liability might interpwe the
"G8L 2G .U 80 yanek opmademe
Bingoti ted noqi solutosd oti seeed yoras owtoynod eftonh 4» sewdored?
gbodneseth maltal eoivart . zit nhetostw 180G ua aU TOL exbengert av S98
> AED Hel sional Rika aebate? eipht ag: buite 229 geteveo) od mi baw
gi moiniovh yslrotem ond to oamsood YLerow utitobem eri? ‘to motaiqe
“lunotie xewett eotiant .+k sate eatery? ead af .weso yhore™ oad
seiniqg eis mt bie .ytivoles off to nolewlonod oft met? eéneents
‘teletd xf te molntqn oft sox? griwolLo® artt estanp (B-Ld0.0qq)
singt, ognedoe® Lenotiet .v dnel Lenolie® dort? at otis’ eptiays
2(B8L Tal _OEL) SEL ooo ae
ftanolian ett sebew festnegto »anod Lanotéan @ wedded! Sy coe 9 ae
son guitnad
Maat Gimas cathe ce pe ERE
Yo molto: tates “7x hoteaxe ceod ovat biwo
fo telorete « tremsguatee add yd. OF, a6
chtenpet gnied ¢i jemoisexegioo teddo bre “oeenlin B sasbi is
tobe Yono ofni etueda malate yd gdede « co Liens
bivow dotdw ,owel a ,badeixe mod? mel? aeonad ey astieay LOM
~Hutainit to hedueve od digia »molte ws ONtoon an ly tend
thios waw tf govitsnciits odd at reldtouy Tati and soeaay 2
%o batgetios th.02 exh added «8 i ie ad)
aetuasen odatigetega brs Med: ation ot be oF ‘ besos
) Othe satemi .o¢ rey ais of ernie bad my at comet assy 22 ane
— hbemuass ed Yom anol dagildd in toto moda
onas® Jai?’ chan o¢ i, nt b ansol « Pognnas Te
Ot eetaotl soubez S ers ‘od ‘eéahaeneil® oui
Retin Fe eagiias to mois Sheet eis? to otinest syne my mt 3 pre
ined *: F) * e eemnitia Gant ge Fe oat
@ etnege bas eteot ona axe
Se ate afotd Pro Ry bey od rong bs t <iestd boda
axtned B.: Seaio te t6 ‘estado ye? yi bentaxdeet sits ay
ag lens bivoo yy tr. rp ye tage 6 ton pee pe
seygxe von oi adogia ai ga ‘ * . f
os stelint off mozt beliqnd ef mots icidosy « dome ery Aris elon:
eeimezgeoo of sewed sali te eaiovexe deemed of? ml « teweg ee
tals hettioh ef yLbtad mo $f yan? @ od qatwe. pa Sat
of weiv a diiw ,nelveootatins bia tnemyag al betqeces
ee ofan o) ae o8 Yoho off oe baxovmod) me, eine 40 adua %
6 ton bivey neisocenatt s dows enol bodagioitnn na 6:
on Ts: nee tis bobhowh oe gioette ah gant dL, >) geaood« mh) gal
®& goad bad see ii stede .LSt otaadd & he
& sadé @xos anldson sew pnifae b bam ¥ BIO POR ays a“
bres, Bed tq saontesd yantbzo old mh aLegs no.
oo ene: | Shakeel See bih Soe yttion 10%:
taunt deaanersd:
fy) ee has
sotiint we % m0 feedero satenouatt ads ai sorcumsae ew 04 (an
ap # wt oxaci otue « mt tnanda ie aid don x0 madsody, pare ns pone
ald emigre dad ftghm Ye NEidalE Moots a -xet 8b Bee
~L Je
defense of ultra vires, under the facts of this ease, is not
controlling, as complainant is not being sued in the instant
proceeding, and from its position in this court it is clear that
it is not fearful of any sueh suit. In these days of reorganiantion
4t is mot unusual to find a corporation or os fiduciary in the same
position as complainant cleims to be in as to the Coeur D' lene
Pine Company stock, and it is conceded that the limitations upon
the contracting power of certain corporations or fiducieries esannet
control the scope of reorganization plans that follow the bond
holders’ agreement. if complainant cannot hold the stock in the
mew company there are apt ways in which it may protect itself in
that regard.
Moreover, section 13 of the Protective Agreement reads
as followss
“No member of the Committees shall incur any liability
hereunder for any section taken in good faith by him er by the
Committee, nox any other lisbility hereunder, except for his
own willful misconduct.“
The master found that defendants acted in good faith and with an
honest desire to do what was best for the interests of all con
eerned. ‘Ye approve of that findings Saving so acted, in view
of section 15 they have incurred no liability.
The deeree of the Superior court of Cook county is
affirmed
AFTIRUE De
Gridley, P. Js, amd Sullivan, Je, conour.
1 yee ee
rae ht
ofL-
dom et ~ouno aldt Yo atoct add tobe sgeutvy stiis to sand ied
; fimetdanmi aid mi Sowe. gated Jom ai inamtaiqhoo se yantifetiads
o) -dastt toefo gt dt dumoo eidd mt wolgieog edt mod: hie apntboondxg
rolisainapwoer Yo «yeh ouedd ni itine Mowe ww Lo Setuoed dom ab et
ptinn eff ok yretewett a 10 mokdeteqros a batt 6¢ Levenmy tom at ot
aneli' mu990 est of ee mt ed of amtelo smbniadquoe ae motsiaog
nogu exotistinif£ eit dade heheosos ek 32 bmw ylooda yogmed eat
Zona astvatoubst 20 guotintogroe aiatxes to towog guibtoantnoo. ond
-bwod edd woffot dad? ansiq noisastnagroes to sqeveled’ Jetinod
ett mi Xvovs edt blot ¢onmso tnamteiqeos 21 .daomeoxge laxebiod
mh Woatk sodomy Yam at slyidw nk ayaw gn ote om Bi
2 Tiina Yee
abaot iHomeetgh svivostoxd eats: to as mottos ecpreona > pu etal
fi. sh auc
gettteats Wine work fiarie cndtnennn wath Se
aid qd coms yd Hoist beog mi meded molioe yp
‘gid tot tqeoxe «co hewme rel he Pa, %
| Serestieed on ‘beret ait 7
at Wasoo A009 to tao Gasiiacieed to oe:
h My
rn ‘ ‘. 3h a ot nee telets feta wired, we
‘ ‘ ; eS ae INR Aes Te Ae oeeR
i Saystees s .
j an Ta ae ) oe
ti Pay “pat . ¥
tC k ® I idshins
Pa Poe wR Le Laeeg
oe: ly SR Re 2. YR bh oe
, Mar sabia Sci "45 ae eae
Sgae ees 5 whl a ie a,
ye sibel aly pat abate s
ca En ome
ya ay yee i, any vrais
ty
vA aD f
j al :
37465 @ fy
IN THE MATTSR OF THE KSTATS OF i
ROBSAT M. Bowes, PECRASEDs &
)
ROBE? B. BOWSS, Administrator
of the Estate of Robert i. Bowes, AP? BAL FROM CLIACULT
Deceased
: (retitioner) Appellees, COURT, COOK COUNTY.
Py YAU cer ae (eat
269 1.A.618
IRMA Ae ULM,
(Respondent) Appellant.
Me. JUSTICE SCASLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
in the Probate court of Cock county Kobert 3. Bowes,
administrator of the eatate of Kobert U. Bowes, decensed, filed
a verified petition for a citation against Irma A. Ulm, respondent,
which recites that respondent “has in her possession or control, or —
has concealed, converted or embezzled, goods, chattels, moneys, or
effects, books of account, papers or evidence of debt, or title to
land belonging to seid Hobert 4. Bowes, deceased, and that she has
knowledge or information of or concerning indebtedness or property,
title or effects belonging to said deceased, which knowledge or
information is meceasary to the reeevery of same by suit or other-
Wise, and that she refuses te give to your petitioner such knowledge
or information.” The petition prays that a citation be entered
against said respondent pursuant to the statute. “hile we cannot
find in the record a citation order against respondent, both pare
ties assume that one wes entered» iIn respondent's verified answer
te the petition she states “that she has in her possession or
under her control me goods, chattels, effects, moneys, books of
account, papers, and evidences of debt belonging to said estate,
‘ Ra dis.®
at 3 \
‘ bis aeere
4 i ; l ‘ 3 ww Ol Sa
| A saa @ STAPAe MNT VO MaPTAM SMT Wr
oCHBANOM a2 08 oM Teese
ak read Buoy
. j ’ ‘ % Of BRS ees T
wedacteiubabs. 2uvom of onste waa te
TIWOALD MOTE TARSTA geowel i ¢xedall.
eXTHUOD 7000 « THQ9 4d .o eebkogga’. ‘cowensngen} nem Prencetypers
"Gal Daindis les Sd
, { absnablliliad -ietesaekat
stnatleoga : ee anise
aMeyex Pues
POO ALT XO WOXILAO AAT CUBE MAIKADR, SOREN «i, -
eRowoE «2 srodee yavoo fod to duvew ededoxs odé mt
boLt? shoassooh yadwod 6M PtedoHt to atadne ont to | te |
vino brogeet yaa ok est Sentons nokdndte » rok mobthieq ptEh
10 .Lowinoo 10 sefaneasoy tod nt sad” Inebnogeer tailt_settoos: fottn.
20 cayanon yeiediarta yahoos: ‘qheiaaodus 10 bedsovmos sbelsesno> aa
og eiens x0 stdeb te eonvhive XO areqaq «tasoves to aleod eadee tio.
want grin tact ba .bevavooh. cegwod th dtedod bing of gatyueted hand,
LWSGONG TO esembeddohat yataroomes 10.20 molsamrples xo vepdowons —
x0 eyboLvonx doldw ,boageosd bios of ynignoled adgette 10 efths.
-iedite <9 Jive yd emea to yreveoes oud of Yuesaooen ef Mold aurotat
egielworal dow wenottiteg swoy of eviy of seater ode touts dae. oaks,
bereine ed soliadio « dads wyaxq moittiteg afi *.p0d dnerey tard 1
Jonnes ow eList’ .odutate edd of snaerug Inodaoqaer bina daniags
“tog sied ginehneques daataga sedu0 nobiatio « araoes ede ai batt :
‘tewens beiiiuey a'inebaegese: sl «bwxustae saw emo dase vewuan wots
to moleeeaseg worl mi nad ede dadld* an tete ode sotstivg oat es
to edood ,ayenou gavootie yaletiado ,ahoog on o7
sotasdus bisa 04 yaigneind tdeb to ai A ie ks Te ol |
nor has she any knowledge or information of any such except as
to the proesedis of a death benefit already collected by the
administrator herein, as she is informed and believes; said
death benefit being derived from the Steamfitters Protective
Association, of Chicago, as the respondent ic informed ani bee
lieves, and is about the sum of Twe Hundred Twenty Five Dollars;*
that “said deeedent and your respondent were, up to the time of
his death, the owners in joint tenancy. and your respondent is
now the owner, of the contents of a ssfety deposit box at the
Woodlawn Safety Deposit Company, 1180 Bast Gard Street, Chicago,
Illinois, as follows, to-wits:" Here follows a statement of
certain "Keeeipts from Bondholders Committees, bonds, certifi-e
cates of stock, "aan fee preuissery notes of $100 eache The
respondent etates that “as an evidence of the joint ownership
of the decedent and your respondent in the foregoing items, and
the individual ownership of your respondent since the death of
the decedent, your respondent does hereby incerporate into this
answer a written agreement entered into between the deeedent and
your respondent, covering the foregoing contents of the said
safaty deposit box in the Veodlawn Safety Deposit Company, an per
exhibits mumbered ‘1, '2,' and *S,' hereto attached, and made a
part hercof," ani/*te be hence dismissed with her costs." We
will hereafter refer to the exhibits mentioned in the answer.
Upon a hearing the Probate court entered an order that the
property held by the respondent was the property of the estate
and ordered her to deliver the same to the adminietrater within
thirty days from the entry of the order, Respondent prayed an
appeal from the order. Thereafter the petition came on for
hearing, de nove, in the Cireuit court of Cook county, before
Ge
as é¢geoxe owe yro to molieertotal to epbefworst yee ede ead tom
att yd betosilon ybeeria titened diaeh « te aheeseng eft of
bine tooveiled bos hearrotni ai ede oe yabouvd wodaxsatniabs
evisootess exreddi tmnet® od mozt bevizoh gnied t2iemed éaoh
<od fen desxotat of txohsnquen aff an copantsil be suekbabenens
“tatello evil ysaowl bocheull owt te ave onl? trode ab bas esovels
to emis exit od qu perew tnebanqees, wuey na Anchoewh baa? shade stent
givtanbenqnes wiry hes .qonemed tatoy nt ememasadbiblaah wh
ei? sn xod dineoqed yYvelen «2 Yo atnednoo odd Yo ,tenwe old won
eoyooitd .feetda brtd tusk OBL «ynaquod thaoged ytotad nwalboov
Yo fmometate o awelfet sel *stiv-ed ,ewelle? on entomh Lit
ebthsten yahmod “needdtamo® arabfodbnet mbt wigieset” atten
ad? -houn.005b..20.00t0n Yereninnet ant Aebetaate te webeb
qisdenomwe sate, edd Yo sunebive as ea" dade aeteta snvknoqaet
tne ,auesi gatopotet eff mi Snebroqeet 200% tno énedooah edt to
%o déeob ots Gonts tnehndquer <uoy 26 qidaxonwe Kawbtviomd esd
‘Widd ofmt otoroquosnt ydorkd se0b smb hnogasit soy tnehoson’ dats
tun tnbboved edd moowiod ornt Keredne themberge” nbd iew h° towhits
hive edt Yo denetmey yAtonetot ald gatteved ,mobnogaes “iy
<bq as «touquod Pieoged ysokas nwelbasW oad mh xod sheogoh yoORAa
6 haa bee , bedostia ovored ',6° baoe *, 9% a bored ad thitxe ;
oY “.atnon teu Mélw bénelmatd ovnied od’ stadt
“ Yewarts OM9 wt bexotinom adhdidxe odd 09 cetox 202061
ets tail? —_ botedne etd i wh puitacd a m0
“wot so Suto ; tke tbe’ ond ‘woitoored? gritty
‘ wins Aga ica Bean La
i oroted F axénuses sfo00 te ad stwot ‘odd at yovon. mae
; some hie kata RENE via ll
ose
the court without a jury, and at the conclusion of the hearing
an order was entered similar to the one that had been entered in
the Probate court. Respondent now appeals from that order.
Respondent contends that the order of the Circuit court
requiring her to deliver to the administrater the preperty in
question is erroneous under the facts of the cave. She contends
that the rights of the parties are governed by a contract of the
said Deposit Company with Robert M. Bowes, the decedent, and the
respondent, dated December 10, 1928, whieh established a joint
tenancy between the decedent and respondent in all preperty in
the safety deposit bex; that the articles which respondent is
ordered to deliver to the administrater are the contents of this
box and that she, as the surviving joint tenant, is entitled to
the property under the contract. The property consiated of a
number of receipts from bondholders’ committees of various de-
faulted bonds in the face amount ef $4,100, certain bonds not in
default of the face value of $3,100, ten sheres of the John Re
Thompson Company stock, $630 in cash, and two prowissery notes
of $100, made by Herold Bowes, one of the heirs. At the ¢ ime
of the renting of the deposit box the following contracts or
agreements (exhibits mentioned in respondent's answer) were
entered into:
"Date Origs 12-10-28
fafe 7976
Rate 5.00
Signature ih. M. Bowes
sdédress 3613 B&B Re Me Bowes
Paeetas © vrecking Ricken
ecupatio Wr ng Sngineer
Mother's Maiden Name Martha Anderson
(Mrs. Irma Ulm says $/8 Andrews
& ture Co-Renter ivma A. Vim
Address 5726 Midway Park Phone Aus. 0942
Birthplace Beaver Dam, Wisconsin
Gecupation Bookkeeper Mother's Maiden Jame Mary Ae Drown
Reference Mr. Bowes’ daughter
Remarks —
‘6
grixoed on¢ to moteutonon edt da dae axtwh a tuodstw txwoo ond
at betedne ceed hed Jad? emo oni oe tatiol a boven anw wens ws
stobre dail s ator alooge wars Iuohpequen +409 sadert ead
gxvoo ¢iwoth end to tobto exit dest? ebaoiace no bnoqnof
Lae, a Re Gates OR dua Hy
ai yireqexg ett resatiaintahs eats os wovitob of ‘aoa apkenaee
ams ie Bee isc wea
wheeinos ef2 « »eea0 effd Yo atoat orid “re bes aweangtx0
VOR Bik phil cee ks
ois to tontinoe @ a beriavey exe woke ug od? ate Fae beri
exis bre ,imobeosh oatd snowed oN trogen sate Werte on Je -
dntos 4 bedelidades motsy 1 B8EE 20k 19d 90tt hota
i YW xagerg fie mt sno bmoqaot hus smoheend eat re
af snehneqest doidw selelsin od ‘ind x06 pai ne ay
eis’ te Rdsiods09 ais exe todatialntobs ed es xeviteb of pe pero
RRR ' Rome) A (1
od bold tine ed etxaned sntot anivivwe iid 0: soda dest? bam xod
| Nga Pa Sh sale’
# to bedatasios tego xg oft - tomtdnon ‘oa oben
ee Sig ee eS Lal veg RT
-- aubrey to goods tamoo Nexo bLodbaod moxt to todeun
sei tom shrod niadxes 1005426 to snuons ‘ocak ‘odd i} mh ohne
BA as CER Seah t rave cor yg
oi tate’ eth 26 batede emt 200.468 ‘Ye eulav oat act 2» dames
AM Co es cst
aodon Tronedcoug ows bre uitaas wh one etsota anqured
wih | ee talib) if
‘oatt orld $A oaxtod odd te eno evowoe blow yw? * chen , 0088 te
ie fa, sy eile 2
% atoatinos guiwoltot ads xod ttaoges to oad 3
PSawaey « Chen
eto" (rowane s*nefinegoo a bonod dea wabaras ' be
a ae Me We ‘eat Peete,
beredne
parent a a
avert 10
ae ee Tig Whew ee es ae kd
G8&-OL-8f .gixd tac"
ay ee fom ides oh) O42 aa wee Sate alee
06.28 o& ANE
pero
eres va eo ‘gun pobtanl oe secttow Se
rai ‘aewok «x
ahe
/QOODLAWH GAWETY DGPOSIT COMPANY
Chicago, Ile, Origs 12-10-28
Received from Yocdlawn Safety Deposit Coe, of Chiesgo,
Tlle, Feeeipt No. 7364 for rent of Safe Deposit Box Vo. 7970
which is leased by me subject to the terme of said receipt, and
to all rules and regulations of said Company, as endorsed on
said receipt, also acknowledged to have 2 keys of seid Safe
Deposit Box.
It is hereby agreed that the contents of this box may
be withdrawn ani removed therefrom in whole or im part, by all,
or any one, or more of the Renters at any time.
The liability of the Bank by reason of the Letting is
limited to the exercise of reasonable diligenee to prevent the
opening of said safe by any one other than the lessee or his duly
authorized representative, end it is expressly stipulated that
no unauthorized access shall be inferable from proof of partial
er total loss of the contents.
The renter shall not use the leased spece for any
purpose hazardous or illegal.
Witness?
RHB dy LeMeKe Re Me Bowes
ee #
Safe Woe 7970 Date 12-16-28
Reeeipt 7864
It is hereby agreed that a1] articles and property at
any time heretofore or hereafter placed or contained in said
safe or box, now do and shall, so lone as they are contained
therein, continue to belong to the Renters jointly, with right
-@f survivorship therein, and way be withdrewn and removed there-
from, in whole, or in part, by all, or any one or more of the
Renters; and upon the dexth of any one or more of the Renters,
the title te all articles and property then contained therein
shall, upon every such death, vest and be in the survivor ani
survivors jointly, with right of survivorship therein, and such
surviver or survivers, and any one or more of them, shall have
the right to remove ani withdraw from eaid safe or box all, or
any part of the articles and property then, or at any time
thereafter, contained therein.
Under no cireumstances whatsoever shell the Yoodlawn
Safety Deposit Co. be held liable on account of the withdrawal
or removal by all, or any one or more of the Rentere, of ali,
er any articles and property from said safe or box, whether now,
or at any time hereafter contained therein.
Signature Ke Me Bowes i
Signature Irma Ao Ulm Seal)*
On November 29, 1932, after the death of the deceased, the Yoodlawn
Safety Depesit Company ellewed respondent to withdraw from the box
all the property therein, upon respondent's sicning the following
xeceipt:
"Chicage, Tlie, 11/29/82
I hereby certify that 21] the property placed or stored
in the Vault of The Yoodlawn Safety Deposit Cos, of
Chieageo, im pursuance of letting above wentioned, has
been withdrewn therefrom and is in owner’s full
possession, all cleims «geainst and lisbility of said
Company being debarred oeccordingly.
Irma Ae Wim"
YRAGMOS TlaOGa XFaRAR RMAneOgY
GS40f+-85 egixO go tit ro)
eonan isto to 9s0D shaogoG ¥telnk awelbooY
ove? set aee Meoged 6 to foot xo? Sov shor 2
bee gégieces bisa to lh ei? of toetdwo om o beokat al Mh ged BE
m boerebme as .yaeqmoD hise to enotvaiuger Qun eelor Lie of
stad biea tw ayed & evel of begbelxemion ou tn orereres bine
shaoqod
Yom xed glad To sinesdnoo oats dads beetgs beet d at et
gifs ww attaq at 20 slot at mocteceld hovomet here “pong oe
eomtd win ts atedook — a. 2 LO
ei gaitied edd? to moewmex qd anne esfe 1 Rahdadt aah sath
tuevetqg of sonegif{id eLdanouses te = bed hub
eid «xo eensel wf aocid axons os gp
was eet ae Sea
Salt bodaiugtie yLusetqxe st tt ie cee ¥
ode
fakixeg to toouq mort eddst9tal ed {lode 2008
sadnosno9
“ia TOL epega bevaol ate oom. 0g shee
newol oM ok
BE-OL-kL etek OOTY .o etad
ts en now Seances iis igo side. a .
bsaistmeo 10 pen
bekisinxe> ote yet? es yrrot or ae hd awa
seipix Ae iw ohintol, oh, seeseen ons of yao
-g tod? fevouns ‘been “bitin of gh og
te orem to eno to , ils dus ‘a hy: ,
Sarsz eno ute Ln ME Poe Seen! aan
saaea? ba
ine raps pals
maiered? beoniatnos ned? yuseqotg bas nefotiza
tis tovrivive of? nt o¢ bas toov .iftaeh sdowe Yrerhe moqw
fowe Bae ,xlowesdts qidatovivave to JMgia ditw qyfinkot
ovat f[fade yet? to oom tO One Yo bho »ezovintea ce .
a0 «ifs sod xo stse bles moxt weubtldiw tee ovemet to
sak? yuo so to yard Yoxeqowg bow aafolixa odd eto
emtotodé
rwelhoo oft [Lada sevreoetady seomesamsoxly om to
fawathdtie edi te dnuooos ao efdall bLod od 0d 2
efis Ie gatesnet eft to exog To eng Ysa to alia qs Lavemet.
sworn sodiodw «xod to etan bios mozt <ieaong. Be elolixe Yt *
smieted? bemtednoo to oc omits yam 25.
vers apy oM off ourtenats ital ser
feel) calles) aerti eutengit
fwalboo! add ,boeacoeh ad? to dined eft ted%o REL ,@k tedmover nO
mod odd wort werhlttw of sme haogest Sevelle ‘Wreqaey theoged yseter
sancti ori? yatrate e'émebnoqees nog! niga cage torvene
Re\es\LL ori, seqgantse"
- heredu 19 beat wa ons Lin tote
to a+o% eae at pt ody $iveY omeomt ...
aati ,bewolsmen pe ieee oad eosauatue 2 qousota
fist a'semwo ai af bain sovlexsds, crorhiligly meod..ogidqit
phew Yo ystikdatl bis dantepe amtalo Lie» aa MM | an gurnawd
‘Useibrosss borxadeb gmbed meme gcc
Gut A aoe OS ilatieaiaiage |
“be
Thies receipt appears upon the reverse slide of reapondent's
exhibit 1. That the deeedent and respondent signed the agree-
ment and that the property in question was contained in the bex
at the time of the death of the deceased is not disputed. There
ds nothing in the record to indieste that there was any duress
or fraud in the signing of the agreement. Ye claim is made that
the decedent was not in his right mind and in contrel of his
mental faculties, with full power to sign the contract or refuse
to do so. Indeed, the only argument made by the administrator
relates to the alleged construction given to the agreement by
the deceased at the time he signed it. The agreement is a clear,
unembiguous statement of the contract between the parties and in
the absence of any evidence tending to show duress or fraud 16
is conclusive as te their reletions to the property. The instant
contention ef the respondent is sustained by Illinois tr. & Gave
Bank v« VanYlaek, 310 Ill. 185, and Redox vy. Reder, 312 Ills 20%
(See aleo Graham v. Barnes, 259 Mase. 534; In re Peterson's Estate,
239 Miehe 452.)
The administrator wae allowed to introduce certain svi-
dence, over the objeetion of respondent, the purpose of which was to
show that respondent made oral statements that tended to show her
interpretation of the agreement between the deceased and her and
that are inconsistent with her present position in reference to the
ownership of the property. The administrator contends thet such
evidence was admissible because it tended to prove the construction
given the agreement by respondent and that such construction should
have great weight in interpreting the contract. 2 the contract
is plain and unambiguous, its construction as a matter of law and
the relation of the parties is to be determined by its terms. it
is only in esses where, from the words used in the contract, doubt
arises as to the meaning of the contract that the acts of the
-a-
a'eneinoqest To shia saxever ot hoqw etebage Sqieoex aldT
-senge off bérgie tnebatqaeyt brs tnebeveb ed? tadT ff Ihdisdxe
xod etd at bentednds ssw notisesip ot ytcoqenq pd sake ban ¢mom
oxedt ybedwquih fon ef boewoced ond 20 ddoob only. te. outa’ od de
aseuub wre eaw otodd decd edaolbnl of bxooes “oad ih ‘guidion wb
teed obam. gh alado ev .tnomponge odd to gatepiea end mt huwek xe
aid to fondmos nd tne balm detgiz ete at tom aaw shebeoed ond
st S sie s
@eutos so toaténeo atz muta of TowOg ihet atte raedsiuea® Laduan
OO Ne Tp
phtaxtetutnbe oid yd oham tneawgis vino edt Seereritgad ake
to weet Laebe wwe
ud: Quemeempa ad? 0¢ nivig mottowcmate pegesin ould of
eteoto « af Smemoouge, ed? 431 _bemgta ot outs oo tu Sagneeeh ess
mi bne eolixaq ed? neewied tvetines od? to doomed ate suowy ddan
$h bustt co pastwh woe of gathaed somobive ys Yo eohontanead
Snadont off .yeteqoug ond 08 onokaetor nterte asta |
2388 A+ tT niomhisi ys beniatawa at smobneqees wild’
e@O8 w fll SLO gtehok ov xobew wn 288k. + LEK ore
gdadak mtmowto tet et at 1088 saan Cs saeuat vay oats ese)
: ok dap
ee stladros souborint ov powolLes aa ae ett | ph eed
o¢ aaw dptdw to saeqiwy ond oie hatoge ot to woriostde edt sor swoaus
rex wode o¢ bobted sat! winometate ino whan Inohmodest Fudd
anh rest bre beansood oats noswied decaverae edd to os: tox ng
ont of comvuetor mi sottiaog tadeonq ton ety ecntnbeinnah ote teat
dove tnd? shavines resetielninhs edt .ytzoqesg edt to gidazonme —
noltowtsanos olf evotq of bebued 32 sayeood sidtasiahe een 7
bivels soidowstenoo stove Jott tna Ioabemgeoy yd, : oO TS yorpaien
towténoo of3 a »doetinoo uk paisemprofak af ptihew toot ovad
baa wet to rotten # e¢ Holi pareinsion ett aeuangt swuowgidmecy one ekete el
ak tus? att Ke Nomberte dol et of al tnd tte <s * somal os
| tuo .Fomrsnen ex at poaw ubtow eat mcr’ .axedy aude at ime «
odd te atan oat #id¥ Vhdktike "sa? Wil
= Gm
parties may be taken into consideration te aid the court in
ageertaining the meaning intended by showing the interpretation
placed upon the contract by the parties themselves. (See
Rosenbaum Bron. v. Deyine, 271 Ill. 354, 557-3.) The rule that
the courte will look to the acts of the parties indiecnting their
interpretation of the contract, where its terms are ambiguous,
will not be permitted to prevent the enforeement of the legal
effect of a contract which is unambiguous in language and meaning.
(Consolidated Vis Pe & Pe Cos Ve The Louisville Herald Coo, 211 ill.
Apps 569.) Many other cases to the sume effeet might be cited if
it were neceseory, but the rule etated is the settled law. In
iljineis Tr. & Say+ Bank v» VenVincks supre (p> 192), the court
held that “evidence of the inconsistent words or acts of the parties
is net competent." The contention of respondent that the trial]
court erred in admitting this evidence of the administrator, over
her objection, ie oa meritorious one.
Holding, as we de, that the property in question belonged
to respondent and not to the estate, the judgment of the Cirewit
court of Cook county is reversed and the eause is remanded te that
court with directions to diamiss the petition for citation against
respondent.
| REVERSED AND REMANDED PITH DINRCTIONS.
Gridley, P+ Jes and Sullivan, J+» concurs
echel
ni émuoe of2 ble oo mobtexobtenes ovat noes of Yaw ooddxay
soliotexqroing of? gnivade ys hobwotnt yotraan ald gabstetreose
ef) .avtevioamentd estinag edt yd Soatines off noun booatg
tat? odvr.ofT {.H-TOR hE + LIT LPS yomtved ov pnexd mmdnengt
atest gniiestbes avtereq of? Yo atom od? of, Moot Like vtuwen eatd,
esuougicdan exn amied atk orodw ,toorinos ond to podiatanquedms,
Legot exis te tneweproine ef? treverg of Sotdiuueg wd dom LLhiw
“painsen bxe oyauyant mi exownidmarm: at sottw foatsape a. Be toate,
Lil £18 p90 bLarol raduol og? +¥ 20° of @ 0 il bedehtonne?)
ti hetio od ¢etpln sanhite onen edd of meson xadto yrAl.. (88a eae
_ BL awed, hefdtes oat Bt botete ofwz odd. Jud «xzennepen exe ab
, deseo od? 2(S2L 4a) gmawe wloat¥nsY ov Anal vee, d..52 bond seh,
poldzeg ed? te ate to ebtow énedahaneont oft Yo somebive™ Pasid bie
Laixt ortt fost? deodooqeet to mekinednoo aR: Po Semoaphe: dees jah
Tove 4voterdelniabs odd to sonphive aide sais haha at ore. su00.
ath ae 1on amohcod Even @ ab yebtone bso seme
fepnoied hotsueup at Yexeqoty od’ Yad? yo wigs “yaEBEeR oelo oo?!
thozi0 odd to ixempbet, of? yotaten edt of ton baa sunbangeox i
toils of boheauer ef wane ond fins beweow'r wi YinwOe s8eO Yo sxmoo
é' walt menses 20% netting ond datnet0 4 Sera sene oeliager
eeROTT ORE MIT cA GEA cme ry me
i¢in sprees edementd ana ett
styores whe erie tm i
Day claim. matty a |
ee Me ee ls Rt ae :
neonatal ak ayy Sine” Sac erata Shiai
te ia Sd senna " ye
37642
HARRY Le WELLS et ales
Appellees,
Ve
CENTRAL REPUBLIC THUST
COMPANY, a corporation,
et ales
MUNICIPAL COURT
Pefendants.
OF CHTGaco,
279 I.A.618*
CENTRAL RGPUBLIC TRUST
COMPANY, a corpore tion,
Appellant.
;
:
:
|
WRe JUSTICS SCANLAN UALIVENSD THA OFINICN OF THE COURT,
Plaintiffs, Harry L. Welle and Blla Ge Yelle, hie wife,
sued, in agaumpsit, The Central Republic Trust Company, a cor-
poration, formerly the Central Republic Bank & Trust Company,
@ corporation, successor by consolidation te the Central Trust
Company of Illimeis, a corporation, and the Chicago Trust Company,
a corporation, Alien Be Meonnell and Virginia B. MeDonnell, his
wife, and Earl Geo. Gubbins and Mary L. Gubbins, his wife. The
Central “epublie Trust Company, ‘lien &. MePonnell and Yarl Geos
Gubbins were served with process. Gubbine and MeDennell were
G@efaulted and there was a separate finding and judgment entered
against them for ©17,301.15, which judgment is not involved in
this appeal. The case as to Central Republic Trust Company was
tried by the court without a jury and there was a finding in
favor of plaintiffs and their damages were assessed at the sum of
$12,740.74. Central Republic Trust Company has appealed from a
judgment entered upom the finding. Plaintiffe have filed a
erosseappeslpraying that the judgment against Central Republic
WV a
>
. { vets do CELE ot Tre
TRIOD. FATTO hohe ¥
” ergrqiey ili
00.45 THO EG he mang ne pe bol wey
‘B10 :kT evs =n
e Wg de gee Bieeeage
s2yD Sut TO KONTO ‘att cuprynsag, RAHAdG ce a
etiw aid efile .f all hae ellew .t ytial ,etireseett’ 0
eto @ gynsqwed Janx? olidegel Lovine® on? .9 taqmvees ‘m4 Bowe A
eWraqued gaurl & anol obLduqest Lerdtod edd YLubeY ymolditog
fares fovtned edd ef noldeblLounss Yt Tesesvony Yaottovqroo
eViagsod vautT ogee tdD od bas ynoidetoqtoo @ 4 alonFLED Ye Yringeod
eid ,Lisanoiet .8 ainigx«iV bus Lhonmoce oD MOLL gmotiargios s
ett .9tiw als pastddsd » J yrall hee entddw® .oe® frei baa wetiw
coed L18¥ bus LLemmodolt .X moll) ,ynsquod seus? offdmpoot termined
etew Lfonmetell ome enitds? sessed adie hevabe etew ankddy? —
batedes teeagow! bee guthat? oleteqes « ae ered? bne bedIuatob —
ai bevfovnt ton el seeamghyt dobiw 16E. LOG NSE tok sedd tantapa —
naw Yecamod Seurt eliewqed Leadred of as osap off .Leegye elds
. ab yatiatt caw oxedd ban Umel # suoddiw txmoo edd ye botat
to amen odd te hesxsane oxew sepameb tiedd bes s¥ttinladg te tovet
: (8 mort bolooqgn sad Yanguod taurel oitéuqot Laxdmed eantadhiess 9
p bot? evad Stkivmint? .gathel? od moqu botodme trempbut,
wile
Trust Company be affirmed and that this court enter a special finding
in favor of plaintiffs end against that company in the "further sum of
$4,660.37, or a total judgment of $17,501.13." No point is made as
to the plesdings.
The facts, save in one or two instanees, arc not disputed.
On May 10, 1924, plaintiffs, as purchasers, entered inte a written
contract with defendants sllen &. Mejionmell and Virginia 5. MeDonnell,
his wife, and farl Geo. Gubbins and Mary L. Gubbins, his wife, as
vendors, for the purchase and wale of certain lots in Chicago. This
contract provides that the purchasers shall pay the venders 411,000
for the property, $2,500 as earnest money, and the balance, $4,500,
payable 21006 or more every thirty days thereafter, with interest at
six per cent on the entire remeining unpaid balance, “until principal
indebtedness ie reduced to the amount of First Mortgage, when the
purchaser shall receive arranty Deed." On August 20, 1924, the
Gubbinses and McDonnells conveyed by deed to the Chiesgo Trust Company,
as trustee, certain property which included that involved in the con-
tract. The deed stated that the property was being conveyed to the
Chicage Trust Company, as trustee, under yrevisions of a trust agree-
ment known as Trust Yo. 1234. The deed also provided “that in no
ease shall any party dealing with the anid Trustee in relation to the
premises, be obliged to see te the application of any purchase money,
rent or money borrowed or advanced, on caid premises, or be obliged to
see that the terms of this trust have been complied with, or be obliged
to inuuire inte the necessity or expediency of any act of said Trustee,
or be privileged or obliged to in uire into any of the terms of said
Trust Agreement." Trust agreement No. 1234 had practically the same
Clause therein. On or about October 23, 1924, the Gubbinses ami
MeDonnelis assigned the contract with plaintiffs, and eleven other
like contracts, to the Chicago Trust Company, as trustee, under the
gril bnl? Ratueke & seine D1NGD ehis tedd bee bemsl!te ed qragned fawxT
to miva xeddiwt” od ai weqmeo tadé gentege Soe attlintalq to sovel al
an cham ok gniog of ".6L.£08,TL¢ to Inompiwt Legos « xe PS.Ob8,4e
0 pe tanbbaaley edd 94
ehatuqsib Sem aim ,aeonatanit ows to omo at bree eatoe? on?
| metéiua a otnl betetne .ateerdoxrwg on gattitnisiq ,aser Vor pete =
| qhfonmoGoi «8 sintgtl¥ ban Lrommocok «i meLis sdmabnoteh Kiiw Spans
| te gotly etd cenkddyD .t yxall bre antddu® 00D Seat tae ste
sabe? segeotdd mt etel atadies to ofew bme cvadoxug ont rot ov
§ 000,££5 etobnev od? weag Llane arenadommg of? tesld vohtvort fouxinon
1008.84 ,oonnlad odd ban .yonom suenxas an ‘doa.83 09" oqo
$a geotoeni déiw ,tedtsereds eysb Wards ‘reve oven bend v048 tdavac
Leqtontac Litas" ,senslad bieqnw paimteaes extine edd a0 dmoe xeq xin
Hd ody yegeyduod daxlt to Imwane ed? oF boodhot af wuemboddobnt
‘idl — gtd ( S8OL 40S Sengws 20° "shoot ‘ysasrtal ovtoso: Lads toqadoray
sTanqwod saweT oyeelsy eft of hoot yd beyarned oLlonnotie' ‘tng aeenkédud
“moo oft a? bevlovet tent bobwloal wlobiw qxeqonq: seanevanenessiintl
~ootge tavte « % edinbuirienne eben <eennienet ih eseuiiibeiadiebialiie
On ni dads” bedivetq osle deed oAT and panes ata nwa
ett of mobiolot nt atewtT blow add détw yatleeb yaad
eYerom seatorwd us te noiiseliqga odd oF e60 oF SeQrtdo’ od vhttion
43 beygilive sd ve ,tectmorg bia mo _deeneyhe 0 sewetted-yRom xe! dRo*
bepilde ed to yiliiw beriqnis meod oves tured aide to nites edt tasis 200
,oodammT hive te don ye Lo YKenetheqxe’ to Yteavonn ait ovnh-emkoat: of
bien YO attet ets To yr oat or teprd 0% bogtido so: | 7
satan Odd YEIrottonvy bal ALCL eh semempetge seusT” % bn
ins seanteeud ofl (MARL (68 redovel ewods' xO nO sms ssnso
wnitee’ novele bing ,otRtoniatd Ai2w doawanos ealt bemptacs: i Lage
eat ohn obey ah ¢cequed SemsT nected ns neat
whe
said trust agreement and the eaid deed. Prior to the assignment
plaintiffs had peid to the vendors, on account of the contract,
$3,067. After sequiring title, Chieage Trust Company advised
Yells that "from that time on my payments should be made to the
Chieage Trust Company, that they had title to the property and
they held my contract,” and as « result ef this statement and
instruction plaintiffs paid directly te it $905, Later, Yells
was inetructed by Chicago Trust Company to make all future payments
to Subbins & NeDonnell, a partnership, end at the sume time he was
told that the said partnership would remit the payments to the bank,
and that plaintiffs' contract would be credited with all payments
80 made. Thereafter plaintiffs made ell payments as so directed,
It ia admitted that the bank actuslly received from said partners
ship $6,991.19 which was paid by plaintiffs te the partnership
under the instructions from the bank. FPlaintiffse aleo paid
$1,882.26 for general taxes and special assessments on the lotsa,
whieh payments they were obligated te make under the terms of their
contract. The contract between plaintiffs and the MeDonnelle and
Gubbinses provides that the sele was made subject to a blanket first
mortgage on which the approximate shere of the lots purchased by
plaintiffs was $6,100, and further provides that when plaintiffs
had paid $4,900 on the contract a deed to the property would be
given them. ‘ells testified thet after they (plaintiffs) had paid
$4,900 om the contract he had ea telephone convereation, in August,
1926, with Wr. Kleder, the aseistant secretary of the Chiesgo Trust
Company, in which he told Fleder that they had paid on the contract
the emount necessary to obtain a deed, and thet Kleder anid “I
eould get a deed subject to the remaining belance under the first
mortgage on my contract, or I could continue to make my payments se
I had been in the past, and when the balance of $6,100 was paid,
=o:
ew
inewgiven ort? of welxt .boob bios off tne dmomeekRe taut? bias
stomténoo est? te dnwocen mo gatobmoy afd of bheg best athivmiste
hesivia ynageod Jamrtt ogen tel e9L0tt gaitinpos meats 100488
el? of sham ad bLwortle afnaryea wr mo emt? satis mot” todd aLtoy
bae <ixeqotq et of e£8hd had yous dnstd cemoquot seurct onesie
hese tuemetate abst? ze iiguet 2 as bne * toendnoo wm Afed. Node
slfe’ «retest ,8088 th 4 yLivorld bteq cttiintert soteourteat
atnomeeg exurd ast {is sxem of waged tewsT ogantdd bd hesowesags say
asw ef ami? omen off ge bne eqidetonsxeq a eLionmedem a antete \ 4
daned edt ot atnomyng ead Yimet bivow qidetendt9g bites oa tats Sia.
wseomyod Lin Aekw bed thozo od biuow sostinoe etthtatady a ie
sbetoot£b on ea atnemtag fis eham stti¢nteiq mos tooreds
ae |
SA aga
~readreg biae soxt bevieoot yLtauton anad onde ase testiase, et ‘T
oijn%
qisoxendxsq eld of atttinieals yf blog sew doteiw CLof0P.d$ qide
btaq cole altkimtalt .xned ert? moxt emotvousient edt tehay
+ gato edt mo atnemnoons {stooge ban sexa? Lexeren x0 8-288, 1%
tort lo anred off <obnw oxlem of betegtido otew Yad? ednomyeg dotsty.
hee nifennotiod edt bun a¥tiéntely apewded soexgneo ont »foandnng,
turlt seanaid a ot Sooldue obom saw oleae odd tad? anbiverg aeantdduo
Wf bevatiorwg atot od? Yo erase eganixoxgge aft dott 20 epagtzom
attivniatg nadv tad? aobivoty sodtywt dae 90OL9% sow ottlintela
| od binow ysteqerg ef? of bob « fostémes ont mo Oe dD bteg bast
bkeq hel (ettivatetq) yoxds tote tad? poftisaed aLloy amedd ports.
_ tteargi at ynotter terns aneriqofed 2 bait ont toaxtmon anf? 0 000.08.
Saker ogee to end to vinioteos Inatepas ent «tobeLs ai Soiw gOSOL,
tostinos on? mo bteq bet yodt tod? sebe et, blot ed dolite ot yysnqued,
I* bien robeLR tadt bua .d99 » statdo of yroevecen tawome odd,
? “”
“teat art! tohty consled yatnionor sald oF tomidug. ied saad
ua atuauyss ys olem of emmitnos blue I xe » yt a
ehteq 2aw fecres rt to sonsLed wat made etn Am oe fixe
&
Ad fi * vist en
Psa f
adhe
the bank would deliver me title free and clear of everything,” and
that, acting upon this atatement of Kleder, he then sent his cheek
for $261 to opply on the contract. Kleder denied having this con-
versation with Wells. Flaintiffs, acting upon the telephone cone
versation, thercafter made payments that aggregated $4,190, After
said sum had been paid, Yells was informed that the Gubbins & Mebounell
partnership was having difficulties with the defendant bank, and he
discontinued payments until he cowld ascertain what wne the proper
thine to do under the circumstances. He then learned that the blanket
first mortgage on the premises had matured on May 7, 1929) and had not
been paid nor extended, and he thereupon took the matter up with
Central Republic Trust Company and wee told by it to see Gubbins &
Medonnell. Yoreclosure proceedings upon the “blanket mortgage" cever-
ing the entire property were commenced May 28, 1930, and a daeree in
complainants’ favor was entered September 29, 1931. Plaintiffs’
attorney informed the bank several times that plaintiffs were willing
to go ahead and complete the transaction. Plaintiffs made several
written demands on the bank for a fulfillment of its agreement but
these demands were ignore!’ by it. They, through @ representative,
then tendered to the defendant bank $2,340 im gold, and demanded that
the property be conveyed to them, free and elear of the mortgage, but
this tender was refused. laintiffs thereupon elected to rescind the
contract and this action is brought to recover the moneys paid by then
upon the contract, together with interest thereon at the legal rate
from date of payment ani the amount paid for taxes and special aprease
mentee On the tricl of this esuse it was admitted that if the Chicage
Trust Company is liable, the Central “epubliec Trust Company, successor-
trustce thereto, is alee liable,
Many of the points made and a great part of the argument in
defendent's brief ere predicated upon the assumption that plaintiffs‘
cause of action is based upon a guasi contractual reletionship, or
bre “agitdsyxeve to qs0lo ban eect ofiit ou tevhdeh biwew ained ont
domis atd taon weds of ¢gebeld Lo dnemedade elcis noqe guitvow pda
-noy piult anivat tednob xoheLi .fosnemo edd no Ylqau of £084 xot
-ioo englgeted old segs gation .etiivalel® «alle sft kw wohtaeney
| s9STA ORL~d} Rosoyorage dnsd sinamyag odam todtwowds «noldnaxey
Lionmode & smiddad edt sald domtoint saw eLlow , blag meee. has mre dhew
of fas yalnad gnahneteh ef dite sotsivotitsb gatyad now, qideventneq
mugetg els eew tasiv mtadtoose biwon od Lian stneeryeq boumLi Rove
toduald oid decid borasel merid oh seeoneteruetis edt aehew om of. guid:
fest Dek fom eg CREL 4% Yel mo berntan tnt soutmong of? ‘no epepi non sont
atiw qu rotten old Xoot noquetetd of hae ybobnoixe ton hing noed
@ untdtod vee of 92 Yd HLod cow hae yooqneo sees? obtinge lt! arse
-r9vo0 "swage road tednald" on? moqu syaidvovorg otwedLee70% — « ALonmodalt
Hi eoreh 9 ben OLE 488 Yar hosmennios oxen yotegeuq/exbihe odd gmt
‘atitgaialt .L8¢L «@h rodswdqee botedae naw tovel ‘edasmtates
gabiliw ovow eBtivahadg tadd gomid Lexeves aned add bonse2ad et peda
faxeves ehau eikiiningt »ottoasmat? ed etelqnon bua. bestia on.0¢
tod tuemeetge adi Yo taemiittlet a xe? aned, asd mo atnemed meethev
eovitaimoxonget # apsould .yett Ȣ) WW bovenyt erew, ahnameb andi
tel? bebrameh baa ghlog at ObS—Rt Aned dncdmaton eds, 0% denobavt mods
dat yogend tom od to top lo hae sett snes OF beyoygeD ad Neuogong ads
odd intone: ed bedoate noquozed? stivalals .hegwtes may uehned abdé
mt YW bleq ayenes elt seveRes of set ahaa bas goatdmoo
edox Loget eae fa moeted) thovednl diiv rossened atoatinen edd mage
~opogea Ietoege bas goxed rot bieq sewome edd hem amr: 20 ah mess
ogmatdd edd 22 dole betddwhs wow 2h sigeo wtds So debnd edd mg. cnn
“Tosvorowe eYmaqued gaunt otiduged Lexsned. oft pret rt
ut tnpamaxe ads te dx9q sooty bone, ebiom + stato 829 OE osc tau.
*
20 (qhdondiiatex Laudostdmo on, a soe i a 723 x ones
Se
implied contract, whereas plaintiffs claim that they can reoever
upon an implied contract or an express contract with defendants; but
in the view that we have taken of this appeal, we do not deem it
necessary to consider the question as to whether or not plaintiffs
have a cause of action bused upon an implied contract, and therefore
many of the points made by defendont need not be considered.
It is conceded that when plaintiffs had paid $4,900 upon
the contract they were entitle? to a deed. While Mleder denied
having the telephone conversation with “ells in ‘ugust, 1926, it
appears from the record that the trial court, who saw and heard the
witnesses, believed that “ellis told the truth as to the conversations
We have earefully considered the testimony of both witnesses and also
gertain facts and circumstances that tend te throw light upon the
controverted question, and we are seatiefied that the trial court wes
fully justified in believing the testimony of Yellin. fefendant makes
the somewhat strange argument that Yells, a business many could not
have relied upon Kleder*s statements to him. It is a matter of
common knowledge that preectieslly all persons desling with large banks
relied upon statements of officiale of such inetitutionsin 1926. It
follows, in our judgment, from the testimony of Yelle, especially
when considered with other facte and cireuastences in evidence, that
the Chicago Trust Company expressly easumed to deliver title te the
lets, free and clear of ingusbrances, provided that plaintiffs paid
the balanes, $6,100, due upon the contract. Chicago Truet Company,
as trustee, took title to the property by deed. It took an assign-
ment of the contract between plaintiffs and the Gubbinses ani
MeDonnells. it exercised complete authority, in se far ss pleintiffs
were concerned, over the contract and the real property involved
therein. it exercised a iike authority as to other purchasers who
had econtracte for lots in the subdivision that was conveyed to
=
j a
tevooet tno yess fat? mtato attientate asstaiw ytoortnos betiqut
dud qinobueted Medw toetthoo ausiqxs Mo to doatémos beltemt an Hoge
dt wow tom ob ow ,Lneqqn ated to meted wert ow dnl? woke edd at
atiidntats to xo terderw of ua mdt¢aow) eff webtemeo ot Ytonnsden
erorerodd bn jtoetta0s botignt ne moqy toned aotten to sade « oval
ehetebionos od tom beer tnebrotob <u ebeat atntog re to yom
ogst 000.9% bheq bod ottitnint sede dnde bobecnos i ree:
bolneb vobsl® efid? .beeb « of bekitine ox0W yonte rr ey
$f ~aRer vdoway! mt affey datw noticarévase onodgeted ad? gatvad
edd Weeet bee wee oy girwoo Latte ome deed beooes Ste mot Bhesgga
etigotiaereveds eff of ae Mdutd std Biot attev tat bevetted yeobnend ii"
ouis bas eoncentdivw diod te wromitass of} boxeblenes etketerss ovat st
‘etd moqwd Sstylt world oF bites tatid toonatemotic tos atost mhagtad”
anw ftw6o fic? ofd jad? bebtaiges ore ow hae ,moleebap hedteverinds |
wolom tnobevltet atte to ymomtiebs add gutvartoe ai hesntsant xtiet
“Hon ison qnne suemtend © patter tad Swomgth Oy the se ond
teeta a aT cated od cence imi eel Nl!
guined eyxsf to gatieot anowteg Lfp yLLadisdwty ads Sybetwomt Hounds
$0 .DSOL tt anOt¥e trent Soweto aLelotrte to binemddade mbqv belie
(—- ERakoeqae carro” to Yaomtsoss ett mitt .anemgbet duo mi yewortot
bids {einbidee kd dhccabhinitte’ hdd Hat Held WE a
etd of sii! tovitob of heausen Ulaeerexe nie’ “ial oinsiid act"
“bkeq ethitateta tatd pebtverq jnoonstdavont te 4608 Aen Seed yabot
ewanqad fae? opnotsd .toatindo edd moge owt j00L,09 jeonstad edt”
engities a oot $1 .hoeb yo yitoqdtg edd os Weld dod puodauee Ha
bie seantddy? odd be wYridntale meowded sosttnve ond to tno
attivntelg es ut oa at eetixodine odetgmoo hontetins ox “Saitemodell
beviovnt <txeqeta Leot ent ban tostdaoo ed? seve sSeexpon00 ote
tre? Oe)
Pee e
ics ow areusdoxuq ‘onde of ea Ydtxoitan exit s ‘bealorexe dt snboreds
82 boyivibs ‘Waw Baste’ nabntbaes aed mt adot not stooxdt
4 He mM a Mi Me Lee | basil a a re te ane
SO NNT ee
“be
Chiesgo Trust Company, Trustee, by the MeDennells and Gubbinses.
From the time it notified plaintiff Yells to make all future pay@-
mente to it, under the contract, it received all moneys that were
paid under the contract. It made agreements with other purchasers
similar to the one that it made with plaintiffs. Defendant, in its
reply brief, preetieally concedes that it might be unjust for the
bank to retain the moneye paid it after the telephone conversation
if Yells’ version of the seme is to be believed, and in the oral
argument before us counsel for defendant eonceded that if said
version is to be believed, plaintiffs would be entitled to recover
the moneys paid after the telephone conversation, plus interest
after the date of the demand.
Defendant contends, in its brief, that the telephone
conversation, “if it did oecur, could not bind the Trust Company
on a contract, because of the statute of fraudse" In support of
this contention defendant cites eases stating the well known rule
of lew that the mere payment of money under an oral promise to
eonvey land does not take the promise out of the Statute of Frauds.
All of the cases cited relate to bille for specific performance
and have no application te the facts of the instant casee
Defendant contends that plaintiffs cannot recover because
they did not keep their tender good. it is a suffietent answer te
thie contention to say that when plaintiffs tendered the amount due
under the contract to defendant, in gold, the bank refused the
tender, disclaimed liability, stated that it could noi deliver
title, and referred plaintiffs to Gubbine & MeDonmell. Thereupon
plaintiffs, as they had a right to do, rescinded the contract.
The eases cited by defendant do not apply to the facts of this
Caste
Defendant contends that “under the contract, Yelle
probably had a right to rescind when he did not receive his -
te
suoenigdul bre eilommo’eM eat YC yootane? qymqne® tebe opeotit>
~tnq emsdu: Lle glen of effev Utintely beltthven of emby oft moat
oxew dould eyenom Lia, hovteoot #2 ydomxtnoe ent awhtw 4 of OF athe
expredlocg wwslto déiw einomsetys shaw $1 sdhewtnoe este tobnar bhai
git at gingbroted .etiismtale délw ebest ab desis one add oo aalinie
eld vot gautew ed denim 34 tact? amboome ylheotioeng « todad ylgoms
ipliserarnos sxetgqeted oft vette #2 blag eyomon eslt ainvet o¢ and
faxo off ai daw ,bovelled od of of emme ett to nohexey *alfel th
“bina Ti sed? bekeonop sundae tob 20% Leanuoo ay oxpled dnomupae:
twvocot of beliline ad bimew attivataty ebevelied ed\ed at melee
teotetat sulq yiolsanzoynoe onerigedos od? xothe blag. syemom att,
sbramwh ot. 20 otah odd code
pnorgeled edd dadd ,totad ati ot ,ahuetnop tnehmeted 6 6 © wb
Xnaquel geweT afd gatd Jom divec yuepo bib. th 22" «nohdewtevnoo.
to dxoggue x “.ebwort to edstede elt Yo oumaned ytectines a ne”
eLur mworml ILew ad? gniiata apace andio tnahae teh nobsandioo: atdd |
of culmorg Lavo ms Tehhe yonom 2o dnemyny suet ont Batt one eS
cht To sdudads od Yo duo eaimorg edd offend fom coed bmal Younsd >
| Sottero dieg pLLtesga TOl RLLd od etalor bedhe-nease add tomLts’
+9000 insgant ad? bo etont et oF mattast iene om ovat Sma
aexsped yevones sean zYidnlaly todd abuedaas tmabneted! Gow pol
ot xewane. dupintitun « eb, 2%, abemp aobend ahede qed tom bth Yond |
evh invone oft heteomed atiliniely aeww dad? yor OF meTinesmmo alt) |
(Od Dens 29% dnad wt phon af eimmbnokod oF #mmsnoo, walt webs
“Noviieb som biwoo 62 said bosate qyetitdell bomtetesre yxobned
Aoquexed? + £Lonnotelt & actdded oo wMRtemate beet fee orttt
adoetsncn esd bobalonst yob of taghr # Daal ype we ae PRs
_ wate 2o avost odd oF vlgge tom Of dtmbemket Ws tthe won wt )
it ae
ay
<=
deed subject to a mortgage in 1926. Wot having slected to take that
etep and having continued hia payments, he clearly lost any right of
rescission based upon that breseh.” It is eufficient to say, in
Tesponse te this contention, that plaintiffs continued peyments on
the contract beeause of Kleder's statement to Yells and defendant
continued to receive the same, and it is therefore in no position
to raise the instant contention.
Defendant next contends that “the plaintiffe next got a
right to rescind, as against the veniors, after they made the tender
October 27, 1920 (aseuming it was « good tender). They di¢ net elect
to reseind by bringing suit until Yebrwwy 15, 1933. This is not
prompt and imnediate action.* It is a sufficient amewer to this con}
tention to say that the evidence shows that after the refusal of the
tender negotiations were carried on for « settlement of plaintiffat
Claim and that participating in these negotiations upon the part of
the bank were Mr. Leonard, a vice president of the bank, Mr. Watts,
an attorney for it, and Mr. Beckett, connected with it. The argue
went that plaintiffs did not want the lots snd were concerned only —
in ebtaining from the bank the moneys they hed paid is not wmrranted
by the facts and circumstances of the exnse. But for Kleder's
statement to Yelis, plaintiffs would have had title to the lots in
August, 1926.
Defendant contends: “If we have failed to persuade the
court down to this point, there is still ome item making up the
judgment which is unjust. That is the item of interest, amounting
te $3,455.29. The contract provided that the purchasers should be
entitled to possession of the premises sold. If their tender made
October 27, 1952 was good, they were thus entitled to the possession
down to expiration of the period of recemption, Octeber 29, 1932-6
Interest for the period down to that date amounts te $2,852.023
todd gaat of Sotoete gatverl JOR =6+ORRL mh apenduam « of dootdua byob
to dlgin yne tool yLteedo atl pndnenysq aid Sommbdnoo gartwed bee qode
“mt cue Of daelottive af ¢t "ones dad? noqwibeesd motastonox
fo etromyoq beuniiroo eYilininle set yroltaetmos elif? oF osmoqent
{riabusted baa eLfey of Inemedodn w*TObeLE To sawaed tontdioe wat
ttotéteog on mi etotwtods ef th bite ,omee off evidoet oF Beunivnes
sKoténetnoo tietent ont oa tne od
& 909 txen eFtivwtoly off" tad’ eboetnde Ixer tavbeetec
qebned ef¢ obom yet? rod%e yorohwey af? suntage as ,babowet of Pdi
doets von bib yod? .( seemed bewg & vow od pobewwus) ter a aeeeTsO
fon ef shed 260 .8L yrowrdet f2emw thw wxtonind yo betonet 08
eno eli? of towane snotolttwe « ot é1 * “snOeee boebboum ‘bre tqnorg
esd 6 Eevirtex eft tette tnt ewer wove tt "Ot ae 1 mu it
tettitnisfy to dmsuslitee o ret no ‘bebe, etew anolrehye
to diet oft moqw anotsatvegon evens mt spall ict ER ty le tl alll
saddoY ce ytnod ons to dmobiverq softy w (brated Ja Otee aid Sue
eupite edt’ af sit hw bedobrinss sFtedodt SMe hell 102 Sek Withee ha
Ele berreoros stow bath stot off dmaw vow bie WYEtiktala’ dante nem
hedratra Jon st bing beet yo? eyomou orfd waned! eft UY setetetde mt
ateoberi xot fof “bas off to weomedamwetio bits Wont edd yd
&E stot eit? 09 ottte bart svat btdow ineasagnegn 2 voile of tnomotsda
© a het eh ohm ORO tewgen
edt? oXowstoq of belle? evad ew 21 rabnedhen Yadineted oo
ect? qu gitttem wet) ofo Lfite of oxeds , tatog ‘sid ‘ov ‘neoh Pitibe
gatinvons yiiersdnt to most edt at sath” — ‘ak ote Sree bert,
of bares eveundotumy fd tatd dentvesy Foaddne a. Se
| wba totined ted? OT Bod wodtnong itt se httediacleg G Hene
“mohuasasog od of hoLitine emt? stow yet «booy diw S80r (8 <etoieo ,
8ECL 4@S redes00 ynotiqaetes Yo holreg edt te woktertqxe oF mob
Kensae,ae 6: céniiomn B#A8 tit od leaatenionetbede ae
— ih
ksi wit eee EY oO Raat icin ny
oder
interest from that date to date of judgment emaunts te but $603.29.
if plaintiffs are entitled te recover the various items included in
the judgment below, interest however should heve been but $605.29,
fe give plaintiffs interest for the deprivation of the use of their
money for the entire peried of time is, we respectfully submit, to
allow them something they have slready received, and does not square
with the equitable charaeter of the plaintiffs’ action." if we
correctly understand this contention there is no marit in it. The
contract between plaintiffs and the MeDonnells and the Jubbinses
providess
"That no right, title or interest, legal or equitable in
said premises shall vest in said party ef the second part until the
deed conveying the premises, as herein agreed upon, shell have been
delivered, or im case of failure on the part of the party of the
first part to deliver exid deed in secordanee with the terms hereof
agreed upon, shall have been paid or tendered in full to the party
of the first part."
Here, plaintiffs never had title te the property and never had
possession of it, although they had the right to a deed in August,
1926. They did not then obtain title beeause of the statement of
Kleder te Yells. The cases cited in support of the instant conten-
tion have no bearing upon the facts of the instant cases
We now come to a consideration of plaintiffe’ cross-appeal,
wherein they contend that they are entitled to a greater amount than
the trial court sliowed them, viz., $3,067 paid to the vendors, under
the contract, prior to the time that the deed and assignment were
given to Chieage Trust Company by the vendors, together with statutory
interest from dete of payments to date of judgment, amounting to
$1,495.39. ‘# to this contention of plaintiffs, defendant etatess
We must tell the court, frankly, thet so for ca we ean find, this
is a case of first impression. * * * The precise facts of this
ease, however, do not seem to have been involved in any reported
eage.* Under the facts of this ease, as we find them, the Chicago
had
288.E08% tud of otmvrins Inoopbul to e¢eb OF Gah Vacs mott sentednt
ni hobutont amest wvolvey edt tevooet of beléléne orm wThientelg 2i
<€8.009¢ sud rood ove binede tévewed sootednt ywoked énampbul emt
thedd Yo sau of? Te moitevineeh end ao? seotetat athivntalg evig. oT
of yiiadwe “liwidoeqest ew gat emis ‘te balieg oubdae ods tek youen
etenpe fom usob ote yhovinoot Ydeetia eval yoli gaiddiomee mosis wodls
ew TL “.moiton ethivntetg odd fe xedpaade oidatinpe etd dtiw
eat .ti ot ¢ivom on at exedd aolénednoo ald? baadaxebaw yLioorsz00
aveniddud off bea aflonmodol ef? hs ethitatalg neowted a
at eldnéitnpe to Laget .iaoxtmt to ofttd qttigtt ies
od? Lites Yreq baosca of? to Ysxeq bios wt doy ne at
sooed overt Liade ,noqy beeps closed oo
ones eee ed? mo oxutia' te sean a
¢ Adie ooon nh beet biag
had iesenis siassiieminen ai ee ofpit bod novon aURttntasg com
shawna at boob » od tigtx exit dart yond Mamodiis .f %o solesennog
Yo snemesase oss to cemaced efits mtatde med tom bib NomT -dseL
“teineo Inatant als te stoqque at bedte avsao edt -ello¥ of sebeLt
snaoo dastont edd 16 atest ald moqu gattaed om eval sohs
eleoyga~neets 'atiiiaialg to soliaveblanes 2 04 exes won w. '
nadd texons wehew1g o at heLitine ox Yond dad? baton youd at
webhaw gurehmoy afd of hiag 700,69 qoutw quedd bowelle see Ladze etd oa
view Inssmyiass tra hooh orl? sand ams od? of sodag gtowrtnos said
VWolstiate dite vedsoges eatotney eff Yd Yaoqmed fast oppetd? of moyte
Of gatiauons yinomybul to atab of adnamysg to ooh sat sponptes
seedate Iuntuelod .attiiatalg to agtineinpo atde of wi. 108 Rdg LE
Bids qhatl aay ow oo tat om taslt _yirimer? «fxwoo ont shed, oh a hl
aidd to stant eeloong eft * * # | aegeenamt tart? 2 bie
hed t0q0% Yao mk beviovel seed evad of meee, fom 4 ob stevewed yenne seer
epeetd® ef? gmodd batt ow es, “soeep atte 9 tet ote coda "sean a
) S45 46% Suavegee —
ae |
Re
“en ee
“Geo
Trust Company, aveigues, agvawed the asviguers’ Linbility wader the
vontract and thus created controat relations between it amt plain-
tiffa, or, to state it im another way, 11 stood im the shees of the
vendors in respect te the contract, The contention raised by
Plaintiffs in their srose-appeal wost therefor: be wieteined, We
find, therefore, that the triel court should heve asaeesed plain~
tiffs’ damages at 917,301.13, instead of $12,740.74.
Thao judgment of the Municipal court of Chienge te reversed
aud judgment is entered bere in fuvor of plaintiffe and acsinet
écfendamt in the eum of $17,301.13.
SUOGMENT PEVERSD AMD JUCGMENT Bese
IW YaVOk OF PLAIMIIFPS AND AGAINST
DEPENDANT IN THY SUM OF $27,301.13.
Gridley, Pe Js, and Williven, Je» conoure
( nttaLg bee $2 geomded snetintot toszdnon beteene mud? bem Peasdney
odé 26 mdorn ost oi deota of sow rodvons mi 22 eget OF ang eR BAe
(eY sbontageuy e6 oxoteredd dame Leeqganmauxe thes wh abktimbele
( mbitady Aecweens overt biwedte teveo Labsd wilt panieinattnaibaniascieh
OF OMELET RO Nawteah 9 LAOS TLE i
bt nt rear
ont Te Ystay wid To Frey Ohi MEO OTEEint Ww “are ML WO ote
MeN Gedo te LI eonahegoom me. beet tian coe see tae
[pung ef3 ot iiv? ws howohned te thee weed evn aloft ~ *
Ph aks ' nh a
aa Bik a
4 ees ee ee aes Me aye oe w Ses Pag Re ahmed “ a2.
: : piacyyo-geme “ethliniels te mitwanbhanes 468 HS Busi wm, 1 RRB Aad fi
aM oe fe ae he Ne oe CAS Tee a. Se a ee: eas ‘ante. 4d tessa ntigite ‘gaat 5
- : ite A aa: eer Rs 2
whi geiuenwr od! ed Atay POyOt eomde gate see weme.
ROAM PSE atthe. 5 RRe RANEY RO Se ae gail phe Fh ad
Kein yoteenes serohwer ade cpl eet BET yin aad
a ek ee a sient
ee Sr i BT ie a ee Bi i ae eS ‘ue t bina, fee.
QSR4 FG Oe Ses wa dowry. onl Bm snaton vom
PRACHERE tee #5 beer Saek aes ete oF me we
S764
MANDEL WH. Hee rs,
Appellant,
Ve ) APORAL THOM BUMIGIPAL
MASK JAMPOLI6, SIDNRY COUN? GF CHICAGO.
JAMPOLIS and THIFRSA TAMPOLIS,
pounce 1979 1.4.619'
BMRe JUSTICN SCARLAW UALIVG59 TAS OFIMLON GY THe COURT.
“Leimsiff euct Mark Jampolic, Sidney Jaepelics and
Theresa Jampolis te recover the cum of $500 on a bond signed
by them, together with interest at the rate ef etx per cont
per emum. The bend was one of a verise of 416 bends that
were ssoured by a trust dead upon certain property, Mark
Jampolis «me the only defendant served, The esac woe tried
by the court. Wo «videnee was offered by defeadunt. The trial
equrt found that plaintiff take noshing by Bis suit ani fhint
defendent Mock Jampolia reeover from plaintiff his gente. PMiain-
$iff hes apvemled, Defendant Bas not filed «a brief im this o urte
The third amended affidavit of merits sets up « number
of defences to the claim, enly one of shieh seed be noticed, visos
that plaintiff is precluded from suing upon the bond in an ection
at daw by reason of artiele [if, section lp, of the trust deed
stcuring the bends which reads aa follewar
“aAytiele lil, Seetion 1. It is hereby declered snd
mt as a condition upon which each legal holder or holders
aril ox omy of eaid bomia receives and helde the seme, that
me holder or holders of ony of said bonds or goupens shall have
the right to institute aay preecesdings im law or in equity, of
whatever echarseter or kind fer the foreclosure ef thie dead of
trust or for the execution ef the trust herein provided, or for
the appointment of « receiver, or for amy other remedy under
shis instrument, er for enfereing the lien hereby created, *ithout
firet made appliention to the Trustee, as hereinbesore
provided, and until the Trustes shell heve «rongfuliy er un-
wee
Nod it re Ok, Tea ep hwaees.. baer]
RHP tes “ta oe pehenes
bes
A ~leT MM PeObeey
tan wnt ; a
: eile” aad ein <
——«
AASLOIMOM BOWE TAZCCA
s00,.0TKD + ped ye
J 9 tO ev ge <3 yn
Wier 20, iguerpbak Ame
sTAVOD ALT WO MOINITO SET cunyitae Raden oe ORT AYL, 9 Mh »
ten atkogint yerht yatLoyaat drat voum Whvetest
bomgta baot & me Oa8 te mie ots Toveser of Wiingeal sewcndt
iaos u9q xe te oaet ssa te geetedat dite vedltepod queds WW
dad? elmod OL8 Wo seltos o te ene aaw tog edt smunne tog
due « USteGOTE nind<60 neq hob yenxd be ‘heaithd baw”
bolt? see onan off hevroe taeheoteh ylno eld ane abroquet
Int<é ef stachne tb WW devetie exw oonpdive of .tewes eat ‘wd
toute to thom otal ye gedsivon oiled titintety tad? bewed sue
~ntal% .adooo att Tilewtels mort t9veces alfoqnal Xvet taabietod
efiuu cm eles mi toted » belt? fon sad tmehavted »hekapyqas ead Tid
tedaus © qv ade ethiwm te ¢ivebitie hebuome wekds edt ~
ssnl¥ sbovisan ef tea dodiit Te ome Uno yatale auld of nesmeteb Te
(— akion me mt bed odd weqe gutwe went bebutowng wt Rsdntely tone
boob Sours edd Ye gf maiden gil efehite Ye nomeoy WW wal te
howolio? an obaex Moldy yhnod val? yaduiroce
hee bovatooh wioxodt wh tt ok muksoed «ik »
doce otis
etohien so te bled
Sate vowsnnd? 8
ount Stake ouaties ee eee 190c shrag
bat po ng porch fi
te b elds he wmsebinowes tua Se
v8 te she sioved deat? (oo ao
hem Ybesox + cedfo™ wan. 203 eet 8
juatite gbedasrs ytexedt me ie ene -aeaieata
exetodalivwesd on ,eedomr? of? of apie
Mona €O UEtvegnoTe over Lads eed uct
oe
Yeasonatly failed te institute prosesdinges for the ferselosare
of thie deed of trust, or for the exeqution of the trueta here.
under, or for the appointment ef a reoelver, or for any other
rexnedy under tuis deed of trust, or for enforving tae ilen hereby
created, ae the ¢nme may be for sixty (46) daya after the civing
of metice in writing te the Zrumtee so to do, Aili rigtte of setion
wader tain deed of trust or under any bends or courvens seeured
thereby, say be enftoreed by the Trustee in ite diseretien without
the poeeession of ony of the bende or ceupone er the production
thereef on any trial or precesdingsa agreander, *
The court found for defendant upon the theary that thda sestion im
the deed of trust barred cialiatiff from suing at iaw on the bend,
und the enly qu¢etion pregented by thie appeal ie whetner or not
the court's ruling was justified under the facte and the law, The
only Language in the bond that San any bearing upon the inetant
question is the follewing: **** for « Puli deseription ef whieh
4e0d of -trust and the terse and oonditione under whieh thie vend
is ieessed, secured and bid, and the Limitations en the rights of
bondholders, referenes ig sade te oadd deed of truat. *
fhe inetant question is sentrelled by Gevianges v.
Sengier & Sepdell, 354 lll. 302, very recentiy decided by our
Supreme court, (See also Cummings v. BighiponeLuke
277 Ili. App. 476; Baye r
Ke. 37537, opinion filed thie date.)
YRORTADn UO
Bvwen if we savused that seid section 1 of the trust deed
srecluded the plaintiff fren suing @t law on Ais bend, neverthelesa,
it is clear that the lenguage in the bend upen which defendant aunt
rely @id mot fairly iselude, by referenee, tae neesetion sleuse of
the trust deed, and, therefore, umdey the @ecieion in the Gewianes
ene, plaintiff would heave « right t@ bring a persenei agiien to
Tregever an the bond. Put even the language in the trust deed upon
which defendant relied does mot preelude piaintiff from maintaining
wn aetion at law uper the bend.
3% wae stipalated in the trial court that if piaintifr
had the right te esintaia kis action there wae due him $9644.06,
exereiontet att 10% heeseiq efusitank of bodis? -
evted ateuwis of? Yo aoltugene sc? tet to ,sautd
asdeo (ae xet to ,tevieots « to ineatatoqqs af? +02 to eres
Ydotsd Aoki ons yatoxetas rot to ,senxt To bowed ala) tebay
eatviy ea? 12flte exyeb (08) yeaa t0l o¢ Yom oned ot? On ,
woison te e@eyixn {LA 0b Of Of sodawit oA? of gaktine al Py
bewess aaoguves te ehaed yao xehaw 0 dawt? Ye oak edas
fuqisian aviserteaih esi at seteutT on7 4d beote tas vt oa
molfoubotd ou? 19 Bnequen te abacd edt to yao Te
“,tepaunted ayalhessere 70 takud Yue wo
@t aolécee aids suds yroods on% soqu Sanbasted tot bawclt gums of
~dnod oct ae wai ta golive wott Vilialete bowed deus De heohene
fea I twildodw of Lamege abit yt bo dndaera nokteoup ving edt baw
$f eds Oke baw Ofecd wrt reba holt eaut eaw gab irr atu Si
fnagead ord sage yattect yre aad dactd Baod 643 al eyamgnet tine
dolde te nelsqizoaeb shut & tot ere" sgatwolie® ocd as mohtoonp
baod abs odie Tebow en 28 Lhase baw eared ons dae ange’, Yo Beeb
te — eas ao emoizes md edd bao biog dma detvape ,boumed eh
* Sours to heed pies ‘et shes | at Congas 3°5.¢° °C,
~¥ pamdweo U4 boliozzaos ef nolssoup erg
100 YW bebtebh Uiviboot Yaey 20E LLLE ORE ,
Mand AS wandaneatiose \¥'agmtalys’ onle ee) |
el 29 Ned 608 Medenoayt wesbut ov tevell ‘elk pro Pa
Kiatae Utde Bi iit ‘neralee Pee a
hen deus), nse to. saneeeel bhah'd ili Wibdis WL ek vce
| aCe Lede seven bao ald ao wae ta Batve aort Pritntate bat bonw ay i og
thum toakae leh aodew meg baot ont” mt agaepawt ear ib a ws on
30 eaneig agiionq-0m oie Secirs tow ed ,ebeceat tints? doa ‘bib eee - m
Q2aghwed ods a2 noleiond o8s vedas ,orGTOTSA ban “bead ‘Suwnd ve
0s nelsee iancereg » gabtder digit o ved thiow Wilialate ae ,
| ar ie sour? otf 4) egeagaed ete atewe fet” ee te ioe
bry “a” Perr
rr eat?
ih ong
ve 9 oni: ee Ippo
: keane 18 : ‘te 4 hy yi BB oy haere eens
a r Aas = * \ in ' ois et ied Us RR .Aaa kd g Qe es | aa aR re hae
whe
piue interest at seven por cont per annem from pril G, 1034,
There is therefore due plaintiff the wum of (979.48.
The judguent of the Municipal court of Chience is
revereed and judgment will ee enters? here in faver ef plaintiff
and agninet defendont Wark Jampolis in the sum of (570.48.
GH FAVGhGAS AMS JUMERT HERE IW
Page:
Favor OF 2LAIMTIUY AMO AGALMOT foreRorT
MARK JAMPOLIS 1M THE CUM OF O679.46.
Oridleys oe dese amd Sullivan, Js, concurs
ih yer wer Ger ace «a oh eo ca uM
“aves
8 yn : wir, ‘ee ri
Ss ae
hae amy ng: rh
es age ree ee ana pryetts
en eet
Wb
Pasion j bigs te »
OO
ur
be es
f
on ta taro af daagee ahs
PR wae Re pre esanecg Mek s wai hoe ade ae
taave
ET Hy Weed, hale how RHQ ee pM tt 2 i word a a Or
7" ingle» "
: iP Stee ry ee Bee: or Bits Save a MS —, . tats if wt or ory
Ne ee ee Noe
.
PERE 32 GH ORL LLG ae TER week cou ot 9
RIE Bis Maree Tey op hese dae. cores” ee BD sents te .
: " : 1 es
ie NMS HE ae wmalio tint auld bem , ited heen iieleg | tamil
*, 2en08 Fe bOeh A408 Gt abo ae ee
hte ah y
«
i ad &
OLDE ie Ae, Ai che a S Rp et Sy aba a ot tm: sini
yen ath
AOR he, Eg Gy BO eae MCT “ih ike ee "ane a
Ml
iv
Riis Fed Bald. WE Rodda
Ma Vb ale Sie. thor WR eethorg eet ‘iahily wii i -
: E 5 : % 4 au: U a
AG PEAR oY Tied A ipeiaed WS taney Meng: ea ei aa eet bcodl mehr
ee ee ee ee |
i " re : ae.
Oy Ae AT, Level tens sem eed WS hee ab a ae Rereienpenk
ee ee ee ee a es ee
ae
Be ee wap, pes et
ae ea Pe oe
i
SEAS Me elens, EA, ee i svt hai wai wie”
«Brewed Vn Bi te te et iiouaa RLY Oa!’ ha ating inst in,
ME rime Ue None nd ips re Hil NS Gi Us
ye i: agit aye ae
|
= NET ie ~~)
37627
aay
THAR 8, GEARY, as Assignes, ete., Lt
Appellee,
APPRAL Ps = ot LPAL
Ve
COURT oF /cuxéago,
YHE WATIONAL THA COMPANY, a j
Corporation, )
Appellant. P
979 1.4.61 9g
WR, JUSTICR SCAHLAN DELIVERED THE OPIEION OF THE GOURT,
Plaintiff, as assignee of Yorewan-State Trust & Savings Bank,
as receiver, and Joseph &. Ford, as successor receiver, ef certain
premises, sues defendant for rent cf a store room in the premises.
The trial court found the ‘Leaiite against defendant acd mtered judse
ment against it for $1,800, the fuli smount claimed by plaintiff,
Plaintiif's statement of claim alleges tuat on December 26,
1930, Foreman-State Trust 4 Savings Bank was appointed reeeiver of
the prenises known as 3501 West Hadison street, Chicago, and as such
receiver msnage? and centrolied the presisea until July 16, i93i,
when it resigned saa receiver and Joseph B. Ford was appointed suc-
geseer receiver; that on Kareh 7, 1925, defendant entered into a
lease for a store room in the premises fer a term commencing May 1,
1928, and ending April 30, 1931, at a rental of $125 per month from
May 1, 1028, to April 36, 1929; $135 from May 1, 1929, to April 30,
1930, and 9150 from Kay 1, 1930, to April 30, 1931; that upen the
appointment of the bank as receiver defendant atterned to said re-
ceiver and paid to it the rental provided in the lease for January,
1931, to April, 1931, both inclusive; that defendant fatied and re-
fused te vacate the premises on April 36, 1931, and by reason thereef
it became a hold-over tenant for a one~year period from May 1, 1931;
that the bank, as reseiver, elected to consider defendant as a olde
over tenant for a period of ome year and that there is due and oving
from defendant the sum of $1,800; that on January 27, 1933, the bank,
\, eee petylood 26 “ats "96 Hee ie
AO LiGGR co abe toren? dbegatt ©
ie ahs ee, st pes up ; %
“elo ‘fT tes | dan lingaa ste wiih “ra of
\TH000 SWY 4Q AGLMZt@ SYP GUAEYLIRE WAGMADE BOT TSUT 5
vinak ayahve® 4 Sot? 9f022-neayt0% Yo oeayiace os ,Ttitalelt —
— gbeaeeo te (teviecs: tesesooue an baet wd eer tssets el
,eoniverg edd ai me0t ores @ to seach 10% taebem teh cone , pont :
eubwt Botetas bau fashsoted stanlage eouesh edt bawet xo dant 03
sUtbistale ys bemtele favemm Liv't end 008,16 Bot 92 tenbeas
,98 teduscod so tadt seyetlia alaig to sanmeteta art “se Ss
* to tovieses betutoqas sav asad agalve’® & soutt tot , 08!
pe om bas yopsotstd .seonte aockball te0W £082 en ambast phowrg ot
SERL BL ULul Leda seniunzg ol? beLfetsace bus begeaia Mevheeet
~onn hetaiogqes sew broek .2 dgenet ban tevheoet “saat
: as o¢at bozetan dasheotoh ,O80L ,v sete go tend jrovieoet tesene ;
| ft Yea galomeanoe axrod « tot seaiaerg et2 at soot erx0da a ter osset {
ox? itaom x9q BELG To Letewt @ te ,60L ,O8 LivgA gathas bas |
108 LdxqA of ORCL ,f Yu mort BELG FOOL ,08 tingh of 080k x yo
on? moqu Pastt P1ECL 08 tings of 06K if eat abet oust haa (nets i
“9% bkes of bectetts suahueteh revieoes aa Mind OHS To deonret ed ] :
__ eRtauast tet naael axe at Aobiverq Ledawy ott 4h ‘ot blog baw ‘ein
: ‘ Das boikst sasbaeteb sand jovleutent Atod Conl ney, am 18%, af
as receiver, by an instrument in writing, sasigned its claim against
defendant to plaintiff, and on January 14, 1935, Joseph 2. Ford, as
suceesser reeeiver, by an instrument in writing, assigned hie elaim
against defendant te plaintiff; that both aselgmments were in pur«
suance of an order entered in the Superior court ef Cook county, in
ease 529253; that plaintiff is the actual bona Fide owner of the
Claim against defendant. Befendant's affidavit of merits denies
that defendant became or was a hold-over tenant ef the receiver of
said premises, and denies that the receiver elected or had the right
ts elect to consider er hold defendant as a held-over tenant fer any
period of time; Aaenies that defendant ie indebted te olaintiif in
any sum whatsoever; denies that eaalid bank, as receiver, had the
right or power to execute the asgignment to plaintiff, and further
denies that Joseph B. Ford, receiver, had the right, power or au-
thority to execute the assignment to plaintiff; denies that the
Superior court had jurisdiction to enter the alleged order in case
$29283, and denies that plaintiff is the actual bong fide owner of
the claim.
Defendant contends that “the erder of the Superior Court of
Cook County, entered January 11, 1934, directing the receiver and
euceeseor receiver to agcign their claims to the olaintiff was wholly
ineffectual, because, (A) the Superior Court had lost jurisdiction
* * # over the ease nearly two termes before such order was entered,
(B) Both Foreman-State Trust & Savings Bank and Jeseph BH. Vord, the
former receivers of the property, had filed their final accounts, and
the same had been aporeved, and they had been discharged by the Court
at the time the order of January 11, 1933, was entered and at the
time the ageegignmentes to the plaintiff were exeeuted. either had
the capacity to execute such assignments as receiver." As te den
fendant's very technical argument in support of thie contention we
may aay that while it is true that the court had lest its power te
ps ? r
teaiegs atelo eit dengieas ,gattinw al thomerdent os vd ,tevicoes an
es .frot .4 deoeol ,f80L , bf yxewmeld an bine .Webentele of saebneteb
atefo eld bomgiese ,gaisiaw of Saomerdent oa yt ,xevleoe: tesessone
-suq al wrow afnompiaes. ated fad? ;tthiakely od tambo toh ne
ai ,yiavos deed Yo dxmeo telieque Oxf wf botetne tebse as te eoneue
“ $ie Yo tenes Shit suet Landon vcd ak Vidtoiele todd ;2OR98E eneo
soloed atiiem Yo sivebi tke et enehas tee staabueteh Ponteps melo
te tevieset o3 to sus n0g ieVvo~b Losi & —" bebe saw oed toedaated 3 tat
dtigix edt bed to beteo le sovieser oss dawit solagh bog senelnera bla
oe tT trmmed teve-blod # ee sasbas teb biew to tehlencs ot rte
ah Tiitaielo of betdebat at tnabae rah sauseid eetand ims %» abuse
ent bad ,tovieost ex ,dasd blue add eolush CERPn ee AE eS .
tosidaw?t bon ,titiniatg of sasanglees outs esugexe | f TF diigde
| sha ZO Towog bdgde oad hash steyhooet ehrot .f dgoaol sade 1d Saal
| : oid tac? asined ;Urbeatate ot saomayinas ont ofmmone, at Xf :
geao at wbre begetie odd todas of notgotbe drut | best fw99 7 ola
r
|
as ‘tonwe abit ased toutes oad et Yidtatede dass solaed hae
to du0d, volxsqu® odd to whie oig* teat “abae 400 ‘teehee tee Senet)
’ bae zoviooox add gattoor th S694 wkd (aaunet ‘berstas s¥7 aued toed. j
yLtonw anv Ttitalele emt ot ante Lo about? gious ot _Teyter ; . a ; by
tobtolbekrut geod bad des09 rolre gee adi (4), waLKOD _shautoeTiagk
,beretae aew tobto dove oxe'ted wutod owe ‘Vitam gage, ont woyo. # * * 4
edt heel .< sqeeot haw xaad wyatt vad a faust ote -mamero’t 90)
hte 1 ataui0eee fant? atedd bettt hast eo raoTs acid Ye ae tog Kipeewet
“exx00 head ye hogiasiog tb ined bag yeas howe sherrtve*. ng bad tipinpeil
, *ie toad how .besunexs oxow y Mibdatate ost oe nt sommgians pit oud Rs
i ae of 8A * xovieset 36 stuomagtane owe os eae.
Ae ate
ow ek? ae¢00 wide “to trecqua at samme | Keadaiond ey | at de
ot xome9 att deol bet tun0o ont todd ownt ok oh “my, Sasi? oe we
-5-
amend any of the matters finally adjudicated during the course of
the litigation, plaintiff, in her petition, did uot attempt to
have eny matter that had been finally adjudicated changed or ¢or-
rected, In her petition she merely called the attention of the
¢ourt to her right to certain assets of the receivership estate
whieh had not been disposed of by any order of the court. in
paseing upon her petition the court merely determined that she, pot
the owner of the ecuity of redewption, waa entitled to the claim fer
rent againet defendant, and ordered the receiver and the suecessor
reeeiver to assign to her all their right, title and interest in
the claim for rents ageinst defendant. The owner of the equity of
redemption, if he had seen Pit, might have appealed from that order,
but he did net. The owner of the equity ef redexption is beund by
the erder, snd we are unable to see why defendant should complain ef
it. Nor are we impressed with the argument thet defendant might be
called upon to respond twice to the same claim.
Defendant further centenda: “The Foreman-Giate Trust &
Savings Pank, seting ae receiver of the property in question, had
not the right or power to elect to hold the defendant as a tenant
for another yeer.* The argument is, thet the record fails te shew
that the receiver executed the lease by order or consent of eourt,
and therefore the lease ig net binding and the receiver would have
mo power to elect to hold defendant as a tenent holding over for
another year. It ie /suttietont answer to thie contention to say
that defendant tock possession of the premises under the lease in
question, attorned te the receiver, and is in no pesition to cone
plain thet the record does not show that the receiver executed the
lease by reason of s court order, ‘he owner of the premises, of
course, might complain if the receiver hed leased the premises without
@ court order or contrary to a court order,
——— ae
i
“2
, Ye seruoo off golrus bodedthuths eltontt etodtaw sad "re Gah" Bitomd”
9d Squetta gon bth ,wbiditey ted at | Trtsatelg (hetdeghdie eas”
“too to beguedo hetacthwths <Llenth need bed tat? toten he ovhe
gat ‘te moltactte oft baflas ylotoh odo moltiteq Yaa kl hedeey
bisive qhiaxovisset off ‘to atecse miatieo of style ten of NOE"
al .d1v0o Sat ‘to Yabro yas yd Yo boveneth mood tom hat Mobiw’
toa ,oxe Seid bomlurtoteh yletem dro oft aolsiveg tod oad Qattaby
x6 mialo @Hd of beLitine saw ,avlsqmeber to yttups bat Ye Gerwe oHe
“wosescous silt boa tevieoe1 edd hershro hae ,tanbasten Yennga sane”
qt geouetat bas ofthd ,¢dgit stead) tty Yen! od” phen’ of ahVbebet
| ‘te ytupe eid ‘Io tome ofT .dmabusteh sentogh’ stuor vot atte ome
(— yxobro Jedd aot't batoogue oved aigte ,92% dow Bad OE aha
ed bawod ef nbiigouphex Yo ethupe ered to tedwe ert | fen Wie bof Fiat
te nite lguoo ‘bivods tashactos Yaw soe of ottumy ote Ow bee bre “Seobew sit
os | aitgin tuobaoiob tend faemigze wid ddIw Bordo equit relia elt LE
: cmtalo sues odd of soled baogess of X@aw | 9 ae |
~ @ feu? o¥e¢S-saneact off sebcisddoo soda font aetoit A
ae paalivens wk Ustoqete ost to tevieset ee aattoe toot bigeye
“"puaned s ts tnobaetes edd blod ot f60lo ‘of towde 46 Site ont tou
woute ‘ot eLlet prover ood tant job ddbmugte ‘oar YW tony tedione We
: P19 to dasenes to rebto ¥d oueel ont Bedveen pa negponcotee
ovad bliuow xeviecer otf Baa yatbald som wh'weast Wad”
. “a reve naiblon dee wo & ta taetadteh Brod’ ot eon ed
ae ‘es “nol Fiat aoe ‘and 'o2 “Hoda tnd ta rege PE rh 7
ui al oeaat oat tohaw soekoote oft ‘to dolvadadsd teed “WA vain te
aco mano ‘ed salsteog on al a ‘bas ivtien cat ao Nude em : ,
odd bodvenxe: ‘gavteost odd tust? ’ ‘waste ‘fod anal bebe se ate
“te ase dno g ‘at to x8 ATO ‘eat vtohte trode # i 69
uot pevkaong out honaot ‘beat sovisost ont us atsiquos sigtm ,oaxwoo
nich vache,
wi00t0 Sceus a “od (uat ea TO *
Le SOOMEGS Bhat i EL | Beets BF OT 4 ay oh. peri od me .
\
Defendant contends that “the trial Court erroneously ex-
eluded competent and material evidence offered by defendant md re-
fused to receive competent, relevant and waterial evidence offered
by the defendant tending te shew an election en the part of the re-
eeiver to held the defendant for double rent during the period of
occupancy after the termination of the lease," The law is settled
that where « tenant fer a year or years holds over after the expira-
tion of his lease, without heaving made any new arrangement with his
landiord under which such selding over takes place, the landlord, at
his eleetion, may treat the tenant as a trespasser, or ae a tenant
for another year, upon the wame terms as in the original lease, and
this though the tenant has mo intention of helding over for a year,
nor of paying the same rent. (GLinten Wi
99 Til. 151; Weber vy. Powers, 213 113. 376; Peek vy. Christman, 94
Till. App, 435.)
“Zeving onee eleeted to held him to the one liability, he
is not permitted to shift his position and eleet te hold him to the
other, And yee nate wih be construed as eomnstituting such an
eleetion," eck v. Christman, supra, p. 457; see alse Clinten
¥ oO. We f ; Supra, p. 159.)
In the instant case the defendant offered te prove that on or about
May 20, 1931, a Mr. Knepper, employed by William fT. Geary, agent
for the receiver, brought inio the offlee of defendant company a
letter from Geary, signed by him ae agent fer the reeeiver, in
which a demand was made for double rent for the premises for the
month of Bay, 1931; that the letter was handed by Knepper to Albert
A. Yort, am attorney for defendant company, and that Yort, efter
reading the letter, stated to Knepper that defendant had been a good
tenant for many years, that the property inte which it was about to
move Was still occupied by a tenant whose lease had expired and that
therefore defendant had been unable to vacate, and that in view of
the fact that defendant had been such a good tenent and would be
out of the premises by the end of Hay, 1931, defendant should not be
he
“xe Yisuoscorrs xo Mains ade" Sodt ahasdnee dampaated .
9% hao Sania teh yd bore tte epcmatve Lalis2am jaw dastequcs bebulo
kote Tio soarblive inlnotan bac sonve Low FRI OGD, oviooes ef hemwt
~o% o1if to dug ext no meltveds ca wore oF gaihaps tpmbmp tod ond ue
Yo botieq oat? yatiwh daox videsod to smebaw'top add plod ot teyteo
boltiea ef wad ect * .onaed ous to motieatarced exit rote Yosuguaoe —
-atiqze ent tot'te teve abied siasy 4 tepy # T9T teams s * oresty, ae ae
ate stdw iomgaetsa wa Yow shun gaived dwodsiinw ,oagel An 20, OP |
ta brotbawd eff ,0usiq sedet teve aaibdor sous ig eter robay . oe
tanaet # Ge 70 ,TOnsngoeTs a aa fimo} #0 Saont oatmeal
Ape ,epaes fentgtso odd af as gonet aoe one SOqe 1PRO, PORE ORD | ie
<1asy # tol tev gakdfon Yo aoltundat on gud dammed odf ait
“apabm®_.7_.09. At049 ett¥ aotets2) -trex omex edd gutyng To tom
d@ ,namgoixd) .y Aped OVE , ffl EIS Neral «2, OME, 1 iE
porern ene ome ot ald bled ef betoote sone
Sree ¥ .
Maseg so esin sen ;VE 1a ,et ge ,
tuode to mo dadt vvorg oF bote'The tasbaeted aug — cone poem e
taoge ,yrs00 .T mellis¥ yd beyotqam ,reqqoms sale AECL 08 ye
-& yangno Iapbaoted Yo eetito ed? ot ah, tdauond stovloget ost tet
sh ,tevleoet od tot daega wn mtd RM Aeande .yameO mort wetted —
et tot sealwwrg odd xet doer ofdaeh tot sham aew brewed « sokde
teedia of togqead yd haboud aaw reset add fast (oO +8 Yo dtaom me
rote «tre todd bas ,yewemoy Saadsoted rot YOmON ae ATO eh
boo 2 ased baci Sob cin toh tad? tw9qond of botate meted ea? gatheet ie
of suoda aaw $f sig babe otal Yireqerg oad sons ena ae adiannall
saxdd beta bartexe Bis pace I scone sasaet aw haiqs » A i i
‘ te wo ty ait dent bas ,edoony of sidaay meet ben 9 nie have"
od biwew baa tne booy a done mood had . iapeue tee tad
od ton biwosia Prahuo tab , OL , yall Ye hase oat w 08 mtg
Ss ss
A i
oS
held for double rent for the month of May; thet Yort handed back
the letter to Knepper, at the same time saying to him: "Take this
letter back to Mr. Geary and tell him what I heve told you and see
if he won't withdraw this demand for double rent," and that there
upon Emepper took the letter away. The court, upon objection by
plaintiff, refused to permit defendant to show any of the alleged
facts set up in the offer. Slaintiff does not contend that defendant
might net have shown, by proper evidence, an eleetion by the landlord
to held defendant for double rent rather than as « tenant for snother
year, but she attempts te sustain the ruling of the court in excluding
the offered evidence upon technical grounde. Plaintiff first con-
tends that the proper foundation for admitting secondary evidence had
not been laid, az no notice had been served upon plaintiff te produce
@ letter, the contents of which defendant sought to preve. There is
no merit in this contention, as counsel for plaintiff stated in open
court that plaintiff denied that there ever wos such a letter written
by Geary and that if notice had been served upon plaintiff te produce
it the answer to the notice would have been that mo such letter had
eyer been written and that, therefore, it could not be produced by
Plaintiff. im an effort to preve its claim ae to the alleged election
by the landlord, defendant called as a witnese, Knepper, who testi-
fied that when he made the call upon defendant he had no letter from
Geary and did not present to Yort any sueh letter. Flaintiff argues
that defendant, having enlled Knepper, is bound by hia tect imonye
There is no merit in this contention. The law is well settled in this
state that while a party to a suit carmot impeach the witness volun-
tarily ecalied by him, he may introduce other evidence disproving the
statements of such witness. As stated in Chance v. Kinsella, 510
Tiles 515, 523%
"The appellee ealled the appellant as her own witness,
‘She was not for that reason bound by his testimony but might chow
the truth by any competent evidenee, even in direct contradiction
=8-
doed bebuad sroY jacid pyell to dimom off not det oLdyob a hited
git? ode” tmttl-of pakyan amid owen on? tn ,ceQett o¢ teeter ont?
oon bre woy blot evad I dedw mid Ifoe bus Yuebe . a Of ond teeter
~oxod? vat? bee ",dmex oidwob rot bnameb aftd worbdtiv a *wow ent ‘tt
Ui osootée noms «ies ad? .yawa teddel add Zoot vequent noqu
bepeiia olf to yre wore of ¢nabneteh dhereq O¢ bogwitet «Pisishalg
inebnoteh godt baetnes fon weed Tikémtali .x0rhe atid at gw dea Gina?
bxelinat edd yd mobsoele as ,sonebive reqotg Ww sess ovad don daty den
rosigoua tO2 inaned « as mastd redter snot efdwoh «ot Snabmotes ted ov
gulhufoxe oi gumpe ee te gutiuz ed? miataws of stomnaso eae aud e884
. See
“seo gazkt Tikinheli .ebrworg Lnolmdved mous sonsbive “pomethe sts
ey a ecm ee ee
besi eonobtye Yiohneoes gaiidinte rot molsabasot eqone ents ieee
eawbeng of onde so sere et 8 SE wigan nil
WW henvhoxg od tom hisdy 32 youwtoreds <tath-dan initial ti
molseols begeita ei? of as akele att evew ef @ugthe ae at, ‘stdtntale
siivod ot ,Tequonk ,suentiw @ en beifes tmadevteh ghrothmek es yo
sott totded on bal od Inehnsteh moqw Ling sed obs ost sraslw att bokt
eeuges Trbialel .xeddex dows wu 270¥ 09 tnoeerg domibsh dae yEa0d
ocean Seed wit yt bowed of , voqgenlt betlen privat ,danbuetab taste
gta at’ pettvou Liew of wat ed? omtieedieh what mk #tuent om ef oxedt
(miley anandiw od stosogut Zoniae Yiu x of qhukiy & wide felt ofads
“esd padvorgetd eonsbtys tertde sontoriat name one tw Sennen
out retool « ¥ Loven iad betate i at odend tw ate rt
‘yasendie nwo tod on tualieggs ¢
woe ftdgtm tud yuomtived aid yd b
moltethattacs fooulh ak seve ,
f what the appellant testified, but she could not eall in question
the appellant's credibility." (See Bovel ve North Roseland Motor
o Sy 275 Ille ‘ppe 566, 571-2, where eases bearing upon ¢
,uestion are cited.’
Plaintiff contends that the authority of Geary to make the slleged
election ice not shown by the record. The objection to the offered
evidence was a general one. Moreover, plaintiff, in preving her
ease, offered the following?
"“YTLILAM T. GEARY.
Real Batate
Room 2316 » 126 Ne. Vells Street
Telephone Randolph 5774.
Chicago, May 29th, 1931
National Tea Co.
1000 Crosby Ste,
Chicago, Illinois.
Gentlemen:
I herewith return check for $150.00 forwarded to me
with your letter of this date.
We have elected to hold you for another year at the
game rental, $150.00 per month, for store 3501 We Madison —
Street. If you make the check in payment of rent for month
of May, it will be accepted.
Yours truly,
WtG/sk Agent for Reeeiver™
In addition, counsel for plaintiff stated to the court that Geary was
the agent for the receiver, handled the building, and that all rents
were paid to him, as agent for the receiver, by defendant, and counsel
further stated that the landlord had the right to eleet, and that in
the instant case the receiver did elect, by means of the letter of May
295 In view of pleintiff's attitude during the trial, she is not in
a position, in this court, to contend that Geary did not have the
authority to make the election that defendent claims he did. Plaintiff
finally claims that even if it be conceded that Geary was authorized by
the receiver to uegotiate with defendant for double rent for the month
of May, this would aveil defendant nothing, as the offer of evidence
shows that defendant did not abide by Geary's electian, and therefore
. Geary had the right to make a further election to hold defendant as a
hold-over tenant for an additional year. There is me merit in this
tolzaerp ak Iiav ton binoo eda tad tae tsp
reer saz i aaah ev oe ny Steves on ea} = hose agaee o a
bogetin edt orlon o¢ Yrsed to ytizoneue oft dads obnddmos Yibdntate
hexe'tio en? of mpiiostde og? .bxeoet odd ys meetin dom! at nokiod£e
won guiveng mt ,lidéglialq a toveetel vend Lowsieg « caw sénebi¥e
tgndwoilet eft mecapanbanged
eng re soy ne n? & a wean?
sag fh: .¥ ot a8 = ae xo oft mt SEA SRE
LEE es OS volt eis
on od bebrawxet 00.0813 rt eugte i
eng ¢s % tostona sete atte aot 6.8
Oa oY £008 erode tot linen
dinon tot tenet to snemyeq at
‘ ' tt - , — eG ae
‘ ? emwoY i pH Mes
N *UTAOD . mekisaey . BB ele y aw 4 CHE v
"“gevievel to? é
daw YIned jade sxmoe ons ot bodads tivatats xo? Lranwoe senteaee sd
Phe ee
ptmes Ife tad?d bos spmtbLind ont betbnnd sxortooes ota ror
e spe ees Saag SOR
foantoo bre 1 thabaeteb ww swevioees ons xo tnope es enihal og bkag ange
Pavey b.
mt godt boo rdooke ot digits ont best protbnat outs taitt botate roses
eee Wake ov a” %
ek te tedtes bole Xo anaom XC ytoote bid ‘tevtosst eats ease smutant ont
dé ted
‘VRE
at dom ak sate tabs ‘odd prbxss ehudbtds oMagendedg » wetv ar see
nds trend Son beh qraed tad? bdo os P09 atad nt _seazetoog »
ttsaters “bk, ost embato tmabeoto gait mottoote ot oon os | Wedron
at boxitodiue ase Grae teak heboomon od #t th novo ands emiazo vilowi
Anon est cot imo ekdsoh <O% iaatnotet aie etattopen of revkovos eds
eonobive re 20040 ans Ba vontsson tt.nbe bob Shove biwow ahs « sy 30
ue Ber bane ee
exoterads hus ,sebivets Pomel at ie a le ei sneee
e% Ad owen
uhsguhs
a oe een} op haa vad mah Snek® nomrel ai 4 rm hide: bes cia
ee unt icon os et byl taoy dnoas 2000 ". we eanet 204 we:
Fe
@ontention. The right of eleetion belongs te the landlord and not
te the tenant, and the election made by the landlord eannet be
rebutted by proof of a contrary intention on the part of the tenant;
and proof of an election by the landlerd ean be rebutted only by proof
of a contrary intention on his part or on the part of the landlord
end the tenant. (See Jeber v. Powers, supra, ppe 282-3.) Ve ore
satisfied that the trial court erred in excluding the offered evidence,
and as defendant vacated the premises on May 29, 1931, plaintiff,
under defendant's theery of fact, would be entitled to a judgment for
double rent for the use of the premises during the month of May, or
$300. The trial court allewed plaintiff judgment fer $1,800 upon
the theory of fact that plaintiff was a helder fer another year at
a monthly rental of $150.
For the error of the trial court in refusing to admit the
evidence offered by defendant, the judgment of the Municipal court of
Ghieaga ia reversed and the eause is remanded for a new triel.
REVERSED AND REMAMDEDs
Gridley, Pe Jey and Sullivan, dey Concur.
heathen’ acid te oe © eat ste "0 soa nial hd menineens
eee OW (28-888 agg eatasn oreret + zegey oon) _ s taanes ont
rr:
reonobive berethe eld gaibuloxe at betes #88 Lai«t ost dose hedtabton
pVidtatoly 20l 88 yall mo VORlNeM ene te deoey gnehao ted a
tot tnoayhut # od beliline o¢ biuew yinst Yo yroed? etnabmotob robe
xo , yes to oénoe ett ghiewh seetmorg eff te eau of? +O ono ow
neqw OO8,L¢ tel éneapdet tilintealy bewelie dxwes tibet at ‘ ‘
ta teey vesitons tot tobfed « caw Ythimlela rr ! 7
&
a
Ride RG
‘eR i iz Sale i iy ‘' ad Diag ome
fi a % tit,
rt ty q
) a \
ites’ wee deals
Kere Dip ngs ‘ rah mates Aue
'rieenkede We wea at *
a9 Aree Os nt ‘ty swede ad, gtnbehw
Ne Gad h, ik: Piast oe ‘ .
vewenie ae th 2A sewn emails wmatate x i
Sate: sheet ays tin
Sear Eo EMD is MRE dk
Tah ae i he
a toee este ae te &
37676
RQBER? Ce HOOPER, )
Appellee, }
) APPRAL FEQH SUPIRIOR
Ve
Count, COOK COUNTY.
commas |
ANC: age ey
eorporation, 2 v4 9 1 (es 1 a)
Appellant. ) @ Vt ae ay
BR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DOLIViNED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff sued defendant in asoumpsit upon a fire
insurance policy. <A jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in
the cum of $1,680. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered
upon the verdict.
Defendant has sseigned and argued ten points in support
of its general contention that the judgment should be reversed.
From our view of the ecnse we need consider but one of the points
reised. Defendant contends that the trial court seriously
prejudiced its rights “by undue participation in the trial, in
examining and ¢ross examining defendant's witness, and in comment
and remarke conveying to the jury the Court's opinion of witnesses
and evidence in the case.” As bearing upon its argument in support
ef this contention defendant cites many pages ef the bill of exeep-
tions. The anawer of plaintiff to the instant contention is that
"the Court naturally wes exasperated by the failure of counsel te
produce any meritorious defense end although we do not like to
accuse counsel of seeking to produce error in the recerd by proe-
voking comment by the Court for the purpose of further delay, yet
to all intents and purposes that was the apparent objective. Counsel
cannot complain of that which was the reeult of his own conduet,
\
Clr rey aa
wi “ah, dmes hie
| »TAUOD SBT TO Fo MmIa9 oT cuAAVLEaa AIMADS, pry 0
oxtt # moqu éinquieea at tnebaeted hase Witdatart © FO
ai tiitsials xet solizsey o denwier yup A ovmmiveiit
hin eam ety anelals tein Hgreqpudececnebendt
troqqia at sintoq mt hewyrm baa bomykeca wad wnstiiae: wt ewok
sbeatevst od Bivede saemybut, off tad? nottnodnos Leteneg att to
adnkeg ed? Yo ane dud tobkanoo been ow seas edd te wety i100 mort
yfswoives tenoo Latyd afd datlt abnetnes taabaoted .deulet
at ,lok«d od? mi motisqtotized embay O* atdphy ett bootbuteng
tasumoo nt Axe .asentiw e'inzhastob paitioaxs eaote baie yalainaxs
eeaventiw Yo notniqo a'#xw09 edd Yul od Of gaiyevmen extemer baa
stogque mi Saouwgze eft moqy gaitesd eA 86°. seen edt mk eonobive bee
-qooxe to Lftd- end to eogaq yaw aedto snohmeteb moktnetnon aldt to
dedt wi molinedsos dnatend edd of Vihintely Yo tewuns efT .anokd
o# Loanuey to etuilet ed? yd heteteqaaxe aaw Ulleadan fxm0d eft"
od ext Jom 0b ow Myuodila baa osnoteb umobtod bron ya soubony
-onq «<d brooon et mt r0xr eouborg OF gebdeos to Louayeo savooe
wey eyatoh rostawt te saoy ng ood 10% Fxwod odd Yo Mnemmeo gutter
foenued .eviteotds tnoteqys etd cow sould semoqteg bes edootnt La ll
efosbaoe awe aid to tise off new doldw dace bo a tonus9
rie.
Absolutely none of these comments vers provoked by appellee or his
counsel, nor was any ruling brought forth at the instigation of
plaintiff's counsel, Fleaintiff wae not at fault in any regard and ~
should not suffer fer things provoked by defendant's counsel." In
eonsidering the many statements and actions of the trial court of
which defendant complains, we have kept constantly in mind plain-
tiff’s position in reference to the trial sourt’s conduct, but,
under the record, we are unable to excuse the acts of the trial
court upon the ground urged by plaintiff. In our opinion, counse)
for defendent only sought to protect the rights of his client. It
would serve no useful purpose for us to cite the many actions of
the court of which defendant complains. That defendant was ser-
iously prejudiced by the conduct of the trial court eannot be
questioned. Indeed, plaintiff dees net argue te the contrary.
The contention that defenient waa without any meriterious defense
is not borne out by the record, and in our opinion jurtice re. uires
a retrial of this ease. “hile a number of the alleged errors orgued
are not likely te oecur upon another trial, we may say that special
interrogatories Nes. 1 and 4 thet defendant requested the court to
require the jury to oanewer should have bean suvmitted to the jury.
Plaintiff hee made a motion in this court to strike
defendant's abstract of record from the files, which motion was
Preserved to the final hearing, The motion will be denied.
The judguent of the Superior court of Cook county is
Peversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSSD AND REMANDED.
Gridley, ?. Jo, and Sullivan, J., coneurs
whe
ain to celleqqe yw hedevotg ete sdmecme enots Bo enon qlotmlends
te mobiegiien! edt ga ditet sitqwesd gakivs yo cow tom .Loanwes
' bes beeper yoo af dfust to tem omw Yihomiel® .foanwod o' tdentela
RI ".fonnwen atinsbmetod YC toxovoty ugaid? tot ce Yiwa don obeede
te sunoo Labzd og? Yo eneifosn hme afanuntodn wom ade enero blames
-gialg tule ci qidwetenoe tgod evead ew eeahe lame ‘tnabmetod dobty
atud ytowbaoo aunes Tekxd add 04 somete les ae mo kd hag errnes
fakxd eX? Yo vtoe ald enuone Of efdenw on ov sbreoee stoke
~ foanuos qnoluigqe we al .Titdmbike YW beguw bAMeRy odd neq éxmee
$I .tnotlo eft te addats elt doedong of éstquon vine spaheahes =
to aucidgoe «moa ed? offe of ow tot cvagusy Lwteew on evree bivew
ote caw teahroteh tad? santetzaey Suadewtes Moltw te txmoe oat
“e@ fenten eros Loree edt to sowhmon ents v¢ beothubeny kame
eYxetimoe off of ongie on soos Titintely ,bewhnl shame samp
sansvh suettesizem Yon dweritiw anv dnabnotod judd mohinesnoe ont
acrtv et ovttent noltiqo amo nt tne yotones enlt ‘ye owe onxed von at
deupia exerts bogelfie ony to teduad = haan: -2200 add to Labrdeto
Lateeqe tad? ore yan ow staltd coittorn noqu wove ¢% visdtl dom eee
od tuven off bednevpet dmeheioteb gesid & Oma Le
vcurt edd of beds tece peed ovod biveds wane oF wml ent eaten
watts OF sree wate of mOdsom a ebm wom RAAALT oe ys
eow aottem detde uot? off mach feoser ‘te tewneade a*suahaate |
sbolnod ed fLtw molten sf? santrecd Lett) edt 9d devreaet
ak ciniseo hed tw tenon xoneegae ost eimmmbnt ea a ae
ke sxpendoveetpatgmamansia 03ers)
CARA CEA CERNE io een Pwo one® | |
a © ra a
su ites eam omens rs
cht a eee yaitor a
ES A wievted ‘ha on
ter a aim * voli
37717 | f
THE PROPLS OF THE STATE OF ete : é
ILLIMOIS,
Defendant in Error,
RRROR TO MUNICIPAL
ve
COURT GF CHICAGO.
ABE PONCHER,
Plaintiff in trrer. o a 9 T.A. G 1 Q|
MR. JUCTICE SCANLAN DELAVENED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Defendant, Abe Soncher, was presecuted in the Municipal
eourt of Chieage upon an information which contains the following
charge: “That «be Poncher heretofore, to-wit: on the 3 day of
February, A» 0. 1935, at the City of Chieago aferevaid did then
and there wnlawfully offer for sale and did #011 a certain Motor
vehicle, to wit an Automobile the eriginal moter number of which
had been defaced and altered» In viol par 256 ch. 121 Re Se
1955," etee Ima trial by the court, a jury heving been waived,
dofendent vas found guilty and was sentenced toe imprisonment in
the county jail for a period of 180 days.
The statute covering the instant charge (Cahill'’s I11,
Reve Stes 1935, che 95a, pare 36) reads as follewes
"Pare 362 Possession or sale of vehicle «ith altered
engine number or without any engine sumber- Uesignation of
number by secretary of state- Seizure of vehicle~ Prosecution. )
Sees 35. 4 person or persons, firm or corporation, who, after
the taking effect of this ‘et shail #11 or offer for eale in
this State, or who shall own or have the custody or Bs agpmcge
ef a moter vehicle, the original engine aumber of vhich has been
destroyed, removed, altered, covered, or defaced, or vho shall
sell or offer for anle, owm or have the custody or possession of
a moter vehicle having no engine number, yor pig electrically
propelled motor vehicles, shall be deemed guilty of o misdemeanor,
and upon conviction thereef shall be punished by a fine of not
less than two hundred dollars ($200. nor more than five
hundred dollars ($506.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail
for a term of not less than thirty days nor more than one hundred
Ms ai Cig ne |
eal: x \ aperint
a Mihm |
en chal les var:
“* J vary?
4, PHM,
g fete ( @O XPATS UT GO S210ut SRT
ZATIOIEU OT RORME
2ODADTHO 10 TAD
LD. ATS. Snail MA ee Oa
Holnw to xs dun soon Santyire odd ex tdomesuh as a th of +9
e/BOS GY Ve MOIWTCO SET CoV T MASHADE morrare an
biode
Leytotsusi et mt hetuoese¢ | naw sent oda «tna et ‘oe ea
gatwollet ens atitatnes doldw po Ld ome att Ba OGM ORAD. 3 te 108
to ysb & edd mo tdiv-oF , oto Lodexed. napevnaee Osa donee
ned? bb blenezo%te agaotd) te yl0 esid ea 1 8E8E. © +h eens i
reson niatzoo # Lisa blb be oLes m0? xe2te ale ertectd fame
¥
be Hs
0 of £86 oslo B28 x9q Loty nt -boredte io boasted need bad
) cbovkaw need paved wut 2 tues eld yd Lobes 2 ok 00 yee
Te |
Ton sea
' gen % omit « Yd Soule
berthuasl ame madd orem xO eyed aren)
- gh éneunee txqut had beonedaon aon bre eiLiuy bao wen
oayed oes to betreg a 08 Laat yan a
KEI e'Lfisted) oguaso énatont ext gattoveo edutate oft ‘iinhiee
tawollet as aheot (oe ota 1280 ote +08ek 88 °
var
ees ease
botedia ditw eLotdev to else tm sotasonnot 28 ent | Bi
te noliangies ~tedaur eatgno wwia iwoddiw +6 cedaum ont:
( sokdugouer -ofoisov we ack? senesuny ip Glouse ep Or
Be) , enoliawegr1os va * ne j
ak elas vl sette wo fiona Linde SoA a
aoiaeeeneg to yboduro of? evar Te .
seed wad doldw to sedmun entgee Lankyite oid goiedsdey +t
ileds ofw ve ,hovated «ws ghoveves .hetetio g ber
to moLaneaneg 0 Ybhodase eff oval 10 wwe geion «6% tote
ylLeotudoole gery | nay exe ,redaun emkpne om qk ot |
im a te yliog poop Dag Foe nye A
evtt nadt oxoot von (OO,
List Yrmo off mi Inommontiget we Xe
Re
eighty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and upon a
ESQ GF oe
year nor more than five years; * * **
Sefendant relies upon a mumber of points for reversal
ef the judgment, but from our view of the enee we need consider
only one. Defendant contends that the information is fatally
insufficient because it dees not aver acts constituting « violation
of the statute so as to advise him of the asture amtmupmume of the
accusation, and, further, that the record of his sequittal er con-
viction under the inctent information would not be a bar ta a sub-
sequent prosecution for the same offense» Uefendant's major point
is that the information should heave alleged the persen to whom the
offer to sell and sale were made. That the information ig fatally
defeotive in that regard appears clear from a recent decision of the
Supreme court. (Pegple v» Brown, 336 Ills 267. See aleo People ve
Slaveys 355 Ills 35%, 365, 366.) The casen cited by the People,
People y+ Glassberg, 326 111. 379, and Young v» The People, 195 111:
2365 hold that all exceptions that go merely to the form of an
indictment should be made before the trial. Defendent alse argues
that the information ts fatally defective for failure to allege the
original engine number altered or changed; that such allegation ws
necegaary in order to enable defendant to plead former jeopardy as
a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Ye cannot
agree with this contention. ‘“hether or met defendent would have been
entitled to sbtain the eriginal mumber by means of a motion for a bill
of particulars is not before us for consideration, as no such motion
was made by defendant. Sefendant aise argues that the infermation is
fatally defective for failure to negative the exception embraced in
suid paragraph. There is no mevit in this contention. The paragraph
provides for two distinet offenses and the exception dees not relate
te the first offense, and defendant is charged with a violation ef
=f.
s som tce seme eth ag ie ate Deas
ene said asel ton Ye mez om b grey 8 all ni svermon —
knexovet t0% séatog to usdaun » pags eetlet éaebaa tet TLIC:
tobfanos hoon ow ome ene to wely awe sett tad strempbul odd %
qiisdet at sottamiotnt ext dats abnotane danbaotod sata gp
noléetoiy » gai*wittenco avon 19¥n don atoh 3h seuaved énetos tiwent
ed? %o Gunmaakam cusien ons to mtd eatvhs of a0 0 eéutate od? Be
(soe 20 iadtiiyon ets to brooe1 os dault ,<otituat ghna <uohsouee
«due 2 02 sad 2 od ton bivew noltamieini snotant ons tetew sobieky
énteq tetas u'inebneted seameTte omen ed? xo nek dunesotg, pi
oils mone oo sonteg old begelic owel Sivorte moliversetrt ed? tadt et
Clindah ot motinnretat ast ded? .ebam over efes tem Diea et sete
ed? %w seteioos @rvect a wrt sapio exseqge bragex tetld wi ovdtorteb
eV Shae’ vain ook «TSS ofLI BE .gmont «¥ ehaoet) + duane emenqua
_gniqoe! est yw bodice nouse off (2094 9 tds 2088 9ShL 086 expwadd
efit, S@£ enigens off ov paweY bee OTe aii B98 vatedeest) -v shapes
rin 20 gro} ead Of Yoxon oy sol? smodtqoume Medals biod —Bts
eeagun Oala Sraboete? «fel ede supted ebam ad bfvode snomsothnt
afd syolie vt tLe <0 evidvetoh YLLeta® af nodfnave Ink wt dats
sow soltegetio deve ¢add qhegnsuly ve bouseia cochmnt ontgne Lantgiro
Be EdcAyos, teswek brete oF Snake teh olden of tohTe AL yreeosen
Jonuav OY anette seme off vet sedivoeneig Ineupeedes ye ot aad a
seed oymi bivew taehmebeh ton to cacdent) - i ear ae
Lite 4 sot nelion 2 Yo annem ef cecum Lendgtse ads mbaede: of a
m9 tec: stows om mn 1088 oxo dance 0% an are tod ton at s a.
at pedtancco tet eats oxstt nema oats snahaeted sore Soyos 4
It boosts swksqoons elt ovEdapem oF eUmLbet =
Aqartoy 82 .nolsnodnoe wits wt tvos on at oxeat
» BE ow Pa
een yy ee de id
a sotazed ken elite ok Weld be “seemenng deat ma 0
Wha.
wje
that offense. ‘e mist not be understood az holding that if
defendant had been charged with a violation ef the second offense
that it would have been necensary for the information to negative
the exception. (See Peephe v» Semmler, 345 ILi. 272, 274.)
The judgment of the Municipal court is reversed, and
ae the Seople may see fit te emend the information and have a
second trial ef the ease, the cause is remanded.
REVERSED AMD REMANDED.
Gridley, PP. Js» and Sullivan, J., coneure
Reon oyed Given sarhehet tan ce ial alle
ttew x en dena » Yee -aaitanem of weaning
Ses
Meee eR any wis + it Beret ws Bee ee ms wt: inboalll
Pe et ~
any of rob tnacot edt tee-eeamns nied a Sts 98 tact
Cat y
(A owAd bie Hebdanwo tat ead hii aoe
“apitesoky @ ee ives lit ok" Weal allt? theta —
ag? 3% ORCS arene Aas Gh, axeanvalt ie seal cli |
vee ve Seddieper abs te bueoes oute wat a senreath,
Oa #6? aod 4 of fon ywdeoo t : hee
jeheg “elem <‘tuster tot eens Fig = cals wat a }
Bay Ee OS cme wel, lomo ont lene PONT
Ciaeek oF wedivonmust ent dad . / sates ener ae
CS eS RR Read heady & OS -Rerbiis ee: 2
a¥ hue. a ae ee Sod sue ow ps
ARRAE, WE! YS bedio chuno ORR (Ah Qa it 1 ai
ee ee ee ee eT ane vi
ma Am jpg edt od phere oy: ae sobs d asm i 7 get tk
cm de: patie deociahhs, «tad watt cere ak ad ws
esl wetlie 2h “iui thw tiktea tue ita nde
om peliquvtil« Seve tecd qiteppetn de) beeedilive os %
oad. Nloviveitting omer fag ty ani siclla a iabioane’ wee
Sere £) .O cee ae EN ee eto ueee te: Sai
Ps a bweiaicars i Lege ont outs smb oe 8 se |
shed sd bliae’ ae ha lant 4
WABASH RAILVAY COMPANY,
Plaintiff in Error, i
“RROR VO MUNTECT PAL
*
GOURT OF CHI GAC
GUS DREYFUS, si
Defendant in lirror.
2<91.A, 6991
Mi. JUSTICR SULLIVAM DALIVANED THR OPINION OF THE couRT,
Plaintiff, ‘abash Railway Company, brought thie fourth
Class contract action in the Municipal court against Gus Dreyfuss,
defendant, te recover $499.80, which it claimed represented
defendant's indebtedness to it as the balence eof carrier charges
éus upon a shipment of hides made by the Southwestern Hide Company
from Laredo, Texas, to Chiengo, lllimois, April 2, 1951. Plaintiff
alleged in ite statement of claim that through an error in extending
the charges for this shipment on its reeerds it originally forwarded
to defendant its bill for $391.36, which he immedintely paids and
that, when ite errer was diceovered within « few days and a correeted
atatement of the carrier charges sent to him, he refused to pay the
balance. The jury found the issues fer defendent, and, after over-
ruling plaintiff's motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment,
the court entered judgment against plaintiff for coats. This writ
ef error is brought to reverse the judgment.
It is conceded on page 16 of plaintiff's brief that, in-
as mech as no bill of exceptions is included in the record brought
te this court, assignments of error prediexted upon the admission
or exclusion ef evidence, the giving of instructions or the refusal
to give them or any other alleged erroncous conduct of the court
in the triel of this cause, cannot be considered or reviewed by
uf
j *
' nd ee «B08: a aed
i \
. ) ~ ~ ; « >
| ~.
aw \ fe ' ,
_
i
bond etext oh sonean
SATLOTEUM OF HOAH =
.
20049 IHD TO TAVOO ads sw ae
(GD BeL QS Sh emree a sme
eTOO BHT YO WOLWIGO ZHT GRAVE WAVELIOE sunennhtad -_
he * ‘ t at 3%
Méxwet cidd idgwoid . (naga? eauthiel dead a. 5 gVeddenbadt
eseutyete ax} Fanieygs J1wo0e Loqtotmi eid 12 coltoa dowzino santo
hedmmactqst beaialo #2 dotdw .08.0¢)¢ revoost of edmabirs tod
aograrto xeliiao to wonaied od a2 22 of cneudeddehal #*énshnstod
vrsgmod ehti mxoteomisuee odd YE obam cob Xo amometde « noqe wb
Visswhell .L20L qh Lhaqa yetomktik ,opavidd of onaues soberes mex
puthnedxs al torre on stguwensds tad? mtelo Y9 tnemndnde ath nt bepesta
bebiswret YLisntatxo df ebzoces eft se dmometie abdd wot eopradto oat
hua phieq yLogathorms at dotew 4d%-L08% sot Lid att tnabnoted o¢
bevootiee a baa oysh wel 2 aidéiw hoveveseth eaw tore oti aodw dada
eal? yaq OF heavier on ymtd oF txo0 appracio telrxee ed Ye smemetete
“gave tevte «hae .Inabaoteh tet eenwnet edt haure? wat out seveaied
esnomphal, te iaerta wt bre Istis wee 2 tot anvisem oiIiinialy yahios
dive eid? .eteo0 tet Vtitekale sumtage soompbot boxetao ‘ous99 ota :
-topaghut, ett caxever of astyword at terre to
“2 dul? YoLné o'2tivaukedg Te OL opog Mo Soboommn et Ot ra
dityuerd braces os at sedwland wt ene teqours Ye Abe on os dou on i
tiekwulwhs ens nog bedanthore torte to adeomeg hs as etme anit ee |
faguint odd xt protsowisest te gatvig ans soon bive Xe mokeutoxe 10
teuoo edi 20 evbner amnoKoste boyoitn wadito saat aes *.
2m
this court.
The questions then presented for our determination are
whether the trial court erre (1) in denying plaintiff's motion te
yaeste the judgments; (2) in denying plaintiff's motion to correct
the record to show that the judgment was entered Mareh 11, 1932,
vather than March 10, 1932; (3) in denying plaintiff's several
motions for further extensiens of time for the filing ef ite bill
of exceptions; and (4) in denying plaintiff's petition in the nature
of a bill in equity to veeate the judguent.
As to the first .vestion it meed only be said that in the
absence of a bill of exeeptions this court enannot review the order
of the trial court of March 1S, 1932, denying plaintiff's motion of
that date to vacate the judgment. The motion wee made within apt
time (less than 30 days after the judgment order) and was supported
by plaintiff's counsel's affidavit asserting various grounds upon
which the judgment should be vacated, but without a bill ef exeop-
tions this court is powerless to disturb the order of the trial
court fer the alleged abuse of its diveretion in denying such motione
The svorn statement of plaintiff's counsel as to what transpired
during the trial cannot be considered as » legal substitute for a
bill of exceptions.
Plaintiff's claim thet the sourt erred in denying ites
motion te correct the record as te the dete of the entry ef the
judgment is without merit. The record shows the judgment to have
been entered March 10, 1932, Plaintiff's motion to correct,
supported by its counsel's affidavit, was entered and denied June
22, 1932-5 Pinintiff econesdes and vecognizes on page 36 of its
brief that the affidavit of its counsel was insufficient in lew
to authorize the court to correct the record, but insists that
beenuse the edition of March 10, 1932, of the publication known
r
ale
otape elds
etm molventorreted wo 10% betnossxg wads anekiueup eff
ot motvom a'Iilistsic gniyneb mi (£) bexte txwo0 Ladxe of? teddede
inoxreo ef molten o'ttitniate gabyuob at (8) tdmompbut ef? oteaay
e880 Li dove bowie saw Snowpbat, eds toxtt wore of brow: axle
faveved 2'¥tidatadg poiyeot wt (8) gR8eL ,OL dotell mad? tesddax
Ifid adi Yo petit? ode rot omi? Yo enolanedxe vedas? eh anoltom
ouwtan es? mk nettiteq a'¥thintetg gntyred mb (4) bee pamotiqeons Yo
etriemphut, ad? odeeav of etiups mt ILid a to
ome ah dott biea od vino heen #f soktaowy saxk? odd OF oA
xébu6 os¢ wolves Sonned txivev aids anotiqoone Ye tke io t0 peer
to mobiom e'ttttntals yalyned e8ECL 1S dons te dewoo date odd ‘we
tga aieltiw eben aaw moivom ett » trxonrg bert odd oaoey oe oean ses
bet veqque new bas (tebcto dmemphul ett xo2%a ayod 9x ast e00t) ents
nog phnwetg avoitey yatdzenas sivabk ta e *£oanwon armuanbase ‘
qeene to ilid » évoddiw aud sbetacsy ed bLwode snonpout, ext otsty
| iaiest ef? te zebzo aft Cxpsatd os aso Lrerog ot ssw99 etae cots
anoltom deve guivneS nt notiexoal as Yo eauds begoite eat sot Sade
bexiqanext éesiw af aa foemuos a 'thbimbale to svete 3098 ‘roma od
2 ahd
a tot edudtdadue Lawes s ua borobtenco od tonnes tats oat ante
ate aatynoh nt herre txueo odd batt ‘este’ behh ‘aes
ete to “Tine ed? to oteb oxld of n0 breoo% ad toenras i | ss ss
, Otay sel?
ovad of deompbat ad? awode Srooot ontt ~thea suite of sae ea
; stone oF mes dom a 'rtzinbest 8808 Of dorsi boxedaa nak
‘paw’ helned tan boxedpe saw tivanh ts a *heeswoo a8 w Sernecae
A ‘nat 70 05 onan mo oostmgooox tnx aohonnae TREimERE. “ROK
wale
‘wat wi tuo tot t huwet waw foanuos eat te dhvab ita ot todd rolsd
2. : Cae BGS Las
Susht adaised dud chxan0 ots sovrees oe mp9 paid oxtredsue ot
se rane 2 iy ad
son noisoetsig ont % anes or oti to moxatbe ol
yGuacan Ge he eee ead at i
on ew
as the Municipal Court Reeerd showed this cause te have been the
first ease on the trial eall of Judge Borelli, the trial judge,
for March 11, 1932, that fact is conclusive that the judgment was
entered March 11, 1932, instend ef March 10, 1952. It is undisputed
that the trial ef this cause commenced March 10, 1932, It is a
mattex ef common knowledge that reporters fer the Kunicipal Court
Record, in preparing their reports on court calls, necessarily have
to secure their informtion concerning some early im the afternoon
for their paper, which is published on the evening ef each court
deyj and we may readily aseume that, when the reporter visited thes
court room of the trial judge im thie ceuse to get the next day's
trial eoll, he fellowed the customary and usual couree in placing
the case then actually on trial at the heed ef the following day's
eell. The appearance of this cause on Judge Borelli's eall for
Mareh 11, is not decisive that the trial of the case was not finished
and judgment entered Merch 10, 1932. ‘This is not the character of
evidenee upon which courts permit their recerds te be chellenged or
corrected. Weither a judgment nor the record ef a court can be
amended after the lapse of the term (30 days here) upon the mere
recolieetion of the judge or the affidavit of a party to the cause,
(Page ve Shields, 102 111+ Appe 575.) The record of the court
imports «bsolute verity and » note or memorandum which would authorize
ite omendment after the adjournment of the term mist necessarily have
been # note or temorandum which ean be said to have been made by the
judge or pursuant te a requirement of the judge or of the lowe
(Yegley Hospital v. Strong, 235 111, 153.) A mere announcement in
the Municipal Court Recerd of the anticipated position of this cause
on the ail of the trial judge docs not satiafy the requirements
of the law
The third question raised by plaintiff is that the court
ot-
oft seed eval ot casoo elds bewode breve sumed Laghokoul mld -
cophut dalxs ons «tiloreds ogoat to Line Lasts ads mo wean setht
saw daommpbyl, add gadst oviewlongs af toat Sadd .RE0E off dou ned
boduqaibny ak Si .S00L QL Move to bemdant «Rb0L «Lf dowel hotedne
Sar st .S60L ,0L dovall beononues eoame ehkd ko fabtd oft sashe
$09 LoqiotauM sid x03 aredieges dads epbeivendt aaauwo Re wetdan
eve yLiracsenen gallon drs0e ge eétoget siesds guizeqexg wh »btesell
Mogwretie aid mi Yiiss ome yalotecnes misonzolms thes oxueca OF
Jiveo does to yaimeve edt pe hedeiidug at dotdw .teqgeg tinds 20%
edt hetiaty zesxeqe: odt masiv «tad suman YLkbeox Yau ow ban TYyab
a'yab txes ed} fey of couno etd o) egdut Lalsd od to moot éxeo0
putontg a2 eat Laves dae yremesewo eld bowellot ot yLieo tabi
a'yab patwoltet eft to heed oft ta faite mo vLloutos mand eae ald
wot Ifoe etiifered ophyl mo eaueo ated to eonenseqqa eff, «thao
bedsint? ton new enone ad? Yo Latxt esd test? ovintooh Jom wh ol Monat
Yo tedpwxesto est tom at old? AECL .OL sow bovedms, dmsugheh dem
%o hegnefiads of a2 abxocox tied? thmroq eduwee doidw segu eomabhve
od neo 21u0o 2 to bspvet odd TOM tmompoul, » seddtoM »besroxcen,
ore ott moqu (eted aysh Of) mzo¢ odd eo pugnt edt sod2e dehmome
swauoo, of} af ytreg 2 te shrabltiea adf xe oghuh at Ie no isoollooet
duos sd? to breccs odT «(BFE .qgh sft SOS pebtotele ov wmwd):
eutrodive bisow dotdy mebunxemen xe adem o his ytlrbv ofukowds vtroqmt
evad YLiiacaoven Jou mod odd 39 soommwobhe oft cedta trembaoms ef
om Yd shan need eved of bisa od ase sdedde mebaetomom re efor 2 noe.
wal att Ye a9 oghol off Te dromextypet. oof snewatag socephyl-
at inemoonsionen eves A (ROL 9fL% S82 gumotte: +r Lat bene woke)
auton aid? te modshaog bedagtedéan ond Yo buocel ¢19% Laqto taut edd
adnomesionas alt Ylatias tem veoh optus} Lote? aff to. peeenant De
dase one todd of mtomtaty Ms pane sober, ee’ sw rahe
ode
erréd in denying ite several motions for further extensions of
time for filing its bill of exceptions ond we find it to be
equelly without merit. Vhen the judgment was entered Barch 10,
1932, plaintiff prayed an appeal and was allowed sixty deys to file
its bill of exceptions. it appears from plaintiff's counsel's |
affidavits that May 4, 1932, the parties filed with the clerk of
the Municipal court « written etipulation to extend plaintiff's
time for filing its 6111 of exceptions twenty days. This extension
wae not sanctioned by the court and no order allewing it appears of
record. May 28, 1932, the court sllewed plaintiff on extension
of ten days. dune 9, 1952, plaintiff's motion fer « further
extension was denied, It will be boted that, conceding to plaintiff
the stipulated twenty day extension of May 8, 1932, not allowed by
order of the court, it had ninety days within which te file ita
bill of exceptions. The trial court held that the ninety days
having elapsed June 6, 1932, it woe witheut jurisdiction on June 9,
1932, te grent any further extension of time, It was only after its
motion of June 9, 1932, had been disallowed that plaintiff sought on
June 22, 1932, to amend the record as to the date of the judgment in
the manner and with the result heretefore indiested. Its obvious
purpose in seeking to amend the date of the judgment to March 11,
1932, was to have ite extended time for filing ite bill of exceptions
expire on June $, 1952.
Notwithstanding the court's order of June 9, 1932, denying
it a further extension of time, plaintiff persisted in presenting
similar motions June 22, 1952, and July 22, 1932, ani on October 31,
1933, it presented a bill of exceptions for approval with its motion
for leave te file same, all of which motions were properly denied.
That the recognized and established rule is, that after the expiration
of the time allowed fer filing a bill of exeeptions, a trial court
ob
te antolenesxe vedtxy? wt enotion Laxeven ed? guiqneb ah bet
ed of ot tnt? ow bes enotiqooxs to Lite wef patti? vet wane
90L Mocs boxstne sow dusmgbul edd mod «=. ebb Swomtdiw YTteape
oitt of sysb Yixte bewelln cow hum Kavqgs ito BeYuny Deity yeas
, a Loanuoe a Yitentalg moxt exaoqgn #2. eméheqeexd to Ske wer
to dxeLo et Motw belt? notsreq edd ROVE .8 Yar Vastd addyane Tew
a'Ytisnlelg tnotxe of notiatoqtia master « Subd Enq hi batt wah
soteneixe afd? .ayabh yYaows ancl sgvoxe to iftd abt pattie sok Ombd
te gteoggs gt putwelle rebto on bun drwoo oft YW bemektemes Yom éiw
mokametxe ae Yi dnbaly howelle sxu09 ode gSe0r .aH yim “Dixebe4
_ gqetesyt 2 10 sohion a'¥tbantete heer 0 bait soleh dR
Riitately oF gatbeonee »tadd besos od Lfkw 31 shettob oat no tanedin
Vd fewolin ton .860L .8 ya To aot ened od Yeo) Kotaivette eat
“gdh @£tt of dotde aistd be mab vient hast 32 ,dusi0o edd te webTe
aysh Yiontn ost? tats edt suo faked ot” sanetiqeoxe Yo Ltn
et onul ae moliothes cul, suedtstw saw ah Seek a ‘emurt Doagate wnivadt
adi wed%e vine sow 2 emt? Yo notanesxe sedduut : tno dnery OF ,8EeL
no diguoe Whintaly fast? bewelLoeld need bat Seer .@ ont $6 Rdbiie
Bi inempiut oma Ye efab oft of en brovox ond biome Od EUR (ki shirt
euptyde gil shegecthat exotedered @Lumet bid Mbdw bin’ Chiba mtd
_., ££ sexe of temmpiwt oct Ye stab add herece of gntvese at xeqrig
anpiigqooxe te Litd wat pmnLhy s02 oats bohemdae df oval of amir yeeer
nN i RBG Ye nae moot
eaient sees ? ans Ye xobre e'imwen est pal : |
“ gatinooog ai bodatoxog ‘wiismlate oath) %6 Ae hanedxe ‘wedtewt a a2
| ht r9das00 mo hmm 4S80E 188 qint bas 860 QR one anotion teshate
aotsom att Mdbw Lavetaqa tet saotiqeaxd to itty # wesdonergoek 2 60L
ahetneb elroqeng oTow anotion doldw %o Lie ,emem ofk? 6d ove x0?
notimttgxe est xod'te tests cal eLut bedadidedee has bentnyooes odd teat
| duos Lali? © gnmotigeoxe to Kites gabsey ee sak al re
Be
io without juriodiection to either appreve such bili of exceptions
or to further extend the time for filing come, requires no citation
of authorities.
Plaintiff eornestiy and vigerously compleins ef defendant's
fraudulent conduct and of the manifest errers ef the trial court in
the trisl of this enuse, but it is sufficient to state that plaintiff
was afforded ample opportunity t¢ preserve by « bill of exceptions «12
of such alleged errors for review by thie court. The case me tried,
aecording to the record, in one day, ant it io difficult to under~
stand why piaintiff's counsel could act have prepared ani presented
its bi11 of szceptions te the trial court fer apprevel and for filing
within the ninety days allowed.
It is alee urged in one of ita counsel's «ffidavite thet
May 24, 1932, plaintiff turned over ite bill ef exeeptionsa to defend-
ant’s attorneye for exomination and epproval er correction with the
understanding end agreement that it sas te be returned fer settling
and approval by the court Jume &, 1932, and timt they wilifully re-
fused te return asme. ‘“@ find ne substantiation fer this contention
in the rewerd and it is sufficient to state thet if defendent's
attorneys were guilty ef any such conduct the court waa avaliable for
Fedreads
Septesber 9, 1032, plaiatiff filed a petition in the sature
ef « bill in equity te vaeate the judgment. “ee are of the epinion that
the court was justified in refusing te consider this petition. “eetion
21 of the Municipal court act gives te the Municipal cours power to
vaeate a judgment on such a petition only in cases where no wotion te
vacate is made within thirty daye after the ontry of the judgment,
and in thie ease such motion was made ami denied within thirty days
from the entry of the judgment. (lera v. Fields, 156 111. Appe 341.)
Aa order denying o motion made within thirty days after ite entry
Sd
oneisgeoxe ie Lits dows evowggn tadtie o¢ pektedbudte, awodabwoas
moiiedic en sexiapet ~amme BAktli 1% ents «te Rowdee atasldaw) Of ve
etd tsnabiane te
S'inakso teh Ye eniaigues Vouorgty hme Ydawund RRAMALS (000)
ai sues Leitd odd Te asext teotinas eff te dow domhnoo smoiehune?
Vhitatele gold ofgte ed jam pkviwe af 22 dod eoomee absid Yor Sedat el?
Lis analiqeors te itd # YS evreneg OF Yimuiroqae OLgme dobre Magee
eloie? sav cease eff .dumee eid? yd wedves wt aterte Segedla Mowe to
exudes OF F£0027229 af SE bom «esd on” mh ydapenT add9F mmdirense
besuon one tora borage wrist tom bivoy Leones wi Mimtel@ yew baade
gaitst “ot ims Laverags 10? fume faktd edt oo aendequore Yo Lhkd at
) showelle yeh yeouta ad? mbdthe
Sack sd ivabs 2s a*Leonwes wat te ome at bagty enka oh OX
-bawtes of nnologe oxo te ££id ath weve homme Titimdede BGRE 4 DS Yat
sat dsiw meitvevtes te Lavetcas bra motiankuane sol eyooed da atime
patiidon THY bentedox od 62 vow if gags saamorga fee gout bru da weeny
woe ULLNTLLtw ead? dads hee QSCOL a8 oma Puma esl ve Sevomnee time
motinodnes aids x02 aptgatdnagedoa em batt oF pean mmudor of hnawt
dmsbawtod Us test goade of smokes tive @h 22 bem freoom ems gh
el eidettevs ve sue edi Jouhaos seve yaa Bo Whey wow oyemnetde
yay ibaa pte»
eration add ma nostitoy . pest ‘ettatase aShOL of taceadqet — Nee R
fedld molaiqe ogi Ye ots oY .teenphet ad? staeoy OF ErREpe wh SLi at
maites’ .notiiieg sidy sobtanee of ‘Qadewtoy tf DekRRtew, saw tawne off
oe? x9re snimo Leghodaw’ oft oo eetiy toe ores Leghohmt ode te Le
a notson am srody aese wh Yiae moheiog = Meus oo secmmptial se eneny
| qdmioamy tisk, slg Ye Yrdme eld cade eysh YouhEs aiulete ohaet af wddaery
aga heats Aiidtv holpob brn ota sew moktus Moke wenn whee AY Sie
(.SO8 oGaA oi Ld SOL aghiekt «+ gett) ee ee ee ed? moe?
opt
qetme vat vod'ts weal yoetdld mbites stale oo ioe & BaFuRb obs aA
ae
allies
te vacate = judgment of the Municipal court io final and no subse~-
quent motion to vacate it will lie, but the only method of reviewing
it is by appeel or writ of error. (Collins v. Drab, 200 111. App.
447.)
Sueh other pointe ac have been urged, wo think, have bean
fully covered by our discussion of the foregoing contentions.
Defendant's motion to dismiss thie writ of errer, reserved
to final heoring, io denied.
Vinding no reversible error in the recerd, the judgment
of the Municipel court is affirmed.
APYIRMG Ve.
Gridley, Pe Je» and Seanlan, J., concurs
~eodia om bra Lesh? ot trues Kags ote 20 comm ve
«Baiwetves lo heaiom ying add Gad qeif Litw af edesaw oo Shed
wees ET OO ater «¥ ste) swore Yo show 20 J
~~ ge a
me BOon iL ‘ . a me : Aare Be its Te Vea: .
meal cro te ha seen 6 air eon
ai ahat ay kay é ee ewes abel va r eee a i
par SY area tat a yee ov ; ‘Z
eu 2 seuncey aha
gs jot? tee .aOS 28 aie, oreo. Sey
ih ak cet agai on, smth eh. mea
Le Fete Rane He iow Ned tite wh, Li om
oa
* % ey > Ge ?
webs: Sit weeny oat
i B= Pa:
j \ ais « Hib aie i r
uy vs Vivedviinan jek »
A eo basa ey ae RE A Pe
if tle ay 2 os ou 5 2 ee wae t *eik
}
a weeds geeartaal Yi A
i tusk, woke Wk ede, cal, vv ons oe
>
k
&
a
+,
#F
‘
Y
a
Sd
ad
Faye
2»
?
=
ber
aa
=
§
es
=
ee
sae, 5.
= WED
37508
JOHN As BSMODGR, .
Appellee,
Te
He He SVP ADVEVTISIVG Co.,
et ale APPEAL FROM
MUNICIPAL COURT
On appeal of GUTDOOR
ADVERTISING AGaNCY OF AMURICGA, OF CHICAGO.
Ineey Garnishee below, and ce
DOROTHY MALE SEF, Intervenor | rg 9 r A Bd 2 0
i ethoO WJ
below,
Appellantse
a Rg Ne Nis i tt” ac it err agg et lia
BR. JUSTICS SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is a fourth class action in attachment in which
John Ae Bonder is plaintiff, the le He. Seff Advertising Company,
Ines, (hereinafter referred to as the Seff Company) is defendant,
and the Outdoor Advertising Agency of America, luce, (hereinafter
referred to as the Guidoor Company) is garnishee, After a
judgment for $971.03 was entered against the principal defexnient
December 1é, 1932, a rule wes entered against the garnishee to
answer, which it did December 31, 1952, asserting that it was
mot indabted to the Seff Company June 14, 1932c, the date of the
service of the garnishee summons upon it, nor sinee that time.
Plaintiff filed his notice of contest of this amewer October Il,
1933. An order was entered January 5, 1934, fer a rule upen
Plaintiff toe notify the adverse claimant, Dorothy Marie Seff
(hereinafter referred to as Mire. Seff), an officer of the Seff
Company, as well as the wife of Harry i. Seff, its president
and general manager, to appear and defend as intervening petitioner
‘cole
J Goin, . . d tt ganag Chr rf - “ar “ee ~ wf!
" Ne si . Seite ae Cede eat etary
. \ _ : HPD) ~} a a ey
" | , “™ |
i Soave
S
a ha
ery staat 2A OT
mR | OLLOGEA 0 rac. Vi LG"
4 ; SO vem Duper id
22099 ORICITAAVOA | | of oH
MOHT JAABTIA , - — PP, seg
uo stot OO” ee ar :
wQVACIES YO
“8 ‘ ;
fie ewe arty sates
_ eTHV00 SET TO wor ra6 ott auanvranc wae MOISES, fae
dotdw oi simomioatse ak soties sania Aetuot a at oias oe
aUemqued gatatdrevba Yio! oH «i any etidéatadg as hen: ante’
sisoinots af (ymqued tes odd aa od berretex i63tsnkened) sont
ted taniored) yoni «sorrems lo Yoougs paialdsevds wwohssO ef? bre
«Metta §6sedeiniag ei (ynaqnod reebiu@ sud as of bosKele®
Inobioloh Lagionizg etd suniege berosae saw 60-4508 tod snougbut
od eedatnieg esd Janiags boredae ean oLwx a ghC0L 93h t9dmoond
aow th sais galicecaa eSh@L 4lé tedmesod bis #8 soled «Towens
add %e eieb edd gSh0L got ennl yamqued Mee Seal 4. Aetdohas som
somig dadi eomte tom «tk moqu emoamya eods ewe ese to eotvren m
gif todoje0 sowema aidd to fastneo to oolion ead posit wteatese
mou eLat 2 tod ~ MOL <a vragmal betedns ane tebro mA ees P
Yee obuall Vetaned ‘inamlate eavevbe ease Baie ot Las
~
220
on or before January 1%, 1934. re. Seff filed her intervening
petition February 27, 1934, alleging an assignment te her by the
Seff Company of the money due it from the garnishee upon a certain
sdvertising posting contract.
Upon the trial of the issuew by the court without a
jury the following finding was entered:
Maxie SeGf and for plaiasitt a0 $0 sine mundred seventy eee”
and 03/100 dollare ($971.03) im hands ef garnishee, Outdoor
Advertising Agency of ‘mericna, a Corp."
After overruling motions ef the adyerse claimant ons/ gurmishes
for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, the court entered
judgment upon the finding Pebrusry 28, 1934, against the garnishee
for 3971-03. This appeal followed.
Plaintiff's judgment against the principal defendant,
then engeged in business in Akren, Ohio, was based upen his
Claim for salary and commissions for work and services performed
fer it while in ite employ.
sbout June 17, 1932, the garnishes summons was for-
warded by the Chicago offices of the Gutdeor Company te BR. T. Me
MeCready, general counse] of garnishee, at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania,
who advieed the treasurer of the company to make no further paye
ments on the Seff Company contract until further instructions were
receivad from him. July 30, 1952, Harry He Seff, president of
the Seff Company, mailed to McCready a copy of the alleged assignee
ment of the interest of that company in the posting contract and
advised him that, pursuant te the terms of the assignment, Mra-
Seff desired that thereafter payments on the contract be made to
her. Thereupon McCready, notwithstanding and disregarding the
fact that this cause was then pewding in the Municipal court,
advised the garnishee to make the balanee of the payments on
the contract to iy which it did, forwarding to her four checks
tal
oe
gninevrote! ted DoLit YroO sea »AECL gtk yteumel eroted go mo
ai? yd ted of trommiuen oe petinsifn ghOOL qPR Yrawtdel molsiseq
aietueo « mnogu sexeimseg off woth tf owh qonvm est? To Yaagmed thes
stooxdnoo gaiveog gatalsterhe
& woth sxw0o eas Yd weuont esd 9 Lottd ods maqy ss
iborsdme caw pabotl't a out on
énemiafo satovbs auetsv aewaak sdz eS oe
ono Yineves borhan ein ef * in imate wok Ba
toohswe ,ootainwg 7 amy wk (0eL¥
00 a .aoitem Yo Yortea*
oosia tircny Vict teremiofs oatevha edi Yo anotiom ai? weve roth ‘sevtsA
30 2 20th i.
p
beredas YmwOo edd yssemphwl Yo ¢eoTKs nt bas baphicl # wot
ogdoiouny el? Senioys .StCs 88 yrawtdet yakhalt ett 6
showollet Ladgdd wit? 8065008 ro?
vinnonoted Leqhontag ods tentepe énompbul a 2isabes
rf iy ae ma
schngevanadiens quae apie ab sunntnatt iS tenant
“tot nav axtommita sondetaray edd (ater tL eout britvwsh esti
la ora os ‘ateans aeobea odd %s eoltte se
oyeq todduwit om oan of Yequos ale to
eiev enolisuxdent sestdewt Iltan ¢oasdaon shidale BE edi pete
to Jnoblaer¢ ties oH Vesa e8bOL 208 vive stk wort bovieses
eminen beogelia of? ‘te waies 6 eootdou eo vette ‘er 0 Ykee tee eit
tn doattnes gutésoq odd mt vexegmoe ade to ts sore tat vos 0 fe
au efnecmrptacn ans to maT ods oo semua yaae mi Sontvha
od wham ed toexdnoo auld we wacomeng masts pat Hotkeod Tes
Pa ean
‘adoaso 0% ptr oF ener wee an ots mie deb:
ode
for $368 each.
Both the intervenor ry contend (1) that
the assignment was given to the assignees (intervenor) by the
judgment debtor (eff Company) in good faith and fer « valuable
consideration, and thet the peceiainien wae justified in honoring
the esvignment and paying the funds to the assigness (2) that,
the judgment debtor having been adjudicated e bankrupt, the
trial court chould have directed that notice of the pendency of
the garnishment section be sent to the trustee in bankruptey of
the Seff Company under the previsions of section 11 of the
Garnishment 1¢¢3 and (3) that the trie] court erred in entering
judgment against the garnishee witheut a finding of fact mew to
the issue raised by the contest of the garnishee’s anever of
"no funds."
Pleintiff's theory is that the alleged assignment from
the judgment debtor to the iatervener was not made in good faith
mor for a valuable consideration, and that the garnichee was not
warranted in honoring such assignment snd paying the funds to the
alleged asvignees
Ae to the second contention of the garnishee ond the
intervenor it is only necessary to etate thet it was effectually
disposed of in the trial court by the order ap ecring on page
57 of the record, reciting that the parties to thie cause had
stipulated that "all testimony relative to bankruptey or by
bankruptcy officials be stricken.*
As to their third contention it is sufficient to
state that the court found “the issues * * * for pisintiff as to
* * * $971.03 in the hands of garnishee, Outdoor Advertising
Ageney of America, a corporation," which it had wrongfully paid
te Mroe Seff after the summons in garnishment had beon served
wpon ite
eng atlas BOE) tot
dasit (i) basdteme nuteionnene nmeinintiied odt it Mieke
aid yt (somevisdni) sengieas afd 0? miinaepdiniiaanats
eidauley 2 29% bas déial beog wl (yacqued tte?) tatdeb Josapint
arhuesed nt holtidest wav codainzay of? ded? dma pnotietebtenoe
eats (8) goomgleas osfd 04 ebmut esl? patyoy bee treamytuges odd
add qiqucined 6 bedesibaioa aeod aaived roAdek roampaat, sid
to Youebreg ef? to eoti er tests badooedh: evad buieds two | inbed
to yelgeainad at eedasrd oale 0% toe od Hotton sonatas ‘oft
oni to £1 noises te anotes vor ext sone yaaquico Tet edt
gaizedne wt bette P09, Kates oslt teas (E) ban 420% enon tact
o¢ ax font Yo pad bet’ & sswert bw codateiey etd. ie . pores
to xowenia e'ensioteiag ed? to aoedse outa ‘ee beater ounet on
Mout ssoamp toes dogo Lto eat? dads pe wresd? at yibond |
M92sh booy st sham tou saw xomevrsdas ess os ‘setdon du cap
| #on saw codainrey ons daté bee cmoitnrebtenoe | oh
ed os port as onbug bas snommstose 1 ti spuaee
ed bas eidatniag odt %6 solinedmen “hoo0s es aw Th <e
Ulnains tte now oh Sastt etate a ‘taaz00e8 “uno ae 1
SBsq a0 gubraeses tebxo od YW $3h09 Latxd ot bad lath he
had exuse oti? o¢ aotiuag “oie dads gutshoor »
w te ‘wwtqureined ot evtiator womtseed Lta* cari Sides
Seaatosta bad ataiotts Ate fo ody:
ies. ;
it if only necessary then to consider the first or
major contention of the garnishee and the intervenor that the
finding of the trial court thet the assignment in question was
not made in good faith nor for a valuable considerstion and
that the garnishee was not justified in honoring the assignment
wee against the manifest weight of the evidence.
De Ge Ballou, & salesman ond plant inspector for the
Gutdoor Company, testified, substantially, that his company had
& contract with the Shell ©11 Company to display certain adrer-
tising for it im the City of Akren, Chios that the diaplay posters
were already printed ami that it was only necessary to have them
posted on billboards to be selected; that two eompanies were in
that business in Akron; that he went there between April 15 and 20,
1932, and discussed the proposition with Harry H. ®eff, president
of the Seff Company, the judgment debtors; that he advised geff of
his desire to give the Seff Company the contract for the posting,
but was hesitant to de se because of its precarious financial condi-
tiony that Seff assured him that his wife would advanee the funds to
finance the Shell contract if it was assigned to her te seeure re-
payment of such funds advanceds that Seff took him to his spartment
ané “in frent of me anked Urs. Seff if she wae going te finanee this
contract previded he received it from our office, and if she would
ao that, why, she would be satisfied with the assigning ef the con~
tract;" that he returned to his Chicago office and made hie report
and recommendation both to the Chicago and Wew York offices of the
garnishee; thet thereafter it was decided to let the contract te the
Seff Company and same wos drawn and forwarded to ity that the contract
was returned properly executed; that “there was ne assignment at that
time - 1% was proposedg* tiimt the contract provided for the payment
to the Seff Company of $360.68 for May, 1932, and $368 each for the
Py = —_ —~ —— = —_ pad a ie. ea — A>, Rae = Pat i Sa-e » @ che
eee se sb RR re AG es ES i rae eon: Se SS
el antes ee a a pa RS PSNR Te —— Sg eee a pe — — — = —— c a
Sax.
to garlt edd tebiexo» of medd yravagoon qlee BLOF yin) oo”
sci? garld romeviotnt oat tee setintanep ot 16 Mebinedaes tolem
sew mottvesp wt snemmylevs ett todd trvoo Ledet ont, to gathnd?
5 sate mokiotobinegs efdasfey « set som dtte® been mt oham tom
dnommetane etd gatxoned af beliidan, ton eon seduhatey od? tacts
xy cn seorobive of To stgtew taetinnm ed? ¢embage..aan
‘ost x02 rodvoqaat énaiq bus nemesiog @ « MOLLE 00 of ny
hast yraqmoe atl saute ecitalimedadva: abel Mtoed qyanqug? xoahtwe
~xevbe niatiss yatiate oF ‘nmquued £10 Afeds ext ditw soartaog,
axedwog yalquth ald vant qoltO gman Yo MPED wed mb gh x0, ate.
sana s ovat od Yrenseven vine Beak at dads bate ida wearrin one
ni oxew we kage owe stadt tbedeeLes od of abunodls
4 OR ban ar Kia! noowied oxandts snow ball sake a <a, wi
Ha at
~ibnoo fatonent} auoitsoorg ott te concent ow ade imbibed ¢ aaw tu
of abst edd sonsybe ntvor ee. ahd, Felt mi. ose 36 opts
atid eoneatt 92 onion saw ade 24 Wye samt bene oa to dost Sk
blwow axe tt Snes ceottto xwo moyt 2s Ameer tb ty ie bis
months of June, July, “ugust and September, 19323 and that neither
the Seff Company nor Mrs, Seff know anything about the Ghell con-
tract until he broached it to Seff and Mra. Seff between April 15
ami 20, 1952.
He He Seff testified “that the contract will be properly
carried out because Dorothy M. Geff had agreed to advance the moncy
for the performance of the contract, with the underatanding that
the contract would be assigned to her as seeurity." He further
testified that Mrs. Seff not only financed this contract but
advanced other sums te take care of the general business of the
Seff Company before the “hell contract was even heard ef, as well
as after it was discussed and entered inte, and that it was agreed
that all such advances would be covered by the assignment in
question.
Mre. Seff testified that, "He (her husband) wanted me
to finance the Shell account and he sould assign the account te me
ané I teld him that [ would not advanee money into this company
unless I was given pretection and svcurity for these advances,
as I did not want to throw my personal money into the company and
have it lost.” ‘he alse testified that she hed made other advances
to the company to sid it in carrying on ite general operations and
that the conversation between Ballou and her husband and herself,
which Ballou said cecurred between the 15 and 20 of “pril, 1952,
took place exrly in May after the alleged assignment had been
executed.
The original contract between the Outdoor Company and
the Seff Company is not im evidenee, but the alleged originel
aesigument of April 28, 1932, is, and it sets forth that the
original contract wae executed April 16, 1932. A eareful
consideration of all the evidence inclines us to believe that
a.
ali
a
a)
NRA Grice AEM ay eS ee
eS Se are
ee
oes Man ois ies $t Ss ied
Reonevhs reise ebem bast ede fans heltitecs oaks ome Ba
coltion Gadd Sra y2ECL ,rodwetas® fms dungel yetvt pemwl Yo astémon
enoo Ife? said fuede gaisiqwa woot Tide vert see Guageed Pied ed!
af Lixq’ aeowded Tro® .utd baw Brot af 22 bevigwore OM Litns Port!
| eee Om tees
wuxeqetg ed Litw sosténoo edt dad” bebttdeed Tre Mw 0
yonon end sonevin of hooTge bat Ted «Mh ydsoxres satsoad Jud betaine
tadd gnibastetehexs afd Adiw .dooxdnee edd to wonedtrotieg edd x0}
teditvt of ".Yluseed aa xed 0d bomgkade od bidow feacande wal
| dud Seattoon wistd hoonsalt Umno fom Yoo .ewt dade HOPS
od? Yo auoniaud Lwreney oi to exe eins 04 eave silee tebiterh
Kiow as eto itcen neve saw dostdnos Lied oft ereted eqn
beorgs oar ¢t tatd hon sedut toxetne bas hetameaks sew $2 rede a:
ai ares ct etd yi we ed bison swonyvio dae tie bat
eet hetmaw Uleadend veut) Uk" edad? betibicss aN | wa
a ade
kde, Gage
_Wreguon abate ‘otmt yonom eonevba ton hiuow X said abd btod X ba
ESHER IO... hia’ Ra seks
420s via eas ot Wituovs baa nolsoodong noyty oan eee pn
ERas
mat To
fa emoliaxege dateney adi mo grigutes al ¢t bis oF yReqmes ce
_ atfesved bua headend tod hae walla seowsed: Roldentoynes erg sad
oRECL gLitq Ro OF dam BL salt mogwded barmso bias welled so id
seed bod sreminions begetia ats othe tq, 90
See conn) wah at anoint fonten Etats
istterao 4. »8beL he pe hehe. wae dos be
$ecit wvotieg of av comtinad eomebive add Ile to sozoacobtone
-6e
the original contract was not executed April 16, 1932, but on o
date considerably later. The record is silent as to the identity
of the officers, directors and stockholders of the ‘Jeff Company,
other than Harry H. Seff and his wife. Wo notice of the assignment
of the Seff Cowpany's interest in the revised contract ef April 23,
1932, having been given to the garnishee prior to the service of
summons upon it at its Chicago office June 14, 1932, the Outdoor
Gompany, on that date, forwarded its check for $360.64 for the
first payment due under the contract to the Seff Company from its
New York office, which Harry He Seff testified he thereafter turned
over to Mrs. Seff.
The record discloses the following copy of a letter
written by McCready to the Seff Company:
“July 30, 1932,
He He Seff, President,
The He He Soff Advertising Company,
Akron, Ohio.
Dear Sir:
Outdoor Advertising Agency of ‘meriea, Inc+, has referred
to me as their attorney your letter of July 25th, I regret to be
obliged to advise that your account is of necessity held up in the
hands of OAA by reason of the attachment of which you have had
notice. This waa a foreign attachment served at the Chieage office
of GAA in the suit ef Jolm A. Bender in which he claims $1000.
This attachment was issued out of the Municipal Court of Chicago.
If you have an attorney in Chiesgo that you whuld Like
te employ to try to have this attachment disposed of in a legal way
I will be glad te cooperate with such an attorney if you will give
me his name and address,
Yours truly.”
It will be noted that MeCready's letter refers to a
letter of July 25, 1932, from H. He Seff, president ef the deff
Company, to the Outdoor Company, not in evidence, and, from the
tenor of MeGready's reply, it is logiesl to infer that Seff's
letter demanded the resumption of payments upon the Shell contract.
From the readiness and willingness of the garnishee to honor the
alleged assignment of the Shell contract to Mra. Seff, when a
copy of it was received a short time later, it is also logical
‘6 mo ud (BUHL yak Lire, botuermm Jom acer toeniRgs
Yiinoht oid oF ae tnedia et beeper os? estat xiew )
sUingmed Bet od? to evebLoddogte bua sroderats wiesiinets .
dramagions odd te eokton of .ethw ute bee Pret oH VTtee sats cong
c€8 Liege Yo soawtoos boatver edt af daerssrt eyeagmed Wee edt bi
to satvace ods of sohyg codgteriag edit of wevly ond | ch 9 BOM
toohinO ods —SlCL yA ommt eostto opaotd? ett de. ah nega arvommuns
ott rot 20,034 tod soedo nti babtawsot saementietitenee:
ath mort ymequoh Meh edd o¢ tostiane ed uebow smb dmomyag, goed
bemrtrd coPtewredls Oxf Sebtidusd Thed «Mo eraall Modan. prnrreary 8
Mattel a toys. snbvettebadé matateeiih imover ome
“Aypagued kod edt of, ybpw a wee
e822L .08 ytwt" inl
ve tor, pat 4000 yootem 2 rw ly Oot
0a HT dues cist te eer agi azote XORd we
ead mk ad qua “ited Selecacen * he ak saue¢os ppt Bene be
wey pe Fe vg (to Sopudostia elt Be mgecet ef fad
eine « onaold® & ta herrea Jeamines se pal @ ote old
.OOULE tattate ext st tobred «A cutel Bo thae. ost
sqnatso gy enue ia ot ene — te a Dewee! ry @
yew Lane. # pt to teneaets pyr ape ag ve
pol ifinv soy th Ywrseitie ce. dows di le afen qoop oF hed ; se
Ya anes sad ees: (ASR RAE aie itada
@ of waetes, sadtet a haheentel dnd pal a: Elie .
Yoel edt to: smobsnong 5 tke, steal eet 7" me
“at thee. deat tated of Leetzot at thetone sit wi sia
td noned.ot wedataray oi? ko we Rb L LW
Snow «Mek aml of soaxtmos kien’, ent te
=o
to infor that Seff's letter of July 25, 1932, to MeCready neither
eonvineingly urged any such alleged assignment nor enclosed a
copy of same. Then when no other means would apparently avail
to procure the resumption of payments by the garnishee in the
face of the pending garnishment action, we find Seff writing
MeCready July 30, 1932, the following letter, enclosing 2 copy
of the purported assicmment by the Seff Company to Mra. eff of
the Shell contract of April 28, 1932s
"Mr. TN. Te M. MeCready,
Attorney at Law,
240 Fifth Avenue,
Pittsburgh, Pae
Dear Mr. MeCready?t
Gmelesed find copy of the assignment which was made to
Dorothy Marie Seff. You will note the terms state the checks
may be made payable to either the company or herself, at her
Giverstion, and that notification to the debtor ia waived.
Under these cireumstances, it is not necessary for
De We Seff or The H. He Seff Adve Coe to notify the Outdoor
Advertising Agency of Amoriea in writing that their account was
te $59 pt. ; ae or wW ‘4
We have sinee been notified by Lb. Me. Jeff to have this
eheck made payable to here
Very truly yours,
THE He te SEDY ADVe COe
Harry lie Seff,
President."
The copy of the purported assignment enclosed is as
follows:
"Assignment.
Akron, Chio, April 30,9 1932.
Yor one dollar and other valuable considerations, we
the undersigned, hereby sell, assign and transfer all right,
title and interest to the attached revised contract #20248,
dated April 28th, 1932, from OUTHOOH ADVERTISING AGENCY oF
AMERICA, INC., for poster advertising im the City of Akron,
Ohio, for a period of five months for which monthly peyments
are to be made in the sum of $441.60, less a commission of
16-2/3% to DOROTHY M,. SEFF of 753 W. Market Street, skron,
Ghio, at the option of DOROTHY M. SEFY.
We hereby agree to notify the OUTDOCK ADVERTISING
AGENCY OF AMPPICA, INC., that monthly payments be made to said
DOROTHY M. SSFP, and we hereby agree to turn over all moneys
‘Made payable in cheeks for payments due under this contract
for outdoor advertising which checks may be made payeble to
¢
t
{
~f.
‘ emg
i ‘
tadsias Yaaeulelk of «8SGL 428 yhab Yo aodtad eRe dead
8 hesokens 108 tremens begetin some Yin f 4 _ Re Os Vem
Ehova “inexeqga biswow aawom gordo on ede nod? seman 20 we
aly ai seaduinseg ocd yd atnomyng te noksqaween at oTNAeTE
— Ralilcw Teh batt ew .xoiion dmamfatarey gathnog ati, 20, 200
Ue « paieolone .xedsal putwolled odd 4Bh2L .08 viel ybooxDel
30 Tiel. .et of vseqmed Rie, of? ve tromptenn. ni?
ante ond Shade narced yr even ILlw
wed de a tivared co viedo add
eboviaw ak totdeb of? of mot
aot yteoeeoon Jom al fh 4 feuitoxto on PUN eee
Toohewe al? yRider o¢ san oVbA too oH si ae? to Yb
ase tareoes aries bans paps ~ aobxoma te
yer i“ ai ais i
ee ewe
“ ey
Fe yas } be * os
Fmamagt eA"
S80r Ge Lieqd Gortd Gawwtl Oooo 8 a
Ow qattoltsrebteae efdaitley xeds@ eos ts
at fie totniexd fae mpieen gilee we
109% Josedmos toaivet bedoatsa ie
“a0 TOREA MELA pobiggi AOeaTwO vest wt
i ie “ying nay he Nae
‘ours srTmayCA ‘woeaTye ed? vison of wet
“ie od whem ad a2 Ce “ae pid
ha) vapnevel ile weve & oF sige
teartaeo afd teh, ont, thee
et aldeyaq sha od Yon ssteeely sotel
<B—
The H. He Seff Advertising Company, unless Dorethy Marie Seff
pe modes pa Brg J Get hm given to the Outdoor
THE He He SEFF AUVSETIGING COc,
By Merry H. Geff, President.”
The italicized portion of Seff's istter is refuted by
the testimony of Ballou that when he diseussed the matter with
Seff and his wife, not only head no assignment of the contract
been executed but the contract itself was not in existenec,
and that it was only proposed that, if Mre. Seff financed the
Shell contract, the Seff Company would assign it to her when
executed as sceurity for such finaneing.
‘fter MeCready received Seff's letter of July 30, 1932,
he immediately advised the garnishee to complete the payments on
the contract to Mra. Seff, which it dids poying her $1,472 in
addition to the $360.64 previously paid to the Seff Company.
In view of the alacrity with which the alleged assignment
was henored by the garnishee, it is difficult to understand why, .
if it was actually in existence during the period from the time the
payments were stopped on the centract, about the middle of June,
1932, until July 31 or August 1, 1932, when it reached MeCrendy
and was honored, it was not produced enrliere MeCready teetified
that Seff called on him at his office in Pittsburgh demanding pay-
ment of the account to hie wife and that ire, Seff urgently demanded
payment. in his letter of July 25, 19272, Seff demanded payment.
Yet no assignment or eopy of an alleged assignment eppears in the
picture until Seff mailed it to MeCready with his letter of July
BO, 1952.
Aithough the garnishee paid $360.64 to the Seff Company
on the date that it was served with the garnishee sumone and
$1,472 to Mra. Seff during <ugust and September, 1932, after such
service of summons, ostensibly on the strength of the alleged
vtec vicen witevem weotew ; pea yh
wohsey oft of movig moltavd tices, ares postqe, cor Be
OMLES Tap, hag em Hi. «fi, |
Laie
Ww jwektsort 5 02 a Ke, Me
wi bedwter kt wettot atitel to mobexeq boxtol iba! Mee IS
dio testo edt beaawouls od motty doctd “wORLeg oe ‘wmomtteed od
‘Posntnos wlt Yo seismetttons of teil Vide Sou sath “ahd tins ns Yhed
‘sOomedutes ‘nt Pot aow Hoett arti thon) Saletan rat
eMEOL .OS yLtul te redsol a Mteh bevieoot cmnuaiiia ite unde
Ko atasmmag of wtolquos of sodoiming sid Soatvhe Ykednthemat of
HE SV att zon unkyee BEB of Motte, e209 saat 09-8 aie 2
wyrisgio'!) Yb08, auld. oF bisa, Viematveny S00D8h ost ed osis 08 Saphir
tuommtoan opelin ed? sotsty sd)w chtuoale ext ™ patsy aE,
| ctate instexphrar os SLi itEth at ot ponds toreg ©
ods omits odd.mmat heltog ont gutsah: sonege tte we: 1 SEMeem: ame
roan Yo oLbbim old tepde: etoortane: alt no “hequade exey | ts pa
Chote hertosst yt sed seer et Goaraus x0 £6 Lut Sim, rd
boltitaed ybaerDen +totfxa0 beowborg ara, Mar ” |
toh
Midas 3.7
vehanend yltnog wy xeee 00x Salt hee ohte ond of isin iad ee pe
taeorag tehmemed Te st as at tM totdat ahd at senapond
edt at axasage insangtean boyeiie Me 20 YqOO TO
SS 0
vit to wattel abi atw “where uw ae J
Sin
Wade he
Shia honed a a ee
“fe
asvigmeent te her, it appears to have purposely refrained from
relying on such sassignaent in ites ‘anawers It was not until
Pebruary 27, 1954, that Mra. feff, although fully cognizant of
this Litigation, condescended to apprise the court in her inter-
vening petition of the alleged assignment to her of the funds due
under the contract, which plaintiff sought to reach by the instant
proceeding.
In se far ag the record discloses the Seff Company
corporation was operated as a family affair by husband and wife,
amd it has repeatedly been held that the business of such a cor-
poration cannot be so conducted ac to furnish a mantle of protection
te the family stockholders and officera when their dealings with
the property of the corporation result in the fraudulent deprivation
of the rights of creditors of the corporation.
Bellou testified, as did the Seffs, that the contemplated
assignment of the Shell contract by the Seff Company t¢ Mre. Seff
was to secure her for advenees maie by her to the company to
finance that particular contrect. That amount could not have
exeeeded $700. There is no credible evidence in the record that
the full amount due under the contract wan to be asaigned to here
Yet we find the Seffs, after plaintiff hed commenced this setions
attempting to pyroemid Mree Seff's claim under the alleged assign-
ment to a sum in exeess of $1,852, the full amount of the contract.
It is ineredible, considering the financial straits of the Seff
Company, thot ite president would, in ites behalf, assign the
entire benefit accruing under the Shell contracts even to his
wife, for the amount loaned by her to the company to finanee it.
Such an assigument would necesearily have to be held to be a fraud
upon the ercditors of the companye If any assignment wos made to
Mrse Seff by the Seff Company on or about April 30, 19325 we are
MaTt heer het yhoo ores west of auaoues th eed Ot serena bean
fins tam asw 31s towane aga at domangtone Howe no watytet
to tnacknped ~iDee dyisesiditia «tea vonk dasld g2hOL .°h yoawcdet
-tednt vet wt neo odd sebogts of bohngonobnos ynObtagiiis abst?
agh abaw?t et fo csi oo Uremratees togetfe odd Yo mededvog gatagy
inadiel eit yd doset oo ddquee Thhintalg doldw »twxtmos edd whiny
semingead Sot nat ean beat deme ihna ile ji
sStiw ban brodsst yi tlatta wlimet # a Sivtenntgn ante seal
-too 2 dove to soentend odd fade Siem wood Vbatasgex aah $k deve
seideetow to linea a detest of en tedowbace wa Od Sonmee molsarog
aitiw opatineS sett neste asenttto on» wwe hinchinete: Rbk at ae
sokiavivesh ttetviwetk of? mi Sievert nohvetoqoo sts Yo ieqomm ot
sug isoroqupe ost de exodtbore Yo asinine 20 |
hetalgnsinos od Sake —aYied add Db ea ybokiiieed malioh —
thee sex of cage tet ef 9 Seta dedithioe deme .
“od wiaqune ed i ces ef shat sectors 02 seat omieee: i di
| ovat son Minoo smuems dad? |. toontuve cadwoltung nels wore?
tas beooos ost nt gomehive vidhbow on wl exes? s0OTd Bobdwoxe
ate of bonglern od 93 sow toxttaoy ed cebew aud, Sone Loar eat
qkolies atdé bepaommo fal Tiisebate cotta ye Tes eee. |
—ughues Begeila ony <ehme atalo a '33ee (at himeryd 84 ge
sdocinoy dd Re trtvenn Xue etd (R688 No eanen amare 0 hte _
Whos edu xe eGienés intone) att gettmblonee yetdtsetems eb ot
(eels maivan tistled eat mt <hneww eomttoeent Wit eat: cena |
std at nove ytoontmon Llodt old uobay getwcoos f ;
yeh Sonat? of yregues ott oF cal wé Denso tens ~ ‘okt
Aunxk @ of oF biel ed oF eved YLiinesonen kivow daumgises sie doa
et show cow drommgtans yar tl eganqmne eeth be axoctbere wil nO
| Ore ae GSERE (OE Ligh trode <6 0 -YRmgMED ree oe ve on od
“102
eonvineed that it was not the assignment received in evidenge
and relied upon by the intervenor and/ garnishee im this cause.
The manifestation of overreaching on the part of the
jeff etrengthens our opinion that this alleged assignment was
not in existence June 13, 1952, when thin proceeding was instituted,
or June 14, 1932, when summons in garnishment was served upon the
Outdoor Company. A careful inspection of the instrument must
yerify the suspicion that it wes bern of convenience and drafted
in an attempt to mect the peculiar facte ami circumetances of this
ease. It provides that “payments cre to be made * * * to Dorothy
Marie Seff * * * at the eption of Dorothy Marie Seff, We hereby
agree to notify the Outdoor * * * Ageney * * * that monthly pay~
ments be made to said Derothy Marie Seff, and we hereby agree to
turn over all moneys made payable in cheeka * * * which checks may
be made payable to H. Hy Seff Advertising Company, unless Dorothy
Marie Seff exercises her option to have notifiestion given te the
Gutdoor * * #,*
In her testimony Mrs. Seff indicated strongly that she
would not trust the Jeff Company with her moncy and stated that
nothing short of an assignment of the contract av security for
her money would satisfy her, Then, although the purported assigne
ment specifies that the monthly payments are to be made to her
direetly and that the ‘eff Company agreed to notify the Outdoor
Company to so make them, we are urged te believe that she accepted
an assignment that further provided that the payments might be made
payeble to the Seff Company. in his letter of July 30, 1932, to
MeCready, Seff states: “You will note * * * that notifiestion te
the debtor is waived.” On the contrary, the alleged assignment
specifically provided that, “We (Seff Company) hereby agree to
notify the Outdoor * * * Agency * * * that monthly payments be made
=OL-
ennebkys al bevieout saxenpions edt don vow 32 dade boontvney
aeaiod abet mt onda hecegy na someviein?t off qd meq Beliot han
ois Yo dug elf mo yuldesetieve to sdiateotions OAT
now Smommalens beyutlea ald’ ded? metatqo we enuddynesia etter
shedgtizen? eae gatbereowy ald? mew gSi@h off onwl soetalxe BE ton
ett megs bertee saw é@noulaiatey ni atiomuwe tiie gles et onus 80
tama tmemertiant od to noidooqent Ivterse A .ynaqaed coobded
hogiant Sees comets Ye mod war of tat? wolotqans ont ythrov
aldt to seonstaawotts tae udest totiveeg etl? doom of dquedéa me al
uldoxt! of * * © ebm of of ote wdmemeng” edd eobiverq #2 senso
vderwed © 4 tte! ettet ylieved to motiqs ele ta « + Veet whan
yoq Yiiltnam todd * # * yonegs © % ¥ eoobéad Bd Ubon OF BOTyS
0? sors vores ww ims ytked ofteM widexed bist of obast 6d aéeion
You astnedo doidw * #4 sooo at ofdoyen shed eyonon Lie tovo must
Vioxor owoLay eyRaqUOD gutAhtrovs TheG VK ik Od | oe 2
ott of wovig mobiastiives evad of notiqa xed gouty
he + + oon
oils dads YLanetin sedaeibat Yea ee ee
fasts hedede han Yano wed ite prayed Wied a guard 90m ASO
| fot yitwoee as toeténoe ot? Yo Jeommptond as to Peers ymition
aac bedtoyteg adf dowosldin .nedT tet Ylatiae tivow anos sed
sgost oF ebm od of ote aduemee Yidsnom ostd ‘tart? ae.
aeobtud as ytitor of teense wang” Yee edd dade bea toe th
betyovssz ode dad? evelted of hogy ome ow suteals oan 08 oF ‘m0
cham ad dityte adoonyeg ost Sat bedivery wetdew? ded dnommgl a0
od EOL .O viwt Ye vedver ols aT .qnoqudd Yel odd of ofdavee
of motdsottiion gad} © * © pton LLtw woY” seotade Yor qxhaerdell
daounghuas begella ede sWesitoe asl? 0 Wert chgn bd
ed corps Ydornd (ymeguod The) i baldd’ seks os “wb
sham of wdmeeryor vistsnon dusld ‘eh omogi * # # pode ia
«te
te said Dorothy Marie Seff.*
The alleged acsignment iteclf is = contradiction in
terms. As heretofore stated the Outdoor Company received no notice
of it until leng after ite purported execution ani long after pay-
oe discontinued beesuse of the services of the garnishee
summons upon it, the first payment under the contract having been
made te the Seff Company. The only conceivable manner in which
we gon account for the strange verbiage of this instrument is that
it was drawn in an attempt to fit the situation as 1t existed July
30, 1932. Under all the facts and circumstances of thie cane we
find no justification in the record for the action of the Outdoor
Company in uaking payments under the contract in question te either
the Seff Company or Mre. Seff after it had been served with the
garnishee summons.
A eareful examination of 211 the evidence in the record
impels ua to the conclusion that the trial court was entirely
warranted in ite finding and judgment, end that, in any event,
considering the many improbabilities and inconsistencies in the
evidence offered by the garnishee and intervenor, this court
could mot held that the finding and judgment were against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
This appesl was brought here under the Civil Practice
Aet, Cahill's Statutes, chapter 110, page 129, et segs, and it is
urged that plaintiff's brief and argument should be stricken from
the files of this court because he failed to file in the trial
court his notice of appenrance after appellants had filed there
their notice of appeal ac provided by rule 35 of the rules of
practice and procedure adopted by our Supreme Court at its
December, 1933, term. Plaintiff's counsel asserts that this is
the first appeal under the new Civil Practice et in which he
# Phew ofr wena She 0
ak mobiolbeattnes @ er ‘Stven “Shree Fea — mee Rake
eolvem et tevtedert treged roehéyd oft bedava ov
«yoy tedtts got tne aelfesexs bedtugtme wf 6d ke pated
Meee teeta ol? LO oobeteN eo YO wrieedod pewmbdmodElb ‘moe
fixed grivart dootsvoo etd tobtw dnomyeq deedt add .¢2 stéqw Bhomite
Hotde mi aecrtiow efdavioonos elec od? + Ymaqmod “‘Ytes est? a? ‘épum
Gait ot Snomution? ald) Yo ogatdrav ogadotha only td? thvedes nay Bw
‘eivt bodatie 9? od mobdawdta ont 242 oF dqmodda na at treed we G2
Wi? eurd ald) to edonivenotls hme vest of cts deka “Vaeet Vox
teoStH0 sie ‘to motted edé to? bxGoet oatt at ‘nOTiioed ident oft Bake
xodbhe 6d MOktecep ‘ni fouxttes “ot! ty beut ebcanct gaa 'nd “olde
hendasntnedanteneivachiciaeroboee eT tr awit
prover ott mi eomebtye tft Ltn te uotdontwane sisi erated
“koutsme sow ewes Eeted vd? dostd wobbvtondn a i alog
eineve ye mt giant bas edreargiour, ban oithnt’s ut oe
ett! 2 abkorisduteroont bre webs tiidadorgnt et ei Lerner
sginoo ‘andd gtemevxedet bea eudakerny eld ‘et 519
‘oat datas ete# hnem-eidin bas ciel add sot Se 6 ii
oustive sili Ye dikgtow ductima
sokigart Livid od? tehay ove totyuord naw toouss diet” ee 0 ‘
al #b fins spade to eO8L oped GEE todqeds yavtudade o*ixtiled \¥oh
“pga? omlefsds od bhsede demeaugia hoo torte ivi dg tad? bopics
Eats? oid mt o£E% 08 etter oof obbiavdd dtvoy etdd RO hott oil
‘etinats bee? Bast einaliouga aod'ts vonocaeage % evtion lil’ $80
| “ts soley sald Yo G6 oer yt tohiverg ua Lavege to eodéon xhedt
agt oa dumed emrorrgare 0 a ‘hetqoba semooeng bead ‘08 vatg
as aude “dat advenss foamseo ‘ofiteabsts ses tid ‘comme
r.
eo it # be Pag
sa rar al ‘tea ecktonnt tivio won le ote awa
ut a
~12e
participated; that he, being somewhat unfamiliar with the
rules of court and the act itself governing appeals, sought
advice ond guidance from the office of the clerk of this court
and followed it, and that hiv failure to file notice of his
appearsuce in the Municipal court after notice of appeal
resulted ian ne injury to appelianis.
She Civil Practies act was enacted to assist litigante
in having their caves tried - not te keep them from trying shair
eases. ‘ie are not iuelined te indulge in highly technical
interpretations ef this act ~ eapeeially uaiil it is generally
and uniformly understoed. Inasuueh «as appellants suffered no
injury by reasen of plaintifi's failure 4o file such appearance
in the trial court, the motion te strike plaintiff's brief and
argument, reserved to hearing, is demied. (Schnorick v-
Prudential insurange Comeamy, 277 111- App. 36.)
For the reasons inlieuicd herela the juigment of
the Bunicipal court is affirmed.
APE IR MAD «
Gridley, Ps. Js, and Seanlen, J., coneure
ai détw aeklinetes talvawes gated ~ot dedd “qhetagtoliaeg
tsigues seleogge pnderevog Weeks tos ont hua dxwoy Yo vole
| deo ebdé te aivede ods 2e sodtte ond wont camebiug das opkbas
Qh le eetton o£b3 of emtted adh dod? dme ath ghowel tet him.
dewega te eedsos sanshuaeinatobesiousitne 6 ye
~tathaht pres tenes adn side
Hiatt ARSE sO aes CRO 8t A = NO SO Ey
dnedmiioed Uuigiit ni plana of donttand fom 926-91. .9oneR
cttoreneg at sclansealadseieitaiabiaapbuantestatevimsiied
—
“Be taemgiut, ot, moaned botne, Raikes |
AB ar Wh Yer ap were we p epte Phys tan
Bree 4s ae ake ee is
wae gy elgigge
‘ A iss § -
SiMe OLS Bg stores fe PTL EARS
4s 4 CORE RR Fok Beis ORM F
strono® a’ < *
1 iit é Ht i : . pia sah ; : maa § Ab ap Sas % wed Pa
2
a arene Vy & He
Se eS
eT ee: oe ti mae gare ey Bi ¥ Rees a rs OB To é o Wey, wt te chine a Ms
i y | oF
$7537 at ‘ on nl |
* wut ; i
FRED MEYER, f
Appellees , fe 4
ve APPRAL FROM MUNICIPAL
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY, COURT OF CHICAGG.
a corporation,
F delle G ww VU
MR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVEERD THE OPINION OF THE coURT.
This is an assumpsit action brought January 2, 1934,
upon three corporate first mortgage bonds of $1,000 each, all
dated December 1, 1923, executed by defendant and payable to
the bearer or his order December 1, 1933. Upon plaintiff's
motion defendant's amended statement of defense was stricken
on the ground that it was insufficient in law and did not
state a defense. Defendant electing to abide by its statement
of dations, an order of default was entered against it, plain
tiff's damages were assessed at $3,061.26, and judgment entered
for that amount. This appeal followed.
| Plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that December
1, 1923, defendant executed a series of firat mortgage bonds
aggregating $300,000, payable to bearer at different maturities
with interest at 7% per annum that he is the owner of three —
such bonds of $1,000 each3 that all three bonds matured December
ly 1933, but have not been paid by defendmt or anyone in its
behalf; and that there is now due and owing him from defendant
$3,000. (Included in the statement of claim is a photostatic
copy of one of the bonds.)
| Defendant's amended statement of defense, after admit-
‘
} wilt
4 is mth
| N — >,
Lt Sc F
% 7h bt
sa oh, I
ZATIDINVM MORE TARWTA
QOR4DTHO TO TATOO
Pers
rope
“ SysUOO SEY TO WOTKTCO SH? Gimme stihl wis
te
q "a he ag
hithS dh vaca, adamted okie semen, no at et
Lia tose 900,f9 Yo abmod egegtrtom gattt ¢
of eldoyeq hon inabasteh yo beduvexs 88 ohm ot |
xodacost tadt begetio miaLo tn oxamedate onesies ty
ehnod ependrom gertt te weltoe as betuoexe | tuabaoren
veldiuiam teoret2tbh a teased 98 eidayen £200, 0088 ae
porte te sonwe edd ek of dont gman neq BF te 4 rx ah thw :
aeduoso bettan abcod sorts iis tatt yloae 0004.08 to mela
wee ak enor to dmbaotso yd “, wood tom ovat Hat att een ys
-2e
ting the execution of the bonds and their maturities according to
their terms, alleged that plaintiff is not entitled to maintain
this action against it for the reasons, inter alia, below set
forth:
“Bach of ths bonds described in the statement of
claim specifies on its face that it is one of a series secured
by a first mortgage or deed of trust of even date with avid
bonds, duly authenticated, acknowledged and delivered, con-
veying the property and assets of the Ludlow Typograph Company
then owned or which may thereafter be acquired by said
Corporation, including real estate in Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois. Zach of said bonds also contains, inter alia, the
followings
“*tReference is hereby expressly made to said trust
deed for a particular deseription of the terms and conditions
thereof on which said bonds are issued and secured; and for a
deseription of the nature and extent of the security therefor
and the rights 6f the bondholders with regard to sueh seeurity.t
“Said trust deed (Article XVIII) provides as follows:
“tit is hereby declared and agreed as a condition
upon which each auccessive holder of 211 or any of said bonds,
and all or any of the coupoms for the interest on said bonds,
reeeives and holds the same, that no holder or holders of any
of said bonds or coupons shall have the right to institute any
proceedings in equity, ef any character or kind, for the fore-
Closure of this Indenture, or for the execution of the trusts
hereof, or for the appointment of a receiver, or for any other
remedy under thie mortgage or decd of trust, or the lien hereby
created, or otherwise, without first giving notice in writing
to the Trustee of default having been maie and continued as
aforesaid, and unless the holders of one-fifth (1/6) of the
amount of the then outstanding bonds have in writing notified
aud requested the said Trustee as above provided (and a reason-
able opportunity has been afforded to the Trustee, after the
receipt of such notice and request, to proceed and exercise the
powers herinbefore granted or to institute such action, suit or
proceeding in the Trustee's ewn mame), and without also having
offered to the Trustee security and indemnity satisfactory to
it ageinst the costs, expenses and liabilities te be by the
Trustee incurred therein or thereby3 and such notice, request
and offer of indemnity may be required by the Trustee as a
condition prevedent to the execution of the powers and trusts of
this Indenture, or to the institution of any action in equity for
the foreclosure hereof, for the appointment of 2» receiver, or for
any other remedy hereunder, or otherwise, in case of such default
as aforesaid in payment of the prineipal of any of said bonds, in
the payment of any semi-annual installment of the interest thereon,
or any other default by the Company, its successors or assigns, or
failure to perform any of the covenants or stipulations hereof,
to be kept and performed on its part.
“9snd it is alse agreed that no holder or holders of
any of the said bonds, or any of the said interest coupons in-
tended te be hereby secured, shall institute any suit, action
or proceeding in equity for the foreclosure hereof, or for
the appointment of a receiver, or ony action cither at law or
in equity for the collection of any of the money evidenced by
such bonds or coupons otherwise than upon the terms and con-
ditions and in the manner herein provided.'
he
od gulibieoes geldiausem “ied? bon abaod add to meiiwoexe off yeti
nisdaten o¢ beleigne Jom ai Thitnialy da? hopelia .amre? thedd
tou wolod gnife todmt .amonnot edd cot ¢2 damboge notdon wate
to inemedate oss mi hbodixesed abmod eds Be Hoak”® >
hewmen agites a to one ei Of gadd gost atl ao gf OE miaLe
hive clétw odcb meve to ganze Yo bood xo om tavit a yd
“noo ,~howevideh hus begbolwomion ,bedeolinetiiva yinh qubnod.
yasque? dgamogy? woltul ed? to atesas bax YWasqoug’ oe J gaily
bies yd bexinpos ed rettantedé yom doldy to benwe ne
eae 9 dood yoneotdd ai etatss Inex gat bekont ghotts: “0g T
eid gaife wint ,walednoo opie abped bles to deat sailor
tgatwollo
tauz$ Sina of shect YLueangxe ydeced.e@t sentereteit’
atoitionoe bre amet et to sotiqivoesh tskwotéxeq a tet |
& 70% bee thetwooe been hewont exe abaod blew mg oo no teexved
{totetadd ytinweos eld to ¢retu hie esmdanm4 :
',ysiavoss sovu o¢ busgex Allw aebLonbaod ead | * ocd on
sawgliat ae sebivetg (ILIVE efeigzaA) gee 8 te ERB! 0, 98 Ciciul
noisibnos a ae beetae bes berafoeh yde rar i.
rained bkes to yne “vo fle to sebtod syiagem
ena bise oo taetsdnt edd tok emoquoo odd
, Se axebled to usblod on dad? .oman att ah,
on ‘otudtiant od vagix odd evad fier Rape yo
~etot oft vol abaid co tefonxedo yas iia si be9o:
Saar ay oune
ateutd of¢ to noliiveexs edd tot vo
toto Ura tol xo ,xaviases 2 to Jdnemialogge lg ky
udered mokt ef) te ,teurd te ‘boeb ‘to open a Ybbaot
guitiqw ai sotson gatvig gaxtt twodtin phon see is ey besasto
Be besmideod bie ebhat nosd gitPyad | tivaleh to seveutl od oF
eid to (é\f) dttit~eno 20 srebied aft saetaw one BaO%0 Le
‘beltisar gatiizw x? overt abmed yotbaededue ‘wens “taste :
~soraet 2 bee} hobivesq eveds as ootenmtT bisa asi?
eid xovle ,ooteuxt ed of bobo tin need wail ys teverogg
eid geiorexs bre beesowg of ydasupet bus soliton dowe te aq
xo dine ,motion dove stuiivent of w bednevy oxebedi@red
pelvad eale éuocdiiw bus , (omen owe a'oedetT afd ot ;
ot Yrotostulvaa yélomebnt baw yhiuteoe er ee ryt
odg yd od of esiti{idall bas aennwegne
faevpet .ookionm dou bua pedevardti xe seooeats
&® es secvuuzT od? yd bewinpet od yan penne bs
Xo aterxé bas euoweg edd te metdusexe and od. des ra
Tat Yinpe aL melios yao to Bsoltingizent ad? of to 2 OTH fi
wal to ,revicve: w to tmenttnkogqe ef? wot » koe vor Sree,
tineteh sews to saac ak sceneners x6 Posy nome ¥
me vennne biow to we 2e dag om oe. walt bad ame a
esoeted? Sueredat odd te Fiaelioke mee une to Je
XO qifighvas 10 ayouusoowa ad! » yasqeed on ead, 7 ekuateb 2
stoored enoltaiugise re atmeneveo ed? Yo ths rags B
: «ieee edt ao me atyer cabal =
to exebfon xo tebfed en desl’ heotgs wee at pcs |
~ni enaguen Jaotedni bing oft Xo Wea 40 <a
moldos lime yas etudivant LLasts betes : 70
2% Xo giowtont oumaelsexe? exid rok ys | fit gril besoon
‘en wal ta tedéie molten ys to ,xorkooet eco. 2 rom a wat
YE boerabive Yeo oft te ye fe motieetion pad ste pe
--H09 Rae sured eas moqw ait eatwradie aseqwoo foste
',bobiverg miened tennan ond mt Pho enoleth |
«So
"Plaintiff had due notice of the terms and conditions
of said trust deed and of the terms and conditions under which
the said bonds were issued, and was not and is not a bona fid
Ges 'ceatis nels sinttctions sad Getenese cheve eet forthe”
ditions prosetents "Wadenn ecid eenlitions and cagh ef sham”
legal Tight te maintain Rin caid wuis against the seid defendnats"
Defendant contenis that by the express provisions of
the bonde and the conditions in the trust deed to whieh they make
reference, the plaintiff, whe did not comply with those conditions,
is barred from maintaining this action; that plaintiff is bound in
particular by the condition that no bendholder shall sue at law
on the bonds unless the holder of at least 1/5 of the amount of the
bonds outstanding shall first have made demand upon the trustee
that it take action; and that the reference in the bonds to the
trust deed is sufficiently explicit to incorporate inte them its
terms, at least to the extent that plaintiff was put on notice of
that provision of the trust dead which limited his right to bring
this suit.
Tro questions are presented for our consideration on
this appeal in determining the sufficiency ef defendant's amended
statement of defense. le Aseuming that the bonds im question
contain adequate and clear reference to all of the restrictions
contained in the trust deed, fe there any limitation in any
provision of the trust deed of plaintiff's right to maintain this
action at law? 2. Has plaintiff » right te sue at law for the
recovery of the amount of these bonds or is he relegated to the
provisions of the alleged “no action eleuse” in the trust decd?
Although a eereful examination of all of the prebintiee
of the trust deed leaves us in scricus dowbt as to whether it
eontaina any limitation, even by implication, of plaintiff's
Fight to sue at law on his bonds, we deem it unnecessary to decide
geeks ibnes bre sored edd. to enhton: mh Semel |
aoise x0 bes d's Gon ei tan om eng Mh to bus booh dai
te ed a on eer or gb
non les enya Pe b eter on aaa oa t
2, tou evede segnetob haw saolaed
~00 pondy pyle baa bosut taancs gp iy eto
os: te dome bee estoldivbnes blew aaeioU =.
natl bein bal Yikdwlaty ,bebtalina bar a. ote
* tania bon sale sos age diem bhea kd mlasnbes m4 bad Eman
te smotai vere wore eld Nt nda alates F ' Aine
xi bawod at Widalaty ‘tats ination sida ee: a0 bs
wed ty oor LLesta sobLosaavd on toad fats thoas ate wt rm
ati to Hhwous edt Ye OE Mnees ee Yo TedsOd wit oe |
oodgere eit? noe basae b Sbrat ovat dere “ant
aut Of chmod aot mt ‘eonoreter ott teste em matte:
edb moss baad stesiypbaat oe Lima vomne c
oa Sea) kee api ib yt erottas
joe laren s ‘énehno teh Re yomidol tine welt it tmxe
- Matdeawp mh atmoc sale dart peta de m3
anokiabsas one 20 ila od sonete ten vio Le
cymes tb matted bake yaa onde ad, boar tas
ants mietmtow oe ‘aright oVRibtminkg, 20 bon t
mete: 0% wal te ome. et igh * beeen: eal
$8 estas oe on 5 2600 | eva a ws “= ae
TA cee Spel ies
are see
. “i iy t at F
a4-
the first .uestion inasmuch as our determination of the second
question will be conclusive of the issues presented.
In the recent case of Oswianza v. Wengler & Mandell,
358 Ill. 302, the trust deed under which the bonds were issued
contained the following provisions:
“Every holder of any of the bonds hereby secured
(including pledgee) accepts the same subject to the express
understanding and agreement that every right of action,
whether at law or in equity, upon or under this indenture, is
vested exelusively in the trustee, and under no circumstances
shall the holder of any bond oy coupon or any number or
combination of such holders, have any right to institute any
action at law upon any bond or bonds or any coupon er coupons
or otherwise, or any suit or proceeding in equity or otherwise,
ene in ease of refusal on the part of the trustesc to perform
any duty imposed upon it by this indenture after request in
writing the holder or holders of at least twenty-five per
eent (25%), in amount, of said bonds ss aforesaid, and such
refusal of the trustee shall continue for sixty (60) days after
such demand as aforesaid. Wo action at law or in ecauity shall
be brought by or on behalf of the holder or holders of «ny bonds
or coupons, whether or not the same be past due, except by the
trustee or by the requisite number of sondholders acting in
concert under the provisions of this section for the benefit of
all bondholderae In the event that pursuant to the terms hereof
holders ef at least twenty-five per cent (257) or more, in amount,
of said bonds shall have joined in exercising the right to act
in lieu of the trustee, then mone of the remaining bondholders
shall have any right to institute any legal procesdings of the
same or a similar character for the sume default of the mortgagor."
The recitals contained in the bond in that case upon
which the defendant/ relied as adevuately incorporating into the
bonds by reference the above provisions of the trust deed con-
taining the so-called "no action clause" are as follows:
“Said trust deed and this bond, as well as all the
other bonds aforesaid, are to be taken and considered together
as parts of one and the same contract. * * * Both principal
and interest bear interest after maturity thereof at the rate
of seven per cent (7%) per annum and are payable in the manner
described in the trust deed * * *, For a deseription of the
mortgaged property and the nature and extent of the security
reference is made to said trust deed, to all of the provisions
of which this bend and each coupon hereto atteeched are subject,
ee same effect as if said trust deed were herein fully
set forth.”
This court in deciding a question similar to that
presented here in the recent case of Cummings v. Michigan-Lake
Building Corpe, 277 Illes Appe 470, quoted from the Oswianza
be
Snooos oft te molvantexetes io a9 damnanh sotdeesy tart? nt
sbeseonsmm sewaal atid Lo evieutomoo od tie howe
iis bral A xe fgnel «¥ aanalead Ye. once Smpeen. eutt ee
bewast beer abned of? dbidw coor bead dated. ott R08 LEE ge
saoieiveng andwoLto? edt seuiaanos
bexsoee sed abnod edd to yo Io tobted yrewey
pastexe offs of Sooldve asa oft aéqesos yer 5 noo toh
ssottos te ddaiz. gueve daatd épensotaa ;
at -otrdme hut aid? tebe te : oy iupe ni <0 eed ta 3 |
seonsiguwestc on tebiy baa. ¢ee ome mf bi
<0 tedanm Yh 16 MogMeO tO
Ye efsdisunt of digit yoo evad «areal
BROGNOD TO MogiOn Ys TO ehrod to
eeatwsedtzo to yWinpe ct rb fang 08 :
mrottog of Setanxd oe : Xe
mi feerpet teits e eins yd neq
se¢ oviteytnow? rong v H Sen be bLo
owe aee1gts es she &
tatits phar gy J yim nah tot sunignoo Tieden Ls ao
fiede ywinpe si to wal is molios of . :
abned yc to arsbled to tebied af? to
alt yd tyeoxe yeub fang od semen aft tom 38)
mt oniios atebLodinod Yo todmun evialnpe
te ditoned ot xot motioos aid? to aneleive
teotad xorted off of tnavarug Jatt tnove cra
«<tnwome mi .oxtom to (RES) Inpo tag evi sett te
» aa od Stigia ads yutsiorox bonito fs,
uxeblotbaed anintemes add to enon aoodr
ous to egnibsesotg Inget yrs otutijans ad '
Ratan esoret ede To iisateb ents wind vor codestedo™ val
ae
e109 beab teusd oat to caoehvorg oveda ea ied :
tewollel 22 eis "oouale noivos ost
oid ifs um Liew us abaod aid? iets boob sats
wetijeges betsbianes das nooiad od ad eta 4B.
legieonizg Sdd0k * * * ,tenténos somes oat ‘ho
etet ofS 22 looted? Yiintss tetvte taet
ant weed +
Tanen ens mk a ets MENG ay
et to moks canae Aik ee sent
Uti cede ‘Z tnoixe bitte etuden ef? bre YotegotT™ | EGY
anoiLelverg edd ae) fig of gbeeh janté bine oF ab sunete lot
,toetdue ere betloatis ofet ae os 8 a Hoidw to
_. Lis? wlesed ster hes’ thon | ben D00The: cath apse
Pra Se!
Wer ee .
ddd 62 takinic seidepar a pathieed at tu00 ana
oa
ap Oe keen
a 1 :
statnnmishit «7 sina Yo seo inooot ald at 9 oe be at
il Sis ie
" ‘gesetwed xd mort hetoup .OTS saga + Lft vee, a £0 |
-5=
ease, the following: (Pages 475 and 476.)
"It follows that if there be read into the bonds in
this ease the no-action provisions of the trust deed it must be
by on appropriate reference found in the bond. * * * This case
resolves iteelf ihto the question whether there ir in the bond
lenguage which may reasonably be seid to incorporate therein, by
reference, the no-axction clause eof the trust deed. * * * The
language is so phrased and arranged as to strongly indicate that
the obliger was spesking solely of the security. ‘The purchaser
of those bonds would not be impressed with ony other thought.
It would not occur to him, from this language, that in case the
bouds were defaulted on maturity, os ie true here, he might be
unable to collect beeause of some provision in the trust deed
limiting his power to sue «t law. Unforcement against the
seeurity and » suit at law are metters of redieslly different
import, and to destroy the right to sue at law, a provision of
such character in the trust deed must be included im the bond,
expressly er by elear reference thereto. Sturgis Nat. Bank
ve Harris. tr is and. Says 3 Baits (351 Thi. 465); caged
VY; Branden, @ We ¥e + * * © The importance
of bonds of cats character as eomnarcial paper requires that
limitation on the right to sue, opyearing in another instrument,
be so clearly referred to in the bond that the purchaser of the
bond will not be decsived but will be notified thet he is to
leek further to know his rights as a bondholder. If a principle
of publie poliey be invoked, it is quite important that in the
traffie of bends the prospective purchaser thereof know from the
bond what search of the trust deed or mortgage is necessury in
order te learn his rights. * * * If the common lew rights of
the helder are to bs limited 14 must be done by appropriate
referenee in the bond to the previsions of the trust deed or
mortgage, that he may have warning that his right to sue in cuse
red pr ys is limited by something not appearing in the bond
Beh .
The prevision of the bonds in the cuse at bar that
defendant relies upon as containing a sufficiently clear ceference
te what it elaims is the “no-action clause” of the trust deed
herein or such reference “as will reasonably put the bend purchuser
en netice that he must consult the trust deed in order to as¢ere
tain his rights” ia as follows:
"Reference is hereby expressly wade to said trust deed
for « particular deseription of the terms and conditions thereof
on waish said bonds are issued and secured; and for a yg pore
of the mature and extent of the security therefer; sad the
ef the bondholders with regard ta such securitye
“This bond may become due and payable in case of
default in accordance ef the provisions of seid trust deode*
; Defendant insists that the word "issued" in the manner
in which it ie used in the phraseology of the above provision
renders the referenee contained in the bends here te the terms
(.0%D bite 3VS aeget) tative Lo? ott ,oags
nt abuod eff etnt hoor og oests St thalt awed #1" sl) oo
od gaum ii besth Jeuxs efi © onoletvesq not doa~on ode came ahs
ease eielt * * * wbheed wid.m dated wor
auod sdf ei 2 weeds teddecly molieomp odd otdt Le
Ut ycionerls sdereqioond O¢ dee od Yidananae x Yoon
owt + * © ,08 durée ext to watelo solios~on afd |
tad) edeoitet qiguotta of ea bogmatta be beawedg oa ab. epew
xepetko ant? Ha age aay To be ge wititetge eaw toglts
ed ¢. tedzo, una ditw bopaed fom olvew eheed see
ois coon ol vedi, apemnent ald ype a qmia. os tu
ad ivpim ef .oted eect of em eychradee mo bed! a
boob fauud oft ot Gs wd VO Tey emge to aascoed goutfeo
wR tanlege depeere tee . pans an ~ ot %eveqg, wis
soar lane b apeipee a of oe areddent 9% pre oe a a ae
to moinivose @ ywal da enn. of tagia. Ord nd
ahead. eng ul bebwkont ed team bewh gaterd wad mi te
dat » tet giecai «etwunds eeeexe tox, upp
oun (doh <0 £2) ee . brie, oma
oumatecan et & ** Sw y4 ee * i
fasd wvxlaner xeqee Istovennos eq tetp: ane “aha,
sikamivagond “caitenn mt priveegys .ove oF tapi ead.
elf to xeustioswg edt Jad? beod eld mi. of Foie fans to
ge ab ad dest pebtigon of Litw ged O°.
eigionize u Xl. »tebfosdinod « we sitdlatc p bes
edt oi tadd tnedsogn! wetiep wf, ah pre
edd mont worol teeter saeco tg avldeoqae abe
pk “egrets Saag ogagirom «¢ heeb dnartd ole Pin’. ;
1 he atiigts wei soups ede Teo * * % pen bs
‘ stulzgorgga Yd nnoo o¢ dumm ch hothads ad;
te beoh taurd odd to anoltagiveng ad? ne. fed
eam ok oun of digit ald sede gehazenw ovad,'
Boa eae BL sanicahe i don — beth
date and ds saco eld oi abned edd 2e cient pe ree
eouptskex wsete yliaciat tins .o gaiaiadaas ‘pe ‘logs. prope ‘i »
bees tawtt edt bo “eeuelo maldon-an" oad wk. re:
teautomg badd alt Jaq gleanenant Side as
hoeb. ¢aued biaa of ghana Yano a0, sta To
loeteds abolvitnes Lea serted | tO tm he
siastr ae aut hte t bemNOee has. whe f
$ off doe {70 ke vend G2 SGhnee ead ke d
owe hiwvees Moire 04. bt ages
fee oan ni ohdeyea bas ob. c
* hash lanes Rhee to Rist alveue ‘eat Ailes»
Tenten odd mk "besead” baow ath hal atodger
and conditions of the trust deed, adequate and sufficient to
restrict plaintiff's right to his action at law.
We are unable to agree with this contention and are
of the opinion that the reasoning of the court in the Oswianza
ease, as applied to the reference provision of the bond there,
is pecularily applicable to the reference provision of the bond
here. The word “issued” is coupled with the word secured and
in tho brief compass of three printed lines on the bonds, econ-
taining the above recital, the words “secured” or “security”
eceur three times.
In noch v- Brandon, 249 N. Ys 263, the recital in
the bonds referring to the trust mortgage else used the language
“the terms and conditions undsr which said bonds are issued
and secured"and was as follows’
"* * * to which reference is hereby made for a
deseription of the property mortgaged and pledged, the nature
and extent of the security, the rights of the holders of the
bonds with respect thereto, the manner in which notice may be
given to such holders, and the terms and conditions under
which said bonds are issued and secured." (italics ours.)
There the court said in conetruing this recital at pages 268
and 269%
"The provisions all have to do with the trust mortgage.
They refer to the rights conferred by it upon the bondholder and
limit and explain those rights. They are so linked together as
te indicate that the obligor was speaking solely of the security.
A purchaser scanning the bonds would have the same thought. I¢
would never oceur toe him that when November 1, 1941, arrived,
beeause of something contained in the mortgage he might be unable
to collect the amount due him. He would interpret the statement
that the bonds were secured by and entitled to the benefits and
subject to the provisions of the mortgage, as meaning that a
foreclosure or other relief might be had thereunder only subject
te its provisions. He would see that reference to it is also
made to determine the terma and conditions under which the bonds
are issued and secured. Again it would mean to him as it means
to us, that only by turning to the mortgage might he discover
the precise nature of the lien he is to obtain. He would see
that the bonds were to be issued not only upon the general eredit
ef the corporation, but upon the faith ef some collateral
mortgage. To it he met go if further imowledge 2s to this
security is desired."
The opinion in the Oswianza case was filed before
od insloltive ban stavpabs, shes dtauxd edd te enetdtoace baw
ek to olson ale op sodgie am inhhaptnds sotréast
OR ae tee
ete hata noricednes dale, sid bw 207HA ri ons: ate ‘of... ica aie
De Sea 3D 6 Wadi 22-2
asses st nh son oft Yo aetmoanoe ed dnd naknig®
5 TR NAAR. yet Ha pray hay
ore heod ed Re fo batvexa opmaeket eng ot noblaga va a8 shag
gorse wie
baod odd. *o halves sonetetet ede ‘Oe ekeaoiiege
ac Jaye ine pee ry
ass bouwose buow neté tw ‘betguran at " bemraak™ btow att
i Aig a fl
=709, gabnod edd BO wonez boda ts scouts. ko BB ATOD os
AeA al Hales a as hi
mytsuosa” £0 *poxusoon” absow ost iad toon eves etd r
ath
4 ‘
ditty: OS SSN ea ge one x,
ia. res ao
ep sirymas ond beaut bute euigeees janes eat’ oe Bas nod one
¥g Set ale
‘Roveak ote ebsod Bisa setae ‘eo tie cade A 8 aired
esudnc estt boghetg om bogend rem | a analy ty
ont to. oes pe ep Ee — wae
e aolvon Ww ‘sonra it
wee anos iboog hae martes ‘edd bia
{.wxwe aotingt) “.hetwocea buns
858 asgeq de Lasiven elds guiotienos, at bias, dimeo odd + :
anion saat oxid Se bw | arotalvo te re kk oid
me tabLodhaod za cy oma, tigit on? oF ; .
aa sadtopos Pesinit on ets Fy saiigks enont platqxe brs
Seatdieen nn to Yfetou yr a oe te etd teld 00
oz + dhgwosde end ova Z Magri ons 2 ; te ,
ghevia«us , ther .f teduevet geste | 2%
eitany of trigia onl onend ten odd a .
tremetstie add getquetni Siwow of
bra etiieroad esl’ oF bololine baa
“# tate pmineom an . ep: i
fongdwe yksto xehnvexodd her od teiyin Tettor
ouis ai ti of eometetet Pant ood” w OH
‘whned ond doiaw +ebpar caret ional ta pe Bg mh
uteom 3i' as mtd of meen bLeow $f amt:
veveoalh af idate apegd ton ang
gee SIvow of yrange of ak ‘oni —
tthexe inxenoy ef? nog. tess hee Fa pew abst
Sertetatios one To dd tot oat edt Jor9¢
Nad od we egbelwons codtawt th regen oe
: ciao DOLLY gow Sam sxmatwed esto mi mols
Fo
defendant filed its reply brief in this cause and defendant's
counsel] earnestly urge that the cases of Ledgerwood v. Hale &
Kilburne, 47 Ved.(2d) 518, Crosthwaite v. Moline Plow Co., 298
Fed. 466, and Oster ve Building Development CO, 252 Ne We
(Wis.) 168, which the Supreme Court, in the Oswianza case, dis-
tinguished on the facts of each as containing sufficient and
adequate language on the notes or bonds therein, to incorporate
by reference limitations in the respective trust deeds or agree-
ments on the right of individual noteholders or bondholders to
bring an action at law to recover, uphold their contention that
the reference in the bonds in the instant case was also sufficient
and adequate for the same purpose. ‘‘¢ are umable to agree with
counsels’ contention.
It is also urged that, inasmuch as the amended state-
ment of defense averred that plaintiff was net a purchaser of the
bonds in due course before maturity without notice of the limita-
tions set out in the bonds and trust deed, a sufficient defense
was stated and that the statement of defense wae therefore
erroneously stricken by the trial court.
In connectton with its wajor contention that plaintiff's
right to sue st law om his bonds was restricted by the alleged
"no action clause” of the trust deed, the defendent strenuously
insisted that negotiability of the bonds was not the test as toe
Plaintiff's right to bring this action at law. in the instant
eontention it advanees rules governing negotiable ins truments
in support of this alleged defenses
The questions arising in this case are primarily
questions of contract, and, regardless of the question of the
negotiability of these bonds, the real question here is whether
the bonds by their terms are subject to any provisions of the
be id
a'iashao'teb bas SAND oer ai gored eget, att boris tnnbaetes
% efsk »¥ boowsanbot to ae2s9 asta taste opm ‘Utoontse “Eeanwos |
BES .209 wolt omtion . $ e8L8 (58). b0% ve seer IN
oW olf RUS 4.0 inommoloros aebhLins +¥ xsd80 ne nad «hott
“ath ,eeso azisiwed @ edt mi yduwod omerega exid donee s80E (ate)
“fee tnotottive gatuiadnos ex tose to etost esta 0 ba dagens
sdarogroon! od .wtoredt ahned xe aodoq out? mo erent sa pobe
-ontss to abeod taut eviesequey ard nt wot dnd tat 80 caxete one
of wxobfoxbned to stobLoriston Lacbtvihnt te iifgia wit 3 Pa atu
sand Holinetno hes bLodes popvenes. ot wok 9m nokzen rr autad
tuelol Yiws oals saw @ee0 dmngoatt extt oh a bao age ak sonoretox 3!
dite oetee of oXeeats xa ev sHeOg=Ny omaa all xe
-oisds bebneme ef? &s cdomeant tastd bent cas at a
esis oe xeaado tug @ fon caw viddubaste sett semnewe «
hy AY,
RP cea eo digs *
a Me
oe od oy
" rs, eee
canstsh jansbiiiua'a honk: tuexd-ensieheed i ai the 0, snict
stelexeds anv venstoh Yo tmometada ofS tad bie bedeth Few
| edxrwoo Laiud sais yd vinaaiaiiad Usirooneste
a'htidmiatg dnstd nolinedaon “rt. “wit mie, neRs
oe ee Saof ef? rie ay oad oli é weed ie
dnatiek ood at swak Ha notion scale sais on | - os pa
outs % nolia0up otis to avezprages shee a tino Yo ante! ined
eutbete ak eves oe ldassyp eet ol? anno? oueitt a eit ys pow a tied
compe Fgh
Be ae tk. *
siedd ué mtn oa
eid to anolalvorg oer ot tooteum ota azo?
-8-
trust deed affecting plaintiff's right to sue at law. We find
no merit in defendant's last contention and hold that its state-
ment of defense was properly stricken by the trial courte
Our decision is controlled by the QOswianze case,
inasmuch as the reference in the bonds here is limited to the
desoription, nature and extent of the security as it was in
that case, where the court concluded that “to hold that a
provision of the trust deed limiting the right to sue at law
was thus included by refermee is to bind the bondholder by
a stipulation of the trust deed, of which the bond gave him
no warning or notice.”
Yor the reasons indicated herein the judgment of
the Municipal court is affirmed.
AFF IRMEDe
Gridley, Pe Js, and Seanlan, Je, conceure
ee ae
Le rae
—
Sait oY .wel ts owe of tat bee a’shentatg: il ey ‘deeb
“viate es) dens bios bas moLinsd x09 toad an mt trem ox
‘tumes tales afd ye nextsirde Vesonorq cow ee
ae :e ratte! hall
eoasg sei bwad etd wW bettoxines at fo22005 ‘uO
eee aL Us
GEMS OM Ae a baal
bevad “od ‘bodtnart ak ove ahaod out at eonoxete a
oy ; ECA ae DARE pus rs
al aon ap as ‘lamas ‘ead to dneaxs ba oxtne wae +
Rin. hee Aye aires a heuer ay, aval Bea mld a
Rrvterbeterder sg tpg). *
meas eae Pe ps
wl és ome of tilate ota ait simas Deot tomes ou?
* t ARE ihe
“A rebLoittnod oat tute ot at somite w heb
< & re pet ti a
mtd ovay aod oi Hotaw 0 sboes rt
be oe | Ox Bhs f hte ae
: * ah Yd Ne: sok ik ol
te snows, exit atoxed ateotbat ane *«
cee my $ eh id
t . )
to deems wa ae aaah eines ’ ‘i
Une Sate? wih I pe hota ‘ananusetl
} Seka eey meh el ae WER ee eh riiiies is el sil
# ay v4
ae ¥ g Be fad
P Oh; Bad ee
> . Be? ; See A WX
pe Ph ARP aa
ee a ae a
ee
4
FRANK As AQUEAD, f
Appellant, a
APrHAL FROM MUNICIPAL
Ve
COUT OF CHICAGO.
GARL THORGEPSEN and
HANS OHK. BRICKURN,
aA
Appellees. 269 TA. 626°
WR. FUSTICR SULLIVAW DRLIVERED THE OPINION OF THA COURT,
en eee ae
This is an assweapsit action brought February 11, 1932,
by Vrank A. Aeskad, plaintiff, wpon four bonds of $1,000 each and
certain interest coupons attached thereto, all dated January 15,
1928, executed by defendants and payable te the bearer or his
order January 15, 1932. The case woe tried by the court without
a jury, the iscves found againet plaintiff and judgment entered
against him for costs March 6, 1934,
The pertinent paragraphs of defendants' last amended
affidavit of merits ares
"That the 340 negotiable inetruments referred to in the
statement of claim are upon their face, and the fuce of ach of
them, stated to be seeured by a certain deed of trust which was
filea for record in the office of the Lecorder of vecds of Cook
County, Illinois, as DSecument Number 3742468, and which become,
by reference a part and portion of exch of sald bonds; and that
waid deed of trust co ms the following provision, jo wit:
*SADPTLCLE VIVE, See. lle Ne holder of any bond or
coupon secured hereby shall heve any right to inetitute any suit,
metion, or proeseding in equity oz at law for the foreclosure of
this indenture, or for the execution of any trust hereof, or for
the appointment of a receiver, or for any other remedy hersunder,
unless sueh holder shall previousiy have given to the tructve
written netice of auch default ani of the continuance thersef as
hereinbefore provided nor unless, also the solders of one-fifth
(1/5) im principal amount of the bonds issued hereunder, then
outetanding, shell have made written request to the trustee and
shall have offered te him a reasonable opportunity either te pro-
eead to exercise the powers hereinvefore grante: or to institute
such action, suit or progesding in his own name, and the Trust:
shell have refuced or unreasonably delayed to comply with such re-
Quests, aor unlere, salvo, they or some ene or more of the holders of
said bonds shall have offered to the trustee security and
indemnity te the sstiefection of the tructee, agninst the
costs, expenses ani liabilities to be incurred therein or there-
by, and such notification, request and offer of indesmity
» bred syyes
te» : = ro ‘s
| EM Se TS ae aoe
2 hi
* o Ma, :
\as ’ ne el eg ‘Tek ayes at So seman t
; " Seannre © PawOS
'0S90 ADCs So OC vale
a ie ear) et fuivecg
THUG) BAX %O KOMISO ANT CARVER WAVES wOrTauy a a
Fe a Sane eeuty. nae
eSECL g LE Yrawtdey two moldon ¢taqmman at i
ba dose 000,59 te abnod wot moqw a thhingelg abetens .
184 YAU hetad Lin ,otexetd dodoatia asoqued, Junxedat
ait to totaed oid 09 eideyog bua ateabnoteh WW hedipen
duedsiw fxv00 ot YS bodtd aw onno off »8E0L ght: aun *
boxetne inompbut, hue Yitntale dentana beuot somal ont ven s
ee mis. tantey “
hohtome tee tatnabsotsh te edgergereq rarer oar Sane oe
esd at of boxretot edmomutien? efdatiogen OBE wld Par |
to done Yo cont end? bas aeomt tied? noqe ove miate Yo te
new doidw gewrd to beoh ataires # YS bowsoe od od of be2n
dood te ebood te whbse0ak ad? to ee ald gh
evateeod Soistw ban ,88bcave
sods bre gabnod blan te Me ey Bt) ose molt aog fa
idiw of gitotalverg yetwe wid to.
to brod uns Te tebled ek wae | 299% uae ‘oe
atina yme atweivemt of idalx wea ovad Liate ydeted ber
to eteaotoesol edi tot wal ta xe Yiiupe eh OAGO Lg
aot vo ,teeverl geared yoo te solkvawen ade 2 “th
csnuemne Yboust seddo une ret xe weve i 3
cedures of3 of sovig evas
ae Yteorteds soneuntinos edd to ana 3
“J0tit-one 29 axebiod OA2 Aare 4 ty ts
ast? ,rtebawoeted bewent vhost en? te en giond
bite cotaut? offs of duanpet mesdiuw wbhax evant. Pn
ory of tedtio yilavireqqe oldauovmet « mid of boxe
etiélienk of 20 betnany ous matalvene qews “eat 8 7
ae om
tots no bier Peuas
ettoutT eft bon youn owe abd
-ex sews adiw yicuso ea? seyaleb <t . af ous
to etedtod ott to oxox Te offe oxea ve yess 908 pte Lr
hrs qhisoou sotauxd ols of hetetto eva Linda absion
elt teniogs ,oetset? one To sottoatabiny on? oF adi
~ereds to misted? berqwenk ef o@ apidsisdsst tas
“iinewhat to t0%%e fms sapzpet |
one
are hereby declared, in every such case, at the option of the
trustee, to be conditions precedent to the execution of the
powers and trusts of this indenture for the benefit of the
bondholders, and to any action or cause of «ction for fore-
closure, or for the appointment of a reeciver, or for any
other remedy hereunder, it being understood and intended that
no ome or more holders of bonds and coupons shall have any
right, in any manner whatever, by his or their action to affect,
disturb or prejudice the lien of this indenture, or to enforee
any right hereunder, except in the mamer herein provided, and
that all proceedings at law or in equity shall be instituted,
hed and maintained in the manner herein provided, and for the
equal benefit of all holders of such outstanding bonds ami
coupons.’
oe & &
"*Seetion 13. All rights of action under this
indenture, or under any of the bonds or coupons, may be enforesd
by the trustee without the possession of any of the bonds or
coupons, and any suit or proceedings instituted by the trustee
shall be brought in his name, as trustee, and any recovery of
judgment shall be for the benefit of the holders and registered
owners of said bonds and coupons.'
"And these defendants aver that pursuant to the rights,
powers and authority granted to sald trustee in said trust deed,
the said Osear H. Haugan, as trustee, did on the 28th day of
August, Ae 0. 1931, file and exhibit his bill of complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in the eause entitled
‘Osear H. Haugan, as trustee, vse Carl Thorgersen, et ale,’ case
Wo. Be226927, wherein said Oscar He Haugan prayed for the fore-
closure of ali the unpaid and outstanding bonds secured by said
deed of trust, including the instruments sued on by the plaintiff
herein, and all other bonds of said issue, and these defendants
aver that such procecdings were had and taken in said cause that
said Cireuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, did on to-wit:
the Slst day of January, A+ i+ 1934, enter a final decree wherein
the Court found that there wae due, owing and unpaid te Usear He
Haugan, as trustee, for the use of the holders and owners of all
the bonds of said issue, including the plaintiff herein, with
respect to the instruments sued on, the sum of $239,811.53, and
directed the sale of said premises for the satisfaction of waid
debt and costs, with a provision in said deeree for a deficiency
adeeree against these defendants for the amount of any deficiency
remaining upen such sale, which deeree still stands in full
force and effect, unreversed and unimpaired, ani that by virtue
sf said proceedings taken by said trustee on behalf of the
Plaintiff, the entire claim and demand of the plaintiff on the
instruments sued on herein, and ali liability of the defendants
therein, became merged in and fixed by said deeree efore=
described, and the alleged right of action sued upon has become
barred by said former recovery."
The ease was tried upon the following stipulation of
facts:
"1. That the plaintiff, Frank A. Aoskad, was on and
wior to the llth day of February, A+ De 1932, the owner and
der of four eertain instruments commonly known as mortgage
bonds, meade, executed and delivered by the defendants, Carl
Thorgersen and Hans Chre Bricksen, all dated the Lith day of
Jemuary, Ae De 1925, and bearing numbers 274, 285, 505 and 313,
together with unpaid interest coupoms tiereon, cach of said
ead to motige of% Je yoeeo dawe yrevo ri shetaLoeb Yeon oe
ond So nolinoemo aft oF Pr sso emottiinoo ed of _oos
eit to jiiened ead «ot suvtnebnt giad to etauxd bas
“70%: 161 molios to eaxas te moidee we of bao «ated.
wie tok to «tevieeet s to 2 ougs edd tot xo roreets
tet bebnetnt bie bowterehae gated of ,zehauesed .
. “te even Lieds anequvoo bus shad te. exeblo "prom se"
etootts of solips thedé to aid yd .ievedaily ¥itte mh gtity
eoxotne of to gotninetml alas bo melt axis eetibytetd to d
bus «boblvozg aiored ieciem edd ML dyooxe , tebeweted tigiz y
ghevuvitent e¢ Iisdea ytinwpe ai xe wal te agnibeaoomg Lie Ff.
edt ret base ybebivety ateted tomnew oft ot benindaton fie be
fos ghnod gaiinadaiwe dove te exebled ftw to often? ,
e* “ .
eitt tekes notiee to atdetx (£4 46£ nottowee” ¢ CHG
beorolnas ed Yam ,areogwoy to abned afd To Yha TehNY TO gt
To ebnod edd to yis to moiesoaseg eds dupdiin po:
gotenutd? edt yd bedutiianr anetbesvotg vo fize ya
_. 2a Ytevoost yan bus ,etuintd 26 »eemn ets
beotesaigey bra atebfed ely To Ryman aid zoek od
oo bre aber
eetiaitt edt of tnawetug’ Farid jak "pihahueteh | a
ehoeh Janzd bkes ni satawis hiew of Setnaty ye ftom
to vab MSS oft mo bib ,sedunesd ap , a
si inigfgmoo to [fic eid siditdxe Sma elit ,
bofttine eanso ott at ,etonili(l .ysnwie) Aeod ‘to
ene ‘gels to gneetogred? Lied .ev ,ootousd am etorauel
~9to% di tot beys1q eget -H tede0 bias FE ye 4g ¥S
Sisa yd bewoes ahmed gaibnedasuo one biagas at if
Ttismisig ed? yd’ no bewa atmomvidand oy wig ro ‘
esnabaoteh eaenls bas «sveel biea to ebnod
tad) eapeo bhea at ‘neled bas bad orew epi ageeone
ttiv-o@ mo bib gatonilLl 4ydawod wood te
stotedw optosh Isnit eg watme ,bEeL of oA epssursia ; : J
é ‘eoseu #%.
ei tesa of biaqny bre gatwo ,aeubh saw O79,
ife te evenwo bea stebfLor adi to way eft Yo? «ee
dgke quteveds Yilisiely etd yrtbulomt yomeeh bias to ahmed
bus .é@.If6, 2589 to ave ont eno howe edmoemertant edd ot oo
bisx to moliontaldae od 10% aealmerg biea to afew add be
Youstotieh » 19% sotvst biaa mi woleivesy es athw on | bg
Yortotobteh Yoo Lo tewvome ait rol. einabwoteb omedd |
Livi st absade Litte eovool sipidw salen rar
ousiiy np jeid bre ,botiaguins bag beatevota 5
ele Yo tiafed no ootamud bias ‘ds sedad op
* afd nto Mhidntelg sult ‘to bmasteh bete miato g
wimibastes eff Yo ythlidall Ife hea yotesort ne bewe edeemesdant
i orto'ts oo test Olae yd best? bes me he age pr ike neds
tel weak node pee nattee te. digit begets edd } ae bedivoved—
al
to noi tu Lmtd nitgwo.Lto? ou sq ‘bokes rd es
il so Sew: snanien: ro _— nel a mei ds
brie wenra odd ¢REOL s+. pcan gil
sped cot ae wrbox Yinomees %.
fx20 ,ddrabaeloh edd yo hevevifoh hae hetgoexs sham «qnbmod
to Yo aml edd belted Lie . mended pew ete cae, oo ‘text
? 266 bra 806 . GSS «OVS atedmex gubeced hme »
bias %o wen impemnmeons ee mengeniownt
glace
o3=
bonds being in the principal sum of $1,000 and each of said
interest coupons being in the sum of $303 that subsequent te
the filing of the suit herein there was paid on account of
said bonds and interest coupons the sum of 1,500, without
‘prejudice to my ef the rights of the defendants, or either of
them, to contest said proceedings or to interpose any defense
that might be available to them or either of thems that a true,
accurate and correct copy of one of said bonds is attached to
and forms a part of the second amended statement of claim filed
herein, thet mone of seid bonds was registered, that exch of
said bonds became due and payable by its terms on January 15,
1932, and that plaintiff purchased said bonds from State Bank
of Chicago.
“2, That the terms, previsions and conditions set
forth in each of said bonds shall form a part of this stipulation,
and that the bonds sued on are part of a series of 540 bonds secured
by a trust deed filed in the office of the recorder of deeds of
Cook Countys Tllinois, as Decument No. 8742468.
"3. That on the 23th day of Auguats Ae Je 19351, Oscar
H. Haugan, the trustee designated in the trust deed securing said
bonds, filed and exhibited his bill of complaint in the Circuit
Comet of Cook SOAs Tilinois, in a ee : age entitled
D a Trustee Ve Car eo» and bearing
mn gaid Osear He gen or the fore-
elesurs of A the unpaid and outetanding bonds secured by said
deed of trust, including the instruments sued on by the plaintiff
herein, and all other bonds of seid issue, and that such preceede
ings were had and taken in said cause that on the 3let day of
January, Ae be 1934, a fimal decree was entered therein, a true,
aceurete and correct copy whereof is annexed hereto and forms a
part hereof, together with a true, accurate and correct copy of
said deed of truste
"“4- That if it should be determined by the Court that
the plaintiff is entitled to recover herein, then in order to avoid
the neceseity of accounting or Sennen ts ete it is agreed that the
amount of the finding in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants is the sum of 93,205, ig tore with interest thereon
at the statutory rate from March 6, 1934
Plaintiff's theory is that, since the bonds in question
contain an unconditional promise to pay, such reference as appears
in them to the trust deed securing the bonds applies only to
such security and in no wise restricts his common law right of
action to recover on samej that any action taken by the trustee
under and purstent te the trust deed cannot affect his bends or
hie right to recover in the instant actions and that, under the
facte and the law, the lower court should have found fer him
with judgment for"$3,205, together with interest thercon at the
statutory rate from Maroh 6, 1934," pursuant to the stipulation
of the partics.
Defendants contend (1) that the terms and covenants
whe
oy J
ey
et gnowpovdya gatd ORE Yo moe ot wh
to émiocun mo blag enw o8edd stored thaw ond
‘Peodilw yOOtyl) be wite oad wi Oo Print ‘ito | Sos
to veddie +o borne ‘et Yo etetgts Be Yo’
sre pig Or Pw. oink of Lo ogni Peeovag Mak tye
eaved # to cemsio ss dh 96 etiedios on
ov botontin ef ehrod blax ‘tw sro Yo baht teers pee :
' bOLL3 alalo to tnemededa betndam Aneuse orld te way 8 Brn one
to dove donk «herodatpor vow shed Siam to emomt Sand yntoterl
¢3f Yrewanl ae awtet ash yd wideyay bee exh oneced abnud
ret oted8 toxt ehred biee bee nel tig Tet inkely ae Mt
dee enotsi bros “hee are tet ve satered ott teetr
smeltalugivea aisdd to traq a rot ebaec bias a
a ebnod Ob2 te eee aadt ‘e Lontes ke ap een a
to ebook te tebxecen odd Yo wottho ody mk bodk®
Siee Yt dose how COO, 55 to aig fins ned oat nt putes. > jeeletes
Taped «£e0e eG ad ata & to Yee MISS wats ioetst y 9 GO
hiss gxhiseen pooh dats ect? af betemplacs eeduwts
sivoriS oft nl dmladques to Lil’ eld bedlidisdxe page
bed dda oo ttiledteo » mb yelomiLii
Biitsed bana ¢.» ores :
“—92ek sud “20 Ty .
‘ bias Yd bawvowe mbrod eathausiens has ‘hts
Ttisnialiq edd yd mo bews etmomuetdent oat ge wi gf
~besvctg dene godt oe geueet bhaw to wbnod wesido Lia be
te yeh dal! osff no ded camed bise at tna bast:
gourds yulered? bwretne sew eotdob Seat? y Soot we
# warsok baa oderett hexensa af teoventw yqod | re
i gee goerTte0 bre esetuoen _etleed a
ge? fowed edd YE bemterroted ed biveds’
biove of “obvo ai med? .ateotor nb agi i
oes tails heerye al d) ,Koldne:
add taniena bis Viksatage ef : aon
| soerods tepteimt Aste weetenel 2208
: ", SEOL 7 5 doxalt By 2 i A @
nol teaue eh ase oad bonta daddy a tonite aritee o A eS guitars
azenqus va soretotoy dosa eter OF Sa tmore Lemorstt room na
9 yin est fags abaed adi gaituges’ ‘peek taut oat meat
to iat: wit noon’ ase oaed satis it ae % 4 xugee sel
To shod wid dontts dennaa boob Feist od O¢ tmaiewy hoe tebe
od? iphey gtedd baa inotion Imagens of? mh wwyeoet od dig |
mii tol beet eved Biwocde cheval cowol pad Ean ald 2. 32 i
ssid. der eweosants eaexodn aod. sodvened by me .
hare ron rite ots taut (2) | ‘anes caaakaweee |
o4u
of the trust deed securing the bonds sued upon are incorporated
in the bonds by reference, and that the helder of such bonds
took them subject to the terms, conditions and covenants ef
the trust deeds (2) that the foreclosure decree entered January
Sl, 1934, im the Cireuit court adjudicated the rizhts of the
bondholders and is binding upon plaintiff, even though he was
not a party to the preceeding in which it was entered; and (3)
that the entry of the deeree merged the debt or bonds seeured by
the trust deed in the judgment end precluded any and all holders
of the bonds secured by the trust deed in question from preceeding
to enforce obligations, rights or liabilities growing out of such
bonds except pursuant to the terms of the deeree.
As to defendants first contention it is sufficient to
state there is nothing in the trust deed that expressly forbids
individual holders of bonds to bring actions ot law thereone
The only restrictive previsions in the trust deed limiting an
individual bondholder's right to proceed to enferee payment eof
hia bonds in ease of default are those heretofore set forth in
defendents' affidavit of merits. Zaamination of those provisions
demonstrates that such terms, conditions and limitations as are
therein imposed apply only to proceedings brought under the
trust deed itself.
We are clearly of the epinion that, under the facts .
in the instant case, the mmig purpose of the restrictions con-
tained in sections 11 and 15 of Article V of the trust deed was
to limit individual action omly in the institution of fore-
Closure procesdings or other actions at lew or in cuuity under
the trust deed, and not in the commencement of on action to
recover upon the personel obligetion of defendants, ani that
Plaintiff had the right to sue the mortgagora for a judgment
besaxoqisent axe soy deve when ots mat ratoes boob suits: welt te:
abnod coun to tokted eft sed? baw sesio te tes YW abaed ort’ nh
%@ ainarmved bas seolitives ,amed edt od Poe beue redid toed
vtamaa hoxetne soxesh oriumetoo'tet oxy batt ta) thosb cewsd ott
ons Re avaighe veld dedanihubse drupe divowd end at lb seas
anw on siguods move .2ittntets noqy aathntd et haa wxeblodt
(&) Se ttevetne enw 26 dotviw ot guboervorg ali of Panne ee
“ed bexwo08 obnod 10 idob eft hoptem vetoed ofs Yo yxine odd teitd
erohfed Lie tna yam bebutvony twa tromebug 2x3 at howe duane edt
adthessorg mort nettesup mt boot ‘taune acd we sonvonn sine ad te
fo no ane walrony ve bod Etdo ht x0 adios epee
aideet ytaderighs $i boob dound ass at mgunae
4 _ smooxed? wal tn esotioa gaind oF anned swe "i As
fa gah tiet, book dourd ed’ mt anotatverg 19h:
. fe deougeg core the’ oF dodo oF tight *
“gt disok ton ototedstad onoss ors fhuster |
supkedeyee ceeds to nottentenal’ satttem to Seah Wg
Ore wen emoltotiat tae amoksthnos camtad Hone taiit eed
ee robau ddguond caalbebeeny ¢ od ‘ule vlaae bosognt ators
7) teat ob a doutd
“phot el <ahnis todd notnige outs cr) vies te one we ad
hive anetiet<deer etd to ssoqg ix old ad inate is ” is |
aw hows gauct end to T ofedixa to Of how in rene at bos
(sexo? Ye moltuitvant ods at vine notioe ath fein bel
cohaw Yiiupo m2 zo wel ta euodsen xedto xe ay rt eq etme
a oe ‘molten an to snomesmeumes oid ai le ‘a dara
gait tam yudnabooroh to witeayhide Lesmeseg eld ogi iveeek
REN 4 ; q
snoumbal, 2 tt atogsyduem std one Od Sdigiz orld hat Thhiatalg
ya as ; ane eves eal Cadet CF) daetoeew eee MM Se platy 9
-5e
on their personal obligations. (Sehatskis v- Rosenwald & Veils
267 Ill. Appe 169-)
If we assume that the quoted provisions of the trust
deed are such as to limit the right of the bondholder to sue at
law, are they incorporated into the bonds expresely or by such
Clear reference as to bar plaintiff's right to maintain this
action?
The only provisions of the bonde in the instant onse,
from which it might be argued that « limitation in the trust deed
of plaintiff's right to sue at law ie included by reference in
the bomis,are as follows:
"This Bond is one of a series of three hundred forty
(340) bonds, numbered consecutively fvrem ome (1) to three hundred
forty (540), both numbers included, all of like tenor and offeot,
exeept as to respective smounta, numbers and maturities thereol,
aggregating the principal sum of two Hundred sixty-five Thousand
Pellars (£268,000.00)," (here follows numbers, amounts and
maturities), "the payment whereof, with interest thereon is
equally and ratebly secured by @ Deed of Trust im the nature of a
real estate mortgage, duly executed, acknowledged and delivered
by the Mortgacore, mortgaging, tranaferring and cenveying unte
Osear He Haugan, Trustees, of Cook County, lilinois, certain real
estate loented in the City ef Chieage, in the County of Cook
and State of illinois, ref e@ being horeby made to said Deed
ae
of Trust for number and deseviption of $29 premises cenveyed
and mortgaged, the nature and extent of the scourity theret
ePan nd, th Svar s of the Liga A eS eLders of aiid bond
nd ef the Trustee in respect of such security.” (Italics ours.)
Sven 1f the trust decd does contain a se-called "noe
action clause,” it is veadily apparent that the above italicized
language in the boud contains no adequate reference thereto, but
simply constituted a referemee to the deseription, nature and
extent of the security and the rights of bendholders thereunder.
The deseription of the property and the seevrity constitute the
subject matter of the clause, and te hold that a provision of a
trust desd limiting the right to sue et lew was thus included
by reference is to bind the bontholder by e stipulation of the
trust deed, of which the bond gave him no warning or notice.
(Gewianss v. Vengler & Mandell, 358 Ill. 502+)
EE yp TRI my
> SEF Pa
:
PS Seahaperieeenresermag se oe
hte’ & Bioverssel oe abfatedee) sunebiegiive Lameaxeq xieds ne
testes of2 to ancleiverg “ateup ocd add enone ow TE ooo.
fe one 06 wwhlodhned ed? Ro tdpit aft Maki 08 endows one boob
dove i te eLnecwrse adnod sald oink Detienoqrooms yest, ore awak
ghdd atoteiem of itgts a'tiiinieds tag of ne @onerstes saete
Sithan:’ stich: ab obs waaay
qeeom dmedamt oid. ah. abroad ede ss sabia Namie ‘
heob dewrd odd oh sotsagloti a sadd demgre od saniiitiadiilieds -
nt epnotetet Yt hebulort ef wed te ou of istgin-e Mhignhade So
baee Liat as enaeehagd ade
Yixot Serhan
pet a oe @2"
eae
ala Mevwney dscuedet oda die
a to exiffen vid mt 3 dal :
pene batiotaes ma bupie nan. iaaetbesee’
feet Miattes «ahonkil o faed
Picea saat copes ot
, aa
ge EIN = Bs
oe SF gay seale ss Be a_i
son" tired, 8 ataines acob ‘bowh asset =| bs ee
Rave =p Rega ee oi
heateiiatt oveds wld dere dnoreqan bho ak he oe 7
vrehecwsedtd avobLedbned te addghe orth ee 7 a
Sead Oe Ses
mF i mega Pee oats Spies ermerg By 20 nol qixeaeh at
aGe
Defendants’ second contention that plaintiff's rights
as the holder of the bonds in uestion were adjudicated by a
deeree of foreclosure entered in the Cireuit court January 31,
1934, in a proceeding brought by the trustee to foreclowe the
trust deed executed by defendants to secure all of the bonds of
the isoue, even though he was not a party to that enuse, we
find to be without morit.
it has been held that the owner of a note secured by
a trust deed may sue the maker of the note in assumpait for a
judgment upon the personal obligation; that he may sue in equity
fer the foreclosure of the trust deed} or that he may recover
possession of the property conveyed by the arust/ty an aot ion
of ejectment. These remedies are concurrent or successive, ag
the owner of the note or trust deed may deem proper, and he may
pursue any two or all three of these remedics sinultancously.
(Lindheimer v. Supreme Liberty Life Ins. Coo» 263/spbs 524, ant
Cases cited therein.)
Thie we believe te be the correct rule where the note
er notes er bonds evidencing the debt secured by the trust deed
are held or owned by one individual. The reason for this rule
is obvious, but it can have no application here.
We think that it is the recognized rule that where
an individual holder of a bond er bonds (a part only) ef « series
of bonds secured by a trust deed does obtain judgment ot law
upon sueh bond or bonds, ao levy way be had thereunder upen the
preperty covered by that trust deed.
it must be conceded that in the absence of provisions
of the trust deed limiting his right to maintain an action at
law, the individual holder ef a bond or bonds of a series secured
by a trust deed may sbandon and waive his right to apply to the
SO a ae er
ae aR
EO
coreg eit
if
ad
eo
¥
(
F
eddyis a'Ditsmtaiq sadt nokenetses Mose! TenEbnE es
a Yd hotsoliybin exer notdonsy mt abmed sid Le ented oad ep
11% Yann) Susoy Sivek ati a boveded exemetostet to eeteeb
wt? eunfexie? af setant? ods ye tquierd pet hwopoig o ak .ouer
Qo abmoxd add ko iia wiveet of adeninetod YW Sedaeeme bows daiiut
ew psaseo oncld of Yiseq o Jon adv Od @yends weve ‘sQitunt ont
otivem tuedtiw od OF talt
ud bowtese ston @ toe cenwo ets dadt bio Rood aad dz
s «pt ¢ieqacen mi stun att Wo coin et oat Nhat 'iek FoRth
Giiwpe mi ewe Yom od dost? jmotteplide Lenowidg ond Rog animphi
satiate wry teid uo tboob tart ws No weno a
nol som sos WNRRTS wld et heyawnes YesogeuT adit Ye motwaons
as eavioadnows ww tmoctwonde Sn netounwe amet «fms
“gat alt cxegorg aonb Yee boob dais? 1 eten add te r
“Eaescad ued sebeao' «meet 1 oon? eer
aton: ott ered wher soort0s oat fos 08 peat
boob seurd ete ee horwose odio sh 3
elet alse tet eevser ost + au ivdibad ane we ior
: é 4 } tui at ‘s
esi sited nalisoklenn wn ead nso ok da «aunt
, De ae os GAD aad nas
ns afies meowrits sae ee a sass fntda oF
se iw ~ ig nage: people
emolat vow Yo sensuts odd wi bask ne bownes, baal dest OL
eee So haek f Jet homens
ts stttan a minima of Sis ald sabia toed,
it pees Oo Gt foro ee
“betinen uaison « Te ebuad w baed 2 Yo :
: lem eke Kote Ags wie? 1m
oath “eb ced ob tabs ask wea bn oe ; |
ees ee “ee
Jo
security and sue at law in a personal ection. (Oswiansa ve
Vengler & Mandell, supra.) Having abandoned md weived his
right to any claim on the property secure’, how can it be said
that plaintiff's rights were adjudicated in the foreclosure
proceeding, in which he had absolutely no interest and to which
he was not a party under the doctrine of class representation
or my other doctrine?
We find devendante’ third contention to be equally
without merit. they urge that the entry of the decree of
foreclosure in the Circuit court merged plaintiff's« bende, as
well as all the other bonds eecured by defendants’ trust deed
in that deeree, and precluded plaintiff from procecding te
enforee payment of his bends in any manner except pursuant to
the terms of the decree. The fallacy of thie contention is
obvious. It assumes that pleintiff still claimed for hie bonds
the benefit of the security of the trust deed which he had
abandoned and waived when the instant action at law was instituted
to obtain a personal judguent on then, which the trial court
erroneously failed and refused to enter.
Defendants cite many cases upon the dectrine of merger
te the effect that by a judgment «t low or o decree in chancery
the contract or instrument upon which the proceeding is based
becomes entirely merged in the judgment. ‘Ye are in full accord
with the rule se enunciated in the cases cited, but fil te see
where it hae any application to the question involved here. The
foreclosure procesiing was not besed on plaintiff's bends. The
trust deed no longer afforded them any protection or security
and the deeree could give no relief to their owner, It is
insisted that to permit a judguent to be entered in this action
#
+ pasigtweo) .moldon Kanone o mh wat ta Se ‘ian wetxanee
atc teviow bes bemoaneds gaivet (. equa |
bie ed Ff nad wd, bouwéou ysteqotg Ald de bake Que Ott
“oxatatesve? ode ‘at todsdl bathe exee eadglt # "itsrate ‘badd
détide Gi tne Siocédnd On Utedudoads had od deldw al guibecsene
noltednounaget enele Yo auladooh ott vehny eetey, ‘s don vaw io “tal
Sentrised endo ‘oe
“ eitaupe of oF notirsdmes bridd tagumbewiod halt ale |
%o soxveb oat to exit etd ‘gotd oyee yedt td sem
‘an yebeod a*Vikintaty topren fxwoo sivoetd odd at ©
boob Saux? 'ainabeotoh ww bomwess ahnod taddo ae i
Gi guthoondrg mort Witalala bebufoosy bin «' i
oe Vane Dents Noel Ges St ceed he WH a
eee iy
iF cof ea Lik abseil sabia Sb we etude ents 7 ca ube tate
fe Oe th Reais
bedusttant saw wad te nolton Santen? odd mow evi ow ies
“tuseo atst 4 oA dolste santé a0 Jaommul, anmost0g « ‘staies 0
ies wes gay ™
steone 98 bowwriox tam bela
Ft nn
Pe eg “ig
Viwonada at eoxoeb a 10 wah te tnssmpoul, 9 daté toete
beaed wk gathoscerg oats te istw Ogu dese dont ood ‘dowtsmee at
Se TE SR ON PS
a
ee a
trove Lint mi ove oF stenegivt oud nt twgren voetline some
sea of that dud sodte woano add at batatonume ao osiet oot sete
oat? soveil tevdownd mobiaouy aii 0: sobdantdqus vse sud #2 oxede
fw Ge ey
ed? .ehnod e'tthdninte wo honed Jon sow sat sooner eumexoore?
“ebxuoon xy noltectong gta welt bebre tie epmet, on tend Sewed
Fhe aR met fat
al 31 srenwe ted} 9¢ tekLox on oviy hives soxeod ant? tae
+ E ry
é ‘males ube ct bexedne 9€ 08 oahu, sherog 08 tas
US eet wn & BB hes as R's iol w
ee
oe
aga # | By e:
-8e
would be permitting two judguonts to be entere! against the
4efendants upon the same obligation in courts of vonourrent
juriodiction. the bonds enjoying the security of the trust
deed have been decressed to the extent of plaintiff's bonis,
ami the fereclosure deeree of the Cireuit court equld not
possibly, under the laws have included them aa obligations
within its purview. As we view the matter the judgment
entered by us in thin cause is and eon be the only judgment
entered ageiues d-fendants on their ebligation arising from
plaintiff's bents.
The judgment of the Municipal court in this cause
must be reversed, and, as the sole defense te the action was
that plaintiff had mo right te bring am action at law against
defendents, judgment will be entered here in faver of plaintiff
and sgeinet defendants fer $2,551.85, whieh inelades $3,205
principal and $146,835 interest. }
JUDGMGNT RiVanSSo al JUDGMENT
GNTRASD HEAR IW FAVOR GF PLAIN?IFY
ARD AGAINST BOFEMbANTS POR $39351.85-
Gridley, Pe. Jey amd Geanlans Jey conours
Pa
12)
ody demtape beredmy ad 0% vtmoagoe, om saiteheseg 04, Aton
snoriwones te neraee MA noltaghice oman sd jog ads sae ts
fausd od) Yo Yotiavon edt yodyokae abmod aft Co a
sKOG eB kttunlesg to taedee ond ag soneenved. sed wad boob
fe nee Sxye Fhvpr1y ws 2e, seTRLh ORMDOLDONBT xe tne
eROLiRBiide ao apse KoomLont wnat gunk ost So
trompia, ed? ceddom ed! wolv ow a4 rwokyany, ath wtalitty
snemghet, yino edt sd man iin a2 pumen ath! wb en Yd boxodae
Moth yihotze medtmglise menerntheantnensithesioerd spe
sates wnat
1004.00 2h. oe eapeaeten adam ea Bho f
caw sotéon off! 9 oemoteh ofou edt om ghd. .Ronxeyer me F
fantage wol so melies me uated oo asfads om hak Vtimheky dm
ttiintalg to vevet ah exed boxedas.od LiLhw
Te aed ‘alae Cd i
fy "eA <iaveinivan ;
a. “emmee 5 aden Baa ER
A ad frome ave Rte me 0d
ea) bg ee 5 te
SHER ane eee at at evi oot
“aN C8 wk Wore sone tine nomeaag
pal awe SiR ey esha. os tien a
vom cod oe ae
“ : aes Ba ha i a Lo) cravat
: wet a ats seb eet ¢ bea. aoe .
ae ~~ onset nate
37560
+ Le NONUK, as successor ) /
tee, etee, :
Appellee, APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR couRT,
Ve ) COOK COUNTY,
MiCHAZL OLYNIEC et ale,
Appellants, or Ton
#69 LA. GIOS
MR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DXLIVERSD THE OPINION OF THR COURT.
October 5, 1932, C. L. Noruk,y an suecesvor trustes,
(hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a bill te foreclose
& first mortgage trust deed exeeuted April 10, 1923, by defend-
ants Wiehael Olynise and Vereniea Olyniee, his wife, te secure
payment of bonds issued by them aggregating $60,000, $7,500 of
which hed been paid and cancelled prior te defendants’ default.
Merch 19, 19345 a decree of foreclosure and sale predicated upon
this bill was entered, which this appeal seeks to reverse.
Plaintiff's bill alleged inter alia that subsequent
to the execution of the first mortgage trust deed the Olynices
(hereinafter referred to as defendants) executed a second mortgage
trust deed (recorded May 2, 1932), without consideration, to one
Pleming to seeure payment of a purported indebtedness of $10,600,
merely for the purpose ef hindering and delaying enforcement of
the lien of the first trust deeds; and that the records of the
office of the clerk of the Cireuit court disclosed that there had
been filed April 30, 1932, a purported claim for mechanie’s lien
agsinst the premises involved by one Stanley Olynice, « brother
Of defendant Michael] Olyniee, which was fictitious and fraudu-
ent and filed only for the purpose ef encunbering the
7
m
ral i
tg
f i si bi
; 4 1% 4 Hah
’ : rT ft oh @Bsve
‘ i ; Sere. 2 heel bol
‘ | Torasvows ae yRUOK a f
3 7 ‘ N ve ae , 4
| eTHOO AQLGAVR BOLT Lassa a Sar e ‘LOWE, 9 hd ie
: Pits “dike, UR, gg ALE a ee
et THGO] AOE oie © — ae Tabahé iv
; } soit éo OUMRYTO
OSE en a cone
| 1. @ the
TaMOD SAT TO oie 190 aut aranvraee wavas.rue
Aaa Seite
sdedouxt xovasoeme mm giz ot 40 @RECL 9@ aedoted
saetoorot of Lkid o batt? (22éeledy an of beteeher 0d!
| ataiateh Ne «BENE OK Lee toduoeme deeb Seund egensrom Rath 4
orion OF yotlw eit sootnyt? asiaoteY bus ootmyLo Lyset adas
he 008.7% 2000,006 gulseqotaps modé yd bomoak ahaa
-diuatod ‘ataabnoteh of solsq bedioanas tie blog me
oq hotsetiong efse has exuacivexo? 20 sorosh « «heel 8 sora
seetevex of exesa Jsequa. abdd sotety abototae ean Lf rel
dnoupoe due dnd? site uotmh bopette Litd a'wekembess
sosinylo als tach Cenad opegeuom tuuth odd 29, an wo
ors oF eaotierobiams suoulitw _( SSCL xa bobs i soz) boob 33 sowed
2000, 0L% to ansndedsdohnt betzoqumy « te sroeryeg ouoes of an ba L"
Ye inoue gadyeLod One uatotatd to eoogung et w? lone
edt Yo abreser oft Jatt: tay ytood dausd fonea ote ‘Ye moat od
bad wtosls dai bometoath Pues tiger ods to awoke auld te ootth
neil e'oinadoen x0% sitete dedzequug # «set 08 Lhaeh baLt? na
vedtord » yooteyto yolaeds ono 6 Seviovad soatnong odd 9 antoy
rubiaxt ton enotéhiedh aay seltw .ootegto koadtoth taabeo te:
edt getvedmene %o conga sift «ot < a ws dns
oe
premises and hindcring and delaying the enforcement of the lien
of said first trust deed. Defendants in their anewer do not
deny these allegations. Vieming and Stanley Olyniec, aled made
parties defendant and served with swemons in this cause, failed
te appear and were defeulted. Prior to the filing of the bill
in the instant case Fleming, the trustee under the second mortgage
trust deed, filed a bill im the Circuit court te foreclese that
trust deed and requested and sccured the appointment of a receiver,
who took possession of the premises theretefore conveyed by the
respective trust deeds and proceeded to collect the rents.
Upen learning of the appointment of such receiver,
plaintiff, upon leave granted, filed « petition in the second
mortgage foreclosure proceeding in the Cireuit court in support
of his motion that the receiver be discharged, Thia motion was
denied ani he perfected an appeal to this court seeking to reverse
the order denying same.
it appeared upon the hearing before the master to whom
this cause was referred, that defendants, the owners of the equity
in the property involved herein, conculted attorney John J. Coburn
of the lew firm of Coburn, Kearney & Coburn, concerning their
interests in this litigations thet Mr. Coburn thereupon entered
into negotiations which culminated Secanber Siy 1932, in the
execution by him, representing the Olynices, and by the solicitor
for plaintiff, of what purported to be a written “contract of
accord and settlement.” im substance this contract provided that,
in consideration of the Olyniees securing the dismissal of the
second mortgage foreclosure proceeding, the diecharge of the
reeeiver therein ani the release or satisfaction of all liens
and judgments then standing against the property, end of their
TSP Loe ee
welt ost? te deomonite ine ead galgealob bam gitre batat baw eealmorg
tom 0b ‘ovnne tiedd at ednnbootetl .beob ews declt blo to
oben oste ,onlayl® ylasd? brn potaet? .enobtiagetia vests wb
helist goaneo eid? ot eneoowe déiw tevres fei eceomearimay! ‘weneteR
Litd ef? te gaitht edé of xolut ~bod Lins t9d ote hen ene et: ?
egayirow bmeoee odd tohew eotewtd ond qymkan ft ace santonk oat mk
tals eaalorrwt of faves ¢tuoxtd off mt ikae a baiit sboen aw |
i etovicect « to ipeminiogys ef) Setees Mow podwouipore bas boo jet
| et yd deoyermes ors tose neds senda tg ods BT] wetenpencg Sone act
| suénes odd tomLive of be beevong bets a boat tear? ‘evisooqaet
| quevieoot down to dnemintog¢e ot to gukeceek og ~
Brooer of) mi mitiveq » Lett ,hedxery neariniat dace tl
dxodaie wh Srweo Pivot oft at yethoosory ome: 7
caw Hokvom ehtt <beytedenls vd tevivoes aiff taatt te oa ai
getover 6¢ gribtows seme wist of canal nn bodevtrveq of ban dete
yaa
woste of ‘etone edd ‘inevamarenn 19h Aso
Melupe ed? to axonvo ond qutentneted dont .bowsitee wow emma ‘ibely”
xiwiod .% setcb ysnxovte betivexoo »atoren Reviewed Yreqore odd mt
“tod? gittoxeonoe aataeledh memes agape
oje
_@elivery te the Coamopolitan State Bank, as trustes, of a clear
title to the premises free of ali Liens and encumbrances except
the first mortgage, taxes and special aseesomente, plaintiff agreed
te pay defendants $1,500 and to release them from personal lia-
bility on any deficiency dooree that might be entered in this pre-
ceeding to foreclose the first mortgage truct deed,
tt aleo appeared that purswant te the terms of thu con-
tract defendants procured the dismiesal of the second mortgage
foreclosure procesding, the diecharge of the receiver therein,
and that plaintiff, as successor trustee under the first mortgage
trust deed, took possession of the premises; that the mechanie's
lien claim heretofore referred to me released; thet «11 judguents
which stood as liens against the property were either released or
motiefied of record exeept the judgment of one Reitan, who agreed
te accept in settlement ani satiefaction ef his judgment $300 out
of the $1,500, which the Olyniees were to receive for their equity,
when sume was paid to them; and that plaintiff repudiated the cone
tract and refused to comply with its terms because some of the bone
holders refused to retify his action in executing it.
After overruling defendants’ exceptions to the master's
report, the court adopted the findings and recommendations of the
master and entered a decree of forceclooure and sale, the portions
ef which, pertinent to this appeal, are az fellows:
‘ee The court further finds that on December
Bist, As Ge 1932, subsequent to the filing of the bill of complaint
in this esause, the complainent herein, entered into a written
with MICHASL OLYNINC and VENOMICA OLYNIEC, his wife,
under which the said complainant underteok, in considerntion of
the said MICHAL OLYNIEC and VERONICA OLYWIC, hie wife, executing
a deed of their equity, in the property herein sought to be fere-
Closed, to the COSMOPOLITAN STATS BANK, as Trustee, yi Baid
‘premises free end elenr of liens and encumbrances, except the first
mortgage taxes ani special assessments, to pay to the said MICHAEL
OLYNIEC and V&PONIGA OLYNTEC, hie wife, the sum of FITTESN HO
BOLLANG ($1506.00) within thirty (30) days; that under ssid agree-
ment, the complainant undertook te release the said MIGHALL OLYNTEC
whe
;
“esto a Xe .:edanrd no ainst gdut nad thogomeod, odd .o8 Rrevhted
tqrome aeoretdavone hein smelt Lin to ope? sealmerg add oF obote
boetgs Ziivalaiq aatmensasaen Latooge ba sonnel grmageren temkt mde
-v1y gid? ab boreine od tdinim dedi commed younhodneb wa mo YAAEhG
»bée bh deat? egegdsom #exl? add ovatocsedi od aahbone
-noo ai¢ Ro awxet edd od tgawaxng dad? bevaeqgs pads IZ.) sound
- egsyd tem heooer od Yo Leoetamth odd heruong adnahanten toad
atieteds seviseor od? Yo oguecdosth esid. centhennemy: ~ ooneh
sgagitosn daxtl edi whnw oedans? toseerene Bh» 2 tad ome
hoerps ore tation! gre te sramyhst ol? tqeone |
tuo 008% tnormiut ald Yo nottoatataas mo tmoottice a seen
ettiupe thes cot oviovet of exew moodey so watt aby tab,
ano odd betdatbuget DOkemhate Sod tna toms a Steg or omen ad
=Aapd offs Lo oat nuarsced cgtmet att aie Yemen et Meunier hes Sood
Rise! ig (stb aektusee md tobias ats —Rtin et houston anebzed
—— ataetaam itd od eamtigeone teteehaoteh pmkbionrsve ett
| add Yo amoitehanssoses bao apattet? eld betqohs dueo edd ydnoge
anolsxeg ws salen bar etmnodeoxe? te seseod a boxedes baw aden
torohist ae ome »laogge merits stot to
i s RCOGA en tose chase caddiwt econ. watt P
J errr rg Litd@ edt Yo Lit ost o& dam
/ steal BS odsh have we ebecedl. dt
hw als ,DaTEYAO sono v han 3°
2) yetkae nae he J iad
emma SAHOTHM bites ol? caselet 04 Mood<o her seantatgnee edt 2 ome
ade
and VERONICA OLYNISC, his wife, from my personal liability on a
deficiency decree in this cases that the said complainant, in
this procesding, sues in a representative capacity as Successor
Trustee under a certain Trust Deed executed by the said MICHARL
OLYSTEC and VENONIGA OLYWIEC, his wife, which Trust deed was
introduced in evidence herein, and marked as an exhibit in this
proceeding; that under the terms and provisions contained in onid
Trust Deed, the yr, yg herein, had no power te purchase title
te said property Place same in the possession of ancther, nor
did eaid complainant have power to agree to release said defend-
ante from any pergonal liability.
“THIRTIATH: The court further finds that the defendants
having been parti¢a to said Trust Deed creating the trust herein,
had notice of the limitetion of the power of the Trustee there-
umder, ani that it has not been shown that the defendants were
harmed becsuse of the failure ¢f the said complainant to carry out
the written agreement entered inte between them, or that they
parted with any consideration in relioenee thereon; that the defend-
ante, MICHASL OLYNI8C and VECOWICA OLYNI40, his wife, heving had
metice of the lack of power of the Trustee, it must have been
contemplated by the parties that said agreement could not be
affected as againet the holders and owners of the bonds and interest
coupons secured by said Trust Deed, until ratified by them; that
the svidence shows that some of the bondholders refused to ratify
eaid agreement, ami therefore, the court finds that said agreement
is void by reason of the lack of power of the avid complainnnt te
enter into such an agreement or to bimd the holders and owners of
seid bonds and interest coupons «se bemeficiorier of eatd trust."
Defendants eontend that the contract of “accord and
settlement" was binding upon plaintiff emi the bondholder bene-
fielaries of the trust deed herein, and that the court erred in
not dismissing plaintiff's bill for went of equity; that the
éefendants were damaged by reason of their removal of the encum-
Dranees and liens against the premises in compliance with the terme
of the contracts; and that plaintiff was estopped in equity from
preseeting te oa decree after entering into the contract of “sccord
and settlement.“
Plaintiff’s theory is that, even though the contract
in question was binding upon the holders of the bonds securee by
the firet mortgage trust deed, it would not be a defense to this
action, inasmuch as plaintiff's right to a deeree of foreclosure
and sale was recognized in the contract; that in his capacity as
succeaser trustee he had no power under the terms of the trust
deed forsclesed upon to bind the holders of the bonds secured
i a |
er
amy wohiidars Saneeees. eau epee or ohh 4
ah ,tnanialgase bioe oid dnt shee” at bewben'es
toneooeus an Yiioages Pon ght en (Mis Mii. t ree
GH\HOIM bdae oxte beswean how Juwe? sagt
aaw feet tawxt Aoisw yotiw utd , OUIEY.G go
pile me tididee me a0 Solus bee qatorvd ys ie
hine mit beniotnws anoiuivery bon acted od? neha dust iviceed
oLihe @astionag Qo tawog om bas «abotod ee wie ¢ Peers
wae <ocfage ie, mnpoarenes, os oh a jaastaignos bese S86
= bohes eenelst ot oonge bisa
eGdiLidalls Lonoacey moet ates
etrishsetes of) dads cbeti coteust sxmeo ei? WHIRTE 6: Tah eet
green tonrxd off paigaeto beet dewzt bhew abv
Ht
wed mane’. te veweq end te woldatinls aid ont |
‘enw adnebmeteh odd sana 2 mnaes need fom sor th analy ‘fa ® hen
Iie YX she et inantalqmes bles edd ta exulia® fe ob
sand 1 — meow dod otal ha Tetere beet :
~Deie’ Fast) cae. ated’ com ifes dt iw
gaived petiv eid ,OWIWTIG ASTIORy
wees ave teom of sou tesa® ae
ete 3 Me ge bycenypn blow @ nold
tears nod ost boa 2 on | tom
tay vad "i bek en one —. ae %
P's sir ibe ae sok Mao a onge, tt fe qiemootys bin
oO? dmaniafquao biae of? to + ty sand id a Ane
te to sroemetge
te stemwo tax wuebiod edd pate oF
“edmurad btae Yo astisteltoned es enoqnee tas
bose presen” to soatdnos ate tad baatnow | ad Me bry ie
iene vipee Wee
‘eonod we boat bese esi bate rhomtata, aoqu orth aa cme ! a
sen ee hic
at borre tau09 old dost tne snioved sone jeune wie X90 |
(rae hd ies
ona dad? tysiupe te tee 50% us o'thtintadg unl
, some h Hn ui ay
‘<aeme tts 30 Levers ‘shod he ssiteeaehs ea bepama dante
emxed ont? dite eon! Semon ai age haw ag otis senkage web, bes nonaexd
mor? wehepe mt boqqedee anw Tidntatg, tant hae tioetémos: oat 20
proven” hig somtanoe ate int patze dae 8s RS sm —
He est as
| ¢uartuoo od ttyweds move ydodé ul reed? e'Rtmlas
“Wd Sowsss abnod oxy Lo wtbbLes ost moqu gAbhald nom seddwous iat
alts of ome hen & ed ton taro Fry cheat dened 9 one
eruneioo<e% be eniget: a ae sight errnieetate we mee
me Widongen als mt dane iaowntaen ‘2 nb hontingen
tea’ em te meng ute wwe remo on ‘tus md se anne. twaNeS om 7
bowen sinod wate te: wee Lai mut said 08 oa =e = :
wSe
by the trust deed by the contract in question; and that he we not
evtopped from going ahead with the foreclosure proceed ings.
The real question presented to us for determination ia
whether plaintiff, under the provisions of the trust deed in the
inetant oase, could charge the trust eetate by his executory eon-
tract or could compromise or yield any right alrendy accrued to
the owners of the bends, which the trust deed was given to secure,
without the consent or subsequent ratification of sll the boud-
holders. ‘hat the power ani authority of a trustee to deal with
the security or trust estate is cireumseribed by the provisions
of the trust indenture is mot open to question. The general rule
undoubtedly is that a trustee eennet charge the trust eatate by
his executory contracts unless authorized se te de by the terms
ef the instrument creating the trust. The trust estate camot
promise, and unless the trustee is bound no one is bound for he
hes no principsl, and the rules which govern the relation of
principal and agent are not applicable to trustees, (26 BR. Co Les
1316, 1517s Riedall v. Stuart et al.» 151 Okla. 266, 2 ¥. (2nd)
929.)
The Olynieecs were eriginelly defaulted for want of
appearance, which defsult wae vacated August 22, 1934, and leave
granted them to answers Ne cross bill wae filed seeking affirmative
relief against either the trustee or bondholders because of the cane
tract or ite breach by the trustee, and their ansver simply cone
tested the trustee's right te maintain this action, averring that
le was estopped and precluded from so doing by reason of the con-
tract and his failure to pay them $1,800 and release them from
“any personal Liability om s deficiency decree in any foreclosure
on the pert of complainant" in accordance with the terms of the
contract.
sen naw ot dad? bra ipoisasup mi gortinge ads’ ue booed F ‘hr 4
_ payak dep obg exreetsete® ot ARV Riedy ostintinck ial
at moliantregeb set ay @2 bednonony wedtoomp Laat oat’ 3: 2 Ua <6
ood nt book davad odd ke enotetverg adi sp heaw aa ahi seutsae
~foo Gxodimexe aid ys ofadae some, othe eqanio dives .hesn, ¢ 7 ar
of hoster hwo Le digs una tiely ce es imonymos nwo ey) il ;
eotupen 6¢ noyts Rew ied sennd odd doldw axboed ads “he axestae pale
~hred asi? Lin Yo saisepititas ¢xouposdm 0 tewaKos ot éumlthy
althw Land ot cosas & Ye Yibredive has sown ot }
aden
anoket vox, out wd pedizvamuorto ak esadee downs: ‘19 wisuoen oat
| efare Laxeney eat? snolseous Of ogo den ot sewummint
| Mth etatos tewsd edt ogxado Jonnie ane GS ineednet
sarod wilt YS Ob oF On bentralliun eneiaw edometno 3 ve
fonnes ofetes saved oY «tawed ante case ahianclandilie
esl cot inwed at oto oe bewod at vaduirrd ent dent See yontmony
Yo moitator ed? sreve; doidw soter od? tmb gtegtontig on ted
vel sD HBS) asodeurd oF Sishottqus Jom ote Smops hae Leghiabeg
(het) .¢ 8 wbe satdo tus sata At elope aVseL ater
eee Meh Caene
te daar xOt bed tvntod etteatyine onew senna” saleable:
eWoet bas qhS@L 48S targus dedaony wow divas sob yooneteegge
ovitamtitte patdees beflt sow Litd sede oh stern Oe mode bermiTg
noo elf To eeuaced euehiedbned to vedere ole sorted tate ‘teiker
ono0 yLgse rewame “Llodd Bece bisects dave sce end
PeMigwos
-6
The trustee brings this action merely ae a representative
ef all the bondholders and for toute? wed think that it is clear
that he had no authority to enter into any contract which would
deprive them of any of their rights. The release of the mortgagors
from personal liability on their bomde surely constituted a
4eprivation of a substantial right of the bonthelders,
But, even though we assume that the trustee's saotion in
entering inte the contract was binding upom the bondholders and
that the contract wos breached by him, was there anything in the
contract that precluded plaintiff from proceeding to the foreclosure
amd sale of the property or thet could possibly warrant a chancellor
dismissing the bill in thie cause for went of equity? It will be
moted from the italicized language in that portion of the contract,
last above quoted, that the parties contemplated that « deeree of
forvelosure and aule would be entered in thie cause.
As te defendants’ claim that plaintiff was estepped by
reason of the contract from preceeding to a deeres, it is sufficient
to state that not only wae he not estopped but that the contract by
its terms anticipated the entry of a decree ef foreclosure and sale.
There is not a scintilin of evidence in the micter's report
that defendants parted with anything under the contract or thet they
suffered any damage because of ite breach. The facility with which
they discharged or satisfied the seeond mortgage, the mechanic's
lien claim and the judgments of record sgainst the premieces, a11 of
which were made charges against the property conveyed as security
by the first mortgage trust deed shortly before defendants’ default
on the bonds secured thereby, lends color to the allegstions of the
bill, whieh were not denied in the Olynices’ answer, that all of
these evidences of indebtedness, with the exception of one judgment,
were fictitious end fraudulent and were created and lodged as liens
ovisutrmoonqet « a9 yLonee mobiwe widt wget omtamed eR 6G:
unets od #9 Haste saksté oh baw Kyetedlh wit hee sammie alt. deti th
hisow deleéw dretimes wee ofat sedee o¢ yi inediwn om bad od taut
areganécom @¢ te erentor of” .edeptx ciedt to yne te mod? avinged
@ beantivense cLotwe ebaod ches me ysetidwks fenow. aq moet
<etohledined od? Yo ttyly Latimatedue @ te metheringed
WE mottos otuetaut? oft tatd sowenn ow sguots mews gta 06 ok
bas wrobLodnned ox? wou yoldeté eum onrsnod eds ded gabrodae
ail? wt getheitustd etedts BAW caihd Yd hedientd dor deodtedes one anute
ormeotoero? sd of natheatong movt triéntale bokutoeng shuld vou ae *
sotfeonatn a tnortow Ykdtaddy Blwes Pile 4 wreqery i YO the chie
sdoatines off to mottset soit ok egangnad dorbeliad® ond: : . “ sol
Lobeon ated mt’ Boxténd oe biwow’ oie ‘bno! Wanedions?
ed beqabdes aaw eutemtate sed? atete ‘edrobaeten” wee ia ‘iat
tndlor twa at $1 \eordes 2 6% gnbteeserg moet tostinws odd to meade
US Hocrdnds xT sokt tad beggoves fem BA sew Yew dom dash wtade ad
dxoqes otreddom off of somobive to aLiieniow « dow eb eset —
walt ‘tard 16 toortnes ote vebns uaidiiye dake bedeay wimetew ed godt
|
‘solty Motw Qittton® ef? toned of? Yo themed wpann’ que siren tare
solneteamn st yogageroa bavsne aid potiutiaa xo Dogradon th myetd
Ye ooroeb fb bait) nedhtgibtnos whiney ott dead" bbeeup és ad ee,
ad Ifiw sf tytiaod to dnow <et Saved wh ot Lore ot satsetaadt |
olen hie ewreetserot to eotesh ke widne att Sudugtohina wrod eo)
10 fia \avatmsxa onl? dumtege frosee Yo eduomyhut old hem mtwty mmbt
Vitwoee an Seysumes Yereqowe wld detiage eograly chan exow soldw
Pustob ‘edeteoteb eww led YLixema beet tured ognydtom tens? wnt ge
ests to nnolseyelta wd of toLos wbtot yetiontdt bermion ahhed Ode ate
“Yo Ele dads yatwana tasokato itd nt BULHOD JOR oxewuteldw yatta
coe hu mo to moriqooxe eit) iw yamedhaddebad te asanabkye eaeds :
_ WAL an bepnet hen boteens onmy ten eomisacch Si MNESOANENAN
:
Lee 2 fn
o Je
against the premises for no other purpose than to hinder and delay
the enforcement of the lien of the first trust deed.
We agree with the finding of the master incorporated in
the decree that, “it has not been chown that the defendants were
harmed beenuse of the failure of the said complainant to carry eut
the written agreement entered inte between them or that they
parted with any consideration in recognition thereof.”
We have onarefully examined the terms of the first trust
deed and find no provision therein which, either exprossly ox by
implication, sutherized plaintiff to execute the contract in question,
and there is no claim that it was authorized by the court, The
trust deed by its terms preseribed and restricted plaintiff's
authority te denl with the trust property and it must be presumed
that defendants, having executed the indenture creating the trust
estate, had knowledge of the limitation of power of the trustee
contained therein, and that he could met legally bind the tonde=
holders by such contract.
For the reasons indicated herein the decree of the
Superior court is affirmed,
AYP IRMA De
Gridley, Ps Jo, and Seanlan, J., concurs
shoo odour HaktS one, tenes ae te. irometoIne of
x statatangnenh:setnen, ih, Ye neehbek. tthe ee. Om. hell
new sinabrekteh eft tect nwede pomd ton wal ah” stasis eoroe ot
duo Grtse ot smanigiguon bios efi Yo omiked en? Yo eaatape at
yadd Jedd to mod? soended oink beretne suemoren wettien ef
S,Roprtads Aedsegeoex ai swIdeTebtampe Yeu Ath mre
deuxd taxk? of? to meet elt bonlonxe viluloren vend OF
F MG vo Ylncougxs ct, tae aoc ising bat tm bm
qmoitaonp at toosince els odwooxe of T2teatala dentrodiue gnoktaohigat
| ed? .dxwoo ett yt domtamitxe eae gt teats, as fo om sh xed? pmo
_ -atPertadg betokstas bme. tagtronorg, pony es heed taux?
RES OF FO Ht. ee. eR TE nies
tewit edd quiscox ommtmonet eff betusexe yt |
eadarsd orbs De, sores, petted tats OM
tag Gy ra Se hel eats
nine ook nas an oS yn
ne yee errr Pa) ‘yaa
gee mee PA ete A
Pritalacaline}
tae wef hie
EON Lp ROR E ale ciel
REMI, g OEE ap has elke may aa |
ab Rae aay SB ag ote sty tay at iad
a toe ; me 2p Boke oom WP et gh at te aR Re ie Sei ogee
ama neha ooh: om
37190 / ff
HAROLD J. GREEN, tax 3
Plaintiff in Error,
OF ERROR TO
Lot
MUNICIPAL COURT
Ve i
MARGARETH JAROSZ, also known as me OF CHICAGO.
MARGARET SAROSSY, 2 PA 8) L.A. 6 9 1
Defendant in Error,
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
This cause is in this court by the plaintiff upon a writ
of error to review the record, wherein the court, without aid of a
jury, upon a triel found the issues against the plaintiff, vacated
the judgment of December 30, 1932, entered by confession, and entered
judgment for the defendant, This action is based upon a promissory
note containing a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, exeouted
by the defendant on October 5, 1932, The plaintiff obtained a judgment
by confession for $186.54, in the Municipal Sourt of Chicago. Upon
motion, after judgment, mede by the defendant, she was allowed to
plead a defense, the judgment to stand as security. The note in
negotiable form, with a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, was
payable to the order of the Chicago Electric Appliance Mfg. Co., and
by this company endorsed without recourse and delivered to the plain-
tiff, who tontends that he was the holder of the note before maturity
and in due course,
Upon the day and date of the execution of the note, the
defendant also entered into a contract with the payee company named
in the note, agreeing to purchase an oil burner from the payee for
§179,50, payable $25 in cash upon the installation of the burner, and
the balance in 12 monthly installments, beginning November 5, 19332.
Two weeks after the execution of the contract and note, and before
the first payment was due, the contract and note were endorsed by the
payee company to the plaintiff, who is now the holder of the
promissory note and the contracts
:
me
iis 5 Oeste
“ mn \ Pants Has »% GUORAH
torrid tk Wavabers
s, "gta
OT FOAAE IO
THUOO JATIOINGM
}
sODAD THO YO
reo AL @¥ Se os ie ae
sora nt tnsba0t 9c take
»TaUOO au TO MOLMIIO BRT GaRavIusa S363R wore ora amy amt il
tivw 8 soqy tthinislq eat xd P1100 elit a at geus9 abet ovoh baad
‘gto Dis tuod?iw .sxvoo sit nioredw brocer odd wolver af Paid ig
beteoay ,Ttil¢nisiq seat tantoges eovant ont baire’t darct moa eveut .
boretas bos jnoitestmos yd Setetme weer 08 ‘rodug08d to ‘tanugiet ‘eat
yrooelmerg s mnoqw beesd at noltoe elAT ‘staabasteb oa ous 9 tok ty
beduoexe .tuempbyt eaothed of yoatod¥s 46 duatiow 6
tnemgbut 2 bemtetde Wieatels edt Seer ,a tédodod: ate nebo
nogU . sogeoid® to devo Lsqlotau edt mi (b8,88L) dot sil is
ot bewolls eow ede .tasbaoteb edt yd sbom (tienghyt ‘tests anal
at etom od? .ytixueee es baste of tmomghvt ‘eit “eansteb 2 beelq
asw ,tnemehy, eeetnoo of ysmtotis to taoriaw s the not eldarvoye
bas ..00 .gtM eonetiqg& oltteel® ogeotd0 eft to tebre edt ot oldsyaq
mtkelg edt of betevifeb bas eaxwooer tuvodtiw bestobas yancme9 eidt yd
ytisutem eroted stom edt to rebled. edt aaw. ed sade ebastaoe ody yhtht
| e100 oud at bas
edt fon edt to moltvooxe edd Yo ets bas ya, odd noqu
hemen yisqmoo seysq odt dtiw toatinos 4 otal beretne oats tnabusteb
wot seysq ed? mort temiuud Lio as sasdouig ot gateergs ston odd mt
bas ,redurd ed? to aottealistani oft soqu deso mi 88% eldayeq 08,808
SSCL 48 tedmevod gntantged vetron List end viddaon GL at eoneted ont
eroted bas ,etonm bas toertnoo edt to noityooxs ont rede ateow ovT
edt yt beerobae exew eton bas testtaoe edt .eub enw on ; te tenth os ,
oft to webLod oft won et ortw F etttbabadg ont of 1 ii sa
fhe facte in the regerd establish the? the plaintiff at the
time of the curchage of the note in cuortion was «tteorney for the
payee Sompeny, and received «© pert of the trengestion the promissery
note and the contract.
From the fsete it ia apoareat thet the slatatiff aed
kneeledge the considerstion fer the exooution of the promiasery note
wee the inetaliation of <n oll burner to Se used and operated te heat
the budlding otcupied by tenonta of the defentont. The foots alee
indicate thet the of] burner foiled te best the preeiaen, Thie
fse% eas borne out by the witmees Aaron Atelier, the «gent of the
Applianee Mfg, Go., sherein he toatified that wean o vielt te the
defendant's premiaes, he found the furner felled te heat the
ereaices, and notified the sempeny of this faoty thet the o11 burner
hee beom removed by the defendant and the Sudlding ie now being
hested by the use of cond.
A tenant «ho sotupied the preaiace at the tiue the burner
wae inatelied, testified te the faet that the burner shen in oceration
fated ‘to furmiah bext and thet he hod te wee « atove to keep his
premises properly hested until the furnsea in whieh the of] burner had
beem Inetelied wes remeved and the preafiges heated by use ef coal,
9 The plaintiff contents thet be is » Bolder in due courses
thet failure of consideration is ast cospetent evidence «gzinat
the plaintiff; thet he beeune holder of the defendant's oromiasery
note before enturity for value, eitheut notice of auy infirsity in
the instrusent. However, the question te be determined is was the
plsintif’ when he porehaeed the mote, together «ith the sontreat for
the inetelistion of on of] burner ia the promiecs of the a
«properly charged with the oowlitions of the contract entered
by the partion.
From the evidence, the pisintiff obtained the promiasery
“mote, together with the contrast signed by the defentonte This
edd te Vetentadey at teat HeRidedun brovey ot? ak otitis , Otome |
od? WO? Yorrosss wey aokdewup al ehoe wnt Yo mandonoe 9 Yo sake
Wenateane ott ReLiowannre madd ta ledeniy a bewkamoy — sveounes some q
OME Te
stuabast ot odd Ye efacnes w
eka? “snoutaors ond teed of Betton wenn Lie ra
om?) te troge ott | arshioae, Ret eoeathe oat ant ¥ Ww too saved
ail 08 #iniy o sev taut betthenog ee abyrode. ae - hs
oat tae 8 hoLtet xomrud eae daub abn |
are oid test rent akd? Yo iramoe bas by
ny [bated roa sb gritiiud dt the trnhanton eto dd ya
isis bist, @ ase |
hat one sae te eeadaone oat at pie od ota a
“onda whoo on?
e:
? Psi (os Ag
oub ai sob Lod adh oa baal abatedenie % Y
“3 as seanbave ‘intact Yost ab bebe
Ay
i, oe
pre it er 6 sebon bn
3
contract provided for the installation of an oil burner for the
heating of the defendant's premises, and the plaintiff had knowledge
that the consideration for the note was the installation of an oil
burner by the Chicago Electwie Appliance Mfg. 0o., there being no
express warranty contained in the contract the Company impliedly
warranted that the oi] burner was £it for the purpose of heating
the defendant's premises, and sufficient for the purpose intendéd,
The evidence indicates that the oil burner failed of its
purpose and was removed by the defendant, after notice to the
Appliance Company by its agent of the failure of the burner to proper=-
ly heat the premises, and as a result of such failure there was a
failure of consideration in the execution of the note by the defendant.
3 piano Go. ve Lindner, 6% al, 221 Ill. App. 94; Hallock v,
Gutler, 71 Ill, App, 471. This court in the case of MoKeown v.
Dyniewioz, 83 Ill, App. 509, upon the question of an implied warranty,
said:
"A mechanic who undertakes to construct and furnish
mechanical apparatus for a particular purpose, impliedly
agrees that when constructed it will be reasonably suffi-
sient for the purpose for which it is intended. The law
implies in the case of all such contracts, in the absence
of an express agreement or clear intention to the contrary,
that the apparatus furnished shall be reasonably sufficient
for the purpose, Springdale Cemetery Assoc, v. Smith,
32 Ille 252,"
From the facts as they appear in the record, we believe the
court was justified in its finding for the defendant, and there being
no reversible ¢rror in the record, the judgment entered by the court
is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CONCUR.
a ay Ng At:
&
edt tol sequed [lo as te avktellat¢ani edd tot Lebiverq sostitaes
eahetwond bed I2ttalela edt dus .soatnesg e'tashaereb, odd Yo gabtsod
fio aa te moktelisteni edt eaw ston ont tot sosterebisaco ot todd
on gated exedt 4.00 «gtk eoasifeqa oixtoe ls eyaeidd edt yd tenxud
Vibetiqué yasqmo0 edt toastace add ak beuistnoo ‘tasree esergxe
gakteod to MQatue.odd vot HR eew temnud Lio edt tsdt betasrrew
ebabustat osoqzeq edt tot taelottine bas .seetneng e'taabaeteb edt
ati to Selist temiyd Lio odd tadt aeteoisas snaebive oF
odd ot sotton xretia .tasbaeteb edt yd heyoues oy Soe eeoquag
~teqerg Gt teated edt to erulist adi te taogs sti Va Yoaqwod sensi iggé
# sew oredt ermlict dove to tivaer « as bas seeeinorg edt toed. we
stasbasteb sit yd eten sd¢ Yo aoltucexe sat at nolterebtence bad wmnthen
w¥ Sogdish {SC .qqh .LLI I88 is #8 steghatl
eV Mwosgol to seso sit at grvoo wid? LT) otqh ekEE ‘Seiitaibiah
eVenatisw bellqmt as to nottesup edt nog .C08 sqqA — ae mar
delarst bas tourtames of eedetrobay ote
yiheiiqméi ,exoqruq telyottusgq s tot eae
~fttwa videaosser od iitw ti leductesen Ge, tedd as
wei edt ,bebaotat ef ti doide rot SRogiay to2 |
2 88 ‘
ont sysifed ew .broos: edt ai rwwoqgs wade as etoat out wort inc q
gated sredd bae etaabacteb edt rot gn tbat ets ot bartitent ecu ttu09 E
tuo odd yd boretas tnemghut edt ,broses edt al Raat eidterevor on
- sboarttte a
soneeds edt al rh st en gay dows poe to ogeo edd md 1 os
Yrstiaes od? of aolias t2oLe eeergre ms te.) :
inetoittwe yidenosser od {lade bedetn zit ete & ott todd |
adtin® .v soosrA yretemed: siakontoss ; Ce
-CUMAIVIA THEMORUL abi so
37219
HERMAN H. BECKER, OX?
(Complainant) Defendant g \ Error,
#
Vs 4 SUPERIOR COURT
GHARLES A. BECK, ELLEN He BECK, wife
of said Charles A. Beck, FRANK Hh. , COCK COUNTY.
REED, FLORA M. REED, STANLEY L. FABIAN
and OSCAR V. HUNT, et al., ay et ee
979 T.AL Gee
(Def@ndants) Plaintiffs in Error.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE CPINION OF THE OOURT.
This is a writ of error directed to the Superior Court
of Cook County to review the record, wherein the complainant filed
a bill of complaint to foreclose a certain trust deed securing the
payment of three notes, aggregating the principal sum of $4,500,
bearing interest at 6% per annum until due, evidenced by coupon notes,
and 7% after maturity.
To secure the payment of the notes, Charles A. Beck and
Ellen H. Beck, his wife, ex#euted and delivered » trust deed, convey-
ing the real estate therein described. The bill of complaint made
certain defendants parties to the bill, and upon the issues being
joined and defaults taken as to certain defendants, the cause was
referred to a master in chancery of the Superior Court, who reported
on the law and the facts, and recommended that a decree be entered
for the sale of the real estate described,
Upon objections being filed to the report, which were
overruled by the master, such objections were considered by the
court as exceptions to the report, and after consideration, the master's
report was approved and a decree entered for the sale of the real
estate deseribed in the trust deed, to satisfy the payment of the
principal notes and interest coupons.
Defendants Charles A. Beck and Ellen H. Beck contend that
they are the makers of the notes and mortgage, and the owners of the
| (Rosner MAS
ants
tore | £ tashasred pe og il
THUOD KOtATIUEe , vv
rus H0Ma 6H uaaIe laota Ad
PP woe + oomaxant a a rane a oat ace tae tat
Bi Sa a ae R { id % t oy. ed
“res 7hi leet g ne aa
stort at etiitateld (4
0) iy
sTAUOO SHT TO , HOTKIGO Sut Gasavilaa sam sonnet PXESIERRS mn
tryed tolreqg& edt of betoetth torre te tinw # at, Hae se: ‘
edt gutxuses haeb tent. aketreo 2 pereekinsy ot dessins 20 i
2008 de Yo nye faqionixg adt galtsgetgys aeedon ponds Te
89t0n moquOo a beonebive .oub Litany mune req RO 38 teord
+ Yih y : , seid por rsp
bas does .A Pn sated edt to tusmysq od? ero%e of etree
~yeraoo deed teuret 8 bersviteb bas botuvexe iiss aid oe
chan #akelgnioe Yo LEAs oat Para tote
betrogex ede pa pater ieie ant wes eunaniah a xadali: - vt hetxores
‘petétas od corel « tadt Hebasmmoper Baw Cie we phar oct mo
ast
Leer edt to else edt tot botetme eeto9h 2 bas hin righ
; edt to taemysq edt Yreltse ot ,beod teutt edt ak b
eoquoo teoretal bas sete id - fons
Het ASAT Lui
pone ae
2
property described therein, end are necessary parties, and as to them
the decree is void for want of service of summons.
The summons, dated Maroh 12, 1931, direoted to the April
term, was served upon all defendants except Charles A. Beck and
Ellen H. Beck, and as to these defendants the summons was returned,
"not found", Service on the defendants named, however, was by a
copy of the bill of complaint served upon them in California, with
notice of the commencement of suit, and for failure of the defendants
Gharles 4. Beck and Ellen H. Beck to appear and file a demurrer or
answer to the bill of complaint, they were defaulted.
The deoree recites -
"that the defendants Charles A. Beck and Ellen H. Beck
wife of said Cherles 4. Beck were each personally duly
served with a copy of the bill of complaint herein and
a notice of the commencement of this suit more than 30
days tigre to the ist dey of the Nay Term, A. De, 1931,
of thie Yourt.
in the consideration of the contention of defendants
Charles A. Geek and Ellen H. Beck, his wife, that there was want of
service of summons upon these defendants, the question arises can
these defendants complain of want of service in this court for the
first time upon a writ of error? This question is important, for
if it follows there was want of service upon the named defendants,
the chancellor was without jurisdiction of the persons of these
defendants, and the decree entered foreclosing their respective rights
in and to the real estate described therein was void. Upon this
question the court was without assistance of counsel, nor was it
aided in the consideration of this problem,
We have made an examination of the authorities of this
state, and find the rule to be that a defendant named in a proceeding,
either at law or in equity, may question for the first time in this
court upon a writ of error the trial court's jurisdiction of the
person of the defendant and its right to enter a defavlt and judgment
modt oF a9 Bao ,eeiineq Yresesden ove das sthoredt bei, : ‘ 20 |
.enommue to eotvxes to ¢asw vot blow ak woreee wae
Litas edd of betoatib ,f@el ff doxell botad «Suton ‘one
| bae toed .A eelracdid sqooxe atcabaeteb Lie moqie wre: Baw
_» sbectuter asw enommss edt etasbasted osodt ot am baa “i008. H wogsa
s yd esw .tovowed hemes stachaeteab ext, 0 eotvreg | s"heuot toa"
dtiw ,slmrotifed af medt aoqy bevres tafsiqmoo to ILid edt to Yoo
atashneteb od¢ to etutiet sot dos ,tive to tnemeonensoo odd. te eotton
to xetaumeh ¢ elit Las teeqqe ot Aoed .H meliS bas d996..A golzadd
_shotLlusteb orew yodt .tmtatqmoo te Ltd asd of sewaas,
7 Betioer ina ies ree ft
food .E gost bas #oed..4. ge ¥ baateh edd
; _ cme dose 9 eel . “on ei) biee to t
; sie net ce) 6 diiw Sevier
CE madd oxen thu Piteed eae 0 ovtton =
efSCL yell «A yarzot ry edt to yab tal ia z Z . e es
?
102 instroqui ‘at molkicoup aid? ‘Trorre to ‘thew a og srogtoered j
poe see oem
ednabaotop ‘bomen ad} noqu selvrée to trie asw 6t9 énbltot #2 F
seed? to anoereq odt Yo nolvotbetuvt tuoddiw dew toLfeon 4
stdgit evitosqeer tiedd guteéLosrot Berédae botoed ody Bae hel |
«git? nog) Blow esw Atoteds Bediconab Stetve’ Teor ite ot bas a
all eer tod — to eonsdwlsae tweltin saw dxgoo edit etta op 4
"mo taony efit te Aileadaditisdo Gad at Sania 5
‘gidé to seitizoddue édt to aodtankuaxe ae obem Svad on peniyee
yonbbsoootg 4 af Boman tasbasteb & sand of od ofut de baht Bac ots ade
aids at omit jy adé tot angen ive we a cee a |
3
where there is want of proper service of summons upon the defendant,
as provided for by law.
In the case of Filkins v. O'Sullivan, et al, 79 Ill. 524,
it appears service of summons was had by a special deputy sheriff
upon the defendant, The return of the deputy sheriff was not
verified by oath or by his affirmation before some officer competent
to administer an oath, as required by the law of this state. Judg-
ment was entered by default, and the court held that the defendant
could take advantage of the lack of service in compliance with
the statute for the first time in the Supreme Court. To the same
effect is the case of Hansen v. Klicka, 78 Ill. App. 177, where the
court held that where a decree makes » person an apparent party and
recites service upon him by publication, establishes « lien upon
his land and orders it seld and the proceeds paid to others, he has
a legel right to resort to a writ of error to secure its reversal,
although he was not served with process in the suit. See also
People v. Evang, 262 Ill, 235.
The return showing service of 2 copy of the bill of complaint,
notice of the commencement of the suit upon the Becks must be within
the time allowed by law, and the time of the service must appear from
the return, properly sworn to before an officer empowered to administer
oaths, It appears from the return filed in this case, to whkeh is
attached a copy of the bill of complaint and notice of the commence-
ment of the suit, that the return was signed and sworn to by Robley
E. George, of Los Angeles, California, on Mareh 33, 1931, before
E. H. Clausen, who purported to be a notary public, and from the
seal attached it appears that he was a notary public in "Los Angeles
Co. Cal"; that no certificete was attached that E. H. Glsusen was
& notary public empowered to administer an oath to the affiant, as
required by Sec, 14, Chap, 22, Chancery Act (Gahill's Ill, Rev. st.
1929).
y@tashaeted of¢. noo enomuy Yo sofyrse toqerq To thaw ed etext oxen
shai emo bebtveRe’ ie
gS LET OV fe Ye Lae t tpyerg yw Vv BHhULia to vase ens wt
| Rrisede Ytuqeh Lstosqe * YW ban sew whounive ‘to solviee etseqgi th
ton esw Vilvede ytuqeb eat to atte: ent strabaeteh ead mogss
FReteques TeoLtt6 emoa orOed moltamettt# Red we xO tee Wi beltirey
~ghwt: .efste sidt to wal oft yo Bertuper ow itso ae ratelatmbs ot
“ dishrekeb ect teit bled t2y0o edd bas, tivation yt heretae sow tem
“Mtiw eoneliqnos mt eotvres to woal-adt te Sgstmevbs eat biwee
ease Odi oT . .t2yo0 smerque ent at omit textd ond tot otutsge oxy
odd oredw .VVL .qgA «ff 8Y yextot ty wy eRe to een ott at tostte
bas etrsq tnocaqes As moersa 8 esicm ‘pettets: ® erode tat =
foqy mail a sedatidosee wostnonioug we nie toque ‘scaveme met
eat od .eredte. ot. bisw abseoorg edt bun bios 77 ent Bry _ 9
-fsarevex edi eryose ot torre to tiow 6 ot fresex ot By a Iagel 8
? oats 908 tive edt ak onpeam atin bovres fon aew od A tawodgs
. i sats airs s38 Ragin ¥ ahsoss
nslonoo to Lite edt to yqoo 6 to solvies gato aster ba — ee mae
addin ac dat BA9eg edt noge dive out to tt
Ley SEA eos ak
wort ragga taum sotvres ott te outs oft has ayel ws ben
aa
steininds ot botewequs ro0stto a8 stood o# arowe. ‘Yaewia A yi it ie: |
ek | doce ot .@eto aldt at best anton, ont ae, , em ma
‘~vortosuoo edt to, soiton bas tntsignen to hie ans to .
weldon wi o¢ azowe bas bengie enw muster 91 ont tact st
eroted {ECL ee sore a0 atmrot bio ces tegat a0 pha 000 ff
gong aoe
ont mane bas, aptidieg, Waton & ot ade “3 0 off i
Yost
es ytuastts ous og sito | a8 “netetmtabs 08 be . bey pepe Sangeet
” MN Ln deo Bes sy ashy
i ate, aver LEI at Litdsd) toa vreoaedd has ie. seb Ps we
ti | be
It is to be noted from the statute that the officer admin-
istering the oath must be empowered to do so at the place where the
oath is administered. Service of a copy of the bill of complaint
and notice of the commencement of the suit, must strictly comply with
the provisions provided for by the statute of this state, and
failure to meet the reouirement that the purported officer must be
empowered to administer oaths at the place where administered, is
fatale
In the instant case there is no certificate that the
purported notary public hed the power to administer oaths, nor does
it appear that the named notary public certified under his official
seal thet he had such suthority in the state where the oath was
administered, Trevor v. Golgate, 181 111. 129; Desnoyers Shoe Co.
i National Bank, 188 Ill. 312,
Fer want of service provided for by the statute of this
state, the court was without jurisdiction to default defendants
Charles A, Beck and Ellen H. Beck, his wife. They were proper and
necessary parties, being the makers of the notes secured by the
trust deed now sought te be foreclosed, The service conferred no
jurisdiction of the persons of these defendants, and it follows that
they were not before the court, notwithstanding the court in its
decree found that it had jurisdiction of the persons of Charles
& Beek and Elien 4. Beck, his wife.
We have reserved to the hearing complainant's motion to
strike the certificate of evidence, which appears in the record and
was filed subsequently to the signing ef the decree, The certifi-
cate was allowed, presented, and signed by the Chancellor, within
the time fixed, at the time of the entry of the decree. No objections
were made by the complainants when the certificate was signed and
filed, and what appears to be a part of the proceedings may properly
be incorporated in the certificate, which has a bearing upon the
~timhs teolitte edt tad? stutsate ost moxt boron ed of at aE
edt eredw eoslq ont te of ob of betowoqme ed taum déeo ont aabsoded
| tuisLamos to ILid edt to Yeo s to eeivres | boxoteladmbs al dtso
dtiw ylgmoo yltottte tem . dive ont to tremeomenmoo ot to soiton bas
bas ,otste eldt to stutates adt yd sot bebiverq enotetvorg ont
ef gece xeotiro betxoqkng edd tadé dnemextuset off toae ot e:
4 eae art y
‘af ,betetelatmbs eredw eoslq edt ts addse reteintmbs of betswoque
be
ott teadd otsolti¢res om et otedt seso ‘tnstont oat at
via? aes J
eeo0h tom ,edtco <otelaimbs ot xewoq ent bed ob Liu vision |
fstoitte eid tebas bettitxes ofiduq yustont bomen ant todd xoeqas a
paw diteo ed¢ eredw otste odd at yi ixonttue fous bad on vi Sane
‘92 9048 exoyoused qOSL oLLE £81 ,otsf00 -* sama ,becat mer reyed
«818 «LfX BBL Lay
sidt to stutste ed? yd tot bebtvoxa eotvres to omen: -.
bEgc +xye 9
no
, ae oe
a Oeil
. WR res ue
ot eee t mel nt
: etasbaoten tiusteb of mottoibetast tuodtiw enw fx00 ‘ia
i] wr’ a sshd
bas reqoty stew yen? “otiw aid etoed «i noLis ne ost
Fal ys ¥ siaged
edt wd botsoes aston edt to ersdam odd gated ,20k; |
Tat wart
om berretaco salvroa ox? .bosoloetet ad ot tequoe wou bead teurct
fed? ewollot ti bus ,etashaetob osed? to asoetsq ant te A
£2 one
ett at tro edt gatbnatadtintoa atiwoo eft oxokos ‘tem ox" 1
oa ae izod to unoereq oft to noite thatsyt Ma ok a
t
Lie ; wer, oor
~otiw aid il ip MS
ae: teatie
ot rotten eo! inantatqmoo palcood ent ot bevrsset ovad ow
bas brooe osit nt etseqqs doide s0usbive to seesnbveon St
~itiixeo ofT .sbz00b oft to palugie exit ot Utneupeedze bottt
een oh of
nidtinw ,rolleonmsd® edt ww beng te bas .besnecerg sbowoLls wet ser on A
anottee {do of .sotoeb od? to exter ext to omit ont a! ‘Domed 0 att
ry team
1) of
bre homie Baw ateoltiérso anit medi etnsntsignos oat ys obam “ atte]
equ @ wag YO
Vrecote yen ayn ibssoor: ont to req a od of exseage pees ak ybelit
etd aoa 5s heaed 5 eed fotdw cotsoltisxes eat wt bet. xe ree
5
question of service upon the defendants Charles A. Beck and Zlien
H. Seck. The motion with therefore be denied,
Other questions have been called to our attention, but we
do not deem it important to decide them at this time,
For the ressons stated the decree is reversed and the
eause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HALL, J. coNcURS
WILSON, Jd. SPECIALLY CONCURRING,
From a reading of the record it is apparent that the
real contestants to the decree are frank N. Reed and Flora M. Reed,
his wife, who are in possession of the premises by reason of 2 contract
to purchase and that they have been in possession for a considerable
length of time and apparently will continue so to be. The defendants
Gharles 4, Beck and Elien H. Beck, his wife, never appeared by a
motion to quash the service and are appearing on this writ of errer
represented by the same counsel that represents Frank and Flora Reed,
From the authorities cited in the main opinion it can be adduced that
a writ of error will lie to review & summons which does not comply
with the statute. The Supreme Court of this state in the case of
Trever v. Coigete, 181 Ill. 1288, has held that such summons is void,
While I am concurring in the msin opinion, I feel that it would have
been the proper practice for the defendants Beck to have appeared
in the lower court and made a proper motion to quash the service in
order to provide the complainant with an opportunity to secure a
better writ. So far as the record discloses they received 2 copy
of the bill of complaint and the omission in securing the certificate
of magistracy could have been corrected by amendment.
The purpose of process is to serve notice on 2 defendant.
Precess that is irregular can be quashed by a plea in abatement or a
Olle bas aoed .4 sekrad’ evadtestep ony ogy 60lvred To mottearp —
sbetaeh sd evoteredd iti wo ttom om? vatewe “dy
ow dud .woltnstts wo of belise need trad eno tteedy xeHAe™ ©! Gee
ne eSaikt abit te mont shtoed oF gnattogat #4 mseb tom ob
oat bas beetever at serosh edt botste endends ss eeeTO0 OMe
hey 2 fa natis Medeiliy
eCHCWMAMZE CHA GRena VER ike tie RRS SRS Ree ena
S2U0UO0 .% ‘cua
: DH IAAUOROD ‘YdUATORGe. 1b “MOS LIW
od? Gadd tnoteqqe ef #2 brooex edt Yo gnsbeor & WOE oo foOwS
beet .M arell San Soot .W Adsxt ors esteeb adh oF ednatestion Laer
resttno® # to noeset yd eeatwerq od? to motad@avog mt s¥u! daw: (ettw wid
eidsrehiencs s rot aoteeeseog at need svat yodd todt bas wanders ot
etashasteb edt .ed ot of ounitace Lhiw yLtdonaqya bas oakd Xo dtgaes
“a Xd betseqds veven ,étiy aid (toed SW MOLI Baw tose A geltadd
torre ‘to titw eidd do gnixveeqqs S28 Bas SS ivtow sae" ‘delaup ot MoLtom
sbeot stellt bie neti etasesrqet tadd Loenvod oman oid ye betaeeoryer
tedt beoubbs od aso tf woldiqo iam edé at bavid eeltinodiue edd were
| vlqmoo tom eoob doitw enomeura & welver ot ell Lfbe torrs Yo ¢itw's
YO Saeed edt mt orate etd} to Pgod ‘emssque en?’ | stutete edt détw
sbtov et etonmse doue tans bled and ORE VLIT LAL iygesiten Ww gowede
vad bivow ti tant Lest I ,aoivtqe man edt at gabriwones ms Yetidy
bouseqqs eved ot fost stashnoteb odd rot eetioatd teqote adh nese
ni sdivres edt deawp ot md thom Ledonq “2 Sbam Ste MueOHoweL ext ab
$ etubex ot Ylartroqqe ae dtte’ ‘tiscisiqnes edt shivorg of 26ht0
Yddo 4 hevieoet Yet? eeoloath bioods edt Be eaten’ shhew totted
etsoltitaes odd grixwosa mi noleplno sdt baa bas ta talqugo to \ELtd eft Yo
COURS O OS Seren batems ye Satesrtes anesd ‘ews ery Bia aeatiss
dapbaeres S Mo 9oiton evtes ot ef eassorg to egoqtid eat Rhee
‘8 0° Saonetads mt selq a yd noses od ‘veo irecueeias: et tans avosort
sFooLReewey ode ws heveragepont 9 “
6
motion. These matters should be injgcted into the case at the
earliest opportunity by the defendant. The defendants Reed had no
concern with the process as related to the defendants Beck. The
counsel thet represented the Reeds in the proceeding is now
here representing the Becks.
In my opinion, while the Supreme Court has called a
similar summons void, it should be considered as irregular and
voidable and the proper forum in which to correct it should be
the court of original instance, If no process whatsoever had been
served, a bill of review would lie in the Gircuit Court to vacate
the decree.
¥
odd te caso sit otni betoptat ed biuode axottem seed? , .mottom
stashavieh edt yd ystautioqqo teetizes —
om bed hoot etashaeteh of
ed? 200% stashnoteb ede of bodeLox ao gnoeong Ont Mttw mt¢0m00
wort ai gaibepporg ed? si eboet ond hatnovenqen tadt Loenyoo
a befleo nad truod emerqua ont eltdw ymolniqo MAL. ~ santo
bas relygetzi as hotshienoo ed bivore ti ,biov exommve telinis
od bluods tk teoertos ot doldw ai surtot reqonq wit hae sidehioy —
neod bed teveostedw eesoorg on Ti ; seonatend lanigito to, droo edt
etsoav of dr0D tivotiO edt ai OLL bivew weives to Litd « ybeyres
wit snot tne tent
: rain
j i Wea ee swainteeni “gt
; joe age ta digmet
. tek th webaadth
eee dere sabia ‘ot doston |
~~ ee ie wnrdeioe won o
om i * By: ae ist wat eee
HEE eee ae eer te fice ‘a
fi Ss diiadiie Nhagad tie j
peek whKs a sal ” noes 4
i the eal oR Hebe shisoitn wd b a Ath |
ae aed Dwaiey og they vt wae nese |
dies Reins ae ae ata towel ade eh
5 hae de Rela Boeing ay ehlneeh nd POORO |
ne bs ae ong eh ge ne rnted
ee etapa “hie Fav way te
sol vt Aieed “artengen he
- ‘ at ah aap te war sing MR Hye : nt
tty J, pata od dex ~xloeiw.s we out susnor’ ay
ae
37239 ane,
DORA SWIDLER, YY
Wal
PP’
ui 4
BAL FROM
8
f
os
f
¢
ir
ee. fe
Plaintiff) A elleey\ j
iia ’ aap MUNICIPAL COURT OF
Ve
TOWER AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION, CHICAGO.
(Defendant) Appellant. cp PY | la 2
269 1ASO2ZF
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CoURT.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered
in the Municipal Court for the plaintiff in the sum of $557,50 in an
action of assumpsit upon a certain first mortgage real estate bond in
the principal sum of $500, dated April 1, 1928, due April 1, 1932,
bearing interest at 7% per annum after maturity, signed by the defend-
ant and payable to the holder thereof, To this action defendant filed
an affidavit of merits.
Upon the trial of the issues it was stipulated by the
parties thet the plaintiff was the holder and owner of the bond sued
upon and that the same was the obligstion of the defendant and was
properly signed and executed; that nothing had been paid upon the
principal sum of s2id bond; that the bond was due by its terms, and
all interest had been paid to maturity. The decument was received
in evidence, and provides, among other things, that -
"Both principal and interest are payable in the manner more
ag camel desoribed in the Indenture hereinafter referred
9 *
For a description of the mortgaged property, the nature and
extent of the security, and the rights and limitations on the
rights of the bondholders, reference is made to said Indenture,
to all provisions of which the holder of this bond does by
the act of becoming such holder agree."
it was also stipulated that defendant's exhibit 1 is the trust deed
securing the plaintiff's bond, and that the trust deed was properly
executed and recorded, and authenticated. It wes further stipulated by
the parties that the plaintiff made no demand upon the trustee to
institute any action, nor did she join with any number of bondholders,
GESTS.
- AIIOTWE, AnoG,
rs “yee Lhecgs (thttute ta)...
oh a :
.ODAOTHD Apis ee apa
[Sov.A.T eyo" tasLieaga (enebeanot) bh
C7,
*TAU00 HHT %O MOTMIGO ANT GaRaVIlaG Jaeay ZorTeuy outoreans, PM © bw 8
bereiae dnemghu;, s mort tashagteb add yd Lasqqs as et eld? jd abkovy
as ak 08.Yaé$ to mye edt af 2kitatedq edt ot fxyo0 LegtoiaumM ede at
ai Dood etetee Lsox egsgtzom tari? alstreo 4 noqu thequvacs to getter,
8ECL tf Ltrgd eubh ,880L .f Ling betsh .008$ to mum Legtontug edt.
~basteb edt yd beagie .(tixutem tette mone roq BY te teorotat gatraed
belit dnebnoteb mottos sidt oT .tosted? tebLod adt of eldays¢ bas tus
eatirom to santas as
sit yd beteingite esw ¢i seveat ont to Lelxd ont valet
beve baod et to reswo bas tebLod edt sew Ititntele edt ted ettzoq
esw dae inshbasteb eft to aoltestide odt sow omen ont tant dae nog
edt aoqy bisg seed bed yaidton ted? ;betuoexe bas boagte ‘vregorq
bas ,euret evi yd evb eew baod edt stadt jbaod bier to aire Leqtoatra
bevieoes aew tasmoob edT .ytizutem oF bisq ased bed seoretat ile
~ tedt ,sgaidd cedéo yooms ,esbivore bas 12 ;
STOM Tenmem edd at eidayeq ere teotstai bus
betrstex restantored etutmebal edt ai bedivroe
RRS Ste ee a eG ae ae a
yd aseb haod etdé 29 seblod 949 dodity te eno jeeracerg | sah ont
beeb teutt odd et L tididxe etinsbhacteh tent betelugite owls wow $I
Yiteqora ssw beeb teytt odd tent bas .buod a'ttitatelg edt gaituooe
“betsiuqite sedéiut sew #1 .betsolttaedtus bus ,bebroser hae betuoexe
ot.esteutt edt soqu basmeb on ebsm titatelq edt sedis ‘eettzeg edt
eteblodbaed to tedaumx yas dtiw ate ede bth rom .noltog Ws stusttent
2
either the requisite number provided in the trust deed, or others,
in any demand upon the trustee, and that the trustee did not refuse
to act purauant to a demand,
In defense of this «ection, the defend»nt introduced the
deed of trust from the Tower Automobile Corporation, as mortgagor,
to the First Trust and Savings Bank, as Trustee, The trust deed
provides, in part - under Section 6 =
"Whenever under the provisions hereinabove contsined it
shall have become the duty of the Trustee to institute
legal proceedings upon the written request of the requisite
number of bondholders, and upon the deposit or tender of
deposit of the requisite number of bonds with the trustee,
and upon tender of proper indemnity, and the Trustee
shall have wrongfully or unreasonably refused or failed to
aet within sixty (60) days after such request and deposit
or tender of deposit of bonds as aforesaid and on tender
of indemnity, then and in any such case, but under no
other condition, the same number of pondholders who under
the provisions hereof have the right to demand action by
the Trustee, may jointly institute such proceedings in law
or equity es it was the duty of the Trustee to institute,
but for the equal benefit of ell holders of the bonds and
cou then outstanding, *** Ho action at law or in equity
sh be brought by, or on behalf of, the holder or holders
of any bonds or coupons, whether or not the same be past
due, except by the Trustee or by the requisite number of
bondholders acting in concert under the provisions of this
Seetion for the benefit of all bondholders. In the event
thst pursuant to the terms hereof the holders of twenty-
five (25%) or more in principal amount of bonds then out-
standing shali have joined in exercising the right to act
in lieu of the Trustee, the remainder of the bondholders
shall have the right to institute any legal proceedings
ef the same or 4 similar character for the same default of
the Mortgagor."
The opinion of this gourt in the case of Cummings v.
Michigan-Lake Building Corporation, No» 37197, is material upon the
questions involved in the instant case, The form of action and the
facts are similar, The language of the bond in the case before us
is somewhat the same as the language of the bond in the Gummings
case. The language of the bond in the Cummings case is as follows:
"Both principal and interest are payable in the manner more
specifically described in the indenture hereinafter referred
to, *** For a deseription of the mortgaged property, the
nature and extent of the security, and the rights and limite-
tions on the rights of the bondholders, reference is made
seteito to ,.heeh deurd edt ai bebivenq seduum otsnkupey. ont xodtie
eevtox ton bib setewt eat fait bas ,ootesrt odt soqw. dasme b yas at
shasmebh & ot _atewetug ton ot
edt Heovubogtai tashastel ed? woltoe ghdt te canoteb wk said
stogegiitem as oltsreqred slidosotuA tewelt ads mort tone: te hood
£806 teurt odT ,8oteutT se .dasd agaive? bas tewsT terkt edt of
(7 8 sehtoe8 vobau ~ treq at ,eebtvong
: ey ot eeteur? reefeurtt oat 16 hm dpa feud I
nthnbaun aft to teeupes mettinw ong tagel
pen pa ,e7sdIodh: to tedmn ©!
to tebast to Vogt sad . cs 4
“steigogewe? ont bas 93 ladupe
setent? oft baa * yiumonit Sl oie
: Lkat x1@, be ode idsnoasoray so yiduts
yore ne Sad ne Tests Teay &
‘rebaot So) pres 4
on tebag Pll nore
zahen ofn eyeblodines ot eaghe otea 8 oval
‘Saad hy iy
wel ai egaibseootq dows edwtitent cisntet as
etutitent of eseteutT edt to ydub ox
but ebsted edt to ereblod dla ‘te. at toned
Se p34 mi to and te noises of *** -sathastah
oe ‘to cebied edt bo bieded ae To” pos ng
vesq ed omar oft ton to ane
ofw Ot eedman otietupex. edz > seleesd oa
eidt to enoleivorg iit cane freenes MS 3
#nsve oft al .aréhiedbsed Lia te titeae
~yinew? to sreblod ed¢ Ttosted emxet Bee. 03 r
. =ipe madd ebaod to-tavosin: Leqtod a Ze ro. (Re
tos ot tdgix edd gaiaierexe ai bex nh red eed
atebiodbnod edt to sebgtamen edt . =
egaibsseootq Lengel yas otetttens oe
to tinstsb mse exe tot tesvoetade.
odd noqy Latrodim, ef verte a9 5 i cilia
ay ee seo edt at baod ‘ode to purged a ee Beni |
pmerfainO edd ok bHod edt to eynigaal ont we omae ox tngrowon 2
_Sewollot ae ef eves eyatinms® oft mi Brod at to
erie tonne oid wt eb
Perxeter reftant a ali ce Ory
ty
to said Indenture, to all provisions of which this bond
and each coupon hereto attached are subject, with the
same effect as if the same were herein fully set forth.***
$aid Indenture and this bond, as well as all of the
other bonds secured by said Indenture, are to be token
and considered together as parts of one and the same
contract,"
fhe defendant in the Cummings case centendéed that the bonds sued
upon and the trust deed referred to therein are, by the recital of
the bond itself to be taken and considered together 2s parts of one
contract, and the bondholders are precluded under any circumstances
from maintaining this action at law, This court in its opinion said;
"This position was in accord with the defense set up in
the affidavit of merits. In the very recent decision of
our Supreme Court in Oswianza v. Ne and Mande o>
(Dec, No. 22474 = Agenda 42 = June, £534) the court stated
that ‘the rule which plaintiff in error would invoke as
to the necessity for reading ali terms of one contract
into another made at the same time and as a part of the
same transaction dees not apply to cases of this kind.
Sturgis Nat, Bank ve Harris d Savi ank, supra,
35. » 465), and cases there cited.! Since that decision
defendant has changed its position and has, by leave of
court, filed a ‘supplemental memorandum'!, in which it calls
attention to the Oswiangzga decision and ‘submits the following
propositions:
(a) That the question of negotiability is not involved in
this ease; (b) That the bond im this case contains
A agi gael i ge to incorporate therein by reference
the no-action clause of the trust deed, and that under the
holding in the Oswianzga case supra, the judgment of the
lower court should be affirmed,'!
Our degision is controlled by the Oswianga case,
wherein the trust deed, contained the same provisions as are
relied upon by the defendant in the instant case, and the
bonds contained the following language:
‘Said trust deed and this bond, as well as all the
other bonds aforesaid, are to be taken and considered
Somerton as parts of one and the same contract, *** Both
principal and interest bear interest after maturity thereon
at the rate of seven per cent (7%) per annum and sre payable
in the sanner described in the trust deed. *** For «
description of the mortgaged property and the nature and
extent of the security reference is made to s2id trust deed,
to all of the provizions of which this bond and each coupon
hereto attached are subject, with the same effect as if ssid
trust deed were herein fully set forthe'*
in the ‘supplemental memorandum! defendant contends that the
bonds, by reason of the words which we have italicized, ‘contain
appropriate language to incorporate therein by reference the
no~action clause of the trust deed,! and argues that the
baod eidt doide toe ecete.
odd d¢tiw ,tootdse eta mF ghee Ppt fogued Fo eat:
i ead toa, me oat pla Ae oe at Lb es. :
Boe * oe ote Oe f om a. itiod 8 i de Re es
ae od of Ste ,Sistaeba a ae
ome ot bas sno to atteg ea" ruitogod betehiaaoe. bas fe
. boue ebaod 6 teth dahetiatn ante, ene ade cane
to fetiosr odd \d ,ora alerted? of borteter beeh dautt edd das sogu
ene to eixeq as tedtegot bexehisnos bas aedst od ot tlontt daod edt
eeoustemyotio yas Tehau bebulossg ors etebfodbagd | Vee
sbise sotaigo atk ai tuuoo ett wnat es salios, levine
Baas
Tout
PI e
oe ite | a,
ligne lpms at 9s
" yh 2 oe 8 tees cx ‘Aiea me coh ack aie
wt kp i att, east Fncbnoe
aVse pak bae wk aa ad dnb oh Yi
® avs ws Pos par mE le
iieo ti dots :
guttwolok ® ont cetet! ban nedeloes 8
@* et
ai bevlovai ton ef xii Lidabs onan te.
- co. Babsteoo pesado eidd af baed ent: ASD.
sonazet ot yd otetedd etereqroomt of egangaad et
adh: seben Sade ban, haeh 4 muni OSs IDLO Gi
ms ed Xo fremghy, eat ». nt bow iwed |
28nso omasiwed os Ry Parpe nin
ere es asoleivesq amee ed /
edt base ,Saso tnsteni oe ae ie os
ie nod py bonisénco ah a
ad? Sis es flow poe oh seats |
bershiencos Bar nous Ste ta as A ic
Atod, *** .soartnoo ome ot
aootert ag ago lye teers
eldsysq ets Reng
s 20% 7** we eeee o teott ond ai Be
bas studen edt, bas. :
“ybeeb daurt biee of obam si bee senies
r
soqveo dase bus baod sid
oe ti as toette Snae oat ae:
aintacak ebanintiott eas om. LE BAITS
ait pomoxexen: wi nlared? 8 SLOG
pnt tadt semgee Bae oh 5
aed case sustains this contention, We deo not agree
with the contention nor argument. All of the provisions
contained in the second paragraph of the bonds have to do
with the trust deed and the rights conferred by it upon
the bondholders, and the limitations on the right of the
bondholder if he would seek to enforce the trust deed.
As stated by the court in Enoch v, 249 N. Ye 263,
269, wherein a similar question was involved, a purchaser _
scanning the bonds would think that the obligor was speak-
ing solely of the security, and ' he would interpret the
statement that the bonds were secured by and entitled to
the benefits and subject to the provisions of the mortgage,
ag meaning that the foreclosure or other relief might be
had thereunder only subject to its provisions.' In the
Oswianza case the court stated that negotiability was not
a prime factor in determining whether the plaintiff had
the right to sue at law, but that there was no language
in the bond which fairly incorporated, by reference, the
no~action clause of the trust deed, and that, therefore,
i plaints sz, the owner of bonds, had » right to sue at
aWe
In the case of Cummings v. Michigan-Lake Building Corpora
tion, supra, the court passed upon the same questions involved in
the instant case, which opinion we will follow. Therefore, the
trial court did not err in finding for the plaintiff and entering
judgment for §557,50. fhe judgment is affirmed,
JUCGMENT AFFIRMED.
HALL AND WILSON, JJ. CONCUR.
& ton ob OF .soktnetage eidt
ivorg od? to ££) .terergte TOM 6. 2.
ab. * eved abaed od? to v5 gen hepooe odd mi
noquy #2 yd hevretaos eiduit odd ban boosh Paws
edt to tigin’ edt ag amot nt tmbt ade Das ge
bee taytt oft eototae oF user bivew’ rk
2888 o¥ oi GBS eee +v ak tured &
toostors s yhovlovai sew moitsesp sealimtea = aleredw
“—leoqe asw xogiido ade cedt ata ebaod ott
adt gerqredai bivew ed ' bas \utixuose edt to
ot belvid¢no bas yt bewnee erow shnod odd tect sabe
10B8 from od to exotetvora adt of toetdwe bat *
‘ tepim Leifer todto 10 orwaoLooxeT sat ¢ wabne
oft al ',enoleivorg ett of soetdwe yluo tebawoter
ton saw | pe ae tenit betatea tuvoo ett seme sentved
bad tiliniely edt redtedw gainiaretebd ai + bboy)
Sgabencl ox aew etedt todt tud .wel te oee oF wig «
od? ,soreretox yd Roig fhe Sime Mh 7: tists io baw
eroteredt? , tet base ROS
fee ous ot tigtr a bed" senor Xo, ‘conve "ose. os .
why
Re |
“i : oe
2 le ste ota ab
Sahictires ek snaiealanrd or
eCUMATTIA THEMOGUL
Rewer oR “ haan: fi gd OR
P fel ‘
i i
pes bate eupte: AnGa) | Soa Lad
Parke oh i ett
vay ¢ Te eae ia ee SNA. Rae
ces Ce aS at
\ # ‘Ser m4 wee even
ot eee Tey mame
_ tu Deets Gale ee |
asf PR Mest
ba ae
e pose a
Oy ie Meee eeOOR ..
o ee te PaneKe ~
vie a hi, gee
‘ha Fm Ried PW ern
‘ ad oat ty ey
Aa a | AAG, — ae" a
> Nighi ia Met: aie SNE A saint sink, ax
ae BBM. 2 mae Yh eed ‘ne
beeen eae a, ee adres atalvternres !
‘ uty f on pares os bes niles ab siiiaaiieal A ‘9
37290 ao
WALTER WOZNICKI, a minor, by uarhe \
WOZNICKI, his next friend,
IT OF ERROR T
Defendent in brror,
v
SUPERIOR COURT
GC. G. OSTERBERG, doing business as
GC. G. OSTERBERG and SON,
(Defendant). COOK COUNTY,
CARL E. OSTERBERG, 279 1 A62 44
Plaintiff in Error.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This cause is in this court upon 3 writ of error directed to
the Superior Court of Cook Gounty and prosecuted by Sarl £. Osterberg,
as a defendant, from a judgment for $17,500 entered by the court upon
a hearing before the court and a jury in an action of trespass to
recover damages for personal injuries sustained en June 19, 1926,
by Walter Weznicki, a minor.
The declaration of the plaintiff by his next friend alleges
that the plaintiff was thirteen years of sge at the time of the
accident, and further alleges thet 0. G, Osterberg and Carl &. Osterberg,
doing business as ©. G. Osterberg and Son, by their agents, negligently
operated an automobile truck on Western Avenue at 3lst Street, in
Chicago, Illinois, on June 19, 1926, and injured the plaintiff; that
defendant Carl E, Osterberg filed his plea of the general issue, non-
ownership, non-operstion, and that he was not associated with Charles
G Osterberg at the time of the accident, Upon the trial the plaintiff
dismissed as to the defendant Carl &. Osterberg, it appearing from
the evidence that this defendant died on Mareh 239, 1926, prior to
the date of the accident,
‘Of soars YO TIAN
+
vie a0 scien
Leas ite
| staged, ak ‘suabden de
res THUIOO 4000 -
iS A, I evs
Due i "ih mt
~ p i beanie daily
‘ “is omelet as
Wacxn
,TH000 SRT YO KOIUITO THT GasaVIGEG naan cv ea
of betoorth corre to thew 8 fore tryoo eidt al et saan a -, ee
earedr9s 20 +¥ L2a0 WW beturecong fas ytnued wood to teed otto
noqy tuv00 edt YW bexetae OO8.TLE tod taemgbut 0 mort a .
(of Bkaqeon? to aottes an at yrut s bas tuvoo aw stoted gat
ems Std. baAn
edt to emit odd te og to erney wostcté’ eow 7a ant tent
sadzete® .@ Ins0 bas gredto%e0 .9 .0 tad? segells redéiwt bas stasbloos
Yitnoallges ,atasgs rledt yd mol bas grodzeted «b B) as e a | gated 2
gt .teotde teLlE fe eumeva atoteeW go Mount oftdonotue a sapere
tedt jttitntely edt borstal bas BSL wel oan 0 oatiee
~—
eee
-sen ,eveei Ietomey eft to selq eld belit arcade a feed tnabaated
soitadd dtiw betelooases tom asw od gadt ‘bas | 9 |
riivatsly edt [ets# adé meq -tnebloos edt to eult oft te a reted .
moxt paittceqqs th .gredrete® .E feet taabasteb outs of a eaetasts
as
3 ee
SA AS Ee LO ee | aS Sa
x
From the evidence the fects are substantially that the
plaintiff's minor was about ten years of age; that prior to the
accident he was walking on the east side of Western Avenye which is
a north and south street, towards 3lst street with his brother Joe
Wognioki, who was ebout thirteen years of age at that time; that
upon the day of the accident the boys were looking in store windows
while walking along Western Avenue toward its intersection with 31st;
that Slst Street does not extend east of Western Avenue, but extends
in a westerly direction.
There is conflict in the evidence as to what the plaintiff
did upon starting west from Western Avenue at 3lset Street, The
evidence offered by the plaintiff is to the effect that the
plaintiff stopped at the curb on Western Avenue at Slst Street and
waited for a chance to cross Western Avenue. A southbound street
ear, proceeding on the southbound track on Western Avenue, had
stopped at the north side of 3ist Street, when the plaintiff pro-
ceeded on the crosswalk directly across the street in a westerly
direction on the north side of S3lst Street. After the plaintiff had
started and was in the street, the street ear proceeded, and to
avoid being struck by the car, the plaintiff stopped at or near the
east rail of the northbound street oar tracks, waiting for the
street car to pass, and while standing at this point in the street
he was struck by the defendant's truck; that before crossing he
locked to the south and saw the truck, which was about 300 te 350
feet south coming north from the bridge located at the drainage
canal; that the truck was traveling at a fast rate of speed; that
the driver did not give any warning of his avcproach by the use
of the horn, and thet his truck struck the plaintiff and he was
thrown a distance of about ten feet and injured,
The evidence of the defendant is that the driver stopped
edt todt YLieltaciadve ore atoat edt eomehive edt most ==
adt of toltq dentt gags to exeey met tuode ean tomte chi it hehina |
et Ao kstw oynevA aredaal to abla saan odt so aatilew, Ban ert ‘peak bene
oot tedtexd aid diiw tooxt@ teLt ebuswot efeette dauo8 bas dixoa s
fact yemit tead¢? te eye to eraey asetridt tueda nsw ose {o b
awobalw stote mi gatdool erew syod est tavbiooe oe 16 hth ate ih
jtalé dtin meitoseretal ati brewot eunovA avetes® gaols gabalew olidw
sap oph sade
ahoodxe tud ,euaova mrotesy to tase baedxe fom geob toot tele tet
Ae sp Preset
sag ttoor bb isoteoy » ca ”
ttitaisla edt tedw of es sonebive mr" a fob Ltneo aL exed?
4
’
:
eit .teorté tefS ts ounsvA azeteel mort teoy yettuade |
ed? tadt toetts ed? of af Yitntalq od? yo b |
if bas soorte teLS ta eumova aretaow 0 dtu ont te
wre ts
opal
a toorte benodituoe A » ORES nreveok seers ot sons 4 woh oo
stein
"bed <9 OVA mreteaW m0 dostt buvodituor eds a Mere
| ~org Ytdatsla adt ody ,toorté tele Yo bts dttoa ode be qote
ureteon & ai teende odd enores vitoonib ppp & . ua _e
ew
ot bas , .bebssoorg £29 Sutin ‘outa pms oat at, on he mas |
“at. yee ts beqqets Tt itaialg ont to ont wa as ® | btox
Ba edt tot gaition setoost ‘T89 toonte bawodutzon 6 ou Ro Lter ° Re
toorte ‘odt mt tatog eidé ts patbaste oLidw bas 48 | | ot oF me is orte
od yatesoro oroted deus plowtt e!tanhasteh ont w vais een of.
"988 od 008 tuods saw dose vloust oc 80 bas Mtu08 @ oust ot bedool |
. | eganterh edt tes betsbo. sybin edt wor? acy atk i od bv ft wh
ne “tata ibeoap to ater tant “ ts puklovsty ene fount he be & fen
osu edt yd donors esd to gaiorss was ovts tom bib rovinh et
- eaw ont bas Diitabede, edd dourta veuxt etd tadt be a ron dt to,
borat bas tet aed tuode to soaate tb awoz
nents wevith edt teat ef tuabneteb end? nat oousbive ote Pe S|
3
at the bridge to the south, a distance of about 250 feet, for
traffic; that when the defendant's driver neared Slst Street he
saw the boys coming out from between two automobiles parked on the
right-hand side of the street. He operated the horn and, at the
time, he was going at a speed of about fifteen miles an hour. The
Older of the two boys stopped and grasped the younger boy by the
hand, and as the truck was about opposite the boys, the plaintiff
let go of his brother's hand and started to cross the street. The
driver swerved the truck and proceeded about fifteen feet and
stepped, Plaintiff, however, coliided with the right-hand fender
as the driver swerved the truck,and was thrown to the ground and
suffered injuries for which he now seeks to recover.
From the medical testimony in the record it appears that
the left leg of the plaintiff's minor was severely injured, and
that at the time of the trial was almost seven inches shorter than
the right. The left knee was stiff. The thigh, ankle and toe
motion was normal, but there was a space in the middle of the thigh
where the bones seemed to be separated and the plaintiff was required
to use crutches, and according to the medical evidence, the boy's
left leg is useless and should be amputated,
The question is was the driver as the agent of the defendant |
in the operation of the automobile truck, guilty of negligence, and
was the plaintiff free from contributory negligence? These two
questions were questions of fact for the jury.
The jury by its verdict considered the plaintiff's evidence
ef the occurrence the most credible, which was to the effect that
the plaintiff while on the north cross-walk at Slat Street, standing
in the east car tracks, looked south and saw an automobile truck
about 250 feet on Western Avenue at the drainage canal bridge, and
while he was waiting for the southbound car to pass, the defendant's
automobile approached from the south at a fast rate of speed and
ow
a
cel
5
ok toe? O88 tyods to eometeib s yituon edt.ot epbind edt ta
od toons? tel® berson tovith «'¢usbawteb ed? mode, edd poLttent
sdt no betreq sslidewotue owt neowted moxt tuo yaimoo ayod edt wea
‘odt ts (base cxod odt hetereqd oR .toette edt to ble Aaad=tdgit
oft .rdoi me solin avettlt twoda te beege ¢ te gateog enw od..omkd
‘ott yd Yor tegnuoy eds bequatg bas baqqote eyed owt esd Yo cebse
tikiitelq edt yoyod edd e¢tacqco dwode aswateuxt edt aahae yhmed
oft .deotte eft eeote of hetiste bas bacd a'xedtotd eld te og aed
bas test meettit tuods bsbessota hue jourt edt bevzowe coveeh
‘tohas? basd-tdgix odd dtiw bobtifoo ,teyewed ,TRitaislt .beqqote
bas bavetg edd ot nwordt esw baaydowrs ont barrens -waFtED, add ae
| stevonet of axeee wom of sotdw. sot emtewpas boxotive
past? ersdqgs ti biooet edt ai yaomitess Laoibom, ond MORE oy by de te
bas: ,bomtat yleteven kew tomim e'Yiédasada ed# to aol, frel.e
fads eittoda eedont nevor teouis nsw Isixd odt to omit edtte tedt
‘got bas. ofine ydgid? ed? sttive sew seam thet, ody, riigis edt
dg tit odt to elbbim oft mt sesqe s aew-oxedt, dud. stenren eer motion —
herthopet sew Ttitntelg odd. baw botezagee od: oF deusea eonod ed? exostw
atte ‘eid: ,e0nebive Leotbom edt of gatbrovna baw, esocoture 99u 08
sbetetuqus od bivode bas sesloew ef gel trol
| tasbast ob i to tmone edt se tovind ant saw mh mokseewP OAT Gp oy yy oe
brs jeouegiigon to Ytitug \Nourt eLtdomoivs edt oe moktereqo oat mt
ows Seett Seonesligen yrodadiztnee werk souk Yldakels, odd, ney
ettut edt sot tent te enohtenan een anakinney
| Gonebive e'ttitnialg ent bexsbienos teibrer eth ys yuu. BAT) stone
get goats edt of enw cotdw ,eltikbexe dpem edd soaerru090 a2
gatbaste ,toor#® tale te ALew-neere dttes add ao situa Thtate a aid
fours elivowetue me wae base dtuoe betool ,sinetd woe, ten9 aa wt
bas yogbind Lease sganterd edt ta symevh axateeh so t9 t OBS, tu |
ettiakasteb add yadeg of xe0 baneddéyoe ed? rot gadties ecw od atti
_bme heeqe to ets tast « te divoe edt mort bedosorqge eLidomotus ,
Cernat Walter Woznicki, the plsintiff, who was in plain view
of the driver, and caused the injury. The view of the position
of the boy at the time of the sccident wae not obstructed, and if
the driver of defendant's truck had looked he would have seen the
plaintiff and his position on the oar track, and if he failed to
note the place where the boy was standing, then of course he was
negligent in the operation of the truck and eaused the injury. In
any event, the driver, in the operation of the sutomobile truck,
should have proceeded with caution so aq not to injure plaintiff,
The driver, when called es 2 witness, testified to the fact that
he did not see the boy until the auto truck reached 3lst Street,
where he swerved the truck and the boy ran into the frent fender of
the car and wes injured. His testimony would indicate that he did
not see the boy until he swerved his truck, His evidence upon this
point is not altogether satisfactory, and the jury rightfully, when
they considered all the evidence, returned a verdict for the plaintiff
He are satisfied thot in the opsrzetion of the moter truck
defendant's agent was negligent end the plaintiff, a lad of ten
years of age, exercised such degree of care and caution as one of
his age, intelligence, experience and Capacity would have exercised
and ordinarily us@ at the time of the occurrence,
“e having indicated that the verdict and judgment
entered by the court, upon denial of defendant! « motion for a new
trial, was justified, whet we have said upon that question disposes
of defendsnt's contention thst the verdict is against the menifest
weight of the evidence,
The contention that the court erred in instructing the jury
upon the question of damages, upon the ground that the agssessment of
demeges is not limited to the evidence appearing in the record, is
without merit, From an examination of this instruetion, we find it
wolv aisle ai eaw ondw riiitvaielte enft ,4dolnsoW tot Low tonte
soltiaog edt 30 wety oct .yauiat edd Deguno bas .tovich edt ko
TE Aas .betourtado toa sew tuebloos edt 29 ombt ode #8. yod.edt to
Sat gece oved blvew od bodoot bad dow 2 ‘taabasted to xevixh. edt
ot Sefket of TL Sas ,doait x20 ait ao woltioe ald bas Littalelq
asw ed eatv0o to mod? ,gathaste saw yod ed? exedy.sosiq od? stom
af .vtutat edd beayso bas dossst edt to, aoltsreqe edt ak taeghigon
oust etidenedys odt 29 notterzey pdt as «moveth.edt ytmove yaw
gtiitotels etutat ot tom aa.oa NALS SOE i ol
tedt ¢ost edt ot helttinet ,ansatiw sec belfeo modw.
stooms® tal2 bodosst dosnt otus edt Ehinw od odd 98. Fon hth
to tebaei taotk edt ofas max yo edt, bas sound end bovrewa ex vexed
bib ed tedt etepthat Sivow ynontiaet att shorute ow has x20 ost
SMt, Seam omobive ati. ons afd, bewsewn, of stitnw od wilt oy tom
mode .Yituttdate yout adt bas, .yrotostestsa, sods oor fe, PicBags.
Ritatele oat rot totbrev 2 Demurtex, ,eonsbive edt Lie bos Xx
dourt rotom.edt to sotterteqe edt pt Jult Detlattaa ona of ip at
(Mot Ro bel s sPiidatalc edd das tmogtigen saw diosa ite |
fo eno a8 aodtuea bas ors9 to setgeh doug Monsey ry
- ~begtowexe sved bisow ytlosqas bas soneitegxe cones. &
ee ssonotruo09 edt to omit edt to ow tzntbro as
boone teemghvt Bas ipsbuev edt. tod? betsothal gatyod a mei |
eo & zot soitom e'tasbagteb to feimeb moqu 4s mh OF me
eesogaib settaeup tat soqu bisa. vad ow, tedw. adettas hea
teotiaom odd tentcgs,ad tosizov edt. tedt. nodteretaea atéacbacteb 30
bas Leber: saphena - sopmobive efit to tdgtew
‘oon edt gattorrtent at betRe txvco edt tedd) sottastace Qt lit ne
20 dmemcnooss ot tact Sruomy odd nog «nogemsh ro sedteoup edt moqy
ek _— edt of gatreeqas somebive edt ot dotimil ton et, 29gsmsb
tt batt ow ,noktoutieat eiut to sobtaninexs ae. moc. sdtcom tuosttw
me | Bit Wc ei ht wee 4 Mee es a 4 Tye Vasu wae pat Bie Wye Prac g t Wa it ee hy i eee We tial i Shite.
cvwore ede movl Sedosertaek Of iamotus at
ae ip ate i .
5
states the rule fairly upon the question involved, and requires the
jury, in assessing damages, to be guided by the evidence,
This instruction, in somewhat the same form, was approved
by the Supreme Court of this state in the case of Donk Bros.Coal Go.
ve Thil, 228 Ill. 233, and Gicero Street Ry. Go. ve. Brown, 193 111,274,
The refusal by the court to give defendsnt's offered
instruction No. 31, which is in this form -
"The Court instructs the jury that if they believe from
the evidence, that the injury done te the plaintiff was
the result of the fault or negligence of the plaintiff,
or the fault or negligence of both, the plaintiff and
defendant, then the plaintiff cannot recover, and the jury
must find for the defendant.
was proper, and this instruction is not applicable to the facts in
the instant case. The instruction should have been qualified to
include the rule that a child of ten years of age is required to use
only such degree of care and caution as one of his age, experience
and capacity would exercise under the same or similar circumstances,
The damages, while large, are not excessive when we consider
the plaintiff was in the hospital three years; his left leg is per-
manently injured, so that the leg cannot be used, and the plaintiff is
using crutches and will use them the rest of his life, unless the
ieg is amputated, and then even if an artificial leg may be used, he
will still remain a cripples It will not be necessary to repeat the
nature of the injury, as it is sufficiently set forth in the facts
herein stated. We are of the opinion that the damages are not
excessives
There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CoNCUR,
‘eae i aeereh ade yl
edt estiuper bas ,hevioval metvceup sdt moqy yYlaist elux edt setate
| \) shone bive edt yi beblug ed ot 4, eegensh, gitsabees ot , yet
bevencgs enw ite? sate add tapwemer of ,nettourtent. eeat uring hick
baba
inod to sere, edt af etate efit to e2uod. snliaiianan
sare btt BCL ~avork .v Das ghSE. fil B68 _ALED ov
BeveTio stinshnateb eviy ot #100 ade YE Leeuwen ed] pooce gow
~ oxot aidt af ai doidw .£8 «ol mottourdent
‘ goxt evelisd yedt Th ted - oat atoumtend
eew Ttitatelg — o¢ onob yru al oft test pea aii
J Qthtitele edé te conmegiigen to tiast edt to thue
bas ‘hintele edt ,itod to sonegifgen xo t
‘toruTso ‘sa ;
ala Oem odd Das ,1évoOoeT ont | Bgl mie
ny ' Seago a oct tot & me
: tee we. $y fogs, ;
a stot eds ot oldeottgcs ton ‘et ao Ltouréea aide bry a a
Ol Nik ae bs a
ae belli Leu 906 eved bivode ‘nobtoundemi att | mt ode
ti ‘ag a a
| sear ot } boxupet el a6 to eTeoy ase ‘to ‘bitte 6 tat me bud
Be
at Wiintela ond bos (beev v¢ tonne gel oat dade oe bor
sth if ore a
oft eeolay ,etit ‘eid to feox ‘ont ‘ede say tf iitw bre bas adoture adue
ex heavy ‘od You sof istoltites fe tt gove edd ous \ depatvens “a |
Sich i wae ion MH
edt teecex of qrsessoen od. ton Litw a solute 6 ‘ntewox Eade
Cee iy sek te Eade
“etost oild ak déxot ton ‘Umeloittve ab tt us ye
toes 4 tens rab / ‘0
fon exs ‘gogemab odd todd goiaiqo odt te exe ®
cetera si! te tHtatew
panne
shewntite ef taemghul edd .dnecor, odd mi sone: is sma ee
iiohreomapeen ovo AMIRI A: neil isch ato wat eyes
af ‘a Bee pos i P EE AR emniniieieian
Le) Se eR Ee ae ss iaincae ¢ wast Ber
37353
OSCAR GOTTSCHALK,
(Plaintiff) Appellant,
Ve
ANNA REIF and STELLA WASIOPULOS, )
or PHICAGO.
2¢9 1.4, 622!
(Defendants)
ANNA REIF,
Appellee,
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
This cause is in this court on appesl by the plaintiff
from a judgment entered in the Municipal Court of Ghicago in favor
of the defendant Anna Reif in an action in the nature of an
assumpsit proceeding.
The action by the plaintiff was based upon a promissory
note in the principal sum of #1,000 and accrued interest. Stella
Nasiopulos, the maker of the note, and Anna Reif, the endorser, were
defendants. On October 10, 1930, Anna Reif, the owner, endorsed
and delivered the note to the plaintiff, The maker of the note,
Stella Nasiopulos, after service of summons, was in default for want
of an appearance, and the cause came on for trial against the defendant
Anna Reif. Upon a hesring, the court, on November 9, 1933, without
the aid of a jury, entered judgment for costs against the plaintiff,
To thie action of the plaintiff, for recovery of the amount of the
note due, the defendant Anna Reif on August 24, 1933, filed an
affidavit of merits, which was stricken by the court, and upon leave
being granted, the defendant filed an amended affidevit on October
13, 1933,
It appears thet Anna Reif, prior to October 10, 1926, was
the owner of certain real estate in Cook County, illinois, which she
sold on October 10, 1926 to Stelia Nasiopulos, co-defendant, and
received from her as pert purchase price, a promissory note for $1,900,
AAHOETION HA08O
ata Leggs (PRs LELE)
| “oonotn® to oP REETOREEN. AA ae Sen oe
tie g O he Q y cS Rd Eke yee: ekamile an uta , i ‘i
‘ « neat dark
an thbasg edt yd Apagas 10 Hnckd' > ide ab ai’ ‘buat eae
‘poROrER aL ops0ds0 29 tras Loctoamor od sk Dirttne Haga
ns to stutsa oft ai nottes’as mt tie anak ta bast
yidontnorg s nog bedsd eow Ytitately oft Wd torten bath 8!
‘giiet® .t#eerstal bevtoos bac 000.1% to fuse faq bon tag oud ak ‘oe
orew steetobas oft .tiel SHA baw .oton edt to ‘gegen ade". edlide
‘boetobad ,xenwo ods ,rH6T aAtid (OCEL Of wedds0d 20 % 7
= 9800 eit to todem OdT .Ititdtslg edt of Sto odd boxer
‘ae ‘tot Hivetob ak eed .ecommse To solviee xotte , 0 Li i
trikbasteb edt temtsye Lekzt rot mo oma bens ids'nkcs Ste
- gunild th” 2802.0 zeduovoll 20° jptuen eld wgaizeed 2 so ayo, ‘eid, Nai
ri biabeds edt tentegs” ‘ataoo “tol da dmy barb berets stu 6 : 0nd oat
ot to tasoms od? to yevorer ‘rot Pitts oat tem noitos ei
| ‘gs ‘bettt weeOL ide tasrauA so tied anak dadhnoteh oad ‘ek Gd
4 veel siubile” tenes add vd hoilbixée ese sols yedlves orem
_ edge no tivsbitts bebaone men bat 9 sled
BBC at
ciel ,880L , OL zedeto0 ot ty ates ann, sont ane, Te
y one Moise eetomi Lit .ttnw0d 4000 ive at ates Laer ateeroo to. tomo edt
hus ,tuebnateb-oo weodugonect allete ot aeeL ,OL rodo#00 no bite
Lae Rpt My
000, Le sot stom ytoseimortg # soleg tnatren oz0q as 2 x0 mort
2
and ten interest coupon notes, all of which were secured by ao trust
deed upon the real estate; that Anna Reif held the principal note
until October 25, 1930, and during that time collected the accrued
interest and surrendered the matured interest coupons that had been
paid; that on October 35, 1950, the defendant Anna Reif was indebted
to the plaintiff, her former husband, upon a certain judgment entered
in the Municipal Court, and to satisfy the judgment, made part payment
in cash, and endorsed and delivered the note of $2,000, together
with two interest coupon notes, not yet duey to the plaintiff. The
The principal note bears the endorsement of the defendant Anna Reif
in these words;
“In consideration of the sale and purchase of the within
note by Oscar Gottschalk, I hereby guarantee the payment
of the samé with interest thereon from October 25, 1930,"
At the time of the delivery of the note the plaintiff
delivered to this defendant his exeeuted release, dated October 25,
1930, by which the plaintiff released the defendant "from all claims
or demands from the beginning of the world to the present date." Did
the plaintiff release the defendant from all claims by the representa-
tion of her former attorney, who acted for the plaintiff, that upon
the endorsement of the note in question she was so released by the
plaintiff?
The defendant admitted the endorsement of the note in
question secured at the time by Andrew Host, Jr., attorney for the
pilaintiff,as payment, and the payment of part cash to satisfy a
judgment obtained by the plaintiff against her for borrowed money.
This attorney had been her counsel, but not in matters relating to
the present litigation. The defendant testified that in a conver-
sation of the attorney with the defendant at his home, this attorney
advised the defendant to consult an attorney, but stated in the
presence of Mre. Rost's wife and the defendant's son that the signing
of her name on the back of the note was but = formality; that the
4
testd @ yd betwooe axew doidw to Liles a soton nea wes teorstat mot hus
eten Isqionitq edt bied hiss sand tect [etetes Ler ont aoqu beeb
beytoos edt betoelion emit ted patiub bus ,Ocel a8 zadotod titan
meed bad tacit? enoquoo teetotal besten edt borebaerise bas teorstat
reap asw tie” eand taebasteb ed? ,O8CL aS redeted. ‘no dest jdleq
hetotae thoopbhyt oistreo & moqu cbusdaud weees rod ,ititaiele ed¢ ot
tnemysq req sbom ,tnemgbyt adit vtelttee ot bas atrwo0 Iecloinul edt ai
_ renftegot 000,49 to ston ott hotevifed hus boerobne bas. egfipao. a
out otEtdntsLe eat of geub tay tos ceton HOGHOD
se smith tnsbaetsh edt to taensetehan eds Btsed oton Sai
ot
aidtiy sat to sandoxug bra ates odd 20 Lo Lt ane,
rnOBe! ent sstnatsuy ydered I ,wladoas
288 sedetood mort qeoxed? Fnoxeta:
~stcone3gor ons x auisto ifs nox? sasbasteb oat sanoser a7 ge
alt ttitnis exit xot betes of ott. comet rod
“mogss zt ‘ iq Egy hee gi oR i othe ha
| one ws beeselet o8 Bew ore nokteoup ai oto ond to
bE
cegaty
s ‘Yielian ot dass ‘tnag to domes ‘oad ‘baa aa i VAG BB:
| “eyes bewoz rod tot xed tan begs ‘Vilindalg, ong Ww m & at she tas 7
ot ‘gniteler eretton me ‘ton tod ,leenwoeo cod eed ‘bas. R 2 t o : ast
tue taee 8 ab tadt botiitaet tnskaoteb edt “to ttegttat tases set
“yennod ts wid’ .2mod ald ts. taxhasteb outa tbe Warotts edt to motte
7 tet ak hetate td cyenrorte as #uen00 ot cea, a bse
‘gatmgie ‘edt ¢adt sow a! duebaoteb out bas otin etiaoil : yb |
“odd tadt jyttLemre? stud esw etoa edt to sond ot 0 ewes xe 20
3
payment of part cash and her endorsement of the note settled all
Claims between the plaintiff and the defendant.
There is evidence that upon default in payment of the
promissory note by the maker when due, a written notice of the
default was given to the defendant by the plaintiff, which she denied
having received, A notice to produce certain letters addressed and
mailed to the defendant, was served upon the attorney for the defend-
ant by plaintiff's attorney. The letters not being produced upon
the trial, copies were admitted in evidence, marked Exhibits 2 and
3, bearing date November 16, 1931 and 4ebruary 16, 1932, respectively.
From the tenor of the letters it appears the defendant was notified
thet the maker Stella Nasiopulos defaulted in payment of the note
endorsed by the defendant, and that the plaintiff would proceed
against the defendant unless the amount due was paid upon her written
endorsement and guaranty of the note. A notice appears in the record
addressed to Stella Masiopules to produce a certain letter addressed
and mailed to her, in which she was notified of the maturity of the
promissory note signed by her. This legter was not produced, and a
copy of the letter signed by the plaintiff's attorney notifying
Stella Nasiopules of the maturity of the prombssory note was admitted
in evidence,
The record does not disclose that the defendant is unable
to read or that an artifioe was used by the plaintiff to prevent the
defendant from reading the form of the endorsement and guaranty which
appeared on the back of the promissory note in question; nor was she
prevented from informing herself as to liability upon signing the
endorsement appearing on the note. The defendant, however, denied
liability as endorser, but apparently was willing to accept a release,
signed by the plaintiff and delivered to her, of all claims against
a
g
fis belttes estos sdt to tneneerohad ted bas daao sxsq to taomynq
standaoteb ext bas Yrttatsla sdt asowsed enbs Lo
edt to taemysg at tivated moqu tadé somehive ef exedT y, piven
edt to eolton nattiew 6 ,oub mocw teaem edt’ ud ston ¢10 a hmor
botmeb ede dotsw ,ttitnielg sdt yi tasbasteb edt of novig naw ¢Lastes
oon Beseowbbs etottel alst<es sevbers of sottom A - bovisber gidvad
| =baeteb od? tot yéatotts edt soqu bevres easy ,tnabasteb edt oF be lism
| .ylevitosqes: .S80L ,8L yrewtdet bas (Lr .8f todme vor otab
noqu beoubdrq jautod tom axsttel sat .yemotts eltiitakelg ew tis
“bas & atididxa bedren (sonebdive at bettimbs exee gétqos” ccthdoaal
beititon asw tasbasteh sit erseqae ti arettel arid ro ‘rouse ‘bev deet
eton adt to gaomysy al betiueteb coluyolestt atone soiini, gd} tat
bedoorg blvow tiitaislq ot telt Sus ,saahasreb ot YW bedrohae
settizn ted noqs bisq eaw ub taveme dt apetow tasbasted add teatege
budoer odd ai exsecch eolton A ston od? to ‘Yineteny ie seo 2TobAe
boseerbbs xettel ateizeo « eonbota ot eolucotest effort ot bosassbbi
“etd to yirvtam odt to bettiton ase ede Hotde at .xei ot Bel¥aw bine
‘2 bas .beouborg ton saw xetael eld? sed ye bemgia ‘stom Yroeeinory
gutytiten yenrotés e'ttidaisle edt yw Demgte 4et"er edt Yo Yuod
bedtimbs vow ston yroredmotg odd to Ysttwtsm edt to eolimd tea arcade
oldeau ef tusbneteb oft tadt seoloeth ton esos Srover oat
add tmoverd ot Ttitkialh edt yd boaw tow Soltites ats tari’ ro beer ot
foidw Ytnetsuy bas tremsetobse eft to mrot eft gutter indie Hhanbinbrried
ede saw tom jtoltesup ai stom yroeatmosy ext to Woad edt mo betasyqes
“edt galagte noay YWiildsli of us tlewred palwrota? sort Betnovsng
‘betaeh stavewod etostreteh ed? “seven sat oo gntteoqas ‘Fnemeet obey
a s taeoc% o¢ sniiliw aow Yldmersqge tid steatobas ‘ee Uiltde ls
“ania, omtsLo its Ye yet ot dating me sioner odd yo bongte
it «kt TH baba banites |
ator wit To weed rat nat il te ae
Pile Ae
4
her, including the satisfaction of the judgment against the defendant
for money borrowed from the plaintiff. This attitude of the defendant,
however, is not borne out by the facts in the record, and it would
seem rather inequitable for her to accept the satisfaction of the
judgment in question without paying the considerstion te the plaintiff
for his action in that regard.
It does not appear the evidence is satisfactory thet a
fraud was practiced upon the defendant. Evidence of fraud must be
clear and satisfactory; it is not in this case. Another trial will
be necessary, end this court does hot desire to comment further upon
the facts. The judgment for the defendant is accordingly reversed
and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ, CONOGUR,
| 2
insbuoteb oft tentoga jaomghut edt to notdosteltse ‘oil? yaboutoht yxed
stushasteb edt Yo obutitie eid tt bindelg edt mot bowotred youoit x62
bivow $1 bus ,bsooor edt at etost ou too snrod 0H af ,xovewod
oft to nortosieltas ot tgsb0s of red tot eldertupeat xedéer bbe
wetdatela ong oe notverobtenoo ou gabvec tuodstw no tteawp ab
Mey abreget “tad? al m0
8 taste Wrotontattes et consbive edt teecke ton e00b 1
oe tam buext Yo somsbive + taabastob sae sows vont
et bo Lamm
ie abst = aston +9820 ent at ton no fe
“boetevex = \igadbroooe a £ taabaotsh rio! peer "
2 #
Seandgr ache ‘ aie c .
“xcan ou iit ctoahantm big > td Dedvotae
MOtSiow Tosi 0: Potonn #44 aeataw henins f.. eakee
t as — ) a. ae Bice @ take d
EOD AT ce es &% : TiaGm 4
Pym tee Ber is ae are t eG ae eT
en2 t6 Yvinnias S67 Jo peti idem ene Ode Ghee oe aT a ioe a
DEA, ,Reorboty wor atw *edwas ele 1 Elba d e nea’ ‘rgeesmony
aiytiter yearotdn se tt iteiskg ade ed Baas regwed ‘ete v6 weed
beiiinihs assy ctor qromedmota of? Do Ye :. ot he ab leno nem aL sere
ee
Sides ef techie) “os facd SabLoasd Fox pee sabia Pes ae
mg neresg ef Siesnke ly one vo beg baer ORE ee ee Pte ee: wre ov
fatuig “iretnd: Sta Tnhanseteine ele te ney eee tek Bees tote be deiner
oR Yow ton juolisesp at ehiew YeoseleDTe SeP Fe Bea ae we hoaneces
ities Aon VC. sBe LA Bl a Fae shor dare. ede a |
batuwh yxseewod ,éoptesen oft “Vode. Sey ae enone ita wero et
aeetor «. fan ot ghitile Aov. Vie Poe a
Hig
(Mis.o Lie 20 yee oF
ste oh
Hy
i
at
“a : y
LUBERTUS KOSTER, ff APPEAL FROM |
(Plaintiff) Appellep? Ce
MUNICIPAL GOURT
Ve bi
a,
at
OF OHTGAGO.
CHAS. He BRANDT & COcs ING., &
corporation,
(Defendant) Appellant, ) 7 ‘é) Rak G 9 Qe
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
This cause was tried in the Municipal Court of Chicago
upon an amended statement of claim filed by the plaintiff and upon
the issues formed by the proof submitted at the titel. The court
entered a judgment upon s finding against the defendant Chas. H,
Brandt & Company, Inc., for $100, and dismissed the sotion as to the
defendant Harry C. Swanstrom. fhe defendant company brings this
appeal.
Plaintiff's evidence tends to establish that he procured a
purchaser for certain real estate owned by the plaintiff and his wife;
that the defendant agreed to and did act as the plaintiff's agent in
securing the execution of a written contract and in receiving part
payment of the purchase price; that a written contract was signed by
the plaintiff and Axel Bort and Hana Bort, wherein Axel Bort and
Hana Bort agreed to purchase the real estate for the sum of $2300,
and to assume a mortgage of $1500; that $100 earnest money was paid,
and $700, the balance of the purchase price was to be paid upen
delivery of the deed. It also appears from the evidence that the #100
earnest money was paid to Harry ¢,. Swanstrom, an employee of the
defendant company, by Michael Bernick, attorney for the purchasers,
and that Sernick testified to the effect that he paid $100 to Swanstrom
to be held by him, together with the contract, until Swanstrom received
a telephone message that Bernick's clients had returned the $100
advanced by him.
os oppepsceersaectoar
MORE JATTA ATCO eurmaays
: ret i 4? L wr
ioaad tt kombass .
TAUOD AAVTOLYNOM { ) yx se oe
Sat gsr
pis voreod
eODAOIHO TO a aK i) 4 roMase a .eaHo
Pea aae ee
Seen mt: rove ne aN LO rake Df
set SG “or
a”
+8000 SHT TO HOTKIGO Git CAAEVIUGC WeaaH SOITEUL OMNGTeIRS P|
ogeoidd to sued Laqiotauii ent ai helt ew oan elaT: ©
mogu bas ttitnielq odd yt belly atelo to trenogete inhi ito
“Ptu00 6fT JLedtt odd te betthadve toory wnt we bearrot snvoet oat
+H sead0 tasbaeted ont turteye gatbatt pei: # beredine
ot come geal
& bexyoetg od tadt detidstes ot abast enced tet =? ie
«*~ettw etd bas ttitatsaliq edt yd beawo o¢stas Leet aistzeo tet reeedotuq
«ak daege e'tiitalelg edt es tos blb bas of boorgs sasbasteb oft sie
| deaq gaiviesor oi bas toattaco nettixnw s to soktuoexe edt yabiuose
wW ‘pemets ese toatinoo aetiirw s tedt ;oolxq seadorng edt to esis,
‘bas tof LoxA atetodw ,trod sas bas trod Loxk bas idntsle edt
0OS8$ to mwe sit tot etatee Lset oft sandonuq of beorgs tro enak
oes gow youorm teentas OOL$ tadt ;,006IL2 to comytrom # einnees od bas ;
| “goa Bisa od of new s0itq oucdeme edt to soneiad | te b bos
Ort edt tedt comenive oft mort ateogqe oels #1 aheod edt to rerio
odt to seyolqme as .mortenswh .D yrtsh oF Bisq adhere sneannek
extensive ed¢ rot yenroettce ,xolatem Leadodl yt ‘<tnsgM08 tas steb
mortanant of COL! bis od tad? sootte env of hotthteet Aokwxel tant hao
bevieost mottarew® Ittay ,toatinos edt dttw redtogot .mid we bked od ~
| DOL} edt benmder Bad stmetlo atsotared aah voriqelot s
It further appears from the evidence that the Borts did not
want to go through with the deal, and Bernick, requested and received
the $100 advanced by him to Swanstrom., Swanstrom advised the plain-
tiff by letter that he had returned the earnest money "because
Bernick could not collect the earnest money which he advanced when
you were at our office Saturday. He returned the abstract to us
today, so we had to refund the $100,"
It also appears that after hearing the testimony of Michael
Bernick, a witness offered by the defendant, the court interrupted
the submission of further proof on behalf of the defendant "to prove
the same facts by Mr. Swanstrom as testified to by Mr. Bernick."
The court then intimated his reason for refusing to hear further
evidence for the defendant by stating -
"He will testify the same way. No use taking the time
to hear him. How are you going to get ar the parol
evidence rule in this case, ***#
The contract in question was signed by Axel Bort and Hana
Bort, his wife, the purchasers of the real estate, as well as by the
plaintiff, and contained the terms and conditions of the purchase, Ags
a part of the purchase price $100 was received by the agent of the
plaintiff, and the abstract of title to the property was delivered to
the purchasers. The agent, without authority from the plaintiff, re-
turned the money so paid to the purchasers' attorney and receipted
for the abstract of title delivered to the purchasers,
The defense to this suit, from the agent's evidence, is that
at the time the $100 was paid and received by the agent of the plain-
tiff, the money was paid conditionally by the purchasers! attorney,
with the understanding that the contract was to be held until the
money was returned by the purchasers to their attorney. The money
was not so returned, and upon demand of the attorney for the purchasers,
it was returned by the agent of the plaintiff, and the purchasers
refused to perform their contract, The evidence does not disclose
ton bib atroli od? tadd eomebive edt wmott etesyge tedégatyt®, oo og nny
hevisoes bas beteeuper ,dotated. bas cisah oct diiw dgvordt og ot tasw
-tislg otf beelvie morteaew® .mottenewa of mid yd beonsvhs OoLe edt
esuacod" yetom teantes edd bearute had ed tad, amet ire, thas
iia’ tail
du et toattede 6d¢ hoduvtor off ‘ .ysDawtek ooftto we ta erew soy
".00L§ ed? bawter ot bed ow oa tii
fesdo it to wtomitest edd geireed ‘tests ‘bead prasqae oats ea
befyutrstat ftu09 edt tnebasteb ‘ont vd beretto parrtng & ,doinred
ever of” tasbasteb ent to tiered ao toorg redtw? to okesindue ont
W,dotered “sail yo of beltitect es mortomewe ni Dally ‘atost omoe 01
redtast ceed ot gatevter rot noasor etd hetsmets. ‘e
- gaitate vd tnobaates was wehive
ues pean te! teb
‘
sodw boonsvbe ef doidw yenom fuentes edt teelloo toa ’
— SO ee ee ee
omtt ent gutted eas ol «Yaw Suse edt yt
ee edt Savors tag Wg 3578 vex yoy bo pe | .
. | a8 bea, trot Lexi yd beagia saw nottneup. ah seendent sh “cbewtitecen:
edt. yd en [iow en ,etates Iseu ot to etersdonug oft. ,0the ath oten
eA »Sesdoruq ed? to enoltibuoo bas emret, odd beontatmeg in sagas
edt Io tnegs sdt yd beyteoar sen OOLE eoizq, enadonuy, }
ot bezovileh eew ytregorq edt of aLeit to soortede. odd. as, «Sbitatata
~st ,Ikidaielg edd wort ytitediue dvodtiw staegs off » -azensdotug add
| bedatsver bar yontodts ‘ereasdomg edd ot Diag 98, yoaom, att Doamut
sarseedotug eft of baxoviteb eitit to doantade edt sot
tasit ™ wemtinn, e'teegs ode, work ,tiva aidd ot tenoreh edt igecwy Rdlawh
~nisiq, oft to tage add yo Deviope: bus Sieg sow OOke, ostsanth o8tcto
.Woarotts taxesadonug ot ys yileaoktibnos bing. oar yonom odd athe
ost Lita bled od ot aew soerdnee edt tedt gatbnodexshay edt dtiw
> Xecom sdf .yomxotts tiedt o¢ exeredoruq oft ye bertuter ese qecon
.sTessdonwe edt Tot youtoste edt to haameb soqy bas ghoaruieto@ dom saw
| aresedorwe odt bus ,ttitatel¢ edt to tmege edt yd, donusten, oon tk
eeoLoeth ton soob eonebive edt .tostéaoo riedd mzotxeq of henwtox
3
the plaintiff agreed the money was to be received by his agent con-
ditionally, nor that the plaintiff empowered the agent to return
the money upon demand of the purchasers! attorney,
We have examined the record and are unable to find any
evidence that the plaintiff understood the money was received conditioi -
ally by his agent. An agent is only empowered to act for his
principal upon the authority conferred, and may act if within the
scope of his authority. Unless the money was received condi tionality)
was agreed to by the plaintiff, the agent of the plaintiff in accept-
ing delivery of the contract conditionally was acting without authority.
There is no question that between the parties to a contract,
evidence may be admitted to show a written document was not to take
effect as 2 valid agreement until the occurrence of some future
contingency, Sugar v. Marinello, 260 Ill. Appe 85. But this rule
does not apply to the facts in the instant case. The plaintiff did
not agree with Axel Bort and Hana Bort, his wife, the purchasers, thet
the contract was to be delivered to the agent and received by the
plaintiff conditionally. The agent of the plaintiff acted without
authority, and by so acting he assumed the risk when he returned the
money to the purchasers’ attorney without first obtaining consent of
the plaintiff. The case being a fourth clase case, the evidence is
sufficient and controlling upon the questions of fact involved, and
the court properly entered judgment for the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CoNCcUR,
“ato tnage eid yd bevieder od of sew yomon edt bestge Biitatal edt
yos Balt of sideay ots Bae brover 64d henimoxd evel OR ° oe
woltibrot bevigoet aew yenom edt bootetrobar ttitntel¢ ef? tent? eomedsive
| edt atdtiw ti tos yam bas ,borrstnod ¢tivedtws od? moqw Leqtonteq
Xeno tt1a00 boviecet sew ysiren oft esolat wyetrodtus eld to eqeoe
wiqeote ak tiivntel¢ ont to tmege edt. thitntelg eddy ot Hogtgs Baw
ye brbadtes tuodtiw anitos esw yilswoltttaoe testtaee ed? to qrovbleb aa
atoertnod @ of eoltrsq edt meowted tude mobtaenp on: et pred ‘OCR eat
edet ot tom sew tneusoob nettixrw © wore of hettinhs od yaa
eivdut emoe to soaetzy006 edt Lbtonr tuonsorge SELav = on tevtte
olur eftt tui 28 .q7d «LIT 008 jolkeutxel ¥ ba “ |
blb Vittnieic edT .oa29 tnatenk orit mi etost out of wacs fon esob
tac? pavsendotig odd .etiv @id srod ane has rem Lexa ddtw somgs tom
nescet of trogs edt betewoqme thitmiale oft todd tom ,yllemottid —
-Warotis 'ersecdonng edt to dtawsb mode yorom edt
alt tot tos ot berewoqms YLno-B WHOge mA Venoye Bad YO YLLe
edt Ye bevisosr bas trons edt of boveveLsd ed of aaw toartnoe ent |
tuodtiw betos ttitnisig edt to dmege edt 4 yillenetttbwoo, Thitatsly
edt benxutex of medw deft oct benteee ed giivos oe Yd bar UP Proteus
Jo duoeron untatetde tesit twodtiw yeotoste Tesescdoruy edd oF yenom
‘ek sonebtve odt ,oee0 evelo dtit « gnied send exit - Vritntet¢ ot
bas ,beviovel fost te enotteouy sit mow seh Mordnon ban Ynesotrtve —
‘sittitulele odd rot toreayhey munaineteet:: saationdl
eae Oe:
r i. ids Wade
3 108 ut AK
er (Sim et vilacmge Crit ee et
“ye TSR ad thes epelued ene: eae
eee OY Ae A aie ey
J diene. act. ce ; i is fined -pescoy Jase glenda, ome Rew
an Pere tas Ay 75 BAH Bie ce euros erm, a }
Peony Pe
Sao Lown a wo Gorthive eff ehhertago tiwig ava ot nau
, pis
’
4
,
4
ap )
37478
FRANK R. EAGER, “¥- 3 APPEAL FRO
Plaintiff) Appellee
} sep . (ne oPERIOR COURT
Ve #
TABER MILL, INC., a corporation, COOK ala
. (Defendant) Appellant. a yy oe T a e 9 9?
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgement for
$671.29, entered in the Superior Court of Gook County, in favor of
the plaintiff, in an action of assumpsit. To this action the defend-
ant filed its plea to the jurisdiction in the nature of a plea in
abatement objecting to the service of process and jurisdiction of
the court.
The plea set forth, in substence, that the defendant was
@ Massachusetts corporation; that it never transacted business in
the State of Illinois, and never qualified for that purpose. It is
further alleged by the defendant in its plea, that the defendant was
engaged in the business of manufacturing shirts, ties, pyjamas and
similar goods; that it sold its products at various times to the
residents of the State of Illinois by elicitors who solitited orders
from prospective purchasers in Illinois, on a commission basis;
that the orders procured would be forwarded to the main office of
the defendant at New Bedford, Massachusetts, for acceptance, and if
accepted by the defendant, the merchandise contracted for would be
sent 6.0.0. by mail from New Bedford, Massachusetts to the purchaser's
address; that the defendant conducted no transactions of any kind
in the State of Illinois other than those stated,
The plea further set out that William P, Martin, upon whom
service of summons was had, was not at any time authorized by the
defendant corporation to do or transact any business on its behalf
as an officer of the corporation,
va avavs
| HORT a C es siti 0 ust
TAUOD HOLME -—. “oetioosl (tttabek
etoltetodios 4 .-D8I ‘ai Perit
+ tne LLeqca (taebasrod)
Mi @@ An, A. T ase reve
a ae
LAey .
‘
;
| -YTHUGD 2000
~THUOO BHT TO UOTMIGO ANT CEARVIURC IaasH ‘forrent oiktarean’ ak
Ke ep sort tt
| tot ¢remghut s moxt tasdusteb edt yd Ieeqqs as at eke? pt
{ Ro tovet at, ytewod dood to #xy0d toitequé oi¢ at boxe#as “86h
-baetebd ent noitos etdt of .tiaqmuers to aottes as ab “sHittatslg, edt
*
Cay Pee y sk Bak r
“mt sefo # to etuted edt at noltoLbatxut edt ot vole wot BoLan os
i ixut bine eeoderq to soiviree ode ot
to aoitoibelrut ine eeesorq to + yabvooido s ete
ait > oid
aew tasbaoted st tent .ooastedue ai .dtxot toa s0lg ont
ean oo anh Yen Kast
ai seonteud betosancrt teven ti tent wo ttexoqnos z B
—s« BE GL .e@eeqroq tadt ‘to? beltifoup reven bas wetontiit ‘to stata 4.
, ies Abe at
paw doebaeted ent tead .aefe ‘ett at tashastsb ont a ‘beyeLis todd
: a. hay ». Bs j
bas eametye eet? ,ettine gititutsetyunss to eeoakend ost ai begag Se 8%
add of eomit avottey te etoubora ett bloe #t Goat vale
erebto Bettetios one sotto brow yd whowistt Yo ‘stedt
5 $etesd moteedemoo 5 ao etontitr at borne oe
16 oodtto niem edt of bebrowrot od biver ‘herve ong et
ti Bas ,soasdqeoos tot .stseenddnnecl bx
ed bluow tot bétost#ace oatbnadorem eat rebee
| e'resedorug edt ot et teeudscnnall ‘(brotbea wok mor how cl 0.9 hate
| bait ye to anoitosanstt on bevoubaoo snstastob ait. o
.
giodw aoge ,aitrs .4% meilliw tadt tuo ton “dew ole aoe :
| eat yd poxtrosiue omit yas ta tom esw shod now enone to ‘eoivise
| ‘Basted ati 0 asonteud vis tosenstt to ob of wokter0¢x08 * asome a
‘
»toltteroqroo ‘ond to cooltt
The plaintiff filed a replication where it was alleged.
"thet the return on the writ of summons was true and
that William FP, Martin was at the time of said service
of summons upon him, an authorized agent of the defend-
ant company.
A hearing was had before the court, without a jury, and
evidence was introduced by the parties upon the issue made by the
plea, and the court found the issues for the plaintiff, The
defendant elected to stand by its plea and thereupon was defaulted
for failure to plead to the declaration, and, upon a hearing, the
court entered the judgment appealed from.
The defendant maintains that the filing of the plea in
abatement was proper practice, and that the trial court erred in its
finding against the defendant upon a hearing of its defense as
alleged in the ples. The rule of law is that in an action to
recover the amount alleged to be due the plaintiff, want of a license
in the defendant to do business as a foreign corporation is no
defense.
No question was reised by the defendant as to whether the
sontract, in and of itself, was made in violation of the law.
In the case of Ross v. New South Farm & Home Co., 191
Ill. App. 353, there is an interesting discussion by the court as
to the right of a defense such ss is set forth in the plea of abate-
ment offered by the defendant. The court said;
"Section 67c, chs 32, Hurd's B. S. (J, & A» Para, 23527),
which prohibits fore corporations of certain kinds
from doing business in this State without being first
licensed by the Secretary of State, was enacted for the
protection of persons dealing with such corporation and
not for the protection of the corporetion against those
with whom it deals, Wo foreign corporation is bound to
comply with that statute. It may refrain from so doing
and be safe, provided it at the game time refrains from
transacting business and exercising its corporate powers
here, If it undertakes to transact business or exercise
its corporate powers in this Stste without complying
with this statute, it does so at its own risk,"
in the case of Pinch ¢ Co. v. Zenith Furnace Go, 245 Ill.
586, the Supreme Court of this State held that a contract of a
a”
sbogoits saw ti oxede moiteekLige: s beLit Midalelg edt
bus euxt esw anomawe To ¢irw oft no. te
_polvies Dice to emi? edt ts ssw atdrei ou ad Ziti
sts e trege lea
. : ‘ons
Tae oh
AL
bes .vrst © twortiw .txv0o adé oxeted’ Kall bie gaiteed a0 OT
edt yd obem eneel edt aequ eoliiraq edt yd beoubortal eow somebive
ad'y 2tEtaislg odd rot semeet oft bower txwoo edt bas .ole
‘ betiastebd cew noquereds bas selg etl yd baste of betools tnabasted
edt (Yntreed s nog pbas \ooltetslooh eft ot beck OF Stylist tot
snort belseqqs taonghyt edt betetas tod
O°) fb pele odd Yo gatikt odd todd enistales taabaeteb. off 60! Oot
ath al berre txyoo Esirt edd sedd base ,oottoaty teqoTg Bow Taeeeteae
es semsteb ett to gitteed « moqy tacheoteb erft sembayd’ yutbait
ot mottos as at tedt ef wal to elux edT .a8ia ode nt begeLis
oemsoll s to taew ,Ltivmiedy edt stb od of Doge ts devont edt reveoes
°° ont wt fottsroqres agterot & es enomtient ab od sieibietob watt att
etd eae id
edt sodvody ot as tasbast eb edt iW boster Bow -monteoup Of. ie
owed edt. to. moitetogy ot ober esw eticeds to bag rae
‘O enol & pe for oc ¥ +Y go 30,9060 oct a catia ie
Bs tau09. ode te ngsanyeesh aniveoretat. an a el 20h 2
«(F286 818h oA 4 oh). 28 of ob ’
‘ebatd ntatreo to atroftaroqro 8 tit
gaxit pated sued? iw. stage elat xT acenteud
- edd tot Setosne arw 4 “%
bas aoitaregroo dove Abin tt
180 °° oped Terbege notte teg¢red
| ot bavod al soltstoqroo maitre of .
Batod ov mort wisrt or ~OsheRi
mort antertex oe A emeg by fe tt be
erewoq ststogTéo efi gota | See Lyosenart —
getozexe te asent tonsnext of seis rehuass ti 1, sox00
OS meet Lomo toodtiw etese wide mi es Bt)
"dels awo ett te oa 8 bic a ts Statste « :
LL ane x00 songs Abines OM 192.8 domes 3 3p Err te tae baeveb
# to tosxtnoo s ted? bled etatG pidt to xvod em
ee ee 1
es ‘
i ‘ m
Rane 7 thy '
i : /
» » ach j
F ‘d
3
foreign corporation does not violate the statute prohibiting 2 foreign
corporation from transacting business, holding or disposing of
property, or maintaining a suit in the courts of this State unless
it shall have complied with certain requirements. It is not a vio-
lation of the statute for a foreign corporation to enter into a
contract with a citizen of this state for the purchase of personal
property in this state, and for a breach of the contract, if such
eccurs, such corporation may maintain an action for the recovery of
damages, provided the contract is but a single transaction. I+t is
apparent that if the defendant could maintain an action for a breach
of contract, as we have outlined, the plaintiff could maintain his
action, even if the defendant was mot licensed to do business as
a foreign corporation in this State,
Upon the question of service of summons upon the agent of
the defendant company, we have examined the record and are satisfied
that the service of summons by the sheriff of Gook County upon
William P. Martin was e proper one. The evidence in the record
clearly shows that Martin was an agent of the defendant company} that
he appeared voluntarily in this Stete in order to ascertain what claim |
the plaintiff had against the defendant company, and for the purpose
ef transacting business for the company. The service of summons was
in compliance with the statute.
The defendant having stood by its plea of abatement, which
we have indicated wes not a proper one, and without offering any
other defense, the court properly entered judgment for the plaintiff
in the sum of $671.29, The judgment is accordingly affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CONCUR,
mgterdt # gnitididorg etutste ed} stsloiv tou soob mobtardqzo0 aytexot
to gateogelh xo gatblod ,wecatend galtorenat? mozk adttsroqroo
sneinu etste eid? to atruwo edt ai thus sgrtakstaten no .ytteqerq
~ofv tom. si ¢1 = ,atnemorinpex atesxeo ditiw besLquoo, syed ifese $2
_# otal istae ot aeltetegios agiere? s rot etstste et to sottet
Lanoareq to, sander od}, Tot, ofste, Bist to gente s deiw goerteae
Mose ti .Toortaoo edt to dosetd s cok boa wotste pkét at, ytxeaong
to yroyooor sid tol soites ae aladalom Yam noltereqzoo doves ,erz0o9
ai tl .solttossast? olgnip s tud et tostiaoo edt Debtvory, .eepemnd
sosexd « tot saoltes as mistaiam bivoo sasbavteh ad¢ ti edt tnoreqqs
Bit distaiam bivoo ttitatelq odd ,beatitue evad ow 24, tonttn09. ko
es seeatni! ob of boamsolt tex any tnaksoteb odd Lt wave sottes
Ro taegs edt soqy enomue to soivren to, mottpoup oat nou. uti .
heltetéea ora bas broost ott beatmexe eyed ov .xmagmop tasbasteb edt
) noqy yinwed Food to ttitede edt Yo emomme to eolrnog odd tedt
brooer od¢ mt esonebive ed? .ea0 teqoty & bew aitnel 47 euspus
tad? Wyasquoo tmabnsteh ed¢ to taegs ae eaw attired tot ewode Uz fo
mislo ésdw Wistteoge of tobro ai otete ebdt-mi vitanoautey Soxsoqea, i
seoqtug adt rot Sas sYasqnion tnebuoteb ont tenteye hed TY.
‘Saw akamaie Se Waived ont +Wangnos it xo? enowtend 4 } ie at
mH ent odd ‘tet soma
a OT ee a eet ee
ee * 189 ua ag
HA UREN Me ene
18 1, re oer his tl ae
a
epeOTTOT Ne getter rte
et pent
etter a
37242
wae yl
NATHAN GELLER, | out oF ERROR To 4
Plaintiff in Error,
MUNICIPAL COURT
Ve
UNITED STATES UNDERWRITERS COMPANY, OF CHICAGO.
a Corporation,
Defendant in Error. 2¢9 I.A. G29
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff sued defendant in the Municipsl Court of Chicago
to recover damages slléged to be due under a policy of insurance
issued to plaintiff by defendant, by the terms of which plaintiff
was insured against loss by theft of his automobile, its equipment,
or any extra perts thereof.
in his statement of claim, plaintiff alleges that on
September 26th, 19352, his automobile was stolen from his garage
located at 13335 Lawndale Avenue, Chicago, was recovered by the police,
and that he then ascertsined that certein accessories and parts of
the value of §2300.00 had been taken therefrom. Defendant insists
that the claim is fraudulent in that the car and parts were not stolen,
ag alleged, but that plaintiff, in conspiracy with others, took the
parts from the car, or caused them to be so taken, and falsely
represented to defendant that the car and parts had been stolen,
The hearing was before the court without a jury, the court dound for
defendant and entered judgment against plaintiff for costs. The
appeal is by plaintiff from this judgment,
Plaintiff testified in substance that on the day in question
at about 12 o'clock he put the car in the garage back of his house,
locked the ignition and the door of the garage; that in the morning
he opened the door of the garage and saw that the car was gone; that
he made a report to the police and saw the agent of the insurance
company; that he signed a proof of loss in the office of the agent
5 "
hy Ys iy er ee > BRBIE
, (OT AORRE %O, gS ARRAR
: piuod Jacrotee ' ’ eT ENE”
; ws i ee
| , /ODADIED TO. — RENE Batam wis
| T@RD Ase vVS si “snot at vaatanee
| Wavoo Gr Yo MOTUTSO ‘MAT GRRRVIuEG takw MOTTO, ia’ Lee
& AS
ogscit® to two Ieqioinw ed? ni suebasteb bewe iat nrre
eomeivant te yoifoq = tebay eu od OF beyslie aegemia eee.
°PtLtntele dott w to eimret edt n done ¥ mises ‘6 Boon
‘jto dott wogelfs Prbtate le ‘mbato to”
eegetey eid ‘mott molote orw. ettéomotus sla er 008 |
yootlog ett yi herevover aaw pogenidd .oenevA oLébaw. 7
to eirey baa esivosesonk mistrod tad? benietreses | a
“ebétant tasbootod .mortetedd medat seed Dod done : cr ota
todote do Stow Boreq bas ths Sas ate WE bobteche ‘pele
off Hood jatetto détw yootiqemos at cibiatela tad te 4
“yfeatet ‘bas towed ow 6¢ of modt ‘beaueo to. ‘si ae tak mre
,telote aeed bad etzsq das tao edd tadd ‘tushaste® oh Ls oe tb
28% bawot tryoe off yytet & swodtiw txv68o eae rr re a
ai? vateoo rot tittelstg gontige sremabat Be pee eae ee r |
| | stuomghot etd? monk ‘Ween tard wa eee
gd teaup ak yeb odd co tate eonrdedue ‘ak batt itads ¥t ‘a fr Ae Cid RE
ya r
ou ~osvod eid to dosd egetey ont wk veo odd due eit aoodvte BL guods te
guimtom odd ai tests yogeteg ad¢ to 100b edd bas ‘coxekngt ott oto
tadd jemog eew reo eit tedd wee bas sgetsy edt to roob et bensqo od
3 eonsiwestt edt to teas edt wee bas eollog ont ot troger vspenr’ “ey
tnoge ot Yo odio odd mt val te toomg 2 beagie ed tate ti q |
2
of thé defendant company; thet thereafter he was notified by the
police that the car had been found and that the tires, springs, front
fenders, lamps, headlights and axle were gone; that the agent of
defendant company agreed to pay $235.00 and costs of storage in
settlement of plaintiff's claim; that all the missing parts were
replaced at a cost of §137,00, and that the repairing cost was
from $35.00 to $40.00. This witness on cross-examination further
testified in substance that he had made a prior claim on a policy
issued by the Chicago Motor Club when this same car was stolen on a
previous ocoasion, when five wheels were taken off and that the claim
was settled for $145.00; that he also had = claim against defendant
company for two tires and a spot light in August, 1933, and that
during nine years he had five claims regarding this same car,
Louis Geller, a brother of plaintiff, testified that he
paid $140.00 to one Warshawsky for parts and ¢8.00 for towing the car.
gaul Geller, ® witness for defendant, testified in substance
that he is a naphere of the plaintiff; that on September 26th, 1932, he
met plaintiff on the street, and that plaintiff told the witness he
would like to strip the car and collesct $300.00 insurance on it;
thet the witness told him he would have nothing to do with the matter;
that a few minutes later a man came along, and that defendant told
the witness he was the person who was going to strip the car; that
they (meaning the plaintiff and the person mentioned) went away
together, and that about two hours after he saw plaintiff come into
his (plaintiff's) house bringing the wheels of the car} that
Plaintiff told him he would give the car away to his brother and would
collect $300.00 for insurance, and that plaintiff stated that he had
collected money in this way before, On cross-examination this witness
stated imxsubxkamax thet six wheels were brought into the house by
plaintiff that night.
ee eee
,
=
8
edt ye beltiton esw of xotteoredt stadt jyasqmoo tacbaeteb bat ‘to
txort cagadeae weotit edt tect bas bavot need bed 10 odd todt vokton
to taeye edt tote yenoy oréw ofus bas addgifbood const <vezeheet
ah enerote to adsoo bns 00.2883 veq ot booxgs WxaqHoD org
otew efzeq on ten.ti out iis tedt ints to e'ttitalela, te 19 ais
“- eaw #200 yattfaget edt tart das .00.76i9-Re teoo.e ta -benalqer
seddayt noltsnimexe-eeore ao wnentiw eld? -00.088 ot 00,888 mort
yoilog «mo wisfo tolta s sbam bad on tadd sonetedus mk beltitest
og m0 Relote eee 120 omee efit nodW dyL0 toto ogkold oct ye boweat
milo 6¢ dott bis te medest orow efooswsvet medw ynodexooo nvodvesg
saabasted tentess mlclo « bad ols ed tad? 700.8019 cod bolttee mow
tet Boe .85CL ,temmel at tigil toqe a bae setts owt sot yasqnoo
«t80 omee Sidd gatbreget autelo evil bet ed oteey ania goiseb
ed tedd Heltiveos .tite¢aieiq to rediord e greiie® #eived
»ts0 oft gotwot sot 00.83 de etrsq tot ylewsdeaey’ sao of /00,0M} diag
evnstedue ai heitivest .iashaeteh tot eeentiv 2. er0L ion Lyme: oe
od ,S8@L {MeO codmetqes? no tad? 7 Yt itntslq edd to wedges o Bl os) tads
ef tutatiw ex? Diet tiitutela todd bus ydoonte odd no Tktadele dom
tot no sonetuast OO.008) to alles brs 189. 9d¢-qixte. ed eft bivow
yrotdim ont déte ob of gaiston eved bivow od mit blot exoatiw edt: sade
blot tunbustob tet bas .ynoLe emeo ase 2 sete eetuate woh stad?
tedd jreo add iste of grtog sew odw noexeg ott sew od neoad ty. edt
“yews tnew (benottmen nosteq odd hae Thitadele odd gatasen). yeas
otmt Suoe reteutsi¢ wes ed teths stvod ot trode dedt bas yroddeget
todd gree od? Yo eLoodw eit ymtgaind oma (o*ttitabela) wbd
biivow Bae todterd tid of ‘Yaws «a0 ont aréy blvow ed mit blot ‘MM itaisiq
bai ed ted? dotete Witntale toilt fue yvoderwent Tot 0O,008%) to9LLo0
esonttiv éidt nottsrinexs<s9eot. nO .etoted ‘yaw abit mt yenom be foetios
1 eee ae ete at
ie “iyi toe eel setentath
ml td Foor # Big ia oa 2 alt hamabal
TO
The record indicates that the witness, Saul Geller, and
plaintiff had some controversy about financial affairs and were not
friendly. However, in view of the fact that the court below saw and
heard the witnesses, and, from their manner and mode of testifying,
and from all the od reumstances in the case, was given the opportunity
to determine the truth as to the matters in controversy, we feél
that we are not justified in disturbing the finding snd judgment.
Therefore, the judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. OCONCUR,
&
bite ,telfed inet .evettin odé fedd eotaokht? Brooey eat! © 0! to
Poet etew Bas stistts Letenseit tvods Yersverineo ‘uot hed WhLatote
bas whe wokéd fty0e odd edt 8t edt to welv al ytevewod |, ylbaseet
Bulyiltesd to afom bes rennes ted? mor? bas yeoesouttw edt buked
tiauttoqce ont asvis eow yoase odd af Ssanedsneeete One Lie MONT bas
Lget ov ,YErOVOTIAOd Li eTOtItem ant OF be dtuTd odd ontmTeteb ot
isha ne aceon A EE ee
ee wa lode RMRITEA Sct sects Grif seca gach jaala ¥ howeak
gietooedt teas hes Yee weale? Seer whom eek) aay Ho Lacon: suodvong
imdbetTeS Cotten atete 2 bet ota ka de i ee
Foue Sue ,SkeL: esos ak 2 AUOHOD .G yRORe GHA bs Laie x
sca0 enee bide guitrager te belo eel begs Gee: ieee yo beak
at Gade HALT Loe , Yidulely Ye vasyedad’ a geek ahead ~
tho O87 Nadvo? Ter oh .) S8re Stuy cel giana eee ve ea Shan
ghketeih ci haltivguat? .teatesieh too epemiee a ern git Hager’
O° gaeGl Moe cecseveeat wo tne , 22 ivniaig ott Re eae eee tealy
ei eesatien oft Elot “hitdtels ¢adt. Str _gtoorsee Gs ee Wi sadutk tos
(92 ne: soeetrest OC .0OR} so niles bx oul a a wd ee tikwoie
“<ousits mit gtie 63 Of nabites eved Sinew o@ mbes bige* es toate
bie? teehee tsh tadd bas gente see: ee aE, eects wat @. dash
iuddt: seer oso ahate ot goday cow oy Sere eee tei. ag await ln ost
‘ayy seer (aeeciinse eeawed) malt) deh Th teehee eo oman) ved?
Ooh Bee Yo rlack#in eae eg ores. eebedere aye eee ‘seni sstonavaet
jets pean ate Ye vleese eae chun eee han take
Rivew bee coPherd #hf oF QE cee ame Bry See nadealy edie Sinatary
bet @¢ fete Dotshn Te rte le tat! te poe eee, ‘ACY snaE tee
sagaeiy wide no lteter my eee gee ee ‘ysaiae’ be emtioo
ed gaye odd whol Pigehet chen Rie Ril r tat: smametrsimaamt Av atte
| ntigo to Pata ate
pans hae aa ae vis i RATE
he
rd }
37246 on ra |
THE WEST SIDE TRUST & SAVINGS, GANK
OF CHICAGO, a Corporation,
Appellant, MUNICIPAL Court!
Ve i
OF OHIGAGO,
Appellee. ms ¢ Gy Lee G 2 3
B, ARSHAN or ORSHAN,
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment against plaintiff for
costs entered in an action of forcible entry and detainer, brought
to obtain possession from defendant of an apartment in a building
located at 1545 South Keeler Avenue in Chicago. It is admitted that
_ Plaintiff, The West Side Trust & Savings Bank, wes trustee under a
mortgage trust deed on the land and the building in which the apart-
ment is located, and that plaintiff, as such trustee, took possession
of the premises in question in August, 1932, Whether such possession
was obtained by order of court, or otherwise, the record does not
disclose, On July 26th, 1933, defendant moved into the apartment
without the consent of plaintiff, and without stating to plaintiff
his intention to do so. On July 28th, 1933, defendant was served
by p}aintiff with a demand for immediate possession of the premises,
Subsequently, the action in question was begun, the complaint filed,
in which it is alleged that defendant unlawfully withholds the
possession of the premises, and on September 15th, 1932, after a hear=
ing, the court found the defendant not guilty. Following this finding,
the judgment for costs was entered against plaintiff, from which
judgment this appeal is being proseauted,
By what right or claim of right defendant holds possession
of the premises, is not clear. The abstract recites that "defendant
is rumored to be the owner of the equity and moved in five weeks before
the trial," The trust deed referred to is not in the record, and
the record is vague as to whether defendant is or is not the owner
“SOarvhe a TeUsyY Bdie Teaw ant
.sHietserogted & ,OHAQTHD 9
stnslieggn.
a Phe eR ERS IMT
*yQOKOTROowO te
| ead _ alana to HAHGAD .&
“ig C. O. 7 I e y Pe om OA ccd on alipeebetions
) gat hotwarh tea Sele hee ee
“ MAUOO SHT YO WOLWIGO BHT : oR FEVE a6 ‘gan Ce
tot Tittmtelg tantege tnemgbut s mort Leeqqe ae ah akdt 9
tdgword ,renisteb bas yrins eidierot to aoitern oa at sania ateoo
gaibliod s at tnemiseqs as to tasbasteb mort aofereseog atside of ©
tedt bettimbs el tI .ogeoidd at euneva wetean fidu0k Gael Peni
& tebay setertt esw ,dost egatvse & taux? opie tae oft .it ’
-tisqe edt doidw ai gatblind ed¢ bas basal edi mo beeb teytd opagtsan.
nolesenseq woot ,ostemxt dowe sa ,tiitnisiq tedt bas ebotecot al tae
noleasseoq dos rodtedy .8E8L ,temguA at molteesyp ai 8 -_ ent ‘to
ton eeob hroost odd ,eaiwredto to ,.tiweo to tebse a bentatde sw.
tnemirsgs ect ovat bevom sasbaoteh ,580L ,dtOS yint m0 eae! ki
Bitalsiq ot guitete tyodtiv bas ,itttatelg lo ¢usemoo ont thin |
bevise acw tnabasteb .SECL MSS yLob a0 408 ob of mots
seoeimetg eft to nolaesesog steiiommi tok basmeb s Atte tise
ebeitt taksiqmoo eft ,muged esw aoltesup at aoltoe edd ,yLimey ie
od? ebloddtiw yLivtwelay tashas tab add hegelia ef te Aoeen ah
=teed 6 totte ,S80L ,tL redmedqe? ao bas ,aeeimery edt Yo. potesse2eg
apatbalt eld? yoiwollol .ytiivg tom tuehasted odd besot pase, ot wot
foLdw moxt ,tiitatelg tentege beretme eew atnoo Tol temp, wt, odd
sbetaosretg gated af Lseqga. sig ts
motsesesog eblod tashasteb tigit to misio ro tigit tonw ¥
tnebactsbh" tadd eetioer toavteds edt .xselo tom at ,aoeimerq edt
owted efeew evit at bevom bis ytiupe edt to Tenwo edt od 08 § wa wt ek
bs ybuover edt mt tom ef of Bexreter Beeb favs? edt nalatee oat
wcntuim ett ton nt «co et tuseboetsb codtedw of ec oan alte
2
of any equity of redemption in the premises, although the court on the
hearing seems to have proceedéd on the theory that he is such owner,
The only testimony on this question is that elicited from « witness
for plaintiff. On cross-examination this witness testified in effect
that he was informed that defendant owned an interest in the equity of
redemption, but that he had no actual knowledge in regard thereto.
None of the cases cited by defendant is in point. In each
of these cases, the question presented to the court was as to the
right of a trustee under the terms of a trust deed to obtain possession
of mortgaged property after default, and how such possession might be
obtained - whether by an action in ejectment, an action in forcible
entry and detainer, or otherwise. Here no such question is involved.
In the instant case, in so far as the record indicates, the plaintiff
was in lawful possession when defendant moved in without its consent
and without any established right.
An Act in regard to forcible entry and detainer, Cahili's
Iliinois Revised Statutes, 1935, Ghapter 57, Section 1, provides,
"that no person shall make an entry into lands or tenements éxcept
in cases where entry is allowed by law, and in such cases he shall not
enter with force, but in 2 peaceable manners® Section 2 of this Aot
provides "that the person entitled to the possession ef lands or
tenements may be restored thereto in the manner hereafter provided:
First - When a forcible entry is made thereon."
In Hammond v. Doty, 184 Ill. 346, the court said:
"In an action of forcible entry and detainer only the
immediate right of possession is involved, and the title
to the premises cannot be called in question. *** The
material question for the jury to determine was, whether, in
fact, at the time alleged, the appellee was in the actual,
peaceable possession of the premises in question, and whether
the defendants below, the appellants herg, entered upon such
possession against the will of the appellee, the plaintiff
below, and retained such possession. *** Under our Statute
of Forcible Entry and Detainer actual violence, amounting
to a breach of the peace, is not necessary in any case, Any
entry is forcible, within the meaning of the lew, that is
made against the will of the occupant,"
i ar i i Ba ee
edt mo trues oft dguodtie ,eeelmenq edt at soltqmabet to ytlepe yas ke
stonwo dove ef ad tect yrood? oft ao b¥heevoxG eved et gnoce guixsod
aeentiw ¢ mort betiolle sett ef solveoup ‘aldt ao Yuombteed yiao eit
wootie at beltiteed aseavin elds aoifanimaxe-erets ad «eMitatala rot
te yeivpe edt ai teotednt as beawo tasbhbnotebd tait bemrotal ssw ed tadd
<oteredt breget at eybelwond Leysos on bed ed*dant thd” fottqmeher
doacenal- «t#aloy ‘at et tusoteteb yi Sesto eeeno edt to enol
edt ot as esw treo edt ot betmeestq aotteeup edt eeee2so0 seedt to
nokessneeq atatdo of beoh teutt s te emtst oft tobuy safest? « to ddgex
ad tig Hots esezod dows wod baa st fusteb zotts yreqorta boysgtsom to”
efdtorot at noitos ae .Inontoete ‘at nobtos me (YO renters ~ bemistde
sboviowat et nottaeup dove om exe joatwrellde’ x8’ _temtes
riitabaty edt .esteotbat brooser edd os tat oo ai 4eoad tnetant ed¥ mI
tneenoo ate tuodtiw al bevex tnebasteb ready noleedesoq betas int tew
" \edgiz bedebiandse ‘yuo’ hash Be
" “Bt LLbsieo etenlsten bas Yrdae eidioret ot brsget ae tox aa 5 tae
eeobivory ah noitoss .¥d ‘setaedo e8S8L sestudsd® Bowtves eton£ttr
) trie’ exitine
tqeoxd etaemenet ro ebast otal vets ne oven Iladte morte ¢ ‘ont dado"
ton iLeda ed sesso dove al bas ered ‘ve bewlts si rine bredv beuds At
toa ald to § nottoee "tennant elisesaed” eal tee” (oore? dvi retne
£0 chant to no taneezoq ‘ott od bolskias dose add “ted?” aebiverg
- sbebiven | rettsored reansm oft al oferodt beredeer ‘ed You “atmememet
= ‘noon eds efem at yroae aidtee
‘thise ‘favoo odd ote efST SOL .ydod sy Brome lia a
on vino gt ‘bas. bs eldiexd? te Sie as kel
eitie adv. ins ROG 29 | sae
edt *** 0 ua st at ab eo GD
ai .tedtedy .eaw porte rateb of ot. reat ast
etavtos edt al saw 98 2,
reddertw bas ,nolteeup fs ee lme xc ef to sot ae : D.
aes Jags Maen eee Se ee ith
eet 2s. or ey 2 Wes bw 4 pape e us f i
stutste x0 reba + ato tseseaog oune on 86
‘gaitavons .gonsioiy iagtos. eveeieti mans | oidtoxe | ty
Yok =, e8ed Ye ak yrseeeoen ton yells , Na alt
oo Ug eo tate gwedvedt. to Baaguoeo emt idtie
«PREG SOS
cuTnes ee ee hy iy went ace
ue
iliw ed
Ky he S hea fsstdbed ol
oo: See CF) oP Orie
WR! Wala
reyeeecs | STA eNy Be «My a F ths Lisp y ete Get atte eh eb pt ata wT tag aed aera gett?
peer ae aed: Waynes
We also call attention to the case of Groff v. Ballinger,
18 Ill. 300, where the Supreme Court said:
"To constitute forcible entry and deteiner, under our
statute, it is not essential thet the entry be made with
strong hand or be accompanied with acts of actual force or
violence, either against person or property. If one enters
into the possessions of another against the will of him
whose possession is invaded, however quietly he may do so,
the entry is forcible in legal contemplation."
From the record filed here, as heretofore stated, it
appears that the plaintiff was in the lawful and legal possession
of the premises in question, and thet defendant forcibly entered
into such premises without any disclosed right to do so. The plain-
tiff had the legal right te prosecute the action brought here, and
we are of the opinion that the court was in error in its finding and
judgment, The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the ceuse
remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HEBEL, P.d. AND WILSON, J. CONCUN,
a
sa Rate ee SP ty Bi yn wry bok dp 7S a.
LE eee, 6 OE eet] Ae Wee 8
wroanilisa .v ttoro to ease edt Of nofimevea Liao ogks Sy 8 9 OO"
“ ereias ano tI
tbise trvo0 smenque eadg cr 08 oA at
“uo tobay .renisteb dns - ee ee tel ae wo
vag ebem ed ge pay zat ietiaeene fae tox et sos ypiatage,
“se Goret Laevex -
mii to fiw ead?
i a meer Font
tenigges wendtons eetage sone
BRE a Ke
ead
sede
. o£ ,betate erotetered es yered belit beooes ois morT® ©8'! Jo
nokeeoseog Layel hos Lutwel edt af sew tt htatele ete dads exmsgye
petetas yidtexo® tnebasteb tadt Suv ,sotteosp mf eentwenq Say to
-nindg eff .on of of ¢dytt bewoloath yas tuont hw seelusta tone ofHt
_ bets yore tiguowd noktes eft etyoseora o¢ digit Leyed erit ben TEP
fae gnébett vit mt rose mt eon tuwoo ott cntuannatpatetiedon
ie
:
4 t
¢ ;
EY: :
x &
wie * rs 4
ad
ls gl
gy Anh iS ad? ;
%
“ty 69 a}
ths 6
ee 4 v4
<= Lily $
Ge, BA
Se t,he Bn
Pe ee
ae Gy
af
(8 tated Goel yeadyeer? re syrunt siniietitrs
erie atc tLe ‘panied ont bieiull
sid Pe
‘a ofévansen « ni fot pant aeiw eee
ai? ot hetvisce eeree wae vate aah irwtg
tt gt otevedt Rasetedy Ge Yeh meaet
ahew mk wom. aceteees ~— me SRLS
Oe hie MOL oo ae ees ae
we woe F fain ‘ne ek
oti Bree ima eaniente
L808 BIOL” pir og
Be and saan Le kes or aw
Lo See Mt ee wel
SABI WPS HVe
fae esankenenk ae
¢ dae2ens WAR seg
a Sar Ae vt Py greter '
Ie: Ske he, oe Reet Fe
recs sae “ noherd eee
eke .~gid hates, wf, wane a,
$8 Lae age! PR ny
> tal
—
aa
poo
. pee ae
37318 or op lor,
IDA J. HODGE, A ~—sAPIEAL FROM
ee al
Appellee, .’ =
SUPERIOR COU
Ve
EVENING AMERICAN PUBLISHING Cook cou
QGOMPANY, a corporation,
Appellant.
WR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
By this appeal, defendant seeks the reversal of a judgment
against it for $10,000,00 and scests of suit. The action is based
upon a charge that plaintiff was injured as a result of the negligence
of defendant's servants in the operation and management of a motor
truck owned by defendant. It is admitted thet defendant owned the
truck and it is not denied/that plaintiff was injured as a result of
its negligent operation. There is no claim that the damages are
excessive. The ground for reversal urged here is that a young man
named Walter Slupak, who was operating the truck when plaintiff was
injured, was without authority, express or implied, te do so. At
the time of the accident, which happened on February 3#d, 1932,
the truck was in use by defendant for the delivery of its papers to
verious news stands located in the downtown or loop district of
Chicago. The accident happened on the north side of Washington
street, a short distance west of State street, in the city of Chicago.
Walter E, Grams, produced as 2 witness for the plaintiff,
testified that he was a retired atéorney-at-law, having previously
been city prosecutor for the city of Chicago; that he witnessed the
accident in question, He further testified that at the time and
place of the accident he "was waiting there to buy the last edition
of the Chicago American, which arrives there from 6:15 to 6:30 every
evening. The accident happened at about 6:20. While I was standing
there that evening I saw 4 truck pull up there and stop eight or ten
tas
i ee
a
eLeve
: 20008 «& AGI
CR EEE BE
4 Pk ie Ailey hey De me
i 3, OO
ve pei oa
+TAUOQ BHT IO HOLMIGO ANT GEARVILEG dag, BOLLE, o!M oy sir termes
tnomghuy s to Leerever odt adeoe guskusteb .Loeqge ald? Yoon 49) te:
-tbeesd at aeiioe edT tie Yo eteeo ban 00490, 048 ‘wot 22 Jentege
sonegiigen edt to tiveet ¢ as bow{ai sew thitniadg tet oyzado 2 soqu
mete « to taemegenem bas solterege sdf ak, atasvroe s'tnabasteb te :
exit homme -tuahaered sade het ¢sahe Ot 41 , ovSSAhmNeee ws beqwo towns
to ¢iveet s es betwtal saw Ititaielg ods oni tom et th bas xoust
ere sogsmeb odd talt minto om et ered? .noktereqo #reyiiyen att
fom gaoy s tedt ea oted bogus Learevex tok baworg est sovianeore
pew Ttitatelg nedw dourt edd gaiteteqo esw ode tequila cotleW bemas
th .08 ob of ,betlqmi to anarqxe weblxontios | 100 Ww nse” borwtad
e8ECL .bee yressdel ao bemegqqnd dotdw .tnobioos edt to emit edt
ot exeqeq ati to yrevileb edt rot tashbasteb yw eee al new Mount edt
to #ointtelb qoeL 10. awotmwob edt at betsool ebaste awed avoltey
Hotgaides! to ble déton edt so bensqqad tmebkose sd? .ogsokdd
sogeotdd to ytio edt al ,teette etate to teow sonsteth trode 8 .toorte
etiitateiq ed? sok eeeatiw s on beouborg eee ®t wos Lait |
yavotverg gaived wwai-te-yenredtes beriter » aaw ed todd bottigaed
edt boesentiw od tad? pOganidd to thio edd tet noduooeona to ased
bas emit eft ts tedt boititest reaibnut on wnotteeup ak tnebtoos
moltkbe tesl edt wi of etedt gatthan ean" od tmobtoos ods 2 to sonia i,
yrows 08:8 of 2:8 mozt oredd seviesa doddu eaeotrenh ogso.si
| gathasta osw I eLidW .08:8 ¢uods te bemogqad taebtoos ot spakasve
med 0 tints qote bus etedt aw leq douxd « wee I satnove teat ae di
DD
SS ee a ee
|
hy
2
feet west of the State street cross walk on the north side of the
street. It was a Chevrolet truck with a covered top, and 'Evening
American! was painted on the side, *** The regular driver was
Jimmy Huggett, and the other person on the truck was Walter Slupak,
a boy of fifteen or sixteen, For two or threes years it was my
habit to go to that corner and buy a copy of that particular edition
of the paper. I saw Huggett and Walter Slupak every day on that
truck, or a horse and wagon, and I saw Walter Slupak on the truck
almost a year, although Huggett drove the truck longer than that.
*** That night Huggett and Slupak drove up, stopped at the curb,
and the news man, Alterie, came over to the truck. Huggett counted
out the papers, gave them to Walter Slupak and Walter handed them
to Alterie. Huggett jumped out of the truck and ran toward Dearborn
street, and before he left he said to Walter Slupak, 'Now, be sure
and wateh this truck and keep those kids away from here,! *** When
Huggett left the truck Yalter Slupak was on the seat of the truck.
When Huggett drove up he stopped the motor. After Huggett left,
Walter moved over into the driver's seat behind the wheel, and two
or three minutes after Huggett left my attention was attracted by
the motor starking, and the truck started becking up» At that time
the boy was in the driver's seat holding the wheel, As soon as I
heard the truck start I looked up and saw the truck moving backwards
and back up against the curb. *** The truck backed up against the
curb, climbed the curb and pushed this news stand, in front of which
was & woman buying a paper, whose name I later found out was Fisher;
it pushed the news stand to one side, knocked the woman down, ***
and passed over the woman, It backed up against the corner window
where I was standing, broke it, then backed onto the State street
sidewalk, curved around and backed up against the building. All this
occurred in about half a minute. After the truck climbed the curb
onto the sidewalk, it seemed to cain momentum. I saw Mrs. Hodge
}
ed¢ to ebis dicen edt mo ALew asoto teotte stat® edt to teow Yost
gaineva' bas ,qot hereveo « dtin doutt teLorvedd = asw #2 .deette
vew tovixh telyget oft *** ,obie edt ao Hodakeq wesw ‘asolromA
eisqulg te¢LeY eae Soutt edt m0 oer 94 tedto od¢ bas .ttegguh yuntt
| ye asw #t erasy serit 10 owt tod. ued aie fod ao0gd2 kT te vod s
| mottibe xalvoiteng tat to yoo s wd bus xenreo teas 0? og of tided
| “dent? Ho yeb qreve dequié sotisy bae ttesgul wee I »T9GRG odd te
; dowtt edt mo Aaquls xodlew wee I Das an attel bre oaxod | &, * ourt
| sted nsdt regaol aout ont avorb $teygut diquodt Le aes 2 teomLs
| oud edt te beqgote aus evorb dequle bas sdoupull tagta fast e. ren
| __ betas tteggquH tous? edt of 9v0 ence oitedda ynae owe, wt aca
node bebasd xodkew hus xaquie redisi ot met hies seThgan, 28 + tue
Pt 35 el
axodz200 brewos 9% bas doutt edt te tuo beaut
x it We Hest tet,
eave od wont! a toqu ia xotLel ot bise eit: fret ed oxoted t 0 s
eas Reps ea fod
6 Lule ah ae
sfoust exit to tan ont 0 “Bsw asquia redLaW dowrt sit Fao t tteagun |
“Pte tteguul teeta stodom ont beqqote od w rO%
owt t bas ood ent baided tase strevinb edt otk
hecipdbeny
es
|
| ‘edt *** tered mor? wre ebia ezortt qoed ‘bas fourt etdd ew bas
AO LER Pe TAPS. Vee é
yd bedesrits Bay noltnetts wa fteL #teagul rots. a
ane test tA ae gatiess | botrste ee rics & ede ‘bas
+ seb Rete oud bexoond soot ene ‘et 4 boots ron eat, bed cau aE
wobatw xenz09 et tontege au betosd Es sa8m0% ont ‘ovo be go,'
teorze atate oad o#s0 hedoad med? sit orien bie yee Sf ating
etd? CLA vantb Lind ods tentegs ur boroad bas 17 .
duo ont bedutio Lome ants rotta wotuntm ® iat
epboi seul wae a ‘saurtaonon ales ot ‘benooe rs ent 08
nes 33 ne Mogg 8 weet ee eee atid .
sateen 1a ELS , a
a
Tok Lge cain ajiiht SEES
3
after the truck stopped, on the State street sidewalk about twenty
five feet west of the building line at Washington street. She was
| lying down. I picked up Mrs. Fisher and carried her to a Yellow Cab
and then I saw Mrs, Hodge lying on the sidewalk and someone picked
her up and put her in a Checker cab. i had never seen her before
the accident. *** after the accident, I took Alterie to the Iroquois
Hospital and there I saw “rs. Hodge being carried on the stretcher
out of the hospital and being taken to some other hospital. Prior
to the accident, I had seen these men on the truck many times
bringing this particular edition of the paper about the same time
every evening. ‘Several times I heard the driver tell Walter Slupak
to keep the kids away in the driver's absence; Huggett would collect
from the different stands around and I saw Walter on several occasions
start the motor. *** I had seen Walter come up Eee Te RegeENE driver
on the truck, and I] had seen Slupak stay in charge of/truck during
Huggetts! absence. When the driver left the truck standing there,
there were five or six boys there that hung around every night. They
would jump up and down on the running board, reach in and monkey
around the levers and push the truck backwards and forwards, playing
around, i saw them a number of times, nearly every day."
Reeco Alterie, a witness for plaintiff, testified as
follows: "My name is Rocco Alterie; I live at 561 Bunker street, and
am a néws dealer, working for my father, who has the news stand at
State and Weshington street. He has been at that corner fourteen or
fifteen years, and has two stands there, one at Washing/street and
one at State street. I had been working for my father nine or ten
years before February, 1932; I am nineteen years old. I knew a truck
driver for the Chicago Evening American named Marvin Huggett, and
I know Valter Slupak. I had known Huggett about seven months, the
time he had been on the route; and I had know Slupeak about the same
time, He began with Huggett. During this period Huggett had a horse
I ieee saa a oa
i) re i
Loy Coat
i “yiaone twods ALewebte deorte oteas edt 0 sbeqgote sours owe xegka
Pree SBE tha,
dao woLtsY 8 oF ted betrre bas rodert snl as bagotg 4 .
SaeRee, Was
beioiq sacsmoe bas ALswebte odd 9 antes aghoi_ work wee ¥ mots bas
oe hae
eroted, tod meee teved bsd I .dso rexeedd # ak red tq ‘hes qy xed
r &Eh
uy Os
etouporl edt of etzegta toot i ,taebtoos edt xodth ales Rp ges es ad?
| redoterte edd mo betrrso gated egboli ver wee f ‘exedé bas Aad icege
| tolxt .Latiqeod rodto emoe of neiat gated bas Agsiqeod eat te. tuo
| ve eemtt yates Aourd out so mom gaodt nee bout i stasbioos ot, ol
: emit omee ont tod s roceq edt te moittbe rekuottxsg ue 7 al Bs :
adequte redlen ifet tovirh ont breed I eomit Aereves
=
LONE. eat Pes 2)
eno besooo Lstevee 0. rotLe’ wae I bas pavers, ebaste katapcche)
REG sean
sovitb naluaer | ea itiw qx mop rotLer mooe bed i +e ”
gait, souz?\to earede at yete oqute tee bea 1 ba 7 a is Hee
vk Akh 2a Ore a.
oe
:
|
| eenttes bLuow tteggul jeousads s!revind ost at vers abi ont ab
|
|
”
conedt yaibaste Xourd ot ‘iter zoyinb ead mos ; -sonvads
wat pttats Yreve bavors gaurd ted ered ered ate Ay tot h bad
: ‘yourom hats mi dosor sbxs0d patos edt 0 = aes
patyelg gebrawsot buts ebrsyiosd four? odd Aso “. i
Bik ‘ aS hottitess Ft Sfatelg got event iy 8 “abroath 0
has atoerte 3 redntl 198 te evil r gotmeetA 4 eee! ef, oun a | iw “ i
! ts baste ewer oat eed or rede? mm rot _gulstren _sreteeb A cet Pn
79 seormot rems00 teat te need east iim . Pi
edt
‘a aby og
",ysb qrere Yarsen emit | to * * de ‘oI xed Ere)
ws ¥ be ht fait,
Roast
Lue
ees
Coo SRG go RET
te resey seas st
nee 2 to. ‘ente redder wm wot > gabszon 2 med Bad steer a4 4 RiP oy
xoutt s wert I blo sreey nootentn as I me ed om oy Bongo
_ das .tegpatt atyratt aanaet sence 9 ,
oad etsaom moves oods ce :
ence edt tyods, aoaut® ore .
‘e sarod 2 had steogagul Cre ‘aap + waheet vabemeill Pes aoa ve
Pe
Ss —
esw ode _stooxte aot gntite sk ‘ts eats pathited od? te teow, toot, ovit
ides bas etete
o¢ :
7 thon
4
and wagon and for the last three months he had a truck. *** Slupak
used to get down with the truck about 3:30, his first trip, and
would stay until/ 6730, the last trip, and during that time the driver
would tell him how many papers to gkke to the news dealers; onee in
a while about 6:50, when Huggett went up Dearborn street, Walter
would cross to the southeast corner and collect for the day's papers,
When I saw him give out papers from the truck, he was on the front
seat at the time and he was in the truck. I saw him ride up on the
truck with the driver every day he was there, during the seven months
he was employed by Huggett. I saw him on the truck when Huggett went
away, and on those occasions he would be either in the driverts seat
er on the side. ‘Some times he would get in the truck and start the
Gar and warm it up, and once Huggett was coming down Washington street
from Dearborn street and the truck was parked on Washington near
State street at the corner, and he pulled up about twenty feet and
just moved over and Huggett got in and drove away, I saw that myself,
I noticed him start the truck or warm it up for the driver when he
was away or coming back quite a few times. A number of boys used
to come ground that corner at that time, but I don't remember whether
Huggett ever told Slupak to keep the boys away from the truck. iI
have seen Walter chase other boys away from the truck qubte a few
times, hen the driver came back I saw the boy open up the ignition
step on the starter and start the truck, Once he pulled up 26 or
50 feet and moved over in the seat and let the driver sit down. He
rode away with the driver,"
Charles Volker, a witness for defendant, testified aa
follows: "I am employed by the Ghieage Evening American in the
capacity of branch manager, *** About two years ago I hired a boy
by the name of Walter Slupsk, He was used to sell papers throughout
the loop, and also to distribute papers from the truck to other boys
throughout the loop on the same street the driver had, *** He was
ae ee stout © bad od edtaom cords taal edt , Tot bap ms MoRSw bas
¥ ; H hea
‘hee lst tetit eid 08: & suods fourt sat ata Eten toa of Seay
xevisd ort omit ed? pateub bas gist task exit Resa wir 3 ia
ab sexo jereLsed arent ont ot ofts ot erogeq Ves wor hear fies 3 biuow
x9¢ Lal stoorte axodze90 aur tow ttougul nostw 08 38 tues ‘eLbin 9
sereqee. atysb ott xo soolion bas TeHTOS tenedtuos edt of OTe ) bien
tnoxt eit Ho asw od lowes ont nowt eroqee tuo oviy ates wee J. wen
edt HO ad obis m tcl wee t +douré od at Rodd ou bas omit ext 18 goa
edécom asvoe ot gadmub werent ecw a ws yisve evi ab oss fiw, Sere
taow teaauit asc Anu out 0 mad wee 4, 12383 os Wb yor Pi oa
ts0e alzevith edt at xodtto od biuow od “emo bnso0e seodt a0 a9 bas are
oat tuate bas owt ‘edt ak tog blow ed aemtt emoe sehin et 0 bd
Tees AS
soorte notgatdssy awob gatnoo BEM ttougul sone bag soy, t4 otaw bas tse
. | Tsea nodga tes mo bested sew Mount ede bap eects e srodrsed mort
bas test yatiows tuode qu Dotiog ot bas sTearoo a had i state
Ti9eu ‘ted wee r -yeus evorb bae at toa, 4 gui mM bas sow ma, Mayes, f88h
ed oat revied ont cot au te mrsw 70 fount oat trate se ites toa t
‘boew eyod to xodmutt A sponte wor 8 ‘satup oad j agtnoo 20 ® Jere ear
xedtede redmeno #'n05 t tod somtt ‘tadt ts rennoe tase wore : = sno of
F “dont? ona mort Yous ayod out good ot Treas Per te! bald bs
wet a etksp tows edt mont vers eyod redgo enee tHE. 908 oved
Aaa es peer Hy
£ t edt ym od edt wee I tosd omso
headgl ig. q eo x ‘rovieb ae eet
ie ce
te 8s qu be iLug of e0n0 siowtt ‘ent ‘trate Sas rattste Mh gt: o qete
Wy Re
ee
oH samob tte ‘ovizh ext tel bus te98 one ak evo boven bas teot cd
Les Pa aes
OY DES ,etoe mooie
86 | belttteot stasbast9e sot seentiw s “qx040T : |
‘ edt at neotroms ‘gainove ‘egootd ‘eats w. beyo
%
mu se I sawostox
ri
: ean E eee
“yoo 8 beris I oye. ersey owt ‘twoda hp stegenen eo rai te wR ae
tuosguordt sreqeq ites ot bows een om anu pi 0 Sree, odd x
axed ‘neste ot sound ent mort axeqeq of ae ime Oe de ts oan oat a
BSF ox aye bad, revith edt poystn.! one pet silat ma sch ea
5
not allowed to be on the truck with the driver. He had nothing to
do with the truck. “*** I was not at State and Washington streets
‘the night the accident happened,"
Marvin R. Huggett, the driver of the truck, testified aa
foliows: "I have been employed by the Evening American as a driver, |
and on February 3rd, 1932, I was so employed. *“* Mr. Volker sent
me a boy to be stationed at Washington and State streets to take
care of the boys and save me running and doing the work. *** I never
saw him drive a car, I ordered him to keep awsy from the truck. ***
at about 6:20 that evening I parked the truck on Washington street
about thirty feet west of State street. then I left, the motor was
not running. Walter (meaning Slupak) was not there. *** I have
known this boy Walter Slupak, since Mr. Vokker introduced him to me.
*** I discharged him two or three times. *** I thought I had the
Tight to discharge him and I did discharge him on several occasions.
*** I looked the truck, took out the key and threw it beneath the
speedometer cable, The key was fastened to a chain which was
fastened to the truck. *** I never told Walter where it was, but
he must have seen me put it there, He knew where to find it.#
Carl M, Guelzo, a witness for the defendant, gave the
following testimony: "% am employed by the Chicago Evening American,
I was manager of city circulation, and it was my duty to run the
entire circulation department, hiring drivers, and doing everything
pertaining to circulation and delivery, I am the only man who
hires drivers for the American. Charles Volker works for me, ***
i have a driver named Marvin 8. Huggett. ‘*** I assigned him to that
particular truck and route. The instructions I gave Huggett ere
that no one is allowed te drive that truok but himself. He is
strictly responsible for the truck at all times; no one to be riding
on the truck but himself, A boy named Walter Slupak was working for
the company in February, 1932, *** On February 3rd, 1932, he was
@
ot sikdton Bed of sxevixbh edd d¢bw sound edd mo od of Bowolts ¢éa
atesrte ingen bas widte fa ton eew r **4 eae? edt déiw ob
" beneqged tusbioos edt lig bd
es beltiteot .xourd ad# to tovith bad .dtepgi A mtvxe
; rovith & ed asoftemaA gotaevi edt x Bexvoigue need aved thie _ due ttey
“$aes toffeY wx **" .bevolqme os eaw I (Stel (bre yrhusded no Bae
“‘@alet of atestte odet@ bas notynidesl te beno itaga od of Yor 4 Sm
seven I *** dxow ond yatob bas yadmivt om ovde Dae dyed edd Yo oxse
*** \xousd odd movt yews qodd of wid Devebee I .2t0 » ‘avid’ Wid wae
“testfe ricegonal a0 towns ott ‘baling I Lrmevel tit whaihenged te
Laniw
“elit désousd #1 wordt bas yod edd tue ood eloust ‘ed? bextool
“aan doidw nisde s od henstest ¢ eaw ‘Yor sat Sind ete
tad wesw #2 etedw “notre bios teven 1 ***: hearth rr’ oF bene:
n $k Balt o¢ exedw wont 6H Jexedd #2 Lovell on 900 eved doum ”
edd ovex yfoabastsb edt cot seontinw S a Lou vit tna” @ Pagel
aso broms ‘galnevi opnoldo odd xd boyotane ma BY syne tess SPs F
“ett mut of ydub yt aow #2 bow .wottelsoute whe to ‘séganen ‘be r
gals yrove gatob bas verovirb patsid vtapadnageb a0 tte himerhe
~“Sdw mon yino ote me I yereviieb ons worts ivoxia’
*** on tot aexzow texio¥ eelred) .A 4 |
tant of mid hengleda i #4” “sttogauit “a preening: 2 ovad 3
exe ‘steauil evey ? ancitowxdent edt Jetmor Bae woud saved
8 Geo tfeamsd dud towed das? evtcb of bow hod et ie se tt
gutbt ad of eno of yeomke Lia ts fount ‘ad# tots fe vite
fot galvtow sow Sequié x8d Lev Bemem yor A ‘seoumad tut
gat ed (Seer (pad “vtauaded a6 *** (ehel \yzaee
6
stationed at Washington and State streets." This witness was
asked the following question, and gave the following answer;
"Q, Did you hire Walter Slupak or didn't you?"
"A, Someone hired him, but he had to come to me for
my OKe"
This witness further testified that "Charles Volker works for me ***
and did not actually hire Walter Slupak. He (meaning Slupak) had
been discharged several times by Huggett." *** On cross-examination
this witness testified that "This morning they asked me who hired
the truck drivers; they did not tell me that Hugeett had testified
that he had discharged Walter on two or three occasions prior to
the accident and that Mr. Volker had out him back to work, and I
did not know anything about that, and if it ocourred, it was without
my knowledge or consent. If Huggett discharged the boy several
times and Mr, Volker put him back to work and he continued to work
for the American after that, the man who did it apparently had
authority to. *** I knew that one of the duties of the driver was
to leave the truck at State and “ashington streets, and go over to
Dearborn Street to make collections, and I knew that while he was
away, the truck was allowed to stand in the street unattended,"
Slupak was not called as a witness. The record is con-
fusing as to who employed him. As stated, Volker, the branch
manager of defendant company, testified that he had hired Slupak,
but the ciroulation manager, who was Volker's superior, testified
that this branch manager, Volker, did not do so, but that some/2n
authority did.
From the testimony in the case, it seems evident/ that’
Slupak was ‘employed by defendant, and that Huggett was placed by
defendant in entire charge of the operation of this truck, a
dangerous agency, and of Slupak, in connection with the work to
be done in connection therewith, We are not impressed with
defendant's suggestion that Slupak was ‘on a frolic of his own,"
Sg ce i il SE a Boe
‘
d
.
8
asw anentiw eldT "“.ateerts otst® bas sotynidesW te honottate
“ytewels yatwolloY eat oven bao (notvesim Yatwotlo? bad boxes
Myoy tabsh to tadinle xottad datd wey Bi ipw! 8! Or O
Tot om of smoo of had od dud ,mid Berta ane Mii candied
i dl A =
es9 an rot wivow Gexifot osfredo” gait boltiteed rocdivt seontiy etd?
bad (Asquie goinssu) o8 .faguiG rosie ontd yftewdde Yon BEN hae
noitsmiuexe—aeoro 10° *** ",tteygull yd wesit? ereves ‘boprdifest® mood
-portd vifw om betes yout 'gdtirrom ein" ved borrrtas® kaewe Wy Ode
“poititest bed staygull tadd em \LEed son BED yodr jerevirs dort oat
et xoizg anoleseeo o8tdt to owt He wotLay Bogreifouae ‘Bent sit tat
AE bus ison of woud mid tug bod roxXleV su ede Bile daebteed ede
trodtdw eon $i .bortusee 82 TH baw dsit trode yatta voit 0 |
| ferevee yor ot boytetbarh teeggek TT Vinee to Wybekword Ye
drow o¢ heutitnos ef bas Arow oF toed wit fin; voaitoY sail bits’ ebate”
‘amt yLdmereggs 1 bib enw ihe end? bait rove sso Hrolik ‘eine tok"
cane: vowieb: ddd! Te eedeb’ out Ye end Gale honk Y See Peale
od teve 03 bas .eteotse motgn tien’ bre’ ofste’ ts apie ony & feet’
aew 6d. ofidw ted? weak I has lenolielioo ean bt sadiet sbitind
*" behaottanms testis oft at Baste ot bewolfe ib Moire “bite” ‘ent
ere eee ree
donsed eff ,todleY .Bedste eA” corti bovo lane Gite bt 3d : :
Assi Borin bed ot soMt boktisaot yyasetod tmebm to ghham
“Badtitoet yuotroque altotted ew ondw: (eégeaun toftatior ts aie :
SEP lemon tid dud (oe OB dom bEB” veaaree Seeirees' stad 90a"
ieee i) eet
a. ee emood #2 ,oaee edt at! elated eal ‘lenideille
yd beosig ew Peggull tudt bas ,tanBaoteb wh be a ,
& gfoust iaidé te noltevege wedi "te: sruteio ont ht wena
“ot dxow dt dtiw motdoennos at plaquld t6 bins yoitsye’ Buotegm 5°
‘ itiw Doeeoxqmd tom ors 8W .dtiworsad no ttoomide ' ts |
re os Sanat aan a alice ik tea
7
as suggested by counsel. On the contrary, from the evidence before
them, the jury could reasonably find that when Slupak started the
motor, on the occasion in question, as it is admitted he did, he
was apparently doing what he considered to be a part of his work.
He was doing what the witnesses testify Huggett had previously
permitted or caused him to do. If Huggett habitually permitted Slupak
to start the motor running, he should have anticipated that he
might start the truck going, as it is testified he did, with Huggett's
acquiescence, on at least one previous occasions,
yoVv.e May, 108 Ill, 288,
an action was brought against the railroad company by the adminis=-
tratrix of the estate of one Christian May to recover for what was
alleged to be negligence on the part of the railroad company, which
resulted in the death of the decedent, In that case, the deceased,
at the time of his death, was one of a number of hands in the employ
of the railroad company in the lumber yard connected with its work-
shops at Bloomington, under the immediate control and charge of
one Fricke, who was also in the employ of the railroad company as
foreman of the lumber yard. Immediately before the death of May,
Fricke, together with a number of persons, including the deceased,
was engaged in removing lumber from the yard to the car shops. The
lumber in question consisted of heavy planks, For the purpose of
removal, it had been placed upon a small car which was used in
handling lumber in the yard and in removing it to the shops. ‘This
ear loaded with lumber stood on a track near the shops, and on the
same track stood a large box car which had to be moved before the
lumber car could be run down to the shops. To get this latter
car out of the way, it was necessary that both cars should be pushed
some distance beyond a switch so that the box car could be switched
off to one side in order that the small car loaded with lumber might
pass into the shops. To accomplish this purpose, Fricke ordered the
Stoted eonebive add mest ,ysextnoo edd a0. niente, ¥ betas, ee
eit besists weqesl sodw stadt balt yideuerser hives went out ettods
od ,bib ed bevtimbe af df ae .noiteeup ai aeteso: eat ao .rotom
strow eid to freq « od o¢ berebienco ex tadw enka vei id
| Anqule bebtinnsg Tisuetded tfeggul LI sob of mis Doeune xo, bettimeeg
| od tend hoteqtorine erat hivede od .petanss. rotom ait taste of
“ etiteguell dttw qbtb ed bestidaedat th 20 <Gaiog Aourd aft dxadve tetgtw
th - sftoinseoo evoiverq emo tasot ta. 210, oo
.88S »LfE 80L yew « wanobitt
gbeaseoed ed¢ ,oaco todd a. .taobeoab, att 30 tach att, hen
yoique sit ai shasd to tedaya « to amo eon, Hpi oath
~trow eti dtiv botoeases bray tedmus edt ai
te egrade bas forimoe etaibeaui odd rebar ,coege.
es Yasameo beoslter edt to yolque oud at ose son ody, ,ex0tet one
{eli o dtaeh odt-oteted yYetsthounl gbhrgy, reds edt te samezox
ebeeseoed ent gatbuloat .sageteg to tedmun s dtiw tedtegot ,efotrt
ed? sagode seo pul? oF bray on? most xedmwt, gutvoner af begagae asw
to seoqseqg edt tol sedaclg yvsed, to, Sete ©. aebtenup as, redmus |
gi beeg saw doidw reo fisme 9 moqu S9oe
lg mood. bad 34 .Levemer
“BINT sagods ost of tf gatvomer at bas diay ody ai rodmul gatlbaed
ode a bas ,eqode edd teen xostt « no boote ‘seciaaek: Ole mn, 3°
ont ovoted Soiegaghest sassy 05 OR Sune
8
men to push the box car against the small car, which action shoved
the lumber so far over on the small car thus losded thst it would
throw the lumber out. The two cars were pushed in this manner for
a distance when Fricke ordered themen to leave the small car and
push the large one out of the way» Some of the men went to the end
of the planks as they projected from the emall car and held them up,
while the others pushed the large car as directed by Fricke, and as
soon as the cars were separated some of the men, including the
deceased, went between the cars to push. Fricke was told that if
the men proceeded as they were doing, the planks would fell and
some one would get hurt. He insisted that they proceéd with his
direction. The order was obeyed, the lumber fell, and as a result,
the decedent was milled. The question arose there as to whether
ér not the conduct of Fricke, whe was in direct control of these men,
in directing them to do what they did, was binding on the railroad
company. The court said;
"When a railroad company confers authority upon one
of its employees to tske charge and control of a gang ef
men in cerrying on some particular branch of its business,
such employee, in governing and directing the movements
of the men under his charge with respect to that branoh of
its business, is the direct representative of the company
itself, and all commands given by him within the seope of
his authority are, in law, the commands of the company, and
the fact that he may have an immediate superior standing
between him and the company makes no difference in this
respect, In exercising this power he does not stand upon
X the same plane with those under his control. His position
is one of superiority. When he gives an order within the
scope of his authority, if not manifestly unreasonable,
those under his charge are bound to obey, at the peril
of losing their situations, and such commands are, in
contemplation of law, the commands of the company, sand
hence it is held responsible for the consequence,"
To the same effect are City of la Salle v. Kostka, 190 Ill. 130,
Wenona Coal Go. v. Holmquist, 152 Ill. 581, M. & 0. BR. Re Co. v>
Godfrey, 155 Ill. 78, Fraser @ Chalmers v. Schroeder, 163 Ill. 459,
Worthey v. ©. ©. 6. & St. L s GOs, 251 Ill. App. 585.
We are of the opinion that the evidence indicates that
cin Ba acai
8
bevede aoidoe doiny .te0, Liawe ef? tandegs. seo xod aid sleuq ed oom
bivow tf tedd bebsol audt xno Liens edt no t0ve usb,os redmutuedt
tot taanae widt ah bedavg stew ateo ows enT | .tuo srocimuel ott, wont
. bas is0 Liew edd svacl of gemait betebre ededat agin mometeath 2
bane odd o¢ ¢rew mem odt ho astok «Yew edé to tuo ano egrek edt sieag
Qt medt hied bas ts9 Liahe edt mozt hedpetenq yedd mm easly jedi: tho
es bac ,einixvt yd Betoerib as tse eytel edt hedeuq eredto eit oLidw
odd gnifufons .vem oft to emos Detersqes oxew etd edd ea door
ti tedt Blot ssw edoixc? .desq ot Bree exit meowted taew yhogsened
. brs List bivow etasig edt «anieb exew Yodd va bebpesorg som edt
~ etd dtiw besoory yYods tat beteteal ol .tiyi toy divow any ems
(dlueot's ef ban yLleY redaul edt {beyede dow Xela oT “.nodtoweth
Kan westt to Loxtnoo doorth ui caw enw ,exoitt te towhsoo edd tom nd
« Beorlias ent mo aitbhokd maw 4 fib godt amanda
~trow ati doie Sudcaniet busy sot abe treo pat WiRameo
_ fo moqu Yisordtus exetrtoo yneqmoo bsotiier a MOMWY fo eooxe
“to gies 6 to lortaoo bas sgreddo eisd of ique ati to :
| eeeeateud. ati to domstd salnhtuey we & he wb Mem ony,
ginemevom sat gaitoertih bas ga at osenigie dove
«fo doaerd tad} of soagaer Adiw: a Way) Mong?
yasqmoo edt to evitstmseetqex toorth edt af ,evont atl
ooo he eqeas edt aidtiw sid yd asvig yr By ff dK
i AN on omy edt to ebasmamoo edt renee al ,oTs rnd us eid
a4 te solteque viatbemmk as evad yer eo eae
aldt ai eometettlib on seasm ve att bat utd noowted
“ote Duate ton each ed towoq ebty amit at stoeqeet 2 o/
“ gotdieeg afk .Lorinon eld tehav seo? ddim onsiq omen odt = A
ott aidviw vehtro as eevig od oedh a
~sidsnoesetay yitastiaem ton ti oom frodiue ald to eqooe —
_ dtveq edt te .yedo ot hoyod ene egtedn on goa nit
x... .e7s ebsanmoo siove Sas sengitaubie ©. ‘edd ant
Bae .qynaques: eft to abmsmaoo ody ties 00
theorems gee 4% brag = Mots tenogest bled et z
the B ba) CAs eRe
“ot +r 08s sina v | exe tostte ons he Mey of
Sat al aie ag Gus. hake ze et hg's eae
i 209 af sf 29 3 sil 188 ees coi talons
2 it cL ebeorsios «v xi OF ok .
»888 ome hi a3 fas vy , 2
eating ee f ie NOR ste Yen: MS Eh SR bind Rae cs A
‘teat ‘esteoibat const ive oda reds no tniao edt to ore ow
ee Rat wee Pie Rita LOY Or . a BUNge ond, otas Pdi et
9
although Huggett had an immediate superior standing between him
and the defendant company, still he was permitted by those in
authority to have such power and control over the truck, and the
work to be done in connection therewith, and over Slupak in this
regard, that in acquiescing in Slupak's acts in connection with
the truck, he made them the acts of the defendant company, It is,
therefore, our conclusion that the negligence of Slupak in the
operation of this truck, beeame the neglizence of the company
and that defendant is liable for the consequences, The jury was
evidently of this opinion, and we do not feel that under the
circumstances the verdict and judgment should be disturbed, There-
fore, the judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
HEBEL, PeJ. AND WILSON, J, CONCUR,
ie. Mie nbewted girtbnete Lorredia stetbemmt o
Se eeita ge Bedethetteg! ete ont seapenpiyriehinraple cern
SHE Ret Galovrt Site Te¥e LStitnod bad Tower dove” evade BY YHEnolitiie
Le ehit mt sequle ravo bes de srekedh wottesnceo nf siioh’ ot OF atow’
(— eithw meLP0enceo ot beds Wlequte AE yi tbeolpon AE edt Yoxeyee
i — VUtteqmos daebasteb brit Yo ados ont wodd ebuwt ont tour? edt
ia ‘edd. eet Srewte nthapieenenhmaenrmenapenniiedspcioensh.
if ViteqmOd odd to. odmeyligen odd omened \Xourt'e,
— aiow aeeiet ent © \eoemeipeemod ede oY GLevtL paiirepincinyetn
ia ‘ogdd Toba tedk Leet ton ob ow bus (soteteo site te ‘yLaweb sve
ore? apcepenaemeeneced papenanesbeseie bad Prong cote
vedeady of at Solio ue ga * itm 2? prnensine ati P OG
ie weeks Vo dostwee seer dh af Gee gee | Loe nha wi By
baos ikon ondd. ee yoktonkt ana yt | mbonoo' J .woeatw'Gnd Ste? Yaa
Lat a(S
Mi amy wr aol hes > garehrieo. -Camewae Sanat Lhe a 5 4 tiga? tHe
te miss «& oe Lore 10 Luis @yruuto eed OF get ik ogee er Yo
yoaratowe we he deed hun bie RD i BE
ede gatsooin baa greeny RY
hah eck Shared cari ena ae ‘pallie ae
Mire) ee ree CS eas Siereey FE) eoty’ at iste bond oy iy
olan Oe bt ee ey Lecasanaiad Aa it 4 eh 254
remem Se gach wee | 5 a
ee ee wns ated a
Qe See ee A “tena ‘a aio int f
ng emo el Bree, i
erceae ate
Res 1 she
‘ Hoconall ify
a ee i i ce onl
SL ee Re A
i ee aa eae
Sh aoe a xw ey & io
Rees tos ete
| ‘ghee ties mak mp ticen wats
RS — LGA ER GR matt
an aprsge fl babe bcd
7s i 34
at ees ae WS to nie wi |
By
¥ a #
ree tek Qe cbehoo male 6
yeaa is Oe eet gms apa age rot »¥ "pained eres i hid é
. 2G ee at oe) Py ee P Rats agQ8 2906, a8 4 sada
Pega ae ? aoe re
gada entne tbat oanobsve ead tnt Pendent’ oat :
$7333
ELIZABETH MOSS, : fo APPEAL FROM
Appellee, yo we
CIRCUIT COURT /
Ve
FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OOOK ne
2¢9 LAL62s
WR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Appellant.
This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the
Circuit Court of Cook County against it for %2,000.00 upon the
verdict of a jury in a suit brought by plaintiff against defendant,
based on an insurance policy issued on the life of plaintiff's
deceased husband, The declaration filed in the ease consisted of but
one count. The insurance policy, is set out verbatim in the declara-
tion. The death of the insured is alleged and plaintiff claims the
indemnity provided by the policy. Defendant filed a plea of the
general issue and two special pleas, one of a tender to plaintiff of
the amount of the premiums paid, and the other charging thet the in-
sured had procured the policy by making false answers to questions
contained in the application for insurance with regard to the con-
dition of his health prior to and at the time of making application
therefor, and that he made false statements with respect to his use
ef alcoholic beverages, and in regard to the question of whether or
not he had other insurance on his life at the time of the making of
“if
is attached to and made a part of the insurance contract, The record
dees not indicate that a medical examination was had of the insured,
The policy was evidently issued on the strength of the answers made
to the questions. The questions and answers to which the court's
particular attention is called, are as follows;
: POOR ee,
~ Moy om
,% SEEN
Fe ’
MORE LAGER atl Peesieneill
. ‘ 4 bea ye, |
' ; 3 OFS male 8 anal “qPOLlogan.. ky site oe” Twi
| Sno, Saar and om
aan wil a a Ce 8 feo its
rhe oe eBON. ROOe |g FHASHOD: GRMANUOAL MUL ware
fe Ge oY Oe ta hogabes 8609 Qiong
apt a3, we Bo Siva ym ety iy 2 BB ea aoe: aia et “Crs } One
VIVO NAT TO HOTMTGO AH COMAVTING GRAN OLIVE Mill iy! o cows
adt to tnsmgbyt # mot tebaereh yo feseqe ae bpeapesireranad
edt moqn 00.000,5% Tot #f tentaye yaved Woot 1
emg Fertegs Tittksle Yo tiguord thwws at iva w to. ito:
“S BIWLOMteIo To OTE oat no heweR! yoLlog sonstend m8.mO t
tud to betetenoo ease edt at bellt noltesiveb ody ( wbasdeud,
caxaloeb edt nt mitadvev tue ou ef yyotiog sokwiitlllp eat’ Shae
ed¢ emialo ttttatelg bas begelle st berwent edt 16 a: vec ‘sens
edt to eefg s Lofft tnebasted yolLog ‘edd ye web ee ct Lem
te ttitalelq ot reboot « to eno ,eselg isiosga owe bak vest kereney
-ni edt ted¢ yatotsdo resto edt bas ,bieq enyimete ait Yo tauons edt
eno ttseup of srowens eaLet atten yf yoLlog ost Bomioord bat bexwe
-s00 edt of braget dtiw eometvent rot sottsotiqgs’ ould me beatstaoo
molkteoliqgs gutdem to salt sdt te bre of toizg ae Loot ald ‘to ae
sow ais of toeqeet déiw ntasmetata teLst obex oi sod bes , )
to tedtede to motteeup odt o¢ Drege ai bas | cosganeved ottfodeoss to
Be goitesm edd to emit edt t& etki eld ao patent we clacclvalba
noktentings Lenigite edt to yoo stontentoa & aottes :
Now x
paseet, ad? ,toerfnoe eometuent sult te freq a a she ea ot — te
sbotwan? ect to bed eew no ttentmore fnotbon & ted eteolbat ton ae
obam etéwece edt to dégaoxte odd m0 bouaet vsnabive am ot oc _ el
a! taro eft dotde of arowsae baa auotteeup dt senoltooss edt |
sewollet as ere sbolles ei sobtaes va 1 8. rt
"Question 21 (a) Have you any ailments, diseases or
disorders? If any, state details. Answer: None, (b) Have
you ever been sick or disabled? Answer: No. Question: If so,
state date of last disability. Month --- Year --- ts} of
what disease or disability? Answer: Never serious. (d) Name
and address of physician consulted, Answer; None.
Question 82. Have you any physicial or mental defect or
infirmity? If so, what? Answer: None.
Question 23. Have there ever been any cases of insanity,
tuberculosis, epilepsy or suicide in your family? If ao,
state details. Answer: No.
Question 24. Have you ever had any of the following
diseases or disabilities? If so, state details below. If
‘none’ state below. Appendicitis? Asthma? Bronchitis?
Cancer or Tumor? Discharge from ear? Epilepsy or Convulsions?
Chronic Coughs? Consumption? Difficulty in urinating? Dropsy
er Heart Bisease? Gall Stones? Gastric or Duodenal Ulcer?
Goitre? Gonnerhoea? Lumps or Svellings? Loss of consciousness?
Pleurisy? Pneumonia? Rheumatism? Rupture? Spitting Blood?
Spinal Disease? Syphilis? Severe headaches? High blood pressume?
Albumin or Sugar in urine? Aeoidents or Injuries or Operations?
Answer: None.
Question 25. Have you ever sought medical or surgies]
advice or undergone an operation? If so, state details
including dates, Answer: Nos
Question 26, Have you any impairment of sight, speech
or hearing? If so, state details. Answer: No.
Question 27. State neme and address of any physician
you have consulted during last five years. Answer: None.
Question 28. Have we your permission to refer to such
physician for complete information? Answer: Yes,
Question 29. If in the opinion of the company medical
examination is gequired, de you agree to submit to such ex=-
amination? Answer: Yes,
Question 50, Are you now in sound health? Anewer: Yesy
Question 31, (a) Do you use or have you ever used whiskey,
wine, beer, or other alcoholic beverages? (b) If so, to what
extent? Answer: Nos
Question 32, Have you ever used them to excess or intox-
ication? If so, state details. Answer:No.
Question 45. Are there any additional facts or special
Circumstances known to you which might affect the risk of
insurance on your life? If none, please state 'None,' (If
you have now or have had any disease named in24, state full
particulars below.) Answer: None,"
‘"o eeaseeibh ,atoomlie yrs voy eve (¢) LS aolteemp*® = =
evel {(d) .sm0k :towemA .alisted etate . tL fenebhrogib
,oa tI :aottes~P .ok :coweaA fheldaetb xo ® teed teva soy
to 3 -—~- T20¥ ~~ diaoll .ytlilidsetb tasi to etab etate
ome (5) .avoitos revel :rewamd Tyttliderth to sarealtb
taste
sono :tewand ebetiamnes aeioleydg to paobbs bag
To toeteb Satnem to Isiolayda yas YOY io 88 soltaeny
«800% :rewand Ttedw poe YI tytimrttat
«Vtinsent To eeas0 yas need reve erent oval »f sotteout
gon tl fyilmet ay at ebtotue To yeqeligea ¢ ehitstst
yey eon of txawercA
gatwoliot et? to yas bad reve ~" sve Ae ne
tl .woled slisteb state ,o8 t seltiiidasis
. Vetdidomera Tamdtea Lge
fenoialuvaod xe yaqelliog Txse Aicasenee +
, weqestd Cunitenttu al ytigoLtt
fxeoll Lanehoul xo oittend
Temwaseteunse to ave opie ; to eqtwd Tseddreaso0 ‘hole
Thoola ttig® feorvtqei fweitenwedh fsloomyend Ty | Free:
fonuaeet¢ bootd agit Tasdonbsed etevee oat tet eseoe id L rie! ily fi
Senettareqo to seliu{sl to asmebieea feats ae ms Laue
Iseigtwe vo L[aolbea tdgv0e 1ov9 voy svell was tetas,
eliated sista ,.o8 tr (apttarese as vee Ps
«08 3T
doseqe ,tdgie to taemrisqmt yoe voy “evel ot
eo stewand oatisted ateta 408 aie
~tetoleydgq yas to evetbbe bas
sono stowesh wetaey ovlt sa IH
~fowe of retest 6¢ soteelmrag toy ow y
-89Y :xowend fnoltemrotal *Seesgioe: .
Isolbom YWagmoo edt to nolnigo edt mi t oS
xe dove of timdye of seTg2 woY qbotk: el n ri teniosxe case
i. ae srowada aoktenine =.
“Yeor rowers {dé Lod bavoe ab wort voy Ozh 1.08 ae: cal ae
yoteldw beau to7To woy eval To Say oa i tteoyo
screen (d) tata Sl re
moda TO BROoxs of mest beew xeve yoy pas
-oliprewat alieted e¢s
| Inbooge to etost Lenoitibbs yar ered? pg cl ite
to del edt tostia tdgim ee ,
TI) “% enor! otste Sesely
fivt adate .SSnt boman censelh. we jy*
"enol :
ae
3
Attached to and a part of the application for insurance of which the
questions and answers are 2 part, 2s hereinbefore stated, is the
following: "I hereby certify that before signing, I read each and
all of the questions, answers, statements and agreements above set
forth, and I further certify that my answer to each of the above
questions has been correctly written herein, Signed at Chicago,
Illinois, State of Illinois, this nd day of February, 1932. William
P. Moss (Signature of applicant in full) M,. J. Pankey (Agent actually
soliciting application). the policy of which the questions and
answers are a part, contains the following provision:
"fhis policy and application herefor, 2 copy of which is
hereto attached, shall constitute the entire contract between
the parties and ali statements made in the application will
pe deemed representations and not warranties, and no such
statement wili avoid the policy or be used in defense to a
Claim thereunder unless it is contained in 2 written appli-
cation and a copy of such application be endorsed upon or
attached to the pelicy when issued."
On October 23rd, 1933, the case was called for trial and a jury
impaneled, and on October 24th, 1933, after plaintiff had submitted
her evidence, plaintiff asked for and was given leave by the court
to file a similiser to the first of defendant's pleas and a general
replication to the other two pleas, The general replication merely
joins issue on defendant's special plea and condludes to the country,
Plaintiff testified in substance that she is the widow
of the insured; thst they were married in 1907; that the insured had
worked as an automobile mechanic for eight years, days and nights;
that some weeks he worked 105 hours, other weeks 98, 97 and 46 hours,
and that he never lost 2 day; that on February 2nd, 1932, when an
agent of the Federal Life Insurance Company was at her home, her
daughter, son and herself were the only ones present, and that they
@iscussed matters of insurance; that Mr, Pankey the agent of defendant,
talked to her husband and that he answered the questions; that Pankey
Gid not really ask all of the quéstions, he just went on and wrote
bar daok beet Xt .gniomte oveted. Pry \tivaoo. vorod. 3 gab cio
toe arods etnono orgs bas atnensitate .etowens ceuobteoup edt ‘to iis
evods edt to dove of towene ym tadd qhasrep. coda. xs ‘bas ,dttot
,ogeoid®? ta beagi® ,ntetved asrtitw vltootroo mood: aad anal foemp
LApSaT & ‘?
mstiIW .S8CL ,yrovidel to yeh baS eidt yetomiktt. to. abet, i
yilertoa smegh) qyodaed oo (iit mt sasoliggs, to exste@gse) pean sf
A.
1 me
bate eso? eau ott doldy te yetsog ‘edt Waott-ontage wathtotsoe
amie
tmotetverq. satvotlo® oft: net ge LB
ea dotdw. te ¥qeo 4 qotersd gost tnotlg
woe toartaee online edt et teatl
sn ‘fotteciiqge edt al ehom ednomod
ae He om bas ,aeitneriew. toa. ae a"
‘g ot onmsteb ai bees ed to ¥S ‘tog fg Blows £,
~Licgs metiizrg « at beniatnoo el ¢i aeeinw tebapyere
_ 0. Regu Sopoiae ag “Nefotead aoe dege to
ageplhenehy :
4 =J3
bettindyve bed tit¢ntela. reste. attest tbe reder00. ea 7
diya oni W veel, mavig egw bam sot Deaas actaiuateiny a®
busi ben wry
dateneg ‘a bits asoly a! tanbaoteb to ‘taunt ott of
ylerem nottactiqet Laxeney edt .esetq owt reaite odd pecan
+Wetasoo edt ot rebylon00 bas selq sare the wt Rae, Lonsieenend entot
wendy edt od ode tadt esuatedee xt boltiveat rie bets ore
bed betuent edt tedt ;TOCL mt betarem exow Yous tasd ;doswent edt 0
qediigin® bas eysb «BTA tigte rot. ‘opaacone slidometne m2 a2 bexzow
aecnod 8d bas Te Be adeow redte wexuod g0L hestron ox! exloow' enon tant
se cody .BEOL cia ie fo borye oe * Papronceae ye tedt aad
re ‘e vad WP
7 5 a Piety q rg
Root Petia bt
yednet tefd janoiteasup edt berewens oid fveald bite
etow bas co teow test of .enotteeup odt to Lis wee *
S
down; that Pankey asked her husband if he had ever been sick with
any ailments; thet her husband said he was never sick outside of a
cold and that it had been some time since he had had a cold, that
he had been sick, but he did not recollect when, but it was some
time ago; that Pankey asked her husband if he head ever been treated
by a doctor during the past five years, and that the insured said that
he had his family physicians whose names were Dr, Enright and
Dr. Fielding; that he asked her husband if he ever drank been, wine
or other intoxicating liquors, and her husband said, "Does a fish
swim?" that he did not deny that he took a drink the same as any
other man. Pankey asked him if he might refer to the family physician,
and her husband said, "Yes",thet her husband did not write any of
these answers, he just signed his name to the dcoument; that her
husband received the insurance policy on the 9th day of February, 1932,
and that it is in the seme condition now as it was when he received it;
that from the q2nd day of February, 1932, up until the Zlst day of
Jsnuary, 1955, her husband worked every day, including Sundays; that
he went on trips and did not come home for four or five nights; that
he worked 12 to 14 hours a day; that from the 23rd of February, 1932,
until his death, he did not lose any days from his work; that he went
out on a job, caught cold and died on the 21st of January, 1933,
Priscilla Gackhoff, a daughter of the insured and the
plaintiff, testified in substance that she was at her mother's home
on the afternoon and evening of February 3nd, 1933, and that her
brother, father and mother were also present, and that for a short time
her husband was there; that Mr, Pankey, an ingurance man, was there
between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening, and that she heard = conver-
sation between Pankey and her father and mother concerning insurance;
that she heard the questions asked of her father by the agent, and
her father's answers to these questions; that her father aaid he
had been sick about two years previously with 2 cold, and that he had
déiw dole moed reve bed of ti bandend ted betes yodast tate sand
"g to ebtetvo tole tevea ecw od blee basdeud tod ted? jedmomtia yao
‘todd .bl60 © bad bed ac oomte omit moe mood bed $k Had? Bas bide
“omen sow th tut iaty too Llooer ton Bib ed tud tote mood bar 8a
| bescost goed revo bad od ti busdemt rod betes (ouneT Hedy ‘bya’ ont .
tent bhee betwent edt tedt bas ,exrsey avit tesq adit gaktvd “totoob ss a
| hae tdg ire 1 exew eemen osodw tite LoLayin teat “st bi ;
eailw azoed Anaxh reve ed ti basdesd red’ bodes od ted? pgm 2
" datt = 8900" .bise hasiiand rod bus .eroupat gattsoixeant rath
yas as esse edt Anizh s Zoot ‘on feds yoob tom ‘pb bit’ ea t
vaake levi viikmst anit ot t9t9x teigin ont ti mid bees’ yous 6 i
te Yas sticw ten bhb baedeud rod tat "20Y" bie
tod tadt hs (aE eat ot amen east ema |
to yob teLf edt Litow qu ,856L — to wh a. at
tadd jayshove gutbulons .yab yreve bexzow basdeud tad .bbeL ‘
toed getdigin ovét to xuot tok emod emoo tom. bab, bom ea tx¢. a0, Siem, 8 ‘
cSECL ,yrsurdel Lo Huth odd moxk tadd gyeb p atwod AL of Sf bedtrow od —
tney od todd yltow eid mont ayeh qos esol tom bIh od vite aks hems
(ebCL ,Yueunsh to #elS ost ao beth. a Met LOD eB hte
eit bas berwent edt to woddygush 2 ,Pheddos 7
prod strediom red ts esw ode ted eonetedue oL d
ted tadt bas ,28@i .ha8 yraurde to galaeve,
oa .tngge ent vd satis: tt ‘idiaen ibaaauaa oe
he face ‘od bien xedéet tod todd jenodtestp coed of evewens
bed ed tadt bas ,bloo 9 ditw aeons ereey ont todas
5
geen Doctor Enright and Doctor Fielding; that Pankey wrote down the
answers and thet her father did not do so; that Pankey was talking
and writing at the samé time; that she heard Pankey ask her father
4f he used intoxicating beverages, and that her father answered,
"Does a fish swim?” that she did not hear Pankey ask her father if
he had ever been intoxicated, and that she did not remember any
further cuestions being asked; that Pankey did not read the document
to her father, but that her father looked it over, and as she remembers,
the agent picked the document up and asked her father to sign his
name, which he did; that her father worked almost day and hight all
his life, and never lost any work.
The testimony of these witnesses was objected to by counsel
for defendent and the objections overruled, and motions made to strike
1% out, which motions were denied.
Elizabeth Moss wes called by the defendant and testified that
the insured made application in his life time to the Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company after the issuance of the Federal Life Insurance
policy, on or about August, 1932. She was asked whether she had
completed proofs of loss on the policy of insurance issued by the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. This question was objedted to by
plaintiff, and the objection was sustained by the court,
Charles Sulzer, assistant manager - supervisor of the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, testified that the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company paid the amount of an insurance policy to the
beneficiary, plaintiff in this case. The application was offered in
evidence by the dédfendant, objection thereto was made and the objection
sustained by the court.
Richard Koehler, a witness for defendant, testified that
in December, 1932, he was connected with the Holy Cross Hospital as
an externe; that he knew the insured during his life time and had
talked with him; that he took the history of the insured when he was
tdt nmsh oheun Younet tant jgadblol <o#D0u bua tig ban rotood ‘noes
gataiss sow Yyousaot tede joe ob toa bib redtet 19d vast bas etowens
| redtet rod dee yeas’ Based onde tent j omit ome ont ts patticw ‘bae
,deTrewans redtat red ted? bas ,sogareved satttsebxodnz ‘bows ‘ed tk
ti sedtet tod dee yodnei reed ton bib ede todd "tmiwa ‘dait 2 ‘teat
was redmomet gon bib eda test bas botadixotat nged 19v8 ‘bad on q
taemuoob edt bsot ton bLb yeined tedt “pede galed bite itso reddit
axeduemer: oxi es bas ,tevo ti bedool reddst ren tadd duel aul te xe Ot
eid agie of tédtst xed bedas bas qu‘ tnemydob sift ek dallas |
fie taata bas ysb teomle bexzow dist rod tedt gbth Ba Mobaw ‘inn |
” " gtzow Yan te0t rowel bas’ obat eit
feeayoo yd ot besoetdo sew nescentiw ceed} Yo wutbatteer i i bas
edtate of sham anottom bets olurasve ano ttoatdo oat Bas” taab wie rob xe
seri Sata aah ll
“ede Pe bewes: sonstuent te vettor dé 0 spot te 1b . whe q
a of besdetde aew no ttesup aiat ~ynsqmioo onscumat peng :
: “stau00 edit W bonistane esw aottosjdo end ~ Apaumaaad |
edt to zoalvreque ~ noganas taste fons erosdue eeitedd — .
ant iloqortox eat todd boltitees “yreqned | somettare ‘I ot ‘s : is
oat et yoiloq sonmmweat as to trvome out hows “pte :
7 tase bofttteet ctashaet eb rot sebatiw a , ib
| be tse tae0H enor vor edi ithe | battens heed ot 8
6
in the Holy Cross Hospital, and that the sheaf of papers which he
exhibited contained the history thet he took at the time; that in
getting this history, he asked questions of Moss and that Moss gave
the answers. This witness was asked the following question by counsel
for defendant: "Now doctor, did you ask him whether or not he had
suffered previously from any ailment or disability?* Answer, "Yes,
did." The question and answer were objected to by counsel for
plaintiff, the objection sustained, and the answer stricken. Counsel
for defendant stated to the court that he wished to show that the
insured died from stomach trouble, that the insured gave a history
of what wes the matter with him, and that he had the same ailment for
two years. Objection was made to this offer, and the objection waa
sustained by the court. Defendant by his counsel offered to prove
thet in the statement made by Mose when he entered the hospital,
Moss admitted he had indulged in alcoholic beverages freely, and
that he had had a similar attack to the one which he suffered two
years ago, of which he had fully recoverdd; that in the application
made to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, at the time mentioned
by plaintiff in her testimony, the insured was asked, “Are you now
insured in this or any other company, If ‘Yes! give particulars."
And thet he answered, "Me$ropolitan and Prudentisl," giving the
particulars and making no mention of the policy in the Federal Life
Insurance Company, This offer was also rejected by the court. ‘his
witness testified that at the time Moss entered the hospital, he was
asked, “Have you ever been attended by a physician during the last
five yearst"and that he stated, "No." Objection was made to these
questions and answers by plaintiff, and the answers were stricken
from the record,
There can be no doubt but thet the cuestions and answers,
& part of the insured's application for the insurance, became a part
of the contract between the insured and defendant company, and we
| “ “a B
a
od dotdw aneqaq to tssde old dedt bas .Lhtlewod evox) YLoN Ont Wt
ni tedt ,emit edt te Moot ed tasld yrovetd ed? Boni avaoo betid tive |
oveg ugok ted Sas seoli to enotseeup hexas ed .yrotetd aid? gaktiey
feenvoo, yd sotteoup gniwolfet att betas eew weeatiw etd? saxowend odt |
bs of tom to vodsenw mid en oy BED ,rotpob wor™ rtaKbaeYes 40% |
,29Y" ,vowamA *fysilideeih to sonLte xno wort Vnvokverg berottue
tot Leanyon yd ot betostdo exew towed Das noktebypy sd? Y bEBOR
deeaved aedoitte towens edt bas ,beninteue peat eck ont adit nko.
got toemiie omse edd bed od tedt bos. mid dtlw cedtem ods extern
naw goltootdo edt bas ytette etdt of ebah eaw motiostdo lens ersoy od
:9vera: o¢ betette Leenyoo. eld yd tashasted: stereo ox? bit ba ete
en pegeteved offodeois ai begiuvbat had om er re
. owt betottwe od dotdw eno edt of Mostee tetindn a hast bait on baat
Holteoilags etd at tet jbbrevocet YLint bad ed moide” Yo 034 exaey”
boroltnem emid edt to ,yasqmo9 eomeryent atid aatilo¢ettell ent of ebem
Wom HOY STAY boxes asw betuent wdt wWtomttasd 16d a) Yetintéte Ye"
Nseteluetine evig 'eaY! YI .yanckoo rodte Yuk to Bids wh soenedt”
edt patvig “qiehiaebyxt bee mstilonettel” Seréwaas od edt ber
eiil ierebel sd¢ nt yoliog sat to motinen om gatten Bus eralyotireg —
eidt .tavo0 edd yd betostey ole eaw tetto elit oUdteemo0 wonmitrent”
cow Of .Letiqeod eft Bevedus veo ott ed? to tone Bott iteos eeendiw~
took ont gudwh mstoteyle 6 ys bebust ta avett <3v9 oy oval” (besten
ened? of obem sew aotteotdo aK” \beshte bit Herlt Baa"torcey Bvt? ”
fexoixzte stew exowens oft bas ,ttltatelg lh exewens —
cerewaas bas anosteoup edd stadt sud tdévob om ed sn irae pdemost ith
drsq & omnosd..9onstusat oct rot aotteodlaqe armani: Yo gna a
on bus .yasqueo taabmoteb bas bemraat sae’ |
7
are unable to understand upon what theory the court permitted evi-
dence to be introduced by plaintiff, in making her case, which sought
to vary its terms. There was no showing that the insured was under
the slightest duress, or that he was mislead in any degree in making
his answers to the questions propounded,
By its special plea, defendant alleged that the insured
had given false answers as to the condition of his health before and
at the time of making the application for insurance. A witness was
produced and interrogated as to statements made by the insured with
regard to this matter, The court sustained objections to all this
testimony. Upon what theory the court made this ruling, we are
also unable to determine, We are of the opinion that defendant was
denied a fair trial. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the
cause remanded for a new trkal,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. concur,
Roo ovat fem art ee
-tve het tinreg 100 ont yrosdt on mocas onesexobau ot eldany 9 ors
tdgvoe foLdw e28eo ted get dohem ne Maintsla wd beoubordat od of eons
xobay esw bexwenh edt stadt guiwode om anw ered sented oe “wav ot 4
gatten as eetgeb yne at me asw on seat 10 seeonb teatdgtie edt J
| sbebavogory anokteoup pee ot erevane etd
é ‘bewwest ed? tadt bogoLts tashasteb este Intooqe poh hod nye
‘: Fron exoted dticed ed to ao tt tbo odt ot es “eroreas nist fork See
eew aseat iw A sone tot wottsotiqas oid | gat talsns to apoE eo
atin borwast edt ve ehan atnonotete ot as bese 30" m eae |
aide iLs ot asiottoe;do bentetave txu08 out stot tam at ot
“ots ow gatiue abd ore es ae )
asm | tasbastet teat no tng edt bah ous -*. eee
~ oy
poe i: BL Kae : sal Pah aie: ad date ;
Y a Sof? Brera ; .
‘J Sa eee Say ey PL ras RLHOY
nae eon Gee ok eae «
i % ;
“
.
.
ee ie '
‘ B yp nal
Lo dey Ree Me Rea ae.
t yi 4
hak Beviee).: * 2) ee :
ayy PT a Ca RR RARER Boek tad Le oeey Hs.
we te cas qHeting “aa ieee? aa ienl
» i
OPA Arie f ‘3 s
cae en ce ee oe it Hane ih ae eke eS ee a ee penne: |
me seita
Mi ARM Rig! nicl hipaa angie eS ate ray weit
ena venti”
F | i eae nike ae not
i apse hs)
diag hens y were
"Tosisurt aliens ene wr. |
. ( a ae
ey ie ea ani dl ar ep ee oe ge ugh Re Oe ti te ik gies 4s i ot ee tay vs
{ | : |
i Yan My % ic me w 2 yay
$7356
ISABELLE GLOMB, Administratrix
the Estate of Walter Glomb, deéeased,
Appellee, SYPERIDR COURT
'
COOK COUNTY.
Ve |
GHICAGO MOTOR COACH OOMPANY,
Appellant. 2 re Q i K 6G 2 3"
MRe JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Cook Oounty for $2,000.00,entered in a suit of Isabelle Glomb,
Administratrix of the Estate of Walter Glomb, deceased, against
the Chicago Motor Coach Company. The trial was by jury, and the
judgment was entered upon a verdict for the amount mentioned in
favor of plaintiff. The action is to recover for alleged pecuniary
loss by the next of kin of Walter Glomb, occasioned by his death,
The action was originally brought against Maleom Pearlman, Victor
Pearlman and the Chicago Motor Coach Company. Prior to the trial,
and in consideration of the sum of %3,500.00 paid to her, plaintiff
entered into a covenant not to sue with Maleom and Victor Pearlman
and the suit was dismissed as to them.
The charge in the declaration as to the defendant, Chicago
Motor Coach Company, is that the intestate on the Sth day of September,
1931, alighted from a north bound motor coach of defendant company,
which had tome to a stop at a point north of Ardmore Avenue and at
the east curb line of Sheridan Road in the City of Chicago; that
deceased attempted to cross the street in front of the motor coach,
and that the moter coach started and moved three or four feet and
stopped; that when the motor coach started, the deceased jumped and
came in front of a north bound automobble, which struck him and killed
him, carrying him about 80 feet, Defendant's position is that the
motor coach, after it had come to a stop at the point mentioned, did
i ‘,
; \ ma bla,”
TABITA ‘Ye nixtevtetaimbs ,@Modo a.amaaet
«boas <4s0L0 TOtLew Yo stadee: ond: -
TAUOD vn coetingyk io. of oF oomek
; ' Sis Wer ef. 2
sYTHUOO 1000
.YHATIOC, HOAOD ROTOM ODADTHO
'p S a, A.t 0 + Ss e@aaliagqA : © erewase eid
~THUOO BHT WO MOIMIGO BHT GBASVIUAG Liaw Sorlvaut eft asvly bad
truod rolvequeé edt to tnowgbul 8 mort Lneqqs ne ah 6hdPely one oe
.dmolD ofiledael to tive s af boretae, 00.000, 8) rot ytauod aloo? te
tentose .beecsooeh .dmoL) tetLew to etetel edt to xtudecte tatmb&
edt bes cyrut vw sew Leltt od? .yasqmod dose® sovol ogewktO edt
ai benolineom tayome odt rot folbtev s aocy doretns vow taomghest
yrstnvesg beselic rot tevooet of wk aottow od? wttitakslg to covet
efitseb eid ys benolesooe ,dwol) tedLeyv To nti te dxom odd Uo enob |
rotoiV ,neatirtset moots tenisyes tigquotd yileaigizoe Baw Aoltos ed?
~feitt edt of toixd ,yasqmo9 dosod roto’ ogaokdd ost bas asuteeet
ttitnielq ,ted of bisq 00.008,8) to sve edt to aotintebianco ai bas
namirae% rotolV das moofsé détiw ova ot tom taameveo 4 otal boratad
modt oF es Seeeimeld asw tive edt bas
ogeoidd .inebmoteb edt ot as moitersineb edt at eguedo edt
sadmetge® to ysb dtd edt no statestat edt stadt ek ,ymeqmed dosod soto
<weqnoe inabastsh te doxoo totem hayod diten s mett hotdgiis .{8@L
te bas eynovaA orombtA to déron taiog #8 te qove & ot SRed bed do baw
tedt jogsoicd to yWi0 edt ai beot nebivede ‘to ena rue tase edt
eflogo0 totem edt to taonk at toerts oft eeoto of botqnetts Soeseoeb
bas teet tot to serdt beves baa hetxete deeoo totem sat todd bas
bas ‘beoquut beansoed ext gbotrete dogoo tetom odd oda teat eqmne?
boLLtd bas mid xourte dotdw ,eftdomotus hawod Mize s ta daoxt hs
eit tat ef sottivog attashasted test 08 guods mic st eee a
bib ,bonottusm tatog edt #8 qote-s oF smoo Dad +h xette i800 Todo
in ihoseer
2
not move until after the deceased had been struck by the automobile,
and that he was guilty of failmre to exercise dare for his safety.
Sheridan Road, at the point in question, runs north and south, and
Ardmore Avenue runs east and west and intersects Sheridan Road near
the place of the accident.
Plaintiff produced one witness in support of her claim,
named Sterling 8. Jones. This witness testified in substance that
on September Sth, 1931, at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and
just before the acohdent, he was playing ball on the lake beach east
of the point of the accident, and that he was approximately 30 feet
from the east curb line of Sheriden Road st the time of the sccident;
that he saw the bus there, and that when he first saw it, the rear
of the bus was approximately 4 feet south of the north curb line of
Ardmore Avenue; that he saw the bus approach going north, and that
it was then about 35 feet from the plsce hci it came to a dead
standstill; thet he saw the people getting off, and that he saw the
young man, whom he afterwards ascertained was Walter Glomb, as he
alighted from the bus; that the step from which he (Walter Glomb)
alighted was at the front end of the bus, and that there were other
passengers getting off in front of him; thet while the bus was stand-
ing, Glomb walked west around in front of it, and that his, Glomb's
left side was then about 2 feet from the front end of the bus; that
the driver of the bus was stooped over, and that et the sound of
metailic grinding of gears, the driver jumped, and at that time,
Glomb had passed the radiator cap in the line of the vision of the
witness, The testimony of this witness, as shown by the abstract,
(meaning Glomb)
then continues as follows: "When the bus started, he/jumped into the
air, He jumped to the north and then to the west. I mean in a
northwesterly direction. He got beyond the line of the west side of
the bus before anything happened. He was past the front line of the
eiidometus ont yd dourte aged Aad bexsaoek add cases 2hede ole tun |
eUtotsa eld tot otad seiorexe ot ormiist to vtikog asw od sadt base |
bes ,dtuoe baie dizom anwt ,nottseup mi tuiog oft te yhsot aahiceds |
taen bsok nebirede etoceretat bane tesw Dae ten® aur oumtevA Srembta |
ataedieoa od? to eoalq oft —
amtslo tod to trocqua ai eeentiv ene beouboua tti¢nie ls |
tadt eonstedue ai beititees eeentin als? .eomsl 1.6 gablcete beman
bats .oonsetts oft at foolo'o & tuoda de <18GL 0G Codmetqe® ao
tens dosed exel ot no fled gatysiq now sd ytnebdoos oft etoted taut
foot OF yLetemtxorngs ase of teat ban ,tnobioos edt to vmtoy ear Ye
jiaebloos edt to omit odd te baoll nabivede *o suki duvd tone ‘one meat
room oft .ti wee textt sd mosw toit Sas ,oreutd mut ee wee ewe
to emil duvo dixon edt to Atyon teet A YWotnilxonges eew auf oft to
test bos ,ddrom gatog dosorags avd oft wee of tult yeunevA eronitA
Baob 2. 0% ouso ti oxoity sont edt moxt took 88 tuotle medt! waw'tt
opt wee od tedd bas .ITo yatiteg elgoeq’ edt wae od tent er
od ee ,deol9 tote cow. beaisireces sbrawredta ed wode" (mmm yey
‘hewoe rotioW) of doidy ott qote od? dadt quod ont moth Bonde
xedto grow erst tadt bes ,aud ed? te bae ¢nott ed? oe sow bevdytts
~haste.eey aud odd ofidw tot quid to teoxk ai tte gaitte, exegaseasq
widwoiO ,akd todd bas .ti to taork o£ hawots teow hodLew dmolo ygak
tadt gavd edd Yo bae taott ed? mott test 8 duode med? eaw obke JtOL
to Angoe of? te tedt bas) .xevo beqoota ean aud edt to revinh oat
souk? dade te bas beams tovixh edt yaseeg to palhetzg oflistesi
sit to moiety edt to onil edt at qeo rotebher ot Deewsd bed deol
atenr tote ott rut meade es Recttiw sidd Yo yoomhresd edt” sanontiw
edd odnt bequyt\od gbotrste sud edt nodW" semolict ae womibtaso eae
os ath mom Ty yteow edt etnedt and trom ott er pegien: pee
to hte gaew ed? to.eall ‘est baoysd toy oH ',nottoonth yluerweudetom
odd Yo ontl tnott edt tecq sew oH .homeqeed walt ytd on ted wid wit
* He was quéte Clear of it; approximately two feet when the bus
started, When the bus started, Walter was about the center of the
bus. My line of vision wes about the radiator cap. When the bus
startéd at that time, he went in a northwesterly direction, jumped.
I saw him struck by the automobile going north. He traveled about
six feet from the point when he was approximately in front of the
radiator cap and in the north of the bus before it struck him. The
ear thot atruck him went sbout 100 feet before it came to a stop.
*** As to what the bus did after it started, the bus approached -
started - and rolled about a yard or four fest, three feet or four
feet, and then stopped, before the young fellow was picked up in an
automobile and carried north. The bus did not hit him. It was a
car from the south running north instead of the bus> thet hit him."
On cross-exemination, this witness testified thet "the lake
itself is 200 feet east of the east sidewalk of Sheridan Road, I
was on the beach at the time the accidént happened, playing catch,
We were between 50 and 60 feet from Sheridan Road. You asked me if
I was playing ball,—- but I had retrieved the ball - it wes then 30
feet east - it was then over my head. While playing bail, I was
standing there and ran the direction of the bus - I could not miss
the accident. *** I saw the Cadillac behind the bus after the bus
had stopped. At the time the bus came to a stop, it was not visible,
*** When the coach came to a stop, the rear end wast into Ardmore
Avenue about six feet, The body line was hugging the curb,"
Maloom Pearlman, a witness for defendant, testified that
he was driving a car north on Sheridan Road at about Ardmore Avenue
about 2 o'clock in the afternoon on the day of the accident; that he
left the center line of Sheridan Road, possibly two or three feet in
order to pass the bus; that “near Ardmore a boy went out in front of
wy oar and I injured him, * * * I saw a motor coach there. The motor
coach was about 20 feet from the corner of Ardmore, discharging
aud eit medw toot owt yLotemixerqaus ;ol to teelo e¢awp aew eH ‘a
| sit te tedmen ont duode now setLeW .deoeste avd ent madh, «boteage
nud eit medk .que totmthen ont tuods wow sokeky to-omkl KM) mad
beqmyt ~Nolteetih yixeteowslion 4 cl tnow od ,omit tet te bOdzete
tueds bolevert eH .dérom gnieg slidonotus ett yo douste mid wan
edt to taort at yLletemixorqqe sew od nosy dmieg ont moxt seek aie |
ox? mid snurde $f exoted aud ont Yo demon edt mt bee qo totetber —
.qote # of omso tt exoted teot OOL tuede Jaew mis dounte tedt coo
~ bedpsores aud end photrate ti reste bib awh ot ges ot OA 197
) muok to toot cenit ,te0t ts0t to bsey o todas beLiox bas — betuste
we gi qu hedoig paw wollat gavoy edt exoted ,heqgeta ood bas ,teet :
-i @ aew tL mid tid ton bLb awd ed? »dtuon betas bas olidomegua
"amit thi Sacd paul et Yo heetent deren gatanvy, dtuoe edt. moxt tao
asel eft* tad? beliitsot asentin eldt Viol tsntnexe=220n9 a sue i. P
.» sbeo% mabtzed® Xo aiswoble gare. ont ko saan, £008, G08 at theadt
.doten patyela .boneaged tapbioos edt amit edt #0 someone Ho ban
tL om betes woX ~deo8 ashiveda mozt, teat CB ban 08 aoeuted exew a |
08 ned? eon ti ~ Lfed edt pevetuter bad 1 dud mefiles yatyeda ann, J q
“new E efisd gatyesq eLidv .baed ym revo mode ew th tene deat 4
aati tom bivoe I ~ aud edt to nottoorth oat net, hue oxedd gpatbaste ;
oy aud edt codte aud edd buided oallthad edt wee 1 + .taobtoos edt 7
oidiety toa now dt .qote s of onae ed ent emt eit tA. vsbeamota bast
| kombtA otal dam bas seer odd gate # ot onze doeoo at mony *%* q
dew, edt gatygud com oatl ybod edt ener epee
dade beitidesd ,tachneteb tok aaeatin 4 «mamlgesd, mood Mh, 2
OUMOVA oxonttA suods #9 bnos ashtsede ae Axon x0 9 gakvish |
on tadt jtnebloos odi Yo yeh, add ao aconmeths edi mi Aooko'o, & ued :
at toot sould to ont yldieeog,,.beol mebinada Yo subs rotaeo ond @ToL
to taort at dso inom You « exombsaA teem" dedd gant edd ens a “_ 4
Ween
bf P8e,
roton od? .01ed¢ desco rotom 6 wae L* *? mud homabach,
| “gaigredoeth <oxombra To.reaxes bial seh Gh 1986
a
passengers. It was alongside of the curb of Sheridan Road, As i
passed the coach a boy ran out in front of my oar. I stopped as
quickly as I could, * * * As to whether I looked toward the bus when
he jumped out, st a time like that I really didn't notice anything;
I saw the bus was there. The bus was where it was when I passed it.
*** The ceach was standing when I passed. The coach was not moving
when I was alongside of it."
On cross-@€xamination, this witness was asked this questions
"Q. Do bry know whether or not it moved three or four
e .
"A. I think the coach might have."
"The Court: Do you know?"
"A. To my knowledge the coach was standing."
"The Court: Did it move or didn't it move?*
"A. It did not move,"
William Elkins, for defendant, testified that he was the
driver of the motor coach in question, and at the time and place in
question. As to the accident, he testified as follows: "I made a
stop at the regular stopping place. Several passengers got off and
several got on and I heard some brakes sereeching. The regular
stopping place is 30 feet, I guess it is, north of the curbstone and
about 2 foot away from the curb of Sheridan Road. After I heard the
brakes soreeching the car (meaning the automobile) stopped and they
were pulling some fellow into the car, Some fellows came over after
a while and helped put the fellow into the car, My motor coach was
standing still, From the time I heard the sereeching of the brakes
until the time 1 saw this man picked up, my cosech did not move. Stand-
ing still all the time. *** I didn't see this man eross in front of
my coach. I was watching my passengers getting on and off,"
Lillian O'Biern, a witness for defendant, testified ag
follows: "On that date I was a passenger on a coach at Sheridan
Road near Ardmore, about 2 o'clock, I sat on the right hand side,
Sea ee ee
ce Oe ee ee ee a ee ee a ee ee
gedts ‘<9¥0 one awe fiat aniod 189 ‘exit otnd woLiot hoy
2 eA gbsof mebived? to duyo-ed¢ te sbiegnoLé sewitl oseregmeseng
‘as beqqete I .x2e ym bo taett ai. deo men yor s domed odd begeee
non aud edd Htawet hetool Iovodtedw of eA * * *:.bLuoo°] ‘aavysionap
(porideyie eolton #tabib yiiesenr I sadt oti omit « te ,tvo beguetvet
ott Bésesq I new asw. dt stedw sac oud ont ered? seaweed odé was I
gittvon tom asw doseo en! .bonseq I mode gutinsta asw MonoovedT ***
“Sti to obtegaele ver 2 gone
dnelteeup eldt bodes saw esentin vidt .coktantmexe-esote a0" £"! 100
“vot to ooudé Bevem di tom to todtedw wanta ts xy ol kai r
x iy OO ve Se Pep
om. OE ERR
",ovedt tagin slosoo eat nist r rc
a a Y ae wo Dis) Ga & fant
af wom vOX ¢ oa :
‘ yr 4 CM eh Bs 7 Hel Fs Sess eh na
“a pathnase sew dosoo eat ogbeiwonx w of oA"
+ i Peas %, map
"Tevou tt #'!abib to even tt bid ste oat" s
Uh ARS,
*.ovou dour tp rd : “An
edt ean ed tacit boltitess «dasbaotet = eas Ps
RY ; RS ee ey As 0h hie. Bey
mt-eosla bas omit ost? ts heck io tteeny aa dosoo wegen odd to rovinb
ie ED. Hh. Lewin 4
ikea tiek eee of
® ebam I" :ewoLlot as boitiveos od ,taebiooe edt © ot me snolie
oak Bs
bas tto tog atognoeasy Lereved soalg gategote xs Linger oat ts lacie
ee at Mabel
z, » OM ine
eLuger ‘eat sgaidosotoR: asdaxd omoe bxsed I bas 19 49a -
en1 S Uh Al Se a abt
bas ‘enotedeso eit to dixon .el $2 eneny, I ateot of ll
ee
we ARe nent eet Miho Gas
edt breed 1 rest .bsoll mubitode ‘to dao ods mont wre took
ne anne ame ag
’ yout bas beqiote (eLidonotus odd 3atncen) rao edt petancwren | on
ayes. Gat aay
sew feo rotom ya 1189 odd tat woller edt ing boaiod ban stan s
asserd ertt to gitisdoooroe ott breod F; ont? ‘ons wort of
~baste +9 Von ton bib Kos0e wa Aoty bestoty tom add mse a ,
$a w, hy oer
den ty Be
' “ae ' 2 fy |
to aot at RBOXO sim ebdt soe ¢ mbt a EL ott a iitte ast ;
"tte bas a0 gatties arogmoeneg wm 1 galsdotse “a new pee seas
‘98 bottivess xtusbated x02 secatin 8 areleto homo a
“ebired®, te sionoo 8 ft xopmeceag & Baw t eteh add so"
£
| | Dux aes ARR
voble baad tty tt edt mo tee I stoolo'o g ‘dad ae b
aa rea ie
5
upper deck. As the coach approached Ardmore Avenue, the coach
stopped and we heard screeching of brakes. fe got up and looked to
the left side of the bus and looked over. We saw them taking this
boy in the car." She was then asked the following questions by
defendant's counsel:
"Q. Had the coach moved?" (Objection by plaintiff as
leading, sustained, )
"Q. At the time the coach made its first stop at Ardmore
Avenue until the time thet the young man was picked
up and placed in the car, did the coach move?"
(Objection by plaintiff sustained.)
"Q. From the time that the coach came to a stop at Ardmore
Avenue and you heard the squeaking of the brakes and
the car stopped and the young man was picked up and
laced in the oar, would you say the coach moved?"
Toeieulion by panini? scateined. }
This witness then testified that
"The coach stepped and we heard the squeaking of the
brakes and we got up and locked over and saw them
putting the boy in the car. Sat there awhile and
that is all. When we looked over the side of the
Gar, the coach was parked along there where it stopped."
On cross-examination, she testified as follows: "I was on
the upper deck, If the bus moved two or three feet I would heave
known it. I did not see him hit and knocked down."
On the hearing on the motion for a new trial, which was
overruled, defendant presented the affidavit of Walter N. Murray,
one of defendant's eattorneya, in which the affiant states in
substance that neither he, nor to the best of his knowledge and belief,
anyone connected with the defendant, knew of the existence of the
witness named Sterling S. Jones until Jones appeared on the witness
stand on behalf of the plaintiff; that affiant talked with the police
officer who hed made a note of the witnesses names, and had seen the
police report of the accident, and that Jones’ name did not appear
thereon, and that the police officer who took the names of these
witnesses afterward told the affiant that in taking the names of the
witnesses, he did not secure Jones! name; that on the trial of the
cs
a
i * nye # *
denon ods ,ounevh exendras bedosotaqs docoo old on -1008 neva
ot heteel bus qu ton a seodord to yaidovoror breed on be ‘beqqote
aise guiist medi wee eW .revo bexool bus aud oat to sbie mer odd
yd anoivsesp gatwoliot edt bettas nose acw ode aso ‘ott at od
:Lenawoo | ett tars!
Ve ae
ant he
er ttientele yo no Ltootdo) "Tbevem fos09 eat bak we ™
( .beatetase . suathasl oon < sane’
otombaA ta qote sarily ett ebem doses eft eutd edt ta 9"
bettote aw aan yavoy sdt tedt omits oft Lita Bonnell
"favom moses odt Dib tao of mb.
( benistews tiitatels vs ror’: ala
srombtA ts gqote s ot omes doage odd tadt omit ed? mort op is
bas seistd sit to gatiseupe edt breed yoy baa euaeva
bas qu bedoiq ssw nan gawoyerld baa bequete a0
"Tbsvom donge edt yee soy Sivow .x80 ode t Oe sig
( boatefove Yifialatg yd aaktoeta
' tedd boltitesd nede senaete ener
odd te goiiceypa edt bused ow bas beaqote —_ edt” |
med? wee fos reve bexeol bas gu ate ow bus wotand
bus olidwe scodt #28. .ca0 odd ok te one wed wr
ed? to ebfe odv tevo hedtool ew a t tedt
“ begyote tf etedw oredt gnols bexteq ese dena at eo te ports
fo esw I" s:awollot an beitistest oe to Ltemsnaxo~2R20%9 00 Heb osup
eved biwow I feet serif co owt bovon aod ade tL “stood toga odd
".twob Dexeond bas thdomtd: 908 tom. Bld Tevet wont
asw dotdw .feix? wet «2 tet asoitom odd ng gakte6d @ff0mQ, .iocate
(TIM. totiewW to tiveblits edd betmoaen@, tuabaoted».beluereve
fai astedea tasifte edd dotdw at qeyentotie stinebaoteb bom |
aise bas egbeLwond aif to deed. edd of tom ,oxd test ion: ds
Ont ‘Yo eonetelze odt to wead ataabneteh odd dt : =
Xv
erontiw edd so herseqge eenol Litur eeaol oh gabhtere bomen enoativ
eotfoq odd ddiw betist taettte teat ytt iertelq edt Ro! tieded: ao buste
ed? moos ber bas .vemen poncont tw’ oft Yo ston. # Sham bad ondw T90kkte
qeoqqs ton bb omad ‘eehol tend bas , heeoeooe ot to roves sobteg ;
Seeds to evinen ont stoot ore reat to voilog eit eit Bats, aid
ed? Yo women of? gutted mi tatd dacitte edt biot brawretts aseaentiw
eit Yo Keiet exit Wo Fant yonna “esnoW oxuooR fort bib et saensemtin
6
cause, he, the affiant, tried the case and had no means of impeaching
any statement made by Jones; that immediately after the trial, he
investigated the matter for the purpose of determining whether or
not Jones was an eye-witness to the occurrences about which Jones
testified, and that he was then informed by representatives of the
General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, which had
made a settlement in behalf of certain defendants in this cause,
that Jones had made a statement to them regarding the accident in
question, A copy of this alleged statement of Jones is made a part
of this affidavit presented on the hearing on the motion for a new
trial, and is as follows:
"September 8, 1931. My name is Sterling S. Jones,
age 36, reside at 1944 Montrose Ave. Phone (non6). Estimating
plastering, etc. Business — Van Idersteine - Long Beach 4644,
About 2 pele Sept. 5, 1931, I was playing ball on the
beach near the foot of Ardmore Avenue and justiready to catch
a ball when I noticed a body thrown in the air about 5 feet
high and the next instant a woman screamed, I immediately ran
over to the Blvd. Sheridan Rd. and assisted two life guards
in placing the man who had been struck into a Cadillac Coupe
owned by ir, Pearlman. I did hot see the actual contact of
any autom@bile strike the injured man, who I later learned
was Walter Glomb, one of the life guards. I was about 60
feet away from the street at the time and cannot truthfully
say just what car struck this man. I am not sure whether the
car we put this injured man into was a Cadillac or a Packard,
(Signed) Sterling 8. Jones."
In People v. Heinen, 300 Ill. 498, the Supreme Court said;
"Where there is diligence, and the new matter does
not conflict with the rule concerning cumulative evidence,
and is such as to strengthen the conviétiem that prise
has not been done, a new trial should be granted. (People
v» Cote 298 Ill. 207; People v. Wright, 287 id. 580;
Wilder @ Greenlee, 49 id. 253,)
In presenting the matter contained in this affidavit in
support of its motion for a new trial, which we deem to be pertinent
to the inquiry here, it is shown that defendant in thus calling
the court's attention to the statement of the witness Jones, was as
diligent as was possible. Jones ig the only witness whose testimony
8
guidosequt to ansem om bed bas eeso odd belut ,dneitts edt ,ed .eauso
od .isixt od¢t rotts yletsibommi test jeen0l yo ebem dasmotete. yas
to tediedw guicimzeteb to seoqiyg edt tot rettem edt betegitaevat
eenot deoidw tyods seonestryooo act ot. eaentin-sye As sw aenol tom
edt to sevitsinererqer yd bemrotal asdé aew od ted? bas; .beiti¢eet
bet doldw ,colterogro0 eonstuyaes otid bus oxlt ,tmebiooA [erenep
joauso eldt at etasbasteb aiatreo ‘to tiated at taomeliion s oben
ak teebioon edt gatitsget modt ot tnemetste 4 sham bed esmob tedt
tusq s ehsm at eenot to trenetste begets aids to eon 4 0 £teeup
wed 5 tot soitom edt mo aaryass edt no betaseetg Ara, eidt to
sawollot as “at bas ctaist
vttssten Caey aeokt ” Rak ae SACL a Seaunpgen 3s
oAh9S dosed gaol - eaieterebl as¥ - asontaud 20t9, rohit
edt ao iled pistes asw I .LéGL .d .tq98 ateg &
dotso of ybserttest bas euasvé etombtA to. toot edd | imal
test @ tuods ris edt at mewordd yhod 2 gt Pros fed s
mer yletsibeami I .beusotoe ‘asmow « tastani | e zo diaid
abies stil owt botatesas buns .bA ashitedé « (ft oF x9V
» eqved osflibsd s otal dourte need bed odw asm + ped wg Looe
to tostaceo Isutos oft.see tod bib I perme se
bentsef tetei I odw .nam borutat odd oxttte or Bddaa nu
08 twods aswl .ebteng stil edt to eno ifvaen vere, d
yiluidtuxt tonmrso bas omit odt ts testte odt mot? yaws a
edit tediedw orve jon ms I ism eidt doutte 1so. “co hee
ebrstost s 160 offi ibs0 6 asw otal asm bousiat ali tug
N,eemol .8 adifrete (bemat®)
sbiee Srvo0 sserqu® eft (S@R .LfT O08 .memteH .v aigood at
" se0b tetism wee edt bas .goregriib at ered radi si vat
,sonebive evit © guintsemos efur add dilw Co a
“eottent tedt safeelo t 10 9 edt meddgnotte of es Move hy 1
stages Siig is ed Ainoge fsing. ob 8 Pao
fhbcne pm le ren thane :
at tivebitts eaidt ai fo site Sct imine a
tnont#zeq ed of mosh ov doidy .isizt wea s sot sotto a#t.20 tzocqup
git tise eudd af tnabuoteb todd qwode et #2 .exed yxtupat adit 9?
as asw <89m01 cosntiw edt to taemetate edt ot sotigetts ealtzuoo. oat
Wuouiteot eeody aseatiw ylao edt, ri acnol .eidteeseq saw as taegiltb
ee SRE ss Ch evi ; ot Pe eas pz! gee Be aged fis
7
at all, supported plaintiff's theory, We are of the opinion, after
a consideration of the whole record,, that the court was in error
in refusing to grant a new trial, and thet the judgment should be
and it is reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDYD,
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. Concur,
yar hate fitth
teite wsoiniie sad Yo tl on ve te atonnentote
wks ah Ya ad a
eee Lies es a fea 3 Goerars | he
ois Te SaThTataexeises 0 qneniny TOtel Gey ww we bet shea
weg © tet cotivcom sat ao eriipet eat 119 ‘Seteainiina
etcoh <8 tatiaes? af wien Jiees a"
ae a ito e «(Saen) one wi avi arortaaN ones" oe Le io)
oboe HO as atod =~ aegeteceh? sav i C6 9S Oe she.
f wityele eew 2 Ati 26. aie wes “f,
ey tee Payee he ee hag i
<@ject Jan sueewe orembhek tw Feet
che ont ad swords yhed, 2 bee
sbsaaetee Samar *n reek
ont Heteleds Day th gH ‘
ba) sc otal Soarcte aaad 3 coker aban
9 Lantos oit..cen soa OkP pro slg
eth T odw xn Betytms tas autres. &
OS derod.n wae t oO ot be a 7a. Se, is den
‘Vitwittwat todeoo fas wake nt fo tesite war: mony
eat soci saw 57RD mu Thee aiok somcte 3
gE BEGs cP wt oe tt feet ae Re oFad eas bewmtad ek
sotso of thy
reat’ So tidedn
her ¢lesaifeont
ebr ay
\ stiat
(ps
‘nvnot 8 yttivere (hanya
sien Piel savages oc? Lee LITT Ce Pee eta i
aon THe tam wear gall ete Re tees as 1
ipotehive eritetaws saoseseoai, Mie Oe ie
Neoddcnk ees ce ede Hac tgnrta, or
aigaod) ~Lotemeg od Piuosge ine eee te
ee gk FHS asian “Vv
&
nt HirnbL ttn Htc
‘saga la % me &} Poel
Dp an aes Me
OH Oe . BeMA >
bale A
Watt ee et ee ot i
ettnwa yin Wn Ging)
}
a
37376 Pan
ye
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMP jf’
OF AMERICA, a corporation, , f
Ve eo as
ARNOLD FENNER, et al.,
On Appeal of PHILIP CONLEY, as
Administrator de bonis non of
the Estate of Anna Jaroszewicz, GOOK COUNTY.
Deceased,
(Defendant) Appellant,
} 4 Fu > , ae
‘ 279 L.A. 624
ARNOLD FENNER,
(Defendant) Appellee,
WR, JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeel from an amended decree of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, awarding to Arnold Fenner the entire amount
of an insurance policy issued upon the life of one Anna Jaroszewioz,
deceased, the beneficial interest in which had been assigned by
her to Arnold Fenner prior to her death, In the decree as amended,
the court also found that sn alleged claim of the administrator
of the Estate of Anna Jaroszewiez against Arnold Fenner is without
merit, and by the decree this claim is denied, It is this last
mentioned portion of the decree that is in question here»
Originally, a bill of interpleader was filed in the Gireuit
Court of Geook County by the Prudential Life Insurance Company of
America against Arnold Fenner and the Estate of Anna Jaroszewiocz,
seeking to have determined the ownership of the proceeds of an
insurance policy in that company upon the life of Anna Jaroszewicz,
The beneficial interest in this policy had been assigned to Fenner
by the assured. Upon the issues made and joined in that case, by the
bill, the answer of Fenner, and the cross complaint of the adminis-
trator of the estate, the cause was referred to a Master in Chancery,
who heard the evidence, made s report in which he found that the funds
belonged to Arnold Fenner, and recommended that a deeree be entered
2
en
Sveve .
AIMOO BOMALUEHI ILI .
a i a A 40
V :
mitiod TIUOE ID sede te ere: corn
a eacaemntiatinael
es ,Yalu00 TIJING to A 20
, to don atned ob a a
eYTHUOD F000 aphabenenst aah te aaa ane
‘ c ie | v y S <tnachaned aa a be haan
BGO AL peat ie.
eit OOH
esolloqga samen ea
eTHUOOD HT TO WOIMIGO BHT CAASVIUEC LIAR MOITEUL .AM
tivorld ed? to eeroed bebaems as mort Leeqqe an ef eidT egal
tavome atitne oft tenmel blontA of galbrews ,ysmrod Xeod to trv00
esolweseorsl anciA ano to otil edt moqu beweat yotlog sonetvent te to
yd befytess mood bad doisdw ai taorétal Letottoned oad eboeseoeb
~bobmome aa coroeb oft al .hteeb sed ot rottq tonne blonta of tod
totettainimbs oft to mielo begeile as tedt bavot oats tooo edt
tuodtiw ef ronnel bLomtA tentege solweseorel enna To otetak edt to
fest eidd ef ¢2 .deltmeb et mielo aid? sensed eft yd bas atitom
sored mofteeup at ef tedt eorssb edt to soltrog bene 2taen
ttuori0 edt mt boLit eaw tobselqtetnt to Lid « ,ytiaatghs0 |
to Yiaqmoed eonstvenl stil Iettmebutd sit yo ytawod seat txyod
<rolwexeotsl anmd to etsted edt bas creams bionth tentegs: ‘sotromA
ne to ehoesorg add to qidetsawo ent bontmrotob eved ot patioon
peerentneeet snod te stll edt moqu yoaqmoo ted at yortog 8 ey :
ronnot ot bomgieus ased bad yotlog eidt at teoredat Ls often \¢
dt we .Qes0 tedd af bomtot bre ohen seveat oct noqd abe vad
‘ matatnbe eit to ¢nielomoo eeoto odd bas yrennet to rowens
a, ee ee a a me *
a el de ee eS ee —
See ee ee ee
i - aUegonedO: ni retesk « of bherroles saw seuso ont. eters
| baat gdt tedt baer ed dotdw at sroqet s ebam vonebkve af
| Be ed seroeh s tad? hobasmmooet baz atonal blows ot
2
to that effect. Exceptions to the Mester's report only on the
question of the ownership of the funds were sustained by the court,
who found that the funds belonged to the Estate of Anna Jaroszewicz,
and entered a decree accordingly. There was no finding nor order of
the court with reference to the matter in issue here. On appeal to
this court, it was found and determined that the funds in issue
belonged to Arnold Fenner, and the decree of the Cirouit Court was
ordered reversed and remanded with the direction to the Circuit
Gourt that a decree be entered in accordance with the opinion of this
court. Thereafter, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking
to have the finding and order of this court reviewed by certiorari,
which petition was denied. A mandate was filed in the Circuit Court,
and subsequently the amended decree in question was entered in that
court, by which the funds in issue were awarded to Arnold Fenner, and,
as stated, the claim against the estate was denied. The former
appeal in this court is numbered 36050, and on January 26th, 1934,
an order was entered here that the record filed in that case be
considered in connection with the appeal in the instant case.
The only issue before this court in the former hearing, was
whether or not an assignuent of the beneficial interest in the
insurance policy by the assured to Fenner was absolute, or whether it
was made to seoure an alieged indebtedness of the assured to Fenner.
There was no suggestion that the claim in question be allowed as
against Fenner, Upon the only issue here, the representatives of
the estate adopted a dual theory; First, as stated, it was insisted
that the assignment of the policy was made only for the purpose of
securing the alleged indebtedness of the assured to Fenner; second,
that if such theory advanced by them, were correct, still it had no
merit, because of the fact that the assured was not indebted to Fenner,
but that Fenner was indebted to her, and for that reason, the
¢) ' hia / F W) Nye Re Wp
edt ao Yao troqes e'xedgadl ent Nee ileeaceaei peat owt
etxuoo edt yd bomtetave etew ebavt edt to qiserenwo edd te aetteoup —
asolwosaotst saad lo stated edt of begnoled ebberctt edt todd ‘Baarot ‘ortw
to tebto tom galbalt om eew etedt eigatbrooes soroeb & Pann ~~
ot iseqes 20. .exed euaet ai rotten edt oF £2" .
ouset at ebaut edt tedt bontunoteah das penny new, tH teiee thee,
| gew truod tivgorid exit ko setoeh adt bus ,cenas} SlomtA of begnolod
tivorlO ed? ot noltoorlh edt dtiw hedbnemex bas bourse betebro — 1
eidd to molaigo edt déinw eonsbro20s ai bereine ed, enna tate tu00 r
gatiosa ,trw0d omorqwe edt ai belit asw noltiteg # ,reviseredT .tavoo 4
ctusyontres yd bowetves s1ueo afdt to xelso bas yatbatt edt oved of
tryed. ¢iuord9 od? at beLit ase ofahnen A »beingh ghw soteiteg dokdw
‘tedt a2 boretae saw nokteeus oi eos0eh behaeme edt yligoupeadua bas —
cdas .x9qnel bioatA.ot bebrewe oxew eveet af sbawt edt dotdw yd gtaygo
menzot ed? .heined aaw otgtss oft taniags mise odd ghotate .e« 4
_ abS8L .dt08 yroune) mo bas.08085 betedaa af txs09 edt at eoqga 7
od 9a80 tadé af belt brooer edt said ered beretae Pi inte Cell |
v> 902s tastent edt ai Leaggs edi_dtin aolteenmes. iii
new ,galtsed yemtot ed? mi tusoo eid exoted ‘eueet so Pas .tiven |
odé gt teers#at Lstoltoned edt to. tasampteas, as toa xo xedtedw
(#4 todtedw co ,9tulosds acw yeaasl ot betwans edt yd yoilog sonstaead .
stoAnel ot Hotwess sit to eeenbeddebal beseits ag, ren ot. obam ean
28 bewolle ed notteoup at mislo.odt edt mokteoagva.oa een ered?
to eevitetaoaerger odd ered nage Yl. edt aogl stone femtege
nated, nents: chetatp, og. yt dxxoedt Lomb sc hntenhe watesaet ‘
<%o osogrug ed? tot, xlao. bom sen Yello odd. to, ; teat
» sbaopee jre0c9%. ot betuees edd ko — dobas sendin a are 1
aot betdebst ton eaw betuses. ost, sid tosh, ou, 20 oe 5
reek se) Mt -meeset, tadd rot, bae,qrod ot pacing.
th “ te Shien ety ae) ae ae Nola Sah at ee ee ln eee ee vine pe
3
assignment had no validity.
It is shown clearly by the evidence in the case, that
without limitation, the assured head assigned all the assurable in-
terest in the policy to Fenner; that she had frequently stated to
disinterested persons, including agents of the insurance company,
that she was indebted to Fenner in a considerable amount, and that
she desired to secure him against loss in case of her death; that
she stated to others that she desired to have sa business, in which
she and Fenner were mutually interested, continued in case of her
death, and that in such event, it was her desire that Fenner should
have the proceeds of the policy, in order that he might continte
such business.
The following document was presented to the Master, marked
for identification, and was offered by the administrator solely for
the purpose of showing that Fenner was indebted to Anna Jaroszewicz,
and that she was not indebted to him;
" Chicago, Dee. 20, 1926.
Let this be known that I - Arnold Fenner owe to
Miss A, Z% Traczowna $2565 two *%ousend five hundret
and sixty-five dollars,
A. Fenner,
1741 Washington Bld,
Chieago, Ill,"
The Master considered this document heard evidence concern-
ing it, and made a finding with reference to it. It is this instrument
upon which the @laim is made that Fenner is indebted to the Estate
of Anna Jaroszewicz,
On the hearing before the Master, one Walter 6. Cecil
testified in substance that, prior to the execution of the dooument
in question, he heard a conversation between Miss A, Z. Traezowna and
Arnold Fenner regarding their financivl affairs; that she stated that
if Fenner would make out 3 note or statement signed by him, that she
could borrow some money on it, and that Fenner wrote out the document
» |
: eWhbiLey om bed tramatedh
fintt ocean sot mt sonebtve edt yd ylreoto avote wk FE” O°"! oF
~—ai efdpivees @at Ife heirgtens bes botuese es ,moltstimil tuodd iw ;
. gt Betete yltnerport bed oe tadé premiteT of yoRtog omt ah teoted
aWinqsioe somatwent edt to stnege gatbylon! .cnowreg betewtetn teks —
tot bas .tavemes sidsrebionod « ai Tomtet of betdebal’ ssw ede gate
teit tideeb vod to seeo ni Heol teittoys okt ouroes of Horkesy oie |
(dOkdw oat ,cacittend = oved of Derkeoh dite: tad avoute of bodpre’ oie |
rei Yo Ses0 nt bennitnoo .beteotetns ULinirtim crew 4eHeeT ME
blyede rennet todd ortesh rod eew tt ,taeve dove wk tedt bie’ thee
SO egettaos Higte ed tedt rebro at (ventog SARs ebesooty oft ovat
«dvecort d heweivoxr dxveo ee. bens ( amombaiid? tour
bere redecl Odt of betnseerg esw tasnuceb gatwottor adh 2° Volde
tot yfefloe rotertelaimbe eft yd hexstto pew bas Ho ltsONTHtiObt Tot
. : caacontaet shirk Ot otdobat vsw toanet tate attwotls to saben bit
sone ot potanbat pan rie ta
laser Oe ose eanenell meant al fa he ee thong
ot SW SLomth ~ I tet awond od’ ekat e
tie evil aie ows at MIWORO. |
om arene ni TEP at 4 ep I in a
<ar69m00 Sonehévs breed tremyood etdd hotoblends rates at? OOOO
tnemvttemtt aids ef ¢1 «tt of sometoter Atte yakbatt # eben stare gee
atste edt of betdobnt ei cenmet sed? oboe af meek odd dokdw moqe ,
talent . 0 okwenmersh anil Re
bs ) fteed .D roxis¥ ono ,toteeh bcd eroted gakreed’ ont no nae os od |
— HomerOOb eat to moLiweeXS ait OF solr taut sonstedue mi panstest
bas ‘Maite ae? »% eh eetli noowted aottearsvaes « breed on molded ee .
‘tent Ketsta oe teat jartstts Istomeni? «lodt patbreger rented ‘eek
ite bad Gud Yo beng te tebmetete to Stet BLO Olam a sao 22 ;
fmemuooh sig tne ototw temo tadt baa .d2 no -yemom emo
4
in question and signed it; that she ssid, "I want to give him the
money he has coming from me (referring to Fenner)," Further, she
said, "I want to borrow this money on the strength of this note,
and that is the reason I want to use the note;" that she further
stated that she could thereby get money she needed for herself,
that she could alse give Fenner some money she owed him for salary,
and that she at that time owed Fenner certain moneys. No evidence
was offered by the administrator to contradict this testimony,
Upon the matter in issue here, the Master found and
reported to the court that the note for $2,565 of December 20th, 1926,
was signed by Arnold Fenner and delivered by him to the deceased,
not as evidence of indebtedness, but as an instrument to be used by
Miss Traczowna as collateral security for a loan to seeure funds to
pay Arnold Fenner on account of his salary, In the cross complaint
filed by the administrator, there is a prayer for an accounting
between the parties, and in the decree appealed from, the court
approves the report and recommendstions of the Master in all partiou-
lars, including this claim. We are of the opinion thet from the
evidence adduced, the Master was correct in his report and finding,
tyat the court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter,
and that the decree of the court is fully supported by the evidence,
Therefore, the decree is affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
HEBEL, Ped. AND WILSON, J. CONCUR,
~
m ie Sur Pe re
edd mid ovty ot tuew I" btee one tome sts pour bas aottecup mt |
ede tose “-(remne% o¢ gaburekex) om moxk gatmeo eed od yoaom ;
stted eld? to diguaxtea oct oo yonom elds worsted of taaw 2", biag —
teddist oda ted¢ "yotem edt say of daa I sonset edt at add Ane q
atfoared tot hebeen ee yonom toy yleredt bivee ode tadt hodete 1
reise s0% mid bewo ede yenom omoe rsaael ovig oele biveoo.ede tad. ;
sl oh »eyscom aistreo zeqmel bewo ould tadt de seyret bas | |
she _ na bawot =ntaalh ‘outt sanes oueet at anaerslnen us peony, YY ltt sini .
,asez 808 reduset to 388.5% xot efom od? tad? tuyoo edt os mane
ehoassoeb ont ot mid yd herevtieb bas rennet Blowxa yo beagle aon
Yd beew ed of tnemwrtant as ge dud snvorhetdehnt to nenpbive es ton
ot pba sruose of nsol 6 tot ytinuose Lereftstioe ae amwosourT eath |
#atatonoo apoto odd aI ,yreiee ald to daveooe mo, nesnell bigars. Yq
galtamoss as tot royeTq 8 ai eted? .xodentelal ft ot ‘WG. boLer.
tango edt .mork befseqie pereeb ort at bas .20ftroq odt seowted
-woltcag ils aj retesh edt to anotdshapmacoet bus, roe fit ey
edt mort tent motnine eit ‘to ere ok amtate elat pha sie |
| ggmkbait bas treqot add at toorz9o pew rodesM odd homctibe eonshlive
stettam tootdya ex brs aotirsy od¢ to oktedbeinu, ded true edt taht |
spemebive odt yd betzogave yiiut at trvoo. ond to eenoeb od? ted? bas .
aias t nr a _ shear itis ef sevoph edt ,orotoredt.
OTE ee pRTMATTTA germ 6 Lie ot Se octet daha ote
sill : i Pe RR a Pa et am IP!
Dares) ma pres teeed
panes a Rey sth ombkie none’ me
ieee bi ret nae “
ak, RAHM. ‘mote ise
Reeser eat PS ETL ang
$7631 >
ALEXANDER GRANT, IVER R, JOHNSON and ©
MILO B, HOPKINS, co-partners doing |
business as ALEXANDER GRANT & CO."
ot
(Plaintiffs) Defendant# in Err
7
Vo
JOHN A, HEIST,
(Defendent) Plaintiff in Error,
Dy FY oO 4 hf {> 6) 2
279 1.4. 624
MR, JUSTICH WILSON delivered the opinion of the court,
This is a writ of error sued out by the defendant to
reverse a judgment at law rendered in favor of plaintiffs on
September 25, 1923, for $1,058.90, The action was in assumpsit
and the case Was tried by the court without a jury.
No question of law is raised but the defendant insists
that the services alleged to have been performed were at the
special instance and request of the Ca®lton Hotel Company and not
the defendant, From the facts it appears that the plaintiffs
were certified public accountants,
Grant, a member of the plaintiff partnership, testified
previously
that he had performed serviceg/for Heist and was acquainted with
him; that on or about April 15, 1929, Heist telephoned him and
stated that he and several other persons were at a meeting and
contemplated investing some money in a hotel projeot, but before
they did so desired to have an audit made of the books of the
hotel company,
Grant testified further that he started two of their
employees at work on the books and two or!three days later called
up Mr. Heist and told him that the affairs of the hotel were in a
o
bee NOBMHOL a says THASD SOWAXEEA
ONS s "Pais Stata ease
‘a2 eonaba edge
q OT HonKs
_ «suo \poranqua
.YTUUDO. H0g0
a hte
. » APOE 4A MOD,
-Torrd at tittaiss¢ (#asbacted) hetee a ih
oh has tts aie eh tem -
a
2ST RG Ube
| cas a oh glen a aig
<tiuioo edt to notaigqo odd beteviled HORII MOLTAUL .AM
OF tiebaeteb edt yd too beste torre Yo diuw a wf ata” ane a
Ho st2ldateld o tovet at berohavr Wal te ¥ibupbat 8 batéver
Tiaquvsas at asm mottos ed? 08,880, 18 tot S802 8 todnesqed”
Vivi # tyoddtw sxv0o ed yd Settt saw cago edt bag
“Stelent tachasteb edt tad boetox
oxit
; ee Riou), een
ek ves to noldeoup of, ; wg os ‘2
#2 stew bemtotreg need ved of bogelle seotvren od? tedt
ton brs yaeqmod LetoH Motiied edt to taeupex bas soustant feteeqa .
‘GERivatsla odd dads exseds tt atost edt mot tes baoteb edt...
js - -sStastave9es déLdeg Dosttizes exow..
i bettitass Widetentroq ~ipeteme edt to Tedsen @ inate a
ANAS Petuteupos nan bas tutelt rot\geotwxo ‘beiratied ‘bail ‘ad Vial”
_ Bas mid benodgetet taton ,eset yer uitqn edi Xe) a6 dad pak
fas gatteon 2 ts exew esoareg tedto Istevea has od tadt betede ,
Stoted tud .tostorg fotod s ai yerom Oa O8 Bait aovad besalquetaos 4
edt to atood sat to ban tfSue ay oved od Bextesd oe bIb yods te
tied? to owt betrate ed dad¢t todiaut bealtitaed toast)
Seliso tetel eysh eerdtizo owd bap adtood oft so trow te ae9yvoLyme
Sat exe Loted edt to axtette edt seit mee boos bus tafe sx qe ‘
aon
bad condition and asked him if they should go ahead and was told
that they should and would have néthing to worry about in reference
to: payment for services, The witness testified that he knew nobody
connected with the Oarlton Hotel and that he talked with nobody but
Heist about the job; that at the time he made arrangements with Heist
he quoted him the rates per day for both senior and junior account-
ants; that at the request of lir, Heist the final audit was directed
to the Board of Directors of the Carlton Hotel and statements were
sent to Heist, He further stated that he had some correspondence
with the defendant in regard to the claim and was not told until
many months afterwards that he was to look to somebody other than
Heist for payment.
fhe employees of the plaintiffs testified as to the time
consumed by them in auditing the books and the account was received
in evidence,
Heist testified that he called the plaintiff Grant and
told him that the directors of the Carlton Hotel Company had decided
to have an audit made of the books and that he, Heist, had suggested
the plaintiff's name and asked him when he could start the work.
He denied having told Grant that he contemplated investing money in
the hotel project and also stated that he told Grant the work was to
be done for the hotel,
There are no records of thedirectors of the hotel in
evidence, nor is there any resolution on the part of the directors
authorizing the employment of a public accountant to examine its
books.
The trial court heard the evidence and saw the witnesses
and was in a better position te weigh the evidence than would be a
court of review,
2 i, oe
5 "
oe
y
fi
ate ee
cated ee
ye
bot sar bus haode oy Divode Yo? YX mA beden Sina Oude ‘ q
eoustetes ai tvods vxtow oF gaidton eved bluow bas biuoda vost we ;
yhodom went es tadt hektigued aventiw edt sesoivaes tot taemyeqnot 4
dud yhodou dtiw betled ef tedt bas Soto aotixs0 ed? dttw betoeanco |
folek dttw atnenognetta ebam od emit edt ts tadt dot adit ¥xods tater
_ mtasosoe tots ban soisea ‘dtod 10% yab te¢ setet odd wtd betoup od b
betooris aaw tibus Lantt edt tao «tu to teawpox oft oa ted? jtatas i
etew atnemesate has Leto actitad edt to atotosttG Yo Dasod edt of |
eomobnosert0o smoa bad of todd hotata redtawt oi stale of taee j
iitou Slot ton agw bas mists adi ot brayet ad tanbaetob edd déiw
tiadd sedvo yhodesor of dool of asw ed tad? abiswrodis a é tou yon
emit edt ot as bettiveet stiitvatef oft Yo weoyntams om 9 bo"
heviooex ssw tasosos ait bas sxood oct guittbus at med? yd Demasoo
vast tae ft
bas tast0 Tittatalg od¢ Betfso od tadt Bortivect teten |
hebtosh bad yxsqmod Lesoit motixed ed? to srotostih edd se ate ‘08
beteogyira bed ,tatell ad tect bad stood ots to ohana Hthws aa evad of
| wiltow edt tzete biveo 94 aedw aid boise bas omem e'tiitaielg edt
mf yooom gattaevat botslomedaco ed ted? tuenh Biot gatved betaeb oi
ot anw itow edd gat) blot of tad¢ betete cain bus dosgorg feted ods
ac REOE POF Fee coed oF
” gt Lesotl adt to wrodootibedt to abtéoer on eek oxen’ o
axotoetih od} to dteq edt wo nottwfoaa'e “qts ered ef ton pomebive
att onimaxs of tnetavooos ofiduq s to tnompolque Sit gatebrotdus —
| ,adood
* Res
| Raseeatiw odd Ree bay eamebivo | uit tsa, fat00 faint one i
& od Sindw asi? sonebive edt daisw of soltiecq tetted a mt nee ~~
sweiver to tiv0o
—S—
We see no reason for disturbing the judgment of the
Superior Court and it is, therefore, affirmed,
Q JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, P.J, AND HALL, J. CONCUR.
edt to ¢
Sine: ay
seen a Tay
Coda. eras
tut Yhpdes ctiw betic?
Mb MIs otaroogrewesy ohae od amty apie ob dda
sith eatin cons 5 aiuw, Oss Soden Atel tod yall eee metal ae ae
Raroorth wsw tiles Land odd dateR cee $4 Heanerr om ns
OTe aleenes ata hee Lote optics edt te wxodoengil
Sducbamsesr0 smoe hig ed $208 Shdhell ‘tha towe ae
khpry Sket ton. aan. Bae. kel wht oe Praaes a8 4
Radt xeivo yoadeuos., ot toed. of enw. ai & had airs
bsnce heh Ex nepal Sesot medtcan pat’ ph ld call
Betanguare bat ,duio go dace bai wild a Ke Wl
| jase egd state, binee 2A saris abt Rating, hi
a ‘ences geht noved hotetombi ane, ad ‘aah, event
hdl Ae Ate att deem ALet od tae Seta: |
oe, LAR ue
To ak teooll tak Ty eeiledé oe
mrad vod and Se tas bd ihe akties tai j
*
37642
ne ff |
CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST COMPANY,” (4 7]
@ Corporation, as Trustee, f
APPEAL FROM a |
MUNICIPAL COURT |
OF CHICAGO.
Appellee,
Ve
D. Le BUTOW, doing business as
BUTOW SYSTEM SERVICE,
Appellant, Zz y | A. 6 2 4’
wa 2
MR, JUSTICE WILSON delivered the opinion of the court,
This is an appeal from a judgment in forcible detainer
brought by the Chicago Title & Trust Company, a corporation, as
trustee, against the defendant D, L. Butow, doing business as .
Butow System Service, The only issue involved is one of fact.
The defendant insists that by payment of rent he was
entitled to possession of certain premises located on Prairie
avenue in the City of Evanst@n, Illimois. Plaintiff insists
that no lease was made to said premises and that the money paid
as rent was, in fact, a deposit,
A Witness, Mitehell, called on behalf of plaintiff,
testified that his firm was the renting agency for the Chicago Title
& Trust Company and that he attempted to negotiate a lease with
Butow, the defendant} that he prepared o lease and presented it
to Butow and that when Butow brought it back to him, Mitchell, he
told Butow he would submit it and that he should pay a month's rent
in advance, This was in the month of February, The witness further
testified that during this month he telephoned the defendant and
told him that the Chicago Title & Trust Company had refused to enter
into a lease and was returning it} that the lease which had been
prepared ran from March 1, 1934, for a period of three years,
ai
COC SLORY ie
»
y | SHOVE
" \ hs, 3 \\raacuoo TEUAT & BATIT OBavirHo
, eeetantT a6 ,woltiateqroo 2
: MOBY JATTLA | | é
1 4 . » he. «@etLeqga ; i:
_ THVOO UATiOLMUE Oe
a ‘ w¥
seODAOTHD TO
: , es ani
£S0.A.1 CYS sdaslSoaga
»tts0o sdt to sotmiqo edt botevileh HOBAIW VOLTAUL AR
Teniatsh efdtorot nt taemgbs, s mott Ieeqgs ae ef and? |
Qa ,foltstogtoo s ,.yasqmod teutT & eLtiT oge0idd one ws siquers
. €8 ekeatand gaioh .wotwi oJ .0 tasbasteb ont tentegs sotautt
stoat Yo emo af beviovat exeat yiso ed? .eetvxel aetay8 wolwt
asw ed teot to tasmysq yd tadt efetamt tasbucteb edt ree
eitistt oo botsool asaimetg atetrteo to no taaeee oq ot beittine
ateafent tiitaielS ,eafomit{{l ,a@senave to ytd ott a oxmevs
bkeq youos edt tant bas asaimetq bise ot sham aw easel on tailt
stisogeb s. etost ai naw tast es
,ititatelg to tisded so beflso Lfodow tit ainanie 7
alti? ogsotdd odd tot Youoges gaitnet odt asw writ utd tadt holtitaes
dtiw sssel s etattogen of betquetts od tart bas Yangnod gas? &
#i Detaveetg bas eaaet s betaqetg ed tant jtashuetob ont Wotas
od ,ffedotim ymtd of toad +4 tdgwotd wodiwG nedw tadt bas woud of
toot atdiaom s yoq bivede of tadd bag tt tiedwe bivow od wotwa bLot
seddaut saentiv edT .yxavidel to dicom edt ai eaw eld? .eomsevbs af
bas tanbostob eft bemedgelot ed dtmom aids gatiwhb tedt bettiteed
xetne ot boaxter bed Yeaqmod teurt & eltit ogeotdd ocd tedd mtd bLot
«teed bed dotdw easel edt tedt tt gaiautex ase bas easel a otas
sBrsoy oti? Yo botrog s tot .P0L ,f dos mort aps beveqetq —
ae
The defendant Butow testified that he talked with Mitchell
and paid him the rent for the first month} that he moved into the
premises some time in February} that Mitbhell never told him that
the lease had to be approved by the Chicago Title & Trust Company,
but that he did say that he would see the other parties before he,
Butow, signed the lease,
Olive Mae Brown, a witness called on behalf of plaintiff
in rebuttal, testified that she had a talk with the defendant in
which he said he did not see why he should bring in money to show
good faith and that on February 19th Butow said to her, "Supposing
the lease isn't accepted, what about my $30," and she replied, "It
is not customary for our office to retain earnest money deposits in
the event we are not able to obtain the acceptance of the lease,"
This was démied by the defendant,
From the evidence it appears that no lease was signed
by the Chicago Title & Trust Company, as trustee of the premises,
The trial court heard the evidence and saw the witnesses
and found that the defendant did not have a lease and was not
entitled to possession and evidently was of the opinion that the
$30 payment was earnest money and not rent, We see no reason for
disturbing its finding as the evidence is conflicting,
For the reasons stated in this opinion the judgment of
the Municipal Court of Evanston is affirmed,
JUDGMENT APFIRMED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND HALL, J. GONCUR,
os
Re
ifedotin dtiw detLat ed tects bertiteod Notua tashasted edt
eRe oe
edt otmt bevom od tent iditaom derst edt ‘tot daar off abd 136° bate
tad? mid Diet toven Leddt iu act {ymewtdet of amt? omoe seatmorg
eYanquo® tarxT 4 ofe2t opsoid® edt yo bavotgas of of bed easel odt
198 oxoted soltreq xedto ode eee bindw od fadt yee Ath ed tadt ted
| | 9a00f odd Deagte .wotwa
tifttvatelq to iieded no hefllse seentin «
ai trabeoteh
soda
IOC 98M ovt[o
edt viv 11d 6 bad oda teat Desstined hsttuton at
of Yenom at gatzd Bivode ed ydw von ton b&b ea bien ed dotdw
een sted of eae woduat Gr YehrndeY ko Hat Di Uttad Boog
" shotéves ode dae." .O8¢ ym diode’ tad (bbedesen Hank ial? e
af stteouch yenom tesazse ateter ot eoitte ‘wo tot yremote
ton at
‘ : oe aoe Wy a
* ,9aa0L att to sometgeoon oft tistde ot aide fou ore ow Fe
ataehasteh add 14 bea usw alc
ey vty as Le bie (
aii taa ininieh taille, erseque ti sohobive odd ‘doey 8
aecineme edt Xo eolmrrt ag ynaqnod ere s otter ogseiao sw
Raw wee ¢ My
asaveat tw add wae Main oushaee ade bese te Saget oat aan 2nat Oe
#0a Sew baz seset g sved ton bib tanbasteh edt +g OS
ent tad? motatge edt to sav yLtaebive bak motes on of bertttae
Tot moaset ou cee SW | ene dom bah Yoo Sutionam” idee’ 18 some Oth
sgttttozitacs af om bive' edt as in atl: ait
te tasmpbet ond } Melalge tas at Detets
-Pomtittn 2k fanart 29 Arh deleteeti att
aS ” © het é gwhs Ly
TAIT THEMEN, © em ee pemieetaas
iit etme todd So ttuveod
001 we et My she BEER»
BAA tS RP» nae hort ob ae amelie BS ae eanet & Oe tact ie
That
a ¥ . ’ naa x r x8:
reoty awit ty bodeeet a tet (Ue ye eames ee Aazoge st
sam ee galt Motee -
i aprons wetul of
eS ee ee
g
37666 Z ee | WA
f
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel WILLIAM F, JAHN,
Appellant,
APPEAL FROM /
Ve SUPERIOR COURT,
COOK COUNTY,
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corpora-
tion; EDWARD J. KELLY, Mayor of the
City of Chicago; DANIEL J, CARMODY,
Commissioner of the Fire Department
of the Gity of Chicago; MICHAEL J,
stiprot tniengys Rica Pe oS
v .s) C2 gos * 3 ; > r,
JOSEPH P, GEARY, and ALBERT 0, anpeRsou, JO '¢ Q | Ae
Members of the Civil Service Commissioner Cee es 4
of the City of Chicago; JAMES A, KEARNS,
Treasurer of the City of Chicago} ROBERT
B. UPHAM, Comptroller of the City of
Chicago,
Appellees,
MR, JUSTICE WILSON delivered the opinion of the court,
Plaintiff instituted hie proceedings in the Superior
Court of Cook County in mandamus seeking a writ to compel the
defendants, City of Chicago, Edward J, Kelly, Mayor of the City
of Chicago, Daniel J. Carmody, Commissioner of the Fire Department,
the Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Chicago, and others,
to certify petitioner to the position of Captain of the Fire Depart-
ment of the City of Chicago, This petition was filed July 6, 1933,
and a general demurrer was interposed by the defendants, The
demurrer was sustained by the trial court and an appeal from that
order taken to this court,
The eseential facts set forth in the petition seeking
the writ alleges that the petitioner Jahn entered the services
of the city as a fireman in the fire department on August 1, 1914,
and was subsequently promoted to the rank of lieutenant in the
" “BIOUTEIT TW BATE “He GO maTORE
etasilegga , Ch ae 7. eon ee aan ine
" TAVOO SOLRETUS ys af edt
,YTHUOO 3oOoD Gt tay tate
: -BTOTIOD Loqtot re »
os to RR gs Af sg "
oO »t Roeett eee to a8
Hee eyeing Me Sexo "onde ae
GO ALTE ee
a ee es
ut tL tae eke
stuioo silt Lo aotatgo edd berevited MO2IIW SOITEUL . fe
“goltoque edd at agntbesvera atd bol se tbemaothstamedt: Oo adh at
edt Soquco of tirw 5 gaidess symahenn at \tawet Sout Ye tereh
yti0. edd Io toys .yiled ,b brawhi mee, to weno «ataabaoteb
Japatrage 912%, edt, to tomosaimmod .xdowred .b Lokaat
eeTedto bas .ogsoidd to yell edt to azenoten sumed sosveen Ae x
~trsqed eift edt. to aiatgsd to soitivseq oat ot -sesodt tog yie “*
,e8eL <8 Uiul bolt? agw aoititeq eid? ,ogsoldd to Ye20 ont to tanm
eat ataebootsbh edé ed heaogtedit spline sine it s | baw
tad? mort Lesogs as bas Pres Leitd odd eo bee
eaiises soltiteg edt at dirot 398, atoat sec lacouiatanc Ci
xenotttteq ait “et ‘ we negita ti PE eee:
geotviee edt betetas adel
adt e eit ain si to aner odt “ initieadiinadl
wa
Classified service of that department} that a promotional exam—
ination was held by the Civil Service Commission for the position
of captain and on August 30, 1929, the eligible list of successful
Candidates was posted and that petitioner was on said list as one
of the successful candidates,
On April 14, 1931, he was Number 1 on said eligible list
and that at that time there were three vacancies in the position of
captain in the classified service; that on September 3, 1931, this
list was canceled and the rhree vacancies which existed at the time
were not filled as required by the Civil Service Law and the regula»
tions of the Civil Service Commission, but were permitted to remain
vacant,
Defendants contend in support of their demurrer that the
petition shows on its face that the eligible list was canceled more
than two years efter it was posted and that by reason thereof the
list beoame ineffective and the petitioner left withott any enforee~
able right, it is also contended by the defendants that on the face
of the petition it appears that the plaintiff was guilty of laches
inasmuch as his petition was not filed wntil July 6, 1933, one year
and ten months after the eligible list, upon which petitioner's
Rame appeared, had been canceled.
The first proposition was considered and passed upon
by the second division of this court in the case of People ex rel
lynch v. Gity of Chicago, 271 Til. App. 360, In its opinion in
that case the court said:
"and we are of the opinion that the well-pleaded
facts, as alleged in the petition, are not sufficient
to warrant the court's judgment, which commands the
present civil service commissioners ‘to forthwith cer
tify from the eligible list boekee December x af 18 te
the name o chae ce
9 position of sergeant of a emg etc, In the lith.
Qe
-usne Lsactiomorg s tadt itasudtaqeb ted? to eokyrea boltieaslo
uolthecg edd tot mofeatmac® ootvre Livtd. aie yd blot asw sottent
iutaasoowa to teil oldigtio edt ,@90L ,08 Yemgwd wo dag aiatqeo to
emo an takt Blow to enw temoititeq tadt has betnog aint astsbibaso
sotebibago arwneein ad to
Re é
tail eaidigife bies ao Lf tedmsi easw ad TEOL at teh 2 | mH ft
to soiticog elt ai setonsoav sont orew oxedt omit. tect He) te bas
eidt .£8@r ,2 redgetqes so tsdt jeoivree best innate exit st mtataas
omit edt te betatxe sotdw aetoasosy seri: odd bas b Los ao aan tet
~aiuget edt bas wad sotvred Livid sd yd boriepot ae becsit ton onew
atenot of bettinreg stew tod .0.tie kieebty eotvres: LivED eae to ‘asott ;
. .tusoey
et
ott tad? retumeb xteits to txoqgre at Sretaco shnebneted
etom beLeouso asw tell oldtgile edt tadt eost att no awore aotttieg
odd tootelt noaser yd tat bas bevsoq asm st setts exaey owt madd
—orstae yas teodtiw diol temofsived edt baa evivoottent omeood tant
eost si? co tadd atmebasted odd Yd Bebnotacn opfe of YY ,tdule efds
sedosl to ytling asw Tiitaialy edt todd etseqqe tk mokt ited’ allan
a eSOL 8 Yiul Lidmy HeLit ton aaw wottited até ae sone:
“bi onotst¥0q doidw coq ,taii eidigife edt todts conan “E bats
en ! NS pletesings elt when? sborse
Om boaaea bag bexobdanoo aay 1 mote souene 7 a € r ‘ges
fot 29. sigeet to eas® est ai suveo alkt to moketveh baad:
| ft Molsico ett af 088 .qaa LST INE ,opepid® to. v
bebgelqeLiew wit ted? mo
teokolttue tou ore cHols 8
abagmmoo dolsin 4
bir dé ivat<ot of ost arodote
ty hae ATE Te he Oa B 28 ’ ‘i S / Af 5
eortte oni Tot tonya ot
agit edt of . ,ote ' 20. Oo”. 9.4 Sanegzoe
is PRO ba
Ge
paragraph of the petition it is alleged that the eligible
list, as posted on said date, 'was canceled on January
2, 1930' (i.e, more than two years after it was posted,
and more than a year before petitioner filed the present
petition). Because of & provision contained in section
10 of the ‘Act to regulate the civil service of cities!
(Cahill's St, ch. 24, Par, 694) it is apparent that said
cancellation of the list was lawful and proper. The
provision is: ‘Said commission may strike off names of
candidates from the register after they have remained
thereon more than two years,’ We think that when said
old eligible list was canceled it became functus officio
that is, it ‘had become of no virtue whatsoever ~
vier's Dict., Rawle's 3rd ed, p, 1323), and petitioner's
name, not being on any list, could not legally be certi-
fied by the commission for the position of sergeant."
We agree with the views expressed in that opinion,
The fact that there was a vacancy at the time the list
Was canceled, in our opinion, does not vitiate the right of the
Civil Service Commission to esnecel the list and to require a new
examination, There may have been very good reasons for not fille
ing the vacancy, It may have been for financial reasons and the
desire to make retrenchments in the cost of government, The matter
of cancellation was one within the power of the Civil Service
Commission and we will not interfere with the discretionary right
of the Civil Service Commission to take such action,
The delay in filing the petition is sought to be excused
‘ by the petitioner for the reason that his delay was caused by the
statements of Anton J, Cermak, then Mayor of the City, to the effect
that he, Cermak, would see to it that the petitioner was certified
to the rank of captain, but that Cermak died before correcting the
aheged wrong to the petitioner, There was no inherent power in the
mayor to bring about the promotion of petitioner, as this was a
matter coming under the cogniszance of the Civil Service Commission,
in conjunction with the head of the particular department, If he
had any rights he should have acted promptly in his attempt to
a. a
ai
Bidikgiie. ad ee eget ro: ects ;
et go Bi Pk poy hy sii bia . edits a8 |
ebatreg aon ry RLRGY OF BTOM eB 1oeer haku es
hare tty ow pee Tonoitivoq ox ra ‘2a0y & Pains bas
seitoor 2 wlataon moleiv Temes
teegtio to saivese Livic oat a e Stataes ot godt “oy te of
hise tadt taetecgs af th rae @: ot@ et Ls ‘ire
. oat oe ape Bern Anenak 6 airtel di ° Boe gesen v4
© Boman ‘io edista yem soleektmmeo x
hoalenox evad yodt tette , Tetelger old int aes
bise sedw tedd anidt sW ',axvsey ov? andt otow soexeds
ouroed ti holoomse dail ef@i
sa HY Pees ata tp geoneg hat OE at
al senott tg (RGRL on sims at ;
‘hee ed titesel” oi bioes ue a 10 as
-tagegtea Io motttacg edi xot aolaadimave edt, he, el
Mg: in i be]
saotatge todd at bessondzs awelv oat ibe cosas .
, Se UO Rear” age
eit edt omit oc? ta yousosy a a8 ant pk fost out, ‘iknele ~
edt to tdgix ect etaiviv tom sob ,solaiqo tw0 al ,beloonse agw
Wor # otispes of bas tell edt Leoaso of soheaimac? aan ine
~{Li% Jon tot anoaget booy yrav seed oved.yam.exedt .. ..sotd,
edt bus anoeasx Lelonsnit tot seed eved yau tt. euean pe
xettea edt ,tneanteves to daco edd ot ataanianettet alan oF erkaod
si eotvies Livid edt to seweg edt. ubdtiw ono Aew nottsiivonae Yo
Sigis Yrewoltexoath add ddiw exeletus ton Lit ew bas sokaatamed
Ne ay
bonwexe od of diguon ab moitited oft pantae mk ‘yale ag on
edt yd boasso saw yolob aid tadt mogox ext “got tond rer edt vd
roatte edd of .Vst0 od? 20 toyaM aorlt .Ammaed .1 notnh to ataomedtsta
bettitrse aaw remoisitog edt tedt &t ot 209, weuatagiagennn
edd gaitoerxeo stotad beth Asetol add ted ,wletg
nid af sewoq taetodat on sew sredT ,4tonolditeq pe mp ou :
S eaw eidt es ,romoitideg to aoktomony ont yes galas ot totee
motentamed, sete Ravers a to honey bieele _ bear yekmon.
od tI nottoauta
ot tanedte ‘ata at vite °
; DGS ee, 4 8 to ‘ is i : as ail
=n
secure them, One claiming a right to a position under Civil Service
should act promptly so as not to disarrange the service nor allow
rights of others to intervene,
It is insisted that laches does not apply to a proceed~
ing of this character, but that the cases quoted and relied upon
by the defendants showing that the question of laches may be
raised, are found upon examination to be those predicated upon
applications for certiorari. We believe, however, that the question
may be raised in a mandamus proceeding where public office is
involved as well as to a petition for a writ of certiorari.
In the case of People ex rel _Lyneh v. City of Chicago,
supra, the court in its opinion, said:
"It is decided in this State that in a mandamus proceeding
the defense of laches, appearing on the face of the petition,
may be raised by demurrer, (Schultheis v. City of Chica
240 Ill, 167, 170; Tenneaiay Fr Gite y of Ohigtee 220 TL :
485, 502, 503."
The same question was passed upon in the case of Schultheis v.
City of Chicago, 240 I11, 167, and it was there held that laches
¢ould be raised in a proceeding in mandamus.
We believe that the second position taken by defendants,
namely that the petitioner was guilty of laches, is well founded,
A writ of mandamus is not a matter of absolute right. The court
still has a right to exercise its discretion in ordering the writ
and if the right is doubtful it may be refused, Kenneally v. City
of Chicago, 220 Ill. 485, The reason offered for the delay in the
filing of the petition is not sufficient in our opinion to justify
the action of the petitioner in delaying his application for the
writ.
~~
they
solvres Livid rehire eer 4 ot bidie' a. ioliglil* 90% ‘sat SIu098
Wolls Tom solveos odd egusttasin ot toa ae of Vitquong tos Bivoda
_ senevretad at sxedito te addin
~besserg ¢ ot vlgga tee pre asoat tats betetani at a:
foqy batter hag betoup seago odd todd tua eistosnndo atc to wn
“Se Vem sodoal to nottaehp ony tedd Betvode, atmbsoteb ody wd
soggy Beta tberq sods ad ot. ao ttenimexe nege Burot one Ubeates
Sotveenp edt tant eX9Vawod .Sveifed eW rdtstotizeg Tor Pyrite
ef soitte ofidrs stoddy galbesoorg evmsbeem 8 mt beater of veer
-£istoitise to tit £ tot mottiteq « of an ifew ss bevlovai
er le v done fax x8 9 Lg 00% to seco ott ar
‘bise Holatgo et hens ewes ‘ot ® caxgus
vito. sedis : sost rr, sae piate, 4 1888 242 of bod.ned at etd ith
EET OS coun SONG sony $a He are asuuss (ONE eet ore
5 anmntar ao renee ate
SEERAL $0 NEE a tet HE Wile SME COE GN a oe Ba
ee
bier Wd aoxet ott te0e birobew bat’ ¢had eveliod off ic
subiehawet itew ot eetoat to’ yertiy’ nsw temoltiveq ate todd fier
PANO eM vengae étntondd xs rotten & tom et timédnom Yo“dixw 4.
dare edt gattebto at notteressh St! Onborexe. oF Hiyit s aad ift¢a
GAD. yLtconnst vbeawter od You 32 Lettdueb ef igee edd te =
it ah yetod ody cor beTe?lo nosaet edt “lags , cht Ged ds
Ct det et codatere two mt tnototirve ton ot ott Hed’ vat te ametey .
edt wor mitnaten atd heme at nde ghon edt 36 > noltos odd
BS Pua
Me . & ee
ae a by ber ie gest
2 Jicw
-5-
For the reasons stated in this opinion the action
of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer to the petition
is approved and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed,
JUUGMENT AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, P,J. AND HALL, J. CONCUR,
mines ads five Bec a itis 0 a LR
molt tteg ort of
wekle tes oetgs be ert SA Me! 56 of ,
sbomtitts et
edt moimtgo yt at detats = Senn:
QEMALTTA
“havo? 2 et witty 4
ae eS ns Bo) 1 ree miata bade
Roast Mukti Dyes Dedeop odeae att Kalle Bit dete
“Pr teh sonal Yo mditebep 2 gihdy 25 ak,
Kiet Phi we tows, guKs ay oi wo sT online. setae bh
welsevp eff godt eeVege! ,ovelled s¥ REARS E '
iis AM
’ ae “cube 4
ef soltie stide: etaiin pathencova beembene a c* whtes ed yak
-sietolise to thew « wet pn biti & aa: desis ert
‘Hie "alin ath ‘a’
guthece osy Stamnes 3 ek fat atti ede oh .
eteit tag — te ye ooh! Ay
i | ePTOOTIE ene
, uae LS Le to atiD .0 pi i bones
Y Rote ba ight Gis, ia ed "
whan NS sa MT ES te ER
WY Bioteti tok te waa pat ab ‘ear Beene wae
Redeas fate head erage pax et at ered Weta aoe”
eT re i
ent : Sh ei igi aida ay eae aay uber ronotkedy
| eee we tdgie etnleada he dugdiy me tea at ;
“haire. edt antwedre it” enndercde ss ood Be
mag oO ELL veut whe TOe et vine’ De barred wa
phe ik eles ads 6% Carved te Beet war ‘ae ‘it
Vhs. A woke) mate and deo tolycew tae ee si be 4
ek wat hin com eas aa vation ae nt oat ol
th
m
SS
37678
WILLIAM MOISANT, for use of
CRESCENT FURNITURE COMPANY,
corporation, 2
(Plaintiff) Appellee, MUNICIPAL couRT,
OF CHICAGO,
Vs
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a corporation, | eC
(Defendant) Appellant, Pd r a EL athe 6 py 4
WR, JUSTICE WILSON delivered the opinion of thé court.
This is an action by William Moisant, for use of the
Crescent Furniture Company, a corporation, against the John Hancock
Mutual Life Insurence Company, a corporation, on an assignment of
wages, There was a trial before the court without a jury, result-
ing in a finding against the defendant for the sum of $225.79, and
judgment was entered on the finding, From this judgment an appeal
was perfected to this court.
Moisant testified that he was in the employ of the
defendant corporation on July 31, 1929, and continued in its employ
until August 1930; that he received §20 a week and commission} that
he was paid in cash} that when they, the agents, were short the
company would pay them and that when they had collected more than
the $20 and commission the corporation would take the balance left
over the amount due then.
Defendant insists that from this evidence it appears that
the company did not owe Moisant at the end of each week, but that
Moisant owed the company, The trial court found otherwise and we
agree with the finding, The matter of payment was onty a matter
of bookkeeping, but it is apparent that the arrangement between
4 \, ee BTayvs
% te | i etieial
e-em to eax cot somaren » MATAITW
ats | _ B aY HAsO rs ‘PHIOGRAD
Gite JAvIy rave
,ODADINO TO
cooltogga (euttarers), be (3
| aV
HOMAMUGUI NULL JAVTUM AOOOMAH WHOL
* s giacteacige Ni colt stogtos a SC eat
“KOO .A.L CVS | ensictocgen Acumen |
ettyoo édt to solaigo ed? betevileb NOsdIW TOITeUL eal om aval
edt to eastot ,tasetow meilitv yd mottos ia ad ater ‘al i an
Yoooash slot eft taatsgs ,soltstoqroo s evasqniod ccs koert taeoerd
~tivact ettot, # tuodtiw gree od¢ oxoted feitt 6 egw oe oe
bos ,C.88¢% to ava off tot ¢nshacteb add tentage galbnet : at aat
fzeqgs as tasmabhst eid? mott spakbait ed? mo berets enn ae
,tayoo aidt o¢ hetoetreg asw
edt %o yolqme edt af esw od tadt bettitaed tasatol
yolqme ati at beunttaco bas ,@80L .f€ yivbano notterogtes tushaeteb
tad? imoteaiumoo bas deaw s OS¢ hevieset od sant ;O8OL teagwa Litar
edt trode srow ,etnege odt , yet oodw ¢eadt ideeo of bleg aew od
sed otom betoelioo bed yedd seody tect bas medi yeq bisew yaaqmoo
ttel eoneled oft oxet biwow soltenamen edt goktatmnoo bos OS} edd
melt ob tasoms odd revo
tadt exseqg¢s tf soaobive ald? mort tedt etetant taabaoted —
tsdt tud .deew dogs to bao edt te tasetol evo ton bib enaqmoo odd
ew bas satwrodto bavot dxu0p Left? of? .Yasqmoo odd bowo taseioM
settam s yYéro saw tesaryaq to tetien ot agntdalt ent détw ergs
neowtod tnonegastts edt tadt tmoxsqas af $2 dud ygatqesittocd to
oe
Moisant and the defendant company Was to the effect that he was
to receive $20 a week, If he did not collect anything, then the
Company Was compelled to pay it.
After the receipt of the notice of the assignment of
Wages, the company should have withheld payment of the salary and
Commission due, The moneys collected did not belong to Moisant,
but to the company,
It is insisted that the plaintiff hae not complied with
the section of the Practice Act in regard to the bringing of the
action, This section provides that an assignee may bring suit in
his own name if he complies with the provisions of the statute,
This case, however, is brought in the name of the assignor for use
of the plaintiff and the statute is, therefore, not applicable,
the Ev. Lutheran Augusta Synod, Appellant, 267 T11. App. 606,
No objection was made at the trial to the pleadings and,
therefore, objections cannot be raised here,
We see no reason for disturbing the judgment of the trial
court and for that reason the judgment of the Municipal Court is
affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, P.J, AND HALL, J. .CONCUR,
olen
taw ed gadt tostts edt of wew cneimee dasoaoted anit bie andihiel
edt aodt .gaidtyas teelion toa bk od a teow a oth ovtooor ot
ott req oF bectequos ase Yasqnoo
to taomtrmiaees sid to soften edd to tqieoex oft testa
bus yxelea edt to tuemyeq bleddttw ovad bivoda ymsquoo edd .eegew
ainseioM of gnoled ton bth betesLiee eysaom ect ear maka RReR,
. sage eit of ted
or
dtiw beitqmon tom ead ttktatel¢ edd tadt hetatent at ¢%
efit to gaigaind edt of Sraget at toa eoltostd edt to solteoe odd
ai tiee guizd yam ofagiaes as tedt eobfvetq aoltsee efit mottos
sotutete ent to enotetvord eit détw astiqnos ed a4 uae owo oid
q
ean ‘tot songteas edt to smn odd nt ‘tiguord at eoverod, ,eas0 eidt
2 eee, Pena {
: voldsotioas Fou orator al ‘otutate ons bas thee edt to
ebas agnibselg eft of Leith edt ta ebam saw moidoatdoool) eo vox
,oted herist ed sonaso ancites(de ,exoteredt
git? odd to trembut edt gakdtiteald 16% mosses or een oF. 2p ~)
i awed. Isqloiavl edd Yo ¢roughet ede dtoaedt Hee xehcbes teen
‘nage att wet io todd bake wl }igipemniika
oTRMALTRAS THAMOGEE! ces fad! Bee wee? Pow Biorew cage
tak Fale Pomorie ott eee faa OF & oxtit
.AUOTOO.iigimitalt Cae seen
yay Sats Ro
Reka kare Ra BE eee. qld
* hae Rew taeeion
ahs gta. lat Swe wore
tut tooteaa eh 29 ! saigaoatoos to. j
, ‘ HeUMlinA, A |
a
37706 a in F
2 ee e
GHRIST ANSCHUTZ, i _-*OPEAL FROM A
(Plsintiff) Appellee,
CIRCUIT
Ve
GHARLES GABEL, SR.,
a0 x
(Defendant) Appellant. ) 2 v4 9 Toh. 6 2 BI
MR. JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The plaintiff recovered a judgwent against Charles Gabel,
Sr. because of injuries sustained on the night of October 22, 1933,
when it was claimed he was struck by an automobile driven by the
minor son of the defendant. The son, Charles Gabel, Jr.,was originally
a defendent but was dismissed from the ease at the end of the
proceedings.
The original declaration charged that the sccident happened
while the plaintiff was crossing St. Charles Road in a southerly
direction at or near its intersection with 14th avenue in Maywood,
Cook Jounty, Illinois,
January 31, 1934, three additional counts were filed by
leave of court again charging that plaintiff wes erossing St. Cherles
Road at or near 14th avenue at the time of the accident,
March 20, 1934, additional counts were filed by leave of
court. The first of these counts charged that the plaintiff was
walking in an easterly direction across 14th avenue at its intersection
with St. Charles Hoad; that the automobile of the defendant was
driven carelessly, negligently and improperly and that the driver of
the defendant's automobile failed to keep an outlook for persons
using the highway and that by reason thereof the automobile ran
agsinst the plaintiff and injured him
The second additional count charges that plaintiff was
walking in an easterly direction across 14th avenue at its intersection
hy, :
WORT dad { .\ . ooo» setureR
: ‘* rg 2 «RRO AST pale, OS Lipase) we Le
“¥
Arsittoe apie” °° 3 te Veknown a nes oui
te So. A. I e ‘ ge: When Peipaggexssc: ele oeggarw
eRdee das. were B
.TAUOO ABT TO WOIMIGO BAT GMANVIUEG HOeITW ae a tow
coded apized? tacisge tnemabul » Rexevepes Xhisasety, amy
SEGL .88 tedotod to tdgin edt no benteteve eetrutat te seusoed .xB
tld, XS Sovixh eLidomotus, aa Yd spurte. ase hinihpa lil iad
tanigita asw sth ateded eolzed0 108 oat nab,
sit, to bas eft t# esno edt mort persimath enw mu svaerhe
enouged | tusbjoos ont tea Degrade notepeabod | i
, xedtvop. 6 ah bsofi poLzedd of6. attegor ecw
Oe soe
eboowyelt at oumeve, done tw sedtoangaent vod seen
Ca hs ae
: “secon
“OY BeLtt orew vtnyoo Leiotsehbs sory auersytenpdaia eae:
salted) .t8 gatewoto saw PRE aleley ted? gatyteto cat Poe Mn
tug gic, gt m@ebtoos ode to Posed pat. ts. mtv: ay es
Yo onset, Xd, beLit ator etns09, Lenostibbe att Dek 40 O% dor.
t
acw tiitalelg edt ¢sdt begtesio etasoo seedd to exit ee
itosetetal ett te eumeye dts seetos ao ltteer tb Vrstess me mk galifsw
pey taobaeteb edt to eLidomotus edt tadt cane se ya fe sit iw
eye
anoateq tot tooltvo as qeed ot hettat ‘sche a ttasbueted ode
to wivish edt tact bas yLreqotaml baa. Xx DER
pe
ast elidomotus edt tosredt moeset yo toad baw Wwortgtd odd gaten
amid spt bas eT ey
cen ” iin, aa .
2
with St. Charles Road and was in the exercise of due care for his
own safety; thet Charles Gabel, Sr. was the owner of an automobile
driven by his servant Charles Gsabe],Jr., in 2 northerly direction
on 14th avenue; that defendants carelessly, negligently and improperly
operated and drove the sutomobile and failed to have it equipped
with proper brakes and that by reason thereof it ran into and injured
the plaintiff,
These two counts charged general negligence, There is
no evidence, however, as to the condition of the brakes.
At the end of plaintiff's case all the counts except the
first, seoond and third additional counts filed “arch 20, 19534,
were stricken on motion of defendant. The third additional count,
however, sharges that the plaintiff was walking across St. Charles
Read and not across 14th avenue as the proof shows.
Gonsiderable stress is placed upon the fact that the
original declaration charged that he was crossing St. Charles Road
and that it was not until a considerable time after the filing of
the original declaration thet this allegation was changed, so as to
make it appear that he was crossing 14th svenue. ‘his may be accounted
for, however, by reason of the fact that plaintiff was so severely
fnjured and was in the hospital for seven months and over, suffering
from injuries to the leg and head.
From the medical evidence it appears thet the head injury
sustained by the plaintiff created a condition of amnesia and that
the happenings just prior to the brain concussion might not have
become clear for some considerable time after the injury.
Upon the trial plaintiff testified that on the night of the
accident he left his house between 7 and 8 o'clock, crossed St. Charles
Road at 15th avenue and walked east on the south side of St. Charles
Read as far as 14th avenye; that there was a stop sign on the east
ot
eid tot etree sub to ealenexe eds af acw bas haoh gebradd use ditty
olidonetys as to temo od? ecw, .18 .fedsd aoltedd tet {vtetes awo
tottoorth yiredtiom # af pathafodad eelrad® taevroe eld yd movixh
[vecorqmt bne yLtmegtigen ,yieeelezeo atashasteh ted? jounevs diet moe
heggtuns ¢f eved of bolts? bas elidomotus edt overh hae bosareqe—
bexutat bus ofmi mer ti tooredt moanex yd tedt bas sederd gecory dtiw .
- &Rdtnbelg ont
at ened? .oonegiigon Letemey begrsdo adavoo owt ened?
~eoterd ait to moLtibaod att of ee ,xevewed, ,opmebive om
edt tqeoxe ainvon edt Ife seso a'ttitaislg te dae dt thn » ioe uM
qds@L .OS dove beLit etavoo Lemolttibbs bridt has baovam etexkt
.tavoo Lenoithhbs bridt sdf .tasbasteb to soltem ao nedodnte, stew
eeizedd .t8 avons goitiew aew ttitaielq odt tert eeyzede .ravowot
veworls Tootg edt es erneve athL saores tom bas Deol
gid teat dost oft mogw beosly st eeervte ofcexabtome9 tie -
beoh eolxad0 «tO gotesor® enw ad tedd begtato mos peb:Lar
‘Yo gnilit edd rests omit elderebienoo s Lider von ore a
ot ke Oe ,boynsdo eew soitesetia eiit tad? noiteredoeh Lantgito veal
tevowoc od yan eid? ceunove APML gutevoro asw ed dedt eecaqe these
ylerevee o@ vaw tittetelq tedt gost edt to mosaet YW “erovewod (30% |
gatsetioe ,xevo bos edison aeves rot Latiqaed ant iat mam bas:
heed bas gal ed? ot eodmy
Yuba bag edt tedd eresggs tL eonebive {faoifem eat nash: ft L os
tedt bas eleeres to soitibnoo «2 betasto Metiededy act ee a
-eved tea togim molaagoaos atatd edt o¢ toing tout egatmeqgad. ost
eerutal sat vedts omit sidsrablano® moe ‘to 389.L0-omoged
edt to digin oft ao teed hettitest thitaislg Laid odd moa» ‘gtr? ont
afxad0 .#2 beeeotd ~toolo'o 8 bas JS aeewted tegod onan 0 nasi n
pelted? .t2 te ebie mises ont to teas bedlew bas eunevs:
Sek8 edd no mgte Goda s caw oxeddtedt: seanuciuend ” steaheoh
ET Ta pele ae PE nT Ee
3
side of 14th avenue, facing south and that he was familiar with the
conditions surrounding the intersection at that place; that when he
got to 14th avenu@ he was crossing in an easterly direction, and
observed a Gear approaching from the south, that the car was between
50 and 70 feet away; that he had reached a pobht six or seven feet
from the west curb when he was struck; that immediately thereafter he
lost consciousness and did not remember anything more,
Charles Gabel, Jr., the driver of the car and the son of
Gharles Gabel, Sr., the owner of the cary testified thet he was 17
years of age and that his left eye had been removed but that the
vision of his right eye was good and that he could see without glasses;
that he used glasses for small objects at a distance and for reading;
thet on the night of the accident he had his glass8s one He testified
further that on the night of the accident he was driving east on
St. Charles Road; that at no time was he driving north on 14th avenue;
that on the night in question it was dark and raining hard; that both
the headlights on the automobile were burning and that the windshield
wiper was working; that there were two automobiles coming west on
St,» Charles foad and thet he was driving at about 30 mikes an hour
and could see about 40 -or 50 feet ahead of him; that the first he
knéw about any accident occurring was when he was about in the middle
of the block between 13th and 14th avenues and driving east on St.
Charles Sead; that he heard a crash of glass on his left; that he
heard his car fan clicking; that he pulled over to the curb and got
out and looked at the front end of his car and saw the left headlight
was bent back, the glass shattered and the shell of the left side
of the radiator was dented; that after he looked at the front of the
automobile, he noticed several people 40 or 50 feet behind him and
saw @ man lying on the street just south of the line that went down
the middle of the street; that there was a street light at the south-
ont dtiw tatLinet sew ed tedt bas dios gatest .oraeve dt) to ebke
ad uedw tet jedaiq tai es aodtoonreies edt gakinworwe enoltibaes
bas ,feiteorth Yiestese ne mt giteeor® cow of emma dhl ot toa q
_Mevated eaw t20 edd tedt ,dtvoe edd mot gatdpsopgys TsO a bowxondo
toot moven to xin tetteq a bedocor bed ed dadd jwrea took OF baeGe
of watisereds ylotaihennt stadt jlourte aew od oedw dave teow ode got
.stom galddyas teduemet ton bLb bas asoneneioenoe, teal q
(ho. moa off bas cao edt to navixh ent qth _leded.eokaadd . |
TL esw on todd beliideos gtao ed? to st9oawo edd qot6, lode neknadp 4
srasig tuodtiw eee disco a ted? dos boos sew eyoutdyls etd Re gokmhy
jaaibest tol bas eonadeib s ts atveide isms sot aeeealy dee ad dasit
etiivasd el ono eBaasly alc hes of daobioos add lo sigin dd, ao-dadé
no tase gaivinh eaw ed tacbioos ed? to tiga edt ao tach wedtuat
ouneve Mehl no dixon gatvigh od ssw amit om te edd ghoohwelzedd .#@ d
dtod.tadd ;brod griates bus Aueb eew th aodtooup wd teyem edt mo dadt
bioldohaiw edd ted? bas geinwci oxew oLidomotua edt ao etdytibsed mat
mo teow gaimoo selidemotus owt row oxedt. test jaatirow sow cogs
“od ms pedite Of tuede te yaivich ssw ed ted? bam bag eekeatrate
od dent? edt todd yokd to Deeds toot 08 sop Oh deeds ose blwoo bas
sibbin odd ai tuods sow od modu ow gakrauDee! tnebkos yas dwetin.wmpnal
«t@ wo tese gnivixh bas eeunove didi bus dees noowted doold odd to
off tadt {tte etd mo easiy Xo sesro. s bused od dest gbsol wofradd
tog bus duo odd of tovo beLiog orf stadt. pgotdodle metcae etd breed
digilbssd etal edd? wee bos t99 eid to Sn9 gnort edt te bostoel bas too
ebie ttl edt Yo Lieda edt bas borestedta onadg ot qdpad) tned),eow
edt to dnorl.edd ts bexoos ef reste todd ybotaedy new xogatbar edt to
% bas mtd daided test C2 10 Ob elqooq Laxoven Seoktomod enemas j
i“. snow add endl odd to dive seut toexde ont) ao gay i)
~hewom dt te till teorta s sam otedd daddy ytoonte
4
west corner of 14th avenue; that he went to 2 telephone and called
up his father; that he rode over with his father and the police
lieutenant to the police station where he made a report of the
accident.
Edward Koch, a witness called on behalf of plaintiff, testi-
fied that he was lieutenant of police of Maywood and had been for
12 years; that i4th avenue does not cross St. Charles Road; that there
was a stop sign at its intersection with that highway; thet when he
arrived at the scene of the accident he saw an automobile standing
on St. Charles Road about 8 feet west of 13th avenue and on the south
side of the street next to the curb; it was headed in a diagonal
direction; that the left headlight was broken and there was a dent
at the top of the radiator; that he saw a man lying about the middle
of St. Charles “oad, about 125 feet east of l4th avenue; that he
talked with Charles Gabel, dr. about three minutes after his arrival
at the place in question and asked him if he knew what he had hit
and he replied that he did not; that hé asked him where he was coming
from and he replied that “he was coming from getting @ gun for his
father"; that Charles Gabel, Jr., told him that his windshield wiper
was not working.
Edward GO, Feldman, a witness called on behalf of the plain-
tiff, testified that he was a sergeant of police for the Ville ge of
Maywood; that on October 23, 1932, about 2330 in the afternoon he
with Bailey, the Chief of Police of Maywood, examined the place
where the accident happened; that Bailey picked up several pieces of
glass from the pavement on the St. Charles Road and handed them to
him and he placed them in an envelope; that he and Bailey went to
the home of Mr. Gabel, Sr. and that Bailey took the pieces of glass
and placed them inside the reflector of the left hesdlight of the
automobile, which was a Chevrolet, 2nd that Mr. Gabel, Jr. said
that it looked to him like the same class, meaning the same glass as
ra
.
‘:
baliso baa enotgelss s ot iaow aul batt jeimevs agar to TeMtoo teen
soilog eit fas tedtest eld adiw 1ev0 abot od felt “yrodten Me 4
adit to froqer | « ebem od sredw notteta eotlog oat ot ‘faametuell |
; Si iL oR ae
[deed (itlintsle to tlended ao belies eaontin # look Srawha . yom od |
ot deed bad bus Seowyes to seliog to tuanedyets saw ot Fens bert ;
eit dent jheoi walred® .2 eaor tem ssob ounsve diel Gade qareeyoRt
on aody todd pyewtgid tale dtiw aoitooetotm’ ott te mpte qetee ea
aribnste elidomotus ae wee ed tavbioos oft to engee ant da bevitrs
itues oft mo bons exnove A#8Ll Xo teow soot @ suede heofi eotnadd.18® ani
Lanogelb o af bebred vow $4 jdxu oft ef tuow toorte edt Yo whker
“ Gneb © ase Ores bas aexoTd enw dys Lonod YYOL abit, Patt gtoetomtbr
elbbim edt tvodes gaiyl men « wae on todd jrotskber eit te-qot edeew
o! | en tadt jemmeva déh to tase teok 88L duods ,bno0l gabradd ate de
fevitrts eid vette setynia cout tuode stb ,Ledad: potato Stiy bediat
vahhd bad od tare wood ed Tk mid betas’ bas noitesyp mk eosk amt sa
qvimoo esw sd evedw mid Sevas ef tedd yton Sib od ted? Petiqe: ed bax 4
etd vor my s gatttey mort giimon caw od” tedd edigen)ed bas mort |
qoqiv blegiabuis eid dud mid Blot goth Leded eriradl. tnde q*eedtaty "
-xtsig oft to Tisted m beliso eeentiv s ynamblet «0 htenbh Alvoo be
to eg olll¥ eft ret eoifog te tasegree 6 enw pe se q
ef moomtstts ot mt 0849 tuods ,28eL 88 redote@ mpatail | q
~eomkey oxtt Dectnsxe ,boowysh teeotlet to Reha oo sryaiten saw
to nessiy Lerevee aw Deteiq yelied tadd jhensousd taelionm edt ovedw
ot mond bebasd has deol pelredO 6 ad? mo tnomeveaq ott morhmesly
ot tow yeliet bus ed Sad joqolevae ws at meld bovate of toma mie *
aantg to sevelg odd doot ysliad Pade fms jx aaa oleate att
edt %o fdyiibsed titel ent to cotoeltor edt obhart medt spalg
bee sth ,leded scl tedt dae gtefortved? « maw wotes
se nsniy nan ut guano eon a se mt
5
that in the headlight of the Chevrolet.
Robert H. Bailey, a witness called on behalf of the plain-
tiff, testified he wes the Chief of Police of Maywood and that he
talked with Charles Gabel, Jr. at the police station and asked him
if he knew he had hit a man and that he replied that he did not know
it until he got out of his car; that he, Bailey, then went out of
the police station and looked at the automobile and found the left
front hesdlight was bent back and the glass broken and the shell of
the radiator caved in; that the shell of the horn on the front was
bent; that he asked Charles Gabel, Sr. if his son had permission to
use the car and Gabel replied that he did; that he asked Gabel, Sr.
where the boy had been with the car and Gabel replied that he had
sent him on an errand for him at 19th avenue and St. Gharles Koad;
that the glass which he picked up from the street was 15 feet or so
east of the east crosswalk of 14th avenue and just south of the
center line of St. Gharles oad,
Defendant insists that there is no evidence to support the
allegation to the additional counts to the effect that defendant's
automobile was proceeding north on 14th avenue and struck the plain-
tiff while he was crossing the 14th avenue crosswalk from west to
east. This statement does not receive support from the record, The
Plaintiff testified positively on direct examination that he was in
the act of crossing 14th avenue in an easterly direction at the time
he was struck. Charles Gabel, Jr. testified that he was proceeding
east on St. Charles Road and was not on 14th avenue, but that fact
was one for the jury to determine,
The driver of the automobile in his testimony admitted
that he heard a crash. The condition of his automobile showed that it
must necessarily have come in contact with some object while proceeding
at considerable speed, The only thing that could have been struck
.
.
stelorvedd ait Yo Hgiiboad, ont a teas |
~tadate eit to tisted mo betlae saent iw 8 2 Yo fee oH secon 7 |
ed tadt bas boowyit to eotfcd to teidd edé osw ed bostigned hie
mid bevies bas moitate eotleg ect to «th ,loden. eeluadd nt iw - besint
wort tom b£b ac gad? Desiqet of tect has cam a. did Sad od woo od BL
%o tua daew modd ,yatied .ed tedd tao etd to dig, tog od Lita tt
tel edd bayot bus eLidomotys edt ts bedool fas soliwte @oitog adt
te Liede of? bas nelord saslg edt has dosd tacd aew tdgilbead taost
pee tnect edt ao atod edt to fede eff? tas yt nevse tofethex ot
ot Moteaimton bad moe ald tL oe .feded eelred dealee oditadt ytd
ot@ ,feded hedes of tant yotb od tad? hotiqen Jeded tas yan.edd sew
pad ed tess betigqot LedaD Bae cao sifi ditiw need bad yor edt exedy —
jbeot eslzed® .t@ baa ounove dt6L ta mid rot hoscts me no wkd ties
(wa xo feet GL eew tostte edt mott qu bedate ed dotdw eoety odd dad
) edt te dtwon tewt bes suncve dé?’l to dlewsnors tune edt te tase
sbeofi aslradd #8 bbiciaaill
edt suoquue oF eotebive on at sed? ded? atetemt daabasted yoy) ;
ee eS ee
Se ee at, ee ee
nc. dae
ee ee ee =
altashao'lsh dsdt sootte adt of etapoo Lenoltibin edt» ohenneente ,
-niala edt doutée bas exmeve dtht no détom gatboooony am eLidomodus —
ot taow moth alswasoro euneve dthl edt gateaot® sam ad, oListw ‘whit
of? «broeet oft mort toaque eviesor tom coo tuametete atdT tame
ni esw of tad? soisaninexe toorth mo. Kovsdieog deskitet Westatate
emtt ect ts mottoorib yivetess as ai auaeve doh ‘Bubenoye To. Os.
gabbecootg ese oc tadt hoititeet orb |, fodad eolved® ..dowrte nat
fost gadt dud jeuneve ata mo tox ew bas bso wodrad® #8 montds
oo) emkmmoten ot yuarh edt rot en any
hotehahe yaomiteod eid al eLidenosus ant mene | Ae mae 5
th 4 tadt Bewode eLidometus atd To mortiiace ed? ulearo & a
:
co ee ee ee
muneoodst eitdw sootdo omoe dtiw toatnos mt moo wwved “4h snenea a aut c
gewrte mood eved Biuoo tact ene vino od sheoqe éidanshienee Gs
6
was the plaintiff. There is no evidence of a collision with any
other object,
We believe that it was competent for the witness Bailey
to testify thet he found glass at or near the intersection of St.
Charles oad and 14th avenue and that from appearances it belonged
to the broken headlight om the car in question, particularly,as it
was gimilar to the glass in the other headlight. The fact that it
was not picked up until about 18 hours after the accident would
only go to the weight of the evidence. The whole question was one
of fact for the jury and we have no reason for disturbing the ver-
dict inasmuch as it has been concurred in by the trial court in
overruling a motion for a new trial and entering judgment thereon,
The admission of Charles Gabel, Jr., to the effect that
he was on an errand for his father, coupled with the testimony of
Bailey to the effect that Charles Gabel, Sr. had stated to him that
his son had gone on an errand for him, was sufficient to fasten
the liability upon the father as the owner of the oar, if the jury
believed this evidence to be true. fhe admissions were properly
admissible in evidence, Spieg v. Sussman, 264 Ill. App. 528,
Gabel, Sr. testified in his own behalf that his son had
gone to 15th avenue and St. Charles Road to borrow a shot gun in
order to go hunting with him the fellowing day, but it is not clear
from his testimony as to whether he sent the boy on this errand or
whether the boy went on his own aécount.
Plaintiff argues that from the evidence it is apparent
that Gabel, Jr. was driving north on 14th avenue and did not stop
st the through street known as Sts Charles Road, but-swung in an
easterly direction over this second thoroughfare, striking the
Plaintiff while the automobile was in the act of turning and carrying
him a considerable distance east on St. Charles Road; that the driver
wie dtiw moletifoo s te semebive om et ered? ele: edt asi
Ree ee en ane stootae ‘xedde
yelte acentiw sdt tet twetequeo esw tf tent avetiod ot
e8@ to nottoseredat edt reem to te desig Bavot of tatt ads Widest ‘of
hegaolsd th eesastseqys wort tad? bad suneve dtht bat beot welras
$b as yireivoitver wnoltuevp mi x09 oft wo tigttbesd iad dt
- ‘edd tost of? vtrlytibood totto oft mf deets oct oF tbttete bow
“bluow smebloos edt e8tts exo Bt tod Lttmw at belted Yow sily
eo wsw aotteoup efotw of? .aonebtve sift Yo tity tee ode oF 63 ma
Stey OHY gatdruteld tot woeser on oved ow buo Yast’ Bet ‘ok vost Ye
a? gg wales lines ante Yar it werrweniow koe ‘al EP WE pueer ‘2
Hooetit? toemgtut gabrotay bua’ rebey vin sor WG GREY
dautt ‘teovee’ ode’ et, KW Uteited Witches Ga Pr ete
Lo ‘yrowhteed ont déty betqioe (redter whd: toy bias ad
feet Mant ot bodete bad re ,fedsd selrsae tease ato oslilt —
pitesk ot the torttud asw ‘ahd ot parteehesdne Scare
rene erew ettotzeimbs odT orrd od oF 90
{888 Vaqh VLOr 28% oeupane sv going” ot
‘bad moe ati tet tisded mwo atd mi bottivwet oe ig te
ove Hck of ono
at my dode » wortod of beot esfxadd 432 Bas oy
thelo’von ab #2 dit yysb gniwollot ont mid Mt tw gabon
%o Snerre alt mo yor ent tase od teddodw oF eb
, “tovoode awe Bid mo tréw yor ats
prereqtia ef tf evaebiys odd mort tadt “Songs Stirasalt + silane
Gots tom Sib bad eeneva déot no devon giivied al aa te i?
ne ak gure ted boot eelved® 498! ab owort tooth : “
oft untiicty ,oretdyuoted? baovee ait} teve so toedte sammneged
gat yer: bast gutewd to tos Ott af now Slivomotus eifd elidw Yt
ie wipsh ot ‘i :
eovinb ont dodt jheok esinadd 4 no tase are Lanpavino é aie”
eoytao wa? ears ee , ta
dot
7
of the car was negligent in not stopping, abthough there was a
stop sign at this intersection, It is also insisted thet the driver
was on the wrong side of 14th avenve in proceeding north, inasmuch
as he struck the plaintiff whe was but a few feet from the westerly
curb of 14th avenue; that the fact that it was dark and raining and
the driver had an impaired vision, created a condition which would
have required a more vigilant outlook than was exercised by Gabel,
dr, in the operation of his automobile,
Defendant insists that the plaintiff was negligent
inasmuch as he saw the car approaching and did not exercise ordinary
care for his own safety,
All these were questions of fact which required the
submission of the case te the consideration of the jury.
There was ne error in the giving of the instructions
complained of, The jury have the right to consider the circumstances
surrounding a case as well as the testimony of eye witnesses,
We find no reversible error in the record and for the
reasons ststed in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court is
affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, P.J. AND HALL, J. CONOUR,
vie : bu for ‘gete ra
& sew oted? duyodtde esitiqgots ton at ‘tusghigan ' new <e oe to
ae st Nees]
wovich oft todd betetant eels ai st sno ttooarotat aldt ‘ts ‘mgte gore
doumasnt wittom gaihesoors at au Hevs cers: to ete “ator o fo San
sa cieot oF
vxetaon odd mort test wat 6 Sard aew ou ‘Wultatesg ody douxte od ff
a Ws, oo pg * is dm
‘bas gaintes hee Musab adel at ‘tasfe toat oat tadt jeunes ee
Bee: opt gt i ‘
biwow dozdn ao1t Lba00 B betsero wolere Dontegut Bi bait xortch ordi
40k hia 8 ary
«tednd w boetoxexe em asdé AooLtue taeltgty orem re a \.,.Aae
a Laon kag
ee soLtdomoitus ald to antennae edt awk
ot Pitas Cae OR as sli os]
" tneghigon esw ‘Wleatesg ont taut efatent 4 ge
tay ‘Ate at 4 on i
yronibre | eatorexs ton bib bas gntdoeoracs x80 edt wae a as domme
i 2 sees 3
“aqtoten aro abd eteo
yh OME ‘¥ RBs AB ge fe te int ee ‘ 4
‘oat bertuces si Lie ‘fost Yo eaoitsoup oxey eeodt bm
> Ra a Fis # vy a,
‘ wt add te a ltarehianoo ont ot ‘een0 oat ‘to notestudua
7 e ee ara ® Ce og ‘g's Kap apr oar ee
enoltoustent ott te oad ade at rorz9 om asw oTeat
pa 20 tadt OOo Ee Bil Be
poouistenozie edi rsblenoo of tdyat edt ovad vin, sft to bentalquon
% He teh Sa aah ore g oe
seensentin eve to wiontiee? odd as Lien 88 9as0 aw Sbawsorass
trig eg > a hehe ay a he .,
auit sot bas brooes oxid ak Torre okdtexovex on . ill
f OF MeRaos Lee :
et au0d e1u0x lO | ong . tomb oat wokco cone ad boted .
; fon sweet ane 9 aie
é uy rs ET yay | eg ee re oe By Se ey coder bi 4 :
a=
ot
*
ott ae nosey Ms seit! ‘oe ond
+5090 ‘t aah: Ae
lire, | Fup i Be) es) ae eee dye a Sees ee Pi poenigd 1 Hu)
wiaweess wey ate oe Soe end — .
y OCe mae? Pale whem een tao, ah hie
# 2oer me ite TR ete Gee ie) eh ;
ook ed age ae oer Pee een ite sll
homie Re eee inetd Honk agiigaoe re
a
“a
:
7
iy het Be owe r DES ee | a ; wiry aire
yh) ws,
’ Bipeitid aif oe
, j ‘ 8 aes oe s ae) we an
oe Na ee ee eat eee ake She Re hae LM rd fie olgoreeed
eae + ‘aes 4 . +
; a j ih
5 aw Ys
37667 ye
RICHARD L, YILLIAMS,
Appellant,
a
&
if
‘
| he yROM ClacuIrwedRT |
vs. “i j
OF GOOK COUNTY, i
, g
ABRAHAK J, NEXNIKGS, Trustee,
Appellee.
bane
See
es
. sa) alll” (esis lea
979 1.A.629
wR, PRESIDING JUSTICE O'GORRON
DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE couURY,
December 19, 1999, Richard L. Willians filed hie bill te
foreclose a trust deed Anted Jume 1, 1926, given te eegure an ine
Gettedness of $91,860, evidenced by a serivs ef netes, Abraham J.
Hennings, trustee, vas wade a purty defendant, ie answered the
bill and on August 19, 1932, filed his erosm bill to foreclose a
trust deed dated Auguet 16, 1926, on the same prewisee, given to
seoure an indebtedness of $125,060. The cause was referred to a
master, who took the avidense and found that the Hennings trust
deed was a lien on the premisen prior to the Lien of the Yiliiaus
trust deed, A decree was entered im accordanee with the revert of
the master, and Wiliians presecutes thie appesi, contending that
the lien of hie trust deed wae crior to thei of Hennings.
Counsel for WLilliase in their brief say, “The eele question
in this case is that of the priority of a mortgage junior in point
of time and recer? te one senier in point of time and record.®
The record diseleses that the Filliama trust deed resites
that the lien created by it is subordinate toe the liens of two prior
trust deeds, one dated Ucteber 10, 1991, which was given to secure
an original indebtedness of $76,000; and the other dated Decexber 1,
1923, given to seoure an orivinal indedtednesa of $65,000. The
(WALlinns trust deed states, “T415 16 A JUNIOR KORTOAGE;" and furtner,
"for the purpese of paying eff either ef the encuwbrancea secured
by the two Trust Deeds above mentioned, «*# the Grantors herein re-
serve the right to incumber said premises with a new Trust Deed ac-
G)
( : \ 2: ve
' raars
\ ‘
Rages cb wei auaLLuz® shack:
ey, ; j ; S eee Tee ete uy
\¢ ivonxd ORK ert"
’ whe F Rees a 2 oy f iy nl
“Tr anti io
¥ one au ROT ‘sa
“88a Jk. eve cele |
. BOERS O Bal i. ee ae mia ee oil
tayo pont “ie art cena a,
* hie base hdres’
ed Lia etd boil ame btti® ai puns bt eee ef wémoed pea
FE oe FY at * ;
oat ae siuees oF avin sOROL af out poten awn sours be orolootet
is ¥ Pay tM
% otter eaten ‘te asives & yd baonwbive 1028, £08 % '
‘ed Sexewens oh .dunbaeteh ysxeq # when ans * sootuat:
3 vig soalaerg bouts ont ae anes , 34 tease beta I oe =
>t Rea Fe Be
a of boris tex kee pene ‘ost -009,0848 Is er ie wail
tau? syaioneli ede saste bawot baw sonebive ote ost os sae $800 team
* guisdahw ond ‘te weld sis od xoltg avedinng ‘ot ae mit as " fee ob
Caos
we #xoqer one heiw eonaht 00% at bere tne aw sor08b A ahews
test pabhastaee hae cas oket eosvonvora ane hie bate ete
is agnianett te sass ee naltg anw noon gamete po 7
| aniteous fee est” ,yoe Yelid chest at semditey aa ened ie
| Gnkeg at rohawt opegttom a To yisolie odd Yo tadd ad onan, au om
*.bresey has omty te gakog a2 tolnes eno of broner bag gmt
aetions boob tauxd amotisi® oad tadt sseotonth eenee ont
sets oud to eusdt od? of otantiredue of 42 yd bedewte melt oe a. ..
“@ruDed of novia sew Mokde AOL ,0f radesod betes on shows: a
“ wees heteh tedio 4% hae 7000,0T¢ %e
die uit ae + :RAADTAON. MORNE AOE GRRE cnnenl shi
: wane aaa vag Yo cedd he 7 natin, Ye seam ih
2
euring the payment of a sum not exceeding the amount af the incume
brances so pald of f *#* providing however, the funds derived there.
from shall be used in paying eff gaid exiating incumbrance whick
#iall be duly released of record sand to which new incumbrance this
Truet Deed shall be subordinated. *
Williams in his bill claimed taat bete Ke, 46 of the seriea,
for $36,260, was due and unpaid. On the face of the note appeared
the felicwing: "TIS KOTE Ih SECURED BY A JUKIOR MORTGAGE. *
The macter found that there was due Wiiliaus fer principal,
interest, costs, sviiciter's fees, ete., $46,960.06. doa farther
found that there was due on the indebtedness seoured by the Kenningas
trust deed for the principal, inturest, costes, ate., $155,446, 78,
The sasounte secured by the first and seeomd trust deeds, which were
prier in paint of time to the Williams trust deed, became due and
payable befere the indebtedness secured by the Yiliiams trust deed,
and in 1926 the then owners of the property procured os loan through
Peabody, Soughteling & Co., to suable them to pay off the balance
due on the firet and secend mortgages, For thie purpose a $125,060
bond issue wae prepared by Peabody, foughteling & So. ond solid te
the public, the Kemminge trust deed secured payment of this iesue,
The master found thet the $126,000 remilsed from the bond lesue was
@isbursed an follows: Amount remaining dua on first mortgage with
interest, §72,125,00; ameunt rewaining due on #econd mortyage with
interest, $45,990.06; paid Peabody, Aoughteling 4 Ce. a conmiasien
of 5% on the $125,000.06 bond issue, which included expenses for
engraving bonds, cost of survey, releases, ete., $6,250.00; “On ace
count ef rebate of interest $555.50, *** Prineipal pald to kr, and
hrs, Sounders ....... $90.50 (the owners of the pronerty,) making a
total of $125,000," —
The chancellor found in sesordanee with the findings of the
master that the Hennings trust deed wan a lien on the preaivses prior
%
a«mupuk ad le douse one antbowaxe ton mum @ te aomyeu omg . ; ,
-9tadd haviaed ebow't sat provewed auibheoce owe wre bheg ga soousnd
meet Hate, maa)
ats eonertdavent wea duldw of bas hiseer to bbehiher yiah od tiade
» * bodaathvodse of Liade heed tauat |
Prk Tie Ob .0% ote 488) bomtete L114 abd mb angstcrY ;
betacuaa ofen of) te spat and ‘ad shbigi ‘bai viis- oar 108,088 wt .
# MOAOTAOM AOTUUT A YE GRATE A aTOH eLit ‘TyittwoLter ot
_teghodixe +6 anstLiiW ewh saw exedd sadd bale? v9dodm oar” atone
“ie ‘ge PG if
-eusdea't oh” (40,080,806 ~— 969% bate tine eet ie
Agidw eoaatdavoal gulsul«e biea ‘rte whted, ah
ered dette ,aheoh Phin Baosee bita- auth ent ed heen as oun ott
bie sub ommeed [boob Sound aad LLY ede oF bate et tatig nd te ) 7
hood faint waakl LW end ye boreoow Savnnasdobak asd Wtoted #1
“Agios avel @ berueote YireqoTe ont TH weOdwh Hone wt | it
\@oneLed off ‘tte ene oF eer ekdand ot ks ‘gat Lottigwel . eonne"
eit a oveqiia alts wat Leogegtren baoned bad ower aa 0 uh uy
of Bion haw .d0°S gurthdkawen ;xbodast UC botagite ‘baw’ brigs ee
waned ahat Yo Serta beteaea hows dace Prema: wate
ie egeyttom sett? ao web Aniatanet Pinot © teventer a atode lh
LW ogeyIxem Saveoe Go oad yateLowwe Frvedh’ ;OOYURE RTE (goers :
Vadtae Rtnoe ye .40 #8 istceongelie iene ae fer sesiznze
caw ‘aor #0 088 69 | Ves0 juadaesee eebwaat eebee f want
paw (48 oF bteg’ fxqtoated wen yoaeaag Peoweat wats
id — hae ond tei e969 oat) 08 808 teeta axe
By ‘hi Mtibiien ; Kap sepa By hy eB tes oT
ry te" aqetbadr edt tdhw"dinabibbbh ad sae ref toe
wane! dou tose ost ne not a abw boob tik wpakiad is
to the indebtedness segured by the Viliiame trust deed.
Counsel for Wiliiaws stutes that the only foot im dispute
iw the sonteation of Hennings that Gacar ©. Magen, who ewned the
note prior te the time it was acquired by complainant an¢ prier te
the making of the Hennings trust deed, orally agreed that in sare
& loam were made by the ownere of the premises to pay off the first
and second mortgages, he would subordinate hin nertgaxge to the lien
of the new trust deed.
Rk. 4. Krammes, calied by Hennings, testified that he was
associated with Peabody, Houghteling & Use,; that im 1926 be bud
d@caiings with Sandere, who owned the premisca, concerning a lean
of $125,000 to be secured by a trust deod, the proceeds of which
should be used to pay of f the first and second mortgages on the
presises; that shortly after Peabody, Houghteling 4 ©. agreed with
the owners te make the loan, he tuiked to Oscar C. iiagen whe then
owned the notes secured by the #iliiamse trust deed and advisee him
ee to what was teing dene, and asked Hagen to subordinate the loan
of the trust deed securing the notes owned by Hagen to the new
trust deed which wae to be executed securing the new lean, and that
Hagen agreed to thin; that afterward the $125,000 bond Leaue and
trust deed were executed, the benda sold, and the proeeeds used to
pay off the two prier mortgages on the premises, and he then called
ageain on Hagen to have the oral agreement earried gut but liagen ree
fused te 46 so, stating that the new mortgage was too large.
Osear ©, Hagen, called by complninant, testified that some
one came te im from Peabody, Houghteling & Co., concerning the
making of a new mortgage on the premises and asked bin to suberdi~
nate the lien of his trust deed to that of the proposed new trust
4ee4 ang that he refused te do so, sxeept “ae 1 would be governed
by the terme of the trust deed." fie further teetified that the
Peabody, Houghteling & Go. representative then offered wim $000
hood femcd emeisiiW ote ys botepee esenhotdebul ott “
eSmquhb ak goat yise noid tacit aetete ak ALE x02 soaaued |
ent hoaws ow ,aegal 0 1920 tans eguianel te s0Liu9 $00 edt “a
(roe?
“ selrg neta fnoukaseroe qd boxkupoe ean it omis evi av roltg oten
gare ab dadé heotge uliene bees emxd ‘gat anol outs te pation
ah)
swat ofc Tie yaa oF sonlmexg ods te arsAwWE ede «id sham oxew asol s *
gebk out of eRages om ala etenibrodue bisow wal tegen eros bases baa
a A ‘set
“boon town? at oat
ane od tans beLtigass agate aa be Ling stoma aati :
bet oa SROL wt sade 7.00 4 ‘sak ieddgwolt , ebodons abe oo
anol % Batarsomon noaluorg ons beawe exw setabase Me Anke : : |
sho hate te sheeserq od? ,besh taunt ry wd ‘peureee oe 4 o# 900 900,884 39
oat m0 Bo yAys tom baooes has pexat ont Ye we of adage y iM i
wie elo a! 22 é eailermynk eet rey ret ta citaeas wifi: .
Pose
ask ° oud edauibtocus Ce] asa boxes baw sono gates od ee we
ig won ead of meget yd bouwe aeton ods yabrwooe hoeb ao
Sree oie
dant pus ,anol wen nats gaizesee besusexe od a ene biden book
‘ats ‘ban ovesi Saod OO,a848 ond panwaes ts bas le yey —
‘e bean shoovexq edt haa bkoa abaod outs .betuvens oroe boad sau i
belise nasi oc ban aoe sang oult ae eagagtzon rely py amt
See os Bae
a0 sage dud ue bo ltias iaaneora ete oe ves oe
“208 deda bortitens Pan abe Leos < bosins ‘aaa 8
ens gatatesnes 5 90d a ‘ga Lod dguok rvhodaed wo" yy
pts oe Ba Fe
_atieetee og aud boxe ane erature ens 20 > ounateen s .
“oat todd botreaneg Testo om c, -bowp snus ada
“ sa or fa 9 “ae
sae
i iat
ay e
a a
4
in cash to subordinate the Liem ef the trust deed as stated, but
that he refused to do me.
The master in hie report commented on this conflict in the
testineny of the two witnesses, and im the Light of all che evidence
he found that the testimony of Krammen wae the more credible, «and
he found the facts ae testified to by that witnema, |
Complainant Williams centends thet “Under the law of cubroe
gation, the trustees Zernings ( revresenting the bondholdere) has po
tight te even claim subrogation in this ease. If anyone oowld, only
Peabody, Youghteling eeuld do so." We think thie contention eannet
be sustained, The agreement of the parties, as found by the master,
wae teat the lien ef the Viliiams trust deed wae to be suberdinated
to the lien of the Hennings trust deed. The proeecis ebtiained from
the esle of the $125,000 bend lesue wae used to pay of f the firet and
eecond mortgagee that were due and were « orior lien to the Willian
trust deed. In ether werds, the $125,000 wae used te prevent the
first end second mortgages going Lite defekt, Nereover, the fille
fame trust deed expresely provided thet if funds were obtained to
pay off the two mortgages, which vere prior to the ®iliiams mortgage,
the Willians truet deed would be suberdineted to the mew truet deed
given to secure the payaent of the money with which te pay off the
firet and seeond mortgages. In these ciraunetances it would be
highly inequitable to hol? that the lien of the Williges treet deed
Was superier te that of the Hennings trust deed.
But cosplainant, Villiome, further contends, aa we understand
the argument, that in ne event should the Hennings trast deed be held
to be a prior lien for the aneunt of the indebtedness represented by
the twe first mortgages, beasuse the filliome trust deed expressly
provides that it 1s te be subordinated only te ene or the other of
the truest deeds securing the teo first mertgages and not to both of
them, because the trust deed exoresely provides: “Vor the purpose
ed f shetetl oe beak mail ue w aw ht idl caiecdin ai dine ds
‘ohio ei | aS) EARS od dot
adi ik dat ctxeo whet no befaomed Proqer eld mt betegetnt ae
eobebive edi Efe X60 Fog h® ode al Leal | deane ds lw ows och te ial ‘ ¢ ;
i lk bad thee Wow ony enw ebumaeet to non! fed dd Sodd’ basso
t
; 4
seontio teed vd of poh ihveed ri ‘edo py a |
Seecwa to wet ote rose” Yurt¥ ehoodeon wmetlte’ Saobhelemed mr 4
ox eet (wxpbtodbned oft ynitneneteay) agatanell bedeine 4
eine "\biveo suoyie’ Xx pane WEHY af ‘no ldngoeane Blake ire -
ponuli’ aidhyine tnod’ oH) smutite SW" > UNE haven” Pretest ; ~ ir
|g tosiain one Yat haved om bold teq sur Yo baduectys sav lheudovaue oe
i besuttoxesue hadith tow ved bani fhe ropsil vite itt ong Ys re - :
ui ay ws wa Ware iar oat
oon cab oxy oF melt doike & orew Baa bat ¥xov Fad) <a oy
“pila teaver 6% Deku eae 000,088 ond” labtow eo a
~ittY bi} jxovoncow .dtudtoh adhk yotoy sbangetem badede bas fect
gt Bethke so oxbW nbaivt UW dad bobs very ey ty ee
aan omibii eat od Pred Labi’ ii stranation a” | 7
ted od bowb faind ayatado® wat hd jul ay eibonjaa oak
w Bornes a Weoubstdadat oid non ia aid us ar a ad oe
heat sa he change —_ semua W's eee es
of paying off either of the ineumbrances sequred by the two Trust
Deeds above mentioned," the granters reserved tne right te enecusber
the premises with a new trust deed, whieh was to be a prior lien te
the Willisms trust decd. We tuink there is mo merit in this conten-
tion. While the word “either” might throw some doubt om the question,
yet upen s reading of the entire provision of the trust deed it is
obvious that it wae the intention of the grantors, in case they
borrowed money vith whieh te pay off tae two Firat merigages, taat
the trust deed securing euch indedteiness would be erier to the lien
of the Filliame trust deed, beesuse the trust deed provided that the
grantors reveryed the right te encumber the premises with a new trust
deed “*seguring the payment cf a sum not exeeedting the smount of the
ineumbrance so paid off." This otvicusly applied to one or beth ef
the two prier trust deeds,
Complainant sakes the further peint, "That ander ne stretoh
of the imagination should the Hennings' seeond mortgage be found is
Sete to be sanead of the Wiliiaws' firet mortage because only
$118,115.60 thereof! was used to retire the first and second released
Mortgages and interest thereon, and that, theratore, regardicusa of
anything, Willies sheuld have been decreed to be ahead of the Nene
nings seeond mertgage te the extent of the 4ifference between
$118,115.06 and $125,600.06, or $6,885.00.
“(a) That certainly, the amount of $1,293.85, which was paid
te the owners of the presines cut of the Hennings’ seeond mertgage,
thereby subordinating Wiliiama' mortgage te s larger amount than
necessary, should heve been paid te the comp) sinant,* *e think
there ie no merit in this sontention.
The master itemized the woy im which the $178,000 wae ¢is-
bursed, as sbove set forth. After saying the amount due on the
first and second mortgages, $6,250 «na pald te Peabody, Houghteling
& Co, for commissions, which included the engraving of the bonds,
Gost of survey, releases, etc. We are not certain whether this
dayit qwa edt yd bewueen ananatdmwedd ed? Yo zodiie We gah |
tedavons ot fight oat Sovieres @tadaetg silt * »bomold aan ovoda boos
od mokt tobte a od of vaw sigkit peek Jautd wom 6 ake aontaora ‘ont
~8es ae8 aid? ab thesm om wt oreds aad dt s¥ ahees feared seat iia oat,
‘oLIBOup VA MO Fwor omON WorAd Seiybm *aosis to* Stow ald eskat ee
ah J4 boob toucd odd to soledvora erheue oat te gatbaer a egy toy
NOt ame at ,eredaeny on 0 motraesak ant caw #2 taut onetede
fadd ,peneytiom tart) ow? odd To you 08 do haw “aie yeaon | ¥ ys
mil edt of reltq od bivow seoabetdebal seve yatrweoe dood foun — |
ant tacd hedtvots bod teutd odd seuaged ,boob domed ana Rca ate | @
hous wea # atiy eostanig o6¢ indewene of eKgaa ant havieses wut |
eas ‘te ¢avome eft gatbesece fom axa a to taamyng ond gal-tuoea" Beoh
te ddod 10 ono of bellage yfawolyde als? *.Te bbag oa a mg
“sto texte on sebaw dastt* atateg wonguut ada euseg rr
cine) eeey ae ;
Bi Sawot ed egegitom haces ‘'egakamel en? pivode sel tenbyenk eas eas a]
yiae Seusved sgayerem tard? "ane i220 nat te haodio od of stat
beanotor haooen bao textt edd wrhset of beow ane ommend 09 86,0518
_* Bae ibtAgo® ,eto te tends bane bits amontade seonstal aan piel,
b- La
08 adi Xo hewta ed of hoorgeh ood ved bfveda nae ee vt
avowds od e009 50 TELS ald te baetxe ee oF soeyrten bacon vs : gene
100 268,06 e 100,000,288 baw 00,0 64,6448
“hag aaw prima 138,868, 49 to drome ant Uataaee dnett tet ay rT
(Ogegdiem baonen "eget oe HK ans te tue Bada! wats te misc oda
tty a awe x ne
4 See PeKome sogtad 2 of age tom, Mam kik
a: 2
ahah
dalst of ".Punaletqmoa oft oF pteq anod ova tveta , rset
iil _ stiehtomtame abit ak threw on at
| “oAth gar 000,284) of cota a yaw ot bemtnee) totems ont
Acad mo eeb dawone esd yabyag rag'ha sre oe ee tn .
“ antivsagues hodast of Bing aow O88,0%¢ som bagece bs tom sa
| qthaod ost Le gathvarcgne aaie debutant fohan cong tne Lamon se tA
ehas te dgede Bhasin sou oan ow ye one Lot vere
fedons
item is objected te by complainant, but we think the expenditure
wae entirely proper beeause it is obvious that anyone borrowing
$125,000 to be secured by a mortgage would have to pay a coumission
fer obtaining the loan and for performing other necessary services.
The master's itemization shows that but $555.50 was rebated to the
owners of the property, not $1295.85, as seems to be contended by
complainant. This rebate was made to the borrowers to eover in-
terest between the date of the bends and the actual time when the
money was advanced. We think thie item was preper, under the cir-
cumstances.
The deeres ef the Cireult eourt of Cook eounty is affirmed,
DECKER AFFIRMED,
MeSurely snd Matchett, 77., ceneur.
(we wai wig Nh AE a eas Aiea ie,
- senedeeos (YtaRseson tedso ontematens se bam.
ts ot Detadet saw 08,0606 sud dads anode ; ao t
ve debapsnoe pd of. pannn Be 8h -EORLG dase +
Petite cee vm mes pid a
—_— e ; , F r t
Roe + Tag Rey ; Soren SHAR + (a e SRR
hee: a o @ wh
veyy Ms ee ; it,
ne, RA ah a
37736
BARCELA YUROM., Adm'a of the
Estate of Joseph Skakiteki,
Appellee,
PRAL FAG RUNICIPAL
¥RKe
THE WESTERE ARD SOUTHERE LIFR
INSURANCES COMPANY, a Corporation,
Appellant.
COURT OF CHICAGO,
} we
279 1.A. 625°
MUR. PRESIDING FUSTICR O'CONNOR
DELIVERED THS OPINICH OF TAS COURT,
Plaintiff brougst an aetion againat the defendant to re-
eover $506, the face of an insurance poliey ieeued by defendant
te Joseoh Geabiteki, there was a jury trial, « verdict and Judge
ment in piaintiff's favor for the sacunt of her claim, and defend~
ant apoeals,
The reeord discloses that Jane 25, 1923, Jowepi Okabitaki
made apolication te defendant for iife insurance. Ao medical em
atination was required fer the partieular kind of polley for which
he applied. Four ¢sys later, tune 20th, the goiley was issued;
e4@ht days aftervard, Fuly 7th, Skabitekt wont to the Geok Gounty
heepital on account ef tlinees, He was disuiveed frem the hoevital
July 22nd an@d August 1°th following he sgain went to the County hos-
pital where he remained until Geteber 1, 194), them ne died. in
his written application of June 25, 1931, Skabiteki stated in rephy
te questions thet he had mot been siek or 411; that he did net have
heart disease and that he had never reesived any treatwent in a
heapitel or inetitution, and that he was in sound health. fe deo
@Clared that the snowers eade by him were true and that be was in
sound health.
it ueppeare from the record of tne Cook County hespital that
Skabiteki sent to that hespital Deeenber 6, 1929, where his ailment
Was disgnosed ae chronie myocarditis and pediculosie; tat he was
disechargeé from that institution January 8, 1936, but the record
actor wor “aaa
2 0A EH vo nt | {
F; pontoon Oo worreut ‘pater Scand a Lemon
ee 2005 8 AD END HE SOAMF RAE Sao
yi is be
eet OF Srmbue ted ons Saaloge maldes ne di yewrd Tiigakels yea
fanbasteb yd bewnal yoiloy souetueal me Yo obo? exit 10008. ron
_webet, bas soibver «4 ,leing yas @ saw, ox0dt Hes ot, seve =
shae teh bao ,alelg ae to taveme eft tot trove? erritgatalg be toes
hdagidede Agoeol ,JE0L 8h oat, saat, sonaipenty, Lome |
re foo thes eX .oomezseal ett cet fasban teh of ‘nobtnobsogs chem |
do Lit sot yokiog ‘to baka taiveliiag etd 196 ber hapa one ‘gold ’ ; : v x
«phownwd eaw yoliog ond ,AdGR omat stot ayes ur% sons cas on
¥tauod Hoes ens oF Jitom hint des ee viet fae “neste eyed pte
aoe oa mot? hoawluals saw oli -aunatih bid snmoooe a0 eye :
mi both od mode ,160L ,£ x0deded Litmy beaten: oa oreo 1 hol
— ehges of Bosate hivtidads , 602 ,02 paul ‘to aottne thaws aotsiow : ‘a
. even Soa bib wa tenis ;££2 te Mets awed tom bad out dena hort of
ob oli
Bh mew ot Jac? hax owed wsew abd shaw ero bad ta Perey
eerie
4iecloses thet hie condition was “improved.” It furtier aspears
from the Cook County Soepltal reeards that Gkabiteki wae again ad-
mitted to the hospital July 7, 1931, amd Lis condition wa» diagnosed
as cardiae decompensation with arteriosclerosis; that there was |
*shortaess of breath, eweiling of Lega, nausea and oecasional vomit-
ing. *** Vor the past 2 er 5 yourspt. has beoowe Sugrt of Jmesth
upon the lightest exertion;" that he was disenarged July 22, 1951,
*inoreved;" thet August 1%th he wae again at Cook County hernital
and remained there until hia death Seteber 1, 1931, The ecertifie
eate of the attending physician etates that the lamediate cause of
the insured'e death wae “orgenie heart disease, *
Dr. Yolff, who had been eonaected with Cook County hoepi tal,
teetified abeut cortain records conesrning the inevred made by him
while connected with thet hospital. It eppeare that Dr. Yelff ex-
aenied the ineured and hie diagnuesi«s wae that the patient had
arterioveleresie, cardiae deoompensation, aurleular fibrillation
ond he@ been afflicted’ with arteriogseleresia for abeut five years,
This examination was meade July 7, 193i.
There is cther evidence in the reserd from the doctors
whe trented the patient, all tending te shew that the insured was
wuffering from some tepairvent of the heart for 4 censiderable time
before the wolicy wae iesued,
Plaintiff testified that she wes a cieter of deceased; that
deceased in hie Lifetime waa a butcher working in a meat market
every day, atid aspeared to be in goed health; she had never knew
hin to be otherwine, |
John Geeinski, ¢alled by plaintiff, teatified that he had
Feceive? the application from Skabiteki; at that time insured
anewered that he wae in goed health and that he appeared to be
healthy; that the witness had seem Skabiteki werking in the butcher
shop ané he appeared to be in good health, This is substantially
BROCE
Sraequs Tedgwt FT *,hovarqak" naw noksthaee att gam? gee:
«he alage caw kistided® fac? ebtoset Lasdenoit etwas heed ony wonte
posongalh wav aeitthate wld bas ,f6eL .v ydut fathenost of9 of pestta
aaw oinds Sand jaleotelonolisdre ait hw aol taaasguooeh ontbaso 6
«$iuoy ianglesves box avauan gayet te gu iowa nord 1%» wae adr erie”
‘Hier le da aA Bm musi iq eraoy E ay 8 dune ont 10% #% .pak
5 wees ,88 viel begtedealh sar off tend “;moletere teetagife end soow
Latiquod y2avod L00d $e Ainge any on KEES Pwiguk tests * ;bovenqat® ]
oEtigase wit EO f redote0 Agno oka ihtan ote) honlenes dae
‘te eauas ote tbe aad oa tend astase ate Leydig yalbaette ot 20 gap
* enanalh dna olneyto® sow ateod semen
hat toner qiawed Xood athe bo sonnnes used hac oniw aTiLor , et ae
Pir ‘ea ehas betweal oid gntreeace shroeer aiatres twos bo Inte to 7
“ae TrloW Dove Smsz ee hell phat been ened athe ee ae |
my atotoub sid nor? brane ong ak vonshive wets a2 oxo
| eae botwaak one iuas wots oe smi baed ite imeteag. 96 bean
oaks aldarentanes a tot gused ont Yo foquatagad, taen sont,
__sbowent sew york
tact shoassost to wogeke # eae Y atte tact? holt toang nite -
uh totam term 2 ae abiaey xosto gud & eaw ombsorhs mi
berwnak omlt text te 1 iblethdewe did % mal not ng ‘ a hovias
ae pa of bexas age ox sett hae ao kaa boos at eer of shew: .
ig edt ak yataren Dinttdost woe hae anna, th
Lyuagedve bey ener a Las boon at of hie bocca
all the materin) evidence in the sane,
The poliey in question provided that "Ne ebliieation is
assumed by the Company unless on the date and delivery sersef the
imeured io alive and in sound health;” snd defendant eontends that
the burden was on slaintit? to prove that at the time ef tine delive
ery of the polley the insured was in yood health before recovery
ean be Kad; that sus groei is & condition pregedent which suet ke
wet by the plaintiff, ‘herve are some Gases that announce the law
in ac¢cordanee with defendant's centiention, bur we hawe reeentiy
Garefully considered thie question and resesed the somelusion that
where thore ia euch provieion in the policy the burden of proving
that the insured was not in goed bealth at the dete of the Llesuanes
of the policy war a matter of defense, Swanson v, Pradential Ing.
Se., 271 Tid. Apo. 38.
the defendant fartuer contenda that tre undisputed evidence
sheve that the insured, in Bis «plication, aude foleae and frendue
lent anewera te qaemtiens gut to Aim; that these answers were material
to the risk and therefore the eoart should have directed a verdict
im defeniant's faver at the close of the evidence, as requeeted, Ye
think this contention must be suntained, Tae undisputed evidence
shews thet the insured had been a patient si Cook County heepital
from December 6, 1929, to January &, 1930, a4 whieh time his ailment
was diagnosed as chronic myoearditis wid pedieulseis. And in his
application of Jume 25, 191, \¢ stated ih answer to questions that
he had never been 111, had not been confined to a hospital or other
inatitution for medical treatment, and that his heslta wae geod.
Five days after this application the policy was iseued, and eight
Gays thereafter, July 7th, he was again confined te the County hese
pital ehere his trouble was diagnosed as cardiag decowpensation.
¥rom the foregoing it is obvieus taat the answers were salise,
and that they were material, ‘hese facts were not contradicted @ex-
.8aeo OS At wameSive felbtetan walt Lee
#i molieslide o8* Jada Bobivory mobfeawy at yotteq war’ Oo!
eid Reorsd vrovkteb baa cfs add ae anotaw yangeed oft yo hentia
tadd ‘ebastaco Sewhaeten baw “pitt feed Bawoe at Suc writs of AORReaE
vb ieh 83 Yo emt) odd 4 fend evote oF Tiltalate a see ott et
YIsvse0t stolod APLvss boo, al wav horvent offs yHLox wf tees
Ot daut sipiow domheoste aeldisaos « ol Yeoorg douse Vand (iat 6d naw
ent BAS GONGOUN Fads a9NSS OME Ate HLONT! {YriSadeig ost QT wee
eLinwost evad $Y oud (foksausass a davhas'tod APkY eGaSbTOOGR ME
gait nolenioacs ex! Pecaaet bai Aelheney adds Beteh Peas yitnetes
guiverg to mahind adv yelled eds af wetalvowg deme ot evens ene
PeGduaek 4h? te obeh o0d Ya dikeod heey al goa Gew betaad ents fast ;
‘Ral setioskyxt .v a6gaeet Jeet leh “to aesten A ee? YOR Leg od
ee ee
eomshite tetegs thas cf Youd wb saee tendiwt gaepaeten ea! OP
awhaer? haw eo lst bod paoltastiqde sid al /betuweat wl ede @eéile
aiueien we" erswene seed? Samd poh os Ouq eaol faery of atowena tae
folsisy @ betoexlth eved bivodt Pauee was sage TPT bine webt on 6
— F , bedesapar ay ,opceblve enf lo seal od? ta “eve? a Fanta led at
Sono hive Bovuqe thud of? .bealstiaw ef gous woke siee Ch Woke
| hed towed tamed A008 76 santteg a ave Bad bert one ede wwORe
Soneils wid emis doluw ge ,O6OL .6 yroumet oF , CRUE ye Tedagoed ae tt
gt att Bak .oteciwolbog bac aldiimwoys olacti ea bevgagel) saw
ed wacldeoup of twwau &2 bovwte o , 260k 88 emul Ue avidendiqnt
Ti cteatad to Lad igaod & os Dealtioo need gon bed , £02 amed Tove bart om
- | «hooy sew Adieed els date bao ,gmemaest iaoiies Yet ammivuditend
fle bins jbouned daw yoblod oft métbawtidge obit wtta eyed evtt
tout YsmUOd Ons oF BORE des aleye MAW oi SOT ENT yee Weoeestt See
"
ay
i hy
bins
¥
«yng Rernopecsed albtan as bodemyith tev ofotaurt ‘etd eredv S60tG :
a Nias onow waren Wide gauis savdo wk TE engeetd baal fee
4
cept by two witnesses who testified that the Ineured appeared to
be in good health an¢ worked at hie usual eecupation in the butcher
ehep. This testimony did not contradict the fact that the anewere
made by the ingured were fuive and material. The gourt should have
directed a verdict at the clowe of the evidence as requested by
defendant.
The judgment of the liunioipal court of Chicago ia reversed
with a finding of faet, See, 89 Civil Practice Act.
JUDGKERT REVERSED VITH A FINDING OF Fat,
ReSurely and Katehett, J7,, concur.
Ne ee
of bexseqqe Semmal ode sett beltidees qlv seeeant ly one yt fqem |
rertstut O02 oi molinquang Leven ett te dmlvew has Miteed boon ak ot
“ wtewane oi fond Gout Say dolbastaos tom bd ymontdest eta? .qorte |
ed batenwpet an onpbive edt to owls ont oe — ae
Aeeneren: ef eaneks Ro tien: tmgSedint ttt: tomnaghely tall se
>
i Pin : een 6 te ’
dod sehtomn? Livid @8 .co® doe To gatbatt w ddhw
-
-TOAE SO OMICRTE A ETIW GRAREVER. “ee ee ee
gy Pe othe Paes Py SRN Re eRe coeur
capa ake ee a eee Seapine “mee rads
Se epee oe aia See gaa Bak ee TR Pe ae i es 4 ‘exit "d :
tod ae ae ‘poe aly
hittin ee ae Pyle a ay dale geet ee ee saan
Sion DeLee whit nel teadigie wit al aan one eae mea
Ea wcoil oie. ttt ot “het Reed Pere ae ene et
Hite ea eeyt th Sei. GPa eerie ant yeaa Ga aay vg Ue el
ie 6s oy white (oO *e ee ee ee a |
mal ooh Ty yet ivaicigan od Joe eee “ah ieee ike
wre aoe 9a Vedtod wa ae Bek ‘winteill wt tnt nme
Mea ft eel ae ee wp ala aaa
oy aces ea " oe Met aie bee ee eee ae oe tia De haw
jk hee, RRO, REE ae Da ote haan kg
Wer 2) Me eae a a HAS ew aie hae Bees $ ree ON: ee aE Poa os
or foul he 02) ee Jeet saree sag: weit ae
ore? Quo vakiod wy eee heey ‘pk eke
iain eee AW 4A Mee ae ‘newcal agan ;
sao eh aaa aye Ae lee i) wid re —
Ye RCI EO Ae Meare ip FG Ea eae Elihu
e
ite horenes Sey ovew walk epee dd Seattle eer til hi .
37747
AKBRICAN AGERCY COMPANY, ) ”
a Corporation, ) b ff
(Pieintirr) Appellant, ) 4 (-
ve. j
HSSRY 1, LEMONS, inc,, @ a Corporation,
(Defendant) Appellee. APPEAL FYROM CIRCUIT
COURT OF ‘GOK COURTY.
CONTINSNTAL CONSTRUCTION CORPONATION,
a Corporation,
Garnishee,
THR VIRST NATIONAL BARK AND TRUST
COKPARY, a Corporation,
(Intervenor) Apoe@llee.
79 T.A. 625'
BR, PRESIDING JUSTION G'ConNOR
DALIVERED THE OPINION OF THE GoURT,
Pleintiff brought an aetion of attachment against Henry L.
Lemons, Ing., a corporation, to recover $19,739.41 with interest
thereon. OSefendant was a sioneresident. The Continental Censtruc-—
tion Gorporation, a cerporation, wae served as garmishee. It
answered that it hed in its possession a sum of money, due under
a contract whieh it had theretofore entered inte with defendant, in
exeens of the amount claimed by plaintiff, but that prier te the
service of the garnishee summons en it, the Firet National Bank and
Trust Cempany of Tulea, Oklahoma, claimed te be amtitled to the
money under an aseignment from defendant, Leeons, Inc. The back
and snother corporation, which it is net necessary te notice here,
intervened, The case was tried before the court without « jury, the
facts were stipulated, judgment was a@itered in pleintiff's faver and
against the defendant, Lemons, Ine., Tor $22,505.66, but the fands in
the hands of the garnishee ,$23,5536.60, were awarded to the inter-
vening bank of Tulsa, The defendant appeals from the judgment award-
ing the money, in the hands of the gamishes, to the intervening bank,
The record discloses that defendant, Lemons, Ine., entered
inte twe contracts with the Continental Conetruction Corporation, the
fil
ne aettonge | (Pasate, aj
HaLearorr0d a oak exon “
seo liogga (durhew'tw@)
oS Ma een
“gyvonts modit aaa ¢
ROITANOTAOO BOI TQUATE HOO ;
seal duct : |
— PeuaT oma mus ‘aamorRan reary aT
3 sate imma: @ YiastoD
, tafe fain ost Hiocgh (xoue Aber esr By
laeg .B.Te
FOWROO'O ESITSUE kM ton epee ;
.TAWOO DE YO WOIKEIO SHY Lance
oJ ytnel geniegs taesiondie to aolion ma diguend Wihemtess |
feotedal dtiw £2. 00°, C18 tovoset of ,metdateqres » ,,on) ,nanme, ;
_ sowstenos faginontined ed? .tushiewr-non 2 ean tonhae Toe '
$l ost touey on bovron saw ,nobtareqres @ nuiale
uebrs ov ,youom to mua o aolenoenog ett ah hed of tet betewnme
at ,taahaoteh ste otal betedas exolotened? hast 22 dolie toaxtiion =
edi of toltq tadd ted Vittatate yd bemlale Jamom edt to. avenne
bre desk fonotied texk% old 3! co enone cedetoney oct Yo oivies q
add of bettiows ed of Romtato smonnti® ,anitat te yang faaek |
faed off onl ,onoond , faskao teh mett teomegieoss as tehaw yeoman
,8tes soljon of yisenceen tom a2 3) Solksiw ,moliateqtss addons bane
ext ,yxut @ Suorltiw Sewn of etoted belt! sar ewan oat -bonovesdar ,
baa tow? s'Ytivateda al betovas saw foomghul, ,botetuqite orew atont "
ak abawt oat dud «33 208 SSE tot, oat ,anonmd ,tanhao ted ott fentene
«angel od? of bobtare oaew 08 068,228, ondedumey ode to ohnad one
“shawn tepaghet, old mort aleogee Sanhasteb oat eked te ned | paki or
slaw pataovesd al ede of ,codetimeg edt Yo eboed od ah semen a gat
porstas ,.omt ,aaomed enenaionad duald eeseteels nee am jeaac i
garnishee, one dated September 9, 1930, for the eonetruction of
about 113 miles of gas pipe lines, ete., in Milis and Warren
Counties, lowa, and the other contgact dated December 5, 1930, for
the construction of ® additional miles ef pipe Linea, in Marion
county, Iowa, The contract price for the work wae $1,100,000,
Oetober 27, 193G, and again on January 3, 1931, defendant, Lemons,
Ine., entered inte two ascignwente in writing with the Firet Nat-
fomal Sank and Trust Gompacy, Of Tulsa, Oklabema, the intervenor,
Bach of these assignments recited that Leawons, Ine., was desirous
of borrowing money from the Dank and to secure the payment ef the
indebtedness it assigned the moneys due and to become due it under
ite conetruction contracts with the Gontinental Conetruction Cor-
poration, to the Tulaa bank. The aseignments contained the fol-
lewing: “Henry 1. Lewens, Inc., Ran thie day mid deer by these
pregents, s@11, assign, transfer, ‘get ever and senvey unte The
Piret National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa all ite right, titie
and interest in and to a1] owas of money due or te hecome due under
said contract.*
Lemons, Ine., began the construction work under the con-
traete, in Iowa; the garnishee, the Gonstruction comoany, was moti
fied of the two assignments and thereafter paid the monies coming
due, to Lewons, ine., for its construction work, tc the bank;
$127,124.93 was thus paid to the bank before the service of the
garnishee suanons, and after service of the summons, $31,581.15,
leaving a balanee due in the hande of the Construction company in
excess of the amount of plaintiff's claim.
The facts further shew that uyen the faith of the two ae-
signments, and te assist the defendant, Lemons, Inc., in performing
ite work, the Tulsa bexk made loane to it aggregating $281,000.
The money so advanced was used by Lemons, Inc., to defray the cost
of the work required of it under the two contracts.
te Meltouttenco 1? ret ,OCeL .@ tedaetget betas om | onsta
sorraY tae @ffb8 ak ,.03e posal. egky wag VO Ge Liw Si Side
tot ,C8CL .o cedmpeet bedsdh toautaeo sedge oct bar ,ewOl ,nettnwod
selta af ,soaii ealg to ao itm Lenotsihba Oe te mot owtt ditee ‘oat
000,004, £8 saw Saow e402 «¢2 eoltq Soettane edt ewel evemune
(enosed ,toabantob ,LE0L ,€ yroniet wo nheje hae O6CE Te Zecesoo
ete gexkt off As iw gaisiaw ai @fneempiene ow? ofmd botetne ,.0nT
*tenevtetah oft ,smodaldG ,aetut YO ,yusgeed sae bod dois Lomod
aserlesh sew ,.on1 ., nage tant begtives ornbinity teen eacdd to ‘toatl
exis Ae taaeyag od wiveee oF how dae od? movt yousm gatwoxred Yo
Tohax 92 sub smeved of has sud expen ond hemyieas #4 sanabasdebat
-t00 noltoursaaed Letmeattne® off Adtw adowttitos wolseutsanos afk
afet ou dealasaoo edaragiees oat toed ania? ont: at saotsaron ies
. wandd yd aeeh bas yob elds ped ,.901 ,amomed ok yeaen : at : ‘
eat ofau Yovion han evo fos. ,Tekener? ,aptese, atten. taewene: |
etihe gti be ath Lhe sefut Yo yneqmod gaye hag Xawt, Lemoltell, ox |
tehu vb omesed of to sub yonom To amuse Lhe of hae at da ade hat
“-aes exit xebaw kiow sol tows anon out ‘yuan rs rye
abd on Baw ,\aaqnes settoursened odd ,ondnlatey odd javel ak ,atoate
gakaoo aeinom ois hing todtaecads bee wane ciny ows add Xo bekt,
_ planed edt af vtiow noigexntanes wti 20%, onal thei of oh
ous te so tvase ons ototed taed a? of biag emit sew SO, ARL TREE
| fe ine, 184 Amon of Lo aptyren teste hem, anenmve Pe ae
at yragnge makdonxé cage eat No ohasd aig ak ou wenn Le & aabwned |
; pede, a'TUitalale 29 taumme est Le samen
ae ote ows ony to apie edt nena sadt wade, wadénnh afend 908 s st aud
gutarrots09 mt ,.90% .naommd , , tanh nn ted, eat fekeam of ban aden |
_ <000, K88G aadcegozape #4 pt onnol adem Head abel otf: sotron wth :
oe su09 odd yertod of ,.0nT ,apaad yi, bot, naw hogan
Mentene ort ont, podem, $2 to be rT ox, ; hae | ie al
Wrom the stipulated focte it farther appears that plaintiff
ie an insurance agency anf had furnished to the contractor, Larons,
Inc., Yorkmen's Companeation and Public Liability ineuranee, The
two construction contracts speeifically provided that the contrac-
tor should furnish ineuranes, and plaintiff iseued the policies
which were accepted. It in agreed that there ie due te plaintiff
from the defendant, Lemons, Inc., for ineuranee presiuas on the
policies, « balance of $19,739.41 and interest, being the amount
eued for.
Plaintiff's poeltion is that Lt ie entitled te be pala the
amount of ite judgzent out of the moneys remaining in the hande of
the Construction company on two theories: (1) That by « proper
eonetruction of the two sasiguments the bank acquired no interest
in the moneys held by the garnishee Construction company after the
assignments were executed; and (2) that wholly apart from such con-
atruction, sinee piaintiff furnished the insuranee epecifled in the
twe construction contracts as part of the work ander those contracts,
it “has an equity or equitable lien, in, or upon said fund, prier te
that ef the intervener bank;" that the assignments were merely
equitable aecignments,
In suppert of the firat point counsel fer pialntiff say,
“Properly construed, the assignsents in question did not pase nor
affect future or contingent earnings;* - that they di4 net pase
ner affect moneys earned by Lemans, Inc., for the werk it porformed
under the two conatruction contracts after the date of the execue
tion of the twe assignments. It is conceded by beth parties that
the two assignments aid net purport to sesign the construction cpn-
tractea, and counsel for plaintiff contend that the assignments did
net ascign *all monay due, or to become due thereunder, and ali
benefite accrued or te acerue, but merely aasvign ‘the right, title
and interest’ of the defendant contractor in and te ssid moneys
+9 eh
wibpaters tacts ecrer roarist ai aden" begotegies outs “aogk i”
pa
amon , tofewrtaen add ee porta hare boost bas yousae vonexuanth nes ot
edt soon cue nt qehiidals elided how ae Ltaenegued o* soaite? ond
oat fa00 esis past? hebivetq Vilaottieoga atonttasa woltovtiemes. owt
aetotiog ould bowaed Misalalg ban ,seaetengh MeeaeNs Stoo Tot
Titakese os ond wh red? taat beotye ak ai sbodeoose eter dotsw
edd se Boatss 9% cous went xo? os 0et Stout ataabow tek os nom
Pavone eit uated Soo dak San Lb. t0Os¢ to eanetad a anatphiog.
7 ater howe,
ons biag od of bots ions a $k tade ab nal tnog ot Mubgatest Vointelteaead
; ES Abas.
20 abasd od ni gatakamet aysnon oAy Ye jue damabut, sot Ye Savome,
aeHD rae Dem
teqetg & wt saat (4) tan inoesi? ond a0 qaseane aoksourseas? 4.
teetetal on hoxtupgse daed wat esnomylesa one sand to » selgometagys
esis 199% ew gmos aaktorrcrened ‘secatateg ond yy, pied pea ne
\ageatsaen ine? xebaw dxow odd Xe saat as ubinetins renee ut
ot tokte , hit bles Meas to eat oat #ige2 Lupe hes supe ae cael ale
theron ores adaonny tans out sas "paling xonovas gal ont. te test)
"Tema et,
wee Tibvatasq “0% fevawon , tudeg fork’ se a tt
tom aen9 sou bit nstiaenp at ngaenny lana ond Down tonne, ye 7
ad ton bib yeas tad? - “{egalmene saeyattaco *. out nee :
| boerretcoq $i tuow ode x0? «om ,enomed yd bemtne ed hg ty: os LE:
gene 489 te ater ene wnt asaettace aot toirstanoe ont ©
KY seat sult
sant aoliieg sized ‘a benecaoo a Pe sttmongivas ¢ qve ows te note
~"ao noitoursance uit ng hows oo rrocmsg son bah tron teen Oe ERE:
bib agsonaytnns wats Sesid haw eae Vabsabate wt fonmueo bee ch bb
a
- *
| its baw sTobanereds aah omosd ag to oh wrnon Ate on oe
emt , tly ha waiat astona vioren sud Dares et to heures 9 bas
ho tae ahd
exesen bhee of ban at xoteattsos tawhae'tob ext to ‘gooredat |
4
and benefits," We think this contention cannot be sustained, By
the express terms of the assignments, Lemons, Inc., seld, assigned,
transferred and set over to the bank of ules “all its right, tithe
and interest in ané to all sums of money due or to become due under
said contract a to all benefite accrued or te accrue there-
under.” We think this language is plain and unambiguous, By it
all moneys due or te become due to Lemons, Inc., under the contract
were assigned by it te the Tulea bank from whom Lewone, ine,, was
borreving money with which te perform the werk.
The contention of plaintiff, ae we understand it, viz.,
that the money wiich would become due under the eontracts subse-
quent to the assignments wae not assigned, but tuat emly the “right,
titie and interest in and te*® s11 such soneys, is hypererities)
and whelly untenable. Under the two sssignmente and the undisputed
evidenee, the Tulsa bank was entitled te the moneys as against
plaintif?, wke was but a general erediter of Lenens, Ine.,
Hawley y, Bristol, 3° Conn, 26; Mallin v, Wenhaw, 209 Lil, 282,
Counsel fer plaintiff have cited a number of authorities,
some of which held that after acquired interest in real estate ia
net conveyed by a quit-claim deed, but clearly they are not appii-
cable to the facts here,
Ye have examined ll the authorities cited by counsel and
are clearly of the opinion that none of them sustains plaintiff's
contention, Ye think it clear thst 11 was the intention of Lexons,
Ine., when it executed the two agsiguments, to assign ell moneys
that were due or that might become due to it under the two conatrue-
tion contracts, to the Tulea bank, and we know of ne rule of law
that would prevent sueh an assignment.
(2) Has plaintiff an equitable lien, superior to the claim
(@f the Tulsa bank, on the money sought te be reached in this action
because it furnished insursnee to Lemons, inc,, as required by the
ein le a
f
qa. .bentetewa ad tocnme aaiimaduow afis sicdety ll © dt toned hme
shoagiaea bie , 005 ,nHommk ,eravamalege oft Lo eanat seorgxe oat
ehdkt ,ddght ath Lia” uta Yo Xnad ocd of eye tos hme dorvto tanend
ebay anh gemoed of te oub Yonom Lo same tte od non ab ee oe
-otedt suteen af 19 hewtoea sdtieasd Lis et ha\ ou toas$noe bo
$i yi .awouyddawow daw aledy at oysugaed aide Moab wv a aa
toaxtase 943 sehay ,,94 ,anomed oF euh emoved of re oub en: tte
G2¥ 4 .9Gi ,onoumd mody mote Anes eekwl odd Co a 6 Somoleas ota
whew ead ontetreq of do ldw se hw youn a een
satty «24 baaterebaw ow bo ,Ttidalete te wokiuptaey est
reoduc agoatiues odd soba oh amoned bsuoy cadity ‘yep apy Sage
tigis".9ad yiao Jot gud ,dengions toa caw agammaylons ould be Aercad 2
foods borteqyt af .ayodeu dane iia "2? bo me pcg 1 eahrat
hotuuathau sis bas atrewginas avd gil? copay .9kdaandimw ytkow t
sonlege va aypoom oct af, bets time aaw daa stu 407 rE
gal ,asomd te \tesibers fare 2% a ted ware ose RRP A
RR, LAL O98, ane oy dL iam (AS nae OE dl
yeh irestus to tedaus 8 betig svat, Tiktaledg tet fascwed |
nr i
af etefee ines al daciatal botiupos tefte gadt died Ho kei Je ono
La AIP
+kiqga gon ete you? yfamefo Jud ,beoh whe Lod Liy a Ma * cevaes ton
| y bee / 19d ataett 91? 6 | alle
hots kon anon ¥@ baste ltioaiie’ oat te bontmane ved ov pane
e'titgnloly waledaus #003 To esen ted¢ sohaiqn al to vinaele » ete
vo qtsoamd Bo aoiicter oat sow sf tad? sankey ot sakes ev tee
wyenee Le aytens of ,atasengiogs ove ond de gveans: tt mete og
~pirit anes owt ond sehaw 4h of amb saooed teigka fei? xo ub ore tent
wed ia ates. an, te Woad, on bas ,snad, on ig? sy of nto toaxgnce aokt
by picniiten, dani tnoangleas i one aero x r oar
Rhato or wt iii anh aidestoee ne eebatare, eax |
oy mek toe ohsle at, dosoaes od O29 tans yeaow ony bd sited an
i
is fa
nye i Len i Os,
ante? oft te
SFL Lead hie
«part at wnt oh
‘adh, xd bez lopot aa , pal ,soomed oF socmtue pens Toewstat
(ed
two contracts made by Lemons, Iinc., with the Construction Company?
Plaintiff's conteition is that beeause it furniened the
insurance te Lenons, Inc., the comtractor, as provided in the
sonatruction eontracts mtered inte between Lenone, Ine., and the
Censtrustion Company for the doing ef the work in iowa, it “hae an
equity in the fund, derived from these contracts, in the hands of
the garnishee;* that the twe construction contracte required
Lemons, Inc., to furnish insurance "as a part of the work” and
therefore plaintiff hae an equity in the fund; that the Tulea bank
took the two assignseents subject to all rights which could be ase
eerted againet the assigner, We think this argument ie unaound.
Undoubtedly the bank took the two asuiguwente subject te all
rights wilch the gurnishee wight assert against the aeaignor «
Lemens, Ine, But the bank did not take the agsignmenta subjeat
to claims of general eretiters agsinst the assiguer, arising oat
of the contract.
The judgment of the Circuit court of Cock county is
affirmed,
AVPIRBED,
BReSurely and Matehett, J7,, concur,
| “tenngnoe welteutsuaed elt sakw Oth aOR Ys ahoms sdpensnee omg
walt hedukaret $2 sauased tast of BOL wd aoe o ehesaless » natt
‘and mt ben ivory ae xotemxz nee Rd ak aE RMDh OF ‘oomacumed
“gate howe 409k 0d avowted eons berad ae bitte coddowntampe
“ne east ak eaeol aus Anew ania te aston ef g0% cae
‘t9 abso ‘ou ak sasonx2a0e sends mest having ome, at at -eeape
, bextupor stoursaoa ao btountastoe Rial | BLint waht " peestehanen sit
‘Son “drow om? te oq aa” (Sotereak Medawi’s od cath areca
find walu® odd tadd saw’ asd ad Yihupe, on apd *upakese ®
~ee od dives bio dsiw etoads iis of Speatne 88 mea
ee
4
Ke
ad Yeauon x00 te rome. tiveth® sdf to ¢
MALTA
bi SS he ED ree aKa Dy PA tif suis ae pid i
= his of tomidue atuemateoe ows ext Papas -
wig - tompisee oid tvatage trenae doyle soda taney ould Sia ‘*
sootdue strony ieee os edad ton bib dnod odd fe8 ek ya 80 ry .
” $u0 aatalis -tonjtens wald teatays Btoe thote. alia te wmtatee he Z
SRO ah ae
Levee 2 ‘ if 3 rf Ny 2 rae ‘
+ , tole oe i, 4 oe eo i flo Red % 8 on
(a
‘ we Pap he | AR phe i a mua ten
: stay oF potsnatoes:
4
ket | ay | ee Os? % Py i. % nisi so mM seat
bee Bae) ay wie cle il
wih oh Rime
eet oe HF tenet nate
ue fee vont ste ae
if mis see ti eh Br
37778 y
yi
PROPLY OF THA STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff in frrer,
ve.
PATRICK WARGUEZ,
Defendant in Error,
BR, PRESIDING JUSTICE OGORKOR
DELIVERED THE OPINICN OF THE COURT,
by thie writ of error the People seeke to reverse a jJudgnemt
of the Municipal ceurt ef Chicage, setting aside a judgment entered
by that court under Section 89 of the Praeties Act, and digcharg-
ing the defendant,
The record diseloses that on the night of September a4,
1933, Patrick Marquez was arrested and on the next day enmplaint
was filed agninet him in the Runicipal court of Chicage charging
that he drove and operated s meteor velilole in-the public highway
-g@m the city of Chiengo while drank er intoxieatet. On the same
day there was a hearing before the avert without a jury, the de-
fertent wae found guilty os charged end sentenced to ane year in
the fouee of Cerrection anda fine of 2190 was tapesed. Ue was
delivered inte the custody af tie keeper of the louas ef Gorree-
tion on the sane day. :
Decenber 14th following, defeniant filed a metion under
section 8 of the Practica Act ond seetion 2) of the Muni¢ipal
Court Act, te vacate and set aside the judgaent, wid in suppart of
this two affidavits were filed, ‘thers were ne counter affidavits
filed by the People amd mo pleading of any eharacter, so it muet
be sesumed that the People raised the question of the suffieieney
ef the petition and affidavite as though it had denurred, Del'end-
ant was brought from the House ef Correction uvon order ef court,
and the matter wae finally dispesed of on January 17, 1954, when
the court suntained the motion, vacated the judgment, then heard
the cuse appsrently on its merits, found defendant not gulity and
7S 7a
= :
ee,
PAUGO KASIOTANM
| ‘<00an
‘aga Bie eee! ta
» deotqunet wag
Rowadv'o mDtiwUe oWtaLELAG RA’ 8! KLMoGH
i, sia Kaan £209 HE a
: piaaieh 2 seven, oF agen olqget on? toTHe 30 aia ahdt inane i
hexedne tapoyoet « blag gaitdor ,eyaoid® to Purge tags at out to
| :
} eptasondh baa , tas pelteert ori? ef 08 nettoes aba) hin a
ae. : ok ip « Fe te...
oS: 0 dine S98 te taly tn ott, ne test apastonth, ‘rsepes oa fs .
‘aa. aa es.
‘- “taba Lemoe BNoh KOR ot? 20, hap: peteezza, sew Soup tell
ee
“ ' a
. anbytass oxsotdd to trnoa Lao todaust ont a ate yemkays y
qarrigds ad idug ois ahd ekoider ne Om, #, bo tetege tae rs ‘
lta oo a0 shotaoixes at to dmeth oflde egan tt ’ o ’
ct ooh osit awh “ duottia tame oft wr ated aritend #, :
ee aesy ene of beoavdane bre henradde na yt Shep bewet ene q
“paw ol sheeogeal sav COOL) to anit & Bese: noltearr06 to éuan ba
' “GeTI09 To sauoll elt Yo isqeex oie to ener Yona
ey
gave 0 ORR
; waht nokten # betit tnebawtep suttiwo ffLo% aro oat
Bi ipo leqleinusA ofe to neltoon bane toa eo hton® ‘oat sich Fe: ¢
ee te Troggs al bas ,Jawambsl, oxlt obten ‘Son baw atnbae of seh P00 )
ativabl tis tetaves aus wrew ooale” hott? OtOe | | 7 v ‘owt :
f deme th oe iedeacasio ean te sa haw Le on he 82e00% pe
a “yone toi Ytwe eae "te aattasyp ex? poaint eigoe” dt he
q “ba tos shorted bed Fb dywods ae etivabitts bow ao! i -
: _ ftw00 te tehte aogu wet ieorred te eewoll ost mort 6
eh : : =
ot By ie Was BE RB ei ok
his
es ones ara opel Ao ee Pus got ‘Viaadt aaw
BY ah an:
discharged him. Ne evidence ia prenerved in the reeord,
The question ther ia: Are there suffielent facts shewn by
the verified written wotion filed under section 69, and the affi-
davits in support thereof, to warrant the court in granting the
motion? The motion was verified by defendant's mother and afterward
defendant filed an affidavit, or supplemental peticien as it is
designated, in which he svears that he wae arrested about eleven
o'elock p. m. of September 24, 1935, and shertly thoreafter con.
sulted an attorney who had been retained by defendant's mother.
The eane wee eet for the feliowing morning in the Municipal court
of South Chiesage. Ym the morning of September 23th, about 3:45
e'eleck, shortly before the coming of the cause, defendant's evunsel
advised him that he would not be able to try the case on that day
Because he was engaged in the trial of a case in the Cireuit eourt
before Judge LeBuy, ir the county building, and advised defendant te
apprise the court of this fact and te ask the court for a continuance
until the fellowing morning; that at thet time defendant's counsel
speke to one of the clerke of the court and advised him of the fact
that counsel could not acpear st the bearing because of his engage-
ment in the Cireuit court in a ease then on hearing, and that he
would like to have the onse go over until the neat morning; that the
clerk thereuvon promiaed the attorney the case would be centinued, or
he would inform the court of counsel's request.
The affideyit of defendant further cets up that when the ease
Was enlied for trisi he epoke to the police officer (about ten feet
from the Judge's bench) wio hud made the arrest, and told the
officer that he wanted a continuance; that the pelice officer
told him te keep still, 4¢ wae geing to trial aad wae “going to get
gent to fall for life;" that the case would have to come to trial;
aefendant replied that he wanted « continuance but wae commanded by
the officer to keep qaiet; that the officer syoke in an undertone #9
Sreoe% e4) ah bovaseetq et eeasbive of wad bogiétoals
es ewase atost dnoiotTie gxedt omh tak ery.) notdvostp ect atl
-bYts ot ba» ,@6 mobsooe robay botht aolton andddrw heliiney eat
odd yalinwexy ah feuos oc? Inextew oF , Townerte rroauen nt adiveb—
btavtetto bow tediow a inabaeleb %¢ be Diddy cee ottom ont Taeltom
mb tt ae mod) biog! dat abee qqua to ,Jivabi'Tta oe boetl't gnsbasteb
fovele ivede bedaoxte saw od Sad) atewe wd doldw wt ,sotsmmteeh
af99 tes tagods YLsteds bao .LEOL , bs Tedms tHe Te mt re doaie's
| » tesd a0 a! taaban teh vd healkadex aed aed ote wm ote ie bad have
txuoo fagleias’ sad ‘at gatatom galwollo?® sdf sot soa sew onan en?
80:5 guods , A288 sedmetgeh To galmicma od? ab enna Ge, Xp
es asoa a! gaabas tok ~eaueo ons Io aalsoe ont etg'ted ylerode. epewind
awe
wb tect wo vane ox2 xi Of ofde ed ton biwew rod pomy. bat boatvh
truvo ¢huerkd eas al seo a % iaitt ont al begenne ‘ean os onvaned
0? tusbnsteh beaivbs bas saaibilud ysanoo oft ok ,ypstlal spb eteted
‘@onswaismes @ TOt txu09 of ise of ban tos? absy 2o sume ett ontrege :
Loeavoo a! gnsbar'teb awly fuss da tedd :autuvow nalwol to’ ony hee
tos eit to mis bealvbe bas P1400 oss ‘to extefo eff To. on, 0.
os fed? baw seaiteed me ads sane & at fauos diwerkd one a: hi |
edt tad? ;gaiaiem Saou ecg Lisay tevo og denn ont ven o. ont k ery
6 steam enne od binow sane e037 yorroste ont doe hne te roe motes ais io
| -deouges a Lonmvon To tuo pdt mora biwey. ost
earn ons core dads qu ton zoudiwt Sneharted Ye thyeb tT Oe o Fae ae
feet wo! twoda ) aeoiTic solLew aut of oxogs of Labt? a9? belts
oats ‘bho? Ans faart0 ox? obam bad ocr (ilsand at aabuk ome may
P “goose solieg ant saad seoanuat? sop + aedunw od todd sot Ire
toa ot autog® saw bas Saigs 04 gatoy van od htite ened of mtd oe,
| jiabes at oa00 ot evad bivew oan ead tesa yom tet, that of sang
; es Dodane oaw Sud eonaual? aoe @ hetnew a6 fet degawg, Gomer Pan
=956 HON ald Lo sausoed aaizand act te xaeqes fom SLveo foam
BPE gree
ae ee as is etage xs9itie odd sass poekep wet 18
Ns iiss ' 1 : 7 se A wet ae Pee ee
‘A die ete j A's u eos M4 i aes ‘ i, mg wes LS ee ere al
Vi : Bs Ba : ;
the Court could net hear what was said; that defendant was ia great
fear because of what the officer had said, ani waen the cane was
called he wan afraid to say anything to the Court; that the selies
efficer said to the Court that defendant was intexieated the night
before when he wae arrested; that defendant, on account of hia fear,
4id not say anything to the Court; that there waa an interpreter in
eourt who translated the Kexiean language inte Boaglieh; that the
interoreter 414 aot like defendant; that when the Court asked the
interoreter who defendant sas the interoreter reolied with aome
4imarnging renarke that the witness did not clearly hear or
underetand; that sithough defendant had been drinking some the aight
before, he wae not intoxicated; that the aceident reeulted from
driving hie autemebile into s gasoline station to get gazeline, when
he atruek « stone or reek which caused the sutcmebile to ewerve,
- gtriking the gasoline pump and’ doing some damsge; that it ceet about
$26 to repair the damages, of which defendant's mether had pald about
one-half,
Befendant's attorney filed an aSfidavit, saying that he had
been retained to represent defendant about eleven o'eloek on the
night of September 24th, ant that he saw defendant and learned that
the ense ne coming up the following morning, and advined defendant
that he could not be present at the hearing at that time beosuse he
was trying 2 cave in the esunty tuiiding im the Circuit court: that
on the morning of the trial, about 8:45 o’aleck, he speke to the
gierk of the court and apprised him of the facts and want«d the
ease continued until the next aug that he understood the case was
to be continued, the clerk stating he would speak te the Court and
aperieve the Court of the faeta,
Where a motion is filed under section 89 of the old Practice
Act, “The suffieiency ef the motion, whieh is regarded as a deoiara-
tien in a writ of error coran nobis, or a motion under the statute,
snoxy nt naw anhes'teb Sous ;hiaa saw tase and ton bkvoe Pred edd
‘ger e2a0 of% agow bas ,biee Aad 4eolt?te 647 tate to otuaged tag? }
eetfee ont tado jérod ond 0d yaltoyan yee oF Blotte new of boLiad
$data ent totoukxotal aew ¢anhasteh dade sumed od od bite teukTe
\toet fii Te sivooes ne ,dmeben tO salt. PAETRO TA Bowed Rete basted
gt tedouguntat me wow otedd sade 4400 Bt Od Gadeldyne com dom Bibb
bat radd {Hektga® ofat eyangend pmobxel bat Bete Danas. ese webe
edd faten trwod St node temt penehee'ted oRt Foe BEM tederve
fiber PEW Bb bce tesenieritnt ont nae raprigiertce
bata uate ater nachae nikal aaa | 7
mort Bollowet faetivon odf Sehs pheteobvotal ton enw oe , % on ne ~~
ae ste ,batfonry fog of nGliate ehtfesey a otal wtPtem due’ priate
| gptews of sildomtioe eh? teense Mokew toot «a wnote «touche ot
° Feds fews $f todd yogourh omoe yatob ban quae ond Soman end hehe
twel biog hud texitom et eaohie'teb do lew te ,eogmnnt ect 0 ain se ont
had aif fond yatyen ,Sivab iw am bolt? yenvestw ottuabawted 1G
$x? no ASGLo"o sieve Le tweds #natinw tod fusmercere ob wantin saved
* godt howtae f San Mahde'ten wee dt Pade ter age 2" dt |
dawkue'teS bestvte See, pabeton pahwoltet edd ee gales ean ws " &
ad eeunoed omit tadr ta yatraed Odd Ya Peeaeee sesinteataimaad onset
“tat pixies Fivovh® odf at gatncted ytane emf BY eens 8 “
‘g@? of Stage Od ,dootete Coie sundae tae? te sina ‘i ps: +m ;
ect te tne bad "eeOOr 9s to wa’ hon tetas Baw 26a ‘aie oo srste 7
sae geno odd Bootarehnd od dant yyek sara of¥ Ete’ pound sno on
ara Scat igs tcp ova bau at eget
uA silane hte at? Ye 6 aokigow weber sates cotton 5 ona ar
ciel a an eycee ab sigtdw ,soltom sat te ym
4
must be raleed by demurrer, plea ef hulle est erratum, by motion to
diemise, by pleading epecial matter in confession ond avoidance, or
by making an iesue of fact by traversing the declaration, *** In
this State the issue of fact may be made, and is generally uade, by
affidavite in suppert of the motion and by ecounter«-aiiidavitea deny-
ing the facta set up in the motion ond affidavits in eupsort taereof,
in whieh case the burden of proof is uson tie party Gaking the mo-
tion to prove hie facts alleged by a prependerance of the avidenes,”
People vv. Crocks, 336 Lll. 266-280, 281,
Refendant contends that he was not represented by counsel on
the trisi of the case September 25, 1035, te which conteition the
People regly that the record, *hiech imports verity, recites as tole
lewa: “How comes the people by the State's Attorney and the defand-
ant as well in iis own proper serewm as by counseh «ise comes,* and
that this recitation cannet be contradicted, citimg Maing y. Cogner,
67 Ili. 536, Im Peggle v. Green, 396 Ell. 464, the oourt, in dis-
eussing the motion under section 8) of tne Practice act, said (9.473);
“fhe order made on sucii motion is a final order and diveetily review.
able as a final judgment. *** It ie generaliy recegnised that the
preceecdings uncer a motion er petition in the nature of a writ ef
error coram nobis are civil in their nature, «** The burdem is on
the one senking to set aside the judgnent, to prove by a prevonder-
ance of the evidence the facts alleged in his petition or awotion.
Errere of fact which may be availed of under seetion 8 of the
Praeticen act, or section 21 of the Hunicipal Court aet, include
duress, fraud and exeusable mistae,
“A writ of error ceram nobis, er a metion under the statute,
is an appropriste resedy in criminal cases ae well as wivil and fies
te set aside a conviction ebtained by duress or fraud, or where by
eome excusable mietake or ignorance of the accused, or vitheut
negligence on his part, he hae been deprived of « defense waick he
t a “WE Aevuy! Be Pere iM
Pe? ye oa ae
: ’ y iio 7 ’ rik
i
of aolvou yt .mudexze doe giles 2e cola, «sessiah ys. beater ad, seme
: “6 yosanb love bas agéaeeiaos gh Kadtam Imiooge gathao ie vd yovsan th
al eae .golieteiooh odd yalarevets yw font te onped am gation yd
wi wba, Vilotonny % ek bas ,obem od you pet to oneal oy 90°48, PEGE
Se ed 2vabs Y 1249s use ¥d bas poison of? te Proqqum at pt ivebl tte
Yoorsug ssoUgNe AL Bdivebitts bax noltom ens at gu tom einer ons yar
sem ont yaidan ysisg 90d Bons ak Yoorg ‘te an bind oe oe oo sight mk
“.onpbive oat 20 eonmxobaeqetg « tS bonetio atest abs. prong, 9 20n
« BS 088 -d08 Lhd Bh ,
Ets) jnmanee ” bes apeetget toa, euw ex El Shaed soe a wi
_ eH mtr ced ace dokdw od BBL 185 redmpsqed wRae oxi Ba |
oot Be andtooa ainy erreqal say dhe She dike bad Rg Fe 24}
bao te eas béue Berto ddA a'esese eas xe efgong. oud os ve ; wot" javed
baw ,aaoe oe Ls fonanod Yd ta mereg FOGorg Ave ata of Meee, tag
+Eeenod_o¥ satey gates sdodelbarsaae od fF onnne orites toes 0het AaMt
3 mm, al sitwes art OOP -Ldk CBE BONER 0¥ 202% ah (0, AAD
teta.e) bive ,fon soldooxt ods Yo @ molsoos xehaw Wold om om anh
: wisdacuorg a xs re ot , toaaebatt ais ehies son gt gehen we
— os
; 4 ™: Stony x0 short xo agoxud yd bh banies taade aiid 2 onine
swolvex qiseoulh bias xebr@ daati « 6h golsom dome ae wham aghee oatn®
odd ta8d koaluyoves Yiotemny at di te" ,tomingh ; Sok «on one
ei sitw @ te eiwten ade at aotiliog t. mokion 3 eney 4 ¢
mo ah spbtud est +> .ouutom ulead ot vie ote gifen mmnse sore
sBO45 cn we sole tioy ald ab boyoiis steer ony eqapaive Fa Mie Ps)
| eiit 2e CB met toes red Yo be ttave of yam Aedeiw toxk 2 hailed
ebuiont tes frsed faqiotank od te Ae lina be 99a oot
iss AGO: ee £ on a: % » hae Ramee) a! ,
vsti ade ous tabaus agitox # te ,ahdan ease, Pd UIA aes
waif bne tivis as ifer ea sano énatuire al yoeuat ofa kag
ae
| “twedd be 19 sboauaca oft To sosurommt x0 sate. eg us|
at a onmared a te Fvid gy bev ¥ asd a4 yi ata 29 sh :
could have used st hie trinl, aid wuien, if knewn by the court,
would have orevented eonviction,*
And in People v. TParcorsa, 358 111. 446, whieh wae w proceed-
ing under section 8 of the Yractice act, it is eaid (p. 490):
*Geunsel for plaintiff in error have charneterized their petition
as one in the nature ef a writ of error corag nobis. it is argued
that while the regerd shove that slainutiff in errer appeared by
ecurnsel, he, in Pact, Had mo counsel, *** Referenee to the petition
divelorses only the atatement that while the record showed plaintiff
in error was represented by counsel such fact wes untrue.” the
court then discusees further evidence and apparently considers the
question as to whether defendant was in fact represented by eeunsel;
and in holding the petition ineufficlent the eourt aeald (p.481):
"Thie petitien does not come within the rule governing petitions in
the nature ef write ei error carag pobim. There is no evidence that
plsintiff in error was convicted by duress, Sraud, or by mistake or
ignorance on his part. *«we
"The court in the triai of criminal cases is bound to see
that counsel ia previded, when requested, for defendanta unable to
precure such assistance, *
In that case it was further seld that a motion under section
& of the Practice act was designed to serrect errors of facet hap-
pening at the trial which the court would not have sommitted ir it
had been in possession of certain facte unknown te it, and it was
sais, “It ean scareely be said that tue court did not know that
plaintiff in error wae not represented by counsel." se, in the in-
stant case, it ie not pessible that the trial judge did net mew
Whether the defendant wae represented by cowisel because if he wore
Se represented ke would be in the ocular presence of the court,
In the inetent case, can it be said that defendant was
jee ond bal awoux 2 “i tw fewe blu ‘gis te ‘shat? Stas OE 1
: © aad eae bibncebdn” oval hikes
«hessotg # daw doddw aah .2tt B88 8 oigos a. we @ E
(Gah .¢) bise 22 oh \dom soltoort end to 8 olabite "Sle? jek
“golahieg uied? hectissesiaso evad torre ah “vibrate te aol enka
pi a
Ae
:
f
4
i 4
- bewpts “ab ot aiden 2399 texte to tice a to etutas cal a)” bas | :
“ f 4 i
ww bexaoqes tox ak tridgadate ‘gandd avers prover, “eel tat
é fh oe ae: Me ee a 5
ndlsizog ed? of sguets'toh #e .ipaawoo ans “baat vou ak wait, "99 iJ
ligament bewoda Asooat eat Pyar Sasld Soo woiass “oi” ‘tis
ed ee » ae ponte oie :
‘est “.ewxsuw aw took ava founwos i bedaneetqot aan ae ¥
tion oot Te Dep: i
oda ersh tenes ‘line teqga baw soimbive “seubuet aoeguonth yy
{Eoaawon a boduecezess dou aa sew tanbus'tob “wouitode “on ti okaan '
“:(ite.q) bios saves ons tao te 1 ttwaad seis Save edd rt. pintb lot vend
“gt atoliiieg gutmiwvoy edux odd mhddin smoo “gen asad uo) 20q" at ys
dads sousbive on 6) oxect .eh6om waren tote to ashe ee
" xe © etabe ti ¥ 20 hepsum evired qe badoivigs rey ‘tedée ‘a erste
opi alow” tag eh nd opherongh
e089 ot Lemna ei seaan drones to sats bepvilvnd Huis" * a ;
| tga dant Ye exarz0 soevtee of aces ics adabeia
os. 5) ‘betd lames ovat tou biwow ‘ttw09 ‘eal slaw i ta mre
gaw ah bas .@) od awoodaw ‘added Leys 2 16 nol ,
taild ‘vend Ben bib ferns ere af od” kame
wt ost at ,ot *teanwop vd badasaorges toa ‘tee wits ent mercer ;
; e won fon bth oghut tetzt out tals Sitibned beads tk Mave tents
“aate ‘ea th ooumoed Ise nwoo vw ipsa Ot Silas, of a, whe ke we oan ik
oe Gi i Big
‘ Gn “true act Yo ooneuntq tafuos ad a hod bdnow ‘oa
os
; nave dasha I dads biaa ae ak neo suse saabial " 2 %
Ona ‘ee gota ones &« 26 GerenRee MORE mH it oa if heey Ax ’
gonvicted by “duress, fraud, or by mintake or ignorance on hie part?*
We think this was a question of fact Tor the court. the affidavite
in support of the motion disclose facte whieh indicate that defond-
ant, through fear of the solice officer, wae aot permitted ta ntate
hie wide of the case to the court. These averments in the affidae
wits were not contreverted and the court might well have concluded
that sueh facts were shown by a preponderance of the swidence, as
the rules require.
Uyon = careful eongiderstion of the antire reeord we are
unable te say that the finding ef the court in this respect is
ageinst the manifeat weight ef the evidene.
The judgment ef the Municipal sourt ef Chicago is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
KeSurely and Mateheti, JJ., eanuour,
t
*YANRG MIA me Sonezengl me odadnin WH we sheeeh senenant naar vga We “ini
em er eres ate
sdivabitie adi 171M Old TOL toKT 29 mOLseRwD @ Baw Abe iat Aahae
Mig re notion 6d Ye © 4)
Renta sa8h Ghanthes, nly sppe eacionlh selon 9 freee
he 2 ¥ a
eg a FS. ° é
otate ot begdtonoe tom enw sipoktie colton * odd to ; alk Aone
Kee Ay ‘io @ Aobtu nae ee
nabttia ost At nememorn swash fame pi, seat, Se eal
| Viton neh tnt
- Sehwiomes eves Liaw saighx Fru00 ot bam bodrever! be Bi
fit orn we ah tmiow th £28 R Yh oe ny cael De ae
ea ,souebive (MS Yo soamtmbaomerg a YE omach ome aden adeeh sun tem
s Royientaen jca3 owevia Soagexy of?
* ;
Pe Ea ex Dake Pete "Lt, feed | eae Woieea tha » eh i 3 viene
et ow bre0ex ostisan om te ne lgereblends tbe
esa o Pes Ti ae Os Fai a¥ iis Meee wee ihe
ai tocquo aiid at ¢xuoo ea Ye auhat ead alt Gane. was
ave. * .eaessant sue ( Mie faaoeee i See % ae
sons bive os Yo diytew dyleow fae tis
2 ike bi fa Ny te ih Ph Soe oive ‘oa te RRR ambae ae
omens we Pee sige i Fa is Wnw Geb tek eres
*
gf an F843 : iaoe MIL SPS We HLM @nF tid tae Li Ripe rom pai ei bs
r a r Ms
Pear SHR LYY GR EL GeO «Osteo ween Si rie ie oe Pee te
ie Ohara Yh WO , bors) , ohne Ve Ope e ¥ ea wie one + a = . :
jon «f domed 4“) nova Exudoisad Yeo di oe -onhe si ‘at
Scie RP Re Teh ts YRO Soe gale abit se i “Aven sa
| * poe dubien dedi” eked
ROlsGoe WASGE Babies w ares Bhat Wat asd nate shes wane” ase “agate ees
wit $24% te etorte roepieg of bantees ane fue oobdauet ‘yt 10 -@
Th
}
Pe 2? Rese poe Ared Fee Bier Powe pale senda ated od “tm a
. ear ch tue .¢!i 85 weyoa atanl alabane Ys iubinilaweee ‘or “coped bat
Sh aust i Bee - Bh wWeree wee cast Show He drone tak OE 4
eit gf af 26 *,feummp yt ae mea ese mie sone ab ‘and it
Op daarerie i init eh, ore eet ba bee we 2 ae sittue wer ot eve ‘inate frase
ts. Beene dave, eater ts qe peg seas i tagie aie senda wate oh
“rt G8 wily Ty MOVOROTe Baleow wee aR af iba el f
ae 8 diy Bevo Tre Sen”. De aye wie chee iced baadyih: pieces ce
ais ER w ey Reg
: ¥ 7 aye ns
- 37839
PROPLE OF THE STATE OF nail
ex rel, MEYER GHERAEERG,
Defendant in Srroa
¥vS,
i lov CHicage,
Plaintiff in Brror, 2 re 9 I A G9 eg
@ ew
H. S&S. GRATCH,
HR, PRESIDING JUSTICE O'GORROR
DELIVERED THE GPIRIOS OF THR COURT.
Beyer Greenberg, who was a defendant in an action brought
in the Municipal court of Chicago, filed his peti tien againet the
defendant, 3. 3. Grateh, “ho wae the attomey for plaintiff in the
Runicipal court action, praying that a rule be entered against
@ratch to show cause why he should not be adjudged im contempt of
court. Defendant, Grateh, anawered the petition denying that he had
been guilty of such contespt. The matter wae hears by the eourt,
an4 an order entered finding Grateh guilty of eoutespt of court,
and a fine of $100 or thirty duye in the county jail wan impored.
Gratech presseutes this writ ef errer. | |
The record discloses that April 19, 1932, Jace’ Al toan
eaused judgeant by confession to be entered aguinet Reyer Greenberg
and Jeannette Greenberg, hie wife, in the Municipal court of Chi-
cago, on two junior mortgage notes signed by the Greenberge and
eened by Altman. On the sume day Grateh, as attermeey for Altman,
eaased an execution to be issued aid om his written erder the exe-
eution was returned nulla beng by the bailiff the same day. There-
upen Grateh filed an affidavit fer garnishee sumone in the case
end it was afterward served on the garnishee, the lyde Park Lenwood
National Bank ef Ghicage. The matter wan continued from time to
time, and in the meantime the Hyde Park Kenwood Nationl Bank foiled
and was taken over by the Auditor of Public Aecounts, Afterward,
January 13, 1933, by agreement of Gratch, representing Altuan, and
idenel A. Sherwin, attorney for the Greentergs, the garnishee pro-
AOMO0'O EVLA OMIGIORNt ae.
‘T8000 Bar Xo SO1K149 SHY @2euVlaea so Wo
#Aguotd aeivoa as al tuehuo'teb 2 eav ote 1319 dae 10 oe Neenen
oa2 jnaisye aoliizseg ald belit ones tad Ye seu90 Knqtodaul ant ab
od? ai Tiliateig 161 yeuresze 943 eae ose istero a ok é
, fenteys bowsdm od sina 2 taut patyorg ,aokten dunes fi
te fquetnes a Senialiba od fou Aiuode od in seuse mete OP ates
bed oc Sac2@ gulyosd ooisites of} beteweas etetaw .inebae ted Sell
«?xuee ot qd fused aew tettem exT +#quetaeo dexe ty
stitw0s Yo tquedaes Yo ys Liws dosetd gatbait seemthes' cotaitaas ar
howoqal aaw List ytawes ex? ak Syeb ysutys To G046 Ye ent? « baw
| etomte to giuw ehas Sesieractg dotar®
mass La dooet S504 ,@L Lhrga gant aesoiosts Steeet off abies
Biedaeetw toys seniegn bexetas o¢ 9f agteas taco td suemghut beaves
-1d Yo s1s00 feqiolun edd af ,oliw aid ,yxedmesad e2tonnect bas
bas egtodase1® oat yd bemyie eoten eyesstom tokaut ont mo 03a
sMemstéA tet ysorstia an ,iater® yah omen of3 nO end fA yd boaee
“9x8 off tobi asiiiuw eld ae bas beused od ot neldusexs ne Seeuae
werent yeh ouna odd Yited edt <d guod alipn beweutex sew noise
soso ett at enema sedaiuces rot Stvabitia me %eL2? dotaw® mnogu
heowaed dist ebyi od? ,sedeiatey add 0 bovine btewte?is sew st hae
e¢ eat? moxt devatence saw Wotiew off .epeoidd te daad kamottea
bedtst ane® fnoltat hoowsed dxe% sbi of salfasen alt at ban ents
qbtarwitA «= .ataweosa obidut to tedlbwA end od weve seded tow bas
ae ,matisA gals nesetcest OD NO CRONE ET <
aainas
yee eedelatag ed? ,eyredaeete ed? rot yomredde atwnedt oA ie
eeeding wae dismissed for went of prosecution, July a7, 1954, ey
year and » half after the diawiessal of the garnialment proceedings
againet the Hyde Park Kenrood Jiaticnal Hank, Grateh filled another
affidavit for garnishee summons in which the New York Life Iineur-
ance Company, the ietropolitan Life Insurance Jompuny, and the
Equitable Life Assurance Sog¢iety of the United States were named
as garnishees. ‘hey were served. ‘he petition for a rule te show
eause which wae filed ty Heyer Greenberg (enue of the defendantea in
the Municipal court, by bie sttorney, Lienel a. therwin) etates that
the three insurance eompunies were thereby prevented from paying
ever soney they held, being the property ef the defendant, Jewmnette
Greenberg. After the garnishment proceedings were brought sgainet
the three ineurance companies, the petition fer rule to shew cause
was filed by Greenberg through is ccunse:, as abeve atated, The
substance of the allegutions of the petition eo far as it is neaese
Sary to state them here, ia thet the two junior mortgage notes, upon
whieh judguent was eonfecsed, were secured by a junior mortgage en
Freal estate ormned by the Greenbergs; tuat the Greenbergs at the time
the judgment was confessed and the execution returned nulls bona,
“were operating « large greeery and delicatessen stcre at 55th
Street in whieh they were interested." The charge in the petition
seexs te be that because the Greenbergs owned the real estate, on
waich there were two mortgages, and were interested in the grocery
store, the affidavit for garnishee suamone filed by Grateh, in
which it was stated that the Greenbergs had no preperty within the
knowledge of Grates liable to execution, wae faise; thet Graton
knew all the facts and that he fraudulently induced the bailiff ef
the Municipal eourt to return the execution nulla beng, sand fraudu-
lently induced the ¢lerk of the Municipal court to issue the garni-
shee summons.
The reeord further discloses that the judgment by confession
s & = 4
WETS
Nero aPhGL ,VR vse sHol sussnetg Yo tmew wer, boro baw ts 4 thar mg
ag abboes ots Poscuis howny eat Xe Lovoloh ih oar ‘pe ted a San ta0y
wedtoue be kit doger®, , sand taxotted hooene® sen% ened oie tantese
<ayenk oi dzot vail oad Aolaw at amomuug, easedrsay, wot dhvabi ts
“gi Bow ‘vdaeed ‘pontetuenl etid angi f£eqerdel ent rangeod conn
howad over sesotS dosha est To yselook aeawtuses otha ofdad twp
wode of eiut » 20¥ aohilieg ext .bewred erew ext woods tnteg o
ak adnabowted oti “ts one) gro dane sd ‘weyoil vf bail? eww ap her oaueo
todd astots (niwtod® .4 iavell ,yoorette wid et |, Pewee fag shai oe
gatyeq moxt hegusvetg ‘ydetteNs wxew en tniequtdy winatiedh ois _ ~y
Stonset ,snabss teh ocd ‘to Yoooqetg ody gated Deed ons: (eine v0
teatoge tdguord o10w agathonsdty tidiudehivdy edt Hoe tA” same sore
“paums wode 0¢ vtur Tot aetelieg oid /Wetacddoy eoaetwent Ber dt
edt <heteds evode on ,ioenwds abe dquotid gteduewet ef oe a
| aoodsd dh ¢i an tat oa okt idee Odd Ye aldbtigetta aay ‘te ‘baited
meqn asdont ogayt toa tolaut, ows oft bade wh sored: wits otere ‘or tae
ne #9) X08 cok a of herwede oxsw bodes kaoo aw smite ke
oo ods ‘te agredisds® ond duit agtedases) one ord fe ewe stetes tows
sand ‘qiina boatcdet moltioses ond pad Béaee'tned Sdhteenctdl “ost
“A982 fa erode mbbaotenliod bac Yaodoty sgtel 2 ye bet 10 ete }
narsiieg ‘ond af oytatio Oat “ bodaotesh atow ysl Motte at seonee
fe jedadne Lkou ed hoowe agtedadage OH) Sebabed dane od a omen
tisoors oii) od badeotera eer haw ,neyeyd tom ow dxee ommie Ko kae
ak (Me tet® yd bs Lk akon’ eoAelitteg xed etvah Tha ont yonete
oslt ddd bw yaadqerd ba Aud wiytocinband bit dane Dedede’ dt! aah
"GndunW dead yaa tar baw jnobdueexe oo UitRhe Medste te bynehwent
w mites ‘pad open Baars ed gad dire : seve) ts wont
BONG EAD td
hi es S73
moh oe ‘ed Sova ang hast, #2 tod? eed tooth aed sar't oe
was for $255.32, together with $7 court costs, and that the real es-
tate on which the Greenberge had executed the junior mortgage seour-
ing the two notes upon which judgment was conSeased, as above stated,
was subject to a firat mortgage of $30,000; that April 7, 1952,
twelve days before the furiqment was confessed in the Municipal court,
@ bill te foreclose the first mortgage was filed in the Ulrealt eourt
of Cook county in which it was alleged that there wae $29,042.80 due
under the first mortgage, and that the property “ae net worth te ex-
ceed $25,000, Aprii 1%, 1932, (the seme day the judgment by confas-
sion wae entered by the Kunicipal court) the Gireiii eourt ef Jook
county appointed a receiver for the premiete conveyed by the tre
trust deeds and the order appointing the reeeiver found that the
premises at that time were werth lese then £75,000, snd were seant
and insufficient security for the indebtedness seeured by the firet
mortgoge.
the procedure followed by Gratch in eausing the judgeent te
be entered by confession in the Nunicipal cauxt and the bailiff te
return the execution en the same dute nulla bene, sné the Piling ef
the affidavit for garnishee summons, hae been the preeedure followed
for more than thirty yeare in Cook gounty. As far a9 we are advised,
we have never heard thet this preeedure was fraudulent until the
petition fer rule to show cause in this case wae filed. The order
signed by Gratch authorizing the balliff of the Municipal esurt te
return the exeeition immediately mulis bone estates, wneng ether
things, that if the bailiff believes “thst nothing can be realized
on eaid execution, and, in the exerelwe of your discretion conclude
to and 40 return esid execution nulla tema, the plaintiff will waive
any damages that may acerue to or be sustained by hin by reason
thereef, and pretect you as if you held the same full GO days. *
@e think it obviows that it ie grotesque to contend that
Plaintiff, in the eenfeesion of judgment ease, could heve had the
ye
fu 8 saws oat sadt has stn 90 awe eo Adkw Teds eget she HORE eR
av
Ce etal ae
ten enayd ton roLewt esta bo dwosxe basi earednee ta hay ig hetw ag otat
x Pt A hee
wbetate erode pe ebomne toe aav snemqbut sig te woe ‘s0son ows bose pak
eh wel wry wim:
REL , ¥ Ling gust 1000, 088 te ogentzon sour * ot so0tdun Rv
| tees Logie taut outs ai ‘beesetaeo eae Aaesmbot, ont oxo'ted este
Paece thootde ord mi he £2 hosed opens tom sexs oat gecteotes a % ‘f
fut 08 £2, eng saw otedt todd beye tia age n Mots at ood te
qs awon
Sreneinteg a
“ae of ditov ton saw yeteqotg oat fasts has oars rom taXdt ott | baw
rene oe
<eetnee ye dco my bul, ans yah a eit ) 880k * Linea * 44 ane .
a 2 e
A900 eo dtueo ¢ Aver td eat (gum00 tagh otawit ad Ao Soentns ef
“py rhe ot SLES
ows ast w boxorace avelanrg atl x02 xovisows s ee
eat tals hacot ‘tovieoes oa ants atoqye robs ont ate ene a
' ‘ta ees ae
tanpe wre bins 000,888 tw dd nook atzow o1ew ‘ents test te
2 SR Cae agky
garth eas yd hoxaoes san abescopai oat bind hue ‘fopke tha ak ie
bee yf be Ske Gee:
y tt’ Se Oieaedine.
o tana ede gatauco ad lator ai howosso% orshevers ont?
wae pon pnw at yee
ot VibLtad ons base fsuae Laqho bawil aut vat aabesetaon wt beretme od
fo vow ag
mT parca al fas eauied, ahdne, peas ome aa ae “nelsncexs ost mewtot
2 Cee Wee eee ee, eu tone
“powocte ersbooere uid aoed aad vemoanue ‘goin dicta tot Aheaat tie oe 4
gaan?” Ae eh nan be ,"
) * “
| hoakyba xa ow us te 8A qonwos ood a _staey Weed ancl mae @ ouge ayt
LAgew sue Lebware aicbso alg feds Weed tove
my art Oy" mm 2 heb ans fag me! a vad ow
‘sobre ott bok? gaw ease ana ad seneg wodte oe osu tov astetoon
i ee Oe Be
ot rime Lago bss ed? Yo YEE Lind os patetredive Ardurd vi! beats
aedt0 Biome ,eotets nao? esse eiesatbomad aabsvoexs ed maton
0 seh Ni a PSS ,
Sealine ed ano paldion test” agro tied Wald oat th dal? ,
vee Bae ea re
ebu foxce wolswroadb cd % ouloroxe vas at ea old woene ae -
a iy Ty bon
- omton 4 fire reasadade vas _ettod akiva ods vowms btew _nnees z, baw of
" fonae yh abs xe boatasavs o¢ 10 ° sunoe van é salt aoyacmh
| RTS Rae Pa eae eae
* .nyeb oe iat fone y ‘ate biost 0x oy a 8 soatene - P
— o
4
Ce oe tad henenee of eupnotora ot #2 twsid auotvde at dmkod o |
ay eae Bast ovad biuee Seno saameder, bd omer porcs + ase at , i
medi wee os ee wae iy
‘ir
4
Sudgment satisfied by levying on the real satate owned by the Green-
bergs when the vroperty was subject to two mortgages, the first
mortcage being in foreclosure and the property in poesession of a
receiver, it is equally grotesque te say that plaintiff might
gatisfy his jucgment by levying on the interest of the Greenbergs
in the greeery store. The petition werely alleges that at thar time
the judgment by confession was entered oii the execution returned
nulla bona, the Greenberge “were aperating a large grocery wd 4eli-
@atescen store at 56th etreet in which they were interested.* TJuat
what thoir interest was does sot appear; whether the property was
emcuxbered is not disclosed, Moresver, if the dreenk orge had angle
property to satisfy the judygaemt, the proper and simpie thing for
thes to 40 was to pay it. Altuan, the judgment ereiiter, nad waited
more than two years befere he garnisheed tae three tneuranee aoe
panies and during that time ne had received fo payrient on the judg-
ment. The proceeding ia whelly witheut serit and is an sttewst te
prostitute the oerseeear of the court.
The judgment of the Hunicipal ecurt of Chicago is reversed,
JURMGMERT REVERSED.
MeSurely and Matehett, JJ., coneur.
iN @ te neleaseney ah eereqerg ait baa axueofoaret ‘at amiee
™ egrodanetd acit to panned ad oud ae natives wi soya, oka ‘
tn oeht vd boawe obadoo foor on) a0 antywas w be Petser
| amet hd soeaend ten ewe 02 seoldwe ase vegeta ont swt raged ;
me Sat
Rh geet Eh Be ge
* Say de Vibtatase sexe ean or oupnesoxs Lloupe eh a *
pake or te tant oye Lia ‘lots neds ting oat onets yaeson |
7 beatut ox notsuoeee ond baw beret ae ane feisaetnes eo tes: Sy
“abieh ban qusenas opal o anitareqe ousw* wyts daserd ont :
“gout *.bedeouedal otow was hig Rete atk seotte woee te deste
4 turmuebioe sare” alee ;
“eaw xiaegors os? todeede Viesase toa enod ean dueroeat a ee ;
digas bad eytedavesd od “d vseveorolt shone ionts ton ob Yorn oats
2) Rhaeb j ro
rot pantald ofqate ‘ban 9g one ‘tam apbut wis “Waltan 9 ” es TeqotE
bethew burst Tos ibors taompbut, ost? ssid LA wt we ot aan ob ae 98, maa ay
eteo Sonmtwenk eeridd oalt boodelecay on exotad eran oat | sel, out econ |
spbut estf no Suomen on beviowes hai out warkt gaits 3 saica pms aptang
Lik & ee et Hy
ot sumoede ae oh bas dtnom 2 weed bw eitede at anthoseore eat —
if sehors eee SE Betets
ot tn09 ia wee unponeete ae eont
mk Ree. ats ie vidal
7 sbawnaven at eusotetd ‘te dnnied tages ait ons ° |
a i Oe ee ae ey jrond Pa oe i,
ue aaRAEIVAR Salad | re
Huser dg whe: mw “ad & Sa See see es ‘os ‘et ve
; ‘i mt. 8 * PRY weet “4 ii Cringe awa
| stimmaee , 2% :
wk Si eae vet nekehieg:
Keak dha wal ‘Eh e kat gue lewd Ter eudieae ms aM 0 Xe woman
a. git BER TS
i
, f Rae eRe tf
we 28 + itt 5 he ee
=” - v
nity Wee yt Ue
iy ar fd aide. Su
oe; oy m ee “
He t & ‘4 Pee S
v 0 5 Mi i rs
37848 }
BEILY MARGHETTA and WICHARW- wancux in, |
rn }
AnPE gl. ¥
} CURT OF cuxease,
MARIA RARDELLA, }
Agpwlies, }
BR, PRESIDING JUSTICN o'GobHOR
DELLVERER THE OPIRIGH OF THE COURT,
Vebruary 219, 1934, plaintiffs c5eused Judguent for $711.07
to be entered by confeenion in the Hunicipal court of Usicage
against daria kardelia on & prowiveory nete eaecuted by Kuria
Serdelia and her husband, Jowesh Sardelia, whe Rad fied prior to
that time, Afterward Karia Nardelia, the defendant, filed her
petition praying that tae Judgment be yacuied and eet aside, The
Motion was allered and thereupon the defendant sevet the sourt te
diemise the suit. The motion wan sueteined, the sult diguivaed,
amd plaintiffs appeal.
The sourt apparently held that the pewer to cxonfeas Judge
ment wae Joint and therefore there was no suthority te confeas the
jadgeent against one of the makere of the sete, The warrant of
attorney te confesa judgment was in the follewing language: “and be
secure the payment ef said amount ........bereby authorize, irre-
votably, any attorney of any Court of Record to apprer for.....e
im such Court, im tor: time or vaeatien at any time hereafter, amid
confess judguent without process, in faver of the helider of this
Bote, for euch mmount as may appear to be unpaid thereon, together
Stets and ...seereeeEOLiare attorney's fear, wai te waive and re«
lemse ali errors thich may intervene in any such proceedings, and
Gongent te immediate executien upen said Judgment, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that.......e0l4 attorney may do by virtue
hereof. his
Bhs ceecdstecesesMh@ecceseseasss Jevegh (&) Bartelia
mark
arin Rardeiia.*
min : 4 We ety Bh MAL: (ee
2H hae ARTANDAAK EME,
Te:
moet Ot aeette + ae oariest :
ope, ats eAsciemale ath . ee
8 g ) A I e . 9 kiotan of 68 eewigogn |
j wr et err’
ee Way
10,4179 tel sareuhut basuen ettitnbate , beet’. er eaaabtaaiet heal
CBM LMIORG twas Leqleknedt ont AE Koteeotads YE boron Sao "
— ehtal Yt Resveend OF0a YLOdakmot” © a6 ALieheet’ aldak
oF totty hols hed ow ,aLiohuwd Agoadt \haadebe ‘ead ibthat™ |
$e DSLEY plasbaw'tes ote ,ellohial ebeet biteere sta “vomke | bate” "
ont when fue ban besusnw oS Yinmabut wat fade yaiiede Beli eg *
“OF Ftude ods boven Sanhae tes atv noquetéty tae ‘Bewshld Yow ‘woteda”
dometumth thee sey wrgnmnentinteonesvena” tte dé stints
- aghat asetson or oi thai elaihe sieuidl tien
odd waotnes ef xFirodsus om aew weeny Wrotwody Hae dase aw i ae
(RO Paeweew ae Letom see Lo wre bP LS ey’ npedicansnld
it bua® isysigael gtlwelic?t was at wew sasmptvt ase loos o¢ qoonetsa
woe shelrodive yYdored...,.... treme blae te 2 cag ott ole 6
dvaveec@l? tenqus of dtecas to S20@0 Yee toe qooroate Ye, 4 fa ;es i
Bke ,reFtaored ams Yn tH Aolioowy we emis ated ai , Pwed fon a
— wbsid Yo tebLod ed? Ye cove? at <PR900TE Swoxtie Sraaeey b ssh eaetaco
_testawaod stoeteds blagay od es Tsoage Yeu te Puwom Bowe «oR setom
“et bas eview of baw ,eoe't o yeated sa MTBLLOD soeeevesee bate ete0n |
baa ehenanooneny soue Yie al eaorinéal yoo do baw aterre iia come
ei eutnie <e ob Yom “orretia it) ee fkn mnidared ‘onl
aso Ru
12049119 te rav09
ceri iia
o 3 4 alisthrat tt) thyaa ot. mre
tad eg my
* aliobist alae ene
We think thie warrant of attorney wae joint an¢d not several,
it did net sutiorize any attorney te canfesa Judguent against
either er beth of then, but #¢ think it autheriaes « conf eunion
ef Jutguent against both, Where a warrant of attorney ia joint, «
Judgeent entered againeat one only of the partiss «he signed the
warrunt ie void. Gendan vy, Bailen, 276 i141, App. 342, and it wae
not necessary that defendant, in her affidavit of meorite, set up
a periterious defense. Cendian vy, Salien, 278 114. App. 342. %e
think the court 414 not err in vacating the judgment because it
was 4 nullity.
The defendant filed her goneral apotarance and under these
clreumetancer the court erred im digciselng the suit. Gentem vw,
Bailen, 275 ill. app. 393,
tre judguent of the Kuniloiyal eourt, ineofar ae 1% vacated
the Judgvent emtered by confeseien ie affimied, bul the judgment
dismiowing the suit ie reversed sed the cause Yeassded; ond leave
should be given plaimtiffe te file an amended etatenunt of ela im
if the sourt is so advised, |
JUDGRSET AVFINGED Ih PART, HEVERG@D Ik FART,
AKD CAUSE RAVARDSD,
ReGureiy and Katenet?, JJ., soneur,
‘to.
Oat 5:
molaan tues ® noakuodiun ah datds ow ii m3
2. ae De ee Aye aie 1 ae S05 Go eee given oe val, Diy omy dal
1 sit eR it a Pig c ct r Fey Bus fy mt ee
Bi-4
| baton ah og anna au0o igaintons ont, 2
tasomhat ods ind , boom ite ef aoleae tase ve
eee
iy
37635 Oy pare Lt |
af ‘f wa
LAKE SHORE COUNTRY CLUB, 1 ae
Pa
Appellee
¥ a ) sen ROK dai
va,
COURT OF coon coun,
HORACE L. BRAND, ARKIN , BRAND,
BANA BRABD ZRDDINS, FRIBPA ¢,
BRABD, ROBERT ¥, ZEDDIZS and
SANA K, BRAND,
Agpeliants,
279 I.A. 626!
GR, JUSTICK MeGURELY DELIVERED THS OPINION OF THR COURT,
Complainant filed ite bill to enjoin or reliewe from a
threatened forfeiture of w lease; the chancellor, after bearing,
erdered the bill diewlesed; complainant appealed to this court,
which reversed the order of dismissal sid remanded the cause
for further proceedings in secordance wits the views stated in the
epinion weich wae filed December 4, 1932, Gane be, 36091, noted, but
hot published in full, in 268 111. Apo. 631,
Upen the retrial 1+ wae stipulated that the eause would be
heard on the same pleadinge ond evidence contained in the certifi-
eate of evidence of the Tirat trigl, the transeript of the order of
reversal and remaniomt, and the opinien of this court on the firet
appeal; it wae aleo stipulated that cll the evidence uprearing in
the certificate of evidenee offered by elther party should be eon}
sidered as received in evidence on the trial, irreaneetive of any
ruling of the chancellor on the former trial excluding or limiting —
the legal effect of such evidence, "
Upon this seeond trial mo evidenes ether than that contained
in the certificate of ewidenee of the former trial wae offered, At
the conclusion of the second trial the chanecelier entered a final
deeree in favor ef the complainant, granting it the relief prayed for
in the bi11, Defendants now present their appeak from tuat deeree,
Although defendente argue te the contrary, it is well «stab-
lished that questions which have been decided by this court on a
7 un an fae eee a
if ACERS, Oa phi aig Py
MF j ites Meh ah re as
i j : '
b | ‘i oe C020 TRTKUCO BAONR AMAL
| te sean RONG NO ona i see
ty aUod 2009 “O THUOD
ee rent BES We
if aaa tg is
9 5" oe t evs , | a4 duter ot Seba
_-TAUOD wat fo 4OLATTO. oat _—e YAMRGAeM MOLTAUR AM os
ie holes eat ey a
2 wrt ovelter to atetas of Litd eth petht sanatate
sgaltesd a9fte (xsl iosaeds ods ‘poamel w % emutherer bitaiecom
— ates of befasqea trantaiques ;heweioath sits od) boxobte
eam ece bobdname has tneatealh te tebro exit beaxover sonee
ed? al bedetd awety ont Udtw éonwBt00es nh agathoooora ‘asde om
sud , below — 0 wend ECL , Oo sedupsed bear anv Hokie nolntge
168 .qgh fi @o8 at shut ri seaensceue fm
ed Biow ORNS eit Gas bedelugids saw 3 fatster ot “a
| PYG eree end al boatadnoe sanebive bax tanthan te ‘omas “ed m0 —_
‘te Yebve edt Yo tabvoemest out? _telrd earthy out ‘te “eomebhye ' te ‘tte
oun ead ae Sewoo elds Te nelaige ens bas “ fasabaemet bas rv ee
“gh yabtanqga sommhtve ent ite tone betatwgtte cole enw $2 ihesage
atthe of bivora qiteq tedtte yd heteTte eemebive te eteottisea ont
ye te evizoegeortk , felt? sift o¢ soasbiye at paviocet ae bowbde
© posta se gathuieae Lotet sume? Oct ip tollsouncis ede Yo pat tee
io 8 \eonebive some Yo teste Kaye t eat
_ benta? doo dadd tial ‘sero sonebive om Lalt! baever aidt mogt
tA bow The base Leiat xeergot edt Te esaedive te ateot tise and wa
a ianlt a betetae tolieoaniio ect fade? hnogee Ad Ye so hewtomoo ont
’ t Beyete Welior eat 32 galiaaty ,#aaatatguos oul Ye revet ot oosoah
a eereoh fa82 wer Leeqqa tied? sapaerg woo ainahaw toe teas one ak
. tow wt 22 ,yxettaos odd of oumte afunbaetod dguosttta —
i mo tumey ald? yt Bobiows aved evan dolsiw saotseoup anst be
former appeal will mot again be considered upon a second aopenk.
Such decision is tinding not only on the trisl court, if the case
is remanded, but also on the Appellate eourt in any avbsequent
eppeal. Union Nat. Bank v. Hinges, 187 111. 109; Fosple vy. Militser,
301 Ill, 284; Berganroth vw, Pink, 927 111. App. 744.
We made certain findings in our forser opinion and reversed
the enure “for further proceedings in accordance with the views
statad in this opinion.” Thie was a final adjudication of the
questions therein decided, and the trial eourt, follewing our direo-
tions, which it was obliged to do, entered the order disposing of
the case. In People v. DeYoung, 294 111. 350, it was keld that where
the opinion of the Appellate court atsted and determined the Lenues
under the law and faete tuvolved in the enee, the remanding diree-
tions to sreesed in accordance with such views asounted to a 4irec~
tion to enter a decree aa prayed for in the bili. See alse Tribune
So,_vs_Imery Motor Livery Ge., 354 111. 537; ¥
Packing Go., 213 111. 397; Humphreys yer, 242 (11. 86; Sanders
Ma Peck, iM 111. 407; a eran erexr, #31 111. 164; Reggen-
buek vy. Breubaus, 330 Ili, 4,
The queation then presented is, ®hat was decided by cur
former opinion? It should be reoalied thet in 1909 Virgil &. Brand,
Horace 1... Brand and Armin ¥, Brand leased te compluinant appreximately
76 serees of land in Cook county, which, with certain ether acres vere
te be used by complainant as a golf course; this written lease ran
to Hareh 31, 1959; at the samo time the lease was made the parties
| exeouted an option contract whereby the complainant was given the
right te purchase the 76 acres for a named price; in September ,1926,
complainant served uotice on defendants that 1t would exercise ite
option to buy the 76 neres; defendants replied that complainant was
in default under the lease amd eculd mot exercise this option,
The complainant filed ite b111 in the Superior court of Cook
county seeking performance of the option centract and after hearing
( mM bah NR A maa APS i Gal
) CWB) RR ao st a TY i i
a me Mah teehee
Sosgqe bacovse & soqw domnhsenes od ake ye don iikw Laoqes comet
fens od? ‘th ,rw0eo Lebtd ond ao Yow tom gethatd ab notetoad dot
tapspeadue yew at two6 Staliogad 4% am onta dud yhebaames at
TRMELALM wt ofan | 1 @Os 140 VAs pina AEE SNA, eae
DPR Gh LE PER ee BO 4
Apexevet bas ietalqe taxset twa al egathat alediee okun of
' ppdtw’ Gif dite sensSeeonn at « egaibessetg tedfat tot” seune ont
oi? to nottaothuthe Leal? « wae eet “.wetalgo atid nt bedate
“peith i009 guiwollet , txs00 faits eda based bob ined Ahote i anol ianup
™ pataces th soho ona ategen ey of doytide sav a ole gemots
arse ctw “tn biog aw ti 488 fit Bes vagueYed . sfaged at
teuash ent beutawstnd han bedage fzwos otaLionna au to nobatee §
moetlp galbonmor eae PRG ‘ait at bevioval esoet ban wel, eat > vil
+ PP ORED, ® oF hedawers awely ose i tw ounronse: al ‘peovors of
gaedt«t euke oo@ .kkid oss ai ‘we? bowere an + sored « <otm
“ Aamatteusetal x smrine® ;968 441 ene + te saan
AMpbaes 70S .f27 SPS ,zeyed py. a ) aig
“ efepagel PAE £11, ses Stam Wo cons xost as
bas Bisa one. — ae
‘tue xo tobtoob oow “haste wa panes ro nal snoue oat
kei ard
mar ante aasito abasaoe | Aa de ae romeo 400d ‘iy yen,
we omens eadeixw eis enue aie * 08 imachonn’s t bs i od ot
nein a ot) ohem uny onan i oad oniks esse ont in are ol oF
i t teva anw tanainfqmon ons deeow teat a0 avin » s botannae
Lees. ab jeoksa bones * xe? eons ww er nm vancaru ob aks
ov rity eatozene Aivow gf touts adanhae ob ae epic : ‘ma Bh 3
ey, tasnialqme Sint beksgor “eiaahaote’ 3 jaweee ee . a Ae.
has pnokigs ate calorexe. fom dinoe baw oaoet emit mans
rf a
000 te $e mobs gut oats at rnke anh bel taants
x 1%, 4 : is “y
ebtained a favorable deerce; defeniuits appealed to the Supreme
court where the decree of the Superior court was rovereed and the
cause remanded with directions to disaiss the suit. Leke Shore
Sountry Club v, Brand, 339 Iii. 804,
About five months after that suit wae diguissed the tnetas
bill was filed to prevent defendants from forfeiting the Lease or
to relieve from a forfeiture if one had slready been deelared,
In the Supreme court decision in the option case it was
held that the complainant in that cage (complainant here) wae in
default in a number of covenants of the lease, and hence not en-
titled te enforce its option. Defendunts in the present case
argue carnestly that the findings ef facet and of law centained in
the opinion of the Supreme court constitute an eateppel by verdict
in this case, Reference to the brieds riled upen the former ap-
peal shows that thie same point was presented tc ue at that time,
We there held that the iesues in the two cases were different and
that no estoppel exists. Ye quoted from the Supreme court opinion
in Py Aa "an option eontract dogs not come within the equitable
wule against forfeitures, The question ef deeiaring a forfeiture
is met involved"; snd we said, “it is clear that there were no
equitable genetderations ner any question of forfeiture involved
in that case, This ie clearly stated by the (Supreme) court; but
the cuestion involved was one of comtract only, while in the ine
stant ease equitable considerations are involved beeause the bill
is filed to prevent a forfeiture of the lease *,* in that opinion
we followed the well settied principle tuat a court of equity hae
power either to enjoin a threatened forfeiture or to relieve from a
forfeiture if one has already been declared. Lilinois Merghante |
Trust Co. v. Harvey, 335 111, 284; @
BeKinney, 184 111. App. 476, We mleo Meld that equity will relieve
ay
i Ns c APA Se
a)
by
*
ae Bet &
“ome tqud edi ev heLasq@a atoobactoh tgoxoes eldetovet a bemladlde
ott baa hoste ves aaw Jtupe vokun gue auld Le oeresd ony wrod dinde
enol edad »Siue ote caked of eaokeoweth paathigcvnngh sy’
hod) 012 Wee heer Ly |
fatent ane boae tum in vaw tive tedd teste edtcwm ovtt sueda
19 guar t ost gatdtetrot mort eiaahueted taevety of betty eaw thie
hetefooh ased yfactle bad ono th @xuthetvet A nett wiedit . ]
waw ti send aoisqo oct al aotaltoch s2Hop swore edd wt = ;
oat asw (ote Snsaiotguaa) enna Sacd ai dmntetgowe oi Vata
“ate Jon eomsd baa jwaeel odd ‘te éinareves Wo totam & ab ition
easo Jaenetg od? at odanbuoted .aoliqe abi eoxeta of twee
ai beatagnoe wal te bas sont to wyathalt of? teat (Yld newts pen
| tobbaey Us Isquodes ax edudideaos saveo eavigwl ent ‘to ‘aontted ae
‘Lge weuet edt doqu bail? @telid oat oF Coereren: banned Gat
\emkd Sent te eu 08 hésnone tq zen sale omec whet Zi
hie tose Tilb eter Goaxe ows ont ME aeweel off tent re roe oe
pehakqe givso somtgat eas aot Sotone OW .ateten oocade a tah
afdatiupe ed? miitiw amon Ion aseh soartads aoltgo HA*’ jonan\, :
_ ered ietio? # gniisiosh Yo aoitne vp oat eotud te tret thiliene awe
" ‘en otew tess Jasds sete of o4* vhiea ow ‘haw ronda tou ak
bevioval etutietset to aetéaoup yaa toa anol saxend S stead topo ;
i “ted rte (omexqua) etd yal betasé ylissio at aber ahd ire Ll
Lak ont mi othaw ,xtao doardacd to ono eaw bowkowas nell ee
“££1¢ 6 oauaved davicrsl #ts ano itatot tawoo di hyn ltd
aotatae tans at * 8 ‘Seeek one i bata a depict ie erie et
“« mont owed tes ot Xo wand torre bow seals a aie w oe iy,
bes aka uaa y i we saneld ies LE 888 xo bit ay 36 Haat
orezion iikw whup tad blow, ou ds, av th am. +f a f venation
4
from a forfeiture wire the claimed breach hae been waived by the
landlerd with knowledge of the facts, and where the breach ie
trivial, has not been made in bad faith and can be cured.
The principal alleged default relates to the obligation of
complainant te erect a clubhouse upon the leased premises costing
mot less than $25,000, The eclubheuse contemplated by the Lease was
set ergoted upen the demiced premises, although wm locker end caddy
house corting over $25,000 was constructed upen the leased prentacs,
Complainant's elubaouse, coating over $100,000, was ereeted on
preperty adjoining the leased prenisen, purchased by complainant
subsequent to the execution of the lewee, There ie an abundemece of
evidence that the ceeplainant, by ite legal representative, nego-
tiated with and entered into em agreasient with the attomey repre-
senting the lesarerr ¢2*t the Learore would’ waive tug shhignticon
to erect the alubhouse uree the premiess deuleed by the Lease,
Counsel representing both partias, raspectively, testified, md it
ie established by thia testiceany that Such am agreament wae wmode and
that a writing te thie effeet war to ba drawn and the leasore’ cxeo
eution procured by thelr atteormey, but welch var never executed by
the leseors beeavse of the unreseonatle dsley om tha part of their
attorney, ir. Reventsel, It fe enid that the counsel whe represented
the defendants in the matter was net asutheriszed te suke such an agree-
ment. There are writings from beth Horace L, Brand and Virgil x.
Brand consenting te such an agreement. Kr. Lesging Resenthal, whe
represented the lestors in these negotiations, testified that he had
been & practicing attorney in the Gity ef Uhicage since 1991; that
the father of the feferdants wae a client ef his father, Juliueg
Rosenthal, and that he, Lessing, bad represented the defendants an
an attorney in tines past, his professional relations with them
having started even before he wan adwltted to practice law; that he
=
eae yd bevinw nved sad soewed bomiutp ect om Ow Oued teTOOR a mez
at sisnerd oA! ommee bow .adeo't eat Io oyhetoomt atte pretkast
beTLG Of ano bam Mtet bed at oho aead tem ance, Lakehead
to meltnylide oat of avtelox Sino lob bogetia daqteuttg epi. uae
| Bileee geada tq boaeed ans seq ennoddude a soete of | smenlelques
asw onnel suis yd hednigustaro sauoddiude eff .000,72@ maedt opel toa
ghhan fra tetood « sigimsidto .eralaeng heckumh ods neqe betoake ton
segkun ty heeeel ed nowt betaurtenso aaw 000,804 cove gattaoe eaves
mo beteots aaw ,000,0058 weve guivees ,omunddude 8! Saamhedqued
te sonmbauda ne ob ore! .osaed of? to noktunexs adtond ne useedizs
een ,ovivatmmaergt Laget ast yt ,smmatatenen et tant sanmhine
<wtge Yureisea ais Wiw dmamowtys aa otal Aevede has che Beteks
avttentide of? ovker Minow mrenent oct teat moened ant gpatoawe
saael eid yd bowiows sesiowrg add cece eenatdwig walt. tomeet
hb fae yhertraed yyievi too0n08 tn koaag Abed gnitneapscet Leone |
hed shun baw fasmeniye se tans tadd ytomt tend ahed yd heed Soman ed
seme ‘eteanat ont hea anath ed ef aev SonTte aha ot gaia few. eats t
qs Aetmecne Y9vSR wGy Snlaw fod ,Youtorte Tess YO RetMOOTG mettes
ghedd te fag 9d? 20 Yales ofterouuetan ot ‘te ooueeed etosest edt
| bataedangsx atw fsaawen edt fads bier of 9! (-fadeeeeel hy yyemnetia |
“s07%8 Sh Gove adem of hosiiedése #06 ea Ledine aaf ol a¢owhas'ted odd
oA £igtk¥ few haere .1 eoazel dted mot agaksinw etm etedt .deem
odw ,inddasao® pikeand 1% .tsemsetys oe sows 08 gmkiagenon Bante
hed 04 (add bell Maes paagttebieyen ened? a2 gi geee ond’ ‘hotmsaenget
gat ;L00L woate ogeciad to ysd owt al warettn sabedteatesa nied
abtink ,teddat eid te taelio o eew etaaben tet oct To remted a
(Ae AteAhSTAh Sf hotnonoiget bed ,gaduerd yaa saat eatesiniantn
mpdd ithe snelteter canotecotorg wkd ,Seeq combs ak yomnol
oH tad [Wed Oo Montg of pareduhe aaw Of eroked seTe)
represented derace lL. Brand and siso the brethers, Virgil a md
Aruin,in certain matters; that he wae their legal adviser and rep-
resented them when in 1906 they purchased the land which was subse
quently leased te complainant; alec, that he represented them pro-
feseienaliy in the making of the lessee, and that in ali of these
transactions he was acting ae attorney for the three brand brothers;
he confirmed ine testineny of Er. Ceri Meyer, tie atterney fer com~
plainant, «ith referee to the agresment that the ieseors would
waive the obligation of the complainant, lessee, to arect its
@lubhouse upon the dsamiee4 premiees, The evidence establishes the
fact that beth parties conecerne’, seting through their respective
attorneys, in good faith agreed that the complainant should ke re.
lieved of the obligation with referenee to the site of the clubhouse.
As we cai? i» our former evinion, ao sbiection er complaint
Was wecs that the clubhouse wae mot built en the Aswieed prenises,
and defendants receive’ gavment ef rent in accerdanee with the tere
ef the icase fer egre than ¢ceventeen years siter they knew that the
@iubhouce ticd been bullt uper the adfoining preperty. The seveptance
ef rent with knewleten cf a claimed Aefault canstitutes a weiver
theres! ao that me forfeiture ney theresiter be asserted on that
ground, Yabator v. Bichele, 104 Tl, 160; Vintelore v, Pappas, 319
Tll. 115; Hoses oonie, 186 111. 392.
Rereover, it has been held that @ covenant to erect a build-
ing conforming to certain specifications by a certain date Ls sua-
eeptible of only ene breach, which is not Luter than the time
stipulated for the performances of the covenant, MeGlynn vy, Moore,
26 Cal. 324; Jacob vy, Down, (1906) 69 1.3. ch. 495 (iing.); Stephens
be» (1925) 64%. J. oh. 56 (Eng.)
The instant lease smtinel that the clubhouse should be built by
April 1, 1912,
Anether claimed default is with oufenmes ts the taking down
be a iteah¥ ,aveddosd a0) vais bas haaet ol oommell betunsorges,
aqui bow teatvhe leyet thend awe od tad? jategtom shorty abbas
-sadue enw teddy brat edt Seotuloteg yest 8204 ab nod watt be tammee
-wtG xOA? HOSnOnOrgeX Hf todd one ;enawtelgnoe OF benaed ¢LIseup
enedt Yo fin ok Fosi9 bun ,amowd Oc 26 gmbiem extt ah ‘bane tone
poxedierd bawtd sects ef eek yorredta an qabtos sew eet aaeteomunent
~me tek yourelis als , Tey IueP Jak to yaombvaes mete: bomck ae -
‘bivew atesaed we tact teametge edt ot Soan're'ton Kabw , dem tas
agi soo oF ,seened ,eenteiemoeo ose eset dept fe aut ovtew
odd aedulidatas sorbate od? ,cooieora Pealorh ent isto
- ovitesqest aied? syuctid galtes ,houteomes aettuae rte tots soe
bt od Hinoie Taeaisiqnan ant taut Sootye thal heey ab . ay rn
<eanedduke ext Xe othe eis 02 wonexe'tor xt te noisustise vit 2 bevakt
tnlelqans to seisostde om ,aotuntyo wartot tae ad ‘Rem er al are) home
tnaturxe beaiaeh edt no tliat gon enw exsreasitenlor out tact sham naw :
ante? a2 th» sesediooes mt duet Is tomeyag hevingex ednobwe tobe | ats |
et? fuid weer yom? tothe ateey saetegren Natt oxo <0 onan aah Ww
ooratqesdse ofl .Ydtogetg galntetha ent ang titud need hawt pawoddute é
Meview # eedutizawos sinter hemiato «© Be ee ee ee |
fend ap badieces of usd insted? you ates is'tret en dad? ea kwetont!
OLS , enema oY oteletaly 7OSk . 06a ipianapenasenctenito ah
888 AAT OE ae — |
abiied & sabte oF tummvee adem’ ind med eas ab oe ae | tan |
sane cl stab aiatwes of sabsdenintanpesetenstianeaaiiaia
eke wate va it tofed tom ad vober Pee micLiaiislh
of a $25,000 deposit held in trust by the Chieage Title & Trust
Company for the benefit ef the lessorm as security for the erection
ef the clubhouse according te specifications and within the time
limit, and alse as security for the performance by complainant of
ether provisions of the lease, The lease provided that sa seen as
the complainant, in erecting ite clubhouse, should expend a owffi-
cient sum of money so that tae $25,000 in the hands of the trustee
would be sufficient to complete the suliding, thie money goula be
paid cut by the truatee for that purpose, and any balance remaining
in the fund showld be paid te the complainant previded it waa not
in defsult in any of the covenants ef the lease. ine reeord shows
that after negotiations were had between tue parties for 4 aubsti«-
tuted performanee of the covenant respecting the clubmcuee, that the
attorneys fer the Lessors wrote to the trustee inferming 1t that
they represented the les#ere and autioriged and dirested it ig de-
liver the $25,060 ¢everited to Alfred 5, Austrien, one of the ate
terneys fer the complainant, whe would eall Tor it the following
fay. Ar. ieosing Aoventneal testified that shartiy batere Ke wrote
thie letter he hed sathority frem Horace Erand te deo ao; dr. Rowen-
thal testified that ot thie time Aernce brand “sommunicated with me
and teld me, in substance, that 1 might consent to the withdresal of
the deposit, de was auting for all ai thew and 1 was acting fer all
of thes." Ko testineny was introduced contradiating that ef “Kr,
Ronenthal. It thus appears that complainant was acting in guod faith
when, with the consent and authority of the attorney for the Lessors
it withdrew the deposit on August 13, 1909. iL: should again be
metiaed thet for seventeen years after thie depesit was withdrawn
the lessers made no complaint and 414 mething about it. ‘This pro-
tracted silence tents te eatahlich complainant's elaim that the
Withdrawal ef the $25,000 demerited was expramely consented te by
the lessers,
’
gourd 4 oL727 egaoidd off yd fauce ah Blok sieogeh (000,286 am bia
moteeane ect to't etirucce ae eirassel oat te titesed aus x02 w 1 que
gate eatd alsit ho bie anolenolitoses 62 pabirecea onsen | es
‘te “tneats Legare rc wo nance Treg oad to? xa hrueee 86 “pale baw. soins
an noon as sade beblverq evael nut -oneed oft te enelaiverg mie
ai'tie 2 breaxe biveds ,snwodielo oft aalsonze ab $i nLeqmme
eefeut? edd to abass odd wh 000 aks esa tons oa ‘(omen a'ga* vas
ed kines qo now alicia waalbitud od otolqmes 09 taslolYiue od biwow
gatatamey ebasind qn ban ,esoexug fat? tot epteusd ote et tie ‘bkwe
fon saw 31 bobiveta énuchthionss 643 of blag of bivbme ‘hawt ot ai
wworis bioses eat .damod wait %o atunimvou ould he yi ‘ak hut |
oliades & ret eoléuag odd Koodo ds bau otow ana biol souea mite 9
odd and ,oawosdute eid yoltoogeot #annvves ond ‘Yo obnewt 199 mn
Gaus gh galuvelal esdaurd 043 09 e¢otw atonnel ous vot ele
“Gb of 32 bodgetls ban omer eis me bos stoweed ost bed % ergot coe
adn odd Yo ono ,aubisews .0 betTsA 08 bedtaceen oe at a “97 i
yalwotlet elt #4 tet Sian biwow ose inandal rill’ wnstad
“otexw uk st0ted wren sand beiiioans tasdnoneh 2
om Kbiw betesiaauung” bnetd cnocell amid ‘nthh Fa toa Pinbar hs tan ha
te iaenadiltiw odd 6+ dnwsaoe — i acs Gere a of ft
sth Yo fads galsolboxtacd bovithont at aw ‘yhwbai
ita? boos al yaltea sew fanmiatemos dads wtane vs |
* gubabas odd tot yantodta ould te td seonaiva’ bee #apend
od absaye bLueste yt oer EL seugna’ ne Hoo ad «
‘pwexbit te saw theogeb atsd aedin azavy asedusen : Seottan
| “org ald? .th dude anihstom bid baw sabe tomo’ a ear a ?
"pat tad mato et gnentatiains fn eet yas oF band 6 emo tte Betouee
Phe tp guy ree
Ba ot besnennce qlawetane ane haghsonas “oo ane wi ray nes chef
aah ak TAM
Bereover, the lease provided for the withdrawal of the de-
posit by the lessee (complainant) if it performed the clubhouse
eovenant, or, for ite withdrawal by the lessores if the iemwee aid
net perform the clubhouse cevenant by April 1, 191%; se that in
either event the deposit was subject te withdreral on that date,
It was not contemplated that the deporit should rewain beyend that
date. That the leesere made no request om Aprii i, 191%, or at
any time thereafter for any of the deposit, is sonelusive evidence
that they knew it had been wlihdrew by the complainant pursuant
te the agreement sade in 1963.
The record amply justified our findings usen the former ape
peal that the actions ef the complainant vith reference te the site
ef the clubhouse and withdrawal ef the £25,606 desoott were tn
goed faith; that the obligations with refermee to thew were waived
and therefore there were so grounds in these respects te fustify a
ferfetturs,
Vith regard to four private homes woieh the club permitted
te be bullt upon the deuised premises, we Seid thet thie was net
sufficient to justify a ferfeliure, These, costing $20,000 eagh,
were built in 1915 and the lessere made mo somelaint sbout their
presence on the land untli the lassee attenpted te exercise ita
option tn 1926. i% cease te be congeded that thease residences may
be somoved at any time up te the expiration of the lease. 4onze-=
quentiy no real injury has been suffered by the leseors as a rerult
of the crection of these resideness, Indeed, they might be cone
sidered as added sceurity for the sayment ef the rent and the pere
fermence ef the ether covenants of the lease,
Kereover, tue lense expressly permitted the subletting of
the leased premises, or any part thereot, te reputable persons, pre-
vided that ai the time of sush subletting the lessee was nat in de-
fault either in the payment of rent or in the performance of any
sh Way "cdt Lhiblndiptd Vin “Wie Wellies Gabi sd ttl
gaWedduio ed? Kowse'ting 31 Th (usmle cqman) soa
bip pesaet oad “tL atoesel oat yo Lawnvadtlw off xe? |
“nh Send oe S20 .f LingA yo tnemoved seweddute dt ified ie
eteb fads 86 Cowaxbddiv 64 Yootaun wav tisoeeh odf da we sodtig
tans badyed tower Siiuods ¢inequs odd salty boitn Lina dled dou gh 6.
- fa Io aed £ ihe ao dahuivis ed ‘baad a ‘rronest on ba
-
ofa adt ot vouere'tot atin toantelfewes oft “te pratt
: “at row feos God, aay ons x Keitel ts nin 8 Rabtat ee ws
i peewee ‘% Se
betters” dufo od? delow semed ptaving ‘tuot of baw: u's ‘ OP sia ye
“gon ate ein? soc? Bion ow ow asshaovid ‘poudimb ea ‘Wibd tend of a
done WG , URE gatteso ,sennt wuilete & vligaut oF teh dorttwe a
ieee uote delilouss on eden Wrodeot vid ee Etbg Bt tdud vray
“ptt oatorexo of Sodenoéed eosnot odd Shaw Suck 969 wa ep avenn
yous vostebion: eendt add hebsoaie of of sures cee “eRe a /
e@nte? .aarel ag “to aoisatiqae add of qu ould oe de veya ‘= @
“pies a os Ponask oie yd Seen Five aos Boe With eae on %
Save tad trig youd <beokat ° “te 0 |
ws 989 Sad Yoo od? Yo ran ont ‘sor aan obbe
re
Og Ee ee eS a ae
8 udondee ekdatuqex oF ,tovaods t22q yar to june, 1g Be
ot at dont Waw bonset ox? gatitosdue doua Yo pink? ai ie
ie We oonemnetzeg ef9 al to tawt te tmneneg, ont ao
ether sovenant of the lease, As we have said, these resldences were
built in 1913, ‘The only default that could have been claimed at that
time was with reference to the site of the clubhouse and tae withe
Arawal of the $25,000 deposit; but aa we have het the obligations
concerning these tere waived by the lesaora prior te that date, the
Leseee van not in default vhan these resideneea were built and they
were therefore parailtiod under the teras of the lease,
Taere were dlaimed defaults in respect to the covesant with
raference to taxes and ineuranet, an? Lt ia vaseniod te Gana aa
such defaults have been cured and are not sow in the case,
Seounsel for defendants wgein present the claim that coniplaine
ant dis net in sourt wlth clean bende, becuune of an alleged secret
agreepent of complainant with the defendant Sorece L. Brand, whereby
4% bowget fron vim five seres adfeining the demiged premiges aa a
epeciel and averet gonsidcration to induce Alm to s#cure the approval
ef his tyvo brothers, leveors, to the gabatituted arrangeam’ with
reterenée to the eite of the clubhouse anc the withdrawal of the
$25,000 Gepoeit., In our former opinion we held that this transac-
tion wae free from ery teint and “wae in every way hanerabie.”
The Gili of complaint aliesed that in 1921 Horace i. Brand
conveyed hia ona-third interest im the lease to his daughter, Erna
| Brand Zeddiesa. Defendants admit this, UCersplainant contents tnat
@ince this conveyanee irs. Seddies and the other Lessors are tenants
in cenmon and thet all tenants in commen, alone, have the right te
declare a forfeiture, and that as she could net declare a forfeiture
for any alleged defaults occurring before 1921, therefore she Leseors
@ansot claim a forfeiture; that all of the alleged bresshes occurred
prior to 1971 and therefore no forfeiture may be deelared. This
point wae presented anid orgued on the former appeal and, ae shown by
our former opinien, was considered and determined. #e weld that the
lease did not vest in the heirs er grantees the lendierd's grounds
oxee woonebiner beoud , bins ove ow RA bene ont Ye Paweovon aestto {
dndt ta Beutato mood oven biveo Band those “tno ext” Onee ne otiee
Aut iW ot ban eenoddute Bd Yo Od te One 02 seamzeted Mtl wa baht
enviteatioo ott Wied ova ow ee fed ;Tieogeh quo one ot ” Sill :
ent ead tedd of colxe axonnds et yd beviaw oxew event | ye ieso mes
ies bane $126 oxew wsscrblest omed? apa ofce Wh wl fon iidw’ tet . 4
oe ' weeaet ond Ye reves edd <ibot Battered orotetenY otew
Hw giacevoo" bi of tovuadt Wd urtuatod heatary aioe bred
FIP boc poten ih bobestoo #2 $2 Hee ,oonexwend How aed} o2 oniekb tix
a .ouao ec? af won Soa ote ban hotest need oval as tie teh ome
sce tard miotn exit ceapree! alepe titnanio tee arog aatt
= cca In leer ead
gees 6 bishae .c svetoh tanpas'ted ont athe dunkite Lesine te taboo
‘@ be apetoste bootowh eft grittotba stron eytt ati aot biywod
pe OAS wtivowe OF wl wowed oF aoitatohianos se Sa habe
ss ff bw ganeegactte betatitedua afd of ,eteeeat enon out owt eid te
pee “te Knwerbslt tw edd Sev eave ss site Ye od Pa ale ‘82 esuexo%er
} eons anes whed dus KIRA SW molmked tarctot Yeo wt itsouss } } | :
# efdarxotod cee Creve at eee” bas Pale yw wot bow abi |
phar i eoaceH Heer At tel bebekte dabhtens te Lets ear” 8°”
ante preteyunh ahi oF sane t oo) ab yaows rect putitehke aid’ bo yeva
“tad abnotnes Piantotynod 0b habe atnbbos tee Pissed
esiene? ona Bronast xodze xd hae wetbset vest weaighvito Whitt lite
er bias 0 oid ovad ,onols ,mommpo af eaknnd Tis dat bad mbady Hh
pee ke peefoob tow biwoo one ae dad! Hub joemeteTeot a bebcedd
ardeee f ona Sxoterodd ,LhOL ato'rOd gatrtiose édtes'teh” Deporte Yaa xe
berrunee aedgoetd bogetta oy to fla tant peru teeth a whete $8amio
| ala? sbetatooh of yam itd teTeeT oa Oxebeteiy «a ee | |
“Ee awoite 8a baw Ladys tosre'l oxo ne binge bac beene .
ait? Yadd bien oW Lbonteretss han borehbanes aay hie
| pbatmoity a brotbaer ent avernexy ‘eo ated eat ak tet |
for forfeiting the leage whieh exieted pricr toe the time the heirs
or the grantees acquired tueir interest in the property, and we
sustained the contention of the complainant in this respeet, citing
many “apes,
We aleg held that no notice to the complainant ef defaults
was given as required by the Lease as a condition precedent te the
righte of the Lessors to deglhare the tera ended,
Om the trial counsel for defendants effered, if eomplainant
Would consent to cancel the lease, to cive a new ioaee te comvleing
_ ant en the sane terns and exoiring at the same time se the vresent
Lease, This would indiests that defendante do net wish te oust
complainant fron the leased precises but wish te dewtroy the exiat-
ing leate for the purposes of sreyenting the exercise by complainant
or its optien ts varchare, Compistnant concededly desires to eon-
tinue the loase s¢ ns to derive whatever advantage may flew from
this with reapest te the ention cantraot.
After Vorese L. Bren¢ conveyed bis interest in the premises
to hie ¢dnuguter he eubeecuerntiy beeess the owner of a one-sixth
interest through icheritance from bis brother Virgil, whe died in-
testate Fume 20, 19?6,
‘Ceuneed for Horace i, Brand nas Tiled a separate brief in
whieh he asrerte that comploimant's bili should have been “Lied
within elaty days of the service of notice of deiauit, efting
dilincis terchante Trust Ge Hervey, 346 [ii, 244, te viich com-
Plainent replies that this contention ie fereeleored by our former
@eeision, ae it ie w rule thet the Apsellate eourt will not revier
ita former decision in reepeet of matters which were, or might have
been, atuigned for errer upon the first appeal, Tribune Co. vy.
Rnory Fotor Livery Co., 358 Lil. 637, Om the former appeal we held
that se formal notice of default with « view to terminating the
Lease was ever given to complseinant, consequently there is ne point
etied ort amie ert of aoivg tedulxe toiav oust off gould iv tte? teP
ow hia ,ystedety ect af teertofal «ated? howkepoe esotaaty odd oe
Baltic ,Jonqnet elas nt sanmtateme od? Le agkiwetass one hankagnie
atiuctoh Ye gesatalquos orit af seitom vm tacit biod enfe eH oe ous
otis o¢ saphaoete aektibag # aa esest act yd betkupet ee nevi aw
hehe med ost etedoeh of sxoeeed aay! teostdgier
timaretoacp Ik hor Tho atnehasteh 16% deemsy Initdh ett ae bide
meas Keynes of osans wou s ovly of jseset off Loaces o¢ Suneenn itso
fasestg off an sute come off Ja eotiviexs fies amet sone att wo ome
fame et ciete don ob atretartod tadt efeothal btw ekt? eaakt
ee ae a oe.
;
i
a!
‘
4
P
>
a
| edit yatseakanea 08 woe a Sedw 2tueteD Noveotton Kamnatwnl’
- gudoqvem af o19dd htaoupeanoe \sibaletqane ot aivig
atekme off youtass of ety Jud soalseizq boowel ee ott oanmtd Lena
frwatelamos vd oulorexe oto anttasvere Te esoytme ade xOY eae R yal
~192 of gptdesh viheheones foeatetgaod \eretferic of watt go wth te:
moet welt yas egntacrhe teveatactw avlah OF en of Oennr aiy minty
tomutnes melee eft. et soneuvt dtiw etd
sesiawny od? at teetedat até becvevass dae! 62 sents edtarece i lor
_ tenkessne a Io tocwe ext waned ytoesendew om Wee AS eid of
ont bekb one ,LtyttY westotd eto mort sonst indat msenalane
Gh Teli aderscoe # bettt ant hawk of soneeleeh- Kemmmeo > inte
(beik? aved pved bivese Lid @ danatedquew dant) aoe .
gadate ge dua'led “Wo wots ot too esheren, ot vo een gt abate
-uoo dedaw of 288 . LPR Mee |
xemae't suo ed boweteetct ah meltoegaon gids ¢adtoged feet ansiihaitip
mabye dem Libw gxn0y sialionga on? tat? eft aot sboenjaatenens:
oved tdjle to jeter dotdw atestan to tosqned at male loon ene 6"
Zee eee | henqus tend ond ogee cert 08 mga: ened
| Rist cow tneqge toate et a9 .9EE SALT BER 4 :
10
of time from which the sixty day period could be computed,
Reilther ie there merit in the point that the tender ef rent
by complainant wae ineffective, not having been kept cood. Complaine
ant paid nll rent under the terme of the lease up to and including
September 30, 1926; when compleinant at thia time served netiece on de
fendanta of ites intention to exercise ite ontien to purchase the de-
mised presieves, Aefendantsa begen refucing the tenders of rent and
have continuously se refused ever since, We stated this feat in our
former opinion. Some statement is made in the brie? vor Horace 1,
Brand indicating that enorme of the times the checks tendered for
rents were overdrafts. There is no evidence, however, thet when the
cheeks for renta were igaued and sunt to defendants there wae net
enough in tne benk to take care of gach cheeks, It is not soaterial
whether, wfter theese checka hod heen returned and were ne longer
outstanding, the amount on deposit was sufficient te pravide for
their paysent. Beresver, the record sheers that at the eonelugion of
the trial a certified cheak for the rent from October 1, 19946, te
April 1, 1952, was tendered to the lessors, but refused, We neld
that the tender vas sufficient and haa been kept goed. Hewever, in
wiew ef the repeated refusal of the defendants te accept rental, in
equity so techniecsl rules relating to tenders should be applied.
Thompgen v, Srains, 294 Lil. 270,
We hola that our former opinion was binding upon the ques-
tions presented and decided; that no additional reasons er raete
have been presented upon this appeal suificlent to medit’y or change
eur former epinion; that a further eoneideration of ali the evidence
leads to our conclusion that no suificient grounds to justify a for-
feiture have been wade to appear, and tiat in any event the present
éefendants, owners of the premises as tetante in commen, are precluded
from aeserting ae grounds of ferfeiture any alicged defaults oeeurring
prier to April 5, 1921, the date of the conveyance from Horace i.
| tetucyeon od héwoo balvey yah eke matt dokse mowemth Re
fuer 2o tebe ond tosid tntog edt ak Shree xed? ab meee coh oe
atlacqinod. .booy ¢get eed galved son ,evidos tient sew dneninkqaoe gd
aathuloal how of gu eaael edt ‘to saned ec? tobaw toet Lie Diag ome |
wh to eolfen bevise omit ealrG te taanlielqsce wee 198AL , 06 todmadqed
«bh ect ouacigtue of meitqo 022 aelotwxe of solfrednt af) tq ednahne®
bas tomy te wwebasd edd yotestet omgod efashbuetet ,aseheete boadm
quo #2 Jou? ett) hetede aV .seqte weve bomu'ter on qlentwakines pvad
,L @patoll t0% Yolad off mt ohom ab ¢ndamtade omk \.aebadqo come?
MO havea? wlosds ots conds ct Lo smo tedt gotdookhabshewett
edd dade tetd severed ,senebive aa af etext er Wethneve ere eames
- om tan oro} ntaador teh of jaee bas bewenl oupw adnox 10% elonde é
feturtem toa nt ¢] ,adaesiy dows Ye oxeu odet of tant oft abatgup
‘weyaef ea wrew fas homisdes ased hat atoode ered? unite \sadtedw
tot edivety of dneinlTiue .aew diaeged oo davome oul? ,palhoatotao
Ye melsulones ot Jo todd awode Ateoot ond pinventsl. staomwg thea
Pe ey eee
¢
x
(gd ORAL .£ todotod mot? 240% mde TOD stoone batwaeeNe a tatyd ode
bind @W beeWtet dud yexceses ott of horehues ew yOHeL A LineA
at ,Tsvewel $009 dose need axl dna saotelTiee maw tebaed odd fads
ab ,fatuet feecec of attaches tab eno Yo Loner Buteseen sat Te wey
beligqge of Bivede etehoed of pattatot selon Uap tadoed on ylups
“OTS LEE OOo swale) ay memgateds
aagup eae segs gabhald oav aelatge touret aso data bio OH ooo) i)
eFeel 1S caa2eer Lani tinos om jadi poebsewk dae hetasewsg wagkt
eyGaks to Yibbos ef Junio! Yinw Lasqge aldd acqu hedaeantg seed evad
asiebive od) Lia te aoliatedianes wwidewt # sald paokadqe tearto® awe
-te% @ Vlizas!, of abavatg tools itinue oa toads aolealadoo “tue 02 ebook
sneneng et gneve Yad ab said Soe staraea of eben ened evadoyanaet
“‘febwioeng ome ynomaos AL adnnued £0 eeuraorg 98 0, : %
paberwsee ovine les Segeils Yas etudistiot te shavotg aa yas ;
(dk Soe moet someovaeD Og Ro etab wd? “10k e dbahat
il
Brand te hte aaughter, Erna Brand ZeAdies, and no grounds of fore
feiture «exist for any defaults occurring subsequent to that date.
We have discussed some of tha avidance at greater Length than
we 414 in the prior opinion, as the chancellor in the firet trial
Limited the admission of evidence. All the evitence is now before
us. Ye are not now reviewing our former conclustons, That opinion
is binding, and the conclusions therein reached are fortified by a
re-examination of the recor,
Far the reavone indiested toe deeree agnenlead fram La
affirmed,
AFPIRGED,
O'Connor, F. 7., and Fatehett, J., coneur.
Wad Moyaek TetsocR 2a eonAbi Te ett Te -wHOE LeaETOEED SwAM OM KT
feled tert ond ad tOLidometo 60? Ba’ <askatge wolves dd ad DRRow
etoted won at senehive oad £1) .sonvbdve Ye molaetehe ods Setiahe
-telakes Yad? saolanlomen téoret too galwelver wor tom ote 0% samt
2 Ud beLtLIc0% eta bodawor aleteds enetawtents ond bne-jambhetd ab
yo) @) 49a) 2) betete 2° yoetle cove. Seeninced® Secenbeenbenepeed
Rb mow be Lasore Gete0h Ody beteothad eapmest oft red) Goto?
Tsk tet antoadto. wed soe er he seer Ue hee ea
O22 sects {QUMNPEWAS Od (eorchivs of af eet | er De ‘ore eR
Sew tee ered? «atansoe ts’ of oem Ane bewead seer eh roel
eeate) oe ees baw Serer ede 's dant pet ee ee Pe er
Cee oh re ty as Petloi et. aah oe Oe watt: ap ,
be Moisiisionms ad” te @e83 Sead SGone% ae, 4 REF oe tiniagen anae rr
ge 8862, f tatated eet? fant eds nigh meme 2 im dade heondl
Ct a ee seen ees Me. toe oe Paes >, ae hataties oo ei ae & tay
OE: WVISER . dees Pe Heer hee Sing sreotandteen ean gta ie
st , ratusy faroee of efeebanheh anf la cee iot ‘nepal ab tad
ta fees af otuede erehaas of nabiated alee buetiabeed is et hel
pA BS DOR;
ONE SR ROR ag Re wusmeiee wie SO) EERE S wie sade bios ae lege hay
abe? te watgwes tao tikhe oe ar aera Shay ea ana laa
Spits Le Yiihaw we taele Vee ae Onde) eee Seeding whey aret orad
nae as Lie ia weitededs woes “tele? a Dame PeeEA Lee “sea sane
Ot Blah? oF manviy Mee kes eime oa fae “eeitonan “ail on a
Pewee ee Peero Ga ad cade eo epee eh ee.
tolpvionns Wie. knew as weowee? 22 ne Loe wake RS CDS a
Seay Roy na bias te Lawilia vite erRtiebtet 6 sheen eee
gerkwi wen? Boe erEe Oh) Rp eed? » ARE, gs
Pe eA een re
37690
as ee i a
MARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, as ) / °°) aA
Executor of the Metate of Albert oo} a:
Merrill Celt, Deeeaued, ) a“ b
Defendant in Brror, ; H
BERHOR TO CLIHCULT GounRT
va. i
ROBERT H. COIT, CHARLSS 6, Colt
and ALICE BOVAAD,
Refendants.
OF COOK COUNTY,
269 1.A:627'
ALIC® BOVARD,
Plaintiff in Srrer.
WR, JUSTICR MGSURALY DELIVERED THE OPINIO“ OF THE COURT,
This ease involves the conatruction of a paragraph ef a
will. The contested point ia whether Alice Levard, hereafter
@nlled defendant, in addition te a $6000 legaey already paid te
her, should alec be pald the accrued income om thie amcunt, or
should this tncome go into the residuory estate,
Somplainante filed a bill asking for inetructions on this
point; anewers were filed and after hearing the court held that
defendant was not entitled te any of the ineeme of the ¢5000
legacy, and that such income goes into the residuary estate, De-
fendant secke the reversal of the decree,
Clara &, Ceit, the widow, resident of Grand Kapide, Bichi-
gem, had three sons, Albert HKerrill, Hobert a., and Charles G,
Goit; she 4ied December 20, 1915; by her will she left the re-
eidusry estate to her sons, shares and share alike; she aleo under-
took te give a legacy to “re of the wives of her eons, if and
when they married; at the date of the eodi¢il of the will making
these previsions her son Albert Merrill wae already merried te
Bleanor Babooek Coit; testatrix bequeathed her 95000; the provi-
sion effecting thie will be referred to later; she aleo underteck
to provide legacies for the wives of her other two sons, then
unmarried, by a provision as fellows:
“who iM »shtqal bhaase Ie taphleer .wobhw ot ,thed Ce
;
* "we
% co
("~ \
i Ne. ty ti
ee a mivoara or non
“pebdiA Yo otayer et a
“qaatreted
a
ie cape
ETE TPR Tan Ti0o . EMUCAMD THD it
a ii ‘eominet
IS GSOsA.L-OL S« ue Sr 0 at
sae ot vont mae
| eS
“\aUGo KKT %) 4OLMETO ART GANAVLERN YURNURR mnanis .
a
es te Han tye tog # to nol#onrteanos od? sevieval sass od
sed tected ,ieved olla tedgedw at dakog betaedacn ont
of hing ybserie yoaget OO08$ # of nolathda a tumbas to ie
i, OR Pe
t@ ,tawome aldt ao enooak heweos out biaq od os le biveda sted
-@tadne Ytaubleos off ofall og enoonk aby tuo
pe oe
sid? 29 enoltowtdeat te% gubinn Liid a betty utanmlesgnod :
fads bfLod Yrmoo ef? galiaed t02e base boll? ovew etewens H ue oe
QO0BS edd to smoot edt to yas of heldhons ton aaw ‘snahanon
ont .stateo yreableet oct ofat aeoy emoonl dows dant be comes
.ooteab sit te Leaneret out eles nabas’
Meet ae sl
oD aetxedd bow ,. exedol ,{fiueed dod ta sano sordt fed a9
aot ont #t0L ee Lilw ted yd (BLL ,08 redasood bet ote m reed
Ryan
bun tL ,anoe tod ‘to weviw ont ne see of wanes a ovta of tobt
gathnm (L2w eit ‘to Ligibes ed? te o¢ab oat ge sbenenam yeas noite
*f, I give and bequeath to my Executeres and Trustees
hereinbefore named the sum of Ten Thousand Dellars, in Trust, for
the follewing purposes, vie: I winecersly hope my sone Robert end
Clarense #ach will marry, and on the marriage of either | direet
my said Trustees to pay to hie wife one-holf of said Trust Fund
and the balance to the wife of the other son when Ke shall have
married. Ghould either eon di¢ without having married, the un-
expended share ef said fund shall revert to my estate and pass
under the regifuary elause ef wy #111."
Glarence G, Coit tuervalter Legally ehanged his name to
Charlee G. Gsit; Charles married defendant, Alice Hovard, Auguat
30, 1927, ond on that date she received from the testatrin's ee-
tate the sum of $5006, dbelng onewhalf of the 910,060 mentioned in
the poragravh just quoted, Charles 4. Coit and Alice Bovard were
4iverced on or nbout GCetober 28, 1932; Charles G, hae net since
Yemarried and Kobert Coit has never married.
Albert Merrill Goit died while testatriz's will war being
probate’ andi while acting ae trustee thereunder, and the complains
ent here hae taken possesnion of the trust aneetm of the teetatrix,
and by etipulation of all the ourtien was appointed trustee of the
trust established by clause "f* above quoted,
The bill of complaint siewe that the trustee has in his
pesestsion approxixately 310,060, ef whieh amount $8000 represents
principal and the balanes accumulations ond aecretions, befendant
argues that she was cmtitied, upon her marriage, to all seecumulae
tions and accretions ef one-half of the se-ealled “trust fund* from
the time of the death of testatrix until tha time of defendant's
marriage,
It ie & cardinal principle thet in construing wills courte
must ascertain the intent of the perser making the will. Aa has
been said, “Adjudieated cases are of Little assistance. Sach will
ie s law unto iteeif.* In the Matter of Hayes, 263 #. ¥, 219,
Guided by thie principle we have arrived at the conclusion that the
teatatriz intended te give aach of her future daughters-in-iaw the
specific mum of $5000, and ne more, and that the accumulations and
: wi S NAAR a a
aeetany? haa wtoiuper® yo oo bo subbed" bed | Sak’. velit iple tiighine
tot ,feutt mi ,staliod dnaeuodt me » a ‘Nit ° aiored
bas fiedo aniog ys egod yloteomie T tally jas ‘Palwoisor +
foorth I x#Asis to 4 ror on) ag ben BY veg Silkw rhas on
bawt tewtT Blaw te Ier-sae otiw att of of segeeinT ret we
eves iiets od opti men tsdso eft Ip oti 7 Ooms, fad ont Dima
«iy @d9 ,boltzon yalved twoddiw s Fa Aiwee de betem
RAAG bas States ym of tieves iiptea bawt bien “LB?
: * tcee vs to ¢euafe sie a 7
he cuba 28H behaasly yttapes Sogreevedd bed .O és Wt
teusnA .bueved soltA tombe teh be ttdam etiredd {deed 2 cote
«oe e'aizisdecs ef mort bevicget edn stab daeld a - eer 108
nt bemotiaem O00, OL OH? To tedoond gales ,09088 Ye" won 9 dad
wtow brevet pelts buy shed .o epee .detoup toah, Moargeteg our |
eotle fon and .0 aetxedd ;86@L ,88 redeteo tote 39 go!
_ sho dvtam seven end $260 duedeR dae bedrromey,
pee aa ttty aixixtecee? oLigw beib shod £6 HIME as |
satatqnoes ext ban ,tobsweredt wedewrd ae aeives odtdw ys
Rixtsteed odd Io Adonen fest oft to molesogpeg aoxed vas ora dm
on? 39 sotartd botatoqun war eotixag oft Le te raltapenitt, FRR
eas co otbetenp, orese, "3°. cepa se, me Meme kkintne Part,
aid nt aes eogmurd et tertt ewace _salelenoe id ), LEAE, at anne
atnenetcer OOO8! davons fo hew to 1000, Le clase 7 .
Pay
eto Sia} nad arenes & ay a
orci, atttw ahaha n rast oe Crs,
accretions of the truet fund should go inte the realduary estate.
Teetatriz, a widow, was poseencéed of conviderable real and
pervzonal property; she evidently was ramiiiar with business met-
ters, and investments and income; that she knew the difference be-
tween principal and income is evidenced by various provisions in
her wili; by one varagragh she directed $1500 to be paid te a church
and that the income from $1000 of this legacy wae to be used in a
certain way; by ancther paragraph she gave directions ith regard te
the payment “of the annual net income" frou her residuary estate; she
aleo gave directions with reference to the payment of texes and ine
suranet from the income, ond should the ineome be inauffieient the
executors or trustees might use so much of the principal sum as nete
essary. in the provision for the legacy to her daugiter~in-lew,
Bleaner Babecek Coit, she previded that if the legacy should net be
paid within a certain time the legatee would be entitled te interest
thereon,
fhe will indicates that the testatrix was a women of generous
dispesition, giving numercus bequests te churches, howpitals, chari-
ties and relatives. It ware naturel that «he should previde fer a
gift to the wives of her eens, and she did #9 direetly to her
Gaugnter-inelaw, Zlieanor, by a gift ef *S000, whieh in the will ia
characterized “as a token af affection.” There in oonvineing pre-
mimption thet she intended to give each ef her daughters-in-law the
same amount, namely, $9000 to each. Renestedly the expression ocours
in the will « “share an4 share alike,* snd in one provision she di-
reete a certain disposition of shares of stock invelwed in a trans-
action between herself and Albert Eerrill Ceit, ssying, “In order
thet ne infustice may be dome either to my said sen or te my other
sons." The will abounds in evidence of her intention te trent her
sone slike, whies is very pereuaeive evidence of her intention alse
te treat her daughters-in-law alike.
ch : Ler (0 | gt ee
q ) q
-Otatee Yieublees of% oFsi og blvate baw teow off To exolsemaoa
btw Laos eidershiaws té bbaxonseg saw geht PAAR oo
ate wesadaud tie ok A au Prone sir) acta eteeqere 7 ns
aod aungay Tth ode week ode tarts jompenh bale atonatacval, se
at saotelvena auobiwy yd beouebive ah omonnd Bou taqtomss
Aotuds a of biag od a? OOETE Eevaetth ade Aeatgotac ae a
@ wt bens ed of caw youget alad to GOOLE ues? saoo mt ‘od tent bime
od beanie he bw srtioktowt th 8¥Hy @ ci deat ter ‘t9Hd one ‘e yew “niche
he jerasae Cisubiaws tA noxt "“eugont don faves ond to* ‘saomtaq “ ae
=
eh Lome tom lei a
ier
a
ee,
Seti ea SeBd oS
cee a
i)
My
| dastodad ot botvites af biwow setaged on) ante" ata
getmecd meteesrars ads ythetionnh dan of COUPE yetamn
at han sound ‘to doemyng sa? of eoamestex atte ancl toerts evan
eit suoleitiunal ef eaeon! ote Sivede hie kngemptepedie
oon ge mie ingdonite sad te dom of eee Ody he ebeteurd
\wotaahwretdgvad cod 06 Yingel eds tee ebdeeed will at Salle:
ed tom bisete yougek o4% th tant bobivoxs seh ted dooodek tonsesa
0 oe Leoutolwell
ited
‘guitinis to sence @ aew altiaded? oat cad? eagpobeal siaboade. <i, Ae
ebhuede ,elatiqned ,aeneteis of efesoned totem yates rons tecwats
4 vet obivexg bites ose sae forueom aow OL eovhtelen bam emte
aed o@ etteerts ov bik ore See » fits “Gait Yo tele oad 6i Hts
‘ad Kibe ond a2 detde ,o00R0 Te Wha « vd ,tocmeet jw te :
“00g ‘gateatrnoe wk one at | * .aontee tts veo taal ® - bat
“watt wa fam amen a tye ‘er Yo tous ovtn of baci Gam
=tb vie aotsivere 940 nt bmn "exe oneds Ban omit « aah ;
oonath ° ‘ea Revioval | gota te nonatie died dtivoqnhs is alatuon « atoen
‘eitte we 09° ee bean’ Wine Get bn Seite’ wey pester
“ae taemd of moliabtnd xen ts sbtonhye it ebéwoda | |
ae moses mod te souehive ovtnareree aia lem .
The provision in the will for Bleaner, wife of Albert
Merrill Coit, is ae follows:
"e. As a token of affection for my daughter, Bleanor Bab-
ek Coit, i give and bequeath to her the aus of Five Thousand
($8000) Dollars the same to be due ond payable toe her one year
after my death if it can then be conveniently paid, and if net
convenient fer my Kxecutere then te cay said sum, she shall be
entitled to interest thereon from that date until it io paid,
payable semi-annually. *
It ite a fair presumption that if Bobert and Charlee had likewise
been married at ‘thé time this bequest was made that each of their
wives would have received $5000 as did Kieanor Babook Coit, It
is inconceivable to suppose that the testatrix intended that any
future wife should receive a larger sum. Ghe would sardly intend
that the wife of the son who married last weuld reeeive an aseunt
larger than either of the ether daughtere-in-law had reeelved; it
is contrary te the evident intention of the testatrix te treat #11
her enlldren alike that Albert's wife should reecive $8000, the
wife of Charles approximately $7500, and the wife of Robert, if any,
approximately $10,000 en her wedding day. it le much more reason-
able te aseume that the temtatrix intended to give the sane amount
te each of her daughtera-in-law as a teken of her affection.
Defendant's argument reate largely on the uee of the tarn
"trust fund® in the pavegragh of the will under consideration, and
it is said that these words imply not enly the $8600 principal tut
the accumulated income thereon, By the will the executora and
trustees were given "the eum of ten thousand dollars in trust fer
the following purpesesa.* On the marriage of either ofher two sons,
then unmarried, the trustees were directed te pay “te his wife one.
half of said trust fund and the balance to the wife ef the other
son when he shall have married.* The worde "trust fund" refer to
the specified fund of $10,000. Even without these words the trustee
eould only Hold this eum in trust and the sus would be a truet fund.
The argument te support defendant's contention seems to rest upon
ae
Peedia to e&ie ,waneedk to? ALiw ede at wehetvoun @gh 6. 606
| rawaitet ae at ana Likvok
| wie soneeld ,todagueh ya a6} acttestte Ye andod o ee
;
haavwodt ovkt Te swe eds Osi od S¥eouped han wvig T the
teoy ono tert of otieyan bax oub oF of came ocd wtalied - fad
son th ban ,bhoq ySiwelanvaps od aod? mao 4) th stand ym te
od ifaw ode paws bhee yay of aors Bte¢uernt YE aot snoten wees °
ne al #2 itgos eteab gad? moth noateds toatetal of eataee
* ed Lean d see
ihe bei aefinstd baa fradeH th sastt nol squuneag chac'S wok the
(mined Re dawe seu han ao” teouged olds sats (ord ta dodwnen tome
| th S8h0D Amps coneo.Li bth. ne, 000RG henge ved Sm sae)
§ pt dsl bebeps mt Kitsadaet od ted waoqqum af aidevteomsodt ° -
paotek ysirwet dhuww of me TOptad « eviooet biwore ohiw oun ae ,
fawowe ae ovienet Siew teak deberen ow moe ald Yo otbw add. past
#2 jhovtepos bad wainsi-nasgdgueh westo ood To text to madd weyRAd
{ie faert of xittadaes 87 Yo wokteedud smabive, ond of ques aos ab
nad , OOD avdooes i hveds oléw et fxed£a fas? eshte. awhile ww
«tee Is , Sede Te otte ace ban ,OoaTé vss aulxwregs ae Peete to oth
teres Grom sone eh Ll .aeb palbbew tec me: 000,010 yotantzeiees a
sumone onas act ovig ot Bebastut mbxtedued edt: dadt samen oh Side 5 ;
sHottee tts seal Ro wiieh w mihanprennr iment |
win? ode “te was ont ne ylegeed adqet ernand a! fumdee'tes ky
bam wottanshianos wWhav iLie oxtt Te haergernn: ett ab: ‘init awed?
fed fagtomiug 00006 emt ylao fon ehowh wbnow oeadd sort thaw ob Ob)
ban sxotuomne ont (iw aie gf sagoredld amonad bate tmenon odd |
eet sews? at wxetton bunewesis and To ar Oca” novky ex0W mvoteund
| {8g Rt Testo T9Hd te te sgedetew male om * aevcerug yaiwotto’ aft
ong athe ots 08° woe os pedow<ld exaw eoadnurt ont .belxnemem sesh
“radio add tp otkw of? 6) oneted ont dan halt downs ble Re Ried»
| Of Teter “hawt fused? abreW ST "bo dumm eed Linde Lladinaell
eoteime edt: abrow edt ftodsiw mere 000,014 Ke hawt bel tteoge’ ost
shat gaat a 0 bivow moe std hie Sound ok nam whale bios « ne » Bios
ee ey ee eee ee Pee er
=e
See S.C Eg Ne ee
the fallacious assumption that merely because the words “truet
fund" are used, that scecumulated income is ineluded, We deo not
understand that these words give a larger meaning to the sum of
money, $10,000, bequeathed,
The provision of the will in question contains no words
touching any secumulations of income, The sole bequest ia the aun
ef $16,000, We find, hewever, in paragraph “e", bequeatiing te
the daughter-in-low Bleanor, $5000, a syecifie direction for the
payment of interest, provided she should not receive the bequest
until after one year from the date of testatrix's death, when
she would be entitled te interest. Paragraph "f£" contains no
language touching interest.
Ancther consideration is, taat the will contains various
provisions fer the expenditure by the «xecaters and trustees of
the income from the estate, Like maintaining a home for her sons,
paying a housekeeper's salary, “materiale, provieions and ether
things;"* also texes and insurance, flenes the testetria epesifi-
eally provided (par. 12) that if o§ any tine the income should be
insufficient for these purposes then the exeeuters and trustees
“may uee so much of the principal sum as may be neaded therefor.*
Clearly, these provisions contesplate that the trustees sheuld
“ peasive the entire income fron any and ali ef the truste crested
by the will.
The bequests under consideration are contingent beth as te
the time and the event upen whieh they shall take effect, ond as
to the identity of the benefictaries, There is abundant autherity
holding that in such a case the intermediate income ig not « part
of the gift but belongs te the residuary estate. Sandford y, Blake,
45 Hi. J, Bq. 247, involved the question whether the income from one-
half of the amount bequeathed which accrued frew the death of the
last surviving brother and until the death of the testater’s eleter
faust” abver edt consoed qiexem fads aphsqurace auoinstiat ond
fou ob o® .behwionk al susont dota Lvmweos tous bone oma "1 “haut
POR ge
to mue of? of gal anou wiyead s “Te panes ance dat saagerobaw
| sbeataanped , ,000, 088 a rs
ebnon om seingane Mpbaamep ou iikw ona Ye metatwong oat ae ae
som h
mann et oh teowmped elon ent .emoonh ascot te Fiano hod n }
ot pale jasuond ,*e" dratgrtag ak etovored batt ov 00,988, i
ox wot aattoorth ofthoogs a 00086 ytonay fi ma Lmao deguad Tplnl
5 FS Ra RAN
tanxped ‘ae avivoes don bhwods one boptvera sdeemtat, we
va RES pera
const itesh atxistagan’ te otab ond wor tary © et de }
#5 oy SOU RA ied!
au anise aes aad Keaege va suaxetiat ot besehsce od: =
Pee ebay. 262 a ae
- teresa! “gatioue?
auoixey aatednes itiw wee bast me nel tawebkenoe eottons
f
Sis RR a ae
” ‘$e eeetems ban ex seveexe ons ve erat hbaexe ous we heivetq
Ree. ee My 4 (ie Nae i
tite oer <0? amet patata¢aten esbs sstadan ost aunt
read e bia anotatverd ,aLeizedan" reson “
” obthdege zhitsdeed sts oonnk Ponarwnnk han aomad,
‘ed biwoce omonah ead emis ee On 1 fact (ss eng) oo hd
aeoseutd baw exodnonce eid wma eosegtug otons Paints fans |
® aoteneds bobeon od yen on masse toatoalee ons %* ss oe oow cee
bisoria esesuwat oct tus ‘oto Lqnessesaaotetwoea suet me
hogsans ateund oxi hi ha bse we sore moat echt oud ovte Oe
Reh & aay —
a en séod tamyats m0» ote moltaxebianos wba aveouped ot = ‘i
. oe HH
| or ‘bom toe Tee asad Linda ena so dein nega sa0ve ene ba
" ehixatbwe $nabsude a2 aves 90 txatol Yonnd owe ve ita itanbk oilt 09
; frag a #00 as savas oteiboanesat one seus * sous wt sade x thd
548k per 2)
OEE ee
plete ov brokthues saiesee view inet oat ot agaoind fd r
somo , ot oawo ad vila weusoute aois2eu oul deviovat 108
ATE eS ay ae 4
“eile ve ined ons “ae beutove dio hee beddanupas raven y
“antate *soseaaod out bid asaed one £2400 baw xediont wat he :
: oer
%
i
should occur, belonged to her aa residuary legatee, or to her ehild-
ren, whe had become entitled te the corpus of the fund in default of
appointment under her laet will, It wae held that the income pasned
under the residuary elause of the will, the court saying that as
the inaome was given to the tostator's two brothers and the survivor
te be
eof them during Life, and the prinecipal/paid te the children upon the
death ef the sister, “there being wo directions for the aceumal ation
of income to inerense the corpus of the fund, the income accruing
between the death of the surviving Life-tenant ond the death of
Bleanor {the sinter) ia undiapesed of and falls inte the residue."
Jarman on Wills (Sth ed.) Yol. 1, p. 756, says:
"A residuary gift of personal estate garries not only every-
thing not im terme digpened of, but everything that is the event
turns out te be not well disposed of, A presuaption srises for the
residuary legates against every one except the particulet legatee;
for a testator ie euppened to give his personality away frem the
former only for the sake of the latter, it has been eaid, thet, to
take a bequest of the reeidue out of the general rule, very special
words are required, and secordingly a residuary bequest of property
‘net specifically given,’ foliowing various speeifie and general
legacies, will inelude lapsed specific Legacies,*
B9 bE. ¥. 149, the testater bequeathed
te his sister the incowe from $2000, and woo her deceane the $2606
Was bequeathed to “the lawful heire” of the testater's brether; the
brother survived both the testater ond the gieter, it was held that
as the lawful heirs of the brother could only ka known at hin death,
the gift wae therefore contingent, and the interest on the $2000
accruing between the death of the aister and the death of the brother
belonged te the residuary legatee. In Harris v. iloyd, 1 Turner &
Russell (ng. Gh.) S10, where aw aun of money was left in trust for
the benefit af « ehild or ecniidren of the testater's son, who at the
time of the teetator's death had ne children, it was held that until
there should be « child the interest upon the sum should fall tate
the residue, the court caying that “where there if an interval in
which the interest is net disposed of expressly by the will, before
~bibie wed of to ,ondayed taublooe | ae 08 og pegaotod . 088 swede
; ot Wierd
to thaw tek et bout add te guage sat ot betetias oncnsd ask — mt
Aenean eoouul off tac? bied eaw +f Lhe teak ‘tod sebaw savasabocge
a aai 4 ety
te fade gabyew reo ode » A hkw et te eauete qioubieet wat
teyivram 66) han exesidous ow e todn tens oats o sory enw ouooat ous
OMe Bou methdite oft oF blag\goqtonta oust bre oud gabruh meus te
i Roktn omens ans wet analtoosks an ented wrest tose de es ‘te ;
CRD yino fou sobivas etates mag ag Po
<, ry 4
if anita Ny pe
Btkvtous soowal eas hawt ont Yo auenge ene sovoroak or
* aes ae bay
Ye steed a2% has dawueten't £ gabetrene oul? ‘te ‘taeb ous aeons
o co Os
*sabiooe one ocak miinh tne to benoge thay a . eeete ony} | somes
f Deere
s BERG one @ it tev (<b ae) exuay hess nares on rat
Oy aaa
Jae Bo ixt rp Saone As tod
on? aa? PY oA te how nie
peataged to Bo {ears oth
igs ontogad ° erry? =
ee) Ps <9q wid avig of t so¢odeo? » tot
wis oe) gem oa eas 3a peas rr
hebega wey , oft roretaey Bod ee eee ci fad
| greg ats rawnpod ytoud ree
Sars. fs ort eeekiay
7 re wert fo RAE
Pollequiad avaveo! ett ee “ ee smasiee cocnbaienh whi tat
GRE sett eomwnos tov mot bees (OCOR mat ompuat ont aevnde” all
wit ;wAPerd @ totedast ote 10 “eRded Le twok Oct wt pesganmped wae
ted? biod wav fl $teen he Om nim connines edd 908 pevivtun weatond —
tees oie aero ast od Ulme Sdwee tentoud ot to euler fateh oe ae
QG0R? mAb so rnoveand act how , doe qgoldieon ovo'tede st, eaw atts oat
| weilh ores nit te eres haa aebete sit Ie stweb wi mnOwESE antorone
A tweet £ Beeld ot RtTENll mt Jenneyot exiiinthor odlt OF Begotten
“wet Faure at Piet sow Yonem VO abe w Heit ORE 4 ee) zc ry i
edt Yn ow non go totedeet eit “ty netbitde ce pitie a 70 Reena ome
| Atami todd bod enw $2 ,Worhthty ott Shut snob @reanarnby! ite w one
ote Lint bikede mee ett abew twoneNak welt BEhin 6 Oo kwon ohh
‘a Swvretal ae of Seilh onece® gaald guihyae a ok te Sa,
|
.
|
the persons come into existence whe are to take the capital, the
interest falls inte the residue.” The question iso siated in Kales
Eatates Future Intereots, (2nd o4.), ». 214, mamely, “What then ies
te become of the rents and profite er intermediate income prier te
the time the gift after the death of A (the testator) takes effectt* -
and says (eec, 208), “If the subject matter of the devine be apecifie
lands or speecifie personal oreperty, there is an intestacy or the
residuary dewisee or legatee ie entitied,” citing sases.
Ye do pot understand that Brown v. Wright, 169 wase, 566,
eited by defendant, ia contrary to what we have just said. In
that case it was held that the sen of the testator should receive
only the income of a specified sum pursuant te direetiona in the
wili and net income accruing from the balsnee of the estate, Neither
is Kale vy, Wiliiang, 48 &. J. Bq. S3, im point, for there the testa-
tor specifically direeted that the interest should follow the legacy.
Heither are decisions in point where the teetater bequeathed
in trast a speeified sum fer the benefit of a named persen without
mentioning the income from this fund. Hanifestly, ander such condi+
tiene the testator clearly intended that the income from the be-
queathed sum should be paid te the legatee,.
Ve do not give weight to the argument that the purpose of the
testatrix with reepeet te the bequests in question was te induce the
sone to marry, and that to put the income in the residuary estate
Which goes to them tends to defeat the inducement to marry, As we
have said before, the gift was intendea ae a token of affection te
the wives of the testatrix's sons, There is foree in the statement
of counsel fer the complainant that the emall annusl income te each
son of the $10,000 bequeathed would hardly be en inducement to post~
pone marriage.
There is ne merit in the point that te deprive the wives of
the necumulated income would produce inequality, Ynis argument is
ye Po o Pe Lovasouns thous oui? tthe fasntatgnce ot not ee
en A a ey nae
“easels wetetes oat % sv apa ond sas anbixwem emooat ot
pedtauuped: sotaenes one onsae sakeg | at andiahows one
eet ‘eoubat ot Raw mntiaeup at asueuped wilt oF tom
ie frmavgte alav x¢hienponk eumbone bivow ‘ousont Sosa tuawoge 91
v
wate , lathowe 988 edad of ots bw woderotme obet tino ‘easereq ody
seinen wi worerw ef aotdnday sat “ eubhoot ode ata WiteY Hidred ad
wh apd dade” yylounn 908 sq ((.bo bat) jafewtegat wrndet pagated
of teltg emoval efalbsnretad te est ¥ord ne ebuel bad Yd ddodd 68
- “Huot weded (otataos off) Ate Aten ont wwatd Pity éAd eat? ody
eXtioegn oF salvoh oad te dottan: footie ony tr a (oor tea) syed bad :
oxy to Yosdeodat ae ab ovedd .ytiwqety Lenvetoy sittosce to adiat
wwnen yatldio *,beliivms et eateyer +o oeatvet cash beer
808 ana B48 tipsy? .y raed tedd bnaverohaw soa on wR O°”
ak <blen taut overt ov gad op yeurtave wt staesian th ed Bana
evloos« bivete totatect off 26 nom ony Sant hited dow 9 Bean tend
(ent ah saotsoeth ot ¢uauexug mus bettors @ Yo wmebnt | 2
<atoo3 out oxedt xo? oakog wt et ope. .© 9b ae Lihd
anges ont wel tor biwatie, tugvesat oat sont hetoorts qhteo
sworts hy aeateg beau a a to tHtoned ox? bi. nue ag
an eal Ss EN 4 “
a2bave sane wabow “eitestiaae baat ands sont omoont, ‘94 antnottonn, ‘
od os wort onpo xt out fasta bovaes at phrases vodedaet ut asott,, rf
-onseand it of blag 94 Divers mum doddanup.
os te eaoqrmg ext taut isenegia edt ot tigtow evs ton ob, Mas: “a -
sionn cosas os at wong a Ong of Seat Bae TEN fam,
oh
| aw 8A conten of meme cert ony dasteh of t Shent Ae ot S99 OE
i bens me ‘wore? et oxox sano , aratneagees oa oe ne
adeeq of Pasaeoubal aa od . aadons vival pavecnret 900,048 9 ead e
®
" ee SR WE Ye OR, We
te foo pars setulae os toa baton ‘oat ak oor = al ue we steiner
based on the provision in the will that Eleaner #. Goit wae te ree
eeive interest on her bequest, and taerefore, it in said, defend+
ant alao should receive interest. Gleaner Coit's legacy waa due
and paynble to her one year after the death of the teatatrix and
the will provided that if it was not then paid she sheuld receive
interest from that date. Ko interest wae to be paid her prier to
the due date. The gift to defendant was not payable until the
a4ate ef her marriage and "an paid om that date,
It ism aleo said that if the testatrix intended the income
ef the trust fund te go to the residuary legateen ehe would have
said se in her will, The will sppointe trustees of #11 the trusts
ereated and directs them how to use the income trerefrom without
distinguishing between the trusts, Moreover, if the testatrix
intenéed the inceme of this truet fund to go to the proapective
dgughtera-in-law, why was it net go previded in the will? We think
the will was drawn ss 1¢ was having in mind that a gift of » specifie
legacy to take effect in the future upon a contingenesy waich may
never happen, doee not carry with it the interscediate interest where
the will contains a residuary clause, unless the testater otherwise
specifically provides,
We have considered thie other pointes contained in the able
brief by counsel for the defeniant but there ia nothing presented
which persuades us from the conclusion that the teatatrixn intended
that her reavective daughterg~ inal aw ehnould reesive $5000 and noe
more, and that the income from the truat fund in guestion should go
inte the residuary estate,
ver the reasone indicated we hold that the decree of the
ehanceller is proper, and it is affimwed,
APPIRMED,
O'Gonmer, ?. J3., and Eatenett, J., concur.
«et gf? anv digd ,f zone Li tads tity oad wd notetwetg ond =. benad
chanted ,bten of ab oo twas bite drones aest no sony tak ovtee
| eh sae youued o) sh@0 tonae LA otantedut evieset btuede onie mn ei
ban xinsatawd sad te aseoh esi wit toy die wo of Lieven be
| avieons bdssocie anal aq meets ou oxy et 4 jase bebivora kite nad
et roing Boa Dheg, of od saw suotogat of tad taut? reat pons. |
Yan Bae
md Litas oidayoq tom ane taabas'teb ot rks oat “eta oud
“eo wbaak
? _setah tact a0 blag saw haw oyetrian wee. bic som
encom ont _Popond at xixtedans odd it toad bhaw 90 he sh a 3
ovad bigow wile seesayes Eteehioos ons of om ot paw teow oad 2
aa Bxy
atone! eft Lis to meetoind atatogge ithe ont ‘ hte text ah on
( Whee Pee
tuorttw merteredd ouooai ws wes of wort mmsd assests Bs sah osae'
xitieteod edt ik <terootel oatasns uit wewtod pate ,
svitooqaora odd 03 on 9 Banus't daurs ast tw onount 91
Fi ne
et ow FTitiw ana ah bab.verg au ton th naw a
| ame “gene ent osatheanssat us a atte eetae tou eso vance
oulwinds xotazess hich one ine sone ‘tanh teen ® eatacane
| ashivets " 0 4 :
bods iow .
whda oe ak bs aie) aoe agutog tadte ‘elt | horwh tenes eved ov ont
| bod agente qatdton al owes Jud dembawtes od ot ‘fosmmee yd teoled
pebandat Rindagasé odd sais “ndldwivues va) BOON We aotauecog eke
ot bas OHNE Ovigven dineda mei~ntereedgend Ovitonqaet ead tei
*% BLeoda undid edue ab hawt teas? edt aovk emooat, ott en ouaniale ete
ont otmt
uae Me wr bal
_shemea tts sl st ‘baa | 7
sCuOMS ve ttoslo ta Sa, ids * staeaant )
a a Wayee see
Hoe Rie - (STOR He # we oe et ?
b aiyrcn wee be dx Sito *
37775
AREA OLSOR,
ain SUPERIOR COURT
ve. :
OF; COOK COUNTY,
SOUTH CHICAGO GAVIKGS BAKE,
a Corporation,
einai . 279 LiALG2 7°
GR, JUSTICE MeGURRLY DYLIVERED THS OPINION OF THA GoURT,
Plaintiff brought «a suit in sasumpeit to recover $8037.50,
the alleged value of 106 shares ef Union Carbide and Carbon Cervera
tion stock which at one time had been pledged with Aefandant ae COl~
lateral to a lean; when the leap wae paid these shares were net ree
turned te plaintiff; upon trial by a jury the verdiot wan for the
4efendant and plaintiff apoenle from the Judgsent that ahe take
nothing.
The question presented is largely one of fact. Defendant
admite that at one time it held the shares of stock in question as
part of the solleteral to « loan made to plaintiff? but saye that
these shares were turned over to Janes Collins, defendant's cashier
and viee-president, for his perepnal use, with the consent and under
the directions of the plointiff, and pledged by Collins with the
Continental Illinois Bank and Srust vompany on ite lean te him and
#014 by that bank.
Did pleintisf eonsent thet Collins could use the shares of
steck for his own private and personal useB#? It would teo mach
lengthen thia opinion to narrate ajl the details touching the trans-
aotion. Plaintiff was a prefessional nurse but was aleo mn active
dealer in stocks; most of her banking transactions were with the de-
fendant bank; she purchased stecke on the advice of friends and
seens te have been well powted as to values; she wae the omer of
quite a list of well kmewn stocks,
ster ve) modteS tan ehiduad agial’ te actedie GOL te outa |
hog mar Fombes bow so ee Seaeniie taeda tinker ok amnndaas aia
hemben et ton he eto elegran ied” hesnoaety MeL ikeep wn SAO ae
x eke LPO ale. ye aerre.
0 dicing tee fe
ye wy Riper Mi if ha
samen it ad
sai oe. gale ;
“raven oer 40 woINE to axe quanvA vaexuseu | UTAUT F SS ein
, C8. PRO8E wHvenet oF Siequraes af slam & dtigword Vehtate sd
01 fom STOW Estate Soest Bing sor nook enY abst pane e Of cereal
Od tot saw soddrer odd td qo Taeet nodes PebeRety be Re
ested esis geri iepnancheanaphipapewbeesgpsle sees 8
ae OE eee Me Bidet paket on
ae molsaonp ab svete To esas oe) bios ot oaks aan to tact abheiie
fast eyat dud VUisaalg of Shae Gaot 9 of Leteshtion sear snarl
<etdune et rmobay toh ,ealiiod seat ef tere hontae”
eben ban Iaeaaoo of? ASiw ,oen fencateq ela cons dannseotibuande pea?
ei? agiv aatitoG ed begbete ban ,Viuetaiate odd "tO anetsoeth bead
baw abot seot a¢f ao Hepes mt tent?! mvaliorand
Oe hs Mase | BES %
te anase outa Siw y bide ast ten taut toners, Yiubsahetg yeni Actas
dome oot hivew #2 tGenw aueaxen bon atevbty padi Himasetl
wenaxt ‘ikd ‘gebdeiand alintas ‘eri? rvhcattor beh uae mpeg =
y it ;
eviton mm outs uw suet eantin Ldnoteestons @ anv 2 ijatais saolden
oh ort Athw eter saolioasaest gatanad ti te dann jedagte nb -mesead |
bas adasixt Yo sotvhe et ao wdvose beaadotug see ttt
a = senwo ort aav ode jeewlav of as betuog Linw seed @ _
Vetober 1, 1930, she owed defendant $270,000, with 600 shares
ef Union Carbide and Carben Corporation stock pledged as collateral
security; most of her dealings at the bank were with Collins, a
neighbor whem she had known for abeut thirty years; s¢ had been em-
ployed by defendant bank since 1902 and in 1950 had acquired 65
@hares of defendant bank stock. At thie time he wae indebted to
Sophie Pokman on hie note for $15,000, and she held some of Collins’
bank stock as collateral; in Sovember, 1950, &re. Bekman delivered
thie nete with the collateral te Guy Selaon, an aseiotant cashier ef
defendant's bank, for the purpose of colieecting it from Collins. Gel-
lines knew one of the vice-prasidents of the Continental [llinois
Bank and Trust Company and wrete to him, seking the Continental bank
to lend him $143,060 for the purpose of refinancing his obligation to
Mire. Bokmen; he offered ta deposit ae collateral these shares of stock
of the defendant bunk, and also said he would “probably be able te
ad@ 106 shares Union Carbide and Carton Coryoration;* te tais the
Continentsl bank replied, on November 17, 1930, that they would be
gised te make the lease of $14,000, secured by the shares ef stock of
the defendant bank and 100 shares of Union Garbide stock,
Setober 1, 19436, plaintiff bad renewed her loan with defend-
ant bank; she made a note for $19,860 and listed 660 chares of Union
Carbide stock a6 sequrity; at the sane time defondant made out what
is called a gollateral register card, which is used to keep a record
of custowers' coliateral; this card alse listed 600 shares of Unien
Carbide ctoek in the name Sg plaintifr,
Decexber i, 1930, /phaintirr testified, whe had a convere
sation with Geolline, As Collins wae dead at the date of the trial,
Plaintify in the enly living witness to thie conversation. She says
Céiline acked ner “if he could use 100 shares of cy Union Carbide
for a short time;* she replied that she didn't like ts de it as she
used the Uniden Carbide stook for collateral on her own loan; that
whe Wh or
ATTY
eetads O08 cttw ,006,088 snabanteh howe oda ,OCOL ,f wdotoo :
fatetallee as heybe fq doots Reliategies aedtad tan abldasd sein t
& ,@ekifod Atiw erew ded of? ta egal iooh ted ‘te foam pyeieupes
one need hat eo poumeg giakad suede x0 eer bart zie rgrtr tes yy
a8 bextupes bud OFGL at baa CO0L eouta toad drabie ted ud hogote
of Bofdobat saw of amid etdd 3A .doete deed saadne'teb to sotade
*‘gaiifed te sue bied ofa Boe ,000, 456 x0? ogon ald a mmo, ettiqo®
Awteviteh aexie® .erk ,O8 OL ,redmevell mi jdavedetios aa oote hand
6 Yeiseces Htedaleas a0 , mon fe yO of Lerséetiew odd AOlw eoom aldt
=o .estifed nowt of galtoulics Io savqray exe vet sau wteanbasteb
etoatttt Gagne nttad? off to Wow Steerysealy sey Yo Oneowemt watt
Hited LetGALscod wos Yates abs OF OoTe baw yRequOD eur Kane
o2 Wotddghite aid galsnund tet 26 seoqniy eat tot 000/020 ube bed
Soota a eetata seen? Lwwndetion ee Jlaeqeh of beteTto of paso) late
e¢ olde of qidadoxy* bisow od fine oats baa ,dmed Sandaeto Sait tee
$42 tay of “{nolsetoqted asdtad bio ORiGtAD OLA totale GOL Bha
‘ed htuow vert tot? ,O8OL TL wdomvell ao Bwhtqed dad Ledneaioaed
te deeds Yo eeveda oot gf hetiesa (600,016 te Geek One odd er Rely
"Moods entixed dotal Yo sexete COL bus Sake deaber ED wME
“Lbneteh Adie abot ted bowonet bok Vikiatete [oser /e eededed! 6 hr
aota’ to aevens GOD heredl Ane 606, 0L0 aot ston a ea Gea” senate
Qiuw two oboe foabas'tab med sawe ace do Hotlemes 6 doote”
broens # qeox of tesa a Modde ,fxee totetyer evedalies » bettae° at
aetnt ‘to aecene 09d Rotek oute bias stad ptetedalfeo ‘etemetam to
| Petia tq Ye sued eink abode ebteasD |
-evhes a hot ota (belt heeer Tiitatese Oren «i todaeeed oo
| staid aie Ye stab. ot ta tooth oow Waki TOO eA © Gah kiod Moke mobtos
‘pies emt .aehisotevned whit oF adent iw gabvde qhaw ene at ol ‘Yrbeatete
shierd nel ni yo ‘to senene GOL oom *fwoe ——
dh! gE oll 0 WEE BHR te” ait ean Oitd © "300 a
ee ee soot aatened ata ys ar
€pllins then eald, “The bank takes care of me and they steed baek of
me, I had nothing to fear whatsoever about my atock.” Apparentiy
Plaintiff assented to this request and Collins wrote out a reeeipt
for this stock, signing bia own name. It recites that he hae re-
eeived from plaintiff 106 shares Union Carbide stock “with power te
hype stock power - to be returned to her on ten days' notice.” This
receipt was given to plaintiff and has been in her possesrion since
then. At the same time the collateral regicter card Listing plain-
tiff's certificates of stock in the Union Carbide ond Gorbon Cor-
poration, pledged as collateral to ber loan from the bark, shows
that plaintiff signed on the same day a withdrawal receipt for 160
eharee of Union Carbide steok, Pisintiff adwite ehe signed thie,
Gn the same day nlaintiff aise signed » paper ecalied "Grner's con-
sont," which fo a printed fore addresred in conepicuous type to
*Centinental Tilineie Bank omd Trust Gompany ef Chicage;" it au-
therized James Collins to hypothecate, pledge and deliver the seeuri~
ties deseribed, belonging to the undersigned, (the plaintiff) and
agread thet when so hypothecated such coliateral shall be held te
eeoure any indebtedness owing by the debtor (Collins) to the Centi-
mental bank, and that said aveurlties shell be subject te dianosition
in secordance with the terme and conditions of the instruments evi-+
aeneing such indebtedness. The eoliatersl security written in 4ee«
eribes the certificate for 100 shares of the Union Carbide Corgorae
tion. Pisintiff admitted ehe signed this consent.
Phile on the stand pialatiff, admitting that she signed both
the withdraval reeeipt on the collateral regietar gard and the owner's
eonsent authorizing Celiins to hypothecate her Onion Carbide atock,
attempted te throw some doubt as te the time when she signed these
papers, and tastified she 4idn't see the printed nesdkng on the
owner's consent paper, addressed te the Continental bank. However,
the jury wae fully justified in believing that she signed these
Ie aeed hoote yoss bas oa te eran eedeg Aned oft” ,hhaw ined? entired
( Uhtamwend “.koote qm tuodm yeveon tary: see? of gabdtom had EZ em
tqisest & two efeae aml lied bam teonpen aide of Kesmeese Ythtnkedg
9% aed of fats aptions £h .auac wre shel palaghe yapeda whtd se?
ot teweg Adie” doote ShidueS solal sere OOL Tikentale mort hovkse
aie? “,soiton 'aysh aa? ao ted of hewtuies od of ~ sewed toote agus
sante aotseenacy 198 al oped das hae Viiealedy of aeyly eow Jqteoen
-atety guiteit buco teselget Leresetion en? eat? ome oft $d \ ated
_ 200 apdae® baw ebidiad aeial edt st apeta to seteolt heres a tthe
ited odd wort noel tad of, Lexptedies, se boybele ,mobtay
eos rene Sqlocet, Lewetbativ 2. yab omee ods. no bomte Taktainty fait
_ «ths? beagle sia stinde Witales® loote obhdaed model Ye wewe
ase ef tearO" beiles togeq @ bongie outa Tiitaiote qed aneo’
ef eee? swowoleraes at hersethhe axe? Sodatre.o of detew®, yen
«te £2 “yopeedd® to ynequed? seutT dae dant ehoat££d fatnonteacd®
chrsges ef tevlish Sas opdele ,stavadtoy! of snkifed dons. soabrekt
paw (Tidatele ont) ~heayturehau ed? of gabyaoded: sbacieoeeh gent
et Ried od Linde Seuetetion Mowe beteoadtoqyd 98 apaw test
nténeo oat od (naked) retved ons yt gatwo weambedtebad ve osenan
aeitheogsin ef Jontdve of Lada aotrinwena blee seed te aed
sive sfuemateal esi? Yo ameizibacn han ware? edt Khe souebernen ah
00d at nedelxs ysixunes Levedeiion eat <aunnbettesal dove galoaeh
matagre? abldiw sola’ of To aguade O94 tet etaok ities of? aediee
tnennes ahst boagte ode perstuns VUtaies’ mobs
Ate beagle ode fattt guisetabs ,Thealede brave ee es, eee
Torve acid bra bree antelyex Lanatatios ant a0. dndoae Lovanbiate ads
% stoods abldieS aglad wa eonvonsony of entized gatztroiitum tmsenee |
“pend bomple one race octke acid a ew Sdmoh wman mont of Betquedttn:
ost ae gadhassd hegaixg et ope at ahhh ode: beurigand ban yaxous r
- grerae ined Levnente aed on? of bannnnhbs avant daimnaoe a! <oame
ix ‘paodt, Domta, ota tad? gakvesind ab pertasent yi ae et, tte
ae ae Ss —S
aE Vis oe ee
aera:
4
papera on the date they bear, that she was fully conversant with the
iugiiah language, and knew their contents,
Un this same date, December 1, l¥Su, the stock certificate
in question, pursuant to the consent of pluintiff,was delivered by
defendant bank te Collins,
Ynen Poliowed a number of bookkeeping transactions whieh it
is unnecessary to note in deteail. They resulted in the Continental
bank receiving Collins' note Yor (14,000, tegetner with the coliste
eral which included the 100 shares ef Union Carbide steek Collins
nad obtained with the sonsent of nleintiff, and the payment. on the
other hand, of Cellins' nete payable te Are, Sexman. Reepective
counsel have set forth these etepa quite fully, end from them pnlain-
tiff attempts to suppert her claim that defendant bank profited by
the transaction. The evidence does net justify this clain,
Sellina’ objective wae to secure funds to meet his nete held
by Ere. Bokman, For this purpose he seoured » loan from the Centie
nental bank, borrowing from plaintiff her eertificate of inten Care
bide steck te be used as collateral on hie note te the Continental
bank, which made the loam which paid kre. Hokman. The jury could
Properiy conclude that this entire transaction was private and
personal between plaintiff, Coliins, the Centinertal bank and ire,
Boeken and thet defendant bank ¢1id not prefit from it.
Jamary 2, 1931, plaintiff arranged with an aeeistent eeshier,
Eriewits, to renew her loan with defendant bank; Kriewite wrote out «
new note, specifying only 800 shares of Uminn Carbide ateck as col-
lateral, instead ef 600; Eriewite testified that plaintiff looked
it over and signed it without saying anything about 106 ahares
being miveing. Plaintiff never inquired of anyone about her Unicon
Carbide stock until Celiins' death, which occurred Maren 16, 19212.
She testified she was satisfied to bold his reesipt fer her stock,
& day or two after Collins’ death she showed hie reesipt to
Guy Jeleon, a vieesprenident of defendant, end asked how she eould
ont Ha lw taumcavaos _tiwt wew eda dase stand vend, fab 4. oo @ *
snd mod ao9 Tlexd woud bap epee ee,
egaattitxes aoote ons 8b OL of tetuowod wah el edhe a
4
STR BY 2
ww bwveviier Bow, Ls aim dg te Ine anes was o@ SoauRawG, podvanie ak
) teh dle ot anand tna toh
2 otan enpennsant beaten te. POKER , ROWOL LOR OME, oo ioipie
fatapaksaes ee at betivagx yor? ohh oo ab efen of uxmag c tak
“tlio oad tw toxir god ,O00,£46 20% e8om 'entsied patvionen: aad
sal{lod ooze ebidred acta te setae GOL ode bobutoat a
ort ao ,topmyeq odd hae ,tealalg to sapedon ony age fo had
svizooqest .nnwdot wid Of oidayag otem 'ambited ‘te sta moat
othalg madd mort bas ,yliwi etiup aqoda seed? Mut gow pyre, PoPRIe,
YM hotitorg dned sacha ed Jade whale rod suoggwe of _atumrte Fae =
8 hel
’ wabe ts ates yttdent, pes ne ob SOnOb2 vO. et smobsosonans one
| Bias oten, bat seam ot abawt ou9s8 ea sow ais deimess
é. a Fe ye
fatgents ned oat ot ogo abe ae SaxsdeLton ae ‘boow a at op a
_ bhaee yout oat - ehewet oth eee blag st bate, aso ind obam ‘ v it
bie, oteyizg pew aoltoonaer? athton oka denlt sdutunog Umer,
one bite Xaed iationiyaod en? eA Lod ,Titaele apewted MEE,
att wee’ skiorg fom bib dane ale an ‘teh pad? bas, camo,
atsnoe | tunte 208s te dghw begostts Wittakede ,£68L ,R yxeunal
# two stouw ative tek juiod sowbop teh dike aeok apg wanes of ,adiwetea
i wiee ga voote ehidted xeded do amare Cie 5Ane., ii tees rem won
ery oh ote boreupee Ho Lae titood, tank 00 As bon i Anode
eB \. ogra wot 10" agioonn ode hion ot po ttattee a 7,2, be me “ a q
‘ Hatooor aks hewerde wsin sited Merger act yeete ow bad eA, iia
hha suta wast durlew han ,¢muhan teh te fampteetqnsoty «sion
get her certificate for the 100 shares of Union Carbide stock, ana
was told he had no knowledge of It but would speak te kre, Collinge
concerning it; then followed interviews with Mra, Colline in which
Heleon ascertained the facts. re. Coliine indiented a willingness
te do everything poseible te gave plaintiff's steck, but she herself
was without sufficient funds for thie purrese, At one time Kelaon
sueceeded in a plan whereby Mra. Collinge, out of her insurance money,
could pay off a loan which would release certain shares of stoek held
as collateral, provided the Continental bank would accept eaid ahares
as additional seeurity te Collins’ nete. The evidenee shows that
although the Continental bank at one time agreed to this thoy 414 not
ge through with 1%, Plaintiff had interviews with Urs. Gelling in an
attempt to arrive at some arrangesent whereby plaintirt could reeaver
her sharee of Union Carbide «tock,
fauly 15, 1931, the Continentel bank eold the 100 shares ef
Union Carbide steck for $504) and eredited Collina' nete with thin,
Defendant bank did net receive any ef the procesda of this sale.
Tn the meantime plaintiff continued te transact businers with
@efendant bank; she testified 1t was net until after the Centinental
bank hed e014 the Union Carbide stock that she Tiret had the idea
that she would try te holé defendant bank for thie etock.
The ease want to the jury in two counts, which are in ase
sumpsit, the first of these alleging that the certificate was de-
livered to Coliins by defendant without any authority therefer given
by plaintiff; the other count charges violation of a pledge by de-
fendant te return the stock when plaintiff's nete wae paid. ‘he jury
properly found that the wertificate of stock was delivered by defend-
ant to Collins with the convent and permission of plaintiff. Ploine
tiff therefore failed te prove any breach of contract by defendant,
for 1f the certificate wae delivered to Celiins with the content of
Plaintiff, there could be no breach of contract by defendant.
hos ~duote ebides) aetal To setae 06L ent got steal tissem tee toy q
asiife? .2t of dasqe binow dud. 32 Le eyhetoen op ped ed bioe eae
itotuw af anktiod .exa Athy seatvestnd Bewetiod moat 562 galaxeonen
sworatiiiw « begeolboal sak ied .2om .edoct oat Demtetzeosa menten
‘tinaved ode tud ,fuote a' Titdatalq eves at oLiteseg qakstyneve ob ed a
noeteS emt? emo $8 saeqtuq ebkt coh abas't fretel ue sredtiv sow
Qyonm aooatweRt THA To deo ,outtled. oxi yenode ante o mb tokeenowe
Mart deete to eerste alatres sane ler bivow daltw ane #220 yeq hime |
aotate hier tysces tivew daad Intaenivaed eas tetiverq ,leteteliokae
- fet ewes spoetive off oben enti lfLed ot @itveon Leomolsihha ae 7
doa hhh yard: ebdt.of beotyacomt? one ¢m;sined ingavaitsed ety éauontse
me mk amkifod sera dite aweiwietmd bel Vaal yah se kestgn
seveset bivor Tiktakelc qWeusde JnsmegaeTin emo ta orien of ommtta
koots ehidrad mola. Ye sotnde ok
Re worade OOL 943 blos aned Ladment tae) ont hil Oh gen
as dtiw ston tant lied begthone bas L608q to} soote ankd
$y tee
eee ce Be a
lee kt he ebeeweta oxtt to yor ey boot an-bs dant tenheated ;
sip bo eagatasd doosoet? of baamtsans Yidtitale emidanse ost aloe whit:
Keduosks ao ous w9S%e than ton sow 3h bel tivees eel phat SRmbeARR
sok ect fad gowlt axe tute snote ebidre® apkal alt) dion het alot 4
dnote white Tet otaad femtentinh, biker edo yuh dame pnp
age ak ote doko .ednaine ewk ai gash wilt et teow winae wAMy, ols
Oh aaW odnot Liars ote derit gtigetin onosd th sarak> ade) Ateqmun a
“meet rotermit YPitontwe: yu duedte be doe bem tebe ah kL o) hewawks
eed gf eyhodg w 2p naktetoty neguaty tang were om ces
Pel OAT Oleg RAW adem aN TTASadeke aode Konda ett mmutem ef, Samba’
abaw'tew vd Sevovi ink sew aoete to ooneltiewen ety fevld beset’ al one
atho£® .Viitaiedg to soles lersq dame onmemoy: mals kw anit « ee
btebos teh yd soantsoe to sonore yor every eb bodin® weeds: BRET
“Ae daaemee stid do2W ant shop od dexevEsed ame wus Hebe won wild xe
(9 thingie raat ee Re Monet ou od binvo wurde ,Yemlese
. » teorlowtiqwon ke a 0 £08
Plaintiff's brief earnestly argues that the defendant was
gailty of fraud or misrepresentation. He allegations to this effect
were in the counte upon whieh the ense was tried, Therefore, no
evidence was admissible tending te show fraud where no fraud ie
plended. Second Nat'l, Bank of Hedoit v, Woodruff, 113 10). App. 6.
Roreover there was ne evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation by
dafendant,
Ve camnot attenpt to note all that ie said in plaintiff's
brief concerning the tranenetion between plaintiff ané@ Collinge, Ker
own teatimony that Collins requested the shares of stowk for hie own
use for a short time, corroborated by documents woich viaintirr
gigneda at the same time, fully fustified the jury in finding for the
defendant,
Plaintiff complains at congiderable length of the action of
the trial court with reference te rulinge om inatruetions. We ean
nete theee only briefly. |
Plaintiff's refused inetruction Ko. 1 1a long and complex;
it improperly refers te representations aade by Collins te slinintiff
as being chargeable te the defendant bank; it daproperly ageumes thet
the bank had the benefit of the transactions tetween Colling and
plaintiff; it aleo refere te Celline' intorest as hostile to the
bank, The court properly revused it.
Plaintiff's refused instruction Uo. 2 is ales objectionable
for similar reasons; it 4a merely an abstract proposition of Lav,
and ite refusal was net errer.
Plaintiff's refused instruction ku. 4 ia mislesding as
telling the jury that if Gellins, in dealing with plaintiff, had
apparent authority to conduct the transaction with her, and that if
plaintiff relied upon sueh apparent authority, thet defendant bank |
may be held liable. Gbviously Collins sad authority te conduet a
peracnal transaction on his own account with plaintiff, The instruc-
(the Fewdae Wh x6 Jade sete ULoeontes Weed eMYEbRARRT oh 1%
gee itt of anektego lie of .mottataseenqetela to baiett To yell,
(om joretersd? kext anw sane ode detdw nequ edmuda ost at wesw
gf baer? on otacw pawt't wore of yalband sidtenlube aaw eonihive
ye gga hE BLS Set hogy to dna £0 oui Dasosd shobavite
yt aghiatuosenge tain to huwtt yom te eniuntve' oo Rae ores tevOmTel
Ee ERR NERY ae wie bite bite "heb
) @U¥ittabete a2 Sine at tarde Lin eden oF Sqewsee Voumig ARO OIG
‘ga peat Lied bow Piltatety doewted aottomaetd off gaiaewaed Yok
meg WEA TST Angee Lo nevedte Hd bateoupse amt Lted duit “OMEeee swe
Wubtebade dofew @taemment yf beteteddrrds lente tredn 4 WOR eee
ed) tet yabhar? atogeut end whit banal <td at OI
eine | pavers oe St ee Oe em eaatstette
Yo aoltos edd Io dtgaed sidatobledes te eiketymds Yieanart’” aie
tag OY .anottenitend ae oan of content ot tase tates. ont
jaetqios dao yuck 6 £ .ck ao ttovatant heater erendetn gt ies
Wetatoke of eal theo ed bam enolsstasasuqer od eestor ban ;
fant asuuean yixoqovemd 32 jlaed Ganbite tab wat ot sttungenss yet a 4
‘hae ani iiod asevied anoitoaenstt edt To stoned wnt Baal ‘ah :
ed? of eLideed oe feoxeted teakited of etter onceaeoy bean,
ot Deaw tow yoregorTG otweo oa? stad
aldsnetivetdo cola of & .o% eo lvourtveat Hoa iod evenisatary soos
feicradies Mel? luogetg Jomtieds nw eLeter wh Fh pian witate sot
ii’ fa gathatiote #2 bow erento Sores aaa
tb tact haw (108 thw notsednaend ‘ot sous pogo ks
Bad tambasteh sextt eg Ceitadeer romnenen: tte Kewrw
nen ont Titaale tthy sewcese wwe ahd ae noltom
tion lacks precision and was properly refused, City of Chicago x.
Button, 136 Til. App. 221.
It was proper to refuse piaintiff's ineatruction Ho. 6, which
tended te throw doubt upen the extoution by pisintiff of her sige
nature on the withdrawal celiateral register, There wae nothing in
the evidence to cast any doubt upon the genuineness of plaintiff's
signature, Ghe pserself’ so testified,
Among the objections to pisintiff's refuced inetruction
Seo. 7 is that it repeats the assuaption that Coliine' interests
were adverse or “oetile to the defendant. There was ne bacis
fer this, We have noted only a few of the objectionable features
whien justified the trial court in refusing these instructions
tendered by plaintifr,
it wae not errer te give Sefendant's instruction lc. 10,
which teld the jury that to ¢o away with the force of the written
reseipt of plaintiff fer the withdrawal of the stock cartificate,
"the testineny should be eonvinsing, and the burden ef proof reste
upon the party attecpting the explanation.” The rule to this effeet
is stated in Vinshester vy. Grosvenor, 44 111, 426. Gee alwo Rogene
muegiier v. Lampe, 89 Lil. 212. In Vigu: wmnen, 124 tii, 334,
it was held error te refuse an instruction substantially in the same
language, Plaintiff makes a number of eriticiams sgainst thie in-«
etruetion which have no merit, The instruction does not direet a
verdict, If it gingles out one document thue giving it undue
enuphasie, plaintiff's given inetractione kos. 2 and 3 4id the same
thing. The instruction 414 not tell the jury that the stock was
delivered to plaintiff on a certain day; It merely said that the
receipt was evidence of the fact therein recited and that the tea
timony to evereome ite force must be convincing. The inetruection
is not properly subjeet to the eriticiems made and the esurt
properly gave it.
2 anole? te ytED J hees'tor re hon oes toorg Giant mots
ea at Bs hei ar Ee" ae ORE | aa
dolew .o .o molyewrdenk o tthe ebel¢ sad ter oF SeQerd waw YT 9 Orme
| -gia ts te Vtivalel¢ yd aoidveexns off seqd fdeoh Goud? oF HobnOd
af galdton aew oxont teratges faxetaiice feweukashy est mo . otnten
e'Ytitatele Yo seensaiuney srlf mogit duo ve teey of Gomedive eae
oho ttisned om Disered owe ee
solteuttont berdtet oTtt¢alecg of steliootds ext gaat af
asantotal temhiied tad? aoliqaweds enlt atungex OP gadt ab Flee
etusd oa gow ered? .Sanebem tos onl! oo aalied Yo wersvhe exee
asiudaet efdoxctioatdo oat 19 wet a Ufad heten wad ew yekah Yer
anoltecrtest aeeid walestee at tawes fade? ety nerthtiwt dette
sTehratate sseeved .
{Of .84 moiteuttont of é¢aabao'tes gvly so tenes dom daw at
peed tuw sat To o¢to't ery aviv tote Ob OF dele Yat we Dhed “Mobdw
“Stnoktitses doote edt Ye Lamerbathw odd ae THakéte tw detonen
(gieer Yoore to asbted oat nae (pakoatvaos” a basis eater ite
toate gto? 6d 6Lot ed? *.mottaantaes 58d yaks ghee de yetee eae
ged ot bate out .8@h ert ee benandadied
eee .£t2 8rt doe * 848° TO" wie ey
omse bad wk Ettaliaatadun ay si ere
att @£ad fualone amelottize Yo tedaun w aésten Whabert ae
gs foatkh Fen weed selsouxsent aol lees ge ovkd HO Rae motioutite
‘eevhaw 32 pabety awdd trom ob oH sho aotpehe 92 VT | ‘Sol buev
oma oct bLS & bao & .ooW ameitoursend needy’ e'Yt Liat cy eteasleine
aw sete eat tout yaw edd Lied dem bb aebvoundead OWT gabe
OX? toWd Akan Uforea 92 pyAd aleteee a ao ee
“anode Sond bua hedioex Korat teat Cit Yo vormbive aaw felooe
aobsouriteat ee Te i ee
"Sues oot nw win wakhd te ill od deeted piaennpobineg
Ma toys sD ai 7
‘ONE - ‘ Fo 5 ups HEE AG HE
Defendant's inetruction Ho, 11 was proper, It gonolsely set
forth the issue te be determined by the jury; that is, whether the
eertificate of steck in question came into the posuecsion of Cpliine
for his personal use with plaintiff's coneent, and if the jury should
se find the verdict must be for the derendent,
Defendant's given instruetion ic. 9 wae the stock inetruction
to the effect that plaintir’ must prove her case by a preponderance
of the evidence.
$o, aleo, defendant's given inetruction So. 6 told the jury
it hed no right to disregard the teetimeny of an uniuncached wite
neas for defendant merely because said “itness wae an emoleyee of
defendant, but such testimony should be tested by the same principles
as the jury would use in determining the eredibility of any other
witness,
Befendant's given inetraetion Xo. 1 ie aise a etoek inatrue-
tion, which has been approved mary times, It told the jury that in
ceoneidering the testimeny of slaintif?r the jury sheuld consider her
interest in the result of the suit. In 6, & 3, 1, NoB.Uo, v, Bure
ridge, 211 111. 9, it wae held reversible error to refuse to give a
similar instruction. See also Ho
206 Til. 2972.
Defendant's given instruction No. 13 merely siated the issue
to be determined by the jury ae to whether plaintiff eonseented to the
delivery of the certificate of stock to Collins for his personal use,
Complaint ie made ef the rulings ef the trial sourt with ref.
erence to testicony, but we find nething in this respect of sufficient
importance to require a reversal.
The question to be detersined was simple. ithe evidence wae
convineing in favor of the defendant. There were no prejudicial
errors upon the trial. fhe judgment is therefore affirned,
APPIREED,
O'Conner, ?. J,, and Matchett, J., econeur.
ae ee er rs Sh ie .
. leur
fea efoelones 41 eTOGoTE Bee ig +o solfawr gens at tasbagtes pias
edt xestedw ,ot tests iqtet ete yd healereded sd ihe event. odd edi
aakiied te aolessereg st ofa omme nelinoup ah deeds to etaol'thireo
dbiwede youl ane ti han ,ineaneo a eihsadaly thy on dennexeg, aba to
} _. sfsekaoleh odd 40% of tam sothasy asd st:
aolroustnat koose on sev @ .90 Molsouttesh aevig a ineharled :
eoastebaeqosy & ud anno t0d 1 over Jaume Vthinlalg gest so08Ie vas
| 5 itiliaieaiile anomanize od Yo
eau ous bos § .@ saltouttemt \ aor a! snwbasten ronte 408 a
otiw Sedoseqatau an ig yroultens ont bragetalh oF Habs om hod th ia
te ee yosgme nes ae aap od dw bine sewsoed Teton creer. ba
so iatoniny oune pat ea heteet o¢ hinosts Yaoutsacd ite ie aud yt }
seviso yas to ysl iidibers od? galatoseded at eau b vem KTH Oak AA
ron Wee ;pkenmthe
Taw y ates
as a a
qvwidand aoote A outn ak £ ok minagton’ navig ® ‘Apabag te, separ
at dads yw ent biot #1 .somkt ynam beverage sven NO Ne
wat ‘Tebienos Sivesda yswl od? Titatele Ye ywomteaes exit 3
oan kamaxen ols. 92 AabsLo® as doors x9 ‘otaskustees oat Ly
stot thw ¢usoo Lalxt odd To egakive odd Yo ehew at satale
aiid ‘te Puedes etua it aahairon halt ow wd \ yronkiaee of
haeae ves & extsyes of sonata
-— ‘sonobive ests apkaute, nev beatpap top 4 9. Maiteenp "a a
te lo dbulerg, on exe" e10dt ,danhne teh ont ‘te toret al gaion )
bound? la eve terert 92 deseo wos eal yon oe }
Ret putt Brat te viet es eo Kero Ss ‘tips
fh eukate Te G,
-twostes an ttetebell. hm ot os it
rae ar
aw
A aaa
we
ye
wok x
BE ox
i
37845
RGEAT PRILIPS, A. tg
Appellee, ee ;
a am MUR af COURT
va, vd
OF CHICAGO,
CHARLES PRANUER,
Appellant. )
, 3
279 1.4.62
MR, JUSTICE MESURELY DELIVERED THE OPINIGH OF THR COURT,
Defendant aspeale from an adverse Judgment of 97294 entered
after trial by the court in an action of fraud and deceit. Cone
sideration of the fucts leada te the conclusion that the finding
and judgment of the trial court were justificd,
The defendant purperted te ewn a furmished reewing house
at 828 Leland «venue in Chicago; he advertised it fer sale ana
Plaintiff interviewed him with regard te the matter, ‘The evidence
tended to shew that defendant represented that the income from the
house wae $395 a month; plaintiff agreed to buy for $725 ond paid
$50 on account, subsequently eaid the balance of the purchase price
and April RO, 1934, received from defendant u bili of sale eonvey-
ing the fumiture and chattels in the presises,
Pleintiff meved into the building April i.th bat eix days
thereafter threugh his attorney he wrote to defendant elaiming that
plaintiff had teen persuaded to buy the property through fraudulent
representations made by defendant, and the return of the purchase
money wae demanded; amother letter to the same effect was written
te defendant April S5th in which it was stated that plaintiff
elected te reseind the contract 6f sale on acéeunt of misrepreaen-
tations an@ alse because there was a shertage in certain articles
of furniture, ecuipment ond utensile; 2 demand was agsin made for
& refund of tae purchase price - $725, and the furniture and equip-
ment were tendered to defendant,
The evidence shewed that the actual income from the bugi-+
ness was $221 « month instead of $304 as represented by the defend-
“Tea ALT OFS’
wes .THHOO ERY Uy HOTHLO HY CRAVE TURE BITE: Vee
bea
7 é dootte eat od
hieahen asee te 9 cegoring bart, sexevtll fhe alt cinemas saab to ee
‘ ‘i ea¢ Te
“109 .#ieosh haa huszt To aol ton ase nt tuoe oe a kalxt weste
c 1832 «Oh
abbot? ad $ ans Roles Longs ot ot very atoe? oid bi mol terab ka i
sbobittent oxew twos tater oud % Sma tu =
ie pened gatacor boda hen wt & ae of bo rome Aashae tod ott ta
bax eine xo gt haekerovba od jaye bats at peg thee | -
eonebive ea? mebhen eae of Atages dgiw mic Sowelvewvedal
toe. |
RBe nea |
Rcd wont aeo rid ead gadd bedapeorqen ushas tos end ere ig 3
« o a.
bie bao 88°¢ tol qd of beotps Wulsmdety jst vom # 600$ new cawont
Rie BAY aie ihe a a
“sole pandora pata 1° porte Lad oid blag vit ne upendue . %
iy c £
~eovncs eiee te “we & #aanne' tod nor bevleows ber 0k Eitan =
: i Lt faa
susalaorg one ad alettass bas wus tons ee
rs eae |
“aust abe bud eit hgh galsitud eds gat boven Yetemtost to
oy he Sies BERT IAE e
sats gatataio ‘tnwbas tob od eter ‘ot contetia “edad chant cd Ye. —
StS. fh OR
few datueet sigare thy Vereqose wel wed of bohawereq anes bad .
- _ Mmadoree oat te arate eas bas , tans tod ‘e hae ix ~ ve a
_ meaeine nae #907 emt nat on restos rent ons
en “Athtmtnle gadt hereto paw $b dobiiw ok “met, Lama
| sstomengonete 19 aawabos #0 efae ho tetova doth debian
| Rekehiae ninteo at ogatapde 0 mente eto see oe
(tek ake maage kay Aemeh # redtanoty be Pomgkope geuthirealt Re
— aghaye bat otatioret exit ham ae = alg onadorune 008 tebe
' RR YAN Jaabaeted of setahned otew Foon
i steud edt aot oapont Lavioa wat Gadd bewede pone bi!
abasteb eit yd bed weaenqex as secé te ‘heoteua senon
4
Fa Sagi siete
st 25, A ea
ee eo ee a oe ee ne ey
ent. it was ajeo proven that there was a ehortage of certain arti-«
eles of furniture and equipment,
Serious treuble for plaintiff was caused by ra, Pfander,
wife of defendant. She occupied an apartment in the bulidimg, the
testified that she eymned the premises in joint tenaney with her bus-
Dand, sitheugs in the bili of sale defendant wouekhed himeeif te be
the ower ef the property with full pewer te eli. It is a fair
inference that Kra. Pander 414 net econeur im the sale by her hue-
band to plaintiff for she continued in the premises oni to exercise
acte of ovnership of the prenises, “ie eoliected rent from some of
the tenants and told then not to pay vlaintiff but te pay ber.
It wae stated by counsel om the trial thet defendant and
hie wife had segarated and that she mad Tiled a bILL for Aivoree.
Thie tends to explain her actions indicating neme-eonourrence in the
gale. In any event plaintiff wae prevevted by defendant's wife from
exercising undisturbed possession of the premises,
Plaintiff sgreed te psy $192.50 a months rental fer the
premises and paid one month's rent. He collected a mall pertien
of the Ineome, which, he testified, he expended in making repairs,
It is aleo in evidense that Prander distrained on the furaitare for
non-payment of rent and had judgment in the distress suit against
Philivs,
the trial eourt sorreetly stated the situation, noting that
Plaintisf head paid defendant $726 Yor the business, ineluding furni-
ture, and $1923.50 ae rent; that he colleeted very Little money from
the business an the wife of defendant made eolieetions snd thus
tied up the income, Plaintiff in the meantime has lost the Surndsh-
ings through the distress suit, e are of the opinien the trial
Judge 2i¢ justice in hie findings.
Defendant saye that the court luproperly exeluded certain
evidence, Defendant scught to shew by a law student in the effice
ES
¢ 5 a ie ert ei en
atone nigrieg te eustugee a enw wend? wands taut sovety enge enw 21 _ hee
en bie etat host to wake
ptohan'st owed we kien aa Thivatete ‘tet oléuesh ‘weeaees | A
ode yuthiiud end at tuoatings aa be tqueos wil tnabnsitoh to vuy
ott ted Adiw eommmnd sabat as non lung ond hemwe on acid hokttwet
: ne. wl }
ad of tibauld bodawoyv tanboeted @ Las te hued ede mi godt ka haw |
whet @ Oh FR siiien ub “amen Litt debe youvaony edt te tomee wit :
sad ted yd elas ocd ah tuoneo fon bh) weber? wae gwae oorwre tak :
evlerexe et bets wes loweg ade at bountlsewo aan get TadoakadG oF ; cl
«Re amos Bott taet bogeaiias ofS j,eerlwrg er Ye qtdesenwe Te | sou .
ha oes we ot gud YRidakeig yag oF Som madd bios bene witstese oat
ee es ee ee) fexruos "e betere daw at OO he
yteRerEh wel Ltd a Dw baud ocke sank how Setertogne hast Wh i
gilt ab senerwonoe-aod ynideotomt anokien oH mba tone ot baad } et
mot wliv o'tishaeted qd Retuevety saw Titainte dvers ‘yan at » a
woke) ae Sw, Fyne Rama Oem ty anne ee °
meitie; digo # botpe tice of . duet «tem Bao bitty net @ seaheithein |
wile: yablow al behaeque of ybotttsnee out yn ator ym out Ye
eed ease tow ont ae hoaleTselh Tohawt sadd gonahawe mi ——
Y
- edana’t yuutbatdend nanahuud edt aot uve cachet tee om
2 NUNN ea hos isnt sceheiemennant
i
. set Pals duel aor Keto ost wh TResetas® : cmanak-naiagaial
_ ndtt etd andakae etd he. oxm wi tka, cunt Sh Sanh ROE
ef the attorney for plaintiff that plaintiff nad exid that defend-
ant's representation was an income of $300 o month, ond that thie
amount was stated in the slaintifl's statement of elaim, while
plaintiff? testified that the representation wae 3394 o month, Ye
@o not think the teetimony of the wltnens waa material. ‘The
etatenent of elaim evoke for itsel!, |
Complaint is made that the eourt should not lave sustained
an objection to the certified copy of the judement in the Sunicipal
court in the 4istrees suit brought by Pfander ogaimet Puilipe, but
apparently, free hie ebservations wade in conmeetion with his
findings, this reeerd vase considered by the court.
Defendant's brief is largely tazen up with techuicel
points as to pleading and proof, none of whieh in eur opinion ta
sufficiently important to require a revereal. ‘The plaintiff,
through mierepresentations, parted with his money sad has nething
te show for it, while the defendant after distraining the furniture
fa in the same position as before the eale, olue the $725 which he
received from pinintifr,
¥e bold that the judgeent for this amount wae properly
entered, amd it is affirmed,
AFY TREED,
G'Connor, ©. J., and Katehett, J., coneur,
ia PA ‘ver’ aew dolietaradzaes oid sie 6a
Bie ear | hatreds nam “mood he odd Ye yaootdnod adi a Yon
eal ay 2 Alsat kot atede ateta Ye nib ah
| bentetece weed ton biweste, dawee 649 dodd whew Oh didatomee”
a com ma vas at Kemenal hone Yo ‘cae — Leuns Aypsind
: : ut atiw nottoeason wh shaw me rena ds
on © axwea oald ge Boxebleaes aw pre putt
"te hained site qu teed ylegiel wt silt Wail pe
| a aoiatgo tue at deldw lo saon ,Yoorw hevdiasemone wae :
if Wibalate brasil _slanewen's a aphsny-e ey of fandtogmt ft at.
o “oat dokon ary et awk Lisp ot wibhd oa te
‘Os ba fe
a Y ran stand “ ‘ “bbe
1
+t
wl
HP NRE IC a
eh ee: ne ee Ge a NM
ate POR RR aR | aaa
tinn samen. ant
yy
Be. a
ra Ae 9 Phe pale
57594
CHARLES G. MORGEWMOTH and
WARIS MORGEROTH,
Appellees, APORAL FE OM SUPSRIOR
Ve
MIDLAND O14 COMPANY,
a eorporation,
court, coor couNTY,.
279 LAL 627:
)
‘ppellant.
MR. JUSTICES MATCHLTT DELIVEXED THE OPINION OF THX COUNT,
in an setion on the ense te recover domnges for the
partial deatruetion by fire of plaintiffs’ garage, and upon
trial by jury, there was a yerdict fer plaintiffe, with demges
in the sum of $5,600, upon whieh judgment was entered,
he declaration in the first count nlieged that defend-
ent, through its agent, was ¢elivering gazoline inte o submerged
tank for etorage en premises owned by plaintiffs, and was bound
to exercise ordinary care; that defendant knew or ought te have
known that the gas was liable to ignite and burn the building:
that the gas was delivered in such » negligent manner thet it ran
ever upon the fleer of the building situated on the promises, and
being highly inflamesble, as defendant knew, ignited and destroyed
the gorage, situated witheut fault on the part of plaintiffs.
The second count charged that defondent wilfully and
wantonly permitted the gaseline to overflow from the submerged
tank; that the premises took fire and burned as /aitect result.
Tefendent filed a ples of the general iesue ond a
special plea that the gaseline was not delivered by anyone who
Was the agent or servant of defendant,
AGTAUA MONT TARA eee ee To
* Srvc “nee grace
*¥go AL evs “ios
Siewed et teiidnerteiok Wedd ieidaiaaiaiaiamala
| ~ poqus baa , one tap bene gprs: to eft msn at
~ y gbetedne eae dernamy burt tolae nequ 08h 4 | aa
© stuidten date vopotts anos sist silt ink woktanateed oat sf
a yf atin ah a eint emiLeaay gaitevttes naw yenoye ath: piers (tne
bowed enw fae sothintele i eee SORE )
“Agittined 2th set sat otto 0 aa aa
tat 2h tentt rennet tneptigen = doze mt bexevited axw eo odd tend
fen ,sonimeny of me bedaucle pebbited ome » oa one te see
boyertoeb hae bedéegd » wort dnobao teh ns oidin iiyid yatod
owtti¢mtele Ye feng wt wo tiga? swede tw petantte. “ . * :
han vifeittw saabagies dest? tegnade sume Sengwe eat
beremiue a? mort wolteeve 2 emifoasp ed? botd da
: +d uno sonBte\ 06 herved bane ettt dood Spader
8 be omend Korenes edt to wef s Selt tm te
oaty onoyns yd borevited ter aew embionsg onf
*
ne
it is contended for reverse! thet the proof showed that
the gesoline tn question was being delivere? to the premises of
Plaintiffs by an independent contractor, for whose action defendant
wae not responsible; that the fire wax caused proximately by the
negligence of the tenant in maintaining in the garage a gue heater
with an open pilot flame burninz; that the demages allowed are se
inconsistent with the wemecamount proved as te indicate that the
jury compromised between the amount ef d>magen anc the question of
Jiability, thus preventing « fair trial of the iseue of whether
defendent wae in fact liable.
On this iast point defendant scyo that upon the trial
plaintiffs proved on out-9f-pocket expenses in repairing the garage
amounting to $6,500, and that plaintiff Charlee Morgenroth testified
te a tetal damage amounting te 90,418; thet in view ef this evidence
ami the yverdiot, it is appmrent thet the question of Lisbility did
not receive fair considerstion from the jury and thet « mew trial
should have been gramted for that reason. 2fendant cites Gelomoepeules
V+ Fetropowlos, 147 Ills Apps 1) Selamskes v. Victory ice & loo Cream
Eee B46 Ills Apps 1789 Clumene v. Fishy 210 Meena. 565, and many other
like cases from different jurisdictions. These cases in substance
held that where the verdiet and the judgment are inconsistent with
the proofs, and it is apparent that sither plaintiffs were entitied
to the whole smount claimed or dofendant wae entitled to a verdict in
its faver, a vertict for plaintiffa fer an amount less than claimed
should be set aside.
None of the cases cited discloses facts such as vould
bring this esse within the rule, Here there were twenty different
items of demage, and while the testimony of plaintiffs was uncontra-
@iected by oral tectimony the nature of the ence wus such that the
jury had a right to discount the testimony. It may have thought
that some of the items wers too large. It may have thought that
aver en A)
fade towels toorg off taclt Lanvewer te? bebemdaoe af #7
to aeelwete eft ef Soveviiek prted wow agisasuy oi omblcery end
émabasteh solsoce snady +0? ventsaniiies Sroheoqehnt sa yd etRitatele
ods qd Yotamtaerg heoseo vay ott she dade teidiemaqnes 26m aew
teteed eeh 2 egatan od! at grinletntem @) donned of? Yo Tae
ou exe bewelle segomh oft tad? tynkmred omnl? Joitg aego ma iby
eds test sau Lint of aa heovery ¢ruvome xem sald aahw #nedaisavont
te woldaoup eds hun aegaanh te InuoKa aM? roowied heakmowmco Tuart
tosit eds to paenp att 30 Labey tisk © uadinorens auils «yesiedakst
-oSdath test wt new da
iaixd od soqe tadt cyen tawbeo ted satog sunt olds no
epaieg estt gaistaqes gi eenoegre soxneg~te-dee pe hove tg ii
feitivand Adomepgiot coludd Tikintelg tedd dma 008,09 oF ss davon
eorehive widd to wely wi dod? (£2,283 o¢ gndénmome ogamad indod 0 ot
bib YsAtideatt Yo mebteoup ads faslt snaraqce OF Ok efoto sats bet |
foie? wen s dacdéd me weer), ond wert aotzerehtenas ust evtanes sont
intel setko tashsetes .soaset tad? rat dedwern) seed evar eas "
nidintdmseeen, s¥ godsmmled yh oqg\ «hhh Ct sngcuvagrd9s <7 |
sedde wan bas 4°98 neal O60 gett ee |
sonatedua mh seosa eendt cunaiteiinriy) dea Tew wer eneno eke
Atle imeteksncent or Iaomgout edd bes debinow est eridy tat ‘i |
belsiine oven aBRhsmiady waddde dats teorawps Ob 22 bea vwtooky way
ai dubicee @ os Belstise cow trwbroted ve these to pean ihc it 8
beatote ant? ancl Sram nm te? eSituwtatg wot totem & QMownt att
: thier tee ea egies
eal ae dove ee
mor
Setguedt eved you af oymmat sand old.
haat aakgaveskt eve yom 42 <n ue e )
were
some of the repaire ,/ umecesssry. It may have thought that
the garage repaired «os mich more valuadle than wee the build-
ing burned. Boreover, the rule is somewhat modified by o ling
of eases, such sa Moyers vs i+ Go Re Rs Cons 197 Tle Apps 1%,
holding that s defendant eennot complain that a judgment sgainst
him was tee small. ‘The trial judge here saw the witnesses and
heard the evidence. pparently, he was of thm opinion that the
verdict wae not ons of objectionable compromine, and we are not
diepored to say that he erred in thet reepect, or that the evi-
denee indicates that the jury did sot pases upon the question of
defendant's liability. There is «a suggestion in the argument
ef defendant that the proximate cause of o fire wae the negligones
ef the tenant of the building in elieowing the heater to be placed
teo ¢lose te the gas, but megligence in that rospeet, even if
conceded, would not oxcuse the negligenee of defendant if proved
by the evidence. 7
The clase and centrelling question in the case is
whether the person whe delivered the gesoline to the tenant on
plaintiffs" premises and whe delivered it in a manner te esause
the tenke to overflow was the servant or agent of defendant in
performing that work. ‘wuumarising the materinl evidence bearing
on that point, it appears that the property which plaintiffs
cwne? was known as 4605-09 Ueuth Halsted street in Chiengo. In
the year 1950 the owners built on the prewices a gurage which was
6 feet wide and 1133 feet lenge These promises were leased to
the Sotes Motor Transport Lines. The tenant took ponseswion
Getober 1,» 1950, and vennined in possession until the day of the
fire, whieh was November 14, 1932.
The tenant operated a freight trucking business. Up te
fads ddosmdt overt yam 2 seiewaosnmur Ay on tngee ad 30 nn,
chitwd eft gow moat eldauLey oxen Rowe wow bextogen opatay od
Ont # yd botttbow dadwvomea at efut salt ste voo Tom shomtud yk
WE 0G ofLT VOL 42.90 oH of Dod « * spree os aloe seenee. 39
tomt aga Srenang set a “gaat utalgnoe sera dnabeetob a tot? gethtont
tno eoasent tw add wou eed ephul Labeda? -£Eaae 0 ate mit
Uy a
sh eatis noledge ete te ase “o oUdne cag) - eonebt vo oat bat
ie CE NE EP
on era ov Snes gontmorgaos oLéanotavoise r0 ono ton ow tore J
~tve ocd tat? wo e@ooqeos tod? st borne od tact wn ov posit hal
Ro we kivauy wala moqy Baeg don bib grub oss tact aot
gee th Ti, eoneh
iveuxys ome md sod duosgue a ot oxedt sUtbitdets c"eanhen ton
‘@aneyl gee edd wow out o 20 vauas etamtxomy ode tate tnatneted te
rae ae
Boonie 0 of cetsed ott) getvoLis mt palbitus elt Ye dened watt te
th nove ,soeqas x gods mt eunegi lgon sud 2988 and os Sle we |
a g han ey wy
fran a ee oe
: 0 ES AAMAS
es seoneblve wale , ,
mm feataotos be dargs so snorted e's ined 6:
pabsood ‘eencblve gf op Pin is aah Ate Sycarn ts as + aa
Ag iy PR ne
_ Wttbinbate mebse r iseqte ems sud Mowsy of
Am gk Voce
faa
ieee soos anened od som eae
BAGS Sh gt
“eat 0 yeah eels chow cotanonaeg at ones Mn 3 |
y
a ay pene Bi a Pe
wae
July, 1931, 1: received its gasoline from the Sinclair O41 Co.,
whieh delivered it inte tanks loosted in the vudlding furmished
By the Sinclaix Go. jbout that date a new contract for the
purchase ef gasoline from the defendant, Midland O11 Co., was
entered inte, defendant being represented by its president, Mr.
Gttemheff. Under the mew arrangement defoudant supplied two tanks
inte which the oi] wee to be delivered and furnished a "*etick,*
as it was called, by which the oi] wee meauured, The svidenee
shows that the gasoline was delivered by truck to the tenant by
defemiunt every day and weu transferree to the tanks by means of
a hoses through which it ran into the fill pipe lecsted just out=—
wide the building. The evidenee tends to show that she name
“Midland 011 Co.” in letters six or eight inches high were printed
on both sides of the truck. The seme inscription appeared on the
Danek of the truck in awaller letters, and no ether name, or nnnes,
appeared on it. ‘The truck we painted dark green on both sides,
and the letters on it were in a kind of white silver. There is
sle6 evidenee tonding to show that the driver of the truck wore a
suit bearing the name of the Midland 011 Co, but thie is denied.
Zach day as he delivered the gasoline he alze deliveret « bill for
the same, «hich was on the regular printed billhead of the Midland
041 Cee The driver would also om exch ‘ay take the order for the
amount ef gaseline required for the fellowing day » The delivery
of gasoline wee discontinued by defendant after the fire. There
Wee wome gegoline left in the tanks, end about eix duys after the
fires, Mr. Sates received an envelope ediressed te the Betes Moter
Transpert line. On the envelope appeared the nome of the sends
Midland 0141 Cee, ami within the envelopes “ere writings which
appear in evidenes as plaintiffs’ exhibits 2, 5 and 4, dated
Heverber 1%, 1931. Exhibit 2 was a printed delivery receipt ef the
Midland O11 Co., 2205 W. Harrison St., acknowledging reesipt of
ao@” C20 abeLomt® eortd mex? onllocey ott bevteses tf oe oda
bevistraut gabbitud ode we bednoel adam’ ‘eemd, a3 beteviseb aly dekw
eds w° dertingo wor 4s efeh add dugd, 0% thedemki off yl
Ga good ERO hanibse génabdoolek od? most emiloaan to, egatenug
MM adnwddaotg eff. yo botneneaget gaded dnabee led gorek bexoege
ginad ovt betiqgva dmatmeted dnompneris wan edd cohal »Xkesieeged
Ryilodte* mw bedetore? dae hoxevigoh od od oor Lig edd dakag ogmk
‘eorestve off ,hotwacem sow Lae oid Sig hase Ve a boliao sew @h en
{4d dnane? ox? oo dowreg qd hotevitoh sew eailouap ond Judd awods
Se anos ef edmad et of dont lenetd naw bne Yoh Yxowe seahmeked
ates Sak hodmoel oqtg LEAT eas Ointment dt dete dawomtd, yeogh a
eter ef? tial? wore of abued gamohtve eat: sBEADLted aiid obbe |
petnd cy ocow siptt wadeat tps 10 mts atedded! ma 400 LAO kee”
eid mo betaeyge solsgd«pens omen ott views? oft 20 sehte died no :
cae 9 ,omee weslve on han ,atetboLl relLawm me tov wld be aond :
- gkehte died me reoty ves bedmiag mow tom? of 60h no Seeege
el etetT 8 .weviia efite Yo bedi a al eter &f wo etetéed ett fea ‘
@ erew teers ots Yo Yevbe ads deste worte oF shined wonobive oaks
bwbeisb we obits Phd 4-09 £10 hnathst ete we onne este ghtmed thee
‘9? iid « soveytieb onfe ad eniloany odd horevttan ort wa ‘gab dies :
tetoi ont 20 Rerdiitd bedatre releyer ad? mo aew Medtegemim wat
#6¢ wot sete off salad yob doze we mada bivewmewhed oat. nth ko ;
Tinvited eT usb aivedio? exld vet hetiaven amttonay 2 enone
sied? ova of¢ cette deabnsted yd heomtieosath aaw embhos |
ede tette oye ate. tvede Doe. etoet oft 1 eed enous aoe
190% soda ede of deme t dhe wqolovns a9 bovdenes, soted oti gaukt
eteheos ofl! lo cine ect Soreegqge ageisime, add 0 » anh 209 omen?
Holity agsiiicw osav goqetevms add idole Ane pereishonga kbs
te ) Sanne guiubetwondies 9132 woukruak wv 20s ao ae |
ofje
931 geilens of gasceline and 54 gsllens of ethyl. On the reeeipt
in pencil are the words, “Returned for eredit," with the signature
of the driver of the truck whose name was John Lananga, Plaine
tiffs' exhibits 3 and 4 are duplicate bills on the billhesd of the
Midland 011 Coe, on which appear in type "Credit wemorandwum, 951
gallons gasoline at Lie, $102.41) 54 gallons ethyl at l4c, $4.76}
teteal 7107.17." Suring the time the tenant purchased gasoline frem
the Midland 642 Coe, Mrs Ottonheff, president, ealied at Least once
a week; sometimes he inquired sbeut gasoline and at other times he
collected checks.
: Ur. Ottenhoff testified in support of defendant's plea
that at the time the gasoline wae dolivered defendant did net own
any trucks or moter equipment for the delivery of gasoline but
eaid that thie gescline was delivered to the customers ef defendant
under an oral contract between defendant and Vierenge Srothers
Cartage Co.; that defendant paid the eartage vompany ence each month
fer delivering the gas. He said that he never gave any orders to
John Lanenga and that the Midland 041 Coe did net give any orders to
John Lananga, or poy tim any salery. The office of the Midland 61)
Coo wae at 2205 Yeot Harrison street, Chicego, in the office of the
cartage company. ‘the oral contract of the cartage company had been
entered inte sbout five years prior to the trial. Mrs Ottenhoff
said that the custom wae that when defendant hed a customer for o12
or gasoline, defendant notified the cartage company to make delivery,
but that ¢efenient never gave any instructions to the drivers; that
these drivers took receipt blanks of the defendant company for ali
oil ami gaseline delivered ani redelivered them te the Midland 012
Co. He said “We (Midland 041 Ce.) instructed Vierenga Brothers
Cartage Company te get receipts for us, in fact we had reesipts
printed. Those receipt blanke were used an invoices te eur custe-
mere whereby Yiereonga Brothers got the reesipt for us.*
tqioows el? oo .iydén to amelliog M bas onktoung bo aatiieag 460
gtistasgia vdd Ahan *,¢itere xO hemes” gabvew att ee Lhoneg me
~siel? .eaneted mie. sar amen onotw dowud ele te sevieh edt te
oe tO bamititd odd wo eiild etsotignh oxa & hae & wdtdbixe ‘wthhe
LE@ ,umdnstome hed" eqyt mi rseqge sodee AO 9609 £20 hankbh
(aT. bo soMl Ja Lytle angling $6 pLbeRLS elk te ondloaag emolliag
ort sntioss, beontioug ¢naned od omb? odd pabuwd "The VOL tatot
oom taael $2 voLino qimobLawre «Mosinodd «NM «90% £20 tmathil odd
ead esmté zatso fe bas eatiorne suede hoxtwont ot semiiomn ysloow a
vt yee sataoto teteolion |
eoig s'inahaoted, ‘% dxoquva Mt MOLPIged Worined$O om 6»
nwo tom bib danhasteb bewerhink san antovag out wmbd. meld a tate
oad ontiousg Yo yoviled ed? .03 tammphage 195008 40: mobos st we
temhoeted Ye arene sane 60d hesertion sen.cottniciteihadlltllee
‘gtedder® agmet04Y tow tasbasted scented dasxémoe Lote me woheur
aémens sigan come “usgmos ogatane mils beg smobaodon dade 4000 apatead
o¢ axbbro ve ovey rover ef gadd bias eK 4amy only anivevE toh 10
2 a20hM Yue erly Jom bth oo £20 hmekbAM ond add dom oyeanet reine :
X20 bmoLbIM one Yo ood22e ea a yreken que ahd Yog 20 aagnnned mdeh,—
aie te os tke ome Bh ,ogeetdd atsotés ana sonal. dealt Aateh sa nie dibs
mood hast Yonge ogatuae odt Ye desntans Lemp et. xmaguen egetane ‘
Thednesds0 ocd staked ed of. xphaq stany ovEt tnada stat beresmm ;
Sto a? iaodaup 2 bad Inokoeteb medw taid om aodewo asl dads dian
eCTOViLoh oxen 2 unequos opie eed Solr evan saetaoted sembdana :
dott gevtovixch ad? of anpltewntuel yom evag seven,
{La x03 Wnquo dash teh eld Ie. ailand sgtosox soot axeviehwnen
£10 brekhin odd 9% mods hovevitonos tne seabemaaennetted at ‘i
| Sango eM apmrod tetomnsamt, (900 £20 fm or
oD ad zt pereien at ery. niet ama
to
The Midlanmi O11 Cos had one desk in the office of the
eertege company but did nst pay any rent for the space occupied.
This desk was used by Mr. Ottenheff, the president of defendant.
The ecartage company hed three trucks on which the name of defenie
ant company was inscribed, and these trucks seem to have been used
exclusively for the delivery of products of defendant.
John Lananga tertified that hie salary was paid by the
eartage company by cheeks; that hie erdere were given to him by
the manager of the ecartage company, Bon Yierenga, and Mr. Ottenheff
seid that he gave ordera to “ierenga, not te the driver, Defendant
/ eorporation has a capital ateck of $19,000, ami of thin steck Ben
Vierenga owns $2,000. Defendant offered no further proof as te the
terms of the supposed oral agreement, There ig ne preef in the
reeord of the amount paid te the carteage company by defendant company
for delivery ef geseline to ite customers, ant while Mr» Ottenheff's
hestionny is to the effect that defendemt did not own the trueks,
etill it doos not appear definitely whe waz in foot the owner.
There ia evidence tending to show that the cartage company did some
business for other customers, and thet it wee engaged in business
prior to the organisation of the defendant company.
Seetion 2065 of Busch-Hornstein's Kevised Chieece Code of
1931 provides:
“1t shall be unlawful for any person, firm or eerporation
to uae or te couse or permit any of his, theix or its employes to
use ony moter vehicle, wagen or ether vehicle in the transportation
ef property “eee the streets, alleyw or avenues of the city unless
such moter vehicle, wagen or other vehiole shall have the nowe and
addresees of the owner thereof, and alse a serial number dictinguich-
ing exid moter vehtele, wagon or other wehiele from any other
vehiole contrelled er used by the same person, firm or corporation,
Plainly painted, in letters at least one and one-half inches in
length, in a conspicuous place on the outside ef such vehicle;
provided that any such person, firm or eorporation using ani operating
in the city more than five such vehicles may cause such name and
serie] number to be painted on each vehicle an aforesaid in letters
mot less then three inches in length and omit therefrom the address
of such person, firm ex eorperationg end provided, further, that in
event such vehicles is used or eperated continuously by a lessee or
‘Dallee or other person, firm or corporstion having complete control
gad Yo oud tke on? at xeob emo heat 100 £20 hmadh tit mat
| _ebedqimes BH se wal Teo Pret YR You oom ‘bab ted ‘eangees ope -
viashoeted to tambieowg o6f ,Thodinass «xi yd wow saw tao ant
Saoteb Yo aanc ould Sols mp axourd vould Sel yragmep omaean aa?
deny mead oyed 08 apen wtlowtd saad? baa chotixennt amm Yagme Ane,
muhentob Ye sfenheuy ko Yoviios oma tot b aetna
ele ye hieg wow Yuniun abit gail? bokdsenes sqmamat righ .
‘wht of meviy owow areben 9 tet does tetvodo A
Promos +a rus ape TOLY 08 «yRagn” i cc a ods 2 oo
Sere bare't oc -sevieh ons oF Jon gaged oF asbt0 ovey on tase | phon
me aoote cide Ww tue 90009048 Yo oode intiqae a ae aosdnreqwes i"
edt of ao tooxg xodduw? on bexe¥te tnahne ox 900,80 ome sgmerety
aM. yi
eda ad *woo7q ax at even nome me fase bocegque et? %0
et RR ana ae
Wrage tunbapten ye ‘Websqens 9 egeizas end ods 92 bheg saheeed
a'Tierness) oc Listes hes 9 A Temes wero eth ot pal Loony to
% Fie ee i a yan 2
_ eedowed oft mre ton b4o tnabmoted sats JooRhe aus oF ap se 4
, seamen ents ‘doe at saw otw visdigabtob Longgs ton seb $4. ND,
emon Lb Yeqme ogettan afd sods veda of ambbesd sonedive ds vontt
seontaud ft beysRAe aoe th doutd dep stxemodaye senatge 202
ica SO
eUnaqso Inabasion ald t aeideningg re edt, of
x oho egeeidd beatvend alatedamxol-doawt to Gok i
ite oo ww apts ohORT po ‘Shoda ox
fesse 0 egk xo sngenae ves we re
anne? of at oicsidey sodie bal
a uate ox? Ww séaneve no eyelia
wma ete oyed Siete efokdey sedio x0 po ge !
~tdtitaestat podmn Lebvew a aka tna coved? aume
rads ye ie pay es teite on
saa ype ok 18 mek) ghonted enew od Yo eae
Mh setemh Siak-ome tam ame Seced 4s exmetes 6) abt
n itetiy itebd Yo ahneday tlt ae y womky
:
SERS
Aue Aaa Lagi
oni ama giles seliexerres to se act ‘
one eon Hous sage Yoo wo lots
eene wy blassvela wa efoidey prt we
Bag whhe xo bhe ant anchoteds ghee hae ddgned mi i ewan at Rye Mian ude
i! etetisiet gheblworg hice gaokserogteo Te
a? wotswelL a yt may 6 %® hove ah
kate stolguos privat mn tt eseqran ha mutt ae |
ies mee even!
Ba as 2
sont sndehsor 20 a |
= Fe
of auch vehicle, imstesd eof the omer thereof, then the name,
address and serial number or mame and serial number, an the case
may be, of such lessee, bailee or other person, firm or corpor-
ation may be painted on provided, thst eny such person, firm or
eerporstion using and operating were the owner thereof, ‘uch
Mame, address and serial number, or name and serial number, az the
ease may be, shall be we #0 painted, plainly and cistinetly, at
all times while such vehicle is in use on the atreeta, alleys er
avemes of the city. This section, however, shall not be ecoa-
strued: ae applying to etreet care running on metallic raiig, or
to any moter vehicle, wagen or other vehicle which is used solely
and exclusively for pleasure."
The only name appearing om the truck which delivered this gas was
that of defendant. if the cartage company owned the truck its
name should have bean on ite
Defendant insists that under this evidence « motion made
by it at the close of all the evidence of an instructed verdict in
its favor should have been given, and thie seeme to be the controlling
question in the case. This contention is based upon the theory that
under the undisputed facts the ecartage company wes an independent con«
tractor and not the agent of defendant, and that Lanenga, the driver,
was not the agent er servant of defendant. in support of this con-
tention, defendant cites Feater v- Jadaverth-Howland Co», 168 ‘11.
514) Connehly v. Peoples Gas Light Con, 260 Ill. 162; Densby v-
Bartlett, 316 ilie 616, with similar osves from other jurisdictions.
Om the other hand, it ia contended by plaintiffs that the evidence on
this point was sufficient to raise an iseve ef fact, which hee been
settled adversely te defendont's contention by the verdict of the
jury, and they rely upon Page vw» Brink's Chiesgo City Expreas Coe,
192 Ill. Apps 3893 Kirn v. Chienge Journal Cee, 195 Ill. Apps 1973
Bartley v+ Red Boll Transit Go., 544 ili. S34, with other enses as
sustaining thie contention. it is quite imposrible te discuss in
deteil all the cases which have been ealled to eur attention as bearing
on this question. 4 review of them indientes thet the vesson that «
maeter is held aneverable for the wrongs of his servant has sometimes
been put upon too narrow ground. ‘the broad basis fer the rule was
well stated by Chief Juctice Shaw in Farwell v. Boston & Vorcaster ter R.R.
qeenn cd mol? g Iowreds “enews ad te botdamt yedidev dows to
geet odd ae «dak Lnktos bos oman x0 vodaum sal '
‘Seueies weit vexing. Dagar yh Pye» sea stoneek sone to god wy
Nie mul? 4 sown yao deals ,bobiveng oo begnkag od
Mine Sith ie ad Sit elec a illite
ost on = aren feliven tne cman ce ,todmn por cna yet a Gawett
“on petiy besos b hee "Vankace abstmlag o¢ 20d You
zo yi tg beans ad¢ mo Gaw ai ok ofp vous oatie otal
py a Oe:
t geiiex o te Me Bias seouts of gH as ‘bo
Uoles beck af delty elobdoy rede 10 wopaw goLeidey osom yam Od
“ewnarane Lg ea gaan me “Bs
aaw ep efeld ytevitok suiew mcd edi no yalsaoggs sana ino od?
utd Mewes nit donwe wiagmse egestas auld 21 “1 tmno to te te
PY ae
| sah s sate
whom nol sea & vonetys saad haw taste ads twat dmabentod
eu ARG ES
st sotnsoy hedointent un Ye somvblve edt Lo Ye evots ait to ot ve
ee ak 2
BatiLorsne ef? of of ameon aids dae .movty seed oval biveds owed ait
aphy Mea wal ¥ baouh
_ Beste Trees eds ecw booad ak no hineinos tat saan eta wa
—sn i
“fe ane hnegebas sa sow ‘atagng 9 eyadine id ataat ‘potaqetbeu eats
LEA BIRR
etovith ots ,epstenal dort hee 1 snahne teb to ane sats ton ‘tayas
“noo addi to sroqqua at .inshneted te sasvies " sues ott tou o
cpuptbabbatin caeiso work seune ; catinde dete v8 ite exe Wen
RO eotiohivs oft vale athteniate ud hatassues at St bart sodde rT
med wad dette ydest to event me uber of penainge oct
-. te feshney ods ya wok Ine? moo a “taedne tok oe Latcnte sty ve
. #28 epneba 9 ints w as, coq woe coms bom a
“as eens wastto Ste g28R 4 ELD AOE. 4
“ft sawpedh 0s otdtswogmd evap ak oh “ belt nm ix
Bitned am nerinoads ee OF ealtes aie aad ints enneo i ikide
Fait monnae ext seats: setoethad mols te wptvas “ Hl base 1 braawenie
ott dono asd tnavive okt Yo spnoxe as es Sys ad v3 2
| “uaw of07 oid Xe? ulead hnexd oath « + hemos can:
.F sptuonx0t & soiv0l ȴ Akowes mi wat codeawt tehdd wi
Be
Corpe, 4 Metoalf ” quoted with approval in Gtendard 011 So. ve
Anderszon, 212 PME. 215, where it was pointed out that the master
was not liable because of authority given te the servant nar be-
eauss the servant had been negligent "Sut beenuse he is conducting
the master’s affairs, and the master is beund to see that his
affairs are so conducted that others are mot injured." in other
words, the rule is based on a “great principle of social duty,"
adopted “from genersl considerations of policy and security.* In
the light of that fundamental principle it is opparent that the
tule announeed in a number of the ceres that the teat of whether
the person doing the master's work ie « servant or agent of the
master or an independent ceontravter depends as «a matter of law upon
the question of whether the employes may be discharged by the
employer is only appliceble in oases where the evidence on that
point io uncontradicted, ond there are no facts which would require
the issue te be submitted to the jury. Thus in some of the enses
it is said thet where the contract between the employer and employee
in in writing, it is fer the court to determine as a matter of law
whether the relation is that eof amployer and employee er of
imdependent contractors
The ease of Shannon v. Sightingale, 321 i11- 168, seems
mot unlike the instant eases it was charged therethat a truck
henling oil and gascline wes negligently driven by one “ratt over
Plaintiff, whe wae thereby injured. it wes not contended that the
driver eas not negligent, but the defense relied on wos that Pratt
"was not their (defendants, who were partners of the Sastern
Tllineis 0il Ce.) servant but wes the servant ef on independent
eoutracters” one Howe Loux, The evidence tended te show that
Pratt, who dreve the truck, received payment from customers of
defendants and took orders for further deliveries to thems that
S20 Weebegts ma Eaveveqs debe tetou «08 Haotek.s 08
fnna on tal? Jeo Kedaton aav $4 ovedw B15 BM S69 anomimbess
det 20H tmevans oof of moves Winedinn Yo sayaved oidatl tem enw
- grenetae oh ol eounged due" sewsiinen caoad dad doavr—e edd. Samm
| git andi onn ot buved ah rodeo aiid te sorbate «'andunw ed
minadite ait: “sbocwtat fom ats wuacito fads bodoubooe 2 exe exieths
f “,ydub Lutoosn Te eiqiont aq saerty” 2 9 head wt aie ula ‘obrew
ai *sueteuosa bas ween ‘ko amo} dn sont anes Lonenng most cS abe
ont sald tnoraqys ah 91 olgtont2 La gmems dows fase 9 Sigh at
anitedw te teed att tnuts sense end ve redaue » xt spanmetne td ‘ ded
ad) Yo moge <o tevin o af tov atredenm road andod & aceg of
moqu wal te xoddem » ea atengeb xof ont dn00 penamens. exter we . Be
odd XE beyralonth od yom coyelyme edt resided Yo wl
ae
a ete 2
tals me eonobtve ead ovstw eoaao at sides tiqus ene, bs ‘ |
AF
ames 80k 222 [28 setmattteln dna ease sot,
Memeet teats exerts vomrade gow 24 pocrgpraier (teen tir
Teo dex! ene YT merits Wteephigen aew satioasg bow L10 gubsunl
elt dadt dobnetneg tom nar 2 oherwbmt wernt saw adie g % tehety
stev% Gadd age ne bebies semetod odd 40d sdumadigen son sor cavkab
mieten ot Yo auantiag oxew ool patanhaobed) chase, son, os 7
fawbengebas Be 30 snovsse ond ane sud towren (409 410 wtembltt
: be sumsens mt artes font dove et
i ae
-
e
< + %
ov Evol wh wad wakeowth tw att ed bessee ‘i fen
ae
the name of the firm, "Yaetern Lilineis C1] Cos," wis painted on
the truck and printed on the memorandum tickets given when orders
were delivered or takenj that the trucks, however, belonged to
Bre. Loux, and were kept on her premises, and thet Pratt and other
drivers of the trucks were employed by her. The eourt said: |
"The name 'Resternm lilineis 011 Company’ was printed on
all the trucks, and the drivers of them, on delivering gaeoline or
oil, left o memorandum ticket conteining the «nme name, They slee
took orders for gawoline and oll, ueing memorandum tickets beari
the osme name. Orders were aleo teken by Mre. Loux and tele phon
te the office of the plaintiffa in error (defendanta), and, to-
gether with orders received directly from eurtemors pereonsliy
by telephone te the plaintiffs in errer's office, wore placed on
a hock in the office and executed by the truck drivera. The
agreement between Mra. Loux and the Sasternm lillinois O11 ©
was that she would furnish trucks and drivers to deliver gasoline,
kerosene, lubricating eil, or amything the Sastern illinois 011
had for sole, amd the drivers made delivery of the gows
ordered ami collections of the price. Under the contract the
plaintiffe in errer furnished the gaveline to run the trucks,
Myre. Loux furnished the oii, amd the cost of repairs and other
expences of Gperstion of the trucke were paid by her. The men
were paid weekly, «t the request of Mree ieux, by checks of the
Maetern Tllimeis O11 Company. These payments were charged against
Mere. Loux's account and monthly settlements wore maie with her by
the plaintiffs in error, in which she woe eredited with the amount
ef the gasoline andi kerosene dulivered and was paid the balance
rewunining cfter the deductions for salaries were meade» The plain-
tiffs in error had ae control over the men employed by Mra. Leux
and ne autherity to diccharge the drivers but did have authority
te direct the drivers in regard to the deliveries to be made.
The agreemont between the plaintiffs in error and Ure. Loux wes
that her servants were to cell at the atation, receive orders, go
and fi11 them, collect the money and bring it in, wwi she told them,
in eubetance, te do whatever the plaintiffs in errer direeted them
to do in the delivery of of1 and govolihe.”
VUpen thie evidence the Supreme court held that mo question of law
erose for their censideration except that raised by the motion to
dixect the verdict, ond thet the ples that Pratt wus not the servent
of defendants “raised an issue of fact;" thet the jury had found
against defeniants on that issue and thet under such a state of
facets (even though there was no conflict in the testimeny, er the
testimony might be agreed upon and stipulated) contreverted questions
of fact were involved. The opinion goes on to state that if the
contract with Mra. Loux had been in writing the question would have
become a matter of lew, citing Pioneer Construction Co. v. Hansen,
F
3
Ho Sodmtay owe %_s00 LAY eboMbTEY wooded” sweet? at) Yo omen Gite
etetico rede nevig atedert mwtcoremom MF ne bogey Nh foe este
of begnetud asbvewe:dl .avowed? edt tuatd qevitat Ye borevkred drew
some Ste Stow goed dee pooetaneg tet we tye eter baw .xwed Voit
fbtew dre. mur sted qo beetle wtew wtonts add Yo WeoeEY
hee
we beitebrg enw Norngeed £26 abomtlix tewdbot! pawn ear’ ” we
te eomiiocag grivevileh go smodg 30 a, ott ot ioe ey Bi
aula YOoett ,emen enox ooff anintetabe ¢ EL
getucod edeaiciy avhbnaipaem patew ,ile os catdeany tok a0 BOGS
howodqeie? tre shi .eet xd mote? bute orpr Siuka emer br
~0? ,bes a (Gdnabee toh) cores mh otiiinialy ed? to MRM, oat o:
ylanouiq eremetvens mort yderrlio bevieowe tog
ie beentg otew ,eoltio u*neute ms #tBisnieig ed? oF aint son A
sal eter ‘ge om 0 ae tan ep itio edt mt dont a
ghee. LLG 9 fon axe Faek eu Komrtod 4
sortdoang swvite® of arevith dan aloud pa ALuew pate eer) be
KiO ghenlLsi acedgach ods guidéqie co ylio padiaoiteud ,omenerted —
ome odd te vrowlich @has arevixh od? baw yoien Te? bast pare one
mis gontéeor add tote .oolvg et to anehiootios ne beteise
eetour? ef? at 62 ontioneg of? bodainuw? sevse. me Peree es
sense ine atleuex te tooo odd bre alte ost baeinens awed «om
set etl. sins vt sauel sous to fuoupes off fu cuisoar 2
add to — ya a each to Sanupes odd w eros
santege 9 ste97 @ saodt i ae
Soa EMSs et aemundfceg tlm me Gate ening a
Siw be <9. 2aw nhake
' persiad afd blag eav bes borevitob at}
etialg aT ,»,oban ssew seluales kad
Rial sir Ye Segelque Boe sets wove ee
‘yihveritue oved 626 jad atevixh ef?
ca gorse dig. My sly Sat aveltatele i cone
acw wart «6 tot%te at ae Pee be
oy se gn that peters eo, oh gett gle 2= ae rai
neo, is « web Youem walt
madd Bedoosthh conse af perp ond pyoggs getees
bow bun Lhe Ye catty bry ryt
wad te woltaoup oe dash ‘bien #09 omotqu wate oomebtye. Raced aoqd
os Keo 3 60 wal we beaks dads aqenxs woksuzobLenoe heals wr eons
Jigs oh) aed Menke Sy
taavees ad ton omw dtert galt woke ais sacld oan todrey nit ook
bi aus’ nal quvk weld sede “088 re owank re voatex” énshactes to 0
aN ra ry ceD.
te odode me Meare we bw touts ba owoal taste ne ‘ainebastoe denkegs
oe
ota evsoul duns sald a sok tiaos on a oxadta | sgueas nove) af
2
ould 2k tend edate of un voon motntqe ot “stovinent see Soak 2
fo ERE: 5
eveni biwow sottneus odd yatdixw at twee haut saved sw iby
eieastall « “90 poldowré ena vsenol gnteto eas 7
ea Sigs OA
-10«
176 Til. 1003 that sinee the contract was aot in writing but
eould be shown only by parel evidenes, the determination of ita
terms was necesaerily left to the jury, and thot 16 wae properly
submitted to the jury under inetruections by the caurt, The oourt
in that opinion alee distinguished Panaby v. Bartlett, 218 111.
616 (on whieh defendant here relies) and said thet it wae not
intended in that cose “to overthrow the rule anneouneed in the
decisions whieh have been cited, that the verdiet of the jury on
such mixed questions of lew and faet, approved by the trial court
and the appellate eourt, is conclusive and net subject to review
by this court.”
in the yst later ease of Hartley vy. Red Sal) Transit
GOs, M44 Cll. 534, plaintiff sued defendant for alleged negligenes
of its slleged servent, Thomas Burke, in driving «a truek, wherehy
plainsiff was iajured. The defense relie? en was that Burke was
mot the servant or employee ef defendant but an independent con-
trectoy. Defendant latrodueed in ovidenee a written contract
between itself and Burke, which showed the scale to Burke of o Red
Ball moter truck ead an agreement te give him work to consict of
leng distence hauling. The written contract expressly provided
that Burke wes not an ewployse of the compeny, nor in any way or
at any time ite ogent, he being in handling sll the shipments an
individual contractor and te be considered and treated as such.
The eoatract, however, provided thet the truckmen showld wake all
colleetiona as directed by the company and turn same in at the
first company office he pasced and report to all Red Ball offices
leested in cities threugh which he wes passing, end tht he should
follew instructione civen him by the mancgers. ‘fhe court held:
“if the construction of the contract depends not only
set cirgumsseness or upon the construction whieh the partion
themeclvee have placed upon it, which is te be proved like any
other fact if such facts are controverted, the inferences to be
drawa is for the jury, and in such ease the whole question as to
ie
fiat gndgixw mt don paw teamtnoe esd pombe dad 400% £42 OE
agi to noidorienedot ote ywanobtve Loxeq cd ylne nwode a6 Skemp,
edeeqor aew 32 dad ben perl ont of PI9L LLlvenpensR aaw weet
deuce est .drwon ot yt anokeouréant vohaw gael odd of Pads tudum
+2 OL5 .Sdahesall ov Rdomed bodedugridnd> ola modntqe. dads mh
for new $2 teid Dhow bas (wollor oust tmoboetes dedie mo) 2f0
-aatd tt temmmenam alex ot memtiziven 0" Sanh Bal WS Aa,
we ert edd 30 telivew eat? ant? chotle mood omad Aobsty enobete
twas fabrd ats wi devoraue stee? ne wad Yo amodneus sche
waived 0° apatite ten ton svi: keane at hte sheg Laney
5 meee es
- thusax? {60% pelt «¥ yedenoh to anal ton dd ak. a
seroaiigen boyelis wt ¢msdavion ppg tal
donna viewed @ patviah 2 ma enki anual seamen | a > os
re
90 tetibe: 89 stor mts via, + tnvaoras no: tes ' en |
| bobivexd “lewergxe fonttnes Ketiiew et “puck tuad ous
1 Yow wre a t0m wants td 1 betghitea BT Phir bane beneath
fe otmbentde od Ltn gackttnoat at gated ed Vihomi beuavert: =“
apophaphaptenbrrspenpitscte i.) | bbe he
wats 16 sit Gaal ied Yai ind tanh wonane aaa
wedliie {fief hell (ie e2 Itoqet bie Keaeng od Got the cungany souk
tod” ott Fiat ones S cconbentealsenmabensiiiahoesiis i bodnoo
yiop Jom ebneges sounded ene srt at iret Be
- Shaw olaniiine Ped oud a id nea
ee hetay alt dotdw nokvon saa nos 1 ,
we edt feverg od of oi gdoidw .ti aeqe d wey
*] ot ot eonotr ind ef? ghedceventnes oss oe ED
- aa mehecesp ofodw ost euae dows mt ban pot ald
i
“lie
whet the contract was should bv submitted to the jury under
proper instruetions. furner v. Osgeod Art Celortype Co.»
225 Tll. 629."
We think the rule announced in these ensees is controlling
here. it is admitted that the fact that defendant's name wes on
the truck in several places wade o prima fecile case, indicating
that it was being used in defendent’s business. Indeed, the
erdinanee of ihe city of Chiesge quote? above required ownere to
use such designations ia order te distinguish their trueke. In
addition to these facta, whieh were sufficiont to make a price
facie ease, there is the further evidenee showing thot the drivers
of the truck delivered bills to the customers and took orders while
on their trips in defendenmt’s Behalf. There is the further important
fact that the burden of proof was upon defendant to suctein ita
plea. There were circumstances throving deubt upon the fact« to
which the president of the company testified. The jury could
reasonably find that some testimony effered by defendant was
fictitious. The evidence an to the terms of the supposed contrnet
wae indefinite ami uncertain. The testimony of the president te
the effect that he never gave directions to the driver is under al}
the facts which appear in the record .uite imprebable. The jury
apparently did net believes some of the tectimeny produced by
4efendant and we cannot say that they were unreasonable in so doing.
The jury having settled this controlling issue of facet in plaintiffs‘
fever, we hold that the judgment should be affirmed.
APP IRME Se
O* Connor, P. Jey concours.
MeSurely, Jo» dissenting: I think the verdict ie manifestly
ageinst the weight of the evidence and thet the judgment showld
be reversed and the cause remanded.
Mines amysSede! és beeaad + aml, eon egeae ‘
antifoxinos, et asend guodé al peonvene oivs elt dahip ere’ OF
8 Cay Oran adtabeo lob dadd soak nad tals oeodiwhy af OT Vetted }
“BAiseptbnd yore shah amiss « obs aevoly Laveven mt aewrd es
. att ~doebnt .amentand wttnabucteh ab bouu gated cow’ th ne
o¢ nienwe bexispet eveds Sefeup oge¥tdd to Wao odd to obnants
wl sodewce thedd detwyatiots of totne af enbhiatgtaeb dein ‘ie
| gthyg © salen es snatelttaa orow dotitw gatowt eaaild of notte
‘guetieh ed. dads gatendénomebive sadewin dt as id) Geel
«heb axebte dood bane eremotewe ont Of aiiid beta ae a
in Suntroquk nedd awh edz od wid? srinded wiimlbidetod Af ‘egies Wee
COL Histene oF se mace a Dore 8 mi da )
PY esomt ete mocw due axtvouts dooms ‘erew
> ptves Yawk aa Shebtt tebe Yuaqmos ‘wate w dnobheon
“ gew Grobee'ted yt boxe'rte esr gedn woe zk
| Poershen Boweggive vild te anced od of an sombt |
“ed Umobtnerg ot Ye rm fed eat snlsdwwone a 5 we
ile toby at covird eof 02 Peery rer Ts ova even arte daet
geek bate Celkdadd cyt Olli, beeser acd a
Qe betwnorg “YndaFdaos af to ones evel
rents oo at Siifandasctu stew yd) tad Ya tomas pat tE
ee hi A ay
—— at feat te eee! wattle | nat ‘obttes |
ne
ve arte
Appellee, f
wp ai dinourt cour
vs. Le i
OF Gok couNTY, j 4
ARTHUR ¥, CUT TEN, {|
Appellant, ) ef
279 } a 628!
WH, JUSTICE MATGHETT DELIVURND TES OPTAION OF ‘THE COURT.
In an action im aasumepait upon an implied contract to pay
for personal services ond upen trial by jury there wae a verdict
for plaintiff io the eum of $16,060, upon whieh judgment ware entered
Karsh 17, 1934,
The declaration contained the coumen equ ta, to which was
attached a verified stntenent diseleosing the particular services
said to have been rendered. Defandant filed a plea ef the general
issue, to whieh was attached an affidavit of merita, setting up the
nature of his defense, which was in substance that the alleged sere
vices were not for the sole benefit of defendants, but, on the con-
trary were for the joint benefit of plaintist and defendant upon
matters in wiich they were jointly and sutually interested,
However, defendant says that the teeue ef the implied em-
ployment having been submitted to the jury and the werdiet in favor
of plaintiff rendered on that issue, he accepts the verdict ae a
finding against him on the question of employment, whien he does
net ask this court te review,
The argument of defendant is therefore firected solely to
the peint that the 4dauages allowed were excessive, Ne argues that
expert testinony ie necessary in order te establish the ameunt of
compensation which ought to be aliowed, because it is the beat
evidence which in the nature of the case could be obtained. The
only expert evidence offered by plaintiff was bis own tewtinony ae
te the vaiue of his services in his opinion, The evidence was upon
objection by defendant exeluded, Defendant aluo says that evidence
ut
{
‘
\ \ PE ea a ‘a8
“paluon equpari. a xy on a
7 hi 9 MRTTUD, .W, noose,
Pe qoee ce it
‘2 . oO wh I Cy y . Lt SaaS ARG
PaUSo BBY WO WoTeTK® aay dusmevErER “PRAMOTAN monn
rit Cones Sieve ibe Mi y
‘
i
.
ea
ties
Yeq of toatanee bot tqat | rise nich ial atagaane al netton, me mt.
fe ha ad
tolsiey & aaw ores? exut, ee tatu ae. oo eootvaen
san dip katw of (edu sdussp odd bentedaes nolsetetoab o<t il laale
“ednlvws Tetwolsrag aid gateolonth sooustade betuiner o radoatta
kernany otf Te sole a BO LIt toahas tot Ldorsbaoe ased ovad e bas
at yg gatices ,aé¢item Yo tivebsTte mn hedontta wie ce biw a, anus
w198 Boystke ost todt woustudie at exw dokse josmnWS uid Yo studad”
ates ond ao tad yatnehae od ke OLYened wien Wit wet ‘tom exe Ws iv
Kegs tubretah box iismale Yo ¢iened Sabet em tot omew Yeene
pegansosal ¢Linwdum ban yLtatot ne eit
ria bodiqnk ed t¢ sunad ext sade ayee dnaban teh xovewell 8) ll
weed ai dothroy st hae rut on) of Resthadua anos antvert Imemyote i j
ee tokbaoy oad etynnoe ont amend. ted ao hewebanm Teteatate oe: he
noah wd vinkdw ,sanayesens Ye Ralfeenp wilt mo mabe | ee
aidped } sina ss awelven of Pree iat ew: tes :
a ‘einen betoselt evo'texeds wh tuoher teh kp damsgan BAR) 06 oroye
tad? esoyte ok oviaveore stew hovolin segaumd off teas talog ot
to sumone sit dalkdetes af cobee ud vTenerene sho ymont tant free an
| tued sat 0d 2b consent <hoveddn eh 08 Segue siokdn moltanmgnoe oo
ost ,bontedde od Sino ona O03 1¢ wnuten Odd GRidnddn Opmobhwee
a YkouLdesd ewe ated aaw Tiitaiete yf bow Ve saash ive 1 .
peat ane sonohtve off .vetatge eh ad asotvape eid Ye olay asd r’
neaobive tadd wyen eels iaabae ted sdobmloxe danbas tes
as to immediate and remote benefits derived by defendant from
piaintiff's suppesed services was immaterial, and that the real
question is, What wae the gmeral worth of the services rendered
by plaintiff te defendast?
Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that expert evie
dence was unnecessary to suppert the verdict, but if it was, his
own opinion at to the value of his servicer was improperly exe
eluded, and that defendant is now eetopped to contend that such
evidenee is necessary, it hoving been exeluded upen ais ebjeetion,
Plaintiff further contends that euch expert evidence is only ad-
visory and may be properly dieregarded by either court or jury;
that it vas negessary for shutniaddea’ exctuan the beet evidenee
available aid that the importance of plaintiff's services to de-
fendant ia an elesent of their value. Gisintiff alec says that the
verdict was not excessive, at a matter of law; that the expert evi-
denee of defendant was entirely worthless, and at any rate, the
weight ef it was for the jury. ie suye that this appeal wae prese-
euted for delay and asks that statutery damages be asaeaned.
Theee contentions require 4 summary ef the material facta.
The slleged expleyment of plaintiff by defendant began in
1929 and continued until Mareh, 1933. Plaintiff and defendent hada
known each other for thirty years pricr to the beginning of these
transactione and had been very close friends; as plaintiff says
(and defendant doen not deny) they were Like "Damon and Pythias."
Beth were engaged in business in conneetion with the Soard of trade
of Chicage, Plaintiff joined the Beard ef Trade in 1896 and sola
his membership in 1935; he operated very actively from 1896 until
the year before the war, 1913; before prenibition he was a buyer of
barley on the Kehange fleor for certain brewers and malsters and
bought and sold other cash grain; he was ale6 connected with the
elevater corporation whieh had elevators in South Chicago and there
si) ih 7
% a}
art Imhowweh yt hovined at htemd atanne bib ébdthonns of as
inet off Jaks day ,lebingeomd saw apotvese hewegque a Ttleatat¢
boxshaet wooiviss ant to dizew Laxemy add gan tan® ,at moliaeup
6 ae | {Fiabe teh of Vitukake ow
oive suegne stadt ehaetaos ,haed tadie edt ag ,Ttigatels
aig ,eaw 22 2 tud ,tolfrev ems Seoqque of yvessonena caw eens
was yktoqorgat eae aoolviea ald ‘te bite off oF an aotatge awe
dows tad? hastasy of beqqetss wom at saubae'teh dats Bak | RARRES
stekioolde ald soqu bebutexe aded jatved st jytasesoen oF Sbabn tee
«he vine ai eoushive jsegxe down fads shosdeoo sodsubt vragen
“pena xe sues touidhe yd bebiagetalh yftsqose on Yim Bho ytenty
semebive dase acd soubor Nek hath te “xo yiaveenda eh that
seb 0¢ eeolvuse a! Ttk¢alele Yo sonssxoqul wud sand hhh betes?
ena tacit ayes cate Tikeabars onlay tiett Yo dobme fe’ ae’ wh! co
«ive saecxe edi tadd ywal to redeem & ao evinawoxe dow tow soit a :
este sober vie de bas ,eneladtow eosk tae ase Seniiew"be te oie
o9nerg eaw ineqga eld¢ tadd syee oe ekut oie 20 wow 28 +e syiee
sbeneoans ef veyeund yrosuiade tad) sew paphemadloridecaegsl
<ateut Laltotem odd Yo yYxemmum « et hupet aol iaataes veeat i
gt nayed’ danboo'ted yt Ttttalele Yo Fanyo Que’ Neher orci:
bart dapbawted hae “thdate® Seek ,dexen Eval Belek hae eRe
ausds ‘to galualyed of? ef tolig Wthoy qerbed HY teittd’ ‘wade
eyen Tikvaleiq ee jebaet«? waele yoy teed bod bie wnotddeeaed
*aaksiyt ba aonsd” oli exow yods (ynob Hoa aseh Padine teh Bae)
obett Le Mack edd dikw maksv@nnoo ad sommelier at bonagno exew Ate
“bhoa bas 0884 at short %6 bused odt beakot Titvatart” “jogad hil is,
Lhd OC6L mont ylovitos Ytev hetarogo ax ;8eer af whe
te ‘woqud @ eaw wit motsldiserq ase'ted | eke te hse noted
| : "ime eisteles bas axowerd atastes wer toolt sy
- edt thw besgennoe cole aa od palate |
ee baw ‘egaois® two at eredavele hed dotdw aodtanroutes
Se eee
—— or ——— Ral et ea J > pee | as ~ _— hen —_ =. = at at ~ — _ Pe ex: re 5 oie 2 ~ = Bs
SO ee a ee ee eg a ee eee Te eg ee eT ea ear ae
participated tn a general grain business.
In 1915 plaintiff waa elected a director of the Chicago
Board of Trade and served for three yenrm; in 1916, seeond vier
president; in 1917 first vice-president (scting part time as
president), and also from 1917 seeretary (which war om all tine
fod) until 1923, wher he wae appointed executive vice-preeident,
which he says was a new offiee giving him greater vower then he
porresced ae seeretery. Im 1917 he was president of the Counciled
Grain Exchanges, on association eof 211 the grain exehanges in the
United States. 4e nad not been officially connected with the Beard
ef Trade cince 1935, shen he retired,
Defendant wae a large operator; his business was that of a
apeculator; he dealt fer the most part in graine and at times car-
ried meculative commitments of 30,000,000 bushels of grain, vhere a
Tliuetuation ef one cent in the market price weant a gain or lees cf
$500,800; he ueually took wheat in the Heard of Trede vernacular was
known aa “the long cide of the market*; in other words, he was
knewn as a “buli.* 4e wae of the opinion that the rules of the
Beard of Trade were unfairly dram, sc as to faver those traders rhe
tock the “short side ef the market"; that is, the "bears,"
Urged by sericultural interssats, Congress had made the
operation of traders on boards subject te invectigation. Legisla-
tion which gave the Seerstary of Agriculture power to adopt rules
for the regulation of abuees growing out of speculation, was enacted,
Plaintiff through excerience heretofore releted was a recognized
autherity upon subjects conmected with the Board of Trade; he had
acted as ite spokesman and was accustomed to make speechor on
subjects connected with its businens; he was familiar with ite laws
and preetices ant court decisions with reference thereto, as well as
economic principles underlying business carried on through its mreney.
At the time of the alleged employment by defendant in June,
‘
oymete eff ‘to refsetts # hetooke eaw Tittnialg BLQL aly... 5
sooty bunoee ,8L0L mt sarany sent cot bewree Aae ebetl Yo Mtg
ag mid Suan gaites) tuodisetq-eety deh? TLOL ab ptanbdtease
ont? [Le ma soe nokse) yestersen TACL mnt ote bag , (dnobleere
fandhamriqeaoly evitsoens he taloquea eaw ex cade ,fhOL Lhtaw. Ado
od mad? toveq teteoty ald gaivig selTig wea « aew oyan of mine
Roeliensod eat ko tneblectg ser of VAGL ai .yeedetose an bone
ott ot soynodone nlatg ods Ile to soiteloonea ao nee
btsoh. edt Atlw hodnoanen yLiakettio seed tea had oll ,neeer@ dethal
shettton on aod 2808 spate obast 29
a ke tecdd cow sogaiend cia :tetetemo egtal o aew fue has toe vr aaah
~tap aowld te baw emtong at fteq doom pdt TOR Sewn Ox yxotakunege
2 Tete ,ahery Ie afedand 000,000, 08 Io stanmtluane ovtiatuocgen. dake
Lo eel to miag @ saem gol soxton edt at sage, can te Moltentanet
naw chfupantey ebatt Yo. haaek ase ah; tod test, xttma oh OQ
ge ed jabra tetto at ;*doxdter edt to. obie yank ete" se wert
add ‘lo wedst od? todd nolnhge ete to same! ",itud" 2 es meen
odw wrshaxt oxocit tovet of en ow ,fmeth gitletay exew oe? Yo besof
*omood” entt ,ad ducth ;" tovtam acd Xo. ohte Mota” ont toed
lo ed fee bed saorgnod ,ctseregal Aetetivotaga ye beget guy i
~eialpol .meldeghveewal of toeldue abwnd so etebats ‘te nahtorege
aefet sqobs of rowed Htnthapinga To ytedeseeS a2 ovey, soktw mobs
-Sednane anw santtialuegs Le ine auinory sanuda, 2e medtedanen AAS eR '
hoskngeses 4 gen hoselex si@iodeted sonoliogae Mamatmd | ‘Mibsate st :
| na a tet esata cts Anse sone aoe naan :
d
' ‘
awat af2 daw tebitogt may os jameataud att thy Pertinent 4
ta Lieven atetedt sontietex sity mnotniooh shenpenpetio rice ]
‘woes Sa En ATE ny ee ee ,
4
1929, pleinti?f wae in the service of KB. Lowits & Ge., a brokerage
house in Chicago, which dealt on the Board of Trade. He was a so-
licitor, ae the trade said, “a customer's man." At the beginning
ef his euployment he received a ealsery of $26,000 « year, and when
he apolied for the position with %. Lowite & Co. he expressed the
epinion that he could swing more of defendant's business to that
firm. Plaintiff reeelved aalery in his usual empleoyeent during two
of the four years for which he now ¢idime compeneation from defende
ant. When his e-plovment with Lowits & Ce. ceased, plaintiff ap-
plied for a position with © A, Pierce & Co., and, the evidence
shows, made an affidavit thet he had ne other business connections
for -hich he reeeived compensation.
In 19297 slaintiff was employed by defendant te bring about
eertain reforms in the elevator practices connected with the grain
trade. Plaintiff's teetimeny ia te the effeet that defendant paid
him $20,000 for services rendered in connection with that employment
but defendant says that payment of $25,000 wae in fset made. skkex,
Later plaietiff wae employed by the Farmers Eotional Grain Cerpore-
tien for about two weeks in connection with matters at Pashington
and in Ghicage, and for this service he was paid *2600.
Beginning June, 1999, and up te April, 1043, all defendant's
personal letters concerning Foard of Trade subfects and sli provae
genda emen«ting fron defendant, with the exeeption ef a series of
articles in the Saturday Bvening Post prepared by Mr. Sparkes, were
prepared by plaintiff, Te what extent defendant consulted with
plaintiff concerning theese articles is eentroverted, The term
“ghost writer” ia used and se@ens te express well the nature of the
services performed by claintiff fer defendant during the tern ef
his cuploteent,. 4e made a trip te Yeahington and interviewed the
Secretary of Agriculture and some U, ©, Senaters for the purpose of
Securing their ceoperatien in bringing about reforms defendant
LP Pine ise,
C |
»
‘@petexond a ,.00 4 etivwed .& to enlvree osif mt sew Viidatety /e2e£
+08. 4 saw OH ober Io bused ed? ao Sesh sigddw ,oyertsO. at vaned
gatactaed et? 24 *.mam e'temotamy a , Sian oberd oft oe yrdthokt
aede bie ,teoy #8 060,086 to ytelan « hevieset of tremetqme ols To
adi besnetqae od .00 & athwod A dtiw nelitnem esd tol pekdggn en
tad? of sapalasd e'daekeeteb te etos qaiwe binos, et gett woknige
ows gaitnd fasuyodque Laven ald nt yumias bev tsoer Wignbel® ames
shar leh amex soliaameque aathio ven of sate cot etaoy two? exh te
age Titelata ,heeaeo 00 & ative. Atiw soem odiqes met mont lei
_ _eonebive off (ban ,.00 6 eeteht A .0 att be nodtieay o aerate
enoitosnapo erenioud teste oa hed od tok? Sivahl'T le ma eben Wiel
a % et anangtion bev knows vit Hotete vel
tueds. gaixd of goabonteh co hegelyms aaw Ytitateds MOL aoe
tthe, exit dd be heteonane soplinety tetevele art at eametow ntatTee
bieq tambas'teh seg soeTie edd of ab ymontseod atta bale soho
tahayelqns tad? Mthw mottoenme at hetehaer coo tvaen tot 000/086
sami, odom feet ah sew 006,886 Yo tanmyne Sodd aye taabostob- sud
asieqzed slat? Lanoléel grestol edt qt begetque enw Tet cheke aetet
Mi jAddaaY fo eiestam Adiw aolteenane of adaow aed dende eemeks
COORE bag aaw o6 oolvron hae s9%-han yepsokdvembebas
a'ianhastod Ife ,668f , 420g of ow bas (@8Os ,sowk-guiamige=
oagets iis hae adeotdua ehet? Io biegs gatonsonss etettel tageateg
te aeitee # le sedsgnane edt Miiw ,taahseted von? gabtanemeoabaag
ate nested. «te yd botaqets t207 saltlahammaeniinnN ics
Mths betivencs tachar teh fandne Sesto oeT
pet o6%. ,badxevetraos af aofeline seed? satmoamee TO aH664
end le suuten act Liew neon of aceon baa teow ab regia
Fo meg add yaltud Paehoetes ced Yiitatele yd be
- Auld Hieakreatak, Aen entnnbinal oh sabeh' ahi Pi aad
te omeciid ef Xol stofecok’ .8 ,U gaoa bac oxeg fuetags Togeateme’
| Anehaetob amrotex swore gatyakid at seitorsqnee ted antes
desired to have adopted, He, himeelf, bore the entire expense ef
thie trip to Washington, Te the same end, he wrote for defendant
en article printed in the publication "The Business Week," under
date of September 17, 1920; June 7, 1930, he prepared o letter for
4efendant in reply to one received from Mr, Hoyt, chairman of the
Grain Committee of the Boor’ of Trade, vith reference to o provesed
rule te limit carload deliveries on contracts te the Last three
daye of the month. In January, 1951, he wrote an article against a
proposed rule wrhieh would have parmitted am inferior grade of wheat
on the Soar’ of Trade for futare contracts. The argument as pre-
pared wae giver te defendent, whe hed 4t published in the Chicage
press, In 1931, pleintiff sise wrote for defendant's ane a statement
of ruler of the oractices of the Bourd ehich were ebjeetionable to
defendant, In 1932 he prevared 4ata and infermetion on the subjcet
of farm relief sent under defendant's name te Senater Kurphy of
lows, who wae ther « candidate for sleetion te the VJ. 3, senate,
Beeexber 30, 193%, vila mtiff prepared an article fer the
Avecototed Prose exprecuing defendant's viewe on the subjeet of
grain markets, It was intended to he used in the New Year day
edition of the newsoapere, ond it eae 29 published under defendant's
signature, On January 3, 1933, plaintiff prepared a reply to certein
mupposed “radien)” views oxprenced in a journal published at Lincoln,
Seb. under tate of Dacember 28, 193%, In 19432 he prepared sixteen
articles dealine with varicus phases of the subjeets in which de-
fendant wae particularly interested, some of which were broadensted.
In 1932 Boyden Sparkes wrote for the Saturday Evening Post
an article entitled “The Speculater.* I[t avpeared ag o serial in
four issues snd was in gener) a biegraphy of defendant, ineluding
his views as to needful reforme on the Board of Trade, Fiaintirr
esensulted with defendent az to views he wished presente’ in these
articles and read the articles prior to their publication. As te
dashagted vot stove ed ,ba9 onne add ok ..metgatdnat of qiet ahdt
Rohe * leet suentent att agidagiituq ad at hotakee elokose me
wit radtol s soteqorg ad ,GECL .¥ oak ,08RL Te wedmedeet to eteh
ad? 2¢ sertkace ,ave! .t4 mort berieoos gan od yloet at sogdaa ted
dooggosg 2 GF egaate let deke pohanl te hseek.oms Yo oot? tomo® akeww
gated tack edt ef ahositocs a¢ aetiewlieb Aeeitas thuhd ot ofeq
& tualege sfolars ae efor of i004 pymunat.ct .dtndn edt Teed
faasw to chety tolital a bettiowd eves bivew totdw ofvn Aeeoqgeng
04g 88 fasmmts odT .Msonadsce otetwt te? best to, bxeotedhomg:
oysoise odd Gh Bedalidug 34 hed odv ,inohanted of aovig een bemeg
Snomesede © sew at tachnoke: tot sforw onle, Tiitstalg ACs ak, meaty
6% sidanoliostde sree veld based off 20 agadtosxs ef? Ne wets Yo
taajdus ed? ao sphtowtelal bao aieb hortayetg of S605 al. .dmabewteh
Yo ysomwws, negaaes of onsen e! saedoo toh tebhax neg (Donne seetiae
o witaaee 48) .U 96d of nohtonte 102 etabthans «.aedt genom meh
os tok acedsu ae beraqetg TUsimiele FECL , 08, tedaeee 49, hie
Ae tootdue od ae. eweivy ol tonbanted, wakanozcne sentt bods toonad
Yeh 1aeY wed ost al bean od ot behostat waw #E) ssteanadatevied
at onahas'ted taham bodadidnug 08 saw ti bas portegaqemed ad? Te ie
abetuse of yigest & heteqote Tidicialg , Sek .8 yreumeh ad) setae
Mhoomhd de heelidve Lemuel a mf beanetane owely evahen® denoagie
Meetela boreqorg #6 REC al ECL OR teduepet te eted rohan toe
_ a0b sods mi ateotdwe edd To annie euodtey Atte aehtosh eekohiee
| besaagbaotd wre deliv Le enon .bosapastat Uitetuphiveg ew taahaet
“geot gmbsnvd yobaméal ong 10% o¢otr eoxtegh sobyot REL mB. ia
Mh daixes © sa Aereoua £1" dotetuoedt eff" befatienm of
patbulent ,dusdaeted Yo yqeraold # <xomey, ak saw baa. apuee
(Rdatads. .ehaxd. te breed, estt a0 aero ter, Lelthowm oF Mm ie
(— mecit ak bedasoerg bodedw og ewety of am fanbae ah sitdy
(ot ak smotgantédua ted? of rolxe angoiaae, ot hewn hag
his actual influence upon the contents of this series of articles,
the evidence is in cenfiict,
In eet phaintiff wrete an article for publication in the
Canadian prese defending the policy of Premier Beanett of Candda
in controlling the Canadisn Yheat market in the interest ef the
farmers; it was published ander defendant's signature; he alse
wrote an article eslled “The Vindicated Speeuletor,” whieh appeared
im the Chicago Journal of Commerce Deeauber 19, 1952; Yebruary,
4935, he prepared a letter whieh defendant signed and sent to
Presiient Keasevelt, the purpose baling to interest tae President
in defendant's views concerning the Usiengo grain smerket. A Letter
of similar design was prepared in keran to be sent by defendant over
_ his signature to the President, whieh wae altervard printed in pamph-
let form; it wae fireat sent te the Seereteary ef ine President, whe
suggested certain changes before ite delivery te the President;
plaintiff thereupen rewrete the article and doiivered it to defend-
ant, who signed it and sent it to the President,
Plaintiff's atatement of claim averred (and the statement is
mot deniedin the affidavit ef merite) that defendant has a eomplate
file of letters, sewepapers and magasine articles whiea plaintiiY
wrote for defendant and waish sppecared over the signature of def end-
ant from time te time in various newapapera and magazinesg many of
these 14 is averred were dictated by plaintiff to defendant's secre-
tary, aid copies were not retained by piaintiff wlthough they were
retained by defendast or his secretary. The lettera anew correspend-~
moe wth several G, &, senators, and plaintiff testifies to repeated
consultations with them in Chiecage concerning thease particular mat-
tere in which defendant Had a financial interest.
Defendant enys that the issue on the question of damages is,
Whet was the reasonable compensation for these services? He cites
Leekweed v. Gnien, 56 Ill, 506, a case while quite unlike this one
,oeinioue io weives elds Yo atactane act apgw soawlink davtow odst
on foi aoe mb at somohive att
sal? a notteoiddwy to) efviets ae stew Witnteade MME ah o
athoanS Ie tenor wdaect to yakleg ode yatiwe'teh aeong methansd
eae te duutsal edd ai Sedtoa sand? anifbaned et? pabisousaow ah
ouls of jaredemgie @' Janbteteb weasae Sedekiduq eaw oA ~etmene®t
beimeeys ceidw ".tedelussgi bedaatbadl ofS" belian elebiue ae otouw
eViewrdek ;REGL ,@L to8daves@ soremuet to Larrwol epeckdd edt mt
ad sare fae boayle saabse' teh sedew matted « heranng a ft
daphieer4 andy tsotesad of gtind sveqtsg on? ,@Lovesoel shobine
wediel & .dedcem stay openiad ody yakareenes owed, cabot a
° ‘eve gumdme'leh yd Sa9G sd oF OTE a2 horagetg sew aglmeb talks
adgung Gk beiuizq biswxed'le sew dednw ,saeblowsl ent or taiai et
ecw ,taehive ss exe ko yMetexwed ef? of game ga4!'D Rew sk ymtet $60
jeaebiaes% ons of ytevhied a¢2 oxdtad negnwis mLaceen desasgim
~bagteb of #1 Souweriioh bay eLalixe odd etowwet monsters dt Py
siiobioor’ ost? of 32 tn0e ban 2d Reaghd pone a
a2 Sauessada a2 foe) bowteve miale Ww Jossedede # Vebeahald verre “a
ose Lume # Sad dnehme ted dmcd (adiuen Le sevebitee ee otbetaok den
TIisaiaig dois aefoitre enisagem ban ateqeqawem ,enadted Ro wARt
(state tse ko wtetonghe ect 18¥0 heTeagge Hadiy ham saatasintneettnenll
te Yate Yaetlne yen ban etegegawem auedsey ah emt ad emt maw fi
-ereve o'feataetod of TYiiatuig yd betatoth epee boutere ehh anne
ONeW YaRe dgwaditie Tiltataig yi bealetet sea exer sehyoo ham syed
abtoqaextes "omy atessel oat ._yqaterses wide dunhooleh yd beakenen
Padaaqen of eelUisasd Trataiatg baw yeretamen i 6w) tenerne tte bead
~sin me groy cues gntetessen eateeenh aah 8
totes ot Setaceadt « bed rears cake awh
yeh) Sogn Le -mehtaeng oss we whaed aoe deat (odee) ‘ waeity ei bil
aetio 6H fuselvres eaedy to? aoltaadeques oléwiedesd ‘wit ts
awe elit sikion ebiup ofcie wuae a (208 .141 a8 jaokads
ye = A
upon the faete state the genersi rule that « person rendering ser-
vice upon an implied aentract is entitled to reasonable cupengae
tien, That rule is net questionsd,
Ag already stated, defendant argues that expert evidence is
neceseerf ae the best evidence of which the nature of the cane pere
mite. ie cites Yarber
Go., 238 Ill. 589;
bO., B58 1121. 75. He comtends that the
the proper way to arrive at rescnable coxpeneation would be te take
each particular service sileged to have been performed and prove by
some one familar with the vaiue and eharacter ef such serviee the
Feasonable value thereof. Defendant tried the sase on that theory
and effered such evidenes, whieh ware reecived and permitted te ce
to the jury. Plaintiff, whe was preeumebly quite familier with the
value ef the services, was asked for his opinion, but “efendant @b-
Jeeted and the evidence was excluded, Having secured the rejection
of this kind of evidence «hen offered An behalf of plaintiff, de-
fendant is new exterped to contend that the evidence excluded upon
his objection was necessary. Baylies v. Yakelee, 186 0. 5, 646,
Moreover, we think that without any opinion evidenee, there
were feeta in this cave from whien the jury micht draw the neaessary
inferences as te the walue ef the services performed. In two cases
in their mature quite different from thia one, except as to the
Question of dasages, cur Supreme court held that exact proof of the
value not being obtainable, the jury might draw inferenear from the
facts in evidence tending te establish such value, lieekor vy, Steel”
Se., 84 Thi. 276; Gorham v, Iron Go, 204 I11, 894, It is quite
unnecessary, we think, te dilate upon the unreliable and unsstis-
factory character of expert evidence, The courte of thie state
have refused to be bound by it on the cuestions involving the —
Feasonable value of attorney's fees for services. Lee vy. Lomax,
_~
wear raga § oe spa > # ta has
er gnitebues noereq ® fueid otes taronny, ‘ese + state, ate, 1 nage
saeananice eicanonnsr of bessiian eh teaxsape bed tant ba, Mogs solv
| | boaeksaoup fon ad olen ME:
al sousbive frenxe tas compte sashae ten dedase vaawr ia Lott en wu
-10q suas ‘wuld te studem At doldw To epcebive gued ont ae tepreene
3808 ff wee 08 wothe head te
ede feds ahs dno oh wet of kd ‘eae. *
oied ‘ot od biwow nod snaasgsoe esdangnat te erie a wr. J
cl ovore hue bomxotteq need oven oF bege tia advange. te ky *
ods col vies dove te r9d90%a.y bow ouiav edd sete Pie i
rons tons no e8ae eng baits tanbse ted lowieds gute /
. oa ot hats hereg baa hevisoes sae Moise ssoaebive dove dewne tan
one it be met thant odtup yidemuas tq naw ontw aTiiatert Sad
«do taahae wb jud ,aotatqo sid tot bodes paw ,nootvene oid, “pss
guitecter ect herwoes gat vel shobutone saw egnohtyn oat, ban h °
| “oh , thitniala Yo Tared ak dex0 To fate pomeblive Le ats 8 a Me
=e Sehrioxs pom bive woke tass baesaeo et beggodue A A i
.080 8 .U Bas .eeioneY oy shyed -Rtanneoem nay itgokdea eh
overs ,SorebLve notalge ws suedtiw dauid sales oe ~~ stevoonell anmih
eheseeves ond meth $y Raw wrt, oar aobew wort oane ne
nonns awe at bomtetx0q seolvr0n ons to eulay ons oF ba " "
oss ot aa tqsoxs 17a eked wort sno 22th tae
oft te tooKe foun tends bigd txu90 eaetqut tao .openeh ROLTAOMD
ett vor apo ciere Tak woth the cua oat seidentarde pated. tom, ip i be
“linet ay eden outer save sabtdasne of yalbaed onaebiyn 4
i te abkup ek at Det LEE ae 102 meek osteo? Hy
“ethdenen ew o tGaktoume ait noqu Otsith of ,Ambad or
otf, —
) aiate ated? te apaw00 oot -tonabive deogee Ye stows
ah patviovat enottneus esi 00 #2 yo Aawod od of |
sci Pas ,aooivi9n 02 om atyemsetta | we eukey sidenoann
B19 Il). 216 Tne general rule ise well stated in 22 Corpus Juris
728, as follows:
“The weight to be given to opinion evidence in omy cane,
Whether the atatement is ef the inferenee or conelusion of an
oberrver or the judgment of on expert, Le, within the bounda of
reason, entirely a question for the determination of the fury or
ef the court, vhen trying a question of fact, taking into considerae
tion the intelligence, leerning ond experience of the witness, and
the degree of attention which he gave to the mattexy. the judgment
of experts or the inforences of okilled witnesses, even when unanie
mous and uncontroverted, are not necessarily conclusive en the
fury, but may be disregarded by it or by the court trying an Leeue
of fact, urless the subject is one for experts or akilied wltneases
alene, and the jury cannot oreoperly be aseumed te have, or be able
to fers, correct opiniens of taelr own, under whieh sircunmetances
the unanizmeus evidence of properly qualified witnveses haw been
rogarded by some courts as conclusive,"
The expert evidence offered by defendant in thie case was
received, and defendant argues tnerefrom thet the value of the sere
vicee performed by plaintiff for defendumt did nei exaeed g2500,
Plaintiff's own evidenee was exeluded upen defendant's ebjestion,
end the ruling of the court in thie respeet wau, we think, 4rrome-
ous. 1 Wigwore on Evidece, sec. 715, 9. 1355, the auther says:
‘Where the teetimeny is directed not se much to a class of
services ss to those of a particular person in view of hia individue
al qualities, the tastimeny of a poraon whe had ewployed that indie
vidual might be receivable, even thoug! he hed ne general knowledge
ef euch services ag a clase, it would be «& hard rule whieh would
prevent «a claintiff from inferming the jury of hic own eetinate of
the value of nia services; sid tne Courts seem inclined to impose
mo terme ar to hie general familiarity with the clase ef services;
that he has rendered them justifies listening te nia opinion.*
Plainti?f's verified affidavit of olaiu ia to the effect that hia
services wers wotth $50,000, W¢ may assume he would have go teatie
fied if he had been permitted.
Defendant presumably was « competent wiiumess as to the worth
and value of plaintiff's services to him, but wan not asked by his
counsel te testify om that subject. The jury hed a right io take
that fact inte concideration, ithe services here rendered were
wpique in thelr charecter, and the onse disciesed by the fact@ ia
mot one where the services were such as might be supplied by a
Clase of experts, such as physicians, attorneys, engineers, ste.
; LAC OTAE A REY
bd ; Pay ee
4 Vous | Veuve
€ we
einut ay tos S ab bedate {iow of aivx Ltaxeneg oat (Sak 42 Qat
BN he sei | _ darotte? i” ost
,9049 5 ee ‘a abiinbve htaia et ai anyly os ‘taal oe oe
‘ “2% ate MF pd eens : of pM bag nil
® 4 aK Cee oF ‘Zt . @ ee
7 beat i te mbkthutheoid oie at nai mee ; tan
MER bisaeo WA eet foe oo) 7s ashp &@ t
een eaeadiy te 900% Me gee ails ais
dusaghul ont ,tosiam aid Pt ws + Aran 23.92,
ag geod are iongn vit ese
RLS lg 9 oye Bho
otha? 's a aa Abo ‘ed te #2 yd
% ouelw thtaa 4 20 Lainie tet eng ai soot
cafe re shes. ee tied
“none Abs BS # teh ,awG ties G
Loup (Ereqord Yo Avan
‘sewd earl aodeoadiw he FTL OSTC0 st
wsevisulouge. Be RTTNOD ome £ i 0
hav geao add at tashao'teh yd hew The sonmphive dingxe ont Bani wos “y
a8 edt Xe silav galt fuse worletodd (Bougta Fea hias Lod Berg bru ae
_, SO0ESE Dawaxe Joa bib Jasbae tek 29% Tiddletq ¥d bonreee :
| ato goetde BY 2awbein keh Megs bebstoxe aay epaobive ame a theabas
Be WS AOR
maken te a dahile OW Haw FON GROT sdug Ai S1u0o ‘eae te red bene
ingyen sqsdun mit OE LL “<. rr ty “noe yeoueblye a9 ere nt om
down ae toa betanx oxetee
~uhivibab eas ‘to wely ll MORO weltiake'a ‘of at
bat tas? heyoiqun had edo wonseg # Xe «
cate ied avn on fea geal ‘ws evs \eddavioant o4 !
w tiotdw of based a @ "a A 28 866
by stemites Awo ete to veut oe
of benilonl mena paxuee ° | me 7 4. 32m & SOOvete
» p98) ea to eeeto ett a? by eaten tstan of’
* wobaige sid of ashing ied. ratte’, Eevwany lewkers
ald dada too Tie ons of ak tate to snide’ aii oo am
| by . "ene, neeg ad 92 en yey,
j stron ect of Be puani te _saosequies A eae yitanwee danas x AE ni atpak .
eta we bodes Jou anv Sud mid of oolvaon a” €ibaabe ty xe fe a he
oat ot Sighs a hast rah agit ahaa, oe 0 Pibtass ‘ fad
| ee marae ann wrod seoivsse oak meldere tare! bhanes mers
tee oats XS beeolonsh onno of ae : seo ru ‘ 1
as sw ettaua bed tay he ae sone. vit bh on:
9
It is certainly the rule in tort eases that the diffieulty of
proving the amount of dauagen dove not render recovery tipaen ible
A persen who hare violated his contract will net be permittee te
eneape linbilliy beeause oY the Lack of a perfect meneure whereby
the damages cauned by his breach say be determined. offer 041
Gorn, ve Garventer, 34 Fed. (84) sae?
Defendant coneedes that the evidenee in thin reeerd
Justified » verdict of not more than 32500. ‘That contention is
based upon the opinion of expert witress«e produced by him, As
niready stated, the expert testimeny for plaintiff usen 4efencant's
objection wae exeludeé, it is apsarent that the jury refeeted (and
it hed a right te reject) the evitence offered by 4eferndant'ts ex
perte, Thet wae net the oeuly evidence, however, in the reeerd
from whieh inferences wight be drawn as ito the vwelue of plaintiff's
services, There was evidence of compensation said te phaintirr by
‘G@efondent fer similar services, There was the evidense ae to paye
ments made by the Varmere Kational Grain Coryeration to plaintir?
for similar services. ‘There was the evidence as to companeation
plaintiff received from former employers, There wae also evidenee
ae to the high eonfidenece revoned in plaintiff by defendant and the
further feet that defendant while competent to testify to the anount
of compensation which would he reasonable, failed te do so. We
doubt very wuch whether any further muaaber of experts sicht have
given evidence sore satisfactery to the Jury. The whole teaue
Fenolves itself into an issue of fact. There wae evidenes from
which the jury wight draw inferenese and from whieh it feund the
reasonable compensation for the services rendered wan the anon t
of the fudgment entered, The facts were for the Jury. ‘The sourt
who saw and heard the witnesses bes approved. e¢ do net find facts
in the reeord which would justify an Appeliate court in findisg tomt
the verdict ie«wanifestly againet the evidence,
For these reasons the fudement ia affirmed,
AFP THKED.
Seturely, Fug ESneure,.
O'Genner, ?. J., I dissent. aw & Go., ine. v. daloey, Stewart
: & Co., App. Ct. First Diet. io.37360 (not report,
a) Uh LTILd ast fart? somae trod ad ohare one Niatadreg af 42 |
obtt niga ctevossx ‘tehion tom seg dinigaheitl Yo Panam nals malvern
at Sedtionse of ton ithe Poets n09 a hat bodaloty aad oxtsr mowsoq A
vee otuanem terse # TY stoat oat 26 coed WALLA on
ALTER stombanssnn 0 yun eset WEA Homies ‘eeijamil St
“wap i lbenno ten (oo cher bt tet ry
i Heap ie a
Ray tu
«i 7"
=e ro finhaeteb yd hereto oammb.ive oft ppevahy of is ad
brent odd us teverod ,sonshive yhoo ody oe, dicen
aotanemeguon oF as eoashtee oie aw Tord ete seth
PEN ail
mo “gual o Leste wai? all ott of stead, no
: | sto e oh a
a
a eae
peo enAtA wv Oak 460d W “3
frones ton) Oeste 0 #ald foxdt .99 pony we 89 .
37687 f
RALCOLE C, HOST,
Appellee,
+]
iz
P} gh
a
APPBAL eau burs 10H COURT
va, ng
OF cogK coprry,
GCASR-MOQDY FIA CONPORAT ION 7”
oa,
a Corperation, amd FRADK D
Aopeliante.
279 I.A. 628%
BR, JUSTICE MATCHRTT DELIVERED Tih OPISTOR GY THE GOURT,
Im an agtion on the caee for malicious proaecation defend-
anta filed pleas of the general issue and justification. The enue
was tried by a jury whieh retursaed a verdiet for plaintiff in the
eum ef $2756, om which the court, overruling motions for a new
trial and in arrest, entered judgment which defendants ask ue te
reverse,
The deciaration was in three counts. The firet alleged tha t
on July 15, 1931, defendants appeared before Judge Samuel Trade of
the Bunicipal court and “falsely and maliciously and “i thout reason-
able or probable cause* charged plaintiff with having etolen thirty
pies of the value of $15, + the property of defendant Case-oedy Fie
Gerperation; that afterward by themselves, their agents snd servants,
they “fnlsely snd maliciously and witneut reasonable or probseble
eause,” induced the Judse te issue a warrant for the apprehension
of plaintiff to answer for the orime of larceny, ond that under the
warrant on July 15th, without reasonable or probable cause, they
wrongfully and unjustly caused plaintiff te be arrested and inprisoned
fer twelve houre; that on July Mat they falsely, maliciously and
without reasonable er prebable cause caused plaintiff to be carried
into custody before the court and tried, upen whieh trial plaintiff
wae found net guilty; that by means thereof his reputation and
oredit were injured.
The second ecunt averred that on July 15, 1031, defendants
faleely ond maliciously without probable cause charged plaintiff
}
” ' ‘\ . corre
:
seo kiogga .
| enyop aos ud sont aa
Tago agoo to eh te |
bins ih jROREARONROD: FBR
er <“abenpbonnh. S riiyoae aie
xe 4 .A.I evs sti tl
(27000 AY NO ROTHEW AMT CURAVESMC SUGOTAN ADIOS «
"i at
‘
siveut
~hantab meliuvoa ong avelodiam vet ‘cane oad a nobton ae at
wasiem 98% .aottagitisant bas eenat Larue ona to tas fg bottt séme
_ eitt me Tiitaiale to? tohhuey » beatutex dakiaw curt - ari ; i h :
WAH & TOR atoljom yakinrmwve ,tuwes ot sip Latw 0 00086 Ye
of 40 Ans etaahue ted Holiw troegbut baxedins seorts wt ae 3 7
Sate
9 add hegedia text ot .etnwos verat nt waw noldaraieel ar
* ohw2t Le winwe opbut exotad hexane aos ntanbao toh 6 tees ae tist to
| prvernvnary sushaates v0 yieecorg oatd - ait 26
(ataerige ban sdanga whouts stevioamodt we buswied'te pov
__., Sidedong to eidenoseot auedstw hae eawotnd som baw vee shall
| “ne tenssiet6ce od? “0% sewrtew « ouauk ot eodut sia ne
ad? wehau Sarid haus oXso0 ted te omiae eid co rowan cs
7 Yost ,oanee ofiedorg x6 afdenonas’ dwodld kw ss ot se as :
equa fre Aoteeria of of Yibtalele beeune Kitenta baw pa F
hie Uewolet lan ationta’ nt toe veut no tans ne
poteres ed of Tiltatate beenso sense oliadorq to often
ESS See vioted f
s Tuaatein faksd sadew wows shebee ae yuo Rory
j Frm in he
fee Pee ata “howtwut jaye *; past
with the crime of lareeny and caused bim to be arrested and put in
prison for twelve houre; that en August 26th he was discharged and
meeahtted: that he hae been greatly injured in his credit and repue
tation and brought inte seandal, iafamy ond disgrace and aulfered
great anxiety, haa been obliged to lay out end expand money in
large sums im preouring discharge and &fending simseif.
The third count gharged aonault «nd battery, but so evie
denee was submitted under it.
Of the many errors aileged, 14 will be neeeavary to con-
eider only one, nasely, that the verdict on whieh judgwent was
entered wae ageinat the manifest weignt of the evidenee,
The Case-Keody Pie Sorogoration ie enguged im the business
of manulaeturing baker products. at the time of the ocourreseces
here in question ite wlace of business wae at Yoeod and Yalnat
strectsa in Chicago. Sefendant Dillemn was ite scales manager,
Pleintiff was one of several Salesmen whe rendered giuilur service,
He drove s pie truek dally over a route in and around the stockyard
distriet of Chieage, starting at 4°¢ street and Seuth Ashland
avenue; he was paid & salary and commission and proqured his own
gustomers, de had been employed by the corvoration ror about @
year but had also worked for ita pretecessnr, #0 that he had been
in the same line of business for about nine years; he was 35 years
old, married and lived with his family. te drove the trusk, which
he says wae bullt like a patrol wagon; the entrance was at the
rear; on the sides within were the vie racks; in frent of the back
entrance were doore which were ugusily Lowked; within an the racks
were receptacles for the pies, which were called *eells.*
in the usual course of business the driver, the day before
taking out goods, would give a written order epecifying the par-
ticular goods desired, which order wéuld be hung up om the rack in
the office of the corporation or “settl «ment room,” where all the
at suq bas hadeeris od of wkd beaues dae “aeetet to omixo ent adhe
bus begtaiould gov oa MSOS seagua ae Beads ierwed oviows tot noulty
-sqot bhe theta etd ah Horwhat pitaota aead 88a Oo sels :poad kupos
bexs'viaw faa wpdigald oae yowtal ,tebusse otal seguoad dee matted
ai yousm hanegee bas Jwo yod et ‘peylide hood nad Udo bene danny
t oRiswals palbsated bac oymadent® yaituecta af sows ooral
~ive en gud sUiedted bas tinaene hogiaig sanog Subst est .
31 tobax bottintus sav seat
Saad of (ueWadoen od Liv JL ,bogetia wierds Yuen add 20 ) |
“wew toeegoel delaw oe delbuer oft sade ,yseamn (ond xine Onde
| sbonsbive ond to ddghew san'tleam off ounce Prater 3
—— qadditudis edt at Sagogne 62 aolzeroe deo ait Yhecuaeweat 9
fendextiose cit “te bat! eae 2A .etouberq teaed bits
ftunieW bas booW ga saw sesuiaud to socio ett aoltenup atta
9 eejania votes oth ene sbbtid taabei et “Cégadtdo” at eenbe
Oolviod tuthide Berebaet odw demas laa fovever te eae ‘tow Hil i
Pewetoose odd babow base al stv0t & “t8v0 ‘yinaw Mower ote a'eve ; at
Baahted sued fiea donde 90D ad yak iteld \omadHi) X6 pintetd
gwe etd Korecte ‘bhw dotesinae bab yintod @ Bhag ‘baw "ik ie z “v {
gg Fuode «0% i iiatoqx6o ott yd beyolqua ‘nood past be tink res
need hod od tad? o@ (xosedeeboug ‘gdh 40% Ketttow dite ‘bart ‘ie tas 4 ,
gta BE wew of jetmoy bala duddd Yet seodtend 16 oaks aie ‘sit ,
C etd <itoderi ‘ect? overk ott .ycteeY ola adie MevEE’ bie Be ted : .
pls te haw oomattie oe faomaw fortag o otit ‘nso vie eyed bt
"abl Wad to ane a jason ote ot heratipmaclgeetbryior ase vt
bia ah sea eiles” Relies otew ae fae uote yt wet ;
- aHetN el Wild Hoven Hy bieditndlt te Seeds ‘ase cater
stad ndt yaketiveds catite mstiite » erty Brade étned bad pany
at Xow en? mo qu aed od Siuvw sebt0 sohite Bogie fue ty
4 Ag Bean Baey Comey Doe ey <toweheal
drivers checkea ing ach driver elgned his own order; the goods
were thereafter put inte his truek by loaders, of whom at thie time
Bicholas Parniecke was foramen. ‘lt was the oustem of the drivers
to start their trucks usually about five e'cleek each morning,
The written order of each driver would be hung up on the rear of
bis truck, Upen completing the Journey exeh Say the driver would
return the truck to the faetery, turn:in the money he bad collosted
at the seettiement reom and make out a similar eriiten erder for
the following day.
Yuly 13, 1931, defendant Dillen filed an information in the
Munioipal court charging thet om July 10, 1951, plaintiff atele
SO ples of the valine of 215 - preperty of the serporation, Juage
Trude endeoreed the information, certifying he had examined it and
"heard evidence thereon" end was satisfied that there was prebable
cause for filing it. le ordered that « capias iseue, Sizing bend
for #800 or a cash deposit of G10G, The caplas issvedt July 13th
end was returned served July 3lat. Plaintirr, whe war dlscharged
from its service by the cerperation July @th, first heard the
warrant wes out against him abeut July 20ti and went toe the police
station, taking hie real estate tax bill with him, apparently with
the idea that he could sigs his own tend, The lieutenant teld his
he must go to jail until he produced ao bond, fe was lecked up in a
coli. After two hours Bis father signed o bond and he was released,
Re had never before nor has he since heen in prison. lie employed an
attorney to defend him, te whom he paid $300 for services rendered.
ie was arraigned and eitered a clea of net guilty. Trial by jury
Was waived, and the court found plaintiff net guilty and entered
Judgment in bis faver and he wae discharged. Auguet 25, 1921. This
euit was begm February 23, 1052. The declaration wae filed one
wonth later,
‘Tn Glenn vy. lewrence, 280 111, 561, the Supreme court,
J
: ae deyotyas oh .poning a anod asa sd oan tos oxoted a eee A
sheen | ett ptehio awy adsl botmee sovist dont oni hesionde orevitn
galt aisid te mode Ye .atobook yt sound waa otal tq ieee or um
Btevith qa 20 cwitawn 40 sae $1 . an 20 sow sinatarat aeLode bu
aatarom dsae soaiz'@ ovat duoda yang oars cist tata ad
to weet O47 ao qu aie | oe. bLuow revinh tesa x ‘volte pring os
hiuow tevlah eas yas igas ourswot ant yal teLemoo nogi owt rs :
besealios han of yorou ads ai aiue avteeees om oF dost ot | te
_ eet ebto angiize tatiate a 00 haat pry woot sunne 2200 ahs te
«yah
eas ak solsancto nak ie best? aoitht Pah xe Yoo Abed (ue Behe LP mel
ehote Viitaigkg ,f6@L , OF yiut oe ibid yalgiede rape, soobat |
yet .noltaroarse eds Le ystoqetg « ase to ongay nit Xo seh OE
bie t! borinane basi om yatiytisres » Mol Jonze tas all .
oidedety Bar wiods fodd belteiian saw dam “sownadt somnive > baae®
Ay at /
peed yoixt esmgs eabgeo « todd horebie ou tt aaa rot oman
APBL EATS bowed antgne act 0048 te ‘theeass daa # to 0089 bi
hegtasdiaads sev ow ,tiisaiels siete ent doves seater eae
_ ote Breed saudd dee aut wo linteqtoe exia ys sot ohvae 3 oe
eekiog adi of case bar ag 08 yint suede wh tenkage two aa ere iid
Athw yt ce tage ombel aihw Likd ane season fiom wd gataed «6 ue :
Bid bio’ tasceduets oat shied mre what mya pines Ry gry rena
@ sh ay dedeot saw ot .bacd a beowhetq oa thoy shat bed oe sou
-boaseles sar of baa baod # bengie waste eka awe nt seat
ma oa
sorebart eociyten tot 9OL§ biog ol asoriw of ata baw ten of
Wrat, ¥P, Lote xt hha ton te asiq » beregae ban bes tevin gow 8
: bated bap Wiking toa Thitalete bawor eno 9m _ sbovinw eae
C187 {50k ,28, daxau:begrasionZh new 9 ban. sonst wd seme
7” tam, hottt enw wotteteloep ont Psidaied £988 : i f
paseo anetqud of , 108 »4fT 08S
4
through Br. Justice Cartwright, summed up the law on the subject
of malicious prosecution ae follews:
"The facts whieh will sustain an action for malicious
proseeution are (1) the commencement or continuwnce of an original,
eriminal or civil judicial proceeding; (9) ite legal eausation by
the prenent defendant againet pomage yo who was defendant in the
original proceeding ite bong etmination in favor ef the
present plaintiff; ia} the absene nena fide termina enuse for sueh pro«
eeeding; (5) the presence of malice therein; and (6) damage oone
6 ie to legal standards reauiting toe the plaintiff. (86 Gye,
In this proceeding « eriminal proceeding wae begun ageinat
plaintifr at the instigation of defeodante. it hee terminated after
a trial in the Municipal eourt in favor of wliaintifr. The questions
therefore, open for our consideration, are whether plaintiff catab-
Aiehed by a preponderance of the evidence the shaanes of probable
cause, the pragence ef malice, and damages to the anaunt fox which
Judgment was entered,
We have already recited the evidence bearing on the question
of dumages. It if apparent that the allowance made against aefend-
ante by the jury was punitive in ite nature, rather than conpenaatery
for uetual dawsge sustained, in the abeace of preof of malice,
plaintiff would not be entitled to punitive damages but enly te com
peneatory danages. Hanneman v, Minneanolin, O.Ps & St. Bs By, Con,
248 Thi. App. 196. ‘the ease therefore narreve iteelf deen to a con-
sideration of the question of whether from « preponderance of the
evidence malice and want of prebable cause may be regarded as eetab-
lished. We are not ummindful of the propesition ef Law (en which
plaintiff reiies and whieh is unquestioned) that while malice will
not be inferred where probable cause exists, on the contrary, where
there is an entire lack of probable cause, malice may be presumed te
have been the motive actuating the prosecution. Hey v. Soings, 112
Tll. 686; Treptow vy. Montgomery Ward & Co., 153 111, App. 42%; Gripe
ny ras 276 Ill, App. 232.
Plaintiff eontends that there wae on entire want of probable
teshdua el? se wal eid qu bewowe ,Seydbertaed ep hdent .ae tywouds
nes ee re
avetoiins 20% ashion se atedese ALdv doddw afpn’t ont)
Jeaigixe am te sensundicas Pe — R ae 1one ae wat $0
b ie Uh takeatan ane a —* ptleatatg fate meg Ft 9 Soeiad Samay aaa
ont to. Sovak ah caltaabanes Shit cand i
-6%g owe <0 seune oisedong ms a p}’reateetet Ho
oan (@) ban j;atet9d? gehen to soamenng ane: (
ant +tisvokoke ade VY a aged apenanne “onste
fealoge miged see yalhoevena isaiulie a guiheeoorq abat al 9 § +
‘qette bedunimesd and #1 \edmabaoted Yo notteglsent pat se WURMAee
egoktenwp oat .Tiidalele Yo reves at deuee Jegistavt edd nt feled «
-f019e Vittateig willed oa ,aoltereblance we x02 ange. sro terest
Sidadory to eeaeuda ef apanblve ead Ye sunorehsoeore 2 yd hedda kt
Solde 40% Jaueun aA2 at sopamsh bas cenbion De somaeny 2th eae
( GeLsenup 8A a0 yalamod SonMbive elt hodtows Yhenrtse ovat ws ‘Sika
nhan'teh teataya shan eenawolse ont test gamnange oh Ol « nn 7
Ytotexatgnen dec? tsar ,wrutea eth ak evitinug sav Yast ene id
aoa Te Looks Yo woman nud at .bemtatewn symuab Lauton ete
o 008 98 Lime Sud sonomeh ovdtbag oF hotties od tom hhwow ‘Wekembak
v0. 4 ot srob Bipath axorten, ene lensed? ovas eat » soak all al
| Quid Yo Sometehacqerg # OXI rOddosd™ Xe molinewp os Yo mel texebie
ndatee aa Sebtager od Yau souem civedoty ta saow bao sottaw wausbive
doh na) ok Yo aodsinoqons adf 29 Lv thadmaw toa ema oe shpsta hi’
Iiiw eoliem eLise tent (boaotseenpaw ad cokaw bau eotinn Tusatesy |
Otay ,Yiaisaee ant ag ,edalao soseg otdadorg erode by re .
as Domunerg od yun toiinn ,~eeume eidadere te saad rele saab eee
«REE yERnhed «x yeh .soltwonnorg 96? pattomton ovigon oat. at 7.
ante? 182) GGA, £41 BBL, 09.4 beet wapmons Y ra
| 48S aah LET eve , !
ee to time extion ae nae oxed? gad shandane Wbdabels
%,
eause, and this contention requires an examination of the evidene,
As already stated, plaintiff was discharged July 9th and then ace
cused of larceny, There is no evidence of express malice on the
part of defendants whe instigated thie prosecution, There had
been, so far as the evidence discloses, no prior controversy bee
tween any of them. There ie nothing to indicate 111 will or any
motive to injure plaintiff on the part of the pie corporation, or
any of its efficers or employees, The theory that proof of malice
is established sceeme to be based entirely upon the proposition
that the arrest was made without any probable cause, The evidence
bearing on that point has been given careful consideration,
We have already deseribed the relationship of plaintirr
te defendant corporation and the customary manner in whieh his
services were performed. Dillon was sales manager of the cornora-
tion. Nicholas Barnieeke was foreman of the leaders, whose duty
it was to see that ne one “gets away with anything." At the time
of the trial he was enly «loader, Mr, Henderson was the suneyin-
tendent of the defendant corporation, Sidney Pellar
kewirt, A. R. Noelte bookkeeper in charee of
Stanley Case
Vi
the files and records. Ed Skoniecazny and Charles Koemond were two
of the drivers of trueks, while Harry Knowles, alse known as
Homer Mundy, and John Zack were of those employed as loaders,
July 8th in the afternoon olaintiff left his usual written
order for pies te be filled that evening. It was made out on a
printed form furnished by the pie corporation. In the morning
about five o'clock he came for his truck, and he says that when he
came he closed and locked the cell decors and back doors of the
truck, signed his loading ticket and took it to the ticket oifice.
He did not check his load, He says, "That was left up to us."
He got in the truek and drove from the platform to the main part
of the garage; he says he got off the truck and was leoking for hés
,@iebive sd# ‘to nolteatwaxe sa sotiupet Holiness aes elas bag. 98a,
“00 mocd bas Ad? yLul bogratonth aaw Thitatete ,botate vhaor ia aA
ont no ookian gaoxque Lo gormhive on ef orecdT .xn@otel te beam
hel erent? MOLMunemetg wLes hetagl tems onthe mtnabite ob Xe) 0 fae
«od yarevorfnos tolts on eaoeatoath eoashive eit an zak on 4; ‘
“Yan te Likw LLF ateothat ot piutsiton at ered smontt ts yan te aut
<0 Mol tetegtos otg sg ‘to dene ont no Ttifatele otwent ov wvton
coitam to Loorg test yxoods sal seeyolqmm xo exsol'tte att to ym
noktkoogqeta elt moqu yotisas fheaad od of smmee hodetidatso at
_soredive ad? .eaueo oldadorq Yae Jwosdtiw eho saw seonte oat tant
sftottazablascs Lutetso seviy meed asd taleq stadt ae. ankeaod
TMitalele to gisesoljelor eid bediioasb ybsetis oved @W e
aid doisy at toanam ytemedaue out Hews Rolsatoqtos -™ an
ous ent dA pee aie thw qare prea one. ou 1 tailt 908 ot aay ak
sa oot sew soarshogh .th ,reheol « xiao saw ost Aatxs Lady |
wbapatbenset <aLlo% youkle melzanoateg Aanhan rh net, Ye :
to agtads nt soqvedtood etieod 8 A tim aeons
OWe etaw bagmsed eolieAy hae yaanel mone MB a
Sad AO AAO ARM BM AF, anion texte npn ipty ie to
Lepeharnns ad? al. ,tolteroqtoo olq odd yd. ment ain i
fy amie to. eroch duped baw azeeh Lieve eat ans wma pean ole
Beli: yil coal of, th Agog bie, soxats balbaok aid : ash
6
hand boxes; that Nicholas Harniecke, the foreman, called te him
and asked him te back up to the platform. The foreman told plain
tiff that he wanted to re-cheok his les@, Plaintiff says he ree
plied, "GO. KL, I doen't even know what ie in there myself," The
foremaa checked the plee in the prosenee of plaintiff and found
$0 extra ples whieh were not on his order sheet. Plaintiff says
he thinks the ples were worth from $3.80 to $4; he sleo cays the
foremen vith his own hand wrote @ gharge for these extys plas on
his leading ticket. Defendants were asked on the trial te pore4uce
the tieret, but it seems the original sheet had been destroyed
after the trial of the eriminal charge and before this sult eas
started,
The foremen testified he had cheeked the pies before plaine
tiff arrived and bead talked by ‘phone with Henderson, the superia-
tendent, about the situation and tienderson told hiw te let pliaintifr
go ahead, He permitted plaintiff to preeeed, sand plaintiff says
that day be seld all the pies and uvok hie teturn in the afternoon
accounted for them at the office,
Pilsaintiff wae calied toe the office, where he had aw talk vith
&Y, Peliar, in the presence of Mr. Dillion. Piaintiff says:
“told Pellar taat I was sorry he took that attitude, thet I
Was afraid he was making a mistake-- he cald he would have to leave
me go for being dishonest with the eoxpany. That was all he said «=
for being dishonest -- that rae all he suid. He didn't amplify that
any, or explain, and I have teld ali that was said at thet time.*
Plaintiff went back to the office of the esompany on July 11th
and gow the office manager and avked for hie cheek; 1t was not ready,
Om the 14th or 15th be again returned and saw Gillen. te went te
the office ef ¥r. Case, Henderson was there, Plaintiff testifies:
. “Henderson, the hesd beaker, said, ‘Il am surprised st you,
Bost.’ I said, "You don't have te be surprised at we at ell. I am
O14 enough to take care of myself; den't go firing any ballets at
me. Furthermore you were set even around and you don't knew any~
thing about the case.’ Case was not in his office, Dillion told
me I wae crocked; that I had my chance there, and that they were
Geing to take care of me from then om, I enid, "Well, I will geo
ib ef 68 kao [eemenet ont ,odoneenee gu deto ke sata inexog: band.
atlaly blot mmts? ONT sete wal af? of qh hand of. abs hale De
04 a Gyn Tleateds shoot elit dosmsoe of bedamw ed tags wus
ott ©, tioeye etety wi ab saci wpad neve ot mab 1. gay” edo be
hava ben Thbtatety te soreaete ano at eeby edd bostestiy: on pata?
eyes Tthveieds este tehite ekt a> ten ouew “okey aay axtan 08
ect eyes onto sof GAS oF 00.060 sett cicoe aco sade ont etinbdt od
1S lees
tie ROR Gedo GROte KW 2 yredo of SHOR Guat own ude abew! |
seuiint 6% Swine 227 o BoMnn erow ebuhhnb Ie abnade githeot ait .
raae i
Reryorl err awed bod yoo Lealyhne ost wmowe 12 tad tout 9 no
aon ¢hve wher exe'toS bnew egretio feninbww er to tabre ont 9
as Nau an
| slate See tee eehq ads beveeds ben we Sekt isess namvro? edt ts) ‘ak oe
ie eae ,Kotrehaet x¢lw saoig’ yt bodes api i
«dade oharteta cece toet on ssn siete dasvaataiea aan
@weet of ove: Sinew od hea a -pdeadala # alka aaw od &
pBhee ee tte, ea aaa Yancey at ATiW tis mosels guled 202 eg om
Bi hiqaa 2'uhib ov bist od 149 eae Jadt -. sesnodals gaked ‘ot
a8) te bhas aow decile Lie Bhet avet 1 tite efth adage ery a
Sky: Take ws
i3if yish ge yteqewe She “Ie gob Tie es? of aaed Jaew Miasaiast alae
eEdwot Soe few 22 jxoedp ola vel Setae bas rapanes oa!T29 sdf wae em q
9d Ftew of .aeli i wae daa fenterenr ahage ane a ‘
raok Thess Tthtalel= ,eteHs aee sowTseueR
te Bestrytme ao I! boo y teed ood san,
9 de om Sa hoadtesna od” a2 6ymd fe
eteliod yas galaet oy t*nah pion a &
mean toad ft0d HOY Sie bawets ave oc stew Loy ; prise ald wi
Noe wes Sie bey ong did ah fon aew eee) or aay suaaee
ttow yout eds baw ,oxrodd soamto ys bad I dadd jbekoote ©
og unde 2 yktow bhae 1 a0 Hd mort om 20 oF
7
right along with you.’ There may have been a Tew other words said««-
I don't reeall., save told all he wald about my being cracked that
I reeall.
Se teld we I was getting away with a iot of things there and
that it hed been going on for some time and i tol( nim, ‘Well, yeu
and i didn't stand ee good; 1 suppose you saw your chanee te get rid
ofme.’ He sald, ‘That is a pretty good exeure but we caught you. '*
Plaintiff teatifieces positively that he did sot compara the
leading ticket with the pigs in the wayon on the sorning in question,
Skoniecsny corroborates hin, eaylng that on this particular
morsing his own truck wae rigkt next to that of plaintit?. He says
he cheeked his own wagen ond then calied to plaintiff, “Ain't you
going to cieek your wagon?" and plaintiff sald, *he, I'm too tired,*
This witness wae one ef the employeoe discharged by the corporation
et this tine,
Barnieeke, the foreman, cays he saw plaintiff enter the face
tory on the morning in queetion, fhe witness had checked the lead of
Plaintiff prier to that time. He ales ealled up Suporintendent Hendar
eon, Se saw plaintiff wet in the truek and while in it, open up some
of the compartments, but does net knew whether he oponed up all of
them. 4e gays he turned the loading sheet inte the office, bat the
witness te positive that he 414 not enter the extra pies ucon the
sheet. te saya he 214 net write anytuing on it but made a memorandum
and turned it inte the offiee. Flaintiff was present when the fore.
man ehecked the pies and then told him te go om out with his losd,
At this time oclaintiff simply remarked that somebody was trying te
play him a 4irty trick.
Keemend, also a shlesman ef defendant company, testifies
that on the afternoon of July Sth he met pleintiff at the corner of
Lake end Wood streets; that plaintiff osked him if he hed been fired,
tee. Vitness asid, “Ke.“* Pileintiff suggeeted that they see Mundy.
They went to see Mundy and plaintiff told him thet "they bad caught
them and that Mundy stheuld ge in there and eay that the ples were
Just. put in there that one fay." ‘This witness aise said that about
& month before plaintiff told him he wished ae had a few extra ples
”
eshiee abiow tod?o Wot a ased evad yeu oupdt * oie “ielanow ab 2
«fear boulcore ygaled we tieda bisa es Bie biod bagi nom I
hee suas # te del «a atte yYores galitey anv I a@ bhiot ener
way ,iie¥ winksl hiet 1 bus ome emoe Te? ap gako
ple day @3 suns teoy wea Hoy voaqqes T cbeee ied denne eeah
=! .goy tiguao ow sud MALONE baoy i song e at tadt* noonge ou ‘eat
- oe
De aaa
gait ote GoD fou hib of 2aas yiovisdaog en ttisass Vadentalt
er a aes ae ee |
omaiseoup at ghar os clea ae acyaw ena ad wna ons “aw oxo ks ry
eek ae
talooisaag abies ae sua anton whi avdatodors oe Rode
St: Wee whe heh est
ayes ‘on -TrLd aledg te tad? ot sxoa sign ad xo? awe afd
: & e uk deter
oy #* ata Tihsadole os bediva an as bass ve eae mee and bexoerta )
* boxts ood at ou" bine Vabsabace bas “tase sw98K oe ‘ot oles
as
big
.omkt 8
“ee
ont eat te$a0 Tiltalolg was od syee p manera? om? iooiene
a i — ‘i
te boot weld hestoasio haa asensi oat sons 90up at _gatares ve cannes 3
ps dnpbaes alco que aw be Ling on ks on oats tous ot P
mes as asqe vik at eLidw bas ours oid ak $03 rupmiece we zB ,
cd ite ai bene qe on nosld oe work ton seob twee Leeder gee
os tus ,90L%0 0cd cfnd foods aatbeok oxta omeut aa ayer i one
NPs bs pe *
(eat equ wale atixe ec? setae ton Bib ee tant evitleog a.
oy ‘ YC pAtR eee icapilied xy aye
wba omen a obs ‘aud “at ue pad yas erie fon SLB sat re
Ee HE Site bs
sts eal ae. Jawan ig eae Valeutets sorte eng ovat i hsm
H “Bai § ha,
“ shmos e kat “gb due He oy oF als See ie, Soe ae :
“ ; 2 ae
id uber nae whodones, mas textames yiqnte Vitatete smd yaks:
Ly quia Poe
violas peste 2) a Fae
Bits sit } Pope ie eon
; ae ltkrend eyangiao taabas ted t0 auneea Can a cals caemsek
+ sca roth ae
SS remo ait $e Pi sate ds Jos on ase tat e noowie d Te ie i
by 45 KOSS ORS ORE eal
Sout mod bus oat “2A 1d bowaa Tiéatad taae afserta hoo?
. 7 nae z Be et es Ppl
bart oea we sant betevague Wiener i * 0m" some! -s
tiguay eat qenia" bait ad 4 bier Mibtcaate hw AUK ven ot ny
oure vole ait tons we bea | orese at dae paat on
“toda tests bilan ‘ona weonsee alse “yenb ns sett ote te
we Get met wake eee
‘soe atze i a Baden bedekw of mist bine Tktadal
aottaxoqtos ‘eal «a heyrasioa Lb sonyocqune ont % sas now ssont te seat
te make up hie shortage, also that after July 9th plaintiff told Kim
there was « subovena out for the witness and that he, witness, should
get out of town, Koomund was discharged by the company but had been
re-enpleyed at the time ef the trial, Un cress axwaination he said
that three or four times a few plies were put in that weren't charged
te the drivers; that be eplit two or three dollars with Mundy,
Bundy, alias Knewles, testifies that in June, by mistake,
he put teo many ples inte plaintiff's track and was going to take
them out, ut that plaintiff told him to leave them in, whick he
4id, and he (plaintiff) would give him bealf the value ef them; that
ie the way it would ge om from day toe day, wii that he got honey
from plaintiff every morning when he cawe to work; that he reeeived
about tes dollars from pisimtiff outside the plant on the morning
er July 9th in the presence of Jonun Czak, He says that later in
the day plaintiff told him they were eaught and seid that he (Mundy)
was the only one whe didm't have @ chance and asked him to say tale
was the firet might the pies were put in, aid that he agreed te do
eo. He gays that a week later at the home of Kis mother and in the
presence of John Caak and several otser drivers, he saw plaintiff;
that plaintiff asked hin if be had heard of Caweekoody's doing any-
thing yet, aid that witmesas said, “ko.” A warrant waa tazxen out for
the witness, but the proseeution was dropped. Ue now works for de-
fendant corporation ae a cake baker. He saya he teld the efficials
abeut the eonssiracy and these transactions, They re-eemployed him
and 414 not prosecute him beesuse of a plea made to them by a aixter,
John Cask says that on July Sth he saw gliaintiff at the
factery and heard him say to Mundy, “Here is the money,” and thet
plaintiff turned ever about $2; that plaintiff asked him to put a
couple of pies in his wagon because ke had two pies that were not
goed; that he did so and plaintiff gave bim a couple ef cigars. ie
®ise testifies that he heard plaintiff tell Bundy he had better
Se
miit bie? Viieuiale dee “int x0 9be tags onde eundueien adam tem of
bineda ,oamatin ,oA sae bas ameagde ooe 292 sue aoeogson # sew ox0nt
need has tad yunguos gus yd bearetvath saw haumoed wares te fue tem
bles of co lantawne eects m0 .dalsd end to omts ont te bo Yo Lame 9%
hegsnete o' mwxew fads ah tug orew ante wot @ awakd uot xo send sal
Ap ghouls iw ote lieb earls to ow Fhiqn ed gant poupeheh odd OF
ehetebs 4¢ ,eawl at geadd aeltiteas ahmaiinenanl aebie vba
“glee ‘ot weal i ane bao doused ef Tiltalal¢ erat sola wea ood toe a
od io bate ,at endé eveol of mid biog Tihiahele dacs duet 00 wont
tnas seed? ‘te ovine off tLad ata avky binew (Wtteaiate) od bas bb
; Pe wee
(yeank Fo9 od Jant bite ,yeb of yob mott ao oy biwew $1 yaw ode ah
x, sie
nov saoes od taas ;axow of eamo on eae ote galaron vreve vehsatate mort
wakaros off ae tamig end eblesuo Til tatete want writes ove cuvte a
mh satel tant exon oi fend alot Yo eonseong exis at 9@ yLut Ye:
“(ebawi) ed tant blow ban Siyguoo oxsw yard aks bios Vussateke ‘een aul
Say
ehae yaa oF wht boeken how sonar a oved tt abhp “ocr sao ino ont aw
fe
ob ot heotys of Sad? dow ad éuq ox9€ wet one tigi tant add naw
Rees hue i4
ons nk haw weivem ail to somd edt te total doow « tals awe ott 100
{MUsatece wan of ,erxovinth xedto iareves bas aand nde’ vs sonmaate
* SO DUP
i gato a'ybucikeoasd ‘to bused has od th wid bana "bsatate ast
«8% tue neiet eae teattew A ok” bles anend tw ase ban foe :
ee Rey
“0d x02 axtow won on sbaquers asw Hobsuvaorg ons tua among
aletel'tts writ Aiot oul agen oii -t8dad asan s es not te194¢100 tawnan
a
Mb beyoigqae-ox yo? ane lions nerd eons ban woartcamae out ott suede
nogods e ye may of ebas ae £4 @ te ooxmoed mts efueesore cannes
| ond om Ytitniele woe od age yivt ae taut agen “hand stot
: taste Bat “,gestom welt at oxek , vba oo Yas het bases bas -s
“a 3q 0% mist boalnn vitatete tase (8% suodn ed bomant ruts
tow exon Sate nate ows hawt ae onuinved aopee okt ‘nh este to ox
ou seuagto to eiquen # whe oree, Vibsaiesy baw oe nie oe sant 4
wited bat oe wool Lied Tibsatede b buses on tact we.
Kiet te aot
ai : y
lesve town. This witneer also wae diseharged by defendant eorpora-
tion and now works for ancther company.
Mra. Enewles, wife of Mundy, teetified to the visit of
plaintiff to their home, corroborating her husbend,
The evidence shove that in July eat a date which must have
been prior to the taking out of the warrant, defendant corporation
teck the atviee of aounoe), Attorney Lioyd KB. Brown, in the absence,
ef his brether Charles, wae called to the office of the company |
where he held a conference with lr. Case, Mr. Pellar, ond wr, Dile
lon, Mandy "ae present and at that time signed a written Staten ext |
prepare’ by the atterney. Lioyd Brown tasiifies to the effect tha
plaintiff was alee present, but plaintiff contends (plausibly, we
think) that he wat wistaken in thie respect. The attorney says
that plaintiff (we agree that it must have been Mundy) said that
about $75 worth of ples had been taken out and not accounted for,
and that the sroceeds were divided aneng those interented in the
enterprice, Nicholas Barniecke wae not present at thkea eonf erence,
Attorney Brown saye that he told his elients that if they had the
testimony of Burniecke they would be justified in swesring out a
Warrant against plaintiff, On eress examination he said that he
414 mot advise epecifically that plaintiff sheuld be charged with
having stolen 30 pies on July 16th of the value of $15, ner wae he
informed by anyone that Henderson had told Barnieeke to permit
Plaintiff to take theme ples with hia lead, or that plaintiff had
sold the pies at that time and secounted for the preceeds to de-
fendante, t
We think the foregeing is a fair sumeary of the evidence,
Plaintiff concedes that it ie well settled Law in this
State in cases for malicious prosecution that where a prosecuting
witness hed submitted te a lawyer of good standing all the facts
within his imewledge, or that he could have obtained by ressenable
wtogton feeds toh ys Bogracnsss sew onde reanthw eldt « seme eveak
: eo Re TOeeam woh emer ween ime meds
‘te ftety sl es he2tieent aeoaue te otiw ,weivend eee 5 si
-Dingeeed tod gauisetodericy ,eeed sheds of Tileakele
‘ | eved teom teksw otah « ta ylul ah tadt avedn sooedive eft) sold
7 not teroq tes toetosie® ,taexvtaw oe to duo gabdad oct of tobte eed
sangeds oa? of ,wwoad .M hyeld youtessA .feemwon Ie. eghviw eat dood
neque 2 to ogltta edd of hotiaa sav ,aolradd aodtond aha te
mike 2 bow .teLL9T WH ,0nnd 2M thw squealing ® Bed st onsale
| femodete sedstiw 2 beast emt? tad’ ta han tamneng exw vans: 20h
mae spetts weld of veltiiees awoxd hyetd ‘yoarstta edt yd betayowe
ow Yidhavata ) abaotnas Viiiainig tad ,fapaeng gate kan KUsske te
eyne yomoitn ed? .dooqnet elds of soxtateta maw, mst cade (dnkde
tad? bine (ybrw% moos ovat Joum 24 Sad congas ow) Vadsabe ty tase
stot Defawegen fon has tuo awsad seed bad eohq Lo memew ONG ewote
4 eds at beteowsal seis yaome behiyib exew sbaooote seit sasit’ hme”
-O0 Ts Taos atd? ge tasgetq fom saw siseiatet esledeali - sonkrete tne |
wld bak youd IE dads e2nalio aid bded om dunt aan arent yomrongay i
® two gakigows ak be ttigest od bivor, yout oxvetated Ye ynomhtneg’ |
if tndt btae on neisantnaxe anore a0. .TUitntata-tenbegeioienial! —
ate | begraso of Divode Wiitelele tase Yideokthosgr onbvhs ton SEK
oe saw tos 216 To sutar ed? Yo ddd whet, a9 aete O8 me Lete yethvadt?
thang of quloetared bfod bad apaxebank sade eeeniaiennendll |
box Yitsnielg dads to heed aid Adte aehe onedd eated vad:
ae 0 OF abrooota ouit xot batamees hap, oaks fant tm waged Biow
ae 7, + wee — ieeitt syetnabae .
seoaaht ys oss Te Yeung star a a, sibiadiae, ali leeainniel om .
eae at wet Destvon, Liew al 31 padd apheonoe TWtemlat® >. be puted.
gaktevenora a grande Jedd anktuaoserg awokeiion rot, omad mh oat
ato’ ont te pitbasty bees, ‘to sogred a of) herehecon 4 ba or
: ekdanovent Xd homladde syed dLv09 of dade cor 4s
10
diligence, and acts upon such advice in good fuith, ne cannot he
held reeponsible; and this we understand to be the law, We think,
however, there was @ question here as to whetner all the fuets oan-
serning the charge against plaintiff ware submitted to the attorney,
The evidence in that regard wae eonfilating end, we think, raised
an issue fer the jury. igons vy. Banter, 285 111. 556. Ye cannot
therefore hold as a matter of law that plaintiff ia precluded because
the proceeding: against him was initiated om tue advice of counsel,
The fact, however, tiat couse, was called, as well as the
facet that the Judge whe issued the warrant eertifies that he took
evidence, in entitled to comulderation in determining the weight of
the eviderce bearing upon the issues of malice and probable cause,
The courte of thie State have always been vigilant in this clase of
euses in guarding aguinat the danger that the jury may regard the
aequittal of the plaintiff upon o criminal charge as justifying the
inference that the prosecution was wrongfully begun. fhe reeord of
mequittal is aduissible eniy fer the purpose of showing the determi«
mation of the proceeding. It has no bearing upon the guestion of
want of prebable enuse or of avidence of maiiea. in a criminal ease
the burden of proef ia upon the State te #stabliah guilt beyond «
Feasonable doubt. in a sult ror malicious prosecution the burden
Ag upen plaintiff te preve by a prependerance of the eviderce the
absence of probable enue ond the presenes of malice. In Coliing
Ne Mayte, © Tli. 383, Chief Justice Breese said:
"Our exorrience teaches us thera ore few questions of law
more difficult of comprenension by « jury, than those which govern
trials for melicious provecutions, It seems difficult for them te
acpreciate, if the plaintiff was resliy innoeent ef the charge fer
which he wae prosecuted, that he still ought net to recover. They
4o not readily comprehend way an innocent man may be prosecuted for
& Supposed erime or offence, and yet have no recourse against the
prosecutor whe caused his arrest and inorisonuent, and yet the
inna a gene er the peace ond erder of society require, that even
pcent men may be compelled te subsuit te great inconvenience and
hardehip, rather than citizens should be deterred from instituting
proseeutions where there is reasonable ar probable grounds te be-~
lieve ic the existence of guilt.”
ef
ie” Byes, sa ae
OL
gd Seams of ,ihke? boom ad eokvhe dawn rege geen has yoomephthh
ashes OV wai od@ od of bawtavehbaw o oie? ban poddioaogaet, pied
| aoe a200% oct Lin wuitedw of os oted nodteonp me aa ered? .tevered
-woartettea ad} of beteladut stew Yildataie semkeyo eprede ont: aakanee
bortes pamth? o@ ,to» galtolltaeo egw bxeget dest ah egnohive edt
fonses oF POG WL AOR EE eee ow kop otal ent x0k eenehy me
Peieood Behutoong ef TLAFweedg Foss WEL TO KOdsem & am bhod enekonete
-inaavin to Mivhe et? wo bolwlital aew até delays eaakboneena eet
oud ax iow va belies aaw fevakou Sauce ,revewed ptuaeml) oro
aot wat casts ask ThITeD savxoW Hid bounnt obo opie ott dndd, daar —
“Te diyjlow oAy yitidtone Jeb at nolowlenoo ot belt hem at yeouhhee —
\nuusy edieder@ Sue oi Lem To wewoel eff vequ anteand sounhien nat
Yo nese width Mk tathyle need eyawke oven atatt ete te etemeneMe
Gi? Dteget you yTet odd todd ynak off Samhege sahieewy wh eenee
eat gaiytitevt aa eytedo fextabto a siequ Vidslelq ont te fegehepee
Le Hroder oMF .niged YLLAgOWW AoW nobtnowsong ent Sat epmouRRMh
aleteded odd galvode Yo aeoqtug ei a9t eine eiddanlohe a2 Setthupon |
fe holiaesp O07 eoqu yalbined on ged tL apathoesenq. ost to wok tas
gene faakuhta & at Hob iem Lo tenebive to 19 samme atiedent Ren tamy
& barged ULing deilvatee @¢ 98078 943. mege ed. ‘Yoo Yo. aebted etd wi
abbied of? molteosecsy avolelian aot thon o al .tdoeb oddameenet 4
bry sovoblve ed Yo wommrobaeqerg « Yd vvorgied Tiitatadqumpamek —
«gated wf .eollew lo conbeoug 94d hae ooune eddedong Reepneeda 0 a |
iblew oeoeth odtonut Rede BE ALK OO smemel ae
‘at te euoireaup wet on may au endesed ent wa
mtevey solide eacis asdd ,ytet 2 yd aoleasdetemee | |
@? mead tot tivoittlh amepe 21 .anoksupowete cnbantaees hw,
met, sgiece oct t¢ taepoant yiieot eaw Tihdmletg ont 32 .@
ste¥eo9t of tou Sigwe L1i9e wet tare per rege is
‘7 antag enTEesex OM & ines aah a ‘Sorw'r'te to salt hovoqaue a
edt fey ban ,teennoaitqal ban teers old betes vd “ wee
uaameraa echt Pet Bolioqnes of uax oan sascomal
BML Sad tsenk nowt berxedeh ed “bivoie waves Tr ‘aa Tatar anol
1 gnie ne “ icmp 05 ens Lye tare ras : 4
a
11
The facet that the examining magistrate heard evideneoe is
net controlling. i¢., 54 Til. 890, The
queation here narrows iteelf down to the proposition of whether the
verdict of the jury as to want of prebable cauce and as to malice
is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Ae before said,
there ta no evidence of express muiiece. it does not appear that any
officer or employee ef the company had any ulterior motive, or any
purpose other than the protection of the property and buaineer ef
the corporation. The evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that
gome of the drivers purloined tie pies of the cerperetion, and that
eeveral of them must have been parties te the pilfering, Defendants
investigated; they employed counsel; they accused some of the driv.
ere of whem plaintiff’ wae ome, and seme of thes confeased their
guiit. Plaintiff did not confess, but if he was witheut guilty
knevledge his reply to the aceugation was, we think, moet unferte-
nate and by no means well designed to allay suspicion. He wae an
inteliigent witness and fron « business standpoint he must have
realized that the matter wae a serieus one for the corperation,
although it might acpear in some respeote trivial, When the number
of employees omgaged in this Line of service for thea corporation is
considered, the matter appears of great ixportance, Plaintiff made
practically ne endeavor toe persuade hie exployer ef his innecenee,
The evidence tended te justify susjieion. in the trial of the case
hia experienced counsel (wisely, we think) reiied much upon the
theory that although plaintiff might initially nave appropriated the
pies in question, the feet that he later by persission seld them and
accounted to nis employer for the preeceeds, as « matter of law pre-
Gluded the inference that he was guilty of any crime. lis case was
ekiifully conducted on the theery that under such clreumstanees he
gould not be held guilty of larceny. The theory, to say the least,
is doubtful. People vy. Bhie, 275 ill. 424; People vy. Lardner, 300
a7,
ai wenebive bused oseudelgne gafakemes off Sos Gon® eA oo) 1h
at 0 .if] Me, 0 fe HL SOTITHS oF NOE LOM .gakiveriaes ton
Sie Teivesty Yo molsieovetg we of WO Whewss swowkne wre metteemp
eofinu oo 2@ bth eenen eitedowg te dnew oF um tisk ens To folneee
bee exelod 24 ,shankive este ‘le Stig low seo thnem ede tuatene wt
‘eae test? Yeeeqe Son veoh $1 Joolhinw seetgee Te wousbive on at eres
“ie vo welt tered ie yu bed yomquws ond We eoyetqun to taste
To aeaainnd bow (IUsqoT@ oat to aottostorg one madd Tente Suequig
fest? bow ,xokiatoyxes eis to wet ent. sontesuy seis sith 8
APoobie tee .yabietite oft of avloteq seed eved toum mods Rovkate
With oe Yo Same bevuven Yond ;Lnenwes beyodgan ome phe | ,
le Meet aoe viads Ve omot bate pmeng ane beta ty mene ee
‘qiiluy suelsly sow oA Us ted ,eeetas Com bab Tihtmtel® ) ehbep
wudroay dues Sakis Ow naw aol tanvove ons of ULeow hd opneteoas
eved tame of falsybtadw weenieud « mott ban auontiw ‘suey? Lietut
ekiote tae of) Tet ene weeklies « wav weeten omy Gadd Dent ieee
‘Peiaws oc? cot .Letvine atooqeot omea at teoqye sighm $k dqwodttta
ai aalieteqiee ait vet eetrtes ‘to salt alti’ at begeyne aeweelene ‘to
ohte Viljaiel% sebuottogat tesa To exesqed tettes OY jhomOkemOD
fiseoornl ula ‘to Texyelqus sie shave 69 tovanhos om Yilaahdoata 4
asae af Le falas off al satdg lone Ythvest of \bebaed som sive wal
oii vocn doum betiesn {aaldy ow ,ylowiw) Soenuon boomeiatequb onal |
i he oe
OS Bem
bas ‘os Siow nahen bates es votes oe tan: tent ont ‘saabrenwp ak -weke
12) G9 PR Bray et
079 eat to todtnm @ as inbowoory wee x02 See er
fey SER oO
ate eaaw ohhh eae yao Yo yituy ea oh dalle onnece tad ; j
Be OMS im SE 50% aed
od Aeon reworks Hote ‘tebe taut roe ody aie bereubaoe -
me ey Frage 3
aged ant yee halt cetonat hea easel to watug bled od ¢
ee ae
a b2.3
Til. 264. In 5
92 tik. App. B71, this court said:
"The decisions of the courts incline toward an enecuragement
of criminal prosecutions when they are instituted in good faith,
without malice, and fer the purpose of punissing violatere of the
law, and for that reason suits fer maliclous prosecution are not
favored and have been ¢ritically examined. HKeynelda vw. Aennedy, 1 .
Wile 232; MeBean v. Hitenie, 18 111. 134; au Til.
Sard vw. shew,
354; case Barrett vy. Gpaids, 7) lil. 404; Angelo v.
Foul, 38 Di, 108." ,
In ¢. BK, 3. & %. Ry. Co, v. Yieoree, 99 111. App. 564, this court said:
"The citizen whe in goed faith and witheut malice, under
eiroumstances sirongly tending to show guilt, inatitutes a erininal
prosecution, sheuld not be cast in damages teeause afterward upon a
Tuli investigation the suspicious circumstances are explained, and
the innocence of the party scoured made apparent, (Jacks v. Sting
a3 I23. V2; 6 Heyte, 50 111. 383; Angele v. Foul, 35
» 106.) ‘The a taal ine te the eneouragemmt of eriuinal
prosecutions, when inetituted in good faith, witheut sialice, and
for the purpose of punishing vielatere ef the law, and for that
reason suite fer malicious prosecution are not favored."
®@ held im thie case that uson the issues of mulice and
want of probable cause the verdiet of the jury is manifestly
against the weight of the evidence, We may add that the damages
allowed sre slise obvieusly, in our opinion, exeessive,
For the reasens indicated the judgment is reversed and the
cause renended.
REVERSED AND REZANDED.
O'Conner, F. J., and keSurely, J., concur.
phias gteoe alee , AG sgh VELE Se pee Jy waned wt bee efit
tei geraseae cas fawee yal agawes oct “he Gaetetoeh oaT% | om
~Sdiat boog ah horas. dani ote yoilt apse Ldnwoe one faniaite "te
este te sxotaiely gutsataun to opoqumny ody cot tom ,eolfen
yh ots ee ee sactet ion wes ative scat ads ‘tot bate
ibiwa Pusind eins BOS a0 Ail se s
wo hae jul bem suas kw ban Atte? seen at ous meakiie. onr®
istiongte @ eetetitand ,¢ihuy woe od: angry onl
& Seay Stewed ie euusced soyeceh al Goae od fon &
hee Tae ee Ne ee
aos fot tng he ehen beavooe bab ond
‘te
‘[eniaite te simamgaiweans Ye of @ ot?
Boe ogy Rog twediiw ,Atiat feeg al aete
s so 3a .wel eat Ye atosaloiv
. J ; J + m
ole due our nadeuoueuny tembesion Sov Oth
fon sotings te semat ode soqy decid Ste UM ab brad ew” re wee
yideotianm ak Yael su! to dolbxev of? seneo otdetery To"thew
fegnees ont fad? the yom OW .soneb tre odd Yo Sugar ody waihinge
.oviaaooxs ,nolatge ie al ,yiewelvde’ sety ot bewelte
ous bat boatorwe ot @asambat edd dedaothat enexmet oat woh Oo!
ce em
: mor awe ee Map
vtasane 6b ylounted baa, 60 ae
rer < cae LS 3: rhe Lowel Fear @ ;
nica ia ’ ’ j #64) gr NA eee ae BR i ea ss Hid a” a
hig ihe. eg 3 be ERAS gene Ree nae es coders ABE kei
1 ! \
mituieay Saeet ie eat eee
> galt, a eee nd yitely
Y qgahene aden al patrewcea |
vested: at Bennie |
erry | ae: wheats ,
re Oe aie me ae meg | tof tow Lil
WAIT,
37704 ~ :
RARGARNT DEVEREAUK et al.,
é \
rigs gf Neng’ Fi
; if s ) a ;
Appellees,” gees i.
i } APPRAL FROM BURGE :
OF O00
a
PR pt mac,
vs.
GHORGE JORDAN et al.,
Appellants, }
pol
H i
279/1.A. 628
BR, SUSTICN RATCHET? DELIVERED THE GPINIGH OF THE COURT,
Joun Jordan, ao resident of Ghieawe, died at the Aleaian
Brothers Hospital June 7%, 1928, He left iim eurviving a daighter,
Rargaret Devereaux, wife of Asay Devereaux, oid « won, George
Jordan, his only helre. A written instrument executed February
12, 1926, purcorting to be Hin last will and testament, vas admitted
to probate in Cask aounty September 14, 1924. Om September 1%, 1929,
Bargaret Devereaux filed her bili im chaneery to contest the suppered
will, alleging ineapneity of the teatator and undue influence, The
cause was submitted te a jury which returned a verdict in favor of
the contestant, ond the court, overruling motions for a sew trial,
entered judgment on the verdict setting aside the wili. Defendants
agk: this Judgeeit be reversed,
it ie centended, in the first place, that the court erred
in permitting Ray f. Devereaux to tewtify. in the beginning he was
joined as a gompluinent but before the trial wae dieuiased out of
the case, ond the court, over objection by defendants, then permitt
him te testify at length. ie was alee cress exwuimed by defmdant
At the cloee of his evidence, however, all hie testimony was
stricken out on motion of defendante and the jury inetrueted by the
eourt to disregard it.
Tt iw conceded that Ray Devereaux was incoupetent as a vit.
ness under section 2 ef chapter 51 of the Kevived Statutes, but
omplainant avers (and defendants deny) that the error was eured b;
striking out the teetimeny and giving the instruction to shevegena
i tek, Bei = 1 wk ERAOD a
ee ree“ e eho Big wh
“BSA HTC Te)
SAND J NO HOTHAGO MAT, GRANTING PEND TAK morraNe . ae
wteols edt fo dol ,ogselal. to tapbhlent « madre ‘nae Kon tte
| vestiias # patviviae af, fet ak BOWL of emit, ta2 toca wn vor
ag0e® aor # Sig’ ,xuneuaved yall Io etn Aiose red sonmgte
teste Aefudexd sapaungeat ipst iow A «buted _hne, ahs, ah
hetétatn saw ,tnounsobd han Like det abi od of patousenng 4) |
CEL Sh andes gne a MEL of redaes gon ata ome ia: oo
seonaea oid fasdace af viepoeis al iLid aed dol) mauneneved tetagze
Ox Apmeukind euhow bow xodates? od? Yo ysioaqeont amlyesia, Cite.
te seve al totter « hontugen sold ytwk a 09 bode smu peg
, abet wor @ %o% saaifom gativsrteve a ttwon eit brn, , dead
‘Stanhasted .Litw ods obiea pation folbrey edt ne palrietingesoeng
sbestevet ad Srmaghut, ass lei
iferse S100 One tac? , eoeAn sands ent af ,febmegaoe oh M28
aan od yabaniged od? al .yiisend oF avanternt, ia LS .
‘te fue Doaehuri& saw dalxi of? wre tod tad imabetane r etedbabe,
dahon, Woe? ,ciaabastob yd aeldostde cove , duane ocd dew oene end
faethe leh xe heatunxe asete ole saw oh © .Haged te Ytitaed iil:
a Baw yee@aliesd old Lie ,tovewod ,soaebive aid to eaeko ont si
a ed beveursen? wext o4% bas edarbaeteh te meltom ae tue modoteie —
| . oth bragemath of Iutom
ttn on ends quoe ak, aan cmawtevRd yal dare beboomes ab at aN
| yiaoaens boukved oct to 10 xofqedle te & penance all
it. Unie point (with the other that defendants request for an in-
struetion in their favor at the clese of all the evisenee should
have been granted) may best be considered wlth their further eon-
tention (which, we think, is the controlling question im the ease),
namely, that the verdict and judgment are clearly ond ganifestiy
againet the evidenee,
It seems beet to summarise sume of the undisputed Pacte,.
Ag already stated, the supposed will ems executed Pehbruary 12, 1926.
The estate disposed of is of the value of about $23,000. The de-
eeased at the time ef hia death eas about 70 years of age. tie nad
served for many years on the police force of Chicago and in that
service became a sergeant. fe retired frou service on the police
foree and aftervard worked as a night watehnman for the Y.#.0.A.
John Jordan Lived with hie wife, sary Jordan, uy te the time
of her desth la Narch, 1975, in a home af 7727 South Gaere Drive,
the title t# whieh was in Ber name. The daugnter, Margaret Devereaux,
her husband and three ehildren Lived in the sawe nelghberheed at
$376 Gast 77th street. The children were sll under ten years of age.
Mier te the death of hisx mother, George, “he wes also married,
lived st Gary, Indians, ‘The relations of George said nis father
at the time of the mother's death were scmewhat strained; there
were words between them just prier to her death and on the day
of her funeral. George insisted on having Bie share of the nothor's
eatate right away and persisted in that attitude until his interest
was purchased, He reeeived $5000 for it. A few days after the
mother's funeral #r. and Bre, Devereaux and their children moved
inte the home with Sohn Jordan. in thereettlement with George
Jerdan,it appeare, Kay Deverewux furnisied « part af the money and
the title to the home was at first put in the nawe of Karguret
Devereaux, the father afterward becawe dissatisfied, and it wee
then put in o joint tenaney. After receiving « share of his
oh wa ast Pseupot atashas'teh sass rede wad ad bee) snmagiiins th
Adeose @uacthive edt ike to seade odo te ‘covet ahede mt aolsousta
-ao0 tad@aet uhecdt dtiv bexehionce od saad yor. (bogamrg wood eva
,{eeeo oad ab aolsenup galiforimes elt wt Makes wv ” dehee) woltses
yftestinng ban yitesdo 918 Iaomgbet, baw toltivey eft tadd elomest
.sorebive ost fontege
atoet betimatban odd Yo omoe “eaten ot tent aneve Pe
OSL SRL yrs det Setuvaxe aus <tiw henauyut 26% ,tedate. gharnia eh
eb oa 00,086 tvede 26 enter 24? Yo wh Bo henoqeih efaten exit
fet oh ,9ge ‘to axeey Of dwote anv dteab ahd tq emis odd te boneee
tas? mk das eganied Yo eo%? colog SA? me ereey Yaam Toy boReD
deking of no soivtee wort? bowbktes of stusoysee 0 aanoog sateen
bh OrKeY oS 1Ol camiotew tagline se beitew bueveed te haw eoTet
ontt off of au ,actuel wed else wld Sede hovks mabe ado’ os. “—
1 SCE8G H1Ode diweh TNT $e amod « ml DEOL gored ab dtawh wate
aetwyed Jetagbed ~Mivgeah eff ,eane ted ad anw sto hate 05 ade ht ome
te Seedtsdagion ease edt at hovll weubtide eexds dae Saedast o
age Io @usoy aes eben fia stew gethitde edi ,deette sary baad
sdelrtam os ia gow oe ,egtood , tedden wkd To diag odd 08 rol
“eigat alk hae ogtoad to naoltaiet et? semathal posed te hevit
wrest jheulowis tedwamoe aur dteoh eredionm edt to ons aad tan
‘web Ags ne baw Atooh awa of tobrq fewt wade momen abrow TET
a*tedsen 249 30 oxsds ata gabved ag hedadent epnoe®, hacen ae ne
“deoretak ald Lhtus ebveltee tadd ak detalesog bax youn. aente atates
ost wet e wesb wel A 424 202 0000$ bovleses ot). sheasioug sa
haven mthilds aed? dae xegvseved sett hae at Lacon a! seston
anes div tarentesemueds al .aabtol gael Abbe emma,
hee yanom 942 te Jt2q « bedodavst smereved gal, yarscque #1
tojagted te eased ah duq dank? de sey enya Ons, ote.
(| eae 2h bow bal tattonndd ounood duawaedts wnddet edt
_ etd te erode # gaiviooes tests... “Yannnt dabeh 4.4
Ji,
Se
a ee
=
on ee
mother's estate George soved frem Gary, Indinna, to Three Cake,
Bichigun, and the father visited him there several times in the
fall of 1925, About the same time hie sttitude toward hie daughter
and her fanily changed materially; in faet, he became very bitter
toward them, so much sm that he moved from the home ond roomed with
a fasily named Williams at S167 Lurmham avenue, one of the Villiame
family testified in the ease, Later he seved from there te the home
ef kre, Tilden (a widow) at 7722 Seuth Ghere Drive, whieh immediately
adjoined the Devereaux bone; he soved te that home in Septexber,
1926, and reneined there until he went to the hoepital where he
died; he was 111 at the hespitai sbout ten days,
Mra. Devereaux wae very such offended because kre. Tilden
teok deceased into her home and refused i¢ speak to her. Veeling
wae intensified by occurrences after the death of deeensed, Mra,
Bevereaux went te see her father several times at the hespitel -
with what result the evidence does not dissiese. Hewever, she ree
quested that the body be sent to her some, but Geerge came and made
arrangements ta heave it teken Tirst te the undertaker ond afterward
te tee home of Mra, Tilden, from whieh place the funeral was cone
ducted, The Devereaux family 4id net attend, Ere. Devereaux pre-
tested te Father Lyneh, who wae in charge af the service and whe
at first advised that the body be sent te the some of the daughter,
but George protested to him, snying that it was kr. Jordan's express
wish that his bedy should net be taken there under any cireucstances,
and ‘re, Tilden say that Father Lyneh tuen said the body she Jd be
taken te ker home,
At the time of the execution of the wili the deceased was
living at the home of Margaret and Kay Deversaux., it bears unmis-
takable evidence of isek of affection: for his daugoter, “re.
Devereaux, to whom he bequeathed “the sum of one dolier,” devising
all the rest of his eetate “te sy won, George Jordan, *
wed sed? of jaueibal ,ytad wot? bevou oytond otatee owsiton
Oat od outs Ceteves oxedd wha booinky vedtat out ae " saetg Sate 8
- wediigaeh ait Steves ebid ttt eld outs omme oct tweda asek Yo tat
“eeeeRe leew sinibed of 200% ol ;ULiatcedam bequests rae! (be
Ad kw bomvox bit ome ot? abet Bevom od tard on dome on yaoi) buawot
pme2ite’ ed? Yo oaol .suunws modonwd TOL8 to anh iLiW bewas 3
omost tt of een Hott beveat bo xsthX Vesee ont at ho Ptdeued vitont
(bite teedet Hotan jowiie’ btelb stunt et He (wokie'D) EE lees
° (tefeateot ak oon fadd 2d bevon od samen ‘Gusousvee: a sr (
Oi oudy Lntiqeod 045 b8 tnew od ‘Mins evedt bonieoes b hae ,aet
Jacah bt dueda ids tqeell’edd bd EE" edw ok eek
MOSEL Jerk erusced behas ilo deve ytev anal Rene teved aka ER:
ies... eit eee
gal feo’ tea of aves of beai/tex ‘bale Oho ued Stal Seenvoeh
O42 beamseeh ‘te déswh odd a9 dte sooneriuese ‘ee ital ew
Pye veg in mad ‘$a
+ Lastquod ons tm eomi! Lecoves rodtat tod oon ot tw xunoreved
° ee ater \tevewell Jesefsaib son aveb soneblve ot ‘biveee via,
oboe baw eemg eyxesd sud , enon Ged of dane o <bed oad Seat bot ko
ewes te baw codetcehes orld of texlt vedas st over éi wie Lint oa
angie wate Lettwnat sie ooaty to latw moet aebiry anit te om0d o* me ot
-oty xunewoved .a1% Jbaetde Yon bib yLlant euwoww vet oat
ortw buns we teden! ext te’ npabite a’ Uhl Ode bind eodbell ws rey
,tessiguel our Io ewes OAt by shoe od wor eed bast bockwna | rent ,
ehbtgee af kebeel 11a aow 22 tact yalyae vaika et bes oxy bgvene é
ebenasameotts the tehmy @reds nosed of gon ‘biveds qhed ola ‘jai ale
os Beienh: eho’ wnt Sta’ nek’ i lina bait ise wabilt Taek bos
aisha oe: \ glial’ oe Games
eet beabwoes 049 Lite bi Ho abteusdne ods yg | a ead
schund wieed 91 \amdoteved Yel Bas totegrall to sah 6b an paket
eee predoguab ala «6 Levahahinel ‘te teat Ye cherie dade
- pallwevons “takin a0 %o due att” boddsoupe
8% gates agxes0 nos ym or 6 3 t%e's 0 teen
sel g | i.
rr)
b
:
i
y
'
Rekert 2. Segan was the attorney Yor degeaged and lir, and
Bra, Devereaux in the controversy with George over the estate ef
the mother, John Jordan was firat nowed as adwinistrator of his
wife's entate; later Margaret Deveretoux was substituted at his
request. in January, 1926, deceased filed « partition sult against
Bay and Kargaret, apparently for the purposes of getting avay from
the joint tenency ereated in the lands of hia deceaad wife at his
own suggestion, but the record comtaina o@ly meager details aa te
thie proceading.
Began says that the mental attitude of the deeeused changed
in the mitumn ef 1925; that the deevased cave to nis effiee very
frequentiy and eried *copieusly;" end that he saw nim often in Deo
eeuber of that year and in Junuary, 1926. ilegan expresses the opin-~
ion that Jon Jordan was net then fully conversant <ith his own af-
faire. The mertel attitude of the testator during thet period may
be gathered’ somewhat from letters placed in evidence by defendante ~
seme of them written apparentiy to Mra. Zllden and othera te hie sen
George. It dove not appear whether thore were any Letiers from these
partias te deceased. In a general way the letters show a viol ont
antipathy on the gart of degeased to the Devereaux family, ond thie
antipathy apparentiy extended «ven to the ehildren; he writes that
they spat in hie soup. The Letters indieste that the writer was
effended about financial matters but do aot state any just cause of
Gompleint in that regpect.
fhe situation in the Devereaux home wien he Lived there and
the relations between deeeused and the Devereaux fauwily are narrated
by o ‘isinterested witnese, Charlea %, Hagen, who Lived in the heme —
from Geteber, 1925, until the lotter part of the spring of 1926,
He saye that Mr. and re, Devereaux were ae kind ond considerate te
fecesee’ as anyone eguld possibly be; that their children treated
him with all reepeet, but at no time was deceased like ether people.
boa sea be hoenogeh te? caniotla eae new asgoll .& daadedie’ voi Sow
Lo siabee s9 tHE wyieed dékw yexevetecon nud ab xusereved Gett
ghd To Yetetialaiate aa brane seth? eer solrel aot. seettem a
sid dn fodut Luton sew Ruowr9VST Sotagxed teted podedae ete thw
fentage thom meisicveg G helt begsasoeh ,@8¢h +, exennal ale sdaeupet
oT. Yere yulrheg le e#oqi wg on7 16b YLieoaaqge ,fotegest Baergeh
hd ge Ww Bevowead ahd Yo ehawl on? nb botagis youwaes Jalehiods |
gd ee Sikede> wegaem Yao antadaos Sieset ead dud ,sobtacugueinee
hegaeiio heeswdsh oF 10 Shut lsd Cosusw walt Gens Symm nagoln HLL
YR sollte ald of sow Heasepoh od? tasks FORO 26 ieee bell:
~et af soso ali one Of tad? baw *;yLawodeoo”® Antero. Baa ogdd aoupert:
ontge 480 eeabe tyne azgel 8804 ,yiosnel af bee neey same. te nedang
(he atte abe M98e SaaeteTAd. YLLuT aOds ton sewmbeot dtobtad? mek
yom Soliton feds gatiwh tetetest ent to shuts te: intuen onto satay
— Stine teh YF epaehive at bededy axestel mow? saitwaaion howe: b
oe Glad of eiwdte bee wedLiY .erd of Ulinereqee nett iow wots Yocum
qubitt meth eeedted qu wueWoEnnt tentede-wmeeeh ten'asetodk: RE
Soe totv 2 were axeseed ods ow Laxoniy a al)’ benneeoboadunnds * o
ois? bas (Lien? xumotewed est of beaaeseh Yoduny oct ax yiingttas
Jans Rosi of jaorniine Bcd oF neve bebawtxe qdiumeQun Yltoghias
-@aw aeghew 087 feds edeslhbal awdied off .qeoe ain mk degen Gods
te Seue9 Cowl qos efate sea ob Sud ets dam maRERNRR ER Oe
‘tiie! oes) boviL eo Ret omoe MEAeTEved ot2. ab teeta hn
beter eae fs Yin xuowrevEd on) dae boaeseeb mewded wmot, stones
at Gut at BevkL ome ,opmed sh oe tend ,eeendio botensenntes « “
£AROL te gabuge. cult Ro dung LOdtel ome dete OHek edodog owe
“of eferebisare bas tak aa etew xine Teed, emi Dae oth teat ayneeek
inane torso watt Soaneood acaiahiolien si tile ila set Lhe
The witness, however, neticed that about ‘two woeks or a month alter
he went there the attitude of deceased chenged materially; he says
that deceased became serose, sullen and abnersal; that he puld Little
attention to kr. and ire. Devereaux; that he waa often invited to eat
with the familly, partieularly om Suodaye, but he refueed and never
aceepted the invitations given him; that he asked the deceased the
reason for this ond deeeaged gaid he wasn't geing to give anybody a
chance te poison hin,
iy, Bacon worked in the basenent om radio seta and he says
deceased several timers came to witness and saeked him te walk with
decenved into «@ separate basenant; that witness asked him the reagon
amd deowased sald he didn't want to walk inte a trap; he also sasys
that decessed would ge to bed early in the evening but woul” often
be found at midnight walking in the halis, sd one night the family
found the gas jet turned on under circumstances waiuh indicates the
deceased must have dene it, ie ales sayy deoeased made unterclething
fer himself eut of ement sacke; that he would aany timers be found
erying in the middie of the night; that Are, Devereaux wae affliieted
with a goiter amd went te the hospital to receive treateant; that her
father di4 not bid her goodbye before she went but Leter he talked
with witness in the basement about her going and eried abeut it,
Bre, Haude Lynch wae the sieee of Joun Jordan; her mother was
dead and she had Lived much of the time at the Jordan home when she
wae s ehild. She testified tuat Jehu Jordan visited in her home in
1925 on an average of once a teek, sometimes three tines, ad that he
would often otay ever night; that she alee saw hiv in the early part
of 1926 ard knew of the relationship between Kargaret Severoux and
him; that in the firet part ef the year he spoke of Margaret as a
“wonderful” daughter ond mother and eald he didn't know what he would
do if it wasn't for her; that he spoke in similar terms in regard te
Margaret's husbend ond ehildren. ‘his witness also knew of the visit
Tete Kinem 2 ve ator owt suede dadt heatian ywevewed jeaontlw od?
wee od (¢tLaltedem dogands deuneedh te ehadkesa ocd gvedd snow on
eLtett Bleg ei teat jRewrpndy bum opitee yeoousn ennmed hoeesee sad?
tan Os bat ivad wedle daw ed dade jaune «end ben. 2 of aoltuniee
even Bae heacter od tod eyeboud we yseefeodeuog yythent edt adehw
ond easeoeh este posiew On Sadd tals weeds emoitetival em? hedqeoss
# ebhadynt evi, of gtiog S*anew of Fina beaosesh bas eid? co? no@nes
eyes of hoe afer oliet ao tueumend od? al hetior mosh yl Paiey
ddte dia of abd Soden bas suendiw of ones: eoutd-texeved beaedsed
nooner ont Abi Seulea exont tw dest jtnoaseed edareqod « od mt houaed
yen obkk Od pants © Ofat Liaw oF tamw dahl of blew
MOPS bduow tut gatmeve oo) at Ylte hed of om biwew
_ikaw't ef% ¢ata om haw ,e6iad eds wh galdcow: fugtmb ta ta: base’ 9g
ons Beduolbal setae eaomcdumyrte xebav ao bemut tol oag oft: howe?
gaksteLotehw thea heesecch pyes onde oh #2 o00d oven tna bones
bated’) Of weed YRam bivow ost cast yedonw samme ko dew RLonabe
> Perekstto ear xaaoreved ,exvd ga) psogde end Yo echbde wet of
peck tasld pdnoatasrd erteven of Latkqned ede of tame ae n0ddow a: ctw
hoxiies ef teded Sod gapy ade aroted agthoey tem had doe bth ™ b
Lo (SE ¢uede Sette han gakey wd donde dummpend 9sy ut neentiw nétw
naw Tacton tee pmabtel mick Te sowke od ame cea eheel eas. ‘gmat
erie wesw ome nebwol edd to oaks oth Yo som evil Haut oule haw Bao
ai sueri wed at Setielv ashxet adel tans heveteag otf © \b. eae
ot Fait Row \peatt? eet? eeat senew jipew @ sono Ye aperown he mo MROL |
bet _ivee ott ah abe wealee Lx on Sout yaiyhavere ate unde hiitew
ef deeeased to the some of ais son George, and she says that when
he returned from that vieit his attitude wan entirely different;
that he told her he sad mailed the deor so Kargaret or Kay omldi't
get into hie room; thet when he stayed af night she would of ten
find him walking up and down the halle through the house; thet at
theses times he would be talking to hiseelf in a leud volee; she
too saw him in the basement making undergarments out of cement
sacks; ehe slisq saye that deceased drank some; that from the way
Aeeeased acted at her house she thought ho was getting into hie
detage; she says he talked sbout Sargaret “getting eslis from men*
and Ray geimg out with bis girl friends; that she exlled on hin at
the hospital and saw him the day before he died and he knew her;
that in the fall of 1926 when he visited her he hed a Little bex
in which he told her he had $5000, and he also enid he had money
hidden all over the rafters of the basewent. Ghie aleo waid ashe
heard a threat made by George to his siater iergaret on the day of
the mother's funeral te the effeet that if she did not do as he
wished about the estate he “would open up to the o14 san about her.”
The evidence of Haude Lyneb is corroborated by that ef her
husband, John Lynch, as to the unususl and abnormal conduct of
John Jordan at their seme; he says John Jordan called his daughter
a “bitch” and a “brat. *
Eatherine &. HeGrath, a couein of Margaret Devereaux, tes-
tified she was a frequent visitor at the home of Margaret Devereaux
in 1925; she testified to the happy relationship existing between
deceased ané the Devereaux family at that time; said ahe never
heard of a quarrel among them; the eayr that later in the year the
attitude of John Jordan in this respect changed; that he insisted
on cooking his own food and refused te eat with the Devereaux fanily
when invited to de so.
ere. Tilden testified as to the life of decessed at her
; ei his: tie Tee Fe
aa st@ dasis yee ene dae eetoed aoe gia te omen oat of Doneooep Yo
| j Some et yfoxsaan anw shuthisa wie tiety fads cov! domistos od
Pb lwws WA xe soungEed of teeh ods bohtam bas of wed, hiot on tant
: asd ie Siow asin digaa tm hoysde od ance oasis jmeot ake OR.
te sade jeawedi puts sguendt aifed ont awph baa qa gatifew aa ®
ena peokoy bank a at Vieemks of gubtia? of biver eK, coats, onesie.
tapeee Xe due e2nomtagrohaw aniion Savmeead ang mt mks Dati
yar oil? movt fect jomon Aneth boxeoowh tests ayas onto este peapes
a? 5
ain otek paitieg saw ost Sdpwest oe gnwod tod te betes haseooed
"mew mort alive gatsiey* toxmgted twoda bexiad od agen orte pogeteb
$e mtd ao doling ore sasit jebooist ftty atd dtiw sue gatog yah fae
| pte wea ed ban both od oxotod Yad ont mid we baw oA A
mod ef3224 & hau oft 19% otiely oa aude A206 Yo Lint pdt at ¢ “y
Noses baal ost bhee eaie od baw 100088 hac od tod bhod eter,
wile thas oeis oat taeneacd od Xo ated ler ong yore $he. ams "2
te Yah onF No sotayted assole ‘Bist of ogtoed we Shem ies
ed ee ob dom bib ose Lt sacid s90Te ont of Lewast a sositom oa
*.aed tugda mon blo edt 93 oe Rego, bivor* on gdates oxy foes » :
mee ‘to tact yd be guroderzes ai agaye ebwe i to amas
‘te teubhane Lesrends One Leuauny Oat 97 Ba
wevguat aid beLiaa aabrel satel ayes et jomest nto * ye sei
: se * .toxd” # bow pee *,
err) vxuos 20700 dexaytas te ab awes a of dtaroen to apr bisall Ge
| muaeroved sotagtad te omod gtd 3x sotiaty dae
— .
oe wn Met
P mses yell $0 ee qtinae hte Lox yeast oa? od bo riteans. il : mes wh
h ont 109% ont wa utes tase ayes oie, mos given fe har “
ce bedetent od auld ihegaesio sonqeot okay fits nab
9
home, where he had a reom but prepared bie own meals. She said
ehe had no personal knowleige of any arguments or dieputes between
deceased and the Devereaux family, but that deceased told cer his
reasons for moving, saying that hie son-in-law threatened to etrike
him and that the children were very saucy and even spat at him; that
he complained that kre, Devereaux never prepared a meal Tor him and
did not care for his reom; she aleo tells of the narration by de-
eeaned of trouble at the Devercoux home when he said the police were
eallead; she eays Be told her he had made a wili leaving hie property
te the three grandehiliren, tat that after hie treuble with them ke
made a second will leaving everything te hie sen except «a dollur te
hie deughter to show he reseubered he hed « daughter, and that he
wanted hin son toe have everything. She eaye she invited deceased te
gome and make his home with her because he said he was not happy
where he was,
wr, Helaniphy, a witness to the will in question snd an ate
torney, testified as te the forsal matters in connection with the
execution of the will an? that George Jordan was nat present at that
time; he had known deceaeed very well from 1905 te 1912, but 4id met
eee him frequently in 1925 and 1926; se bandied eome litigation for
hie in 19265 and eaye, “at that time 1 would aay be wae of sound mind. *
Dennellen, the undertaker who served ot the death of beth
mr. and kre, John Jordan, says that when he wuried the wife in 1925
Sy. Jordan seemed to be of sound mind, bat up to 1926 he saw him
@ccasionslly, saybe once or twice a month, in a casual way and con-
versed with him; that he 4i4 not think his mind wae any different at
any eof these tines,
Joseph Gaspodarek was not acquainted with deceased but
“dropped in* the law office of Peden, Kahn & Murphy when the sapposed
will was executed and signed os o witness; he says decensed ‘appeared
to me to be norsal as a man of sense and judgment at that time. *
{oe
’
flas of ,aineon mre ed botegete ted moox « hel oof ezode, .omed
sopriod sstuqelh 19 ofapenyte yar to oghelwond Laageteq om Aad ode
eit 20 blot hewongeh taco ted ,¢Lhent meconeved eff bas hagseped
eXiite of beueleotas wad~-aiewon ah6 decid yobyoe ,aabvow tot ane Racy
tect jaid te tage aeve foo YOuSe YIov Otew angbtise emt tadd bam mba
hae mis Sot degen @ beisqeig ToveN XuevteTe 64 tad? boatatanca od
-oh yt aelvetwan ons if adiod onto ode moet eld ted onan don Sk
row ooliog ot bine of nad ened xametoved elt go sfiport to henaap
eroqene #id yaiveot Litw @ whet bet ed td DLod od ayae ode phetkap
oo awit sodv oidvoat mid reste test aud ymoahticpbaate sexdd alt ad
ot wileh « Iqnaxe aoe okt oF gatiiyrove yutveed Likw hdeose @ oham
od taut? bay ,t9Pdiyunh w hod ok Howadanss od werte ot sedsgued whet
oF Reawngeb hotival ode nyse od? .gmbsiynove eyed of aon ald Detnew
“‘eqgnd ten wav od bles of oousaad Tesi Aétw emed oA ote tomy mm
-te aa ban aglfuoup mi [ity oct of aventhe « nteieethats eon it
edd Adie aabtoeancs mi etettam fastest edt of am bettisesd peomnot
‘pant ga faeserq ton aay nebtel egtos® feud? fas LLie ond Ye sohtesane
fom bik tad ,SL0L OF 2OEL motl low yrey bevaneeh awoad basi ed pombe
203 Golfenishs soma bethaed on j88OL bao A8@L ab yLineveett mit soe
' baka haven To cow od yon bivew L emks duct da” sande sidishit
| ded Yo dined ond ta ovree oxtw t9indtohaw ould ymetionmeG 9
S80L af @Ttw ois hala’ om node dace oyae sabre adel ees tne ote
aid won ex OAL Of qu tad bake bawpe Yo.ed ot hemes malts
| aoe ae Yer Lasnco a at ,cinem # sales 19 e9m0 obyew 4) eane 7
te tusgeYtid tam eee bale ald dakds tom 62% of seait. ote arte.
tid besanveh dthy betalaxpoa ranean ree |
Neaoggue act nade ysiotHe A aria ,nebee To vo! Te wes odd Sak wager .
betaeqga" beancesh ayes od jonsatinw « ge bongs, bas) bodueexs . : vd "
"some tat 2 Smngbut bau same 20 sama am taswomed of |
f oa
Raward J. MeCermick, a city fireman, lived about #ix volecks
from the home of deecenaned und became acquainted with him in 1926,
eonversed wlth nim frequently an? theaght hie to be of sound mind,
John White, a pelice officer for more than 26 years, knew
deceased, who was Rie commanding officer and « momber of the Poilee«
mon‘e Benefit Aeseociatien; he colleeted the dues ond asseraments from
deceare’A every month; he esays he never disenvered anything unurual
er abrercal about him before 1926 or after; he bad net diseussed bis
eereonal or property affaires, the beneficiary of the Polieemen's
Benevelent Assceaiation insurance solicy after the deato of his wife
war chenged by decenerd te his sen ond daughter and afterward, he
414 net know when, to hie son,
James Heavey, « city fireman, fireat became acquainted with
@eceased some time in 1926, when the deceased would come inte the
fire station where witness was; he had daily talks with him abeut
“things andaffairs;" he says, “My epinion as to what his state of
mind and memory during my aequsintence with Ale ia ke app oar ed right
sharp;* he alee saye he knew deceased until he pasced away and did
not discever him changed in his mental makeup.
Faward Gheridan, a city firesen, first msede the agquaintanee
ef deceased in 1926, he thinke in the spring; he says it was a dally
habit of teceased to vinit with the firemen; thst he conversed with
him, hed an eppertunity te observe his mental sakeup, and in his
opinion deceased “had a reearkable memory;" he says he newer talked
about his family ond never showed any prejudice terard anyone,
In euppert of their eontention that defendante' metions fer
an inetraction in their faver ot the close of ali the evidence and
‘for a new trial after the verdict ef the Jury had been returned
should have been slioved, first, for the reason thet there wes ne
evidence tending to shew sither undue influence or insanity, and
second, becsuse the verdict wae clearly snd manifestly againet the
atogdé ala sugde Revit manent) gto « alpdereped .) bxomhh |.
,O80L nk wis diiw hetaiawpen eanped dan bosasamd Xe amet en? nowt
bade bauee Io ed of aha delysonid dan ysioewpett mis ddhw beasevnes
| Weak sateny EF asad erom teh appli ite molisag p get he malob on oho
~apiol af% to teduom « hae tele pathasanoe ais aan ocw ,heesoosh
mot Sionewaeees bay Banh ods hesoolloa ed j,oolsatoouea tiene 9" meer
Kauauiss pubes Gam bem vooelh toven of eyer mi iaitsom yreve bemaeped
id Beveaveih Fon hes os pRes te te OSL oreled ain. tuods aie
«a neneniio® of te yusieiteasd eff . ,2ttetn geteqeta to |
@liw wis le pdamh ex? weet Yoilog seantuam! attatooesd tm loveant
pal een bee tesdguah bare ton eli of beaeeoeb. XS bogies mae
, hoe etd pd, node, veut dont heb
re 5 alae onapod Sarkh ~maneitt yiio « ,qoweh pemeh - -
asi ofak emo bivow bevesoeh ont nede ,O8eL ak ous ona beasonad
_fugda wit Jtiw adint Yiled dod od jaem wagnthe, seiciamammnes vesial
‘Wptede ais dase of ae gainen WE, UR, Hy jeTLe Ts pee spade *
Aiigin bexesage od al abd Addy eonadalenpes ex natwwh roses bas hab
bth bas yore hovaag oA Liga beasgaah wend of ayes oeke od"; anede
i stwedan Lajaom old ak benondo mid tepenssh som
| semtelenn ont, teen sex2h ,aamend? ysio. &, .oebsaeds, snare at at |
Vilab # gaw s4. ayer on ipmizan odd ut. adabeld os ORME: ¥ |
eT aaolfeos 'staakae leh tant agkiaetago wads te Argan ah RY 7 .
haw soaraive ect ike io seeks suv da Tove? sipKd. mt mokteyetenk an
Petey weed bod. CHU Md Xo sebbtOW, om, vere estat oa 8 r0t
8 Lot oiens. tends sovaot ont not ,dwekt ,bewotia, fhe
baa .Xtinonad, To eoneutiat oubay teddty wode of vatbane ~ ebty |
i ods pani Ysieotinnn bas ylisete sew telhrov ost saved |
evidence, - many cases are cited, suck as Browsfield vy, Browns ieid,
43 Til. 185; Rutherford v. Morris, 77 111. 397; bninte v, Veibex,
$47 Ihl. 353; Long vy. Brink, 353 T11. 649; Hilier v, Miller, 3 Sesg
& Rawle 269. These ceases, in substance, hold that undue influences
whieh will aveid a will auet be of such nature as to deprive the tas-
tater of his free ageney. Assuming that the testator here was free
from mental infirmity, we think the avidenee Taille chort of proving
the exercise of such influence upon him by his son George as alleged,
The evidence horever, would justify the inference that George Jordan
had the will and oppertamity to exert such influence upon his fatner,
and it ie « fact eetablished by the evidence thet (whatever the
FPeason or method may Rave been) the result he dealred came to pass.
Seither, in our opinion, is the evidence eufficient te prove genersily
that Jom Jordan at the time ke exeeut ed the supposed vill was insane
im the eonee that he was net mentally able to conduct hie business
affairs or that there wae mental infirmity on aecount of whieh he was
mot able te keep im mind the persona who would naturally become the
recipient ef his bounty. If the verdiet of the jury is te be suse
tained, it must be upon « different theory. Plaintiff suggests that
the rule which should be applied here i¢ stated in Agerieoan Sible
Seciety v. Price, 115 111. 623, where the court said (p.637):
“In Seari bh, 73 2ii. 272, we recognized that there
may be insanity witsout the general business capacity of the indie
vidual being sifected thereby. *=**
Seyend all question it is within the previeus rulings of this
court, and abundantly eustained by tae rulings of other courta of the
highest respectability, that where there is imeane delusion in regard
te one whe ie an object of the testater's bounty, which causes him te
make @ Will which he would act heve made but for that delusion, such
will cannot be sustained; and 60, also, where there is insane delu-
sion in regari to the duty or mereal ebligation of a party to make a
will in favor of a particular individual, aorperation or society, and
@ Will ie made as the resalt ef that insane delusion, it eannet be
sustained. 1 Hedfield om Wilis, (34 ed.) 7%, 74, et 20g. wd neoten;
3 Jarman on Yilie (Sth ed.) 38, et seg. and notes; Luewell on In-
sanity, sees. 13, 341.*
In Anlioker v, Brethorst, 329 113. 11, it was held the court
erred in refusing the following instruction (at p. 13):
Me
shied eos’ .y binkteverd aa dows ,botin sie eeese yew @ svanal
smadiel, «x whose’ itWG .£L) ve si x108 a. baodandtah :20L Ett 8b
gee B oweitth .y AOL ERM 1088 KEL BOS ante eed | HEDE og ALT SDE
somuliat euhas dadt hiod ,semetedue ab peonen sand? . = RR, aL &
-a22 oF svinges of an cinten sowe Yo od deem LLlw« bhove dite ig kaw
seth eae etHK watniaed esd dak yalauend .yourne oot? aid 2e masa
galveng Wo Mose sLsot oomobive oat Aalst ow yytlanttal Losanm moet
sbegoLie an agree oes obi yd mhd soge Opansdtad some Lo eatotaxe ost
abseb agreed dass conse %ah ons (Liten, biver stovorod sonobive ost
todde® ald meqe soneulial dom deme of ytlautseqge bas ibn std bast |
gee tOvetadw) fade eonodive ol? yd dodnifdedas sont aah 2h dew
.888q OF amo denised od sivaes At (aved ovad yam bolton to |
yiiowpoey evetqg of saslolTive sonshive ade sh ,masnige two al redo
eneunt sav idkv beaaqgua e4é botugone ea eghs Az, te nobrot mitol teat
geeaierd wAd touhaed of dda ydsataee ton aen.od, suslt aonen edt mb
naw ef dodsit Lo Janoope we yttandiat Ladmom sew ore tant 10 ethatts
@c} omeood Yliesuiea bhvow ate onseteg ods. poten wh awed a ‘ ee
aaup od 96 oh ystt, 6d Xo tobixen ond 2T,...xdauod add To tanteton
dads ateeggua Vtisalesd ,ytoedd Gagne Ith # apqe, od, tema, sh» ybomked
S125 aupliomd at tagade ok exes bokignn of Swede soddte, siuz oat
1(¥29.q) bien Puymo one oxmse ,£90, £40 MLL,
O8OGs Said horiaggoos ow. gBVR 44d BF
obtienk ont to titonand wae aleud
) ital
| ols te ogat Lure awelvetg ond ‘mhase al ; | ao Lt
edt te e@ases tote Le hae wd doalagane
bisges ai auleulobh ena etodd otnsiw sari?
ed ada pevime Molo 4 snteak a'xodatend oa. ab odie @
ns foisaled sais — sud @ = oad § ny kh
melody eoneoat ed etons
# stom of usteq « to er cae tien jeer dw- pig
7 fees te ag iiaxrecies orig a '
} ed soanes $s Pec a ee ercak ie
; ar wai ao Lieven ites bran = Qe eee (be fie i j i S : tail ;
frwe on? béssl maw 2 hk AL) ORE Ramsey
48E .@ ta) sokdoandash gato ther se autavtes ab f
‘ A P au ‘ By ane eo
iy fe oa Taw ee
10
*The eourt inatruete the jury that if you velieve from the
evidence that, although Seipt L. Vom Brethoret head sufficient mental
capacity to attend te the ordinary business affaires ef Life, yet,
that, with regard to eubjecte connected with the testamentary dis-
position and distribution of his property and the natural ebjecte of
his bounty he was of unsound mind; ond that while laboring under
such conditions, if any, he wade the will in question, and that in
making it, he wae so far influenced or controlled, by such unesound-
nese of mind, Ait any, as to be unable, rationally, to comprehend
the nature and effect ef the previsione of the will, and was there.
by led to moke the will, as he did wake it, then the jury wuet find
the will not te be the will of the said Geipt i. You Bretherst, *
The court said that thie inetruction wae substantially similar te
ene approved by the court im Kimber vw. #ieber, 317 i314. S61. This
rule of law is well established in thia State by these and other
decisions. Petefieh v, Becker, 176 Lili. 445%,
Sxanining evidence in this case from tule etundpoint, we
think it is apparent there was shundant evidence for the considera»
tien of the jury. Indeed, the significant fuet appearing frem an
examination of the evidence in that there is practically ne cenflict
in it shen thus gonsidered. The evidenos shows without centradiction
that after the death of Mrs. Jerdam in 16945 deceaped regarded hie
daughter Margaret, her children and her husband with great leve and
affection; that a few months thereafter he eawe te regard them sli
with the utwest hatred and that there was neo roasenable cause fer this
ghange of mind on his part; that as o direct result of this sboermal
eendition of his wind the will here in contreversy was executed.
That he was thus influenced ie eanclusively established by the tes-
timony of Mre. Tilden, who is a witneee for defendants snd auch ree
ified on by them.
Ae illustrative, one witness uneentradicted testified te an
abnormal fear on the part of the teetater that he might be peilsoned
if he ate with his daughter's family. Anether witness tells hew the
deeensed aceused his daughter, the mother of hie three little grande
children, of improperly receiving ealls from men. Defendants pro-
duced many witnessee whe give their general impression of the
ability of deceased to conduct Bis business, but no witness gives
Pell ike
PB J t_ avelloed 44 dec? yout otf atvouwttenk @ineo oAt*
pio Cueto lttus eerodioxt wey of weet 4 Agwouls La poe seen
¢ atii te axie tba eoents
abEs cbasusnnsasy oat ga hedaeBace Shog sfa0 {duns
‘of
Yo stoolde feutan one & ba 5X,
5 cohun yaiveder oildw Fh ig tar ‘bata ts discens o aa" ® nuod ®.
a
yy on gy ’ at Lily edd has od, ye th. anealoune
«Sune ty foie <7 bs Ens $meo 19 en bk oe av on ek
. boederegaen a LLangltax “te
«@ted? taw omer , ik ong ¢ ano eirore vs Be — one ouiom
%
bast Page als Asi? at: plea & ont tient of
© den + ery ° tat oad
He 44 4q 1e8 bine aot gon kite 0
y tH ve t
gd we kine Ullolenniedus naw notseuvcsent hes dant bise : a.
La ey
tet tet zedehA .% xeduti al ts vetags
“eter J ted ttueo ed ewer om,
“*‘gea¢@ ban eseda od o4ade plas ab point tsagnn Liew rg ak to eke,
" one
il , Bab 61 are , .
ae taboghasts sind mort eas ands ab ‘sommhive antatnent, ee ie vn
sath Lanes bib Yor sonebive sanbauds caw ores saoteqge ek $2 |
‘tte mox't gaaitacqae toot duaol tingle ons deepal vet Ast 20. mph
ditned om YLiscites1g af exmdd sand et serobive ont te aot
ts vitae teen’ ov
f eet Re
gpheeihaxtnes drodtiv aware donsalve eat shorebienoe ously asi
4 eke “ee
‘gin Babiaget besseses O80 al anbrot aoe te Avast Lon te
r as : ’ eas bag ;
bie aver tao%a Miw handund «od bas ‘qehiide “aed toweyti ‘fs
ea 4
f woe Te es
fis wan? Siteyet of eaas od soPiseredd add ne wet a Fund ne)
ist rf
had SO? seuss ofdetouso of Geo ovedt tens hae borin faved oad a
kawnoada @ had Sb Yaided “doouth asa sant neg ake 28 ‘bain 0 te me
-betuocas exw Yetovoti aes al ered LLbw oat bain ale to wots Lom So
syah at ot oe
“ade? ait yt Rese tidatee Yleviento me i dooms adtal ian mad wa wit
PF Mat, bee, ssanbie teh at sqnmtin a a mera get a
j a, wed wii? "isi he sili: ‘etna at andsiaset Aa sete
| Se he fia! i
whitney OLEs be seul? eld te test om ont | Rat algain ans : — ewe
a atuabas ted ma mov ailas yaivioes Axeqotgah te Lbete
Re ae
eatt 1o molenergad Leda9y sin” ovis oie
“euhe te dey —* {
. ; aovls aewad be ok cal dabnteud aid fiudnoe aii
1
evidence tending to shew that these abnormal conditions of mind 444
net exist, or that there was any reasonable hasie in faet for them,
A father who at one time boaste of the loyalty and fine qualities
of hie 4aughtor and shortly therenaster, witheut baeie in fuet, an-
gérte hie fear that he will be poisoned if he eats with her, ond at
the eane time, with a like Luck of evidence, charges her with aie-
loyalty to her fanily, raises a question for the jury ae to his
sanity,
In causes in chancery, such we tiis, the exses cited shaw
that the issue submitted to the jury Le not feigned but real, and
the verdict ef a jury ie net simply advisory put binding upon the
eonscienee of the chanecilor (as would be tae verdict of a jury reo
turned on an iseue of law) unless mankt es tly an? @learly sgainet the
weight of the evidence, The ehaneelior in thin cage ao held. This
eeurt will be slow te set aside the verdiet of twelve jurors which
hae been approved by the chanceller whe, with the jury, Baw and
heard the witnesses,
Thete wes, 29 already pointed out, » technical error in the
admission ef the testimony of Ray Devereaux, Srownlie v, Brownlie,
SSL 1. 72. It was stricken out and the jury inetructed te disre-
gera it. It appeare im the abstract of the record, ond we have read
it carefully. We de mot think it injured defendants’ case, Indeed,
much of it was io their favor and, although etricken, is queted and
relied on in the printed argument which defendants have submitted to
this court. Under eueh cireumetances we Sold the error in its ade
mission harmless,
Defendants have argued that the court erred in refusing a
motion mede by them at the clese of plaintiff's evidence fer a
verdict in their Paver beemuse the alleged will hed not been offere
in evidence by plnintiff, ‘That point, however, was waived when
defendants offered evidenee in their own behals’, |
apt as soo ab. tial: sidamoenes Ene 5 ne ond. teat i i igre
caabthcane oad baw m Na daxes sale ae arenes aad one, ‘ oe a |
a eh a ey eet ost to? monitonp a teatet ett a9 rv |
Sts Wve ote
&
“a hedio aeeso aid ,ahdt we dows swrbaiality ar seaune a” ree
bay ,foor fut deaptot fom at tut wat on barbie oe
out’ wogy yathatd dad yronkvba ytemta son bh nee a te Visveouaae i
‘ ona yust a ‘te tolmey bad ad biuew ea) ‘aolingance ony vo‘ obitdbilbe ‘
pt featags efres ts bias “ytd ee tines oes nu’ (wet Yo simkt ge so honrriet
Dh “at bled 08 saxo aint uh totToonnile tt .tanwhive eit} Yo ddbow :
phy Later atom eviewt to tolbuev odd abtin ten of welts od ‘Etbw due é
a) vera edi tin — oliwsnods: ad ai i taro nel at
dhe pexerrs re 1% Y ieaba m)
| oat ab %oxxe feo tacved 4 tue hetaloy chaotio. ee ene pot abated iB
ad it .cunereved Yel to qasabtest ead Yo Roles bebe
eer ot aera yusl off ban dao abiobite waw hott bes tet tae
; bao owas ww bac jbiopex odd te soansede om al vtanag 1 ita
’ sbeobal ease Madashao toh boretak $4 unk You bb Ww oe eT
“Lia Wala’ ot ile W'Na ll’ tn ahi han GT 46 iin |
” bottladan eved staabosteh dobdy toomugte Sodutia’ batt at ao! obtex
“oli ett ni tire ont broil “ r aco antbaiibn se ais “bb |
oP Be pa |
_— fo 7" ‘
nm yia Wy hy RL a iF. May Pe . >
Benes oo Oe J Bape aR ay a ae DI a8 AMR :
we
Min
see “a Wel’ obusbve’ W*hEvidtaitg VO! omit wit 4 il meen un he 4
i) sane anand es bait nie Soerrecgge ial ‘eakciona Drv helt: be |
i a fA 3 F
es eS tniiad awe <ieine ink onsbtve
12
Plaintiff in her brief for the flret time moved te dismies
the appeal for alleged failure to file o supersedesxs bond a® pre-
vided by section 76 of the Civil Practice act, in force January 1,
1934, The motion comes toa late und moreover is wholly without
merit, It will therefore be deuled,
The decree entered upor the verdict of the jury for reagone
heretofore expreseed is affirmed,
APPIRRED,
O'Conner, ©. J., and MeSurely, J., coneur.
ety Ba fave aahtacaed ae
4 fic Sa ANA i
“sr ae) bya wet
a ie ae
weit bes gud Sues
Lae Zac yO) VA ee a RH AY
wr, Ease, ae eM. CA eS
Hie faeks
hes Fess wae ee ee KG tothe yy wud wntain’ dot ‘as ~~ 4
Tepe By RE
a a ae to
; oneal Ree
IVAN Wie Bodyoceek va wit dil adie wo tt
Ree Wein aie ep. ja f baboeg: went iw taletr eae alk inf
fo ae wk! Hers de HG stanly de ‘hte teeet ae
ee es oot dwnd wi Dt pom EAR in ‘hipal sin ead Pega boast .
ee ee ee eg woh Peek
aa cin wien ae:
hl the ane! hg bea eee ar Al
senshi wee ah aka A agora sexi tot
37730
ALBERT K, ORSCHEL,
Appellee,
v8.
URIGN INDEMNITY COMPANY,
a Corporation, et al.,
Appelless,
On Appeal of UNITED STATES
OF AKBAICA,
(Intervening Petitioner),
Appellant.
BR, JUSTICE KATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINIGK OF THA COURT,
Orsehel is the assignees of certain judguents obtained
againet the Union Indemnity Ce., « Louisiana corperation, in the
Federal court sitting im Illinoie, He filed in the Superior court
ef Cook county hie bill, amended amd supplemental, knorn as a
creditor's bill in the usual form smd baved upon section 49, ehap.
22 ef Gehiil's 11. Kev, Gtate., 1935. The bill appears te be for
the sole benefit of plaintiff and wae not brought in behalf ef
ereditors generally. The Union Indemhity Cc. and ¥. Irving Koes
were named defendants, The Unien Indewnity Co. did net appear or
anewer and was defaulted, and on setion ef plaintiff James F,
Campbell was sppoisted reeeiver.
The anended and eupplemental bill, upon which the deeree
wae entered, wan filed Jume 12, 1935. The deeree was wmtered de-
cember 27, 1955. ‘The decree found the necessary jurisdictional
facts as to the filing ef the emended ond supylerental bill, the
recovery of the judgments, ete,; that Campbell aa reeeiver tad in
his hands for distribution, ar shown by hin repert, a sum in ex-
cess of $2000, which he was direeted te turn over te plaintiff,
The deeree ordered that a copy of it showld be sent by registered
mail te the Heceivers of the Union Indemnity Go., ond te the Goi-
lector of Internal Revenue at Sew Orleans, Louisiana, and te the
Collector ef Internal Revenue of the State of Wisconsin.
——
,@etie . 0) meigess aoqu bored bas wrot Lawaw off of Lihd
eee
{TP he OETNE
4 ng a, x ree
‘ et " *
sol taega,. Pe hie oak
at " coo wali
“gga Reve” nit ie
a (wean eet vas
saiteced
SRNGRS @ sated
-TAVOO 2H YO MOLAIGO SHY GUMRVIed TREROTAR MOLTSUE . suey
beniaide etoemyhy, aintreo Yo sengless oct af pe
ot mt ,antdetoqxoo santakwod #',.00 ytkassbal “gotad sas” wal
rues tohxequt ot mt boLlt of ,etembist at galtede dxuso taxedot
2 ae MroMd ,iatoometqqua han behbooms iikd aid yhanes toed 6
6% od of sumeqge Likd otf .8h0L ,.0%073 ve £21 a? LEbte®) ws
‘te teded at tdgaord ton eaw hae Yittataly Yo Pt Wad een ot |
week gaivil .¥ bas .od ythamehal cola ex? eLLeteney ill
<0 wouge tom bth .09 ytkaxehAl nota oat .atashasted pie ore
2 gemwk Tiiteleig te acitew ae bus ,betiveted eew baa coven
tevieset hetatogae saw er:
eeneeh edt dotow aoqw ,fiid Letaseetoque bus bebaome ont Ce
ne Berodae aaw eoxoh oat 260k 84 onl boll? waw oy eae i
fesoltoitaitel, yIsoasoea odd hawet eetoed orit bEOL te deo
Ont ,LLAT Satone@iqgse bao bebaeme oss to galtht oad of oa ate
i Seu teviover se Liodquad tad ¢.089 .etaemyhut, ent Yoe ior
«xe nt awe @ ,oieqnt eld yd awode sa ,sotdodindath tod , |
Tidal Le o¢ evo urbe at bedeotlh eaw od so ditw 008 t» save ;
“boxorakaes qd fooe od hives 32 10 yqoo a tad hovabio sete 9: ~ a
sy ory ont of baw isis ei kaws bak soda add te srevisoes oat #) Ln ; : )
Om April 6, 1934, the United States of American filed ite
intervening petition, averring that it was « cerporation severecign
and body politic; that the judgment debtor corporation ta indebted
to it upon bonds given to certain Collectors of Iaternal Rewenue
for the payment of taxes; that by virtue of section 3466 of the
Revised Statutes the United States was mtitied te a deeree that
ite right wae paramount and that these obligations be first paid
out ef the property of the defendant debtor, Yfetitioner prayed
that the deere in favor of plaintiff should be set acide to the
extent that the claims of petitioner should be first satisfied.
Plaintif anevered, sdmitting formal sliegatione but aver
fing that he wae without information with regard te the liabilities
alieged by the government to be due te it, and denying spegifiealiy
that it was entitied to have ite claims satisfied eut of the assets
in the hands of the Receiver,
An anhendment to the petition ef the gevernment filed Way
25, 1934, averred that the government ebjected to the deeree on the
ground that it was iseued after and during the time the Union Inden-
nity Co., defendant, was ineclvent and wien a receiver had been ap-
pointed; that immediately upon defendant's inweolveney the United
States wan antitied to preference ever oil other claims te whatever
funds were potnensed by the insolvent defendant, The asmendnent
prayed that it might be received and filed; that the court eter an
order setting aside the former dacree and that the priority rights
of the United States over other claimants to the funds of the in-
eclyent company should be reeognined.
June Lé, 1934, the court entered » dearee denying the prayer
of the petition and overruling the objections, fhe decree specifi-
eslly 4ireeted the receiver not te deliver any assets to Clay 7.
Beekner and Sanford Levy as Receivers for the Unien Indemnity co.,
er to deliver any of the assets to any persom ether than plaintiff;
ati bell? apisama le avdadd besdal ons MCL ,d Lhagd a i sialnk,
agiexsvea seiéetegiee # ta 2% tad gabtrevea ,asliisog paksovretal
hoddebad al aoidareqies tovdeb soomybut esd sasit sake ntbg ot daw
euneved facsetal ‘te eteveetipd aluétea ot navy baud megs. 22 of
MF to oat aclicoes te ewtaily vd Jac teexnd Yo tmeayaq eat wt
tad? ooreh 2 of beLtline saw aotnz® bodhul ond aotused® hes r
biey eit? od suotteghide seed? sou? bay smieneweq sew iight met
heyeta wenoltites ,tofdeh tnabas'teh edt to yiaoqetg on? te two
eat of shins oo st Divers Yisakale te wove? at) oenped oat ted |
sbodtalten feud? od biwose tenet ing to omiato edb has? | sae te
rove tud saolsaysito inset yalttinda ,botewena aT MAN ao
woltiitdels eo) oF orsyes sto netsamretal svodttn sam, od todd gn |
yiiaotiinega gabyieh hae .2t ef omh ad ot Pronwunven st of boyeiin
atoane od? Ye Cus boltettan ambelo oO aves of betstiae naw oh sett
, , stovisosl ony Xe mbaest oad ak ,
Yall beLl% snommoevag ad te aodsiteq edd of snmmheming BA |
ec mo SeIDSb oi? oy daseotdo sasmueVoR add tat deneva DEOL Be
| mtb sokal auld omky anf gaireh dan a9ée deuwnd gam tt dadd bahiety
«qe s00d bad teviess: « ance tan taevioenh auw. viawdse ted , 009 ytia
beck ods yoonvicant e'tanbasteb aoqu xiedethonns gad? phetakoe
“tevetade of amialo rede Lia Tove somIMloTg of hosdhiay aw godess
- thuaincoe oo acaba toh taevomnd ost? yd Aeeneneeg atow Bhat
ae Sedan Ptweo aad ddd (2042 bon hovieses od trigtm 22 godt boyete
addy te Uiiediq eM? tad? baa senseh womte? off ebine aaltten retro
nth e:9 “te ebaul ot ef afeemtale todte seve aetage eset w p%
caine jive - sbomtagone of Rivede Yaeqnwo tae
| caus oa% gaiyuoh seised « Betedae ftmoa- eds ybGSt Aooe@s this
By _abthooae aot9h ost .eankimebdo sad guliuxzero tas motehiong
a
further, that the receiver forthwith pay pluintirf the )2600 in
aceordanee with the deeree tharetofore atered Decauber 27, 1933.
The decree waloh we are asked toe review in this case contains no
epecial finding of facts, nor in it supported by a certificate of
evidence,
The government ef the United States relies upen section
$466 of the United Otates Kevised Statutes, which ia sa follows:
*“Whenever any person indebted to the United States is in-
solvent, or whenever the eatate of any deetatad debter, in the
hande of the executors or adwinistraterea, ia insufficient to pay
all the 4ebte due from the deceased, the debte due to the United
States shall be firet eatisfied; and the pricrity @etadi ighed
shall extend as well to cases in which » debter, rot having suf-
ficient oroperty to pay e121 his debte, askwo « voluntary aseign~
sent theres’, or in which the estate and effeete of an abnconding,
concealed, oF absent debter are attached by eroeees of law, an to
eaeee in which an sct of barkruptey iv committed, *
This eection 3466 was formerly seetion % of ati wet entitied, "an Aet
to previde more effeetualiy for the settlement ef acgounte between
the United States and receivers of public mcney,* enacted in 1797,
chapter 20, 1 Stat. S145, snd swended by an set in 1799, section 65,
chapter 22, 1 Stat. 676, and the Longusge has hot bean eubstuntially
as 279
G. S&S, G0. Ite validity was strenuously contested but seas to have
varied since the eriginal enaectuents.
been settied in faver of the goverament in J, 3. v, Peters, 5 Cranch
116, In the early case of 9
6 Pet. 29, 1t was poisited out by Kx. Justice Story that the claim
of the United States under this statute 414 not stand upon eny
sovereign preregstive as at commen law but was to be found ox-
Glusively upon the setual provisions of the statute, which by
reason of the public interest was, hovever, to have a Liberal
sonstruetion, Nany of the Cy Tllineis, have based
Similar elsims upon severeign prerogative as a part of the common
law adopted by them. People v. Farmers Stete Bank, 355 T11. 617.
In a long line of devisions the courts have liberally
Gonstrued the word "“debte® ag it appears in the statute, The
it DOOR) oH Vetsatete Yoq Mttwseeet sevisaer ost al vsosdteat
ENOL .1R tedueded bovodh oxetodersdd coreen oly Milby boaabroeoR
gm tntedhes dean wiay ok wilhwer oF hotan ove Ow ith vin’
te eeaotiieses wo yd ee ti af wou ,etoet to bide’ danse d
: | , eomohthe
eltoos meu collet sedate Boaka’ ods Yo Jnoaate vey Ont — poe beg
rewetiet aa of Molde ,oedarede boatvel eerate Bayhal oss ed
oui af Ges0F% Gedtal ox? oF boddonal rey tite ebvanmaree”* ON Fo
edt ai ,fofdad beantaah ‘ima, pe tietee ve si
veg of gti ‘eal it i: °¢
guk agdrah © aereeet : b9
wetrebag ent bas son 3 ste {ptian.
J av —
~ tue gativad ten ,totdeh « code at aeene
PP. onto ‘pues wor & “aged .9d0oh alt fie
4. to efoe tt Pty
agers acta ss techni Fe ot te
| prety fh alle ak qorquiinsd To 00 an Ma how at eneg.
tea ima” hed bd a0 tom ae te 2 agiteee qhigare? sow 900 goltoog ahet
averted hiaveses ty saomelstes adi te7 Ulautantia eon ebivete oF ‘
PORE ai heioane “xenon oliduq te ‘Bteviooet bas sogud hettal ede
ae notions ,80CL ot ton aa yd hehaeme baw 218 ath Ate medqade.,
ele basasedue ned ton aad oyengmed mut a. HN", 12088 £ 88 iver
oved 7 eaoon hotel hea? noo Saseumnets aon xen
doses) Oy ORA0F oY oh oil Oh Pammamoven ont Ye tare at ‘i ond
b
Nt
‘\
. 8 Leh, eee
L * ona9 | a
as ah, .
ba Ca
if ay
pee (ay A
a yew aid hand ton bib otutats. ata prov noias® be
“ ae bee ad of sow gud wat nemmnn fa ae py itayor
Ed Kietuw yetutede est to onnlpreny, Lauson ost om
con,» Aieteehd a eved of , revered .Rew fontegak of
y alerts even ttoak ser patbule
“oman odd Te freq © me s erdtmerrs si pi ake. 2
wh odnt onpemet ¥ efaoe% . ommlt, od bod
elhasoahe oved astw0s ous eaozatens, 1% eons gnet a i
J } 5 i il .
ae " patt erusede wad wh vussees ‘gh an "etded" beow ont hs
4
County ef Spekane case eld that the statute was applivable to taxes
due to the United States from an inacivent debter, and People vy.
Kaeley, 245 JU. &. 290, held that ouch a debt bad priority ever a
Claim of a state for franchise taxes due but mot liquidated, ‘he
United States courts have aleo held, aa we read their decisions,
that in order that the statute way be appileouble te particular
property, some one of these situations must be aade te appear;
that (1) the omer of the property ie insuivent, (2) the eutate in
the hands ef executors or aduiniotratora ie insurfielent te pay all
the debts due, (3) the debter not having sufficient property te pay
hie debte, has made a voluntary ageigment, (4) the estate and ef-
feote of an abegonding, coneeuled or absent debter have been attached
by procese of law, or (4%) the omer has committed an act of bank-
ruptey. The statute does not create a lien upon the property of
such debtere in faver ef the government but only provides fer a
preference in course of administration in sueh cases. easton v,
Farmers Bank of Delaware, 12 Pet. 102, 9 Lb. Bd, 1017, In that
ease the Gupreme court said:
"From the language employed in toie section, and the con-
struction given te it from time tc time, by this Uourt, theese
Yulee are clearly established; Firat, that mo lien was ereated by
the statute; gesondly, the pricrity eatablished can never attach
Walle the debter continues the owner and in the possession of the
property, altiieugh he may be unable to pay a1) hie debts; thirdiy,
no evidence can be reecived of the ingsolveney of the debtor, unt
he has been divested of hia property in ene of the modes etated in
the section; and, hy, whenever he ia thue divested of his
property, the person wio begumea invested with the titie, is there-
by made a trustee for the United “tates, and is bound to pay their
debt first out of the proceeds of the dobter's property.”
| in the sueh later case of U. &, vy, Gklahoun, 261 U. &, 253,
the court, reviewing prior sutscrities, again Lays down the rule
that the statute in question deeu not orente a lien and helds that
although the state banking board ef Gklaioma acting under the
statute of that state had taken over the assets of a back Yor admine
istration, the bank being unable to pay ite depositersa, this did net
amount te insolveney within the meaning ef seetion 3456, The court
“womed as eideo tions aaw etutade odd tadd bho gees gs f
ot, RARE bas ,tedieb guavionnl ae mgt? angnde beaten nat ‘of amb
@ Tove yiitolzg bed sdeh © sown test bios ,C@R .@ ol S68 suntan
out bedabluphi ton dvd exh waxed sadsinsuwrt x02 adage m 29 mtate |
.aucieleeh xlwxd heer ow ea ,bfed opis ovat attuoo eeuse hegtad:
Neiseliieg oF oLinoliqgn ed yam etutage edt daly wobrp ak tadd
iFeonge ot ebam ed tem enotienud te facts te ono eme Dh lis
ak otedae oud (S) ,fooviewat at ytungore oad to TeMe ontd, (4) tat
hte we of dookottivnah ak exosexsatatabe o erodwoexe Te ahnaet om
. vw ot Yiibgoxg: tate t'ttwe aad veut tom tossen ang (3) ou areas 6 oy
‘< ot ‘bhe eaetao ons {e) taomephonn wuntractor we ‘thew eon yaedeb,
re Paka ae
bosiont9 0 need ove Totdebh Showde te bo Lse0i08 spalbmoneds: Ney P#- .
ih iy
eiued to fou an beet RnNo: wail ToMwe ene (1) eo ak Yo wansoRE YE
Ye yereqote Oat woqe Mell » efeeto ton eoob Otutate wMR vgotgee
“MOT webivot, YLao dud tanmrrevey om? To ToveT Ke weeMehiaCee
a¥ Betece .wonem down at ootiersetububa Yo on thed at Sonmye bere
fal al NLOL bu Ee ROL 90d EE rem ho Aaa pours
Sevan thlse tewoo spanesnleantincescil
~~.
“sob e1t dae ,aeldoee elar at heyotyen
_, #0088 .tiwod alee yd ests of omld mort 8:
” ¢e betaotd saw nett on feus , Ne } pede bidutee
Heesi«e seven wee bela Lidates RRS Oa wae .
“eae te aobssoaver ead ak bre Tenwe $ne0.
jetdeh aid [fe you of oldann ll poe yan of tyne
, teddeb ese to goneviaanl otf to boviewer © ae
nk betesa apbom ect te ano al ystogoty aia to bedeevil st |
ein Yo bedwevil eo? ef oo awromedy $e.
-oreds @L ,eitls silt ative beleeval samosed © Row
tiodd wt 08 buvod wt boe ,aedasd bation ome tot
* thw gotq uw vod deb oes to sbosoorg ont hath
ti0
' im ai
28 2 .U Loe ead sAO, aX ik al br saan noted sou: ost
Bod a a heh
. Sarg
art aid mime ayet ahs yaes brad un roita andwe vex AD gen ‘
taiitd ab Zod bin mols « eFapt0. fon. aoab woh yeep ff otatate co ws ae
SN * Rik $y
ost? trot mas anttos at LAG to braod gnbtnad otese edt gue
s i aacoriapa
at toh Aaad @ io ateena yy il eye nein? baat $7.)
‘ fe ay
said thet under the Bankruptey Act of July 1, 1995, = persen rae
deemed insolvant whenever the aguregate of his property, exelusive
of property conveyed, concealed, ete,, with intent te defraud, hinder
er delay his oreditors, should mot, at a fair veluation, be aurfi-
cient in amount to pay nde debts, but that the Okishoma law did mot
so Limit the meaning of the term “iasolveney," and that the bank was
net therefore inaclvent within the meaning of this section and the
property in the hunds of the bank commissioner was not eubjeet te
the provisions ef this seetion.
Plaintiff here contends that by means of hie erediter's
bili he acquired a first an¢ prior Lien upon the aesets of the
Judtjnent debtor, met for the benefit of the orediters generally
put fer hia own benefit, and that the proceedings kere are not of
sueh nature ae would divest thie lien «and make the preferenee pro«
vided by section 5466 applicable. ‘The amended end supplemental
bill here, aw alrendy stated, wae based en eection 49 of chapter
22 (Cohill's [21, Rev. State. 1935, chap, 82, eee, 49), and the
gourts of Tliimois have held that in sueh proceeding by way of
a erediter's bill, the reeeiver appointed is not necessarily a
truntee for the benefit of all the creditors but only for the
benerit of there creditors in whese behalf he is appointed, Young
v. Clapp, 147 Til. 176. The came cane helds that in such proceeding
a transfer made by the fudgment debter to the reeeiver under the
order ef the court is an assianment not for the benefit of creditors
but rather for the payment of the fudwmenta on which the action is
based; that by such tranafer the reeatver doen not beeome the agent
of the debtor for the distribution of the property in the same sense
in which the assignes becomes the agent of the aesigner, where there
i2 a general ensignment for the benefit of creditors: that, on the
contrary, ®ich an assignment by the Judgment debter partakes of the
nature of a mortgage for the payment of the Judgment. Tliveta
eas@e algo hold that the filing ef sueh bill and the ebtsining of
fy
aw sonteq « .O0L ,£ yuh te for Wilersinnl 249 TS) se dade phew
ovianions , gene que ads be sdayotgge Ant tevedeude tony Some denmed
webhald ,hoexteb of saedmh tiv sete ybe Lanomms vdayernge (gtmoqote ‘ke
oh'tive od ,widawdey chet » sa ton bdwosde ,erotiberw ald eeieh *e
fon hid wed mmostedXO of? todd tud added ode Yager Pauunn nd Orekd
eaw dned off devils ban ", wroevlonsi" otet ett ty gots one shusl oe
odd Sen pyitees side to gyalonem ans ohdpliw tuer fount ecolerert tom
- OF dew tein Sone nage mocinhocihanen, tent edie woembenhdh, Whe
: wodtogn ahs 19 eaoletvons itt
e'tetiberw oid Yo sansa yd sent ahaeenoo ered thenlelt ae
eit Im adenea of cog Bait soiva hae sexi = doctupon out Lend
hens ( BLiezenay atedtbare ene Yo IL toned ould tek Pom yxOddeh Fa
te jon xe e128 sgmiheveotg off Fatt bne ,aPteaed me wat wor ou
ache opanaste rg ont eiiam ban wohl wtsie soevkd binew o« exutom Howe
Lndasna faq bam Sphnoma ea eldavdiogs ODOT melsone yt donde
aeiquds to % aoliees ao booed naw yhedetn yhewnse ah ones LER
odd bas ,(OP .oep SR gare 4ebOR arose swe LEE #164200) 88
to yet ud ualbewoorg dowe al tedd biod evedt alenhsed 20 oben
a ethransepen ton of betabougn tevienet oat ,fdEd wT tet thers 2
WW jy SGM Ke
mnie whe use dud axed Abe tn nat kha to eee
ae Wiyod EJ
oak en thant evorte at eretthots woody
i dt masseeese
“anlbeosors save eb fad? eho sano one out wort teh t at gyeke 4
sxedibow to. ¢Mioaed ont x0't gost Peony tne ne at rue ne ° “—
5 ia ™ 4 Sede “ek ph
wt solioe ane fiolde ne asaoomabar ond te snag boead not vedtax, res
toys ett easood gen e905 tovlenet ond xo tanwes ove w ta
RAE SS TT ae
; ones sen ‘os al ‘hiegetg oat te moktind beteth owe ype eh ertt
in a:
exe ds ewan tony tans odd te ttrge ony snmoed eompinee em ra
a deat oe. o a iv
out no stasis yates tbewe ‘te # tamed one +08 Sanan: tena teveuuy
) bade. tade meee ?
‘od % none tes rotden Pave ‘entt we toss tea serge x
# diy ; au wis seg wé
- r “phokiet fitecghot 6 hd te raomeoe og xt sanatven a 1c "
. itive yawn taal J
“te yntulasse ext bow aie dows ‘te panehy oat —'
service constitutes lis pendens and amounts te an equitable levy,
Russell v. Chicago Trust & Savings Bank, 139 Lil, 638; Upton
National Bank v, Lane, 177 111, 171; Lingle v, Glear Greek Dretume
District, 291 [1]. 811. The rule in the Guprene court of the Gnited
Btates appears to be the save. Metoaif vy. Barker, 187 U5. 168.
Plaintif? therefore contends that there are ne facte in
this ease bringing it within the previsiens ef this section of the
statute; that there is no proof that the judgment debter is ineol-
vent within the meaning of the etatute, or that the debtor is withe
out sufficient preperty te say ite debta, or that it has made a
voluntary atsignment, or that it has absconded or concealed iteeif,
or that ite estete or effects Asve been attached by precear of Liaw,
or that it has committed any act of bankruptey, Without undertaking
to review the oaves at length, ¥e think this contention mist be suse
tained under set only the early but sleo the later desisions ef the
Suprese Court of the United ‘States, Eramwell v. U. 3, Fidelity Go.,
269 U. S. 483; Price vy. V. 5,, 269 J, S. 492; Stripe v. J. 8, 269
U. &. 30%; U. 8. y. Butterworth Corp., 269 U. 8. 804.
Ye de not doubt the contention of the district atterney for
the government that the laws of the state cannet supersede those of
the United States. It ia established by practicaily e141 ef the au-
therities, one of which is U, S, vy. Gkishoma, 261 U. &, 253, on
which he relies, but that is net the controliing question here, The
law of the lmited States is, of course, supreme wherever applicable,
but we hold that properly interpreted under the rules of the United
States Court, it is not applicable te a situation such as disclosed
by this record,
Phe attorney for the govermment also contends that since
elaintiff's judgments were obtained in the United States Geurt for
the Rorthern Distriet of Illinois, plaintiffs could not maintain a
creditor's bill based upom these judgments in the Superior court of
Cook county. In other words, he contends that in the courts of
re J f bi
2
“ret @idediapa ans ot etauoun has nape nosudt tni09 ootvres
Baisd 1884 «fii es4 Sek tpn, AMEE ee LEO £ Some wf
Amabest aogrd seek gy afuahs (ITE oL4T YUE goed x Anak,
betiaw ont Yo 11Ha9 emetae? and mt oLur ent a Mat te vi wc
ak a. F red saute ot Leto <onae sat od os exencas wozate
ad adaet ot tn went tastt ahgedane ovo tereds Wthentals a
allie ‘a sesded ens tant to pier sabes aus Ri antnscm ¢ out “aide be pod
Oe weed
% obaw wed 3h tadd te phages eel eq os Meteo gotg | $m 2040 ™
Viens bo Lngoues %@ bebacceds aed at said “0 fommm tase) {
a | ta aseootg yd bextontds aves oved Stoo tte xo he gaa ant taut
suoish® yor wend % a bh .
gabe dxeb aw wo wore C) 98 cg ae
“am ed oe sat gots nesaes oted Anhalt ow dt gate £ a6 agene ont chai
$k Tae aes
weld 1 enciasecd eset asd onde sud ine ous yfag fea webmu
i ig
OD RAkionlt .f Vay Lowers .antate bo t had one » suo 8,
a
COE 8.0. gatnse :80D Wf WV ee pal all a oakn enh cot Oe
| 608 8 .U gee a Y 7t08 ae
wet qernedsa fotatath edt Yo wok? a0? a0 ont suo ton Loe ee oo af
re enone ehectegue Sonne atage od to weal oat taety snenpien ah |
rd oat te Lis vitsotsouta, e bodabtdades at an vengage bothad odd
Ps tig ot
| ae 008 LB .U £08 emomass0 4x Bol ak doksw Xe no .note Sree
i
eat smrenti aeltaeup yukiiotzacs edt ton ak tout unt wok con oa Hoksw
9 idee b Lee reve ted ono que SeTHOR to nae ongesi bot hall ome te me ‘i
of
bos ke ens “to notre ost cones beteraxesat roqote teat bloat a
hoealvelh on sown wok taut ba a oF oldaghiogs tom a a nnd ; aA we eve
D
Ay ,,
ates
‘ “esate aus abaszaeo oo ta tasaaxeven | ons x0 ple we iy
; we pan sosase hasnt ext ak boaladde oxnw adaommbut dpe Sa
@ atetatan son bkvos vibeake Le ehomb ist Yo sorerete ons s
2» fxwoe wolxeque outs at staommbst onnat oq posed cake i
aie te s2xH08 ons a fade apap tans oa yabom tous ax ven © Ds)
Mes AAT, 8 {
eh nh y =
Tllineis, federal judgente ore foreign judgments, fe cites in
nd, 38 hl, 864; Corn v, Greenberg,
m, 174 Lil, 344, and other canes
this conneetion Steere
281 Till. Apo. 660; Ladd
which would seem to sustsin the contention.
Ry the Act eof Suly 1, 15399, the legivlature of Iilineie pre-
vided for fegulation of liens of judgments and deeress of courte ef
the United States ond declared that such Judgments within this State
end ali writs, returns, certifvieates of the levy ef a writ and ree-
ards of the courts should be registered, reeerded, dovketed, indexed
or otherwise dealt with in the publie offices of this state, ao as
to make them eonform to the rules and requirements relating te judge
ments and deerees of courte of thie etate. Gabiii's 111, Rev, State,
1933, chap. 77, see. G1. In 1929 the legislature of this state ene
acted a statute whieh provided that judgments and decrees of courte
ef the United States helé withix this etute sheuld be a Liem wpen
the real estate of the person ageinet whom they were obtained,
@ituated within the eounty in shich tae court was held from the time
rendered ar revived, and that upon filing im the efYice of the clerk
of any court of reeerd in any county in this state, of a transcript
of a futgment er aeeres of » court of the United States rendered in
any other county of thie state, sugh judgment or decree anould be a
ifen uvon the real estate of the persen against whem the same ig abe
tained, in the county where filed, “in like manner ae judguents and
@eeress of courts of record of this State.” Gahiji's 111. Rey.
Stata. 1935, chap. 77, wee. 82, page 1720.
The Congress of the United States has ulse onacted a statute
which provides that judgments and decrece rendered in aw distriet
court of the United States within any state, should be liens on
property throughout such state in the same manner and te the same
extent and under the came conditions enly se if such Judgnents and
decrees had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction of such
ay
Pres ens CRED '
ah waete OR .eAeghAy MORON ORE Atememneh sAe ORD: ntons naz
[SIO MY ye GPE Lis OE, . ‘ao ttes amor ¢ bas
< eenne wsdte hay phen .ELE OTL), (OO Goh LE TOE
iolisednes 449 aietave of nese bisow dodde
wirtqg -abeahitl “te ec uselatged ont ,080L ,f gfe Xe dad: oad ¢f | vi
‘te elruso ‘te soetesh Sas ateomghet to ened te aettetages te? bounty
“sett ain? ahicie staoupeut Move 2909 betnkeod bax eered8 hotke saat
I eli lial to “ved os? 36 aedaodlisies ,anraiot yatige Pore .
: Avxohad ,Setosoed ;debrepeT: sbetocelget od biweda wéxuos oA? ‘te abae
e 4 ‘dake potade mbad “te Boaktto olidm eds at a¢hw dinates " "|
pen of paléaiey otaametiuess ins aelut oft of axgidas and? tas
gatas wad 44h @LLised sebedo aide te efawed! ‘We soorwed ‘daw ati 02
ote paete eid te owwialedyod ef? URUL ab. fb sooo» AP cueagegtt
eitwoo Io geetLeh ban Bao mpbal, tas heblveta subse otutate obs
fogs Wik o od Diuods ogada aids abetiw “bfed estage ‘pethad ot
4
Pa be ttedda eter Yous mode go theys Moeteg ads 10 etagas Li .
‘
a
:
%
Pr
9
emi? od? sox? Bind aw 21ues ou) soldw ok qfawee ost abs dw ho a :
eitaentste sortie end a! gnbhst mage sods dun ybovkvor «o hexobaee
“Gebtecaesd 2 Ae yesete eldt ab yraueo yaw Gh Breese teodawe te.
2. Somenewe aoteth bedial edt de dtued a Re catesh a6. sosmsaut, ato
(8 Od Demonle SeTgOs To sunagtel Sous .etoss aber Te yimuogensdterene
“i Si sane sd apd demiaga aesang oo 26 atates Leon edt noce aot
fie steeutat, ae teaeam abl, we’ .b041) scede Ysabes ed pak boned
oy aed A a kekaied * pede dS ebsitoTe Daveew te attace Io sroteeh
| | sCRVE ogag: 86 ~oom {Tt sesso ROL setads
ehutede 2 bedewno cote aod entes0 dostal edt to onotgmeduedteleo yo
/ telséeib # ab dershart sovnveh dae ataomghut dudd aoblivenq coke
io mets ad divode ,ataia yaw ahdtiv aodo24 Bodiad att to tases
an 88 of sha “aang ote vst ath Aad slows tundeh eT EONE
£ bea, ainemyin, dove Uae ydae enka thaoy sane edt aban dae oe
oe te. Selielbnitut inteang te susoo a xs hotabaet aed. :
etate. See Title 28 Judicial code, see, 912,
Some of the lilineisa eases elited were decided berord the
enaatwont of these statutes, in nene ef the cases decided thereafter
were these etatutes enlled to the attention of the court. Since the
enactment of theee and similar statutes it has been Geld in other
states that judguents of federal courte are not te be considered with
in the etate where rendered as foreign jucdgeents, and that ereditors'
bille may be based er: Chis
65 Ken. 17; ie 124 Kam, 296; Firet Netional Bank vy,
Blewan, 42 web. 350; Ballin v. Importing Go,, 76 ¥is. 404. We anprove
the reasoning of these cases ix the absence ef ang outherity frem our
own state. Koreover, we are of the opinion that the intervening pe-
titioner having asked the benefit of tnis preceeding in the atate
eourt an@ the subject matter of the euit being one of which the
Superior court of CUnok county Had jurisdiction, petitioner sannot
mow be heard te urce thie contention. Dilworth v. Gurte, 139 11.
SO8; Srter v. Gable, 159 111. %; Enapwp y. MeCaffrey, 179 111. 167;
Darst v. Kirk, #50 111. 5@1; ¥ilsen Bros. y. Heege, 347 Ili. 140;
Bartunekr y, Lastovken, 350 111. 380.
Por the reasone indjieatet the fudgment of the Superior eourt
ef Cook county is affirmed.
AFFIRMED,
O'Connor, P. J., and HeSurely, J., eoneur.
F
eal 7
ee RR i ol
hse sae yahoo ‘tnhe that ‘pe ban vet bee
whan
“ote pro'ted bebiowh ox0w herio ovans ‘a¥onk ist bat Ye “onl wit
: xod"aoresit babiesh seano ost to pau ‘a shodutate anent 26 a" a
: ois eomhi .tunon ont Yo aohiaette add ‘ot “he Lino eotudete snout oro
2 mddo oe blow aved na od nodiiaza getincte bite cei hengreonndl
lghe bowshsanon od of ton exe efkaee kanebs’ 16 sdmmhak’ alt’ dtd
twiagivore 4 sass ane sedamagbat apioxe? an berebast yao der shoves ‘wh
tm _ slosioat i Waeaal od wen eth
aw: queens 104 smal 8
we won xatnect ue eae ‘Re voneuda oud a nosan sa0 woedd Vo gatno “ihe
gf
ie pane vi0dad ode toad noratqe ‘ont? Se ote go ae \x8v08" uae ougui % |
wl biota out nt | aatbooora aes Ye 9 £20a0d oa silt berciys
ters ronsteisen vol 9 ibe but, ice emw0s eggs 7" oii
. hil ats sR _4¥ seniie “todd ant aes Pir vow od ih "ed
ie 08 pres: ere xaxTladet east + att, ‘we | i ha clea
: 0 tt ve ‘anal_ae ater sonia? pags ctr ot
agen Or
| eue sok ous ve saseuhet oud bosmotoat samen
; gti ise ea a Oey. ate ae ro £ Dae ey ea d mo
Rae te ie 7 aL a oe ey Oe oT a Se Ah. oe ae sine
“tuaaos ot susnidian bas by: iy aan |
ii F is itt yy oh i iia
ee et eT t aanbreny, “ee
eseatn + ng, acid ‘a eneo
' } 4 fit} by DR :
“,
37739
858 BE, DIBRLE,
ve.
OSCAR HNLGON COMPANY,
Appellant,
) | La
ae y \ 9
ws 6 y i ae 6 2 8
WR, JUSTICR BATCHETT USLIVERED THE GOFINION OF THR GowRT.
In am action on contract for commissions clalaed on ae+
eounte of sales of Liquor and apen trial by the eourt, there wae
a finding for plaintiff with Judgment fer 9748.50, whieh defendant
aska ua to reverse on the ground that the finding and jJudynent
are against the manifest weight of the evidences,
Sefendant was formerly know os the Foreign Tredera Ce.
It appears that im Hovember, 1935, anticipating the early legald-
mation of the traffie im Liquer, defendant company was organized
fer the purpose of negotiating in the bueinese of supelying Lique
of different kinds to the trade in Ghicago. The president ef the
defendant cewpany was Louis Golan and so kr, Muleahy acted as his
assistant. Arthur 1. Jehneen was cashier. Joseph Kirsh occupied
the position of general menager in charge ef the wholesale depart
ment, snd Geerge ¥, Hipple was sales manager in charge of the re-
tail departuemt. Plaintiff, with numerous other persons (it
seems about 50 in number) were employed te begin selling liquor
ef defendant on eouniesion upon the legalisation of such sales.
Plaintiff was eapleyed through Zr. Hipole, esd the terms of the
agreenent, which were slwuest entirely oral, ate in dispute. it
in admitted, however, that plaintiff was furnished with bank
papers, copies of which are in evidenes as plaintiff's exnibits,
(me of these is designated, “Salesuan's Snily Report," and
thereon apocured appropriate bliamke designed te be filled im by
the salesman showing hie name, the territery in whieh he worked,
the date of contact with the proapeet, the prospect's name and
ay ia ey) ee. Se
i
<fmieg wate WH uoTAIse scr CoenvE IM vaca eatieyt ad pera
wit wa Tee 9
oe ap bomiods saphnghenge | aot panne we embed me + whos oth Ged
— iawn watt ys Leaked sage dae towph Ie aptee Xe RemupB,
te sasban deb Sadse O0.G00E WOT soragdet ABiw Wsate te cod yada)»
dtempru Sav gurhadt ode tad? hawery odd Ro enseveT oF oH Rama)
ia -ogaebive a3 le tiydew Jaotlaan od. saatage om.
“90. eenen agierol of? ea aweat elxomted gow Samba tet stati
cbinget yiuen oot paltontolins GCL .xeduevol ab sant exawaqgedh >
Ronitagte saw yooqees Inghaeled .toupht at abYtart edt to nosten "
| geet patytguwe Yo eecaieud edt at pattatsegen te. orentme Oat 90%:
| silt Xe teobaveng os .ogeoisd ad wher oct of abatt shone TAR Be.
RL ee hedon Vleet a dee wotod atuod gar yangsos pambap teh.
| pakquoce deeke stemns’ olieap eam avsaiel oi codes fm |
: abtage> eLeantotw ede Yo egsete al tegenec igaeney Teo of d
| so: sett Ge egeds Gf aegenem note exe sfaghl .Y agvend han, ,tmem
gt} amervsg Tedte sworsmen daiw ,Titatess . .daameanh ta
wouphi galiton abged of heyoique orew (soda mk OS suede auepe
.aeiee dove to molveabioget ont noqu aolnelumoe me nemumuadinall
odd Yo eared edt hae ,ofogkS. .26 aguotay here Lasa cow Tiiwatecs °
$l voswye th at ste late ylerkian tnants ovew dolce aie
dnetd Addy beset? saw Velealote tact ,tevowod bedtiaha oh
.egidicke et Yttestelg ov soushies af ets mtttw to askqoe | 8) oe
' jae * dxoqom ykiad «! ansme Lak" sbetanataed at : wid re . i
mk SOLE ot OF Hoyland adnald etatrqorage berssoee 8:
sheen od Mohd ak yrodtxasd exit omen ate gntworia anes sf
i bets ease et tosgnoty ad ,toequote oad Atte vent |
address, his classification and the amount of the order taken,
Another of these papers is dated November 21, 1935, and is dea-
ignated, "Confidential Ketsil Commixsion Sehedule for Smleaman, *
and thereon appears in printed type the commiesion "based on
present prices, subject to change,* of various brands of whiskers,
champagnes, wines, ¢tc, A “Gupplewentery Confidential Hetall Com
migsion Schedule," dated Decenher 21, 1945, also bawed on present
prices, subject to change, appears in evidence am plaintiff's ex-
hibit *2,*
The date of plaintiff's aapleyment is not definite, tat the
evidence indicates that it began about Kovembor 7, 1933, and ended
the latter part of Decexber of the wane year, the iteue in dispute
between the parties have vecn narrowed down to three: (1) the Sham.
berger account, on which defendant concedes that a balanee of 376
ie due, and on which the court allewed $165, the whole azeunt
@laimed by plaintiff in that respect. Defendant admits that
plnintifrf, tn fact, rendered the service ef precuring Ghasberger
ae a customer and the amount of gecda #014 on that aceount ie net
in diecute, but defendant contends that the account sheul4 be des-
ignatedas "a wholesal# seeeunt," on which » comedssion of only
25 cents a cane, instead of 50 cents (ae plaintiff sontends) is
payable. The precise difference between ao wholesale ageount snd
@ retail aceount cannet be ascertained from the evidences, At any
rate, plaintiff testifies that amy such reduction in the amount of
ecouminsions he wae to receive upon eales of thie kind was never
@alled te his attention erior te the time he ebtained the customer.
The barden of proof eae apom defendant, as the undiaguted evidexee
shows that 50 cents per cass was the couwiseion originally agreed
upon, and the undisputed evidence also ehows that pleintiff was
eaployes ty the monager of the retail departwent and worked under
hie direction. Such being the feet and the finding of the court
fede? webto wie to Tawoms oat bee notsaptth
teh ah bra , CECE » te thdinevell batah of sxeqeg weeds te restenh
neat Lene “et a hubastoo motes ioe Liagot Son 2b kL ates* boteayh
ho bowed” modus kamen wet ays betaine at eishage nootede has
eayadetow to eid wveinxey Yo * 9 @ainet at in ce seeotia tameorn
ae | Ma ey
oat {dete fa) reabi tae vintanan tae” A sete nln .
SOMETE He hoot ein phat , dR cetuneet betel ae, Lg
saeons adecie ond ,8622 oeereldea Stee eslt pai.
seul we Labe Ptobovteys .teeceex deste mt Vabtadade
oor aakruaos to eo beKee. salt novabaot soak ah ?
se ot ste Pst on amma
‘ ~eghae Yo tine eat. tree anne
omni | (ananbisrn: at sti toubadvenen ‘od domme :
oe Peeeue wed ab noddovben sleuth yore tasth wn lehewady:
teves awe baka wbx on fee se hn te
| goxaties tedeeetbew ent we .tanhne ted + so tow tons 2 mt ae
gaotge patent molaa hans oat ony ann T0q agave 06 eae arene
on this point being entitled to the same waignht in this court as the
verdict of a jury, *e would not be justified in entering a finding
contrary to that of the trial court ae to this item.
The eecond ites in fispute between the parties conecerne the
amount of commientons, if any, due plaintiff on account of sales made
to one Sem Hirsh, whe wae doing basinews as the Jnited Brew Bietri-
butors, ‘iere also the cougt allowed the full amount claimed by
plaintiff, The defense urged as to thie item is that Tireh war a
guetomer of defendant before plaintiff was eroleyed, and evidence
was offered tending te show that defendant had, mo fect, contracted
fer the sale of the goods in question te the customer prier te the
time plaintiff wae empleyed and eailed woen him,
Sam Hirsh ran a tavern known as the Lincola Grill. Pisin-
tiff says he calied on Sam about November 7, 19535, and asked him te
come te defendant's office, such being his inetruetionsa ae a salea-
wan from the head ef the department; that Hireh eald he would do ao
the next day; that he 414 not come that day but did come the day
after he said he would be there; that in his presence Kirsh talked
with Zuleahy, the president's ageistent. Pleintilf says, “I 4414 not
see him at first and he told Mr, Rulesahy I was the wan that went
over to see him the other tine,*
Plaintiff produced an identified and uneigned order, rhich
he says he wrote in triplicate at this time, Gefendant centends
that it should not have been admitted in evidence, It is duted
Bovenmber 10, 1953, and is as follevs:
"Gem Wirek
4643 Lineoln Ave
te be specified
Liquer and Spirits as
epecified
order turned in te Muleshy
Jesea Dibbie 130. 60°
Plaintiff says that « copy of this order wae left by hin with kulLeahy
that a day or two afterward he learned that Joseph Hirga, wmanagar ef
' & |
ue
ect? an dxuve slit ak diphew vane ot ot Kode tons gahed sete
weet
anthats & polendem ma seit ieant od tea biaow av eeet, * Ye. joltaey
waneh ais of un Pxwor Lades esit Yo deste of | at
eat gtubonen eaiding sat aeaeded eruyn td at aes basoes oat m 2
phan eaten ‘To JS AkoreR Me Veivaiede au «eu “t a0 tea tage w » tausoas
abusats ene besa eid 29 omeuinodt gaknb ane ose eaenireetaer taal
ud emdn fo savoaa Siw’ ois herelis raueo ests eels ee .
a aew MeekA Jest al moet ndas at ae bonte paaatsn ext ae 7:
senehtee daw aed aan Ntselete eroted sanhae'es te
bason tae ,tost a vhs suahaered fant wade ea amenee
mals bad telrg Kemotewe wg os noldsenp awh aboog ed Yo - poy + set
ens rode avew beitan ban boyetene om mrt 7
i wakodt wiser) adwoadsi ond os uresx mrovat mye ant Re
0 wht beans brs Obes st rodae ved Gothen
#3 REGs ee
‘stefas 6 a6 annitovisent ald yated eua swottte of
C0? BP ae
err and pratense 56 tus wad heel omen ie See ive
: bodied sre macnece obi at daa tea of Dior od Siue
20m kbs i yee Yritaiel tanto tone at tnebiserg ont ’’
“tase alt nase os oow Ee at ot bed od bs 2022) oe ahd aoe
an 6a ae a”. ae hb tered ;
* sembe rns 0 edt mbal een OF save
wie mh eee -—
sin bt Boh se Do any bas haw Sertisambs as bao ubors se et
Sees ot ae ce ea ay , ll
| hae das dap bites oat obs 85 otweksgine a : stow ed
a i cory, ae at a RR 4
bets of a sounab ive ak bode teba ages sted tox biwede, cs 2
BS fae eae ptt 2s AR ¥
rewattor a at ha Reg kone
Fae nip app Pt a ad ie
4
the wholesale department, came up te Muleshy and said he knew tie
gustemer and signed him up without asking about this copy of the
erder Left with Buleahy.
Joseph Mirek testified that he contacted Sam Wireh ae
early ae Septeaber; that while he was with the Burnham Distilling
¢o., Sen Hirsh called him up and ewid that “if 1 wanted to continue
handling the ligquer he would place the erder with me." The witness
further testified: "He did not give mo an order in Oetober, The
next tine 1 sow him wae in Kovemher at the Csear Kelaon Gompany.
At that time he quve me an order for $24,000. This was the firet
order the Qsear Selaon Company had from him, He gave the order ae
the United Brew Distributors,” Se further saye that he turned dom
Plaintiff's order beenuse the firm's rule wae that it did net eecept
orders for leas than 850 eaves and « deposit ef $500. He positively
tentified te the effeet that he already had on order from Sau direh
when plaintiff came in and that the original erder was tauen the
first or second of Roverber, but defendant failed te produce any
euch order, and an exemination of the original record leaves the
testinony of Joseph Hirsh under grave ausoicion,
jiuleahy, to whom the uncontradicted evidence shows plain-
tAff directed thie customer, eae net produced as « witness, and
pleintiff's serration of hie dealings in this respect with #uleahy
is therefore undisputed on the record, Here, again, ve mast remember
the weight jue the finding of the trial court who maw and heard the
witnesses, and we sannet say that bie finding ie clearly and mani-
fautly rrong.
Mere closely contested le the third item, namely, the claim
for semmiasions on sales wade to Hiliman's (top sn4d Shop) amounting
to $313.5¢, whieh the eourt aliewed. ‘ue testimony of plaintiff is
to the effeet that abeut Sevember léth he ealied on a My. Remis, the
purchaser for Ailiman's, and 4iecussed the liquor situstioa with
guid wood ect blew hoe Ydebdew ot ew send (tromiuaded ofdve tote ont”
oie Ye eqan eke ewode sdhpuaulbncsniagiasbepelytingivegdesivesintl
les Lult Aste Met donde”
as cert ant Detendnes ea todd to Ptiduod Menkt dgoadt
Bel On ke ancl oot atv mew od etidw dane prodaetqe® od ¢itae”
oaniiaes ot Abduaw l 1" gaay btda now QW inkit hot lew siadn mee oo”
vneny iv sit? “en Wht totes ade souty biwew od touptt ot yekchaiad
ed? xedsteO HE cebxe me om wets fom Bhi we” rieRtidend eedell”
Lemmqesd aoe Ted aod vat te aedaovoK AP tio ad wou T omid Heee”
Pextt ond sow ntat -.000, 200 Tov emia ad Was ives OH Weld Ca a”
ae take oa evdg of abt mont best yringinnd douret saved Wie Wide”
“grad bowed asi tose ogee teiiinet of "exodudittand Wert we
“¢qocee vou peh FE tad? eww wtur ehaell off oawdbed wette # te
“Eevisinog wt 068) To theoged # ban weene OAR iindd wwE ‘tot |
| Ain tae sitet tient tat ais dt ae ae
|
ad? sets? saw votre Lonigite edt ted? hon at ome Wtditaty ied
| Us Boubertg OF boLic't Suebac'toh ful pwdewvel Io hanowe xe Heed aa
bay epveds PYeeoW Inadyice odd to HekFamtinen® ik Bats wear '
i. ew od -Rokvkoeow Wty Mibiy deed dysayt te!
enka ewes SMaobive herethaeredemy waly Welw ot web tt” * a. on
han ,nanctiw « on beveherg don caw ,temedune abids shiuita
ei rR ton ew hd a pit ok wie XS trea ah
ad ptt hae wae ont Gwe Meter wee Ke Gatbalt ody oab o hi
¥ «Rane ban ¢iteode at gabhatt att tadt Gab fennee o¥ bin laonmend ie
peg tans ow petays pore eebmed bel We beduee Ebay ote od sate seh
him; that Remie eaid if plaintiff would make ao liet cf the itens
and get him the prices, he would appreciate it; that he took that
back to the offiee end Hipple sent him te Muleahy, and that they
gaid they would give him the prive in « day or eo; that om the fol-
lowing morning, Ur. Golan, the president, calied plaintiffs and five
other men inte hie office oni told them he was going to appoint
them the @ix “koyemen” in the leop. flaintiff says Br. Golan wid
him at that time thet the salesmen should met be walking over each
ether; that Hemis had told hiu that two saleomen had been there that
morning. This other salesman was a ir, Cleary, whe, plaintiff saya,
was present at the time, and further that Uleary enid that as Long
as plaintiff had brought baek the request fer prices he would step
out. Plaintiff further says that GSelan then said they had *an in*
at Hiliman's threugh Sebath, Siliman'e attorney, but that ke, Golan
would help plaintiff get the order, and thst when slaintiff was ready
for the prices he would go along with nim te Aillmon'a eo that “we
would get am order from them,* Plaintiff says that Gelan said at
that tims there would be no coumissions or enles credited to anybody
other than the salesmen, that there would be no house eeeounts aid
that included a11 the officers and persone working there, and also
Euleahy. Plaintiff saye he never went to “iliman's with or. Gelen
beeause br, Golan never told nin ie a with nin, and that ne firet
knew the order was received when he sav it on Osear Selaon's geek
a fow days aftewnrd, Plaintiff never received the price Liat ner
any order from kr. Reale or Srom anyone elise in the Hilimen's er-
gavisation. Pluintiff saya, however, that or. ‘enle gave him a
List of different Liguers on whieh he wished te know the specific
erices, Plaintil? also says that Kr. Hipple told him to wait with
reference to the Siliman order and not to ell on ony of the big
accounts for twe or three days,
Patten, aleo us salessian, corroborates plaintiff as te the
cnagh ond Yo HAL a shen AwOW TRako dg Th btew ahaeh tact pmb
tad? Soot of fet 522 otateorcne Bivow gt pemelteg end, ahi tog bas
wed? fast bee .etinotet of ahd dawe OLgehR Bae eel tie oid | ot sand
atet ost mp decd 108 10 Yb & ed Oo btq Wee hd ovty biwew yout Blew
ovit, bas Tiivaladg beding .tewblewre edt ,mekod oe. .gaderem paiwet
Pihoque at antoy wow od mad? Shed ban ool The att edad ane todde
bier ende® .e ogem Thitstads .qoed Oct a2 “negeyed®, xia 9st neat
Hon wave gabiiaw ef saa inode onan ee sd sods ond taut to.mbe
jad? e196? smed bor Koomeias ows dads wth bho Seal odwol dade Y te
ayaa Videalade yous pKeet® orks aw mane lan wedte ehdt sgakergll
aed ne tad whee yenedd- ted, cere he tat at 98 tune. aad
ete bkvow ort agaizg Tot teanpex ec dood tdguovd bak TES
Mad wo" hes Yond pdue oeste asked. dass Vee Recetas Thdala ss —
eho .96 bot ged yeroten st nenELLE .Ktaded Mywonde wtaemtiee te
anes saw Likentels seve tadt bas ,tohvo ete toy, vilaatesy ghost} z o* j
ew" Saut o¢ af mamii hh ef aka div gaelo.on biuew ot sone exit 0) }
: (be Shas ante tastt eyoe Ttsalel *ywndsaowd xodee me tom bee
(ChE OF Aetibene wedes to cagtansanes om O¢ Aluow enods, wat? tes
baw admonMs eoued om pd Konw ewedd fate yaecweten edt aad * Ate
outs bie ,eveds gniduee aneoveg baw ete hte asf ta: podutant | as -
«& @in ovayg eles ,th gad? , fevered , a yee a MasaArs
OE AaeGR O68 wool of boMedy ef deka we wrought deen
oth haw of mks b08 acuUR 48M Bont. genni, pdealet®. at
| ~~ alt re. Tia Op kee oF dom dae sebte, saree ot 908 .
:}
2
z
¥
ft
. :
ae
Hy
eriginal contract and says he wae one of the vin mer present «t ihe
effice of the president of the compoany in November; that et that
time Dibble and Cleary stated they had been to Siliman's and that
Cleary told plaintiff, in the presence of Gelmm, t¢ go shead and
work on the account; that Golan told plaintiff “te lay off the age
counts until we are ready te get the business, and when we are ready
Ke would go over with Kr. Mibble and get the arder together.® Ke
alee says that Golan eaid there would be no house accounts and that
some ealesmen would get eredit for every bit of business that eane
imte the house; that Gelan eeid the houee 414 not want whet as known
ae “house buginess, *
Golan testifies that he renesberet the meeting ef *keyenen*
ix hie office between the latter part of Sovember ant Soeenber &th;
that Aipple, Dibble, Yeinfeld and three ether saleanen were present;
that the meeting had been eslled te inform the saleanen that «11
selee vould be oredited to these whe brought in the actenl order
with the signature affixed; that he teld plaintiff tiat prier te
éefendsant's Pinel erganisation certain aceounts had been eontaucted;
that plaintiff mentioned tne Milinan account but that he teld plain~
tiff that Kr, Savage, a friend of Golen's and atterney fer Hiliann's,
hed arranged « contract for iim (Golan) wiih Ar, Lech, Sr., and that
Remis and the witness had slready signed s contract with “illran's,
and thet he teld pleintis? and ethers te shay away from there be-
enume defendant had « sentract. Thies order from Hillman's ie in
the record aw defendant's exhibit "1." It is dated Sovenber 7, 1933,
and reciter in subetence that in view of Golan's statewent that de-
fendant would have en aéGequate supply ef Schenley Freducts Ce,
liquer te deliver te the buyer from Chicage eteek, and further that
Gefendant would guarantee the prices fer a period ef 30 anys, “we
wish you vould please entear our order ae follevs," foliowing ehieh
are orders Tor speciTie amounts of Gelden Vedding Bourbon, Golder
4 od: ta Inevong, sam xh omg To ene gap, ge pyan dee fomntnoe, Lent 7°
feet ts tase produmwel ak yamgmoe en? to taodineta oad Yo sole
rae
tact bee et neat iah af wnod dos yom? bodade yro0t0 | hae oLIgRG omty
_ Sne Deedes oy ef ,sakeu Yq eanaeete ont ah ttigatela plop Sep.
ne ads Ste qed of* Tisnlely dips aakad Rap jtavegon edt oc
Toast. ots oF aeny fen ,xeratend odd Joy oF chant H. %, Aim, neg
ah" seicago? xabte ed fom bap elddah 5h Ade cave om Bie a
tadt ban etawonee Geret on ed bivew euedls Bee efob 2089, wemn ope
| Seate dacs aaeaiend Ye tid yxeve tet sibete fag binew aisha a
iad oan tode tuew fom DLh sawed od Plan anted and, teestom
poesia ad samme San aasite aetse han beotabad pitino soda
. ia tant paonelan odd magint 93 heliee aed had amts
Tete Lavtas edt m2 siyuotd ote anes? of best bore oo M
_ 84 Toltg seit Vidsalele bled of saad jhoxt The emtrmns wd hd
thetastioe aged bet ataueone alatzea solvantaayee . * i
a Akod aol tad ud tmuovee anasstn oss Domostans Riemase nd
O' neniLts tet yearetin baw 9! ‘anto® to paras & spewed “~ ae he f
‘att Ane ,.38 feed .4a AD ty vantet ata tet te |
ae axed? coxk yawn nie +. sare an ee . " ,
wt af swe Lin sok tepxo aka? .tannt
: wu VT meduavet Aetay af ST "26" thdhutee @ |
sas tedt tupuseaze a'aate® to wely at sade owen. mt took bam
(oy 989 st owbont atapde@ to ylague otameehe ae mi Pi
i ‘teas Tasdies hea yagts wemekd, may, -sargud eae ot. Bea? 2m
ew seyMh 06 To bobteg @ tot, seo kt ond etme Ae
r Mobile WNT reemeree® bsg were a omy er Gem? .
Bh aa efhr ti nhs {
y
Wedding Rye, Siveon Rye, and other liquors, The writing coneludes:
"All of the above prices are subject to a cush diseount of 14% for
payment te be made by us the same day the goods are received by ua. *
The writing te oxeouted for Nillesan's by H. A. Loeb, treasurer, and
aceepted by Leute 2, Golan.
lr. Remis teatifvies that he was the buyer for ULliman'a; that
he wae there when the letter was dictated, but Ae does not renewber
Whether 11 waa signed in his presence, and he does not remeber tae
date; ke says he gave the order to defendant through Golan, whe was
there with Osear Aelaen; that after he had given the order ten er
fifteen men Trom defendant ealied on Him, and plaintiff wae one of
thé men who called; that Be did not give him.an order but gave the
order te defendant beenuse or, Losb and Br, Savage were friends aid
becuuse tue Sehenley Go. refused to sell to Ulilman's direst, ile
says Er. Lead had talked te tim about buying from the Ooenxr Selaon
Co. a long time before; that "I don't reneuber what conversation I
had with tr, Dibble.” He dees not directly contradict the testineny
ef plaintiff,
lig, Hipple saya that at the meeting of the aslesnen at
Golan'e office, Gelan said “te lay off the Millman acequnt anda he
woula take enre of it," but that ke didn't way anything abcwut con-
minsions, or whe was te get eredit for the order at iiilwen'ts, and
that nothing wae said there as to whether a salesmen had te turn in
an order, or whether the names protected him, He saye he told the
anleemen the only way he gould determine whe was to sontineewith
defendant in the future would be by initia the orders, oid that the
man «ho brought in the orders would be the wan who would reesive the
gemmissions; that he direeted the mon te turn in » list of all their
prospects; that he found out some of thas Aad taken the teleprene
book and had made out the namee; that uo ene reosived comsiasious on
orders not shipped or on orderea sent out and not returned,
sw adv ,welod yard) deabtw eh 62 aebee ad ovay od Highs OA
i
t
eit said haa wenbto wld Gat diidl ee ida ied mm
* fambote ao pialview OAT yerowp ht eeate ‘i’ ill abies” x 3 “
wit DhL To dmedeth deco a of tootdua ote sootre oveda edd 6 Ahh»
* 8s bewlsods oun does aa ab sank Aah air GA end of od done
bee ,totutonnt deed LA oH ye a* mand oH wl bs bili Aa IT ;
Kreg "th biviotie
sais hageeonoth wot wryed bit wan ast Sait eniitbesd peamngl “tt * sta
‘ad? xodubact don sed) of ban ,eembeote ett ah boogie baw dk &
ge dod ‘tepxy oud aeviy bad a8 vost ere bennett:
dite Wig Sed ith taih WikG Bin ak ld sia tea «ont
‘sa snes ie wreow atiaed xi had dood .a0 t déiaind pi but i
$6 Aocnoidu oad Yo gaiseom odd ta dash ayus ers ‘i
pa bas Hamees aaalhe ooo tie seed mg tae wt oy ud mn
ait ahes pe aaa ei -
edt? evteoon biuew oilw neal ett of bidow Oueied ods al oe
jhe’ ‘Ete Yo 2681 6 ‘Ri ond oF a9 ‘oad liitedilte ha Walt ea
nadie’ ats) natad se r
ee ie ee
Lhe ey 3
Jenegh Weinfeld, one of the ain “kKeyemen" present at Gelan's
effice, says that he rewembers only that they were cold to go out
and get business, that it was a big opportunity and the commissions
were to be 50 gents a case, Se wae called as a wliness by dei ondant,
Pisintiff in rebuttal testified, denying lr. Golan's state-
menta to the effect that he had been told pot te esil on Miliman's
and othere, jiere, again, the iveeus between these purgies seams to
be one of fast. The testiieny of Golan is gontradicted by plain-
tiff, wy Tipple, by Yeinfeld, and, significantly, Aenuks does net eon~
trediot the narration aa given by plaintiff of hig contact with him,
BWhether the writing in evidence wae aetualiy made ugen the date ap-
pearing on it is left exeeedingly doubtful, fhe mmtire evidence is
@onflicting te a bigh degree, and the situation presented by the
reeord is ane where the Appellate tribunal must rely upon the findings
of the trial eeurt, If the eontract, in fact, tind been that plain- |
tiff was obligated te be the procuring cause of the sales, the issue
ef fact would be in dowht; but it is clear from sll the evidence
that this wae vet the agreement. It is unfertunate tat the teras
ef the arrangement under which defendant worked aheuld have been Left
at nll feubtfal; however, the trial court saw and heard the witnesses
ant the record before us Would not justify a reveral of the fudgnent.
it is therefore affirned,
ARV RMD,
O'Cemner, *, J., concure,
Keturely, J,, diceenting: In my opinion pluintiff is net entitled
te helene en the sa.en to Tilieean's
and Hirsh,
i ‘
an
3
. 9 gee deideti nhs el i oi! Wt el jabttdy
) tie oy of bod new Yond ted <leo cedanaey ba SAMY iyhe’, esttte
eadiasiasos of? baw ybhautuoqqe gid «baw t2 tad’ ,bnbntiud 26g New
\isisbie tb ql snot be é de to ttto aaw'6t deeo h thng 08 bd Oe exaw
ss epdade etaede® xk gabgewd .boltivend iedt ado? af Yhdatal? bot uenee
“gh aad me SEko of You Biot mead belt of sax Heoe’ ber or ataem |
e ar | abheoy oaend avowted Seed ont fry! tout serene
st dale soadmme bid te Trimet, yw ‘isi as area sutt
) ad sted eid woqu sBaw yiielsen shw oguebiys al gattine eit
at poankive cious edt ,totsdwen ‘ulynbbosoxd Fer of Ht rb ts
“eal ww hegaoaerg woisaudls one “baie oe7peb itghd o Py we a :
aan ont now view fam tanto tes napreine out hogy
| owned pad ,eelee ond Yo seuas “adda eit of 62 aire
souskive edt Lis wowt cath at $2 she peeees aD We baa
“enussid fv dd Seis Ban deves Sete? ene pxvvewee jonnias 8 4
-stanabat wile to tarover & a ee ton ‘thw an “wae wid irises it! be
ped Bak ‘Vea na VutbdiclS AVS ee ‘ale 4 7
IRE, 98 RON, 9h: BPR Pe acos wmi
ae ofa, bow
i bys sk ( AO cee aime, us fy ty eles A Wi i 8
ie: Hi a
bay iat a i
ete this i nee: TA ae Doses been
37771
D. D, BELL,
Appellee,
ve,
THE PAVOBNTIAL IBSURANCHE CONPABY
i
O¥ AWERICA, ee 2 CL G Toke 6 2 9!
RA, FUGTICE MATCHETT DELIVERKD THK OPINION GF THR COURT,
Pefendant hoes appesled from a judgment in fever of plain.
tiff in the eum of $266,202 entered upon the finding of the eourt,
She atatement of claim averred that on October 14, 1933,
Plaintiff rented from dafentant, through ite agent, garage bo, 4
on the premises known an 6835-7 Herrill avenue; that the agreement
was oral and te the effeet that oiaintiff showld have the garage on
the same terme as he had rented it in fermer yeare from the then
owner. ome of the terme were that the rentel sheuld be five 4ol-
lere gp month and that the garage should be heated during the cold
weather, The statenent of cinim alleged that defendant negleeted to
heat the garage ae agreed and that at a result the water in the
radiater ef vlnintiff's sutemobile froze Novexber 16, 1033, eracking
the cylinder box, eto.
The affitevit of merite dented thet nlaintiff was te have
the garage on the same terms as from the former erner and denied
that defendant agreed the garege ehould be heated during the eold
weather, As to the dasage alleged, defendant demanded strict proof.
Defendant contends (assuming an sgreement to heat the premi-
sen) that plaintiff cannot recever on account of contributery neg-
ligenes; that plaintiff failed te prove by a preponderance of the
evidenee that the agreenent provided that heat sheuld be furnished,
and that the proofs do not justify the avard of Jamages allowed,
There waa prowf tanding to show that the garage in question
Was one of six located in the rear of the premises known as 69835
Merrill svenue, which were alee ieproved by un apartment building;
esting any Ke ‘SoHI89 ANE GRAVE TENUDEAM ADITUWE emi
abd
anlnty te wove’? at dnsigihat 2 mort AS fascqs tod dianaotiat ih
! iPunidn anid te yatnadt onto nowy hexedam 2°. 0088 Yo men odd at 4
Mf z
BERL (26 19des00 10 duslt Herveve mints Yd errand bell ie
aectt ony con't wieey vem? ob ot bedi tial al ener
wtet vl? of Sfwore fedued ort dealt er wis bave lt
tai “wrest of sav WER tebe liy dart be towh af treo to sieetbind aw
‘ Pekiat homme cemetiee shat o' silt’ ieort't mea’ “ented ten deny’ he’
«
ye ee i
Aloo act grudvwh todeot ed biwotta egatay ont oe tipn. = :
0 etotaathston te eonenny raven
ae
“oats te eametehacgets a yd wrete “ bette TiEatese fa -
that the former owner of thie building wae a Mra, Pureell, from
whom plaintiff firet leased thia garage de. 4. Albert J. Sates,
Jr., brother-in-law of plaintiff, was the lessee gi the iret
apartment ef the buliding and arrangements were made later by
whieh he also leased this garage from Are, Fureell and permitted
plaintiif te ecoupy it under mo sub-lease during the season of 1932
to 1953, There was a Aesating plant designed and used for the pure
pose of furnishing beat to ali the six garages, sid the evidence
indicates that heat was furnished during 1952 te 1¥35. sone time
during that year (defendant's evidenee indicates in February) seme
of the meckanion ef the pisnt Was broken, Lt was sot thereafter
repaired,
Gm Getober 1¢, 1933, piaiatiff througn a six, Beme in tae
offices of Glatt & Price, reali vstate agente, made an eral agres-
ment for a lease ef gurage bo. 4, the t#rae ef the Lease are in
dinpute. Plaintiff continued in possession, His tentineny is to
the effset that he last drove hie sutemebile (which was a 1950 La-
Galle fowm Gedan) during tue first week of Hovember, 19345, and
that it wae in goed condition at that time, de placed the autenee
bile in the gurage at that time and saw it next on November 16, 193:
He then got inte the car snd tried to start it. it would net go.
Upon exswination he found that there was a sole ian the aide of the
Cylinder Ser about four inekes lowg ond tavee inehes Bigh, The
plug, or cere, at the end ef the cylinder was, he says, “popped out
with ise behind it." The cyLinder head bad twe blg cracks and was
Warped out of chepe. there was ice on the inalde of the radiater.
ir. Bates (plaintiff's brether-in-lew) and pisintify put en cleetri
teaster under the heod of the ear. Plaintiffs says that the janiter
ty, Thunestrom, came out. When questioned as ro why ne hadn't
turned on the heat, the janitor replied that he had orders not te
de so, Ur, Bates then towed the ear te a garage on Cornell avenue
wort ,diored ach e new gathtind eee to comme Remxet odt Jade
geedet ot rawdta oe od Ope tae olay boaaet dork? Tass ahaa
texii one to peaced os) waw + Tedatesa te wetenlqw Son hots
U0 Sadak cham oko Adawnmy mente bis jatiilud edt te sto ad ns
hetdiexeg bas Liao .2ak wprt egetag aise boawed oale on “a
SS. te Aomese ems , ahah Gaamindus # taban 2 yqueee of Tiltatat@
cing od? 46% bean bus bompians saat rnrann 2 aaw oxedt ,860L of.
sensbive ods baw rene ‘ale edt tie od daod aaldelarst to oReg.
out? wmos .c8eL of EEL yatiue hodadmiut daw taod sass evsaotbad
Baio (exswadot as as2us dial eousbive a‘ danbas ted) masy tant atch
bn gees ad seu naw ai sie Sond ant aaatq ea Ye ¢ anteacs x id 0"
' : oi t ee bitte oe aa
od ob ama 4h # Myworsid THidaiacg 1285 ay ce ei
~ bi tie kei as aun od woe edatae kaot ‘\eokee FY seatd Ye, e00.
ah @tA Doans asd Yo anceey waft - “0% opatey Yo esos a fae
od a vaonkduns wih : -ookensescg, ad ‘beuttines babes rene
‘wil 0604 @ enw Andee) oLisened ue eta evonh teal od inal
boa ,t8 Qk ,rduevell to ioow text's oid its'cub (sapere set oct’ :
. eounius ot bebadg Oh aatkd saat as ‘pebtibacs beog ‘ad eae 92° suk
(RE ,24 Tadenves ao sana gt wae daw emt sass da opetary watt xk
a fea binow 41 dk dunde of bolad bas xed odd onan om uous
“ petd Xe oble 049 ok ofan o aoe ersdd todd halwt ef wehdal
et fig aah acnons wert ba gad weupad wet duode ‘wat Xe
two beqson” «eyea od ase webs iyo wie to bay td de ile
naw bins saver ghd ow hed fava whale tie all e hele 3
Redottor nats ‘be obbews ous a9 oot wae oro gadis,
beseeto aga sug Ysokake bas (wos-ubavedd ord sail satel 4 2
/ tottaat edt tod ayae ‘Vilbatets stan out Le bool ox
. a abet on snd e ae bomehtesing 8 ose i ea ‘
ser em no rt mdb
wit sk oan
hear SSth street, Plaintiff says he sar the oar again kay 8, 1954,
and that it waa then in the same condition thet it was Kovember 16,
1933, Om that date, namely, bay Sth, he bad a mechanie inspest the
ear ané give him an estimate as to the goat of repair, There was
@vidence for »laintiff tending to show that the reasonable cost of
repairing the car would be 3340, Another gechanic calied by de-
fendant testified te a leas eum. The court based ite finding of
famages on the testimony of defendant's witnese. There vas al se
testioeny tending to shew that the heating plant eould have been
repaired at an expense ef @5 or 37. BO.
The contention that plaintiff is barred by contributory
negiiszence is based upon the theery that he should have plaeed some
anti-freesing fluid, such s@ prestone, or alechoel, in the radinter.
it ie said this would have prevented the freaszing. kr, Krieki, «
witnere for plaintiff and estimater for the Gudillae leter Car Come
pany, who had been im that line of business fer fifteen years, exe
acined the cur Kay Sth and teatifled that ite condition wae due te
the fact that the water in 1t beeame frozen, and that tis condition
occurred because there was no antiefreese solution in tae radiator
of the err. Ne said if the proper amount of anti-freeze selution
hed been in the radiator the dasaxve would not have occurred.
ir, MeLaughlin (also a witness for pleintiif) wre was a
tenent in the third apartment at 6835 Herrill avenue and whe kept
his Chevrolet car in one of the gurages, testified that Ae kept
anti-freeze eolution in the radiator of hie oar while it wae in the
garage but thet the car (froze, he thought because he did not have
enough of the solution in the ratitavc.
Under ali the facts we are of the opinion that the defense
of contributery negiigenee was not available to defendant. Pisine
tiff's action ts teaed upon a contract. ile offered evidenge tending
to show (and the court found) that at the time he arranged to leave
Meitinass shid gaaie ban ,tecoe? ommeed $1 af tetew oh dadh Hs
nad mh maw at + Lon aw ake Yo satainen 9 notiuiton un =tin
PLUS (o WAL Mhoya ie och? wee aa eyed Btsalatd .seente G68 tana
oh todeeved oaw Fi date sede kiaos fae off af aedt saw $h Jedd Rae
odt gonquad atvodsen « hod 26 , 508 YR polos joded seth eo ,8EOL
ew oxacl ,thagt to fee ons of oa etuniies ma als ovig bab tae
Le seco efdaaveans amt sa89 wore of gndbned Thigataly te? eonehhey
<2h yd delias oloavwew teverk ,Oh8G od Bivow tao edt galaleges
te gaiboll ett pesnd oxsce odd oe ened & OF DOTTHe0s SRGRAET
euis ger ered? ,seentie s'éaabaeteb te ynoai test add mo ‘ore
esd ated hive talq gubsaod ant sox? wore od grisand ye 7
208,98 18 26 Ye vatmqxe ae ta ameenege
eretmilst aa gf betied af Thienkely dadt solenetace oa? band ‘,
omen besalq evsd biwede su dadd (rood? odd aequ beaad of esau hignn
iteibar wa oh , foieyio to, stedewny da oye aes nh hi.
# Sande . th sgehanet? ect bedaevesg ovad Bisow aidt bheoogh OE
ced wad tegal eokikbed edt wt retentins haw Ttbabedy to? ses
eo ghlany seer ll i Tet memalnat to oak sade ak awed bad oats ye . 10
ef ob Haw MOddibaon oth dase beLtiane haw gt oi mao th ontiin, |
fenton eseetl«isae To dtuqme tegen ode tT) bine oh tne od ite !
«gs SOR o ovad few Siwer @qeweh off rotather oft ab aoed Bett
eae act CRT akan Tet neeRsho s oe te) eh Kelme heh well
qua oct bse Oxnave LEbees BBO ta damairevee bebe ws at tr we
tank ai Jar? Wet iiceed ,aeyeteg art Le emo we Mae \ frieaig iy
pad Yon bLb 04 sauaod Sains? esl yoRowt\: ‘tan. wmh dantt Sud |
coaceatientiaanentathanl to age
4
the garage from defendant he contracted that heat should be furnished,
The undisputed evidence ia that he waa mot at this particular time
driving the automebile. He lermt it in the garage. Aveuming that
he hed made a contract with defendant to furnieh heat, we hold he
had a right toe rely on this contract, and under such olreumstances
was not negligent in failing te wake use of on anti-freeze solution,
which otherwise might have been uecesvary, If defendant promised to
heat the garage, plaintiff hed wo right te rely on the premise, He
eould not be held negligent on account of such reliance,
The ¢ontrolling question in the cage therefore turns upon
the question ae te what were the terus of the oral arrangesent made
with defendant's agent for leasing the garage. That errangement was
made at the offices of Glatt & Price with iv. Emme. Plaintiff tes-
tified that he talked with Mr, Emme on Coteober 16, 1935, ond told
him that he had been paying five dolleare a sonth fer the garage
heated and that he understeod that he was to have the garage on the
same conditions ae he had it the previous year; that Mr. Sane ree
plied, "Yes, except that we want it on a month te month basis, *
Plaintifi then paid him a month's rent, $95, and wae given a reeeipt
which is in evidence. It is om the stationery of Gisatt & Price.
It contains no referenee te whether the gerage was to be heated or
unheated. The trial Judge thought that under ali the cireumetances
the absence of any contrary notation on the reesipt indiested heat
Was to be furnished,
Er. Same, on the contrary, saya ‘that in this sonveresation ef
October 16th plaintiff brougat up the quertion of heat and ke told
Plaintiff that it would be physically impossible to put heat in at
five dollars a month, te says he went into deteil, explaining that
if he did heat the garage @ dollar of the money cach month would go
te the janitor, sccerding te the Union rule, md that would Leave
only four dollars te pay for the garage and heat. He says plaintiffs
7 AIS OR Gn
' oe ' Te) Wye iy
4 f° Pr\seaeh ty 7
*
beielaiet a4 Kiwi ton tard oroeytiaed Oe dnedawten meth ogetag ond
guts telooleme ole? de tow Gow ad faad at eoashive betvqetha ont
‘Sed? galacawA .egetey oat at #2 Pref eh leLtdomndnw oc? gatviet
od bied ew . tao aakenct of Fanbie'tes wiw Peottass « bhaw bod Oe
peotateawer iy dowk 4¢bav Bas ,Foertaoe ete? no xlet of tight a hee
folsutos oswett-tini aa te eeu salen of gal tae) it epingannei ire
ef bea thor, fombaoted Yl \ytheaevow ated ern diklw oeberede
si ,balsore one ow YYer of odgit s han Yebately | akey aneeide
i ‘sonekior dome to daveoea do Sova ligdn tien ew een Bille
sees ante? ovolterod? eaac olf nl sebfeewp yatftertase out’ ”' °°"
shan joomeyaetse fore eee to awved add anew date oF ba aobveoup ont
anv Ghommpnetts dad? legateg ont gilecet ‘xet Snoye 8! dae bhw ton Mite
aeod Vibvalcnt Jomall a datw eufet & Yadte Te wenlteee GaP er Shae
bfod baw 280L ,OE tedosed mo oma vt ftw Deitind od tad MOREE
onotmy ont tot Amon a atu lfod Svtt gakyeq mud Ben Wet site ake
edt no egetcg O09 avad of sa¥ od tadd Bootetetiaw Ot tadt Kew BObewe
Lox samt WM dail} rosy auerwerg ‘Odd Hf Beil od ee deen tiinge Vale
¢ gtond atdow oF tase & ad EF doaw ow dade veexw (dot betlg
daivoot « weviy tow ban 08 joewt etiited d mtd Bhaq ned) Teheene
ool! & ffes0 to prensltnre oad ig ak GT Lesiteb ive Aitiet Hokie
we tefaed ed ot eae ouderg ods ‘sevliece 2 ‘Senet ton on wmtetiod I
asenedamcesio edt Lf toheu tate Sdywedd wyaet Later ont’ —bede t
dood bedosthal tgteost oAf ae moksnrod ravdaoe — ms 10 esa wt
to mekdeszevans bids wh Jaer dyed Seaweedon ine HO jomme” a!
“hod os bas dood te aoktesae ond ew Hiliord Trhtatate Ot dedoreo
f te wt soos tuq of eivkevoqst YLiasleyiiy 64 Sivow #1 dade Yrieabete
' sass palaleloxe Listed ofa show of oye 6H Ludmom WWE LTob ovtt
x - panow’ sit wom Meno Yoaou bit te teLtob a Wyatey” ocd “seed BRB Od tL |
eva bivow sed bam yocut HORNY ont 6) gabbieeee’ a, |
Wittmiete oad ‘pti Loam Saw opiany oad ot yee Oe win tel a
accepted the garage under ‘those conditions, These statementea are
denied by plaintifr.
ur. Kelaughlin and xr, Bates both gave ¢vidence tending te
shoy that the garage rented at $5 a month when Mre, Purcell owned
the presises and that heat was furniened by hor. They also teati-
fied that their sgreanente vith defendant were to the effect taat
heat should be furnished to their sisiiler garages fer $5 a month,
The lease from Bre. Purcell te Ur. lietes is in evidence and ingi-
¢ates she was to furnish heat for the garages,
The court aw and heard the «itnesses, and it is unnecessary
to eite wuthorities te the effeet that the finding of the trial
judge under suck cirgumetances is antitied te the some weight as
the verdict of & jury. ‘ignkinse vw. Seliey, 10G ill. app. 522;
Braderick v, O'Leery, 112 111. App. 658; Lidgervecd Mtg, Go. ¥.
bee, 198 Tl. App. 604; 112.
oe, 241 Ill. App. 454, Heither as te
this centreliing iesue in the case mor ae to the @aount of damages
alloved can we gay that the finding ef the court la clearly and
manifently against the evidence, fhe controliing isaeues are of
faet, and these are settled by the finding ef the court.
Tee fadguent is therefore affirmed,
AVPILIRMERD,
O*Genneor, FP. J., and KeSurely, J,, soneur,
‘
.-
;
vi
peg ee
SHG: i
024 Ginsastaoe ode! ,eacltihass eeodt tehauy eyitag 2 betgsoon
hae : | oes -Vittalele yo betas
ed yathaed eencdiee ovay cided état A Bas al idgwede® gt oot y or)
bonwe Lhownet .ed mode tues » 8B te beter egetan Oo: daxld wells
attest? s@fo Wat the Us Benelanwt sew dasa Saad Haw aeabhete ome
| $ehd P08T bad bo oxow TaRbUOTOD Aw Rddninetge TOM tee DONT
Agagm a 8S 20 engetey Wedinde elem? of Dedeteewt o@ Skeets teen
whaah fae syastiove ai ai gedel sil o8 Lfovtwt sax mort eae tiemt
| weoqatey Ost sot toed detww? of ane onle eaten
yraseeoenay a) cd bie jesuneagty esi htasd dante dues oMt
fakux acta te galnatt off dads JeeTto sd? at rraengNngi hs
hdd G08 0th LED COE Yi
$d ner WAU TLO® POR .GQA WELT EEE y
awgewh Yo fawom onf Of Be Om Sano wD ba outed guttrotonoe we
hae ¢Ptoelo a2 tees a9 Le patsal? oes sare” ‘eet ow. med” bower in
te vote seuted gabiforx?ior ext eameBive at dontage’ er
.Himeo ony Ye gabe aid peimencanE CS: or oe
ORMADTEA co: nae Dee
neue HOEK OP oe
me wie oferty iin ‘Uets 4
37799 fo Vs
SEA WSLCH, f if
Appellant, <> ong
; arpsfi. rok ctRCUIT couRT
ve. < x , owcitt j
* } f coox COURTY,
THORAS A, WALPOLE, as Adminintrater )
}
)
)
ey the Betate of EMKA SWIGART,
Deceased, et al.,
Appellees,
2¢9 1.A.629*
BR. JUSTICE KATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF YHE coURY,
Charles F, Swigart died at Chicage October 17, 1917, intea-
tete,. He lef€ an estate estimated to be worth more then $400,000,
Plaintiff elaime she is hie only heir at law and next of kim, Her
claime in that respect have been litigated in the Probate court of
Cook county, upon appeal from that ecurt in the Cireuit ecurt of
Cook county, upon appeal from the Circuit court in the Appellate
court, snd the decisions ef all these courts Aave been reviewed in
the Supreme court. Worsley v. Weleh, S17 Lil. 90; Wereley vw, Weleh,
239 111. App. 658; Woioh vy. Yorgley, 34 111, 172. The judgeent
upon the trial in the Clreuit court was in favor of complainant; in
all other courts the Judgment has been sdverse to her ecententions.
Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme court a decree was
entered againet her in the Circuit csurt, Kay 4, 1954, she filed
her bill in chancery in the mature of so bill ef review, praying that
the decree of the Cireuit eourt rendered pursuant te the mandate of
the Supreme court should be reviewed, set aside and held for naught,
and that she be deereed te be the sole heir of Charlen F. Swigart,
and that his eetate be decreed to be here by inheritence. the
made defendant te her bill Thomas A, Walpole, administrater of the
estate of Tuma Gwigart, deceased, vho by the Gupreme court decision
was found to be Charles ¥, Swigart's only heir at lew and next of
kin. Ghe also made defendants to the bill numerous persons, eho
since the decease of Emma Swigart have been feund to be her heirs
at lew and next of kin, |
yoo ee oe gaggle
x
rtuES TIVEATS
-erauoo A908
CEE eee ie noe
ihe ete” ORES oe
: {EOI TAU BM widen af
hee Wied Qld bh ae WERT
.800, 0084 aga? ovem apiow ad of hodantsae: otaiee aa Pat ‘*, suay”
OW ste to pee Bin wot to tied yhae oh oP ote “anttate “Tins ett
| Ro Pew Stators ode af betaytttt asad Svat soeqest tact ak sata |
Le dewoe FRwwelO wns ak dxwos tadd doeT Lowe tog ‘eiabes |
ssactoigh with ok tay ehiioat® ade + weet ined art i i.
"e89 “i I erg’
ramoo fate Xo MOTAIYO, au oR
aka se eaninas poe txt FEB
3 tama ‘eet .o0E . ££8 vee x
aw wave wi Petion vung se Yo odabitald aed aliad “bibiaheicuall
ee ee ee eee) ae
fac? gateecy pen tver to Litt a Ye oaatdn bat af ene nats af tae ’ Me
q ‘to satoem ory of faewetee hetebaet S100 $ howe kd ot ‘te 9 Toe! wa
3 bu wet bied bee ghles fer acne od hoveaad tu00
erie si of o bawet awed oven fragtwa san vo hy
The administrator and eertain hoire of Moma Swigart moved
to atrike the complaint for insufficiency and other reasons stated
in thelr motions. The motions were sustained, and on July 18, 1934,
the Cireult court entered a deeree disniseing the bill ef eomplaint
fer rant ef equity. From that deeree plaintiff has presecuted this
appeal.
The substantial averments of the bill are that the decisions
ef this court and of the Gupreme court were brought about by a cone
epiracy of persons naued whe produced perjured testimony on the
hearing in the Cirouit court, and that the final decree vas based on
such false testimony. It is not averred that any one has been ine =
dicted or convicted by reason of such alleged perjured testimony.
While there are expres#ions te the contrary, in such cases
in Illinois the rule is that equity will not set aside a decree
merely upon the ground that it was ebtained by falee evidence given
in the course of a trial, but only for fraud, whieh gives the court
Only colorable jurisdiction, it is quite unnecessary to discuss
the decisions in detail. People v. Sterling, 357 [1]. 354, (where
the earlier cases of Caswell v. Ggewell, i260 Lil. 477; Rurtonm vy,
Perry, 146 111. 71; Svane vy. Weodsworth 2145 iii. 404; Heek v. Lash,
303 Ill. 549; Youteh v. Zempe}), 352 111. 192; Greene vy. Greene, 2
Gray 361, and many similar cases from other jurisdictions declare
this rule.) The decisions of tie Agpeliate ‘courte ere te the seme
effect. Guthrie v. Dowd, 53 Ili, app. 68; Seanian
Ill. App. 448; Lingman
xX. Boldepheuer, 243 Lil. App. 227,
The authorities are overwhelming, altheugh apparently twe
or three earlier Appellate court cases are ‘eo the comtrary. Sargent
So. v. Boublis, 127 111, App. 631; Belally ¥. Kegan, 185 111. App.
Keven Miaghwe eal ie acto atetvoe bis tosatsalainbs aur
betes« saoasen secéie bas yeorloltiwaak «6% tnialenes wait odtate at
AGRE St Luh a0 Bae ,heniadeue enow amoltom ssf , ssnotton x thot ah
Suteiquwo te Lild wad pabecdnash soxonb ao hexstm orm a
waeis hasuaanota aed Tiidainis eeaooh dads oes, <eohupe Yo tnaw tet
etoiatowh mir Suncast vue i484 ofo Lo etuomieve fatrasgedue ext is
sion 4 YS dude tiywotd stew stue enoTqUR add Te bao SuM—e att Ye
aes ae yaonktaeg berwined heouhetq ote heman aconieg Yo —,
ys bar ganal ge! aete9h fonk’t odd sand baw .Ft000 ‘shereae vas ai an
~ «at aged ‘ual eae Yas tas bexreve fou at #1 vtond tag ree! ms ‘al
“enauteend porstarq bags kis Aue te aonsot we besolvnes rave 0
Horses aos 7
Pigs zy
BORIS te wt at , vuaTenes edd of enokenetone eta orodd eth gq
' a Wee oe) a ee eh vers
agcoob ry bine soa sen iiie ¢siupe sant a oben oat a
neh Boviehive oeiet oe pontadde aaw SP. aad mn: ant fact
| Gnuneth of ¥tes8009 aan ethan a m .noLgosbaltet, »
wmocie)*, dae £51 tae naLima28 tf ogee’ Lisson sts
CR pas fy i, a
a2 godess 390% TLE 08 sees hl 20 econ
REST
us as Bx
Sen een Bes
& afane10_ oY smnexe ert +44 see Anam data ad fit ben
Ha a eo rg . i"
k wtofeob emote idebaut ‘sonido wort aseno weLlale oral bam oad i
i see, a a
ae onss outs of ete ef twos ‘as ioawa ons te anctaieeh outt (ete oe
: c re Gee bo ar
'
Me : “98 ppb
tonaxed neettans ont @ »%a vones 100 etaLioges, 9 ,
ah kik OBL ,uguell of vAtallem 1482 .aGd £41 v8 va st
424, oninion abstracted,
In Peoule v. Sterling, 357 111i. 5354, our Supreme court
quotes with approval thin etatement of the reason for tais rule of
Law in Greene vy. Gegene, 2 Gray 361;
"But if a new and original libel may be brought upon the
g@round that a former deeree was obtained by false evidence, we see
nething te prevent the husvand from bringing w third euit to ree
verge the deoree of reversal on a euggestion and offer of preof
that the decree of revermal was obtained om perjury, subernation
of perjury and other fraud, and thus reverse the second deeres and
re-inatate the original deerew of divorce a vineule.*
Our Gupreme court epinien continues:
"In considering this peimt it must be berne in mind that
there are two classes of fraude drawn in question in cases of this
kind: First, there is that kind of fraud whieh prevents the court
from acquiring jurisdiction or merely gives it evlorable jurisdi¢e
tion; and second, that kind of fraud whieh seaurred in the proseed>
ings of the eourt after juriadiction had been obtained, sueh se
perjury, conceaiment, and ether ehicanery. The first variety ef
fraud will invalidate the decree, rendering it an entire nullity.
On the other Send, it is weil established that the seeond class has
me such legal effect.*
Moreover, there ie foree in the contention of defer dante
that plaintily dees not state facts bringing her ewuse within the
rule (fer wateh she eontends) in states where it is reeognized,
Baring vy, OF¢, 156 Wis. 260, hie bill does net allege that anyene
hare been convicted of perjury, oor, indeed, does it appear that
anyone hae been prosecuted for the alleged coneoiracy to commit
perjury, on whieh the bill is based. Neither are there avercents
that documentary or other evidence can be preduced that will ertabl bah
the case stated in the bill beyend a reasonable doubt. FPinintirr
eould mot succeed on her bil] even in states where the rule is dif-
ferent from that announced by the courte of iliineis. Baring v,
Stt, 1358 Wis, 260,
Wa aleo think there is merit to the contention that plaine
tiff's bill wae subject to demurrer, because she did not eet up
facts exeusing laches, wale was apparent upon the face of her bill.
Her petition was filed in the Frobate court Auguet 29, 1922, Her
shotoartada ‘Selle: —,
er wham wey. tito e806 .ki5 ene aastires® .v sioosd -
Ye otis eisd agi aosaon eal te dana 223% ueae pigeon athe sili
1£06 yerd & pa mek
etd won & é od yom Ledhs fanighze bas wen a th per Teh
see gv ,douoblve eaiat «¢ bemtedide saw setaeh tomteT #« sad?
wet of Sinn oo & aahsal sd ~~ hoodend ost daovete oF
ewan ho wee dete o ie seme rey, onnee® J
Ao kdavre gasae eCtatreq me fen tdo ane pags Te oh seteeh oct Smelt
base agtgah banger a2 garevet eurld bow, rey ial bre) Leb jee f °.
“hMaGly @ Setovih to seteeb ‘@ anid tot
aomirnoe aptatgs tuo sumrqil xine
|” qqmt babe Bt emved od tem #1 saleg thd antsebie doo att
Bi, Fawoo su souevevacaist tape he. hald bau
«Stoo att afaeverq dodae beet to jad? a
= hers ‘nd BeTawOoe haart bare vai
7 dua ,boatedde anod fod woddo
ty ehokusy dorks off .gxemeetiog t0
-Qtaiiue ashen ne oh galrshoos saarieeh ol? ©
ont aeale hucoes eit dads beste Lhe ae liew at ;
» Natasa, Fron gi * on
agnnbse tes ‘to aghiassane sng mk eote't Kad atans sTavoesolt er
oe ahitin ¢aseo aed yalgabsd ateot esate gon arab mubeahosg ot
sy lewateaneimees ait ee stedte angete ak, (abeesaoe este solute re)
Stig dawt Pele Joo deob Lhe OLAS. OR geht OGL, wt ib BETS
hett teegns th snob ,heebak ymen. prtataes te esotenoe ” : £ a0
themes 98 aetinenan te yedie eat 0% pasueceens, fond end anoynn
— abasetcown etsct ome aodstok stanad ad Lhd 98? Aobte.ae ceauteg
dadidetes Likw said seowherg od aan eoamhtvs aedte.ne yratanayaeh fat
Yiitelalt .tdvob widenousoy a bagged. SLed ost ahd ad a
| oaiatg facisé nelsnetuee of9 of Sinem at ai. auiae oldie, x
au 198 FON bib ue HaLEDEd .xOMMMAED Of to0tdua, 7. Sat armale
vi
4
deores in the Cireult court was entered May 30, 1924. On April
21, 1923, the Supreme court affirmed the order of the Appellate
court reversing the order of the Cireait eourt ond finding that
plaintiff was not the heir of Swigart. Her till in this case wae
filed Hay 5, 1934, + more than six years after tha final order of
the Supreme court. Pefendants contend that a bili of this kine
muet be brought within the time Limited for suing out a writ of
error, and it would seem not unreasonable to apply auch rule, If
that rule is regarfed ae applicable, pleimtiff would avpear te be
too late, in the absence cf averwents in her bill] excusing her
laches, That such is the mile on billie ef review is held in Gple
¥, Littlednie, 164 T11. 630; Lewie v. Topeico, 261 111. 320; Evans
Ve Wocderorth, 213 Ill. 404; French v, Thoman, 262 LAL. 65;
Sehoknecht v, Prasees, 380 Til, 485,
Aside from any decisions of the courte announcing technical
rules of law, we think the principles that a person should not trige
be vexed by litigation concerning the game matter and that the pub-
lie intorest requires finality in decrees and judguents of the
courts denend that the order entered here should be affirmed. The
parties most strongly accused are dead, Plaintiff does net allege
when the facts with reference to this alleged cenesirsey to give
false testimony first cane to her knowledge. in the nature of the
ease, if the evidence was fslee, she must have known it at the time
of the trial in the Gircuit court, ¥e do net need to hold that in
no possible case will a bill Lie to set aside a judgment or decree
based on perjury in order te reach the conclusion that thie bill
wae properly @iazteased,
We have examined the opinion of thie court and the epinicn
of the Supreme court in this matter, and the exanination discloses
that the controlling evidence in the case eonelsted of written
focuments, which plaintiff did net then deny to be true and whieh
=
DAN TOM! Cd: ee ats
ae ee ‘Pa hed he rs
ficgs a LO8OL 86 ya horedaw naw Prgen dlop thd o:td:nh-eochud
atelivcaA oat Le Iht 91d homtETe t1w0o omerqut edt QoRer , sm
fedd gala biw Gewow singe s® od Le Tehvo addgahetore dees
saw seen aid al Lild 208 .tyeqdwO. to thed est fom caw Yihealade
‘Ye ebKe Salt ect wed ke ermiry ake madd orem sbeee oh Emil hott
“bald bee ‘to sate * data ‘ae 3G osnataw ret stawon. ono aa
te dine * due ‘palace wat hodhabs omkd edt y abathe teiguens od i. =
%2 .ofus 4éue Ydane oe eidamencornn-bbm mene. simew ob Ee
ed of tatque Sivor TWitvateiy ,eidaokiqge ea kehiagee od olwe saad
tae gaiewexe Sfid 19d al atoesseva eee ee rae
“Ala ab Pied ab aotven Yo a66te mo etrr sit at down tant :
asia 108% .c42 £08 cogdnmol endowed (068 547 00 wedube
. tad ibd 208 sResauhat seaah 2000 600 OOK
go somep ogg Moveeeingh RRA LET ORD anna ke
febdctons estannonme Bsiuee wud to easleiesd a pies ie: a
é i ey ea ae
peket ton hisosdia noereg # tadd seiqtoatre ong dat ow amd te ote
Rs
Yt Vag Rod
meg old tend haw sedtan eane edt pulweesace mo tsagieis ud boxer of
‘ The care std ae
exit ‘te bdasnahat baw nontooh rs 3 ehioatt wortupes tasxstal ree
a ;
edt .beactYia od bivode onee hetodin sobre odd tout banca toe ish
me ek |
egeila tou seoh Ytieaisst hawt one heaseon chyacste feon we titaq
os eal] Rae eit
ovis od ‘qoetdcenes bags lia alae et sonsteter ithe aa
Oy fe Ry
add Yo orbien exe ul .opbetwond td oF onse alt seska oat
is) ‘oat walt do #2 awons avant dam eute 000% new eonsbive =. o8se
7 mk testa bios at heea tom ob oF two thoorto este at Ryne Boy a
| bébech ce daamgbul o obien tou of ots tite 6 Athy | sae oiftavog os
q craw ‘ein? tans ‘seleutoaes ‘pate Koaet et sobre al we aae .
OSL ., 040
e obowaleath ¢ —
iy ie oy ee MR TURE CR aall Ly ki
ep aolaige oid bows rweo eka? te aelatge ons beatanxs even oF
q es Me ae tite attnat
ae soso iets ‘goliankoume od? hae station 4 aby mh eno amorgue »
fs, Le Aah ut gp RP eS eon
ae boxe ‘te betelenos ano ond ‘ah este: eotebbve ‘pat Lovtaes
ait bind ‘duei'od se Qusiaand Fon 'b28 Wrdduiate “akin : "
ae “
5
she does not deny now or aver to be fabricated. The oral evidence
too eswas to have been overwhelming. ‘the filing ef this bill is |
unjustifiable,
The deeree in affiraed,
AFFIREED,
O'Conner, P. J., and MeSureiy, J., cenour.
Pee Bites tae, State: ee ee Oe Sei elt
ene Baie
»
es ee agatha ee. ae) i oka eI a
AO His Oo aamal eeiameeth a sa shih a8. .
files: wh il volley |
Spei need Si sinioks Sivas ace YW emt dood ee ia v7 | re ¥
pee $aH Riitade ‘coeveg & dats ante tookxe out te av ok ‘tena |
d ; oa wy at. ay.
wtlan 308 Saks hin Sebhem etka ett salotbeee: + ebteglnet .
ae
“Oars BES be PE ree). ED
a eee OTe a Ee a ad se pee Haves wah “eh
eeteak He Gagiay iw witow bie ae whe Ree se
eeheee ie Sle eS ptemety ds Co tens
ha baie fis on a0 ee Ws qed ‘ape ‘geu been
ae
BLACKSTONE SHOP, Inc., &
& Corporation,
Appellant,
v5,
JESSICA M, LASHER,
Appellee, B. ri 9 1h 6 9 9?
BR, FURTICE MATCHNTT DELIVERED THE OPIRION OF THR couRT,
| APpiaL FROM MURICIMAL opuRT
OF CiXGago,
ee
“iy
y
33
Flaintir? sued for the swe of $426 alaiued to be due for
recedeliug and reebiending «a «ciak coat as per agrewment. The affl-
davit of merite averred tiat the work was net done, as agreed, in a
manner gatisisetory to defendant but, on the contrary, im @ nogiie
gent, 42feative and uirerkeanlixe manner, erereby tae vwelue of the
goat was reduced more than the amount alaimed by plaintiff.
Defetident alee flied a atutenent by way ef countereciaia in
whieh she averred tuat the coat when delivered to plaintiff en or
about Hay 5, 1955, wae of the value of GL800, aad that by reason of
the negiigent manmer ia whieh plaintiff did che verk the value of
the cont when returned Sovesbor 146, 1733, eas diainiekhed te about
$375, wherefore she claimed danages to the amount of $625. Plaine
tiff reviled, denying ai1 of the gaterial averments in the statement
ef ceunter-claim, The eauee was tried by the ceurt, and there was «
finding ageinet plaintiff on ite elaim ond a finding in Paver ef
defendant on har counter-glaim, vith damages assegced at Hi, Ter
whieh amount judgment was entered ageinat plaintiff end in favor of
defendant.
She evidence tends te shew that defundent eurchased the seat
in Paris for $2560 about sia years before the time she delivered it
to plaintiff for re-styiing and re-hiending Say 6, 1935. It appears
that the coat had onee before, in 1631, been re-styled by br, ‘echt,
a farrier, The evidence also tends te shov that tawediately aiter
the reedelivery of the coat te defendant by plaintisy dovesber 13,
4 Wm, >
a
‘oe ste
* A way) Nee nih oe aa ete it othe
eit aie oat on
We oe oo lsenegied a
| 7 "dnatioggs | A cae
Tas 7 LiL Tews Boat di? a da tub sean i HME Ge
: * Rei Re).
§ ,OhADTO to hint tity int ane at |
ae nae SC wr
(EeanA.T CYS OL Louwh :
CSoa ‘hi. i d ; 2 toga ibaa
tonal
EP Uy
tatoo Cae Ge AOLMLMG ANT CHARVLIGE PEREHRAM BOLTAVY oid)
tet oud od oo bemtade 8260 Te mue os vet howe Tikentatt — ae " |
«ftte off .dueasesge t9oq a4 Seow Sala a galhoe idee how gal Lebonme
aah soar yn ass ,enab 204 sew sivow OA face derKOTe ation Te dived —
higna 6 wt \qtartaes edd ao , dud Snabasheb oF yxoreeIntses team
add Le silav edt Yeu” ,TOuAAMm OALinemsowan Bae ovine teh stung
— Uevakede Yt tenkeke tameme odd madd eet E
ot sindewxetacoe lo yew YS tansetado @ be dd? eale taahae'ted, -
2 vo:eb tata ot boravhieh inde Goede inst: eesti i.
AS moanet Yd toi? baw ,OORLE Yo ouLav one To eee EEL (@ yom duets
Yo wekav ait aro oie bbb Vikvatote dehy ak rain smephiaen ot
dwoda of hedalahakh aaw ,06eL 04 todmved boorwtet sose tuo add
otintt @RO8 Te tawcwm sat xt cognenh saute sis esi ll
tasuptade ois ak Wdavateve Letredaa od Ye Lhe gakyuoh bolton Wk Bi!
6 tay wands baw ,etwos odd yd boli eow enwen oat stihe Lownetewag te
te Teve't al gathal? « bee alels of) an Waltalele soatepe gubhaty
‘Unt ,0OR) to Hosroren avgennh Ath atokownetaxos ted ao tambon ted
‘Ye Tow? ad bas Vedeateta feazoye heweian ear srins sememe dali
pees at bowsdetug dasha tab todd woils oF what ooaentve ot iain
‘
| |
i
i)
Hew
(th berevited ose nas of roted exaey ate tueda OoeRe wet ia: % oe
once gt tees 8 Gail QalbawLdaes Ban gabsytinwe wor Wittatate ot
pao oth Yd hosyta-on wood £004 wt 1otoled done bent soon ode todd
) | titha Satatbonnt fads vote of abued gate sonobive oat meet a
| Wkvalely YS shabaoteh oF duow ait ba Who bes nent
1933, defendant wrote plaintiff maiing bitter complaint abewt the
way the work wae done, saying that the eat wae in on ungatisfage
tery conditien and pointing out the particular respecte in which
the work was unakilfully done, She wrets that pleintiff bed had
every opportunity te make the cost right, and that, ae she told
plaintiffs at the last fitting, she would mot come in to be Pitted
again. the advieed claintirff that aie propoeved to take the eoat
te a recutable farrier ot « fireat-olase store, and that she would
4eduet the cost when “I pay your bili."
The record doee not disciose any regly by plaintisr te
thie Letter, sther than the muliing of a etutenant te defendant
for $3295, the suount claimed te be due. Decenber 20, 1953, Bra,
Lasher reglied te this statenwit that she would not pay because
the damage dene to her coat wae more than $528. She «aid further
that she head tried ta have the ecat fixed elaqwacre but Sound
Tireteclaes furriers unviliinug te undertake the job; she asia she
felt whe had a glaim againat siaintife Yer mt icant #750,
Om tae trial Mra. Lasher tastified at Length about she
transaction. he said she teck the coat baok after it was deliv-
ered and showed it to Elem Sorwiak of plaintifYy'e house and teld
hex that it wae “tervible;" that ies Sershak enid she couldn '+
eee anything wrong with it; that she thes teok the coat te a
renutabie #tere and after they refused to take the responsibility
ef doing anything with it because 14 wae in each bad shape, she
enw Kies Korshak and told her thet he wanted her “te make good;*
that Rice Serehak proposed te #61) her a sew gout and allew her
semething on 1t for the oid one.
Defendant first teck the coat te plalatiff's establisheent
beesuve she knew 6 Kies Ketarthy who worked there. Aer cenversa-
tien with reapect to reeutyling the gout wan with a Er. Irwin, vha,
ahe gays, showed her a very levely goat und sald that ‘her eat
im a
gi wey
ae funds @Miaiqwoe tergid yulaam Vlentelg etene fade Ted seen
Pee iP rh =
seetelianas ts ni aw Jeon oF sadt galyaa ,onoh saw ter ond ww
dite wh steegdet te Leetetaq 949 tuo gattalog baa aoltiawes yet
Aad bet TRitekety Mek’ ofouw od@ yomeh “Livi itieay sew axew emt
bids Go oo .ease me ,alghy teen way eden of Yohumetoqge THOVE
borer) of o¢ ak owen fom SLuow one ,pabsteht gent ody ta Yihentelg
toon edt wine of Bedoderq edu saat Yitentate ‘headven i saben”
bivew adv fact haa ,.9tode geale-datll « te telus etdetenet a Pe ie
* Lid Hoy Yom a" ante teos ome eouneR
ot Tutatese “d ates “an oRoloakh som neem breve watt 6 cihead
sumbes Ped of So0msete w Lo RabALpm eO2: ads sotto \eonged whe al
+H? ,SC9L 00 tedano9G ond od of homtase domme ott {OREO SBR!
eawssed, 95. son, Aiven, ale; dost, dtmmte echo: ot Swear sina |
Redttl bten ofG .2RE§ ands oxen Baw sage TOM Od sash epzmnd ae
bawvos sud secede bexki taov odd sv vas oF beles bax ono away”
: ote fhaw one ide, eat sdessebau of palitiway exeizie? acaleadartt’ et
+8898 feeed de 10% Tistalelg dentege wtelow pot ode stor
ei? tunde Syawk te del ligae? vetiend oa Lelsbent ad) Foor ae
‘ale aaw 28 sede sinad tone add dood ade Dhan oath smo teaancatt
:
i.
Migs hav owas wTLLiado tg Yo selene anki of $4 hmods am Bets i
A abhaes 94m blew aipdeseS an kik dads." ymbdtret* naw oh bp
: oe tego a8/ Saas need vein seat 78h Hake goatee igen aa |
“WENAddamoones ott mind 0F Seaton Yost unde bas ovese aii P
oe ,eqnie bed cowe al sam 2h Qamape oh sidte gakeyee yao ow
ip tiee eins o2" ae foduwe ace tad? aed Diet has dadeted peti woe! >
Wed woLle, hue teen wes a.208 ihee.0 heneqeny datenell enill tadt
Eusagauaptanne iene nen
would look exactly like it. Miss Aerahak came in snd at the game
time enaid it would be very lovely and would lock Like « new coat,
Later when she tock up the matter of fitting the coat, it seene
both lies ketarthy and kr. Irwin had severed tagir connection with
plaintiff's heuse,
It was alse disclosed by ira. Lasher'a testineony that some
time after she received the coat in Kevember, 1953, she weld it
through another dealer to a ire, Curriar, realizing $390 net fer it.
She dig not cive any notice te piainsiff of her intention te make
thie sale, amd plaintiff was apparently net daferwed of the fact
wntii Sere, Losher so testified. Ere. Currier was net culled ae a
witness, and the cout iteelf wae net produced upom the triel. Hove
ever, ire. Lasher tewtivied mot ohiy ag to her leaving the coat at
plaintiff's sleee of business but sies axe te many viaite there ror
the purpose ef having the coat pregerly reatyled and refitted, the
slee testified with referenee te the defeetse in the coat before and
after it was returned te her, Ghe euid the eeat waa powitively tee
omall for ner; that she teld kiss Eerahek that 1t wee “atrocious, *
and that Rise Acrehak agreed that it wae “unbeooming." She oaid
the esat wan double-lined ineide and stuck out sa if she “weighed
@ teon;* that the collar wae very tuick, aud tust Kiee Sershak sug-
gested waking over the coat a8 the style was very oidefasiioned,
Wane alkeo said she kept saking for kr, irwin; that he was to have
superintended the werk, and that it weuld Bave been all right if he
had done it.
Beitnher Mise Kershak ner any ef the employese of gliaintiff
other thas ir, Kilnk, gwmersi manager and fur bayer of the Blacketone
Shep, vas called ae a witness, Sr, Kiink (perhaps inadvertentiy)
Failed te teatify that the work on the coat was skilfully done,
Ve think there was evidence from whigh the eourt might
reasonably find that the vorksanehip was done negligedtiy. Pisintire
&
eee off du haw ak oes Lesietod oelh 2h OLE yLoonne Moet afeow
Jane weu 2 SARL POL bloow hun Ghewed yuor od bdvow 24 dhme ombd
ease 22 ,tnoe om! galeelt Yo xedgom ove qu Moot one aedw seted
Aiie aeltecgues thed? Suteven hasl aiwek 18 bus yldsade eak¥ dted
| .orvasd eo Itieakese
euor fa8F Yaovisard a tedosd we yd bewokeath onl saw #E op.
$k Show on ECOL ,tedmevel at aon ent Hovieges edn. 109%e omke
$1 tel fa OCC’ galalignt ,wleiw) wrk 6.09 aedeoh iwatoua Aguanadd
tien of noltaegat tod Yo Vikdalale of sebtoa. que ovis tea hhh ams
foal 242 te bomre'tad som yLtaorscqe any Wsdaiokg oa .elen wkd |
@ 6x belies tou saw teinsod .#a bel Tidnee os tesined .esk Lheaw
aol felts of ogy beowbowy ton tow Binad, goon od? baa oeemtaw
de ¢e0o od yiivact 464 of we Cine Som DeLideed tedeed, 05h, 5078
“Goh ered agtetvy yous of eh cote dod amentend ie enetq a! Vissatase :
ede bord hte bus befrteet Yfeeeety sacs and. amivnd Ye oagqtse ome
‘bus stoted toon oft af wreeted of? o& vanexeton Agiw baltigae? onke a
60d ceviviveq see Peo eit Bier ont seeded homuten camth aed
* auclgorta® enw 22 gad’ dedevol aukM bod exta gant y een tot Loam
bias odd *.gnincoodan” enw ¢2 sade -deetgn dedexoS aabk gost mw
dedgiow* oe Th ea éue tees Soe vbiead heal lewiduod aaw taon oat
«gin Madetol wolR gad? deo ,kolae qu0¥ eaw wadboo. re ee
hereliastably YXOY onw ohyts ei se sa99 0nd core gahtom Dogeey
What’ 92 AoW oH tom) pakwrd .4% Tol gates sued wie Slaw nko osle
var _ tia weed eves Biaow 22 dae hae Maint cnntg-spotin ov
Wigateie te apeqeliae oatr Xo gun wnmaubanminaiate
| “ paptasive £4 ed? to veyed tw? bas ieee Jeredeg aad 1 weds andte
aii each eqnuxoq) Maiti .2a snewele « ae bokies sow ged
baie amo YLLLLe mew tu0o OAs Wy atxoM este i
- digde: dawoo 043 dydsieoar't egaokive saw ; |
wliatelt® Ubwaligon bao saw qidaanedivow est dade chat’
4
argues, however, that the sale of the ceat by defendant as restyled
gonetituted an irrevocable slection te seeent the coat and wan a
waiver ef all defects, It cites to thie point section 42 of the
Gales Act (Cahdli's Ill. Rev. State,, chap. l%de, aee. 48). It alee
EEO SOs He
Stegel Cooper A. to., S21 Til. 745; Seed Ue Wels Co. vv, Bonames hoe
frinersting Ce., 252 022. 491; Means 2m, X02 Better, 197 t23.
Ape. $82; Polay ie, 266 [31. Apo.
73; 2
ing well recogiized rules in tue law of sales) are inappdiasble to «
traneactiosn such as this, which wae a balleent "leeatia onarta
fagiendi,* + that is, o ballaent where work ant Leber were te be
perforsed upon the thing delivered to the balleo, in euch traneaee
eites and quotas st Length from cases euch as Smoxlea Then
ie, 868 Lil. Apo. 124. Theoe cases (aonwane-
tions, even in the abeenes of an express contract, Giere ia an ime
plied agreement that the thing altered or repaired #hall be reason~
_wbly fit for the purpese intended, oF capabele of the use for weiech
4t is desiaeed in ease the tailee had knowledge of such purgese er
use. The rule in sugh case is that the bailee ie required te exer-
eiue ordinary care in the performance of the service he agrees te de
in relation te the thing balied, ond tala requives that he ase suena
akiil, and care as am ordinarily ekiiful workuan, competent to de
ais work, would use im suck a case, The coat belonged te kre,
Lasher, end she did not, by accepting and keeping tha coat or by
e@lling it, waive any of her rights with respeet te the centract
she entered inte with plaintiff, These rules are laid down in the
well considered case of Bougiaas Hert, 103 Conn. 645, 151 Atl.
403, 44 AL. 820,
Ve think there wae evidence from whiek the court might
Feasonabliy find that plaintiff falied te comply with the terme of
ites sentract and that the finding in faver of defendant, eo far ae
the elaim for services in reemdeling and reblending the ceat one
baiveust ee fawn leh yh gaoo oof le elea ont tact xevewor \benyte
& exw bur geow off goovew af wolévetds eidagovetek an tebaiiibd a
adi to 2) sebteoe Sutoy vked of eottoe #2 .adoeteh She Yo tsehow
wein 92 .UER Vene (edt sqedo , ohare pobt JE wetted) pea bet
ent natant 90 keen en domo seen aot At_oet fo wndene hen wend
“oil sew V0 LAY oT Rete 1899 LET SBS, 90 dh epmond Soaeke
£65 VOL RIOR WY 00 WRAY Somat 710e WAEk BOR whem
we LED: AER, age ‘a err ee
0 00 Shbethneeb es ane wt ee
Bisons gitaond” Suemtted » mew deh ak on Home eokeonenn
-uanueed dos ak oe kins suit 0? Retevkieh gubat eat nagy Demtoreng
wak an eh exalt , tows aod wartgxe ae Te eonnede edt mb asve \umedi: |
nnetans mf Lins bechacen uo Donettn ynist sit sh samnemnge Bont
( dehew xe? paw er? To eladngin to ,hohandek soon orth wot 20 ile
8e aeqquig Mave ‘to syhe wend hurl oo Lind 249 seme at Romgknal ob 0
steno of hevluget a2 owdied eit sac3 et ekas seus ok ebee ott or
eh of gverga of opivene auf? to eoceoxo'teq edt al aime ope 7
owe eeu OK tard woekupen whet? bow Acdiet yabe-atets wathebinde
gh ef susteyme phwolver Swikike ~fitauthse we an ones hae Ofte
4a 9d beytoted soup oa .enae m spam ad ‘em Luow tow wh
Yi te doom O42 gutqveXt bem yaktyeves yo dom BLh eaid Rome yest
- Pemetine ect of tyoqass dtiw fight xed to yom ovtaw (oh yattier
ests al wveh bied ote soins eaedd .Vhitalaig ative otal basodeam sie
Nite Lee 868” sma 40 SR AARNE A a ee, iow
ie aa caltcoe: vtaabro eb tee seneale th ended esd Saati ith so ri 7
eae Peon Ono yitbue ides bux gad Leboows saetadintelintah shake
eoneerned, was justified by the ovidence. That finding of the court
is here entitied te the enme weight as the verdict of a jury. We
cannot say that i¢ is oleariy and manifestly againet the wedant of
the evidence. The judgment therefore againet plaintiff wd in faver
of defeniant upon the original claim must be affiradd.
As te plaintiff's eliaim, the burden eof proof wae on sinine
tiff toe eetablish it by a presonderance of the evidence. Age te the
eounter-claim, the burden was upen defendant to establigh that the
coat was damaged to the amount far whieh jutament was entered, The
evidence on thst iseve ie very indefinite, After the court announced
ite ruling upon plaintiff's claim defendant indieated a desire te
take a nene-sult as to the counter-cinim, but plaintiff objeoted.
The reanon for the obfection i# not quite clear, but the evidence
mabmitted in regard te the value of the coat wae Indefinite ond ane
certain. ire, Lasher stated she paid $9506 for the eont im Parise
and that #he owned 14 between six and seven years, Rr. Heoht, a
furrier who resedeled it tn 1951, testified that it weuld depreciate
in value about ten per cent each your, A reerist apoarently given
te Urs, Lasher ot the time one delivered the coat te plsintiff Ney
6, 1635, states the value of it te be $325, Bre. Lasher teatified
that plaintiff's manager auggeated te her that she eheuld heve it
ineured for $1,000, The ouly evidence in the record tending te show
the value of the coat after 1% wae delivered Hovewber 14, 1935, is
the fact of ite asle to Bre, Gurrier for $375. ‘That transaction,
however, has few of the qualities courts require of « sale in order
that it may be regerded as indicia fer determining the reel market
value. The eoat iteelf wae not oroduced, and after come search we
are umable to find any evidenoe in the record from whieh the fair
onah market value ef it whem it was delivered to plaintiff and
later when returned by plaintiff to dafendant ean be determined,
Such avicenee was necessary and the burden of proof wae on defendant
amos ons te patient Jone Ooae Lew id ww bot ssomt, aor ahoatep aap
| - avtwl « te teh aut ae tila onane oe (Of boithing axeg at
t 4 bow nat sentags Lites tinaw fecsas yitae lo ab Ah saad aan 4 oa
on ‘at nw thasatase twats ye oxoterneats soem bet, oat, eon hhve wale
boars kth od seam meio Lauty) 0 ont aoe Snabae tea. 29
“the | ae iil Leone tq aepend 049 abate a! Miisaba Le OF PA ae nie
elt ot re somos kee any te secexobaogere « ud a2 at séagnn, ot The
aa see int taasns ad Pasbue ‘web aoaw one neniud ond sala loone ds moo
out .bonedas say Preagba ie dite x02 baw ne 7 _begunat eae 2909
P dee
beomoane su90 end 190A odhattebas yor eh, wea $asid a9 eoartive
ie sttand @ boivothat smodaeted mtale at Tralee ange gabtys wg2
sbesoatso Pav aba te fet ,Mhalo~tesauoy off Of 86 shunomem
soasbivs one cud ,tagls otiup som ok aoisnetde odd = saa
au bate estat tent aay tego Mf To oulay odd 98 bigget at beds iudue
ebaa al taoe odd tot GUMS blag ode bedeta twiaad. 107K .chedeey
a 3tooX mH -ATaRY HOvEE haux ake maonsed an hoag atte tast bog
: saeivotood biwow oh tana pol rivees AECL wh St Do lohonay ody cetera i
a aevts ‘elanetacge tqdsoot A staey doce faso 19q ued suede ouley mk
: fea Yibgatosg oa Seon ott bereviled ese omae ont ta Tesined ett ot
| Reditsess tedwod ok 0860 wd oF 22 Xe oulny oA) wesate .BECL yo
a oven swede adn tans tod a bodesmnwe Tope ae a! Titsahele fast
mee. o yatbaes biomes wala ad oomebi ve eho ent. 1800, 48, Xot hexwant— ;
a bees SE xoduevo houevi sob sow tt tod te, tao, ond 16 onlay ond,
“saotoowaners tas 0°84 9% we hese aut a? efea eat No Peek em
i kaon att yakadeninied 9 ont + aeanat ae ny sania 02
he aw doxaes our cof ban ,dooubere ton aaw tiseti @eoe oat .oulev
ta? at dpdow sant brsget og? Al spaeptye wae, bad} ef, edemw ore
| shoatenacad od aw tnabantap a “Tataele, wr
| | pan toh ao saw Loot, Te anbtud od} baa yaar
bi
te preduce it. She did net produce 1t snd fer that reantn the
judgnent in her fuver eguinet plaintiff must be reversed.
The judgment in fover of defendant sgainet plaintiff ugen
the original claiw ie affirmed, The faucigment in fever eof defencant
ageinest plaintiff en the counter-ciaim ie reversed.
AVETRERD IN PART ADD RAYVERBED LE PART,
O'Conner, °. 7,, and Mesureliy, J., concur,
ats he
sis e
tries od aaaset sass St sea ‘Win lie ah Aha’ Nenana
OS iat nergy eet
pe whan ani
sid sci hh ‘tuone ot Pe sit ppt
wi ech wae Lome raga ad a sdesteawie bse a ;
hove a ete ct ane sit lade hed bate b Noch eh. smeah 00,
a aut’ ese toethad fab wh mate 2" Seeiale aoe
tater tte Mavakeiy FG Mester emndeutil mld Os Mi
See Ny ose
woseebibes wet jad . mete DREN ee ae ae eee mt.
wie Mette ws bate ht ee Page bil ae ORY SiEE OF Rhapect.
abe oid aye nas ‘gee SORee. ibe lid HORT —— ;
.. | Peden ss te baa ot send Go oe, ml papi ;
“ibe heave nd ; nee Anh ek ee a Je pirat, Ot.
. weenie Le sala ats bps Bs ii Seana ie abaiay
ini a gute ree Sod ma ess ny vee, eH « tia
sie pee Pas lich chibi! barre’ ah = ee wend _— be
vapneagatnnt ll aneg ney mimeo,
i taseeags are - atl eee o> er es 0809
nny eo) elieaute me ae " Hestow eProwbety Pint aoe | ais
sie A se Ag Ricet tes BOR Re
at Ra St)
a a itatate all fone fied, heme eR nmap, kN.
_pheabinenten Picak a0, frat antes ne. iis pay wa, i
sawomy tad wt a one we mitted tae
rh
37934
T. J, BEBGAN et ol.,
Appellants,
vs,
THOMAS J, COURTNEY, State's Attorney
of Cook County, Illinois, et al.,
Appellees,
979 1.4.629"
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICR O'CCHNOR
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
June 27, 1933, complainants, five individuals, as officers
of the Chicage Teamsters, Chauffeurs and iielpers Union of Chicago
and Vicinity, in behalf of thexselves and of eighteen locel unions |
affiliated with the Teamsters Union, filed their bill against Thomas |
J. Gourtney, State's Attorney of Cook county, Bdward J. Kelly, Mayor
ef the City of Chicago, and James P. Aliman, Commissioner of Police
ef the City of Chicage, praying tnat defendante be enjoined from com
bining and coneviring to prevent somplainants from holding meetings
and frem interfering with complainante in their ceveral occupations
as members of the unions. Defendants answered, denying all charges
ef wrongdoing made against them, The case wae referred to a Master
in Chancery, whe took the evidence, made up his report, and recommended
that a decree be entered dismissing the »111 for want of equity. Com-
Plainants filed objections to the report, most of thich were ever-
ruleéd, and on the hearing before the Chancelior the Master's revort
Wee approved, a decree entered diswiseing the bill fer want of
equity, and cempiainants appealed te the Supreue court, contending
inter alia that constitutional questions were invelved, ‘The Supreme
court, upon consideration, transferred the case to this court,
Complainants say that the eighteen unions have about 18,000
members; that they are earrying on their union activities, and its
members are employed in their several lines of work in a legitimate
manner and in no way interfere with the defendants; that the defend-
ante, the State's Attorney, the Mayor and the Commissioner of Police
Pre, Uae 7
he "
bei Ney «ta to MADURA ,& .?
Pease Leggs rh “ th i
fe A og shi
Ch PY "
THUOO HOT agi: ae
i #S '™* Re a ie a eth « any 4, oy .
* pan .
pha yomiossa wletns& ,YEMTMVOD .L SAMORT
ete te ,atoniist «ct au00 ants ae
HOuMOO’G AVTTSYE oOulaCieaed Au
-THUOO GWT £O MOIMIGO ANT GaHaVIad
etoolite aa edoubtuk bat avit ,atasaiaigaoo eter ,ts enw sa
egacins ‘to metal atreqiell bas ete Tisast® .etedamesT ogsotdd ke
astotay Level aeotigte to Sas sevlesueds te tisded al ,ysdintety haw
emaod? tanhege {Lid ‘sheds boll? ,nolal atetemeot ot dibw bodol litre
toye% ,ytled .t prewbil ettawen dood to yomrrotsA s' erage evendav0d_,t
eoiied to renelesinwe®) ,aealla .¢ seul bas ,opeotdd to ysld edt to
Reh moxt Beatotas od etnabanteb Sent galyatq ,ogacidd to yeho eat %
egaittees gaisfod mett etneniaiqnos snevetg of gate anos bas aataid
aneiiequooo Istevee ttedt ah ataantalgquoe diiw jatxe tastat mont bas
. “gegtaco ffs gaiyaeh ,ber98vEne atushboeted .eneias edt ‘to aregenn Fa
‘tetsed # of hexte'tex aaw sea9 eal .wodt teniage obem aahobgaorw ‘to
bao 0 bas ,troqot eld qu ebew ,vonehive et sgot ew ,\ts sums ue
matt wtinps to tuew tol Lite ext guteeioetd besedme ed. eateeb deme
wttevo exew dekde ‘to teem ,dxoget edt of amoltootdo belt? esannt
toges a'aetes adv tolisomed) sit ero'ted gutteed oft aa. hee Doser |
‘to dus¥ vet [Lid odd gutseingtd betedae sens08b 8 sDevouggs aaw
eatnaerane , fies sastgwe a4} of beleegge stagataiqnes bas stitupe
emerges adit shovioval erow sitolveenp Laneoliutiteacs tent able zetat
| ‘;disoo absd of saao odd bovretanerd ,moltatebsenoo moqu ,IxH99
000, 8f tueds svad enolase apedtigle edt dads yas nseemhenerae..: se eae
have entered into an unlawful conspiracy to compel compixinante te
withdraw from their respective unions and to beeome members of
another union, viz., the International Brotherhood of Teansters,
Chauffeurs and Helpers Union; that defendants, by using the police
foree, have prevented compleinants from holding a number of meet-
ings of their umions and on several occasions have arrested many of
complainants and had them incarcerated in jail; that ciuargesa of dis-
orderly conduct were filed against some of these men, but upon hear-
ings in the Kunicipal court of Chicago they were all discharged;
that in some cases some of the complainants were arrested and kept
in jail for a number of days and in wiany instances no charge was
Placed against them,
In addition te the prayer for an injunction there was @
prayer for an accounting for damages claimed to have been sustained
by complainants on account of the unlawful acts of the defendants,
The defendants answered the bill, denying all charges of wrongdoing
and in this answer the State's Atterney admits that all but four of
the unions have, at all times, conducted themselves in a proper and
lawful manner; that the only uniona against which defendants make
somplaint are Loeal 701, Yardmen, Hikers and Helpers Union; Loeal
704, Ghicago Coal Teamsters, Chauffeurs end Helpers Union: Lecal
726, Ganitary Teameters, Chauffeurs aid Helpers Union, and Local
731, Excavating Teamsters, Chauffeurs end Helpers Union.
The State's Attorney's answer further sets up that the four
unions mentioned have, through violence and intimidation, dictated
to various industries what men they shall employ and on what terms
they shall work; that this has been brought about by campaigns of
terrorism, bombings and destruction of property; that various em-
ployers and employees have called upon the defendants, as law enforce
ing officers, to intervene for their protection, and that defendsents,
as law enforeing officers, intervened to prevent riots and to pre=
—
ot etteale Lemos Meqmoo ot yoatigqanos fu twalaw ad, tut Setetne évad
nes eebdmow asnooed o¢ haus suolaw evitoegaer tled? mor? wetbapiw
~exeseuaeT ‘to Hesston? or Lgagidenns tad: edt. .shy mabe estan:
aot log edd yataw “4 ,etaabao tes tefh mela’, ‘etaqiek bole ee
~boow ‘to tedued # gitihter oott efosatelqaon betasverq evar ,soret
‘to Yaaw boteotiw evar eovisnogo Letaves 9 bay anehaw thedt to epat |
«ath to eogzeilo gad pifist ai betersotsont mont Bea ‘baw atasolelqmos
ote0r fogw fod (8c seedy to daoo ‘denlaye he Lllt ‘otew shinies robe ’
ig lth diy LEE wd Qailte "lind HMS Ve" Vnad Perera ey i
: — brdootie owew dtaattlatdmes edd ‘to eston dbaad sue al deste |
eae dite of Wéodetant “Yrom al Bae mes a edana « sialon 4
““g eaw oredt notvoastal ae tot seyatg odd a9 mots thea ad. te
_ beate tee mood evad of bemiole aegeneb ‘tot anki nuedon ae ot |
Libeailcie't08 ed} x0 afoa Kirtwxtaw oad “Yd “Jawaded ne ad aede
-gitdabyaorw ‘io degrade Ite galyaes , tka Side “Bbiowlie Sade a
te ‘uot tud ffe fost wdPahe “yomredsA a Vetete ont towens ven vilin “aol she i$
- dhgoig s oi deviceshas ‘bedoubace ‘,wemtt Lie $a i bial i yond
ee eaabuetel ‘de tdw beanege eabbaw eae “bil file roa iy wed
A geal seoinl ateg leh pad aeetki , sembreY 100 Keood ot s talel
. “feoed paolsl eteqtel Sao stieTtuadd yoredénest » feed” . nok j
essed baa pao erefel Bae btusttiatd ,eceTeneet
moby egal pnts dhunipvend hoenpnroninsien ait
pegnen ab a ita en bon Gene Lolv dyivotas errs foro ls
ewrot dat od bre yolgms ftesté Yodd aoa’ salle eokaeinat
“te emgiagins yd fwode teileitd mood abit wLK) shld fatow Ekede ye
tte Pieter tact pyhisqerg ‘te not senrdeed” pid’ asatdaod 4a t:
Lox8tiy ‘wet’ we", e$aabaa teh Sit? togb bo Lted raat it
abiibad tab dest Baul beni molfestona tient tot snevee tt:
. “ Day Be
074 oo baw ‘edols ‘guevetq ot ‘penevredat \ereot'tto perl s
serve the public peace, The answér denies that the State's At temey
caused employers to be arrested to foree them to hire only members
of the International Union, but avers that on occasions he caused
the arrest of certain employers who were attending a meeting of an
organization known as “Trucking and Teaming Exchange (populariy
known as T. N, U.)%; that thie organization was dominated and con-
trolled by well known gangstere end raeketeers with criminal ree
ords, and was attempting to comtinue to affiliate with the Team-
sters Union; that the kayer ef the City had ordered the affilla-
tion of all trucks engaged by the City wiih tne “Trucking and Teame-
ing Exchange” discontinued st once; that as a result of this there
was a strike called by Local 726, Sanitary Teamsters, Chauffeurs
and Helpers Union, which was engaged by the City in the rewoval of
garbage, and as a result the health of the inhabite te ef the city
Was endangered. Yhe answer further sets up in considerable detail
numerous other alleged violations of law by certain of the com-
plainants which we think it unnecessary to further mention here,
and evers that all acts done by the State's Attorney were to pree
serve law and order in the comumnity.
The Mayor and the Commissioner of Police filed a joint and
several answer in which all wrongdoing on their part was denied, |
and averred that numerous persons having criminal reeords, and
ethers wanted by the police for the commission of crimes, congre-
gated in publie pleces under the guise or subterfuge of holding
union meetings, and that the police attended such meetings for the
purpose of preventing riots and other erimes,
The record is voluminous, containing about 2560 pages,
The evidence tends te shew thet, as has been the custom for many
years, a number of police officers were assigned by the City te
the State's Attorney's office and are under his supervielen; treat
at the time in question 60 te 8 police officers, under Captain
a , create Nea sy
“pits 2A ghaged® oh dostf eotveh wen ofT sone ohiduy ond | « te a
atodmme Yiow exit oF coeds oerot of hotaortts od oF | exeyo lame feeniaD Ta
bewuno sf endidades ao Seid wren inf jnotAy Lewottanwmenl site
‘tts ‘to gaifoem a gitthastie ote" ow ereyetqas alatteo Bo teste od
qitalugod) egtadond gatueeT bas yakdourT* ee swosudt ao Bankaegte
-mh bee Hetaciaed sew wolieainaygty widd sang yg? (2 oT aes awn
-ost IpGisdso div wrsesouent hae @tetegsag awetd Slow vw bolton’ — Ma
2
wae? oF dof efatlitte ef ounivaow of yalsgmette saw “baie ' ebro
mitiiVig ose botedro hast YORU ody ‘to Tog of dent fetelal | ‘
«nae? bite yabilowr’™ of os bv YPLU 9s YS bo gegte elowrs Khe os one
sxsst whds to tiveor o an sent yoons fe bewaliaooeth “egriademt g
erse'tine® ,etetensel yrsdlmad ,aSY Leood yd bo fteo wasenne: ll
to Levéaet ot m2 yFt0 ent yd hegegow wew dokdw ,notnt eevee fe. 3
“gdie ets “Ye ad wtidedtst ody ‘to aittesd et Piveet @ ne bie, egad
ffateh aldexebienoo at gw etee woridiu't towers eff © sbormanaine we 3 3
wiio odd Yo mietreo yd wel "to ancltafole hege fla teat
“(eted Moléacd reditet of preadesenin 72 amhds ov okie tnastwke
emg oF OTewW yYsntEZtA w'odete ete yd onoh etoe Lhe tedd wiers é r 3
| ttisween edt st wobte baw wel sve
: ae #ateh w be llt eelley to Yoootean twa ede ‘ek erga soe AG 3
| bekneb maw tue they ao galobgnoww Ite debdw ab) tomem wren
bee jabscoer Kattades getvad @noareg sxoremwa dad? Séeteve Bia
ndestiat veantiaemmaatens ‘set ootsog od? ncaa | 0 pny
a ne, salt waite: savin ene sal ont
“pd EdED et yd bengines stow wood te ended - oie 8”
a
Gilbert, were assigned tc the Stato's Attorney's office; that the
State's Attorney beeame convinced that some of the unions in auese
tion were dominated and sentrolled by the eriminsl ELenees res that
the great masse of the mexbers, who were law abiding/uen, had little
or no voice in the alfaire of their unions, and he decided to ure
the power of his office to remove the dominsnee of such element,
Te bring this about he sought te have the members of certain of the
uniens sever their mewbership with their resreetive unions and te
transfer their membership to the International Union, whieh he
thouzht was properly conducted and free from the dowinenvee of the
eriminal element. Amd in May, 1933, using the police assigned to
his office and also other police officers of the City to the number
of about 250, he prevented meetings that were sought to be held by
Local Unisn 701 ané Local tini on 704,
Complainants offered evidence tending to show that these
meetings were in every way lawful and that the interference by the
State's Atterney was wholly unwarranted; om the other side, there
is evidence to the effeet that some of the criminal element ware
attending the meetings and that the police prevented the meetings
to maintain law and erder, The evidenee further tends to show that
May 26, 1933, a meeting of the members of Local 726, Sanitary Team-
sters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, whose members were mostly em-
ployed by the City in removing ashes and garbage, was called at the
instance of the Commissioner ef Public Works of the City, and counsel
for complainants say in thelr brief that the police broke up this
meeting. it seems a little difficult te understand why a meeting
Galled by the Commissioner of Public Vorks ef the City should be
prevented by poiice officers of the City, but we tink this point
unimportant, The evidence further shows that a strike ef the union
Whose menbers were engaged in reneving ashes end garbage was called
May 22nd, and complainants contend that the calling of this strike
‘ eee ee Os
| | y
. Mee
q =
me y..
ttt death pontYte atqomrbsta weeare’ sie of beig hid Hw Meets
meerog nit owrgiter ete to ewes tent Benwly aie’ sasded yormodta &tetese .
anit bee Teme te Lantaree ont yd boflotites hae beteatnoh etow abke
‘OLtLt hod ,woN\gatitde wat etow off jwretasm ott "to seam deere ods
asi of HOLLOGS off bas \Sttoda ties ‘to otter sae wh SOLOW Geo
tno dows te oscemiaoh of} overex bd @al'tto hater
and “ke Absdieo Lo ateduem ent ovad oF Pagiide OH twoda eh |
6? hac aaotny evidoovese «isd? div ghawredued’ sfely cove ante
ot Moltw ,aotn? Loco ttorgs tel odd 6d qhieredingm t80ae Othe
did to Sorcalash ott gor't sort Bae Kodoubaes Ytesqeng Bat pei
Od Homytese sottog edt gaten eEOr (ye at SnA lendiete Hindley
sodinest onif of YC? add Yo eveot'rre eetied terse owts re
‘gd hket of oF doigwoe orow tadt wynktoon bedosvere art S08e ‘tyodd “xe
i JOT io tn Lebest Brit LOW nel ath ade
SRoNt Led? wore of yikbass eonbive beret¥e etaacta taney wires
etd Yd eonete Trornf eco Sarid bee Lwitded Yaw yteve sit oxo
ered joblv todte ent ae jhedtietiswaw yLtorw eaw yortodtAé po tegt
(Pew Irene fe Fomdmtto Set Té moe! said fov'Yre ‘wat os sone bive es
agciveom edt hodmewerg selLed oct ten? Baw agutioom ond yuiSnoite :
| Sapte waste oo shee? vertret Wonettyd ear tata 0 Wd wat nbaatan of
pee de belize taw ,ogedtag bo eecha s alla lt I”
. feeuior bee ,yeto eA ‘in advo otitent ng ‘ye tole} Lima |
allt qu eabYd soltod eat Vass Ye ted thedy’ ai Yin
‘goiteon » yd bassorehi of Fivartite oft: it a anebe a2 Oyhiveem
otf fisorie YeEO wt Ty waltON eMltiturl "Yo eb taetiniia® eth bettan
(— itkng’ kath Atertoia ow iter HLT oath Yo aOR Ye Balrog Yel ‘
made ont Te birdie a twHd wwoirta’ Kode Wore beh” entra
boitieo daw Syateny bon sein QaTvened mt sam ere" |
bik satin ate ‘to gakfine edt dait baerie ssnamts
resulted from the fact that the City of Chicage was employing men
on account of their political affiliations who were not aeanbers of
the union, end there is other evidence that might indicate this
trouble was brought about ic part, at least, by the action of the
City officials in refusing te submit to the demends of the Trueking
end Teaming Exchange, After members oi thie union went on strike
they were ordéred back te work by the city officials, ond they said
that since sueh men were civil service empioyees, charges would be
Viled ageinat them before the Civil service Ceimiaslonerps uvless
they returced to their work, A number of such charges were riled,
and some ef the men discharged. Uhe strike was called oif and the
men returned to work on lay 29th,
The evideuece furtser suows that there vas conciderable
trouble between the unions and the police and the Ciate's Atiomey's
office from May until July and thereafter; that many arrests were
made, some of the wen locked up, and a number of union meetings pre-
vented; charges were filed against some of tuose arrested but in no
@ese was any of the men found guilty. About tne first of July a
number of men were arrested and thrown inte jail where they remained
wntil about July 5th.
The evidence further shewe that during the troubled period
the members of the unions and their officials were addressed by the
State's Attorney, on some of which occasions the evidence tends te
show, the State's Atterney advised in mo wacertain terme tiat the
men ehould withdrew from their lecal uuions and join tne Interna-
ticnal Union; that on othercoccasions exployers, at the State's Ate
torney’s request, met with him, he etuted his views of the matter,
and advised that they employ only mexbers of the International Union.
There is ather evidence in tae record that a number of men
Conuected wits the complainaats were charged by defendants to have
eriminal records, but when witnesses were put on the stand it ape
Sire hs
a
neo gatyoreed exw ogeetiD to yitO edt dade took sid ment bog kueety
44 etedeen don oxew of Bmoltuttirte Lewheilog shod to damogea ‘ier
ehee ateetipl Suaim teat soussive tedro al etedd bac ,aokmw eddy
“ede te neiesh ed co (Sdeot ta ,ftagq wh Foods ifauord eav efdyort:
gatkennt off te wbaraet odd o¢ tladue of guifawtet af aisiottse eto.
editée ae juew cotnu eld To ereduem wodA © eyietoxl yatuoeT Bnd!
bbws youd hie ,efetoltte ¥sdo eat yo Axow od dead boebrs wrew YeMt?
od biscw @egisiio ,eeeyoiams oolvses LItyle oxen noe dows somte: saith:
aseiiy e@xouolowianod eoivie Livh® arid exoled meer teutoae DeLPR
,feiit ener seywiio diese to tedmir A .aow thosld oF bonzudet 94 :
eit Sie Fle beLieo saw sdiute od? . bograsion Lh nom oad, 16. oxo Ba
: Hi G2 Yelk wo Arow oF samiehiell
aivetebinaco aay eteAsy tot evga teddawt soushive ont ‘Pie pen
gi yemrotia elasods sas bas osliog wit has ened ett moawled efduend,
eter aveeria Yaea sade pte taeteds bas yLav chia yak aoe? OtYtE
~@tq agaidses colag ‘to todawn « bee ,qQu beagol near edt Ya'amos & \sbem
an af fod belasttm ovoid to amos Sentage PoLlt't orev nestado jSetner
# eins te #exkt edd SuodaA oytiiug beuioT waot outs "to eae nw ‘ai
boutasot yeu? erode Let ofat wwotds baw hedeowsa exow nom to tedaium
| wide vial twode ths
boktsq Delduard eH? gatcub tend owosts -nedteu't sommbive eats Ge
ot? yd Beanctbhe othw efotol Tio, sted? bas enetau edt — Soom
9ae Gas? eeed aletvosaw om ak bealvbe consesea.t' 9s idle
sacihnant tit nto’ suic: anobéar teat: thhatnest areal a aie
ofA ategaseé od ta ,oxsyotqae asolsapogensdto me sacs. amas tail
tes em act to eweiv eft hotaie oc yaks sidw fom, ented
no bnt Tenolvgaredal dd ‘Le exodiem yine yolque yosd sestd bo } | ‘ :
age HE basse and so tue otow soenent tw scosion dh yb
peared that most of the persons so accused were without any criminal
record and many of them had never been arrested,
Complainants say that if tne State's Attorney were sueccesse
ful in causing members of the lecal unions in question to transfer
their membership to the International Union, this would result in
great oroperty damage because many of the unions were obligated on
leages and had sick and death benefite, If the members should trars-
fer to the International Union it is net at all clear that this would
result in any less to the memberehip beeause the property and rights
micht be taken over by the new unien for the benerit of its members;
but in any event, complainants would not be entitled te recover
damages in thie suit, Garpenters' Union vy, Citizens Committee, 333
Tli. 225-257.
Complainants contend that under the Genstitution and laws of
tunis State and of the Nation, toey nad @ right te assemble in a peacee
able manner, as they atteripted to do on numerous eceasions, and that
the State's Attorney ond the other defendants should heave been ene
Joined from interfering with such meetings, ‘There can be ne question
about the legal right ef complsinants te organize as omembers of a
union and to hold meetings in a lawful and peaceable munner for the
purpose of discussing enything that would tend to promote their wel
fare so long as it involved no breach of the peace, They may join
or refrain from joining any union without interference or otherwise
from the State's Attorney, the Mayor, er anyone else, As said by our
Supreme court in Cn s Corim
enters! Union vy. Oa itiee, 3153 Li.
225 (238), ‘Every man has a right to full freedom in the disposal of
his laber aceerding to his will, and workwen have a right to organise
for the purpose of promoting their comnon welfare by lawful means,
They may impose any condition of their employment which they may
regard as beneficial to them, and, if not bound by contract ,may
abandon their employgent at any time, either singly er in a body,
5
-
i 4
id e
Anakin} A dworid bw oxow beavooe 08 _anpere¢ ond, to foam Asay OTRO
barannze need seven baal masit 19 Yowm bag Stopes
~eneanve ator yourodsa 8’ esase exit ‘te touts yan etnente gna. auth
toteaesd oa tod dae up wd ehol tis Laoos auis ti) (BtedRom gel ameo ah Ae
mes,
ab diwmet binow ols 2 fobal Ennohi ante dats Sat p. Mhdlexe dese
Pc) bodagiide exew aso iays eats te new commend opened coreqory ane,
; A
~8 sett bivests arodapat aha ‘ti 82 Need ad meb Bote #oie ban bos sepees —
5 Liow asi darts 120 Lo fie da toa ai ah ao ke Aanoliente sal oat, 92, mo.
edniy be hae visor exit onxaued atiezedae = ont of nao Yas. al ifupes.
jactoefane a adh te # Peaed ous ret won wen ond x T2v0, sole). 96 tae
gevonex ot bo? ttas od ton biwow Stoantslgnes ,taeye, he. tat
to wank bas oid 8 190600 ons tehan tact hans aoy wang
«opaaq « at aiduasas 0! igi 6 bass Wood ,molteh an 10, ban, tet, ahah
das? bas 028200 ANOTO MNS MO ab ot botqmeria yeat 8. ORM Ola
mci ‘hesd evad b uote atasbos ed xoxit 9 ont ban Wormots A ai ptaed amt
— tolteene ‘on od ase oxoatt nyaitoom soe aw anime Srdesith :
a te Veceuenn ae oubusto og afisk Lqu0e %e Bh ak: Laget ond feede,
is Lays
ed} “ot xdamee siiascacy bus isteel « at egritosm ‘bod ———
“in wu cout so9m0q viis te dosent on 1 hexsorat than :
eatwibiito x0 eunsye'tredad tuoda be notes was mitrhg ore it .
Ny re x ai he ; ye ; ' 43 Rohte
ry eft Ber le r to Sarl A PRES al : bo & ote se Pit we Saar High
z
te Lacvosth out nd ebowst ‘ist ot Hig tt a a eed pies
osiaagre od Paige a eves OMALOW baa Alin nid ot aalineges, Lod s.
Re ehow s a ‘x0 eégitte xostd te eek 7 ts r
Bee Sw'twad ‘a ous'tLew moauoe xboais _ aettommxg, Te gn oety
won teutd so Asiw tuaonco Leia ‘sheds Yo i924 bag 100 ys, 2
vam, toarsm00 w bawod son ub ban Rn or went and )
ROR Ea Sa
mnt AN
with or without cause, They have the right to a free and open market
in which te dispose of their labor," There is some evidence tending
to show that this right ie peacefully asseuble was unduly interfered
with by the State's Attorney and the police officers, but there is
mo evidence in the record that tends to shew that the State's Ate.
torney or the pelice officers under his charge were acting from
ulterior motives, but on the contrary the overwhelming weight of the
evidence is to the effect that what was dome in this respect was
setuated by the belief that it was for the best interest of the come
munity and fer the maintenance of law and order,
It further appears from all the evidence in the record that
what the State's Attorney said and did toward the unien men transe
ferring their menberships from lecal unions to the International
Union was solely beeause he was of epinion that this would benefit
the men employed in their several occupations and tend to promote
jaw and order in the community. There is no suggestion to the con-
trary found in the brief of counsel for complainants, "Aes a general
rule, equity will not enjoin the exercise of police power given by
law to the officers of a municipal corporation, or interfere with the
public duties of any of the departmente of government, or restrain
proceedings in a eriminal matter,” i o Pub Sto) oh. ¥
NeCiaughry, 148 Ill. 372-330, But where a public official aets
from faudulent and malicious motives arbitrarily and without justi-
fication, a court of equity will enjoin such illegal atts to prevent
irreparable injury or a multiplicity of suite. Garter City of
Ghieago, 87 111, 283;
111. 572. "'by irreparably injury is not meant that the injury is
beyend the possibility ef repair by money compensation, but it must
be of auch a nature that no fair and reasonable redress may be had
in a court of law and that to refuse the injunction woulda be a denial
of justice.’ Delux Motor Co. v, Dever, 252 I1l. App. 165.
ie oe ae ae ee
=
ube
soaltim uono bae cott # oF tHgit ont eva yodT easac Puoddiw ao débw
gaibaed sonehive emoe af oxedt *.todal tient to saoqeth of ‘to Baw ar
hoeeteesat qiobaw aew eldoesaa yliatteoesd af aeigtt stad Sadt wode o¢
at ersdd gud letoo tts vokfog ef? bme yorrrot sa atatade SH yd afte
“ata w'eded® only ast woda of ‘abaed add Htoeot ott HP eonbbive da
ort axitoa otew sgtads atd tobty wrooltro eotfeg aad Ye yemeet
ond Yo tifgiow galalsdeteve edt ytatiaes ot no tad ynoviton ibility
dav gouges ela at emo eav tadw tadt tés'Tts od 6d Of ethete
“woo odd 26 feotw snk ted oft so? saw Th salt tiiod wAy ys Nedaeie
weft fos wel to songuetiiad vd ‘tot ‘pia ytiaes
fads Dower ents al eomebivs odd Lin wove weasqga “eeddtat #8? 84 bad
acnwed tom uotew odd boned BLD Sud blew yoardsta dModays sad viii
Iaaeitecsetal odd of acoine Level sort aqtderedeem ahead gabedet
#tened bLuow atid add aotatee ‘to vaw od Wadsosd YieLow sew weRRU
efomexg o¢ bast ban eagitaqwaoo Latevee teat at aammanlomniioe
Anos Sed of wottueggue ot ef event ge iaiatmes SHY af o Bae
isting e eA” ,adcmutetgiion “t0t foamed Ye Yeidd ext? dn "hasot Senile
W aevly owe sotfog to Sulorexe oils Htetdo fon EttW Yvihips \ fib
ocf dtie sustxetak to | MoktetogT6e taqtetrida & to atesiTid smd of as
ftexteast to ,taemre voy to anneal dit “to une ‘to aoreuh oftdiig
" | tit "exon lenuner lalsloripepeins )
‘attaut Iwodtiw bas YLivertidxe whet tod eeihattie eprepens 1% caus"
ten os atee dege Lit sone uiotue Lfiw oeund ‘te sina ‘ys
WAS yids Med Ly sium Mout os 9 te
ek yrhat ents teat tangw tou ak wiht eideteqot
pene th tut jwolssectegnios YSnon yo Hager Te eth tec ten ind Sinaguis
bud od ‘a avethot eideaedest bee thet om eh ayeln woe |
In the instant case the State's Attorney is clothed with a
broed discretion in performing the duties of his office, and courts
of equity will not, except in s very plain case of arbitrary abuse,
interfere with cuch discretion, “+n Garter v, City of Chicago, 57
Ill, 283, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice MeAllister, said (p. 288):
"The question for decision is not whether a court of equity will in-
terfere with the exercise within ite proper limite, of a publie
political power vested in the city, which necessarily involves the
largest discretion; but whether in the ease of a plain departure
from the sower which the low has vested in it, and from fraudulent
end malicious motives, it is, by the use of property which it holds
in trust for the benefit of the public, about te do an irreparable
injury to the property of individuals, a court of equity will in-
tervene to prevent such injury."
In Delaney v, Flood, 183 §. ¥, 323, the court of appeals of
Hew York, in reversing an injunctional order whereby a police
captain of New York City was enjoined, said (p, 329): “Such a
situation as is presented in the case at bar is one which, in its
very nature, cannot be adequately dealt with by a court of equity.
What might be a trespass at one instant of time may be a perfectly
justifiable and necessary act at another,*
Upon a consideration of all the evidence in the record it is
@lear that there were no freudulent or malicious motives on the part
of the State's Attorney or of the other defendants; that the law
Placed a large discretion in the defendants with which a court of
equity will net interfere,
The deeree of the Superior court of Cook county is affirmed,
DECREE AFFIRMED,
MeSurely and Matchett, JJ,, concur,
bw becttoke af youtoted storare eat oes tnetead edad» (4 9) py
sttoe bax oor wir Yo ee tteh alt guberto'teeg ah nolteroath Anon,
(sede YIetIidte te sees siaig ytovie wh tgsone ,ton Iftw yttope.te,
we: to t aettaS at snotteroets signe ithe one taeda
$(888 ,¢) hiteo- sperwtin case vobta tk yd gatdseqs.,diusoo sf? .,f8R) 511.
oak Like Yshays Yo fumoo # saddesw toa ek aokshooh tat .nolteoup gate .
aiideye # lo ,ottett weqorq ath abitiw or hovexe odd 3 bw erottet
act aaviovat ylivesessen doltdw ,ytio ed? nt. bodeo rowed fantitiog. |
- patittegos Atala @ Yo cane ond nd wodtodw Jud. pmeltonpedh seognad,
fasivbuatt mort bee (ek at bedver aed wal oft: delde te¥Og ,
-ai ILiw — te tance & jelewhivibat to stroman sial' i wha
*vexubat doom, sonoma etm 19)
esos dese) tn manied meee =
di ot dott ome ak tad te wane anit ad, bednenorg wt em mohseudt
gi t) Bievet odF Kt soMMbive ef the to sntaucveds tame * a9 roles .
sissy oes we govidou auotetlan to tee dubwett on ote gtedd 4 ‘ ii
Neat Sls Sea GAtaChaR OD ehatooeds tome gowres CAphodadl
to Pteoo @ dy lity iio atmedostoh edd af modtotoads sgtal ab
BO A SON tO an, tt LE oe lal eh ei A |
soar al Yass dood Te Fxmos: rotsequa edt Le wetveb eathes a
omaeshieal bir yee i i Pe jae hee eee - ii ee ea Pig de ky Fare. oak Y pe adeeisias a
un b 4 ih
i ” ah Diath. AS a ee eaeetan cage e Fk i
37879
GEORGE BAMBAKARIS, ©
Appellee
APPEAL| FROM MUNICIPAL COURT
vo, §
fOF CHICAGO,
L. 0, THIEN, trading as :
L. ©, YHIEME& COMPANY,
war tant. 279 LA. 630)
WR. JUSTICE MeSURELY DELIVERED THE OPINICN OF THE COURT,
Plaintiff breught suit to recover compensation for services
rendered defendant, claiming that defendant promised to pay hin
$500; upon trial by the court judgment was for $349, from whieh de-
fendant appeals.
Defendant admite employing plaintiff but saya tuat the come
pensation was not named, Plaintiff testified to a promise by de-
fendant to pay him $500,
Defendant testified that he was in business in Ghicage,
leeating and representing heirs with regard to their inheritance.
On his impressive letterhead his business is stated as “Inter.
mational Law and Panking Exchange,” with offices or connections in
many of the prominent cities in the United States. He desired to
gecure a power of attorney from Geowge Kasidigonis authorizing de-
fendant to act in connection with some interest Aasidigonis had in
ah estate in California,
Hugo Sehmidt testified that he.wae asseciated with the de-
fendant and endeavored to get George Kasidigonis to execute a power
ef attorney for the defendant to represent him but the witness faild
because Kasidigonis did not understand English; se then brought
plaintiff, who speaks Gresk, te defendant, and some arrangement was
made for plaintiff to attempt te secure the power of attorney; about
two weeks later plaintiff brought Kasidigonis to defendant's offiee,
where defendant explained the power of attorney and plaintiff trans-
lated to Kasidigonis in the Greek languace,
DP ad i ro Te | ‘i eet! i | 7
‘ ig 1 ) 5 ees oe
{ h f ; a fe
- Oe Lea it
. LR ig
Ly 3 Set
eelle gga ro ; Mae
SE RMN ae et Be hc Ue
o8V city
eh ua
1. | | 4 : ‘he pe ia rT
gre Ko ‘ hus nla am
0 GO ibid OVS wm ge Pe teak ih aay mem ‘4a,
v
ene iia This
juayp ‘te uae
THUD THT TO FOIMITO ONT TEARVIAES Yusha SOLTEyy | cya
eoolvaes cy ao tanna gues 18 voo07 ot ‘tue ityuord vibiaelt ta
LB Re tmowaee
subst yee ot boalworg tusbas‘teb tacit pitas Lo ‘frabae tel |
a
ie aioe ne. ane
-8 siokaw mort , ase 20 enw tueaybut FaK00 ost tw feist sogu peak
Wr ee
Blase tae a
es Wee TRE.
«moo ost tant aya: ese vitdakatg ‘ant yolgms ot taba Yasbaotod hive
ica aie ‘
“ob ww seiwox a of beltitess Viadmiesd “demon ‘tom aaw ott 8 fae
| 0088 mkt waa oF Aeseng
voyan iif) ak evoutend a aaw od feds ‘po tr ivaed i abi
ae
Sousa busdint siosid of prayer dw axissd gals nonordo% pen’
ue " F my bj Shy ques
tegat" Bs pedace al sacataud abst basso’ tot hee! at
: Sh Re ae Pe Ta ttt me ak py ae
ai eaoitooanoa 10 aa0!tto daw * eyaasiont ‘sabinett Se wad ih
es Pg. $e . Ae
oF bextesd oii saodad bor ta ods at aot to ‘tmaknorg 10 yom
Ye all eat yi me
~ob gataitesdsse ainegihtan’ ogueed mort wourodsa ‘te seweg & ee
2 RNa tated a nt ‘e Reh tae
ae ute Sinnpeeteneh, foosedat | a Athy nobtosainos nk tos ‘ ‘i |
‘A ‘ mA ot : ae th. ; bs Mi ve
“sabre at adie -
ek s 4 ) evga iy f ii phe
“seb ond titiw beiatooses sew od pent bettisend ‘thhastoe oputt me
; 3) part yee as ube Pan to ; ic
wave a ofunexe oo ebnogiblens ogr08d $93 we. SLO Vas bee bas ek
PR eee ye eM We es
“ eLier anouut bw oat tad subsi susnetg9% od anbae toh 10" | yerer odd. + }
_ telguord noald od rae ELy os band are bes fou bib sinogibtan i 9 ;
spi OE ea We ee e's
"saw inomegaeT se ‘omos has (ainsbus ted | ot * tookd axlae qe ‘ts ‘eet mtantete :
toda jyeoretta te xeweq ont exuose of dqmotia of ines wi ® _ a
eB Rie 55 tae
‘sh sane walpaiate hue enon to ewe ula bowl s.
Plaintiff testified, confirming Schmidt's testimony and
that he had several talks with Kasidigonis, that he had spent a
good deal of time and over $100 in an endeavor te get him to go te
defendant's cfliee; that when they met at the oifice plaintiff ex.
plained the power of attorey to Lasidigonis in Greek; plaintiff
geaid that at first Kasidigonis did not want to sign the papers; that
then defendant whispered to piaintifi that if he would get nim to
Wign the power of attorney he would pay plaintiff $500; that plain-
tiff succeeded in persuading Kasidigonis to sign the papers; that
defendant has not paid im anything Jor his wexvigea. There is a
letter in the record written by defendant te plaintiff in whieh a
remittance for the services is promised just as scon as defendant
receives his fee from California, |
Defendait's testimeny confirms the testimony of the other
Witnesses except that he denies he ever whispered to plaintiff that
he would pay him #500; defendant says, in effect, that no auiount of
compensation for plaintiff's services was mesitioned, and in defend-
ant's opinion the services rendered by plaintiff were worth about
$50.
Defendant's fee for representing George Kasidigonis in the
estate matter was $693; the trial court awarded plaintiff? one-half
this amount, This award was intiuenced by the critical attitude of
the triai court toward what he thought to be the practice of iaw by
defendant, who was not a licensed attorney. However justified may
have been the strictures of the court, the conduct ef defendant is
hardly sufficient grounds for compeliing him te divide his fees with
Plaintiff,
The services of plaintiff were obtained because of the fact
that ne could speak beth English and Greek and could act as an in-
terpreter between defendant and Kasidigonis, whe spoke no English,
He is entitled to receive fair compensation for his services, to-
gether with any expenses incurred by him in the matter. Ne testified
has yaoultesd a! sbimiok gtherktaoe ,boitieees Byers rn
a ¢ueqe bei aii sasid thaogibieak aisiw milad Lecevee bad od sect
of 5 ‘ot mis tog od 1ovnobas ae al OOL} seve bas omid to Leoh booa
=k@ Tildaisig seitio ett sa ten cons soci dads. eee Ame te |
: ‘Mhtatela piseto ak aidogibiasd ot ye aresaa ‘to aewoq on? soalalg
feud :eteqeq oo? myle of fnew goa bd siaoghbieak saxit ge tad? bias
of makes 223 hivew esi te sacs Wrdeahelg os shh igre daabae Pr pden nf
nthe te sasid ;G08¢ thitaleLe we ‘biaew ol yomosia to tewog odt agte
_ pags jatsgeg ace opie of sinogtbiask. gulbaperteg uh! bobebbous ‘his
o ah ox0eal .eeghvaoe eld cot patdsyas mid bleg tou wat jute XO
2 dpi at Tiiduele of @nobew'teb yd wesd law brevet oie ah cedte
tnabmeteb es mooe as iuut beslmorg al eeoiviean ede t6t ont a
slmotticd ava't eet ebit aovieoet
aerito ond. to. ynost teed odd eurt ieee yatouidads 6! dmb tea?! 006 T
feds Ttigniet¢ of beregeldw weve ef colnsh od Jad Jdqeuxs sonuendiw
to fauese o@ dade ,sooKle at ,eyee Pashadteb ,008 mht yag bivow of
-hisiteb ak bas ,benolinem aay aegivies a Thisatelg t0? Aol tecne qnes
tueda Agtow erew ititaladg qd bershaot sonivase ot aokutqe agate
A winnkbnt pas J . (; volt pabies® bie ok Coaagl
edd at elnogibiesd og7098 gaitassatqer sot vet ea tnahasted (© vite
Risd-ono Tiivaielg behiewe xv Lotxd eds {800$ Kaw redtan otstee
te @hetivds iaoitino eld yd heoweultat eet draws etal s¢mgome eka?
Yd wel to golseery edt od of siguodd on Jeu Suawos Jines Leltd oat
ou betlices!, sevewol swumnerte hee teeht. & doa naw ocr yinabnetob
ad tushsy'teh 20 doubace odd ,¢1meo orld Yo wottoltre ‘oui wood overt
ddiw aout aha odivie of wid yubiiognes o't wbasday: dnote tree tind
rig ! OY evinutete
deck esid Lo anueced Somdatde s1ew ‘Thivnieiq ‘vo esetvise eat!) ?!’
<n, 2 a6 foe bineo Buc xbe1® baw dul ignt Wed wesee ‘hives Oi sath
inLignt ea odoqe os yalauyi bless ban susbds'teb nosweod retererey
ei 08 «Beolyioe aid 19% soideanequoo thet ovisost of pels hone aor
bertisans oH .tedtom odd ot wish yd bowaick ae .
that he had spent $100 in seeuring Kasidigonis' consent to the
execution of the power of attorney. This seems a large sum,
In view of the amount of defendant's fees in connection
with the Califomia matter, we are of the opinion that $150 would
be ample compensation to cover plaintiff's expenses and services,
The judgment will therefore be reversed and judgment ene
tered in this court fer plaintiff for $150. Each party to stand
his own costs of this appeal,
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND JUDGHENT IN THIS COURT,
O'Connor, P. J,, and Matchett, J., concur,
Oe Beek Re aad es. at eee ee
(
He
* pian nei tae pe 8
e i a a ott not | ie
Te LALO Ba Yay
a ee ewes .neetyicaw edat eed Qaksityae ae oem? toe want
& dedi mb Si tewsnde oh oie he ey (desler ele pia?) t ®
“tomes Sy ‘Baw St
tii ie! Bs mote en feet sows wf weed roe evegiro
si Pinwheel apeinet ae
ear wad ee Mo ee a oot ‘ae ea aa id bash
as
yal enh ries ii
Sens Veleiiete wi beceqeicw teva oe ae tiph wet wil dina
io tupeme oh dete, doe She Mig eyes Cpe et oe
ite tet. ob bee ,Soae te wea aon nes ivaes ao Reebety: “are
freddy en whee Pid uledg 4d) AerAbae€ roa ole
1 i mn
eis vd ER eeysiidess wgowes puidtvedenan’ at oa tat
Raion Sei Ag See tee aa oe ae: pauee
Pi: tt hae dehiwhee owes oe hase i Seat iad hat
‘ol Hee hk Goheawtig eee ed aa deigiart cad esti: iy
Yee Deh ye: oy Qa 6 oars seo hl ii
MR ea ok a YEE I Se Lb wre Hen
bortrs wos av tedden arid ee a 1s ae otis ‘
sunt
37901 arm ihe es
DORA HK, PRESTON, ) a
Appellant, )}
PEAL i_ SUPERIOR
ve.
OF COOK COUNTY. R
HENRY P, KNIGHT, ‘Wier’ © vee a, las apes
Appellee. ) 2 a 1 iiee O 3 0
WR, JUSTICE MeSUREBLY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THe COURT,
Plsintiff was struck end injured by an sutomobile belonging
to and driven by defendant; she brought suit for dawages and upon
trial the jury acquitted the defendant; plaintilf appeals from the
Judgement that she take nothing,
Counsel Tor defendant raises certain points ef practice
Yelating to the bill of exceptions, motion for new trial, objections
to instructions, ete, The claim is made that plaintiff has net
properly preserved for review the questions raised by her and has
not complied with the provisions of the old Practice act or the new
Practice act whieh went inte force January 1, 1954, We do not care
te discuss these points bat prefer to consider this case in the
spirit of section 4 ef the new civil Practice act, which provides
that cases should be considered and determined according to the
Substantive rights of the parties,
Plaintiff says the verdict of the jury is againet the mani-
fest weight of the evidence, ‘he aecident happened about one o'clock
in the morning of August 14, 1932, on U, 5 route Ko, 41, at a point
in ieke county, in the vicinity of Waukegan, and in the region gene
@raliy known as the Skokie Valley. Highway Ne. 41 runs north and
south, with an 18 foot concrete pavement and 6 foot shoulders,
Plaintiif and her husband were going south in thelr automo.
bile from Kenosha, Wiseonsin, to their home in Waukegan, Ill ineis.
Following them was another automobile driven by Albert Svoboda,
accompanied by two young ladies; although it wae a bright moonlight
Right there was some fog, intermittent but dense in spete; Svoboda'ts
eo ipe
_ «XEayeo 2009 1
“080 Axess
»PAUOD BHR 40 tOTKIso a canayLaan ‘yaanveow < ora ne nati
giinaolad elitewtun ae yd borwlai baie deorte sew Trisate ld * Lad
noqu his wegauph rot tive ddgwotd ode si uehae teh yd ‘wort sabe
aay mot) aleeqds Viltmtely jtashosteb oat besttapos yah on? tobe
galdton odet esa tard toomabe
oot tour ‘to aguioq abédtoe soalex ‘fas bas'ted ‘tok Doodived° OTs
anigitostdo ,isits woa rot apitem ,anoliqeexe to Lild edi oF gaidalen
tom aoe Liltaledg tect sbam al awtelo off .o¢o wenottountenk ob ‘
ae bits xen yd heotex sadelveeup ed? welvet 10t bevreseta viteqote
wen efi te tox eolioetl ble ead to anolalvorg eds déliw bottaweo on j
ates fom oh oY S801 ,f yiswiet eetot otal danew sig dete tos ook’
= a ee.
odd af ewan etd? tobiemes of te tet ted atukeg ovesdt
esbiverq sotdw ,i96 sattosti Livis wen ent to b aoktoos te
eit of gukitosos SealiwtestsS baa beteblanoo of bivedta aseco tat :
.colttcg od? to strigit visas: |
ainea $03 daninge 1 vent edd to soletev edt eyse TWiitalelt — |
Moolo'o ano ¢uode hemsceatt teedhteve eft .eeapbive sx? to tiigiew a
taieag a ‘te it .o% etwot ,8 .U ao , SSCL , df tanguA to sxhieien idk ek
=Gep molget ed? «ai bas ,aegodue® to yeiaioly edd ak vetawoo tell :
fas fidtonm anus [5 of yaweg ih «witav eidods ons as som A be ° :
,etehivedia tou'l & fre tneueweq stetomon soot 6L me | rs
-omotwe tledt af mivoa gaiey exew hosdewd wed bas Tridatest pares
yetomi tit ,anyetwa® ai emod thes of ,alenooal® adaeaek o% | y
__ yehedovti txodla yd aevixd efidemosue toasone ecw modt y we
- $2 tn008 doylxd a saw th oguodtte ~nethiL gawoy owt ut st
v et abodove jesvoqe mi ezmeh sud ermte amet Bot ome er 61
ear bumped into the rear of the Preston car and the Svoboda car
turned over, at an angle, into the north bound traffic lane; the
Preston csr ran on for about 100 feet, and plaintiff and her
hueband went back to the Svoboda car to investigate. One of the
young ladies in the Svoboda car, Kies Hornik, was lying south ef
and alongside the upturned car, a little stunned; vlaintiff says
she sat down on the readway and took Mise Hornik's head in her lap;
while she was in this position deYendant's car, eoming from the
south, struck her, inflicting serious injuries,
the defendant with Kies Peterson, his secretery, after a
downtown business session and dinner with proepective clients,
gterted northward toward Miss Peterson's home; defendant suggeest od
that as it wae a pleasant evening they take a farther ride; they drove
north on Sheridan road through Bvanston and Wilmette, cutting over
west, reaching the highvay known as Ne, 41; they proceeded north on
this route and ran into several wisps of fog; defendant proceeded
morthvrard, intending to turn eastward on & eroes-road running toward
Sheridan rosd; the two headlights on defendant's car were burning
brightly; there was also a spot light; the glare of the lights and
of cars coming southward reflected on the particles of fog making it
agifficult to see shead; his car was moving about fifteen miles an hour.
tir, Preston testified that after the collision with the
Svoboda car he went southward to flag cars approaching from the south
and flagged defendant's car, Defendant testified that he did not see
him. The headlights of the parked Preston ear headed south cave a
blinding effect to the foggy atmosphere, concealing the Svoboda car
behind it; defendant's car at this time was coins about five miles
an hour - very slowly - when suddenly defendant saw plaintiff sitting
in the north bound traffic lane directly in front of his car; his car
stopped imucdiately after striking plaintiff,
two shodove od? baw tao aoteowt ext Yo smn oe obmk Doqmad sta
oc yened sitiwed bawod déron oni ofat ,elgan oe te , rove beaend |
tot bite Tiidwletg bas ,#vet Cos tvode Tol a9 sex to motnerd
©) gee Yo-oe Ledagi¢uevad et sos abodove dd? SF Yoon putea
Ye S8s0a piel exw ,dhoxol asi ,teo abodové ont af vohbak amy
ayas Titatela jbonnvte eLts2L w ,xeo Bearetgy OMe obingacte ban }
Reh test at baer a! alerted aah Aad, dan wrens, ast so mvob tea ote
| Set aoxt yalmog , tao a'inebneteh moltinog atsig aud sam oul ether
- - etelawiat awelies goitel fin ,19¢ Jowtte aoe
o tefte .ytetetosa ali ,aoetetet aati pttw doebaateh O28 » vin. yh ‘
. sataetf{o evisorqsotg déiv x9s0tb bas solesee crentayd awed nee 4 |
_ Botaogyen tnadeeteh jemod a! asatetel eel brawot: brandirom bedtae BY
evetb yad? jebix sedttet « oxet yedd gatnove dnsasela spew Dh eg tet
tevo piidtnn ,sttemliW hae sotenavh dgvotdt baot aablasdt aia ,
fo ddtom hobssoorg yadt ;£) .o! ap awondl yamighd ant Pn |
_behossera Janbustes j;30% to aqalw tetoves o¢mt MOK DM, B
brawet gatcurs bagt-sacto « no brantase mut of anthapsat oh (all
antarsd o19y tao, a’ subi ted me addy tthnest owt ox, shgon nahiatae
bas etiigil oss 20 stely ead pds teqa « opts, Bae. 92ONE jay ;
#2 galas got to wefotitay oft a0 mura Y De
at itiw aeted {too esis wot pact he Rustnad, tio a hiss ae i
isuoe ac? sort gatdepotoge stao gelt of baswigaoa, goa oct ane abedey®
goa jon bth ost tect helttiast dasha ted » .apo, a! inelneaparesterl
a ovey Atuoe bobeod ws, motesat ‘ones est in etdgl,
satin vit tuotie lei mew omit “ +8 tne > alennbeoan tt} ahaad
sats. Yisgntels wea tashavleh ylaobbue apse.» = eEmOke HOY = woM |
: 80 Ee mae, ata To, taoet wd yfioorts saat piThetg <_< :
| a ane aahidaite aA, Lotath 6
; <4 j os ee ve ere rs et a
i fe ee Be TV hh oe ee Sa ERB ae sh. iy eho
There was sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that
the fog obstructed the defendant's vision. Some of the witnesses
described the fog as “pea-soupy"; others, as “very dense." Svoboda
testified that if it had not been for the fog he could have seen the
tail light of the Preston car s long way ahead but that on account
ef the fog he did not see it until he was 25 feet away.
Although there are some variations in the testimony of the
witnesses, the jury could properly conclude that defendant, under the
circumstances, was free from any negligence, and that the sole cause
ef the accident was the fact that plaintiff placed herself in the
line of north bound traffie where she ran the hazard of being struck
by north bound vehicles; that defendant was driving slowly end on
account of the fog did not see plaintiff until too late to avoid strike
ing her.
Plaintiff conpliains of the instructions given at the request
of defendant, The instructions criticized are not set out in the
brief. Only stray sentences, disconnected from the body of the ine
structions, are quoted, “Instructions of which complaint is made
should be set out in full, followed by definite and clear reasons
supporting the alleged errors incident thereto.” (General Platers
is, 228 IL]. App> 201,
The brief on behalf of plaintiff states in general terms
that there were an undue number of instructions given on behalf of
the defendant concluding with the phrase, “you must find the defend.
ant not guilty,” or similar phrases, As only these phrases are set
forth in the brief we do not knew in what connection they are used.
We must assume in the absence of any claim to the contrary that the
instructions containing these criticized words correctly stated the
law, While the practice of giying an undue number ef instructions
fest woleutonde wit YYIant ws conobive Yuet tte aaw exeae (Gd teh
aoceontiy ant “ty snot cmbtely @'tneline lob ond bode vttade wot wih 1
ghovove “.eennh vrev" as petetito 7" yqwee—edog” Ua gol ont ‘hed deoees!
ast node evel Dice it agt City Tot dood ton ben OF U2 wand BeRTAONEN
iagcose ‘ao tan? gud Seeds yew gntol # Yee notdors and “Ko Voight Lee |
Nawa toot 88 dow oa fitew FP sew ton BEN “eat ‘got wile ~~
edt Yo ystomitaes ott at Woolfelyey wade ote wierd Weed Ee?’ ooo le 4
ond tohal ,fishm'teh Jods Obilonge Ylrouotd Blade Ytnt odd eeveeai —
ganas ofoe ont fadt bas jeoteghigedt vad mort sert eewW ,eoonitdaathe —
eit} ni “trosxed bodsre Yisiatalg dott toe? ond wow 'daebivee oad . = ;
dowtta gnted ‘to biesed edd ont ode otedw ofYtoxd Bawed torent weit f
dio fiw qtwole gaivixs dew toeas IOS sadd ; eoLobder haved uMdie: 4
Hida pbéve of o¢ei oof Lidan Ttisatelq ooe toa bb got wat t6% awe .
dah) wos gna ;
faoupot o8F te aovig anoltontiank of} to talalquoe Tebtatatteier wr Ly
oii at tuo dee Jor oe hontuttize enottounent! ont” Lenantotehrtee
a eit “to ybod end mott basovancorth ,edanesmee Yorte’ ‘gtet alt
eben oh srlaiquos sointw te tnottoitteal™ (nereuoxahyemebielelee
Shoeset taeto pao athaiteh yo bowolket .tov't ab tie idheiinaniil
eee ema) * esoteds tashitoakt arorte vhomateseoie oe ae
- emeed fevoney of eetaze Ttiatelo Ye er ne roies oat sna |
PS
tee’ axe betty evaxty ¢Khe aA .eouately ere rial ee
a tig
phew e1a Yes? SoLioonios Fade si Wott Fat ob ow woikuch eatk it itis ’
“ pNd Ferd YxwTEMoo ou? Of siketo Yu Yo voMDede ext nh oumans tar )
“od befura ykvverton ebrow SoskoLtiio exe? gatalsitnon exobten
© que tgounden ‘to soir wind it saan ami sa
| Bee ES ous |
298, yet we do not find any case in which the judgment has been ree
Versed solely because a number of instruetions have been given which
goncluded with the phrase mentioned. In Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co.
¥. Chicago Rys. Co., 309 Ill. 346, it was held that where the in-
structions correctly state the law, any repetition which exists does
not constitute ground for reversal.
The only instruction which plaintiff says does not eorrectly
state the law is defendant's given instruction No, 4. Plaintiff pre-
sents only disconnected sentences from the instruction instead of
setting forth the instruction in full, Hewever, we have exauined it
and are of the opinion that it is proper, It sets forth defendant's
theory of the case: that if defendant was driving through the fog
at a slow rate of speed and used such care as an ordinarily prudent
person would have used to avoid the accident, and nevertuelesa his
ear came in contact with the plaintiff, but not through any negli-
gence or wilful and wanton conduct of the defendant, he should be
found not guilty, Plaintiff claims that the inatruction omitted the
fact that Preston attempted to warn the defendant, and aleo the facet
of the presence of cars, lights and people at the seene of the col-
lision. Defendant testified that he did mot see Preston or notice
any attempt to flag or signal his car, Defendant was not bound te
incorporate in his inetruetion the evidence on behalf of the plain-
tiff, It is not necessary in an instruction to eabedy in it an an-
tagonistie theory. As was said in City of Chicago v. Sehuidt, Adm'x,
107 Ill. 186, “any attempt to embody in one instruction all the
hypothetical elements contained in the distinct and necessarily
opposing views, would make the veriest nensense," ‘fo the same effect
aré Dunn vy, Crichfield, 214 Ill, 292, and Spengler y. Biger, 285 111.
App. 322,
Plaintiff says that instruction No, 4 assumes that “when the -
defendant saw the nleintiff he put on his brakes." Inasmuch as this
2 7
“ot aood asi daemabst eds He isi ak paeo oe att, tae. oh aw toy ees
“to kaw aovis need ovas anettoungant to tedaya « eevaced. YieLoa peater
a) & #2008 .olskS ,nomsed ot ,benottmem onetde oat aviv bebwtoneo
“ok od orede ted? bled saw tt ane £40 208 «+90_.00i oped 4
aech etaixe soldw solsiveqss yas , WAL edt otete YLtoatro9 anoitownte —
gai -Aaarover Tek haxora eauthtegge ae
Utosttoe fon ant ayes WLtmiaka otdw aoiteuttant vino sat a:
21g Vibdabess > ol soisourdent nevig alinsbasteh ef wot adt onl
: te bastani solsoutdams sad moth esonetnoen beteennooa th vino ataes
tk bonkasxs evosd ow To vawo# -{iwt af noltouttent edt dtzet gaksieg
a dnahon’toh doze aves ti toqotg ak zk tary aotatge odd to ore bas a
"gst eid dyuorssd gaivinh sew jnshagtob ‘ti todd i988D oe |
: duebarea vistantbas as 86 Sts9 dove herw bas beoga to stat voles. 38
ald eeslosteroa bas ,taobieos ord bhove ot beew eved bLu0w, BOCTRE
~Ligen yas sigo td ton aud sttivniely esd dite soetnoo at ous THs
od biuoda ssi .daabae teb ont to Fouhaog aatisy bas, Lotitw ce soy
said bead hue aoitourdeat exid todd emiefo ttttatess pet tive, fon, boxed
fost euls oals bw , Fonbas 2eh els mzew of hoteretis aetaett. todd tom
-fos ould to ennoe end te efeooq bem atdgtt (,%tao Te sosenetq ond te
eotsen 70 neseerd ~~ goa hib ocf secs bekiiseed. taahae te | Cs ae
ot bawod tou aaw tna x0 206 hot AAA, donate to nal of squette ome
~ale ia og to ‘tiated mo sonbhive et nottourtemt ald ot eteroqtosmh —
-ne o@ di al yhodme of noitouaseat as Ah YRanesoes, ton aldi ,tthe
x! wha tbiasiod voasoidd to y320 at bisa sew eA .xxeedt, ohtninogas,
| ost iis aoksousdenk aco at qbodan ot squotie yas" PAA, boll
eitasagoen ban Aeaktatb oat ai be nla? ao9 (boasmete .
sootto eawe died 7.
ene site tacts somuans » -oid easteastnas tat awe. Tha,
erst es somment " osard ahs me ag, of. Pttajete, pad.
fe
fact was established by the uncontroverted evidence it was not error
to state it in tse instruction. Martens v, Public Service vo, of
Horthern Lilinois, 219 111. App. 160; Gerke v, Fancher, 158 112. 375;
538 Ill. 347,
the verdict Was not sagainet the mianifest weight of the
evidence and there were no reversible errors upon the triel. The
judgment is therefore affirmed,
AFFTRAED,
O'Conner, P. J., and Hatchett, J., concur,
Re
On cond may Gutta), wah ite Leek td Oman Tae oye het say gg fovy, aes
ceeateatad ny, MeN TRTREE ORNL. BA. WF DARA EEU EMO
ade to $itg tow baad oul featese, ton war FORDEY, 9B coos an
<A phghad eat womw wrosne, odd OF SPEC Mi OOM
swt ay weatihas uh an agolieansens op DOME | ‘
ti bonksems Oye ow yreveweR . tint af aptopertnat, walt es sade
yi Plu the soot Stee =] supa, 4b (840K 98H, be) AB oS y s
on; ait. dyamnd awivixd owe dnehse Toh tz Fase Seger, wae)
Cietastg. yistanibte oe a sig) Meee bene Asse bene % oten.:
ein omploctieren bur ,taehioos #2 Above of Sent avadt |
nhignm Yew mywowit ton fit ,Ridataty ext eke Seaham
ed Sivode sai ,timha ted act tg Deupmoe ca ce fet i
bid hott huw hoisiaitiend ood Fae woinke TRbs he eS anne
gout off gala tom ,fuchon tes wt eer of hoters tte, aetegn
alee aif LO Soeey 4% 2@ eigoeqg bax mhag hs 1780, Io ae
iin hbace be odney a8 ton ach oot dem hak: isin’ togho Ree ap
er faved dan aew fombiy tet «ty ate Aa af noth st, aa
were eae le Lies Be wucehive rhe bint eae oat ahd wk a vae
oe cm Oh 4k ebodwem bd ae dtosakiond ad ub CRA aR a, Sait wht Sha
ange “oO x aE MERA DKaRS ot ae cae ih sont
e
aul We Me Oe ae ee eae te oO gis Sty, id Eh Salada ** }
eliteseaens ban Vonle uhh wiht Ad, harshest sim aay, aun?
deakia once ond oP nenscega deodeee get, eae koe
“ rea)
AEE OR eee, at Redan mw RUE AS BF old
ra ole awe
star ft; sc jaut ahmntie b oh mo hdeaatems eet mM
nee op sp toad * nonid ohh om tame we tdda be ti
Dy Gi stietee ieee
37945
WALBRIA KASPRZYE,
Appellee,
VS.
)
)
}
ROSE BPRLAKINVICZ et al,
Appellants, )
279 1.A.630°
WR, JUSTICK MeSURELY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR COURT,
This is an appeal from a decree entered in a foreclosure
auit. Bill vas filed to foreclose a deed of trust executed by
defendants Dernard Belakiewiez and Kese Selakiewiez, his wife,
to Jezef Belakiewicz, trustee, to secure their note, dated Sep-
tenber 21, 1928, for }5000, payable to bearer at the rate of 350
a month fer seventy succeeding months, final payment of $250 falie
ing due September 1, 1936. Certain installwents having fallen due
and remaining unpaid, the entire ameunt was declared due and the
bill to foreclose was filed; reference was had to a manter who re-
ported, recomuending a deerce, The note recited that the instell-
ments due should be paid in gold evin of the United States of stané-
ard weight and fineness, Defendants, by various answers, sought te
present the defense that there was an agreement tnaat these install-
ments could be paid through another medium, namely, board and lodging,
Defendants argue that the recerd shows that on er sbout
August 12, 1928, Jozef Belakiewica and Frances, his wife, decided
to distribute their preperty among their children; that pursuant to
this they conveyod to Bernard Belakiewiez and Rese the premises
herein involved, taking back in part payment the $5000 note secured
by the trust deed in question, They say they were not allowed te
show that there was an agreement whereby Jozef? and his wife should
make their tome with their son Bernard and his wife, for which the |
latter were to reeeive as a credit upon their note $50 a month, rep-
resenting the beard ond keep of Jozef and his wife, Upenm the death
of either of them the survivor was still to continue to beard with
OF DigPOMRLORGA hicotae eur Poet
. * Eee acs
}. 98: 2&8 etateond
be me ‘ ee te a #9, nied abs SI
relent : 2
0 £0 yay i v y' = plea Bags th etet bn aus
TAVOD SWE XO AOTUIGD HT aaa VEC VuKAgom : morte een 2. ae
{ i et ol
etueeioetol wo as hers ue eetoeh « sont Iseqga sm ef, what », cw ehyt
yd Betioexe Jeuxd ‘te boob w saolowre't e¢ bell? sav fine tion :
q ,@hiw ain ,woiweldelod sao bas solwolialeS bisented neuehusob |
| =q0& betah ,ofon tieds stugea of ,oadaute aoiwel delet ‘Wack. ot
O8¢ to ogsx edt tu tetmod of oldeyeq ,00086 tot , Sher AS Reegert
wiigt O88% te taemyeq isat't ead now gutbeavona Yiaoyor tot stom 8
oubh ceiiet guivead stiewllajeai ataitod§ .d8eL ,f£ rode tqa8 a ae
eit baa eub botetooh eaw tasom etistae ond ,blagay antatem baa
| -9% ofw xsgaam «2 of bad aaw Sounrstet ; helt sew ssolpexot of 3
a effeteni end jadi betioer sion efi = .veteeb 2 Balbnomooet sdotrog
neta to aeteie bestia edd to alos blog al blag od bLwose ou atmo
OF Siguos ,etewene acoisev qd wade booted saaomeat't hae tgiow ed 1
S -fistant seeds tend fapometgs na aw exadd tad? sane toh odd tneaer q
.aatsbor as Steed ,yieusa ,suibea toitona dave tat blag od tuo at
suede te ae sede awode brevet eff todd eugus atnshco tet
: | bobioeds ,atiw aid ,soonatt ban xolwotiated tegot eser BE sa :
ow teanetwe Tedd ;nethlido sled) gaomey ydroeqerg iiesdd otudinteld of |
aoataetg es gaek bas solwelistet buaated of baye vato9 yous batt Ay
a betupee stow 00086 edt duomysq tteq af doxd geidad vbov forth |
oF powelle tou siew yecd ae yout ,Moltaenp ai dood de
* biiwoste siiw aia bas teset yderedw tao motge 8 naw exoddt
ome dokdw rot ,atiw eid bas brsatol AOR tiodt ase percutli:
dgnes ont ac oliw eid bas Texel To goed bats bas
tC. | atte pusod ot eutkéads of Lilia saw tovivawa ost aad
i:
A 7. G a tS ;
Bernard, who was to receive a credit of $25 a month on account of
the note.
The evidence shows that Jozef and his wife lived with Per-
nard from September, 1923, until June, 1931, and $50 a month waa
credited on the note by Jozef Belakiewier; his wife, irances, died,
in Jume, 1951, and from that time to November, 1951, Jozef continued
to reside with his daughter-in-law, Rose Delaciewiez, whose husband
had died in May, 1929; Jozef gave Kose a eredit of $25 a month fer
the time he was there, in Noveuber, 1931, Jozef ieit the some of
his daughter-in-law Kose to live with his own daughter, Mrs,
Ridyesys,, the complainant herein; he gave as his reason for leaving
Rose Belakiewiez's home that he was not treated richt: that he had
to work there with the children, and that Kose complained that as
long as he was living with her her ewn family could net visit her;
Jozef also said the feod was poor and the aceormedations uncomfert-
able,
The question is whether parol evidence of an agreement that
the instaliments of the note might be paid in board and lodging in-
stead of money, was admissible, I might be neted that it is hardly
eredible that Jozef Belakiewies made any agreement which would con-
pel him to rewain 4 boarder with his daughter-in-law under uncom-
fortable cireumstances or else forfeit the right to demand payment
of the installments of the note in money,
it has been settled by many decided cases that parol evidence
is incompetent to vary the terms of a written contract,and especially
is thie true where the parol evidenee undertakes to change the medium
of money payment contained in a prosissory note to something else,
Mosher v, Rogers, 117 I11. 446; Murchie v, Peck Bros. % Co., 160
Il. 176; Armstrong Pain sv, Gan Co,, 301 Ill. 102; Hinsdale
State Bank v, iytle, 262 111, App. 151; Shiel_v. Chicago Title &
trust. Go., 262 Ill. App. 410; Harmony Cafeteria Co. v. International
‘Supply Co., 249 111. App. 532.
eee
‘a6 yy F. >
Te savooos ao Miaem a 886 to tibero a eviasex of aew odw ,Sisenee
| P | ston Mend
tet sittw bavit e'tiw els bas ‘tezol sendt eworde sousbive ont hack
aaw atsom # O8§ bane AE OL enw Lido fBROL ater ett
mea paseneté ,otiw add inedveliales ‘tesot yd eton eds ao bos there
hevaitnon ‘terol , MeL ~teduevol of amit tadd mor't baw jLE@L ont ut
| baadawsl seas Rolwgbisiod 90K ,walaleredsiguad ote sigtw obiset of
gem
xe Asem a asd to shbats & @soH ovey texzet peer vent at bol pen
te eum 4 exit ries Youot f8 0% .todaevoid al erent aay os onl 8 ie
/ ok sts tstguab amo oka thw ovis od sees wo Lenbotatigalll anti eka
gatyoot 3 x9 onsen ade BH oven asd jstherred “danata tance 9st ae !
boat esl ‘tesd italy bs boseoxs tos Raw oxi sada emas a" nolwolis ted of
cas Oe am ,
ag tests beats Lamos es0k taut baw seth 6. out atiw ered tow af
Set @8h Jee
mod ttelv fon bLueo tihne’ owe n9d tos ‘eke gaivts i on an J
. gf Siero Tee
~sxoTmoom eapisabomooes ont hee tog ase Soot oat bine ouls-
p Levee) aed
ids
Nyce Ree Om,
Jet tromenys ag to sommbive Loter te sitesi aa setteoup oat a oe
opie Gath nea
ent yatgbol bow brs od at bisg od 2 aly din eten ont he staat tated ee
£39 ae.
etbrat ak of edd ‘boson od deig den ti eidivetnbe eaw pore ;
ike Ses: Dae tak 4
aoe Siuow te iow epemetge 4S sham Bo two io £08 ‘reaot tedd oid.
‘ tag. we ch dat. ali toe
ithe 888 ‘tebaw Me Lmitho'to di web ais Ad by twbtH08 a atews1 of ata
oie pe hee
snaeresg Seems od et ski skerret on te x Scone:
la too @ ane baw tous tae nod baw s to ‘euted eas ytev pr ’ .
: i eben gehk Pete ey tie Ee
Sa Bs i
eile - pabitonoe ot oton ross tnorg s ak “boutaguos tm
pate isl
oo: ac xiemrsapeieamiapmticae R
AL Om,
=
: atabensh ; Sor er 108
But deiendants argue that there is an exception to this rule
where the parol agreement has been executed and is no longer exequ-
tory. Undoubtediy this is the rule, and the part of the agreement
to give credit on the mote in return ior board ond ledging which has
been accomplished is an executed matter, and complainant has meade no
attempt to recover for these months, But such an agreement is not
binding as to the future executory part of the note, In Levy v.
Greenberg, 261 112, App. 541, the lesser had voluntarily made a
verbal reduction of rent to the lessee and had accepted payment at
the reduced figure, It was held that as te these montns the parol
agreement was executed, but as to months for which payment had not
been made the perol modification was executory and not binding and
there could be a recovery in full. See also Snow v, Griesheimer,
220 Ill. 106.
inis rule is as applicable in duaterte of equity as in courts
eof iaw. in Gibbons v. bressier, 6i Ili, 110, it was so held, where
it Was sought by parol evidence te vary the terms of a written in-
strument, Meleynolds vy, Steats, 204 Ill. 22, is not to the contrary.
That was a case where in an attempt to release m mortgage the word
“quiteclaim” was inadvertently used, it was held that the evident
purpose was to releage the mortgage.
There can be no estoppel in this case, Defeudants bernard
and Kose Belakiewies bought the property from Jozef and Frances
Belakiewiez, giving as part purchase money their note for $5000,
paysble in inetallments; when the first installment fell due the
mortgagees agreed to accept coard and lodging in lieu of cash as
payment; the defendants had net changed their position to their dis=
advantage by this arrangement; they already owed the notes and were
bound to pay in money unless the mortgagee would consent to accept
seme other medium as payment. Defendants isply a legal obligation
ou Jozef Belakiewiez to continue living with his daughter-in-law,
Oradea
aE 2) ; it ORY
efux els ef aoliqaoxe a ai exons se6d ougte Bd asbas eb sate
iy wr ws ep
“Moone tepsol of af bis Astusexe need aac J asmeet ge foreg ens oxssiw
trenestye e83 lo stag odd dae ,oivt srlg ak aint \dbesdxonny eee,
sedi re telw guighot han fused rol otter ms ofon sig mo tiberto cht *
lar
~Evad al «ston wilt ‘to ree cratnbnns tutus esl oF aa gmbh
@ oham (itvad auto bert : oases alt ,fh8 . gad fit ABS Bait fe:
te tiomyag hetqoous bed bag seaset edt of tant to aoitos!
fetaq sat ectaem eaeds of on tard nied, apy ot Oy lt i oe at
ton had Jaomyag doldw tok alt aow ot se tud »Setuoexs paw 4 be 0
bas gatnatd son base ytetvosxe Baw a0! FHOLTL Bom forsq a an 196 ”
; Seniedante) . wene gate 096 ,fis% at Ysevo0e7 a eq ase
Bow ous suuatvon # wuaeion of dquodia as ak exnsy onan 4 pe ro
toopive ont Jedt bied ame of heey sae tseypaat at, ry mt pregrcrhe
Steqwt stoshastol .oaee aldt ait pire on» yar ae . ;
eeomert bao Texok art ytuogotq oft teguod setwot id or :
« 908% tot efea theay yanom sasdotug, stag ea gatyty yoete ,
Sad Sub fot snouLtatenk sorts odd aoly (eanentiezent ab © favaq
ea Base to wold nt gaighes bn8 biaod Aqeens | oF Ra Fg *
ay : 3 od matt rneg theds saree. ten bas etnahos teh sd ris a
-™ ba, sedan ons baw vbaet Le vous pioneer @ : ro a)
tera ot saegnye binow eageys zou ous eee lay wa vane!
ae “motteytide tages & Ylqut eggs ree aga ae be
es "we Ante gndaigiia aad sidiw chvEr eustince ‘os eit y i
ce ee ae nae (ops
end yet in their brief they concede that If he did not wish to do
so he conld not be compelled te continue,
Some eriticiem is made of what is alleged te be the per
funetory attitude of two guardians 24 litem for the five minor
children of the @efendant Pose Pelakiewies, The complsainante had
nothing to do with the guardians ad litem except to move for their
arpointrent, The record does net show that there was any failure
to present every defense which ceuld be asserted on behalf of the
miner children. Indeed, as far ae the foreclosure was concerned
the interests of Nose and the miners were identical,
It is seid that the evidence is not sufficient to shew a
gift of the note and trust deed by Jozef Belakiewicz to the come
Plainant. Jozef testified that he gave them to the complainent,
hie daughter, who alee testified that her father Jozef hod made a
gift of the rote and trust decd to her, Moreover, the production
of the note by complisinant was prima facile evidence of ownership,
and where a defendant admittedly owes money he cannot complain that
the complainent in a foreclosure suit whe produced the notes Was
not the owner, Witting v, Claras, 274 I11. App. 449.
We see no reason for disturbing the decree oi the Guperior
eourt, and it is affirmed,
AFFIRVED,
O'Connor, P. J., and Matchett, J,, conevr,
a ae’
ob of geiey ton h tb ad ‘tk dat ebeonco xed tokrd thot a toy ba
ee ey.
a
er
ssuniinee of ‘bo {Leqnes od tom bLxeoo :
biog é OSC, sre Ce on
tee ent of “ hoyo tis ak tane re aban st metots tts eno8
sat vivetdwehad
toute evit ont 20 weatt ba enetbta0s ov te obut toes cides
“bast nécanta fomos ont -20 tws be Loe ono" tanh cotes oat Te meek
“ahead tot even of dqnoxe mot be enatbaary ont “diw oh ¥ 38
oxnsket che sew oro? Sorts wont tom oooh brover ont “ban °
edit %6 There d no hoteseen of bios dobstw ounce anil eal 0
o® ae £i c. Ea
beareonos Ree oupeetecze? ons as at te | hesbatt 19th
Rib. ee PS ie Sf i
wtaotinehl e1ew ‘event ond bar euof ‘to es
zB! Ps a hee + #Ou
. “worte “ot tustol tte fon et sombive ‘ont tert bier at ety
£) ep 2 i Oe fh ae.
- =ft09 ‘ent ‘oF solve tiated Yoxot w bees tests hae due edt
ue hae te LE id
“bas ite tens ent ot mo even “ent saci be Pt ttend ‘tos deuct fi '
i yt a ad “ie 49
er es te ok Tee "he ttheeed one ovr ,
sot touborta oaks ,tevoeted «teal ot boob vane ote tons
: i si agua pbs
tdareave ‘ta soustive gies? entra new tnantezan0e »
test aks Lemoo pest, of eo oer ews ‘ethotd take tnah
hiro iotaq yt 2
eae ‘sodon add banubory arte ota sro toerot a at dns,
RS yee nee
: at ee ws
bh 0h tek pee #! ¥
; Sf Store Seek ‘2
te roksan eat ‘to owroeb od patented not ‘soame7 on ena 9
“ rf ae ae ee yauss
ity fi eg “ne hare pert)
“uD 09 ‘ oe \dtortos
Oe x eee Pay an
¥ a i; i is |
; & be y
' ' tha
nv ee ay esas shy
i eA a fi Z yi a “
x. i i rei iy ‘ cr . 44 s ie >
es ‘swt ie: 7 ela Thee! FE aD ee 2g ue ea IA
ae twist mie ee Bau
Dy ‘ tate Ea al Dawe ae ‘ SRN SPRL a
iy 4
57210
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 1,
Defendant 1:
T Mosinee asi
esa sti et al.,
Plaint irr 4 in /irror,
Yes November 2, 1920, the City State Bank of Uhicage was
elosed by the Auditor of Public Accounts, ang Abel Davie was ap-
pointed receiver, Nearly 18 months afterward, on April 28, 1941,
the grand jury of Cook county returned sen indictsient which charged
that Stedman was NY to trust officer and director; Frank
Dd. Robingen, ‘ilies cent and director, Frank A. bergen, vice<— C—
president and director; Alexander 1, Jorema, shinlasen ek, cashier
aud director; William ©. Hartray, Bennett J. C, Johnsen, Sdwin 6G,
Rellihen and Morrison H. Castle, directors; that om the date it
Glosed these persons "in their aforesaid reapeetive efficial eapa-
cities as such officers of said City State Bank of Chicago, did un-
lawfully, wilfully and frauduiently receive from a certain depositer
of said bank, to-wit, one Louise Green, a large amount of personal
goods, money acd property of said Louise Green, toeewit; seeYe the
amount of $105, the said bank being then and there insolvent as the
persons named and each of them well knew, whereby said persons are
deewed to have committed the erime of embezzlement,” and that the
grand jurors say upon their oaths that the persons named "did
feloniously steel, take, and carry away said money, personal goods
and property of said Louise Green, then and there being found, cone
trary to the Statute," ete. The indictment was based on paragraph
$6 of the Crim'nal Code (Cahill's 111, Rev, Statutes, 1929, ad, Oh
2 tiga
There was a metion to quask the indictment on the ground
that the grand jury was illegally drawn and selected, ‘The motion
wae ke
es ok Hedentes | °
: Bo iy ft - cy 41)
dani WH Gabbosits bas tooktto sare” ‘(dito ox
SO hy mr" A atett {tevoetts “Patat é |
weifase ,taabl sexhodty’ “jane 13h _t setnexdtK 9
.b miwit ,doaditet (6° s tfoanee [yecdean’
| hi otah ota mo tacit’ ee — oh
“Las Bib ,Gge0880 XO thot eee senyseg: phat exeot te iowa ue: ae Base
tot Hoash tiatyes & movt evhéoet ‘Uithe tuber bas Ltr Btw 4 caf
Eanon10¢ ‘to taxon sytel a sooth eahito’’ ‘emo! twos a tea 20
"pas praeee dbvier , 08 $b 66? vbit Bise % yieoeo te bu “ysiton 42 —
edd aa smevioant oxeds ba covd pated anal Shae’ ot 8025 0. tnweae
ote ahoateg biee ydotsde , wend ffew met te tone bas hommes enoot9g
eae todd bon “,¢onsotasedue to omito oid bo y# £aewo ovad ot peoed
Sib“ bomen eavetsg’ ett bast acttwo Fheit son van “ cut |
“aboes femetag ,yetem bisa yeve vites bar viet ptnote pres >
“mito “bawo? gated ered? bak aos? age") sotuod hiea to “ite ; meh
| daktqete a9 Goaed saw taomfotbat oat ote *,odubate oat of eters
| Pe eae SVL paptutede wv £61 et cttiad) | obey Fremie wor
}
ita |
<
a .
4 [A a,
_— okFom od .bedve Loe bow nwoth yLtegett enw tut, bawra &
7a | :
am ' +3, 7 d " : Hea
#
was overruled by Judge Stanton, and a subsequent motion to vacate
the order en we Judge Stanton was denied by Judge Trude. less
in abatement and motions to quash were filed, averring that the
grand jury was an unlawful body and that there were improper pro
ceedings before it, in that unauthorized persons were permitted to
be present during the examination of witnesses; that a false and
prejudicial document was introduced by the state's attorney before
the grand jury; that the directors of the bank named in the indiet-
ment were not officers of the bank within the meaning of the statute
upon which the indictment was based; that the indictwent did not
positively aver the receipt ef a deposit but only that there was
received $105 "as a aepositgt/ that the allegations of the indict.
ment under a videlicet made the indictment ineonsistent and repug-
nant to the charge; that the indictment should be quashed because it
was duplicitous end ambiguous.
The plaas in ebatement and the motions te quash the indiete
ment were overruled, whereupon Stedman pleaded not guilty. Kebinson
pleaded guilty and testified for the State. After the trial he wae
Feleased on parole for six months, Bergen testified for the State
and a nolle prosse was afterward entered as to him, me Ps. a
testified for the State and a nolle prosse was subsequently ntered
as to him, | |
Hotions in behalf of Stedman, Jarema, Hartray and Castle
for an instructed verdict in their favor at the close of all the
evidence were denied, The cause was submitted to the jury, and
there wae a verdict of guilty as to each and all of these fo.
Stedman and Jarema were sentenced to pay 2 fine of $210 and to be
imprisoned in the penitentiary for net less than one nor more than
three years, Hartray, Rellihen and Castle were sentenced to pay &
fine ef $210. This writ of error is prosecuted by Stedman, Jarema,
Hartray and Castle,
etsouv of noiton tmexpesdue « baa’ ‘afetnnds onset ed. bo Luxrsvo a
asei% obaxl ogbi% yo belie env notneds opbal US bewegas ohio ext
| ett tastt acicteya] ,belit etew deaup of eapifam, hee tnomesese. ak
Sorte poyownae e1g" gtedd dent das ybod Litwh iow ne “enw yma.
of botstasey Stew etooreq hexttedituane tard at ot excited eontbone
baa obLe't » tad? yaeeaontiv to moltenimaxe eid gaits ees of
STolled Yortoc ss s'otate edt Ys beewboutad ame, tnewmmeh Lstotsut
aeeenak asd ak bomen aa edd ‘to ‘Wrotses Ih edi Jaci. svaet oe ae
eduteta ait Xe gatase a Lia atigiw aned ont te steel tte pepe
‘ton bib Saouto shat att gould pooasd aaw treatothat ed? ded
aaw pies? geass ylao tud tiaogeh # to tqtevet edi
| ~tetbat esi2 to snot tage Lin ons jsut |
meant sed oy Lig Jou iuhehin naabove Ouse og DM: ’ we tes
aaw ef sind eit toPtA .otedt oat sot Bokairent daa wesinns — ll ax
ote eae tot heltitee? me_rod -oetaom mis teh afoyeq me. b - ofon ;
mooadel temmed .mid ef ea hexetun hirwtetls 2aw. assone atten sham 7
howiw yinoupoadue sew geaaxg oLien afew etet® esta taal
9£Ie80 bas yattial ,ame tat aiiee: ‘to iaded ak phere 4G
ore ffs to sate and ta stove tied ak tointey aaah cool |
bee erent eat of hetiindue sew euumo eft ,hetoek MPR on a2
| suo sacs to Lia box dose of oa us tiem to totbrev & Bam,
od og ban Of8) te eal » yaa of boom tana, ataw aseral bag aacbegh
nosis shen Tom Sie nck soot Jom 0%, yasignediang odd ab p 0 , “
ay we oO daous tos eiow olfaed pene ae dbiiea extent 2
sin 8 sip 3 vd betueseord of tore Yo 2 iow Bean: . a
5
| &
. >
_ : és oe Te fr » RA ee oo ee
eae 3 tp hs i fe De tA %
‘
The eontention of defendants(is)that the grand jury was att
unlawful body because it was not drawn as directed by the statute,
4&9
“ES
has, pending this appeal been decided by the Supreme gourt ix another
case contrary to defendants' contention, tis Ye bigber, 367 Til.
423.
liueh of the brief is devoted to the argument thet the in-
diectment should have been quashed because a stenographer employed
by the State's Attorney whe Was present to report the proceedings
when some of the witnesses testified, was afterward sworn and heard
as a witness, le was not an assistant state's attorney. On this
_— the authorities of tha ahtrerent jurisdictions are divided.
Btate v, Salmon, 216 Uo. 466; Lathan v. (J. 54), M4 02 aso; 8.)
4
V. Philadelphia & Reading Ry., %21 Fed. Hee, 603; (C 3,)v, mania,
ope onanEENT
218 Fed, ict, oe ¥e v, ii , 231 Hasse, $84, ‘the court
ie, however, of the opinion that there was no showing of prejudice
here which would have juatified quashing the indictment for this
reason, oo. 243 Iii. AGP 5 Yeoole v. Har nt ie
283 111. 591; People v, Looney, 314 i Cn.
It is also urged that the indictuent was delective, in that
there was ne positive averment of the receipt of the deposit, The
averment was that the money was received “as a deposit in said
bank.” Defendants cite the dictionary and 5 Corpus Juris 598, to
the effect that the word “as“ does not mean “being,” "was" or
"for," and they say that this averment was therefore not positive,
Read with the context, we think the averment is not doubtful and
informed defendants fully of the nature of the charge and is there-
fore sufficient,
It is alse urged that the allegations of the indictment
under tha videlicet are repugnant to the general charge, Apparently
‘the pleader out of abundant caution under the videlicet went on to
describe various amounts and kinds of money which it was averred
® saw viet haets oof tect (at )admapdetes Yo aeltnetnes eae"? Me
bg ,studede ond yd Betoetifh es cwoth ton awe J ocnssed thon tivtwalink
teritons ai txwoa ® adaaed dé yd beblooh need feoqes eldd guibade jem
a ALT Vee atade le vos toitnsines 'etmahastss of cuortace bday
, annkbat.
. edd ‘tnxd tasmuyte edd of bSdoveb af “tobad ond to Moni oe
“ beyedtqus Tedgargensia # sausasd bedaauy need ovad bivowa Perey)
naaibosoore oss Suoget of sasaetq Baw oriw “gearortd’ aterere ond yal
Bwer bew crowa buswistite saw ,beltitveed seseontiw sux to emo assiw
aldd aD .yentotia a’ otace tossateas me ton vav ok | eager
sbebivth ota anoitelbelrut, daoxe tthe — to asistrontinn elt i olde
Eo oh ehied tes (oD mit on -04 ors
‘dxwo0 ect = wena cee ‘tidied oaeen
oo tbmtorg to anivode on saw etedt sent aotintge ext Yo. ‘alae
gid 20% toontolbat ent anne eaantenid srehaans Srecaetoeull
“ out stivogod eas to tqlsvex ant to taputtewes veiiing :
bias at Sizsoed « ae” bevyievest exw \genen out Hii Web a
of ,8@2 eixul auyqted 2 bas Ptonolsath ag atte od nabne tet Sa
ae “saw * satod# nasa J ox esob "ae" Brow ont fait? ‘foots ih
.ovistaog tea exoteted ssw Jasmtova alad add yao ‘yoitd Site * ae
has Liftaduoh ton al jnomuevs sf daidd ow 'txednoo oud aft , ion 2
ona ef Same eprasio aid to sinten exit %e went euenespe ha q
$
etaotoue sousasto tars n0g edt of dnomgaer éte sotto i
. no dupw teotfeblv odd ashaw ‘polduno Panbriids ‘Ye te
‘ yeh aew di voldv yeaom to ebald bas atavidas alee |
a "
were deposited, Defendants say that if these averuents are cone
sidered an essential part of the indictment, it charges aot one
but several offenses, and that these charges sre repugnant te the
general charge. We hold the averments are merely suryglusage,
Defendants also say that the indletment isproperly charged
defendants were guilty of beth embezzlewent and larceny, making the
indictment bad for duplicity. ‘The point was not raised in the
frininaa court upen the motion to guash, and we think defendants
Gannot be heard te urge it here, Koreover, the statute upon which
the indictment was based says in substance that the official ree
eeiving a prohibited deposit shall be deemed guilty of embezzbament,
ee are
Section 94 of chapter 38 (Cahill's I11. Rev, Stats. 1033, chep’“3e,
[Sbanee22) in substanee provides that one exbezzling property which
may be deemed the subject of lareeny shall be guilty ef larceny.
The charge ef duplicity cannot, therefore, be sustained,
In the asendment to the eect of 1879, upon which the indict~
ment is based, the legislature inserted the words, “er its knowl-
edge,” end defendents argue that these werds should have been
averred in the indictment, and that the failure to do se constituted
& material defect. "Its" knowledge cald refer only to the dor-
poration. The knowledge of the officers is charged in the indiet~
ment, and their knowledge by necessary inferences would include
knowledge on the part of the corperation as a unit. |
A more serious guestion is raised by the contention that
the aet upen whieh the indictment is based is not applicable to
those defendants who were only directors and held no other positions
with the corporation, These defendants are Hartray and Castle,
Defendants point out that the statute dees not name directors as
persone subject to presecution thereunder; that the duties of ale
rectors are clearly distinguishable from these of officers; thet
@ director without speeial authority cannet employ or discharge
nied ota etevitreva esedt ‘I! font ye atamben'ted sbotinegeh ote
gao don wegteld #2 ,fompotbuk emf Yo desq ehineses ne bowebiw
orld of Saenyweé'T ore asyiadio seodt tant bag aeeas to Laveves dud
,sunowletwa Ylerom oto etaowteve Odd Biod OY Jopnedts detsmey
degree efrevotgwt tasatelbat oft tadt yee oeale atnahas ted : uh
acd gat dam stage tat ire sooustsaedas Ared Te yorterg orew atasbso tab
oad mi beater fon saw 'tatog oft .ystobtqud ter: nee ousab ines
atand ates dntdd ow bas ,dasup od nel Pol One moqn twos) Ks
‘gokiw neq efisads ond ,tevoetoM Joted #2 ogi oo \Deaod 0 tena
«or fnivitte end seid sotadadve ml ayer boaad new ene boat ssh
jdimmdgestdae to yo Ling beaseb ed Lleta ¢tooqob bed hdddorg’ aw! ve igo
ee ets j88el odesde ved W107 at tLtdad) Be xe sqnds ted \ mobee “8
detae ysteqot¢ gabiazetay ono sac? eehiveta oonadaduns
seneoted ‘to ytiluy od Lietia. yomortsl.'to tostdue ad? } q
sbotiature ed jetotemas ,tonmad Vilotiqud veene il
-totbat ait dokiw noqu , CSL to gon wed OF duombasum one WE! i poysl
«fwenkt eft so". ,abtow oct! boexeent eritalladget, oud bowie ad taem |
weed eved binods abtew secd) tact shigta. ataabae toh. Sonethined
Hodueetemwe oe ob of waultat ony Feit bob, tuende lia ont at berre oe
-x9b Bnd of Ylue wo'tex buco egbolwort "axl" doe teb debtetsa &
avoLbint od att bograido ob wool Si} Yo Wabe trond edt” ambien
ebulsak bLH0w Bonete tat YeamBBooE Ye sghe'tean-sted bad (iii
‘thaw ae ae mottategtes sit to ding ote Go! ghe ca
feud moltaeditos ong yd bostat at nobieouy tretreme: weenk de" nea" i,
pd BLdestiqqe te ai beast at taouro bed sult okiw aogit ¥ ast?
amois fooy tense of bisd bad eietoss4ith (Lao erew ody adaabeg’ , .
~eitaad bus yattisli ete adaabno'teh oeedT mo Ltersoq'ea cig
as aiodeetkh owed Sou xoob oFutosa ont Imlh tuo taiog us Bo
7 0 aehiuh od goud ytebacotedd moltaosaung of | ye
feat ‘ ficesttre ‘te ededds wort oldedetigaitels yous
| pgjuetivaty 46 YOLqu» sonibs Ytlrodius Lébsoge “ 160
ww »
employees, receive or sign for a deposit, sign a cashier's cheek or
letter of eredit, make purchases, sign a lease or contract or parform
any ministerial act. They point out that a trast officer the isa
director is not generally accepted as the proper person te execute
a deed in behalf of the cornoration, or to make a similer conveyance
er its property in its behalf, Defendants also say that the Banking
Aet (Cahill's Ill. Rev, Stats. 1933, na, tabs tsevix and earefully
distinguishes between directors oj a bank and officers of a bank,
They say that directers are considered as a group rather than es
particular individuals; that they serve as managers end are clected
by & majority vote oi the shareholders; that a president heving been
elected, they sppcint officers to carry on the business of the bank;
that they make by-laws, ewploy help, etc. Directors must be stock~
holders, but thie is not true of the officers, The directors under
the law must take and subscribe to ean oath, Offiecrs are not re-
quired to do so. ‘the bank would cease to operate without officers,
but failure to elect a board of airectors does not have that effect,
the statute, it is peinted out, provides only two ways in which an
ineorporated bank may discontinue businesss (1) by direction of the
stockholders, and (2) by order of the faditor of Mublie Aecounts as
provided in section 11 of tie Banking act,
The question deas not appear ‘ne nate ever bean decided by
any of the Appellate sane er the Supreme zeurt of this State,
However, in response to a request of the State 6 attorney of Greene
county, the then @ttorney General of this State, Oscar Carlstrom,
on January 5, 1932, rendered a written opinion on the question,
whieh points out that since the enactment of the banking statute,
private banks have been practically abolished; that the statute does
mot apecifically name directors ss auenable thereto, and that no
definition of the word “olficers" appears in the statute, The ques~
tion therefore arises whether directers are embraced within the
%
eS etyeR,
to desta sg! teliago 2 agin ,tieoqsh # tod ayia ce eviesot ') aeeyolgis
mrotigg 19 toeataeo 1g eseel & yin ,eseetorsq evem ,siboto to) redder |
@ ei od? ageitto gents a tent iso Qnhog-yedd stem LIatustabata yas
atuoex® OF GGAL2G Toqetq on? ee hetqeoes Yllexene, doa at cotoe shh
sousypvaco telimia 2 oism ef 10 ~molteroquos ef to RLatiedoti beeb a
gotdned edt sadd you eile ‘Sdaabie lel ,Tatod adh al ysusqeng eth 26
Ylivsieres, bos yLtaeto “Qe. scene SCL .qlatl sve whtl at LobisO) toa
ined # to si9pitio bas daed « Lo etotoetsib mmowtod ade lugares
te Da. wedtet, quiet « aa bony blanco ote, storoetibh tant ee pee
besonte axe bas. ateyatam aa evies yas dais s menmareanee tine
| ted gatvad. tashlacrg « dadd (pated Losers de oid “to otoy Yl ww
jaaad oad 10, aneataud add, oo Cama at: aSNdTTO: retonen: eco
kogga od gam atoteet iC... ote , gies yolqna ; omntoih tesisciaiinimaa™
tebny exosoeths oat ,ateottie ond ko oxad hom aby whale tue Vamebsow
=ft Joa ote strolttO ..ddae sa. od editoadua, has: det Fave wok ost
Bolte, duodsin edareqo od evesp binow Aned eal ae? Ob od boxtup
sSootte tenis evad Jon ened, etoteetlo Lo biaed a, seote: 09 oxwiiet tue
ae dolny at eyow ows Ying asbiverg ,two betaloqel dd», sotutat. Oem?
ett Yo.nottosrth vt (4) yeaoniaud euntosvoe kb es aans becatoeavents
eB ag aioook otsdu to motte . eds jo wobia, Ne (2) aoay ;
Le Sy ic gelalandge Rohe aekieoon atk: sebivenes
. oy beblosh ased, z9ve aved. et iseggs Jon aveb aobveoup eet ott, ube
| setasé aids tq dtweg emsTqit edd te ateuoR otelleqq esd ctenymr
eneets Lo youuotia e«'aserS ott te taoupet a. od eancqaot mb pre TOWOH ;
| HlotiaLaed toRd yetede ald Le Lereae® yemodihe mend aceon ‘i
_. Mobinows ost no mokaige modtia a bersbuer ,86OR ye hen
| etutede gntdued edt, to dnoatoeue sid oonbe saad sue asatod it
(8905 etudeia ost tesid jhotelieds YLisotioutg need eves wiked ei a
on dadts foe ,oteress oidsaaae as SiadoMthh ome YL. . 208 Ce:
dei spas eve ony at eteegge "eseoktio! baow ssid: 2 vous Dt
a ei asada ieeiaieaeimeniaamanaiaat role wn be
J
he
” ha /
general meaning of the word "officers," The question in the last
instance is one of legislative intention, There is no direct aue
thority om the question in the cases, and the statute mst there-
fore be construed in the light of the general rules by which such
statutes are construed,
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines an officer as one “whe is
lawfully invested with an office." The legislature in this and
Similar statutes seems to have distinguished between « director
and an officer of a banking cerporation, Thus an section 4 of
chshs“i6t (Ceniii's Lil.Rev, Stats. 1933, won teh. a where
the ofiense of making a false statement te a bank examiner is de-
fined, the language used is “any officer, director or exmployee*
whe shall, ete. In section 5, which authorizes the withholding of
& certificate on acecunt of the unsatisfactory character of persons
connected with the bank, the language also differentiates between
an officer and a director, being “amy officer or director, slected
or appointed," etc. Again, paragraph 63 of the Criminal Code,
whieh forbids a savings bank loaning to any officer or officers
ef such bank, prevides for punishment only for such officer or
officers without naming any other elass, In seetion 3 of ia
1ef % distinction is recognized between officers and direetors, the
statute providing that the stockholders shall hold a meeting for the
determination of the number and cleetion of directors to serve as
manacers and to serve until their successors are qualified. Sec, 4
of the same act provides that "the directors so elected” may proe
ceed to orgenize and may appoint “sueh other officers as the by-laws
may provide" and fix their salaries, etc, Section 8 of the act vroe
vides in substaree that no bank or banking association organized
under this act and “ne officer, director or employee thereof”
shall make any lean or gratuity, ete.
It would seem from a consideration of these sections of the
statutes that the legislature at all times recognized the distine-
3 teal ost ai aeiieous eff “,eteoltte" brow oat to patanen Lereney
~ij goexlh o2 v2 vxetl selirednt eviteletge’ to eno wh sonstent
aorteae gem egabate ott ba ,veeed Ode at avhredup ‘ont 0 schouit
iy i aes
game Ho Lehw ya wofv Lwreamy odd ‘to tay ik edt af howmdones of oxo
shewttenos ot? eosutnte
‘at oa ene @& Seeltte o« seatieh yisnetsol@ wel a'tetywed 6. yi
Wired
bas wkdd me otwietetyst od? “LeotTto an Atte bedwownt: hts |
t tofeetth 2 neowied badatagatseih eved of ames eedutata wettute
to & soifooa af vont ,aeiterecitoy gabiasd « to — an bate
esi eo) how tyes yes {860L s0¢0S6 . 09d, £62 we 0ebded) » ws
“$f oi venlwaxs daed # of Imenetiato selet 8 yoiiaa Yo oaastte | ‘otk
“eovelcae vo Tofeetth ,tesiric yas" af beas ogaugant ont shee
Me gattiosotiw ed? eextiossea toldw ,8 aoitosd al sods «Kade —
xmOouTe? te tefootado Yrofostaliasan edt ‘to tanreoe Ho ete vekines @ x
‘‘*Sewted eetalinetetl ls osla egavgnel oft ,ttied edt agte beroaanee
Aetacts ,teteetld zo teottto yme" gated caneann poe ,
ae svtee of atosootlh To neiteeis bne tedewe od? rt.
& ,o9@ ,bofiiiess ete eroseeeawe these Liver evtes ot bas . 3
noaq Yaa “Ketoe le ce exetoetth sy" daddy eobivers #9 ouse T
owe lwed o4¢ es ete0rttoe tente sone® sutogas yan baa eatniseo a
aaa fon and to B aoktosa ote ,eetieiae: test xt bate. *on
| ode: Sehhetaty tomer! calh
a “ } Yo eaettove eeest Yo mbiered tenes & mow Meee binow
sonttens eee beebsgoser seat ste ta dante retyon ons
y tion between officere and direetors, in regard to the mamer in
whieh they were to be chosen, the duties which they are called
upon to perform and the sourees from whieh their various povers are
derived, The General Corporation Act also seems to resognize this
distinction between directors snd officers in the organization of
__ private roorations, as anpears frem an exauination of sections 15
and 22 aai It provides in subetance that the directors
shall be eleeted by the aubseribers Le the stoek after timely notice;
that these directors shall within ie daye after incorsoration
meet, elect officers, adopt by-laws and transact such other bugle
nese as may come before them; that the officers of the eorporation
shall eonsist of a president, seeretary and treasurer an’ such
other efrieers as shall be determined by the directors,
Whether the by-laws of the City State Bank provided for
officers other than theee named ic not disclosed by the reeord,
The parties here have cited numerous sutuorities from other States
which are hardly persuasive in view of the feet that the questions
considered in these cases arose upon statutes different from those
woieh we must here consider, However, in Commonwealth v, Christian,
9 Phila, 556, 1t wes held under a charter which provided “2ll eor-
porate powers of the eald company shall be exercised by 2 boerd &
trustees, and such efficers and agents ac they may appoint,” that
the offices pertaining to a private corporation were defined in
its charter and by-laws, and that the trustee of a life inevrance
eompany were net officers within the Pennsylvania Griminal Cede,
The by-laws there designated particularly who the officers should
be but did not inelude the members of the board of trustees, The
decision was placed apon the ground that the court was considering
& statute which was highly penal. In a concurring opinion Judge
Campbell said:
“Directors and trustees may be eaid te hold office in the
corporation in @ general sense, and may control snd direct presi-
% i
ue gous
7
tte 937 esa
at teanan oid of rages wt erodgerts bas anole mewted mete [
emt | ang ‘
bolian ots yeast fiotew ao hdub hed esis ocia od of etew wr ‘delite
rag “eee | ae ed ute.
etn at9'7Eq avolay xtade od ctw mest esorues orig bas ory 92 fo. @
CUR eS ors! "
elds exinyooes ot aves cole to aettanoesed tar0n9® ont sbovi
Rp ce uly 7
to noitnsbaryts aut ok sm ottte bas “stogoerts aeovded sot out Jae
Wad, Ht." nem f ?’ repel
af anoitoon to not tankeane an wort exasgen an senottas
~
rit
b Vi dotwa
ateteeria ost Sart sonadadue at aebivorg ar bon tact bid bt Mer
Sait genie mea
eoiton ere norte ‘inode est ot areditesdima oat hie bosoots | o4 f fie
od tnxomcroome tod'te evab els abst tw Lette anotoerth of :
‘ekand t9il$ 0 dowe toannest ris twa loys teobe sar90tte toate aa’
Wy) Par ee Re Ge
aolseteqxos ei? to aren tte ant sat yams oroted BOD yam en
; SA AE aye es el cbsiiia
te ose bis xetonaetd bee vusdetse sfnobtaorg “ te tetenee 1 f
Z "Tig , PS F Pee in| ive Ma
setotoerih ast wd boatoreto od Linde oa
“aot babiverg Sand ofase ato ont te avatoes ort
: : ot pare ae anton
.btooe7 ont xd bor ofonts Yon et Dement waeas ae
Puget Pb Be tei hain = 2
aetare wbatrs coh #024 bros? ns eovomun ‘beg to aves ord By"
. sno Ldeoup ou? tens tout edt to woly at bvinsuereg <asnnal Ga sae
totes toe ah OR oh kot dod
enodt moet dune vt bh aedutare moe eaot wenas oreuis ak aes
ke ! We TE gael
ei SO 3% Ad Lagweoweod at sr9vewel etablenoo end baum oF |
ore ¥
| =109 tte” bantroe fio hite tatcass e tehaw bied eaw re a ah od
, toayinwnieet RE Jew ie oe
» based 3 ‘vd pes vb od Lai yuagatce ‘bles ods Ne '
sal f (2 et eUa
fase *Ventoase and yout aa “stage bas exot tt fowe bas ,
BOE A ‘e a2 ADR
dopaaeee Poss %
at ‘baat tob oxew noldsrest09 odeving " ot gatutetues
r roe ao Aa eae
sonarwont wus * to endeurt ang tat bas seve Sard has tots
Pee A RE.
, < Phe Cine Seas Seen
." ‘bLibosie ateoltte ont ‘eae hte Luo Laae beranyteoh ha sof
weak Bali, ¥ hf if *y et t ee aE |
bedi saoeteired te brad sa te sreddnon ond Rat aE
a Se
>
dha a ;
"e Sh i Ne
nd nd eadire bien of bias od yan ‘eootauts baw sr0¢09
eieppinaaiocten sotsage yom bao ,oene wg a at
aoe or
%
dents and secreteries in the management of the business of the
corporation. Dut in the transaetion of such business with the
public, the corporation generally speaks through its president
and seeretary, ‘They are emphatically its officers.”
leans, 42 Yed. 599, the court seid that the questien
ef being or not being an officer under the act there considered
and similar acts, might depend on the verf/epeoiad clreumstances
ef each ease, In he Godw 8. YY. 3, 350, it wae held
3
that a director was an officer within the meaning of a certain
section of the laws of that State which previded that an officer
should be liable for all the debts of the torporation where a ree
port signed by him was falee in a material representation, and
this when read in connection with another seetion which recuired
that the annual report should be signed by the president and a
majority of the directors,
In 2 Pletener's Gye. of Corp. 19, it is eald:
"Generally the officers of a corporation are enumerated in
its charter or by-laws, and inelude a president, viceppresident,
secretary, treasurer and sometimes others," leg $x
in 7 Corpus Juris 545, it is said that se a general rule
"the direetors are not officers of the bank, and have no power in-
dividually to contre] its managemmt; they can set only collectively
as @ board, and they are not individually agents of the institution,*®
io doubt, in a broad sense a director of a corporation may
be considered as an officer of it, but as was said in State v,
Kiijchli, 53 Minn. 147;
“The words ‘office’ and ‘officer' are terms of vague and
variable import, the meaning of which necessarily varies with the
connection in which they are used, and, to determine it correctly
in a particular instance, regard must be had to the intention ef
the statute and the subject matter in reference to which the terme
are used," -
. Fomas in Torbett v, Baton, 1 N. ¥Y. & 614, the majority of the court
r held that a direetor who had signed the financial report ef a cor-
poration which the law required him te sign was an officer within:
the meaning of the seetion, There was, hewever, « vigorous dissenting
odd to aeoatent edt Yo taonsydrian ody ab estuadoto oe y
eit dtiv asentaud deve to maeifvsasnexd oft at tuk molten
saebianra att dgwetdd @ineqe Yilateneg solietéc tes om?
*,aneg ito agit a bao baalgan ots oat Wrst
ah cehien one gasit hiew fiuoe eit , eee sdet Sb ‘ enseld 3 elt e |
sniseheibarrte tntooaruor @ eult fo baget tiga .stoe sift
bigs aaw 3 ORE BY MB, i eas
statteo a te gatasen end oidtiw toot tte ad tae fonts
Sy ee ve
segi'ttc mm tpsdy hebiverq ily Lele orate tas ‘te ews att ‘te a
weer th sone oe
“8% & OTS Holtategi oe ons to atdek ont iis not oldakt boll Lise
bus ,motistasserqet faltotem a at oate? ane abd x domgie’ 4 om
hertupst dobsiw mottves redtone aghw aot tosaaoe ot noo'e nied ae
S hem CeMAPAGTe Pe we bemte of biwosie $roqor taonss ‘il
4 srrosger! ose row
i ‘bine st st , ef weep to 20 e"xouiosort rat
we ‘ey Vase x
f - ee pon S%@ Salfateqroo « ae ataolite ast Mone ep
Sig fi uni stash Leora s obufenmt baa ,
. * wtesito qeattsaee bas 79
ater Leroy « ag tedt blew ef at ane aixut nuctod ’ ‘at
s cas Bh te .
ok TewoR of aves bes vinad ould te aveoiito toa ons exetuunie saa
i \ Pea ow ae
| eterisoottoo yieo tos aso vente {tmneyenom a2 orsa09 ile, Lis
ob
* notdpetiont asf3 te etre ye ¢ikewbivtbak fou ota: “yout
Oe ns wo
we, hh ch ha & ‘to rodoet ib & oansn hood a ak seed 08
th gauss ai bine sew es ted tt x0 woltre tol ee oxbeki
+ on ne pry
has @uaay ‘To aoe? ots nanan nie ‘eak tte! aed 3
ois Hilw eo cite — te sogpang ps
., eoxrxos tL ontornxete as OTs >
anges noliopiak ent of ba: grt | hie yor , pond wk w
parted aalt neat, o! sonotetot al totdam too tian ben b
fk Oa 2 ye
‘Hewoo. ond “to ys fxolam odd ,b Lo LE it ae otek vy sted ot
(exo0 2 lo frogox telonkart oft ponte Bet ihre a dant
gman neo P20 om ane ayia of aid betiuper wel odd se
auasaaly 6 Neidio, etedt ee i te ttoos
ores dya tu “ee as
A \
f jo A
,
i iat
opinion which said: i
"The direstors whe signed the report are not wade liable,
in express terus, for any false statement made in lt. ‘The statute
under which it is sought to make them responsible erastes a lia-
bility which is penal and has been so declared, and is to be
strictly construed. Bank vy, Bliss, 35 H. ¥. gies Wiles v. Suydam,
64 3. ¥. 173; pa rison v. Hiewe, 17 i. ¥. 458; G f
Aras Go, VW. Carlow
68 Ke WN. 34; Printing Co, vy, Beecher, 26 Yundy 45, Nothing there-
\ to be’ taxen by implication. The design of the statute was
to punish the officers who sign the report, and who it must be as-
sumed know wore of the affairs of the cerpeoration than the direc.
ters, ond whove affirmation is therefore regarded as the most im-
portant, and required by law. Directors are not officers of
these corporations, either in the oopular or legal sense of the
term by which they are designated, unless made so by the statute
ereating them,”
The question has been considered under a statute similar te our
own in the comparatively recent ease of Coblentz v, State, 164
Wd. 855, where an opinion was filed at the January Zerm 1933. The
statute in that State declared it to be a misdemeanor for any
“officer, clerk or employee" of a banking institution to aceept
a deposit when the institution was known to be ingolvent, ete,
it was held that directors of the bank who would ordinarily have
eontrel of the opening or closing of the bank were not included,
The court said thet although they were included in an enumeration
of individuals in @ preceding clause of the statute, they were
omitted from thie one, In a eoncurring opinion it was said: "The
court has found that the statute does not include directors, and
with that I @ntirely agree,"
As already stated, there is no authority in this State
precisely in point. The reasons we have summarized following
largely the opinion of the attorney general compels the conclusion
that it was not the intention of the legislature to include direc-
ters of the bank as persons whe should be held criminally liable
under the aet. The reasons in brief are (1) that all the language
of this and similar statutes indicates that wherever it was the
intention that directors should be held te a personal responei-
bility, they were specifically named, while they are not named
te
ae
Lat
| nae* Bisa eew tt aokatge gairtvenos «at eee, ane 4
ogougank eit Lis todd (£) one toda. mt enonese waft” tobi wil fe Baily
_ oat aow oh wovetedn: tant astao that woduteda” tetheite’ bot Whit Ye
Ae tenocaet Lancers © of Sisal of bivorte erostenth dectt’ noktimeih
hemes don ene yest otis ,bomom elton utesye onew ‘hdl
F 2
Pa
ee
\ snd ihe tsi the visage 10
oRinkt aha sn ese tore edt borin eitv wrosebith ,
etutate ef! .tbct eben Yoomtete ewiet yw 10% inate
«aii 2 geteets eldlanequet modd stam oF tXguoe al
ti ae od at cian howtnalpeh os shed aot hima Mae) e
‘ oi pore Dp ‘HO. Plomr T tea ic , +
~on od Seu $2 oxtw con” , froqer oid rge oy exeoltto ast dat
~oo1th edt acd? moteeroqx00 bg. tO Bt roc,
-mi teom ett as behiaget erotoredd at wots 7 osostw. b ,
* g@xoolTie fom eta ap nhac suns b Pity i ge
ont to enon Lepol to te oie ak tendie TOGKOD &
etuieta oat yd 40 ‘shom rood eat cs oi" yoas ce ‘aan ‘
tuo 09 ae Ltate erutete & tobay bexsbtanoo. nv oti a
ed? .c8eL are Yisunet exndy ts bo ttt ony peccove ne per:
‘Yas tot tomomwhela « of of th betelosh tate tad at 2 stu flees
. oyed Glientdz bivew oui ‘ene oa ry » benyieti Rey
> | ae
bobsfoat fon oxew asd ont to prtaete t0 gatnoge edt to
Ho ttarxomu9 ne at bobulont atew yond, igsont la tad? bles, shied om :
| oro. A sage stubeds ast te gun ts gathegetg s. ak etaub.
oe es piheneed: xtartign’ 14 etd att
singa aiat nt cbueittii on ef ores sbetete vhaotia eh i oes
_ BabwoLto? Sesitomuse vets ow enonees, besa Pergo atone
‘efdatt eilentulte bios ey ‘sede “ee dh it ea pine ¢ ott eiartueuais
code
here; (2) that the statute here to be construed creates an offense
unknown to the common law, highly penal in its nature and theree
fore to be construed very strictly in favor of the one accused of
the crime; (3) that in the seuree from which his power is derived
and the duties east upon him, the position of a director is in its
nature éssentislly different from that of officers who are named
as being liable to the penalties provided for violation of the act,
It follows that the motion to quash the indietment as to William ¢,
Hartray and Morrison H, Castle should have been allowed,
Defendants Stedman and Jarema insist that it is impossible
to split up the inbiwteantd inte parts, and although they were of-
ficers of the City State Bank, that by reason of this defeet the
indictment should sliso be quashed as to them. We have considered
the indictment. ‘he charges that these defandante were direetors
eould be eliminated without in any way affeeting the indietment
as to those whe are averred to be officers, Ye therefore conclude
that under well recognized rules the averment that Stedman and
Jarema wore directors is mere surplusage waich may be disregarded
and eliminated without in any way destroying the vitality of the
indictment, Bishop on Criminal Law, 4th e4., see, 478.
Pefendonts argue at length alleged errers by the court in
the admission and exclusion of evidence, ‘the reeord consists of
nearly oe eek bean: with hundreds of exhibits. It is
quite impossible witheut unduly extending the opinion to notice
every complaint in this reanect. It is urged that the evidence
Was not confined te the bill of particulars and that exhibits were
received without preliminary evidence as to their truth and aecuracy.
The brief of defendants eontains three printed pages devoted to
recitation by number of exhibits which it is averred were improperly
admitted, because not referred to in the bill of particulars, The
State replies that there was a supolexental bill ef particulars and
—
aovgm exe homteva of of slotdw edidiaxe te todeum yds 0.
suxette ae eetsoto hewttenco sd of oted otwteta odd sand {s ) goued
meted ben winten adh sh Lawog Yiytd wat wommog | et of ewomiaw
to beewoee one en? to weve ab. vitolaee cre dewttamoo ed wt exot |
bevieeh of aeweq iets dotdw sox? nexHeg ont mt tase (e) pomtaa a et
ott at wd sedensth a.t0.neittoug-edd. miki, mou teas a8 hte ost a |
bonuses one edw eveotite te tent soxt ‘gage tts viiektageae tutes an
tow oft ‘te motte lody so? bebtvomg seidtameg ot et efdott pated |
2 sa os ae fuged os bat ons deaup of apkvon oni sect, ht
bowoLlis need evedt bivoria efiaad .K pape
to wri, yet? aywoitle jae ,abteg n weal pimeesetanjat’ i i"
lh, Postot ain? to anenex yd ted? , dosed. osasG, HO na 89 ~ :
horsblenes eves o® nes of ae bostuoup od onde, bineda atothad
etejeotth atow sinehuptoh seeded gett eoguade ofl stoomtexdat. ost |
feousoihet sit galtesTile yar yoo at duodair menietionee
ohufonco ou'teract of yetoaitte ad oF hemneve onal, ) i
to atziexeo biooet ofT 8 .wosebive te + aiding 7 =
ei OL avtisisiee ‘to abecbaet sin ,eeaee + S
aonmedive oid dod? Dogue os tt, ute ante nant ate
eter atidhdxe tai) ban etaluottieg To, Litd add ee
“qoettmees ‘beus sdant stertt of as epaehive. a at uote vis o i
od bodoveh aegaq hedsixg seadd eabdataee etoghae'ted to tele -
: oat satalvotitog to [Lid edt a2 6% bev 'los, toa sexeood i
baw eonien Stns: ho Sad sealed aan anatase nt bt
ww
si eae
that this supplemental bill, after enumerating particular matters
en which evidence would be offered, informed defendants that the
State intended to offer evidence on the liquidation of 411 leans in
the bank, and it is urged that defendants ars now precluded beenuse
they did not ask for a more speeifie bill of particulars in that
regard, The answer is not sufficient. In 49 Corpus Juris 630, the
author states the general rule to be that “a stateuent accompanying
particulars furnished that the party does not intend to limit ite
proof to such particulars will be disregarded,” Te the same effect
v4
are DeGumoens v. Equitable Trust Co., 206 K.Y,5S, sini bespie x,
Parker, 555 Ill, 25%. See also Ss Sxprese Co., 119 Ved,
240; (U. S.)v. Pierce, 245 Fed, 888.
In their reply brief defendaits call attention to the fact
that there was no statement of liabilities oi the bank set forth in
the bili of particulars and ineist that the absence of such statement
results in failure te state esaential facts necessary to be alleged.
They cite Peonle v. Parker, 355 111. 253, Im that ease, which was a
prosecution for embezzlement, the court sald:
“There is no charge in the amended or eupplemental bill ef
Particulars that any of the cheeks, or the proceeds thereof, were
| Obtained by the defendant for the ostensible purpose of opening
twelve offices for the sale of securities of the trust company.
Where 2 bill of particulars has been filed, the consideration of the
case against the defendant must be limited to the charges as stated
in the bill of particulars, (Township of Lovington v, Adking, 232
Til. 510; Heboenald v. People, 126 id. 150.)
A very serious allegation of errer concerns the admission in
evidence of the People's exhibit 556, which was an order of the
pirenit ecurt ef Cook county, appointing a receiver for the City State
Bank, which contained the usual verbiage ef such orders, The order
was signed by Judge William V, Brothers. It was produced upon the
trial of the cause by a deputy clerk ef the fireuit court, whe identi-
fied it. The order recites that the court had saMhndietions that the
fatter of Public counts had made en examination of the financial
condition of the banks that among the resources of the bank were
ee Sn
| shtaabt out tuu09, thyord
ersedtaw sefsoifreq gatiaronsme testa , {ft Lesidme Lqque akdt tae
‘ott dodt adnabaw ten boatrotat , setette #¢ bisow ‘gomehive sis Ew 0
at wader Cte Yo soktubtoplt od? ao oditebive dette od Dehaotad osade
pdtiddad novuldely Wort one Weaubie ton tend Hegity at 24 'Nnaylned lls
“gat ah eres Lira tatu ‘to LLid oitiooga ‘ext # 16? ase dou bib yout
edt (Obs ahxat acted Oh al © jtmobeltae von ak tavene oft© ‘oxagen
gatyasqmosse tasuotate a" tadd of oF fix Lnteneg oft todate “ort
®of Sioukt of basal ton adob ysteq ods Pent bodatart atwios ba
tootts ones ‘sid ot” “Wbebiageath Sa° ithe roma on so
| “ay titboo’ oer La. fia soa” (ig
50% Pag ae ome oi. sgztont sand oY Danii al stn"
thine dxpoe ent , Phone [enbdae' 26
to Ifld fethomsiqave 6 — ead AE eyrelfo om #2
atew ,toeteds abeeoorqg ens & ,eigesio 9 eas os “ ra : sre i
gahas qo te efoctuy” y cistcieell oad x
quoo tewsd esld to geidizrugee vg aie oxi ty é
tana
ont yep g aay oe eed anit lg sae tteq to
Frise tgs ol Paks
ont tant jaokotpetiut, bs | taza oat tat pee tho sob c | OF
| dalousalt ent to moltankuaxe se ebam best atasona) d
" @new toad edd ‘te sserwcest of gaome Saxe 3
he zs
es
fi Tes ay
+
:
assets, loans, etc., aggregating $1,036,277.29, wnich were gonside-
ered doubtful and worthless assete; that the shortage in resources |
was in exeess of the capital stock, surplus and undivided profits;
that the resources of the bank available for ligquidstion aid payment
of the amount due depositors and creditors were 66 depreciated that
the bank had become impaired to ihe extent that it could mot be made
good; that the examination disciesed the bank was conducted in an |
unsale manner j that to prevent further loss and depreciation of the |
resources of the bank, the faaitor of Public , Accounts, pursuant to
the statutes, on Nevember 2, 1929, took possession of the bank books
and records and because of the condition therein set forth, on Noveme-
ber 11, 1929, appointed Abel Davis iiiaaieeel,| that the action of the
auditor was approved and confirmed, Ur, Lewis, an attorney for de-
fendants, objected to the introduction of the exhibit, but the court
replied, “Zhey may be adedtted." When lir, Wright, also attomey for |
the defense, stated he wished to make a further objection, the court
said: “Yhe record may register your objection. The court has ruled
on it." Ur, Wright then stated that he wanted to add to the objece
tion that defendants were not parties to the proceeding in which the
erder was etered, The court replied: "You do not have to make at
‘ a=
thie time sony assignment of error, You may do that when you prepare
your bili of exceptions." Thereupon lir, Wright again stated that the
objection was on the ground that the parties to this suit were not
i parties to the suit in which the order was entered, ‘he objection
was overruleé by the court. Mr, Wright centinued, saying that the
exhibit was admitted without an opportunity to erogs-examine until
after it had been read im evidence, ‘The record discloses:
Z "the Court: Bo you want to cross-examine?
“My, Wright: Not now, £ am doing sometuing eise,
¢ «the Court; I am satisfied you did not care to in the first
Wr, Wright: If your Woner has overruled the objection I
have a motion to make,
ie F cme Gourt: I do not knew what you are going te de. You
I e doing so many things at once, -- the objection is
4 : everruled, and the Court suggesta that you go on to
chiauay stow Hig Kot . 8h TPR 1880, £8 antiage tape ate annod rst,
vse 4
asotmeet at ays toile ode Imad jatonen #89 Lit tow bas iWiséueb boxe ber
tit mn
sed btoug pabivinws bas esiqive vioose iad tase — 19 eneoxo Pr eae
¢ HM Se AF
dnsmeng § oe rere tot eidetieve food esid to soosuonen ont
} } aoe aa
gacit es eaeairishti uty oe ‘otew etod Lhete bus #x0di80qeb oub ‘sawoms oa te,
mo Geet. eae
shan ot ton biwoo jh tact tuesay odd of boxtoqat euooe d bos Fone *-. 4
te ai batouhmes aaw Anand oe? bowolouth wok ta simaxe oat dass shee,
WhO 6}
edt te solseigeteeS Sas avol teddaut snevexq od dass | tonnes ee.
Py oR "Care Rey
oF dscewrene reemuoood ob Lau te rod bud ont Aud exis to
is Pies ioe od Rey
aiced saad eit to moleaeaseg dood , OR eL et rsdaevoid no Berens
oma vow tio ,détet goa nioxesis nolt have aid to eauacod ba
ext ‘to apites edd tadt jrevisoor oivec kota be satoaae set rk : 0d £8
op yt a
-@h sot youtotse as eiwed ta soak ta09 baw
wget Aahve™ gl ae
suuoo oat tud ,¢tdisee ode to wolgoubons ak os had besostde 2
By? Saye
tol yorrotta vals .ttig irl id aedW " .bedd bobs os am
saMo9 esis oHelteo\de tesitaut B estan os peda kw oul bosese , sean 2 |
Lut od druop ost -moiteotde. xo wogal brosex © aa.
beolut « t x 20 yout ‘ 1S nll
~ontdo odd of bbe of botuaw ed tad betete ‘aad Sgt tH 4 th mo.
airy ae FEA, 5 ie
eat doidw mt gaibeeootg ang 9% netizeq ton ox9T agents dew
te esiem. oF eves som ob. wor" that Leet Suwon oat bomen be ai ee
omqnes. HO cipal saat ab want wor TOTES. no sapnugiuas yee ae ;
act gant bedate atege tiytaW salt moquersst "emotdqpoxe to: id
Praag wy fod ‘
tom stew tins abide of estixeg. odd tat bawory ond mo an
pekteetdo ofS ,botedaa saw xobx0 end tp keve ak tive ont ot
eit gage gatyeo ,dewnidaes sigli® ,th .dewoo esd xs. belutxeve'®
Litny eubumce-eaore ot yt Lurtroqge am: tuondiw bodttahs ‘mci jin
: ys
Re ie Zam -
ipeseioadd brooes of sogmebive mh hast mses bed
‘ feninaxe-geote of on x ”
.eale gsihid ome a mated sus chin > fea By) =a |
darks ens, al ot oxae dea hi wey: Sedhabtediass de “E09. ere a a
ue {witeve sem Tomeli Mw, “pdoig de® Me me
ah Benton hae I ad be Lutte grirculy i wodton a mS 5
oY. 0h od archos, @%o soy dtasiw wort omjioh E).. witty 7
ai noléestde edt -- ,eon0 de sgatidld Yusm oR pinndor a a
-@t Me oy soy sedt eteosgue S100 end: bie } 4
—— a
se
something else,
“hr, Wright: How we move the Court for the sake of the reeord
to instruet the jury to disregard P, Bx, 556,
“fhe Court: And that motion is denied,
“lr, Wright: Insofar as it contains any recitals concerning
the condition of the bank,
(Mr, OtHora: The State hae no objeetien to the jury being
instructed to disregard those portions of the degree weich make
reference to the condition of the benk, The State is offering it
for the purpose of showing the appointment of the receiver,
“The Court: The authority upon which thie receiver acts is
absolutely admissible in this record,
“My, Wright: If the Court please, I au simply trying to keep
@ reeord of the proceedings,
“The Court: All right, that is very nice of you, suave and
everything else.”
In the coursé of the trial the State's fitomey, apparently
realizing to some extent the seriousness of the error, called the
attention of the court to the exhibit end said that the State joined
in the wotion that the jury be instructed te disregard parte of the
order. Tae fourt said, “I thought I did that.* Mr, O'Nora replied,
"So." The fourt then said thet if there was any question about not
having done it, he would do it again, and that he understood that
the records were introduced simply for the purpose of showing the
appointment of the reeeiver and nothing else, adding, “The jury
will net regard anything further in this order, it is just te shew
the appointment of the receiver by the Court,"
Tae exhibit, bewever, was not withdrawn, No further or other
instruction appears te have been given to the jury with reference to
it. It is apparent that the admission of this exhibit was grave
error, In the first place, defendants were not parties to the prow
ceedings in the fireuit court in which the receiver was appointed,
end the order was not binding upon them in any way. in the second
place, the order recites conclusions of fact by the State gaditor,
who apparently was not sworn and, indeed, it dees not appear that he
testified, In the third place, the order purvorted to fina the ule
timate issue whieh the jury in the cause was ic determine, In the
fourth place, the firenst court, as the Supreme gourt a
held, was wholly without Jurisdiction to enter ee erder, Webb v.
groos" ‘ene To odee ont 157 eee ars svom fuer beg RO
nay Bye
NTS Te, Eamentte" os en -0at popped ot
eakieenesine eletiont yas agiataoo tf aa i a seme “te neha, soo ‘oat
“gaied ytut set 9? seltovide on aad. eteté wr} x 10. ~ tu? arr
gain okie eoteeh add ‘to neiolizeq eaedt bragete!
ot bo
$f gatxetio ak e3498 enT . aasd add Mohd ih
stevisdet eit ‘to 3 cies 94 oht's : ey yr x
Ba aso tavigoet elds olay sg Ye odds BS a * Aiea
qoes of gitytd ylqute oe 1 ,omeelg dred asd peu oy i Seed. f Pha as
ole OveNe .HOy ‘to wota ytev.el deat Pon ny LfA | aged os mn
rereen eeoart ors ntddade eae “tated eid v6 anes oak SO
eae ‘Belles , torts odd “ie aconsdolten ‘et dnodze anos of aaiiadeot va
‘Wodtor: etedd ont fend ttaa bua ¢idtdee aoe ot trm0o ott te aot + med es
‘ort ‘fo betaq Arayote ts of Bstourdank od vauk odt Yall? ‘molto |
snob Got ato ak ogasth Bb I Pigvodd I ,btee rack» t
tom suoda ‘folteenp Yue aew exedd Ti fast blae aed duvol ont
Gath hédbetenins Wit Fans Bae nbege’ Fs ‘ob Kevaw Vil Give
grid gatwoits “to Seoqxuq odd tot ylomte beouboxtal stew ab
tilt oil .yatesis” safe ginkitica baw xevieoex odf Yo ere
weeks ot rab at gt ener alist ab redhat enahael bene
seit vo soreNt of .owerbariw fon bew adel stdin ‘oon he
‘gt ooueretet Htby Yrwt add of movth need evad od trance ‘dot tout te x
oui “wees enw ll wind to neat Ea bead cia tnoniees 8
bioose ed at | .yaw qe ab ments” nous ‘gathatd son aren <0
| tod 151k eed BAF Ve goed Yo Sholeutones sedtboe reopen
get Gods tadgee Poa avob FL ,beobal | bats etowe: Fon nn anw vise £4 09
aks ont bakt, of badoczeg apbie | oct “s00ke pated add iT
"eid at wentiereitoh of Baw Sees ae my “gust astt ‘isle '
’ shawna’ dtu09 ‘Saw xqut ud aa “\eMoe ‘shina
al de atone. ona" teghe cet icine
atin OF way ao fee pO ge ik
Merozag, 268 111, App. 538; People vy. Shurtleff, 555 Til, 243, The
fact is that the epoointment of a receiver was at no time an issue
in the trial. It was coneeded by all parties, and the suggest ion
that the order was introduced on that account is merely pretenge,
It was impo asible for esny one of the defendants to have a fair
trial with this order before the jury, and especially when consid-
ered in connection with the remarks of the trial Madge with ref-
erence to it, The State does not seriously contend that the ruling
of the court in this respect was not erroneous, The ruling that
this order might go to the jury was, we held, reversible error,
Defendants further contend that the evidenee failed te
prove either that the bank was insolvent at the time the deposit
Was reeeived, or that they, or any one of them, if it wae insolvent,
had knowledge of that fact. This eontention presents the ultimate
issue of fact determinative of the case, As we understand the law
it was essential to a conviction of defendants tuat the State should
produce evidence which would show (1) that defendants were officials
of the City State Bank, to whom the statute was applicable; (2) that
a deposit was received from Louise Green November 2, 1929 3 (3) that
at the time it was received the bank was in faet saaehvene) (4) that
defendants knew at that time that it was insolvent; (6) that the
money om deposit, or some pert of it, was lost to the depositors,
(6) that «11 of the above facts must be wade to appear beyond a
reasonable doubt,
Tm addition te cases already cited, we understand the Spine
ions of the Supreme — ie c » 529 Ill. 104; feople
NM. Gould, 545 111. 228; aid, Reems, $57 Ill. 182, sustain
this interpretation ef the law, In
eourt, after citing the statute and stating different definitions
of inselvency, none of which had been given in a case where the
Boivency ef a bank was in issue, eont immed:
“gett” ONS tet wes en (Ob aA AT Bat ors
gee Oa) acaeddenmaecih feat af aaw anad edd boevieoes asy dt outs
etiaot am omit o@ fa aaw gevigset @ to tao aloqgea ont stadt ‘ab Yost
mal feoggue oct bow ,aghtreq She yd tebeonss ane at iat, ot a!
wokiontore ylstem a! tadoave sect ae Deoubortat ‘ssw robie ot ted
_ ttet « evant of edashne tes at "to #0 yas: tot otdtesognt a " :
ehiagoo marly yLiatosqee hae ,¢tet ost ptotted xebre alas ‘tan ! :
| ater sittw oy bah faint esi ‘to octane’ eae: aehw ottonaion 4 ih o
puckion | axl? tedd baetaeo chawebese toa ‘eo0b otag® ont. “ath ot
tedt gutivy of? . etedaetr® dom aw fooqnet Ghats , ak ‘#xm00 |
terre eidiarevex blot ow sew yal end of oa tig tin cohen,
od belie? conmdive esd tant bheetues aosidaut atnabueted
thacgeh ect eotd end do tuevLownt anv amd oslt, testd 0d: z
.Pnevkoedtd ant ¢2 Ti yvedd to oto Yue 20 Want tact 2d oh
otainkt is ent vioossrq aplsredueg elt deat decid Xo we
wel odd booterster ow oA ,oaeo ext To pre
Siuoria otet® od? tacd etushue heb to molt olyage @ of iwkonenee,
aistoftie stow adnahwe ish tac} (£) wode bisow ponte e0m0 ty .
todd (8) {*tdeotieqe éaw otuteta ons matte ot vine ofa yo0
dads (€) geser .f radusvel aseto ov kwod mox't bevivoe: aaw.
9° gid todd (4) pimovtoant sew dt dant amit test do sc |
{etotivoged OAs 03 aol eaw 22 to teeq omom To: vttnoged a
~ # baeyed taeqqes of obem od team etng? maaan sine ‘
rkabes ons bastevebas ew ,beodio. yheorls pesae of. mane aaa
ataoo’ jos cit C8 ,lnmsD. .v.ohnee’ nh $009, omenant mat teehee
sistem S60 440 VES ,brenmel Wy afoot jO8S SLE dG, bE WOR.» ¥ 4
2. Pe a mac wat to maktnteranot whe ”
mes Ellis v, State, 138 Wis, S13, 119 N. W, 1110, 20 i, RA.
«) 444, the Supreme Court of Wiseonsin had occasion to con-=
:
Se eet a
ae ee
“tig
ider the meaning ef the word ‘insolvent! in an act similar to the
ene upon which the indictment im the case at bar is predicated,
The trial judge had charged the jury that whether the bank was in-
solvent on the particular days material to the case turned on
whether it hed sufficient assets to meet its liabilities in the
ordinery course of business, ‘The Supreme Court said that under
ineolvent ani bankrupt laws, by the theory of which the debter
should suspend and take or submit to such measures for the protec-
tion of creditors as insured equality of treatment the trial
court's view was correct; that the limited meaning of the word
‘insolvent’ applied in the administration ef such laws was not the
common, popular or general meaning of the term, whieh suggested
merely a substantial deficit of assets to meet liabilities; that
the Lending of all save a comparatively small portion oi a bank's
deposits was inherent in the conduct of the banking =a ys and
that this condition was recognized by law; that it would be un-
reasonsble to punish eriminally, under a statute of the character
here invoked, aersons engaged in tue banking business whenever
their competency to pay all depositors in the usual course of
business is challenged, regardless of their competency te pay them
all ultimately. The court held that the term ‘insolvent,' as used
in such a statute, does not mean insolvent in the limited sense of
inability to pay indebtedness in the ordinary course of business,
but that the term means insolvent in the broad general sense of @
deficit of one's assets in realizable cash available within a rea-
sonable time, treated as an ordinarily prudent person would gen-
erally conduct his business under the sawe or similar cireumstanees,
to pay his liabilities; and that a bank is insolvent, within the
meaning of such a statute, when the ¢gash value of its assets
realizable in a reasonable time, in case of Liquidation by its pro-
prietors, as ordinarily prudent persons would generally close up
their business, is not equal to its liabilities, exclusive ef stock
liabilities, Thies definition of the word ‘insolvent as employed in
the connection stated, expresses the common, ordinary meaning of the
word, 2nd for that reasen must be taken to have been intended by the
General Assembly in the enactuont of the statute upon which the in-
stant indictment is based,
“Liguidatien of a bank in insolvency proceedings is inevit-
ably attended with leases, which often fall upon the depositore,
The aesets of a going banking concern are regarded very differently
from the same assets after the bank has been foreed inte Lliquida-
tion. The change of situation depreciates the value of the bank's
property to @ marked degree." z
din ee AAR A AEP nen era)
Crt was ieevetave eenential fer the State te preve that on November
2, 1929, when the alleged deposit was yveeeived the City State Bank
was in fact insclvent as defined in vi v. Clark.
November 2, 1929, when the supposed deposit was received
and the bank closed, the condition of the bank as shown by the books
Was as set forth in People's Exhibit 361, which was as follows:
1 nt i ws et
Py St, dh og Are es at o# @ig ede 2i¥ eek , ie
“mo of no LRAOBO bet mlancoui® to roa ome tg
ett of wefinia toa tm ah 'teevigani’ bior ot te
-seteelborg ai tad ta gees et al sapmsoibal ont sip Late noqu ano
-ak gee tuned of aeciveds tect yuh sad bogrtado, bed agbgh Letsg oat
ne bearus game of2 of LIsitedau eyah taiweitasg oft ao taevlos
gig at seis ifidetl e¢t foam of esoens dasleltive Aedithys
tehau def? Aisa daiwev empigee eT ,aeentaud To Se tuoO |
seddoh ad? sigfiiv te yrood? ot yd, ,ewed,?>
“gagetqg ead 10 aeiusaom Hove of thmdve 74 aves bas ken quee
fatat oc Saeaisets To yikioupe betwett.as-atotibexo. he
btow og to galngom bedtakl edt zads Sewers eaw wely ae
ant doo sew eweluiges ‘to soltattelababa. ak bediogn 'tnovfLoam
hotecoggue doldw ,awied edd to yalasom ieee Weds 9 Sue hy > iti
tedt paohahiideif£ foom ef stoana To, tlolteb
e'dned # to moliuoqg iiawea yYlevitateaqmos a erase he ae to
bas geentawd yaivgad ent ‘te dowbaoe oof ah duacpsing | tk
on od binew tk iaat ;wal yd heaiagoost eaw old thao al : i
tefogigso oft to otwiags « tabsw .ytibabetto dakawe of oftuim
<evocody seeniaud gainnusd edd ak boyagan amegees, , botora!
te esiwoc teway odd mt atosigogah Ike gag ody ‘Sqn00 |
ees you ef Youesequoo thes lo saeibireyet hogee J ef ane.
beet ao ',tmeviowal' axed off dod? bie Iewoo edt: .yletamks
te eenee betiail end at smviownt assem tom go0h , ot 7H .
ge@entend Fo eeigoo yeoenthao ocd al: ‘aegabesvobat |
& to eeane Latenog beoid of ak f#osvioant sasem ate
~ees # alsdiv sidefisve dase oidaniider ch stesas p= sl
=e binow soaxrsq Smbuig Ylitanibie as ge botsett yout? s
stoncfeswexto taliate to emee os uobay aeonlend ols
ony wisitiw ,toavvicent ef deed @ stadt baw ae tench
efeues ati to owleay daan ed? sede yotutete 2 « to ge
-ote ei} uw? meltabiupif to sase ai ,osis s Idanceast a at ©.
qy geods listens, bisew ey Bet 3 dmheta ylbiteni pve ee) et
doors to eviesloms ,aoiitildal£ ett ot La fou ak ,agos
at keyotque aa- tary ioaui’ beow ott ‘te soltialted mad? o’
est te gainen xibzo ,aommeo ons Geaveteme ,botase se
edt yd bebuedai aged ved of solet od daum moeset i:
=al edt ateer OQM roa eng bul re sad Ba Rt ville hoa th
a
weotinoqah ed? maqu Sie’ ae PO hakate RF |
yiteere Ttih yxer bebisse1 ste axecmor yaldacd aahog s "et
~hhupiii ofnb heotet aved end wand wt tHe he
e'iaed ens _ wonatl rp! aokiastie to aguas
an Savenged bettas
tedmevok mo tad? evetg of etat® edt tet _tettnoane
Bae% etete gard ectd Sev
bevisset sau theogeh hateqgqee odd nocty veserss eS Se
adtood edt yd swore as ane! at Yo dolihbass ond: imeos “5088 ne hat
aeWOLLo} aa sow stodsiw yLOE Sha bite st elgon Lamaeapines 6.
Pe
STATEMENT OF CONDITION aS OF = /
NOVEMBER 2, 1929.
RESOURCES,
Pal ft
Pa
ot
Leans and PA WOHUAEEs 6 iki xs vas bras dodvnesseeBR, 076,223.15
Real Eatate MORE occa e eee ekow
CPR ECER ERK GbR Scorch aK DE WENEC COO REDO ew Eee
U. 8. Government BSOUFL ELON. cc cccccewcacewn
| Other Sto aks ANG BONG. cc vcrocesvetonceceeta
¢ Stock Affuiliated Corporations....cccecssner
sone
—— Bonds Reserved Under PiP iP. cccsctascceveces
Parniture and Fixtures. .cscccccscccvcsserve
Other Real Estate, eve e#scpees eevee eoseoaneeoepseaeoe eevee
Due from BEBEE fo ecterds deca eesn danas ene eae
Bxehangé for Clearings....cresescescvsenees
I eS ale aaa eb OW ORS Ow ee Re Bea Oe Gre ame
Cash ROME oc ke wielda beh RESO UR ORE RCRD OREO
Ltemes in Transit seveveezeooerveeeeeaseeeoaoeeeaee ee een
Interest Harned Rot Colieeted..ccrccecseees
Accounts Reesivable ezsvg ee zpeeaeeo eee anes enereeee ed
Revenue BERMPS. cccccracteessesseseseusesnce
Beferred CHAPZOB, sccccescccscssenesesesosve
AAJUSTMOENES. cc sesasecsseccsreeressersesere
ifabiniitos,
Capital 33°) ) er re ree eee ee ee ee eS
BAPPUMR ccc cers cceresceersecvesersccenses
Undivided PROTRO s 6 ke 600s eA 0S Kote eiewes
Reserve Accounts... .ccessccccvecccsssssese
> ansg Bus ar asta a a ipl
___—Etue Deposits 73e8 Stee senee ere eaves aree re
Publie Funda on 2 dearer rere en
DUG CO BamES.. cicvcsecvscecccseccsseceses
Certificates of Deposits.ccacccccscvcsece
Cashier's WRMOER ic pcan eee Cb etek ease suas
Christmas, insuranee and Vacation
Club DOPSGEER. cccverceseesvaesecsverees
Deposits on bonds Purchased.....-cecsseee
Deposits Collateral Trust Notes.....s..0»
Trust Department PURER. ccs cecdecsvencease
Bilis PRPROAE. sca scccussaeeveasenerennes
Accounts PSY ABLS ec cevasertocscresvencecese
Premium ACCOUNTS. ..ccccseereseccsecesocce
interest Collected (Het Warned) .cccecscces
Subscription Account... .csscresvessccvcees
feller's Difference AcCount..r.secsescross
312,732, 72
645, 89
26 , 850,00
997, 500.00
462,000.00
40,400.00
28,299.76
46,871.00
152,143.67
163,894.01
$1,462.16
12,774, 78
6,315.08
48,323.22
168,652.62
49,02
4,292.60
ge
$4,525,192.17
$400 ,000, 00
200 ,000,.00
1,888, 53
20,489.14
1,873,695, 53
1,095,490. 24
400 , 500, 00
56,017, 28
23,020.00
78,210.52
106,525.12
16 247s 80
3,336.70
61,207. 54
155, 060, 00
18.15
14,132, 63
7,768.95
S10, 70
220,35
$622,372.41
Adjustment aici taeda ied oe 7 8g
$25,192.17
in determining the question of insolveney the items of
eapitsl steck, surplus, undivided orofite and reserve accounts
amounting
bilities, oes a Clark, 329 Ill. 104,
> a total of $622,372.41 should be exeluded from lia-
Subtracting the amount
*
Ba
oe.
~~ -_s QRADIED CO Jad rate ¥: ibe eke rae
\ soe pct oa Ae
oe aa aul ar
En a Seeereeretewetee ene ste a oy 5 9
8? SF 218
et)
00.088 ,OR
69.008 , FeO
60.060, R06
oe s0Gb, OF
ee
wo, £78, 3£
Va SDL, 802
£0,008 ,TeL
es, gBb, 5
BY ONT EE
00,200,000
IW {208,988 BLL e88 08
84 .2@0,8Ve,£
bo, R80, f
09.008 00a
6S . TL, &
00, O50, bs
RE .OLK OY
osm, BOL
or B88, 8
d8 TOR, £0
95 ,000,88£
@Z.82 :
SG SEL, 84
80. BO"
OF .088
de eng
TTVEVETELTXELT TL ee
ee
betas ieddauatecaccnene treats 2 68 2%
pire nyskaipetrs Pee oy baw ‘ea, dea
vieddiwden ts AGRE vig ye ye hofat ae ;
seeds ewesetars oe bee €, ‘teball apt
bndbbecbetadinadadic seem
Peery rei Ff
Fete eee ATER Ewe Eee ee nee at :
Pees evreearewaenerenes
Pee at webserver sees tbs vaeer
oh
eeeetevess vee DOToe LOU toa ben
Beeneeresrrentirese cc) :
prise ap ene rges aa cabal
a
eee ee eee 4
eee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee | P
atte pee easeasneeasevmeas yee » a Pree
Teer ree eee eee ee ee ee ‘
Ri? tnt aed aaaaete nee pee!
rrererer re err itty Be
Sune e ewer awe eanaes faor
PTeTereeeyerey ST yy bapa’
tesrerrewesnea eas Oe
See eseecreseae.
eeeeveenvree
TEREST COLTT CETTE
Ne ee ede da ee nba |
SPOR eee eee eee ee eee ee eae ‘
Pee ee enseowcrenenenvenns o ROM
IS eit) ‘sotes thst
See eevee seeese
intrrtntarssmaneees eth
atavonos eviese% baa aaitory, pero onel taller
: waht Mott bahuloxe od ‘biuode £a,.8TE, 8808 to pany a ot
: a toons ad guitonisdee
SOL ,L£I OSE
all
of capital stock, surplus, ete,, which wae $622,372.41, the amount
ef beok liabilities, leaves $3,902,819.76 net liabilities as againét
tetal rescurces of the bank, as shown by the books, of $4,525,192.17.
in order to prove insolvency it was obviously necessary fer the
State to show that the value of all the assets of the bank on that
date was less than the total net liabilities, The State assumed
the burden of so preving, It is in consideration of this cuestion
that the damaging character of the ex parte order of the frroutt
court, which, as we have already seen, was erroneously admitted in
evidence, appears,
However, independently of that order, the State undertook
to produce the necessary proof, Ite evidence was directed princi-
pally toward showing the worthleshess of two iteme which appeared
in the resources: (1) loans by the bank to the trustees of the Co-
operative Seciety of America to the amount ef $463,693.07; (2) an
item consisting of 510 ehares of eapital stock of the City State
Safe Deposit empany:, whieh was the ewmer ef the building in which
the bank was sitoated, this stock being carried on the books of the
bank at the value of $462,000, which represented the amount actually
paid for the stock at the time it was purchased.
It is quite impossible to properly weigh the evidenee in
regard to these items without bearing in mind the relationship the
bank sustained to various other organizations and corporations and
particularly to the Pegaso Society of America, This Society
Was a common law trust organized by one Harrison Parker about 1922,
All its business was directed and its assets held by trustees, The
members, of whem there were as many as 90,000, held beneficial ine
terests in the trust, and the trustees owned and controlled various
enterprises conducted in the interest of the beneficiaries, One of
these enterprises was this City State Bank of Chicago, The society
held and owned all the stock with the exception of qualifying shares
ie
tosoms si) ,£b.STE,8888 mew sig hiw , 096 ,eoletwe ,toote cedigas to
‘thakege ae oltiitdsks tea IV. C18 808,0@ aovact eels Lthdokt seed. to
TESOL, GREG To ,axiood acid yd cwolle ae ,anad odd to aeoxwonet Lasod
seit xet yeaasenoa yLevoivde eew 2k yoasvioent evorg of xobt@ mi
tan? no daad edy to steeds ont Lhe to oalav ent tout wors of otaee
beaueun Afose edt usteLttdskt ton tated 90) nedtt oust daw eam
aotianse obit to noidetdBiedod ad ot #2 yaiveng 08 Yo'aeiuud’ ede
thine dh oad 24 nebo Syed ie 4a “10 nadudeAip = stitial me
=o) sdf te makound add of po ad wd onuad Ww Riba 5 ;
ae (&) 3°0,800,502¢ To savoma silt of aqteant te went. eine |
bas enrottesdos 0s bae saotaatnayre: rode suede oe : ae bs Le
wtolool aiat actions Yo qsotoet ovts ong ot! ein
BROL twode toxze% aoetrzall eno yd bostnagte teuzt wal wot odio
ont enotentt ys bilod adoenn eth ‘bee botootth saw we se awed |
oat ished tenet bied 000,00 ae yuna as: ot0w stent mow ‘is yamine q
ewoltey bettoxtnes bus Seawo teedeiret ond bak’ tered ony md tensed :
Xo ond ebtatbttonhd ous to teowedat ont ot betornane:meakekentne |
ane Sonnet Yo duet oea@ yet atts saw eon tueredne oe
aotasia gabytbinup To molsqaons oi? Adtw syots edt Lin more = Bs
held in the names of persons acting as directors, and even those
shares were in the possession of the Society, being held ag cole
lateral to notes. Ur, Stedman, however, pald $165 cash for the wi
shares of bank stock which he held, amounting to the total sum of
#2.650, and he has, sinee the bank clesed, paid a stockholders’
liability thereon of #100. Hone ef the defendants took any part
in the organization of the Cobperative Society of America, and cere
tificates of beneficial interest were not sold after they became
trustees. Their connection with the fociety came about under these
circumstances: Up to duly 1, 1921, tne fociety had about 90,000
subscribers holding beneficial interests for which they had either
paid or agreed to pay $26,000,000, In 1922, proceedings in chancery
and in bankruptscy were pending against the trustees of the fociety
in the federal court of Chicage before Judge Evans, To prevent the
ruin whieh seemed to impend in case of Liquidation a conference was
suggested with the view to settlement, Ags a result some of the
trustees reaigned and at the suggestion of the fades, Steduan wags
offered and aceepted appointsient as trustee, Another trustee named
at that tims was Abel Davis, whe later resigned and was succecded
by Hr, Wilkins of the Central Trust Co, The salary Stedman was to
receive was suggested by the Judge and accepted by Stedman, At this
time the book value of the beneficial interests was $5 a share, At
the time the bank was closed the book value of these interests was
$37 aw share. ,
Besides this bank the foctety owned and operated a number of
other companies, These were the City/Gafe Deposit Co., the City
State Co., the City State Investment Co., the Randolph Drug Cc.,
the Randolph Buildigg Corp., and Peoples Life Insurance Co, ‘the
Wells Building Corp. and the Raudolph Building Corp. were merged
with the City State Deposit Go., and the assets of these companies
Were transferred to it February 1, 1927. ‘The loans of the bank
open? wave bow ,eteteowlh ae guigen ancetsg to asuntedd mhipied
mhgo ae bho gaked seto2oo ods ty aotuuenscq: edt kh ohéweuteiat
ae adit 9% demo 8640 ing ,tevewod jaambese (4h jeeton oF Lenetad
to ame Iatot edt o¢ gattasome ,kfod ent an tedw toote ‘tat hail
‘egebledvoole # dlaq ,bowelo Ankd orf goats (eon af Bae 08a
Jteq Yan Wet RFowioe es ods To waek GOOLE to coexesit eR CLGRE
“too bam ,g02ve mk ‘lo ydabeod ont gerzeqded oah. te. toltertangre oe mt
anaged goad xedtts Bloe don wrew testetal detoltead ‘te sedan ktad
ened umbae tuode ae Wetook out div celtesnues thedT - seetsutt
900,00 swede bast vtotvoy ost ,180L ,£ yhut of GU: e90nofemuorde:
tette Leal yadh coda tol aveoned mb fates tened gatitosl wxetixondm
qisvcntio ad egatheesorg S8CL al ,000, G00\8RH you 09 beens 4 (e
Vinleok anit Ye eopeaury exif vantage gathaog wxwr eurtovteeat tilting |
eit dmoverg oF .nanva egdul aro'ted ogasdsl® Ro. S40 feroba ont at |
Sav sonpteIaop @ Aokishinpsi to sean at bagel of houowe ite Kiwi:
oat “to goon ingot # eA ,2aewelddew of wely oat Hew dodeoggee’
asw anubedé egbul ocd Ye molseesgen odd to baw bergtaoe aobdabey
Ronen goteusd TesonA oedeuss ae dmmntabowan. hetqeose dha borerke
peboooowe gay him bongleet retat om (ebved Koda wow annie
at waw manbose yxelee ost 409 faut? detinsd eet to enbethe | ee
eid? i4 .nanheds qo detqooos das oda ailt ye DoreogyiN aawi
+A ,otade «2 8 sew atasnedat Leiottoasd ed? to oulev Mood ony 4
aan, nanan tet: ousie to exley dood alt henoto saw aned ee, oar
cabins seatel bis Donwe yivisoh aid dined ebad
PPL, C808 09 sagged. shah git oat drow eaent © ome
402, gue uqbobaad ost 000: posmtenentncons eqns, ae
ttt ee pometeant athe avlqoet ane (6qrsO geleihwt
‘ ke bogtom, iow .qrod gainitid Aqhobead edt baw .qted gah
aolgamins overs ‘to atovas otf bas ,.09 Siaeqed wind Ys.
o>) ted it to aodel et NEOL L ‘etauitdot 32s | basiedainaes
‘aif
to the pociety are said by the State's Attomey to amount te
$338,198.42. ‘the statement, while nominally true, is in fact in-
moqurate and misleading. Mr, Bailey, auditer for the State's Xt-
torney, testified as the State's witness and said that 967,500 of
this amount represented a loan from the bank to the pociety and that
additional loane in the sums of $6,000, $8,000, $11,760 and
$3,814.42, making a total of $97,000, were direct loane for the
benefit of the pociety. the rest of the indebtedness, which amounted
to more than $200,000, for the most part represented leans made for
the bank through Guy L. Bush te George Pole. Ar, Nelson, Auditor
of Public Accounts of the State, suggested that these loans te Pole
should be additionally secured by the notes of the pociety which
were substituted therefor, As s matter of fact, the eollateral given
at the time the loans were made to Polo remained in the bank. His
note for $67,500 wae secured by ap00 shares of the stoek of the
Peoples Life Insurance Co., for which the fociety had paid $30 per
share, representing an investment by it of $240,000. The notes pro-
vided that the eollsteral should stand as security for any and all
indebtedness, se that the $97,000 which Pole owed was secured to the
bank by these epee shares ef stock in the Peoples Life Insurance Co.,
and wae further secured by the note of the or Seciety of
America, f -
There Was evidence in behali of defendants tending te shew
that additienal security which Pole Left with the bank was reasonably
worth more than $300,000, All these securities were benind this
particular obligation of the cabarets Seciety to the Bank, The
evidence also shews that at this time the pociety owned adjusted
notes due from its members in the sum of $1,098,616.91 4 that about
25,000 of these notes were for lese than $200 each, and that in addi-
tion the jociety ewned accounts due trom mexbers to the amount of
$4,195,738,74. As defendants point out, ten per cent collections of
{ fo
™~
ot Face of Wiech ot etedOesls Vil bis! orn YvoRbOy eutt ot
«tt foot at ak joy YUlloulmon o Lhdw sai ote ent) avees—eate
adh afeaadt oat tot ‘rot iiwe ,yotted 2M .galbheotsdw baw etemwpon
‘te O08, 78¢ gant bias baa teondiw e'otes ede ae boltivesy pyowred
gard Ane ydotoeR ond of dood odd mort newl a Rotuseertoer Fawomd wlidt
bac GOV, £28 ,000, 8% 000,59 ‘to wmwe eat ni wawet tamekeiiba
ono tot dmeol doerls orew ,000, TOE to devot « yabtom GRapeReyee
hosmiemd lo kde Bacabotdshal olds to soot wav ‘ects took ent ‘to ab twaed
‘tot chem Basel batossotaet He taom edt yet (OOO, 008 mde erase
tot lbod , ito ko . 28 .ofot enrosd of Meet .f yud cewetee aimed ade
ofel of caeol sesd? dadd bateoguue ,eded8 HF “LO stauooed otsaaiae
do key Gdoiod® ont to eotot edt Yd Gordes YLiotoli tobe odobiwede
sett tetegeiios od} ,fost ‘to 1sttee a 8A. to teTe dE bode tedad Suse
ati .daed bce-ak beniemox Ofot od sbem orew anwed oat outs ente
bit ‘to toota sAy to Hetedd BOOB YE benudee ese 008, ae tet egon
a9q 08% hing ber ete LOK odd sto tiiw rot /.09 soastwaal stht eetqont
“Cty estom ext .000, 0886 to ti yo tembeoval oe gabtaenetoe% ,ottusie
Tie ban yas Tot Yicevee @s haete biworle Lexedn fos’ edt tent) bebty
sa? Of borves2 aw bowo ofel xo biv OOO, TOP ont tele o8 jeeenbediebal
,+00 sonatusal otha ae ot ak aoote “to votade ball snend yt med
te bi saogpag vidawiel ‘eis To eton' etd het cmaiedientenbnnieed
“‘wesls of gatbaed arene Yo ‘Thetied Hf evnobive ew wiedté © |
7 Udanouner auw dowd ot adiw stoL ofet Mokitr ystuwoss pi |
gtd batted orew ae ie fxsved seat £LA 000, 0086 madd xem adtow
ext died wold os Yeoloo® ‘Duties eds Yo: aataas ets
‘ fesenthe bomwo yso took wits emit alae te dedt awosde onde
« $aede “Fens p£@.810,800, 49 to awe odd af etedewe ati
«iba at tect bat ,dowo CORY nad? Heol vot otew .coton
te dewrome ot oF sxsdnom mot? sub etanosee boawe yoo tooQuedd mots
ko Sab ktostLes IHes cw re eniatan cman BA dE BET, 8 ras 7
these accounts would have more then liquidated the entire indebted-
ness of the ciety to the bank,
Kr, Bdward Tudor, employed by Joseph 5. Optner, who became
receiver for the fociety, testified as a witmess for the People,
Fis testimony is to the effect that if civen a reasonable time he
could have realized at least 50 per cent om these notes and ae-
counts, As defendants point out, he being the witness produced by
the State, the State was bound by his testimony, fe: ‘Se el
174 Til, 229. At any rete, his evidence seems to be uncontradicted.
ir, Edword Kesler, formerly one of the trustees of the yon
ciety, testified (and his testimony is net contradicted) that from
1922 to 1929 the mexbers of the fociety had pais tanks memberahip
contracts $1,600,000, and that ome year preceding the closing of
the bank these members had peid in approximately $300,000 on sube
geriptions to the capital steek of the City State Co, in addition
to the amount paid during that year on their membership subserip-
tions, ‘The City State Co, was a corporation orzanized,as the
State contends, for the purpose of removing slow assets from the
bank, but, as the evidence for defeniants tends to show, with the
design and ultimate purpose of taking over all the assets of the
perative Society of America to the end that the Holders of
beneficial interests in it should receive stock instead of benafi«
cial certificates in the trust, The City State Co. had in fact,
howefer, paid into the bank about $145,000, which had been used
in taking out slow loans, It had alse donated to the bank $50,006
in cash which was placed in the undivided profit account, Its ene
tire common stock was owned by the poctety, and the amount of
money which it turned over te the bank indicates it was not used
in any way for the purpose of taking money out of it but rather
for the purpose of assisting it.
The City State Co, also paid out about $80,000 to the
Gj Diy ee ae ae aN
u |
abetdebal etiius edt hetebiwoil amd? otom evn bivow etnudbed eeeith:
vim oath ot vistowh ait tease
emaned oy ,toatgO .B dyesck yd beyotqup , tabs biswhl yeh som
elgoot edd nel nem by © ae pettisaos stdatoo& oni 10% weviesen
ail omiy eldenosses « sovly BL sade doe The off of. ak ynoubteaed ehh)
(+08 ban aefon eaelt o9 neo toq 08 tenet te hort inert syed bine»
ya bop ubaty ae dtw emt gated of ,tuo tatog atanhes tah * _ et rearos
Radaes .nomisecd ati yd davod maw aint, edt ,otes8/ way
betuibetinosay ed gt amon sombive atd .otex yoo GA 88S LSE aF Ry
~o& of to asesawt? ads ‘to one yliesse? ~setag brswha a fer.)
monk dant Loagethantaee Jon el yaomitoet abd ham) bettiesed yteke.
qide ted dane adore basi xtotook alt Lo ax»domm exit cee 08 ae
Yo Balaol aud gaibasetg tany oso tant tim ,000, 000,08 atounte |
<dua ao 000,008% Yleteutcongan ot bay st wredener anentiaigilitile
moitibbe sk .o0 ates@ y$40 anid to gloote aan A A
~qitesdve gicatsdaem tiedd so tany tend yattub Stag FS
eit ga, boninegic moltereni0o # saw .a0 etede wth} oe
edt goxk afoara wols gaivomoer to seoqama ostt ult: ntandbuniniaideallte :
pit diddw wore of ehagd sdanhw'teh Tod sonehive elt oo yoad yan)
edd ‘ko adeens oat, A: SO DANO, 3h NS NEE |
ke axeblot edd taut bus of of avbtemd to yestoo®, evides j
atteaed to bavtant doote ovtsooy bkweite $2 nt wtawretat tates Rones.:, :
ee ee
‘ — gHlaak af bes .08 ef0d@ ys20 on? stewtt ost at ete tienes te
| Pome eed, bat Moke 000, 0MF deodactned as? otat Diag! \eehewed?
tN
000,088, Land ast 9 Sodenod onto bet 2% suavol wole tuo) yabiadiniyr
one est. »Jaugeoa thiorge bebivtbaw. edd at bepe ly saw Ho | .
to sauows oid dpm ,ydeloo’ edt YS bene eaw doota memvob ;
«bese 20a gow th sogaodoak tned odd ofcrery bemmatid fe Sotto”
mre to, ‘24 lo Swo yonom gutdeg To ssogrng odd aot yew yam te!
Say he ace * et 5° Mea yhbegatente ren Teo cow ug utd 0
| et of 000,088 swedantup bisq vata .o0 sedate ybso.aimioy, [ts
# se
City State Safe Deposit Co. in order to meet taxes and interest
on the bank building during the period the building was being
constructed, The bank owned 51 per cent of the stock in the build~
ing company ond therefore received 51 per cent of the benefit of this
payment,
The State's Attomey suggests that the Areuit court re-
fused to permit the receiver of the G. 8 of A. to eollect ace
counts from mecbers because of the uselessness of the effort, The
evidence hardly justifies this comclusion. On the contrary, the
Closing of the bank and the appointment of receivers for the core
porations affilinted with it had destreyed and dissipated the ae-
sets of the jocicty. Hetwithstanding the uncentradicted evidence,
that the acecounte were collectible up to at least 56 per cent of
their face value, the farouit court was of the opinion it would be
inequiteble to permit the receiver to colleet. It is apparent that
as a going concern, which the pociety was on the day the bank closed,
these accounts and notes were abundant security for any obligations
due to the bank, and apparently the auditeur ef public accounts was
of that pinion, since he suggested the substitution of the notes
of the fociety for these of the euetomers of the bank who were slow
in paying their loans,
The State also contends that the Gity State Co, was insolvent
and never made a profit, but the uncontradicted evidence (again by a
Witness for the State) is to the effeet that it made a profit of
about $42,000 on the sale of shares of bank stock, and that
two dividends had been paid to the steckholiders, As « matter of
fact, for months prior te the elesing of the b the bank stock was
s@lling on the market at $250 a share, ‘the ¢ perative Seciety paid
$165 a share for it, so that its net book profit in that respeét
would have been $85 a share, representing a profit of $207,500,
Defendants insist that the fact that this stock was held in spite
Feetwsal has aexed foom ad tehv0e ah .09 slaogod ete® wtat® 22D
gaked aew yalbited ed? belieq esd gutish gathiied dned edtuno
«bitud sat at Soate elt to tase t9q 48 beawe aided os? betowsdamon
abcd to ¢£teued oat to tuo t3e¢ 18 hevieoor svrolorest foe comenee gat
«97 dtz00 t hoor td en? ¢ast edenggua neonate B'agedte eMT es 6 fy
hath Ge thes 08 eke tad. Bonge: Remeinge ad dioteq of beat
on?” Stee od? Ye cadansetoas edd Yo wauaned axoduom moxt admnme
‘ ge? ,ytattacs oad 20. motes tones elds eeltitest ~ieted somebive
“x09 edd 10? axeviccst Io snsmiatogge 9s? ban Auad edt Yo gatsete
min odd beteqteatd ban beyortwah bade th dittw bored i206. srebtenen,
,somei ive hotolthbatsaoonw ot gaibasdeddiwaeli “etebooy pat. ) 2
‘te to seq Of temol te od qu aiditos lies oxoe, etepneoey aii tnill:
ad bisow #2. aointge ads Xo aw rune dtuosth oult .outey opatntads
fas? tuotenge.al #1 .tevtioo oF tevieses od thumeq of oLdattupenk
bowels ane ent yeh ent mo sow veotved exit sodatw «Mteedgo Balog & Be
exottent ite yuo tot yshteoe tashasdes etaw aston bas etnsosse, enedt
apw efavesbs stidue to tetthwe edd Yltnexangn bow sled odd obvmub
aston ect to setvutiendue ext betseggua en aonte notatne tas, to
wos a ee ee
teevforal eer (90 e¢ac8 ytd ote Gand abrotnes) cade etetd ditheirilieg =
(@ Uf akage) eemedive bevolheusactew ene gud ,¢ttoww 8 obes Teves bre
Yo ¢ltete « ehee 32 sac, tooTte ald of ab (eter? on to enantiv
ted? tae pote tasd to eotedes 008 To Lee ont 19 000/88 swede
asw foptt wned out ot Se yaleode od of relig edtaomtet «tant
| bhaq ute toot evt ‘edt 9rsca s 088) 22 serizen ont ao-gahiion —
susauor tens cb ee acd feat dno 2h ata
008, %OR8 Yo sLlotg s gatemonezqen onesie 6 88¢ aed «
ottua ‘ok Bhoad naw doote ‘aks? $962 toatrons sads.
af
at
ef the market price at which it might have been sold is persuasive
evidence of their belief that the bank was solvent, When we re-
member that the question of solvency in cases of this character
is to be determined by the value of the assets as a going cone
cern and by the conditions which existed on the day the bank
closed, rather than by those which followed, we think it must be
hela the State failed te sustain the burden of proof with refer-
enee to the alleged worthlessnegs of the indebtedness due from
the eae Seciety.
The secend principal item, as already stated, concerms
the value of the building and premises of the City State Safe
Deposit Co. ‘The evidence shows that some negotiations were
wnder way prior to the closing of the ponk looking toward the
sele of this building. Defendants had been inforned and had
reason to believe that the building was desired by tne Tliinois
Bell Telephone Co, ‘They had asked $6,000,000 for the building,
but had teld the agent for the felepnone company who was ate
temting to negotiate a sale, that $5,000,006 or better would be
eecepted, These fects appears from the evidence of Frank D,
Rebinson, whe also testified as a witness for the State,
Fred L. Williams, a real estate dealer with offices at
39 North Dearborn street, testified in behalf of defendants that
he hed sold other preperty in the same bleck to the felephone
company, and that he was employed by the company te purchase this
GMT, that in December, 1928, he approached one of the offi-
ears ef the company to get a orice on the property and was given
a price of $6,000,000, He says he told Mr, Robinson that if he
would cut the price down to $4,500,000 he could close the deal
in 24 hours and get the money for it. This witness aleo testified
that he talked to Mr, Abbott, president of the Telphone company,
end wae teld by him that a price of $4,500,000 was & reasonable
oviteuerey et loa aved eves ‘date t2 soidy te eaing desrem exty te!
~o1 ow oat -trevios anw ised oft dat Wotisd «ted? te eonekives
wetowra.to ated ‘to eeees at Youn ron to nolteeup est tacit wadmom»
~a00 gniog & ae stoeae adt to eutay eit vd hoatarateh ed od af):
aed eat yeh sit wo bstatxe doldw enmoltsibaes oid Ud Dae ected ©
ad sa zt Aakds 9* ,bowolLot sp tiw enol} Ye matt todten ,beaete.
19tet ts te Yoorg te nebrud ont aietese of betlal o¢ade. odd: Biteahet
sont out eaeahesdebad on te aagnaroliiiow begette onto
men ons oop RPOLOOB ov
aateanos sbogede yosoxke as meg Lanhenten, beenenott ce suhints,
- otae tose yt odd to sentuora Ane gath thant ose ‘to eulew eda
; oxew anottatd gos emo sats awesin sonshtve exit . +09 t2moqette
oa btswed yatdoot dasd edt to anteolo adt ot Tolte yew wehem t
"best bas boomtottad aged bad etanbaeted | santhitud add ‘te whew
“akon! Lat ont w boxlsob aaw atibtied edt taut, ovelind of nominew!
‘ACLbikud exit 10% 000,000,9¢ Beslns bax vod? +0) amodgete? Lfef +.
. th env ociw yawn snosgese oat tot stapge. ont. bios. Rast turds
od hivew nested ‘to 000 1000, 8% jact ,ofse # etettopen. st antnponen
-@ daev to sonebtve ead mort ‘eisegae asogt (MO ERi: hotosogg. |
leted® 943 201 eusasiv o as boltiteast oate PORE.
ta aecitio utiv 10Lseb Siatae Leet 6 ,saehiLiW .t howt- meee .
Bast Stiabueteh te Iiesied at bettivaet ,taerte sodsaet seco BE
“smosige to elt of £0 eid omee ond at Yinoqote ‘suite, blow: bashmst ie
abst eaadoeay od xaaquoe ond Xd DONpLaMS pw, ost dace hee: emacs
«f'Y'to ong to ono bedlasotaqa od 880k <toduepett ah deskt eee
sovly aes bate vixgomg ond ao s9lty # $92 of yaeqemn. ait
out th tans moaaldoR .t ied of eyes ob... 900, 000,98 Reventng a!
fnob eutt enots iwoo eet 000,008 ,A¢ ot seh .9obtqrextt teed
poriitwes 0 ks, toad by eis? tt tot yeaom edt tog aan-enmindlls axsect
.yangmon inn to snob ta0%g AIESEEA. A 8 am
faneaaor 4 saw w 000,008,06 | te cotuq « sand utd yd.
a”
price, Mr, Abbett says that he does not recall any such conversa~
tion, but it is not denied that tne feiephone company was buying
property in that immediate vicinity.
Williams also testified to an offer from a Mr, lloskins
of Pontiac, Michigam, He says Hoskins offered $6,000,000 for the
building property, $1,000,000 of the purchase price to be paid
with property located in the center of Pontiac, and that the pure
chaser would assume the mortgages on the Chicage building and pay
the balance of the purchase price in cash, This witness further
testified that in his opinion the property in Pontiac was worth
$6,000,000, He says that the deai was perding at the time the bank
Closed, He also testified that he was familiar with the reasenable
fair cash market value of the bank buiiding at the date the bank
closed. He said tt was $5,000,000. He testified to sales of other
property in the same bloek on whieh he based his opinion,
Bawin G. Rellihen corroborated the testimony of Williams
and said that in July, 1929, Mr, Robinson told him (the witness)
that if he could close the deal for $5,260,000 to go ahead and
close by, that in July Mr, Williams told Mr, Rellihen that if he
would make the price $4,500,000 he cowld elose the deal in 24
hours; that lr, Williaus pathic Dink Mote sed hie Nis principal
was the ferephone company, showed him a check of the fel ephone com=
pany on commissions on other sales he had made in the same block to
that company, He also said that Mr, Williame had told him of the
pending negotiations with Hoskins, confirming the testimony of
Williams in that respect, which, indeed, is uncontradicted,
Jarema was the cecretary snd treasurer of the Fontenac
Athletic Club, which anticipated the purchase of a building in the
ioop, and for that reason he said he had made inquities as to the
price at which property was being held and familiarized himself
with the feir market value of the property in the loop. He stated
~<eureraes pve yan LLeoor Jon avob of tent eyes ttodta yell © eolng
gatyed sew yasgaso teitsias 18% with tert bethob tow eb tt dudh§ moet
rand wa tea ai Wiiintoly stethonmt todd at? yoesqomy
“anttaoll 2M @ movt toTto as od Se'btttacd deta’ amnktrew ox wbch,
seit tot 000,000, aé bor to aniieoK eyse off [nisi Evin tat oattnot to
blag oe od soltg sasdotug Sit Te 000,000, 18 pedrsdoty gmtbwlid —
aq ot todd ban ,oattmo® to tatned sof at Boteoot ytreqete thr
we bus “gutbiivd ogsctn® od¢ ao e4gays-rom wrld omedde Wtvew meme:
econelnd anentiw sicT ,faso ai soity saaterug otf to someted vaste
‘docew enw paitaed at yireqota aus motniqo sit a2 sady bottitest
“sine ont omtt ois $0 gaibueg baw tnob Oi dese uypt’ oF Goooponoyas
ofdancesst edt Nthw telilust asw of tout be Pisest oefe-el!! aheagle
Aned edt eteh oft te yuthling Ani ene Yo oulay totrom tone che
xeidite to aslee of hettisesd ot .000,000,04-aaw t¢ bine ah shanete
snolnigo ald bessd on do kew ao doled ome oxit mt gtmaony
emsiLliw to ynontiee't ont bsterodottoe ‘Mert Lcom eM: Se tes }
(ansasiw ct) mbt bLod moaitidoM aM ORCL yee nh Sexi cbhem tiem
bas bassie oy of 000,008.29 To? Le68 suit odose "Rimes vodk Meboadmalty
ed ti tacit medtifet ,«il 616d eos berews et “ein ont tad opt ioamele |
AS nt Iaeh ext onolo hives st 60/0007 84« Solte ost entec bLvow
fagtonti¢ atd mtd Blot oink sautd 'Satttaaie” am bis ay arent
«m0 oaasias tol outt to stoasto ‘mid Dowode ; ya Qwd> omoxte ,
ot tools ease odd at ebam Bed of go lee teitto" ao" hiceeasabinieenians |
edly to mid bLot Bed ametisrw pale vane bike on fe oH .yasqmoontedy
to ytouttest edt gaterttac _ ehhteolt atte anoiteltnsan gaabasq
sbotothetinoom et ,heebal {doit tooceer dedi: eh oma hLLew
‘osmetnot ot to “<otusdett bas yistoroes oft gew siete ioe”
\ este nk guthilud @ ‘te sastotog ott bedaqtottas Metdw dul whtelata
| one ot as aoktiwont ehem*had ort biad od nomest ems siaiall
ese .qoor old ab’ vireo oiit! 26 enter textromabatoesl it
—
that a fair cash market value of the building was $5,000,000 and
that the actual value of the stock in the building carried on the
beoks of the bank at $462,000 was between $800,000 and $900,000,
The building was damunveret by a first mortgage of $2,500,000,
wnderwritten by P. W. Chapman & Co., a concern with large experience
in Chicago. Prier to underwriting it, the bullding was appraised
by Babecek & Co., amd upon ite confidence in that appraisal P, ¥,
Chepmen & Co. underwrote the first mortgage loan for $2,500,000.
Age a matter of fact, the Pabeock Co. revert appraised the bank
building at $4,499,606.76 (allocating to the land $1,326,750,.a9)
and it was set up in the books of the corporation at that avpraised
value, The sum of $79,000 had been paid on the first mortgage on
the building according to the testimony of Mir, Bailey, a witness
for the State, There was a second wortgage on the building for
$800,000, so that it is spparent that a sale of this building for
anywhere near the velue nlaeed upon it by these witnesses would have
retired the stock which the bank had in the building as shown by the
books and given it a very substantial prefit,
As againet thie testimony the State introduced the somewhat
qualified denial of Ur, Abbott and the testimony of one Charles J.
Pose, an appraiser euployed by the Chicago Title & Trust Ue., who
had also been employed by the Northern Trust Ce, in that capacity,
He testified in substanee that he appraised for the Chicago Title &
Trust So, the proverty which was situated on the southwest corner
of Randolph and Yells streets on or about November 22, 1929; that
this appraisal was made gueiier: taewe after the bank closed, that he
took into consideration the value of the ground and improvements,
the rentals being received by the building at the time and the
actual expenses “where I could.* He wae then ssked to estate what
he reported the avpraisal value of the building te be November 22,
1920, an4 replied, after referring to his report, that he found the
7
Saw G00,990,8% maw gakbliad ado Yo oxtev tettam dass what # tet
oid no bekexep yAtbLdod ait Bh doode oat Tovouler Lomtom nett shalt
2050, 0008 bus O00,0084 mowied saw QG0,RO39 ta dnod ould ‘to exleod
2%, 008,89 Te egentran sexkt aod hewedenond ese uathited edt
sommireqne eyted dtiw agomeo @ ,.99 4 mamgnd .Y 1 yd nett iowrehas
heaiergge aaw gabhliud edge , ti gaitbuwtebay e¢ teltt. — ogaotdd at
«Y.,% Soalerwg¢s, tadd at somebitnos eff coq has 108 & dogodat mys
p08, 008, 8% tol awol sgagttem taxtt add oterwiebay 400% samqaaD
ded olf Senlatqqs treqes .09 Asoodet edt , toa? antienag
pong hawt eslg 0d gattavotia) 8¥.300, 00,09 ta gudbih
basierqes tent te aehiatogtes act to atood odd ab ce scare
he open? xen tect? ef? oo blag mad Bel 000, CTR Be me OH hs :
savatly o ,yelked ,«d te ynoentiasd off ef. aattrocon gatbibud es
qo? aulhitud ed? no egsgtto bagooe # new erat 02888 etd cot
tet golbiind aidt to efea a tet taeteggm wt tt sed? ow of 20,
svad biwow sesneadin ened? yd ot soqu heosle axtew arit t 0 . ae
edt yd awada se gnibiind sat at baal sae au folate vote ont Stier
ethete Letinatedse yrov a th meviy bie —_—
tacdwemen od booubottnk etete oct yromiteed etut feaiaga bs aula ase
t aefres® esp To Ynoulteod ond haa todds .t% to daineh hott iiag
osm 4.09 true? @ OL847 apes ts. Whbeyeteem meaterane: me eRe
att booges test, ct 99 teurl aveddeo estt 16 shores ogra gee gl
& oLs2T agastaD ont rot boelerqus ef fest sonndedum shy heb trot om
teates teewldsoa od no bedeniJe new coke yorecara bit 00: tat
ad test, oni dead ect trete egak WO whom Baw : distil sat oaaa
eioosevotcat fms basotg ent ho aniav ont. notsenobtnuos otak * 208
;
a ee
ee
physical value to be $2,692,521. He further said thet he found the
actual income, estimating one or two eases to be $391,129 a year;
that the expenses totalhed $260,792 w year, He stated that the
building was a little more than 60 feet wide, with a depth of 180
feet on Yells street and about 86 feet or a little more on the stile dh,
Seas it widened cut in the rear; that there was a strip 60 by 100
feet in the front; that the comer building had 17 stories and the
y
j that he appraised tae land which he found to have a value
ef $70 « square foot, or a total ef $877,380, and that he appraised
ether 23
the comer building on the southwest corner of Randolph and Wells
streets at $652,518; that he slso made an appraisal of the 23-story
structure edjoining the corner building, whieh he apprised at
$1,172,532, 54
Talis evidence was all received over objections of defendanta
Which, in our opinion, should have been sustained for the reason
that the appraisal of Ur. Pese wae wade after the closing of the
bank, and moreover he did not qualify ab ah @xpert on the value of
this particular kind ef property. City of Chicage v, urveliy 286
i111. 415. We have considered at length the testinony as to the twe
items upon which the State most strongly relies, and we think that
under the rule leid down in the Clark case the People must be held
to have failed in their ef'fert to prove that upen the date the bank
Closed these assets were depreelated and verthliess,
We shall net endeavor to review at length the testimony with
reference to other items, One oF these was an alleged indebtedness
ef the City State Co, to the bank for $19,528.63, The City State
Go., however, at the time the bank closed had on deposit in it
$5,447.40, also @ trust account of $1,160,565, making a total sum ef
$6,607.95, which redueed its indebtedness te less than $12,000, ver
the amount the bank held collateral te the lean §20,000 of first
mortgage bonds on the bank buiiding, so it would appear that this
eal Wkrot wd Gant Bide tester ok ree lead A oe be SL Heddy ley
— thtigey we GE, £68 6d oF vonwe ows xo ‘env gekt auth Fa amos ‘asia
orl? fetid hefeda oH epee W SOT, CERe beliceoe abenogxs ssid tedd
OBL Ae Mee ao av tw Yoblw toot 08 ‘neds via erevit s anw antecdue
pees ody no etom olteil # to deer 08 tuods Kite teotte altew no deet
BOE Ye OF qtrie 6 uaw oxbuy tend jzasd Wi ut tio! dono nt FE ‘ted?
ett pw Weoteote VE Rant pntbittud “sik ob bd¥ Pec” patttoirt orld i toe
ouliv s ‘ovat of Powe? of doliw bawt oxtt Bealaxaus ‘on ted jes teil
boatexgge of dor! bak 068 ,0V8E To Lafod a to foot orsupe a Og Be
alteW Bae dqfobnail Ye tomoo towisuon odd ‘no Yuli tind tomes odd
esiaalhenliatantnieteaennters ox sant ota eced de 'advedih
| gli out ‘Be baw a aonree sx) aatitotbe ers ‘ow ,
= | Seo Naa
“etna asteb Yo envitestdo revo boviesst Tia saw sonehiva vier © aad bial
neaset ond tot beatafeve ased oven biyotte otntge ade : “yao kit w
gait to sake ott Yotts’ phom onthe ie adios ont ne
,
oe A Oe, —g Se pe a
Fe ere ee
a teas Knldd ov bak ,aellec yfgdotdd deolt fare ong” do bi ae ih stk
plod of tami olyost ov} caso Bast) ote ad mwob ‘pik WEA OM a ve
ied oi eden 0.2 nell vault Feit w ietiae eed ww :
me
; adhe seseois
btost ySHO ont hd 280 OLY YoT Miied eaY of 10d stage YF
| $2 AE dteouob no hart beWeto sued Sie vats” ont te ||
te awa Letot a pichsinat 28 oer, ee to tanovou Lcbrsinl a brie oon Pe:
col: 0008 imuly wer or abouboidohng WAP wines
ar te OUOLORE mao ony” * Swtoswtros Wea sted uae
inlay ‘dai xawgge babiew t4 oe (heebb hive athunit ontt ada:
loan was well secured,
The Peoples Life insurance Co, is another one ef the assets
of the fooiety which the State contends was worthless. It had at
the time the bank failed policies outstanding te the amount of
$17,500,000. It had at one time purchased 3,395 shares of the bank
atock, but the insurance department ebjected to its helding that
stock because of the possible satatutory liability and suggested that
the trustees of the pocicty should give their note to the Ansurance
company, putting the kamek stock up as collateral, the stock being
issued to the trustees, ‘The matter was earried out in that way.
It is ‘thus apparent that the stability of the Ansurance company
depended upon the stability of the bank, and the closing of the bank
wiped out thet asset.
Kr. Robinson, witness for the Stute, testified that shortly
before the closing of the bank it had a very substantial offer for
the Peoples Life Insuranee Co, John V. Lees testified he had been
engaged in the life insurance business for 25 years, had oceasion
@uring that time to appraise the value of many such companies and
for many years represented clients in the purehase thereof, In fact
it was his business to set a valuation on the stock of these come
panies and he had participated in negotiations for the sale and pur-
chase of 31 companies, In August, 1929, he had appraised the
Peoples Life Insurance Co, and had elients who wanted te buy it and
negotiations were on eontinuously from August until the closing of
the bank, Uis testimony was that 20,000 shares of etock of the
company were worth from $45 te $50 a share, making a total of be-
tween $900,000 to $1,000,000, ‘his evidence, however, was stricken
by the court,
The State says that Mr, Robinson testified that the ©. &S,
of A. Was not able to pay ite indebtedness to the bank, but appar-
ently that stateuwent was made as a conclusion, because on eross-
| + ybetueen tie ane mbit
atéete off te ene vedtuns ef ,00 soawtbent wthi'es fgoet eat © /o"
th bait’ $t > (eee ew- daw ebnodliie' bist day Hani totiol eatte
“Yo tauoms ocd of gukbastatoo Bolo ticg belle? Aasd Sit oinhd 6itt
| dead Set To aotsce 808.5 pdteridtog omit one te had JT 000,600) 928
iia Qathien ett of hotsotde saemstesqos soterdent ont dnd’ toede
tadd bestaoggua bas YthildelL yrotulade eldieroy on} to sateood foota
aomwrwend ont of sF0k thoud evly bLuode tte du0d oult ‘to esosewrd oft
gilod toote ont ,letedetievs ee qu dovts dated. ond galseng Cre gms
Lyaw tat at duo heiress eaw tettam ed? ,wesdaued’ orld 09 howned
peg som twead oxtd Ro UseLldeda 94) Sads dasreqes cic abe
dnad odf ‘to unteoko edd San gated edd Yo YFRitdasa oid HOG
. tosses tosis 0 Bote
‘—~ketote dads Soltitess ,s3es8 ofF LOT eedaddw jnosakdot ce a
aot teTto Isistantadus ytov # bed $2 And wad te galsolo odd outa |
woad bed oct DeLtitesd weed {V tuiot 189 codaxddnl st2d aa rgoet’e J
folagooe bad jets0y Bf Tot esentald soaerceal ett sdf nt epee
bos aslasqnes dove yon to sukev oct oatwrags ot emt tact pabeeh
yoot al Tose? ceasotug edt af etneifo hodieadig6r etacy ogi tik
| =iiéo ededt Yo #oote odd no nottewlav’s toa of eeottlend afd sawed
tig bas fee off xe? enotsaitoysa mt boteqiotinag bal eA hae nokaae
edd boeleraqs her on , 08 CL ,fawgwA at ‘Jestanqman tek ost
bas tk ywd of hodagw ow atieiio bed San .69 soastuaal oLht aetgost
to gabeots add Lisay saugud mott Yidveutiinee ag oxew: uo tie 2e 030m
$89 ‘to do dde ‘to wotade 000,08 tent eaw-Ynduiiass oth) Sm ed
sod ‘to tadot @ gato ,otsde a 088 05 °8A) mont stow otew ex
ou noxie hte usw. (avowed arrenaowes ebay B ecrsepunnges od ‘O00 00) wih me
° RO ad todd bo MIGe9d momntdod sal died “eyed anced ;
t¢on dad \Anad o0it OF aadabordotint adi ae ot otde ‘gon awa"
—e no eeusoed ,wolavLofos 6 ae Shad ‘adw Priniioaada tat :
ar
examination he testified that Kr, Stedman said to the State fuditer
that the ©. 3. of A. had 40,000 members and that it was responsible
for its indebtedness and able to liquidate it if given proper time,
The witness said that he also believed this to be true,
It would unduly extend thés opinion to go further inte these
matters. it is apparent that within the rule laid down in the
€lark case it was not sliown that the bank was insolvent at the time
the deposit was received, and there are ether circumstances in evie
dence tending te show that if it was in fact insolvent these de-
fendants did not know it and in good faith believed that it tas
wolvent, Souwe of these are that ir, Stedman made a substantial
deposit in the bank the day before 1% closed and that on the day it
closed he held in his commercial account ¥651.47; that in addition
he held a savings account of $580, from which nothing had ever been
withdrawp and that Mires, Stedman at the time the bank closed had a
savings account there of $580, from which nothing had ever been
withdrawn. In addition to that, Stedman had invested largely in
Various real estate bonds and mortgages which we sold to him through
the bank. It must be remeubered that the primary responsibility
for the operations of the bank rested upon Ur, Miller, now de-
eeased, who before and at the time the bank closed was president
and who had been placed in that office beeause of his large experi-
ence in banking, Ke was strongly recommended by the auditor of
public accounts, 28 was Guy 1. Sush who was later made an executive
Bt A because of his supposed experience and judgment,
Bush had served as a bank exawiner for 17 years and was employed by
the auditor of public aceounts at the time his name was suggested
for a place with the bank, The real estate department, from whieh
most of the troubles ef the bank arose, was in fact opened up by ir.
Bush when he made his connection with the bank, iir, Stedman had
Particular charge of the trust department, and every trust (with the
tod LOR ntat® edd of blac membore ,tH todd beltitasd of imoltentoaee
eidiennyret aor Fh Gand bows waedned O00,04 bad .A to 8 sodt tadd
att weqertq avis “th #1 otebinp lf ot ofde bas eedabsideink ott 16%
,9utd ed of aldd bovelied Osis od Jet Bise azontiw of
emus oni meavint of 43 aefalqe edi? baoias eluboaw bluow $1, o>) 9 e
-@at al m%ob bial olut edd ntdtie sad? tossagga 2h) 81 \yetedeam
‘gas on% te Soovicant saw das edd Jadd smote dou asw t2 gaan Aral
etve al sagaesemmorto tedto Ste s1edd baa ,bevieost aaw sidoqss enh
oh ements Hnevioenk toast ot aaw $2 Th sand worn od gathiot goueh
‘gee 32 todd Sovolfod diet hoog af bas 2h owout tom bibostambme®
Letettetedwe » ebaa omeohes® ,1H teil ets osent Yo sod toerien
‘OF wah ond ad ned hae beeode th oxoted wb ould dod os nt ¢hoognh
aoltibba at text ih. L608 toveoss Lsiotommoo aia ai Bfod of bowel
meod tave bad anton dolrw mott ,06@9 to sauosse egaives 8 blow od |
@ bat boaolo Aewd srt omts off d6 cambose ate dod) baw, gmorbabw }
need thve ben ykiten doddw mort OBE ‘te exols sowoase eyairame
mt “Logzel betesval bet onmbeso ,tend of soldibbe al) snwanbstdw
tyvordd mii of bloe ow tiotdw asepegsiom bas. ehaod etataa: foot evoitey
‘uUtitdtenovesr ‘ummhre eat tastt betoduemnr od denen t0) olned-oet
~ab Won , Te FT ult nogew heteet ansd maid to eaoiverogo ont tol
tnebisetq aw beeofo aned of omid cd Je baw ototed ode peReey
wtrogxy ogrel etd ‘to saussed sottito tet 42 beorlg mood bed ore bia
| ‘to totthus ont yd bo bnemooet ylanoise ae of .gulidnad en
evisyooxm sé shen retel eaw ov deg .o gw) saw ae 4
| ~ttemghbut Bae sonelrsgxe bonoqeke Bit to Pavsoed
yd boywlene wav Se etooy CL 16 somtamxh ieien's shi onal a
feteossue esw dad ati ont? ef7 Ga ataweobs ol idug to metdhue imutt
man see sinonixeqeh etstes Leet off dud ont ctl moelque met
pheabgo dovt at cow jewouw Aowd ult Yo woddwotd ost 10 one
re ne ee nd ahaa ait; asin tess
ae
exception of two in whien there ig a contest between the bensficie
aries) has been liquidated in full,
Mr, Jarema was the treasurer of the Yentenae Athletic Club,
He had more than $70,000 on deposit in the bank as such treasurer
when it closed, and his two minor children had tevings sceounts
there at that time,
Ag @ matter ef fact, at the time of the trial the benk in
liquidation had paid dividends to its depositors smounting to 32
per cent and hed more than a million dollars of assets yet to be
liquidated, All preferred claims snd all deposits made by consere
Vators, aduiniatrators and guardians have been paid in full. Re-
sources of the book value of $2,121,618,22 reuwain to be liquidated,
Looking backward it is, of course, easy to say that mistakes were .
made, but in erder to justly appraise the situation one wust cone
sider the situation as it was at the time these things occurred,
fhe unparalleled devreciation in the valuation of all assets which
has taken place since 1929 does not need deseription. It is
reeognized judicially by all the courts, There are few, if any, of
our pecple whe do not have definite information in that respect.
The old proverb may well be applied to this situation, "Hindsight is
better than foresight."
| there is another circumstence to which attention should be
called, the direetors of the bank met with the examiner on the
day before the bank closed, It was anticipated that money could be
Obtained through another Chicago bank, The evidence is that the
auditor was asked whether this bank should open the following day
and replied that it should, but advised that the deposits should
be segregated, the evidence also shows that defendents supposed an
erder to that effect had been given, If it was complied with the
prosecuting witness might have eaelly secured the return of her
money a8 a preferred claim upon proof of insolvency. Whether a
etottoand off manted dectnes 6 et etext dutdw ak ‘ows Vo dekbqeeile
ivt at betabiupil ased’ —_
aGet0 pitoitSA owastnell add lo rervasetd sat sew setel Jeu!)
teryaeets ddwe aw dnad ond nk tlacyeah ap 000,00$ next orom boat i
ataueons wariver bal u9thLide rostm owe etd bas beeols th nig ca
sould teat to wuestg
fk shtnd) old Lebat odd 20 emtd ois th ptoad Ye uedean @ eho et)
- BB ef getsaueme atosineged sth o¢ absebivad bhay bad solsebiupht
od of sey etosse to atafleh api liin aed? oxom ben bos dieao mm
-tegaoo yd ohan atigoqeh Lis bax umtate berveierg LiA | .botabinplt
| yhetebloptl od of miamex 88.810, RL,RE\ to eusay wood ond Bo preety
e2ew seieatselta tadt yee oF yeas , 28400 Lo , ak Sh ‘praietbait shame .
site teum orto soldnutle en} selotgqe Yisent os xebt0 uk out obam
~boTrNeee eytiidd eaodd omit od te enw $1.28" bbboutte. wate cehibi
Hoidw atenes Lin te avigouler osit: at, notteloereos beletivreqe oat
aidl .mot¢edroecb beem ton. do0h Ces e6n28 eos lq Hound aa
Yo .yse BE ywet om evad? etae0s oat Lis yo yLlatotout beakagoset
stocques dnsd ob -mottemotnt estat ted evant ¢én ob ole exgueg tab
a
|
a a. ae
fas Sdgiebaih® ,wolventia atid 09 beiiqga ed Liew yeu drevetg - hee “ie
od bivede nelisettia doliw of ogandemepiloe twilteaa wh-orodt a ae
ads me tonieexe oct di iw dom duad edt te stotesths edt’ «bo Sine
8S bLweo yetou gedi batecietiw: saw $1) .beeeks dnad sii. oreted Yah
ot dedi el somohive-oAT .aned egsolsd sentom- igendd boaberdo
eh gtivellol sul¢ sege bivote Amod alas wedsodn bosenaaw roti bud |
biwode atheoosh ef jad beelvhe dud ,eineia 32 ded bebiqet Bat
| SgghamOWeK Qinabaetes dost qwors ents sousbive edi -.decagemmeR a
— = eae 22 Tl. ,uerig mood bet soos gas of xa
deposit made under such circumstances is a depesit within the
meaning of this criminal statute, it is unnecessary to decide,
For the reasons already suggested the judgement as to all
the defendants will be reversed and the cause remanded, with
directions to the court te quash the indictment as to defendants
Castile and ‘artray,. af a
ee ny Oe ee aaa T te TPRIRENA CABS STS mar NET REALS LENSE Ap ASTRA EPCS ORNKLATER Emotes
REVERSED AND REKANDED VI9H DIRECTIONS,
| ieee, P. J., and MeSurely, J., concur,
armen
—
eal achat: 6 af seoastemuorto dom en" Mm ei
wohioas ot cxauneesan pr “th qotutens ee Aa 4
a le ee ronan ie
Naa ioe of ne “upto tba ab. pate Ore es rig OF mda Brod
ie Netden 6 Ay ORY
Ddiaery dboecat —
% | ‘wi
bid
LGR es BY
es
oe
a
7
-
“6
|
—
2 oe
$s =
‘-
,
a Bee
pS we. hit eee aad Bie
shambles... pe: bat: 868 Gey ERS
Rink hese he ee ae eRe ee
nid es PER 8 BO MOA SRL. OD GR Lea
ets SORE Laws NRRL, Mik shar Pe
og cli au , F i hig > i el date oid =
Rosaw ageeee TG fe Coleone ‘oae al
ePosraes. Fart 02 raat para wiat aes nia wees Tee ee outie” a
‘RE Sy taBe, y moles ss ve ine ag teeaene £s Lge pba: iuewornty ‘we
* dy rantet ued 2. a
DE, RAMBO GR: Fa GER Re hay ER at aye g iO ME? & by: “t.huthey auee: we re mone rile
Rae - PR SOAR te oP aor dw Bao eet aan ak aa PB Nb ont Sheol
‘ee bier teoas dehy ew cked aon: wae OE gaueeragaly rin aware
i Rw eke OORT) le eau ee aR
‘OO ARB mele eee bootie anon bd: allele odie
RAE. Aa hee Doe tae tee i ete ee veel
am on elder he ae ee) qiah n't & take awh be Le oar hd vey eet
Ee ead in A doetas ome £3 R)>- gear ay cael al Soe Wha Gh
“ht hetorateen: balh eed eee ce day Lae. winarmig BW
of i) a a, gaat Beak “She Senay edie agheliay avn .
ay
38032
ORLBAN LISTON BROW JOUNGOR,
(Contestants) sypackiieten
We
FERS? WRLON TRUST & SAVIN BARR
Seeeubar ond Trustee wader the Last
GOOk COUNTY.
W411 and Testament “, Pilijam be
Brown, Seceased, et al,
279 1.A.631'
(freponents) Appellees.
Opinion filed alone Wednesday March 20, 1935
WA, JUSTICE SILGON UELIVESEO THE CPENDON OF THX court,
Thig @ause ia here on append from a deeres of the Cirouit
Gourt Gigmissing the bili of complaint fer want of equity. fhe
exune was before this court on « former appesi, nosber 36327 ond
373 Tlie poe 470. The proceeding ia one by certain Asixrs of TLidow
le Srown, seeking to set seide hie last will sad teetesent,
Om the prior besring in the Cireuit Sourt evidence owe
heard, the isaues subsitted te « jury which returned « verdiet in
faver of the contestants, and » decree wes entered in their faver usen
the verdict. Upon a review in this court the judguent waa reversed
and the ¢suse remanded for » néw trial. fThia court seld thot under
the evidence the chenceller should have direeted « verdiet in forer
of the proponents of the will and ageinet the contewtents.
The evidense woe voluminous. 4 great nunber of witnesses
were called and examined, aany depoaitiona were isken, numerous
exhibits introduced in evidence, ond upon the retrial of the couse «
stipulation was entered into by the parties in which it esa agreed
that the sawe evidence should be considered az presented and heard,
and auch evidences ae gas rejected wag to be considered ag offerca
and the some rulings ade as won the former trink., 4 jury ene
eupenelled ani the chancellor directed the jury to answer certein
Anteorregetories, whieh emounted to a direated verdiet in fover of the
PEROT? COURT
aii ait bo soveed » govt Leecqe ao ered at eames etdt | aa
eat Jythape 2o tne 6d tmtalqwon to Like ode watoetaedh rue
bie TOROT tout ,iseqqs towne? « ao fume ehds spe — | ‘~
porene to evied nietroe wt ome al gutbheaceny edt 87h sein
stanmstes? ne {ike gant ald phtor spr i
eewven now txeaghe, Sit tame aidt Alwar & me
thaw tact Med tewon etd? aan ee
4
" ig
i
2
proponenta of the will, und a decree wus entered dlemieving the bill
for want of ecuity. It ia from thie decree that the osuee is now
here on the s¢oond appesd.
in ita former opinion thie court considered the evidence
Am setenge smi it would anewer no good purposes to agein review the
fsote nor to review the lew ansertsining therete. It ie contended,
however, by contestants thet the gouse now being here og the regult
of s directed verdict, that every intendaent in favor of the evidence
prodused by the contestants should be indulged im end thet if there
ia any evidence which, stending slene, would warrent the oubaisaion
of the issues to « jury, then the comue should be reversed. te do
net, however, believe such to be rule in thie jurisdiction in eases
of thia Gharscter. The test ae ww! unferstend it is whether there
ide evidence in the reoord which, token vith eli its reasonable
inferences in the aepeet most faversble to the contestanta, may be
eniad te be gufficient in ler toe suppert the setion. The Supreme
Court in the goae of Greomieos ve Alien, 341 Ili. 36%, speaking of
the rule, says:
tn sataceh ite sh fsy an roenmn'yevaunhwpeeiady oe
will. The test of existence of error in thie regard
there is evidence in the record whieh, *i
ail ite reesensble inferenqes, taken in the aapent aoat
in tae $0 te the contestant, asy be anid to be ag eg:
to ig thd the port pa "of agtion. Burns ¥.
eplied in .i
a dan oene, Seripltetiens sar hte if there
any @vicense ~ #vén © soils - & sup
tiff's cease the osuse suat be submit wg Ay eg
followed in this State, and we hag yg the sore reasonable
wale, ond the ont whieh has come te be established by wright
“d Bpponmee, £ to be as snore wiated. Unter this wes if
whe heard the testimony ese sonvinsed that 2.
Condi for the etauunee cae suet necesseri. be get sgide
besouse th ail ite reo iaferenses and
oe ore ler "ace Gk on a0 support the verdict, it then became
the duty ofthe court te withtrey the’ issues’ free the jury
and onter & finding. SQocw? We bth oie Kt oe Fa Sa 1k & q
Bll Ulie S78; Barte: < ; 1. Bone,
os Pes ae LEE yh RS Sank * : ide
$ Simone v. Spieago and Tomsh “allroad Ge. 116 id. 340,*
8
ELis od? oeieedwas® honedae wee cereal @ Bam ghklo ede te “sanonoqery
#08 bl samad Ott edt voreud wldd wovk of af uthuspa ro Yeon sot
| sineuas baooes odg we ond
sonebive ad? hovebianes Ime afd? aodwiag ranne? eal at
att ¢ahvet alese of eecurey boon on tewene bles oh baw !
ybehantaws 22 2h sotorad? yatotestoqqa wad eat walrvor “ae 20m eden
these esd ax oxed paied wom deen oft stadt eliotnetaee yd crevougd
snaeasvs ous To Town ngs Sapakynael Meee do Le OhTeY hoheREs & Te
erase 24 stadt han at Roglubad of Divods etaeteataon att yt beoukone
nokeninges 96? taersew OLuow yemmis patbante <éntuiw ooqehlve ye ad
ob oF .boaverer of Oiuade owmso edd most 0
geaen aL ROdteLbederl whe 2h glo ow ot dove ownliod gue
ered? vasifede ai ¢4 Anetowohay oF Ba tone ad? vtemetacentiiie
shdexoaeex eth Lhe dike asdot qdosde tneser td? ah speghive as
ef Yom ,edeatestaes edt af edionere) geen teouse sf ai ogoneretad |
oxeraut e€f mekios od? greg ot wal wh duskokt tne ed oo bias
_ Ye padteoge S88 wth Ok oe kid ov pondasens Ro ones anita? Gomee
iat
es AE a
B j nae I
has tn ati lsat A cimve cae hy Lie babel
takbesy edd trecque ©
mh eh rt ies yr: verbaite of tw
it is cleo urged as 6 groumd for revere, thet in the
previous opinion of thie court eufficient weight was net given
to the teatiaony of the experta onlled om behalf of the contestants.
It ie pointed out thet in the opinion tale court stated thet much
teatimony is unsetiefsctory and ie generally diseredited, The
lengusge used in reference to expert witnesses in that oplaion very
@losely follows the lengusge of the Supreme Court in speaking of
expert witnesses os found in the eclnicn in Oop v. Pryor, 794 L1l.
638, The teatineny of the experte wis not dleregerded by this
eourt in ita considerstion ef the caeg, Dwt only auch weight civen
te it os water the holdings of the Suoreme Court of this etate it
was @ntitied to. in this eenn¢eetien we sre referred to « reoent
ease entitled, Seope ve Jung, B80 111. 405. That evse, however,
wae & @Griminel action based upon « forged instrament and the court
there held in effect thet im eaaee of forgery there ia little
direct evidenoe obtainsbie and the question aseesserily besoncs one
requiring expert evidenes., it is aleo spperent in reading the
opinion in the ease of Legule v. Jung, supra, that the court woe of
the opinion that the jury eatirely ignered the expert teatimony
ang gensidered it of no wight whatever. © do not believe thet
thet ease voried the rule as to the congideration thet should be
given such testimony.
¥@ ate no rexson for departing from the view of this court
ea snnounced in ite former decision end, for thet ressen ond fer
the reasons expressed in thie opinion, the deores of the Chrenit
PEORER APFIRBED,
HEREL, Pode AND HALL, J. CONdUR
‘sf% af dod? Loevewor wot Muery 0 on bead ook« wh we ANE
torts ¢er avr ttylow coated? tue greod eld be megatqe auvrweny
| shimetactnes 0647 to Bintod wo bellee abreqes elf to yom aoot oat oe
sit .DOFLboroetd YLkarnsiog es baw Yearohertoide ot ‘gubateeet.
Wer owkwleo Fox? vf Qreneatlw dyeqre of vonoxeter MF beay Sganyaey
‘Yo getters mt tuo? andre ont Yo epmmpant ool weekelt yea
> -. MEF Me ype oY geo wt medmdeo eott at tated oo beawentiy Frege i
ett: Peake Kou yim gwd genes nis to setocebanan th at ao
Pt bdnte atte to eeu0d exmneNe ods To eyakbhod ane nodmy ws’ |
| fapeee 6 OF herteter One OF AELtORNEGs BAHN WE sot besenent sim
gerverad yeoee tedl 689d 6 ELE OBE cadith +¥ Bicoe’ ybenetene een
drwee Ode Run fammettons eweet = ecw benef rotten Lentetee a ene
“eLrekh ox onde yenpret Yo amano a2 tallt fosTte ak Bon we
ane Ragpeed YLivoaereon aoktoove att bee widentetto Gombhhee torte
ott gebbcor ai tatreqes agle af 82” snoahdve tee jad keeR
Re saw true ont ode <knuMe «nih <¥ sinned Se Cnne SEP MR: =)
‘! % ME. heise | n
aoe 4
} ooo tnt tog
37978 x
ELIZABETH #, MANNING, bf
Respondent,
JETITION FOR LEAVE TO
VS. hKPPRAL FROM CIRCULT GOUAT
; OF COOK couNTY,
F, YW. WOOLWORTH CO., a Corporation, |
and IRENE LEONARD PRUEIT?,
Petitioners. : py ¢ 9 TA: 63 14
BR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Plaintiff brought an action on the case against the Woolworth
Co., joining as defendant one of its euployees, a salesiady, The
declaration, which is in one count, avers in substance that the
Woolworth Co, on and prior to April 11, 1932, conducted a department
store on Michigan Boulevard, Chicago; defendant, Irene Prueitt, was
in charge of the counter where combs were s0l4; that plaintiff pure
chased a dozen of these combs through her; that the combs were sold
without advice or information as to their quality or condition: that
Plaintiff took the combs home, washed her hair and partially dried
it, placed the combs in her hair for the purpoze of producing a
Wave; that she then exposed her hair to the rays of a lamp which
was held about eighteen inches from her hair for the purpose of
drying her hair; that she did met know of the danger; that the combs
were made of inflammable material, whieh ignited witheut coming in
contact with the flame or lamp, and exploded; that she was thereby
burmed and injured,
Defendants filed a plea of the general issue, ‘there was a
trial by jury, resulting in a verdict for defendants, The court,
however, upon motion of plaintiff granted a new trial, and defendants
petitioned this court for an appeal from that order, which was ale
lowed, as provided in section 77 of the Civil Praetice Act (Cahill's
Til. Rey. Stats., ahap. 110, see. 77, par. 205.) .
The question fer decision is whether the court erred in
granting the metion for a new trial,
‘i
\
\ . te,
° oi SE mu %e at lal
eYPUDSO . HOGG.
“yy wig eee ® ,.09 heal
Ares LT ey tO0
mt 3 pera kee
, stuoo aH -W HOLRIGO ZET quARV ILC PPHROTAL serait sortie
: 5 ad pg ilo
AtrowkpoW ot} teuings onno ats ae melios am siyeord. vabeatest, Pewee
edt .Yoeteedea 9 jeeoyolque atl to ego dasha lod os_ pakntot bse
edd david coantodsa of wr9ve ytanoo sag at at setae ,ogidetete
fneatuaed « betoubaoe ,8bCL ,f4 L[la1eA ot sekag ban mo ed. 4 OW:
eer jtthewe% emett toehoe teh j;ogsoh ,btevalvel asp’ + AO OO
etre TWitutsig tedt {blow etew admos xan vesnmeg: RAT: tes : 5 i
bios exer edaoo ont test pred Agwouly edmoo send te nowob 2h 2
das? joLERbues to WELeup whos of a2 nolvamtetat re salve suaaehw
a bch Vitality bor that 10% Seduaw ,omond admes.o. =
@ guleuhorg to exequrg edt tot ated tad af) edaos : iyi
dette quai a to myox dt ot nbad.nastiSenpaxe nests se dastttetew
te seennee ent mot, tiod red wort aorignt sestiyle trode ds F a
admoo afd Tete ;reyemh edt To work dem bib ede: dust: jake veers “a
at galego Quedtin detiagd seine ,Lettsden ofdncusm Chat to bam oxen
cere? vew ore Fant goobolers has ,gmal to omeLh ost» ——
% dew ated? ,eveet Ioteneg ond 20 eofq @ betlt ataabneted ts
foals .
.tunog Of% .edambae teh tot deibeey a at gait inset \¥ wt
edaadee ted bas , Latte won ® betnaxy Titaletg te soltem weit ~~
oie naw tolstw \eebro tede° mod? Lasges me to? t2m00 elds pita
(an vaaq tt 008 “ont. tan 7
at heute sunge ead nacido sw an soieioeb no? ‘motseen :
Upon the trial plaintiff testified that prior to her aeeie
dent she bought twelve celluleid combs from the Weolworth store;
that nothing was said to her about their properties or charactcrige-
tics; that she was net told they were dangerous or that they would
burn or explode. Om the evening of April 11, 1932, she was in »
hurry to have a wave because she was going out. She had made these
Waves before, and to that end eke borrowed frem a neighbor an infra
red lamp beeause if heat was not anvlied it would take hours for
her hair to dry. She washed her pair and put the combe in it, The
lauwp, a circhlar hood shaped afiair, was, she says, the kind used
in beauty parlors; the combs became heated and very warm inside;
she sat in a lew chair beneath the lamp fer about three-quarters of
an hour; it threw out a comfortable heat and as time went on it got
Warmer; as she gat there she could put her hand between her head
and the lamp; she sat underneati the lamp with the shield or re-
flector directly over her head; she put in one comb a little fore
ward, another a little back, producing an irregular line; the combs
were placed quite far apart to give a wide wave, While waiting for
her hair te dry she suddenly lovked up end saw her hair on fire;
she s¢ereaied for help and put a rug on top of her head; she was
badly burned and spent about $306 for the services of a doctor
and nurse, There is a permanent injury to her sealn.
She — she had heated her hair in the sane way before and
did not know that ec@lluloid, out of which the combs were made, vould
burn. She had been treated in beauty perlors where the lamps were
placed several inehes away from her head, Plaintiff was her only
eaccurrenuce vitness,
She, however, offered expert evidence to the effect that
eeliuicid is a compound made from celluloid by first converting it
into cellulose nitrate; that sometimes it is called nitrecellulese
oY pyroxylin, in making celluloid it is plastie and can be shaped
sili igtewLooW edd mort -adawo btotuties oview! aad ai
2 ‘Gite tomtasiog To wnisxeqery alee tuods red ov bias saw antion 4
Muew youd Jods Te evoTe_aKd orem yet DLO tom saw eta tail? inoue
sey pe
# of sow ode 880 ,££ ERt¢A to gakieve oclt ag. ‘bbolque to | coud
eeeis Bbam hor ox® duo yateg naw ode oxuaced evew # evasi of et
evinat i ToHdlgien 6 sett bewersoed ada hao tadt o¢ bay yetoled ankncts
e
“- wrod oded bivow tf helleas don saw stood tk Research aie . ; 2
“git 92 at admos $0¢ tuq baa thed tod becigaw oi ad of ‘ahead
fy"
‘
bean bata otf 1otae ode eew diate begada ‘eee’ wilt te &
‘qeblaai artsw ytev base beteod amsoed adage | art ero tua Se
rm #
ke @udtreup-eords trode a0 duet 06d ‘ddaoasd ° xievo wol @ atk o
| ™ st ao dnew omit ae bas toed eenmndpaissi s v0 wet a
wow SU wtb tith its IN ik Wl’ Wise Va CR nts
late! eaeitt & dimes ome al We vi bisnach sis seve Daietvaches
- gotview eLttW .evew eblw a evig od
jorll ao thet tod wee bas ay boxool | me a br :
+ Re a te
saw ada thaod ‘tend te got no Que a yang ly bowen tot ob
‘wedaob a Yo abolvres edt xet ooee ‘diode bus
+4 7.
=
LE
a
&
7s.
s
Ei
fk ¥
ith
e
EEG
—
=
See
aa
Ltn
“sneoe sort ot Restaed chy «ip ad vad
etaw aye t edt ete tlw ato frag tiuasd mt hoteont ned orth:
bat t } ee mY ty
eine sot naw aches Soin Todt bei ene ‘postoak Pry eh
ae | — varesy er
fe ,
“tastt ‘doo%te ed ‘ee eoaehive: frog ‘bororto | .
i: teh ane "enn
“ak auldievnes gextt ca btointiso mont hon bawoqao9 & Fi
4) soe SP a
seofeiteoors tn be Line at it sent zoioe tat “yetattti
co lie CA 5 CR a ee
_ begat og ago bas olteata oh ot ‘bhoLutiee aabien al
Pe ‘eat erry hi
3
under heat; it is mixed with a materiel known as a slastercizer te
make it plastic, and the plastic most commonly used is ordinary
camphor. Coloring matter is put in to give cellulcid different
colers, The expert was shown a piece of comb and asked whether he
could tell ef what material it was made; he replied it was a form of
eelluloid but whether nitrate or acetate he could not tell without
heating it up; he was handed a mateh which he applied, and said,
"That looks like nitrate to me; yes, it is." He further said that
when cellulose was treated with nitrie acid it formed cellulose
nitrate, a combination of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen;
it contains enough oxygen eo that when lighted it would keep going
eff, even theugh no air was applied to it; it looks very mueh like
smokeless powder; the nitrogen content in percentage rans anywhere
from around 11 te 14 per cent, which was a fairly high content; it
does not need assistance from outside air in order to burn, as it
contains enough oxygen in the compound itself, Commercially the
product was called celluloid and had been known as such so long that
it is its common name, Different companies had called it by various
trade nanes, |
When asked concerning the degree of heat required to ignite
eelluloid, the expert answered that this would depend somewhat upen
the variety. If the manufacturer was careful in making it, the ig-
nition point might be around 160 degrees ©., or 310 degrees FF, If
poorly made, it might be as low as 250 degrees F., or, in other
words, 40 or 50 degrees above the boiling point of water. It is
not necessary (he further says) to toueh a flame to it, If heated
by any means at all up to the right temperature, it would ignite
and get on fire. When the celluloid was heated near the point where
it would take fire it would start to decompose and smoke, sometimes
& Vapor would come out, When decouiposition starts in heat is dee
veloped in the material itseif and thereafter it gets hotter and
ha
“
&
“ot roxteretealo 2 a2 nwondk istaodem a délw boxtw eh #2 agin tebas
“vusaibto sf boxy yLmeduoo $e out bisearty ert bu otdensg gy Si.
‘eo ake
$noreTi lh Skotwlies evig of ak tug et rottem gatrotod
‘ed ‘nodtouw boxes brn dao to soetq @ awede eaw dxegxn ‘sith ithe
te mrot © aew $2 boilabt om jobam caw $) Leltosem ganw t6 fed bthos
“Pwosttiw Llot ton bts bit bdeddon to ofaréia xetedw dud btotuttas
.pies bas ,Seifeqs en doldw dodem a pobneu aaw off jqu dt gaidae
sang bise toddxyt oh “ et FF ,eey som of stextin oir widot ‘gillie
deoiutios homtot ti bios elatia tiv boteett aay ‘ono luiten i
theaae hes ohaber an , hegothyrt Satie bi hatin: a i
“"eabt coum Gaev wxoet si iat ot bettoqe Baw the bm ee
j 'eudowitien enwt systasexeg al tnedmoo noord kat ould “tebwoe ns t
$i fsuathos Avi yittat & aaw dokdw ,dnbe Sey eX’ os Lk bauita not
$2 ef ,orbd ot ‘weSte at the sbletio mort bonstatose boon fou 006
ant YlLelotommod tisagt’ bavoqmes ods ah emyxo gwen : . nino
gacd gaol oe HMowa te awonx need bea bra’ bhotutiee Lege on : iho
nog tarwouos basysh biwew aLHt sass ‘petewnas toqxs out ny
sat edt ,¢2 gaktuw at fwtores sae torts ton tise odd U2
AT .T goorg0b Off Ye ,.0 sooxyeb OOF basore oe shigtm tuto molth
| tose al . 20 ,-t asotnob Oat an Wot aa bd Fright ar ‘ bee : Pro
“ah $Y stodew to smboq gmitiod ond evods seotyeb OG x6 | ; sities
betsod TX lad ot oamtt a taut ot “(ayad woutteu't oat) yaw cost to
stings binow tk ,erutateqaed tdigiy edd of yieoal e
| sore tntoq odd ime béveed aaw biotuites ef moat . | a;
; I ae ssaesi faewed bre dobaantes't oo teere biwow' #3" wun ate Liv
4
hetter and the action becomes faster sand faster until all of #
sudden it sees up in a flash. Any kind of neat, whether from stove
or eleetric light bulb, will cause it to set in this war. The
action depends somewhat on the color; if white the velluloid re-
fleets some of the heat and it takes longer than if dark; if it is
dark colered it absorbs the heat and geta warmer until it is het
and then goes off just like gun powder,
The witness said that the materiel handed to him (a part of
one of the combs) was very iutimnabhe. The test he wade would not
be sufficient to determine the degree of stability. ‘The material,
he said, would ignite without sactuai contact with flame, A lamp
similar to ons used by plaintilf was produced. During the trial
the electricity was turned on ond the witness testified that the
disk at the top of the hood was red het,somewhere between 800 and
90O degrees F,.; that infra red light was another name for a heat
ray; that where the lights were placed under a reflector the heat
raye would be given off from the not piece of metal and go in all
directions; that raye that struck alongside the reflector were re-
flected back and thrown out together with the others and thus in-
@reased the amount of heat on a given square ineh of surface,
In response to a hypothetical question as to whether a
light of this kind placed over the combs would cause the combs to
be inflamed, the expert said he was of the opinion that the cellue
loid would explode, and explained in detail to the jury his reasons
for this opinion. The witness put part of a eomb in contact with
the red hot plate of the lamp, and the comb teeth burst into fLame,
He then experimented by putting the comb close to the red het
piate without touching it, bringing it nearer gradually and holding
it longer. It began to bubble and finally flashed, The expert
said the flash was caused by the development of vapors, He said
he thought the experiment teck about three minutes, but kr, Biocm-
Be
i eee shbar
ato fie Edda tetent has rotnet sonoond sotton ons ba todte
rede mort xosid ody tae te bats wad shea s ut qus paper “tt asi
ont ew abit ai toe of #4 en susa Lihw Sind tity ht ointiele 16
hs ‘ i Fi, 4
<9 ‘bhotutien acid oo hotw te sede ond 9 Sasiwemcos abaogeh fenton:
4 faz
‘ak 4 Uh pound YL cmd tonmel eoned th ben toed sad 20 mua tos ates
ide He
god ak ti ‘it ow temew efo% bow eos ong educeds tt bows kas”
tebwoq mary oaks tent tte soy ‘nit ban”
rae "
to ¢us¢ #) mid ot ho bates totroted ot ‘tard bias eanad hw’ ‘it . aaa
gem bivow thon 6 sand ext ‘ eldsman thnk yrey ow (advo ‘git oe
j
- aitoneet eid yrat odd of ladon ai bonis Lome bao eoolexe !
tobrodon sat .ytitidatd to se1m0b oid onimxedoh of tro wo ertae 6d”
‘east A ‘onal’ ait kw bead iene lewbas sunnlg bw’ esingt hl bs a Petey
‘Eetst odd gudred § .beewborq naw viidnisdg ve ‘boas 6 pests wey nati
ant taut belt teed seontiw oad bas no homes aaw loins fo ott
shah: a
bas 008 mowded exedwenne tot bow saw hood out Yo ‘aot eat
, ke nt og “bus Letom yor sole tox ont sox? ‘te aovts ‘od mp Ww Soyer
“set e199 cofeetter ox? ebiagaeta ‘teunke. tant cone ‘duet tal oie
ane awit fete erat iad sit Bw wecttoget sath ieedenad sane ‘a
soatr0e to deal orsups ‘neve “ no pr to Some ag
g tedtendw of ae ne iteeup Kaotindsongs = os peng te i Tale i
ot aduos ‘out seuee btwow edise ‘oat reve boos tq batt ands re ‘
ehifes odd tant notntae 'éxs to eay od blew ‘xeqxe ‘ar fs a tak
nit bw: toataes nt doo a To drag tug eaontin ext
ame dt ofnt tari steed doe ould ‘bas ,qual odd to sista #
‘tod hex ext of ‘sels “daoo ‘ontd gaittoq xe botnamtzoqus _
‘gakb ton bas vikeubery sotsen os aakyaled oth yatdowos pester
“ dzoqne ent shostee ‘tant ‘bne ‘akdaud o¢ a : couse.
bies “ “aceqet ‘te snompede ved ond vd ‘Meuttin ew Pe
anobit 14u'tua (desuntm detdd tueds dood sunnltoqxs
Por " itt
ingston, attorney for plaintiff, said that according to aectusl
count it took 70 seconds, The expert then deseribed in detail what
the effect of a head of hair mizht have on the experiment, ete.
There was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether
the combs shadntine/acea ot the time she was injured were actually
purchased at defendant's store, Wiss Prueitt, a saleswomen and named
as co-delendant, was called as plaintiff's witnesa, and plaintiff
being recalled eas a witmess identified her as the one from whom
she bought the combs, On cross exasination plaintiif said she had
bought combs on only ome eceasion; that she did not know the date
she bought them but that it was within a year before April, 1931.
She did not reeall whether she said anything to the saleswomen or
the saleswoman said anything to her, She eaid: “The combs were
probably on the counter, I don't know, I don't remeuber their
being om cards. I don't recall. I have no memory of any cards at
ali,”
John Michala, an investigater for plaintiff's attorney, tes
tified that in the early part of 1932 he went to the Woolworth store
for the purpose of inquiry and talked with Miss Prueiltt; that he
showed « part of a comb to her and she told him that the sale of
them had been discontinued; that there were some complaints against
them and a law against selling them; that she said she remexbered
the comb and that she sold it; that she aleo waid the combs were in-
flammable, He fixes the date he was there as November 10, 1932, and
says that Miss Prueitt was at the counter at the northeast corner,
where there were combs and celluloid articles, mn cress examination
he sald the combs were on cards; that he didn't know what they were
made of; that he didn't read what was said on the cards, which con-
tained some printed matter; that Miss Prueitt took the comb and told
him she had sold that identical comb, but that he couldn't get a
comb like that any mere, He says, “She told me she had probably
1 fi ¢ ae
1B; py’
ft
j
Fe
iawtoe of gathtooos saslt biew .Yitatelg to? yoorotte ,motegah
dedw tiageb st bedireesb asta dxogxe off ,ebnooee OF dood th tumoo .
sate ,Jasatiegxs ef so over tdyte gled to beod « To tpeTie off
aegdtesw of ge aenohtve edt at eal 8S GOW OTOMT ng ge
Ullevtos ovew boxuial acw occa omls off te bonw\ Titi nlely admeo est
boast has memoeweetae # ,ttioual seth .wsose a! deebasteh ¢o boestozeg
Yitintelg hac ,seeqdiw a'Tiliaiai« ae belles sav ,snebueteb-oo, ag
aoe “ott smo ect 2g tom boLtiioehs apentiw « ae bo liseer pated.
best oun bine Vittalede aotéeatuexe eeoro. a0. ,edmeo edd digued oe
stab odd wom Jon S16 efe Jedd yootesooe eno yLne no) edmo tigned
480 ,Lizqs sroted toy « aiatiy exw ob dost tue meds deipu ote
‘to mexowaeles edt of gatrtyas blew ere tediade Lieset tom bib exh
@tow edmoo oT” shies eft ,t0ed of gabsidyne bier memoweelon od
tied? todmesen t!meh I .word ¢'mob I ysedaupy oct ne, ehdadorg
¢a shtce Yas to yrowem on oven I .fieoest ¢! mob. 1 -a5%a9 no, gubed
¢ exact fae She
wot ,yorrotie e'Tiliaielq tot toteqiteoral ae premnnenrg ee wart
siege ditowLooW sas of saew oc SECL Lo stag, ylise odd mt Sodd, batts '
oul dad i40owx% ant ddim bediat dao, ystupnt 20 exomeae alt, ee 4
‘to elas add dact ald bLod ode haa ted ef doco # tod teq @ homed
fontags atalelquoo suga ten oxesdit Jolt <bowntdacvath, mood had meat
bevedwurs oda bisa ede jad? jwedt yoliloa tasiegs wel « hoe mode
-oh stew admoo ect bien cate ese dads Gtk Blow ede tad bop deog et
hae ,RECL ,OL 19dimvok aa gtedd exw oc ateh ald ageth of abdacmne Lt
,teur0o teseriten sai da tesauos eto de aw stiomd, vetM dant ayer
uotducionce anoto «0 .eeleiéta bleduliee bas eduoo exew exend exec
exsw yout taw wom s'ablb onl tadd pebxag me ete aduop est bine ae
mtion do biw jabiso ai? no died eew jase baer 2 abd a sa
bLod Sas dies eds Yood disurl ae te tang pusdiam beta ing |
#@ dog ¢! abiuew ed 358) dud aes ieotsambs 2060 bine Sad etd
~ ingly ui te vont Bet AA erate lk ee :
sold that comb, mot the broken part. ** I don't know whether she
meant to intimate that she sold that particular comb, or not."
Mr. Powers testified for defendant that he was the manager
of defendant's store in 1931 and was familiar with the celluleid
Combs sold there during that year; that these combs were on cards
and none of them was sold loose, snd that the two pieees of coxib
marked ae "plaintiff's exhibit 1" (which apparently are net in the
record) were not like the kind sold at Woolworth's store at that
time; that he was able to determine thie because each one of the
combs sold wae stamped on the back and marked "4nfiswmable - do
not use with dryer or artificial heat," The combs that were sold on
@ards (he said) had the same warning phrase, and that the card marked
*§efendant's exhibit 1" (which is siso mot in the record) was sold
and used during 1931.
Kiss Prueitt testified «he remembered Mr, Ki¢hala; that she
aid not teli him she had sold the comb, a picce of which was handed
to her; that she was in charge cf the sale of celluloid combs at the
Woolworth store for several years, end in 1931; that they did not
e@1l1 any combs like plaintiff's exhibit 1 in her department in the
Woolworth store in 1931; that they were all marked "Inflammable «
@eon't use dryer," and that they 4id not have any combe for sale
during 1931 that were not marked that way. he identified defend-
ant’s exhibit 2 as another type of comb with card that was sold
that year, which had on it the words *"Inflaumable - do not get neer
artificial heat." She slso described in detail the differences be-
tween the comb produced by plaintiff and the kind ef comb aeld at
defendant's store and identified twe types of combs sold by defend-
ant, both of which she said contained words of warning as te their
inflanmability.
Defendant alse produced an expert witness, whe testified to
the same general facts with reference te the Gharacteristies of
ody eoctocw word d'noh I #* .re0q nedond ont Jom (dade seneoRtee
tom te , dno wedvohtgeqg tame bios ote Sait Steebind’ oc deem
Toyama oot anwar text supbhristeh not hedtideed atewot eu er?
hoki lo ond Mike whi tiow’ eaw bee LCL at oTore aMtinbae ted Be
- iran. ne ewewonineds ened todd prov dad gaddas ered Steely
diese te weocoty owt odd guts Par , speek blow eew madd re Omen Bia
ott at fon exe vitneteqge woliw) *f dididte a Ttvatete® wa eae
Jevtt fe erode atatrowLoo® ga bfoe batd edt eadls ton etow' (be6Gee
od) to eae does samoed gins enlueetet o¢ afde aw oc sneer yemhe
oh + ¢idemu toh” hewtaom bas dowd ont mo bagmete mew pied adeey
a0 Ako QuaW godt wduce OMT "Saad ator titus te moyet the weMtom
borttadt ften oat tactt bar ,oaweig yitotey ome eat bet (bton ef) ebm
bloe aaw (freon, eat a fom wate ef cabo) *£ ee
ew dest patedald .xh boxodmaces ode bokttrded ‘ttiourt wale none
febmow ecw deldw Yo eoolg s ,duoo odt bfos hod ode mba Loe ae
ait 26 dues biolulive to ofeu euit to sgtads ab wew vile Coit geod OF
dom SRA Yard ture 7LECL of bee .oueoy Ketever to ores ietewieew
ost ad dewindeaneh soot att eidintew «oT ERbady anne weMed gli Ee
~ eidemutlini® fettee Lie erew yodd genie 7 £0OL cb orote orowroOW
5 @hen wot admoe veaus vant J or Ahh qedd gacte bow "rece oe PPh
aboeteb betticasht 048 ger tert Resteo tom exew. 1
pLoe ¢ew te83 bawo dtiw dawo to eax? teeltome ow & Phat A
eon tog fo ob « diltiianiiid ditie niin sot
-~#S apenetetiih odd Listed ak bediieseh ode wie. maa Gininet
@e bioe duep io 5aiad ont bee Tiivetedy qd besobeny:
hue tab yf dion admos to saqye ews Keltitashh bac otete sachet
7
eelluloid, to which plaintiff's expert witness testified. He said
it would take fire without coming in contact with an setual fleme,
if raised to a temperature of 400, sometimes 350, decrees, He tese
tified that he took the lamp that was in the courtroom to his office
and made experiments with it, using celluloid with hair and potatoes,
Gver objection he was allowed to state that he made experiments at
his office to determine the time, distance and conditions under
which the celluleid would take fire when near the lamp; that he
measured the heat by a thermometer; that the element was heated
until about $00 degrees ¥, He arranged a rule with inch marke on it
#0 he gould slide the thermometer along in different positions,
measuring the temperature at each interval from the heating unit
with a thermometer; that if the rule were put at richt angles with
that heating unit the temperature indications were very misleading;
that if a person put hie hand er head in there so that the heat
would fall on it, then the heat accumulated on it and the temperature
at that point would be of importance; that a series of exporiments
were made at distances of two inches, three inches and regular steps
up to eight inches, When he tried to put his fingers at a distance
of four inches from the lamp, he said, which was equivalent to the
distance to the edge of the reflector surface, he enuldn't do so be-
-@ausce it was toe hot, He sald he took a good-sized piece of the
e@lluloid, wrapped some human hair around it and placed it on a
piece of potato; that he used a potato because the heat absorbing
value of a potato is almest equivalent to the human face; dens tke
end of twenty minutes the eelluloid began to blister and swell and
show little waite spots; that at a distance of about three inches
fram the efge of the lamp the celluloid blictered but did not take
fire; that he left it there about 38 minutes, The celiuledd aia
not ignite; the potate was cooked and baked; the hair was still there
but leoked ae if it had been heated het; he said that the gas er
hkan oh ,hebtivect agent iw droge e'Midntets doddw.ot »bhoteties
,Seeit Lantos as stin teatoes at gatmeo dvedtiw ett eet bivow a
ssot ef .teotgeh ,O8f sanitemos ,0OD Yo stnteteqmed « of beslax 32
aoitie sis et mootstann ort at saw dads qmpt oct Loot ort tacit bed the
motetog hae ake otiw bieluiies gatan dh cilw adronedae geo: Shas, bap
fa adnomkiegxe oham esi indy otate ot bewollo anm. od, noktoaiae: THD
Toba etokiibacn pr Sonniath ,euld ot, ontereseb od sodtho hd
sd tats jquad esl! ison aesw ont oaled Biwow blotwLiveo edd) doksw
botaod aaw japmete alg tert jintamopredt a yd deed ond) het, nana
$ no pxtzom Sot cttw edox 2 bogmerin O. «, enotyeb 008) tuade thaw
saKeltinog sate Ith mi yaole retempumnd? sid edhe bison
tin guideesd ast gott Lsviotnt dose ta stutetequed ond gat
dilw aefane. sdetx da ceq ovew eter) edt) Dh: ists qentanmendinanaaine
jgntbes lain yoy erow anolssotbal etutereqned oat thaws gat dmertes
seed oft tase pe otedt at Dao oat os tug nowsoeea 8 tat
viietegaed eft har ti ao hetelooweoe foot oe aot .th te. fet .
_atnentiaqge te aolvea @ test ;oonstteqad Yo od. hiuew tntoa fast ta
eusde wfiyor bas eoctent gored ,sedout owd Yo seometeth te med
vomedats » te aaogatt ala gag od bpixe ec spe? weston tdyte of au
ot of gaeLevinpe sew cipttw ,hien of 4qel. ent mort, eeclg ns tie > ,
nad os ob t'abivoa os ,gouttwa tedeeLies oat. te ogho sdd.02,eonatath
_ 9d Yo. goete Hosta-beog # Xoo? od. btee OX, .tod ond egw gh, . —
# 89 th beoasta bas St hauete thad. seas paon beqaatw (hotel ine,
nc itegn se: taod of) seussed etadog.« hoay of tant podmtog teeoes q
pe. erg jeeat aseud ost of suolevinps taoals et ctetog « Yo eater
bau ifewe bas retells of aged bLosulfoo aut setuatmoytoowt: te hae
_ aeroal eopdt suede. to sonadelh oe ta tach jetoqa etksw .
edad tom bib iud herstnisd bloLuslec edt gant oat, Yo enbe act wees j
Sid bkelwiies oat ,aedunia BE tuods wrods tt a0 £08 A wt
oreds Liha eaw shod odt doled bas bedgeo. aw otatog .009..<aes
q
vaper that comes from blistering celluloid is not cembustible; that
he made tests to determine that; that he took the celluloid, gradu-
ally heated it, raising the temperature and watehing it; that the
eelluloid began to flatten down and beeome plastic, He was asked to
take a piece of the comb which the attorney for plaintiff had in his
pocket and to demonstrate with it, There was an objection. The wit-
mess stated that tae purpese was to demonstrate whether combustible
gases or vapors arose from the disintegrating celluleid that hadd
been heated, the attorney for plaintiff strenuously ebjected to
permitting the witness to state his opinion, The witmese said he
had placed the teeth of a comb at intervals of one inch for a distance
of 20 inches from the element in a regular iime and then turning on
the lamp noticed that the teeth of tue comb would drop down and these
that were close enough meit and fall eff; that the tests ran for an
hour and none of the teeth caught fire; toat if a person had cellue
Loid combs in her hair and would put the head within taree or four
inches from the bottom of that reflector with the heat on at full
force, the flesh om the bead would burn before the hair; that if a
person with célluleid combs in her hair should put her head up
ageinst the red het element the celiuloid combs would readily blister.
the motion for a new trial seems to have been allowed upon
the theory that some of the expert evidence offered in behalf of
defendant wae not admissible for the reason that it Was in the
mature of an experiment, which was not substantially similar to the
actual situation at the time the aecident ecourred, We are inciined
to the opinion that it was objectionable upen that ground, Pisin-
tiff has pointed out some ten respeets in which the experiment sub-
mitted by defendant was unlike the actual situation at the time the
accident happened, The general rule is, of course, that there must
be substantial, although not exact, uniformity, The adwission of
sueh evidence was held errcneous ander circumstances there appearing
tad ;eldtdeuduos ton al blotulies gated altd ott dimes sae MEQ
stherg biolulieo sid Xood od sakt {dail} oalaxdtob ot GHOde CHER Oa
one sod (74 gatdodaw bos ervdetoqued odd gutdtad ,32 Aedes ete
es Sethe saw ol” woiimeta emooed bas uwoh wetial “ot nayod bhotuttes
aid at bad Viki mialq x0? yeurosia oad od beiw dixoo ‘ont ‘te Pv ee)
«thw edt .avhdaside aa enw ezodt .¢) id bw odertenomh ‘ot “bruit touts bg
aidtsoméaeo “‘teedw edertanomeh of saw saoqing onus sand ‘ys ade” eben
ohadt taste htalwlies gulsaxrgesatats orld ‘et’ eodsa ‘Btogev” to sduag
OF botostde YLuwounrte Vilsalatq rot yonrodie ont” lboseee Meee
" ef bina saentiw ont smolntge nld state” od “geonttw odd guts inzee
pomaseth s “get sont sao ‘to alavasdal de dmoo @ te dieses’ pelisnom on
wo yaiitsd mods dae call talagex a at soowele oAe Moers
ea0as bas avon goth hiwow duoo se3 Yo Hteeds okt tail} heed
ime 19't aor eden} odd sand ; tke ite't bus iene ana
wwileo ben moatsq @ th tact york shjund nebed O4G Yo’ tibet bits Avi
quot to could aidtiw basd od Yuq bivew baw Ysa voi BE atime! AGE
“kivt ta no fest ont doiw tesioTles Wild VO MIE bi hotr keke
“ge ‘kt tadd poled ent eroted aiid bivow beer! ons Ho ive ce ol ob
ee ae hava br hanle Diuosia ted bane ak ada epeersjeed ders o
odt of tefinte ilies ton enw sto dee Silesia } 2
beakioal o%s eV ,bettwoo0 tuobloow Bild ombi wit ta aotteuths’ £ o
aatel .bowory tact acqu widanoiveotde aaw $i fall) woittge BH. :
adie theirs qxe ond lo belw at atoogser ‘tes omen tue bed.
oul? omid odd te mohtaud ie kavion ond oitsals earw ‘fasbins
eum weeds dadh (exude to ak whet ieee “oat " DORI GE
a y wikeiiaas exit Waaperyion sora von “— jetted
eee mae
Go., 250 Ill. App. 22, and the
Appellate court held that the trial court did not err in refusing
to admit such experiment in Upthegrove vy. U. Ge W. Ry, Co., 154
Til. Aop. 460. The true rule ie ctated in 4 Chamberlayne on
Byidence, sec. 3174, p. 4375, quoted with approval in Arakelinn v,
Southern Pacific Co., 220 Ill. App. 160, where the judgment was ree
versed because of the admission of such evidence,
The situation here, however, secus to be quite different
from what it was in these cases, While the experiment effered by
defendant wae far from aceurate frow a sclentifie standpoint, simi-
lar evidence, which was quite as much, or nore, objectionable was
admitted in behal? of plaintiff, It would seem that having undere
taken to introduce evidence of this character in her own behalf,
pleintiff is not in a position to object that similar evidence was
introduced in behalf of defendant, ‘his rule is isid down in a
number of Illinois cases. 32 Ill.
App. 196; Orchards vy, NW. ¥. C. & St. L, R. Co., 263 Il), App. 397.
In the last named case the Appellate court said:
, "Appellant having persuaded the court to admit testimony in
Tegarad to the combustibility of cork with much greater latitude on
the part of appellant is not in a position sow to object to similar
testimony on the part of appellee in rebuttal,"
In other words, plaintiff is not in a position to object to the
experiment submitted in behalf of defendant when she offered
Similar evidence just as objectionable from a scientific standpoint.
We think that, considered as experiments shewing supposed conditions
at the time of the accident, the evidence of plaintiff was as worthe
less as that of defendant, We hold the jury could reasonably find
from the evidence in thia case that the combs plaintiff ourchased
(if from defendant company) were sold with a warning of their in-
flammable character, and that her injuries were the result of her
own negligence, No complaint is made concernines the instruetions,
ae deme SS oye ALT OBS 4.90 2 nol afb oO ok oll x ainasioe® suk
gedeuter af cto Soa bib stupa Laltd gait dad, dion pirnnaestonrn no
a noniiliana a at hetete, Waawndes 2 “98, dni
» pth omer ak Leverage diiw botoup ,8VEb .q ,20 KE .998 pill
ot sew dmomgbul ead oussiw .08L .qod .LfX USS ,.99 obtiont sxesity
ssenabive soue to oelantabe esid To sauces heeney
piincina otiap od of aupou ,xevewod , ones wot toutte ont ie gpa oy
VE bette daouiaegue eid ashay (sbeaKo esovit at sew FL tase mot,
chaia ,inioghtads eltigagise 4 aqtl edetuves Met! Tet saw Inshay tek
ane efdomelsaelde ,#tou 10 ,oum as stiup gew dolde ,ooige t ?
ww gated sadt ape hivew it ,trkiatety ‘te thaded at desatata
ad Neekin xed ah aedontedo eldt to soaekive souhottat of, meted, ‘
paw sonshive tallmte sus? sootdo ef aoltiaog « ah tom at TrAeaha le |
2 Hh amob nkal ok ofa oki .danbaoth Ye aad at hooubowtat
ahh SP _qnogad ahook£st. ha i
A eee er a eee ee ae oe ae
; - oetes » fhkea 219, nia .29 aah, 0st Chr ry poe tant ot ak
nee vo EUR Leavy ay parry
cemabieeme ct La Be
“gat od toatdo 03 aottiaog 2 at Son at “vikdateta dco ete a
boxe'tta ode node saobesteh to tiedsa af bods tadivd tans :
tntoghante. ‘olti¢assoe 2 wott otdenolisetde an dont #omobl ye 7
anotsthacs besogeus yalwose atndnticaxe ae voreiibaikse”; ii “tata 0 wn
=drow en caw ttidaiatg te benobive ond ,¥aontbon bad Te bak? ost Ha ii i
Balt eidimoaser biueo vit eds bLod ae" eda bite rob te bait ak net 0
paeediorig Tibsabete ‘admos ond tad? ene + Si heseonied ous i
— neds tp “gakorew a dtiw blow ot x 00 § i
o 194 te ‘hime ont ouew haahrpaizal teit Meee baa i ve
C3 heres sa ” a0 5
nats. pri GEk ‘ My BBS at
10
The jury passed on the evidence, We hold there was no errer which
required another trial.
for these reasons the judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded with directions to set aside the order allowing a new
trial and to enter judgment for defendant on the verdict,
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRKROCTIONS,
O'Connor, ». J., and MeSurely, J., concur.
‘
«
a
na Matas saat 3 . / 4 ;
Miers os. Na ae ht: ee Ae a? ee
POPOL ATR Sate OO CORR Relig wie ye Bi
Peas WEES: Shey eal eo nie ,
Ce Otho ye teieogse ME atid seem aie at we i
etek orotate + Lidoatoe w week eta Ree, se eee
hae tte Mattoo kde sero 20 ath aR sat oeat hegp Ao EA 4
Mn path tadd cone sivow AS yeahs ral
eed wee et oh Mdenrsad etdd te Sane @ehbwe i<
pox eesotivn Satlele tent cotide of ayltiage a sh tom by ‘a
BA, OG hat at ote «he! bere ke Toe:
GAR RE geet ait oR ie. oc a RRS thaiatadai
RR ot eR ROG eR Me!
we beg Shag i ABR? «Ry Beatie,
mi gamkeeed Shaba od end paid athens eves oi
om vad ktal ateety ame apie dees 36 ‘wil
Sie kas eS. ee hele ok ee RRS Be,
“eee — Pe asia
aditree ait ap “eh dalate ke benosive wae Wie 0
shel et Aegan feb ot eo | ot? btod OW Pia es”
hema: me “Paka it» iq aaeoe allt fais wna » kits als
et tteorts sae ont
> eed nk (amy
a Pipe \
37978
BLIZABETH H, MANNING,
Respondent,
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL FROM CIRGUIT COURT
OF COOK COUNTY.
vs,
F, W. WOOLWORTH COQ., a Corporation,
and IRENE LEONARD PRUELTY?,
Petitioners,
ee a i en ee ee Si
| G
6) i Rae v
Fees th Gg AL @ A c 6 a 1
MR, JUSTICE MATCHSTT delivered the supplemental opinion of
the court,
After reading plaintiff's petition for a rehearing, we think
some further observations will not be amiss, ‘he expert evidence
so much discussed in the briefs does not appear to us to be of
much, if any, importance, The attorneys, with the sid of the ex-
perts, seem to have waged a sham battle in that regard. Whether
eelluloid is or is not an inflammable material can hardly be said
to have been the issue of facet on this record, The real issues of
fact, were, first, whether defendant scold the celluloid combs to
plaintiff, and, secondly, assuming that the same were sold, whether
defendants warned plaintiff of their inflammable character, ‘he
jury decided these issues of fact against plaintiff, We do net
think it can be plausibly argued that the verdict upon these issues
is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and it does not seem
that a new trial sheuld be given in order that evidence upon an
uncontested issue of Taet may be presented in a better way.
The prayer of the petition for rehearing will therefore be
denied,
PETITION DENIED,
O'Connor, Pp. J., and MeSurely, J., concur,
it y
}.
= "Cama HD
dash i ea 2 AR
a OF AVAUL AGL MolTirad . PRGEOR, «5 2508 hem wa
REGO. NS eg isto" % “" osagumlale. Nee
rea NE erg. bie “eee
‘to noiatee ‘Led 9 ae Logue ana betevites ‘raw ras aonrevt ce
i wits ue” oo fees *?
alerted av ,yhizecenon w tot noliiveg¢ oP Makaha settensl ToT TA be : ,
‘i gomebira t*veqee off .eatam od tou ifilw anolsevasede rosie a f
to od ef ax of “eeqqe tom a9od ekeitd ont mk beosevoe lth r me "
“xe ocd to bis emt diw ,eyeatotia off .eonetiognh , yas te Ho 2
tutte AT beayet decd al eLdted mace » hegew ovad of moos jad *
: biee ead yibxed seo ieixvesem sidemusftat om tou ef to al Bb, | ra
to apamas Senor asf! .buooet ala? ao teat Yo sweat eas aod oval ob
Of ads DLoiuLien au? blow sushaeted tedtade ,tertt ,etow ,foet
Dieta Slee ovew paws of? tadt gotleweea .ytbmovoe , bn Meteatete
odi .rtvcred) oldoumadind thedd to Thitaiel, bemtew stanbas teh
#en ob oF .Thitmiely dankege fuot To aevend seodt bobheh et
Ue TR ae ele ae
i Yew totted a xt heduesetg od yan feet To guset be ,
We od etotexsm Liiw gaivessen to't aeisiieg wat to rower edt
eATAe aOITILAG
37419 7,
CHARLES Pe CAMPBELL and
MARSHALL CAMPBELL, as
trustee,
Defendants in Srrory,
Ve ko
WILLIAM T. ALDEN, as adminis~
trator with the will annexed of
the estate of Maud Re BD. Reinhardt,
deceased, HEMKY G. Ye REINHARDT, BRROR TO
JOSEPH A. JAGRICH, ABRAHAM De
ROTHSCHILD, LILLIAN Re CAN, CIRCULT COURT,
JAMES Be CANN, MAURICE CANN,
JULIUS Fe CANN, JUANNETTE Ce COOK COUNTY.
HIRSCH (alias "Jeannette C. Hireh"),
ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL HOMES FOR THY
BLIND, a corporation (alias "The
Home for the Blind"), HOM FOR AGED
JEWS, a corporation {alias “Jewish
Old People's Home"), and CHICAGO
HOMES FOR JEVISH ORPHANS, a cor-
= (alias "Jewish ’ orphanst
Plaintiffs in Error.
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICH FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Defendants sued out a writ of error to review a deeree
entered by the Cireuit court of Cook county December 15, 1933,
foreclosing a trust deed to vacant real estate in the City of
Chieago. Upon hearing of exceptions to the master's report
filed by both sides, the chancellor sustained complainants!
exceptions and overruled those of defendants, ordering fore-
closure of the trust deed and a sale of the premises.
The essential facte disclose that August 2, 1927,
Maud R. D. Reinhardt entered into an agreement with one Bs F.
Thompson, then a salesman employed by Campbell Investment
Company, for the purchase of lots 8 and 9 in a section of
‘ Re \ AGE i a
t ee
as L206
len
\ ; i ; : : ee 8 | ae
7. bus IIRETMAD 6% OmTTARD
\ ; 4 laa £68: |
A ae ctOTM ai adnebre ted Z
. o Ri Tv Cig , ae ‘ ey Matte i
rT Ba efis i = wr "
Meg Yr csky arty
| og tate t z |
cibtetletek 0 «8 Suet to efetee
or momme = TORAMMIGH oW 10 YMA y
eG MARARHA ,ROLMAG
«PMID TIVORTO HAD ,
t f
#008 O XY THWARG
ip , «(town 60 edtonnnel”
eae ae
ra gd ~ «{ "ome 9 ole
renailgo" datwet" aatts
stowtil a ereiantess
.taod att a6 WoImIdO weit F cua ttt er eoreny ourareane cil
Seales sen bac il
peteeh « weives od wore Ye t2ny two Seua edastaoted
Ren 72 inde”
880 .8L radaeped ytawo9 weed Yo top, ‘thwotd ost we terone
ho Uss0 oid nt otates {ae ingoay of boob Teaed & pEapeenenes
txoqex s'petaam ef% o¢ ameliqeoxe to gatised sog¥ _ _ egeetso
‘otansselqmos beniateue rolloonado ost ,vohia sitod “a petit
-9tot gnitobto ,aineabneteb to seeds boluttevo bes anptte j
snenimong eff? Yo oLen 2 baa boob tured ost 20 wemats
eT2OL «SX daurgud desk osofoath edest intimeane oft
sK eno Métw tuomeotgs na oint beredse #bxadal ua
tnemtneval Liedymsd yd beyotqae camestse s nodt , 1084 ost i
to nodose # mt @ bus 8 et0f Yo enectorum edt xot eymmaeeD
~ 2m
Chicago known as Beverly Hills for $6,200, divided equelly
between the two parcels, and made a deposit of $50, one-half
of which was to apply on lot 9, the pareel under foreclosure.
During the period intervening between August 2nd and
‘august 26th, 1927, Mrs. Reinhardt made sufficient payments on
account of the purehase price to reduce the principal on let 9
from $3,100 to $1,200. On the last mentioned date she received
from Thompson a deed and guarantee policy issued by the Chicago
Title & Trust Company, and simultaneously executed the trust
deed in question, securing the payment of one principal promissory
mote for $1,200, payable at the rete of $35 or more a month, ine
Cluding interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
lives. Reinhardt paid Thompson $70 on September 26, 1927,
when the first installment became due, $35 of which was to be
applied on let 9. he then went south for her health. ‘t that
time one Smalling was purchasing a bungalow from Mrs. Reinhardt
under a contract, and paying $70 each month thereon. During her
absence from the city, and at her direction, Smalling paid to
Thompson $70 on October 26th, Hovenber 26th and December 26th,
1927, a total of $210, one-half of which wes to be applied on
Jot 9. Thompson, Marshall Campbell's brother-in-law, failed to
turn ever to Campbell Investment Company these three payments by
Smalling, and two other items.
March 23, 1928, having returned from the south, Mrs.
Reinhardt either mailed or delivered to Campbell Investment Co.
her cheek for $140. She testified that on the seme day, after
mailing the check, she proceeded downtown to deposit $450 in cash
with the First Netional Bank, but changed her mind and went to
the office of Campbell Investment Co. where she paid said sum to
Merkhall Campbell, and received «2 receipt written out by Campbell,
whieh is as follows:
ie
aoe
Yliavpe bebivih .OO8, 8) net 2fLan yluevell an sword ogee thd
tfat~oug .O8e ty thaoged & eben bra ,aleoisg ow? eld moowsed
seteeoloexvot cebew footeg add .% tof wo elggs 7 osw Mo bste 0
fe bed Seupus meowded gakmevsetmt beicog edd gutwi = 9”
to adnemyaq treteltiae ebam Jhucdinted ,ott ,VERL »fdps see
@ sof m0 Lagtontua edt oowbot of ootnq svnitetig edt te Hauidas
Sevtooox sde odeb boneitnom dubs od m0 .008.£8 of 00L,84 mot?
jnsetit odd ed bevent yolleq eetnatasy bne bee « nodtmodT must
daund ed beduouxe {lesoonsd Lusty bes eYstegnto ups ni ii :
yrocaimoaty Legtonirq suo toe tnewyeg watt ptlkxiioe oto 4 oup hi
“ih qsiimom 2 ox0m xo 289 Yo oder oft dm oldsyde .OOR, LE cor ON
| veumsa og RD Uo eta ad Ha tne | bands
<TSEL Ok rodundqos ao OG mveqams? hieg dieedntod «mek
od of sow dotsw Yo 828 coud emaoed dar
fodd a sitfecd see rot déwen now nestt nate “eto a
Sbredaieh .att moxt woleyand « guchemetemnty. bon ‘undtnat on oatd
ted yelmel .nostedé¢ dinom doa OVS gixttyeq bas stostinoe a tobay
(09 Mou getLtam® ymosdoortd cot ta bas eydhe om moxk om fa
AIL sadeenet hen £108. voter ‘slaps week ro ore necgued?
to beliggs ed oF paw debiw Bo wali 2.
ot betist .wel-at-cervord o'ffedgasd Lfasdy eat esougaasT 4 at te
td atramyog wend over? Geqned deemseovnl Lipdgued ee
emett wathre ow fie eeobiiowe
+8 ytidans. edt most hemartex pawl -GR0L «th donald) yl beret
100, deomtnewnl Liodqua? 0% bevevtied xe, belian xodite,.chmadmked —
rete sya) emeg pdt mo datt, bekrigaed ale , + OL2 20% goede xem
dese mt 084) tlaogeb of pre tewo hohosners, fn, «tontn: att ell
at tnow hoy Boies rod bogmenty dad, Ana tonet sak tax, ent
oF mua Bion bieg ele oredw »09 tr
cacdaeenT, Liadgmed, Re, enka aae |
vifodgemn ve tuo motticw sqtevex » bevtooer bus kedaua® flea a
| cama Ko hdy
-3<
Received of ures Nand Be D. Reinhardt, $450.00,
representing Oct. 1927 to Feb. 1928, inclusive, payment on
two lota purchased on Hoyne Ave. - Payments of $70 per month
on eache
Campbell Investment Co.
Marshall Campbell.*
Campbell denied that the foregoing receipt was given
for a cash payment of $450. He testified that Mre. Reinhardt
came into his office and stated that payments on the lets, amount-
ing to $210, had been made to Thompson; that she wished to make a
peyment; and that her total payments at that time, including the
one she was to make, would be $450; that she gave him a check for
$140, and he geve her the foregoing receipt “se that there would
be no dovetailing of receipts."
The irreconcilable conflict of testimony between Mrs.
Reinhardt and Campbell, relative to this transaction, raises the
principal issue of fact in the case. If, as seems to be conceded,
$210 had been paid to Thompson and $140 was then being paid to
Campbell, as he stated, the total amount for which Mra. Heinhardt
was entitled to a receipt would obviously have been only $350,
Campbell's testimony fails to account for the §100 difference and
counsel's brief offers no explanation thereof.
During May or June, 1929, a dispute arose between Mrs.
Reinhardt and Campbell as to the balance due on said lots. Mrs.
Reinhardt claimed credit for a sum largely in excess of the amount
due under the terms of the note and trust deed, while Campbell
insisted that she was in arrears as to her payments of installments
due om the note. Thereafter, July 24, 1929, Mrs. Reinhardt mailed
her check for the July payment. The following day solicitors for
complainants sent her a letter setting forth a statement of account
which purported to show that there was a balance of $568.94 still
due, and that she owed “the June 26) 1929 and subsequent install-
Pei tetas ye hrade test a «ffl baat yn ‘te bovieoos
‘Sook hee oGaF ot VREL ot .
Plage oa Ore 80 .9vk ore mo
+00 tnomteevat bil it
“eliadgand Lietaiell
movig saw tyieoes gaiegotol ed? dad? be laeb soneenenis Fen’
gotadebel .exd dad? Setthtes’ of +009 to tremyey aiilaiale
somone ate als no atnemyag Jad? betuta dbne wel tio eld otak emao
® otam od bedatw ofa Jad’ qrouqmod? of eham noad bart) 048% od gmk
ont gubiwlons pomté fast te atmonysq Lodot tod teste shan): deemgeg
“or doetia a mic even ofa decid 7O@O$ of bigow .oolem od enw ede sao
tivew etedd tacts on" tqteoot natoyetot off wed evag ed baa, ORR
‘satgtoost 16 a ae
| «8th moorted Yaemitas? to toltines eidelionoogeti aff = 899 <~
aid gomtes yoOidomanss? ald? o¢ oviteles yliedgmad sna” sali
chobooneo od of ameoe ae , it sonso wnt mt owt te oxndt Loghoittiy
“od bing smiod mead caw OLE bra tonto? of Stag feed bad OFS
Chtainted sail defer rot erweas Ladd edd beter’ ont as a Lhodiyaad |
08x vitae need ovat YLavoivco bivew dqtevet s of bettiine aaw
itm eOROTO TIED OOLE onl? xO smOvOe 9d ALiod yRoMteaed’ ‘e'£fedqua
: stooredd sotianelgxe om etetto teitd a Loanies
L8H MoGwtod eeote oduAtD a CREL vont to Yall gate Oey
seu .udol bisa a6 ovh coneied o0? Ot am LLedgmad boa tecedeken —
Somanms @f3 Yo aapoxe mt Usaral sum 2 tol tibexe bemieke #inadnion
Liedymad Lite <b90b dewtd bre eon odd Ye aomod odd vanmead
atueiifetent to atwemysg ted of aa exeeres ot eaw eda dace ;
boitan thrbcietot .avl CREF (De Viet .aBd too todT Ledn ote web
tot stoviotion yb yntwoltet eat .tnberceg vitve day Yow donde eit
davooon to tnombtede o d2tok patisee witeL « ‘root trol aint GmS
Litt 9¢.8008 20 eonated s ani ortedt Shild woHty OW bo Deg Moti
stisdett Sneupondie bun ORCL Yost onus ex" Sewer eit ald baw Yow
wie
ments.” The letter then proceeds to say that, “on account of
your default in payment of the instaliments om the trust deed
on Lot 9, our client has declared the entire balanee secured by
that trust deed immediately due and payable, and expects us to
collect it immediately or start suit therefor."
Mrs. Reinhardt thereupon sent complainants her cheek
for $70, dated august 2, 1929. ‘This check wes returned in a
ietter from complainants’ solicitors, in which they stated that
because of her default in payment of installments suit had been
commenced and that complainants would not aecept anything less
than the entire amount (manely, ¢566.94) plus the court costs.
The suit to chich reference is made was an action at law on the
note, brought by complainants in the Superior eourt of Cook county
July 30, 1929, which was pending throughout the course of the
ferselosure proceedings. The sult having failed to result in the
peyment of the balance claimed to be due complainants, foreclosure
proceedings were instituted in the circuit court Octebsr 17, 1929,
By the decree of the court defendants were erdered to
pay the sum of $1,121.94 and costs, including master's fees of
$107, as the price of retaining the realty involved, upon which it
is coneeded by complainants that Mrs. Reinhardt paid $2,635 on
account of the purchase price of $3,100.
The communication from cemplainants' soliciters of July
25, 1929, preceding by one day the comucneement of suit on the
balance cleimed te be due, included an account of payments credited
to Irs. Reinhardt and stated that, “you have made 20 payments of
$35.00 each on account of smae. (Yhe trust deed.) From Septe 26,
1927 to July 26, 1929, both inclusive, is 25 monthly installments.
Therefore you still owe the June 26, 1929 and subsequent instali«-
ments.” However, the June, 1929, imstallment had been paid and
eredited, so that the most claimed by complainants when they
te duroo3e ge” etatht qa of ameneing: snes sestes er *. eteon
howd Feuree es. we sstimak savant elf Ro toergac mk shure & aso
vd boumse eonelad erline ons bexeLoe’ end tmeite <0 ok dex pd
ot ay asoogxe bre yeldeqeg bas evb ySotetbommt hood Sawxt darts
“.soteron¢ tiva Justa ve yletalboumd 34 toe LLoo
@ at bomtudex usw dodo Sail ~@ROL 4R domme hodah yOTR aT
duet begedn youd dotdw mt yatetionee ‘alnentalqeds, noe? sedder
mood bad tive aineallodent te snout 168 205 ‘ort to eameped
abel paiddyns dqouen tom bier. Ainenteianos sadd bre besten
gutsoo duo end ealg (20.880). «yloman) dnmome etktas ond, mast?
etd 10 wal te soties na usw obem sk eomexe tex dois of, dtupontt
Yihwes oad le sue xotxoqwa off od cdnpmtatqnos yd sdyuord yoton
| Od 20 cocoon edt tuotguogdd pathaeg anw stoldw «OROh wOReke
ott ni timaot of botie’ antved iva sit . eagetbesoong emsokeseot
@8UL eT L sedess0 tmweo Ituarke ede at hotudisant esow, aymbheooor,
Qt berebig stew uinsbhasted sree elt to eoxoeb aft YE... on»
to geet atregeam ynibutont yudaon ban MeL8felh Yo mua edd mem
#2 doitiy mogs ghovlerni yiloor eng gainiodas to eottg ont os «TOLt
mo 88d. SE bing tbhisdaiel «wa ted? etpanialquos yd bebeoneo wt
+00.L.68 Yo eotuq evedlomy od? To demgee
YL Yo ateviniles ‘udnantedqueo mext mvlideotnummog @fT ph 6%
ova no dle Lo sremponenme: afd yh ono YW enthooese CREE 48
Lesthots atnemyeg to tauoape am hedudond «ob oS oF bembate eomatad
| 20 steomex: OS cham ove soy" veld botete one Mundinten vamuat
L838 +tqo8 most {book aux? sa) some to dewocee aa sions 0R6t
ptinomiletent yiléson Sk af govinwLamt sided, .Q8eL dS het oF TSer
“Liston! tneypoedua one @S@L 4S emul ext i inattial itealll
fins bing noed bad inomiindem? «Wes yoru oft gxevowoH | Ayan
youd now atnamtalqnoo yd bemtalo oom ants saith bess
ofa
ordered their solicitors to accelerate the indebtedness was a
default of two iteme for $35 each and aggregating $70.
The master stated that “a careful inspection of the
testimony, together with the cancelled checks and other exhibits
offered by the dofendant, has convinced me that two of the pay-
ments claimed to have been made by the defendant to representatives
of Campbell were not eredited im this statement. These are the
payments shom by the receipts of the salesman, @. Fe Thompson,
dated August 2nd, 1927 fer $50 and the check for $140.00, dated
March 25, 1928."
Complainants credited Mrs. Reinhardt with $225 on lot
9 as of March 22, 19238, representing one-half of the $450 fer
which she held a receipt. If, im addition to this sum, she was
entitled to a eredit of $95, as the master found, representing
one-half of the two items for 7140 and $50, her credits would
more than off-set the two items aggregating $70 claimed to be
due in the letter of July 25, 1929.
The chancellor by his deeree overruled the master and
disallowed beth of these items. We pelieve he was not warranted
in so doing. the allowance of the $50 item by the mster was
gleerly proper. Mrs. Reinhardt paid this sum to Thompson when
the lots were purchased tugust 2, 1927, and had a receipt there-
for. We find no countervailing evidenee and no serious contention
is made by complainants with reference thereto. The evidence as
to the $140 item is sharply conflicting and presents the only
serious issue of fact in the case. The master heard the witnesses,
which the chancellor did not, and was therefore better able than
are we or the chancellor, to determine their credibility. Under
the circumstances the chaneellor, as well as the court of review,
should be slow in disturbing the conclusions ef the master upon
Close questions of fact. It has been uniformly so held by this
“i.
a aw enssbesdebut old cistelsgeg od atgdioites edt bexepse.
48 gaizegetess foe dose 985 x02 amodt ows to, dfuated,
edd to motioogan? Lfotemweo a” sold bagote togeam of. ne yy
adididxe talte due aileerio beLivomag es Aiiw tedtegot. -ymomtigad.
~yoq sd¢ to ond sasid om deomivres gad ricabaoleb end YW bere tho.
sevidainesetaet Of imabneteh edt. xd sham seed oyed of bemialo atmom,
edd ots sgedT .tnometats altdd ai badlbers tom exow, LLeodgmad Io,
eioaqmodt «1 +S pnemeeles oft. to etqhooss fd yd anode etoseyag,
beteb ,00,0aL) tot doado of? bus 036 102 TSeL ,baS dawgus, bedeh;
vee dol g Avera — $e BSOL . eh slo walt,
fof no E884 d2iw touetinted «at hbettoeup atoaciclgqmos, . moneda
or 08%; ocd To Lind-eno gntinoretaes .ERRL .S8 dosed mail
pew sila qa ebtt of mottkbhe mt, i «tqhooes » bled, ede sioksley
githinsaetyst ybmet xedaem ef? um .80¢ to thhexe # of beteadme
binew etibeoxo tom .08¢ bas OFL6 tot amedt owd od? to Diladewne:
ed o¢ bemtelo OF$ guiiagetaye asedt ows edt toa-the medd.erom
e@8UE 98S Ylul to Toddod ont ks
brs sotesm ond beLuxreve sevoeh elit yd toffeomanto eft ; eens
hetaertsw Jom asw ad svoifed o .aeett seed? lo dted bewollsakh,
asw tetas oft yd madi 086 off Yo eonewolle eT «gmtod, omptk:
nest moaqued? of swa eidd bia¢ thistinie’ .atd .« regosq yineolo:
-sredt dqtscer = bet bas .TSCL 4% duspuh hoesdoxug exowmted ashy
rokinsines amitea or bee gomepivs anbadalnaNiinadgen 02
as eonebive ed? .etoted? eonezeter sAsiw, adn os eh
ino. odd edmenong bos grktot tines, scaate rps oh
caoageniin ext btsed zotams oft ones odé mi font lo euaat auodzeg,
Maid, ofda wodted exosexeds ann bua «fom bth snipe sosdw,
_webnU .Ntbitdgboxe thedd entuxetod oe 1 918,
wwoives, te txwoo esid ga flew oo steLfoonntto, esta BORSA MORE See
Ragu xedaam of Yo, gsiotaulogen put amtéautath ah mote. og bund,
~6=
eourt. (Meyer v. Levy, 249 Ill. Appe 408; Katz v. Davis, 134
Tll. Appe 4363 Wechsler v. Gidwitz, 250 T11. App. 156.) Amd we
believe the court should have given effect to the master's find-
ings, notwithstanding the unwarranted and altogether improper
insinuation made by counsel in complainants’ brief that, “The
record wee not such as to induce the court to give any undue
effect to the findings of the master. The defendant, Henry 6.
We Reinhardt, now deceased, was a former coroner's physician who
lived im the same ward as the master, and that undoubtedly placed
the mister in a very embarrassing position."
Moreover, it should be noted that complainants were
rather lax in keeping the records of this transaction. The $1,200
note was not produced at the hearing and Campbell testified that
it had been lost. ‘The initial payment of $50, hereinbefore
referred to, was not credited to the account, elthough there is
no contention by complainants that lirs. feinhardt did mot pay
it. And the severel installments paid to Thompson by Smalling
were never turned in to Campbell, and if they were credited at
all, it was only when defendants called Campbell's attention
there toe
Prom the foregoing circumstances, we are of the opinion
that Mrs. Reinhardt was not in default when the superior court
suit was instituted agsinst her. fhe master's finding that
there was sufficient default when the bill was filed on October
17, 1929, to warrant the acceleration of the entire principal,
was evidently based on a misapprehension arising from the omission
of payments after July, 1929. However, Mra. Keinhardt tendered
the August payment, which was returned to her by complainantst
solicitors with the statement that no further payments would be
received unless she paid the entire balance of $563.94 then claimed
to be due. Complainants having thus refused to accept anything
"iin
Sef wuived iv gpk 1908 .gqA JETT 2 igved Sv toqstt) “seeade
ow feck (SEL ogy aTLY O88 yedtubss .v tefedoey ford .qud «ELE
“itt atxbdess eft of doe'tto merig oved tiuedie dx1m0d odd evyetiod
seqotyal widtegod fe bea betastrowns eff gethasdeds whet yagi
* ‘gett tad? tetid tetasntatqmos ot geenus yet obi wotdammbale
etter gab evig of tiwoo od? sontiet of ax stows ton saw Stdpss
«0 Ytes tmepne tod ef? svedenm oft Yo apetnatt add of Fon hte
oct mefoievdy a'eenoTes testo? 5 aéw ,_ botegoeh wor .thusdahe ww
beoaig yfheddvebay Jed? tea ~tot¢ean arf} ue btew omen ott mt bovet
“.sertieeg gutaastiadus yroved mt xedemn eile
ev wtersicignos dealt besten ed Gisoda df ytevesmM gy
G08. LG of! .coliosunesd vite to abrooet edt antqeod mt mel xomdte
teat BO ELta0% LLodqus> Se onttsed end on beoubo-at som wae ston
-) wxoredatetad .08$ Yo Janeyaq fattint est vteek weed baihitt
ak evertt guoddle , isuooew afd of bodtvete Jon saw vot benneten |
Noq von S25 thtedatet .em gett ateantotes yt Hotties on
Biilion® yo moaqmedT oF bieq uinemfietant Lexeves wis Rmk 4d
“$e BOPLDOT. oTow Youd? TH hae .Ledgaiad of mt tents xoven onow
mee itr yay) sieeteanal ‘te Ries adashne ted ane eine ewe 4h yt
é sn bide tell "yedeneuls
moinico aft ‘to eta ow ,seenstummotiy geioyeret odd mote! \' 9°)»
¢kges toleegim exte mesh tia sie dette enw omeadinent hind Odes
fedd gatoatt a'tetesn edt ted damtogs’ bedieiyant “aaw thy
“3840900 Ho hoLtt acw ittd dil dedw dfosted snares tia aaw Wadd
<teqtonirq ortins ett? to aéitexeteded aid duncan at’ Or ef
“ stolaatud odd mort yatatts ao tenodorqqsain a no Seded Utdiobive kaw
“perdbacd #ttednbedt .tit gtevowort Rex’ webs ett ainemyaq te
| "Witndattaleoes w red ee bomuntex « Baw shone “ jnemgaq tamper es
oJq
less than the entire amount, Mra. Reinhardt was not bound to
tender each remaining installment as it fell due. (See Gorham
ve» Farson, 119 Ill. 425, 442.) 4ecordingly, she was not in
default when the foreclosure proceeding was instituted Oeteber
17, 1929, and it was prematurely brought.
Prior to the entry of the dceree Mre. Reinhardt died
and William T. Alden was appointed her administrator with the
will amumexed. Henry G. W. Reinhardt, her husband and co-maker
ef the note and one of the parties to the originel proceeding,
died sinee the suing out of the writ of error herein, and his
heirs have been substituted in his place as plaintiffs in
error. Complainants contend that none of the defendants is in
& position to insist upon the ground for reversal urged in their
brief, because (1) William T. Alden, as administrator, ete., is
not interested in the decedent's realty, and therefore the decree
cannot affect his interest; and (2) because it does not appear that
Henry G. We Reinhardt filed any renunciation, under Mrs. Reinhardt's
will, within the statutery year, nor that the will devised to him
the real estate herein involved or any interest therein, and there=
fore his heirs are in no position to claim any error prejudicial
to them.
& sufficient answer to the first contention is that the
administrater was voluntarily joined as a party defendant and
complainants then having procured the entry of a finding against
him that none of the defendants is entitled te credit for any pay-
ment claimed to have been made on the note, other than that given
in the admission by complainants, they are in no position to deny
the administrator's interest in the outcome of the suit, nor to
assert that the finding will not affect him adversely in the per-
formance of his dutiese
‘*. wae
ot bawod tom aew throiaiol .o%% gtmrome online oft mete need
_ mared s08} sah Lis? sf pe teeml Latent goimtaupr done, xohnot
ni: dom sow ode gydignkbeepes, (o82 4Ohb » LED CLE meee ae
wedoto® hodatiient sew ambhecoong sxvadLoesbt ott nestw 2iared
idquerd oxutanorq aaw tt hme saamethiiel
dekh thtsdaton «awh poxeb odd To yxdne edtet xotet
etd dite totettetnings ied bedetoq¢s sew mobi . TP’ atet80
aeenaon bas dmsdoutl ted thtasdetod «8 60 -eenol » hexemns’ Ett
qgntbesonng Lontgite odd 6% eotdxeq ond Yo one baa édom' old S
etd tus ,uieted oer to divw ost? to two akie wild Conta Behb
miwYilintaly ae Goatg Wit mt bedativedse Hed ved a1 les
ee Te ke ee ee ee
thet? at segts Laetevex ot bimory edd moge detent of mots r ‘
at ycote yteswteutiinbs aa uaunsl M akestte (x) ohede
eetosb off stotords fie yysteot a 'iaehooss odd ont
dot teeqqe tom veel tf oemeved (f) bow ysaoredat aid obthe Fi :
e'shendutot sat robes ynotia tomer ‘ys Holt Hudital elt”. ow 0B yume
mid et Seutvah Lite anty tite oon yeule Chins ta aa Oe
need bes avon Soviet is wo web ir lh
Latethuteny sox Ye misle 0% meidtaog on ai oa acted at
ish Sind sisi ak , . ne ae en ss ee. B
sevig taulé sald sexide eon aid ao obaw nood wvstt oF aed data
qoobod noksivog om mt ova Yes petamntelemos ye nol rar eat
ot tom yotwe ead Yo wmondue Hd KE Fdoredet elect watt! j
Tem at Uleetevis mist dees Yom EET gnbintt old 9
"Gealiate dnald bo. dd08 va couaton oxbie * Sei sabia saint” |
gations Pie mn 8 Ve it ee 5 AR Kiva sie SRG skagen ah ea al
~
-8
In Harvey v. Thornton, 14 111. 217, the administrator
was the sole party defendant to a suit to foreclose the mortgage,
and sued out a writ of error to reverse the decree on the ground
that the heirs ef a mortgagor had not been joined with him as
party defendant. The court held that the heirs were indispensable
parties to the proceeding, and reversed the deereee The right of
the administrator to prosecute the writ of errer seems to have been
assumed, and we find no authority te the contrary in complainants!
bricf.
As to the seeond contention, the record discloses that
Henry G. . Reinhardt joined with his wife in an answer to com-
Plainants’ bill, and also joined with the defendant William T.
Alden, as administrator, in filing exeeptions to the master's report,
and to the assignment of errors in this court. Wo motion was ever
made prior to the death of Henry G. ¥. Reinhardt to dismiss him from
the suit. This would have been the proper procedure, if in fact
he had no interest in the premises. (Richardson v. Hadsall, 106
Ill. 476, 481.) Moreover, Mrs. Reinhardt's will was not introduced
in evidence, and the record fails to disclose whether the premises
involved were devised under the will or devolved upon the heirs at
law as intestate property. If Henry G. '- Reinhardt was the devisee
of the premises by will, he would certainly have been an indispensable
party to the suit. If the premises were not dispesed of by will he
was a proper and necessary party as an heir at law of Mrs. Reinhardt.
Vor the foregoing reasons the deexee of the circuit court
will be reversed and the cause remanded with directions te dismiss
the b1i11 of complaint for want of equity at complainants’ costs.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Seanlan and Sullivan, JJe,; concurs
sodatiainimbe edd Vis .ffT at shes nrod? *V Xovisk st
eogegs tom oss eee feetot oF hte a ot snahge teh Natag oou edt « aaw
hewory sd so serp0b off sateves ad Torts to a htw 8 a0 howe brs
an mis atin bestot mosd ton hast xogegixomt s %e exter ods ‘tants
eideesegqeibai etew wt bed os taild Ofek dusoo off -dashuetos xine
te ésigiz ont seotosb edt beutevet bas eaaibooooxg ould ad aetitey
mead ovad oF aeee toTte to vitw afd eduoeaeng of redqcteininhs oat
ee ea
tatunnts.iqnoo mt qiettne9 and at Ws txqatna on boyett ow ree “Domes
: ils stobxd
touts eosedoet btevet and tnok¢nodn0e droves edd 0? 8a
~st00 ed wowens ms at otiw mis attw bentot tienda “ “DX ve
1 MLLLLY tusbasted ex? st by bontot cooks ba itt “tagneniate
DA Sih 9 Se
alae tod at eetean els ov auoktqooxe amntet ae ‘etetorsatuinda on .sobEA
to ee Vitor
reve Saw ghee on +390, etd? at exo rm8 ‘Ye duommy toes ond e2 bem
Me ius Sete gg oll
mot mis anism tb od “dheasintell ¥ 0 gone to Aiuob od? * Flent ba Op ro bi a
test Bi tL .stubeoorg seqote edt seed oven biweox eta dite edd
We ee Soa Tha tenaso
POL silnabaH - ¥ goebrestots) sa9etmong end at deozgint om has va
beouboztat don ase ifiw e'ébusdntos “ait .Tevoo Tol mo. sil real
rigs
aseimoerg ots tests adw exoLoatd ot atte? prone? odd fae, ceomehive at
. 4 Wins Law%
ts exited ests Hoqu bevioveb x0 tiiw ots sro ew beatvob stow ; Lovin:
La oe ked wae e*
caked eas asw tbtsdntel .! 7 — eI ave otpinetes: 06 wah
es
whit
eidsansysinni as need eves yinistteo binew ed <ftiw yd nestmong ot to
ef {fiw yd Yo boroqaib von stew aca laetg only baat . tam, old of a8
ot brtadatos sar to wel ts thed me as Yd tag Cxesnonen, ine RH: cd
¢uso9 sinoxto eat to served, ould neon? petoaeze? bes rot Haut wbx
eeu tb e antottooxth hg tw be brae: eews0 edd bre bre beateves. boaxayen. ed £Ehw
saéeoo tatmantatgnoe $e Bd aa te tne x02
Ate a
CRMMAMR CHA CHRREVEE
mS; : 2 heat a fake o
r swore ot saavitiee. hee peony
of fe mi “ieoret in wat Fee Re shoots eee ae FFA
4
bout pe dee Se “mianenne 'T “|
$7431
FELIX MATARRESE, '
Defendant in Error,
Ve ERROR TO SUPERIOR
iatiie td
DR. ATTILIO MONACO, COURT, COOK COUNTY.
Plaintiff in Error. aM Soe bv J
eee ToS 7
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE PRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
—"
Plaintiff brought an action of trespass on the case
against defendant in the superior court for alienating his
wife'saffections. The eause wes tried before the court and a
jury, resulting in a verdiot and judgment for $6,500. This
writ of error is brought to reverse said judgment.
Plaintiff's deceleration, consisting of two counts,
alleged in brief that plaintiff and his wife lived happily to-
gether following their marriage in September, 1923, uatil shortly
before the birth of their first child, Felix, when defendant, a
physician, was called in to attend her and thereafter became a
constant visitor in plaintiff's home; that seid defendant, by
design, wickedly, maliciously and unlawfully overcame the love
and devotion ef plaintiff's wife for her husband, and secretiy
had carnal knowledge of her at various times and places; and
that as a result of defendant's conduct plaintiff's wife abandoned
Plaintiff and their home, taking their sous with her. To this
declaration defendant filed a plea of the general issue.
The undisputed facts disclosed by the record show that
Plaintiff and his wife were married in September, 1923. Plaintiff
was then 27 years of agey and his wife 17. Two children were born
. N — nay ar
~~ \ \
Ne/ ' ; RZ i veil
Oty wy
' QO Becta i ¢lahewtac’* : my r
‘Roteeve er Aoam . “8 choy gy forte ate
eYTHUOD HOO. THVOO gODAMOM OLIITTA “oman:
etorre at Trlintalt
4 ie e) a Le | eC y . ee
-TOO UNT TO HOMMItO WHT CinAVIe CeEtAt aoItCUt beats a
hi
oon ue a
sano ont n0 ‘eoaqaert to notses a , tkyword vabiatast |
R Z ? eens ty Px £ ix
and gubdene its x02 sree xolroque ‘std nt inehnotod sem
Soe. geaaee bia
s heto isos ests stoted be ta ecw sauso oat sonotsoo%tsat
Ae Bos Os Agra
andr 008904 zot swomp birt, bres dotbuer 8 a ants iuset A ge
i ra bs
sinempbul Sica eareve7 ot tdpuord at roxee te tie
si Re ae
seta nw to gaitatenos oi fa xaLoeb re
a af on fn
-o# ‘eLhagast bovis tin a tet bee Mvatetg sass Ponc pf
és a) at) ait ‘
ef vosta itiows cE82L _ todmotqesd rt ogei ren stosté aaiwoliot per Se
Tie ri
& «igabme tod tectw exit fot ebitdo satdt tiodd to donee oats orored
4 ev sovrd
8 ommosd xottseted? bas ted bnetds od ak bettno asw _ysstotowlg
if asetaete Peso #
Na qinabcotsh blea tol temo a! 32béntatg, nt rod iaty dnatasoo
es hy CE SPC aOR ee gabe ke
ever od? omaotevo btu etm hats (avotoitan « ieee? emptach
2 ae AS}: Bf. & et Shey
Miterose foes chasdest next tol otiw a'tidtmisL » nottoveb is
ONS es eer.
bre tnevela batts: oni’ avelusy ts xen te oabe Lon Tana bat
venenatis othy ottiitainlg toubnve a ténobre wb to dtueor : as alt
wae ot - te dtlw eetoe xiedé seis «outed cheat bate ‘dint in ‘ala
soured Letonsg ests 0 selg & ‘peti? peihaiteat inva fos
$end worle broeer ond vd besozoath enent Py ager rcs att sa
tivatslt .S8OL etedmatqe2 at abeine ote otiw atid bas .
a10d stow motbLide ow? «YL stiw eist bus .ogs to axeoy YR mond naw
a
hoe
of said marriage, one November 2, 1925, and the other February
8, 1929. Mlaintiff wis a barber, and managed o shop in the office
building of the Chicago & Alton railroad. The parties resided at
1456 W. Polk street in Chicago until the time of their separation,
April 7, 1931.
Defendant was their family physician, and delivered both
babies, the first + Felix, Jr, ~ at their bome, and the second =
Carl - at the Frances Villard hospital. Suring the period from
1927, until the separation of the parties in 1931, defendant
frequently took plaintiff, hie wife, her mother and the child er
children for rides in his automobiles |
in June, 1931, plaintiff sued his wife fer diveree,
charging adultery with defendant. A eross bill, charging desertion,
was filed by the wife. fhe court entered a deeree in June, 1933,
dismissing plaintiff's bill for want of equity, and entering a deeree
fer divoree on the cress bill, directing payment of alimony.
in July, 1931, defendant sued plaintiff in the munieid pal
court for medical services rendered, to which plaintiff filed a
set-off. Wo damages were awarded to either side,
Pollewing the divorcee proceeding between the parties,
Plaintiff's wife lived separately with their two children, and
under the decree plaintiff was permitted to visit the children on
specified occasions.
From a voluminous reeord of more than 400 pages there
appears evidence of numerous occurrences related by various wit-
nesses, relied upon to sustain plaintiff's charges and denied by
defendant.
Plaintiff testified that as exrly as 1927 defendant
called at his home, advised him that his wife wes anemic, suggested
that he be permitted te treat her at hie office, told plaintiff he
ote
vrowidet weite oft bose .08¢L .8 tedwevol eno ,egetrtem thee te
eottte off of qosa =o begenem bee .tedted » aew Titintal .eBeL 46
$m boblsat atliiwe ed? ,bseailes nedkA & opeoidd edd te ynthl bud
iemidoeuetis then? to eats of? LItinw opeoidd mi Jooute ALet .W BORE
sLEOL 4 Lhaga
died bowevileS one ymetoiayiq YLlmet tiled? ane teintitteit ’ ae
~ baovea oa? ben ,omod thedd ta + ext pxbfo® + texts otfd paetdad
so zt betreq ed¢ gated .Ledtqeot bzaLliv eonamtt elt te + veo
ittehneteh gL&eL a2 vetizaq eft Yo molsousges ext? Lido a¥SOL
$6 bListo ott dee verte tect pottw ald yTtitntaly toot yktieupie?
| seLidomodsa eid mi abhx sot mothListo
seoxevts wt ehiv aid hewa Yihénteke -LEQL etawh at. a
qmottroash guiyrado «Lite anore A .tasbnateh thw quedtube ankgeae
e568L , orth ai eoteoh » hevedes tye edt .otty od, of bettt eam
aeineh 2 yaizodns haa .Yitups lo daew so? Lfd a'thtimteda gataphanke
: eioutia Yo tnemyaq gutivetth -Litd avoxe Aah geenes tot
Loxrotnum ocd mk Y2t0atele bewe saobeoted «4UL aytut at
@ boLtt Biitnialq dotsw of edarobaat eoolvies Lave! bem x02 ome
seble xeitte of bobtewa stew segemeb of ier
eroitieq oat neovted gutbecsotg sotevte alt antwolio®
boat gewub.tiste end shedt Atty uietexaqon bowbt rte» 5
HO porbLtds eid ttely of bedsiexey sew YEtdmbaly vortoot old
ones eepeq 904 madd oxox 30 Steast cweniaucor 4 mat :
stin aueliey vw bedelet aponotte990 avexomun Yo sonentve: stasad
Ye hetnad bas veyrade eRtintetg miedo of moqu hentex xe0a8 ys
RUE S vee
i _ suahnore® T20E we yluse ws sash bokttsnos watamtass patwats
totueie seiner saw oRiw ald galt mid boatvhs aus a
a thy
wae |
‘sony
sije
had a beautiful wife, who “should go into » moving pic ture," and
thereafter made like comments every time he took plaintiff's
family for automobile rides.
There is evidence that in June or July, 1927, when the
family went for a ride defendent stepped his car at Van Buren
street and Plymouth court, around midnicht, pleimtiff went inte a
érug atere te buy some refreshments fer the family, and when he
returned defendant and plaintiff's wife were ombracing; that
defendant seemed “all nervous, and didn’t know what to say," and
when plaintiff remarked, "It surprised you," defeniant said nothing,
and they drove etraight home. The seme night plaintiff observed a
serateh on his wife's face, 2 or 3 inches long, which had not been
there before they left for the ride. Plaintiff further stated that
when he asked his wife what was going on between her and the docter,
she replied, “Nothing,“ and denied the occurrence related.
Pleintifr fur ther testified that several days later defeni-
ant telephoned him and made an appointment to meet him that evenings
that when they met defendant said, “Felix, I want an apology from
you,” to whieh plaintiff replied, “Why, whet is the matter, doctor? ;*
that defendant then continued, “The way you acted last night, you
acted queer," to which plaintiff again replied, "I heve a reason to
set that ways" that in the course of the conversation defendant
finally said, “If 1 am wrong we are going to see sbout it, if i am
wrongs Lets be o friend. I don't want you to have hard feelings -
we want to be a friend;" and that after the incident the family went
out riding again with defendent on many occasions.
it further appears from the evidence that plaintiff had
rented a cottage at Long lake, Illinois, during the month of August,
1929, and for several summers prior therete, where his family re-
mained during those periods and plaintiff visited them there on
Saturday eveRings and Sundays; that in 1929 defendant maeked plaintiff
«bos “, eae otg pmives a otnd og divoda" odw ,etim, fv iidwood«, Sel
a't2ideiedg dood edt emtd yrove admomips edit eham 1s Regveds
sgvbiy elidgupiue 10% yLimat
aft mone .TREL .yiel vo enwt at dtodd somshive ab. eredT. .. os
mows naV¥ Ge tio aid beqqose inshaeteh obit 2 teh snowy hie?
® gimt drow Miiemtele ,idgindim howoxe ¢itven sive ll bos soonte
on sesiy hea «pine? odé? rot etyomiaetlex emee Yd of etotesgesb
tod yomiomtdue axow otiw o'itlhintelg bre, toehme ted: borides
bas "yyse o¢ dedw wordt t'abth baa ,awoyten ife" bameod tashawteb
(aabien dice Instweteh “yoy bostzpum 31" qdedeawey Wutdwkeby ete
® berveedo Tilintalq idain eoew sit .omed ddghatia eveth yoid tae
weed Jom had aoidw egmet sedeont 6 10 8 .eeat a'etinutd no dotexse
end betete wod¢it iidatelt bt odd rot Stak wads ong led sxodd
stesoob ed? dae wil noented mo yatoy aw tase atte abel Seaien arf pond ra
Nuts ebotalot eonett909 ext bolmad hus ".paliiot" ,holigos ele
chaeted total syed fateves dads hosrdacd nostdaut ip sevkh et
igalneve fadd att Joo of sneminteqga me obam he mil Senonqeles ine
mort yologs as tnaw { ,xtiol” ,blee tmabaphed som sold menty Hasty
“:cretoob gxoddam off ef gedw ywil" ,beifget Titemiele aloide of quay
soy eidgie teal betoa woy Yau oT” _hommtines. neds dmehnetoh dane
ot wovset © ovsd EY yholigns niege Miisatetg daidy of "ytebep betes:
tonbueteh aptisetoynes odd to saunoo ont mh daddo"qyew dade otoms
ms LY 4S) tuods e9e od ynieg evs ov anomw mo L ME ehbeayhamhae |
~ agtifost bast coved of soy imew aimed 4 shmeixt s edetet .yuotwe
iow YLtmet edd saobtonk add odds dad? dos "ahneds? od et dameceme
ano teeoo@ Yaa we tohgeted ditw ahege gabhhaedwe,
hal Tittetele tad? eonohtve ef? mort etacggs wedduwt 32 « epaaaotneh |
etorgue to dénom sad gniush aetonifll qoxel gaol da snatees @ bie
Yuiaialg boxes gnshasted CSL mi tact payshawe hos egatteve yabuntet
swine
when his family was going away, and was told that they would be
leaving shortly; that defendant then advised plaintiff that his
wife still had a discharge from the birth of their seeond child,
and later defendant visited plaintiff's wife at Leng lake and upon
his return told plaintiff that his wife did not look very well and
that he would advise a further examination in the —_ futures that
subsequent examinations of both plaintiff ané his wife, and labora-
tory tests, showed gonorrheal infections, end when defendant inti-
mated to plaintiff that his wife may have contracted the disease
from plaintiff the latter said it was impossible, that he had been
married eight years and thet he proposed to find eut how this
happened, to which the dector replied, “I am mot eure, it must be
in the water. This thing cen always Happens” that on said eccasion
in the doctor's office plaintiff's wife arose from the chair and
seid to defendant, “You did it,” whereupon, according to plaintiff's
testimony, defendant turned pale and ran out of his effices that two
weeks thereafter, when plaintiff again visited the doctor's office,
the latter said, “You are a good friend of mine. Your wife accused
me of giving sickness with the tools. I know my tools are well
sterilized,” to which plaintiff replied, "I don*t kmow what she
referred to. I know she accused you."
Plaintiff's second boy, Carl, was baptized May 5, 1929.
Notwithstanding the fact that there were several Italian churches
in the immediate neighborhood of plaintiff's home, defendant suggested
that the baby be baptized at St. Paul's church, on west 22nd strect,
saying, “We better find a church farther away from the houses. It is
better people don’t know it, so you don't spend any money. Lets
get a church far away from the house." ‘When they arrived at St.
Paul's church in defendant's automobile, the latter said te plaintiff,
“You wait here, we will be out right away," and thereupon plaintiff's
wife, her mother, the defendant and both children went inte the
ay
abs
od binew yous tale let ame bee yoke Yetey aaw veLhna® what soit
gist dott SYtintely seeivhe ped? tnatnwtsh sndd renteete: antvabi
figs browse uted? te déthd of? mor?’ eytadvelt w hed Efe ete
noqs Mis oxel xne< ¥s otiw ettitentate bestety snnbrsteb todal bas
han ffew cre dost dow bib Ste ete! tede Yitemtary Bley ended eee
gous qousiyt coer sat nt mbdeantiaxe Yodicwt « seivha biwew of tally
-oxodat Ses yotiy ett baw Yttvatele dtec Ye seetacnteaen vneupedttiin
-lint ¢asbewteh maw poe gato téoo'tnt Lendrsome, Bewolle .adnetoyeed
eunewth of? bodactines oved Yat ohiw els cere TLbsmletg ed pevie
geed ball ad gad? ,eidieweqmi now OF bie tedden D ects Tiiotelg mot
etet wor tuo batt o8 beweqeiy of tend pateaiioremmengysl
od dou 22 ,eum fon mm I” ,betlgor roteet off Moidy O¢ 4 bonvqenil
nuiessse bias no gait “ymequed eyewle neo gold eld? «aptow ent. :
be chaste. edd mock pnore etiw a Yitsentelg eottie. panei A
e'Yiltatslg of guthteose qmoqueteda “di bib wex" camennacordl
owt tadd gen tte aki le age not Sm eLeg bemrend sembewted «yaa }
_ ganktio s!odood odd bedtety miaga Ititabele made qxedteotedd aeew
hoarse etiw sueY .onta to breis? heey. # eva wel" 4 dae wetdad et
Liew ows eieod yt wort I veLooe odd 340 sasantote atts 20m \
> erie forte worl ¢'aen Te vung wiemnsanesaenat ae-e , on Lined:
G0 at wean tga eee itien were tain wemnneiaae ble tes
nedvticio maifedl Letevos etow erodd sald soak ond yatbendeielweon
petuowains Mun dme ted veuorl eTLteNtaLel to boos iedity for evictions ae
céoenda Bets geow no qtoemiy atLiwt 9% Os boutdyed oo tad &
ul $l .eauad odd mOxY yawo texte? Sommie a balk costed aw”
stot syonam Yes hage F'nod Woy On gts wort nob sLyoeq
488 te Movies ‘ert wed Seow sit ames yee zak 1 28
(Titdatalg at kiew mwddal ode salidometes a 'tasbrateh sk stoma,
s*Yisniate noguesedt bra "syows dsight tuo ef Ltw ow _emeal
sas fi oem tnew mexbiitio died bea tnebaated oid vations ted
<5
ehureh, while plaintiff remained outside, and returned in about 25
minutes. The defendant acted ae godfather, and Maria Michemsi,
plaintiff's wife's mother, as godmother, at the baptisms befendant
gave the priest fictitious mames for himself and Mrs. Michenzi as
sponsors, useing the alias of Amtenio Cersics for himself and Maria
Botania for the godmother. After the baptism defendant took the
family to a roadhouse for dinner, and cevtioned plaintiff, "De not
gay anything te anybody. You call me Compare (godfather). 0 not
call me doctor any more. Call me Compare onee in a while.”
Frank Pallaria, unele of plaintiff's wife, testified that
in January, 1930, he passed by a room occupied by plaintiff's wife,
end through an open door saw defendant embracing and kissing her.
That she was in bed, clothed in pajamas. That this ocourred about 3
or 4 o'clock in the afternoon, end that he was standing approximately
3 feet from the open door when he witnessed said occurrence; that his
sister, Rose Michenzi, was in the kitchen, and plaintiff's wife wae
in the room together with defendent shout 109 or 15 minutes,
Maria Michensi testified that in May, 1920, when Carl,
the second child was lesrning to walk, she accompenied plaintiff's
wife and the child to defendant's offiec; that upen being refused
admittance by defendant, plaintiff's wife broke the glass in the
door with her purse and said te defendant, “7hies is your child,"
and pushed the child inte the office; that defendant pushed Carl out
again, and remarked, “I will see whether you are going to be independent
or note * * * Small fish ean never eat the big fish,” to which
plaintiff's wife then responded, "I will make you pay for it, beesuse
it is bed. You have ruined my life;" that there then ensued a
lengthy discussion wherein defendant told pleintiff's wife that he
intended to marry her after divorcing his own wife.
Mra. Michenzi further testified that on the day prior to
the foregoing incident she was at the defendant's office herself and
as quede al homurtet dp gohtudme bantemos tittatela eLidw hatte
tansdoll atte ins .tertte%heg em bedos tmebme teh Ao ‘se : nt
tashneted eautiged om? te qudtombog ag .tedtom a tod at rhtatetg
ga ixporiog® .aal ben Meamtd at samgir aatpht kien sootay ods emma
atisl kate Wewmis 0% eluted enema 2 sella edt gatew yatoanogs
wid dood dmehneteh amliqed end 192%, sods omoOR eile xo ainsto®
ton o@° ptii¢nialy bematinso bro gtomnih 10% sewodhaot « oF Yihmm?
som @i .(aadteteeg) oxequed em Lap oY +ybodyas of anidrune Yan
‘.eLide o mt eomo exaqueD oat Lis) .otom Yas tedpod, * ; ba.
dete hoktEIaos eOtlw attitvntelg te efeonw .altaliay ewe. oe i
sotiw a'Piivnielg YW beiquose aos a yd boaseg od ,OLOL «Yxai md 7
atd tet yeonerar990 bilan deasantiv at gece toOh ant. ot yar poi .
Baw ein a'ttivatalg hing ,msiostd alt at ame « ixwedo dit api , aomats
saetunks 84 19 OL dvods saabaetod dtly weddego?d moe. vs 7
qlkod sotto 09605 yaM ab data betrhened Lome Pie i
a'ttiintadg beimegqaoooe edu ilew of amtaxeel 3 aow | Ser a 2
beaker yated moqu fait iooltte a'innbnoteh of betde etd baw
adit mi senty ott esters et{r a! Mantels sduahaoret sel
Mabie roy ak sistz” .duabne deb of dias baw Cio! wet dé )
tu0 fre betlany tachae ted dasts jooitto eats eins nthe ¢ cot tetas
co beumae bard od 68 gnicg ota OY, tet tei staal Lite x “a or hee ith. |
Moldy of *yHett ghd ould tao t8voR m0 ste? {hawt * 7. fon 10
seusond rei sot ba Mn enlace ftw z sbobnogeet out stiw e tend.
yf Besame, sod? execs taste “potlt wm ponte ovad wor
ol tad ortw a’tidmtaly bios trabnoteb atoxade ,
a oe oe tiw nwo ald gatozovd ‘wedts seat sas
: o obra Yeh edt nn tadtt bottiinsd roséwt hemos ox
mh. 0 dual 4: tae
bas Sioaved ool tie a'snabsoteb alt ts oar a two,
Ae te
Dy thas
-¢
that he asked her what she wanted, to which she replied, "You
know what I want. That stuff does not belong in the home of the
Matarreses," whereupon the doctor ordered her to “get out of my
office,” and struck here
In April, 1931, approximately two years after the two
foregoing incidents, the parties separated. Defendant come to
Rese Michenzi's home with plaintiff's wife. A gquarrelseme con-
versation ensued, wherein Kose Michenzi said to plaintiff's wife,
"What did you need to do such a terrible thing? Didn't you have
@ good husband and a good companion?" Trank Pallaria testified
that on said occasion he heard Mre. Maria Michenzi say to defend-
ant, "Bhat is your boy and not Mir. Matarrese's boy," and that he,
Pallaria, then asked defendant, “What are you going te do now," to
which defendant replied, “Ye will t&e it as it comesj" that Rose
Michenzi then said to defendant, "Shame on you, a married man like
you, - am old man like you, to ruin Mr. Matarrese's house.” That
defendant said nothing in answer to the last remark, but took plain-
tiff's wife away in his automebile,
Befendant denied the incidents alleged to have eccurred at
Plymouth place and Van Buren street in 1927, stated that he con-
tinued to be the physician for plaintiff's family until 19351, that
he visited plaintiff's barber shop until shortly before the sepa-
ration, and that plaintiff had mever said anything te him with
reference to his wifes admitted treating plaintiff's wife for anemia
in 1923, but denied participation in the baptismal rites of Carl, or
that he was present at St. Paul's ehurehs denied the occurrence at
Rose Nichenzi's home in January, 1951, testified to by Pallaria;
denied the conversation alleged to have taken place in the Rose
Michenzi home at the time of the separation, or that he walked out
with plaintiff's wife, stating that he left the house alone; and
denied, generally, that he had made advances to plaintiff's wife,
wot” ,hotiqat ede doidy o¢ ,betmew ofa tate aed bode ey tase
oats te omen qd ah grotad dem, oooh tesa sel «daow. t dash weet
er t6 tuo tag" of ted botehia totoeb oad moqvetedy ",sesettedat
«tod Aosits One "eso ke
gut ond xod%e wtasy ovd vlojamtmomen M60 eLbTEA uh ooconnowy
ot e205 taabested .bhedaexages seigisq etd <eieshinsh entaanal
: “OD emcalertauy 4 swthw a 'PitsateLte tdiw encosd atisnode di seat
potiw a'Yttinisla of bias tnnedotM eae nhexedy .powang, mods
eval voy t'mbid Vynids ofdt cy) 8 douse oh oF heen woy Beh. ‘in,
peltigaed stisllad Anett } "m0 kag 9 S0oR, o hos boadeud booy &
=basted of yee iunedolM sitsé oul busedt Est nolasooe bise no dass
oat fadd ben # yod a ‘enottsdak ti Son bus vod toy et dedi" sine
ot * * won ob of gatos voy ote tant” inaboe tos beans nods satzattat
enol tad "teens tt ea $f © we ‘LLtw oW" sbetiges tashagleh Geni.
OSL mow boltism s ywoy m0 omesde* « tnabaste od bhaw sostg tanndodt,
dat? ".onwod sosorsetall oe abut of _M0% oxtt “tina bho id AMY.
~nintg dod tod fxame x dunt ed of towene mi aniddéon bhaa :
“ ,ekidono dua aid at Yama ottw eran
te hevtwooo svad of begetis etmooiont ont bolas tnsbasted
cate OR Age
onoo sf Yadd bodate eVSOL nt teoxte neta ev be sade, Mame
dod teed ‘ttn ine e'hisinteta = aatoteysia oale od @) bown
~agon exid exo ted “ls rosta Lidtous gode wet alrtiontely, tbe as
sain wid 08 gieb als agen bing rover pad tiisntalg, feud bee ghottag
abe wet otte a'2tintelg patteort bedsimba tollw aid of. cone toRes
“go ehxed ‘Ye avdtx Lomatigqed ods nt aobtegtettasg boineh dud OSG Lomb
ts eonortinee ond bainob ido tunis eines ofS da tnovoxg: enw ‘eel decd
qabualie’ Vi of bertivee? , LOL ¢yraunal mt omod a ttusodos eaok:
‘saoi edd ni conta merled ovat of peyote ao Lisataynoe ect bedtob
dna hetion tl tat 40 <a ttonsqen el? to omid ond $e mex tamecttit
bite tenots eawort of Stel ef dads gutinte sete attendee tte
cette a tidntate ef aponavbe ebam bad od santnemncmamen ie
ata
kissed er hugged her, or had sexuel relations with her ot any
time.
It is defendant's principal contention that the verdict
was against the manifest weight of the evidence. ve have carefully
examined the record, and while there is a conflict as to the prin-
cipal occurrences heretofore related, we believe there is ebundant
evidence in the record to support the verdict, if the testimony of
plaintiff's witnesses ic to be believed. Most of these witnesses
were closely related to plaintiff's wife, and would not be likely
to testify falsely as to matters affecting her moral misconducte
The law is well settled that where the evidenee is conflicting, the
jury’s verdict will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly against
the weight of the evidence. (Voelli p Ve Kohl, 261 111+ Appe
ZI» B74-)
It is further contended that plaintiff's coungel made
improper remarks in his opening statement to the jury and im the
course of the trial. There was considerable bickering between
counsel ali through the trial, and many remarke were made on both
sides of the table, but from an examination of the record we de not
regard these 29 having been prejudicial.
Rese Wichenzi was called as a witness on behalf of plain-
tiff, and after being examined by plaintiff was partially examined
by defendant's couneel, and before the cross-examination had been
completed plaintiff's attorney made a motion to strike all her
testimony from the record. The defendant made no objection, and the
court dismissed the witness. Defendant now complains of this pro-
ecdure, but we think his complaint comes too late. Defendant sheuld
have made his objection at the proper time, instead of wtanding by
amd allowing the court to sustain plaintiff's motion and ordering
the witness to leave the stand.
Various other questions are raised by defendant's brief,
tie 4 used MFIw SEDO LoD Lewred Ded to \ ten Soygad to Hedwid
tothxov add ted moltmetnoy Legtoniig einsbaeteb ak g2°°o" He ome
Cilvlexee over ov .eomrhive ef? ko tigtew dueSieaw ede funiage saw
at wi3 02 ee sol ines # af sted? OLtdy Sas ,etecer od? tonkmexe
tnebruia et etatd ovetled aw ,bedelot erakelerted aeone tases foqks
to qlomt dine ont UL ytosbroy odd Fregque oF buoser odd in? Gonebive
agvaeneis oned? te gael .hovelied of od ut wescendiw w'Miivatel¢g —
uletts od fox Mwuoe Sra .tiw attitimiely ot beddlox GLedele sxow
sioriwedeim isrew ted yettootts oxvsitam o¢ ea yLoafet Yiieed oF
on? canitelfines et gorebive ent oreda doit? befidoe Lfew at wor ont
tontiys ¢Ufdectinet at 4% eseLms bedutelh od tom LLiv tothrey a east
qqh St £98 gidom sv commttioey) © swonsbive ede te adgtow Gad
Sbaet Leanudo at rtitateaty feds beanedaos toddaet-eh eT Oo oos ole
add a2 ton Yartl odd 04 tnometade yotoaqo afd mt wibcands aeqonyek
- geenged gnttesold oldersbienoo caw @xedT «fated edt Yo wetiod
ddod mo eban exvew siiamet yom ban (Zeixd of? deworttd Lie Loamvoe
‘den ob ow proces odd Yo mo ltantmsxe ma mott dud (ides edd to aobte
sLatothubese Mes? gaivail as vendt- Stages
-ttaig Ye Rated me suendiw aes belied sew tameey tt oeoh wid
— peathiie GListitag aw Yiseatate Ww pédttanee gabed teste bad QTR
need bad Modantwaxo-geors odd eroted bas ,toemves a tnetmeteb ye
vest £14 ovbcde of woksomw a chow yourostts el trtéatalg bedelgaon
Bde bine qadkiseido wt obem seabed ted off \sbxeoex edd eet yrembiawd —
oixg sid} T entadquoe won drebastot saeeetiw oft bepatme th tape
biveda tucbweto otal eo* eemoo tntelquoo wld ketdd wv dod ,oxwh98
Yd ghbinate Yo heofaak yout coqerg ots on pelisetde atd thom eval
weet ons noldew vf Tiitnialy atageia @@ damoe ee ae
tekst etinhinotods yo howtet ote amotieeaup ppm ne
\
put they present no convincing reasons for reverenl.
We believe the trial was fairly conducted, and finding
no reversible error, the judgment will be affirmed.
AFPIRMHD «
Seanlan and Sullivan, JJe, concurs
“
Loven os sSeeoutans ay eo date att ovottod ot ee
shui | Sabet oie bie. i dalphew con ehwwey wate rates se 1
BS RR Of a aid RMON ith _ meal nantes:
ea CES Me ee eS weet oneal * | ee
De ee ak eae ee se ed RS ean ert oa eB hee
COIR RE RIE Cea seems y Rete nee gat igt a seernee tbe ew Rane
EPR 8, ad Stkaee etsy hie a “OL smeady wt htadenGtadw da aie
sew ives ted gation tha wedi Bet aie Rootes ane ee |
sy Poe ee wt Womobitws eof epost dela godaien nw ye wad 7
tan dha; tee Sau +2 2S ‘wondtew Setivestt ad 4eR" AFe ev do i vi
nga faye Re tees *F tyonti veer) lana ete Som tie a
rere be tyasties
ie Renown eR RE akg See bo timedigeed) el RB sat,
SS ee
Cie me heky, eae t até OF ‘Seaqnmed ade Qala ‘pat nee % ee i
pepsi Watmetedsd 9 teers biedion Ka Wega ‘aie ’
Rees isi ey aster atoms eee Dee seid cll !
wig’ tli ee nang aed ‘he Los gw pen
i some Psa trie “aes VE gate “yet Sareea, ‘patee
Keay bie E Moatrkxe-ynewd ‘aad ord ‘fieup a henson *e
oe wee eet ae ea wae atin “< |
iat bee yb haweyis ax whee Pee hee tok att “Ri |
igeuay’ hye ths oH en ey hee aeemewted: onennabe sate
Witernatls Yeiohant ted + Bb aE ne" tense dei lyasins) art taeda ve
ed BEthowre Ye Toso gael oe . ‘
=.
ce
Se
és
By,
sen ee 2
ie ee Fe
37856 4 / f y
LOUIS M. SHAPIRO, j
Appellee, |
es
APPEAL FROM CIRCULT count,
COOK COUNTY.
a7 9 LA. 639
MR. PREGIDING JUCTICR FRISHD DGLIVIRSD THE GPIMIOW OF THR COURT.
ioetiteettiomenin sail
Ve
ROBERT BEALSOW,
Defendant seeks to reverse a judgment of the cireuit |
court entered in a suit of trespass on the case on promises,
founded upon a contract ef guarentyo. The cause was tried before
the court without a jury, and the judgment rendered was for |
$3,151.35.
Plaintiff filed «a deelaration consisting ef four counts.
The first and seeond counts allege that defendant guaranteed in
writing the payment of merchandise shipped to Libbye's, Inco, to
the extent of $4,500, on which there remained due an unpaid balance
ef $2,920.18. The third count alleges in substance that plaintiff
was an officer and direetor of Shapire-Saer, Ince, engaged in the
business of acting as resident buyer for various pereons engaged
in selling, st retail, ledies' cloaks, suite and dresses, and as
euch resident buyer ected to make purchases for Libbye's, Ines, in
New York eity; thet said defendant, in order to induce plaintiff
to guarentee various manufacturers the payment for merchandise sold
by them to Libbye's, Ine-, at the special inatence and request of
Shapiro-Baer, Inc», did, December 13, 1931, exseute and deliver te
Plaintiff the letters of guaranty: in question; thet pursuant
therete plaintiff guaranteed the payment of merchandise purchased
a
| Y . yy
5 ob, rend tae tod 8
1% % be} oy We Maa” ) 4 ih ll
a }
<OHIGANA .M BIVOL
7
pee Lo MO rt LASILA }
ov
; 3 SR,
EO LT OSS baer aa
Palos ENY YO NOTKS1O SHY GRAZVINRG GNRIRT sOITSUL culcIomee wat
aes ky
foots oft %w tromgia, 2 ootevex e¢ saleoe tmabae tes
(souimorg m0 oan ond mo wanqeesd to dtwe a mh hetedte faveo
etoted belx? sew wees of? oginotawa Yo fuetines » moqu bobawe’
tok saw berehnes dneomort et tae «yuh o éwodstiw temeo edt
cece
sadmmeo wet to yeivetanoo agltaraioeb a belit Vrbintals elaine
ak heednetesg tmebne'ted sadé ogeils atuweo bnosee bas deus ost
@t ,coml gu'eydd?d of heagide ealbnadotem to smeayeq oad aahahxy
tonaled biagaw aa ewb bentemes eteds deidw xp 002,29 Yo tnodxe of?
Wiktnialg Jodi comsdadva af wegette inven debit dT +85 0%0.84 to
ed? at bogagne ..onl ,xeal-oxlgedt to sesooxkh tes tooktio ae saw |
bopeune ampateq aveliev xo? teyad dmobinor ea gakies Yo. aeont aug
an bee ,aeeueth hoo ctlue ,aleoks ‘nelhal ,Ltiatex te ayntiion mi
mi qoomt ya'oyddil 10k aesatonng oem oF betes toqwd ob show
Thivmletg soubal of tobse mb yiashuoteh dive dad? yyste |
“Moe eaibnedosem 107 tnonnyeq wid axoTutos tunomt aveltey te
of swviied hom etionne gi80L .SL todmpoel ,htb vont a Ro a~o
tneauexig todd gaotteoup nt oytnecaiy to emertek ott
~2e
as a resident buyer fer Libbye's, Ines, upon which there remained
due an unpaid valance of $2,920.18, with interest at 6% per annum.
Count four sets forth the commen counts.
Defendant made a motion for a bill of particulars,
which was furnished, and thereafter filed an affidavit of merits
and two smended affidavits.
The ensential facts disclose that defendant is »
preeticing lawyer in the city of Chiesgoy that his sister and
nephew are the principal officers amt owners of Libbye’s, Inte,
@ corporation engaged in the retail ladies’ ready to wear business
in thie city? thet in December, 1931, Libbye's, Ines, was in a
preearious financial condition, and could not get merchandise upon
a oredit basis; that defendant becum sequainted with plaintiff
through one Leo BH. Sacke, o retailer engaged in a similar business,
whe died prior te the trials that plaintiff for several years was
engaged as a resident buyer in Sew York city, representing retail
merchants throughout the United States in the New York market for
whom he purchased merchandise upon commissions paid by the manue
facturers, thus eliminating the necessity of his clients going te
vew York to make their purchases. And he teatified that he had
never been engaged in the manufacturing or jobbing business.
in order to make it possibie for Libbye's, Ines, to
precure merchandice from manufacturers on a eredit bawsis, plaintiff
told defendant thet it would be necessary to obtain e guaranty, and
thereupon the following written instrument of cueranty, dated
December 18, 1931, was given by defendant to plaintiff:
“Confirming conversation with you when last in our
eity, i hereby guarantee the payment of the account of Libbye's,
Imes, up to the extent of $2,500. You my ship merchandise at
any time they order hereafter up to that amount."
A second letter, dated Februnry 8, 1932, ineresased the amount of
the gusranty from $2,500 to $4,500.
ih vs
“ie
besianet scald totsw soge y«tml ge toyddht vot ceqed dmobioet 2 en
item rey BS te tavredet thw ,AL. 080g th Yo eonaled blequr me “oub
tae
beste wintaae end diets eden mak Ge
emratuotiney Ye LLid « vot sotios a obamw 3 chases Yo t PIG
ativan to divsh’l%e mu bekit tod teotesds bee « becte bares’ ew aio kaw
.adbyvebs tha bennoma ows bate
WSs ails i :
m@ wt teintidatbe's dinits exofoath aton't inktnone ont me
bes vetxia all sald qoyeesaD te wWio exis md roqwad patettomny
vent estoyidh to exsawe bea sroetite Leqtontyn ett exe
auenteud teow @f ybaws feetbel Lede of? ob hopngae melieroqton a
4 Mb maw qeonl ga leyehd 4180L quedmvoed mt gaat pyttoenena
gnats Gokbend sree 99g tox NLoo tes ynaksdonon Letonontt suolteeegy
Ttidebele Adie bedntexpos vahood thetnoten tule hte eel
eaeenteud toLiate e mt begeane taliade+ a yaitond .@ 00d ond Myadald
aan @taey Latevoa wot Yetimiale sad? tisbad aaa of “Obi doth ode
Liador gukeienongex yysto deoY wat af avyed deehteos ‘ed weg
<9 dextan A19Y wet ot ni eedad? hodhyt ods ‘pwnitgilned Genidenat”
saat ot es: diag ometvatumoe miqu wel hmidyrom re alll
o¢ gntoy a9usife uit to utiswecen odd yottontmtto mutt jouotidbal
‘batt oct Sould soktivacd wet Nea © seomemwteg “chend bated of Heat .
Yamemtiod gutcdo, <o gukedtodtmam odé at boone Heed” |
ae deat Qulteqdana ‘sek atdroco é oxtem tt wine pe AHI ate
wihedtale yetasd fines a no ‘aterutes ; oa eeNOO UT
has sténarsiy « atsede of Cindéesen od biuow VE suits nabavteh beed
hedeb gyiee cary Yo Vamew tion? meddixe grbwottot
PYursmtety oF Phbcistos Yd movig aed (feet ef xed
whip nt teat nestw doy dotv notésexewnde yxttit'ned? °°
oe CT ge TG a,
salle Maditiapme tod? of qu xetnexod rehire Yoms
wig te. dase out peusenonk @RCL oS vere bees arr £
ie
ose
Plaintiff? testified to a cenvereetion with defendant
wherein he (plaintiff) stated that in order to ebtain nerchandise
from the manufacturers it would be necessary for him personally
$0 guarantee the payment of bills which might be incurred for mer-
chandise sold to Libbye's, Ince, and thet he would not undertake
t9 guarantee these bills unless he was sufficiently indemnified.
Shortly after receiving the first guaranty,, plaintiff wrote defende
ant, asking him for references. ‘This Letter was answered by defend-
ant December 21, 19351, stating that lawyers are not ususlly rated by
commercial or financial agencies, and asking plaintiff te disregard
the usual business procedure, open up a line of orsdit for Libbye's,
ince, and handle the account in the seme way thet he was handling the
Lee 3B. Sacks’ account.
February 16) 1932, plaintiff wrote Gefendant, inquiring
who the persons were that were interested in Libbye's, Inte, stating
that this informetion was requested by various monufacturers from
whom he had purchased merehandise, and that he would eppreciate
checks from Libbye's, Ines, for merchandise already purchased,
Bbefendant anevered this letter the following dey, giving some infore
mation with reference te the corporete seteup of Libbye's, Ine.
He further stated that he appreciated the difficulties attending
the obtaining of credit, enlieé attention to the fact that he had
told plaintiff in advance that Libbye'’s, Ince, had no rating, and
eoncluded by saying that in view of his guorantee the risk was good,
Mareh 12, 1932, plaintiff come to Chicago for the purpose
of getting some money for purchases an shipments theretofore made,
He called at Sdelsom’s office and received from the latter his cheek
for $2,900, on account. It was "delson's contention that he had
received $2,000 in eash from Libbye's, Ines, whieh he offered to
turn over to plaintiff, but that the latter said he did not wish te
x.
inobootet dttw neiteerewnne » od bettiseed Ttimtalt “ee
ee ibnadoren atasde oF tohta mt todd bodete (Mismtela) ot ai exene
vilenpereg mbt tot Yrwaseoen ed misow dd axexatostunen oft wor?
}
| ~ron wot betivent of teigin dotdy affhd te A rnerceg. Ohd.gntmazany, Ot
| wias code dom biwew wef Mast dee yront aatoydded of iow onthe
shodtinanbnt glineiekties aew od veoLaw allie exons gadnes
ates oder Wikswtieny “yAinexnity uname gubvkeods atts deo
| sbopteb yd Soxewante vow weftget abst ome totes TOT mid entalas tne
wi he baa msatey ‘ten ote naaeciie dads qgntiode 4i60L _ iS wodar rr
ete patho anw of Sark? so nt
antctucnt eiisbaston etotw Tuvwtaly Aleel «ot ee ae aie.
; galisse yeont qs toyddtt nt beteoxsent es it. %
met? shiciechintms euobrav yd heteoupet saw. bed
ent a leyd0ht te qu=tow otereqrem ead arian on <
wettivel ‘aokezwonT iE ots. hetetsowera ea touts, hed:
worly, ota xo? Yak out aext bevisses tee. vette, ni! sa patoht on
Baek bul geste not ne 199 a tnoarene, oan a oie irs ve ut a
ate
carry eo mich currency on his person, whereupon Edeleon gave him
@ cheek and later deposited the cach in his personal account.
it appears from the record that the bill of particulars
furnished by plaintiff showed in detail the names of the manu-
facturers and the amounts of their respective bills, the tetal
merehandive which had been delivered to Libbye’s, Imes, and the
Gredit of $2,000 paid on account.
The defendant takes the position that plaintiff had
represented himself te be engaged in the jobving business and
Proposed to sell merehandise to Libbye’s, incest that he did not
know that plaintiff wes a resident buyer acting merely as a sales
representative; and that, based upen these representations he
signed the gusrantee in question, which he contends is clear and
only covers merchandise shipped by plaintiff and not that chipped
by manufacturers from whom plaintiff purchased es sales representative
for Libbye’s, ine, Defendant complains because the court permitted
Plaintiff to testify to cenversations leading up te the execution of
the guaranties, and insists that such evidenee was inadmissible as
tending to vary the written contract between the parties.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the meaning
of the contract of guarantee cannot be understood or construed
without showing by orel testimony the intention of the parties and
the cireumstances under which the guaranty wae made.
While it is true that o written contract of guaranty
cannot ordimarily be varied, contradicted or modified by parel
evidence, courte will always seek to discover and give effect to
the intention of the parties in carrying eut or enforcing any
contract, and will endesver te place themselves in the position
of the contracting parties so that they may understand the languag ¢
employed, and the sense in which it was used by them in their
tow he
mid owe moabobe eee aercayty cndaxeg abst md Yodoteily son ow Ertey
stenoses Seuetiy dkt nt dade edt Setracdet wdas ten dials
steluetizog to Lid ate dads brosex we wiott oxaequa $1
<itsst sit Yo eoman od Ltotob at bownde Tiininlg ye bodetn ca
he bas —_ ere of hexeviteh need Sad Hfotsw out Din? ea
et
a an 3
| he anand sot, wt at besa 4 oF hepreteer
beddinxog truoe ed eamseod trtelqmbe Seabmetet —
to noltwoems add oo qu gathoet envitewwnes bt icon ai
ea eldtuatotemt sew sonebtve tous tad? avatint’ tn sao monieg ot
‘apbtdteq of? mebutad' ta ds | settee od
gittnosm odd dealt ebatotios somal swiddo odd mo 432206
MO MRE PP LotR Geaaediaearant
pewteanes to hovderebad o¢ #onnne sotnotay oO daarinos 4%.
» So eee
heaetiene end te morseivtent ext out toed toto w aahvonlg t1
2 alaat ease “EBnsitaang abd sho kate ‘eo bent somes rt at.
“giuvnaing Yo tooutnbe noddbie a dailt omed of $4 oft
“tog tbe iebeld te beduibendabe bebtiy ot YLbxs boxe a -"
od Sootte evig hem tevennth of toon ‘eueita Like stems ODES
“ete pettoto ine x0 we gnkysuss at wolizeg sd ‘ aad 0 ok ser
nett iaog ute mt aevteomed? voake sia ‘wvsehno ste # ates 4
oairacnt ontd deadochew wank add tad on wolduag & " ge
ebiatd att tantd Syd “Bond saw ‘28 doth mb ontive a bn uf be
~5e
written undertaking. It wes so held in the recent esse of Yeger
ve Robinson Nash Moter Coo, 340 T1l. Sl, where the court sald:
(pe 91)
‘+ *# * In the construetion ef contracts fer the pur~
pees of aseertaining the intention of the parties the court will
endeavor, by extrinsic evidenee of auch facts as the oe had
in view, to place itself as neexrly as possible in their position,
ao that it may understand the lenguage used in the sense intended
by theme * * * Im seeking te ascertain the intention, regard will
alse be had to the eye om construction, if any» which the par-
tiee by their acts @ given the contract. * * * fo» aise, the
acte of the parties themselves indicative of their construct ion
upon it may be resorted to fer the purpose of pga aes |
he true meaning of the written agreement, and in thie regard i
makes no difference whether such acts are contemperonecus or sub-
sequent. Moreover, where the contract is, in fact, understocd by
one of the parties in a cartein sense and the other party knows
that he se underetands it then the undertaking is te be taken in
that sense, provided this can ve done without making = new contract
for the parties."
In view of defendant's contention that pleimtiff represented
himself to be a jobber rather then the sales representative of
various manufacturers, and plaintiff's denial thereef, it became
important to determine the underetanding of the parties with referenee
to the written instrument, which ies not entirely clear upon its faeces.
Prom a eereful examinetion ef the record, we are convinesi that the
court preperly found that defendent's guaranty eas intended te
indemify plaintiff for his personal liability incurred in purchasing
mer¢handise from New York manufacturers on account of Libbye's, Ino.
Inasmuch as plaintiff had never been in the jobbing or mannfscturiag
business, es he testified without contradiction, the guaranty could
not have been intended te corer merchandise seld or ahipped by him te
Libbye’s, Incs, but was evidently given to indemnify plaintiff for
purchases from manufacturers ag sales representative for Libbye's,
Ine. The testimony and correspondence between the parties amply
supports this conclusions
When Libbye's, ince, account became delinquent, plaintiff
wrete saveral letters to defendunt requesting payment. one of these
Letters was answered, and defendant denied having received some
if’
Re ea
ade
Sept to eae smaget ost wt Bde om gow gl «yabledcedaw medtiow
thies oraee suit every ak off OM 4.90 30000 goat goumkdel ov
(£0 aq)
~eng od? ie ptaat nyo Io moliogssande ea ol & # OM od s
tg saad ett obits wie to nokinoint ox op om we ge te bua
bed exiting an & BS om gome hive 0 bas
Farretne : edi ap reat bee ge Zz ‘Ross. Pasar 9
panes x a tobuy * beh Me
Iie we es Greer orm aiadieoun of aivece at a4 ‘emeas Ye
- de. th gnoliownxs iicaty add et bi
Reco care
# ane® ¥ & @VisaG aey
ao sie tot od bed soues te cj! me
w heed ate baw wooet nt vy taastnse ond hic prea: 4
av Ona en tasige ed¥ han eenee aisdree » pete eae
mi gene? od of al seatedsa tame aah ont masti af ~aheates
teoattmos wer o anisdam gucdeiw ono8 of aso ald bed
celtuon edt
adasnerget thitntalg tal? sottnosnes a ttastas tod te wedv bg mn pees
‘Yo evtiesnenexqex vane odé nails uedter xoddal, a od 0f fe whch
amaoed et stoorods Laine s'Whténtela hrw .atomstontonan wwoltay
jeowwtor Adty cofixeq edt to ystbasdereday ed? onimzeted m yer lt
-oont adi seus weele efertine tom at tohdw ‘tvomrcdant nodd bor a *
of Yad? beomtvacs om ov ,hroset add Yo sebtentmaxs bows 6 moet
ab hebeb dnt now genta «emcee ten Yaad bawer Uxeqeeg
gatendowme ni bovieint Yitidalt Lomoemg ete xo? vabentote deco bak
sont «ate yEEhE Yo dnvovea me eter os tune Met vOR mort oalbnattes s *
yalxudoateman xo gato) ett HE mood tovow tad Tivately’ oh Moncinant
bie oytnateny of? ynbliethextnos enertrhw pmarioans of un aentend
od abi yo deqntita 1 bioe suttmatote xeweo wd boboesnh mood y at fon
at Yukdaboly eliseoted ef nevis vitiebhve aow tod dil ‘oid
.a'oqddhad <0? evbtatnocetqe teen eh etetndbatined ‘moet os a
_ oF ones a
— eottrng ed? neewted Suaibebgsbehe tne enon 00d
¢ set baa ae
ea hevieves ‘yatvad Sélneb snabastes bua sbonmwane ome
~G=
of them. Plaintiff, however, testified he had written the letters,
stamped and posted them, and it thereupon became a question of
fect for the court to determine whether they were received. if
the court believed they were it was proper to admit them in evi-
dence, their relevancy being unquestioned.
Defendant intists that plaintiff failed to offer proof
of the delivery of the merchandise to Libbye's, ines, and that in
the face of the denial of such delivery, and regardless of any other
point raised, plaintiff cannot recover. We find, however, that the
eourt admitted in evidence an exhibit eonsisting of 21 checks drawn
on the Chase National Bank of Wew York, made payable to the various
manufacturers from whem plaintiff purchased merchendins for Libbye's,
Ine., and attached to each cheek is a copy of « statement showing the
neme of the manufacturer, the amount of the purchsse, and a notetion
showing thet the merchandise wos shipped to Libbye's, Ine. In view
of the various letters in evidence making demand fer payment, and
the failure of defendant to intreduce any proof te rebut the shipment
of merehandise, we believe this was sufficient preof under the
declaration te support the judgment .
The reeord diseloses that Libbye's, lnc., which had operated
under another name prior to its incorperation, esould net preeure
ervedit from manufacturers. This guarenty: was made by defendant
in erder te enable them to procure merchandise without paying cash
therefor. fhe only witnesses teetifying upon the hearing were the
piaintiff and defendant, and the testimony relative to their een-
vergsstions and negotiations presented a conflict ef evidence which
it was incumbent upon the court to determine. Under all the cireum=
etences it seems reasonable to suppose that, considering the charseter
of plaintiff's business as a sales representative, it could not have
been intended by the written guarantee that defendant would indemify
him only fer goods shipped by him to Libbye's, Inc.} he was not in
‘a
Se
| satadsel ot metsiuw had on bekttsaga etevowosl a ttitaiels enw nit te
| 2 maideeup 2 omsood soquowedd #1 bee wunstt botady Bnd barge
‘i tL shevteve: erew yeas moddeste éatesedod 02 Pwo ods tor dood”
~tyo ai weld dtuhe of ceqory saw 32 oxow yoult beveled dxuod eid
7 scometeoupam arto Nonaweden, thos seamed,
toons 98 6 of better Wintade tas ata hand trabas tot, iy
ah Godlt bea 4 sont ye teyedts oF oaltanso wm 949 te cubvitok, jail’
_ eaito wits, he ano Lorsger hone: vteevilen dowe te Inkaeb wits has we
eis drsld steveved qbast ow” viovooee Jonna 2ismbadg eboater aatog
renee axfooro ft to anidetaans did tdxe xe wonea tye eh ‘bedtime, t 09
auotay etd ed siteysy stent eftoY wok Ye xmat fanotssk suad® ead no
02 teydéht 10% octbnmederom honndotey Pitintate wocivr wo? eromidoa onan
‘etd yrbrola dnemedade 2 te you » at doers does ot bestont te bene qeont
sel¢eton A” tien ,snederuq oft. te dayome any, Torutgsteram Pet 2e satnn ‘
wely Hl .onl ,oatogidhl of boryisa sew. gel hualorom eid, deald me wren
bak yarwargag tot bnbmsh: getvins posohtve at atettek suet ey att %
Yaomyida oct tudex ot Toot yun, souboutnd od fnabmeted | Xe, outta? ous
edd tobtty tong taolal tive new elds syelled ow root bnadosen te
ndnompheh ont duoggoe of notiozatood
totareyo bud dofdw jak yu toyddtl todd goaedouth dzosex eft re
“" @xwoong ten bivos qnotistoqgreent #ft od xobzq, oman, asdtens ota
eaten Ue Obed bow Oetnarceg abet. <Rrecud ve Rinsa so? oboe :
"Peas" ‘yaiyeq tuedsiw ealieasoves etuserg of medd eidors oF ohne | at *
‘edd ezew Batxsed olf noqy yalyhiseed eoupent iy wine oat stoderadd
enoe thed? oF ewhintios Wem sees edd bra at mabeeteb ae ‘iéndatg
‘Weltlw soRobive To PotlInoo « badmossxg atoliatiogon bes anotsonzsv
‘ motte wit Ifa tebe .«eaterceteb 0) dxHo9 ond moqu snodnwont ‘nsw 2
sofoerede of? geitehiancy , tant eveqqva o@ olanoeso sng0a ry; neonate
evad dom Biuce $f ,avitasimenetget seleg e 2a esontaud arrdentaty te. {
‘inne det divow Mmanmoted guild osinareuy seddtaw ealt Yd dohmetat mood
hn: he a es ke ae *
ai Gon new of teomt aatayddti of mis doagtte ener eee
PRE Ria ESR e
Tien
om We. Hy
oo Fue
the businese either of jobbing or manufacturing goods, and had
none of his own to ship. Defendant is « lawyer and evidently
understecd the uature of plaintiff's business when the guarantee
wae made and the purpose for which the guarantee was given.
For the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that the
eourt properly found for plaintiff, and the judgment will
aceordingly be affirmeds
APYIR MEL.
S¢eanlan and Sullivan, JJ., coneurs
x
9" Gag tie qeboog nabecdoa’ a Eheke oii adel ts a 9 tt ee ona ae to
eit sty. hale ‘Went 3 wet FS BA waalite of wwe abd Dew, seat 8
st sale 4 alle a a aH | tM ool Jags he Mat wae
| thes ear eotmneauy ante en or de rents. ee? oben
wah food weietinn te “bus ow ghodads envseet eee rat
aes Be anh Ale ti ‘ia amis bi oS oe Pas. cars basil ;
coede ves wd te erwin, walt
Th aE,
a Teor 5 4 Thee Siete F Hess er at bat
So iy Se See Bia: Loy Pee . Waar 5 a VEL 0 Rie te g ban
ees Ses a. eee. 4 Gat RR ee Pee Lhe
peeaa’s seihtagi sts Se Rat AS Ee weet dea te OOS
aSONOO ee
ae ee eel oO SEO 4 See _ CRT Wie ee dant beng kek wont ie
et® wilig ee ae xh vitewttyeom aanchertey Tes ftetate sues anes eemeedoe bre
BAK sR ee Sao + ye owep 2 ik eaqete Ae ot pastas $8 ‘tee ae
ih 2 ire pone nde. Te ieee Mae eS ent spun ae at ‘iin
saver: OO URES,” gai, ae glee Sh es dency RAS |. Ue Lai IR Tm oh aol aati onto
ae ig dato, Ageia eas deny Sourns we we so Lod Pae t paige we
keds ak Boren et Seek write. oly RANA tt ‘ea, Peahee ey Ao) waucia oie
Gee ORG tis PR aE eee e-RS “Tay, sgn. whist ornilod at vs tinea
pomacmyee ook, Scag int ae wel someLou’
a
fe See epg” Bypee! Seek KOR y ead Tg, eapeeresl. ae Ads faint en 2 wand dead oft nae
Hieuwed wes i Dewy yes iy A em ge. . aha ea ag, Ss aston om
HH Beis ts; pa!) yee fe aw Wears x aa x sae - eaters sa jestonae, = nee
eens Kota ea’ Hei Pe RE gs aN ke: ey or sheen ee are ™
eck) Bare Se Loans es EER und sand amen Be at Chee: oat eae anata .
v% ule Weer ae
agua: ERR AP ORE Eee a: NORE PBT AGA: SE Baia dann fa ', eek’
‘melanin wemeeiiwe So aes. i aaa a DAP PR OR AR, i baa dtoorss, ee
1 ROR PRE
HAGE ES? BRE Stand. . « SEEPS i oe sasien alin in suotioant 4
ere a
siociuta sade poitebivgos » Me! oe pepe eR aN, mao a
ewe ew Bal ea! geen is that amos ee KoLeR ft ae Bt rue
aitijme Sends Poo w fuaheo iar dee NS a TaD wns a fe
Be 5
vd
ee nrirgeab ee ak wi pooxhte 009 : an tb
y j ff ‘ j
f
{ff Pia i
37619 re i |
FRANK STSININGER, | i
Appellee,
APPRAL PROM MUWICLPAL
Ve
BSATRICK CREAMERY COMPANY,
a corporation, —
ippellant. | B79 1.4.632-
Mig PRESIDING JUSTICH PRIMMD DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THs COURT.
| COURT @ CHICAGO.
Plaintiff instituted a tert action against defendant
in the Municipal court of Chicago for damages to his truck resulting
from a collision with defendent's truck at the intersection of
Grant and Cleveland avenues, in the city of Broekfield, Illinois,
sugust 6, 1933, ‘Trial wae had before the court and a jury, re-
eulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of
$299 275» |
Defendant's sole contention is thet plnintiff was guilty
of such contrivutery negligence oz to bar a recovery. The material
feetea discless that on the day in question, at 2:30 in the afternoon,
defendant's truck wis proceeding in « southerly direction sieng
Gleveland avenue in Brookfield, tliinois, The weather was fair
and the pavement dry. Both streets are about 22 feet in width and
of concrete construction, As the driver reached the intersection of
Grant evemue he wade a short left turn to the east, within 4 or 4
feet of the northeast curb, and struck plaintiff's truck, which was
being driven in « westerly direction on Grent avenue. Both drivers
testified that they were coing 2t the rute of about 15 or 20 miles
an hour, although there ic evidence of gresteor speed om the part
of plaintiff, After defendant's truck hadi made the left turn,
nk 2 * bara) eigh et
\ y \ SEER
2 ; NY \ f 2s. ate
: ; ‘4 eLotc
A } ' ve ‘i hewn Ceiba aoe
Aa ay }
tee te,
SRISTTOUM MATT AACS,
eOUL0TEO WH TawOD
“@ Ea ob ae | 0 7 Gc
.$RI0O BRT ©O HOTT INT CUWVLTIG, ORAIAT LE, CHIGL AL 9 A
Sore
tishmoteh dantans seties 10d o bebudiiqnk PiLiakelt
getdiueor aowrs add 02 eogemsd x0? egevtt? Yo Juuoo Logtotmlt edd at
te meivesetedat of9 de dowd a 'inebeo'teh dehy ao oan |
eatembliit gbfer visor to win et mt yeowmeve baateveld baa iin
ee ott « baa ¢ayee odd exoted bad sew febrt B80 - 5 i
‘to mue orl? wt Ttidabety tot sxemmhet ban ohotev e mh gutehes
‘Gihwm eow Thidalelq ¢add et aetinodmoo efea a'énebae ted
Lobeotem ef? .yreveses 2 tad of o@ sonegiigen yretudkstmvs dows Ye
emeerwer ta edt mi O8¢2 ve ,molteewp oi yah ef? ae tadd evekoeth ufoat
neeie moticorth efrelyoos « mt andhoowrg eer doutt i mmedueel
xiat nov toddeew off satenttit phietttoort mt esmeve fn |
fas dtbie mt $o0% 88 duede exe wtowrds Mtok syxb teomoveq oad bas
te mobeoonvedmt off bedenes tovksh edt 9h sto toousdanoe ofetenee Ye
b te & midste ytone ond 0d went O2el tente a eben ad Gunes Gna
ww doitw gdowsd e'Yittetetg dowrte bee «demo donot s 20% oct ie sone
axerlxh Mot .eumeve Snsxd 9 noldostkh veredow a at mevih uated |
atin OS x CL daodn te odux edt ta paton onow yaad deed bektitaes
‘gusq od? to booge cetmong Yo eonohive at exalt saumdite «west am
eur FToL eal? cham int Kut? wnabeoteh wePTs 4 Witekala To
plaintiff, evidently seeking to avert the impact, swerved his
truek to the left and his vehicle was struck om the right side
and foreed against the southeast curb, coming to rest facing
southwest.
The gravamen of defendant's charge ae te plaintiff's
contributery negligence is two-fold: (1) That the twe trucks,
having approached the intersection at sbout the same time, as
defendant contends, it hac the right of way under seotion 33,
chapter 95a Moter Vehicle Law, Czhill’s 1943 Kevised Statutes,
and waa justified in assuming that plaintiff's truek would slow
down and yield the right of way to defendant, ond, having failed
eo to do, it was plaintiff's negligence that emused the secident,
and (2) that plaintiff's slight turn to the left acrese the eonter
line of Grant avenue just before the collision, in an effort to
avoid defendant's truck, indicstes such negligence on his part as
to bar a recovery. These two charges of negligence are urged as
grounds for the contention that the court should have directed a
verdict in favor of defendant.
As te the first ef these contentions, 1t appears that at
no time during the trial of the case 414 dufemiant reise the question
of the right of way. It evidently preceedad on the thaory that the
eOllieion eccurred at a point approximately 12 feet east of the curb
lime of Cleveland avenue and after defendont's driver had completed
his left turn, for on this phase of the case George T. Peek, the
driver of defendant's truck, testified as follows:
“Ge How far inte Grant avenme had you proceeded
after “go anid v7 aed that turn?
By re Oe tas Sis witness es Sek Ses
Cheveland ‘avenue to + point designated, - 12 feet east of
Chev
fa pent the alley, - 100 or 125 feet.
Ge 125 weet fy from what?
Ae Prom the corner.
ay?
Ae Yrom Cleveland te the alley.”
ait hawrowe ginaomt edt grove of gation uLiaeblve »itdmtely
obia ddyty edd so dewete ome ofotdev aid bus Stef ot oF douse
gutoat teot af wrkues gdtuo tunedtven afd tantage heore? tem
«tammdtévoa
e'titi¢aialg oF se egradle atinebasteb to erin oat AN eR
eaiearst ge anid Gatf (£) shLet~ow? at poneg tigen hte
as , e008? cata ott duedg ta molionetodnt ott bediomerggs gutvad
48% motiown thaw You te deyts odd badd ot yahnotane- | tame!
eeodeted® Soukve S80L a'LLided ywal efoldeY 10d ot .23@ ta dqatio:
wito dftvew tours elPthdatedy tect? prtavews ot bebtitew, aaw bee
bafiok antvet .bne ,émabsoteh of Yow to deight eff bioty bee awed
stnebioos elt bens dads woregt igen e'rihtetete saw th ob a
sodnvg suid anoron #0 adi of aw? tfglte g!222¢mtaty dade (8) dmg. |
48
fol frotis ae nt ynolniliog ont eroted taut euneva daar te gmht.
as tung eld ao ponent Sen dow godsothnd «Hows | a uateeh atova
ee begss exe gonegiigen to evgunde owt gesdt .yuey 09 i) Watts 3
& butootth oved biwera tusmo od sastd ne kinetues oats Toe abewemm, —
_ simabaeteb te reve mt sorrsoy
te dad staegqa 3 amabeein, ooeds te ¢axrtt eet PF MA oi toni Mi
moiteoup a? cetss tnabawtob bb seo odd Yo Latid ode, galis> 9a
edd dncld qroade est mo bobowoo ry yhtme ds
duo ott le dase doet Sf yLosauknewgs | tubes A, da bawiaege sokas
| hetetguco kat wich atinatwoted sashes dae ouneve taakoye
wed feet af vguee? gaae odt to onadq ahslt me eer, arnt Ftek Osh.
igweliot as bebttiaed alowxs 9 'insbastod te xovah,
eee Seite oud of
o30
No instruetion wan offered or given om the question of
the right of way, and se far av we oan find the record im silent
en the subject. Under the circumstances, defendant cannot be
heard to raise the question for the first time end shift ite
position in the court of review, (Northern Trust Go. ve Ghieago
Railways Coes 232 Ill. Appe 246, 257.)
Defendant’: second ground fer sesserting that pleimiiff's
negligence was the contributing exuse of the accident io that pleine
tiff turned slightly to the left sacress the camter Line of Grant
avenue just before the impact, indicating an omission of due care
fer his own safety. The evidence shows that defendant's driver
made a short left turn inte Grant evenue, within 3 or 4 feet ef
the northeast curb. Plaintiff was preeesding west on the right
hand side of the street, which was only 22 fees in width. Obviously,
he could not keep to the right and pass betwean the curb aud the
rear of defendant's truek; ee in an effort to svoid the truck he
turned to the left. lie was an experienced driver, and did what he
thought was necessary to avoid the accident when plaead in a sudden
position ef danger. -@ ceunet coneur in defendant's contention
that this constituted negligence. The lew does net exact the same
measure of prudence from & person compelled to avt in a sudden
emergency as it does where there le time for deliberation. (Barnes
1 eet Railway Coe, 235 Ill. 566, 57G-The)
Pimally, the question of contributory negligence ia
generally ene of fact for the jury, and becomes a question of law
only when the facts so clearly f2i1 to establish due eare that all
Treaconable minds would reseh euch s conclusion. if the evidences
on the question is in conflict, or if there is evidence feirly
tending te support the verdict, the question mst be submitted te
the jury. (chicage & tas
Sit hh §
aod
Yo selteous oft ae neviy vo howe tho saw moldquredam? OW xf fy
jestie m2 Bravex oft? Qk mom aw oe act oo kas Qype ke degaa off
avi ¢2isa bam emdd task? ef? cod mettaeup of? satet ed ean
aut? ev ao) deext poedttsot) «wetyed te dames ond ni oolttoog
(ePAR BAR aqqr eALT RGR o292_eynehsad
a'Stiveisig ¢adé gaidieaes 161 bawety Anogooe a'énobnetee 2 ~y yy
eninkg die of deshivas edd to onan gabtudiatneg scf caw onuapktgean
fxox® lo endl tedeco od wegen Stek edd of Yitdightn, pamwwd Behe
ora off to molantwy na gabieoliad yfoegeh edd oxeted Jest ouners
terheh e inakerotes dede awode somohive af? .qsoter sora etd cok
tm Sse? 2 te f ohdily ,onmeve dared Giat aut Phet trode 8 cham
Siigis ond co daow oethossete wew Vink otews susodtxon add
eelewetvdd .dibte gt dee? 88 lee eow oltw ¢tsowte ed? te obha tad
wilt na dus edd eeewded ouaq Bite #gix edd of Yost dom Diageo wa
‘gx down? ose Shove of ¢18Tte Ne MtoOs qHowtt alinebnetes Yooxer
ad Sow bib tis .teveTd hoonelreqxe Ha gaw ON vt ted eM? OF homed
wehhun @ at beenlq madw dnehioos edé-bievs a8 yiesdeven saw tgwetd
Mbiesdnws etinatwe teh mt time dommes Oo 4 degieah Yo mold iong
ate od deans don abob wel eT .oonephigeon hedwditanes wield dat?
tobhwy 2 sh Jou OF beliogios noew=g s Mork soeeheng te eurenge
” Baers) wiodderedhioh tot emdé of exedd oxecty ated #2 ee ogenegteme
(oSVOVS gH82 LEE 88S 0600 wawltal togeds of tivaad «yy
oh @onogiinen Yotudicines Yo metiaeup ote guliemit
wed to mekdaey & vomyood bid «turk eld OT dest Yo one YLLTeAeS
Lin sett wee eab doildndes oF ihet qhtotto o aden? et andy vine
sansbive ed 2I «mptaufonvs » Hose dosex biuoir abate etdanonaes
vita otnentve et ound tk ae Vdokttnos’ fh a | tae
Gf botthwivn od taum sotédoup edt’ atahiiy oat: i. aw
eSii BEE genoe) ȴ
ole
602.)
We believe the trisl court properly denied defendant's
motion for a directed verdict, and the judgment will be sffirmode
APYIRUE De
Seonlen and Sullivan, JJe, concur.
—\
Pe Oe op cal oor ole: wo Renee jaar ana i
eS AA, ae:
ee ee ee ee ae oe sya ie i
‘eats a hniace heh aly net dene kare mee ei ne
Vie teas & xe 8 ihe oe: Grange amet eae vee oe |
Rial: — i Peet Lea une Nea
‘pptnatiinds dithis wt owt 8 Uh een stutter a
pie Taek aon walk Beane! mnaeey Cathe Babe Ahe R
ee ee
dal Date HES dee ee HememegaN ll aamOmeiiiNg
susitlvae a ek Rome swale dpe tk ety sma RUIN ten
feiktaannee a rtheatincnbsmenns nae a th |
cee ORE Uns oom BOs. we a abit aan aia
PGES a 1 Bont eC HORS mihacyeieiastons !
“canine ‘eee er i okie
rd ft
, £ )
\ f \
%y ¢ ,
57645 i Sis 4
BESSL& COHEN,
Appellee,
ve APPEAL FYROM MUALOLPAL
MIYER PIKOWSEI end GOUST OF CHICAGO,
BUATHA PICK, . , QD» us Ge 3
— 2¢91.A.6382
Mie PRESIDING JUGTIGR FHIRND DELIVERED THE OPINIOM OF THY COURT.
Plisintiff broucht « tort action of the 4th class in
the Municipal court of Chiesgo against defendants te reeever
dameges for personal injuries sustained by her in an sutomobile
e@llision, while riding as a guest of defendents. Trial was
had before the court without a jury, and « finding and judgment
in plaintiff's faver for $1,900 against both defendants.
it is coneeded by the pleadings, consisting ef an
amended statement of claim anf affidavit of merits, that plaintiff
was invited to ride ac a passenger in the automobile owned by
Bertha Piek, one of the defendants, and driven by Meyer Pikewski,
the other defendant, as her agent. Wo question is raiued as te
the injuries susteined by plaintiff or the amount of damages
recovered.
Under seetion 42 of Chapter 95a (Cakhili's 1933 Revised
Statutes) of the act entitled “Motor Vehicles,” (as amended in
1931) pleintiff's recovery as a guest passenger in contingent
upon proof that the accident was caused by the wilful and wanten
Misconduct of the driver, the owner of the ear or her employee
or agent, and that such mis¢onduet contributed to the injury
fer which action is brought. Accordingly, the principal question
‘
hie EM FRO MOSS. EES eee ag RS oe me Sie 0 eRe we aha nad a
eVOaSino Wh TVD Bete oevexr:
Pe See
eo tes es
aT2U0o SMT TO WOMRIGO BAY CERIVIIAG GMAT SOLIS LE 9 A
wt wuale ddd ods to mottos tod s thguesd Witwte—
weveoes @7 néasbastoh santega oysettd To dows Enq to hans odd
#iidommius ms ah rel yw heataduwe so lempat Lamputeg Tot ae set
wow Lett? sadmwheetsh Yo teeny a ca gathit elttw ews, te, , 3
‘Puomabut bee gntintt o bas yyxe « juoidtw fumes ett erated a
sndnsbroteh Aged sanknya 000,L9 te? covet ormnniatat a |
ae to giidielemeo ,eqribeetg ed? w heoheonoe af of Cua wah 7
itdmbaly dade yotives te divehi tte hen mlalo Yo tromotade beobrone
as
potas BRE w'LL4dad) ab etgn Yo 88 naldoon ota
tsegetines af eynsasag vee & om eeevone a’ Lethe. ia : ,
airtel ieiMehiia tibia oe vate
YIwiat edt of bedudttines sowbngoatm dose tests oe :
ng Laoup Lngtentrg edt yyfaatbroook »tdaword at mots
“26
presented for review is, whether the collision resulted from the
wilful and wanton misconduct of defendants a» charged in the
amended statement of claim,
The accident occurred shortly after 11:00 ef elock on
the evening of November 26, 1933. Defendants’ Chrysler onary
containing eight passengers, was being driven in a southerly
direction on Kimball avenue. Pikowski was driving. Seated
with him, in front, were Bertha Fick and Or. Guttman. Plaintiff,
her husband, their minor child, and twe others were seated in the
rear. Wear the intersection of Leland avenue, écfendants’ ear
eollided with a Wash automebile operated by one Panjemin ©. Cnoh,
who was making o left turn from Kimball avenue inte Leland arenue,.
Waumerous witnerses, including the oceupanta of dafendante’ car,
My. und Mrae Coch, and Seymour Kata, Gdword Miller and Beulah
Tapper, three high echeol students walking along Kimball avenue
in a aoutherly direction, testified te the events leading up te
the collision. There is a sharp conflict of the evidence upon
the essential facts constituting the charge of wilfullness md
wantonness «
Plaintiff's witnesses stated thet defendants’ oar
wag preceeding slong Xinball avenues on the left, or wrong, side
of the street, st » high rate af epecd, varying from 40 to 45
miles an hour. Pisintiff testified thet when they left the
residanes on Kimball avenue where they had ali been visiting,
located about = block and a half from the intersection of Leland
avenus, Pikewski sterted out and was “going terrible fast, and
it eouldn't have been very far when I asked him te slow down,*
and thet she aleo heard Or. Guttman sey to Pikewski, “You ought
te slow dewn, beesuce there is a baby in here,” to which the
hatter (Pikowski) replied, "That is all right, we won't get
killed."
we
sald mock bodied oateition ed tecitede gad wetvet 103 bodmesotg
eit ai beguado es admebeo' hod 1° jowhmovels motmew bre rahi
wtteio Ie tremoiate betes
no deaiete 0OrLf vedte yLivods bowwooe amobloos aR yi
(tuo rofegxt ‘etnshee Rod .860L 48e vedmevell Yo patanve edt
eUrwiieoe © ai aovixb yated sew eavogsonnsy, fitgte ani atmos
bedand spoivich saw tdawoxk lt omnes Shadi ‘0 mobtowsth
‘etttentars ots feD xe dus old adoxoe otow otneret at yintel dédw
est) ni bosece oxéw aveddo owd tan yhthiy vomtm rtodt ybmedeud ted
a9 "etnahns tes seunevs baafel Te no btoqusetat oe rok» teee
goed «% subiae (ono om Yt hoesaxeqe oLtdomesus dest 8 sete DoneLip
seuseve inate eint wupeve KedalK mech meat ‘ak gabon ame
emo ‘odrokme ted to stnequose add potbaLont ‘aoenentiy avorensit
Halse han <oLLI beowhS yada uwemyod bea stood sant a
geneva Lindmtt nels pubiicw udmobude Toostoe agit © ce xe
a? qv untbeot edewws ost of bottbésot smettooxth yirortde 2
nog eonehive ety 26 teitinos Eaomap 2 at ribeye snotabtiee oat
éhie agantw «0 , Stef edt ee eemeva CLeceioetx ‘paots = =e
2h 62 Ob mmrt untyrov gboogn MH odor Hytd a dn yfooe
ori? $i0L Youd mosw todd boLtheusd Weembelt sc
vunddieiy need Lie hail youd erorly ouneve Lindmtit mo 0 hea
banged Yo mbteowiéal od? most Yat b ban toold s suede hedabet
lind ¢dus% ofdtcxed pitog" aaw fine 0 Dedtnda teteweollt om
4 ynwob woty od atti Gestes T nodw att Ytov mood oved dtabivew dk
ddtyoo wOT* feeds of Ysa manttnO sa bewedt ‘tate ete pant tc
okt Moieie od “yoxed wi yew # at oradd season r
top 2 now ow —itigts Oe wf tad” ,bettqet (bikie
“Se
Benjamin ?. Coeh testified that he war preceeding north
on the right hand, or east, side of Kimball avenue, at the rate
of about ten milea en hour, and slowed down almost to a stop at
the intersection of Leland avenue, preparatory to making a left
turn, when he observed defendants’ car, coming from the north, on
the left hand side of the street, at a great rate of speed, and
"all at once he came over to the right and back to the left and
practically the first thing I knew he ran inte mee I was dragged
south 10 feet and was still at the intersection of Leland avenue
and Kimbell when my car enme to a rest. The other ear skidded
away over to the street * * * and he was over the curb - west of
the curb ~- the right hand side, and facing straight couth.*
Mrs. Coch, who sat beside her husbend in the front seat,
stated that their car was still on the left hand side of Kimball
avenue when the collision oceurred; thet considerable traffie was
passing in both directions, north and south, and thet defendants’
ear was “going eo fast that the tires had burned a mark in the
street, the pelice could see that themselves.*
Twe police officers srrived at the scene of the secident
shortly after it occurred, and by means of a flashlight inspected
the pavement, the positions of the two cars, and made certain find-
ings and observations, to which they testified. Officer Anthony
J» Conte stated that Kimball avenue is sbout 50 feet wide at the
intersection of Leland avenue and that the latter street is about
49 feet in width; that defendants’ car was about a foot from the
west curb, and that he found two tire marks about 15 feet long
“burned in the pavement, the kind of marks that you usually find
on the pavement by applying brakes suddenly” leading up to the
wheels of defendants’ ear. He further stated that there were no
other skid marks indicating a car coming from any other direction,
and that from his observations it appeared that Coch's car came
Agron suibeevety saw of ted? bokikeand dood of almaiaed
eter oft ta qeumewe Einded® to ebte wtehe xe y bund layik’ Ga
ta goda a of feomia swob bawole bes een nd eolie nod “duo %8
dtelt o prtdam of Vrosatsqorg ,ouneve bealfet to ‘nol iovotedat extd
no .dé@ton of? moct guimoo creo ‘adaabneted bovtsads 6H moxtw rsoxiw gored
nak vbobge 48 otar Gosiy'a to ,eeceh bad W dhde beak VERE
bua #tel edd oF done bows dtatt and 04 te¥O eho ott vont da” Ete
bepgesh wav I seo Bink mht off weet Io gah? fork? ond yltantbeany
puters brelol Yo noltdoetednt edd de [flow wow bre dood OF copOE
pebbiste tee tedito off .taet es of émmo tee ye ned Diet hes
te teow « uve odd xove aow om haw * ® ® Febery! oft! oF ove Yue
°° Sy chum Setgieta Qakont Mee yobte heat daily ott! Suave, Ox
dade toot eds ah bawdeint ert ebtoed sen ostv wileod vat yor
[dadmt% Yo ebty hel Pel edt no LLbse aow cao abetted tadeobedad
usw ofiexd eidevobtenes Paks qLerx4000 mtatifey ott merw-emmevs
tedembns toh dail? bre ,divoe bas Mixer .nhettoorks died mt gubueat
of? mf dea @ besctud ted eer? eit sadtt ton't oo piboy* aewtes
*,gevionmons tas? soa bivev eotlog edt 4toovdn
dnebides wt? Ye okeow orlf ga hewitun etesttre evbfeg OwEiooee ft)
hetooqant tiyifidealt s to enoen yd ban ybeTamoe 22 ted ta ngheiesia
ebut? nieéres ohaw tna geteo owt sd to anokd haliy ents ytromcwag et
wtotind to0lttO sholtheesd yard dotiiw o¢ panetinvrendo Ame eget
edit Ja ohtw dock 05 Suede ek eumewa Lindt todd hatage odeed wh
iveda ef Seetta weddal oot tats One exneve poalel te motdoowndat
ed? mort doot « Sued: eaw tay nemerenundiinmsnnsciadieisaee st
gNOL tee Sf tunds atom ort? ows hnwot oo dutld tne leeway
bal? vLketes soy sort? wlan To bel ond ydneatovag até lek amend”
ef? of qu yathaol “Yfmehiue aodend guivlqge YC ¢avmewag sett am
on ovew redd Gad? bedsta teddrw? OH. .109 ‘usnabnoted Yovatoody
cnotioert6 rondo Ya MOT? yakwod tao 2 ssuammamnasicrsseussaie rode:
ound “tet dood sede Boudoqge #2 anottavtendo etdimoxt tabtshe
ond, on
to a stop excetly where it wa» struck, thus tending to corroborate
Geeh’s version of the events leading up te the eallisieon. The
ether officer, Udward Schumacher, testified that he observed what
appeared te be skid marks on the pavement as a result of the
application of brakes, freshly made, and leading te the rear of
defendants’ ear and about 20 feet in lengthy that defendante’ or
was over the sidewalk in the school] grounds.
Three high school students, Seymour Kata, Edward Miller
emi Beulah Tapper, walking in a southerly direction eleng Kimball
avenue, testified that they observed defendants’ car as it passed
them proceeding at a rate of speed varying from 40 to 50 miles an
hour. Seymour Kata stated that defendants' car wee proceeding
partly te the left side ef the street, and seamed to veer to the
right just befere the impact. Beulah Tapper likewiee stated that
defendants’ ear “wae going on the wrong side of the «tract in the
neighberhoed ef 40 to 50 miles an hour.*
Defendants and some of the occupants im their car denied
the conversations between plaintiff and br. Guttman with Pikowski,
asking him to slew down, and his response therete, denied that
gefendants' car was proceeding on the left, or exat, side of
Rimball avenue, and estimated the speed of seid ear at « rate
varying from 25 to 35 miles an hour.
Gnder this atete of the evidence it wae for the court
who saw the witnesses, heard them testify and had the opportunity
to observe their demeanor while testifying, to dotermine whether
defendants were guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct in driving
the car, and we do not feel justified in disturbing the court's
finding as being contrary te the manifest weight of the evidence.
We have carefully examined the other questions raised
by defendant's brief, relating to the manmer in which the court
~
be
adanndexso ag ‘pmb iaced ‘parte etowtin sea és eredw tonne ota a.at “
eat HekntiLes ett of qu with book adnave as ‘te smoke sey 9 "ive
tase bovreads ant ‘dat hetitveed , tedaanudo’ baowitt yewoltie aeaito
ods te iuwen = a8 dmomevag ocd a0 stan bise od of bexsoggs
te sa9t add 04 yaRbeot bas sham yates voderd 20 ebae
m0 ‘einaineteh tasis pdtgned at dee? 08 duede ban 108 ‘eduniusted
| rabesoty foedou eas af A Lawabie add veye am
teks iaawhh 4 adtax ‘Tenpmey@ds (2a%me beds Avedon agit oordd, Phe
iigiaks grote aelioetin yiredives 9 02 gabllew «teqqual seised bus
hoceng $1 ca ceo ‘atneinekeh heveonde yeds demi baditived yoanova —
tts olin Ob oF Ch moat wmiycev beoge te eto 9 de gabjesveny mad?
_ Bakooegerg Rew ceo ‘admsdne ted dad) bodede stah awomyes + cued
std of Teev of dommes tas ydootts odd Te ebte Stel odd of Yhiueg
todd botate cabwotil sagast delust toaqut od? erated font sdatx
wie mk goozts asf? Yo obits gmotw od? mo gaieg aw” tao, ‘adnebapted |
betm» 199 tteds at etnaquece ead te omen dma adawbmeted oy,
piteredt? atic nemsiei ow hos litdateds svewded uaplizetevsos odd
feild. belted godered? cement eld tue giver wose od untd gotten
te obiu gtane co ¢2tel add no gatheeoesg ese sao 'ataabneheh
eaneiaineieadmnindeadcteaniimnmatenmausnetienasies:h
ro trod oo aotia 88 of 6S aoxt gabyust
| Stee oMt AO ser CF Gonmbive eat te odede wiMe tebAB ix?
Yinudxequs edd Sad bas YILIeed weds Hreed psoesentin ods wae odw
wodiosw eaiwreloh oo yamictitue? efidy tenemos ted evisde et
gitvirh m2 Souhweoale nodnew bre Grkliw te qollwy etew ataaboote®
etiseee eit gatdreiets nt bol thiunt feet cen ob ow me qaes oot
sdonebive ef? 20 tiptew San thenm ett od yreeinos gated ind athadt
heeter ateteexs vedte wi? boninsxe Ylisterms ewe 08 (Ore
dwso ould tlotaw af vonsidnt Ould OF ghibtator Rortd attiapioten ye
=e
eondueted the trial and the alleged defects in plaintiff's
omended statement of eleim, but find no convincing reacons to
reverse, end the judgment is therefore affirmed,
AVPIRME Ge
S@anlan and Sullivan, JJ«, concure
eg
ee
5 I te reds i he heii , ceowente ) ith
y ‘ :y
eleee, Velo wCRa Neel gameniee ay Kanata sip bane,
TORRE ee SO KN “are y
so ig 4 See, See gaoette oft Re, ‘abies at ome
tht edad vedo oot date »teepk> ome amin
nt Be. teats eb re once aww eee patie eet 4 208
a ee a Ne tps ‘toy, 3 ol
_ubree a aed ican Hine: ai Re. Sah aad aera 4 |
Aad? Se Died ENE eeRRERT spit nwa wenei. ate 9
ey he ote. pe eked wat gmthoneese &
ee ee tesideondl tan» Se rss
‘Chae war «0 tos 08 eat vale tt weeenuee ‘sent
veion tiga “is hee bem pumas moat Peat;
petite Geatarsediets eh . thduwe nike «
achw hh" pe peerein ae alton wore be 5 bw Ny enti
m Sain BASU dees vg ek werd Rhamuay. oes ee he
une RR RE i ew hive linia wie Nad sao
| eigen aukbngns whe aad wabasee
Siero ent ‘win taly eal Wah bd
A /
7 bel)
JOSEPH Te FELL,
Appel Lee,
APPRAL PRGM BUBICIPAL
Vea
STRRLING CASUALTY 1 Wath AWCE
COMPANY, a corporation,
Appellant.
COURT OF ORIGAGO.
279 1.A. 6324
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE FRIGHD DeLIVUNEH THE OPINLON GP THE COURT.
Plaintiff brought an action of the 4th class in the
Wanicipal court secking to recover for injuries under an accident
and sickness policy issued to him by defemiant. fhe eause was
tried before the court without « jury, resulting in « finding ef
the leenes fer plaintiff, whose damges were assessed at $600,
This appesl fellewss
It appears from the evidence that June 4», 1932) cam
Hurwitz, an agent of defendant, vieited plainti’f at his place
of business and procured from him a written application for an
accident and sickness policy in defendant company. On the bottom
of this policy there appears an initialed pencil notation, showing
that the policy was approved by defendant June 9, 1932. Plaintiff
testified thet Hurwits came to see him two days later, July il,
and seid “the poliey is all ready, give me a cheek for 510.95,
and the policy will be mailed to you." Plaintifi thereupon gave
Hurwitz a eheck for $10.95, payable to defendant, and rececived
therefor the following receipts
“Pate 6/11/3520
Dediars iaely=tive seams telat) being oun” rcs pent payment
on a Sterling 3-Penny-a-Day Accident and Sickneas Policy to be
issued by the above Company, ‘olicy to be in force as seon as
this payment and the appliention have been received and accepted
by the Company and policy iseued while the applicant is slive
|
f
| x
Mr , se ' ’ \\ ae
“ne ' Yo * en Br. :
C
on \ "
ot i k J a ,
\ a
wettion * hae
e
eres TUIATAAS MULE
este s + THAD
sOnnbTHD WO TAUaD |
Tinalfe
'eed AT evs ‘
»THUOS CAT TO ROTEIGO BAT GeMAVILENG GMAT SOTTAUL OWieraent rt
wit wl onede dod cfd te mottos na tigwond Wktwiakt =
imohiora na cohme extuniet tot seveoet of pecbitooe txvoo Loqhokelit
ew gemoe ett .deateoteb yt mtd of Komnet yoi lo eeomiote tng ;
Xo gRitall o mi yridiuson pert w tuodtiw trmoe afd oxeted oe oe ;
23094 ¢e teanesae othe eogemah seo + tid antety 20% owen edt
oewolto® Lasagna
“mo @RECL gh onwl taxld oomodive odd mort wemogqe #T
“epetg etd te Tikdnintg tettaty vinabeoted To dnene oe
us *o% sekeegiiogs mettiaw 2 aid met? bewseetq bra anontewd to |
movsod se wa YRaqmo” tunheeteh mt Yoiloq esemiots baw 4 boo.
gutweds grottaton Lioneq beleltini as siaeq¢s oteds ‘eobten att.
Thimbehi «k6EL 92 onwl Iushaotod ys beverqaa caw wehsog |
oLé Yah atudal yeh wd mtd cop Of enep ad borat taal? dodthdwe
a8@.OLy wet Lowsi 6 eo ovig «ybaet Lie ak yotleg eid" hose :
eTEy nuequeredé Yidateds ‘say od bebtem ed LLlw ye.
beviess t bre yinehusted of ofdayag 480>OL$ 0% soedo 8 nah
téqieous guiwollet ote
eee Ma: al ,
ye ese oh Mugg feat’ ila i pated g (otsott) adnw® + . %
oa i as egso? mi ed's oo ery pe nto win ocd yd bows
aedqeoee boa bevlecss soed evasl noktsoitaga odd hmm dmearyaq |
eriia ef dnooilqge salt eLlinw bewnd eee | ay
aw Be
and in good health and free from injury,
Sterling Casualty insurance “o+
By Sam Hurwitz
Speelal Sales Representative.
Representative's
Semplete Address. 1859 &. Hamlin
Wake All Choeks “aycble te Sterling Casualty
imeurance CO.
If your policy is not received within 10 days from date of this
poererit kindly send thia receipt to the Company for immediate
attention.
Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury on June 14, 1932.
June 17, 19352, he received the policy from defendant by mail, to
which there was attached a phétestatie copy of his application fer
insurence, and a second receipt for 510.95, dated Jume 15, 1932.
Plaintiff testified that «bout three daye after hie injury
he inquired of defendent company what elee he would have to do, to
which defendant replied in writing, Jume 27, 1932, ae follows:
"It io imperative thet you forward to us the original
agent's receipt, not the company's typewritten receipt, imasmuch
as it is neceressry thet we have thie receipt to really determine
whether you paid the premium prior to the time that our agent turned
in the money te cur company, in order toe put your policy in fores.”
The commnicention was accompanied by blanke fer filing proof of loss,
which plaintiff filled eut and returned to defendant,
Later plaintiff received another letter from defendant,
dated Getober 13, 1932, which is partly as follows:
"Ye meknowledge your telephone conversation with our office
and in furtheranee of @ matter wish to advise that under date of
June 27th our file indicates that we wrote ge requesting that you
furmish us with the original paid receipt which our agent gave you
at the time that he collected your money for the policy which you
have with this companys
“It is necessary that wo have this original agent's receipt
in order to satisfy certain contentions as to when your pelicy was in
full feree and effect and witheut this receipt we, of course, are in
ne position to honor any claim.”
Subsequently defendant denied liability, but did not canes] the policy,
return the premium which plaintiff had paid, nor offer te return the
Same s
By wey of defense defendant offered in evidenee the original
appliention for insuranee and the receipt, dated June 15, 1932, which
was enclosed with the policy of insurance mailed te pleintirr,
‘ Be oi
-comtrd mollt eet bom dé Lond nk bas
soo mene irl mene mie te
ovbiotroeamgeA eo Lat
storttetnssataie
iis «% C&L sagoxbba *
eihewen® yrifce?? 92 ekdoue aigauo ERA
ats? to e¥eh mor? oeebh OL hasty bevkeoos fon PE, >
Stalhomat wh yneqmed ate ef gloss mee bac 7
sRECL ght onut noe qurket Ledowbioos na hantetens Yihontels, . SP
Od xLtan qe inabastoh moxt yollog ene devienon oat aS8OL PE boat
20? Boks ent Las ehh 26. wae oltasnovorig s nadtond te Row ‘oxi wide
*98GL SL enw, Roted y8C.OL} tot Iqtoows bamoed @ bam ¢ erasat
| EUG wat ceeRe eyob souls swods tants doLtitaot Tetintast | Y*
ed 108 6 eval Aiwew off ene sailw ynegmbe Snob teh Yo berkepet eit
| HORT we gROOL GTR onWl eyetsbee ok teobihyer searnetet Moke
—- wd av od browse? woy gadd evbdwrrqat Wh IT) yy hm
ColmiteGlises ov Sqheecs MiMd ovas sw tate yuperenen At Gt
peree a tuo seld ewts od of bogie Fem Sere bing
| ‘OtloG Woy tay Od coh‘n
qeeet to o_— gaiiit set ednaid ye eemeasen ‘em
capa wort teddet woddena beviesot Yrdeita ly wet a pee = | |
pewatiet as “lita ah Holde 4820E 4 vt scl ht Sl aca
eolvtse vue dgiw meldserivnes | fed ute,
‘toe Paaleloaess valvia ot! le be oe a
seg 2 a Be “ae ahi. $a vfadooer a bane
tqivoods e'tnege Remdytco neds own ow onal
mi saw Yoliog wey nedw of a6
| mea ceenna onion te yow oq he
yotiog pstd tows jon tb ‘a ewituieats § setae phan: E
ne Se
eats renutes @f cete tom ,hhoq bad nibtntodg ‘doide.
‘ge ras: bist
Lantgire wal eormhive sk bororte dasbastot oaketeb w® ue
Hotede aaa, ar owt bedeb aSytovet ots Sanat ie
i ae RS eee las
Bs crea oe betas sonereuamt ne wottog to i
conan efits
vans % cei Bil
Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he was
tetally disabled fer a period of more than twelve months, and that
by the terms of the policy he became: entitled to the gua of [50 for
each month of hia disability, aggregating $600.
The principal question for determination is whether the
Ppelicy beesme effective prier to or subsequent to the date of the
accident, The policy beara no date, but states that it insures
plaintiff “for a term of One Year from noon, Standerd Time, of date
shown on oficial receipt." There being two receipte in evidence,
one given plaintiff by Hurwitz, defendant's agent, June ll, 1932,
when the premium was paid, and the other, dateii Jume 15, 1932, which
was tranemitted with the policy mailed te plaintiff, neither of which
is devignated as an “official reecipt,” it becomes important in the
first instance to determine which receipt is efficial, and the legal
import thereef.
¥rom the tener of defendent's letter of June 27, 193%, 1%
would seem that defendant evidently attached considersble impertence
te the receipt of June 11, 1932, fer it wrete “it is imperative that
you forwerd to ue the original agent's receipt, not the Company's
typewritten reeeipt, inasmuch as i4 is mecessary that we have thie
receipt to really determine whethar you paid the premium prior to the
time that our agent turned in the money te our company, in order te
put your policy in feree,” end almost four montha later, Oetober 15,
1932, defendent still emphasized the necessity of having this receipt,
when it stated that “it is necessary that we have thie origins) arent’ s
reeeipt, in order te satisfy eextain contentions an to when your policy
wae im full force and wffect." The only logical conclusion te be drawn
from these two communications is that for severnl months follewing the
accident defendant itself considered the policy effective as ef the
date when plaintiff paid the premium and received the *oricinal agent's
receipt.” To suppert thie conclusion we find plaintiff's etet ement
that when he gave Hurwitz his cheek June 11, the latter eaid “the
aow off Sosit wode of anthrod oom bhyp bote Re Thkietals yee
fod baw ,eddnen eviews saad oven te bokmem & ter batdeets eietes
tot 02) te me ed? ad SALIRiee Mahood od yohLow ed? to emret ot ws
26089 yatioge tite aetilideakh niet ta ae om
eng redvgniw ad nett -edugndoh toi mokseoup Loqiomtee ont
add tO Hab et? of Yavkpoadwa xe OF toisy evidbbrte “tt xe tq
oteb Yo ‘nie brahondt .09H mort, 2a0eF ond te ured. a ro" Mtombag
rsonehive sh adyteoes avd gated exed? "+ dqtoves fatot ste no nwedia
siG0l LL onmh .imogn s'inebmoloy ,adiwamll yo Yigetelq abs Ne. 9
Molde ~80GL »2f enw vedab q«tedio od? bus ybieg aaw mutmore ott retle
Holde to vedsion «titiniely of belie yotiog etd ditw betdtog ;
efi ai dnsdpoqul eemmeed ¢i “siqlovet taleltie” ga as hodampte a
Anenl ott tan ofatelie ab tebnenn Antde subenetnh, of ovpatnet, owe iG
Lo . wR epg « srt Sig
aise ovat ow tal? Yrammeven at #2 'ee 5 dosaeond etategor meat ureqy:
esetoaer aade eatved, v9 ingens, ott, Destaaden a co .
doen (attstye thd ovint ww felld xxamhbaen md Ot beth beth
witog OY ow o2 aa wnebtasidnos aiaixee hiadion od ten o
peas wF OF mobilen Sonaes ad ant ssbeithe’ dons bids
drome toda es Piidate: halt on noben tes rr nie |
ont” bhaw woteat oad \Lt bhut dbede elt sbbwaul os
rae
whe
policy is all ready, give me a cheek for $10.95, amd the policy
will be mailed to you."
By the torme of defendant's receipt of June 11 the
policy was to become effective when (1) payment was made; (2) the
application wae received and accepted; and (3) the policy wae issued.
Payment on June 11 is not disputed, and from dafendent's own exhioit
At appears that the application was received and approved by defend~
ant June ®. ‘The policy benrs no date, ani there is no evidence to
show when it wac issued, nor when Hurwitz, ite agent, turned the
premium payment over to the company. OJsfendent tekes the posi ti on
that the second receipt, dete’ Jume 15, fixes the dete on which
defendant received the premium payment from its ogent and vhen the
policy issued, dut no proof was adduced to support this contention
and we regard it as being out of harmony with the circumetances of
the ease,
Several pages of defendant's brief are devoted to the
proposition that the eppliesntion and policy constitute « written con-
tract, which is clear, concise and unambiguous, and therefore cannot
be yaried by parol avidence. Zlaintiff cenedes this proposition te
be sound, but points out that he does not base his claim upon any eral
agreement or oral statement made by defendant's agent, ner decs he seek
to vary the terms of the agent's reeeipt, the applicetion for insur-
ance or the policy itself, and we believe his position in this behalf
is seund and fully sustained by the recerd and his counsel's bricf.
Plaintiff's testimony relating his conversation with Hurwits when the
promium check was paid was not offered for the purpose of varying the
terme of the contract bus to support plaintiff's contention that the
application hed been approved by defendant, thet the policy was ‘all
ready,” and thet as soon as plaintiff had paid his premium the
policy would be mailed.
The only other question presented by counsels briefs
neanadidinamtbeiennnutiigieiics. rsvp rtheot tle ah yhteq
“oti, 64 bothan ‘oa tbe
u
old £2 oo Yo dqteeod ainabeb'tes to amted edd ye
est (S) yohmm now Seemrgey (£) mode evteoorts sudded of ‘Bible
ouant maw eothoy add (2) dete yhetcooee hn Seveséer ad¥ nolesodtegn
SiGkeine mo sw eahaetod most bee ybedudet tet et Lf erivt ‘ae ‘noarya
-heoteh YS bwveuiqe tee hoviese+ dew mttsutigce eft sade ataogae ik
of sunphive on =i eveutd bee ,pedeh OF erned qoitoy eaT “40 enwh Hom
att demas yPeenn edt yebhwtalt madw vor ybolsaut aw 2 soca woile
ne ieeg ott @edet teebaetet syunqidds of} e& tovo “roma mulmog
eke we ete entt wexst Vet emwt totab \dqtsood baeooe one bad?
ed west bee imegs Oth word tnespec awtmery afd veviooot inobme ted
‘MeLinetneo etdd eroqye 09 bwowbbs wew Yoote om tud csoanal yebdiog |
‘te aeonetemuretin eds S¥iw yrooad ‘to duo gnted aa at t baayer ov hmm
ed? of boteved ova Ybad eenabsetes to eepog ee 3
white maddiqw a efptizence qoliey bea moltootiqae alld ‘tadd wobdh
tenons ere lotedt bee yevdugiduany bas calodon vuste ab dolar 4? sk
at udttieogert aid? sobdmds vitdabalt 'seomeitve Lozeq Wh better of
fate Wa doqn alets ahd it ini ke Haar MP LDS
foes od aseh vom «oags stenabaotet veh when tnomotote Late 1b tmemmerge
stoant TeY wefiastivga add yaqtoest ettwega old Yo amret odd EH
“esto 6 atid ni notdiaog abt ovelied ow tas sthondt wotton odd <0 ‘oone
“Yolve a Visesveo aad ne areort alt ye etme “eh a ha | ‘ Boge
eal monty attwusil date m0 Ld eecevnes ahi antbator nomi soot a
pid gnivay to soogeg ould rot boxotto tox nav bheg now Xonio ia :
ens saxié nokine sno nVviiontalg #rogqus os sud toaxtsos ould te y sare
“kta aaw Wiley ote sade 1 susba ob w beveraus mood beat aie ;
ot mates wis bk bast | Waddle Bn 008 as ‘taste ried
» Lia :
. :
or
ee teae AeA Be
fs
i case uae oe 7
atelsd tatensues ue poamonerg ne sooup a owe sh
i
“Se
relates to the motion of plaintiff te strike the recerd and
@iemiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This motion was
reserved to the heering. in view of the cenclusion reached as
to the merite of this cause, however, the motion will be deniad,
There being no reversible error in the recerd, the
judgment of the Municipal court will be affirmed.
AYVIEME Ge
Seanlan and Sullivan, JJe, coneure
dew pie wie
Det ee ee Jeanine dmeigueanie
0 anergy. - keTeTA ey Teves Bee abe eerie wey tite cis
eee ee ee ee “en ay ent ®i 0
tee PRE shone eet gaeboeve
“ Urtinghies wih ee xem i
HRS poi weet oct penet’ (at eel tees’ — ues
Swi OF aykne teehee tent
Se PANE Pann eto uch dh Bye” pleahatelt aut ea seb peck
et HEE) Baton ty ott weherdes ’ ernie”
ta th Be tt er ee ae bedi
Roe es igs? ao since helical bale via ;
‘eae dtsniesaile at hans ower wl Bins ‘
ope gale sokinc seve a * a
Male econ a ie Py
ROPES pate hee nee |
ae sees okey wd beat steer toh hid orrewrewe boast
ton
ould ate, wba bee eet sbganaty « sos |
feos) ee Pay
Pa ee i" ; ee
Vy Bee b Tey Mec ae
“wok ‘sisincome hve mnsconore meleoig mot
eee
S77i2
CHARLES We ASH,
Appellant,
Ve
THEO B. ROBARTSOW PRODUCTS
€0., a corperation, THSO.B.
AGQBSRTGON, HARALET CHALLUSGGR,
APPSGAL FUG SUMS OR
COURT, COOK OOURTY,
nn Mica Ae ee Mie, tall Pea gaa
GsORG# A. XANTHRS, LAVREMGR 3. 1 OPMPOQOT A e2oadl
MOYRH and RALPH FSAGUSON, pe 6 LA. Ga
Appellees. d oie - 3
MRe PRESIDIOG JUSTIGH FRIEND DOLIVSEGD THE OPINION OF THE COURT »
Complainant filed @ 5111 in the superior court againat
Theo. B. Robertson Products Co., (hereinafter referred to ap the
corporetion), Theo. 8. Hoberteon, Harriet Challenger, George A.
Xeauthes, Lawrence B=. Moyer and Bolph Ferguson, charging defendants
with unfair competition, and praying fer an injunction, an accounte
ing and damages.
Defendants having filed their joint and several anawers,
denying the erongful acts alleged, a general referenee wasn had to
& master. ‘while the cause was pending before the master, defend-
ents filed an amendment to their answere averring that complainant
had come inte court with unclean hande by reason of inequitable
conduct praeticed subsequently to the filing of the bili of complizint.
After extended hearings the master made his report.
Suceptions therete were filed by all parties, The chaneellior
overruled complainant's exceptions, sustained these of defendants,
and entered a deeree denying complainant the injunction sought and
demages, finding the equities to be with tie individuel defendants,
end ordering a rereference to the master for the cole and only
purpowe of stating on account between complainant and the cor-
wim.
ce ys
\ ™, oy »)
ye cca :
3 \
2 Breet \
te molec sll oe de aeahe
Line ob yt eRe,
ra) ge RE,
“a 2 eae Pel a
eESA o¥ CHITAHD
etnatieqqa (© Se nquey
a hi ag
BTOWIOAY BOTHERED »&.
o¥TEUOD ROOD . TAVOD sl of. OUXT smab tomes. & 1209
AOL MORT TABwGA,
ee a OG Se BOM gOONTUAX 6A FONDAD
S60 Al CVS seed bom Sa
TRIOO ERY CO MOTMILO ALT GAATVLLNG GOAN DOLTATG MIATORRS oA
¥ }~
ve ‘
duntage dawoo tolveque edd mi Lid # belt? énantelqnod = |
etd un 04 hevre'tor toFtantoxet) ,.09 etowbor! seatueder . .oadt
LA optOs® eropmeLfad? dota ,nosdtedet «8 .oef? ,(wolseeetees
ténsinoted yatsrade ymoaupret data ban eyo «X sonorwal ynetimer
-demovos wa gmolionutet ne xe anbyore Me caer cist sttw
seegamub has “ |
seeevers Iareyen ben Iniot ted? teLlt gxivad etnabretet are
e¢ bad aay gonexstor Leteren « ebeyolta sion Ln ignostw oft yalwob a
~igetsd .redeam oct ototed griteeq anew seweo off oLtst¥ -edeae a .
Sranteiqeos tel? gukiuoye atewane thedd of smombaoms me boLtt etn
eldetinpent te moesot Yt abnad noslony dttw daweo otk emee ‘hast
dntetgmoo te Kite edt Ye wwbttt ed? oF Whémaupendun pootioary | = oo
.dxoqot udet obaat todecm of? epmtcacd bebawsxw ‘eedtA
toffovnode edt .welicag Lin YW belit exew overeat anokiqeamt
seinehesteh Yo eaeds berlatave gamotiquoxe w'inamhalguos bots
Sus dityvow mokiomstut eld tnantelqmoo yakyaod coreed # betedn
sadasbaotoh Lavilvinet ef ditw od of eolilupe ele wai bal? « ‘
yino tna efon ody 0? t9edeam odd of sonewsiore 2} tie
ee a ee ee” ee a eee
pa. Ce,
~ro0 of? one toantelgaon neoeted deupeca Bo guticta to —
ole
poration for o» limited period. Complainant appealed from the
deeree, and the corporation filed a cross appeal from that part
of the decree directing a rereference for the purpose of an
accounting.
It appears from the record that the corporation was
organized in 1901, and continuously since then has been engaged
in the manufeecture and sale of soap powders, dishwashing powders,
brushes and various other articles approximating 50 in number,
to restaurantes and other industrial concerns throughout the
United States.
im 1927 complainent represented himeslf te be the owner of
a formule for a dichweshing powder, and approsched the corporation
with a view to eutering inte an arrangement under which the corpora-
tion would manufacture this powder according to complainant's .
formula, sell it and pay royaities on all eles made, The negoti-
ations culminated in a written contract, dated March 12, 1928, which
provided among other things that the product mamfactured ani sold
under complainant's formula be devignated “Daddy Ach's Cleaner.* it
further appears from the evidence thot the corporetion bad been selling
dishwashing powders under the name "Robertson' « Vashing Powiera,” and
‘*20th Century Soda,” since 1915, and that complainant had never sold
a dishwashing powder manufactured under his formula under the name
of “Daddy Ash's Cleaner* prior to the execution of the contract in
question. Pursuant to the agreement, the corporation manufactured
and #014 a dishwashing powder, using complainant! s forma, under the
stipulated name, "“Iaddy Ash's Cleaner,” until February 1, 1930,
when complainant notified the corporation that he desired te terminate
the contract under a 60eday termination clause contained in the agres-
mente |
uring the contractual relationship of the parties extend-
ing over a period of cbout two years, Daddy Ash's Cleaner was sold
watt anxt heleoege taentoique® .tolveq bediakt 2 tot motte
dong Aad) amxt Ineqqn se0te » doLtt nolsoneqzoe ond ban yeetoed
aa lo eaegiw set <Ot eumeToteiws = yukteorth sexreeh af? ‘to
+ pnivabe ves
aaw KOLimnquon eI tat? brevet ond motd eracgqe oI :
begenes need ead wed? eomta YLavountinaw bem 4f00L st senha
,etTobweq guituawiath ,axehwey gece to elor bae otwiostwmem edd wh
viodaun af GG guiiauixetyqs welolean uoatde swol tey bus ‘nosemed
odd swaiguotas anxaonee Labudwuboed sateo bee esamwasact 0s
a? Poa or ce ost
to wwonee edd od of Uoemiad bednoaetqet eanatadaun yes ai
sotiexoqron ed? bedonetaqu bes aiebveq ptidsouieth «¢ te? etme? «
~acoqio oid doldw aohAw dmeuepmocie me oint aabzedee et wotv « dhe
| e‘inaninigms of aaihmesso tobhweq gids otuforRonam bivow ment
-kéogom ad? .ebem aefan Iie mo ophilayes yaq fan of toe ealanxet
Koide ORAL SL doco Sodad gioaxinoe mottiaw a mh, hedantmiue emabta
2 * aenso£d ated ybhal* botamgteed of alamro2 ainentalqeoe coke
wikiies moed bed gseliexequae esf¢ gad? camebive sad moth auaeqge eens
baa "saxchwas gridaal a*nendxede” suan of? robe axobwoq. qth A
bios toven tad semtelquoe sett hmm «6808 ccncinaianieieaial
genet anit xe aay fume ett rosew boriioctunem iotvog gabiusmleih 8
nk Soutdnee cit to aokiuvexe estd 0d xedvg “remnekO otdea
boradeslimtas melieteqies ef? ytnemeetge add ef snamexel — «todsenep
ea? sobms gafomtet a inenkeLomeo gatos ctabvoy antduomitD bor tne
eOERE gL Crowafol Liew “~tonmes) aides ybdat" —amam bedadeghte
pdantered of bortend onl dalt mottareqien ade poltabom 1 ane a
sonncsllannsammaraESNRETERISORERNRI !
iat aaa} wank? aay ee ae
siden
ae one of the 80 odd items manufactured by the corporation. Gome
Plainant nected as salesman, aleng with the defendants, Aanthea,
Moyer and Ferguson, selling not only Daddy ‘eh's Cleaner but also
the othex manufactured products. No separate books were kept for
Daddy ‘sh'e Cleaner, but sales thereof were entered in the corpor-
ation’'s books without in any way being distineuished from other sales,
and Bills were rendered in the sxme manner a5 bills for other items,
and collections mate by the corperstion. < ll of these practices
were consented to and acquiesced in by complainant, who received
from the ecorperation commissions end ether payments to which he was
entitled under the contract while it wae in effeet. The deeree
epecifiscally so finds, and the recerd saervn that eomplainant wes
overdrawn te the extent of $165.74 at the time he severed his econne ce
tien with the corporation.
imnediately after the termination of the agreement in
Petruary, 1930, complainant entered inte a simiiler arrangement with
Diversey Mfg. Company to manufacture end sell Daddy Ash's Cleaner, :
and mailed and printed announcements advising the trade of that fact.
Shertly after the termination of Ash's contract, the cor-
peration advised ite sslesmen that it wie putting out a new improved
dishvashing powder, in sccordance with ew new formula conecived by
ite chemiet, to be sold under the trade name, “Rel sCeg" dorived from
the name of the corperstion, Fobertson Pratuets Co.
On September 19, 19238, while the contrect between complain-
ant and the eorperstion was in effect, ‘sh executed « bill of sale to
the American Coffee Company for = voluable consideration, selling an
delivering to it the fermiln for Sed¢y ch's @leaner, together with
the privileges snd benefits incidental thereto.
| Subsequently, January &, 1920, the -mericen Ceffce Company
sold amt trencferred 211 ite right, title an¢ interest in ond te eada
vill of sale, snd the formule therein described, to one J. Me Critieos,
she.
nod smokteropese ef) yh Sowden tuna amass bie O8 nate. 7
eeoltin® ,ateohrelot oft dilw paola ssameetes as pada
Gis 2
cele twee ter ond x tye’ <ohee UENO Jom andiLoe game te® nn xe ak
wet seed etew saloed etatseee of sstomborg haxstoslunnm xedde odd
~“eqien eff ah betetre «ee Yooteds eefec aad « emgek a han ybhed
ceolse tosite Moxt hedetronkiohs yatod yr yas at duo te calood Imad te
emmedh suite wel aliid os tema omen os? ah honehmes o tem al,
woulteveg eaott bo LLs smolsctogtos ols Yd oben amotas M C08
bevieser ory ,Inaniclqmos Yd ct heoneinpon bas od oomvanes 91am
@uw of Moise of atnesryeq iesiie bre anoias hams moks aroqnen eth MURR
| Petoeh aMt .do0Tto at a. ae
phe Chettalqmod tedd anon beovet od? den eahedt oy £
‘-OSMNYE ALi hoTOVOR eM Bald ent? da bT.GaLh 20 pans. |
peveRga wor s 09 Bndtiug way 42 desl’ + heratenabtad ont vie, wade
VS tordoomes afenro’, vom a Athy opaphroane, Ke arehweg
Yaw eo tied neoltom, aft .OeeL 42 yrswmel wet eupen
bien of be mi topandat Ane 9fth3 9titghs sth the a a :
20g tdh29 ok .b.ame 92 abodtzas 3 9 ee.
ae
who, ipril 15, 1930, im turmy, sold, transferred ani assigned te
defendant ecexperation all his right, title and interest in end te
said bili of sale and formulae
The gyevamen of complainant's charge ae shown by hic
wibi, tidied April 40, 1930, 15 deyo after the corporation had
acquired title to the fermula from Gritices, is that the corporation,
wrongfully used compisinant's formula for Daddy Ash's Cleaner in the
naautacture end sale of ite own (R-P.Ce) dishwashing powders that
this constituted unfair competition, that the corporation and the
individual defendants ought to be restrained from continuing the
practice and be required to pay damages and account te complainant
for all ssles made. Jith respect to thia contention, however, the
chancellor found that by virtue of the bill of sale frem complainant
to Ameriean Coffee Company, and the several sesignments thereef, the
corporation had the right to manufneture a proiuet under the formula
fer Daddy Ash's Cleaner, or De Ar Coy and to sell such produet te
anyone whomeoever under the mame Ne Pe Coy OF Under any name other
than Daddy ssh's Cleamer, or Oo Ae Cog from and after April 15, 1930,
the date on which 14 acquired the right, titie and interest to the
bill of sale and formula dy assignment from Criticos, without any
liability te account 40 complainant therefor.
The ehenceller was evidently of the epinion, and Zound,
that the cexporetion had acquired all right, title and interest in
end to the use of complainant's formala by assignment of the 6111 of
pale from Critices <prik 15, 1930+ if he were correct in that con-
clusion, it became unnecessary to determine from the evidence whether
the formula used by the corporation after seid dete in the manufacture
of Re. Pe C. was a new formula or the “Jaddy Ash's Cleanser" formila,
and it would logically fellow that there could be no finding of
unfair doupetition based on the alleged wrongful use of a formula
to which the corporation had succeeded as owner. Neither would
ake
98 penpinee bas beexetunond phios ame ut .oret yok shigl Yede
od bus nd saevosnet ban whe bé oft eid Lie moiserogies snuiinileb
saiomene't bn ‘eksa we fhe bide
a fei “ wweste ox “gato 6 'Pnsmkaquoe 20 monevety ale | Oe
bat motsoxngse9 od? md%e eyor CL ,O80L ale Ling peli (itld
‘<muldevegeen ont dnttd ot yecedeiz® moth abeuses of} 63 oidid poriy sa
Sa$ mi wemeekD wes ybbati a0% afumz0t a 'sunnkaigquos boew ‘
godt yrobwoq gatdamuteth (00.7) awo at to ofse hus ound an kabdhla
eat bere weddacequee end dnad mold tiequon ‘sistow bedwdisanoo atots
aris antuntimes gor? bemkavtes: od oo ddguo udmebuetod Lastiviant
deste.» fqineo od imeeeos bine soreatesb yor od boxkupet ed bas oblbely
ea exevecodt wolieedn os eka 08 gouqnet aah “eben soked’ et
dnamtalqnon smvt ofa re iftd ald to onduty yd badd baok volloun
att etootodé vinemmylees Leveven ere has yynequed oe ttod wi
asarco® cat tobres eben a somtootsmna © of # tnt hed eon! woke = E
esta og seoxoind bat @LILG gésigha oad “sexkupen ab us oh hare
“ese wlasynidecl ‘enoo ds aed aos meas bes “ eixre? baa mehr ind
swotsteds ioontalguos oF CNY ey ey |
“ qbmwe's ews ‘yamine ‘edt Yo Usasbive ane “oi!
nt teovednt ine wend vaaighs Lin bexkdion ie i
~ % tie wis bs testy vas Wi akmero a '$nantaLeno ‘5 ‘si te Vin |
oa “ina att ui deorvses oxbw oat 2X +08 ek diag sootase baie ots
nos desl eorebive edd mox? saterodeb os wresasenae | ery |
ovutostunan ot? ut dab his waa! ahi exoqies ‘oak w ‘beau ue ey
gb Leomeet *coneeto «fdas ehbat” onte ae ‘ade welt 6 de A eg
vie 20 pabbadt on o@ dius onata aa prrwet ‘Uisoiget bivew @
% 14'S a6 % Pe
a ae ee
biuow ‘aston ' xenwe 0s bebewpows Sel matberoeco8 ”
Neate, ay
Mt,
=Se
complsinant be entitled to the injunctive relief sought to reetrein
the corporation from manufacturing or selling products made in
imitation ef complainant's produet under the formula then owned by
the corporation. The only question then remaining would be the
liability, if any, arising from the wrongful use of the forma fron
February 1, 1930, when the eontract wae terminated, to April 15, 195
when the righte te the use of the formila passed to the corporation,
and it was ae to this period that the chaneellor limited the account
ing on the rereference to the master.
The principal ground urged by complainant in support of
his contention that the corporation did not legally acquire the
rights under the assignment ef the bill of oxle iw that the agssigne
ment dated January 2, 1950, from the smericen Coffee to Criticos,
although it is signed “American Coffees Co., John Critices, Pres.,”
and had the senl of the company affixed thereto, did net bear the
signature of the seeretary and was therefore not the assignment of
the corporation but of its officers individually»
*hile complainant's abstract of reeord faile to show that
the assignment beare the signature of the seeretary, the additional
abstract, as well as a photestatie copy of the assignment introduced
(in evidenee, shows said assignment to contain the seal of the cor-
poration and the signature of the secretary, written rather ilieciblye
Theo. B, Robertson, in his testimony, identified the writing on the
exhibit as that of one Jernakes, whe was in fact secretary of the
american Coffee Company.
Moreover, the rule ia well settled that the seal of a core
poration is used to evidence and authenticate papers and obligations
of the corporation, and eannot preperly be attached to the obligations
of an individual, and when the seal of the corporation appears upon
an instrument it becomes prima facie evidence of the assent of the
corporation ani of sutherity to execute the instrument, (Reed v-
aiaxtest @¢ sigees Yother ovitonwint edd 98 holstine ed Smashs
ut chon storbowy ymbitoe xo eit 8 90 tumase wore notsaxoqaee eatt
Ui hemwe mots elie? oft tebew touhorg a'inentelymos to mol 20 tat
ot a¢ River ahtaionor aed? getdovp yino ‘sift smolsstoytos odd
ast aLueret adhe ‘te sow Lirtgnorw o8f mock gatalea yyte te syeeceies
| O8L 484 Lives @f gdotentrred sev sovxtned oft modw eer ed Yeomede®t
ragiinagree el? 09 bonneg ofumrod edt 30 omy od OF atdats est neste
dgumgone enti bodimkL walloanado od? Jadt behsog mid? 62 2a saw a ba
_ sthtunm oad Of nomoretores ot 98
ko sroqeue sud aowarctatyane Ww hoprr baverg feqkorkeq eft
ed? otispoa YLioyel tom bib wok joxoqroo ead tnatt soe bo 3 Bie
od hand
| veins bvEbat eteottio ast ” pr pl be aOR
“tat woda 69 wilat brooex to sonntuds a tinenialgans Lacenate
" Lamon thbs ont? ,yxadetone att 16 orasd any od? steed tneum, tus oa
mmouberint sromaylens edt Ye yor obtasuotody @ a0 stow a. " ‘ “
“too ent? te Lose off stetnes ¢2 tmemmatees hae eve .
“109 6 To Lave edd sauté hetivon Ken ak ows oe. pheeninsnt
(ameivaglice bun etegag ofaottnentte See semi re ot, ons v
anottnatice ed af hodondie ad ytxoqerg Some tos wn we
este 10 dasaan wth e ap neTe ‘pie amt ‘
“v pnes) afmmeeretanh alt otucexe oF trod 30 ine
60
Fleming, 209 Ill. 390, 364.) It wae likewise held in the case of
Springer v- Bigford, 55 Ill» Apps 198 ( \ffirmed 160 Tlie 495) that
@ bill of sale executed by the vice president of the corporation
wader its corporate seal io prima facie sufficient te pass the
title of the corporation to the property therein conveyed. In
Miers v- Gontes, 57 t1l+ Appe 216, where the question arene aa to
whether a note, reciting on ite fnce, “We promise to pay,” and
signed “Columbian Athletic Club, Dominick ©. O'Malley, President,
Chase Je Miere, Treas.," was the note of the individuals or of the
corporation, the court waid (p. 220):
"A eorporation ean act only by its offieers and egante;
end where the name of a corporation ie signed to ean instrument that
see well be ite own, and ite name is followed by the name of ite
president, described os such, and «i the left hand of the bottom
of the instrument, where atiesting signatures are usually placed,
the mame of another officer is affixed with a werd deseriptive of
his office follewing hie name, the presumption is at least
fagie that the instrument is the obligation of the corporn tion
ond mot of the ladividueals whose names, with words descriptive of
their efficial expacity, follow the name of the cerporation.”
Under the circumstances there can be no doubt ac to the volidity of
the assignwent in .uestion.
Purthermore, complainant is precluded from urging in this
eourt that the assignment ie ineffective, becouse he failed te ebjeet
er except to the meater's finding sustaining the validity of the
ecsignment, sltheugh he filed many other lengthy objections and
exceptions to the master’s report. (Delese v. MeDougall, 182 Ili.
486, 491; Roeder v. Pipe, 255 Ili» Apps 89, 1093 Velde v. Schroek,
283 {Lie Apps 274, 266.)
it is further urged that even though the assignment of the
bill of sale were effective to veet in the corporation the right to
menufaeture under the formula assigned, nevertheless by reason of the
fellewing lengusge employed in the bill of sale, “it is also agreed
and understood between the parties concerned that they will reepect
each other's customers, and under no consideration will interfere in
any mannaer,* the ehenesller should have enjoined the eorporatioen from
welling Se Pe Coy OF any similiar product, to complainant's cuntonmerse
oe
Ro eeao oct mt died opdneghd wow $1 (obO6 9086 oft OOR a pmban se
doit (OGD off OL Beart Dh) ORL »qGs «ffl 88 ,hzotakS »¥ aepmhees
aoigenogaae ef? Te syshdvewg soty edd yd hotuvexe oleae to, tikd a
od? aeay go Ipeteitiua ehosk antng oft [pon otenegtee e¢4 xebey
ai ,heyevneo since’ ysxeqete ad# of netiotpgzos od? te eho ke
od we seonn gelpeosp etd evedw 4848 qa) oft TO qugdee® av gaake
fan “4 tag 87 ouluong OF" ,enat 92 mo yotdioes goton » sedgode
eda bieernt syetiowt’? «0 Motmimed , duio eivodstga on tas Lad* bempte
oi} 2% xe sLavblrtink end To ofon odd waw "_-aa0sT gored 4% smatt
+ ( ORs “a) baa isH60 one. spottenen
padamge tes eros tio esi ye y= gon no not si0q t6¢ ahs mee
gastt dnomtresoas me of borate el teliaxeqxed 4 oo
atk to cman of? ys bewoltes af gaan afd ana & irate {iow
eee add Be mei Stel offs os ina less
ns ooo Sie rire ne wes vn fences vine afi
ar donat 4h ak waitonee ods as games chs
danogxes vce to mp tdogl fie est
Le evtiqtrousb abtow déiw acuta aleusbivt
* se liategkes. ad ao ehea: tell emiaeee ephhenatteaan a
te. Wihifey sf? of an téuoh om od ame wnadis nooned ame tho i
aso Semen mh sroeasons tilt
ehdd at gnigue mest bebulvetg of duanielgmas. erontosld rus feces |
dvetde of delist ed euspoed .evivoetient. of Inemnphans gat, todd, ewe q
ott te ytibiloy odé gatmiataua, pout bent a'tesaen ed3 of Jquome we
hits, axeliorgdo yligmet xedée yrou delit of Aamdtta, spemmmeiete :
| Akt BBL oLinguotell »v geokog) .tz0ues 9 !xeteom, odd, of. anml "
sHoonsel «¥ phloY 1004 098 sued. off 8% gegtt -y.gubend.. 10h ane
ee al 00h, AST HR
ett to snomuatons ad? Aywodd move dad? hop xedsaut at at a |
G4 Siighy odd apkdoroquen odd et ganv of evhtop?%y avex. stew wean
etd to messes ys eaeiedéxemen sbongiseg afumagt sft rehey 0% } :
saeTgs cele at dh” gohan to Likd edd md heyotime | hc rayne 7 wed. io’ .
Sooques ifaw woate tote bests omo9 (me td xeg add noowsed booty ag ay
ead wxoteodnt tite nettarebienop on robes bas ,atemedas mM ail o shoe id
wit neliavegsoe adi henkeine ovat bLuede ‘toLtoonads ots * yt
ah Ast fortge fie. at
encode dire &inemtalguoe of , doubexq ‘satiate wu * had of tg
~Ye
The forexoing provision in the bill of eale wae intendad
te operate sa a negative covenant between the parties. It has been
@enerally held thet an injunetion to restrein the violation of «
negative covenant in ecuiyrlent to compelling «pecifie performance
of a eontract, the principles upon which an injunction and s deeree
for specific performance rest being in the wain the seme. It is
fundamental that before an injunction will iseue, or specifie per
formance of a contract grented, the terma of the contract muat be
Olear, certein and umambiguous, and if the negative covenant in so
uneertain thet it cannot be specifieslly enforced no injunetion will
issue to enjoin a breach thereof. (Cleveland v. Martin, #18 Ti.
73, 89-90; citing Howell Co. v. Pope Glucose Co., LVL Ili. 550, and
High on Injunmetions (3rd ed.) vol. 2, see. 11357.)
The foregoing clause contained in the bill of sale is
uneerteain in severe] reepects; it dees not define whet is meant by
"respecting cach other's customers,” nor by the phrase “not inter-
fering in any mannere* The covenant dees not state the poried of
time during which it is to rum, whether it refers to customers vhe
were in existence at the time the contract was made, or those sub-
sequently obtained, er either ox both, and «ny injunetional order
that might heve been entered thereon would necesecarily heave had to
be similarly vague and indefinite. The chanecclior found that the
provision in question wae void as being an unreasonable restraint
of trade, unlimitec ac to time, terme and place, and we believe
properly so, for the authorities hold that a contract in portial
restraint ef trade, in order to be valid, must be reasonable in its
terms. (Southern Vire Brick Coe V+ Sand Coo, 225 ills 616, 6225
Andrews ¥» Kingsbury, 212 Tlle 97, 100-01.)
it is argued, erroneously we believe, that if the uneer-
tainty in the restrictive clauee of the bill of sale was incapable
of enforcement thet the entire 6111 of sale became iliegal. This,
however, is not the rule. discussion of the subject in 6 Ruling
- elgeto? po olen % See ast) ok wolalvesa gitkegeted od? 9.0), i
weed apf Jt avebdveg od? nooeded tranoves eviiaget a as) oeaaege 4
® Yo meldslolv se mlettent e¢ mebtonntal na gece Shed | Lat one
soamixotiag otiheege waliingmes ev tmeLeviays at dneansves evi
eetooh = law aettoavtal mea dolgw moqu seiqtontig edd _foenrdes
et 21. shmee ed? nim edih-tth: sichtel dnee semen ail
wtog othiogge te ,smend Litw nodiosuted oe ented sntte totmeebarirt
ot Spuic tpoxtmon ocd Yo persed ost? ghodnexg soatéacn a to wena?
ge af inenevoo evidagom edt th See ,trougitgenn hie niatroo ot
Lite sefdonwtal om heotolm» vLlantitonge ed gemun $2 todd ateteoen
HEX AES qulizail «¥ baptovel)) .2eeuedd Moneed a ntolae of ouae,
Fao rs +42 ITE 2499 pened eqok 9 re2_Lhoweit patito yoeee6 a
Kae
(Fate sone 4@ stor sg one) BTA Kes.
a99nt ton® seedy orl? xo son “*yarame dau s'xedtéo pig quat®
to belveq ed? ofate som eed tmanmyoo oat ~ + tORem Ye ok gecko?
acy exemotews of etetet af toddode otters, os at at do daw aatiwh owt
“din sued x0 yohem wow soatines odie coms ould $m eonetadxe ad wine
tobte fanetioowtat yne bem sites 0 wat te to aheataddo yh !
ot basi erae Ubtarasoon bLvew soot? bored i need amt ite
oak ted? &rwot reLLoonaste ont
dntextes* aldanoaneumy as gated Be bev aay noktaeup a 8 tvowg
' “eretlod ow tow sooty han meres qoutd of a9 Dotti yobart
istimq a2 tootinos 8 ser? bked eotitredine oslt rer, oe , des!
ed nt eldanouss of domme «biLey ed od yobme md qmbosd ines intaxtens
W888 @BLD + LET BRE 4,00 tne .¥ 209 soem ost exodéges) ommmee
— (f0~00 ete ote aus ne chet
orsons ond th taste sevetled ow yLeveomunce ybewmse at af:
: eideginn! now alae te Litd en? to eamato evtiadeteen at mt
; sat ohagelth weaved ehse te LLid oxtine ods tad @ —" :
- palbuit 9 mh soekdue oft Re modumsonth ). satis alt ft at « :
~Be
Case Law, st page G15, contains the following:
ant henna act stthin ine tale tant 't? tareti
Bes eels To vill potted team sprveeatsy sestaoe CoS A
er not, are divisible, and when such an agreement contains a
Thich is veld vecauss in restrainp of Grete, walks the ether is
mot, the latter will be given effeet and enforeed,*
In Williston on Contracts (1920) vol. 3, coe, 1659, pe 2925, it is
stated that “contracts containing promises wnlewful because of too
extended restrictive effect have not been held 26 unlawful in tha r
generel purpose as to invelideate the whole transection of whieh they
were & parte” It wae so held in Rosenbaum v. Us %» Credit System,
65 4. Jo Le 255, 259 (48 Atl. 237, 239).
Lastiy, it te urged that independently of the bill of
pale an injunetion should have tacued from using the trade name,
"“RePeGe" on the ground thet it is so similar to "UeAeCs,* which
was sometimen used to designate plaintiff's produet, as to confuse
cuntomerg. “RePsCog” an heretofore pointed out, wae taken by
defendant from ite corporate nome, and the record shows that the
corporation had used the trade mam@, "RePeoley" to deseribe several
of ites articles leng prior to the time thet compleinant selected
"Daddy Ash's Cleaner," or “DeAeC.* for his product. DSurthermore,
the letters used are different, and there in no such similarity
between them as te mislead any person exercising ordinary eaution.
The courte have held thet it is not sufficient that « pessibility
ef confusion may crise, but thet there must be a probability ef
euch confusion te a person of ordinary ebservation and educations
(Feirbank Cos vs owift & Coes 64 Ills Appe 477, 491.) Im Ball v.
Siegel, 116 111. 1357, complainants, whe were the manufscturers of
"Ball's Health-Preeerving Corsets,” filed a 111 to enjoin defend-
ants from using the trade name, “Sehilling’s Health-?reserving
Corsets,” which name the letter kad adopted subsequently te the
use of complainants’ trade name, and the bill charged such
mi
rantwetiot etd emtwdrey .e£0 ope %s ual Wale
ee toa ote whats to tntexdeor ni erenetnde™ arte eee
HE bhiowed ab sada. afert ott aidtde gon, emma,
tentiano od wbiove bse edna?’
emmermerne, Core £4 dosti,
wae figeomaon batganen tod stsecns
*. hegre le Que doetts nevty od Lith esta ald 4300
ah 22 ,2OO2 ot a PUL .902 af toy (CROL) migagimed a Pa -
Sdads ot Lutveiny oo hho need son wed, doorte ovtgetstens & bobnots
Galé dipide to reltoonnen? sledw oi? sdnbiLowed o¢ lipiglbiy
sAANTS AhbON? 08 of + V muetnanel ah Mad ees 44.°
aptan stand el? guten oct femeel evad. phaile 5 mek Somer}
dotde eoBeAet" of tolkmie ox ab a2 task? bmp, ede, m0, ae x
oasitnps of un .tentorg #URidataly otanptash of tere nembionon aa
Xi ned aw 900 Dodmbog sxo20/9 tal an “anDe%ei" omnempsaue
end tests ewesie buenos ond dma somm edaxogs00, eb mot, nal = |
Kanoven sdixoso’ ef s+ sSeR" .oman ahand oid bate grin ie oo 79
a ee
sHelieamie tne setievacode Yraatbre te saaia s Of mote:
oY Linh mt [o> g0VD gah o LET M ast AAU a
=Ge
similarity as to constitute unfair eompetition, but the court held
that although there wae evidence that the advertisements end cire
Culars were similar, complainants could not recover becouse of the
faet that the mere adoption and use of worde in advertisements
and circulars, in the absence of copyrizht, gives no exclusive
right te their use, the question in its finel analysis being
whether an ordinary purchaser, using ordinery care and attention,
would be deecived by the similarity»
Yor the foregoing reasons we believe that the deeree
properly denied the injunctive relief sought snd limited the
plaintiff's recovery, if any, to an accounting fer the peried from
February 1, 1930, to April 15, 1930.
By its cross appeal defendent corporation urges that the
chancellor should not have ordered an accounting, even for the limite
period, because (1) complainant ceme into court with unclesn hands}
(2) sinee no injunctive relief was allowed, the court should net have
reserved jurisdiction merely fer the purpose of stating an account
between the parties; and (3) becouse complainant failed to prove the
ownership of the formula or process claimed te have been infringed.
To aupport the first of these contentions, defendants
ad¢éueed evidence tending te show thet subsequent te the filing of
the bill of complaint, complainant wrongfully represented to certain
customers that he hed procured an injunction to restrain the eor-
porstion from selling ReP.. products, and that the complainant alse
tried te persuade one of the corporation salesmen, Xanthes, te
enter inte a seeret arrangement with him by which the latter was te
sell Daddy Ash's Clesner fer complsinant without revealing this fact
to his employer. Both of these charges were denied by complainant's
witnesses. It thus became a question of fact, and since neither the
master nor the chancellor made findings with referenee thereto favors
able te defendants, we sre not disposed to deny complainant such
hited tywoe ats ted sopksttequoe utalnw put toenoe of aa \etsalinte
“a bs esnewoaldievig ef! tad? oenshive sew axed dguordtsia tadd
aatt » gurrsad teveoes Jon hkueo otraplwsgnon ¢ wed ine etos amatue
baromme terete a abzow 39 paw ne neddqnon, ene ocd sais son
evioutoxe en aevty sat regon. te epeenda wit wk coualuon ts fe
pitted almyfann Lenk? oat nt 0 tds oelt sew testa of dityhs
po kine dan bie oTee coon pakaw vteaustozeg wiamtinco sta a
| “sthuatinte ent vd hovkeonh o¢ | ‘btuon
Wri, wear eos ae salt
oo "pt bedtuht hms ddgu0n Wiket ovidonwtad exit batwob ‘Es 1990) "
wert betieq edt? cot grténpooss ms of + ume ua erovooer 0 hténdadg
| 9O6OE 4OE Lhe’ oe OBL af reef
odd tows eogie wots axeqree Prebaetob Leeus su0x0 nes w an -
eo tmnl baad ad Reve date nay fase ne bexebre vad sou suede ’
‘a mas
eral ton biwede txg09 ald sboupiis uew retlor evitonuiet on
dnz00sa sa yakiate %o ovontg add x0% yLoxsm woltetbetret t
remibeen™
edd every of boLiat sted alamo ‘eausced (a) is Vestexag ett
ALT
sboyatzist ood oved of toabsio sasoong 10 alumzot odd Ye qéderonre |
s@mmbrotob vans séaeénes saci? Ye gout? ast 2 oqaire or re
‘ he iy
Ye palit? eld 02 Surupoedisa tad weds of gattned sonebive Seownbe
nbadewo et bedreas met (Lin rgaen trnatntgneo inka kgmes bo sind ete f
ead Re
=%ee gel? mtaxteot oy mel sonutat na hast ox salt
ith pel EW .
cafe snuctedguoy od? dud? Bex yedouborg s0KoHl pabton 2 wort nateoreg
ot gamaldewnd atemes ine netsatogzoo aatd Xe eae ohawateg ot ‘bebe?
HARARE the 2 ott
ot aaw andtal ext dotde ye mtd aa hw duomepaia ria texsea ° odes sedne
soak aid? gutiaeves aes kw tnentalgeoo ‘wt wnaptd aided nba :
stamecharguoe Wf Meinod ovew epgrate oaeds 30, A208 sxoyedquo abit of
ext sasdien conte bas ,doa? to woltaesp © sansod owas ax 1 dala
“ sxore? ofems? sonorstor sity agate? oben aifoomado ext son wot
i a: Wat Panes
dows saantelanon web ee tpg’ jon ots ow sadnabaotod of
PN 4 ae ack cbr 28) ia sia Ri) Wo
-10-
relief aa the chanecller dsereed he should have.
ag to the second point, we decm it sufficient te point
out that the bill of complaint eherges sufficient facta with refer~
enee to the use of complainant's formula prior to pril 15, 1950, te
justify an accounting, and considerable evidenee was adduced om this
branch of the case. Therefore, aside from the cuestion of in-
junctive relief, the bill will lie becouse it involves = complicated
eecounting, involving many items, sales and transactions. (Towmend
Ve Sguitable Life jesure Coe» 265 lile 432, 4493 Srown Goal & Tow oss
¥+ Thomas, 177 Ills 534, 5405 and Miller vs Rusgell, 224 lile 68, 73e)
As te the ownership of the fermila, the records show that
complsinant wee not the inventer thereef, but he exereieed proprietary
rights thereunder which were mot challenged, and we believe he was
entitled to the use of the formula prior to his oseignment thereof
t@ smeriean Coffee Company.
Pinding no reversible error in the deeree it will be
affirmed, and it is se ordered.
APFIRMED »
Seamlan and Sullivan, JJ.) coneurs
ovat Rivealea eff beexonh cotiovisato auld aa tell
‘tebeq ef Pastel viv §2 myen ow ginioy Baobik ante o¢ at
it ae a tie ie de kod Tin eo yuntty tndatqueo's 0 CCD ont) teil’ ‘ti
wa ere ied Leg, il Hoagie afro" Prprossomee: te cou! ott 1
4280 MOT & fino! nvex8 od ih cet bee Ly ta a ?
(06 98 offi O88 gisonau «v aaithe bia (obi bea Ser s
tarts wosts shussot asf yntuucel eit — elit ee ee rr abi
‘Canbotageny beciorams oat dud « toouadt xolaevad etd "tal OF gt weg
aor 941 ovoLiad ow dns 4hepnoitado tax oxew dolly 7
ue
_ eouedid snmearztess sist 09 xolwe aiuarco? ot Yo aw a
, - ~ ab sea ais es ih ay
5
Bhi cman yee vabako emmy tae alOute Ss athe Ty cesar
home .
pik ee 4 ; ba i aah an Pe aa OMe eee i SRT ve si 3
ee é r aay a Leasiay At SS Re ares aR Plt 4 dents yy ay
move ws =
Fie
cs &
dg iy! Pa a) Vibe She j iis.) eee ey 1G ss earl eee
os
7 Ae yi a
si %
Wines sah aii Si i Nie oa a
37726
MARY PICHARDSON, administratrix
of the estate of \eberta Guyton,
decoased, APOBAL FROM MUNICIPAL
Appellee,
COU? OF CHICAGO.
yp TT f® Ch OA
aio 1A. G6oe8
Ve
MSTSOPOLITAN FUNERAL SYSTEM
ASSOCIATION, a corperation,
Appel Lant.
eee eae ce Me Rat 7 rT ot Pree! he pe”
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE’ PHIRWY DRLTVEREY TER CPINIOW OF TEE couRT,
Mary Riehardeon, administratrix of the estate of Neberta
Guyton, decensed, brought an action of aseumpsit ia the municipal
eourt of Chicage to recover $400 alleged ta be due under a burial
certificate issued to deeessed in her lifetine. Trial was had by
jury, rewulting in a verdict and judgment for ©4066, from whieh
defendant appeals.
Plaintiff's statement of cleim alleges that Moreh 24,
1930, defendant issued its certificate of menbership to plaintiff's
intestate, therein agreeing that in consideration of payment of a
weekly premium of twenty eents defendent would furnish a 0400
funeral and burial upon the death of insureds; that pleintifr’s
intestate at sli times paid the premiums required by the certificate
and complied with all its provisions; thet when plaintiff's intestate
died November 12, 1931, pleintif’ furnished defendant with the re-
quired evidence of denth, and demanded payment; that defendant promised
to furnish said funeral as provided by anid contract, obtained the bedy
of plaintiff's intestate, embalmed it and then refused te complete
the burialj by renson whereof plaintiff was obliged te have
the body removed from defendant's» eustody and buried at the expense
of decedent's estate, and that there then became due plaintiff
TATIOLEUM MOH TARoIA
; | SOAS me) TIED
“ea Be ; evs
- stan tar A WOTICITO mney GEENA cM OI, ‘Were fat
HOR bo Eats )
“atvodes te edndue otlt 10 abvdusdatmtube shoe andi eat ie eteghs
Sag totem ext at a togawone % rehton ma deiguowd beencoe wo
2 ee ee dyin
- Rabuat # cohew wh of 04 hogeita apne reve00% oe opootita, te
Wi dest caw Lede? ventdetht xed mt Seanvoed ob bewaat, ‘etnottbizee |
totdw mest .00h4 x0r ¢remgbut ban fokwor ‘ ca mabseeas og a
sO8 Mote dori? sopetia mato to tnsmededs atPRtdadast
e'thitaiake of qidaredsem to staotttsxee was bowsad fandaatod 1 we s&s
ao YO Seomeng te molteteblenes at gadé sahooxun niored? a! yt a3 ne is .*
6000 @ date Skuow dnshaotos aimee yiaew? to ick t
steteoint attidetaty setw dott qumokalveng afk Lhe Adiw orn r
wat edt thw Inshooteh Sodwteriwt Vikdniale —f@L «8L toda agra q
benimetg duehmotod dem? qiowuryeg bohmameb bra yiiaeh to eoned
: \ 2
evad of bogiide amr Vilinial, Yoorede ponmox a
canogas edt ta tetcut bee yhodeue e'tanbsoted mays * |
eeaelale awh smmoed mode exed? sate ba votsdae
20
the eum of $400 which defendant, upon request, refused to pay.
Defendant's affidavit of merits denies that leberta Guyton
paid the premiums required to be paid or that she complied with ali
the previcions of the burial cortificzte; avers that eaid certifieate
of menbership provided among other thinge that in ne case should
there be a recovery “unless and until she, the said Aesberta Guyton,
paid te the said defendant the sum of twenty conts on each and every
Monday after March 24, 1950, during the life of said Roberta Guyton,"
end algo unless, at the time of her death, she was a member in good
atanding esa defined by defendant's by-laws; avers that Movember 11,
1031, she had failed te pay to defendant the felleowing auma: twenty
eents that become due October 26, 1931, twenty cents duc Sovenber 2,
1931, and twenty cents due November Go 1931; avers that Roberta
Guyton, fer the purpese of procuring her membership, signed an
application which previded among other things that “no action at law
er in equity shall be maintained upon any certificate of merbership
that may be issued to me, when and if this appliestion is approved,
wniless some is brought within one year from the time eeid section
aeeruee;” that said Neberta Guyton died Yovember 12, 1951, and plaine
tiff was appointed sdministratrix of her sstate Uerch 3%, 19323 and
that the section herein wes not brought within one yeer, ae provided
in anid application.
Defendant's first and crincipal contention is that dseedent
qved three premiwas at the time of her death and was therefore in de-
fault under the provisions of the certificate of membership, and not
in good standing. This contention is evidently based upon the by-laws
ef the corperetion. Section 3 of Article 3 provides that any member
failing to pay his weekly premiums later than 4:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of every Monday, after becoming a member, is to be deemed
not in good standing and deprived of his burial benefits. nother
artiele ef the by-laws provides that
(
sy of heeeton ,Jeampot neqe yimahneteb dotdy GObG 7h, vied
neewed edredel ted selreb ativom tw tivebl tte atanbnstett ra ae
Lig dt tw ed Lome eile tose 40 Sieg ad o¢ boutapen esurkme ny ond bio
etuotiteves bles godt axon podsolthd10o Lelie ont to onc tot veng ald
Sivods eras on mi todd egmtd? tafde gnome nontveny ehfarednse %
gO eywu aiwedel bier axl eosia LE i nat bea. ewotna" v 920%. a. od exontt
Yiere Kew dose me Stawo Wirows Yo swe od! Jashnokeh bine o “ot
* wroayre atcedee bias te @tht eald gnduwd gOUOL ,ha dotoll ret te tno
dowy mt sesinen « now ome gtaoh vod ro ante wat tm sani ate oo
ef ‘abeneveH fos) areve jawal-yd adonbssteh ‘et ‘pont ted as antonnge ,
Wasnt sone yatwolLet et smabaorod oF yaq Od boLtat had oe 468
«8 MoGhesyor ond sdase Ynowd .LCOL «a8 sedete® wuh sunved porns aed
devote todd wove (L684 12 tedmovOK ub ctave Yinend bea £00
ne teats, shaven. tanta Aenea A :
eh Cah SH
chdiiitasiidti rabentt oem taht noqw Dombasnben o€ Eadé $1 oT
ghevexuqe ef motteviiqga afte TE bow tedw yon of tous lahat .
bre (SEC ,O8 dora etateo wast To wbtierialninbe tedshonts ona |
behivecg as stoey eng mbettiw tegword ton ‘sow sthoxéd mottos ectt pail
inaboowh trelt at motimedeon Lnghosbng tts Feet a
wok wt ore tonedt naw baa tine goa to eee tele Penta ri
Fon brn gqitincecven Lo elaotei9@ ems YW anobetverq ete robes
avedaws ed nog dowed Yldmobive wk mole attiwed tite wee
ae ee na - ee
ammon od of a axoduowt w giitmmved 288%e | voohan qee
teeters — -s@ektound: LAtee? wic % peepee se ¥
yy Meee Hi, Z
» AG ¥
-3e
ra erase per tes saguens Se every promimn artes tbe first dering
Lee ees de the quae period the funeral benefits will suse-
matiselly te ee erite uy te that Sime shall. thereupon be Torseites
to Funeral System av a consideration for the protection and benefite
given to esid person while he was a wember in good standing.”
It appears from the premium receipt beck in evidence that
decedent hed at no time between the months of June and Neveuber,
1931, paid her premiums on their due dates. The premium due June 22
was paid Jume 243 June 28 was paid July 83 July 6 wee paid July 99
July 13 was paid July 163 July 20 wae paid July 82: ‘uguet 3 one
paid August 6; sugqust 10 wee paid weust 123 sugust 17 wee padd
August 263; the premiums of August 24 and /ugust $1 wore paid September
33 September Twas paid September 103 September 14 wac paid September
243 “optember 21 was paid October 13 September 28 was paid Ooteber
153; October 6 wee paid Geteber 223; Octeber 12 was paid Gectober 29,
and Octeber 19 was paid Sovember 52 Decenned died Nevember 12.
It is evident that neither of the foregoing inconsistent
provisions of the by-laws relating to default and forfeiture was
enforced by defendant in the instant ease. <ny rights that it may
have had to insist om prompt payments as previded in section 3 of
article 5 were waived by the acceptance of premiums after their due
éate continuously for a period of approximately five months. The
iS-dey grace peried previded for in the by-laws was likewise weived,
fer defendent accepted a premium October 15 vhich became due
September 26, more than 15 days after the peried of greece had begun
to rum, and it treated the certificate se though it were in full force
and effeet by collecting premiums October 22, October 29 and November
5, at regular weekly intervale. At no time did d«fendent notify de-
@¢need that it would insist en prompt payment of premiums as provided
in its by-laws, but it continued to receive them after they became
due om preetically every premium date for five months preced ing
ler deoth, The secoptance of premiums during this long period
8
ht Et bw ukate 9 pevebixt’ enon nly gy if to dotreg etmity a”
“9% gaxkd eal? t
ere m= at somtteos etasa od iPad oF of eagle as Th ra Ay dole
mod sig eiitened In bo die
Pr May Me bie 4 Bbov pag Stun ee setae" te
botioi<e? ed wots Linde éasia “taltoued bt bE
“qgtuat tne eo liosdony oft aoe metdeee Siesed “a aa q bes ae ok
| “sgetonads beep wk rodema © saw od oLldw ; mosteg. héan od sovi
sad woman twe ni sined iqiooex ous aee 4 ot ange % atengus od
. stoduover hrs omart te cdinom ed? mwewted escit on te hed
ai ot get
SR ema oud artery watt ssoted ou che? ae camduosy vost Ding ofBOd
i ee eae
22a “En ROR
SE_SEYS Mag, sar © VANE th VEyS Ding cow $F onwt YOR Onve Atay one
Ad BOE BET
wer © Saeree 488 yint hing saw CR VANS 20h Vint Bhan: daw ce
_ Dba naw TL dough gRL Sawyer blag aaw OF temyy’ 8 taupe Ris)
se dentune Steg orew £8 tamu bas 9S Sammars we amy ene ae ons paring
tedmedges bieq caw ML Fedamsqa® (OL xedmesqed bhag. sow ™ mee 4 AM
radote® hing ow 6G sodmotqes Gi tededeO hieg eax IS rene
AB teed? bieg saw SL cedotod 438 redegav Mag saw 6 eferee
SRL aedomyoR beth bpaneoei +8 sedmeveli biey ayw $8 eegeee®, a
dmedeionooms yoiagere? uli te, ocd bom sade deebkys ak fhe — to i
sew etude telcos bin shugted oF aatialeg anak-yd eas 20 |
Oe A: abides
AA ORMt. StS ORs ye, teen, Poni, td 8, eee tg! 9, Nepean ort @
to & molicea at bebtyorg Ho adcomyeg Sumorg se detunt of be fp |
ex haste sale supimom Ie semadquone oad yd Review 9 bisa
em? .axitvor ovil yletemixergge to bodteg a wet Yaw wortiges F
ehovien oatveat! aow analy eft mt “ot beblveny bokzeg %
~ oi » elt, eeuvned Katde BE xogosed mitmeng « hedge o>
umed dest ooamp Ye koixeg odd ode, ows Of past | open 9 ee me
eone® Lint wt exew sh daueds ag ofsokttdxne gel? botsons (8 bom aman oa
wedweveX ise Ok awdnge0 489 sedo7o0 scutes satsootion we ; xt» me
~oh Utivon dmabaeteh bib emt? on $A oelewasent yideow w rg 4
hen tynrn ae gute te Ineayag tqumng 0 daiont bLuow 8 dale bom i”
tenet Yous wedto mold eviooss 62 ous 2e00 a ud awn (eek ot
“gut boe0r extimom ovEh x0k ofab amore YoOVe | 190
be2req geet aid yaiish a 2 comtenete att -
2
Qe
,*
a4
of time with unvarying regularity estopped defendant from claiming
that the certificate had lapsed beeanse of either of the foregoing
provisions. YForfeitures are not favored, and courts are always
reluctant to enforce them and will readily seize hold of any cir-
cumstance indiceting an intended weiver, especially where the alleged
forfeiture appecrs to be contrary to equity and good conscience. Ve
ze held in Kouta ve. Royal League, 274 [lls Appe 152, and there aise
said that where the evidence shows an established practice of aceopt~
ing delinquent assessments in violation of the provisions ef the
organization relating to suspension and forfeiture, and where it had
aceepted delinquent payments from a deceased member over a long
period of time, the organiszetion ia deemed ito have waived ite Laws
es to suspension and forfeiture, and cannot be heard to say that the
dececsed member's bencfit certificate had been ferfeited ai the time
of his death beesuse of arrearages then existing. to the same effeet
are the following: Monahan v. Fidelity Mutual Life Inge Coe, 242 LlLe
483, 494; Ililinois Life Aga'mn ve Jellies, 200 [lie 445, 452; May on
Insuranee, Third Sditiom, vole <5 sa@¢+ 361, ps 7766
it is urged, however, that plaintiff, having alleged pere
formance of the conditions of the membership certifieste, cannes rd y
upon a waiver, beceuse the same is not apecizlly pleaded. ince
defendant made mo objection in the trial court te the introduction
of evidence relative to the muner in which premium payments were
made, 1t is mow barred, under the Civil Practiee Act from raising
any defeets in pleedings, either in form or substanes, which were
not there preserved by proper objection. (Chaps 110, sec. 166 (3),
“mith-Hurd Revised Statutes, 1933.) Rule 104 of the Municipal
court of Chicago, which became effeetive prior to the trial of this
cause, and of which we take judicial notice, (Capital State Savings
Bank v> Lareon, 255 Tlle Appe 479)» likewise precludes defendant from
reising the question. Theat rule provides in effect that a new trial
Brintale mort tueherte baggotay ytasluper gakyravnw Adds, emt? Ro
qtteyexe? oft To amitte ‘we aammood besqut bed ‘Menrsbendp. nih. sails
aware extn eituoo ben eherevet fom, ore sarsdkeDcok » )
wit. yao te bed exten vEtbeox Lib tna medi soretne of dmadouden
bopaits astd teste: YLLeloogus stovisw bhobnedat me antdootont cunadenle
oY ,eonsloanes boop hein Citupe og yisas ties od o¢ axoeace ord Lorret
outa oxeds ban SOL oqqa «fft ov auaaed. Lavpfi v odor wk bios 98
hing Pes
«dqowns ‘te soliton hortatideses ne eworte eppebtve suit exedw dasa aap
“pitt to enotetyoug edt Se tottetoly mi sinesmecase sneupntted pak
ea et,
hast 2 etedw bum vtmdietxot has no Lenoquae oi patintex raisaxinans
ieet 2 1sv0 todeom Beeacved & mock aduearyaq seoupet ted | bed
‘ewal a¢t beview ved of Bemob et soltantnsgzo out vomit Ye
Me. ee
‘edd tas? Us of breed od tomas hae yore exo bes motanogeue OF | :
eat? etd dn betkokxot mood basi ednoiibdz0e 4 Homes o'rednen
#ootte sass sid of santteixe mei? neystserts to sauces stant ane to
: nen
WEE SDS 4.99 soak OTAT SeudeM yALoUIT .¥ madmen EMER ont ons
Ho Yall (88H .Obd .££i 008 yaiter + logs SRL ebonitst eth '
S the 20 ed way bere
aBtY ag et +968 8 Lov eno s2ea brhdt aot ;
gee AY leis a Sarde
“tog beyotts gotvent ‘Vildotakg sods soverost ebopur er ee
iY ee PRA OO sak .
ive senna sodon iti re0 tislerednon ett 1 smudeibn09: yd i i
is e'tew adsrourgag mukeesy doksw at senna os “a gery est pone
4 # Let BOG I
- pittokes wue's%t dod evksosxt Lived oud ‘ce bm stoneusil wilt ‘
“pxew fiuddiw .opaatedve 10 m0 wt xoiiths seumtbooig al
gf) bi +008 e0£L vast?) +o ioe de xeqog we b wes
Logi test ete te vor © Lash (eer soesutase beatves
abs te kates add of volig ovitoe tte Senopd Hotes, 99 phd
| AMLWAE efe9% L09tq00) ,oodson Intothuh, wlsd, aw dobsy a
) mot? dniaberoted sobsloorg oukwodtt af OTd ome. off Pe PELE.
daixd wor = tat footte at webivom efut sat
“Se
ehali not be granted or any jwigment vacated or set aside, after
a trial and a finding by the court or a verdict of a jury, on the
ground of the insufficieney in law ef any pleading, wiless it appears
thet no reasonable cause of action or defense exists and no legitimate
amendment ¢an cure the defect, an’ the rule alee requires thet prier
te the trial such insufficiency in lew be brought to the court's
attention by proper motion. A mote appended to rule 104, contained
in the official copy of the court's rules, states the reason for the
rule ag followss
Hitie Died ayecd, Myon rage.» Mo im a defect in an opponent’ @
erroneous, uietly stands by can gemdiie 9a on oe trails
with the triel of the ease, should not be permitted to profit by
hie silence. The best way to prevent such reprehensible practice
is to make such provisions by rule ae will render it unavailing te
the guilty party.”
Defendant next contends that plaintiff's failure to bring
suit within the one.year prevision ef the by-laws bars a reeovery.
Te avail itself ef this defenee it was incumbent upon the defendant
te prove (1) that the by-laws were adopted aecerding to the procedure
prescribed by the fundamental law of the Association (Ketrepelitan
Aecident sse'n v. Yindover, 157 111. 417, 434); (2) that the by-lows
became effective prior to the time that decedent become a member;
(3) ors if adopted subsequent to the date of her membership, that
she had knowledge thereof or expressly agree’ te be bound thereby.
(Covenant Mut. Life -es'n v. Kentner, 143 111. 431.) ‘The only witness
who tentified with respect to the by~lews was defendent's secretary,
Pred Lewing. He brought with him, and identified, the minute book of
the Association, and stated that the by-laws were adopted at a meeting
held December 23, 1929, pursuant to the posting of « notice of the
meeting in the window of defendant's place of business. The minutes
failed to state thet a quorum was present, or who voted on the aseption
of the by-laws. Lewing sought to eupply these details by tertifying
that he believed there were some 30 or 40 persone present, but could
=
“ands qehtea Fou to bedaeay trong tnt Yaw té betidty Se PeNUtEde
| ‘eal mo ,wurl 2 te dodixey o co sumed oly qe geetbelt @ bn Mabe
WEsequs tf sass ,authaoly ys te wel wh Yousltel Tivent odd te Nee
otemidtget on ne wsalxo care tod ve netish Yo ouuad odanonacd ow Saild
“ gebvq dost aetinpwt oota Lair ef? hee ,dpe'tob odd oxi feo Wawel
Bt atu0. of? of degword od wal wt yomelytTiwund dove Lali? ont ov
“ pendasnos shOL Lut ef bobreqqa ston i smottom wwqoty yo nolenedte
eo" te? mesest oeff aedatde ,eetox a'étueo afd Ve yaeo naar readied
| “e'tiessane ne mt towtoh a ak exedd yittworot youtw’ Ae stags “ft
teva k
rye a fo M7 Shinton bas ‘dab : Bhi 0 mH
aie "Sit rele etax utes snoveut 60 'sguw eendian ote
oe #2 monet iftw ge wiavn we eno tei vox : aon 5 Sempadaten aa
“pane of ovwEie® w'Metintede sed? abeedane dean teebmeted toae eel
AM TeVeOST 2 etad awet-yo ond to netedveng twoy ees, old, midste sive
dinbeetee wit moqu teedmort saw 44 saneted abit te Linest Lheve,eT
ethesong eft BE gurtbenoen betcohe oxaw' ametoyst oct dads (1) everqed
gasiloqorde) wobtotoowna ond Yo wal Letpemabmat edd. balneiiieail
andes wad tard (GS) 4(9Sd AVEO «SS WL agovebedy av bios
{ted o dmeved sneheoed dad? amid odd ot soteg ovteeenie 4 , 9 °
fasld qtitesodnom vod Ww obsb O43 of Anexpondue dodqads .22.ox9 (2
- yX@ensts bewed od of heovge Ueevigze.s¢ Loo nedy © at haat
svontiw vine of? (.£00 461 B64 .z9RdmOX o¥ Kine ORAL» dae Smamowed)
stiaionoc# alinabnoted ase awal~yd old of Igeqeet atin bet 3 7 | at
Ye dood edunin end yhuitidnod! dew ams Atty dmguond ol . «ge se f ex
gatieon m ¢s hotgode exew vead~yd od Joss Detadu den «modtatoneas gad
end 16 solson m Ww goidneg onl OF smeunrng »OROL ER x0 89 904) bie d
| etatrtet om snsontent 20 spatg e'imehan rob Yo. wee nh hi icon
~t-
not state who they were, ‘hen examine’ with reference to ether
mestings held prior to the ome in question, he could net remember
any detailed facts. Plaintiff ingists that the by-laws were adopted
at a much later date, and after decadent joined the association,
This fact became important. it is enrnestly argued that Lewing's
cross-examination showed hie memory to have been co feulty, and his
evidence s@ unreliable, as to cent concidsrable doubt upen his
eredibility. in any event, it beeame « question tor the jury te
pass on his eredibility ond determine, among other things, whether
or not the by-laws were adopted on December 25, 1929, or at a later
date. If they beeome effective sfter March 24, 1930, when decedent
acquired her menbership certifieate, her adwinistratrix would not be
bound thereby unless she (decedent) had expressly agreed to be bound.
The membership certificate contains a provivion that "each and avery
by-law of said System shall likewise be binding upon onid mexber, his
heirs, executors ond administrators," but thie, in our opinion, is
not aufficient under the authorities hereinbefere cited. According
to Lewing there were only twe copies of the by-laws in existence,
one of which vas contained in the minute beok of the «sseciation,
end the other that had been filed with the Department ef Insurance
in Springfielé. Moreever, we find whet purports to be » complete
abstract of the by-laws on the back of decedent's mexbership cer-
tifieste, but no mention is made therein of the one-year limitation
provision. ‘Since neither the decadent nor her administratrix had
ever seen the by-laws, only two copies of which were in existence,
Plaintiff was justified in assuming that the regular statutery period
existed in which te file suit, and the court ought net, under the
circunstenoes, shorten the period of Limitation becouse of the omission
of defendant te includes what 1% now contends to be an important
provision of the by-laws. it has beon held that where « aynopsis of
the by-laws is included on the membership certificate, thus leeding
wakte of eumowton dike totems med) sempe ett ont otadd ton
teteieees ten biagn od gntolinemp nt fone wilt of 69 bt: bie upaltein
kndaobe wrow awaleyd ade fold etetemt Vtindelt sededt netieteb gue
oe stektekoenas est hentol anobaneh wots hms «otat moter dom 4 Fa
_atpedeed dadt Soups YLdeweteg of 21 | xtendveqm) amaged ton? abet
ait ane , dive? ox coed eved of Yemen abd héwest nobdaritaatnsddots
_ aksk noge Adveb eLdaxobtenos tac 0% ue vatdshious we wanebiyy
| ot wml edt wo? noltaeup m onoiod @2 yinews ww al» ewetttsiboss
Teddedy yogeidd tadze gnoms qeniaxedeb hea qd tidkbers. ote so ant
regal « ta 9 anes 288 todaes ms ee
droiny oud natin antes wh dlo-ralé rosa oven tae ‘emnoed Yorit ‘2E tab
oe ton bLsen xindandodeina cont soteot neces eorodeon to : {bee tepos
sbrund ef 0 deoxge YLeverexo bast (Inohooed) exe encten yooved? hued
HVE tne Homs® fait nodeivesg w umtadnoe wbavtTt sed qtitereduen et
ak yoda bisa nog gatintd ed extwcHss Linte modey Biwe Bei We ee
ot qnotutqn tue nt ysidd tue gape enitheit :
steiquco a ed of sdveqgig Satta wits dweoreeiel ” pm eage ted
~2e0 qituneduen o'tusbeosb 20 dood edd no anieilah tied
abind int sexoy-an edt to mtordd haw at nottoon @ on shah pdt
tana 9 tment tate fob %
abe en sd a a at 10 8
To
the beneficiary to believe that it contains all provisions of the
aseeciation, the beneficiary has a right to rely on such synopsis,
and the association is thereafter estopped to deny liability under
ae law which was overlooked because of this omission. (Bierback v-
Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Asa'm, 100 Webr. 675, 679; Rational
Masonic Aco. Ass'n v. Titman, 58 Tlle App. 642, 645.)
Lastly, it is argued that the iietropolitan Funeral Core
poration, being the bencficiary under the certificate would be the
enly one entitled te recover. This contention is based on the
following facts: There were two corporations invelved in this proe-
ceeding, with somewhat similar names, Vide, defendant herein,
Metropolitan Funeral Syetom Acsociation, « corporation organized
under the Burial Act of Illinois (“mith-Hurd 19535 Reve State,
chape 73, pare 490a, sece Sa), and the Metropolitan Funeral Core
poration, organized under the laws of lilinois, whieh is not a party
te the suit but a guarantor of the burial. lefendant calle attention
te thet part of the menbership certifiesate isvued te plaintiff's in-
testate which provides “that the Netropelitan Fumersl Cerporation, an
Tliineis corporation, shall furnish the burial," and another pro-
vision in the certificate which “epecifiexlly confirms the designation
of the Netropolitan Funeral Corporation as beneficiary of the afere-
said $400 funeral benefits, and confirms and ratifies any contract
entered inte between the lictropolitan Funeral System Association ani
Metropolitan Funeral Corporation whereby said Metropolitan Funeral
Corporation undertakes to furnish a firet elass funeral and burial for
all members of said Funerel System," and argues that beenuse of these
provisions plaintiff's intestate is not entitled to the funeral
bensfits. The facts disclose that when Roberta Guyton became a meniber
of the association March 24, 1950, there was indorsed on her certificate
& promise to issue a new certificate as soon as the Director of Trade
end Commerce approved it. Up to the time of her death, November 12,
1931, no new certificate was issued. Plaintiff points out that the
”
ois
“ata te anntetyorg Cin emtetaoo tt Jadd evelied of yxetottened end
stages dove so wLot of tdgit a onal Vtetottenod old sno Keakeqaas
tobau Yliidesl yrob of beqgetse tedteoted? wt nottaiagnes ond, few
v doadze lg) »teteaiow elds te eaueoed baxeolteve Baw sole ha
Apwgtiay e709 e89O secon OOL gM'aa! tamb i AS Loot | 1
(GOO g8A9 sqqA .fLI 88 reat ¥
~x00 Lowanifl nadifoqordeM edd tadd towgre at 22 veitaat ihe
ent ed ALsow eteoitisxos ads xebus yreloltoned oid puted caotsoreg
| ett m9 beced of moliastues sid? + teve0es ot botthine ono vio,
“07g eidé ni beviovel astohdatoqxos ows otew exodT patost antwoLsox
7 , wniered jnabas tob een eoontan xa Lode tadtremes detw rotboeo,
bea Lnsgte noksareqze> 2 eholteioonaa modare Enzomust ast oqo olt
-— aeted® ovell 80K buulimdd het) etombLtr to toa Kobawtt ont reba
x00 Larenut nad $Loqo tte odd fae «(eb »900 2a0e> ross ey oeast
eet a som ae dio tdw ators ier te swat ods te feck bo atnagte geehtomy
notinesés aLino dnabre ted fatswd sald to sod meres a aug diva one iol
“Hh et Vikinislq od bewwat edaoliteies gideredmom odd to to ¢7aq dasld oF
i tigkisxoqrod favonwl xatifLegoexted edd? gana” ashivoxq sodtiw ctagnes
~21q tedvons bas "yfetud off seteew? {are wHotdarogron ‘atontisz |
notisegtae’ sais ears £ Iso 9 test ttoeqa" tpdeiw sdeotissseo ont mt notaty
~erota eat to Yialoliened ee nottaroqied Lexenwt mad tLoxorso att 0
tonts0 Yes aeitiver bas emxiines dex wdttoned iexonut 20m bise
one wot nisosaa mad age {arena nat tLogo cdi osit noavded oint honetae
Astemsl metifegqextex blaa ¢de sede moss oupqTed Lorem nad bogota
to% fatwd bas Istemut enale taxi? @ dators® o# asdadtebas notisxoqted
seeds te aeenoed dat? wownre bre “pup taye Larenuft bias re ee daam ts
. _ kecnmurt ons o? doLil tne tou ai ssasacdnt atribtntety anole 8
sodas as emaoed nos atxedof poy tad eeokoekh atoat ont “spttioned ‘
invlttixps xed no beatohnt avw otedd ,OERL —hS Motel poitalonans od? to
ebeny Xe tosoor he ods ae MOOR Us ptactitewo wen s eimad ot onda tg 8 i
eS redmevot sitesk ton To omk? ont hd ll Gt hevorues #1 eTreeeS SP
et? ¢alt ¢wo adniog Yitintals sbeweal saw efsoltisxeo wen on hee
Be
eld eertificate was not in conformity with the recuirements of the
act under which defendant was incorporated, as amended in 192%, and
Galls attention to that part of the statute which prevides that
“The benefit of sueh certificate after the pussage of thie Aet ehall
only be made payable to a mexber's estate or to a person who would
be entitled to take of such member's estate under the provisions of
‘An Ast in regerd to the descent of property,' approved April 3,
1872, as smended, if such mewber would die intestate, as such menber
may determine.” (Chap. 73) Sec. 491) Smith-Hard's 111. Keve Statas,
1921.)
Under the circumstances, the Metropoliten Funeral Corporation could
mot be the beneficiary in contravention of the ctatute, and this was
especially true in the instant case because the latter corporation
Was an agent of defendant. Our courts have held thet the stetutes
of this state must be regarded as entering inte and forming a part
of the contract between parties to the same extent as if embedied
therein. (Bolies ve Mutual, 820 lll. 400, 408.)
Other points are raised by counsel's brief. %e have
examined them carefully but find no convincing reasons therein for
reversal. Therefore the judgment of the Municipal court is
affirmed.
ASPIRMED.
Seanlan and Sullivan, JJe, concurs
ie ots
mE ;
Ae ALE,
“ig.
welt Ye etemmottupes atlt Siw Yideroleoe wt dot gow BdieLTIedie ‘bLe
fits 4@REL ob baboons de ghatetoqroen? aaw tnsbes ted totdw tener dae
del? aohiverg tinidy otutate edt Yo Prag todd od nOPtre) dH wliae
lg ook ite W
untiewea oun ae
wedade vai wr e brabiest? hee +f 088 of at ag «gn
add tebaw ededae a's
dganduy edt wwtks eteettisves dave ‘vo egg
yng ey # 02 to He niee Pers oe @ of ar a
er lon ype avcee S Xo Some ie
bivew satienogr oo Lervemyil mat hkeqorteit edd et a oS
cow ebid tae yodwiads ed? Do metinevatines mi Yiolo Mend ‘odd ed fon
eoitesoytes wital eft anssved esa dnavont oft ni owxt yLioloogee
eetwiets oft Jatt Sied vvad adtw0es “a0
dteg 4 gain’ how otal gulvetas va tobtaget ae Sante otede wiht to |
pekbedus Li aa saméan entre ond of obidiay mented sowntaos etd to
(+80 400d LIT 089 ghawdot ov go lted) enkoned
- eta et
stodad a'foanmee Yd besloe aa admdog west pool ie
tod Bionedit anesanx pniogsveso en fatt awd (Liarioess omentd: banka
+
am
Pash}
P
baud
eh
ey
he
94"
By
4
we Mei
ba)
* m, eet 4 ‘
bs 6 ins
a Bil hte be aeadaile! | sae SP Bie ¢
a Beli Fe Ke
ARE TEA,
wee ~ ee
(ak duyoo Lagdelnnt eid Be buenas pi
fied eee es bem eke |
y
“49 wks ea noknie yi
wtwoney ated sour stoe tes ano
’
7 7 r
t
pe
5 * by
( haanaeses S aeleneil
vote cae accu ;
pee: Lingo eat .
eet ately cemagrres f
hee eee vison. ike
bee Lares :
wit Ae Res y
| Joop
sal
Fan
SD See Dae ee
cl PO Ry Peis
a res a's re
ng of A vn ot Ligeg ey: Spano: nee f
on 9 Seek ot seg
S7745
ALRX R&INOVSKI, )
Appellee,
vs APPSAL FROM erreur?
GUY A. RIGHANDSON, as receiver GOURT, GOOK coUNTY.
of Mitenee Railweys Company } a
Stee, & 20 P| a + OR ~b
‘ppellants. 979 [.A.633
MR. PRERSIDING JUSTIC: FRIED DeLIVeRED THE OPINION OF TMB COURT.
Plaintiff sued in tort to recever damages for personal,
injuries alleged te have been sustained while riding as a passenger
on a etreet car operated by defendants. Trial was had by jury,
resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff fer
$3,809, from which defendants appeal.
The amended declaration charged that plaintiff was in
the act of boarding em east bound street car at the intersection
of ‘rmitage and Karlery avenues in Chicago; that it wae defandants'
duty to give him an eppextunity te safely beard said ear and to
keep it stending for a rensonable time to enable plaintiff, a
passenger, to anfely board the curg that dieregerding this duty,
ang while plaintiff wee in the exereise of o11 due care for his
own sofety, defendents carelessly, negligently and impreperly
Geused said ear te suddenly ani violently jerk, start and move,
thereby enusing plaintiff to be thrown from enid ear with great
force ant injured. Sefendente filed a plea of the general issue.
Plaintiff's version as to the cause of his injuries is
completely at varianee with the testimony of defendants’ witnesses.
He stated that “uguet 19, 1952, shortly before 8100 o'clock in the
morsing, he, along with several other passengers, bearded an east
Nas
~ aes
ene et ae Ce ee Y.
eT PBIOD ROGH . TABOR sc By
eto 4. evs 2" Kamien
.TAVOO MY VO KOMLITO BHT GURAVEIC MORIN — outcre: — ian
fandareq tet sogamad veveoot of Sued mi home Yeitata RW
Megnoeseg » ce yatbhe oLhdw bortadawe need eved od | ~omvnieille
| CXR YC bal wow Saleh sainainstoh YW betazeee cao doomte # me |
not Tiitntale te sovel nd smespbut hee tolenews af pal siever
eT adnehew ied Heise mort 0084S
wh wae, vitentata tant, begtato agitetekoss tebneme off - kal vie :
fotdoeerosat ont sa x00 teutse bawed dans me yatbaned Xe tem Mh
‘adnaban teh wav th Jadd pogwedd? af eeuneve volxe% tne epedia: te
od bem ren bise huoed Vielen 02 itmiconge ms mde ovty od ‘uta
# «titentely eldems ad omts sidanoaset * 02. paltnade,: geen.
ae oidd gmibtcperakh tad game exld eunod yfetes oF 7 nenmny
shi tie cut dts an enbqnenret i eon anal
YLooqerqat baa yLinegtiger «ylasefetse atnsbnre tod seo bw nee
even bum dunde gaat yitaetoty hun umebbon of eo bhae homing
faery Gite to Mae mx? movi? od od Thtintele griewes vitevede |
onewd Latereg add Yo sekq 2 boLtt atasbaated~ .tomtat tas eoret
af eokmiiat als Ie eae auld ov ‘am so terey ereniemtert HR iy
~asavendin 'ndmabnoteh to yreubtosd ext Aetw conatrey ta yLotelgaee
| ald md Sooke" 0018 oxeted YLsxomle —RBOL OL tawgws dad bodadh “i ‘\j
tess ne babxaod ereptensag tedte Lexeves dtiw aioe vee pntese
ie »
Nod oe aa aie ee
Ha Shes iy ates Pe ve
ky Ren
o2=
bound car which had stepped at the south woet corner of Armitage
ami Kerley evemues; that he was one of the last to get on, and was
standing about “a foot or se in on the platform," with his back to
the upright bar that runs from the ceiling of the cor down to the
plistform, along with other passengers, waiting to pay his fare, when
the ear started ferword. The conductor began to collect fares, and
after the ear hed run about 10 or 15 feet it suddenly "started te
lurch" or “eway," and plaintiff stated that "I lowt wy legs and
grabbed for the center rail, and i missed that, and 1 was dumped
off. * * * i remember nothing after 1 feli.*
Five of defendants’ witnesses, including the moterman
and conductor, testified that the ear started up in the usvel way,
and thet it did met jerk, lureh or wvay ot any time. Four of these
were eyewitnesses, and teatified that piaimtics steppe: eff the car
efter it hed et«rted to move, ond thet he stood on the pavement a
‘moment or two, when he wae «truck and knocked down by an suniomebile
peesing the street care
Edward H. Bellerive, employed by the Raliway ixpress
Company, stated that he boarded the ear at the same intersection as
Plaintiff; that five or six persens got on the car there while it
wns standing still; that after the ear had gone shout 10 feet plain-
siff stepped eff the ear and had his two feet on the pavement about
@ seseond or two, when a Chevrolet suteomebile enme from fhe rear
around the right side of the street ear and hit plaintiffs; thet it
twirled him around two or three times, caused him to fell backward
and strike his head on the pavement. The witness eaid that he we
waiting for bis change from the conductor, standing directly opposite
plaintiff when he got off the carg that the ear started up from a
standstill, going very slowly at fivet, and that there was no jerking
or lurching ar swaying} that when plaintiff was pleked up he vas
lying on the west side of Karlev avenue, “right close to the sidewalk,
4 Al
epationy be come teow sfdson ee ta baquede bast dotdw nes sauce
aew bee ,oe fey of deal off? Yo eho saw of toatd yeounsvs voloi fee
o? doad eid Ka bw * sroteslg wis mo mk om vo tout a* suods eee
edt od tare cap sit) Ye wehiton edt anc? anes ted sad tilghoge th
medi .otst eisl yor of ankfiow ,ategeseasg rate Aoiv quote are sdely
baie qaorak danilos og saped xovoubmes adlT sbrcweot besuade 19 ext
ae betunte" “nw vhue If Foot BL xo OL supa mrt Sack xa ot 083
be mgel wu duet I" dard hodats rhivnlely bon * sua e "tox
fmqaird cow X hme cdedd bouote I hme gLtdt Yano bald x0? beddany
| “ALOR i xetho pRbsloan noduones 1 **.% «Rho
maactosen ext pothutant yoasontiv ‘etuabmeted te ovst pes
okse ‘hares eds mt qa bodrase 69 ost tests ter2vnes srosoutave bass
Satie ware of Re
seeds Xo awolt void win Jo you 20 doxws ical dom nth at ttt nt tn
3h tes: Pee a.
29 ents rte voqgede vibembaig aust betiteane bawe 4 rapanend wens, e199
a pumarven ats we hootu ex sont bate eve ry, detunge 7 Sh
gn
as | aol tovsrotnt euoa od ae 189 outs pov a tans ‘ieee,
ak eta exed? ta9 ed? me Joy enonreg aba xp wrk 4.. oridse :
-miaiy soot OL syods ony bad x90 ond sadte sodd. ALLE, grtbnete se |
fueds tuemovag ed? no 400% ox4 oh, bed bog. =pe od? Me, beagefe, Yas
ages 2 edt woxt anne eh donne Sokexvor « steaty, owt re tent ;
$e fuste iNidsnialg eid tne 9p foots ssi, 30 ebte. Saeed odd hawpsa
a moe? qu bodrata 288 orld das $e oat ‘tte pipiengees
maton ner rade et Aan fect, inna Tan
aw on gx Doxey om YidvmLeLG mindy dauly bye me 8 4
eet Fonte Hts” cemera Yor M8 Bt tae ot a \
-d°
or between the curdsione ani the sidewalk," and that « moment
later a taxicab cone slong, taking plaintiff to the hogpitel.
Leon M. Roche, whe is engaged in the publishing business,
testified that he boarded the car at the intersection in question.
He paid his fare, the car sterted, and he remained on the platform,
He said he noticed plaintiff alight from the strest cer just »fter
it started, stepping off into the street; thet he remeined stending
there for just a few seconds, when an automobile coming from the
weet passed the street cor and sideswiped himy that he we “pushed*
around, fsll on his back, and struck his head. This witness Likewkees
testified that the car started smoothiy, and that there wea no jerke-
ing or swaying at the time.
John Bade», «a third witness fer defendonta, testified that
he was employed in the electrical department of the Chiengo Surface
Lines and wae on his way to work when he witmeesed the accidents
that he bearded the otrect car at Koutner avemucs thet 1% stopped
at Kerley arenuc, where 5 or 6 people got on, then started ARG
went 16 or 12 fect befere anything happened}; thet the ear mods an
even start, end that there wae no jerking, swaying or any unusual
motion of the cor at ally that he sew plaintiff get on the ear and
a moment ister sew him atep out backward and observed that he was
struck by an sutomovile, twisted around three er four times, and
) thrown to the pavements that the sutemobile was going east, and did
| gon etep after the oocurrence. The conductor and another man picked
Plaintiff up, put him in a Cheeker onb, and he wos taken aways The
witness testified that he was not acquainted with, and had never
geen the conductor er motorman before. He alse stated that after
plainticf got on the platform he stood there for a moment, then
atepped back on the step and off on to the pavement; and that almost
simultaneously the sutemebile passed and struck him,
William Uhl, the conductor, stated that the ear stepped
tA Be
Q ie
treme aedt Ane * hlawohia ~ oats enosagaiy one mooetog
afathqeed eld ae VLiminse anbsies emote vais dapixed a reas
_ ganomdend parte LL ats oh begagme ef bode sedooi Me ‘mod ii ia
Mok somtry mi Hol Sooutedmt etd ie too ‘edi bobuaed eat ands bodtadued
sevtadg ode fo been Leaner ot bon qheduate wae ots seek at biog ox
wedtr tus tar deans atts mort diighle vabentaty pooke on oat. dies %
gains bantaney aad pala {dearée od? oant to srdqgats sortase By
ond abl age tsie 9 eLiveme sus ma mestw vebaooes wo a taut x10? exadd
"peste" eae wai tent gankel poqtwnebis bis a0 deomte ould ‘besng Sumw
outwexit asossa bw ete sheet pit sowrde Gam etlond ‘ele no fier «buon ak
: —, oe aan onsdt tart bmn velit oom bodrzade ‘ts0 ede ssa nedasbesd:
souk? ot tn piiyowa x0 e
dacts boktidues ceinabnodeb sot enontiw butdd onan dala eco
ooatun onset? es Yo neat caged Leotrsoode ot? mt degetome re
y | tinpbdose ei? beseontiw el rede asew of yar att no ‘ pak Be wh :
beagodn gt doc? youneva temteoX da xen deotte and bownand a pole
ine hodeeda madd «xo dem efyoeg & xo 8 oresiy souiovn voLual
Se ohn Tae wit Sots ihonoquat uakittyae exoted as was
Saweuns Ym x0 palyawa epeltzel on waw orndd dna ao eate moys
bas tae ould Oo dog Yittnlale wee oof tonld (Le ta x89 ‘ott re woke
| ame ek data dovrende bee brardoed #9 qoée mit woe etek erm
yi bas somkd wok x0 ould kawoxn bedulwd 8iksomodun Cd forte
beh. pre tees anton sew oxtdoasaws ots sta t tnomeveg eat oe mr £
Restate mes reddone hea xozowbao9 et? sooner so od wotte ote om “
ont “tows nosted as od baw do texondd « ak aid ‘eal cw " ts shade
reves bast tee att tw hedataspos Jou cow ext duct ‘boltiinsd agen te
| reste taal? bodega ou ks 2 sowwied nasrodoa x0 ‘rofombnes “st anos
greats | anemosr fo wh oxete boats on eve 18.84 esl ca do8 2 ntatat ‘-
fe WA rer tf hts 6c |
_ Mintel alowed a iue Poweng eLiveus sue edd yo
a) Gi
xT: He Tey. Meee
_MeMKOfA Tio Ot, dade Daft «xoteanane adh oh ms “We 7
she
at Karlovy «venue to receive 5 or 6 passengers; that after he anw
all of the passengers on the platform he sigualled the motorman
t@ gO, and the eur atearted; that there was no jerking or swaying
as the car ran along; that they went sbout 7 to 10 feet, when atl
of a sudden he eaw plaintiff’ standing on the street, and one or
two seconds later 2 machine going cast on the right side of the ear
hit plaintiff and knocked him downy that when the tar stepped he
went over and with the help ef another pexvson standing on the «treet
picked plaintiff up, placed him in « taxicab and requested that he
be sent to s hospital.
The fifth witness for defendants wee Charles Grow, the
motorman, whe testified he had been » motorman for 20 years; that
after making a stop at Karlov avenue on the worning im question he
was given the sicznal te start, and went sbout 1) feet whem he heerd
the emergency signal and stopped; thet he started the car at Karlev
avenue with » slow, even motion, without ony jerking or swaying,
and came to « stop when the emergency signal sounded, as quickly
as possible.
Your of defendnnts' witnesses aid thet the automebile
which struck plaintiff kept right on going, and none of them obtained
the license mumber. Yhsir testimony varied somewhat with referenee te
details relative to the color and deseription of the automobile and
the manner in which plaintiff stepped from the oar, but all of them
stated positively that he left the ear shortiy efter he bearded the
pome, end thot they saw him standing on the povement for several
seconds before he was hit by the passing automeb ile.
The only other oeeurrence witness for plaintiff was one
Merle Wiley, driver of a Checker taxicab, who teetified thes he was
driving east on ‘rmitage avenue and noticed a street cary stand ing
still, near the corner of Karlev avenues that thereafter the oar
started an¢ meved about 15 or 30 feet, and again stopped: that he
Ae
ey
wae ox vot%o tad? yexwpmenseg @ te © oviooes OF ountve VELEHR HP
ee motintg ait me etepnscneg eat 26°E2)
“gators xe patie t on 2aN ortoate tad? probate cae oad few gon OF
‘Ile neve ypon% OL of ¥ tuads anew odd dand tanola nox we ele ab
‘te one bon gtoexds nett mo pathvate Vitdebelq whe od wobewd & Ye
tno o49 to ohtw dicta ove up fons naten ontdons o 19%et abmetul ove
oni bagqose may eatd cnale dul? gowed mid govtoont bas Vtintete sie
feeds wie mo gathnnta noeteg redone Yo qiod add Mtv ben seve dXely
oe be doen pee bite duphaed @ mt mbt bawate vio Tittnkerg hotel
oe tad tevon « ot Saad ee
the gtd enkuade am vineiacieh wh sacndte dhl Heo
test geteey OR tel namrofem 2 seed dad Of hes ttteod “eutw ynaaieedier,
“eh mobtoesy mi yuticcos eld ao oumovs volta td qodw it phism xedte
puoed eff med toot Uf voce drow ban ,txodu of tang te “ee mewhy aie
waded in x9 of? bediodo oof Ind? (heqgdta bio iengte Yoneqrems odd
epeckyans 10 -ynttxot wn Sorts te yao kom move ywols 2 iw onmeee
vfiolup an .hohmeed Largte | serie cot 4 oF tne ts
| Nae Ul, oteteen
SLkddmosua vd tadt vies eoneent iw CONES 0 Ce
bgmtasde sont Yo men hen yontoy wo date qed Videntaledownimatodde
(of eoneroten dit fafrome telrev yoattecd thot? «sede ounmndhndt
tot PLidomedua sid Yo mobiqdusees baa toLoe add of er
mod? Yo Lie sud ytoe ot wort begqede Viidntady doldw mt comme
oft hobuaod wif coete YLtvede ase odd. Phe ad tnt etovttteow batade
- Seveves set Jrorsveq eid. mo gathnate waist wai nal fads om aoeme
OEideaotus Qateeng ede YS tid aow af voted abnagor
‘end esw SiPIKEaL¢ cot esendiw cohewmose sede clao oft wad te aga!
naw of sont bet tiveed ody .deodund. xosoed) « to: evden adie
pre hams qo toomta » booted tue ouneve sgediar) mo tame payee
ue watt rod juexedd taut trumewa vedsak to ns ae
obe
pulled up behind the street car, saw people standing there, and
Observed the motorman and conductor holding plaintiff, who was
then placed in hia taxicab and by him taken to the hospital. On
direct examination this witness stated that he was looking straight
ahead av he approached the street cnr, and did not see any other
automobile aheed of him, but on oreso-examination said that “an
eutomobile could have possibly passed previous to that time."
This is not s ease where the uncorreborated testimony of
the plaintiff is contradicted by one unimpsached witness only.
Plaintiff wae fletiy contradicted on the essential fact on which he
pases hie ense by five unimpesched witnesses, 211 of whom were in as
good position to know whether the car jerked or swayed as was plaine
tiff, and exch of them testified positively that it did net do eo.
Moreover, four ef defendants’ witnesses wtated pesitively that plain-
tiff had stepped from the ear and wae standing on the pavement
womentarily when struek by a passing automobile, Umier ordinary
cireumstances the number of witnerses alone, tentifying for or
against an essential fact, deo not necessarily determine the weight
or preponderance of the evidence, bul in this case plaintiffs
testimeny is so utterly irreconcilable with thet related by dafende
ants' witnesses, and so inconsistent with the probabilities of the
eircumstonces shown, ae to lend cupport to defendants’ contention
that the verdict was ageinst the manifest weight of the evidence.
Plaintiff's theery of recevery was thot the car jerked and evayed.
By his own teetimony it is admitted that the ear had procecded only
10 er 12 fect when he woe thrown. 11 the other witnesses stated
that the oar started out slowly, and it is difficult te believe that
sufficient speed could have been attained to cause so heavy a vehicle
as a street car te sway in so short a distenee, Five witnesses
testified that the car did not jerk as it started. Plaintiff is the
Witness who says that it did. While it is true that three of
bea ,ovad? yrlorede efqocq waa.gto deotsa galt baidod qu beliug
may ante @Xiiialalg aathlod xotewbaos hen mxarme dem ont, beyzeede
ns tnddengd ad? of neded mbt vo bas davdxnd aid wt bpontg meds
éiylorts yatdeot waw ed tals bedede vapadin ald? soliegiaaxe dootks
| editor eins oom dom Of has otap fowete eal bedowerags of ae heeds
ta” test bine nolieninexe-asote mo Sud quis Yo Soatle eLidguetas
"omit jad’ 02 avoivexg Secasg yldtenog aved Biveo afidomeima
te woutiees betetodestopms od? erode eong « fom sh whdT 9. yooy
“ine sasrtiw dedesoquinu ene Yd hotelnorinoo at Yies
ed doidw me font Latinesse afd no botethertmoy yfsal? anw 2iddmtess
(ae mt ezew modw Yo Lie yaqneentiw bedosequiny evit yd ease ald soaad
w~tielq sew ae heyswe xo dextxel tao afd soddudwy wend of motel 28
eta ob fom bib £2 det? yLerhiitaeg holtdas? madd to dene as VRE
~aielq ted? qLovitiaeq betede ponaontiv. ‘adnabasteh ke se0t qteynenell
- tnemeved od? ne gaibonds es" hus sep ed? wont bequoda had BR
‘Waalore sohn’ .olbdemodva gatoesg a YW dowite eode (ikvedpomen
*<o xot pighdenes senele speaendic Ye redeem ed aoonsdamugeto
Sigtow edd enimreteh Yirasne0en Jom Ob «toa? folincave a6 sambega
strRidmiatg eae aise mi dod ,oonsbive ef? Yo oomatehneqeng x
whaotes YS betelex tat? sete eddektonoverns yhsedan on oh Yoomienes
tld Re eels tiidedorg exfd svt dmetutenoonts o8 ome aoueendie ‘etna
“gotdaesseo Vatnsbmsteb ad troquve bret of 94 gtweda soonntammonto
seonobive end Yo sfgtow tastinun ond sontosa ose sekbrow et dade
“shoynee fee hovel tse ee sand aew Ywoveost To yroods attieeabast
yite pebseserq bast ‘iso wild gate -degetmte uk of Trot iosd awe abd ye
betdda ssaeentiw voslte cal? Lh: .swouds aew oct mule toot Bhoreek
tant ovelied 09 tkuottite at 2h nan weiwoke tue badeese tap, ainenid
aloiiov a yreed ou sume Of jemtatts need wrad binew hooga dy ‘
“ aeaeenshe ole \oomadets 2 trode o@ mb ewe oo no tonne 2 an
oxi? ut T2kUniaLs sfadxada $4 Ho est dom Hib tao ails Fade Mentbtees
‘We oonitd de ‘ound af 22 other nto ta at
-6-
defendants’ witnesses were eaployees of the Uailvays Gompany, never-
theless the other twe were entirely disinterested, and in this
connection plaintiff's own testimony muat be considered im the Light
of the fact that he wae personally interested in the reeult of the
suit, and that the maturel humn cloment of self-interest entered
into his testimony, A reviewing court will not usurp the provinee
of a jury in passing upon conflicting questions of fact, but the
courts have not hesitated in setting aside verdicts where the un-
supported testimony of the plaintiff is contradicted by numerous
witnesses of equal credibility, and where the attending circumstances
reflect considerable doubt upon the facta supperting the verdiet. In
Beasloe Vv. Glass, 61 lll» 43 Bick ve Swenwety 157 ille ‘pp. GBy
and Yeies v» Belt Retlway Co. of Chicogo, 166 Ills Apps 45) 46, the
courts set aside verdiets where the uneupported evidence of the
Plaintiff wae centredieted by cumerqus other witnesses and where
there were ne other elements of probability prevent to turm the senles
After a careful examinetion of the recerd in this euse, se are of the
opinion thet the judgment entered en the verdict should mot stands
Inasmuch oe this cause will have te be retried, we deem it
umneecssaery to pass upon ether questions raised, except ene. VPiaine
tiff urges that there are no aesigumentea ef error in the abetract ef
recerd, ‘ve held in Proyelers Ine. Coe ve Wagner, 279 Ills Appe 13»
that an appeal, under section 74 of the Civil Practica set, (Ganaa's 7
Revised Statutes, chaps 110, pare 202, in effect January 1» 1954) is
now a continuation of the proceedings in the trial court, bringing
the whole rseerd to the reviewing court. it wes pointed out in the
foregoing opinion thet formal assignments ef error were only required
by rule of court and not by statute (Ditch v. Sennoti, 116 Ill. 288),
and eince the present rules of the Supreme and Appellate courts con~
tain no gag ay for assignments of errer, they are unnee
Basar ye
the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the trial
court will be reversed and the cause remanded fer « new trial.
2D AMD REMANDED.
Seanlan and Sullivan, JJ«, concur, .
MEvER gyingmeD eyswhied od? to seoyolgme exew vovsent iw "genabne tod
eivié Mh ANA ghodeareigialh uietiiae etow oot watio bete bonne
spit ocd ah berwedivene od Joma yYoultewd ove a'tifdmintg pele
aid oe Givuet ed Md Gotnerednt YLanedieg caw ot dedi Fst dd te
boreins teoxeinl-Des le tromete wut fanidan odd Gadd bee iia
eonivexg eld gems tam Liv twee patwetwet A .ynomiseod abd @anl
oft sod ydomk te enoiteowp wabtobiiant toqw suhasey wt ‘grote 8
«et wed etety atothtoy obfas pakites at botadlaed sen wvad ntzweo
ecotemn yd hotetinsdnco a2 Viksately edd Yo qaomtraed betdngaged
HetmatsmwoTiy yribnadseondd ote bus CYLLEdTRoT Levpe te sees
Nt séoboroy exis yetscoqqn etent edt mequ tied Cldatebtuned Sooktet
GBB su) KEE PEL qapanews .¥ Mode 169 LET BY yguedh Vv womeae
watt yb GEO aes LEE DOE goyvotsO Yo ao yemihelt Mtoe Vi eatew Nine
pdt % ebKeeve bedxoczoumy ost onsite eteinoy obiak ton witwod
aerial
peLane ent neve oe dhe oot Wthidedsrg Yo widemwts eaten Wier vee
we 2a ou os gona OMe A ban at YO mR ta OY HN
shusde dom bfsete Seibxer of) nw bees ein a lt
($2 sped Ow glolsden eG of svat iLiw sumas cltt an Mowmvent O° inal
ont ans dqoouy ghoatoe anshiuerp “ete nou prnpereert= a
2e demntedn oes Hh vours Ye admenmytess en ora exes tle woger YH
cece Oe eee MARE OPO aR SY age, vert meee, a ine ar pepo a
il ats eottontt Live elt te OP netvone tone Gaby ni al
ak (RE gh Geeunel footw Mt 40S vm VOLE wget Yaoetenet Dee
sy Bekgned \aemnee fetes ott wt apetbeeueng eid! tor mak sient wae Seal
(ld Bik te emtmbOG eaw AT 4s tino geiNO RTO ale Os btgon SEW Re
horhugwx wlio eta. Texts Te adabomplone Lewmok dorks nobnige qed
e(BOE aLLI OLL aso oumud sv Beda) ebmdeta WW deo baw sewoo’ tHe
q
he
“giles oa? to Pee cas anieted att xo%
4 f
Te Fe: reuse oat, fa aE
37361
DAVID LIPMAN,
Appellant,
APPBAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT
Ve
ARTHUR Ve GOTBEL and
EDWARD SCHATZ,
Appellees.
OF COOK COUNTY.
279 1.486393)
)
,
,
MRe JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVSRED THE OPINIOW OF THE COURT.
The chancellor sustained dvfendants' "general and special
demurrer" to complainant's second amended bill and complainant
appeals from a deeretal order dismissing bill for want of equity.
The defendants in the instant case comuenced an action in
trespass against complainant. in that action a certain contract
(hereinafter quoted in full) between complainant and defendants,
which forms the basis for the instant bill, was directly involved.
The jury, in the trespass case, returned a verdict finding complainant
guilty and assessing defendants’ damages at the sum of $6,000, and
complainant appealed to this court from a judgment entered upon the
verdict. We affirmed the judgment, upon a remittitur (see Goebel et ale
Vv. Lipman, 265 Ill. Appe 601» Abstract Opinion), and thereafter a
certiorari was denied by the Supreme court (see 265 Ille Appe xiv)>o
Complainant was then arrested and imprisoned under a capias ad
satisfa ciendum issued upon the judgment in that case. He then filed,
in the County court, a petition, under the Insolvent Debtors act, to
be released from such imprisonment. In a trial before the court,
without a jury, there was a finding that malice was the gist of the
action in which the judgment was recovered against complainant and
he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff. An appeal was taken
by complainant t the Supreme court, where the judgment of the County
ree et
| . ; etralilegga at
AION TIVORID MORT GATTTA ‘whiey \ o Cmeky ee ne ie
av
: ' TROD ZoOR FO Beers tee F 6
| H | >\\! er oa SREDOD 6 sour
| E80 ois evs ) atl ome
KR * Haas CA
eee AOD A TO MOMEEO ET Aca Ea, KARAS OTE, +t
ve esis Posse iain
“fntoogs brs faroneg" ‘pdnabneted bentedaxe ‘Weileonade’ .
tnaxtetqros bis Tite bebswsmd bebooe w'Fmemte Lanto 08 08 “en rH
“ng@bope 2 tnew sot Lite phtiee due Zh tobe Latoroed a mort | .
fs not dos as hoquewmn$ sez tmadant ode ‘at ainabae tsb of
1 GE eee ey uN Sie 3
“toaséa00 ‘Biedxes ‘4 wetten tat at etaan
Wie ed FW
a ine agen } ae hoe cwrl nat
: snentaLene ect bart? ‘Pothuev ao hemuudex | bal | (3s
‘ i «000.08 Yo ii pte sob Pic: oteh antsebens be
: daaeg odd : 19869 “tasid a no san mre ‘ase saeet
bok of ioe axolded snovtoant edt sobmar et Hii ra ia bs
'yduutoo odd eto red fated’ at .tmomnoabeqml Moule
‘ea to ) ake ee ase = eoRtat as at b ay Gis isa eile §
festa’ Bom Leena sth, “
os > hy
ae Se Wea ee i “ae %e
Vtea9 vit? 6 $
court wes affirmed. (See Lipman v. Goebel et ale, 357 Ille 515.)
Complainant's motion to grant him an appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States and that the appeal be made a supersedeas was denied
on Tebruary 7, 1934. Gompleinant filed a petition in the Supreme
Court of the United States for a eertiorari, which was denied, and on
Vebruary 12, 1935) our Supreme court cnused a mandate to be issued.
The bill in the instant case was filed after our Gupreme court had
refused a certiorari in the trespass case. |
The second amended verified bill is a very lengthy one and
takes up forty-two pages of the abstract. The following are its
material allegations: Compleinant alleges that he has been ae practic-
ing lawyer since 1920; that on November 21, 1929, he and defendants
execute’ the following written agreement:
“Agreement «
"This Agreement entered into by and between Devid Lipman,
hereinafter designated as first party and Arthur V. Goebel and Ndward
Sehats, hereinafter designated as second partys, all of the City of Z
Chicago, Cook County, Tllinois;
"Witnesseth:
“Whereas, first party has agreed to sell and deliver unto
the second party hie law business, accounts rectivable, choses in
action, divers items of personal property and other goods and chattels
as hereinafter enumerated, and
“Whereas, second party has agreed to purchase the same at
the price and upon the terms as herein stated.
“Now Therefore, for One (£1.00) dollar and other goed and
valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by
each of the parties hereto, one unto the other, and of the performance
of the cevenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, and the mutual
execution of these presents, it is hereby agreed:
"1. Wiret party does hereby agree to ani does hereby sell,
transfer and convey unte second party, at the price of $12,590.00 all
of the following:
"A. Capital stock issued and outstanding of the shares of
the tment House and Hotel Association, an [illinois Corporetion,
amounting to $5000.00.
"B. Property of said association consisting of furniture,
furnishings, carpeting, books, bookcases, chairs, records, desks, files,
ewriters and all other property belonging to said association, in-
eluding all cuts, rights and advertising contracts inuring to the
Apartment House end Hotel Guide, and mewbership applic«tions and accounts
receivable of said ‘partment House and Hotel Association, except ade
vertising aecounts receivable.
"C. Apsignment of lease to suite of offices No. 1325-1527-
1529 Burnham Building, 160 We Ladalle Street.
"D. Law business of said first party, including outstanding
fees on pending business, excluding however, accounts recsivable
fer work heretofore completed, a cepy of which is hereto attached
marked Sehedule A, and cases or claims in which first party has an
interest as plaintiff or defendant.
Be
(B42 sLk1 VOE sola to Eedood » + gamght oo8) sbemrtthe eaw dues
to Fuwo® ominywo edd of Ladqga na mid inet, Of poliom ¢*dmaukabeeed
| Botned ew soatonroqee a o har eg Leoqgs edd tadd ban setede bodtn’ ond
| ometgs? ont mt wotdtiog » boLtY tnunkefqued . MOL 4v cxairedt le
mo fae ,holneh saw deine ,travolixtes 2 ‘so? rotate bed inv ott to tear
shouaud ed od ebabran @ bosses srupo omonqy® co” pekOL 4S Yxewxdet
7 bak d2ve2 emenyst uo tedte beLlt saw easy éxatant eat mf Khia on
' a 29089 sasqees? od? at ixoxed sna 's ennabas
7 bne orto Yiignel yeev eo ef [Lid heltizxeyv bebromes bnooee oat
et orm gutwelitet aff .taatéede ed? te aogng out=ysuet qu eetat
wots ong # need gat of tad? vogetls snentalgund sanoléagelis isite dam
ednnivre Yoh bow est o ORCL ih roddm vor to das 10Res costs adh coney Lad
tinomorge odd bow sabvoLto® sas seewoune
ar
x
» tremaetyA’
aera wll Hive menwied bem yi oltt: bere ts
| fea Ledood .V ruditA bas Yreq dott? an hotamp:
" phe > tteadagelag ctee Spams om
jelomiitl « Jeuind xf . nobel
vitob fre LL s jomee- sont gy he Tht guaerecty” ——
odie "ev oo g a a inverse "
“2 gopedo ,oldevioset, sthmocoe yuaontard wal. eid ’ cee oi
ae aledtado bine: abooy estlde ion eres Lanes tg to none dt arey e
$a mane ont 1 snavtoau oe deere nad Yo'x09 |
ced
mre : exes a2 92
baa 09 eetge
its’ PMT Ts to eoltg add te Kaa
‘Yo’ wocaite ty Yo ‘eictbingw aio’ bein bUivveS eee pe *
eMOkvotogsol atomtlil ma ssoddat oo ves Masia a fi
aetud insu? Xo tolasoe sottakpoaa: te
? ere, ee ig A “he ! od y gmk aires
ait etolisingana | 95 ade Lf
"pas of end sdotaaies
sate
o3=
"%, Right to share to the extent of fifty percent of
the net profits in Room and Apartment Registry, if, as, and when
the same may be organized, and operated by said first party
“F,. All other property of whatever kind and description
belonging to said Apartment House and Hotel Agseciation and said
David Lipman, incident to or in amy way connected with the business
of said Association and said law business.
“2, Second party shall pay unto first party the sum of
$1000.00 as earnest money, upon the execution hereof, the receipt
whereof is hereby acknowledged, and the balanee of $11,500.00 as
follows:
$2500.00 December 1, 1929
500.00 May 1,» 19350
500.00 August 1, 1950
$00.00 November 1, 1950
500.00 February 1, 1931
500,00 May » 1931
500.00 August By, 1932
500.00 November 1, 1931
500.00 February 1, 1952
600.00 May 1, 1932
600.00 suguat by, 1932
600.00 November 1p) 1932
600.00 February 1, 1933
650.00 May Ly 1933
650.00 jugust 1, 1933
650.00 November 1, 1933
650.00 February 1, 1934
"3. The foregoing indebtedness shall be evidenced by
sixteen principal promissory notes in the respective amounts and due
dates as herein provided, with interest at 6% per annum, after
maturity of each of said notes; and it is expressly agreed by the
party of the first part that the said notes shall not be negotiated
nor discounted, but shall be held by first party until the maturity
of the note bearing date of February lst, 1934, and first party further
agrees not te sue upon, or , aleme pg any suit at law or in equity, upon
default in payment of any of said notes conditioned, as aforesaid,
until default in payment of note due and payable on February ist,
1934; provided, however, that in the event second party shall not pay
said notes on the respective dates of maturity, first party shall have
the right and second party expressly gives first party the right to
enter the premises by his agents or attorney, and to examine ali
beoks, ledgers and other records in the possession of second party in
which any or all accounts received or reeeivable, or moneys had and
received by said second party, by or thro the memberships in the
4partment House and Hotel Association, or from the lew practice of
second party are recorded, and if from such inspection and audit of
said records, it appears that the gross monthly income from all soyrees
exceeds the sum of $650.00, then in that event first party shall have
the right to receive forthwith the amounts in excess of the sum of
$650.00 for any calendar month aforesaid, and shall also have the
right to sue at law or in equity and prosecute such suit or suits te
judgments; and provided, further that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary appearing hereiny second party shall at no time be excused
from making payment of not lese than one-fourth of the amount of the
respective notes, «s the same shall become due from time to time, the
balance, if anys to become due and payable cumilatively, on or before
Pebruary Ly 1934.
4. it is further mutuelly understood that in the event
the overhead expense of operating the said business, herein seld and
transferred by first party to second party, after deducting certain
income and rentals received from sub-teneants oecupying offices in
said suites shall be fixed at the sum of $400.00, and if said amount
ot~
, be daavted Ysbt Ie dmedne oft ee evete Ge tofBhE UM vow Yoon
netiw Sma gaa eli ,yisalgel tromdueqs bas mooh nt etiierg ton exit
‘“iiagq dacit biee yo dedenege bem ~boaknsyto od yom omen ond
nofdgictoneb San bata tevededw to “Ylreqesg sedzo [fA .%*
Dise bie aeivatoeea: Jose tna saved JneutregA bles of pat
asvnlavd of? Aiiw hetoonnon Yew yun mt to of tnobtont ¢ ctaang 2.0
»saeniaed waf bisa bra atooara bh,
%6 ave odd YSrteq dextt ofmw yaq there Ti19q ns we 100" Fe
tqisvet end ,teeted setinoexe only nm + @iom NIS9 aa
us W.008,L£8 te edvaled oat bre “Pegadtoomies"s de test cs aerate
OheL 2 tedneset 00. 0886} .
BEOL 4 008 Al aad |
SSE Sf gas cons cot nl lacae oe |
Otel 7 wd oh eas ath sk |
L6@L «Lf Ut 20. 908 a wtie |
FECL oi Yak 00.008 ; y
Geer .f Sums O6.008 o moe
att i sedmevel 00.008 ;
ef Yrsutdst GO.008 | (taot Qe wake,
S6e@L aa with fo OUR So Lat 0a bo F
Seer a coteeran O06 Deve:
SECL gL uatixdet 09/0089. oohis owewel, lea
SEQE ol Yall 00.083 | totiy
SeeL ; : Kt Sah Sade!
&EGL «Lf twdusweu 00.088 A Bal
SEQL ef yrauedel 00.080 er rmer
Ui heonehivo ed Linda aaenbeddebas autogeret edt
digit gprs shih ot off mi aatom yitone fein beso OR,
tedta gavana svog BO dex dencotnk délw «bebivorg niorted ea eeds
erie ‘ot beotns Ylaseragxe al ¢i bas tastdon bisa to dose to yoda
betsivogen ed Jan Llane eeton bise sas sans s2aq derkt end to yon
eitotan ed¢ Lions yraq Jouki yd bLosl oe iLatle tad abetnvooslb tes
wpsidant ydueq gavit bow .S0L. .dal vtautdel to edab untied ston » ond
aege ,Ytivpe mi to wel te digo Ym stuces TO qtoaw sre on por!
ehkieeorots as ,beneivibnes aston biss: te.4me to ¢
atel yuserdel oo aldeyog hae avb o¢om to dremyag si
Yeq fom Liade YItag beovse gneve eit mi tale | xeveworl y
oven iiae qixeag ¢axkt «yiiunien to eotebd evisoogeat ef? we ‘ned
od rage ent yrog dactt seviy Gloroxqxe yYtueq breve baw
ie seimaxs of bums ,yeerrodis to adsepo ole | dweutuore
ek uoueq broves To molesseoog ets mi ebuboot ; atogbe,
fais fet eyenom to eeldavieost xo cerriooe eamuoune di feu x90
eft af aqitioredmen erié¢ 2 sole % ‘Detooes Bise 4
te sokieatg wal oft wotlk vo ng es ha ot0H bos eae
to ¢ibue bee noivooqant Move moxt ti bas ,bebtoces etn YH MOOSE
aeotyon Lis mort omoonl yirlinem aeotg add tarit | at cabaese: Bd
oven Lista yuna durii toeve dad? wi mod? 406. to ura ene B.
to sue ed? to eeeoxe at etawoms ond dd iwalttod svisowt oF
. ett overt suis ILede bre \blauwtols Minort
> @¢ afinue to vier dove ee es ro a a “ 0 wal oases
ou od yridiyes gatbnetadvtw oy et me |
heawoxe ed suid on. Se ale onal Reed © Yasue
eet to ¢ewonts ofd Lo ddtueb-eno sedt eset tow Te srivem sot
emt gould ot omit wo<ct ovb ommood Linde emeu oft 2a aston 4 idooga
metas 70 a0 evievid aLeaio sidsyeq bttss exh expect 6 ae I pte Pt so
dnove ons mt tact beosershuus cian - testdaish =" we
fee Bfowt mieved yesontawd bise es puitersgs te cheese « bap.si%
Sindies gritevhes telts .«yixag beroose of Yteq Jaxtt yo betzelenass —
ai seottio griyquooe admanet-dea moxt beyieoox afeinex bag eemont
goovouis bkew LE bots 400.0044 To mre edd ta’ heme: ero: idee
wha
so fixed shall be reduced for any exlendar month, then the afore-
mentioned sum of $650.00 shall likewise be reduced in the same
amount and in proportion thereto.
"5, The provisions directly above, being Paragraphs
Three and Four hereof, are further conditioned upon, and subject
to the payment by second party of ali running expenses incident
to the operation of said business not more than ten days after the
game become due, including such items of expense as rent, cost of
publishing and distributing of Apartment House and Hotel Guide,
Bhlaries, telephone and any and all expense necessary or incident
to the operation of said business.
"6. First party shall remain in seid offices and direct
the work of said business and instruct the said second party in and
about the duties appertaining thereto, and the conduct thereof for
s period not less than thirty days, for which the said first party
shall be compensated to the extent of seventy-five percent of the
net income accruing during said period remining after deduction of
rent, salaries and operating expenses.
"7, Second party shall further agree to publish Apart-
ment House and Hotel Guide bi-monthly, and to distribute the same
among members of the Apartment House and Hotel Associstion, as part
ef the contract of membership botween said members and said
Association, and to alse carry out and perform said contract of
membership in all other respects with each and every member of said
association during the period covered by the membership of such
members as appears from the records of said association, and to keep
and maintain the membership lists, prospect files and other records
onnstantly up to date.
"8. Second party shall and does hereby also agree to
prosecute with despatch all of the business relating to the clients
of said first party, whether now pending or which may subsecuently
be handled by said second party, and said first party shali incident
to the proper handling of said matters explsin the contents of
files in said office as the same may be requested by said second
party, and further to aid said seeond party in every way possible
upon any matter appertaining to the business ef said clients; that
upon all pending legal matters and for a peried of six months from
December ist, 1929, the letter-heads of said first party and his name
shell be used in the conduct of sll law business, whether pending in
the courts or otherwise, and thereafter substitution of the second
party for the first party as attorneys and solicitors shall become
effective.
"9. First party shall by his power of attorney duly
executed confer upon second party the power and authority to receive
end sndorse all checks made payeble to first party paid on account of
outstanding fees due on pending and new law business; and in the
event of reeeipt by second yeh Mad any moneys in which first party
eas set out in Gehedule A and other remittances in which first party
way have an interest, particularly excluding however, balance of fees
due on pending and new law business, said second party shell turn
over and deliver such remittances to first party.
"10. Gaid first party shall aid second party in the pub-
lication of said magazine by submission of articles suitable for the
use thereof by such publication for the period of one year from
December ist, 1929, and that any announcements in said magazine with
reference to the change of the position held by said first party, as
general counsel, of said association, shall first be approved by said
first party, and it is further understood that second party shall
perform no act by resson whereof the name of first party shell be
removed from the bulletin board in the lobby ef said building and
upon the doors of seid suite of offices thereof until the unpaid
balance has been reduced to twenty-five percent thereof, and in any
event shell continue to remain thereon without any change for not
gle
~eTelo od wots ~hinom teheelad Ya 10T Hotwbed Od Lhade box kt on
emcee eit wi boowbex sd ealwowkL Lista 00.08¢ to mud bonoline
sstotots motsreqertqg mi Sas”
. piigrigcrets gated »evedse YLieett> anotalverd edT «&* win
fyetcue toe .peqy Yonoltibnes teddtwt ot .teorerd “wot time 3
ivebiont avaneqxe grin t ifs te Yiweq bnoved Yo dnemyeg ©.
ond tedte aysabh med perl? orom Jon nosntaud biew Yo A ryan an f ‘ett
to te00 <dnot aA eantogue to anedt dowe yothulonk ~eub emoood
e@big® Leven fima esuoll geemiteqa Io gatsuddasarh ‘bres Ldk
twebfont ‘fo yYatrageden sasegxe Ifa brig Yre baa onodgeled ~edt “* !
saseniand bluse to notseteqs ede
goorth bes apottio blew al miamex Ilana yYreq devi .8"
bas ot yetaq beooes bias sa? dowtéent bee eeentend biee to drow ads
TOT Towverds foubdmoo sos bee voters gutabettoqqs aeliuh sd? tuode
Yiteq Jatt? Bisa oft dotttw uot faye gould? meld enol ton chy :
ens to ineoveg evit-ytnevee Lo Inetxe od 5 bodssneqmoo od
te aeisoubob 19¢'ks eninivms’ hetreg biae gabivh gutvrooe emoonl 2
yeganuges yiideteqo bus avlislan ,
~dtsqA daifdeg ef gvetga torldtet Slee yYite¢ bmese® .¥* oad
see od otedinielS of bre yytiidwomid obbod LotoH has savell | me fl
ttaq se .nolidaioeses Loset Ime sane dnomsiagA eds lo atodmem grom
bise bos atedmem Bhea neewied qinetedmgn to torséinoo edt To
to doetinoo bfea srro‘teq tne Yxo yries oala of ban ,motialooan
bisa to tedeem yteve bxe dose Atiw etooqect tedto Ile at qidereduen
foue Yo yidexrsdmem aft Yd betoves boltey ent yatiud matsareere?
qeet of bua ,goltieiooesa hice bo ebtoote eft mext etaeqqs as Bt q
abvosex tedte bre selit arr votre qiderodmem od ntatntes bag
‘eeteb of qu a
of pane cate were aeod: ‘bom Ctuaeta “tray hnessa .6" ase :
sineiio ett of griveted veonleud oe To Lie nedegned HVTw Staveeung’
ylinonpotivea Yar dofdw to pelineq won ret tudw edited dartt ‘bina a4
tuebhant Liade ywree getlt bisa bra, yeiaq baooss Bide Yd belbnad od
he here doo ond phalaxe wretion bhad Yo stttLonaif coger st oF"
skewer bige yd beteenper od yas oman edt as soltte biae ne ae, et
sidieacg Www Yisve at yousy baoose hiae hie ot tener? “i Nera
dld gatneiio biew toe vaentaud edt od ghinlad<edga ‘tedden ©
ext witrem xte to Sofueq » tot ‘brie ated tant Sagol ‘geibweg Ife norw
ouse ete brs ytuaq tacks btse Yo ebsed-tettel eff ~WReL «tel reteset
ah maibneg codd¢ody ~aneriewd wal {is ‘to toubaod etd hh boar oe | Lacle
brepee exit to moliutitadue teftseted? bas ,odlwraddo to stee eft
aatwond: £ Laika awod2 oitoe hates ayenrossa wa ‘wena dart? be rot ;
oo aon Yonteita Yo xewor abt yd Liaate ogden! dourn aque! eeaged
evieoot of yaivedive bna tawog edd wraec bhooee wequ Pte ‘ets oxe
te FrMIoH.e A iieq ytiay dextt.os eldeysq ebam adoonio Lin eas
omgt st Bea peagonined wal wan bre uetboneg mo onl eset: part baede do
Yixeq dextt getde xt ayonom yaa to yt brovee Ye se teoet to taeye”
utusg ¢evil doistw of agorsddimex sotlte bus A eLybedot mi: er $62 aa
“seek to eonalied 4 tevewor gothulone ytiuatuoistiag | qtoatedmd: nm ie oven yet
aw tieds yuieq brecea blew yaastbaid wal wen bee gatbieg bh 4
+ Ytusq tuzit of seeneddinet done tovileh bra ie “A
ein: eat we Yiusq hreoea bka Ldata ytiag text ekat. .OLM oes
eid, 20% eldatiue selotits to soteniaioa ontsegam bhea to nebewol .
port ts0y sme Yo. holreq eds ret sotveotieng done yd tosses onw
tiv omisepen biwe of ateomenmonen. yrs tadd ha CBOE “¢ted x6 nis SOS
as xytseg dart? bisa wW hisd noldiaeq ons By egeesio end or — a
a Yd beverages ed ¢atkt Liade «moldntooage bien lo,feanves Les . . 4
. dieta eaueg broces tad? bootertohmu sedfuwt ak of bea brs yd io: text? 7
e¢ Lfale yireq tart te emen eft Yootedw onsen yd Jos On mxgtxoq—
obtia gatbiiad bisestoe yddel eft at bteod mbieiied ef MOTE: bi ream
> Blaqes oft Lhew toeredt agottte to etiua piee Te | b sie gOge
wie xi bas ydoovens tnooseq evit-~yinows of Séowbat edd an! wonelse”
don, cot squats yao tuodtie mooterld Mismer oF. seas recon mane zi 4
«he
less than one year from December lst, 1929.
"11. This agreement and any interest in and to said
property of said association and said first party shall not be
assigned, sold, bartered, pledged, transferred, exchanged, or in
any way disposed of without the written consent and approval of
seid first party, so long 2s the unpaid belance exceeds twenty-~
five percent thereof.
"12. Said first party does hereby covenant not to enter
into any business that may be regarded as competitive to the business
conducted by said association for a period of five years and not to
in the practice of law in the City of Chicago, for the period
of three years from the date hereof, except in the Federal Courts and
eases where said first party is pleintiff or defendant, nor to make
use of the files or records of said sssocietion or said law business,
that shall or may in any way interfere with the proper conduct of
said business, or effect the profits thereof.
"13. To secure the payment of the foregoing balance due
under the terms hereof, it is hereby agreed that the said shares of
the ezpital stock of said association, lease to said offices and
documents of title appertaining to all of the property herein trans-
ferred, sold and delivered shall be deposited in escrow with the
directions to such eserowee to deliver the same over unto second
party upon the payment of said purchase price, or in the event of
default of the terms hereof, then upon netice by first party,
specifying such default, said eserowee shall turn ever and deliver
the same to said ci Meni or his agent.
"In Witness Whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set
their hands and seals this 21st dsy of Novembery Ae De 1929.
"Devid Lipman (Seal)
“arthur V. Goebel (Seal)
“Sdward Sehatz (seal)"
The bill then alleges that on February 1, 1939, complainant left
said offices and did not therenfter enter into any competitive
business with defendants nor engage in the practice of law in Chicagos
that his profit from the practice of law ani the conduct of said
business for five years preceding December 5, 1929, was $1,060 to
$1,500 @ months; that commencing May 12, 1930, the income and profits
from said business and practice dwindled until he and said association
suffered great losses; that after defendants took over the management
of said association and the law business of complainant, by reason of
their failure to diligently perform their duties in and about the
handling of clients’ business, great loss accrued to complainant 3
that defendants defaulted im the payment of $500 due May 1, 1930) and
complainent made demand for the same, whereupon defendant Goebel made
open threats against the life of complainant if the latter dared enter
the said offices for an inspection of the business and records} that
ROL gtal Re dino ott magn % Pid 2 suas 8 8 ad
hier of bue ai tentedek ws bee trom tre
ed dea Liade ytweq Setit biea bes soiratoboas Hise, te we ;
ni we ,begmdoxe ,hortelensit .bopbely erg waxy blow ¢ shes
to tevougge bas tneemeo seditiw ed¢ dupe lw Me wogndd 3
ys nid 4 bieyeoe fonadad bhaqais ult pa nee eseg ga
) te¢ne of tow tneneyoo cont, Bob sah xines tuukd bist
epontand end oF evitivequme as ho Xewm dost os ya é it
gd AON bas steey evel be bolsey ». er mosigtoonas aoe ed o va a
_bebtog odd uot yogevind to yttd edd mb wad to eoktootg ond st )
bia efungo Lexvohel ofd mt dqoome ,» too tad stab moxt BtaoY © ?
gis ©/ rom ,inehnotoh wo Tikinintg at yYexeq @actt bia Teg
qeeaentaud wal bise +o potietooaas Alas re B>1908T aeLit sat ¢ to.
*O sovbroo tegerg anit diiw exe taeda pon Yam te Liatte. §
«too tnt rohan The Ce - |
eus gottaisd gaioge ret edd to dna /
To setain bias of’ tad! heetne ot ah at ab 3
fae eeotito tiiea of save nadacahtaknonis Bias
~asiotd plored ytveqe wr eft toe Lie of aahat obze
edd caiw woisee mi betiacgeb od
to nove edd ai 20 ywoitq seadotng
‘gydteq tacit yd esttom noqy rege a
i. tovileb bits ovo mand Ifssia eoweroga bbs
a: a Pog atd «9. Mod
teu oinuerted eved odexsd pot y ol ede 38
be eeses oS eA 4 Tedusvok to De on toi ak
La@®
(4 8@ )} Ledoeod ane Shah ficyie ty He By {ree OMe E |
"¢ Ieee) atasiod. f 3 pe Bue re ¥s he My |
#reL Sremtalqmos a0EOL aL Urawidet mo dectd abpotta Bed Lite ett |
_ | eytitseqnog ws cant cosas xettootedd ton, bib hie he
rogzotto nt wal To enkvonry ents st apeste ton asasbabieb xin naont, To
‘bse 20 towbroo ente tas wat to cokvonrg ont ant om als ait
U¥ Goo, 10 ‘ecw (ORE 12 todmeon guibecowy waneg-enttaeh opel
athtexq bre emoont odd (OSCE «SL yak netoneomon teutt pildromt e oat
motistoosen bias bre axl fron be £ontwh eotsonag oe saontaud ‘bisa most
frome yasteat eit tovo toot ad nubee’tob edt sacks txomsel ta0ug bototua
‘to noass't Ud 4 taentoLomes te saws taurd wad end co wostatoousa ‘htoa_ 20
edt jvods bre mi eeiiuh | abostt mo reod eEbmeattt of omuctak shed
jinanialguon of bextove eeot tory satontoud *eimeato 20: —e
bie 982L of vol oub O08} To tiemeag eae “ak sean tab acetate a
obaat Ledooo Som bere'tob rogue vente mee ett tok pa ae) . coc
etuo howebh roddot ald. ti ‘Santa Lens ko othe ont tentege
“eat: lLissiiadin bana, saetanh: nad ‘to alls te oot lr
a
iit
tee
eS
crt
a
obs
ee i fom
“60
sometime prior to May 1, 1930, complainant realized that if said
business continued to be conducted by defendants in the seme mayinez
it would be ruined and all of the moneya invested therein would be
ieost, and on May 7, 1930, he delivered to defendants a notice in
writing whieh stated that defendants had been guilty of defaults and
breaches of the terme of the agreement, and
"You are hereby further notifies that the undersigned has
elected to treat the withdrawal or attempted withdrawal of anid
Rdward Sehatz from active participation in the conduet ef said
business as an abandonment of the said contract on his part.
“Be hereby further notified and advised that by reason
of the foregoing matters in default, each and avery one of the fore-
going being in violation of the terms of said contract as designated,
i hereby demand immediate possession of all the books, records and
papers and property and assets of the Apartment House and Hotel
Association and said David Lipman, that you surrender up the premises
known as Guite 1325-27 ond 1529 Burnham Suilding, 160 North iavalle
Street, Chicago, Illinois, and upon your failure so to do within
twenty-four hours from the date hereof, 1 shall take steps immediately
thereafter in respect thereto.”
wee er
The bill further alleges that the response of defendant Goebel to the
notice was that he would wreck and ruin the business before he would
pay one dollar to compleinant an¢ that he had no intention of doing
and performing the mtters and things agreed to be done by him under |
the contract; that on May 12, 1950, complainant entered the premises
in question, without force, and assumed the manugement of the business,
in seeordanece with the terms of the notice, and that “complainant
thereafter continued in possession of said premises and mane sement
and operation of said business;" that on June 20, 1950, defendants
filed an action in trespass against him,in the Superior court of Cook
county (Geebel et al. v. Lipman, supra); that upon » trial of that
cause & verdict, in favor of defendants, for $6,000 was returned and
judgment was entered upon the verdict; that upon appeal by complainant
to this court the judgment was affirmed, upon a remittitur by defend-
ants in the sum of $3,0003 that in due course @ capias ad satisfae-
iendum was served upon complainant; that on Mey 7, 1932, defendsat
Goebel filed an action against complainant fer personal injuries,
which was Still pending and undetermined; that defendants have
blow ti tedd boxtines Yrelthatywes sonee of Wat OF ‘rodig eat eens
cennent bade ond mt udmabsertes yd betpunies od of hesttsned w A
ed bivew etoxers boduevik eyshoar ot te fhe bra bontus o¢ eens
at option s sinabneted of boreyttoh ed .0ceL 4h YAK wo bre ior
Bie wtfuatiod to YLivy mod tad wdnshno teb Jans bedads sake ankthe
: | bas 4tromworas oglt to sarod oslo 0 vod
at bein biting end dats bab iivor. hg enh xed ote = ae
Brae to Lewarhdtin bedqmetia
gan toubroo ofa ie it ttagh irae. ssl dared ob pe
att no toatinoo Disa edi pee, agar mo pa econd 4
; nosads ed Sn ded? boakvhs fra beltises rede qdoued o8") fy cot
ot8% emo yteve bas Mom giissteh at exodden Smoyero? acid ‘to.
beser Ges bi Shectake: NiSk’ So Meson aah, to nohiales eS aoe
ai i Bheooet ,adeod ofs IIs to Gaseorenes asalde do"
FE Pye fan ag hg Be fp ing Sg 9 Se coc
ou ¢ MAE ate
ofiaiak Alen Gel santhit nt monet d “ee bre treatin
pidéiw eb of o6 a pat THOY Rag bhi qutomiist
saionsegarle suche oda ifeda I. xtgeses etebd ont moa? ore
“eotennas regener cs 3
3 ont
‘etd of Ledsod indhas'teh to eanegae% ‘ost todd ‘eepetio wade Lite et |
hivow et stoted aveanteud ond xtirt bua Xootw bivow ont todd naw anki
— Ettoh Yo getinedn) or hart od dard tr inaniafquos 09 tof top ono. x ee
tebew mist xed eno’ ed e¢ hostyw wgmide “ba exe sete ony ‘iihete tag 0 , a
eeodmetg ads sotsdao sramalquios GL wal sat ‘Sauté ee ! BS |
-atmshaelted yee «OS wry ne tate “pedvabwdd bite Wo edt daxeqe
de® Yo Juweo vo beeywa ole miyatd Pantages elena ot id ned
Godd XM Lethe # Wogy daft 1 (mae emetigtt uv «fn te tod
baa hébretht enw 000,99 20% shidsiehdtod ‘to KevAY KY dokbz
thant siqaes yi tisgge meq ded Yroshrev ott wet bor
hatte Ww wdige beets noqu .boarthtis | ‘Pace
Baht gee a” i
diate a’ ba oe ho 8 oumses one a tastd Leap
% eras etunhns'ted dads + hataleeeebechent has nach snitl np. !
-~fe
threatened te init egeinet him and his surety in the trespars case
and they have already proceeded by way of capias ad sat igfaciendum3
that when he took back the control and management of seid effice end
business he discovered that defondents hed been guilty of certain acts
of misconduct in the management of seid office and business ( enumera~
ting them)} that defendants sare insolvent; that his claims against
defendants (enumerating them) aggregate (16,515.68; that upon the trial
ef the cause he should be sllowed to set off against the claims and
demands of defendants such sums aa are equitably and rightfully due him
in the premiees, and he "believes that upon such hearing hereof, it will
be shown that defendants are indebted to complainant in a sum far in ¢xe
cons of the claime of defendants." The bill prays that the court find
and determines what sums, if any, are due complainant on account of sel 4
eontract and the breach thersof by defendants; that defendants be decred
to psy him what, if enything, showld appear to be due him; that a tem-
porary injunction issue to restrain and enjoin defendants "from further
prosecuting the body execution” in the trespass case. Defendants filed
“General and Special Demurrer to Complainant's Second Amended Bill of
Complaint," as follows: |
"The General and Speciai Demurrer to the Second Amended Bili
- Complaint of David Lipman, complainant. (Here follows the general
SMurre? e
“And for further grounds of demurrer, these defendants shew
to the Court here, the following that is to say:
*(1) Complainant, in his Second smended Bill of Complaint,
matters in Paragraph 15 which are contredictory to matters
alleged in Paragraph 14. if one is true, the other is falses
"The matters alleged are contradictory in that complainant
in Paragraph 15 admite that judgment was rendered ageinst him in the
Superior Court of Cook County and affirmed by the “ppellate Court,
case Noe 55457, on remittitur in the sum of Three end Dollars,
in en action of trespass for the malicious, wrongful and unlawful
eviction of defendants from the premises known as 1525¢27-29 Burnham
Building, Chicago, Illinois, and the conversion of defendants’ persomal
property end business om said premises, which was the subject matter
of econtrect set out in Paragraph 2 of said Second amended Bill of
Vomplaint, and wherein complainant, by absolute contract of sale,
sold and delivered everything in and by said contract to the defende
ants, thus contradicting Paragraph 14 of his Second ‘mended Bill of
Complaint wherein he alleges, contrary to Paragraph 14, that he took
possezsion of said premises and personal property without forees
"(2) Complainant admits that he possessed himesif of
Property belonzing to the defendants, and which had heretofores
<i
Haas Baggue ts sags ei qvoner gid baw abel dings Lage hoaaoig of hom ti
Asmbpelgalaiton 5, galgao To yw wh hebsevexq phaowle evar ou, a
foe woltte Sisa to dnemp_anam bes Loxinoo ef? doad doo? pd peut dad?
nice siadzoe te Wiing pood dat atmebaoleah aedd Sexeveoeib af Baca tad
vareaine) soontaud fms eots2o biaa 20 sreenpancn od? pt. doxbapomke Ro
tentaga amielo aid sodt pénevtoanl ota, eimokmotep dada 4 (sted
aka este soos dass 1SbuKIADES otagetans {ments ened atuabiaet
|
;
|
hone anbels od? tentogea Yto don of somata od biueds ‘wet enue at Yo
at ste ohio ona hot ine enn a eam Hain bint sao
tiiw ae etoorod gadeced shone moqy asit apvelted™ of bra ,aoed
“xD Py ‘tat mew 0 mh dawatk aLgmoe of bet@obat, o18 Sicha Teak
pat ¢ueo walt a eal ayawa Ltd off "sadnebno red te exkato a 10
pie to tosses ne tneainignon ewh ote. ous ,amve dade ents dob
porneh ed edmuane
ut @ ied’ tate emb ©
ee ree
Ei Fa asa ea ies
wos on eine
“pest? agrabne tet 99889 coatunct atta im
to {Lif behramA broce® 6 y
t 448 . 7 x fz “Et é ests fy oP Mt + re =| a
it hoes herons anonnt : oitt oe scorer tetoeg? bra
| op alles
‘tectoa'tog ‘we
; “Eiewts — -
i .
tob sada yndnabaorsd ve rosredé sonord ett ad: soardmon
d oF saequs biuents vamatsryen 7 9 taste nis
wr ark" ednohne io’ nkolns brs niavdao% 08 oiaal not
2 tno htweoxe ybod “a
oe Sat ae
ae spe, — Heit
"iments ano of rortumed Istos ae h
‘ aeid: ewolLe? exeli) » ivat 0 of
sii talacbiual osudd " ona
‘3 uno 8 | int aot
oa? nee
a sae 2 Sens sé
pen om 08 ‘erate tbextnoe gates.
4 S Ro
; spaiat ef %
gprs gh nr ia ie tho a
Lage boxe bees Leah
mw Ss yet prem rh oll d
Bal ye nee
mariorawel pale g seat te
een so pekwnevneo etd Dawe
she de asst goo Laan ait saw Solsiw . aos imotg
wg ELFE bebviadth Sapsed 6 bisa To & slp
«elas To sostenos etuloada yd aie a Leg
mbere"bah ose 02 toondnos bisa att De Pe bigs
%o LILh bobemm brood’ gid to dL niquxpe
poate est tad ghd cigemn sted Of CHOTEARR 9m
Ray my spodtiw yYiteqe 7 ‘Tenost9eq
Meaty sae tered tat aan sande of tath
; », sareinet oes bad Moise hit 2 &
sQe
dine to the terms of said contract set out in Parsgreph 2
of complainant's Second Amended Bill of Compleint, belonging to
defendants, and that the ssid taking, as admitted by Paragraph 15,
was tortious, having repossessed himself of defendants property
and having retained control of it tortiously. The contract, as
far as he is concerned, became void aid and complainant is
estopped to proceed thereon in any manner w. tsoevere
"(3) It appears from an examination of the contract set
ovt in compleinant’s Second ‘mended Bill of Complaint, Paragraph 2»
that there is no provision in said contract permitting complainmt
to repossess the property mentioned in seid contract, and complainant
admits, in Paragraph 4 of his Second ‘mended Bill of Complaint, that
Paragraph 13 of seid contract, being the escrow provision thereof,
hes been waived, therefore having admitted that he is now in possession
of said property and has been since the date of the tortious conversion
on May 12, 1930. He does not come into a Court of Equity with elean
hands, has no right to maintain his Bill, and the seme should be dis-
missed for went of equity.
"(4) That the allegations of said Second Amended Bill of
Complaint as set forth in Paragraph 4 are immaterial; that Paragraphs
21, 22, 23 and 24, are immaterial in that the contract entered into
between the complaimant and the defendants, and set forth in Peragraph
2 ef said Second Amended Bill of Gomplaint, does not prohibit the
defendants from centering into any other line of business. MFurther-
more, the said contract was an absolute unconditional contract of
sales
"(5) That the provision of said contract as set forth in
Paragraph 2 in which the complainant agrees to refrain from the
practice of law, is null and void and absolutely contrary to publie
policy.
"(6) The complainant admits that he took possession of
the personal property, premises and business of defendants, and that
he has the books and records of the defendants. Therefore, it is
wholly within his power to ascertain from the books and records,
which he tortiously obtained, the condition of the accounts. There-
fore, a Court of Miuity has no jurisdiction and the saaid Second
Amended Bill of Complaint should be dismissed for waat of equity.
"(7) That the matter of cheeks alleged to be issued by
defendant Arthur V. Goebel are immaterial because the property,
business and premises passed to the defendants in and by said contract
ef sale set forth in Paragraph 2 of ssid Second Amended Bill of
Complaint.
"(8) That the allegations of said Second Amended Bill of
Complaint wherein the complainant alleges that after he tortiously
teck possession on May 12, 1950, he paid obligations of defendants,
are immaterial becsuse he was under no obligation under the terms of
seid contract to pay any ef said alleged bills of defendants. There-
fore, said allegations are immaterial.
"(9) Theat as the contract was an absolute contract of sale,
the complainant was under no obligation to service members of the
Apartment House and Hotel Association, and especially after May 12,
1930, after he had tortiously taken possession of said premises, per-
sonal property and businesse
"(10) That the allegations in said Second ‘mended Bill of
Gomplaint with reference to personal loans obtained by ‘rthur V.
Goebel are immaterial, seandalous and impertinent, and have nothing
to de with the issues in this case.
“(11) That there are no facts set forth in ssid Second
Amended Bill of Complaint which would constitute insolvency on the
part of either of the defendants.
“(12) Complainant admits in and by Paragraph 15 of his
seid Second amended Bill of Complaint that a capias ad satisfaciendum
issued out of the Superior Court ef Cook County, Case Noe 518203,
& dy sigersi at do fea tonttnde btes te omredy ots of anh
0% grsyaoled .tntaicmed Yo LLIh bebrems bnoos? atinantalames |
Gl Aqatyerel yd battia’s ae yynided bisa od’ dod} bee adn ote
Ysreqetc ‘atnebceteh to tleemtd besneaseger yt vad oNolttod a
we gtostinos eff wylaseisxeds t1 Yo Lortaod bertéder gnitvad
at tnantsiqnues bas «oldies de bilov emaced «bemreonoo al ef sa
steveosthalw tecmem vee wt nebtody beeoone OY hogy
dou Joatinoo off To moltaniuaxe ma motk etaeqqe 1 (#)* va
gh tqetgetet ,éabelqaed toe LIta. bebowart: Brood a 'ineniolamoe mt dio
tmniciqnoo grtiiimieg tosténoo bias at solketvowq om al greed é
tasnislqmoo bas gtemutnes blea ni senotinem yrxeqony Sid sagosored 6)
fare ,énialqmod to [£40 bobaom bnooes ald to + Sqatpets% at yatiobs
. efootads sotsivoty worgee od anted .teosttnoo baw to EL Aqeweete
molens2a 0g ni wee ef anf dod bettinbs antved eteletedé .bovisew need esa
tiolevevnoo egoidgto? oft to eted oft sonte need sad bon etseyerg biva ‘to
faelo ditw ywtupi Io 10d # otmt omoo Jom avob oN .O8CL Sl yam me
wath ed Biwoda ones eft bee .Llld eid mledntes of tdyix on and gaboent
sUtinos to inew tet beagée
- 2o LL24 bedmegs pmove® bloe to enottvegeile add tagtodd)%ou ty
—pdqotgetel tend jlaireteumi ote } dqetgarsi mt Maret tea as tnialomo
edt betedne Joaxrineo sald sacs wi Iaisetsamk eta, bS baw EX oS ,
Getgstes xi djzol son bre guinsbnoteb eft bao teamislquoo edt meewte
elt dkdisowg tom peob gtatsiquel. te LLLM bebmems: baooed: biee te’
~tadsiot .e¢ontaud to oni teddo yas olmkt gaiteine mort admebae te!
to dastinos Lanoliibseonu etudeads us sew. dootimoo bias edt genom
TS ivan = a
: soles
_. st Minot tea aa tootinoo, bisa to agietvesq odtdedT.(8)". foc ys
F ait ork aisttes of seetgs tnantalqmoo eld doldw at &§ dgargete’
—. wtidug of yrettnes yLetuleada bas biov bus Linn ot , wad to 80 waysed
..,, 30 mofeaseueeg dood af tad’ atimbdbs tnentaiqaoo edf, (ay bay ie ar
"gad? boa ,edmeheotob to adentend bas seeimetg «ytreqotg Lenonzeq 3
5 egg
9.
gf #2 ,etotexedT .minsbaeteb edd to absovex baa silagd.odd aad. od
sabto297 bus edbod enti moxt aisdieons of tewog ald nidiiw yfode
exon? sadouooos odd to molithmos off yhontaddo vinwolixes of dota
froocs Hina ont brie woltdotbalivu(, on asd YILLT Io sumed @ . ST!
+¥sivupe te inaw 10% besaineibh od bineds tatalgqmod Xo LLG bedrest
“i bewaet ed oF heogelis ateedo to tedtam ed? gadT° (F)"
aXiteqotq eld saseoed Lelisiaumt oxe Ledeod .V gudiua ine
foutinon bios yd bra nt ainsbreteh odd of bedasg aseimeiqg boa ae
“* e ££20 hebrem brovee bfeae te & dgetag stat al as 162 i
(9 OE
to £ET% heonemi bmooet bine Yo anatinge Le ald dadt (8)
yLeuokéxot of to¢te tant noqetle Inenkalqaes ond oie resw
\gettiebretch to anolienitide biaq of .G20L 4Si Yo to nolagenae
to ‘eared edt «ehro norysglilde on ‘tobme saw of Seanad, Lettosaun
“sted? .wtneSneteo® to efltd begetfa Silas to une Keg
: ateivotanmt ota. eanodd
ealee Yo foortnne strtoade ne esw dostémeo edt aa ‘jad
ent to atedtiom sotvies of moliagiive on tehrw oan om
qk Yatl tedts yifeiveque bona «notisinoass Les¢ ee
“tog gueeinerg Bios to molgapanoq seaaeipericerk . eal
rae . sf # eee YY
to LLtG Sobre teovec bien ni anokienoite etd tar
«WV autites yd berttetdo anaol Lamoateq 0%. sone ted
gniriven ova baa ,tnontixeqmt bra auolebress .teixed.
ih ae ee eon. Giddy Ki gevas.
~ ‘Posed biag at Aertel don adoat om ore sterd sad
ent no yorevfogn! etesitenoe binow Moldw Iatatqm
Le RL Pea itd svinebie'ten ©
®
ald to BL dqergaret Ue bane vit atinds 3 ate Came:
swbretomgttse ha astqne s tadd satolqnod to LLfe bebrom |
eSOKSIA 4 OH Sead _yiewod Meod Io M100 16 tequa oud’
oQe
based on said tort judgment for unlawful evicting defendants from
the premises mentioned in the contract, Paragraph 2, and for con-
yerting their personal property and business to his own use, and
that the same was served upon him, and that he was taken into cus
tbody under the same, as admitted in Paragraph 18 of said Jecend
Amended Bill of Complaint, and that he put up « bond of Seven Thousand
Dollars in the County Court, wherein he filed a petition for discharge
under the Insolvent Debtors ‘ct, whieh is aleo contrary to the prayer
for relief set forth in said Second Amended Billi of Complaint wherein
he alleges that he is ready, able and willing to comply with a decree
er order of this Court as to what sums, if any, may be found to be
due to the defendants. Said allegations eppose each other. Jither
one or the other must be false ~- both cannot stand.
"(13) Paragraph 42 of ssid Second Amended Bill of Complaint
is immaterial in that the complainant by his actions in tortiously
repossessing all of the personal property, business and premises of
the defendantss elected to declare ssid contract at an end, and having
done $0, cannot in the same breath consider the contract in full
force, nor can he claim any damages thereon because gaid contract
immediately became void at the option of the defendants from the
beginning.
"(14) Complainant has an sdequate remedy at law, and the
mere fact that he may not be able to prove that he has a remedy at
law does not mean thet he is entitled to a hesring in a court of
Equity.
"(15) The damages as alleged by complainant are uncertain,
having no foundetion in law and are speculative because the complain-
ant could not charge the defendants with loss of profits after he
tortiously took possession of the property on May 12, 1930, and
furthermore, the Court will not proceed to estimate or guess at the
loss of profits when the complainant is attempting to take advantage
of his own wrong.
"(16) The complainant does not anywhere in his Second
Amended Bill of Complaint allege any facts which show thet he is the
owner of any of the property or business from which he elaims
damages.
*(17) The complainant intersperses throughout the Second
‘mended Bill of Complaint allegations with reference to damage done
te Apartment House and Hotel Association. If said Apartment House
and Hotel Association has, or claims to have, any interest in said
contract, or claims to be the proper party thereto, the complainant,
Devid Lipman, has no right to maintain this action, and the proper
party compleinant is the Apartment House and Hotel Association, a
corporation. —
"(18) The complainant admits in Paragraph 15 in said
Second smended Bild of Complaint that he has been convicted of record
in the Superior Court, No. 518205, for trespass for unlawful eviction
of the defendants from the premises mentioned in the said contract
set forth in Paragraph 2, and for the wilful conversion of the personal
property and business situated thereon; that the Appellate Court for
the First District, Case No. 35457, affirmed said judgment on
remittitur; that in and by said admission he also admits thst the
right to the possession of said property mentioned in said contract,
Paragraph 2, is in defendants; that he is in wrongful and tortiogs
possession of the same; that the question of the construction of said
contract has been adjudicated, finding the title and possession of
the property to be in defendants, and he is attempting to re-litigate
in this proceeding what has already been litigated and finally deter-
mined by the Appellate Court, Case No» 35437, said judgment having
become final when the complainant, after prosecuting his appeal to
the Appellate Court, further prosecuted the same to the Supreme Court
where a petition for writ of certiorari was denied.
"(19) That this Court of liquity has no jurisdiction to
aot ainabnete > uiigotve Lyiwsiny 102 Jneugbul, ated, isa m0.
“neo “e% bre ,S dqgntnetal .dorvimbs os eft borelinam gee! nett,
hia yosy nwo ultl oF aoseniuad bre YIreqoug Leroeveq thei? §
sone Odnl mewiat acw om ted bre min nogy beytes sev we
hese? bisa to Of Agetpetel mi bestiobs ae jamse otf? ‘x6 Deas Do.
breesod? revee to baod s qi dna est dont bee ,@rhefqued to frre. be brom
egtedseih tot nelvize a belit of ntoterw ,tryed yaved sft of, ate,
Seyetq oft oF Yustinoo oats ef Hoty . fo. wtosdol Srevioast odd 4:
S@ikovetw tniaiqae) to [Lif bebtrems bnooe” bisa of M2263 toe tetle
eexdeb o ditty yLqmen o¢ gnifliw bose efda ,ybeot af. of wit? sooaedl
ed of hesot od yam .vme Tl gampe teow OF 2S JrHOD add o
“wensit .tente’ dose saogeo srofisyelis bikes .ntnadnoted ea i
ebnets Jonnsy diod ~ eg iet od temm tedio edd te.
Sikncgenod to LLik bobmom booed bike to S4 Mgetastst (eL)* 7
| ‘ytawoitiedy i enotios ated yo tnenisiqmpy off deni AL Lalietanmt et
tO eGeimetg bae eeontend ,yiteqeta Lenoeteg bats to [fa antaadepogs?
guivad bee ybtro me te toatines bise eteloob oF beioole fasnascs oh. of
' fig? at Joetines odd teblends Aisord omar old at Stig
é#oetinos biee eavscod mooted) segemsh ye mtalo ha’ 8976
odd moxt ednebme te’ eft te notiqo ed? ts hiov smz99 vvtes i baa,
ed ons «wal ta ybotier etanpebs ha aad Jari Le taeoD cary” tes see
“ge ybemox 2 ead sd tect evetg od ofda od gon Yom ot tadd ‘teat ete:
to ¢tu00 6 cl antised a of be fstins ul eff touts el Jor od :
a ae
aot
ehlatveom exe doanisiques yd bene tta 22 sépinid ect *( ar)”
e“Risigmoo eft eausced oviielywoeqe ote fms wal at Pee on ete
» of. tetta editotqy 16 agol déiw edisbastob edd égreslo on 9
baa ,OSOL .Sl val no yoteqote off To mofeeosacg A003 | pit
edi te agoun 10 e¢saisas o8 beooorg tom Lilw écued odd ‘ Neceaae
ogasnsvhs Sia? ef aniiametie al inantalqaos es? moste subtetoe to
ree Ae
' beooss ald nt etedwyne fon weow inant éidmoe ed? ery <.
edd af end tad wocta doide avect yoe-ogelle dwialgiod e% . Biveuti,,
_ eebefo ef toidw mott ssontend to Neteqge my ‘ons Ye Yo ast
*
sel
haoces edt tuosdguett! sesteqatetal ing dtielld ‘exit (ve}* .
enoh agamsh of eonotetet Aviv enolisgelia intalgaod To Loe be
easolk gnemdisgé biee Ti .notiatooua’ Lede bane esvell ¢nomd tad
bise ei deeteint una ,overoot emtaélo te «and ptieyy vie " TL:
gp dentalquos ais pototets ying teqorg edd ov of
wogery off base ,noltes wild mintntam o¢ tiptt on iat”, itt bye"
@ «noltaiooss) LIetoh bne sevol tnemduegs one al dmant Vote
' eae oe
bine mt 8L£ dqetgetat ni atisbe dnmaniezignos off ~ ,
ixpoet to betofysoo need wat on todd dmtatgao? to LLP’ a ng
noitetvs Lwtwolmy tot sesqaetd t0t ySORBLE ot .frme0 set ro—Ne
doatines bran ef? mt Sonok seen evatmerg odd mort adnebaetob
Innosteq ed? to solexovnes Lutilw edd tol bre .S dqetgered nt aes
MOR tod otelloqys ont tant Yoooxedd berex Sta Sekt aed bres 4F%
no sromphet blat heatri ts .VEbsS .oW oead. vera ve
od¢ tals etiabs oale ef molsetmbs biae yd bos af dees om
gtoptimoo bites ai honoltnem ysieqoty bise To mo nehivoeneg’ # hi
auoitrod bra In‘tnnexw at et ed salt iadnobue teh ak «
bina 26 nolvomsiuntve eld to Moldasup end dearly poms ents:
to ndissdeeog fre oLstd ‘edd gnibat? 4 hogsotbyibs 196
etagiif-ex ov gridqmesss ah ef ins ,admabieted at cd ad
w‘eded Yffnmtt Sue botagiti£ mood ybeotis ead tadw gat
. gaiver dnemgbut, bise «VEhCE .OV edad _ius0l otalt
02° faogqs tid getivoccotg tedis- pee signs wi ye?
sas00 ome tHe odd od ome ot beduoeactg tedetu? «7
bette esy Isatokizeo to th ng
id mayb acne on sory “A Espa ‘to 09 elit ( AaB he
«19-
enjoin the ease filed by Arthur V. Goebel in the Circuit Court of
Ceok County, Case No. B-240852, wherein said Goebel filed his
declaration against the complainant herein for damages for an
alleged assault committed by the complainant on him. A Court of
Rouity would have no jurisdiction to try an assault and battery
ease which is a comson law action, nor would it have any power to
restrain the prosecution of a tort action, nor hes it power to
restrain the defendant from prosecuting a capias ad satisfaciend
issued by the Superior Court of Cook County, Case Noe 518203, and
the only proper tribunal for determining whether or not said capias
Was properly issued is the County Court of Cook County where an
action is pending wherein the complainant is attempting to obtain
his liberty under the Insolvent Debtors Act.
"(20) The element of loss of profits was not within the
contemplation of the parties at the time the contract wos made, bee
eause the title passe? absolutely to the defendants.
“Wherefore, and for divers other good causes of demurrer
appearing in the said Second Amended Bill of Compleint, these
defendants demur to seid Second Amended Bill, and to all the matters
and things therein contained, and pray the judgment of this Honorable
Court, whether they shall be compelled to make any further or other
answer to the said Second Amended Bill, and they pray to be dismissed
with their reasonable costs in this behalf sustained.” (Here follows
the verification.)
Complainant contends that the bill states a good cause of
action and that the "general and special demurrer" should have been
overruled. Im our judgment the dismissal of the bill may be justified
upon a number of grounds. Complainant alleges the proceedings in
ebel et mle Ve Lipman, supra, in his bill. it appears from our
Opinion in that case that it was conceded that clause 13 of the
agreement was waived by the parties; that the defendants paid $1,000
as earnest money and the first payment of $2,500; that they went inte
possession of the premises on December 5, 1929, and remained in
possession until May 12) 1930; that complainant took possession of
the premises, personal property and the business, om May 12, 1930,
and that he retained possession thereafter. In our Opinion we saids
Clause of sng hee sage Be wine gal pe og ug Ri seeaeieiee ay ie
property, to which the defendant answered that he based his right to
enter and take possession of the property under clause three of the
contract. The court very properly ruled that that clause gave the
defendant only the right to enter for the purpose of making an
eXamination or audit of the accounts and thet i¢ did not give the
éefendant the right to enter and take possession of the premises, etes
The court, in passing upon the defendant's motion te direct a verdiet
at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case, properly held that if the
defendant thopght the plaintiffs had breached the contract, he had no
right to obtain possession of the premises, etc. * * * At no time
éuring the trial did the defendant assert that the contract was a
Ye fa7O9 Iiwoxlo odd mt Lodeod «VV tudeeA yd beLlt wane
aid betti Ledeo) blea alerted totes saat inane “v
MA TOL aogansh tot mketed themtal gL Thy Fl relives tos
to ttNOo A amid so tmamislqnes add Wg bed taaoe. on boyetLi
Yrotied ons tluacan me Yrs of motiolbelxut on ont bisow ys hw’
ov revog yee ovad ¢2 bivow tom anolees Hl rommds # eat dokd ‘bai
ot towog if sad som ,sottos 3x0 2° te tare fp at 8%
af ond mbszdas
J
le ERIE tel coak tanats anes ta ieee: ae # beuaal
sion ee:
“gaiqeo bine gen to todiedw oninimreteS rot aes iu
tn stede yinwed xoot to sev0d ytawed eft at
Biatdo of galtqmice af imanietqmod edt Stesade eet
et9A gxotded smevioanl od? za 4) gh |
(edd mitviw dem ase etitotq to weel to teemete ed?
-od ,ehem dev dosttnen off mts edd te aod st A
| sAttiebas ted est oF yLetulosds -
wertities To eeagso boog recto axovih wt ome
gaotd ,itkafouo) to ILE sofwom’ ex Ms 0
wtetten els Ifs of bee .LLit hebmemh hnooe! bisa o nf alg i.
eideraned aids to tromphet ond yYerr brie , bontadnes hte tad
terete xo todtist yue elem of niygest od ae
bevataath of of ata yedt fre ¢ i
avoiiot ete) ", bertefaus ny Pi pit rerrer ni aduoo ¢
te setae hoon # aedada CLid efd tart ebrodnos Share
mood ever bivede “setemtes Letooge bas Lateoneg" ay tat ws 4 ae
hottitant od Yom LIftd std to Lecoimeath oft trem burt, =e Co be. ota
ee
0004.44 hag atnebnoteh ats dash jaokizeg oad ve ' ase i
eint os verte tsid 7008.88 to snemyeq fond salt he Ae Um see
ra ye ag
mt homtamen baw (e8@L .@ roduoved ine seabhinnd athe “to motaneoxee
te notunsenog toed dnettt siques mat Ober rd wll Lda sotanneneg 4
(GERL (Si Yew no pseontewd edd one Yetocomy Leong 08.
“ thtae ow notmigo uuo nt .tedTteotods noisasseng ‘berisdes ex
dertw tobns oteda o¢ Insbnetob efi ‘bexkan Pxuo9 fare) me
oft to molauonsey oaiad of tngit oft beatefo on
of gxgix win bedud sit dacls snabre tok ota
edt To gexds wane nie reba Ysroqoty en? ‘to po al s
ee oore. o tad? salt “Delon ytxed ora xxv #3
meek, he té eae att tot recne oF |
“gtd ev.
fon bth ¢2 ¢odt bam etaseocs ext TD 7 :
ate andy ie 5 edt Io tolmeseneq tind Baw sede oF 3
foibmmvy & foetts, of moliam a'inshnoted edd m
ake tt dole bled yltoyorg ,auso ‘ettitnieig ody t
gor bad Oxf toattaoo ‘edt bedosetd bart eTtisn
3 emi? om tA * * * 2090 eseatmory oat to ‘6 faa
8 aaw toaxdnoo etd dad? dneaan imabneteb ond print
-lLle
conditienal sale contract. In this court, however, he contends
that ‘this agreement amounted to a “conditional sale" and therefore
the lease of the premises, the stock and the chattels were the
property of the defendant and the Apartment House and Hotel
Assoeiation until fully paid for,' and that after the plaintiffs
had defaulted under the contract he served a notice on them setting
up the default and demanding possession of the premises, that the
plaintiffs refused to surrender possession and that thereupon the
defendant had the right to take possession of the premises, ete.
Under the rules we might well disregard the contention now raised
in this court that the agreement amounted to a conditional sale con-
tract. The defendant states, in support of the instant contention,
that the contract provides only that the defendant ‘has agreed to
gell and deliver unto the second parties, Gosbel and Schatz, his
law business,' ete., whereas it provides that the defendant ‘does
hereby sell, transfer end convey unto said second party,.%t the price
of $12,500 all of the following,’ which are words of present,
absolute conveyance."
Later in the opinion we held that the contract “was an absolute
contract of sale." We further held that
“The jury were fully warranted in finding that the
defendant intentionslly and deliberately took the lew into his own
hands and committed the trespass charged in the declaration. It
Was an outrageous act end the jury were fully warranted in assessing
punitive damages against the defendant."
One of the principles of law that must be applied in detere
Mining the question before us is the following:
"A demurrer does not admit allegations of fact which
have been previously decided and are res judicata, even though they
are alleged contrary to the adjudication. rtin ve MeCall, 247
Til. 484.) ‘The bill shows clearly that such alleged matters have
been previously adjudicated contrary to the contentions of the
parties to this bill, and that the other facts stated in this bill
contradict such alleged statement of facts." (eber v» Kemper,
S20 Ill. 11, 21.)
From the allegations of the bill and from our af oresaid
opinion it appears that complainant based his right to take possession
of the premises and property under elause 3 of the contract. That
complainant, without warrant under the contract or the law, delibe
erately, intentionally and illegally repossessed himself of the
subject matter of the contract clearly appears from the allegations
of the bill and from our eforesaid opinion. That complainant, by
his conduct, rescinded and annulled the contract also appears from
the allegations of the bill and from ovr opinion. Complainant
concedes, in his reply brief, that after May 12, 1930, "the cane
eellation and rescission had become effective and complainant was in
abneteoo ef ¢tovewed ydivoe nidd mt. dpetdmbo eLew Lome rete , |
eidtetold bre "“elee Lanolvtbnoo” a of dsodnveme etat’ de
add evew afetinco ond bas aoosa edd yeoutaoxg edt te eaavst
Level bes oawell SrecdteyA od bee Inebmotoh sah VO”
atittvtelg oft tedta vadd how "yet bheg elit Chen notte
gxiiion weds wo sober o boviee ef toeatmon odd tobe bbdLua'te.
eft gakt ,seeimety os Ie noleseunegq pakbnsmtd bia 3 luatod
ed mogweteds todd tee solsebeneg tebnectivs of Seewton e Yt dnd i
yoje ysvelmetq off Io noleaoupog eadst of tee tx etd hed On:
| headeat wor welinetmoe ofc Brapetelb ILew idole ow esivw’ pe |
“noo 6fem Lenotilinoo « ot botewome Inemeontpe edd sede Jawdo"
ehesinotaneo Josten wit to duoqqwa mh yattada taehnse toh eT or eta
ot beerge amit Inobeo isd oft tend «ind eebiverq toatiaGe*
‘eit ,stade® bas fode00 yaekixaq broose nde ota gph
aoeb' dnabesteh end tadé aobkvesq 32 enotorw ..6d6 ‘yen
Golvg off to, wWuag anooee bles ofnyw vernoo bas rerecend’ sitee
eee 26 shuow ors dolsw * pettwoite’ oat te ff"
*. Sony THOS saute
‘pdutouds « Pore) ial sont9n09 edd ‘tad. biedt-« ow sotetao oat nb te pone 4
; sacs blo mend: Pr “soksn" tentes
odd sadd gotbot? mt hednerzew ULivt exew yent edt!” ing
owe als odmi wal esd dood yLodetedifeb bme yiLanolinednt te
«¢h snelédarsloeb et? nk bogredo sasqeetd ed?’ dedtdbmtos baa
pe tampens. ti betaettew yilut exew yxwl ed? bra tos Sardene ns nw
. “cbrootrekeh of9 tathege a
wtadob: ti botiega od tessa tad? wet Yo selgtemirg belt: Bo. ond. ©
agnivellot ed? af as onetesionp tegen at
iy
ae
ary Te cee thaties oxtd oe cszieo ig be:
fitted eide at werors stot tents olf
bihoow'W two mOTY hes Lid ond Yo abotdegetic! ct wie dunes nH |
ne lebeaweg etad-ot tight alt beand Oni bitin ne eee 0 ata io :
‘teat atootines edd to © commie rebair Wreqory brs cow hmong ¢ ais te
‘ adileb «ral. od? te doottows ed tebe gemerew tyros tw ¢: ne pt be Leyame
oat to Bheamla heunsaneqer: vitegel Le: bres Llane himett «
“anmitageste este more % ones age eleae Lo: soattnos iesnglino todd om
a «duprdaLace> soxt7 vi nolntge » Seangrete wo wore
rai : | tae “snbinige * «we mort tk ane oitt om
w ani eats” <nbeE wht ve ‘164% ‘tei saan y
-l2-
possession thereafter." Wevertheless, complainant's bill is based
upon the contract, and he seeks therein “to set off against the
claims and demands of defendants such sume as he is equitebly entitled
to and which may be rightfully due him” under the contract. in his
bill he seeks to prevent the operation of the capias ad satisfaciendum
in Goebel et al. v. Lipman, supray by asking for an accounting under
the contract. This he cannot doe In City ef Chicago v. Chicago Bys.
Coe, 228 Ille Appe 579, decided by this branch of the court, we said
(pe 589)s
"It is said in 2 Black's Rescission and Cancellation of
Contracts, sec. 561, ppe 1321-2: 'A person who is in « position
where he ean either affirm or rescind a contract cannot do both}
he cannot treat the contract as rescinded for the purpose of es~
eaping obligations wider it, ani at the same time treat it as sub-
sisting for the purpose of claiming benefits, or for any resson
treat it as abrogated and as existing at the same time.*”
The decree may also be sustained upon the ground that
complainant is guilty of laches, and therefore should be denicd
injunctive or any other relief. On May <1, 1959, the suit of Goebel
et ale Ve Li s Supra, was commenced. Complainant now seeks to
have enjoined the judgment entered therein. Our opinion, upon the
appeal, was filed February 23, 1932. Certiorari was denied by the
Supreme court om June 25, 1932 (see 265 Ille App. xiv)e ‘The original
bill in the instant proceeding was filed in the July term, 1932.
It appears from the allegations of the second amended bill that come
Plainant vould have brought the instent bill at least two ani one»
quarter years before he did. It also appears from the allegations of
the bill, and from our opinion in Goebel et el» ve Lipman that for
"sometime prior to May 1) 1930" complainant had knowledge of the
alleged facts and circumstances upon which he based his right to
take possession. rom the time that he took pogsession he had the
custody and control of the books and records. During the two and
one-quarter years he allowed defendants to prosecute their suit te a
final decision by the Supreme court, and it was in July, 1932, after
the issuance of the capias ad satisfaciendum that he, faced with
a a
it
boas ak Lid o Saat ialqueo saoloisievell “«ted lag sede | holaagarog
ode Junioges the goa of stored? .eleve ad brea atentinos wt mga
—beititns edetlupe ef ed en amwe dove ginchneted to ebracts b Brus amio£o
eid sl sdostdaco of? xobaw “abd oud yLiwidety ls od. yam dots bie oF
Mebuotostatien bs gatgeo of? to neidexeqe add daeverq o¢ waleos ad, Likd
Ohm BAIieoss aH Tor patios Yt estewe enamihl .y «fs de fodeod kt
sy ogan £00 «¥ gg00idd to ea t8 at sob donneo est aldt sbaatiaoo. oad
pian ov efrmoo ef? To toned elas ve bebioob ore. tas +54, 088 and
-#(968 +a)
te potielLoene? bme nolsetoasd w'aoal€ & mt ales at rc
moiginog & mk ak ofw moatoy A' #8-18EL . [d8 .908. sodoarsinad :
gated ob tonnso gaat ag buioses xo ot 8 veda kb nao off
-ae to seoqing oft tol hebaiveet us toetimoo off staoxt, Joanan
-dwa a6 Jk daots omid oupa offs to han ytt tobmy emotisgiice gatgss
oases Yi tet TO ,adetened grimtels to cxoqrug, ext Tot tats
_. “mtd Steg off ta pattetxo am baw batagords ae meee
ta brusory ord noqw bemtedusm ed Yale ‘gaat veroeh oa ng, Ga,
, hoinph ef biuosla exotoredd bus ,aedoat to ithe at pen
Iedeod %e dine oft ,0S¢L . LS yeM m0 sYohfor rarlte we ‘10 oy stones. a
Kah) poe
ot adese won snaniotgne) ,.heomenmoo Bew astra epee ht Ale, > a j
at sequ emt stad es: vthowedt Sereine Srroaty bu, tar fe not i
hatte in elt «(vim oqad «lll G88 cea) StQL és ‘onus mo sooo ome 7s |
Es ee fia oe
——-« ABERK quted Vit ot af boLit sow gnthovoozg instant ott mt tite i
4 _ msa09 gas? Lid bebnems buovse oft to anotisgette end mort ateoqgs ar :
4 rene boa ows teaol ta Lite ssdonth edd idgwowd evar btwoo ta -
te anotdage Ls ead mo"? exsogaa oata $1 ‘sbkb oa orored WE2OY
tot Gadd song ht oy +1510 Ledeoo ni olmiqo 0 ak hae’e
es To epbeLwost bed inant oLaceo "Oued ai ett od wii
of trisi« 3 Lat hosed est dotdw Moga woonadenuozte haa ait
al had om Ho Lageaneg foos ont tasty outs ott ‘aot ome i
bre owt ont paxil sabrooe% bce axood sts 20 Sorn00 ‘bate
Te gana
x od tive shoals osuveaorg ov einebeotsh deresis b ort bei
ae
mt
imprisonment if he did not pay the judgment, filed the original bill
in the instant case. He filed his petition in the County court,
under the Insolvent Debtors act (Lipman v. Goebel et ale, 357 Ill.
315), in the fall of 1932, and we must assume, therefore, that he
was umable to pay the judgment in the trespass case, and it seems
reasonably clear that the instant bill wus brought to aveid, if
possible, the effect of the Sapiase in equity a party is not per~
mitted to sleep on his rights to the prejudice of the party on whom
he makes a claim; and failure to use reasonable diligence in bringing
his suit to enforce a right after the facts im the case are known to
a complainant is fatal to his right to recover. laches is an equitable
defense and is allowed to do justice between the parties under all the
circumstances of the case without regard to the passage of any definite
period of time. The fact that complainant was an experienced lawyer
and knew the alleged facts upon which he bases his right to an aceounte
ing “sometime prior to May 1, 1930," must be considered in determining
the question of laches.
The decree may also be sustained upon the ground that com-
Plainant comes into a court of equity with unclean hands. What we
have heretofore said in this opinion sufficiently shows our reasons
for thus concluding. While this rule of equity, which forbids relief
to him who is guilty of inequitable conduct, applies only where the
improper conduet concerns the very transaction of which complaint is
made, it is clear that the improper conduct of complainant was directly
comected with the subject matter ef the instant litigation. Come
Plainant's sole defense in the trespass case was based upon the con-
tract. Equity will not aid one who unlawfully and maliciously takes
the lew into his own hands and then seeks to obtain relief in chancery
from the consequences of his conducte This rule ia Sspecially applicable
to the conduct of complainants, an experienced lawyer familiar with the
facts. Complainant contends that the defense of unclean hands cannet
££2¢ Lanigize add bell? ~Inampnn, ent yoq von 62d ef MY ¢oommebegik
esavon Ysiveo oly mi melsiveq eli boLtt *H \.eaeo drtetant one eet
REL W60 ake de SodgoD sv memg it) toa etotded srevfoentT sae 6b
af tad ,evotetedd ,omuena dena ow bas g88OL to LLet edt nt y{ ale
ameoe ¢L bra .ouso sasgqeett ond nt taompout oat vYsq ot eideny asw
tk .hkeva of slguowd aew Lite drxedamt edd tant uae ly ydendesds
-<eq foe at Ytreq « Ylwpo al semtqsy eMd tO souTtte eff (etdtanog
stony Ke ysuse acid Lo wothutoue odd of vdugie etd no qoele of becdim
geiani«d mi soregiits sidamoeset say of owlint bre imtalo & wttemw 6H
oS Shor et eehe odd at wtont ont Zotts sigh « goretae oF £2 ah
eidetinpe ma ef pesisa stpvooe* of sdpix ald’ od tndut at ine .
ag? Iie <ebew neti reg ott negnded evizeut bb of hewolts at tn one
etinkiod yrs to eyaeenq end 82 broget dwortd Ew caso std Yo ae
uoguat wuhnaminadetn na saw tnenieiqmos dat? doe ofT omits te Nel.
stnnoes ns 9¢ idgi eid seasd of doidw noqu adest hepetts ond wont is 4
aatateesos fi borebianoo od taum "080s yt ~ od soltg Smtiemos” pat ae
- “,abstoe Yo’ walteidflte | 1
m0 ‘teks Enworn ens noqu bentetava od cals vax evtosh oat age pig |
‘ow dat! sebmad neo fom dé by xd tarps to Jtw09 a etut e aemoo emoo dnentatg 4
angaset ‘230 ewosde hguovgnnye nointee end ak oes eretese sed oad
gets sites fender
ai dniniqewe Motte to nottowasers Yuev ott arresneo “toubnoo “te
ultoetib ean #eshtutimoc to séuhnde Yeqongrit ont tadd tools ef” rom
owod snotéapivil imatant ent to vdtom do otdue ine dbiw ‘weds a
<t00 ed moqy bomad anw eaeo saaqaotd eat nt eanetob foe etd inn ser he
coded Vevototian bax vLietwolny odw sno bia fon itiw eehooe “sso0st f
eusonstlo ml ‘hotles niatde od exeos nods ona abnadt nwo ad « ost wad | old j
Ore
tdevituas eliatooges ad ofvt eid? “sfoubnos aud to seoneupoanco ‘edd ork
W8 ¢ eat ome Wy
exd thw tH iL ims t woyneL be one treaxo fs einante Lemon to doubereo ond oF
re ats =. 8% pi} ter!
#
sonriao abnad nae Loa to pastes end dod abaosmos snaninigaod 8
es: ke epee dt @ Te
whee
be raised by demurrer, and cites in support of this contention
tinkeff ve Wyland, 272 Illes App» 280. That case (pe 286) cites
the rule of equity which forbids relief to him whe is guilty of
inequitable conduct and holds that it applies only where the improper
conduct concerns the very transaction of which complaint is made};
that the allegations of the bill in that ease did met eall for the
application of the rule, and that if the defense existed it could be
properly reised by answer. if want of jurisdictions the bar of the
statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, laches, unclean hands,
multifariousness, or defenses of a kindred character appear on the
face of a bill, it will be obnoxious to a demrrer unlese an equitable
ereuse is alleged in the bill that avoids the operation of the rule.
Other grounds are urged by defendants in suppert ef the
decree, but in our view of this appeal it is not necessary te pass
upom the samee There is, of course, no merit in complainant's con-
tention that as the chanecllor dismissed the bill upon the séle ground
that complainant came inte court with unelean hands, other grounds
urged by defendants in support of the dewews should not be considered.
The deeree of the Cireuit court of Cook county is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Sullivan, J», conceurse
As Mr. Chief Justice Friend was the chaneellor in the trial of this
cause, he took no part, in this court, in the consideration m£& nor
determination of this appeal.
| Reltaeinoo wld to toque ni wethe baw ,wextme® YW bowler ed
aedio (288 sq) eesn ted? 4088 sygA WELT BYS Qhaater Sw toile
te qitua si ecw old ad Ywilet ehkdre? stole hive to wilrt ete
| agongut edt oxodw Yio medfage 44 tard abLod hia ‘soubnoy eldadtupehl
tehen al inintgamo doldw bo molévooensst yuey of? aneonos somtatoy
ans wei Lhee 2on bbb ease tele nt Lite od Yo enol tye La wed vprtl’
od biuoo 2 botatxs aanetoh edd ti dally has yolwd afd To nodeeREgen
ong to ued ott emoiteisettwt te fnew Tl stevens Yo Sealer Ulieyorg
| gabnasd neefors pactioal yabuest ‘te stutote otf Genotsadtatl YW ‘edwindd
est 1 teoqga tetootato boxbnid s te weaneted to suotevolte tls ina
eidetinge na saclay corms « 0d avokxondo od Libw di \ ilies Yo Wout
soiwe off? % aolderego bad ahiovs sadd L420 ods mk beesds wt euvene
eld Fo Seoqque at stsaine tb Yd degui wee etmsDay Wado! sue! q
gee: od Kesseepen den wt i Leouqu wld? to wety awe at ted QsoeR
prhtop. a Wanstatgan ah tines om yentsoc to «et etext semem erttomoyaD
esiora eLbe ont noqu LLid ocd ioanimatd roLLoonede: oft) os tarthimbitmed: —
ehawoty veddo yubmat nsefoay détw dusoo oont, eman tertetymoo tastt: a.
shousbienos od.ton ives eorosb! ott 20: ¢apeuwecatt wtmabwoheh ye begin ‘ ‘3
sbomattia ef ygoume dood to dyes tiworlhd csi ke eomeb eff deonlaly
CRATER wives site wt Dew sone ted ete iad |
Meise eg oe eG) .ysivew Ge ate Slat BEd yuibulomiy amie” ee% cd
ble a pide Rs - oc
ut Se aes — nr eee a : |
SS GS
Lees
*
seotianee ferme to. mt tan Seolee se Aree ‘aboorties by
ay nat 8 ies Buns wy Reh & need ot? «i sae deh efge c etectbshe bi
si tet? Ene laees be sy in wie ete bbe F om ifi¢ ya aye boi
| esniietal, eb tends adele a yun geld beh odend ewe wis wind wa 2 ta oe
Pao sLagy —tiadk ire ox ; S.Lere ee sivuhnes win ty swe ones BOS ote ce =
he j F ; A
rae R » tisaand sabi oH ig route oti
A tae ‘
ype fate Ga ere smandadenos
4
‘ or r } “ $
; Z é <
: e f se
“aa rs ‘Sanre of y tis si
‘Y
al f
é pe §
Bae
;
RAYMOWD ie BLACKWOOD, ) i
Appellant,
APPEAL FROM CIE core COURT
37589
Ve
OF COOK COUNTY.
FREDERICK He FROERKE,
— 279 1.4. 634
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVIQUZD THe OPINIOW OF THE coURT.
Plaintiff aued defendant in an action of trespass on the
case. A jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty and
assessing plaintiff's damages at the aum of one dollar. fhe jury
anawered two special interrogatories submitted to them, ac follows:
(2) that defendant was not actuated by malice toward plaintiff in
securing his arrest, as elleged in the declaration; and (2) that
he was netuated by malice toward the plaintiff in the bringing of
the criminal wrenneution, as alleged in plaintiff's declaration.
: Defendant made no motion for a mew trial. Plaintiff's motion for
a new trial was overruled and he hes appealed from a judgment
entered upon the verdict.
The first count of the declaration charges, inter alia,
that on June 18, 1929, defendant falsely, maliciously, ani without
any reasonable or probable cause charged that plaintiff had robbed
defendant with a guns that defendant falsely, maliciously and without
any reasonable or probable esure proeured the arrest of plaintiff and
caused the latter to be brought before one of the judges of the
Municipal court of Chieage "to be dealt with according te law for
the supposed offense," and that defendant, on said date, wrongfully
and unjustly, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatscever
preeured plaintiff to be arrested and to be imprisoned and kept in
-
ry
{ x A \ ies euniuene Bg hia age ‘
Hing 4 » aa SS he ps a Re hah Ree mea
lg 1 \es ee a i ia % cal h
\ Ye ; Lm F oegiay: “hanya oie sty Fay vane
| |
i 13 en Ce a
; | etna tiogga
TAUGO TITMIT MOM TATA ee ee
oT
s¥7HUOO BOD KO As Staaie y pli.
oom oe | 30 TARTAN
b GOAcE OTQ™ 0 ot eel
with tig De ee:
~ s¥sH00 EET % ROINISO BEY cam WAmTADe 8 + ik
é ots hk a al a
LE Soabaetebh Sears satoatast wa: ee
, han YLimy imabepted gadbalt dotbyey a demos yemb A omene |
“Gueh of .xetlob sao Yo swe alt te aopamsd af 22tintele aateaeads:
-—_ ae yuerd of bodtindys ae trodagorsedat nee |
mk Witatalg bsewot eotlem yd dadautos Jon eae smadeated Seth ihtD:
tats, AS) Sts treliarsfoed eds mt begetia as stort, abe 9a
-“ amtamixd ot at Mtdatela ent. trowos ooktan yd sotauton.nam si
__., sigetwts foe eMidelatg mi bepelio an «nohispeeasg santo 4
Rot soitom a'tilimtalt -faixt wena wet motvom on ohem dnabae
demorgout, & wort beleoqge ead od has belusteve sew tatud Perry
i vio tbiey ail? noqu bexegme j
satin sated saegiado mottaxafoed ex? Yo tnuoe texkt ad SECS
twats iw Bon ¢YLowedodsam yELeuLek smsheoded «RCL «AL emul me ass os
beddet bad Viténtela test bogradto oR ekdadery x0. danoonen7e |
oy »
t
rot wal 08 paibiooss méiw dfeeb ed of* agaetd? to sos , |
vilutyaotw eoded bles n@ edanbaoted daald baie Moen tte oO TG
torsos sow sues ORERTO te oLdanonsex we duostdiw ane e
"gh dqed baw benoutzgmt od 08 bas beduetxa od 09 ademtate be
prison for the space of twelve hours; thet on Jume 28, 1929, defend-
ant falsely, maliciously and without any rensonable or probable
cause procured plaintiff te be exemined before said judge touching
the said supposed offense and that said judge, having heard and con-
sidered the case, adjudged and determined that plaintiff was not
guilty of the said supposed offense and then and there acquitted and
discharged plainti‘f, and that defendant has not further prosecuted
his complaint and has ebandoned the same, and the said complaint and
prosecution are wholly ended and determined. Count two alleges
malicious prosecution. Counts three and four allege slander. Counts
five and six allege false imprisonment. Defendant filed the plea of
the general issue; also special plese os to counts three and four
elleging, in substance, that the alleged slanderous words were spoken
in the honest belief that plaintiff was the person whe hat robbed
éefendant and «ere “spoken solely to said police officer for the pure
pose of bringing te justice an individual whom he believed guilty of
the crime of highway robbery;" alse special pleas as to counts ons,
two, five and six, which allege, in substance, that prior to the signing
of the complaint defendant was rebbed by an individual armed with a
revelyer, that said individual was identical in appearance with plain-
tiff, that at the time he signed the complaint and made the charge
he honestly believed that plaintiff was the individual who had robbed
him, ani that in making the charge he way not actuated by malice nor
411 will towerd plaintiff.
| There is little dispute as to the main facts. Vleintiff,
at the time in question, was about fifty years old. He was born in
iowa and had taught sehool to obtain a college education. After
leaving college he did newspaper work in that state. in August, 1907,
he came to Chicago, where he worked for the City Press <gsociation
for more than a year. He then worked for the Civil Service seociation
~hooteh .QSeL 28 earl me telt qaewod ovtews te sosge afd 10% moaleg
eidedazy xe eidaroenat ywie Jweddiw ban yLevolotiaw wueatek ro
gridawod sybul bien supind Segimexe ef of ttivntalg betsoe%q soma
~ceo hae Otel geivet ,oghet Blac sed? bra eanette besoqqwa bien wd
sou wee Tiktotsly todd heniazeds) ima awehage soaco ond howebse
bus hodtiupos etedd ben medd tro wane tio beeoguise Biae ots te wedbarg |
hetunenong wetdest don cout tradroted tad? has 4 Ptinteta bewzadoath e
bin Yekatqeoo bien ond bra emus odd bemonnade sat hme sxbakquoe ‘iil
eeyetia ows inwoD ,bemtarretoh boa bebne vifouw —, 01 suoenong
stewed .tebnala ogolia xwet brs ood edawed -09L4uoesexq '
te eelg ofd boll? Inokrotet .dnomidabugm? wtfer geile xia om on
wer has contd eimwos of an bnety Labeoqe oats jeusel:
aexdqo stow abtow avorebnnte beg@iia od? tid ,eommandive eee |
-poddot bal ow noateg wl? wav Mitnibly dene doktor deemed wits mt a
he ana
“me 4 end ‘ret xoehite avifeg blaw of YLolow newfoqu” oxen haw do
és ball
to whiny bevelled ed modw Lesbivihed aa botiewh of wi
Py. egnuos os as waclg inlooqe ontn “tyre ddot yeurtgtd teteniie | .
atm te ests oo rola gadd poonwdadus ni .oyeite deide jxbe bid veh yond i
a ddiw beats Loud tv tbnt na YW beddox aow trabmdted detalgnoe eat to
onkela a3tw one te0gqs ai ksoiinobt aow Levbivibal ‘Brad ‘sats’ xovfoven
grado sd? cham imo Inialgmoo att bomptd ot omit elt Se todd YRERS
| beddor bast ow Invbivisni ond nev Yitiniate tail Sivekled ykteomed od q
| ton seston bla dosawion den gow est om wale petersenii ouwidh ;
one "ude ahi kd od Gi" Shinde Gade anata’ memes |
“nh ered cow of bfo oxomy LET Suddd nb’ \modenerp nt bik pitt”
nett: saotisoubs egellos « alata of Loose tetgiens bot a ok
(foe a faugi SI .odsde gett at dxow roqeqawon bth of ogettes gulvect
aetealoosas svort a sto! ods i st bestow ont — herpes ° ‘
t
PUR TT eS ae
a3e
for eight or nine years. He began the prectice of law im December,
1922. In March, 1929, he was appointe’ an assistant state's attorney
of Gook county by state's attorney John A» Swanson. Plaintiff's
duties related to "tax fixing eases and his work we done in the
County building, in which the state's attormey had an office. On
June 138, 1920, he kept an appointment with Judge Horner, Probate
judge ef Cook county, after which, in pursuance of /autios, he went
to the assessor's office, located in the same building, and after
completing his work there he went to the eighth floor of the Jity
Hall, which is connected with the County building, to cheok up
eortain cases that he wax attending to in the Municipal court. He
left there and was standing in the hallway on that floor waiting |
for an elevator, when defendant sudienly appeared with a policeman
and FEXSe; SF said to the latter: “Arrest this mene He held me up
in my real estate office three months ago." Plainti’f said to the
policeman, “Why, he is crasy, i am a lavyer," and handed the police-
man his eard and requested permission to telephone his offi ce.
Neither defendant ner the police officer had a warrant for plain-
tiff's arrest. The officer refused to allow plaintiff te telephone
and said that he would “have to come elong." The officer took plaine
tiff by the arm and lei him to the Contral Detail police stntion, at
Madison and Warket streets. Plaintiff there asked lesve to telephone,
and stated that he was an assistant’ state's attorney. He was not
permitted to telephone, wae handcuffed, placed in a patrol wagon, and
driven to the Chieage Lewn station at 3515 Vest 63rd street, Chicago.
Defendant accompanied plaintiff and the officer during all of this
time. At the last station plaintiff said te the lieutenant of
police stationed there: “I would like to telephone, Thies thing
has gone far enoughe If you will let me call up Judge Matchett
or Judge Johnson or Judge Trude, or John Swanson, the state's
attorney, or if you will call them up yourself, you will find out
(C
geetinece® mi wal 6 oeltoeng etd meged ok. wxsey ontn *0 detyhe cok
Yeortweids a'etatea taatetese oe totntogqs aaw of aeser tora a seebs
* gtenaeniiatt samanowe «4 netot ogerredsm 0 ‘sdata yt Cimisd Meld S
oi mt ood saw stvow cid ban eenwe “gatxt? ead” of Badated detdub
nO sondvRe me bed yoruosdé otedadu ott Moldy wh dedetiog Wawed
edoduxt ytoneell vglwt dttw ¢romimtodas ta Sud ont , OSCE cE oniit
anew ad quakent\yto wornmeeny et toni ‘tedta Jedidé ded We eghnh
dee tase qgukdLind amne wid pt Nesdvot yoortiy @!roesesee "as
wis asl ta soolt Madgto salt ‘ov seow ott ered? drow abd es
qt doode of yynthkind’ “inuet ote Hehy bedventos er fob Lait
6 abewoo Aeqtoknel edt ot of ‘pit bre tee enw cal add ‘peeao aiatsee. a
poke tow xonkt sealed wo YowLLest orfe nt gaFhaads eaw bas oxedé dies
. semectLeg a ttiv he wegge Ynebhes dmodireted moi ‘sobsvets 5 ate 4
tu tat Dioul OM smn att doorei” vaeddad eitt os bhi weRiaeae ‘he
90 ee, ats enaiqeled o¢ mmiualereg bed i pee :
? tire “x vb tantate watte of heavtes seoktte eit eevee 008 : we 4
~utetg dood tentiie es ".gnoLe ombe of pred Mtuow ect sti eto ee
te eno k2 680 eoifog Ltated Lexined ed? e¢.mbd bel bre wre wate et vty P :
sonpcqetot of over bodes ovedé Ytntalt sateoude doiluiit boik’ moubbaw”
tem gor ol 6s yortodds s'sdata | pasha kone et spy od tne todete en
| ite gauges forteq = mt beonle be thus head eow. poundqekes 04 5 | |
vogcoti® qfootte bxtd tee 2696 sa uotteda must ogee oid de
akdd oe LLe yaw) teok Me ed? kas Weetele beinauo ose
Lo dmenoseedh od ot Show Yitemtaty nefeade tanto
_ Badd ald? sonodgeted of oalkf bivew I" hace smoke,
4fadotak opbah qu Khon em dou LEtw wy YT” “city :
ojo, Bfeteda, ond gnoumnd mint vo! pebet? Syhut peer
pe suas tiiw woy «tieexwoy qu moddd iLas Libw sey tt ”
odes
this is just a joke. You will find out who I am. IJ em an
Asgsistent State's Attorney. I don't see why you should deny me
the right te telephone to somebody." Defendant then said: "I am
a responsible citizen. I am worth upwards of two hundred thousand
deliars. I am ready te sign a complaint,” and plaintiff was not
allowed to telephone. From that station plaintiff, handeuffed,
wae token in a patrol wagon to the Bureau of Identification at llth
and State etreets, defendant alse riding im the wagon. +t the
Bureau plaintiff wes photographed, “fingerprinted,” weighed and
measured. He was then returned, in the patrel wagon, to the Chicuge
Lewn station and placed im a cell, where many policemen and “other
people” inepected him. bout five o'clock in the afternoon he was
"lined up" in the station with six or seven other men and asked his
mame and ogcupnztion in the presence of defendant and othere whe had
been brought to the station for the purpose of determining if he was
one of the participants in the robbery in question. Finally, at
nine pems, pleinti‘f was permitted to telephone his wife. -beut ten
oe’ elock that evening he wes token by the police to the home of Judge
Matchett, who relersed him upon his own recognizance. The next day
defendant signed a complaint eageinet pleintiff before Judge Jonas,
a judge of the Municipal court of Chiesgo., The complaint ehurged
that plaintiff, on ‘pril 5, 1929, “feloniously and violently did make
an asseult and did then end there put the seid Frederick Froemke in
bodily fear and danger ef his life, and did teke one white gold dia-
mond ring 1 7/8 esrat blue white stone set in platinum valued at
$1000 and $300 in UJ. 5. Curreney the personal goods and property of
the seid Frederick Froemke from the person ahd ageinet the will of
the seid Frederick Froemke then and there, feloniously and violently
by force and intimidation, did rob, steal, take and carry sways and
the seid Raymond Blackwood then and there was armed with a certain
dengerous weapon, to-wit? a blue steel] revolver with the uwilavful
{( a:
tame Tots Locie two Sols Litw wor sedol ao taul pe wlee
om Yeh Niven wey Yaw oon 4 impb I 4KeNXodd) a*oteda imadetemh
ma I" ibige tosis dteiere te “. yhesomes of enedqoted of dys odt
anaswod? borhuet ord to aftawgy dixow.ae I ympakiin oldianoqoes a
don cay Vilinigiq bre “,intetgmes « mute of Ybeot moe 7 sotto
i ea Ow
ebeTivobastl ¢tiijalety meitete Jatt merit sonacigoteg eo! Jontia |
mail te Holeaottgine dt te saeryt odd of nogew foxteq A at nokot enw |
ect ¢ .«poyew of? mt gathit ole syohaetek satooste evade ‘a
baa desig iow ",bointagroge ts" sborigargad aria 2aw tdinbetg woot ig
eoneeidd ect of yrogeaw Losing odd ot ,bomuniot mons ssw of , + betwseou
xutto” bas nompottog ynem oxede gifs « at hoonty bus polyats wad
eae on noontedts en? mt Aoole ‘@ evit su0d ential hes veqent “eigoeg
add dete s hee Bom xsedie neve “0 xke tg bw so linde esl a aH bon? al
had oxy atosito bus Inobsoteh to vomsaesg eld mi sot iaquone § ‘hoa. omnt- |
$5 Peo.
ean ext 24 gritnioxreseh Yo sang ise oat rot notsate cake dd tdouond
Lt ee
fe yUifentt nol tapup nt yreddox ad? att atnectotxog “— te om
a” ip 0 ss Ce Lire e 4
3 id fas o% bot? ‘‘ibinte ty
sed sued) ,ottw aid omodqe herxog oaw it fa «omeg ons |
sabes to ened edd of opitog odd yd neko enw ort antnove lewd vain’
+a oe
Tab axon atl .oomanieyooet mwo ald aoqu ake dea e.for “ety ae ated
egsnal, egbul exo'led tittntely tantegs sectntgme 9 8 bemats. :
beguade imtalgqueg eft ogo hf? ~” trae Lambo tear oe we ed i. f 7.
_folew bbb GLineLoty ban awotnerer® ase “2 Stqn mo “sMintota,
ea hee Me at Bis:
Mh gaimvaxt xolrshert hice ald sug ated? bas mouté bis Ry-v1 tienqen
: rath biog etidw ero sind bib hres word ond to repeat ban sek % i
ees
_ $9 dexiey mnttatg 22 Jee note odidw outs ‘ane aN As
lato a aby hoes aay oredta howe rani ai il
_fetwadtar ot sitw xevioves sods * oukd a steanall 40
ae EO
~5e
end felonious intent then and there if resisted, te kill and maim
the said Frederick Froemke in the said robbery * * * contrary to
the statute," ete.
it is unnecessary to state the circumstances surrounding
the allegeé robbery for the reason that defendant's counsel, in the
trial ef the cuse, etated thet “the defendant had made an honest
misteke in identifying the plaintiff as one of the robbers, and that
the acte of the defendant in esusing the plinintiff's errest were not
malicious; thet the whole situetion wae the result of the perfect
likeness the plaintiff bore to one of the robbers in the shove mene
tioned holdup," and in his opening statement te the jury the same
egunsel stated “that not one word would be said against the reputation
of the plaintiff nor any sitempt made to extebliesh the fact that he
was one of the parties thet robbed the defendsnt in his office and
that plaintiff's general reputation had been and wos good.”
Plaintiff contends that, under the facts of the ease, the
damages asses ed by the jury are grossly biadequate, and that “improper
and prejudicial remarks and misconduct of attorney for defendant in the
presence of the jury," were responsible for the verdict. Plaintiff
calls attention to the fact that while the jury found, in ite answer to
special interrogatery one, that defendant was not agtiuated by malice
toward the plaintiff im securing hia arrest, that in ite answer to
special interrogatory two it found that “defendant was actuated by
malice towerd the plaintiff in the bringing of the criminal prosecution,
as alleged in plaintiff's declaration.” Defendant states, in his
brief, that “the fact that the plaintiff only seoured a verdict for
$1.00 is due to the fact that the jury must have beiiieved that the
defendant in the case received a great deal mere punishment, abuse
amd lack of consideration than the plaintiff reaietved elon he was
arrested." The record discloses that counsel for defendant sceur
the vardiet by elaiming that defendant, after the arrest of plain .
\
Siem bes Litt of ,hoteheos Ub event tne nedt tomas sretseked tee
od Whendnes * * * yNeddor binw osld mio wmimooxT doluetorhebtas ete
( wete “otetets oft
Belense tise agoasdamwotte edd atage of Yiasawosmt at FI ©
ogi af loensee a'dashpotep darld monaet ert tod yxoddex aaatonie
duamod ne shape bet trphnolob ed?” gate botate caged ent Ye debat
tats one yexeddos ody Yo one aa Tiisnlely od? patyitvneht mt obstode
son ovew Jsotia a*litdaialg asl Balewee mi toebherotebh este te ates eid
doptieg af to iivest odd sew nolsaudis, ofedw odd dott qevetelion
sno oveds of? at etoddox oft Yo eno of onod tiindelq sod, eonedes
ome odd viwh ald of dnsmeteda gatnoge ald wt has "equblod honoad
Molsetucet edt Zamtogs bins ed divew brow emo son dad" hedats Loammeg
od ted Yost edi delidetse of chem dquotsanyaa tom Mttatate etek
hua.oolite eld al tasbncteb edd beddet sedé seletag sit °%e wm aw | ,
",bo0g sow hem coed. sal noliatuqet LIetensg*e "ruithetg dat |
eid ,gnee edd to adact od tobew 4dasd abasinoo Titintalt ” ae wae q |
rouommed” dad hae eteirohant Ylesory sts "tt ast YC beAdene” aight
ad? wt ¢rakeoteh sot Yonvosde io toubnovetmt boa asfcestee Latothyteee ine
WIAs MOLE .doLacev ule xO? eLdtanoqess otew "Yexit ons to saieatedll :
od tomar sf2 KL abemot Yxwt asfd eLidw take Post eile oF nly |
sokfan yu dedevine ton unw driobsistes Yalt one Yuodegodteenk rere 7
gb wewons wt mi tats .daotes ‘Bit yHiwoes Mt seamen acest’ ae
XE hosavdos wow Inabretes" tedt Suet #2 ows Yrodw i tates
noivuvesaery Lonmimixo odd to geigaitd ody at Pata ots ated ttt 4
elit at quodeta amabastec — “snotisicetoon w*titdntatg mh hey “a
wo? doLidey. o beruoey ine Whvmtute odd Jad soak bad” told ROR
odd tris Byvettod ovat aditw Yrut oad Yatd Heed edt of ‘sub at oe a
gals a Secenets beay étom La0b Yaory 2 ‘pevievet va09 ‘ott ak Py :
thio oi neifw hovieet Tunvataty wild sndd we Hoxobianee ez
boku tnabaaite “tet Lonmuoo “ip besnvana dooes oft
Youtsze ‘v0 Sl ant teste
a
~beo
had been “herassed” and “bulldoved" in the state's elternay office,
and by arguing to the jury that he thought it would be o good thing
for the jury to give the state's attorney's office "a dose of their
own medicine" by denying the cloim of plaintiff, an assistant state's
attorney. “We have seldom, if ever, seen a record that contained so
many improper sn¢ prejudicial remarks ond atajenents as we fimd in
the instant one. It would unduly lengthen this opinion toe refer to
all of them, but we shell cite certoin of the majer ones. Defendant,
on direct examination, testified that efter the arrest of plaintiff
the assistant state's attorneys who investigated the case “grilled*
defendent for about four hourss Flaintiff's counsel, on cross<-
examination, repeatedly attempted to question defendaat in reference
to the alleged grilling, but the trial court, upon objection by
defendant, refused te sallow plaintiff to do so. it was upen this
testimony of defendant that his counsel based hia main defense. That
the state's ettorney had the power and right to Lavuire into the
alleged robbery is clesr. In addition to the fact that it wae his
duty te inquire into all charges of that character he wae vitally
interested in ascertaining if one of hia agvistants had been guilty
of the serious charge made against him. If assistant atate's attorney
Northup unduly “grilled® defendant or “bulldozed” him, as counsel for
defendant told the jury, that facet could not be made the basis ef a
defense to the instant actione nd yot counsel for defendant made
the following statement to the jury in his argument 4 "These men are
in the state's ittorney's office. You know how things are. 4 man
may be picked up and leeked up two or three days, not tend anybody.
That's all right. The State’s Attorney's office does it. But let one
of them get picked up, and then the Ster Spangled Benner is waved, is
torn te shreds. 1 sometimes wonder, maybe it is good for them to get
@ dose of their own medicine, send realize people qught no’ to be takene
Ve have seen so much of that under this present adwinistrations"
When objection to this statement was sustained, counsel imnedistely
ho ul
: 4 Ae
oy
gee dete Yerwrde e'etete att nt “boxe bitwd” bie "boseenest” nesdt het
peidé boon « of Siuwow 2 aigvedd off tote yuu ond oF yetingaa Yd Bed
tins to saoh a” soktlo a’yonzotta atotase odd evih of ret ems wet
ieveta dredataes ao ¢Titnlel¢ te abafo os prbyned ye "entotdam wo
oh Hentetrdo todd Prowex » aece ,4eve LEP puobLoe ovad’ oY seereedes
at tut? ow ee staemedede bao axttsnmot Letothirborq bee toto reed Yee
oF seTex 05 Noleiqo als’ mextogned yKuhme bikew FT see Sted ant end
viokbaeted .aeno robant ond To mistied bio tatty ww dd eed? RO th
Witntaty to Jeoxwrs of? codte dade oeltiteed? ,notteniiexe toeuk Me
“eoliivy” oaso bad osdegdicovat ode oyonrette setete Sistdtaew ot
anadxo ny yteenibs UTE Nete ls etvet wet Gods toY tube
epoto'tex al Geekasteh nolteoup 02 tudquidtita ULbotneqe® Hof Ianteems )
Ye motsoette moqu eitwoo Lnlt? oft Owe yomttttey bope tia att ee
ede nequ eae GL son Ob of Vilsnkely wokia ot bonwtot 9 teebere ke
sed? ,caneted migm whl Soawd Loanvoo ahd dadt tmobeoteb to xpomteaes a
‘ea @6nt witunt oF digs dae aewOg ost heel YOnrette etetade emt
ike pete OE ute Powt wile Od mone EAE AT. >| embLo: OR eebedor bepetin
“OS Ehtaty aew eM wedobuedy Pall? Te aograts Lie tet acbwph wb yond
VLiny mosd bal adnadsiess wisi to ene Tb ytntetseoen nt hobawmedieh
Sertedta o'edade, tnadeteas, Ui «aid ¢erkega obi eredo swodnem edd ;
20% Eeansoo an gab Mhoroblivs" 10 ¢amhantop MboLisent ytehe quaiaet
a to alead gsi? pban ed fom bivoo gost fot, onal ett) iclhmeanell
Shaw snahnesyd 10% Lounioa tay bis stobiom tmotemt oad oF fetieted
ee Fanomas abt nk vast ei eh tse tinge aabwOtter oot
oe sate wanted word wont 4et - soakite e emetth afebaehis tint
oMhedyns Shes don ,ayab owls co owl qu hesfoot Amp ger poate ka o” 4
ane del suk oft seo gottta a yennotds, atededs off. bw tenian | |
ul shovou at sonmal betguag® sade od mol? Sra «qa beatoste, top, samuts, 2
ton of mons 26% boop at $2 odyam _xehsow PUMA eborde
ssealed 6 02, fon ‘ibis canes, ae eny bap, sPnte eaLay :
a
etated to the jury: "I am just talking te yeu as man to man, and
bringing out the inside dope." Counsel for defendant now frankiy
states, in defendant's brief, that the jury in rendering its verdict
adopted this augrestion. Counsel also made the following statement
to the jury: “Mr. Northup (assistant state's attorney), big, heavy
Yorthup, known from the time of Charley Deneen down as the biggest
bulldozer for lockinz people up without warrant. Mr. Brown (attorney
for plaintiff): I object te reviling an honest man. Wo svidence in
here. Mrs Reniff (attorney for defendant): The whole Denem crowd
is in it. I ain't finding any fault with them. The Courts Objection
sustained. Confine yourself. iir. Reniff: You have seen the crowd
here, and you folks who have lived here like I have for a good many
years, you take the crowd - Judge Matehett from the Seventh District,
on the South side, Johnnie Northup, down on the other side. You take
Paul Rittenhouse, right down the middle, farther in the other end of
the district. Take them all along there. You get Russell Whitman
on the Civil Service Commission, and Morton D. Hull, in the other
erowd, and Cornwell - all along the Line. All right, don't ever de
like Froemke did, no matter who you think robbed yous. Go out and
look him up, ond find out if he is an ‘Assistant State's <ttorney in
the administration in offiew. If you don't, get ready for a vacation.*
Counsel repeatedly made statements to the effect that pleintiff wea
@ member of the "Deneen Organization.” lr. Jeneon was not a witness
and there is nothing in the evidence to connect him with the ease.
Although defendant conceded the good reputation of plaintiff, neverthee
less, distinguished judges and citizens who merely testified that
Plaintiff's reputation was good were characterized by the counsel
as merbers of the Deneen crowd, who were sevking to aid plaintiff
fer polities] ressons. furing the crose-exumination of defendant
the trial court ruled thet dsfendent should answer a certain question,
whereupon defendant's counsel stated: "Object to that, if the court
- Bis nee of pum ne wy Oo onbilad foul me I ryuwh edd of nedatel
UEAhett eon stabeetoh wot Lsunwod "vege oblunt ait two gmigated
tokhyey uti patiobsiot mi ereh off doctd yteted ol inehasteh nt queteti
iteeoeste gritweliet aft cham ovls feanwe? .oolieeygus eldt bedqohe
qvecet qaid ,(yrrrodés atetate dnotubnan) qalévow oxi vyreh edad
dyeugid oft ao nwoh meoned yotrat? to amt? od? wotk nvomt aqulenon:
worxesdn) mwork oh .Sruvctew gwedly tw qu eLgoeq yrtXool soX monohtbet
gE wonebive of cue duoned om yalitver ef towhdo ® *(tiddetelg wh
fwere Mmenot oforle ed? + (Snubastod xo% Yonebdsta) itmosw Mo nena
noitoe$dd stewed oft .sesie elw 3Lvet ws gnbbatY tte Tatham ee
bwors sd noes ovad woY + Titaef .i- .Mostmey enti) * bentedane —
‘eum bog x vet wvad I elit oxed devil evel odw aifot vey hem wonedl
dokten! aera at? moxt ttodotai ogdul - -buors edt exes soy eamety |
gules Wo vobla teddo add wo srod qqustd tol wtiatet cobhe Atuo9. ale a |
%o Bee wolde odf nt teddnad .oLohim odd nwo tight qouuodnosg2t deme
Kiemd ict Cfoamn ¢og woX serssd pmota Lie medt past atoletath ot |
weito oft mi , Livi sc nedtoM bas qnotestnamd sobrres Live eat me ;
ob téve J'nob ,ddyit ILA + Ombi odd gmole Lia =: fhownnod A
Bt tue 08 toy Beddow deidd woy edw. todéam om yb:
AP Yourorss eedadi Inodetusi me ab od 3 due betta)
*, notindat 6 rot Yleor Som ge tneh wey TT seotthomt noltietied
daw Ttitniclg gad? seLke cfd of adnmmetate .obaw cAbadunqor: Lonnie
wentsiw o don asw oom ot "NOL oRenyTO mommee” mahi
qoieme erlh Mile mht doomed 99° eymehiys ot sannaaineiniciiiiis ‘ould :
woiixeven ,tiitmtalg to soisedeqex hoog eft bedbsomes: dasha’ ;
dad bePhivesd ylowm odw aneaitte bine seybat at ay
Lbenvoo wit? Yi bextnedsexato stow boog’ caw pees tints
Meveuttg ibs od Qidatoek orbw oly Ubieede non edi
ma Breasted te sichihoneneiieesed ont dinguanel ot
wey Nee ° hai
. ine a) pat
‘ tts ’ Py - ESS " Na i are A “ f bite SP "
ay, a pee 4 pis Pe Gey DAR S ny { fied so i fh ak SS BAG g! aS a Sets
f } i
fi
~ See
please, * * * beenuse & man brings » case against » politician it
Looks as though he might as well throw himself out.” Further on in
the same cross-exemination defendent's counsel interjected, “File a
charge, and that's what he gets." Although defendsnt's counsel eane
gaded “that defendant had made an honest mistake in identifying plain=
tiff as one of the robbers," still, in addressing the Jury, counsel
for defendant steted “the whole Deneen faction” wea present at the
trial of the criminal cherge before Judge Jonas, snd, by innuendey,
suggested to the jury thet polities played a part in the decision.
He mentioned Judge Jonas as a member of the “Democratic organization, *
although there is nothing in the evidence upon which to base such a
atatement. He told the jury that “the cefendant at the table is just
the same as you are, a citiaen without having any political environ-
ment of any kind or naturee"
It ig true that the trial court sustained ebjections te the
statements of counsel, but merely sustaining the objections aad ine
structing the jury to disregard the statewents was net a sufficient
remedy for the wrong done. “hen it became apparent that the counsel
was persisting in the impreper statements and avguments the trial court
should have sternly rebuked him, aud when that course failed should
have punished ecunsel for his deliberate misconducte
It is not necessary, in our judgment, to pass upon other
contentions raised by plaiatif?.
48 to whether defendant acted maliciously and without
probeble cause, it ie sufficient to say that plaintiff made out a
prime facie case in thet regards but we de not deam it necessary to
cite the circumstances that bear upon that brauch of the cases
Plaintiff has not had «a fair trial and the judgment of
the Cireuit court of Cook BOTS aides amd the eouse is remanded.
REVERSED AMD BiMANDIDs
Friend, P. J», and Sullivan, J., concurs
ff aoinictiog » temteze sano « aynted omer # vaunned * *, # voamete
at we oRia, Mn tom Moomks womld Lhow on telgier af dancd? me eatoot
— BREET" gootpolmetns Lewrmoo a inebaeteh aptiantmexe~snow emer ont
en Lounve9 o Mnabae tet dyweddss Menten om, dadw atony: bee a egnasto
| ntitady yeiytiinebs at oietsde framed ne ohent fart daahet tok sad” babes
| Asnmioe «wurl, etd ymieaetsom mt yilbte "yrredder os Yoong om Rt
0 eH Gm Brae nar “getiont wepnet eLertr ett" betote dnehetely wb
eGhnernnh yd y brn sent aghyl outed eyrulp Lambabre! off Xe Ladies
gtietetowh onl mt roy ‘ beryaty, ooltilog tao yuu, et? of bedesyuize
* noteeinayre olderocomed” eft to wdmen! 2 ao Heol wyhul bottelhdnem OH
“i fous ound of Heide nogs wonobivs edd nt grilkddon wl wrote awoitite
duet at etdhd ots 74 Inabrotsh oe" Heels Yeul eae bhol OH Viemwtabe
ties thot ie BetVad dwadddw ReRLeRd & yore Woy ae omen Ge
4 hp ttiari ‘ori ban 3 tb
@H? of sxotivetds beniadoue vayoo Lalas etd daily eed ed eT 1% ee ;
“att bus eno lteetde old gathtedoaw Us ma to some Meme
die kotVive |b don bow adnomedhta este bewgetith bY Yah bie QMS
— etd sheet sito umes ditnosd 22 neu’ senob si |
| ~‘eestie on ease oo fren ome bard ‘il aX tweaover
Me eamcell,) ‘gine mittee ene sit
“tuonds iv bis YLevolsbtnsl ‘body Valubed mer
“"g due enon Vitininta dalle You 8 pepe: aret® suid ed
0 ‘Uuaansosn dt bveb dom 08 ow ind «Stage wrbvebie sit
vosso add 20 Mould sail Moqw teow Youd weseLiuMiraehy Mt
Iisd-ere,initenloemabenied ‘ate a ed von gal Mtentes 7
| soetaoae a ound oa heen hentai sf sy Van Prwet!
ue
$7641 vii i
2
g ‘a
ABTNA ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, ) , |
a Corporation,
Pleintiff in irror, ERROR TO MUNICIPAL
Ve QOURT OF CHICAGO.
GRORGE Me ROZCZNIALSKI, ay ae es 2,
Defendant in Error. b 9 TAR 634
ER. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THe COURT.
This writ of error is sued out by plaintiff to review
an order of the Municipal court of Chiesgo “expunging” a judgment
previously entered in plaintiff's behalf,
The suit was commenced in replevin for the possession of
a Packard sedan automobile. ‘the replevin writ was served on defend-
ant on February 26, 1932, at which time the bailiff ef the Municipal
court made a demand for the possession of the automobile, but defend-
ant refused te comply with the demand. On May 11, 1932, a notice
was mailed to defendant informing him that on May 15, 1932, plaintiff
would appear im court and ask lesve to file a statement of claim in
trover instanter and would move for « rule on defendant to file his
affidavit of merits therete within five deys thereafter. On May 13,
1932, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiff leave
to file such statement instanter and ruling defendant to file his
affidavit of merits to the same in five days. Thereupon plaintiff
filed the following verified statexent of claim:
“Plaintiff alleges that on, to-wit: the date of the ser-
viee of the replevin writ herein upon the defendant, George Me
Roseznialeki, said defendant then and there in the City ef Chicago,
» wrongfully, tortiously and maliciously converted ant
disposed of the goods and chattels of the plaintiff, which are more
particularly deseribed as follows, to-wit: |
One (1) 1930 Packard Sedan,
: Serial #152917, Moter #183064.
Plaintiff further alleges that demand wes made upon said defendant,
(I
‘i
ae ‘
| : a e. Ls of oe oe:
} “ .
4 x lias,
‘ ’
* ny a, ; > M4 . [<o
ss) Ae na)
o VATHOD BOWATS & ipl ig ‘ives -
| nos ta “
TATID CON OT HO Ra gtorel at trims meee, 4,
eOUADTHO FO TAGS agp ne a,
AK oH “7 a RMMATNRONON La Spaoee
E G 0 A. 4 ° 2 +t9T a "mabe on Oe Ue Cageyess
+7909 GAT TO WOLIGO WT GUAEVEEEG WAINAS AOTTSUT saM
gk ete? idggptout hs i
we bye a3 “thadebsle ya smo bows et torre Yo stew ona?
e
i: eRe Pes
ernncinhe ® “grtgnugxe” opeoidd te dxu09 ‘tng totes oxis to obr0
> Ladod eYtttntale nl boxodne | !
to coksasecod eft tot atvetest nk besnemuoa aaw tive “= als
~baete no beviea saw thaw nivelqes ont? eiidomotue mabes peetoet ‘_
Lag iste off Yo Ytiliod odd ontd dotdw to fser', de mae
sbnetes tod ,elidomius off to motaseaacg et? “ta% traced @ ‘ohaut 3 109 }
Gebjom ® ~SbUL ~if yeK ao . baad oats d3iv Ulquoo o¢ bomwter, gs |
Vetsutoke ySSCL .EL eal wo detd mist gerlaxe tad dlabdeteb of belken ake
si mhoks 0 deometate 2 eft? of sveet tes haw #rv00 mt xa0aqs vis. ay
cy i se ‘swbee ievart
ais efit of Inebreteb ao efi: 2 20 bom bivow how 3 sedaatend revert aa
oL YaM BO sed towed? eysb evi? xhaviw bgoreds iste Yo tiv
eveet © | Pilsietelg gsi ‘sebi1o me boxntne ‘tebe falas
tela "yb stare at hate aahe ass
va os chan”
By me ttaho® iateat OEeL thy ono
»dOOEBLS node a ‘Take ME. ».
stnabeetoh bise moqu eben sew dob @ a soge
20
for the return of said property but said defendant, notwithstanding
said demand, on, to-wit, on the day aforesaid, wilfully, wrongfully,
toertiously and maliciously converted and disposed of said goods
and chattels to his own us@o
"To the damage of the plaintiff for the value of said
property se converted, amounting to the sum of, to-wit: One Thousand
Dollare ($1,000.00) together with legal interest thereon from the
date of said conversion as well as other damages sustained by said
plaintiff, by reason of eoid conversion, and therefore it brings
its suit, ete.
*TILLIAM 8. KLAINMAW
Attorney for Pisintiff.*
fhe record discloses that no affidavit of merits was filed by defend-
ant. On Oeteber 15, 1932, a notice was served upon defendant notify-
ing him that on October 16, 1932, plaintiff wowld appear in court and
move for a judgment in accordance with plaintiff's statement of claim.
On the last mentioned date, upon motion of plaintiff, the trial court
entered seid motion and postponed action on the seme until November
3, 1932. Gn October 25, 1932, defendant was served with e written
notice of the order entered by the trial court on October 15, 1932,
and a notifiestion that on Yovember 3, 1932, plaintiff would renew
its motion for the entry of a judgment in trever against defendant.
On November 3, 1952, the trial court entered the following order:
"This cause eoming on for hearing upon the motion of the
plaintiff heretofore entered herein for judgment in trever, and the
Court being fully advised in the premises sustains said motion,
and thereupon enters the following finding, to-wit:s-
“'The Court finds the defendant, G. Ms Mozesnialeki
guilty of conversion of property described in plain-
siff's statement of claim and agsseases the damages
in the eum of Five Hundred Pifty and We/l00 Dollars
($560.00) and costs in trover.'
"Thies cause coming on for further proceedings herein, it
is considered by the Court that the plaintiff have judgment in
trover on the finding herein, and that the imtiff have and recover
of and from the defendant, G» M. Reseznaleki, the damages of the
plaintiff amounting to the sum of Five Hundred Fifty and 0/100
Dellers ($550.00) in form as aforesaid assessed, together with the
ae by the pleintiff herein expended, end that execution issue
OF.
On December 15, 1932, which was more then thirty days efter the judg-
ment wae entered, defendant filed the following verified “petition:"
“Comes now, George MeRozczyniniski, made one of the defend-
ants in the above entitled esuse, es petitioner, and presents his
petition agsinst Aetna Acceptanee Company, a corporation, as respond-
ent, _ he thereupon estates and charges the following matters and
ene ie
$
anihbeededdiwiosn ,isabmetet biee Sud ysveqerq bina toe atusex of? 0d
eYiintgnotw »yiiviliv ,biseoreTa yab af? no ,iiw-od .mo . beamed bias
abooy bise to beacquts bate eashewnes % Yiawelolias bas oid aod
) soan nwo ated of uleddads bus
bias le eulev aid vot Yiientalq ef% Yo egemah ed oT” nip aa
baseanodT ond cfiw-od , to aure off of galinvomas ry poe og 0 Ty
ont mou? soe tess deoxesat fagol diiw xecléegos (00.000 t) £
hies 4d beniedave segemeh teddo sa Llow es nokatevneo hiss }
apaiad #2 expteted? one ,nolexevnos bioa te moener Bie" dine aad
BAMMIN.IA 22 MALLEIE® «!
*, Wiidntalt xot wesetgA
whneted YF ReLkt sow vétxem Yo tivabl tte on dats eewoLonth Arooet ad?
“Ulider tnsbmeteh moqe bovree sew solton a «Stet 26L sedosoo 20 «dine
bas Sxwoo mt <neqqe bivow YWidmtasy —R8CL BL xodese0 mo teuld sitet gut
stints %O smented ats a Yt tindaty Kdiw sonebrooes wt seemybul 6 tO% cree
dxwoe Labrd od? «Yitintale 20 motto moqy «osuh denoténom gant odd a0
<cedmovol Litre emea of? mo moiden honeqdeog baa noliem bise betes
noddicw @ thw beri ssw shahpetab _f60L .88 tedoted no ABOU 6
e8ECL 2GL tedodeG se saseo Ledxd edt ye beteine ibe add to votton
wenet Rivew Tlimtalq .kEGL ,% yodsevow so taste st | bas
_stiabroteb tamiage xevots af dnempoal, s Yo yxtme oft Tot me a8
_ eebhue gxiweliet add Setetne A. Latnt ont @SlOL maiaalll
is meee te) py ert 4 0% mi Petey ahd
noivem bles eniat« wy eet 23
‘ std hwab8 ors bai palwoxion 9d MH
., de ietesesed «MH +9 re, 3.
-islg¢g mi haditeaeh Ciegeaa 3s ‘to no Bre Hanoi
ce ear aie wae
; $ stweo bre | OO. ; Wh AP
aia ee sivt ovad | ee be ‘Pat ame F a rte
ak aeaghsl oF, or #xaed betobl amen
kis bnew nb $83, a bdecacoonas af ure darree
ents a sivas | abesecasa Ht odin A oes aa mot
‘ezenl ag jal? One ,hobheqxs alow To
4
gh de ea ae
* eat te one ohdit ,
moet ot tnoantg bas at rp
~bioqeot es qtokintegios s yynegued
bna areddent giivoilot ents 5
“Sq
"Le
"That by reference thereto (with leave to attach copics
thereof to this petition if necessary) he makes the several papers
filed under the above number, with endorsements thercon, and the
entries appearing upon the half-sheet and in docket 2701 Replevin,
under the above titie and number, a part of this petition for
greater certainty. ws
@
*That the foregoing papers, the entries on the half-sheet
and appearing upon the decket above described constitute the whole
of the written recerd of proceedings had and taken in the above
entitled cause, and that there is no other record book containing
any record of such proceeding in the possession of the Clerk of
this Court to which reference need be made for greater certainty.
e
"That from such record, it will appear that the paper
styled ‘smended Statement of Claim’! was filed by leave of court
instanter, and that no copy thereof, or any summons thereon has
ever been served wpen this petitioner, and no netice was given te
him of any intention to secure a judgment upon which an execution
for the body could cman
a
"That the record of these proceedings is not sufficient
to sustain a oapias writ issued in the above entitied cause, and
that no other process has ever been issued herein of which this
affiant has any knowledge of notice, and therefore the execution
or caplas writ should be quashed.
Ve
"That an order should be entered herein directing the
Clerk to record 2 proper judgment if the court is of the opinion
that one should be now recorded; or in the alternative an order
should be entered herein quashing er expunging the purported record
of judgment, and the defendant should be allowed to plead a defense
en the merits within ouch time as the court may order, to the ond
that justice may be done.
“fhe foregoing matters considered, the petitioner prays
that an order may be entered herein as preyed for above, or that a
hearing may be had on this petition to the end, thet petitioner may
be eble to prove the matters and things herein stated, and that all
other orders may be entered hereine
"George Me Rozesyninlski®
Plaintiff moved the court te strike the said petition from the fiies
upon the ground thet 1% did mot contain amy affirmative matters which
would entitle defendant to the relief aaked. It appears from the bill
of exeeptions that counsel for defendant resisted plaintiff's motion
to strike upon the ground that defendant was cutitled te the relief
sought for the reason that the record showed that plaintifi's state-
ment of claim in trover did not allege “that the plaintiff casually
lest the goods 2ni chattels described in the seid statement of claim
in trover and that the said goods and chattels of the plaintiff came
te the possession of the defendant by finding.” The trial court suse-
ty ax” Sia i ig Ve
‘avlyoo doutts ot evadt at tw) oterest? epnere tet od
etegag Laxeves odd asda ed (yreaaeson tk pore ol ents of
eat bas ,mostecs edmemeazobae diiw ete dase eveda ond aye
abre Loot 09% gemiped wi bre doerla-Ttied ofy Vinal
tok molélveq efdd Te ttaq & , vedmiE they at evedh eld eee
pi Synlnde8
*
éeana-tied eit te ebicine sad ,exeqgey prions ot one tat? bbls 3
efotw eft sdiudisunes beditoseh evods teodoobh edt mnogu’ SE ahbiek
eveds orf ot covet foe bea agetbeosexq to biooet mediiaw ef? to
giinisines weed bronex xecldo om at oted? tedt bne gee pone
to dtelo ad? to molaaerrog efi at gutbossetg doge to oo
sYiniadtwo tofesya tot obem od beet gene ts'tet Wena og Phar &
togaq eft satl? taeqge ILiw 7k i weeods Bas wort snrtt”
i#zuo9 te eveol yo befit sew ‘mtal® to inemesiate bhebpem),
end booted anomee yas te ytosted? yweo ox ite hen cbse
63 nevig sew selson on bra .tenoliiieg ait’ mnogu bevtee me
noitvosxe ma dotdw moqe Snnine bei, & eruove ed ao tedeens oie
i, bineo ‘bod, ont xe}
Susie ste jen at agatbeevotg esxed!? to brooot onl dest?”
Soe ,vavse belticne evedn sit af bousak thiw saiges er reg ge
aidd doidw Yo sierted bewael seed trove ead aasvetq soto
. Roiduoexea edd syetoved? bac ,poddom to gt er be ‘earl,
a ‘att
ed gnisgeetts aioxed bowsime ed bivede tebe rr s taste” al
Solnigo si? to ak diye ott Mb tnpagosl regerq.«) paces seh :
sebze os ovitentsiie edi mt xo oe pcb pad od bLvesia te
bzosor Sedu gy Po ® “Oo geidassp sige “tas ha 08
eenoteb s P| 63 howe od bivode tnebmoteb etd
baa ef? ef ,tohto yar Jager eft se emit clows
hora Re 89
ae, asmetétieg ad? ,~bersblerpo. eredden. z0% oft Siteiaie
20 4970d2 20% ee ale bo amt "fo bxO te.
Yam tenolsiieq tedd ,bre- ag org ps aid? mo best od: Letes
{fe tad? bee ,beoiats alerted. apatite haa teas oft ovoug oF
exe |
alerted. be vedme ee. bal se0be0 no
“die lateysosed «ii ogxo0d" ‘9 se ORD a |
elit eft moth moitiveg bhaa add etizts of dnwoe odd bevem dateLt
he ye
tetstw ateittom evisert tie tas ‘ahitnes doa. bbe sy tastd bawerrg, esta og
rout byw f
fitd wd mo zt excege #i .bextes Sakten asd oe + dashaadeh eceting
totlor edd of heléttms acw ¢mabueteh serdté oearorey, ost nou ae i
EG) ‘ EG: Hic et
~eiata aranssmtatg sous heweris ores hovel Sata hee! ‘al? ;
re #
miele “to tnomedats: big ‘esta ot’ ivoaeb alesse
omay Titdntste etd to atoghale ms. he gore: aboe i | “reyer
— duvoo feixd of? “.yatbnit yd ‘tanta edt to conawosson adi
‘lhe
tained defendant's position and denied plaintiff's motion te strike
upon the sole ground that the said statement of claim did net allege
"that the plaintiff essually lost the goods and chattels described
in the said stetement of claim in trover and thot the said goods and
chattels of the plaintiff eceme to the possession of the defendant by
finding.“ Thereupon the trial court, upon motion of defendant,
etruek from the files the stetement of claim ani in the order recited
that the statement of claim was stricken from the files fer the reason
heretofore atated. Defendant then moved the court to “expunge” from
the record the judgment in trever entered on Woverber 3, 1932, which
motion was sustained by the court and an order was entered expunging
from the record the said judgment "for the reason that the statement
of claim in trover filed herein on May lith, 1932, is not a proper
statement of claim in an action in trover for conversion, because
the said statement of claim in trever dees not allege ‘that the
plaintiff easusily lost the goods end chettels deseribed in the said
statement ef claim in trover and that the said goods and chattels
of the plaintiff oume to the possession of the defendant by finding.’
* * * Whereupon, the defendant, by his attorney, then moved the court
to quash the capies ad satisfaciendum, heretofore issued under said
judgment in trover, which said motion the court then and there suse
tained and ordered the said capias ad satisfaciendum to be quashed."
Defendent has not seen fit to defemi the record.
Seetion 20), pars 505, ch» 37, Cuhill'’s Ill. Rev. St.,
1933, Municipal Court Aet, provides:
"There shall be no stated terme of the Municipal Court,
but said court shall always bevopen for the transaction of business.
Siwery judgment, order or decree of said court final in its nature
shall be subject te be veeated, set acide or modified in the some
Kanner and te the seme extent as a judgment, order ox deeree of a
Cireult Court during the term at whieh the same was rendered in
such Cireult Court; prov ioede @ motion te vacate, set aside or
modify the same be entered in said Municipal Court within thirty
days after the entry of such judgment, order or decree. if no
eotion to vacate, set aside er modify any such judgment, order or
_ @eeree phall be entered within thirty days «fter the entry of such
Judgment, order or decree, the same shall not be vacated, set aside
or modified exeepting upon appeal or writ of error, or by a bill in
ob
| attic of woliom a'tiidntasg belaob hae molding 0 énebne tes ‘boutas
ogeiin doe bls sabnte te sesasiede rr ete saad. ewer of0e. auld age
beditossb aed date bans abeop eat took xikawos9 Tibdnkadg odds daster
bas eheog Sine ed toald bow xevord nt tate re treme dada: ‘bhon end at
we Pets Sno hos ostd te Ho Leaan boy bai dl ‘O. emit Witataly al to Lod dato
sPrabmered Ye eo bP oar mogir atures iotue auld noqverod? “a axtbant
betowt vere etd al fee atelo Lo tromedete oma aes exe «ox? Mownge
teaser ong m2 SOLtT sHs mort modotrse sewahalo to isomptage end dent?
Moet “ogempae” OF deus ont even kexts deabnotod ota a’ Oe
Hoidwy ,R6ek ve TeeerS vO fo bere Sane rovers at sowp bal, ‘ond uncer aaé
‘Balgewqne hetesne sew Tohto ue baa o1w099 ads Ww hentadnus aw molten:
taanbinte of? Sait mosses sid Yor” saosybut bine os oot
qeqery @ 460 of gRERE HFCL Yak Bo eres yee wy Yi ‘nt
edie tests? spoiic don ase tevords mt abet Sh 1
bia wats ng bodixoash alotiods iid Eas oe, Ri ’
Maples al preety 0? 32% nven aie ‘naa |
| ee voit “iti e'Li stad ove atte 002 to tok woldooe
tesblyeim, “teh :
cdxued Savas tru edt %a earted t hotats on od d Liat Vt
cnnmuiesd to soldgagiats alt 2
siueen atk ol at fou 30»
one a @M9 gt bel
© eetouh 0 bg Tee
ae berehnet 2e7 | ead a
_yiadg nistie #2 #osv od RO.
aidtiw de) Laqietme bia
YI seuxooh 9 tobe , tres és
kee, ees Se
‘iy Sr steamer 4 te ‘bow este a = ak
Se
equity, or by a petition to said Municipal Court setting forth
grounds for vacating, setting avide or modifying the same, which
would be sufficient to cause the same to be vacated, set aside
or modified by a bill in equity; provided, however, thet ail
errors in fact in the preceedings in such cese, which might have
been corrected st common law by the writ of crrer corem nobis may
be corrected by motion, or the judgment may be set aside, in the
manner provided by law for similar cases in the Cireult Court.”
It is impossible te tell from the record whether defendant
intended the petition as one in the nature of « bill in equity or
as one in the nature of a writ of error goram nobis, but if the
petition be treated as a pleading in the mature ef a bill in equity
or a motion in the nature of error corsam nobig it is clear that
defendant failed te stete facts which would warrant the court in
vatating the judgment. The trial court vaented the judgement upon the
theory that the statement of cloim was fatally defective and that that
fact gave him the jurisdiction te vacate the judgment. ven if the
pleading in queetion was defective defendent could aot take adventage
ef that fact by e motion in the nature of error coram nobis. (Harabia
¥. Mary Thompeon Hospital, 309 Ill. 147.) Mor could he obtain relief
by setting up such ground in @ bill in equity to vacate the judgment.
If the declaration is fatally defective a writ of error or appeal is
the proper wey te correct such error. Horeover, plaintiff's euit was
an action of the fourth class in the Municipal court of Chienge.
In Sher v. Robinson, 298 I11. 181, the Supreme court said:
“In xe ve f Chic » 271 Tlle 404, this court
had before 1% a re ST aasetins ar cect was necessary to be stated
in a statement of claim in » municipal court in tort actions of
the fourth clase, and held that in such an action it was not necessary
$6 allege the giving of the statutory notice even though such state-
ment was necessary in commen law declarations for a similar injury,
ané after diseussing different sections of the said act, on page 408
eaid: *A esreful eonsideration of the foregoing sections and other
sections of the Municipal Court act leads us to the conclusion that
common law pleadings are esely permitted in actions of the firat
and second class and that the use thereof is abolished as to fourthe
Glass actions. The issues in actions of the fourth clase, so fay
as pleadings are concerned, are to be indicated by the mere filing
of a statement of claim for all deminds, set-offs or counter-claims,
which shall merely stete the account or nature of the demand if the
suit is on a contract express or implied, or if in tort, a brief
statement of the nature of the tort and euch further inform=tion
as will reasonably inform the defendant of the nature of the case.
The statement of an account is not a declaration at comon lawe
dise? geteder tied Leqtviasi bhas 09 molsided a ed to, tele
“Kote sounn ott gaiyiiheu t obles galéter yankinenv tot ebanes
Chiae 34% yheteoav od of emse od? Gamay: ob tuetotiive o@ hive
Eis daalt avowed ‘ bre tg iudinps mi Liid « yd boltibem ¢
art debgbar * W gtaas e mi wprtheooeny eaff at dost mb asett
Wan aidan texts 26 thew edd yd wal ronpeoes ta bedoottes meme
hh oe BI 4 ~ ghar Mi flr a yo ocato Sbogy 3
*. eave thuorhs ent ak abane ual bake sa a Ww netegg
daubnewed cual daatw pesees eat? “oct Let e2 ‘ofdtanogmt | at Oe
se “Biupe ak Siid a %e exwian els nb ene. en neiéting at’ re sia oda
ould tt dud epider waren sorxe te shaw » to ‘otian edt at + 0 as
“gts nt ££)¢ a Yo wwine edd nt gatbacig a an Sébneed O0 mond td o
— aaeto ak ot atson mores. £0 T9 * — herd ad ie
ine doa
,
f
i
;
cat
etd Ui move .drempbul ‘odd otmoav of no! dotbubaut este afd d aitsh j .
pawinevba owed gon blwoo dnnbeotet ovisooteb enw notieouy rs ‘nt ba - le
atdewit) saidon martes tow to oman wold sed nokton 8 tds Viet * baht ;
: tetier mtatoo ed bhion tot (.0OL »fLt ad fa Sca0 ’
ak keoead 16 corre to fix 6 ovtiosteb ditadan ot rotator ‘eds tr
new tire atttliniely qreveero .votrd Move dooxtos os Yow toqortg Y
vouseidd Yo dume Legiolmil odd ot canto addzcet eae ‘te ii
thten duwoo emprqua odd (BBs .trt 6@8 jnoe ,
duveo wide ,b0b ffi IVS ,
betadu ed oo Yisuasoen nar <gugls Ne yet oy BETh #h oxp
Ye unoisos ¢xev ni éxpeo Ingtoktm » st ere e hog giad
VWrsasegem ton wew dl peidee fe owe at parte bos ,anals
eetate dove Sgvods seve ooison S eagp
aVustal caliake « 2% spolioge
80s egay mo «toe hiaw ons Ye eneitvee
Pry bie ae hiovg eagle ge
sy hesemlonon sit aa oy abael tog Ine
tert ety ape boom KE pedir se fae me kg
edézpet of aa hosted leexodd o NARA
ae% 0% eaanly dotnet ade xe oneivae mt Pres wee,
wet ater ats oye ee .
re covspet ott Wo orstan et ta.
gtd, rman én pone 0-4 a hon om a
- Ga
It is not a plesding in the sense or meaning of common lew plead-
inge. MSeither ¢eec the statement in tort required by erid act
rise to the dignity of «a commen lew declaration, in our judgment,
requiring ell the material er ultimate facts of a case to be
stated or pleaded.’ Ye think the stutement of claim in this case
contained the essentinls that are required by eection 40, as that
act was construcd in the ease just eited. Purthermore, under the
striet rules of common low plesding efter verdict, we think this
judement should be sustained. It has been often stated with
reference tc the common Law declaration, that if the declaration
contains terma sufficientiy genere1 te include, by fair _ reason=
avle intendment, any matter neceguary to be preved, and without preof
of which the jury could not have given the verdict, the dh of an
express averment of such matter is cured by the verdiet. (i
« Ve Baub 215 Tlle 4233 ee Michigan Centre
See 23 * 262, and cises cited. FSOVOLs ts muni¢
is sufficient tc file in cases of this kind only such «a statement
ef eleim as will reazenably inform the defendant of the nature of the
ease, and it should be held that after verdict and judgment it must
be présumed that proof «15 made as te the question of dae care om the
part of the plaintiff.*
The allegation in « common law declaration “that the plaintirf
casually lest the goede and chattels deseribed in the said sts tement
of claim ia trover and that the said goode and chattels ef the plain-
tiff came to the possession of the defendent wy finding,” mereiy
states an old common isaw fiction and it is idle te argue that the
instant statement of claim is not sufficient te reasonably inform
defendant of the nature of plaintiff's case.
Thirty d=ys hed elapsed between the time of the entry ef
the judgment and the filing of the petition, the trial court was
without jurisdiction to vacate the judgment under the fects set up
in the “petition” ef defendant, and the motien of plaintiff to strize
the petition showld have beon sucteineds
The order of the Municipal court ef Chiecgs entered on
Jamary 35 1933, is reversed,
GRIER SHTER™D FAMULEY 3, 1935, RAVER SED.
Friend, Ps. Jes and Sullivan, J+, concurte
ieee te..28 et et Saou aie be
m bhea yd bexkayes upd ue Bi gros
hahaa tao pl anolinxatoe Dal ca te
ag 62 gaes 8 | gre odanio fe a
ouee alls ni miato to snbomsade oft # on i:
2 at ad read bat iw oes ped? &.
beat et¥onrred? shadio gay Mg
ae ety oY Mrhacey todie Dice wel toaneo te solic
Site Seteda meee need aad at "Hint Rhekn oe. bivota §
selianalosd ere ba ogy noktwxateeh wa eit o. Rigg Pet fi o? sonere
: Pema hee “hat wi ya bak okt o? Intoney Ylinetol ita
prey es Dh LE Most rhe ore rea eer “supe
ing ie ap ghz want ce apa 2 ~Totgen errs: z tees me
Oereitate's avin Gide saevet zevobnae roeit® is anes vive al SE
Win U Psat he ous iain ius ea vie sg,
ou? mo oven esd to moldaeup ofs of sa ehem oat eee
tiitniste edd tale” weldorntoob wal nomuod 4 At mri
fini sde bisa add tk Sedfreach eLeteats hike ahdoy ott trek Ukewiae
-nialg ot Yo efetteto tne shooy Blea ody Peng tue eeveTd ma atats % ‘4
Seevee “yaekbnd) ye deine ted ead 2" ial ania wren omy wae i
ot ded? Supie of GbE ui 3é haw ROLVOr wat Mommas! no wosnta }
“gree teed commana od énoteliwws gon ef miale to tubaodave dmetont |
seme oP RAeHReRd te WeNdeM Ute Bo bei i
to rie ord ‘Yo omid aft meowtod beeqele bol eyab yeetee it
wav IxwoD Sndcd oul? ywoltiver sed ‘to Gat TY ont? Baw stim: 4
qu fon efont nf) cobs dwenmytey aut edevay of kotiotbeltut duaitehw
edlidu of Yiitelaly Te cotton eff bes .tmdiaotob 18 “wots tooq” ‘eid it r
cictave mead oma Middita ‘ohe hie, ent,
Ard parities aebiad te tae, Logis casas? elt Ye tebe ee: ae a
ore Y , | wheintenis ef {ert 62 eeaanae
- cconeeveat ad “ vat comer: baer ae 4
5 elerte
. ee . T A is
acho pe Pao gs y
md PG: ny eer rene sani
¥ a # nw ® ms M “a Be
4 (PE cs oe ty Lewes ih tt
: I -y] & eR 5 aa
‘ my Pf ft i a ry 7 ¢ in
Y cin thes nhs dotatea see f
37741
RUDOLPH Ze KAROW,
Appellant,
Ys : APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT couRT
PAUL BLLGUTH et shes OF COOK couNrY.
Appellees. pay A. S
| 279 T.A. 634
MK, JUSTICR SCANLAN DELIVER@D) THR CPINION OF THE COURT.
On October 15, 1932, before a2 justice of the pesos,
plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendants Paul Sliguth
and ‘Norma Bliguth for the restitution of certain premises in
Forest Park, lilinoia. Defendants appealed to the Cireuit court
of Cook county and gave = statutery appeal bend signed by them-
selves a9 principals, and Watalie Hornisehe,as surety, in the
penal sum of $2,000. ‘han the appeal was eslled for trial in
tae Sireuit court the following order was entered, on Decerber
19, 1932%
"On agreement of the parties to this suit new here
gal thn sane is hereby dismionsd at defomtante’ eests fer”
the eourt below. Th da further ordered that the wrt ef
procedendo be stayed until February lst, 1935."
Daring one of the last days of January, 1933, defendants Paul
Eliguth and Norma Eliguth surrendered possession of the premises
im question to plaintiff’, who then demanded of them the amount
of rent due, $575, and upon theix refusal to pey same plaintiff,
on May 12, 1933, instituted the instant action on the appeal bond
against the Hliguths and Natelie Hornischer, and on May 19, 1933,
® judgment for plaintiff was entered for $500 and costs of suit,
plaintiff waiving all eleim io any sum due in exeess ef $500.
ii ass) |
ie
wh ~
’
ps % ai 3 tz
£ he » | ANA 3
: “ .
"hin
hy 2 \
| f
; .
a
af
T9OS TITSLD MOAT LATTA |
-YamuOd A999 Te
S <
on SO ahd. ORS
.T00 aHy TO KOTKTIO REY axutivrrne. ‘ilialt bawiins!
HOw ae
veoaeq el? to sottest 2 exeted sued 13k r0d0200 £ eiammemendt
is ag tes ‘ae F
dtug iii Inet atnabroted tanteys tmemghul « hexoveces “Wibdadesy
“? oh weehe Te.
mi soulastg niadxes lo nottutizanx oats 0% ddery lth sursok hae
fiuoo thuetd edt of befeoqqe etnsbuoted .elomkLil yaxet aeozolt
xt — iy ot Qe
~nond yO henyte hued Leoqqs Yrodsteate a eveg bia i cwoo 2 209 Ie.
ond at ,ysoxve es geeddetnxoll siiasel bra caleqioniug aa sevice
mi Iaisd sot belies sew ‘feeqrs edt neatly "200088 ee: nism, a
tedreoet no «betdIne oie’ bbe WUAbAL ABE odkd elld Vleet outs 4
se yee TE Gate hee Egeek ak . ee
ereif wor thus elds 64 aebixeq odt YO tnomboxga a0" *
“eset aioe telasbao we #8 hoceiaalh Lap fiid A 3
a ries jag’ Rexssne wadduan SE rit ‘”
EH ee " .S50L etal yiagudet Lh sme yasa of 7 7
iset atrabmeteh »tS9L eyiannsl to om. toes, as Sane xt fi. Z
seshisw of? bo cotenoascg berednowtwe sdwy Sli ame tne sts
trveun edd mod? to hobnamed madd ane LUusmtatg of sottaomp mh :
¢Yhlintalg omne yoy of Loawtes sted? mega bem, 1728, yeu di oto 4
aod Leoqua eX? no motion sandunt odd bodwetoont veer 8 ya me q
etE0L .Of yok no ban ¢xestoakmzoN eftagalt ‘bass mtuaits oat § hogs
| gfe 20 adeo bre 008% x02 betesne uaw Thivetelg 0% sa a but a 4
_ .008¢ Yo seeoxe mi exh aya um of mals Lie putviaw Ybh e*
Defendants prayed an appeal from this judgment to the Cireuit vourt
ef Cook county and upon a trial, de nove, before the court, without
a jury, judgment was entered in favor of defendants, the trial court
Baeing ite decision upon the theory that the order of Deeumber 1%,
1932, released the surety. Plaintiff has appealed from thie judg-
ment. There was no dispute that the sum due plainti:f for rent
amounte to 4575, but plaintiff waived ali claim for rent in exooss
of $506. Defendants have net seen fii to defend the revord.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court misinterpreted
the effect of the order of Socember 19, 1932; thet the seid order
amounted to an att ixnenen of the judgment appealed from ee as to
entitle plaintiff to claim a forfeiture of the bend and to have
his action therefor. ‘This contention is _ meriterious one. (See
Koelling v. Yaehsnings 174 ill. Apps 321, 322-3 Le Ys Hubbell
Fertiliser Coe ve Jacobeliia eb al.» 199 ilie ipps 579) MeConnel,
V+ Swailea, 2 Seam. 571; Grossman vs Cohen, 207 Ill. App. 1563
Gerrick v. Chauberlain, 97 111. 620; idams v. Taylor, 250 111. App.
598, 600; Poophe vs Sleight, 302 I11. 45, 47-8.) Im the last
mentioned case the court held that the principle of law announced
in MeConne] v. Svailes, supra, and Garrick v. Chamberlain, supra,
head been coneistently adhered to by the court. ‘the fact that
plaintifi agreed that the order in uestion be entered did not tend
to change the character and effeet of the order. Befendants had
the right to dismiss their appeal ot their own coats for wont of
prosecution, end plaintiff had ne power te control the action of
defendants in that regard. As stated in “ooldridge v. Rawlings,
14 Se Fe (Texe) G67 6688
“The fect that the es consented to a dismissal
of the al is more against in favor of the sureties on
the appesl-bond. It vas a voluntary absndenment of the couse
on appeal,"
(See also Drake v. Smytye, 44 ia. 410.) In the case of Babbitt
tari 2
Samoo Siwert) esié @3 Inematarh ald? anct Leoqqs on beyerq atuabnd' tert
Swerise gd:uee ef? evoled govem oh eknit? « moqu bam Yimweo eyerioel
deme Labua aatd aadatebrots > to Yovelt al beveldse eaw dnomgbut syxah a
e?k toGmeon, To rehve end gat yroodd odd pogu solsiosh abt th
“shu efde mot? bolneqqe eed Pihamiale “wou ads bosneler t
inet s02 Vikintalg exb mua walt dauts osuqeth on cm oredr ,
anooxe ot tnet xo% miako ifs beviaw tikdakele dud Ty ‘ee. ms : I
pbuocet odd buoleb a? #23 coe Jon ove “etawbas tet
bodotgroiniata twee Latus ed? todd ehawtane ‘Mbdmtess ‘*
solo bhos wild dose (SECL yO todmoood Io tobxe oul? te er i:
od, an On maxt holacqqs inemgout ode te conarl ite Ke 08 be rn ns
wvad Gd ban heed ec? Yo euyitelrot = mtale os vibimbate oe ta :
ao8}) “wots awolvetitem a st fe tinbines abet ” “sretetens abn Laas
Abas wi (eee OE .ogh SEE TE emimnat ¥ palling
tema (ePO saat «itt Wes rie den abbledenn ov 00 woshiidzet
bad pinebso ted .«rebxe oat 6 adverts pa oda shaven
to dnew x02 ageae nwo stots to Leogge <tedd. eotmeth od, stake walt
te apitoa oft Losimes of toweg pm bed. tiAsmhets, tte ica
agmatine «v ophtbsool at odada wi + bre
ekmath » Pr, boumvenoe sain js te eat
semge ety Ye rolnd oo TaAnaley & a a as. 40
aenadion To wnae edd mt (VORA et a ‘
=3<
ve Finn, 101 U. G. Vy 13 & 15, respectively, the court said:
“Where the bond is given in a subordinate court te
prosecute an appeal to effect in a superior court, the sureties
become liable if the judgment is affirmed in the superior eourt;
nor ere they discharged in ense the judgment of the superior
eourt is removed inte a higher court for re-examination and a
mew bond is given to prosecute the second appeal, if the ———
is affirmed an the eourt of aces resort o Nothing 2411, diss
reties en \@ the appeal from t ie court of
riginal jurisdic tion, but the udgmeri t oi
court having 4 uriedict Or 10x
onse c DCVe ae
7 Ashby Ve Sharps | Ls
tom, 25 3. Yo 4043 | Ve avg Al Hun
rdner V.» Garney, <4 > (Be Br. 467-4695
4% B oe Xe) 45352 * * * chen they execute
ond 7 aeaune the obligetion that they will anewer all
damages and costs if the principal fails to prosecute bis appeal
te effect and make his plea good, from which it follows that if
the judgment is affirmed by the Appellate Court, either directly
or by a mandate sent down to tho subordinate court, the cureties
become liable to the seme extent as the principal
{Oxo alice ours.)
It ia plain that the trial evar’ misinterpreted the effect of the
aversal ¢
order in question, ani from the undisputed facts it appears that
the amount due plaintiff is $516, which consists of $500 for use
and occupancy of the premises in question, $11 fer costs ef suit
before the justice of the pesoe, and $5 for plaintiff's appearance
fee in the Cireuit court of Cook countyas
The judgment of the Cireuit court of Cook county will
be reversed and judgment will be entered here in faver of pleintiff
and against defendants in the sum of $516.
JUDGMENT KRSVERSSD AMD JUDGMENT HEHE IW PAVOR
OF PLAINTIFF AMD AGAINST DSFEZEDANTS iN THE
SUM OF $516.
Fridéid; P..Je, and Sullivan, J., concure
ae
shies dsnoo os »yiovidewgaes abl & EL 4Y +8 o¥ 1k fe a
od So6q edomibredua a at nat at t onet en orestv"
goitetwa ad? qtue tolteqen a‘ roles geese |
eouige wodveqesn ef é mt hoarzitta sk i naam st a as.
YeleegEs e62 ‘to anowghel od? Soyraioadd ee cb ganas
& fee pokiadinexe~ot 219% ores tedgid « ofl dovemot
pein ea? Ti ,lseqqs beooew ot etuoouetg of terhy af meg
: B. Abbe . st teaet staat ba ieee alt 8
“ents
« abd efeneno%qg of alist honbsq
Seath erdiet ssh oor lec suet ea came ee cee
Bry i
olden gat aixveo otantorodun esi of mob tion asadaan & Vd
Eantoniey” ea "as ttietxe eeu add of eldeht. omoond.
{+ onto a9 '
old to sookte oats hotouqreinio kn s909, lobed suit bead ‘iat ab ox
tests exoogen $4 stosk beduquthow ont mor? besa soetdesup at m)
san 70% ooug to adetanon stotelw 2os08@ at Ttbiwtely euh |
tise te adeoo wh 146 shod Seeurp ne conten ty etd to tor:
tena Taeggs atthtemtalg cot 86 hee roneg eds to. dvtd att’ ‘oat ox tod
svénuoo teed Yo fxweo dhwoutd ots at vox
| Lite Vinwoo soe? te ‘dutmo thvottd wid te imac ot 7 are 4 |
‘Mutdmiesg Ye coved at ered howame og ikke Inong bir hee ian 3
0108 0 msn ote ae nn .
ROWAN WI BARK THUKOCUT aka ane
Ga? Wi BTWACIEUA | aS a
t
ey ae wpa ae ae wou Welt +o in
Be nea EAN Cait ae ihe a
Lie a. me Pr
f i ; d Ain BAe 4 i ¥ ' oki suaauabie 4A, ala i
bi napiecaine 3 ae ne oe a ta a we de HH,
- SEAT ne te Aeamcminetiial
te ois)
37800
i
ISAAK KARISH, ) : ;
Appellee, e
ve APZRAL PROM MURICIPAL count
JAMES KERNES, OF GHICAGO.
Appellant. 2 Fé 9 1; A. caeh
WR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVEGED THE OPINioOw oF THe courn?.
A fourth elauss contract ease in the Municipal court ef
Chi¢egd, tried by the court without a jury, the iseuves found
against defendent, and plaintiff's demages assessed in the sum
of $619. Defendant appeals from se judgment entered upon the
finding.
Plaintiff's statement of claim ellegwes that he was the
owner of 122 shares of stock in the Kernes Manufecturing Company,
a corporation; thet on June 22, 1932, the value of the sateck was
¥G@1003 that the par value of the stock was $50 per share; that on
or about Jume 22, 1932, at 12245 peme, he, together with Jdward
MU. Sehwartz, his attorney and auditor, made a request and demaid
upon seid corperntion te be permitted to examine the books and
records of secount of the corporation, "as he is by lew entitied
to do,” but that defendant, who wes president of the corporation
and whe hed the care, custody and contrel ef 211 of its backs and
records, then and there refused, failed and prevented plaintiff
from exsmining ite beokes and records, ais thereby, as “by
paragraph 38 of Chepter 32 of the Illinois Kevised Statutes,
seid defendant became liable te this plaintiff im the penal sum
ef ten per cent (10%) of the value of the stock owned by this
Plaintiff as stockholder in said corporation, and therefore he
aa
:
&
M
patie fas THM Mont Lanasa
#
0.900 10 ae | ya eam i
"DES cAT OVS". cee are gers i"
soe, woTRaso mu uiatMso aDETEmE im -
‘ a : a) ey ure aah?
a Pa as
te ¢rw0o Rngh the: edt mi eked tooxdnog ante den? is
hase vemnl oad | UML 8 duediiw dxwog ond we isekad <4 10
“mua edd et fospoons aogemnd eM 2temtaty ins tenia tos tent age”
edd aeoqu beretne inempbyl « ser? alaeqge treehastot one ; , if
Hie. want
t
esd now al dnats crane nha soit ws Fe
ckueqno? gntrutoeluna sensed vtlt wk soede te aeeatte ‘Sat we “x or
gaw donde oc? to eufev odd .SEhGL Wh sea ny sient ’ ie
base mloed end apant. 9 boediarvon od of s aot ° bh 2
bottisne wal yo ak orf ao® mobi exoq% salt 26 deos0 0, sbrocer
od etorteted? dan 5 apthbeinainiai penn ik |
oo Deen
brings hic suit.” Defendant's affidavit of merits denies that
plaintiff is the owner of the etock enumerated in the statement
ef claim; denies that on June 22, 1932, the value of said stock
was $6,100; asdmite that he is the president of the Karnes
Manufacturing Company, & corporation, but denies that on June 22,
1932, “he as sueh President was in the care, custody and had centroel
ef all of the booke and records ef the said corporation, and denies
that ac such President he then and there refused and failed and pre-
vented the plaintiff from examining the books and records of said
corporation, as in snid Statement of Claim alleged.*
After the finding by the trial court defendant filed the
following written motion for a new trial:
“Now comes James Kernes, Defendant, by Kienha & Green-
field, his Attorneys, and moves the Court to grant a new trial ef
the abeve antitleé esuse upon the follewing grounds:
"Z. Plaintiff has failed te prove his ecxse by a
preponderanee of the evidence.
"2. Piaintiff has failed te prove by a preponderance
of the svidence that he made proper demand at a reagonable time
upon Defendent for permission te examine the books and records of
aceount of the Kernes Manufacturing Company,
"Se Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that Defendant refused him permission to examine
the books of said corporation on the date alleged in Plaintiff's
Statement of Claim.
"4. Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderanee of
the evidence the value of his stock in Defendant Corperstien on
the date alleged in Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.”
Seetion 45, pare 45, Che 32, Cahill’s Ill. Reve Stes
1833, provides:
“* + * Any person who shall have been a shareholder
ef record for at least six months immediately preceding his demand
or whe shall be the holder of record of at least five per cent
of all the outstending shares of a corporationy shall have the
to » in person, or by agent or attorney, at any
Teasonable time er times, for any proper purpose, its books ani
reeords of account, minutes, and record of shareholders, and to
make extracts therefrom. * * * Any officer, or agent, or a
corporation which shall refuse to allow any such sharehold«r,
or his agent or attorney, so to examine and make extracts from
its books and recerds of account, minutes, and record of share-
helders, for any proper purpose, shall be liable to such
fois veiook adives to iivebtYta atinabsetet =", thea abd egnked
tnomoetate odd mt baderowsme stooge wats bo temwo ond at rubdntetq
usogs biea ke eulay eft , SSCL , 88 eune'’ mo Sad’ soineh yalale i
eomueh ond Yo ¢eoblaexq end ak ext gastd atiehe denarii al
«8% oem wo ¢esit eetmoh ted ,nokisvegtoe & «Wages ,
Ierinoo bet bac yhodexo , e180 edd mt ae tnobteott dows ta “a” “dun
“Beiamd tun .aottaxogzoy biss ead to ebreoor bate atoad pond fd bees ne
btee te ebroset bres aalood edd salninaxs sox vikenbase m wae |
",bogotla miel? %o gmamedad? bkon mk oa ‘suekas
odd DoLkt sonbnoteh ¢usoo Labud ed? yt watbath oft meets
tkalxd wen o vod moltom nods iuw
~SS0rd © ateall ys qinstwetetl ,eerced asent seme nee NY |
ne Laist wen a doer of duved od? novom bua ¢eyorreds 4 uh
iebeverg guiwelicr eld sasiteinatin’ bese boas
@ qi eeso eld over of Selist ned Pibtntets ok”
soonebive eld bead a
| eanarebnogeng # Y@ every of boLint nest Mabon ts 8"
gmt oidarosset a te tasmeb vegexvg obama af dadé sonebive ed;
te eafseoes te wvood att onimaxe of notsainzeg sot on
« Changes D paliidee tatek sented pat ap ene ft i
Yo esnsvehnoqe:¢ a yd evoug of better Brtdakals.. «&* sn i
onimaxe of notes imxeq mis bewwvter tmobasted 4 tats Sonat od
e*ttitnielt af hegelia stab add no moleareqres . | ahood mal
0
ee
Wea
bas sstberoeget a a xd from o@ bo Lao ‘Vetted’ 4B
ke Re a rogse bares & dneds. , ' 7
"aenee te Senements at “Shabalal tress f
nobiedereda 2 awed evad Lads afew monte
budaek ein gudbooerq tlodat bond ok I
tue tq evi? panel fo te buevex to xo flatts
eit ovasl Lista qrotiaxeqtoe « te senate uate ue
we on nb eget to tnage yd To «Houteg af «onium
bas stlood ati «4 eG Ure. TO. ot 3 -
oo dna ee ast cogeh had iy ‘ _ OoE
& %@ gdp +0. ¢%8o . tec Letene wt
etobLosexaie dom (na wells of seater |
O22 advettxe golem bee onlmaxs |
-wruia to breoet baa ateron ned
mM Howe of oidell e¢ Linde.
“30
shareholder in a penalty of ten per cent of the value of the
shares owned by such shareholder, in addition to any other
damages or remedy afforded him by lawe * * *#
Defendant contends that “Seetion 38 of Chapter 32 of
Tllineis Revised Statutes is a penal statute,” and that “in a pre-
ceeding under a penal statute more than a preponderance of the
evidence is necessary to authorize «, recovery.”
"after a motion ie made for a new trial and the grounds
thereof are stated in writing the party is limited te the errors
alleged in the written motion and ail other orrers are deemed to
RY Se NS
have been waived. ((hicage City Raiiwa
178; Yarber v. chi and Alton fad:
fe ¥~ Gabryay $20 14. 101.) Gator tease Sree nies
fourteanth lewtvastions® "tremens fe $a41Lk eee as.)
Other cases to the same effect micht be eited, but the aforesaid
rule is the settled law of this state. defendant tried the case
upon the theory that a preponderance of the evid enee was sufficient
to warrant a recovery and he will not be permitted te change hia
theory in this court, it will be noted that defendamt dees not
contend, in the written motion for a new trial, that pleintis?
failed to make out a prime facie case.
Defendant contends that “it i9 the law in this state
that an affirmative statement met with a flot and categorical denial
by am equally eredible witness, does net constitute that quantum of
affirmative proof which the law requires to sustain a judgmant,*
ané defendant further contends that this principle of law applies
in the instant ease to the question of the value of the stock ani
also te the alleged demand. The preponderance of the evidence does
net necessarily depend upon the number of witnesses testifying as
to any material subject of inguiry. ven though the seme number
ef witnesses testify on each side thers may still be a preponderance
on one side or the other. While the number of witnesses ig a
factor that may be taken inte eonsiderstion in determining «here
sf:
grit Yo eutevy ed Yo onee u9q ped bo
tosd a we ot mléthbha at , tebloesie ease ‘toda “done fF nme Chek
ti Ae # oe pwal YS mtd bobro dia ‘tka Ybouet 6 aeyanad
“Ro SE wadqaet Me Gh nelsowa" sald ebeedson dmabmoted . .
ong a ak" todd ome “ ededata Semen @ wh eodmdnd® dowdvel. atomtl(t
ex? Io eonetebnegetg a madd ates shuteta Janey 2 tebna gutbhese
“.YIOvCOsT 8 sRivedtus O8 YXnuBseRSm nha
ebrmety off Soe kelst wom a set oho at wodden «2
wtoxie att of bedinif at bab rp S eed pats baw si bode
haps gt pean yo mer ee } a aolten med.
offl One
9088 4
astttumdids sands sti Pe £6,
| {828 Pach wot ig
biauezo%e of} dud yhodto od sagdm tootre omad bed OF mers aio
ouns ett heist dnatmoted, sogdde abst te wet bettie ode oe ob
tmotortIwe agw sonebive od? $6 somatebmogexy & saat Yrbeds oat .
nit egnado 09 bedtime of tom ftw ed baa Yxdver * 2 , ay
‘don aah Sgehne ted dnakd noten ad Lh by ar ad
2, silage
Vibdatsig decte stokes won-« et moldom wodtiaw eats sib» fiapaine
sse00 ghost sutza a 00 oan of belt
tate lite ut wat odd of 41° dos bastuns duahnatedsi cs ic)
feinwh Ieotregaiao baa telt « fate soa imasicteoeaieiiatie tia :
20 mi inaWy tek) etudksenos tom are <onomeiy atdtbore eLLanpe we
.érsmpiut @ mindavd of doehupet wal 48) ibetde teeny onkhaentine
ebiiqgh wal to ofghomixg aie duld ahmetnos tositew?: txsente’ a
tus doode odd Yo euley ed? to motteonp of? of vane tawtegs Oho nk
noe) gonsbive ot) We eomateoReqeny om «hmemob begeith eft te
as prigttiast pbagond ty te — ante moa | 04 bas , ra
sndiun aioe oid Huei wove 4 yhurw koe ae
a io & eet aaah ant eee ati tone .
ofa
the weight or preponderance of the evidenee lies, it is not
necessarily determinative, and a jury or the trial court may
be fully warranted in finding in favor of « party even if his
case is supported by the lesser number of witnesses. It is the
province of a jury or the trial court to pass upon the eredibility
ef the witnesses and to determine the weight, if any, thet should
be attached to their testimony.
“The witness! manner, demennor and besring upon the
stand, his replies, whether frank and open or reluctant and
evasive, ~ his manner of cxpressing himself, whether moderate,
dignified and respectful on the one hand, or extravagant,
impertinent and reckless on the other,~ * * * are always of
bj ee ag pager es in tee ae to what, if ra ervedit the
witness is entitled.” (Lille & Sto le Ne Re & Co Gow Ve Ogle,
92 Ill. 353, 362;) fei
It is8 mot the law that «a verdict or finding which reste alone upon
the testimony of one party who is contradicted in tete by another,
where both appear to be equally credible, will be set aside upon
appeal. (See Bimer v. Miller, 255 Ills ‘ppe 465, 470, and cases
cited thereing Shevalier v. Seager, 121 Ili» 564, 5703 Haydon ve
Miller, 205 Ille Appe 147, 1483 Mills & Co. v. Duke, 232 Jil.
Appe 277, 280.) As stated in this last mentioned ease (pe 280):
*“Byven in e eriminal case where the law requires proof
of the defendant's guilt beyond a ressonable doubt, a judgment
ef conviction will not be reversed merely because only the eom-
plaining witmess testifies to the commission of the crime _
he is gentsadieted le the defendant. The faek v. Greenberg
a Tile 566 ; Opie v ms Lae 7 Le 5803 T aot 1
Maciejewski, 2% ee also Ryan v» Harty, 2
ate APPo OF Rollins Ve Kronekey 262 Tile Appe 646 (A ate)
In the late case of The Peopis v. Fortino, 356 111. 415, 420, the
eourt said:
"Thies court has frequently held that the testimony of
rey i a a denied by the accused i A be egg tie eg
o sus @ conviction. People vy» Gchends, 4 « 56) People
ve Surek, 277 ide 621." ; "
Nor is the defendant justified in arguing thet it is the testimony
of one credible witness ogainst another ersdible witness. Mr.
Sehwartz, the accountant, correboreted the testimony of plaintiff.
dem wt ah quote eonedive sat te oennrobmoge ny ze iatpiew ead
goer duwoo Lets? eft to yew) o bi povtventweteb yLiconscoen
alt Ut move yited @ Fo vovet ot gatbntt at bednetrew vel sed
eit af ¢k seenevntiw Yo vodnent sonnet adi 4d bel teqqua ai eae
Utttidthers edt moqw suey ef e090 fotv? sad 20 yet a Yo vontverg
hivese dedd guna tk gdrtytow edly ombereteb oo “Ghe seodenttw edd to
NOC? = tial “ weteatie ad
q
;
|
ee mk daea )
ptosltona YO pte mk beverhartnes at edi ~eted’ baw to yaombbeek Ge
| eqs Obtan don 4d ifhw ,oLdthete Utthwps oo of taodga ded oxmly. 4
aaa Brie ,OVA hdd wqah ET G28 (geEEIM vv emt 08) tabeee |
*¥ pobyeit tore «aoe «2K PU cxbgaed sy esis itomndé Ste |
ET US goa Vy 00 @ thin GONE WAL sqqe oftT | xotiee
2(O8 .¢) some bometénom tank aid? mt begat aA “(oat “ve +a
> pei ee | te 3 ;
Qoony aeilsper wel edt ante aa ip a ates neva |
; smesty har tduob ofe. set se bne pag 35 Seed i?
aR ee euwnood yLovan boat’ reg a
beta oubee ond te sete ya oe ye |
iqeo. Gat | * *
ans): a} <. RE argc fe
A) 6a rr) o£i1 L $08 sdomots -¥ amgifes , Cit err 4
end 208d veL> ofEl eae omdaxet y shaget ott ‘a vase ota ett. ck
Ne Ceemtened ast batt toes bind ut
tnedeltise va ye
— eee »Lii ‘she .abuadod
La
oh
-5e
The trial court saw the witnesses and heard them teatify, and
after reeding the entire evidence we are satisfied that he. was
justified in believing the testimony offered by plaintiff.
Defendant contends that plaintiff did mot prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the velue of the stock on the date
alleged. We find no merit in this contention. Plaintiff proved
by defendant's admission that the stock at the time in question
was worth $6,100. Defendent had a full opportunity to produce,
upon the trial, the books of the company, all of which were within
his control and that would have been the best evidence as to the
company's assets, liabilities and carnings. Y¥rom them the book
value of plaintiff's stock could have been easily aeoertained,
(Cooper ve Mutt, 254 Ill. Appe 445, 453.) The withholding or
failure to produce evidence available to him gives rise te a
presumption against him. (Pipa v» Grand trunk “estern Bye Coo,
341 Ill. 320, 327, and cases cited therein. ‘ee alse Yell ve
Ghesapeake & Ohio Ry+ Co+, 210 Ill» Apps 136, 140.)
The judgment of the Municipal court of Chiecage is
affirmed.
Pritend »: P. Jey and Sullivan, J., concure
Vi
“hata bw orem dotaw to Lhe a YLnquND oad to, adaod. edd, alert ead fou
tne ,¢ttvaed werdd besod hue sowsdéndiw edd ona tudo Latte at
wow asl Sul? Soktabéne ota ow obnobivd srtide ef? yulbce® todta
seikiatedg yd dexette wionkived este yutvelted nt ages
#8 wt ever sem bib TLitniale Sud @haeinon dacbne'tet a
“pda end no doode of Yo ewer ect oomebtve ‘esd ‘te peer 1
hovers ttitalel< .rélicedmoo abt? ob $item on helt oF jpegetie
wettaoup xt emt? add te dooce ont tat? natanhahs & tenbrotoh yw a
sboubong od ‘qWinwdxegge Lint « Sat teehee ver 900408 dorow aaw
om of te oonohive ded pad mosd svad Mut taild, bia, tb
Hood end sodd wou .eaitte rss baa wobescrdatt sadoar a
shonbatspnen “iiaso moed ¢vad hiwoe sosts, a" tutatete 20 euler
WO Bab bLorisig ter of (48OR 98OD og@r oLit oe shan ae
kK
wt ernie te gxu0o cateanittieet 2 saommbst rye of
ii bak” a we eee
oe = B4 wiry
: Ri yy oe £ % mn ne Fe bis)
a a
vitimenrtug Ooo menad Civ atimabenbeh ade Bele |
; ae G gure ae ‘ ry ie Bing 4
- ) w&
a iy FEM a > *
Hog FY Soha eo
Ra ns Aid
Pee
wi9 43 pe: By ere ee } aie Wakes a ee a 48 es a 2
A gy st See RA ON PD, Sait | ae vad |
ye ea eee a ca ERE
cei, a Plnees ate heh me Mee,
Sy DR BAERS gaara
‘ ae Sey: |” Caan
— PEt. |
57810 a a ;
é oe ae @ i
SOHN P5 FOLSOR, . : :
e A " ; : }
APPRAL YROM MUNICIPAL
¥
LIMDA ‘ TITUS KWOK and en ree ea
| :
SIOMEY By KMOX, 279 LA. 684
MRe JUSTICE SCAMLAW DELIVERED THE OPIRION OF THE COURT.
John PP. FPoleom sued linda 3. Titus Knox ami Sidney B,.
Enex in the Municipal court of Chicage in an action of the fourth
Glass. The case wea tried by the court without a jury. 48
shown by the origins reeord filed in the exse, the court, on
May 18, 1934, entered the following order:
“Hew come the parties te this cause, and thereupon the
trial of this ceuse is now here resumed before the Court without
a jury, and ryt —" having heard the evidenes, ané the arguments
of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, enters the
following finding, to-witt-
“9 TEs COURT PIIDS THE Ist VeesUs THE DerCMDANTS,
LIWDA B. TITUS KWOX AND SIOWZY Be. KAOX, AND AbcugeEs
om DAMAGES IN THE GCM OF THREE HIKED Poory Piva
AND WO/LOO DOLLARS ($348.00).
“Woe come the defendants in this eeuse, and move the
Court that o new trial of this esuse be granted, and the Sourt
being fully acvised in the premises overrules said motion, and
denies & new trinl of this ssuse to be granted.
“Now comes the defendants in thia eaune, and moves the
Ceurt im arrest of judgment in this eouse, and the Cours being
fully advised in the premises overrules said motions
"This gause coming on for further eoedinge er
it is considered by the court that the plaintiff have =
the finding herein, ani thet the plaintiff have ané recover of
Sees. damnges Of Sinn SAARNLED seupumting te the ous ef Tares. macros
cy eum @ x
Yerty Five and wa merase Dollars ($346.00) in form as aforemid
en yeti tegether with the coste by the plaintiff herein expended,
and that execution issue therefor.
"Now come the defendente and pray an appeal from the
judgment of even date to the Appellate Court in an¢ for the First
Tig “a
% 4 ’ ‘ ,
‘ mpeg sree: |
me, hina |
Yo reer Sea
Taek in mone, cree
eOOADMD WH THIN
“BBO ECTS
fev sino He
ae
8 Wbte hua npn avers + abaks baw meaket, + nt a ep
Marmot outs bpyabebptascstertapeapia is
qf
eaTRACHENG aT mY Uae exaust x amt 2 as "09 mat Rati»
GURSERSA GUA .XOEA »@ YaOLE i "
aVER ¥EA0% Rete eee ae aa en WH cao at
edt oven bee _ oan atdé ab shmenaedod odd ened eine
dee ela bn coosnsra 06 ulin gaat Se ane
ie paoisom bias sefLetnoere
Cee he ct oak ae wen &
aa? eave ban yenwep odet Mons rors yen by
yeted gue aff tae ysemeo widé wt dnemghet te
amet faa bine selecteve Xs
tiered : + me re OLD
wo asain ad iba ay "Sa See ta
te wevooes koe overt Witntelq ex? dade tre gah
— »& bes wow eedd? - ae gabe
| bobaogie nivrad Vitsedata ee atees « "dite Gadii
et mx Lovque ma tomy bun etushested adi seve wut
taxi sit wot tes mi dueOd edaltequs oid OF ofa nove to tnemgbet
: tha
fo ae
j
~Re
District of (liineis, «hich appeek ia grented on condition that
= party file herein an appeal bond conditioned according to
lew in the sum of Five dundred and 6/100 Dellare ($500.00) with
seeurity to be approved by this Court, said bend te be filed and
approved herein within thirty (30) dayo from this date.
"Tt ie ordered the Court that sixty (60) days be
eliewed in which to file 3111 of Exeeptiens,."
Defendants appealed to thie cowrt and after thoiy brief head been
filed here a supplements] recerd wae filed here eich «howe the
following order, entercé in the trial court on Wevember 22, 1934s
"This matter coming up on motion of the sleintiff te
correct the record in the pin ey enuge £6 conform to the true
findings end ordere of the Court; and
“It appearing te the Court thet the Clerk ef thie
Court entered om the half sheet in thie enuse anmdlear date of May
18, 1954, an erder chich wae ineorreet and net im aceerdence with
the findinge and orders of the court then ond there stated; and
tant the undersigned, the Honernble Francis Berelli, the then
preclding judge hea s cleny rememberanee of what oocurred at that
time, and further hed hie memory refreshed by mew having just read
the trenseript of tootimesy and the proceedings in this enuse at
that time and which transeript of testimony and proceedings was
wade by the court reporter fer the defendant he reing
ibis Ma oa tar 3a + oe gy finds and — exvders
that i * 9 4@ improper end incorrect, and
incomplete, and
“Hin wy GHOSRSt that esid order oo heretefere above
mentioned be {rem ths recerd and thet the following Order
be eutered in thereefy as of the dete of Hay 19, 1934, to-wit:
*The Court finds thet the defeniont, Sidney 8. Kmox,
is mot Liebie in thie gause and the cause is on te him
hereby diemis<ed,
"The Court eee finds the Fagg oc ageinst the defendant,
Linda B, Mmex, and rent Pore domges in the sum of Three
Hundred Forty-five and O0ths Dollars (6545.00).
*“Yraneia Borelld
Judge.”
,e
The supplemental recerd «leo shows that the following erder was
eT eee Oey ay NNT Ry 200K
“This Order up on motion of Plaintiff te correet
the Order of sreaieey 22,5 19 Re and Pes Defendant heaving due Motice
posse Mar lee proper in the fives to $ thr ee (3) 3 st phe gee vied
re ae paragra,
} a ar it me incorreet; om the 6 eurt being advised Of the
r)
"707 WeeeBY Orhers that the lewt three (°) paragraphs
t
wey Miidiooes mw setnery «2 Saoyqe deldw gatomisLi te
doresee Semelti tines, babd oe = ra eLit yxeq &
Py ed Cpe0088) analion BOL\eR hme ye i to awe was ma
fer to tt & Lived hiaw « O ° dco
otab aldd watt ayab Pome has eiulds widetw akoxed wry es
eo? ayab (68) Wate taco sxwod eat yd dorwhrw at ‘
*,omoliqeoxd te @ o£i% of iste mb bovetia
weed hed toknd uled? reste tee due olde oF bpd A
sth iit thelr Went Wait sie Wepset Seteemdguen a oxed, bekt®
1OORE ett SANIT le FRE ites oat ak hegpten geiinn
ores te Sasa oe res, SA
ame (sawed adi Ty eneiTe how ni
etdé to dred oats Sauld dxooS ws OF yaltasqga 21
te ofa aoe sewee aid? at @ >.
Broa ae pecceena
shit ai okt ie vat bas Bes elds tenod
a
: fade Yo Oopatedeeset s25t se pte
hens taut polvedt wor 3
fa envag ead at
Pd mpi towsong Sie ee
ag ttatee vivsed tan ebni guneh elite SmrrRteR anand! sa
ae oSeerenees ms een SS et Se tas @
eo eote. weolesores a thse wnwe Bien. sem rename. iS
sehr gniwe ito’ eff Foe Pigeon pnecen aa antes pmlc ”
tdhwoee ySEGk g@k YA Te aonb ods Yo am pRowmede €.
af SPs Ses
eteisturote s ocd taco wegen, dt oid? zach 0 a
enw te pred mee tiie pW of a
Ea}
| mtrorten (9) owas éuat ‘watt toute amen ase 1
«3«
ef exid order of November 22, 1924, be expunged; snd
eCES COT HEEUBY WO’ Ghee that the feliewing Grider
ve entered og of the date of Way 1a, 1954_ to-wit:
"The Court finde thet (idwmey B+ Kaox ia not liable ta
this couse but fleda the iesues in taie eause in Ris
faver, ond «s to biw this cause in hereby diemiesed,.
*The Court further finde the lewues against the
tefondant, Lindo BD. Titus Knox, and saccusen domages
in the wau of Three Hundred Forty-five (3545.09)
Nellate, and Judgment will be entered om such findine.
"The Court harekby further ordera that ae to the Orders
heaving te da with the appeal of this case, and thease
. —- therevith, wtend ee of asid sate ef May
B, LOB4as
‘The Court further ordera thet any part of the original
Oxvder of May 14, 19345 which conflicts with this order,
7 Page = Order ef Wovember 22, 1934, be sxpanged from
YR@CEIE «
‘Sraneie Berrelid
"Geo. B. Holmes
Atcomey for Pleiatiff.*
Mhaintiff’s statement of clsim alleges:
“4 @ © thet on to-wit, February 2, 1945 he me employed
by the defendants to rendey services te said defendants and that he
Pendered euch serviews from seid date ta July 1, 19ASs that anid
services consisted of the meseurement of 27 pareele of real ontate
owned by ssid defendants, wcid mensurements boing made by plaintiff
of beth the let area and cublie voatent of imprevements «i dueted
thereons and consultation of Chierge 2ullding Department record
and <gsesuerse’ tex lietea to averrtain the ame ef auch inprovementes
the conguliation of recorde in the Chieage “ire Department aad the
Fire .tiorney's Sfiiee ant Yire iaweranee Company reoerds te dater-
mine dutee of the destruction by five of yertous improvements isented
om seid puresls ef real eatate and the congultesion ef reverts in
the Muilding “epartmont s* te the dates of various erdere ef cone
Gemnation of improvewante on corinin poresls of anid real eatate;
that all of said services were rendereé for the purpese ef se¢er-
taining facts necesvary to obtaining a reduetion of texes on seid
parcels of real estate oo owned by said defendenta; thet said esrviees
were reniered by plaintiff te eid defendants «t their express request
oud that said defendants | aed and agreed te pay plaintiff fer
ough serviecs the sum of $15.00 por day for himself and an savistant;
that there ia now due te plaintiff from esid defendonte the eum of
Seven Hugdred Twenty (9725500) Cellars for 48 days work} that although
plaintiff has often requested said defendants to pay plaintiff fer
@ueh sexvviees they have refused oné 2611] refuse wo to doe
i "Wherefore pleimtiff brings ¢hie wait and prays for
0 sue ageinet seid defendants in the wam ef 2720.00 ond costes of
s suit,"
hae jhommvagre ad «CULM xodeoyell to Dy ae
gudwedie * Basie Wor erie Seating’ ee
— p Tose gay ey WE EMM, he Rg ats 6 ae ©
wi wbdaks doa. anat 2% pp i Ave gre 42109,
oie Bs ganen & oat aett Jad mA wort
« tape eboan & bs Moen % Toes aime ‘ww o ay tone .
ort? ‘pont oge nenwal oid obads vwdteti? reret out? 4
amy non Dey BHETT «, a ee a
wlicaeet) ee evit-ystot 2x alee soar se 3d ae horte®
eprtant? dou, mo Bexedne od JL bw PRET, dog read abs * “tae
exeie? att af on Galt weoing tedtae pot of iia axed ett i
wand bee eGuea etd? %6 fadgus ote “seid My aa 7
Sear * hess
ms to ctw bles te aa heaee “ae
Lonkghie ode Maal a art yan Pt Ronee ‘grt
feng by mea oe xy
dene ren aul sede ot ee ive
puis ah onare & Be
tomy fay '
on 3 i? bem Pet rise venaes
eu gate Cheek qt tee ot y eons ‘Shae
state tent te skemme "8 te tnemp wang
Wertataty shun yelod Berne bkow
oleecee Seoaiea’ pet aiye {ie eee ae ie
pr Bd
“ rary alg a be IY cgrahee one HY G2 whxooss to mer
~“engod ef xbteces yageo) yeeniore* oat tom eobst0 8 &
betosol adromevertet eoetter te oxkt ed neltdowstast old
KE obreowe le opbeeélivenos ele baa otatce Laud FT) ehooiag b |
“oo 16 etehuwe amptuey te engah afd Of a8 & tage: geek
ietapee seer bina he aro. aire ob oD gad
“segee te woogie. <0 <ohiet eter w oe | :)
Sieg ne sesed te mo lvevhes a 2 ee rab ysee an adent ge ‘mes
eeoivtes bien godt yotrahbaeted ben oe Hv oge an stages bg ‘to a Cl ae
deoupor seetaw ro geadly Sia yg sapaas tee thtadalg ws pe ty i Pa z=
‘ :
, Pf eri atadeg
hy MOT oyetG bre thay pdety pre ane nig, ote
We absoo ins 00,0875 te auve odd ai admabee ted BF,
«he
Pefendent Cldncy B. Enox, in his affidevit of merita, denise that
he ever owned any real ectate er that he persennlly hired plaintiff
to do any work. Tho affidewit of merite ef defendant Liada G.
Tites Knox denies that she employed plaintiff to werk at the rate
of fifteen collars a day, as sileged in plaintiff's stotemart eof
¢leim, aad states that plaintiff and one ‘nna Malloy did work fer
hey under a verbal agrasment whereby she agree’ to pay then oheshalt
of what they saved her in reducing taxee on certain parcels ef real
eeteate for the yeere 1926, 1929 and 1036; thet eaid verbal agrecuent
wae redueed to writing om ‘pril 45 1935, end on April 18, LW35, at
the request of plaintiff amd 4nne Malley, the written ecntract wae
eoncelied, and at the sawe time dafendent entered inte « sritten
eontract with Jemes %. Breen, an attorney at law, wherein and whereby
ehe agreed to pay eaid Breen a eum faual te fifty per «ent of the
amount ef texes eaved for the ssid years *except ae te o reduction
ef one-helf of the pensliy aliewsd by lew on which seid Jamen @.
Breen wes to reecive no part, a copy of which guid sgreeumnt ia
attached herete marked ‘Huhibit 5.’ That eeid contract with said
dames ~. Dreen, waa entered inte by this defendant of the eapress
Fequest of ssid pinintifi and oxid Amma Melley and was substituted
in place of eaid written egroaent with eaid plaintiff and anna
Beliey * * *, that if plaiatiff rendered any services between Februnry.
20th, and July lst, 1933, #240 sorvicos vere rendered] under the oforee
3 aeid verbal agresment for the reduction ef taxes «2 aforevni¢ batwoun
Vebruary 20th, 1033 and April 4th, 1935, and under acid written con-
tract dated 4pril 4th, 1035, from suid date until opril isth, 1935»
end that any services reatered by plaintiff between April loth, 1033
and Juhy let, 1935, were rendered to aaid Jamon "+ Breen under and by
wirtue of his contract with the defendant « * * and that thie defendant
is mot indedted te asid plaintiff in any amount whetegever.* Attached
t0 thie lnct affidavit of merits is » copy of the written contract
. \ fr ' fi 4 ,
I ; Bi
Se
oT) aeiseh yatiten tw eheasrtte ata xt yest 6a yonbie- oumnnerot
‘whevutate horhd <Ltaneateg oo sacle 40 wtagam Lox ys Sone xove et
1G abetl srabmetoh te stixem te divebitie aT A 10W ye ob of
stan ot tn Hey of Tisdmisty boyedquy ede Cute ewtnod monk awtlT
Yo sremetade ew Vismlele wf Oopelin oa yeh o stelion nooetet te
xt drow GLb yotioll saci ono him Tetoetasy duty eodete dee «ubate
RMaui-one aineld Yor oF SeomNe oul eso btw EiieMOD ERs Lavo wf toe med
faor to allootag atedxoo me uuxed entowhex wi tk haves Yet) sade to
teomootgs Lodxev bine dade (O62 haw C8UE ,OSUL ovony wid Xb? etndee ;
het RHR OL Lbmd BO Saw 4 SOL 4d Lagi mo gubtiow of boowher aaw
eae toandnee aedeiw os «yetiell ont bee Yiadaialg Xe Saatlend
sedsite @ efi deTedae teobmetod oats ena afd dn bua | stedteonay
Ye xedw bee atecodter eval ta Yomneson mm emenk 1 neat att foamtans :
odd Yo tune OR CITED OF Laugh moe 4 ROWE bhew ay BF <3
Meisouber 2 oF ae sqeone” ataey bien ont 3 10% bowen nant te 4 roa
¥ Somat bhew Hotty mo wal YS hownkle Winnog on? whats no
at dnsnsompe bhow seide 20 yoo - a feng on ertooes oi hae ent ‘
blew Kéby dantinoe bhew ted? 6h bth positon ‘evored restontan
wastes es 34 fasbmo toe ands w orm pevesne enw: eases “a ean 4
tetudrtedue vow tee eossnu ann, shee bmn veentere, tan te eeeuyor
ant She Ythtetaly btee dtie inemwauns need be Bboe )
{urriet Roewted covkysen Yr hotebmet ‘Sitatetg Be sate ee Ae
ie Eas ane i
“ones ete robe herebeet ereW bideas bk os wile pied, ad mat A
i es ia ftew oes btn o west of EOL
‘wee lentes ‘iit iba pictus w> pe pees “ ‘
abe b wish saat bun wee pabmte® ost ists teed ‘atieihs
hedoates “.xwivcbiaity Phietiih xan at vanadate tee « a et Sot
femnaroe nortan eae Yo we « 2 bdo to cz ate a J
~3e
of April 4, 19353 alee « copy ef the written contract between ¢ofente
ant Linda 3. fitue Suox and Jamen ©. Breen, dnted April lO, 1933,
Many cententions are urged by defendant why the original
judgment erder, as afterword corrected, should be reversed, but im
@ur view of this appeal vo need pass upon only ome. It is contended
end strenuously argued thet the finding and judgment are clearly and
manifestly sgeinmet the weight of he evidence. AMter « eavreful
examination of the ontire evidenes we heave recched the conelusion
that thie contention mmet be sustained. ‘As the comme may be tried
agein we refrain from ¢comcoenting upon the evidence, “e srw of the
@pinion thet justice will be best served by « ratrial of the esuee,
The original Judgeent order of the Municipal court ef
Chieage entere: May 18, 1934, and alse the orders ontered Bovember
@2, 1934, and Secomber 3, 1934, both purporting te correct the order
of May 13, 1934, are all reversed sn¢ the cnuse is remenieod for a
mew trind.s it in neceouary te reverses the three orders to pravent
confusion that might arise from the unusual stete ef the reserd,
JE OGMERT GOS GF MAY 18, 1634, MOVGGER 2, 194d,
AND DXCSMBER By 19349 HEVTEGT> ARP CAUSE AUMAMoED
re A MY TR Ale
Priemd, °s Je, and Sullivan, J., eoneurs
cited courted destinos puttin ex te yao o wade PEEL oA Shays to
<9 ORR, AL. LhGA Noked que 4 enemiSbee mM eNEAS.»Kobaghs, éme
‘ieee ow yi snehnetok Ys begat ete ameddmediog YaaM.. 9) |
‘gh dud yhoawerer od Diveds ghotoouree tmowxes ty bi eine
Robustneo ak $1 sexe Yino moqu sesq been qv doouge adi le sede tHe
dacterae © 197A .aembtve ots Ie atyhew od? demtous Yiteedinam
wotgnfonss off bytes evad ov sumnblys etiinn sdt to aeisamtmane
beta of Yas Ons ede ah shonterewe eg damm molinnimen whdd sedd
edf te orn oY -pomeddve od? moqu getiusume gott nhettes ow milage
snouee aft to Labrtox « yd hovrwa teed oF Aftv eektaul pe i
_ Fo. deweo Seq tedait oe Ye ebro fevmphu, Seotyire ost *
wadaeyot barred carte eh-snte hens ehcaahantiedil ono
“ xobme edd, 400x299 Of putéxoqueg Mtoe oDERE, a8. modepned, dam, obt sot,
. & 40% dodremen of pages aad pmo hoexeves Lia one 4 PSOE of Ly
inoveng, o2 nusdep soul? oil? eoteve Of Yromenoon af 40 ehakey wom
shock ef? I edate Lowmuns ont avr. et i A ~E
4
‘ aD AED Qh
-
s '
iii
mae a ue
y iF Beak ay a ee ms
r "7a é ds Af te?
: f’'
36892
CLARISE EB. PRYDE, )
Appellee, ;
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT
Ve
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE il
SOCIETY OF THR UNITED STATUS, Oe 9QTA @€ {
Appellant. Leile 0 3 5
MR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERZD THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
By this appeal defendant, The Gquitable Life <ssurance
Society of the United States (hereinafter referred to as the
insurance company), seeks to reverse a judgment for $3,437.50
entered against it in plaintiff's favor upon the verdict of a
jury in an action of assumpsit brought by plaintiff as the
beneficiary named in a policy of insurance upon the life of her
husband, Everett He Pryde. The suit was brought solely to recover
a double indemity benefit for accidental death under the terms of
the policy, defendant having paid $3,000, the face amount of the
policy, to plaintiff without dispute after her husband's deathe
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence defendant's motion for a
directed verdict was denied. Defendant offered no evidence.
The policy of insurance declared upon contained the
following provisions:
“Upon due proof that the death of the Insured occurred
in consequence of bodily injury effected solely through external,
violent and accidental means, of which, except in ease of drowning
or of internal injuries revealed by an autopsy, there is a visible
contusion or wound on the exterior of the body, * * * the Society
will pay instead of the face amount of this policy, double that
amount, making $6,000. * * *
"This agreement, to pay an inereased amount in the event
of death from bodily injury, does not cover * * * death resulting
direetly or indirectly * * * from bacterial infections other than
infeetion occurring simultaneously with and in consequence of an
accidental cut or wound."
wabien
Rey Ea
» 4
4 xs
: 99 «@ @eTAAT
es gon: foqg seed
eee
eYTHUOD “R00D 4 TAUOS i 1 Sats ale
! POTS | see ATA a RS
C&O oA. stmabieqga
sTAUCD @HT ZO HOTMITO GMT CEMAVIGRG WAVLLIVE HOTTAUT Mae”
, Fert peeeeeee
Sone teas oted eldasiupi edt «dua dnote Laoqgs eid va
eit an of berestot tod tentexed) ated bedtnd wis PJ , Wetege,
08, 152.86 sot dnonmbut s oeteyet ot ateou +(pringmoe. © pone nant a
s to Jolbtev edd moqu zovet a'iti¢nielg mi at tentsga bexojne ,
oud as Yittnialg yO sistguord tinqmuees to moltes Ridtewtier |
test to etit edd mnogu eonsiwent to yollog 2 ai bemen | £' : cod
sovooos of Yisloa tagwoud may, Cte OR sie gacitnn machi ebnadout |
Yo amtod eft tebay diseb Lstnobtoos ‘tot ¢Htoned vi lamobat eiduob a
edt to Jnveme seat oft 000,69 bkeq gntved tnebuoteb evoilog exis
widsob athnedaud ted tedte edmgath suoddiw Ititaiele of, «Ke
& tot noitom a'inabnoteh eoneblye e'titintalg to aelevlones ¢
a a
s9onsbive em betetio énebhneted .belmeb asw sernceteeie
eft besisinos soqu betaloob sonetwent te yolfog eft | -
| st
hermoso boiwanl of? to diaoh eff tadd loom exvb gan
elanzetxe aywotls yisloa bedoctto yrsbat ylt enoo si
anioveth to eeas mi iqeoxe «Holfsde to ,aneom Letnob 98 bas re Le 2
eidielv a ai stecld .yaqetua na yo befaevet ap hiyy oat
Yisivos edt * * * eybod sid to toixedxe odd Be
tastd eidwob .yotlog ald? to sdasons Goat edt ‘Se
*
gxove ot of tnvems beasetont ta Yeq oF ¢tronteo:
gatifiveses diaeh * * * teyoo tom seob eUisie
fads tecddo smoidoetni Leitetosd mort * *
fe Yo semeupesenoo amt baa sitw yLevoensd.
oie
The insurance company's defense as set forth in its
additional special pleas to plaintiff's amended deelaration, and
to the first and second additional counts thereof, was predicated
upon the stipulation in said policy of life insurance "that the
agreement in ssid policy to pay an inereased amount in the event
of death from bodily injury did not cover death resulting directly
or indirectly from bacterial infection other than infection oecurring
simultaneously with and in consequence of an accidental cut or
wound.” It was averred that the death of insured occurred from
bacterial infection that did not occur simultaneously with or in
consequence of an wectdenviiel te wourd e
Plaintiff testified that prior to August 1, 1929, her
husband had always enjoyed good health and was physieslly active;
that she, after a short trip to Battle Creek, Michigan, returned
to her home in Slgin, Illinois, on the late afternoon of August 4,
1929; that when she and her husband were retiring that night she
saw a blister about the size of her little finger nail on the second
toe of his left foot; that "it was a slight elevation of the skin,
* * * rather colorless, sort of grayish locking;" that there was no
discoloration or swelling at that time and the surrounding skin
appeared normals that it looked the same the next mornings that her
husband, wearing his ordinary shoes, went to work that day, August
5, 1929, at 5:50 asme, and returned home about 4 Pelie3 that the
blister was then broken and looked raw and watery; that the toes,
instep and ankle were swollen and the skin, where the swelling was,
Looked a little inflamed and reds that he was unable to put on his
shoe August 6 and 7, 1929, because the foot was so swollen and he
had to remain home from works that the foot was soaked in a warm
borie acid solution; that the swelling subsided so he could get his
shoe on and go te work August 8, 19293 that he also went to work
Sugust 9) 1929, but came home early that day, very sick and
evi ni dizot dee sa sane ted a "figure fornsitvent edt
pe
* ‘asiee +welianeLoeh bebnome a'ttismiolg ot anofq Laloeqa Lanotd tobe
bedaoibexq avow ,tooted? einwoo L[anolithhe broses fim tert? oid of
ent tedt* eometwanit stift te yolLed bites sl oottalwaliea silt ous
gneve oft mi tnvome heswetoni ne ysq of yollog bise at sreneetgs
yitoouth gattivesr Aissh tevod Jom bib yxwhnl Uthed mort dégeb to
gulrins99 no ttoetnt sans testo meitootnt Isitetond mott is ebhhat Lal
ao two Latnebiova a to edneapeanoa RE ben thw YLewoonet Lum .
“ gaxt bewrwove bexvent to deeb ont dase bottevs naw oT Moet
ni xo ditw yfewoonstinmtea two99 fen Sih tals noliostat Letrotoad
einwow xo o Cesare 8 ” eee
~ens
jovides YLivoteyig bw bas difded boon beyotae siete rs u
beniitet «negidei ghost) ofsteh of qitd fxede ‘g teste” ede fa, at
sd dasyuA lo ddoetedts otal off mo gatontift .#igi* al emod zest of
ole tdyin dau gubvayet otew handducd toil bins otfe WeltW tails ‘Yost
a ae a
“-peoooe edd mo Lian eget? oLoatt text 20° eute odd sede one
ais 10 dug oF sidan anv eat tact ‘her ba — | oad
od! ‘bite NoLLows os now toot oslt onunand a@8er. a ore
sisi 4 nt hedeon new took ext dactt talon moek 6 ad
aid deg biuoo eff on babltadue gatttows ont sat: i a
ou 04 Aiur ease on dats 6GBOE nG Sama a
tou ogy Beet
ie paws dota vaev eyed dad? Utes sed omaadud oe
ogee
nauseated; that he never returned to work thereafter; that August
14,5 1929, abscesses began appearing on the ends of his fingers and
later developed on his toes and legs; that they were like pimples
and "would get sort of like boils, would look like boila;" that he
became very haggard locking and war taken to the hospital ougusat
22, 1929; and that he was given two blood transfusions, bui he
continued to grow thin, weak and pale, and died October 5, 1929,
at the sage of forty-one. fryde's death certificate gave the cause
ef his death as mlignant endecarditis.
De. Arthur B. Ranking testifying in plaintiff's behalf,
was asked to assume the facts testified to by plaintiff and the
further fact that Pryde died of malignant endocarditis, and whether,
assuming such facts, he could teli what germ it was that produced
the malignant endocarditis which caused Pryde's death. He answered
that he could and that the germ was a streptoceccus. He wos then
asked whether, from the facts stated in the hypothetical question,
he could state with reasonable certainty the time when the satrepte-
eoecus germs entered the wound. Defendant's counsel objected to
this question on several grounds. The witness was permitted to
anewer and replied that "the streptococcus germs are present in the
body as soon ea the blister was formed * * * that is, ac soon as
fluid forms and « blister appears, the germs are in the fluid * * #
the germs forms blister.” The witness, upon being aaked to traee
the course of germs of this character in entering the blood stream,
stated that they entered the body by means of lymphatics which
supply the skin, are carried through the lymphatic vessels in the
body to the blood stream and then into the heart. He was then
asked if) assuming the description of the blister in its various
stages as related by plaintiff, he could tell, with a reasonable
degree of medical certainty, whether it was caused by external
@awgu tasa ited tas todd atiow e¢ haseth dot «sven ot Sacdtd _botecevan
‘feo neepntt etd to ebne od? so gnitedcqn mogod porscodds .US@Z: it
wolemiq siL evew todd todd jagel bee aves did mo Beqefeves weeal
eit tect? “qettod eatf xoot Kiwow yatiod ett ‘to trea dey Biaow" hea
dusryss Lotiqeer of? of mexiad anw bas gmistcer ‘pragyant ‘Yay smoged
od sud ranolewtanets boold owd novis new et add brie bine “—
s980L 4a rego990 both has qoieg bas doow yalde wong Od Be |
Sanu atid evey east titres ittach stobyxt .emo~yexot to ege odd da
paltibussobie dmamyilen os sidaob how = |
eitaded a'ttitnteta nf puivtitess gubtent sa sided cee O85
odd bas Tiidatel x of babibvées ‘ian oi? eswiee of bided waw
vtossede bus yaivibuacohas inanghtaw to bobh obyxt daitd’ donk renga
beoubo zg dat aaw di abated dantw Lied ‘biwes ext cadcbk Howe witha
betowane oll i dbens aelest Seana doisdw siétbreoebse ‘dnangitent “a
“wos? aw ok seuooooosqents “a Baw mr9R at toed ‘ome “oo ot baal
Gat.
aot teons Loot odisouut acid pt ‘bedade atoat out wort ‘q task octet betes
fa’ yee tig & lass Vg | ;
‘cotgerte ould nat amis oats vinlastee eidanoanet istw onda . 2
3 Al LZ ti
of patos ide Leeauoo a! dasbae ted agra old serodne antrey i |
at's ae:
a? badd tuteq BsW wend kv edt + abnwo7a Loxeves no “potseoup ekdd
t; rn gee Lay fa ee
end nt tneaetd 91s atiey ausoooodgenda oad ‘dost bottcor bas
ae soon an gat tad * * * ‘pomse? aw wedebld edd as moos ae
* * ® btokt en nt ein omen eis rio9eas wedetid a te ‘pete bite
egatd ot besten yaied noqu eogenéie ext? “ouodailé a sxe sri0% dwxog dct
ino toe boots ext3 uatsosno nt edoauede aldd to amisy ‘to extuod ‘ede
‘orld + delle
deidw votdestumel to ansen yo Ybod oid botede :
odd ni ufoveoy oltadquel odd dydouds fenrtée ‘eis waits ootd “thekere :
god sw ot ethod cde bind sedi baa mastéa: ivcgudicndbess oe
guotuny ett ai redettd edd te soleqtaoacd outs gah , ,
ai @féanoas0* ao Hitw ,tted pfvoo ost ted sb saat
Lencotxe wi heame amr at “teattonte Pivguaceipih ‘faotnom to
eye eae sane ag B ee
Aa
si
Pie , t
oda
violence or by disease. He answered thet in his opinion the
blister was caused by external violence. The witness was then
asked whether, assuming all the facts in the original hypothetical
question except that death resulted from malignant endocarditis,
he could form an cpinion based upon reasonable medieal certainty
as te the cause of Pryde's death. He stated that it was hia opinion
that Pryde died from acute septicemia or blood poisoning; and that
malignant endocerditis merely signifies an inflammation of the lining
of the heart, while acute septicemia deseribed the infection ef all
the tissues of the body by streptococcus germs.
On eross-examination Dr. Rankin testified that streptococcus
germs may be in the body or on the body; that they might be on cloth
or gauze or any material of thet nature, and are eouily transferred
from the surface of the material upon which they may be to some other
surface; that a blister which is rained a little bit, with the skin
heaving « grayish appesrance, has streptococeus germs in it whereas one
which is soft ond puffy and is covered by a thin layer of skin does
not; that when streptococcus "germs get down in between the fissures
ef the skin and between the various cells on the outer layer of the
skin, they go in through the sweet ducts, co when the skin is raised
they are already there on the spot ready for business;” that after
the blister is broken streptococcus germs micht be reesived inte it
by contact with some surface that had the germs on its and thet a
blister containing streptococcus germs might be innocuous or might
result in death.
On redirect examination Dr. Rankin testified that in his
@pinion the infection of blisters or open wounds “oecurs lese often
than the escape from the presence of the germ;" that the presenee
of such germs in a blister dees not mean the enme as streptococcus
infection and thet the word “infection” hae some other meaning.
Dre Ae Co Tenney, testifying in plaintiff's behalf, upon
at? aginkyo at mt tats bexowenh of senanuth yo to oomefety
“fuel nee decd HO ORT © wemeZb ty Ln sh dxe Ww beaues and tésable
Loviiodsoyyd Lopinhze od? m2 aont Ole Ile gabenees (asdtoiw bbdaa
qubdibteoobee dnangifen wort bedivest discs dade dgeond tel sabtlp
“Wuiaives Lsohpem eidancaset nog hosed nointges na tot bivee Gat
motstge wid anw ¢t Yard Sevede oM .Hdsen @tooUsT to cbse eit OF be
tad bne pyrtnonteg boold xs almeoliqon etwoe mort Both obit saat
Qerkekd od Vo mo ttaeemltnt tn bedtingty ULerem ettiprsohee énaightan
{Le Te mticotat odd beditoaed almootiqes stuss alidn jouead ett to
Lie | amr emodeosqende Yh Ybod ese mithorapnndtvned
enoooetqente dant boltisecd mtdaot sxt notdanbmexdeoneterno 9 6 |
dole mo ed tigim yous sadt pebod od? ne to Ybor edd mt. od yam anton
bervetenet? Ylions sus bm yotwier todd Ye Lalxeten yma” to wealg ee j
- toidde omen 62 of Ya Yo? Moly moqu Lodtosas oe o-eok RHE had HOLY
abte otf dolw ¢2O ekettl a beetle at dotde wedelld « dade Call
eno. neetody $k nt emxey avonccetqotta. ead. seonersocgs etyary # gunk
-agob mists Yo royel mht 2 YC beteves at-dns YYkug baa dos:
asteastt ad¢ aeewted ot meeb to asrtey” avovooctqents eet
ed? Yo coyat wedue odd no afhov avoduey add moored bas mide ost
feotex a2 mite off mode oe yetonb Gaone et Maueute at ep diame
tetta ted? “geeontsinf 10? ydowt Soqe off mo oxosdt ebnorde exe Keds
($f e¢mt pevioosx od digim anusg guecesedgetde modo tit et: mode lie aay
tod? bre tt) me seroy, odd had dat? onstvin tune sity dendowiigg
‘ atatn 7 avosoornt of tytn earey swooegetqetia: aegnennes a wt :
' 4 i : bn aos j
eid ai tad vottiiand mbsinet set moktontuaxe soexthew ad! 6% “4
mtte asel atwoee" abmoe nego vo etodaild te holtestal rm ks ' ‘~
eonesorq add ged “garreg ett) to gomegeng sald sind wqnone’ ott att P
swooosotgetts en anne od? fase ton sepb vole hid 9 at. aercom .
saminaee xeige omon ancl Hod soetmt” bxow, od da? bee sod
noqu «tiated a'Vitintale mt gutyttieed «yonmeT 49 +A oat
=
-Be
being asked a hypothetical question which assumed the facts testi-
fied te by plaintiff and that Pryde's death resulted from malignant
endocarditis, and if he had an opinion as to whether the blister
was @aused by external or internal causes, answered that in his
opinion it resulted from an external cause. He also stated that
malignant endeearditis of the type described always come from some
external introduction of infection, usueslly gaining sdmission through
an abrasion of the skin or mucous membrane. He was then asked,
assuming the original hypotheses and particularly that a hypothetical
person, who on August 5, 192%, had a blister, unbroken in the morning,
returned to his home at 4 o’clock that afternoon with a broken blister
and the foot swollen, whether he could form an opinion as toe when the
infection took placee. befendant's objeetion upon several grounde
to this question was overruled and the witness answered that in his
opinion the infection oecurred "at the time or shortly after the
breaking of the blister.” He then said thet a very virulent infection
could appear within six or eight hours after the entry of the germ and
that infections of that type were moet unusual, extraordinary and
unexpected.
Defendent contends that the trial court should have directed
a verdict in ite faver at the close of plaintiff's evidence because
the proof introduced by her when taken with all its reasonable intend-
ments in her faver was not sufficient to show that Pryde's death
occurred under elreumstances covered by the double indemnity provision
of the insurance contract; end that Pryde's death having been con-~
elusively shown to have resulted from blood poisoning or septicemia
arising from an infeeted blister on his toe, plaintiff failed te sus-
tain the issue squarely raised by the pleadings, ieee, that the infece
tion causing his death occurred "simultaneously with ond in consequence?
of an accidental cut or wound" as provided in the exeeption to the
policy.
ey
“ mobtqornt énoiuntv. yer @. tad? bias medd of . “toda? eo edo rs ah Pi
«het oreep end te Frise. st xegte exuved, bgt, a xis gong ie i
3
=
ye
mbteet adoat edt dommes tipidy moliapay Laotiedtogys # pede sated
trangilen mort hedivess dinoh stebyxt tadd boa Titenialg ye of bens
_ modadte oplt costtnsty of om notmtag ma dad od UU dee .atd torapopan
mht atk dad? hexowenn «wowmeo Lemceint xo Lantana xe beaune omy
fads hoteta onfe oR .eawee Lamrpdxe mm mock bediuaet 32 molatge
gre moxt omso ayawla hedtzoaeh eqyt edd To atstbrecohne na ha
avoids molnaimba gutnisy vifevos nottostnt to aetieybortat Lamy tein
, sbegles meld aay oF +enetdaem avooum to Miale odd eee
Inottadtoryl g dadt xixalvotizag bas agnedteqyd Lontgito odd gabm
- qpichercom eet nt pets APA 4h ARG oS A A
meted medord # Adin anon the tad, xoola'e » #9 saad ats of
ort node of a0 notntge no mot bLumo ox casted ssoftowe 90% etd | te
| abawora tntevoe macs apiigotde avenaiveted . renate dood mghteets
aud a, tnt borovena soonthe qt ban beLarzare ene mouénnn abt 4
odd weihe yLisede x0 omit odd ta% herzwoes modtoe tat ea? aie
si ia meomeod: tiem 4 reer}
setvents. evad, bkueda tru00 tetet ott batt 1 ebatnee sratentet a py
_onusaod sonebtye e'tittniaty Ye gato od te teva? oft mt sre ad |
-puetnt aldenoueot eft Ife Mitw sox soy oat wh = beouborint +
_ steed a tolgxt tadd wode, gt, seotoytue ton a son eat |
nogiverq. ytinmobnt eldvob edd Yt bomoyoo spenayennd
«seo mood anivad Miah eteiyst dane baw tsoertnen 99 ane am
atmootsyne x0, patnontog, hoods mort, bedtime ovad o¢ mode Vis
aan od bektar Vibvatalg seed etd wo tedaitd begostat, ne sie i
esotint odd fait cotet aapatdsety ods xd Poster <iexanps
comaupennoo: st hao stiw yfasoonatiuate" berTivopo sanod | ThA eS
add of mostra. mh BOLAYERG. ne vr wm of
. rs A , , aed Prt Add £4 A
, 2 ‘ > te” Be File i Te ig ers rue 1] & Las ADA he ME ee
6 t x ’ - 4 4 = = ' bey
Defendant contends further that there was no evidence
tending to show that the insured sustained any accidental cut or
wound; that, lacking such evidenee, plaintiff's case did not come
within the coverage of the policy as above set forth; that plein-
tiff's evidenee presented a set of facts from which two or more
equally legical inferences could be drawn as to the issues presented
by the pleadings, only one of which inferences would be consistent
with plaintiff's right te recover, and that, in deciding for plaine
tiff, the jury necessarily wee allowed to indulge in pure speculation
and conjecture; that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law
in that it involved basing a presumption upon » presumption: and that
the expert medics witnesses called by plaintiff were erroneously
permitted to invade the province ef the jury by stating their opinions
upon the ultimate facts in the cacée
Plaintiff's theory is that the exception to the policy
which prevides that it dees not cover death resulting from bacterial
infeetion other than infeetion occurring simultaneously with and in
congequence of an accidental cut or wound does not bar her from ree
covery; that, having presented evidence from which the jury might
find that the accidental creation of the blister and its accidental
breaking, either tegether or separately, were the proximate cause or
causes of Pryde's death, the similtancous oeecurrence of the wound and
infection or lack of such occurrence would be but an incident and
inconsequential in the line of eausations that the burden of proof of
such lack of coincidence of wound and infeetion was upon defendants
and that the proximate cause of insured‘: death was « question of
fact for the jury to determine.
The first and main question presented for our determination
is whether the exception in the policy is a reasonable and valid
provision and not contrary to public policy.
Plaintiff insists that the provision in the exception that
the infection must be shown to have oceurred simultaneously with the
enhon tiedt geitete ys yuh add to, eomtvenq ont sbayns of be pps
| He:
; _ et hess aotw Viasoonss Lomita gat rxuo9e wottootat ads restto paar 4
eonebhye an sew exedd dais xodtawt abwednoo dagbaetetd
(80 dito Lniaobioga Yun bentesem Soxmant ox? Jadt woda od pathaed .
ammo Jom bib aso altiléatalq ,eoneblve dove anttont edacs ybaugw
-nialg tad¢ qlosel fea ovods ae Yotieg ert te spaxovon edd mtultty
ezom tp ond doisw most adoat tq fos » tednoneng apmobiye a 22h? |
hosnoaexg sesvaat els of 2 nwath od binoo asonotetgt nate 4
ie ail emg mt a ad reviita asw vit aseoven et, emt i
wet oad of Yxetingo gsw Yin) ead to soibzey nuke fade terwt09 too pre
Le. Gay Pee ere Sci
; test ine yrottqmmory © noqu. soliquwseng = gutesd beviovai $i dans ah
Te
Of Porn
» Wswoonprre otew Tiintalg yd beiles aesaontiw feok bea sxeqxe odd
wot -F
s9ane odd mi ntost odamtatu apf
£2 ¢% mae
‘yptor edd od otaqooxs ond dads a usonsis arg imbers —
_ fakwtoad arot't gts iuaet diseb toveo Jom noob at dad of
f Sup Bie Ra Ghee
ot mort red tad ton 290b hensow » 0 Lednobtoos a to eae
io eantiar ig oa
tdate vant ortd slo bet mort pansbive bedneasten gatvad etadd 3 e7OD
bch Pee
Lasnobioga ati bre tedeild edd to notjowte ininobioos oat cane beck
se ee ee
70 oss egamlxoxy ould orow stledatagen 20 redsogo# resists 2
Fy roorg to nobrud odd ‘toate tno sauce xe emt odd ak aver yl
, e aie MS DEIR ay
‘iaabaetob aos aan notes tat bee bawow 0 omen tomtoe te Monk #
" analy ie
to noi Suowp 3 sw aise a bemwant cm oauao odemxorq uae
ottantirse tet wo wo? botnocorg nok daoup atom bas text oat ari,
bikev | bes eidenoeses 9 a at wortog out nk noleqooxe Poe ge bong ie
} swoltog oltdig od “Ceottne ton, baw ak
godt aniaeeuen ety nt nebelven ‘oad dauté atndamt Lecce a :
att Mtv yLevoonatlumta hertueve svat oF swore “ eum wm mots ®
Ye
accidental eut er wound is manifestly unreasonszble in thet the
entrance or time ef entrance into the body of the microscrepic
organisms causing the infsetion is ineapable of proof. Tt is true |
that these facts are not capable of direct cyewitness proof, bui
they are capable of proof ss a strong probability based on direct
inferences from demonstrable fects. Many things, including «11 |
conditions of mind and sll events to which there are no eyowitnesses,
must be proved in the same way. In this onse there is a total want of |
proof, even of probability, of the inception of the infection. There
are mo secondary facts from which reasonable inferences as to the
ultimate facte can be drawn.
Plaintiff's undisputed evidenee shows that the cause of
ineured's death was aeute septicemia or bleod poisoning. It has
generally been held, subject to the exceptions contained in the
policy, that death from blood poisoning following an accident is
the direet or proximate result of the accident, regardless of how
oY when the germs causing the bleod poisoning entered and infcoted
the wound or contusion on the exterior of the body. (Central Accident
inge COo Ve Rembe, 220 Ill, 1513 Cary ve Preferred Accident Inse Coes
127 Wise 67; ‘western Commcreial Traveler's sse'n ve Smith, 85 Ped.
401; Hornby v. State Life Ins. Co., 106 Neb. 574, 184 We We B45
Knowlton ve Preferred Accident Inse Coo, 199 Tae 1172, 199 Ne “vo 1OL4s
MgAuley v. Casualty Cos of Americas 39 Monte 185, 102 Pac. 5863 French
v. Fidelity & Casual: 135 Wis. 259, 115 W. vs 869; Day v. Great_
‘Bastern Cagualty Co., 104 Wash. 575, 177 Pac. 650.)
Under the rule as declared in the foregoing eases, regardless
of how trivial in nature the original injury may have been, if an ine
feetion occurred even several days after the injury, and solely beq
cause of the utter failure of insured te take any precaution against
infection, the insurer would nevertheless be liable for death regult-
ing from such injurye
(-
oem? Sere ei eldanchertnn yliaetinem af itive" ee tye Istmebtoos
oben rome seio ets to wor ef? ofnt wonetixe Yo emtt to eoneténs
eweti el Of ytoorg to efteqanht at nolkionte? att gitewks aml:
gud loon weondiweye dnethy to Sléeqed don oth adoat sword ‘ttt
foul me heaod veiitdedey snovtée a un Toor, to effaced exa we
Iie petbslor? ,egetd? weit sadoet efdertananeh most wenn
aeduendiveys om ere exoilt Hotstw of wtnove Lis bro biti to anetdthado
to ¢may Lated o at ered? oas9 site ml .tew ene ‘eet ob beveng ‘ed tas
Sted? smolseetnt ox? to moliqoomt oft to «wWiiidadecg Yo move stoorg
Oo meee
att of af soonstetet eldmressey doldw ao1tt etont cenbao;ea on a
coke smith od nae fap eny:
GUxXS OF
te sauno oft tart? avorla sonebive beduget bor ‘ettibeutere
ett at hentetamoe anolsqooxs etd 04 toetdus . bios need VLE
at éopbisee te pitwollot witinodteq boold mort Aine tats ‘
i F fh nt ih 7 3
ida Oe ate tbreges .taehroos od te tiueot esenixory x0 ie took 7 ;
tae
=
pedestal bus botedie gutnostey boold aXé gutesco wacoy ‘oid
$moutoo< Kaede) thos of 26 Yoicebxd oxf? mo solavinbo xo
290 288 taebtoss. ae *¥ we iar “LIT OBS ode
Konext YOST soeU GOK .OSL «inom ee
#8050 ov yet F008 6 4M CLL 08S sak CCL 4299 wi temaad :
piu co ORR Veet HL C808 stele BOT ,.09 Yes 0s
aelbisgox yadaey yittogeret od cf betsfoeb ag elut eat ital”
enk xa BL qneed oved You yrwbak Lentylxo xld omden nt tenvdis hie ’
i) via
otf ‘(fe fon' tins “cattnt ote sede sesh Radeyee Hive bermidee apttos
dantoge aot sannoreg une oxed of bexwunt “te suits ‘teddy ‘its cf ed 8
-tiveet deeb tot eLdett ed woeLeddroven i woxiieat oid nol toon
Rsrsdeved most sat
ha a \ ommend tombe meee eee 4 yer tN Hg lad eases uti ode
oe
Double indemnity for accidental death is a type of insure
ance designed to protect against some of the unforeseeable and une
preventable hazards of life. It was the obvious purpose to exclude
trie the eategory ofunforeseeable aud unpreventable hazards, and
from the coverage of the policy in this esuse,y cases due to the
failure of insured to take the proper preeautions against infection.
We think the provision in the policy that it does not cover
death from bacterial infection, other than infection occurring
simultaneously with and in consequence of an accidental eut or wound,
is not an unreasonable limitation of defendant's liability and is
properly a matter of contract between the parties. The parties had
a Tight to place in their contract such conditions and limitations as
they desired, and when these are elear and umambiguous the court must
give them effect according to their meaning and intention. (Bahre
ve Travellers’ Protective Ass'n of America, 211 Kye 435.)
Although there is expert medical evidence in the record
to the effect that the blister in question was caused by external
violence, the creation or raising of the blister will, we think,
have to be eliminated &6 a cause of insured's death, inasmuch as
the cause of his death was admittedly blood poisoning and there was
no evidenee of infection as long as the blister remained intact and
unbroken. While Dr. Rankin stated that there were always strepto-
coccus germs in the fluid of a blister such as this was, he alse
testified that their presence did not mean the same thing as strepto-
coccus infection such as developed in insured and resulted in his
death from blood poisoming- Dr. Tenny, plaintiff"a other expert
medical witness, testified, and medical authorities generally agree,
that the type of streptococcus germ that brought on the infection in
this case, almost without exception, enter the body externally through
an abrasion of the skin or mucous membrane.
The insured's death having resulted from a bacterial in-
a.
eral te wqyd s at dtaed Lndawbtods or vs tsimebhs Sfdiied hho"
-nu ban sidssexetetny edt te suba Sankine Boxso'ty oF berptewb ‘edtin
etuloxo of seoqtuq auotvdo odd saw ST veh Yo! bienkatt © Ldadriovedy
bis ,abtased eldednevetqay bow eldssseetotnasto yxdzesoo eit pee
eit of sub seeso yoawey aid? mt yhLog et? Yo opereved bad Hort
snotioetnt fenings encttosocese togery att dled oe borianl te szuttat
Seve som asod $i tate orloe Os mt heretvbee eit? awhity ow 062 bee
anivtwooe noldeetnt made redde qnolsee tar Lartetosd mort ftaob
ghnsiée 10°460 Ieinobtose a Te ebhoUpeando: wt has itd He vbetiodied tut’
ato bne Ystkidall atinatdots Ye HOLME UfeanodastHe’Ad Sn? EE
bak asidxeg eT .actiteq ont moowdod todittioo to tbddan' a ubteeety
as etoivetinid hus enotitones dette toortned ttortt nt eoalq of iyi a
fama Stitod on Aooupidmaiy bie ta8L> ota Saoild node teil’ 7eecdcon eu
| eta) snetenodnt dno petasom thes of siitstvoid toast retin’
7 0 §, 8B Sr £68 qeolrom to nael se 3 rol fova
pesos offi ‘al eonobive tab them steqid at ets? prac
ainda “Yd bedtisd adw sottdenp mt wed id ot Vailt Yootte SHY OF
‘> geiectol? ow qiliw tovdbtd ond “to git tet <6 aoidsets odd (oenirol¥
aa domonat ,dieoh ethetwant to satso s as bedeminikfe ‘ed '6d eva
waw oreds bite gatadutog bookd yLbed? tube enw dae dia to sufeo odd
has domtut bontasadt reteiid ents ‘da gaol os wobdootet “to ‘winebevd ‘on |
Biissscineg eyawLa orew eterdtd Sede béfado nitoall sot oli’ tiki Bd
gla ed yaaw vids as dove tetditd a to bist odd nt amiog ¥i6800
<dtqeite 2a gtidd smcd edt neem ton. ‘bib eonienszq thoda ‘emit rete:
eid mt betineet ‘Sra Setuant nf beqdiéven’ as stows wottoo tnt wi
Proqxd Youto Be tRidniela yyno? .x — «gatmoatod ‘Seah mot? ene |
S8eTas Vilsrenes adistiedtius Lsclbem haa sbotthaed per y ‘ithe gar
at noltestnt ed? mo ditauotd tort mt9p auooosodqerda “te oad oii dade 4
mei enncigiane hod wal xedne cence. aaali he dnon z oo wide
onnrdmest esoosiat 0 ‘phile “edd Ye 1 se as
at Lied cn = a
ae
ve aa
ext jattetoad 2 moxt bedivest anived diseb & tbe
fection, blood poisoning, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to prove
every material fact necessary to entitle her to recover under the
terms of the policy. The evidence showed only that the blister
was unbroken when it was observed prior to 5250 aems, August 5,
1929, and that it wes broken and infected at about 4 Demy the same
day. There was a total lack of evidence as to how or when it broke
or was broken during the intervening ten hours, But plaintiff in- |
sists that, where there is no evidenee of the cause of an injury,
it will be presumed that, because ell men are animated by the instinet
of self-preservation, such injury is accidental rather than self |
inflicted. This presumption, however, depenis upon proof of the |
external, violent nature of the injury and can have no application
to the situation presented heree Plaintiff insists that the burden |
of showing that the assured's death earns within the exception limiting
its liability was upon defendant. If plaintiff's evidence had not
shown that assured's death resulted from bacterial infection, the
burden would then have been cast upon defendant to show that it was,
to bring it within the exeeptione
in this state im an action on a beneficial certificate to
recover insurance the burden of procef rests upon the plaintiff to
eatablish that the assured met an accidental death under conditions
imposing liability expressed in the contract of insuranee, notwith-
atending the pleas of defendant setting up an exception in the policy
Limiting its liability. (Fidelity Casualiy Coe of New York v. Weise,
182 Ill. 496; Moses v- Illinois Commercial Men's Ase'n, 189 lle
Appe 440.) Plaintiff had the burden of showing that insured suffered
an accidental eut or wound, as well as that the infection occurred
simultaneously with and in consequence of such cut or wound.
Plaintiff, in defining “accidental,” uses this language
which is as good as any other - "that, in the act which preeeded.
the injury, something unforeseen, unexpected and unusual occurred
UPS EY Cer
i ¥
<3
everg of Vittaltele aoqu Jeeduuont gow at seninontog boold ymolidoet
ads yobs sevonet of wed ofLtiins, ot Yaeasopenr toot foiresem yreve
Sotalle eft fads ylno bewode sonebive eat sWeilog ont. _ 20, ha
ed SnaasA qetieg OR18 of xolzg bevzcadD maw dh neciw xovorday ean
sas aS stag & Juods Js, begestat bua medotd aaw eh ted? bre (eset
exon’ ¢4 mode to wod of a8 oomebiye to foal Latod » vow Stent oyeh
whid Bittaisig tuG saxo nod aninevzwing edd gatxud netord eae to
| #Utepol oe lo savey oft to eonphive om af overs tase ates state
tonivent ad? yd betoming oxa som Lia oauaoed etants hommsorg of ILtw #2
Mee med? terder Isimedtoos at yrvint dow a Xo
Wh. Yes 2907E OTH, PhENNMD, -9 TATRK ESOL MEMNORE SE9F,... 2 hageteeat
( Mbtieotiqas on.oved aso dow yustat edi to emtas. tmp foby, tape
mebisd ot Jedd ataiank Uiiinialt »ered betneeerg nolveuste edt od
gnitimil motiqooxn edd atdtiw emo dteod atberwuas eft tad? antvody te
ton bad conobive a'ttéiaielg 21 »dnabae tes nogy aaw, Daten s
ons ‘ymottootat: Lei xtoed moxt, bet iuaet.dtoebe ‘botwass dass nwosda
vasW 3k gad wots of Iuabneted moqu dano moed over, ned?) OLvow nobieg
AN gL LY Oho a mnigwene eMdahdg ke 2k, gmbed op
ot Stanitivred LaiuvLionsd «2 mo noijon\ mm mt stata aidteal.. o5 gypy
9d Wrbtetalg ede aoqu atast ioomg 20 wobwd edd eonetuent sevapex
erro it thrioo webs diaeb Lainehkoes am iem bexwana edt tet dadidadae
<Hobw8om poonmesant to dosxsNOD ould ek honvotaxe, Yeitidell andeogms —
eotlog ef nb motiqooxe ne qu guivion imubasteh to moele elt omtbmate
Se FS st aaa Whilidett atk gubdtmtt
oLLE 00L .oitams el eoh Latorenmod etemi il «v ganol . AM AE f
botaltws bemwent tid? gaiworls to mobtd oy bad, Yitiniels (0s
petiss08 molgoetai edd tedd ae Llow as shavow xo tug feinebhtoos mu
» {Rasew xo J#o gous Io gomeupennoe mb bas tt te Vovooned Lake 4
pguigeat atdd soo ",ladnebtoos", gutalteb mite dosent 4
* pbobeoo tq Holdw dos ost mi ydadt)- soadso, ye ay” 03, aii ll yi
~sheteicone: isvausw bin bedooqxsny. ¢noanete Tn saitioane « |
-li@
whieh produced the injury."
The injury in this ease must be the cut or wound,
and there is no evidence that anything unforeseen or unexpected
geused the blister on insured’'s toe to break. The breaking of
the blister is not an “aecidentel cut or wound” under the terms
of the policy, unless the mesons by which the blister was broken
were in turn accidental in the sense that the breaking of the blister
was the unexpected, unforeseen and unusual consequence thereof. In
this case we do not know what the means were that caused the blister
to break or by what agency it beenme infectad.
Plaintiff's counsel, st pe 23 of their brief, say that
the jury may “have concluded that wearing his shoe on that day with
the blister in its then condition caused it to break at that time,
thus permitting the germs to enter,” and, on pe 29, "nearly all men
know that blisters break under such treatment.” On pe 29 they
also sey, “it makes, as we see it, Little difference whether the
blister broke in duc course or from Pryde! s own intentional act."
Counsel then argue that it was immaterial how the blister was breken,
whether accidentally, intentionelly or through natural causes, #0
long as the result, meaning the infection or the death, war extra-
ordinary and unexpected. This pesition is untenable and counsels*
argument ise fallacious in that it entirely disregards the provision
of the policy regarding proof of “an accidental aut or wound" and
simultaneous infection. Plaintiff's difficulties are wholly due to
her lack of knowledge of the facts surrounding her husband ts
“neeidental cut or wound,” if there weresuch, and the coincidence
ef the infection with sames if it were known and shown that « certain
instrumentality or ageney eaused the accidental breaking of the blister
end thet such instrumentality or agency was a prebable carrier of
streptococcus germs which cause septicemia, it could reasonably and
Aogieally be inferred that such germs entered the body simultancously
- }
shrew ve duo ont of teu cbse ehtd mY werter ett NY
bevovgxeny To Mobubtothuys ghirtyne dad oonohive om at oxvedd’ bie
Yo pinkieext ef? .taerd 03 oof Dotnet? oo -wehed fe ead beakab
aarvod ont? xebic’ “havow ro duo Lednebisos® na ton oF todlbre eit
novloxd caw tofetid eft dotdw YC ences odd saetnu gyolleg ond te
“‘Wwtalld sft te guidaerd edd sett often odd Gt Lesnebidoe’ mud nb Saat
‘Qe derid ents beowne Jats stow ancenm etd todw émd ton of 6w dade aldé
sbodootnt omebed dt yonege Sart ya to teste ad
Gadd yan etottd rietd to 8 sq ds gtodawod eo trddnters’ 7°)
tie Yab dad? no vode elt gnttaow sald bébuLotion oval” ‘yom tht ede
“gouk? sad3 tn Anowd of 32 beduae mobstimeo mont ual nt dedertd oifd
Meet Lhe awn” (08 <q mo yhne “yeedee Sovonrey odd goideheeOg aude
Wedd CS vq m0 “sdnemdatd dows. reba Kebtd etetaltd tidd-wend
Sd? nedtondw eoneisttth Lgl 4th eon ow ea ecostaer 22" gga ont
| Madan ifdndttasias me otobyrt mez? xo bewwos eMb #? otore xéeebte
enoxord sow totatid off! wad Lottodenmt saw sh tattd sinjrd node KodiweD
08 gRetane Letuten sanortt wo yLLenofinsént: eUlcAdneb toon restdentw
settee saw qHtesd att ro mols sete? odd pirtinem (thodet edt ou
tatecsueo tre efderedns st xottreog ald? stedooqiand tie Qeereee:
“nobslvery on’ abtegotsts Uforline $2 dade nt andideLiaY al dieaiyed —
bes "fuow To tue Letrehtose ne to Teng wei eg eae
ov sub Ulfory ern awbttuol ELS af Titem els smoltue'trd dvoonetfuntte
“athnodeint ton pxthnvetrwe etoe? ert? to ogtetnbe! To stot wt
| sero btentos off bry <fémetew oer? Lt "4 bnuew to tire a
misdiso «© fats nwore tna awomst erew SE YT” centeia tity Y é tnt
otalid eld WS Rebinbad Livttoh ties Bilt Baty Xoecin ‘we i tiod nes
ee ae ey wo Yeita: if sth
bne Nidenonase bivoo st \stwoottqen sesiad Wo iy dancog) tin
|
with the breaking of the blister. It has mot been shown either
thes 13 was an infeeted agency or an accidental ome that caused the
blistex to break. ‘Since the burden was on plaintif’ te preve her
Case, she must suffer the penalty of failure or absence of proof.
Whether the streptococcus germs that caused the blood
poisoning where communicated to insured's body from some instrumant
used by him in epeming the blicter, from his clothing or hose,
from hic hands or fingers, from a bandage or covering that he might
heave put on it during the day, er from some agency which accidentally
caused it to open, we de not know, the doctors de not knew and the
jury could not know. (McAuley ve Gauualty Coe of America, 30 Mont.
185, 102 Pace 586.)
To extablish defendent's liability we emst indulge in the
following presumptions: First, thet the blister was spened by some
scvigental agency; and second, that such sgency was a earrier of
streptococcus germs. As a general proposition of law a presumption
cannot be based upon a presumption. (Hitech ve Monarch Accident Ins.
Lees 259 Tlie Appe 4793 Globe Accident Inse Coe ve Gerisch, 163 111.
625; Condon ve Schoenfeld, 214 Ill. 226; Ohio Building Safety Va
Go» ve Industrisl Board, 277 111. 963 City of Chicugo v. Carlin, iat
Appe 118; Sertaut v. Crame Coos 172 Ille Appe 4773 Campbell ve
Centralic Gas & Mleee Coss 224 Ills Jppe 589; HQaiber vy. South Side
Eleve Re Re COoy 226 Ille fippe 4226)
In the case of Gisbs Accident Ins. Co. v. Gerisch, supra,
the court, in discussing this question, used the following Language
at pre 623, 629%
"Several physicians were in attendance at the bedside of
Geriseh, all of whom testified at the trial. It seems that two days
before his death, an a last resort, they performe? a surgical
eperation upon him, and their testimeny is based, to a considerable
extent, upon the informetion obtained from an examination ef the
Lnjured te. They all agree that the cause of his death was
intense inflemwation and strangulation ef the intestines, and that
| the diseased condition arose from the dropping of the bowels through
an adhesive band - an unnetural growth - which extended from the
| lle
/
ye
9 eae
-
sedge nveds nod som ent PL oubtehid oft Ye gubteond:edduattaw
ed? beewse dud¢ ono Lednoblovs ne to Yonogs botestal aa saw ct fasta
sed everq of Yikdntely 9 exw mebrwd edd oomte sieoxd of ustekid
stoorg to sosends wa otwList io Ytleneg. eds tottoe @eum odes geawo
boold edt boxe» Jedd amtog avoowootqeads edd todted¥) (50 <1)
dimmuuttadt emow mort Ybod atboxwant e¢ Sedsoiguumos pg tede gudtbalog
¢ood te getdtolo ald matt yrodedld of? gxkmogo mt mb yd hoes
@tiyim sf tad gaizevoo 10 ogabnad « moxk eetegntt ro ebxadl add mgt
Glisiasdicos doidw Yousgs esos mort to yysb ed? gmiauh at a0 dag ovat
ed3 Sua wont tom ob aredsoh odd «worl. fom ob ow ysoqo of th tsaman
«tno 26 ,e0Lsomi Yo +90 yYisaueed .v.Yeludolt) ‘swona ton eaned wah,
add atosgiubnt dau ev yilisdais etisahastes datkdatas Bie. ic or |
emp Yo Remeqo saw todeti¢d edd fasta texte. senodiqamuong gnkwelto?
to seitzeo 2 aay yYouoge dona gas ,haoosa hele oPyensga Ladnodtosa
seitquiaete 2 wel te Hottteoqony Laroeg @ oA santtey sdooavotqutta
vant suofiiees sergio sv gold) anoliqavsoig « moqu deasd of tones
s48 BL qsloedxed 7 490 ant Aaobtsod e406) GUND aqah SLT PER eng
Lis has pukoiioG otAQ GOSS «LiL Bie. chistaraie? «¥ geaod 489d
Vit saubbued +¥, ensstap de xtlo 498 oL4T VYS, abused Labituuted +¥ 992
e¥ Liedemad 40TS sqg4 «SLT SUL 19920929 ov guatt98 | VELL «aul |
9bio diuoe o¥ godielh 7088 sqqa Lit ASS +2 .28G § oe ebtaetned
As8Sd sqm +L£E 288, | f
aaigae aren “ s02sa8ah dmahiooh,edelD te, seep ent wT... sstioake
syswanel getsolfet edd heey «nottessa sist guteawoath at «tango. odd
= dee “a oom de
SERS SOR rR, ee
fsotatm s hemotreq yout «trons taal ew om .tieed ht @ ty ko
png yc 5 Pre Baayen volt Lentatte portend ont
gaw dash ahf Yo eemso end dodé Prien .
gait bes geenttaetut edd to tote ve baa fo ES aw
dguowld alowed oifd Yo antogerb odd mort oo beanoalh odd
_ til? ox bebe sae dottx ~ sévors Laawtannu Me - ars habs cree
- -
ae |
lee Se Me
Pd
Cs
a
«ie
wall ef the abdomen across to the intestines. They further agree
that some foree or muscular shock was required to push the bowel
through this band, and give it as their opinion that some strain
or external violence caused the injury which resulted in their
patient's death. This evidence is sufficient, when uncontra-
dicted, to make out the point sought to be established by it, -
that is, that Gerisch was strained or was injured by some external
foreee There is, however, no proof that the deceased strained and
injured his body "by lifting a box of cinders and eshes,' and one
essential fact, - indeed, the all-important fact, - is therefore
wanting in order to make out this case. If, from the fact that he
lifted a box of ashes and from the further fact that he not long ~
afterwards suffered from the effects of a atrain, it can be inferred
that such strain was eaused by so lifting seid box of ashes, the
missing link in the chain will be supplied. But this presumption
cannot be indulged. As we have seen, the fact upon which it is
sought to base this presumption, vix., that Gcrisch Lifted the boxy,
is itself but a presumption drawn from other facts in evidonee, and
the law is that a presumption cannot be based upon a presumption,
for there is no open and visible connection between the facts out of
which the first presumption arises and the fact soucht to be estabe
lished by the dependent presumptions ({ MR sce! 35 Pee
Ste 440; United States v. Grusehhs 14 Wall. Ij United States ye
Ross, 2 Otto, 28le) in the case last cited it is said, in passing
upon this question: ‘Such a mode of arriving at a conclusion of
facet is generally, if not universally, auadmissible. No inference
of fact or of law is reliable drawn from premises which are uncertaén,
Whenever circumstantial evidence is relied upon to prove a fact,
the circumstances must be proved, and not themselves presumed.'*
Se in this case there is no proof that the blister was broken by an
accidental agency and “one essential fact, - indeed, the all-important
fact, - is therefore wanting in order to make out this ease." If
from the fact that the insured received an accidental cut or wound
amd from the further fact that thereafter he suffered from an infe¢e-
Siders it ean be inferred that such infection oecurred simultaneously
with the eut or wound, “the missing link in the chain will be
supplied." However, this presumption cannot be indulged as the
law as heretofore stated will not permit onc presumption to be based
upon another.
Complaint is made by defendent that the court erred in
permitting plaintiff's expert medical witnesses to express opinions
as to the ultimate facts of the case, perticularly as to the time of
the inception of the infection. The time of the breaking of the
blister was not shown by the evidence and it was improper to permit
the physicians te state their opinions as to the time of such incep-
tion. Such opinions were conjectural and speculative and invaded
gouge toidrut yodT sapnitaodial off ef maotos
fewed esd casg of ben dupe aaw Moore talvoum To Ey me Ot an
tiaxte eage deads moter. * ahads ae th evig Sim, seer aids
atodt al hetdivmes ao w Yaw bet end 2 ay S08 iene he
egudnonnmy pial 96 Moe ty Bn gi sornetive allt ph alta
~ gti WW bedaildeieo od of ingvon jmkoq sald tuo. 's ot»
fantotne gmoa Yo betwiei eav 10 dentetda see Mogived set
brie, ‘hensatee beuacoeh eld Jad toot on bab igen ee tad ook tnd
we ees goles baa grebeie to xod s De aid be
exotereds ai ~- neaat de 2 ape cpt co . Te aupah
od Sarit nigh oad mox? _veaso eid? tuo gaan iy xobro wit
pret ¢om er dosié Put sotldiut off moazt baa sedea 10 nod s SEGRE
berrotnived mao if yniette a atoatte eld ft ges, hetet |
oa? paper to xed bise as Ti oe Yd beaweo BAW & ain aaa
moist eng aids tu, set we od If tw rye
oF ti stay vee boat edt otea ot av be
ghod edd pe sq ax o8iv
uioak : esobiuanerg, Be
bus yeombiyo mi adost teddo mort swax
to que ltapmesonns pee ett Mudtet ® imetiamcong 4 tut om “st
ap ia tah Pe cae
fomoo 8 3a adage to 8 Aly
oe, mah pi botinoue
eoneieint of .eldiaaimbantd « th yulLet
sthadae onus ere sotdw seeimoxg mort aes te b eddadux avn 3 70 4
- egont a svotg ot moqu ’ of .
Ws hemmpe te nev Loomer om his sbevorg od toxm seonssemuet '
ie Xd noord Baw retaitd pas tasts reorg hes al exedtt ‘eaao oe i
etol Ta ® - an Eras
sont pe Te oxtd «boebat - dont Eaténooes oro" dae yonogs sbiooa
iS a eect | Bhat ¢ ae
a ",0n8 enti tuo oun ot xobt0 ak ‘patinow orotorests ‘al “eat
é a : oe
bm x0 wast Lotmobtoes rs bevtever douunat oxi? ansts joak out pee
re mad Sepang “et ee oat
| ~ootnt ae moxt bere tae od sodtaoandd tad ‘toat eld cs J mor? bas
\ ti ah yeh Ry hae TLS s By 4s
YLaugansd Lumte horess9e no kigo tk owe atid dowtetal @ Ce 80 a
og
: - i‘ sf } n DP 1
GANS Bw at Bee Be it ie
nxt berte dtnoo ont Sarls cunlanhah “ ebam af dite Lay009 ba 8 ie
i Si rink fi 23
eno trig i de ot nesrentiw Iaolben AAPae, a Xttsmtale, gat $¢ ba
te emul oni of as eradiods wo, soaa ald ‘to agoat’ etasihird enff t %
“asta 0 amblaond ‘odd to ome edt. - nstoddoo tat one 20 He ‘ cf
tins 09 | reqesqmt en tt beso, ‘eanobhye, eat ‘Wd swoda, fon am
; ~asont foua to ombs edt 0% as anetadge theald, edate 0
bebavek hue evidetucegs brs Lawstoeinoe otew anointee fo
wise
the province of the jury. That was one of the ultimate facts in
issue in the case which the jury had to determine. If there had
been proper evidence in the recerd «s to when the blister broke or
was broken, the modical witnesses might have been asked as to
whether, in their opinion, the infeetion, which was later obsorvad,
arose at the same time. (Fellows-Kimbrough v. Ghieago City Rye Soe,
272 Tlie 713 Jijinois Central Rye Cos ve Smith, 206 Tile 6083
Zbinden ve D'Moulin, 245 Ills Appe 248.)
The following motion was heretofore made by defendant
end reserved to hearing:
“Now comes the Appeliant, The Gquiteble Life Assurance
Seciety of the United States, by Mayer, Meyer, ustrian & Platt,
ite attorneys, and shows unto the court that in and by the Brief
and Argument for Appellee, heretefore filed in this cause, there
iz certain matter, to wit: YFoint 1 (a) of the Brief on page 4
thereof, and that part of the Argument on pages 10 to 18, inclusivey
thereof, which deals wholly with the contention of the <ppellee that
certain portions of the policy of insurance sued upon in this cause
should be disregarded because not printed in the size of type elaimed
by Appellee to be required by the laws of Illinois; that in and by
said matter Appellee seeks to attack rulings of the trial court in
this cause; thet sppellee has filed ne ‘assignment of cross-errors
in this cause within the limite of the time for filing same provided
by the rules of this court; wherefore ippellant meves that the above
described portions of said Brief and Argument for Appelies be ordered
strickene"
The record in this case discloses that the insurance cone
tract introduced im evidenee by plaintiff was the entire policy, in-
eluding the provision containing the exception from liebility, here-
tefore diseussed, which plaintiff now secks te have disregarded ag
invalid because of the relative type sizes used in the policy. Plain-
tiff must rely on the recerd as made in the lower court te support
her judgment. Wo motion was made by her in the trial court to strike
the allege’ obnoxious provision of the policy from the evidence on
the ground of its claimed invalidity.
The trial court refused to give to the jury cortain ine
structions requested by plaintiff which set forth her theory that,
under the law of this state, the exceptions of the policy limiting
defendant's liability shoulda be disregarded beeause said execptiong
sat ston® ¢ tamikd £1) oid Lo pre enw. 1 ovat, econ fev sonivorg one
Dat preds 9 2 peared ab °O8 bast uh weld ober ease ont uk ® : ee
cherexitnil ‘etal naw dotste cso 19" arn wrested sass wt ee
Bab? fie) be
cmt awl x0, eunetad oy aera comeS fa), ona! ome ett ga sa elven |
LO Sea 2
9 Qo 2 ¥E 2 conta cal, a
(oon vats +242 BS « mL 5 |
eS hale ia
exe tambuoteb nd sau oxwtovonedt wane noktom sedwoRLo ® eutl © be oe eu
Dy ee oi otro *
; ait CT AY ee FF 2 ft ¥ ¢ es < -sgedes of oF
tant ay Bee Ie a rot: ned ite
| pometaaRs ota. east out sen E-Locgghitate: ommne? ait wei
> yiaats +o hh Postaee “- ite $ wea we yaotadss. arty ro.
1HOp, Oe OF sus;
: -exedg Lottie oias uit bedi? exotedo as
fe > open” pcknaskeogti th: taycd ehane? tiw'ot yn
| erat: oe etre teeteaionietaset abesah
gl 9 44 Hokime doo: a
nt goqy bewe porexwent poss ary fmt 8
heutene eqyd ko osée edd mh botuknrg som oaweosd. |
vd bre mi todd petomtiil to awal ent yd petivoet oF pie!
pa Siweo Laicd ood to agaiivr sostie 62 wlooe bal
| etorite-ceor to imonmgioas om belt earl vol toot thet q
-hebbhyerq smon geilit sot omts Sad to adder ll eds Pei 4
evede efi tends eovom tnmifeqqh etotetedw ttisee atds naan a9
herebto od eoileggs 10% sremuetA baa lel<d Shae to “eno t.
ie ke
noe eonatuent ont taste weno tonth ean 5 mae we ‘iene MR 0 osroeneitin
| al ‘eteiiog ettine off vow widalota W f ponobive ni beowbentat a
-sied igditidats a0? nehdqooxs ould sadstadnos noiatvorg ‘ould a5 14
as beteagotath ‘oral od aieea ‘wort ‘Misatalg _Soade stauannedd «70209 if
Ad. .g WR 2 Dd Lhe
ete lt elfiec ont mi boes sents oayi ovidntor — to oxen '4
’ ‘Sroqque od fxusoo towol edd at eben as bteoo% ‘ots no yoo sou mae 4
odftin of dxvoo Leki ont ni rod yd sham anw m0 komt ad + anempbut ros
no sonshive eld moxt vorLog odd 20 wotstvoxg sine aerate a
lees ci -wibhtovnd ‘beathaLo edt ) i
\! dey rw
| ‘ward nindxoo want ond e evty 08 poas'ter “times fated ont
cdots qrende. ses fdx0% doa soit sabiatode of hataeupet
: eel. Kea ey) a
aed veliog eid 0 anoliqooxe ott ‘sodads alla be] meee
CE) Me har Gee haa
a seunsed f bomuayores® od binodta
anaiiqoone | “gn ive t Poh Loe: wot Re nes od
UR oar
~LAe
were not printed “with the same prominence as the benefits to which
they applied," and because they were not printed “in bold faeed type
and with greater prominenee than any other portion of the text of
the policy."
Plaintiff argues in this court for the affirmence of her
judgment on the theory «dvanced in these rejected inctruetions, but
it hes been repeatedly held that if one party appeals the opposite
perty will be considered as aecquiescing in all rulings of the triel
eourt unless his objections thereto are presented in some proper
manner to the court of reviewe Plaintiff, having assigned noe crosa-
errors on the trial ceurt's refuel to give these instructions, cannot
be heard to say here that the court improperly rejected them. (Material
Service Corporation v. Ford, 541 111. 80; Forest Preserve Yistriet of
Sook County v. Chilvers, 344 Ilie 575; Pelouze Vv. Slaughter, 241 Ille
(215; Village of Shumway v. Leturno, 225 Ill. 601.)
Where the only purpose of atiecking the rulings of the trial
eourt adverse to plaintiff is to have alleged prejudicial errers
corrected on = second trial of the cause, an assignment of cress
errors is essential for that purpose. (Pelouze ve Slaughter, supra.)
Such assignment is the plesding of the party in this court and without
it we have no right to pass upon the point raised.
Defendant's motion is sustained. Point 1 (a) of plaintiff's
brief and pages 10 to 18 of the argument contained therein are ordered
stricken from ssid brief.
Inasmuch as plaintiff's evidence did not make out a case
under the terms of the policy declared upon and introduced in evi-
denes, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause
is remanded.
REVERSED AND FEMANDE Ds
Friend, Pe Je, and Seanlan, J+, coneurs
doidw of etitomed edd 2a poner iwotg @mac add ddlw" Sodeirg tom étew
eget beont blad at" bedntxg vor eror Yous eaunsed ban "’helZqgn Yorts
to ¢xpd oflg fo metsxog teito ya ned ‘eoneniawig teteetg My tw te
“.colLog ate
sect ho womamst?tn edd rot ¢xyod widd fi wengta trtinhers
_ ted genoliouttent betoejet snedt nt besmevhs Yroedt edt no ‘ua,
ebheorye. edt ataonta! yixeq aio Yh sadd? Ried _ibbdbeqek het tel bs
fatxd eff to ayntius Lie mk gutoasiapds sa beth hanes od ro a
teqorg emos nm? bednetietq ets otexods anolvoobdo ay @ ans Leas a
“sor? on bemgtaas anivad ,Pilvnisli swerved to dtuod od od a ree
dorres ranobgourseni oveds oviy o8 fsantex artides | teis? ‘eid m9 i
Esto tat) smotts besseter treqoremt times odd fads an ad oF
Bo sptste Ky syteeort eter 706 -Lit LPG gba0% oy Bebisrog2e? .e9
its £98 patent dy 'eandied “etd 2102 ase canal qarusad
(£08 SCE0 BSS vomited ov yam 0 onaligN
att auld Yo mpativr odf gaiiarite to suoquim yup esd oxedy oo”
,
£5 REM
- Waoure Late routetg dome Lia eved od. ak Vidndata ‘ot onxorns 8
> ee Te de 1), ;
epeero to tnomnglass ma ,eeuso ox ‘ve katt onoose o ne
(ngage «toduiquete »v gku0Le%) »seoqruq svi) wo? Lertnedbe ak 1 Sad
tuoity i” mm, #xw00 aisdd ni yting ore to yaibwotg odd et ngtoor sf nt
eer
ay $i | oe beatat tntoq ef? nmegu esag ot shaadi 2023
ee
4
aa
Fa ive abebnamos
{ eckeMe a. a va '
: yee cs gt P ef ae yal the bene janet nmekt sone
Re ae pe #s0R109 at ainao® brs aes .
R ‘ «} ' i * oy : & u eae oe
& ff ;
f a
$7411
TERESA M. GOTTSCHALK
Plaintiff in Error,
GReOR TO SUPERIOR
Ve
COUNT, COOK COUNTY.
FRED BACKLENBERG and
MANILA BECKLENBERG, aIZ7n rT A e 2. ce
Defendants in Error. BE? Lethe V
WR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff, Teresa HM. Gottschalk, filed a bill in equity
to reseind and cancel a real estate exchange contract entered into
between defendant Fred Becklenberg and herself, as well ac a con-
traet of release of Becklenberg from all liability for his alleged
fraudulent precurement of her execution of such exchange contract.
Plaintiff's bill charged that Becklenberg induced her to sign both
the exchange contract and the release by his fraudulent representation
and concealment of waterial facts. Defendants filed pleas of res
adjudicata, estoppel and release, the first two of which were overe
ruled and plaintiff filed a repliestion to the plea of release.
Upon reference to a master he found that the material allegations
of the plea of release had been proven, anid recommended that
Plaintiff's bill be dismissed for want ef equity. The chancellor
overruled plaintiff's exceptions to the master’s report, adopted
the master's findings and entered a deoree dismissing the bill fer
went of equity. This writ of error seecks to reverse the deerec.
Yor a clesrer understanding of the questions presented
for our determination it is appropriate to set forth the history
of the relations of the parties to this cause.
November 22, 1924, plaintiff and Fred Becklenberg
oe Cale
at Oe | evr a
7 . ay
4 : % ‘ 1 4% he
% : \ ; th oe
a x “ \ " ¢
Re p ms. + > wi } , 4 . fe or a
' 4 Mee att “ereye' ” ot
%
eh. 4 i
* Se ‘ uy
[SS eet i Raae e
SoLmGs Of s0gRT | vr eede
ik
cman | cian aie
“GEO AL CVS stort at etabtawtes
Se
ePHUGD GAT WO WOTKIGO SRT quay mAvEnTUe mirem, «it
Yitupe at Lid & ooLtt Aiadowddod .M adesoT (Wtdatass yoo.
@int beredns teortems eynaione etetes Loot « Leona hoa stoset
-200 8 se Liow wn «tieeted bes grodaeieed bett dnahnekel m
ha begeile eld wok ytilidull Lio most grodmelainet to osaeket 20 sat
a stoetinee egnadom steve to meliscexe tet To tnome tape entaRs hi:
fiog myin of ted hoowdal grednslitoed tad hoprade Ltd atten
KOLteinenetget tneiwhuest ald yd onselor odd has foaténoe 99
Be% 26 vavig beLtt sdambretei agent Lattotam to tna 3
~1676 e1ew Moidw ke owd getht ed? eeselex baa Loquotan, vadspibuhbe
sonaeiot to sal wid of noktaokiqes a boLtt daa |
anotiagelia initesem ost tals bavet of toteam « of eometetex
Jodd bekomores bas .nevety need bel easgion to aig emt
toliconats eff .y¢hupe te tase cot benginath od a bomb ne 7
begnenera ampiiaoup efi to sieiiienindia renee ee ch rol 1
Yxotatd odd A¥xot gon of adetzqoras wt ema terenetiondety:
—peasen wild ef cottne ott to bmott i
| yxedno fleet bovk hme Yitdatalg .dOOl «as coder 4
executed a real estate exehange contract which specified that
the value of his apartment building (Burwood apartments) was
$205,000 and of her improved property $50,000; that hie property
was subject to a first mortgege of /140,000 and that her property
was Cleary; and that as the baiance of the purchase price of his
property she agreed to give him a 615,000 purchase money second
mortgage on the Burwood apartments.
December 8, 1924, deeds were executed and delivered
under the contract and Mrs. Gottechalk took possession of the
Burwood apartmenta and thereafter collected the rents.
Septomber 28, 1925, Secklenberg filed a bill to fere-
Glese the second mortgage, Mrs. Gottschalk having defaulted in
the payments due, and hed a receiver appointed whe took possession
ef the Burwood apartments.
April 1, 1926, pursuent te a decree of foreclosure of
the eucent mortgage, the master sold the property to Beeklenberg
for 917,000 and delivered te him his certificate of aale. The
enter also reported a deficiency of $2,620.32, whieh plaintiff
was deereed to pay.
April 3, 1926, a written agreement was entered into
between Mrs. Gottschalk and one Sol Subin, which, after reciting
that Becklenberg had grossly swindled plaintiff by inducing her
through false representations to exchenge her property for his
with its incumbrance of $140,000, end by inducing her to gtve him
in addition to her clear apsrtment building a second mortgage of
$15,000 on the Burwood apartments se purchased from him, provided
that Rubin should furnish the money and time necessary to recover
through litigation or settlement the demages suffered by Mrs.
Gottschalk threugh Becklenberg's frauds; that Rubin might use
Plaintiff's name, when necessary, in litigation or otherwise;
ded? beLtisone deidw soutinos egradoxe etaiac Inert « betwen
eaw (géeemdtege boowtwh) gui bliad stismd tage aid to eutey ome
ysroqetg ald dad 7000,089 Ytuoqerg bevozgms teal Be faa shears: t
yitooorq ret tals bus 0O0,ORL8 Yo opegduom taxtt o of soshdun ly
oid to ootzy esadouy odd to conatad edd a dati fae! panto mae
baooes Yorom saadoxug 000,069 » mid oviy of bootns par yen
sa toes? wage boowsull wal? ao eRcay tom
pexeviton dnp detupens oxen abeeb ed80E 98 oan 906 iB, yi
wiz to moleeeoneg wood ALesioe sso” ost bra snectins ede tohuy
tee oMt peteetios wttwordd' bad ndnend reqs hoowestt
~or02 of LLid « belt? arosien Litpee, OR8L +88 rean tee kee |
at hedLuntos yatvad ALarioasgo9 24% qoacadtom begoes, SY
molecnenog toot ody botntoaca revisoes # bedk baa youth atopm ‘%
_ Meteemtxoge hoowmt te H
to ‘erimoLoo70% te getoeh « OF émawateg «8802 af Lise. by tis
gredua Lioot of yxeqetg odd blow zosuam od ,opegd tom neuen
ett sofen to edaekiticon ett mid o¢ borevtsed, fie 000%, “fl or
ribtatedy paren +881 08O98F To YREwlosted bedrogeT oats oe wail on
omni wwasten aw teomseuge notdhuw # .OGed aenetass i jam be
gutiioes wdts .doldw .aidwl fo8 eno bee oltatonsten sat adewhed’ ‘
wont getowbak yt Yitntelg boLbatwe yLarerp: het wasn
eid rot ytreqerq sod ogmafone of protdedne onde h Mpa
mld ovitg of upd gatombat ya ban. 19004006. 2x oommtanans oh ttt
te ensptrore onooee a gatbiind snowiaqe ss9eLo te ot mek tbs
bedivorg «itd sovt bensdouuy 99 simemiaaga hoowswl ont mo)
se To90% of Yisvasoon sett bee youom ed? deter? biveds wkdet teks
10 Ye boreYRwe uegansh of teomestden so mobdupkset steueatdise
oan tigin mice tan? phen 9 gee it ALestonstod
rar ee nie
ake
that plaintiff deposit a quitelaim deed to Rubin of her interest
in the Burweod apartments with his attorney, and that Rubin
deposit in escrow with such atiorney his $5,000 note payable to
pisintiff, and his trust deed upen the Burwood apartments to
seeure some; that, when the matter was settled by Rubin, he was
to be the owner of the property, subject to the payment of the said
$5,900 note to plaintiff; and thet she was to be peid by him all
money received by him as a result of Litigation or settlement over
and above his second mortgage of $15,000, plus fees and costes.
(Mrs. Gottschalk delivered her deed to the premises to Rubin's
attorney and it was delivered to Rubin and recorded. I¢ does
not appear that Rubin ever deposited hia $5,000 note in escrow
with hie attorney. In any event Mrs. Gottschalk did net receive
it and did not receive any of the rente or profits aceruing from
the Burwood apartments after Rubin took possession May 3, 1926.)
May 3, 1926, Rubin effected a settlement whereby
Beecklenberg assigned to him hia certificate of esle under the
second mortgage foreclosure, delivered to plaintiff her second
mortgage notes aggregating $15,000 and satisfied his deficiency
deeree egeinst her in consideration of Rubin's payment to him of
£6,279 and the delivery of plaintiff's release of Becklenberg
from all cisims for damages against him for fraud, deceit er
misrepresentation in connection with the exchange of their
properties. The receiver under the second mortgage foreclosure
having been discharged pursuant te this settlement, and plaintiff
having conveyed her interest and title in and to the premines to
him, Rubin took possession of the Burwood apartments and there-
efter collected the rents.
December 15,5 1926, a bill was filed by the trustee under
the first mortgage trust deed te foreclose same, the entire bond
issue having been accelerated because of Rubin's default in the
favo dnh ot Ye wid 0¢ sowb micietaup © ¢heoqoh Vetintetg dace
eh tone baw eYoruedse ald Adlw otmomdueqe boawtwM end at
6d ekdaysq efor 000,%) aid youwiss dove atin worooe at dkwogeb
od atreotiiegs boowurll add aoge bees gamed eld boa « Thitnkedq
iow ot yttkdul yo beliseu caw t9ddan ond mode Sed? pore exwsOR
bane oft to dnowyay ex? of toohdua yelsegoty ont to emo eft o¢ ot
fie aii yd biog od of any ode tatld how 4 titinieiq od eter 000584
teve trecelitee to métgagid2k to Jiecet a ee wd yd bovieoet youu
sedeoo ban weet wulg 2900,3L¢ To egegtxem bavose wit eveda ime
atnigud oF boatewrg eff of oveb worl Soeevileh aALaioasto®.amm)
~ goo #L shebtoosx tem atduii 9? betevileb uaw J) doe yommodta
wonoee mi efor 00%,2¢ sid hetiaogeb weve midua dadt resqye den
eviopor toa bib Alndowtted veil taeve yo sk .yamodde ete Mpke
mux? goivroocs atitoxg 10 ataer of to yim evteses don kth baa tt
(eBRUL 4S Wil noLenesz0g doe? Khdul tothe admmtieqe Doowanl est
<—devedw teenmelizven a badve The aidwi _0Se@L Poe whe I
edd -vebmu lea %6 staotitixes ald mhi o¢ bempiass atadeoipes
| bones ret Ltisniadg of boxovifed c@tweoloatot eyagirom Aagpen
“onotoltod aid deflation baa 000.29 sattagotsys saton egantzem —
Yo mid of snomyag o'ntdul 0 aedvouebtemos wt, red tomtaga owresh
“ tedneLXo0k. te ausosox e'titinintg to Yreviloh O69 HanseTBedd
‘29 tteoeh , buat? co? mie settegs segomd cot amiale Sinaext
tio Yo wymadoxe aid Aiiw wotdooanes mt noltetmnogemia —
gtmetooxe? oyngdram baooes edt tobaw tevisoe ot. smeh?segong
Vivalely dae ytnomeltios aids of tnayeteq beguntioeta mead gakvad | |
of womtuony ott oF tem mt oti te manebiaadanes sinrwcuinesssilh :
\apeott Mow atemwd tone beovisk wid to mohesenog 4
6 cat 4 98° tenon. 9 wtademat male d
‘to Dies po tutred arid YC bOLE eow LEE w gAGCL 2h sadaovedr 600 C
buod oxkine oa? youre aaeleexo% ot hood dauxd gaeptromdankd eld
adit nt #iuated e'atdua Lo settuned bodatesecos need gutynd ome
ihn
payment of taxes and interest on the first mortgage bonds, and
@ receiver was appointed who immediately took possession of the
premises. Although Mra. Gottechrik war not made a party to the
first mortgage foreclosure proceeding, she attended practically
all of the hearings held therein before the mater and testified
that she wae satisfied with Rubin's conduct of her affaira. A
deeree of foreclosure and sale was entered and Becklenberg, who
was primarily liable on the outstanding firet mortgage bonde, pure
chased the Burwood apartments at the moster’s sale for $154,480.84,
the semount re.uired to cover such bonds, acerued interest,
eolicitor's fees, mster's fees and costs. Upon Pubin's appeal
the decree in that cause wax affirmed by this court and thereafter
eertiorari was denied by the Supreme court.
After the master’s report in that case had been filed
and just prior to the entry of the sforessid deeres Mraee Gettachalk
filed a petition in which she repudiated wbin and seught to inter-
yene in that cause. In ita deeree the trial court denied her
right to intervanee
in the instant case Mrs. Gottschalk made Rubin and his
wifes parties in beth her original bill and in her first amended bille
Although persisting in her charge that Rubin and Becklenberg had
conspired to defraud her, she failed to make Rubin a party defendant
in her second amended bill, upon which thiseause wae heard.
The prayer of plaintiff's second amended bill is, im sub-
stance, that a “purported release" dated May 3, 1926, given by plain»
tiff to Becklenberg “be annulled end cancelled;" thet Becklenberg
and his wife be required to convey to plaintiff the “Nontrese avenue
property,” (which she traded) if he chould now own it, and that
Becklenberg be required to necount for 111 rents and profits collected
by him therefrom since he ecquired titles but should it appear that
des gabaed opmgitom sent? ef? mo daonetnt baw wenad te drome?
od? 2 selsdoenog dood YLosatbounk baw hosntoqga saw veviesse #
sit ed ytusq # eham tom now dinsoatvod sec agwodeta veothaotg
yliselicatg bebnetin ode , gat bewsow exsmekeevet epagocea’ sere®
Seblitas? tas tedesm sd? oteted sero oled epmiteert: ele: tekte®
A. sexistts ted Le sevbmee a'nicst! adie dofieisow aaw eda tadd’
only .gzedusidee® tna beredne ase ofns baa pumoeLoexe? te vetted.
-xug ,thned spoptuem f9123 netdaadadve off mo eldail ¢Licomtstq eam
a8, 9G), 0825 26% efea altadyan odd 39 atpemdroge poowswi. ai? benado.
qtnertedad demconn «obmod Aege aoves of bovlases tacome-emt
inogqa a'nidy® seq .asace ban gost a teisam qaook otzostokow:
sotieoreds baa @iveo atdd yt demtitin caw euuns teat ni vexesh off
as sdtaod omerqe® oft yd botoeh eaw. Aaanoteneo:
hoLtt seed ded saao tet mt dtoget a *tetesm eds wsta > fy di
ALatguido® .axM wesosh bisseto%s odt Yo yedne odd ed tobig deny baw’
~xodnk 04 axiguos bon aids! botetheuot sie coldy wt aotdtteg « bess
“eel betnod dives Labtd ond eoteeb xdd ml. veauen dade mt omy
bansny bsathade eds i OU eeeewnedl od taigen
id bse sida ebom dfedostéod .ev aguas tietanh edt mE 9 eal po
Liid webewoms texk2 atk wt tas Lid samtgheo wes dtod ai aeidnaq ebhw
had gredueltood ban mbdist Vets sytacie test aaa ieinamnsedll
Paobnoteh youaq # shdud exten 0% deLtak ade exes twarted wa boxy
ebised caw sxumoeids Hobdy menu Lis botwenn hnovee ag mE h
nde ah god Liki deheoms baooes 2 ittintelg to severe aT. 904) gy
atale Ed movig ACL 46 yak botad "onsedes hedzogaua" « dade penta: —
Bredneldon& gadd "jlelkeenss dna, bokianna od", gredneléoel, oF oe ’
unova sequinox” edi Viddnbele 04 YevNED Of Sontnven pc eRdm whe ARR!
faXd ta 432 ao wom biwede ost Ut ( bobaxt ome date) "aude a
foo tion atktowy baa asaex Lio 102 taweess of torhane of: pio dnoise
H
4 ohh Bi) ;
“5
other persons, not parties to thie suit, in good feith, fer value
and without notice, have acquired good title to the property, that
Becklenberg be required to account to plaintiff as to all dernlings
and transactions between him and herg that their respective rights
and interests be ascertained; that he be ordered to pay te her what
money, 1f any, shall appear to be due to her on such accomting,
together with costs and solicitor's fees; and that she may have
sueh other relief as equity may requires
Although Mrs. Gottschaik's second amended bill is a
voluminous document, replete with allegetions of Becklenberg's
fraudulent conduct both in the procurement of the exchange contract
and of her releases of his slleged fraud, im her reply brief it is
coneeded that the only question presented for our determination is
whether Becklenberg's alleged fraudulent concealment from her of
the reduction of the first mortgage bomd issue om the Burwood
apartments from $140,000 to $130,000 and the return to him and
subordination of $10,000 of the $140,000 bonds originally con-
templated as the amount of the loan as recited in the trust deed
filed of recerd, entitled her to a rescission and cancellation of
her release and of her original exchange contract.
Plaintiff's replication to defendants’ plea of release
admitted its sufficieney and the issue is narrowed down to the
truth of the following allegations of such plea: "While knowing
when she executed the release to becklenberg that * * * Becklenberg
had acquired the $10,000 bonds as alleged in the second amended
billy yet she falsely alleged in her second emended bill of come
Plaint that she had no knowledge thoreef until after the sforesaid
release was executed and delivered. * * * That such relesse was
freely, fairly and voluntarily given on the date thereof.*®
Although Mre. Gottschalk testified, and it is
sulay so% eid ial boog ot etinn aids of aettveg Jom ,emoeteg si ;
dealt «yiteqeg as of onend pooy aetivpas eved seotten toodd tw baa
ageifasb Ife of an Tiiisialg og Rg I9e ot betkupes od giedne Lie
véigts evitoogset thatd dul? gued dow mk aoewted anoivosenst? hms
“taste xort of yoq od dovebse ed on tad tienind<eras ed etaeredat bus
‘epritoroves stove ug xed ot eyb of o¢ renpaqe Linde «gma Sha yenion
evoul Yon asfe dastd bin (ave? e'xottotfos tus atsoo dtiw modsouat
‘ stinpot Yao Wines as teklox vesdde some
sat , the hohnoma baooea a'xtetoatsoo «eel spwodela. iis
a'grodneivock to anotiezetia ditty etelges «imeauned prec
toetéincs egnaloxe edd to énomotsgo7g ef? ak diod toubaoe ewotuiuart
at ¢h tet xyiger cod mt ,buent hegetie etd. te te xed ‘a
al moitanimiosed two 10% Aedreneug motdaeup ykeo od sadly ‘ ;
Yo tod moxt snsmleeomeo Inefubwert hegetio «'ytedneLAook sil
boowsf oft mo ewsnt bnod opaydeoe taxtt ots re mtvoubox od
x een mid of mutex ald bes 000, 0650 oF 000, ODL sabi , as
wxed yfLantaixo abt OO0¢OREG edt 20 000,009 Yo” nbbianth od 7
heeb sent ocd nt betioet os naot es? to tawomd oid a' bedatgned
to. moitelfceenas Sxe motentoeet s o¢ tad bottivae <brode te belt?
Souednoo' ephiitond” neskgt <b ett” %6 ‘hha! ouiheltoe bu
easolex to Aeig 'otnsbroteh oF Hokieniiqer eetiiniele si ne _
axl? of woh bowotten af ouact vale to one bot ie 8 nod Aer ome :
fetes haodee off at boyetie aa wine odoatt ant teh
ws ihe
eat to XLid bebmoms brOose ted ak — pene ater i
deity) Secpebiaae
anv eano let tole tad? * * ® ,botevtteb baa ‘hesusexe
sp pigs ft
W.Yootertt stab ot to nevis “utbssamutoy pay eile? « ee
GekT rhe wile gets RD ee
int ab $2 hue boi thiood Aiaious2od ae syed ectah aio
strenuously argued on her behalf, that she did not meet Rubin
until April 5, 1926, a release signed by her and witnessed by
Rubin under date of February 11, 1926, was recsived in evidence.
Though disputing the date of this document Mrs. Gottschalk
admitted executing, prior to the release of May 3, 1926, at
Rubin's request, a release of Becklenberg from any claim that
she might have had against him by reason of the exchange of their
properties. The first release was unsatisfactory to Becklenberg
and when so advised plaintiff signed the release in question,
which was aceepted by Becklenberg as part of the consideration
for his assignment to Rubin of the certificate of sale under the
second mortgage foreclosure, his surrender of her $15,000 second
mortgage notes, which were cancelled, and the satisfaction of his
deficiency decree against her. In connection with Beecklenberg's
refusal to accept her first release plaintiff testified that
Rubin "said Becklenberg was not satisfied with the first release,
that he wanted more added to it, more inserted * * * and that he
wanted me te sign a better release, releasing him from everything
that could possibly be released from, so that there would be no
comeback. * * * So I signed it."
As far ae plaintiff was concerned the subordination agres-
ment could only have affected the velue of Beeklenberg’s property.
She purchased the Burwood apartments with full knowledge that the
property was subject to an inoumbrance of a bond issue of $140,000,
She had complete possession of the property for about ten months,
commencing December 3, 1924. She was fully conversant with its
income, upkeep and the charges upon it and had every opportunity
to ascertain its value long prior to May 3, 1926, when she executed
the release. She failed to make the stipulated payments on the
second mortgage. That morigage was foreclosed. 4 receiver supplanted
her in possession. Becklenberg purchased the property at the secon
an, , ahi
acu teem dor bd osle todd ¢Riatiod ted mo bowgte Ylawounette
ud beseentin bas tot yt hompia eraetot a ,58@L .8 Lhaga thane
soomebhdve mi beyiove: saw ,aS0L «lL yreusdel Ro ofah xobsw abdui
ALaouston sacl Ineseoh aids Yo dab ett aniduqeth dgwodt
Lo de 4O8UL 22 Well Yo oneoses est of coizg .gatiuepxe batdinbs
daid mislo yRs mrt guednetieok To saseLot « qdnonpet a 'ebdul
Ties Lo eymutioxe enfd Lo moaset YA mid ¢aateye had ovad aim ote
gredmeiatoefi of yretostaltianan aaw sasotet gextt edt . spoLsroqory
(teisaesp Gi ovsolet eri bergis Tidatetlg beatvhs os cerfw bas
ioktstobianes esi? lo dis os grednelioed yd Setqeoos aay dohdw
exid robay gis 19 edectittros om? Yo mtdus od tmommgtaas att zok
bueoss 000,814 ved to toleetxwe ald ,otwagtoom?t egeyt tom haogee
eid to wodtostattas ext hug «beLioonse exw dottw «eden gpagécomt
algsedneideed Atiw mettoenneos nt «tet santegs eetoeb Yost cei
Patt bokItte0d Mivetelg saseler sextt tod Peet et ama
esaseter tartt es? ditw bektatiee Jom saw arodueties’, bias
rey't he han? cares
of feds bus * * * betroent oxpm, efi of bephe yam betney 96 ®
#e
grtidiyzeve sort abd antnestez eoeselox sodted 8 mate of om Rs tore
Sie)
on od bLuow erens tacts o8 eato't't beaseles ed vdtowog biuoe at
" "eth homie i 08 * ‘ * sslosdemoo
“ee Tye nottant droge od? bonssoneo aw wbimbety an mt aa nt a a
-Ustoge te & ‘grednoLitood to oxiav ond botoo tte oved une ani
ed? tnd? epteLromd Liv 3 by stead tage boowrut oft sxatomug on
1000, 00.58 to ewsat bnod a te sone tdkaront as o8 doe Laue ew veregong
coal srom not awode «0% eireqorg adé %o no boss uaog odotgmos ‘batt 98 do - :
att thw tnowrovnes Llu? aaw ote baer «8 we dawoot poses 8 a ae
; Ys tad z0qc0 vreve bast bee th ‘nog septate eas bes creas 4 0% oy. 5
beduoox esia mort 2aKed ok wel ot tobi nate £ ‘euay adt stsiseone ” :a
edd a8 si remyeg betalugtie ext extem es bottat one ease
botmaiganus xavtsoox A beeetoexot as opaps tom tad? %
AT ee ea
bose esid ta ydteqorq ald bouatommg preduetisedl ry)
oe
mortgage foreclosure sale for 917,000 and secured « deficiency
geeree against her for (2,620.32. She charged Beckienberg
with fraud. cGhe engaged Rubin to litigate or settle with Secklenberg
because ef his alleged fraud. kubiny we may assume, accused Beck-
lenberg of defrauding plaintiff. the revord discloses no admission
of frand on Becklenberg's part. A settlement was agreed upen between
Beeklenberg, Rubin and plaintiff that included plaintiff's release of
Becklenberg from every possible cherge of fraud in connection with
his exchange of properties with her, “so that there would be no
comeback." For her release and Rubin's $6,279 Becklenberg gave her
back her $15,000 second mortgage notes for cancellation, satisfied
his deficiency decree against her, andy with her knowledge and
eonsent, assigned to Rubin his $17,900 eertifieste of sale of the
propertye
it is urged that plaintiff did net by her roleace waive
her right of action against Becklenberg for his alleged fraudulent
concealment of the subordination agreement, because when she was
induced te sign said release she hed no knowledges of such agreement.
The record does not disclose what frauds plaintiff's agent, Rubin,
charged Becklenberg with, but it does show that Becklenberg refused
to deal with plaintiff or Rubin unless she gave him « release that
was comprehensive enough, according to her own testimony, to release
him from everything that he could possibly be releseed from. Becklen-
berg insisted on thet kind ef a release. Plaintiff was fully advised
that no other kind of « releese would be acceptable to him. She
geve him that sort of a release for a valuable consideration and she
¢annot now be heard to say that it did not eover the alleged fraudu-
lent concealment of the subordination agreement, ss well as any and
every othsr fraud thet she er "ubin micht have charged him with.
in any event Beekienberg testified that prier to the
ey
Yetotiog® » hormg9en dam 000 TL 19% ofeo, ormmoloos93 eanazps
yrednetiond begiedo ofh +86. O8a484 10} sed tontage soxanb
| BTedne Live sidkw elédes co etwyitil of midw’ bagagne ols. buat Ate
=1e08 Loaueen «ota Yam ow gahiui shuact bogelio eid, ‘te ssnaged
oine taba on wwaateath brecex ask .RRidmieda poivoasien to gasdael
| mmewted negy Deere son IoomeLises A +31q atasednetxoed 90, bunzk 30
fe apnetet w'teteetela hetodond de? Tidtaledg don akdwd, pprodmettoot
Siiw sottoonnos ai hasyt, ww wgrade eldinaog Were M02? prpdne Lipod
on od Ivor oxedd tacit om” mh EO ae
tad even grodmatioel @7h.09 a'nivud baa enaedet aod sot, “> |
pebta thas .tolds {Loans tot aston sgeytzom mannii ned tad
‘te eghaiwerdt wd tte «hee 4 tit tenkege aamtok nemekes ten ait
sft to ofee ‘to ofeolttixe 000,059 whl nient ot domaine aha :
vs iyead Pacis :
j
ee
now odo oesie saycond ¢tedmpetge moldentesedue ext er teentongae
rtremoetge Moun to eybefword om haul tle eatelet bie myth e+ sesubat
eitdwil ,dabge alitiontaty abuntt saile eeofoete don ‘ateh brovemeat
boastox giedm Lived tard? wode soob tt and die aroda tovaaa
“tht coosfon o mbt ovay Oita wae tiw stein x0 tnktabale enw Zook ot
exactet of ywomtinod mo tol oF withroone gdgwone ovtvinaltorenne: con ;
~n9 Sabot «matt boasslet od Udhaneg Atwoo ot Hutt sinrcaeye Mane ae :
hoatvhs (Livi sev Wintelt sodabtet a to babk tent nd beatae? gine
| sale atk od oldetqosos ed binow sesatow x to sack eine at suits 4
ers bre motvoushlenos ofdakiay « x8t enketer ¥ te #tbe” soit mht ein }
awhirns begotia ed? tovoo don Eh YL Fouts Yow 09 tthe Be Won Poti ;
“bne ws on tfow ee tnemborne Hol tanlixcdin Gf te Sneltiieopnoe geet
atidiw anti! bogreds overt Yepter mtdy so edie dete twat ‘NOHIO YrbYe q
orld of volte fail? hetttrect sme: thiroe Mone bs 0 z
Hitsabmnng ak wed oF
-8<
execution of the contract for the exchange of their properties
plaintiff was fully advised by him as to the terms of the
subordination agreement. While the testimony wae in sharp con-
flict on this issue, after a thorough examination of all the
evidence in the record, we are impelled to concur in the following
findings of the master and his conclusion thoreon, which were
incorporated in the chancellor's decree!
"14. The Master further finds that said release by
seid complainant was for a good and valuable consideration,
that she knew the purport thereof and that no misrepresentations
were made to her at the time, by Becklenberg, or by anyone on
his behalf.
"15. The Naster concludes that the material
allegations in said third ples have been proven.*
Ag to the weight to be given by « court of review to
the findings of fact of a master anid the deeree of the court
founded thereon, the rule is correctly enuneiated, we think,
in Gottschalk Construction Co» ve. Carison, 255 ille Apps B20,
where the court after reviewing numerous decisions dealing with
the subject, said at page 535:
“While the report of the master ie not conclusive upon
any fect unless it meets with the appreval of the court of review
before whom the record may be, yet such findings of fact will not
be disturbed by a court of review umless ecuch eourt, upon due
examination of a1] such evidenee, ie able to say that the findings
of the master, and the decree of the court founded thereon, ere —
net supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or are con~
trary to ite probative force.”
Meany other points have been urged and eases cited which
we have carefully considered, but in the view we take of this cause
we deem it unnecessary to discuss theme
Fer the reasons indicated herein the decree of the Superior
court im effirmed.
AFFIRMED
Geanlan, J.» coneurse
aviiusqoty tied? “to epnadoxe ‘add 0% Joaxdn09 outs % not uooxs
etd te sured ott? of an mid yd beet via Yltvt saw ‘Vitentale
wines etn: at nae utomtieed out ofA . toomkexgs notdantorodve
aul? Efe te wottontaes dtgwoxede ‘s dette jolent atte wo det
‘gndweliet et? mt iwonon oF bottsqut ota aw pbxooer ef mt penebivs
blow Holthy qxowred? NetewTonco kif bem teduadt etd Yo
reeveed e'rwtteoanlo oo ak bateveqtoord
Honus tin she tally ahai® seiter onal le errr rere”
wetiorobiasse eb ¥ baw, 7 (gest towoo baw
8 aa
emp liginvastyeta in’ om Sexld how
Aabcogen easly i ol ip foie go noe xodeak oat sth ’ ; ;
_ BO saeyae Ye 20 var dae £90 « way ~
at wetvos Io sxwee a YT needy BC 'Od Migtow add of aa! aad
dunon aff to setend salt pow tovasst # Ye toa te agntindt eat? ;
eMuid? ow yhedetomme ULisorwe ak ofr odd ne iene
(OBO segs o ELT 88S qmoghitsd sv eat wedeneo af .
“dite gnilaod enoiatood suoxemee gakwelves teste ns renb et a 4
fy
‘A888 ope te bime stootdon oat” “i
aviautonos Jom et tevuam ef? Io freqet edd oli — ieviebee |
“wetvor Yo fume fd te Lavenqqa ond sitw ateem 32 aaelos test :
ton fitw goad Lo oped iets b¥eoan off
ewh temat ydumme dove coninw wotven % fiw8o & w
agetiet? vad jedd yoo o¢ alda st sonnehive dome Le ka
RR gttooteds p Ban sues sai “Se eetech sald 4
“ae Fa wenn he alr eee a RL
“elise atte waaso hae Begiw need vv adutiog textse Sonal ere”
saimae wha Yo ented ou waty ed it sud ybevohionoo YLivibwso eval ow
7 " qimodd wenondh ob “Wesavconmy df mao Ge
h » te ‘ie 1 a
tetwegit ead ™ serpeb malt akorad bodeothal orouuet Yt eaalivnn ee 4
tenet.
wd ao <a
yin Cae Gl Saar ap Neth We,
/
‘
f f
37547
EDVARD He MOIUIG, receiver
for the Binga State Bank, :
& corporation, (plaintiff),
Appellant, APPRAL FROM MOWICIPAL
Ve COURT OF CHICAGO.
AUELENRT HK, RORERES, Ss 970 TA BQR°
defendant), Appellee. wt J Lethe VVVD
MR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPIMLOM OF THR COURT.
September 29, 1931, a judgment by confession for $2,018.75
was entered on a note executed by defendant, dated December 20, 1926,
for $1,500, due six months efter date, payable to Binga State Bank,
which on petition ef defendant was opened and he was given leave te
appear and defend, the judgment te stand as security. MWareh 4, 1932, .
there wae a trial before the court without a jury, resulting in a
finding in fevor of defendant end the judgment by confession of
September 29, 1931, was vacated, the suit dismissed and a judgment
for costs was rendered against plaintiff. This judgment was reversed
and the enuse remanded in an unpublished epinion filed by this court —
Oetober 4, 1932, General Mo. 36027, appellate court, first district.
Upon the filing of the mandate of this court in the
municipal court, the enuse was reinstated and proceeded to trial by
the court without » jury on the original confession of judgment and
on defendent’s same petition te open said judgment which was before
this court on the prior appeal and which was allowed to stand ss his
affidevit of merits. The trial court again found against plaintiff,
dismissed his sult ané@ entered judgment for defendant. This appeal
vecks to revorse thet judgment.
ee.
Ae
t ve ODS Op ae
SSS PG hes
{ ' agers tooo aTshi0i oH Gave
ae ocho xh ttaseuts
LAGIOIWUM MORE GARCTA nepeaavee re
of 0 TO TAVOQ ae !
‘S8OUT OTe” seem ream
Tinto Rik
oie met Ere wy eumrning merszan aster =
Sl BL0.88 ret soleastaon yd snompin, we LOG OR wedmodqee
s8R2L 106 redewoed bodab”,dnakewtod YW bedutexd ston ane /boTetiD dau
eit of648 ogalt oF oldauny «edad Tests whim ate ond 4OOTLE eer
, 0s vast movin sev of ban homege naw dmebso tod Ye mOLIIOG mesipdeie
| {SOL 4d Motel eyttnveee us bande Of dmomebut wild chaOtod bad eaOER
o nt gatiivcee: ayuwt 2 twodtiw éxweo eftoroted seatadtatn aati.
‘Yo solenetnos yo tnompbet ont bas tnatnotes te wove? ot galt
dremgbet, « hen doswimalh the oof? .bovaney aay .teer 48 aa bg
beatovet sox tneambvt aidt stitintaty tetas Malang Bach noe 0%
gamed elitd Yo peli? nolnigo padaltduanw mm mt bohanmer eeiey eit’ .
atedxéetb text? gdxweo. eteLlinaga —S008 OM. faromed, E04 ny wodoted
etd at siw90 whit to ofehenm wit Ro peels ot MET oy ey
Wi Lelid oF bebdsevouy bua x Raw puseD edt «i tuo9 Tagte teat 4
hie EE: peli!
il he ; Rae teas | |
boo dnemgit, te nedaae knee. fentgizo, ond HO xe & - Saort bw iithiaiecel 1
sxnted sew delsw tnomaturl bien meqo of mols iieg ome 2 te P
Defendant's affidavit of merits did not deny the exeeution
ox delivery of the note but alleged, in substance, thet one Jesee
Binga, and not plaintiff, was the true owner of the note and that
there wag no consideration given for same. On the trial defendant
appeare to have tbhandoned the latter defense. His theory, both in
the trial court and here, is that plaintiff is precluded from re-
eovery because of his failure to prove delivery of the note to the
Binga State Bank, without which proof he claims there is no showing
that plaintiff wae the legal owner of the mote or that he held
legal title thereto,
Here, as on the former appeal, the undiaputed evidence
Giacloses that plaintiff is the veeelver of the Dinga State Bank, o
banking corporation; that the note involved was executed by defendant
ond is paysble to the Binga State Bank; that after ite execution
defendant delivered it to a Mise Cantey, the auditor of the Binga
State Banks that after plaintiff was appointed reeesiver of the bank
he brought suit on the mete. On the trial plaintiff introduced the
note in evidence and rested. Thereupon defendant testified that sbout
the time the note was axecouted, Jesse Binga transferred te him 10
shares of the capital steck of the Binga “tate Bank, and defendant
became and continued te act as one of the beard ef direstors of the
bank until it was closed by the auditor of publie accounts of the
State of Illinois; that frem the dete of the execution of the note
until judgment was entered thereon no demand had been made on him to
pay it, mor was any mention made of the existence of the note in any
meeting of the board of directers of the bank; end that prior to
signing it he talked te Jesse Binga sbeut the note.
Jesse Binga testified thet he hed been president of the
Binga State Bank from 1921 te 1932; that he hed the note in his private
safe at the benk and at no time delivered it te anyone representing
the bank, While it is unnecessary for us to pass upon the
(f
| HOLieeoxe ald ywoot som bib uthaom to ¢hvabdithe « tenebueted
| anaet osm Sadd yoonstedve mt ,»hepetia twd eden odd to yxeviteb ce
Gai? bie stom ott Yo somwo etd orld wow .titatafe som due gapnke
tmsinetoh {eitt off oO +.emem tol sevig soliatebianes on gaw
si déod ,ystouls bit .oanetebh toséal of’ bonobneds overt of wustenies
-#% mevtt bebufoetg al tilinialg dad? af aorta Bae dries Laled ont
et? of efor ea? to yreviled evorg od orsibat eid Yo suteosd YteVEd
gutvoda on gi eredts east Lo ed teorg dotdw jwediiw sinatl stat? agate
_ Bhest od tad? 10 atom edd to somwo fapel ed haw Titsatelg
ries | > Pesoneds okd29 Reged
sonshive betwqelhnw edt «lnsage zeta}. os 0 go eT
& eine® odad2 egal aff to xeviosot odd ai Btlintalq tadd pra Pear
tuntastes Xe botimexs eer seviovht ston eed tat imottetegr0o gutted
\ sotduvexe edt tedte test tind btate weit nad oF ala |
“pate olf Yo sod thus “oatd yyodmed cart o OY 4b betevited dnkhaston
nad ed? to tevicoes botntogye tow ttintalq west tans ‘Yili Gilli, if
' ei? Beowbortad Vtinlatq tefts ext nO Veton oxo no Vive Vigeot en |
gods dod? be2tbieed tnabnoted moquoredt .boduet tne Conoblve af tii
‘OL mit of berrotonard sant Soest (beduooxe caw odo’ oft onthe eed
fonbneted hrs auibell eted? egnit ode te Moots Lottqun ea? tw Uipieetle
exit Xo erofeorts Ye bused ext? Ye ono we Foo of Hoummchdadd tine ohaded
‘gilt Yo etawooen obiduy to torthee wns eS hewete aan FE theme dees
etom om? to noktuesxe eft Yo of eb eft most ded? petembtir te odeee ae
oi mali no shear nood bad teem’ of HeOted? betedeo daw Sitemytoh Lhtaw
ih toa with" 2 Sinaia batt) Yo" onan ae Rbator at sallineinedved 4
es oe “sad tats bine Vaid ond te exons : _
eel ot tvede agit sbbet od” bt ;
oid 26 Ynobtwocg mind’ Aad oof taift sett teed agntit 7
eaanbeg ait mf odor oct beet oof Yoste Yeeex of ex mark pee ight
paldmeusrqor dnote of st betevited ou dn 38" jrospporeslpr Ohne
a
“b=
eredibility of the witnesses, it seems strange that if the note
were intended to be Jesse Binga’s personally, he would have it
made payable to the Binga State Bank and delivered to the Binga
State Bank.
Richard H. Mickey testified that he was eashier of the
bank after the elvetion of 1930 until it closed; that it was his
duty to have poesession of the notes of the bank} and that this
note wae never in his possessione
In spite of the fact, as we have herctefore stated, that
the affidavit of merits does not deny either the execution or
delivery of the note te the Binga “tate Bank, defendant persists in
arguing that, “where the affidavit of merits denies delivery te
Plaintiff, the plaintiff is required te make proof of delivery to
him." This srgument is ostensibly based on the allegetion in said
affidavit, "that the said Jesse Binge never endorsed or transferred
said note to the Binga {tate Bank." We do net think that this
allegetion constitutes such a denial of defendant*’s delivery ef the
mote to the Binga State Bank es required proof by plaintiff of such
delivery. Osfendant's counsel suggest that om the prior appeel this
court “assumed” that plaintiff had legal title to the note. There
was moO Gceasion om the former appeal mor ia there now to indulge in
any such assumption. in the absence of a verified denial of the
delivery of the note to the payee, in whose possession it was at the
time suit was brought, the law presumes deliverye
Where the instrument ia no longer in the possession of a
party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery
by him is presumed until the contrary is shown. (Ghe 96, pare 36,
Cahili’s Illinois Revised Statutes.) Delivery will be presumed
where the note is no lenger in the possession of the party whose name
appears en it umless it is expressly denied by verified plea, and
when it is plaintiff will be put te the burden of proving delivery as
eden af Li dads egnesiu amene ¢2 yusenend tw od? BO yd llidkbere
#2 ovest bivow of qyifamoemwg alegnl euwet od of bobrodat onew
apd ag at beveviiod hme dnal eted0 apnsG ond of oer
oad to tetdese aaw. atl dad? beltidend youolm 4M paeols
bh gow 2h dad thenode $2 Lhsew G6 ho neldoete odd tedte dined
gisid test? bos juned off to eeden erld to aohenbaadg eva GF °Yoib
eMolaaveveg ald nt eves anw ofan
dass ,hedeta atotedered eyed ow ao «dank ade to ebige wi
29 noliuooxe oft sortie wiob ton «eed ativan aus ene ay
at gistorog dashsotod eine oted@ egmtd pdt of ofan of? Yo yxevE
of Yreviteh apinsh etivou te éivebl Th: ost eran’ sande watt
ad yreviloh le looug salen Od bociupex of Middahale walt 4 TrivmtaE
bing nt noliagoile edd mo brand Yidiacotas at seomvys wie Ske
berxeeaexs xo heerohne wren Mert seek Stow oft salle" .vivubE Ee
belt Sack Anta don 0b OW Mplnah otete eget oy od fem bia
adt Yo Yreviteb atiasbustab' to tained a stowe modudtianen won nyo
_ dgvre to TBbiatalg Yd teow bextupen ve anak eted8 sgntt ons Py Doe
ald? Leoqqs teing edd mo todd teongua, dpanwoo a'dnobaeted ’ :
ered? ,eton odd od oLtt? Anged bad Tittnietq dads nbaiiaatin® gio
st ogivbnt of wen atesdts at xom inoqge seme? edd m9 nokendoo ON Gow
os? Jo Latneh belidcevy a 20 eomecda edd i. snodtqaveen dove "yan y
est go sew 24 sokanenseg seedy at aooysq edt of eton asd To erovttes
“xevileh somwaenmy wak of8 gisigwend) natcibhien ihe :
7) bo anhapemnnin. nth ath tego k on ak tammettemt ed ometoe
weovised . Sanoisneiai bie bliev a qsoereds atangge orients coed yteag :
eB8 tag 46 180). amwoils af yrexdmes acd thd idansiceel, i eae eb 4
homuaong of Litw qreviied (seedusate tewtveil ntomblit ot ified ,
, Saat eens uiueq ad? te solanonen ad? mi vegiol om eh odiom mle exesly f
han .o0lg bebtdzay Xe Aetneh Unmorgae at $4 sane 12 ae wenomy
as ¢revifoh gatvesq to mobrud otf of tug eG Eiiw Ytvniety af FE ‘tit
‘ett
te
a part of his prim, facie ease. (Bippus v. Vall, *eExtexocpyes
230 Ill. App. 633.) It was defendant's name that uppeared on the
nete as ites meker and Jesse Binga’s name did not appear thergon
at alle In the ebsenee of his eworn denial of delivery defend-
ant should not have been allowed to offer «idenee on that subjeet.
It was not in issue. Ye alhere to our opinion on the prier appeal
of this cause, General Neo. 36027, appellate court, first district,
wherein we held:
"The plaintiff seeks te reverse the judgment on the ground
that the judgment of the court is controry te lew and the ovidenee.
®@ think there ts merit in thie contention. Unless the defendant
has a defense to the note it is a matter ef no consequence whe ie
the equitable owner of the note. Upon this recerd we would net be
warranted in holding that the ¢efendent hao shew any defense te
the note. The evidence clesrly discloses thut the note ia payable
te the Binga State Genk and that plaintiff is the legel holder
thereof, end his possession is evidence that the debt mentioned in
the note is an exicting liability te the person in possession of
the note, antitled to receive it thereof. (Bivin ve Bebee one
S26 Tlie 285, 288, and exwew cited.) 4 suit on a promliesocy note
iz fig ge brought im the name of the persen in whom the legel
title of the nete is vested, ani it is a matter of ao consequence,
60 far as the defendant is concerned, who way be the equitable
owner if he has no defense to it (Caldwell v. Lawr G4 Tlle Lely
Tome eetes 3 111. 50%, 310), » thie is true only shere
( Sacer. 2 8 AO Bory ae rg the equitable omer.
Ve e APpe e
coe ant @ase was decided by the trial court solely
upem the theery that the note was the property of Jesee Binge, which
feot we de net deoide.*
Plaintiff wae clearly entitled te Judgment on this note.
The judgment of the Municipal court is reversed and judgment is
entered here in faver of plaintif? and against defendant for
$2,018.75.
JULGMENT REVINSED AND JULEMENY Hut,
Yriend, °,. Tos and Seanlan, Jo,» concurs
ea
SS
eR Ln «Y su) soa00 gion? gata wlit Ye dag 2 ;
efit no Botapage sad? oman atinabeotod enn #r (809 +46 “sket oe”
seetedd ineqga dom bib pene a*apnke eae bre Tesem ait ne ofen
cbugteh yxeviste Xo Latuoh mrows ais te eonvads oat mi hers ja
abn dire ted? no eonebive rorte es bowels neste west gon blwode ma
Laoqgga tol ei? mo potnige % me 2 esentha oP ‘seuuel al ton ‘paw dt”
gioixdelh Surk® qtawoo odakleqge T8008 sat Lavenod eseane ‘adild %
anit tbo ‘ow mtoredw
mcrae, amach ot trees tf ce RAYS usa
Amabuetes ode Pe Me giastene oi dt agen cif st al ym
Ro biver o» b20 oe bigoes aisia + peg’ oon ootan at te Tonwe m siathape ta
ae sesh Che needs tnt Suabmoteb: eft “Gadd ebhiod ph bedmexsan
oetahiee add saad near yiraels pane ype od
8) ie Yaget he ak Y?iéniely tacky tas dued
mettre ideb “st. serie? eoeeb ve ot eee ot motene
feneoeng mi monseq ete oF eertidais
sdoigadi Abe! etovtedt? smemysq evionet
* simety 2 wo ¢iue A Ca tet ke nanan: 3
fagot ods mode wi aeezeq edt to omen orf? ml
sonrensoends om to tedden @ at sh bas wet!
sooner Seo tia tetas ne eae
vast Bho" anetees Se abegale SUP Sh sat ty
as
@
‘, toned @kéatinpa aft. 4
*
afes ¢xweo Knee afd wl eb saw
pe eagke sauek te Weqere ead ang s A
te s ; J +nHbe b
eden ahs pe amsomoul oF pear einen ane oy VibAmbekS
me ee ae aie
“2 emote nsoves ok deans, doesent aft te moe
aot ¢entretob dankage bee Tedsata, te xovet mt ened avian
i Sa a ;
et alae. Rs
ale *
Bish & SR yet t
y me mamta cn
Gree wats
ok os Sh
(Oh tam 48 Os} oevode ope oli pornos tae wk f mre
an iT ght ee aq
4 ‘ ‘" R . ' ' >? ‘a
Baa, FRR RR ae 3 i scalll "
ee at 2 eeodew ak we wbnay a
? tay pe ite Paine oe ae asta
37595
RHTSRPRISE TRANSFSR COMPANY,
& corporation,
foal
Ke
Appellant»
< APPBAL FROM CIRCUIT couRT,
AMA TRENTADUE PAVIA OK ON. |
MR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DLLIVERS) THE OPINLGCW OF THE COURT.
The Enterprise Transfer Company, plaintiff, filed a
eomplaint in chancery February 1, 1954, to perpetunily enjoin
Sune Trentadue Yavia, her agents and servants, from enforcing the
eelieetion of a judgment obtained by herin the Guperior court of
Cook county (hereinafter for convenience referred to an the
Superior court) Deeamber 16, 19335, in a common law action entitled
“Anne Trentadue Favia v. interprise Trenpfer Company, a corporations
Gen. Yee 582826." An order for a temporery injunction wes entered
February 2,5 1934, revtraining defendant from enforcing or attempting
te enforee her superior court judgment, Upon filing her answer
Yebruary 17, 1934, defendant presented « motion for dissolution of
the temporary injunction and fer the dismissal of plaintiff's com-
plaint for went of equity, which motion wee sustained by the court
in an order entered April 7, 1934. This appeal seeks to reverse
that order. . | |
Plaintiff's complaint alleged inter alis that Pebruery
7» 1920, one of ite trucks was involved in an accident 24 or near
the intersection of Grand and Racine avenues, Chicago, in which
defendent then about six years of age was injured; that at that
time pleintiff earried liability ineuranee on the truck in question
eat > ‘4 / ‘ 4 bea
me : : , ‘4 ' © m Ls
5 y ae A me , . ¢ ‘
te % i
" a a ‘
} - $s. % S
3 .
‘ ct
mie’ "RAGES EAST
gteld:
zg , ' efnalingaa i
eTRVOD TIVOMTO MOAT TAMIA ‘ont ; a peat 6
. oe
ny eo epi
2 " a oALVAR muaAEHOHE area
J389 iy Si 1 evs. poten yt tar Se ak slik cll
smo WF MO KONE MOT cued MAREE OTTO f
mw boktt , Tebentety — pihinaitn seingionien ott “08 sa it
tik Serene HONE, of mii. mma ini aqme
sen saree Spatial 9 Vall hea 4088880 48
be
gutiquodts <0 gatsto le mor? Isabew tod palatarseer Peer, +8,
‘enene seek gekl?t tog » devant birt tame xolnogue oul vere
te sobdwLoowih sot notion » besneucsy smshnored eee att Ye
~moo e't2béntate ‘Yo tasataath oi wot tas notenuist
teneo on? yo honistoava sew wot tom Sots eWlups te énew tot dntelg —
eursvet of atese Leoqqe att been it tira bewine tebto on.ah,
tebe femlbe
ae ged? ghia sedek bopetta ‘dmdalques ‘wtrtbentate
speck | i Tag
taon “Oo te inebiooa na ok beviovnl aay adewxd abt to ono 0080L av
doidw ot youavidd ycounove safc baw beat) to moltooatotal edt
Gakd te deste jheuwint sow eye to etewy xte dxodn mosis omen.
aotteoup at stewts ef? mo coneruant WekLidaks holxtso st saad an
Re
with the Belt sutemebile Indemity Association (hereinafter referred
to aw the Belt Assectation) and made a report to it of the accident;
thet plaintiff was not informed at the time of the apecifie disposi-
tion made by the Belt ‘ssociation of the claim in behalf of defendant,
whose then name was Anne Trentadue, end kmew nothing further ef such
Glaim until it was served with a summons to appesx ae defendant at
the September, 1932, term of the superior court in the couse in that
eourt heretofore referred tos} that *hen such summons wie received
plaintiff wos not informet and did not know that defendant here,
(plaintiff there), Anna Trentadue Vavia, wes the sume <a Trentadue
whe had been injured in the eccident of February 7, 1920, and, because
of the long lapse of time, had no reason to suspect that she was; that
an investigation diselosed that the superior court action was instie
tuted by the seme person whe was injured im the aforesaid aecident,
after she had attained her majority and had married one Joseph Farin,
and was predicated upon that accident; thet im 1930 the business of
the Belt Association was purchosed by the Belt Casuclty Company (heree
inafter referred to as the Belt Company), and that after the said
summons wae served upon plaintiff in the superior court action it
encountered great difficulty with the letter insurance company due to
the fact that twelve years had intervened between the date of the
accident and the commencement ef the superior court actions that plaine
tiff immediately motified the Belt Company of the pendeney of the
superior court ection and that company advised plaintiff on behalf
of itecif and the Belt ‘ssociation that 1t could find ne record of
any claim ever having been presented to it on behalf of sum Trentadue
against the interprise Transfer Company, that no record could be found
of any poliey of liability insurance having been issued to the Untere
prise Transfer Company, and that it refused te defend the suit and
Gisclaimed any lisbility in connection therewith.
Plaintiff's bili further alleged that it engaged its
bertolst xed tantored) motinteones yelommbel eLtdometus thoi ate ote
iimehioon ad? te #2 of d4eqet « oham bom (moltutpoueA ¢fot ocd ae oF
nkeoqels oliieeqs odd te oats af te bowse'tert fom wow Miles ail:
- ahttntoeted Yo kinked mi miefo edt te notinkoova sLet od? yd phan mole
Mowe to taddewt paleiton woml bra ,eubetnetT am aew omen neg? eaedw
ta Yen bae he b as tanqge od sone = d¢kw hevves wa G2 Chem etitite
test? qh oxmeo ost mi dtyoo sobveque enfd “te wtsd . Seer cnioten ons
bevieosy et seme dows nedw dads ged hevte'bet ero losored a x99
| gbxed dnsbaoted got work tan bib ban. hemrdint ton aaw Tiidhbaty
eubed tex? anh wane old now ealvall subadmwe? anid e(oredd Viddebatg)
wemnoed phan 080K ef YraredeT Yo dnebioon ‘odd mi boustat mved bail ostw
Gaui? yeow wile teat tooqam oF AoRAOT om had yeah, Yo enaad amok ond Yo
a btend saw nolies Hare xolrwqua esd tod? bovetoalb mottnadsnomd a !
visontoon Bisvewois ex? at bowkat wow ew Kovreg wnen odd yet atu
eakvet agonal ono betvnam hail inn yttotew cou bowtadhe toil eit ‘bd te
re sone dau att ones at touts iaskiteee dant ~ epnainbndh oi
y
of ou eucgmD 9 ‘sonetuend medias aid as be bao 8A Sibu? biel my
edt te odnb ed poe a oe benevroant ‘bo eae cent eT say ’ ;
watate sat imate on gur9w rolvogrs ‘oat ‘he dann sbi han’ ret ition
oft ta yenehnog oat te wey” tee a5, eifemial preiiy
Bariod 0 Vitentety bow tybs aieamoe ‘ oi i wei aad ; ol 4 nom
baa od binoe prose on ‘tad enna? be
wt0 ais ~ soumad need aatvad eonacuant 2 ic’
sta ¢ bam ets betes of ‘renter én Sasta ‘bon «pega
_ ib twos mattvonson & at mbecuning= hn
se
own counsel, the superior court action wax trie’ and judgment was
entered against it December 16, 1935, for $1,900 upon the verdiet
of a jurys that immediately after the entry of the judgsent against
it plaintiff again presented the facts te the Belt Company, which
reiterated its peektien that neither it mor the Belt <esociation ever
iseued a policy covering the eleim, that it wave not liable, that 46
knew nothing of the claim and thet it had never compromised aor
settled it; thet beesuse of financial difficulties a reeolver was
appointed for the Belt Comseny emrly in January, 1934, whe thereafter
assumed charge of ite affaires; that it had searched the records of
the Probate court of Cock county te ascertain if eny mina catete on
behalf of ‘nna Trentadue had been ereated and could find none; and
that it had been unable te seewre any information directly or indireet-
ly from the Belt Company or from any ether courese with roference te
the claim of Anna Trentadue or the aforesaid poliey of liability in-
surance issued to it by the Belt Aseociation.
: The bill of complaint alae averred that plaintiff finally,
after the expiration of the term at whieh the superior court judgment
was entered, reecived information that shortly «after the date of the
aecident, defendant, with her parents, moved from Chiceso to Fert
Wayne, Allen county, indiana; thet in the year 1921, upon his petition,
One Prank &. Hogan, a licensed practicing attorney of Fort Yayne,
Indiana, was appointed guardian of the person and the estate of the
minor, nna Trentadue, by the Probate division of the superior court
of <lien county, indiana, (hereinafter referred to as the probate
court); that, thereefter Hogan filed a petition in sid court, setting
forth that his ward was a minor child, that she had been injured by
Plaintiff's truek Pebruery 7, 1920) in the city of Chicago, that she
had fully recovered from her injuries, that the Belt \ssociation
‘Sarried Aiability insurance coverage on plaintiff's truck and that
it had offered $400 in full settlement of Anne Trentadue's claim
deny Samah, ome holed new mediem Pewee mokteqee eld (teunmeD AND
Pethrey vcd Moge OOF I? wet .kbUL gos todmsodd O24 santans boupine
fakings Jmempbhuy, of9 to yxice ef) tedhe yUstathommd tad? rexeh ake.
toide yyenqme? 20% ed? of etoe? oct? betnesetg shegs Thidakadg 2h
Wyo roliakooes) tek aft som tt cedetom oaks metsteeg ath hedaresten
th tet? qoidati des onw a2 tate gutaly add gebueven wileg « hewned
Hor becimongaos yevec bad $2 tedt tua whole, ot? To gndddom weed
gaw sevionst « antifooltiib felenentt te paaesed dost 10h, bektaoe
rotiagreds ouly ,hQk ayrounsh mi ylcae yueqmoed def ead cot betntogae
Me GbxboOT od Hesioxeen bak HL dat aweiette ath Ro eyrato: homwnee
to otateo emia yt Ik nletrteesa oF Yowen Aoo0 Lo, dio etedext ads
bea poner batt Aiuoo bue hetaens ged. a ORES,
| | stooret heat To Yitooul motion tet vee omwene OF otdany mond palatial
at songtotes Aeiw soimee tedte yr mont TO YalegmOn (Phok old a
mith WELGakL to Yotlog biapexels ed’ xe exbagmoat pans to malo. gf
-— smodgatooans ged of? wl tt of towns » seme
vetent® wat enbat tat herieva cals tatelgnoo to abe a nea
earn sp |
Ri ee
Se
-
. Fee '
iP “ye
emer sot te wrwite pabodévang seansotd s sega ! semis
Rass |
_mohiatyouns . thet edd tat 5 abet me a. Bororeons hiMe ty
fat? baa dows? oDkinkely me oRexevos sonmumnd yobttdal,
shale atoubatnoxt aah, ‘ey junmnks hoe Liste
owhe
against plaintiff, the “nterpriese Transfer Companys that said pro-
bate court authorized Nogan as quardian to accept the offer of
settlement of the Belt Association and execute «= release eompletely
discharging plaintiff from Anna Trentadue’s claim againeat it as a
Tesult of said accident; that the Belt Auso¢iation paid $4600 te Hogan,
whe executed such release; that the minor's estate ie still open, the |
Guardian's compicts and final account of the disposition of the funds
in his hande as such gusrdian never having been Tiled; that -nna
Trenatadue, the minor in «state Noe 1596 in the probate court, and
Anne Trentadue Fevia, plaintiff in the action im the superior court,
im whieh the judgeent sought to be enjoined wae antered, are one and
the same person; that the “nterprise Transfer Company, defendant in
the action in the superior court and the “nterprise Transfer Company,
in whose behalf the settlement and the release of Anna frentadue’s
Claim was authorized by the prebate court, are one and the same core
perstien; that it was unable to present the aforesaid sctiloement and
Telease az a defense to the action im the superior eourt becnuseys
although it exereised due diligenee, it did not scquire knowledge of
the preceeding in the probate court until after the chuge wae tried
and judgment entered in the superior court and the term had expired
at which it had been entered; that its inability te secure informati on
eeoncr con¢erning sald relense yao due to the long lapses of time from
Februaty 7, 1920, when the accident eceurred, to September, 1932, when
the gummone in the action in the superior court wes returnable, te the
purchase of the Belt Association by the Belt Company and the statement |
of the lntter company that it had ne record of any claim of Anna
Trentedue against plaintiff or ef ony liability coverage issued toe
Plaintiff by the Belt Association, to the fact that plainti¢¢ had no
record of the elaim, policy er anything perta ining vo the accident,
amd te the fnet that it had no knowledge of defendant's remevel te
indiana that January 25, 1924, it presented its awarn petition te
-ety Dias dad syunqued setemetT cefagtote odd ¢TYtentely Snallige i
Yo sotto aft tyeoss of mebbuem pa megol bextcodsun Gree Fad
qeveLomoe seealet 2 stusexe brs nekislonaa) def ate Lo tremetétou
| | A ee at tentane nialo «'subedgex? anmA awh Ttitntel¢ poyeaiteats
gos of OUDF Bing motseteonnd s£ok ont tad admebtooe baw te etiier
olf amaqg Llige of efotes a'iemte pA? tert (seaeten dow Desmoene’ Gite
ations’ ed? 2 mottiveqeih afi to sryogne Lent? dra-etelquoe ated iting
ath. tot {hedet goed anivad woven makbuony coud am éhetnd wkd eh
bee tp? etadorm ont ne ACE 40K edaden at tome od osatnOe
| vt u09 selsoque add alt pottos ef? at Diidntaly ,alval eubadnee? mnith
bao eno 9x# ,betesHe sow bentolne ed od saiguen theagbul ede medatw ib
as snasa0%6s aienqwe? tetanett eetrexedny eld seatt twowteq’ ome GHd
eg? wolenex? eubiqregny edd haa dupe zolwgee etek abate Oe
_fenbaines) uma te onselex edd bem tnomelises ost tieded ottde at
~z00 cus ods Om ONO 9% situeo etadon, elt yd benirodius dow mate ;
bite tremelitoe hiseeve%s off teeeenq of eidanseod $2 Jace qnOkiaee
seawoced sxuOe tokteque sft ob mottos afd os ganetob a tm demetet —
te sBoeTwons ettupon don bib 2 senmegitio oud hevtorone #2 agwelttte
belt van oenep eld caste £iims davon edadoug oni he yaasennle alle
berigas had sive 9 sid ban gxueo velteque elf mt hewwtne tnomyhii'h’ bak”
Be Hasso ed asugre OF ¥arstdan}. atk sald (hexotns mead bed ee ae
‘mort emis 0 pomad amet odd od exh sew couelor Shon ‘xmeseianos wane6e”
wesw tees eodane Ged 8 -dereNeOe doobtoee silt mode yOROL ae
‘S
i
eat ot aP.domtird ox now Swoo <otxegue estt mk moigon os mk enoeme with
donated a eat bans utngnio® thot ofd yt nolss
oom "te mine yan Te depot gm, had, $2, fait, xsocsen:xeatnt it
a) hewent saereyos Wilidetl wo Yo co Thkdmiade er oe
ait bat vitniade adit toot estd of, siasidaMlonacai pb sho
~Se
the Superior court of Cook county containing s11 the facta heretofore
eet forth, and moved that court to vacate and set seide the judgment
entered therein agninet it December 16, 19335 that upon the heoring
on ssid motion the trial judge informed plaintiff (defendant there)
thet it lacked jurisdiction to vaeate the judgment "for the reason
that the term time had passed * * * he could grant no relief," but
allewed plaintiff to file ite petition in euppert of such motiong
that defendunt (plaintiff there) and her agents knew of the proceeding
in and the approval of the aforesaid release of the Snterprise Transfer
Company by the probate court and frawiulently concealed such facte
from pisintiff and the trial judge in the ¢ause tried in the superior
court wherein she secured the judgment against pleintiff; ant that,
wnlees a perpetual injunction is issued to restrain the eaforeement
of much judgment, plaintiff will suffer irrepareble demage. Plain-
tiff's bili concluded with a prayer for a perpetual injunction to
reatrain the onforeanent of defendent's quperior court judgment.
As heretofore stated plaintiff escured a temporary in-
junction Yebruory 2, 1934, restraining defendant from enforcing her
judgment, and Fobruary 17, 1934, defendant presented hear motion for a
diseolution of such temporary injunction and fer the dismissal ef
Plaintiff's bill of complaint. Om the same day defendant filed her
answer «
inasmuch es we have fully set ferth the relations of the
parties ae alleged in plaintiff's bill of complaint, we deem it
ummecessary to state the averments of defendant'c answer other than
thet she charges that she was seriously and permanently injured as
a result ef the accident in questions thet neither she, her parents
mor amyone else in her behelf received the $406 or any part thereof
paid for the alleged settlement of her claim and for the releae¢ dis-
charging plaintiff from liability on account of seme; that the amount
of the elleged settlement ws wholly inade uate to compeneste her for
gainswc offi woqy gad} GSROE YOL todawont 9F gontege mtotads: bomedmm.
(execs anobnetes) TAttubeds bomcetnt vgbwt Letv? oft) m0) dom biea to
: ” geaset odd sot" smeapbut offs wiaeav OF moktobewhret Uattont 2 pads.
ae aA ce 2 ee ee ne ee
gro ktont denn Ro Ptoqquil st nokeRey a9d BLED os Sekdehety hemetoe,
gnibesssig odd Ye work sénwys rex hee (Seats Ritdetete) dovdneioh sett
totanstT wdlxqxoint ed te ensvivs bleserete edd So Levexgga etd L laa
atest cone heLeeones YLineLubuost dem smutoo edadarq ost yh
wodveqta ed tt ite oitind “ele iat ona Anchen cectctegn Seabee
adndd fue {Yilontele tundogs dmompbut odd reurvon oda mhozedy Pmoy
* Snenoore te eot¢ ciordest of bomaut at nelévautet teutequeg a aneine
antare -ogenh efdareqeert wittow Litw vibdmtede tne ee fod
"9s mottonwtnt Lavdouteg « 26% sogitg oid te behutonoe LLG ath
. a tesoabst dts09 Tohreque atanhneten te fnonmoxotae aut mbatdoer
sith
onl Yxateqms? e betes Ttiintaty bedabe eroretewed BAe oo) ot
‘wi gntotolns mort fachsb'tes peietowdwor (d8eh Ge growsdat im
2 08 not som ‘rea bodnoedeg Snobretet ghee UL ytewsde ttm: etnomgbat
"te Eeoaimeth ocd sot bua nod saith yxetogmes dome: beams soc
hl.
° Shee ater
7 ould ‘Ye enviietox ted di uet Yes UtWY evad ow ve hove get whe vii nee ;
| $h mov ew gintalgmon to fle a *t2beatale at boyetio ae
| patlt xedddo tesuks a Mmdno teh 20 etme wis ofnde OF e
ao berwial uLtnemeriog te Vlauelwws wow ere tess vogue of ted :
strotag sat ,ote soddter Sead taoltuoup #2 Saw com aefd Ye theme a
” Season? dng yte re O08 ade coubeoes Whecow “cel mb wake we
oretosorad edont alt fe gutntetass yeasen dood Ie ¢xime modeeqeR Ome.
iMempiy(, eid ebian toa ban atebaw oo tteo dad hover Sue altwot foe
ot bate? sebretod ws dam of8 #O .dakatynoe to eaeiaionemnaell
;
/
sath enosiox od? cot tne abel red Yo Snomeltion Bogette edt HOt dike ¥
duuomn odd Ads Yommn te tatoos’ HO YPELOLL moxd “Uebemlady
wet xed otaasbquoe Of ati ehunt vLedw saw deeme.£9900 ae
-6-
her injuries; that neither she, her parents nor anyone acting in
her behalf had any knowledge of the creation of the minor's eutate
in her name in the probate court or of the appointment of Hogan aa
the guardian of her person ani her extatej thet Hogan's petition for
appointment eas guerdian of her person and her estate, his appointment
ag such, his petition for leave to settle her claim, the order of
court authorizing the settlement for $49 saad Hogan's release of her
claim for that amount in the proceeding in the prebate court, all
tranepired without the knoviledge, consent, approval or cuthority of
defendant or her parents, and with knowledge that defendant had a
meritorious cause ef aetion; that the Belt Association was plaintiff's
agent in the matter of the alleges settlement and releace, and plain-
tiff is chargeable with ite agent's knowledge of the facts pertaining
to such settlement ond relesse: that plaintiff feiled to use due
diligence in that it did net present ite sllegsi defense of the afora=
said settlement and release in the trial of defendant's action against
it in the superior courty and thet sche had no knowledge of the guardiane
ship proceeding in the probate court when she filed her evuit in the
euperior court.
Defendent filed with her anewer the affidevit of her father,
Ralph Trentedue, whieh asserted that he was not accuninted with Mogany
that neither he, his wife, nor eny menver of his family had oither
personally or otherwine engaged or autherized Hogan to act as guardian
for his deughter, then Anna Trentadue; thet he did not engage any
person to handle any claim for her against plaintiff or any insurance
company; that he had no knowledge that eny such claim was being made
ageinst plaintiff; ani thet he was net aware of the procee/ing in the
probate court or of the approval of the allege’ settlement ani release
of his deughter Anna's eleim by that court.
Plaintiff's reply to defendent's ansver alleged inter alia
that defendant and her parents had knowledge of its policy of Liability
Sh gaisoe enous see simoreg tel sorta teddton sams Feodrutat tad
Sietae atxomle edd Yo moitawxe poly 20 mabelworcl yom has Minded rod
(8 Hagel to dnemintougs os 29 xo fon stadeng alt Bi omnm rod mt
20% mpléiovg @'magell dass (atadae ted bas apazeg sod Yo mathrany, ode,
Sammi nioggs ais nist ~otades cer Ska aooteg ted to salotasy ae Sue toqga
Yo tohxo add «adele ses alison of evaed tod notsking sla siowa, 98,
(sma to sasaloe wiamgok has 0Ch) sol soomelstos ext salolronsus frre,
a iia viwvee edadong odd af gatheeoory ead mi teyame tect ete
ta “te yatxadine xe Lavexgas eSxonmon ,opboLwont edt duos be:
bad éanbow lod dads epretwoms Atte baw yatemrag xed 19 seadmerod
e'TsMmtats esx moLtatoona) te od tad? imotdoa Yo pauae. evolroftren
‘i oatalg bre «easels hou, 2nemolt2 ee Depekta. edt Yo tedgam odd mi bic
| anintasteq atoat edd Lo ogbotvond a'énope att dttw efdoonrads eh 2229
3 ext eer of balint Mesndalg dads yoasoles bas Reber hs! Lata
| cowoke baad te eane eb boyetie ash _smoeeeg. fom Bib ot todd Sil eonoye tse
| , tantega sa2ton a tdnwiine to bd fatx8 odd at ensetes Aes ayant sdos Pes 4
mnaibese of! Yo ephofwor om bad ody foxd dna 424¥99, ep tact , ea
ese mh ghvn cot betty one SE ore apres
jaagek ste Setutoupse son aor ot ‘tosto ‘hetsoenn paren ‘ une pd ane - dg hah
wedifie bad «Liner edd te Levene yne tam ,eRiw als a redéton 4 us a
Sakbiswy se tos of papel bealzedine 10 bomagem oulersdag 18 y X 2
Wu egoues fon bib at dads poubsdmanT sash sod, vert th an
wommxuent qin tO ‘itvaletl deantoge van wt stele wae elbuad o
oham pated saw miele dows qa tad saretwent on had od 4
ald Ag gathossoty ord to ogaws gon anv ad dad? dam cntennate, &
easele x tne Insuelitos pogetia ett Io Lavengge od? to to ten of
_ sbsame deald yt mato conden
side mot, hogan Tovaae etinabmeted ef Ylans p'Xthintelt al
WiLMdatL to yoMog edi Yo eprolwoms bad agmotag tod hae age? i
|
|
|
|
Pate gag a 2 hg
Po
insurance and of the procesdings in the probate court; thet said
court had jurisdiction of defendant and of her estate, and that ite
orders are in full foree and effects that the payment ef [400 in
plaintiff's behalf to Hogan, defendant's guerdiam, and the execution
of the release of plaintiff's liability by him is a complete bar to
the right of defendant to any recovery under the judgment obteined by
her in the superier court, and that defendant is bound by the orders
of the probate court; that it was net guilty of laches or negligence,
but used due diligence in endesvoring to obtain information congerne
ing Anne Trentadue Faviea and te ebtain the records and files per~
taining to the settlement of her claim ageainet plaintiff in the pro-
bate court 20 that enme might be presented s« a defense to her action
in the superior court; and that for the reasons heretofore stated in
ite complaint it was prevented from eo deings
On the hearing of her motion to dissolve the temporary
injunetion and te dismiss pleintiff’s complaint, defendant intro-
dueed in evidence her sworn answer, the affidevit of her father,
Relph Trentadue, and certain letters, the contens of which it is
unniseensary to recite, Plaintiff intredueed in evidenes ite sworn
complaint, its sworn reply to defendant's onawer, and an suthentieated
and exemplified copy of the preeesviings in the probate court, include
ing Hogan's petition for leave to compromise the minor's claim for
$400. Attached to this petition were three letters, one from H. He
Budd of the claim department of the Belt ‘eseciation, offering $400
in settlement of defendant's claim, one from an attorney for the
Legal Aid Bureau of the United Charities of Chiesgo, refusing te
recommend the acceptance of the Belt Aseveciation's offer of $400
im settlement of suid claim, and a subsequent letter written by the
general superintendent of said Legal Aid Bureau to Hogan, recomnending
the seeeptance of the Belt <esociation's offer of settlement. Certain
other letters were alse received in evidence, which have no bearing
tidinn tual scene at aden ads ab apnt heeoory outs % bas cr sonal
att sais bme gododow xa ko base Stiebretoh Ye notentbartet hast t109
i oad Yo trmaryeq esté dnt ttootte ‘baa orok List at oxa wxabee
eLIuvoxs ade bre staldroig n'dnabnoteb ‘singe ag Lintot wm MYREDE ake
os ee adolqmes a ok mid <a wi hikdats a'Ytdenatg c oaankon * eas ‘te
W bemtsséo smomgrut od robs yrovooe t wun 88 dmabno'teb te tight
atenre ost ye hanced ak drahee tod deskd bee efrw09 “tolsmue odd ma
| eoomeg tL Kye “0 sestoad te Wikies ton aaw of fasta t¥cus09 otedosg oad oaithe
weToOse% mod saxo od shod de e2 getsovsebee at onegtitb oub gous u ud
_ "R0G WeLE? bee wbxooet anly nLaddo of tne abeat owhatnenT xh ch one
HU ae i
eM outs at TU fataty sani ogs miato od te trometitos ‘wae of
¢ CUR vB ‘ay wk 5 ER ae
nel 990 to os oonvteb a uz bednonerg od data tm Oey tk dexid on gos
cha fee
‘a bedate owrosored anounot ait xo fasts brs ye1w09 rolrequa oid oath
spntos oe ast hotneve sy ol ah eniaguoe “eit
a = r , ao hie
2 lh th
etaToguies odd evienait ot ne teu 0s to oebsvedt ote WO
BA So Ris, FN St 4
rows tuobnotes cinta kenes ottimbate avant ‘et bne .
ateedbat ved 2 sivablite ed? «xewans wrpwe red ‘Sauobive 1 at beoxd
we ‘4 ae Br a
at 2 doldw to vine 22100 este putedaod ulsdme ‘ban * . detent 1
ar xa bged
_ tere adt oumebor ne herein pore rs gl Re spregdh ee ,
“obutost aimee etaderq ott "nt agntbeosezg peat wee mr a
wt minio 0 ‘sean oad roe § od eset t aot moisten atidgh ~?
ne gL IE Te ali ©
sll aahxotte attoteatoonss ‘bed ond to pee ret ) out 3
galt 10% orrotia no soxt ono guiate wdnabneteb Ye trouve a's a)
7 gakavtos soyooidd to ‘webs iadld ‘bed ha wend ba dovotesh aed 1
“ood to wite a*noktatooush tot odd to women: coe 08 1
“gil we medeixw wad des smmupsediue s bes sitet tao te jntcbsil , savy, |
Bil Lemme oot amagol oF smawnse bbe Loge btse be pee ate ron
Chien + diemelt doe Xe Yo etaoldabsoans tet oud tes ponetqvons oi
=8<
on what wo consider to be the real iesue in this cause,
tt ie enrnestly urged that the appreval by the probate
court of the settlement of defendant's claim against plaintiry
om account of the accident im question, and the autherization of
the release of plaintiff from liebility on such elaim upon the
payment of $400 by the Belt Association, constituted a defense to
defendent's action in the saperior court and a complete bar to her
recovery sgainst plaintiff in that action, and thet plaintiff eannot
be cherged with negligenes in failing to present this defense to
defendent’s action in the superior court inasmuch as it sas diligent
in its effort ta obtain information or knowledge of the proeeeding in
the probate court appreving the settlement and release, but same was
unaveiling for the rensone set forth in ite complaint until after the
expiration of the term in which judgment was entered against it in
the superior court.
The 301% Asseeliation was plaintiff's agent in effecting
the purported ee and release, and it is sufficient to state
in anewer to the/ contention that the lew imputes to the principal,
and charges him with, all notice or knowledge relating to the sub-
jeot matter of the ageney which the agent acquires er obtains while
acting se such agent and within the scope of hia sutheritye This
rule docs not depend upon the facet thet the agent hed diseloeed the
knowledge or informetion to his principal, but the law conclusively
presumes that he has dome so and charges the princigel accordingly.
When once notice has atteched the fact that there is no occagion to
act upon it until after the agent through whom it was acquired has
eeased to be euch, or has changed his position, will be immaterial.
This is equally true if infermation once had is forgotten or un-
aveileble or the principal hes no longer any knowledge of the facts
or record of them. (2 Meohem on Agency, sece 1813, page 1597.)
Se in this ease plaintiff is chargesblie with knowledge of
the alleged settlement and release as of the time same was made 4m
soaurg wtdd mt event Leoy gale o¢ of sebtanoo ow tone ao
: otatery eit yd Lovorqua ent Sad? bogey yLdesavee ef dt |
" Wetdmkede somkape mage aymchastod Yo dmsmeleten edd to! due
19 molisetsodvus ext baa wolyooup at tmrbtogs edt Xo tnwegge mo
eed nequ mhete stove me Wilidelt mort tidtmtalg %¢ evaptest ed?
r peared « batuitienoo «metisioowas tek og? yd OSG To soomyeg
, - aat of tad efetqame o hae sameo telsegye odd mt mpigos e "eee
Ponmny Vitintaty sad? dae ywotign tad wk Yimtesg dente vareee: |
i of esnsted ald sxonexq of guiiint at sanegiigen sity begreato od
Meg ith saw 62 on downass txupn wettoque ed se notion a! ‘Inabaotes )
. wt gribessosg osld Be og be. front to Boldamxe hat kaddo ot a rette, adh mt
| naw emus tad yoeoetot dae tmomeLt ten ould palverqes dxwe9 Rein h c.|
ens weds Lidous sateLquoo ees mt ssxot Joa snoenex od 292 nitbe
at ak tantage betedne ane srempbe | ito Lite oi mrad end 0 solsatiqne
: satHe9 no ogee ote
4 guttestie nt inoge er ritemtosy | aon no tatoosas Lok, set sip wade te
eénte of ane teth ing ad a bone onsoier ues doom tease than §
svods —
efag tonttg etd 02 wo suaaid wad oat sta no dénesa0 | \eue #4 [
, Werk Sateen se
“sw odd od yuidalex wine Less * “god ten Lis lab tit 2e%
a ofte: onstodde oy sethupos dawns eatd ho bsie wore ett = “ft
wend, dogs ib. "
~ ult benofoath bat doops eile sade tot one oa 7 haege son B a0 ho,
Usvtonfona» was oaks au stoghoat my aust Co nottearo%nt 0 e "
amen) ok
uly
AN Tae" ¥
bs
of
Jot leet 4
it one ned i
,: - nes
,
}
fade tant od Libw reid inog stat egos aad oo how os a .
8h jan!
ae NR apd sopto? at bas oome sot faurz0 at tt omnd '
bie Sea ve
adoat od? te epbelvons ys regmot on ‘anid fog toning Pedy ‘
ge lt tik opie ean PES: cha
(eet ‘veg SHE oone 1 ong no sontowi 8) snot
te ogbetsons id ke e.Ldaeqeaato ak Mibéwtada come aut st. 0 i
my he ws hile t
’ Tk What naw Gime wud di th un enoeiira ton foamed dias oak
ad sodasooe on at exeda ‘tnas ‘tout ond + axons ta “ ‘eaiten
i ae
its behalf by the Belt Association and to be of any avail it was
incumbent upon it to present same as a defense te defendant's
action in the superior court. Plaintiff who secks to retain the
benefit of the settlement claimed to have been made in its behal?
by ite agent cannot be heard to say that it has or had no knowledge
of such settlement. Weither plaintiff's alleged diligent but we
availing search for information concerning the settlement and release
of defendant's claim, the aale of the Belt Association's business,
the failure and refusal of its successor, the Belt Company, to co-
operate with plaintiff or to recognize its obligation as insurer and
to furnish it with information as te defendant's claim and the
settlement of seme, the long interval that elapsed between the date
of the accddemt«» and the commencement of defendant's action in the
superior court, defendant's removal to Indiana shortly after the
accident nor any of the other matters alleged and shown in ite
attempt to excuse its failure to secure information of the alleged
settlement and release in time to present same as a defense to
defendant's superier court action can be held legally suffictent to
overcome the presumption that plaintiff's agent's knowledge of the
settlement and release was its knowledge. Charged with this knowl-
edge, as it was, pleintiff was bound to assert such defense in
defendant's action in the superior court or not at alle
Under this rule, as established by an unbroken current of
authority, plaintiff is precluded from predicating a complaint in
equity to enjoin the enforcement of defendant's superior court judg-
ment upon its lack of knowledge of matters of which the law gone
mney gremenas 48. te have knowledge. :
the circuit court re Bases nag ec tDnahags Htc ae on pe Pa
Plaintiff's complaint for want of equity is therefore affirmed,
Friend, P. J., and Seanlan, J., conour. inv siniare
~e
aaw di levee Urs to od G2 baa moltakooned tLoe oud eo tLeded aot
“wtinabreted of éenetob S 88 Soak isabel ov f2 moqs staodawpank
od? Miatet of sdeoe omw Thidmtal? deseo welteque bd? At Koken
Riatled ati af ohem noed ove oF temtats tnemetiter add te titeoned
eghbelwankt of bert so sent 2f dad? eee 09 Breed ef Connie tnepe ofl yw
r wn ted toegtllh Segolin e’tiliataly seddtex .dnenelidoe dere to
i ouselns bre dnoamfitden oft anintopnos sokdamretad cot dersen gaiitern
| ganebtaud wtnotsatsona® 220% oft to oLee oft yadeto wdanhusteb te:
“eo od ,¢mequed Iie oft ycoanesowe ast to Lenw'tet bts oxeliet edt:
hae tenwent ae moltagiido ati sximgeosr ot 10 PMinkalq Mew eterege!
ged brea mba Lo a'inshnoleh of am igivontroted dete 22 datiewt of
utab ett meovied heaqels tad? feviedek yaol off yomne “to Samnitdden’
‘edt m2 cotton e'tnohno teh Yo dnsmoronmoo orf? bin UaméBhoow eid ter
edd tosts yLitods ansthnl ef Levoater @ténabre'ted yoxsod “ebeeatiat
adt nt nwode bra begetis exediam tadde esd Yo Una TON snebiowle )
begeiin ed? Yo mo} Samcotud etuose of omfiet ati sauoxs of tqustta a
| ot senetod 8 8a enna tuonorq o3 emake at oasnters | hati bananteniene :
od smote Its VALeget bLoxi ed neo nolion dxweo rel %96 ‘ *
al? Yo opbotvort attmeys a tiidntetg basis moiigmreoa oad * ot
~fwort aid séiwv begrat? .egbetwomd ait aaw caaeler Sie tnedetiien
at sansteb dowa sroans ot bauod aew inital saw neem t . ;
_ skis ta ten to sxm00 xo rogue edit mt mottos 't ‘ise shee |
to ¢netuve sedorde ns vd bedetidedae aa yolus aldd ont esse Sam
at éntalguos o antinsthorg nox bebw.foo1g rT) ‘Ybeatery ‘ ie "
“gost, Pavo xpemere a 'tashro tes te saameorotae ade riko i %
s
|
svpbeiwoml avast of 2 as ong wh tovto
to ent »Steos orre. a
gureniwesd fens atte od gegen works
—5 Beretta exethereds ID got ay te pif ho mt
ERE aaa «8 _ stmsps0@ ah ametnes® bra y<% +!
b ve by ‘ : VTE Ghat abst Bt ' he
we Bixee Beets pay See ipa Sy
37622
WELLIAM BILLOG,»
Refendont in Srror,
ERROR TO SUPABIOR
GOURT, COOK COUNTY.
LADISLAV (alias Valter) POR: ry mn
and ANNA PORL Z 6 9 if 4
pe
Plaintiffs in Brrore. she O 3 6
MRe JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERSS THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Ve
This writ of error seeks te reverse an order entered
by the trial court September 2, 1932, denying defendants' motion
to vacate a judgment by confeesion for $2,500 entered against
them May 13, 1932.
Defendants’ verified petition to vacate the judgment,
filed September 1, 1932, is as follewst
“Your petitioners, Walter Pohl, also known as Ladisley
Pohl, and Anna Pohl, res otf ully represent unto this honorable
eourt that they are the defendants in the abere entitled causes
that on May 18, 1932, - judgment by confession upon a note was
entered in aaid cause in favor of the plaintiff and ageinest your
petitioners for $2500 including #200 attorney's fees; that a writ
of execution wae issued thereon on July 27, 1932, and was served
upon your petitioners on . 24, 19323 that on Auguet 20,
1932, your petitioners received a notice by mail from the sheriff's
office of Cook county stating that on September 6, 1942, by virtue
of an execution issued in favor of one Yilliam Silles he would sell
Lote 22 and 23 in Block § and Lote 47 and 44 in Bleck 2% all in
Grant Locomotive Yorks Addition to Chieage in Cook County; that
your petitioners are unable te read the “nglish language and there-
fore iumediately obteined translation of said notice and caused an
in uiry te be mate inte the nature of the above entitled suits |
that poe petitioners ere the owners of ssid Lets 47 and 46 and held
said Lots 22 end 23 in trust for one Thomas Mynar and Josephine
Mynar; that your petitioners did mot know of this osuse until they
had an opportunity to have said motice end summons ( execution)
looked inte by counsel and in their depleted financial circumstances
have veed oll ¢il to present this petition.
"Your petitioners further allege that they have a merito-
tious defense te the plaintiff's clsimg that the nature of your
petitioners’ defense the plaintiff's claim is se follows:
"That the signatures of your petitioners to the note
herein sued upon were fraudulently obtained from your petit lonerag
Se seid ae il 4 THBOD, .
aeou tress.
He,
:
CAG},
staiscalact: ath: hanare sik wistiadile Sell seme
weleiba.. en awoml onis .idet x jyemet ey me ‘
. pideeoiad 1 ald? ojns dnowetqex noi a eftio% s 7
{eseweo belting ons, ma
new oson # as fr) foniatg ® €.
corr eg
arr Re Bg Saf bS Senge
#*ttitede
outuhy ww 4 eer oY sodhgee ne
ifem ber 26 %.,
nt ifs Kl ds ree.
dane eydemed
~eteds ote — eee dle tt Wy tine ee etn a a
wy; te rie eotsen baa sat to gotiacenn add sie soe & on
_ ben ad at hms ha ores ou wei fest of ae be oo a
‘Gould ites a ris te wont |
(agiiieexo) ange yg prt gee ee
wented sau orto in Latenee’
| i) dneaore 04 eonegl te -
aotiwe « vad wails tat 03 eget cat ro
auey %O oiNdas |
tewollet oa ef mtato get iaeindadg pana lh
eton wld eo atenoldiveq «wey te ve Bands H eid Sect?
_ rome iiieq toy moxt beniedde ylineisbustt etew soqH boue
Se
20
that prior to the time of the execution ef said note, your
petitioners hed been informed by soid Thomas Mynar that sx id
Lote 22 and 23, (belonging te said Thomas Mynar and Josephine
Mynar, his wife), heé been conveyed to your petitioners for
purposes thet your petitioners did not understand at the time
and your petitioners were informed by enid Thomes dyner that
tw be necegsary for your petitioner $e. sha n 8
uments zegsnveying said. remisen to said Thomas yaa and
ace : . |
| is wife; that on or ebout May 3, 1: @
Ozephine iynar carte to the home of your petitioners and
introduced them te one James Jerna, whe your petitionere were
informed by said Josephine Nynar was an attorney and desired
She oh aes ture of your ptt loners to. sivergh vocunonte i Shek
seid Thomas end Josephine Mynar were old and trusted sean: nie
Sanees of your petitioners and your petitioners were unable te
wid documents, being unable to read the ne ish Tanguage.
d not understend the dovuments ox kaow their meanin
t_ your petitioners requested the nature of said documents
were informed J ne liynax, seid James Cerna
iiescing therein, that said documents meveby parte med te
a4 lots 22 and 3 the property of sxid “homas esephine
» 80 d in trust as aferesaids; and your petitioners
eolely relied upon said information and scqulescenee and
believed that said documents were necessary merely for the
réconyeyance of sald Lote 22 ani 33 ; and for thot purpose and
neo other purpose signed the same. (Italics ours.)
"Your petitionere furthe# allege that since the service
of said execution upon them they have been informed that their
aaid supposed reconveyanee of aaid lots so held in trust was in
fact the execution of the note herein sued ong that said note
vos obtained by fraud as sfeoresaid; that your petitioners are
mot indebted to the plaintiff in any sum; that at no time have
they reeeived, or has any one in their behalf reesived, or
obtained any money from the plaintiff, “illiam Billes, or any-
one acting in his behalf, or from Thomas Mynar, Joseshine Mynar,
ex James “orns; and: that at mo time pricr to the serviee of the
execution herein, as aforeszid, hed any ¢emand been made upon
them fer the payment of any money for or on account of the note
sued upon herein.
"Wherefore, your petitioners pray that an order be
entered in the sbove entitled couse vacating exid judgment of
May 13, 19323 that your petitioners be allowed te appear and
defend herein; and that on order be iesued herein staying the
proceedings now ponding herein for the enle of your petitioners’
seid real property and ateying the leevance ef further writs
herein until a hearing esn be had in thie couse."
Nefendante contend that the facts set forth in their
petition constitute fraud and cirewerention in sbtaining the
execution by them of the note in question.
Seetion 10 ef the Negotiable Instruments ‘ct ( paragraph
il, chapter 93, Cahill’s Revised Statutes of 1935) provides:
Vexemeltt tieq suey te sina eds pit cited % bag an Or
A
=R-
iwey yodon Bisa to seiswooxe of? Yo mde ond of tohra dads
bine Sas taney sewodT bine yd bomto tat weed bet etened
exidqoeoS baa xeargil somed? Ddge O¢ patynofed) .f& baa BE |
wet exopoltitzer wey of bevevires nved Sead ,lotiw abd «
omld of! ta beadetebas Jom 815 eremolhsizeg suey sand o
aed? cant osemd? dice yd bemrotnt ovow arerolitieg tw:
gnoe tale of gxomoisiieg toy x07 ¥xe macoen ed Bi
Y tary “Bemoe T ‘bhaw of aselsertc bine a i 6
ype evevdl gi Yat euods 4e no dads "
bee avenofilieg swey Te ones ;
oTe* wtemeliigeg tway esv panto somal emo of mort fas ’
hexrtve> bus yorreise ne aw taney emidqenet Slay bso a
ms, With. toysa of atenoliit¢eg * Ye ted ase
enge ‘bod aad ble ssow <a Gebdcaee iT biss
os ‘2 Lh an
xiai, yew Bicnmoiitieg TwOy bas a {aoa
Peis a eat baet oi ey ne see
_ tenis rage 4 asd Ween to edmermuood | ott —
_Bénomupeb biee ss outing 683 fe hesuowpet atom ii
EO ant EY wr Hh
thi © qeuingh bien tas
endaacart bee gamed bles to Yéteqe%e tality
ataoeliigeg tac, bre phissetete ae saute
fine eonpcaciapss ine nolsawze'tal bkea eau | hodder
os set % eae ow =
rss PH tet ees i: xy oe ie a aorw
{.e1e eoifeil) ocr tad
eslvtia afd eonte testi oysl ie einer’ Maite Th
aise gods bamtetat coed evad yods mene soqu soy hose ih
nt sew gautd at bfer oa cdot blae te sonsyerneney BeadggE
efen bles todd. peo bows siered efem es Ye
ete eremctstier trey Jatt thiseexdie sa beet
eved amid on vo decid joie Ye mL Tikveietg ge od |
X09 qboviesw: tissed they wt one wm = XO 7
“ye tO ,sOLllS metifi’ ,Iihinielg ed? mon eh ricw 3) Pa ioe my a
atau! enlteaset y tery wemod? a 3 “ ‘ tiatee ‘pid a2 ge ae
eae So eeivxee oat oF ceisg omid on te gas: tte pare i
‘ @egw chem reed tise s yea boe Bs Pied Sys os cage? :
odor etd to inmeose me eo Tok \ines He 2p cg ons c
@G <hhte me Gas Yat AteHMOLILiay HRY , ete
to gaamyook Mam utktassy Sere Belitizs ov
Mes tacqrr oF beveifs of sremeteigoq |
eid geiyate atered bomast at a9b*o
athe ‘veskrcu? to pomeseat edt pitysta pra Soa . ‘Bi
*,Gamoo atte st het of nen gnitsedt @ t en
‘Sheds af Moto? goa gfoat ane teelt hap dino edaahho tot A
eds griniatds af ne ttaowns tho 7 bart ' caidas net sad
peers tod adevamesdant oitda tenet ens to of nottees
taobivone (SkeL to totutate | bea tess, am atthe dn. .ae
ge.
~Se
"if any fraud or eireumvention be ueed in obtaining
the making or executing of any of the instruments aforesaid,
atten to be breaks on any eavh inctrument 50 ebtsincds
fraud oF circumvention, er any assignee of cue instranents*
The facts disclosed by defendants’ petition ahow that
they were induced to execute the note under the belief that it
wee an inetrument of an entirely different character. This
clearly makes such a case of fraud and eirewnvention in obtaining
the making or executing of the note ee the statute contemplated
and it is pleadsble in bar to an action brought on the note by
eny assignee of it. it eannet be said ac a matter of law that
defendants’ petition shows such negligence on their part as avoids
the defense. it would be a question of fact, subsequently te be
passed upon and determined, whether defendants were guilty of such
negligence in executing the note and aliowing it te co inte cir~
eUlation ae should preclude them from setting up the defense,
(Muneon v. Nichole, 62 112. 111.)
& motion to set aside a judgment by confession is addreneed
to the equitable discretion of the eourt and the question is whether
there are @quiteble reasons why the judgment should be opened up to
let ina defense, If there is a showing te the court of facte from
which it may fairly be seen that there is a good and sufficient
defense en the merits of the case, then the motion should be allowed,
(Murphy v- Scheoh, 155 Iile App. 550.)
‘hile it is true as a general rule, where one of two
persons mist euffer less, that he whose negligent conduct made it
possible for the less te occur must bear it, thet rule cannot be
inveked to deprive defendants ef their preferred defense, It
MAA rbe wahdnd SF on the tote Of Vte sume 26 can then be shown
that defendants were fairly chargeable with negligencs. If the
t>
gitinistde wi beaw od nokineveweaio 10 Suan bap 3a"
,bisvorots eiiemutient oh) to Ye te gridisoem xe wale
ot tad at béebeotg By one nOidupvacre tio to Bor owe
“Hou yaks dmeoe ered Ropu aiglend od atthon nm ane
* gaamten? dom To senyloas ym te we .nottaswvotte “eo buat?
Send worls moléizgeg ‘ataetasteds yd bevefondt atoak ost
$k dadd Yetind etd tohew oton ont etmeons of. dooudst ove Westy
BkdY stetortado teosetith yLothiie ne to davamasrs end sa come
getatatde of metinevawetic tne Suett te sae 2 Mowe eentaar uae 0
hetekyertnos otutein oft oa ston ets tg ynituoens x0 patie ont
uf eter ad? xo Saanires Sete ‘Se 8 UE ORAL DE Oh
todd enl to wettom a na bled ot Gaoued 22 | td BO Oompieas
ebtors on ¢xeg tied! ae sonsatigon dove aveds moksiieg ‘adeobe
ed ef vinowpoedun efoakt 2 motdneey « o€ dLoow on sein abe |
dove te yiilue orev eineineted waddode shomkeresed bea ‘nog penne
-tie eini oy of oi gutwette bie oten ad? gabtwouns mk ponegtfgen
stenoteh eld qu gatisou amxk meats chatoorg bie en wesdatin
(oiik £25 G8 en fodosm s * anseatt) |
boungsbba sk noleestnoe <a tonagbel # ehikon toe of sottom A ie |
sedseity at moiteoup edt ino ewes add Yo sodsatonth oXdattupe ade o2
ot Gy hentye 84 hiveds snsimout ait tv anoasor OLdadtiye o1m weed
moxt adeat to ixwoe afd of pedwode «2 et atedé =. seonoted a mt fon
dmkorvius bn booy 8 ab omedd desl? noon a6 ULthad iieeaall
sbowelin 96 bivede cotton vt seat yoenn edt to ativem odd me ganeted
| (.088 sq@h +11 28f galgorion .v yams)
ond 10 ono oveslw «elue Loronog a na out ab db oxtan {
th sbam dt owhses tnogittgen oaony ott sastd rata i0¥ue dau onsareg
od Sonne fue Jaci a “eed tame caso bd seat eatt cod okdt wns :
"4h sennctod towrtong todd te uéaadsoteb ovtages of boxtown
swostes od mold neo tf eowso aldé te Lebut edd no ti ‘bettega Otte
odd 22 .comytigon stdtw efdeogrado Ulxte® exow adaehaetod dakd
—
ode
defense set forth in defendants’ petition is true, plaintiff
is not entitled to a judgment and it would ve wanifestly unjuat
that he should have it.
Ye are ef the opinion that the trial court should
have opened the judgment, ellowing it te stand as security for
the amount due, if any, and permitted the defendants to appear
and defen,
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded fer
further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein
expressed.
Priend, Pe Je» and Geanlans J+, concurs
“bivods twos Katte ods dats moindst
ek PR?
wee ae near eerke
whet s. 2em oa f set
ft ta
regan et @ entchon: sete vers “ovuie
isp Raics peniith ata tay
pre
ein Beeuany a teed Kaipe oe
{88 sgn
Le seweey
Sone ath dae eet
fenite scat sit saat ast
& vie ot he
why wid he wean
ld he Saauw ute to ba ‘tt
37637
PRASK TAGLIA, administrater
of the estate of FIONEWTI MA
TAGLIA, deceaged,
Appellec,
Cou? OF CHICAGO.
2.
I
SOCIETA AGRICOLA OPERIA S- ) 2 9 I.A. 636
GRISTOFONO B. MARIA VSNGINS
INCGROWATA DA PICIGLIANO,
Appellant.
Ve
UR« TUGTICN SULLIVAN DELIVERGD THA OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff, the husband of Fiorentina Taglia, decensed,
brought thie action in contract ae the administrator of her estate
to recover a $500 mortuary benefit due from defendant by reason of
its agreement te pay thet amount to her fomily in the event of her
death. Yoring the course of the trial by the court without « jury
a partial judgment fer $150 entered against defendant was satisfied
and the cause proceeded an to the balance. At the conclusion of
the hearing the trial court found the issues for plaintiff, sscessed
his damages at $360 and entered judgment against defendant for that
amount. This appeal followed.
The cause wos tried upon a stipulation of facts, the salient
portions of which are that Fierentina Iaglia died December 9, 10525
that prior to and at the time of her death she was a member in good
stending and entitled te all the rights and bensfits previded by the
vy~laws of defendont society} that upon her death plaintiff became
entitled te the mortuary benefit previded by such by-laws then in
feree and effect; that no written contract or certificate was executed
between the parties; thet defendent seciety is an illineis corporation
operating pursuant to ite cherter; thet om and prior to Devenber 4,
- .
Si ts
‘anscro nin Goa aaa tA
« GAG LHD to TAVGD
“089 .A.L Ys
ag ne .
—_.
eheamsoed qaiigal anisinorest to bnadeus, ont stikdatels meh i
states tol to tedetseiniaba ad? an tosxinos mi aotton edit dtguoxd—
2o noaset YW dmabdeotod mort od Itioned yrawdvom 0089 « sevOSeT Of
“most 20 Snove edd mt yLtme? wed of duwone tald yoq of dnemooxye ett
em w dwoddiw éu00 ond YS Latte edt to sorwoo ot gmbaut Minsk
betteliae sav smabneted dantags beredae OBL? cot ¢rombut, inttang a
Ro metautonce ed? 3h .voneled eff of am hobeooor susien edd bra ‘
heeasesa ,Ttiinialg xt sevens os Suse Pxvoo Inbad od anitoad edt a
tad sot tnabsotsh taniaga snemphyl, botegno bam 086% da etait ntl 4
ehoweflot Laoqge ater e
admeiten od ,adoat to moltaiugtia » moqu beled now ooman ott
{LGUL »@ Tedwovsd bath stipe? anitnevali todd etm doidw Yo anodexoq
feoy mi tedmem 2 sew este dineob tos to cmt? edt im bnew of xolny $a y
edd WW bodivery atttoned ban adgix amt Lia of dofstine be yabinos
emaved 2intelg A2oob xo nogy todd ysetooe snshaetod 2 a
tk and? awsi-yd dowa qd bobkvong tkionod Yuautxom out 9 fe.
betugexe eew odaottiiawe to foautane aeteixw on snot itee te base @
oe afomkiil me at ytelooa Inohawtob dest yaolszag ate noe
od ‘sodunoedt of votre bre me tad ¢xedsasio adh 08 nem i
«2«
1932, the family of a deceased meuber of the society was entitied
to receive wider ite by-laws $500 as a mortuary benefit; and that
of the by-laws in effect prior to Deceuber ¢, 1932, the following
are pertinent to the issues in this cause?
"Article 29+ The mortuary tax por capita will be fixed by
the assembly at the firet meeting in December for the following years
This qucta may very annually, according to the number of members, due
the i that the family should receive ive Hundred \olisra
BOO 90
t "Article 30. The mortuary bencfit and the tax therefor are
equal in both sexes, the latier to be paid in advance.
“vhoever is in arrears in funeral payments, even though
currently paid up with monthly dues, shall not have any oe to @
mortuary benefit. The seciety shall pay the funeral benefit (meaning
mortuary benefit) not later than sixty (60) days, however in case of
misfortune, which may cause more than one death, and any other excep-
tional eases, the society reserves to itself the right to adopt those
provisions necessary for the protection and existence of the seciety."
It was further stipulate? that at a certain mecting of the
evcicty held Yovember 6, 1932, and of ite council held Yovember 20,
1932, both after due notice, a certain new by-law was preposed and
recommended for adoption by the society; that at a regular and special
mesting held December 4, 1952, pursuant to motice to all ite members,
imeluding Fiorentina Taglia, the society adopted the recemmendation
of ite council, and the members present voted unanimously to amend
article 29 of its by-laws to read aa follows:
“Monthly payments, fifty cente, funeral payments, one dollar
per menber, ble in advance, Benefits: sick bencfit five dollars
per week for thixteen weeks. Mortuary benefit = one dollar per
mesber, the tetal number of current members being the total number
of dollars, effective with the mecting of Devcnber 4, 1932,"
Attached te the stipulation were the ehmrter of the society, copies
of the notices of the various mectings ami copies of the minutes
detailing the discussion on amended article 29 of the by-laws prior
te its enactment. The discussion was ceneerned principally with the
necessity for adepting the amended by-law for the protection and
continued existence of the society.
The main question presented for our determination on this
appeal is whether defendant society, in the sbsence of an express
provision apecifierlly reserving to iteelf the right to de 80» had
a
heliiine aew yselooa edd to tedmam bonswseh « Yo yLima't oad steer
dadt he {lieved yrewtxem # as O08} ewal-yd att xobew evieoes o¢
wriweriot okt ECL .d rodmvoel of rola sootte mt ewaloed at de
Is ORG aids mk senoek oot of ee ote
| wd hoxtt of ILiw atiqeo coq xed yxawtrom edt YOR wfody Onn
sttaey gatwollot ed? rot sedmesed ni pattond dont ond ga %
ead bent rs te tedaun eld of gntizooom a pales
Low berbam evil eviecos binods ghinet edd dada BOs: at}
ers “Olenets mad esis . Sage Ytauiiem off 40% eLokdra se
sfonevba mk &. od of xoddal ond ynoxen At
Fe ory pare nee edad ietons?t at atervte. 4 al sy meth
t Ye ev. on Lode ysoub yLdenom solw i biog yféne
- yutmoon)‘t lh Lasems? old pe pana ‘ont sen
‘$0 waee ak tevyowed ce ee (08 vents
mq@eoxe redde yos oh ome wads otom caxan ae we he pes F
fae éqgobe o3 } Stats eit 2feust 02 seviewet Yselooe adt ,voune Lanol:
*sGotoes ois to tonadatxe boo solisedong eff 192 Yikansoon anol
ads te gniseam niaites a ia sauls peg eegt tess tH aay on f De
408 xediievoW Buel hones edt Yo tas SBOE 2 ‘cot v0K iad 39 tous
fie benoqetq saw wol-yd wen aiatuay s 19080 0 eu cotta aod 9880 :
,
: fatooge ‘tas ‘ininget 2 te said ivetoos edd yd ao saobe x0? _ be bream oe
qutedmen O44 Tle OF cohen of tmavecaq Seer o odo bed bien pechtoem
MOLI ahnemmooes eft bodgebs Uistoos oats sebiget onkeneroh® wal
a, of “Eoweatmn hodov snono rg erodetnsr eakd bos
wins Het Guts
tumolte® Es naee ot wales adk » es
ORs TO
t- st te Sree
a 3 8 8
“tog ob @ mp ye : we ntl a é
todas Ledod sad gated aaa ome re,
SeRECL yd tedmoge To gaksomm aia ety ov evisoe to
— welyeo «Yieices ody to ‘‘usdiatts ale oxew no tiaiughee ‘ae re | 4
hte Be eke ,
) qibdemter ety Yo eetgos baa egativon nue dsey ots aor f
nediva, Ay A BIG bi
S adeurhelenteabymietenmerieteenre: oor: ob
reo wd af ie h
etl? o@ poldertertsteb Xue rot bed noee sq soldeeuy yi oat hai ,
Ty hg se ok -sniwtciabanal
amore | ay Re ponoads Laide : hd pecete tnabaores vente axiw at Lesqqa
Pek Hie uae s iedlalel
“30
the power, through subsequently enacted by-laws, to divest a member
of veeted rights acquired by her under by-lawe in fores when she
joined the secicty and fer a long period thereafter, and thus reduce
the amount payable ae a mortuary benefit without the consent of the
member. In other words covld this society as a matter of expediency
and pretection, or even to safeguard its very existance, legally
enact a by-law that would take away the mortuary benofit of 9500 that
it head promised to pay to her family upom her ceath under a by-law
in existences when the inswred joined the society and for thirty-five
years thereafter, and substitute therefor « mortuary benefit of $151
under the terme of the amended by-law?
it is not claimed that decessed consented to be bound by
this amended by-law, and it is coneeded, in effect, that such change
in the by-law is without binding legal foree upon plaintiff unless
sanetion for it ean be found in an express reservation by the seciety
ef the right te thereafter arend or change the by-laws in existence
when Fiorentina 'aglia entered into her contract of membership with
the society and in her express agreement to be bound thereby.
Defendant contends that, considering the original article 29,
and article 30 of the by-laws together, the recital in article 30,
“the society reserves to itself the right to adept these provisions
mecessary for the protection and existence of the society," constitu-
tes an axprose and specifie reservation of the right and authority to
emend or change the by~law specifying the amount of mortuary benefit
payeble upon the death of the member. the difficulty of this position
is that this language is used only in the section of the by-law having
to de with the methed and manner of paying the mortuary benefit and
the payment by the members of their "tax" or dues. Under no rule of
construction with which we are familiar can the effect of this language
be strained so as to make it applicable tovartiele 29 fixing the amount
.
| of the mortuary benefit. in our opinion, the seciety, recognizing
is
oY
a
|
moteurs. mht Xp pkmsr32% oA or ale
or
Ms
todnsn # ézevth et ,awal~yd beteano ¥Lémoupoadun dgueruid sTowog ene
ait node eorto? m4 amal~yd sede sed Yt hetinpos atdytx beter re
SOHNE eae hee 4 tA Eeo tes botweq yrol m tor baa ytotoon sald bontot
at? to tnonmee ald twodsiw aftened yxauttom 6 ee eldayeg $rwvoma edt
‘Wott bogs te teddom 4g aa GWeloes atds bivoo BOTOW xesite al ford Prd
“Lage ~wonetndae wrev adh brags tae at neve to sto Losdong Lad
doit 0089 Ye tttomed Yxautren ot yows vlad btiow tastt wale Sanne
wel~ud robaur Aden ron moqu yiimat xed Of yng od” somtmnn ha a
_ Sy center: 02 bam Rivivon add pentol bewnnt ont pow oom dataw mb
mere ‘t0 direned viawrreu n ro Yonodt otut endee hie Tod toetests ema %
| Run hogs hebnone ed to mrt ont xpbine
_xd nae ed 03 bedaoaros benescoh Jaki tamtate deu'dh VE ?"*%,
ennets fous. tastd edo tts st gbeboomes ef #t base qwal-¢d be brome aids
mestny Viktntela moqu earet Logol waivatd suodsiv ef waked od at
i tekooe | ast Yi aolinvioaes see zqxe as mi Sete od m9 a ot notionsa
gonstaize mi omal-V ext epnasto xo haem xedteoxadé of dgle itd Yo !
Matty qidevednom 20 gostdnoo xed osnt botetse sityat antine t node
| sysloned? named 0d 08 tnemorgs anowgxe xo nt hme yoksoa a ote
aes etottas Lent givo edd gutredience adnate ebmoines deabaaell” 4h
20% ofoliue mt Ladtoox ont etestd egod awakes one to 08 tottxe ne
“ ahitatvere peed sqohe ov datgi esis YEncdt at wevtess: oteme a
~uditanoe *,y2efo00 ext Yo vonodebes tne wo biooterg aild xo? Yxaanee :
of yidzed tue hae dalix es? to mobdarrenct oittoogs baa seme ma wt 7
Mas hk
ORR RY ake sek re
patved wal~yd osle Re otter off? mt vino hoow of opaupead
we OS ee ey
baa fered Yewdtom att gatyen to tennant has Pesce reg
to ofex on tobe cnenh 26 “xnd" thedy to axodmoat eat ye 4
pansymat ait 29 toette ost sao coktion? ete ow slots Meee i
tome ote parkas Os ofoataayoe OLdeptiqus tk eam o¢ 60 ee |
‘Petatmaoeet qytetoos odd qnotnige myo at tbtonnd ¥ a
o4e
that a large number of deaths ot one time might imperil ite finane
vial wtabdility by requiring too large an outlay of funds, took the
precaution te provide in article 30 of ite by-laws that the mortuary
benefit should be poysble in sixty dsys, but that in the event of the
occurrence of a large mwiber of dentha it might adopt provisions
necesuery for ite protection and continued existence. The recital
that “the society reserves to iteelf the right to adopt those
provisions necessary for the protection and existence of the society,*
is part of the same sentence providing for the payment of the mortuary
benefit within sixty deys and of mecesslty, by its context and meaning,
ean orily relate thereto. The society could extend the date of pay-
ment of ite obligation to any date reasonably necessary to accomplish
its declared purpose, and we think thet this is the only reasonable
construction that can be placed on its reservation “for the protection
and existence of the society.*
It is idle to urge that, in the language of article 30
of the by-laws, there can be found any such reservation ef the richt
te amend or change ites by-laws as would authorize the eabroration,
attempted by the society, of the vested right of plaintiff, under
insured's contract with the socioty, to a mortuary benefit ef 3500
under original erticle 29 of the by-laws. The rule as te the effect
of subsequently enacted by-laws on contracts of insurance theretofors
entered into is clearly steted in Covenant Mutual Life Aes'n v-
Kentner, 183 Ili. 431) where the court said at ppe 441-442:
"It wae stipulated that the by-laws contained a prevision
that they might be amended, revised or modified, but thet is no
more than the law would imply without the stipulation. Such power
is implied from the general power to enact by-laws, (3 Ams & ling,
Bncye Of Laws = 24 Od, = 1064; mwider v»+ Royal League, 180
Ill. 621.) If a member agrees t uture by-laws er amendments
shall enter inte and forma part of his contract and modify or very
it, he will be bound by such by-laws or amendments beenuse they are
& part of his contract. That was the cuse in Pullemlder Vv Royal
aa » Im that esse the certificate provided for a payment
f certain rates for the widows’ and orphans’ benefit fund, and the
certificate was on the express condition that the member should comply
in the future with the laws, rules and regulations that might there-
a Oa
BP —
eS i
pepnqad, dette tadt amahtetsges due yetirs vow ae ‘iho ee
emer abt Liveqmt tiipia outs one te aaltooh to wdewm enrat a Sas
ott Moos yubew? te yeiive ne wytel 009 guitetupex Ys YttLidade Lakp
Ehetcom ond tad? aveteud adh to Cf eLelerta nd ebtveny os mo téweem
et to sweve ett mi toned oud yoyo Yate mb eldeyer ed ALuorte stoned
aneieivesg tobe fdnia of elias > to sedaum sptat a» 26 sonpumseee
fattost oft .sonntsixe tummtinoe dna motionsorg wat wot wremesioet
sands tqobs of sight ord WLeadl of aeveoner Yokoos ot” dusts
| “qudetoow offs Yo oometatxe has mottoatorg eit 10% Yxseceson amolubyery
“Ulawtrom ods ti Cxemysg os TOL gakhivesg seneines emee edd to ¢uaq at
! | panlinldect hat Onntnae: atk “es y phtemnein: ‘te date dngaagente Mbthber tended
“(oy to edn edd bode bivoo yretves aff .atstedd edalet vine mes
Metiqnoves of yiswnoven “ldanneaot wtsh yin wH MokiagLede ust Lo éuem |
@idanoscor “ine ett St abst) draié aimdde ow bao voxoq my hoxatosb wit
molfeetere oeff rod" goltavrsee: ait ne bendy Od nop tut MOtgowRsaned —
ws 8 5s Megtadoo ont Yo come dado este |
08 entire YW opsmtal dt ni ytatt- eyo os edt wh @L in ais op
diyte ott to aolvavtoasx dove yRe hewek vd soo exedt eowaloud edt 20°
smolitegurda oft extvodtus bivow ns cmmnteral tt etpste wih heath ap 4
. teh GYRekady to étighs fetsov aft te pytetoon ent yd sme
068% To sitened yrowsrom 6 OF eytoloon old Miiw sortéxed wiherdant
deotke edt of as ofst nd? sernceud ot 00 08 ofetoxs cantata sober
eretosereH? vommuent to atoeTians mo wmet~ye betonme ~idmeupeadl :
«¥ niseA elAt Lowsw Inensved mt bosata yesaade whoa vad
TODA ag 20 blew OD ould OMRKbe 4TBA £47 BL. city
abyeta a bomtetneo awe ons Gated bed adkeght a. :soaw
“a oi Be aud eis re ae ,sebnoan od 4
/ taLugiae e@? dweridtw * binow
| epee A om@A &} eaval-ed Joanne o8 teney st bok. se Uk
ii 4 FROM «7 “3280 = ho SS @ quad DO gens
adn ote To awal~y regia a ?e aoe ae tt (+58 c
: v to Yithos bow deaeminoo WEE 3 AS
" went oasaoed einemhnoms to ——? “eb on vd ited ee bw’ ent
“Sehivexa peers Pnaient oxi ‘onan dt:
» By J ¥9" et
sn cbuurt sit0hed duedace baa 'ewohiy old x0? sedee aia
sa brueele Sodaed ord sunts pi wali eeergrs a ast wade,
“hb
“ m Ps 245 aie
-5e=
after be enacted by the @upreme council to govern said coumei)
and fund, all of which were made part of the contract. The in-
gured expressly assented te the conditions, and it was held that
the agreement authorized «= change in the rate of assesement under
a by-law which, in the opinion of the court was not umrensonabl es
Bven if the certificate states that the by-laws are a pert of the
eontract and that they are subject to amendment, subsequent by-Lews
will be construed te apply only to contracts made after the adoption
ef such by-laws, in the absence of an agreement thet they shall have
a retrospective effect. This is upon the principle that 211 laws
and by-laws haye a prospective and not a retrospective effect, unless
the intent that they shall have a retrospective cffect is clear and
ummistakable. Unless there is en express agreement that a menber
shall be bound by future by~lawse varying or modifying his contract,
he nd 20 bound. (Wiblack on Benefit Societies, secs. 27, 156,
137.
It is urged that the original article 29 of the by-lawe
fixing the mortuary benefit at 9500 is ultra vires and void im that
it is repugnant to and in conflict with the charter powers of the
secictye This contention is based upon the fact that the charter
of the society provides for the creation ef its funds by voluntary
contribution and the by-law refers te “mortuary tax por enpita.*
There is no merit in this contention and it is effectually disposed
of in Jones v¥» Lealesn Mutual Benefit Ags’m, 357 Ille 431, where
the following language wen used by the court at pe 441%
"Appellant in its reply brief ealls attention to the fact
that the certifieste sued on does not provide fer the levy of any
assessments but only provides for voluntary contributions, and it
devetes a considerable portion of its argument to an attempt te
diztinguish the two words. Conceding that for ordinary purposes
the words have different meanings, we think ae the word “"coutribution*
is used in this certificate it had the seme meaning as the word
“assessment.* That the so-called contributions vere regarded as
assesoments by the effieers of appellant is shown by their testimony
on the trial of this cause. In fact, counsel for appellant uses
the vorde interchangeably in the original brief. By whatever nome
it is onlled, the fact is that the amount ef the contribution or
assesmment had te be paid by the members to prevent the loss of
their rights under their certificates. The feilure of any manber
to » when properly notified, would have effected « eancellation
of hia certifieste. The effect would be the same regerdleas ef
what word was used. The resuit of a failure ta pay makes it, in
er . eregeemnane regardless of the name given it in the
eer GAGCG.
‘mended article 29 of the by-laws micht well bo effective
as te future members of the society, as well as to all these who
were members at the time of its enactment amt whe assented te ity
but we are constrained to hold thet it could not vary or modif
Plaintiff's rights under the contract of the insured with + og SO
a oe ae
C
a
bédne revem 02 Lionveo sawigue oi? hed ssreie 20th
~? yee Toattxee oud To $anq sham eter po to iis pray be gee
bied anv ¢i bax ganotihimoe edé o¢ beogmoesa
fnetiaesces to eter add ak egnano o rs ee
Bitaeonsoces Jon saw simon ant Io motniqoe eAf mh ydodsiw,, -
dxay # ote aval~yd edd sold vedate yew rhe s esd 2b neva
oe ot fe peadve ginauhnema o2 Jpebdve ew yodd tod? bom,
Be Bag sfoetdnos a yine be ed 03 bowidanog od
heme g a. 0 oepoa
i tik. dant &lytent sy ont fogw ak abit eants me
ty oe a? ooltte evivoeqeettet « fom bao eritoegeqty a syed. sf
hows teefo et foette evivosgsdtiet © bvad Lhade coeds Jedd tnedal
teduem 9 tadd Inemse aastgxe ta ei exodd osoial pientare
«ghaatined eid weherd bent tb eniqeoy ewsl-yd sugdul yd baie ss
OGL 4TS eeeee gaehietoos sitomeé go domkeiy) .hewed oa tos Sei Tg
va neon : Trey 4 . : !
ne
8
i guadegd edt to O82 efoteca Lentgixe off foul? peyin ek at” °
i. fait m) blov fine notiy etéky of CONS Ya Fkromed Ytawtrom od) gabeit
| -gxld Yo erewog xodtade od ddtw dokfineo mi tons 64 shatguqer al FP
teduado odd sod dont od? woqh Dede BE mBlonedmod abd .ydeavee
“radewlor vs ubrat eff te mofenerd off CO? HOdIVOTY Yotoon ey to
Agwttqoe wg Ret Yontiem of gretex Wwel-td SH San nOfisdPtints
horegeih yflauieetto af ¢2 hee mottwodnod wind wh titom 6h dt ered
oreutw —¢f6) 4ffI TOS gntagl stone Lawtwt moefool ¢¢ gomos nm? to
x
f
sib se Se Pures off “Yo bows sow veipile SERRE " .
doa? onf¢ 02 motineide whivo Yebtd yqex whl at ee eas von |
ere to vrel of? sot ebivore som so0b Yao. bese ogantiiizes, dt
+2 bua vascabemdinet tee yretnustov teT: ‘a
‘ O2 tquetés sa oi smemegta wth Yo coi tao oe oven tonne Ws —. :
aeaognig Vanibye swt dnd agg ee «i <ohiow 3
4 Saat sud buaso9 bxow od? ee anddéd ow os sett
; )- Beer oft 2a, grknoen ome, oft: th i canarizecee
@8 bebraget siaw enoltudixines belloo-oe ot t
Wiemlseed wiede ys overnite of tonliogqga te eregtiie end cas abn odie )
geew Inaileqgs tot Leanwes ofent ae ai .¢euae elas to Leiat nl
oman ravetecs YG ».teicd Lankgice oft mt vit. be
go moliwdiatnoo oft te dourome ocl9 tadi oi tox fare ag
to seek of? ¢nevexq of atedren eft yd biag of
tedemsn une to omlial off .sedueltidies «lods se het ad
Mizsallisognes we hsedperte aval bivow! 4 batt son wt
20 aaothtager aame ef? od bivow geeTie- ed? “ietaod
i gti eetam yey of oullat a to tiwees edt? bea enw be a esc
ois ah ef yoree- ms peak - ne qeonen ease vit det
TWA “qty y
evansiii og Stow. idoiie ernie aes: te “s etoisre better, ce canta
“gtk
Oth bund) Lis ot va Liew as. “uxtotons ads to. romans a
4%, SSR Re
yak 0% botagecs ode Jam srsatt ose@ age ne outs eat Retell
DS Be Be)
a, thom x9 via fom Dives #2 tasld bier 98 ot soubertaneo
& ‘wma eas din hoteans eld to nes od oheus
+6-
Yor the reasons indicate’ herein the Judgment of the
Municipal court is affirmed.
APPIT MED.
Priend, ®. Jes and SJeanlan, J., coneur.
é
Feed five vig He tha a Bite d dies iy OGM. G8
‘a anvew kp over mld WE exele
ire ASE eas rv Raf ae ae SP. ma gehigkat nr ;
Do ae ie ¥ ae Btn eas viate tim Vitios eid SFB
avalon) agente reais ea ee i he te ete Re) ne ea
HAE BRIE iaid wei2s plums ePoewates af Ulte wha ed gion em d
| E eettuns inte yee 4 Ad, seinen ures
hw wa” tis PAE F ata? SUS aren * tirana
a es
TOR ces Ce Say he, wre opens APTS”, Os, 2 Ma ovat a ee & a ;
is See ees eit wert yeh (vege eae & ove '% 4 mI, sand
Pstoir ae) Pte Pees OT im Sera pera ba | #2 writs ume tol med, eh
eS oaKinee eed A vss Wi er) onic eh feat 7 ge vf thes
- ge ae «ie oe yor hie foas ¢27 tet o@ Avege SE 2
ae aero sult ‘te to efatoue Tatigiee oft dont Sw ed "ge? pee
. feenit eh Shey tn nse et erase 82 °OO8S Ya Shree arated add a |
“ee Te avewog cnbtnde add Gace ‘POL ree wd’ bee OH a \
Kesragis eal toss Pert Aae weet Hee a} nerriaened ah) ‘ 4
VrndaMaler eh worst «8p Sw seaiveexs of tO% tie & iotoda al ae
stil EC. SS | eat eth won" oo pha tee” ented: ey sai . .
herein yftaotew tte 2k 8h beth woh erodes ni Peni on Ps Bt
wtiale 9 hth «fkE TOR am tagd eeRonee tame onda i
Pyar i we ie Paebe ould ye henner eat esaarnatat eS f
foeS mis oF no idnacto wikee Toke ier wer: ad Barets
bo te Ysek alt Hh obheony dom Gee BO bem a eOr ee
5. tage yanedutiek tered Yee ntastiow aye ‘ate
‘@d Ponetin ah 2 tsswars 892 Ye sn? Sn HG 2 6B
yet aN yimndhem 268 duty ee ‘age 8
Sata sca nee Siew ons ee Bi may oe » 4 )
bee ed ay ers ari Me ae A YE ws
hy Lae? exer waoltudiataws tel dop-we
tt ee eee ee eet a ty woe
ee takieggs sek Logsutt teat ae Posse aos rf
cms Gaye 40 w Sehest: Leekoare D
4% Ray ee wet he deubwre Maa dane rye
Ya noed oie dxeyasy ob stata Bead me
todnen va re wwts off wand nePeeices
mda ilengay o hedat ke geen Lacey ties Por
“O% ila ane t wane wiht. wpe End ascre Bee Rly BEERS
mi g hk mek, Yo 8k 24 congo dee dR ane <a
j wt, wih ry lath
Aes
"dg te Same that pyc :
gt 23 i, eh hae ty bhowath ‘ad
fj i #
2 f P
37662
VINCENT FORMUSA, )
Appellee, }
APPRAL FROM MOMICIPAL
Ve
COURT OF CHICAGGQ,
THt PRANSYLVAMLA HAILAGAD 3
COMPANY, a as met Pd é 9 T.A. 63 6
Mie JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OFPIRIOW OF THA COURT.
This is a fourth eleaos contract action in the Municipal
gourt wherein plaintiff claimed thet defendent railroad company
breached ites egreement te safely carry from New York eity, to
him, the consignee in Chicugo, 30 cases of oniona. Upon trial
by the court without a jury the iveves were resolved in plaintiffs
favor and judgment rendered against defendant for $600. This
appeal followed.
The material allegations of plaintiff's etatement of claim
are that defondsnt wau s common carrier and on or shout Pebruary 6,
1929, it seecepte and reeeived from F. Vitelli & Son at New York city,
30 eaces of efpelline onions in good condition for transportation |
within a ressonable time to plaintiff in Chicago, that in consideration
of e certein reward defendant promised to care for, safoly earry and
éeliver such merchandise, and issued a bill of lading for such trans-
portation and delivery; that plaintiff is ond has been for « long time
the lowful holder of said bill ef lading; that defendant wen ordered
and directed to carry snid 30 eases of onions in « specially constructed |
Gay known as a refrigerator cer ani thet it promised te do soy that it
Gid not carry euch merchandise in 2 speciolly constructed or refrig-
evater car or otherwise care for, safely esrry and within a receonable
¥
a
fs
; tua |,
: he
if
\ fe
*, apa
~ A singe:
| SARTO IWIN WORT ARTA |
sODATTHO TO TAO
“o &9O AT eye | ™ gis kiaxoqtee 4
aa
»THUOD HT YO WOTHILO AUT GIARVILING WAVLLIVG BOITAUE «AM
a
Lego bast od? mt motion tostines esate diwwet a ah wtde |
Glaqmes haetitet taabmoted dnd? oemtoto YWsdmbalg nioweds $09
Os “ito M20¥ wet mort yrmse Ylotes of Imomeeuge abt bodeaesd
felts nog .ameiee to soaso 08 eoyectt? mt oenptanco ot east!
a'vtitnialg ai béviose: stow aewned offs Yow) = tuudiiw danoe eat os
eidy .000@ tet dnabnetod tentoge boxebmex Smog bu, bru —
— sbewolto® , hee a
Misin te inemdede of Ytiintede to ametiagetio falsetan off. |
—- gf Uxeurtdel dvods ve mo baa tettra9 mommoo « wow shabmoteh tude 9 as
(atthe MNOY woK 25 moe & LELOSLY 4X mox? beviovet tne cedqeoon Fh 408
| Koktadroqunes? cot selttaneo booy mt amoine entileqis te . Lad
“ moktwrebtamos mt fads popeokt) mi VEkintete oF subd ofdendonen mm
] fia Ytxeo Viotee «tet exao oF wee tmobasteh weawort nbatres |
“oats n800 «20% sod ant han ef YOAtedaly dad tQeVAZOd Ane
hexebre gow inabeo teh tedd tamtbal te Lit bten te robiei J
iguana Uloloege o at amotne % seene 08 hive bes od |
Gace
| ell & mildhw baw Yana yfolee «tot une
td
time deliver said onions se agreed, but carried them in a common
freight car, and in so careless and negligent « manner that, when
they arrived in Chicage ané were delivered to plaintiff, they were
frosen and otherwise rendered totuliy unfit fer human consumption,
and that plaintiff wae damaged to the extent of S602,
Defendant im ite affidevit of merits admitted reeviving the
merchandise at New York city, February 7, 1929, end averred inter
Alig that when it received thin consignment of freight it was enclosed
in boxes or eretes and mot visibles that i¢ id not then know whether
er not the merchondise wes im geod condition and by rencem thereef it
gave the shipper « receipt and « bill of lading, which recited that
it had received the shipment in “apparent good order, contents and
condition of contents of packages unknowns" that it “does not admit
that said froight wae in good condition when received by defendant at
Wew York city, but insists upon strict proof thereef;" that when the
freight was delivered te it a written eontract of transportation was
entered inte between it and the consigner er shipper wherein it was
provided thet the merchandise was to be forwarded in a box cary and
denied thet it was ordered and directed or that it promised to
transport such freight in a specially constructed or refrigerator ear.
The affidavit of merits admitted that when the merchandise arrived in
Chieage it was somewhat damaged by cold weather, but denied that it
was destroyed and unfit for bwaan consumption or that ite negligenee
@eused any deumage te the onions.
Plaintiff's son was the only witness whe testified on the
trial ef the case. He stated that defendant's receipted freight bill
contained the notation, “shipment more or less frozen}” that the onions
were eentsined in erates constructed ef 4 inch beards nailed’ 2 inches
| apart? that, when they were delivered to plaintiff's warehouse, he
Retice? threuch the openings of the crates that the onions vere in
an “abnormal” condition; that he opened all the erates and upon —
é . i oy a] }
omens a nk seit bokriso tud \heemas ex ancine Sten covetob omt 3
nedw qiads techet 2 gresiigen ore aseleteo 0 mi bee , tao dein tort
exer qed? .Piisnbalg o¢ bexevtish stow ome eseoido ak beviets ‘onde
saotiquvencs sama rer ¢itaw yilesed setetset saiwredto har menos?
“Sone 29 tentxe edt of bogemab sow Btémtaly teat bran
divebiYie eff st smepnotem) Py
eda griviove: be? keba esizem to |
cutie £20Y wot ta cekhenstorem
geint bevieve bre ,USer «Tf qxewtdek
pose Lone dow #2 erigter? to Paemmptenos eidd bevioves £2 mosie tnsit atte 4
cectiovin wobsl nexig vor bth #2 cael? qeldiaty som Bue wedane oo aexee mt
$2 Yoorstis soenet WW dee note tbnoo beon mt sav pabbresotos eit tom m0 a
gett bedtsus Moise gupnit te ifid » Mw sqkeset o reqgbte “ode ¥en r
hae ntaednos «tebeo, soon, tnexeqgs” ab tnemutde edi beytooes bat he
gine don e00b” #h todd "ymwaraisar eopatoeg te adandmes Ro notskhawe
da tnabnsleb qs bevteows meciy molathnoe boop at anv, tfptext bien gadt
gilt nasty desta"; Wooxsts YowTG doles foge adetent aud eysio AmeY oe
ahw nobicdroyemets Ye soaxdnos modéhaw a Oh of heaoylod aay bert
saw $2 thotedy teqaide to tempienes sd? tos at noowded ofnk benedee
how puso xed a ti tolrawzot od 62 sew oathrodores ead dedd | a
<iqd hosithan'ty oaks ol Son corde nee Recionhin eam VE tat Saleh
tee tetoregitter to befor ttenos ylinisegy = nt ditgiov? sdowe * ih
We peeictd se tbaiatiovos on med darts Seatietba ofIcem to |
hE dolid GotsoW sud <thitecew NIGP Depaanb Sadiusaion waw #2 "eH bo
“\ Momoghigen cst duld vo moLeguwanes ‘miawd «er 412A8 Kew bey [ od new
gata mo DoD LAdesd ow weenie Unb cid aw mee wOteRtaeT oe
| EERE Hgtoxt Dedqloces @ttnadaetsd dads “Reade GH seean edd TO et
ansin ott tadd “frocor? cael s6 oton dnemgide” «Holiadton one wed
mbdont & Sethen abeseddenk > to betertioner setaxe af |
. ptt genwedesew a Rhtnialg 8? bexevideb owew gods natiw 4?
wi oxer anole exit dads aetexe edi ta aguinoge edt
-3e
inspection found thet a1] the onione were frosenj that he sorted
them in an endeavor to salvage ac many as poseidles; that plaintiff
gold and delivered ten or fifteen erates of the onions that did
net appear “too badly frosted,” but that they were all returned as
unfit for use; that the shipment resulted in a totel loss toe plain-
tiff; and that the fair and rensonable market value of the 3,000
pounds of onions in good condition in Chiesge at the time of their
delivery «as 20 cents a pound er $600. The bill ef lading wes not
introduced in evidenee, and the witness failed to testify ae te any
agreement to carry the merchandise in « specially constructed or
refrigerator eats
it ia urged thet in an action against a common carrier by
railrosd fer lose or demage to freight in interstate commerce, where
the statement of claim shows that a bill of lading was issued by the
earrier, the plaintiff must prove the written contract. But plaintiff
says that an obligetion is impesed by isw upon « common carricr of
goods to safely curry merchandise delivered to and accepted by it by
virtue of the carrier's relation to the shipper, irrespective of the
ieauenece of a bill of Jaiing by the carrier, and that the implied con-
traet arieing from such obligation may be enforeed without the intro-~
@uetion in evidenes of such b111 of lading. It has been held that in
a tort action based upon the negligence of a common carrier it was
unnecessary to either plead or prove a bill of lading, but plaintiff's
action is, from the allegations eotained in his statement of claim,
plainly besed upon the alleged promice or undertaking of the defendant
te earry the goods in question from a point of shigment in one state
te the point of destination in another state. The plaintiff having
declared upon the slleged promise of defendant oc set forth in his
statement of claim, and the defendant having pleaded in effeet in its
affidavit of merits that it ¢id not promise as averred by plaintiff,
Aedsoe et iodd presoxd oxew emoiag als Lin dads bawot aeksooqant
Wtemiely dads joidiecog a0 yao oa oBevies of xpvoshne ne at word.
bib sul? snoine et 20 usdwey mo0d222 vo Red doTeVELEd bas den,
ee bommmtes Lin eumw youd todd sud *photoust ylbad ood*. tosgge toe
~niaig 0? week iatod » mk dethueet dnommtde vd? dou’ gow vod de kan.
CO,8 etd Re eekov doduam skdaneaset bow tis? edd gadd tne 4 thhs
| tiedd to omit ect Je. oyrolmd md netdionos boog at aneine te abun.
| tots wor gatnnt Yo £420 oT +0004 x0 hawog © afn00 0S. naw KmmyhsoD,
| “itis Ot Ge ERtdeed OF dettn® anoadio end dan yeombhve mt heaukowtal
8G Dedowriameo Yintoes » nt onthaulotem edd rene of dnomaenga:
aaa aire eee
of Teles. xemucy 2 tumtaga nobtee ne mi Gadd bop ab 4h. f)
atedly oorsem: efadoretat mt tdgtext of egemud we eel mp) hapubtas
| etd Gd benwet wow gethel Yo Likd » Sats ewede mieko to smomedate ad,
9 tote emo a ROG wel YS donegmt at Kp kianlido. mm, tact wyae,
wd o4 UW fedqeves bane of betavitod oathaaionen visa Yietea Of sheoa |
add to evdsveqee ttl yreq¢isia ond Of sottalet ataokeiap and. 3. OETA,
ctoo bokignt eid fads ban quoting of? Ud pathat 9, Li2d a Yo, somguags
wh tad died swod ond 2% .methal Yo ihe, dane ‘%o sopehdve sk maksos
aw tt tTalewe some 2 Lo eonegiigen elt nog bened amok
a'Yiteiely tud .gubhal to ALlé » evet to BAA OIA 08 x
intver Yetntslg ef? sodede <eddone nt soddankinnh Ye smhog 4
“Whit at A976t foe Ge drntee ted to salmon bogniio est ‘soar
ati at dootts nt bebaote gmivart sretested ond paw yuketo
sbagpencsialeranng ui*eaniarte i ‘Saat ot irom Boe Deal
ne Bete we |
whe
the plaintiff had the burden of proving by proper evidence that
defendant did promise as alleged in ite atatement of claim. If
there was a bill of lading, and plaintiff slieged that there was
and it was in his possession, that necessarily constituted defamiant's
promise, and proper proof as to whether the defendant did make the
promise, as alleged, may only be properly made by intreducing the bill
of lading or by accounting for ite ebsenee, ami in that erent oanke
nscensery proof. (merieen Fruit Growers v. Sen Antonia and As Pe Re
SOey 239 Ills Appe 151-) The rule is well established that there
ean be no implied contract where there is an express contract governing
the relations of the parties in reference to the same subject matter.
The consignee is bound by the valid terme of the bill of
lading tseued by the carrier te the shipper, amd, since the »111 of
lading was an expreas written contract geverning the shipment, there
is no reom nor ground for an implie¢ contract. “here the record
shows that a bill of lading has been iscued no recovery may be hed
ageinst the carrier if such bili of lading ia not intreduced in eri-
dence or ite absence accounted for. (Kites v. Oregon Short Line
£Ge» 169 Tlie Appe 609; Burtless v. Oregon Ghort Line Re Goss 180 lds
(ppe 2495 Finkelstein v. Illinois Central 2. Cos, 198 111+ Apps 75+)
it is fundamental that before recevery can be had aginst a
common carrier of merchandise in interstate commerce for domage ree
sulting to such merchendise it mist be shown that the goods were
delivered to the earrier by the shipper at the point of origin in
g00d condition. It ig undisputed in this cause that no evidenee
was offered as to the condition of the onions when they were dolivered
to the railroad company in New York city. ‘vithout such proof plaintiff
failed to make out = prima focie case. Plaintiff says, however, that
it was unnecessary to make such proof beeruse defendant failed te
specifieslly deny the allegation of his statement of claim that the
onions were delivered to it im goed conditions. There is no merit
tut oersbive teqony YS ynévod te Hosta odd bed Yidsmbalg edd
SD slede Do tebmodedu ad nt bogette na oatmong bib tandwotsd
nae oeelt Suet boybLte Vebewthsy baw egmbaat 6 Lhe « aw exend
= *tnasenhen: hetedliempo <Kisenasoen dectd yretesoebod aid nt caw 3k baw
| eit etn bEb taateo ted ents pentuhstenlnsindeitelembemeess
i Litd edd gnlowbortet yd chum Yfseqoty oF YLao yeu _deHetts be oalmerq
i eden Geove t4dd at See ,ediipads ads ccuaaane
| eS 5A tml atone dan 08 ov axewond stint Wehontoml ) ”. om
| eat teal decleteates Liew ak ote oat (ster sega ney cs ey
i stettem doo ldve emma od? of coroxe tet mi eeldiag oxi? to ewoltetor ont
a et ee
fe, kits oslo comer «haum seein edt 0 ton afd Duma sta
ee ee ee es
k bad od yam Yr v0Ce om Hewoat abet end gathal Ye Ltt 6 daitt owe
| mbyo st Hoowboxdat fom ot patbak’ ko L£t0atows Bt kotexed ett Pambagal
(gL omkst fredih nonex0, «¥ gadbi) «ot botanoven seibads wth x8 bbmbk”
: i 08s Salih stsnmbh onde sina -¥ mnadenai 4008 .qqA 21002 quats
mC eee ee es ne a ee
4 Santans dail of nap Yrevovex osoted saild tndmemsbet ed oh 8) 0) 90
9% agamch vet caveauos otadetsda! Ai exthmdwnom to teres neues
oer abson od¢ duit? avorte od dumm #2 wathnatovem dows eco
i migixe le dnieg ed? de vaggida edd yo wetises eld Of boxed :
_sacebive om ded? samme etd? at bebuquthem ab aT <amatvnnaies wig
- peaLtab ape, 1nd sncte emphne: et Yo mBtékbmee odd of on beee TO caw”
q Visatalg, Yor owe dupe ks yteo sixeY wel a2 gmgeee haouthaw odd be
— datt® pusvewed, aayse dented. seeee.ehsoh gubee « tue otem ed bata”
(g% DeLisr dasheote& gesaned toory doxs oxem od Ysumecmmy Baw 22°
sit. tudd tate Yo, Hiawniote att te sohiogetic add ymob yiheoltioog
fixom on 22 oxatT -sanolstbaoy dooy at at 08 bacontoh onan eno. ti0
x
ope
in plaintiff's content fon
Yhe defendant diceleimed knowledge of the condition of
the onions at the time they were delivered to it by the shipper.
it averred thet it gave a reecipt upon their delivery to it that
they were “in apparent good order, contents and condition ef con-
tents unknown" and demanded strict proof of their condition at that
time. We are impelled to conclude that this averment required
plaintiff to prove that the onions «ere in good condition when they
were delivered to defendant by the shipper. 1% was not incumbent
upon defendant to open the erates ond imapect theix condition. if
euch a burden were placed upon « reilread it would make it practically
impossible fer it to handle its business, ond harm and inconveniense
te the shipper would likely result therefrem. (Harshaw, Fulier &
Soodwin Company v. Lllinois Central Rs Coss, 252 Ille Appe 263.)
| Plaintiff slleged that there wus a written contract of
transportation and that he was in possseaion ef the bili of lading
for the shipment. That was the contract ef earriage and it was in-
cumbent upon him to prove it, a» well as that the onions were in good
condition when delivered to defeniant. |
, For the reasons indiented herein the judgment of the
Municipal court is reversed and the cause remanded.
BEVEMSED AND REMAMDEDe
Friend, Po Je, and Seanlan, J., concurs
amok inetuen a ethdekate mt
w neisihnes etd to eqhetvemt bemtaioats sanbaslot aff. oe
saoquicn exit ye at of severity ie spice tii eiieadli
fas? ¢2 9¢ YrevLinb chad? meqe dytscox » wang th Badd toxeeva ot
mo We Neliidbers ine otnede@e «r9bte boog seeteggs a2" eter ryote
ited ta aoktlones vieds Yo toom dobtts hohmameh daa imoninw anes
detiupon dmourcyn abit tat? ohulems of teLfegel wre el sembé
et pale eae idee boOy BL anew ueOteO eG? dard ovdUG Od Pitmbady
davdmcont tom ane of stequide ed? Yd toakeimten of bexovitoh expr
srteenoe’ saolsibaes lots Jorquat Por aster ale mege OF Umsbmeted woGU
"Aabeleeens dh ote deter d0 peniten aieaptiesanele
wore Lae uno gad ton mua ham suena ath ethead ob 2b 8 aihesegat
te goondens metiluw 9 aw , xa dante report: Yenvate
} cup heananeeiiamuammmmndemenmnanentiesies:? | :
heen mi erty onckne ot Yale es Liow a QSt wvorg ‘oP whi sel ee 7
hbE BBL ext (eta at treet este at ng
a ee ee ee mamanasant wor! wis sail ;
asians ah it SE AR oe
a ee ae z mae i
wiwonoe 6% peamannpitassis: we
mm 4 wr
a Bh lh “Ye
Kw RE :
a»
hon ie
. a t oe
i ht é did
37691 f
ff 7
GERTRUDE FISHER, / 4" i
Appellee, g i
APPRAL PROM HIRCVIT couRT,
¥
. " ' “ , ) Cook COUNTY.
THOMAG He HeCLURZ, YO TA £2 3 ¥
Appellant. 29 I.A. 636
MRe TUSTICe SULLIVAN DULIVEED THe OFINIOW OF THR COUP Ts
: This appeal seske te reverse a Judgment for $4,250 in
faver of plaintiff, Gertrude Ficher, ome against defendant,
Themes H. MeClure, entered Mareh 24, 1934, upon the verdict of a
jury in an action for personal injuries reeetved by pleintiff aa
the reeult of an accident whieh occurred January 26, 1933, at the
intereection of Sheridan read and Glengyle place, Chieogo»
Plaintiff's declaration consists of five counts. The
firet charges general negligence, ami alleges that while plaintiff,
im the exereise ef due care fer her own anfety, was walking west
aeress Sheriden road »t Glengyle plece she was etruck by defendant's
automobile, vhich was preeeeding north on Sheridan read and being
operated in « careless and negligent manner. The second count
charges negligenee in violetion of the statute in reference te specie
The third count cherges negligence by reason of the feilure of the
operator of the eutowobile to sound his horn or otherwise giva:
adequate warning of its appreach. ‘he fourth count charges aegligenee
in failing to kesp a proper leokout for plaintiff. ‘The fifth count,
charging willful and wanton conduct on cefondant’s part, wae withdraw
by plaintiff at the cleve ef all the evidence.
Defendant filed a ples ef the general issue and « special
Plea denying ownership, operation and control of the sutomebile in-
volved in the saccident.
The evidence is undisputed that pleintiff, returming heme
ate:
PN TD
Gs
oe \ ‘ wet inten «heigl
\ y we chs came la
fdas an
oTARWOD euwoarn BOOT IAB
yo bird
sTTHIOD WOOD ll
‘980 0 8 Mae smog 3
- OO SET WO PKeINTIC Sr amevnabs Mav EO woHUN
é bet wks 4 seep
ai } obta8 ok dnsempbast, 2 ont ver oe adver Laon ater a woe
ednabaoter fentons bes a esta tT sburdcot Tentadg te 4
: i ae |
bl te dotbzey add soqu seer +28 Beni bexoane oo mL00K as
ef re Be ee
as Tildntalg y¢ kevieoss ao butt Keno 18q 20% mabten wor eh
peare THO, =
edt 28 (Ober (BS crouna besuooe Aoldw savbtoos an Ye sh
“" epeetit? peontg e£ynaoth hms heet ‘nab eseite Ye 1 itooa:
eet =. edeweo evlt te adeteno mottexetosd erties mo i ie
eiitihat okie Gadd apelin ‘tin -Poneg! fae Lavenog ve neg alt |
teow ghidiaw aaw ytetaa awe teat 0k bx00 ow ards .
q - aNinsdaetst XE dexte wow ade wbaty efyyne sd do soot
auttd ARAN Ulla edleeghilgnas taguale Ghee baasls
vevis ontwzedge <0 miad els baie od oLidouedus odd to sods
puephigen negralo taveo Meawey wilt sdesdtaqa wah YO Quietad ©
tawes Moth? os? tidiakalg «02 tweloet ueqorg a qoedt ot ube
1 | mambetede vow gitag etinehmtes mo Sovhsoo nodmaw beta tutktiw y te
habe seemobive ef? Lhe to eaoko emt de thidmbas
Entvogs o ten suond Lovenom edt 10 sofg « Dottt ‘stbaete
“ak eLidoum asa odd 26 Loutnoe bin motterege
Oke
from her place of employment at the Fair Store, alighted from a
northbound moter bus om Sheridan read at the northeast corner of
that street and Glengyle plece at 6130 pemej that Slengyle place
dees not run through Sheridan road te the west; that plaintiff lived
at 5050 Sheridan rond, which was on the west side of the street and a
short distance north of Glencyle places that there were no stop and
ge lights at Glengyle place, but there were at «argyle street, a block
‘te the south, and at Foster avenue, « bleck to the norths that, before
proceeding across theridan road on the north cresewalk of Tlengyle
place, plaintiff looked to the north and south and saw no automobile
traffie except a car sbout « block south at <rayle street coming northy
that, after she had taken two or three steps from the east curb of
Sheridan read, she leoked south again and saw the car “about a half
bleck * * * closer te Argyle than it was to Glengyles” that she then
walked weet seress Sheriden read and wes struck by the automobiles
Plaintiff testified thet ehe did not remember being atruek, and that
she regained consciousness the next day in the hospital.
Howard B. Gwenk testified in plaintiff's behalf thet he was
standing on the porch of his home st 5042 Sheridan read, which is on
the west side of the street about 100 feet north of Glengyle places
that he saw plaintiff walking west across Sheriden road on the north
erovawalk of Glengyle place, and that she had almost reached the
conter of the drive when she was struck by an automobile which was
going about 35 miles an hour; that “from where 1 was standiag it
looked te mec like the center of the machine, front center” struck
her; that she was dragged or pushed along 50, 75 or 100 feet on the
left front part of the ear end then the ear stopped; that he was
prevented from croscing the street immedistely because of automobiles
gGing south; that the car that struck plaintiff backed up, drove
around plaintiff's bedy, drew up te the east curb and stopped; that
when he turned around, after assisting plaintiff inte the ear of a
passing motorist, the ear that struek her was gone; that it was a
8 mort beddphin yomde «hel odd to duomynigne te conta nom moth
to toner gencddrom edt se het nabs comig 0 aed “of0m humochaceym
eoslg olyamot® galt teneq 08:9 ta ooalg alyuaslo Sos teoude dad’
“ bevhE Uiitatelg dats (doow ot of bso aobired? Aywoutd at dan Soeb
® bne tegtda ef to oble daew afd no nin shahabe shank. abil O308 os
kaa qota on oxgwewied? tatd youalg efygueLD to d2ton gonetekh toda
i96Ld & ,teetse eLygti ¢m otew exes tad povsig efygaeto tn witigtt ep
4 etetod. aiadd eld nee eid Of Apokd a youmove teteot ta bats. teen edt oF |
efyanel 20 Slowenete dox08 ed3 no boot noabtiagl? anexes uhooreny
| eiideweras of wae haw ives tne ditom ets of hedooL Tikintelg yooalg .
| pltxen yaimwo foods eiest) #4 dévoe deeld « twode tad s dqedte SEERA
to dee Faxe of? mort aqete som? to owe Aoaad bal oda tedte (faite .
that » twode® us tumabendearchamalgnnndgsanneicaphissis itis
wend ada tak? “yotygemlD of aaw $2 motld ofygtA OF toadLo * oe
seitdomoius ed? yd towtea vow bow beet debixede euorse Yaow beattew
dod bas qitvutia puted tedwewot tom 625 ace dont portiyasd Yedgatett
sfadiqaed of? nt yab dixon silt anetinsodsason buitiget ld
ue ll HiathSiiidiea’dtratbdhiite’ il etattied dail’. Prana? Os
fe ot dotdw choot mobtcodte £08 34 ester ott 26 coved dud nw pabinddd
“qooute elygneid 26 dixon sos OOF awods dowrds oily belied
ddron off? no hact asbtxedit scores teow gaisttow Tthéntela wae ea dad
“ond badonor geemte beet atte tadt bag voootd etegnerd te ate ah
aaw doimdy oLtdemodua na Yt Youtie ear one podw ovich edd to coal
th gntbnade wow I Geert meet” dadd gevad we wofie Be fied? Yn
f wdwrse “ewinoo Jaox't estitdonm etd to Yedmes ext salft ome ‘te é
| Spa? sto Yow OOL 26 GY (Oe gnats bedung xo bexgeth daw date’ hatred
gay st add Pooqeota ¥AO Mt? aiidd bite ead raping Sersvadhipasl
q aoLlidomerwn to vessoed yLedathoumt goods odd gatseoto mort b .
ae ee Re en kk dives yt 3
tads theaaete bun dxup daw od? of qu woxd ovhed oak nh tog ae
hy — re
3 new dt test * jenos ‘saw weal dome ‘badd x20 ‘eat ‘etabroden a
«te
Plymouth ear and the last three numbers of ite license plate were
411; thet the street lights were on and the headlights of the car
were burning, but ne horn was agundeds; that he went home and in
avout twenty-five or thirty minutes an officer arrived with defendunt
ami inquired if anybedy there had witnessed the accident, ani he told
the officer that he hai; that he went with them owt to the curb in
frent of bis home where a car wae standing, and the officer asked him
if he gould identify it ae the ear that atruek plaintiff; that he did
identify it by the last three saumbere of the license plate, 411, ite
top and general appearances thet he inspected the front of the car
and found the grill work or radiater guard in the front of the ear
dented ins and thot he asked defendant if he knew he had hit anybedy
and defendant said that be thought he hed hit a reck in the road or
something «t+ that particular point.
Gvane hs Plummer aleo testified in piaintiff's behalf that
he ond one Powell pulled up to the east curb of Sheridan read, north
of Glengyle place, opposite street number 5050, in the Plymouth ear
of a friend, James Wilner, and that after he and Powell had alighted
therefrom they stood on the east curb behind Zilner's ear ready te
eroces to the west side of the street at that pointy that he looked
south and 60 er 80 feet from where he stood he saw “what appeared te
be something in front of the gar, and falling; that “we were both
excited - we thought something hed heappeneds" that the ear dreve ong
that both he and Powell wrote down the license number of the car that
drove away and checked it with each other; that he and Sowell ran
ever to find out what happened and saw an uneonscious woman in the
atrect midway between the conter of Gheridan read and the east curbs
that they commandeered an automobile and with the essistence of others
Placed plaintiff in it and took her to the Kdgewater Hospital; that in
the meantime some man jumped on the step of Milner's car, otill porked
at the exat curb, and said “get that ears” and that sometime later his
etow edaly semects otf fo axedum oordt dunt os baw cob BOvomEEY
tne ead lo vddylibood weld bes Ke ovow Stetghl Fobwde ed Badd ques
si tee sod Jew of Jefe Phetuwoc saw ered on dud \ peed exer
dmbieleh détw bevivan teoltlo ce seduntm Yrlde wo ovdl-ytnows suede
bied ed tes .deobives a? Seeuendin bat ovate yhodyna Tt Sextepak fe
ai deo ald oo Suu wedd nidw dnow ed Jord pet of asks wesht teas
mid bedde teottie edd tee yuethesds acw 289 0 otedw onion wide arent
bth ed dads pUtL ental Mounts smte cee Ons a $2 ythemobe DhmowecoRt
so! ,lfh .otelg oanootl odd 2 extdmaon ootd Seat ade db ogdhtmeht |
too of? Yo duoxt oft Betonqent ae gade Yoonetecqas Loveney bragged
gag eetd to dex? add oh Deny xodedhos te Muow Litcg edt bawe than
ydodqan Jit bal ef wort ef 22 tnadroted hele od Geld bee tnd Doane
26 fwot oct at toot = Shi Mot oct aetyuodd od dadd Show, hese? |
-talog tefuoliteg feds éo satdtones
tad these’ oMtiniatg &2 hotiiseed cals semmmll. Kh amevB poy bom
‘item g heer mab ices wer ure tna ose hee ER Sa
seo diwou£t odd mi —0008 redeem sounda etlooaqo .eoatq e »
botdigtin het Liewol how od rota sasle hem can eno Anads J
99 Yhoot uae otremLtN daived dave gene od? me hoota yest a "7
“ hesloak oat ane tentog sald tm toonbe od 29 abe fae wht of amare
eo hexmeagr Satie” wae eel neato 0 enact Sonh AR0 AED
dvod exow ex" tad "Ypntsiel bus «seo wad eae MAI AGO ot i
tadé aa oft to mdse: canbe indie’ atabn Aieats wea tisod dads
Nad Liowet ane anf tastd qrotide. done Bade th betoety bas ae, & b
edd ai seaew aseloanoony an wes fee bemegqul tedu jue. ;
ydiw> dane eft tute Beer madbuad® Do tednes oe moowsed x
( wtnuite Be onmtainas add Adiw hme oLtdomodue om bow
mb dade tLettquell xedavegh eat wt sett aloo? Ae ok wh
| Renter Lfkte yxap afrentsM te qote emt mo bequirh, nam emme om ;
4 eid tedad cakdomos tady bas "4ua0 tadt tom? biag, tam vom gem a 7
if. 9d La kveieen got toma
whe
friend “ilner, who chased the oar, the license number of which he
and Powell had taken, arrived at the heespital, as did defendant
and the police efficer who had stopped him at Devon avenue and
Sheridan rerd and brought him backs; that defendant's Flymouth ear
@arried license plates bearing the eame number that he and Sowell
erete down at the seene of the accident. He aleo testified: "The
front grill of the radiator wae smaghed im as if by some eoft and
net a metallic object. The grill was mashed in between three or
four inches of the eenter, and very badly mashed in on the right
bumper. The car carried a license plate. The license plate had
been swung back on its mounting, and one of the bolts holding the
license plate to the bracket had serateched frevh paint off of the -
there was e fresh seratch off of the right front fender."
Plummer teotified further that defendant admitted that
the car which the officer brought him back im ware his car and that
he pasved Glengyle place traveling north on cheridan road about
the time of the secident; that, when defendant wae asked if he did
not know that he had struck « woman, he stated: "I felt a bump as
if I bad hit a stone or something, but I did not realize that 1 had
hit anyone;" and thet he and Powell made police reports of the
accident, and thet Powell wae employed in Cincinnati and Milner in
Wew York city at the time of the trial.
Three police officers testified that the grill in frent
of the radiator on defendent's Plymouth coach was dented, more or
less, after the accident.» One of the officers also stated that
defendant eid that he did not know that he had struck plaintiff
"put he had felt a thud like he ran over a roek and hit his machine.°
Defendant, Or. MeClure, in his testimony disclaimed all
knowledge ef the aceldent. He stated that his 1935 automobile
license plate number was 19-4115 thet he did not rum into a person
at about the 5000 block on Sheridan road that might; and that he did
nt me fata henadeits be boyolqme amy Ctewot satd baum snontsa ;
ne moore Gurl mux gon bth oo dadd qLte.0e cow oem odaky
wd divide Yo mediate oonmoGkE ant? suse ey doomte ot vrontienmetes
duskoe%e bhb oa sLethqued emt to tovives “makes ‘bad Rewer iia
‘We ouMOve Moved s mil boqqade sail ody toodite voltog ene Mee
thes ATONE @ Spake toh tet? Pied mht idywond ta tet eb Peeme |
Shower bre ot dole vodman omnd add gubteod astele aenedht boheme
(tt? tektites t oske SH tnobtoow edd Yo enoon vas Fx tno WE
Bie Pies enoa qd Uo en af bedecma naw “totorhar odd to Litey eee j
te oot! nevwted mt herfeen sew Litre ef? .tootds ot tide aden
“ Selghs osfd wo oh borinam YLbad Ytow haw \wedstee oMlf T6 asiteit tT
hat 8#nfy cunvelt ou? .evaly eed a hetvtno end eit”! stbiglll
oft Qmibfod etiod wit Yo eno bis ,gnbvewest o¢2 no toed galwe ee
+ Bde XG Te Iutag adort beifosivee bad deeded hdd Ot Stent eMNONEE
“scyhuict snort trfyity oatt "tO Ye dodaave udet WH dew oad
fads boddimba tendered dadd vedi BeITEs ood dodaingt OPM
‘fante Bee ceo ett wow wf Xoad afd trtyiow ‘cootrie oa/ Holme vee SMe
gud box nad iced? wo Hrom oHtLovet ooety otysnitD Ceddlg ae
BED ent RE boxes cow Yantnoted Hodw ,Yetd ysiebieed with to SMe kee
‘ge qms a tite 1 Yhedese of ,xamew 8 Mowtde ant eit tail d wehet Yolk
hat f fadtd oubfeor ton bib C aud ,gntidende do onode a Old Bad TU
gatt Yo eftoget sotfoq ebem LtowoX bes at tilde ‘il “bel i
stole ttt sad owtt wht te ye
gmoet mt Chety wtf? sedd ALTE ee! wdeer te wetted seed? ~ 9"
“go brew phodasd exw Kondo Mévomytt “tins oan
det? Badge owle axook tt) ots Ye en0 strobivea eddiomnning G
‘Yetsntete dovzde bad od dads wont dom bth od Sets “baad Oe
* sida g@uof Pid bee door» veve nox oot otht Butld o errs
fie ‘botitatoats cmemtieed ale ak rr ‘yee tnt OO
“ekiveme tan GORE alt sail Roaatd a” Hee btoda ety ‘se hin
“phe st todd bao tédgte dont beox mabstont> adnate cn wi
fe
not remenber his ear etriking plaintiff sbout 6:30 peme that evening,
He further gtated that he had ao recollection of telling the police
officer or anybody else that he felt a thud as if he had struck a reck
er some other object at about that point in the road, and that he
eeuld mot say definitely if he felt a bump of any sort when passing
Glengyle place on Sheridan read. He admitted that the Plymouth coach
he wae driving when the officer stopped him was his, and thet he had
ériven north on Sheridan road past Glengyle place a short time prior
to being stepped. He stated further that the officer whe stepped
him wae riding on the running board ef a Plymouth coach just like his
ewn (Milmer's car), and that the point where he vas stopped was about
a mile end a half from the scene of the accident.
Chether plaintiff wee in the exercise of rensonable care
for her own safety, whether defendant was guilty ef negligence as
charged in the declaretion, and whether defendant owned end operated
the automobile involved in the sccident were oll questions of fact
properly submitted to the jury under the evidences shown by the revord
in this case. There wos ample evidence to warrant the jury in fairly
resolving all three questions in plaintiff's favor.
It is contended that the court erred in allowing plaintiff's
expert witness to testify, as it is claimed, to subjective syuptome,
it is true it has repeatedly been held thet the testimony of «
physician is incompetent which is given after exemination of «a patient
selely for the purpose of testifying and is based wholly on the
physicien's observation of outward manifestations within the control
of the person examined. (Greinke ve Chicago Vity Rye Coes, 234 Ill.
564.) Pleintiff's counsel do not question the rule, but contend
thet the symptoms testified te by the physician were not subjective
and that his knowledge of plaintiff's condition was net based on
voluntary actions on her part. (Hathaway ve Shannon, 266 ille Appe
620.)
epaiowve dari? emeg O829 duods Liecniale gatdiste veo vid cedeemes dom
eobiog ev? yaliled to sesdvesioves on bast ant Jakevbetada catvet oH
Hoos a teante bed. od. Rh a0: het @tednd tals onbe Chote Sy wattle
el told bow qhoox esky mi datog sald tumde te toelde welde. omew we
Baleany wodu drop gue le quvd s ¢igt od Th yLeainttob, yes fom tives
Hosen Aévenytt odd salt hediiahe oh «bat mabdtuedé no opal oftgnele
bad es todd hus .akd now she beqgode aeottio edd nuty anivich awe oo
tolnq qui? éxede » sealq oiygnetD teaq beor mebivede no uliton novkeh
(— oygets exw xoottto of) todd senda dotete ot, xboqgote atom ae
aid extl gost, donoo divest s to need ynicnwt edt me gektts eawait
duets, say, voqqete asx ed otody intog odd tats Smo «(ep attonten) aie
‘ it Oe vtsobtoon ed 20 or00e ed sox? Mats bn often
i erse seamen te eeletexo sd? mt ssw. Tihkéntealq sedted? — . ea ’
‘on Gonegifnen te yilivg sew tnehpete® teddedw yysolan nwo eetentl
| bedtetoge dna femme tarhaelod redsete dna ywoktaxelood aft mt hontai
fogt Jo amoténeup ifs oxew deobtooe adt at boviovs eLtdomnsus oft
Brower old YC mwoiia consbtve a? zobeu yuwh et .ed. sehietmlernipased |
| ytiel at esul add dimoriaw of svnehive elgqua sow erat. soen0 4 ‘a
; eo Se tOvRR oR akele wd emediawmp vet cosconsanenll |
“ atritomtete auivotte 2 bowie drags ‘ade daild Seboatinen iat Finis “vie
- samgcquye evideotdus of «bomkole af $f ae sYtttaed of aanntividuegae”
a Yo Wrombsued oct) darts bkod need ysbesooges eat #44 Pa
| tne tteg © Yo natinnisaxe wate coviy el dots gnutequovnt af o
(hte hort hewnd ak ta eargtteeed Yo: exocuue eit t0
| Hettmes se msdsiv sueléadasRinam buartwe Ye molierweds « es
ALE BS goed eri wt tD onan ddD av atte) shan teen
a a
Mie MM eee Aik ae be a ye | | ii wii
-6~
Dre Um. J. Swift testified that the conditions and symptoms
that he found as a result of the teets he made were objective. He
states that he rubbed his finger over plaintiff's eyeballe with her
eyelids open and that there was “ne flickering or enything else * * *
not a bit of compleint;" that he held her tongue with one tongue
compressor while he wiggled another around her threat and feund her
“sensation wes markedly reduced for an average individuals” that he
used a reinforced Newberg test to examine her stability by having her,
with her eyes open, bring up her fingortips and touch her nose, firat
with ome hand and then the other, lowering them in turn: that he then
eaid to her, without advising her an to the purpose of the test, "new
eless your eyes and go through the come movements," and that os she
did so she swayed; thet when he tested her patella reflexes by striking
the ligameat on cach of her legs just below the knesenp, “her feet.
flew up very actively, far beyond normal.” “o ctatewents or complaints
ef plaintiff to Dre Gwift were allewed to be given in evidenee.
We axve not prepared to say that the symptoms and conditions
found and testified to by Ure Swift are not considered objective by
the medical profession, ani there is ne refutation in the record of
their being ouch, defendant's expert witness, Dr. Pease, not even
being asked his opinion as to whether they were ar not. In Hathaway
ve SRannon, supra, where plaintiff's expert witness in that ense
tevtified that spinal rigidity and reatrietion of motion were objective,
and it was objected that they wore subjeetives, the sourt eid:
"So evidence was offered by the defendant to refute these
statenents of the physician regarding the rising of the muscles,
Under such & atate of facte, we are of the opinion the court did not
err in overruling the motion to strike the evidence of this witness,
‘(Setmict v. Chicago City Bye Cos, 239 Tlie 494.)"
in Etskowski v. Aurora, Pigin and Chiengo Railroad, 167 lil.
Apps 469, the court said at page 4731
"It is the lew that subjective symptome or tests, obtained
from @ plaintiff during an examination by a physician for the purpese
of testifying upon the trial, are inadmissible. Sheughnesay ve Holt,
| RRs
ee bees amottivxon edd todd bolthdand shee «Lamhe,
ok <.avifvert{do stow shat od etaee ot to Jiveet «on bosss0 964 id
‘tod Mew aLiadoye atitintaly tov sepns® ots, doddut od. todd angase
* * # gels gridiyns to gaknovetly on") maw eteds tadé bia ogo soniowe
Sages ONO Aeiw sepned red bien ea gant “tiatelquac Le 426 dont
“ated biwot bi Saotdd cork bastoxe, toddons beLamse on, oLtew: Teese1qmD
oA todd “yLawhlvttet eyerevs nx tet beowbex ~Lbernem een mebiaanes”
tee giived yd Ytifidet: cer omtmexe of dyed guadeel booxelnion « beaw
dual? yenon ted dowee bee agqttxogntt wet qu aatud aneqe soye t0d dike
wort «Sued ext to exoqtuy oxi Of mo teMt anintvbe duoditw «xed es dhap
‘eile 00 fadt tos ",einemevom came ef? dywoult 92 dne neye Noy oaks
patiitie wi woxeftor affLetaq cor tetaot ef modw fadt iheyave ests om tb
feet coN" aqeocemt od? wood sunt opel tae Yo dose ne dnomenhieds
atatatquos th otnemetate of *, Leweron heoyed tsk oeenteen que meld ,
C7 ponottve tf nevig ef of bowelle stew 2 hiwS «mt of Thbembadqyte
‘eHeIitheon tne amosgeye eft ted? yor of Dersgerg som ete cho coey
ed evttbetds herebtenos ton ote Sti etd Yt O¢ ded tteoed, bee bag?
to broost od mk mobtevdtot om at oxedd tos amoteao tory tepther edt
teste don a denet sel yawontio steqxe «tamheoted .dewe pated sheds
eheaiiga NT stom co oxew Wald sosistody of.e2 notnige etd, being gated
Sto Iadd mt auondtw siege 6 'IRiindadG, oxndy cose seanadla 9
yevitoctdo oxow mutton Yo netveixtces tna Whbight Lomige durld, bakRianes
oe ty cmomiomnadpamtianananceniniciyimtane
geet Biter OF sedne teh odd Yd one
; emofoawm ode? to anteix sald peabiages natok (iad
ho. ta om
vegeniis ats xo sonebive aT eaisde ef oe gids Se
*C de LEE tO ea)
enoqZg, ry stn om a a eh nelianinane A Pict a boas i
Mangniguedte
s8508 +
Fe
236 lille 4B5 5 Greinke Ve siie * “ iW e GOeg 234 Llle B64- inasmuch,
however, as one oF more of the physicians in thie case testified
that the tremilousness of the handy and of the tongue and eyelida
of tho appellee were involuntary and not within his control and
gould mot be siswlated, the evidence thereof objeetedc te by appellant
soln se ye Prior gat ar ; cuaey wanes N, _ gion és ua ’
4id wet render the evidence inadmissible for that reason; but ia such
ease it was propexiy deft to the jury as a faet for them te determine
whether or net such symptoms were involuntary or simmiated.“
A hypothetionl question, which assumed to contain a complete
history of the case, was propounded to the doctor, and he wau aaked if
he had an opinion based upon resconable medical and surgical certainty
as te what the symptoms onumernted in the question indiceted. He
anewered thet hie opginion was “this woman sustained a concussion of
the brain * * * injury te the brain." Then followed another hypothet~
iea], \uestion out rather inaptly and in a fragmentary fashion, but
ehich the dector finelly anewered by stating that it was his opinion,
based upon renconable metiesl cortainty, that the conditions whieh he
found woon hie exemination of plaintiff might or could have resulted
from the concussion of the brain which he deduced from the symptoms
enumerated in the previous hypethsties] .vestion. The decter stated
his opinion to be thet the conditions which he found upon his
exemination of plaintiff Decernber 26, 1933, "may last as lone ae the
patient lives, and they mey clesr wp." Thereafter he said it wae hie
opinion, “thet in view of the fact this woman woe injured in Jenuary
and thease objective findings were present in December, and in view of
the fact of the various complaints stated in the hypothetiesl question,
belisve the condition in permanent."
it is claimed that the hypetheticsl questions propounded
to the decter did not cever the complete history of the onse and
that his anewers must, therefore, have been baged upen «a self serving
history given to him by plaintiff on the ocearion of his examination
of her, 4 careful inspection of a1) the evidence contained in the
recerd convinees us that the hypothetiend questions were feirly
pileuewany hoe .ILT bE Eat sd ‘28 +Et G68
betticas? evoo atdé ni af ee ae te etOM .O eb, eh ytovOM
“ebiteye Sua ovgnrot off io. heiw abied gtld Xo A yp ncip omy 4
vi hos fovinmeo ald nistthe gom bina punta?
SeaLisge2 woof setootdo Yworatd vonebl ye ad af Fy got a on
O2 int tolticeod anmmiolawlg reside sacdd sont, oct, ade sakes
steteloate od Biuwe bes ae fouuy Nendiacee od “to Loxsaoo als to ar
Siewe nk jud isoeans duis at eldieninbant gonaksve pid }
eninteedh of mode “rot do2t aw ee Ytul ede 02 tiel “eseceng asw #2 eeno
| “,betelimke 10 Yratewlevnt exer seotquys doa son 2m wecttente
‘tedgnes # mtasver 02 bemvons dole. 4Hobtaoup. Laobsedtoeds, 2). aap
te beatae ase ont bas stotoo atld oF bebrwogorg gow youn oats, be wate
Wutsexoo faoty tus fe Lepibem sitemasex nequ bead melatge nas ack gat
(Sh shodssibal noleoup asd at bojatemune mmeqays odd tose od am
; _2e solepvonoe 8 bentasaua name aids” wow sotetge eld sald beter
~suidouys tations bewrollel ned’ “satard om¢ od warhead * mand 9a
oa a8 yap tya? ore teremee® 2:08am. AnE ORR
heer Rage oe
emetunge ald qaw $4 dod? aetdade YC beteweme tieukt sodeeb até wodete
_o8 delde ameiitomes odd sects Womesdree Laothan efdasaset mga om
RS a wat ee
~
betivwet ewal bivoo co tdgta Tiidmtale Yo mttnniaaxs aft nog ewe
amergays oS w02t bowed sf Moldy mtwrd off Xo notawenes 92 mow)
“botedy Reseed af .nekénew, Loottesttogyt omptews cety ack feeitasenintte
edt spqu baue? sat dott omer? keene ond dato wd of sounitge ait
o¢ a ged ae dant Yam" 2280L 9A redmoetl Ykidnialg te mbes
tt aay 22 bhoe, oct redone nts eat bt a a
Urewnal ot treekat sew poe wbshd font emt to wakv mt taster
_ 30 WOEY M2 kee a tedmoneG ne Anonemy omer mmMhbe®. rttootde weet bee |
‘ane tt w0up favisedsioryl off m2 betate admkalqude oar bum ond @ te
hahah Stew asad site baleen als tals! 1 ae
-Ge
comprehensive of the facta. At any rate defendant cannot now be
heard to complain that all the facts in evidenee were not included
in the hypethetieal questions when no specific objection wae made
te the questions when they were asked, amd it was not pointed out
to the trial court what portions of the questions were deomed
improper or what facts comprising the history of ‘the case were
omitted. “« think this to be the established rule and it is
Obviously ite purpese te permit such questions te be reframed if
objections mais to them are sound. Moreover, on crese-oxemination,
defendant's counsel had the privilege, “hich they did not exercise,
of ineorporeting in any euch .vestions any facts in evidenes which
they felt were omitted or of omitting such portions of them as they
deemed showld not have been included. ((ity of Aledo v. Noaeymany,
208 Tle 4153 Chieego City Aye Coe ve Bundy, 210 id. 59; “iverton
Goal Cos ve Shepherd, 207 id. 305)
‘Im any event no point is made in defendant's brief and
argument that the amount ef the werdiet io excessive. It is not
denied that plaintiff received considerable injury, and even if the
physician whe exemine? her for the purpose of testifying did base
his opinion partly upon subjective symptoms we de not wae that
defendent wae harmed thereby. (Browder v. Northwestern Gas lo & Go
Soo» 182 Ill. Appe 260)
instruction Woe 3 given on the court's own motion is
complained of chiefly beenuse in enumerating elements to be considered
in determining upon which side is the preponderanes of the evidence,
the instruction told the jury what elements it “will" take into cone
sideration instead of what elements it “msy“ or “might* take into
consideration. There is ne merit in this contention. There are
s0m@ eoses where languege is used which would suggest thet on
instruction which tolls the jury what evidenee it “will* or "“sheuld”
take inte consideration is erronecus, The jury dees not have any
+
o6 wen tonne Inalnsteb odes Ye #4 atest sid te oyhamodenyage |
Pebelowt ton caw wonehtve th wsowk eld Sle dadd aheignos et based
| whe sow metieelde ktioegn on nade guolsesup Looisoddogyl alt mt
ixe bogmiog cox new $f daa yhowne oon yaad netw anolsgonp hdd 09
damooh etew emotiasup eld to aneléxeg dade oxwos Lalsd gtd_et
exer onae orld 2o Yrovals exit gutataquee avon’ daly 10 tequugtt
ak a bea eles bhestehisadee orld ed 03 nina Mocks ew «heda tae
QE hemoxten ed oF anotiesup som siwrey oF sebqumg abt eLembbvde
quebeanime-eeres me ,TevOOTEN bias OxXe wade of ohne |
vou forex tom bkb yotd dokdy sogekivive odd bust isonseo wtinnbasteh
Acitw eonebive at etoet we smeltvou. dowe yam mi putéstoqzevnl Yo
decid as meds Yo omedixeg dave gals? ime to vo bbdatno ovww died yolks
qnmeysnol! wv obet\ 26 Yio) .bebictund Wedd owed don Kiivena bemeol
cebteendis 18 OF Ont avtiadt Ve St VERS nab AD “yer Set abe
(e8¥E .aF TOR stosriuonte, + ga diet
baa twivd s*énabasteb at wba bk gatoe 6x dndve Yas At” rian
gen at 8 .eviessoxe af @erbuev acto to fnusemes off dad sreeaigte
guad BES pelytitwe? te seequwy suit tot tem dordmand ow pebohogig —
tat? ven a ee :
' am se a gt
ai mottos avo uttume odd me cevhg 6 +e mokéounsanE © 8
pore dienes of oF edmnwele yrtsonsmne at eewnsed ~tetsio te hentadgany
seensdive wis Yo sone tobmeqe tg eft af obla Motte avgy gainimwmieb Be
etnt eet “tigim® vo “yam” 92 efwemede fatw Yo heodamd sok
oie ered? sneléeesmoo aldé mt throm om wt weet ” smetdadeh
ae beat Seeegure Stuer dotity Soe ut vpeurmsint oad nooo en
opiuoda” ve “fhe” $2 ovmmhtve dase yxwt add off? Motdw moktowirte dat
‘gun avait son eoob Yust, ed? suponoree st metiaxsisues eont Sind
oad aad
option to consider any evidence 1+ may think proper. It is its
duty te consider the evidence admitted by the court. (Zosch v:
Ghieage Bye, Coss 221 lle Appe 2415 ‘alters ¥. Cheeker Taxi Cov,
265 lle Appe 329; Heyer ve Mond, 83 Ille 19.) in the latter
gasée an instruetion told the jury what it “mist” take inte consid-
eration, and «¢ think it is a better ani more correct word than
that it "may" or “wight” teke such evidence inte considerations
We are umable te ses hew a jury could have been misled by the use
of the word “will” instead of the word “may” or “might” in the
inetruetion. Wo proper elements were omitted and the jury was left
free to consider sli the evidence in the case. The weight to be
given to the elements enumerate? and all the evidence wis left solely
to the jury. We think defendant was not prejudiced by the uee of the
word "will." (Loseh ve Chigogg Rype Co+§ Fabters v. Checker Taxi
Se.) (Supra. )
‘Defendant complains also of instruction No. 1 given at
Piaintiff’s instance, which states, "the jury have a right to and
they should teke inte consideration all of the evidence pertaining
to plaintiff's physical injuries ***," and then goes on to enumerate
proper elements of damage toe be connidered by it. Objection is made
(1) te the use of the word "should," (2) that the instruction refers
te the declaration, and (3) that the jury might be misled inte allow-
ing damages net properly reeoverable. it is sufficient to state
that as to the use of the word “should” in this instruction we think
its use fitting and expressive of the meaning the court sought to
convey to the jury. As te the reference in the instruction te the
@oelaration, it is only meceseary to say that defendant also referred
te the declaration in ieptrestion Moe & given at his request, and,
under such circumstances, he cannot be heard to complain. (Lerrette
Ve Davia, 225 Ill. Appe 955 ‘ennemacher vy. Choate, 224 id. 42.)
We fail to see how the jury in this case could possibly have been
ate” Li Si
Lay RY aR
ee
: wai at 4. .xegosy Matas yam #2 ookehive ne sebtaans ob mokige
o¥ dees.) .2xsoe edt EC beddions eonsdive ast «ebhlemen ot wn
meting ed mi 4e@i SLE EO aback ov way Tene aqgqu: +L dae
whienny eget olat “daun" £4 sedw quash std blot mol townsend an 0600
ads brew soet2oo eTem ban tatsed a ab ds wnkst ow ton bbe wre
smoigeughlence etek gonebive dows eded “deigtaY ce "you" ob tea
ous ond yd belnim need ovat blvoo yuh » wed vee of eftasw eae 8%
. ed ah "igi xy "yaa" btow oft Lo beodant "ELiw" Grow ade to
Pel wow Wut add dan bogsime exew adnemeds xeqge7q ot snotiootoont
‘od 2 Atghow of? .oneo old mt oomedive ens Lin cobiened 08 om! a |
(Unies Mok aaw oonebire oss Lie hmm Sedacemued odadmete oat oP novia
eié te eau oil! WW heotbulety fon ane tnabmoteb antdd oW vent ssid oa” a
Aes aedned® «v eusdket toad cv mates se Meat) Ochtke® bed
praia etvaateretent te oats entacgnes teapmeted
dow eo dtigin » overt yawl witt* yeodete ddtdw vensstheponaeanel }
gitniadvey eoaetive emg Yo Lis motdersbivaes eink stay vee ee
stare of ao vooy meds tas ".*** gelastnt Lookeyiy @ePer eal f
oham at mebiceid> 42 YS heretteneé ed ed ognaid xo anne wore i;
eEwRor mptsouxdued edd fads (8) "a bidede” xr of? WW Cow ent OTE
wwella ont befeln od txgia yur elt dads dejede one ioe: ataloeb +
date os mitra a stmt" toe at 26 9 a
hourster ody temiteteh dll? yon oo ‘ptawerson pails nw
thn qSaswyes ale ta ives 2 08 pottuetians mf notterstveb wat
agterrs) sminiquos of tnul o€ dens of .unpnndumborta’ ;
ApS be 28S, epdnns «7 xuseammeme’ 180 woh LEE BSS,
goed over \idieaog Biyoo seso aid? mi yrst od wodl eee ot
“10.
misled by Doing told that 41% should consider "all the evidence
pertaimine to plaintiff's physical injuries." Thereafter, in the
game instructions, the physical injuries for whieh plaintiff? mighs
recover were limited to those shown by the evidence te have been
“the proximate result of the cecident.* Defendant asserts that the
jury, under this instruction, may have allowed damages, particularly
for the curvatures of pleintiff's spine and her disexsed ear, The
firet mist be excluded, inaamich as the reeerd éineteses that plaine
tiff's counsel told the jury in Ris. clesing argument that “we are
mot mekinc ony claim for back injurieo,” and the second becauce
plaintiff testified that ehe suffered from o digcharge ef her ear
before the sccident. Ye think defendenmt was not prejudiced by the
giving of this instruction.
Defendant objects to the refusal by the court te give
inetruetions Wes. 1, 5 6 and 7 requested by hime Counsel cite cases
whieh held that it was erroneous to refuse similar inatruetions.
We have carefully examined every case cited ami find meme that is
appliceble t@ the situstion presented here where the rules of law
set forth in the refused instructions are fully covered by the
instructions given. Our examination and consideration ef all the
instructione lead to the conclusion that the jury was fully and fairly
instrueted and thet there was ne substantial errer in the refusal of
those rejected. (Chicsgo City Kye Cos ve Bundy, supra.) Taking
the instructions es a whole and aos constituting a single charge,
which must be done, they state the rules of law applicable to the
facts of the case with substantial accuracy and are sufficient to
fully inform the jury as to the rights of the respective parties.
(West Chicago City Bs Re Cos vs Lieserowitz, 197 111. 607% vembzal
«Bye Sos ve Bunmister, 195 Tll- 48.)
| Finding no reversible error the ju¢gment of the Cireuit
eourt is off irmed. SPP IRMED.
*‘Priend, ?. Jes ond Seanlan, J.»_ concurs
ouddive on? La" xehtenoe dfuode st dod bod pntod yt betatm
om? Bh ,tosterurdd "“seetiwwiat Lnployly ei Minisly af pnintetreq
Wis Siivetaty dale re) sehumbal Leolawig edly senotiemeent ease
Heed evad oF Soawhiys ext YW pwede seods of basinal otow toveest
on? tadt vdcomnn Imebme te "“,dnebioos odd to tLonet osamixe Ty pas"
Vsaionitueg yuogemed dewolia svad you anoltorttont abit tohmy «out
ode hae deanenth, ted bas mye, a tittabalg %& wotusereas ada zor
opiaig dant anuoton dd. bugoex aha Be Aourtscml « debutoxe od tune fast
one-one" takt tunmwgne gatacto ahd at yrai, edd bho? Loanuee Aft
satnved heeoes od fam “gentzuinl dead 20% abeLs Wie onbion 20m
tne ted ig epresiogds « mori, bore tive, atte sods bebitiend rrhdatede
etd heatbugerg Jon say seabneteh Ankd? oF .snobtoon wd? orot0d
| | _stottourcent std? te iad
erin et #xuoo ed? YE Lomvtex od? of atpokdo tmabartod
wens otte eunod std YS bodesupos T hes o 8 4X .a0F amos
eemohiouwens weLintn geste of asiounarte. aan. ah. dogs hed debe
wi Souls Omen belt tna hebto exne Yrore demtmaxe ULutore oma oF |
‘wat Sy eckwr onto ovede stent bodreeexy notdeia odd ed aldaatiqas
en? Yd heteveD YLiv't vw vnokénedend boawtox oft nh ddxo% don
wht Lie to neisaxblenes tie moltenteioxe #0 .mevly aaehtowntand
hovmaiiemdanata sie Yset of) gould notenteme eat of feet enohtorstant
‘6 Rianne ‘ede at wrete Lattantedteen'ner mde stent ee
wands Ga cit ov :
rp iy on
37748 f
ASMA MacDOWALD»
. Appelled,
Ve APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
ROY He MacDONALD COURT, COOK COUNTY.
befendant.
269 1.A.637
Appeal of Ae Ge DICUS,
Appellante
WR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THS OFINION OF TH® COURT.
Movember 6, 1933, appellant ss solicitor fer Anna
MacPonald filed a bill. for divoree in her behalf agsinet her
husband, Roy H. Maclonald, which contained an allegation that
certain income-producing real estate belonged to the parties in
joint tenancy.
January 155 1934, it wae ordered by the court that
Amma MacDonald collect all rente from the property and turn them
over to the mortgage holder to be applied on account of principal,
interest end taxes.
It wes ordered February 5, 1934, that Auna MacDonald,
the wife, receive out of the rents $7 a week and that she or “her
sOlicitor receive the rents and the balance be deposited in a bank
subject to the further order of the court."
Thereafter, June $, 1934, upon the sugcestion of the death
of defendent, Roy H. MacDonald, on motion of defendant's solicitor,
it was ordered that Ae G. Dicus, attorney for complainant, turn
over within five days to the clerk of the Superior court, until
judicial disposition thereof, “all funds and sums of money now in
tbe
| A, ee eae
e
S
| x
| : { kts
oe ei i ; a yo t
i Hie’ \ ‘
= “tne
: te ; rss ie! as “< *
a¥tZU00 BLES , TAVOD Be sitar
owe igs AY
; 4 . a THR Oe
Leases, a *eees
CPi: ee
iy
‘Yeo ATeyS 4
i sl
| | g 200% 1D vA te r
‘team ke |
CaS . 4
oe et? agin’
“Vises aer 20 BOINTGO eH canvas wAvELIve sOrreut a
‘ en. aba te og? ie iq
| anmA 10% xottohion ox tttsliegge g868L (8 sedmevom oe
).. Mott temtope Yasied sedi eotovhh 02 LLkd.s boleh |
dant noliogetic na beaiaison HOLE 2 Maneinem, oS wr a - r | )
“qrettodsos a '2asbae2eb 0 soiéon a0 2 «Diane en ate broke k
FR I, Palle, OS MS i
“esd stnanbeLenes 10% emiette gauoie ” oh Soh Asiaett
{ktm gomsen vobroque alt 20 seeo ad oF asd welt eet
hae oat Se wm, Ane. otha
ote
his eustedy and possession by reason of o certain order heretofore
entered in said couse ond that this cause be dismissed by reason of
defendant's decease.” The appellant seeks to reverse this last ordere
Appellant contends that the court erred in entering the
order beesuse no allegations had been made in any petition or otherwise
that he had any such funds, becouse no proof was made that he had or
has auy euch funds, because mo finding was made that he had amy such
funds, because he way not exlled upon to mect any allegations by
answer or proof, because the order is net definite as to tha amount
that he should turn over, and, is, therefore, incapable of being
complied withe
A prior order suthorized appellant or hie client to receive
certain rents and deposit them in a bank subject to the further erder
of the court. It dees not sppear from the record whether appellant
ever received such rents, but if he did no accounting was ever made
of them to the court. ‘The court does net find in tise order that
appellant has in his custedy and possession any money received as
rent, but its purport is that if he has he should turn it over to the
clerk for disposition by the courte If he has or had any of such rent
money in his oustedy or possession when the order was entored it was
not his in so far as the record discloses, and we can perceive no
reason for any complaint on his part because of the entry of the
order, mor are we able to perceive any excuse or justifiestion fer
his refusal or reluetance to comply with it. If he did not have
custody or possession of rent money theretofere received by him under
the prior order of the court, it would have been a very simple matter
for him to so advise the court of which he was an officers
We are unable te understand how appellant could have been
harmed in onywise by the entry of the order even though it may have
been imprevidently entered, and we are not holding that it was. In
eur opinion it is net an appealable order.
a This appeal should be and it is dismissed,
oon me Jeo and Seanlan, Jes concur. APPEAL DISMISSED,
Oto tosoted 1Hb1o miadweo 4 ke Aoaaex ‘“d welusenenq bee Ybotewe ated
‘Re noenox WW hovatmeih ed sawao wkd tedd baw oawen biow wk bewedes
_ stebso taal ai8@ sexevet oF mivee énekieqga edt “,sasooeb & "Sasbnw tob
wy gatieise wt bexre davon od geeld abasdnoo tas llogqs. RINT
palwiestte to melitveg yan af ebam ased bad enotdapolin on btopeanns wee
te Sad ent dad eham asw teorg om oasened <adowte rennin bad od saat
dovo wis Ged of ted? ohom now petthalt on essmoed about sods Wie aad
UC andivsgelia Yue Sebm o2 moqy delLes son aew ‘orf sanaved “qe bist
a ai? of we efiniieh gon at cebro ecld proving e teeny te tewans
gitted Ye ofdaqenn? yoroteved? sat yhne ih: erred oe oat saad
‘ ‘shdtw bekLqmos
| Wheoet 99 Mmolio uid 19 smalingge bestzonium tobse tolmq An
Rehee tecidurt ould 0% Pootdve ned 2 at amd? sooysd hae staot meatal”
éraliogas seddedw bxeoot add mest navaqa bea 200% at" leeues eis to
wham tov sox gmhtewoven ox Sth aif Lf sud gadnox deus bevtoron a ae
dastd ‘webre oat at test don aeob oxwoo adit »dxw08 ‘ont of oat
a2 beviooet Ypsromt ws nalaseeneq huta ebotsue “aid nt “watt ‘sduitisieds
| ed of cove 2 must biwodte oot wast ox 2h feds ob droge ‘odE Yue Canoe
tne toue te ts hath cnet ol SE oubue ‘Gad WnoLd tnogads so? stzodo
aoe tt hoxed ne aaw rbt0 ot meatw natasousog x0 yoraue “ala ‘sd Qe
on ‘eviveteg neo ow bes ,aenefesth beovet add BA xa on at ‘utd don
edi te Yatee od % ousaned ot sid xe tnbatgnoe was men mcinsid
TOL melt ogitizext “ saws vr ertoozeq “4 eita had wie beter: ay
eval fon bib wat u oft aétw euaoe of sonsgoutes 20
OTLs be ok rot atioe
tebe mid yd hevieset exeter wait Yones ino ad noteaessed 70
tei ao Oe ky
| $ottem olumts yrey a mood ovad biwoy #4 «2tuQ9 ed to sobto rottg odd
mot eyed Divoo énalleqga word bandas baw os esdanw 90 oF 19 ust)
ovad You ot Mpsosds nove tobto od? 0 ‘yet ont ad pera os Fy dig *
LL lal het Aaske pnd bLou ton oe ow bms sbosetas. a ey i
x sbouatont wk of od hivede ieeqgs ald? pt
were Tame Te oT. ReTA le etna bet oe % a ‘
ripp2tte na aoe oof dol Yo ¢uoo oxtt salvos os st of le 1
; y
THR PRCPLE OF nes rare ov rfyhvors,
PlAintiff in Error,
Te.
)
,
Defendant in Error.
GROR TO THE MURICEYAL
HURT OF CHICAGU,
279 I.A.63'77
BR, PRESIDING JUSTICE O'COBNOR
DELIVERED THE OPINIGN OF THN COURT,
JOH GREEN,
On December 19, 1933, an information was filed in the Muni-e
¢ipal court of Chicago charging defentant with driving away his
automobile after a person had been injured by being struck by the
automobile, contrary to the statute. Afterward defendant enatered a
plea ef not guilty, waived a jury; the court heard the evidence,
found defendant guilty and sentenced him to elaty daye in the Neuse
of Correotion and a fine of $200 was imposed, Defendant was taken
to the House of Correction snd afterward a notice was served on the
State's Attorney and a petition filed, ‘The petition prayed that the
judgment ba set aside and vacated in accordance with the provisions
ef section 89 of the o14 Practice act, and considerable faets are
stated tending to bring defendant within the provisions ef that see-
tion, Aftervard defendant was broucht before the Municipal court
and an order entered sustaining hie wetion for a new trial. He then
entered a ples of not guilty, waived « jury, and there was a hearing,
The court found defendant not guilty, and he was disebarged.
The sulfieiency of the petition waz net raised in the matter
peinted out in People vy. Green, 355 111, 468, and Peovle v. Parcora,
356 111. 448, The evidence taken on the hearing is not in the reecerd
before us,
Yor the reasons stated “ an J pny filed this day in the
Peo t + noise v mry Gardner, ke. 37781,
sage is affirmed.
JUDGMENT APFIRGED,
ease of ond pA
the judguent of the
MeSurely and Matchett, JJ., concur.
‘mG * Naa a ¥ a
Bin se
# Co % 4
i me Ny Teer Cs yee pis oe AS | a
if, bs oo aa , Daa ae a ba aan gen
' { ,2lo“ GO dat vo adiout apr
é ae iF fee mz’ ohh wo Cae eee
a so ta an or #0 at }
0K9EH9 wo TaUdO
“rors “a trohee'tet
my: os : ies 4 Fe)
> 188. Las ] e. ) Qu wead » hin, does Ma Del Ot Sate
= F wivt SRR ‘Re ah
Fisiicasiiis Sats 9 "wb tre un ‘dutdzeme "au ear
ve “i ATAUQD EAT CQ AOLMIGO SHR, CARAVLUME coe \ ohmart
av
: : stows 04 ont? ak bo Lh) paw Holfiguetetal om COL Of tedmeget, MB. coe sme
: ats wre pabvich ftw ‘Toabagteb anigzedo egapigo oe sue, Leathe )
ond ee aaivete gated xe hatuhai seed bad somteq a toda aiidowotnn Val
beretas Ly ag gsawsefta seine dd oF yRantage etidowotwa
© each es ons brwed Sxwoo wuld rexat ® heviaw Wi ituy som on 39 .enfg i
i a add ad eyed bate ad mas neous tee bas etLtug tnahen Yo a
| “\beseqnl sew O08 to “oan? « bas Pte
oop ‘ne Bivise war eotion « ‘wants bar ‘ndldooexes Ry thane ‘i
a
oes
il
“amon ive ett aighw ovansyevor af ts teary v ehten fe, ad | an .t
po: Sito? pitnresiensd San toe a sto hosel w @n si ;
" bee * oe ames, oe, cil # beview: siethetetetter abte eh
| ; sboguadgath ane y at. bas ,qoling fon teehasted ‘wawey ti
iW gerbe we Panes wht allied am
ev “ batate anese
OB yrrsrare™ y ? i
wee Oe stave ‘onl ‘gd doa
Re ae ak ob ene besie ‘sole
37857
GRANT C, OSBORN, { /
VB,
ROBERT J, KROSCHEL et al.
WILLIAM B, ROBINSON, Jr.,
- Appellee,
A. G DICUS and Ff, W, FRASER,
Appellants,
op 7 ©
y & of
a Name” ce” ee teenie cea ee
UR. PRESIDING JUSTICE O'CONNOR
DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE couaRT.
The record discloses that a bill was filed to lroreclose
a first mortgage on real estate in which the owner of a second
mortgage, and others, were made parties defendant, Ube owner of
the second mortgage filed no pleading and was defaulted, and a
decree of foreclosure entered, The property was sold as previded
for in the decree. There was a deficiency decree and a receiver
appointed who collected rents with which he paid the deficieney
and had $656.62 remaining in his hands, After the period of re-
demption had expired F. WW. Fraser obtained a quiteelaim deed from
the moftgagor, William B. Rebinson, Jr., was the owner of the
premises at the time the foreclosure suit was brought, but he was
not the maker of the mortage which was being foreclosed, Fraser,
Robinson and A. J, Dicus (the owner of the second mortgage) each
Glaimed the 5656.62 in the hands ef the receiver, There was a hear-
ing and the money was awarded to Robinson, wno was the owner of the
equity of redemption, and Dicus and Fraser appeal, |
Seth joined in filing one brief in this court and say: *The
Court erred in not deereeing the fund to Fraser who was the ower of
the equity of redemption by a genuine conveyange of the fee and not
as a wortgage, Rebinson'’s conveyance was only given as a mortgage. ***
"The fund rightfully belongs to A. G. Dieus appellant because
| “bebiverg as boo ast viteqora ont borsday eiilerovcdy ty bal
b
BW Aon 958 AW osm umeoNT oo hav nub gutoezeod Jou “4
” (reaatt .bosoleare? gated Baw dotilw ogoytiom éit Yo “geden on Va
| os a bee, gxuoo ek at Yottd ono gut ttt at boxtot ee
ia
\ ay Tasre.
>" he) THLOLLO 9 THARD
Pees | ow Lbeets \inatigre
ines ervpato MONT JAMIA te te ammdonx .v Taakon
.¥Tauoo X00D YO | siciieieiaeiia ital
" -, ‘ gett , MO2Uu1AOA a MALLILW |
3 ey oolleqaa - 7
ns nh A ae, | Ic 7
YEO ALeYVS SMR bess, RUOIE dhe |
* gouuoo'0 morreus dutcremce au” °° furs feet
» RAWOO, GAT GO WOLMTSO BRT GAMMVIMEE oy
*
; sealeenot of hoi’ aaw {Lid « ted) apaotoals bioeer" ont?” ie
| “baoo9e & to seme oid sto kaw ak otatee fa9% no syegtton see
| a: to xaa70 od .daabao teh soliteq shui otdw jaresito bina”, by F . f
“he s bee :bod ius tob sow pa satdoola om befl’t syeyitott baovee st .
“toviove & baw onaueh yous foltob & aew oredT sorts (edt PHOT
ks “youstonien outt blag od slo tetw aéiw ataez bodoolfoo ‘eae st if ame
“9% ‘te boltog ‘odd “gosta “abet eid at antataner ee az0t a) |
as ‘mor! | beob ata le-81up a bealadde dea’ we beaks é |
, Do to x9no eid caw ,.tt ,hosatded .@ meltiew’*¢2
paw est ‘tad sthgwotd saw dhue etwsoloete? bat said ont Fe wel =
‘ppg
sleae (eyeuttom buses oat ‘to ‘reawe eid) duodd 2% Lx ‘ YY ayy It {
wta0d Pa as oxen? “tovisoos oils ‘to abuan odd at 88. _ ‘ei bonis
ant to ‘emo ons Raw onw ison aktot oF Preys and aaw yertom si sal”
eftecuge ‘rowest bas avert bas , 10} Fano be 2
wee
BQ apes Rae: Sait Ak tee 4: wok -
ies ta bead out te ean yevaan mahwteny ‘ xd Sn had ™” pe att
he held a second mortgage on which there was still due $1500,
Dicus claims that the mere fact that he did not file an answer
does not bar him from claiming after the first lien was paid in
full, the balance or excess to apply upon and reduce his Lien,
Appellants however are agreed that the fund may be decreed to
either or both appellants."
It ig a general rule of law that after the sale of premises
en foreclosure where there is no deficiency, the owner of the equity
of redesption is entitled to the rents until the time ef redemption
expires, And where there is a deficiency which has been pald, the
ewner of the equity of redemption is thereafter mtitied to the rents
during such period. Davis vy. Dale, 150 Lil. 239.
in the instant case the period of redemption having expired
vefore Fraser obtained hia quit-claim deed from the mortgazors, he
has no interest in the rents collected during the period ef redemp-
tion. Defendant, Dieus, the owner of a second mortgage on the premi-
ges foreclosed, although served with process, filed no pleading
but was defaulted. If he would have the amount due him pretected,
he must file his answer or cross bill and make preof of the mnount
due him so as to have it included in the foreclosure decree. Wot
having done se, his rights are cut off by the foreclosure and he can
make no claim to the rents collected by the receiver during the
period of redemption, Neither Fraser nor Dieus has any claim te the
moneys involved in tois appeal; so that we might end the case without
saying anything further, but we are of opinion that the Chancellor
properly awarded the money to defendant, Rebinson, who was the owner
of the equity of redemption, having taken title to the property for
the Wilmette State Bank, the owner of the indebtedness,
The record discloses that the mortgagors, the Kreschels,
were indebted to the bank in three mortgages, one for $6900 ana one
is
om} vee iy
Vass wy sg
~ om CUA Ay ay
00826 emp Lilie exw @rodt doddw sto oueaixon baoose & bled ont
wewELe Ae eit tou bib of Jedd toe® extem arid seat emieto mone
nk hiag eaw avs sexi eit ahd'te suiubate nor't ahi, aud.jon aeob
wok! aid eowhes bus mequ ylcaa of ageoxs to soneled ols: iin
ot bestoebh ad yam bat edt sadlt eee ois sevewod. etasiioggh
"nt nmt Logg ised Bs) suite
dicen ‘te eLee ert “edte. tands wel to ofwx Lertedeg 6 ei aI
eye
etinps eit to tesvo ont item te kien on et ered? otesiw oruaeLos to 0 a.
solftqamhen to omld ons Litaw adage end oF hoteay as ai Hsoliqueher to i
sy blag meed wast dotaw Yonotottsh « at orvdd etesiy bah wort ‘
ba
ad ow ott od bos 1300 wes tgonedd as mols que box to lupe. eait te =~
868 45 08 atleS_s¥_abyad sboizeg hart"
Soxtans galvess wold ga bor te botzeq ould aso dang and oad ai ve das ‘
ost {PtOsaysTOm ot mont boob alate~t tup edi bontatéo toner othe ‘
eae ber to hoixoq oud geikcu hevae £00 atao oxtt mi seototat on aad ‘
é ry
ine g exit a eneattom baooee & to remo pas oe , tnabae 196 snobs }
anthsotq an ho £2't 2299079 ad be bovaee sigue Le bonats 0% Boe ; 1
Dodovserg mike pub toons ost eves baxow ont 2 bed Latte naw tut i
Snuome on to oad odem brs Lind an oto ery orean ote c 7 rome a Yr %
ng
oaceed etweo sero. alt pi bebuioat an ovad ot ae *,
Ow | i“. cf :
= on bas otuneioe to? ont xs ‘Te up ce odaiys abd 18 snob anived
iy 4
ont path sovteoex ‘ond xs bogeeLLoo ete coals of on a "|
a
ad oe atate wile act uu ta TOs woes rosit to “anoltg ate
Ynouthe oneo out brs teig bm ow tents co jtaoaae eke ak bev Lown
ire She ayn
“taf toons exis sand nokatee te ore sw Pte! nosis palanyee: ae
we -_ enw ose Bg ries ,2nebaetob oF venom ng ety bert
ry mae pe
oe “seasabetannat oat 20: xocwo att i esate ‘arvana oa
Vi ag Hi Vit Y i ah 4 if a ne
; seiosiononk out «etepay tt om oat tads aonoLoetd prove: aa ves wn
ae any ‘ a ee eM me)! en m 4
sH9 bas o0eae to ono seouaa trom sort nt coos ont ot ae oh ok P
for $10,000, and had executed their mortgages on properties seouring
these two smounts, The other mortgage here in foreclosure was
for $12,000. Mareh 15, 1932, the $6900 indebtedness was cancelled
and the $10,000 indebtedness on another piece of property which
was held as collateral by the bank, was returned to the Kroschels
in consideration of the conveyance by the Kroschels of the property
in question to Rebinaon, This put the title to the property in
Rebinson for the bank, and Rebinson being tne title owner at the
time of the foreclosure and during the peried of redemption, was
entitled to the rents collected during that period by the reeeiver,
less the amount reguired to pay the deficiency decree,
The decree of the Cireult court of Cook county is affirmed,
DECREE AFFIRMED,
MeSurely and Matchett, JJ., consur,.
2 aatexeqorg me engegixom thosl? rtgeeren past ed 2 ham
ay edt es aNOme owt
ve eRLael axe ab oxen Syme 0H geet nit teste eebn de
vere sees 24 6,000,
iiss pea eaoabedden at geet. tg A Sacks be eect aed spans sos
| ylteqore ‘to soekq sox one Ke sacabotdobat 000,08 ‘est a
iV neh Yow eo? See De wb Dek mg se
fLos & a
asians hi at of SOEs 247 mn 8 “ye ot ste ace stasta ch :
~~ ere to efedoacrs off yd eoneyevnon edt to ao a
eee LOL Se ity
oo AR NeGHAG ont 08 NR LFLE ond dug ataT .moentsor of mot
_ Sst te nogwe oLtld ent gated woratded baw vined 9? to? mo
Mine OF 4 Men. et
ent, sa0dtonmbes 29 bol nen, edd. aabruh dee quysetagye? gait 30, out
ooh 208.00 DORTIS. OM, SERED DON OLign. "om ORE OF # beds
& ? re oa eer Sikkim
«mit (s0@T99h Yonetoliod » i vag 98. ae tees
: atte § at b yeano wood to s1w09 pede: at ‘to optsob 6
Ce pil aiite. uw S. DOL ERG ae |
ri Pe" ae ht ‘
pas _ OTA RO fs EG Q De | eta sa ry 3 oat ak i F
sting aes.
eee te: COS weet Skah wha fiw cal cone Pome siaitiadialie ROr~
oGt tedodem be
> ate ott nt Pevendt
i ee a
salle eareie sto ¥
Nx sy » xy gti vey — ,
er 2G be) De, Was aie eh: Aw Ey ae > Ad lave |
a Ree eee beosee 2 Te she ae
7
bie OA Rea 22. wires - ay aw Opens uigginants ry somadpors *
Ris, soe Taso £4? bead Hi Sater’ © eh ne ‘ oe svateb wee Pr
he Tea tow bee Lhe aes ‘sim pairs cals wat atte
oe aie Bia twysS AMS we ibe hs Lean ti * mat ot a 4 mbt
? 's Aedes
Uae Me hegen wee wel hove eal cat chews 2th
‘ wba te hee, ae BaBtO tee sea h-ae naan tua semahor 2 ;
: oe owey Mui? She Jee ow dade pipe 1 pest wu havnt
Ts
{ acini DUES AOR oad adage te pee oe td nota) vatayan
i aout es Ae , CelEhs gia inn buaved we ons m wd bobxas
rer - nae a WLS ee pobwast ae hiieriatd a
svmmosewibclnh at eae “Le emdms esl eHond sontt
sitheiowm ae RS Awe eed ons Jeceh aang Low)
lal 3
er 08 9 wer oaks SoBe Irom parent ih Gad
37873
JOHN ¥, STERIL and FR
Ag
. FROM SUPERIOR OCoURT
ve.
OY COOK COUNTY,
THR COUNTY OF COOK, f i
Appellant.
ii 279 T.4.63'7'
DESPLAINES STATE BASE, a Cor-
poration, as Trustee,
Appellee,
APPCAL FROM GUPEAIOR COURT
VB.
GF GCOGEK COUNTY.
THR GOUNTY OF GCOOE,
Appellant,
$7875
DESPLAINES STATE BANK, a Cor-
poration, ae Trustee,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT
va.
OF COOK COUNTY,
THE COURTY OF SOGK,
Appellant. )
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE O'CORKOR
DELIVERED THE OPIRION OF THN COURT,
The foregoing three gases have been consolidated for
hearing with case Ho. 37944, Cb
have today filed an epinion; and for the reasons stated in that
opinion the judgment of the Superior court, in each case, is re-
versed ani the cause remanded for further proceedings as therein
stated,
REVERSED AND HEMANDED YITH DIRECTIONS,
MeSurely and Katehett, JJ., concur,
i ns —T¢ et
‘bos uate se /- wit
on wet mane
jyy ae ot eae pet
P .%009 TO Y2A008 AAT.
° maktonya
uae DLo wae
| fs £0 ALT. ey e toe mrerees eft te ; Pie ONOTEs)
i ocumee ERReaa em teanet
aet ee f, : : me kleg ga . thi a aks
.Yrmues Ades “20
. at 2 een ‘aye
ool Legga
TAYOD AOIANGUS MONK JAST4A
s¥THOD AOC KO 4
4000 Tt
‘ dna tings
AOMNOS'O BOLTAVL QALCLASAL AM
»fA009 ALT TO AOTAIGO HY CHRAVLinC
apt hodebisoenoo ved ovad asany onrst Bilogeto? ont me a
| ~ADQVE +e onae ddiw anaes
oe me at ,saa0 does al ,duwoo tolrequa ost te tovaghet edt mo! 0
e aborto std ee egatboveorg teddis't tot bebasmet seuss odd bas | = oa
-— JSROTIOUATE ETI CRMMAMRE CHA CaRRAVAR
37383
G. R, HIGH, ee ae 3
- PALE FROM MUNICIPAL GCWwRT
v8, ‘4 :
“er be CHICAGO,
R, G. LYDY, INC., a Corporation,
and R, i. HUGHES,
Appellants. |
FINANCE CREDIT CORPORATION, } 2 4 9 I.A. 6221
Appelles, eLle UD §
WR, PRESIDING JUSTICE O'CONNOR
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
By this re the defandants, K. & Lydy, inc., a corpora
tion, ond R. L. Hughes, seek to reverse a judgment of the Municipal
court of Chicage for $175, entered against thew on a finding of the
court in favor of the Pinance Uredit Corporation, whieh intervened
in the cause,
Oetober 20, 1932, G. RK. High, by his attorney, John Wartin,
brought an action against KR. G. lydy, Inc., 2% corporation, and
R. L. Hughes, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained
by him through the negligence of the defendants in damaging plain-
tiff's suteomebile, The damages were laid in the sum of $1000,
Getober 28, 1932, the defendants, by their attomey,
William A, Hanson, filed an affidavit of merits denying liability.
May8, 1933, an order was entered by stipulation of the parties
(signed by Martin and Kaufman, whereby I. W. Kaufman's appearance
Was entered as an additional attorney for plaintiff) which provided
thet ne disposition should be made of the case without the consent
and approval of Kaufman. May 3, 1934, defendants filed an amended
affidavit of merits in which they again denied liability ond
averred that plaintiff should not further maintain his aetion bee
cause he had executed a release whereby he released and forever
discharged defendants from all claims, Your days later, May 7th,
the Finanee Credit Sorperation, by its attormey, Kaufman, filed
its intervening petition in which it set up that it was engaged
Q
OTK LD,
; fol sex oyt od & «* yaya i) f..
B ot 4A Baw
at nal Loo qa eats Be iy ph a a Fu alu
sMOTTANOWHOO TleMTO BOWARTY
«oa Lloags weave:
; ha, ROR Se ns fh
AQMBOS'O HOITSVL vo ch SUDE tot oq |
Re
wisg¢reo # ,soml »ybyd .e oA 18d 1!) a Rob ede Leeqga alas ya ;
faginiaud ot to Javemhwt & eetsver od duea eooigumt 6k bie ake
ed} to gathutt « mo wpdt fealaye botetae ,e0i$ tot ogsotM to $1109
betevtetal solide ,aolderogrod Jibotd oonealt edt ™ ‘eowett at a |
| emhboeh adel ,yartoléa eld yd jdott A DO he’ ee r0d0t00
how ,aodzamoqtee # ,.oal woud 20 A @eatoye mbites me thine
——semkatene aged eved oF deutelo vegameb seven 1 od peer :
wtieig gaigemeb al agushne teh adt te sdidiakbilans edt dgwotdd mbit a re
000% to me odd, ab bist et0w sepemnd ont .9Lidomotue ard
ews nee hand hyd Kaper yond eo Sell al ‘aedotoO
| movie A metitew
"ave ‘ond ‘Ye aotisiuetts <i beresns Wh Wey ceer align
eonatseqqe a’ Bantuad ie LT ydereste tte st ne)
bebivorg Hotew (Yeisaielg tot yemrodde LanokPEbbe ad ‘us Hotevns’ ‘al
#nos 09 ond tuodsiv ves suis to sham od bivee Hottteoduth
bebesas np boflt agashasted— (beet 8 Yet “VWeatiadt Té Laver 7
pre WRELGoLL bohanb stage yrs? do kin ab a¢itom Yo yer
wet noktos eid mletolas xedtist tom bivose YisaleLe eh bowreva
‘taveto? bon bease lox sal \ioreue eaae Loy ® bedueexe | ash ou L
op are yall m8 syst tu0t -nuiks £9 Bar mont staubas'tob ae:
u ‘bouit saat svomtodse ath ye stotdsrogred tiberd ‘
besegae aaw a2 dadt qu ten ab doddw af ott tied an
in the automobile banking business; that April 6, 1932, it loaned
money to High, whe executed a chattel mortgage on the automobile
which was damaged by defendants snd was the basie of the suit, and
that there was a balance jue from High on account of the money
leaned to him. It was further averred thet about July 1, 1932,
the automobile in question wae wrecked while on the parking
premises belonging to defendant Lydy; that afterward High defaulted
in the payments due as provided in the chattel mortgage; thet after
defsult the Finance company learned of the damage to the autome-
bile and the pendeany of the suit in the Municipal eourt, and May
3, 1935, it metered into an agreement with High whereby he conveyed
to it “one-half interest in hie claim and cause of action,” and
that High and the petitioner entered into the stinulation above
mentioned,
The petition further set up that on May 8, 1933, the cause
came on for hearing in the liunicipal court; that Kaufman, counsel
for the petitioner, appeared before the court and advised the court
of petitioner's interest in the suit and ef the agreement entered
into between High and the petitioner, as above stated; that at that
time all the parties were represented before the court, and the
prayer was that leave be given the petitioner to intervene. An
order Was entered accordingly, itiay 9th the cause was heard betore
the court without a fury end there was a finding in favor of the
intervenor, Finance Credit Corporation, for $175 against the de-
fendants; judgment was entered on the finding, and the defendants
appeal,
The record diseloses that plaintiff, High, entered inte a
written agreement with the Finance Credit Corporation, the inter-
venor, which recited that he was indebted to it in the eum of
$438.20 by virtue of a promissory note and chattel mortgage on the
automobile in question. The agreement further recites the pendency
+ ey
Re
bonsot f2 ,SbOL ,0 Linqa tot jseontend guttacd oLidomotun ent he
aidbdenstun eat so agentaea Lediano # bndwoexe onw , ig th of (onmom
hie ,tine ot to ekand eft saw bar avandia toh ‘yd: hogensh saw ie értw
yotom co to tamooe me Melk mort Sih ote Led a new ovens tent
Beer .f£ viwl s¢uoda tedt betisve t9cfcp? sew +i | od of heanel
yabwiecag ots oh atkcw bexioorw onllé molteeup mal otivendee out
botion'toh myt! buewresia tact ;ybyd tushos'teb ot gakgneted seatemaq
wette tect i9yegd com tettests writ ne betiveta aa’ aub atnemyaq odd mt
_ somotie ost of ogemmb est to honest yasqmo sonantt edt + Lue'tob
" ‘oox bas , Ino fsate fase ost al time ens be: Kone q oxta bao etd
beer rnis oc Yderestw sigth sitiw Inexmergs a, obi box o tie th 8b0L 8
bas ",moijos to oauss bas mtelo abst ah seerotas Tad~eng® thot |
avods mottalugtta od? oft bowetus tomottiieg ext bas sg lh tas a
ages
z¥ sitar PA
feaawoe sttonttund tat :two9 fegtotaul eit wk | galtacd 1 ot, a0 emo |
trwoo ai} Reelvbe bite tues ent eto'ted bores age tonodt they oad tot
betotne inomsetas edd Te bas thwe ond ah dugtedas e'zonostlyeg to
tats te duit jbotate svods ae seemed biog asst aa, Hig ti aeowted: ota
est bas ,Ptu0o ost eroled posnenoxast erew vatitag ong A
se ae ontorte gat ot xonol th eq oat moves od yee sant. aan a q
sroted breed any vows out Ate ya ,ysgakbropee beretne aw 298"
_, odd Yo tome ad gathatt & as ortedle bas vrwt s sii ee A
a eclt tontage erst tot ,poltetoqred tibet? seavat ’
_ataabas tos ats betes vantbast oatt io aepoem, Aci ts paca
eS
“pause erie bb OE 8 yt 110 sactd ah te woddawt iol diteg gait
E Fe eeoe 2H
4 od honed ity HH \Yuemtste 4 tas aoaozgath ah a
“~x0ga ont 180 texoqTao siboxd sononst om athe # pbs Sti a
te ous outs aa hid os beddobat ev od tad etton Je, ish’ Sea
ee —
FY yin
of the case in the Municipal court; that plaintiff's claim in that
ease was for the recovery of the value of the autemebile, and that
High hed assigned “one-half interest in nis claim end cause ef
action" to the intervenor.
the evidenes further shows that plaintiff, High, eon June
6, 19535, in consideration of $350 paid te him by Lydy and Hughes,
executed a general release releasing defendants from all claims
“from the beginning of the world to the date hereof" and particue
larly a1] claims and damages to the automobile in anbetien which
plaintiff had parked in one of defendants’ parking iets. The ree
lease referred particularly to the Municipal court case,
The Finance Credit Carporation, the intervenor, contends
that judgment for $175 in its favor is right and should be affirmed
for the reason that before defendants obtained the release from
plaintiff, in consideration of $350,they were advised of plain.
tiff's assignment to it of one-half of plaintiff's interest in the
suit,
There is no evidence that defendants assented to the assign-
ment and obviously plaintiff and defendanishad a right te settle
their differences if they chese to do so, without noticing the
assignment to the intervenor, Haves v. ©. B. & 9. KR. KR. Go,, 200
fil. App. 380. By the assignment the intervenor did not obtain
any lien on the claim made by plaintiff in the suit sueh as is
provided by the Attorney's Lien Act (par. 13, chap, 13, Cahili's
1933 Statutes.) :
Moreover, there was no evidence offered on the trial to
prove that plaintiff had a cause of action against the defendants.
He had alleged facts setting up a legal claim en the ground of
defendants! negligence, but defendants had denied all neglicence.
The fact that defendants had paid plaintiff $350 for a release does
not necessarily prove that if the case were tried plaintiff would
&
dasit af ofefo a! Tiivateiq tecd j1men iaqiolawl etd at ean. At, Te,
tedlt bas .etidemetus odd to auler edt to. Xx9¥OosT edd tot sew oeap
_ ‘to senao bas miele afd ab saotetal Wasd~eno" bengtesa bed yal,
sTonevissal ent of "noltom,
anh mo ath Tilvaledg tads swede rodtiwt gomebive eff...
Sesigall ns yoyd yd ata of blag OFEE to mattered temoo ab peed 4%,
3 aubeto fio oet't etasbas'ted gatnaeiosx onepiot Letemyg #, DP PORER,,
-mpidieg baa “toons oteb eft o¢ bizow of Yo aninatyed edt moxt®,
aigise noitesug al oLidomotua ont of eegammh bas scielo ffs yineL
~o7 otf .etel snidzsg ‘atasbosted to eae at bedtaqg bad Tihiatele,
6 .2aao tivog Leqtoioutl ort of yiteduottraq bette ter eaeel,
ghaetace ,tesaevrotal est ,moltatoqrod shhex? secentt 1 ee -
bomritte od bivosa bas jsipit af covet eth md SV ih, 29%, tmomal ;
mott eeaciet edd boaissde atashaoteh oteted tent noeset, Last, no,
_ salele te bealvbe exew youd, 0863 Io aottetehlanos. at sTitatele
ods ai teoretai a'Tritalalg to Ied-eae to tt of taonay teen a’ tris,
pete it e be 43 bors) ae Poe ,tesolitiag ethos,
-mgisas eit ef hotapees atagineteh tac ponebliye om eh etedk 00.
| MEt990 oF tists 2 badetashaetoh bas, Titmkele viavelvdo baa, taem,
edt gaiotios sucdsiw ,on ob of eagio yodd t2 segmete?tib. shedt.
2%. 20val .teosevtetat edt of Jeo nny tee
* atesée, toa bkb RIA oat tomy tess, esd YE 086 .gga heh,
af es dps dive oss at Tilsntelq yd ehom mato 13 me me,
a iftded ,of ,qecte ,fL, seu #oA and a! ysatetiéA od? vd, t,
_ (rendered, 98,
ot Iaits ocd oo boteTte eenebive om saw steds pesos
odaoune ~~.
satanbss'ted ost tamtege aoltoe To eeune« ded Wehtalety gad? ovore i
| %o bavors ont np mito taped a qu gatisor, steak samette hate ae 4
(— tomppitgem Lhe hetagh dat starbastas tut ,eoneptigen 'etashagteh,
noob sasetot # tot 088% Ttidalelq bing bed. reo eh Ma
hom 3 Panstobe: beltt oxew ova ext th, dott sbi THABSO
i 262 TL. ADD.
have been suecessful., Caner
461.
Fer the reasons stated the judgment of the Municipal court
ef Chicago is reversed.
JUDGMENT REVERSED,
MeSurely and Hatehett, JJ., coneur.
¥x nae uy ‘4
ae Ds x3
i ‘ aphetes be ee Ri. ah 3. SF ropes eh tae Hien? olan i
sin ‘vag vaneonr mere tah % | a4 i
" eevewws of oon. Ye |
ia ta? overn xocrxal, epg divs ae P Bebtoed
2? Ch ot Diode ORE Se in hiteree hs te OM 4 a, «kt *
Ragedy 4 {ie w38, atexbok ted palenedas Brain AG Lato a oil
vat , stwoneo 42th ti ‘bas yle
SBE A Shame tad Tank eee od Sie aS uy watt Ae ee 1.08 9 me
A ee,
BeN woitaees, at oiidengiam, ort? of Gah aba is SPR, ansieso, Ha, Visa, |
MS BUTS, ee Pe wareiee., " ¢treh n s. “he age deh itt BAL PY he
is
*
fame ete Od. Site bun tapnic.ad Sere eee ot wep gh ~et past
Wisin ty hetivke sxe yet, OMG Le nédévanideuee ob
why wh tieketas @ UV ktotele to Dose Ke OM ot, Pomel
oe a in di oaw & pats & Hee “ee!
meehecmen wae ee be bea SA hed 1e seb
‘OPO pt teks a had ei aehme teh haw. urn tat
i alin th nll Bar Biante calle AS, -soamenetei oe, «
<Qnmvie dee oat Des ain . My
abate ties Lie be bows oie banedaotap bi uy *
‘ena, waar kore th, He, hie usable ai bent ia
37891 f f Fi
JOHN H, STEINBERGER, A f
Appellee, f} é
f
ve,
OF GO0k
)
279 1.A.6387
UR, JUSTICE KeSURELY DELIVGRED THE OPINICK OF THR COURT,
spite te
ig
TAL FROM > COURT
MARTON 8, FINE,
Appellant,
Tais is an appeal by defeadant from an adverse judgment of
$500 entered after trial by the court, Fflaintisf's claim was tor
damages through the breacu of at alleged contract between the
partice, Defendant asserts taat toere Was ne contract between
them - that their minds never met.
Plaintiff owned let 16, bioek 3, in North Oak Park Subdivi-+
sion; he entered into negotiations with defendant ioeking to the
ereetion by plaintiif ef a residence on the lot and a conveyance to
defendant of the mtire premises; the negotiations to this end ran
along for some time; in Desember, 1950, plaintiif submitted to de-
fYendant a rough sketch of an elevation of the residence; again in
February, 1931, plans of the residence were submitted, whieh were
not asceptable te defendant and further plans were submitted;
february 26, 1951, defendant wrote his “O0.K." on blue prints of
the propesed residence; these blue prints were merely of the plane
of the proposed residence, showing dimensions,
Plaintiif subsequently submitted to defendant a draft of a
contract dated March 10, 1951; this was not acceptable to defendant;
May llth a further contract was prepared by plaintiff's lawyer and
submitted to defendant; specifications drawn by plaintiff's erchi-
tect were also submitted to defendant, who said he would have his
lawyer examine the contract and hie architect exawine the speeifi-
in
cations; thereupon defendant's lawyer re-drew the contract and his
architect revised the specifications, making sveeifie the character
HAQANTAL STE oH WHOL
.oe Lions
PHU) ea 49 Biren!
o2v , “fb
Per re | + ode Logan” aa e ee
8SO .A.
ny teeet Bh ww wade te
Sia Fae
Mitdo Mite Wo MOTAIGO MEY GUAMVIONG YURDIVEeM MDITEUL JA :
atic hie
‘to Jee ung ut eeisvbsa an mott sazbooteh yd Lasqqe ae ab alhdl baie cid
tot aaw mieto a'Tiijnisli .tisoo edt yd Lelts ttle hetedae a
en3 eewted eunxtnes bogeiis as to doserd edd dgwotid
seowied Josisaoe of aay otous Jadd atisees Jasbae tod :
.tom teven abaim thet fast + most
shvkbduG ated Ae0 dévell ak ,2 avoid ,0f tol boawe Titemtals — wm. |
edt of gabdool sashbusteh dtiw saoltatiogea odal bexedns oa imen ‘
(@f Sonsyevaeo & bas gol edd ao sonebiser # ‘to Tritntele ned bio:
aet Soe akdd of enolteltogen edd jeoatmetgq eiiiae oni te “nshaw ted
woh of beddimdve Yiltnlalq ,0€@L ,redmeoe@ at jemtd smoe tot pec
ak aiege jooudiset eit to moldavele as to dotota dyuot @ ta ;
etee coldw dott iadue etew oonedleat ods to ausle fBOL + Utes
abdo ts a’ Tiitaielq yd oweth eaolisolilosga pamanae29h roa S |
ald aved biuow ed bisa oxw .taabas tod od bod? hada ¢ e "f
oxtt onlsaxe goadisiota eld bas sonrtsioo alt ae ime ak
inal We th<o't one a" tanbas ob |
’ Ka } Seorsa00 »
, ee iN ‘y
i
4h van
ef plumbing fixtures and other details which had been omitted from
the specifications tendered by plaintiff. he contraet orepared by
defendant's attoraey ¢alled for a price of $21,500 for the lot, house
and garage. Piaintiff refused to sign this contract, giving as his
reason that it had an objectionable clause, Plaintiff testified that
he ‘phoned defendant about this objectionable clause and was told by
defendant to strike it out and go ahead with the work, Defendant de-
nies this and testified that plaintiff said he would net sign the
contract tendered by defendant because the specificatione revised
by defendant's architect would require an added charge ef about
$1006 or $1500 ever the price of $21,500 stated in the contract,
Plaintiff testified that dian ant ready to start building
defendant stopped him; that some cement forms for conerete work were
brougit te the lot but were not used and no work was done. Later, by
Letter dated Nay 18, 1931, defendant netified plaintiff that further
negotiations were terminated,
It is ¢lear that both parties intended that a written con-
tract should be executed by them. Flaintiff refused to sign the eon-
tract tendered by defendant for perhaps a justifiable reason, navely,
that it called for an increased cost of construction, The varties
never did agree in whole, and no contract was signed, Plaintiff's
Claim is based upen the alleged breach of # contract and ensuing
damages in his lost profits, If the parties could not agree on the
eost and the character of the construction, there was no contradt:
Syndica
&.
between them, Curri
‘VWatere |
a'Fleur, 104 111, App. 165; Russe v. Gimocchiop, 263 Ill. 470; Stone
¥. Daggett, 73 111. 367.
Plaintiff says that there ere many cases holding that where
parties have verbally agreed on terme and the builder is directed to
preeeed with the work calied for by the ny serene eontrect is
not necessary to bind the parties, Defendant denied that he gave
any such instructions, and we are inclined te think that the greater
mort Sedtime seed bust solow aLbaged medio bas’ eetwixl? gatdautg Ye
vi bersqety tomrtapo ex! Vitghtate yd betobaed wnelsaottigaga ead
somo tol od apt OG f8¢ to satuq # tot beline Conrodta, 8! Jughaoteb
be eu acivig (t0etenoe elit mate of bolu'tet tbat’ ogetag bine
bey ba Ptitesd VYilsdaieiS .eeuelo efdanoltootde am bad ti sand avRaet
yd blot caw bm saumio oldanelios{do alas suoda tashne teh boaoda! od
~~h toshaete® , drow add cttw heode og bas fee 34 aallixta of sashas'teb
ads take ton binow on blae Thesnte fq godt bokittand hina alds sola
boatvert wnoktearitoeqa ont pausoed sanhas'toh yd botsbaot foots ape
fuode to syxasic bebha aa ethupet biuow teotiderts a' danbdaetob wW
siowttaon ont ni beteds i {8@ ‘to eobtq ent reve west xe )
a 3 i
~ es Pr
BaLhited tinge of ybows tea coil dade holtideos Yilrate rs naar
oxew duow sbowsnes sot asrte't taemeo bmwoe dadd tate boqaete ati
et 2 total .$eh aaw dtow om Aus been ton stew dud tol ond ot ako 4
tousawt sad Someta peltiven ducbaeten , ier er Yai host to 92
| sbotentters? otew ‘edottal &
- si99 aoté ixw 2 tad? bobnednt eottxey ded dasth die tow 0 snake
<100 oxi tiga 04 bonw'tex ‘Yttvatelt “saedd yd pevunexs vit btuoutd #8 et
Uren ‘femaet eideltiteut « aqadieg tot ‘Soaboo to’ va bexebued Wie
aeivies et? ,aelsossdanos te ‘Jaco booseromt ms ot be tipo o 4h ‘dentd
at Yidtntelt sbomgie sew featinca on brn 6 Losi ak ‘petge bib ove
my -peatwate bao spoxémes o to dneetd hous tte odd xoqe hound ‘i. ai "
ont or) hitiintd = bison vedere) ade = | sation feet oi a shay se
Viet teen MF vig
oxaiv tants gakb Lor aeara yaaa ote ered set owes ‘wiht ; als ‘ nigel aaa
a i 8 REAR A he ae
“ef Detoeris af obitud oad bas ames no hoorys eLladaey evad nee
ih, OF ae Sa “dallas , b ¢
at seandmo9 mess tee\onece oat vd ‘to? he Liao at0ew wuld af Ki
\ ew fa it eh aN a
eves od baud betues taobueted waoitnaq ‘ont bad of
pai he bie atelbett at hath ions nen ow bee .omek &
weicht of the evidence supports his statenent,
Bven if defendant's position should be somewhat weokened
by the question ef fact involved with reference to the alleged
directions to ge ahead with the work, there is another and cone
Clusive reason why plaintiff is not entitled to recover,
The contract proposed was tor the conveyance by plaintiff
to defendant ef real estate with buildings, In eontemplation ef
the law such buildings are real estate, Defendant vlesded the
statute of frauds, which provides that neo action shall be brought
te charge any person upon any contract for the sale of lands un-
less such contract or some memorandum or note thereel shall be in
writing, siged by the party to be charged therewith. Chap. 59,
sec, 2, Illinois Statutes (Cahill.) ‘hie rule has been applied in
many cases, Hansberry v, Holloway, 352 111, 334;Kohlbrecher y.
Guettermann, 529 I]1. 246, Im the instant case neither party
Signed any contract or any memorandum, and pinintiff did no work
which might have had the effeet of avoiding the operation ef the
statute.
Hirst Presbyterian Church v. Swanson, 100 Ili. App. 39,
cited by plaintiff, is net in point. There was merely an agreement
te erect a baliding, Wo conveyance of iand was involved. ‘This is
also true ef Wendnagel v, Schiavone, 205 Ill, App. 385. In Ulis-
perger v. Meyer, 217 1ll. 262, the vendor reeeived part of the
purchase price of the real estate and guve a receipt which recited
the total price and was signed by the vendor. it was held that this
Was a sufficient memorandum as it contained the names of the pare
ties, description of the real estate and the terme and conditions
of the sale,
Plaintiff argues strenuously that the 0. K, placed by the
defendant upon the plans is a sufficient memorandum in writing.
These cketenes contain merely plans and show nothing about cost,
a 7 2
J ae
ta A ais 17 Elo
f i
dxowededa ald etioqaie esnsbive edt het x
‘Welsitces tadwomoe of bivode aottleoe #'dushao'tes Yd asyt gi
mi Geietis ond of ednoxstex ddiw beviovad s6a% Yo mobdwoup oat yd
ote Bins auisens ef oneds ,dtow sa$ diie booda 6% of dnotioonth
viovodet oY befiiim ton of Yittatery yw noonet ovtawks ”
* widen? ‘od
“ttivatale yd eaneyevacs off ist saw bevecota soe1d moo edt |
te nottetom@snes al segainitud ddiw stedeo Last Yo ‘sdanasted of”
asit bebasin doekun "ted ,etetse Inert era agalsiind ttowe wat ade”
d quocd ed [lade coltee on tant sebivore dokdw jebsatt Yo seusaci”
«oy pbuol to efen ad? tot sowts aise iia noay sont yas opti of"
al ‘od LLace toetedt atom te adhort ome m emes 29 toatsaoo dove aeot
,@ «qa «=. Ab bwe tot? begrtario ‘od oF “oteq ont vd homie “sms egw
-™ boiieqa seed ean efuz sidt (.i£fiaed) astutesa etont iit ge ie? anf
aX Rosier Mi EE LET BEB stamnlsoh oo vstedassh it
O° "“eusq tedtton @ano sandent ond at 688 asst
#uow on bib Ttivalete bas ,awhoetomed ses to daatdace ‘gad “lege
oad ‘to noktertago ond anibkova “te os Fe edd bed evad Seige sie dtiw
4 ona) abe
5 i ef te ae
: +a “4qQA .ti1 OOF ss oa
el stat jbovidval eaw tial ts” endciaad a
waifi at .88¢ .qqk .LST COR ,onoy A
‘ ed ‘to dxey beviseet Sohasy odd aoe tit 048 ;
botloes sig Lei dqiooes 4 8yay ‘bus states aot end Ye seize sentiorlid” !
webs dant bLon wow ae | tobaev ond” qe benyte Rew fro volta tase oa
‘taq od To ‘eomen bal’ psy Ries ‘t2 a mébaetoasih tito bo ft"
semen Ebstoo “ awted odd bas tetas Leet on bad ake a,
Meike i Abe iad tn
Ce i
gue a
character of material or workmanship, interior trim, lighting or
plumbing fixtures, Moresver, defendant soted hia U. Kk. on the
plans in february, 1951, while no estimates as to cost were submite
ted until the fellowing month, As we have seen, the parties failed
to agree as to the coet of the residence constructed as defendant
desired, Slue prints of plans wes not a sulficient meworandum
in writing to charge defendant upon a contract te purchase real
eantate. It fellews that the atatute of frauds 1s a complete bar
to any reeovery in this case,
For the reaeens indicated the judgment is reversed, and as
plaintiff cannot recover judgment will be entered for defendant
in this court,
REVERSED aND JUDGMENY FORK
DEPARDART HERE,
O'Conner, ». J., and Matehett, J., concur,
no yakstohs ote eitne! 1 at jqliddinaninie' te “Heh dimte d0td
“git do 0 ak Rade Huskie tds tered cell feowwtitlt ants
suscep oo ae heneaget bal Vente’, fee i stant an
nm ‘noommaraetae =
‘iia -sebiopengtbconsdresrresg soc setah
bg Phe
oe
Coe ee ee, er gi
ah aie aaa it x age brad US bokereveee Oe ca he ‘3 d |
es Pie a | on tome one ee * tex” wud ar
iis tow Das, GRE Sezai es =e ad si tae kaowd rhe “Ys 60
ditt unk Dok ee a ore: oe act aa be ayt sew ihe “dot |
ae dat 18 swore onl | we Peer a te,
ee yaw i ges Ay ‘bi Ra oh we oe te ai le iia few " aud Ye wee
i. feng A tt et ik payee
ra yk oP j gid hind rere a NignS
bi edd es suk ae iublal¥tas « #2 Gude ane!
hoe hatches ait dal & aie e@da dune a alt og Seana intadahe” 4 i
‘ e . eel ty ee i Ame a ee te ae te gr, Pa ROB bas pA ante 4% at
37908
CHICAGO TILLE AND LausStT CONPAKY,
a Corporation, as Trustee, f
Complainant, <
Va.
WILLIAv YALSH et al.,
Defendante.
Sor
oo
WALTER A, HAGEN, as Suecessore |
Reeeiver of HOTEHL LAWRENCE, APPEAL FROM CIRGUIT COURT
_ Appellee,
OF COOK COUNTY.
v8.
nme eT Marae Mt Sica
WILLIAu L. O'CONLELL, as succesor-
Receiver of PHILLIP STATE BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY,
Appellant,
UR, JUSTICE MeSUARLY DELIVERUD THE OPINION GF THR COURT,
this case involves $300 allowed to William L. O'Connell,
succesor-receiver of Phillip State Bank and Trust Company as fees
for serviees, and the question presented is, Gut of which of two
funds should this allowance be paid? ‘he facts are net in dispute.
In Chicago Title and Trust Company, Trustee, v. Walsh et al.,
the instant ease, a foreclosure proceeding in the Cireuit court, the
Phillip State Bank and Trust Company wae appointed receiver of the
Hotel Lawrence; thereafter, on June 20, 1942, the bank filed its
firet report and account as such receiver, and the court allowed it
$150 to apply on account as ite fees as receiver,
June 21, 1932, the bank was closed by the Auditer of Public
Aecounts, and thereafter William L. O'Connell was appointed eucceaser-
receiver of the bank in the case of People ex rel, Nelson, etc. vy.
Phillip State Bank & Trust Company, in the Superior court of Cook
county.
June 25, 1932, Walter A. Hagen was appointed, in the Cirenit
court case, receiver of the lietel Lawrence as successor to the bank,
oN viii . ie " i ae dS
Si ae ta mn! 2 te Pee
aT
te ve all
atiabeads molt
‘ey ft es S
_«FEMUGO 4oOOd Yo
“toreovou’ | ax a a bro
veo Livayd wn © tevigoen
4% ¥
aay
cua aad a spe gb
i rants rk
obnallogg .. Co prea Yipee
ie
. Petey e eich ay es
HUOO Kiet TQ MOLMIGO SAT CAREVIGR YieivGeu aimee rece
eee .ttwos tivorld oda of gatbosootg orveoloetot @ ,9880 snateat ond
od? Yo terinset bedatoegs asw yuequod tawtT bas dined ofed8 ats Te
adi beftt daad etd .S8eL ,O8 aut no ,t0¢taerest jeoumewed totoR
$k bowolle gues est baw ,tevioves dows ae favenoe baw st0qet an, 4 : |
,tovieoot as aeet aff as fapeces ao yiqqa ‘ot oath ae
“phidwi to tothbsa Mt Ys boned asw Aned edd ,SECL AC omy
Tenesooue beiuloqgs enw Linnnoyt® .t ast LiW tedteeteds bas 4a aw 100 a
an_niame 19 s00e eit nb me OB a
ibs _ o ot ms sbodntoage aaw oo yOH oA erie iF .sbeE a oat
which was unable further to act as receiver,
When the bank wae closed by the suditor it had in ite trust
devartment a credit of the Hotel Lawrence receivership amounting te
$699.77; this is one oi the two funds involved in this appesi.
Vebruary 19, 1934, O'Connell filed in the Circuit court
@ase the final report and acceunt of the bank, as receiver of the
Hotel Lawrenee, and om that date am order was entered anvroving
the final report and allowing O'Connell the further sum of $150 as
paywent in full of all services of the bank as receiver in the
Cireuit court foreclosure suit. This made a total of $300 allowed
as reeeiver fees in the forectosure procerding,
O'Gonnell had in his possession certain serip and tax war-
rants of the Hotel Lawrence receivership, and on February 19th the
Girouit ceurt ordered him to sell them at the higuest market price
obtainable, and after payment of fees and any minor expenses neees-
sarily incident to the closing of the estate (the Jotel Lawrence
reeeivership) he was to pay all remaining. woneys and property in
this receivership to Walter A. liagen, suceessor-receiver of the
Eotel Lawrence, taking nis receipt therefor, and thereupon the bank,
as receiver in the Cireult court proceedings, and O'Cennell,weuld be
discharged and relieved of all further responsibility in that eage,
Pursuant to this order of the court the scrip and tax warrants were
sold for $925; this is the other fund involved in this appeal;
O'Connell deducted therefrom the amount of $300, which had been al-
lowed as fees, and remitted the balance, $625, to Walter A. Hagen,
successor-receiver of the hotel,
Thereafter, om May 18, 1054, Hagen, as successor-recelver of
the hotal, filed his petition in the Circuit court in the instant
ease, contending that the fees of $300 allowed the bank shoulda be
eredited against the $699.77 of the Hotel Lawrence account in the
trust department of the bank when it was closed, and that the asiount
ed di oe ;
ey Lae eee ey
-tovigomt as fom, 08 todeiwy efieau so snte
fers afi ah bon G2 toti bus osid yd boaete’ oo dood em? wenwe
oo yattavomm qtoetevieoet endeared Letel sit Lo Siperse a Site cud taqoh 4
-ttegme aldt at hevioval shawl owd wid Yo irad al aids it ORS :
_ SrH08 tivon bo eat at beLtt Lieaned'o beer xc? § Thurso
oii lo tevieoet se , ined odd te saueooe baw sro9eT, Seat ont. eo
gniverdes bewedae verredt0o an ote: baat’ to" iprte be dbriiax’ Letou
as OF L$ to awe tedite? eft Lenaed'o satwatta bas Iroqet fant? estt a
silt ak tevisost as Aned of? to sevivaees ile no Liat ak tomamen
bowolle 008 Io Latot » baw att? .#lue ‘orweofoste’t stited tiwatko
sSalhosoota atraofoetet ent nt seat tovisoes aa
whew xed bon qitoe akstueo aolnesasoy eld al bad ifeaned'O oie
galt utel yrauidel ao bas ,ghdaxeviaees soaptwet Loteh ext To ‘ o 7
golte Jextsm faolgid ont te ment LLoa ot wha bowebte suneo # twos
-ga90u GOaasqxs torka yne hae eset To Sasmyng tdta® bat, fi
edastwall f6%0R oad) Ofaten ond 16 guteods edt ab isnt Gils
ak ¥steqote hac’ ayonom ndtlialamet fla yoq oF saw Bat (qtaareriaoos
pad T6 tov téderdtoedosown \Hedek” A aed taw er" ahterovisbes etas
<yiland 983 aocketesd hance’ ; rotors toleedd ela gakiad | eoagtad Lod. .
“od piuor itonnod') tae jegitteonong dewod Hisortd off" RE doviade? Ge
seuss tens Ai yiiiidienoysst xefsawt 118 to bevokter nw’ ates el
oxew adastraw xed hae ghtoe: ods Pine ont “Lo tohte abies ‘ nue ot
bteoag tut ab hevedwad Bair aie’ oad al nay 088 tot Bice
wLa aged bed doldw ,Q08¢ to fations od? mevtomsat pddosnes” i mr)
: Penal A ted’ of Rend (esneted ett boss inot ‘baa ate 3
te ‘gevisowt=T9aesdoue as coi se0r hag —— ae:
of these fees should not be deducted from $925, the procecds of
the sale of the serip and tax warrants, and the Circuit court was
requested to order O'Gennell, as receiver of the bank, to return
the $306 forthwith to the petitioner,
After hearing the Circuit court on August 22nd, ordered
that the sum of §300 allowed for services to the bank should be
eet off againet the sum of $699.77 owing by the bank to the Hotel
Lawrence aecount, and that the bank should credit itself end de-
duet the eaid $300 from this amount, reducing the balance to
$399.77. The court aleo found that the deduction of the $300 for
receiver's fees out of the proceeds of the sale of the tax sntici-
pation warrants was unlewful, and O'Connell, as sueccessor-receiver
of the bank, was ordered to refund and pay to the petitioner (Hagen)
the sum of $300, O'Connell, as successor-receiver of the bank,
appeals from this order,
¥e are of the opinion that the erder was improperly entered.
The amount of $699.77 in the bank to the credit of the Hotel Law-
rence receivership was in the possession of the receiver of the
bank, appointed by the Superior court, It was part of the proper-
ties coming into the hands of the Superier court receiver and eculd
be paid out by him only upon an order of the Superior court pursue
ant to a petition riled in that court by Hagen, the suecessor-
receiver of the hotel, 3
Moreover, the serip and tax warrants came inte the possession
of the Cireuit court receiver of the Hotel Lawrence just as all
the property of the hotel came into possession of its receiver,
and was properly subject te the payment of the fees of the
receivership.
The point involved has been already passed upon by this
court in Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Goldman, 272 Ill. App.
457. There the receiver of the bank (the same as in the instant
‘te ehowvete acid A806 mort Betonheb od tent bivons woot sedis “td”
Rett dteoo Siverto acd Bow jetnewtew xed bae gitow oY 16 ofer off
ateted of feed of Ko tovisbet es , {fenno0'O xdebio of botaouget |
tenolsiteq wit of Mbwiaret eel
pevebto ,oa8S denmuA ao trv flubetD edd yotraed ‘Yes'tA ~
ee Divede Saad oft of seotvied tot bewolle 00S} to awe edd sah”
fosok of ot son ont yd gatwo °T.0C8¢ to swe odf todinge To fed”
<eh bau Tiondt ¢ibeto Sfvore wna ont tad? Hud \tavdedd evierwal
2 sonaieg oxff gnloubox ,tavone ekay mort 0086 Btes ont FOUN”
tot QOBS OHe Lo wolfoubeh ont Part bavot ofe Pxv0OD edt mie |
atotine xa¢ oat to ofae off Yo ebieedrd oH Te tuo deer eee viieee
qevictet—toacsooun ae ,fiemned") Bow , ti'twetay tew wfaeieaw noktay -
[sogit) Teteltiveg eit oF yeq bnx brivtor of Béxehto wav ined one We" 7
plnad Silt Yo TovEsbot-romaessem Be, LtomeD'O OOtE YS laws! Sit”
Serene Ykreqotant caw rehte oat teat nobeteo off Yo oti pil ah aeihecall
<Wil {Pei on? Yo Phhero olf of Annd wAL HE TT hat ala desiine a thai it
edt Yo sevEéoet od ‘to motenenaod ond AY waw Ybdereviabet” <i si
“tegorg sdf To faq esw ST. Stvoo colteqe® edd ee berierea aie 3
Bivee bah tovisoet drt00 Telreqhe Sy Yo wbimM writ tut sathos bere”
«wetkg¢ Piso xcitequ@ oft to Tebro na noqu Ula mie ot en ka <
= dabhiobiie ont yal We Fineb Yan ak batty wits We
| tat on ot Ys t0¥tbooe”
piuadesee od edad Orme ubaertew aad paw’ @itel ead’ xevenTeR nt. |
eee rr ere ee ee —
,tovieowt efi to aotessesoe ofat emao Istor one Yo eereante ai |
ant oXEt BYE re at td b te : a! ou. Ph wt be 2 a j ae = mi 2
A
pa ee tt weeny tr hee
4
ease) anpointed by the Superior court was ordered by the Cireuit
court to pay a successor-receiver in a foreclosure preceeding in
the Circuit court a eertain ameunt of money which the bank had to
the credit oi the foreclesure receivership, After considering
many decided cases it was there held that where a court takes the
assets of an insolvent corporation in its hande for distribution
it is for that court, alone, to determine who its crediters are
and the amount of their respective claims, It was also said
that the proper procedure was for the chancellor of the Cirenit
court to order the successor-receiver in the foreclosure ease to
file a claim in the bank receivership proceedings in the Superior
court, and *in that proceeding in an orderly, equitable way, 211
of the ereditors of the bank will have their day in court,” If,
as petitioner claims in the instant case, the fund of §699.77 was
not mingled with the other funds in the bank, this fact can be
ascertained and determined in the proceedings in the Superior court,
The Goldman opinion also noted that many of the closed banks
in Cook county show very similer conditions to those presented in
that case, which was considered to be "a test case.” We are of the
opinion that opinion prescribes the proper procedure in such cases,
For the reasons indicated the order of August 22, 1934,
appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions
to vacate the same,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
WITH DIRECTIONS,
O'Conner, P. J., and Matchett, J., soncur,
t
eS.
s ‘tiaerto add yd betsbro aeW Peo Toltswe Sih yd ila
Ae at galhreoo1g otunelosrot « ak “‘toviteeot-roeceoo me au the of Smmos
Le iat ‘ot fut Gied on9 Moidw ystoit Yo teuonte atntyes x Frwoe shoe, ald
ae gaitebicncs testA § .qidereyievet orure loeie® ent to ' / oe ;
alt acdat ft0o « st dw tat bled eresit eew 72 wena Look ri
‘es “gobiotteteth rot aboard #82 at nolveveqres dnowfeenk we to aaa
| om ‘Sas Saban aft ody eatarsteb of ,onote )fiwee. fase tot ab. .
Bisco o@fe osw $l jaelefs evteesqued ated? to. towome oi bm
tiwortO @f3 to toffoomade ade to? ea —— ie
: \¥ew eivetiups ,yitebto ae at gaitbseootg sant oF
i vt Ww henitivis ai yeb thedt eved Lfiw Aaed oat bo eroddt
Be Raw PY. C089 to bitwt ocd ,eees tmpteaky ead ek omkeaey astoh :
| hs agp gost aids ,doed od? ai abaw't ene eats tin o fyaken
abate a Atte behtaut af exseo edd has abililins patna
oe ond
reer te" GRORSVEM. fe yl koe wet sects x
-QMOTTOMALC ages
wy ‘4 1 ee ez 4 ad m e by % rT
eS tae 4G KE ok ee + i F
Wee ieee Te fla iT a ;
Ce cee Po a fhe
(SREP SOE 2 Gls TRUE Ee By, bin: ee
Fs MR, 7 tae ee ee jae hc lay i 1 is a Vee a
OS ER A: VERBS OT roe ae ay ov Ve wey
ane of
Fi scoree” i at :
37987 }/ A tage | :
er 5 ae
3
HARRY CROSS, VA ff i
Appellee, i
AP e From orneuth,.<on
VS.
MISSOURI INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Corporation,
Appellant,
)
| OF COOK Col
)
x 4
Lars i AL 638
MR, JUSTICE MeSURELY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of $1000
entered after trial by the court of an action upon an aceident
insuranee policy issued te Lee Crass, in whieh plaintiff was
named as beneficiary.
The declaration alleged that the insured same te his death
as the result of burns, Defendant admitted a liability ef $100
but denied any further liability, asserting that by a provision in
the policy no indemnity would be paid for accidental death “sustained
at a time when the insured is delirious or under the influence of
any nareotic or intoxicant *** or for alcoholism in any form,"
Defendant introduced evidence tending to support its claim
that the insured was intoxicated at the time of the accident, Plain-
tiff introduced evidence tending to show the contrary,
The insured was injured on the morning of February 24, 1920;
he lived alone in a basement; a city fireman was summoned to the
premises and going into the basement found the insured lying on
his side on the floor; a hot stove had tipped over and was partially
on top of him; the fire was extinguished. The insured was alive
"when the fireman found him but was badly burned, He was taken to
Cook County hospital where, as a result of the burns, he died the
morning of March 1.
; A Dr, Bennett, who was ar intern at the Cook County hospital,
testified he first saw the insured at the hospital about two or three
hours after the patient was brought there, which would be about six
0 tg MO LLegg& ooo (ms
On AY orien
” Aoltetoq1o) #
tliewes male
ie 4 th te Beate Pee Manu
-THUQ0 @H2 YO AQLMIG0 HAL GUAKVIUEG YAdAUGeM BDITEUL . _ am
P pat rs Secs Y gad Se he. Wee, aaa ee +2
OooLe te $ aemgbust #8 woth tnabns ted cat surahe was ‘he rs frac ;
4 . Met » Bed
Snebioos Re me qs ae tion ‘ts Ye ‘Sxiseo ould ‘“¢ ahi ey to
ap Ae 22
aaw Fis abate tipbiw a seer ood of ‘bewant wtlog oocwtwent
at ene or Ra Pear
vetatol! mre as
Ie. he aR oe
staoh atu ‘ot ouao betwen ont ‘tadt begeLia ao bares me
“STS ae pene: it.) i te
ode te Vstiidell a bestinhs snabne ree seared to #06 | A
mh athe Pow
od aotaivorg “6 vd taut satsx9088 +e itidad roses vie
ck pada Le deythe yn 2 yd pm
poatesaue® deat fatushioos ‘tot ‘biog od htwow i tue bot om yolLog ert
he? ti AI sahee dae tga +s
6 soaonftak oud robo 0 suolth Lob et poumanl ont aetw emt
idee eo ee
* ato ae al ma iLosioo fs aot 10 *## tna ixotat <0 ° bg
r “misle st droqaum ot gates eonbive doouborsak “Fick novett” a
; oy, WO lath sein, a
wate ‘nebioos edt ‘to ont: a ta bodaptxod at aaw — Sreos) tent
Hae. ane hee see tae rt
eratine® oslt woe of gatbnes conobtve hea ubord at
+ Se Go 2aat oe
veneer , 18 vrsuedot ‘to gibson ont 9 berutad ad aah
ae By. wer eee ou
| ene of ‘ho moommuse “eae anor i vile 8 ifomumnad * ee enols ene
‘coe, ey fh
‘— “palys betuant orld ‘baare® prion Nt oat ‘odmt ‘gatoa bas |
pene as Af oy e%
eletoreq naw heum Tove ped bol evota jod « ;to0lt edt mo |
evils saw i vel ont caborla bugatdtace asw otkt eds pak “to qot 0
of notat enw ol bond cihed enw tnd aks bawo't nuns tt ond abet
bit sab. oF. chanmgg |p
‘tiuveet « ‘an ‘orsddw Eat tqnod yutawod
.f fore ‘to antares
fetiqeod Yrasod 4009 odd te axetal ns nsw ow ,ttonned | LS
sonehe x0 ows reed tat konot « ost te boruant + axl wee teutt on orntvans
\ ts
7
y,! bekh oat ,anmrad ould to
or seven hours after the accident, Dr, Bennett testified he could
net remember this particular patient, and alter examining the hos-
pital records he was under the impression the patient there des-
eribed was under the influence of alcohol when he came in; that
“we probably smelled Liquor on him," The hospital record notes
that the patient was unable to give any account of what happened;
that he was "“semiestuporous, apparently alcoholic, Admits having
been drinking.” The police record notes that the patient “cannot
talk,” The nurse's record shows that the patient received doses of
paraldehyde, which Dr, Ber:nett said was commonly given in hospi-
tals in the case of aleoholics, although it does not necessarily
foliew that every patient for whem this medicine is prescribed has
been drinking.
The city fireman testified that when he turned over the body
of the insured in the basement he did not smell any odors indicating
intoxication; that he saw no liquer bottles er anything of that
nature,
A barber testified that he gave the insured a haireut and
shave in his shop at about one o'cloek in the morning of February
24th; he said thet when @ person got inte the barber chair he woulda
notice whether or not he had been drinking because the barber's
face is always close to that of the other person; that when you
stand over a person and shave him you know whether or not he has
been drinking. This witness testified that the insured was in
g00d condition and free from any odor of liquor; that when he left
the shop at about one o'clock he was normal.
A brother of the insured testified that he saw the insured
on the evening of February 23rd at about eleven o'clock in the
tailor shop where the insured worked as a presser; he testified
that he was in good health at the time and that he was net disposed
to drinking intoxicating liquor; that he was at that time sober and
bine of bodtitast stems ,x1 .tisbioos ext aette etuon moved to
-vod ext gnicisexe tte bow ,¢nottaq talvelireg elds r9diomet tom
ned seo? tnetteq ext notseorqmt esit’ xe bru aaw on abroves Lathe
7 tecd al emeo oat aedw ZosooLe to soneuLtal edt cobs saw hedite
gotom bxroset Lagiqaodt oat * "mid me toupit be Lows begiage ew"
jhectqqed tesw le iavesom yas evig of eidenu saw tes tdag ony tact
nitves e¢indA ,olLorools yitneraqge ,avotoqute-ines". saw of tans
fonnas” toolisg edt tadt aotem broeer soklog oat )." .gabuatth need —
‘to geeoh beviooet tnelteq ent tadt ewede hrovet w'oexua oat "thas
-lqaod at meviy ylaoumeo eaw bise stonned .1C doddw yehylabioxaq
ylitansooen son aod ¢2 sgvodtia ,wetiosools te eano end. at efed
ass meres. ak entothem gict wody tot taottag vxove dedt wollte
-gatiainh aged
xe edt 19ve beatss ed sonw sad be txktead, stacioe LS erie. PRE: be writ
gulésetbat atobo yu {feme joa bib oc Jnemsecd add at betusah odd ‘to
tut to gaidtyas te eolisod toxpls on waa ex sand {notieotxotak
= tustied « deiwadi odd evag on tact snisbbebil ealhiee: } text
vtantdet To gatorom edt at xoole'e eno txeds 2a gone alkane
| phuow al tiesto tadied edt ofat soy soazeq @ univ Jadd bias of jt NS
| attadund edd exuased gatsinith ased bad as dom xo nodtedw eott om
YoY Movin Jadt :mowxeg aadho ext Le dadt of grote ayawia eh pat
_» wat ot Jom to tadtedr wosol soy sald pyede bye aoerag 6 wove buate
ak saw betwant ont sarit bottiseot aseatin etd .gatalabrh mood,
Fret od siesiy todd yronptt to tobe yn mont eet, be, nekiibaes Soom
-Lamren aaw off Aoola'o sie. tuoda ta goede oct,
~beoawant oxi ee ea decd ho iitvass beuvent edt To tediomd A ..\,
us), Se et dvolo’s novela tyeda sa Bitk yxewtdet, to, galasve ont a0
: i a benitiges od ;eoReotg # Be hoaltow hotumat ont axedw godm, To. et
egeth ton aay oi te? ban omit ext te Mtaod boop ai aew, od ov .
“i yma 4 wie emi? staid ta saw off Seuit towpit gutisoixodal pak ab ode
ui id
aay | i Tove
had been drinking nothing.
From this evidence the trial court was of the spinion that
the defendant had failed te prove that the insured was under the
influence of aleohol at the time of the accident, We cannot say
that this conclusion is against the manifest weight of the evidence,
Plaintiff in his brief asks this court to enter a judgment
for $1000, plus interest. We shall not de thie for the reason that
upon the trial the counsel for plaintiff expressly stated that ine
terest was not claimed, and furthermore, the ad damnum is $1000,
We would not be justified in entering a judgment in any larger
amount,
For the reasons indicated the judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
O'Connor, FP. J., and Matchett, J., concur,
959 N0 t6atow sao Vega Spd Jantepe paereenien eo |
# ‘tadoe of Iumoo elit aden Tot ahd ab Stet 2 teed
ad aanilieiee odd ,eronmertant bas: ides tom one |
sikh Gk daprmbub. 2 aolsodue ob del tiseut ody
ipadkanded. ger geob gt) oqertell oe ghddioinoais Te e2ao oy tim
ybowmh tte ak dtrmmghet att Aeteatoat onentaiendhaal 0
ee - %A
#F he bis taes, caaeee
an wee OS tacit i9
Oper Matae
eae mat bos thd BAe ae a
EE Pi ceteris ot ; Ses
SN RAS a A
:
ae
a a <a
ne i Es Si
Leh SCARE Obi ARR
oe ce 3 o heise is ay witenis hee hall
chika . ys deed: pare’ti) Brat
pe ed
ihe GE Mele’ so. Mdvase saa Fut, Stee nel poets
RCO teal cme Apes sian vt |
‘a tea i} bam omit. Writ, te Ag
33002
PROPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Defendant in Error
VS.
GEORGE BRADOVITCH,
Plaintiff in Error.
MR, JUSTICE McSURELY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Defendant was charged with etealing three suits of men's
clothing and upon trial by the court was found guilty and sentenced
to the House of Correction for three monthe and fined $1.00. He
seeks a reversal.
His first point is that the statute requires that every
person arrested upen infexustion or complaint for a criminal
offense shall be furnished with a copy of the information er come
plaint upon which he is charged net less than one hour before his
arraignment, hearing or examination, Chap. 38, par. 753 (1), Illi-
nois Statutes (Cahill) 1935, Defendant says that no copy of the
information was furnished him,
The record does not support this claim. The only thing
touching the point is an affidavit made by defendant, which was
filed with the clerk nearly two weeks after the trial, iIn this de-
fendant undertakes to say that no copy of the information was fure
mished te him or to his atterney at any time before or after the
trial. Apparentiy this affidavit was filed with the clerk without
leave and the attention of the court was not called to it at any
time, Neither was the court asked te pass upon it, and there is
no ruling of the court with reference to it. There is, therefore,
nothing in this respect to be reviewed by us. iioreover, the record
shows that by agreement of the parties the case was submitted to the
court for trial without a jury. We must assume that defendant was
properly informed of the charge against him,
Aoparently through clerical inadvertence the jurat to the
a. = ly sg ee a ee
x i f an : . 4 at
p
ROWE
: OTOMILIT TO STATE HHT to zagoma
b cord ai taaebne ted.
THUGS JATIOT AUR FRR
Racadannd ¢
a ; i
8 £0.Avl
roe gine deny
150.9 wo" 10 ) MoEUTeO eT cana. YusmBou morTeUt fit
HOTIVOGAAL aDROTD
% on Me ry
o sans rad
1 . totte Pres mitgabess
ates ‘to otiva seul? gailaets aAtiw Seogtéde eaw taebao te 9 (6°
heonecase tae yvitvy bowel sav giwee ont Yd Laird mogdw Bas yal ddwte
eh .00.c8 Sealt bas aslisow eerdt rol aolfserx0D te sawol eat ot
2 -datatarro tie alse
_ ytere fede neriupert stuteia odd tadt al galog gatht elk . ose -
inniwize 6 tot talelqnoe 19 soiteae'ted meq beteotts noet9g
=00 IO Boigamtotal ed to yqoo a dtiw borlelorwt ed Liade sanet'te
4 aid @teled two sae aedd sesl ton bograse ei oc detdw ooqu salata
‘ heat oft) ev .req 8 .gadd .noltanbeexe to gaisasa «tosunykerttn
ede to Yson On gant sysa doebaoted .é60L (LLided) aedutase ston
miki hodators’t aew nolsamtetat
goist vivo oft .mielo eldt srogqwa tom aaoh bieset oAT
aaw siotdw ,taeboetob yd ebem sivabitia ae ef tateg odt gatdowos
i «ob ehdd al feb? off tod te adeow gwd yiteen axele odd dot bets
“twit sew seliemtotai edd to yqoo om tadd yar of eoxstrebaw suabue®
eas tofle to ev0ted emis yne de yemrotta eid of te sabi os bodata
@wontiw dtefe ont ctiw beflit eaw tivablitta altdi Vidnezaqqa staixt
Ene te 4h ot hoLliaa toa aaw tivoo ent Yo aclinedta ont hae evant
ei otedt baw ,o2 moqu aeeq of bodes tau00 edt aew toddio€ vomht
De ,Ptotetads ,ai oxen! .t of eonoxstes dtiw drues edd to gakton on
—btooex edt ,x9veotoM «ou yd boweives od of dooqset abas wh: gubilton
ons ot bettindua sew ease ond seliteg est to dosmectys we tant awosie
aew diebooteh tact saweee teum of ewer 8 twonsiw Latrt rot saw0o
BE A te vital ¢eakape ogresio ost to beacon sane i ven |
otis ot tare, edd one ste vhent Leoireio sauce visaorogh
information omitted the date, reading, "this _oday of November,
A. D. 1934." It is argued that a charge cannot be prosecuted upon
an information which contains no sufficient verification, citing
People v, Weinstein, 255 Ili. 530, That case involved an informa-
tion which was sworn te on duly 3rd, charging an offense to have
been committed on July 18th. It was held that the verification
could not apply te future acts, in the instant ease the information
alleges November 23, 1924, as the date of the crime and the verifie
¢ation as made in November, 1934, It will therefore be presumed
that the verification was made subsequent to Kevember 23rd.
But even if the verification were vulnerable to attack, the
record fails te shew any motion to quash or a motion for a new
trial or in arrest of judgement, Therefore, defendant eannet come
plain in a court of review that the information lacked verification.
People v, Dayvejonck, 337 Ill. 636,
Defendant in his argument says that the Municipal court of
Chicago never acquired jurisdiction of his person as the reeord shows
he was arrested without precess, The record recites thet defendant
“is now here present in open court, the Gourt tekes jurisdiction of
the person of said defendent, and the Bailiff of thie Court is erdered
ferthwith to take the body oi said defendant inte ais eustody and
said body safely keep so that said Bailiff may have the same before
this Court to answer to the plaintiff for and concerning the offense
charged in said information *," If, as may be, defendant was caught
in the act of committing the avine mentioned in the information and
brought into court and formally ebarged with the crime, then the court
had jurisdiction of him.
The evidence not having been preserved by a bill of excep-
tions it will be presumed that defendant was preven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v. White, 300 Ill. 230,
The judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRWED,
O'Connor, P. J,, and Matchett, J., concur,
tein voll ‘to wad bn ati" ,galbest 2det, ont hott timo eit Dabo tt
Sogn bodimeniien od Senna optaste # tedt bewgre al tI _ ebb Ok Ml eh
5 petht te jnotias Piaey emded itm on quiatape Aide gal tawret ROKORD
Sgurtotid on ‘beviovad Seas Yost 08d «tft @as’ vatstentoW_.v ofgosd
eet of sane tio as. gatyrece Ste yYlwt so of axowe saw dolcw sokt
noltastibxor oct} Jade bied aew $2 | sitet ¢twtodo” bed¥ Bianco imeed
noitsmetek edi onge. dustnal ey al sateen exutut ot ees ton biueo
wttitev edt bas emia ers At, odeh, ans 88. Sb Adal att ESI @ a.
bomaoig od eipiisieds iliw a pbb UL, .todueved at phan h po tw A
Le rey edt tart
ae np ven. of tm upeatos oham gam uectnel | oe rete
: we -deegia et edouteanalyy 9199 Agisseltizey, and i eve ud Lay)
Woh A Reh tation 2 20, daaup oF polsom yas wade Qt eller a
| empo toumiag dembire to b <etelsited? -dapamdut tg Arana, Pye ‘ioe
apbiasbinsy benont moljomrolad edi dest welvet ‘to ARH? Ba ere
es OES he 8 oct nt eAE TE aaah eae awe hae,
ae te #09 Legtodauid esd Saas ayes tueawate ald al tas 09796 atom
2c @ btoows ost am aoeteq aid to molsoibalayt dertupoe aie babs Pr |
| tawbaptod sat aettser proves ok aneogtg toid te call sit chaye
eer uy 4
te. aeivoligivul, sedad Jusod od? ,fiveo, Mego n F.Pas eS 7 pei met
emsire ad dauod atid Yq. Witted od} bag, ,Iagbaetoh blew BS fs ag My
ee etnies =
+ io IS
baie oteun, adsiowant, duabseTeh Ripe, 29, Wed of pxng of swale
| stalked Samm ou over yom TLLLed biep gas) om qoox yioTen yb err i
“ ganstite 9nd. galnievags bax xet Kidsiele ext of OT alg rot Sean ate bre .
“tigune aw duahusteb .ed yom as 4th" .# aol taisx6%at biae * See
: bas nettawietat add ab boaois aoa paren ast gatid tmaoe To te add a
‘+ Aue Ee pgp
aid meds ~omiteent adiv bogtade. a A bys: ae t
“sqeoxe 26 Lids yt Sovsdneng ased”
oe Aaoyed Yaihis. war ane re :
‘i re ake ry Juni ie TMA. aaa ween ie-al deemabat eat, 500
eno Haden bal 70
aE Be gaia, eet seacadie chant Sea brady Mygvotel Witeemeggh
bs ; wen EAT? ’
38003 f i
f
{HS PROPLZ OF THE STATE oF /
ILLINOIS, ,
Defendant in #rror,
WS,
“MANUEL ROBSRTS,
Plaintiff in Srror.
279 1.4. 639!
LR, JUSTICE MeSUKELY DELIVEKGD THR OPINION OF THe COURT.
Defendant was charged with stealing three suite of wen's
eiething and upen trial by the court was found guilty and sentened
to the House of Correction for three monthe and fined 51,00, te
seeks a reversai.
The same points are made in this aase as have been made
go, Bo. S8002 in this court. We have thie
day filed an opinien in that ease, affirming the judgment ef the
lunicipal court. for the reasons stated in that opinion the
jJudgaent in the inetant case is at'firwed.
AFFIRMED,
O'Conner, P. J., and Matchett, J., coneur.
g
Pa cea (i294 wera XE
40 BEATE SRT vo ULGOR4 BAT
/, BIOQMILE
tort at Pnaboored
fo de he dttinned eee d
47: ion ten Adped
= iv Pvd xo sorurdo air camcvE ae, vaste sormu UG Aa
aa . , % o¥o28 wi torr
es! ea. Ie egive gerit gatisese atiw boyteda aww snaebas ted, eohtne
’
here iace how yiilvg howl saw Jason ssid ws isixd aoay dns yahsitets
ol ..00,0% Donk? ban. adduo eexse xo} nolzeerx0d Yo: samo ex? oF
ire
P sbrendnad smntone wee, aids af obam eta atalog amas eit bran
phat, ved 0% stu, olste, at 80082 .0h, sdudsvobonil.y ofnoas mi
edd Te Inembot ed7 galari tio yeep, tedd a2, mplakge ap _peskik eh
oat aodaiqe dace al betede anoases, add x0d | “sdxwoo, Loqto baat
coo - phone ah eean, dai ead. oct, ah. taomabat
5, Ps 4
i feats
ae -CEMLTIMA Banos yt Bi saenete ftuatiive baraerta uw of
; 4 "
be Boke (a Peet, choad daush oMf, ,otnoe. Bede Wh geeeete ors hans ol
ise ae 5:
ee atin postin, By wWitirat Sean iege eae Te aa nm goed ett sitet OF. Be roeres
tp iat tea, Ya. ATALSeS, pa test om good yfe'lew sors hina
ce Me ee oe Wail cay ip the {) (one. “a , eta er wil viley he [2 Wei ¢ g "Eas | aba
rey rae
i vee te oth “@ wekoete te bine a hogan
Bethe Cute a ce DAA ee SSL. Bhs. | nz s2 senses Pa) hha ashi a
A ee
eth ae ieee? attic Meguede giles? Ane Jee eres itgword
walsh “Ye 92 ) yo bbe kth bert
ie } ed P24 ae wid Pie ie ae eR ine (5 mf Si a aN VPA, ba PH (gee dies alt 4 ih Fat:
j big: ye san tuehoe teh. ad hase te ae ifthe 3? “nase
8 £54 OO Lez AV. pianet sti agh 6 IanesaKe
; Sook) te, af 0 meee bak eee. a
nyt ay is bi aa
eNO 4 at ate ee ee ra (rOunee™® is
VS.
HAROLD SHLENSKY,
Appellant,
}
; ; 4
VOT A. 635°
é Y i othe O 3
WR, JUSTICH MeSURELY DELIVEHED THB OPINION OF THE COURT,
Plaintiff brought suit upon three promissory notes of $500
each; defendant's second amended affidavit of merits was stricken,
and delendant electing to stand thereby, judgment was entered against
him for $1626, from which he appeals,
In the first paragraph of defendant's second amended affie
davit of merits it was denied that plaintiff was the legal owner and
. holder of the notes upen which suit was brought, and defendant orgaes
that this wags a sufficient defense and the court was in error in
striking it,
In the first amended affidavit of merits, which had been
stricken, defendant asserted that plaintiff was not the legal
holder and owner of the notes, but that he had possession of them ag
guardian of an estate and had failed to procure leave of court to
institute suit upon said bonds, Plaintiff says that defendant, in
opposing the motion te strike the second amended affidavit of merits,
argued to the court that plaintiff held tiem as guardian of a minor's
estate, and much of plaintiff's brief is devoted to the proposition
that a guardian has the right to sue in his own name in behalf of his
ward. However, as we view the matter, the first amended affidavit of
merits, which contained the aseertion that plaintiff was a guardian,
was stricken, and the second amended affidavit of merits makes no
reference to a guardianship but merely asserts that plaintiff is not
- the legal owner and holder ef the notes. Therefore, we shall not
. @onsider the question of the right of a guardian to sue but shall
(O88 AI eS on
* ama SkY GO LOTMIGO SAT CUREVIWEC YIERVMeM BOTTeUL . AM
QoNg ‘to aeton Yroeednoty sexed nocw thue Seiguord Trttatels - )
veigitge sev atitem to Jivabi tte behneme bnooes a! saabasteb jess
jatisge bowtas sew taombul, ,ydeteds haste pd gulsoote arias
-alseqge al do Lain mort d8aly set at
aitta Sebaems Aaoose atinefua'ted Lo daatyetag tanh edt al
Tee a aie ;
ine neve eget edt aaw Tiddaielg jady belanh sew a adixom te tivab
AG teabee eh hae »piayond say thus dpidu equ meson add, te
eee
aL toms oa, eae Ptweo oss bar saneteb suelolTive # sar at Saas
: ok coun fh eats
teed bad soldw ,ad item 2. divebi Tie prvi teun2 ont a
fageL ot gon eaw Tiliniely test botteaes taabustoh ,nodoizte
an sedt to melesoeeseg bed of sast sud , aston esd to temo bas tebLod
od Stuoe Yo ovseL sumone of otto’ bed bas etaten ae To makbuaws
ak ,jashastob tet eyae Thttaieli .edaed bisa noqu thus etuditant
,tixes: te Hvabitte bohaoas hacste ond edlate of mottom edt gateogge
@’wouls « to aeltitevg aw meld bho Tiitalelg dant trs00 oat of heavy te
noltieogetq ef% of hetoveh ei Toixd a'tiivatetg to dom bas ,oteteo
sgh ‘to tileted af omen owe eb ak ewe of tiydx ont vad telbisug & tans
Yo fivabitts behosms ¢axki gad ,tedsam edt wely ow sa ,tevewoH brew
~Melbravg e sew Trivaielo ted soliteses odd bealetnoo doidw ,atitem
on eotam etivom to tivebiYia bebusm baoves ett bas ,aexoliute saw
\ tonal Ttitatale decd atreane Ylevom dud qidetstiiayy & of sonen a
; tom Lfete ow ,etolevedl .sedea ods to tebLod baw teawo
Lista tud owe of meibrevy s To teigit ocd to motteeup ont
pass upon the second amended affidavit of merits as made,
The court properly struek this, for the reason that in
the same pleading defendant admits that plaintiff wae the holder
ef the notes, The second saragraph of the affidavit alleges an
agreement between defendant and plaintiff, as the helder of the
notes, with reference to an extension and in the third paragraph
of the same affidavit defendant tenders to plaintiff the interest
on the notes,
The record shows that upon the trial plaintiff produced
the notes in open court and the judgment entered in fever of
plaintiff was noted upon the notes themselves. Defendant was not
prevented from setting up any defense that he might have had against
any prior holder, and ae the notes are merged in the judgement, it
is a complete bar to any subsequent judgment upon the same notes
in favor of any other person. Hart v, Seymour, 147 111. 598.
By the second paragraph of the second amended affidavit of
merite defendant asserted that the interest on the notes, due July
15, 1935, was in default, and that in September, 1935, an agreement
Was made between the plaintiff and the defendant te extend the date
of payment of the principal amount of said notes from July 15, 1934,
until July 15, 1935, and that in consideration of this extension de-
fendant paid the interest due July 15, 1933,
The allegation that in September, 19335, there was an oral
agreement te extend the date of payment of the principal from July
15, 1954, to July 15, 1955, was an agreement to extend the payment
for the period of more than one year alter the date of the making
of the agreement and therefore void, being im violation of the
statute of frauds, chap. 59, sec. 1, Illinois Statutes (Cahili.)
In 27 Corpus Juris, page 185, it is seid of the statute of
frauds, it “applies te an oral agreement to extend the time of pay~
ment of a promissory note for a definite period of more than one
aie,
Lohan a0 etitem to tivahi'tte behasme Dewssw 69 mogy a
ak Held nomen ect te? (,ekdt vomtte ylxoqoerg ttwoo ott
robles aut onw Vtatela taste at debe tnabooteb yathaoty omen ost
| ge any fle thwebt’rie end Yo sgatgeteY Baoodd ocT .noton et 2o
gat “ye hfad edt ‘ee ,tiivaisla base thabas teh aeevwied taemeetZe
dgergwte Ptide vd at bae aoleostxs oe of sonetptes Adin ,seton
teotedak oct Tikiaiate of stebmet tuabne'teb abana oma at To
Revubete Yiitalely felxd oA¥ moqu ted} adwords Wack gue” 8°? e880
"te eve’ af bovedne daoubWt ec? bie txovs ddifo at “Se¥ou edt”
| dou naw Sd@bocted seevicamed?’ seton odd aoqu aston sw Yad vitha ta”
| tenting bed aved sdgktm od fustd sei tes Yiu i Bika dee moet betnoverg
a strom bat, amd ah bogtsm ois woden edt as Ade. stoblod qolxy a
eeten ime asd moqy tnoagbut, ‘taenposdue yas: rr) ‘nad o¢siqmod sa
‘8@2 .06T VAL ,xuomyed .y dxe noatsq todto yas Yo cover wh
| oe shvebtYia Sebneme baoves odt to Aqetpetag baoses st lt ae
Fy i eat oul atom O42" Ao tevrodat odd Sand bodxesee tnabas'tes ethrom
al tad le j280L ,coduos qed ‘Mt Yads bos ,étietes Wt kew over er”
| ginb wy bustke of fnebaeteb on? bad Yetvatate one noowtee Wbant kaw”
steed, ai ydut wor't eoton Kioe “to drut Loqtddirg wilt td sabayeg 6”
sob Horwaaxe abi ‘to dolferebtanes nt fadty baw Jecer ae yale tea
Tr SOL ef Ylot oat duotstant oily hing snenitet ”
||” Fate tie caw emolls ,cteL jtodubdqee mi fane ‘dotseystte ett °°"
a eta mort Lngtontxq bd ‘to fasuyeq ‘td etab oity haw exe "6 ‘Yobubtyes |
| iG * toangas eds Anetee o¢ ‘fps ety ‘Ye sew “dees “at vad ed beet Jet” 7
A —_ oils “Yo bath il’ c0d'te “hey ‘Sag andl! exom Yd welvog Sas WT"
gif “Xo dotdatoly at gatbd ,bkov sderetens bal Fasmorga olf to”
— (oeEtstad) eodstagd’ efeak ter 2° .088", ed Sgeito ‘Vabuixt te vintedd”
‘* suse odd bine ei FE (Uae Wadd” dele ates ye reer
qed “io “oally ity Sisiren 6s somimidieys Tard iid “ot od tts Pt ‘ieee
do tat arin dive ‘68 ted ta er toa shame eisiedon
year,” The same thing is said in Smith on the Statute of Frauds,
sec, 546, Hide and Leather Bank v. Alexander, 134 Ill. 416, ine
volved a written form of agreement for an extengzion of the time of
payment of a nete, which agreement was signed only by the maker of
the note, It was held that as the agreement was not te be fully
performed within one year and as the holder of the note had not
signed it, there was no agreement of extension, This yule/akeo
applied in Snow vy, Schulman, 352 111, 63, where it was held that an
| application for a loan, not to be completed within one year and une
signed by the proposed maker of the loan, was invalid and not binde
ing.
Defendant cites Julin v, Bauer, 82 [11. App. 157, as holding
that such agreement is not void, In that case there was an agreement
to execute certain papers extending the time of payment of a loan, and
the court held that since those papers could have been executed
within the period of a year, these facts took the case out of the
statute of frauds, In the present case defendant alleges that in
September, 19535, an agreement was then and there made to extend the
date of payment from July 15, 1934, te July 15, 1935. It is obvious
that this agreement could not have been performed within one year
from the date it was made,
Moreover, the alleged agreement is without consideration,
Defendant asserts that the consideration was the payment ef the
interest due July 15, 1933, Defendant was the maker of the notes
by and was obligated to pay thia interest, and the fact that the
Pn er ae
“ gopartnersnip paid the interest is no
sufficient consideration. As stated in plaintiff's brief, the fact
that defendant paid his interest obligation cut of partnership funds
mg Plage greater consequence than if he had borrowed the funds from
a bank,
The second amended affidavit was contredictory,evasive and
insufficient in law, and was properly stricken by the court,
For the reasons indicated the judgment is affirmed,
APFIRMED,
O'Connor, P.J., and Matchett, J., concur,
eabua'rt Io studate odd so djlu of bien af agaist emee ont." ,xeey
oak ole fit bak saehcaxs LA ySdS ,098
to emit eit to nobasetxe nee tort smite to. myo? oettlaiw » beviov
te xoaem any bs “Lao bongte say Jopmserye doidw ,eson s to smpargeq
yits't od of Jen saw J a9 aes T38 ent ae 283¢ bled saw dL .atom.ogt
yer basi otoa oxit to tehfod att as Dae taoy ono alddiw bourretieg
“eoda\esir ekat -foianssxe ‘to SoecpeaTss om Gow otadt tt hengta
me tent bien enw dh oxecte »f@ .1h 866 ,memfusin’ vy wont at beobiqas
“cw bos tex oo aivsiv hegetqmon of ot tom ,naol w not notiactiogs
“bald Jou bas biisvai saw ,Aaol en} ‘to t9d8m besogorg ert yd dongle
e peter
onibian | ae VOL Sa eis 8 ‘gett mabetents, einsatiens are
Saeaw9 x98 Sues ase oneas has satel asi aia . _phiov tom of teneet ge nti
re «0 a to Samet ‘Yo amhe one gainsedxe ateqag atatiee otupexe oo
bot usexo od eves bLuog sieged on of? gonte jad? blo temoo ont
eas te tue gaap odd ai tos? peauit Maer # to bolteg out aldtiw
nk tase e0g0 Le daabasteh oaan inezetq gs a1 _whustt to edutase
| ont basaxe ‘ot oben pred? das aend caw InpuetRs om BERL, todaet goa
“awoivde wi #I .eben 2 yluk of ,86CL ,84 yuh moxt gnemynq Xe eteh
a : Tae ene abst v hooro'tieg need eved Jon hives Inameatys ald? todd
a 8. hem eam dt edeb ent pont)
“ watieiee hiaes twostt tw at tuasser se bagolle alt ,tevoomow far) av?”
| eat to sr! ent ssw nolsazehianep ead tedd sirenea tnedoe tot
9908 eds To todlen ont sew sanhoe'ted 8UGL ,8L ylub exh santetak
i a
i
cal se ae! ay
et a8 teoresad ond bing f qiseventaeqes
ie
pm weteave toto thaxéaeo eaw sivab Tie dehemng havens seitt
ie: “owes olf YS nedotisa Yxeqetg saw has .we tao
oa
sxsomoo ..b ,tiodoteM bas ,.b.0 W , oan i '
ie _ emit texts feat ert bas ,teeregat etd yaq of hedegitdo, vaw bas
; ut add ptoltd a'Ytitatese ab peters nA seeenantietiie sinetescanedl
: beni’? aisexentted to to Bolgaghida tampons als blag Yoehae'teb decdt
ot abst ext bawoxted bast oxi ul madd soneuponneg, ANneniien ‘to Je
eboust tts at taeumbst edt betaotbhal enoseot ost, meh bial eo P3,
COMAIRTA
He
f
p
37866 f ff \
if mi Ki +
cae
Ps j ’
EDWARD PTACEK, (Plaintiff), ih / "4 |
Appellee,
)
Hi, J, COLBMAN, H. J, CLARK ) APPHAL PROJ
)
}
VSe
| GLPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO,
On Appeal of H#. J. GOLUuMAN
and H. ad. CLARK,
Appellants.
Ne 2
2¢9 1.A.639
UR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THB COURT,
On February 15, 1934, plaintiff tiled a suit against de-
fendants in the Municipal court of Chicage based upon the written
promises of defendants under seal to repurchase from plaintiff a
contract for the conveyance of the premises known as 4132-34
Calumet avenue, in case of default by the original purchaser in
making payments ae the contract provided, The statement ef claim
alleged default by the purchasers and the refusal of defendants to
perform as agreed, The cause was put at issue and submitted to the
court for hearing upon au agreed statement of facts dated October
24, 1928,
The cause was heard upon this agreed statement of facts and
argued by the attemeys and upon motion of plaintiff continued
until June 22, 1934, On that date attorney for plaintiff moved the
court for leave to submit evidence, Defendants objected, their ob-
jection was sustained and plaintiff's motion denied, Plaintiff then
orally moved the court for a non-suit. Defendants objected, for the
reason that the cause had been heard and submitted to the court for
decision and for the further reason that no special motion, setting
up the grounds for the dismissal supported by affidavit, had been
presented as required by seetion 52 of the Practice Act (Gahill's
Til. Kev, Stats., chap. 116, see, 52, par. 180, p. 32157.) The
motion for a nen-suit was allowed over defeidants' objection, and the
nae sal
iy be: f ‘ yy \ vera moar eae
apetioggas a
wae
oe ae caida pe Wn »* ‘a
LAUT AO
° niki
Lraige wads
yr" » 5 3 a ne ;
Un ih ee Mk ee)
+00 | auT to OIMIGO CUT CaREVILING ‘fiat dakeeve™ 1 on
ra ta, # > ee
Ye Debates
“96 demiega fina s beLit Ttisnlalg peed GL ides m0
ge meat dae esl? mage beasd aysoldd to trueo Jaqiolaus ext ak. ot _
-) -@ Widalelg mort eagdotaqe: of Leen tebay eiamhae te) to Ae (
ooo) MMeRSLD. ae wort goalmetq edt To eogaypyaos eat not, soettoo9
ai romsdorug Leniytse 96 yd tiuetgh 9 oaeo at. euneve tem teo
akeis Io tsomisie eat .bobiverg toatamop eat ag, eemenaRS pattem
) of winsbue ted Te Lacwiet oid bas, atosaiotue osit o thueteh fame tte
add od bediinadve bas exact ta tug eew saneo ac? boongs a8. ante’
r oxaemates botah afoot To insaesste beetye us sogy. sabiiang Supe
pms afos't to fnomiete beotge aids soqu Pei pit iow ade hd knot
—. besaddnpe Titalete To noltom nog bas aypamrotis put yd bougxa
“oni bovom Tettatese rot. yonnosse eteb todd m0, 268k 88 empl, Lhtnw
nthe. thedt ,betoetdo atanbas ted, soousbive tiudue ot svagt tot t1u09
‘Rodd Thtialedd .botsad mokgoma'2itsntata, gua boatateue saw mottooh
as 10k shotoetda etasbas'tes. nthventon, @ tet dano9 gad. bovom Yileme
| ge tauoo, ont of, beg? tadye baw brass mood bes oaxms ext dent soage
> gnlsion <Hoktom Lnkavge oo ded? monays, nddant, 948, epee
| goed bod ,tivedivie yd bedxoqgue Leapsimelh oad Aot aban |
os SmeR EPA ARRAS PY, sy Fen ing 3 bal * hag ei te re a
as
2
cause dismissed at plaintiff's costs. Defendants bring this appeal
and argue error in granting the voluntary dismissal without compli-
anee by plaintiff with the provisions of said seetion 52.
Section 1 of the Civil Praetice Act (Cahill's Iii. Rev,
Stats., chap, 110, sec. 1) provides that ite provisions shall apply
te all civil proceedings beth at law and in equity “in courts of
record” with certain exceptions there named. Section 2 of the
act provides that the Supreme court of the State shall have power
to make rules of pleading, practice and procedure for the City,
County, Circuit, Superior, Appellate and Supreme courts supplemene
tary to but not inconsistent with the provisions of the act, and to
amend the some for the purpose of making the act effective for the
administration of justice, and otherwise siuplifying judicial pro-
cedure, It is significant that the Municipal court of Chicago is
not included in the list of courts named in seetion 2, Sections
19 and 20 of the Municipal Court ast give to the judges of the
Municipal court pewer to adopt "“sueh rules regulating the practice
in said courts as they may deem necessary or expedient for the
proper administration of justice in said court." Section 30 of the
Municipal Court act provides:
"“Svery person desirous of suffering a non-suit on trial
shall be barred therefrom unless he do so belore the jury retire
from the ber, or before the court, in case the trial is by the
court without a jury, states its finding."
A majority of the judges of the Municipal Court ef Chicago
on November 1, 1935, adopted eertain rules of practice for that
court in civil actions, to take effect on and after January 2, 1934.
Rule 122 (Municipal Court of Chicago Civil Practice Rules & Forms,
p. 90) provides for the practice in cases where the plaintiff may
wish to discontinue his action. It reads:
"Save as in this rule is etherwise provided, it shall not
be corpetent fer the plaintiff to discontinue the action, but the
court may, before, or at, or after the hearing or trial, upon
such terms as to costs, and as to any other action, and otherwise
a
Lmqqe etd? goltd etuehae'ted ,ataos a readabeny ti ery eeuno
-kiqmoo twortiv Ceantom th vat xikbey add sul bhae ab TOTTS OuRTE Ane
8% noitoon bise to anotelvere ost sty TWiintela yd some
von tit a! 1111609) toa eolsonx’ £iv10 ett? “to £ tottoo8”
wage LLasie anotatvora ati jad? asbivorg (1 -oo8 Off = into asbiade
Ly Rawoo ai" ytitpe of bows wal te ditod egathesoord vss Efn ot
ent ‘tc & aoltoo® bomen oreri? euottupints nistase diiw "broost
tewog sven iisria stet% ong to dawoo emorquG ot tad asbivotq toa
.Wto ens tot etwhoverg bac eottoatg ,gatbaete To aelur ofem ot
oni a9 Loq 100 aiituco suet qua bite tations proltoaes »tinor td «UF a709
of bas toa oul to eaetelverg omy Atiw sustelenoont ton tud of ytat
ostt tot oviiee tte See os9 gatisa ‘to seoqrug sae tot oma odd hm:
-0TG faio thst, gaty rh iqube eeiwissddo bre ast art te noltenteteteds
ak egao tid te truoo Legioiowd edd Jadt tags Pringts of at. .OTHHOD
Mmoltes? 8 aolioes at bean agruoo to fait sat at ReALioah, ham
., oat Te aoghut oft of avis tee A7HO? Ange sank ods 34 UF dime 26
Settoatg edt gaisetugoy aout dove" sq9ba of toweq t1H09 Aoghe nw
- ond Set taotbegus TO Yteseeqen mead yam yea, +4 © ettvoo bine ag
eds te O& aoitos’ "“,d4ues bilan ai goliteut to aoitexrtetntabs APGOTE
: saehiverg tow JrH0d Leqtotnui
late ag ¢ise-nona & pote vine to avozleoh aoex9 4 eteva"
etifet yret add sxo'ted os ob sf ena fag sorter dt rire ye fflade
SAE IE! AP STS sands endate oethl eae sthe eRaee
= to d1v09 fagisitaw et bo es gbat sat te vwitetem A” | $3898
faded 10? gottoata ‘to aalox nistioo betgoie (f8OL ,f isduovod ne
-b00L 8 Yteuast isf'te bas mo soe'tte eted of ,scokfor Livio nt me
‘Jamro% & eeiutf aoitoert LLvitd egaotid to stwod Ieetotnelt) Sel oful
— mpi ont ‘orene addas at sotteetq eat “tet aontvorg (0@° “a
iio le 0 flee “Elta S dal eusitemeonth ab melee
bod" tidd #2’ hebivery calwieass af Gin what at te oat
edt tad ,nobion ons emaléaooaib of Ttitalele edt rot taeceqneo of
| tog ,faladt 10 guitaod odt tette to ,ta to ,stoted .yam tu0s
pie eaiwtedte. baw ,folsoe tito yne of ag bas. ~eteoo of wa —_—
beet A
{ Bhar
aT an
3
as may be just, order the action to be discontinued, or asy part of
the alleged cause of action to be struck out. A discontinuance of
any action by the plaintiff ehall not affeet tae right cf a defend-
ant to prosecute any counterclaim theretofore filed,"
The questions as to whether the Civil Practice act hag re-
pesled sections 19, 20 and 30 ef the Municipal court act or taken
away fran the Municipal court of Chicago the power to make rules
inconsistent with provisions of that act, have net been considered
in the briefe filed in this court. Both parties seen to aseume
that section 52 of the Civil Practice act is applicable, In the
absence of authorities to the contrary we are inclined to hold
that rule 122 of the hiunicipal court is not invalid, and the order
ef the court granting a nonesuit will therefore be affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
O'Gonnor, P. d. I concur on the sole ground that the Municipal
court has not as yet passed a rule adopting
section 52 of the Civil Practice act.
MeSurely, J., specially concurring: I concur in holding that the
nonesuit is controlled by Rulel22 of the Munici-
pal court of Chicago, effective January 2, 1934,
ee
is a2 eevor BI TRRe ee Decne: Bae sir FRY iin
ja, to “— poe ad
1 te X20, he unten aio. wath of aot ‘ot “telieaTie'te
EES lo aa ee ee 2
sot Heal ton seitoext Liv to bay Yeiiterw o¢ Oe deciren?
pewter Ye for Prob Leatothu J? te Ut baw Wh er amettiew sets
ge firr eine of tewoy sift eysotMD ‘te Mrioo Leghokhvll ony’ wovt qawe
herobtensd ased tom ovnt , toe Sent Ye emote ivory tw ryote Haney ak
Sitter oo es waa ny ot Levee! Wi ae boltty eteerd ene HR
: : wes Jo ffs fivge Ut Yow edttuet4 “Livid ait to he tettome tant eS
oo sy ae ee a ee Le i
ld
ody bi ,bhcevind ton ei Mraoo Laqte Kaas writ te SOE tthe Fat
| a 0" iting od iadadiead ‘tilhw SAN aattupty ‘Muoo sty te
ty, Leaky geen qet« wetwandte bun yembtaw, te gold rack ake
woes Le dike Leqialowh ott Jane aa Pi kingke oe ae pace y if
or ppiaher Seely @los $47 no tubap0 FE - ub. us ‘ton eee Bee:
is “a oe > doar COVED wnt! or hdediesasaill wuld re. Cc am,
“es ot? suave sunex veivx« dons” Pooba od *ewor PURO Seah kos (fs)
mn, | .
; Kouta "to S8xoiuit yo bedtont same et ¢y ar adhe nt
‘te euueo Me ee "0 Rat i anos
CR Ry We WHE BH THO? Canto trait
He 2 £9R NO sh niece tig Ye Were heon weveD eroya” ; 1 as
Yen Bild Seated ga oS i ape Ens sek Ree woh oY eta oa tence oy
F $ . . ‘ ‘. | hace cn
£ iaia? way oesu 42 ,oewen BA? AiomE. * ot ont a
S pala T Wak sted & etn? yt Sisit bo or ‘
. he ras 2, 1
we cexgtolae’ an be eet ht eel Te i rt ah rf.
tat gesetesy to wed siadans Sap eehe (es 2 or a teduove hd ie
Ke RE a oe Pore tha iti a eee rays ‘a call
‘
+ SRL BGEPOeR’ SILA wearin “Te PU WRG aia ‘ho
oy ty Cisse Mi i 4 * ait Nile et Me § rt suse oe th
a Fm ge x Pe ye ee proinhigaigr ded AY ir ota ak an = oat
2, as a a 14
rf OLEk Be yi uy 9 i
paarsect ¥ Die, Cotes cae ae iu sua ait seared oe
37877 fh pet
PHOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOTS,“y"
Defendant in ¥ rot,”
ten
Sy,
4.
VB8e
iK COUNTY,
279 I.A. 639"
WALTER J, MeCOY¥
ee
Plaintiff in Error,
WR. JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINICN OF THE COURT,
On February 21, 1934, the grand jury of Cook County returned
an indictment against defendant KeCoy. It was in two counts. ‘The
first charged that defendant was guilty of obtaining money by false
preténces, in that on November 10, 1935, he ebtained $100 from the
Palmer House Company by means of a supposed check dram on the
Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los Angeles, California,
in which bank he had no agcount whatever, The second count charged
that in the same transaction he was guilty of obtaining the same
money by means of the confidence game.
He was arraigned and plenked net guilty. He waived a jury
and the cause was submitted to the court, Thereatter he withdrew
his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty, which was ace
cepted and entered of record, After hearing the testimony of wite
nesses, the court found defendant guilty of "false pretences" in
manner and form as charged. Judgment was thereupon entered upen the
finding and defendant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to the
House of Correction for one year and te pay a fine of $100.
The cause is here on the common law record alone,
It is urged in the first place that the finding is insuffi-
cient to support the judgment, A finding by the court, like the
‘verdict of a jury, is net construed so strictly as an indictment,
On the contrary, it is liberally construed and will be held suffie
cient unless from necessity tuere is doubt as to its meaning.
People v. Tierney, 250 111. 515; People v. Klein, 305 Il. 141;
’ Tens
Spa QOHILIT 10 TALS HHT tO ELLE
al Jon bie tod .
me ity na at
ey soph Ci
wr thm Y
~ {YOSem Lt aersae
— iad vitsmiosi
nit %
eration nen) "
‘og ALON S
,a4i anril2em Saree
,PaUOO ant CO MOTNTIO MRT CHRAVIUAE TTAROTAM eshte ay
iyo te La eyed
bonausox utes S002 vist dawna out ery 3 usando 20 Prt vine! Hd
| ast .adawoo ow? ai saw $f e008 dnshastob | jestage teengethal me
| — oalat ve ysuom gotolatde ta Ve ilug aa tnabasteb sauld Ae. fyi
9, mort 90L¢ boalasde of ,S6eL OL tedasyow 0 tasts HAs Sia
od? go amath Aoeils beaogqve a Yo eneom wd ‘yasgag9 9 eawol well santa’
| qwhero Rt £90 Bologna aod ‘to amet wakes P taux? Leaotiell amextito
‘ —_ tases bacoes off ,tevededw Jauooos on bad of daad da ketw ak
aM. oid neh Pneae te Wate, ecw of doktoannats came 9a at test
| any soe sons bao Silt to anasm vé Yomom
sank ® beview off thins gon behwelg bas boaglatts sew oH
| Moab ie on sostasredT .¢tti09 ons of best iudwe wey oauno, pat aw
toe wae doldw ,xtttug to eolg » baxedne baw Yting toa to selq ats
wttw te yaomtiost edt gatused t9ftA .bte0et te bored aa baa betgeo
mk “aeoaetetq saint” to ytling toshaeteb beawsot times ot negeen
eas Aegy betedie aequetedd saw tusaghs ,beogtade sa arto’t Lied oi Moat
: eds of ytifea to seiq ald no hoometuse saw tasbasteb bas galbake
> | 069 te oatt #2 yeq oF baw tavy emo tot noltoozxed te sanoll
> .onole bioest wal common ost oo wtod ef soueo oat
mitiveat ef gathalt edd sect eoalq text odd ab hegre at a1
add OLE ,tuwoo odd yf gatbatt A .daemybut ont Sxoqque it tke
we doemieibal ace as yiioinée oo bewttenoo ton al veut, a te tolbtev
ae rao biond of Iiiw bas beuxtanoo yilaredis at at ereedaeo ert a0
(AE HET 008, sated .v edgon’ 1848 ALT, O88)
-gikcunen ati ot a@ sduob at oxocd ytteoooon met, sveten saan
People v, Shupe, 306 Ill. 31; People v. MeCurrie, 357 Til. 290.
The finding here designated the particular count under whieh defend
ant was found guilty, and (assuming the count to be good) it was
sufficient, Defendant relies on People v, Leuen, 231 Ill. 193. In
that case there were six counts in the indictment and the verdict
was not responsive to any one of them, Yor that reason it was held
insufficient. The opinion of the court said that if the jury had
found defendant guilty as charged in a designated count, this would
have been sufficient. Here, there were only two counts. One
eharged false pretences, the other the eonfidence game. The finding
was "guilty" under the false pretences count, There is nothing
doubtful or uneertain about this finding.
Defendant contends that the indictment wae defective in that
the ownership of the property cbhtained is deseribed as in the "Palmer
House Company" without qualifying words as to whether it is a eorpora-
tion, copartnership, or person. Since the record was filed in this
court by stipulation of the parties, the indictment gs as it then
appeared has been corrected and, as corrected, is not subject to this
eriticiem, There was no motion to quash the indictment; there was |
no motion for a new trial, nor in arrest of judgment, and in the
absence of a bill of exceptions, every inference is against defendant,
People v, Lawrence, 252 111. App. 341; People v, Murphy, 183 Ill, 144,
The judgment is affirmed,
APP IRMED,
O'Connor, P. J., and MeSurely, J., concur,
O98 LET VEE eaizzuoll x shuobt gb (£21 08,
| Sastes Kobeaw uwhaw tues isiveidung att betengieed ated guibatt oat
wee dt (hows, ‘96 mi tawes ond gataueea ) bos Wiing, havo enw tap
“pT leek 5£nn dee esata etuos m0 ‘pekion tasbns'tec oti ko h't'twa
totecey eff bae tasavoltbot eds ai stauwoe xle oxew eredt eseo tesit
bled ase $k ageeet gad? col mods to eno yas o¢ ovienoqaes gon uaw
: feck west, edt ‘ti ¢adt bies tisoo odd ‘te noiniqe oft .tneielttwent
a bluow ates stawos botaagiveb & at bowteso 26 “Wiikey tnaboe'ted to
ou etuH09 owt yin @tew otesdd ,omeit dno kok tie ‘mood wind
‘ abt oft ‘ona gonobhtaos ssid renkt © ont ,ason0 2070 ontet aie
Pi. gntaton ak orodi? .t aws0 neonsdezq ‘eater wx sant “myb they” aw
| spakbat? ebss twods abs?reenu 10 thdduoh
ik tne nd evtsneted saw tnento that extd sid abn 2100 $nabso to 9 ae og
omit" eat «i se bediscnes ek bontatde tereqorg out to ahier0sr0 oat
set0rri00 & at $2 xodtestw of ae abtow anlythtewp duoddiw Comaube ‘0 oauol
id et ak bolit saw brovet oid eoni8 “smear84 | x0 ‘tclitere ad wages moked
apa $i eos mk Saostobbad out apketeq ould to ‘no ltaivette vd? tumeo
ets ot #09 die joa et hedoeri eo as ban ‘Pedsveres aged sad bexasaus
- aaw ores radabetbat ond Ménip of noltom od sav on oxedt na bold ke
i - fealt mt bas fommybut ‘to geet ak 10% etoknt we st 8 ‘got errr’
fe wsdl
staabao tot ‘daniags et donee tak yisve ,eHokdqeoxe te ikid @ “te
» te Sol Bile ope pees
she as: bet iets efaoed ibe aga Nied Ses ,
pu ie Pa oe 5 peek ye
-bemn? Ye al A snobs oat 8
” Sb cs heey MGs ie wart
ORE LA ii
ow 5 mF ak des
twonos ,.% ; eeeeraial baw at ‘« {onme0!0
BE ae cht i one ‘
R Cate te ve Liiy
ee Mee Pe P i x a hE FUE Reap ee a Wi i Bis Oe Pe he ed Sant ike
‘ , cies
need 7 ee ee eee Hs owt ee eet ag “ wan fae gow 4
} Pinar iy
PERE. oY BASED VAG, hie ONE” «ER i kane
ae
Cite ll
er
M SUPHRIOR COURT
OOK COUNTY,
BENJAMIN F, YARCHY, ,
)
Appellant, ) es rd 9 TA 64 Q'
BR, JUSTICE MATCHBTT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THe COURT,
February 2, 1954, complaiaant filed an unverified bill of
complaint in the Superier court of Cook county, praying that the
Marriage between herself and defendant, Benjamin ¥, Yancey, be dis-
solved. ‘he bill averred that she had been a resident ef Cook
county fer more than one year; that she was married to defendant
May 6, 1920; that they had one child, ieighton, whe was eleven years
of age; that defendant deserted complainant September 1, 1952, and
@omplainant prayed for temporary and permanent alimony for the supe
port of herself and child, The summons issued and was returned not
found March 5, 1934,
tm the same day the bill was filed complainant filed an
affidavit of non-residence, stating in substance that defendant was
@ Non-resident, and that his last knewn place of residence wag 414
South Catherine street, Bay City, Michigan. The certificate ef the
Glerk filed Vebruary 6, 1954, showed that notice of the proceeding
Was mailed to defendant at that address on that date. No default was
in foet entered on the default day whieh was Mareh 7, 1934, although
solicitors for complainant and defendant seem to have been under the
impression that such order was entered, and on that day complainant
appeared in person with her attorney and offered evidence upon the
issues which ie preserved by a certificate, At the close of this
evidence solicitor for complainant was directed by the court to
prepare a decree, Mareh 15th solicitors for defendant served notice
that on the foliowing day they would appear before the court and ask
that the supposed default be set aside and for leave to plead,
{'
qavoN ROLRVIUE
.rMWOD A
i , YEG AY ONE suneew
gba Ares s prs
3 \ two SRT YO KOTAE4O WET GansvIana TTUNOTAN wim a a
Yo Offd pelticevaw ne HOLLT Pemcdkelquoo WL .W yraw'tiee “oro
oat Yard yakgeta (ybawed Xood To d4woo toltegue ould oF Yale lenion
-nib ef ,yoonY .% mhemtmel ,toasap'teh bt teeta mowded oye ltl :
Ago? to tasbiset » need bad ooo Sond hevtyys “LLd ont ‘hovton
faahawteh oF Hoiriam gai ovls gactd ; toy emo nate oxcin taht tie,
ony novels saw ecw ,dotdyied iid tno Belt you’ want yoser ce
fits \SECL ,f tedwatGo® doraialqmos kedtseeb Simdubteb vert joge te He |
ete ont tet vaomiie fmusme¢ bas Yuttoywet rot boyd: snenbeteue
“von bennuter aeW bas bevact etommun eal .bLtdo) baa ee
tie DeStt toeatwlesion both aw Itt wilt Yad ole edd wr! eae
| eee iat eh ge Codetedwe al yaisete \yeuasbiver~aon to Fivsbt ve
$22 aie eebbbect 20 evade mwect tend tht wade Das? Preh eth
| acid Yo ateotitives off sawghdold ,ysIIO yak Jodtte athe tan Avot
Wy se Nia
_ akbeesory 943 Yo eoived edd Dowede BUOYS YravedeT Bothy wee
ew Siustob od .9800 tad od anothbe Said te Vileabaw'twl ‘wt! bet hated al
| Mgwoslt te So@L |S domed caw doldw yab tluates 049 no bersshe font a f
- TOboW died over of move fuhaoted ban Senmlatenes rot re a
Nh
hy
ot mogh Sou bive here tie aan comtostu wwe ithe nostog Bb oe vi oe
ebsis te seole odt tA ,wtaotiisxeo » xe hovtenerg of sky Aes :
qatten hovtoa tawhao'teb to't atot lotion iat iota
- bas tw0o one eet tesges ‘biwow hawt ae antes
They did appear and in support of their’ motion submitted the af'fi.
davits of Dr. Mosier and Arvid 2. Tanner, a solicitor, The motion
was continued from time to time, and Naren 26, 1934, affidavits of
Carl H, Smith, an attorney at Bay City, Michigan, and of defendant
were also submitted,
April 2, 1934, the court entered an order that defendant
appear personally on April 4th. May 24, 1934, a decree of divoree
was entered, The decree found wilful desertion by defendant from
complainant without reasonable cause for the space of one year
prior toa the filing of the bill, as charged, and awarded the cus-
tody of the child te complainant, June 1, 1934, the motion of dee
fendant to set aside the default was denied, June 12th thereafter
defendant served notice of appeal, The notice aiso prayed appeal
from the order of March 7th, the order of May 24th and the deerse of
divorce entered May 24th and that the same be set aside,
The weeenh rites in this court September 25, 1934; the prepa-
ration of the record having apparently disclosed that no order of
default nad in fset been entered March 7, 1934, on September 13th
the trial court entered a default order nune pre tung ae of March
7th. Defendant contends that the court was without jurisdietion
on September 13th to enter this order because in the meantime the
appeal had been perfected and the appearance of defendant entered,
and be hed personally appeared before the Judge in response to the
erder to do so. It is alse contended that the evidence heard upon
the trial of the cause, assuming it to be true, dees not sustain the
decrees aid tuat the court abused its discretion in denying defendant
leave to appear and defend,
The affidavit of Dr, Mosier was to the effeet that on and
after November 22, 1933, defendant was under his care as ehysician;
that the examination diselosed the patient was sutivering from
hyperthyroidism, with poesible diabetes, and also a psychosis which
p
Suh i a
ke ott bettindua aoltom*rkedd to toqawm a baw woqne BED Umeee
ret¢oa eff ssnbioiloe e ow? 8 bives acs deed ae wo ediveb
te stirabitts , MCL {38 dots Bae auth ed smk? moz't beuattaos, ew
tmaboe teh Te Sue atta tole 2M sUslO yok te yormtotia ma ,Ating Kh Saad
J Hotiiaiue cute oxew
tankweteh tat tobi nai boxed droos ond ,deL LR Sewan i
eotovth To eotoeb 8 PECL 1S ‘yok ith +e¥gh M9, Viamnaras te9qqe
aot tna die teh vd aol trae Mite Savor oemab, ont ,bete: she Pi 4
aN ono te epsge acid rot eeuay ofdanoguot duouit tv impeie
sialake out ‘bo benwe bee sbogracto ae ae ond Xo paket ont, of idl
“eb ‘to nation ould 18 OL af mut -dnente Louies ot bilste Fase % e,
Pad ty
wrtaoredi Maes eaut »belooh aw sLueted ode ebtae ive ot ve
fasggs bewrq onie ‘eoidon oat tooags te sotten hovtes .
Bs lainey sts bas uses yolk 26 ‘wento ot ay sto ta to x0bx0 oa a
7 : ‘sebles tou od oun wis rr) bse ates Mail rete, we eorovih
wie odd yeeer , ag detent truvo ahi ah dati MI 008% WAR cal
Yo tehre om serid beroionse yitneteqqe galved brooes ond te aotsex
wees, odmetqee ao ,b60L ,f otek bewetae aved tent Aa. eae
| sont Ye 8 gaut gee gaya tolte tiusdeb » derotae tauoe tated edt —
pabenpaten tuontin saw truce edd sad? phan ace stain a o
eg
ie
ee
a oat to aoe ous od rs nh : saduna eomee: 9s rte td
tnebaw rob gals at notvexvato adi boouds Pxw0e “re tats bs
Tk bak ar SU
baat baw
p i ye We 0 LY : 4
baa a0 tant soos, ont 0 ot aan note i a8 area ind |
antosevsg aa ve ahd byrne wan 4
oe Age a
rf) A f Chas
mont guiro tue saw Anakteg oat, sented
oi bs ne Bit
Os; Sh Fj
iad i
manifested a pronounced melameholy; that he treated the patient
for this condition; that the hyperthyroidiem bad been cleared wap;
that the psychosis had not, and that he had reierred defendant
for psycopateic treatment to the department of wental diseases of
the University of Michigen at Ann Arbor, Miichigan; that the physie
cian expressed the opinion trat defendant Was physically and
mentally unable to undergo the strain of traveling to illinois
and appearing in court for the purpose of contesting the law suit;
that it would, in the opinion of the physician, be six to eight
months before he recovered sufficimtiy to undergo that experience.
Arvid B, Tanner, an attorney of Chicago, stated in hig affi-
davit that February 19, 1934, he received a letter from Carl H.
Smith, an attorney in Bay City, Michigan, asking whether he would
represent defendant in the proceeding; that the letter stated dee
fendant was an ordained minister who wae suffering from a breakdown
in 1933; that defendant would be unable tp pay anything more than
the most modest fee for legal services, ond requested affiant te
reply advising whether he could represent defendant; that Yebruary
24, 1934, sffisnt replied to the letter, stating the terms uson which
he would represent defendant; that Maren Sth affiant received another
Letter from Smith stating that the terms were satisfactory; that afe
fiant exawined the dockets of the court, whieh indicated that the
Gefault order had been entered March 7, 1934, and that a hearing had
been had; that Mareh 13th affiant wrote Smith advising him of these
facts and asking for instructions; that wareh 15th he received a
latter from Smith instructing him te file a motion to set aside the |
default.
The affidawit of Garl H. Smith wad to the effeet that he was
an attormey at Bay City, Michigan; that defendant was brought te
his office February 16, 1934, by one Milo Oviatt, a resident of Bay
City, whe informed affiant he was a friend of defendant and had been
é
famteay oct Rodeos ant teat fy tendawled besavenotey’ & sobberenda
fiw bewesLo uosd Sed wm iblowddroged Wad sass *pnotdibAde \ebits 46%
Aisin 9G DeXTe ler dail ox deed dae ton ddd etvoroyng’ sis -dndd
XO aonevalh Lediiend Lo saoustagel oslo 0) Iseaseort vidteqooye’ tot
etaglg ed? Jand j;maglsieold ,sodtA amd de maglsio dt To. iwrevinw out
bas Ullavisyiy wew saabootesh fads aelaige end bsedetoxe malo
abontili of galievats to abette ont ogtebat oF oiene “yctadne
pitwe wel culd gaivagtuce To esoqieg sd? tot dattee at gabtas oda hata
tts of ala 90 jneloloyig SAF To Aokitt¢e srt mt! /PLsow st ‘tate
_apaeiasdes gelit eytebns of UStadtot tina Sétevenet od otdted adfndi
abYhe als af Netade ,ogzetad te Yourost a me ean? 12 Beved |° os
asd mrt aette tw hevtosst od Se OL", Of ‘yiaicdet Sant ‘nives ny
_ i of teeilett gatien jnagidott ,¢tl0 Ye nf Yomrotix av” hehe
| dob ‘Bbans tadeek M19 fod faakbosodsy SAt AE fudlad tos ‘yaedetien
| . avobdaerd 6 wext yatte Tine saw onw todetite’ Nontabro aa sav mere * |
‘Gadd dre guiatyas yor qt ofdews od Ditow fashao toh ‘tat: eee at |
og PHOLTES DOddougor fas ,aesk¥isn Lege l adt Ss? Fedtom adit ot ia
einetiok tet sumhas ted sneactqet bLsdo of teddode gatdtvhs
sotde sogs ewet ot galtada ,wedtel ot ‘GS bobiqes tadkrta eet ‘ . q
test} ous bovieget Saale 196 dered todd ptaabas toh tnodexger ‘bivow eA
wie Gadd tetoten te loow suew aexed wit Hastt “gattadd Af hie nowy wed ale
OA tact bateotNat Godte ,t1u0s ot te adedoad erie Borininaite | gat
. bast sane @ ads bos Neer (owes beretie ndod soit roDte ths
aw vit da fiotte Wee 'et sae apne st teat te Hh fae Tit od
| RRR senenenmeesn NR oa
a
furnishing defendant with board and maintenance for several months
prior thereto; that defendant was a minister, but on account of
ill health had been forced to retire temporarily and was then
under treatment of physicians sand contemplated going te a mental
clinie at the University of Michigan; that defendant informed af-
fiant he had received a letter containing what purported to be a
PEC Ee ety that divoree proceedings had been instituted in
Cook county by defendant's wife; that defendant desired to con-
test the proceedings because of his belief that her conduct Was @fe
tirely unwarranted and unjustified; that defendant informed affiant
he Was poor and without funde and unable to pay his own Living exe
penses and unable to defray the cost of medical treatment; that his
only ~resource wae a policy of insurance which provided for the
payment of a monthly disability allowance in the event of his being
totally disabled; that defendant with the assistance of his wife in
the latter part ef 1933 made application to the insurer, New York
Life Inaurance Go., 30 So. LaSalle street, Chicago, and that he was
expecting to receive some funds from that company on acecunt of
payment for said disability; thst defendant requested affiant te
write to some reputable attorney in Chicago to ascertain the cost
ef obtaining a continuance of the case in order to enable him te
regain his health and permit hie to go to Chieago for the purpose
of making a defense; that February 17th he wrote to the firm of
Chicage attorneys for information requested by defendant, and
February 24th received a letter from them consenting to set as
gounsel; that February 19th he forwarded the affidavit of Dr.
Mosier to the law firm, and in the meantime he wrote the New York
Life Insurance Co, to ascertain the reason for nonepaynent of the
‘disability allowance and was advised that a purported assignment
had been made of a policy te complainant, and that a check in the
amount of $300 had been issued to complainant covering the period
b
:
a nom intovee Tol sommastoten bas btsod Astw tanbasteb gabe tem
‘to dampoce ao dud ted editor & aew snabse'tob basit oreo xelng
nord sav how ylixexogmed oxtter ed beoxot ase bod df Lao {it
igtnen & ov ashog bate Lomas neo bie cote Laysle te Fomatser$ t9hnw
Ree aie
~ta beorcotat dewhne tab said Fan bio be te Xt tetevball oad ta oinl tp
fel 1 an ON ae
& of of betuemtwa Saxe galoisdaen nested r bovisost het aii sme it
ats Dies
ak betutiteni aed basi agaibessota sotovlb Sead oottoc\goltaok idug
1 ee aa hd
_ snmo of herieeb damhas tab dat jotiw 2! taahae'teb ed yiawon
~y , sew toubaos ‘was tan? telied ald to saueood agnthosoorg, odd teed
2 Bits rf
tnet'tts beswroint f cun bone teh texas jbodt stant aw hese be Saerzaway ver?
yy
“xe weivit awo ein yaq ef ofdanw base ebnwt dwodds tw mm, sont now beg
etd tat fnoutae1t Laothem to tap edt verted of ofdenu per inion
Fie Fa Ral - ;
at tor bob ivorg dio Late come cap to yoltea 8 acw sotuosen® Ws fe
gtied sid to save oat at sonevolis ushlidesth vfldaom a ‘te soom é
Woe
ae stiv gid Yo soveteleas ot di iw sambsse'teb test thesdaekd y Lat
nol wel .zotwenl ot 9 wottent Lage oban BE@L Yo dtaq Bros « |
we HOR Balog oh
| aeret at tedt bas ,ognotdd ,toorxte of lated 08 e 109, eonats
Yo tawoogs ap yangmos tadt mont abaut onos ertsoer ot
Aah Bits) eer
oF tuaitie betasapet dasbarieh sand ythtkdaath btaw ad fa :
_taee os? atediesas at oyaotite as Yorsotia sidetuqor 00 “th Bas sas
esogzug sai on ogeg iss re es of ahd thozoa bas st haod aa
pect ES, One Of, ofomw of MITE eranrdott jadt yoann top tet im
ee Lies aie es
haw ate ‘tab wd bodagupet ao ttantetat x02
vie
oe ;
Se
yh
from December 11, 19335, to VWebruary 11, 1934, and advised him ree
garding the claimed assignment of the policy; that defendant then
informed sim he was without funds and believed the sesignment of
the poliey was fraudulent; that affiant instructed defendant that
nothing further could be done for him unless he obtained a nominal
retainer for the Chicage attorneys; that Bareh 5th defendant bor-
rowed from Oviatt $20 and om Mareh 7th it was forwarded to the law
firm for its retainer, ‘The affidavit further states that affiant
had received no funds for his services and he believed defendant to
be wholly destitute and dependent upon friends; that he had great
difficulty im dealing with him and ebtaining factual data on ac~
count of his mental condition; that he conferred with physicians
and they had advised him that on account of the mental strain
growing out of participation in = trial at the present time deo
fendant might become mentally unbalanced, and that defendant is in
ereat need of specialized medical care and hespital attention, and
affiant said he had at all times in connection with the handling
of the legal affairs of defendant acted with diligence,
The affidavit of defendant is te the effect that he received
notice through the mail Febrypary 16, 1934, advising him of the euit;
that he then went to confer with Carl H. Smith, an attorney, accom-
panied by Milo Gviatt, who had befriended affiant and furnished him
with food, shelter and maintenanes for several months past without
compensation; that defendant left his home in Toluca, Illinois, about
November 21, 1953, because of iliness which foreed him to give up
his profession as a Minister of the Gospel, and that his separation
from complainant was not occasioned by any discord in their home
but entirely by the facet that it was necessary for defendant te
obtain rest and medical attention for the treatment of his diembliity;
that complainant is a sehool teacher in Chicago, but that she re- |
£
»
a
Faded e x dA Lae
“ot whe ‘bos the fais eek As cringe oF eber i tedus904 age
neat saehas ted iad (yo tLeg ot te Smousg ions boukaLo out amlbeny
to snag tase ene bove bind bas abavt tuons iw new oo ate bounetad
tect tashae teh botouesant gun tits tars {tae fubwar't aaw wottog ont
fa.) ae
keaton B heatasde od ee Law aia tot onob ad binge ‘aorigeut
tod tashastob see aoteu tas jayeatotts ogao.sto uit ot x raatate
wad ecg of bobiawiet esw th ag? rlotell ao bow ong ttetvo ‘not bevwot
galt he Sacks entate yorriat tivebitte sat wrontater wa) 102 wut
os taabaetob eve fed oa Bow soolytes a hut wer aban on “bevisoet bad
tastg baci on tadd jebine fot noqu $e bse bue osuditaoe visoam od
OE Re
“a be atab Knates’ yakaiesde bas mb digiw aatioo at ‘yotuoltith
Dt Se OM
anaioiegsig ago be x19 2ai69 on surld jaols kha ietnem etd to Ja
Cw $24 HOBet ‘ae
aiaxte Latoom ssid ‘te 3 ao 908 m9 teds mek boatvbs basi veut bres
aa diy PR
-ob suis tasuetg ac? Sa fetxt @ at nottagtotztag 20 de
a eh tombanteh ted bas boone Lodau ViLad seat omoos ‘ole
ee % THY SR rf
hae ,solinotie Int iqead Bie e189 fas tbem box! fetoeqn To
tit f ypatr wes fed dette:
gnifbaad odd thw amitoeameo mk womt? ‘ile ts host od hhas Bi:
sone gtits adiw betes tasban'teb to extetts tayo
ot ; Soren
_ bevisoet os Sad? SoeTIe os al ek taabae tob to thvahivts oat edtay,
itive edt Ye ald gutatvbs ster yal ctayrde thew anit sguotd? 9
M4 Ase ka
nee _YOUTOTIs ss 2d Las oe fed dtiw 1o'tH09 ot taow cared oa. ai
; bial SES eh % ‘
min Sasieionst has tne ithe bokapixted bod ver ettalyo ofie yd i
a # wal agay | a.
sword dw snag sisnom Laxeves tot sonsastatem ‘bate wot Leute boot dhw
LOSS RERCeee..
twods «ntoal ist -8ouLot uk amor als tet fnabae%eb sans 5 qaie
; ta br as et |
eH eviy og subst heezo% sip batw aeoait! to eavaved SEL ih te
Nols etaqea eid dass bas «fogs od aid te rods tab s ae
_ Garo riod ak ‘btooeib ne bol boaeiseae0 ‘tom ‘See
ot sanbaot0b xo Vxseseoed anw ai text ‘$oe? ont | ~
seeaeigganh asi ‘to tnempaott ye tot aotsandte feo thom § a deo
ot one sas hind yoneo isd as ‘otlonos Looioe & a Marr
$ 5
ne De. POE: TM Re
‘gh ‘ ‘
6
sided with defendent until September, 1935, with the exception of a
shot time when she went home on a vacation during the year atid two
er three week-end trips during the same year; that complainant maine
tained a fictitious address in Chicago during 1931; that she was in
although
fact a resident of Toluca, Illinois, until September, 1933,/during
1931 and 1932 she maintained an apartment in Chicago Tor the purpose
of establishing a Chicago residence to enable her to obtain a yosie
tien in the public sehools; that at the time of the diveorntinuance
of the home maintained by himself and complainant in Toeluea, there
Was nothing indicated by complainant to lead defendant to believe
she intended to file suit for divorce against bim, and that in truth
and in fact she represented herself as being interested in the wele
fare of defendant and aseaisted him in filing his claim under a poliey
he had with the New York Life Insurance Co. to obtain payments to
defendant for total disability; that defendant came to Bay City for
the purpose of rest and medical treatuent; that he was without
funds on reaching Bay City and has been without funds since that
time and that he is utterly dependent for defraying the cost of
his maintenance and medieal attention upon the proceeds of the ine
surance policy; that he was gr@atly shocked to receive the notice
ef commencenent of divorce proceedings, and that he felt the pro-
eeeding was entirely without merit and unjustified; that he was
infomed by his attorney that he is charged with desertion by his
wife and that she alleges she has been separated from defendant
sinee September 1, 1952; teat such allegation of separation is
false in feet and that defendant and complainant resided together
until September, 1953, in Toluca, and that although complainant was
in Chicage until November 21, 1933, defendant until that date
visited the apartment in Chicago, stayed over might with plaintiff
& week before said date, and when he left the apartwent with plain-
tiff Novenber 2lst she drove him te the car in which he was leaving
o te aoltqoxe ast dgtw sSb0L , todmetqes him frahas teh dai bobte
ows big tesy, odd ath ub toltsoayv s ip oatost taow ote naitw omts teosie
~tilam toxuntetomes tad? jtaey oxen ont guy ut aqiat bs =:tsew vont =»
pode osia dees {AERL guttub ogee iso al evorthbe awehshtesy s onlay
Batrub\f40L ,tedmesqo® Ltjas ,etonlitl ,seulel Te daontaee toa?
eseqiug od¢ tot eywotd) ai tasuttegs an porthes aknac axe REQL Ps a
efeoq 6 aladdo of ced oidane of sonshteot oprotsd 4 paisa mate a ye
sonauald soar ib of, to emis pAd In tpi? sefootoa obiduq ope 1 ak mod?
eto! ,seatol at sopatealqmoe bas thoemta yd hantagactan es pat te
eveling of + ins bw tom beet of snsmialqaoo ao besaotbas ato , wae
ditwrd of fed bow ,aicd tealage setovth tot ptue otf't ot bonawend, pa
«fow add ui bejserstat gntod ee Heated bedageetqet | ode soa, at a
yorlog # tebaw miso ef gmifit ai mid bogaless bus te 19 ts By exer
o¢ atapayeq aiatde of .00 sanutwent #thd Axoy wt ont athe fA
wo% yO yol of sme tnebaotoh dads ;ythitdeeth Latos xo dmahuo Reb
tuodtiv exw as fess jtoamdaots Leothem bas teot : to he nd
duist conte ahau't dwoddiw ased ead bas ¥s29 cae ub a me baw
to deoo ont gatyerteb tot duohoegeh “fuetiy at ox out te. od Dae, ombe
70d ong Yo mbeagorg ent aogu mottaetis Laotber bas opeatnne
selzon ont evisoer of bedqans qitaoty | BRY Fees sane ive, fog ssiee
hey Eo aay
ote, ers sist ed tat bas “sagathoovorg poroveh te + deestetanie'g ™
aaw od ges? bert teubaw bas throm Suosdtiw yloxtiae a satbooe .
eke ys moidieees dj lw bogrado at on taut womodte abs Ve Somtg tad
tnebne Tob mort bedetages asad aed exe aoyetis ose - cont
at aoksereced. Yo motiageiia sdoum dose (Seer 4 f odo goe soate
_ woddoyod hebiaes ¢nenlesquoe bas jasbne ep tact baa Sreaishtee
Wee
aa tusaleLgnos Hyuordd Le Jaid bee s@ouLot at ae een stedis
_, Stab sede Lhpow taghas tod abGOL 18 tedgever £83
. ‘Yuratete Atiw tdgta save beyate ,ggedise at Faas}
. bes waka ty thw fhe wel 4 oat vteL oat aone bag ,oteh bts |
ae” YB
ee bea GL at Ut Pe
Chicago, and that their serarntion was entirely amicable and
witheut thought of divorce and not actuated by any miscondact on
the part of defendant.
The affidavit furtie® continues corroborating the facts
set up in the affidavit of the attorneys and the physician and
goes on to state that defendant has delivered letters to his at-
torney written to him by complainant under date January 12, 1934,
December 21, 1935, November 13, 1954, and February 27, 1934, whieh
he believes will aid in reaching an equitable deeision with refer-
ence to said cause; that he has also delivered te his attorney a
telegram sent to him by complainant in September, 1933, which dis-
@loses that defendant and complainant were living together on said
date, and that defendant had not deserted complainant as alleged in
her bill.
There ig no denial of the facts averred in these and other
affidavits, “Ye have also examined the transeript of evidence re-
ceived by the court on the hearing Mareh 7th, it being the evidence
upon which the deoree of divorce was later entered, and find it to
be deeidedly meager and unsatisfactory.
In support of his motion defendant also subuitted the af’
fidavites of several members of the church at Toluea, Illinois, to
the effect in substanee that the family of defendant, his wife snd
young son, moved into the parsonage of the church there in the
fall of 1929, and continued to reside together up to September,
1933, Defendant also submitted the affidavit of one Fecht, who
says he delivered milk daily during the time the Yancey family
lived there from the fall of 1929 until the middie of Septenber,
1933; that from 1931 to 1933 Mrs, Yancey taught school in Ghicago,
frequently returning, however, and Living with defendant in the
parsonage,
The record shows that defendant frequently appeared persone
é
Ve
hits widuetea Ylorktae asy sotdaseqee whet? deat hos \ogsotht
Me toubaoosin yse yt betesdon tou ban sororht to ditguond daedw ’
iis : -trahnateh to tang ene”
atest of guidexedettoa segaigane ‘tersri't tivebhttts taf ¢ De Lead
Bats sie hokage, si bas syprcoite and to ttvekl its edt — tow
, sts ahi ot paagiel beteyiied and taabop teh tent state ot fo e603
AECL Sf yragnel oteh tebaw taaatoLgweo yo mbit oF aetditw yoaes! ”
a oltdw ,b0GL ,VS vrewidet bas ,SEOL 2h todmevel ,28@k {iS eodmeoet
~tetet doiw aoietooh eidatiupe aa gnkdoret wf bla ftw wove) tod Sd" ”
- & YPmotie eld of hateveish oats wad od todd podned bine dd SUnee”
-uhh Mokdw ,SECL ,todwetqo8 at taemlefqmos qd mid 6} trow duegeted!”
blag 2 yositoyod gatvlt oxew JacaleLqmos baw tunhae tod tadt eestor”
nt begelin ac tnanislquoo hedtepeh tan bad tmehas'ted -teiteotind fetnye
" ster rent
tedto ban seont al ietain asoet act ‘te Ledemoh on at erent tndnaep
“OE eouablva to dqitornetd ent boatmean»e oele oved oW © wate
sonebive ert ynied #4 87 sete grlnoed odd mo fauvo sid oye vevaie .
of ti Pali bac ,borstae xetel sew eoxovhh ‘to eoupob’ exit Hotste apgu
! LViotos he dane bre togeem ythehiveh ed?!
= te ea itivten oats trobusteb apidem els to Sroqquea: wd! o° eeu tae
ot ,stonk {sl joule? ga, sipnumdp. edt to. exodaem Lerevoe. to’ at Babi ”
bas eliv ain ,icabasteh to. yiivw? off tant -eonetadue mt tos tts eda”
Sit ab exes! somade ed Le egenceteg. sf adak bovon , ada aig
stedmosgsS of qu tedteged ebieer ot bawntsaos ‘Bats C202 to tat |!”
odw ,tsios% 9a to divebl Tbs ext heddbadua eels tashaoten “4keer i
(Yilust yeoust sds omit anf gittanh Ylled Atte berdvi Leb ad wee
‘stodmes qe Xo oLhhsm esi) Litaw QSCL Ro tLe malt mort wxeut Beye!
~ yonsolaa nk fooiiva diguet yooral .atk CECL od OL mort dade eCek
ate ae ——
SS Le
anee6 brcancee isomer pobre’: Pan te broses. out
Ort. AE meh ne ted, dake WMT SE AMR, «Ramee raedmeuton uftaupent ” me
toh Batam
tet wk Elan nw aa
ie ie.
ally before the court in response to the rule entered so to de,
but that he was never given a hearing, The manner in which the
matter preceeded is indicated by the follewing colloquy:
"ir, Bammer: Dees your Horor care to meke any statement
fer the record as to your reasons for the decision, as is sug-
gested as you may do under the new Court rulings?
the Court: No, I don't think se. However, if dir, Yaneey
does not want a divorce because he is 2 minister, and wants to be
protected on tnat, if you will file a eross bill for divoree for
him, he will get a deeree,*
It would unduly extend this opinion (and it is euite
unnecessary) to review cases, The evidence given upen the hearing
on lkarch 7th was insufficient te sustain a deeree, and the affidavits
submitted showed diligence on the vart of defendant and that the
actions of complainant were unwarranted, There was no denial,
The court had jurisdiction, and the refusal to set aside the de-
eree and give defendant lesve to plead on the merits was an abuse
of diseretion, Meliurray vy. Seabody Goal Ce., 281 111, 219; Leland
xX, Leland, 319 f11. 426. the order denying the motion to set
aside the deeree and the decree itself will be reversed and the
cause resanded with direetions that an order be entered giving
defendant leave to plead to the bill of conmiaint,
REVERSSD AND REVANDED WITH DINRCTIONS,
O'Connor, P. J,, and MeSureliy, J., concur.
+b et cn Sonatas adies ony oF sanoqaat at xis add ovoted yLte ; ;
nat dobby oh term cl gabled « sevly tema saw od test dod
ryupotion gntwollot edt yd hetaolbal a2 hebosootg t9tiam
- tnemadasa fr aigm of at40 xenok tuey mea ixansal ur an
. ogue ak ss sat "a eg snoaaes tee re Soe oat to?
HOU Won a @ bed aa
yeouet ere ‘atte -0a daldd ¢'a08 1 ot eee ”
od of ogaay ban stodaholm 4 af of eavaoed, penet*s A wan § 5
te! sonore aot fild eaote @ 6£22 ELiw soy t fact co
” "eetoah 4 deg Ee em oh
i athe | ed th San) naigbes sind baetae \iubas bivow 41. fi eet
| tae odd coqu covig goughive edt ,22aso welvet oF (x —
eetrab itt edt hae ,seTgeb a alateus of dastel tinea sew aay sees 0
. eit fact bas daghueteh to trac edt oe gogpgtith heweds bot hi
: igh , ohetaed on aev otedl ,datnstiawns stew taeaigiqaco | te . | ,
ee aut shlax toe ot Ieeutet oft Ane ,rotsotbaiaut bed, dase ‘
| "enue ae saw etizem ect oo beelq of ovnel taahaetob ovta ane 908.
*
H
fod GOk8 Lil £88 ,, B92! 122 MEE ot oth te paid
“tee of colton 98¢ gabeomh tebeo ot 88h AE OO medtiage
ie wie baa beaveves od fifty. .ineds onneeh ont hae, onNee.: ae, .
) apkvty betetae of rebte na sade amektegthh atv, bobags
-Ontalqnos to Likd adt of bapdg, of.evaas,,
_ANQTLOGRLE. WLIW CHTMAMEA GHA,
¥ 8
Si RE Baa Ra aes 2 Oe we ces
MS Ps byt Gate Padiatr LG
a ai st rivet “anett
SP tte cess he te sei 0m ie
toh, Daa aioe, aaa
37917 }
oh
0, HAASS, a a
Appellant, f ali,
| opea, me MUNI GIPN :
ve, ) : : |
| OF CHICAGO, :
H. J. BALTES, ! ) }
Appellee, ay
279 1.4. 640*
GAR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff caused a judgment by confession to be entered
against defendant under a power contained in a written lease under
seal executed March 26, 1951, whereby plaintiff desised to defendant
eertain premises known as 2636 Lunt avenue for a term which was to
begin May 1, 1931, sand te expire April %&, 1933. The rent reserved
in the written lease was $70 a month, payable in advance, the lease
contained a clause to the effeet that the lessee would be released
in 1932 “in case firm calls him away," The affidavit of claim
stated that the sum demanded was due on account of $10 for each month
from May 1, 1931, and ineluding April 80, 1935, which was in arrears
and unpaid,
Judgment was entered liay 7, 1934, and with costs amounted to
$283.50. tiay 25th thereafter defendant filed his verified petition to
open up the judgment, The prayer of the petition was allowed, the
erder previding that the petition should stand as an affidavit of
merits. The cause wae submitted to a jury which returned a verdict
for defendant, upon whieh the court overruled motions for a new
trial and entered judgment. This appeal is taken from that judgment,
The petition admitted the execution and delivery of the lease
@8 alleged, but averred that within a week after its execution he
fendant was notified by his employer that it was necessary for hin,
with other employees, to take a substantial cut in wages; thet imue-
diately thereafter defendant notified plaintiff of this faet and tela
~
. hin it would be impossible for him to fulfill the terms of the lease
. ; ViLeve
“SS P- 2 al rsa « ali
aferctavs ore daw { .s@tetiega
,ODADIHS Yo nk babposene sbeen
. B8T4AT oH
AVES ACT ONC kU oe
tee sor Xo WED MAT RETIRE FRE SOE mas
woh ahs
a Fees
batedne od es ucisaetaos yo dnommbul, a boauao Whatatess
wobhan oenel aotiixw« at keatsines TeWog # TebaL suabapted te fanta
_ traboeted of hostash Tlisatele ydetodw ,f6@L 88 sig ttaad Seteegey fase
of, caw doldy ares # tet excaye ¢qud OCOR an quam Ronlaere mi
hevrogot dmet edt .ShCL , 0% ittga outgxe of hoe AbCL ft wt atne
easel eft eomevhe at eideyeq ,disom a OTF saw oanet ao setew 7 2
oe ‘See
boewetot od bivow osanel edt Jadd toette ont of eauafe 2 2
S)
prem) pe tol OL€ 2 ¢usooes, 0, oub spray or itn _e con ta batate
atsvrne ith aay soddw ,860h 06 L27¢A gabbutont Bae ECL «f yall mom)
at hatanems etaoo dtiw bag ,deL re yaad denndee. aew vt poy hy'
ot aottiaeg beitiarey eid beiht sSapbaeted tefieeteds A288 vail .08 8888
ode ,bewolls saw modtizveq esd to toyetq oMf .toompbut oat Coe noc
to ¢ivabitis on ae poste bineda molitieg eat taut palbivorg xebr0
( fetbuey a hemwton Moldy qxol @ of bedtindue sew saweo oct setheen
wot 6 101 eaolfem heluxteve tiwos end tio dstw nogN tasbao te tot
: poomyput dede mont moaed «tl Lao aan ela? | .tnemahst bototae ae a
oswet add to yroviteah bas solsvoens eff bett iaba nots hiog ont ve
ob aolsuoexe asi teste swaw & ahag iw sastd boxteva and nee =
and instructed him to lease the flat te another, as he would be
unable to pay $70 a month on the then existing wages; that plains
tiff agreed to make a new lease on the basis of $60 a month and
that it, was agreed that the lease upon which judguent was entered
would be cancelled and surrendered in consideration of the new
agreement; that defendant began on May 1, 1931, to pay $60 rent
a month in advance and continued se to do until April 30, 1933, at
which time a subsequent rental agreement was entered inte whereby
plaintiff leased the same property to defendant at $50 a month;
that 911 sums due plaintiff have been paid and defendant is not
indebted te him.
On the trial plaintiff denied any promise te reduce the
rent and said he had asked for the belance of it Decexber 1, 1931,
{just after defendant bought a new autowebile) and defendant saia
that he couldn't pay then because things hadn't been going so well
for him. Plaintiff also said that about three days before defend-
ant moved in and after he had signed the lease, he asked for a
temporary reduction “until things broke for him," and plaintiff
told him that he would go along but that defendant would have to
pay the rent later, which vlaintiff says defendant agreed to de.
Plaintiff testified that at another time defendant told him he
couldn't pay the rent then but would get the money from his dad;
thet when next spoken to, defendant teld him he would have to see
his (defendant's) lawyer. All payments by defendant were made
by checks, which are in evidenee, At the end of the two years
covered by the lease in question plaintiff executed another lease
to defendant for the same prewises for the period of one year at
$50 @ month.
Nary Wagner, an employee of defendant, says that she hearé
& conversation between plaintiff and defendant on April 23, 1934, at
the entrance of the apartment occupied by defendant, when plaintiff
: te beer” Ves tha tio Yuebne'ted bas WHEdiata
x Pant
ae
ad bimow od ea ,zedeore o¢ salt oct eneol of wid botowraenk dae
entelq tact paogav guitetxe mexit ent mo itaom's OTF You ee oideas
hove eld regan = 026 ‘Lo etaed ent ms osnet wen s sdem of heetys trht
boretas enw EL rio Let noqas amet oud Jad boonpa enw ‘ah’ tant
wort oits ‘Xa nébiavehLenos nt Dertehbnerccom hae hbolloonss od binow
snot OOF gre at ,HUL ,f Yok mo aeyed daehae ted derit ptremeetae
ts ened ,o8 LicqA Lfistaw ob of o@ bomniiaeo Bae souevbs of sao s
qioesde Gtht boratas cow tabmoot;e Lntnoe tnoupendva « emby so bew
“fitedom #9 O8G 2a tiedne'to6 of Yixonote omoa set bowast Tridalade
“Hom et tuabaston one biet aod ovndt veieabese ‘oub ome Ele todd
; se me fete
“Bie wobda of odkiiotg yam Sotneb Ytitatsta taltd oad 'nd
“\ERek ,f tdewoed sf Td vonetad eid tot betes bed on bidd Sebel
‘Pine tishavtoh bas (elivouoesus waa s taywod Joabostes rFte tout)
Kiow od jateg aood é*abadt agatdd “vanbood wens Yad #nbuoD om ‘bald
Gbneted éxotod eyab cond? ‘suede tadd bhad odie THe ktart! intl aed
ig 462 BWuee 4A jonaes -otte nengte Bod OM xOd'te ‘bre mh Devon tae
Vtidntetq bas ",wld vot edord wpakslt Ltr” mottoubdod yxenoqaed
od Sve bLidw sashnsteh Yas tod gaols og biuow oat ‘fal nba atek:
gah bin woah “edith ‘egal Maan aka” adc Villon eR
od wit bod stdubasteb oats todiom t2 Sedy boltttaed Talent
{ned dtd wort yenom odd toy biwow tud madd tame ony we | nb fuos
“ese o¢ ovek biuow oa mhd Blod shabaetod sad aevoqe xem ‘awd $e:
‘pbact exew duahasteb yo ataoaeae tfa ceoywat (a fuabne'ts ») si
atsoy' ont wilt Yo ‘bio sav GA oomsbtve nf one doidw , wie ed
“ gnaot tonsons bedveexe Yitdalste motdaoup at ovaet out ed boxers
“Pe tue sao to otto oa’ ‘ot wei bate ense s idd at - er) im 4 a
~ pte d ‘i gaat ayee ial ‘ty ostyotiae lun «(aes bp ilo
enyintuite werke ,fosbivo'toh Yt be kquodd naarearat 0: 6
asked defendant about his past due rent, and that defendant told
hiw not te worry, taat he would get his aonay,
Defendant testified, en the contrary, that before he went
into possession of the presises me told plaintiff conditions had
developed whereby it wae impossible for nim to pay $72 # month and
asked plaintiff to reduce the rent to 360 a monta; that be paid
plaintiff $60 every month while occupying the premises,
Plaintiff argues that the verdict is against the evidence,
but we think that under the cireumetances the verdict ef the jury
must be regarded as conclusive on the fecte, The testinony as to
the oral conversations is conflicting, but the eircumstances tend
very much te corroborate the evidence given by defendant. The
eontroliing question in the case is raised by plaintiff's conten.
tion thet a parol agreeuent te cancel an existing lease which is
under seal is without foree and effect until a new lease is exe-
cuted by the parties, and that when a lease under seal fixes a
eertain amount ef rent to be paid each month, a parol agreement
changing the amount of rent te be paid for the unexpired term and
leaving the lease in other respects unchanged, is net binding on
the lessor, and that notwithstanding such parol agreement he will
be entitled to recover the rent reserved by the lease, Such,
Plaintiff says, has been the heliding of the Supreme and Apoeliate
courts from the leading case of Chapman v, MeGrew, 20 111, 101,
down to Loop Office Building v, Hogan, 253 Ill, App. 574.
it is also urged that the proofs do not conform te the
allegations of the affidavit of merite and the evidence tends to
show only a modification of the terms ef the original lease and sot
an agreement te execute a new lease as alleged, Plaintiff says:
"In these days of ‘reformed' systems of pleading, and of
Hostrums and paneceas devised by so-called judicial seholars, te
alleviate the harshness of a rule that compels a litigant, not only
to plead but to prove a case, we should mot be unmindful ef the
# boos diebaeteh fad bas ,ddex sub fang Git diode sasbae teh hewduw
.ysnem eld deg bluow of dans pyrrew of Yow ww
thew od oto'ted dad? ,ctsisace odd ao jSeltitded sosdtoteg’ 6 ~'!
banal anelstbuos Yiisaisly blot ef teeiuste sat t6 Wofed¥eeed sou
Bae cddcton & OVt yeq of ait tol oLdiveogut sew $1 Yodo de’ hegoleves
biee s1 dud jaddom a GOL ot Jaot ont soubor at Tiivatete betes
.woeimerq ot gatrquese eliaw titres yteve O8¢ Yitiaket@
sorehive oad tenlege al toibier ont fost? eougte Ytifatelt i ter
west add %6 Soibrov odd seonntaaioils sad tébaw tend axe ow tua
od 96 Yoenkioct oft .atoat vid} no Sviewtoaes ‘ss" hostuyor 6d oun |
_ bes dedcetusvotts odd ted ,gattelstaos at anol taenevaed ro Os |
alt .tishosteh yd nevig souebive ent steroweetod’ OF “ipa wr |
sae dnbd a! Tiiabs tq ud beste ck bead off 2 Motvesup’ sahctoxtwoy
al dohiw sass L gaiteixe i Lobo oF taimergs Lowe w te '
-9xe ai sanel wou « Litay doo'tte bak eotet dworid lw nt esa
a eoxit Seon xebaw beast a insitw dasf ban wolduny itt, ee baal
jnowoexye totoq & ,dtnom dome bkaq ef od tapy To! daifon ka
poe ao? bortexonty odd 101 wii oa batt sae hl ‘tia itt non Ho
etloue .oemel edd yd bevrwaet thet add tevovet Gprdbye i's > @
ote L6oqm bre omrcant ede To —? - aeod — be: Vinita
se
“ast 0 mxotxgs fea ob atvorg bid Jans my silenced! ‘a
ae shad coushive ‘gala boedh atiton hd _— esis to deevoniomod
fayas Yiitminsd bopetie aa saast wom a etuoexe od - sabi :
“ ah
16 boo ,gathaeiq Yo nuateye ‘beltb'tex” 16" pro dieanpifl 4
Pe Lakh a “tac
me ARS: ott “be de 'tpenkeus od, ii vous, om Paap. a a7OTH, oF,
4
fact thet the o14 dictum of the common law, allegatea et probats,
still survives, ae the corner-stone of judicial scicnee, "
Looking to the abstract we fail to rind that the evidence
offered by defendant was objected to on that ground, er that after
the close of the evidence the point of variance was raised by
motion to exclude oF otherwise, Plaintiif is hardly in a position
to expatiate on the virtues of the common law in this regard. In
this class of cases in the wunicipal court the cause of action is
whatever the evidence makes it out to be. Blaborated Ready Roofing
Co, ve. Hunter, 267 111. App. 134; .
R,R.Co., 246 Ill. Sil. The general rule of lew for whieh plain-
is mn ¥, Oni cag R
G6: ds
tiff contends is recognized by the cases above referred to and many
others, The general rule as to the modification of executory writ-
ten contracts under seal is stated in Aleehuler v, Schiff, 164 I11.
298, where the authorities are cited, The court there said:
"We hold it to be the law ef thie State, that where it is
not sought to alter or change the terms of a contraet under seal,
still leaving it in foree, but where the object is to show that euch
instrument has been abrogated, canceled and surrendered, the question
is one of fact for the jury, and evidence thereon is admissible. In
the present case we do not pass upon or determine whether or net the
evidence offered by defendant was sufficient to sustein hie defense,
That is not our province, We do hold, however, that such evidence
tending to show a surrender and acceptance should have been submitted
to the jury, and it was a question of fact for the jury te determine
if there was an executed sgreement tor the surrender of the lease,
Williams v. Vanderbilt, 145 111, 233,"
In Snow v, Griesheimer, 120 Ill, App. 516, plaintiff sued
on awritten lease under seal for the balance of rent claimed to be
due, The defense was that by a verbal agreement the rent reserved
by the leaee was reduced and the entire rent as reduced paid in full,
The court held that the questions as to whether such verbal arrenge-
ment hed been meade and, if made, had been performed, were properly
submitted te the jury, and a judgwent for defendant on the verdict
ef the jury was affirmed, The judgment of the Appellate court was
affirmed in Gnow v. Griesheimer, 220 111. 106, The Supreme ecurt
there said that as long as the contract under seal remained executory
»
“ees to, mutos
EE ee eT talvlnet te oxobetinren ccd ie vaovivwen Eee
Cit, ER
gormblye ast fect Omk'T of tet ow toattads ont aba”
ee'te decd 40 ,baWory tend ao of betostde aew thabasteb yd herette
4d Seeley few Sonsixav Yo ¢utek BAY sane bive ont SW Seen Cb
mahsitey w ok cited ak Vildntelt .oetwiedie to obuloxe ot ‘no hb om
al ehseges Bhat ol wel ftommod ent to bendxky ef? no. eheitigws® ot
ai nottoa ‘te wate OND Selon Loytotae ede nt aseas ‘to shade “Od
.¢ Of twe th wealan aoheht ve oat iapratae
stitiotg Maker <ot yar 10 Stwk Denonby sar’ Lhe” tr One” eit
qnhie bad OF Retxs tor evecs Hoage sad yd boakmooet af Pees
«tiaw Ytotmdexe te notes Ptises sat 64 aa elox teens oat oe ee
ee Bibbs 9 Stith bid Uh RP
“tide otoct P1boo Ya JBetio oto @bbfizodtun ot “etoste =
ak # otede faut jodate etny “to Wal ant od ot Fk ‘bloat aw seh auad
owe Peete 1o°T he fed ar once” ? *sexdt aa st .
ga an geeks
. 2
ott ten 16 t9dtoudlw oalaqetod rey
-orme'teh ele wiateve of ouster tiee a Baw reitht or nse © sonebive
Soiebive sown Sedd , revered fe a —— Rema 4 wae of t death
botsimvue oood ever Stvods eonstes thang
eniasajad et ytut, oft tot toe te pate thay once, Say oat s
owed ety Lo Moi eri edd TOT FomoTye aoe
, S BER, itt Ba @as gtiht :
Base Weddsteta okt aA, te O8.t aantesandyta%. RUA oT jubtae te
od of bemtelo ot te eonaind oe. tot Laps. neh ass enael PARSON Bill
bovreaet damm, auth Jans 07p6 Lage a va tet, saw, soneteh off. re “"
. Lint ot blog, beesber ae toon outer odd bao, beouher saw egoat sult yd
: wognar ts tedzey Howe todjode od ge anolicone oft tans bLod domme, ost,
| ¥eregota exey decrrptreg mmed bed yobs TL ,ham obem mood pad teem
tothrey ext no fagbasted ot doomabel & hae »eTHh, ones ereatgtite
Bay 2x p00 etastoqas oft Io staompbel. ot, ’ iinet nth pace
tthe snore emt .00% .£1T 98" ouborting b08
ones pomtenen Lue eenauehdnitake kan "hi one a°shiv'tt the saath
=
5
the plaintiff could have repudiated tie oval agresment, but that
the rule of lew to that effect was one wiles defeated the intention
of the parties and was not to be extended to ‘iii, anki "it dees
mot properly apply.*
In Levy v. “reenberg, 261 111. App. 545, the plaintiff
breught suit on a lease under seal and the same defense was inter
posed and there was a tinding ter defendant. On appeal te this
court the plaintiff contended that the sealed inetrument could not
be varied by an oral agreement; that the payment of the Lesser
liquidated sum did not discharge the indebtedness and that the parel
agreement to reduee the rent was budum pactum, the court reviewed
the authorities and held the reductions in rent to be executed gifts
which needed no consideration to support them. in Kymen y,Ausechicks,
270 Ill. App, 202, decided st the April term 1933, a similar ques-
tion was raised, and this court said:
"It is well settled that an executed parol agreement nay be
shorn to defeat a recovery upon an instrument under seal. Aggeey
Horrelh
Dae LEsOh, 269 Ill, 342; Snow v. Griesheimer, 220 Ill, 106;
yv. Forsyth, 141 Til. 22; Doyle v, Dunne, 144 Ill, App. 14,"
See also MéXenzie et al. v. Harrison, 120 N.Y. 260,
For the reasons indicated the judgment of the trial court
is affirmed,
APFIRMED,
O'Connor, P. J., and MeSurely, J,, soneur,
ee tess Sad, tng wie tye penn esis potakboei weld bigos, 2
j onbeantnt anid. began hae codiw goo eev Joo tte Jadt of met, Xo. pres ons
tea 2h" sintte\goege of beboatxo od gt Pon, pam, baw, seitteg add 20
".ieas <etagone tom
— Mihaniacg ort ah, Gah Add COR, deintaneit. sisal ane ee
-totat aaw erated page sad bas jews tebas seeet « go dium Siquond
_, alt oF Aeeqya mO .Soabup teh sol gathait « sew exedt baa heaom
fom biveg Imauadacd be Looe ol swsls, bobuesaen Thidabaty et tauoe
ia eS ost Lo. see afi tas, jJonapergs, dene se nee i
am tRes wad ChwgA eit te ponteob b «808 «60, of , an
Themetbsdoen ve alan snl
1 W to ie’
Li aa
hie
Paar
int. apes tee, pee aaa oe gt
Lede <4 t i eae Re 5 ee Leek Mm or ame Ae He) 9 Jee) aa,
fs BEC Wy RE ee Roku. elena Re: hie eee Ce
no Ana doo tee, wnt. damomebah i Doe nee vmmlaaitied
pihae ey aE fh : ai Oy § ! PPO ie 5 RK io | 7" de eS .
ion yaniteqaat wt par Len’ Oe iam ink ai a tele
Hastie ene Ra ee one a ea aimed” sae th
37457 ) ai é <_<
: f Pa ~ Bi og
MARY Le ROBINSON; fem porth FROW aoa
(Plaintiff) Appellee, i
MUNICIPAL COURT |
Va ;
FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Corporation,
OF CHICAGO.
Yad Pi 9 Te e G6 4 yy
(Defendant) Appellant.
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered
in the Municipal Court of Chicago for $1500, in favor of the plain-
tiff in an action on a limited accident insurance policy issued by
the defendant. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury
and after a hesring, the court entered the judgment here on appeal,
The plaintiff's statement of claim and affidavit alleges
that the defendant executed a policy of insurance on the life of
John James Robinson whereby it promised to pay the plaintiff, Mary
Le Robinson, in the event that his death was directly caused by
being accidently struck or run over while in or upon a public high-
way by any public or private vehicle, which policy of insurance is
fully set forth in the statement of claim. The policy states in
part that in consideration of the annual premium of $2,00, the
defendant insures John James Robinson for a term of twelve months
against death resulting within sixty days from the date of the
accident, directly or independently of all other causes from bodily
injuries sustained through external, violent and accidental means,
for $1500, if such accident is sustained by being struck or run over
while in or upon a public highway by any public or private vehicle,
There are other provisions in the policy, 211 of which are set forth
in full in the statement of claim, and upon which this action is
based.
.~ 4
| : ms te. \ venve
™ MORE Sota! oes X eHOSHIGOR «1 YAAM
' aUOd JATTOLMUM eoSolleqqaA (ttttatsl4)
. ev .
»QBADTIHO FO eYMAIMOO HOMAHUGHI FEIT JANGCaT
gta idientiges benshennall sont
»TSUOO SHT TO MOXMISO ART GEAZVINGC IMG ZOLTCUL PUICIGGAY »AM |.
bovetoo taemphyt s wott tasbaetsbh edt yd Leeqas as ei eidT . :
~aiteig edt to tovwt at ,008L rot ogsoidd to trod LeqtotauM edd ad
yi Bemeat yoilog eonmsryaxt tmeabloos betialt sso noltos ms ni This,
yout s tuodtiw trveo adt of Lettindya ssw senso edt -taabaoteb ont i
efseqas mo erod taempbut odt dotetne suo edt qgatreed # softs bas,
segolis tivebitis bas miso to tnemetsta alttisaisig, eft 9) 5
to etl edt mo sonerveni to yotlog & betuoexe tnebaoteb ont ‘tade
eral wtkidnislg end ysq of heeimotg tl ydexedw road tdod Bens adet
NE beaved yitoerkd eew déeob eid taut tmeve exit at toantddl “od
ages otidue s nogy to al ofide revo aut to dourite chbdeniiia ‘gived
ei eoastunal to Yileq doidw .eldidev etsving 0° ofiduq yas hci yew
ni eetete yotfog oc .mielo to taémetate edt at ddrot tee yiink
edt .0O.G to muimerq Lenane odd to aolteteblanoo sit ‘tedd treq
adinom oviewd to mrod s tot moantdofi semst afol sexvent dasbasteb
adt to otab edd mort eysh yixie aidtiw guitiuest diseb teaiegs
yitbed mort eseuso tedto Ife to Udnobaeqehal to YLteersb <tnebioos
.easen Lstaebioos bas teleiv .fsaretxe dgvotdt beaistave eetiutat
seve mux vo dourte yriod yd beaisteve ef éaebloos dowa tL ,008L¢ rot
soloidev eterixe so ofiduq yas yd youryid oilfduq s soqu to at oficw
digzot tea ona dotdw to Lis ,yellog edt af saotetvorg todto sxe joredt
at soitoe sist doidw sogu bas .mislo to taemetsta edt at Lint ot
The statement of claim further alleges that while the
policy was in force, John James Robinson while in or upon a public
highway, to-wit: standing at the intersection of Euclid Avenue,
Oak Park, Illinois and the Lake Street division of the Chicago Rapid
Transit Company right-of-—way, was struck or run over by a public or
private vehicle, to-wit; a work train operated by the Rapid Transit
Company, and by reason of said accident, directly and independently
of all other causes, he died; that plaintiff performed all the
conditions of the policy, and that the defendant refused to pay.
An affidavit of plaintiff's claim was attached to the statement,
The defendant in reply thereto filed an affidavit of
merits stating that the defendant had a good defense upon the merits
to the whole of the plaintiff's demand, and that such defense was,
first, that the insured did not sustain a loss of life by being
struck or run over while in or upon a public highway by any public
or private vehicle, and second, that the insured did not sustain a
loss of life directly and independently of all other causes from
bodily injuries sustained through external violence and accidental
means.
On the day of the trial of this cause, the plaintiff on
her own behalf was allowed to testify over the objection of the
defendant that she was the beneficiary, and the next witness called
by the plaintiff was the gateman, who worked for the Rapid Transit
Company at Euclid Avenue in Oak Park, and described that vicinity
in general terms, to-wit: that South Boulevard runs east and west,
and Euclid Avenue north and south; that just north of South Boulevard
were two sets of tracks of the Rapid Transit Company, laid upon the
surface of the ground and commonly called the westbound tracks,
carrying trains west from Chicago, and the eastbound tracks carrying
trains east to Chicago. There was a 10 foot space between these
two ME@EEEEE tracks, On the east side of Euclid Avenue was a lever
box about 4 feet high, 5 feet long and 3 feet wide, located about
}
edt olidw ted? espetis sted¢ast mlafo to tmometste ed?
olicug s mogqu ‘te ai efine seenidoh aemst, ado .setot ad esw rokthit
,ounevA bilowk to solitecersini eds te antbasta rtiwee? eVewdg id
bigesh ogeeidd edt to mofeividb teexte eded edt bus elontIlI .arst asd
to oLidug s yd TeV0 asx co dowtte esw .ysw-to~tigit Taqmod ‘tlensz?
tieast? bigal edt yd betszeqe atert arow 8 ithwot elotdoy stavizg
yitaohmeqeshni Sas yitoorib ytaebtoog bise to soeset yd bas «Yasqaod
od? Iis bemrotreg Tiltntelq tedd jbetb ef .eeeuso todto fs to
eed, oF beavier tashbreted edt dedé bas ,yoilog et to, enot#tbaoe
wait sdnonedade edt ot bedostis ssw mis{o e'thitntela. to. tivebitte aA
to tivebiitse as beLlit o¢eredt yiget ai tashasteb odT . ed
obienn edt mogy seneteb hoog e bed tashaetsh edt tadt ey atten t
_ <eew saeteb dove tsdt bas .basmeb e'ititatetg edd to sfodw odd. o¢
gated yo etif to sect 6 alsteve toa Sib, beormant sdf gedt .textt
olidug yas yd yowsiggéd of Lduq & poqy to ai oLisdw revo az to, toute
£ sistese ten bid borvani edt jsdd ,baovee bas .oLoidey saving x0
mort aeeuso redio Ifs to yitnebaeqehat bas yltoerts stil to asol
_fstusbiocs Sas seasloty Isazedxe dgvotdd beatatewa setrujai yitbod ©
no Yekinzely odd senso StHt to Isizt oft to Yeb oft noo” nee
“edt Yo soktoetdo edt tevo Ytttast ot bewolfs asw tLeted’ Awo ted
pefiso awentiw ¢xed ont bare .yretoltensd ent ecw ote tent trabmeteb
#ienst? biget edt tot bexrow osw .memetey odd ecw Rtitatste ett ya
wtletoty edt pedixeesh bis wired 2s mt evasvA Bileu® te ~reqtiod
‘drew bis tase ant brsvelwed Atuee edt rtiw-or .emred Letemeg at
reveled ctvoe to datom taut cade jritvoR bas trom emnévA’ ‘bifoud bine
edd moqu biel .ynsqmod thease? bigs ont to afostd to atee owt od
‘salostt buvodtsew edd Seliss yinoumod bre bavotyg edt to soxtrye
gaiyried adosr? bavodtens eft bre ,ogsoid0 mort teow anterd gaiyrtee
beedt meewted sosce toot Of 2 Baw oredT Ldgsoidd oF tees sntert
revel & asw SumevA bifoul to ebta teas edt nO «adostt Smementa bw?
tuods "hesuont ~obiw teot © bas gaol teat @ ,fgid test 4. tuods ‘od ba
J
3
midway between the westbound and the eastbound rails, This was
known as the control box, from which were operated levers controlling
two gates. The gates when lowered shut off the traffic going across
Euclid Avenue, north and south, one gate being at the north end
and the other at the south end of Euclid Avenue, Just east of the
control operating the gates is a @idewalk running north and south on
Euclid Avenue. Immediately east of the sidewalk is a shanty about
6 feet Tong, 3 feet wide and 6 feet high, East of this shanty is
a long box or bin, about 8 feet long, The sidewalk came right up
clese to the shanty between the shanty and the lever box,
There was but one witness to the accident, who was a
switchman standing on the platform of the work train, which was
moving cast on the westbound track. He stated that both gates were
down at Euclid Avenue; that he first saw the insured on the east side
of Euclid Avenue between the two rails on the westbound track, and
that the insured was struck by the train and injured,
It also appears from the evidence that he was taken to
the Oak Park Hospital, where he died as a result of the injuries
sustained in the accident,
This case was submitted to the court upon the plaintiffis
evidence and if this evidence supported the plaintiff's cause of
action then the trial court properly entered judgment for the plaintiff
The trial court, however, in considering the evidence would only
consider the competent evidence in the record, and such presumption
will be indulged in by this court when considering the record,
The defendant contends that the evidence of the plaintiff
that she is the beneficiary named in the policy in question is in-
competent upon the ground that proper proof was not before the court.
The plaintiff alleged in her statement of claim, un#er oath, that she
was the beneficiary named in the policy, and therefore under this
allegation she was the proper party to institute this proceeding,
é
ecw eid? .eliet Ravedtese sit bas bayodiaew edt msowted yswbin
gaitlortaoce erevel betersco ovew doldw mort .xod Lordnmoo édd es rina
esotos gatos olttert edt tTto tude berewol morw eotey ‘eat aedtsg ows
bao ditom edt ta gated etsg eno ,dtvos bas dtron <oumevA biLou®
odd to fase fault «sxmevA biloud to bas dévoe edt ts reddo sad bas
wo divoe bas dtron goinnut ilewebib & ef edtss ent gaitetego Lortnoo
tuods ytnede 2 at tleweble ‘sd? to tess YLetstbemal SeunevA bilowa
ef Yimadd eldt to tec agit toot 3 bas ebtw test & .gmok tect 8
qu tight emeo Xiswebte od? synol tost 8 tueds .aid xo xod yao a
.xod asvol edt bas ydnede odd aoowted Ytnede edt ot seoLs
$ esw of .tnebtoos odd of seentiw emo ted saw OxedT |
"gee do ldw waiert Yrsow odd to mtotielq $d¢ ao gaibaste nemdotiwe y
otew estes dtod ted¢ betste oR .Xosts bavodtees odt ho tase gaivem
ebée eee edt mo bowwanh sat wae dotit on teat jeumeva biLowa ta nwob
bus fostt bavodteew edt ao alter owt ott asewted sumsva Siiowd to
abétutat bas ater? edt a doutts esw bowéat oat ‘tant
SF “pedis baw bd Saad videbiie bas Beet Hkeddd itd FE e
esizuinit dé to sfveot 8 es beth ed otodw yietiqeoH dzat asd ed?
stuebioos edt ni dentstave
a'tti¢aialg edd segs tives sft of botdimdug. acu ees0 RIT oo coy
te sayao altiitaislg edt betzoqqwe eonshive eidt tt bas soaebtye
tttanisty edd sot taompbyt Sexetas yizeqosg txuvoo Jaixd sdt sodt agktos
Yino bivow esnebive odd gatteblenoe ai ,revewod, ,tivoo Leizd, edt
aoitquvesrg dove bus ,brover odd at eomebive tasteqmoo edt rebtanco
ebrooot oat gaiteblenoo aedw tus09 eidt yd af begivbat ed Iftw
tiisatela edd to eomebive ed¢ ted? abagtnco tnebueteb edt.
~al ae soiteerp al yoltog ost ai bogsa Ytaioltened adi ef ode tent
-t7y00 ods emoted fom ecw tootg reqeig tadé Savory edd soqy tagteameg
eda ted? <ftse sefny .wisto to Jaowetste ted at Aegeits, ‘Utitaisiq edt
_pidd cebau oroteredt bas.,veilod edt atbomsn yretetianed. ede Bae
vgutbeeoorg oli etutttaat of vixeq regoma ent esw.ode moitegelin
&
If the defendant wished to take issue upon this question, the
defendant should have raised the question by its pleadings, This
was not done, and the defendant having failed to challenge plaintiff
upon this question, it waived the necessity of proof by the plain-
tiff that she was the beneficiary named, The fact that she testified
she was, which was admitted by the defendant, did not harm the
defendant.
The evidence in the record as to the liability of the
defendant unier the terms of its policy is questioned by the
defendant as not bé@ing competent. The defendant also contends that
the evidence considered by the court did not establish the defend-
ant's liability.
The facts are that in order to protect the public, the
insured was employed by the Transit Company as a gateman to operate
the gates at the track at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and
South Boulevard in Oak Park, These tracks were immediately south
of the elevated structure of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad.
At this point there is a subway under the elevation for pedestrians
and vehicles using Euclid Avenue. At the time of the accident the
insured was last seen standing upon the sidewalk used by pedestrians,
which is adjacent to the gateman's shanty on the east. The only
witness to the accident was the switchman Joseph J, Herold, who
stated that he could not tell whether the insured was on or off the
sidewalk when he was struck by the care
From the evidence appearing in the record, we are of
the opinion that the court was justified in finding for the plaintiff,
not alone that the injury caused his death, but that the accident
happened on a publio highway. The sidewalk at the place where the
deceased was working has been used by the public for a nunber
of years, in fact, one witness, B. GC, Branstadt testified that he
was familiar with the location and that the intersecting streets
t
od} ,nottheyp wld? aogy eter eacd Se beiietw takbnbieh bH0°H4
atdT .epnibsely ett yd moiteeup edt beater svar blyoite inebnsteb
Ttitwlsle exmefiedo ot beliet grived tuabasteb oft bas .omdb ton Bew
~gisio efit yd toorg To ytisesoen edt bevisw ti etolveenp eidtd moge
voltiteet ede ted? fost et? .bemsn yratotteed edt asw one tent tYHt
etd itred fon bith <tnebaeteb edt yo hevtimbe aew ao tdw waaw ba
posal -tasbaotOb
of? to ytkiidet£ edt of es brooer edt at somebive eft =~”
oft yd bomotiveup et yotfog ett to ewrot oft tolny tasbmeteb
“ted abusitioo oals taabreteb eit “sta teqmoo gnked ton as ‘tnebabteb
=baoteb ont deifdstes ton bib tru00 ot yd betebienoo sonebive edt
“ sybitiaeir vias
eit .olidwe eft dostotq ot sobto at tal ote etost oat ~ © twas
‘@tereqo ot mametes S es Yasqwoo tienerT sit yw bevolqme ‘Bsw said
bas Sunevh bifow® to nottosatetnt edt ts dost ont ts b asaiy ong
dtvoe yletsibesit stew aloett ededT arsed acO at Brevetyod ai
Seotliet nreteewdtrol & ogseiad att to otitourte betsvele edt to
ancivtasbeq tot cotisvels ont tebay yewdve 6 at sredt tniog eidd ta
erit dwobioce edd to omits edt ta .suaova bifon® gatos gefotitey bas
.easictesbeq “ud bees Aleweble edt nogs anthaste ees ‘teal Bsw betseat
yinto eft tame ont ao Ytnade atasweten ad? ot inodatiia ei dotdw
Odw .blor9e .& cqoeot memdotiwe edt sew tnabtoos eft ot ebeakiy
eid Tto ro ao aew Berwedt edt coddedw Ilet ‘tod Blues ef tant borate
“yrso odd YO Mourte asw of modu ALawSbte
to sre ow ,broost edt ai gaitacgas sokenive dak aert *% Ath
atitmtstg edt tot ankonit a2 bettttent sew tvod odd #add aotaiqo edt
“tnebtoss odd tedt tod (deed etd Béetteo veutat one sand enols’ #Ok
"gad Stodw'Soktq She vs Gtewobia sav © lyewdg ad deTdaq' Sao’ BeRsqdae
‘medium ¢ 20% okidud odd Yd Beau need bad galteow adw Doasedes
ea dattd bortiteds dededet@’ 0’ 1a” cewsatie eto \{test at oti
‘etestts anttooarodnt odd tedt bas “moitsool edd ‘abort Ekim
oS
+ aaw
5
had been used by both individuals and vehicles since the year 1901,
and that these intersecting streets were each 80 feet in width.
The defendant complains that the court admitted in
evidence plats produced by the plaintiff which were not properly
identified; that plats were received by the witnesses, such as
testified, from the Office of the Municipality of Oak Park, where
they were kept.
Where it is necessary to establish the existence of a
roadway directly in issue, it must be proved either that the roadway
was laid out in pursuance of a law of the State, or that it has —
been é€stablished or used by the public as a highway for 20 yeafs,
But where its existence is only collaterally in issue, as in the
instant case, it is sufficient to show that it has been used and
travelled as a highway by the public. Board of Supervisors v.
The People, ex rel. 116 Til. 466,
We believe that the plaintiff established a prima facie
case that the place of the accident was on a public highway, and
it will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that
possession was in the municipality. Oity of Anna v. Boren, 77 Ill.
App. 408.
The plats in evidence were produced by a clerk of the
Village of Oak Bark and are on file in the Village Office. They
indicate that both Euclid Avenue and South Boulevard are 80 feet
in width, and that the Transit Company in the operation of trains
used the north 28 feet of South Boulevard.
The physical condition of the insured was described in
detail by the attending physician, The insured was taken to the
hospital where he died as a result of the injuries sustained,
é
.L08L resy ‘edt eomte eeLoidev bas eLaubivibat tod yd beau meoed bad
~dtbiw ai teet C8 dose erew steotte yatfoosretat seeds tedt bas
mt botctuwhs txsoo edt tadt anislomoo tusbastebh eff §§ § @
qUreqore ton srow dotdw ttitntelq ont yd beouborq atela sddebivd
es dove ,aseecntiw edt yo beviecer erew ataiq tant’ :beititaebé
ereiw <ftet teO to yellsqtotas edt to solttO ed¢ moxt .boltivest
wtqes teow odd
a to senefatxe ond dalldetes of Yrsaecden et Pf SxSHR
qeubsor edt decd tedtie bevord Sd tem tf .Sveet at yLfoorth yewbsds
eed ti tad? to .etet@ edd to wal 2 to eomebatue Ai tuo bist saw
~ yatsoy 0S tot * vewatg bef s es otidur edt yd beaw 10 “bededidstes’aodd -
eft mi as ,eueei ai ylistetslloo yiao ai souetaixs sat ‘sténe. fut
- hae beeu need aed tt ted¢ wode ot tastoltiwe al #2 42850 treteat
~ gsopivssac to oS 08 ‘Yollduq eat yo vouitgiit ry as Hes ieangive
| 2384 ,L{T air. ter
Stost sming © beiietidstes itttatsiq efit tent evetfed BR °°”
‘Baa ,Yewdgid olidua s mo eaw tuebtoos eft to Sbbiq odd edt Sad
dead yrevinoo edt of eoMsdive to someade odd At bemueoxy Sd Litw tt
fit TT wore ov aa to yrt0 *- REECE SRS. elanahiaeates
808" sam
edt to drole s yd penubers grew eonebive al sterq. ont
yed? «sotto ogalitV edt mi eltt mo ens das. azsG. X20 to ogeity
test 08 ets Srsveivol divo® bas eymevs bilouk. dtod. tedt etsolbat
antesit to aottsrego edt af yosqmoO tleassT edj tedt bas .dtblw at
4 ehbreveluod diyoG to teat 8& dtaoa edt bea
ak bodixoasb asw bereat edd to aoitifuoo Isoleydq edt
edt of asiet saw borvens edt .asioteydg gathagdts, od? wi tts ste
eboaisteue esixrujat edd to tiveer s es beth sd exedw Istiqeod
ry f Pod oh 4.-ge F
CCE Sea are <3 Ohad
’ ~ | & es 2h tH 4 Pe
“a : 4. oy? xs : e -
i edt oo fa eet easy acy
The cross—- appeal of the plaintiff has been considered and
we are not prepared to say that the trial court erred in refusing to
admit evidence as to the additional costs of the plaintiff, incurred
by reason of the defendant's refusal to admit certain facts,
For the reasons stated in the opinion we are satisfied
that the court did not err in its rulings, and accordingly the
judgment is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CONCUR,
‘bne betebiedoo med eat tttintelq’ edd tof
ot gittautor nr berrs treo fniey on edt ety
berxneett eititmtelg edt to eteoo Lanotéthbs eh OF We Wehbe cde
“(etost aistros tinbe ot Leeter attashasteb oft to Howser’ Ye
bekrittaw bts! oy w ati ad LY tena wai eit! aie 2 S808
boo .eyotior eth at x8 tom bab Yeu! bat gait
phomr itts’ a
a te bts ‘feo OF Yxoasodam af FE Gsbeet
¥ mA cITEA ma 200 ime $2 \yheieak af viseor Ah yaiihaee
Gee oi Yedks «eo ,edasks ed? To wat 2 TO Semaetoe mt tuo Bist ase
SAS LATS ain 2
gf? wi am ,ewaci af. yliexetetiosw vias Bs eonevesen ‘oht ‘eno
hes Keg svod gat $2 dadt wore of 3 ao kpktios ak 2 tee prateag
Y roptraede 30 beso selising ede Ye yoetete * oa
”
«08. oSAT att Ane. 28
Giese) galon o hetaildates itientely of tana ovelted Lit
He \Soersid’ olidha 4 mo eaw toadionn eft hs ebie der mie” “yan paso
ties STi tseo Ot OF eoneh ive to wey wide Sad at baauresxy od th 2
“ ‘ ae ee
Scaa TT Ree CF Denk Se yey | A ee Ley be dros anne mek” new i tésocaog,
are a eh
eee Ye. eee lh @ Ye De unt Boey Ba, Pie Coren lee at ptste, oon.
Yorks saedtio eyclity edt of ehhh ome. een bow eas a x09 sie on ée
soet MO woe beovolved dtu bee geen. Sloot died feats
entice te wedaeciqo ate af Yoaqee Rieeett, ems some Fate !
cteaew Lend ida . cm, det. ae: Aaron, ads sidan
i beiieogeh pie bepupers mt. to aadethoae Loess aR, ent,»
OLE ME Heer ew Come. A atk naitia quai a ee on ane ws toe
eben tad cum wa pon as ikke Lain erty 8. whit Ba Ry tet prose Let. !
A
37466 ; / at gf € al f | i
LIBERTY BANK OF CHIOAGO, Guardian/of the”
Estate of RAYMOND RIVERA, a minor and
JOSEPH D. SHANE,
svt
>PEAL FROM
si
y
£
K
f
é
:
Appellees, MUNICIPAL COURT
Ve
OF CHIGAGO,
GENERAL ACOLDENT FIRE & LIF® ASSURANCE
CORPORATION, Ltde,
Appellant. D, 7 9 i mee 6 A 0!
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE GOURT.
This appeal is by the defendant from a judgment entered in
the Municipal Court of Chicago for $302.40 im an action by the
plaintiff to recover the amount due upon a draft for $300, payable
to the plaintiff and issued by the defendant, and when presented to
the bank, payment refused,
The facts are that the defendant insurance company issued
a policy of automobile inaurance to liyro Leavitt. The policy by its
terms covered the operation of an automobile owned by Leavitt against
less by reason of the liability imposed by law upon the assured for
damages arising from bodily injury to any person by reason of the
operation of the insured's car. A further provision contained in the
policy excluded the insurer's liability where the car of the insured
was operated by an agent or employee of any public garage, automobile
repair shop, automobile sales agenoy or service station at the time the
injuries occurred to a person. |
it appears that an accident oceurred and was reported by
liyro Leavitt to the Insurance Company; thet » boy named Raymond Rivera
was hurt by the operation of his, Leavitt's car; that an adjuster for
the plaintiff, upon which payment was refused. After the adjustment
of the claim and issmanoes of the draft to plaintiff, the defendant
|
the Insurance Company adjusted thé claim end issued a draft payable to
investigated the alaim and from the facts, denied liability under the |
rp a ike anh)
ey,
-
| ay —n
TRUOO JAG TO TMUE eronbingth have ote
ONAdIHO %¢ | aphest
: | Sonasvena MAA, 4 ATA er
cBEE ini epeie
ys” Tae 74 aie es dccrt yous
‘OLD ALT @ Ye sania
th Bt tnoapiyt
eTHUOD SHT TO MOIMIGO BHT GaRVITAC JEGSH AOLTEUL QUICI@EAY .aM
ai boretae toomgdut s mort taushaeteh edt yd ef Iseqqs eidT .
edt yd nottos me at Od.808$ rot ogsotdd, % #nuo0, Koa tome, act
eidsyaq .008% rot #tsth s moqu ovb tawvome edt revooer of Witatele
ot botmeserq aedw bas .tasbaeteb edt yd beweel bas Ytitatelg edt of
eboestor tnemysg vided edt
hewn Winqmes eonstvedi tashaeteb edt teadt ets etost ody ame
ett yd yotfog odT .ttivesd ord of eonmstuent elidomotus ‘Yo wok ti 2
teatege ttivsed yd beawo sildomotus as te noltarege odt Lereveo amred
rot betuees eit moqy wel yd bewoqmi ytliidstl edt to aoasox yd ewot
: edt to Moeser yd soateq yrs of Yrotal ylibed mort gutelre aegsmah
edd at honistnoo noleivorg rsdirwt A .rs0 atbemvent odt to moltereqo
bouvent ait to ts0 ed¢ exedw ysilidell e'rerweni edt bebyloxe yotlog
elidomotus yegetes olidna yas to seyeigne to taegs as yd bofareqe ssw
dt ewit edt ta noi¢ete poivres to youegs eelee alidemotus Gouda zinger
saoored 6 of beriuo09 weduubak
“yd betzoger esw bas bortwo90 tusbloos as tedt erseqge aE oy
atovifi boomye! bomen yod # tadé j;ymeqmo? eonesvecl od? ot ttiveed oxyl
rot oe as tedt ;te0 a'ttiveed 4aid to o ROLPRRORO: edt “, eens oe
taomtas tbe edd r9dtA beater anv tasmyaq dotdw aoqw 1 entabe
fashaoted edj .tittntalg of #tarb edd Yo ctensmeet bas tata “te a
edt robay Yetitdsti beiaeb qatost edt mort bus wielo ot. be teghteovah — :
‘BOATE,
* ST cara saa
2
provisions of the policy issued by this Company to the insured,
Myro Leavitt.
fhe fact is that at the time of the accident the Leavitt
automobile was operated by one Frank Yates, who was employed by
Miller's Service and Gasoline Station, which was owned by Ben Miller
and losated at 718 West 15th Street, in Ghiecago; thet by direction
of Miller, the chauffeur was delivering the car to the owner, Myro
Leavitt at the time of the accident,
Liability of the defendant, if any, must be founded upon
the issuance of the draft to plaintiff. The general rule is that
a check or draft is but a conditional oayment and issued to obtain
money fr@m the bank, and if payment is refused, the claimant stili
has a right of action for the injuries sustained. Leake v. Brown,
43 Ill. 372; Stephens Eng. Go. v. Ind, Gom, 290 Ill. 88; Ganadian
106 Ill. 281.
There is a lack of evidence that by the refusal of the
defendant to honor the draft, the plaintiff suffered a money loss.
fhe provision of the policy in question excluded the liability of
the defendant where the injuries received by the minor were sustained
while Leavitt's car was being driven by an employee of the service
and parking station. The policy—holder could not recover from the
defendant, and the defendant was under no legal obligation to answer
for the injuries sustained as a result of the accident to the minor,
Raymond Rivera. There was no privity of contract between the
piaintiff and the defendant. sige by next friend v. eS
Maryland Cesualty Cos, 182 Ills App» 438,
The defendant's answer upon the question of liabihity of
the defendant Insurance Company is that a compromise of a doubtful
right is = sufficient consideration for an agreement of compromise
between the parties. The right, however, to recover by the plaintiff
cbesat- yy
4
ttiveed edd taebloos edt to emit odt te todd ef tot ont ;
yw bevoLque ose odw ,eodsY dnsxt ous Wi betsreqe nsw elidomotue
zeiiiw mea yd bonwo esw ie Lsie etottedse eatlosay bas ootyted el rail eM
moltserth yd tedt sognokd® at .teoxte dsEL teey BLY te hedeood has
Car .xeawo, odd ot T20 edt gabreviieh eaw tustivede edt sreLite to
etaebioos ait to sald edt fa ttiveed
Nog Bebnve? S¢ Fase peat TE (dnbbaeton odd te yehthdaha’ oh
#adt af Sine Leseomeg Gd? .teitaiale of Ptarh ond ‘te GOnewaet edd
aietdo of beweal bas tasmysc Lenoitibaos & tud af Oteth 10 doede'é
Likte tasmielo edt ,beevted ut deemysq 2 Sas [teed Sod moet ‘yerom
“(gyetl .V eased .benistemn eedria: od¢ “ot mottos Yo digits ead
~iaibans® 188 »f1T 08S we bal wv .90 sii aasddage Gets V2tr Es
iva ) -f88 .1ff OL £5 te ,soxdou iv ‘shale 20. taal
©) ge To teestex odd yo ted} oonebive ‘to aseel 2 ef exsay? “oO ©
8° lage yeaom s boréttus Tt ttmkslq eet sion
“te Ytitdekt ont bebuiox® cotteemp at yotiog ‘eat to HbLetvery Sit?
beaistane sr2" tomiw edt yo bevisoot sefruiat odd etodw taabaoted dt
etivtee edt to osyolqss at yo movixh gated saw tao atetivesds sfidw
edt most vevooer tod bluoo tabLod-yortog #4? .totsete wikirag bia
Oo ferans of moktegitdo Leyel on tobts sew sashaoted édt bad’ faebite Ob
teats adt of taboos eff to tlaker 6 es beatadseue sehrafhtt old tot
edt asewted gosttaeo to ytiviag on asw exedT © »Srevid Haomyer
bas yotieord .v hostst teem yd 7 acount vtarhadsted edd bas thitatelq
row ih @rig, | fehd’ 66 0° 7808 saqh 1 LIT TOE aaceedatenat
r¢ Pautie 3 “yeaa. bqua“uteroses’ 299. |
© Ofg-pnataant to tentseup oth tog tonada a teaahanYed eager oat
fwttdeot € to colmoxqmos a Sait ab qesymod eodetienl gmebasteh Gis
“@eiwotEmod to taensetgs ne tot’ Mo ttixeh 1800" tab ton tut #02 taht a
‘YELentete Sdt yd revoedd ot itevowdd fits edt Ces. mY
3
for the injuries sustained by the minor is not one against the
defendant, but the right of action, if any, is against Myro Leavitt.
The facts indicate that the defendant was not liable to
the insured for the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason
of the contract of insurance, and of course the defendant would not
¢ompromise a claim as doubtful where the plaintiff's right to
recover was not against the defendant.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and
the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REWANDED,
WILSON AND HALL, Jd, OCONCUR,
eat cvs Bi jf} at Vey wie? yO Sree’ wt Lot beg mate te, enatabeeny
si
weed ee | om ton ef xomda ont yo bentetexe
5 ah Bi s aff to galt oct 7a Pees OF Four Ba)
is ee tat agi regula sot tase
ie ich i 7g |
Rie ee een er Shu Ore ble e ret
ton tasbasteh edt plang 4 Sats
Bee mare 4 7 @ 5: a =.
WO eee evthabahall’ ld sre needs isle 5
eteedhsege a4? To yh
vb snot dh Sesate mepenek elt
eet 2h Sen Lovedtag eat: «Peete tale se: op hae ant br
Pees 5 2 ad ¢ Ae Gna aa ae ween Bb Okey te
wipitgr “ae caw t
Bie tee ieds et3 beet ag ak Seog be Bee got at ites ‘eae
Ue? She, «+n ket eae endeER 0H ea ay fs :
meee 3G8 LIE OBS web 2has oF
sk 100 OOS il Se eat vid |
62) td ‘Soantor od? qo fot) Wonenive Be mek aes sca POaaeS
1 eee acento hovdtter ttigeletq aly Yetech’ ott schaned bodicounpeis
We MEL dL edt bekwiors wodtuamg dh’ whiog sls to ae
ir iene exes Veale eet yo Awereted Sodental ‘ede taeda :
SHivgivg is to weesiors an vd aorhe® shat et ee ae tent vibe. ‘
4? Gee Wrroney dad Bheon cabbodeped dey ae wotenth Siting ies
ehirain wih wheeogide Liaed we toh eew pelaneeties ate ie a \thehaotion
ene eae ee Mehmed Ade te Rl gmow se. he hou Lacie casas inablba
nit puede forte ho wav tae ‘whee éorpiae?'T a
oe Detar iy opr ong
he Geeatent. te ander a sini delet’ ‘eee
PAteoot 4 he eesti «OM eed ‘eota tie. Gimekiet
ae
CATHERINE GRIMES, f o% “geno to ly
oy va
(Plaintiff) Defendant in Error,
MUNICEPAL at al |
Ve
epee
, Z iz A\
v ‘ H
"e
f
eG Met
HENRY F. CONNOLLY, OF CHICAGO.
(Defendant) Pleintiff in Error.
979 1.4.640°
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CoURT.
This cause is in this court upon a writ of error by the
Judgment was entered against
. defendant seeking 2 review of the record.
« The action
the defendant in the Municipal Court of Chicago for #1
was brought by the plaintiff to recover $140 from the defendant for
room and board furnished to the defendant by the plaintiff, The
defendant filed his written eppesrance and the court heard the
evidence offered by the parties and entered judgment as above indicated,
The defendant questioned jurisdiction of the trial court
to vacate an order dismissing the above entitled cause for want of
prosecttion, upon the ground that the motion to vacate was made more
than 30 days after the dismissal order was entered. The defendant's
—
Wa
motion questioning jurisdiction was denied by the trial court and 4
the defendant proceeded to trial upon the issues. a ea
By deferniant's appearance he was properly in court,
Ante FF
and the court having jurisdiction of the person and the subject Se
matter, the defendant cannot in this proceeding question the jure |
diction of the court. From the facts as they appear in the sae | f
i
the right to do so was waived,
The evidence offered by the parties and received by eae
trial court upon the issues, required the court to pass upon the
see
hives te Buks we, ae cage ee
ra tor at Vitis 4 coe . ‘3
a ateyé , Re a
tee Gi
7 0 Wolniso aET oanavIsag rae aorrevt ‘pac e886, FM
ho to thw 9 ogy. 150 She RS BE PO ssc |
waa ecw taemgbyt .brooe7 ont to welver # werent thuhanth .
sha@hob ont mort OMG tovopst oF wteataly wen Piuoxe een
Mttabele odd yd tuabnoted odt o¢ bededmrut oreod bas woe
BRE Wy
pi edt ,.berosvae sew sebro Iseaimeatb edt rotts ee oe asalt
dimoo Lsind odt yi beineb eew nottoibelxwt gataotéaeup nottom
_ svouset edt aogy istrt et bebeovoty tushaoteb edt
i eituoo af ylueqorq sew ed eontersoqqs e! tas hreteb va
“deetdwa ody bas moeteq oft to moiothetrut gutved treo edt bas ;
rar ott molteoup guiheeoorq afdt at tonmmeo tasbastoh edt aTettom
odt nt nnogge yedt es atost edt sett ,»txrvo0o ont to dolvotbh
sbevicw mew of ob ot tig tx odt
2
weight and credibility, and from the appearance of the witnesses
determine their frankness and fairness, and interest, if any, in
the result of the cease, and from the facts and circumstances in
ekidence the court did determine the weight as being with the
plaintiff.
The facts indicate that the plaintiff furnished room
and board to the defendant, and the only defense called to our
attention is the question of payment. The court passed upon the
question, and from the record it appears thet the defendant failed
to establish the defense of payment by the weight of the evidence,
and the court properly entered judgment for the plaintiff for the
amount due, The judgement is affirmed,
JUDGHENT AFFIRMED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CONCUR,
i, Mebee
wee FG
a ee pia he iad 3%
gesseatiw edt to sonereoqas od? mort bas crttaaivera Fc] tigiow
ak «ie Yi {descedat dna .esomtiat has enendacth thedt onttme oto
at _gooastenyetio bas @tost evi? mort bas ,easo ont te tiuees eat,
Revie dtiw grted es mete edt onimroteb bib frue0 ode sonebite
thee, Bede tart vittatesa sd tact steolbal efost edt
Mw oF Beilao gameted yino sft bas ,tasbaoted edt of. busod ‘hain
et moqu benesg gro od? -tnomysa to sottaeup od? st aottnotts,
beLtst tashueted ertt todd exaocce 32 Drogen edd mort bus .soltpoyp,
esomeoive edt to ddgiow oft yd sagmyeq ko enmoteb add datidates ot
edd rol, Ytdaisiq edt tot saemphyt bexedae yizeqosa txwoo ed? bas
sbonzitts af ¢xsaybut saTpoub tawon
soe TIMOAT | kim wit yd Bexetie oanekees
ee
* ene dcAH GHA WORLIW
cate: ms stator o¢ seltow att dott Rmong ste sone qiemneeede
eh oe eee
neh aid \ ’ née é 3 =< 5 sR a pes é & Oey ce ot . aye Ge me ae
poli belay! getoodiesap aottion
eutuees G2? mocy Lolsd e@ bebheesaone Fike t es wae
; EASY on oti e'to8 kiviad we
vixen oct Yo Gestel Soknat Sabre Sudo eit Bate
Lh edd rae Fike
a dias ye eget Yat a Gee ote caryt gor vek at Te aohtary
i ae OM Rey Oe On Gr ea ee eat
CMR E: Se MP arEE Pathan ERASE
nas ee ig
ae | Pod
37524 Ve ae i
fT. de FORSCHNER CONTRACTING couranr, / i
a corporation, f ie
;
Fi j
Defendant in Error,
TO SUPERIOR | oop
; i
GOOK COUNTY.
Ve
THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, a
Municipal Corporation, organized unler
the lawe of the State of Illinois,
je
Plaintiff ingrror. ra 9 die A, G6 4 l
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE HEGEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CoURT.
This cause is inthis court upon a writ of error directed
to the Superior Court of Cook County, issued at the request of
the defendant to review the record, wherein a judgment was entered
on October 27, 1933, for the sum of $48,764.81 in favor of the
plaintiff,
The action was in assumpsit by the plaintiff te recover
for certain work performed during 1924 and 1925, required by a
contract entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant for the
‘@onstruction of the Calumet Intercepting Sewer, Contract No. 1
and the 95th Street Sewage ‘umping Station in the City of Chicago,
Illinois, which action was for the recovery of the amount for which
judgment was entered, The cause was tried before the court and a
jury, and at the close of all the evidence, the court directed the
jury to return a verdict in the amount of }48,764.81 in favor of
the plaintiff, and judgment was entered on the verdict.
The defendant sdmits that there is a proper balanee due
the plaintiff of $13,312.39, and that judgment should have been
entered for only that amount. The evidence presented consisted of
a stipulation of the facts and the testimony of witnesses offered
by the parties in the litigstion,
The facts ag stipulated are substantially as follows:
4 ‘
aa { my «YHAIKOOD OUTTOARTHOS HIMBOAAOL ob at
) he A 30 Ne wolteroqtog. 6
: cee ¥ ms <T0TIE wt daebaeted 6) oniow rd oh
: wie FOIARTUE OT pa fii
4 Oe ai, GR wi ott ho sheng 5 aie
»FTHUCO. 3000
i ettoiteroqrod
wow Soar ¢ to etade edt Iesisnim
«tOeTaaL Veidale ls -
« A
A Sy ies ron we
2 Sot ef ‘wt triage
-.THUOP, GHT FO, MOTMIGO. SET cansvisaa dao aH. sornest OMLOTORAG AM.
batoetih rotre to tite # moqu trvoo aidiat ed ceueo akaT fio La am
ae fo teexpos edt ta beysst ,ytaved Aood ko dxy0d tolrequ® salt pr
bored esr taeagbul & aloredy .Stooex eft
i mirreces ot tidatel od? yd thequsees al sow ao ites “i
‘£ .o% toetdaoS ,xewee gaktqeorstal temuls) edt t0 nostout
” | gogs0nc ho ytloO edt af moltaté goto? s3awea teorse aeae ‘esd bas
tote sot davome edt to yrovpees edt tot ssw doktos shots setoatiit
& bas treo edt exoted betrd ecw oeueo dt .betotae aan el
‘ howd betoexib dxvoo ed¢ ,sonebive edd Ife to evolo edt te cjg
stolbrey edt mo beretao Bow tavmgbyt das erty 3 cas
we _- eonsind teqotq « ef etedt tadt etinbs bashasteb od?
“hereto seeaentin to wnusiens edt bas atoat ont 20 |
wmoktag tte ode at
of eojomme.s 99 MIKTSIG WANWAG SUT
8
ed Yo tovet at 18,287,824 to awe ost: wt ends ats, xesot9o 10. .
; tthe ig
a
The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract in writing,
dated December 13, 1923, for the construction of the Calumet
Intercepting Sewer, Contract Ne. 1, and the 95th Street Sewage
Pumping Station, in the City of Chicago, Iliinois. The major part
of the work was performed during 1934 and 1925. It is agreed that
the plaintiff completed all the work under the contract to the
satisfaction of the Chief Engineer of the District, in the manner
and within the time prescribed in the contract, subject to an item
of eredits for an adjustment of pumps, which will be referred to
hereinarters
During the performance of the work under the contract,
Edward J. Kelly was Chief Engineer of the Sanitary District, Philip
H. Harrington was the Assistant Chief Engineer, William H. Trhnkaus,
was the Construction Engineer, and John D. Hurley was the Resident
Engineer in direct charge of the construction work for the Sanitary
District under the contract.
John D. Hurley was in the employ of the District as an
Assistant Engineer, and was in actual charge of the construction work
as the same progressed from the time the work was commenced until
its completion, Among other duties, he supervised and inspected
ali work performed from day to day, established the lines and grades
for said work and measured the quantities of work actually performed
sae eas ome a In accordance with and subject to the provisions
of the/Chief “ngineer issued his certificates as to the estimated
quantities, amounts and values of the work performed under the
contract, and during the progress of the work twelve vouchess were
issued. After the vouchers had been signed by the Chief Engineer,
and upon the payment of the amount due on each of said vouchers, the
gam@ were receipted by the plaintiff and filed in the office of the
District. Work was performed by the plaintiff pursuant to the contract,
piens and specifications, and the directions of the Engineer, and it
av U a dil
) Ly |
cgattizw nt doatI0Go 9 ofmt boretas tasbaeted edt bas Yktdntalq edt
teour lao edd to noiteositenoo edd tot .8504 AS § xodueoed betab
@gewee Poarse Adee aptt bas .L oll tosttn00 .TowOe gattqeoretal
taaq tel sin eit .tbiomliLl ,ogsotdd to yFld edt ad totes gatqnut
tott hoorge af ti .88CL dae ABEL gabtwh benzotxeq saw dzow, odt to
edt ot tosttaeo ot tobas drow edt ILs hetelgmoo Ythdatala eit
‘qegiven ont ni ,softtei@ sat to reentgat todd odd to aottosteltes
meti as ot toeidue ytosttmoo odd at bedireaerg out’ edt alddiw bas
Ot borxster od Litw dotdw seq to taontestbe itis ot etibexo te
; - xodtontoted
| stoattnoe ont reba drow edt to eonsnrotreq eft giticud ‘ ef
‘qin iolxtera yrst ince edt to rseatgail end sew “vilex” os ba saa
qouodage? Ho matiltw ,teentged teidd dastedesA sat ‘enw. rodga o
tnebieet ed? saw ‘yelwH .6 anol bas .reenigas woktewstenod odd eau
| Wsdiaae edt tot sow no Ltowrtenoo axa to egtesto toot mt 98
: stosztn00 og reba rod
ap es totrtald we to voigne edt mi sew volta a mio
kk et
étow Koitorttenoo ost ‘to egtasio Lsutos ab ecw baw stosntgall ‘tastetees
itty beontomos Ber atow ant omit odd wort bencoxgorg ‘oma odd & sa),
betoeqeat bez hoatvreque ‘ot “quettud xonto atom snont6igno0 Bi t
eoberg has goatl odd bedetidagae web ot yeb mort benrotseq “drow , le
Domrotr9¢ Ulastos stow to seteiinnup edt bosueeom bas tion baad rot
enoteivera oxlé of tostdus bas sit.dw sonsbroves ‘at “sociinos ot ley
botemitas edt of ax aetsoitttzeo abs bewest rontyait ds td0\e
edt ober bemtot x94 Axow adé to eoutsy ‘bas ‘etmwone olde
_oteW emaxouov oviowt dow ont to esoxgori oat gatzub bas te! eed
_eteontgat toto ond vd bong te aoed bad stedouov exit or A th
out <eTodouoT btee to dose mo enh sausome ons re tnonyaq #1 -
ont to pottio ot at bol it bas weeembelg edt we ’
oextn00 ont ot manent titatate ont we pat sl pie
¢i be ,teoatgnd ott to anotvoorhh edt bas etottsottios
K}
is admitted that plaintiff is entitled to payment, if any, at the
unit and lump sum prices provided in said contract, and as set forth
in the stipulation of the parties.
It is agreed thet the defendant is entitled to a credit of
$1,000 for a change made in certein details under the terms of the
contract and $12,000 for settlement of differences concerning the
efficiency of pumps furnished under the terms of the cortract, making
a total credit of £13,000 to be allowed to the defendant from the
total sum which may be found to be due the plaintiff.
{The plaintiff has been paid, on account of the work completed
under the unit and lump sum process under said contract, the sum of
$1,020 ,049.59.
It was agreed that the remainder of the money due the plain-
tiff had not been wilifully or vexatiously withheld by the defendant,
but that the final amount due on the contract has been withheld pending
the adjustment of certain honest differences.
From the recppitulation of the work done, the amount of the
work admitted by the defendant for which the plaintiff is entitledtte
payment, and the amount of work done by the plaintiff for which the
defendant contends the plaintiff is not entitled to payment, the
amount of credit allowed by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the
amount paid by the defendant te the plaintiff, is as follows:
Totel amount of the work fer which it is admitted
the Sanitary District plaintiff is entitled to
oe ee a rr eo ee
Total value of the work performed by the plaintiff
pursuant to the contract, plans and specifica-
tions and the oral directions of the engineer for
which the Sanitary District contends the plaintif?
4s not entitled to payment . . 1... see 2 tt 354.453.4232
Total amount of the work performed by the plaintiff $1,081,814,40
Amount of credit allowed by the plaintiff to the
Sanitary District of Chicago ...... see
13,000.00
Balance after allowing said credit $1,068,814. 40
x
odd te .vis ti .dmowysc of bettkeaée ef Yrttakalg tent boretmbe’ ei
daze? toe os bas © opwumad bias ak eebkLvora Bookie ware dine bae ft hoter
' eettreq olf to" mares out at
te tiboto s of beLltitne af tmabmoteb ont teat beets’ al x /
eft? te amtet edt robsay eliateb aistis9 mi eben ogaedo * ‘rot ‘000,43
adt gainreenoe eeougtetttb to tmoneltéoe zot 600.858 ‘baa tosttaes
gi bilinm #009 eit to emrod oft robaw bededersi ec ming to youslolite
| oft moxt tuebusted edt of bowels ed ef 000,81) to thbere ‘Istod s
Hittntelq edd bub od o¢ bawot of yom dolaw awe “toe
etsigued Axow adt Yo tayoove ao ybicq meed aad Yitntal ont ies
to mare edt Sheeiauands bise aden eesoota mua eon bas bic! ous soba
~wisig edt sub Yonom ody to robmtsmox oft ¥xdlit bootys Misi 25 ye
disbusted ont yd bLeiiitte YLeudttaxey xo Yitvt itn Weed iiss
yatbneq Bleddtin need wed tosrénos ed? mo oth tavoms Lent? ont vail tod
vasomoTettib tasned niestreo Yo secs d Bie ‘ee
oft to tanome edt snob Axow ond to aottalutiqgoer edt wort CAP
odfbeltises ef trténisig eft doidw xot #nabasteb ont ‘ot Bab diiend a j
ad? doidw so? ‘YViitniela ené yd etiod axow to tawome at bis |, saouveq
‘odd qtnomynq of beltitae tod af ttitelela ed} ebdotmos ddbadtel
| ant? be “basbnoteb ° edd of Weltatall 6 oii wi Sewoits phe = 20 inoue ae
ghtitiuee al 31 shee ‘tot Atow ait Yo tavoms Leto.
: io 6 enadae ss chy ite td . W tAS a
8-108 , 80,18 Rt biei a *. TA ioe 2 :@18 ‘ool fs
$ dé Bemxots
—A0 iT eos Bae. Gnade os flor faateces
ts si, | oh gare ft ie weeais
ig etnxoo to Fi10)
BbeSBR OE eee ee ee eee MOMS, OF Be
Op.d18,180,18 Ititalsiq edt yo bomrotxeq calle ont 3a, ie un ARO,
bi Tun edt ot Yhitnisiq aa?
Be. & * . 8 « »~ # ee 2
MD PEE CQ0LE my oowry Vk iRERORMs
Amount of payments heretofore made by the
Sanitary District to the plaintiff .... . 3,020 ,049,5
Balance claimed by the plaintiff for work
performed pursuant to said contract, plans
and specifications and the oral directions
of the engineer at the unit and lump sum
prices therein provided ....4.++2e-e¢eee $48,764.81
The plaintiff at the trial waived its right to present a
claim for interest and did not press the same,
The defendant when advertising for bids fer the proposed
work, furnished bidders with "Requirements for bidding and instruc-
tions to bidders," The paragraph, which is in the imtructions to
bidders is alse included in the contract and is as follews:
"The following schedule of quantities, although stated
with as much accuracy 23 is possible in advance, is
approximate only and is assumed solely for the purpose
of comparing bids. The cuantities on which payments
will be made to the Contractor are to be determined by
measurements of the work actually performed by the
Gontractor, or as specified in said contract."
The fect is that only after excavations were made by the
plaintiff was it possible for the engineer to determine the depth
necessary for a proper footing, In this conne¢tion the contract
provided;
"It is expected that satisfactory material for foundation
will be found at the elevations shown on the drawings,
but in Case the materiels encountered are not suitable,
or in ease it is found desirable or necessary to go to
an additional depth or width to provide proper besring for
the masomry, the exeavation will be carried to such i-
tional depth and width as the os may direct.
Additional excavations so ordered, and conerete ordered for
filling such additional excavation will be paid for at
the respective unit prices herein specified for additional
excavation and additional concrete,"
It is apparent fmom the stipulation between the parties
that the total amount of $35,452.42 is in dispute by the defendant.
The items for the work performed are for additional excavation and
concrete used at the unit prices specified in the contract, and
these amount to $30,530.67, and the balance is for sewer pipe,
manholes, castings, iron pipe, sheeting, reinforcing steel, and
basese.onoit ; «vt 1 Oo eenddle eke Ot donee tid dRate
Lr tte mt id
auoitoersd Lese adt Soa eno cobstoage bas
pasencens 2s TR RP ailveed elects gas #2 eoonne
e troaeve of digit ath Boviww Lett odt te Ytleakety eft 9 |
somee Od¢ enotg fom BLS bas teotedal be ‘sto
pdeaterg 9d¢ sot ebid ef yalattxevbs aoriw tnsbadteb edt ©
~ovrtent bas gathbid vot étnemertupen” détw arebbid bedaldtw? 4:
ot sacisourirt odt mi ef dfotetw wlqergersq edt ¥ sax0bbid se anott
> peeoLot ee BE bre foordnoo eit af bebulod! owls at erebbid
botevs dyvodiie yeei¢tindep to eLubedoe Pleas ly: pon
ei ,soaevba Py eidicewoeq ei as yYourseos coum
enoqing edt =. yieloe bemueas ef baa Aire st
no eslt fear?
- ¥ wot ot pie: tosstmo0 od? of obam Sf Site:
oo a
et WW oben otow emottovnoe tote yino dant ak teat edt
dtveh edt ontixoteb of *8baiane Sut 40% efGtnecd #h jail
> Phertaoo eff mabtdenndo etd at Laatwel bere 8 s tol, vrasnooen
aokiabawor tot Latrotan yrodoste ttaa baat bate
ta ‘Ubi eeniees ae ty ont
es te ‘od ee Bene on ballin ye or: x0 ates ica 2° He sia
“an ay ot Debuxee Of Sea rn
sot berebro eteronos bas «
ts tot 4 ed {ftw nolt
. ae “peitioege gy bee
Mester gmdo eric og Bn soktsreone
cokiray ot ngouted soktadettts ws mae eon pero t
a" * oat yd etuqedh at ef bak, to om wou cb
~ aeeite sawoe tot at: eomatyg: out ct 0b Yet f
bas _feetn gxiototalest eaikcklacanael tad mort 4
5
brickwork, and amounts to $4,921.75, 211 of which items are limewise
charged at the unit prices fixed in the contract.
The work performed at the oral direction of the defendant's
engineer is not disputed, the measurements and quantities were ail
taken by this engineer and reported to the Sanitary District in
itemized vouchers prepared by him from time to time, showing the
amount of work done under each item of the contract and the contract
price therefor,
The contract contains the follewing provision:
"Whenever under the provisions hereof an order from
the Engineer to the Contractor is required, such order
shall be understood te mean a written order addressed
to the Contractor and signed by the Chief Engineer of
the Sanitary District."
: When the work was completed in the summer of 1925, the
defendant took possession of the plant and has been operating it
ever since, No objection was made that this work was unnecessary.
The defendant contends that because the contract provides that the
plaintiff shall do the work upon « written order from defendant's
engineer, it is not liable, and relies upon the provision of the
contract last above quoted,
The defendant had knowledge thet the work was being done
by the plaintiff pursuant to the direction of the defendant's engineer,
and reported by the engineer in writing to the defendant. while
a written order was not given by the engineer directing the plaintiff
to de this work, directions were given orally, and the work went on,
quantities were measured by the defendant's engineer, and the price
charged and reported to the defendant.
The time to question this work ordered by the engineer
was when the defendant received its engineer's report, and then make
objection to the authority of the plaintiff to do this work, However,
no objection was made thet the work was not performed, or that it
was unnecessary; on the other hand, the record shows that the work
8
esiwomtt oxs emesi dotdw to Lis eS e LEC gh} ot atavoms bus stzoydolad
‘,toaxtneo odt al bexl? eo tt thay aud +s heqxote
e'imebneteb oft to ao Loegreh Leto edt ta bemtoXxeq" sow be
[is oxew seltitasup dae etasmorwesen ont _ beruqets tom ab ‘sosntgo
ai taictet®d ypratias? ont of betroqet bat qeentgae ett ‘Yd asdiet
oft gilwote yemit of omits mort min yd boreqerq -etadesov besimest
footinoo edd? has toettaoo oct to meth dose tobaw sob axow Yo davous
yrotered? soitg
. woteiverq guliwoilot ed? anistace tonttaos edt 6) .. 0%
mort rebro ae tootod egotetverq oft reba savant: mo
Tebro dowe ,bexivpet si totosttaod adé of
eee ee
“stolasa it ie m
ef? ,@8@L to tomua ont as bezetqnoo sw azow 9A? NSO igs f
tt galtereqe aesd ead bas taniq ont to mobeesanog. Fea ‘taabaeren
-yisersosnay est: eowtetas tose ehem vow nottostdo om sooake t9ve
bat Yet webivotq toattnos sft Sevsded tadd ebaotnoo tnabacteb ext
attnehnsteb mort xebro nettitwie moqd axow sdt ob Liets Widwtelg
ati? to solaivera ond moqw e6ilox baw ,*idall tom el ¢k proomaegas
ebetoup evods ess eases
onoh gated ew txow edt tans egbeiwond bad naga. eee ae
roect tses atdanbasteb ont to aottoon Le vachd ot thaserud Tt bate edt wa
oLhay stnsbaotod ent oF gare tow ae roontgae edt vs bot inh ates
Miitatelg edt gastootlo resntgae ‘ont we movks. tom sew tobro a9 thew a
eo taow Atow eds ad Hyttene “aor oxen ano ltrs: mere
soita ofd bas ,teenigns e'tashaoted: rae beureson
stnabaotebomat of betsoqor: ni ones
. meentgne odd yf borebto drow eidt-agktaoup of omit edt oe
adem mod? bun .¢xoqes a!reentgae ats bevisven tuahaeteh:ektianie esr
_tovowoll wltow efdt od of Ittdntele edd to ywieodtus edt
tt get 10 (bemtotreq tom°eaw drow ost. Fads -obsa osw
drow edt ttt ewods broods ont “bid. redto" end ecRy
6
was necessary and beneficial, and thet defendant by its possession,
accepted and appropriated this work performed by the plaintiff to
its own use, and for that reason the defendant ie liable on an im-
plied promise to pay. The latest expression applicable to this
question is that of the Supreme Court in the case of Great Lakes
Dredge Go. v. Chigago, 355 Ill. 614, which is as follows:
"The city, by standing by end without objecting permitting
this work to be done and accepting the benefits of that
work, must be held to have ratified it. Ratification may
be proved by circumstances or inferred from acquiescenee
after notice. (American Car Go, v. Industrial Com, 335 Ill.
322.) It was long ago said by this court: 'If one sees
another doing work for him beneficial in its nature and by
his agent overlooks the work as it progresses and does not
interfere to forbid it, the work itself being necessary and
useful, and appropriates the work to his own use, he might
be liable on an implied promise to pay the value of the
work.! (DeWolf v, Gity of Chicage, 26 Ill. 443; Maher v.
Gity of Chicago 38 id. 266.) a municipality may be estopped
to defend that ite agents were without power to make a
contract when the facts show that such municipality has
aecepted the benefits of that contract, where the contract
is such as the municipality was empowered to make. (MoGovern
v. City of Ghicago, 281 Ill. 264; People v. Spring Lake
Drainage and Levee District, 253 id. 479,)#
Gity of Eigin v. Joslyn, 36 I1]. App. 301, confirmed by the Supreme
Court in 156 Ill, 525,
The defendant questions the action of the court in directing
the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $48,764.81,
The facts were before the jury that the defendant admitted there was
& balance due the plaintiff of $13,312.39, As to the balance of |
035,452.42, the defendant being liable, the owes ix directing the
jury to find for the plaintiff, as we view the record, did not err.
The question in dispute is not one of fact, but largely one of law,
and from what we have said in this opinion, the defendant was liable
and there was but one thing to do, which the trial court did, direct
a verdict and enter judgment for the sum of $48,764.81. The judgment
is accordingly affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. Concur.
6
,~Wwieevevoy sil yd tasbaetes tat fos {foLortoned Sas preseseou dew
Ot Btsntele edt Yd bewtotreg drow etdt betsirqorayd bas botqeoes
| -ni me ao eldeti ef tnabdmeted odd moeset fads tot bre .oay mwo ett
elds og eldsoilays nolavstqx® teste edt .yeq of selmotg beklg
eaisl tse) to ease odd mt tavod emerqud edt to fadd ei ao 1haeup
sawoilot as ei doldw .Sf8 .£f% 86 ponsokdd cana
elgnde 30 Bfdtense edt gudtqeoce ban anob od of td
yeu goltsoitites «tt beitive: svad of bLod “a
JLLT 282 noo teistentn rc at ie te
acee eno PI's
be bas etuten os at Talal
ton aeek dar ane eh
base
nee yoreeenen od tise AY Pang ss coy
édgin ed ,8ay avo els - axow edt kis tk oes
oft to eulsv edt you of owe ig f
hanbree od vin whisciosaia«(- 388 Be ef “ep a 10
& aden of Te9TOy ' |
as08 zéaga, sii exady te tact vo swede gait od yee
eredy ,tastisoo
-oten of betowocie Baw = aa ame are
&
i cakes gatzaa sv y alaens AAR»
onorqut ‘edt yd bouritaeo 105 ial Lit BE bor errno
8 "aga £21 "Ser ab eawed
giiveerib af txyoo eft to solttes ef? enoltdeyp tanbasteb ed? “°°!
Bboy one to sve oft at Ytituteig edt tot sokbaev @ wtater of yrut edt
pew exedd hettinhs ¢usbneteb edt fed? yrat edt exohed sxéw-atoat eft
to eontied edt ot Bh 08,810,810 to Ptktntele “ent exh sonelad a
odd gubtoorsb at duos oft yeoltntl gutsd snmbabtob eit” pe Rangest
“\axe tom BAD ,brosen' edt wolt ow en VEtttabete’ ont cor nade od yemt
wal to emo Uegrel tud (test to sao ten af Odutedh #P moldeoup edt
eldell sew iunbasteb edt wotitiqe eidd mt Sioe: dveil ow ted mort’ Ore
_ teenth sbab trv0o Laivt oft’ totdw hooge sh samples: ered? al
Eop
see
37535 ed
FARNHAM-KUHN COMPANY, now —| as.
KUHN-SAIPE & COMPANY,
(Plaintiff) Appellee,
/)
A
de
f
j
APPE LT.
s
MW ung COURT
4
OF CHTOAGO.
29 TA GAge
j
Ve |
OWEN R. TRAYNER and VIRGINIA TRAYNER,
(Defendants) Appellants.
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This cause is in this court upon an appeal by the defend-
ants from a judgment for $3,533.94, entered on February 21, 1934,
in favor of the plaintiff. The action was instituted in the Municipal
Court of Chicage by the plaintiff, wherein the Company sought to
recover from the defendants the value of services rendered as a real
estate broker in negotiating a ninety-nine year lease between the
defendants and the Bethlehem Engineering Corporation. The case was
heard before the court, without a jury, and on January 16, 1934, a
judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants for %2,667.20, Subsequéntly, on February 21, 1934, upon
notice to the defendants, the court after overruling defendants!
motion for a new trial, increased the amount of the judgment to the
sum here on appeal.
The plaintiff was « real estate broker, who approached
the defendants, the owners of the property lecated at 3504-06 South
State Street, Chicago, and represented that the plaintiff could procure
the F. W. Woolworth Company as a tenant for the premises for a period
of ninety-nine years, upon the condition that the defendants expend
$30,000 in remodeling the building on the property, This the
defendants covld not do, and it was sugeested by the plaintiff's
representative that another tenant could be found who would take
advantage of having the F. W. “oolworth Company as a sub—tenant,
Negotiations followed, and as a result, on February 25, 1929, 2 written
we “ ’
\ Ny Ks azavé
wage TA ae er ht maweatancasi
) ak etuazugo & SALAS KEUK
THUOO — s2eLtoqca (staentess)
+v a2 gS ak
aul ; nese BS oe |
SSGHYAST ATHIOAIV bas axtans 2h ae
win tite Wi bt odds
-QBADIND 10
LPs. pris
« FRBOO aay YO WOLMIIO HHT Gassviuad Seay worreut cuneres
~bastab edt yc Ineqes ms doqy eyo wide wt ‘et cause eld?”
ECL GAS yrewrdey no borate qAG.882.24 sot ¢nombat 2 mort sina
Ieqtotawé edt mt Detutitent eeu moltes oaT .2tttntelq edt to tovet at
of tdquoe yanquod edt atoresiw .Ythtatssa odd yd ognotd® To F200
sit aeowted ‘eden x00 i hi-aentte & yitttatteges i Ho
ase sano ed? .noiteroqroD gatrocatya’ nodakittoet edt bas 5s
& beer ,8L ido no ans yyrut 2 twodtin tur00 ont rr0' od -
eat teniegs ban Thidnlalg ode te ‘tovel a daxhsas J _
manque GL (ff yrevadeT ao . Utamupeadue 108 6988S rot atenban2en
_. \edashasteb gatisrteve qetts gxyoo edt gntashasted ont of soiton
dt oF tnomgbyt edt to tayoms edt, hoesoroms ,Lelat wea 6 rot aption
Ineqas m0 exes mre
bedozoxrggs ort sxaterd ststes poet 2 sow, “‘wiasabala edt granada»
titsoB BO~POBE ts Hetsool ysreqorq ad? to axomwo edt .etanb oat
wootq dives titatela edt vent betaguerqes bas sogeotde atoonse svete
boizeq 9 tok sonineng edt tol tmanst a ae Yasqmod AAP HOS Pah bs
baeqxe ainahastsh edt tad? soltiiace edt aoqy seteey ¢ 2
edt aid? .ytuegetg sit no gathlindg edt satiate 0004084
a ttltatel edt yd botaoguse saw th bas, ob stom nen, PAA
tied Bivew edw bavot ed bivoo tanaet teddoas tad ovd tetao
etaanet~due Pay yasqmod itxowLeow «¥ .4 oft salen
ettiaw 9 ,@80r (BE YeavTdet ao ytlineox « af Bal cheno .
3
agreement was entered into with the defendants and one Gomberg, an
employee of the plaintiff company, providing for a ninety-nine year
lease from the defendants to the Bethlehem Engineering Corporation
"now being organized,* The Bethlehem Engineering Corporation was
incorporated on Mareh 4, 1929, and a lease for the premises was
entered into and signed by the parties, the date of which appears
as February 35, 1929, and is acknowledged by the parties before a
notary public as signed and sealed on March 9, 1929.
The lease provides for the payment to the plaintiff as
commission the sum of 95,000, and by amendment this sum was to be
paid by the Bethlehem Engineering Corporation by deducting from the
monthly rental a sum equal to $66.66 on the first day of March, 1929,
and monthly thereafter, and on the lst day of September, 1934, {500
was to be paid, and the further sum of #500 on the first day of March,
1935,
The tenant was in possession of the premises for a period
of six or seven months, and during that period of time this tenant
deducted from the monthly rental due under the lease the installments
which were to be deducted and paid to the plaintiff, which amounted
to $406.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff's right to
recever depends upon the written lease entered into between the
defendants and the Bethlehem Engineering Corporation.
The plaintiff had a certain duty to perform when acting
ag the agent of the defendants, and as such agent its attitude should
be for the best interest of ite principal, and the plaintiff should
be frank in the negotiations which proceed the execution of a lease
by Ute principal and the defendants. The negotiations finally
resulted in the execution of a preliminary agreement for a lease with
the defendants to be executed by the Bethlehem Engineering Corporation,
’ PT TMD Ue BIT Huh
, v ny i A
‘8
#2 ggrtedmen ono bre etnahasted sft atiw otat bers tns Bex, tromestge
taey sain-ytenin « tot pa kbivorg «VALS. AOD Vitale exit to esyolqne
moktereqro® saitseoniend medeldited ont ot etashaetsd out mort seselt
eee solterogro) yatteontynl medoldtec ed? Nebostnsyro gated mag?
, eaw eoptmetq oft cot gasel s bas .G8CL .A Apsall mo botaroqroont
erscque dotdy to oteh odt ,eeltreq oft yd bengie bas otal betotas
_ & erpted sekizsg odd yd begdeivemion at bas .C8CL ,cS yreaumdel se
% «8261 .@ dorsi ac befsee bas bengie en otiduq yrstea
Bs miutntela odd of snomysg Od? rok eabivord easel OAT on oy n
ed of esw mye eid? taembaoms Ww bate 4000438, to owe dt. fala
out moxt gaitoubed yd no itexeqrot palzosnignd medeldtod. oat. Yo Bhag
aynes fore to ysh tetit edt ao 88.80) ot Lewps ave iatnes ylctmom 4
ona PECL ,rodmetgsé to web dal edt mo bats eroditsatedt yfdtagm bas
sore to ysh textt odd mo 0084 to aug redéiut edt bas ,bdisq o¢ ot ase
ti. tes Ls setter FRE
botrog 8 rok sen kaere edt to mabapesen. at sow tances oat. srreanitete
themed gids eult to Softeq test gattuh bas, _seditqos novos to xia. to
aénoniLetent edt eessl ont rebay oub istaer \iddnom edt moxt betowheb
detavoms do few sti dtaiatly out ot afer bas beroubed ed of esew dotdy
oh RAR EM (AOORS of
ot digs alititatelg add ted? baetsaos staabaateb nt °
“eat Acowted otat bexetas oesel settixy edt sogu ebaeaeh xovoust,
mostetoqToo gattoontanl medeldted edt das atmabaareh
" gattos nore mrotieg ot yiub mteireo # bad tRhtatele MAT nwt
biuorts sbutitie et taega dove as One sstastiaoteb oat te tagga ad, *
bivode ‘ahitatete ent bas epg tonteg att to tnoretat teed oat $02 od
esis & to mo kis06x0 ont Aeecorg doide oqo teateages oat ot —
ileal? ‘onotteitoyea edt “qetasbustee » edt bas. faq tanh )
sit iw ovseL ® tot fuoasosge vreminttorg & fo qostqoorn Oh) Pee
so #snoqr00 gatroen ba node ldvoe ode AS vosooxe . ot ataabiat
een, ELA
3
not then in existence, The Company was finally organized under the
laws of fhe State of Illinois, At the time the lease was executed
its capital stock was fixed at $1,000. Aside from the question of
the date of the instrument and whether false representations were
made, it is rather startling, in view of its sapital stock, that
this Bngineering Corporation umertook to assume the liability
provided for in the 99 year lease, This lease provided for a
total payment of $628,600. It is worthy of note that the real estate
agent was to be paid a commission five times as large as the capital
of the Bethlehem Engineering Corporation, the tenant produced by the
plaintiff.
The evidence would indicate thet the plaintiff did not,
as the agent of the defendants, produce a tenant who was able to
assume and perform the obligations of this lease, by reason of the
fact that the lessee was in possession of the premises for only
seven months and then abandoned the property. The answer of the
plaintiff is that as it was not a party to the lease, and therefore
not in privity with the parties, it is entitled to receive the amount
sued for as commission.
This involves the question whether the plaintiff, nots
party thereto, is bound by the provision of the lease that fixes the
payment of the plaintiff's commission. fhe plaintiff prepared not
only the preliminary agreement, but also the lease and the amendment
thereto, which provides the plan for payment of the commission. The
first draft provided that the defendants execute judgment notes,
payable te the plaintiff at several different maturities. This the
defendants declined to do, and finally the amendment providing for
payment was prepared by the plaintife, which is as follows:
"It is further understood and agreed that, instead of the
provision made in Paragraph 10 of Article III of said
é
ede vebntr Béclmegro yEfertt eew yneqmo® off .odmetetxe ai aedt ton
‘Petuesxe” kew Secel Odt emid edt SA -ekOok lil te etnde oily tO" evel
te nolteeue etd Moxt SbLeA .000,19 #2 boxtt vaw spots ‘Lablgnt ard
Stew Agoltetnessrqet enter redtedw bas taeuvetent edt Xo stab sad
tadt pfoete Iotiqes ett to welv ak yumbiscote codter el 82 (obs
-"PELEGSLL odd muons of Moottehay mohtoroyzed grtreeatgn® alk?
§ Tot bebtvory oesel eldT soeesl seey 6 ont at 16% Heb ivoety
stadn® Inox odd tad? eton to wittow ai #1 008.8868 To thomyng ator
Intiqéo edt ee oytel es semit evit soteetmmod # bisq ed ot saw tnegs
ost w heaubore taanet edt ansehen pereetiapent nodeldted oat to
cast OAs it oe | tkitetete
* ,gomt bth Wtidmtelq edt tant oteotbat Binow somebive edt ©!
geeks ebw eit’ tnanbs W eonboty’ dtalbhersh sree a
$id Yo mowaee YW yoanel wtdt to ehoktsghide ott meotreq bas Sates
vino ot eseltmerq eft to solersesoq ai asw oeenel eat tect douk
So gdé Yo 'nowsme OST .ytroqora Ont Bémobueds abit bas eitnom moves
eroteredd bus joes! odt ot Yiraq & fon wow Of ba tof Ot TEHbely
turons sd9 Svbobot of beLtieKe ex He \eetrrog bat dttw wtvicd' at ton
atittaiele tg Fee tino” ais teX bee
avon ,itituiasl, edt «9edtedw solainanp edt eevloval eicT se a
‘oud woxtt sedt sacel odd to moLelvony edt yt bawed et! eotereds yrreq
tom boreqetq Tittaiely edt .moteakmnoe elitientety sat Yo eeunced
tnembaome edt baa eaeOL edt oaks tod Ytasmosrge” | Pe
edt tOLeptiwod edd to taamyeq tot mal exit ceria ;
.sbtom twongbirt Steers ainabsotob eit todd beblvotq Herb terkt
oft bist .eottinvtan taowsRttb Lenevbe fe tttinhalg oft of oldiyhy
“get gatbivots faembaowa ot item i Balt ob of beagraiecs capcom |
yiwe chet ae ea sto acter eittinksiq edt « 1
owe to beetunt .tedt ag 9 bas "i
Bise to Tit “eLoitza to OL carn oh
identure of lease for the payment of certain commissions
to farnham—Kuhn Company, the parties hereto agree and
the parties of the gimet part hereby authorize the party
of the second part to deduct from the monthly rent to be
paid by them to the parties of the first part a sum eaual
to the respective notes intended to be given as and for
commissions and to turn the same over to Farnham-Kuhn for
ahd on account of said commissions, the parties of the
first part agreeing to accept from the party of the second
part as rent for the ssid respective months the difference
between the amount reserved in the said lesee and the amount
deducted for commissions as aforesaid."
and clearly indicates the manner in which the commission was to be
paid.
The fact that the plaintiff did not join in the execution
of the lease does not relieve it from the terms of the amendment
prepared by its President, and defendents' ~approvale of the several
payments made to the plaintiff by the Engineering Company, The
plaintiff, having accepted performance under the terms of the lease
with knowledge that the commission in question was to be paid, will
be bound by the terms, notwithstanding plaintiff did not join in the
execution of the lease, Lindeman v. Yagner, st al, 67 Ill. App. 134,
Thompson v. Dearborn, et al, 107 Ill. 87; Also where a person for a
valuable consideration makes 2 promise to another for the benefit of
& third persen, such third person may maintain an action on such
promise, even where there is no consideration moving from the third
party. Qlson, et al. v. Ostby, 178 Ill. App» 165; Clinton do, v.
Stiles, 197 Ill. Apps 505. This rule applies where the agreement is
entered into upon a considération by one to pay the debts of the
other, It is not necessary to name the creditor in the agreement,
and the creditor may maintain an action to recover under the terms
per Go. vs Seaman, 39 Ill,
ApPe 68. This rule also applies to agreements to pay or to assume
of such an agreement,
debts of others, and such agreements may be enf@roed by the person
benefited.
a ) ee
ste ieh aati whit‘ aan et uaa
wa aie eA ear NL
Leune mara © dusq tarit off to eeltrag ef nes
tot bee as asvig 6d of bobastai ney “aviaoae "
sia _itleid tg eelizoq odf. venoleeinmos Bie bise "Fo "ih Sehe asoieainace —_
Consent tb tip edd eae Leiieecele Baa vats on tanz od Fea uae:
tauona eat bag egsel bise edt at fevseacs davams. add wlity
",Siseorots os anokeaiamoo tot be Se
od o@ baw noivelmmoo odd doltdw di totnem odt wsteolbal eebaaia ‘bas
' ae tae ~yblaq
nines edt at atot tom bib 2tinksle, ost tests toa ae
_.. Sembaeme edt Yo surat edt mort ti evetior ton geah 9anet ett Rp
Lavevse sdt to ofavosqqe, ‘atasineteb ban ,saebteerl sti tera
sit .yasqmod gutreentgad edt yd Ttitaielg edt of shan etmomyag
seat eit to emzot ect rebasy eoaeutot Teg hetqeoos gaived sh ttatade ;
LLin..bieq of of aow aotteonp at moleainmon odt tedt egbetword Attw
odd at alot tom bth Yrktately gatbartedsintom ,emrot sdt vd baued ad
PEL wqad StI TA ofa te .xomusll »v mamebahi easel edt to mottuoexe
& tot mostag # eresiw oad (TS fll TOL .io te .uzodsaed «¥ gozameds
Ro dtttemed gut 20% todions of eatmorg 2 aedem nottstebleqoa eidantey
soua ao moitos as aistalaa ys noeteq brid? dove ,nouteq bakit =
buld? odd most gatvom coltsteblesee on ei oredt etodw aeve ,saimorg
- o¥ 200 wotedlo 42al aqgA «fh BTL qydtad «7 date .teeiD «¥traq
et tasmeorgs edt exoie aetiqas sivx eisT 803 eqgA LLL T8L cote
git to etdeb edt yeq ot ego yd motitezebiance « soqu otal hoxetas
_qtnemodage od? st rot there edt auan of yregnenen ton.et #E «zedto
auzed odd tebay tevooet ot soitoa as gisiniaw yam totibhsro ed¢ bas
CIT @S gameod v.92 290% tucdote-noemetLiti ,»tasmserge me dome to
saveas ot 19 Yeq ot einomeetge of wotiqgs gals else ait «89 «GGA
mene edt yd booxGtae od yen meen Moe sinligt B cad
spaiene
ad sham, os sdalvorg
In construing this provision, the court will try to place
itself in the position of the parties at the time the agreement was
made, in order to arrive at the intention of the parties at the time
the provision for the payment of the commission was considered,
It appears that the defendants objected to this provision
for the execution of judgment notes by the defendants, and as a
result another provision was inserted, from which it is evident that
the commission was to be paid from the rents received from the
Engineering Corporation until the amount was satisfied, which
company was empowered to make a payment each month as the rent matured,
We have considered all the objections raised, and are of
the opinion that the court erred in finding for the plaintiff and in
entering judgment for the amount appesled from, The judgment is
accordingly reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CONCGUR,
=
ca
;
eoelg of hod Site TyOo oat smote tvo sy eLisd yakers gree ok
4h “ 9 aay ity ow
aaw taweosge out emake act és estiesg ner to nottteer ore nt Leet
omit odt te nesong: ait to no kinetak ot “te overs oF 8bx0' al» oben
sbonbbeaoo vow wofoniasos. exit te swenysr od? wot nodatvona odt
aotetvorg ‘elsiy ot betosiee etaeiasteb add tet re = Bay
a 82 bate vstanbasteb edt 4s soton twenpeut, to pereeeer oe
ted? tnebive ai #2 Molsdw moxt -bottoamt sew nodeivory wodtente ¢iveor
odd mext berteoor ataor edt mort bkaq ed of eax molebtamoo bay
2 tae doide ,hettehisa een tavoms edd Ltda ao ttsteqrod patrocnigen
bomutin tuex ad? ae demon soe cart Hert eee eS
; te ote ae eae eacttoetée ed? Ls bexebtenoo ¢
Hag
3B eat qh Phi ox
an nae ae tee ee)
edobasasx eanieo ‘edt bas Dostover
Sete iE Roseensnnee Aly daril Ci
‘CHCA co C¥ARRVER
ont 2 bel 8 tawous eat ot te ust. ce ne
a naesbut ‘ston noaqe crear
cits OL ha ceed 10 it anand
Oy weeny eR | OP etd 2) AOR Bo fe ke othe 2 LaSanenLacr
Biovasigy |e i ot Obes yor Sota BEG AOU) eee foe ka oR
Pre Boee pate wae ty sai Romie ae ak ena Do cee eR hace ee See. .tedworg
ee eee ae ee
Wis ot co agate Be Fi Ne a gn ty ee Ra: woe i Ree ’ 80 athe, © bediike Wat cerverey
NASP ETBES Ge & SA Pah, poe
eet ie teks RI re ; ae ty) 77S At Ss SNE es Seen | MS Bakr pare as y
k's At Ree ME eA Mer a oI Ma we ee ae ay hee TNA te, BE *. arate
pS Mae Saat, ee a De MSD be made aR es me es enee eat hee
aa hes ee a flioy egal 7 ae La i eel ee = 9mm £8 np Fd ree eisai ee i Ane, ae wh 4
/
y é ra , vd,
/ pygt Pal fo ;
37606 vA be /' | |
PICTORIAL PAPER PACKAGE CORPORATION, \ WRIT OF ERROR L7] f
Defendant in Error :
; TO MUNICIPAL copRt
NATIONAL MINERAL COMPANY, OF CHICAGO.
6p i ¢ 7, A ge ~ Zz
Plaintiff in Error, 2 6 8) LA. O 4. if
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is a writ of error issued at the reauest of the
defendant to review the record in the Municipal Court of Chicago,
wherein the court at the close of the evidence directed the jury to
return a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $525.15. Upon
this verdict the court entered judgment. fhe action by the plaintiff
against the defendant was for goods manufactured upon a contract
between the plaintiff and the defendant, and delivery refused by
the defendant, to the demage of the plaintiff,
The defendant filed an affidavit of merits under oath,
and substantially denied that the goods were manufactured according
to the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and averred
that the contract was cancelled by the defendant for the unused
merchandise, by reason of failure of the plaintiff to manufacture and
deliver the boxes according to the agreement between the parties, and
that the defendant was damaged in the sum of $1,000, for which the
defendant is entitled to recover from the plaintiff.
Upon the issues thus formed, the plaintiff offered evidence
established by witnesses, and introduced exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,
5 and 6, and the defendant submitted its evidence,
The evidence is substantially that the plaintiff was
engaged in the manufacture of paper cartons, boxes and containers;
that a salesman of the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant,
called in regard to the manufacture by the plaintiff for the defendant
\ ~ : \ |
.\ \ | f . me, ‘ | Boars
‘ iN AOKAL 40 FLAW | <mobraiosigo SoARDAS aguas AaTHOTORG '
: z t i
rites dhexona oe Joon SORRENTO ck ohm:
Re RR ey ne Hane gamaTK TANOT TAM
7 hs e) whi, A. e » ne etotid at Seheaee. Sl aaah“
redchhon et Ieewy
»TRYOO EHE ¥O KOLUIAO aK? danaV Lia J9G3H ORTEUL ourareans “A
edt to treupet oat ts beweel torte to titw s ei and? : ti
| sogeozd0 to tav00 Lsqto taut ed? at breget ent wotver of ‘taobasteb_
et ‘Yay edt betoor ib sonebive anit to evote od? te sx00 odt alee
| moa BL.888$ to sue edt at itatala oat t0% tolbrey 8 meyter
veisntera edt yd mottos of? .taemyhurt boro ine tr00 ont tptbrey ete
tozTtH00 8 Mogu betutostuasa shoog tot ase tnebaeteb ont teategs Y
yo beavter yrevileb bus ,tashmoteb est bas tiitalslg edt ssewsed
ettivaiciq eft to egemsh od of ,tasbaoteb edt
qiiteo tebay atizem to ¢ivabitie me belt tasbieteb enT 6
gitirooos berutostunsn erew ebooy odd tent belash yListiastedse bas
berreve bas ,tnshasteb odd bas Ytitetslq edt neowted tmomeerys odd of
_—« Bewuaw est rot tasbaeteb sat yt belisonso eew toarémoo edt tadé
bas stutestunsn of Tritmisiq edt to @mwList to moeser YS .satbusdotem
bas ,aoittaq edt moewted taemeetga edt of gatbrooos sexod edt reviled
ond dotsw sot ,000,12 to awe odt at begeneb asw tasbasteb edt tadd
eltitelelg edd mort tevooor o¢ boltitas ef tashaeteb
soaehive heretto Thiteiela edt ,bemret eudt eeusel edt moql a
ad gS gS gf .a0W ebididzs booubotini bas ,voesentin yd bodelidetae
sconsbive gti bettindve tnebaeteb edt bas .8 bas 3
sew thitatelq edt todt YLlettustedve et eomebive edt
jatonisiaos Dae sexod ,enotceo teqaq to e1vtosluase edt abt asgae
,tasbaeteb ett to teeypor edt te ,.ititaialg edt to nemesiee & te aig
tushastod odt tot ttitntelg odd yS oxmtostwnen oft ot bregot at bolls
2
of a paper display box, in which to display face powder, face cream
and other cosmetics. Samples were submitted by the plaintiff to
the defendant, and finally resulted in an agreement between them for
the manufacture of the paper display box. The defendant mailed to
the plaintiff a signed order, All of the boxes were manufactured by
the plaintiff, and one-half of the boxes were deliveréd to and
received by the defendant. The balance of the order, the defendant
refused to accept, on the ground that the boxes were not suitkble
for the purpose intended; that the plaintiff by its agent, in the
manufacture of the boxes, warranted that they would be suitable for
the shipment of goods by parcel post, express, or as freight to be
carried by public carriers; that goods were shipped in the cartons
and were damaged when recéived at the places designated.
The defendant's theory of defense is that the contract in
question was not a complete and final statement of the transaction,
and that parol evidence was competent to establish the agreement
entered into between the parties. It is unfortunate that the
defendant did not abstract the record, so thet this court could have
before it not only the evidence introduced and offered at the trial,
but also the exhibits,
As @ part of the evidence the plaintiff offered a number
of exhibits, already referred to, some of which are relied upon by
the plaintiff to establish a written agreement between the litigants
for the manufacture of the display boxes in question,
We have examined the abstract for the purpose of consider-—
ing the exhibits, together with the evidence, for the purpose of
determining whether a written contract was entered into, but unfortun-
ately the exhibits, which are importaht in the consideration of this
question, were not abstracted. The fault with the abstract is that
this court is unable from the abstract itself to determine the
oA Ms de
‘8
msec Soest ,rObwoq soet yelgatb:ot dotidw at .xod yelqeth reqaq a to
ot Ytitelela eft yd bettindys erow eelqme® .eottemsoo tedto bas
xot medt seowted tnemeerge me at betivact ¥Llenit bas ,tnabasteb edt
ot belisn tasbasted oT .xod yslqeib reqaq sft to eeutostunan’ ent
wW betueetucen oxow eoxod-edt to LL4 stebto hengle # Yhitatelg edt
bas of batovileh exew asxod sdt to tisd-sao base ,ttitalsiq odt
‘Paebsoteb ext ,rebro ont to eoasled oaY .tiebasteb eat yo beviooes
sidwtiue tom erew sexod eM tons bavoryg eft mo ,tqe00e ot boastex
wid BE yteoge ett yo TrLdabely ot tat jdobnetat’ sacquug edd OT
xOt Oldstive 8d bivow yet tit botnstrew .wexod ot to orstostunem
od OF tdgtett es ro yeeerqxe yteog Lsotsq YE aboog to tasmqiite odd
\\Phetaso edd nt Boatide ovew ehoog todd jeteittso obidug’ ye besrred
sbotargipeb esocle edt te Devisoor mode begemkb etow baa
ni tostimoo Od? tédd #2 vaste to yroodt e'tasbasteb edt © °°”
| (gottoseneatt edt to taamotste Laffit bas otefqmon s ton téw dotteeup
dromporgs edt dalidstes ot tnetogmoo wesw Sdnebive “foteq tadt bas
edt tedd otenwtrotay ef @T wmettreg odd neewted otal bstotnd
“erat Biuoe treo eid dads o8 ~htdeet odd toerdade son BEB thabaetes
eamel edt te borstto bre beoubortal sonobive edd yino tom th oroted
be et Setidtaxe edd oete dud
pedeiot 6 betetto Yt ttalele eat eondbive odd te #xbq's ak” TO”
¢¢ noc better “ork soidw to omoe (ot bartetor Ybserls padtdidxe “to
stneptess edt aoeuted duomestys aottinw # delidetdd ‘ot Ytteakaty edt
ssottesuo ak eexod yelqetb edt t6- tetiteliGllen. edt ~
-robiantos to eadered oft tor toetdadé od? bontudxe svad Seyret tive
to seoqreg edt rot ,esnedive odd ‘tiv todtegot abl al a
-wirotad dud ,otat betedas asw toertiod nedtinw » todo: “gatateretob
aidd Yo doiterebiedos edd ni distcoqmt os ‘olde ‘etididiee edt yLede
tate ei fyoerteds odd dtiw tiner si? sHetdsrteds ton’ heuslicgeieond
"gad calintoten ‘of Vteat? Hattie edt mot? “otdaat Witsoe "etdt
3
eharacter of the contract, as to whether ss a contract it was
complete in itself, and whether the trial court was justified in
refusing to receive parol eviderce, the efvect of which would tend
to contradict the contract entered into between the parties,
The defendant does not seriously contend that the abstract
is complete so thet the court could properly pass upon the question
involved, but suggests that if the plaintiff had relied only upon a
written order of the defendant, which is an exhibit in the case, a
different situation would apply, and that the trial court weuld have
been justified in its ruling, but the unfortunate feature of this
ease is that even that exhibit is not abstracted. The defendant seems
to have determined what wes proper to be considered by this court when
it prepared the abstract of record. This court should heve before it
the fects fairly abstracted so that the court could determine from
the record the question whether the court erred in refusing to
admit evidence offered by the defendant 2s to what the contract really
was. This court, as well ss the Supreme Court of this State, has
eonsidered the effeet of the failure to file a proper abstract, and
the expression of the court in its opinion upon this question in the
ease of Sali v» Deutsch, 178 Ill, App. 633 is as follows:
“ * * *: nor are any of the several written instruments
introduced in evidence abstracted, We fail to appreciate
the opportunity of deing the work devolving upon counsel,
and are not disposed to search the record for the informa-
ide thet = cons dg should have furnished in the
abstract, In Thornton v. Muys, 120 Ill. App. 433, the
court cites many authorities in support of the rule there
announced to the effect thet where an appellant furnishes
an incomplete abstract, in Wiolation of the ruke, it is not
the duty of the court to search the record for reversible
error, There are many other authorities to the same effect,
and from what appears of the ease at bar in the abstract,
we have no inclination to hesitate in the enforcement of
the rule,"
It is also the rule that where a fair effort is made to
comply with the rule that the abstract shall fully present the error
relied upon sufficient for the purpose intended, although defective
z
ery oi toatinoo « as tedtedw ot as qtoputitoe ont To: radonTahp
ai boititeut sew txysoo Isiudt ont tonlteds bas. ,? Leet ab etefampo
beet bivow deide to testts edt ,serebive Lorsq svtecer od ghtevtet
steitreq oft ceewted otal herotcra doartnoo edt: sotbertnono ot
dactads eft tect Baotwom ylawoltes ton. eeob thebusteb BAT os). sie
goltsetm edd moqu seeq yYLroqerq blvoo ¢cvom ont tend oe. otelqmoood?
w noo Ylno beiier bet ttitmiedg odd Tl tent eteoggue tud’ ,bovlovnt
3.9885 oft af tédidxe a2 ei doite ytashaeteb ed? to tebao aettiaw
eved Sinow trawo Ietrt off tedt bas .ylqqe blvow moltemtte taerereed
‘ ea to orstest stenwiolay acd tud .oetior ett mt bertitent mod
moo deebastbeP etl .bogortieds ton al Peehdxe! gale hove tate et obao
oe Gtboe Rtde xe ‘DereBdence og be xeqota Rew txdw> beabienibeh braceh
tt eroted oved bivode trvoo eid? .brooer te tostteds ent Deraqeng’ tt
(Mott entterotob hives tres edd tadt oe betosnteds Ylrket atost ext
| et gneve mt herrs itvod eift redéete molteeup ent roost bat
(ifser tostieo edt tode of em tashasteb oft yo herelto somsbive:'ttmbs
geet pated eidt te drved omeren? oft es Chow ee qtuioo! ald? yeew
bas ~foettads teqots s elit of orvlict ent te tootte edt berebianos
eet nt sotteoup ets soon cotmkqe e¢i at tivdo edt To molseeaqxe: Ode
sevoltot os ef S88 .oqA eLIT OTL coed a pepdetis® to) ened
ie etnomuttanl nedticw Isveves edt to wax ote mem yf)? * 9
_ atete reas o¢ List of sbetosrtads omeiye ai beoubortat
,isaated ogy yakvieveb drew adt guieb to Orne eer cen t?
~emotnd ont sot broner asl p Prcerol gs oF besoqash ton '
add at bedelmw?t eved biuorda yoyo 9 ede rata edt
add PEt sane oil Ost WO GEEOE at ds ‘
erent oluaw ett to Moqewa mr aoldine yg om ais. nek
eenaiatet taell 598. .s bier ols pe footie ent ot 7
iia? Ce t brooer back “oh ime @ 9d ' ‘odd
® STSVOT TO) °6 o
,ootts once ont ot conn oft cent pap Be np thon
tosttads oat ai tad B 8830 out ta ee eno ?
“to dneneonobh® Sat ni etedteed of motient ian ga gyno
ue
ee ave : ee ae | eee, ont ye cinge
ag ‘ot obs et dxorts heh 2 9xede toe elie co a
i Ne ae % Si
morse | esté taseeng yilut Lede foortads oud ted eiwe oat 15 iol ganas
7 j - evdoeten tgsr0 dt Le _bebastin pein edt tot tne test tam moa botior a f
‘Hird 4
4
in some particulars, the abstract is accepted as sufficient for the
purposes intended, and if for any reason opposing counsel is not
satisfied, he may file an additional abstract of the record. The
Supreme Court in the case of Hickox v. Gi ringfield, 208 Ill.
28, Clearly set forth the duty of the parties in filing an abstract
of the record, and said:
"Thige right of the opposing counsel, hewever, has never
been construed to justify the filing of an abstract which
does not pretend to comply with rule 14, and thereby compel
the other party to do what the appellant or plaintiff in
error should have done. As we said in Gibler v. Gity of
ah 167 Ill. 18, ‘it is not our duty to perform this
work of counsel, which, in detail, as to them is incon-
siderable, but when imposed upon us is, in the aggregate,
extremely burdensome, '"
The defendant having failed to properly abstract the
record, and this court not being in a position to determine whether
the complaint of the defendant is justified, the court will be obliged
to assume that the trial court had before it all of the evidence,
and that ites ruling, based upon the evidence was proper, The
judgment accordingly will be affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. /
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. concur,
fy
*
edt rot tuetolitive es hetqsoos af toatiuds od? ,oxsivoitrag amore al
ton ai feanuop gatsoqqo measet yas tok tL das ,bebsetal seeoqreq
98% . »bigeet eft to, tostteds Lsaotiibbs ag, 2%. Yeu! oct .bottatisa
+41 808 ,higtiuniae® 2e yeiO vy xedell to ease edt ai true) emeraue
,festteds me goills at astéraq edt to ytub | out Atzot toe ytxeelo .&8
missense _— ... bhsa bas ,brovex edt to
b cong ther as ft t0' 3 guetre yee
"- See wot: it) pha va
mara" part es sR hth ae <oidexshie
me rio ok ot PT FORE vik
oak — toetteds. aaa ot holier gaived ¢aobueteb off, | shat
| tedtedw saimcotsb ot aofstsog » af gated, ton taxo0 edst bua, sbxooer
egkide od LLiw fruon oct, .bettiveu, pi saepasteb edt to futalgmoo oat
.soapbive odd to Lie tt sxoted bad trues Latnt edt tadd, pmyaes oF
Hoe eR, «COR, BOM, SORDRRED. Pe SNM aiapuriei eirort
nae’ econ se AE NREETA THT, i ant Im tee tte ame Sabebrenth:
Tare Oa T * TOLeeawhy re wine
eas Do Gee: eee wie se
triads woeehiive as ietuebo cd ad i
OF weitie Be eee: ore Le a
9 aor. ay Boeywed ¢ on big, Tau ee
" ‘ead ect Sees, ir
§ tot; “ul a.fhetiads
a Yrs SP Le | Peres
fev re aot of Denes
Morden erateweoags ox
a? dovenn of Peder edt Fe yeeo eee
Bins to Vie Go Se Oe
cf to @teecen Setw Mott tae
r etabituces £ Oia Ree aia: ar
4 alit walt
+ g teerte ~ies & SOM f¢ aloe eit data ef 22
at feds elew oat ait be eau fi
weisvowros ex (ot ; baptiré gepyrecigy mit ser. Ses OS tae wo ’
37616 é
JEAN S, GHARY, as Assignee, Vf
Plaintatt-sppeliée, - ints
Ve
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA
COMPANY, a Corporation,
OF CHICAGO /
i ‘
26 Oe 6A
Defendant=-ppellant.
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE
COURT.
Plaintiff's action in the Municipal Court of Chicago
against the defendant was on an alleged contract. After a he ring,
without a jury, the court entersd judgment for the plaintiff and
against the defendant for $1,440, from which the defendant proseoutes
this appeal,
Plaintiff's amended statement of claim alleges that the
defendant, on March 7, 1931, entered into an agreement with the
Foreman-State Trust and Savings Wank as receiver, whereby the defene
dant agreed to enter into a lease for certain premises located at
$309 West Madison Street, Chiesgo, Illinois, for a period of one
year, commencing May 1, 1931, and ending April 90, 19352, at a monthly
rental of $125; that the defendant refused to execute a lease, to
the damage of the Foreman-State Trust and “avings Sank in the sum of
$1,500; that thereafter the plaintiff by assignment became the
owner of the claim of the Foreman-State Trust and Savings Bank
against the defendant.
The defendant filed its affidavit of merits, denying any
contract was entered into by and between the defendant and the
plaintiff's assignor for the execution of a lease for the premises.
The facts were stipulated, in substance, as follows:
f
\ YS. \ ¢ arave
‘~ hy \ ,9emgieas as TAs 12 Wat
a NORT toaai—tssabalt | tray, anayey Re
ry > *uwva Lona ge Renn wh peagamtivg
ihe AALS TO.
“aa oriroat 4 orraaand ‘phaehe aete
oo qtebtoraq 70d. eTANNRD
YEO hal -Q3 ry ian sesteaiaaiaaiaaaal yiroade “a8
ht ‘ ont »
aH * ag ae naeeiboee’ tai sou ag 2 9 i
hh ett ino, 0¢ “heed pose ses rapper |
| eo te fused Leah han ot ‘ad ‘noltos alt btateld ee
epainass ofA atouninoo egelis as a6 ao inca :
bole Pkdint ose edt 10% ‘daomy bart b rode, demon ade y <
“asdwosaosa faahaeked eit datde sox ,Obdelt xa, eaten ts en
lt tach weneiie tele. e nonstate bebasn, alititatelt
Rit dtihe Ameas ones as ott i at a
| Hactes edt ydetads ,tevienes, as Anat At woh MR fm: acai 3 . 4
te betreol soainerg sintteo tok easel. otekyned OTB AAR
ago ko bekten s col yahomtILl ,ogsatdd toord? oni a
Udtnom 6 ts SU2L ,06 Lind gathoe bags Leek ,f ye sa.tons
ot easel 8 stunexe of Seawten tusbaokeb mat tadt _ 4a 7
Se dere Ott eh Ree Rani! tee, PeNret of et? —mamoto% edd 2 ,
odd caroed taomngtaas yd thitatelq ont petteoredt ei ’
tun agehval bas dase? tat t-nemerot oe to aero “
Yas gatyoob ,ativem to tivebitte att bottt tnsbasteb ;
«edt bas tasbastebh edt moowied bas yd otat ersdao 0
ai anasto edt sot sesef # to cottuoexe oft x0? soquten
he mead a5 eonsgecua, oe - bosoluntts o1ew ston
35. Si ei
"That the “oreman State Trust & Savings Bank, as
Receiver, assigned its claim against the defendant to
the Plaintiff on Januery 27th, 1935, by an instrument
in writing and that Joseph B. Ford, a2 successor-
receiver, assigned his claim againgt the defendant, to
the plaintiff on January 14th, 1955, by an instrument in
writing, pursuant to the terms of an order entered’m the
Superior Court of Sook County, Illinois.
That the defendsnt occupied a store Located at 3309 W,
Madison “treet ag a tenant of the foreman State Trust
& Savings Bank, as Receiver from the lst day of May, 1930,
to and including April 30th, 1931,
That on February 85th, 1931, the defendant wrote the
Foreman State Truat & Savings Bank, enclosing unsigned
originel and duplicate copies of a renewal lease for
seid premises for.one (1) year commencing May 1, 1931,
at a monthly rental of $125.00, and requested the said
Foreman State Trust & “avings Bank to have both copies
properly signed and returned to the defendant at its
earliest copvenience,
That on March 2, 1931, the Foreman State Trust & Savings
Bank forwarded the leases to its attorney, Harry Perel,
and requested him to procure the necessary court authority
to execute the same.
That on Merch 6, 1931, the Foreman State Trust & Savings
Bonk, ag receiver, was authorized to execute said leases
an order entered in the “uperior Court of Cook County
in a certain cause then pending.
That on March 7, 1931, at the homr of 10:30 A. &., the
Yareman State Trust & Savings Bank, having executed the
said leages, pleced the same properly stamped, in the U. °%,
Mail, addressed to the defend=nt, and;
That on March 7, 1931, at the hour of 1:30 F. li. the
Gefendent deposited in the U. %. Mail, a letter addressed
to the Foreman State Trust & Savings Bank, as Receiver,
withdrawing itesaffer to accept said lease and notifying
the plaintiff that it did not intend to renew its lease
after the expiration of the then present term on April
30, L9s1, which letter was received by the Foreman State
Trust & Savings Uank as Receiver on March 9, 1931; that
this letter was written to the Foreman State Trust & Savings
Bank by the defendant without ite having any notice of the
entry of the court order or the execution of the lease by
the Foreman State Trust & Savings Bank and the deposit of
the same in the mails to the defendant.
Theat the defendant on “pril 30, 1931, addressed a letter
to the plaintiff enclosing keys for said premises and
advising that it had vaeated the same."
This stipulation between the parties was in lieu of evidence to.
be offered by either ef the parties appearing in the above
a eaentnetiiaalanens sisinean ne
aa ,duetl egntve® 4 tayzl otet? mamoto! edt soaten®
ot tasbas ie edt temicgs maielo ati bengieas , ers
taomrfemt its “ ~ebOk ,dtVS. yramiet ao thboa,
~Xosaso0ge brot .o aot tact bas gattiaw ak
ot backan'eh od? tintepa miele ald hengiacs ,zevieoss
at Sromurn tent me yd ,SéOL ,dteL yrounel co ttitatsiq edt
eat mberetme tsehro xe to amiot edd o¢ — gaitiqaw
eatomiiIl ,ytmroo doo to ¢ o 1
«4 G086 te betseol etoda 2 betawoge senenteh, one
0 ge ,. oop edt zt tasme? 6 as ponte 108
| 9 tel oft .moz a8)
, — fer pe Linga siitetent bas of
eit stow ¢asbaoteb oft ,f8CL ,dtas mo ¢
bomgtuas gateofous ,stiisd agutvs®'S Saunt atest ~ 4
iat on fevenet s te aeicoo etsol bas
ysl gatonsamoo ueey (Lf) sao-r0et seatmetq
Fat bespase fel eae oA ar aes
atk ts taabae tab eat ot wtot bas 4! +
ae ; ~ TP
epaive® & torr? state ort odt , ters eat eh
feret watotts atl of asasel of
ytetodéus bd YtemRe Dost edt eusoot¢ of
ngaives & temrT sist asmorot edt ,f6@L ,3 no E as a
geasel bisa. Sots eee
Yeiaved 009 to trod Rg enn 7 | ad pouetae | TOTO | “0 rs
moh edt go% . «A O82OL to ago ont FB "
edi rape naoived ,Anesh a 28 & hh
‘ i ott
8 ot odt ah ,hoquate ylregetq:
‘ F youn atnsbaoteo add of 6
“odd oii © dul to ced eat
_ berasibbhe xetiel 2 ne Sa eat Eb 7
~teviooeh as deal patos ’ vane? ha ll :
» Babytiton baa oaael,
Sasol atl wenet of bao at ton | vy: ts
ent bo
fives co wrest
etet? mame rot vor d bevteo al sete! foLdw
\) teh PEA ~@ dots co |
ayaives & text State nda sae ot wexsiey aa 28
edt to eobtem yor gaivedt att vuodtiw:
y¢ sasel sit oy soltyosas adv as tebto txv0o |
to ¢isoceb ed? bas aneh vantvel & teve? etet@
staebsoted ode g ipa
. wedged 8 are fear Pe ft
oo! os Bre eeeteesg Dias cegh a
*,emen of “bed
3
cause, except as to any evidence to be produced by either side
on the question of damages,
It appears from the pleadings that this action by the
plaintiff is to recover damages arising out of the failure of the
defendant to execute a lease, and is clearly stated by the plaintiff
in his amended etatement of claim and supported by his affidavit
of merits, The rule applicable te the question of the recovery of
rent upon a lease as a proper measure of damages does not apply
where, as in the instant case, the pleading is based upon an action
to recover damages for failure to execute a leases As we have
already indicated, the plaintiff must recover upon his pleading for
whatever loss he sustained at the time of the breach. There is
no question that failure of either party to sign a formal contract
will not defeat recovery upon an agreement reached through corres-
pondence, where the terms of the contract have been in all respects
agreed upon. This rule does not apply to the facts in the instant
ease, The plaintiff's pleading filed in this action ig not based
upon a lease, as contended for, but ia based solely and founded upen
an action to recover damages for failure to execute a lease,
This court is controlled by the plaintiff's pleadings, and
in this case there is lack of evidence to support plaintiff's state-
ment of claim upon the subjeot of damages. Wo agreement having been
formally exeouted, and the evidence being silent upon the damages, if
any, sustained by the plaintiff at the time of the breach when the
defendant failed to ex8eute the lease, the court was not justified
in entering the judgment for the amount of the rent due under a pure
ported lease, and for that reason the judgment was erroneously entered
by the court. The judgment accordingly will be reversed and the
cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. concur,
&
ebia rede he 2 Seorherg od. ot eonebivs yak ot es PELE, <seuine
sBogennd to mottedup edt a0
edt yd mottos wid tadd agmtoselq ed? moxt exseqqs #1 |
eit to etwifst ed? to two galeize eegawah teyooer ot al Tr ttatelq
ttitateiq eft yd hetade yirsefo ef baa ened & séuoexe ot tasbastab
tivebithe sid yd betroqqua bas mislo to taemetste bebasas aid at
to yrovooss od? te solteeup edt of oidassiqae etux edt. yatdsom ‘to
Yiogs toa ee0b, segemeh to eavasem seqorq s es. sent r fogir dnat
moltes ae noqw bepsd ef gatbeete edt ,eeso tastent edd ab 6s 29 tedw
ove ow eA .essel s stuoere ot etuitet tot eogemsh, TeTODST ot
20% guibselg eid moqy teveoes taum tiidalele edt ,beteotbhat - Peete.
ai ovei? .tosesd edd to emié adt ta bentateue od saol reveds
teertooo LIemtot s mie of yeraq todtie to otulist ged? Witvidie be
~sert0o dguoTdd becbaet deemsergs as goqs Yxevoos's fanteh fon Lite
etescuer Ile at need eved toatines adt to amxet ont oxede bon
dastent od¢ wt atost edt ot yiqgs toa seob ofym aid. _sttoqu, Boose
boesd ton sf noitos aidt at Sols yathaslq otttivately ed "yee:
focy bebawot bar yleloce beasd ei dud ,tot bebsetaes es we # noc
.seeel » adonexe of omiist sot eeganiad 1aveoet 0 ate #1
bas ,egnihselg e'ttitatelq edd yd beiioxtsoo ei fiw0d eg i
-otete e'tttvnisiq poqeue of eemebive to font at Manet “seo Pee
naed gtived taemasrge of saogensb to pica oat. oats anate, to. ‘tem
beltiver, tom eaw doo eit ,ensel ait atvosxs ot ‘rhe ts hn
~twq 2 Tobas oub dase edt to. sawome odd rot dao bap ene sii
berstae yiavwenorr® 25% toomgbut sit moaset. todt rot has <oesol bite
sit bas beetevex ed Ifiw yLgaibtoocs sacmgbul edt »i true edt vs
— ne
od
sURCHANSH CUA CRent VaR
eAUOHOD bE nek iaisaal : a f
37623 ve . aa :
WRIGHT & COMPANY, a corporation, — “APPEAL FROM Le
vy !
Plaintiff - Appellee, ia
MUNICIPAL GOURE
v ‘i ‘ , iy
RAYMOND F, MOORE and HARRY BAIRSTOW, OF CHICAGO.
Defendants - Appellanta, 2 v4 9 Ti Ay G AD
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The defendants appeal from a judgment in the sum of #400,
entered in the Municipal Court of Chicage in favor of the plaintiff
in a non—jury agtion upon evidence heard before the trial court,
The plaintiff's denkanan of claim is for the recovery of
$410.59, on an account for goods, wares and merehandise sold and
delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants, The defendants filed
an affidavit of merits in which they denied that they were indebted
to the plaintiff, or that they bought or received from the plaintiff
any goods, wares and merchandise on an account stated.
Plaintiff is engaged in the coal business, One Emil
Ehrenberg was the owner of a building known as the Glifton Avenue
Building, and was a former customer of the plaintiff. This owner
wished to buy coal and spoke to Kenneth Johnson, whe was in charge
ef plaintiff's coal yard, about the purchase of coal for the Clifton
Avenue Building on credit, He was refused credit unless Ehrenberg,
the owner, could get someone to guarantee payment. ‘Shrenberg then
told Johnson that he Ehrenberg had made a deal in connection with
the building, and if Johnson would telephone Raymond Moore at the
office of Harry Bairstow, Moore would tell Jonson about the deal.
Johnson telephoned Moore and asked him to 0. K, Bhrenberg's account,
and Johnson testified that Moore said, "I have the authority to
authorize you to charge the coal to Harry Bairstow." This statement
is denied by Moore, The fact thet Johnson had a telephone conversation
ae |e
| Mh ip Ye eeare
‘ 4 MORY JAQTIA MMotteroax08 8 . a «YHATHOO 4 THOTAN
. 4 .soLfoqaA - - WitaLely ;
“PuoD JASTO LUM
3 ; av .
is QRAOTHO FO ( \WOT@aIAS Yanan bas 00% a cUOuTAR
vx
fend A. T.Q.5..4,,,eenetteanh = stmabamted
> 2 oo ta)
-TAU0D HHT TO HOTUIIO ART GuHaVIAGG sean GOLTEUL ouzareand ,
OORe to mua edd m2 ‘teem. but & mort iseqas atnohaotes ont -
ttivatelc ed? to tovat af ognotdo to dxuod Loqtotaut odd ‘a _borotae
«t1H09 feist edd sxoted breed sonobive oy nottos yeut-aen 5 at
to YEveoer ont tot ef mialo er tnometsta e'ttisnbady oct
h
ai vb nowte
bas bloe onthuadecen Aaa pexee .aboog rot ‘tayooos ae 9 am sors
ep rhe
beLit atashreteb ont redmebaeten sad ce tritabedg edt Wi bes : ovdiob
> ey EX ‘ee
besdebat a Tew vents toss beimeb yeas Ao kata ah atizon to “thvabiaas bod
weboatesa ont mort bevieoe: to tiguod vous todd ro “Mutated ode of
etst iavoods aa xo setbasdoxem bus ©
botsia orse ‘aboog, yas
shale Pie
Lina ond seeontaud L200 odd mi beyegae et vitaas
«ORs jai a Nees
“ eunewA mottils edt es rmond ambbLiud 8 to ‘xearo edt gan
eYmowr OF HO 2
<omwo ald? 1idmtsle ont to ‘remoteuo ‘xomtot 8 sow bas ‘
“ egtado ai sew oda eroesiio’ dgonasd ot edoge bas Ls00 wd ot b yi
nea Alar”
mod? £0 edd tot Laan to evadorue ont ‘doce eb28y fs00 ss
ae on doit y ERM Pie a]
" gtoduensti sesilay tibero boeutex esw om st. tbexo 10 SUAS:
re + te ot piece YL
* hed gredustai stoemyeq sotaerairy ot ‘snoeuoe toy ‘blue 4 TOnwo
haf 4 Ent grr OR
atte no Leu009 at Leob 8 eben bad greiner oa godt tet Bie
ot Barhet Peoehne ren
ge ‘ts 600i ecomyati enorgeier biwow sopsiot te bas 2 bids
wieeb ont tuods soentou. Lies biwow erool ‘sotexted Wetel 30
4 ice aS :
" tauo90s e'gredaerda e 20 ot mid bedss bas etool ee neat
u ites
ot yirodtus eft eved I ~bise ez0oll ‘teuld belt need pe bess gael, Axe
eee: eid? “,woteried ‘YrxsH of Iaoo edt egtedo of BOY. SRSKeae
otinerevaco enodgelet 2 bet moeaiol tit toet ed? “erro ed ° mtn
3
was admitted by him. There is also evidence by one Hubbell,
treasurer of the plaintiff corporation, that he talked with Moore,
which conversation was had at Bairstow's office, and that Moore
then made the statement that he had authority from Bairstow to
have the coal delivered to the Clifton Avenue Building charged to
Bairstow,
In the defense of this action, the defendant Bairstow
ag a witness, denied that he authorized oore or any one else to
buy coal from the plaintiff, or to charge the coal to this witness's
accounte
The monthly bills issued by the plaintiff for coal
delivered were charged to the defendant Bairstow, but were not called
to his attention until he had had a conversation with Johnson
of the plaintiff company.
The important question is; Did Bairstow authorize the
defendant Moore to act for him in regard to the coal deals, the
subject of this litigation, and did Baristow by his acts, acknow-
ledge that Moore acted for him, and thereby become liable for the
coal account?
There are several significant facts which indicate that
Bairstow had knowledge that Ehrenberg was in financial distress in
regard to the Clifton Avenue Building, and that he, Bairstow,
advised Ehrenberg to see Moore; that he, Moore, could probably help
him with the holders of the first mortgage, who were demanding
payment of matured notes. Then, again, Moore had entree to
Bairstow's office, received the coal bills charged to Bairstow and
checked the bills. This is not all. When Bairstow's attention Was
called to the balance due, he wanted the plaintiff to take half cash,
the balance of the account to be paid by this defendant from the
receipts of the building. The fact is hot denied that the coal
’ es
SEAL nd
O%%
ileddtH ano yt eonebhive coals et stsc? ” mia wW ‘pettinbs eaw
2900 dttw bodied ed ted? oltsoqtoe ‘Ttithisio oft te texvesent
etTool ted? bas ,eoltto a 'wotartsd te bed aew sottsttevaoo doldw
of woteriell moxt yttrodius' had 6H teat tmonodets oat’ sham mom
ot degrade Bab ling geseys mottifo ent of betevited Lsoo edt evad
ewoterticd .
woteric® tnebretob edt ,nottos etd to sametob add al
et sefe Sa0 ws ro Stool beattoneve ex tatt bobned (deentiw s as
paleseatin efit of Leoo ont ed of x6 iapumaged beadpasininaeng wd
8 tdi
. {seo fot Tiivaisl¢ ext yd beveek eLtid yiddnom sit ,
pefise ton stew tud ywhteriad teabmersb edt ot heogtado orton’ netbeitih ;
denntot Atiw moisentsvios s hed bad od Litas dotederta ald oF
| syaeqmoo Ttitdbaly edt Yo
\ dt otitodtwe woturind BIC jat nolteeus tastxoqmt edt ° *
oft ,afech fnoo od¢ of Stegot nf mii rot foe Of erooM dmabaeteb
votes eos etd yd wodeited Bib bad .noktagitet etdt to toetdwe
Sit tot sidetl omoood teorsnt bas iad ror Wike bags Gud sabes |
ey | oe 7
tact osaothat Moldw etont tacottingts ‘teréves exe oxedt 9° °°"!
pt pesttvet Entodentt at esw yrodastdt tact sgbelwoaxt bad wosextel
oo Qwoteries (be Gadd pod yutrtb Lind eucteva Bost endied apne
qferl Yidsders Biueo wrool (on teult {dxodit Bee oF pibdihinet aud Va
Gikbneaeb oew odw ogoyttom text Odd Yo exeblod siV"ivis aid
od sextne bad otooll tisge “ited?” ‘ueton oped 9s 4
bie wotetisd OF bogritio efftd Leov oft bevtsoer asin
pew nottcotte ewoterted aed® 4ifs ton af abit” pha owt bale
tea Pied oiled of IWitetelg edd botnew of .bub cote Led vit 6 Nona
cod? mort taabasteb bide Yo bisa’ ed ot Yniooos oat to ‘bon ra
mls | tooo eat todd? botabb” seat eh ob bat Laitebrené’ eit ko Bite
i réceived and used in the Clifton Avenue Building, nor is the
balance due for the coal delivered in dispute.
Defendant Bairstow questioned the ruling of the trial
court in the admission of certain statements made by Moore, on the
ground that the agency was not established by competent evidence
binding upon the defendant Bairstow, The facts are in some respects
disputed, but many of them, while not admitted by the defendants are
not denied, and from the facts as they appear in the record they
establish the ageney of iioore, The facts and circumstances were
such that the trial court, in considering the weight of the evidence,
concluded they were sufficient to charge Bairstow with the acts of
Moore, It is not for this court to question the ruling of the trial
court unless the evidence manifestly indicates that the trial court
erred in entering judgment, and the presumption is that the trial
court in reaching its conclusion only considered competent evidence,
and in doing so found that Moore was empowered to act by defendant
Bairstow, and that Moore misled the plaintiff in extending this
credit, The knowledge that Bairstow must have had, not only from
the receipt of plaintiff's bills mailed to his office, but also
from his admission of liability by offering to pay half cash and
the balance of the account from the receipts of the building, would
indicate that he appreved of the condust of Moore, and that Moore
had authority when he told the plaintiff to chatge the coal account
to Bairstow.
One of the objections mde by defendant Bairstow is, that
the evidence that Bairstow offered the plaintiff half cash and the
balance of the account from the receipts of the building, was in
effect an offer of settlement, and not competent, This rule, however,
does not apply, for the reason that the offer was not made as an
offer of settlement, but was, in effect, an adjustment of the
account by extending the time of payment for at least one half of
eft ef tom ,gaibiivG eumevA moftild ont at beay bas beviecosx ae
\eatuqeth af bexnevifleb [hod edt tet) end oblestas
feitt odd to gaklur oft benotteeup wotetitsa sasbaeted, «69. 4:
edd me .~eTooK yd ohem sinenétata aiastirso to sofsaimbe edd mi tayae
eorebive gasteqs#od yd bedaiidetas toa etw Youons edt tadt bavortg
ateoqaet omoe ni ots atost ofT swotariell dashbaotob edt moqu gaibaid
ets etasbactob eft yd bettinbs von elidw mods to yasu tod ,betuqaelb
| youd hroost eft ai «cec0oqqs yer? ee atost sdt moxt Das (beimeb tom
otow ssonatemiotio bae atest eff yotooll to yorogs add detidetes
<SOmebive ont Yo tigiew dt goteebtenon al itaudo Lattt edt t2d9 ewe
to atos odt dtiw wotetis® egredo of taslofttye stow yout bebsLonoo
fatst edd 6 Sakis ott aoiveenp of too eidé tot tom et ZI -or00K
eo eit? odd tedt eeteotbat ylseetinah eonedive edt exelms txuoo
Isint off tot et cobtqmueene ont bad ,trengout gattotae’ ni berse
esomebive tasteqmoo bereblanoo yLao noferloage ett’ Bitidones at txuo0
taebastob Vi ton o¢ betewoume aaw Oxoo stadt bavot oe gattob ai bas
eldd gaihaotxe at tittateLe edt beinte rook test bas ,woterted
mort Ylno von .bad oven texm woterted tedd/egbeLnond edT) sttbexo
Gels ted ,soitto etd ot boltem aLitd etttivatelg to tqteoer pdt
bas deseo tied yeq of gaixetto yd ytilidatl to notestabs etd toxt
bivow .3afbiivd edt to etqleser eft mort tayooos edt to Bonalad edt
proc tait ban ,@160M to toubsop ext To bevoreas om tait eteotha
tacos Leeo edt. egtedo of Tritniele ed? Blot od) néedw en
ted? get woterted taabaotebd yi ebam aaoltoaldo eit to em: oh o6 oie
edt bue dead tLad tr Liwteley. oct horetts wetextad teas eonebiva edt
‘ht wow ~gaibiind eft to tq Lo0et oct mott tibonde ot to eonteled
revewor ,ofet eidT .tabteqnoo tom bas \toomelitea ko rétto! ns tostie
‘ge bs obem ton eew Vette edt dant moeset ont TOT , s tem Bbob
‘ont to teemvenpbs me ,ytostte at .eew dad ctrasorezen 26 20820 ao
‘to “BLed exo dasel te tob toomyeg to omit. ec? ¢
2 Dugas -
OO SS ee ae a a
ai ee ee Se ee =
4
the account until the receipts from the building were sufficient to
pay the balance,
There is no doubt that in the entry of judgment for the
plaintiff and against the two defendants, the court erred, The
record is barren of any facts that would establish liability of
the defendant Moore. The fact that he acted for Bairstow did not
make him jointly liable. The rule is well settled, and needs no
citation of authority, that where one acts for a principal, es was
done in this case, the liability is that of the principal,
Under the former procedure governing actions of this
character this court would be required to reverse and remand this
Gause, but under the Civil Practice Act, the court is now empowered
to enter such judgment es the trial court should have entered. This
power to enter such judgment is provided for in Para, 230, Sec. 92,
Chap, 110, of the Practice Act, Cahili's Ill. Rev. St. 1933, Sub-
division (f), which is in these words:
} "Give any judgment and make any order which ought to heve
been given or made, and make such other and further orders
and grant such relief, including a remandment, a partial
reversal, the order of a partial new trial, the entry of
a remittitur, or the issuance of execution, as the case
may require,
So that from the conclusions reached by this court, the judgment
for the plaintiff against the defendant Bairstow is affirmed, and
reversed as to defendant sida: BS
_— ~~ MENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND
— REVERSED IN PART,
a WILSON AND HALL, JJ. ConcuR,
ie,
thé
4p ff! Wiha My
Gi hee /
f We fe ue
a ¢ Lt AL : et
——
=
A
ot tmotoiitwe otow puththed edt mow atatover odd ‘Ehtew ‘banoooa 6 ont
vse o ne “soon Led odd ‘yeq
adit tot tmemgbut ‘to vetae ont at ted? tdwob om et ‘ered?
‘ed? sborte ‘Htu0o edd «otnabasteb ows ont ‘tenispe bas Yivalel¢
BY 19's
to ytilidelt delidstes bisow ‘taut atost us ‘to netted et
"fom bth wotersed rot besos od dads doar ear” sotoall suabheten Gab
o on ebsan bats be lttes ‘Hee es elit od? sotdart Uvalot mid oiam
eee es feqtontxe s ‘tot ‘tos ‘eno etodiw godt vi irodius to moidstio
| efeqtontra edt to tedt et ythitdets ond joe00 ehat mt smod
ae O to anottos gakarevog ‘erubooore tomrot odd treba 9°! ON"
: aidt heawex. bas eetever of boriuper od ‘blvow ‘truu08 alat wotonraito
“boromoane WOM af too ont “tod cottoert Livio ‘edt “tebau duc sina
: ela? | sboreaao evid bivoda dx00 ‘Ietxd edt es “$evoney bast ‘poue cotne” ot ‘
| 88 +098 088 ata ab rot ‘beblvors at tomsbyt Mote rodae ot a
Bs nave 98881 te voli tit “p'ELidso tok soltoar’ ent to (ott
rebrow sed? af of de kaw’ ae
“ovad at tiauo sorte ‘sobro as sta “saint bua teary bis ck’ gig 2
y “SLehdxoq Be eerie “planes es
she exrdae ent 4 ri rom rhe aa ponte: et ae
Sasso ous Be 2fO nohtuosxe
fhe se ‘ ho to TEM ons
setieaben: edt ,trueo efdt. of eoeteany eto leslonoo ent, nox, saat, 08
bas ,bomuitte ef wotertsS taabacted, odt snhind settahabe, atsaet
seo, saahertah, of. 88, basxayer
GUA TRAST KI GaMRIVIA THMMDGUL aaa
sTHAY Ml GaenavaR
\ meh oebuly - ate Qn: oath
s ven a us ME. Sale * Omiinder
ee RY ee ante
\ \ ae OAR yy Pi
\
\
r sy NS ae
~~
‘ tee
Oy aie
. =
o. RW
a
vn a ‘
eer y ft wn
é ,—"§
$7646 a } f | f |
we } if i ? j i
(Plaintiff) Appellant, ~ | po"
SUPERIOR COURT 7 {
Ve
;
SALOMI WENOPAL, COOK COUNTY.
(Defendant) Appellee. 9 io 9 L.A. 6 4 5"
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order vacating
and setting aside that part of a decree in a divorce proceeding,
wherein an amount was found to be due of $6,000 feom the defendant
to the complainant, as set forth in that part of the decree. The
decree was entered by the Chancellor on October 20, 1933. The order
modifying the decree was entered on December 22, 1933.
Contention is made by the complainant that the court in
modifying the decree on December 22, 1933, was without jurisdiction
after the term to enter the order. This court is without the
benefit of defendant's theory which would justify the entry of the
order here on appeal, for want of her appearance.
The action being one in chancery, it is 4 grave question
as to whether the procedure adopted and followed by the Chancellor
was a proper one. The rule is that in chancepzy, even after term
time, the procedure is, for the party complaining to present facts
by 2 bill of review or a bill in the nature of a bill of review, to
the chancelior for relief, or by appeal or writ of error to review
the record, not upon a motion to vacate, as was done in this case.
The Supreme Court in the case of
200 Ill. 9369, a somewhat analogous case, said:
"Tae decree was under the control of the court during the
May term, at which it wes entered, and might have been
set aside or vacated during the term, or subsequently,
upon motion made during the term, and continued to a
subsequent term; but nothing of that kind was done.
tS ee
RAs | yay
a " \
\ bt ir anavEe
se . ( (taetleags (Ttttatsl4
- PRUOO AOTAEWUE ' sees { o_o
\ \s if? aV¥
< h om ni T e ¥ GQ «99 ileqga (tashaeted) , a ‘eat
punieae hn rob aay
- PAOD aut "Oo WOIKII9 wut ‘qasavizac , axe worreut outazaans fe visio
gahtsoay tebro ns mort Ttitaiel, od? yd iesqas ae pi aid? - bod Be
- spatboovorg soxovib s mi sereeb * to treq ted? obieas bic bas
tnebaeteb ont moni 000 8 to euh ad of bavot asw ¢avoms os xtotertw
ait .osrosh edt to itsq tedé mt dttot tee es ,taantelqmoo adt ak
tebro eT .£8CL ,O8 tedotod so soLisensdd edt yi heretae any, oeroeh
ere .S88L .S8 roduor0 no bexetas esw voToE edt padyRtoom
| “2 tx1100 edt tent tnentsiqwoo, edt “ed obam ai Mogsgstgop. be ke Wewet
i sottekbedsut tuodd iw eew .SERL 88 resipened 9 (seroed, odd gatyt thom
out duodt tw nt x09 eidT st9br0 ont retin ot mr0t, oft toptes.
edd to xtus est Nitrest biuow doidw yxosdt e! #ucbaptod, to ditened
paths «9omstTHOES sed te fnew tot ari i esicone
aolteoue every ® eb. th vreonsio me ‘auto gated noltos, ont
toLleonsdd edt yd bewollot bas hetqobs ersbeoorg eit cide ot ee
miedoxovte néve yysonads ai Pale HE fit eat” eke’ xeqone 8 bow
atest tneesrq of gaindelqmoo wtraq éd¢ tot yet etubeoony odt yombt
ot .welver to Lftd s to oxvtan edt at’fftd « vo weiver to ithd a yw
| weltvet ot torre to tice xe faeqqs wW 26 <Yettox tot tolfeonado edt
eoaso eidt mi orob wanda .eteonsv ot soliton 8 nequ ton .brooss edt i
ezaliieol .v .o0 natword teteseT to seso att mi trvod emetque ed?
bisa ,eeso suogolsens tadwomoe & eBORF «ffl 008
edt gaicub txsoo edd to Loxtaoo sdt Toba saw eoToeb Ont" —
need eved tigin das ,berotas sow th doidw ts t ws .
.vitneupesdue to ,mrot edt gaitub hetsosy to cog one
‘gs ot bounitnoo bas .mtot odd gatuuvb sham ao
sonob eaw bait tadt to gaidton tud yrrot
After a term has elapsed a deeree may be corrected, on
motion, in matters of form or mere clerical errors or
misprisons of the clerk, but the court is then without
power to change the decision, or to set aside, vacate,
modify or annul a decree, No error of law of any kind
will justify revising or annulling a decree at a sub-
saquent term in a summary way on a motion, but relief
against it must be obtained by appeal or writ of error if
the error is apparent on the face of the record, and if
not, by bill of review or bill to impeach the decree for
fraud, *** A decree regularly entered cannot be altered
or amended after the term has elapsed, except for the
correction of matters of form or clerical errors. ***
These rules have been settled by repeated decisions of
this court,"
See also Wolff v. Sohwill & Oo., 351 Ill, 28; Totten v. Totten, 299
Till. 43; Bushnell) v. Gooper, 289 Ili, 260.
The record is not altogether clear upon what ground the
court assumed jurisdiction to enter the vacating order, and from
the authorities to which we have referred,the Chancellor erred
in the entry of the order, Accordingly, the order will be reversed,
ORDER REVERSED.
WILSON AND HALL, Jd» CONGUR,
no ,bstoetteo ad
to exorre Ieeitsio stem ro mrot
® erotiten
eeTeeh s beeqsle asd mrs ot
a
tuodtin ameodd ef oties eid tud yarefo edt to: ai molten
eteosy ,ebies tee ot ro ,nofelosb edt egaado of tewog
bata ys to wal to torre of ,serd0b 2 Lunas to yttbou
Lettee gua queiten 5 aa tor Yeauere 44: ResrieMeelee
etlex ted yroltom & ao Ysy Yrsmnve fs us
ti sorte to ¢ixe so Leeqqa yd benistdo ed teum #i ¢
. #&2 Bas ,brooer edt to seek oct mo dmeteqqs ei some edt
t6% eeroed edt dos ot [iid to weiver to iiid aS ,ton
berstie od tonaso etae yYlrelygex eetoeb A *** ,byert
ode sot tqeexe ,beeqele sad mrot oct tetts paheden 10
serorts Lnoluele 10 mot to eretian to noktoertes
10 euotetoos mene wW 7 ak fod oved esiuxs seedT
. ",tzyoo ald?
CBS aettol «v gotgeT (88 »Lf2 188 200 4 ittwdoe .¥ Sitew oaks eee
sift 88S «geqpod .v LengayS Gee »LfLt
edt baworg ted soqts taelo tedgegotis tom al broost edt 6 oe
pert bee yrobto gultveoev edt? tetee of moltolbattut: hehanane: teal
bore toileoned® ent betsoter eva ov doidw of sottixodtve edt
a of Iltw tebro ect ey piegh Acoli add at
+ signe
sCHEABVIR! HHORO Ove oo” coh aie’ pasyt thom
stapre Bee fco of aereP] eue Toots
| vee ee at on ea
‘ y Bae «-"8Q Ge 2g Oxted. FOote
: 7 (bed se l3o8. OM?
Wweoery sik sedtaniy af we
ee ‘ae
4 ei a a2 reheeory pelt ouke
oF y a ees ro webvon te FEL a wr
eo sh Cae yoileoneso utd 7
teont ot sodten age Fea ghtoeo7 eit
gn ons a” wiih ease Laer Pt sae ie SER ae Pee rent Y Oey Oris oT Re Y
; teu geOed alll O08
i? take sew serced ont" |
aim 4 ate quer fh goldte fe eee ae:
: mre? witvoh Dhow wh. ORkAR See
} rues gf ; Bee ee as: b ofan ap dae INGHY oF
aatthgl i wagsitose Sal ete
drgeeepedee.
tO pg i he
87709 / ; ra Ce | &
GLEATIS, doing business as CENTRAL APPEAW FROW
BILLIARDS, SPORTING GOODS AND ff
NOVELTIES, ii
Appellees, MUNIGIPAL COURT
Vo :
OF cHicaco.
THE CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
OF EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND, a Corporation,
acne 1279 I.A.642°
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment foxy $900 against the
defendant and for the plaintiff, which was entered in the Municipal
Sourt of Chicago.
Plaintiff's action is one upon a fire insurance policy
in the amount of $1,000, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Subsequently, on February 8, 1953, a fire oceurred which destroyed
the contents of plaintiff's store located at 6237 Archer Avenue,
Summit, Illinois,
The defense of the defendant is that the plaintiff was
guilty of fraud, concealment and misrepresentation of material facts
sworn to by the plaintiff. The evidence offered by the plaintiff is
substantialiy based upon the policy of insurance in evidence. The
plaintiff wes engaged in a retail business, selling tobseco, cigarettes
and Cigars, and aleo carrying a line of sporting goods and novelties,
and conducting a billiard and pool business at the place described
in the insurance policy issued by the defendant,
On February 8, 1933, after the close of business, in the
nighttime s fire oceurred and destroyed the stock of merchandise
valued at $5,408.70, furniture and fixtures in the sum of $8 098,65,
and office supplies amounting to the sum of 4267, making a total loss
Claimed by the plaintiff of $13,774.35,
Plaintiff was a witness, together with his brother Louis
TRUOO LAarp Tam , Apa? erent
ODMOTHE %0
‘gbo AL. ess °
KHLFO oes
or i Fe:
+500 SRY TO MOLI AT GansVIdUG daasK FORTEUL ourareans i
as, Obes eee
ett temtsga 006) sot tasmpiuy 9, moxt Ls 8 18 aldT
A on a Se Gas ig he. yp LET
isqioiau edd at barstae eaw doidw itatalg ors tot bas tasbaeteb
eR he no dye Loe oats to
eles eoagtuest, out, & fogs 90 et 1 mottos fr Oe sectenees
_ stiitaisig edt of tasbasteb ont yd Powers 4900,£8 39, truroms bic 9 oat at
beyotteeh doidw berzso00. eft s,.BBGL .8 ‘yreurdet so ' Wimeupoadu®
,OUNSVA xedorA VESA ts betsool exote atttitatetg to ataesao0 edt
cuosoo ooo ORE, Gee
aew tiitaisiq odt tedt ef taabasteb odd to ounstob edt
etost Ieizotam to colissineserqersia bas txemLssonco buext to xtiine
pi tittalels edt yd botetto eonmebive eff .thitaisl® ont ae ot crows
sit .9onebive mi sonsivent toe yolleg edt noqu hsead (Ulstiastedue
ettetsgio ,ocoosdet gniilea ,eaenteud Lhestet 5 alt begsgae esw Metentelg
<eoitteven hae eboog gaitroge To ontl « gaiyrrse oale bas eetagie bas
bsdisors® eoalg sdt ts snenteyd Loog bas bratilid s gaktoubaoo bas
stashaeteb edt yd beyset yollog sonstwen! oat mt
adt al ,saenteaud to eeelo odd xotts ,ceel ,8 yeaundet ‘20 |
geibusdorem to Aoote edt beyoutesh bas Sorruso00 oxtt 6 omit tags
,33.800,8% to mre edt of aotytxit bas omsttorut 10% 8O BH ts beuisy
seol intot s gatdem .YOS) to mue odd of gattavoms estinque soltto bas
BS .RTT,EL8 to rittntele oat i 8 a al |
atuod cotiens aid dtiw tedtegot .avoutinw 5 naw sidaiats
2
Gleatia, who acted as manager of the business, and each of them
testified as to the value of the property destroyed on the premises
at the time of the fire. The value of the furniture, fixtures,
pool tables and equipment was testified to by a witness named
Martin D. Johnson, who was 4 representative of Brunswick-Balke
Gollender CJompany, engaged in the manufacture of billiard and pool
tables; by Harry H. Herbst, who seted as adjuster for the plaintiff;
and also by Richard V, Riordan, who acted for the plaintiff, and
as adjuster for other insurance companies interested in the fire loss.
The defendant in support of its defense offered 0.
Finkelstein, who testified as to the value of the pool and billiard
tables and equipment, and there is also evidence by Fred A. Deuss,
who appeared as adjuster for the defendant,
The evidence tends to show that an inventory was taken by
the plaintiff about January 8, 1935, and in this work was assisted
by his brother Louisa Gleatis. This inventory was copied into the
proof of loss, and described the property that was lost by the fire.
The evidence of the plaintiff, whichntends to show the
value of the items for which claim is made, was contradicted in some
respects by the witnesses for the defendant, The trial court in-
structed orally, and thereafter the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, upon which the court entered judgment after overruling
defendant's motion for a new trial.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff's case, as
established on the trial, was fraudulent, thectestimony being so
absurd as to be unbelievable, even though such evidence was not
contradicted,
it is evident from the record that the testimony regarding
the loss and the amount was eontested by the testimony given by
defendant's witnesses. This fact of itself is not sufficient to
Why |
met Yo dose bas ,seentend od? Yo roysnain we Beton ole pettsold
ecnimerg oft mo hayortsed yersqorg edd to oulsy edt oF as netttieer
,eerusxlt ,ocwtiaxwt ed¢ te ovLey ed? .ontt edt to omit edt ts
‘benine geattiw s ye of bedtéteot aw smouqiupe bas eskdat foo
' eifsi-doiwanett te evitstaseorqes 8 as¥ odw toaAtfol on nitzak
thes bas brsillLid to suptostuaem edt ai Bogagas , waqmod ‘xohaeLLod
jititniela edt tot reteuths 2= betos ofw ,tadrel .H writen yd imaaaees
Pita Peden dete ety vot Betos ow .asbsolh .V bradola cs bala bas
wens 4 oem ‘odd at hefeotstal estasqmoo Seasrwant redto tot “roseutba
0 Boretto sedeten st! to ssdqque mt tnabaoteb odT anna
‘brebiiid bas Looq edt to owlev edt of an baltiteet “ortw nied
so ‘ane sh bot Yo somebive oats et ted? bas <taeaqlspe ban siisdad ;
: ! stusbreteb edt tot fodevtbe es ‘Sorasaen ode
eh andr Vee “Hiern ie tidied eed Va ae
Neseneed ‘eae iow Wide ie ‘Seid eeet 38 Weed Vilded Vedas lt
| edt oat beiqoo asw yro¢mowil eid?t .aitselp aissoit xodtoxs aid ye
sotl? ond YO Heol sow fedt ySreqotq edt bedtrossh bas s diet | to toorg
08° Rae wore Ce Ubastrifoldy TtIietaLe edt to ‘seabed eee
cnbd nt betuibartace thw jobs eY lafe dotiw rot amod abdi edt 30. ne
Sai ¢xvoo Leite edT .tosbmeted edt tot beubeatiw ‘ent ritptenaced Sooeare,
we "ante tet tothrev s benruter Yul ont sottsoredd bus \ytlero be aan
owen rotte tmomgbut ‘peredae ¢ruoo edt “dokdw moa Hidabate,
, eae igubaes. ah8
raise wen e "et sottom @ ‘eashacteb
elieg @@omRiweni wat HF
BE ,oR89 elttisateto edt jadd sbasaoo ‘sasbueteb ed?
a grted Yrontteedosdd {shelubuart dew .Lalct ‘eit mo pea
idates
Pi wader eigen
tom exw somebive Mose a aeve b elibaveLisaan ed . od of 2 ones
Rs BR ,
gabbedgss Yaoutteet edt ted? Sedoet off mott #aebt wee sonnte |
WS movig Yomttnes ort xd ‘beresitbo osw fasome od
. we jasierviwe You st tioddf to weet Aidt Jasee
3
justify this court in setting aside the judgment entered upon the
verdict. The facts appeating in the record were heard by the trial
court, and again in the consideration of defendant's motion for a
new trial, which motion was overruled, and unless the evidence is
manifestly against the conclusion reached by both the jury and the
trial court, this court will not interfere,
The defendant stresses the point thet immediately after
the fire the defendant's adjuster was unable to find the kind of
merchandise for which claim was made by the plaintiff. The fire
occurred when the temperature was below zero, and as a consequence
the merchandise was covered with ice, and whether or not the adjuster
for the Company could properly make an inspection was oné for the jury.
The facts in this case were, of course, considered by the jury. It
is significant that no question was raised that by the admission of
evidence offered by the plaintiff over objection, or by the instruce
tions given by the court to the jury, the defendant was deprived of
a fair trial. We have the right to presume that the trial court did
not believe that the evidence offered by the plaintiff was false.
The charge made is a serious one, and where one is accused of false
swearing, the evidence should clearly convince the court thet such
is the fact. Contradiction by witnesses is not of itself sufficient,
The rule is that where fraud is charged it should be @learly establish-
ed from the facts. ;
The defendant also stresses the failure of plaintiff to
include the pool and billiard tables and cases in the inventory
produced. Only one conclusion can be reached from that fact, and
tHat is the inventory was a false one. While this fact was before
the jury, it is not conclusive, for the reason that the pool and
billiard tables and equipment were in the store at the time of the
fire, which fact is not disputed by the defendant,.
4
edt soqu berotae tneaghut odd ebips galt ter at tus09 aida Riertyi.
i) ay
felts edd yd brsed erew Hrooet odd at gatiseqqs atost edt stotbrey
& rot sottom e' tasbaoteb to foltershleaoo ont ame abegs be two
ef eonebive est seolay has ,belirrrevo enw ‘mokton ato tei att wen
edt bas yeah edt died va bedoce2 aolewlonoo out fentage Uteottaan
. ay ee tetretad ton iiiw #009 elit <Saw09 faict
y “redte uletstbess tect talog edt oogerte tuebroteb oot ne
o te bali oct batt of siganu eow roteut be e'éasbasted oat ont odd
., SPER odT -Tavataly ont WW oban vow wisi Motdw tor seibandoron )
nit Se al eh as
soneupeenod © as bus ,ores woled sew qtutsxsqmet edt aad beru000
tegpui be, edt ton to rodtedy bas oot ddiw berevoo aew sethandosen |
er, edt tot $n0 ase aoitosgent ae eden Yireqozy aimee yangaod oat Tot
+2 .ytu, edt yo betebiemoe ,eets90 to eotoW eeso etd? ah atost ont
arig
to Soiseimbds sdt yd tedt Desist sew no Lipenp on tadt “tasotttagte ek
qouttaat odt ¥, To «Ho ltoel do xON, Re a 98 edd vs bere! hie mers:
to Dbevisgesb esw tasbasted edt «eat add oe yes, oat we aorde, anne
bib tivoo Lsint ed? tad? smusorg ot idgis oat eva al Lestat het’ a
seet to togrw
eoeist sew rhtiatalg edt vd berstzo soasbive eit tena evelled ton
i galst to beavoos ef sno etede bas «Sa0 svoltoe s at oben agente ed?
) Siny
Hose tedt tzruoo odd eontvioo uxsslo biuoda somebive out } «patreows
i “a Be eo et
staotolitue iteest to ton ai aoxnoutin w wottotbertaed stank ode et
| Leto Botenr de
‘delidatas Vienets ed bivoda tt bopsesto: ob bust? rosin teat at oot ou?
Ais
of Utidakalq Yo exusist sat connente oat imabaeteb ost ore
vrovwevnd add at geese bus asides bastited bae fom rend Ay orp wag
bee ,foei tsdt mort bosionox od 180 no kausfon02 ono yi0 Ping - _—
eroted saw fost eldt oid «O20 estat 2 asx “yrotuovand eae of teilt
wat cet at howe
Ae Seog, adt tent mogset ont rot nly tom ha Po exent ont
ont.to eutt od? te oxote edt mt oxew taemgtupe f pase sj
etashasted odd vd betuqatb for ot aan 4
t a i
. fy & : > vy j
be : ; : Wwe
Another significant fset appearing in the case is that
at the time the policy of insurance was issued by the defendant, no
doubt the merchandise covered by the insurance wes upon the premises
ef the plaintiff, or otherwise defendant would not have issued the
policy to cever the insurance on the contents of the store of the
plaintiff,
Upon an ¢xamination of the instructions given by the court
to the jury, we find that the court upon the quéstion of fraud stated
the policy would be void if the plaintiff concesled or misrepresented
in writing any material fact.
fhe jury wee also told by the court that if from the greater
weight of the evidence the damages were excessive, and false atate-
ments as to value were knowingly made, the plaintiff could not recover,
and the jury's attention was directed to the facet that if there was
any inherent imprebability, in the statement of = witness, the jury
could disregard such evidence, even in the absence of any contra-
dictory evidence. The jury was carefully instructed, as is evidenced
by the failure to note an objection by either of the parties, and
we believe thet the judgment entered by the aourt is sustained by the
evidence in the record, fhe record being free of error the judgment
is affirmed.
JUOGHENT AFFIRMED.
WILSON AND HALL, JJ. CONCUR.
{
|
j
*
| Huei at sane edt at galticsqes Joet tmogsTtmgte erifomk (so // oe)
ek pdusbroteb od? yd Bouedi wew Sorecwvant Yo YoLloy Ont die ‘dt te
poadmatq oft mood ‘24y Sonetant edt Yo beTev0O Setinedonem edt ddweb
—setit Doweat eved sont Alvow tnahmoksh seiwredde to .titmiale ott te
‘ad? Yo wtote odd to etnadros of? ao eodtetwert ed? teyeo ot yolleq
| teed edt yo aovig analtourteat odd Yo moltenimaxe as noqd ?
betete butt Yo néktecr: oft ogy tuoe ant tadt hadh ow yurvh ede ot
botusetecerein 26 Bslesonod Tiktnkalq sit Bt blov ed bivow yotiog edt
. av? toot Intcetsa yas guttite ab
pom Cy ta mor? TL tent fro wie Yd DLot Oale wow YeUy OdE oo on)
' sec¢ede soley be ,evaeseors caeateamsmeusana
lion tot bivoo Ytitaiale edt ,shaw yLgndwoad evew sxlav of ae etaem
aie Oredd TL tarde tat odd OF hetoorsh Qow nodenstte atyeat edd bas
| “yt odd qeesndin » Yo thomodate oct af pyeLitdsdongut: thexedad® que
mptitmes yak to sombads oft ad Reve sdomedive Hoe Srmpotelh biwoo
booaebive at as ,betorcteat ylivtetso etn yx, ent? sonebive yredoLb
bie soitted edt te redtie yf matreotte ne etem ot outst et yd
edt Ye bontsreve ak teva ont yi borstne Yaewyhet” od add evetiod ae
— edit setts to een’ saioanlanscpsyan: emapeadsac ones
aire 69 VITCOLS hie gee’ Ot text evecte fede we akan on?
| | sadoet way mest he
pre rans re
; Ba rate oe fom! Cie Fey moe tata abu hems
bas a ear eh" bol aoa @ gen ae Rates em yh). ebaoubost
“ gn yveodmorne act at atts
fone her st seRKOT ont Tot wovemmhonns om jk ye ext oat
testis fan sethad: beacus
t ‘vd Proatise iB m ivy iy Oe 2098 ely ;
37287 f fe
IRVING I. COHEN and LNA supa,
Plaintiffs in Error,
4
;
| oxpourn court
Ve j %
QOOK COUNTY.
279 TA. 642"
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. —|
On April 14th, 1930, plaintiffs brought suit in the Circuit
BARNEY B. LIBMAN,
Defendant in Error,
Gourt of Cook County against defendant in an action of trespass on the |
Case. Summons wae served on defendant on April 22nd, 1932, and on :
the same day, defendant, by his attorney Joseph 4. Kolb, entered
his appearance, Thereafter, on May 24th, 1932, defendant filed a
plea of the general issue, and on June 17th, 1932, plaintiff filed
a similiter to the plea. On October 26th, 1932, the cause was
placed on the trial calendar of the Circuit Court and set for trial
on January lst, 1933. On January 6th, 1933, after notice had been
served on all the parties, Joseph A, Kolb, the attorney for defendant,
withdrew his appearance as defendant's attorney. On February 23rd,
19323, after the cause had been placed on the trial calendar, as before
stated, it came on for trial. Defendant did not appear, and after
an ex parte hearing, and after submitting the cause to a jury, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, assessing plaintiff's
damages at the sum of 91,500.00, and on the same day, a judgnent
for that amount was entered against defendant.
On April llth, 1933, defendant filed a petition, in the
Circuit Court, supperted by his affidavit, in which he prayed that
the judgment be vacated, and that a capias issued thereunder, be
stayed. in this petition defendant recites in substance that after he
had been served with summons in the cause, he employed one Joseph As
Kolb as his attorney, and that on April 22nd, 1932, Kolb filed his
vesys
Hap wa, AN bas WHOD .I OMLVEI
; _ararss ai atitdabels oa» te
¥ vo o42 Msg geht * CL UBWRE)
aur ieerbed
_stotrd at tusbasted
anne
* “s YTHUOD AOQO
‘ghd ET ee
Yeile x
: Pg ) a dokty
— »THUOO ZHT YO MOIMIGO ANT GAARVIGRG JAAR BOUTEVE » Ai
“thyort0 edt ai tive tiiguord ett itatete <088L, det Ltaga 10, hot ae
ad ae ensqesrd to nostos as ai tisbasteb tentags Yinwod 4900 to tryed
Bc) bas .S8CL ebacs fixgA “0 tasbasteb #9 Peyvtes Baw is dan hae 208
_peresae sdlod .4 dqoeot Yarotts eis xe staabaetep a¥eb oine ot
8 ‘beLst tasbasteb SRE edthS ysht a0 .todtsotedt be sPomenpo0gs eid
_ beltt eb ldabela seer lays ony Fst) bas soueed _fareneg edt 30,4088
. a eaueo oat SEL 488 18d0t00 a0 sot edt of perkins e
nbse rot bse bas tuyod tivortO edt te tatae tae. fairs. aoe ents
ased hori sotton tetts ,SSCL dtd etwas a9 -BECL. ate :
atuabaeteb x0 youvot ts odd 2GLo%. » A mpgh ssottgoa oui? iba. 0 bevsea
wbr8s vrauxdot nO sYontotte +" dushanteb, as eoaeTtaee Abd weghdtty
eroted es " tebaviso fetui end mo beoalg | AOod bad _poura ott eats ee 3
gotta bas .THOqGs toa bib tashaoted _olabat wo? Ho a sbatate
eat es 8 of esas odd gutttindse tettes bas caaiteed atxeq xe
| ‘pittutntata gitescess ,itttntelg to royst at teteyey « benautes vest
Vee mney & usb emss edt mo bas .00.008,i% to aue od? ts pogsmad
é stasbaeteh tenlege Dorotae Bow tems tae
act at qnoktitea & boLit tushmeteb S8RL ett Lisqa #0 ee “e
tedd Doyorg off dotdw at .thvebitte aid ys betzeaque m0 2 xh
a 2
oA dateet ano beyolqms of .saueo adt at snore Atte be ?
eld beLit dlow -S8@L ,baSs Lingd mo tedt bas Lyoazodits co es wo
2
appearance in the cause, together with a demand for jury trial, and
that thereafter he, Kolb, filed the pleas hereinbefore referred to;
that thereafter on July 23nd, 1932, after notice being served, the
cause was placed on the trial calendar; that on September 27th, 1932,
the cause wes stricken from such trial calendar, and that thereafter
on October 26th, 1932, on motion of plaintiff, the order of September
27th, 1932, striking the case from the trial calendar, was vacated and
the cause was set for trial, that the affiant is informed that notice
of the motion of the plaintiff to reinstate the cause on the trial
calendar was delivered to & stranger in the office of his attorney
Kolb, during Kolo's absence from his office; but that, to the best
of his knowledge and belief, Kolb never received the notice; that
there was ne appearance for defendant at the time such order was
entered, and that the petitioner had no notice of such setting; that
Kolb withdrew hia appesrance as attorney for defendant, as already
stated, and thet defendant employed another attomhey, who never
entered defendant's appearance. There is no showing by Kolb,
defendant's attomney, that he failed to receive the notice of the
setting of the cause, and no statement in petitioner's affidavit to
that effeot, except the statement made on petitioner's information
and belief that no such notice was received. On May @nd, 1933, the
court entered en order vacating the judgment against defendant, and
it is from this order thet the appeal herein is taken.
We are of the opinion thet there was no sufficient showing
made by defendant which justified the court in vacating and setting
_ aside this judgment. It was in the third term after the entry of the
judgment that the order was entered, and the court was without power
te vacate the judgment on the showing made. Travelers Insurance Co,
Ve Wagner, 279 Ill. Apps 13.
&
bas .iaictt yrost tot Snamob« atiw redtegeor a2 2UL0O edt as sousrnoqus
ee TEA 4
jot berretes arotednierod enol ont beri .dloz sort roteoredt tedt
edt .bevren gated eottoa setts Sel yhaSt ylut mo revtaered? tart
«88OL ,ctVE codmetqe® mo tadd jrsbaeloo Isis oft ao poonta tg! anne
xagtsoteds tedt bas .rsbaeiso Letxt dove mort nedolzte enw sauso ons
‘géGhesqok to tébro edt \ttPtalelg to moitem ao seer .i#88 todoteod mo
bats bevsonv sew .tsbroles Iatcts ot mort saso edt gataizte SbOL Atay
eokton tose dbewretal ef taveitte ody tend feist rot ton ee eeuso ott
Leixt ont fo Seve act otatemter of Mita tsLq ont to wo kton ode »
| ywirtot ts ald to @bitto edt at rogastte a ot bareviteb sew robes L
taod edt of .todd dud (jo0ltto edd mort sonsede etdtoX » atau r stex
todd psoiton edt hovieoor xoven dlox reried baa oabetword eid 3
aw ‘¢ebro deve owkt ont ‘ts tnsimetob ‘rot scastaeqqs on esw oneat ;
; i iis "
tet jantttos dows ‘te eodton on bes reaoitited ont tat bas oer
sf
yboor Le 8 innbaeten t0% yortetté ae oonerseqgs ire f
8 bat Pusat by
reven ost eWotuotts seddona vege Lanne énsbast sb dade has sbetete
‘ we tk Wa vite
“{dloX we gutwors ‘on ef ‘eran? sooner seqae et énabagteb Bex es
* end to aoiton edd evieost oft Betts ed dade <Yoamot te et | paahanien
bi Waa
¥ eR EN
Cad tivebitts e' remot ited al inomoteta on bas weause edi te3 ;
97 TLS ‘om CD ae
dy nottemeotat 8 'semoké tteq 9 obam ‘tmonorste ont tqooxs wight icf
\ og Y x {R ‘iia
edt ,f80L .bat Yeu x0 sbovieost now oottor fowe on tacit Yotiod
ya Boh aus
, Be Ror
I
bate ppremaend tent icgs inomptut ont yatdsour rebro as berstas tss00
a: en
sronet Bt atered fseccs adit ‘tastt rebro atdt wort ot, n
_ unto tustoltive om eaw oxodt tacit nobakoo odd te ete i
ae
r mes'y
gatttes baw patennay at #1109 edt bestisout Hobie baabuvteb es chin
ow to Yrine edt xedts red batdt edt at al a ‘stomp, side di
CHIT HTE ae bh ats
- ewo tuodit hw new tear09 ont es sboreane ew robro ed? nas,
SORT | GEN & i
* sobem gabvoste one 0 “decemrg bu ate hes
ty beic. Shea at * Boe
“BE saad v LET OVS qxee
iy od” sxomns Whe Dee
Y if
re
Defendant had entered his appearance in the case by his
attorney, and it is recited in the affidavit filed by plaintiff
in answer to defendant's petition, that defendant's attorney Kolb
was in court at the time the cause was set for trial, and that he
oonsented thereto, This is not denied. The fact that defendant's
attorney withdrew from the cause after serving notice on defendant
of such withdrawal, does not excuse defendant for his neglect.
The order of the Circuit Court, vacating the judgment
is reversed, and the cause is remanded with the direction that the
order vacating the judgment be set aside, and that the judgment
stand in full force and effect.
REVERSED AND AEMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
HEBEL, Ped, AND WILSON, J, GONCUR.
e
BS Lat ae, |
st retinsen sndbiadiieannel xed lala ian ie
tthenielg yd Selit tivehiite edt af betioer ei tt eehsinmaitit
®
dioR youtotts atenehasteb tedt ,softiteq e'tasbhacteh ot tewans at
od tadt ban ,latt? cot ten enw oayan sot omnis od? ts txvoe ak asw
. glimabagteb tedt ¢oct ed? .detneh ton ai ald? ,vtered? betsegmoe
tasbasteb ao gotten yalvice tovte agues eft mort woubdtlw yeutotts.
. steetges etd to? tashasteb eayore ton se0b ,laxathdtiy dowe to
. tmemgbet odd anitavey ,txvo0 tivotl® edd to .zebre edt. ... te
edt sect soitestib sd? dtiw bebaawor @1 caveo odd bas ,boetever et
_ dhetgerabat Arasmeaihamnimarcmiabidbramciyirsgt hoa
aes Tee aT “stootie bus sotot Livt af baste
oBHoLTOSAIC BTIW GROWAMER ChA THSHAVIER _
Pa ites
Sv Rovre oe aire ‘oxedt
t i ghetees
“(asia du cacapaaiae aaa 0A. gl
‘eh baa psi hevare
2 plearah ost ab horedtua
d¢ , youmodeta & Pst ene? ad
seUEIS BaF is giktaop
ott Sobeue toute saute
iF Hee bake eb tae Pata
Pd berate : é !
+ sebeo aide mogt of 3a
wt a on OW
facheewey wt eta
trouphvt efeda ah Lae
ens ted: amonpba
ha tc mae Eagt sar adnowe et
3
hy, prcoeenstt
cs
37392 | a Be
JAQOB He JAFFE, f a ABpEAT, FROM
Appellee, we v6 ; ;
| f | MUNICIPAL court
Va . § t
SCHULTSR & 0O., INC., a Corporation, OF CHICAGO. Le
Appellant, ) 2 re 9 TA; 6 4. a
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court
of Chicage against defendant for the sum of $2,050.00, $305.00 :
attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The action is based on Section
37 of the Illinois Securities Act, (Gahill's Ill. Rev. Stat. 1931,
p, 784) and it is alleged inter alia that on January 30th, 1929,
defendant sold and delivered to plaintiff two American Department
Store Corporation of Pennsylvania 6% debenture bonds, maturing
December ist, 1948, and that plaintiff paid for the bonds ©. the
sum of $2,070.00. It is further alleged that the bonds were not
securities under Glass A, B or 0, but were under Class D of the Act,
as déseribed in Section A thereof; that neither before the sale,
nor at any time thereafter, did defendant file with the Seoretary of
State of Illinois any of the documents required by Section 9 of the
Aet; thet the issuer is a foreign corporation of the State of
Pennsylvania, and has not complied with the law regulating the
admission of foreign corporations to do business in the State of
illinois, as required by Section 39 of the Illinois Securities Act,
and thet, therefore, the sale was void, and that the plaintiff is
entitled te recover the amount paid for the bonds, together with
attorney's fees, as provided by law; that plaintiff had made a tender
of the debenture to the defendant, and that the tender was refused,
After the original statement of claim was filed, amendments were
filed, setting up in greater detail defendant's alleged failures to
comply with the Securifiies Act.
wore ata at, ‘, me yH SODAL
ae aaa Tae Oo }
TAVOD MATZOINOM » :
i or
sOVAOTRO TO aoltnroq¢ro® a (0K 4.00) 8) APE RDe
“ghd A. I e y S Stet roqgqa’® §2609 14 bay
‘\QAUOO THT TO KOLAIGO AHT CEiAVIIGC DIAM BOL TAUw pAM He hee
trwo® LaqtotasM edt to sremghut » mott Ineqqe ae eh aiak © 6 os" 1)
? OC ,a0SS ,00.080,8 to mun edt tot taebmeteb temiegs ogsoidd to
gottos® no deed et molten ocT itive to etaod bre .esek # yeurOrsA
teen’ ststé sworn .ILI ef (ities) tea vottizused elomlill sit to Te
eOSSL .AtOS yrauast mo tedt phi sett bege lis’ et th hae (DBT eq
teomdtaqet asotromA owt Ytivmisly oF beteviieb bas bloe tasbroteb—
gnitutean ,shauod smtaedsb RO stasviyenael to mokteroqrod sT0#8
edt *o ebnod odt wot bise Ytisniely tatt wus (Brel (rel rodmeowl
ton otow ebmod ont tat begeils redduot et sf 0000484 to me
,t0A oft Bo GC eeclO tebay stew tud .O to B .A west tebaw soitiruoee
eolse out ereted redtien ted? vtesradd A motto? at bedizoaeb as
to yrsterose ent dtiw eftt tashaoteb bib ‘etotteoredt omit yas ts tom
ads to @ mottos? yd betiupet séaeuvoob oft to wos etont{it to otsté
to etste edt to aoltsroqroo agkerot s al wovent odd tostt jtea
edt gattelyeet wel edt dtiw betLgwoo ton aad bas ,einaviyenned
to eted2? edt at seenteud ob ot snokteroqtoe mpsotot to moleatmbs
etoA nok? trs908 eloniitt edt to G8 molseeat yd ber iuper as eotomi lit
ef ttitaisle odt tad? bas ,bhov eaw slew edt .ototereds todd bas
dit bw tofteged ,ebnod edd tot bisq taveme edt toveoot ot boltsias
“qohmed 5 ehsw bei Yeitatelg ted? jel yd beblvor as ceeet ct arose
sdoowton 8aw xobnet ot tent fas eiaehaoteb ent ot
\
There is no question of fact here involved. Ali the
facts regarding the transaction in question are agreed to.
The record shows that on December 8th, 1928, the Secretary
ef State of the State of Illinois gave approval te defendant for
the sale by it in the State off Iliimois of $100,000,00 of the
debentures of the American Department Store Corporation of Pennsylva-
nia. On January 8th, 1929, ean extension was granted to defendant
to file additional information in regard thereto by February 8th,
On January 30th, 1929,
1939, /the sale of the debentures in question was made by defendant.
By Section 7 of the act in question, which is entitled
"An Act relating to the sale or other disposition of securities,
and providing penalties for the violation thereof and to repeal
acts in conflict therewith," (Cahill's Ill. Rev, Stat, 1931, p. 776)
it is provided:
"By and with the consent and approval in writing of
the Secretary of State any security in Class '6! may be
offered for sale or sold before the filifig of the state~-
ment with respect thereto herein above in paragraph (a)
of this section seven (7) referred to, anything in this
statute to the contrary notwithstanding such consent to
be conditioned upon there being deposited in the office of
the Secretary of State by the issuer or any party interested
in the sale of euch security.:
1. A notice briefly describing the securities to be
offered and stating the price at which such securities are
to be offered to the public, the amount of the iasve and
the amount to be sold in Illinois;
2 The fee with respect to such securities prescribed
in section 26 of this statute;
3, <A copy of the circular to be used in selling or
offering for sale such securities;
4, Such additionel information ag may be required by
the Seoretary of State; provided that within thirty days
after the deposit of such documents, or within such further
time as the Secretary of State may preseribe, there shall be
filed in the office of the Secretary of State the statement
with respect to such security provided for in paragraph (a)
of this section seven (7); and further provided, that no
igsuer or other party ghalil offer, advertise or sell any such
security prior to the filing by the Secretary of State of the
statement hereinabove in paragraph (a) prescribed unless such
issuer or other party shall have on file in the office of the
Secretary of State an irrevocable consent and power of attorney
with respect to the sale of Class 'C! securities as provided
in section 16 of this Act; and shall also have on file in
the office of the Secretary of State a good and sufficient
bond in the sum of not legs than $50,000.00 payable to the
ont If2 sbeyvfevait sted Fost to aoliaesp om ei oxedT
Ot Hheergs ere coltedup ai aobtoesgat? eft galiregezt etost
‘yastetoes eft ,B5¢L ,dt8 tedmeoed no tedt ewode Srosert eff,
tQt tazbmeteb of LIsvotqgs sveg eionslil to etet? edt to etst® to
| est to 00.006, 001) to stom2ill Yo etet® edt mt et yi ofsa ont
-sviysaned to aeltereqrod orote taemPraqed asofrems oft to esrutaedeb
tashaeteh of betarnrs anw molenetxe aa ,SECL Ate YtewnAlL 20 ata
ght8 Yrevedst yd ofered? Hroeges ad aoltamtotat Ienottibds eLst of
stashaeted yd obsm agu noiteoup mt couwtanbah:adt “to olae oa@\q8
Wedtitne ef doldw yuoktoeup mi tes edt te ¥ aedtos@ey@:! yor siin
, es8itizvece to aoidteeqaib redto to efee act ot gattaler toA ma*
Leeqey of bas Roorsdt solteLoty ed? tot eettisaeqygntbiverd ibas
(OPT aq gLEGL etetS .ven off] alllidsd) "edéivoxed? tolliace at ates —
vlvognne vo oipbebhvese neat
to gattiqw al Isvo bas taosnoo eft stiw bas L xan eee
gpa '6' eeeld be By yiiswess yas etst2 to cuatoone zee
_. ~atates edd to gail? odd exoted biee ro else tol berettos ay
(s) dgergsteg ai eveda atexed otetedt toeqaet fitiw trom
eidt af gaidtyaa ,o¢ Seorxetor (¥) aeveg ad itoes eldt :Boxiove
o¢ tnoence dove a | pare yo Ms woataan odd? of etutatea
te soitto on? al Betieoqeh guied ered? moqu henottibaoo. ed») ©»
katseredat ytraq yte to reveal edt yd etat@ to yxsteroe? edt
te¥tirgeee dove Sar da ads
od o¢ agitixyoes odt yrtdicosed beige settom A afk
ous eeditizusss dove doide te sednq oft galtete has botettour ys)”
bas eveet odt to ¢tavome edt oliduq edt of bexetto ed ot
ged sh biog sdoot: — twa
bad iroaetg eoltizvoee dows ot toeqaet dtia oot oT
efdt to 88: f nokbeoe ak eget
<o gatifes at bee od ot ‘ate ® pe to yaoo A
jaottinsee gets
@ doue: tot
xd berivost od yen as co tten ‘rotal Jenoitibbs dove «h
. saysh ytuid? oidtiw tade> iqetste to- yreterose odd) 4k
toddrut deve aidéiw to Ticaueas dowe ito tleoqeb- edt setts
ed Liede sted? ,odiroesne yan siste to yretotoe? ent ea
tnometeta exit stet? to yrsterooe edt to soltte edt ai !
(s) dqerysteq at not bebivetq yWwirsoeecdoua of seeqees dtlw) 0°
om ted? ,bebiverq sedveu?t bas i(%) moves soljoes sri ~~
those yas Lien xo guituevba .xstte. 2 Wie tedto to Rretta
edt to etait to Keech ys yd aati ed¢ of toitg
Hous evolay bedicesoxgy (4 vrodarieted” mee ad
edt to esitto ead al Ai no eved If ps ytred tedte to Tepe:
yearetis tq cewoq Sas dneacoo eidsdevertl me etate ‘to ,
hobiverg as poltixsoee 191 geeld to oles odd of perenne ;
gi ofl no eved dela Slade boas ptoA widt to BL notieoewms ©
tooioitive bas pony Be stat® to yrsteroe@ edd to eeltt
ant ot oidayed 00.000, 089 melt esol gem toma ond:
People of the State of Illinois, for the protection, use and
benefit of purchasers and of all persons in interest, executed
by a surety or guaranty company suthorized to do business in
this State conditioned that in the event the statement with
respect to any securities shall not be filed, as above provided,
the obligor in such bond will repay, to any purchaser from
such obligor, on demand and tender of such securities, the
purchase price paid therefor."
The point made here is that because the Secretary of State
made the order requiring that the sdditional information be furnished
by defendant thirty one days after the deposit of the original
~ i tuo, Dr OE
documents and the approval of the sale of these debentures:°on
December 8th, 1928, rather than in thirty days after this date, the
plaintiff can recover the money paid therefor. It is not suggested
that the statute was not complied with in other particulars, nor
thet by the original filing and approval the securities were not
qualified under "Class 6G", as defined by the statute, (Cahill's
Ill. Rev. Stat. 1931, p» 775) and could have been sold as such, if
the sale had been made within thirty days after December 8th, 1928,
er if the extension of time for furnishing further information had
been made within the thirty day period.
In Yhalin v. Gity of Macomb, 76 Ill. 49, prosecution was
begun against a licensed saloon keeper for selling liquor contrary
toe the ordinance of the city régulating such sales by licensed persons.
It was insisted that because by the charter of the city of Macomb,
it was provided that a digest of the ordinances of the city should
be published in one year after the granting of the charter, and a
like digest thereof published within every period of five years there-
after, and as such publications were not made as required by the
charter, the ordinance was ineffective. On this question, the
Supreme Court said;
"The: publication seems designed merely for the conven=-
idence of those whose duties or necessities require that they
should be familiar with the ordinances, it being entirely
independent from that required orior to the ordinance being
in force as a municipal law - which is shown by the record
bas say to itosgong eds tot atonttil to erste eit to elaeet
betyooxe yteoretas af erowrteg his: to bas arereedotuq to. ¢hiened
ai eventesd ob of hexizodius yasqmoo Ynrereuvg to yYtemwe a Yd
gtiw tmenetota odd taeve edt mt tedt beaoltibnoo otet@ eld?
<behivetq svods es ,belit od tom Ifede eetiinvoos yas ot tosqeer
mort <oacdor ve yas of .yaqea [Liv baod dowe ai ido oft ow
edt stettizucee bese to rebaed bas basweb ao a383) ido dowe
; Seretered? bisa ®
~etete to yrateress odd sensoad tedt ai ote ebem tatog SdT ©) -o0%>
bedelurwt ed noliamnotat Lenoktidbe edt seadt gateieper rebro odd sbem
‘Estigixe edt to theoved edt 1otte oxen: ‘en0 verdad suohooted vw
Porip 8 EAS Lay PL .ft05 yraunet oO
4 ot. seta he: when emenectlebeeth taiohen 6
ga% (otebd sided tette eyeh yirtdt at aodd credtar ,8hOL wes tedmeoed
beteoysve tom et Hl .xOYeTedd Died Youom ocd tevoour Amo etitaterg
rom ,etsluotitey redto mt détw betiqnoo tom eew etutate eat tant
. fort axew tokticvese oft Leverages bas gatiit Lenigico edt yo Pane
e'tiLided) ,etutste oft yd bemtteb ea ,"0 sesid” tebay boitiiasp
7 vista Be bfoe moed svat blueo bre (eve =f tteL siete evoHl oft
~88eL .aee ‘zedmooed rede ayat vtante bse in ohem ‘90d bait bkae odt
bat sottenvotad: qodtant .gatdetens? rot omit to aokensixs oat ‘tt x0
nae ee Ly
shot zeg ved winks: ont abitin nohadl mood
Al, May
eaw not tuveco7g «8d -ilI dF ‘dnozall Be owtio: ov wiLadll at up
yreritos toupti gatifLea rot ‘teqoed. moose beameodi: Be featega muged |
anoer9g Soanootl yd aeloe dows eatin fergie. Ye do: oe. ‘te: ‘sonnakbre ott ot
«noo a8 to ytio edt to retsario add we ‘eennaed she botetent aow a
binede ytto ot to eeonsaibra oft to teegde ©: tadé dobivore aw th
s bas qtetredo edd to gaieaasy, one setts oy bodedtoug od
~sredd exsey eve? to. bottoq. queve “ahdtew dedesidog Yosrest teeysb eat
oat we Dex kwpos ae obs » aa oxen ao Lowobidc tome es ban, ¢xst%e
o wee Be
one a0 Leaoup eldt Fece) _sovtsostiont won souentbro: ode yretaedo )
‘ VELteo Se
es aon
: i bods eee es orf
“cmorert9 edd. x0? xioxem: eae KY
yout. tedt exiypet soltiteeoun, +t} “geltah. Say der > "
orktne gated 4 4s od? dtkw txtLimet ed big
ed eonsntbxo et $F tette ony todd mort. snobaog
bsooen edt yd ag dolsin = : oak
Ah a ;
to heve been properly made,
A familiar common law rule, repeatedly recognized
by this court, is: ‘Where a statute specifies the time
within which a public officer is te perform an official
act to. pane the rights and duties of others, it will
be considered as direotory merely, unless the nature of
the act to be performed, or the language used by the
legislature, shows that the designation of the time was
intended as a limitation of the power of the officer,'"
In Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Eighth Edition,
pe 158, it is said:
"Those directions which are not of the essence of the
things to be done, but which are given with a view merely
to the proper, orderly and prompt conduct of the business,
and by a failure to obey which the rights of those inter-
ested will net be prejudiced, are not commonly to be
regarded as mandatory, and if the act is performed, but not
in the time or in the precise mode indicated, it may still
be sufficient, if that which is done accomplishes the sub-
stantial purpose of the statute."
There is nothing in the true intent,nor in the wording of
the act which suggests why the order extending the time for furnish-
ing this required information should have been made in thirty days,
rather than in thirty one days agter the original filing, and we
are of the opinion that it would be a forced construction of the
statute to hold that under its terms, the Seoretary of State was
acting oontrary thereto when he made the order as he did. We are
alse of the opinion that, insofar as the record indicates, there had
been a compliance with the requirements of the statute when the
sale was made, Therefore, the judgment of the Municipal Court is
reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. CONCUR,
qh ee
mh 1%
- 8b .cet vlreqorg asod eves of
besimgoeet ylbetseqer «ee Lere wel temoo netilsat A
gutt edt esitleece oiutats a-eredW! iat ¢trwo0o: ane we
| fetedtte us merotrop of ei veasttto silduq #£ doldw aistiw
i fitw ti ,aredto te aettuh hoe adie ts edt | Ryex tos
oo) So etytan edd sao tou ———. qrotoer7ib as betebianseo ed
’ it xd Seer egengial ele to chemxotreq od ot tos edt
sev omit odt to nolvangieas® edt stadt swords
mt xoottto edt to reweg edt to aoltatimts a 8s bebasins
eno itibs sata tx ano tsad ke Jano tive tt aged 8*yoLo00 al
ibiee et $1 ‘Bak « .
Sige ae "8
edt to eomeaas ont te tom ers dotdw anottoexth seod?®
Tiers weiv addin covig ars dolde tud ,eweb ad of grows
Pig pag ect to tovdbaoe tqmota bas vizebro stOqotG t ot
ONES Sande Ae white aati centn eile cae 7 Say ya bas.
ed ot yinommos tom ets e econtees in ton vag on betes
el eeouatoae ddan with tenaeaioeenih babasger
ite yam ti boteoibal ebos crheeee” anit tn al <0 wait ont m
Tenia nel wesc taohenh nen detbsad amenaiaae ae Aut
",etutatea edt to seoquita Aahtaste
md WKS Pats
te gukbrow edt at xon,tasdes eurt edt at galdton al exeat
| ihe Leva tot omit edt gaibaedxs tebro oat ew eteoygue sobs ton : oak
eyed tetas PT ebass nesd ved hivode ao Ltewrotai dorkuper aidt eos
oy mah
ow bas gant Lentsizo edt reds yen Eyer) wrtdt at uate xadter
IkKG' Bele Fz
odt to sottouttenoe beoret a ed bivew tt tadt noinige ode to
DS at | ea ee HOE
Baw state to Yrststo98 odt somxet ett xe haus add biod ot otutste
nee ar} a
ors eH 6 «bLb ou ‘Bs rabro out oben od mode oteredt veces wee
| baa oxedé .sotsotbal brover edt es retoestt etautt oinige at Yo onks
le edie otutete edt to atuonortuper edt as ty | aaenh mane 4 a Ey!
et x09 Loq to basse ost? to tempat edd sototoxedT gehen om sing
.obaanes oauro edt bas Dboazevert
nee ee Spe eames et
[BO Be
‘\CHQMAMSR Gia Caenavan ;
our ae! Se vit ; ie ari Ba Leoyveas) Cay ss sobs
| ;
: sane Koko i io ous ko
er Tt ha te. vaste Bret ght “The omekle
Bade a read » amor Ai
mf BN SMa 3 an *h 3 5 We a : ‘ 6 YS “y i RY ei 0" ee | nee wae 13 § ¥ EE aett Bi 1 Fo, ee.
i; Hg ‘cpones te wed: eae: wae ee sone <> mae
i Eee PS) - Rema Re) toe Oe bee LORE RRA Hedda. ihe ;
Fas tory her kein. fae gas oes
‘ere pid Ieqse pie ee eet ak
gown ee one
ale , i i i
we S 6 ar
; ‘ j f
j in
: Pie ‘
oe ff
37402 Pa py, A at ai be A '
FRANK Re. CUMMINGS and’ MARY, CUMMINGS»: « APPEAL FROM
—" “ SUPERIOR COURT
Ve
GEORGE W. TORPS, GOOOK COUNTY.
Appellee. \
2¢9 1.A.643
WR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CounT.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the
Superior Court of Gook County against them for costs of suit. A
jury trial was had, and the verdict was for defendant, upon which
verdict the judgment was entered, The action is based upon « claim
that plaintiffs were defrauded by defendant in a real estate deal,
The issues were made upon plaintiffs! declaration, and general
and special pleas filed by defendant.
It is alleged generally that’ plaintiffs were the owners
of a parcel of real estate located at Summerdale and Hoyne Avenues
in the city of Chicago, improved with a modern brick fourteen
apartment building, valued at upwards of $85,000.00, subject to a
mortgage of $57,000.00, from which building they received = gross
income of approximately $12,000.0Q The abstract does not state
whether this $12,000.00 income was yearly or not, but we presume
that is what is to be implied from the statement. It is further
alleged that defendant was at the time in question a real estate
broker in the city of Chicago, and that he hed been for many years
the agent and advisor of plaintiffs in various prior real estate
deals and transactions; that about Mareh lst, 1930, plaintiffs had
presented to them by persons other than defendant, = suggestion that
they trade their interest in their apartment building for other
properties; that they submitted this trading proposition to defendant,
giving him a description of the properties for which they were asked
ee, of { e,
a ‘on :
SL ihe oO
MOMY TALIA yeonnage ne HLAM bes BDYLMMUD «5 XUAAT
fh! etasiceaq ‘esta
TAvVOO RO IRASUB F ‘ : ’ ‘ G pit ire
q ‘ b ‘ “v she
eYTHUOD HOG | eUIHOT .W. BORED
saeiLogga mee lp
'ehO.A.L Os S
eTHUOO GZHT FIO BKOITMITO ENT GERAVIZAC LIAH GZOLPRUL se
oad to cunmgbot & mot? ettisniata yd Lseqqe as al. aid?
A tive to atsoo tot mont Fentegs yinwed Xoo to #2109 ‘xolreque
doisw noe stachaeteb <10t agw ‘tetbroy edt bas bad. caw Asist veut
misio & aogier beesd ef noises ext sboxrogae Bow. tuombut edt ‘toibrev
feeb etetee Isex 2 ni taabavteb cl bobussteb ezew attitaseta tedt
| » Lerensy bose .meigersiosb ‘attitaislq nmoqs oben otew eoueel on?
etnabasteb yd beLit acelq istoogs bas
/ ereawo bd? oxow b attttntssy tent yLlereseg begalie et. od + ‘amd
portevA exyoh bre siebhtemwe te Betaool otatee feot te liao
peetmet Avind arebom » ddiw heverqms ,ogsotad to Ytio edd me
pot tostdue ,00.000,889 to abreww te beglev .gatbiind, daeesrene
weoty s beviooer yet yutbiiud sdoidw sett .00.000, 7a), Yo ogeatron
gtete tom seob tosvteds ac? £05000, SLi ‘stentxoraqe to snoont
onneny ow ted ,tom to yiskey esw emoomt: 00,000,8.h. etdd rositeds
| Smodeent ef 1 .teonotete edt mint Dotiqnd ed ot sk tase at tact
- etatee Iser 2 acotteeup ai omit od¢ ta-gow dashuoked ‘tat begets
exacy ens ‘tot nood hei ed tadt bas segsote to Yate edt mt rexoxd
eteted Leer tofite awoitev mi att ttatslg te Re pelle ban tnege eat
bed ettivaiel .O8CL ,tef doze tuode tadé yenottosansst ‘bas eLee
tedt noiteesgve s ,tusbasteh medt tedte enoeteq w moat ot boinocorg
route rot gotblivd tmembraqe tied¢ at seosotat heat obs xt . ad
anit ot moltieogotg gaibatt eLdr bottindue yeds teade jaotisecors <
boxes oxow Yet sotdw tot acitzeqorg eult to notgqiroesb s al i iv!
EView ghe
2
to trade their apartment building; that defendant agreed to appraise
the properties offered in trade, and to advise plaintiffs as to
the advisability of the proposed deal; that plaintiffs agreed with
defendant that they would pay him the usual brokerage commission on
a trade or exchange on the basis of the property value of $85,000.00
for their apartment building; that defendant reported to plaintiffs
that he had inspected and approved the properties offered them in
trade, and that he, defendant, found one of them to be a three story
apartment building valued at 926,000.00, subject to a mortgage of
$19,000,900; a vacant lot in Deerfield, Illinois, which he valued at
$1,000.00, which lot was free and clear of all incumbrances, and
another vacant lot on Parnell Avenue, free of ineumbrance, and
valued at $2,500.00; also a tract of land near Blue Island, Illinois,
valued by defendant at §9,600.00, upon which there was a balance due
under a contract of purchase amounting to $1,800.00, In addition to
the above properties offered in trade and submitted to defendant
for his judgment and appraisal, it is alleged that there was also
offered a $5,000.00 first mortgage and a $1,000.00 second mortgage,
together with the notes secured thereby, on eight vacant lots in
Waukegan, Illinois; that defendant told plaintiffs he had examined
all these properties, for which it was proposed that they exchange ©.
their interest in the apartment building, and that he stated to them
that for trading purposes, these various properties were superior
in value and worth to plaintiffs! apartment building, and that he
advised them to trade their apartment building for such properties,
and that defendant further told them that if they would do so, he
would be enabled to exchange the various properties, received by
them in exchange, for a building in the vicinity of Oakdale Avenue
and Halsted Street, in the city of Chicago, which they desired, and
that in addition to securing the last mentioned property, he would
secure for plaintiff some cash in this trade, It is alleged thet he
s
ssietqgs of bestgn toshasteh todt j;gakblind taemtceqe tledt eberd of
ot ee ettitaiela oefvbe ot das ,sbatt ut betetto esitreqotq edt
atin beoxgs stiitaislg teft jLeeb bosdqorq edt to ythiidestvbs edt
fe soleeianmoo egexedord Javes edt mid yeaq bilvow yedt tant taabasteb
00,000,289 to exlav yreqorg edt to elesd edt mo oymbdoxe to ebert
Bititaisle ot betzoqet tashneteb tadt jyniblinud taemtseqe ted? rot
‘ ie medt bexestto seitregerg edt bevortcqs bas betoeqent bed od tedté
yrots send? » ed of medt to ono bawot ,taabneteb ,ed tadt bas ,obart
to egegirom 8 ot tostdve .00.000,880 te beuisy gakbitud toomtrsqs
ts bewley od dotdw ,stowiili gbielttresd al tol tasoav s {00,000,628
bas ,secaskdmwont {fe to tsefe bas sett ecw tol doldw £00000 £8
al
FOL T
bas .sonetdmvent to sert <OusmavA LLenzed no tot tasosy : gerd
eslomtilt ~baslal asl teen bast te test? s oats {00-008,83 te boutsy R
eu eonaled & eaw Sted doidw wequ .00-008,.04 ts snshaoteb vd bouev
DELL 13
et moltdvibbs al #000008, i$ et gaivmvons seadtonsc ‘te ‘tosténoo. 8 ‘rohaw
| taabasteb ot hod tkmdue bas ebaxt at hore2to eottroqorg eveds ont
RE Tee RR ae °
gals een ered? tedt bege i£e ed te isaiesqas ‘bas tomgbert abit eid
.Susgtior basen 00.000, £2 8 bas ogagirom tenth 00.000,84 8 boxett
at stol tasoav tigte ao .yeredt beruooe eeton ont sin tonite
benimaxe bad ed sti itaisig bist dasbavteb tadt yeroneitt ahgedent
at egaerioxe yout tedt Beacqotq asw ti doiite tot seedtronone sued? a yoo
mold oF ‘botete ed gad? bas cganbLind tnondzeqe end at ; iittied’< stone
nolregue eTaw seitresorg asoiter ovedd eowoquu ain xot 3 ted
ed ted? bas egubbLind tnoudregs ‘att hiatelg of | iisow baw estiy ak
veoteteqora doue tot gatbLiud tnontrags hod eberd dof oar ini
od 1s ob biuew veut ti ted modt biot cod ty | feat 5G ae
ots
” be eg neon aah.
we bevieoot io itredong avoirsy edd osastoxe ¢ ‘eo # beidane ed bivew
$xet ie aet ponent
sumova efsbasd to Wiatoty eas aa guablied & rol eegaadoxe
Dae ie Rhee betaion hen
bas ‘sbortnob vent doidw sogeotdd to wie eas ab _toonte te
~ bivow ex Wiregorg benoitaen task ott putcwose ‘ot mousse at as
ie 0 Eee, ee
on ‘tadt begs ils ai dl .obert alt ak pa, omoe Vitaiele t
3
further stated to them that if plaintiffs needed immediate funds, he
@ould and would cash some of the mortgages reeeived in such trade,
It is alleged that, relying upon defendant's statements, plaintiffs
entered into a contract for the exchange of their building for
these various properties, and paid defendant « commission of
$2,250.00. It is further alleged that all of the statements made by
defendant as to the values of these properties, for which they
exchanged their building, were false, and that defendant made such
false statements for the sole purpose of inducing plaintiffs to
enter into the deal so that he might collect from them the commission
herein referred to. Plaintiffs! claim for damages amounts to
$35,000.00, which demages, it is alleged, they have sustained by
reason of defendant's alleged fraud,
Frank HR. Cummings, one of the v]aintiffs, testified in
substance that he was employed as a chauffeur, and thst Mary F.
Cummings, the other plaintiff, is his wife; thet in 1921 defemiant
sold a building for plaintiffs for $11,200.00, and that they paid
him a commission on the sale; that thereafter, through defendant,
they bought a three flat building et 3538 fita Avenue, and that they
paid him 2 commission on 212,000.00, the emount of the déal; that in
1926 plaintiffs sold the Rita Avenue property through another broker
for $19,500.00, but that they paid defendant $25.00 to close the
deal for them, this witness further testified to the effect that in
January, 1950, plaintiff, tegether with his wife, called on defendant
Terpe at his office; that plaintiff told Torpe he would like to trade
his apartment building for a building in another neighborhood; that
he then gave Torpe 2 statement of the gross and net income of hiay
plaintiff's,building; that Terpe told plaintiff thst if he would give.
the defendant "an exclusive sale of this building", defendant would
be able to dispose of it and get a three apartment building free and
ed ,ebavt otaibeans hoheen attitaielg ti tant medét of hatsta redtemt
sebext dove at bevieoor seacgtxem edt to sos dseo Afuow Ans SDLugo
attitaisig ,etaenetete a'tasheeteh aoqy gatylot ,tadt Begelia af at
‘wor gatbitud riedd to egasdoxe ot rok toertaoo 2 otal boxetae
te aeleatanoo s tashaskeb diag bas ,eetiveqery svelisy seed?
yd Shas atuometete ect to the tad? bogetis radiawt at #2 00.088 St
yedt doldw roi ,soitxegetg saedt to aentlev adit ot (es taebagteb
fowa oben tiebucteh tadt hae ,ealst exew ,patbitud ctedt begaadoxe
_ of attisniale yatoukal to ssoquug lon edt tot atnenetete, eeLet
noteatanon ont medé moxt vootloo tigim ed teds oa teob add otat gcatne
od etavoms esyemeb tot misto 'sttitaisls ot berietet ateted
i said oved yerd ,howsile et ¢£ ,pogemab dotse .00-000,881
Mh holttitaes eetiitniesg ont to ono ,egaimaw? . ff Anert | nee
wt YssM tadd Sas .roettyedo ¢ as beyotque asw od toads auaeuaih
taatneteh IS@L at ted? jetiw aid et .Thttntale xedto edt .eyatamud
- bkeg yedt den? hae .00.008 Li) sot ettitatele sot gatbitod « bfoe
\tmatusted dguotst restseredt edt jetse eft mo motesinnod « mid
vedt tadt bas ,sunevA etif 8826 fo gatbitad salt AAAS NE SP
mi ted? jLedb edd to tavoms edt ,00,000,81% m0 moteatmoo 6 mid bkag
- sepletd tedtons dauerdt yeroqorq sumevA sfii edt biop atlitaiery Ol
edt exolo of 00.88% tashusteb blag yodt tedt tyd ,00.008,8L) aot
at tedt goatts add of Seltitaed redtzut aoantin eit ..medd got [eed
tashasteb so beliso .etin eld dtin TOA BOR gE Late R, ORL eyreunal
ebsit ot siil bigow ed eqrot blot titately gedit isodtto wid te equa?
tad joodzodidgion wedtons at gutblind ¢ cot gethllud tasmézege, eb
waid to smoont ton bas saoty odt to saemedate o Re er tnd
ovis bison od t£ todd lhc blot aqxetT ted # Lis Lola
"bas, gent pute seostnca sunt x £0, ah, 2828 aaa ib ¢
sbustt begelia a'tashaeted: neg |
4
clear of all debts and inecumbrances, and that at that time, defendant
told plaintiff his building was worth $85,000.90, but that he had
better list it at $73,000.00 so that plaintiff would not have to
pay defendant such a large commission. Plaintiff further testified
to the effect that on March lst, 1930, he, together with his wife,
called on defendant and presented a list of several pieces of real
estate, which he had obtained from another broker, and that Torpe
told plaintiff that "it does not look very good, it is too scattered,
I or and appraise it, and let you know all about it. If
it is a good deal, I will let you make it, and if it is not, I won't
let you make it. it will take me about a week or ten days to do
this. iI will personally, myself, go out and see every piece and
parcel of it; if I find it te be worth the money they are asking for
it, and a good deal for you to make, I will let you make it, and if
I don't find it to be a good deal, I won't let you make it." Plaintiff
also stated that on March 8th, 1930, in the presence of plaintiff's
wife and a Mr, and Mrs. Schneider, defendant stated to plaintiff,
"Now, I have examined each and every piece and parcel of this property,
and I find it to be wonderful in every way, and worth much more than
Mr, Karttunen is charging for it, I have appraised it as to ite
value, that acreage out there in Blue Island is wonderful;" that as
to the Foster Avenue property, defendant told plaintiff, "It is a fine
three story flat building, worth more than $26,000.00," This witness
testified that defendsnt told him that he defendant had examined the
lot in Deerfield, and the property in Waukegan, upon which the
mortgage proposed in exchange was given, and found thst these proper-
ties were worth al] that they were reported to be; that at this time,
defendant stated to plaintiff that if he needed cash, he could *ewing
it at once for the full cash value;" that upon these representations,
he, the witness, and his wife, signed the comtract for the exchange of
>
tashaeteh ,eakt doit ta tedt bas ,eeonstdmuend has etdeb Lia to gselo
dad ed tedt tud .0%000,38) dizow saw gatblind aid tittaislq blogs
gt evad ton bimew tiitaielq tedd oe 00.000,85% ¢ th tall sotted
beltiteas? uedtesi Tiitaleli .soleeinmoo ogral s doys taabacteh yaq
astiw gid dtiw soddegod ,o4 ,GSCL ,iel dowsM mo dadt tostte edt o¢
fees to nepeta latevee to teil » betaeserg bas tasbaoteb ao dotiso
eqrot gedt bas ,redord tadtoss moti benistde bad ed deidy .etatas
beretiaoe oot et of .boag ysev dood tom ae0b th" tadt 2ldaisiq lot
tI owt tueds ifs woot woy tof bas ,t! oelarggs fos sadacxe Lhtw
teow X qtom wi ff th hus qtt xem voy tol iktw 1 _Leebhboog s ek
ob of ayeb aot to deen @ tuods om odgt ifkw #1 ath odam.voy 0d
bus eoeiq yrove ese pas jue og .tiovw .vilesoereq Lite t «ehde
tot yaltes ors yodt yenom edd divow ad o¢ ¢4 Hatt 1 22.524 to teezeg
ti bos ti adem yoy tel ifiv 1 ,edam.ot voy tok taeb hogs. s bas att
Thtaield “att oven soy tel tlaow I ,ised boog 6 od of t4 mttd'a0d.f
elttitateld to sonesotg oft ai ,OUCEL .dt8 doeail ao tedt betsta onke
gititatsiq.ot betste tachagted euebiendoe sank baa «x sous etdw
wreqerta aidd to Leoxeq bas evete yrove Daa dose bemimaxe sya nou!
Hadt orom dom dtzow bas , yer rove ws Lvtzebaow od.9f thi bast Lubes
sph gt an th Dosioncas oved [ 9,¢t tot, aidgtsdo. at denuttreA gti
(ag tedd "{LAsebsow at basil euid.as oxent v0, egeor0s, tat udev
Ut sat #1" .tidtndelg dos sashaoted, .ytxeqong eunevd, xodpa} ott of
r i Bid ".00,000,a8% aadt oxen sotow quathitud dak. yrote, cond:
ed, Ddeatmexe bed snghaexen, od tadd mid, blot. tashasted feds be! 4% 98
gion) 9d dotsin mom, asgeruallab ytxegora edt bas, eet ia
~xeqorg scadt tadd bavet bin ,wovlg eeu egaedexe ak heeogong, epsatagr
somgt aldt ds tadt.qed of betroget orem yest dedt Lhe, pain one ot
gatwat binoo ef ,deso bebeen od Bi tadd Tri¢nielg, at boteqe: tnsbaote.
enostotaceenqen: eeodt ogy tedt “jeutay dag tut, ene
to -sgasdoxe oft tok tostmec eit Somgia,,etdw etd bre qe
SR a, ee ee ee
5
properties. His further testimony was te the effect thet he after-
wards learned that the properties for which he had exchanged his
flat building, were of little value.
Various other witnesses were produced by plaintiff to
substantiate this witness! testimony as to defendant's representations.
Defendant testified in substance that he had been in the
real estate business in Chicago for 32 years, and that at the time of
giving his téstimony, his office was located at 2358 Linclon Avenye,
in the city of Chicago; that he first met the plaintiffs in 1921,
when they came to him for the purpose of purchasing some real estate
on Oakdale Avenue; thet later, he seted as = broker in the purchase
of a piece of property on Rita Avenue in Chicago; that he never
coliected the rents or managed any of these buildings; that the first
time he talked with plaintiffs with reference te the fourteen flat
building in question in this suit was in January, 1930; that he had
nothing to do with the purchase of this building by the plaintiffs,
nor had he anything to do with the management of the building,
or the collection of the rents in connection with it; that at this
time, Mr. Cummings told the witness thet he, Cummings, was not in a
position to held this property on account of various payments coming
due, and because of the vacancies existing and of expected vacancies
to come, and that he wanted to make a deal with it. The witness
testified that he told Owanings that it would be impossible to make
a sale of the property, but that the witness might be able to make
& trade; that the defendant stated that he, plaintiff, was trying to
get a piece of property near Oakdale Avenue, where the plaintiff had
formerly lived; that plaintiff quoted a price of $85,000.00 on his
apartment building, which the witness said was too high, and that
Cummings then said he would sell it for $73,000,00, The witness
then asked Cummings for the exclusive ageney for the asle of the
a
a
a “c8fte ed fect toette od? of eae wiomitesd rodtewt @IX seettroqetd
aid “aoe ag bed @f dotdw rot selétoqota oft fant bomenel abrew
sulev esti to exew antbird talk
OF Yiltirtele yd heoubsq ox6v aotedatiw reddo auoltet
enoktetméedtqet e'inehneted od aA ynomtieos 'aventiw elsdé stattustode
edd ni nese bed od ted? sonetade at boltitess? tasbaeted | aa
to omit edt #@ todd ‘bas yaxeet SS rot ogeotdd ‘mi seentetd ‘odatio’ Loon
“(sqnevA acfontl 88% ts betavel esw 6oltto eid cuoutteot aid yaivdy
{keer nt atritwtele ext tom ferkt od vedé jogeoldd to yk edd me
- Gdedile Laer ‘omoe guieedorug To seoqrug odé toY mid “oF ons yous soda
seatormg sf ni texord = es betos ef ,todsl tad jecnevA ‘otsbio mo
sever od ted yoysotdd a2 oumevA stint do ‘wrsqord to seste 's to
genkt odd Yadd jegnthLiud o#ods to yd bogsnan to ataer dt Botoolion
‘talk nestavct edt of oometstes dtiw attitataly dtiw bexist of oats
‘Ped Od fest POSCL yyraveet ni eew tive Bid? at Holtesyp bed 2bit
| gettitwhelg ods yo gatbiidd atdt to eedons, ‘sit Mtiw ob of
« ‘ggaibiiud edt To iit eat atsiin WP lstedah eae
i || Wel
pit? : rf
“Gldt Y2 Yedt (4! tin nottoennco af etner ot Yo notte dtiee edi ro
‘@ WE Wor saw pegatumnd od todd saoatinw ont Biot eydtomi soi comkt
gatuoe -ednesrysq evoitey to tmvooos Mo Wroqotq: eidd bod of m ott teoq
selomsosy hetoeqxs to Bue pekteixe estoadsosy até to oeucoed ‘ina
(°° “peondte ont ek ditty Loeb 6 oxen of detnew od tadi ‘bus ono 0 08
ce p t a, ;
* eilam of eidtawoqet of bivow th tat eyelid. blot ox add bothe tees
j ai Ge ne it peony
‘indi et Wite be ‘tdgla edentiw edt fant’ tes witreqore odd to ‘else &
OM) wh sik '
ot gatyre aw tthtutale .ed sod hetete tnabaoteb ott ‘tad jehext 4
Det Vtiteiely ent ovedw .sumevA eLsbasd zs0n regex ‘to ‘sootg Pa tes
“ekit 10 00,000,289 to Sorta s betoup tr ttatala (tite honk ison lat aco
‘yest bite’ rigid 00% aew bist seentiw out! a 02 aw Sntbtiud’ tromdcac
oC geentiw ed? (00,000.89 tot tf tree bituow on
© eH Yo aLse edt tot Yoneye evieutoxd edt xot agmtins
6
property, and that thereupon Gummings executed such an agreement.
Defendant testified that he made an effort to sell the property,
advertised ih in various papers at his own expense, but that he met
with no success in this regard; that the next meeting he had with
plaintiffs was in February, 1930, when they came to his office and
told him that a man by the name of Karttunen had submitted to plain-
tiffs a list of properties which he, Karttunen, desired to trade
for their apartment building; that plaintiff, Frank 8. Cummings, said
that he had seen some of the properties, and that he would entertain
such a deal because he was not in shape to hold his apartment building
any longer. Defendant further testified in substance that he and
Cummings went over the prices, and Cummings said he was willing to
go ahead on the desl, as proposed, but that he, defendant, had never
agreed to appraise the properties, and had never used the word
“appraisement" in connection therewith, because he did not consider
himself to be an appraiser, This witness also testified that neither
of the plaintifis ever consulted him about appraising any properties,
and thet he never did any appraising of real estate for them, nor
did he ever agree to de any such work. Defendant further testified
that he drew the original contract for the exchange of these proper-
ties, and that Cummings and his wife and Karttunen and his wife
signed the cohtracts; that Karttunen had a lawyer representing him
in the transaction, and that he, the witness, went to the Chicago
Title & Trust Company in connection with having an abstract of title
brought down to date; that the deal was closed in his office, and
that @ man named Sampson, attorney for the Examiner of Titles at
the Chicago Title & Trust Company, at Cummings request, represented
Cumaings in the transactions
Various other witnesses for both sides testified as to
various detaiis concerning this trade, all of which testimony was
submitted to the jury,
Gi
stromeerys as dove betyooxe agaimawd noqueredt ted? bas ,¥?roqo7Td
iyexeqota édt [lee o¢ trotts ao ebam od tect Holttiteer fashasted
tom od tedt twd .eanecxe awo eld ta eteced avoltsy at a! beelstevbs
déiw bed od gatteem txes edt tee {btegor vide AE aeeoowe on d¥iw
bus eoltte atd of omen yedd modw ,OfCL ,ytecxdet af edw ett italtalq
antele o¢ Bettindye bad semsgiis% to omen odd yd mem & tad met BLOF
ebert of bortash ,wenwtirsd .o¢ doidw eettroqot¢ ‘to teil s ettlt
hice ,egatmesd .f dastl jttitatele tad? yatbited semdteqd thee £Ot
aistcétas bivow sf todd bas .eottteqotq edt to omow adden bad et dadé
gutbitnd tnembreqs eid blot of oqede mt tom tow Od Gausoed keh A dota
Bite od tedt sometedie at Seititeo? xedtxct taebastet ” ened on
6% galiliw esw od bite oymiemeS bids jaeotrg edt t0v0 te |
rover bad ,fushasted et tent suf ,beeoqorq es (taob edd ad °badde of
""" “prow odd ‘bows coven bad bat (eortreqoty eit eefszada of beorah
robieaes ton BLb ed baueded .dtiwstedd noltoonnod at "taembebarage”
roddien tact béititesd oats esonttw eid? srseterqqe ae’ od o¢ tioamtt
weoldreqory ws gateterqcs tuode mid betiuence teve’ ‘evtstanal edd 'v6
rom‘, mods tot otetwe Iset to antetsrqqe ys bib toven od sade bar
“pektitess teddiht tasbasted witrow Mowe Yate Ob of e8Tge ‘cove od bib
teqorg Seed? to ogittsibxe Odd rot fosthi0d featgixo ‘Sriv word “ed «add
- @tiw btd bac momwtt7sd bas otiw eid Bae egttnmud seat niin {aott
mid gatenesarqor «sywal 6 bed seauthied tadd jetostiteo odd” boagts
ogsdidd ort of tnow pheondiw edt jon tad bas \noftessmare Odd RE
eltid to sonrtads me gatvet dtty soltoennoo"at yaeqtiod teat & eL¢it
be ,coltto etd at berdls asw feeb edt tade jeteb ot smob diguoxd
$e eelti? to temimexd‘edt tot yenrotts _mo acme ‘beman ash 8 tact
betnoeetger ,teoupor Vegwtitind +2” aenamedh eta ¥ ‘tes t ii i
ot es boititest nebie dtod preva fener wots vv
ehw yromiteed dotdw to Is bens) etay yrenag 22 aL et
; y Hee Res Nee leuvkoes Oa? Bi josh ont
The ground for reversal principally wrged here is that
defendant's counsel made improper statements in his argument to the
jury. It is also urged that the testimony of one of the defendant's
witnesses wes repudiated by his affidavit after the trial; that the
verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and
that the agent is liable te his principal for fraud and deceit,
From the statements of counsel, we receive the impression
thet defendant had formerly sued plaintiff for commissions alleged
to be due in the transaction; salso that a complaint had been made
to the Department of Trade and Registration of the State of Illinois
with regard to defendant's actions in connection with the matter in
controversy, and that an attempt had been made to cause the revoca-
tion of defendant's license as a resi estate broker on account of
this transaction. The argument of defendant's counsel to the jury,
to which plaintiff objects, as stated in the brief, is as follows:
"Now, talk about persecution, Just because a man
wants his commission - and sues for it in the Municipal
Gourt - then they try to get him out of business by
taking his license away, but he is still doing business,"
Alse the following:
"Here ig what I mean, I attempted this morning to
explain to you that if there is any judgment in this case,
even for $10.00, under the law, because it is a fraud case,
a malice case, Terpe can be sent to jail, When I attempted
to say thet to you this morning his honor, the court, sus-
tained an objection, but now I am permitted to tell you
what the law is."
We see nothing in this argument which would justify a reversal.
On the trial of the cause, one Karttunen testified that
he had accompanied the plaintiff and his wife on a trip to view the
properties for which plaintiffs agreed to exchange their apartment
building. On the motion for a néw trial, which was overruled, plain-
tiff presented an affidavit of Karttunen in which he stated that he
Karttunen, was mistaken in this regard, and this fact is urged as one
of the reasons why a new trial should have be@n granted, and why the
judgment should be reversed, Plaintiffs had engaged in many real
i
_ ted? et ered beget yiloqiontrq Lastevex rot baworg odT reqs
od¢ ot saomvgts eld of etaomedsta tagotqal eben Leenvoo e'taushnateb
a'tashnstes eld te sso to Yuomitest edt told begry omia ef ti. avant
edt ¢edt ,isixt edt t9d%e8 tivebitte ald yd betelbyges easy ‘sacsontiw
bas ,soushive edt to tdpiow teetinan ad? of yteaxtnoo ak tosbrey
. . s»stkeoeb bas buext tot Laqtoaixrg aid of efdsitl ek thege ost todts
tohezerami edt avieser oy ,leeauoo to atnemetets edd moth ca
Segetia anoles Lanoo rot Tittalelq bowe vixearor dat tnabaeteh , tna
_ obam ased bed tatalqmoo s dsdt omfg) jmoitocenstt edt at Pe,
errr to stet@ edt to soitertetges bas eberT to s¢memasqed ont af
ab tottem edt diin sottesnnea mt pacites a'tashagteb ot by x i by
~soovex ect egueo of ehsm moed bed tqmatta as tedt baa ,yexeverdaoo
to tavoccs no 19A0td etatee feet s ex eemeotl s ‘tnshaoreb to aot
sath eit o¢ Ieenvoo eltaebnoted to tnemmgts od? .nottosenert eidé
tawollot es at ,teixd edt ni hetete ss ,atoetdo Tiitaist
ase #2 exvaosd gas .noituooet vods Alsat eae
Isqiolaw edt af ti tot Me bas = eh eS ‘etasw
“S apente cod padoe iain se ied ten ’ lase if geil = aes,
“— | :gadwoLlor ls wits |
ouds RiLs"er Seatghet pet an anatt hu ead any, of atalagn
Saco bustt s ol #f saveced ane en? xebus 400 Pa
bedquetts I medy List ot tae ed aso qr
~eue ,dxrvoo oft ,yonod eld apy peo ahs vert” a Otte “ted? ee”
woy iiet of betéimreg me I wos twd so ttenhde Me ot ry
siserover # Ytitedt Bluow mo tddw busied anata slits ah A
fed Holtidect momutdred ond (oaudd Od? to Lefed ond nO) © 97"
ett woiv of qivt a ao ettw old bas ttivaieiq oat betnsqmdoos bed “od
toomtusqe shedt eymedoxe of beetgs attivakkiq doldw tot aettceqdtq
entslg .beluito re aew dotdw .fleltt wen o rot mottom edt a0’ Vgatbfind
od ted? betste ed dotdw ai aeowttsal t¢ tivabitts a& dodaesete ttle
ono as besty ef fost etdd bas .bregse eid a2 codetelm’ sow .nenutixed |
edd ydw das ~botacrs med” oved biuode Isitt wan s YW parsdenling
Isot Yaam at begegne had eiti¢aisls sboardvox od inode tt get
8
estate transactions, both in purchasing and trading, and whether the
statement of Karttunen was true or not, we think is of slight import-
anees Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to view these properties on
their own behalf, if theyhad desired to do so,
On the question as to whether the verdict was contrary
to the manifest weight of the evidence, we have this to say. An
examination of the record discloses that there wes a great contrariety
of testimony submitted to the jury on both sides on the questions
involved; thst the jury heard the witnesses, was properly instructed,
and passed upon their credibility and the weight to be given to
their testimony, and our conclusion is that the verdict and judgment
should not be disturbed, Therefore, the judgment is affirmed,
A¥FIRMED.
HEBEL, Pode AND WILSON, J. CONCUR,
| €
edt redéedw bas .yathert bus yatesdorsg ak ved sco ivocanext etstee
% witoohootab
~sroqmt ‘tigile to sf inidd ow ,#on to oun esw ment} rad te tnenese te
o,f ede F on eae A | tS too kete
vdhapebapen’ seout welv ot vfinutrogee olgae bod att ae
ees ; \¢ OES Sey a. PONE
208 ob ot bextesh bad yeas u Ctattod cwo sted? ‘
stastooo et tolhusy
est ibe ace tolbrey ode rodtedw ot es motteeup eit nO
. ck tees
ni .ys8 ot sisié oved ow seonabtve edt to tdgtew 3
weixextace P toors ‘ eew oredt tes “esaodoeld Sesser edt te -moktentnare
bul teedbaeion ¥
ano.tteoup ods 0 ‘eeble dtod 0 Wut ‘ett ot bot timated 5
edness Bes: ee a em KEDMCBRETY ohY ah om woe! alt
; ‘vreronr een .eoenentin ont brood weal, ede for od. rt a ont a?
e sevee ft ; Osts. 2¢ teen %
sate nevis ed ot ‘tigton out bare WLLtdibero soit moa bes
ya : t wee aS ras on og
“bas. totbrev out tedé a ao teutonoe tuo Dae .
ghey an sn todd wale t
__ ebenntits ak tnemgburt eae + otstoredt sboduurte tb ib ed” nae
on onaep lh a Saabs ten ap sole
on ve add of Lasacee. elisears , ERPS 2 os coliovegare aie
Herat i oe we Rh ge he rey Sa Aes GBF ge awe * de he bendy ha Kodibe. So
add tosh
.
«
2 ER AC
t
(ass el rods ini
‘ + hoes |
See ee ee Oe
ee OW awmer } & Teper nd @ : bgt tease wae ee! ‘utd gebee |
a wibwolt foe wn? silts
a x peaeeny él we 7
7: bt yithertow 228d Bodymitén ” vaomil T fede wl i .
j adetgxe ge
Pe ee m. Sha EMO. Ee ee ain é hee oF
; a ! i 3 “e Rymree te | oe wr wh , & ‘ hier a, bk adage
ew me ee ee af heer COLA Bus
* oe is veoh WS ,véted old Qaterae eitis we ot dane ‘ei : a
i) ™ _ - ¥ inant oo 7
2 ae Sh aek Eee PAE a RR STS gags treat She Ei that... a
a ii ¢ ‘ ee a ; : 3 4 f .
: me : Hota. wed, uP tna Pe
rot binew diide gepgenpan wlag ae ai slaeaae
‘'? faee Katy ceew meeitives Gite .wreee way Sy Sake” ent ee ‘|
! innate ott bok rH ie
ott ghbe ot ele? a oo @hiw aid bas Ti ieeeaey ver fe SacetoOba han”
sb whew «fade seated Of Deonge EXT Teese to Lite tor sada adil
Bins Zo fe’ EHOLESLS TO BR ier | feaiyd ok a SOE Dp ape ea was ath a yates
io «2 weart tind “ce peek ie ae er eteliieal ,
# ito
; rg ty .
i ed falta + He lle
eee ee eo. 2 eo
2
&
“>
:
‘
;
wth Pe Sa
37445 Ys
A
FLORENCE HORWITZ, also known f A “ngpiin FROM
and desoribed as MRS. HANS PAKULA, )”
Appellee, fi QIRCUIT er
Ve
GREAT AMZRIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY oF
YORK,
NEW Y¥
Rar ay b=
Appellant. 2 v4 9 Dake 643
COOK GOUNTY.
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Gourt
of Cook County for the sum of 1,200.00, entered December 19th, 1933,
against defendant, in 2 suit on an insurance policy. The trial was
by jury, and the judgment was entered on the verdict,
On June ilth, 1929, the defendant issued to Floreneé Horwitz,
now Florence Pakula, the wife of Hangs Pakula, a polioy of insurance,
by which defendant agreed in consideration ef the premium paid, to
insure against loss one platinum diamond ring, center stone weighing
at carats, and 36 small diamonds weighing sbout @ carat. In case
of the loss ef such ring, the amount agreed to be paid was $1,200.00.
The policy provides thet immediate notice of loss of the goods
insured shail be given, and that failure to give notice in three
months shall invalidate the claim. The only question involved here
is whether or not plaintiff has made sufficient proof of the loss
of the ring, as claimed, }
Plaintiff testified in substance that on May 29th, 1930,
she lived with her husband at the Shoreham Hotel, 3318 Sheridan
Road, in the city of Ghicago, and ocoupied Apartment 203 on the
second floor of this hotelg;that she started to wash some dishes and
removed the ring in question, together with her wedding Ting, from
her fingera and placed them in a cabinet in the kitchenette of ssid>
apartment; that about 12 ofelock noon of that day she left the apart=-
ment, closed and locked the entrance door te such apartment, and
:
‘i cx
es a sil
aa asap my ore ad ole . StI
ON ft SIPS ER a
bo ro *TUDAIO | Mia 488 LLeqaAk co Teaver ees
; : ee ; 0 GOLLS
eYTHVOD 2000 is Wicids Wiican Gites Sa,
iiss ey HOY Wau
EbO. my Ae Q ss & etna llagqs Pare re it oe
i oso alae
_., 998000 BUT TO WOTWIXO BHT, GusavIIyG, LAR, . SOUTEUL, « sak ue
_ td Tham thy edt to taeng bal 8 mort, fseqgs . as et eidt theviowal
Ese sdtGL rodmooet herstae ,00,008,L) to ave odt xo? ytmuod dentsth
gow Isitt ed? .yoilog eemerwent os no tive pat stmehen teh Seehane
» stedbsev edt ao beteta9 esw tapmgbat edt bag atau, xd
siiwiol een it ot bevasl tusbasteb edt ,8S@L ,AtLi envt 20 i
.Sonstwent to yotlog s ,sluaisd ensH to otiw odd .slutet eoneto lt wor
ot biog mxtmerg edt to aoitersbienoo ni boergs tuebneteb sokitw w
| Baidgdow onote rotneo .gatx baomsth munttaLa eno weol feategs etyead
enc0 al .torso § tuods gaidgtew ehaomath iieme 98 bas ,etexso 48
90.008, .18 saw bis od o¢ beetss tavoms edt ygaix dova to seol ait to
eboog eft to enol to seltton eteihbemnt tadt aeblvorg yollog edt
soriit mi cotton ovis of eswliet tadt San .movig of Lhade dorwent
ered bevloval soitesuo yino eT .mislo edt stabiLevat Sisde adtaom
gRot oft To toorg daelotYiwe ebem esd tittatelq tea 0 rodtedw et
ebomislo as habla odd to
‘ sO5RL .43@8 yeh ao tet sonstedue at beititess thitaislt
ss mabtres@ Sf8o ,LotoH madenoda odt te basdeud sed dtty. pevt. ose
edt mo S08 taemtragA befqueso bas ,ogeoid® to ytlo edt at Rok
bas eodeth emo desw ot hetrste ede tedt qietod ald? to ‘ 10. = bacon | 0
not? «gait guibbew red dtiw sedtegot ,moiteesp at pats odd avons eo
bese ‘ho etdensdotia edt at tenides # at molt beosta ban aregatt od 1
| ~trege edt tel ede yab dadt to soon doolote BL tuods ts
| is atnomtraqe dove of rook eanertae edt bedoot "
2
as she was walking away she noticed a maid walking into the room;
that she left the hotel, and after she had walked some distance,
she noticed that she had left her rings in the apartment; that she was
not well, and instead of going back to the hotel to look after her
rings, she called on the telephone from a drug store to the clerk
of the hotel and informed him she had left her rings in the apartment,
and asked him to take care of them for her; that she then went to
the loop district of Ghicago on a street car; that she returned to
the apartment about & ofcleck in the afternoon, and was informed
by the clerk that the rings had not been found; that she spoke to
the manager of the hotel and to the housekeeper; that she made
@ seareh for the rings herself, but did not find them; that she
afterwards found her wedding ring, but did not find the ring in oues=-
tion; that the police came and questioned the maid, who, together
with other employees of the hotel, were searched, but that the diamond
ring was not found and never has been found. She testified that she
talked with « representative of the company about the loss of the
ring about one week after its loss. Evidence was offered by plaintiff
to the effect that written notice of the loss of the ring was given
to defendant on June 20th, 1930,
Harry Pakula, a brother-in-law of plaintiff, testified
that he had been in the wholesale jewelry business for a number of
yéars; that the ring in question had been purchased from him by his
brother, Hams Pakula, as an engagement ring for the plaintiff, This
witness described the ring, and stated that its value in May, 1930,
was $1,200.00.
Hans Pakula, husband of plaintiff, testified that he had
not seen the ring since May 29th, 1930,
For defendant, William Hozan, a window washer employed by
the Shoreham Hotel, testified thet when the plaintiff left the
apartment, he and the meid were in the apartment; that Mr. Jarney,
jnoor edt ofa! gnttiew diem s beotton ede yous gatalow sow ofe ea
esonstelh sug bealLew bait ode tothe bas lotod edd thel ‘ode tect
sew ode ted? jtcemtrsqs eft af egais tod frer bed one trad Deolton ode
rod tetts fool of Letod edt ot dosd gutog to baatent bus eilow tom
: axefo edt ot exete gurh so mort emodqelot ad¢ mo betiao oie’ | vepats
< taandtens edt aft agait ved sex bad ede micl bemrotat bas Letod ode ‘to
ot tuwow modt ode tedt ;1od ret mode to srso edad of mid bodes baz
ot bonxusor ede tet yxe0 teette = wo ogeeldd to totrtekd qool ont
bowrotnl vaw bas ,soomretts edt mt deoloto @ trods tnemtzeqe edt
: - g¢*eiloce ede tant phavet meed gon bart egnis edt todd BreLo’ edt w
‘ebam sife tadt ;reqdectostow ost of bas Lotod eit to rogenee ott
exe tedt ;#edd Batt tom bkb toc .tLowred egeix odd tot doxsoe
‘epee af gait edt batt tom BLb tut .gate gutbbew ted basot abrowtesta i
Pemdeeod (odw .bom est bonotteesp bas omeo eobtog edd tot abit
hwomstbh ot tent tud ,bedersse otew feted edd ‘to seoyoLqne’ teito diie
sie tet belthtest? ode’ .Bavot need wat coven bas Bavot ton eov por
ba to eeot edt tude yascmos Ott to Settetméboxder 4 avhy’ ber
RiLdbtela ys Boretto ecw oombbiva eool att tedte Zoow vine" Habe pat
gevig ee | eit to esol om¢ to bolton nottinw sath tootte sas oF
, Voser deot erat” ko thabao toe 6b
‘pbeltiteed ,thitatel to wel-nl-tedtesd 6 .eivaed elke cettnoe
‘to toduun © rot sesntend yritewet aievelodw of at bteaibersthend haved
eid yi méd mort beesdoxg mood bed nokteeup’ at watt od tit
phat stthvatele ost tok gatt trombgsgired mz Be (ete s ue _zadite ¢
oper han nt eulev ett tenty boteve bas ,gthe ont becibroeed atts
‘bait of tart bortiteet lpuanan 26 baa@aint .olsied “ae Baanen ve
* ,08@r {aves ya conte amis oft avon tot
Xe heye-fon tednew wobulw « .mevoll metiliw ,tmshire obitor oe
pdt $62 Btivtely ont node tad? boltttest {ieven’ ssloxone Ort3
volt det jtaomtrege exif at otew bhon ou oi traqe
;
3
representing the hotel company, and Mrs. Jamison, the housekeeper,
came into the room about 15 or 20 minutes after Mra. Pakula left
and inquired about the ring; that he was searched by Mr. Carney,
and thet the ring was not found in his possession. The maid, who,
as already stated, was searched, together with other employees of
the hotel, testified that she made a search, but did not find the ring.
George 8. Van Buren testified that he was an insurance
adjuster; that about June 2lst, 1930, he received from plaintiff a
written notification of the loss of the ring in question; thet prior
to that time he had talked to the plaintiff at her home regarding
the loss of the ring, and that he had such talk at the recuest
of Haskell, Milier, Grosaman & Opmpeny, general adjusters for the
defendant; that at that time plaintiff made a hand written statement
as to the loss of the ring; that on May 31st, 1930, he sent one
Hansen out to investigate the loss, but that he received no notes
of this person's investigation. It was admitted by defendant's
counsel that defendant received a copy of the statement made by
plaintiff as te the loss of her rings
Defendant insists that plaintiff has failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the ring was lost; that she has
concealed material faete with regard to the loss, and that the court
erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. The cause was
submitted to a jury, and in so far as the question as to the proof
of the less of the ring is concerned, we are of the opinion that there
was sufficient evidence of its loss submitted to the jury to justify
the verdict, The instructions complained of, given on behalf of
plaintiff, are as follows:
"No. 44 The Gourt instructs the jury that under the
policy of insurance sued upon in this case, it is not necessary
for the plaintiff in order to recover in this case, to prove
that the diamond ring in question was stolen or that said
| &
y
,Teqecdeaved oft ,moetmsl etl bas ¢ YaLegaGo fotos bp Battaeeorger
thet aluicd .ax tetts estun.tn og 1 ax toda bee ‘edt ota pass
.veorsd «tH yd Sesiorsen asw ex teAdd ygeit ont twode bortupat bas
onder shiom sdT .moigesesog aia as havot soa enw galt out tadt bus
to sesyolqne redio dtiw tedtegot sbodors08 eew betas heer Le es
peck eft Hast tom bib ted ,Motsde «2 oben oda fade boltitast tote ort
tal "9
onetwent a8 sew oi tedd boltives? mer sav of ogree) :
& UWiLealala mozt boytece:s om , Mel stats onus, tuods asald yretautbe
toiling ged? jaoltesup at past ont to eeol ont, to no ttsoltiton aettiew
gatbiegos ened sed ve Tritalely ond od DedLat bad on ontt ted ot
teoupet sd¢ te alet dowe bed ed tad? bas anit odd te anol © eas
edt xot exetauthe Lateney s vacgeg® & rie eox0 .r0LL2K sHosaalt 2 to
Swometete pottiqw Sasi s eben ri btabeda oukt tend de teat ‘jtuabaoted ‘
ono tox ed .OBCL .eL8 yall mo tadt ygatt ed? Yo amok edt of @s
CUP Some tet
acton of hevieoes ea tadt oud .en0k ent otegiteovas bef tuo
ee Tis
#'taahaeteb vd bettinbs asw x soltesiteoval e'aoereg Sl
yey Fae mers cee
YS sbsm tasmetste edt to yuoo # boviover tapbasteb ed ‘Leeauos
a ao he Peal tag
‘ ' gate red te seok eds oF a8
ri a Pepoesly: oe A 4
£. wd everq of - pektst eas ttidatelg test evaleat tasbaeted i dire
ih) SOOLES SA? oF
asd ode todd jtsol saw gots ont seat oonebtye ‘ona to sonerebnogore
dusoo edt todd dae ,ea0l edt ot brages, ditin atest Lotrotan beLeeen00
Sew seueo oT. yt edt of paottourstand ‘leds00 or vig a a ae RH
_, keexg edt of as aoiteoup odt us «st 98 ak bas Txt s of boss
ered ted? aotaigo ed? to ere oy eareon08 at weks ef ad b gender peel
VAdtes, oF yuut edt of bottindve aaot ate to eamebivo, task
asw
see ¥ ary A
te tisted ao nevis ,to Dactalqmoo anotioutt ent ent | adit
pir: ry
: ort mre tet pi ons t ateuntont oor, oat a.
‘veoageoon ton st +f ,oan0 eidt mi noqw bewa constuent 2
Bide: ot ,ees0 efdt mi tevooes of rebro
“Pine tedt ro vn * eew totteewp nt
KS y thee,
ring was stoken by any particular person gr persons. It is
sufficient, in order for the plaintiff to recover in this
case, under the sedend count of the declaration ss amended,
for her to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
she lost said ring at the time and place in question, and
that the whereabouts of ssid ring then became and is now
unknown to the plaintiff.
Noe 7. The Gourt instructs the jury that the policy of
insurance sued upon inithis case provides for payment to the
plaintiff of an amount not exeeeding the sum of $1200.00
against all risks of loss, while in ail situations, of the
itanaed ring in question. The JVourt further instructs you
that if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that
at the time and place in question, the plaintiff lost the
said ring or the said ring disappeared or that the said ring
was stolen, and if you further believe from the evidence that
the whereabouts of said ring then became and is now unknown
to the plaintiff, and if you further believe that the plain-
tiff was not guilty as claimed by the defendant, then in
either of said events, you should return = verdict in favor
of the plaintiff and against the defendant,.#
Both of these instructions are predicated upon the theory that the
defendant lost the ring, and we are of the opinion thet the court
did not err in instructing the jury as it did. Defendant's refused
instructions are as follows:
"No, 1. If from the evidence and under the instructions
of the Court you find that the plaintiff did net give
to the defendant or to some of the agents of said defendant,
immediate notice of the loss, if any, together with a full,
fair and honest statement concerning the particulars of
such loss, if any, then you will find the issues against the
plaintiff and in favor of the defendant.
No, 2. If from all the evidence and under the instruc-
tions of the Court you find that the plaintiff has intention=
ally concealed the ring here in question, then you will find
the issues in favor of the defendant,"
From all the evidence, including that of defendant's adjuster,
we gan find nothing which would justify the giving of these two instruc-
tions, On the contrary, as stated, the evidence indicstes that not
only was a written notification of the less given, but that shortly
after the loss the egent of the defendsnt received a written report of
the loss of the ring, and that a complete investigation was made by him
through his representative of the whole transaction. In view of the
fact that the jury heard and saw the witneeees, and that the evidence
justified the verdict, we can find no reason why the judgment should
be reversed. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed,
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. CONOUR, AFFIRMED,
ai ¢i .emeated sq noereq teluotéxeq yor yd mefote aew abe
eidd al cevooss of tiitatela edt « gol all ai ,taelo wee”
eebaoms sa noltaralosh edt to tasoo oy edt cebty .oes0
tadt eonebiva oft to eongtebaoge re» a ly ot wed rot
bas ,doltsems of soaiq bas emit eff ts gnix bise teol ede
won ef bus emsoad gedt gait bing to etvedaetesin ent tedit ©.»
ettitaialy ade ot ear nt amus
‘ ce fr
to yolfog odt tadt yt edd etomv¢ant duo ott .Y on
auit of Bl ony: eq tok esbiverq sese aldtial soo bere sonarywent:
al 6 pa m a yh ogee aS oe ms to ttiteltel¢
¢ to ,amolitey ak alive .& to eteis iis tent
goy atowrtent sodtivt tryo0 edt .notteenp ai galt heanel
gadtd serobive ec? lo soaatabaogety 4 mntt evelled woy Ft sarlh. |
edt teol ttitaislg oft ,aoitseup at sosiq bas + ond te
guix bisa edt test to beaxeeceseth gait bise edt to goke blae ) io"
tadé¢ sonebive edt mott evelied red¢twt woy tf bas ,asiote saw
workin wos el bre ommoed salt grit blee te etuodseredw ent -
=-alele ode tadt? eveiled redexwt woy tL bas .ittitatelq edt of
at aedt ,tapbaetel edd yd bemieio as yt sem gew TEkH ©
tovet ak to lbzov * aeyter Divede voy a vat ise to tedtio a
i tocbaotod odd tenisgn bas titdniels edi to |)
edt tadt yroedd edt soqu beteotberq ots enottoutsent Geedt to dios —
tives od? tedd moinigo eft te ers ow bas ,gabt srt tool tanbadteb
beavior elinsdbreted .bib ti ac rh odd yaktourtent at mx tom D£b
:ewoliot en ote enottouttant
atoisoutiend edt soba, bas odd mort tl ot ase ps + Loanon
evis ton b eiieian’s - ted? Salt voy #200
ataebasteh bise to ataege ed? to smoe OF to t eh
aiivt a dtiw tontegot , i .waot adt to aged |
to ateluotineg edt gainyeonoo tmometate, t See sist
eit teaieye eeweet edt bait lity 2 voy node? we tas
atoebuoteb odd to sors tag thitakel¢ oor
. swouttasi edt teboy bas sonebive edé pmat TL. up GOl fo Leocase
“ao basins eed ge, eat tedd hon pore edt to enoit
balk Lliw. voy medz notte betssonoe Yile—
nat tL ee ae caste "covet ak eouent ond
oe asee <9 Bie ie
retexthe altachasteb to tart gribudont coonebire ont se nord
1? he) Shaye a ra
our tend owt exedt to gnivig edt Wieeut ‘blwow oxuw ‘satdton bart ane ¢
eRGST Very
‘toa tect astsotbat eoasbive ads botste ae ‘eeeatda0o ont Lae eo
eo fey
+7
J
38 ‘
ylrzorie ‘tend tud moves enol edt to mottsettivon novthow > osm
Ce EPS Te
to droge: nettiaw # beviooer taebaateb ont to tasgs os soot edt t9fts
miss yd sham ea. netisgttuevns ‘oteLenoo ay todd bes. agents ont ‘yo seed edt
ie eed een
odd to weiv Al .nolttosenss?. oLode odd to evitstaseenqes eid dguordt
eonebive oft todd bas ,se9eentiw edt wee bos brsed yur oft dadt tost
bisode tremgbut edt yiw aoeset on bait meo ow stolb«cov <n a8
shouritte ef tromghut edt ,eretetedT — a
ee Wy
a ELL OTN esis sikh. gearueea PAPA eh . qu i
perveger Ture A
37460 ate, é ‘
CLARA ROGERS, f PPEAL FROM
;
WAM.
SUPERIOR COURT
iS Sp Aa en bee pu
(Plaintiff) Appellee,
>
Ve
CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corvoration, COOK GOUNTY.
(Defendant) Appellant. 74 9 I A 6G 4 3°
MR, JUSTICE HALI, DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This isan appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Cook County for the sum of $2,900.00, entered in a suit against
the City of Shicago by the plaintiff, Clara Rogers. The judgment
was entered upon the verdict of a jury.
It is alleged in the declaration that plaintiff was injured
through the negligence of the city in failing to keep a certain
sidewalk in repair, The record indicates that plaintiff testified
in substance that she resides at 1113 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, :
Illinois; that at the time she received the alleged injury, she was |
earning $24.55 a week; that on June 13th, 1933, at about & o'clock
in the evening, she was walking south on North Dearborn Street, the
street én which she resided, and that in front of 1133 North Dearborn
Street she stepped on a manhole cover with holes in it, which holes
had been previously filled with glass, that she caught the heel of
her shoe in one of the holes in this manhole cover, which caused
her to fall, and that as a result of the fall, her left side was
hurt and her left wrist broken, She alse stated that as a result of
the fall, she had black and blue spots on her hip and shoulder; that
she was thereafter taken to a clinic on Chicage Avenue, and a splint
was put on her arm; that after the third week subsequant to the
accident, she went back to werk with her arm in a sling and worked
for a short time, but that she was discharged, presumably, because
she Could not do the tterk; that for a short time thereafter she did
(
hid a ie
, .
.? Gre’ a m aye
aiid es “ea a RROOR, Af AdO
mvoo beg ro alleges (tkttazett)
ad “Vv O. ; » y
e¥YTHUOS WOOO
EHO AT OY
7 m0 irr 40 worrtso air aeavEReO AR rorrent sae
to tryed rolreqn® ont to tnomgbyt © mort Leoqas mn at abd
Eicce st, & sid barre tare any et, + e, bait Ls i
wtolterogred Leq to tn 8 ODAOTHO YO. YTIS
oe , sdaoLLeqad eineegieor
boing. asy tasatelg todt nottexs£oeb ont a: ea pte et tt on a
ftiatres 2 goo% of galitet mi ytio edt to ogden
beltiteds Yiitaisla ted? reteotbal rover est. etteqor af ALewebk
ogsoldd ,toorze axods sed déso SLLL te sebiect ode tedt ponsiedus. at
apy ode ,yxetat begotle edt bevieoet ede omit odt ta stadt jetomh itl
Hooio'o 8 tuods #6 .SSL HEL oni fo sit iHodw & BB ABRD gaiores
edd \teorte nrodrso0 stron no stude Yatiiow eew oda .gatieve odd mt
- Sewoattibe Wirow SELL to taort mt temt bas ‘bebssat’ ode. Mote ng toorte
eefod doidw ,ti ai selod dtiw sevoo efodnem sto Salat ie Saal teerts
to feed ont Higynd ote tedt .eaelg He tw be flit (Lavotves “toed bast
beeuso doidw ,tev0e ofodnas aint of eeloit edt to bide gote ted
| eew obin ttel ced (ifet edt to tiueer & ba ‘tedt bas ‘ifs? of ted
$9 eiieor s ee tedd botete Oats ed® jmodtecd telew oTeE xen bad’ Poked
ted? prebiuode bas qt ted no stoqe euid baa: dobld bad ede {LLet od
dhifan & Bas ,onmevA oge0tH® mo ointie s 6% nett rettseteds abw eile
“Siid OF traupoediun eow! Babad” ene eorte dens jie ont ad! tut" Bw
“Destrow bit gakia e ob wre vert dtbeistee ‘ot doad throw oa’ ,tobLoos
aite0ed eidemwasrg begtadeth” ete’ elle dead tent singe’ ee ae
3) ode rodteorodt ae fea 8 rad ie tsar ciaac ob tom biyoe one
ne MS ROT SWORD sbhazori og
ee ee eee or PeP EE rae hy Medi opt, ame sleeneartarant |
2
gome light work, for which she received #10.00 a week; that her left
wrist and arm pain her all the time; that she was treated by a
doctor approximately fifteen times, and that prior to the accident,
her arm and wrist had never been injured. On cross-examination, she
stated that she had seen this manhole cover before, and had walked
around it, and that prior to that time, she had injured her ankle
when an elevator fell, in which she was riding. As to the character
and extent of her injurjes, her testimony was corroborated by that
ef the physician who treated her.
Several witnesses testified on behalf of plaintiff to the
effect that certain glass fillings had been out of the holes in the
manhole cover in question for a considerable time prior to the time
of the accident, leaving the cover in the condition described by
plaintiff,
A photograph of the sidewalk and its surroundings, inelud-
ing the manhold cover in question, was introduced in evidence by
defendant, and it was stipulated that it portrayed the scene of
the accident and the condition of the sidewalk on June 24th, 1932,
eleven days after the accident, and that it was in the same condition
at the time of the accident as it was when the photograph was taken.
Defendant offered no evidence other than this photograph.
it is the contention of defendant that the sidewalk was
reasonably safe; that plaintiff had passed over the place several
times a day and admitted that she was familiar with its condition;
that her injury was slight, consisting of a small fracture of a
small bone of the forearm; that the verdict is excessive, and that
there is a variance between the pleading and the proof, in that she
alleged thet the accident happened in front of 1163 North Dearbgonn
Street, and that she testified that it happened in front of 1133
North Dearborn Street. It is not claimed that the condition of the
&
#tel rod tefs paeoow © 00.0L% bevisosr ers doidw tot eizow tdgtt path
& Yi betsors asw ode tant jeomit odt ile tod misg mre bos tabew
gdmebloos od? of toltq teadt bas ,aemit asset tt qletamixorqgas totoob
ode Go lisaimsxe~asoro 0 -borubat need xeven bad telow bane. wre sod.
—_—- hed bas .etoted teveo efoduam ald? neea bed ede tadt hetstea
wie rer bousi mt bad ede ,omi? tedt of tol«q tedt bas oi bavots
uininca edt ot eA egntbixn ssw eda dotdw ck ,.[iet tofsvelo as nodw
tadt yd hetstodetioo ase yaomitest ted ,eegrstat red to daetxe bas
_ sted Dotwott odw Phare
odd os ‘Yadngase te. tieded ao beititses esesentiw Lnrevad . grid
edt at eelod odt te tuo aeod bad egakiltr nasty aletreo tnt seven.
, aast edt ot roitg emit eldaxebianco s tot moldsoup at, reveo efodasm
YS bedinoesh soltkbaoo edt at reves od¢ gatyast .taebieos edt to)
— ttitatedg,
. ~busoat sagttbavorsue, eit iia. cities out. to sure 8 hs. De ios ik
«RS gomebive at heoubottal acy ,aodteeun of r9voo bloduan edt gat,
_ Yo ens0e sit beysrtiog t2 tot beteiugite een tt dae .tasbmored.
SEGL FAS emuE Go ALeredte sit Yo aoktthaon ont bas. tuedtooR. gat,
“modt thao omen od? at pow tL todd das stucbioes edd cette aysh movele,
am sev dgstgeteda edt aedw ssw tt ea tmebtoog ods to omit odt 35
. egsxgoteda atid madd rodto somebive om hexehto tmsbaet od,
S28 ‘Alensbte edt tedt tasbaeted to goitaetaoe edt ef, a. ‘SoNe “reel
Loxevee analy sit revo beeanq ded Btitately tedt, 49tee yidenoaser..
utaltibaoe eff dtiw tetlimet sew ose tedt Dottinks bas Yeh #,20mht,.
_ & 40 exutostt Llane 4 to gattatedog | ctdga tn gam xsriad, eed hea:
‘testa bee ,ovieeeoxe al tolivey elt godt jorseto? edt to ened eee ae
ods tadd at .koowg odt bas guthastq. act meentod sonaizey set exede
megdxa00 stro BOLL Ye tort mt heaeqgad tashinoe edd test bogoiie
SELL t0 saent at beneqgad 24 stadt Syne ote tat atatoonte |
3
manhole cover was not as desotibed by the witnesses, nor that such
gondition had existed for a sufficient length of time for the city,
in the exercise of ordinary care, to have repaired it. It is
insisted by defendant that the statutory notice required to be
served upon it showing the time and place of the alleged injury, was
not served or filed.
There was offered and received in evidence over defendant's
objection, what purported to be a copy of a notice of the time and
place of the accident, alleged to have been served upon defendant.
The notice,and what purports to show its receipt by defendant,
read as follows;
*Notice,.
State of Illinois ; 98.
County of Cook
Tos
City of Chicago,
(Clerk) and City Attorney
and Corporation Counsel,
City Hall, Chicago.
You are hereby notified that Clara fegers of the
city of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois, is
about to file against the Qity of Chicago, on account
of personal injurkes sustained by her when she fell
and stumbled on the sidewalk by reason of and as a result
of a defect, hole and bad state of repair of and in the
sidewalk in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, at 1163
North Dearborn Street on Monday, June 13, 1932, at about
the hour of 8:30 P. Me, and you are further notified that
bd = hia information is given to you as provided by
atutee
1. Wame of Claimant and papured is Clara Rogerss
2 Address of said person is 1113 North Dearborn
Street, Chicago, Illinois,
3, Date, Hour and place of accident are:
June 13, 1932 at 8:30 P.M. at and near 1163
North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois,and on the
sidewalk at said above address,
4 Attending Physician:
Dr. Fe. Oe Test, 30 North Michigan Avenue,
Chicago, (Office),4620 Greenwood Avenue, Chicage, (residence),
Oakland 1633,
Dated June 17, 1932
Clara Rogers
By; Fe Ae Gariepy
Her Attorney
Received a copy of this notice this 17th day of June, 1932,
1. Peter J. Brady, City Clerk, J. McCabe,
So <A. M. Smietanksa, City Attorney, Per Jed.
;
&
fous tedt tom ,aoveentin edt yd Reditoass en son sew seven eLodasm.
.Ytlo edt tol eait to dtgael ¢aetoitive s rot bhetedxe bed mettibaon
ei tl .ti bexiaqer evan ot ,ouse yrantfro to eatorexe edt mb
_o¢ of herluper seitoa yrotutste edt tedt tnaboeteh yi botetent
ssw ,yinfal bogelie edt to enalq bas emit ed? galwode tt, mocer beyvree
«belit to bevree. tom
eltaebapteh revo. somebltya mi dbevionet bas, horekto: Baw eredt. ©. a6 code
bag. emit edt to soltton s te yo s ed et betroqzug, ged didanaeiee
etashaoteb noqu bevres aced sved of begellc ,tnabtoos edt to sos,
stashasteb yd igivoer edi wore of etzogiug tedw bas,eotton edt
on ; ‘unt ee etethen®,. bw ¢ cb sexe elodmem
Ags 4
20T
Agrroten wht bas oF is
ogso.d <ilak yak “ win
& Ls ces ry” expe t ah
“ext to eregoh ateld torts beititen word » srs s0Y
. OL pb ,phontlil to etett: , pirat edt Pontote ef ties ote
cae) Ye ed eogeotdd - ytid od legs elit Not t .
Ke 2 : , st a rede tec bealas Lasioereq (Arar
tiveer # as bans to soasex yd iiavabte odt og belduyte bas
eft mi bas to tiaqer to etete bsd bas efed qtodteinan to: |
S0ifL ts oe to Pine pre res con to ete edt a
juods, te ‘a Yshaok sp ET ee ee oe
tad? ities Toddrut ess voy bas si 64 08:8 to tusod
Yi behiverg as voy of mevig et aoktsarotnt ‘
sotudnte
-eBregoh axrsld. Pe i pee xidangee ex
erodzae0 détoll Peat af a HOBTET yree 4 te seeshbh oS
a3
alee pomnt e
{9Ts tnshheos to eenle 2 svell reer
, S8LL ween baw ss as: 08:8 tes vpete + gpharerb val et ae
edt 20 RANG RIND eogsoind nxedzaed’ on
me vemaorbbe 6 te dLewoble 9-90
scien cette i
epuaova gegidoid dtxoll OS qtaek «| hae ae ee ee
«(sonebioor) warenee agen oouneees eyes. eoitt ®
Vee ey Wes ig aes
seer “ raps
tegen: OnMLO, ci edd Sot teper ade tad ee coor
une oA oO 3
“yoaxotta TOR! ont POT oi culm, Atrl, a
" \szex eau to ysb ATL ny whiten eidt to _wyee 8 bevkooea
eadsdox a eArelo yWwio eUberd ob tetet ok f
“ee ne ee Ye 7, =
After the record was filed in this court, over defendant's
objection, plaintiff offered and this court received evidence to the
effect that the notice was actually served upon defendant.
The charge in the declaration is to the effect that the
plaintiff suffered the injury complained of “in front of the house
numbered 1163 North Dearborn Street, about 150 feet south of
Division Street, and about 5 feet from thé east curb of Dearborn
Street, in the city of Chicago." The récord and the abstract filed
here on April 13th, 1934, indicate that plaintiff testified as
stated, that the accident occurred at "1135" North Dearborn Street.
Thereafter, on June 4th, 1934, plaintiff filed an additional abstract,
which shows the following question asked of the plaintiff, and the
answer thereto:
"Q, How wide is thet sidewalk at that number, in front
of 1163 that you heave just mentioned, about how wide is it?
A. Just the ordinary width. I don't know the widths of
the sidewalks,"
This question and answer, as shown by the record, follow immediately
after the plaintiff's presumed answer that the accident happened at
"1133" North Dearborn Street. |
As stated, plaintiff testified that she lived at 1113
North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. One of the witnesses
testified that he lived at 1159 North Dearborn Street, in the city
of Chicago, but defendant insists that there is no proof that the
accident happened in the city of Chicago. We are of the opinion that
from the foregoing testimony, the jury could reasonably conclude that
the accident happened in the city of Chicago, and in front of 1163
North Dearborn Street in such city, as alleged. There is no evidence
to the contrary, In the trial, there was no question raised as to
when and where the accident happened, nor that it happened just as
plaintiff said it did, and in the city of Chieago, The photograph
ea
elinsbhasteb revo ,frtwoo eidd mi bef{it ssw brooer edd <s9dTA ©
eft o¢ Somebive bevieest trv00 ids baw botetto Trientsle .soktoegdo
etnshretebh mogy bevrse yitestoa sew sviton add ted? goette
ed? tedt testte edt of af noitetaloeS edt ai egrado eff 66%) Lan!
esvot oft to ¢nott al” to bentefqmes yxrwtmt edt bers¥tew Xt temtalq
to dtvoe teet C&L tuoda ,teette atodirseG dito SELL heredmun
‘geodtee6 to dry tess edt mort toet 8 tvods baw .toetta aotetyia
beLit focrtsds edd bas broser 6AT ".ogsotdd to ¥tle edt wb ytoorte
ee bottiteot ttitately fait eteotbat .28@£ (dt8L Lteqhnoeiet
etootd® nrodrsed tro "SLi" gs berry00e taebioos ‘edt stadt yhetaitte
stoetteds Isnottibbe as belit Ytitalsiq MCL dt endl mo ytettseredT
eit bas .ttitatesl ext to bexes moitesiip amen edt awode dotdw
| ¢ ire encima
ttt ef ebiw wo duods <becoltnon” ete ane: 21 a Pate So il
Fy
to ed¢biw edt wont ¢'nob I suite Lipyer ont
pete
oat
yotsibonmt woliot ebrooer ent yd avo es <towaas baa soktesup eldT
te benequed tnobioos ond sas. rowan pare eerame oe setts
este ts bewes onde badtt beitiveot witemtely , Pete ta oh |
eevrantin edt to ond * ‘elomkiLi eogeosda stuns axedzeet Asroll
tio eft ni ,teotte aoteen dtroh CBLL ts bowhL od stasit bettitess
edt tet toorg om at erent tent evatent easy y: tud ogaotad te
ged? nolntgo edt to ors oF sogenico to. its ont wt panegusdt tnsbtoce
tadé ebsLonos ‘idedioane% bin90 v ‘yee ate “| ‘ 3 ot gatogeto? ° yl mont
SLL to snort wt ans soueade’ 0 eto | oss ne : 1H
pomebive on af ood?” sbegolis as ettte. sous a -toonts arodzs00 dtxou 4 b
"i
be , ot in4
ot es beaiay coiteoup ea eew oresit seine ea as bo 3 ats
¢) r et y Baal
saga, iat sogn0kso te —— — ew bas oe tt! bt
ne ark. 4 : ser Th yror & howteoadt
ae
{ ts tf : 5 wait rs aie cP
" a. $ 48 ay 9 oe We ah “ag eee oe : ay sa
5
introduced by defendant shows the manhole cover to be in a sidewalk
on what appears to be a thickly settled city street.
Defendant insists that because plaintiff testified Shat she
had walked around this particular manhole cover before, and was
familiar with it, that she was not in the exercise of ordinary care
for her safety, because she did not take sufficient pains to avoid
4t at the time and place in question. She testified thet the acci-
dent happened et 8 ofelock of the evening of June l3th, 1932, and
we are not prepared to say that the jury was wrong when they
determined that she was in the exercise of reasonable care for her
safety when she stepped into this hole.
In Wioks v. Cuneo-Hennebe Go,’, 234 Ill. Appe 502, this
court said;
"The law required plaintiff to exercise due care for
her own safety before she would be entitled to recover,
but this did not require that she continually keep her
@yes down on the walk in front of her as she was walking.
We think it clear, under the evidence, that whether plain-
tiff was exercising due care for her own safety and whether
defendant was negligent’ in failing to keep the iron doors
in a proper state of repair were for the jury. And upon a
careful consideration of the reoord, we are unable to say
that the finding of the jury in plaintiff's favor on both
ef these questions is against the manifest weight of the
evidence,"
Defendant complains of the following instruction:
"The court instructs the jury that if you find for the
pisintiff and against the defendant in this ease, you will
be required to determine the amount of the damages, if any,
which she ought to recover in this case, In determining
the amount of damages, if any, which the plaintiff ought to
recover in this case, if any, the jury have 2 right to and
should take inte consideration all the facts and cireun-
stances as proven by the evidence before them; the nature
and extent of plaintiff's damages, if any, resulting from
the accident in question, if any, so far as the same are
shown by the evidence, her pain and guffering in body, if
any,resulting from such personal injuries, if any, the loss
of time or earnings of plaintiff, if any, occasioned by the
injury; the money she has necessarily expended or become
liable to empend, if any, in endeavoring to be cured of
such injuries; the work she was engaged in, if any, at the
time of the accident in question; the extent and duration
of the injury, if any, as shown by the evidence; her
permanent injuries, if any, as shown by the evidence; her
' ow US Oy ae
| é a.
] ; ‘i a
3
afewobie sa af ed o¢ xevoe elodnem edt awodte gashneteb yo hooubortat
»toerds Yio belttse yldetd? « ed oft atssqqe taiw ao”
its ted@ beijiteet Ytitaisiq eeysced ted? etetent tashusted) ©) fo0%.
esw bag ,exoted reveo elodasm talvoliireq sidt bavors Beileaw bed
eza0 Yxenibroe to seforexe od¢ ai tom vew ode tsdt tt dtiw talliaets
Bblovs o¢ eaiesq taeioittve odat fon Bib ele eausosd yytetad ted teks
~ioos.ent tedt beltiteet ed@ .neitseyp ai eeslq bus .emtt edt ta ish’
bos ,S86L-,ddoL ony to yaimeve edt to dooloto @ ts bewoqgad ‘taeb”
yeds sedy anotw eow yrut edt tedt yse of Dorsgerg tom etscen! —
wan erso aidegorset to aetotexe edt ai ecw ode dedt beniqreteb»
s@iod eldt otal heggete ode aqdw ytetee
gidt .208 aqua «LIE S88 400 yavedsasoH-genud .v gxoiwunl en + voli
: ‘ghee too)
tot esse ovb selorexe ot Yat betiopor wef ed? . '
etevooes of bel hivow oda stoted ytetne mwo aed
iq usdtedw ted? ,soaebivs ed? rebaw ,tsefo @f dntdt
redtede bas ytetee oawo red tot a ssh gitelotex® eew
-.» g400) soxt edt geod ot gatilat ai jor fo Sente togomq 2 at
s goqy bed .yrut edt tot exrew aleqot stste % 8 mi |
Bp ot eidans ers ow ,bro0et edt To aoltatebilenco we «sihe
od = TOVST attritaiatg at veut oF oe to puibal? edt 4
oat to tdgiew feetingem 9 anisya seein asonee > *oetie
‘motsouréeat gatwo LL0% edd 20 este cao énshasted ,
: ireiaed ddrow
edt vot batt YoY ti todd ‘yet edd etourtant ‘txu08 edt"
ee an an eee ee SE
this
ELiw poy ,.9080 2aidt ok tasdaetes oft 7 , bia t titue?t
eume Ti .segemeh ont to tayoms edt eniuxe o? bexiupst sad
imroteh sl «eea0 sidéd at cevpees of . oie T ieceaien ia tw
ot ‘tdguo tilitnislq edt doldw .yas tz ,segemsd © tavoms ost
_.» bee ot tigix os oved ytut, od? 4s $i aaa hea aah: ae
~ayotio bas sitost bh ifs eSivexabianee oft ovat eist &
Yiurtesea ait puedst oF somebive pe geotete oo"
mort parones ‘ently tL psoomra etitiiatede 39 tm to ‘taotxs bas
Sta smsae Ba, T eee 4 MfO @eebioon env ©
24 sybed at gnbsottie Be OW bes Rien xa geouabive edt yd mode
gy pt A : Yas f ee ASTOR
ont hg Be sapean M tL oe shhentada to agnints® To. ait to
emaped to bebaeqxe yiinseseoen asd ofe Yonam. ©
' Yo bere be ee Aaa wl as roth tL «
edd PS 1g Yes rag gp
moiteuub bas tno poy "gusbtoos ont to en
cod 3 {Goohdye at el swode ay 33 d.qytutad eat errr: i
ced jeennlitve edd yo cwode as . Yas fuutat caret bal
eat aT
_ oreghay
inability to work, if any, on account of such injuries;
and the jury may find for her such sum es in the judgment
of the jury under the evidence and instructions of the
eourt in this casg, will be a fair compensation for the
injuries she has sustained, if any, so far as such damages
injuries are claimed in the declaration and proven by
a preponderance of the evidence, (Given)"
An examination of the cases cited by defendant as authority for its
contention that the court was in error in giving this instruction,
convinees us that defendant's counsel have misinterpreted these
eases, We are also of the opinion that defendant was properly served
with notice as required by law, that the jury was fully and fairly
instrueted, and that the verdict is net contrary to the manifest
weight of the evidence, Therefore, the judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. CoNcUR.
,
>) > seeteepat doye te tavoons ad yas tL row of Pere ori tek
sadeybu ect ait sx sue dove red ny balk yom herr |
| o- emoiteuwttent bas eenebive edd robas bat 4 ay alee alll
eas Po cok noltnemeqmoo tist 2 ed Litw .eeso eldd mi ae
gousmed down ee tet os 4yos th ,bentetewe and ede.
i ape: bas fod teteLosb edt al Peery A be eelxy
ihre ha)o Bin Bs Bn edt Xo
bientdensionne eidt yoivig af toxme ai saw pai: ttt nottnotaoo
ary. oes beterqretniein sved Leanvos e'tashaetsh. ‘gost ex eboctvape :
a ySxeqore vow tasbasteh tet motaiqo ad? te orks mesial
obamssts ai trowgbhu;. eft ,oxrotered? seonebive
(90R wend nti Iota oT BE aR
‘ . iS is mittee Ev ay 8.4
7
ea ek i.e an Ty Yo Yan te elias ! Pee toh “9 aire ry ol eine
> weeh dock ect Gout of get iia® md ten Lege eey ansbebel ac nial
¢ Me » ii ve: ree a ' s ‘ i) a" )
7
g
ethte veneryg awe
im th me alee ee ee eee dha A bi iahasee
‘Ato ow tevet altiltatels af wh s&e te pao? Oe
ie 2a Peaking Sor cits eee ANS ae asro che Stat Gy ame
‘monphtye
rivtinnvertvays satwetlet ene Ye aoe ie oats vis aw? of
by sfc wr
ee ee een pe
i pk ee “eeen
ee pony iis ab bat Oh eis
Sree wit pair woeiaad ae snack ast ay
, : Yon a Te RWS 9g Wis { tS Siw dE Bit
a tyer oy aan epee tebe Ba 10 4
tats Aion TH conic es ot
yy oat tind die anne i ,
ye
: Lae yaoks & ati wed get dona), i J
if i wane we yaar bi tule
nore ie 3 pris PA :
a oo bd
ae NN es
) eR ee
onmohive ast Yo
Me | ™
Oe he si:
oe
ITN i
37469 jf Ped
ELMER A. TRIEBULL, , of) f MPPHAL FROM
a
Pf rs
(Plaintiff) Appellee,’ Ly
MUNICIPAL COpRT
i; 8
Ve # 4
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE OF OHICAGO.
COMPANY, a corporation,
(Defendant) Appellant. 2 74 9 l ie G A 3"
WR. JUSTIGE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE OQOURT,.
This is sn appeal by defendant in a suit upon a life
insurance policy issued by defendant in favor of plaintiff. The
trial was by jury, and the verdict was in favor of plaintiff. The
judgment entered upon the verdict was for 183.00. The policy
provides that:
"If after the first premium or regular instalnent
thereof shall have been paid hereunder and under the policy,
the insured prior to the anniversary of the policy nearest
his sixtieth birthday shall become wholly and permanently
disabled by bodily injury or disease sustained or contracted
after the date hereof, so that thereby he will be wholly,
continuously and permanently prevented from the pursuit of
any form of mental or manual labor for compensation, gain
or profit whatsoever, the, if there is no premium in default,
and the policy is not being continued as paid-up or extended
insurance under the non-forfeiture provisions thereof, the
Gompany will upon receipt of due proof 6f such disability,
grant the following benefits subject to the terms and
cenditions herein set forth.
Beginning with the anniversary of the policy next
succeeding the comuencement of such disability, the Company
will waive the payment of further premiums, during the
continuance of the disability, and will pay to the Insured,
from the date of the commencement of such dissbility,or to the
beneficiary if disability results from insanity, subject to
the conditions and limitations of this provision, with the
written consent of the assignee, if any, a sum equal to one
per centum of the face amount of the policy exclusive of any
policy additions, and a like sum monthly thereafter during
oer of the disability, until the maturity of the
POLICY»
It is alleged by plaintiff that after the issuance of
the policy, and beginning with the 8th day of July, 1932, while the
policy was in full force and effect, the plaintiff was, and still
is, and henceforth during the remainder of his life, will continue
\ Conve
ae wont axuafa, * 1 — 5 CELT DA gama
| &
| wet eeileaqh (riomtart |
| \emtoe TAGEO THOM | abe A ewes
{ ; v M a al 7
LODADIHO TO -MOMARVQET Wild aAuTOM HOODEAH WHOL
toisatogroo s, RY ‘
_stnsLLoqq (easbnoteg)
eX, LL OS
or ee)
Sith
r Bee te Uae
3 i »TBEYOO au? 10 WOIKIIO aHT aanaVLAISG UTAH g0ITeUL ie
i be etit s moqu thwe a at tanbie teb vd Laeqqs as at eit
ect stidatelg to rovet at tuahaeteb yd bourses yetiog ° ous: ~)
Te) Fae
eaT sMuentela to tovat uk Bsw tekbrey ant bas avout vd eon fats i,
yoLleg odT 00.5818 tot ssw ‘toLbrev eit mnogu beretne i
tomisitent telyget to muimotq "igod edt setts tr"
<YoLLog edt sebay bas tebayered bisg al ta bot too
gestson yoilog ent to Neaeuevaan Uae
yitnenemteq bus yilodw omooed ILisde fh Bra iy diver aid
betostinoos +o benteteve esseeth ‘to yretal yilbod b
.Vilodw od iLtw od ydoredt tad? oa a dl eteb edt tetts
‘to tiveteq oft mort betmeverq yitaor bas yLevountinoo
diss .aoltseneqmoo tot todsi Leyasm xo Ietmem to mrot yas
,tiueteb of muimetq om al evedt ti ,odt ,rovecetsdy aig Ma 10
bebustxe to qu~bisq es beumitnoe gated tom ef yotlog edt
ons yyeeredt em oe nee ag ag Merve the odt rebay » Haran
eVtilidselh dove eorg eub to eoex smog Litw Marte
base emrot eft ot tootdue atitened Satwo LLo% tastg
sdézot tee alerted ano itibnoo
ize yoifog edt to yreerovians ed? déiw gata
yieqnod edt ,ytilidseth doye to tnemeonemmco on?
edt sniwbh ,emutmerq tedéwwt to tnemyeq edt eviaw .
.betyecl edt ot ysq Iltw bas ,ytiildselb edd to eegeuatémoo
edt o¢ TO. YeELidseltd dowe to themsomemmoo edt to otsh edt mort |
ot Bigeye we ,Ytinsent mozt etlveet ytiiidsalbd tL Beier ic ae
tw ,noivivowy sidt to emoitetimti bas eaoisibaos |
eno of Iaupe muse & ,yas ti ,eengieas od? to tt :
yin a evieuloxs yoting edt to tavoms eost sit to nusta90 |
giicub rettsered?s. yidinom me eit 5 bas sacoltibbs f
oft to visits edd Iitay ,ythifdeatb odd to
Mes
oilt oLidw es lub to ysh dt8 edt déiw pataniged dais a you Le ml edt
Ltte bas ,8ew oS cores anid ne bag sone: fist me: sow a Log
a
to be totally, permanently and continuously disabled by bodily injury
or disease before attaining the age of sixty years, so he will be
unable to perform or engege in any occupation whatever for remuner-
ation or profit; that on September 8th, 1932, written notice of such
total disabiliky was given on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant,
but notwithstanding such permanent and continuous disability, defendant
has denied liability and refuses to pay. Defendant insists that plain-
tiff cannot recover unless it is shown that plaintiff cannot perform
“any form of mental or manual labor *** whatsoever",
No brief is filed by plaintiff, and the question involved
it is proved that
here is, whether or not, plaintiff was totally, permanently and con-
tinuously disabled by bedily injury or disease before attaining the
age of sixty years, so he will be unable to verform or engage in any
form of labor whatever for remuneration or profit.
Plaintiff testified in substance that on July 8th, 1932,
he was engeged as a laborer in a brickyard; that his work was tossing
bricks, and that on thet day he suffered an injury; that shortly
thereafter he was taken to a hospital; thet he could not walk at the
time, and that while in the hospital one Dr. Sprafka put him in an
adhesive cast; that he stayed in the hospital from Tuesday of one week
until Saturday of the same week, and that he saw this doctor every day;
that all the time he was in pain; that after he left the hospital
he stayed in bed at home; that about September 8th, 1932, he made a
report of his condition to the insurance company; that he paid all of
his premiums on his insurance policy; that he was informed that he
was not entitled to compensation, according to his policy; that the
agent of the insurance company sent him to see a Dr, Albers, at 1 N.
La Salle Street, Chicago, in the office of the defendant company ;
that at that time, the witness was in pain all the time and could not
bend down to lift anything; that he could bend down, but that it was
| §
: ‘ruta yLibed yd betdsath yfevounténoe bas yLimenabved ‘tistor éd Ot
sot Sikw ed o@ yatsey ytxte to oge‘ edt gainiatis stoted eessatb co
» -Tenumer tol tevetadw noltequ@oo yas ai egegne xo’ mretxeq of eldeny
, dove to edition aotd tye efSGL tts radmetqe? no tent qttong to notte
Jasbhuoted arid of Tttatalg edt to tLeded ao novig sew Wilitdeetb Istot
inebusted dilides tb asounttnos bas taenemreq dove gatboatedttwton tod
-tisig ted¢ eteisni ¢usbmeted .yaq of seavtet bas ytilidsil beiaeb aed
«Brotreq tonnso Titeialq ted? awode @h ti aeoday tovoosr, toanse tttt
-"reveoutsdy *** rodeL Layanm so Letnem to a. "
bovlovat aolsaeup edt. bua a *2hfnteds, % A ovous el L pated on. “a “a
“coo Sas ylimensmisg ,ylisiet asw Tittalsic L TO, sedtedw. ai sot
edt gainietis sieted easeath ro yrutat ylibod al Doldse tb Yenounts
ms aa ogcpae LO ty EERE OG ot oeldseny ad Ifiw. ed. oa aPTg0y wrmae Re -
Yaoreor ¥ etiterg zo nottaxemumen xot revetany. “a sl
s880L 8 ylsh m0 tedt eonstedua ai Deb yet. 7, a. eae
| pttoood 2a wats ele pent ibeavtodss f de i ds
a’ at she teow. atone, 20 veo attgnod od 2 sett
Aoew ono to Yehaeut mark Ist tanod odd at boyate. ont tadt 4)
iysb crevs notood aid wae an tadt, bas eloow omar ont 16 ba)
Estigaod edt stot od rotte gail jadsa Rh wow On Bike oHiy Ets +
: base & oben oii SSCL it reduotqer duoda tant jomod ts bed nt Beyste ox
to die bing ad tedt i wetegeon sonstepnt edt ot heise ‘so txoqex
od tet bomotat sew ed tat ayetfog comeunditt etd einiHitexa 8. pid
edt tedt pyotiog eld of galbrooos ‘puntemanionis ot + poltitad ‘ton » esw
o Its catedfa 20 6 ose OF mid diee ‘ynsemod Gaddnddnd eae Yo tnege
ie + etsqmde ‘dasbestsb dt to soltte ont al gogsotifo (teodtd Wiad 'as
von BE biveo bas emt edt } Es Sate sei Sho) seontin ‘dt comtt aie “tat
3
painful; that in May, 1933, he was sent to a Dr. Kreuscher, represent-
ing the insurance company, and that this doctor examined him; that
the witness was in pain at that time, and that he stayed in bed for
four days after the examination; that when the doctor examined him,
every time he touched a certain spot on the body of the witness, he
felt great pain. The witness testified that while he is able to
walk around, that he is unable to lift anything from the floor because
of the pain in his back; that he can bend a little, but that it is
very painful; that he cannot sleep at night, and that he wakes up
during the night suffering from pain; that he is now wearing a
sacroiliac belt, which he has worn for almost a year, and that the
belt was given to him by the doctor when the tape was taken off.
Dr. Sprafka, who attended the plaintiff after the alleged
injury, testified in substance that he had known the plaintiff since
duly, 1932, when plaintiff came to st. Anthony's Hospital. He
described plaintiff's symptoms in some deteail,and stated that up to
September, 1953, h& had examined plaintiff about sixty times; that
after plaintiff left the hospital he was suffering from stiffness of
the muscles, and pain and limited motion and stiffness of the joint.
This doctor testified that in his opinion, the condition of the
plaintiff was permanent, and that he was suffering from chronic
Arthritis, and that the chronic Arthritie which he found to exist
was, in his opinion, permanent, and that the plaintiff had a permanent
limitation in the motion of his legs and in his ability to stand erect.
Dr. Kreuscher, a witness for defendant, testified that
he examined the plaintiff in May, 1933, at which time plaintiff told
this witness of his injury; thet at this examination the witness asked
the plaintiff to go through certain motions of bending, and that in
each instance defendant complained of pain; that this was ten months
after the accident. This doctor stated that he could determine no
limitation of motion, and that there was no rigidity of his muscles
&
eampeter ,rodoererh ord & of tree Sew ei aSBCL «Voi mi feds. PTE
tet ymid béninsxe totoob aidt tadt bas svanqnos sonsrwent orig Bat
aot bed ak boywsts 9a aed aa youl? teaté te ea: oh 9 one _Seeatty edt
amici baatmexe ‘totooh ent neal toni? jwoktoakmexe edt rotts eysh tot
ed eeontby end to vbod edt m0 teae aletxoo 5 beriouot ad outs yore
ot slay el of olidw ted? belt iseed evsatin ont saikag tnorg @ fet
eusoed roolt edt mott gakstyne viLs ot ‘eLdsnw at ed tadt PR. alow
“Gn $2 deat dud .eltelt © baed m80 od ‘dedd itosd ald at ntaq edt to
2
“qu goitew od todd bas cbatg in ts qools tonnso ad tade iitabag Yrev
@ gaiteew woa ei od tant valan mort gatrottire tigta edt gutend
add tedd base sTHOY 8 teomie ok aTow sett ont iio tw eled ostttorone
‘Vito moded esw ogad ont aed: todoob ods we mast ot sovty bef ties
‘bogeits odt ‘codts tiiinisia ont bobaetts ort ettera® -70 _ igo
conte ttitdtels ad? mwostdt bad od toad sonstedue at foe ae sae
ak sistiqeoH a! yonder fe ot ‘omen titntatg aoa £ oust
of qu ‘teild boteta ban ftoteb enon ‘ak amotenye etttgatalg & a ae conte
“fait jaectt yixia tuods We ttatala bontmexe bad Bd .ECeL .rodmetaee,
to aseattitea mort gitredtve sow od io$ tqeou ont tres Larus en.
% bag aps Bo ae
tatot ad? to ssenttite bas aotton bes intt rca ase om sim ont
i? “eit to mottibnos edt toinkeo sit a toate iP Lo0et x08 ob a
PP 8 eotde mort gaizettve new od tadé bas _etirenser9g br A: ttatelg
" telxe oF bawot ox do tet ali indtsh & ouonso ait ca a, wai
wen
prietemr dc 6 bad ‘Yerbntesy ‘edt ‘tedd ‘bas sin ma
toore busts ot ‘yeiitde sid at bas C4 ata ‘te nozton aut
+8 Py TR Way tu fete
‘tant bottisees tasbroteb not “stent iv 4 eredoeuest, a
Peet. Bhi Oo Rate ea ila
blot ttitntele omit dfoide te Posi cee mt titentalg wv od
boxes seentiw ens aottaainaxe eldd ts teste Bh jew, aie tw ore
at deuid Se gntbaed to ‘sao ttom abstT00 dguons 2 ot} t 9
estaon ‘not esw add tsdt jitteg te benkatquoe ‘tnsbnoked |
ey ‘eaimreteb “bivoo ‘eat tadt betate ‘xotood ait? ahioos ed
x nh ae wrear bt pa ae ah a We
| ‘defoomn bhi to “ytibiote of Baw oxedt” tedd bite io kton to aottsttmts he 2
4
when plaintiff was bending forward or backward, This docter gave
his opinion that any condition which he found in the patient was
not permanent.
Dr. Albers, a witness for the defendant, testified that
he had examined the plaintiff on numerous occasions. He was
asked the following question and gave the following answers
"Q. Have you an opinion from your examination of this
patient whether or not the condition complained of would be
permanent?
Ae I have an opinion. He was not disabled. I made
a report of my examination."
Referring again to the policy, which providés that the
indemnity provided for shall be paid when the insured is "wholly,
continuously and permanently prevented from the pursuit of any form
of mental or manual labor for compensation, gain or profit whatso-
ever’, it is to be noted that the application for this policy,
signed by the insured and attached to and made a part of the policy,
shows that plaintiff's avocation at the time of its issuance, was
that of "brick tosser"*, a form of common manual labor. His very
avecation suggests the thought that it could not have been antici-
pated by either of the parties that plaintiff could or would engsge
in any form of "mental *** labor" for compensation, A fair construc-
tion of the policy leads us to conclude that it refers to the
character of labor in which the insured had been engaged, that is,
manuel labor.
in Grand Lodge 5B, of le F. ve Orrell, 206 Ill. 208,
compensation was provided in case a member "shall be totally and
permanently incapacitated from performing manual labor", In that
ease, the court gave the following instruction to the jury which
on appeal was complained of by the insurance company;
"The term ‘manual laber,! in its ordinary and usual
meaning and acceptation, means labor performed by and with
the hands or hand, and it implies the ability for such
hs
" S¥ag Totpob aint ‘. Brewdosd x9 dtswto patbasit sew ‘wibimbata aedw
- g8u dna htna ed? af bavot ed déhiea 013 Eba09 yas teas -sodmtgo etd
tant beftives? (taphasted ode tot asentiv 6 “etn
bay oH sendlessoo avotemun mo ‘Witntele odd bertimaxe bad ont
stowans gatwollot od¢ svey bas notteoup aniwo Lfod oat betes
ig to sottsdimexe ty0y mort nointgo ae woy eveH “* cee" a Lae
ed blyow to beniaigmoo aoltibaeo edt tom xo, nodhnde: tnetted —
‘ae wees
sbheu I Be ldnee ton esw ok _sobatgo: as eved I 3 tae
pads Naodvantmane a Xe. $7000 8-5: ct
edt tadt eabivosa soltdw pyablon, eds of atage gaixreteni hatitereda
eVifode" af berueat edt medy bisq ef Leda sot Sebiverg ytinmebat.
‘mrol Yas to Siveruq edi moxt betaeverq: vitaqnemreg baer yhewomet taoo
A hada titexq so aisg ,voitesmegquoe 19% sores feunem to ete '
<YoLlog sist sot aottsotiqgs edt tad, Setoa od ot et theater.
eWotlog edt to tag 8. ohsin bas of. bosoegta, dan, bepwecd. oat wi bones,
pow, .sonsuead sti to emit ost to aottagens a!thitatelg, tad? anode,
YoY eli .todeL Lavmew nomnce To att # g"xoese? XoLad" to sadt
| ~toitas ased evad tom bluoo +2 tadt tabyvoal odd ateoygue, aoitapors,
e e330, buen to, Luo mated 4, paren, ait 20, Apr eli
edt ot Gat Gh th sade ‘epiinndin wa poe yO,
oe “gett ghoaeame mbed bes + eee z
bate webleer’ ed Loses ‘reduen 9880, ah y
deat ak .rodet keene, middie AB ee tet
| bio 8
“dee matin pn ra
_ floors rot ythiids edt, eetiqut.
5
sustained exercise and use of the hands or hand at labor
ag will enable a person thereby to esrn or assist in
earning a livelihood. Being able to temporarily use
the hands or hand at and in some kind of labor, but
without the ability to sustein such ordinary exercise
and use of the hands at some useful labor whereby money
may be earned to substantially aasist in earning a live-
lihood at some kind of manual labor, doés not constitute
the ability to perform manual labor as it must be under-
stood was contemplated by the mrties to the indemnity
contract sued upon and relied on in this action."
In that case, in passing upon this instruction, and plaintiff's right
to recover, the Supreme Cotirt said:
"Counsel for appellant *** insist that the phrase
‘total incapacity! means absolute and complete inability
to perform any labor whatever with the hand or hands, and
the criticism upon the instruction is, that it erroneously
advised the jury that the appellee may be regarded as totally
incapacitated though he be not absolutely incapacitated to
usé his hand or hands in some manner of useful labor. The
construction given by the imtruction is proper. A condition
of absolute and complete incapacity te do any manual labor
ought not to be regarded as the true construction of the
ianguage of the by-law. Total inability to perform manual
labor to an extent necessary to entitle him to receive earn=-
ings is what is meant. One who hss power to use his hand or
hands at labor for a brief effort only, and who is lacking
in power to sustain the effort for a sufficient length of
time to make the result thereof of any benefit to him in the
way of assisting in his support, is for all practical pur-
poses and in every actual sense totally incapacitated from
performing manual labor."
In the instant case, in connection with the construction
of the language of the polioy, and defendant's insistence that under
its terms plaintiff is net entitled te recover, defendant complains
of an instruction given to the jury on behalf of plaintiff.»
it refers to "his form of labor." he instruction reads as follows:
“If you believe from the evidence the plaintiff is and
has been totally and permanently np lc tae vache
the pursuit of form ane as eged in the policy,
a vexpendenanadt tk rattae a ght of the evidence, and he is
unable, because of such total and permanent disability, to
gain or earn any profit from s2id occupation and that no
premiums are in default, then your verdict should be for
plaintiff."
"His form of labor" means the character of labor which plaintiff was
oe
| godnl te biid wo ebasd eft Ro. cen
4 j mf telecs to aree® of hh yg HOoT pe ee
| ~ Bee yLlrasoquet ot olde gated beads ae Bi TRERS,
f twd .tedel to batx omoa at bas ts baed gh é
seloreze yracibro dove nistese of ytiitds ot tuOL
—-yamom Yoredy todel steer emoe ts abuad edt to ee bas
well 8 ghiswee ai teloen yllai fee Soares. od
etutitemos ten ge0b ,todsL Isunam to batt emoe ts Boosts
od. tar #2 es xrpdsfL Lancom 08 ten bone"
Spsanebat edt ot eelixay; edt yd Seteiqmetnoo sew fa
ort
".cottos sidt ni mo bediet brs nequ.
— teig is ofititately bas yeokteysendt ald moqw aadpeng a 0880 tedt at
“base sted omotqu® eid provost oF
seeriq’ oft ¢adt tefent *** snalleqas sot Joe
ystilidani etelqmeo bas sivioada easem | 1
bas ,ebasd to basd ed me ls pa i ah ao. ie wero
- elasesaorss th tadd .si moltorrrtan w metoltixo edt
yitstor es bebreger od Yam seitecgs @ edt pool et edd as
-@t Detatiosqeeont ylotulosds ton ad
_. ed? .tedst Ivteay to tannam omos at ig pape Be Bi
°"“gokdibaos A steqétq et dottoutamt edt. rig
sods{ isunsm yaa ob ot ytiosqsont ote. mays F yer ro
- @i% Toe aokteonttenet egxt odd as bobteapget ed oF ton ,
Ieunem mrotxseq ot ytilident LetoT .wai-yd edt to
1186 oviesbset of mid oliitne of YIseeocen tnetze os gi.
to baed eid seu ot Ve dnae ow O00 tnadm oe tathw at egal
4 te wettest eft otfw Dae’. yine trottre: be rg
{ tueioittva 2 ae teed it eye ar x
“ese ea fot titened yas to oy akan
oid ES ae Taker os
ts af eenva Lantos
He iisunoe
aes
aan teat } sonstetent #"dasbaotob baie LWaLog ‘ome to |
ge eateiqnes taabasted See of soistens ton a ie Tambela emod see
sli Ris - ve q
oF eee deenenT aq ee Latot de
) wa tenis f foubaor ext
tet edt Tt vee ov Aga amit
A PESO Cee eee
fi.
S18 bee tea engad oat
. ‘ e
8
performing when the policy was issued, as shown by the application -
a part of the policy. We are of the opinion thet the court was not
in error in giving this instruction,
From the testimony of the plaintiff, together with that
of his attending physician, Dr. Sprafka, and the other testimony
in the oase, we are of the opinion that the jury could reasonably
arrive at the verdict which they did, and that we are not justified
in disturbing it, Therefore, the judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
HEBEL, P.»d. AND WILSON, J. CONCUR,
$ Paes
yeas _ sue tetont ©" apastogne,
Uriticas! | Pmiteee ku otuldude ve ayal
bee guload xo Dwad eae athe
Tiseernees 9 So Pads Cod ST i
vilsto? ae bebrager as Yau oo theres ott sake reat
wt Sodus 60% etd sSppukenie Pog ies Me er a
_ pat «<serel sgdesn Be thay siete oe at ali ats
ities 4 eee at ge Meee ae ye, Fnye
amiadk Lowen wed oh oF C2 LoneRens wis cae 2
Ae SG * me fost an etme. ca a ‘bo hiersd«. ri
Lana aK STeay ae Weil iduat Lote? ore ed ie: . | ae
tS Sriphat oF @60 oie hh ws CARPE Ue s - i oe
eo Bae aici peg of xonoq aad offy end aaa’ ne to bes ye
hermes ! Re” Saha Lae nedite Moe te be se abeaghe
Me Mgaei ty ners a 15 gor Prete é
Shae cme wets ae ET. seed (aie Be, toasnele.
ntit Lnoliqeny (ia rot et horas
ae on:
Ree? hotestoogscrs Yllarey ae = ae yes
‘ ad 9 i ae
i ‘a
Ri a hhientte 6 Qar fae ne roberto ai Pa
it, PY,
“ gor ee se
a oni ani tp
sa odes, eae md
mit: Bk beer get
aw atel Wei f
Pe Cm ee
aay aut Se Lev at diabed si
weer URLInAedy abe. ee ca ie | « em vibe y a . wie
%,
ee
Bh
x %
be
Sate
a
ss
37499 ~ A
JASPER A. CAMPBELL, JR., MASON B aps via,
JR., EARLE E. BEYER, EDWARD WALKER, RDEN,
HARRY Be BENEDICT, and FRANK A, VANDERLIP,
a Copartnership, doing business under the
mame of CAMPBELL STARRING & CO.,
Plaintiffs and Appeliants,
P hws
' ¢
ry > ve
APPEAL 7
¢
i
ery | GouRT
Ve
Ie Se FALK and W. F. HEWITT,
Defendants and Appellees. 2 V4 9 T f iN 5 4 4!
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
OF CHICAGO.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the
Municipal Court of Chicage for $5,650.00 against them, entered on
January 5th, 1934, on defendants! claim of set-off, The cause was
submitted to a jury. The court directed that the jury return 4
verdict against plaintiffs on their claim to which the set-off of
defendants was filed, The verdict for defendants was for $5,650.00,
On January 17th, 1931, plaintiffs brought suit in the
Municipal Gourt of Chicago against the defendants for the recovery
of $673.00 for an alleged balance due plaintiffs as brokers, such
Claim arising out of stock transactions on the New York Stock
Exchange, in which plaintiffs are alleged to have acted as brokers
for defendants, Both of the defendants were served with summons,
defendant Hewitt appeared by his attorneys, and on January 27th, 1931,
a default judgment was entered against defendant Falk for the sum of
$673.00. Thereafter, defendant Hewitt filed an affidavit of merits
in and by which he denied that he wes indebted to plaintiffs.
oa Bay Lith, 1932, defendant Falk entered a motion to vacate the |
judgment agsinst him, and in the affidavit accompanying the motion,
alleged that he was not indebted to the plaintiffs in any amount.
On June 13th, 1932, an order was entered vacating the judgment against
Falk, who then filed an affidavit ef merits denying liability, and
Are aw i) ao
ras,
Q ».
| y A
BY — Beavs
Need Weg a
ry of Te \a HOBAM wast yiiMGMAO A BETOAL
cos \) NEOP ASGGA «Y= IGHAM. AIAN GRAWGS .AaYad SAE neh
. a ‘ELINSOUAY ,A SHAK has sTOLOEMER +a DOR
| Bn edt tohay seemteaud Tartuie $o"snen a)
4 2200 8 OUI Te 2 2 to
TAVOO ZAGIOIMUM. et tt a
setnailoqga | bus bila”
ae DAR , my oehonseor eit to
{ie ORARTED TO ,
TETWa 1 W bad MAY <8 +t
Vie
‘b b A ge IL ) ae -soottoaas bas etacbastot ae a
sTRUCO BHT TO MOIKIGO BHT CUAAVIUSA GAH ROLTEVG «AM
edt to tremgbut s mort attitateiq xd Laeuqe as et pdt 3 ASS
fo beretne ,medt tenisgs 00.088,3) tot ogectd® to trwod LIsqtotayl,
saw gauss eft ,.tto-tea to mielo ‘etausbhneteb ao ,d86L dite vesuasl é
S mxutex yrut odt tedt betoorlh trsoo edt eytut *& oF bosd Lmdare
to Yto~ton oft doisw ot minto tledt ao ettivntalg tantegs toLbrov
‘i ,00.088,a8 tot esw etashaoteh rot toibrev ect .beltt Bow efushaet oh
edd at tua tdyword attitaialq .[éeL Atl yrasael 20
yreveoss odd rot etashasieh edt tentege ogsold® to gxu00 keg tozacit
dove ,artecsord as etiltniala exh eonalsd bogelle ma tot 00,8T8¢ to
Ueets AxoY welt edt ao anottossnsxt doote to tuo gateiza misto
puatecd et beyoa evad of begetis ern etiitatsiq doidw at ,egmedoxd
| — gbitommue dtiw bevres stew efnabaetsh edt to dito satasbaeted tot
fed .809S Yrowasl no has ,eyourette aid yd berseqqs te lwel tashaated
rte to me edt rot Let tasbaoteb teatage beredae asw taemghyt tlusteb &
eticom to tivebitte ae bettt tttwok tusbaoteb stettsoredt 006888)
|
Y wettitaiela of betdebat esw ed tadd dotaod od dokdw ro ban at
} gt? otnosy of aottom s Setetas wnt tasbacteb SbCl sthe bao 210
mottos edd yaiyasquoces tivabitts edt at base old tonkeye saemaber
ee Se
F + dasons yous at etiiveisla edt ot beddebak tou aew od todd boyetis ?
F a anon tasmgbut edt gattvsosy beretae sew rebr0 f8 .8ECL tL emu 00
beg bas wWiilldsLl gutyneb etivem to ¢ivebitts as belt at out Sameer a)
2
in which he get up his alleged defense to plaintiff's claim. On
April 14th, 1933, an order was entered in the «eae Court of
Chicago, transferring the cause from the fourth/the first class,
and on May lst, 193%, more than two years after the suit was started,
defendants were given leave to file an amended affidavit of merits
and a set-off-upon payment of additional fees, as provided by
statute. On the same day, defendants filed an affidavit of merits
and/set~ott; in which they again denied that they were indebted to
plaintiffs, and in addition alleged that certain moneys and stocks
were deposited with plaintiffs for gambling purposes, that the whole
of their transactions with the plaintiffs were gambling transactione
under the statute of the state of New York, where the dealings were
had, and that by the terma of the New York statute, they were and
are entitled to recover from plaintiffs all the money deposited by
defendants with plaintiffs, and asserting that plaintiffs are indebted
to them in the sum of $19;000300. Plaintiffs deny that any of the
transactions conducted by them were gambling transactions, but insist
that all of the deals made by them for defendants were legitimate
purchases and sales of stocks and securities.
Plaintiffs sii miagad stock bwokers in the city of New
York end state of New York, and defendants yere-end—are residents
of Chicago, Illinois. 3 | ( 4d hte
Plaintiffs urge that the court was in error in transferring
the cause from the fourth th the first class, and in allowing the
set-off to be filed,
By an Act of the General Assembly, approved July 8th, 1931,
and adopted November 8th, 1932, an act entitled “An Act in relation
to the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago” was amended, The
portion of the amended act applicable to the cage at bar, is as
follows: (Smith Hurd Revised Statutes 1933, Chapter 37, Sec. 6, p.960)
Ae
&
ao .misaio e'ttitaielq of senmeteb beygelis aid qu toe of sto bide ait
to #mvo0 Laqtoinut ed? ai horodne ace rohro se 88OL, deat Aisa
eeeelo ten tt. wy. Pa edt mort sewso, odd aatrrotenest. eo.
«betuate sew tine od¢ ratte ereoy ows asd? etom eeer ‘tal ‘ysil no bas
atizom to ¢ivebitte bobaans ‘ax elit ot evsel aevis oxew etusbasted
ae bebivetq as ,eeet Isaottibha to taeaysg noqu-Tto~toe & bas
atizem to tivebitte me beLit ednsbastdh s¥eb oman odd 10. ctutate
et Detdobat oxew yor? tad? botaob alegs yout doldw ak <Mo-toe \bae
atoote bas eyenom akstze0 tedt begeils soltiobs alk bas ett ientela
‘elodw edt teat chalet eam atidusy sot atti¢nutets thw bot teoqeb erew
ano Ltosansti “ght idnag et98 atittalels odd bw eno ltosensr# riodt to
ezew eat tect ed? otedw vino nol te otete ade te ‘otutate oad sohas:
bua esew yor’ wedutade dro woul edd to emzed ont vd Yadt bas edad
«s bet teoges yentom eda ILa- srt itatelg nent sevocet of bedghine 2s
_ betdebat ore “sttivatela tact? antizoene bas 48 ebtivatete ddiw 8 phe Latte
; ie eie a
#0 ae A whet edt al mo ff ibe
ae ‘to yas teat web attitaiass “9
teten ted sano ttoseastt aed tiene oxen ‘mod? a ‘bate pnottosenert
rE chs faa .
Sante tye ozew otashaateb not modt w ‘eban ‘eised aut to ts
sa % 0) Be ath ot
seoit tress bas ‘pisos ‘to ‘eelss bas
woul to tito add mt etedoud ioote boentoads-o¥s atiita is
SON Reel 6 ya
etusbiaer orehme-eeew etasbaeteb bas it0¥ wow ‘to ‘etata bas iro ¥
ive mitade
5 AN \ : j i ay Heer aMDy Hh ing
a “RTH. Sag a WY “satomiiit aogsaldd to
em Fo hye Gericke
“ padxiotener? es xorze fd Bew gxs0o at gedit ogy ettisatsl4
i Give. Tee ed” tt Eas
eat guiwo its at hus sensi, fextt oa @ daw} od a t oous8 oat
od oF eee ab ;
ae iui atk
i &
“deer ate eke bevoraas eidaeee iaxeaed oxid << toa 8
| “nobtstox md toa na boltitas ‘tos as 80 ate dus voll b
"gd? sbobrome asw Negsotdid to ytle edd ‘Yo two 4 qtol
ics es ad ated ta oaso ode et sfdsotieas foe bebasns set te em
eS axel:
(080.4 8 1088 ve | rongadto eer soausate boatvell bi deh ‘ineles
i ie aie, ae eae i te RRR Sek &’ ; mend | “—
"A gage commenced as one of the first class may be
changed to one of the fourth class, or 4 case commenced
as one of the fourth class may be changed to one of the
first class, upon such terms as to costs and notice to
the parties as may be provided for by the rules of
the court. Ina ease of the fourth class the defendant
way file a set-off or counterclaim of the first class,
in which case he shall pay to the clerk, upon entering
his appearance, or upon his filing such set-off or
counterclaim, the same fees required to be paid by a
defendant in a case of the first class, and thereafter
such case shall be classified and disposed of as one
of the first class, (As amended by act approved July 8,
1931. Le 1931, p. 420, Adopted Nov. 8, 1932.)"
It is insisted by plaintiffs, however, that this amendment is not
applicable to a cause pending at the time of the passage of the act,
In Superior Coal Go» v. Industrial Commission, 321 Ill,
240, the court said;
"In the case of Otis Elevator Co. v. Industrial Com
302 Ill. 90, this court held that where a statute confers
a vested right such right cannot afterward be altered or
amended so as to destroy it, but if a change in the law
affects only the remedy or procedure all rights of action
are governed thereby, without regard to whether they accrued
before or after such change and without regard to whether
suit hed previously been instituted or not, unless there
is a saving clause as to the existing litigation,"
We are of the opinion that this Act has to de with procedure only,
that no vested rights are affected thereby, that the court was not
in error in transferring this cause from the fourth to the first
Class, and in allowing defendants to file their set-off,
In their claim of set-off, after alleging that defendants
had turned certain moneys and ateoks over to the plaintiffs, defend-
angs allege the following: "that said sum was deposited with the
plaintiffs by the defendants with the mutual understanding and
intention that the said sum was to be used in speculating and wager-
ing and the rise and fall of the prices of stocks, bonds and other
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges
of the United States. Defendants allege that thereafter plaintiffs
reported to the defendants numerous purchases and sales of stock,
bonds and other securities, but that said purported purchases and
ee
od yas casio terik ot to eno an Deeneammo Sead AN ©):
heonenmod sese & To ,aselo dituot ot to oao of a
ad? to eno of Sopaade se yen naelo Mtxcvot edt To sao es ~~~
ot soliton bar steoo of as eamtod dowe moqu eanto terit
; to selot edt yo tot bebiverg od yeu ae eeltrsq edt
tnshaoteb eft azaio dixwot ed? to Seen ws al edt
: aseclo gexit ect to miaLoretaweo xo Tro-tee «. OL2T yom”
giitetne aoquy ,Atelo edt et ysq Lieds ed oneo dotdw at
. to te-tee dows grflit eid hot to ,eenereseqys eho | °~
& yd biaq od of betivpet soet emer ont pepe che 4
-wattseredd buns. .epalo tect od¢ Yo eeso a mt i.
sao as to besoqaib bas beitkeaslo ed iisde eeso dove
“48 Vout beverage toe yi bebmows eA) .seeeDo tetit eat a re
von ai trembaome att iedt ,vevewod att beanie wd bovetaat, at %
veer ont to ogseasq edt to onat ont 22 aatbaeg sevso & of eldeottega:
. thise ‘two ene 88,
eR 2 ae 8 oA wes
“ STetHOeS & £ 6t2 oo eid? <0. he 08. duel
xo beretis ed breawrette tonmac tdigit dove tdgix beteev s
: wat ent mi. S %L tud> yot yortaad oF “oe bebasms — 9°
mottos to etdgix Lie erubesotg to ybemex edt ylao aseatta |. 3 ae
bewtoos yea? redtedw ot bieget tuodtéy .wWearedt wPga ONE Toke
rontedw of bieget tuodtiw bas 8 ean tetts to sxoted —
-eted? eeelay ,tom to betuts iverg bed tivwo°? 0°
"eno ttegisit gatteixe edt oF Bo eee peti eo el
| qlee erubecorg détw ob o¢ asd toa eidé teas solatae her a a =. “
toa ‘esw druoo edt tsdt Woredt botootts ons atigtt botesv on teat
| tarit edt of déxwot ans wort aauno eisé patrxetenett ‘At tome ak
; Sy eager amine capiateat NY Eps
' .to-tee tledd ‘eit of atanbaeted gaiwolls at has \aenate aL
2) Altes Se | eee: ORE ito Ae
etasbasteb sont paigetis rotts ,tto-tes to minto ) xtodé ak :
GRRALA _ De ofad te
~basteb etiitmtals edd ot revo edoots ban eyenoa nistrso peaesrd had
agit: @ Bi cASMAGS
ae oddd atin bet isoqed aew sue bise tae" ‘igutvosfor od Bia aspect oe 9
Oo” ae wd att = cd
| “pas yatbasterebay Lautun eft Atte siashasteb ort sg ear are ag ve
; — bas galtsLluceqe md hens ed o¢ baw mua bisa one teslt aotemeeat
i “ redto bas ebsod <2doots to ‘woodta edt to fist bas gets paix pat 3 conse
aognndoxs tasito bas opmedioxil to0#8 ix0¥ woll one no f . aera ty”
attigatese rod taoredé dedé ogeiie edasbaotoo yentaee: ag:
qloota to welea bas sonadonwa avoremun esashaoteb ont vols ny
SED fe
¥ hme’ aopatotivg be¢eoqiua bisa tedt duct gnottinuose xoulto om vied
' |
ayy mee
4
sales were not made by the plaintiffs, but that seid reports were
made pursuant to the aforesaid understanding between the plaintiffs
and defendants to speculate and wager upon the aforesaid rise and
fall of the prices of stocks, bonds and other securities. Defendants
further allege that the aforesaid agreements and understandings and
the aforesaid purported purchases and sales were made and entered
into in the State of New York",
As stated, it is the contention of defendants that all of
the transactions with plaintiffs were gambling transactions. They
insist that under the statutes of the State of New York, they are
entitled to recover from plaintiffs the amounts of money deposited
with them, and in support of such contention, and as 3 part of their
claim of set-off, they set out a portion of the statutes of the
State of New York as follows:
5 "Any person, copartnership, firm, association for cor-
poration, whether acting in his, their or its own right, or
as the officer, agent, servant, correspondent or representa
tive of another, whe shall,
1, Wake or offer to make, or assist in making or offer-
ang to make any contract respecting the purehase or sale,
either upon credit or oar ye of any securities or commodities,
including all evidences of debt or property and options for
the purchase thereof, shares in any corporation or association,
bonds, coupons, script, rights, choses in action and other
evidence of debt or property and options for the purchase
thereof or anything movable that is bought and sold, intend-
ing that such contract shall be terminated, closed or settied
according to, or upon the basis of the public market quota-
tions of or prices made on any board of trade or exchange or
market upon which such commodities or securities are dealt
in, and without intending a bona fide purchase or sale of
the same; or
2 Makes or offers to make or assists in making or
offering to make any contract respecting the purchase or sale,
either upon oredit or margin, of any such securities or com-
wodities intending that such contract shall be deemed terminated,
closed and settled when such market cuotations of or such prices
for such securities or commodities named in such contract shall
reach a certain figure without intending a bona fide purchase
or sale of the same; or
5. Makes or offers to make, or assists in making or
offering to make any contract respecting the purchsse or sale,
either upon credit or margin of any such securities or com
x
erTew atroget Bisa tedt Sud yettivatelq adit xd ebes toa etew eeles
ettitnisly edt moawted yaibosterehay biagexore edt at tesuenue ebem
bae seit bleaerote edd aogys regsw bas staluoeqe of stasbasteb bas
_ Btnehastod s8eitixnvoes isdto bas ebaod aatora te asolry out ‘te {ist
: bas agathasterobayr bre ataomastys biaeorohs edt todd ogetia. “gedtxvt
| beretae bas ebem otow eeles bas ‘sensdorug betzoqtia, bhaeorots edt
| s"Xs0¥ wel to sted odt-al otat
to Ils test etuabasteh to nolgnetmom edd ei ¢f ,botete. ad...
‘ yed? .enoltosenert gntidmey exew ettivatelg dtinw en B
ere yedd ,dtoY wel to etaie odt to estutate odd reba teas detent
we
bettsoqeb ysaom to etnyome ed? etiitatelg mort: teveosx, oF best ieno
ried? to txaq 9 es bas ereldaedaoe dous to sroqume at hee ymodt dtiw ©
OP: LSE BOR ix.
ont to eetutste edt Yo Mn tere: 8 tuo toa wed Atowton Yo mtalo.
sn % rie 0 th a :
se 3 smoot 2s aro weit Yo state
ii ITH BD OLS
~Too oo aoktatootes wane ¢ owted | sted:
to ,figit mwo ati ‘To thedt qugerontegoo: '
~stasaotger to taebnoqeetroo .tnaevise a 0 ave
«fisde ete to mi
‘mEStto on Lager al teless to by aor OF reBto to Otello oes o
else 10 Seadorug edd gaitoed a wa eden ot |
ee asottge bas ysreqorg to tab
ee tooses To moiverogtoo yas ai morass feorat nates na
redvo bas aoitos at eseosdo otdgts e PG. sanoquoo ,ebsod
sasdoteq 8d3 cot amotéqe bits eqetq te tdeb to.
ragcbgetet blow bae tigaod ei tadé eldsvem gaidtyas to .
fttee ro bovelo ,dbbtsainres. od Llede re een t gat
~steoup, toalzen oildua eddy to efeed ent mogy to ¢
"6 egnatoxe to shstt to Drsod yas a6 sham aooizg. ious, totcan |
tiseb exes asitixnuoca to seltiboamoo dosa doidw theo an
y olze 9 easdeted eblt eaod & gaibustat eae”
a0 ‘gridview wi @teieas to odam of eretto 1° xo sats of tigaltels
eff 10 eeedoxug dt meseouere tosxtaoo eta 0 t guitetto ?
"oo to geiticvoen fore yas to ,cigrsm «xo thbero’ sogt Sete on
,batentoret bemseh ed ifere soertnoo dove teat gatbasdat .y
agottq dove to to enoktstoup textam dove momdw ae Suns bewoio
_ALade tooxtaoo fowe af bemen sottibemmoo to aoitixuoee doxa tot
_ “Sandor shit scod s yaibasint tuoddiw ety? nladren cOARE ©»
*o jomee edt to else so
RT peer EER ren Rede Maen pie e
8 to earfoiwg © egeer sostinoo yas ©
ne — £0 Bessayiciy: sss dove b 7 ‘to fetus shat tibero ei: | te at
a! ixyoon redeg a ebrne
m
_ 4
:
modities, not intending the actual bona fide receipt or
delivery of any such securities or commodities, but intending
a settlement of such contract based upon the difference in
such public market quotations of or such prices at which said
securities or commodities are, or sare asserted to be, bought
er sold; or
4 Shall, as owner, keeper, proprietor or person in
charge of, or as officer, director, stockholder, agent,
servant, correspondent or representative of such owner,
keeper, proprietor or person in charge, or of any other
person, keep, conduct or operate any bucket shop, as here-
inafter defined; or knowingly permit or allow or induce any
person, copartnership, firm, associction or corporation
whether acting in his, their or ite own right, or aa the
officer, agent, servant,correspondent or representative of
another to make or offer to make therein, or to assist in
making therein, or in offering to make therein, any of the
contracts specified in any of the three preceding subdivisions
of this section,
Shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof shall,
if a corporation, be punished by a fine of not more than five
thousand dollars for each offense and all other persons so
convicted shall be punished by s fine of not more than one
thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than five
years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The prosecu-
tion, conviction and punishment of a corporation hereunder
shall not be deemed to be a prosecution or punishment of any
of its officers, directors or stockholders,
All wagers, bets or stekes, wade to depend upon any race,
or upon any race, or upon any gaming by lot or chance, or
upon any lot, chance, casualty or unknown or contingent event
whatever, shall be unlawful.
All contracts for or on account of any money or property,
er thing in action wagered, bet or staked, as provided in the
preceding section, shall be void.
All things in action, judgments, mortgages, conveyances
and every other security whatsoever, given or executed, by any
person, where the whole or any part of the consideration of
the same shall be for any money or other valuable thing won by
playing at any game whatsoever, or won by betting on the hands
or sides of such as do play at any game, or where the same shall
be made for the repaying any money knowingly lent or advanced
for the purpose of such play, to any person so gaming or betting
aforesaid, or to any person who during such play, shall play
or bet, shall be utterly void, except where such securities,
conveyances or mortgages shall affect any real estate, when
the same shall be void as to the grantee therein, so far only
as hereinafter declared,
When any securities, mortgsges, or other conveyances,
executed for the whole or part of any consideration specified
in the preceding paragraph shell affeot any real est=te, they
shall inure for the sole benefit of such person as would be
entitled to the said real estate, if the grantor or person
incumbering the same, had died, immediately upon the execution
of such instrument, and shall be deemed to be taken and held to
and for the use of the person who would be so entitled. All
grants, covenants and conveyances, for preventing such real
estate from coming to, or devolving upon, the person hereby
af)
ei Te
to tq icoes t soad Lastos ant Sastnk don pons jp 4
| quftbnetal ¢ud paPiey | Somes ro tig Es ath aoe te wis te wx feb
Mt Sererstiib aft coqu Leased tostines dowe to twemeitiea, ©
bine dottw fe seoisg dove ro to anoitetoun todtram pone Be!
tdguod ,ed of batroses ers to ,.ore eeltibomes ro e ib
TO 4 eg x0
ai soazeg to sotelicqorq ,1e¢esed ,xenmo of , led
” etnogs ,toblosidoc Sete etotoeTtlb ,reoitte an TO «to esto
i atoano douse te svitaiaoaerqet co tuebhagqestion 0 saxo
tedt¢o yar to to .eg tao al noateq to roteltq eteqeer
~97ed «Gode tedoud etsreqe to toubnoo. weed
Wis eoubet ro wolle to timreq yfyaiwond xo jben teb
aeltsroqres to soltaioosss atk? ,qiderentxrages .moareg » 6".
oid as tO ,tdgix awo evi to tied? ,eid at gaites tedtedw
Io evitstnssoiqer so tnebaneqaer100,tasyie8 eteoltto
mai felese of to ,uletedt soon or set to to Aan of teddous
am ggiorens sias of T9iTe ai to parva Me pattem 38 C
painted $e lheoorg serd? edt to yas ai betrto B etoztinood
| Pt) wide? toy v0!
teats toereds nolteivnos mo bus ynolet to xeitirg od LLasé ;
« @vdt aad? otom toa to enit s yd bedetauy od ywottexoqroo SRL) /0)
0@ eanoeteq terto [is bas sanstto dose rot etelleb busevodt
se asdt etom ton to oalt » yo Dbetetavg od Liade betolumes ¢.»
evit nedt exem ton tot teemmoatrami yd 20 ete basevodt
“uossoTd edt .tneanoeitqwt bas onst dowa dted ya ete Lada
thhasexha noltsxeqroo = to tnemduinugq bas aoitetvaoco ,
wis to tuemdelang to noliveesotq a od ot hemeeh sd tom tare
he ager a xo axotoerth ten nape se ‘esi to
,805T sogu baeges sedate tO. Ce eeragen LL4
40 <éonade. to tol yd SSobeke aa goons *
tagve iuegaitaco 19 awenxay xo olaaaa oaks Paes
‘SPT is to — So zo Tot etoattaeo
ebivoxq © C84 asta aolioe at one ©
¢ ad pes te fouae my coe
‘ dss icind .39geger0n - ,etaomgbhyl ,wolson- Leeper
yd ,bsduvoexs to novig ,.tevecntadu ‘eiuoes yreve bie
WA lee fase. dt 0 tray yas xo eforie edt oneee’ ,
ww rey) gutted xe tow x0 \uaveantady. #0 i j
_ ebnad fo 4a Row SO .Taveonteaty i pale
bednevbs 20 bron yenon eae get youre add rot. oben od
eee to pein oe. soatog yas oF gusta down bo edt wot
yelq ileda, nie Sem Batam y if P
Seatac irans stedw tgeexs ,biov vitgeter
«sort .oteveo Laer yas toetie I
yino tat of ate reg sstaatp we ot al
, pear careee xedio to. a gaotthruege: yeh Secuzone $2
raat Teen xan phate & ¢ free 30 Ma ome eLortw et rw
Vi fiae Ieor yas too 8;
“od bluow as soeteg dove to. t£2: none var 08 low, oa tot esuat
" Mearsq To TotaeTy, on BA: ies pet aines spew bihga: edt of ee
motivesxe edt mnogu yletsibenm
“@¢ ;Sied bas aeiuet odo bencoh 9d iiade bas ,tnemrndent foie
| ™ fia. smeredet tes ed en ofy nosxeg entree to ons: odd rot bas
<" feet, dove. AAVITS TOL 4BSONsYOVAOS,
wacsd holtag’ ent ,ogu gaivioved to ,ot aaeae wort ‘otstes
mB
an
3
41.
intended to enjoy the same as aforesaid, or in any way
ineumbering or charging the same, so as to prevent such
person from enjoyimg the same fully and entirely, shall
be deemed fraudulent and void,
Any person who shall pay, deliver or deposit any
money, property or thing in action, upon the event of any
wager or bet prohibited, may sue for and recover the same
of the winner or person to whom the samé shall be paid or
delivered, and of the stakeholder or other person in whose
hands shall be deposited any such wager, bet or stake, any
part thereof, whether the same shall have been paid over
by such stakeholder or not, and whether any such wager be
lost or not,"
The position of defendants whose right to recover on their
set-off is the issue here, as stated in their brief, is that "while
the burden of proof as to the issue of gambling is on the defendants,
the burden of proof as to the actual purchases and sales of stocks
is, and remains throughout this c2se, on the plaintiffs", and that
*** plaintiffs have not produced one person who ever executed one
of the trades involved in this case **", Not one of the witnesses
produced by the plaintiffs ever received or delivered one share of
stock mentioned in the accounts rendered to the defendants, The
plaintiffs did not even produce their receipt and delivery blotters,
which they asserted existed. Under such circumstances, plaintiffs
have not discharged the burden of proof placed upon them of showing
that the stocks alleged to have been purchased for the defendants!
account were actually so purchased,"
In the trial, the following stipulation was offered by
plaintiffs and received in evidence;
"It Is Stipulated by snd between the plaintiffs and
defendants, through their respective attorneys:
i. That the defendants gpened an account with Campbell
Starring & Cos on April loth, 1928; the first transaction
in the said account was the transfer and delivery to Campbell
Starring & Co. from the account of I. S. Falk with Russell,
Brewster & Co., through Clark, Dodge & Go. @f New York, of
100 shares of Johns-iianville stock, for which Campbell
Starring & Co, paid to Clark, Dodge & Oo. 2 debit balance
of $8,346, 23,
@, That on April lOth, 1928, the defendants also
deposited with Campbell Starring & Go, th
—— ng » the sum of $3,000
vt F ae et TE, weienenete Be aa ata fae of &
NevO TI BS 08 , ONE 8 oa Xe gf
Toede’ ‘viertire bas ytlvt omee
* syed ne
tisogebh ro roviteb 1 ' pinata
Yae we sueve edt moa songs at eee 8 Tog ah gree f
man sit TeVOOeT pe tot WHothdi sore dd ory stone
to bleq ed Ifrde ease edt mesy ot Moetey cb tonalw edt.%
esodw ai soatsq torte ro teblofedste edt to. bas...
yas .easte to tod .toysw dove Yae betiseqeb sd .
teyo bieq meed sysd Ifede emse adi redtodw + tus
See nee eee Ys tedtedy bas ston <0 Seeaigs fogve
ry Ld hing
shed? mo xev0992 ot tieix ends stnataotos to. morttaog eat
el tity® tent ef tetgd' vod? mi betote as orod event edd. fi hes
«abiebaoteb eft mo et gatidung to eveet edt of es, ‘toon, to mebrad adit
‘ edoote to eeite bas esecdotua Lautos edd of 88 Yoox to aobawd odd
ead hetyoexe reve otly Airtit end beovborg fea eved ‘tttialates
a One
sect base (Nata itmtelg edt fo 9809 atdd suodguondd |
seeeentiy ont 0 ano on .*** eave ated at boytownl ‘xe:
to oxacie ono beteveleb to aovisoss tore sttintislg ott xd beoubora
“i ed? eetaabaeteb oat of borebaee stnyeoos ode at OR,
saxodioss vrovi feb bas sqtooex riedt ‘eoudors aNYE, pa peeps
ethitatel .asonstaavorto dome tebe .bate tx
gatwore to mexh aoa beoale toprq to. mobi ait bea na soak
‘e¢usbasteb bad ‘tot , Menstreeg nesd Soe. : heyoits 2
As HC}
x boxotto oad | mobteluatte witvo £101 i eee oat = (sat
e yer eh roonebive pane eed ; ie :
bas: ertutatste out xeowted bas vd bes:
teyerredts evitoeqest shect
Ledqus0 dtte Scat rar 18 boxe aes f
nottosensit ters 10. 208
ifedqued of Mya peg * peal ae ry AUODD
(ydfesenA dt by ap AE Sree orf
: ks (piteY rel Be «00 bol ATA.
* fedqmst sdolrtw Sw eipode oLtt
, soneled ‘tideb 2.00 4 sgbed
+ gale ettiebroteb adt Fee 8
000,88 to (ase ont ro &*gadt
3. That on April 14th, 1928, the defendants caused
to be transferred and delivered from the account of W. fF,
Hewitt at A. ©. Slaughter & Go., in Chicago, through
Laidlaw & Co., in New York, 50 shares of Johns-Manville
stock, to Campbell Starring & Co., and the said account
of defendants was credited with the said stock, and
Campbell Starring & Coe paid to Laidlaw & Co. a debit
balance thereon of $3,661.39.
4. That as the result of these transactions, Campbell
Starring & Co, hed on hand and to the eredit of said
account, on April 14th, 1938, 150 shares of Johns-Manville
stock, subject to a debit balance of $9,007.62.
5. That on April 33rd, 1938, Campbell Starring & Co.
sold for account of the defendants 50 of the 150 shares of
Johns-Manville stock in the said account at the price of
1231/4 per share, and received from the purchase thereof
the sum of $6,148.00, which sum was credited to defendants!
account.
6 That the joint account agreement dated June lith,
1929, on 2 printed form, headed with the name of 'Gampbell
Starring & Co.', marked in evidence in the deposition here-
tofore taken a@ ‘Plaintiffs! Exhibit 1 for Identification,
ate the true and genuine signatures of I, 5, Falk and W. F,
Hewitt.
7, That the paper introduced in evidence at the taking
ef the prior deposition as 'Plaintiffs! Exhibit 2 for
Identification! upon the printed form headed ‘Campbell Starring
& Gos! and designated as ‘Trading Authorization!’ ete,, and
dated June 26th, 1929, bears the true and genuine signature
of I. S Falk,
8. That the paper introdueed in evidence upon the
taking of the prior deposition as 'Plaintiffé' Exhibit 3!
and dated September ZOth, 1929, a form letter addressed to
I, 3. Falk and W, F. Hewitt, relating to their account with
Campbell, Cs & GO., bears the true and genuine sign=-
ature of I. Sy, Falk,
9, That a letter dated April 7th, 1928, signed by I.
S. Falk and W. F., Hewitt, and addressed to Mre Jasper Campbell
of Campbell Starring & Go., 111 Broadway, New York City, be
deemed in evidence without any objection by either party.
10, Subject to the objection of the plaintiffs as to
ite materiality, relevancy and competency, that the annexed
sohedule rae icacaohogg the market prices of Columbia CGraphophone
between September Slst and October 15th, 1929, both inclusive,
shows the true and correct market prices of said stock on
the date therein set forth.
ii. The statements of account annexed here with and
marked Ems, 50 to 71 inclusive are statements sent by the
plaintiffs and received by the defendants during the first
part of the month following the month in which the trans-
actions indicated on said statements are alleged to have taken
place, and may be offered in evidence without any further
foundation subject to the objection by the defendants only
for materiality, relevancy and competency,
Dated New York, October 23rd, 1933."
Jasper 4, Campbell, a member of the firm of Campbell
Starring & Co., whose depositions was taken in New York, testified
‘ beeuet etusbuoteh odd ,BRCL debt. Liaqh ho tant le
} UW To. doses st moxt bexevtsed bas a8 fab Sfecech
Fy ad teeter a a eae a 2299 3 scone a, pate
B siiivasi-ensot te setede 08- 2 on
t; a bies ed? bas ary saaiies aa se iyi
bas ,fo0te bisa ed@-diie bot¢ibeqs asw oe ehaibeaten's
gided s .09 & walhhod ov «oO & nao, Hie
; eS £ .Atat 4. '
FY 88. 700,09 to tideb = of to
0d 4 peaeeaey fe {fedqme) ,BECL ,b1éS og 110
; clos? ‘to @erete adt to 0@ stoshueteh edt toe d¢nauc
to eoiaa edt te tayooos bise ent Mv ay th
7"
| | tedninbao? st ot betibere new ave Aol doldw feat San
. Wises enul boteb taonsergs ¢ayoso tauvoove tmtot. ott ait Ct
‘°° {Ledquad* to amen oft Oo. 88
~ored GoltieogoeS en¢ at antes at exam aed 3 fxr:
#1, notteedt toneht cok 4 gidisix® tetht hae A
| < *W bas tlst .8 .I to sotutamgie etwas
6%
_gakiet edt te eonsbive ut beoubortat S ett ras e 4
: wot & tidisixd ‘ettivutelt' es
gairisdé Liledque6' bebsed mrot Derabzy of out negaratasb ‘ao
bate (soto 'nolteaitodia | ies ver
_ paatangte sctuney bas suxt edt oxaed eect ages ot a
»
j
ie
1%
ot ¢ nequ sonebive ak beeubotint xeqeq ‘es,
VE @ididxt 'stiiveteld! gw noit eee goo
ot borwerbbe settol mrot s eset anne 8
| Mtiw tavesos tledd of subeaiae: tae hod. ASL oS oh.
~sgie saivacg bas euxt oft eracd «200 4 ae ao
of s
- ok yt Dongle ese! wey thank betab cot ‘.
ee sogest& stil 897. tiwoH ‘ achat
a¥tid AroY wok ,yswheora LI1f «200 4 See ‘bps Slant
pt + os rodtie yd soitoetde yas twodtiw . Og
ot es attitnisla edt to holivetde ent ot ae
. bewenns odd? tedt ,youetvequeo bas.
enodcodqetd aidesiod to seottq tedzam 8 ¢ pails
.evienlont dtod ,eSCL ,d¢el tedoteO baat ban ove aeordae
no doote bise to soning pgp’ tostros brs grate cy
date
bas dtiw: ered: bexents tasonce to.8 <
petit adh gaieae’ atmapeutes sraneaoad oe%.
oar 8 4 pet) RSV LIDS
ee TT eae dolce ai dtnom ode XA barrie itmon
noved over ot begeile oxs atnemedate bise ao s
| genttwt yrs tuodtiw somebive mi betetio og. ye
vino eopeenen om Shrubs bees
Nog ed
beltttest .troY well al medst es panattonai pelo: bem & yakrrsse |
8
that on dune llth, 1929, he received from defendants Hewitt and
Falk the following document, which is referred to as a "joint account
contract", and in the stipulation as “Exhibit 1";
"JOINT ACCOUNT
In consideration of your carrying a joint account for
the undersigned, we jointly and severally agree to be fully
and completely responsible and liable for said account and
to pay on demand any debit balance or losses at any time
due in this account. Each of us has full power and author-
ity to make purchases and sales, withdraw moneys and secur-
ities from it or do anything else with reference to said
account, either individually or in our joint names, as
either of us may elect, and you ere authorized and directed
to act upon instructions of any of use
Any and all notices of purchases or sales or any demand
for margin sent to either of us shall be binding upon us
both and upon our account.
We jointly and severally agree thet you shall have a
lien on and may hold as collateral security for said account
any and all securities and equities you may hold or have
in any account at any time for us or any one of us, and
that the assertion or enforcement of any such lien shall
not effect or alter the liability of any of us or us all
for any debit balance or loss on said account.
This arrangement shall continue until the receipt by
you from us of written cancellation thereof,
Dated June 11, '29,
(Signed) W. F. Hewitt
(Signed) I. S. Falk";
He testified that thereafter his firm received from the defendant
Falk the following document, referred to in the stipulation as
Exhibit 2";
“Messrs, Campbell, Starring & Coe,
Dear Sirs;
I hereby authorize Jasper Campbell, of Campbell,
Starring & Oo» to buy, sell and trade in, for my account and
risk and in my name, stocks, bonds and other securities
and/or commodities on margin or otherwise and in accordance
with your terms and conditbons; and I hereby agree to
indemnify and hold you harmless from and to promptly pay
you on demand any and all lesses arising therefrom or debit-
balance due thereon, You will kindly follow his instruc-
tions in every respect concerning said account,
I hereby waive notification to me of any of the 2fore-
mentioned transactions and delivery of any statements,
notices or demands pertaining thereto and hereby ratify
any and all transactions heretofore or hereafter made by
him on or for my account,
BX
c ii
es
G
bus titwoH etashbasted mort horieoor eof ,@86L itil east mo tadt
tuyooos Yntot" # Bs of borretes ef doltsdw atramcoob gc iro Lot edt ALs%
iM totic" ne nottakuadte oie wt Bas! panitane
eit » TAVODOA THIOL" 4 May wie,
8 Pgh Mn pene getrey to 9 onsesobh
, ® be
ane & te “ay tie ba olds tt Sas @ Ia recone’ 2
vis ta eeenol to Borg wel be ff
<uaiep Priva es cae soak pulse
~tioee hae ayecos tiw .aslee bis wsesiio:
bise ot decpatter athe eile oa od na Flt a ,
oi pp ng, talog to ai to bivibal x9!
hoteor tue 8Te LOY toote >
wa To ys To eto Howe
basmeh yas to siiels to eeecdorya to aris ad
Langan YE Wel a Te ew to a foe
eved {iste mo dt sotge y Tov
tadgooy Bisa ot agen fated Ke tas
yaa By gh ng 4H gigs four Ry
ads xo ay tot = ; 90
i le 8 Ue 0 ‘ oie Rava "
ute
pity mo @ ,
feoot’ ‘at “Ute sunttcroo wip th
‘ae rs <tootent miafrnsron, & ix ra 20 ee mie > f a
ny rs “diver stot (seagte) 0 Af oat Anton
, Pies. Ree
ain j ap Ae he See os a Bien jit] » fi oh
; gt Est 8. a ayn eee yh ay age . Ledemad
tuehaoteb edt mott hevigoes mrtt, eis satvnilae’ aaae ‘bolttitest on
Ss natbaterte ont M: ot Seca t ahispiaitata et.
ee ee oe et i“ sete toda om “ie
ta J
%
siledgmsd 9 0 sLfodanao <oceit ‘98. situs ydexed high 9x
ane trwos0. E at ebait bare ffee a Y ,
es ar ) Pig seerragie , i i ih
iy yaa Ste mov o¢ Bae sto
} ~thaee “norterell cela
eget eek &
ar Bios
~prois odt 1 ag os
_ ghtnemnet sis 0 YrOTLIGD &
bpd Naetad a ‘otoredt gr
| ebem Tetisored 9 Stototered | be
This authorization is a continuing one and shall remain
in full force and effect until receipt from me of written
notice of my revocation thereof,
Dated June 36, 1929,
(Signed) I. S. Falk"
The letter from defendants to Jasper Campbell dated
April 7th, 1928, referred to in the stipulation, is as follows:
“April 7, 1928
Mr. Jasper Campbell,
Campbell, Starring & Cos,
1ll Broadway,
New York City
Dear.Mr,. Campbell:
Mr, Philip S. Platt has advised us that you are agreeable
to undertaking personal charge of an account which we may open
with Campbell, Starring & Co, We have, at the present time,
accounts with brokerage houses on the N. Y. Stock Exchange through
their branch offices in Chicago, We shall arrange before 9 A. NM.
Monday, April 9, 1928, to have these accounts transferred to
Campbell, Starring & Co, according to the instructions from Mr.
Platt who informs us that your office will be agreeable to such
arrangements.
We have instructed;
1. Russell, Brewster and Oo. to transfer to yan the
account of I. &S Falk. This carries 100 sharee of Johns Menville
‘on hand! and a debit balance of approximately 48400.
Be Ae Oe Slaughter and Co. to transfer to you the
account of WW. F. Hewitt. This carries 50 shares of Johns Manville
‘on hand! with a debit balance on March 31, 1928, of $3654,44,
We should like you to combine these two transferred
accounts te a single account to be carried by Campbell Starring
and Go. for I. S. Falk and W. F, Hewitt. We are enclosing a
cashier's check on the National Bank of Woodlawn, Chiesgo, for the
sum of $3,000 to be further credited to the account of I. 3. Falk
- W. F. Hewitt.
Thus, this will give the joint accounti50 shares of
Johns Manvilie with a debit balance of about $9000 and a margin of
ownership of about $10,000, equivalent to more than “60 per share.
In accordance with the advice of Mr. Platt we are placing
this account in your hands, to have your personal supervision and
are authorizing you to buy and sell securities for this account
at your discretion for the best interests of the eccount,
The unlersigned are equal owners in this joint account
and have mutually agreed between them that each may, upon necessary
eceasion, call for one half the credit or equity in the account.
We do not anticipate that we shall have occasion to
make withdrawals from this account fot some time, so that in handl-
ing it you may be guided by this consideration,
May we on this occassion express to you our thanks for
ts
akssieoy Linde bis éno Gaivikioo® 4 @f noktasitodéva erat’ ~° °°?
nettisy to om mor? tqieosn Iitau toette bas eotot iftyt ak.
| stostodd soltevevex wn to vottom -"
,@8¢L ,@8 eaut betad”
Wif[27 .8& .t (bemyts)
| betab Lkedeme0 reqaal ot Aiashaeted mort cettel edt :
tenollot aé et wtiteLugtde od mt of berroter sae say Liaqa
aseL fF nae |
olf a e axroted vali vib Lede oF ,ogroidd
ot bortretessrt edayooos Beige! ot
»tM mot? anoligourritent odd of ar
foun ot sldesetgas ed [Liw ood ° twOY surotas
Py a" celadiearted 5
adit ¢ retesext of D bas ae a
Rey ot retemert of 20 r9tawo My yan
eiiivns’ eadol to netede OOfL sel aidt « datontte I te tawoovs
sOOLhS@ yLletsmktxoxqgs to soneiad thieh s bas ‘baad ao!
adt yoy of relates of .0D 4 tetdgsle 60 A ok
eliivusM endol to sexsde OG eetreed eldT .t¢iweH .t .W to ego
_ abd DEIES to .880L£ ,18 dors mo sonaled tid Stood
ie Roe eneee ont wary ofa yyor ov we ye exit nf
ga beers edqmsO yd hefrres a rhage wet queet ,
8 gtleoione ers ‘ow ott iweH .T ye. "s 94, ssayogee
edd xot ,Ogsoldd ,awathooll te dasé tanostel oat ne grea be on
ALel .8 «i to Invooos adt of hotibero rect? od of 0904)
to eetede Caldavooos tanto odt evig Liiw eldt .euiit
to algren s bas 00083 tueds toe somsled tideb « catia ellivash
,arsde tec 0384 asdt sxem of taelevinys fomere tuods %
gatosiq ets ew stalt .1M to eolyba ont del >
bas soleivreque Lsxoatsq a evad ov pe
‘thyeots atdd rot pert seuss fiee bars ot
stavodde sit to es stare aetetat: “peed Sat § rot.
daboode tmiof eidt at & me e726. } ; nt
‘yiseue0en og , yen dose tad? mo. wted bi ergs Yileotom Sve
stayooos edt at yetiupe to ved oid Yes TO L488, 5@:
Hopi tne 4 ¥ Cad ra
‘of molasodo Over iota ow tadt 9
-fbasd nt ted? 08 .omt? omoe tot tmupocs aiff
- “sao ttereblenos | ait we
wot cantly HO Py, ot dais ig? ih 900 |
A, en ” RTS Ae OTS * (oe hen rene:
Pe AL Ce ie aR, ake ABN 8 a) Bre UR
10
the advice you have already given us through Mr. Platt and which
we have utilized profitably. It is almost gratuitous to add
how much we shell appreciate further profitable investments under
your personal guidance. ine: Ww tents
(Signed) I. S. Falk
1151 &, S6th St.,
Chicago, Ill.
(Signed) wW. F. Hewitt,
1230 E. 63rd St.,
Chieago, Ill."
Defendant Falk testified, among other things, that, "Prior
to April, 1928, I knew Philip Platt. I had known him sinee 1920 or
1921. He was a friend of mine. He was not acquainted with Dr.
Hewitt. Prior to the sending of this letter of April 7th, 1938, I
had a conversation with Mr. Platt relative to this opening of an
account with Campbell Starring & Co." "Prior to April 7th, 1938,
I had an account with Russell Brewster & Go., which is « stock
brokerage house in Chicago, I had had that account for a matter of
a few months. I think the account was opened in the early autumn
of 1927, * * * I met Jasper Campbell on the 8th of June, 1928. I
talked with Mir, Campbell on that date in his office in New York. ***
Wo one beside myself and he was present. I introduced myself to him."
This witness testified that at this meeting, Mr. Campbell produced
a statement of the account that the defendants then had with plain-
tiffs' firm, and that Campbell made the following statement: "Your
account is in very good shape; you got 2 good safe margin; there is
no reason for you to be worried about it, and I can assure you, you
won't be called upon to put up any more collateral or any more money
at this or any other time, and I will guarantee this account, and I
am standing by that, and looking after this. Now, you can sell this
eccount and take your money out, if you want to, that is entirely
your privilege." The witness stated that he told Campbell that he
would leave the account as it was, and would wrkte to Dr, Hewitt,
the other defendant, to do the same. Falk further testified that,
doidw bas tteli .t4 dayomdt ey art aes Hat $a, 8yet 493 ad o
bbs of ewotliutera teomie ef t1 g bestt sid
rsh ataemteevnt oidstitorg sadttyt ey sy
she
eViext yrov ezwoY¥
a ne,
dB W008 oa wry se
eit aogsoldd . : seetad ett
| ttiwek .a 0 ( PP ae
i.ae bize ea OBE SPOOR ic wer
"fil .9g5oidd
tolxi" sed? agald? todto gnome .beltitao? ALet tiebasted” §| °°”
tO OS@L sonts mid awoud bai 1 tied qtitdd wend I ,8ser des tts
be: «10 déiw bevalsupos von es OH .saim to basit? s asw oH... Let
oR BBL .dtY Lisod to rettol aid? te yalbaca edt ot ‘sodgt ettiweH
as to gatnego eli? of ovitator telt .tit atiw aolvaurey
“B8CL .atY LisgA of rolsG" ",00 % aabrxate Lledamed one HNN
vote # bi dotia ,.00 § toteword Efgeeut Atty feunioa, ape
to redtem s rot tayooos stadt bat had I ,ogsolad ab gsroio
soutus Yire9 edt al beneqo saw fmuoode ent sabe jy gt pag wot 8
— -E BSeL Loawt to a8 eng mo Lfedqmay reqest tom 1 ** *) TRO tO
98. catzof weil Ag ooltzo abit. a2. Aten’ dad MO” Etbaghao’ Su taw. bestest
Nomis of Dfbeys beoubotént I .tabooeg eaw Of haw bloom shkeod’ sno On
-——-beowborq ILedqme® .xh gnttoon elit ta todd best treos! atin ad
tiielq tty bee mo? atandacteb edt, tedt tauosoa oat to trom
uo¥" :$aomefsts pttwoLlor edd ebsm Liedqms? sade. bite weet venta
at etedt jolgrom ese 2003, 8 tog wo Youede. bods” ero) luk BE! te 90D:
uoy .tox emueas feo I bas tt tueds. belrzow od of wey, 72, sonees. oa
youom tom Yh To Teretalfoo oto vas gv twa of megy bettno so tow
T. bite twos Bint ootaorsg iil i ‘pus gout <bsttd. ye, no, ate, t0
elds’ Lise neo voy wok edt ro¥te gatsook bak .tant yo gathuete’ me
“'yterttae ef saute lot tnew voy 22” .tho youom thdy ust bak tavodos
od tedd LiedqmsD blot of ted? bases vventhw edT * sogelivise twoy
tttwol stG o¢ otttw bivew bas ,esw ti es tayooon odd ovesl bisow
etedt beltitaot rodtxwt ALel vemse edt ob of jtushavtah an dood ig
,
11
"I never received any stock out of that account. Or. Hewitt never
to my knowledge, received any stock out of that acoount. I got
$1,000.00 out of that account. That was the latter part of May,
1929. *** Dr. Hewitt did not get anything out of that account,
except half of that withdrawal of $1,000.00."
As to whether defendants received from plaintiffs con-
firmations of the purchases and sales made by plaintiffs for defend-
ants, this witness steted, "Well, I could not be absolutely sure
of the mumber of these confirmations that I received in the ordinary
course of the mails, or that I received these, but I probably did,"
(Referring to alleged confirmations of sales sent by plaintiffs te
defendants, copies of which were exhibited to the witness.) "I
received some monthly statements, but I know I did not reeeive them
each month, *** I received some, but I know I did not receive any-
thing like confirmations of ail those transactions. The confirma-
tions I did receive, I turned over to my attorney."
it seems that some time after these defendants had opened
up their account with plaintiffs, plaintiffs ceased to engage in
the brokerage business, and that the account of defendants was turned
over to 2 brokerage firm in New York named Baker, Winans & Harden,
On the part of plaintiffs, the following document was
received in evidence;
"I. S. FALK & We Fe HEWITT
Sept. 30, 1929
No. 790
Dear Sir:
Your account with us at the close of Sep, 30, 1929, a
stands on our books as stated hereunder. For use in connection
with their periodical audit of our accounts now in progress,
rover ¢#iwoll .10 .tnwooos ted? to two Moots ye bovis
tog I otavoo0s tedt to-duo aoote yas bovicosx oppo. word yar ¢
Yall to ¢usq tottal edt esw ¢adT «tnyooos tadt to tuo 00,000.16
inuesos tedt 20 tuo gakdtyas tey toa bLb dtiwoH .xG *** .eser
——-*,00,000,£5 to Leverkdtin tadt to tiad tqeoxe
q “00 ettitatelg ‘mort bevisoss atasbasteb redtedw ot ah |
whaetob ot ettigataig yd ebam aelee bas eessdozuy edt to enottemrtt
Subs Ylosuloeds od tom HLyoo I .LLow" ,botste, epontin eidt. etn
prsatbae! off nt bevtever I. godt anottomstiago saedd. to age edt. 29
Ls n bib Ydedorg I taf yonedt beviever I tedd. 40 <elism edt to eezuo0
y
of attitwhele yd tase setae to enotvemriinoo) bogelis. ot,
Ld (.eeontiw ont of betididxe exew deidy to saiqoe , y i
modt svieeot tom bib I wont I tad .atnometate ah. Stee
“yas evtsoor You Bib I word I gud eos, Devieoos, I * "Sage RRO, OP
-siriines 9dT «srottvosenstt esondt Life to enoktamtitmoe elit gatdt
ty yserotts ym oF eve Deamyt I yavieoos bib I snott
-" Bowede bait atuabnetet oesut redts emth enoe tadt APA iy. batter
“wo “qe egegns of beusoo etittetale .sPidatesg din dayooos stody qu
| beatud naw etashmotoh to tatooon edt tadt das .sventemd aperaiord ext
fdr 5 ansnkh—roted bewe txoY weit at wth? ids
pew teemie0b gatvolfot edt sathitatal to. F79q, pat AO. Verrad :
' oe ee eee
te pie oe steoe rene a ay dec -
Bae 088 oH | i Stal
a
= Jeger .08 iqee to saofo ost ts aw frephor ge 00% ss al
noitoemroe xi sey tol «mebavere PSORE Se, 0) ee
eaneTZoTG at wom heseeapratiadh 0 > Yo 3 Le ;
i 4 OP 3 Raby shee: Gets ¥ ma: ay hbiehie ie CHOY
ie aS OF Sate Clow Ns yale fh ao toe ea Opaek Die
ll-a
please confirm to Messra, Haskins & Sells, Certified Public
Accountants, or sdvise them in what particular, if any,
you disagree. A stamped envelope is enclosed for your
reply»
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Campbell, Starring & Co,
Debit Balance $5729.15
Long: Gredit Balance ¢&
200 Gol Graph. Short;
In view of the fact that Campbell Starring & Go. will
liquidate their business ss of September 30, 1929, I hereby
authorize them to transfer the foregoing account to Baker,
Winans & Harden, their successors, subject to the personal
attention and advice of Mr. Jasper Campbell,
(Signed) I. & Falk"
iw As a part of and during the examination of the defendant
ti:
Pry rsonsrens
J) Valk, counsel tep=nkatasere
s offered, and there was received
3 bho
in evidence, the following document, ski=-tyetrritrem, which Falk
testified "was never signed either in type or handwriting to my
knowledge by myself or Dr. Hewitt"; and he did not deny that it had
been sent by defendants to plaintiffs;
"New York, October 1, 1939,
Wessrs. Baker, Winans & Harden,
New York, Ne. Ys
Dear Sirs:
In consideration of your carrying a joint account for
the undersigned, we jointly end severaily agree to be fully and
completely responsible and liable for said aceount and to vay
as~ if
oifdyl beltigr6o ,olie® 4 anideasH .etese ot mritaoo » Sf
«Ws tt ,saleoitisg tedw al meodt evivbs 20 ,etusé, at
tu0Y sot begeloas si eqolevase bequetea A ime eX”
er /
g PHAR vy
eUurt yrev aro |
; eRe. to ven mane
0D & gairreté .itedqmsd | (bomgte) ag
| BL .e8YS9
& eonsiesi thhext . AY rei a
strods | +igexd £00
. iT _ FY gatriag® if Lfedqnsd tadt tost edt to we. R
~o ‘Cored I ,C8@L Of rednetqet® sidg toms ode 2o ete at
: rei2d of tayooor gatogetet edt tetenett os mond oer ie
Eenoeraq ort - pp qetoensoonue tledt a eis
{Ledqmso reqest 07h to eo has aotinetts
aii was Te
"Als st ak bompte
( ) ilom s0o. TO ee reed .
“tusbasted edt to noltentnexs ais gnbxub has %¢ tuaq & aA wae
hale te ghz e%ea) +\
bovisoe: Bex eredt bas aboretto we bivatandeonos Leanvoo
‘ nt . e8)
hes sio.tdw wteortremeyt ide .txenuoob sano Lio? ont
a. Ae ae spar
ve oe gait irwbasd to eoyt as rent te bemgia reve ean” boititess
: ABE SE e Jos
bed th dealt web tom bib ed bas iMttiwoHt “x x0 th : !
ena tavwmerss Latics , Bacay
_tattitadela 98 ednabaeteb {$96 ne
vy ot § Ber
‘ oa Lacy ) A Re
a
wes 7 pora” » a ~
siete 8 8 ‘ie oreo
aw
rane ate garlk See eae © porge-npee: wit
tot tavecor taiet # gatyriss ‘to softs tebtemod mt © 9” POTD
bas Ulst 2d od ot _datot# gnu bas yltnt recbesen Siegen =.
ysq of bus tayoons bise «cot sidell bus
enaehiie. oh Bevarees
‘ 3 m eo 5 : &
ee y & Semi Sex ed #h
J $ i
Shea aerate?
: “ai m : i. apd R +: ee bi Prtety ie texge “eS Y
t ‘ : ,
my Noah. asd a Serta Sak ae Rt. VE 37M ILD A ty
Lee a. 2 i ei wes
‘Wl Raa re <ineie x tidus Laoiketweq ts Sue att
Ses ' i oy : ; bie dad
12
on demand and debit balance or losses at any time due in this
account. Each of us has full power and authority to make
purchases and sales, withdraw moneys and securities from it
or do anything else with reference to said account, either
individually or in our joint nemes, as either of us may elect,
and you are authorized and directed to act upon instructions
of any of us.
Any and all notices of purchases or sales or any
demand for margin sent to sither jof us shall be binding upon
us both and upon our account.
We jointly and severally agree that you shall have
a lien on and may hold as collateral security for said account
any and all securities and equities you may hold or have in
any account at any time for us or any one of us, snd that the
assertion or enforcement of any such lien shall not effeot or
alter the liability of any of us or us ali for any debit balance
or loss on said account.
This arrangement shall continue until the receipt by
you from us of written cancellation thereof.
Very truly yours,
2 Sages), 8, Folk
fgg) Be F. Hewitt"
Defendant Falk testified that, "Baker, Winans & Harden
never called upon me to put up any collateral on that account. They
never notified me in advance that they were going to sell out this
Columbia Graphophone stock,"
On cross~examination, the witness testified as to the
stock deals that he and Hewitt made with fussell, Brewster & Cow, in
Ghicago, and it appears from his testimony in this regard that the
major portion of the deposit made with plaintiffs game from profits
made by defendants through this firm of Russell Brewster & Co.,
and the Chicago firm of Slaughter & Company. His testimony tends
to show that at the time of making his deposit with plaintiffs, he
was indebted to Russell Brewster & Co., and that in order to obtain
the release of certain stocks which were deposited with Campbell
Starring & Co., the title to which the defendants had acouired in
their dealings with fussell Brewster & Co. and Slaughter & Company,
certain payments had to be made to these firms, and in regard te this
matter, defendant Falk testified «3 follows: "I knew that Campbell
ald? mi ond omit yas ts poaaol x9 88 senate tides ‘ais base
eiem ot yttrodtus bas ‘Tewoy ead ev to dost .tayooos
tt wott eeltizvess bas eysaom warbdtiw ,eeiee bas eousdotug
teddis ,tauvoo0s bise of eonetster diiw oslo guidtyas ob to
.toole yom ev to tentie se ,somen taiot to at to ylleubivibal
enottouttent mogs daw ot Lotoetid bas hesitodiue ne LOY at
sey to )
Yas 10 selee TO evendvinn to aeolton Iis bas. ws .
moqu gaibaid ed Lisds av toy sedttie of tuee tot.
«PN000R THO BaF ad ey
eved ILede voy todd serge yllerteves bas yitato ot 3 vt '
tayooos bias tot ystitwoee Letetsiloo ea blod bag neil a
ai eved ro biod yow voy esitivps bas apttt
‘ete tad¢ bas ,ev to eno Yas to en rot omit
.€@ Yosttea toa Ilede neil dove ys to bf
eonsied tideb vate rot ile as To ey to. ar afte ot
tavooos
yd teleosr odt Ittow eynttaoo Liede taquegnerte eidT oe
»toeredt nottsifeomes nettiuw to ax ae you
a 4 wl sg a . 1% a + ? 3 ) 2* J
iiet .2 t (aeaee}—
~ pe! 2 i Dt Uke ee ! wan eee |
nobyak § easniv’ (teiee" ,tadt poitivee? diet dabbaeted "° “**”
sume va. 22
‘yoHT Utanodes tats to Letotartoo yab' qir tug oF “bm moge b pica E088" )
aldt two Ifee of ane § exew yodtt feat edarvbs’ ab eu ‘bertiten ever
‘ 4% ,adoote aaamansetisid eidmslod
ont of es beltitect eeontiw ond \hostaaiwixe-seors ad
gk 4.00 3 roteword ,Lloeeut dtiw ebsm ttiweH bas ed tedt aleeb doote
-
!
edd tedt Dregex aidt al Yaomitee? etd most ateeggs th bag ,ogsoidd
@¢ttoxg mort oasd attidatele Attn cham tteeqeb edt Ye Ae tttoq soem
20d 8 cotewerd [foaeufi to merit eidt dguomdt etmsbaeteb yd eben
abaet yaouttast oth .yasqmeD 3 totdgusl? to mitt ogeotdd edt bas
ed qattitatela dtiw tieoqeb ald gutdam to omit edt ta tat wose ot
atetdo ot tebto mi ted? bae 4.00 4 retewetd Llovent ot betdebat asw
{fedqms0 dtiw betieogeb orew doidw edoote alstreo to ‘esol edt
‘gt betivgoos bed etmebaeteb edt doidw of eftit edt 100 4 padrratt
Wats 0 g reddguele bas .o0 & tetawerll LLoeasti déiw e; ytd , thedé
: “alae ot breget ai bas ,emrit eeedt of ebem od ot bad etaonveq ubatxe
ns
{Ledqmsd tedt woud I sewollot as bo ttitesd aLsT tasbaoteb macettan
aon
RF 6
13
Starring & Co, would have to advance a sum of money to take up
these obligations with ussell Brewster and A. 0. Slaughter. I
Ynew they would have the respective shares of stock of Johns
Manville stock owned or that I had purchased from my brokerage
houses or that we had purchased from our brokerage houses respective-
ly, as security for those purchases or their advances. Yes, I
understood that Campbell Starring & Coe would probably hypothecate
those sharés of stock in order to get the money to make those ddvances
Certainly, that arrangement I understood perfectly. Yes, I under-
stood that was part of the system through which brokers carried
margin accounts. Yes, i understood that this was a margin account,"
As stated, this witness, in the course of his examination,
was shown Copies of certain documents indicating that the confirma-
tions of purchases and sales made in behalf of defendants had been
sent to him by the plaintiffs. His testimony on cross examination
in regard thereto, was as follows: "I think all the reports on the
purchases or sales that came to me were in that form, were on this
same sort of slip. It has at the top the name of the brokerage firm,
Campbell Starring & Go. And the report, if it was a purchase, was
‘We have this day BOUGHT for your account and risk as per instructions
under conditions set forth below.!' I think they were all just like
that, And if it were a sale, if the report was a sale, *** the
report was, ‘We have this day SOLD for your nhoounts! *** I thought
that the purchases he (meaning Mr. Campbell) had made were all right,
and that the sales he had made were all right, I decided to leave
that account." This witness testified that he had spent that summer
after his meeting with Campbell, in Europe, and that when he returned
"the value of the stock had declined somewhat during the summer, We
were apprised by reports what was in the account, and of the purchases
and sales that had been made, We were not worried to the point of
is
qu east of Yonom to mue « sonevbhe of svad Biyow od & ualrrete
I .ustiguels .0 .A Bos t8tewerl Cfenad! itty endiifnptido’ seen
_, Retcio’, To Hoots to eetade evifosqua: edt svar bisow ‘yout weny
egeradozd yn mort besedonme bad T tadt tO Benwo Sova oLitverem
~ovitoegasr ssauosd egaredotd TiO. mort besstorug dat ow test To eeauod
1 ,20Y .acoasybs tied? ro eeasddtuq eeodt ‘tot ytitiess es awl
eteoedtocys yldedoug Sivow .o0 4 yateret? LLedqudd aelit dootetebay
sonsvbs scodt ism of yonom sdt toy o¢ tobro ai doote to sersie Saodt
~rebay I ,a0Y lyiteetreq beotetofiny I teomegastas tadt ACRES
Beitzeo atedord dotdw mguertdt aeteye odt to tteq ete tet boo . see
".tawooes aigrss & esy eidt ded? booter@hmu I ,8eY .atawooos atgrem
Toltenimexe aid te sexvoo edt at _seegat le atat jhorate: eA |
~emtitaco edd tedt yatvsoibal stneauoob statsn to aeigoo awode asw
eed bed atashasted to tisded at ebem eolee bag aeeadoruy to enott
.» soltsoimexe esoro a0 Yaoultest eih ,etiitnisitg edt wm id of ta00
‘edt no etzoget edt fs dntdt 1" sewoilot es ssw sotoredt Dreger at
aldt ao stow .mrot test at erew om OF omsd. tedt selse to seastorsy
M etrit egsredezd edt to omen sat cot edt ds eed tI .»qile to txoe omee
) BER .ensdotug 8 ssw ti Ti ,troget edt Dad 00.4 gaizrsd® SLedqmad
“codtourctunt teq es fait bas tayoogs soy x02 THOUOE ysh aldt eved oR!
-etai tami; fle erew yedt anid? | ‘ewoled dtrot tea enotts € — J
ost T°. .olen. 5 eon, trogen odt 22,0108. s.9upy. 42 Rf bah etait
tiguodt I. **? |, taup098 suey tot G1Oe ysb eld? evsd_ of}, ase, #xogen
- atdgix Lie exon ebsm ded (Liedqms0 »1M gatnasm) ed sepsdonuy edt tedt
_ evacl ot bebiosb I stdgit ifs eton, ebas be on potse, bs fed? bas
rommug tedé taace bed ed tadt bottitest aesatiw eid? ",tavooos ted?
«bentutexr ed oodw tedt bas. aoqotse ai stiodqusy aviy gation fs ae
SW. Teme, edt gotiuh tedwemos deatioed bed _doete edt i, ue uli “
14
saying snything about it until the end of 1929," He testified that
when he returned from Europe, he found their account with Campbell
Starring & Co. still showed a profit, and that he told Mr. Platt
how very happy they were because of this fact, and that he did not
consider closing their account. He also testified that he received
a report showing that on September 30th, 1929, after certain stocks
held by the brokerage firms had been sold, that there was a debit
balance due from the witness and Or. Hewitt to the brokers amounting
to $1,651.85. He was asked the following questions and gave the
following answers:
“Qe Well, then you understood, did you not, that
brokers ** by virtue of their relationship of broker to
you, had a right to sell if there was going to be a loss
in the account, if the stock was depreciating in value
in the market?"
"A. Well, Mr. Gampbell did,"
"®. And the brokerage firm; as brokers, naturally
would have thet right, would they not?"
"A. I don't know about that. I know that, so far as I
know Mr. Campbell had that right."
He further testified that: "I did not then make any compleint to Mr,
Campbell. i think Dr. Hewitt was in correspondence with Baker,
Winans & Harden, and I was in correspondence with, and had conversa-
tion with Mr, Platt; " that “if the stock had been held, *** the
loss would have been greater. I did not think the break in the market
was the matter of a day, but I aia not bhink it was going to last
indefinitely."
Falk further testified in substance that the 150 shares of
Johns~Manvilie stock, transferred to his account with plaintiffs, had
gone down in price; that these securities were deposited with plain=-
tiffs, subject to a debit balance owed by defendants to plaintiffs,
and with the understanding that these stocks might be sold by plain-
tiffs under such circumstances; that plaintiffs were to purchase
me
aL
tait bestitest si .%.880L to bae oft Lhtaw tt tuods galdtyae payee
L{iadqmsd dtiw savocns tiedt boysot ed ,egetwEa mett beatytey od medw
ticLt 41M blot od tedt has ,tPotq « boworle [Lite od 4 gabvaade
ton BLS oc dott baz ,toet sidt to oevseed etew yedt yoqad .yrev wed
_ ‘bevieoer od edt beititess oels ef .tavocos tiedt galeoloe rtobleago
atoots -nistres tedte ,C8@L .dtO8 tedmetcs8 mo tadt gniwede troqet is
tidob « sew srsdt ted? .bLor ased bed amtlt egstederd adt yd bied
(<ogmttaveme exedord Sd$ of t¢iwok .1G bas eaentin edé moth oub-somated
@# eveg bas -anottasep yatwollot edt hedas eaw oll “488, L88, 10.02
ae ae ” m , reqvedens gatwossor i
tedd ,ton voy bib ,bootatehbas sox aodt a Liew: ahs aie ig
ot aoxto7d to qidenolteLer xied? to poe ot sony
275° geet B ed oF cloexqeh ssw foods eid tt ,Siuogon ve bats
euisy at atakeonaee Bew sore edd ry
su eae bat 4 auooos od al an iy
i *,bib LfLedqmed oa ,ff£08 ooh” Yo genie
Vlsrwien «erstord os quntt eysredond edt bab. boo to
. "ftom yout binow abigiz rr eh xy
5) : 7 es ut os ada wont I .ted? twods wood ¢!nob I sk" a
a tight todd ded Ledqmsd «tl wom.
q ee oF tube lquee vse salam went tom bL5 i" tte? bestisaod xodétut 9
3 et9d2 Mtiw sonebnogeestoo mi aaw ttiwe ed sabdt T ,thedams0
mcerermes bat bas ,d¢iw eomebmoqeerses ad cow I bas .nebrelh * aang
“eat "bled need dex abote oat LA" tact" 4tOalh asl Mode mekt
testa ox? at asowd edt dntdt tom b26 I , yxotcerp avod) aved biwow egos
‘cutfebt of phtbp mew tt santé ton mh 1 tu ab a to tetten ext ese
Yo Boraiia OBL out todd SoMBtadwa mh Dedtivest medéaut sat + hae
bat Jethivatele atin tmyopoe ald oF Dorretadart _tdote eiLiveciimpastot
. Hise dtiv betisoqeh etew seeds ixeee seedt tect eoirg ab mwah enoy
| qettttatelg of ptasbaeteb ya havo soan iad tideb 8 of tospdue cake |
pO mptele Ys Bloe od digo ealoote veedd tatt gaibrstesebas est tte bes
saedormy of ovew eititatel tedd jeoonstamsoTso, some seins oRRAY
:
15
for defendants other securities from time to time; that the purchsses
and sales made by plaintiffs on account of defendants were all
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and were actually
made and reported, and that defendants had no doubt as to the bons
fides of thesectransactions up to and including the 30th of September,
1939; that defendants intend that plaintiffs could and should handle
the joint account, and that there should be actual purchases and
sales of actual securities, and that he assumed when Mr. Campbell
reported and defendants received the report that purchases and
sales had been made on account of defendants, that they were actually
made, and that defendants never intended that any pretended purchases
or sales should be made,
The books of plaintiffs were introduced in evidence, to-
gether with the testimony of various witnesses produced by them,
and this, together with other doeuments in evidence, and the testi-
mony of all the witnesses, including that of defendants, tends toe
establish the fact that in their deslings with defendants, plaintiffs
made actual and bona fide purchases and sales of stocks for defend=-
ants' account. As we read the New York statutes, upon which defend-
ants predicate their right to recover the money deposited with
plaintiffs, such right to recover depends upon whether the purchase
or sales were made in fact and in good faith, and there seems to be
no distinction as to whether the purchase or sale was made for cash,
or upon a margin deposited en account of such purchase or sale,
There is nothing in the record to indicate that’ these defendants
entered into this deal, as alleged intheir statement of claim, for
the purpose of gambling. The testimony of Falk negatives this theory,
and his testimony in this regard, which we have quoted at some
jength, is corroborated substantially by that of the defendant
Hewitt,
' - peesdotug ea¢ gad? jomit of emit mort eeltixnwosr redito atashaeteb tot
Iis etew etusbasteb to tayooon ao attivatele a ban uelen bas
wULeutos etew bas ,ogasdoxd foos2 A10Y well odd 0 betetl esttirucee
saod edt o¢ as tdvob om bed etasbaeteb fads bas detzoger bas obam
i ae eu)
eee to AtO8 ont gatbulont bas ot ay snottocensriveueds to mabe
efbasd biveda hue bivoo ettlintely tett baotal etasbaoteb taste ieses
bas soesdorug Leuvtod ed bluoste eredt tant bas .nss0908 ator odd
sikaynst 1h cow bemvees ox tant bas soitinuess Leytos to eolse
a mab SAITZ ae
‘bae essedoruq tad? troqez odd bevieoe etanbrotob bus betroqer |
eee Ag mt
Utautos erew yedd tedt .ainsbaetsh to taveces no obem need bad eekea,
yo? smn 5d ’
| Ronadioteg bebastets yas tedt bebaotat revea etanbasteb ‘toate baa <9bom
ad ttt 8 qaheaa oe Bivens ose x0
~ot .ooneblve ne henubortns - erew etbitaiale Yo esood edt =
emeodt yo beoubotg eeasentiw avolirsv to yaeus yee? edt si redteg
-iteet edt bas ,somebive at etnomroob rosito tte roxdogee aaidt bas
ot ebrod “adusbasted | to tadt gatbylort seupendiw exit’ Tita 40 qnen
| phtiemale atinsbapteb dtiw agaiined xedd at tedt' toet ould Hetidstes
eng mM as
~ t a ;
basteb tot etoota te aolse bae eees onan 2b4% sited bas ee Senees, So,
-biteteb dotdy mogss veotutete azroY wot oxi bsex ow eA siampons Se a
jay Bye » dha ent)
dtiw betieogeb yenom edt revooer ot tag ts tied? etsotbetg etms
5 weber 4 aaagey
sesdorud odd redted’ moqu ebaegeb rov0081 ot tigi dose out ee
oy Fa) me ai Ae
od of emeon otent base qitist boos at bas toot ad ebsn orev pow ty a
Pewee Bay bia a4 ay
uiteso xot ebam eaw else xo eestor ‘edt rosttorte ot as sokeoantasD ie
5 t CR Pe
welse to Sestotyc dove to semooos a9 bet thoqeh aigisa aoay, ae
Hp Cher lee Loar
etnsbasteb seaisit¢edt steotbhalt ot bape ont at atieies, ek orodT
aS re See
rot emisio to taomstate aie a ak bogelis as cin atdd oat hese rodae et
atroodt‘s “aid? sevitsgen iio to YWwoulseet on? ‘santidaag to Seon, 8
~ “amos ta betoup oval ow dotdw ebraget eke at waoulse scat tet bas “
# an? ee ee
“trisbasteb edt to tat vd vilerénatedue betstoderte0 af 9 ha Ea
|
a ith ie. F a ee
oo esate! a wath Bis s
16
It is indicated by the reoord that on October 29th, 1929,
when certain stocks held by plaintiffs for defendants were sold by
plaintiffs, that as 2 result defendants then owed plaintiffs a bal-
ance of $620.51, and that the same has never been vaid,
No question is raised here but that defendants are indebted
to plaintiffs in the amount of their claim, and that they had the
right to a judgment for that amount if the dealings were bona fide.
The right of plaintiffs to recover, of course, depends upon whether
defendants have established their right to recover under the set-off
for the moneys deposited with plaintiffs upon the theory that the
whole transaction was gambling, and that there was no purchase or
sale made in good faith by plaintiffs for defendants. At the close
of all of the evidence, the court instructed the jury te find
agaimet plaintiffs on their claim, This was equivalent to directing
the jury to find for the defendants, and in effect, was » finding
that the transaction was gambling, that the dealings between the
parties were unlawful, that the purchases and sales alleged to have
been made by plaintiffs for defendants were fictitious and were in
fact, never made and never intended to be made, and thet defendants
had established their tight to recover, ‘Whether the alleged pur-
chases and sales were actually made by plaintiffs or not, was a
question of fact which, under all the evidence, should have been
left to the jury to consider,
We are of the opinion thst the court was in error in
directing the jury to find against plaintiffs on their claim, and
in not submitting all the questions of fact to the jury. Therefore,
the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. ConcuR
cat . ial
ESOL ,dtGl wedeted oo tend bipaex odd yo botsolbai ef tl __ 7
‘yd Bioa orsw atashaeteh cot ettitaisiq yd bled sdeote aistres aedwy
~iad © attitaisig bewo sedé¢ adasbneteh tiveot s as tadt .etitiatst
eA abisa moed t9yon est omee edt ted? bag. 18.080 to gems
betdebal ete etasbaetadh tone dud exed beelst ef aolinsyp. oh... OSCE
odd Den yout ted? bas ywtsLo thedt to tavoms od? at attitatela ot
~2b2% ged stow egailees adt tf savoms tedt tot toomgdyl # of tdgis
todtedy neqy ebaeqeb ,onru0d to .revooet of ettitaisly toe tigis, od
_ Mortee edd rabaw reveoor of tegis tied? bedatidsstee svad etashasteb
| tilt Godd ysood? add nogu ertitatela détw besteogsd aysnom edt xot
zo sesdorsg on sew otsdt tait hae .gatidueg esw mottoagaszt slody
seolo elt tA satnebasteb zot atitsatele yd détst boos st oben ofne :
batt of Kuh odd Rotomctant sxuoe odd, .sonebtve edt to Ls to
gabtoerth ot tneleviupe ean eld] .ndelo riod? oo atttintel tamtags
BRO? 9 gow .tootte al bas ,etasbasted elt tot batt ot yrwg ogi
\ >) ght mgouted egatiaeb edd -tadd .yatldmeg eow mottesansxt adt tadt
p i eyed ot bageife selee bas sossdoiug edt sad? .lutwslow etow soldiaq
[ ~\ s oxew Bae avoitisett ervey etanhasieds 16% ettitatsle ys sham need
atnshasteb todd bac ,obsu od ot bobmotut even has eban-teyeq ,#ost
- ~ pe Begealla edt tedied¥ ,7evooex ot tdgit sleds bedalidetes bad
oS pee .tom to atiijatelg yd sbsm ylleutos ores golse bas egeaio
eed evad binode .soaebive ot Lie tobae ,dodde dost Yo aottaaup
nes » ~stebleaoo ot o¥auh ed? ot thet
Mi 1OTTe AL ABE dTuE® ast tedt motnigqo edt to 9T8.OW oo oon
hate gtikete tied? a9 ettitatslg gemtegs Balt ot yxut odt gattoextd
_oadtoteredT *“sut edt o¢ tost to enofteasp edt tis qaittindya tom at
d sbebasmer oauso edt bas beerever et taemgbut edt
CROMAMIR CHA OTRRIVER posontoreey ob itunes
rn a
"AUOMOD .b <HORUIW GHA »bed .AMGHH
ie ae
a
Wh cae
Po aD Be
i a 8
r, }
q Hh
. iv df lie 7 |
I yi Poe f 4
* a at yor se
m3 if py ge i
# yp?
el Ps : F
at ) y
, wine vi ‘ F
wie sk f
ah? US * 5
37510
MIKE SUFA and REGINA SUPA,
Plaintiffs ( Appellees)
2 all
7 y
Lf vr at ge je at _
f apPBaL FROM
£
Ti
x
£
is
z
Fs
MUNICIPAL couRT /
Ve {
LADISLAW VACEK and MARIE VACEK, OF CHICAGO.
oe eras with — Vacek
and Josephine Vacek wey ee a 2
279 1.4. 644
Defendants (Appellants)
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court
of Chiceage against defendants for the sum of ©1,145.00 and costs
of suit. The judgment is dated February 10th, 1934, and was entered
upon a promissory note for $1,000.00, deted at Chicago, September llth,
1926, and executed by Rudolph Vacek, Josephine Vacek, Ladisleaw Vacek
and Marie Vacek, The note is made payable te the bearer in five
years after its date, with interest at the rate of 63% per annum,
and recites that it is secured by a trust deed to f. H. Bluhm, as
trustee, on certain real estate in Lake County, Illinois, besring
even date with the date of the note.
4n affidavit of merits filed by defendants recites, in
substance, that defendants admit that they made the note in cuestion,
but deny that the plaintiffs are the legal owners and holders thereof,
They sllege that at the time the note was executed, they were the
legal owners of the real estate referred to, and that afterwards on
the 26th day of February, 1939, they conveyed title to the real
estate to the Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank, as trustee under
the provisions of a trust agreement dated February 2ist, 1929, of
which trust, Robert N. Baldwin, was the sole beneficiary; that on
the lst day of October, 1931, for a valuable consideration, and
the note had matured by its terme on September 11tb,1931
*
™~.
| ON SNe : OLETE
MORE catia (\.05 @ @AWOR ARIOGS baa Ate WIEN
thant ) etiivaiels — 4»
t's . : an Tah ae
a wahaote eit
i (fooeV, ealdqaeot
Soteasinens etaehmeted i) of
but 2s of soeke
oe oa THU09, THT.1O KOLKIIO ANT GERAVIAAG ,bOH ah TeUt CD95 i FT
«sap Arndt ant to daswgoei, 6 mott taoqgs ae et eid? . ace
ataos bas 00e8al.1° to mya edd tot etnshaeteh tentags ogacidd Ro
- ~bexetae asw bas ,MEL .dtOl yresdel betab ai taomabul ed? «tive Ro
HELE medmatqok ,ogaoid0 2s, Detab .00-000.48 x02 eton rpsetmonge mime
deveV wslethel ,Xe0e entiqasol <HeosV dqlebul yd besuooxe \bas .dS@L
,» Vth, at totsed add at sidayeq shom at efon est. igagY steak bas
mae req 845 lo ots edt ta seoresat, ttn tb abt rots sueey
a8 .ufull . .k o¢ boob tart o yd bexuoee eld dadt eedsoon has
_Bhizsed, .2lomlitl ,Waued, ofed at otetes Loot mingr00 me .eetamet
a a oe (tog oft Yo sted odd déiv gtab aaye
| i heaton agnshastab Yo DoLit avixem Yo. FIVSLETA Magoo pct
-— soktaeup af eton act shan yous tadt timbe, ejaebasteb todd ,gonstadue
- toorendt exeblod dae areawo Lapel edt exe etistetalg. edt todd yomb, tent
(ile, oxen Yeds abotunexe eew efor odd. outt ould ts add euoiin xed?
no ebrowrosts tot bas ,ot berrstex etatee, Lees od? te exeawo: Lepet
Leet edt of efit Doysvaeo yrs .PSCL ,ycavedy™, Ro eb AtO8 edt
tobas eoteurt a Aust agaive? bas tauxt oLLivystadhl adt ot: atetne
op8® sR6CL teL8 yrsurdel, beteb taemeatas serch: 6 Sa praanarenss: ot
no dott ;ytetoitened pfoe ont enn, .tiwbled . trode «taunt dotdw
¥ @ tot ECL ,redoseO to i. pk: “st
(“tatoo dadtoriiu |
oan THO Ww
‘BS 2 at es So
bas eno ktenonien:® 18h
2
by an agreement in writing, Mike Sufa, one of the plaintiffs in this
cause, without the consent of the defendents, entered into a written
agreement with the Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank, as trustee,
to extend the maturity of the note for one year from September llth,
1931; that afterwards on bhe 27th of November, 1931, E. H. Bluhm,
trustee under the trust deed executed by defendants, for a valuable
consideration, and without the consent of the defendants, entered
into an agreement in writing with the Libertyville Trust and Savings
Bank, which then held the legal title to the property, to extend the
time of the payment of the note, and that by such agreement the
Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank, under the trust agreement,
conveyed to Bluhm, the trustee, additional collateral for the security
of the note; that by reason of the extension agreements and of the
conveyance to the trustee of such additional security for the indebted
ness, ail of which was done without the knowlédge of the defendants,
and because thereof, the personal liability of the defendants on
such note ceased to exist. fhe extension agreement referred to in
the affidavit of merits was introduced in evidence and contains a
statement to the effect that the trust deed referred to was given
by the parties as stated in the affidavit of merits. It is dated the
ist day of October, 1931, and recites in substance that on that date
there was an unpaid balance due by the makers of the trust deed off
the sum of 513,400.00, and that the parties hed agreed to an extension
of time of paywent upon the conditions set forth in the <greement,
which are that the time of payment of the principal notes be extended
for a period of one year from September llth, 1931; that the covenants
and agreements in the principal note and trust deed should remain in
full force and effect during the extended period, and that all the
covenants and agreements should be kept. I% is further recited that
the extension agreement is executed by the Libertyville Trust and
mettiny « ofat betetme ,staobastebh od? to taeanoo edt twodéiw ,oawso
,eetnutt as .Saed egaivee bas teyst oLlivytredid odt dtiw tromeerge
aftiL todmetqe’ mott taey ono tot stog ed? to vadeutam eae. heed os
qmiule .H «0 gL8@L .rodmevok to d#TS edt ao ‘ebtawredts dude “pints
eidaviev 2 tot ,ataebroted yi betyooxs beod tant? od? xohay ostenst
betotme ,atasbasteh od? to sanemoe edt tuodtiv bas ,aolterebianoo
ss agatvs® bee teutT silivysredhl odt d¢iw gadtiew ai toemedtgs as otmt
edt haxstxe of .yitecots ent of OLsit Legel odd bled medt doidw .aand
eft tremostgs dove YW tedt bas ,oton eft to taemysg ont to ents
( gtnemperge tout? edt tobmr gle agaivet has teurt eLlivytzedht
Ntliueee edt tot Leretelloo Inneisiode ,oetamst edt miei of beyevaoo
\ ed? to bas etagmeergs aotansixe edd to sonset yd tadd goton edt ho
~betdobad: edt rot yedruoee Lanolstbhbs dowe to sotautt adt-of caasatiaihionaie
estanbaared ett to eybelwond edt tyodtiw enob egw doidw to fhe anesa
to, atabhaeteb odt to ytiisdall Lanoereq edt | ,tostedt seusoed bne
ab ot hervrelex themoetys modanorxe edt »teize of beanog stom dome
gs anietnoo bas senebive at beoubotial:esy etitem to tivebttke edt
govlg aew ot berreter boob tent? eff dadt soothe ot of taometate
eid hots gt tl .attrom to tivabélte odd mt hotete ae settiaq edt gd
eteb todd mo todt eometedua mk wether bax .L8CL ,redoteO tov yeh tex
“(fro boob text edt to avedam odt yf eub-womsied bisqas ne sow oredt
| Ro Lenoes we of beerge bed. esivusg oft todd bas ,00.00Rj,019) to nuk edt
etoomeetgs off af déxrot gee anottihgoo edd moqw taemyaq: ‘to. oudto%e
bebiretxe od aston Leqlening elt Yo tasmyeq bo outst odd tadt ote dotdw
adnenevon Sit add ,LECL .AYLL todnetqes mort reoy ond to beraq’ @ rot
st themet’ biuwde Boob damtd bee! etom Leqtodttg. sd? mi etzompergs bas
eft ts dead bas qbotte¢ Aebuetzo ext, ¢ gas jootte bas serot waren
taste bettoos xedtat et ¢l .tqed » adnemoonge bee abmns
hick dient elisnencoahl Mth ‘of Manian i “taeneoras rye ni
&
eift al atiitatelq eff to ano ,stw8 e42M ,gabting ot ¢aamesrge as yd
|
{i
3
Savings Bank, not personally, but as trustee, in the exercise of its
powers as trustee; that no personal liability should be asserted or
be enforceable against the Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank or
against any person beneficially er otherwise interested in the
mortgaged property; that no duty would be invelved upon the Liberty-
ville Trust and Savings Bank to sequester the rents, issues and
profits arising from the property, and that no obligation would be
imposed upon the Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank with regard
to the payment of the note. This agreement was not signed by either
of the defendants. One of the withesses to 2 number of signatures
to the agreement, as shown by the document is "Lad Vacek", and there
is testimony to the effect that this person is one of the defendants,
Another of the signers of the agreement is Mike Sufa, one of the
plaintiffs, who signed by his mark. Various other versons not other-
wise parties to this record also signed the document.
The deed to the Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank trustee
was not madé by the defendants appealing, as alleged in the affidavit
of merits, but was made by two other defendants, co-signers of the
notes in question, who were made parties defendant in this proceeding,
but were not served with process,
in the presentation of their case, defendants insist that
inasmuch as theagreement made with the Libertyville Trust and Savings
Bank extended the time of payment of all the unpaid notes, including
the note in question, and that inasmuch as they were not parties to
such extension agreement, and did not ask for nor obtain an extension
of time for the payment of the notes sued on, that they are released
from any liability on the note.
The ease of Albee v. Gross, 250 Ill. App. 98, is cited by
defendants as authority for this contention, and as decisive of this
casés it is the only case mentioned in their argument. In that
: m9 taagtze as gisido tom tot Aes dom bth hap
a Fe ee,
5
&.
att to. eatorexs silt ot .ootuust ee tud ,ylionoezeg tom,,zns agatvad
wo betreaas od bluoda yiildell Langsieq og stadt jesteurt se eteweg
70 Ans sgotve® bac teucT ellivytrodtd odd tentsys, eLdecosotas. od.
edt mt beteototnt estvredto to Uiistolteasd gosieq, yea teategs.
aired oft aogy beviovai ed bluew yiwh om saad 4 ytreqorg degsatios
_, bas geoveel ,etaor odd roteoupes of Aash egaive? bas tayxT. etity,
ed, bivow sottegtiido on seit bae ,ytreger¢ etd sott gatetts atttor
eager, dtay dass agoives Sas seort slfivytredid ol? ogy besogmt.
redtie yi beagle som sew tapucetgs edt .etom odd to saomyar edt oF.
| seiutemgie to tedava s ot goRssatiw os? to end setasdasteb oft. to,
eredt bas ,"de0s¥ bal" ek tasuspoh edt yd swode es aiaemeotgs odd of
) pean eit to ono si moateg eidt tads tootie odd. ot youtteot ef :
(odd To eco ,xtve AAEM at teomeergs oat Io stomgle.odt. to redtomA.
~zadée, jon ecoareg xodto avolisY, trem eld yd bongie odw. settitatels,
aa tiebnn? staxenspod odd bomgie oale brooet eidt, pd. epityeg sate
ooteutt Anas egatyed tas taut eLlivyredid salt of boob, su, oo dase
tivebitts edt nt begetie as. .gutiseqge agashaeteh, ext W oben tom eeu,
oft to exomgte-po ,atusbacted sedto ot yd chem asw ud ,stizem bg
candbognons gidt of inshooteb esitzeg ebsa exew odw .solteeup ai. eeton,
ei - saapootg dtiv, bevisa tog, oxen. tud,
“teas tetaat niusbetteh a2880, xiade, to ao ksstaessta, 8 a ‘De gab teak :
apitye® das teyxT oLitvytzedhd edt dtiw, eben tasmeengagd? ea doumesnt.
_Batbutont ,eetoa disqay edt ifs to taemysg to, outs oid bebastxe as.
ot soticag tom grew Yodd es doumpand ded? dus, atokfpeup At, ® Ze oth,
efnemo on: 5 moteneexs oun,
_borselor oxs yodt tadt.ao eve aston, oii to tasevsa. eat aad ail
+ pp sOtOm o8F mo Katte Le yas, me a r
tat pesto at i sac oft 028, aunaainaY a2dls to gee me Boro’ : hie
aba, to. SYaRROnh ns bas, one teaptae®, eid? sot wttroddus as, eteb,
ottnon ons0, xine os &
4
ease, a bill was filed by the trustee in a trust deed to foreclose
the same. In the opinion in that case, it is recited in substance
that the record shows that Albert Albee was the owner of the land in
question at the time the trust deed was executed, and that the land
was conveyed by m@ésne conveyances to one Charles F, Brandt, who
assumd and agreed to pay the notes secured by the trust deed as a
part consideration for the conveyance, The only question in that
case was whether or not, in a case where a mortgagor sells the premises
to one who agrees to assume, and does assume the mortgage and notes
secured thereby, and the purchaser sells to another who likewise
agsumes the debt, a written agreement of the mortgagee with the last
purchaser extending the time of payment for a consideration and with-
out the knowledge or consent of the mortgagor and his grantee, releases
the mortgagor and his grantee from iiability for the payment of the
notes, or from liability under a deficiency decree upon foreclosure
and sale, The extension of the time for payment was made for the
consideration of an additional one per cent interest to be paid, and
the court in that case held that such an extension agresament, under
the circumstances mentioned, where made for a consideration, did
release the mortgagor and signer of the notes, and a great many cases
are cited by the court in support of this holding. We such case,
however, is here presented. On the contrary, in the agreement with
the Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank, as trustee, it is expressly
recited that the grantee assumes no liability for the payment of
the debt. By the terms of this instrument, it is also shown that the
Libertyville Trust and Savings Bank held the title as trustee, and
only for certain uses and purposes set forth in the instrument, which
are shown by the abstract to be as follows;
"Provides that beneficiary shall have power to give
directions to deal with the title and shall be entitled to
receive rents and incomes or prefits as personal property.
iyi
;
¥
7
7 se
=
_,, eeoloexot of booed. veuTs © af ooteuxt edt yo Solit. ssw Litd 6. 49280
_ Wmatedue at betiocor si tL ,oeep stadt ai aotutce eat at _ 9m8e edt
ni bast edt to tomo edt asw seglA trodla ted? awone Sreoez ade todd
bast edt tsds bas ,betupexe asw besh sauté odt emit odt ts gotteeup
ode .ihasrS ,1 eatzed0 ane of ssoneysvaoo neem yd beyevaeo esw
& as boeh gauts edd yd bexruoee aston edt yag of beotgs, bas. bamvees
ted? al nokteoun Yieo edt .somsyovaoo edt tot soltersblenoo, jxsq
aseimera oft ellee rogepirom s otedw apeo 8 ai .toan to rodtedw BaW 8880
- setod bas ogagizom edt omuess eood das ,omueas ot sootgs odu on0 ot
opiwelll omy godtons ot allse, reasdorwg edt bas .yeredt bexugee —
teal odj détiw segegtrom ed? io taameotges aetéine 5 ,tdeb edt RomuERS
~titin bus aoiverebanoo 5 rot saomyeq Yo emis od? gatduosxs roeadoxua
eseseley .eotnotg ald bas togsgérom sd? to taeemeo 10 sabeLwond odd ‘to ;
et to tmomyeq ont wot ytilidsti mort eestastg ald bas topsptsom, ast
erwecloerot soqu seroeb yonetoties s rebau ysilidail wort 0. akoton
adé rot abem asw tnomyeq tot emit edit to aokenegxe odT else bas
bare gbieq ed ot taotedai taso, req sao Lanoisibbs as te not tszebLange
xeobuys ,tnemmerge solanetxs as dowe tsdt Sled epao tant ak tiyoo odt
» . BLD .molsaxebienco « tot sham exedw hemo tiaen seonstemuoxto | edt
geese Yaem teotg & bas ,eston edt to rengie bas xogegtrom ont euaolox
aeace dove of .gaddlog aldt to treqqua mk txyoo edt yt bedio ors
_mtiw tuomeetgs odd al ,ytetines oft a9 .betaegerq axed | ai t_,tevenod
es at ¢i ,eetewtt as .Anef agaive® hos tawtt sllivytxedid edt
‘to tremysg ad? sot ytilidsil om asmueea potnatg edt tadt bettoes
_ef2 ted? mwode ols of #i ,taoumrtent atdt te amtod sat e. _atded, edt
. bas .seteust es oftit edt, bled ned egatvs® bas tes? eiitv
fotdw ,taemyrtani edt at dirot tee aesoquey hrs seau tatoo, x0% in
’ Dipisgaseyed ie pepne. mHOe SLs
ae
F ee re
Provision is made for the repayment of advances if made
by Trustee.
It is further understood that the beneficiaries
hereunder will see to the paying of the indebtedness
secured by all mortgages or Trust Deeds of record upon the
property in question, as well as the indebtedness secured
by the Trust Deed in the Lake County National Bank given
er to be given by the Trustee in payment of the purchase
of the above described real estate,
Provision is made for the beneficiaries to control
and operate the property, Frovision is made for payment
of services of the Trustee. Signatures of the respective
parties,"
It is also to be noted that the extension agreement was made after
the note in question had matured and after the liability of defend-
ants had become fixed and determined, There is no proof of any
consideration for such extension,
We are of the opinion that there is nothing in this
extension agreement which had the effect of releasing the defendants
from their obligetion to pay the note in question. Therefore, the
judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.
AY FIRMED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. CONGUR.
a
‘eben 22 go0hevbha “to taomyaqer eng: tok ebam slvaotatverd . 9900
eeteutT
%
epetisiolttensd eff tad¢ bootetetas aedtevt ei #2 6 mn me
a eaenbetdebat edt to aniysq out of sen rye tobruseted
| tt goge brgeet to ebeeG tent? te eagsgttom Lis yo bemyoss § 9’
a besuoee eeonbetdebai edt es ILew ae ileus ai 1 yiregord
nevis dnei Laqottei xénn08 odet ofv al boot sant
eeedorug ode te _ thom yog at cotaut? edd yd asvig od o¢ 10
; estatao inot bedjroneh evodsa ed? to = ©
fortunes of ‘pelts toltoned edt tot ebag ei soteltvert
dmemyed cot ebsa ei moieivori .yiteqotq edd etexsqo: mo
Svigoeqeot edt te notutemghs -odeunt homed ze asoivree To
oo Myee hia Oooo
£ by aE a)
oo notte obem pew tusapetas aotemerxe edd tad? Seton od ot Oals el FT”
bested ke Wlidadl- ont redte baa hevetem bed nottvoup aietom eat!
) gaged ai oved? ,beaimzeteb bas boxtt smoosd bed etas’
wheel i ne : papmapaniiistanlan sian: dep 3
ool: gadd af gatdton ef etedd tad? nolaigqe eft to cdta OW) ~ oo mt
9 atashasted ‘ont galsesist te tostte edt Sed dodsin pecs oh? ig
(edd (erotered? .ottaoup al atom edt ysq ot moltogtidorztedt mort’
#2 sree Lee (ooo ybemEeR RS a2 g2900" seamen edtene taomg bart.
! »(SMAITEA ae ha ay iecotxe ad? ,etae bme
; a Lomedaiohe ao te sadtemedteago
aoluyr .ines ee — pAUOKOS 6b, W GHA Big
a bono dtnoe Bom * eta rate ant
wo here) SAE Prise Sale onsakon
ni Pe ye oF FeuOon aie sc fant 2 » ot
# iO .Botsougsg 904 Me _ ase
;j hand sanive? Baa tewet gt CAVES e ad dd ect
mets Bhs fade hat Siow
ny 4 oe geste yee | : eT Ae RRBs. 84 ; Rit... eee earl ly, aod agit )
nt eect inet. woe Po) Biel Sed atisvyarod tt
x . i > oS
7 (a nes a wee ti ee hoes '
an i ‘ 7 A
, ‘ fini | cicada ae Serer er inte
ay ts venue J wie @) Stent tem eeancmey Ace, poo Boe een, 207,
> 2 , & . . ¥ * —
i Cea. Ae EVES + ‘ ae te oe
p é
t ¥ i
F
od of toaxtade 640.40 mertde ots
° even oot towod.oted Lied. wraliolioned dene a onsen’. ere
dud ag SS rp ee rN oe AP Sy ete ie ee. oe fer Lert oe Sito Feo cio
oeeee er 20 OES Joes aney ayepees.
ay. LJ
37538 fe er ad
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE oF many’ i f
RAYMAN, Deceased, Pa ges FROM-
eauteibhiniscibai j -
CHARLES RAYMAN, OLRCULE
Ve weds COUNTY.
NATIONAL BUILDERS BANK OF CHICAGO,
Administrator with Will Annexed, ay 9 7 A 6 4 4
Appellant. 2 é ae
URe JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Cireuit Court of
Cook County for the sum of $2,480.00, entered on a finding made by
the court ageinst the estate of Frank Rayman, deceased, The cause
was heard in the Circuit Court on appeal from an order of the Probate
Court of Cook County, allowing the claim of Charles Reyman againat
the estate of Frank Rayman, deceased. The claim is based upon a
promissory note for $1,500.00, alleged to have been executed by the
decedent, in favor of Gherles Rayman, The original claim was filed
in the Probate Court on October 26th, 1932, An alleged copy of
the note upon which it is based, atteched to the affidavit of claim
filed in the Probate Court, is typewritten and is in words and
figures as follows;
"34341923
For value rec'd. I promise to pay Brother Charley
$1500.00 6% interest. 7
Frank Rayman'
The original note offered and received in evidence in both courts
in support of the claim, all of which is typewritten except the
signature, is as follows;
«3/3/1923
For value recd I promise to pay Bro Charley #150000 @
6 &% int,
Frank Reyman"
oa ezave
awn 10 STATGE FHT 10, gHT UI
jaro bor ood. MATA
er te wv ws ena
a .o0k0me8
é satel, ai are of tet a
Sh roe Ube gm ein ed |
PSs shes ntemeyre of} cid? betem eGooe om Eargh’ ef
f _ stst900 aut % OTHE GHT CERAVILGG Adar HOLTEUL Tt deat
te sxu00 thor t0 ond to tasmgbst 2 mort Leeqqs ae et eid? pias
yd aban gn tbatt S oo betetae 100608), 88 te ve ous Ret, NaH99 Age
ceuno eft -~boasoceb .wemyal Anst{ to etstae rg Mine tzu0o edt.
es] 7 if
stador4 ei Yo tobro as wort Ineqgs ao t1ugd tiwort0 od a Woe vis 7 ae
tantegs samen eelzadd to mislo uit arivetis a rtawo0 000 20. #zu0h ¥
8 oa beasd a mtelo out pboassoeh peels Anert A9% 9 21.
O LAER
edt ys betwooxe megd ovad of boyoits ,00.008,1% tot even, yrosaimorg
—beLlt sew misio Lentgtto ef? ,aemyafi eefradd to tovet ak ,¢mebsosb
Yo yqoo beyells ah .SECL ,t88 nodes ao tuv0d etadord edtak
‘minlo to divebitts edt of bedostts ,beesd et tt dotdw ogy stom edt
bas ebtow ai ei bos aettliweqyt af ,tivod etsdord edt mi beLlit |
jewollot es eerygtt
eser\e\s
yeixsd0 teddotad ysq o¢ eeimotg 1 .b' oer pa a
eteeretai hd 0.00855
Snemyet anett
atxwoo dtod ai sonmebive at bevieoss bas betette ofem Leatgizo sai “
eit tysoxe settixweqy? et dotdw to Ife ,mislo od? to troqaye ai ie
eser\e\e"
S OOOC8LR yoitedd ord yeq of eatmorg I boor outay rot
sewollot os at ania ee)
There was also received in evidence, a letter written by
the decedent to the claimant, which is admitted by both parties to
be genuine, which letter is im words and figures ss follows:
"Sdwardsburg, Mich. 13/12/28
Bro Charley:
Just received word that you did not want me to sign
vn papers for Georges. Wow I have all ready signed as
Nett give him all her papers befor she went to the hospital
and told him to take care of everything in as much as he
is the oldest and intitled to his part. so in regard t
the m I ou 7 am n iti ey now. It
is up te us to see that all bills are paid. I don't see
why you should held out by not signing. Gee if we can get
some of our money back that is the way I feel about it. I
wanted Netts dishes as I had them stored for years,
Yours as ever
Frank"
It is claimed by the adminsstrator of the estate of Frank
Rayman thet there is a variance between the document offered in evi-
dence as the note of Frank Rayman, and the alleged copy attached toe
the claim; that the signature of the document introduced in evidence
is not the genuine signature of Frank Payman, deceased; that the claim
is stale, and that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the
court in finding for the claimant. Considerable testimony was offered
by the claimant in support of the claim,
Celia Rayman, a sister of the claimant, testified in sub-
stance that she had knowledge of business dealings between the brothers;
that on one occasion in Henrici's Restaurant in Chicago she listened
to & conversation between the claimant and his brother, Frank Rayman,
decedent, and that Frank said to Charley, "I am very sopry I haven't
the money to give you, Charley, but here is a note", and that Frank
then gave Charley the document produced in evidence, and that Charles
turned it over to the witness. This witness also testified that in
February, 1923, in a conversation between the claimant and decedent,
she heard decedent tell claimant that he would arrange to pay claimant
Pee heh 3)
yd aatéiaw to¢tel s ,sonebive at bevisoer onin Rew ‘erect
ot seltreq diod yd bettinbs ei doidw ,tasmtalo. odd ot seeantth 1 edt
:ewolfot af eeteyit bas ebrow mt ei xetiol dotdew ,ealuaeg od
es\sl\Sl .dolk .gusdabrswhd"
) | ryetradd rr ra
, hi mgte of om drew tox ‘beh wor teds Ssow bevieosx tavt
“— 26 boagid. ybset ils event I wok .eyroe) tot
‘tebewed edt o¢ tohow ede roted erersq tod Ile wt He =
ed as foum ea mi pani to er*o oxet of mid
ot bre £. wid ot roy a ana sueive ent =e
oh a a } tl :
fey 189.08 Th 208 ke d sf bios hts Bo
gon ae tueds Leet I yow “yiiea ie fen yo ; rs A
a, eatsey xzot anaes ary bed I es Lb ofiel sh
reve as atuoY +k tuna Se al
idaart tionn grupo ott
doer to states ed¢ to sotertednimbs edt yd bomislo- ‘ae! gis
-ive at berstto taemmoh att avowted eonettav’e et dred tone ‘danlee
ot badontia yuoo bayelis od¢ bas ,aemyst Unort td oto Sdt as Gomed
‘eomobive ai beoubor tni tnooyoob edt to étutengta beni ‘todd jmtelo edt
- mbake ett tend pbeeseneh ,aamyat Aner? to etvtemgie oatutes add ton et
edd yittest of sonsbivd teetsitive toh aew STedt sadd Bae ,6L8se'et
perotte aow yoomiteot eldarebtenod staamisfo edt tot gatbalt at Hoo
pttefo eft to troqgie a taemtelo edd yd
due at beltiteet .tasmiolo ed¢ to totete s ,mamye eles © °
| Yaxeddord edd meowted Shntined sasataud to egbeinoat bad ede todt conste
henstetl ede ogsoidd ai tmerusteet at lotrask mi notebood eke ao tedt
eyes Masri ,reddow eff bas tusmtslo® edt neowsed nodtsatevaco 6 ot
taeved I yxaos yrov. ma I" .yolnadd of bise Amati sedt Jag. pteebepes
dnext todt bas.,.etoa # at exod tud, axotzan0, aifO%, ovis pt, Nonom. edt
esiradd ted? bas seomebive ot beosberg tremupob edt xespanp, | 27h, peat
at tadt bortisess vels ssentiw eidT .nooatiw edt of t8v0 th beatst
~taebeoeh bas tuewtato odf necwted noltdetevace # nf \eeel Yyxanndet
tnemtelo yeq of syasune biwovw od tad? tacmistio [lot tattiite® tinea ode
a
i
iw. eo a ee
3
the $1,500.00 due him,
J. ©» Keller, a witness on behalf of the claimant, testi-
fied in substance thet he was present at the meeting testified to
by the former witness at Henrici's Restaurant; that he gaw Frank
hand Charley a piece of paper; that he saw the paper after this
occurrence, and that it was the same paper that was introduced in
evidence.
Various hand writing experts were produced by the contending
parties, Some of them testified that the signature of Frank Rayman
7 on the note in question was genuine, and others that it was not.
There was no evidence offered by defendant to deny that the claim
is bona fide, except that of the handwriting experts.
In the letter of Frank Rayman dated December 12th, 1928,
after the making of the note, is an acknowledgment of an indebtetiness
by the decedent to claimant, it may be noted that in this letter,
- decedent addresses his brother as*Bro Charley," which is the same
as that of the payee on the note. It is not contended that the
amount ef the judgment, including interest from the date of the
instrument, is not correct - provided the claim is bona fide.
We are of the opinion that the claim was established; that
there is sufficient evidence to prove what the maker of the instru-
ment intended as to the amount which he agreed to pay, that is to say,
$1,500.00 with interest at 6% from the date, and that the court was
not in error in entering the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of
the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, P.J. AND WILSON, J. CONCUR.
¢
omic eyb sige ede
~kteot ,tneutislo ed¢ to tiasded no eaentiw & yreLled «0 Jb walt
ot heititeet gutteom odd te taenerq gew ed tert sonetedve' mt Berk
. \ atest wee od tedt péneruetee e'loixvaeH ts erontiw remrot edt yd
eidt tedte xeqeq odd wee od dedt jreqaq to seely’b YolaeHd baed
at enghotabss ene oantte Tegeq sme oat mow’ #2" panty” em sata
muatdaetaee edt yd beovborq erow etreexe goiter bawd ewo tra co ic:
iio 2ae
aswyen fast Ye ewtonsie edd tadd beltitest wos seh feetsrsq
ston gow tt tadt etedde bas sontuney, sew nokteeup at : DE
misto ost dat ere.b ot tasbaetob w botetto eonebive on a ten 5 oxedt
eetreqxe ‘gattiurbacd edt to tadt tqooxe Obit god et
e804 ,At8L tedmeosd botah acwysl amatt to retteL ex# at
seenhetdebai as to tmemgbelwontos ae at yotou eft to gutdam edt todte
petted aldt mt, sede boton ed ryan 2h: yitusatade ot Cuebeue eae”
ose oft ei doidw ",yoltsd® oxG"es xedéedd! sid ssenerdds taebsoes §
edt tadt babsetses ton af th .sten edt mo sexed Sif to Fede ee’
eft to otmh act mock teerodat gathuiont ,saongbyt edt to ‘tatois’ ’
.. e@bE2, good et mtsio edt bebivory ~ toorres Yor wt \tnoniréent”
tent jhedetideteas sew mislo edt tedt moldiqo ett to 6x6 bY °° OF
— tertent odd to xeslem, edd ted every) of Comebive dxslostive at oxodt
gpa ei stadt «yeu of boomgs ed dotde tavome edd Ot as bobadtih dee”
asw tusoo edt galt duc joteh edt mort RO te saetotal tin 00.008, 2)”
te daomgbul ode ,.szoteted?> staeagbyt oft gakeotme at sorte at ton”
fr
ieee egoe qwee whee ke lak: dad So08'%s sxg0d dtvosto° eit”
SUMATTNA a - 1 Sunk ri 4, Ls ay ah ney a” eh, Ns at bid OHS wae
very dt 1% beeodocy treaanmod mie ety aa _ OYE foes
hy AEROMOD » pean ana” ue jae
hawted poly eeroraiot al eRel | yeaamoet
odt tremisio Lint tngitoed txeed ode
y
Te
%
x
ae =
Ny a
37569
WILLIAM M. DAVIS,
(Plaintiff) Defendant in Error,
oe
on oF ot
SA,
ve ove B chums
FRANK P, KRETOHMER, LAURA KRETOHMER,
FRANK J. JACOBSON and BLANOHE COOK COUNTY.
JACOBSON,
ry
(Defendants) Plaintiffs in Error. 2 é 9 lanes 6 A. Ai
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINIGN OF THE COURT.
Judgment was entered against the defendants in the Cireuit
Gourt of Cook County on January 21st, 1933, for the sum of $15,542.87.
The action is by plaintiff against defendants on two promissory notes
dated September 26th, 1925, each for the sum of $8,000.00 and payable
on or before 1 year after date to William uM. Davis, with intereset
from their date at the rate of 8% per annum. The notes were signed by
Frank P, Kretchmer, Laura Kretehmer, Frank J. Jacobson and Blanche
gacobeon. The notes show by endorsements thereon that various payments
of interest and principal had been made. The claim was for the sum
of $10,500.00 together with interest from September 25th, 1937. The
notes had been given as part payment for certain lands purchased by
two of the defendants in the state of Florida. After issues joined,
the cause was submitted to a jury, a verdict by direction of the
court was returned in favor of plaintiff, the judgment referred to
was entered, and it is sought by the writ of error herein to review
this judgment. Plaintiff filad two special counts in his declaration,
together with the common counts. Defendants filed s plea of the
general issue supported by an affidavit of merits, and 2 special
plea to which a special replication was filed. By this affidavit
of merits filed September 27th, 1929, signed and sworn to by Frank
J. Jacobson on behalf of all the defendants, it is set forth that
at the time of the transaction in question the defendants resided
in the city of Chicago; that they bought certain lands in Florida
Pr ayoLy ; : rn |
: a j
f i
eaaye
eo \@EVAG +. Mal uattw
ai Yashaotsd -(trbtmtsl4)
ngpetedya nt belt
FOMNOTSNN APUAL TaMNOTERA”.¢ “MART
ao ane “woeaooat ob ee
“storrd af @titaielt (etmdebastedy °°
vars S2 TO
eYTHUOD 3000
|
|
‘pao. WAC aS
q
=
geU00 FHT TO AOIMIGO GRY CARBVE LEC Gua BOLrevy vat
| tlwert0 efit ai atashasteb edt tenteys beretas exw tiomgbye «99! / 60%
¥8.Sd3, B18 te wave add cot .A8GL ,telS yrewnel mo Ytitvod Hood To drv0d
soto yroseinoty owt no atashasteh tentegs Tt finitely VW ei nokios ont
“eidaysq bas 00,000.80 to mye edt rot dowe e86l .dvOs wedustGed batah —
| «temeretal itinw yaival «Mo metfity o¢ oteb vette ‘teey I dtoted to 10.
‘Yd Denyse etew aeton ed? .munns oq 83 to. Stet eft tn oteb tied? ott
a — baa nosdonsl .b énert ,seniodor® wuusnd (remibteee V4 snore
, oaYeq auotiay teid nostedt stviemberobas \d wone esten AT wteedooey
(ue odd) tod Baw mieLo ed? © .obset ned bad Leqtentiy bas tassedmt to”
{ eT J FECL si#2E cocnodSE wort FoososHt sittw soittepor COLOR LOH TO”
NG Desedome shugiiaietres rot drenged. tray es aevty weed: bait totoie
+ shat! esvent TottTA .ebivelt to edete odd at etashasteb edt to owt
eRe me Loverth ys tostbuoy wy yeNt! se OF" bode tadie Sok eso” ont!
os - herretst soempbet ont .titvetale to cove? at bertsser eaw e100
r wotver o¢ mieten torte to timw ede yd Idgude el th bao \bevetme + 8
sfoltarstoen oii nt atnves Letsoge owt BELst tratatelt .tmewyhit” esti
edt Ro sokq # DOLET etaebssted | .etmued Hono” od dete rodttoyod
Islosge s bas ,e@tizen Yo tivsbitts as yd betzoqave event forene3 —
ttvabstte aidt YA .beLit saw nottsotiqer Latooge s solide of selq
nest yw ot mrowe bas beagia ,CS@L HeTS wodmetqed betit- ‘ethno 30)
. “tend donot tee et tt vetasbaoteb ed? Lis to Xfaded ao moedoost .b
bebleer sinshnoteb edt moiteeup at aoltosenstt edt to ott ont a
. abixolt at ebast alsixe0 tdguod yedd tent jogsotdd Yo vie oie mt ie
ier
, eS
i,
~_" ea ie
3
through H. Be Hunter by makl or telegraph; that they had no knowledge
er experience concerning lands in Florida, and had no knowledge con-
cerning the value, character, condition or location of the lands so
purchased, but that the defendants relied wholly upon the representa-
tions and statements of Hunter, who was the agent of the plaintiff;
that Hunter, for the purpose of inducing the defendants to purchase
the lands, represented that they were high, consisted of twelve sub=
divided lots improved and surrounded by streets, sidewalks and other
Similar improvements, and were within and adjacent to a built up and
populated section within and adjoining the city of St. Petersburg,
Florida; that various bulidings were in process of construction in or
near the property; that the land overlooked a goif course which was
then being platted and about to be developed and improved with build-
ings; that a street car line was about to be extended and established
to run slong and opposite the property; that the parcel of land was of
a value of $350,000.00; that defendants, relying on these statements
and believing them to be true, purchased the land in question for a
consideration of $30,000.00, subject to an dncumbrance of $8,000.00;
that they paid the plaintiff %6,000,00 in cash and executed the notes
in qestion, upon which they have since paid the sum of $5,500.00, It
is alleged in this affidavit of merits that the statements made by
Hunter were false; that the lands were low; that there were no improved
streets or sidewalks adjacent thereto; that it was not adjacent to a
built-up section within or adjacent to the city of St. Petersburg, but
consisted of wild and unimproved land lecated several miles from St.
Petersburg in a sparsely populated and unimproved locality; that there
was no golf course overlooking the property, as alleged, and that no
street oar line had been extended or established along or near the
property.
There is no claim that the verdict and judgment are excess-
ive. The whole case turns
‘ oybelwond on band yeodt ted? jdastgelet to idam yd tetawH of oH dguotdt
“100 esbedwoadt on bad bae ,sbtroli ai abmel yaletoonoe sonvixeqxe ro
—s«O@ Bhasl edt to nottacel xo motttbaoo ,retostato ,eutsv edd gainre0
etaeserqer edt noge yi lodw beilex etushreteh edd tedd tud ,besedoreg
; {ithtalele edt to tuege odd esw ode .tetaul to staemotsts Sus noid
sastorua ot atnebasteb dt galoubal te esoqiuq edt tot .Tedauh sand
i “adine eviewt to betatenoo gid Stew yout tad? hotnevsrqet ebasl edt
todte bas etisweobie .steexsts yd behaworrue bue bevotgmt ater bebivib
hae qu $lind 6 of tasoatbs bas aldtiw stow baa .dtadnevergnt reLimte
) aivdersted .#0 to Yeio edt yalafotbe bas aidéiw nottoee betsiluqog
’ ‘a0 ai ‘noltorrtenco to esedote mi otew egnibfind evedzav vant “yabixolt
gaw doidw eatiu00 tioy & beizoolteve bask ot fade ; pwrecotq edt x90
: <bitud d¢inw bevordmi Bae beqelaveb ed o¢ trods Bie ‘pettatd gated | aed
q bodalidstee bas bebastxe sd of fuods esw onli té0 toorte 8 dadt tegnt
| ‘Ye eaw bael to ‘fsoreq edd tadé pywteqora odd et teoqgo bas ‘gitole autos
atnenetate ouedi £0 ‘piityler ‘vedasbaste ‘tedt 100.600; 088 46 outiv's
ae @ tot solteeyp at bast ed? besaderuq ,euxt od oF bat gant tbd" bits
400.000, 88 to comardmroah ma ot too{ de (0bs000,08@ 48 mb¥ts285 tendo
| aevon ‘eit bétuoexe bus deco nd (00,000.38 tiitatelq edd breq youd deus
7s “400,008.88 $6 fire odt bieq code’ Sved’ yade dolAW ody” laobbed ip Rt
“Yd bbas etnowotats Sut sade etitem to ¢ivabsthe wind as Begelce’ a2
new on evew stead tadt wot stow ebast odt dent yoatet ody sovauk
i 2 Od dudoathe tom baw #f aane josdredd #moontbw eitaweble to atoorte
| tud .auvdetetet ote to ytlo edd of taddatbs 26 atdtiw ontees aumsttind :
"a0 moet ebtn Levevea botseo! past Bévotambay/ bit ‘bai re tolanoe
’ oxed? tant jybhiedol poverimiay has betetuqoq yLobreqe o Ht gruel
on dott bas sbogetic es ‘svéreqory ost gattoolrero went
oat TOM TO ‘yao ta bedel Idates %0 bepaotze feed baat aaa
eee odie Rae
atin exe taompbut bas telbrey oss feat, stato 4. e " stot ca
"es
5 Fine” ke ai lec
. adatree thawed veal? feds poanokit: Fe vei ob al .
rs i 4, hay
3
upon the questions as to whether or not there was fraud practiced
of the notes,
in the procurement/ and whether Hunter, the real estate broker,
was the agent of the seller or the buyer. Also it is insisted that
inagmuch as plaintiff had been adjudged a bankrupt subsequent to
the beginning of this action, that, therefore, he could not maintain
the action.
it appears that M, 0. Kretchmer, father of the defendant,
Rrank P. Kretchmer, had s2bout completed the purchase of the property
referred to, when he died on September 28th, 1935.
There was admitted in evidence on behalf of plaintiff a
deed dated September 26th, 1925, from William M. Davis and wife to
Frank P, Kretchmer and Frank J. Jacobson, conveying to them as joint
tenants the lands in question,
Prank P, Kretehmer testified in substance that shortly
before Me. 0. Kretehmer's death, Kretchmer senior had received a
letter dated September 19th, 1925, from H. J. Hunter, whose letter-
head indicates that he, Hunter, was then a real estate broker at
St. Petersburg, Florida. This letter was received in evidence, and
in it Hunter acknowledges the receipt of « check from Kretchmer
senior. It states that his firm is advertising a lot of Kretchmer
senior, not involved in this litigetion, situated in the city of
St, Petersburg; that a certain Block 12 in the city of St. Petersburg
had been withdrawn from the market; that he, Hunter, had sold two
ether blocks in a certain subdivision, one for $36,000.00 and another
for $25,000.00, and that his firm could purchase Block 20 in this
same subdivision - the block in question - which he considered a
good purchase, for $30,000.00, one fifth to be paid in cash, the
balance to be paid in one, two and three years, with interest on
the deferred payments at 8% per annum. It is stated in this letter
that the block is high and dry, and that the reason the writer
considered it an exceptionally good purchase was that he deemed it
=
Deg
aa
E
beoltoerg buatt eae ered? toa x0 tedtedw ot es enoktaeup “ent aoqu
w\Betom edt to =~
_ytedord otstas Laer odd retnull reditenv bas Aitomexwoorg | ata at
“tad heteleni ef ¢f oela roy edt to xeLles odt to oaean. edt naw
mse dora
o¢ taespeedve tquriasd s begbytbs seed bad Vidatadg as “dormant
*% SYEy 2 anoeii »
ntedstes ton biuoo axl sototeredd atedt wottes edd 20 putantged beed
Soates ea
“staabasteb | edt to rodtst etondotort 0 tact exceqas #r
«tet sabivan
yezeqo79 edt to sandorig edt betelqnos tuods bes <romiiot ox aS Aaeril
nk AB td
as@L FBS redmetye® no boib od mostn ot bexteter
hi SLO!
2 tiitaiata to tiaded un eonehive ak betéimbs sew xed?
7 269 Yet Spee
oe okiw bas stved «ki mat Loti wort s880L «dS xodmotqed tab :
Hoa a +7 gy
tatot Be nodt ot antyeunes oodonst ob autes' bas ronsotenk « “ S Jeet
eissg oe hia) 3
-otteoup at abneL od? etasnet
- ltross bade oonsteden ak bottitess ‘romdotoxd “fi aor _
Y 2 er ni OF
a bovisos: bed roinee romiotoxX dtseb a! xomdotexd Irs
3 vf eile? &
sx0tteL seodw .rotaull - “ worst eSeL id reduesqee 7 i
wees eee tee twe
ts xrex01d ofetes ino a nestd asw total od bade sedsozhat
FET LIF a oe
bas eoonedive al beviesos sew rovtes eiat ‘eabizo Lt a . ry
gra BG iB estite oe he
mondetex’ wart doesdio « to tatener odd eoyboLnomios <etanil be st
RR iW Hoty ~te ties
. remsotors te tol B galelisievbs et ore EE etd edd negate Mt. Pr 82
Past payed
aii
to yto edd at dotautte Moltagtt Ls eid? at boviovat “ toknee
wires a Lee ae eine se eer rets pt
eted #8 t tho od mi ot soola i82%90 8 ade
grader tod #8 to ¥ een ipguthe A aft
' owt bLoe bea Te tau <8 tads jtexzam ont sort Sk 5
} ( ia « Ch ah ty 4 mapas te Se
‘xedgons bas 00.000,98¢ tot eno wtolety tbdve nbsere0 8 as i Saher Yee
on edad mh 08 asold sesifoxug bLuoo ark aid testi bas. 200.00
Leet ROB
| | & berebianee ed Moutin = aoitaoup ak atoold edt ~ noleivibdua omen
. aye Lt «Gam vrey Wenge ty rie, stg Neer ailkid
Ps pat dese wat bksq ed ot geet ea 100,000,059 02 ot ree me dors
no teeretat dtiw .etesy oonse be owt .8n0 at bieq ed canara
“neesSL etd? at betete ef ¢T - pitusttibe | TOM &6 te stnényed bere a
a rotixsw edd moeser edt tedt base awh bra dgkd et” foo.Lc ot
AE Demeeb ef tent now onadoreg boog Wissoitisexe as a th be
itera 7%
4
practically certain that a proposed oar line extension to Shore
Aeres would go through, and would run along the side of Block 20,
and that if the writer had the money, he would purchase it himself,
The letter further states thet Bock 20 on Poplar Street overlopks
a golf course, and Hunter mentions certain other advantages which
the property is suppesed to have had. In this letter, Hunter also
spesks of a check sent by Kretchmer senior to him.
On September 22nd, 1925, Kretehmer senior sent a telegram
to Hunter, in which he stxted, among other things, that if the
golf course faced Poplar Street opposite Block 20, and if certain
lots could be replatted, and if an alley could be closed without
violating the city ordinance, Hunter could close the deal mentioned
in the letter of September 19th, 1925, that he make the contract in
the name of M, 0. Kretohmer, Frank P. Kretehmer and F. J, Jacobson,
and that Hunter could obtain an abstract for certain other properties
at a certain address in St. Petersburge In reply, Hunter stated
that the replatting and closing of the alley, as requested, might
be accomplished,
Shortly after the death of Kretchmer senior, defendant,
F. J» Jacobson, telegraphed to Hunter that he and Frank PF. Kretchmer
would complete the purchase of the property, and that a deed should
be drawn to F. J. Jacobson and Frank P. Kretchmer,
Hunter testified that at the time of the delivery of the
deed, $1,000.00 was paid to Davis, the plaintiff in this oase, and
sybsequently $5,000.00 was paid, and that the notes in question were
subsequently delivered to Davis,
The undisputed testimony in the record indicates that for
three or four years prior to the death of Kretchmer senior, he had
spent the winters in St, Petersburg, and had been desling in real
estate in that and surrounding cities and towns; that he had had
b
exo of molenetxe onit ra0 besogog 8, stadt, atetzao Ulsotsosra
gOS Hoole Yo bie edt goofs aur blyow bas «dusordt og bisow ested
stisomid #1 oacdorud biuvow éf ,.yonom sdt bat ~coticw edt tL ted? bas.
sadoltevo toetté rafqot mo Of Moods todd gotate todtawt rettel edt
‘to kate eogatasvha réddo alstre0 anoltnem xetaui dan .eexuod tloy a
neta tetauH ,xottel eid? aI .baed evan of beroqqwe el wieqonq edt
" emid of t6ines temfogerX yd tea dood 6 to ten
| gbtgetes A dmee soited renderers (ener <daee sédmodque ad“ “=
| eit ti tedd .dkolde “xoddo gmome .betate od pripevings poe
:
| ss gbeeeeo TL bas (OS Wools s¢leoqto toer#4 telqo4 heost eexves tLog
|
juodtin beeolo od bivoo yOLis ae TL bus * betealgee od biveo etek
honelinem Ieeb edt Svolo bisoo tetavH’ eomantbto ytio ‘odd gattaidie |
pi toaxtaoo edt oem on todd ,a8@L ,dt@L todwosqes to cotter sat a
- gttondoont .% 1 bas xemibford 4 dnoti toadoder 0 st ‘Yo omen ont
“aettreqoxa reddto nietxes zot tonéeds ad alatde Bivoo todaiH dead “pas”
“ petete rotauit «Viger at sgrudeiote4 $#8 at eeezbbs aisixeo a 4 ‘i
ghar cboteouner as «esis eit To seilsis > bis aaltisiger: tai ‘teat
} %
;
}
:
4
- «
afasbasteb ,rolaee tomdoterd to ddseb ot tedte Yltxodd —
tondiodexi .1 dasxt bas od tad) retawH of bodqargeled spe sain
biuods Boob s Gadd bas .ydtedotg edt Yo Sendo edt etetqude ‘bivow
stoniosexd st saett bas moadoost .t ia 84 dwbeh Pra
ed? Yo yroviten ‘odd to salt odd te $add Seis Pess Zodawn ~~ ~~”
Bae .oeso eidt af Ytidatelq oat aeived os Bhaq baw 06, 000,58 eee :
exew Hofseoup af eotod! edt text Bas .btoq wav 00.000,8% yltuedpeadge |
| (0 0 aby ett od bétevk rab y taompendye
(got tdi wedeottat broods ode as ynddiveed beta tal “eagen boos
bed ™ tolnes tondotexrx to dtaeb ede ‘of tolxq exsoy ‘uidt Ho ‘oa
ss "Feoe ot gatleeh need bad bas L cethal de ab Gaeta
dala we ti
beau had en saat 3 bas sortio orn antl sn no
a ; Spi a Se Sora tiyeor ea é. de ron beaoo me
5
certain dealings with Hunter; that Hunter and Kretchmer senior had
inspected the whole of the so-called Coffee Pot addition to
St. Petersburg, which included the block in question; that Kretchmer
senior was familiar with and interested in the property and sought
to purchase a certain Block 12 in the addition mentioned, but when
it came tool esing the deal, he found that this Block had been sold.
Hunter testified to the effeet that he wrote to defendant,
Jacobson, on February 13th, 1926, that Kretchmer senior had told
him that his intention was to hold the property purchased for a year
or two, and then sell it. He further testified that he became
acquainted with Kretchmer senior about six months to a year prior to
the Fall of 1925; that he sold certain property for him, collected
interest for him, and discussed with him real estete conditions in
and about St. Petersburg; that his first meeting with Kretehmer senior
was when he obtained a price for him on another piece of property
in 1925, and that he talked with him possibly twenty to thirty times
regarding real estate between this first meeting and September, 1925;
that his first conversation with Kretehmer senior about the Coffee Pot
addition subdivision was in May or June, 1925, and thet he visited
with Kretchmer senior not only the property in question, but other
property adjacent to it.
Plaintiff testified in substance that he first became
acquainted with Hunter, the real estate broker, when Hunter came to
his office in the summer of 1925 to inquire as to the price of Block
20 in QGoffee Pot addition to 8t. Petersburg, and that the plaintiff
had not known the broker before that time. He also testified that
the next time he met Hunter was when Hunter came to him with an offer
to buy this property at the price which he, the plaintiff, had already
given him, and that at that time Hunter told the plaintiff he was
a real estate broker, and that as a result of the conferences with
é
bad tolnmee remdoterX eh tedauh tadé retail dtiw ‘egnttesd alstxos
ot nolttbbs tod eattod peLiso-oe oni to ¢fodw ‘sit bovooqant
xensiotexi teas ino t¢eeup ak dooid edt bebuLons ot si purderotet #8
tdauoe hats yireqorg ed? al boteerstat bas déiw tetitmst osm ‘rolnee
sodw dud bene Ltnen nett bobs odé ab ak renee atstxed re ‘oeaslorug, os
wbfoe meed bed dood aid? tad? bavot et leash edt gateo toot omso ‘tt
stashasteb of etoww od tat soorte add of beititeet res ints
nie ‘blot bad tolaes seadetext todd sel otek Vrsw Eset to canudetals
THeY 8 rot boesdoteg yYeteqotg odt bLod of exw noktaesat okt ‘tad? HP
i ‘onsoed on tadt boititess redtavt oH tl Loe nedt bas bas , <owd Zo
ot rolta “29 2 ot ediaom xia tueds roimes Semdotord dttw gore AL aUpos
r betooLtoo aid rot ysroqorq mbsdre0 bLoe od tedt ; jaseL xo Es St oat
4 “ak anottibnos states Laer mid dtee beaavorth bas eutd ‘tot ‘teoredat
rolaee remdotork dt tw gatteos sexit atd todd ‘guudexstet es tuods bas
_ et ‘Wrogers to eoelg teditoas ao ‘sid tot eolxa e ‘bentetdo ‘od node woe
aemid yalds ot. viaewt udteseq tna dé tw bodies. od taddt ‘bas «2802 mt
; saeeL .tedmesqs® bas gaitesm tert? eidt ‘heewted efatse g re xed a
! tot eetted ed? tuods roidee oe ty Ps st lw noitsereraeo ‘gout? wid” tout
_bottaty oat dota has aeet x sau "O vl ae ean noinivthéue nottihbs
a cob samtobord tit
“reside tus ,s01¢29up ak b yezeqor ode yino ton rolaes
EAN ; uate ‘bLsew
th oe tenet ba Adah ne»
| mm ae *t &
| onsoed tert ‘on todd oonetadua ak geriiast viteaiast
of S20 rotawl nexw rotor states isox ott rodent “tthe | betataupes
hy Reka tat a HBS
woo fa “to eokse ad? of of eriupat at “ese to Tesmve “eda gt anltto eid
gt? Cees at On
” yttentelq edd tedt bas \ptmdersted. te ot aostinba’ tot
5 HS Fa voy. lan Ya reespon dee
pany. heitivest oaks of page tact ‘cuoked xolord odd aoa tox
ne BY Saney it 8 Stier Oe
rorto ns ditiw mid ‘ot omen xodaut “nate ace ‘ret ‘tou ot ‘omit ak 2
_ vosorts bad etdtaisle ett oa so btw ening ‘edt ts Wreqora < eat) wid ban
SP ae ARE ‘e fi. a
“28m ed vhivadalg ant blot xodnu eatt soité te tadd + hen guke ¥.
re Bae ee | rpg
, “atte neonate 00 odt to tives 2g a8 ‘tat ‘bas grent bie: a9 inet 8
oe
f
6
Hunter, the property wae sold to the defendant, Frank P, Kretohmer
and F. J. Jacobson. This witness also testified that he paid Hunter
a Commission on the sale, and that he had never listed the property
with Hunter, but as stoted, had only met him when he came with the
offer to purchase it. Neither the testiaony of plaintiff, Davis,
nor Hunter is disputed.
A letter was introduced and received in evidence from
defendant,frank J. Jacobson, to the plaintiff dated Mareh 26th, 1927,
in which he states that he had received notice from the Central
National Bank of St. Petersburg of the balance due on the notes in
question, and in which the writer stated he had been delayed in
clesing out the Kretchmer estate, and asked for additional time in
which to pay the notes,
Frank J, Jacobson testified that after the deal was closed
in the first week of September, 1986, he visited the land and found
that the road leading to the property was rough, thet Bleck 20
appeared to be desolate, flat marshy ground, as far as he could see,
covered with a heavy tropical or semi-tropical growth of vegetation
and scrub trees; that it appeared to him to be swamp land; that he
did not see any street cars running in that vicinity while he was there,
and that he could not find a golf course, However, the record
shows from photographs and other testimony vecetved, thet a street
Gar line ran along the edge of the property.
The first point made by defendants im that in ¢iew of the
fact that the plaintiff had been adjudged a bankrupt after the
beginning of this action, he cannot, under the law, maintain this
preceeding. This contention was set up by defendants in a special
plea, To this plea, a special replication was filed, in which it is
set forth that on November 27th, 1931, an order was entered in the
bankruptcy proceeding by the referee in bankruptey, in which it is
recited that it was to the best interest of the bankrupt estate and
a
temdioterd .4 Amer’ ,taabaeteb edt oF Dios few b daienciery ent atetanl
rotaul Sie od tedt holtiteet gels neoatiy eid? snoadoosl, a mi bas
. Wreqozq od¢ betetl seven bed on vast bas site edt? £0 aotvetmos 5
add Md be omso ed motw mid tom Ylao bed sbotete as tind soon atin
_sadved oe te yonktaes ede roddtek ott onntouny ot roto
ebosuqe tb at red ‘ton
‘mort sanab bee mt Lehane bas beoubor tt acw xetteL A
eer idee fora botab tiitatelq edt of atmeadonal +b taert,tnabasreb
PSA) ge?
He Lertns0 ont moxt ooltom bevieves bed od tect sotote od fonda | at
ai eeton sit a0 euh eourtied edt to grudetated +98 to tase Aaaontet
acs beysieb aved bed ox betste ted irw edt dotéw at bus «to eotteoup
‘4 LeRae wo
at omte fanettibhs 0? bodes bas eoiates comogori out tm, anteols
veeton out ve ot fotde
‘ becess aew Loeb od¢ xetts aaat boltitees agedoost B aaa -
«ime " bawot bas busi edd bottety ed .26eL vrodusdqe? to ioow “teat ont at
Ck ASH
ps
os doo La tedt eiguor acw vtreqony odd ot pakbost beot pr tedt
see bLiuoe oc es “wat ae bawory Vile te setaloaeb od ¢ mre bore " .
si aoLtatagov to diworg Leotqortinee 10 Esotqoré yvsed a dthe berevoo
wie fade bust qnewe od of mit of berseuqs tt tet t jesort, duzve bas
eredt a REY od elide Yiiakoty Set mt natn erso toorte wn sae fou Deb
breoos ode <TeveWOL s2eT09 tiog a batt ton ‘Luo ia sate ius
oy) Dee Gh Abe : ri Aap eta
| : “teonts 8 tadt preventer Yaga ttaed tedto bas adgexgoterg ov?
syirogorg odt ‘to ashe ong patos nor eakl «99
1 sitive begalewsen —
\ ‘out to weit at tant ni ataphaeteb ve obo taker Sent? out sig
& ; eS bf te AA
a " | edé rodta tqueined ® begbubbe need bad ‘viLtatelg et date soak
kt mtstatem wot ont reba etonmse on utoztos endt to
Estosge f& ith etashasteb w aus tee now ‘no ttastn09 ent cs 5 ona
i #t rio ben mt bot BOW nottsoniqer isteoge 8 20g eailt | '
7" ott ut ‘bere tne osw xebro a8 “ites Roa ‘redmevoll 20 tnt ae * eet
ad +t so bein st vosquestasd at sexston ont w sa tbesvora: vo
|
: : bas eistes tqwrieed ‘ont ‘to teeretat ‘teed ost oe enw ete ta 4
7
its creditors that the plaintiff be authorized and directed te
continue the prosecution of this cause to sconelusion in his own
name, and ordering that plaintiff be authorized and directed to
continue the prosecution of the cause in his own name, and to pay
over to the trustee in bankruptcy any moneys recovered. To this
replication, defendants filed a demurrer, which was overruled by
the trial court. The record also shows that on November 18th, 1931,
in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District
of Florida at Tampa, in that state, it was ordered that the trustee
in bankruptcy be directed to enter into a contract with the firm
of Shapman & Cutler of Chicago, attomneys for plaintiff herein, to
prosecute this particular suit, and fixing their compensation,
157 NeYeS.
953, the court said:
"Where a party, after commencing an action, is adjudicated
@ bankrupt, the action does not abate, and may be continued by
him, unless the trustee in bankruptey obtains leave of the
federal cout and becomes substituted in the action as plain-
tiff (Hahlo v. Gole, 112 App. Div. 636, 98 N. Y. Supp. 1049;
Colgan v. Finck, 159 App. Div. 57, 144 N. ¥. Suppe408); but in
such gase the effect of bankruptoy is te transfer the title
of the plaintiff in the action, and by the express provisions
of section 756 of the Code of Civil Procedure the action may
be continued in the name of the party by whom it is brought
before a transfer of interest,"
See also Roberts v. Fogg, 138 Ny &. (Supreme Judicial Court of Mass.)
224 NeYe
iutus insurance Oo, of N. ¥., (Supreme
Gourt of Georgia) 46 3. E. 870. We are of thé opinion that plaintiff
had the right to proceed with the suit.
it seeme clear to this court from all the evidence in
the case, that the elder Kretchmer wae fully conversant and femiliar
with this property, and that it is reasonable to presume that the
defendants were acting upon information received from him before
his death, when they coneluded the desl and executed the notes.
y
of betoetin bas besizedius od Wiltaielg edt tad? arotbere eth
gwe aid ai mofeulonoo ot seyeo ald? to aaitwoeaetg edt eunttaco
et botoetth baa besixodius ed tiitaielg ted? gaivebzo Das.,.eman
¥8q of bas ,omsn awo ald al sauseo adt te sottuossorg edt euattaoo
eidt of .berovooer eysnom yas yotqurdasd at cetgeurt sit of teve
yd belurzevo sew dotdw ,rertumeb « belt gtashasteb ,aoltkotiqas
fURQL,.AtGL sedmevoll no ¢edt ewoda oale hironet oT ..tavoo Iaixd adt
toixtedG sradéve sd¢ tot eetede botiay edt.to tum totréedd edt as
aetens? edt tedé horobro ecw ti .etate ted¢ at .sqmaT ts,ebizelt to
_ West edt déiw tostisoe = o¢ai tetae ot hotoeyib ed yotqurdacd ak
ct ,miered Yivaislg tot eyenmotss ,eysoidd te zeLtyO 4 asmgedd, te
: 4 soltganeqnos thons ganixit Sas ,tiva talvoliiaq ids. oveneenne i
abise ei, edt te2
betecihythe ef ,sottes as gatenpmmoo testa oq 8. oxestt Ht wth ws
yd beunttnoo ad Yeu bas ,otade ton obeh 9 ot edt vegeta
o8eYoH Val
edt to eveel anistde yg ai soteust off & suas
~ehod as moitos edt ai betutitedue “eit 38 bas t m09 e
GbOL sqqwe »Y oH 88 .8&8 oe eagé BLf 5 .¥ 8 yh
‘at “tus (808 -oaue o¥ of SOL « Ve «vit Qa etonit VT
OVav
edt retemect of ef yodqurausd to prt ot S889-
pmotaivorg easrgxe edt yd bas ,soltes ont ai aleig
yam mottos aft exudsoord Livil to shed ed¢ toe a6’. aaktoee To, |
tig uerd ei #2 ate yd vexed or? to aman edt ai bevnitaoo
7 \,fgetetnt to retegett & a oll
(.2aa¥ to #zy0d s npenen enexqua) »% al BEL Rok +1 pizedog gate pn
Tiitatelq test sotatqo sit, te ore, wt. OTS. «Hi. o2 8h (etgxoed to ¢x0d
| , viioe odd dtiw beesorg of tdgit edt, dad
at evnebive pit Lie mort. txvoo aidt.ot seofo sweet BL) oy
retilnst bas dasavevaco yiivt sen temioterd seble odt gadt .eeso edt
eid gedt enuposq o¢ eldanpecer al tt todd bas ,yeregerq aidt diiw
oxoted mii mor bevyieoox aottamrotad aogs puking oxew atunbasteb
aveton oft betunexe bas Leeb edt bebutonoo yodd aode wlan mh
hn trod ade BO tyevetek duod mie of aaw FE sac hetkovs i
Mas
»
8
Further, the evidence clearly indicates that it was he who employed
the broker Hunter to act in the matter of the purchase of the prop-
erty and that it was as Kretchmer senior's agent that Hunter dealt
with the plaintiff with reference to its purchase, The fact that
plaintiff paid Hunter a commission is of no particular significance.
It is well known that it is a familiar custom among persons purchas-
ing real estate to have the seller pay the broker's commission on
sales, even where the broker is the agent of the buyer, and it does
not change the fact as to agency that this is done. (See Payne vs
Newoomb, 100 111. 611.) If Hunter made false representations as te
the character and value of the land, he did se as the agent of
M. G. Kretehmer, and not as the agent of the plaintiff, However, it
is our opinion that the record does not indicate that there was
any fraud practiced upon defendants in this transaction, and thst in
view of the fact that it is so clearly established that Hunterowas
the agent of the buyer and not the seller, we conclude that the court
was justified in directing « verdict for plaintiff. Therefore,
the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, Pade AND WILSON, J. CONGURS
i
beyolqme one ed esw $a ted? eoteotbal Unsele sonebtve odd "todo
HAP Ra
~qorg ont to oesdioxug edt to rod tem ‘ed? at tos ot ‘redaw exord edt
tiseb rotastt teas taege e'rotmen soadotery es cow tk tadé bas’ qr8
Ms i Stree
tend toat ont soandorug atl od sone tote tbr ‘Mubmtely odd pod
sooasottingie. telvolireq om to el ao tae.kumoo s restau biog Wiitatssa
“eaters ssonzeq yaoms moteso selifmet B at tt tect awosit ‘Her + en
‘ef 8 ot
f0 ao teotnmoo a'xoxord odd x80 reLloe ot eved ot erste Lsex gat
ee) ae
“ aa0b th bas ro Wd sds to segs ont a rosomd oat sree _aev9 _—
] Dicer te
v gaat 202) sono at aide todd yonegs ot es gost ont oysedo sg
ed ‘abo oe
ot at sno ttetaonerqot onset eben tetaul 3 (6118. + {LI
, Lt 4. cao
‘te tacgs ont es oa bib od bael ont to oudey bas bi)
b Serpe. wots rhea oy 4
at <tovenoH Whagatate odd te $1098 odd ee ton bas Dor nies
i] Rs
new ered? todd stsethnt ton aeob —- end todd notatco a
tAfes Prema wie
at tedt bas 0 L¢onnnert side ai atashaeteb aoaw boot buat yes
esteorotant te bedeLidetae viens to ve ot a sould air
it to welv
: ie
frusob with edt stmLonee 9m yrosioe odd fox bus moqut! asd ro
eev
oie uw tt i PR ) +
_qotoored? sa VBR tthe sot tolbrey = gatsosr2h ol.
a: get age & ene ie
| sown ithe ob neh ne ten ee . ond
5 Piha le eat ae ae
sGRNRINGA: 8. %+ a4onn edd eh ew rend Pea vat
‘ unretnk ty tehmaret in ab are
oe te cht: "so “ ws losin Ct st ea
Tek OP met b: SME ROMMEL Lev Co eet Bik lt Rye) RSET Ao solbabe SH (See
soo spocrgoel Oe Reautenl ts Ek er ma ge ae”
Theil: 3 be aioe at Re ae TT ll eh Le te Fee
7 . x 4 | a f ms
or rk ee z 4 stg Ba a eal? Pies
’ + Wee se By Pe ge
Pts Beailt. Pere die areunn yy et A tunes hy cepa de ® cehiie eyo gd ean ey, aaa
te jedd hin eee: ae we
hives coheed aout wee he le cee
atta ack meyer Owe deat ett taheawon sot cele Gee
f
é yd
‘ ff er alia
emperor Nil
™
5 ager ,
Al, FROM
SUPERIOR “er
37593
ADELINE FRIZZELL,
Plaintiff - appellee,
Ve
y
MAYWOOD TEMPLE ASSOCIATION, a COOK GOUNTY.
corporation,
Defendant - Appellant. ke J Dox O&O.
MR. JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The plaintiff brought her action to recover for personal
injuries sustained by reason of a fall upon the steps leading into
the entrance to a building owned by the defendant and was awarded
damages in the amount of $1,200 by a jury and judgment was entered
on the verdict. This case is now here on an appeal from that judgment)
From the facts it appears that the defendant, Maywood
Temple Association, owned a building located at the corner of Fifth
avenue and Oak street, Maywood, Illinois. Part of this building was
occupied by lodge halls and rooms on the upper floor. That portion
of the building fsecing on Fifth avemie was occupied by the United
States Government as a post office. The entrance to the post office,
which was on Fifth avenue, was about 30 feet Back from the street
and there was a walk running from the street sidewalk to the building
and a cement step or platform near the entrance which was from three
to five inches higher than the sidewalk. The plaintiff was a resident
of Maywood and had been for five years prior to the accident. She
testified that on the day of the accident she had been in the post
office and left it through the entrance leading to the walk which
led to the street and when she had reached « point 4 or 5 feet away
from the door, about where the step was, her feet slipped out from
under her and she fell and sustained the injury complained of, She
testified that there was mud and slush covering the step and walk
and that she could not see the step because of the mud that was upon
it.
ey seays,
No cE siamo
eoLfeags = Rhbtabelt
a yee
»YTAUOD ZOOS a «KOTTAIDOBOA: SAAT GOOWEAM
| nektsroqroo
Sebo FOSS of “sinetioggh ~ “techno ine
jradOd MEY To WOTMTAO SHY agAvEIaG WoktIw ROITeOL aM
Iekoeteq tol tevovst of molten tod tdguotd thita letq oct pening
otnt @8ibeel eqete od? mogy [ist a to soasdx w bentesere ve aoteatah
“bhebtswe eew baa jnshactsb eft yo benwo pani bir! add inal
ie *
i
7 ter fe
boretns esw taemybdst bas yxut ay cos. ra to ‘tivoms ‘edt pats 7
d emghst tad? most fseqqs as mo oxed won el Sasd eld ‘olbaey odd a6
boowy#i ‘, fashmeteb edt ted ateeqqs t2 atest edt ‘port Py agen
« M#TET To tent99 edt te betcool gaibling & bestwo .coktaiopned otaat
paw igitb live eidt Yo Peet velomtitT \boowyem qtoomte 490 bas ounove ounove
Woldrée tect sJtooft tectu ‘sd? mo altoor bas eifed oybot we bekquoce
betiall sft yd beige enw ounevs ‘attLt no ‘yatost pabbs iu ud ould “at
aaa teoy oft ot sometine eit s0ftto feo. ses ta a RE Ie. os) e
teexte edd mort doef test Of twods ssw ,oumeve détil mo Bow doldw
-patbiiod edt of Alswobie teerte edt mort galrutus Aloe ental exedt bas &
esrdt mort sew doidw sonstiae edt ts098 mrotéal¢ 10 gote tnomeo 8 yo
| dnebivor s asw ttidalelg sdT ediewobla edt asdé redgid eedont evit ot
«gd stnobioos edt of soltq ataey svit tot aeed bed bas boowysi to
teog ed? oi ased bed ode taebioos ed? to ysb edt mo tadt beltisaos
goidw tfew edt of gatbeol eonsttme edt dauotdid ti *tel bas soltto
= toet 2 to 4 tated 2 hedoser bed ode aotw bas teotte edt of bel
moxt tuo beqqila Jeet ted .eew gota edt stedw tuods et008 edd sort
a eae sto bonisiquos vupat eit bentsteya bas Llet ede bas red vey
haw bas qote edt gatzevoo devle bas bum asw stodd tent | i tite
: ‘ po esw tedt bum edt to eausoed gota ont 998 tom bLueo ode |
On oross—examination plaintiff testified that she went
into the post office between 2:00 and 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon
and was there about » half hour before leaving. ‘She further testi-
fied that when she entered the building there was no mud or slush
upon the walk or step and that it must have accumulated in the half
hour she was inside. There was some evidence that people coming
around the building crossed the lawn to get to the post office
entrance and deposited mad upon the step and that this was what
caused the fall; she testified also that when she came out of the
building she did not take particular notice of the step, nor the
accumulation of mud.
Defendant contends that the walk leading to the Fifth
avenue entrance, and thereby into the post office, was under the
control of the United States Government and that the entrance to
the remaining portion of the building was on the side street known
as Oak street; that the entrance, the step and walk were unier the
control of the government and that plaintiff was there at ite invita-
tion and not at the invitation of the defendant, It is also contended
that if the walk was in proper condition at the time plaintiff entered
the building, so short a time had elapsed thereafter until the happen-
ing of the accident, that the defendant could not with reasonable care
have been expected to heave cleared away the mud and slush, if any
there was. It is further insisted that the defendant is not an
insurer of the safety of the people upon the premises and that the
deposit of mud or slush was one which was beyond its control,
it is without doubt a fact that the post office was
occupying the premises at the time of the accident and the lease
in evidence dated September 15, 1933, between the defendant company
and the Postmaster General of the United States, was for « period of
10 years, which would extend it for a considerable time beyond the
happening of the accident, This lease not only conveyed that portion
! ttew ode tant beoititeed tiltinisiq no ttantusxe~gueny AQ... |
Hoouretts ad? at doolo'o 08:8 has 00:8 rooted ooktto tog. oat went
| wbteod roseawt en8 sgatveet eroted twod tied 6 tuods exedt vow brs
| devle so bum om asw sted? gatbityd sedi Dexetay ede nedw add ‘belt
tisk edt wh betelumyoos eved teum ti tod? bas qote To wiew od? oq
giisioo efgoeg teat coaebive omoe asw oved?- .6bient esw'eits wed
eeltte ¢geoq edé of tex ot owal edt beesoto galblind odt brvors
‘faitw pew aidt ert bas qete edt moqu bint betisoqeb'bis sonettas
SRS two omBd bde aodw doit obs botthtaed ote {List edd beauso
‘ edt tor babes ent to soltea reluottrag exe? ton bib — petaciog .
‘GdYFa ent of gatbsol ALaw edt tad? ebmotioo tashasted™ © “O°
Gat tebaw eon ,90ftto taoq edt otnt yderedt bas soastitad ounovs
of S6aertas odd tadt bao trommtevod edtese’ bor fnv bit to Lotisos
“twomi teotte sbie edt ao enw gakbited edt to mobtroq grtotamen oot
Gd te has otew Lew bos qote odt .eonettae odd #adf jteette ie a8
| cotta eth te ovédd eew Tittaisle ter? bas tuomatevdg 6dt Yo Tormod
bobnoitaes ‘gels et $1 tiebasteb ot to nodtstival ott ta ton bad sole
bevedae YWitntale omit edt te noitthnoo toqora at dow few edt LE Fade
anoqqad edt Litas -tettacreds Beeqals bad oute W'ttoe 6d gitkhiud “edt
etae eldanoscer déiw tom bivod dnsbrioteb edt tadd (¢aebiocs edd to gif
‘ia ti ,devle bas bum odd yews Boreal evad of betosaxe mood eved
Re tom ef tacbseted oft ted? botetedt veilerdt of #7 “Jaow oreds
odd tedt bus eoetmore ost aoc Slqoliq off 26 Ytotde ent To xotwent
(foo {Wotdwoe Bt baoysd dew notte ‘eno dew dade te Sum to Wieoges
9 aw sotto feo edt ted ‘tos® 's ‘tdueb tvottin db er POO
| - Senet edt bus ¢eobtocs edt Yo omit ott ¥H adutmoxt ont ‘prityyuods
aba gnadnoted off neowied .SeGL al rodmodqed “Heteb Sonebtve Ht
to" ‘beireq « tot uaw ,cdtst® boriad oft to Lerened rotenmieo Soa
(edt Boyer omit eiisrob tends sagt Hf Bndtxe bitiow ‘dotiw jersey OF
- gittitod adit be Yovned ‘vino ‘fom vesol ead” stroptvos oft To gaititeagdif
3
of the premises which was occupied by the post office, but also
"the ways of ingress and egress thereto.and therefrom."
Plaintiff testified that after one entered the building
through the post office, there was a stairway leading downstairs and
one leading up to the second or third floor. A witness by the name
of Bessie Van Tassel attempted to corroborate the testimony of the
plaintiff by testifying that there was a stairway to the right of
the entrance to the post office, leading to other rooms in the build
ing. Her testimony is 90 indefinite, vague and uncertain as te
carry little weight.
A&A witness by the name of Jacoby testified thet he was
seeretary of the Maywood Temple Association and that at the time of
the accident the post office ocoupied a portion of the premises and
that its entrance on Fifth avenue led directly to the street; that
the rest of the premises were walled off and bricked up when the
post office authorities went inte possession and that there wes no
means of entering the rest of the building except by way of the walk
and entrance on Oak street. His testimony was corroborated by one
Thompson, the janitor for the defendant at the time of the accident,
and by one Heady who was the janitor for the post office premises,
This last witness testified that it was his duty to keep the premises
used by the post office, together with the sidewalk leading thereto,
clean and in a proper condition.
The evidence fails to establish the charge in the declaration
that the step and walk in question leading from 5th avenue into the
premises used as a post office was under the control of the defendant,
Where a party leases premises to another and gives the lessee exclusive
possession, it becomes the duty of the lessee to keep the premises
in a safe condition for its use by invitees, Mercovitz v. Hergenrether,
302 Ill, 162; West Chicago | ciation v. Cohn, 192 Ill. 210.
é
otis tyud ,eo0ltte feoq sdt id betquooo esw doidw geekmotq odd to
",mottetsdt bow,oteredt shergs bas eestynt le eyaw onde”
gathiinod eit bexetade ono cette tedtd beltiseot thhtnial® |
be etistenwob gaibsesl yeurlete s saw otedd ,eoltto teoq edé mguordt
‘emer edt yd eeentiv A srowlt bridt ro bnooee edt of qu gatbeol eno
edt To yacuktesd ed? e¢stedorre0 oF botquetts Jounal ma, eheeed.to
to tdyit oft of Yewriste s ecw ered? tadt galytitaet vd tildaiesl¢
| wbiisd oft af amcor roilto ot gatbeel geoltto ¢eoy ed? of somatine edt
‘ ot es mistveosy bas orgev ,otinitehal o@ el yromitsst 19H. ..gat
Lf * -etatgtow (OLstil ‘Yrta0
esw od fadd betttteet ydoost to oman edt yd eeentiw. Ars) ....)
to séitd ont fe tedt bee motsstooces oLqmal boowyeN edt.to yrsteroen
bat eoalmerqc oct to aoltceq « belquose eoltio teoq edt tnsbioos edt
gads proorte odd OF Utoorsd bel eunovs d#tli mo somattae att ted?
ett wtiw qu befottd Bas tte Bolisw erew senimerq. edt 20 geet edt
eh ew Oren? tact bas modesoeson. oduk taow sett ixodtus eoltho: teoq
8ksw oft to yew yo teeoxe gatblind edt to teen edt gatrotue to. aaaom
Biba ond vd betsroderres esw YRomtteot el .teotte As0 no eonastne bus
wien (tnebtoos ed? to omlt od? de taebaetob oft rot wotins edd .moaqmedT
a ssouinerq seltto teog eft cot sotinet edt esw one ybsell) eno yd) bas
“eoalnorg att qset ot Yub wid sew th tedt beititee? seeatiw teat pit
by otoreutt mene dinwebie edd dtiw redtegot .sottte taoq edd yd bean
8 | “stot? tbnge Teqoxa # at bas neato
noltirs Loeb edt mi egrado sft detidstag ot siiat gonebive eT Hiwatt
gtd ediet oxewe t4@ amet ginthoed! nottnenp ti dlsw bas qete edd tart
etnshaetsd edt to Lorénoo edt reba esw @olito teoq.s es Dosw sonimesq
a amused estecl ont edvig bas 1edtons of woeimoxq eonsel. virag 6 ered
~ apeimere oft qeedt of eoanel edt to ytub edt eewoood Shea ai
siasbtisiven .v stivoomll snestival vd eau pth slniaenal ye coi ?
lll see SO nse tgstooesh ofmousli onnoldd tool (SOL aL
The plaintiff was net upon the premises by resson of an
invitation ef the defendant, as from her own testimony it is clear
that her sole purpose in the building was to transact business with
the post office located on the premises, The accident happened in
the daytime, and if there was mud end slush upon the step and walk
at the time plaintiff made her exit from the building, it should
have been observed by her, Dietz v._ Belleville Jo-op Grain Jo., 273
Ill. App. 164; Jones v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 273 Ill. App.
183,
There was no inherent defect in the walk or step over
which plaintiff was proceeding at the time of her fall. The only
ground on which negligence could at all be predicated was the fact
that the mud and slush had accumulated and that it had existed long
enough for the defendant, if it was in control and management of the
walk, to have had a reasonable time to remove it. There is also
another question which arises in cases of this charaeter and that is
whether or not plaintiff had an opportunity of obmerving the condition
and, nevertheless, proceeded to use the step and sidewalk in departing
from the premises, The owner of the premises is not an insurer,
in the case of Kresge Go. v. Fader, 116 Ohio St. 718, a
somewhat similar situation appears. In that case the plaintiff sought
to recover because of a slippery floor occasioned by reason of people
using the entrance while it was raining and resulting in an accumulation
of mud and water, The court in its opinion, said:
“Owners or lesses of stores, office buildings, banks,
hotels, theaters, or other buildings where the public is
invited to come on business or pleasure, are not insurers
against all forms of accidents that may happen to any who
some. Everybody knows that the hsliways between the outside
doors of such buildings and the elevators or business counters
inside the building during » continued rainstorm sre tracked
all over by the wet feet of people coming from the wet side-
walks, and are thereby rendered more slippery than they would
otherwise be, The same thing is true in the hallways of all
{ e
as to aonzet vd aseimeta | oud nogy ton asw Matntats out Se all
tesio ai ti ynoniteod awo 19 moti es ,tashaeteh odt to miktativas
dtiw eecntaud tosanett of aan gatbliud edt at saoqrug efos rod tedt
st beneqqed tasbloos oT -eeaimexg edt mo hetsool eoitto So ond
Siuorie th t conthiel edt noxt ttxo nv cheat 33ktatada outs ath ae
SYS .200 alex) gorod eiliveliell .v sted rod yd bovreedo soed evad
GGA LIT ENS 4200 nodal § yrsces) roger -v geaoh 4AOL eaqh fit
atte eLsFis ad
tev6 qgete to Alew adi ai toetedb taetedat om asw exe? |
_ Uno edt oiist xed to emtd sit te gatbssoorg acw ‘ttaatalg Aokde,
dost edt sew betsotberq od ie te divoo onegitgon Moidw 2. Aawozg
| mano Detaixe bad tt tedd bas betalumyoos bet Sevle bas Swe, % t tam,
edt to taemegedam fas Lottaoo at sew ti TL ,tnshaeteb MS re, Aguone
: oels et etenT «tk svomer ot omle oidsaosset & bed eved ot ailew
| et tadt bas tetastsdo eid? to BOnBD as geaits dois Ao itaeup ‘tedtons
“noid tba00 edt gatvreedo to YWiautzeqgo ne bed Tittatele tom ro rodtade
‘galitagod ai ALowoble bas gots edt sav of Pebeoorg .eeeleritreven, bas
| stomirand os tom ef eaeiueng sud to tomMO oT ,Bentnorg. ext, gost
| 8 ABET 88 on BLL rebel .¥ -0_samend Yo 9ne9 OME AE 26 on
- higuos Ytoniels edt eeso tadt al .weagaga moktanthe Tabimse, Fakegans
efqoog to soesez yd hemeissooo xooit yreqqite 6 to eausoed sevooes ot
a ns ai gottinvest bus goiciss RAF at alidy senartnp edé gitas
ibise ,stotonigo atf af tryoo edt state, Ana, fem 30
. fit t . - Wy ns ik ty
"pt au ee, ee te ese edad °° 3¢
efg To & bi
__ghiaie ai eonss seyensing add Bats wa ma a8 er ob
betosrs ors atent er bernitaos » git:
PSs Safe Foret nor ot ow sper tatio ty ‘elqoog A
sae to. Apter 79) wsgutia Ae radia epeterat "gieyatle -_ ‘
post offices. It is not the duty of persons in control of
such buildings to keep a large force of moppers to mop up
the rain as fast as it falls or blows in, or is earried in
by wet feet of clothing or umbrellas, for several very good
reasons, all so obvious that it is wholly unnecessary to
mention them here in detail.
It should be borne in mind that this accident did not
happen in some dark walkway in the store where the shopper
found it necessary to go, It occurred in broad daylight,
and there is no pretense that there was anything to prevent
any shopper from seeing and knowing precisely what the
conditions were.
Not every accident that oceurs gives rise to a cause
of action upon which the party injured may recover damages
from some one, Thousands of accidents occur every day for
which no one is liable in damages, and often no one is to
blame, not even the ones who are injured,"
The reference to the hallways of post offices in the opinion
cited is apt, inasmuch as such premises are frequented by large num-
bers of the public, and it is well known that mud and slush is liable
to be tracked into and upon the approaches to such an edifice. To
the same effect see Murray v. Bedell Oo. 256 Ill. App. 247; Dudley
v. Abraham, 107 N. Y. Supp. 97.
According to plaintiff's own testimony the mud and slush
upon the step and walk leading from the post office must have accumu-
lated during the period of one half hour while she was in the building,
It is very doubtful whether or not such a brief time would be requis-
ite to compel notice on the part of the defendant or the person in
charge of the premises. The condition was not so inherently dangerous
as to eall for immediate action.
From the evidence in the record this court is of the
opinion that it is insufficient to support the verdict and, therefore,
the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the csuse remanded
for a new trial,
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND GAUSE REMANDED,
HEBEL, Ped. AND HALL, J. CONCUA.
te fottaoo ai anoeteq to ytub edt tom at #E .ee0itto teog
\> GY qom eof axeqqem to sexol egrsi = ge bs yeti thee oe pow dose
ai besictso si to .mi ewold to eliat #2 es igs ee ais: ont
boon yrov Lereves tot ,esiiexday xo ng ote ie feet sew. yd iv!
ot Yiseasoensy vledw elt #2 tant tvdo os IIs ,anoeset
»Listeb ni oxed medd aotinem ==.)
ton BLd tasbtoos 9 = Pig! ee at ented ed biyode I
gone oft oxede stOte edd ai youtLew aned omoe al moqged: 6: !
die tl yee beord ai berzyode tI 40g of yxseneoed tf bavot
.. tasverq of gaadiyas esw sredg tact sansterq:on alt vetoed?) bas)!
ont taiw vise iosrg gaiwons bas gatese mott 1 ides
~ eerow! 43
eeuco s of esit sevis BTNODO ted tnebioos Yreve sok
ES ROBARAR KoTOOOS Ysa 4 of Ytisg edt. deidy aoqy sottos he ©
ysh yrevs ryw090 atmebtoos to ebasavodt .9no emo mort
- het si 400 og eee mi ofdsif st eno; yp od ik
Ne
ers ow sano eft move fon .
Pe §
om alqo edt at seottto teeq to , Wyout iad edt ot sper-adeintoiat oat
F ae egal ye besnoupert OTs eos Imerg foue oe doumesnt tes at betio
" Efa.0 Coline
| ekdett at daute bas bom tect mwont Lfow ot #2 ‘bas ob tdug oxi to ered
ie ; wet
of oot the as dove ot aedosoreqs ond ocr bas ‘ovat ‘bedostt ed of
fis hem Ode Deis
THE oA eed 888 . sea foelte sues.
_ albus i aq 0 Ltebeg . v sexu ¢ ‘a lh ay ~ —
Ve rue Y “m
diane bas bun sat “ymomttess nwo o'titatelg of gatbro00 eae
mayo eves tesrm votite taog ot mort gatbaol ite has qete ort
2 gubbLived edt al enw esta oLtdd wed Led eno ‘to bodr9q oad gain otal
‘i satupes od BLuow euit tetxd = dove tom x0 ‘xodtedw Linttdvob yxov ev ‘ai 4
along oh mort
mt noere edt to tusbaoteb edt to tug ‘ont mmo “selton .
j avoregitab Utnoredat oe ton Baw ao? 2ht0o ‘edt “soulnorg ea hoot Patio
nok tos odatbeumt ‘xot Ifso oF Bs
a the : ond to al sur00 aise brooos odd wt ‘sonsbive ons ‘ori jain
| eon 22 toibrey adt troqque ot inotoltiwent ar ‘th test AO.
a hobammex Sen edd bas bearever a $xu00 oie ont ‘yo daemgiut ett it
7
. .
ae eer f
KeaL YO TET ae
x sAistst wan te tot
b 1 OF Dt hd
, casa suo ua uaensvast ‘raiDEUS © tS tasthnys
is Eey¥ i} <a eit
3 bite | sAB0HOD 8. LAD GHA eg TERE
Pri 3 ARS err Sa ra eZ Lees bite ee Lv
' y rare, bain’ ‘weer he ‘Veae fer ece wa eove ne ie
MN eM She SET. AS RAE? gdore dd OE the, ine Bd ;
}
«@
is on yeh ‘ TRY
; Poe Mey uel Lae gel gel @aghe ee abe ey Wee Bae! ge vi ro
ve
£ ar age i” a
37689 f tf Y
EVELYN KRUEGER, i APPEAL FROM ae f
fog
(Plaintiff) Appellee, . J Fi
SUPERIOR COURT,
Ve é
CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal GOOK COUNTY.
pares 279 1.4. 645°
(Defendant) Appellant.
MRe JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff, Evelyn Krueger, brought her action against
the City of Chicago to recover damages for personal injuries sus-
tained when an automobile in which she was riding as = passenger ran
into and collided with a landing platform located in the street
which, it was claimed, at the time of the accident carried no lights
which would indicate its presence at the point where the accident
occurred, The accident happened on the night of September 30, 1928,
and according to the t estimony of the witnesses it was very dark
at the time of the accident.
No point is made as to the pleadings or the instructions
of the court. The cause was submitted to a jury which returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1500.00 and no
claim is made by the defendant that thie amount is excessive,
The points relied upon for reversal are that the verdict
is contrary to the evidence; that there is no proof of actual or
combructive notice to the defendant of the condition complained of
and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as
a matter of law.
From the facts it appears that the accident happened on
Western avenue, which is a wide snd much traveled highway located
in the City of Chicago, Sometime in the year 1927, the city built
@ loading platform with which the automobile in which plaintiff was
t ts meal. 7,
, i
\ ! ‘
,*
be, hy cat i _ .,, 888
“Wax
WORT GNESI, ane! wi ga sees: urauvE
‘3 Vim bet im or (eo nieqes see
enone: 2900 ee eq to tos 6 oun»
Scebeoh 3 se & Ops wud ae: ome
| stantLoqaa < foment
ae
+9100 GH? 40 #0 LKLI0 ant canuvLsea HOBAEW sonveut AK:
teniage ‘mottos ted tfguiord erageued: mytovi ss S30: 98 ae i ; )
~eve soiirutal Isnosteq 10ot soyameb revecsr of ogsolde To tio edt
fas tegtesasy s 268 gathts esw ede doidw mi eliiomotus ns medw Deatat
teerte edt at betcogi mrettalg yadboal 8 itie bebhiiow bas otnt
stigil ot beixzeo taobtoos edd ko omit edt tn edoutsio aaw tt gtoktn
taebtoos edt e1sdw taiog edt te eonenetq att atavibat Bivow dotdw
8804 ,08 xredmetqest to tdgin edt ao heteqqad tasbtoos sift shoxeveee
-ixeb prev saw tl asesentiw edt to ywromitset ent ot ‘gntbro00s: bas
“éasbives ont to cult ot to
smettourtent edt to eyattbaady edt ot es ebam at tatog oh badat
4 Demroter doidw yrut s of Lottindes ssw oame0 odT “atwoo eilt Yo
‘om bas 00,00819 to mye oft ab tren belg | ous Yo Youat nt tLe
“5. g@wteesoxe ef time eldt tude tasbasteb eft yd sbeut ef abate
toLbrev odd tedd ors Lestever tot aogi heifer statog oat a of Ge
to Isutos to teovg of sk exvodd tadd jsoushive ond oF Yyxertaoo at
(Re Bentetqnon sottthnoo edt to tuebasreb edt oF soktod ovivouranee
es sonegiigon yrodidiviaos to ytling eaw ativatese edd tents ‘bate
i eek to wettan
«to beneqqed taebloes eds jast erseqqes #2 atost odd mort Sy
) botsoo! Yewdgid beloverd down bas. ebte 6 at Koidy jeunes anste08
#ttud vito ext ,TRCL e0y odd a ombtonod sognotst0 to ywrd ont at
a) an i: re Bijan: Pays
eaw ttitabeig doidw af olidonotuys ont dotdw ditinw wrottetg ark b
ee | ee eee ee he ee ee
a
riding collided, This pletform extended north from Grace street,
an intersecting street in the city, about 100 feet. It was about
three feet west of the southbound street car track in Western avenue
and five or six feet wide. It was six or eight inches sbove the
street level and at the north end of this loading platform was a
conerete block five or six feet wide and about four feet high. The
platform was loeated about three feet from the nearest street car rail,
It was intended as a loading platform for persons intending to take
passage on the street cars and was equipped with automatic lights
for the purpose of warning motorists operating their machines along
Western avenue. The lighting system was installed by the Welsbach
Company, under the direction of the city, and was operated by this
company under sn arrangement with the city.
fhe accident happened about 7 o'clock on the night of
September 30, 19238, and from the evidence it appears that the auto-
matic lights were out of order and had been since September 26,
A witness produced by the city and employed by the Welsbach Company,
testified that during this emetgency he would hang a herosene lantern
upon this loading platform and other loading platforms where the
lights were not operating and that he customarily started out for
this purpose about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon.
The car in which plaintiff was riding was driven by one
Tulke, At the time of the accident the plaintiff was of the age of
13 years and was riding in the front seat with the driver.
Tulke testified that at the time of the accident he was
driving in a southerly direction in the middle of Western avenue;
that the brakes on his car were good; that he was driving at a apeed
of about 20 miles an hour; that he did not see any lights nor did he
observe the obstruction until it was too late to stop the car. He
testified that his eyesight was good, but that the street was dark;
that when his Gar hit the loading platform it turned over,
§
eteezte eost) mort ditron bebastxe mrotéelg sidT .bebiifoo gatbix
tuode asw tL .teet OOL dvods ,ytlo odt at seorte gattoeerestal as
suneve xretes al doatt iso teertde bavoddtyos edt to teow post sordt
edd evods eaiont tigie to xte eaw tL .ebiw teot xia to ovit bas
& ssw maottiadg gnthsol aidt to kne diton edt te bas dovel tooxte
| rdgid geet 1wot twode bas obiw test xiv xo evit svold otsxonoo
iter “ao feerse teorsen odd mort fost sexs} tuods betasel baw zattala
ode? of gnibaetat anoets¢ tot maotéste aathoos 8 85 bobnetat acsw +I
stdgil oltemotus détw baqgivpe ew bas exse toorte ent #0 839888q
yao Le eenidoss riedt gnitereqe ateixoton galanee 0 esoqmig odd sot
j P ef
dosdalow ect yd belletent ase moseaya goktdigtt edt eunevs. recy
nt mote Sartia
aide ral Retareqe esw bas ,ystio adit to sotsoortb out reba «
Vary | tes ote
eYtio edt dttiw tnonegustis nus ‘reba Yisqno
to fdgln edt mo dooloto Y tuodea bemeqasdt inebtoos oat oe
-Otue sdt tedt areeqqs ti eomebive ad? soxt has cB8EL OE
oBS xedmetqeé eonia heed bed bas xobre to tue erew atsgit we.
.yeueqnod Mostatew out yd beyolque has wis eas ‘yd boouborg at ssenttw A
wrodnsl exoeored s gmed bivow od yonegtouws eldt gett todd beitis te aad
‘pad orose amtotésig patbsol redto bra mrotéslq gathsol eidt moqu
mot tho hottate yLixemodeve od todd bas gnitersqo toi “enen sidgtt
ze : moontette adt at Moloto Obs) tuwode onoarzwe mt Shh
EY) vit nevich ecw yaibix sew ti Hatele dotdw at x80 eat anes
to out ed? to eew tiivatelq edt tasbioos odt to ont edt th soattut
z stovith oft ddlw teee taort ont at ‘gmtbis asw bas axes er
: Rew ext tnebioos edd to omit odd ts teat boltiteo? ett ower
jouaevs ‘predeelt to eibhtm edt ab “no kd oextb vredewoe a a “palvis a
De ae
beoqa s te yaivicd sew afi dest iboeg exew Peal ated no “nodend odd tadt
ei bib xon atdgil yas ee ‘tos bb eat tet jtwod as ‘eLta 08 duods re
OH: »180 edt qote ot otal oot ew tt Lita moktountedo 2 ag | oo
yiteh nsw foots add tout tod boon, aw tigieoye aid, saat ben Ret
ii aan “areve beaut $i ‘wrottalg pathaak edt tid ts0 ate aorde tat i
ar Ree
Plaintiff testified in her own behalf thst at the time of
the accident it was dark and that they were going in a southerly
direction along Western avenue when they struck something and the
automobile turned over and that she did not remember anything more;
that the car (automobile) was not going fast and that she did not
see what it was the car (automobile) hit; that she was looking ahead
but did not see any light in the street.
Boebert Isendrath, 2 witness on behalf of the plaintiff,
testified that he also was driving south on Western avenue about
seven o'diock on the evening upon which the accident happened and
that it was quite dark; that when he was about 25 feet from the
island or platform, he was about to pass the automobile in which
plaintiff was riding and that hia automobile was about 10 feet
ahead of Tulke's when he saw the front of the island and that at
that time the island or loading platform was about 35 feet awey and
that there were no lights upon it; thet he passed the island and
drew up to the curb and went back to the scene of the accident,
Martha Schultz was riding in the car with plaintiff at the
time of the accident and testified that it was dark and that there
were ne lights on the platform.
After the accident plaintiff was taken to a hospital where
it was found she had received a transverse fracture of the right tibia.
We gee no point in the proposition advanced on behalf of
the defendant that it had no notice of the obstruction in the street,
it was constructed by the defendant and it would naturally be pre-
sumed that the defendant, the City of Chicago, would know where it
was located and the manner in which it was constructed,
There is evidence sustaining plaintiff's position that
there were no lights at the time of the accident, The direet testi-
mony of witnesses is borne out by the fact that it was admitted
to omté odd ¢e tadt tieded avo red mi beitttasd ttténteld —
yitedivos s al gatog orew yedd ted? bas drab acw th ‘dasbtoos ‘edt
edt bus gatdtemoa Youtte yodt aedw eumeve aveteow guote nottoerth
jeron garddyne redmomot ton bith ede ted? bas revo boaust eLidonotus
son bib eis gadt bas test gaiog ton esw (oLtdomo tas) 10 ‘edt ted
beods guttool esw ode tsdt ;tid (oftdomotwe) reo edt aew ‘tt tee oon
alt steorte odd at tigit yas 602 tom bib tut
“Nb tetera edt to teed mo eeeitiw « .dterbueer trode || OY SS
tuods suneve mretee! so dtwoe grivixh asw osLe od tadt beltivest
‘bes bensaqed trebloss sft doldw mouw antaeve odt mo XooId'o mover.
edt mort test SS tuods acw of mostw dante ‘{aitsb otiup ‘asw tt ‘teas
doidw at sLidouotus si? weeq of twoud eow otf ywrottalg zo beater —
test OL tyods saw enna ahen eid tadd hoe gatbix enw Yhttabelg
ots ted? bas bustet ad? to tmort odd wee od ody et odtut to heeds
wm Yews toot 28 twods eew mrottalg gutbeok x0 babtet si a omté ta: 7
has Sustet edt beaseq on edd j2i moqu widgit os eee Ge fadé
etnebioos eat to eneoa ait of toad tase ‘bas dxuo ond of ‘ oS cae P
pe odd ts thitabelg dtiv iso edt at gaibtr eae st Lisio® aa bai avert
oved? tant bas aitab gew oi tant boitivesd bas tmebloos - ee aa
smcottate edt no vit ra rs
erodw ist iqsor 8 ot noxed sew Yiientalg Heabloos’ odd ett (teat elds
eahdés tig ts edt to exutoant eetsvense® B beviooot et bw bawot asw te
to tissded no beonsvbs we tt keogorg ac? mt tntoq of Ny oelanatgpass
stoerte ont ht nolsourtade edd te aotton ‘on bast #2 Sad tn
~sig od yiletytaa bivew ¢i bas tusbasteh edt ye dete: ot 09 Baw #I
$i oxotw wood bivow .og80180° to yero ant \tashastoh edt ‘fay Demwa
3 ybetourtenod saw ti dokdw ab coanen ont ‘Sa bedeBel ad
ie nbsp tbody aithsdiber? pikaslbela’ bolbitie ks babi *°%* 7°
atdnod tootth edt \ekebtook ad¢ to omy oF #e atMgil on rn oxeiit
bedtinoe | eaw ad Sait toat ont ye tuo envod bt beeaen
4
OD a
» 4 ; 5 ; pi is ie ee, Bl M ¥ te "tine? wht Bode tod fe
4
that the automatic lights were out of order and had been for two
days. The jury could well draw the inference that the employee
charged with the duty of placing the kerosene lantern upon the
structure had not reached it for that purpose, prior to the time of
the accident.
if the defendant had placed the obstruction in the street
it was necessary to warn persons using the highway of its presence,
either by s light or otherwise. Its failure te have such a light
upon the structure in the night time would constitute negligence,
4s to the question of contributory negligence on the
part of the plaintiff, it appears that at the time of the accident
she was of the age of 13 yeara, The question of contributory
negligence in a person between the ages of 7 and 14 years is one of
fact for the jury. Deming v. City of Ghicago, 331 Ill, 341. On the
theory that it was her duty to warn the driver if she apprehended
danger, it appears from the evidence that she did not see the
obstruction and cannot be charged with contributory negligence if
the jury believed her statements to be true. The cuestion of negli-
gence on the part of the defendant and contributory neglicence on
the part of the plaintiff, was one ef face for the jury and we are
not disposed to disturb the verdict or judgment entered thereon,
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of
the Superior Court is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, P.J. AND HALL, J, CONGUR,
A te
{ 3
{ owt tot meed bad has rabc0 to gwo etew Biigll olsanotus edt tedt
eeyoldne odd tam? somerdtni edt work Lfew bivoo Yuwt ext eva
git? moqu mxbtnel snceoxed ed? gatoaly Yo Ytub ont Htiw hegrado
; te mid aid ot bail .oeogtug tedd xot tf hedosex ton bad oustointe
| | stab to0s edt
BA UK min te i katie bert tnsbaoreb eat uw papell
,ooueeeTg ati to yowdgid edt gotev enoarted stow ot Visesooon oan ‘tt
$iutl o dowe oved of orulist atl asetwredto to titght r vw nedtte
sdomogity on stutitenco bisvew emit tigia edt at outoutts one peat
edd a0 ponsgtigon yrotudiztémos to nottesuo ont ef Bh phases
tuebioos sd¢ to omit edt ts ted? exasqqs #2 (Wbtatate odd to Prag
“Yrotud i taco to acitaawp od? ,ereey EL to‘ ogs odt to sew Ode a
bo emo bf axsoy Af Ans T to Boye ott moowsad noaxeq & Ai sonegiTgen
od? HO LISS <LT 188 ,Onsotdo to wito .v gakmett” syrut sat xox Poet
“‘fehasdorags ede ti rovixh oat maw ot Ydub ‘ted eaw tk” ait! yrood
edt ode ton bib ode tect sowobsve odd MOLT exaeggs #2 .cognad
ti bonsaityen yrotutictnoo atte beguaid bd tonnhd baa mo tfourtede
chigen to notteeup eaT lett od OF atnonodsda Ted bevetied yrot ont
KO boieghigen Yrotudintmeo ban fuedavted odd 0 Freq odd mo’ ooAdy
ets ow base yrut edt rot dost to emo pew eithtatele ont to traq odt
" \nooresd borotne tromatut x0 tolbrey edt dutaib of bosogeth tom
m “ko oe ont Kananst eld ai boise anoeset ‘edd zat me
net twigoet bootie at b tamed xoleque 4
OHM TTA PIGOTT : da salioinan: ulamd
;
;
sy P De aeae SF Rae pAb = |
ssutito0 og uk GHA 4 jaa
rage dy bbban io. Bar
gist
a a | iby there &
tk wtterl ok eee ever
weerod al Giang ithe he vio wy
; ‘ae pe 4 i
i Jo f evans
‘Ate eit . ste
377 34 f & dna y Ca 3
CARRIE A. CROSS, he ? APPEAL FROM e
PLES
EAE,
OSE
aa he
er
i
Me.
(Plaintiff) Appellee, § ob
MUNICIPAL copar
Ve
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OF CHICAGO.
of AMERICA, a corporation, 96 2
TF Oy, i ee
(Defendant) Appellant. atoll Ag Ad
WR. JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This was an action by the plaintiff to recover on a life
insurance policy, issued by the defendant company, in which she wag
named as beneficiary. There was a trial before the court and jury
resulting in a verdict and judgment om the verdict for $2,000 in
favor of the plaintiff and against the insurance company, and from
that judgment this appeal has been perfected.
The insurance policy in question was issued on Bhe life
of James W. Cross on May 16, 1931. Cross died on July 37, 1931,
and upon the filing of proof of death, payment was refused. The
policy was one of that kind wherein the statements of the applicant,
in regard to his condition of health prior to the application, were
taken by the insurance company in lieu of a physical examination.
The application which was signed by him contained the statements
and answers to the questions therein as to his condition of health
and on May 18, 1931, he received the policy which also contained,
attached thereto, a copy of the questions and his answers, so that
at the time he received this policy, he had a further opportunity
in which to consider his answers to the questions propounded, upon
which he procured the issuance of the policy involved here.
Gross died a little more than two months after the policy
was issued,
The application contained a recital to the effect that
the statements and answers to the cuestions were complete and
~ \ aSTyE
\ \
a MOR ends ; ; s08080 .A MTARAD
aell A i ec ae
mel aAs LOTMUN 4 ead ( ds
4 7?
“OOAD IED io YWATNOD somanueuy at
a ie 5 a toisetog7109 «& oe
G i GO .AaiwG? © etasliegga (tasbastedy so" 96!
‘gRRUO0 BHT VO MOLMITO ENT GAvRVLaEa NOeTIW MOITAVy yMM?” ©
Stil s no seveoet of Mitatelg odd yd moltes ne Gow etdT’) © 9° °°
est sie dotde ti ,ymeqnoo teabmeteb edd yd bousel \yORlog sonettamt
vruk Sas gawes edt ersted Inictt 2 saw oredT .ytsloziemed as bomen
ai 000,88 tot tolbrev eft ao tnomsbut bas doLbrov # at gate teder
mort Bae ,yueqmoo somstwert oft teateye bas tkttmisla edt to xovet
-befostraq moed eed Laeqys add dnsmgtut dade
SELL odd 10 bosent sow solteeug at ySilog soustwant ef? © ~*~
“[EBCL WS YLot ao BeLb eeotd steel {BL yall ad weord |W Roiwt Zo
od? .besvtot exw taenyeq .ft0eb to toord to getiet ond aoqs baw
etisokiqgs oft to staemesete eit atenodw batd todd to en6 aw Wilog
“Stew ~noltastiqga edt of role it Load te Wess Lbnoo and OF Sreget al
guattenbiaxe Lsotewic # to wotl ef Ytedueo eoneivent odd yd moder
_ ginoustetes edd Rentetaes mid yd bongta eaw dotdw nokdsolloge “wd?
dtised to coitibnos sid ot as afeted? anotteeup-ent ot erewann bas
benistiee coals doldw yotlog edd bovieoer om (lZel {BI yok no bas
ted? oe ,etowens eid bas amoltteeup edt to yqoo 4 _otetodt besostts
qinutroqce reddtut 0 bad ed’ ,yollog elds bevieoet od emt edt te
ogy ,hsbavoqerq snolteeup edt of atoweas eld tebieaoo ot doidw ak
sored bevlovat yotleq edt to eenaweed odt beret ed stoittw
wtied eft tetts adéaom ows madd or0em oL¢til « beth ase’ vi, |
rib
2
true and should form a part of the contract of insurance. Among
the questions propounded to the applicant and the answers thereto,
were the following:
17a. Have you ever had a serious illness? Anewer No.
17e. Do the answers to Question 17 a, b, o, d, and f
constitute a complete statement of all the severe illnesses,
surgical operations and hospital and sanitariua treatments
which you have ever had? Answer:Yes.
22e Have you ever had dizziness or fainting spells?
Answer: No.
22. Have you ever had disease of the bladder? Answerl No.
235. Have you ever had albumin, blood or sugar in your
urine? Answer: No,»
The question in the application designated 17d, reads as
follows:
"Had medical or surgical treatment in a hospital
or sanitearium? No."
Appended to this question appears to be a notation that the applicant
had had an operation for appendicitis in the year 1906,
The records of the Illinois Central Hospital in Chicago
disclose the fact that he was an inmate of thet hospital from
February 14, 1927 to February 37, 1937, for diseased tonsils and
secondary anemia; that he was again an inmate of that institution
from November 28, 1930 te December 18, 1930, for cystitis, which
is en inflammation of the bladder,
The death of the applicant, a little more than two months
after the date of the policy, was represented by the attendinse
physician as due to cerebral hemorrhage and that the contributing
causes of death were diabetes mellitus and hypertension. A statement
made to Dr. Dowdall of the Illinois Central Hospital, by the interne
in charge, which is in writing and bears date December 19, 1930,
shows thet Cross stated that he had run albumen in the urine for
years and had been susceptible to fainting speAls. At the time of
his admission to the hospitel, the examination showed that he was
running pus in the urine and had some badly infected teeth which
were removed while he was an inmate of that institution. The
h g
gtomi ,.eoneryeni to tostinoo odd to drsq # mrot biveds bas ext
,oferodt erewens odd bas sacsviiqqe edt o¢ hebaveqerq sqottesup edt
:gatwolfot oft stew
OH tawedd er eee evoitoa 6 bad teve voy Sal epee
bas ,b .o .d ,2 VI mottesud of arowane od at tett
_. goeeentii orevon oct Lis to thometste stalqmoo « 6 dels 4:
gttemteett mulistiaga bar iat scent ae Bees be I Leos |e
sBOY:7owenA
Selleqe gaitnist ro Se bed T98v8 HOY ova ‘ne
“yo st owana
oo dvowaama fxebheld edt to sanssib bad reve. vo bin Od «88
seoy ai tenue to boold myonygins bed teve Ree
soil ;KowanA foukcu
6s abeor ,b3L betangized ng tee ifaae ott ak po tepenp, edt deinceiitt
Ptead SP bans:
thase to 2 Lgiei
dusollogs sft tedt soltstex * ed of exseqqs molteep widt OF bebdeqgd
-80@L xs9y Ont ai aitiotbooqas tot mottereqo He bed bad
ogsotd® ai Lndiqeoh Lexéaed elontf1I ait to ebuovse it :
moxt Letiqeod tadt to stamni xe adw ed todd d08 ‘edt étutinks
bas ellanot beasoelh rot ,YS@L .TS yrewrdet of Veer OL yrackde®
ne nottutivent tedd to otemat ne aiogs aew od tadd jalaots Ytoidoode
dossin wititero rot oeer BE cedmeost of oer .88 redaevell ‘wort
- yrepbald 6dt to néhtaumetta as ef
ed¢on owt nsdd etom #létil s ‘ dmaot faqs edt to dédeb edt) 0" 8!
| smbbnotts edd yd botasnerqor eew ,Yollog ert “to oted eit rette
Sabtudixtnos ord tedd Baa égedvtomed Lsrdorso ot ovb es wetdteyt¢
tnometete A emolenetreqyd bas entitien setedsis’ view thse aedite
| enredat edt vd ,fetiqeok Lartaed dtonkict ‘edt to Lfebwod $80 of oben
“080 GF redmeoed 6¢8b eraed bas Qattiew ‘at ei ‘Aokitw” gogtede ate
tot edics odt af momectie mut bad sit ‘tant botnte waoHO dat ewords
“to omit sat tA yakdoqe gattaisr of sialiqooass’ a dB
asw od tedt bewore nohteninexe odt ,iotiqeed edt o¢ s ya tel
doliw ddeot botoatak the Onod bad bite edbed’ bite nilGa
ad? .nottudtient tent to edamal no bow ot otha ‘boven ox 6
faticgaot « at iuemtsert Lsoigtse x0 _ssouben ben
OS eee ee ee a ee ee ee ee
Aaa
3
records of the Illinois Central Hospital also showed that he was
examined in that institution on November 7, 1930 and on November
15, 1930.
From these facts it is apparent thet he had concealed
from the insurance company in his answers to questions asked him,
the fact that he had had a serious illness and that he had been
subject to dizziness and fainting spells; that he had bladder
trouble and had albumen or sugsr in his urinés
in the view the courts have taken in regurd te the issuance
of this class of policies, it is a matter of no importance as to
whether or not the answers were made with the intention to deceive,
The vital question is as to whether the insurance company had ¢ right
to rely upon them as true at the time it issued its policy. The
questions and answers pertain to material matters and their falskty
must have been known to the applicant inasmuch as the application
was signed by him and was also made a part of the policy which he
subsequently received,
The Supreme Court of this state in the case of The Western
and Southern
igurance Company v. Tomasun, 358 Ill, 496, has
ennmnciated the rule in such esses in the following language:
"In am equitable action for the cancellation of an
insurance policy upon the ground that misrepresentations
hed been made as to facts material to the risk, it is not
essential that the applicant should have willfully made
such misrepresentations knowing them to be false. They
will avoid the policy if they are, in fact, false and
material to the risk even though made through mistake or
in good faith, In ted States e d Guara CO»
Ve SESE be aks 205 Ill, 475, we stated this rule in
the fo ng languege: ‘The law is well settled, in its
application to ingurance contracts, that a misrepresentation
of a material fact, in reliance upon which a contract of
insurance is issued, will avoid the contract, and it is
not essential, in equity, thet such a misrepresentation should
be known to be false. A material misrepresentation, whether
made intentionally or knowingly or through mistake and in
good faith, will avoid the policy.' The same rule has been
applied in many other jurisdictions."
The Supreme Gourt of the United States in the case of
&
esw od t4i¢ bowode vels Letlqac! Leréas0 atom {Lt odd ‘to ebxreest
-ged@evoll ae ine O8@L ,8 tedmevol Ho moftutiteni tudd ai bent kmaxd
syattwed to earn
beLeviiie’ bed od tant twetaqes et tt stont seeds wort -
quid Seder 686 Ideas ob éxsiteal eid mi yasqnot eonmneant at mort
aeed bed ed tedt due eaontlt ‘euoltoe s bed had on teat ‘tot ont
bap ca bed od test jaileqe gattaist bas sesnter tb of toep due
| “-Otity etd mt cegee to dowd ts bad” bus ‘tiduoxd
| sonsueel odd ot btsget ai meant eved etiu0e oat wety ods at
| ot as eexadcecut on to teottem ws et tt ,eslollog % aealo etst x9
j
.
| savieosS of soltuetni odd dtin oben ore Stewans eat tog, x0 xenteey
«tigix & Ded yasquoo soastuent edt redtedw of Bs ‘ef 0 keeedty: Lativ od.
.
eg .yotlog efi beweei #2 emit edt te owed we mode ‘nod Yor et —
Wtalet riedd bas erodtem Latzevan of mistxoq axewaas: bes eno keen
foktsollege eid as Houserat tueetlqys edt ot wom a30¢ oved temm
\ ‘ed dokiw yotlod ot 26 tung sehen once eae bea sid ye odgtW Ba
Eis ‘ te) - ~bevisosr Wineupoadve
Tasman Yo sase sd¢ at state aid to dod oceomgedie vt duroewe
regewgasl gutwoilot edt al #6ab + ese i ove at hota
as to moiteifeoaso ont ot moites eldstivpo ate are
enoitataseergetsin tect baworg edt
tom Pa 7k sal ent eat coade 24 ;
8 Sy. 89 iT hE OL
yori ae Od of Wade it padvor anol? tis Ep oral
£ pies seu edits Ga”
Qe LSE Siw bie Ye fi 90. we i tL we ee etd + Doo:
ett a Hs Liew at aor
Mice seavienn A.abtee Ade ME gripe ni oy
ef EB ep my TLE ae _
were” SS tere ar Rea Kae) bey trond od :
ann nisdd ead elux exes orlT qe ata
KE i a,anoidotbataut, “roate. Van Nase Me. 4 del.
et 5 ae
to onso edt ai sotate betiad edt to tuo ama
tt ag | CER ty
4
Stipeich v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Oo., 277 U. & Sli, in its
opinion, says:
insurance policies are traditionally contracts
uberrimae ei and a failure by the insured to disclose
conditions affecting the risk, of which he is aware, makes
the contract voidable at the insurer's option. *** even
the most unsophisticated person must know that in answering
the questionnaire and submitting it to the insurer he ia
furnishing the data on the basis of which the company will
decide whether, by issuing = policy, it wishes to insure
him. If, while the company deliberates, he discovers facts
which make portions of his apvlication no longer true, the
most elementary spirit of fair dealing would seem to require
him to make a full disclosure, If he fails to do so the
company may, despite its acceptance of the rag
decline to issue a policy, Farquha » A. B. De
737; uokengie v. } rthwestern Mutual Life Insu: il
Ga, App. 285, or if a policy has been issued, it as-8 a valid
defense to a suit upon it."
It would seem unnecessary to quote from further authorities
in support of this proposition, but cases similar in character which
have followed this rule are Rostenkowski v. Chicago National Life
259 Ill. App. 673; Cohen v. New York ASs
256 Ill, App. 345; Lewandowski v. Western & So Life Ins. Go.,
241 Ill. App. 55; Gennaldi v. Metropoliten Life Ins. Go., 274 Ill.
App. 663; Perking v. Pru¢ 69 Fed, (2 Ed) 218
From our ¢xamination of the evidence we are of the opinion
that the answers to the questions propounded were untrue and that they
were answers to material facts which, if known to the insurance company
defendant herein, could well have caused it to have refused to issue
the policy in question,
In view of the fact that the applicant, by signing his applic
ation, represented the answers therein to be true, which were in fact
untrue, it would serve no good purpose to remand the cause for a new
trial, The judgment of the Municipal Court is, therefore, reversed,
JUDGMENT REVERSED,
HEBEL, P.d. AND HALL, J. CONCUR,
>
ett ak ,L12 «2 .U TTS ,.00 consmuenl o8tl mathlogortell .v dotoatse
| rayae .soiniqo
etoaténoo yilénoitibact ets eetotiog eorsruanl"
eecloalb of hbetwani sdt yd erwilet « bas
eS aotnm ,etews ai od doidw to ,delx sf% paitostis ane
| aove *** .noltgqo e'yetent odd te eldablev ftoatiace oft
gnizewace al tadt wood tem aoatag wigrteabon yom t20m Heda ae 0"
ei of convent edd of df guittingre bas ot siiaiile
fiiw yrsqmoo edt doidw to atesd ext mo ey Peo
exyent o¢ notielw tk .yollog # griivsel yd .xodt _
etost arvevoceib ed ,eetaredi{eh yaasqmoo edt elidw 3 gait ae
oat ,ouxt repool on noltsotiqgs eit to sro x0 a .
erivuost of moose bluow satlesdb thet to pts pe p> ne ne wi
ini # edsm of een
a
ae
%
edt os eb of alisi ef TI §|.etnwotneih
ey weet le — pousaqenoe obtea a Pye settee
; Nad! ome pry, s oF “saneten Te
aolttzosieus roddeut sort etoup o¢ Yrsaseoonay mese bivow er
ivy oat
|
* fotdw refostesdo ak eatinte sesso tud 2049 Laogozg, sige to pa ad ~
|
5 gitd Lenoitell onapicd .v bXunounoteog ozs olur i
: ae ce Teg +v gede® 4875 .qqA -£4% O68 ,yascmed 4
20 2b Eee se .y ddamobawned i265 yah 14% 988
au ov Sbieamep 782 -agh oft fae
S (ba S) shot 68 ssolionh Yo .00 sa0k Lattaaber Y aubdnod 188, HA
Che eu ay
“nolatqe ect to sts ow gomsbive edt to coktantmex® xo » EE bing? state
“youd tedd ‘bas suréns oxéw bebauoqorg ‘ano £Fa0up oxtt ot exews 6 eat andt
WSAMCO eonsivent edt of awond tL wHoldw atost Ietxotan, ‘ot _Browaas Tow
oueat of doauter ‘event: ot tt beavso eves flew piwoo cans eaten
taenp pe aa" oe
i ae No ie He rr
Mm iil ae 30 pate : kis
ME
‘ .
ile Bt pact tt owetaw
‘ea su
ee mamuneyte: r : ‘ee ) wea e CFT eed
“aE RTRR ; MP ede apa | Dias: Be ‘g ry jo ; | oe pn ng spy
nag lla pecan age taped wine
teed aid Lane ‘sate OMT Ky | 8UOKOD st ae
pe
gamete 1D bee nt
Hae ree, teneesy ati ont
37759 f “xf
a
CHARLES SCHUBERT, fi f J APPEAL FROM
i i anny
Plaintiff and Appellee,
MUNICIP
Ve
THE PEOPLES TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK Or
OF GHIGAGO, a sorporation, 9 TOT A eC A Bt
Defendant and Appellant. & o bolle VX
MR. JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE GOURT.
Plaintiff, Charles Schubert, brought this action against
the Peoples Trust and Savings Bank, an Illinois corporation, to
reeéver the purchase price of twe bonds. The first was a bond for
$1,000, known as the Rose-Mont bond and was purchased June 8, 1928,
The second wes a bond for $500, and was known as the 63rd and
Fairfield bond and was purchased June 1, 1929, Both of these bonds
were sold te the plaintiff by one Keefer.
At the time of the purchase of the first bond, known
as the Rose-liont bond, Keefer was employed by the Peoples Trust
and Savings Bank of Ohiesgo.e At the time plaintiff purchased the
second, the 63rd and Fairfield bond, Keefer claims that he was
employed by the Peoples Securities Company and not by the Peoples
Trust and Savings Bank, The plaintiff testified that he purchased
both bonds on the premises oceupied by the defendant and through
Keefer who had a desk in the quarters occupied by defendant bank,
As to the first or Rose-lont bond the defendant claims
there was no fraud and, furthermore, that the statute of limitations
had run. As to the second or 63rd and Fairfield bond, the defendant
Claims there was no fraud and further that the sale was made to
plaintiff by the Peoples Securities Cogpany and that, therefore, it,
the defendant, is not liable.
The cause was tried before a jury whieh returned a verdict
in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount on both bonds and
» soctaled has ttttateld
ili gg B98
th \ Moma tamatA RO NX TARGUHOE BEIRARO
ae Xt
a bifid
= Cad
mat ate ees Prt as wa TeURT, ane at
stb iterogvos ¢ \ODADENO 10
"at KO Tes en s
Wermas bus. rt a
al SuT TO MOIMIGO EMP GRRUVIGHG wOBITE ae nie tao
horns tottos elds tiguotd creditor sets Yr tomdel
ae FRAO
OF jitoL¢sr0qr00 abtonk £1 a tol epadvaa bate tears? we lqoeR ont
pro eed & sew terlt edT sebnod owt to solr eaadomus ‘od rovboor
«aed (8 omw% Soesdotugq eaw has bued: taol~a08 edt am aweod "000,59
"Bae 5x83 ort as awond eer bas (0034 tot haod s ssw Saonee edt
ebsod e¢edt to dtod yeser qi snuh besedotug aow bus: baed blelieher
; ; yteteed ono yd ttitaisiq ed? at Sloe oxen
wont ybned tetit edd to sendotug edt to emit odd tA ft pas
‘teptT seLqost ond yd beyolqme ede rSteoN {baod snoM-sea08 edt- ae
“edt beendorue Itiduielg omit oft th \Logsokdo: to Aaed egtivet bas
"ow od todd smielo tetesX .baod BLlottriet bab bx88" ode vbnoo0ee
geltgoet eft yd tom bas yntqmol adtticuoe? ‘ediqoet ont yd nite ‘
“pbebdoniey on todd hettitect trttwtalg of? .dae@ egmbvee bana tet?
"" tgvoutt bae’ tasbasteb edt yo betqubco esetmery oft nd ahnod tod
etosd tuabesteb yd belquvoce statraup edd mt deeb « bati onw rere0x
emtsio danbasteb edt baod tmoM~eeof to tat? ede ot @A
paottetimil te etutete edt tant .etomredtist bine bubrt on sew, orodt
trebasteh ent .baod bLeltrist bee bro +o. baoose edt oF eh fist” bad
ot oben aew else edt tastt godtret bao buart’ on Baw oroutt antsio
wii ,stotetedsd tet base yosqpod eo ltiaqyost ealqood ont iM tiitatsta
robrov & bentuter dolidw yrot 6 exoted beixt ue eat ae '
prs ebaod died mo tayoms Lint ed? tot Wtatela edt to ee mk
ay,
‘ -
An! Fae
2
judgment was entered upon the verdiot and an appeal prayed and
allowed to this court.
In view of the fact that there were two sales and in
order that the issues may not be confused, it is advisable to
consider them separately.
It is admitted that the fose-Mont bond was purchased
June §, 1928, and was sold to the plaintiff by the defendant
through Keefer and that Keefer was the agent of the defendant at
the time of the sale and purchase, Plaintiff testified that Keefer
at the time of the sale told him thet there were no defaults under
the trust deed securing the bond issue and that the monthly payments
ef principal and interest were promptly made. He further testified
that he was given a folder deseribing the Rose=-lMont bond and that
Keefer told him that this would be a desirable investment. This
Gireular described the location of the building, together with the
transportation adjacent thereto, the value of the land and building
and the annual income, It also stated that there was a provision
in the trust deed securing the bonds under which $22,000 of the $80,000
loan was to be paid between December 15, 1927 and December 15, 1932,
It alse contained a provision to the effect that the borrowers were
te deposit each month with the Peoples Trust and Savings Bank a
certain sum of money which was for the purpose of paying the principal
and interest as it fell due.
The books of the company introduced in evidence discloses
the fact that at the time plaintiff purchased the bond, there was a
default in these prepayments which were necessary to pay the interest
and part of the principal and that at the tige plaintiff purchesed
the bond very little had been paid in on the trust deed to take care
of the interest and principal payments and the defendant had advanced
eee. ie
&
bre beystq ineqqs as bas tolbrey odé soqu beretae aew taenghut
| » atmo eidt ot bewolle
mi bas eine owt srow sredt tant tost edt to weltv aj
ot eldnaivbs at tt aa tena od fom Yau aovent ont seat: raawe
’ -Uoderaqee nous rebianoo
abunbiied Bay haod tao a0% ont tedt bettimbs et sd ity
taebasteb out yd WAtaela ent ot bloe sew bas Ng «8 orust
ts tasbastob edt to tnege eas Rew _reteed fade bas sotoox dguord?
reteox taslt bettitost ‘wWitatels sseasiorurg na fsa ad eee Bored
ce haw atinsted on eTew ered? tert wid biog olee edt to omit odt ts
s stnonyed Yidssom out dedt bas eveet buod ot gatuoee peed taunt et
WO
ie botttinet sedixwt of sobou Mtqwora ores ‘teorotat ‘bas Leqtontzg te
a aay UGoo4 iho Fw & “
_ tesa bas dood taol~anok oa gatdironeh robLot 2s noviy Baw wy By
Ae: ewe Die BY « Hs
eid? .toenteevat eidertest 8 od biwow eid teste med Blot ret
on? thy xodtogos agaikbLtae out t0 mottsool ont bodtxoned ob cateonts
pack Lind bas bass ot to oulay od? .otexedt ‘tases hs fo Ltstroqeners
i aotatvorg s ao" etedt tans betate oals m ‘enoont yew oat ee
, 000,08} edt to 000,889 dozdw robrur ahaod ons antsuoes heck dust ett nt
: S861 ,2f cedmened bas 0s 2a ‘rodmeoed poe bog ‘ov Gb Uae moet
WOOK Bey iihaf * én hove
oxew preworrod edt tant soorte edt ot aotelvory § wee valet
woe ag oye : eth tee?
8 Anse spatyoe bas taut? anigost odd si¢in Atnon dinom dose theogeb ot
i Ewen Oe nee eel Me pet.
¢ “ teqtontsg edt galyeq to seoqtug odd x08 anw o.in ‘os to awe mistreo
: eA ts i bigs og odat bas
oud ier ¢ Jj
& _nesetonth somablys at booubortat wasqnao ont ‘to sie Se !
cing Dorin t. Ob Gil, wedge
4 8 Baw etedt abated edt beessloruq aaentadg omit ede Ve Pend
q Be: ey Pees eS
teorstal ond — ot YEsaeooen ozew Monde @ etromyerors benkt dé ai #Lusten
SAE RGA See aah ES
_ Deasdonug tt ftatele eke ont ts tadt bas fsqtoateq odd to bas
ot HOO’ Ot VE Fe Reliads hg
exso efet ot beeb tautt ote Oo ‘ah bie ood bad elttit
AGEL Fame We ie abbr wie wy
boonsyds bed tnehaoted edt bas edaonyog, aiikei rei one 8 _ pret - to
Re we we ‘ |
ni? vot wWitendelte nae ta move’ a 1
RR ee
ee s,) ee... | -e
e : x
3
considerably more in order to take csre of these. In other words, at
the time plaintiff purchased the bond there had already occurred a
defaplt in the provisions of the trust deed, These facts were not
disclosed to the plaintiff and was a m&terial fact which, if known
to the plaintiff, might have resulted in his refusal te purchase,
. The interest on this bond wae due semi-annually and payable
December 15th and June 15th of each year, The defendant continued
to pay the interest up to and until December 15, 1930, and according
to plaintiff's testimony, it was not until the next installment in
June of 1931 became due that he was refused the interest on his bond.
in October, 1932, plaintiff went to the bank and tendered
the bond plus the interest to a Mr. Weakly of the defendant company,
The fact of this tender is denied by the defendant but it is admitted
by Weakly that he did talk with him on or about this time concerning
the bond in question. It was a question of fact for the jury as to
whether or not a tender had been made,
There is no force in the contention that the statute of
limitations had run, inasmuch as the defendant had concealed the
defaulta by the payment of interest to the plaintiff on its bond
and thereby kept the obligation and the agreement alive. Skrodski
Ve. Sherman State Bank, 348 Ill. 403; Elmore v. Johnson, 143 Ill. 513.
There were sufficient facts in evidence from which the
jury could have found that at the time of the purchase of the bond
by the plaintiff the provisions of the trust deed which secured the
bond had not been complied with and that there was a default which
the defendant concealed by the advancement of the money sufficient
to pay the interest charges,
The second bond, known as the 63rd and Fairfield bond, was
purchased June 1, 1929, Plaintiff testified that at the time of the
: 4
| ts ,obrow tredto al »eeedt to oreo sist af Tebt0 al ron <idaxebtanes
# beriwoee Ybserls Hed ered? buod edé beasdouwg tti¢atelq emit edt
tom o1ew aiost eee? .beeab tawrt edt to onotetvorg edd ai tiystod
mwont ti ,doeidw toct Lelzetin & esw Dae tthinielg edt oF Seeotonth
ssestorug of fsayter sir at betiuses oved tigtm ddaistg edt of
— eldsyeq Sas yileunns-lmwee oub asw buod eldd ao sestedat edt ct eet
hosaticos tasbnoteb edt ,teey dose to Mrel oawl has Atel xedmeoed,
gukbrovos brs s0beL oot tedmecot fttnw bas ot our toeretnt ect ¥e t:
| sbaod asl mo fuoredat edd Beavtot esw oa bast oud hada reer Yo pon
berebaes bas daed edt ot taen titatsLa aStGL yredoteo al.
trsqmoe Jasbaoteb edt to yidsav +x s of tnexetnt odt ews. sie edt
; bet timbe at tt ted tasbaeteb oft yd beinsd et robaet eidt to, ) tont of?
_ gattarsonoe omit nidd tuods xo mo mtd dttw ALet bib of tadd ylAsow xa
om as Vout. edt tot tos to agiseoup a sew tt sotteesp: 7 aod, edt.
sobem need bet rebaet 8 tom 19 Seid
ome te otetate edt tedt aoitaetaoo edt af eotot om ai sted? + eat at
| ,
e oat beLseon0o bes tashasted ort es doumesnt avr bed eng itet tats.
bod att mo Yhttntety pdt of teeredat to, tmemys, ont M.etdeet
re i ij
i te hk “ih er
biaborie vevits ¢nousergs edd bas goiteatige edt teed
| MG LIT ENE gogulol -v exons ;80b yL4T OPS ina .
got doidw mort eomobive mi atoat sao totiiva exer oredT bok ecw
Forte edt to eashormg oft to Bas | ont sed todd brwsot ovad binoo vent
odd beurooe so eter deeb fewtt ‘odd to enotetvesg. out “wiitatsda, edt xd,
_ Ho kate Lust’ 5 Rew ered todd bee dt be Detiqnos ne 9d, fen. bad Gaul
“tus testis yorion edi be ‘tiengonsrbe edt ye boiseonco, tasbrst ol
‘ 1 ak Ms sere f ek ib oto of.
; enw | sbaod biotretst bus bBo odd as wom _sbaoe baod hagsen. Oe cid te
ete to omit odd te godt bettiteed deitatelt *88OL 4% onus aed
Pe ee eas
4
purchase he had a talk with Keefer and was told by Keefer that there
were no defaults under the trust deed securing the bond issue and that
the monthly prepayments of principal and interest had been promptly
made; that he was givem a folder, describing the property, which
was introduced in evidence, setting out its value and stating that
provision was made for monthly deposits of principal and interest
beginning April 15, 1927, in order to systematically reduce the loan.
The account kept by the defendant shows that at the time
plaintiff made his purchase of this 6érd and Fairfield bond, there
had already accrued defaults in the prepayments provided for and that
the defendant was advancing the money to take care of the interest
falling due and the maturing bonds. in this regard the situation
was very similar to that surrounding the evidence in regard to the
Rose-Mont bond purchased the previous year, If, as a matter of fact,
the books of the company showed there was a default in the provisions
of the trust deed at the time the plaintiff made his purchase, and
this fact was known te the plaintiff at the time, there was such a
concealment of a material fact as would vitiate the sale,
It is insisted, however, on behelf of the defendant that
at the time this latter purchase was made Keefer was in the employ
of @ Company known as the Peeples Securities Company, and that he
was acting as an agent for that company and not for the defendant
and that, therefore, plaintiff's right of action, if any, was against
the Peoples Security Company and not against the defendant.
Plaintiff testified that at the time of the purchase of
the 63rd and Fairfield bond, he entered the bank and found Keefer
there seated at the same desk where he was when he, the plaintiff,
had made his previeus purchase of the Rose-Mont bond and that he
did not know that Keefer wes employed by any one other than the
defendant. If Keefer was in the employ of the defendant, it would
7 ’
pened tade wereed y¢ Blot eow bus reteod déiw alet s bad of evsdoxue
tend bers ouent bood edt yaivvece boob terry edt sehay etiveteb on ort
Ytquord seed bed teeredni bas Isqiontiq to svuomyeqer¢ yiddénom edt
doidw .ytreqorg edt yatdirees) .rebLol = mevig ssw of tary jobem
ted? goiveta bas oxvtev sti vo paltiee .conobive al heowbortal saw
Faoetetal bas Leqiontiq to etieedeb yidtaom “et oben ew aotetvotg
| gftaok edt soubor YLisoltemeteye oF tobro ak ,V8@L ,3f Linq gutantged
gat? of ts daddy swodld taehaeteb et yd tqed tavooow eT: ) ys of
‘erent ,baod bloltrist bas 263 eld? to casdoty etd eben thidatalg
. od base vot bebivete esaemynqetc eft wl stivsteb beurecs Wistrle fad
- Peeretal ant to axso est ot Yeaou od? gntonavbs usw tasbnsteb edt
-. tebfestte edt breyet eidt ml .«sbaod yaitotem edt bas eybogat List
- eft of bisyot al sonsbive edt yatbavotie tadt ot «slike Yrov ese
aioe? to retsan s es (tT »tsey auoiveng edd besadowy, ‘buod aol-oaeh
pwoleiverg sd? of ¢lustebh » ase ered? bewods yasquoo ott to sdood edt
bas ,ceadotyg eld obem tiiinkely od¢ omtt odd ¢a boob teutt edt to
4 dove eew ovedt omit edt te thidntalq edd of awomd ew tost eidt
seine en? sfaltiv bluew es test Latratem # to taswlasodso
tedtt taebasteb et to ifeded no yrevewod detetent ef ID 6) 8
ss RSLqma odd 45 ow TOTCON oben sew sendowid Todtal utdd wmtd edits
- od tedt due .yaeqmeD asttinves® eafiqeet edt es awonk yaad. s to
frebssteb dé tol tom bas yraqmeo tedt cok taege ase patios aay
featkegs esw pyas TL .soLfes To digit w¥tidntsle Qorotored? ytediebges
duebacted edt fatiage tos bas ydtaqned 'yeityoss selyoet al
“Yo eesdormg sit to omtd edt te todd bettiseed Trttalslt ©» Aiod.
= ggRGOX DauSt bas toad odd horeras of \.bacd Slottubet has brsdcodt
| ititatslg edd .o modw pow Od oxedw deeboomes ledtots ‘betde |
8 Gb Fed bas Lod tnok-ea0% est to sesiotuy waaitaibtie: oan oat |
Ss piel
5
we liable under the circumstances in this case. Moreover, the
defendant would be liable if it held Keefer out as ite agent or
permitted him to occupy a position, with its consent, which would lead
an unsuspecting person te presume that he was dealing with the bank,
t Swiss Az. Golony v. Pease, 194 Ill. 98; Stock Yards Go. v.
Mallory, 157 Ill. 554,
From the evidence it appears that the Peoples Securities
Company wes organized sometime in the latter part of 1928, and opened
its offices on the first floor of the same building in which the
defendant was located on or about January 1, 1929. The facets in
evidence show that the defendant company had attempted to separate
its trust department from its regular banking business, A number of
officers of the Peoples Securities Company were, or had been, officers
eof the bank. A number of the employees of the bank were transferred
to and employed by the Peoples Securities Sompany. The bank
proper occupied the premises on the ground floor of the building
located at the corner of Michigan avenue and Washington street
in the city of Chicago. A main entrance to this building was next
door to the bank entrance and persons entering the building at
the main entrance entered a corridor which extended around the bank
and out upon Washington street, a side street intersecting Michigan
avenue, There was an exit at the rear of the bank on to this .
corridor and directly opposite was an entrance off the same corridor
to the offices of the Peoples Securities Company, which was in the
same building, but whose main entrance was on Washington street.
There appears to have been a sign over the door on Washington street
which read: "Peoples Securities Company." There was also a similar
sign over the corridor entrance, In other words, employees of the
bank or its patrons could pass directly from the bank to the Peeples
Securities Company by crossing the corridor, without leaving the
building. It appears that the lease to the premises occupied by
a
ed? ,xovoetoK .«9ae0 eldt al scsonstenworlo oft tebaw sidsil eg
‘wo tregs ati se ¢uo reteoT bled th th efdalki od binow taebasteb
| heel Bite 16 tw etagenos stk dtivw .soktieod & yaqoote of mid dott imersg
Maa Ot Mitte gob tesh aow od tant omwasea of aoated equneecmnralien
i oe
ie st aa
aeivivrrose anole edt tedt peti #£ oowebive pilin min he Sr eete
’ @it Woldw mi sakbited omes oat Yo roolt terkt At mo seottto até
wk etost off 0885 .f yrauaet tuods to mo Basbool baw thabeetes
- gteteqen of betqmetts bed yneqmdo tnebnoteb edt ted wollte eonebive
«fe ted A yeeemtend grtined eelugor adi mort Yrewtredsb tautd Bit
“ mteLtO (nbéd bad TO (Stow Yeqmod eottitvese Belqoed oft TO eteORTTO —
«Petreteaert orew Anke ont to wesyoleme oat to reduna A .anad SAd TO
F gFOH3 Ynsd sdf .ynecmo0 eshtix098 eelqoel oft yo boyelane bre ot
pith Eted edd te toe? bavorg ect m6 Roatmorg end Detquooe xeqoRG
teerte dotgaidaey bas omeve negtfei to rearoo edt a) bobsoer
txen sew grtbltic elit of edtettns alam A -ogsotdd Yo ysko” edt mb
ta gatbiiud edt satrotas enoeteg bab eonerine Saad edt of to0b
Mosd off haves bebastxe dotde robitr0} 6 betotns sonertze atem edt
“megifolm anttosersdn! teerte ebin s .deorte hotgmtdeaW mogtr tivo’ baa
ghne OF mo Mee ott to asor oft te tixe me now ovodt “Gemmets
robbttod' buns’ eid tho sonettde He baw BFLevegO YEtborEy ba SOBE<keD
gif mt cow doitiw ,ytegqmod eetticwoel eelqoed onff ‘to woottre bar ot
stoorte cotgntdstt oo paw onsets offen Seodw tud \gatbLivd diss
tootts netgatdest ao roob gif? revo myte & meed ovat OF exseqas ened
gettwts s ols asw oveitT javapnedes fe sana ‘we ‘baer Holkdw
edd to eseyoLoms’ ,ebtew Yoddd at leonextad YobErroe ate ae gh
nolgosd edt o¢ ane edt wort ores wasq bivad ‘endrtad ber Ye dita
gift! gatveel todtiy (robirtbb! edé gatenote Yo pene spinaw "I
ad betqyeos seetmete oft OF BeseL od? sadlt i qe
.oorte
6
both the bank and the Peoples Securities Company was in the name
of the bank. At the time the Peoples Securities Company began to
do business, the bank assigned a portion of the premises to the
Peoples Securities Jompany, but this assignment or sublease was
never assented to nor received the approval of the owners of the
building or its agents. While it may be true that the bank and the
Peoples Securities Company were separate and distinet entities,
nevertheless, there appears to have been a clese cooperation and
mutual buginess relation existing between them,
At the time plaintiff purchased the 63rd and fairfield
bond, he was given 2 receipt by Keefer which bere at the top the
legend:
"Peoples Securities Company,
Michigan Avenue at Washington Street,
age
Phone Randolph 8800,"
The circular which was introduced in evidence and which
plaintiff testified he received at the time of his purchase bore on
its back the following statement in large print:
"Since 64% 1s a very attractive ykeld for a conserva-
tive investment at the present time, good business judgement
should lead our customers to select one or more of these
bonds at once, *** #
Undernaath this statement was the legend:
"Peoples Trust and Savings Bank of Chicago,
Real Estate Loan Department,
Michigan Boulevard at Washington Street,"
From the receipt, one purchasing the bond might infer that
he was buying from the Peoples Securities Company. From the circular
the purchaser could just as well infer that he was buying as one of
its customers from The Peoples Trust and Savings Bank. While the
address given at the top of the receipt of the Peoples Securities
Company was Michigan Avenue at Washington Street, the fact remains
east odt ai enw yneqmo? eeltixuoes sefqoed ade Sua dnsd edt dtod
_ OF maged yaeqnod eeitinves® eelqood edt omit odt #4 ..aasd edt ke
odd of eeatuorg ont to nottzed 6 hamytany Anad pat gpagatend gh
asw eeseldue to tnommglees sidd tud « yateqm90 soktinueet seLqee
ed? to axenwo oct te Levorggs edt hevieoe: tom ot betaeans toven
po ft Ae Anes ont stadt curt od Yam #f otiay. .wtnegs et2 go wakes tant
| _spedtitne foaiteth bas etexsgee stow yasgmod gettinuee’ aelaoed
hts aottsxeqooo anoles need aved of axsogue eTedt .asesedtxeven
3 emods avended guitaixe mottelot seenthud Levtum
“ploitsist bas £188 edt Boasdoruy Bktatasgemtt edtth 4 oo)
eit got edt te exod dotdw xeteed yd tqiecer s oevig vow ed) ,baod
vetiaus Ae < Ries shegaes
oe ope: a o2,sott suns eet. sieallindel
| ' ror ee oan” ees
Lasmnlloas eoxebive at boouborsat eaw tiétde <eltiorto 6a te boreoat
no etod sasdoru aid to omit oft ts bevteoer Sd Boltiseod ‘YWtalelq
saeked egret ai ‘trometsté ‘patwoLtot edf aad att
dr tgp @ tot Bledy svitoarttes yrov & at ate" “sae tm set
ee a
seed to 8 ai to om eas Bot pr lomar sbaod
sa, AbMONOL eat aa trometate aldt déommrebal
nts xoue0ie0 4 Piet pre Won? a8 Meek cohten dtea™ heedtte our 49
_ Metaorde sotgntcest a Susvelwel asgideld coal iid edit
tant xotat tate dood edt gatesdorug amo ctqheeey OAF MORE gat
xeiuorte edt mori .Yequod geifixuee® selqoed edt moxt gatyud eau ed
tg ane a8 gatyed son on tadt meted hon om dens Abiuoo i
ee ‘epatye Ate ROUT, |
is ‘ eoltixuaed eeigqosd edt te tqteoes fet; to w. ae or mre
-—— endamen 90h out «toon motgmisany, ts sxmews 2 5
<3,
=
“=
—
=
er
ee =
~
@
that its correct address was Washington Street at Michigan Avenue,
if we consider its entrance and address as upon the street on to
which its offices opened. On the other hand the address of the bank
was Michigan Avenue at Washington street, which was correct, and
was the entrance through which the plaintiff passed at the time
he made his purchase,
There is no evidence in the record which shows that the
plaintiff was at any time upon the premises of the Peoples Securities
Company. If, as a matter of fact, he did as he testified - purchased
his bond in the quarters of the bank from Keefer whom he had known
ag an employee of that institution and through whom he had made
ether purchases from the bank - he had a right to rely upon the
fact that Keefer was the banks agent and the question as to whether
or not he was put upon inquiry by reason of the acceptance of the
receipt and any other facts in evidence, was for the jury.
If the bank permitted Keefer to transact business upon
its premises and to hand out circulars with its name attached
describing the bond in question, together with its recommendation
to customers to purchase as shown by the circular, it would be
estopped to deny its responsibility if a customer was misled by
reason of its action. These were questions of fact which were
properly submitted to the jury.
There was no error in permitting proof of ‘other trang-
actions with Keefer at the bank, It had « direct bearing on the
question of plaintiff's right to regard him as still an employee of
the bank. Wor was there any error in admitting the circular in
evidence, inasmuch as the plaintiff's testimony was to the effect
that he had received it upon the premises of the bank from a person
whom he presumed to be its agent.
y
e2unevA aayidoltM te teett® aotgnides® asaw aeetbbhs tosrtoo atl fade
ot ao teorte odd soqy a8 agethbe bas eonaytas ett teblanoo ow ti
dasd odd to esorbhbs ed Saed todte edé a9 ,»bensqo aseitto ati doidy
bas .f0eTx00 asy doidy .toonte mofgaident #9 euneys segidolh eee
out od? te bogesq tiitaisig edt dotdy Aguotdl? sonsttae adt.aew
7 | pastors ald ebanod
_entd ‘tat arose doldw bxooer edt as enanhive OK BL SHOAT pes roe
_aottizue9t goigoe% edt to seetuerq odt moqu amtt yas te acw tttdmisia
Poasdowg ~ bottitaes of as Dib ox .toet to xottam 9 2a «2h. oNanqmed,
swona bas od modw teTecd mont Aned st to exotiaup add mt baod eld.
(aban bed od pode Aguotdt has aoltutiteant tadt to eoyolque 18 Bs
ot mogu yiez ot tigis s Sed od —ansd adit mort ARS AANEIN reste.
tedtodw ot es noltasyp oft baz tnogs sided eit sew retsod tart toe)
ent to soastqeoos edt to noaset yo yitupal aogu faq sini sd tom x0
eTrust edt tot enw ,sonebive at etost “4odto ws bas tqieoex
mogy sesniaud tosaneart of 1teteed Dott tmrsg dnad edt so |
‘bedostte omen aft dtiv oxefwerts tuo Baad of Bus asetworg ets
“no ttabmommooet etl délw tedteyet wit0 tfe@xp ni baod edt pate <oa0b
ed bivew th ,xelvorto oft yd mwode es saaforug oF aromoteue of
W befatn soy xemasayd 2 th Ytbitdtenognes até, xno! ‘ot bongotes
ersw fo tctw fost to etolvesun ater beodt “uno htoa. att ‘te conser
| a Ntwh, edt of, begtindva, xizecoxa,
~anert redto; to, teong galstimzec al LO7%9, 9m, all etodT
exit no gaiteod, toerib « bad #1 pxadd odd ie xstood dtiw enottos
to soyolque as Liite as mid breges of digit eltitiaisig to solteeup
i . ft tsivor to edt gaitttmbs ai roxre yas, ered? een tol. cadena
: “gosnte. ond ot Bow Ynomttoot a!ititatela edé es oumeant. «9
noero: § mort aed oft to segtmerg. edt, soqu. th. bevdener., bed. os sat
_ stags ett ed of bomuserg ed, morly,
to oenperh oon ddoss pam wxanee? he
Rte 2 an eo
Whether or not plaintiff tendefed back the bonds within a
reasonable time was one of fact for the jury. Plaintiff's testimony
was to the effect that he did not discover the fraud until September,
1932, when default was made in the interest payments, The delay
between the time of his discovery of the fraud and his tender in
October 1932, was not of such great length as to make the cuestion
ef laches or delay one of law.
| We find no error in the record which would justify a
reversal and for that reason and the reasons expressed in this
Opinion, the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, Pede AND HALL, J. CONOUR.
sdhded xiii buartt odd revooeth ton Mprgctnsareioreriie: yoo
‘yetsb edt ataomysq tdovedat oat wi ébow ‘tow tioned itd eer
nt tobaet eid bas bustt sdf to yrevecerh utd to omit edt Heowied —
motteoup edt sien of es ieee avrg sfowe Yo ‘You saw .S80x ‘xedod6o
Pe fd deci ene mi sf See Sie fut Ge sedoat to
s Ytlteut bivow Holdw Bidter ont ai cétve Od Bast'dy” {2448 ;
ra at boveorgue ancecex odd bas pecs mn
a __shesiains et bia ‘(toi veel to ‘tuomgbt Ont | oittqo
% eoi~osk ted? Fo as 1s an
-" oc ¥ ¥ dl a
is i &) . red A ow . Lee >. ae a nor ilbiliok - 7
dh hy rae ae ? Oo fMonReo?s fh you v7 ded SAE & wigs 7 vs oe x0
ee
;
oe
he
is saan adi Atlin weelourie tiie Saad of hae tenner nig "
2 St ues wor 3 |
Angee ss
mye a ey
7 v
idvew 22 _xedverto ed? Yo Beene 86 we adowsry ov conan
betolu ghw. xvoutuegut i yttite death wii, xa oe.
goiite Poet Th Bttaifesvs setae a nae bts b94 btow ane
sal, SA nt ad sean aa wy . a
~
é
sie heist cue an ‘eo if tid
eed Y ¥ any s ¥ th . “ ,ey a $ a
37770 an a f
&
Fl & 4 5 a a
EDWARD He MORRIS, Receiver of the” * APPEAR FROM Se
Binga State Bank, a corporation, Mi
Appellee, MUNICIPAL a
Veo
OF CHICAGO.
Appellant. 979 1.4.64 G'
JOHN W. BARNES,
MRe JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal te reverse a judgment of the Municipal
Court of Chicago entered upon the verdict of the jury in the sum
of $2,123.68. The suit was instituted by Edward H. Morris, Receiver
ef the Bings State Bank, based upon a promissory note executed by
the defendant in faver of the bank and dated June 12, 19230. The
judgment note contained the usual clause permitting the entry of
judgment, which was done, and on motion the defendant was permitted
to enter his appearance, plead and defend. The questions of fact
surrounding the issuance of the note were submitted to a jury.
The defendant takes the position in this court that having
denied the execution of the note under oath, the burden was upon the
plaintiff to prove its execution, and further that Binga, president
of the bank, was guilty of fraud in the procurement of the note and
the receiver oceupies no better position than did the Binge State
Bank,
From an examination of the evidence we find that there is
ample proof tending to support the fact that the note was in facet
executed by the defendant,
Morris, the receiver, testified that about two months after
his appointment as receiver of the Binga State Bank, he talked with
the defendant and was told by him that the note in cuestion was all
right and defendant admitted signing it, The defendant, himself, in
the course of his testimony confirms this fact by acknowledging that
Bs aL stonntd .tasbaeteb od? «ti gutmgte bettinbs 9
iy,
~~ _— N
ee ee orrte
. MOST waits ‘\ \edt to rovieoes ,SIMiOM .H GAAwax
ie si of —gtohtetogtee 8s. .daed estes? agate
00. JATIOLMUR: eoollogia roti Ottawa
ae
eORADTHO 0
t e a e eSSRAAR oW WHOL
rs) b 5 auf 3 i Qe y @ la stuoliogga ith ate wapeted
, ' ’ sie weston sn
eTAUOO SHT YO MOLMIGO AT GERAVIIAC MOBDIW BOLTEUG AM govoar eo
Leqteiasl edt to énomghut s eetevor ot Ieeqqs as at aldT
mye adt al yxvt ed¢ to tolbrey odt mnogu betgtae egsotdd to tryed
roviecs® ,eitroM .H brewbd yd betutttani esw tive odT, BOsESL—8¢ Xe
yd botwoors efom yroseisorg s coqu beesd ,laed ofede egnta edt to
eiT .C8@L .SL savt betab bos daed oft to rovet at tusbasteb edt -
to yrtae edt gaittimreq sauslo Levey adt boatstace ston taemgbhyt
bettimvreg sew tacbastsb ed¢ mottom ao brs ,emob sew otde tromgbyt
“fost to saottesup ex? .basteb bas heel ,sonetaeqqe abd reds of
-YIut 2 of bettindwe exow stom edt to comswast edt gatbavorzue
gaived tedt trvoo etdt ai aoltleog edt asides? taebactob odT —
edd nowy new aebrud odd .diso tebay ofea sat to moituosxe edt bolnsh
taobinstq .syaid tart redtécst bas no ltupexd etl evotq of Ytitniela
bas ston oft to taemotwoorg edt ai bustt to ytiivy asw .tasd edt to
etst? agntd edt bth asdt sottheog tetted om eetqubes tevisoés oft = =——
et ovedt tedt batt ow somebive ed? to noiteantmexs as wotl om \
¢oet at asw often odt tadd tost edt troqqwa of gatbnot ‘toorg ofqne |
: stuabasteb edt yd vaiearsd
xotte adtaom owt dvods tadi bo ttitest «etovissor odt itt sis =
dtiw bedtlet od ined etst? synth eft to revieos es tae ; I:
| fis gsw aolteeup at stom edt taut mtd Yt bLot sow bas oa na
2.
he signed the note, but attempted to avoid on the ground that he did
not have his glasses with him and relied upon the statements of Binga,
president of the bank,
The question of fraud in the procurement of the instrument
was submitted to the jury and we see no reason for disturbing its
verdict nor the judgment entered thereon,
Objection is also made to the giving of certain instructions
on behalf of the plaintiff. We have examined these instructions and |
find there is no error which would require a reversal of the judgment,
The defendant introduced evidence for the purpose of showing
that he was ignorant and unused to business practices and did not
possess sufficient knowledge of affairs to cope with the blandishments
of Binga, president of the bank, and was thereby induced to do something,
in the signing of the note, which he otherwise would not have done if he
had the requisite business experience. On Gross-examination he was
asked certain questions in regard to his financial transactions and from
this it appears that he was not only well versed in transactions in
real estate and the signing of notes, but that he had secured patents,
recovered judgments at law, dealt in cashier's cheeks and was familiar
with mortgages and mortgage transactions. It is insisted that this
eross—examination was error in that it was an attempt to disclose the
financial situation of the defendant and thus prejudice him in the eyes
of the jury. It is apparent from a reading of the evidence that it was
attempted by the defendant to elicit the sympathy of the jury because
of his poverty and ignorance concerning business transactions. By his
testimony he opened the door to the cross—examination that followed,
Where one oper the door in chief, great latitude is allowed on cross-
examination. The cross-examination was not for the purpose of showing
his financial worth, but rather to overcome his defense of ignorance and
lack of understanding,
We see no reason for reversing the judgment and for the reasons
ae i
.&
«-BEb od tedt hovers od? ao bievs of botquetta tud ,oten oft beagte ox
| eagai® fo etaenetste ot aoge bet lox has. wtd tbe poeasly als evant tom
9.» shaad edt To tasbiaerq
taesuitteni od¢ to taemetmootg das ai Suett to moiteeup odT
ati guidsutsib cot moaset of ses ow bas yrst edt ot bettindwe, sae
soeTadt batedae saab, edt tom toLbrev
| eel aerated nistroo te gatvts edt of Sham oeis ei noltoetdd
bas avoltourtent ened? beaimsxe eved of ,ttitatedg edt to tisded ao
etremebut edit to fsateves s exiupay blvow doidy sorte os af etedd batt
gaiwods to seoqum edd tot eomehive beouborid! gasbasteb edt.
ten bib bac seoitesig eaentamd of beauns bas tnateagt aew ed tedt
4 atnemfathasid edt dite eqoo at aatetia te sghbedwond taeltoltive aaeeaoq
juntdtomoe ob of boobai ydered? sew ban .inad oft 20 taodlieerq..syatd to
od tt snob evad son Sivow satwredte od doldw ,oven od? 20 gudmgta edt at
eew od moltentmexe-saczt m0 «soneizeqxe ensniend etielypet. edd bad
bas aneitessasss Istomentt ald of bisger at eagiteeup atstzee betes
| si scoitecsesst? si beetev ilew yino ton esw ani fadd ptseqqs ti eidt
— apteeten beru09s bed od tadd tod ,eoton Yo galagtea edd bas. vtstes Leer
E teiilast ecw bag edvede elyeideso at siseh .wel te staomghul betevover
phat dedt betetenl ei #1 .anoitosenstt egsytzosi bas, segngitom dtiw
edt esolocth of iqmetts ae vay ti tedd wi tocxe saw sotdentmexe-peotl
“goye ont at mtd sotbuterq sudt bac daabusteb edt to noltsutie Letengalt
- gaw df ted? eonebive od? Yo gatbser s most tuoteqqe ef #1 ynet edt to
seusosd yrut odt to ydtoquye edt ¢tofe of sasbasteb edz, xd botametts
ein Yi .anotionanstt eesniend gatareoneo sonetongl bas, ytngveg sid to
sbewollot todd soiteanimexe~aeots edt ot took edt beaggo hg panne?
mteors oo bewolle af ebutital tuerg .teido, ai rood edt Gis wna
givers to sxoqreg sdt wet don esw mottagimaxo-overo, eff, .notteningxo
bes gomarongi to saneteb eld smocrevo of tediet Ssiiciadh idee
arenes oat rot bas tment edt ‘ gaterever rot noaset ‘ja os OW
. ektapt add to: aemite oe
he
3
expressed in this opinion, the judgment of the Municipal Court is
affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND HALL, J. CoNcUR,
ME in esta it 86 ea ned saat
<2 MRS t
gages Le ateoratata aft mony bOES
SCUUTTTA THEMDATE vanes ust to §
#aeeoriend odd to teaenereeoons Git ab bonct to oto Aid oearp edt
tl nabwiedh cok aoenet C8 die 6 OKO ¢
oo engbrs., _ Se i ont : om
eaohGoyetcul wistreo to zasekp oc? of obo eota ef wottoseaa m4
Baie anoitcritest eoasic heatanre ive o 4ttttatelg odd, te ‘‘iaded 0
qtteeeiat edt to losrerg ns polenes Slvee dakde 2959 2 ah onedtd int
— Meyer att TO? comedies beavhergad tanine Ye ellie
Pee Sth lng aegdgocey eeenheam oF | LaBues Sate JAF
. aiaenielicinig ads itive ageo-ad. a8 ietio to oebehacedl Bag
Bocteitenae th et heuting qiepen? ean ten ..taed odt. Se. trode °
hind tr ‘oRet. wyed tous Adwor gelwiediy oo deddy ,otet, ed?) ae
ear wd seltoctaotineet® 20. ghemiseyes anapiand Jt,
meet bes arn dingnins? Leaner 2? -rigpes. sxeyet ah mist d tw ,
| ui uooiioceses? ch Sgener ilew. give sen. gen, of. poet,
antpoies beritte bes of jatt, ted qpetou a i Lag he. si
pdt hed vow fan exons oly ddim at tig, ang, ta.8
oR dag bear bate tend, ai af, sito bitmaps tt, sytem, pr
ace. Seid oe 2D OF FQRSIER MA BB, os. teats 3 ROUTH, ceil wikte
anys ee ch win eotfuten: raat. bas: Sept eh edt tom i? ba
| @or €2 tadyY seeehive aft ke gothewt « Bett ¢aeceqge ef 4
~~ ad vot adh he ee tceengpr pete, 220kfn ot sanbashes,
fhe best: einen LINO ERE me ema: yeraewante anqatongy Me
sbowellet tual? avitantmmpeanor® edt oF mpg adh ms :
weRere me Demt ie as, ovine hte, EDS boas 8
aie kiraate Ter Reaeyeay nate wet Pent. ere amitagt dive utiles
bees. ‘uate he, teh all adil oc a t? : af, Fy
eaten: ‘eae ‘wet baw sagt ‘nad ant 20
37808
Zo
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE o . ra
ANNA MILLER, Deceased,
Petitioner - Appellee,
Va
COOK gounry.
ON APPEAL OF WILLIAM LAZARS&I,
Respondent —- Appellant. 9 rd 9 [ : A. 6S 4 ae
MR. JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Frank Lagareki, administrator of the estate of Anna Miller,
deceased, filed his petition in the Probate Court of Cook County,
praying for an order on the respondent, William Lezareki, to turn
over a certain mortgage, ‘together with the mortgage notes secured
thereby, and a real estate bond in the sum of $500.00, claiming
that they belonged to the estate.
William Lazarski defended on the ground that both these
evidences of indebtedness had been given to him as a gift by the
deceased prior to her death.
The Probate Court found in favor of the administrator
and an appésl was taken to the Circuit Gourt of Cook County.
Evidence wes heard upon the trial in the Circuit Court and a judgment
order entered in favor of the estate. The cause was tried by the
court without a jury and in view of the fact that the cause will
have to be reversed, it would be useless to discuss the evidence
in detail.
During the course of the proceedings in the Gireuit Court
the defendant introduced two witnesses, Berenice Lazarski, aged
19 years, « daughter of the respondent and « niece of the deceased,
Anne Miller, and Edward Lagzarski, aged 18 years a son of the
respondent and a nephew of the deceased, Anna Miller,
The court heard the offer of proof made by counsel for
the respondent as to what these witnesses would testify to and to
x a08ts
aS Ne ATA 4 aE? 30, ARITA ABE AE
~ MORE a .
Yoo TruDAIO julien ~ ronotsited” ”* °”
aT
hah 00
4 LDIGEARAG MALILIN YO JARSTA MO
fofod .<A.l Cys
stasilegds - tmebadaeen® pyre
«TRUOS FHT FO BOIMIGO TNT GAAZVIAEC WOSIIW AOITEUL .fe ;
«TOLLiM and to etatee edd to rodextetaimbs ,tdurstel anert ©
aYtawed A000 to ¢xwo0 otadord ods at moltiteg ald beLit sboasooed
atet ot ,tuietexed msilliw ,tnebaoqeet edt ao tebto as tot gaiyerq
bouscee aston egagtitom edt diiw tedtege?? ,egsgtiom aist1eo s 19v0°
giiwtsio ,00.008¢ to ave elt ai Daod otatee Iser s bas .ydoredt d
-otstee add of hegaoled yor? tedt
event déod tadt havors ed? ao behwoteb tdersed matitim
edt yi tty © es mid of aovig mood bad seenbotdebat do. eoonebive:
eitsob zed ot wie preonen:
totexteinimbs ods to rovst at bavet twod st¢edort edt.
eutavoed Xood to truod sivotiO edt of modest wa as bas
taompbut o bas truo0 tiworld edt at Leitt edt aoqe bised sw eonshiva
|. gt yd belts eew gauco edt .etstee oft To tovet al boreiae tebro
" Eftw aes ont tadd fost edt to wetv at bas yrut 8 twodtiw txu00
| sonobive edd seveeth o¢ saeleay ed bivow #i ,beerevet od ot ovad
; ettetob at
-try0d tiuorld edt at egatboeoorg ont ‘to oezuo9 odd gated dks aie
bogs ,tXeressd eoineted ,sonnentin owt beoubotiat tusbaoted oat,
: " ghoaneook edt to seein s bas tasbnoqest edt to rotdgush @ «8ts9y ef
edt to noe 8 gresy Sf begs ,tdatesed brewbd bas. st0LLlM sank
reli sani ,0oaseoeh od¢ to wedgen s baa sismmeenel
= Leenuon yd Shem toorg to zetto edt brsed tryoo eat |
at bus of Ylitest bivow eevsentin evedt tadw of es pe ao
2
a limited extent, over objection, heard their testimony in chtef,
Both of these witnesses testified to the fact that the documents had
been given to the respondent prior to the death of the deceased and
that at the time she stated that she was giving them to the respondent
as a present because of the length of time she had lived at their
home. Other testimony material to the issue wan produced by these
witnesses and at the conclusion the court sustained a motion to strike
it from the record on the ground that these witnesses were interested
and, therefore, not qualified to testify. In thie the court committed
errors
The test of interest which determines the competency of a
witness is as to whether or not the witness will gain or lose as a
direct result of the suit and this interest must be certain, direct
and immediate. Brownlie v. Brownlie, 351 Ill. 72.
The Supreme Court of this state in the case of Boyd v. Boyd,
163 Ill. 611i, in its opinion says:
“Alexander Boyd and Wilson M. Boyd are the sons of James
Boyd, deceased, and of Anna Boyd, and Jane Biggs is the
daughter of Anna Boyd by = former husband. The claim is, they
were not competent witnesses for the same reason their mother
was incompetent, for, it is said, the establishment of « trust
in favor of Anna Boyd would inure to their benefit as her pro-
spective heirs. But this interest ia too remote and uncertain
to render them incompetent, for their mother may dispose of
the property before ahe dies, or she may out-live her children."
in the case at bar the witnesses, although children of the
respondent, had ne direct or immediate interest in the result of the
litigation. We de not believe that the interest necessary to dis-
qualify them was present in this case or was such as was intended by
the statute. The court was in error in striking their testimony from
the record and in refusing to consider it on thé hearing of the cause.
For the reasons and grounds expressed in this opinion, the
judgment order of the Circuit Court is reversed 2nd the cause is
remanded for a new trial.
JUDGMENT ORDER REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
HEBEL, P.J. AND HALL, J. CONCUR,
‘ite
LNA bie
|
steddo at yoomitesd ried? biced ,noltos{do reve otaotxe” boskaks ]
oad atnomuooh sat tedt tost edt of boltésney eonvomtin & ousstt ‘to dtoa
bas beeegoeb sdt to dtseb edt of tolitq tnebnoqaet od? ot nevis need
i tasboaogasr: edd o¢ mocdé guivig asw eda ted? betste ode oats “ ts want
eiorts ts bevil bad ode ealt to d¢gaed elt to oaueoed taeserq, “ Be
éaod? yd heowborg binw eyeet sd? of feiretam yonitass todgo eon0d
| ediizrte ot moltow s benisteva tives oft aoleulonoo sdt ts has eseecntin
. beteetesat eto" eoceoatiw seedt tadt bavorg edt mo brooox oat mort tf
_-Bodtinuoo txuoo edt olds aI .xtitee? of best iLaup ton covotoredt om
he aagnah
8 To Yousteqmen ont etnimietebh dotdy teoretat to tust ed?) _stexre
# as %eol to mies iLiw easatiw oft tom to xondtorw ot as et ssomtiw
toorkh yutetreo ed teu seotetal eid? bus te ott to tivesr doauth
o83 .LLl [88 .otlowoxk iv piinwost 'aevetbomms hae
| WARY Salt od Sr Sl Se |
‘gayse moialgo ati mt (Alo fit eel
eens to enoe ed? ete byod ,M aoeliv¥ ham si MIDE: Be ocoseb
edt ef enaif east base ,byot ennA to BD
yods .ei misflo edT .baedemd temrot « yd Syel enah to
tedton xsled¢ moaset omee odt tot eeseontin a ge ea nl.
taut? & to tnemMeildstes edt ,Siew eb ti . a rea bees
sed ac titened tledé of etwat biser A to om
gietroons bos stones oot ef thoxnetai etd? hiva
to seogelh yen redtom rLedt tot ,imevoqsooa! pore ot
*,combiido sed evil-tuo yam ede so ,eeth ade ezoied Bicone bsg
elt to morhlide dguodtis ,sceesatiw edt rsd ta ens edt al tt iuoe ”
oct to tiyeet edt mi teoretat otetbemnt 20 foexth on bad De gee
~-gib o¢ yreseeoen teststal od? tent aveliod ‘ton ob ow vaotinad -~
WW bobuedat aew ea dove sew 0 esse olde me saseetg ay vis Loup
mort Woniteot riosdt gabiinie at sors® nt asw $xu00 Od? yetusare ont
seauso odd To git teed edt ao ti <eblendo of gutevtes mi bas hes rode “dds
ait .adlatco etdt wi besaorqxe ebavotg bas’ asoeser of set 8
ei Sauad edt bite hoatover ef due “FivdxtO ont iii enc |
‘enaunc ‘gauss Cita GxARaVER AAdHO CMMMOGUE © ent
i Lyon eo o8eel SY game y gaamm wo sm i
Ie
imi
in?
37836 Fil / ee - lo /
HELEN S,. MAGNUS, praren mane At * le ] f
APPEAL FR
Appellee, f
Ve
CIRGUIT GOURT,
KATHERINE SWARTZ and BERNARD J. BROWN,
(Defendants).
COOK COUNTY.
ota yt we G46
On appeal of
BERNARD J. BROWN,
Appellant.
MRe JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court
finding one Bernard J, Brown in contempt of court for failure to
compiy with an order to turn over money in his possession to the plain=
tiff within 20 days from the date of the entry of the decree or order,
From the facts it appears that there were two brothers,
Adolph and Ignetz Swartz. Adolph Swartz died and one Katherine Swartz,
his wife, was appointed administratrix of his estate. As adminis-
tratrix she obtained possession of certain promissory notes and
securities which had been pledged with the Broadway Trust & Savings
Bank but which in fact were afterwards found to be the property of
Ignatz Swartz. These notes and securities were not listed or inven-
teried in the estate of Adolph Swartz. About a year after the death
of Adolph Swartz, Ignatz Swartz died and one Carl Hansen was appointed
as administrator to collect. The Probate Court, and later the
Circuit Court, found that these promissory notes and securities were,
in fact, the property of Ignatz Swartz and, therefore, belonged to
his estate. An appeal was taken from this order to the Supreme Court
on the ground that a constitutional avestion was involved and the case
is found reported in Hansen v. Swartz, 345 Ill. 609. The court in its
opinion in that case held that the action was brought against
y os . ih J he 1 ma
s a u}
' : a {
. gen emnbhrt Fh “pA, 2 ste
JARTTA
M , ' aentlegas i ov eels mone
\taudo riterto’ ~~ ~ WS oott ont tx pon?
aMWORE oh Gnannaa bas sare xis
erhivee 203t MaRMREEORED, oss Louk vemos
| | to tsaagn
‘ane LE OR «be: ee ae OM RO nt
_stmellogga |
t «etetexecs dan
; | tere
‘yravoo det Yo WOINTIO BHT CasaVELad MORTIW AdtTevt Se
“gaed Sivortd ant to Yebto ad mod’ Leodaa ne ef efitr! OOO
of euiifict tof t2u0d to tymésnoo Hi more .L Breated ono yaibalt
wntelq od o¢ aoleesedoy ett af Yodou Tove mivt oF rebro as dite Ylqnee
| stsbro to seross of to yrttte sd¢ Ld Steb oct mort eyab OF midtiw Yett
| oredtord ows otow otedt tant neh ‘et efobt ot moxt as heh
a trowe entrada eno bas, barb adres dqtobs sshuma 0m baw sig toa
| Satatnba Bh .otades Bid to ritdentelaibs at Sees one
“bas, e2ton rose lmong, aiasao to colseaeeeg sabe dene |
. bie § feaxt Youbsosk ont ddiy bogbesq,aoad Sad dotdw seldtiwoos
} be ee Yo yereqora edt od o# bavot obtawtedts ore “fost ‘ait dotde tind xiae8 %
ae neva To, botell ton oxen aettinuoee bap aston oxos? guttene, atamat |
' ‘dteed ond rotte T58Y £ tosh sateen dqlobA 1 to 0 ststee edt ak beizod.
; _botatonae nsw aoenel ize0 eno bas beth stzowe, atamgl «stuewe, AalobA to,
dd. gilt xptet bas .tr00 ofedort eft pfoetioo of notetiatatmbs aa
some asitinvoss bas aeton yroreinosg seadt tad? bavot ,txwod. Piers
oF boywoled .evoteredt .dap strowe atasgl To yeroqety edd dost ak
| x00 enorqu8 ot of tebro eidd moxt ‘eset tow nani iad
4 oneo est bas beviovail eew aolteeyp Lenottutitenoo & tat , ‘ 2
: bd nt damon ott .€00 .LLT ade Qyitvewe vv meembit at jevenees avo e ‘
tantegs tdgvord esw noltos edt tad bled eno odd tke 4
4
q ah
ew
2
Katherine Swartz, individually, and not as administratrix, and that,
therefore, there were others as heirs not made parties who had an
interest in the litigstion and reversed the judgment.
The defendant here, Bernard J. Brown, was the attorney
of record in the appeal to the Supreme Court and the proceedings prior
thereto in the Probate and Circuit Courts and as such attorney
represented Katherine Swartz, so that he was well informed as to the
Claim of the estate of Ignatz Swartz to the promissory notes and
securities. This defendant now appears in this proceeding as attorney
Pro S@e
This proceeding was started in the Probate Court under
sections 81 and 82 of the Administration Act against the defendant
on the theory that he held assets of the estate which he had converted
to his own use and which he refused to deliver up to the estate of
Ignatz Swartz. Under this proceeding the defendant was found to have
such assets and was ordered to turn them over, and from that order
defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. The cause was heatd in the
Circuit Court and an order entered finding that the defendant Brown
received from Katherine Swartz, as administrator of the estate of
Adolph Swartz, Deceased, certain negotiable papers on which he had
collected the sum of $1,753.09, out of which he had paid for court
costs and expenses in litigation concerning the ownership of said
assets, the sum of #116,58, leaving a balance of $1,636.51, which
should be turned over to Helen S. Magnus, administratrix of the
estate of Ignatz Swartz within 20 days from the date of the order.
The defendant having failed to turn over or account for
the property or the money, on February 13, 1934, was required to show
cause why he should not be attached for contempt for failure to comply
with said order, Defendant answered and alleged that he had expended
$716 in actual costs in defending the case of the administratrix of the
estate of Ignatz Swartz against the estate of Adolph Swarts and that
8
sted? bas ,xictsttainimbs as ton bas eVilsubivibal axtrewe ontxodtad
as bed odw eelixeq sham toa etted ae etedto stew exedt .orotoredt
stnesgbhyt odd hoeubysx dae soltegttil edt al teoretat
i Yarotts eit asw ,nwork «Lb bregted ,ored tasbasted edt — P
toixg egaibessorq edt bas trod emerquh od? of Iseqqa adt mt buseer to
' vervotts dowe as bus attwo0 tlyotid bas staderd odd at otexedt
. edt ot ee Domrotat Low easw od tad? on Sot ENE entredted botaecerqer
¢ bas eoton yroeatmorg elt of sixew8 gtsagl to etstes odd to mislo
--yemsotts as gnibsesotq aidd aft atseqqs won tashasteh eld? .eeitiztuoes
xebay teryoO etsdott eft at hetrste eaw gnibeeootg aidT
| tachdsteb odd tantsys tod aottertatnimbA odt to &6 bas I8 eaottooe
| betaevmoo het ef Hoidw otetee edé to ateeet bled of taut yroodt eft ho
"so etetes add of qu tovtieb oF boabtet em ib ttle bas eats fo @tit ot
'“oyed 0¢ bavot aaw tnabmoteh sit gaibessote stat rebat vbrawe stem
ebro tadt mozt bas ,rovo med¢ mut o¢ betehto sw ita! eteoas Howe
“git? at based sew secso of? .tryod Hkorto’ out ot belasqas tanbmoteb
word! tasbacteb ed? ftedt yalbalt berstas xebre me baw drsod tivorto
to oteteo sit Yo todaTtninimbe be ,xivewe! ontroctad mort bevisosr
“bes od Motdw oo ereqeq eidsitogea wistrde {besseded atsent ig foba
_ tye sot Bheq bed of doide to tuo <80.827,L9 ‘to mee adt betoeLioo
bse te qidaronwo edt gainmteoneo moldepi¢nt at ‘aoeiteqxe ‘bas titeoo
"donde (£80880,£8 to soneldd s yatvest ,8d.aLt% to mud edt fetioes
“il edt to xiuéstéeinimbs .avaged .8 aéLe o¢ revo beat od bLuoite
srebro edt to of ed? mov ays 08 ahdtiv adtewa —e stares
; se “wot tmsooos to revo axed oF beLict gaived tasbnstob od? Pi
wouls od boxioper ead .Sz@L (el qrevrdet md ,yedou ‘edt xo yeueqora ‘edt
__Vlaxes ot orulist tot tqmettod fot bedostis Od ton Siwede od “yw euro
hebuenxe Sed of taut begstta ie Betowens tusbuened soto koe ad
a ‘ent to xictetteinimbs af¢ to ees edb gt ibaets: > Lait BES
‘ . tedde bus ‘sirswe dqlobA to otstee ‘oat tankegs abeate’ ©: arg] te ,
3
he did not have the securities, nor moneys om hand sufficient to
satisfy the order and that he had no money or property of any kind
with which to satisfy said finding.
July 12, 1934, the matter being submitted on the record,
the court found the defendant had failed to pay the sum of $1,636.51,
and had wilfully and contumaciously refused and still refuses to pay
said sum or any part thereof and, therefore, is in contempt of court,
and it was ordered that he should be committed to the County Jail
until said sum was paid or until he should be otherwise purged of
contempt.
The order provided that the commitment should not continue
for more than six months from the date of the order and, in view of
the fact that thet time has expired by reason of this appeal, we
are asked under an assignment of cross-error to correct the order so
that the duration of imprisonment should read: 4s from the first
day of imprisonment or unless the defendant shall sooner satisfy
the claim,
But two points are raised by the brief of defendant, under
which a reversal of the order of the Circuit Court is sought. It
is insisted that the court had no power to enforce the payment, first,
because it was not shown that the failure to comply with the order
was wilfub or contumacious; and second, because of the fact thst the
answer denies respondent's ability to comply with the order, for
lack of funds, No demand for a jury was made and consequently that
question is not here for consideration,
Sections 81 and 82 of the Administration Act, as amended,
gives the right to the administrator to take the necessary steps to
discover assets, This question has been passed upon in the case of
People ex rel Olsen ve Templeman, 265 Ill. App. 369, wherein the
court announees its views as follows:
"Section 81 and 82 of the Administration Act, as
+ Re
&
ot tne totttive basd go eysmom rom eattizuess ont evad tom bib of
bait yas to ytxeqgeta to Yomom om Hed Od dat Sag tebto edd. yteltee
? spitbalt dise yteltca ot dotdw détw
,Dteoer oft no | bos tage outed rotten edt aPS8L .8L yint
_fG.888,L8 to mua odd yet of boktet bast tasbasted edt bowok tuyoo edt
yeq ot moawten ILite bus beestet yLlevoloenvinos bas ylivitiw bad hes
etxwoo to tgmotaeo nt al ,etoteredt .bae tooxedt trsq Yas to swe bise
| Lisl yiouod odd of bettinwoo ed bivode ol tedt boxebro. gow dh haun
to begrug sedwiedte od bivode od Litas so Bieq esw swe hiew Lito
—etqmetsoo
4 | euattaos tom blveife thomttnmos odd tet bebivorg ebro edt
— to wotv mt ,bme rebro ody to ‘eteb off mott adénom xie Gadk oe me catiane
' “°° ow .Leseqb ald? te sogser yd bettaxe aad omit vail thd?’ dos' tae %
a oe rebro edt toerro9 OF torte—2801d to shommpkess. as reba boxes on Hg
“Feat? odd wort 24 ibser bivode shomnoetxqut to i deca Mae 2
fas eon tenooe Ifade tkaniivtes’ ond pestny 3 x0 ‘no:
eae ss PIR mb ‘to pod
oe
wast WE PwBS DO
obaw daabasteb to ‘telid edt ee he bad’ eta etatog ont te re
dy ¥ es.
41° sdiignoe' ui vod Fiverto” edt to’ adit’ otf 3S" lhiseren ery
“¥ ”
aterlt ,tnonysq odd sototcs of TSwoq on ‘bed ‘trude ‘edt “badd "Seaal a
, wad oe td
rébe6 odd idtw ylamod of Oraliar bie’ todd imiode nar ahs eunced
9 REET, Ses ke
oid tet goot oft Yo eausoed .bacose bas ‘yauolosmutn08 <0 B8W
Oh as cee wr eee
tok (rebto edt Mtiw ylqmoo of ytiiide 8! diebaogaer salaah towane re
se sy Wi CR ts byrne ariel w
tant A scrgosegmncs bas ebam dew yt ‘6 rot ‘busine ok eabuyt to dost
Hi wie yt Soares ree @ 2 ibe
si ce raleat «10 Htexeb tem00 cet ered tom 6.
Pankere Kok a
bobieme as ,toA nottartabatmba eae to “Se bas £8 ‘eno ve #088
‘toate
a faites yo 7 id
‘er aqete yreesesen edt ant oe Yotertatninds ‘edt of *
fy Lapensi sic Sal a a
pine 19v0D
phe
yh eeeo edt ai nog besasg ased ‘esd me lteoup aid? 78
gi aterede «888 sath “rer dae aan Pe be
Fagin Me i ‘Ate ree aoe
| ake to etna aa! awed at? meemmonse Fmu02
“et ke beisiad
es 70d nottertutaimbs edd to 8B bas te mobdoeeh
amended, give authority to any ‘person interested in
the estate! to bring the proceedings provided for, and
administrators de bonis non are, we think, such persons,
The finding is that respondent converted the property
ef this estate to his own use, The proceeding was
therefore not one merely for the collection of a —
which would violate the rule announced in Johnson v
Nelson, 541 Ill. 119, and while it must be conceded. that
prior to the amendment of these sections the proceeding
could not have been maintained under the rule laid down
in Moore v. SLUSERI2LL 248 Ill. 232, and other cases
cited, the amendment to these sections extending the
jurisdiction of the probate court to cases of this kind
and granting the right of trial by jury, has removed that
objection,"
The proceeding before us is not one to colleet a debt
nor is the property claimed as a gift. It is admitted by the answer
of the respondent that he received the property and had it in his
possession or the proceeds therefrom. Moreover, it would be impossible
for him to take the position that it was a gift as he is bound by
his knowledge as attorney during the course of all the proceedings
that the property which he held was claimed by the estate of Ignatz
Swartz and always had been so claimed from the time thst he originally
obtained possession. The claim that he utilized the proceeds of this
property in the fighting of the claim does not justify him in his
position in the present proceeding, Anything he did with the
property after notice was at his peril. It is 2 well settled doc-
trine of equity jurisprudence thet a constructive trust arises when-
ever one party has obtained money, which does not equitably belong
to him, and which he cannot in good conscience retain or withhold
from another, who is benefically entitled to it. Bank of Williston
* Alderman, 106 S$. C. 386, The mere fact that his client, Katherine
Swarts, as administrator of the estate of Adolph Swartz, failed to
inventory this property in the estate of Adolph Swartz, while the
defendant was acting as her counsel, is evidence of the fact that it
was known by the defendant that it was not equitably the property
of the estate of Adolph Swartz.
There is sufficient evidence in the record to justify
ai beteotetal noerteq' we ot ytitodtws ovig ,bebnoms
bas ,xot bebivetq egaibessoty edi guitd of ‘etsteo edt °°
eanosisq dows ,anidt ow ,o1s pe es = atotertteiaimbs
YWreqetg edt betievace teskne 2 ef gatbalt ed? ©
esw guibeecotq sdf .sey awo ald of otetes aidt to
«tdeb s to solitoelloo edg tot Yletem sao dom srotetedt’*
ev at Dbeonyonns slut adt stately bivew doldw
tact , ened ed taum #4 eiidw bas ,@if .fLI Ips. ence
gathescorq ait enottose seedt to tneabnems edt of tO —
gab piak a odd salem : talem aeed eved ton Bivoo ; ody
eeeso Tonto t ’ wv a
gilbaetxe enoitoeca asedd of) de nian “nL
buts side ardbe seeso of trvoo atsdotg edt to aolsoiSalrul
ted? bevewer esd .yrut WwW Laird to tdgix said Bina 1380do eiek
4.20
* fdeb s ‘toeltoo e+ eno ton ei Bs ototed gatdoooora out asi
miew. La
towans odt yd bottinbs al #1 tis 8 88 bemtsLo vexeeeek edt af mf
. 2S CMG Bio
f sid at #£ Bed bas ytreqetg ed? bevieoor ed tadt ¢. edt To
tS AMES.
cee
‘eidteeount ed bilwew ti eTevOOTON 7 -moxtor9it abesoorg oxi bine ) to Lnavetod
ve bawod et od as itty 6 een ad touts nol#is0g odd out ot ashes
egutbeeoors odd ffs to eeTu0o edt gattub younesea a |
g * fs sid
ote ad’ J
| “ stamal to ete tao odt yd boutale new bled od ao tatn _— i 8 ott pads
‘ fie S P| hab iy oh j
q | yELentgtso ed todd omit ode nortt ‘boatate oe mood bed
atdt ¥o ebeooosg edt bestitew ed tad¢ misio oaT pedaanenin ietda
aids = Sa) &. -
ead a mid ytisaut toa seob miclo sit to wrtstgst soar E . Yregetq
‘edt ddiw bib od peut dd yd “sgadbovoorg toaexa oat at i mont teog
< ¢ ; ah 4 A
-oob belftee Liow 2 et #1 its eld ts esw sotton pep UWroqorg
| > heed Wi nl be: 9 ™ ay ¢oae Aeeeeets
pede eeatte teutt ovitourtesoo F bastd sonshutgaltatt eee byes i
i thse get or AD :
gaesed yidstiuns ran eo0b ato betw .Yerton benistdo ead Pty ek ) ts
““ploddtiw to aistes some toenoo boog mi tonaso od dois Sas utd ot
° eo ined S59Ras.
to x tin.
gotaiitiv to xasd tt sell boltttas Wisedtoned et ° % craenone mort
entyedisd gtnotto eld tant tost exam ‘oa? 1288 0 8 BOE creat ;
ot belts? wrtrews figfoba to states ode to, roferdatninbs as entrswe
“edd ofidw ,xtzawe atobs to tetas out at recone ‘stat } yrosaovat
tt ‘tedt fost ent to sonehive et efoanvoo aod as gattos: sew Tipe
veregona edt Udies tape aaa oe, oa tans, taabaered rid yf mond, son
aloe ot > wf
_ aatzan® diqLobs to bi to oteten oF.
Vittest ot broges ont ak oonshive tno toitiwe at exodt
5
the court in holding that the property was wilfully and contumaciously
‘held by defendant in defiance of its orders. It is true that Brown
was not acting as attorney for the estate of Ignatz Swartz, but he
still occupied a position adverse to that estate with full knowledge
of the facts and, in our opinion, became a trustee of the property
er funds in his possession which he should account for upon the
final determination of the cause. When it originally came into his
hands from the administrator of the estate of Adolph Swartz, he
accepted it as a trust, and subsequent payments to himself as fees
therefrom were at his peril. People v. Zimmer, 238 Ill. 607; Wise
v. Chaney, 67 Iae 73; Rohn v. Rohn, 204 Ill. 184,
Defendant in his amended answer for a rule to show cause
states that he did not have in his possession at any time since
January 1, 19335, any of such moneys nor any other money in excess
of $100 at any one time and had no money or property at the time the
decree was entered and that his failure to comply with the decree is
not contumacious, but due to his inability so to do. We are satisfied
from the record in this case that if the defendant did not have the
money, it was because he hag wilfully parted with it and has used it
for his own purposes. Inability to pay because of lack of funds does
not avail where such lack of funds is due to the wrongful act of the
party who had them in his possession. People v. Zimmer, 238 Ill. 607.
if a defendant should be released upon an answer as meager
as the one in the reoord in this proceeding, there would be no redress
to the estate. The Supreme Court of Iowa in the case of Wise v.
Chaney, 67 Ia, 73, cited by the Supreme Court of this state in the
case of People v. Laiiothe, 331 Ill. 351, in its opinion said:
"His other excuse, that he had no money of his own in his
possession, will not do. It would be a convenient way,
if this excuse should be regarded as sufficient, for one
required to surrender money or property of an estate, to
divest himself thereof, and thus defeat the order of the
court and justice,"
-
J
é
— Wavolosmytnoo bee yilvtity asw ytreqotg ed? tedt gatblod ai txyoo ent
aword tat eutt af #1 .axobuo atl to Soantted at tiabnered a bled
od tud inane atesal. to. etates sdf tot yearotts: es gaiton ton asw
eghsinont List ities gistee, tadt oF eersrbs no ttteow & betqwoos? {L290
yWreqerq ede to setveurt & omaosd .woimtge tir" wh het etost ode to
edt moqes tot barons bLuotte orf ao batw noleesenoq ant ak aba F:)
eid ofmé amso Yllentgize tk many .oeuse anit to: nottentuxeteb L20 Lanit
ed ,3tsewe dqfobA Yo stetes edt ta’ ‘rodorietatabe 8 out nor? ebasd
ssot a6 tieemid of staomyec taeypeadve Das ateete s es u betqeoos
edt ;7O3 .LL1 BES .xoumss .v eigoog -Lixeq eid te oxen prom
mee ei Lod
oh8L.LLT 208 .aroh »v adof 387, ast ¥_qgemeudo’ ov
gayeo wods of Glut s rot rewens bebaows eid at tasbasted ;
* tO Mose @oagou
(ents omit yas ts colepagsog ald at oved ton bib od teat sctie
Radoxe al yenom tento Yas Tom eyenom fove to Was ? Sle
etd omit oft ts. Yereqotq ro yemom om bed bas out? eae Was ts to
aS. St? Fray
@t goroeb est atin yiqwoo of ommiist eid tedt bas boretne. as ecw r pownee
v" rage!
beltetise exe ef «0b ot of yttildent etd of eub sud ae m0. be
ait eved ton bib tasiasteb edt ti stadt eas0 pias at brovex. ont Sey
ti bear esti bas oi Ati betuaq yLivtlin. aed ot causoed new th a Xourom
esol shat to dval to seunoed ysq of Yelitdenl .sssoqruq mwo aid
Yer arouy
~ edt to tos Lytynortm ed? ot exb pi abmyt to foal, dowe Steve ton
-VOO £1 88S ~zommis «v gigoed .notaacesoq eis at Lee me wes
Tegeem es TWeNs 48 Bogs beeseter od bLwoste tasbaeteb s
bate ke Se Fan? 8274 ry,
asszbe7z on ed bivow qredt. .gatbesoorg eldt mi nreget it ae ee odt as
od AR ‘ = iaytg
#¥ 284 2o see0 edt ai swol to tqu0o paetque ont. pe pty
ent at etete aidt to. tryed, a ll edt yd bet at “at 3s
— tnainevnos s 9d bi : uoW
20 TOt, ¢tned ng us. 88. £
Ot =_2etote® ms a
. gt to tebro ot
In Tindall v. Nisbet, 113 Ga. 1114, the court said:
"Finally it is said that there should be a discharge
of this prisoner, because he testifies that he cannot pay
the sum required of him or comply with the order of the
court. There is no explanation of what he has done with
the money, but only the bald statement that he is unable to
pay it. Shall receivers, sheriffs, and attorneys, who have
funds entrusted to their care, be discharged by merely
saying that they have spent the money which did not belong
to them, and cannot pay? ‘Surely not. To wrongfully place
one's self in such a position gives no right of discharge,"
In the case of Barclay v. Barolay, 184 Ill. 471, the court
in its opinion, said;
"Gt is finally urged, with much earnestness, that the
facts shown upon the hearing did not justify the order of
the court, but that the defendant sufficiently established
his inability to perform the decree to entitle him to his
discharge. With this contention we cannot agree. On the
contrary, his own affidavit clearly shows that he has
persistently and repeatedly refused to make payments in
performance of the decree when he had the ability to do so,
choosing to spend large sums of money in resisting payments
rather than to apply the same in the discharge of his
liability. He, as appears from his own showing, seems to
have acted upon the theory that he was justified in spending
the whole of his salary, amounting to $125 per month, for
his own support and that of his minor son, and in fruitless
litigation to escape the performance of the decree for the
maintenance of his wife and daughter, leaving them without
any support whatever,
in the case of Harrigan v. Stone, 237 Ill. App. 314, the
court said:
"It ig insisted that the injunetion issued by the court
prevented Harrigan from raising any money to comply with
the decree, There is nothing in the record to indicate his
inability financially to comply with the decree, The burden
is upon the person charged with contempt to prove his in-
pce gn ag comply with the order or decree, by definite and
ig age sone © Shaffner, 212 Ill. 492; People
4 defendant in a proceeding such as this ehould be required
to make a much better showing, either by proof or by his answer, of
his inability to pay than has been done in the case at bear, In spite
of his contention that he fs without funds, it appears that he is able
to procure an appeal bond in the sum ef 42,000. No attempt appears
to have been made to give the court either by answer or proof any
= —.
=
eide si ed sade eteegGs | $f. vebintt “thostt ty ot *, feat Aghtie
ibiea dtyoo edt ,ALLf od CLL wgodeik »v Lishad? al
saredoalb s ed bluode otedt tadd pint
vey donast oc tert eeftitast ed athe iin to
edt to rebroe edt déiw yiqmeo to aa te
dtiw enob ged od fede to aolfenelaxe on “tat tee
ot eldsavx si of tadt toemetete Sled ede o rae | Bus Yo
even =. ed salva ggg toda ,eteviso i th aA
v oath ad ,erno tie Re “o
gnoied toa Be fotdw yeron ene aneee sa" ‘saws test gniyse Dente
eesig yt ow of tom yloru® 1: fogaso. Lent?
a seprenstte Lb o tigit on eer natbieee sé dowea af Ube atone re
foyoo sit ITS .£LT dBi cmakecat Vv ee to sas ed¢ ‘at
‘ * yBtee Ai sitne otk at
eee RF th
as ae ‘Seater fs et fit els ids wk aw
0 TSHTO 9 au om Ts . b nt,
hedeildstes yLineroit i patetee i d dead tude . - hd
t ei
aid of mid oftiinae of rayne + eure
eft m0 .eotge — OW i ee tad att sidltig
ees of tedt ewods Ylisel0 gl sige
‘gt stromyay eden of boentot ou eos edd. pilatated —_
208 Ob of ytilids eft Sad ed Wig estoeh ad? a te aan’ |
einen ysr yatteieet mt yenom to smue es ue
aid to egrsdosth oat mt A supe os va chee i
“Ot eweee .atiwode nwo sit gods, esoead onl por
fi + Piguet roa ate niet feat be
‘ to 8 cin tid to. fu
edt tot seroeb ont é
thodt te meds gatvest <xedguab ons cf id 3 we
‘edt’ (ALe° sata WEY Ves ceaote vv seakowd to eead o i hbo ot
a aa
‘Pryce odd yd — ‘no ttonytat eit ‘that bodetent et fa lh bhaen Se
dtiw recat e om
ab se Y baooee rh of gilaton a
_ 8. 3 le r) 9 ©
‘ee ait evory of tomotios tek 5 cag ibe dae
bus atiaiteh yd ,eeT0eb. te yebso ont dtiw
eigost ang oil sie brperepnes ov Nene
hoatweer ad biuoste eldt ss dove, gatbesoorg B Mth. pried snr GO vena
te ,teweas eid yd ze toorg | ve pret se, egadwods metted oun 6. eilam OF
etiqe al ted te eege edt at sno aeod esd aadt yaq oF, WAtidaas sid
68H
eresags' tomers ont LOOS{RE 6 wit edt ni be 1 me pst
yas toore co tewens yd vosdtie dsr00 LA erly OF ‘snd evn ot
~
9.
detailed statement of his financial position and we do not believe that
he has by his answer sufficiently met the issue.
In view of the fact that the time has expired, under the
order of the Circuit Court, during which the defendant should be
required to repay to the estate of Ignatz Swartz the money found due
the assignor on penalty, the error assigned by plaintiff will be
sustained and an order entered here carrying out the purpose and
intent of the order of the Circuit Court.
We are of the opinion that the order finding the respondent
guilty of contempt of court was proper and the order is affirmed
and the order of the Circuit Court corrected so as to read as
follows:
It is ordered that Sernard J. Brown be committed to the
County Jail of Cook County, Illinois, until he shall have paid the
sum of $1,656.51, but not, however, for a period of over 6 months
from the day of his commitment.
For the reasons expressed in this opinion the order of
the Circuit Court finding the defendant guilty of contempt is
affirmed and the order of commitment is corrected in accordance with
the views hereinbefore expressed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED.
HEBEL, F.J. AND HALL, J. CONcUR,
; 3 ve
an Abe
ws |
j y
ted? ovetiod fon ob ow bas ‘nolttiog Latodentt atd Yo ‘neMesete LoLtated
eounad odd tom Utaelostive ‘towane, ‘Big iat ee ed
ont rohay .bexkgxe and omit odd tact seat adt to ‘wely az |
ed biuode tasbaoteb ed? doidw yatzud - ta nt et th eobne
exh bayer yenom odd stxen® stamgl ‘to otetes edd .od yeqox ‘od ber
od Lin YWitalele yo bémgiees zoxte ed? .xeLenoq a0 “xomgtens sd’
bas seoqrug odt tuo gaiyrrso gred betotae rebte as due benisteve
«tusod tiuoriO edt te tebrq edt te taotal
_— duohmogget edt gaibat? robro edd halt qoiatqo edt to ene .ef
9 beusi%is ob <ebro eit bus veqonq scr tuee to tqmmiuoo to yet
as hoot of as cc patoorree. heed aed aut ta xebte. sd? bas
ku ae aPMOD
vj Mei att @ —-tawo Lot
i ie Phaey
odd of het ttnnoe od mort ob sreaned sate betaine po gt
We ihe od KG,
ag 9 ie lo 4h tO a
stead temeo eid to ait oe
pret rat Dit
to tsbro edd aolaigo etdd at fiatblnte anoaset ode Re yan
» Bh tqmetnea to yitug Anchored alt guthal? rxu90 tivors0 ott
dite — ai betoot160 ef tnemtinwoo to tebro odt beioi ribs
risk bataevaag
oot eh ene
%;
ig yabtedass
iy ri 4 i Be
ae a me % Spore wa G8 29 ERLE RS a RS tee Agim JG OA at a
aroh @eed 22d mets won oF Ost items eid.
q A
Pe ns ee RV MN et eae A ey nme MP EEO RS 4 fo ae et Rei ae Sea ARE tae
nal ar ee Sh ce : 5 Wee Wis ‘ct ‘
» fh fe an % ye
iiie tomo ott orb Oo Chan ea eee oe
37856 ite ( Pd ps
OLARK’ = RANDOLPH BUILDING CORPORATION, #ECTAL FROM
Plaintiff) Appellee
( ) App ' MUNICIPAL COURT
Ve
MARY BELLE SPZNOER, et al, OF CHICAGO.
(Defendants) Appellants.
WRe JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff recovered 2 judgment for possession in an
action in forcible entry and detainer against the defendants. From
this judgment the defendant appealed. A motion was made to dismiss
the appeal, which was reserved to the hearing. The record shows
that the defendants failed to file their notice of appeal within
20 days from the rendition of the judgment and failed to follow
out such subsequent steps as service of a copy of any notice of
appeal, ; |
Defendants eontend that the Civil Practice Act now in
effect does not apply to actions of forcible entry and detainer,
This question was squarely passed upon in the case of Veach v.
Hendricks, 278 Ill. App. 376, which was an action in forcible entry
ahd detainer, An appeal bond was filed in that case as was done here,
but the court held that the filing of the notice of appeal was
jurisdictional and that the proceedings in the lower court could
not be reviewed unless such was done. In the case of Veach v»
Hendricks, supra, the motion to strike the cause from the docket
of the Appellate Court was allowed. We have examined the facts in
the case before us, however, on the merits and find that the judg-
ment of the trial court was proper.
The lease introduced in evidence, under which the defendants
Claim possession, was for a period of 4 months, It expired April
eee 5 a~4
te
™ 4 \
“a \
7 > Nag i 8asve.
tote ovennie fo MOR amt eHOLTARO RROD ations ~ RAMS,
| i. TAUOD JATIDIVUN eoeifogaa (tiisntsL4), e’ pod @a
hs donegone Pe isores sidpaden fq €@ AAADERTR ALIFE TAM,
sf , -
f a] iliac K Sire hoe
by 2, Pinteq ue TOR. er on?
+ BAU00 auT tO ‘WOIUrs0 an “canayRaRG, ngeate S0x7E0%, «fh han .
as of moLenee cog wah tcomghu, 8 betevooer Niitatelt - eientae
wert setaabusteb edt teniege teatsseb bas ‘Vitae sidtorot at noltos
“eed ot obau aoe foiton A sbolseque tasbnetod odd tromgbut edt
eworte brooet (odf .gakteed edt? o¢ bevroaet opel dod ster atgouge. edt
midtiw Lesgqs to seiton ried? oLtt.ot bedtiat atnebnoteb ed? tact.
woilot of beitet bae tasmyhut edt to nottibaos edt mort sysb 08
P Pd colton yas te yqoo 2 te eolviee as mete, SoD RSD HONS, AIM
oe : , wwe ates ty coh oetaoens.
as wont toa sottoert ftvio edt tats Aaetaoo | etasbaored tk nas
«tonisiteb bas yttae oldloret to anottes et yigqs. ton aeob ones
«v Sosa’ to saso edt at aoqu bevesq yLoteype esy aoiteoup aid?
; yada sidiorot ai softes as esw doidw ,8YS sqah »fiT. (S8Y8 setodzbaek
<oted eno asw as caso tedt at beLit sew baod Iseqgs mA erenisted bals,
| aw Lesqqs te colton edt to yatitt edt tadt bled txw0o edt tud
blues tive9 eens edt ai egnibeeserq odt tad? bas Lenoitorbaiast
«¥ dogsy to onso edt aI .emob eew douse eaolny boweiver od tom,
texoob edd moxt seyso edt editde of moltom odd .sraye ,atoistbask
mi etost ed? bentasxe evead oW .bewolls aaw Pwod etalleqqA edt to
—gbut edt ¢adt belt bas atizen edt ao yreveword ,au exoted ease edt
| »Teqotg ssw txvoo Laitt edd to taem
ishnetsh odt doldw tobay ,eosebtve ai beowboviat easel eT |
Iiega bettqxe $I ,edtaom A to hoireq s rot ssw vo teeencon ange
a
; ak
Meld ry
ae hy
3
30, 1934. On May lst, following, this action for possession was
instituted and service had. Defendants insist they were entitled
to a 30 day notice. The Landlord and Tenant Act, Chapter 80, See. 12,
Gahill's Ill, Rev. St. 1933, provides:
"12, WHEN TERM EXPIRES NOTICE TO QUIT NOT REQUIRED.)
813, When the tenancy is for a certain period, and the
term expires by the terms of the lease, the tenant is then
bound to surrender possession, and no notice to cuit or
demand of possession is necessary."
Finding no reversible error in the proceedings in the
Municipal Court, the judgment of that court is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
HEBEL, Peds AND HALL, Je CONCUR.
anw smoiseoseog 4O% aoltoe aldt .guiwollot ,tel ye 20 a
‘beltiias erew yodt toteat vinebasted bat ootvroe vinenigielll
; 4008 .08 rodqed® .tok tucaoT bas broLbrmid Sit sedtton ys Of a oF
| twebhvonq ECL .#8 vont 221 e'Liided
weet 7
(soumTupar TOR TLUp OT wOrTON eanTGKE Moat wane Vent” mak,
yt har ,bolzeq pre i «SLB PS i
ng ; tnanet hs easel RP, 7 BE yonnae! os ish 22 i.
By ng ot epiton on pata .fotexsaeeq tebaetrye of bayod Ney
".yxseagoen al soieeoarog to ener
* ed? at ayatbsecorg oft nt torre dsdivxdved dat ‘Minndie ere 2
pills socmmephalbraiminesiniersiutpatniigay x jpbornel
ehE GS 4 ‘ 4 * ae | rwae p qi may ed nostos RK:
ot hemmed tose Merhnelen wee oe exghat, pet,
E vi : . : 3 Ly wae. I Tho Ak az shay isecwa
kewiqe to snbton ghost Ba ssiaped hase asp |
Seite bae taomaist ec? Te He Seibied ast? apts syab oe
r 324 j Te ny ‘ ot f ey YCRh me geeea @ TRUE say dour te
As :
3 i ae |
ba won #04 golvoasd divi ect £248 eeeeaon ata ahAg reg ere oul ;
sdiowet to anotves ef. ubean. tee apeb foarte
feast to ease odt ot aoe bepent, visgeupe, cay coLteoup thy
Rit Lowe iL neers Ha wow modely ,2tt ro ae {£5 GYR, at b |
hs
‘ =: ie
wiry ua Sf > foes #2) bets? vaoe Reed LGreiye a, -exnabeted tide, Mt
Ieecue to ooltes od? to parbdit. mee. dade bieg too ede tut i
ial)
Yyrmes tase anf afl wantpeerwia ase $ at Sis Lenadtorboret
st Tete aut Moe RE Les. bovanyer. od °
ai a
i }
isos edgy six Geant od? sltete oF moatem aig rsa, sainunba
a i fs
#28 GFP>-
AY
| aes |
ay
7 }
AT A TERM OF THE APPRLpATE LOR, j Es
“f FA Pf
i ¥ ;
hoon
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday,’ “the fifth day oe
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and inivty-tive,
within and for the Second District of the State ofsIllinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN,
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff. D, 79
6
Hon.
Justice.
‘4. 64.64
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
FEB 14 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
‘
; \
| - \ TMUOA Ee ‘Fe 4 wep ay wie . TA
t : %, , ‘
; % Pat i oy et oo
: RES AE
i romwnde Dg ean bis Saad At geBogtam oul De ie a ay
see tee 3 legions tn vennhas
whoo thet beg, 43 ate. ede. t
it it-6y sebrbers
ey
at br
%
GEN. NO. 8835 AGEN DA NO. 35
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
October Term, A. Ds 1954.
LOWELL L. JIBBEN, by his next
friend, Orie L. Jibben,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
VS.
COURT OF PEORIA COUNTY.
VILLAGE OF BARTONVILLE,
ee ee
Appellant.
DWE, J.
This is an action brought by appellee against the Villege
of Bartonville to recover damages for personal injuries. The de-
claration charged that on July 17, 1932 appellee was walking along
a foot bridge on Bolivia Avenue, a public street in the Village of
Bartonville, and while in the exercise of due care for his own safety,
casually stopped and leaned lightly against the banister or railing of
the bridge, causing it to give way and precipitating appellee into the
sully beneath. It was averred in th declaration tat the purpose of
this railing was to prevent people in passing across the bridge from
falling from the bridge into the gully am that it was the duty of
appellant to use reasonable care and caution to maintain the bridge
and railing in a reasonably safe condition so that the banister or
railing would not give way. The declaration then chrges that ap-
pellant did not use reasonable care and caution to maintain the rail-
ing ina reasonably safe condition tut negligently and carelessly al-
lowed the railing and uprights, to which the railing was attached, to
be and remain rotten and so insecurely attached together where the
8 .OU AC MIDA
| gHT UI
SIOMLLIT LO TAVOO ATALINITA
TOIATAIA aqwoome
«20QL .1 .A ,mreT tedoto0
trom ald yd .WeaaIt I IUaWOT
qttedd ke oI ota0 baoktt
,velleqga
TUOAIO THT MOAT TAUTIA
»~YUMU00 ATAOSS TO TAU OO
i
* av ¥ Pigs ae mC
a) ir cae Ba
*
t
| GIIIVMOTHAR WO BDALI
: dasileqqsA
to gsoqtyg oft talt noitete load ott at bowievs asw tI .discusd :
mort ogb Lad © at agoros anicasa ai elqooq smevetq of asw patlter 9
to YWrb ott eaew ti dedi ine Ylims edt otmt ophiit edt moxt s
enbiad sft ateataiem ot moitueo bas etso eldsnceset eau ot dnslle
$0 todainad odd ted? oa molt ibnce etaa qld etoese sat gail tor
. -qs jedt aegnde sedt apitexsloed edT .»yew.evig tom Bluow aatt.
«fist eft aistaiam ot solityso bas ets. oldanounet eeu tom Sip t |
is Ylasoloteo faa yitnegiigen tui no tt ifvoo ote etnias loa a
Bn
a“
uprights joined the railing end side of the bridge that anyone pass=
ing dtl ong bridge, exercising due care and caution for his om
Sethe, wanla strike or lean against the railing, would cause the
upright to become detached from the railing and from the side of
the bridge and the railing would fall into the gully. A plea of
the general issue was filed and a trial had which resulted in a ver=
dict and judgment for $5,000.00 in favor of appellee and the record
is brought to this court for review by appeal.
It is contended by eppellant that the evidence discloses
that it was not cuilty of the negligsenee charged; that appellee was
guilty of contributory negligence: that the trial court erred in
its instructions and also in denying appellant's request to require
appellee to submit toa physical examination.
The evidence discloses that Bolivia Avenue runs in an easter-
ly end westerly directio in the Village of Bartonville end that on
the north side thereof there is a ditch or sully, which also extends
in an easterly and westerly direction. Collier Avenue is one block
south end runs parallel with Bolivia 4venue. Taft Avenue is north of
Bolivia Avenue and runs north and south, but its southerly end coes
not intersect with Bolivia Avenue. There is, however, a foot bridge
eeross this gully or diteh which connects with a path which leads to
the south end of Taft Avenue. Appellee is a boy, and at the time of
the accident was sixteen years of age and lived at home with his
parents on Collier Avenue. Between seven and seven=-thirty o'clock on
the evening of July 17, 1932 he left his home in company with Louis
Correl, a neighbor boy twelve years old, am Yarm Correl, @ brother
of Louis, who ws about fifteen years of age, and started tovard the
business part of the village. They went north and when near the south
line of Bolivia Avenue and a little east of the bridge, Parm stopped
- Be
Wa }
-aseq onoynis tedt egbicd edt to eble bas antiiat edt boatot eis txau
oo eid wot noltyso Sins etso oph gotatotexe ,eg bind sit tevo sak
edi savso blyow ,gnilieset eft teanies;s asel to silite pivor\ worse
to ebte sit mort bas anif{ist edt mort bedosteb emooed ot tigtzay
to selq A .yliua esky ofat Ilet bl sow gailiat edt bas ep bia oft
2
Cstect oalilinemeetiadd ak tk
B1ooet edt hae eollecas To tovet at 00.000,¢¢ 10% remo Paste ;
sfsorqs Yd welvet tot too ei dt of dagiord 8.
seactoeih eomebive edt tedt taslleqgs yd be bnotaos at gi i
~tev ent beotiveot dotdw bad fsict s bas boltt esw evant Isteseg ent
am eelleqs ted ;begtado eonsaifzen oft to Witwa ton” ew t prey
the
mt berro d1voo [stat aft ted? seonogtioen wrotid ite ‘to Ww
oe a Rate
visite ot canon Melee sotyadh nt onfs bas ano it outs ant ath
,mo ttentmexe feoteyde 8 ot thm ue ‘ot ee |
-tetase as at enuy evmevs aivilod tadt esacloulh eomebive edT ;
fo teat bas elltenotaed 26 oa sili¥ oOdt af mob oets 5 ulteieew bas % re
adrotx ode Ls .do ftw tiling <0 motth » eb ere ft ‘Wotedt obra’ Pere |
aoold eno al esnevA teiLiod dite 1a 3485 {ited ew bits YLtotass eat |
to dtron ek sunev\ fislT “,evnevéA sivilod Atiw felteta¢ ent bam toe
-0ee0b ue Yltedthos att thd ,dtooa Hae Atom eter Bas QumdvA atv! to a
egbitd toot 8 ,tevewod fel erent ‘semitevA str foe dite doderet nt & é ‘
ot absel lok dw mtaeq 8s dAtiw ato sino 5 dot tw tot tb 0 item atéé edotea
to “amit adé ts bas pyod eel eelfeqcA “vewnmevs fren Ito * Sit Ub aid _
@hit dtiw oma ts bevit Sis ons to etssy meedx be asa ‘t mob doos “i
fo Asols "o PORE Aeeao res bas tevee teewted Vou news “tet fl fod” ‘to etneniy
alvol dtiw ymecmoo nt mod att der ed seer ‘Ytt YEut “Yo antiiove 7)
xedtowd a°yfetrod mre‘ bas , BLo atsey evlent yor oditsten "sti ?
of? fts wot bédiete bas \spe To wtdey: fteatt it tweds: al ot anid 4
ddsom edd tsen stedw fen ‘ttrom taow yea vege ftny’ ‘ett 0 Yued es prey”
becqote mrs? 9p bbs od to teso oftd ls baa ‘sunews ‘stv EOE ores
ne, sus
in then { of waite | hete mick Ete oda bom
we
a uloursoest ce fina modind aie 1 3hA 5
and started to pick black berries. Louis and appellee continued
north and entered Bolivia Avenue and thence west to the bridge. Louis
reached the bridge first and had proceeded almost to the northerly
nd of it when appellee reached it. Accarding to appellee's testimony,
he had just walked onto the bridge and turned around to see if Parm
was coming, and in so doing his hip hit the banister or rai ling on
the westerly side of the bridge and it gave way, causing appellee to
fall into the ditch, striking his back upon a rock therein, seriously
injuring the socket of his left shoulder. louis Correl also fell,
but was tninjured.
The evidenee further discloses that this bridge was ten or
twelve feet in length, the floor of the bridge being not to exeeed
five feet from the bottom on the gully. Prior to ‘uly 7, 1930 the
only means of crossing this gully was by two planks, there being no
banisters or hand rails. Onduly 7, 1930 the foot bridge which
spanned this gully was built. Two eight by eight inch sills or
stringers between twelve and fourteen feet in length, of fir lumber,
were used and across these a floorwas laid of 1 x 8's three feet
long. On the westerly side of the bridge, two boards, each two
inches by four inchs, were used as uprights to support the banister.
One was near the north end and the other mar the south end of the
bridge and were about eight feet apart. Eachrested on some rock in
the bottom of the ditch and with its four inch side to the sill, ex=
tended above the floor of the bridge two and one-half or three feet.
Zach upright was nailed to the sill and to another two by four inch
board about twelve feet long, which constituted thebanister or hand
rail as it is spoken of in this record, This banister extended a bout
two feet south of the southerly upright and approximately tw feet
north of the northerly upright. The banister was nailed wth its
; 5 “sete tnsd 6 at wiegqae ot ad tg tq ae boas exew 8 opfont bah
bounis xc 9 eel leqgs bas euro. | ‘saettzed woald Hore saan '
etyol .oubind eit ot taew son ont bas eumevi atv tfod , eee ee
yitedttos edt of taomLe babes song Dad ‘bas teat eabiad hited batons
«Yaron tqat a weet long 8 ot aatb wook atk bedosot seller ce oe ty. = :
Misi Tt 9ee of biwots beaut bas eabind @ sit odo bool Law sess bad
Bien & “They i
10 pail fet TO we etaad ody fbf ata ete gatob oe mt Sas sguisos
CO ee 26 hahah Bie
ot eelfocce ankarss cvew evan ti has egbind oat To bia yeh
oF Sinere
Tiago ites yiioteds woot s mea wad etd paisth rte aod BB A opt . c. 3
ifort eels Lerrod a tot +9 Biodts #0 eb to # ouoos outs Bisel Lu
i shout abat =
at I ‘ow yr x 20 vt ie Ce “Fis. Late
to not aaw oa bind aids salt soso foais ‘ost ut gouobive ed
fir bl » wry ak
jevenen 6 ot ton omted shin. osit ‘to xoolt edd digasl at pi +
tindim o¢ ETS
edt oaeL 8 yLir oF toilet wvLlug enti a mod to ¢ omy sort toot e"
of ante d ered? ,a2ine fg owd vd aay Rase2 pe gniseoro te enon
ur yb retaew' De
donde eabixd toot edt oseL 4% Uwkao alist et to atote.
oa whew chen aes
so ellis dont tigis xd tia te owt 1 tLbud ane vhine aidt Dor
: ¥ d fy ds yo VL tot eR
s _ Tedut tit to ,dtgnol a foot moet aot. bus oviewd neowds od 74
i. eyes * chevy " bi)
Poet setdt a's x = to biel ea xoolt a eae dé eRoros bets |
: 2 ated a eer a:
ows soso. yebta od. owd .op bias et te ob ia yilueteow edt a.
: Eee Tar em Feigao
eT. “pit
ent to ‘bao fits08 odd 18 ef 9 cto ont bas ‘be irom ods ats90m 5!
a Ae Me a el Gere i ting |
ry Aor emoe a0 bedaer dot Ro toot tdate tuods etow tg
oy aeahe Re soy Sie
is! A Ltte oat ot ebic dont x0 att att bw 5 ns sot ib ont To
oR otk pinud Poret an MP
«toot sensi 0 ‘Bssieoao ‘bap ont ‘eubitd exit 20 oolt Sat ore |
dont xeey xd ont xedtons ot baw Lite oft of bottam oF : ji
_ basd <0 tote tned ent deipsitanoo dotdw wonet 00% 07 Pi
_ tod & bobnotxo teteinsd ater ,b1000 ald¢ is to mexoqga ag
iw Bes ate on Xtot amixoraqs bas tiptaqu ‘ylwdtves oat 0 Pre {
Ms att dt ie 6 eten asw sotetmad ed? “ime Virese en att ?
four inch side to the uprights. These uprizhts and banister were
of pine, bought new in 1929 and the street commissiomwr testified
that they may have been used by appellant for a street "blockage"
or barricade before they were used in the bridge in July 1950.
At the time of the accident, appellee and Louis Correl
were the only ones on the bridge. It is the theory of appellant
that these boyés must have been scuffling or pushing or exerting
some force Or power against this bannister or it would not have
given away and in this connection our attention is called to the
evidence of Mrs. Cora Brow, who lived secross the street from this
foot bridge. She testified that she had had occasion to cyppss the
bridges frequently and did pass over it between five and six o'clock
on the same evening when the accident occurred and at that time the
banister was up and as she passed over it, she did not then or at
any time prior thereto observe any portion of it beings rotten or
decayed, When the southerly upright was exhibited to her on cross
examination, she stated that, as she passed along the bridge that
afternoon, she had not noticed "that rottenness" as she expressed it,
indicating a portion thereof. She further testified that she had
never touched her hand to the banister, but that it apresred all
right to her.
Appeliant also insists that the physical conditions after
the accident support its theory as the north upright was disconnected
from the sill, but the banister remained nailed to this upright and
both were in the ditch while the south upright remained attached to
the sill of the bridge, tut the banister had pulled away therefrom.
Appellant further insists that the evidence discloses that the banister
was mailed tothe inside, tht is, the bridge side of both uprights,
ee
etew teteinad bose at deisey ea edt -2ad da troy odt ot nie font wal
Hettitess tend elmvo teente dif bas e&@L at wea ttsasd ‘\enta
"epatoold” toette tot teallegge Yd boas mod ovad Y ea ga
O#eL ett mi am) tid off at boas otew ‘yedt oroted ebs0 iced
‘Vferto® atwor bre eellaqds ,tasbions edt to amt eit ya Fee Ke
diel fegqe to yrosdy ond ef YI Jopbidd ‘aft ko ganto ‘ulne eild od
gritiexe To Satdowd to aotittvee ned évat saum aa ‘bao dt ve
eved ton Bigow a 10 Teteltnnsd e hie fodtays te wo 20 eorot ee
AL ae E> We
eit of beliso et aot nett s tio mottvennod anu a Bate we : nfl: |
ool" xia bas Svit mewtsd ti tovo seaq Sib igh PCT ars op.
; den vif
elt amid tact te its horn 00 tneb loos edt motfw aahnove amea &
| owe Oe
‘7B TO med? Jom bth sie ev ie 10% vba ote! as bas e. a tabs soe
‘Bed eda tent Bo ttitees wdtest ate » Tob tedt seyase, 3 6 lll
{fs betsercs tf tadt tud tote tnad out of nel be ‘Dodouot teva
4 gala dns 24 , aoe a Glew gk ewe pia
tatts anoittbhnos Iaoteyty edt te ot atetent oele tate” 2
yy Be ed a
ae .
botpo anova th: asw ail iron ‘edt ee Wheat suid jeoir'g! 2
hs Totelns d ont seis hehothn We whines ba oe ih ebitad qeees “ ve
in. dl fited re’ iad bouyiacy sat ant at ete es ey: ts
Ae | rca ter he eee O89,
a
tele elaode es. vat hi Att
and that both uprights were nailed to the sill by five spikes.
One of which was a thirty penny, two were twenty pennies and two
were sixteen pennies, and that therefore a sufficient amount of
force was exerted by these boys to loosen the spikes which fastened
the north upright and when it gave way both were precipitated
simultaneously into the gully below.
It is the theory of appellee that the banister was nailed
to the inside of the north uprisht and to the outside of the south
one. The uprights, banister and nails taken therefrom were pro-
duced at the trial and the jury examined them, They lve also bean
certified to this court for our inspection and we have consideroad
them in the light of all the testimony in this record anc fram a
consideration of all the evidence, we are unable to say that the
jury was not warranted in adopting the theory of appellesc, nar is
the finding of the jury that appellent is suilty of the negligence
charged and appellee free from such contributory negligence as
would bar a recovery manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
It is unnecessary to review at iength all the evidence in
this record as to the condition of the vprighis, and banister of
this bridge at the time of the accident. It is sufficient to state
that Harold Lakota testified that he had crossed this bridge fre-
quently for several years vrecedins the accident. That in May,
prior to the accident, the banister was loose and could easily be
shaken and that the nails which fastemed the uprights to the banis ter
were rusty and thet the uprights and stringers were rotten and the
corners where the uprights were nailed to the banister were decayed.
Louis Correl testified that he examined the banister the nisht after
the aceident and found the mails rusty and the upper end of the up-
~ 5 =
; ‘ P Bios Fe me
ez ouiga ev lt yd [ita ot 9 batten otey settee Phi} toe a:
ors bas aeltameg Yinowt, stew owt waned wridt *® asw pt ae y ‘0 bar
to dayems taetotitvs s etoteteds jedi bas eh ORR EO. met xte 89°%
benotest soldy aexige edt mezool ot syod saedt Yd hotzexe saw eot0%
Setssigtoeds. ovew diod ysw ovey ti modu bas dogitay ai tom oat
ewoled yling ot ofpt. npelrinati
helisn asw noteined eit ¢adt selteqqs to yroedt oft nf fF nance cami
fituoe sit to ebiedwo edt of haa tdgingy dtm edd to @ opsen, 24a
= -OLT. STEW poutene dd newst alien bas tet ated eats Lage edt 1 AAG
med cals eval YedT. godt bontmaxe ywl 9 dit bas etre edt te bepuh
bortebtasoo eval en baa mottoecant wo tot tivoo atd? of ; of. Pot taps
48 @Pit has bvooer aldt at ymomtteet edt Ife To tig it , Ot Ba
eit tadt ysa of sideny ets ew .semebtve edt Ils to mit stoblenes
at ma ,esileaqevto yroait add anitqobs at billy tom 2: ay, wy
emoyifgen eft to wWiinn et tastfleaqs tedt Yul edt, to u priba rt ead
as eoneaiinen Ytotudittaoo foye mort aett pelleqqs bae bepaee
_ eenebtve odd to tdatew edt taniage yteetinem yrevoper s RTs
at eoaebive eft tLe dtgnol aR Ralvas ot Yraeeeoenay ai tI ad Shiai
to tetainsd bas .e deity edv to Holt iigoo edt ot BS btove Te
stateot tmefoittve et tl .tmebloos edt to emit ont ts sabiad obi
. ort egbind aids beazato had ef t adt boltitass stoisl Fade! ha
bo vo, eM rh tad? ..«.tnebloos sit 2g Lbepetg. BTseY. _ Satey 2 t0% Timon
ad yLiese. hiweo Das eaoglt Baw tetetned. aid cimehieos edt oF t to
ie abund edt ot atnginugs edt ho sratast fo tdw alt an oat tedt Ae ER
c ede 5 ss, aston stew aisgainte bas ztdatiap edt tat das. Wart Si
‘in seheyaped. o7er tefelasd edd of belt an stew. etde tage esta, eters ae 4
Tetts., tigta edt. gstaiaead edt Seniasxe oi fedt, bettites? fex709 eiweg
“qu eft Io bas teqay 9 at brs yeu alk a ee Samp % Sas tmebioos ¢
right “rotten enough so that a part of the top came off with the
end of the railing". Charles atkins stated that he frequently
crossed this bridge and at various times he put his hand on the rail
and notice that it was rotten where it was railed to the top of tls
uprights. Orie Jibben, Roy Hayes and George Jibben likewise testi-~
fied as to the uprights and banister which they described as rotten
or decayed and also as to the rusty nails taken therefran. One of
these witnesses, Hayes, described the top of the south upright amt
the south end of the banister as being "plenty rotten", ‘lo over~
come this testimony appellant introduced a number f witnesses
whose evidence tended to prove that the lumber used at the time the
bridge was built was in good condition and the bridge properly con-
structed. That it apveared to be a substantial bridge and Jesse
Higgins, appellant's street commissioner, exanined it in April, 1932
and no portion of the banister or unrights appeared to the naked
eye to be decayed or rotten at that time. Other witnesses testified
that as they crossed the bridge it did not wobble or weave, the
banister appeared to be in sood condition and they did not observe
that either the banister or unrishts were not substantial. With
the record in this cmditicn, it was peculiarly the province of the
jury to determine the facts and in the absence of erronsous rulings
of the trial court, either in the admission or rejection of evidence
or upm instructions asto the law, this court would not be warranted
in interferins with the findings of the jury.
In this connection counsel for appellant insists that re~
to embody
versible error was committed by the trial court in refusing/the
following in its instructions: "That the plaintiff cannot vecover
in this case unless the jury find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant had notice, either actwl or constructive
ent dtiw tro ons qot edt to trsq s tedt o8 mom mattou" tig te
ylineupert out t sais bot ste antut all aeltaid "pabiton ode to ba
{tsteft mo baat ald tq od eomtt evoltev tea bas enbind ald ‘poaabas
ait 10 qot oft ot beftac new ti ev edi nestor eaw tt dasft eotton’ Bas
~ttest eelwowttl meddi% eproed bas geyell yoR , meddit ‘ebi0 vei dg tags
metiot es bedizocab yout dotdw retataed fue atdattqy ed of @s beh
to and storterte nti medat alten yar ont of as oe fs ‘bas Beunosh 'x
ts tigitas divoe ott Yo qot ond beditoash a0 aoneentiw ea cdi
~"t9Vo of . ed dor woola" pated as tote land att to bae ido a “etl
‘7 ‘eeavond bv t vedeyn s beouborial raat Long a tom tao atde sia
aay emit eit tw Beck’ x duit od’ te dt evo of besmet eoneb tvs ows
«109 Ylxegord embind odd bus sot? ibnoe Boos at eew eBid! ao? oud ia
ezect bas ep bind [sttnstedya s ed ot be'tsed qs +h saan” posit
Ser iba nt ¢£ bentwsxe .tonoteaimmoo toonrte s'daatreqas « at 8 i
iodine edd ot betseqqs erdg stay IO toteined ent to. “a0 i100 © ‘ Sin Bi
bofiivces wetsettiw tedt0 oak todd te met dor “to beyaceb od oF a
odd oveew to elddow tom Bib 1 enh hut ode bensore yo aw Oem
“evreado fom Bib yedd has aot tibaoo boos at ed of borseqgs ena tin
a Lsttastadve tom etew atiuloos 10 teteinsd ent tedtie dod
eit To be tach out vireituseg eew ot M6 £4 tba 0 et dt nt brood 2 ed
agit Wt avoemoTtts to porteads odt at bas adost oat” ontinemebb Ot er
etnebive to molt oot et «0 Motsetmis of at teddies ft 08 tated oid %
5s inatrnsw od ton aiivew tro aldd wal ait of a8 em itowrd ent ‘was
| “Vw et to aoribalt ddd addtw anteotvorat &
oe a mie at aeaut tnslleqqe tot feenwo nottoontros et iit a ibis:
yYbodme of
aid\anteutet st dros Isine ont td bod tiutoo asw worre ‘stato
Tovoosy Younsd ‘titvmtafe edt tal?" :enottormbant att ak pal
edt to ssaetefmocetg s yd ba tt wut ett eaelau ‘ene "siti
exer crstuiics 3 Latos teddie woiton bax dasbastob ant f Bat ‘sarob iy
&
of the defective conditimm of the bridge". There was no error in
refusing to add this to the charge which the court gave to the jury.
It does not define or explain to the jury what is meant by construce
tive notice. It is true that appellant was not liable uniess it had
either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition of
this bannister and uvrig
shits, and if the suggestion had gone further
and defined constructive notice, there might be some merit in ap-=
pellant's contention. Furthermore, we have read the court's in-
structions end in our opinion the jury was fully and provery in-
structed.
It is finaily insisted that it was error for the court to
deny appellant's motion to require appellee to submit to a physical
examination by anpellant's physicians. The record discloses that.
appellee had testified and while on the stand exhibited his back
and chest to the jury. Following his testimony several other wit-
nesses testified and the court recessed until the following mornim,.
When court again convened om the following morning, avpellant made
its motion out of the presence of the jury and requested the cowt
to fix the time, place and condi tims under whichthe examination
should be made. Counsel for appellee thereupon stated that the
eourt should designate the physician before appellee finished his
case, Counsel for appellant refused. Counsel for appellee then
stated: "I want the sxamination made before | close my case and
report mde to the court that I may see". Counsel for eer gen
made no reply to this suggestion end after an inquiry by the court
and a further statenent by counsel for appellant, the court denied
the motion. In support of appellant's contention, the cases of
Swenson v. City of Aurora, 196 Ill. App. 83 and Pronskevitch v. C.
and A. Ry. Co., 232 Ill. 136 are cited. ‘Je have cxamined those cases
De
¥
ater,
ni-torre om asw etodl ."egbitd.edt to mi ibso9.evttgoted. edd. %¢
VIL. odd oF vag dawoo od doidw eatedd.odt ot aid? bbe. ot gataites
-outtanos ¥d tasem al tedw yxut edt.ot atsigxe to entteh tom 208, £1
‘ban tt aaelou eldstl ton saw tasllegges tadt, ovtt et $I. sootton ovis
to moldibace evitoeteb edt to sation evitemttencoo 10) lewtos toda
tedtivi esos bad nottaepnya oft ti. bas ,aidsiaoe bas tetelaned etd
-gp nt tivem emow ed tdalm, etodt. ,soltom evitouttanog, bemtted. Bas
(gy MELE, 8 'sai0 9. oxlt beet eved ew ,oromzeditwt .10B met aos at inet to
al Wrsrorg bas ylint sew Yrs edt soimiqo wus ok 5 oe. acto Ht oss
ue BS ie o sbos ound:
od #tu09. od} tot tote asw dt ‘heits betelent yllemit ef t2..., , ot
Sao taysdey s ot timdye of eelleggs otivpst ot ap Hom a'insttegan vn
tedy #080 Loe th broset, oAT. ..eastoloyde a'tasllegqs yd. mm Id eatnox:
AMosd eid botididxe Baste, edt mo olidy ban boititest bed eal locas
-tiw tedte [ateves yoomitees ald ga twollol.. .yml. edt. of teodo bas
amigion saiwollol sm.iitay begaeoes fives, ent Sos, boltitesd BOER oF
ebem tusilegcs .aatarou pabwollct, ost 20, Sener cog. tags divoo aah
t+woo off boteevpet bus yw edt to eoneretg edt to. tyo mobi om ai.
soitenimaxe eftdotdw tebay amolt thooo 508 90 el¢ (mrt, ost x 1% 0
edi tedi betste goquetedt eelleggs tot fmanyed, ss ebsm, of, Luo a
aid bedatsit eelleqqs exoled matotayda edt otetnieed biyods tao
aedt eellegqs 107 Loeavod. -beavter taalieggs rot fe eno) robe!
bas ease ya eaolo 1 etoted ehem aolisainexe end tasm,.I") betat
wal Betteres Tot feenvod, ."9e8 yeu 1. tadid txvoo, edt of. oban droge:
tes edt yo yrivpal as totta fs molieoggue aldt. ot viger on ebo
bo taed. tives odt.,taelleq¢s to. feanyoo yd; tromsatea. sodtryt. 8. ba
to ssaso oft molt aatnop attaslloggs to ttoqgua, ml » » modtom: esi
+0 .v dotiverenerd ne 66 .qgs «fll de, a StomaA to tio »¥ moenow
geese enodd bexioaxs evade! »betio ote OL »LLT StSi4 109s WhiwAy Ba
and while the court might have granted appellant's request and re-
quired appellee to submit to an examination of that portion of his
body which was exhibited to the jury, eertainly appellee had a right
to have his own physician present and it would hot have been unrea-
sonabie to have had the examination completed before appellee's case
was closed. In the instant case it is not insisted that the damages
are excessive and the only purpose of desiring an examination by a
physician other than of appellee's choosing woulc be to determine
the extent of appellee's injuries and as that question is not raised
in appellant's argument, the error if any was committed was a harm=
less one.
There is no reversible error in this record and the jubre nt
is therefore affirmed.
JUDGMEN AFFIRMED.
Ss Bos
«ty ; te we, £7 Poatioks oh. te
“9't Bae tee upet e’tasLlecas "Eat iiee evad tds ior tu09 ia ate sae
aid to nots mq tedt to not ten iwaxe ms of timdwe ot “eolteqas bextup
fdigixn s Sad eallegqe vinietre9 | Vwi, oft of botidtixe Bsr ‘doltw bod
~89"TA gxood ave god bilyow tI bas tnocstq ‘asiolevig mo “att ovat of
ees 2 ‘pal [8g GB exoted ber» Legmes moiteal mex 9 edt be eva « ot ae Roy
etna s ent dade hote Lani son al vt 9289 tnatent edt al pry ie ion
8 we Bol tentuexe me pottieeb te exo gid yino out bus “ovtaaooe on
emimteteb of sd Siow pmizoo do a ‘ee ftieggs to usdé wito ms to teys
boaist tox ak moi Seoup ie dt 8a dae eolmiai a Bh a perys 2 ay teste ott
~arsst a asw bettinmoo asw wre th ToTTe 6 aig (tno tani toqas at
atuallorge aigm
+9n10 aaol
; bi a fei? ty if rath y Ee. SS 1 ae
tn amiwt edt bas bawenee elctt ai Torte ‘aléiexeyes on ae he ae nee
i> 2 ‘ ge wa
sbomiitte etotet ods al
wart? og ad ae b.the
at Rada j Be BN Elio. AS ae 5 sb dbo Her Bab
-<CAMATITA VWeMocur - Theda
a ats wef. ao eget ros Shas. een ge
cay i? 3 Ser. se Ee Oats wee
1m 22 tam o bine, oP Gig) ewe h eae ae DR ae
aby a, DL eae
C7) EO Dare ae.
sace Bet Seated .. -eeR8
foam I") hea
3 a
af at o}vat, Fee
ee aura heh ok lee Ot aim
7: f % 4 ey reer e. twa A ay ig-y es" ge & £. Bee
'
te A grate ek + yu ae
‘ ‘ ‘ iS IZ2 i: Mp? : teE Pray ey hi ue UV Me phen Brey &
ey Sagres u . . « g PE Ay Baia ee a ih A ose ‘af r
of ioe pe ae Te gat He $9 ea a 4 i a bf oh * #O Doe Br Cn pie
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
8s
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
_CC“‘“‘(RUUOCNin *the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(13815—5M—8-82) &$33307
4
4) oy "eo
out ae ric tare rare iy ay
pes ae |
cA ap So, oie oF mikeres
Satie atvAs Cpa ea ee ie ‘acces aie
hun. i wane ojatiogak old in Heh 0 “YOwIHOL re apres 1 hs
deed ob Nosrtadlt Sno Bete abizaneME oi bo. ayevil ail” Baa sasstt shea
~aiistials potty arvaits als at tuo om ai hime si 4 erobereje pelt niidier >.
= «@ /
Ke to fase oil ats ‘aia, cod wi Ar] ee ry Jontt vaiones
to th ican oie eee ame phisat AN sn
if. wake bucisied Sets | baa 180 iw ‘Sea, od? at. poe!
. i ee te ei
yy 0) nip oar set p foto
o¢ *3
De enna
AT A TERM OF THE sere
Cael
[,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth dey of February,
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five,
within and for the Second District of the State of Tinodae
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 2 yn .
: C9 TA, 644
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff. elle O- rd
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
FEB 14 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
' * 7
Uo} ; | 7
;
i" \ = 7 \ i" ri
yo AUS) Tih AHP MG MARE A TA P +, ee
A x. as ae | eee
j > } 7° Dat e vs thissda guteEd on oe
ty reds ¥o yah is fs us ‘eaheon? ap | wo .away20 ta bled baa aa
voxt +X <tif.baa bethoud oata baacuont oatg biol to0 to 789% yA
ELL tqeetar?® edt te dobasare hooves. ent 7 pe
otteds aathteest. Sa20W .o Cage. cer
seolingh 2V0G. of RICARARN ot ¥
lookvaat ,KAMETIM isso a to
tod. HOCMIOL iat ieee
7s
a
wi
Sy,
; 7 2
74
o*
ae
i
ieee aac
oe ih a xe
Gen. No. 8843 Agenda No. 20
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
October Term, A. D. 1934
Henry Boomgarden, as Administrator
of the Estate of Augusta Boomgarden,
deceased,
Appellant,
Appeal from the Circuit
VS.
Court of Iroquois County
Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway
Company, a Corporation,
Appellee.
DOVE ~ J.
This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged
wrongful death of Augusta Boomgarden, growing out of a railroad
crossing accident accurring at the intersection of Hickory Street
and the right of way of the defendant below, in Watseka on July 9,
1930. The original declaration was filed on October 23, 1950. It
consisted of four counts, each charging the defendantwith negligence
only. On October 17, 1931 each of the four counts were amended and
as amended eliminated all charges of negligence and sought to charge
the defendant with wilful and wanton conduct. The defendant plead
the general issue and a trial was had, resulting in a verdict and
judgement in favor of the plaintiff for $5,000.00. An appeal was taken
to this court, and that judgment was reversed and the cause was re-
manded. Boomgarden, Administrator, ete. v. C. & li. I. Ry. Co.,
266 Ill. App. 622. That opinion is not published, but what we there
held was that each count of the declaration as aménded did not state
a cause of action of wilful and wanton injury and further held that
the evidence wholly failed to show that the defendant was guilty of
any wilful or wanton conduct which in any manner caused the death of
the plaintiff's intestate.
gpsentinen dwivtasbaeted et satstado dose ,etayoo wot to soreapinn,. |
geist esw Iseqqs mA .00.000,e$ tot ttitaislq edt to stovst at tnompbut
OS ,oM sbme,A ES88 .oVl 0D
atonti{I to tavod stalleqqA est al
tolateld bmooe?
Be@CL .d .A ,mteT tedotosod
totsiteiminhA es ,mebisymood yineH i
Sebtsgmood atesquaA to ovat ed and 0
Seassoeb
,tnalLeqga
tivoxtd edt mort Issqqé
8v
ytavod atovporl to fuwo0d BS)
yawitel eltomifiil aretesi bas ogsotdo
viotteroqtod s ,YasqmoD
eelleggs
bexelis edt tot sexamsb tevooes ot tdnvord saw mottos efdT -
beotlist 5 to tye anitwor ,sebissmool steyaguA to dtseb Lfutgnomw —
teste yrowotH to nolttoesatetnt edt ts gutiiwess taebtoos pateworo
.@ Yist oo sxeatsW ot ,woled tnshnsteh edt To yew to tdgit edt Sas
tI .0ceLf 8 ssdoted mo belit asw solteislosb Isnitgtio eXxT .08eL
‘fas bebnems ovew atnwoo avet edt to dass [éeL ,VL uasdoso0 m0 “theo
egisdo of tiguoe bas eomentinen to aenisio [Is botsuimtic bebnems as
Baelq tasbnosteb edT .tovbaoo cotasw bas iutitw détw Paebuersd ont
bee tolibtev s at anittIneet:,bad esw Isiat s bas oueek {siemexn edt ey)
~8t esw sauao edt bas heetever esw tromgbut tagt bas hie ssc :
che VA .I 8 .D .v .ote ,totsrtetnimbA ,nebtegmood — bobasm ie
:
etedt ow tadw tud ,besetiduq tom et motmtqo tad? .880 .qad ‘IT 888,
ts
etate tom bib bebubms as nottsialoeh edt Yo tavoo ose tadt asw bled
‘tedt bles todd? bas yistal sotasw bas Iviliw to mottos te eaves 5
a
iba Wiivg nae itnnhented edt tsdt wode of bolist yLtodw ner
Sen, | Meee 3
oe
=
Upon the case being reinstated in the trial court, the plain-
tiff, on July 25, 1935, filed, by leave of court, what he designated
as first amended count as amended. This count charged that on July
9, 1950 the defendant was operating a passenger train over its rail-
road, driving the same through a thickly settled portion of Watseka in
a northerly direction across Hickory Street and other streets within
the corporate limits of said city; that it was the custom of the public
generally to pass over the Hickory Street crossing on féot, horseback
and by various vehicles of conveyance; that this custom and practice
was well known to the servants in charge of the said train; that about
6:15 P. M. on July 9, 1930, Augusta Boomgarden was walking along Hickory
Street in a northwesterly direction across the railroad and over said
crossing; that she was unaware of the approaching train and in a posi-
tion where the servants of defendant saw her or by the exercise of
ordinary cere could have seen her and saw or could have seen that she
was unaware of the approaching train or the danger which threatened
her; that said servants were conscious from their knowledge of sur-
rounding circumstances that their failure to proceed with caution and
their driving of said locomotive at a speed in excess of fifteen miles
per hour would naturally result in injury to persons on said crossing,
including plaintiff's intestate; that it became the duty of the engineer
and fireman, in control of said train, who were servants of defendant,
to keep a lookout for persons who might be lawfully upon said crossing
and to sound a warning of the approach of said train and to warn
Augusta Boomgarden of the danger threatening her and to approach
said crossing with caution and to so manage said train so as not to
inflict injury upon her, then and there known by said servants to
be lawfully upon said crossing. This count then charges a breach
of this duty by alleging that the servants of the defendant who were
in control of said locomotive, with reckless disregard of the life
of the said Augusta Boomgarden, wilfully and wantonly failed to keep
a lookout down the track for the protection of persons lawfully using
-8-
-alsiq oft ,dis0o taiat out ol betatastet puted eeso oft noqu
betengtaeh od tadw ,tusoo to evsel yd ,belit.,e8eL .é8 yw ao {tht
yist no tet bepiedo toweo efdT ..bebaems ag tavoo bobnoms te1ft as
-ftex ett tovo atett texneseasq s aaitesieqe asw tnebnsteb ort oser .@
at ateats to solttoq belttea yiofolsdt s daueti? a Pa tal gl
nidttw eateetts xolde bas teste ytoxoll esoiss soltoe 1th \ ieddesoa’s
etiduq env to motam odt sow tl tant ;ytio bise to etiail etatod7eo oft
dosdeated ,foOt mo gutaveto teett2 yroxo fi sit teve eesq ot yl stoneg
we E3 i)
m
eottostg has moteuo eitdt ted? jsonsyevnoo to eelotilev suotiey yd bas 4
twode tsdt j;atett bise edt to sgisdo mk atasvtee ont ‘ot wos! ‘tow ear |
prove lH gnols gaixlew asw nebtegsiood steuguA ,O8CL ‘,e cist we at SE
| Bise zevo bas beotiis: edt eszotos noltoortbh yiseteewdécon s at teeite
=-feoq a at bas otatt anidosorgqs edt to otswenv eew offs tadt igatenote. 4
_ to eetotexe od yd 10 tod wee tasbmeted 10 atasvtes, ost: etedw vid
ae
ofa tedt meee eves binoo to waa fasted mese eved. biwoo. oso, Xx bat cs
benataouit dotdw rossab edt co ate zatdosorggs ed? 29 murat aie }
-1e to eshelyoat tiers mort avotoanoo elew etnevier bisa ted? ytedtin
bas gottuse dtiw S5ess0aq of, suiLiat aiedt sade agoast emuosto Ratt rue -
eolim seotikt to. sseoxe al beeqe s ts ovitomoool. bisa. to, Snlvitb thedh
x satiaeoto bkan no emoated ot youtat of ¢ineor yiisiteam bisow wod | cl am
somtans, ett to ytub sdt omseed dt tadt. potsieet mt 2'thigatela satbuLont
<taabieieb to. at teavres si98W ow ,aleath Skee to Lonfmoo mh ApmTO TET, Bate) ‘
- gatleson hiss soqu yilstwel. ed tdgim ofw anoateq 10% tuotool s sth ete Ah
W i , ot, atasvise Siee yd nwosst bps bas oesdt ld modu sieideat npiironeg ig
| per a cogieds sod? taupo edt. .ankeeos, bise soqu YLlintwed od i
stow, ow tosbae teh edt. Io. atnavtee ead tedt: gattne fLs Udi xtub etd fo » hy
SRE otlt 0, Saeperath ecolsoes. st iw, ,evitomooos: bise. te fostnoo. ih
Be geez of belist yinotaew fac \LiuiLin, , seb isgmook, siseaeh tes e820:
| aay sy
i pabers ylivtwal enosteq to Ho ttootoxg eit tot Samad edd: mom: ¢ roxool ly
owes) Wee, Rea bed ih, - IF F Y x , ! i). oP ye ‘bit ah, ¥ Z
ai
the Hickory Street crossings and wilfully and wantonly failed to
approach the crossing with caution and although they saw the said
Augusta Boomgarden in a situation of peril, they wilfully and wanton-
ly disregarded their duty and with reckless disregard of the life of
Said Augusta Boomgarden, the servants of defendant refused to give
her warning and wilfully and wantonly drove said locomotive at a speed
in excess of fifteen miles per hour and without warning wilfully and
wantonly drove the locomotive upon her and wilfully and wantonly
inflicted great bodily injuries upon her, as a consequence of which
she died three hours thereafter.
To the amended counts filed October 17, 1951 and to the fore-
going first amended count as amended, filed July 25, 1933, the defend-
ant filed its general and special demurrer, which was by the court
sustained and the plaintiff electing to bhide by these several counts,
refused to plead further and from a judgment in bar of the action
and for costs the plaintiff brings the record to this court for re-
view by appeal.
Appellee concedes that the count filed July 25, 1933 stated a
good cause of action but insists that inasmuch as no cause of action
had been stated in any of the previous counts filed by appellant, that
the court therefore properly sustained a demurrer thereto. Appellant
insists that by operation of law this count relates back to the
original cause of action stated in the first declaration, which was
filed on October 23, 1930; that this count does not state a new
cause of action, but was simply a restatement of the specified
conduct upon which the original declaration was based; that the
statute of limitations can not be raised by demurrer in an action
at law but only by a plea, and therefore the judgment of the trial
court should be reversed.
The Injuries Act, upon which this proceeding was instituted,
provides that the action must be brought within one year after the
decease of the party for whose wrongful death the action was instituted.
6t bolls? Yinétusay, das yiiviitw bas gmteaorp teerts yxogoth edt
bisa eft wae yedt davedtis hae sottuas, dtiw aatecoxe ede fosotggs |
a Btost aise bas Yiliviliw yeds ,itaeq to nott asst te, p mt. fod tag.mood ST anaus
to otif edd to, busgetath aeeLaoen ditiw bas Xeub riod bebisye re tb ae +
evig of heenten tashueted to atasytes edt obrapmoos atasguh, Bhat i
bas yilvilin soigiey svodtiw bas wod seq eelim meettti to seeoxe at
| ehdeticny bas ylloiliv bas wed sogu evitomosel edt evox visotmaew ;
Holdy.to ganeypaanoo 5 es ,ted moqu eeltazuhat vitbod. teo73, beto stat me
sted tse teat oid, sexiy botb outs ‘ |
-etol oft ot bos [8eL VL. yedotod belit atauos bobsems edt of, ane
: rbagieb odt ,S8@1 .0S yink belkt ,hebmome gs, tayoo, bebsems, teat?) amkep
tawoo edt. vd. sev do kaw tetumeb Letosqa brs fayenes ad t beso
atau lateves edt . yd eblds ot galjoelte, Tiivatelq eat bos bea. He
asoitos uit to usd af teompout. s. mort, baa Tedd ayy beta, ot, Beswtex |
78%, 10t tusoo abit of brogex ost agaiad, Tiitatstg 9 edt, 2880p, yor. ae
Mey - & POR. ease ate nf
an 8 hetete Seer cS. Ygt bette i auio9 wat. teat, ween (eolleqgs whens. a
Mebitos to eauso on Bs losses I. tect etetent tud coltes 3B, PRAM Aons
ate ,ealleqis yd belit atasoo avoivesg odd to yas ot, betste, A908. bas
saelioaga ..otevedt tetumeb s bentetaup, ylxeqexg, etotenodd, Aree eat ‘
aa edt of slosd 2etsfes, tauoo eldt wal to Aoltiatego yd, tent BABEMEE cl
eav, sio.Bei, loltsisioeh tari edt ot beisie. Bolvoa. to seved tiaat; h
faa yea s sista tom asoh twos eid teat, oder “88, sedot00, up belt? :
_beitioeqe edt to tuametataes s vLgmle, pew tug, sFOHL RATA SM H
ws of? tsdt (doasd asw Sottaieloeb, Isatadio exit. aE, fogu prey oa
or ee
Cahill Illinois Revised Statutes, Chap. 70, Sec. 2. The time
fixed for bringing such actions is a condition of liability,
Hartray v. Chicago Railways Co., 290 Ill. 85, Goldstein V. Chicago
City Re. Co., 286 Ill. 297, and appellee's demurrer properly raised
the question whether the action was brought within the statutory
period. Holden v. Schley, 271, Ill. App. 159. Bhshop v. Chicago
Rys. Co., 505 Ill. 273.
The original declaration in the instant case was filed October
- 23, 1950. It consisted of four counts in each count of which negli-
genee only was charged, This declaration was abandoned by the fil-
ing of an amended declaration on October 17, 1931. MeAleeman v.
East St. Louis Light and Power Co., 188 Ill. App. 291, Holt v.
Gity of Moline, 196 Ill. App. 235. In this amended declaration
Plaintiff sought to charge wilful snd wanton conduct and this
court has held that no cause of action wes stated in any of these
amended counts. Bommgarden, Admr. v. ©. & i. I. Ry. Cos, supra.
The averments of negligence and the averments of wilful and wanton
conduct are entirely different, O'Neill v. Blair, 261 Ill. App. 470,
and when-a declaration charges negligence and wilful and wanton
conduct a general verdict will not be permitted to staid, as it is
impossible to say upoh which charge the jury based its verdict,
Broadbent v. Kagly, 275 Ill. App. 623. Proof of negligence will
not support the averments of a declaration alleging wilful and
wanton conduet and proof of wilful and wanton conduct will not
support a declaration alleging negligence. The death of plaintiff's
intestate may have been caused by the negligence of the servants
of appellec, or it may have been caused by their wilful and wanton
conduct, but it was not caused by both. Grinestaff v. New York
Central Railroad, 253 Ill. App. 162-589.
In Bahn v. National Safe Deposit Co., 234 Ill. 101, it is
said: “The rule is established in this state that the Statute of
Limitations exptring after the commencement of an action bars recovery
emit eff .S .008 ,OY .qedd ,setutat2 beetvel eloatitl Iiided
Uiiltdstt to sotttpado s ef anottos dowe gntgatad tor ‘bextt
onaotd® .V stetabiod ,88@ .ILIT oes ..00 eyewliasi oneo td av vexd-aal
bealat ylteqouy teriwmeh a'selloqqs has (wes . If 888 4000 fi wh :
yiotutsta eft aldtin tdysyord eaw coltos elt xedtorlw noktesup out
egectdd .v qede@a .e0@f .acA . LIT Ite (velHoe .¥ nedlok " shotaed
ENS LIT 808", 00 +8
Tedovs0 bellt esw easo taatent edt at cotterstoebh Lantytio sit
-ffsen dotdw to ¢#aco dose at efnuod twot to betetemoo ‘1 O30 (88
“1% oil? yd bonobrads esv sottsrafoeh eta? .begrato esw yao cones
.v ameotAoM .I8@L ,8L tedeto0 do nolfeteloeh Bebaome a9 to sith
te GLOH ,L@S .qgA .1LT BBL ,.00 xowot bre ‘tight elvol +e test
' ‘noltsteloéb bebmome atd¢ al .éeS saga »fII Ser ponitLoM ‘to ah
etdd bas ¢eubsoo aotmew baa Ivtfiw eguado of tifpyoe abtaterg
e2edt ‘to yous nt betste sew nol¥es %6 eatas on Sod bled asd ‘tasoo
ss81qne ..09 SUH oT. 8 6D sv. tba HobraymmOs ‘at nuos sebrems
motvasw baa Iutitw to etaemtevs edd bas conestigen to et nomaevs eat
OND .oGA .LLT £88 .atele .v Lite ,tactetttb ylextine ete toubsoe
not naw ‘pos Ivsitw bas “eoheg tien gop isde nottstsioss 8 "haw bas
at tk as ,boaste of botdiored ed ton fttw tokbiev Iateneg. 8 “toubdoe
: rVOLD tev att Bbeesd yout out se tedo ilo tdw foqu {se of oétasous tt
_ diiw ednegtigen =o toort 188° +QGA LIT ‘ers (Uisei 7 $i6tb bt
bas LutLiw onivetis nottateloed 8 to edpemievs odt “troggue' tea
thn
ton Ifin ¢oubnoo not caw bas Idtiiw to teorxq bas towbaoo, ‘notaaw
ettattntete to d teed edt ebhesiinan yittsel is aottetatoes B tog
by: atmarsee eft to ecneatisen ont vd Beauaa seed even ‘sit ‘otatceeai
Pod: sotnew Sas intiiw aztedt va Beatso need evel yan th 96 ooltoags 0
ay t10¥ adetss “v Vist een. “dtod wd beevso tox bow # ‘tod stoub bi208
| 088-881 adh tar aes = poonttat dotted
ib as
upon an amended pleading afterwards put in, where the original pleading
fails to state a aause of action; or, stated in other words, the rule
ts, that when a plaintiff, in his original declaration filed before
the Statute of Limitations has run against his cause of action, fails
to aver any cause of action whatever, and afterwards, when the statute
-has run, filed an amended declaration with new and additional counts
which do set up a cause of action, such new counts must be held to
state a new cause of action, - - ome never before stated, and one that
“ds barred by the statute.”
In Allis-Chalmers Mfg. G0. ve. Chicago, 297 Ill. 444, the court
stated that the rule was well established that when a cause of action
is stated for the first time in an amended count of a declaration,
the suit is regarded as having been commenced as to such cause of
action at the time of filing the amended count, and if the Statute
of Limitations has then run, it will be a bar to the new cause of
action stated in the amended count.
Under these authorities this court is obliged to hold that
appellant for the first time stated a cause of action in his declara-
tion filed July 25, 1933, and we must therefore regard this suit as
having been commenced at that time. Appellant insists that it was
just this construction which the 1929 amendment sought to remedy and
calls our attention to the ease of Zister v. Pollack, 262 Ill. App.
170, which was an action brought under the Injuries Act to recover
damages sustained by the heirs at law of Anthony M. Zister, deceased,
whose death, it was alleged, was caused by the negligence of the
defendants. Anthony M. Zister died February 24, 1929, The allegations
of the original declaration were that the deceased "on to-wit: February
16, 1929" through the negligence of the defendants in operating two
automobiles on streets in Chicago, was struck by the automobiles with
great force and vielence “and thereby the said Anthony M. Zister was
then and there thrown with great force and violence to and upon the
ground there, and was thereby then and there killed" and that he left
wie
autbeslq fontutvo edt eteiw ,at tug abtewiedtes gnthss tq bobnome is abel
aiyt oft | sbiow Yedto af betsta , 10 doltos ‘to eta iW 'Svate ot ‘ettet
eroted heft? nottarsioeh Ientafso efi of ,YuFntelq s conde teed ek
aftst ,nottos %0 cave ett tentega sa Bost enoltes habe ve otiteee edt
etutste edt fodw ,ebaewretts Bus ,wevededw pottos to eavso yee. eva ot is
aimed Isnott15h8 Bus woo cttw cottarsloos’ bebdome’ me ‘Derk Sone ek:
ot bled ed taum etnteo wen dove ,mottos to bavso 8 “ww yon’ ob ‘te Tite
ter? eho bus ,betate orcted tovem eito - - ito Hoe to save wom 8 etste
wether Gad te MR
Pros’ orf DAE VtrT Ves ,oynordd wv od sg 2M etembenO-enttx ay
‘ nottos Yo Sultan « met tot bedekfdadeo Ilew saw elua edt tart pan
ss torteistseh s Te tnvoo" bebnomes ne at omtd tact ott it betate ae)
s : ‘to eeiao tows ot as Heol imtoo read ahived’ es ’ Sobhegee at” a
| otutste edt tf hms ,tnveo bebdems ont satt}t to mbt ‘edt ¢ Yat
i ; to saved won ent of ad 5 of’ ittw tt fst fie? aadl ato tat ima” Yo
too Bebacms edt ot betat Here
Seng Stor oF boatido ef trwod etdd eblt tots seedd YoAU ee
4 -Biafodb eft ut notes %6 o&uen & betets omtd veokY ad” no¥ tattoage
: j as tive abdt breget snotevedé term ow fine ‘eset es ‘iat bolt? note |
. ; ew th teift atatant ¢nstloqaa womtt dade +s feonmommoo "ped See
. bus yhenme+ od tifswoe frombiome eset ont do hijw Girt othd akes eine” ae
Ate .Lft $88 wosllod 4 noth tS 26 ekse ont ‘oF hottnot}s ‘ie attae
; Tavgosat ot toa eolaut at ont ‘rebaw tiawotd dottos nT ‘gow ‘Hotiw , ot é
- | qbeass0e8 mod ets “M {Hoss mA to wal ts ested oat Ww ‘pontat ave’ po 9 é
eit 6 eonestizen edt we beetien sew. \penetias aew tt Bree
| aoltesolie oat “sel as var beth Perso Me ene
dtiw selidomotua edd vd Aouad Saw epee by ‘ateette 10d Hs
aew sotet® “ymtodlt nA btew “sie Yeerods bas" ny pode lowe
4 me edit mocts “bra of ‘goneloty ‘bas itl teem ‘tthe ticle ms mode
"4 “tte! ed dat bas *betfix evoity bas ‘nellt dered? eew Bue id id” bas "5 |
fle
him surviving certain heirs. At the conclusion of the third count
it was alleged “To the damage of the plaintiff, as administratrix, as
aforesaid, of $10,000.00 and therefore she brings her suit within one
year from the dete of the death of plaintiff's intestate." On June 25,
1930 ,an amended declaration was filed, the allegations being substan-
tially the same as in the original declaration, except in the amended
declaration it was alleged that the plaintiff died Tebruary 24, 1929,
as a result of the injuries which he sustained February 16, 1929. Among
other pleas, the defendant plead that the cause of action set up in the
amended declaration did not acenue within one year after the death of
Anthony M. Zister.n The trial court held that the Statute of Limitation
barred the cause of action asserted in the amended declaration. The
Appellate Court held that the amendment to the decharation setting up
the specific date of the death of the deceased, although filed more
than a year after the date of such death, related back to the date of
the filing of the original pleading and said: "It is obvious that
the cause of action asserted in the amended declaration grew out of
the same transaction or occurrence and is substantially the same as
set up in the original pleading. The cause of action asserted in
both the original and amended declaration was to recover damages on
account of the claimed negligence of the defendants in striking
Anthony M. Zister on February 16, 1929 as a result of which he died.
The time and place of the accident are particularly pointed out in both
pleadings. The only allegation claimed to have been omitted in the
original decharation was the date of the death of the deceased. It
is cleer that the csuse of action asserted in both pleadings is one
and the same and not different causes of action. * * * Prior to the
enactment of the amendment to Section 39, there were many pitfalls
that were fatal to a plaintiff should his counsel fail to allege in
his declaration all essential facts and should the time limited
within which an action must be brought have expired before the
omission had been discovered. And such omissions in most cases
———
aA
aes
teyoo brid? edi te moltaulonoo ot tA »atted otsiies aiivivewe mid
as ,xliterteiatsbs. es $Witatela eit To egsmeb ost oT" begelis asw tt
one aldtiw tlus tod agatad ede eroteredt bus 00,000,01$ to ,bieae1ots
.88 ool 0. ",etsteetat a'ttitaielq to dteeb oft. to etad edt mott ms0y
wnstedue guted enoltagol{s edt ,doflt eaw goltsislees bebaeme mg. 08@L
bebosms sit af tqeoxe ,noltsieloeb fsatatro edd at es omsg, oft yiistt
<OSOL .F8 YIsurdel beth Tiitatelg odd tedt deneL{s asw th notteneLoed
gnomA .@seL ,df yaewadel bontsteya ed dotdw eolwiat eit to tiveet 8 28
ead at qu tee mottos to cenuso edt tadt bent vashaeted edt ,aselq todto-
to (ised edt setts assy smo nidtiw eymoos ton BLD noivstaloed bebnoms
| Meitetimid to etutate edt tadt bled tivoo Ishat eT c,cotelS .M yeodtaa
qu gaittes soltsusdoed eit of tmomhmems edt tedt bled tuuod oteLleqga
stom belli davoitls ,beaseseh eft To dtseb edt to etsb ofttoege ont
to ofsbh edt ot Aosd betsloa ,diseb dove to etsd edd setts tex, es nant
tedt evotvdo ei tI" :bise bos gntbselq Laniginzo, edt to, patsy edt
46 tuo wem softsieloed bebmois off al botaeses, moltos to gauso elt
88 emse eft yilsitastedua el bua sonetapse wo soltosepext ontae enit
ai betupass solves to savso act .saibselg isatglro edt ot. qu tA col
ao eegamed ievooes ot saw soltsrsloeb bebsems bas Lentgtro sit dtod
gaoltaliute ni atashnotebh edt Yo eosegiizen bomtslo edt to. het pl
i -belb ed doltdw to ¢iveot a as. @Sel ,df yteridot 19 tetvelS if waodtak
dtod ai tuo bet ntog yiisivettiseg eis tuebtoos ed} te sesiq bas omit oat
es,
= a a lee =
- oft ot bettine seed eyad of bemisio moitsgelia yino oT .aanthse,
~.. 80 ef egnibeele dtod at betmeees molting. to ease edt ted ts
bai tie is Aci biite signi sak Prado i
a See _BeRaD. ‘nos ait acotaatng dove oes osoens® 00d yooh
Bie Si
tI .hesssoed. alt to dtaeh ent 0 otsd odd asw. ent somst0 .
sat of tobad * OF -Holtos To seayse daeTotiib tom Sas eupe ont, ‘aa oh
siistiig yosm stow ot\ed? ,08 sottoe? of taombaems oft to tno zt
ger am
a eh
hale t
Gt egeita of Lftat Loanyoo eid bivode Ititatsta e ot Istet exer i ee
do not prejudicially affect the defendant in the filing of his plea
or the making of his defense. It was to obviate and remove these pit-
falls that the Legislature enacted the amendment. With this construct-
ion effect will be given to the amendment.”
In eur opinion the Zister case is cleariy distinguishable from
the instant case as in that case there was a defective statement
of a good cause of action and the amendment did not assert a new
cause of action. Not so here. The original declaration had been
abendoned and né cause of action was stated, we held in our former
opinion in any of the four counts filed October 17, 1931. For the
first time a cause of action was stated in the count filed July 25,
1933, and this was long after the lapse of the period provided for
the institution of suits of this character.
Keslick v. William Heating Corporation, 277 Ill. App. 265
was a suit instituted by Lucille Keslick, as administratrix of the
estate of her deceased husband, to recover damages for the death
of her husband, in which she charged a violation of the Occupational
Diseases Act. The declaration alleged that Floyd H. Keslick died
on December 6, 1951. Additional counts were thereafter filed to
which a demurrer was sustained on the ground that the action was
improperly brought by the administratrix. On September 26, 1953,
Lucille Keslick individuallp and William Keslick, a minor son of
Floyd H. Keslick, deceased, by Lucille Keslick, his next friend,
were substituted as parties plaintiff in lieu of Lucille Keslick
as administratrix. On October 16, 1933 the plaintiff dismissed
William Keslick as a party plaintiff and left Lucille Keslick as
sole plaintiff. To this declaration as amended a special plea was
filed to the effect that the causes of action in the amended declara-
tion were separate and distinct from those alleged in the original
declaration and that they did hot acerue to the plaintiff at any time
within one year before the filing of the emended declaration. In hold-
ing that the trial court properly overruled a demurrer to this plea, the
a
i
selig etd to soltitiooest ab tasbneteh' eds .tostts: Vilaiolsuperg ren: of ,
-tiq.esent svemet hus etsivde ot aaew tI spaneteb: eid. ‘TO. aniasa ot 0 }
| ~-touttenoo @id¢ ctiIv .tnesibuens ent bstosue erttetitgel eit tad?) eiist ;
| *,dmombtens off ot Mivig ed ILiw toette» ~” {
" deb eldsdatugnive Lh Yisels at eeso totetS ont: sotntgo 1H6 at 1
tnomed ste evitoeted & Baw ted? send todd: mt es caso: rately ,
wen a preses ton Bib tnembsoms odt bua aottes to sesso. boog ae a6
eS Le
. eed: bed coltersloeb Lseninitd eit +9 ten. oe tou. tottos ‘to: 2280
Avittot ww6 At Sian ew cbetsta esw nolvos To sauso bm bas bianhasiiy r
edt tol .[eOL ,VL tedoto0-heltt eatasoo spot! eit to yas at notsatoo :
: “68 Vint belit tayoo edt at betste esw nottos ‘to eavee 8 amit: otek ;
‘ ‘0%: bobtvong bolieq edt to seqael ext tot te eatot Ban addy ous: 400d
| ee ie stetoaredo elit to ative to noktut trent *
' eas «qgh .LIT TVS (molt enog'709 anttpeH meiCCiw sv aotined ;
ive a eee
|
ont to xiwavteininbs es ,xotleed elI[foul vd botutitagt tive, & 2
fitsed silt ‘ot segsmab tevooet of Sasdeus beznooeb leat 2. etotae
‘ on Isnott squad eit to solttialoty s bep*torio ena” sio.bsiw at shosdaust, sree ile Sey ;
2 both to tlaen «i ayuss gent begoiis nolisisloeb ail .toA apanoake
| Sof DeLLY ses rsoreNt ow etmuoO LeaOPLbDA EOL @ ara A i
Baw tro fyos aime vedt bovow ent mo berlateys eew conmumob a sot |
¥ ) SOL a8 rTédmesges £0 -xinetatetmbs end yd diguond wiregomqmt :
me (Pe ae moe nit 8 ,zlotlack me2iL2W, bas Ailevbivibsk dotlesk eLiteal
| hue ttt txen eid ,Aoileel efltoul yd Sempeped: plot inex AH ByonT
f 4 to bLest ‘eLLtoud to well ak -Trttniel¢ sotteq ae bodut oedue ° a
e — bewetmets viltatete elt BECL 81 redotod m0 \atateste tata a0 ‘i
a ey 8s doties® elftoul Wiel bas Vititele tse 8 an yobieed. mothe 7
he. > ag sofa Esfoege a bebaon.s es bolts taloeb edt ot © whttntele aloe vy
Be (ste loeb Sobseme oft mi ‘polios to esaues edd tadt toette onld: ot fies 0
ROR!
fentsive ost ak begelis eaods moxt todttats bas ev ar9068 orem oe
my € 4 ae uP
Sy ee
Bia mtd vais te sobtanetg edt of ouTDos ton bib ae he on pres eo
i es 2 %
. -blod ni!
Appellate Court for the Third District held that the original declara-
tion stated no cause of action and that no cause of action was ever
stated under the Occupational Disseases Act until the amendment to
the original declaration was filed, which was two years after the death
of Floyé AH. Keslick. In disposing of the contention that under the
amendment of 1929 to Section 39 of the olc Practice Act the amendment
to the declaration related back te the filing of the suit, the court
said: "In the present case the original declaration stated no cause
of action because the statute did not autherizé suit to be brought by
the administratrix. “se therefore do not think that the cause of action
asserted in the amended declaration can be held as being substantially
the same as that stated in the original declaration. The appellate
courts of this state have recently so construed that amendment to the
Practice Act. Hanley v, Waters, 255 Ill. App. 259; Holden v. Sehley,
271 Ill. 4ppe 159; Redman v. Schilthelm, 873 Ill. App. 222".
Hanley v. Waters, supra, was an action brought to recover
damages for negligently causing the death of a boy. The original
declaration centained no allesations that the deceased left hin
surviving any next of kin who sustained pecuniary loss as a result
of his death. <A demurrer was sustained to the declaration and an
amended declaration was filed more than two years after the death of
plaintiff's intestate and in each count of the amended declaration
it was alleged that the deceased, at the time of his dcath, left
certain perties as his next of kin. The defendant plead that the
causes of action had not acerued within one year next befere the
commencement of the suit, and to this plea a demurrer was sustained.
In its opinion, the Appellate Court stated that the action was
commenced within one year after the death of plaintiff's intestate,
but the declaration had not stated a gocd cause of action in that it
did not allege that the deceased left him surviving any next of kin
who had suffered pecuniary loss because of his death, and for that
3 BIRT eh al
- B=
-stsioeh Laatetxo ost tant Best ‘forutait ‘pata ott ‘07 #caod oveLteqaa f
‘aeve asw mottos to seus on tani hie athens to oauae ont “bedese nots
bf 6
a]
ot pe ane agit Tbe nr toa soumenoie Isat? sas090 ont ‘vob aw berate
pteeh odd totts aTBey ows asw tio taty belt? apr tort s19Loeb ‘Taakgt%e edt
‘edt cebay tedt anottmetnoe edt to anteoqaks al so BLaex E yore bi “a
Togaoe «7 Fu ' yF
tmembsome odd ton soltestt blo edt to e8 nottoee ot esel to Som om
fi nit ey *
tos ot tive eit to gattrt edt ot toad hedaiex sottarsfo0b ‘Nat ot
LO. ee eag |
eaus. on betata gotteratoab Lantstto oMt 9280 tnecerg Be 9 aI" eng s
oF
yd tlguosd ad ot tive est xodtys ton Bib otutata eit sevaced ‘molten. a
‘igh a eee
nottes to oauso edt todd Antdt tor ob store set on wcintardeinimbs ott
tetenat : dre anced ‘Bs bled ad aso nottaxs {eb bebroms edt at betroees
baled: fame
stallsqqs edt “0 tists foab Ieaigito ent at botate ted 88 omer iy
edt ot tnomb sens test heuttesos of “Ut aeet eval ‘ohata elit te wee |
voldo2 v nob tott 268 ag eI fT Zee emetl “wv vet aal “toa ate
aa e
"686 .qqa .ffT 8v@ .mfodtitde® .v member eer ‘sak yi 3 a
; i de; he re sta
‘tevoo9% ‘ot tiauexd soites as saw ere “eteta v Xelasit
Ye apa ek Or,
“Taukatae ont .«Yod s to Steeb ont ‘satenss ‘lines! fen ot 8
4 6-9 a
| "td ra of boaacoch ent ‘tent anott sve Lis on bontntnos neers a
of Lame.
tiveen ‘p 88 ‘esol visauoeg bontat ape ont ‘nist to xed “as satvivige
Se
ne “bar notte afoeb oft ot bonistexe ao 197109 i “uitaeb aid
Py ae
to it neb ody tof 18 ‘e1Rey ows nade ‘oven Tiss enw hie “Bebidas ve
nol} susfo05 bobnems edt ‘io aves ‘dose nt bas ofsteotat satiate
eed i,
; ¥tel tite B abd Yo omt? odd ts wbeasedeb edt tell bogolts 2 yes aw tt
( me eg
Ry edt Fads baolg Jaebneteb ont att te fren etd es voit nistteo
Nh fh . ri dante g
edf stoted tien 80% eno wbit tir boutoos ton Bell nolios ‘to ae
sboatagans’ eew teriumeh s a edd ot bs tine out 0 —
aio te saat nore ) rey i ‘a
dae “ statectnl alititdielg 10 deed offs tote 70 ~~ ey beonon
STL MB UAE ap
ti tedd ak solves to o¢uso boos a bodate ton ‘bat ott» foe
“alt %o Veen vais anivivure mht Hol Deaseood ‘odd tedt “egolts to.
DP wh Tos if oy hed se
i fait 107 bas itaeb old ‘to eounsed ined Traliowes + twa 5
Ae
ater oi te. aa ow: Tes mcr co. oad ae aa iy OM eo Re A is cpa +e sia a eee, or,
ay - 5 es
reason held that the trial court properly sustained defendant's
demurrer to the declaration. It was not until more than two years
after the death that plaintiff filed an amended declaration in which
it was alleged that the dedeased had left him surviving next of kin
who had suffered pecuniary loss as a result of his death and which for
the first time stated a good cause of action against defendants. The
opinion then quoted from the case of Devaney v. Otis Hlevator Co.,
e2ol Ill. 28, where it is said: "The rule is familier that when a cause
of action is stated for the first time in an amended or sdditional
count, the suit is regarded, as to such cause of action, as having
been commenced at the time when such amended or additional count is
filed, and if the period fixed by the statute of limitations has run
when such a count is filed, the plea setting up the statute is a proper
plea and a good defense for such newly stated cause of action. " In
commenting uvon the amendment of 1929 to Section 39 of the Practice
Act, the court in the Hanley case said: “It will be noticed that the
amendment is to be applicable tif it shall appear from the original
and amended pleading that the cause of action asserted in the amended
pleading grew aut of the same transaction or oceurrence and is sub-
stantially the same as set up vin the original pleading', But in
the originel declaration in the present case, no cause of action was
asserted because essential facts * * * were not alleged. And hence
we do not think that the cause of action asserted in the emended
declaration can be considered as being substantially the seme as that
stated in the original decleration.”
Holden v. Sehley, supra, was also an action brought under
the Injuries Act and it appeared that plaintiff's intestate died on
September 3, 1928. The suit was commenced on August 6, 1929 and the
original decleration was filed September 24, 1929, each count of which
omitted any allecation as to due gare and caution on the part of the
next of kin and beneficiaries of the deceased, and also failed to
disclose by any facts or cireumstances the conduct of the next of
kin. On August 2, 1930 an auended declaration was filed, which
a . :
i
at
x.
a'tasbneteb benisteve ylueqoiq tuyoo Latat odd tadt bled moese1 h)
_. ateey owt aadt estom {itay tom asw ot” Hoitetaloe’ adit Sm
fotdw at noktsisloeb bebssmgehs belli tittntslq tend Ht gob pat etka
nti to txen satvivase aid tel bal heaseboh, ont tedt wakth wa be
| 02 dotdy bas dteeb bi 0 iinaet s 28 esol Yisinwoeg beteTiva bart ode
eiT .ataeineteb taatssa soktos to gauss hoo, 2 Sotats omlt ta1t2 edt 4
4300 toteve Lt sitO .v Yoasved to osso ont mort betoup uodt, notmtge a
ebngo 8 medw tat? teiftmet ot elut ent" :btea at tk snow , 88 oid fea
| fenotttpds Kt) Sabnems ng of omit fartt edt rot botace 2 ak apttoa te
. gatved as ,ndites to saus9 dove ot as ,bobsapet at tive ost aPnsr08
M4 ot tavoo Ignolttohs 10 bebmems dave nodw omtt edt te beocesuos need if
f Biciel asd anottattmit to etstete oilt ve. bextt Soltteq, arit at bie. Peet
i) soqoxg 8 et stutats ond, qu gaities Belg edt ebeLht al Taso 8. iia ial
ai. ne 0 FF 99, to eames betste yiwon dove to% eastelob Boog, . s
be "p ahc ail odd To && sottoos of @S@L to tnembnoms ot noom anita 7
ori tect beolton od itn tI", ibise, ease yoLlnsk opt at F700, ntti
fantgizo edt mort tseqqs Linde, ti 22" eldaotiqas ed of at trombone
bobnews eit ni Setieaes sottes to esuso oft tact gatbaolt Sobroms faa
~die at bie eoretio90 to noliosensi omae edt to tus wed. aatheelg, f
at tug -"gatoselg faatatse ot nk ay, tee as, Oma mid TERRE,
asw soltos to oeveo on ,oaso tnssetq oft at nolteisfoeb fontatap, eat, ;
eoned bal .bogelia ton. ayer Oh atost Lattnapap, eausood betwesis i
bebsoma edd ot het tonne Hotta to eestap out todt Akad tom ob om
taxt 2 ome oft yitettnetedue gated ap boushtenos pd nso Hott azatoob, .
Sir | “.fotterslo0 Lantyte ot at botate,
soph ar: thane soitos pe oats saw ,stqsa ,vatioc sy. eb LOR i
9 Ho eld etsteetat a122ttnisla tad betaoqas th bas oA setaubs Todt
be edt bag esef .8 taupe Ao, hoo.stoswsiop saw tina og? .O80L 48 rerenene,
a aokste to, twos ose, (e 880L AS te dmetqs% boltt asw ao tterntoes -
ee a ee i
a an ee ee en
a ed a . - e
be +, ae
“ont to tus Sait Lo soft seo bas. 8780 9pb. of Ati foktaselis: wae, Dott te
OF bolist cols bas ,besseoob silt to aetuate stoned pas $A, ‘Yo #
to, ten, end ig toubnoo edt neorist emuoxt me, atoat yas xd |
to beiw oboLtt aew motteitaloeh bebmows as ower , teu 00 ™
i i
-}0-
contained the necessary allezation. A demurrer was interposed to
the amended declaration and sustained, and the Appellate Court for
the Third District, in affirming the action cf the trial court, said:
"The rule is well established that when a cause of action is sustained
for the first time in an amended count of a declaration, the suit
is recsarded as having been commenced as to such cause of action at
the time of filing the amended count, and if the statute of Limita-
tions has then run, it will be & bar to the new cause of action
stated in the amended count".
In our opinion the count filed July 25, 1935, stated for the
first time a cause of action and as more than the statutory period
had then elapsed, since the death of appellant's intestate, and
as these facts appeared upon the face of the pleadings, the trial
court did not err in sustaining the demurrer end the judgment will
therefore be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Ob Dam tarant
| ot Beacqietut saw aittiied® A abt ana
i oe $a0d lninevuan ant bie ,benteteua andere aatashiar "i
fe ‘dottos to e@ied wen sat of aed é od ffiw ft ,AnT ad wai? ott
%
aver vi da ~ibloe To omen foam Ot 88 ghee ovepsdinesions er
r he eet
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
(78815—5M—3-82) 307
f
@ &
Pian kite q
eh . # oop at he hamdas went Ea
Wer re : ry
ON Ett Dito NET a a
ee 2007 PS ee hehehe | - |
c Paths tar) + pee : fer a wh ;
ya Wianal es a “a! an
cla “eos Tt sala ‘Seth
ol taNQdins ee int ‘dee “ |
ABT ogo cuit | aes i .
fe At ‘ sone SE ar
<7 P92 x
i
i
AT A TERM OF THE APPELWATE COURT,
- 7 sf
f oe
4 | |
Begun and held at Ottawa, on wae Jie day of Febrgary, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five,
:
within and for the Second District of the State of Fllinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff. PY O
29 TA
C47
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
FEB 14 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
ale
¢
eee Eee eee eee ee eee. oe
dae ads
‘THUG STALTOTEA EMP) CO Mra ARR
is ne SS os: ‘
: E tt Pe tae “eseset 1g Aw asEO oa. BJ f
A bes Setbeyrd enia Diaevod? oxo Soe ae 70. 12d |
pi ‘a ofate otft to dotvdeld Snosed oi? “ot baa, ate pac
oltaul potblieess 2YIOW >, WERT 208 on oa ie
eanlveut <7Od .f WiLDOLARY tO
sottavh .MAMTIUE SHTAIS- coll
309 £2 ROPE ot SUTEUMS ag
nO :tiw-ot ,abtewtelts dadd ml
edt ai Bell? esw t1r07 al to notaiqs ‘odds,
_getegit Bae sbrow ade: at stuur0d bine to 9
&
4
oe, = <<
ae
-
* jhe
GEN. NO. 8852 AGENDA NO. 33
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
October Term, A. D. 19354.
EE nn TTT 2 mem nee ts tN ene A 5 a EE eS RRS Rr RY
LAURA GOTTSCHE,
Appellee, APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
VS. COURT OF HENRY COUNTY
CARL J. LAGER,
Appellant.
DOVE, J.
On January 28, 1932 appellee filed in the Circuit Courtd
Henry County her bill of complaint in which she alleged that her
husband died in 1911 and that as a result of the settlement of his
estate she became the owner of eighty acres of land in Carroll
County, Iowa, and two lots improved by dwellings in Coon Rapids,
Iowa. The bill further alleged that Dora M. Lager was the sister
of appellee and that appellant Carl J. Lager was her husbend: that
they were frequent visitors at appellee's home in Iowa where she
then lived: that appellant was an experienced busi ss man and be-
cause of that fact and her relationship to him she had great faith
and confidence in him: that she was inexperienced in business affairs
end soon after the death of appellee's husband, appellant and his wife
commenced a course of persistent and continuous urging of her toturn
over to them all the property she owned, except her clothing and house-
hold goods: that appellant and his wife insisted to appellee that
she was not competent to manage her own business and that she could
Sé .OW AMIDA ; Sasa 0M p fe
SHT MI oa
BIOMLLII TO TAVOO ATALIEIIA |
TOIATeL@C qMooka
oDSOL .2 .A ,mteT tedoso0
| .THOSTTON AAUAJ
| TIUOAIO AAT MOAT TARTOA }
{
{
| ,eelleqqs
| YIUUOO YHMXH TO TAUOD o 4, Qi
( AID AT ob DA
-tasileqaA a
‘two0d tiwottd edt ot bSeltt ee{feqas SéeL .8S pond oak 0 nm
ted gait begelis ere doindw at tatet{qmoo to [iid ted eiv09-
ait to tnemelttea edt to tivaet s es tadt hus [fel at both basd z
{forts} at Basl to setos yWoisnte to teawo adit emsoed onda ot ates
~<2biqeh mood at egaiffewb yd bevorqmt etol owt bas ,swol «Wats
totale oft esw tozel .M stod tadt bogelis tedirwt {Ltd ofl 7
tedt :Bosdeud ted esw tesel .& {rsd tnsileqqs tisdd bas eefleqas. |
ede etedw swol at emod e'eaelleqce ts etotieltv THONpPSTI stow Yer
~ed bas mam 228 aiieud heonsiitsqxs as asw tuosileqdqs t aft ibevit 1 a
dt ist teers hsd ede mid ot Citewn it ated ted Sas tost tedt to. caus :
etistis eseentend at beoneiteqxent esw ode taft. :mid at eonebtinos, bu
etiw ata bas tusileqqs ,busdavd ateellegqs to Atseb ert tevts mo0e 4 ‘
miutot ted to saint avounitnoe bus taeteletegq to Setyoo 8 beonem
not enjoy life unless she would turn over her lands to them, end in
consideration of her doing so, appellant promised that he would hold
the purchase price of said land in trust for appellee and that he
would manage and control the same for ler, vay out the purchase
price for her support and mintenance as she might wish it, in such
@ wanner as she should always have all the necessities and conven-
iences of life and money as she needed it without care or anxiety
upon her part: that appellee believed said promises and relied on
them and on April 1, 1915 executed and delivered a deed for the
eighty acre tract to appellant Carl J. Lager and his wife Dora M.
Lager: that the consideration there expressed in that deed and agreed
to be paid was $12,000.00, which was then the actual value of said
land: that 34,000.00 of said consideration was paid by the assumption
by appellant and Dora M. Lager of the mortgage indebtedness and that
the remining $8,000.00 was held by appellant in trust for appellee,
the agreemmt being that it should be paid out to appellee as herein-
before specified: tht on April 3, 1916 appellee conveyed to Daa M.
Lager, the then wife of appellant, the lots located in Coon Rapids,
Towa: that the consideration expressed in this deed and agreed to
be paid was $3200.00, which was the then value of the premises: that
said consideration was to be held by appellant in trust for appellee
to be paid out to and for her as hereinbefore specified: that at the
time said conveyances were executed, appellee believed the promises
of the grantees, relied upon them and would not otherwise have
executed said conveyances: that upon the execution of said conveyances,
the grantees entered into possessim of the premises and have continued
in possessim hitherto: that appellant has never rendered an accounting
of his trusteeship but has kept a part of the consideration deposited
on interest bearing bank certificates and has loaned out other portions
of the money of the consideration on interest and used a portion thereof
a
a Se
.
te
ue
}
— nigger oo aia
—~
ot bos ,menit ot absasl sei tevo atyt Bluow efe eaolay ettl yobme tt
blo bisow ef tedt beatmota taslleqas .oa gatob ted to not ferobt.
ed tadt bas selleq¢s tot de wit fit Smel Stee to esitg seesdotug a
eesdoxug edt two ysq sal wT omse oat foxtnoo bas epsmam 5 8
dove ait ,tt daiw tdeim ete as sonsnovitian bas siogqve rsd tot ool;
eevnoo bas asitleesoen ef Iis-ovsd eyawls bivoda offs es tecmen
vielxas to siso Syolltiw Tr bebeen ef2 @s Yonom bas etil to se ae
fo boiler bas acatmotg Hise bevelled eelfeqqs teddy :titsq zed m0
edt tot beeb s betevti fob bas bedvooxe eLeL a trxgA wo Bas a
.M s10d etiw etd bus tegel .t L1sd tasltecys oF tostt eros Yt 4
beerss has boob ted¢ at beseotqxe eredt sotdstebtamoo edt teadt "see
bise to eritev Isutos edi not den dot dw 100,000, Slip asw ot
mo td qmrees ent vd bieq esw soitstebhiamos bisa ‘to (00. 900, be todd !
t add 5as aaenbetdebnt egsgttom oft to tegsl .M stod bas taelec x
,celfeqaqs tot teyit at tasifeqqs yi Sied asw 00,000, 8g EE ae ;
-atetet es selloqqs of tuo Bisq of biyode tt tadd atted t emoors.s e
M sDO of beyewroo eollogqs BLOL ,e Cruqh ao tat {bert toeqa ox
eb ioe mood mt betsool etol edt ,tnelleqqs to atiw nodt ‘ent © 9:
ot beers Bits Beeb etdt at bozaetaxe mo tdetobtenoo edd Seite
tect “1eeaimete oft $6 exfav aodt odd bow Hotiw . .00.0088§ aw’
eeffeqqs Tot teimt mi thslloacs yt bled od of Baw ths ivielitaae ,
et ts tsdt Yhelttoe de etotediteret as tom wt ins ot “ts brag ed
geximotg sit Bovetfiod: senieanartd, bedupexe ozeit wipabetat ae nk
,2ooneyeynoS Biss ‘tb fottveexs eit mow te tt ‘feosmsyertoo ‘adie’ fie:
hewntinos svad bas Picaicigpeine ant to doswaiannists “ovat bete t19 abs titi Pe
~enord we qetite $60 Beneol sad babs od ao tt heree Lihat SabiGol ‘fede 23
tooted? foltixog & beey bnh- ‘teotetat ao noltstebtexos “elit to eee” ee
(ebhis on eds wads Be — nf ceo thd eoanen of ¢taeteqmes thm aay ede
+ ee ye me i
in his own business and has derived from the use of said funds
a large amount of money in the fom of interest and profits. The
bill mde Carl J. Lager a defendant, waived an answer under mth,
and prayed that the trusteeship be terminated and for an accountim
and that appellant be required in his answer to state all interest
and profits he has received from the monies held in trust by him
for appellee, state the present status of said trust, how much is
on deposit, the rate of interest it is drawing and where it is
deposited, also the amount of the trust fund which he has loaned
out, to whom and on what security and at what rate of interest am
the anount he has used or is using in his own busi ss, and that
he render a full and accurate accounting of all the amounts he has
received and his expenditures, and that he be decreed to pay
appellee the amount found due her upon such accounting. In addition,
nineteen specific interrogatories were submitted to appellant to be
answered.
On June 6, 1952 an answer was filed by appellant, which
admitted that his then deceased wife was the sister of appellee,
admits the death of appellee's husband in 1911 and that she became
the owner of the eichty acres of land in Carroll County, Iowa, but
states that it is subject to a mortgage of 35,000.00. The answer
admits that appellant and his wife visited at appellee's home both
before and after the death of appellee's husband, denies that
appellee was inexperienced in business affairs and states that pria@r
to the conveyances mentioned in her bill, she managed and directed
her property. In his answer, appellant stated that he has been
engaged in the clothing business in Geneseo for mare than fifty
years and that his relatioss with appellee have at all times been
friendly. He denied that he and his wife continuously urged appellee
- & =
Mo ttt bbs ail .aaitqvooss dove soon ted exh satot thooms off Sol ead.
"sewane ef 00.000. “aa to fn, bof ‘toet tira” ey” tt wrt
mood emt? ‘tis te ved selteqas asiw amit aier att ‘yi
os oe if Hy th rt Wee "
set togze begtu Yleuoun tta09 ett ahd ‘bas ot tet bebo ol
abast bisa to ear edt mott bevitved ast Sas asentaud awo ant
edt at Mora Sms teetotal to mot eft mt yerom to tnromd otal
«id coho tewens ms hovisw ‘irsineteb 8 waal ob "Ltd evar
mittayooos ms 10% bas betantmret of qideooteirt edt tad? Beyata Bi
tastotat [fs stste of towans afd at betinpet ed theffogss ten | t
mid yd tent? mi Bret eétxom eit mort bevivod? Wat of" He Hoxg Bil
al doom wod ,vamr? Stas to evtetea tuseetq oft ofsre Yeotreges WwW
ea
‘ef #t oredw bas gatweth ef ft teetedai PS eter edt {tizocé!
ae
“pensof eat od doliw bast tarty off to tavom ont resale in)
, gt
ire deotsint YO otex tadw ts bas Yt triode “dbdwito ‘hed moitw St & te
‘Fale bas ,88 ditevd mo etd‘ at’ sutey'et to Bees & ad on “tava % ,
‘esd ed atasome of} ffs to 2 ittyosos etetoo's bao fers Ye ba
“ypq od bedt0sh od of tadt Has 2owtt daeyte etl” Bas Ov
“ed of Fiseipcnisgyal ot } bots tmdwa etew aapiphiveeycaigeeipil ofttood’ me:
te OR DIO HE sie pam
‘didn wtastloqas i Bolt t asw tewens me S8er (8 eat nena 4 ih
~eellecas ‘to wotele sit esw etiw ‘beas0d8B tert ada! ‘tedtt ‘Botti
‘omsosd ede tads bas fier at bodcabd see ttehd a td "xtadh Ub af
dud amrol .Utased Lforrs0 nt busf to aetos yids te eat S8” ws” Se
“iit od emod 2 ‘sel toga = ‘ds bettetv. otin atl bas taatteqaa saat ae
tect eotmeb , basdasd | veoltecss to ‘deeb’ “ett nett Bas ot
mii aardt sotete fas ‘extstts aed atau *, Peuarert esd to dat
ote it
to turn over the property described in the bill to them, denies
that he eae stated she was incompetent to manage her own business
or that he ever made any representatios that she could not gain
any enjoyment from life unless she should con ey her property to
appellant, denied that he ever promised that if she did convey ler
property to him that he would put the purchase price in trust @
that he would manage and control the same for her or use the same
for her support and maintenance. Denies that he ever promised to
pay the purchase price to her as she might wish, so that she would
have, during ell of her lifetime, all the necessities and conven=
iences of life without care or anxiety, denie s that appellee ever
relief upon any such promise and avers that none were ever made.
In his answer he alleged that the eighty acres of land immediately
prior to April lst was run down and in need of extensive repairs:
that shortly prior thereto there was a $5,000.00 mortgage upon said
premises bearing 8% interest: that the income from the premises was
insufficient to pay this interest, taxes, insurance and other
necessary repairs and expenses: that anpellee repeatedly insisted
and requested and importuned appellant aml his wife to purchase the
premises and proposed to sell the same to them for $12,000.00, sub=
ject to said mortgage of 35,000.00, which appellee agreed tor educe
to $4,000.00, and the balance of the purchase wice, being $8,000.00
should be paid appellee in payments as she requested and needed for
living expenses, but not at a greater sum than $30.00 per month and
the balance should not bear interest: that it was in pursuance to
this arrangement that the conveyance was made to appellant and his
wife Dora M. Lager: that thereafter the grantees made payments to
appellee amd for her bere fit, smounting to $1678.63: that the parties
AUS Pie oo 40g
aclneh .medi of Lftd edt at bed troaeh ween edt cs mero mut ot
assitevd mo ted epenem ot tmetequooat esw ode botste wve ed ¢ add
_ fiisg ton biwoo ede ted! amvitatneasiqet yas ebem teve ed Past 0
ot vWwueqow ted yo moo bivode ods aaolov otil wort tnemot, ae ws
Tet Yercoo Sih oda Ti tect beotmorg teve ei stadt betaed Seehes
~ deust oat eoity sasdotuq edi tuq biuow od t edt abel oF,
ems odd sev ro ted mT omea edt Joxtqoo ing spsnem atuow ¢ te
ot. Seatoorg teve od tadt seine .egenetnten bus SPE we * 9
mmevnoo has + tap hae inadieien edt tis vomitorhe wi to ffs, aah
seve eellseqqs tedt a atmed VWeixas K) e189 tuodt tw eth 9.8 ‘
959m tove stew stom tsdt atevs bus ealmomw foue yas oa
YLet stbemmt Sns{ to setos ytdate adt tad? fegetis. od ewe, ig pee
tetincet eviemetxe to becom at bas nwob mut esw tal Laas od i
; stp ere, Say -
bites Hogs egecgt tom 00.000,.34 5 asw one; Dabs a Hag? eet
may oe 2
) hete fant yLhetseqer eetlecas teds . AERTS, ines exis08
: edt eestotuq of | oThw, ald fas toalleqas benut togme bas bote
D, -dve 190.000 84 tot ment o¢ onee ont Ifee of besoqo my bap.ee Eg
i” i : eoube tot hoorge selfeqgs dolidw .00.000 dip Yo obagt tom, bine. of 9k
| 00.000,a% sated ,cot zi saadozug od? m eamptad emt fan 00,000.06 | |
10% Sebeor bas Seize upet ede 88 adgonyag: at ool to age Dad ; 90! ;
Sas disom tq 00.059 asit mus tedsotg 8 a8. tom ted, #20 a | 0 a
ot somsuetug ot aew dt 2 ati steotetat ts9d ton biyode. 6 18 fs
i iy | aid. bas, Apel fogce ot ebsm, aew gonayormoo alt tedt, fp Bs oe
oy ok gg ee atcegysq phan. ssetmets, ot settee tons edt i709 Mt
; aelixsc ent talt :09,8T8L% of gnitavom , $i sted fain /_ Y Bate wi
te said conveyance had settlements from time to time, which were
approved by appellee and satisfactory to her up to April 1, 1919:
that shortly after April 1, 1919 appellee became ill at her home
in Carroll County, Iowa and desired to come to the home of appellant,
and appellant and his wife Dora M. Lager thereupon went to Carroll
County, lowa and learned that a few days previously Emily Larson,
another sister ef appellee, had gone to Tow: 4nd brought appellee
to her home near Geneseo, against the will of appellee: that since
that time appellee has never requested any money on said emtract
for the purchase of said land, that appellant and his wife repeatedly
sought to ascertain whether she was in need of funds but that the
said Emily Larson prevented avpellant and his wife fran seeing or
having any conversation with appellee, but that Imily Larson told
appellant and his wife that appellee did not need any money nor
desire any from appellant: that since the settlement of April 1919,
appellee had never requested appellant to pay my money to her: that
the purchase of said farm was an ordinary sale made by appellee to
appellant and his wife jointly and that he owns an undivided one-half
interest in said land: that $8,000.00 is not held by him in t rust
for appellee but that that amount is the balance of the agreed pur-
chase price to be paid to appellee without interest, in payments of
not more than $30.00 per month whenever requested and needed by ap-=
pellee: that Dora M. Lager died January 25, 1931 and appellant has
been duly appointed sdministrator of her estate, that all payments
were to be made jointly by appellant and his wife, and tht, as ad-
ministrator, appellant has never been made a party to this proceeding.
Upon information and belief, the answer of appellant states
that about April 3, 1916 appellee conveyed to Dora M. Lager the premises
rr Meares i
. é i
etew doidw ,anit o¢ emlt moxt at nometitees bal sonsyovae® hise ot
:eLeL ~f {tugs of gy ted of ytotoste ivse 5 oe eellaggs beans <0 ,
emod tad vs [li omsoed eelleaqas efel ,f Lira . teits Y Lt tod at
.toslleqqs to emod et of omoo of Setieeb ins ewol .Wwayod Levee?
fLorts0 ot mow soquetedt togsl .M smd otiw ald baa taelleqas, Bp ‘
mest yin yLlevoiveiq aysh wets tem 5 tee Ll Pan PY at
esileqrs tiguo1d bab aol of e103 bad ,collogrs 20 mega ke. ted doy
soute tsdt reelleqqs, to iftw edt tenisgs ,9ORONe) Taem mon oe ie
| tents 9 Bisa mo Yenom Yas, botsoupst tTOVeK asd eelfoggs om iit 8 Mi 2
tbst seqex otiw a tel has stastleggs Am, 2 Sal 5ise to atu | o
a $ sft tud e bout to. boon si asw ede “pidtosmw aiiss i986 oo
10 guloss pa x otte aid bus vaisfleqq¢s bsdseverg moata.l Ceo
blot foatst elimi todd jug ,oellegas sit fy mold sete yao. Xae a
tom yerom yas heen ton bts eelleqcs Sod o% Iw ald ‘airs ‘nation
210. Abas SS ‘nomelt tos 0 as somla te lt stmatteaas mont Dn
Japers ited od engin ‘us ver ot tast Leaae betassuper ets bac F - +s
‘6 to. ‘atmo at “yteete tnt tio sit bw se Ltegae ot ‘bieg of 02 eos :
BS ie ; Hai gh Ae iy BE ne
“ce ‘yd bobeon Bis beteoupor ‘wveredy dgabm ‘req 00,088 ee 2
ts Gia iy
eit aditauae’ bab reer (a8 mune beth opal at “st0d ts ie
8 tment ‘tte Tt evant me rf to sodatd olathe + betmtoats. aa
actate ‘Haat teege to towa 18 ont ietled peta no 1 santo se srs
> ee ort wt 4
“Roe tmered ott seated +i stod of F boys im08 Mactan! exer 2 ‘Des! twode
' rat veut “vt hate
“ya t “ Phy to
Ps oe
ate a
pa
ie,
A,
4 ay
Fil
by
(age.
o
;
ie
af
ne
“he
+
in Coon Rapids, Iowa. He denies that he was made a trustee of
any funds arising out gd that transaction, avers that he was not
connected in any manner or in any capacity with it and that the
transaction was solely between appellee and her sister Dora M.
Lager. The answer then alleges that the Coon Rapids, Iowa property
was improved by two dwellings and that upon information and belief
he states that appellee, by reason of kindnesses shown her by her
sister, gave her sister Dora M. Lager one of the lots which was
improved by a dwelling and that the other lot was to be sold by Dara
M. Lager and the proceeds held by her for the use of appellee as she
should require the money and request the same: that thereafter en
with the consent of appellee, one lot was sold for $1500.00 and that
at the time of Dora M. Lager's death, Dora head in her possession for
the use of appellee the sum oO %1358.90, represented by three certi-
fieates of deposit issued by the Farmers National Bank of Geneseo,
fllinois in the name of appellee: that the balance, emounting to
$161.10, was held by Dora M. Lager forappellee: that avpellant as
administrator of his wife's estate, and not otherwise, has possession
of the three certificates of deposit and of the said sum of $161.10,
Wiich he offers to turn into court or to pay to anyone duly authorized
to recsive the same and that he has heretofore offered to turn over
said certificates of deposit and cash upon receiving a proper receipt
for the same: that he holds saidcertificates of deposit and money not
as @& individual but in his representative capacity and holds no sums
or money individually or as trustee for appellee in connection with
this trensaction. Appellant in his answer denies thet appellee would
not have executed said deed except from the fact that she relied upon
the representations of appellant and his wife, and states that Daa M.
to sedeutt: s ebsm dar ed teddy eotned oh .swol ab tqeh goed 4
tom taw off teadd arevs ,moltoseanstd tatt wb tvo prtelis ebay? ye
edd tedt Das tt sit tw ytiosqss Yue ai to telttmes yas mh betoen 0
-M si0@ tovate ted bas selleqqs meewre!d yYfeoloe asw moitesam ;
“ystreqote swol ,ebiqsl mood est tent aogelle med? sewane at? a
tetis d Ine: mot teswrotnat moquy sedi bas apatliewb ows vd bovotgmt 7.
seit Yd tod twods eeasedbate to foeset yd ,colleqqs staat es
eew dotdw etol otft to ano reget .M sarod wetste sei eyag 41
sw?C yd blow ed ot asw tOL wito oft Fans Das amtllowd: 8 YO, Devt
ef2 as solleqqs to say edt tot ted yd bled ehessorg edt bas rena &
frte settaetodé tedt :emse oft teovpet bas ysnom ont ettupet bY fot
tat ban 00,0081) xct bLoe ssw Jol ofd ,eelToud a Yo Pnbalos sidt_ at
Tot nolessasog BA at bed sto ,désod e'tegsl .M stod to smtft :
-itteo seta vd botaesdotqet 08. B8EL) ‘b mua odd 9 Llegq 8 to ew 8
joasened to Haat Lanottsh avemeal elt yd beyast tleogeb to eeits 3
ot galtavoms ,eomalad ssa te dt :eelleqcs to ema dz ai ¢ $4 i
as tasileccs tent sealleqq s rot tegsl .M. B10 vd fox asw f .
notescasog Bel eaimtostic tom bas ,otpies afotiw ‘ati to Linibite
Ole toL3 3D mye bine ‘onlt to Has fieogss to nodsolt itte 9° eo ‘ult eit
bes brody s ‘ote e eaoxae ot xeq ot to tmoo oo att a ant ot eter to a
‘t8.vo mut ot botet b ororod otal and oi be sit bas ‘bab edt vi
dqtoves Teqorq 9 aniv boas + OCs fias9 Soe fleoqeb to aotnorttonse
tox ‘enon bus # taogeb to sofsoititre 0 bisa ablod eit sedg Jame ot ;
| BONS 2 on ‘2 Bios Daus eitoccas evita imcoxgon aid ati we tab te tbat A . :
uit Ew noitoonnos ne eollogas Tot. oot ant es 10 vi tau ty that
| Bt vow eollecrs tent setnob fore ns ald at Een Die
Lager individually went into possession of the town property. He
denies he obtained any profit from any trust funis, but alleges that
the farm in Iowa has been a liability and not an asset and that dur-
ing the period he and his wife were the owners thereof, more monies
for upkeep and improvements have been vaid out then received, that
the farm is still a liability and that the mortgage has been increased
from $4,000.00 to 35,000.00, the additional sum being expended thereon
and in addition appellant expended more than $3,000.00 of his ow
money in making necessary improvements over and above the rentals he
received therefra,
To this answer a general replicatim was filed, am on July
15, 1932 the cause was referred to a Special Master to take and report
the testimony, together with his conclusions. Evidence was offered
by the respective parties before the Master on various days, and on
February 22, 1935 evidence in rebuttal was taken ond appellee rested
her case. With the record in this condition, appellee was granted
leave to file an amendment to her bill and did so m April Sth,
1933, and no further evidence was offered thereafter.
By the amendment appellee charged that the grantees in the
deed to the farm land promised to pay the consideration of 512,000.00
by assuming the payment of the $4,000.00 mortgage thereon and pay the
balance of $8,000.00 in twelve years after the date of the deed with
interest thereon, said interest to consist of payments of $50.00 each
and every month until the principal sum of $8,000.00 was paid: that
on April 3, 1916 appellee conveyed to Dora M. Lager the town los
in Coon Rapids, but avers that at that time she was sick and did
not know or understand she was executing a deed to both of the
tom lots but thought she conveyed only one: that the considera-
tion agreed to be mid by Dora Lager to appellee was $3100.00
x
eH .yitegqotq mwot edt to mofeaeaacg of at toow yllarbivifal
tedt setelis tad ,e hort tems yte mott thom Yrs bentatdo od a yt
-wb Hii Snes tezes os ton bas Yifidell s need aad swol ‘nt mte¥ .
nefnon Sta ,toereris exam 6h otew ettw afd bie on bolted ‘Bx |
tedt ,Sevieoot apdat tuo blac med ovad atasmvorgntt bas qeadoe
peesoton! fed ead openttom oft tedd Bus wilidsti a Litta ek mt t
noste i? hebiiedxe adled mye Lanett ibbs efit ,00.000, 84 ot 00.06 ahi te
vo abit to 00,000.88 madd etom botnoqre taalleqds moLtrsbe® |
ed effete sit ovodsa bus tevo at womevommt Viseeooen athlon: -
sehaiasins
{ist do fee ,Hollt dew Mi tsollder Lerones 9 towens att of * was pss
droge 1 bas oAst of tetaeM Esioeq? 8 of bertoter esw savas oui 4 at
Boretto eaw eomebiv® .enotayfonoo eld Atiw tendtexot” ;
mm bate ,2y8b enottey mo tetesM oft onoted ee httaq wits eniliiadl
‘Hainer eelieqg as bas sedat eaw Petiudet at eonsbtve &8er 8S yw
“Pednets saw sellecns ,motttbitos atdt at Hroeer edt dtiw &
eat® Litqa nb oe bb bas flid ted oF ‘teromB re mie Si efit t
.tettsstedt borotte wow eorebive tM wt of
. ont bak i Cad llerns odt tady festeno setiogas #nombcons edd. ae
00.000 0, 8£8 Y moitsrebfasoo odt yar oF boatmexg bool mst oe |
bn
eit “Yog Suk misvedd eaesd in ‘Odedd Ae oad 16 deemveq edt anh
dt iw boob off to eteh add tots atsey eviews at 00. 06 we ts
‘ Rae 00; 08 to at onryad to #eienca of tested at btea Pt TEN
“tedé i bisa 2 PIN (00.000 ,88 Yo ‘nate Feet Loni edt om itaom y
BL mos ede test fog ar0d of Beyersoa Satins ates
a.
% “F
“90. 00L84 » nsw sibbaied ot regs. ‘ead ea! ‘bi ar Ht) f
when Dora would be able to pay: that appellee has ratified and des
ratify said deed as to both properties. That in 1929 Dora M. Lager
sold one of the houses for $1500.00, deposited the proceeds in the
Farmers Natimal Bank of Geneseo on a certificate or certificates
ef deposit payable to appellee in part payment of the sum which she
owed appellee. That appellant secured possession of saidcertifi-
cates, renewed them from time to time, added accumulated interest
thereto and now has said certificate or subsequent renewals thereof.
That during the lifetime of Dora M. Lager, she and appellant made
humerous $50.00 monthly payments of interest by dppositing the same
in the Farmers National Bank of Geneseo in the name of appellee,
they themselves retaining the certificates: that the deposit of
such interest payments in said bank was at the express request
of appellee: that shortly prior to the death of Dora M. Lager,
appellant withdrew a large part of the money so deposited and
redeposited it in his own name and has possession of the certi-
ficates of deposit evidencing the seme. That appellant and his wife
made certain interest payments to appellee and paid out certain
moneys for her benefit, but appellee has no account thereof: that
appellant holds the money so deposited as a trustee and should be.
required to account therefor and prays for an accounting as to the
balance of the purchase price of the farm and for the payment of
$1500.00 received by Dora M. Lager as the purchase orice of one of
the dwellings and deposited by her in the name of and for the bene-
fit of appellee and now in the possession of appellant.
Appellant answered the bill as amended, denyins that the
consideration for the farm was ever agreed to he oayable at the end
of twelve years after the date of the deed or that the payment”
thereon was to consist of $30.00 per month until the payment of
te
205 Bete bettiter ead eelfeqas teadi sysq ot efds od Bivow stod's
tenel .M stod @8ef at tefl .astireqorq mod ot es boob 5 bee: Trits
ont mi sbesootq aft botteoqod ,00.008L¢ «ot aeavod oft to’ eno BLO
adtssitities w edecttitzes e no oddemad Yo wnat Londtt sl etamee
oie dot dr ome edt to #moorrsy Freq at eolflercs ot oeldaysq tbeoweb Te
~Itisjaehise to molesessod borsses tnellecqs ted? college &
teoretdtit betaitenreos Hobbs ,emid od omit not? modt bewenet wots
stostedt alewenet tmooupeadue to steorrities Hise 2 at wor ins ‘ot ote
eben ttelfeqcs bas efe ,venel .M etod Yo emitetht eft aa iieh tad
emsa adt ga ht taoggh yd taetetnt to atneuyeq yliitnom 00.088 a ,
» yeefiloges to omen att mt cevened to ‘Mad [emo iteM exouret edd ’
%0 tieoqeb oft tant. :setsottities elt anitictet eqvicamesld - af
taqper ceetq¢xe ait ts esw disd Bisex at ad@emyeq footed ms’ dol
y Tegal .M eto ta dfsod ods of stra Ultrode tad 260l hegqe Ke
Bas het teoqeb oe yastom ext to tx8¢ epral 6 Werth! by dk ae 16
+iiteo edt To aoteveasog ead bas omen Aw etd nt tr Ret teog be
stiv eid base tasifeqas teil “.ome edt gntomebive Pteogeb te eoxsat
Aistteo tuo Bisa bus selleqqs of ed men yer daototni aisired eben
nf Jadt Stostent damoss on wal celles tv '.t Mened ted tot a .
“ad Sivodte bos eetawts s es bet feoded o« tonon eat ablos dr aliog ve
eft od as anidnwesos as. tot ‘aystg has tOYenre dt. ‘Gawo008 od pertup ov
to. dwenvec sot tot ‘bets amet ort Xo -@oletey exadtound ; edt ‘to tite ted
/ ® ego to eotua. saadotag edi we Topel .M stod yd beviesst 00. are
~efed emt tol bos to saen edt at t68ed yd Dot iso qeh bts @pmil av |
wtasileqga to mo lawexsoy ont’ at wom Bins! pean) bide
edt tadt eniyoob ,.bebmems ap Lf tde dt ‘bevewaas dralieaga’
has. ent ta eldsyse ed: af, beotgs tave. Ba ortet oni ‘agott oi anton dec i
“Tress ot fadd 10 boob edt Ao otah ond etta kueey evlows
to tasmypgq oft L[hiav diaom teq 00.08% to Taian 9 ot esw sows 3
$9,000.00 was mde. Denies that st the time the deeds for the tewn
property were made to Dora Lager thet appellee was ill and did na@
understand she was executing a deed or that the deed she did execute
only conveyed one of said lots, but alleges that appellee intended
*
to convey both lots, one as a gift to Dora from her sister for past
services in settlement of their father's estate and the other was to
be held by Dora for sale and when sold the proeecds to be held by
Dora end given to appellee from time to time as she should advise
Dora she needed the same: that up to the time of the institution
of this suit, appellee never requested appellant or Dora M. Lager to
turn over to appellee any of said funds which they held. Denies that the
deposits that were mde in the bank were payments of interest or
made by appellee or et her request or direction, but avers tmt the
deposi ts were made in the name of anpelles by appellant and his wife
for the purpose of keeping them separat: and apart fran other funds
ef theirs, except that the $1500.00 was money derived from the sale
of one of the tom lots and Felonsea to appellee. That as to the farm
his agreement was to pay the $8,000.00 in instellments of not mor
then $30.00 per month as appellee should request: ‘that he has paid
to her $1678.65 and is ready to pay the balance in sums not execeding
$50.00 per month whenever he is furnished with a proper acquitance.
By his answer, appellant insists that appellee has a complete remedy
at law and that this suit lacks a proper party defendant as the estate
of Dora M. Lager is not represented.
The Special Master found that sanetime prior to April l,
1915 appellee was the ower of the Iowa farm and she and appellant
entered into an oral agreenent, by the terms of which anpellant
agreed to purchase the farm fHr $12,000.00 and to pay therefor by
ge
| meet «(% rot nbeoh orl) editd edd dn tach eetnad’ sob mt teaw, ann
| tbr 2b hes Lit gow oelfecce dads tegel! atod ‘of eBam lets :
etuiexe. Biers hook off fads to besh) se 2 ait oro aew Wah sm ipo
bobiat nt cefleqca tort’ venol le tut ,adol bredito sho Beysvaoone hs
ahead tet sotste ton sow'roerot of fits » es eno! edo ‘dod you 3
ot wbw tore ent hee etedos e “teiite?’ + tend ww dnendrt stew a wee i
ig wd HLedt sd of sieeve ty ort blow netwbas else wT main ‘
j - @atvi se bivode ene es teuttd ot eintt mort eollarcs’o# nev ty’ Nae a
mortue tart oft lo emit. ot of ay tard :omse edt Bobson eile | 20
of ‘togel iM erode snikitedqe Beteaipor toved cel ters ed kue® wel
ent tadt astred jb Led yeild ao hdr ‘ebivY bisa Ww piping sizio®
" to teetotnt to atmomysy erow wed off at obi erew d ,
i odd Fett Stove vd .ao Hoeri® ©o tee vee? tad ¥4 tol solteree ee obs
ie etiv afi bus tighleqes Ye eellecge Ye stow odd’ it “ear oreir | ee thode
abil “teitto sett trecs be iteraqes med? Sakoeex 46 Webern >
sled odt mov? bevites Yoon aew OOVOORES off? tur Yooord bat
mat edt of ee Pas Veblioqrs of hoateltem bre bfor mod ote td eM
stom fo to ation (stemk ‘ee 00,000,2% ott ‘ys¢ ‘ot asw saa
Biey nat 6 edt steowpes ATvode sellers ed dito bi thal
Ry
Riesegee date amin at sencied ent yer of ybser Bl bis 88 e
iecksPlepes aaqetd # abr Neale aa oa Seine eaten al
Uboust oto lqioo # eat collogys tadd Std tant smattoqgs | s>weRs a
etetas dit Hs THB ASTER Ytted “ee dtd 'B bios! Hie Toit ou ai
Seanad Ha RY aaa aR Mh eanciatvessk fou er an
owen ‘bits’ ite ‘hive’ wrst pwol edt te ‘emro sdf daw's
‘Paelicde s Me tie ‘to ‘garted’ ond Yd pcan yiinad yrs cs
i “apt or éat esd ot fae Ponies at mie? enh “ob adforua
: i x J p i e CHR Dis v a Lhe Lay og ae ef od 8 oy. soesaina
; rn A
; p i at ce) - ; : - : ' we tai R
assuming a mortgage of 4000.00 thereon and the balance of
$8,000.00 he was to pay twelve years thereafter, interest upon said
sum of $8,000.00 to be paid monthly at the rate of }°0.00 per month
until the $8,000.00 was paid. That in pursuance of that agreement
appellee conveyed said farm to appellant and his wife by e warranty
deed dated April 1, 1915, which was thereafter on November 27,
1915 duly recorded in Carroll County, Iowa. That on September 1,
1916 the grantees in said deed commenced paying interest and from
that date until about December 1, 1931 continued to make interest
payments by purchasing certificates of deposit in the neme of
appellee at the Farmers National Bank of Geneseo, Illinois, appellant
and his wife retaining the certificates of deposit in their possession:
that up to 1925 most of the vayments were made by Dora M. Lager am
after that time by appellant: that most of the payments were for
$30.00 but somtimes vere mare and sometimes less than that amount
and were not made each month but from time to time: that the deposits
were made at the request and direction of appellse: that fron time
to time these certificates were surrendered by appellant and his
wife ané renewals issued adding accumulated interest thereon: that
on Jamuvary 22, 1951, as a result of these payments, there was on
deposit in said bank the sum of $5187.94 represented by six certifi-
cates of deposit, of which $3893.82 represented interest on said pur-
chase price of %8,000.00 end $1294.12 represented accumulated in-
terest m said payments: that om January 22, 1931 appellant endorsed
the name of appelles upon each of said certificates, surrendered tlem
to the bank and deposited the proceeds in said bank in his own name
and now retains the same and holds said amount in trust for appellee
and should account to her for said sum, together with 5% interest
a ta Ltecae eStonlfit eORRPRRD to. Ale Leno iis ateote oat ie |
imolaasenog thodt of theogeh to goteoltitres edt arial al ey enin-e
ed teoqah edt tedt :emtt of walt mort dud dimom dose obain, AM,
matt berphaas as beter gstepes Sisa To spas MOG esllegas ap
.» to eonelsd edt bas soetedt. 00, 000 @% to pant on. Bi
Sise soqy tesietml ,redTeered? atssy eviewt Yeq oF Baw nt, 00,0
déaom, s9q 00,05} to etex ed? te yidéaom blag ef of 00. 09048 38
taemsomgs ted? to eomavanug at ted? .bieo sew 00.000,8% © dam
Yinsttew a yd etiw ald baa tasllecas, a mist, § ise, Deyevaoe “pattogas
«8 xedme youl M9 tetiseted? asw. doidw Fel ef Lhaga Dota b ‘
od, to dmig tq 08 ao tect .ewol , ytanod fiowrad, gt bebmoe% Sd
_moxt bas trotetat BRLVAG, beomommoo beeb bisa at. Beotnety, edt
teotaint, exem ot Sawn hbeoo | f5eL ,f sedmeoed tyods Lito BF gh,
ne to omen odd mi thaoged te aetsotiities anlesdotug pa
ine tezed .M.orod xd eben e1ew etnomyag edt to, tang BERS Pt iy,
to otew ataomysg oft to teom tedt itaalLords, Xd. WEAR, in,
tayons tect soeselt use. Seuitemos bre 9mm ety, PLY GEOR, dud. oO
emt 07 ted :eolfeqre te mo bt pen ih, has teoupet ost sid:
atd bas tasilegqe yd betohses tue ote% APT AR, ititseo Milian
tet iaocoredd ¢acresnt bot aluanege paibbe poweet alam Sp in
mo aew etedt ,ataomysc esodd. ‘to tiveer s sas , feel «880
=Hiite9, ate vd Setmeaexcet DC, V8LE% to, uve ont Anand biea at ¢
~uig blee so. seonogn) bot seaesaet SB.8085) doidy to. «2fe0g08. 20 68
“th betslomsooa Sof sevonget, Si-degty. fas 00.000, 8% to pong
boamwbae trellegqs I6@L ,&S visual mo, te ds, | RtpME eT, Bee bait
| Sian sw. ake. ail aned bien. aL abeooora oi bet ta0q08, ba, zed,
“eekieags: ot dawut ml tavone, Siae, abfod, hing sie Fenty Leh
teozeiat Be at tw mld 9908, wa Dlea xo% red se omen Dy
| oe
thereon from January 22, 1931: that from April 1, 1915 to 1919,
appellant advanced and paid to appellee or for her benefit and use
$872.79 and should be given credit therefor as payments on the
interest of $30.00 per mmth. As to the other property, the
Special Master found that on April 5, 1916 appellee sold and conveyed
to Dora M. Lager the two lots in Coon Rapids, Iowa, each improved by
a dwelling, for ‘3100.00,said Dora M. Lager asresing to pay therefor
when she would be able: that between 1927 and 1930, Dora M. Lager sold
one of the lots and thereafter mde certain payments to appellee by
depositing in the Farmers National Bank certain sums and purchasing
certificates of deposit in the name of appellee: that on January 22,
1921 there were outstanding four such certificates of deposit aggre=
gating $1271.36 and on that date appellant had possession of these
certificates and has renewed them from time to time and had the ac-
cumulated interest added thereto until September 21, 1932 when there
were outstanding three certificates of deposit in the name of appellee
aggregating $1542.62: that appellant, on said September 21, 1932, sur-
rendered these eertificates to the bank, added thereto the sum of
$157.38 end vurchased from the bank a certificate of deposit for
$1500.00 in the name of appellee, which certificate apvellant now
holds in trust for appellee.
The Special Master further found that the material allegations
of the amended bill of complaint are true and recommended a decree
directing appellant to deliver to anpellee said certificate of deposit
for 31500.00, and to pay appellee $15,659.42 with interest from August
7, 1935, the date of the Master's report. ‘The account as stated by
the Master charges appellant with the balance of the purchase oriee of
the farm, being 38,000.00, computes interest thereon at $30.00 per
month from April 1, 1915 to July 21, 1933, being 56,591.00, charges
S Bis
,efel of 2f£@L .f LiscgdA moti tadt :feel 8S bgienpnary sree aneiet
eeu has + ened tei tot to eeLleqgs of inks baa boo nsvbe tant Sggs
4 vy of OF ane i
’ edy m0 atirom©ysc as toterens 2 there movie od bivoda bars ef. a
if 5 ; IY to ae
me VWwiecorg sedto e dt ot aA - i? aon 0g 00,089 to seoredat
COeOO0 fe oct cies
beyovsos Bae 5Loa sefleqqs tet ce Lings ito vad? pao totes Isto i
soo 2 oe fey
yd Bevotamt tloss amor ebiqen m009 mt etel ows ont rd a wtee ey
totere it ved of gatoerss ‘toyed i sxod Bites ,00.0018¢ sot
bLloe meget “Mo stod ,08@L Bue eer mowtod t ed? it :ofda od Ateow. aie
wR Sa.
ae eellogns ot heglesge a aint tes ob am rot teerosd be atoL out
Lee 4 ‘ Le Be Hit
aieaddaing Sits emus a intt6 0 tins f sino bt sit arose ould at pit
et “oe ee
088 Tiss02. no tat :selloaqe To ement ont e ttaoqed ‘1% seta ri
4 A {st ‘ a a
~oTeae tfeoqeS to aetao ttidtso dowa zwot 2a thaate sao orem 9"
nent t wleeoesod bod tralleaas otob aiff 0 bas Bf
oy
ee Wa eeu cfs
A eelleqds to omiset Wt: at tisoasb to eodsoltittes ‘eeu at ibasdadwo =
if dette
~The S80L , £8 is bisa fo deal toes tad 88.80. patton
i ae Fay ok oan
to mye ont oteteds hobhs yuan’ hy o¢ aedeoitiizes oe afd Derg
}
: Ee ZA ea f
A Toi tiaogs to ed eortivses 8 ued ont mort Doone ‘bas
8 ae ae FES Ls
WO taniion Ys avsoltidx69 dole ‘eoiteaqe 9 omen oat at
‘ ' 2 re ‘t Tt
sel foaqe wt iit ot
a Cay tf Atay: ma
iy
“ato Ht opel ie Istaosam out ‘teste bawot ‘redid say? awetesk tstoore a
?
x po ee ee ae ee ee
1h FH
‘eetoah 2 | Bebremnooet hare enti one SnteLqnoe to tite poked
ees APO athe ae RAR ET
ttnoced to ‘ot so ltt?t00 Bise sefleqas of sev! fen og sriatteaae sattes
Me
# enrpas§ MoTT taorod at tbe 8.689, ant esfleacs wea ot | bas
YC. Botate es tassoO0s et? sftoqot a" 19d eat axtt to otsb yet
: phe Ae v St iva fz
to ool eeartosws ont to’ oonsted at agiw tuetlogca sont alo —
ey Sek ME wath A
‘r0q 00,084 ts aoe i daored at acducnoe 400,000.88 pated | an
eg of tioes@ El pe
_ aegtado 00. ree, ry anted Seer fe yiut Ae alert ae Litqa mort
“tte
him also with interest accumulated upon the interest payments amount-
ing to $1294.12 and interest m the $5187.94 from January 22, 1931 to
July 21, 1935 at 5%, being $647.00. ‘These several items aggregate
$16,532.12, Appellant is credited with the payments made to appellee
amounting to $872.70, leaving the said sum of $15,659.42 due appellee.
Objections, which were renewed as exceptions, were filed to
this report anc overruled and a decree rendered in accordance with
the recommendations of the Special Master. In the decree, however,
the interest upon the $8,000.00 was computed to May 17, 1934, aggregat-
ing $6885.00, and the interest on the $5187.94 was computed at 5% from
Janusry 22, 19351 to May 17, 1934, making $861.05, so thet avopellant
was charged with $17,040.17 and credited with $872.70, leaving a bal-
ance of $16,167.47, of this amowt $5,187.94 was found to be represented
by a certificate of deposit issued by the First National Benk of
Geneseo, dated January 22, 1931. The decree directed appellant to
endorse this certificate and deliver it to the clerk of the court for
the use of appellee and decreed that he pay appellee the balance,
amounting to $10,978.55 within twenty days, and directed also that
appellant deliver to the clerk for the use of appellee the certificate
of deposit issued by the First National Bank of Geneseo,dated Septem-
ber 21, 1952 for $1500.00, and which is payable to appellee. Fram this
decree this anpeal has been prosecuted and the record is before us fo
revi ew.
While the record in this case is rather voluminous, the
abstract thereof consisting of 319 pages, and the briefs of counsel
rather involved, there are only a few controlling issues wesented to
this court for determination, and inasmuch as the transactions in
connection with the purchese of the farm and town property were separate
and distinet and made at different times and with different individuals,
we will take cach of them up separately.
Sy a
~tavoms etcemyeq teototnt silt moqu bet slvnsoos teoretat dP2w o8le mkt
i ot Teer as Tene ATT AGLTSLG} odd op teete tir bas SL.aesle of 3 9a] 4
, etasemas amedt ferevee ebedT 00. FROC Rate d 28 ts bee. Pp te Y ve
ead temas oF eben atcoays¢ edt dtiw bet thers et teal fe gad: ‘¥en EG th
eolleqa's ond SP. 068, 6L$ t ave bisa oilt ant veer «OF ENSF, ot oa
of bellt stew Vaito 10q Boxee bewener etew mot dw anot rote -
| “feds aattwae f° on. ays? st bw bat thers Ons xine 6.0 neti
Li bet noes e% Sd of Bavot ew bO.9BL, CH tmroms eat Yo MR. TOE OLY TH) 3 “
.” # ‘ ‘To Ane fanoltell terri odd yo Seacr vane % Stes mt
te Pa09 exit to stroLe ent ot Jt coir tes ade ere ee ar
‘ AMS (sons ted od eeffoqas Ysr ont text beereob bas ‘vekToqys ‘to «
pol beh
tat Ge Le beter ty bas aw ‘thaw anbsts tw sberubriciud a 3
i _saaupaveat toot hte pee hed genic eeamuerees 4 ts Pie wae te
; »Yletetsces qu mont ‘to dose at
The evidence discloses that appellee is a sister-in-law
of appellant and at the time of her husband'd death, lived in
Carroll County, lowa and was fifty-four or fiftyfive years of aze at
that time. four years later she sold her farm of cighty acres,
whieh she acquired upon the death of her husband, and executed a
deed therefor to appellant and her sister Dora, who was the wife of
appellant. There is no dispute that the purchase price therefor
was $12,000.00 and that one-third af the purchase price was paid by
the assumption of a $4,000.00 mortgage, then a lien upon the land,
The disputed point in issue is whether the remaining $8,000.00 was
to be psid with interest or without interest,
In support of the allegations of appellee's original bill,
she called appellant as a witness end he testified that at the time
of the hearing he was seventy-nine years of age, was then a merchant
in Geneseo and had been in business there for fifty-seven years:
that appellee first suggested to him and his wife that they purchase
the farm, as the buildings thereon were in a bad state of repair
and that the farm needed some man to take charge of it: that it then
rented for $400.00 cash per year, of which amount %240.00 was paid
by her for interest on the $4,000.00 mortvage and that the taxes,
insurance and upkeep consumed the balance. Appellant further stated
thet appellee then stated that she didn't have much to live on and
that if appellant and his wife would pay her $30.00 a month on the
principal, when she needed it, and without interest, she would sell
the farm to them: that the agreement was that the deed would be mde
to appellant and his wife and they would assume the payment of the
$4,000.00 mortgage and pay appellee $8,000.00 without interest, said
$8,000.00 to be paid appellee whenever she needed or requested it,
but not to exeeed $50.00 per month.
- 3s
Le siatae wth
“ws-at-ro0 ete e at eet foras tadit t eosoLoath beri
te ene ‘to aTsey ovit yt tt £0 “motu? esw ‘bans avo! Je ih :
‘ : a yeeros yids to mes en ‘blo esta dedet sty “mwo'l * ato pa
ih Aner cs) bet vouxe San | bred asia ted to “ddsob ole nen soba ‘ota
to otlw edt asw ofw ,stod tedate red bas fnatteqas ‘e ‘stored t
} Toteroiit eoizq ad Baio Teg edt dade ‘otuoa kb on al exert erie?
vd bieq saw eolrg oa sifortig ‘ot bukit ante todd ‘bre 00,0 6 ech “Bw
i iba Me
| 25 00. 000 “6 stat aust ont cect esta at enue ii intod ‘bedinge db ate
(eee eeretut doedete wat onic “ie ‘bide ee
a é “itd Lantz bse et sellocce to amotdazelts erty 40 ea, ., ape name
5 int omit oats ts dads bettidacd ef bro aeentiw s as poe Be
bast edd MOC tretf a ned enent xom 60. 000,58 3 to “no te
8 tuedorem e edt ‘ca: 008 "to e709 ean doves Row bat gollt aon
; LeTa0y mevea—yTlt ro% eto ‘nash oat ‘nik aeod ‘batt bt ‘ie S tale
a, ' ox atox cuq yedd tet euie eld bas “Bhd OF Pe eS ail ae oe thot
KK theqor to afate had « at oxew wore th autlblind od Fes. sity
i to 3 tt + eat is Yo aptede erst oF ait emo Beles ‘ars "add Y fas
| ies Shed ‘asw 00. dase tnvoms: ‘dotdw Yo 8 ‘gq daao ot. dose iee'be
on aoxat edt tect bas epandrom 00.000, 28 edt oo te sereade ‘68 :
em betsts _todieat benassi seonsiad oat hegre padi eons bas ‘66
tg
iit
- Of -
Appellee then testified as a witness in her own behalf and
after stating her name and age, her counsel then asked her if she
was the complainant in this case and she answered in the affirmative.
The next question propounded to her was: “Before signing over your
Towa farm to Mr. and Mrs. Lager, did you have a talk with them about
the payment of interest on the purchase price?" An objection was
interposed which was overruled, but appsllee did not answer the
question. Her counsel, however, assumed in the mxt question that
such a talk was had, as he inquired: "Where did you have that talk,
at their hom in Geneseo?" She answered in the affirmative and
stated Mr. and Mrs. Lager were present. She was then asked: "How
long was that before you deeded over the farm to them?" and she an-
swered: "Sometimes I know and then again I can't think of it". After
again being asked the question she stated she "zuessed" it was a
couple or three months. Her counsel then asked her: "Now tell us
Mrs. Gottsche, just what Mr. and Mrs. Lager said about interest?"
end she answered: "hey said they would pay me $30.00 every month
till the capital was paid". She was then asked: "When did they
say that they would pay the canital?" end she answered: “In twelve
years they would pay me the capital, what was coming to me then".
This was all of her testimony on direct examination. Upon cross
examination she was asked: "You was to get $30.90 a month until
the capital was paid. Now who said that?" and she answered: "They
said that". And again: "What rate was the interest to be figured
at on this $8,000.00. How much ver cent?" and she answered 8%. She
was then asked: "Did Dora say they would pay 8%?" and she answered:
"I suppose she did". She then testified that she got the interest
money every month at the bank, an@ when asked how lon: she got it
at the bank said she couldn't remember. She further testified tht
cae: Se
Sas tiated mo ted ai aacndin 8 as betiivaed aodt ocLLogaa
ede it tod boxes wodt feanyoo tof ,ons bus omen red gaivate Tetts
-ovitamtitts ont at betewans oda bas ease alds nt tmacteLqmoo ont saw -
Moy tevo sningie etoted” :asw ted of bebasoqoig mo Ete euip oxen oat
tuods modt mAthy ALat se eved voy BIb ,tegel “21M Sas tM o¢ met chi i,
asw foltssido mA "feetiq ezsdoma odd mo teotetat te dnenryeq ¢ ent
edt towans tom bib selleqqs dud ,beluitevo asw dol dw vosogtes at,
tedt ooiteoup txax odt at Sommas «tevewow , fon perge tel oe ae,
rine tedt eve voy Sb etediy" s:bertvpml od 35 boul eaw Ast s Mere
bas evitamittts odt mi betewens aia "? ooaemed bs axon ntedé, te 4
woh" :bedves medt esw off .t menres stow regal sam as tt
Por Beaty
~~ ae
pee
wae efe bas "“Tmedt of mret edt tevo baheob BOY exoted teat sew anol |
sods "i to antdt t'aso I mtens medt hae, wont I eemivemoa" tberewa,
s esy cE "boreevy" ofa betsta ese no tt eeup ent bewas ented ats fe
av {let wo” sted devas vail foaniroo tell | -edtaom corde, to ofa ah
"Steotstai tuods o£se senal orl bie 1M ¢ she teu Rae KAT C. om
dtoom YIeve 00.08¢ om ysq Silvow qed? bise exit” sborewa ns orfe bas :
Yous Lb medi" sbeias nedd ew oa s"bieq eaw tag iqes. ould ot:
| eviewt aI" :betewane oda Sas "Leg tase ‘oat vq bison weds tage ee 4
‘ "neat em ot naoimoo eay tady .Lat tyeo odd om ve, bLsrow yeas. PTs
eaaoto soqU ~ -Holtsmtmaxs toe thb 110 Wuombtaet rod 10 ta aaw
yal et an
Etta dinom s 00.088 tex ot esw vox" bese s aew ote mo ft sa
oe
Ter!" rbetewene ede bas "tte dt bisa ov wou blag sow r indtqao edd
bors it od of seototnt art asw ets tsa" ; sg. mn ‘bisa
: ge 0 Aan
of2 .&8 betewans ode bos "S $a99 teq dow wort -00,.000,88 aks mo $8
=<.
‘
ih
a
+
sa, OC
teorotal edt $08, ede. tect belitiaes mactd ade. ."b ib one, oougue I
ibotowens ofa Bmp NEL wa b Low yout yse prot ara Anew Rove ot ae
tt ton eda pmol wos bewvles ‘aod Bae plaed edt ts 169 not vrve yen
tL ake
ast beltitest ae ene -rodmome $'ab ion oda bisa ce aie: edt g
4 O,is Shag ry
-M-,
appellant bousht the farm on time, but she never got ony money
for it. She was then ssked ; "None at all?" and she replied:
"T got $5.00 or so now and then". She was then asked: "How much
did you get altogether" and she answered: "Five Dollars was all
I got". To the question: "Did you send them your bills and ask
them to pay them?", she replied: "They had to pay the bills",
She refused to answer the question as to why they had to pay the
bills and was unable to state anything else that appellant or Mrs.
Lager ever said about the farm and stated that she was nervous and
that her memory was not good the day she was testifying. Later she
was asked: "Was that $30.00 to be payable when you asked for it?",
and she replied: "Yes, but I didn't ask for it". She was then
asked: “And you haven't asked for any money since you have been with
your sisters?", and she replied: "No, I haven't." She was then
asked: “Have you asked for any sum of money of either Carl Lager
or your sister, Dora, Gin you didn't get?". She did not answer
this question, and the Master then asked her: "Did you cver ask
Mr. and Mrs. Lager for any money?", and she replied: "Not very
much, very little I asked for". She was then asked: "did youask
for any at all?", and she replied: "Once in a while, I got very
little". Question: “Did you get it when you asked for it?".
Answer: "Sometimes". Question: "When did they refuse to give it
to you?". Answer: "You are asking too much". Question: "This
is your case, you brought it?". Answer: "I did not". And to the
questi whether her sisters brought it, she refused to answer.
The record discloses that the sisters referred to were
Emily and May Larsm. In February, 1916 appellee wrote them, stat-
ing that she desired them to understand that appellant and his wife
sa OB ae
Yetom yas tom teven ofa tud ,emit he mistveds ddgsod aatitaits
shetfgqes 6de bas "Tillis fe ato" 7 betas ato dt esw ef) ea or
foum woH” :bedas medtd saw ef@ s"nedd baa not oe! Bold 00.28 03, an
tte ‘eew arslfod owri" <tbetewans ede bas. nasdd onod Lo tegruoy bt *
es bas aLltd woy moat Buea soy BIG” . yn tte evpuedd of "top I
e“ellid edt yor ot Ded -yedt" :detlgqer ode ."tmoudt ys, 0% med?
ent yer of ba ‘eet vdw ot 28 moiteemp edt tewans o¢ bessitex: one
',e1M vo taallecas seit sale puidiyoa otave, ot oldsay. es. aia addy é
bus evovten aew efa teddy botste bas mist edt tuoda bise 19ve sepa
efe “6tal vaniytiteet sew one yeb aft boog tom eaw ‘Yromom met teat
("fst Tot bexes poy not eldaysy od of 00.08% Facial any” . ibelee )
medd esw ode "ti tot Mee ta hih DT tod 202" theLicem
détiw seed evad yoy eoate yYanom Yas cot hedes t'neved poy Boa".
sett esw off ",t'novsd I) yon" ‘betlget ede bar» tlie ny
togsi Ins) tetie to qoueint to ore yas 10% bodas we eval" t hee !
tewens tom bib ede "itos t'e6 £b voy dat ,at00 stotate Toy
Yea wove soy BEG" :tod bexas medd totamM edd Bas emivaoun
TOosptev’ ton" she Rito oie bas ,"Pyanod Yns x0% regs sem, ‘DES. :
Massey bb" “ibexas molt asw one os «"tot boves I wltged vey re mt
« Yrev ‘toa I poLisdw s at eng" :betlaet ode bas | <MeLLa te ws 0
-Ptt i0t hextas poy nodw ti tes YOY, bia" » mokte cap « ee LE
| th evin inte BeuUtsT “tort: ‘OI. aed" faolt teen aonbtemoa”
-atare inottcon? ."deonm oot satdes eas yvoY? - tomer, Moyo {
‘ont oe bak | "ton bib a ewan ote idguond BOY 088: me |
srewaas ot boevtex ois aft: aaguond emote ta )ed red rast ony ok ick |
“otew od herretet etogsl a edd tedt ae renee: brooen. eit ‘
“steve moi atom selisccs @£0L \ymmdel/al smared ysl b :
ete aid bos tasifeqaqs dt sdt- brostarco bras ids cxirhinie beriaeb eis
ae @r ~
had not taken her farm from her, but that it was so run dowm that
it takes a man to run it and that she had asked them to buy it:
that they did not care to do so but to please her they did: that
appellant and his wife (referred to in this letter as Carl and
Dora) had been very kind to her and that Dora was a noble woman
but that Imily and May had not been kind to her and she hoped they
would let her alone and never cross her rath. Subsequentiy, in
June, 1919, appellee, who was then living in Iowa, became ill and
Emily received notice thereof froma neighbor and went to Iowa dnd
brought appellee to her farm near Geneseo, where she has since re-
mained. Appellant and his wife also, upon learning that appellee
was ill in fowa went there, but found that a day or so previous
she md been removed to Illinois by Emily. Appellant insists that
from this time in 1919 wntil the death of Dora Lager on January 25,
1951, appellee was kept a virtual prisoner ‘at Hmily and May Larson's
and appellant and his wife were both prevented from seeing or com-
Municating with her. What the attitudes of the several Larson sisters
were toward each other is not very msterial. It does appear, however,
that Emily and Mey were present at the hearings before the Master,
although they did not testify. During the examination of appellee,
these sisters sat near her and while the record does not disclose
what they said or did, it does disclose that upon different occasions
they, in some way, inerfered with the witness or interrupted the
proceedi mgs. For instance appellee had testified tmt she was getting
$30.00 a month interest and had said she got it every month at the
bank and counsel for appellant then asked her: "Did you collect it
at the bank?" The record the states that at this point the sisters
of the wimess interfere. This happened not only once, but five times
during her examination, the record in each instance stating: “At this
By RE. ie
tedd mob ur oa asw ft tedd dud . ted mort aes red nonist a5 ‘bat
tf vad ot ote rit Bexes bad eda tad? Sus ‘dt mut ot nest 8 eaaat ba
Pout “SSip yodd tod oe0dlG OF tue Oa ob of eteo tom ‘bib wee ‘taut
bas fxs es toftel atds al of berretet) ‘otiw ais bas txattencs
femow ofdox e aew etod ésdt bas tod of batxt qisv mood bad (stod
yent becod efe bos ted of baix noed tout bac eM bas <Linti vend tod
poet
at ‘vis heupeadue. .ater ted eaors tevert “pms ono fs a ter ‘Bator:
‘Bas ft essed ,ewol at anivit aed? esw ow ,cofleqqs ener eat
Beb awot of taew Bas todiaten s mort Wexod eotton bev fever et tmr
Cr: Se oan
sor odfile asi edz etedw ,oeasne!) 108M ast ted of eotteaas diguond :
.b daw
' gefleqcs tadt grintast focus oats oti aid bas Fast teqch ; boa tom q
evo iverq o2 x0 ‘yeb s teat barsro % hare oredé toew geet le at et ey
“tad? etetant tnsffeqaa ._yLimt yd ‘atomti{t ot bavoner med paves
20S (weal 110 tepe.. prod to i sob edt iia ener ai ‘omid ane mont
a’ ‘noetel ysM bas “elimi te ronoatag Louis tty 8 0x asw “soltegas fy. eer
P ym be Sita i) a
“0109 ‘To ‘maitoes, mo tt bed meveng tidod atew otiw id bas tnstfoqus ;
> ph bf Giro baat
iceteie ‘portal Reaves ode to sobui tits be dea wed “ddiw nites lasm %
oe tn ; si ve ety Ben | et ,
(tevewor! ‘ ayes ee0h +r . tsitetam ‘av ‘ont ar rent o fons ‘piswot ‘otew
Lae ;
etetash! eft etoted ‘eanitesd edt tes fasaorq otew vee Bas vl ier
; Sh fe i Sty |
,sefLeqas To notteninexe 9 dit sated sViLinet ton sib vot aguas
o2oloa ib ton 26 OD prose’ edt efidw bas ‘tod T80m tne sunita le
go! 2000 $netoYt Lb mean tort oxo Loe th paps ok . St * 10 from wea oe
enti potqurne: ‘nt to ee ont iw odd i tw horotaeti! (sw w emoe ft vee 9
sation asw onde t ait he ftitess bod velieqss constant wt 2pm ibeeoota
exit ‘ts dion reve ar #08 orle bles bed bas jeexed al mx 8 00s ih ot
itt io aloo wor bra *, ‘od bosles usta iuatiogga & 10% Ipsuuno me sod ‘
. etovele ‘alt tator a tit te tet aotate ‘wat brooer oat whamed edt 3
semit evit td ye0mo yim rou Bonoqgsd eid? ,etetretat ‘azentw ont 2 *
efdt dA” veyed eonstant to 20 ot broset ottt .fio itsa imexe tent pa ",
"7
-oL~
point a sister of the witness interrupts" or "At this point sisters
of the witness interfere" or "At this point in the testimony a sister
of the witness interruba". Counsel for appellant requested that
the sisters be segregated in another room or separated from the
witness but his request was denied.
Appellant offered in evidence a letter written by appellee
to her sister Dora, signed by appellee and dated July 29, in which
she said: “tell Carl not to send no more money till I want it but
put it in the bank to draw interest for I got plenty now". Another
letter offered in evidence by appellant was written by appellee to
her sister Dora, dated May 23, in which appellee requested her to send
her a check for thirty dollars, the June money. These letters, from
all the evidence, were probably written in 1916, although the year
does not appear therein.
The evidenee further discloses that on August 2, 1916 either
appellant or his wife deposited $30.00 in the Farmers National Bank
of Geneseo and as evidence thereof received a certificate of &vosit
from the bank, reciting that appellee had deposited that sum, which
was payable to the order of herself upon the return of thec ertificate
properly endorsed by her six months after date, with 4% interest: that
from that date until December 1, 1951 further deposits were mde by
them and in each instance like certificates of deposit were received
from the bank, that most of the sums so deposited were “50.00, but
sometimes more, and at other times less, the deposits not being made
each and every month but from time to time: that when a certificate
matured, it was surrendered to the bank and a new certificate issued,
the accured interest being added to the mw certificate. ‘Three days
prior to the death of his wife, anpeliant surrendered six certificates
of deposit to the bank, which had been previously issued to him but
which stated that appellee had made such deposit and recetived in lieu
ie)
. bs. 2 ; : f a,
atotete taiog aldt tA" to “etqurretat esentiw edt Yo tetefa sb tatog —
teteie as yYaomitest od¢ at ¢otoq etdt ta" to “eretrotmit esentiwv bit to”
tad? beteoupet tasileqas xot Leanvod .*bawerred m2 eaontiw ‘oct to"
oft mon 2 botescqes TO moot tedious ai bot asempes od erotete: ya ;
‘bot ob, enw teeupet etd. bud es en¥in’”
celloqae vw nedd tw motte. 3 enwohiee nk. Doxak in teat torah bi adil
toidw at «es yt betsh bas Pe ype vd bengte “sll “tetete ‘ged or
tud +t hawe I eel yestont etom on Base of tom Sted fflet" Vbise. ide |
tedfons "wor, viaelg bis I tot jeoteta weth of ates d o dis at ‘th ‘sug 4
os eel! Togas vd fed Pye aiel insliogas we eonebive n ‘boxers wetter |
broa of x94 boteouper eotieqce ‘foida nt ,e& yen bosses .stod. ‘metate “eit”
mo atedial saedtlT ,Yemon onus out wallob ia Ot “yo ato ah
THO outs sy uoaid Lo Les at aott inw vid adoig Tew eoomeb ive, ‘oat th” td
sttetoit x64 qa nid 280
todd fe oseL 28 " dawawA mo tact mips de ‘rodeaut eonobive eat > lilt {
si Lenoi tai aroma ot ck 00,086 bet teogsb otlw eld To daekae :
| tleoce to ‘etaoititzes 8 bevisee 1 tosreds eonebive EY: bas ovaenod 7")
“dot civ ange Sed bat taogeb bat selieqqe sats auliives, tasd ‘ont nit”
ot 20 it hire 9 oid to sivtot oui moqu Sieaxed to taba alt of oLdsyee ase }
t
tad :daete im Rb dtiw ata totts a d¢om xk teal yd ‘psatobin uted or we
Ud 9b su otew ed dteoaes raittst Lset ,L diso9t ‘Litas’ ‘etab seat mo
bevteos ore tage 6 te got aolttite0 lhl eonmé arti toes, at bite al” i
M tic 00. ang ataw ‘bosteodes 08 ams “edd to taom tit te ot moet ;
| “ebeum amted ton at taoge b oxid, 2ael asmit texto ts bo otom geal Heioa! 4
stsof1tite 9 s naw $8dt remit of emit mont. ‘ted dtaom Yovs Baw ike {
' ty : ‘*.
Doueat efs0itti190 wen 8 ons waned ould, ot ovebrot ze oa WE ‘
i Ky
avat oout! oreo! "htze9 wet ‘odd ot bobbs puted dasted al “pew ‘ 98 oft
aetnortiv reo xe borebiet ura tae. teas otbr afd to dseb Aesbaaga i ;
td md ot aves! Varo tverq “dead "bad dot dv inet ‘ode od abot ei 4
thereof six other certificates of deposit payable to his own order.
These certificates aggregated $5187.94, of which amount $1294.12 re-
presents accrued interest upon certificates of deposit, issued by
the bank to appellant in the name of appellee.
Severel contentions were made by appellant why this decree
should be reversed, none of them need be considered however except
his contention that the evidence does not support the deeree as ren-
dered. We have set forth in this opinion the pleadings and the evi-
dence at considerable length and have read this record with care.
The evidence does not satisfy our minis that appellant was to repay
the principal in twdve years or that he agreed to pay thirty collars
interest each month upm this $8,000.00. In her original bill, ap-
pellee made no such contention. She said nothing about when the pring
cipal was to be repaid or about any interest or about thirty dollars a
month to be vaid, but charged that appellant's agreement was to hold
the $8,000.00 for her and pay it to her as-she might need and request
it. She charged that appellant had kept a portion of this sum deposited
in interest bearing certificates anda part thereof she alleged he had
loaned out on interest and the balance she stated he had used in his
own business and sought to have him account for the interest he had
received and profits which had acerued to him. In his answer to the
cwriginal bill, appellant stated that the contract was that he was to
pay the $8,000.00 to avpellee whenever requested by her and as needed
by her, but at a rate not to exceed 330.00 ver month. ‘This is the first
time any reference was made to the peyment of this sum or any sum per
month. Furthermore, appellee called anpellant as her witness, thereby
vouching for his truth. The record discloses that his evidence was
taken September 20, 1932 and that at the conclusion of his testimony a
recess was taken and appellee testified on October 27, 1932. The
fourth question asked her was to inquire whether she had a talk with
a UB =
~T@bTO sMwo etd og att oe tteoge b to eetsoltitree tedio a, rooeds
~et SL. SeS.Li tasome dotdw to 22. TELBi Hotssotags. actsottivres: eaedT
“ed boweat .t tsoqeb to aotgotri¢nss ogy trototal hepi92 & af peaong
: -selfeqgs to emsa eg at tnslleqas of asd ett |
esetoeb eildi ydw taslfeqes yd ebsa Siew anoldmedatoo fexeve® seni. |
tqsoxo tevewod berebianoo od boon mod ‘to enon ,begtevet ed biuoda ,
16% ae served ont Stpqaes tom eeob eonebive sult tsa no timetacs att»
~ive eit boas aan! ‘bee le ost ao Lattgo sint of dftol tee, evel ev) .»boseb
sores dt iw Broser eidt Seer evedt bas dtgcel oidexobtaso9, tm ened
ystot ot ea tnellegqe tata & Fe tar tivo yleltse tom acod, eonebive edT
etellod yittidd vse ot beergs ed tadt to 2189, 9 vbwi at Ang ou tra edt 2:
“ae e{iid Lantatze wa al -00.000 .5° elds soqy dtmom toee teotetat
-nitq odd cedw tuods pirdton b tse oe, 10 btstes 10 9. do we, on ebsa, coileg:
B erst fob ytal dd tuode 10 teetetat yae dirods to bleget of of sew Laake -
SLod ot Baw intome org 8 a'tusilegqe tady bogtats tod dtag.ed ot dgaom
ge: fas Boon ¢dyim one es rod of tt ysq bar ted tot 00.00.00 cent
bot taogeb ma aid? to moktxoq 2 Sqox bec toellegcs, tart beats do ed@y att
bed ec bosalis one to eters pane 8 bas aotsoititateo yalrsed. deoret hat «
aid at Hea bed of betsts ede eonsisd om. bas teetetm i. mo. tyo bemeot
bad of teotetal edt tot ¢awooos mid eved ot tdgoe abehetmiensiancl:
edt of tewens eid al eee od BeUTPS s, Sed doidw ed torg, hrs, bevh
ot eew od ted asw Tani £69. edt tedt betste taslieqas,,flid porns
bebeon ae bas. ted uw bedzeupet tovemedw sellequa of 00,000, 8%. ibaa
fatit ed ab ata -finom tec 00.08% hecoxe ot ton etey.s ta. avd tod ed
teq mse Yas Lo muse etd’ to. dcam Y2q, ent of eham ase, sonetstes Ya ois
ydoredtt 98 smth tw ted as tastieqas feliso eslleqgs. <8 Tomrr edd ri efter 20
" ea eonobtve ete tout sezoloald broget onT . .dturat, aid fant ght
8 8 Yonkveet e bd te fo ew Lonoe ede te tent. Sms Seek 108: xodmodtgen
4 oft 88 ats sedot 90 ‘0 beittzess, eoflecas, Sac getet aaw 2
‘i
atin ist & ba ods tos edu etivpat of ssw sed bestes, asdeeaeloneell
Seiki 3 | a
appellant and his wife about the payment of interest on this $8,000.00.
At that time whether apvellant and his wife had or had not agreed to
pay interest was not, under the pleadings, in issue. A consideration
of all her evidence upon this feature of the case is neither satisfac-
tory or convincing, and the statements she did make concerning the pay-
ment of interest and principal was not in any way corrobforated. Her
eet ‘calis our attention to her mental and physical condition as an
excuse for the unsatisfactory character of her evidence. ‘ie recognize
that she was an elderly lady andi her letters indicate that she had
little education, but these facts do not excuse her from proving her
case as stated in the pleadings by a preponderance of the evidence.
The evidence did substantiate the allegation of her original bill to
the effect that this $8,000.00 was to be held by appellant and was to
be paid out by him to her for her support and maintenance as she might
need it, and it also supported her charse that appellant kept a part
of this money deposited in interest bearing bank certificates, but there
was no proof that he loaned any part of it to other parties @ that he
used any vortia of it in his own business. Upon the issues raised by
the amended bill end answer which were whether appellant was to pay the
$8,000.00 twelve years after the date of the conveyance and whether in
the meantime he was to pay her $30.00 interest ver month, we are of the
opinion that appellee has not proved the affirmative or these issues by
@ preponderance of the evidence, but from all the evidence we hold that
the contract was, as she stated in her origins1 bill, and that is that
appellant was to hold this $8,000.00 and pay it out to her for her
suoport and maintenance as she might need and request it. There is
no evidence that she ever requested of appellant or his wife anything
which she did not receive and unless there was an agreement that ap-
pellant was to pay interest, he should not be charzed therewith. Her
letter of July 29, herein referred to, is consistent with the allega-
tions of her original bill md with appellant's contention as to what
- 19 =
.00,.000,88 etd mo teertetni to taeomrysq edt tuods etiw etd bas taalle ue
ot Beergs ton bed to bad otiw afd bas taslleqqs sont oxiw en tt adit
nolteteblanoo A .eveal mi ,asnidsela odd rofaw ton ebw deotetnt wy is
~osta tise ‘todilen et caso edé to otmtset abit mote ooneblive Yod 20
-ye¢ odd aminromos ven Bb 62 adnemetete ‘oi Bats wpatontvacs” 1%
xoH ,batetofderm. Yew Yas at dor bbw "fag fomPth Sas Be odode ae” ta |
4
me as mottifnoe Leoleyde bie fednam ved of no timetts She ellso Jeenw
exingooet sl! .eonebive tom To uevostato Yrotoste it sent ont bea
‘Bed ofa ¢adt etsotint avevéel ted fee Ybal ylteble ws edW ede Yad
aod sitiverq mot? ted eayoxe tom ob atoet ‘edsdd tid /mo Mheoubs entt]
‘Seonebive oi ‘to sonsiebnogsty = Yd aeaidseld Sat UE Betate aan
ot Iftd [sents ho ted to mottspel fs edt etaltasiadia’ bED’ aaa btve
of asw has duelleqas Yd bled od of asw 60,000,48 ': Eat ‘fene soetrS
tiisitty efa ae Somometatam bah trogawe red “rot Yed oF mid ee tno
$2s¢ 8 tasxf tnsfteqts tait entedo ted bettogg¢u® oa le db) bare" ¢ HE ob
eteds tud “eetsoltittes anad priteed tretet nt mt bet koged sna
3d-dsit © edlitced tenio ot $i to tren yus bersdl off ait 64 om:
“ed Beatet eoveat edt mogU “.aeentevd awol etd mf tt % eo ido” Yaak
efit Ysq of aay tnalledds wedvedw erew dotdw tewac’s bas £Ltd bebmoms a
fi wediery Sus eomsyevnoo ont to ofs6 off vetts arsey ovont? 00,000
edt ‘to ets ow . dtaon xoq testotnt 00.08 sed ysq Of eowied's :
yd aoveal ovendt to evitanritts oad bevoty ton eat eglleogas teat:
tedd blot ow eoehive eft [fs mort twd jeomebive elt to oousrebaoges 2 ,
tedt ef sady brs {If td Lanta Pro wed wk betste (dda as ,esy! thane 6
fod tot tel of Foo tt ved be 00,000,8¢ eidt bad ot een tad. ba
ai eted? .#f Seeupet bas beon tigi efe as eon aneta ker bas. duoges
* ghiddyre etiw ebd 40 taslfecas to betesepet neve edaitadé 6
“qs tso dnemsetss 13 aew etedt seefiut bas ev isvey dem i tb eet .
“Sei siltiwotodt beptads ed don bined od ,teetetak Water new dust.
~sgeile edt dttwitoteatenoo ak ,o¢ borretot alowed _ OS -XLuE Io. meee
tedw ot es oof tnedtnoo e'tasileqds atiwi boo LLtd taskalm 3 & toes wk
od FE Dee betaty pod Oaap Lima) .
‘ +i
i
the contract was. Appellant's conduct in making deposits and taking
certificates of deposit issued to her does not prove that he was to
pay her interest on the {8,000.00 at the rate of $30.00 per month.
He knew that she could have required him to pay her $30.00 per month,
and he evidently has been sending her some money prior to the time
she wrote the letter of July 29, because she requested him not to
send any more until she wanted it, but to put it in the bank to draw
interest. This he did and continued to do ,for this reason, and in
our opinim, appellee is entitled to receive the accumulated interest
upon these various certificates of deposit, which the evidence discloses
amounted to the sum of 51294.12.
In our opinion appellant should, in this proceeding, be
charged with said sum of $8,000.00. He should also be charged with
‘the acnumulated interest on the various certificates of deposit which
he had issued to appellee and which on January 22, 1921 amounted to
$1294.12. He should also be charged with interest, as evidenced upon
the certificates of deposit issued on January 22, 1931 to January 28,
1932, the date this suit was instituted @ 4%, approximately $207.51.
These sums aseregate $9501.63 and appellant should be charged with
interest upon this amount from January 28, 1932 to the date of the entry
of a final decree herein at the rate of 5% per annum.
In Appellant's answer he allesed that he paid to and expended
for appellee the sum of $1678.63, but upon the hearing he was only
able to produce checks, receipts and book eitries showing the payment
to her of $872.70 and the finding of the Special Master and the decree
of the court was that he was entitled to credit for this amount. While
appellant testified that he paid appellee and bills for her to the amaint
stated in his answer and that some of his cancelled checks were not
is aiLeg
aitvat Sas atisoqeb antaem mt touhaoo a'tasifeqqs + B8W, tos 90 eff
ot esw od tent evotq ton &90h tof ot boveat tieo qe to pod nett lf sei
siitmom reg 00,082 to eter edt ts 00,000,8% ont mo taetot al med y .
eitaom teq 00,06) ted yeq ot mid betivoet svai 5 Luwo one datit wend off |
emit edt of toitq Yenom emoe tod yathage mead esd ¥Ltneb ive od ba
, ot tom mtd Seteeupet ene sauooed ,eS yiul to tedtel ony jefo%m ont
wst5.ot.Aasd ods at tt any ot tud ,tt betnsw ena Litas ston was fois;
nt Sas ,moeser alin 107,08 ot Sexattaoo bas 5ih od ataT _steerot al
teetetal betslimmoos adt evioce: of beltitas ef eelfeqqs ale ae
aezolonibh sonebive sdf dotdw ,tisoqeS to setscltit1es, avo tray ee odd
oSL.3@S8L} To me ont of Sevnsom
ed ,9atbesoote aidt at ,blvode tusileqas Mo Laigo wo at. poobeaita ;
tte Dopcedo ef cele Bivode oH .00,000,8$ Yo ma ise déiw bepxed
doidw titogeb to eetsoltttrteo avolitsy edt mo taozetat botalymgoe 9 ont
ot hetnyoms OL .SS yrsunel o dotdw bas eelleqgs ot eens beta
soquy beonehive es ,dagctetai déiw bepitonto ed oats bivorta off Nis «Sk, es 7
,e@S yrennsl of L6@L .SS yraveel, mo be weal tisogeh to ect sottivzes af
.18, 908? ylotemizorags 4RS @ hoduditent eaw tii edd; ete box see
ithe berredo ed) binode tusilLerqs bas 88.L08e%, ot sgeTEns, Boe | 12 61
qrdine ont to otsb edd of SECL .&8 Yuevnal mont tavome el dt. mogs, tae
sme Teg {2 to ots ent de aleted cores, fon tk 2%
bebuscxe bas ot blag ed dead bonelie ed towanse'tnalleqgAal.. ceaboeaigwe 7
Vino caw of guitsedi ont soqu tad ,88.8%OLt to mye ot entiniag*
tnoges¢ edd patwodaeoitt ne aood bmp, seach ,atoedo aeneetin eee
efiiwW'$teromb etd? wt tibet. of boltidne esw ef tsdt, sew sce ath 2 ¥
tne edt ot ted tot eLotd bos eslfeaqs bisa ed deat bolttitess Eresae i
‘Wor etew eieeio he fLoonee att to -entoa tom bae tows as hth mk ven
aS OMe ep Ce Renal ity neat s ta
toe TT SIG o el Lay af Lewes LL eal) Lee be bene nae eh a apm. 2
(cites ue .
available because of the dlosing @ the Geneseo Savings bank, upon
which some of the checks were drawn, yet that happened before his answer
was filed and he did not produce any records of any kind or chsracter
which substantiated his statement in this respect, no, did he explain
the souree from whichthe list of items of expenditures contained in
his answer was derived. In our opinion appellant is in no position
to complain of the amount of the credit to which he was entitled as
found by the decree.
In the original bill appellee alleged that the consideration
for the conveyance of the lots in Coon-Rapids was $3200,00 and charged
that this amount was likewise held in trust by appellant and was to be
paid out by him to her for her support and maintenance as she might
Reed it. In his answer, appellant insisted that he was not connected
with this conveyance, that it was a transaction solely between appellee
and her sister, Dora M. Lager, and that upon information and belief
he stated thet one lot was a sift to his wife from appellee and that
the agreement was that one lot was to be sold and when sold Da@ea was
to hold the proceeds for appellee and until? appellee should request
the same. In her amemcd bill appellee charzed she was sick at the
time this conveyance was made: that she thought she was conveyir
one lot: that the consideration was $5100.00 to be paid by Dora Lager
when she was able to pay: that one lot had been sold for $1500.00,
which was deposited in the bank mdcertificates of deposit issued
therefor and charges that appellant has secured possession of these
certificates. The evidence is that the deed conveying these lots to
Dora M. Lager was executed on April 3, 1916. Appellee testified that
appellant had nothing to do with this conveyance and "at the time the
deed was made, I didn't have an agreement with Dora. She could ® just
as she wanted to". The grantee in this deed died intestate on January
= BL «
foqu ,iasd apamivee ossene) eft Db gnizob edt to pavannd a bs
toweas aif exroted beseqgai stadt tey ,maweth etew aioedo, outs to amos. bh
tetoetado TO bax Yas to abtoost yas eouborg tem bib ed. bap helt
aisioxs of Sid Seon oecset aidtd at tnometste aig bei attnsis dup, ob
nt hentst s09 sot ut ibasqxe Yo amett to gall edtdol de aozt, comoe, ¢
mot lao q on mi ai ¢aslleqas soliaigo THO ai ..»bevigeh nen em pan
as bolitiae ssw of dotdw of st ibote, aft To tmwome edt to, aks :
eetood ost usm
soitsreh tas ce edt t suit Seay iS bli iLi¢ Lsatatao. edt mt.
. ,beatade bas 00,0088% naw eblgeieueod mt atol eslf To. eon.aye V0, ae
ed ot asy bas tnaflocgs yd tewtt mt bled ealwedit ee" tavem ona a
tent pangs chitaaue mo Tt, © T be ols ot are ASM 1, t05,0m9 sous. m ot pit .
asw sod Sloe aedw bas blos ad of. oem tol OO . PR oe. 4 20 be
a) eHRex hivode selloqas Be bees Sas eeflogga tot gboovony oils, Dk ° r
ett ts Hoke asw ede berg silo eollea s {itd Soi oms. moat aT, .9 2098 od
| “Bilyevaos am one sapyo ct... oe Bhd rekon BoM, oomarernen
nogel stot yo Stag ed ot 00,0053 aew m9.bY p00 Lago 9 edt tedt :
,00. 008 Le rot ‘Loe eed bed tol eno. asdy . *¥ Sg, ot. elds. asw ote
Bouaet teogeb. to actsottitue bas Aned © di. Bt bet taoged 297, tokd
saci © Holesseeoq bexyoe: aed. tne Llegge dedt septade, bos vieted
of ato. ea edt galyeraoa beeb ot ts dd at, oon divs att con 2%
t ait be ittteet eelleqch .9f@f ,E Lia 99bs tugexe a 7oa8
ont omit edt ta” ‘bas eoneyevao. at pit tiv, 95 of, ‘aatdéon. bed, as.
val & Bie. 98% BTC. dittw tomers 8 os, oved.t'abib I soban 26m,
ytsunst £0 ‘tibia: beth beeb ais at eetnets eft ."ot bet naw "
5
Tie ie
25, 1931, leaving appellant, her surviving husband, and one daughter,
On March 19, 1951, appellant was appointed administrator of her es-
tate. On Jenuary 28, 1952 this bill was filed. The decree herein
found that appellee sold to Dora M. Lager this Coon-Rapids property
for $3100.00, for which Dora M. Lager agreed to vay appellee therefar
when ake was able. In our opinion there was no competent evidence in
the record to sustain this findine and furthermore neither the heirs
or legal representative of the estate of Dora M. Lager were parties to
this proceeding. Appellant, in his pleadings, insists that the
$1500.00 represented by a certificate of deposit issued by the Farmers
National Bank on September 21, 1952 in the name of appellee is held
by him as administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, and there-
- fore it was improper for the decree to direct him to tum this certi-
ficate over to the Clerk of the court fob the use of appellee, inas-
much as administrator he is nota party to this suit. The evidence,
however, discloses that on January 22, 1951 there were several certi-
ficates of deposit outstanding other than those hereinbefore referred
to, which were payable to appellee and which aggregated $1271.36.
The evidence further discloses that these rewesented the proceeds
derived fra the sale of me of the Coon-Rapids proverties: that on
September 21, 1952, which was eight months after the death of ap-
pellant's wife, he, appellant surrendered these certificates to the
bank, added $157.38 thereto and with the amount due for accrued in-
terest pro cured the issuance by the bank of a certificate of deposit
for $1500.00, payable to anvellee, amd it is this certificate which
the decree ordered delivered to the clerk for the use of appellee.
Appellant testified m his direct examination, when called
as a witness for apvellse, that both appellee and his wife had told
=- 2B -
I 7
4 ate ay
s tedden ab amo bre , baed sod aa ivivas ted . tal Leqgs pulveot «Leet i
-e9 ‘tor to tot szv2 tatmbs het atoqas 8aw tel toaqa eer et orl
fs
giox ert Setnen Fer belkt saw [Lid aldy aces . 88 eeu ast rae Bi
+ eat a4 a
utteqotd ebhiqsi-noed a idtt segal oM wed o Bios eeliongs gr Set =
LPR HOR:
totetedt salleqgs yer of Sooins repel M pst dott tot “(00s
ot sonsblve 0% eqmoe om aew otedt miatge a0 a ‘ . olds ears
atied eit vo dt ton 9 Tomte otto bine pat tba Lt aid? nbatane of Drones s
ot noltisg eran 193.8. oM stod ‘to asee ze ods to area aad ime
- oatt todd ate lent gtaet dae te aid ft 4 ?seLLegga saabeoeosy |
eiiperss¥ emt yd bouaat Ytesues to et aoltitros 8 ve bodmnetgot en BL
blo el sellorrs to Reg ray oat a sees oS “roduosgse 99 ar i ra oe
worst bas ott Boareooh ald to efstac ets Ri totetteatalms Be 7
~itte0 ata’ mie od mtd doezts of ooreeb ‘oat 10% moount 8 as dh ar0t
5 weent welleacs to een os as FILO 9 0 at to ) a0 0 o ot of me or"
es | we i a a
~Ltze9 istevea Sten aut reer se EBay 19 ted Seuotoe 1» pe a
VET | i, 4
bovrstet oxotedatered ecoutt neds w dito patbaste duo tteoged 0 aetse
M oan IY si be tszotgss dotdy bite eotieag » 97, 2 idsvar orLew so
nrg
ay abesootd od bev mene wos eesti adit eouo,ls ath x ont yt one
Bs
7 mo tedt 120 Itzsqorg ebdiqafemood 2 dt to em to ofpe om mn bev.
a me oe
~98 to At seb ont wetts add com tdgte aan ot tr -88eL, ts ot
Noa exit ot SPP. oaadtt betebretiwe gnalteqas ye aot EB es
Bie, ae, a
| “ok bewtooe ‘rot eub imome edd ditw bas otesedt ee. Volt heb es
sy ro
tigoqeb To. etn olttetes 8 to uned odd vd consveel od Deuces #
Hoidw etzoltttreo a.t.dd eb th, bas Poiivags ot eld sy aq _ 9 Oe
OS TAD,
a
_Detiso nenty sb tantmae tooxth abil m hattives “taektogeh
w Piao 4 ght eT 8
: Bot pad ote eid bas eolleqae tod dastt scollagae ‘0% Gols
ue < 40 ania
him that appellee gave one of these houses to his wife and that the
$1500.00 derived from the sale of the other dwelling belonged to
appellee and that she was entitled to that sum whenever she wanted
the money. He further testified that his wife left this 41500.00
in his hands to make that payment whenever appellee needed it.
In our opinion the institution of this suit was a demand
on the part of appeliee for this money and there was no error in
directing appellant to turn this certificate over to the clerk of
the court for the use of appellee.
The decree of the lower court will be reversed and this
cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Henry County, with
directions to enter a deeree in conformity with this opinion.
Rach party will pay one-half of the costs @f this court.
REVIRSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ea Ng Peay A A 3h ny W ream?
e gi 4 we 4 a ah Legge. arp aon
oxi isis re 6 thr aid ~ asevori ovoid . om, was, aah +
war SSCL) a
of benstoLod amit tows wm dito ott to oLse oat sort bevizes ¢
ws «me vt Tanah
detasn ota tovonodw ims & de dt 0 boLdtt aa eau ode, + act pln
ve
oo ‘b
L10E7 8 an
00.0085! » at sid tte etiw aid todd bottiteot wodvuyt oH en
on pm
yates
. tt bebesn oolloqas rovemsris tnomyed ‘tedd sdsm ot abroad
he at ters sll v2 9
th atucse of b
mi some on asw oxotid baa esto nt elie 102 eelisqqs To ta
ony ft V7 BE Ms 7 *is wr
LLOgs & base 0%
) eoliegae % eeu mr pore
OPT es re aug Au oot 7
oe ee ay as ool Ly #) is
an Bitte pte ned vue to axg0o ttuozto om ot bebam ey
2. Gen Aen . . DF 8. it A ;
Fa, 2 esw thee endt to wo tind tant edt “motntgo suo aT
| to strolo 9 itt ot tev0 sieo L'ttd 90 aide wut og fusite Te 2 ag
sist Bo | Bovzoves od iftw frasoo Sy aoe out to perves See
smo kage ek at at Lo wwharotno0o al vere b 8 ‘tet a9 ot
_+tur00 aids ma at200 edt to “Undone yeq LLiw 7
mh ae! ait 2p Py F
STIS Lapey ag é y See gas S Vases te
y Auer i > j
* rt 2 Be % al « a 7 x an 4 “ ' ‘ 4 r Wy
y
\
we ‘ sey
eoia et © Kis a . . , es " 4 : t, ma rs
v aa ¢ ey be }. . y} i , 4%) ‘ a2
. Fr . .
i £ * ia ®
* fw « -
Pm of BA
5
- ‘e , m ~
i 2 i) Rs SISLS
i
» x «
aR 7 PS 4 y “a zt ' ae; By
Pr a a ates % a ae ae a .
Pe 8 oes Teo eu. 27 1h As oe . pee POL LACES
? ts r ay
. y Vv “> > i
eS & 2. 3 4 ey i 2 tay t be a
o vay
A -
my i -
OS ua ES j i oye 4 g s xt Ry oy
>
ae A Y
} ‘ a
ME ESE i " wis TF ype Bp) eet y ‘
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—-82) ox@3507
Y
i
ii
ae
*
‘
ic ‘he Koy. re ent gethe, fara Decal tie ses dhaaeactt 1) Somali ’
yin evden, wie: bt se to, The et Fre
. ae . _ is F
Re Es ie lee rr ebay i
his ; ‘is a ay 7 te TS a ahh Raab
yt ve . ie oes
m = hale oe to
Lil were (ahi a i
et, iy ai
eae pe
‘
= 4
*
oe
‘' - 7
d Ay .
i
a
, - ;
mecteia O wank \e Fate lh
tei (Ph —————— me ae
eee ara ee horn tobe
: i . vw
coe eel nine ema hey i mY mere nae atl ey ae Fs ; ‘ i
tat) wiallagsh aad: Yo Ta
a Ia
hex wa
within and for the Second District of the State of
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice. / :
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice. j
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
FY wm 5
279 1.4.647°
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
FEB 14 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
— es — ——— a = me, ded 45 Ne me =
SSSI ES BAR ——
7X
Y
ae
svetsecas th? bore Lesbos on for Engentods end bot 190 a
' § ee
es ae
\ ; —., i 704: 4S. Oe
TTNQD FLAT MSTA Bee A ee A
peed” nah aoe
i E "
(Ui1sae te ga Ast LE odF gabasv" no .awagtsd iggee. Bi
{ ‘-yeaitest #¥oC 12 ich Maas 08 |
roo taney MAMRCTE RMEATAE ok is
retd OnRBOU ot evneut
“Ti ttede AAIEEL TERS
a h.1 6YS
a0 itiw-od ,ebtawtedts. tad? ..ce rag
“) | sdt at bellt gaw d109 outs ¥o! eer
ier eowwglt inte abtow sat ‘ae staead Shee Xe
#2 a
=
1, 45 2
Ds *
#7,
= “ys hg
ie 2
a
; #. te
z
4 e
iy 7
oe ad a
r ¥ toy
a + pt ie
2
GEN. NO. 8858 AGENDA NO. 26.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
October Term, A. D. 1934.
William A. Atkinson,
Appellee,
Appeal from the Circuit Court
VSe
of Winnebago County.
Julia P. Warren,
Appellant.
DOVE, J.
The Circuit Court of Winnebago County overruled a general
and special demurrer to the amended declaration of the plaintiff
below, and the defendant below elected to stand by her demurrer,
refused to plead further and from a judgment rendered against her
in the sum of $2204.63 brings the record to this court for review
by appeal.
The declaration as amended alleges that the plaintiff and
the defendant, with Moses Allen Warren and the Security Trust Company,
a Michigan corporation, acting as administrators with the will
amnexed of LouiseW. Atkinson, deceased, in February, 1925, executed
the following written contract, viz; "Memorandum of Agreement made
this ..... day of February, A.D. 1925, by Julia P. Warren, of Rock-
ford, Illinois, Moses Allen Warren of New York City, New York,
William A. Atkinson, of Detroit, Michigan, and the Security Trust
Company, a Michigan Corporation, acting as administrator with
will annexed of Louise W. Atkinson, Deceased. Witnesseth: That,
whereas, Julia P. Warren is the mother of Louise W. Atkinson,
Deceased, and of the said Moses Allen Warren, and Whereas, the said
Julia Pp. Warren is the owner of and possessed of loans and mortgages
kept, used and managed by her in several different accounts accord-
ing to a plan of her own with a view final disposition of the
same to her said children and others end has according to said plan
8S .OW AGMEDA gases .Ou .uaO
| 7 SRT MI 7 |
@IOMLWI TO TAVOO ATAIITIIA
TOLATeIa quoowe
»POCI .2d A ,mtstT tedoto0
etoanidta .A metif{iw
ellseqgqa
favo0 tivottd end mort [eeqga
av
-vtavod ogsdenmatw to
~mertsW .f situ,
wtrnelleqqa
<b ,avod
Istensg s belurtsve ytnvod ogsdenatW to trwod tiyortd edT
tiitnielq sdt to nottstsloeb bebasms ot of xotrwmeb Istoege bre
wormed ted yd basta of betools woled tmsbasteb oft bas ,woled
ted tenisys betobast taemgbut s wott bas reddit bselq ot beautes
waiver rot tuvco aldsd of brooet edt eagnind €8.h088% To awe edt at
-lsoqgs yd
bis tiitatelq edt tedt segelia bebuoms as noltstsloeb ef =
<Ussquod taurT ytinwos2 edt bus metzsW oslla sesoM dittw ,tasbaeteb ent
Iiiw edt déiw axotsttetaimbs as gnitvos ,moitstoqroo asgidoiv s
betuooxs ,d8@l .yrsurdeT ai ,besssosh ,moantdta .Woaiwol to bexenns
sbsm tnemestgA to awbestomeM" :stv ,toattaoo netiiqw gatwolfot sat
~Hoof to ,setzeW .f silva yd ,88ef .d.A ,ytevidet To Tel nabs aidt
e{u0Y wsli ,yIiO AxoY wet to serrsW moll, seeoll ,alomtill ,b1rot
gautT ytitvose edt bas ,wegidoim ,tlowedc te ,moanittA .A me iff ty
dtiw totettainimbs as gaitos ,qolisroqiod megidoiM s ,Yasquiod
tsdt idfesseqtiv .beaseoed ,soantita .W saiuol to bexeans [itw
oRmitdA .W saiwol to tedtom edt at mertsW .¢ siivt ,asotedw
bisa eit ,asetedW bas ,aestrsW motta #9a0M Bbise edt to bas .08as909C
asgsgitom bus ansol to beagsaeod bas te isawo edt ei metisW .f sfivt
-btooos etmvoons tastettib [staves ai ted yd begensm bas bea ,tqeal
edt to noltiaoqath Isati @weiv s déiw mwo ted to asiq s ot gat
Ri
asiq bise ot goibtooos asd bas aexedto bas mexbiido bise ted of ousa
me
and for many years last pest, taken some notes, mortgages and
other securities in the name of the said Louise W. Atkinson and
has at times and when necessary, called upon the said Louise
Warren Atkinson to make, execute and deliver sufficient and
proper releases, assignments, etc. but has at all times, retained
sol@ possession of all of said notes, mort@ges and securities and
has never parted with the ownership thereof and has never delivered
the same or any part thereof, to the said Louise Warren Atkinson
but has from time to time given to the said Louise Warren Atkinson,
@ portion of the income thereof, and Whereas, the said Louise W.
Atkinson departed this life the fifth day of June, A.D. 1924, in
the City of Detroit, State of Michigan, leaving a last will and
testament which has been admitted to probate in the Probate Court
for the County of Wayne and State of Michigan, and Whereas, on the
petition of the said William A. Atkinson the said Security Trust
Company, of Detroit, Michigan, has been duly appointed and is now
acting as administrator of said estate with will annexed, and
Whereas, the said William A. Atkinson is the surviving husband
of the said Louise W. Atkinson, Deceased, and Whereas, the second
paragraph of the said last will and testament is as follows, to-wit
‘all funds invested in western mortgages of which I am possessed
at the time of my decease, and all property which has been in the
care of my mother, Julia P. Warren, of Rockford, Illinois, I give
and bequeath to her, should she survive me, with the understanding
that she forward to my husband, William A. Atkinson, of Detroit,
Michigan, the sum of $750.00 quarterly, or an anntal income of
$3000.00, as he may desire during his lifetime, so long as he shall
remain unmarried', and Whereas, the said last will and testament
was made by thessaid Louise W. Atkinson in view of her expectancy
of estate from her said mother, and Whereas, the property referred
to in said paragraph 2 in said willhad not passed to the said Louise
W. Atkinson md is not, thereby, and therefore does not become an
Fi Ahn Fe
~~
bas aensatrom ,aetor emoe meta? ,tesq tasl aressy yasm tot bas
base moantit, .W satwol Biss edt to emsa edt mi settixrvesa tedite
exivol bisa edd soqu bsiiso ,ytasasoen medw bas semtt ts asd
bee taetofttva reviled bas stuoexe one ot mosnlaga por ary
Hhentistez ,aemitd [is ts sad dud .ote oduninie keun acaselor penn
bas eottiqvoss bas esaaitow .,e@6con bise to IIs to mofaassaog Loa
berevifeb rever aad bas tosert qtdateawo edt dtiw bedusq seven asd
soenitts sexrsW seivol bisa edd ot ,tostedt tteq Yas to omsa oft
Toenitt, setisW saivod bisa sit ot asvig omit of ante next esd ted
»W geivol bisa et ,asstedW bas ,losteds smoort edt to Holt TOG, A,
ak ,PSOL .C.A ,oauh to Yeb detLt edt otLL atdt betrsqeh noantata
bas Lftw tesl s yaivest ,asgisoiy to efsta..thorted to vito edt
ted stsdord edd at etsdota. ot bettiubs aged asd doidw sromsteed
eit so,,esexedy Dos ,magisdoly to stste bas emryeh | tO Bhd ah Ps edt ¢ tot
taut Ytinwoen bisa sdt soamilts .A meili iv bse edt to mitites
won ak bas betntoacgs vyiub need asd mag toh tloxted ‘to “femsgnod
7
bas ,bexenme [itw dtiw ststae bisa to totsitataimbs as gnttos.
busdesi gaivivawe oft ai moanitta .A mellliv bisa: edt, .ssetodW
»bnoves, oft ,asetedy Sas ,beassoed ,soemitt, .W eeivod., ALAR, Off 3,
dives awollel as, ed toomatast bas. [liv test bisa, edd to.
‘ besbeenog tis I dotiw to pegayttom mretveew mt betaeval atasite diane
edd mi need asd dotdw ytreqora' Ife bre ‘jeassosh Ym to Smit ond te
“avis I ,atontiiy ,btotdooh to .mertel .4 siiet \ bite’ ch Ye’ ia?
gutbostersiay oift Attn om ovivewe eda Biuode ,xeit of d¥'seuped bas
ptorted Yo yoanttta A melfiiy bisdest ym oF brewror oda’ Pei?
to emoomt Iatans ms to .yfrstretip 00.08% to! ind ett amghiont
{Issa ed as gaol oa ,omttetit eid gititub exteob vent et as (00-0 os
tnonistasd bus tLiw teal bisa odé sasetedy bas be ference ts
Youstooqxs ted to welv af moeaistta WW Salved bisevadt yd ebew aaw
“Ddetzetex Yixsqotq edt laseredw pad ,tedton bias ted mort otetue to
eetuot bles edd ot beweeg tor bait fiw ‘bide! nt s meetye tee: MESY mk we
fa smoosd tot aeeb srotexesdd bets cn: (tot at Bae ii aw
in Dhee 4 ae ence hoe
-j—
asset of said estate, and as to said section said will of
necessity becomes inoperative, and Whereas, it is the desire
of all parties to this contract thet the legal status of the
parties hereto each in relation to the other shall be established,
understood and confirmed, and for the further purpose of avdding
any possible misunderstanding, dispute or litigation pertaining
thereto, and further it being the wish and desire of the said
Julia P. Warren to carry out the wishes and intent of her said
daughter pertaining to the payment of annuity as provided for
in and by said paragraph of said will, and further the said
Julia Pp. Warren desiring to have proper releases of record made
in connection with said mortgages, notes, bonds and securities
so held by her in the name of the said Louise W. Atkinson and
as they shall be demanded and requested from time to time by
such persons who shall be entitled thereto to the end that
the said Julia P. Warren may continue to handle, negotiate,
dispose of, collect, receipt for, assign and properly trensfer
such notes, bonds, mortgages and securities so standing in the
name of the said Louise W. Atkinson at the time of her death and
to make proper release of mortgages in some instances which have
been paid prior to the death of the said Louise W. Atkinson but
which through inadvertence have not been released, and in con-
Sideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements
herein made, it is therefore agreed First; The said Julia P.
Warren hereby agrees to carry cut the provisions of Paragrabh
2 of said last will md testament pertaining to the payment of
annuity to the said William A. Atkinson and to thet end she
hereby binds herself, her heirs, executors, administrators and
assigns. Second: The said Moses Allen Warren hereby agrees to
carry out any instructions or directions given by will or other-
wise by the said Julia P. Warren pertai ning to the payment of
said annuity as provided in and by said paragraph 2 of said last
will and testament. Third: The said William A. Atkinson agrees
to accept the payment of annuity as herein provided in full of
all claims, directly or indirectly, against the said Julia P.
Warren or against her estate or for any notes, bonds, mortgages
or other securities whatsoever which have bem or now are in the
B=
to [fiw bise molftose bisa ot as bas ,etstes bisa to tears
etiaeh sit ef vi ,.asetedyW bas ,ovitatreqorni eemoosd ydteasoon
eft to autsta [see edt tadd foerttoo eft ot eottted ffs "6
edaildstes sd [lade tedto edd o¢ amoftefer nt dose oteted estixsq
goibbvs to seoctug rtedirwt edd tot bese ,Seutitdos bas bdoterebat
gaiaisiteg mottagitil to etuqatb .embbastarehavein efdteaoq {ns
biss ed? To stfeeb bas daiw edt gnisd ti tediiwt bas ,oteredd
Sise ted to tnetni bas aedelw edt tuo, yxrs0, ot motrey,, 7 shlay,
tot bebivotg es ytinvans to taomysa sdt of guintstreq retdgisb
bisa edt tsdicut bos .Iitw bisa to dgetgstsq biaa yd bas at
she brooer to geasslet teqotq evsd of gnitised metrsW .% stint
seitiawoes bas abaod. ,setom ,aegsgitom bisa atiw, sottosmmoo mi,
bas soantita .W eaivod bisa edt to emen sdt ai xsd yd bled on
yd omtt of omit mort beteeupex bas bobmsaeh od ffsde yodst as
tadt bae oft ot oteredt beltitas od fisde osw anosteg soe
tsttogsn ,sibasd of sunttnoo ysem mottsW .f silyl bise edt ~
~ et
tatenstt ylteqotq bms mgtaas Tot tqtesss ,toelloo to ‘eeogalb
edt ot gaotbasta oa esttinuosa Sas adgsat tom abod ,2etom ‘ove
bas diseb red to eutt edt vs noemtsta W egisol. bisa edd to, ‘smsat,
evet dotdw aeometent emoa at aegsyttom to easter reqetq oism ‘ot
iw monattda a satyod bisa edt to 7 ody ow noltg ise need
99, gh bas boase Lex seed tom eved enpetxevaess, dguordd, do tim,
atroemeetgs | baa atasaevod edt to bas) Bon fue rg elt to aotterebta .
1G Shiny bine ont ident beergs ototereds at ve _sebsn atered.
ddisrgsted to exo tatvorg edit tro yTtso ot. aeoxns wsexoxt KSTISW
to datemyeq edt of gainisiteq thomstast bias Iftw taal bse to
eda bee tsdt ot Das sogcints oA, msi ff ty) Sise edt, ot coe
‘bas etotetteinimbs <aTot09x9 etied tof ,tieared abaid yc ced
of esetgs ydered certsW nellA geno bisw edt :bmooe@> ,aaglaes
_~tedto to Ifiw yd. asvig anottosxih to enoltoyrtent yas oy aby
to tremysq edt of anita isttod merxew .¢ BiIvt bise ett ta
tasl bisa to & HEAERS HRT bisa yd bass bebivetq aa ytivans bisa.
ReeTgs moaaidd es metiitw bisa AT :btidt -tromsteed bas LL se,
te*Liut mi. bebiver. aisted: as a nae ‘to taemyeq edd tqeoos: ot,
na. silgt btse edt: varkeys \iteetthal to! Vidootth yamisfo.tIev
“gezeytron cebitod .Wesée yns 46% xo Otet¥s ‘ted sentage en cedtecw®
‘oft af 938 wor to med evsd dofdw rovecatedw eettinvdse tedto To
7 oe
possession of the said Julia P. Warren whether in the name
of Louise W. Atkinson or otherwise; thet he will save and keep
harmless the said Julia P. Warren, her heirs, executors, eduinis-
trators and assigns from any claims or effort on the part of any
representative of the estate of Louis W. Atkinson, and it is
further understood that the provisions and undertakings embodied
in this contract to be kept and performed upon the part of the
Security Trust Gompany as such administrator as hereinafter set
forth, are and shall become his obligation so far as he shall be
able to carry the same into effect or cause the same to be done,
and he hereby further waives all alleged right or claim to have
such administrator or eaeny successor to attempt by litigation or
otherwise the recovery of any such notes, bonds, mortgages or
other securities or other thing of value from the said Julia P,
Warren, or from her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns
and if he shall ever be called upon so to do, he shalljoin in
the execution or delivery of any of the releases, conveyances,
documents, endorsements or assignments as is herein provided to
be made by the said Security Trust Company as is hereinafter pro-
vided, and to the end that this contract may be carried out
particularly as to such releases, assignments, etc., hereby
authorizes, empowers and directs the said administrators of the
estate of Louise W. Atkinson or any successor thereof or any
possible trustee, to make, execute and deliver all sufficient
and proper endorsements, assignments, Aemiikvandan, releases, deeds
and disclaimers for the purpose of properly releasing and discharg-
ing securities of record, cancellation of notes or other obliga-
tions or of for the purpose of Serrecting titles in connection with
any mortgages that now stand in the name of the said Louise W.
Atkinson or for the purpose of conveying legal title to the same
or any part thereof in the said Julia P. Warren or her heirs,
executors, adwinistrators or assigns whenever the same shall be
requested by those entitled thereto. Fourth: The said Security
-p-
essa edj of tsdtedw astasW .¢ silo, oise alt To polamesseg
qeez bas svea Iftw af tant josiwtesdto zo nosatg A, v oetuod. 29
~aicimhbs ,atodposze ,atisd red ,merreW .f SifuL, oise ek pepiaxed
yes Io trsq edt mo trotts to emtelo yas wort anpions. bas Sresest
at tit bas ,moaniatta .W sivot to sistas eal ae ovlistneaszaer
bothodan agoitettebas bas anole tvoxg end it bootexebias rose
ig bf
lt to treq eft soqy bemzotreq bas tqod. ad ot toertno0 ‘aia At
fea teiicniexed as totsttieinimbs dove as. yeeqmod. teurt ytinuose
6d Jisdea sd.as ust og soltsyiide,eid emooed Iisde ims, Oran gtzer
.emab ed oF omsa ort oeus9 to tostts otal smee Sut yrtso ot ofdas
eved ot misfo 13 ) tgs pegalis ile aevisw sedgwwt » Yderss od bas
TO wo Btagiv tl ud tqmetts oF Towae sous oe to ‘Torstée tt inbds | dove
* Qe pGarpes a, oof £iedh elt. aa:
bis) aeyaysol ,ehuod: gapten dowa (ae to Gaclinsitte ‘ery ‘Ssatwredto
“J Siig, bse sdf mort outav to gaids redo 0 aoidbauoee ae
eigiaas to efovsitaininbs ,arotvoexe ,atied ted mort to .menteW -
te ntoi ited ad ,.ob at os mogu bellso ed tsve {isda ed TL bas
_ qBeomaysvaco ,asaselex ot to yma to yrsvileo a0 goktwoens, edt
ot bebivorg ateqex ef as atmemmgiass 10 adnomenrebas yet eenmacogp
“org nod tentored at as wxagi0 fauet vt bawoee Dish yo xe men Re
4 Tae, £Ofaw;
deo betxrteo od Ysut somti00 ‘aids tadé bre edt ot nF eenee
rb te
ydered ,.ot9 zi moun tone ssese ler dove of as italvoltzeg
ang
edt to etotetta tmimbe pkee eds afoot ‘Dis axemognd ‘aie seltodiue
Vinh Weed
"ye to toasedt toagzeqoue yas. to noantita Wh padvcol Yo setae
tasfotttue fis" rev ifes brs odircexs orem ot estaurt | Rear
abeeb sabagelex qanonedt haps sattaanten thie atcomastobne tegoxg bas
~giadoath Bre giftese fox tizecotq to beogtig aitt ‘tot arolitaton sb 1 a5
~sgiide xaite to gevor to notte! Lsonso bros to s6.ittewwes: gat
diiw nottoennoo mt aefiis gaiteor20® Yo seoquig out toR Rs to aioe
WW @akvold Sise edt to veman edt at baste vor tad? aeyagtrom yas
mga adt of altis Iogel gaiyerace :to eacqtuq ‘edt tot to adentits
atied ted to A9TLSW ~4 slit btse eft mi aenetave nat
ed Lissa omee . gait. ‘sevenouda aagtees 0, atodsitalnimbs nodes in
Ytitsose bisa eiT :dtcy0t otereds beititne eaodt yd anton
ey
7
oo am
Yrust Company as such administrator hereby agrees to make, execute
and deliver sufficient legal and proper endorsements, assignments,
acquittances, releases, deeds, conveyances and disclaimers or other
papers necessary to recover, distharge, assign, transfer or convey
written evidences of obligations of indebtedness standing in the
name of the said Louise W. Atkinson, deceased, and belonging to the
said fund so owned, possessed and controlled by the said Julia P.
Warren and to make necessary and proper endorsements of any note
or obligation pertaining thereto the same to be without recourse or
liability and without expense on its part or without expense to the
estate of the said Louise W. Atkinson, deceased, such execution,
endorsements and deliveries as aforesaid to be made whenever the
seme shall be requested by the said Julia P. Warren, her lawful
authorized agents or attorneys or her heirs, executors, administrators
or assigns; that it will not demand of, sue for, or attempt to
recover any of such papers or securities or to collect any proceeds
thereof and the said Julia P. Warren, her heirs, executors, adminis-
trators and assigns hereby agree to save and keep harmless the said
Security Trust Company from all personal liability or obligation by
reason thereof and shall pay the necessary fees for notaries and
sxiveners in connection therewith."
fhe declaration then avers that the plaintiff hes not remarried
since the death of his former wife, Louise W. Atkinson, but has
remained unmarried; "that prior to and at the time of the death
of the said Louise W. atkinson and continueusly thereafter until
the contract hereinbefore set forth was made and executed, the said
defendant, Julia Pp. Warren, held in her possession for the said Louise
W. atkinson a considerable number of farm loans secured by mortgages
upon real estate, which mortgages and loans were issued to and stood
in the name of the said Louise W. Atkinson, and which aggregated a large
sum of money, the exact amount of which is to this plaintiff unknown,
sallies
etwosxs oem ot avetas ydexed totettetaimbes dove as yEsqnod taut?
einemrgingas ,etnemestobre teqotq bas Isgel tnestolttve reviled bae
soto to atemisioeth bas asomsyevnco »abesdh (enya Boonie Lupos
yevace To tetamsrt ,muieas ,egueftoarh ,rsvoosx of vrsensoen ateqsa
edt mi gtibrsts seembetdebut to eamottagiido to eonshive note haw
ens of yrignolied baa ,bseasso95 ,coenidtv, .W seatvol bisa edt to emest
«Tt siiut bise eit yd bellortnoo bas beasseaog henwo ce baw bise
eton yas to atnemeaxobms teqotq bas yiseaeoen exam ot bas “ners
TO SBIVODST ouinentalel ed of enmsa sit otetedt PALHCOP ENE mottagtide x0
edt ot eaneaxs Saceatt det to tisq ati mo semeqxs suodtew bna Wittostt
wtoktwosxe dova ,bsaesoob ,moantata .W 98 tyod hike oat Se whabes
edt nevensdy sham od oft bhaeatp hs as asizevileb ins “ataensetobae
trie ad
Iutwsl cai ~TSITsAy .F silent bisa edt yd betaoupet od Ilede ome ~
atotstta teins aTosNoOKS ~atfed ted xo svertodds ©0 etasgs seesaaiek
ot tqnetis to ,tot eva ,to bosmeb ton fItw #t dant jangisas “to
abesoota yms toelloo ot to aettinyeee to arsqsq dove to vas zevooes
~atnishe arotsooxs vation ted mors «ff shist bisa odd Bak ise
f
bisa ede eaoLnrad qeex bas eves ot setae yde 1981 angteas bits “aroter?
odd vet eae wet
ud netting hide no yttlidsil Isnoatsg Ils mozt Yasqmo deus? vwitwoee
ef a mt at hoy
bas aoisaton 62 aeek YEseE Sem ost wea ifede a gs toe tedé fone
s- to 7 E t bax > <<
* dg tweneds aottosanoo, ait ST
beittenet tort asd tiitvelelg edd taft areve nods noigers loeb Py
asi turd ostaga .W paivod ohin romno2 aii ve? Agana, edt. 9 ots
F
hy deer edt To omiv edd ts bas ot bate, | tana ibe be xas Senisnet
$ 3 ae oe ey BBS Meh a
iP fs
I its rothsonedd Yiasrasmtsso9 , bas foantats W eeiod bisa A to
oe
f
bisa ouit .betuoexe bas eben ecw déxo% tox exotedatozed soaxsnco exit }
THNCS part
gaivol Diss edt xot fo tapsasog. ted ong bles aecmeW nd BLL nt
aegegixon yd betvoee sasol met to xodimun sidstebtanoo 2. Honest, 0
foots bus 9% bewaal stew assoL bets eaguizon 4 Ao tetw cistes Iss
OSE 4 iy falPtoaeY . sada y ‘ olPitae bs ead” edt: «tis dapire We
heb
Gh Ue
-~B-
but he believes and on belief here states the fact to be that such
farm mortgages and loans amounted to at least {40,000.00 or $50,000.00;
that prior to and at the time of the death of the said Louise W.
Atkinson, she, the said Louise W. Atkinson, held the legal title
to saidnortgages and loans, and that she, the said Louise W.
Atkinson, believed and claimed that said mortgages and loans be-
longed to her and that her mother was merely holding possession of
them for her; that after the death of the said Louise ¥. Atkinson
and the appointment of the said Security Trust Company as aduinistra-
tor of her estate with the will annexed, the plaintiff herein and the
said Security Trust Company es such administrator believed and in
good faith claimed that said mortgages and loans formed a part of
the estate of the said Louise W. Atkinson, deceased; that said
Security Trust Company, after its appointment 2s such administrator
and shortly prior to the making of the contract hereinbefore set
forth, planned and was about to institu and prosecute action
against the said Julia Pp. Warren for the recovery of said securities
as 2a part of the estate of the said Louise W. Atkinson, deceased,
of all of which matters and facts the said Julia BP. Warren, had
full knowledge and notice."
The declaration further averred "thet immediately upon the
making of said contract, the parties thereto entered upon the per=-
formance thereof; that the plaintiff and the Security Trust Company,
a Michigan corporation, acting as administrator with will annexed of
Louise W. Atkinson, deceased, have and each of them has fully and
completely complied.with and performed all of the terms and provi-
sions of said contract which, by the terme thereof, they or either
of them were required to comply with and perform; that the defendant
Julia P. Warren, is still living; that in accordance with the terms
and provisions of said contract, the defendent, Julia P. Warren, be-
came and was obligated to pay to the pleintiff, William A. Atkinson,
the sum of $750.00 quarterly, or at the end of each and every three
months; that the said defendant, Julia Pp. Warren, did from the time
a |
doua tedd ad ot tosl sid aststa ered tetied movbms asvebied em tud
700.000, 06% zo 00.000,080 tusef ¢s ot betavoms ansol bas» asgsgteom mtst
.W satvol bisa edt to dtseb sit to omit edt oa ors of softg tadt
elsit Legel edt bled, .woamttv, .W satvod. bise oft. 4edea, moentdta
-Vi salpel bise edt ,eda ssdt bas ,aasol bas. sagesttonbise ov
~ed ansol ons aegegtitom bisa tad? bentsio bas bevetied amoanlnsa
to metesseeoq yaibfon ylerem asw redtow rad tent Ons. ged,o¢ Sogaol
soenttts..V¥ setvod bisa edt Yo dtseb edt retts gent, ;red sot med?
~etiaiaiube as yasqnod tautt ytitook Sise oct to taeatatoggs ed? bas
edt bas gisied Tittsielg sct ,bexenos Illw edd dtiw atsdae tod to tod
at bas Hevaties setentatetads dose as yersqmod 4 teu? Ve ftseeek ,>tse
‘to ersq 8S Demrot ensol bas eegegtzom bisa tedt bemts fo trots bere
bise tact jbeassoeh oarttta W salvo bSae Lad x0 stetee © out
-% on Se ee ee a
rotyttatatmbs dowe as tremtatoqas ave rotts eaacued tout Dis homie
Ce Le:
vos erotedniexsd tostéaoo edt to astian ett ot notse wtaode | ad
a i
fnottos eturoeaoxa bas dus ident ot tuods aaw bas Po trot
@ VRS ZevVeass
asiiiwoes bisa to ‘re yooes edt rok hdd 4 abist Adam om: aentans
beaseoe Hoar ixit a W pot bites ‘eu ie evates edt to tzsq 8 88
bad metta «4 atiut bise eat adaa? bas ovestam dolite to. Ila, te
oth ge , i .ontton, bite ‘sabefwonst itu .
add soqu visits tbewmt tedsu boxzeva’ sodduut noitsze loeb ody 3 |
~roq edt nog betstae ofered? dettusq eat ,toatéaco bisa to yaften ;
yaTsquod teux? yituvoss edd bas tittaisle edt tert oorony sonsnto2 ;
to bexesing (liv dtiw votsutetdinbs es gattos ,nettstoqros ad
bre yitut sad vest to dose baa eved ,benasool moemttta .W epdnic
-fvorg bas aiuret edt to Irs pemrotteq bes ddtw. betfqnos YLeteLquoo
“sett io xO yet , tested? pated sat yd .dottw ‘fostdies bisa ‘to. anole
ate tasbooteh edt ted? ymrotreq bas déiw YIqnon ot bot tvpe®) ere medi to |
guered edd ddiw eonshtooos ni tedé pentvit [ffte ek ‘aot TeW Ge ALot ‘
aed yrottsy .¢ sflvt tusbitsteh edd) tostitadd bise to biotatvorg ‘bas MM
tad ower Eat A oA manEREW: (Thitmtslg edd oF Yog oF bedegtido asw bas onal
eondt Yasve | bas dose. (to bne sd?) ta: to so (qizetsaup 00, 089% to awa ott hy
Sud edt most Hb .moxzsH .¢ stivt ,dmabme teb bisa edt tat sttnen a
ra]
i
of the execution of said contract until the quarterly payment
which fell due December 5, 1931, pay to the said plaintiff, William
A. Atkinson, all of said quarterly payments; that prior to the com
mencement of this suit there became due and payable according to
the terms and provisions of said contract from the said defendant
to the said plaintiff a quarterly payment of $750.00 on December 5,
1931, a quarterly payment of $750.00 on March 5, 1932, and a quarterly
payment of $750.00 on June 5, 1932, making a total of $2250.00; that
neither the defendant, nor eny one for her, has paid any part or
portion of said three quarterly payments aggregating $2250.00, except
only the swa of $250.00, which was paid by the said defendant to the
plaintiff on January 11, 1932, leaving a balance unpaid of $2000.00
at the time this suit was instituted; that in accordance with the terms
and provisions of said contract and prior to the commencement of this
suit, the defendant, Julia Pp. Warren, became end was liable to pay to
the defendant the said principal sum of $2,000.00, and is further
liable to pay to the plaintiff interest at the lawful rate of 5% on
each of said quarterly payments from the dete the same became due, until
paic.* fhe declaration concludes in the usual form, alleging a
Failure of the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum due him or
any part thereof, and lays the damages which plaintiff has sustained
at $3,000.00.
It is the contention of appellant that the averments of this
declaration disclose that appellee never had any right to have paid
to him an annuity of $3,000.00 or any part thereof, that appelleets
promise to give releases was an agreement to do what the estate of
Louise ¥. Atkinson was bound to do and therefore no consideration
passed from appellee to appellant to support appellant's promise to
pay this annuity as appellee's promises were of no real value or
benefit to appellant.
On behalf of appellee it is insisted that the averments of the
declaration disclose a sufficient legal consideration passing from
~~
tromyer vitetasep sd Creo foartaoe bise to’ roltyoexe | ont ‘to
meiir in .titdietelq bles edt ot yeq (£8@L Ve tedmsost exh Let dobitw
~“oo eft ot toitg isdt ;etesifysq yinetesup bisa to its moerdita’ iar
ot gribtooce aldsysec brs sub emeosd ererit dive efi Yo teenbonen
txsbroted bisa ext novt dosttaoo bise to anolalvord bas’ emt sxe
<2 tSdugosd no 00.08% to taomysq yivetrsup 6 THYNESLG bisa ‘ene oF
ylverrsop ¢ bas ,S8@L .2 sors Ho OOLORTH to tromyed ylreetebp's Yieer
ted? ;00.088S# to Ietot s ynistsm .SSCl .@ emit mo OO.L0aNG YO Snemysd
xo tis¢ yas Sisq esd .ted tot amo Ys rom .insbneteb edt rect ter
dqboxs ,00.0888¢ grivsgoteygs atmemysq yIretraip said ise to nomtted
edt of titshmeteh bisa edt yd bisq asw doldw ,O0.08S@ ‘to mma ei yin
00.0008# to htaqmr somsisd s sWtveel (Seer LF vrsiisy oo Witnhere
amret odd tiv sonabronns wt tent jbetuttient saw thie “etnd ety ety v8
atd? to taomeoremuon oft of tole bre tosttdco Sieve Yd sive Radvotclg he
ot ys¢ Ot Sfdstf saw bes ensded ymerraw V¢ stint ,fnabre tes ent (eine
tedtiwt at bas ,09.000,88 to me Leqtonttg Sithe sift tusbasteh edt
mo R@ to etst Intwsf sat ts testetal Ttttnbele edt oF yeq ot ‘eldstr
lita ,emb 6 taser emsa edt atsb eff mott stremysa Ylxetrasp bina %o dose
se gtinefis .wtot fever ett of dehelonds adtssaloes eat” ".518q
to vifd seb mua ect ttitatelq edt of Ysa dd daabre ted oad to etn tis?
bentedeua eed anienan: votdw aogamsb ont aval baa lostedd f28q was
PS FREE eR » | (00, 000,88 ts
. gind Yo atmemrevs sit todd tnalleces Yo Hetadtnes ene abeepo ss
“bise evad oF ‘tugs yor bad taver séilsoqs tadd seolowtd nd tedslood
ates Fisaqs eteit ,teareds seeq “YaS” ‘xO 00.900,88 te “ed iste ‘eel nadvod
‘So otdred’ eit deaw'on oe ‘dromestgs’ ‘as esw agetslet avis ot éainore
‘foitstehtamco om eréteedt bas ob ot awed Baw mtoamitda.W ne By
oot eaincre attmetieqas ftocdea of Haslfends ét ahanaides “
ait aie 3 aie Iket ‘on to etew ‘ebathoty vibe as yt
| re TE ee cpasccedaenel |
it 0° ‘Boneandvs ed todd bodetadt af tt esfleqqe: tot s fled re
meet sh sonaaest nobsexsbteneo Sse teenie ste iansaty n r: haw 96h
4
«B=
appellee to sustain appellant's promise to pay the annuity as the
agreement which forms the basis of this action wes a family settle-
ment contract which the courts favor.
Among other things, the declaration charged and the demurrer
admitted that in February 1925 appellant, her son Moses Allen Warren,
appelles and the administrator with the will snnexed of Louise YW.
Atkinson, deceased, executed a written instrument which recited that
the reason for its execution was the desire of the parties thereto to
have the legal status of the parties each in relation to the other
established, understood and confirmed and for the further purpose of
avoiding any possible misunderstanding, dispute or litigation per-
taining thereto; that it was the desire of appellant to pay appellee
the annuity provided in her daughter's will and her desire also to
procure releases of mortgages which she owned, but which had been
taken in the name of her deceased daughter; that appellee is the
surviving husband of Louise W. Atkinson and that prior to her death,
her mother, appellant herein, had a considerable sum of money in-
vested, the amounts thereof being evidencedby notes, mortgages and
securities taken in the name of her daughter LouiseW. Atkinson:
that when called upyto do so, Louise would execute proper releases
or assignments thereof, but thet at all times appellant retained
possession of the evidences of such indebtedness and never parted with
the ownership thereof, although appellant did at various times give
her daughter a portion of the income therefrom: that Louise died
testate on June Sth, 1924; that the second paragraph of her will be-
queathed to her mother certain property, with the understanding that
her mother pay appellee an annuity of $3,000.00 go long as he shall
remain unmarried: that Louise did not own the property which she sought
to dispose of in the second paragraph of her will and said paragraph
therefore became inoperative: that appellant nevertheless desired to
carry out the wishes of her daughter and obligated herself to pay
appellee $3,000.00 per year as long as he should remain unmarried. In
consideration of this promise, appellee agreed to accept said sum in
ve
est as ytiungs edt yso ot gatmorc a'tasileqqs. atstave of eslleqgs
~olitvee ylimet « asw moites aldé to alesd edt amrot dotdw tmemetgs
stovel afivoo siv foidw tostisog saem
Terie) edt Dae beytedo softetsloed edt ,egaidt rsddo gaoma _
eretrsi mella esac moa tod ,tasifeqgs a8@L yrsuidsy at tedt bedtinbs
W saivol to. boxenas [ftw edd dt kw totettatainhs ent bas selleqgs
tedd betloat doidw tsentritant aettiiw © betuoexe .deeseged ,noantita
ot otetedt asitiseg old to etiseb edt asw coitwoexe ati tot soaser edit
todto adit o¢ goivetst si dose setizseg et to antsta Leget edt eved
to seoqysg tedduwt edt rot Das bermttaco bas bootaxehay deteiidstas
-IS¢ motes tttt to etscatp attbneterebasvata aldiaseq yas gatbtovs
eelleqgs ean ot dusileqgs to ettash ony 2ew tk tot joteredd gainiss
of coals etiash ued bos Iitw ea'tetdgush ted wt bebivetq \tinans edt
need bed doidw tud ,benwo eile doidw eegsys 10m. to peaselet exugorg
ent al valisqqs tsdd :teddgush beassoeh ted to emem edt mt aoisd
eitseb wed of roltg tedé doe moenidta .W eatwol to baedaud gatviviwe
aed Yettom zo ause eidaneh tases & bed .wieted taslleqcs etedtom xed
Das wegegiiom ,aston ydbesnebive gated Tostedt atogroma oat osbetasy
snoantttA .Wwuiwol tetdgueb 19d to ome oft at sodst aeitiquess
esaselot teqotg stvosxe biyow satvod ,oa ob odmay beliso sedw tent
heniste: tnalleqgs semis Ils ts tedif, tad stoetedd atnoungtass: to
ddiw betisg tevex bas srembetdehat coue to asomebive edt to Solepeseog
evig aemit avyoirav ts bib taalleqqs Aguodi{[s ,tostedt qtdatemwo ede
belb oaivod ted¢ ;moketedt smogat ent to cottmeq tedigusd aed
~od Ii tw sai to dqatgstsq boooer eff tadt ;dSGl dt enw, a0, adepues
tedt anibastetebay edt ad fw a¥ixeqorg statreo : itor xed ot bs a tlh Sher
Ilse, ed aa geol oa 00,000,5% to yeiinnas os en siis Yaq, ean: ,
tigwos eda cotde, wtxeqozg edt owe tom DL eatuod tarts abeds . puts aire
“Yag of teased betsgtido bre rtetidgusb, test, ve BOS
E bedenseau, atin hivota ed es gaol as rey Od, 00,000.89 aalieque
ai mise bisa tqeons of beergs selleqqs ,eetmonq elit to noktaxebiemoo
pa. ey
full of all claims against appellant or her estate and agreed that
he would save and keep appellant and her estate harmless from any
claims, or effort on the part of the representative of the estate
of his deceased wife to assert a claim against her or her estate
and he himself waived any right to have the representative of his
wife's estate, attempt to recover from apellant or her estate any-
thing of value; that if ever called upon to do go, he would join in
the execution or delivery of any of the releases, conveyances,
endorsements or documents as the agreement provides shall be executed
by the representative of his wife's estate, and by the instrument he
expressly directs said representative to execute to those entitled
thereto, whenever requested, such instruments in connection with any
mortgages that stand in the name of Louise W. Atkinson.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that when this agreement
was executed in February, 1925, following the death of appellant's
daughter in June, 1924, nothing of value passed from appellee to
support appellant's promise to pay this annuity. Appellee recognized
that appellant took nothing by the will of his deceased wife, as the
bequest to appellant by her daughter was made because Louise expected
to receive an estate from her mother, but this expectation was not
fulfilled and the property which she bequeathed her mother never be-
came an asset of Louise's estate and therefore the provision for her
mother became inoperative. Appellee insists, however, that the legal
title to the notes and mortgages was never vested in appellant, as
Louise was the payee in the several notes and the mortgagee in the
several mortgages and therefore she became vested with the legal title
in her lifetime andupon her death, by operation of law, title thereto
became vested in her administrator with the will annexed. This may
be true, but in February, 1925, over his own signature, appellee
recognized that these notes and mortgages were not assets of his wife's
estate. By that agreement he never claimed they were. He conceded
they belonged to appellant and only obligated himself to join in the
execution or delivery of any releases or documents which the agreement
@ Orr). 1s
~@> i
tedt beotgs bak atatas ted to tasiloages deniags aatake bie. to sua
Ys mort essluxsd etstace ten bas tnalleqgs ase Das, eves dalton, ea
etstae sdv to evitsinsasiget add to dusq edt no protte,.co autelo.
efateae ted 10 red ¢aniegs atelo & d1eges of etiw beaseoeh ali to
aid te svitsiaseciger edt ovat o¢ trigiq wis bevyisw tleamtd ed bas
“yas stsise tsi to tuslisaes mott tevoest ot tqmetts ,etstes.s'eiiw
of ateg SLuow ad .oa eb ot goqu heilso teve ii cadt. ,eulav to gaidé
aeonsyevnoo ,asassieyt afd to yas te yxevilsh to .pottugexs edt
betuoexe of [iste gadtverq tmemetys edd as atacayood.so,admsupetobas
sa tooowtvert odd yo Sas .etetae a'etiw ain To evitedageeiqer ect yd
belti¢as esodt of stwooxe of evitsineaotget bise atoerlh vlaeeiqxs
yse dtiw aoitoenses ai atnesustant dove ,betaeupey tevemedw,cteredt
sMoanitts .W eatvel to emad ed? mi baste tadt eegeytrom
dasmesrgs eivt nedy Jedd saetaggs al Ji ,yatogeto? edt mort, AN
attnslisyqs to dtseb ect gubdwolfot ,@6@L ,yiswidey, at betuoexe asw )
et eslieqcs mott beaesq sulev to yoidtom ,.bSsel emt, at retdguah
hesimgooez selieqgsA .Yeiuuns atdd ysq of eatuotg ettaetleqgs, tzoqgue
edt es .siiw beessoeb aid to {[iiw.edt yd gaidion #ood taal legga,. tadt
betoecxe satved eusoed sham eaw teddavab ted yd daslleggs o¢ taeuped
ton aew ooltstoegus sidt tud .rediam tod aor states as evtenss ot
-od reves tontom ted Wedtseuped eda doidw yttoqorg, edt bas beltstiyt
ted t9% ooleivotq ed¢ sxotersdd bas etstae.e'gaiual to deans 8 oma ,
isgei sda seit ,sevewod ,adetant gelleqgs —.evitstsgont omsoed xeétom |
as ,tusilegge si betaev sevec asw aegsgtiom bas agton oct of olttt
oft mi eegsyitom edi bas satos Lareyse edd at sexed ode aan saived
eltit) Isgel eds diiw besaey emsosd ofa arotereijdd as, oBsyt TOM, Late ypR
otetedt sitit wal to aoltexsqo yd ,fvseb ted soci as ouvert tent gt a
Nem aid? .bexeacs, [fby edt. ditw rosetta diimbs. ted, St pedaey SULBIS
seliscgs ,oxudemgis mmo aid tevo .88eL auxsuxdet, wh, canted
stetiw afd to eveees tog, etew aegsgiton bag. aston paeat,, teat. ;
Dapeonoe Of, . Pte, Yoct, Pamisio. raves. ed trousers, tad. Fist atate,
edt at tol of Beenid Seteziido vine bas, taslfeqas, ¢
-10=
provides shall be executed by the representative of his wife's
estate. At the time this agreement was made, our statute,
(Cahill Ill. Rev. Stat. Chap. 95, Sec. 11),provided that any
party aggrieved could recover a penalty against a mortgagee
or his administrator who s oulé, knowing that the debt secured
by the mortgage had been paid, refuse to release the same of record.
Appellee, however, calls our attention to the further ellega-
tions of the amended declaration which allege that prior to the
time of the death of Louise W. Atkinson, she believed and claimed
that said mortgage loans belonged to her and that her mohher was
merely holding possession of them for her anc that after her death,
appellee and the administrator of her estate believed and in good
faith claimed that said mortgages and loans formed a part of her
estate and that said aduinistrator shortly prior to the execution
of the contract in February, 1925 planned and was about to institute
and prosecute an action against appellant for the recovery of said
securities as a part of the estate of said Louise WY. Atkinson, and
insists that under the authorities this agreement was a family
settlement contract and that its provisions terminated an honest
controversy between members of a family and that such a termination
is in iteelf a sufficient consideration to support the promises con-
tained in the agreement. The case of Woodall v. Peden, 274 T1ll. 301
is cited and relied upon as sustaining this contention. It is said
in that case that a compromise of a doubtful right is sufficient
consideration for a conveyance, but that if 2 party knows or ought
$o know that a claim which is compromised has no foundation whatever
and cannot be enforced upon any state of proof, either in law or
equity, it furnishes no consideration for a conveyance of land and
there is nothing in the nature of a compromise where the claim made
is one which could not be enforced under any state of proof. In 12
Q@.J., 316, it is stated that conflicting claims are essential to
the validity of a compromise. At the time this agreement was made
if there were honest controversies between members of this family,
donee atdd to eredmen reewted t sabipibevitis ‘Seonod oxow exout it te
we
e'etiw ald to evitstnsxetqer edd yd betuooxe od Iiede septvoxg
stutets two ,ebsm saw SHomeotze aldt omit oii¢ th evstoe
ure tedt bebivote,. (ff .o88 .8@ .qend .dete .vem . itr ri tite )
eézeygitom s tentsss YeIetteq s tévo0st Aitoo bevebtgas \ineg
hexose fdeb ett tedt gatwort .bfu0u ow votortekabinbs Bia x6
.DLOdSt To smas odd sassler of Sawtox .bisc need bak ogsgetom oat yd
~mpgelia veddtut edt of axottostts two. affao rovewoul jeetiegaa
sit of role sont eyolls doLiw aottaesloed Seomems edt Yo Behold
beubsto ons bevelled eda yhoeatatA .y oatwot to dtaeh 6ad°46 omtt
@sw xodton tei teit bas tet of begholéd ansol egsyiton Biss tadé
yitesh ted tetts tadt bos ted tot medd to aotvassadg ‘garth tod qtéxent
‘hoog ff Bis bevelled states add to roverterctubs “edd bas settoqgs
ged to tusq s bemrot anaol bas segcatton Hise got Bembeto bist
mottvoexns eit of totvh vfétcite todstisintabs Sise hdd Bad Ohadae
etutivent ot tvods ssw bas bennefq e8el ,ytevtdey ak tosvintl “s dé te
bise to vrevoost eft rot tusflecas vatiins ro ttos ‘gs eduoeaorg ons
bas couch, ww eetsot bisa to evatee edd to tisd’s as aeft trvoes
<fimst s eaw tremesays aft eetyriodéus edt rebiir tart efatent
* faewod ws Hitentiret anotatverg ati tant bus tosténoo ‘tnemelties
“foltsrturs? s doun fent bas YLbast s to atedmew aeawted yarevortmos
-n00 asetinote ent troqcita of ‘Nottstebtanoo the lotttie ‘se ‘Yidee! nt ot
LOS .EfT AVS .nebed .+ ELeboow to skao ovr | JSiemeergs one af Hewks¥
bise et $Y .noftnstnod efit gointséava os mode better boa betio ak
teefoittve af Sdyix Cu'ttdvob s To ou tuo%e09 ry Fait 9889 tedt at
fiigue xo ewok Yorsq # LE oN Hy leomeyevaoo & Zot nottarebisaco
revedadw cotisboset om ast beatmoranoo af dobdw wists 8 todd wont of
zo wal wt vexitte ,Yootq to stata rns noqy beoxotne ed Poanso bie’
bas bast to edmayovsoo & 6% nolvevebhtande on setaiaa? +r tide?
ebam tisfo elt etsdw sa imoxtneo s Yo sxutee Sad mt gaidton at ered
SL oI stoorq to stata ynk sebaw beordtne ef tom bluoo “dothw' emo ef et
‘of Isttcends oxa entalo grivetltmos tedd botsta ef ¢F (8Le ,.%.0
Sham asw tnonesxga obit entd ete HA” eetmoxques = 20 wibnay ent
vinga lon «an lo embers oat % ee
|
|
|
7
Be
the contract itself does not disclose what they were, and it is
this contract which forms the basis of this action. It recited
that the securities therein mentioned had always belonged to
appellant and appellee knew it. For him now to be permitted to
insist that he, at that time believed, and in good faith claimed,
that these securities formed a part of his wife's estate and that
prior to the time of his wife's death she believed and claimed thet
these securities belonged to her would be to permit him to assume
an inconsistent position and such averments are repugnent to and
contradictory of the provisions of the contract itself.
In our opinion the trial court erred in overruling the
demurrer to the amended declaration and the judgment is therefore
reversed and the cguse remanded with directions to sustain the
deuurrer.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
4 ee a
seks’ i At a ie
ai #f bas .ovew Yed? ¥Adw @sofoatd von aoo8 aioeds eth
bettos: #1 .aoltod aiid to alead eds ewrot Motdw toansaoo
sta
; ea f
ot begnoled eyswis bad benoitaem atetedé ‘salt coane: od Rie
if
vi atsbdeegite ed 6¢ wor mtd tot ti werl eet toaes btaie @
Sade Das etstes elotiw eld fe #taq | £ benzo? sobtaavosa ‘esods oe |
‘ded¥ Neutato fas beveited oda déseb atetiw wis Yo omet odd ‘ot otra
: fi emssas of mid timteq of ed biuow ted of hagnoled ‘seit ttuooe Veade
‘bas of reer ets atnemisvs dove bas pester gre oa
he d visve
ey edt agniisrtevo at bette txusoo Isizd ed moimtgo 0 sd a“
eroteredd al éaomgby edd bas mottersfoeb bebnems ‘ett ot x ‘xerx mb
hako pa rhs : i
edt ntstesa of anoitosthbh atiw araarnp de oauso oat | bra bea : i’
ite) 4 Pt : : ec’ % BAY Brel atad
fab tetas | “oxime
scale ella JeMOTTORTIG HTIW CHCWAMEH Cita “witdhnedlonll 2
2 tae Fu Pate a foe Ah S3Ene ¢ ba 1
| ie Oe rere Y ‘yy Pea ee a ght 2ttbse bay
) of is lt mer cee
Ob te sant ian : .
ah he ' : . 4 nts yewiae + ie “ onl
~! t en fo AY ite “le ae ee at
tee ot vette elie ayaa wld wi 3 7 nid |
i | LSE: OS Y ‘ i i cy NG, os ae om
ied tis, Ha, PERE 4 se tlre ROR | ORO Wala Sy ini p
t Fine ee pets yet ae ct e 46% wien
y gigantea’ Ady dadkar hs ne aw tencome a hehe’ x pile a9 wt won a
7 bs
‘
¥ t
v
t-
a 2 fs a
erie
bi wav thr u A
4. R $ :
) 2 i) iat y r *!
i { wy + 3 i ©
> hd
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
(73815—5M—3-32) $807
as - at ee gia aR
F on:
an? ‘ F ah en eee oe 9 88 u/ Nolan Pts)
SPS Les . ae we ae it, oft ei oy ‘
oe aba . ee $e
~ at) cae a bait Ze 4 alia |
- * ye
r ie ea } a ss a
a f Wc, aah re oc
ar ? 73 Saw mi nthe ad to 469 Konus HOt i estes
[ ae Yow ob: Yoxjadt fo? has ebons od te suas alt fanny cates
; < is boiittzs » prod wl i ati ti0 aio ‘bie eat cy re
ee De 2 Ha
a + Je I armen us
eee ore
a) sete one erpae e ni
saat) vanes sat re oo
Bs)
;
Shue 5 ie
eran ae
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, ~
f
¢
Z
Fl
y
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the /2izth/ aay of
the year of our Lord one thousand nine mundrsaeend thirty-five,
within and for the Second District of the State of Jiiinois:
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Span < 9 if A 64. ay 4
olihe ¢
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAR 22 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
pe Up. = he AR ae (,aBeectT Ao. \ewedto ta bhest hi
‘ ; : .
Lat
\l-git dv too Leihacd sala Soaspods enc biod 350 Fa ree:
i ‘ 1 : => ban, HOS
‘sigmts !* to eget? ed’ te toingveld Dapeed ear Tor
eotlay) gatblsety 2 aeOw 8 aaa ROE'S
poles wctoe A WiTRWAREL .
oottaotl ,WARTioR AL Ada.
: 9) href MOZMROE ailzei
¥ OT Ces, ATS Rea
" tna WP HEE 2) ee Sy
ae
yee 3
_ a. es
_sbrawte sta tags”
ng. itiw-o?
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
February Term, A. D. 1935.
A. PUSATERE,
Appellant,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
VSe
H. D. DARNELL,
COURT OF WARREN COUNTY.
a St Nh Sa ge eh
Appellee,
DOVE, J.
On August S3lst, 1929, the parties hereto entered into a
written lease by the provisions of which appellant leased certain
business property in the City of Monmouth to appellee for a period
of five years from August 31, 1929 at a stipulated monthly rental
of $175.00 per month, payable in advance. On June 3, 1953 by vir-
tue of a power of attorney therein, a judgment by confession was
rendered by the Circuit Court of Warren County in favor of appellant
and against appellee for $1267.25, which included the sum @& $250.00
attorney fees. Subsequently this judgment was opened up and leave
granted appellee to plead. Pleas were filed, a trial had before a
jury which returned a verdict in favor of appellee, upon which judg-
ment was rendered and the record is before this court for review
by appeal.
ee
.88 .OM AGIED «BBB LOM VED
i
aN.
aHT ai
BIOULLILT TO THYOO CV ALINGTA
TOIATEGIG dmOorS
,8b@L «0 oA ~wreT Yisstdet
~
Vay ai .
| TAETAQUT oA
( ,tnalleggs *.
TIUOAIO ZHT MOAT JazgcA { , |
{ : og Tae
.YTHUOO WEARAW TO TAUOD eae ..
( AAT 2 HL
f
( -selfloqga “ek eae
4% ,avoa.
8 otnt betetne oteted eeitreg oft ,e8eL ,talé ens te , os
aisttes beasel tnslleqcs dotdw to amotelivot odt yd easel. neve ten
botvec s tot eelleqqs ot divomnoM to WIO eft af Yiateqor¢q aroniasd
Istnert yidinom Setsiyqita sa ta eCSeL .[& tewnnA mort atsey evit to
“tiv yd G€eL ,€ enut oO .sonevbs at eldsysq ,déaom teq o0.aNse 10
esw tolteastaoo yd toompbyt a ,mtotedt yentotts to tewoq s to out
tnsileqqs to tovat ak ytavod merts¥ to ¢1y0) tisorto ont xd botebnet
00,088¢ D mre oft Sebulont doidw ,38.Veslsé rot eelleqqs taniegs hoo
svsel bes qu Seneqo eaw tnompbhut aitdt ylimespeedwe .aeet yeatodss
8 etoted bed [sins s ,beLit etew aseli .bsela ot eslleags soamers
-shuj, dotdw moqw ,eelleqgs to tovst at tolbitev s boamtet so tet ‘
Aecording to the bill of particulars filed by appellant
on January 12, 1934, his claim is for rent of the premises for
the twelve month period beginning July 1, 1932 and ending June
30, 1933 at $175.00 per month, aggregating $2100.00, less a cash
eredit of $592.25 and a further credit of 325.00 for a cow, leav=
ing a balance of $1482.78 due him, exclusive of attorney fees.
His testimony on direct examination was that appellee paid $175.00
per month until July 1, 1932 and then $150.00 for a while, and
later at various times paid $75.00, which appellant accented on
account.
According to the testimony of appellee, he and appellant
had a conversation in the early part of July 1952, in which
appellee stated to appellant that times were tough, that he was not
taking in any money, and that if appellant wanted appellee to get
out of his building, he, appellee, would do so. After some dis-
cussion, appellant asked appellee what he would be willing to do
and remain in the building, to which appellew replied: "I will pay
you $75.90 a month from now on as lons as I stay in the building,
and I will get out any time you want me to. Fo this appellant
stated: "You give me $75.00 and that is 0. K." There was some
further conversation, appellee stating to appellant that there was
a little back rent, but he, appellee, was in no position to pay it,
that as appellant was indebted to appellee for some wrk appellee
had done for him, the mutual accounts were, as appellee exmressed
it, "seratched off". This testimony of appellee was corroborated
to some extent by the testimony of Melvin Parker, his employee.
Appellant denied that there was ever any talk about reducing the
rent to $75.00 per month. He admitted, however, receiving the
cheeks hereinafter referred to, but testified that those checks
-L=
=
Foe
-
‘, oz
ae ae
a ee
vas ligdas yd be Ltt etaiwoltisq to [{td edd of BaEDTOODA aD fe
0% seatnes¢ eid to taet tot eft mislo ald ,sbeL ,8f yrevasl ao
ont gaibne bas Svel ,L£ vist satintsed bolteq ddnom ‘eviowt oat
deso s aeel ,00.00fs% satteadiags ,dtaom req 00.8TL¢ ts Sel 08
-vsel 109 £8 tot 00,4a8% to 3 Lbeze tediust s bas @&.8@é$ to $tboro
<eeot yontotts to eviawioxs mid ev5 SY.S8alt to sonsisd B yak
00.8°L% bisd ceffeqes teit enw solteatmexs tootlh mo Yromitaed ett
Sra elkiw 8 tot 00,08.L¢ tedt bas S8eL ,L ylw. Lite désom 2
Seana ee
“fo Betqesos tusileqqs dotdw ,00.é%G bieq eemts: euoltsy ds tete .
tasifeces bas of ,oelfeqqs to yYnomiveos eft of grthtoo0s —
doldw mi ,SECL ylwl to tueq Ylrs6 edt at IN i
toa bahar ed tedt ,davot erew aomit tad taosilecgs ot aan
ten of eolleqas beiaew taatleccs TL ted¢ bits \yysetom Yue ab antist
-2ib emba settA .oa ob biwow ,eellegga ,od . ssazeiud etd to.tup
of ot satiiiw sd Sivow eX tedw eellecqs bexes vasileqgs _modeaue
Yeq Iiiw I’ rhettoor iSeffedoe dotdw ‘ot «(rtd Lhd exif ot alsnot igs
qnlilted edt of yeve T ab enol es) Ro wom mot? dined 00.019 hoe
“¢nalisoge etdt of vo ov ont deter voy omit Yas fo Fox. rte ba
‘eRe Bsw wnat ".N .0 af ¢edd bas 00.809 om evi wor" “hets
waw otedt ted’ tuslifeece of Bnitsre oellécce sito rnatee i dh ape
wl Yer oF Molt icog on at esw ,eslleqge od tud \tnor' aosd elas Bw +
‘eellfeqos Awor embe zOT eelleqga od betdebat asw tankcock a ae tat
heeas exe seileg¢s as ,etew etayooos Tautun. oft. mtd To exo wot
‘hetetotorws ssw eolleccs to Ynomiteot ent oe PTO. bowtoe ene
' ,eeyelems eft, reteed! AlviloM to Ytomi seed edt veh) Sted xe omoe at
edt artorbet tyods Alet yap “eve eaw eterty ‘taut’ Botneb
‘ett grivieoet ,tevewoH \hetilmbs eh’ sAtconr att 2
were received and accepted by him on account, but not in full for
the rental of the premises at a reduced rental. The checks which
appellee produced were eleven in number, one dated each month from
July, 1932 to February, 1935, inclusive, one in April, 1953 and tw
in May, 1933. Nine of these were for #75.00 each, one was for
$67.25 and one for $350.00. Hach check was signed by appellee and
bore the endorsement of appellant, who admitted he received the
same. The check for $67.25 was dated February 6, 1935 and accord-
ing to appellee's testimony, eppeliant owed appellee $9.75 for work,
and this check represented the balance due appellant for rent for
the month of February, 1933. The check for 50.00 was dated May 17,
1953, and it, together with the cow which appellee sold appellant,
paid the rent for April, 1933. The cheek for the December rent was
d@€ated December 19, 1952 and upon the face thereof are these words:
tRent in full to January 1, 1935", Anpellee testified these words
were on the check when he delivered it to appellant, who accepted
the same. Appellant testified he did not remember seeing these
words upon this check when he received it. That when these several
checks were given to him by appellee, he told him that the lease
called for $175.00 per month. That appellee replied that times were
no good and that appellant then stated he would take the check on
acc ounte
Appellant objected to the testimony of appellee and his
mechanic as to the conversation which they related as having taken
place in the early part of July, 1952, which tended to prove that
the rent had been reduced to #75.0 per month by appellant ,and it
is earnestly insisted that such evidence was inadmissible as it
tended to vary the terms of the written lease of the partiese
~se
tot Livi af tom dud ,tayooes mo mid yd. Set gases Satphaxieses on
fiskdw afeeds odT ,lstaet beoybet s te zeaime mg al ‘to fatnex 9s
mTt dtgom dose heteh exo ,tedmpm ot mevels etew beouborg eekioaae
owt bie SEL elitqaA ak eno oviagtont ehdel +Vraunde% (ot. BERS e es
tot aew eso «tase a0. ang Tot ete eacdd to enti, eBBOL. aval a
bas eelleqcs Yd bomgie asw xoedo ost 00, 08¢ ‘Tot emo baa 28. ;
Reed bevieoet of bottimbs onw staalleqes To daemeatobae | ont om
~btooos bas Geel .a yisstdel betsh asw 68,8) t0t Joes ox some
aatow Tot ar, VY? sellecqe bowo fas lleqes «Wlomiteart ateoltercs oe
tot tae1t tot tuslleqca oud eonsisd edt botnezeiget toads alae
eVL YeM boted aaw 00.08 402 2foodo eft ~SeeL- ¢ Wennder: tO ‘dom
(taal logge hloa seilerqs doldw wee ofit ait iw ‘tent sgot et be ‘
Sev Inox tedme9ed edt 10% Aoelo af? .c8eL fines to? trot one | ts:
rebtow sasdt exe tostex¢ cost edt noce bre SbCL yer rodueoet Be
8b %F seed? battitees eelleqqa . ,"E8eL oh Vraernet. y Lt at ¢
betgqeoos ow ,tnellegqs ot tt betevites sd nerdy xoorto ont 00
eesdi.zateee Toda agg toa bib ed bet trav: taslloocs ‘oma
Letovea eeods motw tei? .tt bevieoer od tentw ‘Moar ebay noge |
eases odt todd mtd bled ed ookiougs yo mbt’ oF nevis’ oxen!
semlt tact beklesr, selfleqgs tedT . mieaishasness’ fide
210 aosio edt oABi »
etsy
eld Fete, er te Yomiteos: onkit ot Bevestdo ‘at feggh™ ‘ = J b
noast atived as botaiex yout: thos de: Hott dats Titoo | oxth oy oy id .
‘tadtt SVvotd of, ebnes, doidw .86eL yytys to Ptaq titse eat aE ant ;
tt bra. tnelleqca Vo Atnom taq 00, ayée: ‘ot beoubor aoed Dat hat os oul
thas oldtesinbent ase Somob ive Hose: todd petetant’ yf
+8918 x0 ong. to weno neti kaw! ots 0 ante? ect eee
ot berteter ted Yin
Pe
:
Appellant relies particularly on Chapman v. McGrew, 20 Ill. 101,
Loach v. Farnum, 90 Ill. 368, Barnett v. Barnes, 75 Till. 216,
Davidson v. Dingeldine, 295 I11.367, and Goldsborough v. Gable,
140 111.269. The holdings in these cases sustain the general
proposition that the terms of a written lease under seal cannot
be varied by parol evidence. Numerous authorities announce this
to be the rule. In Barnett v. Barnes, supra, it was held that
where a lease, under seal, fixes a certain amount of rent to be
paid each month, a parol agreement chanzing the amount of rent
to be paid for the unexpired term and leaving the lease in other
respects unchanged and in force, ig not binding upon the lessor,
and he will, notwithstanding such parol agreement, be entitled to
recover the amount of rent called for by the lease. Loach Ve
Farnum, supra, was a distress for rent proceeding and it appeared
that the parties had entered into 4 written lease under seal, where-
by appellees had rented certain premises to appellant for three years
from April 1, 1872 at an annual rental of $800.00, payable in monthly
installments of $66.66 2/8 each. Upon the trial apvellant offered
a written endorsement, but not under seal, which appeared upon the
lease. This endorsement was dated Yebruary 1, 1874 and was to the
effect that appellees agreed to aceept $55.00 per month instead of
866.66 2/3 commencing February 1, 1874. Appellant further of fered
to wove that for the months of February, Merch end April, 1874
appellees agcepted $55.00 per month, in full for the rent for those
months. This evidence was not admitted by the trial court and in
affirming its judgment the Supreme Court held that the agreement
for the reduction of the rent was executory, was without any ¢con-
sideration, a mere nudum pactum and not binding upon the le ssOTe
-4—
brcn bee Loew + owtew
-f0L .ffT 0S ,werPeM .v amg 39 me vitalvo tery ection Snaltonay
188 -{fI ev pee nted «Vv tten tad 1888 » £51 og R ensorteode pb viare
se: OL ey
‘olde Vv dusotodeb Loo bae ,VOe. (LT aes outb fogatd .v te ;
’ : ele a
wh eee mY
ietones edt iietess sesso ee ond at egsid fod ed +268. L1T | a
tonnes tous To baw exsel Hots Pew 6 to anid oft tadi 01 tlaeg
» Rage ORs VOR
alts eomonts settisodtws auotemytt 90085 ive Iorq Yd bottey og
Mn Ad i ah < id te
tedt Bled aaw tl eAtque epee: .v 9 onras at akan ont we
1% creel wk
ed ot tnet To Frvoms atsitess s gex it cine ro au veasol 8
gt S le cad Sia nd
tno ‘0 trws0 m3 edt aa tats do Snemoets 8 forsq r 4daom dose hiaq
1oa Hey aoe iy
rondo at eanel ot gnivael bas ated betigxomy ody tot bi a4 ,
r Mia We ty Be
‘Toaesl edt sq "go tba td ton al (200% ut bas pap _adoocaen
ee
‘of be Lt tio od taemery 5 fotee dove ath aed edt trten’ i fa
“es Peg eae
eV foeot -Sensl ani vd ot bel iso dor to mee oft tevooet
n : zt ey Mel APN ey cf
betacqqs tt bas gitbessotg tae rot seorets 8 tay ems au YS
Sivek Pee
easel aott Low Ss od at beretme Bad wetecog ced gre
: dn x: 5A
ars x sort ‘tot tnelleqas ot ‘eeeinesg atatr9 0 bovne x haa ‘eowlleuin af
SRE. mane agit”
vidinon mt oldager 00, 008¢ to Letnot fouams a8 ta sveL f sae bgt '
Salar yard Lose tebay
| betstto tusifecqs Labtt odd aoqu +tio9 a\s 88,986 to adem. tent —
| ei Oa eg ees fan a
te baw tom Sud stares 0 has net? tiow ay
bot Bret ‘ha tty ‘
ond of 284 bas AVS .f yressdet botan’ eaW trovwerohae, ald? 9 O88: a
> bootent fitoom teq 00.886 $qe0e8 ot booms eeeliogcs. eat # ;
Spire
Betst to we ridrart ‘aal logge N6L ef b Soh oe Bat onsames a\e pap
avBL fiama Hite dora 1 Vrsiredot to adtnon ‘ould 10T ‘tadt evo if
va eno.ts 10% tor ott tot ‘Lon at ‘ftom. ton 00.088 be ongn.aneene ay
is at ae trar09 tats ead ve bes tne don (sey oonobive ala sai | ne
“taomers 2 cit dade bled sa109 omexque, oult tnembu, ast» y
) =s09 Yaa tuoste by asw {Teodu09x9 ean tne eat to pei ci gl
HO. oxrbore ont 4
“stoa at oid ‘aoqiy suidaid tom bas _mutoog ru )
edd mogur borseccs fot di elses
: ta
“Se Wee bah
ten 8
hs ey ‘ pigs
Ege Fa
That no error was committed in refusing to permit appellant to
show that appellees had accepted the reduced rent for February,
March and April, 1874, as no claim was mde by appellees for rent
for those months, but only for subsequent months. "The agreement
for a reduction was still executory as to subsequent rent", sai d
the court,"and the payments made would be but invalid ratifica-
tions and repetitions, so far as the contract remained executa@y,
of an invalid promise and would stand on the same footing as the
promise itself". The holdings in these and the other eases cited
by appellant are to the effect that where one party obligates
himself to pay and another to reccive 4 less amount after both
are already legally obligated, the one to pay and the other to
receive, a larger amount, such an arrangement is without any con@=
sideration to support it. The parties to a written lease under
seal cannot by parol agreement, without consideration passing
fran the lessee to the lessor, reduce the stipulated rental, as
such en agreement is a mere nudum pactum end not susceptible of
being enforced. While a sealed executory agreement cannot be
altered, modified or changed by parol agreement, it may be can-=-
eeled by a parol agreement and an executed parol agreement may be
shown to defeat a recovery upon an instrument under seal, and al-
though the parol agreemen» may have been without consideration,
it may become the pasis of an equitable estoppel. Yockey Ve
Marion, 269 111.542, “now Ve criesheimer, 220 Ill. 106, Doyle
v. Dunne, 144 Ill. Avp. 14, Levy Ve Greenberg, 261 Ill. App.541.
In Snow v. Griesheimer, 220 Ill. 106, it appeared that
the parties thereto had entered into a lease unser seal by the terms
icago was leased for a term a three
al of 518,000.00, payable
of which a store puilding in Ch
years, ending April 30, 1898 ata term rent
in monthly installments of $500.00 in aavaence on the first of each
month. The evidence was that in the Spring of 1896 there was an
-5-
° SSW ToTts on tae
oy tnaelleqqes pn wince ot gateutet at Set hime :
westde® Tot Jjmet beoubex edt bot qoves Se cf eooliogzs tedd wore ay
dmot xot eeolloods yd ob am | sew mislo on az OSL Litaa bas soma
Hap.
dmanootas oat" sedd nom tne upeadue 10% yin tad _ auld sont eaodt rot ve
Sise ,“Shor tmevpeadma o¢ as yYtotwoexe [itive 2aw nottouber 8 oe
q
Rare Ore?
~soltitet biisvat tud ed blyow ebam etnemysq edt bas" ,duwoe a
4¥ OFvIexKe hentemet tosiimoo oft as tet of ,emo lt iteqen bas ene?
ait es snttoot omse edt oo basta biuow bie ea inorg bitevat as PF
Remain
bevto sesso wedio edt bus os edd mt eanthfod ext "tlorth oe setmotq
m, fedang
aot swt ido Wired eno etedw todd toetts eit o¢ one tmaltogas ey
EY od
dated ustte ¢nyoms eeel s evisoer of ‘edtons ne a ot baie
809
ot medito afd bas ysq ot sno add Dotagiido ylissel ‘ybsorLs ous d
2 bts .
“709 yns twodiw si tnemesneats os dome .Jovoms teptsel gs Cay hewine |
ate te Waar
tebas ones Hetfinw s ot setiasq off tt twain ot foltetehta
‘ : - atlas 2 Sb AF cate
Qalsesy mottstehicnos suorntiw e7 Bose STR 2 Loxaq w tonne Lesa
wh we mg
as ,lstnex betalugttia et sober eToezel ong ot soteel ond mm tt
Lee EGS El .
to eldiiqeoane tou ‘bas. mrt 9 2q mbar otam s at Inemoeiye ae owe
mere
ed tommss J nomserg.s Yrotueexs belsea 8 aL buw beorotre pated
eats Oat mgt
-1s0 ed Ysa ci ,Inemeety s foxng vd he grado 0 DottLbon rheted ls
1 hapa ae
ed Ysu PHO Meet Lot sq hedyoexe ne fits
inemeerg 2 Loxsq 8 Vd be loo
J apie l
. ieee 26 bass toremrat ess £8 Mog Vievooer 8 $a0t0b ot mwore
Mo13 stabi anc
~ is bas
Bats footie _
> tuontiw geed ovat van ? nem ort3s fovey ont ‘thgwods
ee
“v yoto0¥ »Leqqotas ofdat tupe icy ‘to ataad ‘edt emooed ae yen J a
atyod BOL .111 ose \Pittedeoia Vv wom «808, Lit 88 ,aot aottsli he
eLdQ.qoA efit fas artbdineadts ov we.l aL. sack ft PY gas imdican all
aS
a Ft! i i: atl mis te
tomy Sexsoads tt (260L —r oss _<Tombedagixo 7 woe ar
ee hares tte
emrot odd td {see <9
beter cenel ‘8 otat beroine bod orereit astineg edt
» pW PED OD, oie. Bon.
boost aay ogsoine at abd emia ne dotdw to
sett 2 mre s ot
SLiwer (00. 000, (Le. to. p pe iene pte a ts esr 408 "Ebeet" ‘sete
8988 to taxtt edd no sonevis nt 00,008¢ to ‘atmantistent Vidi nom st
M8 @sw etodt 8@BL to Saimre edt mi-teds esx eonebive ofT at
mis
agreement reducing the rent to $416.66 each month. ‘The testimonyy
for the lessor was that the reduction was for the Summer months
of 1896, after which the rent was to be the same as pefore and that
the reduction was made because the lessee complained that business
was poor and he was loosing money. The testimony of the lessee
was that the reduction was for the remainder of the term, made in
consideration of his making certain repairs which he did. The rent
was paid according to the terms of the lease up to May 1, 1896.
Thereafter the lessee paid $416.66 for the remainder of the term
by checks which on their face disclosed they were in full fo the
rent and were so offered by the lessee. The lessor received and
collected these checks but did not assent to the claim that they
were in full of the rent after the Summer months of 1896 and the
checks were only credited by the lessor on account. The court
after stating that it was settled law that an executory contract
under seal cannot be modified or changed by an agreement not under
seal held that so long as the contract contained in the lease re-
mained executory the lessor had a right torepudigate the parol agree=
ment and claim the full amount of rent ce ntracted for. That the
judgment of the Appellate Court. im affirming the judgment of the
Circuit rendered in favor of the lessee was conclusive as to the
provisions of the parol contract made in the Spring of 1896 and that
as the lease was thereby modified and as modified had been executed
by the parties it was no longer an executory contract put an
executed one and not sub ject to being disturbed and evidence that
it had been performed was competent. In commenting upon the fact
that the lessor refused to reeeive the chects tendered as rent in
full payment of the rent aceruing after the Summer monthssof 1896
and protested to the lessee that they were only received on account,
lh se
wrasse og to
wytoutiacs oat ype dose 63. SIG ot tues edt sat ouber poke
sition tema edt tol ssw molieubet sdt tady red toeeel ong | ar
tars ons etoted ea ens edt od o¢ esw tet oxtt dotdw Tests + 8@8L ae i
agontand tect beatalqmoe evinn t ‘odd eaysood ehem BW, m Hubert, ot
seagel eft to yomtised off . Yemen grizogt aaw od. Ana eeu
ai ebom ,sriet ed} %© tebr isnot edt tot sew mo it arbor et ted? as
trex ect bib ed doldw.atiover ateties sabia etd to, molzsrehkea oe
28@SL .f ysli ot ar easel odd to emted edt of BER THOR saci
aries ods to tebnismat off, tot 04-3L8,. bisg eorest edt natte0 |
: edt mt Lint at etew yods Seeoloeth sost tiedt M0 Motrin pranis
| Sn Sev ieoot ‘Togeel ail! .ceenel eit yW hare? tm 08 orew asia:
Ned! tan misfo eft of tueees ton Bb td exosdo oe ct dete |
ei edt Dae oecf to antnom yamowe oft ‘tet'ts wet at. ‘to frre’ ms ’ ala
‘tuwo08e oT .taweoos go tTozast edd, xa bet theze tino oe asfoe
% Ssechidacll it
tostitooo TIO UBOXe as tady wel bolttee asw of tad jebsts 4
<a ae
tebay toa tnemeetys me yd bexnedo to Bett tbom ad TommAe Pr . ‘
~OT oenel git at be xiséaoo tosttaeo edt es gaol oe jada Dior J 39%
a*s f ex? = ev =é
«seetzs foyeq edt ste@tonqe t of fdgin 8 hed toesel ont Yrovwoers at
i! ‘ee ayy g
, O8t Fadl .tot hotoertays trot To, Fauo me Lint ont mis 9 Bo Fe ;
be
~ PAd 20 taemebuyl ent gotnatits Bhat t00) stalleaqa ert to 4 on Bt ‘
ent of..¢8 eviaulomon &sy essaal sdt to Soyer ai Sotebaor tren 1m
tadt bag 8e@al Ke Bt ltge edt of oben, tosttmo9 | fore. edt © BnD, 3. vo:
betvoexs seed bed Boltibom. as bee beitt5om, Woredd asw eaa0f URS
2 dud tosutnos yxotusoxs: {8 tezo0f om asw tt serena
J2dt .aogebive bas badintals sated od teat dus tom pas eno:
_ test, odd. megs Sats memmod xT stastoqmes aw Bemrzorzeq ieee | a
_ At tget as botebaat aroado ot exteoes OF Bee vtet tonal hee
, RCSL Toeadtson temmye odd tetts Salvtegs toot Aa *
rid
cs emo 0 Aationey ‘Cine etew yous ‘tect eoaael at, cae
wha & sin 4 ~ higwa sy 2
the court said: "The checks purported on their face to be in full
payment and there is no dispute that they were sent as »ayment in
full: that plaintiff's agents so understood it and thet they were
received and collected. The law is, that where the amount due a
efeditor is ascertained and not in dispute, the payment by the
debtor and acceptance by the creditor of a less am will not operate
as a satisfaction of the demand, but if the amount is unliquidated
or there is a bona fide dispute as to how much is due, a vayment of
the amount claimed by the debtor to be due, in full settlement,
if accepted by the creditor, is a satisfaction of the claim. It
is not necessary that the debtor shall pay more in such a case than
what he admits to be due, end if a check for such sum is offered in
payment of a disputed accoun’, it must be accepted by the creditor
upon the terms upon which it is offered @ must be rejected. Ifa
check is offered under such circumstan-es as amount to a condi-
tion that it is to be received in full payment of the demand, an
acceptance will satisfy the demand, although the creditor protests
at the time that it is not all that is due him or that he does not
aceept it in full satisfaction of his claim. An acceptance in such
a case is an acceptance of the condition, notwithstanding any pro-
test he may make to the contrary".
In Levy v. Greenberg, 251 Ill. App. 541, the Snow case,
supra, was followed and it was held that the test in a case of
this character is not whether there was a consideration for the
reduction of the rent, but whether the gift wes executed or un-
executed, that reductions in rental are to be rezerded as gifts
of separate and distinct items each month and when the reduced
rental is paid and accepted, the gift is complete and irrevocable
and the fact that the term under the lease had not expired was
immaterial.
ania
Tint ot ed of eset theif? mo berry mg oveedea onmR” rbisa :
nt ¢nomye? ae ties oTew vedt ¢edt etuewth om at ered. fae tient :
eisw You? add bow ri boo ters haw oR arne28 & qikeat aly tacit : ; ;
& Bivh Shruti me odd etetw Sade ,el wal ori bet ool Los bus bevl ‘
Mbt ’
ae 4 ns
nadt saso @ dove mi.otom Yeq Sleds totdeb sat tosis visesocodt .
tot ibeto eft yd betqeoos ed tenm th 4i'nuooop betuaete nto
8 tL. ,botoetox od teymm m beretto ch tl dot aw moqw, eared: ott
waves 8 ot dnvom as be cmey smu the dovare “nw. Boxe%to 2
In 16 R. C. Le 924, it is stated that as a general rule,
@ voluntary agreement of a lessor, made during the term of a lease,
to reduce the rent there stipulated, to be valid and enforcible
in so far as it remains unexecuted, must be supported by a new
consideration. “But it is held", continues the text, "that if
the lessor orally agrees to reduce the rent, and to aceept a less
sum than stipulated for, and such agreement is carried out for a
number of years by the payment by the tenant and the acceptance by
the lessor of such rent as reduced, and the giving of the receivts
therefa@ as in full of all rent to date of said receipts, the
lessor will be regarded as »aving made a valid sift to the tenant
of the difference between the rent paid and that stipulated for
in the lease, and cannot recover of the ldfier the amount so given
him".
In view of the forezoin« authorities we are clearly of the
opinion that the evidence of appellee and the witness Parker, when
considered in connsetion with the other evidence, which appears in
this record was competent and there was no error in overruling ape
pellant's objections thereto. The issue presented to the jury as
to whether there was a subsequent oral agreement to reduce the
rent and whether that agreement, if made, was executed were ques-
tions of fact for the jury to determine. It is not insisted that
the jury were improperly instructed as to the law and we are not
disposed to say that the findings of the jury, approved as they
have been by the trial court, are contrary to the weight of the
evidence.
At the time judgment was entered, the lease had not ex-
pired. Appellee vacated the premises on June 2, 1933, at which
time the rent for that month had accrued and had not been paid
according to the terms of the lease. Appellee, therefore, is
concededly liable to appellant for rent under the terms of the
lease for the month of June, 1933 to the amount of $175.00, to-
=m
.elut [stones 8 as ted botats al tt hae ef .0 .f et al
,92sef 8 To mret Py nattsb ebsa , Toagal 8 to tnemectss “yee! tor 5
fi C7.
aldiomtas bre Stisv od of , bets stag ite etodt tne edi oquhes
yt RE
t ed damm ,5ed sooxeay aciaaet at B :
won & vd pad Togqus 7 Bhar : 9 an tst 03 =
tt tede” Ixo# edt eeunttnoo . "blot et tt ane" sok srebtenog
5 Lo me Le
ezel s teen ot bas tat07 edt soubor of acomss vLLexe roane L
a ‘tot ‘tuo boirtse at tosmestys fowa bas To ev atughts ait
to Bate Ne "i
t t ¢ ad ey Tt
yd egeatqeyes out hae mene od a i ak te 2 ye ate v 2 Fev
edt ,etatecet bise to oteh of 00: tte te Lit at as wu ,
. ere om
taaned edt ot tite bifsy a ebam satya: as hebisget od fitw Tur el 4
ar 6) ¥ rte kt .
10% boteluqite ted? bas bisq tast arid meevted sonetett Ip. od to
r *' eas
Mevis os tavons edt total eit to 1sv00e tomas bas couse oat
. a” nt i ft i
. oct ate
edt to yirselo ets ew eeltizodiue » pa sogwrer oat to welv at eT ae
ares | ee fete
ned ¢ wwted seoutiw ait bis selteqas > oouebive oat tsdt nalet fo
THs. és 0 f
mt erseqgs dotdy ,conebive mere oud Asn m to exr00 gt sexobtenos |
LM estat Yaans
“7s aailytievo as TIO<TTO Cf BBW ored9 bas taetequoo aew cert aang
if aega.
88 Ts, one od bot mevetq suset ou? sot otedt em Ioet do 2 gee
i Teaser
ed¢ sovbet of taemesias Isto troupes du 2 8 eaw ovestd rasta of
wie © th abe a
“29Up elew hedveexe asw ob sar Li To amoetss $ suid todd edtw bare to
Leen year: eth tee
te dé bete beat ton et i: -omtoustes of vot, edt not Lo Hh eaotd
c x
tou ers ow bas wal out ot as bovourt ant ‘rogorant onew emt 8
heh! eT ‘2 ;
eat as bevotrqs VW), oat to aga Boa bY ectt tact we wa
BED) Lathe 4 ;
sale to ip tow py oF yrsrin09 ots P00 iste ats we need Po
ey
f 3) bea i f ¥ iby
“x8 “tom bad easel ont Sores ne 23% tuomabur anti? ext tA
oe si
Motsw TB» Bees 38 ony. 10 sectmog orld Botaosy solLerch
Bied aoe d on bast buna bowr00s bed tenon todd 10% “pee ‘i
at (otots tert en Liougd jouaet edt “to ‘amet ~ ' o's
Fo ba Fi
edt to emiet odt tebmy toot xl snalleqgs ‘ot oldeley vad
rot ,00.202¢ to tavoms emt of 28@L , emit to Atoom edt
gether with attorney fees as provided by the lease. Under the
provisims of the Civil Practice Act, Cahill Ill. Rev. Statute,
1933, Chap. 110, Par. 220, Sec. 92, this court may enter the
judgment which should have been entered in the trial court.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County is
reversed and judgment is rendered in this court in favor of ap-
pellant and against appellee for $218.75. Appellee will pay the
costs in this court.
JUDGMENT REVORSED AND JUDGMEN? HERE.
eae
taneod oc GF Ft Ob) tev » OAR gaival as Bebuenet og Like
oe Sot iat ewe we a! bt pers Ste omy Paar wake ‘oat i’
oat mee , pets, 0. AS PORIEFT BA SOP hae ast
y eostud ade aver, -pfLl, LLtded 0k eo ttostt nes 08a wen rs
vit tote CR IPP Siro ¢ ee (ORS, » 07 pk OLE qed
és ¢ str me, ot a Pty eave rel Fk Me a
at vauod sersal to #2100 pang Yo trengivt eft
co "® 39 xOveT at Foo abit af Berebmon at #ematut bas 8
_ ta Yar Ltn softonsA 28.8188 sot eatfegon taniage Bem
77 wom queee eit Ane daenet oft yo sapurgad Hie ae de A
Sd of One MA ag ny, au b wt fo.on te eon 8
hes
ei? ,picigeat Pies tT toh of Pawn A i ‘ex tivt at as
|. aa
wnt Satefre tte feds bas fieq Inet OfF seeedet ehaeset® 4
aor le on Yona wih tama! edd bo tevene: ¢enmie bas seenel
ey 7
ee
oy Bo elie wea Th, ote & ealtidgeniiva 2a] pO Rw wT ane re wore wt shell
CE a
sete . XS enniiw gt. bo aoheats » onebave alt cine al
mt exsonys Side .omneciva ubety one 430 > bg Munk a a
mith Rit istevo. 82 ttt og Fay oeety hes ftetogros Sab Ses)
4 Aa HE £
ae Tort, oc? bt Ree meme sveel ef? inl rb 81 A? out 42 pe
ade eayier of Daemons fore ‘mia Dae 8 s oor rept won sade Ot
; eek! judy et oe eee
“Gato are: pur sig @ saw pian Th tu amore B dodts ee tibeyred tet,
: wee pe iigg tN dae he
fon ab ah coRsesptan of wt ody or sont te uae te
: eM ay By ah at
bmn Wal ad of. os bad oars a ‘cftogomms ate cut eet
Nemes J OLR Ra? Saea
yeas ae Hm verted 6 ‘Tes eit do mite Yh ets att fam? i sete oO
>
3
=|
Nal
4
cs eta oy
Bik Fo Fs i ne ars Pri oy b eal ¥ end wt & tate taded ats xd pret
' Das P Seah Se aA
# he,
RN re ad
ae 5 re oh ED i = ee fy Sst ci r ar .
Hind ice ie | Sal gfe g Ont re ea as ino ett ar oadiat
oa hon ve grey yop aber
Sloe nies yi Geet bts bane & ar tines Sake awe pte :
ee Ce ie ge
x Pitas? na)
wt peo pers s cael secgiedk: abet ont to aaigee ‘elt oe
oi? te eueed edt vobeyr doer % % tialtogy's of sidebe”
wet OCR Do teens cat of BSee aul te ee ae aid aealae
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
(73815—5M—3-32) G37
ee
ae
%
, “i ee
nS $6) ao 4
+ }
1 /
en fl
f ni a oP
fo f
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURP, f
€
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth hosel ee
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five,
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.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
~t9 | As Gaz
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAR 82 1995 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
fa
a
‘
yO ADO LS
*, \ te
he var Ait ae Nae dak te ait ,yabasst ag ,awaded $2 ged 5a
svii-giiiat Soe Sexhnud ents Saaniout ene Sied teu 1o.188% 8
eto (tr 0 esaie eit 2O Forsaeid: hioos® edt 10% Baa nag
" ottaxt Sc LBorett ‘ MEZOW 0 ORAt) nol “eitt, S23
eolteut— VOR" oh RICHARD tO i oan
onteeeh JaMNTga marae a0 a.
- X4eL9 ,NOBMHOY outed a
r
hr :
a KA fh. TONS. | a
GEN. NO. 8871. AGENDA NO. 8.
IN THE
\PPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SHOO ND DISTRICT
February Term, A. D. 1935.
EXPOSITION PARK JOCKEY CLUBTfor
use of BENTLEY-MURRAY COMPANY,
)
}
)
Appellants, )
) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
VSe )
) COURT OF KANE COUNTY.
HARRY A. CRAWFORD, |
Appellee, )
DOVE, J.
On May 10, 1953 Bentley, Murray & Comoany, a Corpora-
tion, instituted its suit in assumpsit in the Circuit Court of
Kane County against Exposition Park Jockey Club, also e corpora-
tion, Robert Eddy and Joseph Catarrinich, seeking to recover the sum
of (6665.18. On the same day a writ of attachment in sid was
issued, directed to the Sheriff of Kane County, who was, at that time,
Harry A. Crawford, appellee herein. On the same day, avrellee executed
$6665.18
the writ ani endorsed thereon that he hed attached “S8SXeExan at the
same time left a true copy of the writ with Joseph Catarrinich, manager
of the Mutuel Department of the defendant, Jockey Club. The cause
was subsequently tried, resulting in a finding in favor of all the
defendants upon the attachment issue and for the defendants, -oseph
Catarrinich and Robert Hddy, upon the assumpsit issue and for the
plaintiff and against the Jockey Club upon the assumpsit issue. Upon
these findings judgment was rendered on November 10, 1933, quashirm the
writ of attachment and for the plaintiff and against the Jockey Club
for $6665.18.
“=
a
=
a
a
—
ty
—_,
| 8 .OW AGUEDA | -1988 OM «100
aHT UI
BIOULLII TO TAUCD HTALINGUA
TOIATSId Gh core
-GEQL .c .A ,mreT yisuitdsi
wTAIO YMOL WAT 'TeLOTKE
. YMAGMO D YARAUM-YAITUNE YO
,ataslleqga
m oe
§ Re
Ae...) eee
¢ THOTW AHO of YALL
(Ve ae DORE
|
TTUOATO FAT MOAT TAPIA {
sY™MUOO ZMAN TO TAVOO |
{
° eellogga
bie
oper
7 | ae ves UA aes A a
be saheied o civsieit a toncia Cetéake ead ad we wee y ia
to dxvod tivextd edé al ¢hacmwees at tive ett botutitent \a m0.
-atocros 8 cels ,duid yexoot waist moltiitsodxa feniess Vinod |
, me edt tevoset of saitess ,fotatirsts) dqeaot, bus YOST tasvo . A =
: eew Ste at tromfostis to titw s yesh emse ont m0 +h OH,
. “,omrtt tedt te ,sew ow ,y¥tavod ens to Tttred2: ett of ‘potoeth |
Setuoexe on ait ysh emse odd nO .ateted woltorgy sbehnacys> idl
j i tepeiem ,fotniirsts) dqeact Atiw ¢itw ont to yqoo ett 6 niall
; exue0 off . duld Youoot ,tashaeteb eft to tmemtraqed Leutem ¢ .
edt ffs to'tovst at poliatt s mi giritiveet ,botat Vite supber |
digqesol ,etnebnetob eit tot bas sweat tmemfostts odt noqu edt s
edt wt bos eveat ¢leqmaee oct woqy ,ybbU Ptedof bas fol
noqU .eveet treqmveas edt moqu dul yoxoot edt tantegs bie t
On November 20, 1935 execution was issued upon this judg-
ment and on the same day returned "no property found". Subse-~
quently an affidavit for garnishee summons was filed, u»on which a
garnishee summons was duly issued against appellee, who entered his
special anpearance therein and moved to guash the writ on the
grounds that as sheriff he was not subject to garnishment. On
February 7th, 19354 this motion of appellee to quash the writ of
varnishment was allowed and the writ quashed. On the same day a
second garnishee summons was issued and served on appellee. On
February 7, 1934 interrogatories were filed and answered. To this
answer a replication was filed and on July 15, 1934 the cause was
heard by the court without e jury resulting in the writ of sarnish-
ment being dismissed, And it is from this judsment that the recard
is brought to this court for review by avpeal,
At the hearing appellant called appellee as 4 witness, who
testified that the sum of $6665.18 seized by him uncer the attachment
writ in the original case was deposited in a special account in the
State Bank of Geneva on May 19, 1923 and remained there on depests
to his eredit as sheriff until February 2, 1934, when it was with-
drawn by appellee and paid by him to D. C. Burnett, as agent and
attorney in fact of ‘Soseph Catarrinich. Appellant also offered
in evidence a receipt of Catarrinich, acknowledging the receipt of
this money on February 2, 1954 from appellee, the receipt stating
that said sum of $6665.18 was taken from Catarrinich by appellee by
virtue of the writ of attachment issued on May 10, 1955 and that it
was returned to Catarrinich in pursuance to an order entered in the
attachment proceedings. This judgment was entered on November 1,0:
1933 and it not only quashed the writ of attachment but also
directed anvellee to return the money attached to the perty from
whom it was taken.
vith
: ,
Pact hae
= but aids noc ie 8 aow noltuoexe see (08 ‘to dasvoit 10°
, “ eo .
~on du « "Bro" ‘Wd tec org on" bes’ wtex “yeb, ems a “aye pol So:
iturin Haliaray ranean
”
s dokdw moos bel tt asw anno msn. godde intag wr 1 EVER IITA cl fi i
eid betetaos odw seblerge tekivac, deus at wtb ast anomnae cera tm “
bf
%
t
4 | nO ae ‘einisa of tool dus ton asw an Titres ae tadt a
to tiaw ond skaotp ot selfog ga ta ote. eit. aber or,
8 ab omae oxit ® -besdaaup tiaw otf? pas bows ils Beso a0
he Neer aathened sledcidis seaman Ak ir oe
oft mo Siaw end dacsip ot bovom Ate ntere 3 bonerseqcs Lato oat
£0 wullecgs ao Seytes bas wheat aor heated
{aa PL ap pea:
abits of .betewans bas beLtt eto ‘sekxd spore Y saot
i i aan sesso ont aes 7s xint me bas petit 2 asw sosioeline’s & a
od SE Ba Ph. ee
-e hanes to + bow adit At. pat? fuees Tw at tuts tw +109 eg |
tech a Pies ae
bmoer edt tent ‘4 asmabut abdd ages at tt bed _ sean km td & ; cs
-. Leoqae vd vetved “a0 | #100 eit ot
ny een ao eH) Bin ees ais ar sta Mawes!
‘ont ,aaecd he a &8 | eetieane bo {Leo muatteca ad boa tt ase +
coo anv ti nodw <SSCl .d pease Leow ges
ele bas tnops aa teat, .0, 4 0%, mit yd beg ip 95a
i m | Bete to cele tialleqas » nile irdce19# 29, tqe20's, we dpet my 4
‘ bat re igteper oii, ackaboLnomion Aptatrray ed; 20. Fioset ae r
ah Bai afb. Jqigoor ants 9eLtoage moxt deel «8 quatre”
8 eellongs xe, Ap inbred ad Mott aowed eae, BL. aenae, 9 to: !
“th tady bas S80L .OL, you 0, houeat tuomdsat ts, 20 tre
oat ‘al beresne., repre, ns, 8 somawenty. al fio}
08 regis ye. a0, boret. asir, Mitioailcs aio»
Appellant contends that this sum of $6665.18 was taken
from and belonged to txposition Park Jockey Club, but the evidence
elearly discloses that it did not belong to Exposition Park Jockey
Ciub, but belonged to Joseph Catarrinich, manager of the “sari-
Matuel Department thereof,
The appellant makes a further contention that when the
attachment was queshed, the court should have ordered the funds
attached returned to the Jockey Club and that the court sleo
erred in refusing to allow an amendment to be made to the first
affidavit for garnishment which was filed November 20, 1935,
There is no merit in either of these contentions. This is not
an appeal from the judgment quashing the attachment and a dering
the funds attached returned to the party from whom they were taken
nor is it an a»npeal from the judsment quashing the first writ of
garnishment, but is an appeal from the judgment quashing the second
writ and henee these matters of which appellant complains are not
before us. The rule in this state is that a judgment creditor by
garnishment proceedings may recover only such indebtedness as his
debtor might recover in an action of debt or assumpsit against the
garnishee, Wold v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., 269 Ill. App. 407.
In this sarnishment proceedins the burden of proof is
Deer the beneficial plaintiff to show that the garnishee has in his
hands money or property belonging to the Jockey Club at the time of
the service of the garnishment writ. The judgment which this court is
now reviewing was entered in a proceeding instituted five days after
appellee, the garnishee, had paid the money sought to be reached to
the party from whom he had taken it several months previous. Coneededly
there was no money or property in appellee's hands at the time the
garnishment rit was served om appellee, or thereafter, subject to
garnishment end the trial court entereé the only judgment which could
have been entered upon the facts as they anvear in this record, and its
judgment will be affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
| gevst asw 81,4880) to mua al nt tat abastnos tnat Lega a
s eonebive emt sud aud yetoot Areal no Ltteoaxt ot bosstofed bie wort
yexoo. Anat soitieorx’ of gmoled ton bkb +k text ‘gexoloolh visnole ”
-its* edt To TOR MOM ¢ dotatyvrstsd dasaol od bosmto led td vito
. toetedt dnomdt xed Leute ‘'
Lat lewd
edt modw teadt soi tmetnoo aed ot 5 a elem saatlengs edt x
os tech
edast dé betebw oved b fo de tmoo oft Sede sip aaw tacmtoodts ©
oels ti1y0° ott todd bas dy £9 younol. out ot benwdés bodosits”
ng id,
tor It ot ot ebsm ad ot legge as wolle ot gu iswhe+ nt
“sB80L , 08 xednevor! boltt anew “ten soxonuts tartey wt ‘dival te
f : errr
ton al ataT . eno it net 109 ee erit te medlt to att tixem on “at 2 tf
Ce. 9 awa :
gnitoh'p Sas taomfostts edt yaldesup tnamphut oxfi mor reat ti
; 6 wit Sod ore
nos etew yedt modw oT uitas ont of bout ot baioadi 2 @ beast acid
: " pated | B.
to titw fect? ont patie sup inom burt add mont isoqss pi a ek bn
; ere
buoces ent amt tdeewp $ro.9, bert edt mont LIseq qa ae’ ar aud Pree tg
od thi
ton ers ant be Lqmoo tnslLoqas Hokie ‘to eTodtd eat ‘en ont ‘somes base ticw
apne aid Peds’ bolt kdand
vd tottbero ¢remeBut s t edt et otnte has at ous oT 2 eC
j a +2 Wy ;
eld as saonboddebat dome Nino tev090% van egmtboseo 39 J aemste tt
fy Se) ah Re> | LE
edt rentays theqmuaes <0 ides To wotso5 m3 at eens Wee »
VOL eQoa +ffT @8S ..00 Lane bal elle ans +¥ bLow 20
. % at Toor to nob wd edt + theo sorg “tanda taxes att aI . vet
aid aut sedi sora tara ont teat wo dz ot mutatele “Latortened aes,
E to om td ont ts duLo ees oat ot amigac Lod Wteqe a ae page ae i
if at F199 aid doldw omg Pst ou? thon toma batey ents ® eotvaee_ ad 31
i xetts ayes svit bodut igant Bathoeo org 8 at beresae By _patwotye
OMe ot Sedoset ed ov tiawoe Senge ode tog bed y0ede lacey ait, seats aie
“eUdeseoaoy sayotvexg edi nom Leneves $2 notes bas on wet nae nis aah
on 9f
pris
5
4
ont emt oe te ebued shoetiogas ak wtego 1g ze. vie.
- . ot toot due Tet teotodt ae geetleqzs ao bevroe asw or, te
oP ds fs
Biwoo doidw Snrommy burt vine out hevetas tty O90 fatct ype bas
- att ony ~bioset aldd of ts9ecca yedt es 3 atost ont Homes ‘bere;
-GiMALTIA THoMDauT,
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
(73815—5M—3-32) «G37
oO
a i. aT brant we. toot Hie hy ings
te uab. es
; aero ave agp oat we Irat
ROWE Dine Shas or aY
iby Sa Rhea h embed
saw 4 |\ 3 . /
pa
- fb
‘
ees
é / / | # ae”
yA ae s er
f 4
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE“ COUR .
f f , Fi
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of PION a in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five,
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. QD ré 9 T A 6 |
A. 648
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAR 22 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
ae NOAUOUS TALI FSF OM ae
a ae Ps Lie? Toe Yahumtt lteedt ,yabssut go awe eG 18 bead Sida te |
ee Davcrit ‘es ae RRA one ond Ont ere" to: ae i
twhomhiot ta eiaré edt tu +o fore ee BmonAy ad? tot Bra ddl
| ‘on kraut 3 veces ee 0 itr” cat eel
s0itact V0 A TC otOR 27 i a
>
P §
f
*
5
bie)
sokinul MAMTTUR UIA 9H
= 7 - 4 C 5 a :
© fs | ‘e S wor ated MOSRHOS a e0rEut
, «@ 3+
= es | Se
ore: HO. i tiweod he a ae
Et Seftt usw
GEN. NO. 8911. AGENDA NO. 29.
re re AA te A RN CER nat eenreenemeneeneninnast
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
February Term, A. D. 1955.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA, a Corporation,
Defendant in lirror,
VSe
CHARLES C. HOGE, CARRIE T,. HOGH,
et al., (S. Roy Hoge, Hleanor
Weir and Mabel Manehester and
Marry C. Daniels, Guardian Ad
Litem and Trustee of Interests of
Future Issue, and John H. Raymond,
Guardian Ad. Litem),
WRIT OF ERROR TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF
Plaintiffs in Error,
CENDALL COUNTY.
S. ROY HOGE, ELEANOR WHIR AND
MABEL MANCHESTER, Cross Complain-
ants (S. Roy Hoge, Eleanor Weir end
Mabel Manchester, Harry C. Daniels,
Guardian Ad Litem and Trustee of
interests of Future Issue and John
H. Raymond, Guardian Ad Litem),
Plaintiffs in Error,
VSe
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, a Corporatio, et al.,
Cross Defendants,
ee Saget at ae ee et Ne a St Sl a eat ot Ri See nat Si tl iF Se a Se et en i Ni Nt et ret Tiere Nat tl Mat Mt
Defendants in Error.
DOVE, J.
"Defendant in error, The Prudential Insuranee Company of
America, filed its bill in the Circuit Court of Kendall County,
seeking to foreclose a mortgage securing the payment of a note in
OS .OW AGIZDA
xET a |
7 @IOMILIT HC TOD SOALINGIA
Pye | TOLATAIG anoosa
ee
} -28@L .0 .A pmreT yrestdst ihe
YUATMOD AOMAAVAMT . TUT oo
(810 5 axOGTOD B 0 rs
tot eth ‘tasbreted
,100H .7 STARAD or)
. Tomse egoh
bas od 08 deel Lodait
y 4 ‘ to ateete’al to
om GY OT HOMME TO TIAN ~bnomysi .H auot a or"
| @O TAVOD TIUOALD we
Re ieee enter A «Tova a avattmiess wie
Te .YMV0D LAGE , Perey
. Rit 4. atln doy
|
|
|
oe hes | | bus ateW tomsel ,ogol :
a 2. ; ; « afained «2 Yrtsi «tata on 1 Bit
i | . to setaut? bas medhl BA 1 1
Pande ie | aieot bas evaal euiul Yo ai
y | (oe aL BA netbrav) «
pry at ettivm ist | ' hs oe
TO YMAUMCO HOMASeMT Le 1
storm! at ainebaoted ea ke
® YoHsqmod somer vent
qWawod Llsbaed to
4 é S ,
} } 1 ‘ ee:
Van ee eS ew
the sum of Nine ty-six Thousand Dollars ($96,000.00), which had
been executed by Charles C. Hoge and Carrie T. Hoge, his wife.
The land described in the mortzage so sought to be foreclosed
was in part devised to the mortgagor by his deceased father,
Samuel iioge, and in part by his deceased mother, Matilda Hoge.
In his bill, defendant in error set forth that Eleanor Weir,
Mabel Manchester and S. Hoy Moge, the children of Charles C,
Hoge, deceased, and other descendants of Samuel end Matilda HhOge,
claim some right, title or interest in the premises sought to be
foreclosed, but alleged that they head no such interest, ond in
addition to a decree of foreclosure prayed that these persons
might be adjudged to have no title to the lond nor any interest
in it. Eleanor Weir, Mabel Manchester and 5. oy Hoge filed
ang@wers and a eross bill, setting forth the wills of Samuel Hoge
and Matilda Hoge, They prayed that the title of Gharles C. Hoge,
the mortgagor, might be determined to be a base or determinable
fee, with executory devise over to the cv’oss complaints so far
as the will of Samvel Hoge vassed any title, and a life estate,
only, with the contingent remainder over to the cross complainants
upon the death of Charles C. ‘oge so far as the will of Matilda
Hoge was concerned. An answer to the cross bill was filed. A
Guardian Ad Litem was appointed for minors and a trustee for the
future issue of unborn children. Replications followed in due
course and upon a hearing, the Chancellor construed the wills of
Samuel Hoge and Matilda Hoge as vesting Charles ©. Hoge with a fee
simple title, ordering a dismissal of the cross bill and decreeing
foreclosure for the anount found to be due."
The foregoing statement of facts is taken from the opinion
of the Supreme Court, from which court the cross complainants sued out
«Be
Ni
bad sotde. ,(00s000,9¢¢) erallod Sasavod? xte-w? oxfuto mu et
-etiw atd ,esoll .T oftrsd bas eyoit -0 aeltsdd YI betuvoexe © _ Ce
bexo foe xt od ot tdpgros of epepsttom edt ak Seditoeed bael T 3
etodt st bor ssoob ald yd Togsay mos e itt ot Boa iveh t12eq at a
segoH abitvsM ,rediom besseoad abd yd tireag ot bas ,egotl . few
«tieW¥ tonseld deat dro t tee wire ab tasbaotob ,fLitd ot
«) seltado to nmetbhlide ont _agol xi «2 fas tata cionsM f
,9a0H sblitsM bas. Laumse. to atasbsreoeed hapty bab «bOs20908 9 °% jon
ed ot tdgvoe asaimem od! at taete fat, 10 Brae wdatt ame utelo
at bos ,teotatni dove, on bart yedt tent honet in in Seago: ot
- Btoateg esedt tadd beystgq lates: ‘ea to seto9b s ot
teotetat yas ton bool jolt of oldid on oviad ot bopmutDe 24.
bealit exoll yo .& has ote offomalt Laid ei 4 thet pene
“ego Loumoe to efliw edt dixot anitter (LL EG Seon: a
ag sono 2 26 Ite to ali bt saad Saat beaver oat. sot at
i efdanimreteb 10 easd 6 od of beulmrgded ad. dua jd:
tet ce atniafqmoo eaoro edt et tevo eatved qrotimexe 3
7 —@tsteo eTtl & bas wolsit vas bai spol ream Thin ¢ ies
oe ataantelqmoo exoto ect of isv0 To he Pune 4 f nega itmoo edd ‘od athe tee -
| ‘sblitsM to [ftw enit ** 1st 98 230° 2? rei eric’ to dtseb mf) qu
as :
i ae
aor ty
enh at bewoL tor noi deotigos -sviitihe paeres sie et)
aes 40a
a to efliw edt beyttenoo jm itong ade ont a yi fr sed | Ss noqy bas '
4
~~ 98% 8 att Iw egoH- +o ae ix add, aritesv #8 9p0H onesbiate’ aataet
awrit of error. (The Prudential Insurance Company of America v.
Charles C. Hoge, et al., 359 I11. S36.) ‘The Supreme Court held
that a freehold was not involved an@ therefore it had no juris-
diction notwithstanding the fact that title to the land covered
by the mortgage was put in issue by the pleadings. In its opinion,
transferring the cause to this court, the Supreme Court said:
"Those allegations in the bill of complaint whereby an attempt
was made to quiet the title of the mortgagor, and those allegations
of the eross bill seeking a construction of the wills and a decree
as to the title toa free hold, were not germane to the proper sub-
ject matter of the suit, and the findings of the Chancellor thereon
are surplusage ard not only not necessary to the deeree of fore-
closure, but were improper. -* * * The rule inIllinois is, that
where a party does not claim title through or under cither mortgagec
or mortgagor, he is neither a proper or a necessary party to the
foreclosure proceeding and should be dismissed from the suit.
(Gage v. Perry, 93 I11. 176). In Whitaker v. Irons, 300 Ill. 254,
we said: ‘The only proper parties to a bill to foreclose a mortgage
are the mortgagors and the mortgagee and those who acquired richts
under them subsequent to the mortgage’. The only effect the decree
in this case can have is to foreclose the lien of defendant in err@
as against whatever title it received by the mortasce in question".
The only contentiao made and arcued by plaintiffs in error
in this court is that the Chancellor.erred in construing the wills
of Samuel Hoge and Matilda Hoge and in decreeing that Charles 0.
Hoge, the mortgagor, was vested with a fee simple title under the
provisions of those wills and therefore the deeree dismissing the
eross bill was erroneous. Jt is conceded that defendant in error
ih
‘
\ ; ; ht
; =
Y)
o
} a,
F i! )
ii]
ae
.v boltenh Yo Yowqmod sonswanl Ietthebirrs oft)” sr071e 16" $2
HLGH Hbouwhorywe’ sae” (Lae Drtt ede Ta Gel hon te tee ito
~Btowt om bail ti etoterede Bra be jtovat’ toh BBW btdHeett' » Pbk
peto¥oo babr Sat beer dtd Foe Sess dt ShoseH dCR HOS
ee .s10 ttrt@o att of ,endibsortd’ edt Yd Sveek at fu 38% oand toot” pif
¢bise trd9 ometque eft dives str’ od eaves ott ae
tqmits ms ydorstfy stsfemoo to L628 ont Ht addrtesette Ob .
anottasefia seodd bas ,tonsad tom edt to offty¥ eit?’ ‘oblip oy obi ‘ bs
ebtosh {bie aftiw edd to mbhreeatands #gthtcbe Ti stew &
-dy2 “todox Sit OF enserten ton orby , SLO eott B ot whe
nostsi? rollsenss> oft to esartbatt eat bre tive ‘Sit to” peg: :
Letot to estoss ont of¢ Wrsshecenh Jour vino fon ‘fees “op
tent ,et atonittimt efi sut * * *. swwqotant pet otk
seneatton “te tate wear xo dowotdd efete mtsfo tod acos yteq 8 >
| ert of wren “yraeneoon ‘8 tO Teqord B todd tom of of 3 sogani
AW “yetwea end mort” Booarhe 1B of stoite br) na tbeo0d 24 ‘etira0 fos |
aboS Lert 008) Lansdt Sv consti ot) (8K tet Bb leet Lyf 33 20)
spenttom 2 ssofsotet ot! free s oF 2 oitaeg noqorg “xine edt? gi: ble: ct
“atdoty Botingos odw eaodt Bas bgig haa edt bas POETS a
eoTseh oft toetts yimo edT .'ogentiom’ sdf of ssa edt Big
DT10 at‘ stabasteh to melt eft s20fse%0% ot at evad 55 eso atdt a
."Hotteesp al ‘esontiom eft Yd bev tose gt etsta 19v9 stedw deataye es
nomts af ettitatale yo heures bee ébam m Hiedioo ylao. edt “ at
affiw edd Sntwidea0s at bette. ‘soLLvonsdd “eid Fault of dau so ‘ae
"40 a6 fei text gi tsetoeb at” bas egoi ‘apkié out tna Lott "he
‘eilt “ebay sitit otquts set 8° ‘ghtebitdde ell Ton aaf be - he i
odt satae ime Ib eerosh* sit s10téxe tt ‘bas aif’ iw Seoail 6 VBR
‘mire at taehasteb tact Bebe slid al sa ‘+ avoonore ° oan iL
) Bewe IIRL e lyme eed Ot ree eo ute Site eg BPS ethereal:
oie P A Poa
f +0 baleen Uy ; 4 eva he iY
| Tales oo Sati a
« a i Nite a , eS ae Ff ‘ oe ted Jae nate ee J
is entitled to a decree of foreclosure and it is not contended
that there was any errar in finding the amount which was due
it under the provisions of its mortgage.
Under the authorities, plaintiffs in error were neither
necessary or proper partics to this litization and the findings
in the decree to the effect that under the wills of Samuel Hoge
and Matilda Hoge, the mortzagor, Charlies C. Hoge, took a fee
simple title have no vlace in the decree and should be expunged
therefrom.
The decree therefore will be modified by this cout by
striking out those improper pwrtions thereof. Insofar as the
decree directs a dismissal of the cross-bill of plaintiffs in
error ami deerees a foreclosure of the mortgage of defendant in
error it is affirmed. The costs in this court will be taxed one-
half to plaintiffs in error and one-half to defendant in error.
DECREE MODIFIED AND AS MODIFIED AFFIRMED.
a tron vamerwrit't Ketttebet® Gu? cmialet eee
bad bebas taco toa et th bas emiaoLoe tor zo neqnee. 8 p3 ius a
rege asw A tay ourons edt ga tha bt al » eae = ice
Die
ae sognait tom adit to ase ts tor 7%
ea t i 4 ay eo aE yen
by 0st to otew torre at atitiatala (99.19 1109 us out whe
am ena tbat? odd pas ae bi pert ht ald ot ao brag. Pee,
: 1 eget Loumee ro, effin © a stebau edd toorte edt ot ad
“e ; . ato lew! = bal’
it ayo 99% 8 do ot, poll “0 eolx alo emaest pm ont ro bi
_bepauaxe od bigo de bas eoto0b ont at seals, - ovat elf
Peer
wll it gin 7° % , 3 wr Por i eee? & 9 oles?
_ Nd tayoo ald ao botttbom od ths oroterod? eotosb oat
” ow as astoant + toote dt Reread tegotqmt esodt rd
Y LO Ck ey
mi atizin tela x0 Alida | off To Leeatmaih a ar
‘ we a o LOAF f pais.
Ah, tnebnoteb 0 epegt ron ont », as ts Na aa
2
we EALS Ps v ak
none borat ad LLew + m0 abd: at nto fae. eben bY
» torre mt Pusbaeteb of Biadnowo, bas, Bier ah @ ot wrth: a
ie ti oS tomee nag 8
MATTED CET TTGOW Ga OMe CuttreOM nc a! chil ;
,
bi ha : : ay '
alate? “o rd eo ao? sf ote ae Ls . tine mint ft
PL EUE } CGR? BR Pee aie we 1 fe u oie rid ;
; 4 dim
Mie FOROS Mie BP | «lense OA om By dp pile &
’
foehewte® to belt wt) dee téndet oh 4k ol cet hi ee Noha
2 en PU HiT “4d Boy ened Be wlth tet reget |
"
1
er a eae eee ee, Ne ae eS der
i 1 ad ae We le ay re VY DS A PRS ee Di a aM Ne ide e a "4
wey by bard
' ry gz A, 4
ee) be PY OY wae al
wath: Se Nee TE). pelt.
8 Pot saa +
e . :
MiP al
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
(73815—5M—8-82) B57
= bs e-:
> 4 OH
: = yt eye es we é alts
,; bret al
. o a
Riss, +e tes"
z ; : eed TINE ade ae
7 ' ia
y LA) BAS
ri
@ Af id oil = <a FE
nis. et: tee
; pe
we
oe .) a ts ied baa | oa bbe:
is aa
4,70 Rg aT
or 2
beac esd} abe Hay A ad = sant , £08 eM 1 e0RaU oe) ;
view’ oh she saath ina bos» airquall lt lo pepent od} Box als % state re 4 he
PRAT Ly foal fibere soda sd? ab fia!) abelieg yak: bine ods Pe Puen ad bee: 7 1h
ae 4 | 7) ah
a ike An) feve att aif brig Brim! ‘eo tae etree if svorod ouaaat ine
No ee el sail a6 soe Se bi eerie arn) 1% una viata ae ined
é
on
tein frasged? ano taal. tow. Wy tase adi at (no ee ee
ec sea
Ane ee ei — es
A* Bue e 1 Deas
reat) ehatinangh _ ie antl}
i $64)
f
f
, oC
‘
d
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLUSE coupe,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of ese in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and Wirtz: -five,
within and for the Second District of the State oe PV nor):
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. Q yy
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff. Yd é 2 i “Ae 6 o J
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAR 22 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
ON AIST) SE AOS Ae
a3 WP + ; 2 N i 2 ¢ : : “] * fide
% 5
ab? cyt (et aa yao meF ia eds yebesut fa yawass0 tz dfed Sra
we ete pit da Ape botbabd ond ficeyods eno Diol avo ta taey ade”
SAinaeket Fo aie:® eas ‘to totrtieit bacned eit? “Tot hie neds r
0itvert arth reseis Slow 20 a4e noe oe 3 Eo <' os
seoitenl VOI iH KT ARE 50H ) er
seligot CAMO, MTA © a j
—_ ; ery s: ROeIMOL a eunede
SHO ALL OVS
os whe dA » @ ett itede ruteea ait BUIAR
Se ter sere oe ee ote ee aS nT
rs —— —— = ae ee : t
a0 ‘ ; i ; i
i
j -
> ‘ Li
edfiat heflit -eaw dus0d- ade +0! noinigo: ‘entd!
aetualt Sas ebvow eda nf .#1s0D> Biea, to |
Gen. No. 8891 Agenda No. 18
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
February Term, A. D. 1935.
Leah Pearsall,
Appellee,
Appeal from the Circuit Court
a. of De Kalb County
Harry T. Campbell,
Appellant.
HUFFMAN-J.
This was an action for damages brought by appellee against
appellant for personal injuries resulting from an automobile colli-
sion which happened in August, 1952. It appears from appellant's
brief that the case was tried by a jury, but it does not appear
therefrom that a verdict was rendered, or in whose favor Et was
rendered, or that any judgment in this case was entered by the
trial court. Appellant assigns no errors for revérsal, and
argues no errors for reversal. The abstract fails to show what
the verdict of the jury was, in whose favor it was, or what the
judgment of the court was. There is nothing before this court
upon which to pass.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court
herein is affirmed.
Judement affirmed.
BL .o% sSaegA Less .ou —_
atonkifl to tod etailseqqA edt al
toLateid baooed
~céQl .2@ .A ,mteT y1s mdet
,ilsexsel dsed
,eolLoqqs
tavod tiwoexrtd edt mort IseqgqA
-2v
viasod disk ef to oa
etledqis) .T y116H |
~taslleqas ; '
oh a
L-HAMTIUH
tentsgs selleqas yd tdgueid eegsmeb tot nolvos os esw eldT
-tfifoo sildomotys oa mort gattivee: eoluwinat [enoarwq 10% tusiieqgs
etinsifeqqs moxt exseqqs tI .8EOL ,teuquwA at beneqqsd doldw dime My,
tseqas tom esob ti tud , yt 2 yd betat eaw 9880 odt tent hes
asw tH aovet seodw at to ,botebmet esw tolbiev s tend morte rent :
elt yd 5eted ne eaw oeso etdt alt Snompbut yas tedt 0 ,bevebaet on
bas ,isetéver tot atorrs om anyteas tasileqgé s¢am0n faiat ne a
tsdw wode ot elitist tositeds efT .fsexrsvet tot erot1e on aeugis
edt tadw to ,asw tl tovst scodw at \aaw Yui edt to tolbiev edt
twos atdt erted anid¢on et etedT .2aw tivo edt to toomebut
-easq o¢ dolidw soqy
goo Istat sdi to tnemgbut edt ,enoeset gitoge 10% eit 10% yt
-bomsttts at atored
‘ | ebomritts tnemabut
SU. en eae a ct} REV AA | aCe ee SO ie ts Oe a eee a Ba LIS
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fo 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
Atppellatem Courtamatian O/ubanyia) mein cee en VERO
___in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—28-32) oeG3p07
a ee feline
~ (Rae en Rane
ror soakiatel 4g tod
| te iste + nar wre,
Fig . 7 . 4 ee 7” ant |
ay pe reer! Per,
es ee sella
ie ¥ ott) (aalloae@
A pig |
; \
«
ue ay Ren ty A] scm if ‘ad et nat , oat 7 LAt pet phy
ns Sil ‘bas abeotitt, Ser wae x a to
wey ail ah toe ral Leer’, See braced 3
d rai! firs ayia ori? ag true i son frre by i ‘ | AOEETO ould Ta Taiat
ae hs
=.
had in Fane edt ui eee frecext refi te sieieeh { oo aon x
fi afk st ee De Piers) malt”
\“oned beemnot ais ie ars) Nw rs aT oh. ies el
dae me uccsipi arti tlie
Da
onl a stat sen hheaerte ‘see me! See Eh ee ~——
Val } sbatog ts ae ie at,
po 441" rH
-/
f
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE couxt, ve)
: fy
f £ F
? Fi £
he; f
j j f £
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of Febyuary/ in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five,
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.
D4 Gaui C48
279 1.4. 648°
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
BE If REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAR 22 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
My
P aro
. * : . mee
4 ' JPOOD MAC, SATA BAO i rth
be \ : a, iat By 7 ae. .:
. 1 oe .
. | | y 7 | ee
* oF an : : ey
Veinoytot 16 rah dest edd ( yabeeoe ate award) pan
parkt<gitint tHe Lorinca ste beseoea? en0\ Sand iio. <04
a
: ® - 2 os
il to stage env bo! forested baronet sit=tes haa ots
pe 5
* \ostraul galiteor? ~RaIOW .0 GUA noe
of qv Or oh a7 LYRA nok
a ~ ae
_ wettaen MAMTUE SRTALE OG
._ Xvotd> uoeiinot ar ea | ee
BP own. Sa tied: ETRE te
SkO AT eYS
ep ate ernecmonne oe
“-
GEN. NO. 8896 AGENDA NO. 21.
a rr emer
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
FEBRUARY TERM, A. D. 1935.
LILA HILL,
Appellee,
APPHAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
LAKE COUNTY.
)
)
)
)
vs
GEORGE MARTIN,
)
Appellant.
HUFFMAN-J
Appellee secured a verdict against anpellant for the sum
of $500 because of injuries received by her while riding with him
as a guest in an automobile, and allezed to have been received be-
cause of his wilful and wanton misconduct.
Appellant prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of the
trial court upon the verdict. There is only one question involved
in this case, and that is, whether the evidence when considered,
with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the most favorable
aspect to appellee, is sufficient to establish wilful and wanton mis-
conduct on the part of appellant. The facts in the case are as
follows: Appellant, accompanied by Bernice Christensen, attended
a banquet at the Waukegan Township High School. They met anpellee
at that place. Apvvellant did not know appellee, Miss Christensen
knew appellee and with appellant's consent invited appellee to
ride with them to her home. Appellant was driving a Studebaker auto-
mobile, which the evidence shows was in good working order. The acci-
dent occurred some three or four blocks from the school building.
dhe
efS .0M AQWHDA . sess
ee ene een
~2IOULLII FO THVOD ATALIVITA HHT UT
TOIATaIad auoowe
-d0ef .@ .A .MAXT YRAUREST
GO THUGO TIUOAIO GAT MOAT JASTIIA
«YTMU0D THAI
mod bavieves ead ove of bozelis bas eLidomotire ne at faoup ‘
-toubmooaim sotnsw bas tytttw ald to y
edt to trompbut edt mort Iseqqe atdt 26duse20 1g tnslleqaA | ly
heviovat moiteaerp eno yino al otedT stolLbtov edt noqy tudo
~alm motasw bas Lytliw datidstes ot tneteitiwe at ‘yeolleggs ie
ae to ease edd at atost ed? stupileqas to tusq ent mo |
behaet ts eHeanese tr sotated xd betasqmooos ,daatieqas
| sol teqss tom yett ,Loodoe fg tH qidenwoT asexual wat ta
moamate 10 ee tit veoLteqas: won ton bLb taattouts, —
_notue rexadebut 2 8 paivish asw tye “su 10d o moat
The evidence is short and is not conflicting. Appellee's
evidence discloses that she was employed as a maid; that she was
at the school on the evening of January llth, 1934; that following
the banquet, she left the school building in company with appellant
and Miss Christensen for the purpose of riding with them to her home.
She testifics that it was raining slightiy and the streets were "a
little slippery," but not frozen. Miss Christensen testified for
appellee resard ng the accident. Her testimony was confined to a
statement that she was familiar with the streets over which they were
travelling, giving the direction thereof, and that when the accident
occurred, appellee was cut on and about the face and head because of
a broken windshield. Appellant testified as a witness for appellee.
Ris testimony mereiy went to his acquaintance with the place of the
accident, the make of car he was driving, and his age. Rbbert L.
Hall, the driver of the car with which appellant collided, testified
for appellee. His testimony disclosed that the street where the
accident ocecwred was on a hillside, and the vavement was slipperty
He estimated appellant's speed at from twenty-five to thirty miles
per hour. Appellant giving testimony upon his own behalf estimated
his speed at twenty-five miles per hour.
Appellant states that appellee was riding as a guest in his
ear and that he was taking her to her home at the request of Mis
Christensen; that his car »as in good mechanical condition; that upon
leaving the school building he started the car; that in travelling to
the place of the accident, he had stopped and started the car at
different street intersections, and had experienced no difficulty be-
cause of the condition of the pavement; that his car had not skidded
at any of these times; that the savement seemed to be covered with a
light frost which had not caused his car to skid. Miss Christensen
=2-
e@eolleqas
’ sew ofa ted? | :
a aniwolfot tad? ;h0eL di LL) yrewnst Yo aninsve eft ao Loodoe edt rs
tnalfloqgqe dttw yaecpoo ai. paibliod Loodea eit titel eda toupasd sit
- somod ted ot medd dtiv gathit to saoqig odt tol moanesatrdd |
8" etew etoette edt bas yltdaile aataiet epw st tedt eoltizes#
Tot beititeaet mosastaiadd eeli .nesort ton tod, *Yteqgs le |
' B ot Benttaos easw yaomivaet teH .tnebioos ait gn disper eelis
etew Yort Moidw revo ateotte oft dtiw isilimet esw ere t adit toreme’
soalloqqs Tot seontiw s as bottitaed faelseqgs prreary:
ent » eosiq edt astw eonedn tenes atd ot . dew Nletem Yomidacs
| ‘x trod +038 ata has oat ty ith esv al 89 to olen ot tae
beltitee? bebtifos inalloqas doldw at Ew 199 ‘eit 10. parton 3 xa
ait etodw tesite oat tedz bosoloetd Yombjant. alt _eelleqgs
~-
eereqat i= aaw to emev ag edt bos, coble lias & 0. Baw willy Biter :
% Ai betenttes. +i aed mmo atd moqu yromtvest poner peefine, ae
ys . -stwod t9q_ altar. evitaydiout ¢2 h¢
: rr) ‘e F ~~
r ° ete a teens 8 B68 pats, esw selieqas tad ketsta taetleggs - ouths
ae I to teouner ods ta emod zed oF “oi gabled saw et tad 8
4% f pR, $i ms
sons tnt {110 £9 EBs0 8 Ino tasito om boos an as’ ts89 nie toads By
16)
Bebb bic ton ‘bad | “aB5 “eld ‘told | Smomovee “edd roe m i2a00
ve Ee wee Tips | ups!
ry ait tr berevoo oe od Bomeee ‘tromover itt att jpomit oa oe
ce Tt. SOs a8
| meenada txs10 ae Lit «btoa ot m0 abd ‘beasso tor bad toh tw Beri
M ¢
a
"
$ 7 J thy
Vs b A(ee
; 5 ‘ . ; ; ik , oo H
. ‘ " es ial ‘OF gah Qh” GRY at ie bee
yi * at Pe ds ‘ 7 oe tea Cul (ae 1 he es
testified for appellant, end estimated the speed of the car to be
between twenty and twenty-five miles per hour. She further stated
that nothing was said by either appellee or herself requesting ap-
pellant to drive more slowly.
At the place of the accident there is a hill and a curve.
When appellant started tom this incline and attempted to anoply his
brakes, his car skidded to the left and struck the car in which Mr,
Hall was then riding. The impact of the collision anpears to have
thrown appellee against the windshield. The windshield broke and
appellee sustained painful and extensive cuts and lacerations on end
about her face and head,
Appellant moved for a directed verdict at the close of the
plaintiff's evidence and at the close of ail the evidence. Both mot-
jons were denied and the instructions refused, Appellant urges that
the evidence failed to establish wilful and wanton misconduct on his
part, and that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to
find aprellant not guilty. While the qestion of wilful or wanton
misconduct is usually a question of fact for the jury, yet where all
the evidence, viewed in its most favorable light for the plaintiff,
does not tend to show a wilful and wanton act done, and where procf
of such act is essential to the right of recovery, the jury should
be directed to find a verdict for the defendant. Before it becomes
a question of fact to be deternined by the jury, there must be some
evidence fairly tending to show a wilful disresard of a known duty
and of the consequences likely to flow therefrom, or 4 Willingness to
inflict the injury.
An examination of the evidence presented by this record,
when considered in the most favorable light to eppellee, fails to
establish wilful or wanton misconduct on the part of appellant. Ap=
pellee being injured while riding in appellant's automobile as a
~jm
“Se ao oe
ed ot ts® edt to beeqa oft betamites bas tual Log as tot sil
beteta tediwt ef@ .i0d teq ealltm oviteytuews baw ud tows sioowsed
-q8 gniteeupet WMeoer0edote eelleqds tote yd pies eaws fat ton batt
sUlwole arom évitb oF oni tea
*:
on i
.evire 6 bas Lftd s ai stedd thebioos edt to ooala eit? he ede a
gid vlads ot betametts bow ontfLont etd mos hedtote tcatleqas pant,
he
iM Olde wh too” 6m Aowtta baa 16! oft “of BeboEMe 4e0 at je
évat of erssqq8 Motakl(oo ext’ to tosqm eft sam th ly meds eaw i
‘bas eddtd bloidebatw exT ybLoldabmtw ott dare is venir wert
eds to eaols edt ts torbrev Ey 8 Mt bevom waothedes «
-ton aitod ‘Yeonsbive edt ff2 to edofo edt #8 bas oomebive: e'rnry n ;
ae coat tasiLegaa bocwtet ano tioutdeak odd. bin betes wan ,
ati -“ doubnooeta motnew. ona futLtw deiidstes ot belts?’ cotébive™ itt
o¢ rw. oxi toutten! ot ya tevtes ab berte #1200 vedi ‘tame. all
notaen 10: futLiw to a0 ive enp edt ef i. se Witus: ton punstad oat
Stns axedy Jey ecast edt tot dost. To ie bate 3 iT at
guest, without payment therefor, is barred from any action azvainst
appellant for any injuries received because of negligence, and ean
only recover in the event injuries received are received because of
Wilful and wanton misconduct of appellant. Ch. 954, Sec. 43 (b),
Cahili's St. 1933.
The record shows Dr. George B. Callahan, a physician and sur-
geon of the city of Waukegan, attended appellee; that she was severe~
ly cut on and about the face and head; that a great many stitches
were necessary in the treatment of appellee's wounds; that it took
about three and a half hours to administer to appellee following her
injuries; that she was in the hospital for more than a week; thet
the deetor visited her three or four times a day; that she was dis-
abled for about five weeks, and still has some distortion of the lip
due to scar. The doctor's services and the hospital bills practi-
eally equal the amcunt of the judgment. It is unfortunate that such
kind and ecapab'e treatment of an unfortunate person may go unpaid.
But in order to constitute wilful and wanton misconduct, the injury
must have been cither intentionally inflicted or produced by such
grossly careless conduct as to exhibit a wilful disre:ard for the
safety of others, with a full knowledge of the impending danger, and
the failure to exercise ordinary care to prevent it. It is not with-
out extremes recret at the necessity made by the ebove statute, that
this court decides this case. we can but accept the statute as write
ten and the matter therefore becomes a duty which must be performed.
There is no evidenee in the record tending to prove wilful
and wanton misconduct upon the part of appellant. We therefore fim,
as an ultimate fact to be incorporated in the judement, that the
eviderce in this case does not tend to show or demonostrate wilful and
wanton misconduct on the part of appellant, or that appellee sustained
the injuries complained of because of any wilful and wanton misconduct
aL
4
tenians notions yas mort betied al oR, omemyeg + y9, Mt Ee tae
Meo bas .29negt [gen to seusood bev teoet aetwwhat h 3. tnell nyt
a(d) Sd .oe& ,AGe .f0 .tanalloqgs to Youdaoe alm not sew bas x Apt, 4
: ay ith
| -BECL 2 atiihded
ae bas matotaydq 5s ,aadsifso .f og 390 Py Ae anode bireI2e% ed, .
® oaunoed bovisoot eta, beviese aokrui at Fo ais ould asi sevgoe ino
; pie
~oToyes esw ofa tadt jeellegqs Sebmotss , msgodeil to ytio ont * ae
iw
sedotite yas sseta s tadt jhsed bas eoxt esd tuods bss go to
#003 ai ted? ;abowow e ‘eefleaqqs to tnomtsett oat ait yisezooem y
red aniwolfot sefleqys of tod ainiabds of eqwod ‘Lad 6 bas eo tdt |
tedt jxeew s neft etom tot [stiqeod ed? at aw ede tad veotustat
~8'h aew ofe ted? ;yeb 8 eomid wot to semlt ed Setieiv witooh Seif
ail oct to motitotath emoe eat ({hte Ooms ,steew evit tuods eh palde:
, ~ifostg eLlid fetiqeod ols Sas egolyrea 2 motoeh aft ala
q dove tants stsautiotay at t1 J asm Sut, ext To Javoms edt SOOTHE
» biecaus o2 vn foateq st snyd rw Tay M8 10. From g97F © (dagse fae, ci
A Sud
ey: ry
‘Tra at oft ,tovbmooatm motasw bas Lutt tw etup ttanos od mebro a
P dow: yd shpat To bosotftat Yilsaots aetat out Le need, ev ail tam
ae + tot 6 2 1 f
s ty tot Sxssore i futt tw p idtixe of as topbia 9 pa oLesaa, vieeom
bas teanab ar kieornt ont to esbelyonw, figt s Ao by 48 20,fit 0. to » tsa
“Stiy vom at tI tt trove na ot ets Wreath zo, eelotexs ov eu {iet, os
tests otutate evods odd yd obem yt ieasoon ont is tetpet erentxe, 1y9°
; etivw as etriste ed tqe00s turd _ 189 ow (18689 atdy 296 ioeb t1y09 iat
5 exzotteq ed taum dotiiw Yeub 8 aomoood oroteted) tettom, odd, nae
_istitw syerd. og garb aot bt099T ods at sonebive on ak etedT
ant etotestedt el
taellegas to trseq adit soqu ‘asada daniel
ee
odd fedd ,taem but edt at hae Yo od oF tos) of emit ly We
on the part of appellant. The trial court should have directed a
verdict for appellant, in response to appellant's motion made there-
for. On account of this error, the cause is reversed without re-
mandinge
Judgment reversed.
Mi f Y i
; |
= ahs as ‘ ea er a poe tus09 ag me ea!
| a sf 1 cag res tc feng Duy oon 1 ed
agra remaere sion erst
‘ (4) Ob woe £88 om ta nileqas % ant Bot meet fs
7 ae be made/) ape a pr stiess 3 sa -e00 ey arose ce dnoans | ine eed ee
1 awrsyed i aay ati fal raat fag ie bolyata & aon, a@, We oar &
Bes caahin YR, Oger & dads pheod pag ormt, eAt tile a
4eo° at dag. pateyton #2 ve llogga Xe inom teeth Y at a, Spit: 8 OF
Tat aninettot ee Lt ORs OF Test ole tabs, oF puns ALed &, bas #974 |
tad). rteew wm matt anos tot Letiqeat antd ah, a beans
~2' 5 aw outs felt {ye & Gomis *aro% SP gee, RADE
; gid alg to so binptel’ cans sal [ike Mee genmew. RAC a
| attomg eLing fh 39994 ahi Aina pg a A ant o@8, waite
d ners age a asc Fa Ai 34 oF IRHOML, ail &9 | Si iasig ir:
bse Mw 08 qn AN 27 StAtUs wIgM J, ok. Ses Pat,
. et mh ed ston brqouks AIK aw ban ith ts pridvediacsey ° 4
i dows oe baou tena +9, beteltro) Xt pene erat PORae mr
“este 70% am) anne re) Lui be 3 EAA hee. ot BA, fete A RO ee
bas 793 se% pat tba 9 aL oad te opbative nd Atay, 9 SEB aBnee.
titi Fou ah fT ‘tt taeverts ot ihe Pb, 20 same fs a
ear ad evpoe sad va. whew ¥itunep og, oth feanee 4
setae ea aursin ade quae ted BD of, renee et, pee saey
wb orrdhree 96 eeu Cote We nome bdiacgings’ iy
ett Arey, ot Lamas breom ($4 ot 9aneb
Fai Med
\ eee exotet nde stan Sieqen to #89 “ect oun th |
Py cpt tothe tenet, ae Ba Ress aoaat PF }
bre ‘tort by, ores yaxcmab hid sted o22 Axe! Ste hed
bea torneg aokionga, rege, sig sfeebiowa, 2 ty .
1 Shaigsar. ia natn hee ane Wet. Pea “a te
to ' : re ry iy,
| 2 Meer oe ; ¢) ya me ane ae | aks ey Tee Fi
‘ a 7 " ; 7 nat f es 3 a H Lf ’ d Prag ve vD) ae af
: rie : ; 6 Aisa eae Oeioe
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fe 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
ee ingthenyear of our, Lord one) thousandymine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-82) «i537
wv
©
re it Taek: Sekt “a bus font tit fe at Sor =
io qed... mee | ease Wn tet) 5
ngs bund ane - Brod 10 tn eh, x ‘ah ae : |
Ef aoe ce ih
“xii ee le
ere Bor —— |
\ j t
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five,
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.
TUSTUS L. JOHNSON, clerk. © @ S 1A: 64 gt
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAR 22 1985 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
| x
. | vs | 3 £10 STATIS = 10 MART A CA a
‘ i: Vises \. ' ‘ “1 ® i
. . | Mesa erie
at travrdel to Yah. chet odd ‘wabasat to “anatio fa bapa bow a
ovit-yd Add bee berbee dente haagyors: 2in0 dred ‘wo kay ck a ae
sefamtits ty otata eit to tobrdeid ‘Bacped ony tot ica |
pottart girib leer “malo 6 cant ia fe “ta
—— oy. Aepbieus kee eLoomame” soll) ons
waotteut pic accr® ea
‘ont mi betit 32W ‘tet ets
rs ee coe ni ah AAAS ye tig
5 it baa abtow | «WEE
bie a et
a oy as
bes ite UTE)
i. E '
Gen. No. 8906 Agenda No. 27
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
February Term, A. D. 1935
Wm. C. De Wolf,
Appellee,
Appeal from the Circuit Court
VS.
of Boone County
Andrew A. Mulligan, Chairman
of the Boone County Board of
Supervisors, et al,
Appellants.
HUFFMAN=J.
This was a mandamus proceeding brought by appellee as peti-
tioner against the county of Boone, the County Clerk, County Treas-
urer, and members of the Board of Supervisors of said county, seek-
ing to cause the said Board of Supervisors to convene in a special
session and to levy a tax for the purpose of payment to petitioner
of a pension claimed due under the Judges Pension Law, Ch. 57,
Secs. Sl, 32, Cahill's St. 19353. Appellee claimed benefit of said
statute by virtue of having served in the capacity of County Judge
of said county for a period of twenty-four years. He further alleg-
ed that he had reached the age of sixty-five years, and set up that
by virtue of said statute, the county of Boones was thereby obligated
to pay him a pension of {$750 per year. The respondents to said
petition filed a general demurrer thereto, which was overruled.
They then presented their answer to said petition, which the court
denied respondents leave to file and entered an order that said
petition be taken as true against respondents, and directed that
a peremptory writ of mandamus issue in favor of the petitioner
(appellee herein) and against respéndents, directing the members
of the Board of Supervisors of said county to convene within twelve
days and to levy a tax or provide funds for the payment of a pension
to petitioner as prayed; and that the County Clerk should extend
a nokaneq s to t emyec exit rot ebaut ebivorg ‘10 xed a wel ot ‘bas
VA ‘. ; ; ie ERE RAN aca eNO HF
°& .o ebnepA 80e8 .of .med
etontifl to tawod staifeqqaA ent al
tolafei@ huoosek
eéel .2d .A wmteTt yisvideil.
eitoW of .0. mW
,eselloqga
txuod tiverld sdt mort [eeqqa va
femiltad® ,segif{ivoM .A wetbod
to braced ytavod smood eft to
ela to ,e2mwelviequa
Yiavod enoo0d To
-ataelleqga .
SGI
-ltieq es esl{eqas yd tdguord saheebharae BuMBbasm 8 enw ad? aie
-es0x? yinvoD ,dveld ytavod odd ,snood to yiaveo edt tentegs ronoht
-1os8 Vttasos Sise to etoeiviegque to br808 edt to 20 dmom bas mew ay
Latooge 8 at gnevooe of stosiviequya to bascd Brae orit eause ‘ot ak
tenolt iteq of tnemyeq to eeogimg eit 10% xst 2 yet ot bas mo teeee
~"S dO wal colene’ Bogut ont reba evb ‘bomtslo notemeq 8 0
hiea to éLtened bomtslo eelfLeqga 280 8 e' Lied Se 118 weet
i Ae
oxbul yi mi0d to utiesqse edv al bevites oa brad to ext uty vd otutate
tact qu tee bas ,2TBoy ovit-ytxte to eps edt bedoset bau oul sat bo
iat hase i
hstsaildo ydeisdt saw snood Io yiauoo oit stutada bise ‘t0 out aty ‘vd ‘
bise ot etme baogeet eT .us9~y eq O8TG to noteneq 8 wmbdl wea of
“sbeLurrev0 aew do tciw otere st tTexiumsb Istenes 8 belt? nobd tte
tuvoo edt doldw ,foltitec bise ot towens atedt bot neae7q nedd vor
Biase tadt 105 %0 a8 betetne bas offt of eveel et nebaoqaet betaob
taut botoo rth bate etmebsogee tentesss eutt as nosed ed none beg
renolti¥eq out 70 xovs't nt eneei epushasm to thaw yrot quoted a
| etedmem ost aiitoets setnebuéqeet daatags bag (mtoxed eolfeqas)
“ovlees jh abstt tw eriaviio9 ot Vtawoo bee 10 eros tvzequé 10 bus08 atte
Bactxe pleode areLo vemtod | edt tent bas ) ibaa as aot oq op f
ee ; Moon
>
o
egeLLs todtw?t eH .etsey “auot= tt sews to bofted s 10% et sus0e bhee ‘t0 |
Mies
af.
the proper tax to raise the necessary funds and issue warrants to
petitioner upon the Treasurer of ssid county for the pension fund
due.
In a mandamus proveeding such as this, the defendant may
plead or answer, as he elects. Ch. 87, Sec. 2 et seq., Cahill's
St. 1933; People v. Powell, 274 Ill. 222. If the answer traverses
by direct denial any facts alleged in the petition upon which the
claim of the relator is founded, this raises a question of fact,
and such facts charged in the petition and denied by the defendant,
must be proved by the relator. This necessarily requires a hearing
on the merits, and the parties have the right to have the issue of
fact tried by a jury. People v. Czaszewiez, 295 Ill. 11. The
defendants have the legal rizht to answer the petition. If the
petitioner is of the opinion that the defense set up by the answer
is insufficient, he may demur thereto, and the question as to the
sufficiency of the answer is then properly before the court for
the first time. After a general demurrer to the petition for the
writ has been disposed of, the respondent may, at his election,
abide by the demurrer or answer the petition. Hartman v. City of
Chicago, 198 Ill. App. 572.
The respondents claim their answer controverted facts set
forth in the petition upon which the claim of the relator is based.
Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion the coyrt erred
in refusing them the right to file same. Should they not have
filed a sufficient answer in law to the petition, the petitioner
could have raised this by demurrer and the matter would have then
been disposed of in such a manner as to have presented to this court
a definite’ issue of law to decide. If the answer of the respondents
challenges the facts set forth by petitioner upon which he bases
his claim, we know of nd other way the same may be properly deter-
mined than by a hearing on the merits.
-o-
golatge sit to ois ow ,tawoe eldt sioted etaixe biode: et eA
> efit of tdgit odd atasbnoqest gatyaes gk borte tovoo Iatat edt
~iteq egt es isitasm dove ani omee oft aebheanoo of Has .tewane. thodt
»beesotq oF tosole tdylm temokt
hue Deatevext eroteveds ef tives Lala edt to toemgbut oT
edt ditw yimwtooo al esnifbessotg toftat tol bebosmet eaves) atiot
wot ited amt
we ga) xond
-besaetgze aleted awaty
{ Rs »Sebnemes ina beateven / ff Roe ang
; et ant ele |
t i
“e j ; 1 hevorwr ed tem
} hee ,etivest off a)
f
US watnes y whgo i» te polet Fant |
: ” aig f afexudsneteb
5 iy to a2 wey ond Rog
a ; > Aa Vert £ a ee rieeat at
fant '
a¢ eae ett Le teeeke Jee
yaid ti : + ¥ mie teat? ent
gtk i , 2 gull feed vad Rid
. . ; aM “6 7 Sores “42? vd ab gen
OTS GA CET] BAL oat pow kdo
# i Beal oF PIS WOT8NS ost? |
F Bee ( t ty [You £89 rm cat tet
ec! } ‘ ". y emarony watered Aon m . 19 batt
t _ of gaudy on¢ ated? gate a at
Z ae oy 2a OF wel ek Lye & at) ‘atis La AE rm a bolit
: t ai ee vevien wakes boa twn ovasl ‘hiwoo
» etait me 2 of 94% nian aE Oem | to desoguh nang
Rie as ; ere AS hier 27 was bed ouwnd Intin ion r)
Roeed o@ Sele waneiehhec vd at ws? eh ned ston’ eat cance Liane 4
Ma Pe hy
~Setet wl" ei Yer ome ett thw nese a to vom ow etal aid
2 q fe
we auth Ascciex
A US
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
(73815—5M—3-82) 307
tay Yo. tows sa Ba. us bond cd tne isonet t vse ‘pone
ae Arvsaaieitt oto, bral no oo. winr, odds, ‘et =
aa
+ . sa A
f: 7 :
ay et io he teeter B22 88 iA
‘a ; ro rh
eo
a)
vol 7» Le of Se oven, Aina il
eum 2 vee an, ni
(pie om! Ss. ahi ai ly
iv | a>. coon, wee sXe
v?
r CT
owas te vias oni wilt wt fr00 onl bing of % aie i nt 8
aie
to web. cnleeigen
“as Aa ee sna da set tabling
ett
1 eetnertenen ae prea
sia temerity ma i = eh
ts as) yea arc are a
. ‘i re ar © a
( Pat aa Pa
AT A TERM OF THE\ APPELLATE COURT, j=”
j en, gf £
{ ff = #
d a ,
a
Begun and held at Ottawa, on tee cee the fifth dag of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine Murae as ana thirty-five,
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.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff. Pa ¢ Y I SNe 6 A gf
BE If REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAR 99 1935 the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
?S— a.
roe rata, ‘enn 40 Maee A TA
fae wee ee
Sig idly we ssbesul fo “awadse ta Se brut
ale Beisnoareaen Trae faa? ena (htod tio: to tHe
: At a Ags
fetontfit in ofsi2 bat 0 an trtsit: none: ody ta ‘haa F
as ast
eotiset Sclbteers ncow ) tert sro oft
is iz a : ia
, wotteck VOC \A MERMARE ,
es : ienitert 2AMTRUR BWA coe
1, 7 ps : x9 lh HORHIEOT a Te
YOO ALT OVS | shane anand E Boot oe ,
‘ bs : ae i
7 , 1 “Y
: " :
y > ie’ ba : -_- au,
ve. q
nd ‘
PS a ae ef = =
: = # F Gy x, *
t
1
- OF i ns ws
a «
' > ?
a0 :flw-ot ,abrewxedta fad 0%
add at Soft? esw tiy9d ed? a8 poe
Pepe 3. Ms ie Niaser ae Lod Ji
serge aa sbiow, * ak es
Gen. No. 8915 Agenda No. 30
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
February Term, A. D. 1935
City of Wheaton,
Appellee, ;
Appeal from the Circuit Court
ot of Du Page County
Edward Howard,
Appellant.
HUFFMAN-J.
Appellant was convicted in the cirevit court of Du Page county
for violation of that section of the city ordinances of thdcity of
Wheaton, making it unlawful to engage in peddling without a license.
Jury was waived and trial had before the court. The court found the
issues against appellant, and assessed appellee's damages at the
sum or 325. Appéllant prosecutes this appeal from the judgment
against him.
The evidence shows that on May 21, 1935, appellant, together
with fifty or more other people, went from Chicago to Wheaton in the
capacity of “Messenzers of Jehovah." Appellant states that his
occupation is thet of "Jehovah's Witness," and that he is engaged in
no other work or employment. Appellant went from house to house in
the city of Wheaton, with certain printed books which he sought to
pleee"in the hands of the people for a small contribution of twenty-
five cents and five cents." The evidence shows that appellant had
one book for which he required a contribution of twenty-five cents,
and two books for which fe required a contribution of five cents
each. He had not Secured a license to sell these bo@ks in the city
‘of Wheaton. His testimony discloses that he and the other people
went to Wheaton for the purpose of going from house tc house over
the entire city with the books in question; that they all carried the
same books and asked for the seme contribution therefor. Appellant
0S .o adbmesA El@sS .of . med ‘9
atonti£I to tod stalieqqA edt al :
totateld Dnoose |
ecel .d@ .A ,mtef yiewide'l
.sot sedW to ytto
,eelleqqa
twod ¢ieoitd edt mort Laeqgqaé Rs 4
yinwoD east uf To oe
-DiewoH brswhi
te IL eqgéA
-G-VAMT WUE
ytovoo eget ul ‘to tusoo tivetto eft al betotvnoo esw tneileqqA.s. ~
to wtobst to seonsmthto yWio eft to aoltoee stadt to sottslotv tot
-eanooil a tyodtiw yntibbeq at opszae ot [vtwalay ti anidem totsodt
edd babot tivoo sdT .tawoo edd oxoted bat Letat bas boview ebw yxet
-» edt te segemeh e'eoelleqgs hbeereces base ,tnoeileage tentsys seveet it
Tromhut. ont wort Issqqs etdd eetyeoroiq taslfeqqk .&S% to mae
tae min mutt temtege
“wottepot ,taelfoggs ,280L ,L8 yall mo tedt avode eonpbive off 9)
ott ot. noteodW of onsoind mort Trew ,siqoeq unite etom 10 yttlt Atiw ie
aed tat e0eteate taslieqqA ".favedot to, etesneaseM” to tt toeqso
at begague ef of tadd bos ",2eentiW atdevedet” to tedt ef soktsquoso
at eened of oevod mort tnew tasileqqa. staenie Lene. to Atow terdto: on
ot ¢dgvoe ed dotdw exood betutiq aistise diiw ,aotsed¥ to ylo edt
~ytnews to soltudtutace [fame s rot eleooq ext to absed esft. at" esala
bed tosifecqqs tedt eworea eonebive eT "atoms evit bas etaso ovit
| ,afaso evit-yitnewt to oottudiataos s betigpet od doltdw 1% Aood esto
etneo evil to solttudiattnos se bertupes s¥j\dotdw rot adood owsd bas .
ytio edt al-enéod saedt [fee of eenentl s bemoed ton bed oH tose
efqueq, tedto oft dus ed ted’ eozoloelh yaomtteet aft .notsen to |
tevo savon of savod mort aniog to saoqiwwe edt: aot sotsed ot tow i
| ed? Botv1s0 Lis yord tem utottesup mt elood edd ndiw ytlo exttns odt
dl tasllogqa .totetedt doltudiatsoo emea odd tot bores base eslood emee
=Da
states thathe delivered about five books in Wheaton on that day;
that he offered them at a great many residences, going from house to
house; that when he showed the large book, twenty-five cents was
the contribution he required for it, anc five cents was the contri-
bution he required for each of the smaller books.
A police officer of said city saw appellant Goliciting persons
tobuy the books. He asked appellant how much the books were, and
appellant told him that one was twenty-five cents and the others five
cents each. The police officer bought a copy of the twenty-five cent
book which was entitled "Vindication," and a copy of each of the small-
er books entitled, "Where are the Dead", and "Home and Happiness,"
paying appellant therefor the sum of thirty-five cents. Appellant
had other copies of the books with him at this time, and after the
police @fficer purchased his copies, appellant proceeded on his way
to the next house. ‘The officer thereafter watched appellant while
he solicited sales of the books at residences upon three other streets.
The officer then placed appellant under arrest, at a house located
on the corner of Indiana and Chase streets, where he was engaged
in é@gdeavoring to sell the books. <Appellent st the time, was en-
gaged in conversation tith the oceupant, at the door. The occupant
stated to the offiepr in the presence of appellant, that appellant
was trying te sell the books to him.
Appellent makes no assignment of errors relied upon for re-
versal, and sets out no propositions of law and the authorities
relied upon to support them, as required by rule nine of this court.
Appellamt takes the position that he was a member of a missionary
band engaged in preaching the gospel of "Jehovah's Kingdom", in the
capacity of a witness, and the distribution of the books as he was
making same, he considered a "commandment of Jehovah."
While appellant's brief is inadequate under the rules of this
court, to properly present this case for review, yet we have carefully
\\
Ys
\
\
\
-~S«
ryeb Jvedt go aotsed¥ al exlood evit twods botevileb edited? eotstes
o¢ seavod mort gnitceg ,eeoneblées qnem #3eT s ts wodt be tet to efi tent
ssw atneo evit-yimow? ,dood exial edt bevore od nesiw teat peavod
-itainés oft eaw etnoo evylt bas ,tf sot bexalupet od bait tlt tab ‘ort
-ego0od seileme olf to tose sot be tispet ed ree
emoeteq unitttotic® tealleqas wae yilo bise Io szeoftto eollog A
bre ,otow atood oft doum wod tnel{leqqs betas eH .adood sd? weer
We etedio edt bos atnss evit-yiaowsy esw ono todt mins blot tasf{Leqqs
#moo ovit-ytasewt ofd To yYqoo s trisuod teottto eollog eiiT does atnas
-[Lomé edt te dose to yqoo a dns *,nokssotbalv" holétias sew otde wood
“pauemigqas!!) bus smoH” bus ,"bsed eit etd oredW” , bolt Lice -edoed 16
toelleqgA .etseo ovit<ytutdt to mye ont totoaert taelLloqas. sabyaq
9d? getts bus ,omld ata? ta mid dtiw adlood ait toveetqdo teAdto bail
ysw eid so bebeoooty taalleqca yaeiqoo sid boasdowg teolttb sslied
elidw tuaileqgs bedetaw tottseiddt rwoltto eft .eayod txon ant vod
seteotta asdto eeidt soqu eeonebtest ts exlood et to eelee hettoltioe ed
betaso{ saved ste ,teet1s t350y tnalleq¢s boosiq nedd!seottto ofT
Dbeygssne esw en etedw ,atvestta ceadd base sasifal te tons ‘suf ao
-i gow ,omfd oft ts tasifoqqA. ssdood ext Lfes ot gnitovsebab wt
daeqrpoe ofT .t00b sat te ,tuequevo edd dtbe aotteetevnco at begeg
. tasileggqs tant ,Jaalleqqs to eonaes1g oft nt teaektio edt .ot betseta
‘ wr 4 ’ i smin ot azioed oft Lfee oF gaiyat asw
% esititediuys eft Same weal to anotticoqouq on tuo atea Sas gise1sT
:; ", ,dsvoisl te tneabasmmoo" a berebrenoed en’ ‘qomtpa cgebsiem,
| one ‘toveolut oft tobav etgopebsal al “tetud e'tasileq¢s tbat oft
id = er tet sogqu Belfer atoris to tnemagtees cn eovsm tralfeggAcsel>
i .tasso efdd to omnis oiva yd betltupet en imedt t soqqua, ot “noqu belies ay .
ue _««-Vissobkeeta so to tedsem s eev ef tant nottleog sid caotet taekisqqa |
ald at y"mebgatt etdsvodet" to lequoy cit sabiosemgeat: eseyme. aed r
Listed edcas efood ei? to noltudittelb sd? bus: jeeentiws ro-yetesqso
mS oe
reviewed the same and find no error to exist in the judgment of
trial court.
The same is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
the
we
=e ry ‘ Phen
ett fo gheanbut sh5' at sakxe os nome ey eee a
Shoo get Lahing , sepa Ob] Ber * (BME FOV A $m moat WE resrfooni
Ban ime evitytaus? dood °F boasts 2 hasade. a at eoma ost ty
{ ?
eltieeo ot2 #2 pet Sts aren 967 Sebtape’ ad limit abtwt aoe oud
idee wollen att ‘bo tyee tet her stage ad noha
Mette ansitviged 3 redfogte wes 43 be bites To peolt'o option i pu
pas yoriew adtod on dokei ood ComiLogge Selina OR vasiood out yude?
ahs stesso vif bas efaee evil-idew? var ono pays wad Asot tusl Soqggs
tence ovit~vd news o4% ‘yo yore 5 tagved vevltte sotieg ei? .dtind gee
efiown get Yo ster Te Yyou k line “jcotteathall® eddiiew saw Hobdy gogd)
M caine beens daw sieve | nw owt lech otntant grat tee anided +e |
Sed ienga adden thpeytaiet te mus ot sotarinat ites Stogts ceed !
ee ere eT ere eT i ee
youn no tofewto ty Tusifegce yeatqoes cid Senate ‘toons ee,
Siisw tinkifeqed béded ww sptsectsds wend rho (edtNeehae 0
eUdhSTs tdto cect! moqe setcebtnot ta wieud ede te ne Loe bette tbo egal
dotetel enval ate ~leetia toon teed loge hom be todd. reo ste ant
LY Reoweate ser Ot OMe | neta ‘we add | baat ouabeth yd ‘nese eit ae”
ome aut 4 ate eat do taaliisgya - net. on? hme Ob ane wer aati th
Hieguens wit «aati aftae' asgeoe aus eh aditaaarane ek /) hae
eeghiwges sade stant Senye he pees adhe etommite a: asd ot betete: |
res soa ek, Eine ethyl am
Ro A ML butte Ateenie OTS tw ey mo eo iene: Fnkihogyn opal iy
hehe bendium <e bae wal te spetd Pegg: ot 190 etde Say ipeweie
AOC abt Deeks aherniyd erkusped ee «gainer sstiecai: at seca towh La
TadeS kes re omen home a PAN ae khang muti dotet take gg
GAP Gb. Mey Ee heveroE Te Leywag die due meer nt ben ame Junaid
| Ei aw athens ent to conden tuieks nat aedjeoont beta te ghana!
# SP Se eS. AN eral eaiiann et a be na Seema: eh poone gpa.tiet
ap vada Te eo Ler WOT awit sniharnge Bead ‘aS ean. we araais gta. ad Lotti nie }
Seyret ete wt sq i(vedtexy tet meadhemticmnnibahibatinsts
a é oe ‘y re ° 4
P , : , | ‘ me. ial eae) Se be
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
(73815—5M—3-32) «E307
; So ie
>= °
te
=
i
cae Sian Se oe
b=)
“a ~~
satan bolle aes ot ii tea ma
hating ‘ ke ee
lo vab_.
trdss hetenuvgld Te fro x % tot nth
*.
ae
fred alabank wat towel
en ett ee
IN THE |
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS |
Fourth District
October term A.D (9a
r dy caw teal
i a 9
Fevm Mo A3 At g en a
<,
ROSETTA HUNGATE,
hrs Appeal from
Circuit Court,
Franklin County.
(Plaintiff) Appellee,
VS.
WESTCHESTER: FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Honorable
Roy EH. Pearce,
Judge Presiding.
279 1.A.649°
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK,
Re Ci Ca et Tin Ti i Tie te tee
(Defendant) Appellant.
Stone, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court
of Franklin County in favor of Rosetta Hungate, appellee,
plaintiff below, egainst the Westchester Fire Insurance Com-
pany of New York, appellant, defendant below. The ection wes
assumpsit on an insurance policy in which appellant insured
appellee in the amount of 4250.00 on a certain dwelling house
and $250.00 on certain household goods and personal effects.
The policy contained a clause to the effect that the company
should not be liable for any amount greater than three-fourths
of the actual cash value of any item of property described
by the policy at the time of the loss. The jury returned a
verdictin favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $499.00 and
judgment was entered thereon.
Appellent contends that there is no sufficient evidence
to show that notice of loss wes given within six days after
the fire. The evidence showed that two days efter the fire
appellee reported the loss to the local agent, informed him
that the policy had been burnt, received from the agent the
name of the company, wrote to the company "right off", and
that an adjuster from the company appeared within a week,
totztara 1 daxw0t var Nain
hat A.A nyst vedetoO
oN sons gh
aoe mott LseqqA
at ,ttve0 sivotL0 selleqga asta
ay! ys aod aiizvast®
iene
i : ».,YHadMoO ZOwaAUeKI FATT neceanorean
Wick aldstonok
a .90%seT .7 yon ~AHOY Wau .YTIO TAOY
ety -gaibleord 93 0uL
. IE etasiLeqgqa (tasbnstsd)
“ebo A.t evs
esw cottos edT -wolod Snsiteaictatt ‘Wahid LAr01 W9tt Yo
betvant tasif[sqaqs dose af yotfoq sonstueni as aly the
eavod gntifewb alstis9 s ao 00 yess, to tavocs odt al. opto
Re
yasamoo odd ¢ad¢ sostts et of eauslo s bentstnaoo youl
eddivot-csrdt asd totsere. dasome yas tot sidsti od ton |
+5
badixoeeb yi reqozg to meti yas to euisv aso Isutoa
& bentutet yme edt .sa0f oft to omit odt ta worLog
bas 00.9@3% to mya add¢ oi ttLdatsiq edt to. tovat at
ee at eS Oi
-mootedt vane: Baw 191
3.
It is not stated whether this wes a week from the occurrence
of the fire or the writing of the letter. No sufficient ac-
count’ wes given of an attempt to procure the letter and the
sourt properly refused to permit proof of the contents of the
letter, but allowed the appellee to state that she sent a
letter to the company within three days after the fire oc-
curred, The jury might ressonebly have found from the fact
that a letter wes sent and the fact thet an adjuster appeared
in due course, that notice in writing concerning the loss was
given. The court did not err in submitting this issue to
the jury.
It is next contended that the court erred in permitting
tty
the foregoing evidence to be received after the plaintif had
rested her cese. It has long been well settled that this is
a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and that
the discretion will not be interfered with in the absence of
a showing of a clear abuse of this discretion. |
Appellant urges as error the refusel of instructions 3,
3, and 4, which related to fraudulent overstatement of the
value of articles destroyed, fraudulent listing of articles
knowing they were not destroyed, and fraudulent listing of
articles knowing she did not own the same. No evidence was
introduced by the appellant as to the value of property destroyed.
We do not think thet the repetition of the value 98 cents for
several small articles is any evidence of freud. The fact that
the insurance agent did not notice certain articles of furni-
ture in the house at the time the policy vase issued is not
evidence that such articles were fraudulently listed in the
proofs of loss. Appellee is a woman ignorant of the refinements
of property law. The fact that she thought certsin articles
of property were her own “as much as her husband's" and listed
them as her own, when in fact they were common property is not
e¥idence of a fraudulent intent to deceive. Since there wes no
proper evidence of fraud or false swearing the court did not
err in refusing to give the instructions requested,
1 RAVE WG. AURA RNs AUR RS OS
ji } r
wate
ratce -o8 tastotitua of Heres ‘odd ¥6' itt ine
.
hes eit brs tetiel edt Ph aig oF tame tis ia to oil nowt f
i a
a edt to atnotnoo edt “to Yoore thors? ot boeutaa” iteqorq too
jtihieg ) (8 f pary! ode tedt stste ot celleqas edt oswolls tud <totteL
i pen ~90 ati? Sat totts eyeb serdt atdtiw yaaqno’ Bas toe! cover T
tost add mort bause? eved yldsnoscer tdytm yeep edt ‘89REi
botsaqds’ yeesaatbs! fs facts tost sft bas tise leie tottel s tant iy
sae deol ent an tatsonoo gaitinw at soiton tadt ,9atvoo sub nt a
be ; ot supei stdt goadetedss at «19 tom bib ra leat” visors “a if
Sat wae’, Verb setup sas
a) j gattes mreq at betzre dsiroe 98t Sodt bebwetaoo tYon al $t hat ‘
a 8 posit tite tata eat Ph a88ts bevisost 9d of soasbive snfogstot ode
at eid? teadt beftise Iloew moed gaoft ssi tI .9ea0 tod or °
eolotits to aa ks tnefubuart ,{bsyottaeb esrststs aed
tot etned BC “entsav “odd I6: dsarineued vedas pian ar i
todd foatosd? 1
on saw sredéeoater vavisoes ot tata sobbed
SOR ANE toa bbb tines oat gatssews 99 fe? to buat Yo >
bye insdesnped’ enottourtedt adv evisiot
‘ “Faia i int ae PETG a ae: qr I iss me! z
vi
3.
Instruction Number 1 explained to the jury thet it
might take into consideration the plaintiff's interest in the
result of the suit. We think the point wes sufficiently
covered by instructions given by the court.
Appellant urges that there was a variance between the
provisions of the policy declared upon as lost, and the policy
offered to prove the provisions of the lost policy. While
there are some differences in lenguege used, the court does
not find any substantial variance in materiel provisions.
The admission of the testimony of Lewis Harris with ref-
erence to the value cf the building is assigned as error.
The qualificetions of the witness were: experience as @
building contractor for forty years; acquaintance with prop-
erty in the locality; acquaintance with the values of property
in the locality at the time of the loss. The witness made
an estimate of the cost of rebuilding the premises, and de-
ducted fifty per cent for deprecietion. There was no error
in the admission of his testimony.
There was sufficient evidence that the dwelling exceeded
$350.00 in value. There wes sufficient evidence that personal
property destroyed in the dwelling exceeded $375.00 in value.
Three-—fourths of the value of the dwelling would exceed $250.00
and the same is true of the personal property. Fe cannot
say therefore that the verdict of $499.00 was excessive.
Finally it is contended by appellant that remarks of
counsel for appellee were calculated to incite the jury a-
gainst appellant and its counsel. The reference to counsel
for appellant as high powered Chicago lawyers was not proper,
and yet it would not necesecrily influence the result of the
trial. The trial judge who heard the speeches of counsel is
in a better position to judge the effect of the remarks, and
to observe the manner in which they were made, than this
court is. Unless the speeches of counsel sre so clearly a-
busive and violent that they would in all probability affect
basta
| yorlog iy? a ~t2ol 24 ; nogu dexafseh ea hae ok Yo pn Mi
eftam -yotLoq teot ent to anolatvorg . ods voxg, ot b Rete
e905 dx09 edt , beer ogougant at gonnes? tb Puoe ate ores,
Y .ertote tvorg Ig iret em at ote btav Hatingredee ae, dats tom
z Se. 2
none Asin eitish atwad a2 Xmomttes t ett to notgedaba nat,
«torts as bemsiens ef gnibliud edt to sulev edt og,
5 #8 sonstteqxe s9T5w sasatiw edt to eaotsigtthiayp |
-00%q dtiw SOGRIAI SDDS 2BTS9Y xttot tot Sotoetdnoo BaIBLI a
yiteqorq Xo pentav anys atin Sonstatsupos | a iWtisool edt ph wan
| sbsa aoontin edT «gaol pds Yo emtt edt da, Wilsool edt.
9b bas .3%8imong ont ~—aaiblisdor. to. dp.09 pas. to. sanaane
IOITS on asy onedt, ! Moltstoergsb tot ta90 APs, WR
bh be _sWomttest etd To. y PAAR 5.
a =,
“ bebssoxs “amt ttown oAd foad sada tmotostsue. 8 com oma
fenoeteq, todd sonebive. traiot* tue caw. Steet. , -puipy, at. $0.8
' onl ey at, 00.8058 dabssoxe part Aone. add at boronsaph, xtt9q
00.0888 ps9oxs, bivos goiiiowp edt to _ eulsy. odd 9, padre 150 }
NADY: dong 189 98 i sN2t9Go74 Ispostsq, "ty to. suat at nt it
to etzanor todd Suativan +t Mra att ule 0 ee
_78 Xt odd ottont of betatpolso, erox, posfogga, xoX, fo a }
jell ot somststot ont -lopapoo att, bas tnatioags
vuagong, Jom po", az0xvef ons0kMD. Doxovod, fld.2, Sonts
we oo to Hugor, at sonsultah, yfizsogopeg, ton, biuvom
et _fseano9 to, Bedogega odd, brsed ode. epbub- fakmd, 9
bas sAzenpz, of? 20Mperte. ME RAPES OF, ‘Motttaog, 79
se _ -Btit_gadd .sbem. 219%, xsd? doisw. af. 2 SRE, pda
. oy WtseLo, 98, 918 _feeauoo to eadooogs, at, ; a 1
toate, HAE Ht ai. pine, me si a9, 4
4.
the result of the case this court must leave the matter in
the sound discretion of the trial court. In view of the
fact that counsel for the defense stated at the beginning of
the trial that they would prove a conspiracy to set fire to
the dwelling, and in view of the fact that no evidence what-
ever was introduced to support this statement, counsel for
appellee were justified in calling upon counsel for appellant
to explain the making of such an opening statement.
We find no error in the conduct of the trial, and the
judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County will there-
fore be affirmed.
Affirmed,
%
A Ad jrbtialud wi fell
G1 ‘qastam od4 evaet taum tyes Bids geay ape to #1
jy (oat Yo wetv al »PaHeo fait? 1 249\to 9 Pun eke
to gainatyed. ant ts bodade sanoteh Mt. x0 com teat font
ot exit fos of Yostigenos 2 evotg biyow yah ray feta ott
~tada songhive on tacit font edt, to woty, af ‘bas awetiage of ods
pe. feeauod vtrowotate eidt Poggue,. ot eouhogtat 35 Ae
tint isane sot Loganoo noay ME HIA9 at. Rev Uout ome, i notteqas Mh
he stnougdete aniasgo as dove to Fees *Af CARLO
ont Sas fait edt To toubaoo joat eh ah 06 ei 7"
sexedt fite vtax00 AaLAnsyy 39 eHo® ttogtt0 1,949 Se. taqroiut ih
sKATTe. OC Doeherayad weorred dae hay onthe ca, |
x
a
nS she
Soh 2°US) teres Pages eoine iw ai ts wee SR ar he | : ny
i? Lh wetecet soft PLM ue
ier goog hew ont REGS Wht Aa: See 8 LOK “i | Ph,
a ‘ia (vet eon , A? See hi titeoe Po {whine any te nea Pe
ten OY kod ORT. sv pik ata ROM uty Las shpat Hey Dar! 7 a
‘y ss idee nos. Th: peer ge
Gehasies wi anh il bots sagen hg tao Aad np bey Magic i,t
Eigen se rave ‘atiebh evs) dnarhod* tue ay ont Brdehy ne ies :
het ee ad ~~ Lae Lahshei ae grt d few Oy mets a newonpean 9a 7
‘) CSSH Soeveny . tleryen weed i tant ath te. awe ‘e od, 4. arb suetensamty
havin 4 ‘ ae an jane ty, uge., oA on St
OR ou I Be i" Ley, toner #8, + ut, stage, BR
Ye @ineovx ati tine i Lenn Ce bapagtars ab, tt VEEN pac We
en aur’ mit ob boa) at a Pix senda. eray. as iB mS a
; siesael hie | girs Pes nit code peo, ant ting ae
fs,
te vj & ’,
na eas pete,
ME. THO Rom, eae wie OY y anes 8. Path TOR. BER, « £9, Foalieggang@n, t
ga no “pia + e, RoE OP 20 ej ene 08, A26 :
ag Jopgives, oF Mopawe ad, bataed ace, gubih Lange: of lehid
| baw, yatawieeg, ga 26 Mon y2o, 27, anbbit ing ape hom, aie : ;
ee ly belie ihe aint chan Hy lee ok nt L tepid oft pins :
ne toto, op. 930, Aopen nl MAAR emai
tig Voki act Ay actin OL lt Bis om ule if tat tenths OO
i ‘ i Ray ree
UE Te MD Bln Ee Maly aaa ee er iy yi P:
ta: | (Ny y
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT f, ii
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
79 I.A. 649
Fourth District
tol tT. ty A.D 143%
Texm Mo 2 ean vere Ao enda.Wo Ab
©
SHELDON R. GILBERT and
Appeal From The
Circuit Court of
Franklin County
EUNICE R. GILBURT,
Appellants - Defendants,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER BUILDING AND
Honorable
Roy &. Pearce,
Judge Presiding.
LOAN ASSOCIATION,
Tet a a il ne ee i Ne Ce et Thee te oe”
Appellee= Complainant.
STONE, J.
The Christopher Building and Loan Association, appellee
herein, complainant below, brought its bill in the Circuit
Court of Franklin County against Sheidon R. Gilbert and Eunice
R. Gilbert, his wife, appellants herein, defendants below, to
foreclose a certain mortgage executed by the appellants to
the appellee. Appellants received $2,500.00 from appellee,
and 25 shares of stock in appellee's building and loan asso-
Ciation. Appellants executed a note to appellee by which
they agreed to pay appellee monthly the sum of $12.50 dues
on the said stock, and a further sum of $12.50 interest on
the said loan, end a further sum of $12.50 premium on the
loan, until the loan should be liquidated under the by-laws
of appellee corporation by the said shares of stock having
reached their par value. Appellants also agreed to pay such
fines and penalties as should accrue by fsilure to pay the
said monthly sums as they came due.
i” on isin.»
soieteta Witv0t aad te. ae -
YE sh A ied nied vind iow, wane 2
4 . ~~ hare Ge Ai \
a? wort . | | baa ine aim :
S. mo SSqga tet a .
to trr100 iret : z , | BROAD 2 sOTMUa ih
vtauod aitaet ISL RTS ONY fe soit, ai aie
Aa atisonstsa 2 adnstraggad” pay sb,
-togge ts adn:
Gua ourartla dand
ne
eldstenoH (
~2otsst .2 yor
ebay’ i rit Ok.
. tasot atquod = eifsqqa
eur CR ro ANy
+ ,woled atnsbnroteh nteted etaslisaqa ,etir eid jue
os stnosifsqqs edit yd betuoexe egeydtom atsttso
,2oifscqs mort 00.006,8% bevisost SEN
a.
The mortgage which appellee sought to foreclose was
given to secure the above note. On March 17, 1933, appellants
having permitted the obligations to become 30 months in
arrears, the board of directors of the appellee association
adopted a resolution to forfeit the stock and to foreclose
the mortgage,
The ansver to the bill required strict proof that
appellee was organized and doing business under the Building
and Loan Act of Illinois, denied that the loan was made in
conformance with the statute andthe by-laws of appellee, and
averred that the interest and premiums contracted for ex-
ceeded 7% per annum and equalled 12% per annum, thet the said
interest and premium did not eccrue to appellee pursuent to
the stetute, in that appellee had not by its by-laws dis-
pensed with the offering of its money for bids in open meet-
ing, and in that the supposed premium was uncertain and in-
definite being payable for an indefinite time, in consequence
of both of which facts the premium was but a shift and de-
vice on the part of appellee to exact interest in excess of
the legal rate of 7% per annum, and therefore was usurious.
The answer avers that $2,520.00 was paid by appellants and
asks that the interest be declared usurious, the principal
debt be declared satisfied, and the bill dismissed for want of
equity. |
The court below found the balance remaining on the in-
debtedness to be $2,358.50 and decreed a foreclosure of the
mortgage,
It is first contended by appellants that the evidence in
the case is not sufficient to support the allegations that
the complainant was organized and transacting business under
the provisions of the Building and Loan Act of Illinois.
The proof shows that the appellee association was issued a
charter, that it had officers, that it had a board of direc-
tors, that the Board of Directors met regularly and made loans,
pom ‘seo fostot of 9008 é bis
t atasiieqas « eel wv dotaM 90 .$t00 ‘Svods ont
te ae ad crane o€ snooad ot ‘dee feayr Re “ert? Bay
iM SAL! :
mottst o0aes set ioqae ed? te, atotoe1th to btsod oft .2
¢
92 tah are ot Sms. cite add. Sistroy ot Ao ttufoast
«, f» ] & : Ae eae
tadd toot: toltis Sesitivost fitd ode oF, 109808 AT, op Rh |
eke ae
* gatbs fog ont tebou sasoieud gated bas ably 3 Baw selteaan WN):
Nr diem eae wel edt tad betas atone £11 to toa pie ;
brs ,eetlsqqe To ewal-yd sect bas stutats ont sat sonaato?
-k9 tot bstosittaos smutmeitg bas taetedal | oi ad, bane
biee odd tadt tune T9q RSL beilespe bas a 2 Fy a 3Y Dai my
: eked
rise ot nieve tud eelloags ot euTOOs toa pth me paler! bas teers
Go) ta oe
-sib awsl-yd ati wi tou bad csffegas dade al satutte a
-toom meqo at abid Tot yeaom att to sn tratto id roe
-at bas ntstreonu asw mus Ear Tq bssoqque ods, tot mone
sonervpseuoo at ,omt? etiattebat as tot o1dsvaq -anded stia ¥
~9b bas tide o ted ssw mutmerg edt etoat Hots Padiatr
Yo -gacoxe at tastagat Joaxe at Piteces 33 to BEA ae
rv
-eyotivey agw etoTstodt Das mans 19g, RY 20.8 ai thol
‘
_ bas etnslloqgs yd bteg eas 00,082, 88 sade, atsy vs, 918 ies @.:
, Henin es oat sauod Tey, betsfosb 38, teoraat add tor te B
to tags, x0% benetmaste L624 ods Sem ane ag botetgs
FOR Ty. fey
1 oo . Pico ea eye rey Sr e®
nat 6g, a0 patatonos povetas 3df.. ris roles “te
Yeah , « " eps Wiad Soe
36
that it kept books and records, that it did a building
and loan business for 28 years, and thet appellants were
stockholders end dealt with it as a corporation. The proof
was at least sufficient to establish a de facto corporate
existence, and its de jure existence can not be questioned
collaterally in the foreclosure proceeding. FRANKLIN COUNTY
BUILDING ASSOCIATION v. BLOOD, 255 I11l. App. 175. This con-
tention is without merit.
It is next urged by appellants thet the evidence is
insufficient to show the adoption of a by-law dispensing with
the requirement that loans shall be offered for bids in open
meeting and giving the board of directors the power to fix
a rate of interest and premium. The evidence offered was
a printed pamphiet containing by-laws including one dispens-
ing with bids for loans, and the statement of the president
of the association, Harry Stotlar, that "The Board of Direc-
tors went over them and prepared them and got ther ready to
be adopted and approved by the stockholders." It is also
stated that they were submitted to the stockholders. There
is no evidence whatsoever that any action was taken on the
by-laws by the stockholders. The copy of the by-laws was
therefore erroneously admitted in evidence over the objection
of the appellant. This falls clearly within the principle
of the case of COBE v. GUYER, 237 Ill. 568, where it was held
that the record must show what action was taken on the by-
law by the stockholders. In order to justify loans made at
@ rate of interest and premium fixed by the bosrd of direc-
tors,it is absolutely essential that the association bring
itself within the terms of the law. The failure to do so
would make the loan usurious. ANNA LOAN AND IMPROVEMENT
ASS'N. v. DORRIS, 342 I11. 567. As the improper admission
of this evidence would require the case to be remanded, and
as the appellants present another issue which would be con-
trolling if decided in their favor, we must consider it.
Appellants contend that the premium for the loan in
(Nd ee | ee
wa tas bud a bab ti todd _gepteoes bits a
a ating Pa
Stow atasileqqs dastd bas ,atasy 8s tot meng: d me
ee © SQodie war ten aw “i A
tootc ont -noltst0q709 & 8S ‘th iia! £996 bas wesieiante,
wKintoe webved
steteq tes otoat sb 8 detidsdss ‘ot tus tol we tens! ts saw
+S id eee
beaolttesvo ad erg 1160 goastetxe owt Sb of bas ,s00eteixs
ie eenghs ,
YTHUOD MIIIMAAT " garbacoess stolosto? on? nt ‘Winrstaltoo A
; ; Yow Ce
-moo eifT avs gk -£1T ees .J0018 «Vv worTATOOeeA ourlgurua ,
i 4A m4 Te: ¥9) ‘
#1290 suodt tw ut nottast fA
va “eee 2 ST BS ype |
el sadebive edt tact stasiieage xd beaty ‘txon at ti iy
Som: Re Baw.
atin yo teceqetb wal-nd 8 to aottqohs: ont worla af tastotttweat val
ty ty eo roeyORMBO
msqo af ebtd ge poretio ed Ifede saael tet taomet tupex edt
he 9 se 1a We by ih Me at}
xit of 19 70q ‘ond etodoorib ‘to Draed ‘odd satvig drs gaitoom i
; wus en agbaed ee
asw bots }to sonsbivs ait mus boro bra fastezat to pinot ‘ae shyt
CyDe is PON SERS et
~2n3qaib 20 gatburont ansi-vd gatatst 200 Yo Lequaq potnten. yy mY
, ae ih APS, ee ae sy
tusbiserq edd? to tasmetate ont hie .easol tot ebid dtia Bay a
fae ts vai
~05Tid to bisod sat" sadd .taltote vets moh saloaues edt to.
iY % Nak tho, £, oe
ot Loria wedt tox bas wodd boraqezg bas ‘merit xove ¢abe. de
fe stow gH hed SR beh. t
oals at er * atsbLorioote ond vd beverqaa bos iy ot get od
et giv gat ee plone
sted? " .etsbLonJoote odd of bes9 tmdus etow yert ted ‘betsts
sa Yo ¢9ag eh Ma oly,
ott To nesat aa" mottos ‘yas feat reveoat arin son ripe “i
Bh tet gee 4 AMO E) a
enw awsl— vd ot to ‘hae odt “eroblodtoote ons yd si-yd
ANE ey owe Lite Oa
nottoe{do edt tevo sonsbive ‘nt ose tabs ‘Usuossorts ototstedt
room BP ie a fie Dee
efatontza ant atid dw utes .o alls? ondt staf Teqqs ont od it
ae PD} “ae 5a: ao Bi \
bled sew $f ersdw .888 {II VES “sYO v Bg00 to 9a80 edt if
rb loge
-yd one no asdad aay noltos tady wotla foun proost oid saad
ta eben ensol witout ‘ot 19bt0 ar “sarobfotttoote oie: w nsf
i! ORE a RE: hab R
“oetth to breed edd xd boxtt aitdotd ‘baa Pascebad’ pp tivt
‘no teeimbs ‘reqotamt ‘edt ‘aa 788 tit eae habe)
aes
a " bebasnos od of ‘80 edi stiuper ‘erpow: ‘sont
sei
“A109 od ‘biyow dob ‘eueat ‘rerdtons Linge
4.
this case is uncertain in thet it is payable for an in-
definite number of months, that is, until the time when the
stock matures, which time is umcertain, and thet the law re-
quires the premium to be certain. It is not contended that
the premium must be a lump sum, but simply thet it must be
capable of ascertainment at the time the loan is made, that
is, that it must be either a lump sum or a fixed number of
definite installments. Appellee contends that premium
may be contracted for in the same manner thet interest is
contracted for, to run at a certain rate until the loan is
paid.
That portion of Section 19 of the “Act in Relation to
Mutual Building, Loan and Homestead Associations", (Section
393, Chap. 32, Cahill's Illinois Revised Statutes, 1933),
which applies to the method of charging interest and premium
is as follows:
"fhe board of directors shall hold such
stated meetings not less frequently than once a
month, as may be provided by the by-laws. At
which meeting the money in the treasury shall be
offered for loan in open meeting, and the share-
holders who shall bid the highest premium for the
preference or priority of loan, shall be entitled
to receive a loan of one hundred dollars (#100.00)
for each share of stock held by said shareholders;
the said premiums bid may be deducted from the loan
in one amount, or may be paid in such proportionate
amounts or installments and at such times during
the existence of the shares of stock borrowed upon
as may be designated by the by-laws of the respective
associations; provided: that any such association may,
by its by-laws, dispense with the offering of its
money for bids in open meeting, and in lieu thereof
loan its money at @ rate of interest or interest
and premium, to be fixed by the directors, decid-
ing the preference or priority of the right to a
loan by the priority of the approved epplication
therefor of its shareholders; *****,"
Section 23 of the same Act provides thet no interest,
premiums, fines, or interest on premiums accruing to the
corporation “in accordance with the provisions of this Act"
shall be deemed usurious. This refers us back to Section 19
above to determine what premiums are assessed in accordance
with the Act.
The statute provides two methods for making loans. One
requires the taking of bids for loans. The second permits
SAG | ve
i -91 wei sdt godt bas vatatiobaal ‘af yay La ew
ef se eteslonweora
‘ sed? bebnotaoo ton ef FI .abstT00, ed oe mus imety odd eotiun
site Lyi ae 2
90 taum ti taft ylomta tod ma anit s od teum ms twetq edt
ue a mm. x cH .«
gad? .ebsm et asel oft amit ont ta tnsmntedtees ‘to oideuah
to rsdn baxtt 2 10 me quut 8 asdtie ad aun #t “anil fet
Hah S eet
fi myinseng tent shastace ssi isaga vetasmilstent etiniteb
ie ) he eh Cede.
et daetotal ted¢ teaasw oma odt mt ‘to? betosttaca od a i
eft asol sdt Lises etet ntattso a fs aur of tot. bevostin00
a 7 > faalot avens..
ee
fei et ARR oy
ot nottafes ai OA" edt to @f aottos? ‘Yo 01409 sas iy
mottos ) “anottstooaca. bastaemoR bas. mod ‘aatbtiod ieusam
: ‘td ote% i
(Seer eotutat2 bee ivet stout itt e'{itdad 88 jaan ae ree if
ye
wel as
mist mate bes tesretai aaiszode to basen adt of wnbicas
wid ewoLlot a
3 ; Theepiris y ri tS ee ana
dowe hbilod [fede erotostih to bisod edt’ a
8 eono asdd ylinesypert seel ton agnttqem betatencos
tA .ewsl-yd edt yd babivotq sd yem as ,f¢nom i
9d [{sde yisesots sedi at yoaom.odd galt sc do tdn a8, bibs. cs
-sisie edt bas ,gattsem asqo at asol tot besstto sit
sdt tok muimneiq.dasdgid.ods oid Lfade .edw abbdes
beltitas sd [fade ,asol te ystroitq 10 at
(00 ,00i$) arsilob. botband .sn0.to as0l-s gg hehe a eke
ratsblodsteda bkse yd bfed doota To siede dog he
asol edt sezt betosbsh od you hid empimetgq, piaw eahinyd, as}
stsnotttogota dove af bisq sd yam to ,tavoms eno nt .
gaits soutt dove ta bas etasml isteat 20 cadausoma 5
mnogu bswertod foots to eetade edd to sonstaixe oft
svitosqest est to emaf-vd adit Md betengiash ed yam set a XO)
,you seltaioores dove yas tad? : janoltslooe
att to gutrehto dt dtiw oe esmal=yd-ati yds do,
toorsdt uetl at bas ,3ynttesm asgo at ebid tot yenom /
_ teaetotai to tasistak to stet sota, yonom até agoL o)
-biosh ,eatofostib edt yd bexit sd ot PF very bas
8 of tdgtt edt to ytttotag 19, eoa9ts storg: ona s wal.
fo ftac tiqge bsvotqas sdt to ytittolsa |d 7.)
4 40084 vatoblodetsde att to eqhocadt + a ee
<testetat oa dad? sesbivetg toA .emee st, ‘to ons we
5.
the board of directors to loan money at a fixed rate of
interest and premium. Does the statute require the premium
in the latter case to be ascertainable when the loan is made?
After dispensing with bids for loans, the association
may “loan its money at a rete of interest, or interest and
premium, to be fixed by the board of directors". The word
"rete" in the portion of the statute sbove quoted is used in
connection with both the words interest and premium, and it
is a fair inference that it means the same thing as applied
to both. It may be contended that the result of an inter-
pretation which would permit the charge of a premium to run
indefinitely would be to make “premium" and “interest” the
same thing. In practical effect this is of course true.
However, the legislature may have used the word premium here
simply to make clear the fact that a charge in addition to
ordinary interest was to be permitted to mutual building
associations, as well where the terms of the loan were to be
fixed by the board of directors as where bids for loans were
to be taken in open mecting. An additional reason for be-
lieving that the legislature intended to permit the premium
charge to be indefinite where the terms were fixed by the
board of directors is that in defining the second method of
lending money the word “installment” is not used, and the
deduction of a lump sum is not specifically authorized. Only
the word "rate" is used in connection with the description
of the premium.
Appellants cite no authority interpreting the Illinois
statute, which requires the premium, when fixed by the board
of directors, to be a definite or ascertainable sum. While,
on the other hand there appesre to be no authority specifically
approving such e charge, such charge has, by inference, been
approved by the Suoreme Court of Illinois in a number of cases.
In CANTWELL v. WELCH, 187 I11. 875, the court affirmed
a decree of foreclosure where the borrower agreed to pay 6%
per annum interest, and 7% per annum premium. In HOME BUILDING
4
<
‘ ’ ‘ +. 4 , i AL. Ls Win .
Kh : rae Pa ye Kh einpe. GF MD oe +
Laks . A i ah
ea Yo cr bextt a, ts von ‘aaot : toi od odt
rc Gyr % + Big ie ie & Me ;
Wak nskastg ads ontupor stutote outs ‘e00d ‘ .m mutes Vr
i ban febam ef asol efi modw oidantsdasoes ato? 2m, at
ioe nottetoores ott yeasol tot ‘ebte athe Pareneget ee
aN: has teonsdat To, fagryont 20 nex 8 ts Aa om 9d -mso. Xam
| iy biOw ost “etotost tb to ht90d wat Ww bextt ppegy meq “
he at bees ef bedoup avods etustate odg to fo te toc ane.. ag Meter"
bs ti bas ,msimet¢ bas. seotstas abtow uit dited : Attn sattgninte
‘ : betiqga’ am gnidd smear’ dt ancem ry tad mee totieh a
7 -retat as to ¢ioner et edt bebast soo, ed yam tl.
ae nut of mutmetq 8 to egreds oft, tare avo dosti awe
: edt "teoretat® brs “na tare tq" oven of 9d, biuom xtot en
ef sOuTS OP tOD to at etdd torte’ Isqttogra, Ais, ey a
oo ered murimetq Stow eds baaw ved ‘xan, stutelatest Mahe
ed ‘ot nolsibba of sgtado 5 tad? sos? edt T9109.
Bf : a Btn
a gatbliud feastomm ot bett turreq od. ot gay, de ve Nts
as aE oa a
ae od of otew ‘sol ‘sit To amredt edt sro MAAC
“ ‘ etow ansol tot avid Stedw Es’ orators 20 :
hit 4 ad ‘tot Onset Lemons Y0b ‘AA | gtttite
bi ' » A aay Se Pwr
Oy! uke ait there ‘Ot. bonding Suite te tae om and
ae | is
,:
ode xd box tt ore siete ott onsite s stint iden Ae wid
“te bod sa baooee nf ‘antares at tnd excita rts ‘ ]
ede Des Ssex ‘vor’ wf c teeoetcateee wen #3 ae ret
2
-*
PO Ti
>.
7
eS ee
é
pie rere
ul .
N.
PEM okt ae A da ‘sh
v9, Ye Cade he: wa
“a etontifl st i areata rere a on stto- s . .
ean pusod Sido yd boktt asitw iwtmdey BiF oStbupee’ sotite
oLEd® “lmoe’ Sidentettedas’ x0 et fn ttss’ 's Sad oP (brotet
sania ial Witortis ot ad’ ot earsegts” bedithest ed,
en alu Pe
.29980 Yo “tedmsa 8 mf “aronfITT te Fxsrod wea st Ye
en
‘need ,9onerstar yt gait egtsdo Hose’,
6.
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. McKAY, 217 I11. 551, 557, the loan
made bore interest at 7% per annum and premium at 7/24 of
1% per month. The court said:
"Tf the loan to the McKays was made in pur-
suance of these vrovisions (the by-laws) it is
not to be deemed usurious, though the interest and
premium contracted to be paid therefore exceed the
Maximum rate of interest specified to be exacted by
the general interest lawsof the State."
The court held that foreclosure should be granted. In
COLLINS v. COBE, 202 Ill. 469, foreclosure was granted and
the defense of usury was overruled where the agreement was
to pay interest at 5% per annum and premium at 5% per annum.
In view of the fact that the Suvreme Court of Illinois
has approved foreclosures where the premium charge has been
like that in this case, and in view of the fact that there
is no public policy in this state condemning extraordinarily
high interest charges when fixed in accordance with the law,
we would not be justified in holding the loan usurious be-
cause of the indefinite premium.
However, in view of the fact that the legislature has
permitted such charges to be made in the case of mutual
building and loan associations only,and in view of the fact
that the charges in this case are exceptionally large, this court
must require the strictest proof that the association has
brought itself within the letter of the Act. For the reason
previously stated with respect to the adoption of the by-law
dispensing with bids in open meeting, the decree of the
Cireuit Court of Franklin County will be reversed and the
cause remanded,
Reversed and Remanded, a
IK To be Aweuodeol on peel
- Pt ¢ ey
yee msof eff ,TS¢ £23 £50 8 «YAtoM oa ‘
| ' * } Ret ™ ’ hee
to SS\v t8 utente bas sao eng ar ta fecrsdat 1 ard sag
ey “t1009 od i hele oe
4 Ar
4
-~tud aft ebsaw sew “sys tou edt ot asol sai t+ Shee:
ai ti (ewal-vd edt) anotaivotq 6esd% to sonaue —
has festetat ait dgvodd ,avofivay bemesb sd oF tog, - sy
iy _ add Desens stotersdt blag ed of bedogtindo mutheta 0
¥ hotosxe 9d of beit tose teotetat to sist oe bana
" * etst8 adt Tosasl tastetnt isténs3 a
Al ibstasts 6. bivods steaofseto? fads atad ¢t09 dt’ ** if
bné ‘betnst2 gaz bande tadio’ , 28s ttt gos 1800 sean Me
gaw themsotge adt stodw. osfartrevo: aaw vtiiad “to ‘sedstsb ‘etd "
mona Itsq ne te muimetd bas mounds a3¢ niet ts ‘Yeotsint nila ail
%. fTu09 arnt aeat itedo tageors ‘ota seioo etde ai een Gurr,
ae eal noltetodees ont | pai aon: festa tiee est senate toot
or to ‘aetoeb ade settee ‘eae, é esbiie a deisel
‘edt bas baatenge: od ELiv weav0d, aathanet to i000 $B EO
tr “eb tom haed ti ee Fa 2 paella: ‘seuso,
ik il | -dobansoht ‘bain, peeeea 0%
te orale oad 46
Ce
Bh he nay i
a a
ROU Ny
¥ AMS ab
———
Hite
at
sii en
ion
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11