Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats



1-^ ' 1 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 


FEB 9 ^61 

3909 5 


OSMTIUL iLLli^OlS Ciji.Pi\i.Y, a 1 / 

Co-poration. JAx^OSS R. BUCK., W. SCOTT, j / 




Corporation, ) . 

.pp..i,e. * 08 8 I. A. 615^ 

Deoeml)er 31, 1935, olaintilTa i"iled a coiuplaint cunsisting 
of two counts; the first count con .allied paragraphs nuiril^ered 1 to 
11; the second paragraphs numbered 12 to 17. In both counts plain- 
tifl'. Central Illinoia Company, asjced judgment in the suia of 
^100,000, witn interest I'rom July 1, 19^2, and tue other plaintiffs 
deraanded judgment for |68,700, also with interest. The basis of 
the 3uit was an alleged liability on trie part of defendant to pay 
certain gold notes of a corporation Itnoisn as the jI.P.^"". Stores, 
Inc. Defendant moved to etriJie count 1, alleging it failed to state 
a cause of action, and because Exhibit C, attached to tne complaint, 
on -wriich liability was based, did not; disclose a proxuiae on tiie part 
of defendant to oay the notes, but on the contrary v/as neg:i-^ive to 
any such procdse. The second count cnarged the liability of defend- 
ant upon the theory that the relationship between the i.P.t, Stores, 
Inc., and defendant was such tiiat the H.P.W, atores, I^.c, , became a 
mere adjunct instrumentality of defeudarit corporation, and that the 
fiction of the corporate entity of the subordinate corporation 
Siaould be disregarded, Defejndant rfioved to strike ti^ie count also 
because it failed to state that during any of the tijijts complained 
of the H.P.W, Stores, Inc., had assets ix. excess of its liability 
to its bafik and merehaiidise creditors, and therefore in viev; of 
express provision of the uold fcotes (a copy of whicn was at t chad 

■■■' I - 

( B ^rvUSXi>0 aiOAlSdl JARTUSD 


g X ^ *A«i o c>^ 

TxaiiOTAifi s:oii'eui. sviiaic.£h:«i jm 

-iii^.Xii sJ?nt/ot) xld-ou al ,VX ocf J">X bi)'ie>d;'Mjn eiig-i-^i-^jieq l)«oo»8 Sf?;r ;iX 
'io uUjs aiij iti c^iiswAi£)jj{, t©2i8Xi . ,\;ii»:iOi,40Li aXoAillXl Xci^fneO «'i'ii:;J 

^jsq oJ" ?'lfe^SP.^?i> /io ;^T:Bq Siitf no ^[i^xXifijsi;! txauaillR oh b.©w J-iifs sri* 
*»:^>ij-a o;t iisXia't il i^m'g&lla ,X Jtujoo 92tX"ii:d^e oi fcsvmg *£«*^fls'ia<I .onX 
J-xsq 9ii;i «o eeiuiotiq £■ f>soXvsXv> son i>ii) , fci98>scf e^w x^xll<isiiL rioix."' no 

9JS* ir»ii'7 bii.6 ^aoii'e-ioc.'aoo ditsfoors'tsfc 'to ^.ti:X.f-ji-M£ut;i**iai ^sjtfixJ.'&bfi st^JiS 

aoXJ'JSi'Xoqioo 9;Ja;jnibiodoi aiii^. "to V-^^-"® si/Jioq'too oiij- "Xo itoi.ta>i't 

eaXs .tiujoo aiiiJ 3ix-:i;^a o4 Jbavom d-nafcoa'i^tt «&i?i?'3;.i»S®iaiJb »cf i>Xi0i-t8 

fodiix.aqiJJOa aoiflxi ©lii' to xhjb a«i'SJ^fc *«^ •*^'^^® "^* fe«?ixjij't *i -siaijfioocf 

^^^iXxQ'jBix zitl 'to aas)ox9 ax aJ©««J3 Ae^l , .onl ^ee-x^nd-a .ar.^.ii 9x1* 'to 

•to ^fsiv Hi «»'xo't3isii* 6n© ,MoJll>«io .•«xi>xiaxIoi»ai hrtB :tticcf BcTi o# 

i,«iio.:i;^jB saw lioiriw -to x<loo ^) as^^o^i DIoD exi^ "to ml^.ivotci E8s-xqx«> 


as lS:riiibit A) the said notes were subordinate to such taxik and 
merchandiae creditors, and taere was no avemiexit tnat plaintil'fB 
lost by reason ol' anytu-ing done or oiflitted by deTendant in and 
about the operation oi' the Stores, i'he motion also avorred that 
paragraphs 12 to 16 oi' count 2 were va^,ue and indel'ii^ite and did 
not state i'urtaer facts with any decree ol' particularity, vhlch 
would require defendant to ariswer the averments tnerein contained. 
Three exhibits were attached to the coicplaint: Esdiibit A showing 
the foru- of one of the i'ive Year 6f' uold Jt^otes; Exiiibit B which 
was an agreement entered into by defendant and plaintiffs' orede- 
ceseors in title on ITebruary 2o, 1929; Exiiibit C, which was a 
letter dated J^'ebruary 15, 1S29, written by the president of the de- 
fendant corooration on that date and addressed to Jajnes G»Alexander, 
the then representative of the plaintiffs, and Exhibit D, bf^ing nxi 
agreement in writing sntered into by the parties on December 51, 
1929. The motions w^re sustained, Plairitiffs electcl to stand uoon 
their coxaplaint, and judy^ent for coats in favor of defendatit and 
against plaintiffs was entered, to reverse which the plaintiffs ap- 
peal. The question for deterxaination is whether the c.?antB or 
any one of theci state a cause of action. 

The first count alle^^es that olaintiffs or t '.eir predecessorE 
in title, on February 20, 1929, owned and held certain Five Year 
Gold Botes of the H,P,W. Stores, Ins, , to tue total amount of 
$131,364,30, certain conmion shares of the stock of the s-iJae cor.-.ora» 
tion, and certain options for the purchase of additional i^^iires; 
that on that date the owners entered into the agreement (attached 
and described as Sxhibit B) >?hereby defendant agreed to lend to tiie 
H,P,W, Stores, Inc., s^l25,0G0 in cash, and the o^jmers agreed to 
assign to defendarit all their shares of stock ii. the oorooration, 
cancelled ttieir options for tne purchase of other stoclc held by 
them respectively, and exnressly waived the pa3n:ert of any intcfreat 


foi.v. buB oiii\s'ts>biix baa 9u%Mr fl-iow S Jreuoo 'io 61 o^ S-X Biiq.Biigsi&q 
~«i|>9icf 'a'tlii^nisXqr baa *ti«fca^"l»jb \;rf ocfiii bBtsieio ia93i99t'^js aa aavf 

htm ^cmbnfy'i'^h 'to ior,ft'i ai a.teoo -tot ;tH9ffl^.&et Jliija ^^aiaXf^o© .gtJts-.xliJ' 

~i,« st'iiS-iiUIfi ^at xtsMw ©s-icsJT©^ o# ,f>»"ia*a0 ajfm e'i'iijaiaXcf #8nij8aja 

•TO a^nt'oo 9xi:i- 'i^.i-i^ftffw ai: in&i.tBnsan®iSfh to"* aeljfa&iifo sxl'T ,X«©q 

s-ioaaaoabsio" ■srisr^a' 'so BYiiJ'nijBXa ^^ui* esigaXXfi Nacres ^Brti'i arff 

'to fii?JoaiB, Xeda* axi* o* , .anl ,a9-io;J-a .t'.^.ii ftjSf^ 'iO astoK IjXoS 

-«te'-T-xco aa^iv; srti tc jloo^asri* Io e©-z^xia Hoiacico ol«S"i©o ^OS.i-de^XSXf 

; aiSfifxtK laixr i*Jt ^fcia 'ie aasxioitao »^ *to'i fixtel^cro at&its& bttB , riei J 

o>t lisoiBi? Biexwo Qiiit Jbofi .fia^jo rti 000,eS!X$: , .sal ,a9io*a ,W.<I.H 

,aaio.s4'r.ofr'ioo «3Xi3- ni iooia 'to ti»i«iiB tiftflJ XX« Jaabns'tsfc o.t it^issfi 

Yd bl^d ^oo*a Tsr^^o to ©BAXtoiifcr 6siijtp't- »miia_o il&s-i fesXX&oiieo 

.tn-i Jr.l^f^ to *:i9irrf,«tf &rtf fe«»vx«w tX8«»^<I^® ^'^ ,XX«-ri;*o»<ia«lt aisxi* 


on the Five Year Gold ^otec retained by ti-xera, up to their maturity 
on July 1, 19 39, and Jariuary 1, 1930, further agr«;eirig to extend 
the tixixm of payruent of the principal of s<>.id aotes until Jaly 1, 
1932. The third paragraph, of count 1 avera that plaintiffe -were 
induced to agree to these things by the letter of :iefendant, at- 
tached and descrit-T? as Exhilsit C, by which, as plaintiffs rver, itt 
was prcanised by defendant that if the ii.P.W, 3tores, Inc., ^id not 
pay these gold notes as the maturity thereof as extended, defendant 
would pay them. The paragraph avers that the transfer of stoolc, 
cancellation of options, and extension of the notes ^as in considerai- 
tion of this promise of the defendant, that, relying on the promise 
plaintiffs agreed to the things above recited, the preferrtid stock- 
holders waived all cumulative divide-nds on their preferred stock 
up to ^id including DeceiiJ.ber 31, 1934, and gave an extension of an 
option held by Sears, Roebuolc rx Co., to purcnase this preferred 
atocS: at prices not in excess of -IpSO a share from July 1, 19 3u, to 
December 31, 19 34, 

The paragraph ^vers that on March 5, 1934, defendant Bf^ars, 
Roebuck S.-. Co., olaiining the H.P.'f, Stores, Inc., to be iurie:>ted to 
it irj the sum of 11,076,143, caused all the assets of the ,i,P,W, 
Stores, Inc., to be delivered to defendant for anoiinal considera- 
tion of 1253,424, which was credited on the alleged account of the 
H.P.W, Stores, Inc., witi-i the defendant, which treunsfor left the 
Stores totally v?ithout assets, by reason whereof it ie averred 
defendant is liable for the araount due upon the gold notes. 

Under the Civil Practice act on a motion to strike (as 
under the fcxnuer practice upon demurrer) the pleading is construed 
Kost Strongly against the pleader. In an action at law the mction 
now (as the dciiairrer fom^erly) adudts onl^ facts ^-veii pl^?aded but 
not mere conclusions, Marcus v, S. 3. iiresge Cn. , 263 111. App. 
556. and an exlriibit attacxhed ur.der the Civil Practice act (contrary 

T^il' tiotlS 0^ qu ^imiiS rjJi hotitsiHt (?©to?l hlo^ xaeY 9vlt 9^ m 
,i ■^I.r.t. Xl'jn;/ ss5-o." Mas T:o I«-qxo.atli{T o.-^lt 't& lit@i2'^a§ to «i«tt* 91!* 
"^s ,;tfa3jba«>'tsf) to ned'JsX axis' xd ^^iT.i.ii$ ^sisxi* o# &»ts^ ©* hf^oubak 

"W-ie.fei ?5 rioo itl sb'*- sS'i^oa ©rid- I'o Koienstx© fc'ae ^snoid'f© Ito floi^fllJCoatMSO 

UB 'to «oi:an9ite© itE sivje^ feiie '.K^X.^Xg ■^acTaJsowd saiJb^XsjriJt l!>^fl£ '«*' ^'w 

o^' jOSGI ,X >£lirt iHo'il 9iari® £; OSf . "to ^sa«Oxa>J,iai I^Vtt «»oi'Xq •>* '5^05^^^ 
■''■■'■ " .^^eex ,X8 ««rf«$«»<I 

»W.<?.'.K ®di 'to ad&sa* «il^' I"X« h^sm^ ,SliX,S'CO.,X| le JSfc'a «!fC# isl: fl 
'-si»blsaoo .i:£ni'>-on js "xo't xtrap.&as"t9?i ©.t fc«T«TJtX9*; *<f ©i , ,9«I ,3910^8 

©i« 'to JtTi/ooDB fcaL4®-f-'^« 'S'J^* "o &©Jl*>ss's© ««w iitsJt'xlv? ,t'S^,S3S?4 to ftoi* 

fe0'X'isvjfi si ctl loii5'tf5.ft'? «oe«iiVs ijdf .s^tf^ssaa i^MCfirltr xXX**-©* 8«i;oi8 

iiQin:iacios u.t ^ni&JBSlq art* {t©g;-sju«t»fc rtoqw «»i*o«ii:<x T^iiem't ».tW -xftBoif 

*acf b-siJ^f^Xg XXe\>' sJoa't t^w atlrttbe (^Xio&io't T^'XtMH^fe «iC;^ a*) wea 
.qqA .III £8£ , .oO fraa^x)! -B .8 .V r^tiisM ,s«oi.i^ulonoo •asai #'oh 

to the roi"Jii9r prr^ctice i^t law) iu liov/ a part ol' tiie pleaoiiig and 
controls tiie allegations cl' tlic coiaplaint, ix any, v<hxcii tend to 
contradict it, 

ffiaiiicit C attached to count 1 is us lollov.s; 

Sxeoutive Oi'ficet 


Prc-gident ^et, IB, 19 29 

Mr, James ft. Alejcarider, 
Executive Vice i-rseident, 
Centra^l Trust CompsaiS: of Illinois, 
125 ^« -^Oiiroe ^-.c, , 
Chicago, 111, 

Dear Mr, Alexander: 

Sears, Roebuck and Co. is con3iderin_^/ta,kin^ aver of the 
H.P.V/, Stores if certain a,rr&uie,iSut8nt8 can be oade* 

The sS6rei3 are praotiealiy boniirupt at ti^e present titie. 
Your (sic) -lold ^200 ,000 i.i ixvs yiSAT i-old notes, due July 
1, 1931, 7!rit-a iiiterest at 6 per cent. You .also have it2o,Oij(j >Torth 
of cosLi.on utocic of ^ae coiupany, wnich was given to you as boauB 
stock, Wiicli is, of course, valuels'Sffl at tiA« preseiit tij,ue. If ^'re 
tiii.e ovar tne cojap«aiy-— ana our taking it over will insure iti 
fin liiJiC rial solidity— -we d«8ire tui hixn^s. to atiret; to four ti intiE., 

1. Xiiat the co*idPuon stoci;. be turned over to iiears, Hoebuck 
&. Co. at once -Efithout charge, 

2. Tus.t tae gold notes be extended to July 1, 1952. (We 
will orobably take them up at maturity, but we i^ant the stores, 
whicii vve ^'ill opsrate as u B&^^B,T:^te. organization, to pay off 
their own obligatioxis) , 

3. 'Jhat /ou vraive the interest on the notts until January 
1, 1930, 

4. That the bank give up its option on lu,OoO sr^ares of 
treasury stock, 

U.I , riiimi-jer will take this letter to you and. will diaousB 
the iflatter with you. 

Very truly yours, 
K, E, Wood," 

plaintiffs contend thr^t the reasonable construction of the 
foregoing letter of Februs-ry 15th is that it aiuounted to a promise 
©n the part of defendant to pay the ifive Year ^old j.^otfs if the 
H.P.W, Stores, Inc., dil not pay tuem. In support of tnis conten- 
tion a carfcful analysis of L^« letter (sentence by sentence) is 
presented, fr«>ia which the inference is finally drawn that the 
clause, "our taking it over will insure its financial solidity- 
would be understood by the plaiatiff owners to mesui tnat their 

a^siiii'iy •.-■■■ 

eS9l .ax .d9-i tasMef©x« 

. ^.iJ'C ©oi'CiO-w ♦» 2SX 

■■ ■ , ■" .III- ^-os^BOii© 

:'ir»hftsx©XA .'ti'i '■u-nVi 

,aml;t .fn^a&'Sq' a^iJr.tij tiiijtiii.mid '(j^XXj3oi*loa'i£r fs'ifi 89i6.#is &s££ 
\l%sZ sjuh (Sad-bfl fcXojg 'j.&i>x svi'i ui OQO,OOS| i'Xoii (oie) luoX 

iS^f) .25Qi 4! X-C^^'^ <3^ i)3bn9J-a:s 9cf aaJOii /,>Io3 ana ii^sii «S 

- . ,{9ixGiiu^ldo awe nxfsilt 

.ojei ,x 

aauoiii.b XXlw f)xs«s i;o"< 0* ir>Si®l Bldi sia;? XXiw'I .Xoi 

©rlj- io fioljour-jraittvo ©IrfjsiioaB^'s an'J- ii3.^j' ^fra^tnoo «rii,ir«X#X<j W^ 

9f{j "il a?»^o^i feloi) i^st y>rl'i &iU xaq, oi $iwbaBt9h Tt0 t%MCi ©riJ- i^o 
~a0;^uoo oiriJ 'to i'xoq<isJB vil ^njsiiii x^"^ ^ovi hib , .otti ,a9i:die .W^t.H 

nott-8 K&TQ to 'be paid said, a promiae cy d«l'f?^dant to 'jasLTtaxitee tae 
yaynieut thereof. Plaintil'f i'urtn«r aayw that «ven il' thin inter- 
pretation snay not lao conaidsred as certain, it lias at least sxiough 
elarisnte ol probability to make the meaning of tiie letter in this 
respect aiabife,TAOus, swid tuis t^int: so • extrinsic evidence would be 
admissible fxom wiaich tiie true yaeating might be disclosed to (amount 
to sach, 9. T3ro:ais0 to pay, it was, ttierei'ore, tiiey i?ay, error to 
etriice the jiret count, Fluiutifis cite Waaiker v, JohtiBou . 116 
111, App, 145; iku etin _ v, x*'irst _'i:.rust _sir j d__S a vij::.^9. . s afiJ^ . 343 ill, 
4t6, with Marcus v^ , 3, a. Kreeae Co. . 383 Hi, App, 556. Plain- 
tilTs also cits and rely on paragraph 3 of ssietion 3-^ oJ' the 
Civil JPractice Act, wiich prosifies in substsaice the TJieadi/igs 
shall be liberally cc>n??trued -s^iti a view to Bubstsuitial juatioe. 
Section 33 of th@ Xllincia act is substantially B<sotion 27 "y of the 
®®w York Civil jPraatice Act, from whic-n it seeias to hav® been takeyj, 
(MeCaakill, Illinois Uivil Practice Aot Armotatedi, (1933) p, 03.) 
The Sew York section ■?;»« construed by tJa© hij^hest court of tiiat 
state in XVy«r v. .■arQaA'.-r^y Getitra3.^..Sa?ik, 252 ii, Y. 430, vr^ere it 
■was held that upon a motion to (iisraiss a cofliplaint uaou the ground 
that it :Uii not state a cause of action, every intei-idHicnt &nd fair 
Inference is in favor of the pleading, and that "if iii any a,apect 
upon the facts stated the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery, the 
motion should te denied.** Tue defendant in that ii.ade its 
Kotioa upon the ^round that the uoatplaint stated a void and illegal 
trane&otion, namely, the purchase by & state baxik of coauiiofl stocks 
of oerporations which, under the law of the fcxatfc, ^as iileg^al and 
void. Tlie- judKiiient of the trial cuart sustaining Uie .aotion was 
reversed uoon tae t-isory tuat, while the o^mk could not legally 
purchase euch atocKs for its oto account, it laignt legally purohass 
ths saae under certain eireuastances, and tne legality of such a 
purchase could not, thererors, be deteruiloed upon a motion to dienda 



'^'■i^ifal siiij 'XX a«9V9 ;r*5ii-- .•^ii,®8 %&.{iixi:"t "i'iljai^.r'i .los'SiSiii' i-fitsisrjfiq 
sitf bXiJOW 9oasf,>iv© ^isnli..3c© , ©a :..5jai»i^ airidf hew ,ffli?v*)>;i<fiiSiK ^saaefe-j 

.III &i^£ ,^^iv^_g^^uj:yfo & ajB. jt'sijri'i' ta^jl, .,v ^i ij.s^4 l^£ »m^- '^l-^^ 
-ni.aX^ ,QA6 .coA .ill iiBS « '.. ftp ^ Mg?^^. . i ff. ..'^.,. .^7 . ^M^^^^ . M ^^i^ ,S0* 

. t^;i©| apetif ©v^ii o#,8'«»®« iJl naiiiw' sssal; |#«A .9el4'««i^ ll*iS 'i 

aji siwsiii. a««o iitA-U «! i««s&a«>'t»* tJxlf ".Jboiimfe i; .<a aoiJ-oa 

Xes^iXi b*w i^iov ii ioiji^B t£iiaiq.iu@ii ^U iaxi^ iouoii oa* a^qu action 

««»^ aoiioa. «iir *>i-Ji:..Ui.4»i»a ;^iiuoo i«XtJ »-i;l 'to' *a»BJ3&«irt •Hi' .liidv 

<jXXjca«l ioa biijeo »£w«f »JCt* s»XXiiw ,*JBi-i* x%eBeii «<l* aoo« |.98^«y^t 

e««£Ld'Xir«s itXX*3»X ^ii^iim ^X ,#ttJUoeo-3 fl«ro ttSl lot eat©©.^ 'oiuq 

J3 xioae -to x**J^a4«-t «^* ^«* ,8»»£»*t«L0'!tl» ai«*^«: ^-"^'^ 

the complaint. So here the plaint il'l's argue there are facta and 

circuuistances surrouiiding the v;riiin^ ol' tue letter vaxich determine 

whether it should he in fact construed as a pronise to pay, "^. ich 

eaniiot ho deter.;.. ined upon a motion to striice, hut only by taking 

ITae argumert is plausihle but not coxivincirit.. It is< tl^ie 

the pleadings noiv required to he consti'ued liheruliy, hut it ie 
also true under the present practice that where tiiere is- ? contra- 
diction hetween tne allet-aticiis ol' the complairjt axid the exhihit 
attached an<? made a part of the pleading, the exiiihit will control, 
and a mction to strike does iiot adu it to be true an allegation ol 
fact TThich is in conflict rith the exhihit. Bunker aill Dountr y 
Cluh ▼. McBlhatton, 282 111, App. S21; Lyons v . 555 h, MJoxiit^^ 
Av enue Bid;':. Co rp. . ?77 111, App, 93; M.arc ue v. S, a. ILres^e uo.. 
283 111. Apo, 5fS6, Under the Civil .'ractice Act a motion ei this 
kind does not ad"-it the conclusions of the pleader to be true nor 
inferences draTm therefrom hy hiffi, i ^arcus v. S. 3. Kres^^e Co ., 
283 111. App. 55Q; L eitzmaxi v. Rad io jbroadca st st ation,, A.O.i'.L . 
282 111. Aop, 203; Keller v. Reed . 347 Hi, 645. 

Applying the ahove rules to the first count of tne coixpiaint, 
we hold the motion to strike the first count was properly granted. 
Ingenious ae the anslyais of the plaintiffs is, it does not, as we 
read the e^Jaihit, disclose arxy ajLtiiguity as to aiiy offer or promise, 
nor indeed eho^? any offer or acceptai.ce or promise at all, ihe 
docuiiiet;t, on its fL.ce, clearly and vrituout i^iy amoiguity, is Bierely 
a sugeesticn for preliu.inary ne&otiatione. It states that defendant 
is considering taking over the Stores "if certain arrangemeiits can 
"be made," and in concluding, informs tue person to whow it is addreesea 
that Mr. Pluoner "rill take this letter to you aiid will discusB the 
matter." It is clear the only purpose of tiie iettc^r was tuat it 
might form the hr-siR of nevotiations from which pcssiciy it L.ignt 
l>e deterrined whether the parties could loaice a hii.ding agreement. 


lo aolJ£aeXX«i ii4, fkiti ^d oi iidibs ton sdoJb 9:ilt$9 oi aoiiqei » bOB 

%iJt aijoO lliii t^ :^tmai ,iidii:ix& ^ai ri^i'w iotltnop nt si a'oXilv tom% 

m:}\ij:lo x>,. ' ..if„.;SA^ ,. , tX.lB^ X'r^. I'^SS ♦tsQii ,XXI S8S .,^ ffoij- /a if.X^ftM ^ «y , fgXO 
c * o.\^ .^°^<^j^'^=4--, ''^, nr^i ^ ,»J ,: rJ ?. ^9 , '^^ B J^S •Q<jA «XiI VVS , ,ii ,cnoO^ ».^ J^Xg etr^ievA 
axdj to aoxi'Oia.s taA ©oid'O-ei'^I XiviO ©j:!* "XS&kU .925 ,qqA .Xlt 

, . o^J^ s,,af 9.?.-;i^„,...' f '. ,^«,S t J, -. SU91^Mi *®^i"f X<^ Biott^'t^Ai mwjtij MpiWtslWtl 

' j^!^.t'^-y..^! ■t.'"9A^'^^^^, ^g^so^^^^.'X,^,,o-^M^^..-'Y,.-?^?^^l^^ «*^^^ .Q^{jA ,JEXI 58iS 
.ei^d .XXX T^o . fegj^lj .V %p.,4U'^ J^'^^S *^qA ,XXI SiS 

9d'.V ,XXa *^ aai^tiu'icf to stJiss^q&o-ojs to «oi1o %im \70ii» b&9bal "stn 

}»arjotkb£ si *i asoftw oi aootaq Qi.c? afiiao'iiii a«i5«Xoaoo at Jbos *^©Aa« 9«f 

9j:j a8«aaii> J-Xi^? b(i« ijox; od- -x^^ieX airi^ aMi XXiT« ^©mawX9 ♦!« *«rfJ 

»i. ;r«xi^ as-v 'laJ^dX f)^i 'to &toqtu^, ^Jao *rf* -xfidXp si il "."r^itcrfia 

In tke ii'lrst V^olume, ilevlsed iidition, 1936, w/illiston on Uoatracts, 

8«e« 26, pages 52-53, it is said to be elementary tuat, **oiac;e an 

ofl'er must be a promise, a mere ejroresBion ei' iiiteution or gereral 

willingness to do souietning on tiie iiappening o! a p*rticu-L;ar firS'ant 

or in return for sometaing to be received, does not amount to an 

offer." To tne saaie effect is tine Hestateiiieiit of Contracts, sets, 

25, *If I'ron. a proaiiee or manifestation of ijiiter;tion, or from tii® 

eireumstanceB existing at the time, Uie person to wiiom the proiaise 

or manifestation is addressed, iaiowe or has r nson to Jcno^ taat the 

person making it does not intend it as axi expression of assent, he 

has not made an offer", and in the same voluaie, sec. 27, pp. 54-55, 

is this statement: 

"frequently negotiations I'or a contract are begun "between 
parties by .eneral eacpressions of willingness to enter into a 
"bargain upon stated terms, and yet the natural construction of the 
words axid conduct of tUe parties is rattier that they are inviting 
offers or suggesting the terms of a poesiLle future "bargain before 
making positive offers," 

In support of these statements the author cites innumerable cases 
from many jurisdictions. As a raatter of fact, the complaint here 
sho's^s that five days after this letter was written the subject 
matter of the negotiatioriB was made ttie subject of a written agree- 
ment between the parties, in whioh, laowever, defendant did not 
agree to guarantee t>ie payxf«ent of the notes held by plaintiff, and 
the conduct of the parties thereafter, as recited in the complaint, 
shows that they di^^ not regard such an agreement as being imposed 
by anything said in the negotiations or contained in the contract. 
Such being the state of the matter, this count wholly fails to set 
forth a cause of action, and the motion to strike it was properly 
granted by the court. 

The second count of the complaint { ?Jhioh is paragraphs 
12 to 16) charged a similar liability of defendafit to the olaintiffs 
upon the theory that the relationship between defendant corporations 

t's.ica-^'ii&o'J «o noiPiilli'^ ,d£QX ^.aol3iib& l>seirefl ^^muloV iarkt siU nl 

iU; ©oniii'* ^^tiiil■i x^is.«' iVH ik3 Is &ii' oi" j'>i^^e ai S'l ^£a-Sg Bs^eqi ,§S «|»l»« 

X.'£i«a«;^ 'xo nei: jissd'iii "lo aoisa«>ioix.s s'xrsa js ^daxaitj'ssj « «cf ietm iB'ilo 

EUr 0^ aat/ciiii* ;Jori esoi ,l59vi;sio«i sa' oi- r^nind'^.eioe •sol frauj^®-* aJt to 
.OSS j'So'osTE^floO *te J-isajia^S-fti^j-esH aiijr ai: i'oftTts »di@e eiiif o1? *,telt« 

Sins- isoT/i "3,0 , aoljijscivix 'ic xioJl-J.«3-a©'li£t0:^ i© saimotq s jiioi'i 11" ,SS 

&rli 'to naiioini&nQO l&rs.ui&a sxij Ssx hwi ,9ifniii Ml^jj^a noerw HiagX'aer 
S'lol&rf nijai^ijecf ®iu4sj't sXc/iaaoq is to aiJiTCs;)' 9£i& goilsoagwa to 8f©Tio 

d-o-^ t*i"Jjp S'd;^ xia^Ji-iw aisw t«i4^i«X ajt4^ isn^ «^JBi^ srl'i Jsjei^ awoiie 

■i-i& oi RlWi xi^Jto/iw iai.100 U-di ^t^'Sias 9di 'to ©;^eJa sritf ^aJatf riOuS 

8hq«i^tf'q sx xtoiriv,' ) #«UIcfSi03 sxi* 'to iauo9 baooee sifT 
B'ni:^nl«Xo 9xi* oi iimbmlab 'U YJiXxrfBiX -ueXJaiia « ts-gafixio (dX o* SX 

and the H.P.W, Stores, Inc., became suah as to create the Bsine 
lla^bility on defendant's part to guarantee the pay^iient ol tne 
notes held "by the plaintilTs, tUs count, in its several para- 
graphs, alleges that alter the contract ol" February 20th wao 
entered into, defendarxt became the owner ol' a aiajority ol' the out- 
standing stoci: ol' the ii.P.s, Stores, inc.; t/iav thereljy it obtained 
complete control oi" the policies, ai'l'airs, ol'l'ices &xi6. employees 
thersof; taat defetidant resorted to tais stocii ownership not for 
the purpose oi' participating in the affairs of the corporation in 
the noriiial and ususl uianner, "out lor the purpose of controlling 
t'ne corporation and dOKiin&ting its sianageiuent arid affairs bo that 
it was used as a mere agency, tool or instrumentality of Sears, 
Rcehuck and Co., aa.'' the defenda^.t, Sears, Roehuck a/'d Co. , although 
retaining the asffiift, tooit over the corporation and operated it as 
a deoartment and adjunct of the defendant. Upon infor/aation and 
"belief, paragraT)h 13 of thp second count charges that at no time 
subsequent to the acquisition of control were any re^ialar stock- 
holders* meetings called for the election of directors, nor regular 
annual directors* meetings for the electioii of officers held; tnat 
the directors, officers and employees were at all LixaeB deteruiined 
and directed by the xaanagoaent of defendant, and that all perisons 
acting in executive capacities were officers, employees or repre- 
sentatives of defendant or employees of defendant's counsel. 
Paragraph 14 alleges that the departi.ental relationship of tne two 
corporations was generally toiovm to creditors, who, in reliance 
on this manner of operating, regarded theaiselves as creditors of 
defendant and were so regarded "by defendant, who paid off liabili- 
tlee incurred in the name of the ii,P.W, Stores, Inc., and plain- 
tiffs aver that they have so regarded themselves wita respect to 
the Five Year Gold iictes, and were so led to regard themselves by 

^^^eicfiXQat'i btm saoi'i'to .aiis'i'i.s ,a<>ioiXoet ^^^ '^o loiimoo ©d'Slq^oo 
le't Son q^lsiBtBavo looJa siiiJ o^ fXiito^Bt ^ifebrjs'tsfc jJ-jsxf^ iloe^srid' 

ignliXoitnoo to i^sogruq »rD^ lo'i $u(i ^-xeaimssi JDsuaK £rfis to-rieet »rl;t 
;j-^fD da gTcii-rtis Intfe iastas'^Bimtfi atl ^alifialmQ& hem aQliatoqcs^^ adi 

SjS -U f>a*4J'J:«'«jo "ferts ttoifjsioq'Joo »ii# *£»t6 idot ,»«»if Mt -^fti«l,*#i»^ 
haji aoxf&cino'lal aoqU ^.J-nsiuBlsB 9ii:;^ to *ani?tl&« &im 3a&StitMfifii& m 
©siii' oci J-s J^riJ assiBJio ^«iJoo fcnoose 9xi# 'to £X tkrmT^iMV ^tftiX^cf 
»/ioo*a "SsXiJ^iSi^iniE; sisw XoiSnco 'to noicHaiupsa »x£d" od' Jc»trp9»cfi/« 
csXiJiiO-x -son ,8io:i"oirii5 lo aol;J©»X» sri* ^o't i^XXao Bgnl^dRffl 'a^dfcXeil 
i£d^ VfcXsririsoil'io 'io a;oX*osX«> sri;}- -xo't BS^*«»ffl *»toto^rtb Lauaae 

eaoa'xeg; XXis df^iii hem ,iiieJr)a9't«l> 'to ;rmia©a.6««3i ®J!l* x<^ b»H»'xlb .fctic 

,X©M«x(oo e';^iiJBl>u8'ief) lo 8ff®^oI<jiH» lo Su&hiia'Hb lo •«yXi'c*n«a 

ow* »c3 'to qixienoi^t^Xe-x XaJn® '^i-isqsf) 9Jii imii^ 8©3«XXjs *X riqaajj^iB*! 

93 a*: 1101 .cii ,0ffv? ,3-ioi' Xi?oi3 0* tw/onat xi-EJ^T^^'^^S a^waiioid-fiiocr^oo 

'io snoct^ifes'xn B.a sevIaaiaQfid^ fse b-xjBgoi .sniJjBisqo lo idon^ia eiili no 

-iXicteii Ho kU.K, oilw ,3Ti&bii9l®Jb yd" boM^go'S os 9ic»w Jbxw J-iMfcnelsfc 

-aiAX»-3 hm. ,.ouI .Ba-xote .If.'I.H ot« lo »sma 9dt til b^'i'ivoal «oic^ 

o^ 4o»qe&rE nSXyv asvXeajiasil^ f)»t't»h*'x oe 9tjbx! Tjarf* *Ail* %9ri^ nttli 

'd «evl!>ac«iiiJ- fc^aa^i od- IseX d« 9i9W fcnds »«»*oa fcXoO xb»Y ftyl'ti ©r(;t 

reawon ol' x,iie absorption ol" the Stores into tlae defeixdtint ■sVi^iiiil' 

Paragraph 15 avers tjiut tlie departifjeniai rylitioiifinir. ol' 
tiiese two cor oorat ions was not disc osed to tue general public, 
was not widely known among retail 'buyers; tliat by reason thereof 
these t^'o cor")© rat ions wera (enabled "i;o and did use the H.P.W, 
Stores, Inc., as outlets Tor merchandise which had been purchased 
for sale in the stores ol" defendant, but rhich beea^ie or was dis- 
covered re be obsolete, defective, or inferior and not saleable 
through defendant's stores without great loss oi' ;uonpy or good 
uiill; that by retailing such jEaerehandise through the H..P,*, 
Stores, ino,, defendant -sas enabled to maintain its own good will 
attached to its name while destroying the good ssrill attaoiied to 
the narae of tVte H.i'.'s;, Stores, Inc.; that this device made tiie 
operation appear unprofitable while in reality it cut io\m losses 
whicn otherwise would have fallen on del' endarit. Paragraph 16 
avers that the type of merchandise loiowri as "close-outs" were 
charged to t-ae h.P.W. Stores, Inc., ou tae booKs of defendant at 
prices grosaly escessivd; andl that by this means defendant created 
on its books an indebtedness of the H.P.W, Stores, Iric, , to defend- 
ant to the ajaount of $1,076,148; that on or about karch 5, 1934, 
defendant caused all of these assets of the Stores to be delivered 
to it in exchange for a credit of .y.253,424, the alleged indebtedness 
of the H,P,Y/, Stores,, Inc., to defendant. Wherefore, it is averred 
defendant is liable to pay the bonds of the piaintifls. 

It Must be kept in raind tnat this action is at law not in 
equity. The question for determination as to tne second count is 
whether the facts averred (construed according to rules heretofore 
stated) are suff ici .i-ct zo establisn the liability of defendant at 
law to pay tiie debt due plaintilfs on account of the bonds held by 

,.:,.-■■'' ;.,' ■ .a©iJj»® 

'io KjiiisjiieiiAX^s-s J[js^iS©ui.dijpgs6 arid" ^J'Aui? aTiSys ei iiq«Tta^'j:«^- 

'ios'X9J-i<3 ^oasst x<^ i*?iit ;si0^€f Xi.«;?9T ^jnoisus awonil 'clsl>i«r Jofi f«w 
.4'i.^,i: 9iU iiOij tib bitB o^ tBl^JS.£i& ais^s? afroi*«aocrToo owj" ^ssrfd' 

Q£df30lm^ ion i::iUi •xoxxs'iai 10 ,»©'teJb ,?*;t0XoQcfo s«f »5-i .fes^STO* 

,^ZQl ,fi xioisii ;fi.'oa*2 10 ao ^-Biio jS^i.e'PO, X4 to iiwofiiB suit 6i tm 

.eriiiai^aiq s»iW 'io sfcaoei taiSi ^«<J o;r ©IojbXX «Jt ^oel^aa'ivJ^;. 
«l i^on w«i ^B ai noi^ois isiiiJ 3e.M biUm nk i(i&:A 9p ABism. il 

'i£ iitBbcvB'i^b 'io ijiiXia^iX ^di aail4»iu& oi imiol'nue 9t» (»•*»*« 
^(f i,xe»ri at)nod oxi^ 'io JniJoosfi ao arUt,|i^«X« f«« JrfeU erl-^ Y«<r 0* wsX 


thsitt. That A controlliiug o^jT,jQr.a,'cion ui.a.y u.iiier eouie ciraoiiir.tajrjceB 
become so liabia Iiae been iield in maiiy caaea, iuid tae iaa-dlug cases 
e3ta"'oli8liini£ liability, aa virej^i as tuoee eptublisiiing noQ-ii:*oiilty, 
arc oitcd in tli© bi^iefs. It would uuduly extfenft jais opijfcxon to 
analyze all ol" ta&ii, ijfei'eudouit cites In r« '■^&»t ertqwja ii'a.jie T Co . , 
169 led. 252; U .iited s tates y.. . uelaiware^ j^ acJt-aw ann a {^ ■^gsterja .H.H.. 
Co. . 238 U, o« 51 13; u"t,iica,AQ. jifell;i>ya,uk:ee& w?t . .ir'a u l Hail>way , uo)iaoany,,,y. 
juin-. eapolie Sivio 4- CoEjserce Ass'n., , 247 U, a, 49w: jtlirij^atpn i)rg; 
Dock Co. v« Lake Chaatia iaia TrfaJasrortation Ooj.. '61 -^'edl. (2d) £65; 
In re Kentucky Wagon M.rg. Co. » 3 i-^nX, ►iupo, 953, ilie ilii^.ois caaee 
of ?--cT)e rTi\ott v., A. I:-. C. Oi l Burner oalea GQrt-)oratiori .et, ax. , 266 
111. At5)i. 1:^5; Donovan v. Furt ell , 216 111, G29; Seymour y, >l' Qodst ock 
an i 2y c amo re Tr a,c t ion Co.. 231 111. 34, ajid LogjyentLal Securities Co . 
T. The ^hite Paving Co. , , et a l.^ 351 111, 285. 

i^io one of these cases is decisive oi' t^is one. Illinois, as 
other .iurisdictions, boldB txie elementary and fundai^ental orixiciple 
tii&t a corporation is an entity separate and distinct I'roffi its 
■tockJiol46rB» kcDeri;,ott v, A. B, G. Oil .^urner Sales Cor poratio D 
et al . . 266 111. App. 1x5, In i^ingsto a pry Dock Op, v. Lake Cham - 
plain Trat.sportation uo. , 31 Fed, ( 2cl) £65, the court stated the 
rul e thu e : 

»* * * * it uontrol tnrcagh the owners/iip of shares does not fuse the 
corporation, even when the directors are comiaon to each. One cor- 
poration ii^ay, however, "becoKe an actor in a given transaction, or 
in part of a business, or in a whole business, and, ^-rhen it has, 
will be legally responsible. io tecoue so it must take iiua.ediate 
direction ol the traneaction througn its ofi'icers by wnom alone it 
can act at all," 

^" i^'ew York Trust Co, v. Carpenter, 250 ied, 668, the opinion 
of the court says: 

"i'rorr- an exarLine.tion of raany deciBions we venture to say that no 
corporation acting within its powers has been held liable lor the 
debts of another ccx oration legally organized, becauae it con. 
trolled such corporation by reason of oTOBrsr.ip of itf stock or 
otherwiee, except by reason of con tract or on g rounds of tuzJi^^^^ 


asia^o si,'i;4y;'si si.rjJ' .tat, ,e«ssA5i> ^lusa; ax ti;«£i' asjotf e^eii ©IcfjclX os $ajEQ»9a 

c^' noiaxqo aixi./ .ftii^^^xs Y-^^J^-^^JiJ £>.£^4->'^' ^^ f,^'lsdl%<i' i^iXi ni feedia acsjs 

. ,|) p , 'ia<gjg,'^,, mfpl;y;'^|,rf.¥, ; @ , ^ kX eJiJ'it^ .^'lisiiitSi-^u. ^Sfi^t'ij 'to, lis pu-^Xnajs 

^.>::.7j. jtix-a^agf , ■:>, &iifi&yj^ji:>& tj ._, ^ fX-feiWjB^ffft . v. ai^ j-tii;c...^.|?^J:J;tt.ij jSQS .itfiif .S3X 

;Sd2 (|iS) ♦fes>*U if: ^ ^. oO apii-fii-lQ;;^^^ ti^lT, al. a i.ff iitfjf(Q ^ a jjauI ^ , v , ,,^ fiv ' ^o oC: 

39SJB9 aioiiilli ©ifi .SgJJ .cQ.Wti J-5G'''l £ t . ^^ j^ ;g'^,-H., .fJQ^^I ;.. ..^t^^Q £j: -ff g-if^.. .„§.?,. . .j?! 

d&S , « „-yg. Jj^„M9M^X9S'lS^^M§JfS§:.-. ."I^M^^M^;, :J^.9., -9, , ,.r.§t'.,if*^ - n* ^ i^ ,^ ^*'^!^^^ /^o 

,a8s axi xss « *u.,ji^^^og.Mii>isl.A'^M 

s^ ^aioEiilXl ,©ao, aXi-v 'to ©vXeips^B aX isisgt.®©, ©isa-u.* '.ipo .^xio .^?i ;.,;,;, ,, 
sXgioiiiig Xjastim.iiBl)ni.<'t Saa •^i«4-a©is»X9 @iii gisXoii ,ip«oX*oi;Ji«J:'Xfl| :'!t*£i['** 

ffaX|jri_o£-xoO agx^.'^- •xeriiy.'ii: XlO ,0 Ji ^A \r^ ^ t^^a^Co^. ^u^9k.loMaQ:^» 

-iSgil5.-JlMiL.j'X.,^i3i!Li^^ ,3X.X ,a#. .XXI ddS ..^, ....|;^. ..#s 

srii- l>ed-a^K *i«oo f^AiT ,ea* (iba.) »&®'i M , vg;^. .aoXd'^^-Jtoqaa4?l'l nX«X.g 

9il^ saw't cToa 85oi^ es-x^:iiii3 'to Q:i:^eisa-5fo »,J[i* x^wcjiri* Xoitd'«oO * * * * ** 
-■xoo ©no .i1^«f> 0* HQumoo s-s*; atoio'^iil^ «rii K»iiw n®vs ,itoUa-io<:iaoo 

,8,si( JX n»ilw ,,l>tns .isafjctiaarf eXoaft' « at le .aasaiewci « "io it»ci ak 

#i^.ii)0;«iaX 9ii«^ J&ifsa ii m ^^iooftvi O'-i: .©lixsaisocss^i x^^^^'^^ ^^ XXiw 

",XX,B *s ^l-oy ORS 

-nao crX «fa,^oad- ,fc»sXaa.^%o ^XX«3-^X mXUto^'too li^xiion^ ^ly^l^ 
to AooJa o;rJ; 'to qXrioi&iswo 'to «o»^«'i y,«f ^oi;^fi■£0q1oo rioiJa 6f9ixcy 


of e st oppel, or because the controlled coijp_g_ration_.^a^_b^^ 
a nd distiuot ejutity wouiT worie , injustice . ■* 

^^ -^ er^ey v« Third Ave, xiy. Oo ^.. 244 u, x , 84; 5>J a.o-^cH, 
599, ^iiere a questio.i oX' liability ol tae parexii oorporation for 
the tort ol' a subsidiary corporation was involved, tae opinion 
stated in substance tuat the test was whether the obiif^'-atton vt?as 
incurred ^uile the doiiiinion oi the parent cor oration ya,e so com- 
plete tii&t by the general rules ol agency the parent corporation 
was a principal and txi© subsidiary an agent, and added: 

"Sliere control is less thai^ t/iis we are reraitted to the tests oi' 
hcnesty ^and justice, Ballantine, -Parf^tit and Jtiubisi diary Cnrrora- 
tion, 14 Cal. i^&v Rev. IH, 18-2o,» 

The rule stated in :ajrke nbrecher v. tiran jb. 137 Cal. 7, 

followed in i'irgt Eational 'BaiJc v. Walton, 146 '^Vasn, 367, is: 

"In order to cast aside the legal fiction of diatinct corporate 

ea:i3teiice as di-^xiinguished i'roiH t.i.ose wno o'wn it<5 caivit*-:.! stcc;':, 
it is not eri0U{5h that it is so organised and controlled and ite 
affairs so uanajrad as to make it 'merely an insti'as2e.'itai.ity, cond^ t 
or adjunct' of its stociiiioldere l3ut it must furtiier apoear that 
they are tho 'T^Jasinsss conduitB arid alter Og:o of one a.:ot-ier' und 
that to recogTiize their separate entities would aid tue consuimaa- 
tion of a \7rcng. " 

As defendant pointa out, the eaaets cited in «rhich defendants 
have been held liable are diatinfeUishabie froui the instaait caue, 
first, in feat here the debt upon these bonda was contracted piior 
to the tim.^ when def end axit took control of the subsidiary coroora- 
tion, and prior to the time that the contract of ^'eb uary 20, 
1929, between tne plaintiffs and defendant was executed, "A'e have 
already seen that these contracts, fairly construed, cafmot be 
held to contain an agreement on the part of defei.lant to assurae tlie 

Second, that defendant in tnis case was already a preferred 
creditor, who, under the agreement as well ae by rules cf skM law, 
vae ertitled to isrotect its investiaent in the J, P..?. Storee, Inc., 
by actively loarticipating in its affairs witnout becoBiing liable 


,g,.x,^- 06 ;^^8 »^ .s-i i--is ,jgj^.,.i>>-»g.?A.. M-iji.f, .y '?:ft3j.i»a. at 

noli;<i'-'iistqx&^ ^a^^tx^q Btii x\:> cm-^.£; 'io asXtri X«^»ng>g arid' x^' i^^'S^i^ 9if®i:«|' 

«,us;«ax ,sii ^wh rau; ,!«© i^x ,13:01.1 

,*8l jVd? »x:;5i«W d*^X «nej\tevy ,y ,^i;iiv:a Xjs;ao.i j^j@ a J;at£ll ai feat-'QlXol 
©cfjEtooTOo ^onicf-filb "to 0oi#oi:'t X«3eX sili? »l5lo« d-aso ©i' "«1>&to at* 

-isciis'iiericij &£i fcx*i l)Xi>'o\r ssi;..? j*rra ^.j/siiiq&a 'sciext'J- asli^oo*^ oi ^iSili' 

jfjtjiso ;)-i:tJ6v*aa;i oacr mci'i sXifsiisiw^iiiJaifo »'x*i ©X<i«il &4&Xi jnteae* ©n^f^M, 
f-oi-iq feaioisioiico aji5v; Bbwoa' &M»Xi.i jEtotjJj d-dsf'^^oflS &'mH iMd;^ ai \-$i!ni'l 

aiW Qituieeis oj d'Ofi.b/ie'to.b 'to ^t&ti axfi no J-nf>i«99faa cm ni&iaoo 0* £tX«rf 

,w.;jl «s<li: 'io «pX»i^ t*'" «« ^^^'^ ^** d-tiwitoso^sn sri* tshas „<3t^ ,to" 

©XcfsiX srti«i©»*^ *wor,;tiTf »^ifl'ni3 «*i til SKi^£gioi;t't«tf i:X9vx^o« if^ 


for pre-existing debts. Owl ,.lj\t,ci i gating C! o rp o r a t i on v . C al i 1' o r jn 1 a 
Cyanide Co . . 24 -tf'ed, (2d) 71cJ, alTirmed 30 i?ed. (2d) 812, 

Third, there is not in this or ai.y count ol* the declaration 
any adequate allegation ciiarginj,, that dei*exid;ait iias acted In fraud 
ol' the rights ol* plaint il'l's as creditors ol" the Stores corporation. 
It is nownere charged in the complaint that 8,t the time defendant 
assumed control txie value of the assets of the debtor were in 
excess of the awiounts due and owint; to preferred creditors, 

iJ'ourtn, we taink the complaint also shows that plaintiffs 
acquiesced in, agreed to or ratified the acts of defendaiit with 
reference to the taking over of the i.P.W. Stores, Inc. 
appears from the contract between defendant and plaintiffs entered 
into Deceraber 31, 1929. This contract recites the wish of plain- 
tiffs that defendant vould refrain from collecting moneys which it 
had theretofore advanced under the prior contract of February 15, 
1929, and requested defendant to continue furr.ishing additional 
mcrciiandise and -co give further financial aid. 

There is no averment in tlae complaint of a merger between 

the subsidiary and the defendant corporation. In i'letcher uycio- 

pedia on Coroorations, vol. 13, section «3222, page 566, the 

author states: 

"however, the stockiaolding or parent corporation often is 
held liatle for the debts or acts of a subsidiary because of the 
existence of facts oTiher than the mere relationship of the former 
as a stockliolder, on the theory of a disregard of tae corporate 
entity of the two corporations, but no fixed rule can bs laid down 
as to v.hen such liability exists. Aceorrling to one writer the 
test is the raanner find method of organization and operation. 
Another author, in a valuable textbook devoted to the subject of 
parent and subsidiary coraorations , states that the three eleaietits 
involved are (l) coxitrol of the subsidiary corcoration, (2) fraud 
or wrong of the parent corporation with respect to the creditor 

holders in auca cases as an abuse of tae priviiegTto do'^uusinesi 
in a corporate form, or in other words, a fraud upon the law." 

■.SI8 {l?S) .h3'l OS fiQiiriiTlf, ^81? (.§*&') «|j9'i ;k^ * »S§~.5lMi!S!^ 

.noi:.?^.Moq-ieo as'io^JS sii;X 'to cxoi-ifisao a^s 8't' 'to ad-xl:gii exi* 'io 

,(?,! YjV&iJtii'a% 'io Sofi-uaoo loiiq 9if.J t&tsits ^90imvb& d-xo'toJex&ii^ Mil 

.foifii Ifii oixeni'l •xftrf^ti/'i ©via o# Jbcus 9ail>nj8iio'X«tio 
iXajswrJ-Qc' i%,i'Xi»iy « 'to J-ai-sIq-ffioo ©n* ni tfjasmrtovjs off et 9^»<lT 
-oioY^ isfio^^Xu nX »nox:tsicn-.aeo cJ^a'Abaft'tsI) sdi htm ^t«H.tiecfw8 ari*? 
©jii- ,dSS «a®q jSSSd noid'osa «€X .Xov «aaoJ:3--SToqioO no «ifc®<i 

DC? 'to aaij^dfflcf Tj'S.yi/siatfi.-a r. -to sSoa io 84'-i9l> Si^ t:©'! &Liiil£ bl^d. 

eJ^iOiT-xoi; KJJTiJ '10 h-y.H^:!i'i&ib & 'to 'CLo^iii 9ni no .iftfcXoifioe^a « sis; 
uviob tlBi yrf aco 9iJ-'i ,bsxi't ou Jw^ ,anoi:J-fiiEoq'x«>o owe}' srlj 'to '^;^i#^9 

.aoiJ^^aqo £)Xi« jioidssinssio le ftoil;^9£a bm- t&aAtac-. ftil^ ax tfsfs^ 

to 3©9tdi-'R OsT b9iov&b ^ooii$£&i »£disuLi',v a aJt ^'xaaius i!«>iitoaA 

ad-.j^-iuaXt^ s^iiij 9il;^ i&d:i- as^laJ-a ,anoJ.;J.«iocrT.oo YT^-^-'^^-is^w® ^"* insteq 

hVM-t't (^U .noxijo'ioqrxoo ^^^■iiii^'^'j^'3 ^^^ '-° Xc''i^"i-"50 (-t) ©"^ Mvlovni 

ioJxf)8io ^:'i'i^ 03 *09C:-Bjji iii^l^ aoii&xo^'too ^tt9ijB<5 9riJ 'to ancrr*! -xo 

fcaa ,icxai.tatT<.U!a x.o^e \(i b&tij\,vii aoBi'^q. SfiJ tco ^lisihlad-ue sxiJ- 'to 

bap ;t>9^i)lai iio«if>q to -so^It'^io »i^^ <-'j ^^i-'t.aJt io eaoX Jewtf"-^ I'W 

-•-.'io^^ 'io x^^auma X*ujion dd,t aai^jSiJOidB lo'i el sad ©ii.J qw BfliK© ®rf. 

".w^X 9iii^ cioqa ku&n-X /: ,«.fciow i«i,to nX no ^m^to't »Jfi:soq-xoo « ai 


As c'.cfendaiit points out, the cases citfO. oy pl^ir;t.lffa 
laay be grouped three clasccE-: First, those v-h'-rp the s-.iu'b«i- 
diury cor oration v/as Leid to ir.curred tr.e c'blit^c.tiox^ vt-l^ile 
acting: y.e aii agency or instrumentality ol' tl-o p'^ront ccrycrulion. 
\7e have already seen tLat th<f' iiii.:.texit case is d istinguirl-al'lc from 
the caees ir vhicb li&bility is pr«sdioated upon tkat t_;r' 'l^-'''^''' • 
Becond, casee wL-ore ti. ere hue 'l^^-i. a fraudulent conveyajric<% oi" 
assets :'roi:. the sulDsidiery to ths parent corporativii. Iv this 
case there is no allegation in 'cue compl&iiit of sacii frav^dulent 
conduct. Third, casee where the subsidiary corporation iias oeon 
used I'or the purpose oT perpetr&ting & fraud or to evu^vs aalui,ary 
legislation. Of this, ?:loo, tht^^re is no allegatioii in the goji- 

Thffre is notiiing in the facts, as alleged in the. second 
count, that v^ouid justify us in nolding defendjsjnt liahie, we, 
therefore, hold the second count did not state a cause ol action. 
It fcllorB that the judgment of the trial court &ust be affirmed, 


O'Connor and icSurely, JJ. , concur. 

"Xf.'Si.h^ ':sii ^?'xi>.:-5'v s^^oi/:? >J-a-:i'^" :30Ka«:ji;o rot..w 'ajn* !)©<ra*^o'5i:s ^la 
Qiiil-!?- iioi 3 i;.ij lilies' ijac)' b'^a-^cjjoai ^v.vA o.;J- j^Is^ 3aw aoi;^.s5'it):r"soo ■^jiisi.b 

d"a&Iiii)jj.s"x"t i.i».u5: 'to ii'.i&lq'joo ^lii i^l aolSii'^i'Ullu on ti B%mx& eaao 
a»34 Si^ii aoii/5iOL;iOs ^isifclacfi.s ail;t si^iw aastss ife-xxilT ^t!»Uh«Qt> 

-•usio srO xii- aoiua-gsiis ok ai 'd'.ts<»dw^ ,oeX.:-; ^-slrfj- 'tO .isol^^X^igssi 


,&;.im-^i,'fl.a 9'i iiiu^ ^tsjoo luHi^ ^di 'ic 3T£!5K.:^5x;t 9xi^ ^JfBsiii 3#oXXott #1 


37726 ^-^ / 


SAM BLUM, / ;;v( ) 

Appellant , v.v''" \) / 

vs. \ 



Corporation, ) 

Appell««. ) ^-^ 



Plaintiri", Sam BliiBi, filed his coxuplaint in chancery in 
th« Circuit court of Cook, county seeicing tiie sacue relief wiiicli 
he soUi-'^bt In ais cro sB-oomplaint filed In tiie case now in tiiis 
court as Eo, 39155. In the instant case a de£;iurrer to the com- 
plaint was sustained and it was ordered t^iat the complaint be 
dismissed; the plaintiff appealed to this court fro/fl tlaat order; 
subsequently there was filed in this court a stipulation taat 
the filing of abstracts and briefs be waived and ziia-t the decis- 
ion in this cause should abide by our decision in case nuHiber 

-e have tliis day iiled in that case an opinion affirming 
the order of the trial court sustaining a motion to strike the 
oross- complaint of Saia Blum and ordering that' it be dismissed. 
Pursuant to the terms of the atipuXation, the order of disaiissal 
in the instant case is affirmed, 


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



\ ^ I '^<.. ,.mM MAa 


.. H T n O O ! .0&XX3qqA 

xioxxl'ft- '13x19-1 sutfls aiu aaJ;:is9B x-^nijoo JiooO lo ^iwoo iJtuailO ^rfc^ 
^scfcfjjn -iSBo ill noisiosft ^i/o -^jd obida BXi/oaa ©awas siii* ni aoi 


i^sslimlh 'id 'i&bto sdi ,110 tiiyli3<il:l[& Qiii 'io amis? sxij o:l in^UBiu^i 

^isLonoo , ,T. ^-xoacroQ'O htta , .t .9! ,i-#«i<o 


£2XXI£ QiilihLr, 



GUY A. SlCHAiiDSO* and «ALf3R J. 
0U21i&lKGS* as necdivera, etc., 
•t al., doing lusines.? a« 

CHIGACK.' siURi'/iCS l-IX«.iiiiJ, 

Apr, ell ante. 




Ida. JUSTICE MeSURSLY DfeiLlVlRgD tiOS OPliilCK OF ^'HS C0l3Hi'. 

Plaintiff wa« injured miile ridirii;; in an autoasoisiie ..'W«<9d 
hj her sTiii arivefl "by her minor son, th-rou^ii a oollision wltia one 
of d[efi?*r; istf^tt' street car»; she "breu^iit p.xiit lor damages afi^ upon 
trial b-M a verdic-t lor #80uO; defsii daiits appeal froift tiie jad,:,,ffient 
on tiie verdict. 

The a©ci<S©iJii iiappsned about 7:3i' p. a, on Jvaxa li, 1933, 
at tlie interssction of ^'estsrxi boulevard and 35ta street in 
whicago; it was auits li^ht; pla.ifi.tiff '« autoi^iobile was g uth- 
bound ©c S'esterii boulft'^ard ajad def endiii^ts' street car ^as west- 
bound csn 35tij. street; tne colliaion occurred in tii« str«et inter- 

The buriien of d<sfena»vnte * brief i® s,j'u\v, ti-ie faiiuxr© of 
plaintiff or the driver of iier auto .oMi« to exercise (5ue care 
eontribute.'l to tii« aocident, iJtid a large nuBsopr of cases are cited 
vhich involv* aoeidRfita aore or lees like the inst&iit or»e, it; 
rrhleh it is held tii&t one wno ia tiuilti? of neglig^^ence contributing 
tc an aoeident cfUinet recover dai-'^^es. As it has been repeatedly 
eai?? Ui cases oi^ tiiia kinrl, the f%ct8 ir. no two cases >ire preeiaeiy 
alike, aiTid the question of contributory ne&lli^erice ie usuaiiy 
of fset to be ieteraiined by a jury. 

A BOiEber of -tfitnesses t«8tiiied on beaaiJ* of the pi&.lritifjr 
as to Ui« occurrence; no evidence vtsk» introduced by def«r<dant8. 
The jury ould properly believe that as pl<»ir.tiff •» autoc^obile 

(X ,$oXX»<|,(Ei,4 

^Ydjm^ ui..iM,i^. 


«%«» .'swt' «»«ia*sa»a <^.tr ^tMnj^^mi li«iif ;ff -xa^iriirJS^ ».0|.1<| ■¥.>4j aj*- ift- 
■^XJisJ^sciet ^^«»d asvii Ji aA .as^iMSMBfe "!t»vt5«>»^ imiumu ias>hX^»A tut. o.J 


apprvaohnd SStli Rtr««t, going nouth an WB»t«m fcoulev»r<S, wxr wac 
In tiie rear seat, her eon Williaia, IV y«ai8 ol' Mg©, »a« driving 
Rn<5 the stoo •«3^^ ejO life/it* w«re red aij,;^in8t ^•atmrti boui»vis.rd. 
trafi'ie; pXalfiiifi''8 uutu^tobil* stopped at tua crosowftlic u.e did 
ftAOth«r southbound %utOi^olBll« to the w^ki. ol' i,'l-iiutiiJ' *• autuHio- 
bils; there were %l»o two autor-i© biles northbound -)«. weatewi touia- 
vart3 approaeixing 35tu atreat, .'U,iii all ioar auto^^:obile8 stopped i'oT 
the red lii.cht; at tiiis cime V»'illi3ii. looked to the east -jtifi saw dc- 
fendante* street ear eoa^tinti westward on 53th street about tnree 
hundred feet i'rom We«9tsrii ■fcauievard, tioinj-v at tue re^;uiar rate ol' 
speed I'cr a street car - 5*,fccut twerjty lalles au hour. When t];i« 
street car *,'as abo«'t twenty feet «-«ast of the east erosawalk of 
««Btern boulevard the traffic lights caauged, ©ettiiit-:,, '^'~^^- *'«'«* Light 
against ^-estbound traffic iin4 the green lignt in fi^yov of -"eatem 
"boulevard traffic; all four &utoiv.otiie» started forw&ri across 
35th street* but the gtre^==t car did not ®top tout ran throujiA the 
red li^^^t and acxxjsa <*'«-»«! tern boulevard; one -t^itnees L^^cilisd 
apparently ^hmi the red ligiit went ©n against the Btrf-et, ear the 
aotorman accelerated the speed of the ear lind started aeross the 
iaterseetion. 'ihe northbound autosualoiies, after ^oing a few feet, 
stopped in tifiie to av -id a collision rith the street ear; tue two 
seutiitfound aut©;so'bile» also started at the sa&e tia»e witxi the 
green lij^ht, tnd the southbound atttoiaooiis farthest to the ^est 
creeeed s&l'eiy in front oi the street ear, but pijiii. tifJ' 's 
aut»%ohile was atruetc on the left hand side. 

It ie a fact of eonBidera^;le ii-iportai-ice ti^at tae drivers 
of all lour autOiLObllcs at this point aeeuaied t/iat tne str«#:it car 
«ould atop at the red light, The situation !i;ade Uiis ascoaiftion 
reaeonaljle, ax d plaintiff's driver would "bm influoneed fcy ttiis to 
go ©long w-lth the aut©ai©bils traffic al though he ^.in liot notice 

.•<->^ ■»«« fojiti-- <3a«s aiij &^ ijs^paJt lasxiXiW &jiuj ^l£ii ^a . ;dii^kl inn «iii 
»*liil i'w©i;f4 ^««-xt3 ritiSH ao S^jswdrg^w ^ssiisKcfa 'Mo #»#*»*« '^»3cmbaf^''t 

dii^ jri«i4W' . ^ts^Mi cm m^llm \jjrfsisw.t A'lro;^^ * .%m^ $mi$$i js 4Qf1:,fe««Sfa 

«iii- di^uotiU sm% Sis4 qoi» Susx hkh ^tao $9>9t^^ »fl* ^^0* »^»«i*» i^t* 

»iijr 8soiy«6. f>i»#^iis*8 fe^fc iE«o siU' to fc!S©qe »ifj* l»!9#»i:«i;»»o« «M6{8ir©#<Mii 

9^ m|w »^$ ^imm «4i* i« .&®d"f«*« 6»l& »»il4moSff» haoc^&taom 

that th« street car iiad entered the lBt«rsectloxi until ix wa« alx^ut 
two or tiixee feet a«<'ay I'rota kis autoiiiObiAc. 

TtknTn is no sylloglBM or inathCfiiatlceUi I'oriivala by riiloh to 
determine neglitvieuee, Xlie ctonaluulon us^uhII^ depeiide on hew a 
particular set of fact* l/apreeBea one oi ordiiiary 4i.> teliii^s-uce. 
In tiie inatant ca»e» whether tne plaiotirjf's driver "as in the 
•xeroisie of 6.ue care juuet b(?f 4at>?irEdne<i t-y ti-i© re&etiou of the 
.lurore tkIxo heard tlie reeitais of cnp witnesses ae: o uie .-^etaiit 
©f tiie acolcJent, It m^y «e oorioed^'d tuat plaintiff herself, vho 
f^se r«>a<3ing a a4iiga?.ln« at tix© tirae of tii« acaxdWit, -was relying 
upon her eon '-siio '^ae driving her autoi^ofeile, sutid his negligence, if 
sr^y, must "be imputt?'. to her. one iuight eonclade after tile oecur- 
r<*nce tuat plaiiatiff *r driver siieuid not ixare smarted acroea SStii 
street until tiie street ear had crossed iestern "oouievard, but 
tiais is? not tJae teat. The .'uestiori is, la8 the ooiiduct oi the 
driver, in f?3tce of tlie situation prsseuted, negiifeeiioe coi-jtrituting 
tu the aeeidentv Qdneidering all tne eirou£i»tanees it cafi; ot be 
held ais a {tatter of law tl^at plaintiff *!£ driver siiould not have 
attesapted to croee ^rith street as ha di«, and neituer caji it be 
said ti^at Ute ctnciusion of tne jury Ui&i in so dolnfe h« was not 
guilty of r.eiiiigenc*, i» clearly afeainet tne weitr/j,t of the «vider-ce. 
•«here reaaonahle men aetini^i within tne limits prceerifced by law 
aigrit reaeh lifferent oonelualone, or (different inferences could 
reaeonably he drawn froK the aduiitted or eetablisned fuete, the 
question of contributory n«glif^?nce is for the jury,* » tuel l,er v,, 
Phelpg . 352 111. 630. 

ComtJlaint is s^ade of liiStraetions given &t the resiueet of 
the plaintiff, Ihese instruetions are the Ji:iB4 usualiy ^.iven in 
cases of this chai-aeter, fhey have been frequently aa .roved by the 
eourts f*nJ vfe find no r»?ver«ible error iu isivini,;, the«. 

«tM\l0&o#'a«© mkii mm^i. X'^Wi t»«8"t »«*Kiid' n© #«?••# 

11 ,Sr»tti;*vjil>:i9X2> «i.M l^mi% ^S.U^'oU'W^ii* ^ gaivi*!; »«W fyii^ si.oa Tt^lJ SJ©'t« 

sifif "to ,i?oM>aeo ^Ji^ a^W ,81 ausi: if ai&iUd Sfii .Jsi!*;? ^iLi i&m nl Btii$ 

anl.t*,iiiit:'.05J s&i»;:i®i;)i;is»* ^i>»imB'^nq ^feiorateti® 5>uf# 't© ■^'^■1 ai '^^mtitf} 

*©a ft-s*" *3K j^isiof? OS ai ifs^i x^iuf, ©M* 'to 'aoknisi&siati »M liSifi fel«a 

Del' entlarite »ay that thft Skfliount awarded plaixitilT ie ex- 
cesciva. 3}ie euffcrea fractur« of the left clayicl«> sricj injury 
to th« pelvis, vitii nuBiercun lac«ratior.s; th.©r« wau «▼! ier.c* oi' 
eon«l(',«rafcil« pain arirt siiocJc rpsultint, frois Uie injury and loee 
of blood; ari X-ray filia suowed n fracture of th.a bo^y of the 
aeo«n<1ir.g ra-iiua .'..-f tii© right pubis; piaictiff wa© isiiiiofeiiiaed 
for about t^eiva weeic*, kept fcr tiiree weei* ii* a hospital, -ixni 
thereafter in her rooia for six or reore weeks, We caiavot SiSiy ttti 
th« fisjount of the verdiet isi eye«agiTe, 

The Judgment is affinHed, 

M»teh<Jtt, P. J., and Q*Q'onnoT, J,, eonour. 

-ni x^^- ^oixa-iJS> »■''-' ♦«ii?*»w «>TOfia t» xia ttb'l moot nmi ai it«#1««^»d4 


Appellant, ) 


0? COOK COUii'fX, 

a iJorporatiuri , ) 


I'lsintiff filed his complaint alleging that while he waa 
erai»loyed by defeiidant it made certain prosiises oi' comperiBation to 
hlra whiob it did aot keep, and he sougnt an acccuiiting; ariawer was 
filed and reference xn?>de to a master in chancery who 5ifter hearing 
evidence reported adversely to plaintiff's claim, reooimfiending that 
the complaint "be dismissed; exceptions were overruled "by the 
ahanceller an-^ a decree entered dismissing the complaint, from 
which plaintiff appeals, 

The agreeinents for plaintiff's compensation ??ere made orally 
"between hint and Kdward P, Allison, president of defendant coiapany; 
they differ as to tiic terms of the agreements, sjnd the decisive 
auestion is, '^rhicii of the t?v'o versions shall "be accepted, 

Defendarjt ic a corooration engaged in the electrical con- 
tracting business, organized under the la^?s of ^lissourl and licensed 
to do "business In Illinois; defsnlant opened aii office in uhicago 
and plaintiff was employed as manager of the Chicago office* 

In June, 1925, the United States Inteimal iievenue Department 
notified defendant that it owed additional income taxes, amounting 
to appicoxiiflately $30,000; defendant contested this. 

^'ros;. 1925 to 1928 defendant ■was a su"b-Qontractor for elec- 
trieal -^^ork f jr the Pirst National Bank Building in Chicago, i-'lain- 
tiff testified that Allison agreed to give hirr., in additioi-. to his 

i 8 IT 

^Bra .AJ 

:.xii anifcrj6jnj.Jco9'i ^malo s' 't'JtJc j-ciisXq o^ AjXssiSTha Bsitrro^arr 6on©£->ly© 

ortcr vd'ssvo stsw anol^qsoxs ;J&»8ai:fH68Xfc ad" daijsXt^woo 8ii;f 

moi't ,i'nx^Iqjtaoo ©xl;t 3flu:a8iiasi;& fts-xe^J'itJ'? ss^esc « toss lelleocuBrfo 

«@Is9<:ki« 't'iJ-^nisXq liotdv 

lYii^JBGi-^o ^xiaJ-as'isI) "to iaeLxaoiq ,a03iXX/x .1 ^-ijswjbil 6a^ iyJri naiSvr;^^^! 

,beiq^oo& ecf XXisxia enois'i&r o-=r;^ siii 'to xioiiiw ,8i a©l.ta®t/p 

ibsafisoJtX &itj>5 iijuoeex.ii 'io ew^X SiUj iQijitw &»sJtitaa^o tSasaiax/ef sai^'osic^ 

.airid- f)9J-8&»^aoo ;rnaf/K6<1o£ ;OaO,oe!& ^Xc^dfiiKlxo^ioqx 0* 
-o»Xs lo'i iodox5i;^«oo-cfiJ8 js cjbw Jfujfeoftlsfc 8S«X oi fiSGX 3i&tt 
-xiJLeX'-t .oaaaliiO ai artibXlua icijea Xfiiioiiail *eTCXt[ »xl^ ic't iiorr Lstiiti 
Fjixl o;J aoi*Xi)b« al ,cuii sria o.t fesoiya aoeJtXXA *«ifd- fcoXlidsoc^ 'nid- 

ealary of ^100 ia week, 10;^ of the proiits ol' tne bank building ^oh 
in the nature of a boiiua, to be p&id waen tnis income tax case 
should be settledo Allison deiiies he agreed unconditionHlly to ©ay 
plaint iff lO^-i oi' tlie profits on tae bank build in ^'; job, and says that 
he agreed to pay hii^ tJiis bor.ue only in the event defendant was 
Bucceerful in tiiB tax c&se. 

The tax oase was finally ended in July, 19 33, and defendant 
was uncucc --ssful and was compelled to pay over #28,000 to the 
goreriunent and attoniey's fees of |4uu0. Therefore, says defendant, 
the condition of the premise to pay a bonus having failed, it is 
not obligated to plaintiff for any bonus or coiiiix.iabioii, 

Was the oral agreement to pay plaintiff a, bonus unconditional, 
as plaintiff says, or upon the contingeney testified to by MliGon? 
Plaintiff's testiiaony with reference to this tax aatter is not con- 
vincing. He says he first hear! of it in 1921, and that it was a 
Batter of coramon knovied(j,e. Allsion testified that tiie first hf>. 
knew of it was in 1925, and his version is supported by a letter from 
the Revenue Depsirtixient dated June 12, 1925. 

Plaintiff testified that when the bai^k job started in 1925 
he and Allison went over the details of the job and it was then 
agreed that plaintiff was to get ICfc of the profits, and yet he later 
testified that the first time he had a definite agree^cent for a coiJi- 
Bission on this job was in 19 29, 

In 1925 plaintiff had a disagreement with Allison »/hi2h re- 
sulted in an order enr^ing plaintiff's authority to sign cnecks lor 
the defendant. The relationship beoaiae strained b^id finally plaintiff 
left def oxidant '8 employ in Au^Tist, 1926. He testified that at this 
time Allison said to aiiu that anyone who left defer. dant "can never 
come back," and yet, in f-ie face of thi* plaintiff laen made ne claim 
for coBunisslon on the bank job. 

rfoo 3nl,.5i^trd Aai:di" BrJ 'io (^^iXoxi^ Qiii 'io ^;0I ,losw js 00X1 'to \;ibI«8 
gs.eo s^d' »aiooui. tsiaci' aSilw Isiijq aU o^ tSi/avsi ,« tc eiiJ^fiiS «M^ «i: 

«©e^;o xbS miiA ni Xnlsasooxia 
&s:mba-B'.t^b btm ,oSi:-X ,\:xu"& ni C;fl,6im ^jlXimil (bsw ©3,e;o x;^* srfi' 

Sili' oi- OOO^SS^ '«?n'^o -^cag o:J h&llv>qi&oo 8«w fciie Xirtas©t>ou««« sew 

♦itoiisaiiaaioo to sijaacf ii(;af5 -xo't 'i'tl^mjaXq o* ibsifft^ilrrc *oa 
?fiOBj;iXA yJ oi b@X%i&a»3! xoaa-^L-iX'^aoo 9di aoqsj to ^bxsb 't'tiiaijiL^ mm 

/soi*i: x^i^tal & xct haito^quB ai xtoieiev a ill .fciie ,SSSX «i e«w ;«•]; "to wscpC 

»Sg6X ,SX QvmT. b^isb iix&&kixe.q9Q ««it»v0fi eif* 

iisrW a^w *i fcas GTot srs* 'i© sXXjad'fti) i&rf;J t»v© ^u©?!- nosilXXA. ftns ad 

'ia&Bl 9f{ *8V: has ^n^ft'toiq »d$ 'io ^OX *»a oi" fiisw t'}:itni,eX<? tfflrfi- J^eatss 

"-laoo <3 "xo't d-a&JM8»TC3is &tiart^b a bad sirf>isid^ ^aii't aiid- **il* J&aX'iX^as-t 

,«S^X ml 8«w «r©t «irf* «o aolsaisH 

-joi aiodfio asia <*^ ^jTitOiiJtJJis a'^ti^nX^Xt axiXfeas tebto as c:x r.-jlua 

sJtxi^ ^i; ie,£iS l)9i"tidra«»*+ ©M .6£eX ,d»tfawA ai xelqmn »[taeha»t9b .tt©X 

i!e>vr*rt t«o" i(it«>i).»!t't©& t'i^l oxtw saa^tw JsxfJ ajliS o* |>X«« xioaXXXA AOiii 

liiijsXo 0^5 »l>«ai a!>ii3 rtlUdalcr eixii 'X© aoe'i ^ii* al ,i»x fcofi *,3io«i/ eaoa 

,cr«t stiwtf 9sLi ao aot'"3tRtmt>it rol 


In AUfciust, 19 2&, plaintiff returned to del-endant; there is 
Eiuch testixaony as to hor>r this resvuiiption ol" omployDient caiae: about; 
pl:iintiri"'s wife gave teetin'ony tending to siiow tiiat it was Uireugji 
a call sne made upon Air, Allison T?.'ith reference to lier husii^dad'e 
returning to the def endeunt ' b employ, and tiiere is variant teBtimony 
ae to what was said at this iiae. 

i^laintiff testified that ^f/hen he returned to defendant he 
had a definite agreessient ?fith Allison that he sitould receive lOrJ 
of the profits on the yjonk joTa, ■aiiile iillison'e testLnony is del"i- 
nite end oositive tnat the agreement to pay a coi^-xuiasion on this 
jo"b depended upon receiving a favorable decision in tha tax case; 
and Allison testified that it was agreed that plaintiff s louid re- 
ceive a salary of 41-<^ a ^eek and lOfj of aitiy nroiits on work there- 
after procured by him, but this agreement could be teradnated at 
any time by either party. 

In 19 29 defendant gave plaintiff a stateiJieiit showing suoh 
profits, and 10^ or #455 -arae paid to xiim. Again, in 1930, defend- 
ant gave plaintiff a statefflent showing profits and a comu.iesion due 
him of a little over $3000, f/hieh was paid to hijti. He made nc ob- 
jection to these statements and payments. At the close of 1930 
Allison told plaintiff that beginning with 1931 there would be no 
more commissions paid until the income tax case was settled favor- 
ably to defendsuit. Friction atiain occurred between plaintiff and 
Allison and continued until 1931, when Allison took over the riana^iC- 
Hent of the Chicago office. 

In January, 193C-, plaintiff inet with an accident, breaking 
an ankle; he reiitained in a hospital for some time and during his 
illness defendant advanced certain sums of money. These advances 
were ^4C4,76 in 'rj:cess of the amount due him on comaissions, and in 
September, 1931, the secretary of defendant company wrote to olaintiff 

i^R m 

;iUQ<is>, Qts&o .^B&nriOlqmti "iQ uoii'Qct'jaa'x 3IA& rod <>.• e<j '^aoaiji'ea;?- iiouii 

-Itdb ei T^i-iOiiuJ-asi- a'aoszXXA oXirlw ^^fot iastf axl* ao ad:i1on:f[ |»4't 'to 

-OI bXuoiig Yllirnl&lq isidi beaiw^ saw t.i i»di b»i1Xi9»i a^NsiXXA I»«js 
»c''ii&rfj- jCno'/ no e^rto-tq •^^rta to ^OX I>ii£ aLesw iS (X)X$ to %'X«Xse « ©tJ;©© 

-do o« »&£!»•> Si! .«Xil 0^ i&iisg. saw daXd^ ,000£# it®T<» ©XcTJlX.* to ss.ld 

oa 9ci fcXwow 9'i«iiJ XSeX j:id-i"jr ^axcini^p^ isaii 'itl&ntsi^, *Xo* aoalXXA. 
-lor&'t bsUiss ai;« s«*sa xa;^ staooni esii liiafs hleq s aoi a a Ixiicieo stow 

*9;i,fciiaw »rf* ISV0 :^ao:J aoaJtXXA n»riw .XS^X lUau &3«Ki4Ttw> Jbne noelXXA 

»i/i snlTJifc baa m&ki emos -ioi Xad-xgaotf a ajt f)»iii«ia9:i 6Ji ;0X3[£(« a« 

Q9o.-«iVfoe esdiil' ,x*"*»* '^<> ^^"^^ iii^^t-ssa fc^o'-isvfce ;fa«&ai»t«6 »«toXXi 
al ba& ,«nojfc«oii<vaon ao raiii sulj Jm;©«w8 erf* 'lo aa»««c* ai .^?.^H ©^^^^ 


frnm St, Louis, calling his attention to this overpayin^nt i&nd in- 
quiring how it should l-e haridled« In Decem"ber euiother ooin^iurii ca- 
tion was eimt to plairtil'f inquiring how this ite^i sboiilr] "be ad- 
Justed, In answer to this p^.aintifl' ^srrot«» tiiat he was unJer the 
ifflpression this; excess, was with the approval of Mr, Alii sen, and 
"his ^!fford is final and whatever he so directs settles it," Hie 
letter roHde no reference to any aioneye claimed to te due hiin, 
although it vrae written a few days before the -md of 19 31. liJor 
wa« anything then said ahout iiny uonay c'lue plaintiff on the hank 
job. Plaintiff's testimony attei«pting to explain tJiis letter ia 
confusing and contradictory in many respects. 

In kay, 1932, AiliBon reduced plaintiff's salary to #75 
a waek, with the understanding taat if during, that year the busi- 
ness of defendant earned suff iciarit profits he would receive the 
difference between this and $100 a week. It is stipulated that the 
profits of defendant for the year 1932 were or<ly #309.50, At the 
end of 1933 Allison iinfoniied plaintiff that it 'Aas necessary to 
reduce Jxis salary to #50 a week for tiie year 1934, and that if the 
business earned sufficient profits during that year he would re- 
ceive the difference between 4W a weei: and #75 a weeis:. For the 
year 1934 tne boons showed a loss of $3306,10, 

^hen plaintiff was told tnat it would be necessary to re- 
duce his salary to j^50 a week ibr 1934 he agreed to the arrang^ement 
and continued to work lor defendant, making no clairi for additional 
compensation even when he received his last salary check of #50 
on February 7, 1935, which was tiie final week of hie employuent; 
ha then left defend^it for ejuploy&ent with the United States 

We have given a condensed review of the salient points in 
the evidence, 'rhe record contains a mass of tesi;iir.ony, mostly re« 
lating to conversations, whic.x Ib of no critical impo^tarice. The 

~a!3 inisfii,-u0o "s^ild'on^ 'isdsaso^Ci aX «l»s,,0;/.^fi -^id !>I.uGxi8 w^l xrori ^pdilts;^ 
Bdd tQhaii 8«w ad J-isxCj ei-oMW 'i'tlinlslq, etdi ©i iswjsfus nl *ft»d'ew.t 

ai "x^i^ffsl xiix^Xisxt' ot gflii-Qii&d'd-^' ^i'lo^^-^^a^sd- a'TU^^aijel^ ♦fif©t 

"t&ud ©rid- X6©Y :J"axidr ^niaifj:> li ;}-£nI^ ^aiibaisd-a'xofcxijji OiH dil^ ,:l9&v M 

©iid- ^-A .Oi.yOfil 'cJ^'io .31SW S£9X i«9i^ &£i,f lo't inmbai&'i&h t© etfi'ipxf 

oi^ Y't'^y^^^s^on 9ii-:: ^l iiisii 't'tHai&Lq iJSfaTto'tiXi: nosi;IX4 5£ei to £rfls» 

axis- 'li ^&dti hi-m «!^5i>X tas-v; gxtf lo't :^©0W & Og$ od" i5itjsl«8 aJta d©tfjb»a 

0jlt la's. ».i<:0sw <s SVf feOB "Jtf»9w i» oai a9«??*0cf. «oii®'£9't'tiij »ri# »vl»» 
,v>X«S0€fi;ji 1« seel i? fi'itwoiiB astoecf »4iJ l-^ex ijs»y 
-;?''X Ow ■v:i'3aa©o»« sd' l»Xjaow :fi: 4»iii bloi 8i»w "fiWnijsXq: msiiW' 

X4B£ioid-i ]■•{'.« tot -xjbIo on giiiiisflJ (ifosfti-iislsJ^ lo'i aiow o* i»s«aiJaoo feaa 

03$: 'to 5ios>*io Y.ti5Xfi« tafiX airf b&'ri»Qtsi% Qti asxlw aisva ttox^aaasqimoo 

litiiii.t^olq,ia.9 eiii "to Jiosw X^iil't srW •«w xioliiw ,86®! I'f >5xain:cf©^ ko 

nJt eiraioq imilBH oxii 'to weiv&i Jbs*aas6«oo & navXs srfjri qVV 

exIT ,eort»*«oqji>ii XfioicflTts on 'to al xtolxlw .exioiJ-aaiayiioo o* sttid-sl 

si.xtple question prdsented is whether plaintiff's version cf the 
cr&l agrSrffientB ^ixii reference to the coiaridaaions and aalary, or 
the tfsti;r..ony of Ailiscn, si^oulvi te accepted, T.Ue i.ii4>?tdr, wco siaw 
the witnesaea and heard tixew testify, accepted Aliiaun'a version 
of the aeTQaaent ^md his finding was approved by the CiiaiiO'^llor, 
There is atundant intrinsic eYidenoe supporting tais conciusioii* 
Ihe repoi^fe oi t xaaster in chancery is entitled to appropriate 
consideratioa, Allison's testi .ony is liot iinprohable or un- 
liKely in auiy part, while tj^iat of Seitz ia inoousisteivi uxid in 
some respects so iiopi-o'bable as to make it unreliable, 

yS'e see no reason to disagree vsith the concluBion of the 
master in chancery, suad the decree diSii.issing the couiplaint in 
accordance with his reeosamendation is affirmed. 

ifeatohett , i?» J« , and O'Connor, J,, concur* 

KOi;e'j;%v a^aociiifi, ijrj'tq-soii^ ,i£'li.4'e!»;S' xa©.iiJ' feu^^il liite e^gas-aJ-'i-sr ^xiJ^^ 
.fxoisiiXo'COO gsiricr gnx j'"soqei/R s>o«*»&xt© oisstit^iil ItaMkaui^B ik s-gsJffi 

^mmiitA • "' ■ ' ;; '' '! 


MINUIS D. CHISVL-ElSf, Administratrix / 
of the Estate ol" aiutOJEL 0. ClLEVirgff, 

Plaint il'i', 


MORi^IS MORi-asOii, liiiRKY MOiAiilSUiJ and 
BiiSSliU M0Ri=Ll30H, oo-partiiers, doing 
business as kOfiiilSOi!^ WixivLiGii GOwJAHY, 
l&^\JAA^ii£ uu*Piu-ii Oi' PiULADKi-PHiA, 
» Corporation, L0UI3 MOHjIISOH and 

i)el'??iidant s. 


(Cross Piaiiitifl') 

Appellant , 


Corporation, (Gross lOel'sndaj^t) 





X «ri.» ^ X ^ 



Miniiie D, €5he-?'len, administratrix of tJae estate of Samuel 
S, Ghevlen, deceased, filed 'htr "bill of complaint against wenhers 
of a oo-partnership doing business as Morrison Flnanc© Coffipany, 
and certain otaer defendants, including Sam Blum feuid Provident 
Mutual Life insurance Company of Philadelphia; she sought aii ac- 
counting and the procesds of a life inaurfince policy issued by 
the Insurance company on the life of her Husband, Samuel 3. 
Chevlen; defendsuits filed answer*, and Sam Blum, hereafter called 
cross-pia1.Jitiff , filed his cross- complaint a,^ain8t the Provident 
itutual Life Insurance Company as croS8-def endant , saeicing a itioney 
decree of :^10,000 a.v^ainst the company, with interest, olaiBdng an 
assignrannt to hira of the proceeds of the nolicy after the death of 
Samuel y. Ghevlen, the insured; the cross-defendant move's to strike 
this cross- complaint, which motion was sustained, and cross- 

{ ^Ym.lM.OQ lEOuAAl's: ioaiEJiOiii && seaaxayGf 
( . 



{ ,«ioIIegcrA 

^^ai^qGinO eortfcuiil rtoaiiio-M. esi sissniejud gniol) C[lrfeii"&«j'X<B(T-'no «< *to 
jTa^^xvo-x*-! fcas fi-uiia fiifc-C gniMficul ,B^aaJ>w9'iel5 i&i-.Ufo ttiiiJiso bos 

.o l^umsu ,J&aoasuii lan "to ©'iiX ©xio fio icfieqiiioc^ iiormrivsal »iii 

iiiebivoi^i »n^ j-aaii^sx; ;fiUBiq:ifcoo-6ao'£o eid f>»Xi'i ,'i'U;^ni.BXC[-Beoio 

rue artiifliiiXc ,*ssM( rCc!iw ,Ym^qxnco aJ:f;^ tenljsr:.* 000,0X1 "io 'osisoft 

*io f(*B©^ erW rttf'tc ^c^iLoc orf.t to ebasooiQ edi 'Jo iiiiri o* ^fJerarsxaBe 

B-iLirin oi Severn ^^«f^il«>'t0^~8:•io1o oAf ;l>®iJL;enl 9i« ,n»Xv0xlO .t^ Xowcasfi 

plaintiff not amending hi* cross-complaint it was dismissed giiid 
he appeals. 

It is conceded tixat the controversy on tnie appeal is 
confined to the action of the trial court in susttiiuirife the In- 
surance company's motion to etrike the croae-eoffiplaint of J-ilum. 
lie questions are presented touching the issues raised ty the 
original complaint of Minnie D, Chevien, the adJtainistratrix, or tiie l 
answers ol' tae defendants. 

The cross- complaint. sQ.leged the issuarice by the Insurance 
company of a ilO,000 insurance policy on tlie life of Samuel i^, 
Chevlen, dated October 2S, 1923, with Samuel 3, One-rlen & Company, 
Inc. n.ajTi(?d as beneficiary; that the insured and the beneficiary 
were indebted in excess of ?^2Q,uU0 and iSovember 14, 1930, executed 
an assignment of the policy to Morrison 5'inance Company; this as- 
eignment was filed mth the Insuraiice company in acccrdai;ce ^^ith 
the provisions of its policy. 

iliat subsequently a con'; oration lcno'J?n as the Chevlen 
Potato Company w&e organized, which -was to be substituted for 
Saimel 3, Chevlem & Company, In;,, i^& beneficiary of toe policy; 
that therf.:af tex, at the request oi' ta« insured aiid Chevlen &. Uoffipany, 
Inc, Fjrid itorrison ffin&rice Conipany, the Insurance couipany agreed that 
if the assignment of tue policy to the liorrison i'inance Ooa-paxiy were 
released and a proper request made to cnange the beneficiary to 
Chevlen Potato Comp<iny, &. corporation, the change would be made 
in the .>oliQi?; tiat a release of the assignment to the Aorriaon 
Pinance Conipani- was thereafter uiadft and a proper request for a c.iange 
of the beneficiary to the Caevlen X^ottuo Jovapany, ,% conporation, was 
prepared and bot:^ of th^se documents were delivered to the Insurance 
company; tiiat the Insurance eoapany did not in>5orae on tne policy 
the name of the new beneficiary and did not return to the Morrison 
yinanee Gorapariy it« rs3.easa. 

i -AJ. i^sixlcf£j:lajjfi ni iiijoo Imixi Bdi 'to no-td'ois Qiii oi h&as'laoo 

„ ,5 lojjfliaS 'to 9'tiX 9-riJ no ■<;olXog so/wijjshJ: 000«OX$ & 16 ^iiagcioo 
,y.aBq{BoO .r:^ fiaXvsfiO «£ Xfei/rf«£ a'^Jiw ,8SPX .^SS rt^cfo-toO i>si&l) ,is9XvsxfO 

IteS'L'oiSxe ,Og(?X ,1'i 'loa'iTtaToSl Jbtus 000«OS$ to -^sa&xs ai; h&t^^Mil mB-V 
-.s* sXfi;'' I'^rwsqiiioO ©aa-s.iil noei-i'ToM oJ" lioiXog. s*a,i' 'io ta^iijiaalaa*; fi« 

;v;oi:Xoq ere; lo •?TC«idx'ir©H»d s^^ , ,^' nl ^-^at^iiwO i. aaXvs-^ ,|J l&^m& 

«»'i»w -^fK-qi^ioU ©oaj-si-tiU iioai-i'iOAt a.fecf oiJ- 'CoXXoq.. ©il^ 'to ^fiJ9«i-£Si.Qaj0 »4f '•ti 

si)Bit ?cf faXwow ®s<'isJf*i^ ■ •s^"*' ,£i(jXi«'socj'Soo -^^ , Y,"-^«i'*o^ o<J6^o«'i f»sXv»xe) 

aosi'sxoM 9iU 0^ 3mmvjsl&Qe ©iii- 'io #ai89X9*x « if«4J JxaiXoq -»4i" «-* 

B^mx^o « lo't ^s-s-wpe-x i^jooicf £ Sum •b&ax %»n4iS%»M eaw .Ajacq^oO saaarU'S 

ACoxXoq 0iti no Q&iQbni ioa bib Ttm^q^os .aoneixiBax aii^ l^fi^: j^n^ijfli^o 
aoaixaoSA &/kJ ©^ i^jj^^fx 5t»« &i:f. &»« iQ^fiip^'t<»asd wsii 94i, ;t^ :,«awa t«W 

The policy, whioa is attached to the orosa-eooiplain-'; , pro- 
vides i'or the payment of premiuias on the 22nd day of April anc^ of 
October of eacli year. The ores a- complaint furtner al?i.epeifl tiiat the 
premium whicn fel3 due jn April 22, 19S1, wae not paid because of 
the refusal of txie Insurance company to change the beneficiary to 
the Chevlen Potato Conipsny, a corporation; that this refuBal con- 
stituted a breach of the contract of insurance and therefore no 
premiums bpcatae thereafter due and payable. 

that the insured died July 3, 1933, axi.1 due proofs of death 
were filed; tiiat on Septerber 11, 1933, the morrlaon Finance Company 
for a valu8,ble consideration assigned in writing its olaim as as- 
signee of the policy to the cross-plaintiff, Saes Blum, 

The cros^-coEiplaint furtiier averred that the policy was is- 
sued in the stace of Pennaylvaiiia <ind that its laws orovide a metliod 
which such insurance companies must follow in oomputing its reserve 
on each policy, its cash value, loari value, values for ext^iuded in- 
insuranee, and other values; that at all times after April 28, 1931, 
when a sead-annual >reruiuni fell due, the Insurance co.. pany had on 
hand and available, sufficient money belonging; to the insured, which 
had accumulated under the policy as cash value and declared divi- 
dends, to pay the re?:ular premiuiis on tne policy as they became due, 
which money if properly applied to the payment of these preadums 
woulfi have pai.i them all u-5 to and beyond the time of the death of 
the insured, 

Cross-coraplaint prayed an accounting and discovery by the 
Insurance oomparjy, propounding a number of interrogatories, and 
asked for the cancellation of the release by the iiiorrison Finance 
Company of its interest in the policy and for a money decree of 
#10,000 against the Insurance company, witu interest troa. the date 
of the deat ; of the insured. 

'io ftf-iP liiqA Vto v£|j baas QrfJ- ao aaurxisjsiq to c?a©xa^Bq ©iid" i6'l a«I>lv 

fii-jBSfc to e'.tooi<f ofc'.% ^lis , ££©! ,8 tXifX. J&sXfe Jba^wsffl ©if* i-jeriT 
YnsqmoQ soaani^. fioBii'ioM srE-t ^SS?! ,XX t^dr^.st&q^B ma ;tarf.t jMXlt «S«i^W 

♦JOwXa ^asS ,"ttl^rrxfiXo«sBoico 9d[>f o^ v;oiXo«f eiifcf t& dsijgjbc 

hOxis-^Ei « fiSiyoio- e^^f*?! jbjI i'^il* fern? «i£is¥X^cnij«i^ 'io e^a^a sif* ■ti-t'fmtm 
avxisss-x ei'i ginid'uqcioa xti woIXc't imm aaxrf«sfiMoo oofifrii?anl- ift)W»' rttiilir 
«.nx fcshii'^^J'xs lo't 3BjjX*5r ,iS)jj£y np.ol ,6oCfiv iia*ro ad^i ,\:oi:Xo<:r iio«» ao 

.Xf'-CX ,SS Xx'iqA i9;f'ta 89^il;> XXjs ijs iBdt ;a©jjX«v ♦saxid'© btm ^^vastusni 

jioxiiw ,,f>©ii/aax ©fli 03" jjHXsjtioXscr \9noJa *n©loitl.ja ,«X^^XijBT.e iias brterf 

-XTi^ fea-xjBXoob btm ewXjBv ri«ji?o a* 'tjolXoQ ^lit x&bav Jb**«Xmfi/&aE ^H 

,sufi SissAO&ti xBsU as. ijsiXoit? ©li* ao si.yjx£««>i^ ■s«X««(««e «ii* t**^ o* ,aba^fc 

to a;^jB9£> ari* to ^*sij utii fmoxscf bru? «* ct; XXr m»rl* f5X.e^ 9T«ii f»Xff0W 

fli~!:f \:rf ^?cfflv«>0 8Xi> biiB i>ai^ fB/ooo* «» he^^Tor tn.i:>6XtfiHoo-®«o«J> 

sooeni'SL nooiitoil »a* TC«f »aa»Xs-j; a^rf* to noli&l£^oimi» 9di tot iyoaCs* 

otH.b aiiJ aioit c^eH-£»*al ^.J^i:*' .Y'T^^q^oo aoircxwaiil atl* *8ni»s« 000, 0X$' 

-; ,,fc8-cw8nl ari;^ to i ;f«ah atii to 

Cross-plaintirf in thie court eayp that th« insuTCr! was 
excused i"roin paying preiuiuiriB falling due on or after April 22, 1931, 
by reason of the "breaca of t:ie policy contract by the Irjsurarce 
coKipa/)y in failing to change the beneficiary as reouvsted. A nuruber 
of BXitiwern are made to this. The provision of the policy {{overning 
changes of beneficiary require the requ^^st for change to be J'iled 
at the hoiae office of the Insurance coKipany "accoBipanied by this 
Policy,* smd that the coaipany Bhall be charged with notice of the 
change only when indorsed on the policy, iTae cross- complaint does 
not allege that the policy r&n returned to the Insurance cosrpany 
for this indorsement. In Be^ey y», JLillej, 137 111, Apn. 678, 
under a similar s^tate of facts, it Yi&a held that if the insured 
desired to change the beneficiary he xnust forward the policy for 
indorssKent, as required by ite terCiS, 

Jioreover, as we have held in Sim L if e As su.r,„, Co . y^ 
Williarae . 284 111, Aj^^p, 22S, (leave to appeal denifd by the Su- 
preme court) the provision for the. ind orseiaent on the isolicy is 
for the protection of the compfmy and the change becomes effective 
i?-hen Tjioperly requested. See also Crawford ,v,, Wyant,^ 284 111, App. 
336. The casfis citefl by ore 8P-plaintlff , Ifre't^d.. v ,, ij'reujid. 218 
111, 189, and Ke"Sldorney v. MetropG litan Ins , Co.. 347 111, 66, 
fcllov-ed an Interpretation ci' a Kew York statute governing changes 
of beneficiary; but siEiil^r provisions for cn&nge of beneficiary 
appearing; in policies of inearaiice have latterly been construed 
otherwise. %ite v. ¥hite, 194 h. Y, a, 114, ana cases there 
cited, Chatham Phenix l\. B ank <i T, _ Co, v. Travell er g *_ Ins, -^o. , 261 
S. Y, 3, 43, Baley v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Aiaerica, 263 2<.Y,S, 
244, rm6 hevx_XsJSe5Ljor^-JiiL«J^ll^ 265 i,Y.S. 377. 

Tiie instant policy r'&e isEued in PennBylvatUa, and xinder 
the law of that state wnen the insured has oouiplied as iully as 
lies within his power witn the requirements for the euange of 

ajdW, h^Tki^r^l siijj- ^m>.& i3x«8 ^sioo a Mi- oi Tti;tfj;ij6l<|«3eoTa 

-i}8 Qri* •^d fe9ix^0i^ Xaaqq.o c^ '''Va^X,) ,3Sa .er^A .XXX l^g- :^ai,i;a3i:^Xi:y 

-SXS ^^misi'ti-'. - J j./^mjfsu'*i^ ,Tii*ax«X(?^®aoio Y<f Ifa^io «'»a«o- ©iff .9S^. 
,ad .XXI '^^& . .oU.,.£<aX iiaJlXogo-iJ-^'M ,v ig!9rmp£>xa:QM b&B- «fi©i; ,UI 

v.-Xi;U»i'lso*<rf 'to »;S.ib5iiQ -xoT: aaolalvoiq i«Xi«ia $-ud ix^siHi'i&n9:<S'lo 

91S/-.3 B©Bj8;> in-w ,MX .a .Y .^-i>QX ..e.^^xn-^y .«.?. sjtlflW .sexwicsrl^o 

BB xXXui aj3 l.i^xXqKO'« 8-JXl bs>ivGni oni n&im 6i6t& tutii 'to w»X d<i.t 

beneficiary, such champe is effective altixough not indorsed upon 
the policy, Ru^p;ari v, G riffltlif . 315 Pa, 455; Skamoricun v^ 
Konap.iakjg. 313 Pa, 128; Hiley v, Wirtla. 313 Pa, 362. Cro?3- 
plaintii'f skllegea that everyt ing required by tiie policy to 
effect the charige of tenefl clary to Ghevlen Potato Oomptaiy had 
"been done; if this is so, then sucJx charige was comoleted -md 
effectiyft even tliougi:i the Iiiaux"anoe coi^ipany refused to indorse 
the change on the policy, 

Coiineel for the Insurance coiapany aptly note that either 
the predecessors in interest of orose-plaintifl did not co&oiy 
with the terroe of the policy relating to a change in Ijenef iciftry, 
in which case they we^e not entitled to a ehaiige, or, if they 
did fully comply, tie change waa completed without any indorsement 
on the policy, and that in either event there was no "breach of the 
contract by the Insurance company. 

The orosB-coHiplaint alleges that when the release of the 
Morrison i'inanoe Goispany, i?ith a request for change of beneficiary, 
was sent to the Insurance company, it '^ffrongfully and fraudulently 
or by mistake filed and retained said release," It is not alleged 
that it was ever asked to cancel or return the release, ani? it has 
been frequently held that the term "wrongfully and fraudulently" 
and sixailar expressions are merely surplusage in the .absence of 
allegations of facts aho^^ing tiiat tiie supposed fraud or other 
offenses cuarged were, Stephens v. Coll i son ^ 249 111, 225; Dpj3se 
v» Dooee . 300 111. 134; Ater v. McClure . 329 111. 519; heavner v^ 
Heavner, 342 111. 321. V7e do not see iiow cross-plaintiff caii base 
any cause of action upon the mere failure of the Insurance company 
to return or cancel the release when it i& not alleged that it ^ae 
ever requested to -^o so, or that it would refuse to do so if re- 

Cross-plaintiff's theory is thtbt the non-action of the 

bns' tiQii^xaBQo ss'w «>3.'i«u© flag's .afSirid" ,o® si ^si-fi^ 'ix j.i«>ao& n^iit<i 

nXoiS.&^ ©dif a© i^jiOierfo 9Cit 

•^@rf* 'li 4 '10 jdsfi^aiiG a; oi fceXd-xJ-c® Jon eTsw x©^"^''^' ss'^o nai-fiw ai 
■iTf.»i^i«5aT:o&ai: ^ftfe .iKd^Lti^ bataXciEGo easts' 6:|a®il© «x.J ^ijXqseoq xllu't blh 
&iii '.to riofi)©i«f on ©isri^ #ii©v» •xs-jlcJ'l© al Jf^siii .b.os, ^foilof #«ft ^a0 

t'^iai-oi-JtaaBSf 't© ©jijasfio tco'J. -J-esit;psx 6 rf^if? ,^iiBi5a®£) aoi'sjaniU moBlttoM. 

'to ^oaaeda t»di ai »g^siii,qti;z x^^"^^'-^* •'*■*« Jstrtolaa^itJ^.© osXiiKia JStfWs 

gjBOog ;(JSS .XXI SI4: Aii^6jiXop_..4j9:jy3giiS2^ ,!9iE»w ftsg-iBf:^ a9*«s'ne 

„v. -xaav^gli ;??.te ,XXI mt ■.■9-SiJXDgM ^V i»^A j4^&X ♦XXI OO^i tSMSS..^ 

■)3^5rf mo rmcaj&lq'^mo'ifi uro^l »&e *®ii 9k «»^ .^Stl? ,XXI K^K «X91SSSli 

^jo^jcfjiieo ©onaTiiBiii ftst,? 'to •tulim'l 9%m& 9iM nmM «®i*o^» "io »sif®o Tjits 

B^-^ jX tGd-J J»«39XX^3 i-oa sii d"! mdw tBjs4»i»^ 9xi* X»o««3 to rttWi^ait ©* 

~!$i 11 oa ob e>* »«iJl»'i~ hXirow d-i :?«ilj 'i# « OB oS> Q* fe^*astfp«7 ists 

Insurance company amounted to an anticipatory treaoli or liie coK- 

traot oi' insuroi^ce w^iic-i. eaticied Ui.ia, as a.ssig'/riee, re tae I'ace 
stfiount 07 the policy as dauiiagee. molPley v_». In,., y, e Ina, Uo .. 
29 5 u. si. 632, hoi* tiiat an anticipatory f; reach laeaus suoa repu- 
diation by one partly as entitles tiie other to treat the contract 
an abaoluteiy >Aiid i'iually broken, xn tAat case tue xneuranoe coui- 
pany reiuaed. to pay Hionti».ly dieability tpnelits triroug, i i-lie 
ffiistaiien belief that the degree ol" disability conditioning the 
right to such pajTuentu no longer existed, i'iaiiitiil* "brougnt Buit 
for the race value ol' the policy, alleging an auticipauoiy "breach. 
It was tiiere held that the action ol' the Insuraiice cowpariy did not 
ftiaount to a repudiation oi the policy, in imqw lork. -uii'd Ixis. C<o . 
v« yiKlas, 56 d. Ut, ixep, ol5, under a similar state oi iaci-s it 
was held tn-it there was no antlcioatory "breach ol the i:;ontract of 
Insurance, Able cooiisel for oross-plaintiff have cited a. large 
number of cases tending to support tne proposition that a breach, 
ty an insurance cooipany gives tne rif=,-i^it of an ijiu^ediate action to 
the person entitled to the proceeds of tne poxicy. it v/ould unduly 
lengtlien this opin..on to not© theia inidetail, it is sufficienc t© 
eay tnat in those cases tiie respective defeiu<.ai\t8 .u.Ad repudiated 
the contract; there is no repudiation of tiie policy ^oatract in the 
Instant case; the company is ready to aoid© by its coutraot. 

The foundation stone of cross-piainoiff 'b claim is ziie 
allegation that the Insurance company had in its ha/ida i^oney he- 
longing to the insured sufficient £o pay eacxL preii^iurc d,s i t fell 
due until the insured's death. This is laerexy a conolusi&n, and 
an exatTiination of the specific allegations of the- cross- complaint 
completely negatives this, 

Oross-plaintiff says tnat tae loan value of ti^e policy 
Plus dividends was sufficient to pay the necessary premiums. The 

"iior) Qivi "io iiOJBSief x'xo:t£iq_ioliiTuiy rm o^ b^irwom^ X^*8<J^oo •ofliK'.twaaX 

« vQ:^.-.8;19.L:*...^;';4.,,..*y -"^ ,.*,''«^ ,j?^.-^;^"fi^ ,Sf>i5Jt5iiasij bs x'^^^oq sa!* '^0 it£Ciioaya 

.lijoBe-xd. x"-t'J>J^QJ-wi>J''*! ii« Sfii,ii,»Ii>! tX^ilog ©tl* 'io BUlnf ©o«"i 9i{;t "x^Jf 

Joa iSii> ■ >^tieqwou eotis-x wanl »Xi3' to ftoljoa 0i3;^ aBXid- bXsrf siaiW cfiir *I 

, ov ^axil e'ii .u.. :i iioi: f^ s^i. aX ,\;oiIoq siij to noxlsxfeuejdi s o* Jxiuo«#, 

fiiis&'xci js Ji-iiii? ixoiJ"iBOGoicf ©xia dioQqwa oJ" a«i^n«»;^ ayfieo 'to i9dmuB 

fi»xld ai aojBi;}xioo ^^uiXo^ axldi 'lo iioi^«iJE>tfG[S'j: on ei: ©aoil;^ linatfapo, 94t^ 

exia ax mxiiXo b' ■I'xiJaXKXa-aao'xs '£© s.ucJs HolJ^fcauc'i 9ftT 

-ecf xs«o*'i tti»iiaxi 8*1 ni bad xoBqmois ©oiusiueal »xi* ;J-4axl* aolix^^llB 

XXa'l li a*i auji-aeiq HaBQ >t«q od #fT»ioi'tti,8 bsiueni »xi* o* ^at^aol 

ban juoiauxoxjoo *> \;i6i«.£a ei eiriX .rl*£j9l> «»&©^L'8ni »riJ Xitfitu »irf» 

jTii.-iXCiinoy-aKois) i)di io e^oxi^<yas•tXs ox'tioega »xi* 'to aoi^BcthmTm n» 

T^olXcq 'Aiit 10 ouXjs/ xxmoX oxi^ ;t<oaJ SAcea 'ni^nX^Xq-BBOiU 

policy provides that loena would be made on tiie eeourity ol' the 

policy "on receipt thereof aiir- ol* a satisfactory Advance Agp*.*?- 

ment." It is not alleged th^t the insuied ever rcqu*5st^d -r^y 

loan or that t'le policy wds offered ae isecurity or that ,4J7y ad- 

V'ino* agreftBaent was executed t*y the insured, 

Tlie provision of the T)olicy touching; non-payment of 

preiElumB reads - 

"If any preinium ghall not "be paid when due or "before he 
expiratiou of the grace period of thirty-one days thereafter, 
this i?olicy ehRll cease liXj.'l "become void except as hereinafter 
provided "by the non-forfeiture provisions," 

The non-forfeiture provisions gave the insured three optional 
Ketlioda of utilizing the cash value or equity of the policy in the 
evidnt of its Inpae, ntonely, paid-up insurance, extended terai in- 
surarjce, or withdrawal in cash, and in case no other option was 
selected the policy becaSiS autoiiiatleally valid for paid-up in- 
surance, it follows, therefore, that the Insurance company could 
not, under the circumstances, use the cash A/alue to laake loans. 
An even inore convincing argument appears when the loan 
value of the policy is estimated as prescribed by uie policy, 
She amoiint of the loan availabl* to the insured is specified in 
the policy to be - 

"a sum which, with all indebtedness on this Policy, and interest 
on said indeotedness ajid said aiuu to tiie end of the current policy 
year, and any unpaid portion of the preiaium for such policy year, 
shall not exceed the cash value of this Policy at the" end of suah 
policy year,* 

On October 22, 19 51, the policy would be entering its fourth policy 
year, at the end of -which its cash value would be #630. xo arrive tb 
its available loan value accoxding to tiie provisions just quoted, 
there must be a deduction of ^628,99 froii this cash value, which 
leaves an available losui value of #151,01, which is not sufficient 
to pay the premiuius to October 22, 1932, 

Counsel ior eross-plaintiff apparently do not stress the 
claim that the insured was entitled to extended term insurance. 

-feis \"iU: j.-;.:.i iO xdi'tXisa^a a.(? Bsita't'io bmw yoiXocL art-:? ^«f^ tq asoX 
e/!..; a-ioleo' 'lo aub xisilw iji^sq esf ion ILnde muxm^tq ^hjs tl'* 

''Sii uns^ b9bri?i$'S.B ^ooimtuntal qu^ ,\;Ioii3Uirt ^^b^I eil 'lo ian^trs 

iiB©X ©.eii usiiw ei^srqqjK c^ iT(©mi;>.i*£jB ^ftiaiH.X^aoo fttoai flST© flA. "■ .,. 

iii. Jb^i'ilosqa ei ba-xsjSi^l 9ii^ oJ ©IcT^iXi^v^ a«oX 9jq[^ 'jL^ tmsoBm »ifl? 

« erf 05* -^©IXo? oii* 

^ts^Bx xolLfi^r iit)Uo ao't lafciaie^tQ: ^dUf 'to Roii"i«)« ibi^qnij t^ajs fcfu? , tt*9^ 
ifoij?; '£0 biie 9iiJ J-*} v;oiXo<5 exil;? Ic ©ijl£.-v jiaiso Silj' f»se©x© ion IXsiIb 

Y.oiXoo- j[i*T*Jo*t fc^i jiniiedo© scf i>XJUOw ^alXoq »iii .ifiex ,^S ««tf©#fiO jdeO 

xioiiiw,»aX*)V ABjao aiii^ -wu^'i e8#fiSa$ *io aoiisi/bai a swf Jaica ftxerl* 
d-aslti'i'iwa j'on ai xioirfw ,XO,XdXt 'io aaXjav iteol 9Xa,»Xisya oe aevjioX 

,SS«X ,SS ^ftOfocfoO o<t 8£5Af Xm=9iq arf* v^o oj^ 
oilJh sa^Tia ion ofc \:Xift©ij8qq« l'ti*«l43Xq-8eoio lo'l XaamjoO 

In any event, under the terms oi' the policy ho v^as not intitled to 
tills. x'he policy provides t)aat the insured, -wishing any extended 
term insurance, must within thirty- on a days si't^r the MCpixation 
of the grace period atLlowed lor the payment oi' any pre.duia in de- 
fault, make written r^^quest I'or extended term insuraiice. It ia 
not a.^leged tnat any such request '/as .ade. As ^»e have said, the 
policy provided tnat unless the insured elected extended t&rr? in- 
surance or withdrawal of the cash value ol" the policy, it should 
automatically hm<}ome valid as paid-up insuriuice for the life tiiae 
of the? insured, BXii the insurance company is obligated to apply 
the automatic option, Dwyer v^ M etropolitan Life Ins. Co .. 132 
S. 0. 10, 

Evpn had tha insured exercised the option for extendi'd 
tex*m insurance, this vyoul-^. not have covered hiit at the 'late of 
his death. As suown in the oolicy, the terra of «?.-v:teri'':ed insurance 
on April 32, 19.31, v.-as one year and 529 days, sxid the insured lived 
106 days after the expiration of that period. 

Cross-plaintiff says that a dividend of ii43.60 should be 
apolied to tiie purchase of extended insurance, but it is not alleged 
that this woul.'J have purchased insurance covering th« date of the 
insured's death, Moreover, as this dividend vra,& losn thmi any gerii- 
aiinual premiim v;!hder the lolicy, the oorapany v/as not obliged to ac- 
cept it as partial payment of premium but was obligated to hold it 
to the credit of the policy, ©r payable in cash on deiaand, 31.Qcum 
V , Mev York Life Ins. Co,, 223 U. S, 364; Willi aias v. Union Central 
Life Ins. Go. , 291 U, S, 170, 

Gouneel for cross-plaintiff in his reply brief disclaiiaB 
any desire or intention to ask for any general accountini^ of excess 
reserres and undeclared dividende, and relies upon the cash value 
set forth in the policy table of nonforfeiture values and the 
dividends actually declared. It thus becoiae* unpacessary-t© discuss 

"Hi: rsi'u;^ I)©6aG*..'-!9 fcfi,t-vi-:^is &-^%usal ©dj oaoln*/ ^■■B;U''.bSjbivj>icr ljolX"o<? 
Muoria ii ,-\CcxIoq end 'to hwIbv rtSBo arid" 'to Ijsv?«^f>ri;tl>-r •to ©offaTwa 

.01 «0 ,8 

"to -^jJ"-':/^ 9ii* J.K miii l>©isvoo QYsii ion bluo^ nidi ^^oi'm'tmal m'l^f 

feayil l5'^xi.faiti srW ha.B ^ey^-^ <?Sf. I)cus ta9\; ©no bjs'w ,X£CX ,SS? ilT:<jA no 

.toi'soa 5/uii "lo aoid'^iifps 9di i»*'ijs e^^l) DOX 
©a" /iliforle oa/f.H lo Jba^bi'/if- c &mii ©Yfio TtiiJ-KX^Xq-fieoiO 
ijesJ'XXjs JOii ei ix d'jja ,f.oi:te"Sijani f)ehnsJx© to sg-sxioiwe ©xli od* MiXgq* 
9ii.-t "to So'^fc Siicr :^«ii«voo semiiwaaJL J&aafiilotJJcr sT«xi *pXi;ow axrit tuiii 

mirogiii i,fu-j«iTio& ao rfajsa ai sXd"j3\;*iq io ^x^iloq sxiJ- 'to mjsio ©xi^ oJ 
X/3i;^tiaO woial^ .,-vr uftplIXjg ;l-oS ♦S .U fcSS . .(;>q ,. sixl 9'Ul ^- loX ^'Sl.. .. v 

.OVX .S ,U XeJx . . oQ *anl sti^X 
SiiutfiloBX/-, 'i'^itd ■\jXq»a old i-^i t'txiwljiXcF-eaoio lo't XftenueO 
.nox© "Io rjfiiitnuooojB L£Tif5n»s TtfX;i; lo't aieia o.t rioi^^ne^ni io «il««l> '^jiw rfBfio exiJ aoqu aeiXs^ bi-i£ ,af)«e£.Xvi.f) J!>©ij8Xosi>au bm ssvrtsaoT: 

asuoaif- €,^fc.t^f».e9^#i?|^^a«iaoo9a awa;^ dl .fcd^«Xo©A x.XX«i;d-o« aijosfcivXt, 

whether crosB-plaintifl* has axiy ri,;iit to any accounting of the 
Insurance company '• alleged excess reserves and undeclared ril""^id'?nd8, 

There are a number of oases holding that declared diviu^nds 
due the insured ahould "be apniied to prevent default in the pcyuient 
of premiuniB, There are also other oaees holding that the dlvrl denda 
0hould be added to the policy reserve to increase the duration of 
the extended term insurance then available, it is unrl.eeeB''^:^^y to 
cite or distinguish these cases, sot in the present case - aes 
apparently cross-plaintiff adi^dts - the aoplication of the aeclared 
dividends would not h&ve carried the exten'ied ir^euratice to th«^ date 
©f th« insured's death. 

To have followed in detail all the points i^ade "by respective 
counsel would have made tiiis opinion even longer thtm it is. As 
we ivre of the opinion that the cross- complaint of Blum did not set 
forth sufficient facts to entitle him to the relief smu'^t , the 
motion to strike wa« properly sustained and the order of di^r^-ij. pgal 
is affirmed, 

Matc^ett, F, J,, ajnd O'Connor, J., concur. 

l>axQio9& ®.!i^ 'to nolJ'jSioiXq.qjB sMi *»» aiJlnsM Tli:;tnJ:iji^«®«oT:0 i^ii^a^iacxqiJB 

9Yi:d'oa»gBS't xgcf ©fejsm acfaiog tsri^ XX« Xi:i?3"sl) ai ,ft»v/oXIc'i ©vjsxi. oT 

eA ,ex ^-ti rnsiii 1S30OX osrs iiolaiqo al^id- ©fc^ffi avjsii fiXtfow X©a««oo 

d-&s ^on fclib flBwXe. 'to ^fii^Iamoo-eaoxe ©ii^ d-fixiif aolaiqe bM t $«%»,«» 

erli ,*iij;jJoa 'tj>XX©T o4i o3- xalii &XJHina o^ ei^Bt iiwlol't'lue ittht^t 


•X rsl. C.'lA.'n.3S H. BORimii and 
IRViiVu J. oOLOitOM, 

Appellees, ) 

APi'liAL moU. CIKGjII 




28 8 I.A. 616' 

i«B. JUSIIGK C»COilis.OR IX£i-IV^SED liiB O^lhlOh OF Tiiisi COUitl, 

Charles H, Borden aii'i Irving J, Solo.^on filed a petition 
against the Village ol' Sorest Park arid som*? of its ol'iicialB, 
praying tiiat a writ of manda«iuB issue to compel tiie payment of 
$25,000 for attoxneyB* fees for services rendered "by theri to 
the Village, DefendantB answered, contending tnat the T/rit should 
not issue. There wae a hearing "before the court is'itiaout a jury, a 
judgrient awarding the ift'rit, and defendants appeal.. 

The record discloaes that the Village of Porest Park was 
operating under the coBuaission loru of goveriaiient , giid h&d on de- 
posit Jn a "bank located in the Vill:s.f:e aicoroxirus.tely |104,G00. 
The hank failed and was in process of liquidation pnd the Village 
BOUfcht to recover the aaiouiat of its deposit as a preferred claim. 
To "brinti about this result, ttxe Village council on January 6, 1932, 
passed a resolution authorising the mayor of the Village to a^r,,ploy 
the law firm of Eisendrath, Solomon and Borden, of Chicago, to 
represent the Village and to pay the attorneys a ''fair and reason- 
able compensation" for the services they ri; ht render, A contract 
was entered into accordingly, ftrjd the fi,ttorr.eys i-ij-.tediately began 
their services, the work "being done hy Borden and Solomon, fcr, 
Sisendrath retiring from the firm shortly after the passage of the 
resolution. The services extended over a period from a'bout January 
1932, to April, 1935. Among other things there was a hearing be- 
fore a kaster in Chancery, who found tnat the Eioney ori deposit at 

\ «SV88$ 

^ » -w- r"N <;.■> 

,S!iBi:oi:'i'io . a^i 'io aaxos. fctts si^^i ^buxqI 'te.ogj^XitV tJtfj- tBficiJsaa 
'le ^•asiJiY-'sq siii Xeqmoo o;J sjuqsI 8iJi?is.baBiH "to Htut & ^mi3t ^axx^iCf 

B&Y? a-i<s^ ^asioU 'to 9i.^XXi?©x£J" ;l'«tiJ' saaoXo^i* i>T:oa®'x atfl ■. ;;. ^.r < 

.OjO,^Oi| ^X9i-£!iixxo*xoqs ©3*XXiV sxii ni Jbn>;^iiooX jiiiscf ,« ni d-leoq 

x^lliV arid" .5ae aoid'&&iifpi'X 'tc? asaooiq ai aisTsr |>ifcs itsXxjs'i ata«cf orfT 

..\aij.Co &sa'i9te'iq B aa wfiaoq®& a*i to ^-rweaws ©ri^ ^evoOiS*]^ od; .*43iya« 

,Sr.»X ,6 ^iBUiiist no Xionnoo 9g&lIi.Y s>d:f ^Sluaeti aliU iuo<is n^l'td oT 

■({OXqais OJ Qai;XXiY 9xW- 'io ■xc^xa sxl* anisitcuiJ-uis aoxii^Xos&i ja h&SBMq 

Q3 (Oiijfioi^iD 'to ^aab'ioB. ban aomoXoS ,ric)".8iJba'?taiS: 'to uni'i. w«I ftxl# 

iosesi i-cui i/.js't" A? a^ernoJ-J-fi eii;? Y.^<f oS bos ©gaXXiV 9x1* :ia9S9iq6t 

taseJ YXaa;^!^^!!^^ «y®rf£0«i it* axlj- hf^a ,-<tX^aXMooos od'aX t&ieJna saw 

.til .nomoXoti »ms u»<I y:di ftaofc 5jai«d litow ori^ ,8»oivi»8. ■xlsnc!- 

Oiid- to SH^8 8«q «fiJ isd-'t/i YX^t-ioris mii't &iii tm-x't ■'=>% dti)'tbctoalS. 

Tfx.«ijni»,T, iuoaa mot't !>oxi«q « lovo bf»bi.i»-»X9 asoivise «xiT ,aoii'iiXo»<?T 

-5cr aniiasxi jb «48w f^tts^nd Bsni/i;^ tmiio n^omA .^IfiGX , Xii:qA o* ,SSeX 

that time, |104,037,54, v;as a truet fund and recommended tliat a 
decree oe entered aTrardinii, tne Village tuis arucunt ae & trust land, 
Ol&Jectiona were filed to the i&G'ccr'B report, and on Iseini; over- 
ruled vere ordered to stand as exceptions, Tliey rere aryued "be- 
fore Judge Burke liefore whom the cause was pending, vfho apparently 
took the matter under advisea-ent sn;' while the matter wae thus 
pending plaintiff e, apparently in accordance with the prior un-'er- 
Btaxiding between them and the then Village attorney, on July S3, 
1934, auhsiitted their bill of ^^25,000 for eervicee. The 1111 was 
bi^ught before the Mayor an"! the CouiiniEjeionerB hy the Village at- 
torney on July 2S, 1934, rather briefly considered, and iifucediately 
thereafter, on the same day, the annual appropriation ordinarioc was 
passed for the years 1934 ind 1935, It contalna a great Eijany sepa- 
rate itei.,.e, including "Law Department |25,OO0," The bill for ser- 
vices above iuentioned ie typewritten on plaintiffs' letterhead and 
cocsiats of bu:fe one page, lliere is a statai^ent of a general charac- 
ter as to the services p-rfcrraed by the attorneys, njaa at the bottom 
of the po»,g« ixrsflediately follovang the bill appears the foiloring in 
typewriting: "Mie aKiOunt of this bill has be«=!n fixed on the theory 
that the decree presented to Judge Burss will be 'Entered 9ubst;in- 
tially in saiae forai as presented, * I'he decre<? mentioned ir. the 
note at the foot of plaintiffs' bill above quoted, '^hich had thereto- 
fore been presented to Judge Burice, wa,s never entered. The case was 
transferred for hearing to Judge Klarkovtski and was r.-argued before 
him. He M&ld tiiat the Village was not entitled to a preference ex- 
cept to the extert of :^20,0G0. to which araount exceptions hnd been 
withdrawn, and a decree was enterad accordingly. Plaintiff? took 
steps to perfect an appeal to this court, but in the moanti^e a new 
eouncil of the defendant Village had bean elected «2i 1 they directed 
plaintiffs to disTTiiss the appeal, whic. ms acc.rdincly done in 
April, 1935. December 9. 1935. the Viila..,e council pasaed a r..«olu- 

,SS '^Xul. xxo .^©a-xoJ'^tjB 9-^iBXIiY fiarf;}' ®ii& baa .-nsdit fisawdfa^J' gflifeas^a 

a^T IXi'-f !»>iri' .a^uitr-isa -so'i OOO^eSf "io XXicf Tlsrfd- f^^*,tiii-icrija ,{»5ex 

-^# ©i^jai.Xi'V' grid- y'^ aispfloiorjiisiEiJoO Bdi 'bas t:o\^«M sxl* s^to'iscf ifxlawoicf 

4;X»cf/^i&aniiai: i>ou3 , f)0'T:Qi)iento3 '■iri&ttd reiUss'i ,^£ftl\s;S ^Xwt a© ■^aaio* 

SiiW 3oi'feai:|)ic rtoi^fjsxi^o-sq/jB XfjwrtEifl aii:i «\^fc Sisse axi* no tt&t'ti&s^&zli 

"£q«)a i^riaj:ti cj-ssij-j a saim^aoo $'i ,3S'<?X lute >S9X eiasv; atili 'xo't &@sa«q 

aX 3ni'?eXXo'£ ^f.i:i B'm&q.tiB XXid' ©rii- ^wxwoXXo'i •^Xs^J-fiitjerrsai »a*.<i aftd" 'to 
'r-i09.'.-:f *>iw* no ^osi'J: Hfts^d" aart IXid aidu lo :tiiuoss& erft* t^ttl&liiiacpi^ 

-x» ooiwis'ti'^itj jx ot'^ .ton ajsw S3.BXXIV oji* baits' {>Xs* eH ,miri 

fc**ft«ii.b ^i«ri* iru. ibslo*ie' iie^^ri &*ii »SisXXiV ^n^^l^fiatflfc »ii4, 'to X^#-n^eo 
.rjjcof.*-! fl h»f^««q ii^'^^o^ 9S«XXi¥ •li^ »e£^X .e T*<fm9C»a .?£9X ,XltqA 

tion reciting that there were dtitBtiaiidiug hih\ unpaid ^riBccliaijeous 
claims agt,rec:ating Sl36,CU0, one itfciu oi' whicii Trap '^Z3,l^A,2:i for 
payrolls of the police, lire aiid other depi.rtmente o:*' ihc Village, 
and that all each iteiii.8 had acciued prior to April 3C , ItcA. Txie 
resolation provided that oorids "be issued in accoidance -ita the Act 
ol O'uly 12, 1935, chap. ?A , pti-r, t':-?, fcecs. 1 to C, Hi, ftate Bar 
State,, 1935; cSiaith-Ku.rd, ch, 24, sec, 6621, Plaintiffs' claim of 
$25,000 was not included in the resolution, and December It, 1975, 
they filed their petition in tue irxst&rit case, praying t.i^t e. writ 
of mandafflUB be directed to the del' et-aant Yiliafce and its cfa'iriale 
commanding that they do "ever;) act and tuing devolved upon thf.''T "by 
law for the payment" tf the claim; txiat ia case tonds riientionedl in 
the reeolutioxi of tn-u City coun.jil, above mentioned, v-&t^ iei^ned, 
that plaintiffs' "bill for ^?25,000 he included. The court heard the 
eaae, and iiarch 4, 1936, ei.tered jud^^^jiient awarding a pereriiptory 
writ of mar.da:jiua eoxfiiaandiiig defei.'dants "that they forthwith do 
every act and thing deyolved upon thera ^** "by iaw for the payment 
of the claim* of plaintiffs for #25,000; that trie claim fee paid 
out of any funds now or hereafter available for the creditors of 
the Village and that such funds he appli^.d to tlie pajr-ment of Villouge 
creditors - a pro rata s^iare of such fxir.ds "to the payiaent of said 
elaim; tiiat ihey pay no other i>resent c^edxtor a greater proportion 
of iiis ■"*-* claiia tiian they pay on acccuiit of •"** claiia of petition- 
era," and that defendants include the Trhoi"? or axij unpaid balcUiCe 
of plaintiffs' claim "in tixe clairas sot forth and dogorihed in any 
resolution" passed by the council pursucr.nt to the Act of 
July 12, 1935, for the issuarice of bonds, iuid t Uat thay pass no 
resolution or ordinarice px-ovi.linfc for the isr/uaj-ce of bonds to pay 
miscellaneous debtij of the ui:leBs they included an itei^i for 
plain tiff b' claini. 

BefendantB contend that plaintiffs' claLia was never approved 

to"S: .;?'.^;i^««:;£;4 nM-K- ^)lii^ 'to aa^l saj ,bOO,QSX| 3ai:5ja,;*ti3jj.e am^sXd 
j^vg^XIiV 3x1::j 'to aJrvi-iif^-a^q^h' 'z'^i[:ra htm (nl'i ,*i3iX«*q ©if* to ■^llox%m^ 

.ast'X ,''jX -i^fiif-ooscr bof. 4 0013-i/XoB'Si &di al b»btJl<)ixl Son sjbw 000,S.S| 
iitif .s J-srli" anivs'^q; ,S5aso .trisJ-siil sil^ al aoiv?i;,t»fi[ li^di b^Ifi ^sxij' 

rd 'M'-itii i-icqu hi^rlo-'mb -s^aldi bam Jos Sj^t^vy" oh ^®ii^ i0Ei&' ;^«ifcmiuiao9 
vii, b^nolimfst abnorf ©e-iiio ai ^*:iU ;j6tijsXo ©if* '!:;> ^iJ-mfis^i;©^- »iiJJ^ %ot "w^l 

srl.^ b'ls-Bx! .ttuoo fixfi' ,f;9lvjjXoai sd OO0,aS(| tot LlliS ^ ^Ttltitislq ^»ift 
^I'XOstqifss'tsg jfi gni.&'XB'?-** i^rtisiJiXilmt' l>&^sJ)'r«? ^btQ'l ,i» ilolrf' fefse ^4h©«# 

blae 'to Jflsrci^Bq ^xit oJ-" sf>ni/'i <lb«a 'to otmiB etsvi otq A - atoJlfr»^X8 

-^•u, at hf>oi:%x:.s,'.:b .f>rMs rfd"Xo'l: cjoa siKxjftXo «x.# ai« fifijaXo 'o'ilJ^trd^XQ 'is> 

to joA. -^if-^f t'J- J-iti.u^twq Xi®itjwo9 e>::;a.UliV -orft v-^sf feft-aa^sq ♦'a^Jf.lwXoao'i 

on Ks^v;; t«?ii- .t«j';J f'W; ^etJ&nod' 'to noaBueisi. ftrf* lot ^SCSX i^X^^ii/'t 

i.sq oct Ptp'ocf 'to ^ot^waBi wxtcf lo'i un^hiroiq, ©oftoaijs-xo ^o aeltfiJXOftsi- 

.aijfeXo •rnii^at&Xq 

for payment by the Village council and therefore mandamuc wi]..! not 
lie to enJoroe pay:iaent oi' an unliquidated deiaand, fxiA t!:i.^^t t;iia 
finding oi' the court in i'avor ol' plaintil'ia, to the ell'ecli that 
the claim had teen settled, ie against the manifest i^eight of the 

Counsel for Tooth parties agree that in the instant case tiie 
writ of maridamus could be properly awarded only on the theory tiiat 
plaintiffs' bill had been approved by the council of defendant 
Village, and counsel for -olaintiffs contend that the evidence siiowa 
plaintiffs' claim had been so aporoved. 

The question presented laust be decided upon a consideration 
of the evidence, from which it appears that a si-iort tiirm nrior to 
July 23, 1954, plaintiffs were requested to prenare their bill for 
services so that it might be included in tne anpropriation orci ir;anee, 
and pursuant to such request they prepared the bill hereinabove re- 
ferred to, and delivered it on July 23, 1934, to Mr. iuroh, then 
the Village attorney; that iar. Arch said he wamt cd tbp bill to in- 
clude all the services rendered and to be rendered in oonneotion 
with the matter, and that Mr, Borden, one of the plaintiffs, told 
Mr, Arch that he could write any notation on tiie bottom of the 
bill that he laight »ee fit to sho'P' that the cixarge was for all 
services rendered and to be rendered, ».nd tnat the notation we 
have above quoted from the foot of the bill v^as added, ^r. Arch, 
called by plaintiff^, testified that on the sarae day, July 2Z, 
shortly after the bill was handed to him by Mr. Borden, he took it 
to the council meetir;g held in the Village hall and h;anded it to the 
Village clerk, George R. Gold; that the Village raayor, the trusters, 
the City clerk ^nd the witness were all in the room in the village 
^*^lt '*"'* there was a good deal of conversation about the bill, 
which the witness laid on the table; that he told them he thought 

ioii iXiw ^imjit^as-Mx n-7.o'r.nt&.ai true llotwvo &-gs,lllV erfj vd' immcnq_ rot. 

.tsJtr i'os'n?! ftii;^ oi ^^'ftl&aLv.Lq '.to •lor.s'i ni ^Stuoq eritf 'to ;^ni:.5ni'l 
?^ii3' 'to iti^s.Q-^s ia&'tiiUiisi &iii isai&^B ax J}eii-js>® Vx^®iS h£d mis £q 9 At 

^-.yri* x*^o»iW' S!^^ «o Xiao J?9fcii3!s,Na -^X-xeqoici: ^^ blsjoo smimbiiBm. 'to jfi-xw 

. bs VOIDS' qj^? 08 iw&d bmri s&x&Xa ' a'4'ti*rfi^.Iq 

rioi^oftxHtoo nj. f>^'t!?i/)aoi f;d oJ him bBmbaQ't a©ox-!ris8 ®ii* XXfi BbtsZo 

&i}.j "to ssioiiod ^tis no no.c;J-^-',^Qa lijxte 9*i.*£w blwoo 9ri d-ari;^ /ioicA. ,«J8 
IXe- "xo't sj?.w '!!»?^'i^jj.JX) axl.t #*ii{* irrofle od *i'i 9»« itj-^ 9x1 .tsrid" Xllrf 

,:»tA „■!>; .Jbs.fvbjB axavv xXid srii 'io d'oo'l ©iCL? Aicx'i fe«*oup stvocTj!? ©riiri 

,£i; ^XjjX. ,va^ eims. arid' no isaxi b^mis«>i ,i^t1linis:fl(j X'^ fcsXXao 

j-i %o(ii orl ,fi:ffhioa .iM Tjd' mid o& b^bninii ajaw XXid ©xkr istt.s icX^iorfe 

exD od- il bttbwii i as? XX*n-I 9:sar;.rXXV Sri* nX ftXsd guX^'asm Xxonwoo ©ri*.o* 

,Q :.».+ 5iiT:d ani .lovjsfii ©5^/;XXXV R.riJ' S&di ;bloi) , a 93510s ^attsiXo sgeXXiV 

9-^f:X.Llv «xi* nl fliooi arfJ^ at XXos ^j-xs-w eaand-iw ©fi;t ban ■jLrulo ■v;d'iO «x(* 

,XXXd 9ri* jijocf/j noX:^j»etfirao:.; 'to Xa9& boos c e«w 9'3:«il* fcae ,XX«it 

*f':^MOfi* sri )«»ilt bXo:^ ^ifi ^jhH ;»XdeJ sild' ao fcljsX eBetiit^- 9f{,t rioirfw 


the oliarge waa no c exoeBsive; tliat tiiere was a gciierai Jisuae.sion 
and •'they said Uie aroount waa satisfactory ; " Liiat the u'cefaiji, was 
not an ol':J'icial aieeting oi' the council but -.Yas in a roocj upotairs 
in the village hall; that no vcte was tauten at thac tiiiie; Uiat it 
•waa usual for sills to \>e read at a i'orni&l meetiri^, of th© council 
and then asBitined to the commissioners to deteriaine whaUier they 
should te approved; that plaintiri'a' till was not ^O.ii'd" as w^s 
the usual custoai wnen a hill was approved; t-itat i^uedx&telj tiiere- 
al'ter the council paaeed the anxiual appropriation ordinance carrying 
a total oi* 1^273,093, in Vi^ixieh an iteci of ^25,000 appears, hater on 
in the hearing the witness wae reeailed by plaintiffs' counsel and 
testified that he had oeGii Village attorney i ,r eigiit years, und 
that "I examined hoth ordinaneea, appropriaxions aiid tax levy; " 
that the mayor had theretofore testified taat only ^^6C,0uC; a year 
Would he raised from tne total tax levy, axid the ^^-itnese testified 
that the hal?irice of the appropriation would be raised fro^i license 
fees and other rioneys collected by the Village, ihe ^'iu^ess farther 
tsstified that on July 23, 1934, when tne bill was bfeing con si tiered 
the mayor gnd the coxmnissioneri stated txxat #25,000 was a lot of 
money, that it ■'«fas a large fee, and that witness said, "Weil, there 
is no doubt in ray inind but that when it comes dowii to payiiig, i^.r, 
Borden the cash, ii' there is any question aboux it, I tiiint that he 
will be mrjixx enough and fair enough to xake less than #25,000;" that 
the mayor then told the witnees to "put it (jthe biir) away," he 
further testified tiiat altnougii the item of |25,000 was included in 
the appropriation ordinance, "It doesi^'t meaia tnat t^ey x.>ive to 
spend tne sioney simply oecause it goes into tne impropriation Ordi- 
nance, ^ite frequeiitiy xtione^s «fere appropriated t-uat were not 
epKnt as appropriated," 

Otto Reich, one oi tne coanassioners at tut Ciiiie, called by 

m'xi.^jaqis moot ,3 iix a^vv- Jj.j'i XJtanj^foo ©rid' lo ^nli^sia £st&l't^tQ tiM *©n 

a*iw sii "ij'^i.v" ioa. aew iliJ 'B'ili:d'«ii..t?X(5[ i&xii ^b^v^timgi ^^ bluo^ia 

-&t3ixi ■i^i©,t.ei.bsafiii 3'jbxIj ;£>»voi<iqs e.sw XXicf jti iwiiw motsudo Xeusu 9r(i^ 

gnx^itfio aoa«?rixi>'xp'xqoTctica;^ Xsiiita* ©xlj fee^asq ii eaxfo.saxid' «sJ'l.s 

no 'X^^jiJ. ,sx=syq:qs OuO,,aS4i; 'io iiia^i as xioiaw ai ,£ep«£VS# 'JEo XjBiod- « 

fjixs losriUQO 'a'ttxjaxjKXq ';^Cf ijiSiXisae^ aisw asea^J'Xw axl? 8«i^#9xi ©iii- xiX 

•^ ;'^T.&X -K»^ I)xxav aaoi-i".*iX'X<;iOiq«j« ^&^oiXf^.iis:bto Aiod bBRismsd 1* .^^iii 

bsxiiSasit .ssi)aix«r ^iii b^i& «^^3.i 3Ls3" Xa^ScJ axij aicrt"! b»&ii3% set ^Xtfow 
©ansuxX ittO-x't JE>®ai.6'i srf bluow H©i*ffiXiqo:t<^.qfi 9ii* 'io ©oOBXsff 9iJt #«i<* 

bniaiixsaoo ^^oXsJ &&w Hid &iLi emdw ^i'fiiex ,es -^cXtfl. flo *jBi[# \&«!>i't|t«fe# 

■jjiiii-j jlXaw" .iiiisa easad-xw ^^iIj 6a« ,sd'i 9Si«X « 8^;^M ^«^^ ^i:*aoa 

ijsaJ ";aoo,aSi aasU eaeX o.l«id- oi-|il5.3tfoii» -si^'i fea» fiswoaa xwa, -^.cf XXiw 

iix JaeiiiJioux fi-evv 000,da# "to w#ji ^^xU iijiJ^oxi^Lu ^TjsxU >©i"ti*as* ^srii-xw't 
Qtf HV^oii >iOi^J- iax^ tu^saui j'^taaoi) J I" ,»o«ii«x^xo aoitfaiTcqe^qcj* «xi;^ 

-tii-xO aoi^«X'x<iO-xij:qii oxiJ o^aJt aeoij ii 8ejj«o«t< ^-C^^-ta \»ao^ a4* *>«««« 
cfofi i'-x»w ^aiiJ i)9 4«xx«iO-X's,qe siaw sis^osi ^(;X;fw»«p©•l-l i»#iu^ .•oiwn 

plairitiJ'f e, t'-"6ti::'ie'5l that no '>vag present at tiie Lime rli«? Mix va« 
presented by i«i^r. Arch; that the bill was diacuBsed and t'ae ?>a.yor 
turned it over to the Village clerk* I'he cciaciit.£ionerB anfced '".viaerd 
ir« were &oini,. to get L-ie a:.ont};y i'or sucii a tairig ol tixat t:vl>e » **' 
The only tnat vras said was to be eure to get it into xHciB 
appropriaticn oi' sp«oial ucunsex 1'r.b, " on croBe>"Cxsujii.ii.tion he 
testil'ied, "4s a rule large billc would havs to be approT/ed by the 
council i'or payu.ent, A :#2i3,OoO bill is a large bill xu be presei.ted 
to the Vilia^«;** tnat the eustoia was tiiac al;i bills vjere audited. 
but he iid not reine-'uber whether tnia bill had be-jsn audited, 

Kurt Berliner, who was a ooiuiissioner at tna tii^a, called 
by plaix'itiri"9,te8tiried he was preoent at tiie zxuxb i.r, axoai prfeconted 
the bill; that the Eiattcr was discussed aiid tiaat he understood it 
was approved snd rras to be included in the appropriation ordirianee, 

George Gold, the then liiayor, called by plain^iri's, testified 
he had been mayor for eight years and continued to be such until 
April 30, 1935; that he was present at the aieeting and tnat a^r. Arch 
brought the bill ar^d said, "here, i havs some sad news,** ihe witneas 
continued, **e asked i.r. Arcn v^hether it looked reaaonable, he said 
he believed it was rtasonaule for uxat asiount ol worit tnat was uone 
in this oaee;" that no one objected to tne bill; "it had :.o foo in 
our appropriation that year;'' tuat tnere was nothing said about the 
bill being approved. On cross- exaiuinat ion he tfestiiied tnau tixe 
bill for ^£5,000 for attoineys' fees vras unusual; uiat he diu net 
know how luucri time i^r, iorden spent in Uie case; uiat iurii^e, tas 
tiiae he was itayor he had ijc. audit m^^de ^vex-y three liionths oy a cer- 
tified public accountant; tnat ne could n© u recall ever seeing uxs 
iter, in question sx:own by tne audit, 

Harry huxuold, a eoiaruissioner at the time, called by de- 
fendants, tcetifiKd he had been a coimissioner since ^ay 1, 1935 

ai3V llXd iJilT omiJ liiU.' -J^' iii^arria^ sx^v-f fori -^^"ii bQr>:xiHi»i .gTiijnx^jit 

Sal £iol:!iiuUi&jit?~-3Si<j%o HU . *' .Q'-Sl isaiiiJoo Xciowqa le ■aoi.tjixiqox^^a 
sad' Y^cf sQVO^Cfiftia ^^ oi ev^d kU^c-w elixcf aa'^.ai sIaj^ « a^" ,£)«rtx;J;f a.ii^ 
&s;l^ri!9a«riq. 3G ox IXid aa^isX, ^ ei XXid' QvX;,dS?r A ,tfa&ij;i^«<5io;i Ixamiep 
^Jb.o;U£>J-'a Trxavy aXXia L-JLb ^'»^^' saw iuod-sw^ ©xid' ,^**fia' ** ;*j^«XXiV; »4i^ ■e^- 
^L^i-x^^ijii; iii^au ,bi;il XXxd' a.iiii' -ssxi^srlTf «s©c(.£!i©ia9"S #©« |bi& ©rt #J^ 

Jx jbooaa-ssi^iUJ ail ^is^Jl' iios £>©aajj0.ei& a«w lo^^Jaca ©ilj? d:«ila :XXi«f ^^ 
.©ofunuia-io uoXi^£iXs(iO'xci,q« siiJ u± £)0,&xiXoxix a<i oi am bm bmorum^.^^ 

j.i.&-sA »iid iTxaXAd-bnii aaiJ'SkSia s^iJ i» #h«»9©i^ saw sfl j-afiiT i^lQl «QE ^Xt^ 

8a»cx-?i^ aiil " J)*-.a Qiiios av^xi i ^&19H« _^i>i&&-km U14 9ii.t ^ii^wijarf 

&iea »ii .QXJ«aoa£a% ^eji. ol cTx ^r^iW^xi^ da-U. ,%^ i>QJiB& aW ^ft*wiiilao© 

eaox) e*;w ;t*Juj .i-xow x© ^nxjoia* imH iqt elQiimn^&t ««w ti havsiXaci:. exi 

tti Oij o.; ^osii ;^i"- iXIXvl ©xU qj. ^©Jo^tcia »^o ©^ ^-s-^ '!;*a«Q aixU isx 

?.iL* Jxiiii b^Liiia&i 9d aoxiJs*ix..ifixt>-aaoio aO .Ijsyoaqq*^ aai«rf lUd 

-Tso « >ca axuuti.u 6,^'ixU ^i-xsve &t^ v^x^xj^ ,i«* ^xi aii xo^b^h cfiw «ii ««iv* 

, . ,iihtii. Qxi* '^ai nwyoxta. nox;^a«yp pi, r-s^-i 

prior to tliat time had "been clerk and collector for the Village for 
twelve years; that he was present at 'die meeting in queetion ^jv-hen 
the "bill was presented by m.t, Aroh, who said, "This isad n«»:8 is from 
Mr, Borden;** that the bill was then handed ar.ujrd to the iriesibere 
ol" the council; that they all v/antrd to know if tha till ?^as not 
pretty high; tiiat iva.r. Arch said, 'Well, we just put io. tixe jsaxiiiium 
aTnovint and il' this thing is all settled you won't have to pay any- 
where near the amount that this bill calls for;* tiiat Mayor Gold 
then folded tiie bill up, put it in aii envelope and aaid to put it 
in a vault and forget about it until "we call for it," It was never 
called for after that, 

Charles R. iiuasey, who beoauae mayor on tlxe last of April, 
1935, testified that prior to that date he was a coBsodssioner of 
the Village for four years; that Mr, Arch presented the bill for 
$25,000 and it was handed to the mayor; that "the Mayor turned red, 
he turned to Otto Reich and he turned white, ar^d soEiebody said, 'Well, 
what is it?' and the reply was that it was Mr. Borden's bill for 
#25,(X)0; that there was an exclamation to the effect that the "bill 
wfts very high; "there was something said about that wouldxi't be the 
full amount of the bill, he wsoited to try to get that into the Ap- 
propriation Ordinance;" that the substance of what Itr, Arch said 
was that the Village would not have to pay the |25,000 but that he 
wanted to get it into the appropriation ordinance that night, and 
he sort of guaranteed to the Board that the full amount would not 
"be 125,000; that Mr, Arch said he was sure the bill would not be 
the full $25,000; that the mayor told the cler^ to put the bill 
away. The bill was not read at that tiai©. 

This is the substance of the evidence tououirg the question 
as to whether the bill for ^25,000 was approved by the Village 

We think a consideration of the evidence leads to the con- 

ffics'l ai; asif*?n fc.ise alal"* ^bxR® mM ^dQiA *x^ %<f b&iri^n^t^ ajst? iXM 9& 
ton ss??,'- 1.1 j;d' erl[:r 'i.l woo^ oJ" Br- ^n.BTi' .££«■; vmiS tjsdi jiianwoo erf* to 

&X0O 'SG-^ga^* ■t^sfic)' "jTo'i. allso ilia aiiii &Mxld^ S^ausm^ »iii txfia ^n&d-^ 
3:i im oi bliiii. tsvi ©qoxsros iix, ax iJ-Jt Sijq ,fii iJEiifi ajrl^ &«i)Io't a&di 

10'i Xiid s.dc? ,bf--.>jii®asiq rio-x/s ^-xm imL:!t ',&%i>9% liso'i to't Q-gj&ilt'V^di 

lo'I X.Cid' s*a>??fcioa: *u.^ aJ3W ;ti: cjsaJ a«7r y-lq&-i Bdi has *^Si al t,sxi?r 
Xiid ©rid- ^^s-'ii ^J'os'n© adcS" oj- aoij^iiiaXdxa fl« saw ©isii* *.3Xlj- ;©008SS# 

-<|A 9ii^ oi-ni J*i« ^ag ai x^i o^ 6^*00 w sii ^lixtl 9ri>t "So ^nwoaos XXnl 
feJuBs ii&tA ,1^- *sxtw to 9oasd'9tfy8 arid- J^srf* •» j©oaif:,iUJb'xO'X^'O^a' 

*oxi l>Xfc'OW iniicxcm llvi afi* *ai^* t-seteSL ©fit oi l»»eti-i«i*iJS '^o ^r*!©* s-^ 


elusion that th# bill was not settled or approved in the sense 
that it was understood the Village woald "be required to pay the 
full $'^5,000, It anpeara tl.?.t the iill was rathf.i hurriedly 
prepared "by Mr« JBordcn bo tiiat it iriii,,ht Le incluo.ed ixi tLt aonrjual 
appropriation ordinraice on the aftcri-oon of the same day on vyhicli 
It was prepared, July S5 , 1934. The Lill iB in no T.&y itemized; 
it does not purport to she ft' the ticie counsel were engaged ir the 
performance of tl^eir duties* It is but a general statement of th« 
general nature of the services pt;rforir.ed, Ihat this v^ae a large 
bill for the Village to p&vy i'or attori.f=!ys ' feee ie clearly s'lc^wn 
"by the testimony of all the -syitnesses, and that it T;7as hurriedly 
put into the annueJ. sij propriation ordinarice passed tinat day. Of 
eouree we do not -w&iit to be understood as implying that counsel 
hals not necesrarily performed a great many services for which they 
should be paid by the Village, but we are only passing on the 
question whe cher liiandariius would lie, and since we hold the amcunt 
to be paid %?as not d'^teriidned, it follows tkat tiie writ of aiandaisiUB 
was erroneously issued, 

iioreover, the record tends to sahow tiiat the Village offl- 
etals perfonued all of the aetu required of them by the statute. 
They included an iteiu of |25,Q00 to pay piuintiifs' bill ir; the 
annual appropriation ordinunce; tjiey also passed the tax levy ordi- 
nance as tes:ified to by tixe Vili^a^e attorney, i.r. Arch, as required 
by laT?, People v . .glorYille. 207 111. 79, But apparently the 
money was not collected because, as ulio mayor stated, the tax levy 
ordinance vould bring in but about |60,0o0, vrhile the ai.i::ual ap- 
propriation was iiiore than |S72,0G0: the amount of luoney the Village 
would obtain j'rou. other sources, such as license fees, etc,, does 
not appear, V/e are unable to see what more the Village oliiciale 
could do in this respect, but in any event, mandaiaus, we hold, will 
not lie lor the reaocrs heretofore stated. 

senee edi- ni hovoificis 10 heli^Bu don sisr-.v Hid 9di ffmii aoieuLo 

iloJ.ri"'/ no i/Rb e>j-?ms ':->:io to aoo-iis J'iB 9ili' .^0 aocv-.aib-'s.o LtQiSsiliciOtqila 
jfissXiX'^itl \;£j-^ Oil ui »i. Xliu adT .^oCX ,;^J \;Xat ,£>9t«q9iti ^^bw ;^x 

©ill 'lo .ti.i5j:a?ijjj. J-g X^i'sn^a js i'/jci si il ,asitiij& -iisiUf 'io aaojemio'lieq 

awo-~:'B \ji't£3Xo ai ass'i 'axsxiioJ'.jB lu't '^jii«j 0- ssjsIIiV ad;} tot XXicf 

IsEiauoy j"i5i!j' saivX^l'si Si:> Sood'aiobiUf «d oi iu^w Son 06 s^ sartuop 

■X©r:5 iioi^.fcf to't 8!»oxv':t9a ^■'^•^^ j-t'Sia •» l>9Mic.t'ioQ \;Xiis8a909n .ton a^xl 

©.dj «o gjaiasgjBcx ^jXao ©1*5 -sw cfi;cf ,9;g*-XXi? 0x0 \;cf f^ificij ©cf ^iXiJOrfs 

&avosm &dii blod 9w aoH2a bii& .©iX blaovi s,ii^its}ha&M as»rij«££w wolJesMp 

gwiieiiaeiju: 'to jiit; ©it? J^aLj- bwoXXoI ;J'i ,iiS.aJ:.;at&d"S)I) ^en e^w JbJtjsq sd" 0* 

-i'l'io fsa*-;iXxV aiU i&iii wo.cis oi- eljas^ ^-loosi ^iii ,iavofiloil 
.■?*jj4jada ?jjlj \;cf asxa "io bs'ixwp&i aioi 9*:!^^ 'io XXjb Ijaano'i^axj bXjsIs 
9x{,t iix XXxcf 'siii^ai«;Xq, -^^isq cd" OOO^SS!^ *io as»;H Ci<» l)$&ijXsai; y»^S 

&tifiXAjp9'X ex? ,xloiA .-x-i ,\;aa-xoJjiJ s^eXXiV ©xi* ^i^ oJ- Jbax'lxc-aa;!' SiS ©oiisn 

©il;? >iXjn5>-xfcqqa iud. , iJV .XXI tOS . eXXJcvngX^ .v aJJCfpaq: .vsr^X ^rf 

XV*X x^\i &d& ,&»d-£ij8 xoi^x;^ 3iXJ ae ,*s.«Ba»d' .bsi-oftXico ioa «*)w \9aoa1 

o<r«oi) , .aio ,»a9"t ^eiieoiX aa ?io*;a ,a»©ixfoa i&dio iuoi't axaJrfo l>X«ow 

XXiw .IjXoil ©w .BWuifiijiifiAi ,.tn9ve ^nr. nJt d:ud ,*o»ofa9Tf. airicf nl oh bluoo 

^botai^ 0io'tod-»'X»rt «noo«9ic •iii 10^ »iX *oa 

We are also of opinion tiiat the court erred in requiring 
the Village oli'icials to iticlude this item in ^triy rasiclutiou th« 
Village migi-it pass for the issuance of "bonds. They c.uld not be 
compelled to issue bond? to pay this or any other indehtedness of 
a similar character. 

The judfe^aent of the Circuit court of Cook county is 
reversed ani the cause ie remanded for furtrier proceedings in 
accordance with the views herein expressed* 


Katohett, 1\ J« , and M«3Uurely, J,, concur. 

,S]10IT0.^HIG HTIW ttlCiUiaSJi CttdA OlsaHlilVSH 

-..^. ■--■J' 

/ / 

39007 / / ./ 

ALVIB MEYER, ) / / / 

Appellee, ' 


COiCPAliY, a Corporation, 


APFffc.. i'^HOM dlROUli: COURT 

28 8I.A. 6 16^ 


Plaintirf broughit an action aj^ainst defers ant to recover 
dauiagee Tor personal injuries claij;^ed to have beeri eustyined by 
him on acocunt oi tae negligence ol" defendant in ririviiie: one ol* 
its trains against plaintiff's autOKiobile, injuring him. There 
was a verdict and judn-sient in plaintiff's favor for 4*2000 and de- 
fendant api3eal8. 

The record ^iecloses that about 9:30 o'clock on tine 
morning of August 3, 1934, plaintiff -was driving his auto?aobile 
south in 19th avenue in the Village of Maywood, aorosB one of 
defendant's railroad tracks, when the autoiriobile ro^n struoi. by 
an eastboiind train, injuring plaintiff. There are fou«" lanes in 
19th avenue, two for tlrie southbound and two for northbound traffb, 
-B'our railroad tracks cross the street at about ri#it angles. About 
63 feet south of the south railroad track are two lines of the 
Aurora & Elgin railroad. This latter railroad crossing is protected 
by the ordinary gates. Defendant maintains a snanty just south of 
the south line of railroad and east of 19th avenue, vfhere it employs 
a flagman. When trains are about to cross tlie tracks tne flagjran'e 
duties require aim to walk out into the intersection mi^, with a 
"Stop" sign notify persons about to cross the tracics that a 
is approaching. 

There is evidence in the record, substantially undiepute3j 
from which the jury Baight find that plaintiff was driving his 
autcriioblle south on the lane used by southbound traffic; that 

Ti^UOO Til 'OHIO MOH^; .-lAf^^IA ( 

Ajcf ftsnlsj-Ri/a i'ssQcf ev,ei"[ o^' bsml^ilQ a^iijatni; X,aaoai&q lo'i BBg&mih 
'to eno Aiiiiivii.h rti d-msbiislsl; 'to soiiaailssn 9ii;J '.to iasjoQam no ailfi 

Gxi-^ no 3f9oX£>'o 05:© d-j.?oefj3 vtsii.+ s f? a oXo 9 ihlsi cost @ril' 
eXtcfouKutw^ slxi i^nivi'xf-; ajBW Tti^j-nii^Xq j^SGX ,8 ^su-^uA 'Iq anxmoffl 
'lo ©no •?i8oioj3 ,5oQ-vrv:i3M 'to 0a«-£J"-^"^ 9^* -'^i siiisav^ ri*eX fti xli-«6B 

ax astir.X fijo't <^tR si^rlT. /rUj-nx^Xq aaiiutni ^niisii btujo^ieBs rui 
.tf't'txitd- bnsjodiii-xoa lo't owd- bas inuocfriij-irce sifJ- lo't owj ,au«flV£ il^eX 

edd- 'to BOniX owd' i^tui :^o&'i'i bAio-xXifia d.ttJOJS Bxi^- 'to iiiuoa i^e'l S6 

B^wi-osJ-oxg Bi anxeeoio /u^oiXx^i i^jj-^X airlT ^,bMO'iU£-% tiigXS ^ jgrfo-Xi/A 

'to disjos iBtii Y^"^^!*- ^ 3iil«^al«ra iaBbvio't.&a ,a©^jBa vicnibio ©xi* "^rf 

QT£oXqa(s ;)J: »i.:>xin- ,»jjn9ve xid-ex lo c^ fcii^? &-jBOiXx.ei 'io eailX xi;Jwo8 9xi;r 

Sj'fUBiTTg^X't !»ilct aAoBxi 9ifo aao'io o^ ^Tijoda 9i& aaiMti n»ri^^ .luasJ^jaXt « 

^?;&*MCf5l^^u YXX£i*AUJ#ed"i-B ,fc'roo?i 9x1* al ©onsbxve ax steriT 

aifl aisJ-vi^fc acw TtiJflXsXq *axf;r fcxii't id^isa ^TtxJt '^^ liolrfw mo-xl 
i£i.n;t jol'l'iJBiJ finuodxltfwoa -^cf beaxj •iX*iX nsnai arl* £to il^ifoe 9ltdoixoiu& 

two or tares aator.obilss v/ere ah'-ai of him ;j/iA cauie to a 3top north 
of the nortn railroad tracK to peruit an eastbound train on that 
track to uass ov^r the intersection, A aouthbnund trucic, ■.isiriiz: 
the vv-at lane, stopoe.4 Animedi ately west of plaiiitil'f 'e auto; oloile 
at the tinie. When the train had cleared tiie crossing the automo- 
biles ahead ol plaintil'l', ;%iid plaintil'f, etarte.d to cross the 
tracks an;1 ahout this time the croeaing gates, used to Fjrotect 
the Aurora & Elgin electric trains, vere lowered because ol' an 
eastbound and a westtound electric train aporoaching the crossing. 
The autoi;obil?s aJiead of plaintiff crossed over wic four railroad 
traclcB and as olaintiff ^as about to cross the south railroad 
trick an eastbound passenger train, traveling at about 40 or 45 
aailes an hour, atruek the rear end of ■.)laintifi''s ca.r, snd he ^ae 
injured. The eTiience also is to the effect =tt the time 
plaintiff and t-:i.e other auto^-obilea stopped nortli ol" the north 
railroad track, as above stated, plaintiff lo jked toward the west 
but could not see -srhether a train was approaching from that dtrec- 
tionon account of the truck in the west southbound laiie; tnat he 
also looked ahead and saw the watchman, -whose duty it \Tas to notify 
persons about to crosB the tracks of approaetJing trains, psitting 
near the shanty, T,7hich tended to indicate that no trains were ap- 
proaching. It furtiier appears from the evidence tJiat when soire of 
the autoE^bilei aiiead of plaintiff oroased the southbound raiiroed 
track, t'ney were compelled to stop on account of the lowering of 
the crossing gates by tne electric railroad. This blocked plain- 
tiff's progress and he endeavored to turn to the 'Test to get into 
a space in the west or southboiind lane, but before h-i could do so 
the collision occurred. Plaintiff was faoiillar with tnis oros!=!ing 
and knew tuat a flagman was maintained to aigr.&l the approach of 

Riere is other evidence in the record deacribing the 

.ita^^o'xc ci- bsaiu ,as*^.^3 Siiiissoio sriJ- affile sl.r.i^' iuodB boa a^fofirf^ 

3.s7r 9X: bm-^ ,1R0 e''i'tx + ai:,sX(;; 'to b-m tsisr S)ii$ >Lointn ,XJUdif cm w^llm 

eri ^^ii:^ ;»iwX hi^iJC'idiuos t^&w &iU til ^outt «£[i lo SBtsscooiR meaaiii 
X'tis<'>tt OS 8je^ -Ji xSi3h ®eojiw,iW?m£f£i*jEW silt irna bi^us feaexsja 4i9iEo©I oeJte 

-q^s srisjw sKXax;)- ok d-aiiJ s^jauibixi od" fc»fe«s* rioi^w j-^tjusxts &dt i&»n 
%o araee n^nfe ^^esdi 3*aa«9foiv© ©riit laoi'i aiasciq^ isri*i«'t *I ,gaii-lo&©iCQ; 

o;i-tti t!«>?5 o* tsew ©did" oi- niJfct oS fesiovaisfca© sxi £»a8 ooaiso'iq e'tlij- 

saiisecio airuf il:^iw lylXiivus'i a*w llticilsil'i .bsriucoo iSoisiXXeo sxW 
1:0 .c(osotqq*» »ii* X4Jfisia .0* |>*ia«Jai^u saw fl«ffi»BX"t « i^aftJ w^ni bttB 

situation, but we thiiik it unnecessary to i^o into furt'ier details. 

Defendant contends that the court should iiavft Airsoted a 
verdict for it because , "By the admitted and unoontroverted teeiti- 
mony ol" the piaintilT he -"as not in the exercise ol" ordinary oare 
at the time of the accident and a recovery ie barred," itod the 
argument is that if pliintiff had loo;. ed to the west after he 
passed the truci; staii Ung in the lane to the west of hiin, north 
of th- railroad tracks, he could have seen the apuroaaiing train 
a considerable dist:ince away; that the uncontradicted evidence 
sho^s that vftten. plaintiff was 30 feet norta of the north railroad 
track he had an unobstructed view tc ttie west of more than IQOO 
feet, and tiiat vrhen he reached a point 20 feet norta of the north 
railroad track he could see to tiie v^est about 3200 feet, aiid tnat 
since plaintiff testified he did not look toward tne west after 
he started up arid passed the truck to hie right, xiiis is conclu- 
sive that he ras not in the exercise of due care for his own safety. 
We tiiink this contention ear^not be sustained because- the evidence 
sho^rs that as plaintiff started forward to cross the tracks ai'ter 
looking toward the west, following the two or three autoi,.oLiles 
ahead of him, ue looked toward the south and saw the flagjuan sit- 
ting near his chanty south of the railroad tracks and ^ast of the 
intersection. Plaintiff xnew that a flagiuan was maintaii^ed at 
tnis crossing by defendant, and it was for ^he jury to pass on the 
question, taking into oonsideration ail tne surrounding circum- 
stances, whether plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and 
caution for his own safety, iielly v. Chicago City fiy. Its .. 233 
111, 640; Chicago City Ry, Op. y. .a el son , 215 111. 435; Win t ere teen 
v. :Sat. CoooeraKe Jo . , 361 111, 9 5, 

In th<^ ivelly case the court said (p. 645): ''as a geiaeral 
proposition, tj..e question of contributory ne^lit,erice ia one .jf i^ot 
lor the Jury under all the facts and circuaistancee snown by the 

KiK*xj jjai:.iii>/.!oio'-q£! Silj- m^ss sjvjbiI isluoo sri , sjfoisud' bsotii&'x ■■'>ii^ 1® 

bjsoiilii'x iHioa ^di 'to it;J-Toa $s^'i OS ssw t'tikfixijelq jMSiiw ;tjBf{# BTOxi* 

OOOi asiU eimi lo J-eaw sxii o;t walv Jbojoui^j'ad'oai/ i«s fciSJi ®ii i©jBi*' 

ri^-xoii «iij 'lo ii.d'ion ^^oe'i OS i^iixoq; « .Jj^xioasei ©ri xiailw ^«x£^ feo^; V;j^®»t 

^sih- bitB ,^9g>'l OOSf ^uodis ^asvr "©xij- o;}- sea JbXiroo & rl afo^^* bHoills'i 

-wXoiioi; ei ol;ii^ ,d-ii:i^i;-i aiii od sToJin:;!' ^jci^t bQ^^^^q. bius cry iis^'isd'e'lsH 
.iT'jJial^Q nwo BJtii Tco'i »iii.40 s/lsI) "to ©eioiax© sii* ai Jon a^-?.' aii tsfiiJ" «vlW' 

-He cmaii^Ml't siii w-ea fioe'boe sx£t fexawod" fe<ia£ooX ari ,ffijfexl lo Sissxts' 
aiU 'io dajB^^ &£&. siio.i3'i.j- bBo'iLs..eT ©xi-t 'lo .iti-sjos x^«^J*s '^^'^^ ■gaid'" 

axlJ' Ao 88£<i oj v-iiit Qjii^ to'i: ajew dl fcae «4TUB.fen9't©£» -^cf aniaaoiQ eii^ 

-fluio-xxo jinxi)m./oitiJ8 axicT .lie tioliss'i0hi-&m!> otnl gJafJ^ijCA* ,aold^89J/p 

|)a(! axfso fetifc *io ©b1oi»x® oud' ai e,sw 't'ti^itxjslq i9fi:;t9riv ,B»oas*e 

naa^a TjQiai Vv ; S £ *■ .ill' 5 Xtl j_g.Q_8ig.^^ ...v ^0^ -y.^ ^^^^ oaap^rfD ; 0*9 . 1 /f 

.ae .XXI XBS . .oU o^aigcrooO .jaU \,r 

3ii^ V;J' nwoas a9onK*s:iLUOxio fcria a*0B't sricT XXjb i^hau ^Twt ©i-' *'■ 

evideucs, (lale_y_f_ oiilcagp Junotion Railway Co » ^ 259 Hi, 476) "but 
cases occasionally arise in wiiicii a persoxi ie so carej.eas or iiis 
conduct so violative of all rational staivflurds or cotiduot appli- 
cable to ■oerson3 in a like situation ti;at tae court car aa;/, 
as a matter of law, ivuat no rational person wfoul(^ hsrve acted as he 
did and reader Judgment for the def endant. " 

And in the i^JQlson case it was said (p. 44u): "Tn.® questioi 
of contri'butori'^ neglie.eiice is ordinarily a iiuestioii of fact for the 
jury, and it only 'beconies a question of law wnere th© undisputed 
evidence is so conclusive tliat the court could arrive sit no otner 
conclusion than that the injury was the result of tue negli^rnce 
of the party injured*" (Citing uases,) "If there ruay be a differ- 
ence of opinion on the queetioa, so tiiat reasoiiable minds will ar- 
rive at different conciUBions, then it is a question of fact for 
the jury, " 

In the instant case, we tiiinic it carxriot be said, bearing 
in mind all the surrounding circiisistanees as disclosed by tne Gvi- 
denoe, that all reasonable lainds would reacii the conclasion tiiat 
plaintiff's conduct was violative of ail rational .standards of con- 
duct; in these circoffistav". cea tixe question ^-j&s one for tiie jury, xke 
evidence sho^s that after the eastbound train on the north railroad 
traelc cleared the croseiiig, tiro or three autou-obiles aiiead of 
plaintiff in the sarae lane proceeded to cross the tracks. He looked 
toward the west but hie view •-s'as obstrucxed; he th«n looked toward 
the south and saw the flagL'ian silting near hie ohimty , froiit wjjicii. he 
might well assume that no train was aporoaching the crossing at the 
time, knowing as he did tnat the f la^^uan » s place Wiiei. a train was 
approacning was out in the street intersection witn his "Stop*' ci,^, 
signalling tnat a train ^ias approaching. We think that whet.hor 
plaintiff was excused from looicing agaiu to the west was a quegtioB 

ail* 'xo a«s.i.a''i-,Qo oa ax lioai^q £ flsiixw ai eaJt^A xllcnoLeeooo e9««p 

si:i a^ Ji3iiO,s ov^-ui .bXi/ow aoa-jafi ijeacidai on d-^j-i.;" ^i»aX 'to tsiii&si e lus 

»iii 'xo'i *G£'i "Xo fioijast/p ,« \;XiiJsaii>i;o ai ©ofi®iaiX3a0 -.iio^JirtfitJ'noo "to 

ijs^ijqeifeflii; eriS S'lsuw wfi.i 'to xtoiSaawp « «»ato©®cf \Xko '■^'t hfis. ^^^^uX, 

'i'^ixio oa iii avi'i's« fcXiJoo d'xuoo 5&jat d'iid.d' aviajuXonoo oe. ai sonftAive 

-■x£ XXitt' a&aiai ©Xdsnos/se'i a-fiucT oe ,Goi4'asju.p &sxi ao aoxfii^o 'to soixa 
ro'l d-oij'l 'io uoiJ"8Sijp is al Ji nedj .eiioist'Xonoo ^xioTs'i'ii^ te, prtt 

Snii^.gcf .i^ijsa erf i-oaoso J-i jiitxiU sw ,dfi£i£» #fiS#s££X 9f(i iil 

-iv® 9£[^ 'icr .6-3eoXo3Xb s^ 8©aiij(jj8iai.j&-iio gnifeni/oiaija exli XX« haXiss. nl 

isiii xioiawXorjoo oAt xiajja-x AXuow 8l>ai:ia sXc/jsnoa***^ XX« #Aj£t^ fdoosft 

«iio» 'r.o ab'S^j&iijad'e X«itoi;)-jei XX^ 'io srld-jaXoiv a&w toiibnoo n^XttiniAiti 

©iiX .x^'xw^ exii lo't sao asw rtoijaawp sxx^ 8dOi:ied'aa3i.oii:p ©bsjH ni ;^oi;& 

to bQ^ii^ e9Xio''04iioJ-Jj£ ssiri* 10 ow* ,s«x©aoi:& »ri^ &«^«©Xo 5{C!«'r* 
bosicoX s>H ,8>io£sx) oxl^ aaoia oJ' habasootQ- aaeX sj-ajas axJ* ai 'tXtiniBlq 

9ii iioiaw tuoa't ,'^;ri"i*iXio airl x«en goii^Jla aaj%jeXl ®rf^ iwss 6aj» fi*i/oa 9jcI5' 

ef{;t iA jjnieae-so ©ii* saXifoaoiqq* eav.- ait^ni en ;t«4(^ ©isuuesfi XX©w ixi^im 

aiJW axjanJ- £ iieriw ©oj*Xq. e^ a&tjs^Uil'i &a.i f^di lib ©4 •« gaiwoni ,»icitf 

,a5jXs "qoJiS" aixi jfcfiw aox*o«aa^;^nl J9»:i*e oil* ni ^uo asw sjnliiofiotqqa 

for tho jury, aill g v> il.Y.C. Lz St. L. R.R.G o. . 342 Hi, 4,55. 
In that case tlir .:ourt said (p. 46j) : "It has baan nfcj.d tiisit as 
a matter cl' Inv/ it cannot be said tiial a traveler ia tound to 
lock or li'sten, "because t'lere may be circuiiiHtaiices oxcuolHg IlIiti 
from doing so. " 

The judgment oi" the Circuit court oi Cook oounty is 

Matoliett, P. J,, and ILcBxxrely , J., concur. 

,Q€!l^ ,111 S^e , ^Q^,^A^>i^d ,^m:^A ^.p>Y.«id. ,,v ^J.liTi »x^M. «f^* '£ot 
nii ,,te.fij hX&ii. n»®ii saM al" : (udi^ .a.) £i.t^B ;i-i0oo saiii' ^8jao ;^«lli^ iti 

390 30 

Appellee, ) 



rs, ) ' 


TRAtTS-AfcSRiCAlf I^lIftllT LIliES, 

II^C,, a Corooration, ) 

Ap reliant, ) 


Plaintil'1' brougiit afi action at^ainst deiVn-iant to recover 
damages for personal injuries claiixted to have been sustained by 
him tterough the negligence oT defendant whicii rasuited in a colli- 
sion "between plaintifl '© aatozaobile and defendant's truck. There 
was a verdict 9Jid ju'i£-,iuent in plaintiff's favor lor ^6000, and 
defendant appeals, 

ITie record disclosss cuat on June 13, 1933, at about 9:30 
p. m, , plaintiff was driving his Clievrolet coupe east in 59th street 
anfi i<»fendajit 's chauffeur 'f^as driving one of its truc±:8 ar.d a trailer 
north in Went^orth avenue; the two veSiicles collided at the inter- 
section and plaintiff was severely injured. There '?ere ordinaury 
"stop" and "go" ligiite at. the corners of the intersection. 

Plaintiff's position is that he was traveling at a reason- 
able rate of speed as he approached :ind entered the intersection, 
and that the green lit.>x-t« were in his favor as he proceeded east 
across Wentworth avenue. On tne otiier har.d, def ejidaiJt 's position 
is that its northbound trucic find trailer v/as being driveii at a 
reascnable rate of speed auid that when the truck entered the inter- 
section the green \Xi, ts vrere in its fuvor, 

Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing, to in- 
struct the jury, at the close of all the evidence, to find it not 
guilty on the ground, as stated by its counsel, "tuat txiere is no 
evidence in the record ei.dinfc to saow that plaintiff was in the 


.Tnuoo SET %.Q iiommo sffiT aaMEViasd floviyioo*o aoi'iaux .m 

''id 63nii)* ns^d' svaf*; ©^ i:>$aj:KXo B«<lu«tai I^aoaisij lol effs^isseb 
-iXIoo « ai. .fedJi!ja;-i xiolrt'*- ^triBbrts'ieJb "to S0ii»;;.',ilasn axis' rigfc'oilCjt miri. 

.aXfiaqcys d'Oi^.&aatQJb 

itssrfS's iii9?. xix :t€!£© e<^x.;<?o tfftioi'VSxS) Bid. ^nlrlnb e^w Ttij-niiale , ,0 »<j 
asXivEi^ « .b.'xe e-i-oini aci-l 'io eao i%.«xvi*3:Jb asw ■SifsTl.jjjsrio a' ixijs&ns'tftfc b»XR 

Xiisajih'i.o o-xs'v-; sis/iT ^iiQiwcai Tj;i8T:ftvs8 sjbw 't'iid'itJtaXq line noJri'o»a 

~uoanoi a d"£ aaxIgf^jBi^ ajsw ri>jrl itssLi si nolilsotx s'Tti^nisX^ 

-%Q.Uii. &ii;l b^X9ti:i9 AQUti ^sU .n©rfw v)'.4.ri,i baa fer^flota 'io »*js7 <5Xcfj3«oa«©"S 

ttov.'e.'t &it ill saa'W 8*;^-3lX aasng &iii ciolfQ99 

ioa Ji bail o;^ .aoaftMvs «.u;r 1X« 'io ©soXo -si-ict Jis .r^^'t ^^^ iouri* 
Oit ai 9151U *£dJ" jXosaiOo 8Si red Iksiacfa a« .bajjoia ari* no ^;fXxiis 


•xercise of dua care for his own safety at and imoiediately prior to 
the happening of trie accident," in support of tais counael >i9,y» 
■plaintiff himself testified that wnen he readied the west croes- 
walk ae he approached Wentworth avenue he look'-d south and saw the 
truck approaching; that he tnen started to cross and di". not look 
again or pay any furtner attention to the truck;" and that plain- 
tiff's testimony in tnis respect is uncontradicted. Of course, 
under the law plaintiff was required to prove by a prenonderance of 
the evidence that he was in the exercise of due care and caution 
for his oTB safety before he could recover, and tnis ^would be true 
althougli defendant's chauffeur raight /ilso be guilty of negligence 
which directly broug'^t about the collision. 

As a general proposition the questions ©f negligence and 
contributory negligence are questions "of fact for the jury under 
all the facts and eircumstarices shown by the evidence, {i>ale v. 
Chicago Juncti on R y. Co.. 259 111. 476) but cases occasionally 
arise in ■v?hich a person is so careless or his conduct is so viola- 
tive of all rational standards of conduct applicaiDle to persons in 
a like situation that the court can say, as a matter of law, that 
no rational person would have acted as he did and render judgment 
for the defendant," Kelly v . C hicago C ity Ry. Co.. 233 111. 640-645. 
This same rule was announced in niany earlier cases by our Supreme 
court and in Chicago City Rv. Co. v. Kelson ^ 215 111. 436, the court 
said (p, 44C): "The question of contributory negligence is ordi- 
narily a question of fact for the jury, nnd it only becomes a ques- 
tion of law where the Undisputed evidence is so conclusive that 
the court could arrive at no other conclusion than that the injury 
was the result of ths negligence of the party injured. (piting 
cases J If tnere may be a difference of opinion on the question, so 
that reasonable minds «rill arrive at different conclusions, then it 

oi toxrq xleiMlb^ism-X feas jTjb -^Js'las zvfio aid lo't ©"s^o swb 'io eaio^il^t;* 
,(i:ai?^ XesfUfoo aiifl;^ 'io w-soqcvwe rxl " ,iashli»o£i ©iil 'to .'iaiaeqcijaii arid' 

aCoeli) &oa bib !)nB aso-xo et Bs^aals imxH ad S£si.-i ;aaiii©jsoictgjs :iiowi^ 

'to ■^oci&i&baoqs-xq b ^^d STO'iq o.:^ bs-itijp»'i a£W 't*.ti:.tisJ:«Iq- wsX ed^ isfttiif 

ctol.tL'so fcaa ®'ii5» 6A.'b 'io »Kl.t)is>x© «xl^ aJt saw ©ri J-^fC* sonetfeiT® ©ili" 

suti &(f blijo?? aiilJ i>ais ,"X9voos'i JfcXwoo ©il ©lo'tacf -^^s'ijss a^o aiii rtol 

&«£$ ®o«9^xX3®n lo anoi^-saup siii aoid'iaoqo'xq Xjsisasg ■& »A 

tsbasj X'^al «J.i;i to'i. d'o^'i 'to** BiaoiJ-KSiJp si*. ©ons^iXgen x^otudiiiaoo 

y7 aX.jsd.) ,»aa©|iiv9 ©.rid- ^d" «woxl8 asoiisieauJoiXo &i"a> a^fo.el: 9iii XIjs 

\jXXi3jntoXa0ooo 00aso Jijcf (dVI- .XXI §aS , ,qQ , Yfl a oiipaul O'^soldP 

-■eXoir oa ax ooubaiiO aid •xo aeaXsTfio oa ax nosisiq iJ rioixlvr ai »o1t& 

ai e,aoei&q oi sXu^oiXqqs ^^oubnoo "io a&i-sbnad-a Xsnoiirii^ XXa 1© »rli 

. d-fioiii^a&jut -i'sXinei boa l>xb ssi siS luscfoa tsv^sxl fcX«ow noataq XjsHold'ai on 
.jlvS-Cltd .XXX SeS , .oQ ^yg. •'^:|-X0 og.Bai.rIO ^7 ^ll9^ <> ^tojsta&'ieb »dt lol 

efiiftiQuO 1U0 Tjcf 8©aflo •seiltBSt ■^cn^jss ai. b^oauoasm bjsw •Xiji ««r«a sixfi! 
d-ajuoo ariJt ,de^ ,XXI axs ,floiaXsia «v .oO «vfi. viStO oa«QJ4P ai Jbas *ii;oo 

-ib-xo ei sono^iiiasn y;^o;ti/cfi:^c?fioo lo aoi*a»iJp silT'* :(0^* »q) Mfio 

jj-jaxii •viBifXonoo oa ai aoAftfeive £>9*jJ(J.ii if) nir adi »\s>dw twX Ito aol* 

XitJlal odi iadi nmii' no l& u I'-ntoo i^dio on d-fi ©viiiJ8r> .feXiioo t'suoo 9dt 

gaiitJ) .Jbe-xi/t^i 'C*^£'<I ®^* '^<> ooaeaJtXa»fl oii^t "io iluaet ©xfd^ saw 

OR .aoid-a^jjj-p «ii* no noiniqo lo somts't'tlb fi 9d y««i ®«ri* II (Ja88«o 

ii. neilt .aaoiaxfXonoo *n»iy'i*tif> jh rivi'i-ije XXxw al>nim »Xrf«aoa«»'s *«xl* 

is t| qaffsticn oi" fHct lor the jury," 

Plaintil'l* teatii'iad that as he ■r:a,h drivinjs; eaet xu I3fttn 
street, approacJiing Wentworth avenue, the ^ree/* ii^-^ts were in nis 
favor; tliat atout the tiiae ne ren-caed tns west side ai' V/eutworth 
avBnue he looked to the soutn and saw the true*: north about 
80 feet Eout}i of the intersection; that when he ,^ot about to the 
intersection the green lights turned to amber aiid in a aeconn or 
two he was struck by tue truoic which collided witii tlae rear viirjii 
hand side ol* the autoniobile; that he going about 15 xiiiles an 
hour -^^hen ha reac}ied the intersection. On orosR-examination he 
testified t .at when he vras about at tne v'egt oross-waiiE of tne 
Intersection he looked up and down Wentworth avenue to eee the 
state of the traffic; that he e-a^ defer; dsnt '© truck about 80 feet 
south of the intersection; ( tiiere are two street car tracks in 
each of the tiro streets); that the collision took place in the 
east or north) cund street car track snd that plaintiff was travel- 
ing in the eout. or eaBtbound. track; that he w&e "right on the car 
track when the lights changed, closer to the e&st side of Wertrcrth 
avenue. At that ticie it turned amber. *** I rae ri{*t there at 
the intersection of the northbcurd ptreei. car track and the ep^ct- 
bound strrpt car track vhen I sar the lit*t change to airiber;" it 
was at that point that thf^ collieion occurred; that eXter he started 
acroBS the intersection he was not -patching for the truck. 

Even if 7r&. consider only plaintiff's testimony in peseing en 
defendant's uiotion for a dirrcted Vf^rdict et tu<^ cloee of all the 
evidence, we ttiink we cculd not say, as a iri&tter of law, th&t no 
rational person Tould have acted as he did. Irj these circuaiEtancei, 
of course the question was for the jury, Put in passing: on defend- 
ant's motion all the evidence raust be considered, imd vhen this is 
done, ^e are clear that the question was one for the jury. 


jLfGdjs lii'XQa ^aiino» xais'i^ stBrl wais i;m,e d^J-jjo!? aiii' o^ fe«::^00l ©Jfi -swasv^ 

10 5fioo«->y a nx JMie ■sadism oS iftxt^Li aitrrgil nsatts ©il;y*- aolfo&n't^iat 

£s& fii^Xxfli OX jijodii giiloa 8A5-*' sx{ cJ-iiXii ; ^Itiiomai iiJ3, »iii to s^is fcfiftri 
:S.u aoii-4S,«lfli*?x««aaoto xip .noxcfosf3'xsi:i-ai: ^dj b&sixjjiBi ®d msfpfi tmd 

^e^'t uB cfwotfe i.0ij"x.j- a ^ Ins baa 19 f) w.tsa ari J^iXi^J ;&.ft"t«':ii Siil lo ?a;;^,«8^8 

8£{J Hi aoaXq iiooj noxaxXXoo oxici- .^^xtt ; (ed'aei^:^ o^* srtt 'to rfo«» 

ijso f5.?« no .tjlsJcT" a^jvr oxi .tjss-ctd- ,'a{Qi5i.t bitnO'Sisi-i'^ "xo aJ'ifoa »xi^ ai i^al: 
rf;tT O'";* ciaW 'to f>&X-''. it^s^^va sxiJ- o.t loaolo ^h&M^'mdo uSri'^^XI aj^ atriw ataa^;^ 

-isjsfi »rij bns ^^o-a-xJ- ijso .t'5»9T:.t.'3 fymsoddi'xoa @di 'to aoiiosainiai. 9di 

Jtiac^tad-a ftjf nf^tta .tW.aJ ;.fe9*i'i«3oo aoiaiXXbo r-il;^ j-^rid" *axoq JBrfd' Ja saw 
,io«i^ ©«'* loi: :iaiuj:rmr i'ori 8-Q^f sri ctoit©9aia^nJ: aril eaoioa 

art* IX£- 'to ostolo ^iii fa iotbi&i' b&ia^tlh as ta'i. noliom s' ^fusfciiotsft 

on d"ax!,t .wsX 'to •ts*.t/:tia a aja .^ijea ioa felwos »w iiaixU 9w ,»sa9j>iv» 

,a9oii>?*a^^'Oiio ■^0'SixiJ nl »hih 9ii s^ fcs^aa ©vaa fcXwo'i'' aoai'^q Xanoliai 

-6;iy't9& fio nnkBuep^iai iuS. ,r^isl ndi lo't saw rjojtd'sawp 9xi* 8«^«oo 'to 

.^ixft'arW 'lo't ano ear itotiB&up &£ii t&di tA&£o Qt« »w ,0oofe 

■D«l'<!yrJdaj::t Turiawr caut'«i'i» tiaxi «rvmi it ti;e; ocurt rlld not 
♦rr in r«ru«lu^j to iixeot »*. Yer4iGt; «it tue cio^w of a-ii thaj ^-vi'-i^tce, 
y«t til*' oourt «tr*>A Ut not i,;ra*.t.l«ig daf «j;".H:iSutit « i««w trial bftcuuim 

Und#r the lii'w it i« tii.«* iuiv ©J' ini<j court i<^ »*t .■f,«iti» n 
▼•rdict f»ri<! jud awit wh»tt, upon «* coK»lf4«ratiojfi »! ai.i t.«« «vif!'?iAO«, 
w» 'i.r^s <ji' oplnl0B tiisit tilt vftrrdiet suid judi^f^iit .'ir« «i.gi4lKs(it to« «i!>j;l» 

feat *«ight Hi' tu« ^viiSetJce, i1o.BfX^<^. .v, .. s;, J.^-f.. .■■fr'<?,'4rM.,.J^iL^. .S,t» ♦ '^^S 

111. 6S5, aB4 to r«8»aii<i tk« OAua«. i4iLiM.JU.^iMSm#Jlil^^-liy*^ 
^,, 3ia ill, 543. 

lhr«« <»<j©u-irr«r.e« s!-4tR«^^a#», pialrstlii" ^ai-^ two stu«rs, t*»ti» 
J*4*4 s'er ^l«.UJtiiT, auii four i'nt tns- ti«irtii4*Jjt, iii® dri'ser «£i4 tar«« 
tA.ejf- «. 

9i»%0 Al«3t, eali»4 te;?' iniatjstlfi', tfsu s t/i<i«J that h« wjna pi;-a.t««« 
years sl-1 mt thw iIk;?! &-f tli© trial, 'stiiyj-j waa tstooui t^o -ixtid f»»«*i3.Alf 

e®rR«r ©f the li:t®r«esti«i» mm-i was selling p»p«r« r*£ tit** ti®*'. ^f trie 
ae«l't«nt; i.'iat tJi?* iRtsrsoetiftn is fcuilt up uad %hwr^ *re four i»t©p 
*a4 e'® ll^'-it* ftt t^e ep>rners; tLat when u# first r>54»«? ?!«r«tt4s«it *s 
traek eesiiig north in w*jiti»s»r1^ skveisa* u** «a« »t th« »©utli«ast 
eerfi^r ntaut 3S feet »®'«th oJ* '^Ui ©trset, tue tracK wae tii^jti I'rtsa 
IliJ to 1 'K' l'«<?t Boutii oJ' ih« tiit*r8«(Sttea; * trailer -^^^a* at- 
t{itsh.#4 t© the truak tsViiea *f»»th *' tra^aiiu^j about 95 t© S*j .-ail f s an 
kour{ tiiftt it »i-«4Cfet4 --le^^r* b«i>?re it n^^atsupd iii« lr»t«ra«ctio«: ''^s 
it £0t t© the OfifiJer ii« n»i.?l yaa r«d li*;£it»; .he» tn^ track iriT«r, 
iiifi sio througr» ta« r^^-l iij|iit»;* tasis tae itfe='.,t<9 *ii\»i.^:,#>d lo aabsr 
bitfore tii« tr<ack reae^it-d tae interaaciion; mm a« ftskw oiaiiiiifl** 
4ittto&$ttl« wii*?!'. it r<«*eA*s4 tii« first raii oi' t^i© •eutiiOittiid traek 
csJElttg fssist, ea ©& t« atr«^t; %aai ti;s tr^ei; •trueit tii« r»'»r .*ir.d 
vh««l 9f 9la.ifitifl'*» autt-JKiol,- ii# ae-^ ftumsid It iix->ur4d toward tUt 

-■ ^ : ' • • ■- - ♦«f;#^*' 

«.Ci5 ^©v^ssit «fii* ..i-A 'liita^^t^ sallX««t ■««* ^s^jii* 'js^l 9€$ 'i^ t»m.m 

'«i»<f«i8:,^.« Jj»^4^-.** »/w#ll. <wiai i'j»i.4* " J iiSit^l.X ■*>*•«;. .^^^l ^^i«rrrf# r^^ ttfe 

'tfiin«ii» t.i»i»tlfl«4 thai vlitrii u* i ij:»t 8»w pl&iittifi" •» **ut"i>,6- l."i« it 
van about five i*e«t r«»t ©i' tli« stouihl^ouad »tsfr.v:i s»r ir^iujii. 

for hte»«if, ci*iiM by •v'>i4iiUitiJt''r, t««it,ji.*<3i mat, ai t,Ue -^ b: --? ol lh# 
ftedi<Se«t. hw heA i&«?©f. lii * r«8t»uri*at locut^jd Wii"#« (^'oori ^i/utln of 
SS^th &tr««t on the -seat si I* ef '^'af^twi^rti;. -tM^WAisi ta%t He s&'%iis»(S 
to th» oeraftf sifi.l wall^'t for the li^-ats to i;Uai-.||« »© ihi^X n& ^souli 

««r«? r«*d *t the tl'A-ft plaiuiiU* wa« -?.rlrlH,ti. **a8t In feiae •*h#irroi«t 

ta« was*, ^-tl wi»et truffle lli-jht ob.aiig«4 fr©.Ks gr**ij t« iAiabftf; Ui*t ia© 
turned aroufi<l sad s&* -U'lfs tnack mbout sli^iit ©jt t--s5 feet i'roB th« 
ftutOK«feil«, a*s<! Ui^t Is struck the aut.^'-aevil© iif%r th«* r«i&r 
fofilftrj that pl^ki.ryiiff''^ car "^'as "jiil sltsac-ilsfe^d; sdl br©&® up,* 
Hug--- 4ii«R, t'aiirtd l5> i«f «ij.4y*:s I , t»« tilled Ui&t he ?'«.& a 
fAiRt«r stfid 5«ecr*tor at th« e life^ Qf ih& aeeif|®rit, ssfi^i at %a^ iias© 
• r th« trisil '-mw' iiviKg it* iiulucy. 111 it vis; Uis*, he' *a* *t.:ii..-c*iR^, 
at th0 i»ortnwBi«t ««rB«r ttJ* th« lnt«!.T8«etiof. stK?? aa?? th« eoiil«loa; 
that h« tianta^ tt w&lk aoutla stefoeft 59th street; tfiat h« .lirs*. 8sw 
the trucJt «hsti it s-a* ?.% to ICO f^et »:.ata of tiie iiit«r9»ettoa sijii 
th« Jiut0U>«kil« vrh+^fi It -srag a »nert iistj-aiae ??est ei* "'V#£t«?«rtri &v«f^uc; 
th*t th9 tr^ek ^aa il eiU«r«4 tjia is tf^rswot i©» of S^th »tr«et, tii« 
llgiits wer? r«4 "** aua-'j ta»y faaid started t© t**.© a. eh?»r.g«;* tn»t h« 
theu^J'^t the truck was aVout 5C r<;?«t «:ut:i of tu« ifitersectiott ^ii«R 
tis« light* staxt^^ to ekan^a; that it wAa osaatiRii, siiojag *n.;i ttvat 
»fe»» it eBt*3r»d lh§ lnt'?rs«ibt,ion the north and Hout'i liiciit* 'i-©r« 
gr»«n; th*t »h«B pis* in t life *A^te^i:«bli« snteragl iinr lr.t<»r»ect4qfi 
•tli« *ft«t inl we»t %rii2-i-ie il^it» ^ere mhmlu%^Xs r^d^ t/.:«t uas 

».i<;,£jMi'x# -mo i'^n-t^ia fe43sfcfcwVW£j';s» »ii«< 's<*- i*»-<^- t##t sivit $im4& snw 

'*« Mum »«««l! ^^«'SiCi K". ^i(:-4»o£ #iS«-S»#-J'«»T! « «i a«ii4#. fcei^ i«.fi ^««1fel»»J8 

»tii m}%'i S^&t-imj •$© 4flsi« $u^€.m Anma 9&I1 «ri»a, 8»i(a# hw»9X» h»tnis$ 

;aoi« 1:116© #tut swa bi4» acssi^s^siEsstffli «£«r 't^.'V&m&n *§*««#•«.»» *<tl ^« 
■«»£i •i.wii* *;#isi«c?iO' A- fi!*i«l «>J .ls«>#^#3« iMMi \.ifHi.t ftsa* ■«*•-»• iNwc •|«'»#r •'tfl^iS 

eolllaion tooin fiilfte* near tn<» iitid4jk« ol t<i« iuloirceoiidii i&Ad th< 
4ftUtocooi)il4? «ft« turned tovr^tr^t %t.» iut>rtii«A»t oojr<i«r «r>«^i''St « iaotp 
post* Cin @ro9«'*«X&&iriAtion Ue t««ti;i'i«!Ji l'aii.t h«t stood a.\ u«.« 
northwest doru«r oi' Ut* iKto^rvKCtioA twu ox- tar^* taii^utA* w»'tcuin|^ 

Hit&iBat :.;l®; tia** wtt«n h« rirwt observed lunt iioi'thfct>iiA4 aiiti Koutii- 
1>ou»4[ traJ*J'ic li^^ht* th«»y wtjr« r«d; UiAl ne 'SAd liot to&ye » ft/iraice to 

erofts i^%f\ fttrffst l©aa«i»« th» lights tu«a«4 fe'rtus** swi.' iii« aecideftt 

«fld aerthbouK4 street c&T tr».a«.e 6ro«»sfi4. 

Willis® J, Cojrtii*l,lj cali^ifS ty ii€!l*©i*-,iai..t, fttsr* viJ'ied Uiat 
A^ou.t ^tght limrtht prior t* th-- trial h^ «&9 werkijtig i'er yj© i*lty 
of thica^gis , feur*st.i ©i* ftr^-^tsj juf^t fc«-i"©r# tii© a#e.i4«8ii ae v,a8 
at tn« «0rtliw«»«t corner oi' tat» eire*>i lii?»<.*r»e<;iti.oij; tis&t- «^<8b .v,i« 
l*lr»t «»i» 'ih« trueit It «a» '^w ©i» 25 I'^^-t auutii oi Wtn stree^t; Uiat 
wh9& he fir»t a«w th« »«tOA;;iObile it is*a «tbeut 3» to 4C fe-et w^et oi' 
Tf#«tw«rt,a &v«nu«; iimt •'S'jiejo tii« track .-iit tii« int'sr«#56tie<i ^ii« 
light* e35aii^-«d frtm sM6t«r to gr«eii. ^^^««» tiif- truci *erit iut© th& 
iet«]r««etiox^ it l^-^l th» ,&,*"•«» ii&at, th«f« * i'irot aa* ts-ife ua«fYrolet 
it h,-s4 tn« r«« iiji^it. It *»» al&out i'ivo l'«et I'ro..- tii© r«4 i.igfe.t;*' 
tiiAt Uiit Qievroitt raxi th,r»tt4»ift tii® r-^A iii^U it*t« i;ii« tet^rs^etioa 
«Bd tiue e^liisioK aeeurro4 riftjit it* -t-'*« c«i.ter, 

^lotosiar ^ilo^o»d, tfe'? eiiauiYour &J' dcf 'mdAjjt *«s true-it, t<i«- 
tiri«d %hm% h« h»4 fe««ii «iriviiig a tr-j^e^- i'er d«l>i.dinit i'&t U^x^m 
y«>ar« s»rier -e x'a^ »3«i(tor.t; tn^t t^iiefi a« first laatlijod tiie'iio 
Xil^ht »t th* iDt^rsoetieiii he «a« ab^ut l&o in i7«„' J>et oswt:^ cr Uio 
ist»ir»4«tiea aii?! tins il^hto *^jf« tja»n redj ti*at i»« eio^'Od <?»«», 
•Jilftleg. t&to iB»eend «j*ax, suid **r-pt '*fatoi*4ii^ the li^toj UtSit i»i!;«a 
h« **• Ab90t 7S f»et i'retfe tii« 2.i«^^it It tar*i®d to a&ber ai-d :;.«*-. to 
gro^t .-to*; iis «p««4«4 a^ ai4<J tUAt »ii®ii ae ^jst^reA u\« ititeraectloa 
tfeo gr««» ii^^it 9it« iti iiie fiivor; i** w!a» vneo trareiiiig about i^ 


f|{si*.i.i« S"ai4^»5,rfi% -xaut^© i&mfdit&a ^m &'*^'^%* It'Sis^Aii «**)i« liLMnumi:*** 

'>{ "i'^>© .1^ i»tim smi'i &!& sM i&M |;fc-s:t. :#'«®sf ■fsriJ' «#j%il ,»i;1'4»-a4 i»ftf!«# 
.ivi9>^?l^a<fc t&si-j sv.s*f! si^-^'iu ^^^Mn^ nt^ii^il ^M-^ ^^im»9^ i^»%$M ts»*^ ««#*!» 

.ji^ 5>ii?- -4;-ti*i a:^^i;@.v asiv^ fttn i*iit<i .i^i? »* 'S«i')i«^ »j(Wa«m Sd-^H .'>i;fiW«<i*- 

n 1*:»^ ^.s^st v^^' »# ««i 4m«4« «sif.«f ^1 s4i.s?©.%«ltiv«-,»xiJ "»«« a«ti't aft 4i«niii 

"jliii^ll !vs.x w.iij .v#iis: J>«i .#*il .iii04'*», ■»«» Jri .^^i^iki.! h^t, mi Jk*rf tl- »*« fe«!»a» iiJ OiJ' ^«^i* ad «»ii'^ JJIt:? j # iSflti »&# »iii m tfiif^ mrMmt 
,rtw«*-. iSt«>s:-» ea |,<?rti? jfeft^i itt»4y s»ii$'« ii#*%!iiii »itii ^<a^ .aei^aM****:** 

or 20 milfts vi 'lour; "I lid not see, Martijxten'B (Plairitil'i''s) 
car until he pulled directly aorosa iri iront ol" me, or ut.til al'ter 
lie entered the intersection;" taat plaintiif then sw«j.-ved lov/ard 
the north; that the truci. straddling the east rail ol' the 
nrsrthin:)und track and tn&t the accideiit occurred when piaintiiT wsis 
crossing the north or -Tyestbouad traci. ol" 59tii street; that i-lter 
the collision the truck and autci-otoile were diafeoaaliy across the 
northep*6 1 coi"nf»r ol' the intersection. On crose-exataination he 
testified that he I'irsx sav/ plainoiJ'i 'b car as it entered the 
interBection; that he glanced caet taid vrest but did not see any- 
thing; t^^■t the corr.ere cl' the intoreeetion were ?>'ell liguted. 

Each cf the occurrence ^fitnesses tes tilled at considerable 
length sTid obviously we have not attempted to analyze all tiiat tsas 
eaid. The jury saw and heard the witnesses testify and were in a 
much better positior to let rBiine the aatter in controversy than 
ire are in a court of review where we aave but tae printed pa^e be- 
fore us. They found in favor of tue plaintiff; the trial Judge 
also sscTT and heard the witnesses testify and he approved the find- 
ing of the jury. We are unible to say that the findin^^ and judg- 
DQent are a^iSingt the inanifest wei^it of the evideiice. In these 
cireumstaiioes w© a,xe not warranted ia disturbing tne judgment. 

Defendant further coatsiids taat the court erred in re- 
fusing- to give instruct ions requ.isted by it arid in giving an 
instruction prey)ared by the court, 

Thz court gave four inBtruotions requested by plaintiff 
and denied eight; gave five at the request ol' defeiioaiU aiid de- 
nied tv«elve. By the instractions txie jury were told that it was 
their duty to deteriiiine the facts froui the evidence and then to 
apply the la'p as stated in the instructions, which tney should 
consider as one series4 that plaintiff as noi; bound to prove his 

{s''Ttiv'at.'ii''i)istUia>:ali'XJs''l .%;:^ ssja ;5oh bib I** j-xwoxi. a^. eeXim OS «o 

I^'XfiWOJ I)?5v~i»w3 noiii Yi I a ill i'i-iq i&HS " ;iioictOv»a"XOJai: Sil^t fe^-j^d^ns ©if. 

^ilj- '20 lis'i J'a.s© Bits i^itxxkfiMtt^. ec'^/ :;i&ij'xd' ajrir- ^jaxi^ ;ii^T0a ©ii:J 

-<j£iB 9©« d-oa £>ib J-ija J-asw ficifi; Ja^^ itdooslg dri d-^tlt ;Koilo»ax«»*ai 

9lffeT9£>iaaoo J.s .fesi'triaaj asaasaj-iw sonsi'ri/coo ?iM *to rIosS 
ss'/ ifsiU .i:Xj3 Qs^iXj^OB oj' f-3i'cpnsi**s .Jon ovei^ sw ^-''^swolvrfo t'Xi>-r rf^gitel 
ia ai ©taw £>as. ^lii-ast aaaesMuiw ®xii £»ts©i'I Ji>rtB wea x'^^t ®^ ^bis-in 

»$d 9:BJsq bBicti%q_ exicf- d-XKi av<exl 0W atsriw wsivs-s 'to J'^i;oo js at »^a 9w 

©•■jiiut lisiij arid- ;'rtiJalsr(s axU 'to xoTi:'t nx ftrmo't ^^^^ .a*; aio't 

~brii':t ©rid- J[-js-/oiqcTB sri ,&Ui7 -^lli-seJ aas(S!»i3u3-iw »ii^ ^i-jsaxl .|>js« wsa oaX« 

&QssiS 111 .saorisbivs .eiig" 'xo ^xt^isw j-as'JtiiUiaivs ®-it#« sxe ia»a 

-91 al fcoii9 j-tJ-'ou SiW ^£.i-i BbaBtciQO t^ii&iis't fimhiw't»<l 

-sfo I-)ru3 *.ctB.bfis'is& 'io JasupS'x ©rC5 d« '"Vil Sr&a jjrtgis fcein^fc has 
Bcv^ a t.BXl,t foXoJ 9i»v; ^•^u-t, Qiii saoxcTanajRni »i<:j \:a: .<»vl«w^ b&iti 


ea«« b«y«Ned * reasoo^ljX* doulct Itut only by « prnfioadrnTsuiCv of 

plaintiff h^d so provon tti* a«kaiii, iu$> tras eutltil4»4 to r«oo^ejr. 
Th« ln«tru.:.tion •xpl<»itt«^4 thtf i-^<siimUi^ oi '*'ftT9:«uiti»Tm'>c« o>' Ui« 
eYid«i'*e»* i»»4 thttt t&« pr»po«.-t«r«iiQ« »*» not v^«t«v-.,ift«id «oii--ly 
by th# Kujiiber ©f witU999«« •^iio t»3»tlf^- to -aay i»«rti«-jii^r f.vct or 

eonsldt«r»tii3« X.h.9 nusaber of v^iUie«»««, Ui&ix oyii^ortaiuitiis* for 

lisier^st, if ^Oi^ t Ui- tii« r®»ali «!' tix« suit, Aii» jury ^-sre th«K 

eiee ef eT4,ir»ftry c»yis tor iii» o'^a aafiit:/, fA*i>r$ srasw cay* '*a» Vu^ir 
d«f Ib®^, 

•hOul-:1 net te© ac.v»:l l>>* psiasisa or pjp@judie« i-md tnat ;lsf e/^d^iiit 
ahe»ald te treated «*« aj. it*1iv i-iasO. j ta&t pi#*ii-,tii'f w&b r*;yair«d 
to jptroYt his e*»ii* b^,' it preji«js4<»rfea«« sf tii« ^vid^tjos fe^fajre ii,e 
ooul^ r«a©v«r; tiiat if iie Ja^^d k©I uo prov«ai Isle .i*a$4 »r if tli« 
«vi4;ji!C# waa svssisiy fefei*iii«04 cjjt If it |jy«p«i*«jt«*r»ti@4 ku fi^v<?r ©f 
defe-cdS&iit, yseri tfi« v*rdi«t «ii»ul£j W rsr .i«l*©jj*liwit: i-v.^t ii' iiie 
Jury lsi«lt*ir«4 fr«i& tiift efi4#*j,©» ta*t "at or l£«ft«cii:-ately prior tc 
tli* tt-a* ef tii« hA|>p«i.ti5g ©f ti:i« st^eidscil *** (»iaitiitlff '*** waa 
guilty «f «my aegiljg-met or «:a.t oi G«jf«" Ruioh coEtrlb«t-'d to 
■ferlng about tJue »seia<mt, ->i« caui4 a«t r««cver; tast 5u« fact 
that tli« s-.jurt iiad Ij^atruct^d tki^iu «ts tji© -ju^stloo ,,1 dm.' s%.fee '»»» 
not. to bo tak^n f%9 *r< liat;l*.vr*tioB ux^t 4«i>GAasiX s*» iii^fcie, 

Tixo InwtructloEo t«na«r«4 by dofecdiimt fttJ4 rei'u9#4 by tiio 
sourt - whloh rof us«l 4«f'9i.'.i*jt.t corstOKdo wm» pr^judioi^i te it - 
':»r», %• 4#f9*i4^t ksio arfeUttd, itu£ib«r«« aa, 26, 27, as, as, sa, 

■*«a.t *«;a*tu.y% iSj^a s««'s'l: k^ma't %m.>.i;* 'il l:««i? ibssw »:*»it«g*|:^» »,{S^ 
•Siisai? ,C^-i^'«»''^''3: TiOifc? 4»l.ii»' ^u©(iiK a^Iin^ ®*i3' 'feiSlwaiSSs lifie: jijSSl,**** 

aSiij', **!i;*(.* v^vt ».Ji»' ,#i.w* &i.U tts iXiiS^'% &M. mJt ^xsuf tJ 4#««>t»#«ii 

^xtfi'l mis iis^i-i {lifts'**©*^*- ^»i«( feiw^-a »^ «j?«RR&i»o« «*'!.? 3i*«<** j^aticrf 
,&>. ,519 ,n-; ,dii ,asi fesnatifflyatt ,.ft»»uie» ««« -t ««&.'!« 't»fe «« *««* 

Jury %»!>! i:)»t in vtti^ninti. iu« f»vi$il»L)<t« «Ui«y tmOkiX^i tn^^w lt«to 
eon»i<i«ratltin t<';<? l'«iot u;sit pl^lfitlJl'f ran U;ti»r«»i»4 in trie rc' 
eult of Ui0 «ait. ^« tninji. ^.tUM li'i9trac%ion , >auiou«(h, «t>irtr»ct 
In fcrsft, s&lg-^t U»v« b««6. ^lv«a, bui m* Jury ««r» toid tu«,t Ui«y 
•ho«l<! tai* into coK«ld«r&\.ion th» l.nt'«^rs>«t or lt*o» of icit^reet 
©t' ftny^iB* teotiJ'ylntf, :*n{^ ©feYi&u«iy Oifty iui** taiat plaklntiji'l' wap 
vitally Int^r^at-eil Ik tvi« wihsw, 

Ifitttruettenc 36 «(Ai«1 '^?7 f¥«y« r© rji« ^fj'fttt tli^i the j-ry, 
If in»y''fo«i.l«y»)S fres; th» evia#ii«« t>:i«At» j.»i48tlntiJT ««}:;« th« driimr 
Oi* tibiff track were loth jsullly ©i' B«feii^-;«seet waloii a(»»tritoat<f'i t© 
teriJifii»i£ »%)eut th^ &«eidej.;t, th«y coui<J tiot cots^iar^ th« i;<?,^.ll- 

ii«:'0« -stiicn «jo«tri,fetut*d %q ths csiilato©, isv ttsuid <;i.ot reiS'-iYer. 
Anil thj*i it tii«y fe<^ii#v«<S fre**: th« ffvicleiic* Ui!«..l alaliitiJ'r by 
asi».g his I'acultiea ^it^s «r?iiiiekjry earnc, ie.i**iaa, <>y^ *'•■>■?' s.5«»i-t.*r, 

lAetraetleso B6i^,jit »ltm Is«y» b««j) profjwriy feiveu, teuv i..?*© j^ry 
w«r« ifistriict*^ t^at tfi*ir »#rsii«t stiould not fae s'er tise piair.- 
tli'I' iJt' they 1&«li*v«<| h<5 «'»« ^i-uiit,^ of i^y u^^l.ii.imi9ft at aaid im- 
s«n?.i%t<?iy prior !«* t;h« iiajjpetjiu^; ©r t;n« «rec4rt«Kt ^itMieu eotitrltout«<l 

T«n4«r«d Inetruetiii^Be Td m&^ t3 w«r« t» tH« *ffeet tJi&t tf:« 
"bttr<l»n of ^r<?ef •«»» oe feli<? plaintiff nti^ aot oft tae dl«f «K.'.!9ur,t. 
Xfi* court, iio-*«'^»r, told tr»« Jury th*t jjlfeiiitliTf couli not r^covar 
tti6l«>»8 h» aa4 prov«ti iii« v»»« tey a )E)r«p0jtj^er!;4r.o« ©IT tii© «vi=^t«»fie#; 
tluit if It *«r« •▼tmly b.-aa*ie«4 or if ta«y w«re surjafcl* to saiy <>» 
whioa 8i«S» i« t&« i>r^ :ea4«r«wie« of txie •Yi^eeefi, or if Ui«y fciucid 
tlia pr«pond«r%nft« io faver of tije 4<f«£id$knt, plaJtUirf could r,ot 

Off«8r«4 ihfttructioii ftuaber '.i^ was !.a tiie t»!fc«t tA^t fc«for« 

"fSfiji j'iu-.'.y i-io^ ^s'x®'^ 'i'ti'l- «»i-ui ,'.^a ,R'>vi;.> >i»»cj s»v.^rf *.5%ia^ ,«r«i&"J; al 
ft<8:«?' iliiai^io ^«^;j iT'^a^ X**'^' SL-^8*^'»-i^«^® ''>»'5« «St«it'^^->***^ »a»tfi«- **© 

{!*■ fesk^rw^i-s'ts-tta iial^ii'? *?>u»-jil/,i>«ns 'io t'^'^^e* -fi^Oti ©'««» Adii'St «i*f4f te 
Xt'^i ^«i^ ^*'*- »i-«i»%-i,.v '^Xtsis^o'S^ a»»4 SV4I-I «Mii* .lrt;:.)i« sja«sil!?A?^.t-««l 


plaintiff could recover the jury must find that he was in the 
exercis? of lue cart^ for hiiB own safety. "J^he queatioi' wa« covered 
because Uio jwry ware told that before plaintiff coul'-i recover 
they .ioist find from tiie svidenoe that iie "wae in the eiercise of 
due care for hi? own safety. 

Instruction S5, requested by def eJidarit, wae on tne question 
as to which approaching vehicle had the rieht of -ay at street 
intersection*!. It ?ras properly refused "because tnat rule oi' law 
is not apt "?here thsre are "stop" and "go* traffic liglits. 

By tendered instruction 31 defendant 80U£ii:j.t to advise tiie 
Jury that because the court had instruct ^^d them on the question of 
dsunages they could not consider it in deterruining that the defend- 
ant was liable, 'Jliis question was covered by an instruction given, 

Complaint is also made to instruction numbfr 3, which the 
court prepared and gave. By it the jury were told that if they 
believed froBi the evidence that the drivers of tne trucji and of 
the automobile in question violvited the ordinance concerning the 
"atop" and "go" light signals, then they or eitner of them 'jrere 
guilty of negligeneCp That if the Jury believed that eitner of 
the drivers drove at a rate of speed greater tnan was reasonable 
and proper, having due regard to the traffic, etc., tiien they 
might find such driver guilty of negligence, Xhat if tney 
found tie driver of defendant's truck guilty of negligence, the 
defendant was liable for such nej.;;ligence, 

TSxe first objection raade by defendarit to this instruction 
is that, "It does not define in any way wnat does or does not 
constitute a violation of said 'stop' and 'feo' signal but leaves 
it to each juryiaan to formulate nis own definition of wnat a 
violation is," We thin:, there is no /fierit in txiis contentionj 
each juror n^iving the qualification required by tne statute, w« 
think T?ould have no difficulty in understariding v-ien one violates 

^dsf nl si£>vf ■<iit i&m &K.t'f. i-Qusx x'^i^l *rf* -xstoostt ^iuoo Tijt^ltai&lci 

la^oos^-z blijoc 'fa-jal&iq Qr.o'tBd ^T&sii b£o& &i^>w ■^.'^■'^l &^^ esiUiOSd 

«Yi?®'iiiS fWyO 5!iii llQ't fS-SJBS «»0fe 

wsl .to sla-i xsxij 9axjaa'3cr i)0e.0'J:9i •/lT®cfO'i;q s^^-; il ^axtoi^o^a-xs^tiTX 

'to ao!:i^iiii.iO &ii^ no sa^sii tBtaiJ7.SiinX .&*5ii 4-ii;co ?idS ®e«*is>s>fif i-^aii;? ^TtWt 

,a&vi^ rioi:craiiTj-s.';iJ: ite -^(.f h9>\i&voo saw riold'aai^ip aiii'i' *sXvf^.U bjgw -J^iajB 

X&sit 'II ts>Xii bla-s &tfm ^-xui &£lf .ti: x^ *5&T&-a hmt bB'tsq^tq itM&Q 
"lO bn.h- ioy^-y- sxiJ- 'to e-if-' rlih ©iij d-^^do*- sorxs.bxvs »&*■ jao^'t 'h»v9llBd 

at&w xosuLt 'to 'lodji® to v&iii' a&dt ^aXaii^jia drigiX "©§♦• i>jfia ^q,o&&* 

"to 'xsiij-isj J-«xio J:,)6Ti5ii-:''d' xiu'l axU 'il ;J-*;iiS' «»on®aJ:Xs0« 'to xi^Xiifi 

ioii a3oi> lo 86)ot- iTAm'w x^^^ V^ '^■^ »ai"tej& d'«wi Sisot *X** , J-jbiW ai 

«&\rasX ;^M x^asiK 'oa' ^ajs 'qovta' fcias 'io uol.t.K.Xoxv « »;^ifj-X*3Hoo 

« ;fjBAiw 'lo noiilifsixslj aw© ajivLuwxo'i oJ itBuosicat fifefi© oi il 

jaoi^as^noo aia^ ni iiiem on ax o-x^xf^ vsairli^ sW " ,»1. f!oi:f,6Xoiv 

*w ,©tfuJ-fode ©xid xd^ ,&3.iiijp9T: «oJ;t£oi'tl:££Up •rfj' ^alvari total iio«» 

«»**Xojtv »no nenw aiu^n.jjaiet'nw ni ■^j^XtfoJtTUi) oa 9VB£l bluo^ sfwiri^t 


traffic lii';htB. The next romlaint uiade to this irifltruotion ia 
that it tol"! the jury tJiat if they fo'an.l the <'.T\.v^r of th'; uruci: 
guilty of neglit^ence, tiien the 'lel>n'1arit corporation wa,E Jr-irfee- 
alsle TTith such nftgllf>eric«, "bacauee it ioeo not li.r>ilt the aegli" 
genoe to that c>iart];edl in the complaint. We think t-iis art:;ujneKt 
is hypercritical ^nd without raerit, 

Upoi:' a consiieration of all the eviienoe in tiae case aiid of 
thd instructions given ari refusedl, we think defenditnt was not 
prejuc?iced, Tae isyy^js were sinvole und easily an ■^er stood; and 
•while of course there is soire error in the record, as tnrre is 
in every recprd, we think defenlant cannot say that It has not 
had a fair trial* 

Tl-i«a judgment of the Suiperlpr court of Cook county is 

Matehett, P. J., and MoSurely, J"., concur. 

-il;i'»c: QiQ #ja.xl vh'jri sj^sol: ^i. av-k^fiOBd ,^ons.;!,;c.lgs0 -ilous rio^iw laXtfs 
'to has 9S-S0 srlJ- ni s»>tire axf-:?' .[le 'io aox^r.isManoo « nor'J 

3i (.Jaijoe :icoO 'io i'luoo ■idli&xivQ^.dt 'to ^msc^bssi «>rfT 



Appellee, -| 




On Aoueal of L. A, WICISS, 

' O P P T A> •'" 

Intervening Petitioner, and Appellant. ) <^ O Q jL-fi* O j| ^ 


This ia an appe?;! by L» A. Weiss, an intervening petitioner 
in a foreolosure suit, from orders entered appointing 8 reoftiver 
for the premises involved and also an appeal from an order entered 
restraining further procedure in the suit of veiss v, Stanozewski 
which was pending in the Municipal Court, Other parties to the 
suit have not filed their appearances in this court so we are not 
favored with any assistance throxigh such channels* 

From what we can gather from the hrief and abstract filed 
by the intervening petitioner, a foreclosure proceeding w-'S coauaenoed 
in the Circuit Court by the plaintiff entitled, John Ratlawski. 
Kdwaii'd 0. schoenthaler. Trustee. Plaintiffs v, Oasimir Dynieyjog , ^ 
et al. . DefendEi.nts; that on March 4, 1935, some defendants filed a 
counter-claiffl^ After issue w's msde up the ssme was referred to ? 
master in chancery and upon his report ^< decree w^as entered on July 3, 
1935, finding in favor of plaintiff in the sum of |340 and also 
finding in favor of the count er-c la iiaant ^^ngeline Dyniewioz, a. 
defendant, in the sum of 5^3383.61 nnd the sum of «;250.00 as attorney'^s 
fees, and that the liens of said Angeline IDyniewicz, counter— cl^im^nt, 
and one Theodore Giesler are subject, junior and inferior to the 
lien of the plaintiff, John Ratlawski, It i^ras ordered th-t the 
property be sold and thereafter on September 5, 1935, the master sold 

TIUOHIO SHT '20 H®CL«0 A '"\ ,99iXaqqA 

YTHUOO liOOO -^O ?HUOO \{ 5 ^y 

naOFjO 08JA (!MA C i*X^. *© tSQIISISTEG HIEI8A0 


'^"^ r ^ ^ T S 5f ^^ 5 

Sri* o* asic^xsq 'x.&diO »5-££roO ilsqioimrM Sfi* fxl ^iMaq bbw dtldvs 

,,i i8v?ffX;?'.gJi ndol ^.bsXjiifxid lliJKi.p.Xq- ©ri^ Y<^ *itioO i-i/jOTiO aifit nl 

^^gso iwexiv^ ^l-sj:a;x0 ,v e'i'iitfix.eX'-i .asj-sij-xT « igXf>il j-x^^oaoe »Q .5t.gffl)^'' 

B fjsXxt s^J-fi-Rfca^tsfc sffios tSoSX t'^' doiBM. no ^sri^J' ;a^fifol>fl9t«£I . »Xr- tQ 

^ o* ijeiTStst 8.&7r ec!*;e w/Id- qx; siisat as?/ susai -rs^lA ||Bii.eXo-it9itaxroo 

,^ Y-^'^ ^^ ^etstfrts 8-i?r i5SX09i> k ttQq^x Bid aoqsj bae ^ire&xt^rio at i»*8«ffi 

osX.8 iifls OJ^S^ 1o au/8 arft fll 'xlixtaX.-sXq lo lovrt nl ^ifottll ,2£eX 

s tSolwRxw^G si-jxXesn'i ^faz-^iEXBlo—sa^frsifoo »i1^ 1:o lovsl at gnifexxilt 

e^ysn-cod^ts as OC*OcSi; to ew8 s?rid- bn,^ XS»S855| to mssa 9dt ai^iasba9'i9b 

t»^n'",ivi;'^X 0-1:9 Jflvoo ^soxw&inijG snXXa^A bl^a to ansiX sriJ ;fBrf* Jbxx.? tSse^ 

3x1* oii- icjt'xs1-;i:x tn^'. aoim/(; 4*o9^cfy8 9is ■xeXaeiO sooJboexf'I ©ao bne- 

Sif:t -t/uf;? feets&TO Si^<w *I »i:S.mi»lisn udoX, ^lli&alAlq edt to flsiX 

ibXoa Te*B.em »fin- <dSex tC ^^dmsd-qse no i9*J-lr.9T3D'd- bats bloB 3d Y*i''tiOTq 


the aj^id property snd reported the same to the court , The property 
was sold for ^575.00 and after the oosts, fees and expenses were 
deducted, there was a balance due plaintiff of ;*56«44, vrith interest 
thereon from the date of said sale and th^.t the amount found to be 
due to the oounter-clftimant, imgellne Oyniewicz vuader s^iid decree 
remains undue in its entirety* 

The evidence further shows thnt nearly a year later on 
August 26, 1936, a petition was filed hy the intervening petitioner 
L» A« ^Aeiss setting forth th-t he is the owner of the equity of 
said real estate having purchased it from one John R. Stephens, 
then owner of the fee, on April 9, 1936, and the deed was filed for 
record August 11, 1936, in the office of the recorder of deeds of 
Cook Oounty. In that petition >eisa claiats that Salter Stanczewski 
was on February 5, 1935, appointed as receiver of s%id real estate, 
said appointment being saade conditional upon the plaintiff John 
Ratlawski giving a bond in the sum of #200 but that John Hatlswski 
never gave said bond and that the sf'id receiver, Walter Stanczewski, 
was in possession and collecting the rents* 

It f\rrther appears from the evidence that on August 36, 
1936, an order was entered on the petition of Veisa, directing that 
the said ^Aalter Stanczewski surrender possession of the premises and 
that he file his report in connection therewith; that thereafter a 
series of petitions,, and answers thereto, and orders were filed, 
the result of which procedure w^s to h^ve contempt citations issued 
against the receiver and others who had to do with the property. 

The injunctional orders complained of were entered on 
September 31, 1936, enjoining the proceedii^ in the Mtmicipal Oourt 
entitled, L, ^» ■ieiss rnd John R, Stephens v, alter 3t^nogewski , 
Thereafter on September 36, 1936, Weiss filed a petition for a change 
of venue from Judge Klarkowski, which motion on September 29, 1936, 
was denied. On s?id dsj^ an order was entered appointing Walter 

©'xas?? s&sfi3qx@ iia,.s east «3«tsoo aa^- -isJlsi te.s OC«2Yt24: tcol Moa bbw 
f^cf oi' liff era's iauoma &£it j.-^'d.t tes bIbb Jbtsa Iro ©Isb Sif3- ffloil isoa'asrf* 

taiieriqsJR .H jtiriol* Sito isotcl 3- J; i)98>3£Jo'Xxrq gnivRri ©^stge Ifttti bins 
i;ol 1)91x1 e.e-^ Jbse£i ©rid" M\s t8Sex ^G XiiqA no jSol ©rfd" lo Tsawo asn^ 

^Bip-^BO Xb9x jbix=e lo sa'^isosT sb Jbsiniogqa.: «5SGJ: ^S t^Bttarfe'l .flo a^m 

0rioL lliS-iSiBXq ari^f aoqu iBacitihaQO bLpm -^ie^ tn®&taioqq& hkMB 

i:i8w?X.t.s-.H nrfcL rf-.^xiS' *wrf 00S| lo fiswa sjfj^ fli Mod b ^fxi^rl'^ liswsXJsf-; 

4i:>Eaw9son.??*e leilM^iBvlsoBx blBB ®ri;t if-Bi£# fin.s Jbisocf Jbi^e sv^g 'lavsxi 

«8*fl9t Bdt r^alSo&lLoo fefi„«5 iioisaseaoq fll ai»w aesiffiaxq sfit lo noiseessoq 'reBttsTiws X>rQi»®aei!£j3*8 i9#X-sW Jbl;e'8 9rf# 

3 'sBtx'-B'md^- ^flffd- jrf*Xwsi'3£if rtoi:d'o©«noo Cfi tioqBi sir! »X11 srf *bx1* 

^b&lt'l Brow B'x.BbrQ bns ^QtsiMt n'tmimB baB ^»aomi®q to aaiiTSe 

fosireel snoi-j-v'rf-io ,tqri'©;+aQO e-rBri o^ ?-s'0 &'tub&Qotq ifeirlw lo #X0Ss:r srf* 

e-aui^.rio « loJ aoi-fi^J-sc: « f)S«xn eeisW ^asex ,as tsdasi-qse no xenBe-rsxlT 
^asex <9S iscfais^q^S no noxJota riolrfw ^i^fawoafrrsXH ©gbul, ibotI: »i;flev lo 


Stanozewski as receiver, he bttng the game person who wj^s removed 
from that position in July, by order of ooiirt. 

Complaint is here th-rt the oourt erred in denying 
the change of venue. Suoh ouewtions cannot be ro.ised on an inter- 
locutory appeal. 

On the question of reviewing this appeal from the inter- 
locutory orders, we call attention to Chapter 110, Paragraph 355, 
Rule 31, 111. State Bir Stat, 1935, which is incorporated in Rule 
21 of this court* The statute provides as follows: 

Where an interlocutory order or decree is entered on an 
ex pgrte application, the party proposing to take an appeal 
therefrcwa shall first present, on notice, a motion to 
vacate the order or decree to the trial court entering such 
order or decree. Appeal may be t?ken if the motion is 
denied, or if the court does not act thereon within seven 
days after its presentation* In such cases the thirty days 
allowed for taking appeal ajid filing the record in the 
Appellate Court shall begin to run from the d;'y the motion 
is denied or from the last day for action thereon." 

The record in this case and the abstract thereof show no compliance 

with this rule, 

We hold that this appeal is not properly before this 

court, and therefore, the saae is hereby dismissed. 




«^^Tc/oo lo 'X9&SO xd ^xSjjI, at aol&isoq t&A^ aroil 
■p^i^KSb £ii tBTx^ &tisQO &di- ^<i-dt aisri Bbsis. si intslqmo'O 
--VLB^nl Jt.e no hB@t&% so' ioaa^o giroiJsaup ifouS .a^fisv to sgaB^o d/f* 

aIy.5-1 isi l)9d-s!rotn:oor£i: si rfniiliir ^SSei e^iSd-E tbS »*«*© •XXI «I^ sXx/H 
iswollol B^. es^iroTCf ®:^istsfB adT »#tciroo aid* l© IS 

iis so hiirstit^ ax s9T©e£' to tsfeso T^^otxiool^e^fti: cs ©lajsl? 

dtiij& 'SCi'sSuKS -d^T.u0o lei-Tit &d$ oi Boto^t to ^®b%c e£fJ 5;? 

aoiitofs Bsi't -^.eJb 00^ 050 'xl: xttn oi- fli^scf iXjsJ^s Jxi/CiO s*.sIXsqqA 

30fi«iXq550G on ^s'orfe losierf^ Jo^id'ecf.s ©fief Jdkb 3«eo elri* ai l>"i:ooe« 8xfT 

♦sX.ys eiifS- iJtl^ 
sM:J- sTolSitf Y-f^®cfOsq *ort si Xs©qq« BMi ^mit i)X©xi sW 

»HU0EO0 *W JiUH QUA -laasH 




Defendant in Error, 
BELLA BUTMAN, (Impleaded) { ^ R Q T A /^ 1 ^ 

Plaintiff in Error. 


8I,A. 6l7' 


This cause oomes to this court upon n T^rit of error 
issued upon the petition of Bella B«tman for the purpose of \ 
reviewing the record in a. contempt proceeding wherein she as \ 
respondent, together with others, was found guilty in the Probate 
Oourt of ^ook County and committed to the County J?il for the \ 
period of one year unless sooner discharged in due course of I'w. 
On April ?.4, 1935, on the motion of plaintiff in error, 
it was ordered by this court th-'t this cause be consolidated with 
another cause which ^vas in the Appellate Court, being No. 3883?., 
entitled. The People of the St- te of Illinois v, Kioholas 'iadis > 
end that the record, abstract end briefs filed in Ofuse Wo. 383?r^, 
be t^ien and considered as the record, abstract and briefs in this 

The evidence in the record fully discloses that the 
defendant Bella Butman had knowingly joined in the conspiracy to 
deceive the court. Among other facts disclosed by the evidence, 
she knew Kelly, the deceased, diiring his lifetime, lived with him 
as his wife, although she claimed to have n husband living; that 
she was named in the will as one of the executors, the other 
executor being Radis, and admitted th-t she signed the petition 
addressed to the Probate Court certifying to the validity of the will. 


X. ' ( t£)98«9oea ^YM^H eAMORX JgaMAt. 

Tfiuoo anaoji'^i 

loite lo ^iiw s noqx/ #^t0oo BXdi o* lasffiOO sew's^ sMf . . ,,* 

to eaocTTLfq arts' t-ol a&mt^iB. isllsa la noiiflJag 9if# fioqw Jbsi/aei: 

s cT^cfoiTL Slid- ai y^-C-^J-'S Sflwol sbw ^STSif^o rfJlw xsri^s^o* ^ifxtSSfloqasx 

•wsX tQ aeiuoti sub ai i)»§Xi?dOEXft TSftooe gseXnjLf tcnSY sxto lo fcoii'sq 

fJ^^SB^ *oH gfiiaa i^iiioD 9^,sXl9qqA srfS" ai sa?? floixfw ss^bo r^dttislB 

t. ^,y s.cliorfoiH «v siogilXX lo gj- o'-g. gdj- lo slgoeS!: 9rflM ?sIJ-iu-aa 

tf^&;.S85 «oil 98X/.B0 ni Lslil alsxTd fc/i-B ^oBx^fad'T ^isaoosi saj ^sxf^ bas 

si/id- ai elsi'ta fcn.?. itoj^id-ecfB ^fiiiotsai erf;J- es |j9T9i)iBfEoo JbsB nsisJ '9rf 

9iJ:t tfcff^ eseoXosif) Y'J^IuI biooBt Bdi nt soaablvs SffT 

tsoiobivs sris Yd fessoXoex-b 8;tORl xadto gnosjA ♦i'Ti/oo srft 9vi90©.t> 

ffiiil (J'J-iw bsrii 4:^:i\iJ^■^liI siii gnixuh ,£i©si?9oel> arftt ,yX-£©'^ wsnil ©rfe 

*Brfd' ;-gnirxI bn-oei/ri r? svr>il o^- bsffii^Io sds rfsi/oxfd-Xj? »9li?? piri sa 

isdd-o 9r(i tRTO^i'O^xs srfd' lo sflo 8B XXi'ff SiS;? xii i>93i.Rn e-STr ©rfa 

floi^i:t9o: srf^t- fcSiQie sri3 J-nrid" fca^-^iaifc'B Jbfl.a ,8if>i5H s^f^iacf lotuosxa 

^Ili^ 9ff;t lo x*-^^-'-^'^'''^ ®rf^ *^^ S^iYl-E^iQO *T£joO sJr.dorr'i 9tii ot b&CBBiboB 

although she knew it was not n valid will, -making the court to file 

the same for prohnte ^nd recognize her and aadis as the executors 

of said will PXid give them charge of a^id estate; th?t she w-s present 

in court with the other defendants when said petition f^s presented. 

We believe Bella Butman is equally as guilty of the contempt of court 

aa were the other defendants who were affected by the order entered 

in the Probate Oourt which was afterwards affiraied by this court 

and later by the Supreme Oourt of this State, 

On April 32, 1936, sn opinion was filed by Mr« Justice 

Hebel of this oourt in esse General Mo, 382?;2, entitled In the Mstter 

of the BJgtfte of James Thomas gelly. OeGC-^aed. People of the 

State of Illinois* Defendant in S;rror, v, iUcholas "iy'dis. Plaintiff 

in Error, in which opinion the order of the Probate Court of Cook 

County w-^s affirmed. That case iiras taken to the Supreme Court of 

this StPte on p writ of error and the decisions of both the tri=>l co\ir1 

and this court were affirmed by the Supreme Oourt, being Docket No, 

33738 - Agenda 6, entitled. In re Estate of Jptaes T. Kelly, dece-sed. - 

The People of the State of Illinois, i^efendant in Error, v. Kicholas 

Radis. Plaintiff in Srror. Inasmuch =;.s the facts as well ?is the law 

in the instant case are practically identical with the Radis (|ase, 

Oen, Ho. 38223, just referred to, the opinion heretofore filed by Mr, 

Justice Hebel of this cotirt, and also the opinion of the Supreme Court 

heretofore mentioned are controlling in the instant case. 

For the reasons herein given the order of the Probate Oourt 

is affirmed* 




*,fef5irft989*jq a:ii flOiitiS'&q ^Ix-.a ssBihr Btnp.btiBl&b tstito Bdt d^iw ttuoo at 
*^ij-ot> sift* 'tcf ^sn^-xit'TP Btipwtssi-l: :: e.GW xioixfw JxtroO Btsdoi^ edt al 

i:ag-:(- ~M srlJ- al tBlfttae jEf^SSS .oti X.'-tscep 9B,fio .ai s^xwot? aiii* !l:o X«d9H 

gJ j;..lq ._6_Xaof^' — — «fc ft{j.eQOSQ ^-^gX Xsl ?i?fflo.dT eg^a/sL lo Q ; t*;i|-84 .sjI^ "to 

aooO to it-rtroO ad-ffld'o-r'? 9^* to -xaoao ®rit^ aoiffiqo rfoxriw si ^tcoTiia ni 
,051 d--3^ooG ?5iYi9d ^tiiUoO da&iLqx/B srf;? t<^'.<fe©ffitills ai&v? j^tooo eirff Mb 

i-w/cO e&'S-!:o-.aS ^dt lo x^oXff2ao srit oels bttft ^t'taet> aldt te XscfeH ©oirf-sitl. 
;^TifoO e^.^'tfoi'^i ^di to r^ino axU nsvig fiXaiari snoeess arfd" tc'S 

.Htroaoo tLt «iXaAH qea ^assH 




Appellant # 

OF 0HI0A(10» 

28 8 LA. 617^ 


This Is an appeal from an order entered in the Municipal 
Oourt on April 33, 1936, in which order the court refused to vacate 
a judgment by confession intered Fehrusry 7, 1934, for the sum of 
11330.50 in favor of plaintiffs Miohal Sekela and Suaie 3ekela and 
against the defendant Bernioe TokarE and execution t^as issued 
thereon. Said execution w^s served on the defendant on M«roh 3, 
1934, to which execution she filed a schedule of her property 
which consisted of one wedding ring, wearing apparel and a joint 
interest in real estate located at 11934 Michigan avenue, Chicago, 

On April 15, 1936, defendant "by notice, motion and 
petition asked to hsve the judgment vacated. The said petition 
after stating that the defendant had signed the note, claimed that 
there wag no warrant of attorney authorizing confession against her 
alone as the note ?rnd power of attorney had been signed by defendant 
and her husband; that she is not indebted on said note individually 
and never received any consideration for jointly signing her name 
thereto and that no loan rna made to this defendant or to Peter J, 
Tokarz at the time of the signing of the note; th-t there is no 
power in s?id note guthorizing b confession against this defendant 
alone and prays thct judgment against petitioner be vacated and 
set aside^ 

The note in ouestion does not appear before ua, except 

X >.5!f?U00 dtA^lOIfiSt 

'4-..^ # 

K.i O O 

,OCAOIHG 'SO ^ , . . «vt 

■f; T Q 'C> O ( *;^iTsII.9qq,i 

lo 1B0B »rf;^ "rot f_-!>EP.l «'■?' Tji'Bxnde'i l>®s®*jaS isoisBsliioo yrf itn^nglai^t a 

,S rioisM no tosXwFjt 5t) srfj- ao feavsae asm aoS:tuQ®x@ J&l^e .aoia^Sfi* 

i-iiio(; p fins iQ-xrjqq.B gniiiBew egnxx •gakttQ'if imo to I;0j8ia«oo lioliiw 
^OB?'OiriO ^euuevp xr.^s-trfoi:.^ IkSGXX J-.<j bsd-sooi 9ifyisB I&bi ai te'^tsi^tal 

'■■-, ; ■, •-.. ^^ svr " A- , ^aioniiXI 
bn.p. noitom i&oiton x^ tn.BbaBtBb ,.asex <SX XiTqA iiQ 

♦ I ifjS'©'! 0* TO cJ-flei-fii3':t9.& eirfS- o* »b.Bm em «jboX o/i Js/Ij ban o^^e"l9ri* 

on ei OTa.rf;t iJ-j^rirf- ;©^ofl uri* lo gixxftgie Bsit lo 9«ii* arft *b siRifoT 

cfnsl^nsisb e.fc;Jd- rf-snxsas noxees^uoo ,r gnislTorfJl'uB si-on iJi^e ni rts-sroq 

;J-o;s>ox9 4 8if 9'r.ol9cr ijBOqqfi *o« eoob xifoirf'aowo ni 9 Jon ©itT 


2j^ attached to the affidavit of claim. No report of the proceedings 

was submitted by defendant when the record was filed, Lj^ter, on 

motion, an additional or supplemental record and sbatraot were 

filed which contained a report of the proceedings at the trial on 

the hearing of the motion to vaoate. 

The trial court certified that at the he-^ring to vacate 
the judgment the following facts were proven to have been stipulated 
by and bet^^een counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant: 

That on March 3, 1934, the defendant Bernioe Tokarz y!9.3 
duly and personally served with an execution; that on March 3, 1934, 
said defendant filed her debtor's schedule, listing her property 
as heretofore described; that the said schedule was duly verified 
by said defendant before Lionel A, Sherwin, as Notary Public; that 
Lionel A, Sherwin was ?lso then counsel for Peter Tofearz, husband 
of Bernioe Tokarz, the co-signer of the judfrinent note involved herein; 

That the said Lionel A. Sherwin represent ed fieter Tokar? 
in certain bankruptcy proceedings pending in the United States 
District Oourt for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 
entitled, Peter J, Tokarz, a Bankrupt, Oen. Ho* 53773, in which 
proceeding he was afterwards discharged as a bankrupt ^md in that 
proceeding the said Peter J. Tokarz had duly scheduled s^id judgment 
as one of his debts and that the said Lionel A, Sherwin then 
represented said defendant Bernic© Tokarz and said Peter J, Tokarz, 
her husband and co-debtor upon said jxadgraent note in those certain 
debtor's proceedings filed in October, 1935, and presently pending 
in the United States District Oourt for the Northern District of 
Illinois, entitled, "In the matter of Peter Tokarz, Debtor" and 
"Bernice Tokarz, Debtor," bearing Oen, No. 61758 and 63089 (Oonsoli- 
dsted) as their attorney of record in asid proceedings; 

That the real estate mentioned in the schedule of the 
execution is located ^t 11934 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 


I)S#Blj:;gi^c. n©sd &vb£1 c# j!3S?03:q 0tr®';7 Eifo^si ^iwoilol ©£!*, tnsjagjbx;^ sad" 
•^nj->fcn3'i0i:^ ^o% Xsenxfoo bus eiHiJ'ni.sIq :icOi Xasnwoo ui^mrtod baa x<^ 

foi&xlivi&v YXJUi5 eBT? aXixir-exloe I> ails' itfid* ;i39crjti:oa©ii- s^olo*^?«if a^ 
^.p£f* |OiXd'x/'=l X'J^-'s^^J^ 8S ^sXw'iQriS «A XsnolJ stolid tstBimelQb bl&^. xH 

nolsivia flt&*8'^-i ,8XoniXXI lo ;Joi:!:;^aXa sii^dtroM Qdi %q\ ;faxfoO. toi^jTsXa 

tpidi «i Jb«B iqxn'Iasd b bjs ijagrr^sdoexl) 8£«cj3wx»*tjB bs&w ad gciJb^sooxq 

ctnam-glwt l>Xns b»lijbm&@ x^^^ b&il nm^of «& i?»#©^ Jbiija »xfi' ^cifceajjoaq 

nefi* ni'^tJEsriS *A XeaoX^I btBB 9rf* ^^Bd* JEmib atrfsl) elrf "to <5ko a^ 

ni p,d-t»o asoff* Ki s*cii iJ-n^m'a&cft £>1bb noq^u •xoi<^Qb^QQ bn» basdBuii ^mi 
^jfiXJbfiaq xnnB&tiZq baa »dseX ,::Rcfo*oO al bBltt asa-£JE)©90osq e*TO*tf©i) 

bas *<TO5rd9<J 4S2.p;iioT ^SiJ®''! fo lejT^issi 9ri* nl« ^MXtf^iJaa ,8J:oniXXI 
"iloBCioO) eaosa tn^- Sa^xa .oK •c©i) ani^s©*/ »,T©*tf9Ci ,«XB3ioI epia^^S" 

erf* lo aXxrJberiOB srfJ ni tsnoid-nam aJ'.Rd'ee L&er Qdi iMl 

tOs^olriO 4©uHevA iXBairiolM ff*x/oa ^seXX ;ts fcad^.-^ooX bx nolJi/o»x« 


Illinois, and described in and covered by the Torrens Oertific-^te 
which property consists of a certain lot improved with a three-story 
building consisting of t ^^o stores snd seven jgpartraents, the original 
cost of which was approximately >)65,000.00j and that a first mortgage 
bond issue dated about June 1, 193?, in the sura of ;35,000.00 has 
been partially paid so thf^t the total outstanding first mortgage 
liens against the said building iinder said mortgage now total 
approxia^tely 431,000.00, said payments having enhanced the v-^lxje 
of the lieii thereon acquired by oliintiffs through having reduced 
their claim to judgment, issuing and serving an execution and filing 
a transcript of said proceedings Trith the Torrens Office of 
Cook County, Illinois; 

C That since the date s.xid judgment by confession va^.s 

rendered herein, other ?.nd different debts have oeen incurred by 
eaoji of the co-makers of the judgment note involved herein, namely, 
Peter Tokarz and Bernioe Tokarz, and th«t plaintiffs herein, by 
virtue of having issued an execution and placed the ssme in the 
hands of the proper officer for service within one year after 
rendition of said judgment and h^iving procured and filed a transcript 
of said judgment in the Torrens office of Cook County, Illinois, 
thereby secured a prior lien and preference as to the s^id real estate 
over other unsecured creditors of said Peter Tokarz and Bernice Toksrz 

There was also included in the sup :lementnl record ? 
certified copy issued in lieu of orniers' lost duplicate certificate 
of title from the Torrens Office, showing the s?id judgment of 
record as a lien upon the premises* 

?!^en defendant a.ppe:-red in the Municipal Oourt upon her \ 
motion to vacate the judgment entered against her, she did not file 
a special appearance but attempted to show a defense to the merits 
Of the debt up..n which judgment had been entered. This ^ns tantamount 
to a general appearance and for all purposes a waiver of any right j 


s?:r"j5^^1:offi fexii- -3 t-sdt bhs jOO.OOOjcaS Yisd-.BfiiJtxerrcqB sjsw dolrfw to *soo 
esn OGsCOO^aS'^ lo mtm 9d& ai \\^iGl ^l 9aisl> toorfe bBt&b 9ustl baod 

&:uiB.yr Qtfi £>9on.erfn9 gitivsxf s^ii<9iti>{£.q btr^n , 00,000, XS$ TfXs^riffiixoTqqB 
fcsojjjbs't snivsrf d'guo'£il& elliJnieXq yd l>9^ii;po.B noarcsif* M&tl 3jl;f- lo 

Ycf fcsaxxronj: nsscf ©Tsxi ed-efab fns-xtst^iJb Jbn.B rMio ^aisiSif fisisfiixs^ 

^.Xl&msa. ■^fiis'xsif ibsvloij^fix s*on *n0EiEsl)i;|; ©£ft lo ETaaf^ia-©© ©ift to ^Ofif» 

Xd ^ni-Qtsd Bl:ti:*nj:.5=;l0 tedd- £>rt.p; ^s-reafoT Bxytai&B. bn-B s^MoT I9if»<5 

arftt- nl affirjs eriJ fesoE-Iq ban aoiiuo®xB as b^ti&Bi ^niTsff lo avtitv 

l»J^s 'X5»Y 9no flirijfxT? soivise lOt traoXfio saqoiq 9tf* to sbxtMd 

^qltoBaBti B b&m bas> b&iKi56iq gaiVBif bm; -fa^rngbul' Bi.^s to aoittim&k 

>3 Jbloo&i- X.vid-noKisXcqya ©rf;^- ai ts^buloat -oeX-s e,B:w ©'itifT 

1-0 itrtsmafci/t i)l'?e 9rfd- giixwoffe ,901110 sfl^naoT srf* fflotl »X*i* ^0 

• aaeiffiQiq sdi aoqxj a9i£ & es bro&9i 
x&d floqxr iruQO' XjeqJEolmfM 9xf;^ ai bsx^aqqe ta^ha^l&b n9& 
3.1 n ion hlb Oil8,-iori *Bnls3.? Ibsiscfxis i^nem^ibjirj; sri* sJsoev ©Jl^ floiH-oia 

tauo^B^riBt 8BW slriT .JbsisJns nssrf bsd d-nsas^Jbwt ffoixfw noqw MaD ©if* lo 
iit tt "«rfi6 Ito r^visn » sssoqiJtrq XXe Tot fcnt^ ©onjsiRSgqa X.-.i9ii93 s 0:t 


to object to any alleged jurisdiotioh over her person. 

In the case of Kelly v. Brown. 310 111, 319, it was said: 

" Jiorisdiotion of the subject aistter cannot be '^ lived 
and the ouestion may be r-ised at any time, but juris- 
diction of the person saay be v: ived by making a gener?-! 
appearance or an appeargnoe for any other purpose than 
to object to the jurisdiction, and although a defendant 
to an election contest expressly makes a limited appearance 
to object to the jurisdiction of ais peraon, he waives 
such objection when he r^t the same time moves for a 
change of venue •« 

The petition to vacate the judgment in this case was i 

filed over two years from the date of the judgment. No explanation 

is made as to why this delay occurred* The provisions of the i 

statute limit such application to 30 days after the rendition of the 

judgment as set forth in Chapter 37, Par. 409, Sec. 31, 111, St^^te 

Bar Stats. 1935, as follows; 

" * * * If no motion to vacate, set aside or modify any 
such judgment, order or decree shall be entered within 
thirty days after the entry of such judgment, order or 
decree, the spme shall not be vacated, set aside or 
modified excepting upon appeal or writ of error, or by 
a bill in equity, or by a petition to said municipal 
court setting forth grounds for vacating, setting aside 
or modifying the ssine, ^hioh would be sufficient to 
cause the same to be vacated, set aside or modified by 
a bill in equity," (McKenna v. Forman. ;;?83 111. App, 606. ) ' 

The motion to strike defendant's petition to vacate the i 

judgment was rightfully granted and the petition stricken as the 

petition did not set up sufficient reason to justify the court in 

vacating said judgment. This judgment was rendefed in term time 

and the same presumptions will be indulged in favor of a judgment by 

confession entered in term time as in a judgment entered in cotirts 

of general jurisdiction by service of process. Boyles v. Ohytraus. 

175 111. 370. 

A motion to set -side ? judgment confessed In term time, 

appeals to the equitable jurisdiction of the court and even though 

the power of attorney was Insufficient the judgment will not be set 

aside unless it is shown th-^t the defendant had a legal or eoultrible 

£>©vxifT? ©d iocm&o- rQtftm& ^t^^lduB siCci" "to ffoX;^?:illi®iMrl^'' 

Bsriftw 3X3' t«o9tstT eld %o aoi'i'&iiiisi^iii'r sd;?' od" ;t»0^(;do at ^. , 
.s lol esvoffi affix J- ®ja^e ©rid' it's ©a itsifw xsoito0j;do doifS 

id'i^^a ,111 ,XS. ,05? ^^0^ *x<^Pi t^S ■xsiJq.KilO ni dtiol tea a« 5f«*BJ§X>jK^ 

10 9l>ia.e- tBB ^b^^iBOBV 9cf ;toa XXfirfe saxse srl* ^9@to9& 

Imioianm bX^e oi aoltlSsq s xd to ^x^iup^ tii XXicf -^ 

&btB.ei 'Biil&^^B ^'gaX-^^^osv tot %bintoT% iiirot ^aUtm iJ-xwos^ 

oi' :f«9ioXllu8 ad i)Xi/ow rfoXrfw ^Qm-^e Qiit gxsi^lii&offi 10 

■ (,30a .cqA A £11 58?. ,iXgg!iol *v BitfiSloM ) '^^x^isjpB ai XXicf A 

Sri* B^coBv oi aoltitBq B^tasim&l^b Q-^ii^a oi aoitom ®n'T 

0i J'rijoo 9fr.t '^llJ-iSii'l; 0* 0o®P0T d^fiSJXOi'ilxra qxs *»e *ok J&iJb nol#i:#«q; 

Ycf *xx3ffi;gi3u£ >*! 'io TOTsl Hi b&i^lsjbni. 9d XXi^f afjoii^qfiufssnq Sfijfla sd* Bxia 
p^^ttfoo nX hQi^M^^asttcgbul s ni 8« snai* iR^st al bstoiaB floigiastfloo 

■ ' «ovs #xii evx 

risuoflJ^ nsv® l>a.G ;^:tx/oo arid' to aotiotbBira\, ^IdB&lupti ®ri* o* eXjB»qqi5 

itSB 9d *cr.t iXXw *xi©oi'afMVt 9f''* ^flsloi't1:jW8nx em-? \SiXTOir*« to a»?roq sxl* 

sldeJXji/pQ TO Xs^aX jr b.Bd d-njB£>n3teJb ©d* *.8ii* iiwode eJ; *1 aaaXnx; ©ble^ 


defense to the debt for whioli the ^ud^^ent was rendered. Alton 

Bp.nklng & Trust Oo . v, Gray . 359 111. App. 20, affirmed in 347 111, 


In the instant case no equitable consideration appears. 

The judgment was duly rendered, the execution issued thereon and 

the defendant filed a schedule thereto as required under the 

statute therelDy recognizing the validity of said judgment. Then 

the other signer of the note isras discharged in bankruptcy and this 

defendant also applied for a discharge in bankruptcy* Two years 

after the judgment w?>s rendered and the same h?,d become a lien 

upon the real estate by plaintiff having filed the same in the 

Torrens office, the defendant without any explanation as to what 

caused his delay in bringing aotioa/Goajes before the court with 

an insufficient petition and asks th^t the judgment be vacated, 

W« are of the opinion thgt the Municipal Oourt rightfully 1 

denied the petition and for the reasons herein given the order 1 

of the Municipal Oourt refusing to vacate the judgment by confession 

entered February 7, 1934, is affirmed, 



■ ■ : '■;,.:> *es 

3Tr>ev awl' *i:o;j'qtfs:&'acci at e^T^Moeii) a -lol: Jb9llqq« obJLb tKebn@t»b 

iistl B ©S1009CS' b.Bd aas^a Qri;*- .biixj fjstrcaM'&'S ssw *.0*dssI>je;5 ©isi' •r^S't^ 
sirld' al sj3.r-8 sat .fcelll: gtiiv^-ri lltl'sikslq -^cf 9:^a#89 Issi sd* aoqa 

•j.ebio &d& jffsvig isisxsil aricajs^TE SiJ'i tot f>a« aoi^il-^q 1^^ bBiit^b 

*Huoaoo ,1% ,»itiAii CIA aaasH 


3EF0IK DAIRY 00,, a Corporation, ESTJK^ 
DAIRY CO., a Ooroor-'tion, OOUGLAG OAIRY 
00,, a Oorpor.-tion, HUNDING DAlrtY GO,, 
a corporation, mTii.HKATIOi>iAi. DAI-^Y CO., 
a Corporation, LEMONT DAIRY CO., a eorp- 
oration, flOROEi^i'S FARbl PRODUCTS CO., ■^ 
OORi'OlUXION, J, £. MONAieiAN, Ooing business 
a Corpor-tion, UNION DAIRY CO., a Corpor- 
ation, BOWWi-N DAIRY CO., a Corporation, 
WlIIT'a; h;AGI.£ DAIRY CO., a Corporation, 
WlELAiiD DAIRY CO., a Oorpor- tion, SIDNEY 
WAHZEH & OOiJS, IWC, a Corooration, BOYDA 
DAIRY CO., a Corpor-'tion, YORE BROS. DAIRY 
CO., a Corpor-'tion, and Ui^ITiD DAIRY CO., 
a Corporation, 

Plaintiffs, Appellees, 




25 B loA 

tC? -r. ^' 

JOHN JURCA, Doing Business as TURNER DAIRY, 



(Respondents) Appellants. 


The record here contains two notices of appeal -^hich 
were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, One ?'as filed 
by John Jiirca, in whica it is recited that he appeals to the 
Supreme Court of Illinois "from the decree, order, decision and 
sentence of fine and imprisonment rendered snd entered in this 
cause in the Circuit Court of Cook County on the 21st of December, 
1933, and on May 23nd, 1934, wherein John J\irca ras adjudged guilty 
of a contempt of court, and the order of the Go\irt provides that 
said John Juroa was fined -^nd sentenced to imprisonment •" The 
other notice of appeal rrts filed by Steve Juroa and recites that 
he, the respondent in the c^use, "hereby appeals to the Supreme 
Court of Illinois from the decree, order, decision and sentence 
of fine and imprisonment rendered and entered in this c^use in the 
Circuit Court of Cook County on the "1st of December, 1933, and 

X. '•'■.. (~"-^ ,.00 lyilMl Q'l&iawmi ^nol&BXoqioO .?• 4*00 

"^^ ■' ? ^ 4*00 Tr:l^Cr X^HOITAilH'STSI «floi*STO€jlo& ® 

( -q'SoS £ ,»0D YHIAG TMOM^a ^noirEiocitoO i» 

I bb^Ibuq -galod jSAHAHOM .S #1* «MOITiu'aO*-i5iOO 

( s ^,00 YHXAG JSiaOM ,.00 IHIM YSOfiAM 8« 

. ( ^SOl^AHOXa iUTTOg a?j2JASa HJIM ^fioit?TOqT:oO 

THaoO TlilD^IQ { -ToqrEoO .i?. ,*00 I^lAO SiOIWJ ^aotir^roqxoQ n 

I ^fJoiit.w^OQtoO .^ ^,,oy YHXAU XAMWOa ^aoitB 

^aol^Rroq-foO © ,,00 THIAG EJOAa t?Ifr?J 

TfllAG »aOJ3H a?i&|, ^nox*i'*:cQqT:otj <s ^,00 THIAG 
4AOHJI, aVSTS ^ns* AOatJI, SIE2I, 

,THm)o siiT to KoiMiio sK? caHivrjaQ aiAR aoffast * ? 

doidm X.Rsqq.e lb eeoXJoa ow* aalsfmo dTSfl feiooai: s... 

bfi.^ aolaioBb tTsJ^TC ^ssTosi) erirf- moTlr" sidniXXX 1:o t:£iioO ^atartqiwe 

aid* ni bsxe^n^ baa beraba&i t£temnp9trqml bns &atl. I0 ooaa^flss 

^isditisoeO iO *8XS ad* no -^d-nwoO iooO |:o iisjoO iiuoilQ srfJ «X ©awfio 

"ifitXii/g f)8aJbx;j;-&-s es^w .frorrijl, nrlot, nisisdvr ,^S9X ^iinSS yh*^ no bafs ^SgSX 

^•^A^ eSitio^i I)n.'5 so^ifTi sved'S yd f>©Xi^ s^-w Xseqqa "io dot&oei t*'-'*'> 

Qmsrai^ Qd;t ot aXfisqq^ YcfsT^srf" ^eai/BO ©rf* ni fnsJbitoqsST »i:.- t-- 

sonatoas ftn.r« noisioadb ,T9i)T0 \a9T09Jbi ari;^ ibotI sionxXXI lo ^-rx/oO 

©rfd- ni aai/BO sirfi" ni £>9t9*n© Jbn«; AsTeBnarr ^neoinoaiTqai fcnB anil: '^:o 

I-Tt-. jCSeX »T«cfmoo9Ci lo *eIS a'rf* no y^fli^oO ^ooO to irxsoO &tvc7.tT> 


on May 22nd, 1934, wherein St«ve Juroa was adjudged guilty of a. 

contempt of court, and the order of the court nrovidea th'^t the 

said Steve Jurca was fined and sentenced to imprisonment," The 

record containing these two notices of appeal was originally filed 

in the Supreme Court ps one case, pnd respondents there raised 

various constitutional questions. By order of the Supreffle Court, 

the cause wrs transferred to this court* No question is raised 

as to the fact that two appeals ^ire incorporated in one record, and 

there is nothing involved here but questions of fact* 

Prior to the entry of the orders referred to in the 

notices of appeal, and on Mey 34th, 193S, s. decretal order had "been 

entered in the Circuit Court, by consent of the parties, - plaintiff 

and defendant - to a bill for injunction theretofore filed in that 

court, which order, among others, contains the following recitations: 

" ♦ ♦ John Jurca, doing business ss Turner Dairy, or other- 
wise, defendant herein, and his agents, employees, successors 
and assigns, and each and all of theai, be rjnd they nre hereby 
enjoined and restrained from the further traffioing in, 
handling unlawfully, dealing in, selling, giving away, using, 
destroying, or shipping out of the City of Chicago, "St-'te of 
Illinois, bottles (milk and cre-^m) the property of the com- 
plainants, each respectively, from in any manner using, or 
siding and abetting others in the use of, the br^tnd, stamp, 
fflark or trade-mark of tae complainants, each respectively, 
from in any manner unlawfully interfering, or attempting to 
interfere rith the lawful and peaceful conduct of the 
businesses of the cofflplainants now being carried on by the 
complainants in the City of Chicago and its vicinity, or at 
any other place within the jurisdiction of this court, and 
from unlawfully taking possession of any of the complainants* 
bottles by purchase or otberwise*** 

Thereafter, and on Jiine 10th, 1933, a petition was filed in 

the Circuit Court by the 3efiok Dairy Go., estern Dairy Co., Douglas 

Dairy Co., Hunding Dairy Oo», International Oairy Co., Lemont Ds-iry 

Oo«, Borden's Farm Products Co., J» 2. MonsJian, doing business as 

Marley Dairy Co., Model Dairy Co., Milk Dealers' Bottle Exchange, 

Union iSaiiy Co., Bowman Dairy Co., iVhite Eagle Dairy Co., Wieland 

Dairy Oo,, ^idney • anzep & Sons, Inc., Boyda Dairy Co., Yore Bros, 

Dairy Co., and United Dairy Co., coffiplainante in the originBl bill 


ed* cTr-tU sBtl-rorq 5~:c«oo M;f lo ^slirso eat bix3 ^^isaoQ lo i^qms^f-fleo 

Silt **.?nsai£!csliqffii oij' ^asisaJiiaa Axis? l>9ail asw iM3*TUli »»«>*£ Jeijse 

•to^el lo aaoitssi^p tod s-r^arf fcsvioval :g«ijf4-©n .ei «i«ii? 

rsnoifBtxosi gfliv^^oXIo^fc 9d* ani^Jnoo jSisiitfo s^omis ,*£«fcio doidw «tTEWoo 

\QS!iB(i STft Y»ii* ^fis" 9Ci ftffisrf^ ^o LL.B bCB rCo.s'3 baB gea^lsBP. isns 

lo ©^te■;fC (O^BOiiiD le Y^i'^ ®rf^ 1c iuo -^alQiiiiiB to 4-^KixoTc;ls9fe 

— ^oo ©f{* lo Y*^®?^^'^ Sf^S" {jfl-'5'^^o has ailsT) EoXJtod taxoiillXI 

1© ^■^ieiu iBRa&m xa& at siorsft tXlSTX.ito0e-86i ifo^e ^si^KSfli.^Xq 

»qsafita ^l>ii«^d ©if* ,10 ©su arid" .si siaxJ^o ^i*^s<:f,« Jbfi^- saii>i.« 

©li;? \Q no tisiT^BO siiiso' ?tOK stxtsnijsXqasoo sdit lo aseaajGietrd 

£>cs 4*:!;«oo strit lo noiioiliEXairt 9ri? iilai-i-/? so=siq redto t-nr^; 
♦8tn.ani^X<?ffioc arid- to '^fts 1^<5 soxeimf^aoy •i^i:^'-^^ xIIdI^bIx-hj riot^ 

.li: Jiolii 8.SW aoititsq b i^:€f31 ^diQl sajuL no haB ,is*lseiE8rl'i 

^»afl.srioxS »Id-*oH 'a^sX^sG :;iXlM »»oO YilsCi XsJlwM .,o^ Y^iicU' yeXicjBM 

b/uaXaiiS »,ov! x-sifCi sXgsa sifiifW j.oO t^lsG juoarofi ,«oO rti/^ aoiaV 

.eo^a 9ToI «.oP \:icX>iO sbX'O^ ,.oaI ,8flo8 A wa/ts^ Y»fl*i^ *«09 X*-^^ 

XXid X.??fiX3x:to &A} ni &ia&aiBlqmoo t»oO Y^iaQ fc9*XflU tns ^.oO ^ti^a 


filed there, in whioh it is recited, among other things, that 
"on May 24th, 1935, 3 permanent injunction W;>8 issued restraining 
the defendant, John Jurca, doing business ns Turner Dairy, his 
agents, employees, auocesaors '^nd assigns, from further trafficking 
in, handling unlawfully, dealing in, selling, giving away, using, 
destBoying or shipping out of the Oity of Ohicago, State of 
Illinois, bottles (milk and cream), the property of ttie complain- 
ants, each respectively, or from in any manner, using or aiding, 
abetting others in the use of the brand, stamp, mark or trademark 
of the complainants, each respectively, or from in any manner, 
unlawf^xlly inteffering or attempting to interfere with the lawful 
and peaceful conduct of the biisinesa of the complainants then 
being carried on by the complainants in the Gity of Ohioago and 
its vicinity, or at any other place within the jurisdiction of 
this court, and from unlawfully taking possession of any of the 
complainants' bottles by purch?ise or otheru'lse, ^nd that John Jurca 
had notice of the injunction, that the same w-s in full force and 
effect," The original injunction order w-s entered May 34th, 1932 - 
not 1933* 

This petition further recites th?.t John Jurca, doing 

business as Turner Dairy, together with his agents, employees, 

and all of them. 
successors and assies, and each of tbem^ever since the granting 

of said injxinction, have continually and that they 9 re now 
trafficking in, handling unlawfully, in, selling, giving 
away, using, destroying, or shipping out of the Qity of Chicago, 
State of Illinois, bottles (milk and crey.m) the property of the 
petitioners each, respectively, and are using, aiding, and 
abetting others in the use of the brand, stamp, mark or trade-mark 
of the petitioners, each respectively, ?nd are unlawfully inter- 
fering or attempting to interfere erith the lawful and pe oeful 
conduct of the businesses of the petitioners now being carried on 


lo ©^.s^a^O'^if^oMO It© t^iO, ©Mf to ^im gfixfii^-MB ^o ■gfilt^^als^fs 
:i's&siQbJf^'Xi iq a'^iss,' ,qM&^g nbtiBiii sat lo ©sif ^jri* fii Bt^dto sal^'i^M's 

Ito aoi;J'diis8iiift. eiiv nMil^ «o.«Xq "ssrid-o -pt^ *« ^o iX*-^^'*®'^"^ S'*-* 
sd^ lo Y^^'JS '^«> fiGieasasoq gnMe# "^XXyl^f^Xiuf <a©tt Imis j^moo tin* 

»55eX ton 
gnioiJ ,i?.0!EX/L ndoh t<i:Ht estios^ i-?ni#iti.'1: ££0tt4*»q «ii{t 

^ffssri* lo XIb iDn^ 

■woo ei/^ Tjorf* d--«-rijf Jbn,3 x^^^o&ltaoe ©VKfiE «£[ol#&££»t^i fei^e lo 
gfliirla n§fiiXXss ,.«! :i«j:l>«;©|j ,x-tisi"iT!f.s*XfltJw ■^ilba^d ^at sniatoillsiJ 

^T«»-9l5«5i.t :to :tftR« ,qi8s*a ^tos^cf Siijf 50 saw 9jf* iii susifto gfll.t;?©^* 

Xolisciegq baa LcftmBl 9dt dllw »TLdtic©*ai od- grtld-qasi-t^ xo sixlisl 
flo i>diT^j80 gflletf t?oa r£»floi;^i*»q art* lo m&s&^aiBuiS erf# lo toirbaoo 


by yoxir petitioners in the Oity of Chicago snd its vicinity, and 
' t other places within tlie jurisdiction of this court, and are 
unlawfully taking possession of the petitioner's bottles by purchase 
and otherwise. And so youx petitioners say thct the s=^id John Jurca, 
doing business as Turner Dairy, his agents, employees, successors 
and assigns, and each and all of thea, have violated the injunction 
order of said court, ^nd to respect the same they have wholly 
neglected and refused so to do, all of which metters and things 
your petitioners are ready to aver, maintain and prove, ?t such time 
and in suob manner as s^id court may direct and appoint." The 
prayer of the petition is thst John Jurca be punished for contempt 
of court, because of the violation of the injunction order, and that 
a capias issue to bring him before the court to show cause why he 
should not be punished for contempt* The statements as set forth 
in the petition were sworn to, as true* 

On June ^th, 1933, John Juroa filed an answer to the 
petition, in which, be pleads, in effect, th^t if he had been g-uilty 
of any violation of the injunction order, or thst if there ros any 
apparent violation, it w^s through unintentionsl error, or aiist--ke, 
Tbe petition and ans'ssrer was referred to a Master in Chancery to 
take testimony. i>fter a hearing, and the taking of testimony, the 
Master filed a report, in which he found, in substance, that John 
Jurca had committed the acts charged, and wfs gTjilty of contempt, 
as charged, &nd recommended as punishment for such violation that 
John Juroa be fined the sum of feKJO.OO, and, in addition thereto, 
should be imprisoned in the County Jail of Oook County for six months, 
or until released by due process of law. The Master's report was 
filed on December 8th, 1933, Uo objections or exceptions ^pere made 
or taken to the report* 

to Oecember 21st, 1933, after considering the Master's 
report, the court entered b finding and order. The finding of the 

eiit i)ii;? j;ttaoo sIjI;* lo ffCitQil)fel*Ei/^ sa;* iiiif;tiw 8dcs^iq sSif^O *.r- 

sioi-^oiijjlnx. stlf bei-i»Ioix" ovsxi ^simli to lis bam sfosa baM ^englgsjR Bus 
'^XXodw evfjif t^£f<t SfRse sdS- jfosqasf o^ Ms ^trsjoe blBS lo rr^fet© 

^qm&faon tot bBd&iam &(f sortft artot. tBd;i sx noitltnt^ ©rf# to ^ats^q 

t^^SStt 8*5 tOJ fiTO«8 sts^ flox^l^fsq »dt tit 
Bdt Qt i&wBSiB a^ feslli adolu ^SoSl jiff OS &ass%, SfO 

t^offlscJ-ctoo 'io xtlltrg k.'h«? i>its «Jb9gi:srfo e*o.« S)d;t b&^tltmoo hsd jsosirX. 
^o^^%9d& aol^ibb^ al ^bas ^OC^OOe-^ lo man JWft fesiitn ^d ^.otuX, cuiol 

s>i)Sffi eiaw BaoiJqsoxs to anolt09(;€fo oS .tSSex trf*8 iftdoisoeCi no b9iil 
a»i3d-8Fii 9rf* a«it9f)xeflco ts^js ^SSeX t*eia icedflisosC aO 

court is to the eflect th?t upon the consideration of the petition 
filed in the couse, and the answer of John Juroa and upon the 
f?;Ots shown by the evidence taken ?s shown by the report of the 
Master in Chancery, together with its finding of f-ot, th' t ^ohn 
Jurca» doing business as Turner Dairy, is guilty of willful contempt 
of the court for comaitting the acts ch- rged in the petition and for 
willful fnilure to comply vdth the provisions of the injunction 
order contained in the final decree entered on May 24th, 1932, 
The date for the imposition of punishment ■mns continued from time 
to tiae until May 23nd, 1934, when the court entered a fin?l order 
"for commitment*" This order and decree contains various findings, 
based on the ilt-ster's report, affirms the report, and concludes wit|j 
the order that John Jvirca, doing business as Turner Dairy, be 
fined the sum of £250.00, and th^ t he be committed to the common 
jail of Oook County for a period of thirty days from the date of 

On April 20th, 1934, contempt proceedings were instituted, 
in the same cause, against Steve Juroa, who was associated in 
business with John Juroa, and there wsa then exhibited to the court 
an affidavit of A, G, Berndes* Among other things, this affidavit 
recites that on March 8th, 1934, on behalf of complainants, affiant 
went to the place of business of the Turner Dairy Oompany, p.nd 
that on that date, he found on the premises certain crates containing 
bottles belonging to the Oouglas Dairy Oompany, Kraml Dairy Company, 
and various other complainants in the original bill. The affid- vit 
further recites that the affiant demanded that Steve Jurca, the 
respondent, surrender the bottles to the affip.nt, but that Steve 
Juroa refused to comply \^'ith the request of the nffi?nt, and th=^t 
affiant then called the attention of Steve Jurca to the injunction 
of Ubj 24th, 1933, and Steve Juroa, in reply to the affiant, stated, 
"I don't give a dam about the injunction," and that thereupon Steve 


iiox^iifSQ Bivj 'to .aol;i"Gt:s.ox3noo ©xiit nocf/j itBiff ;f09r'i6 siiJ oi ai {fxyoo 
sn'if noc;i.f bas s^oru^ iirfoX, ^o aswsnr. ^rf* f)aj8 ^aeyjss Sff;r rti b&Jiit 

iiffo& #-?ri^ ftjo-^l to gnimi:! ati dtir' tcsd^fs^o;!' ^y^'^?*^®'^^ oii is^sbM 

eSSei ^xl^J-^S xs'M. no i)S'£9;fn9 ssiosfc Issatx ssii al b^aL^faoo x^bio moTl: bBssaiiaoo ae?/ tfixsErfeiniiq lo noiittsoqmt SiiJ toI sd-jsf> sriT 

TSlno Xjenil B Bsis^ne Jtyoa srfrf- xxsriw ^-^SSX t-bnSS; t«^ Il^xii> ami* o* 

4 3'i5ni£nx1: ax/ox'rfv snxBtnoo ss-xosl) bxi.B ^abxo exriT ««;ta&ffi;l'iiaa3©o gtol" 

^S^iw asJbuIonoo bnc ^itoqart eat am-xl^liB ^^loq^i b'ssJ-b.^iM erid" ao fceasd 

sd ^•'{'s-.iP.Q TQftTXi'T es ses^iBwd" ?=jnxofj ^BOtult adoTt isdt vcBbxo 9tit 

iioiijmoo Qdi ot bei&xmpoo scf Siri t^-fl^- l>aB ,00,025^ lo asx/a sd* Bsail 

'to 9itB£ s.df EO'il: e^eb ^c^i-^a'^^o boiiceq s rot x^atsoO iooO-lto Xi«(; 

'^ *#flSffl#Xffi!EOO 

t'xisoo erf.t od- £s;fxdi£iico xtsci^ 8bw ®i©rf^ bus tsoix/ti nxlot. iftiw 88efii8u/dt 

risi'Jls 4 3*n.<?rtiBXqsiOO ^o ^XBriso' no t^^GX ^ififS doifsM flo *Bxi* B9*ioert 

l)n!3 jY^f/.ra'.oC x~^s^ isatifl &d^ lo ss^alsud lo sojsXq «d[S" ©d" iaew 

SflinipJ-dOO 8sd-j3TO niisi'^rso easiffi^iq 9ri:^ no Jbouol sri »9#.«5l5 jt*^? no tari* 

^iffiBQiKoO Y^ieG Xsi.fii)! jYffsqsBoO YiLsQ asX^iJoQ »M* ©* ^t^oled aaX^Jocf 

;tiv -^1-^111.6 sit? .Ilitf LrMl-§lxo 9d& ai 8*as«iBXqjBoo T»ri*o itsoltsv has 

erf J tf'CTyl: svste tf^dt bBbasmBb taBktts 9ri# i-srf^ aB^to&r XBd^rut 

Bvsit tndt tuQ ^jnsili^ edi od" 89X**od sil* rBbaettstv t*fl»fifloqasa 

J*:£{d' fcni? t*n:-il1.6 sdi lo .tsB.upei ariS- rfd-iw yXqasoo o* f)9a0l»i .soTsrt 

nc.ii''>nuj;0i Bdi oS f^otuT, bvs^B lo aoiin&tis arf* feeXX^O fl«il# *fl«ilifi 

.fiei-s^a 4*n^illfi srii- o;r yXqai ni ^jsoii/L svstB Me ^Ssex ^rUTI'S \bU lo 

sv»*S noqxjSTSri* 3-.eri* ba& " ^aotioajj^ni sri* txrods tasJb e avig ^'floi) I* 


Juroa struck the affiant nnd ordered him off the premises* In 
this affidr^vit Berndes further alleges that on M^TCh 10th, 1934, 
he again went to the place of huainess of the Turner Oniry Company, 
and that on th t d^te, Steve Jurca ^as using bottles belonging to 
the members of the iailk Dealers' Bottle Exchange; that a Deputy 
Sheriff accompanied Berndes at said time and place and. endeavored 
to take possession of these bottles, and th?t Oteve Jurca resisted 
and refused to turn the bottles over. Affiant further recites in 
this affidavit th 't he asked Steve Jurca what had become of cert? in 
crates of bottles belonging to the Douglas Dairy ^nd the Kraml 
Dairy which had previously been on the premises, and that Gteve Juroa 
told the affiant and the accompa]:Qring officer, "That's our business," 
and refused to inform the ?>ffia.nt as to the where -bouts of these 
bottles belonging to the complainants in the case. 

On a further hearing of the Steve Jurca matter in open 
coxirt, the witness Berndes was sworn and testified th-^t his duties 
were to collect th« lost and stolen bottles on beh?>lf of the Milk 
Sealers Bottle Exchange, and return such bottles to the rightful 
owners; that on March 7th, 1934, he was informed that the Turner 
Dairy had some bottles belonging to the complainants, or some of them; 
that he visited the place on March 8th, 1934, pnd found vnricus bottles 
belonging to complainants; that he spoke to Steve Jurca and asked 
for the bottles, and that Steve said: "You can't take these bottles 
today, or to-morrow or any other day;" that the witness called Steve 
Jurca' s attention to the injunction against the Turner Dairy, 
restraining it from using the bottles of complainants, and that 
Steve Juroa said; «I don't give a dam about the injunction, « and that 
he, Jurca, then told the witness to get out of the place, or he 
would "knock his block off." This witness's testimony was fvaiy 
corroborated by another witness, Steve Jurca denied that he h?d 
ordered the i^itness out of the place of business of the Turner Dairy, 


fiX *BS>sift\stv7 ed;^ lio airi bszsb'fd t>njs sf'nsil'i.e arid- :»'0in:^8 £O^0l» 

^^"tl t.di'-OI iioi.ftM nt; ^«rid- ss-^sU.s tadrf-^i/?: asfin-rsa itrBtlYts BliLi 

^\^BQjRo'-i "t^i.cO T.ftirii/T Bdt lo sas/rilax/d' l:o sosiq Qui oi t£i9^ als^B sd 

Qt 3filgaoXs-d ssLtifod anis.y sbv^- s-otsjI sr^iiti ^B&Bb- #■ rf# ao t-Bdi ban 

rii ssdiooT loii^tiol itn.Bix'iA ^lavo asid-;tO£j srfS- ij^x/J oi" jbsex/ls-i £iiis 
ai-^&tBo Jo s?!:oGSQ' ^Bff ^f.edw i^cmt. 9V3J8 £>6^g5: ©rf Jcxf;!- ^Ivshl'ttB BiAi 

'iB^Ai to 8jyoo'p0^p£i-f ©lid od" es yflini1:l,s add" HS^olflx o* b^BifxQt ba.?, 

~iSQ_o as. -is-JiN-a .so'Xf/L -3V9;fG oild- lo ani^esd asdJi:!^! .?, joO 

:jCII-£ eris- lo ll^Ao'-i ao e^litod selo&s has tBoL ^M it-slloo ot st©^ 

imeclt J.o nm.OB tr.o te;fajSi^i:.sXqsiO0 Qtli oi ^aignoXad gsX^tocf saioa beii y^iisU 

aoXit^fccf ewoxiip-.v Jbmjo't ban 4»^3SX «riJ8 doxsM ao ©OfiXq ^di b^^tni-v Sii tsa'* 

xja^fss B0f? .fiO^i/L 9V9;)--3 o-t &^oqs arf ^bx£^ je;faj!5fli:.'8XqffiOO o;t s^igjaoXscf 

KsX:J-*00 S39£f.t S2[.s;f ;J-«n.fto .goY*' :l.^i :s 9v«;fJi iJ-srftf iscfi ^asXt^focf srf* Tol 

9V3t8 I39IX.S0 sssn^tiw srif j-Rxfi- **;Ye-^ ^Qii^^'o vas 10 woiiofis-OJf 10 t^-sf^ojf 

j'-rf:?' bar> "tacxtfon^tiii: su5 Ji/ocn «/?!> .s ^Tfi-^ i^aob I" sfcXse so«rl» 9vs*S 

sirf to iQocXo erf? to .tiro Ja^ o* QB^aib^r Qdt bLo^ a^d& ^siOtuX, e9ri 

Xllu'i 8CT Ynosnl^BS;? s'sesn^l-iw eiiclT ».T:lo iooXo' exif :tfooni'* bluovf 

fc«ri aff d-Bxl? fci©ln9/) no'iuh Q-veiQ ,889ni}-xw rterij-ons -^ i>»*-srrotfOTCioo 

^rrJtsCl iSiixuT srlJ- lo sasaXeud lo aoBXq drii- lo iuo eaefli-Jw »fi* bsiisljao 


or that he said: "I don't give a dnm rbout the injunction", but 
admitted that he pushed the e^itness out, s.nd that he refused to 
surrender the bottles of complainants. 

The decree of May 24th, 1932^ is not reviewable in 
this proceeding. It ?ras entered by consent of the parties, and 
no appeal wns taken therefrom. The testimony taken before the 
Master on the hearing in the John Juroa contempt proceedings, is 
not in the record. As stnted, no objections or exceptions were 
made or taken by John Jiirca as to the Master's report and recommend- 
ations* In his answer, he admits doing the acts in violation of 
the injunction, as charged. Therefore, we conclude that the court 
was warranted in entering the order from whic* the John Jxirca appeal 
is taken. As to Steve Juroa, the court saw and heard the witresses, 
and we see no reason why vre should disturb the order of the court, 
which is justified by the evidence. Therefore, the orders and 
judgments appealed from are affirmed* 



«i: sXdswisiTS'i toa bx. ^ ES8I tifci-I^S y-sM ■ •"': to sS'tsst) ^d"!?' 

s-r^w 3iToijg©ox9 50 afloi^o-s^o'c o." f^b&tBiB eA «I)too9t sii^ at ton 


In the Matter of the Eatate of 
JAMES THOMAS KELIT, Oeoei9sed, ) "" ERROR TO THB'^'" >'*'" 

Defendant in Krror, 


JOHN J. BAGDOMAS, (Impleaded) 


Plsintiff in Error. ) ^ O O 


By an order of the Probate Court of "-^ook County, entered 
on March 7th, 1935, John J. Bagdonas, plaintiff in error, Julius 
P. Waitches, Mrs, Bella Butman, Paul P» 2alinoh, John Oailyde and 
Kioholas ladis were adjudged to be in contempt of the court, and it 
was ordered that er^ch of the persons .Mentioned, be sentenced ta 
imprisonment in the County Jail of Cook County for a period of one 
year from the date of the order. By vjrit of error, John J. Bagdonas 
seeks to have the order reversed» 

The salient facts in this c?'se have been considered by 

this court in c^ses No. 38222, People v. Rrdla. and No. 38210, 

People V. ,a it Che 3 , in this court, wherein the judgment and sentence 

of the Probate Court of Nicholas Rsdis and Julius P. 'Vaitohes were 

respectively reviewed. In these oases, the judgment '\nd order of 

the Probate Court were affirmed as to 'RbAIb and \'^aitches, and upon 

a review by the Supreme Co\irt on writ of error, the judgments of 

this court were affirmed. By the opinions in c^ses No. 383?/^ and 

38210 in this court, it is indicated th-it all the above named persons 

found guilty by the PBOb?te Court, including Bagdonas, appe:=red 

voluntarily in th- t court, and voliintarily testified concerning the 

matters there in issue. Reference is made to the findings of this 

court in the two/mentioned. The aeitter before the Probote Court had 

to do with the alleged fraudulent execution end prob?^te of the rill 


1.2«%i:'.'*^-»- ■:■'■** 

■ 1, ■ ^-«v ■■"■ 

YT^iTjoo moo 

r\ tO> 

© ,& i=. © -*>5i=' 

C) O ^ ^ .^O'iorii ai: m^aiai*^ 

,ffiyO0 SHT 10 ^OXJII-IO SET CSMVLISG ddAM S:DIT80L *BM .^, . . - 

sxfilifl, ^ic-1^9 sl rtl^flLalq «ssiiol)§J5& *!, axfol* <SS6X <xia!'t MdTs'sM I3© 

it b£iB ^fnuoo &dt xo 'J-qmo^aoo si sof o;t l)Qgl>i/|l5s s^xaw etJba-^i saXcsloxf 

SIJ.0 Ic boii&ci B •sol- Y^fJtfoO 2tooO lo XiaL x^^^o*^ 9£l* jii tnmmoBlrtqml 

^b^BiQv^z xeb%o »di sviiri oc^ safsea 
xo befiblBiiOO «0So' sv^ri 9ap,o sixlJ ni sJosl d'naiXse sriT 

e-xsw seriod'X^ifr'' ,1 sjjilirt* ba.'i BibBH aBlodolii to ^rruoO sJrcfoi i axirf- lo 
lo tsljio JbfiF a-nsmsbxTt sif^ ^Bsaao saeiiJ ill ,b&ii&iv^x xlmriio^qB^t 

fonr. snS85 toM ese^'o iii enoirtxqo ad^ xB'x n stsw Jtuoo siiJ* 

nnoetsq £)9ffi.^.n evocfB ©xi* XXs .ti^-ili- £i9*P0i:fe«X ei ;J-i 4d-Tx;oo Bi^i ni 0XS8S 

fe97f.9cfqe tS.^iioiigBa -galbijloal jtix/oQ sd-Bo'oan 9rf,f yo' Y^Xiirg Jbnjyol 

:^ild- gxiinxsonoo boxlii-eed' xXirrjEd-flx/Xov jdab ,#^JLfco i"-/!* rji xliiF>SaijLQV 

atrid- ^:o agnifcail arid- o:t sbs-M ex soasislsH ,9ixsBX ni B-i&sii aiad-d-iSat 

berf *Tx;oO 9*€tfoi^ srit 9^:0190 ts**^^ sxlT ,bsnox*na35\o«* sri* ai *trx/oo 

IXiw ea'd- lo sd-'^cfoiq JbxLs aotitso^xs ;taeljjbueiT[ b9g9lLs 9ci& rfi-iw ob oi 

of Jf^mes Thomas Kelly, deceased. It hp.Q been definitely adjudged 

by the Probate Court and affirmed by the Appellate and Supreme 

Courts that the will in question was fraudxilently executed, that 

ita filing for probate in the Probate Oourt was fraudulent, and th?t 

the acts of the persons mentioned in connection therewith were in 

contempt of the Probate Court. It only remains to be determined 

what part, if any, John Bagdonas had in connection with the matter. 

It has been determined and adjudged that the fraudulent execution 

of this will occurred in the place of business of Bagdonas. By this 

fraudulent will, Bagdonas was to receive a bequest of ^4,500 after 

indicated by the 
Kelly's death, as shows by the evidence. It is/evidence th^t 

Julius P. ifeitohes, an attorney-at-law, hereinbefore referred to, 
filled in the blank form off the will referred to, in Bagdonas* s 
place of business, which, as testified by Bagdonas, ^s hereinafter 
set forth, had been signed by Kelly before his death. 

On the he-^ring in the Probate Court, Bagdonas, of his 
own volition, testified, in subst-^'nce, that he was in the under- 
taking business; that shortly prior to Kelly's death, he ^ent to 
the home of Mrs. Bella Butman, where Kelly ^m-e then residing; that 
he w'-s informed that Kelly was ailing; th^^t, together with Mrs, 
Butman, he p\irohased a printed form of a will to be executed by 
Kelly; th-t he returned to the Butman residence, and that Kelly 
signed the form of will upon which nothing was then written; th-t 
after Kelly signed this blank form of Fill, Mrs. Butman took it; 
that he, Bagdonas, at that time got #300 out of s;;700 from Kelly's 
pocket; that Kelly died on Tuesday, February ^6th, 1935, and that 
the events just referred to took place on the preceding Saturday; 
that on . ednesday, following the death of Kelly, he saw .Vaitchee 
with the will completely filled out, ?nd that v^;aitches said in the 
presence of the witness, that there wns between :;40,000 and 50,000 
to be had by the persons mentioned therein ss beneficiaries, and 

t^-^bsjlb". v^Ie^fJtnilsl} nsatf 8,?£i il «iis©jBBosft t^IXs^S s.seori? fessfcat "16 
msetqtsB ban ^^.Bllsqqk Bdt ^d xiSKt-illR bfl.?. iJiiJoO ^^s^dOT"? axfji" ^ii 

ni STS-v- dix-r^B^eAt ncl&oactnoo al bsaol^aBix enoai«q Qdt lo eii'Oi:- ©xid- 

tiBj^Bit 9rf,t rid"!?; nci:;tt?snfiOO ni bt'd s-^.aob^ssQ aiidl> ^^hb ^-i t^isq itBriw 
aoiJ'i/osTj? ;}Ti9lx;mB'sl srC:}- torld- l)3gi)ijrt£'-s Bub fesfliciisijal) nescf *I 

aejlB 005 J J^;^; ao ;)-89upsd 5 strisosi o* 8.sw gsKoJbgJsa ^XIXw ta^lijbjjj&T:! 

-TSbm-f SiTi'-T ai; esw sr! .+ ?;{lt ^aocsJecfwa fix ,Jb9X1;x;ts9Jj' ^fioid-XXov iiwo 
Ou*- ^fjHOi^' Qn ^d*B9h s*\fXX95I o;*- toXiq ^X^^orie i'.^rf^ jesajHist/d'^aiafsJ 

^cf beiisot-xQ 30' o^' XXi:?? ?? to mzol b&iiaixq b b&»&do%uq &d itCinmtuB. 

;?i: 2foof ar-.tixtuB »ciU. ^llkvj tc saxol itinid axff* Jfcsfigia yXXsX tsJ-Is 

a'x-f.Xs')! flio-xl: 0071 to ix'o OOSi^ aO^ Sffii* ^arfJ *£ ^jescoj^gsa ,9ri *b^* 

tprft ibiSJG c65GX ,rii-8P x^si/TCfsiJ 4Y.?l5eoaT no b^lb YXXa2 #5rf# i^di^ooq 

iY-s^tu^jsS 3ptXi>3092q 9fJ* no ©o-^Xq :ioo* oJ Jbaii-rc^tsi *au£ eJflsvs axi* 

a&doiirv: wsb ©rf t^XXsA "io d^az-b ©rfj ^fiXwoXXol: ,X'S^6»«fc®^ fl<> ^^^^ 

$115 ai: tise eeiloS-ifiW :rs'.d& biif?. ^^uo b&llll xlQiQiqaiOO XXXw ed^ dttv 

000,06! btt.'^ OOO^OK;; ctsQvsrj-acf bpw 3X9x1* sfjsxfJ^ersciiw edt to ©onsesiq 

b«.fi tesirrfsjt 0x1- ansa aa xtisisri* £^©«oiJn©m anoaioq 9x[tf xd bsd scf o* 


th^t the witness knew th: t ■4,500 was put in the will for the 
bvrlal, and for his, Bagdonas's, services as the undertaker. 

Various questions are raised in the brief filed here 
which are substantially the same ?.3 the questions raised by 
ocecKtaaaxxa* the other contemnors, both of whom were found guilty, 
and in which the judgment against each, as stated, has been affirmed 
by both this court end the Supreme Oourt* Bagdonas wss properly 
found guilty by the court, and he received ft just sentence. 

The judgfllent of the Probate Court is affirmed. 


&iM belli l3i%Li s&i- ai »^.s 8aoi;fa9i;p buoIis^ 

38698 S-'-r"" j^' 



(Plaintiff) Appellant, ) ,/ / 


(Defendant) Appellee, 

28 8 I.A. 618 

On May 32nd, 1933, suit was instituted in the Circuit 
Court of Oook County by plaintiff against defendant. By the 
declaration filed in tbe onse, it is charged, in substance, that 
the defendant is an attorney-at-law, licensed to practice in the 
State of Illinois, and as attorney and counsel for plaintiff, had 
represented plaintiff in an action agAinst the Belt Railway Oompsny 
of Chicago in an action for personal injuries alleged to ^.ve been 
sustained by the plaintiff; th«t on January 18th, 1930, the defendant 
received from the Belt Railway Company the sua of #15,000,00 in 
settlement of the cause; that at defendant's invitation, plaintiff 
went to the office of the defendant for the purpose of receiving 
the portion of said sum lawf\illy coming to plaintiff; that theretofore 
plaintiff had entered into a contract '^ith defendant wherein and 
whereby defendant, ss and for his ?5ttorney'g fees in th# matter, was 
to receive one third of the amount received in settlement of the 
cause, and that further, by the terms of this agreement, defendant 
was to pay all the expenses and costs in connection with the Is/sfsuit 
and claim; that defendant informed plaintiff th?3t he had expended 
various sums amounting to 1,050,00 in and about preparing for the 
trial of the cause, and that after deducting such amount, defendant 
gave plaintiff a check for '^,100,00. It is further averred in 
the declaration that, relying upon the statements of McCallum, 
plaintiff accepted the amount of the check tendered; that the defend- 
ant did not pay out the amount stated in preparation of the trial 


S;-\ 86885 


a'faOOO 1000 ( . . ■ ^MliMilOoM »W *1 

tlf/OT-iO ®rf# i;si: ^sji/jxtsjsi asw Jiwa gSSei ^MSS t-«M eo' 

flsod Bvs4 ot -csgalie esliwrni ienoe'Xtsq rol aoid-os ae ai o'ssoirfO lo 

i3i: 00«000tGl;,;i; Ic msjB oiit -^rrBqffloD YsirlieH tlsQ sdi morl bs^t&o&i 
'ttitaislq ^aoltB^irnl s'cfxti^fcris'isJb is tfttit jeaw-so 8ri;>- ^o iass&&l^$Q8 

baP' ni'31'diivi iaf^baelub diif! ;to.Rs:^fioo b od-nx fcaiceJ^ii© Jbjaxi Iti^fxi^Xq 

8f.w ,i:»d;f.Bffl difd- rti sasl s^\9n%QtiB Bid %ol Ms e.R 45.#ffsl)fl9l:3b '^cifattedw 

affd- lo JflSffiisXcfitsB Hi £)9viso3*x ^aii-osBi? oriJ l:o w'xxritf' ©fso Qvl^ont ci 

ta&hasl&b ^tcBmBBT^e axrid- ^o Bmrai Bd& y'j i'ted.i'xxj'i tBd& Mi? tOSi/so 

#iij8^feX Bdf xfJxw noltoafifloo ixi eS-aoo basi ©aenaqx® &^J^ XXs ^''^q o* 8«w 

iisJbnsqxs f)^(i 9ri tariit Itid-niBXii Ijsffliotfii a-fts.ba9^9b ;rr,£i:ij- jssijsXo bxie 

al Jbsii'SVi-i lodttsjl: ax *I .OO.OOX^T^ rrol :3fo&fic b 1:lXl«X.r,iq ©veg 

tteuXieOoM to 8*a«lss^c^Bd'8 9xf* aoqxr S|flXYX9i ,* d* noic^Brt^Xoefc ati* 

-Jafld^ol) 9di ^Fidt ibs'TsbctQt Soarfo Qrfit to #a»oras »ri* fcsJqeoos l^ti^fclelq 

If.itt »if* lo noXtBimqaiq nl Jbai-si-s i^ax/ofitB 9ri* ^tfo X'^^T *oa fcib itflB 


of the o<^3e, and that defendant's atateraenta in thpt regard were 
false, and that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum \ 
of |1, 020*00, The cause w^& submitted to a jury, which returned ! 
a verdict in f^vor of defendant, upon which verdict judgment was 
entered against plaintiff for costs. The appeal here is from | 
that judgment* 

Plaintiff tirges that the court erred in giving certain 
instructions offered by defendant, and that the verdict is contrary 
to the aianifest ireij^t of the evidence, 

Plaintiff testified in effect th&t he first met defendant 
in 1935 or 1926, when he r?.s in a hospital suffering from an injury 
he, plaintiff, had received in the course of his employment as a 
conductor for the Belt Railway Company; that he called up defendant, 
and that defendant told plaintiff to come to his, defendant's, 
office, and that defendant would pay the cab frre for such purpose; 
that thereupon plaintiff went to defendant's office, and while there, 
explained his case to defendant; that defendant gave plaintiff a 
contract blank and told plaintiff to sign it, which plaintiff did; 
that at the time he, plaintiff, signed it, none of the blanks were 
filled in; that plaintiff was thereafter examined and "X-rayed" by 
a physician; thet defendant again gave plaintiff cab fare for a 
trip to and from defendant's office; that on these two visits, 
defendant gave plaintiff 1130.00; that in reply to a ouestion by 
defendant as to whether plaintiff had any relations, plaintiff stated 
that he had relations down east, a.nd th-'t defendant agreed to give 
plaintiff four or five hundred dollars so th^-t plaintiff might go 
to his relations; th'-t defendant thereafter gave plaintiff ■•'300,00, 
and that plaintiff and his wife and children ™^ent east; that defend- 
ant gave plaintiff ilOO.OO every two weeks; th^t on January 18th, 
1930, the claim agent for the Belt Railway Oompany came to defendant's 
office with a check payable to plaintiff and several other papers 

9tS5f biB-gsv: ^^tit xti a^jftsiRS^s^J's Q^iaabRSl^b -^.nd:* baa n^eso 9ilt to 
' mitn. sdS .at ^"m-ntszlq Qt beid^ba.1 ax ^m;>tafitBb Qdt i&xi^ hns ^bbImI 

X'^iJlRt as molt '^Ir&Vtus Xj%;flqeorf & ai Sivj? ad fisdisr ^3SeX t© 3Sex 4i; 

a e^ t£t9mxc.lqts9 Bid J.c. b&iuqo Bdi as. bBvieoQi bfd ^'ilXtntBlq ^»d 

^inBbtt&l:®b qir b&llBO srf tBti^ ;-^m&iQO \&mltBn SJk&i£ ©il!}' ict xotossbnao 

^B^taj&bastBb ,axxf oJ- saoo o* ms-^islq l)Xo4' #aBl)fla1:ei> *Bd* JtfxiJ 

;'58oqTSJfQ: lioiffi. 10^ ?>x.«^ cfso ®fit Tj^q i)Xc;cw i.*'i2.«?l)n®l-»l> j-x^riit ba^^ «&©ill<p 

^gtielv o^^ as@xi* ao *«^? l»o^1:lo e'^a.e&ije'ieJb moil pas e# qi^J 
ij©#>**a ttXfni£i£ci jafioi^eXes \-rrg bed x1:ijfai^Xq X3Xl*9f&fi 0* Si'. JaBfenet^i) 

--i.«sl:&i) *erf* ;*b»?.© «bn«w ao^bXirio Ijab »3:Xi?>' »ifi lMS« Ittitfl^^-J^*! *»rfi^ ^-^ 
srtsQfiq T»rf;ro X/^T©v«E bar, llX*ai«Xq ©d" ei<r^t«^ ioerfo ^ ricMw ©onio 


to be signed; thft plaintiff vos present pt this time and started 
to look these papers over, fn6. th^jt defendant hurried plaintiff 
into signing (indorsing) the oheok, and that plaintiff did sign 
(indorse) the oheck he fore he oould look at the rest of the papers, 
together with a release; th-^t defendant then made out a personal 
ohcok for jif7,120«00 payable to plaintiff; that plaintiff ?nd hia 
wife were present, and that both then complained about the amount 
of the oheok; that defendant ols.imed there was !|450«00 which he 
advanced for appearing in court, $400*00 for information received 
from the Interstate Oommeroe Gommiasion and :'800,00 for doctors; 
that -ibout a month later, plaintiff addressed a letter to defendant 
with reference to the alleged shortage, and that defendant told 
plaintiff that he, defendant, would get plaintiff a 30b, and that 
defendant frequently promised to fix the matter up* Plaintiff further 
testified to the effect that he reported the matter to the Chicago 
Bar Association, snd that he hired Mr. Bloomingston, his counsel in 
the instant case, to represent hia before the Bar Association. Plsin- 
tiff then testified thst subsequently he was arrested on complaint 
of his wife for drunkenness, and that while serving a term in jail, 
he wrote a letter to the defendant dated July 23rd, 1930, in which he 
pleaded with defendant to get him out of 3 ail. The letter wsg offered 
and received in evidence. 

On cross-examination, plaintiff identified e contract 
between himself and defendant dated June 19th, 1929^ ■> copy of which 
was received in evidence. This document is signed by the plaintiff 
and recites that he employed defendant as his attorney to prosecute 
his claim for damages for personal injuries against the Helt Railway 
Company of Chicago, sustained by him on June 17th, at Olesring, and 
that he agreed to pay defendant aa compensation for his services 
50^ of all aioneys recovered in settlement of the claim, A notation 
appears on this document to the effect that the terms were accepted 


bQi'i-^^B bar-. ^,mlt Bidt t,-? ;f0a!M&aq asw Ir'titxsI-.sXq ls£[^ ;l:»8it^i8 acf oi" 
HiuflJiBiq Saltti/il iast£iBlet fsadt bsm ^tcavo sisqac ©ssfiJ 3C00I od' 
ngxc .bii:> 'I'iitairslq &Bif.t Mb ^jiosttij Sjti^ ('^iaiolsfli;) ^iaals ^tmt 

titsjQms ?id^ ^isodB b^uisLqiRQO r.Bdt rf^OQ" ifsxiif i^s t^JS^e^'Sq: ©tS'W sliw 

jstotccfc -xol; OQ»OCSl, ^12,0 aQl&BlmxOu soxsssaioO »;fjs#8i:s^isl arliJ- moil 

•■ ■ ■ ■ t ■ ' '■ ■ -' ■>■■'_ 

*«isXgaK>o no £»!>3-aoTta esw sjCI xS.tnmjp99.<SsjR tBdt bBllttB^t csiftf- 111* 

9rf ffoiriis ai «OSex tfo-jSS x-^"^ l>aia£> tn&haeJ-Bb Oil* o* n:9t3-aX js etQXsi 9d 
©lello ssw Te*;J-©X ariT *Ii>r>i; 1:o $JW0 ©id t^'^ o# ^asfcaoloij rifiw Jbs&s»Xq 

siotdv "to Tf^qoo c? |esei */ii'ex Qiiwl* MsTiiJb *nfi£^sl:8£f ^^ IXsaaiiil nsewtetf 

©^x/oeeciq 0* \;©nio.t;^fl sXri a£ d-fi.8iiasl«Jb £i©^oXqra» ari d-.5d* esliosi tins 

"^jswXXbb JXaa Oii^ s-eaiJRBS asiiut^X iBcjoa-ieq tQl eos^safi ti;<>| aifiXo airf 

ban ^galx^i^li) ie^dt'H emrX, no mid \<S bBuls&euB ^0^£i0ldQ J<3( •^sqmpQ 

aaaivrcsa Bid io\ npic^ee^oqiaoo es *flj5JQfl©%9t> ijAq 0* fi««^« ed *««!* 

isoi*.e;fon K .ffli^Xo srit lo JnemsX^d-ae fli ^sTsrooett bywoib XXs lo ^S 

jjaitqQOOB srrsw emtcet^ 9di ipdi tfoalrls arid- q^ *naaixro<)£> air?* ■""' '--"---a 


by defendant. Plaintiff further testified to the effect that he 
ooxild re^d and write English, th-^t he had had business experience 
for 35 yeers, tb=?t he owned vesl estate, and that he had handled 
deeds to his property; that he wss -^ o?^.reful business man, that 
his eyesight w^a good, tb?t he read the check when he received it 
and before he endorsed it, and that he did endorse it. This check, 
which wjs received by pl-sintiff, ^ss received in evidence, snd bears 
on its face the following statement: "In full settlement, to ray 
satisfaction, of my claim ©geinst the Belt Railway. Oompany of 
Ohioago." Plaintiff denies that this statement was on the check 
at the time he endorsed it» 

There also appears in evidence a receipt signed by the 
plaintiff, as follows: 

'♦Received from '-H* ?l, iioCallum, ;:i:7120,00, from a settle- 
aent of ;|15,000,00, recovered for me from the Belt ^-lailvvay 
Company of Ohiosgo, for injuries I received on the 17th d?.y 
of June, 1939, while employed by said railroad corap^ny, 

dr» MoOelluia has deducted from said settlemant the 
following attorney's fees, whioa are correct, according to 
my contract, agTeetaent and instructions to Hr. MoOalliiaa since 
I employed hiai to take my case, 5';6, 000*00, being equsl to 
forty per cent of my said settlement, ps per my contract and 
understanding lyith Mr, MoOallum, and the further sum of 
|1880»00 which I borrowed from J-vmea A, li^oOsllum during the 
pendency of my s^id case, and which I instructed w« -V, 
MoOflluffl to deduct from lay s?id settlement. 

The 8,bove attorney's fees snd loans, ss deducted, are 
correct and satisfactory to me, and I hsve received in full, 
from my said settlement, to my s-tiafaotion, ss my sh^re, 
the sum of #7130»00» 

Josej^ F* Sanders 
Witness: Bettye Burlingame»» 

On cross-examination, plaintiff testified thst during all 
the tim^iprior to the beginning of the present suit, he hod been 

friendly with defendant, th?>t he never wrote any letters demanding 

money, and th^t at the time he wrote the letter dated July 33rd, 

1930, he was friendly with defendant. 

Defendant was called as an adverse witness under the 

provision of the Oivil Practice Act, He identified the contract 

between hiapaelf and plaintiff hereinbefore referred to. He stated 

■BBS o^ «*fj»js5©X;}-*9e IXul: nl" :Jii9m-9*B*s sniwollol arf^ eoc^ fiJl-Jt ao 

*-?««fyaee i^isesiil^z kl^m yt0 f>»t<'>i«5Js® erXifJw ^^Sfe'i: ^^msh Im^:: 
sf^flie m/IXi'D©M tt\& ot Bniyit&u'r.t&ni hixt> taBim^t^s ,*o,e-r,tnoo -^ffl 

s^* SaiTU^)'oM ,A «fMEiI, inoti: X^a^oirod I doid^ 0Cv088X| 

»;tc9sasX#**e l>li«e x**' flEO'i't joi/bsij o* sfwXXsOoM' 
s-jf- ^b&:^ptsb9b Br^ t'^fiMQl ban. 8S9i B'^xu-itot&r, ev©;** Oilt 

•00i,0SXY| lo aws srf* 
fl©9d 5Bff 9ri 4*it;E *fls»B©iq ©fit lo gnlitfii^stf arid" o* •xoiiqXs.tatt 9dt 

.*flj8fifl»l»D rfJi-iw ^XbnoXrrl bjiw 9if ^OCeX 
fc9t>^*e 9H •od- l>9ii«^»5 »T0l9cfniea»ri ^tl*ai*Xq ban lX»«*iil fl99w*8Cf 

that in connection with the matter in controversy, he paid out 
^185.00 to different doctors, and th^t the court coats were advanced 
by plaintiff when the suit was started; that pending the aettlement, 
defendant had advanced plaintiff ifl»884,00 during a period of seven 
montha. He denied that he gave plaintiff ;»500.00 to take a trip, 
as testified to by plaintiff. He further testified that the contract 
between the parties waa completely filled out when plaintiff signed 
It, and that certain blanks therein were filled in with a lead pencil, 

Janes A. McOallum, a brother and partner of defendant, wna 
also called by plaintiff as an adverse witness, and testified that 
he filled out the contract and t^at plaintiff signed it in his pres- 
ence; that he was present i?hen defendant settled Tflth plaintiff, that 
plaintiff agreed to accept the amoujit paid him In settlement, and 
that all the papers signed by plaintiff were drafted lorior to plain- 
tiff's signing them* 

Plaintiff objects to the following Instructions given on 
behalf of defendant: 

"The court instructs the jury th^t fraud is never to be 
pxesinned but must be affirmatively proven by the parties 
alleging the same; th;;t their denllngs are In good f«ith and 
without Intention to defaud, cheat, hinder, delay or defraud 
others; and if any transaction called in question is enu-r:?lly 
capable of two constructions, one that is fair and honest 
and the other that is dishonest, then the law is that the 
transaction questioned is presumed to be fair and honest. 

The court instructs the jury th-^t the law preavuaes 
honesty s-nd fair dealing ?.s between lawyer and client, the 
saiae as the la^ presuiHes honesty and fair dealings in contracts 
between business men, ajad in the absence of proof of actual 
fraud, by a preponderr^nce or greater rcight of the evidence, 
such presumption must ti;o\rern you :3t arriving st your verdict 
in this case# 

The court further instructs you thet in determining 
whether or not the plaintiff executed and signed a contingent 
fee contract with the defendant, William .allsoe McO^llum, 
for 50 per cent of the smount recovered, you have the ri^t 
to take into oonsiderr-tion, sjnong other trdngs, the conduct of 
the plaintiff subseouent to the execution of such contract, 
the final settlement, execution of release by the plaintiff, 
and nis acceptsiioe of the svim of -7,130 from the defendant, 
William 'vailace MoOalluria, his cashing the check for this 
amount without protest, if you believe from the evidence th9t 

ijsT'S© to &oi^®q <g sfii^yl) OCs^SS^I^ ^tia^jsi-ftlq Jb^aisevljjs bsd tfis&iia9t9i> 

8.SW <#«a£iaslofc 1:0 «»nd"r.«q Ms iQ^tot^ .9 ,£!u/XXjsOoM *A esjffist ■• ; 

f&At h^l'tltn^>t line ^©sefr^lw serrevfeis iia^ a^ lliJKJtaiq xd JfesXXs© ©eXe 

-S9iq airf nX di fcsrrgsis l^Xd-nXaXq *«fi;r fofljs tojBT^flOU axf* *xro belitl »ri 

i'^rft 4^1:1 tf-nir^Iq rid-iw feQlsfj-SP: tntsfccrslsXi n»i^^ d'aseanq saw »il tBxl* jeons 

.. ■ ■ • ^ -•■/.■ ^ - 

Z>i;ettl9£' «€> Y^l^i) ^.r^tniii «d-.s©fiO 4Jbi;,ff^®fc o? coiJfiieSrti cz,i^^i:i-^ 

ai-o.^id-noo nX agflXX^ssX; "xXpI bas •'j^fsanorf esfeL'sa^q w«X. sri^ e<B ©lose 
XiSx/^06 "io tooiq *o aofisscfs srlit nX fias f^assa ea^flXaucf ftsssr^eo' 

*oXfoi®v Tiro At tB giiXvXiTJS ;)■» irox irxavog t»im aoitqeu/ig&ict doifs 

^daae eXci^ at 
SaXfiXmisd-sfc flX ;fcil# uoy eifoy-z^enX lerf^ij/t *tjjoo ©irfT 

^icx/XXsCo'^ ©o.eXX5.' fflflXXXXW ,^rf.fii:.nsle£i arfJ rWiw fojii&noo «»1 

lo tfowfciToo ezif ,?!snXj.U rtsriito 3rioia.e ,noX;fj35©JbXeiioo o*ni a^fu* oJ 

:^,8xft sonafcltr?) iddt teail: ©rsXX&tf i/OY IX ,*ea*ot:q *x/oM:rX-^ *jiuo*:? 

he signed '.Tithout protest, snd his oonduot ^nd relations 
with the said .'/illiaffl .?»ilace koOallum -^fter his receipt 
of the money in qxiestion, and it is your duty to determine 
from all the evidence in the c- se whether or not the plain- 
tiff has proven his allegations of fraud by a preponder-noe 
or greater ^ei^^t of the evidence. If you are in doubt o* 
the evidence is evenly bflanoed, it is your duty to return 
a verdict in f->vor of the defendant. 

The court instructs the jury th't a contingent fee 
contract with a lawyer is "=? legal contract and in this cose 
you have nothing to do with the Question of the fr^irness or 
unfairness of the amount ai^reed upon between the parties if 
you believe from the evidence thrt a certain per cent vms 
agreed upon, A contingent fee contre.ct of a per cent of 
the amount recovered in 9 personal injury is not un- 
oonsoionabie or unfair and if entered into knowingly between 
client and attorney, is absolutely binding and enforcible 
in law," 

These instructions are argumentative, and should not have been given. 

However, upon the issues made and in view of the evidence submitted 

to the jury, t?e are of the opinion that they do not constitute 

reversible error. 

The whole question here is one of fact* The jury saw and 

heard the witnesses, found for defendant, and we do not feel that we 

should substitute our judgment for th-t of the jury. Therefore, 

the judgment of the Oirouit Oourt of Oook Oounty is affirmed^ 




'saoltnlBr Mj(5 tojuftnoo eirf bciE ^^b^Soi^q &sjodfh- £««-^la &it 
ifqiQOS-s Bid ^9;J-1^-; jawIX^-Ooil ©DiSiXs;. KJ.£iIIiW &ija&, ©if;?' ii';fiw •. .. 

slcfioto"?:!!©- firm -gnifenicf Y-J^s^uXoacfj? ei ,Yasio*.tf? X)ii.e ^usiXo 
.ii9vi:;§ i«*j>ad ©vBfi ton JiXi/oiSa baK ^Qvli&isiss^trgiB stM scoit^Oir«#eSJC ©ssirif 

9*w*i*giipo vtO££ ois "^siiJ ^Bdt a&iali^^ didt to &is sw ^T^^ »Ai ot 

»io^i« 9X<;fie^0y9i: 
fcniJ trs8 Yiitt »'^T * lo ©X30 ei ©^arf aol^ssi/p oloffor a^S? , i ^ •■. 

^B^o'ts-xmVi' fTjiift ^ri^ ^" ^f^-^f* '^o^ ^xr^fflgJ&ifj; two o*if*it^j3Cfi;e feXtroda 


sSUOiOQ Jt;, *4a:aa^ gka ♦V*^ «^'"'': ^^"^ *a emaa 


as Trustee, etc.. 


EiiANUEL. Z. SWitMER, et el,. 

Defendant a. 



On Appe?^l of MORRIS COHN, A8sig;nee 
of the iUeohanic's Lien Oiaim of 

M, J. TLOHSKER OOiil'A^iy, 





By this appeal, Morris Cohn seeks the revers 1 of ? decree 
dismissing his claim for a mechnnio's lien on real estnte. 

In a foreclosure proceeding brought by the Chicago Title 
& Trust Company, as trustee, under ? mortgage trust deed, Morris 
Cohn, as assignee of the mechanic's lien olpira of M« J. i'lonsker 
Company, filed an answer, in which it is alleged that th** u, J. 
Plonsker Company had a lien on the property sought to be foreclosed, 
for cert-in improrementa omAe thereon. Thereafter, Oohn filed a 
petition in the cause in which he alleges that the claim of the 
Plonsker Company, a corporstion, had been assigned to him. The 
cause w'ls referred to a Master, ^ho reported adversely to the 
cl-'im of Oohn. The report of the liaster was affirmed, ?nd a 
decree entered dismissing the claim. 

The claim of lien uoon which Oojin biases his alleed rights, 
was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County on September 3rd, 
1939, and it is therein set forth th?t M, J, Plonsker Coao-^ny, a 
corporation, asserts a claim for lien ag?inst the Home Bank & 
Trust Company, as trustee under a Trust Agreement d?ted Deoeniber 
19th, 1928, known ns Trust Ko. 1339, pgainst Jacob H. 3chwii-amer 
and Emanuel Z. 3wi;uHier, and against certr^in described real est!?te, 
I n this claim of lien it is asserted th^t on the 30th d-y of 
March, 1929, the Home Bank & Trust Company, as trustee, was the 

MOM ^^HJ. (.,. ft,o#-9 jSscfexrrf s« 

e^ A T 9 Q C^ ) sSiiSiesA ^HHOO SIFJJOM to Xi39q0A «0 

%^" ® 

*93-«#Q9 X.*?©^ no iisll a'oiiTfidosffi .«? rcol fisiBlo eixf ^KiseimaiiJ 

,t, «K -^rid" smt b&<i^iL?: si ji rfoiifw at ^%&mitB as l3®Xll ,t«-sqffioO 

^bsBolo-^iol: sd o:l- d-fistroe y^'J^Q'^C'^*^ s«'* ^io n©xX s Bsri t^^cf^o^ laiaaoXSi 

s i>eXil iifioO ^rBfl.PB^&til' ,aoerBdt ebsaa 8;}-nsjR©vo«qffix ais^tso rot 

drit ^ftiXi-r C-+^Xesjs need £>.Erf ^sxoii^Bzaqioo ^. ^\a.BGBioQ isjiafioX*^ 

»mi&lo ©n'tf ^aiiaaifitalx) bBretas ssioaJb 
jB.trfsit i>© .sXXfj sia sec.pd flrfoD rioxri^^ noqjx nalX lo mXsXo ©ilT 

.?n ,Y.KfOKoO 'r&3(e/ToX-i .»(> .?i i- ells'- rid-rol J<58 iilsxsrii si it bae <eSGI 
A in=';ii Bmch Qrii ^sftie^.-s nsiX lol ffli.sXo r a^isseB 4noxd'jB:£oqr£00 

T»tf8niwrio8 .H cfoo.RL ^sftlR^s ,CSSX *oJ! d-sxfiT 8« fwon^l <8SGX «iI*6X 

Jo xsb d&0£ 9rf* no tmi foeifissE^ ex ax neiX to isi.^Xo eiriif n 1 


owner of certain real estate described in the trust at'ireement, and 
that Jsoob H, Sohwimmer snd i^manuel Z. owimmer ?'ere the benefioiariea 
under this trust agreement, and the equitrhle owners of the real 
estate; that on Maroh 20th, 1929, Jacob H. Schwimmer and Emanuel Z. 
Swimmer, with the knowledge, consent, permission and aoquiesoenoe 
of the liome Bank * Trust Oompany, made an oral contr^^'Ot with the 
claimant, by the terras of which olaioiant agreed to furnish l?bor, 
materials, equipment and supplies for a system of refrigeration in 
and for ?.n improvement upon the premises conveyed in the trust deed 
and included in the trust agreement, for a considerr tion of 
#1,700.00, to be paid to the claimant by J^cob H. Schwimmer and 
Emanuel ?l. Swiauner upon the substantial performance by the claimant 
of the contract; that in pursuance of the contract, the claimant 
corporation furnished to, upon and for the improvement upon the 
premises mentioned, labor, materials, equipment and supoiies for a 
system of refrigeration, and completed the contract on or about 
June 31st, 1929; that J-='Cob lU Schwiramer and Kaianuel 2, Swimmer had 
paid to the claimant 335Q,00 on account of the contract, and that 
there is due and unpaid the sum of |1,450,00« 

The record indicates that the corporation, claimant, was 
incorpor?^ted on July 31st, 1929, that the contract to do the work 
was made by M* J, Plonsker in his individual capacity, and that the 
work was done by Plonaker and not by the corporation. It is the 
claim of C)ohn, however, that while the original contract for the 
making of the improvement in question wss made with M. J» Plonsker, 
individually, the claim based thereon, W's assigaed to the corporation 
after the work y;? s completed ??nd after the corpora.tion w?s formed* 
The evidence offered in support of this latter contention is th^t. 
In the Articles of Incorporation of the U.% Je Plonsker Oompany, in 
reciting what the capital stock of the corporation should be, the 
following statement is made as to certain properties described as 

making up a portion of guch capital stock: 


xls iBsjiissil bnR lesmimsSoB .B o'ooj^;!, ,8261 ^ffS-OS n'oi^ sto t^Bdt \Bt3iBQ 
@jiit dtl'fT i-03ii.aoo Xsio ns ©bets tX^isqjfioO i&^T :^ sTrisH stJioH sdi Iro 

lo aoii-^X'&biBaoo b xc'i ^^aBrAS&Tgn t&wxt Bdt at h^hisLoai btiB 

srf^i- noqaj ■tjGSffiQ-ro^iqffiJ: ©xli- toI: Joxib ttoqu ^o* Sarfaifiia'i flox;^K*£0QT00 
£».sjl i^rnffiiv/c .S £&iinBf'{i>i ba." ismmi-TfdoB #K cf«3oriXt iBdf jSSSI ,#8lS ©sjjI. 

:^tOF edi oJb o* ^o.a-xJ-noo ©ii^ ,txui# eSSGI ^^elf. ^Is^t «to fesJ.s^ogieorti 

Sil<t teftc^ l)iiB 4ij;t.cof$q/jo X.eubiviferfi sirf nl isiefltoX'^ •!, ,11 Y<f 9&«a e.c?? 
sxl;; ex iti *.noJ:i''«iLoq.'roo Qil^ x^ ^01^ ^^-s "s^^fextoX'! \d" acofc esw :^'rov? 

^-xs^feuoX'i el* .M fl^iw ©bjyn ehw floxteax/p £tx .tiisersvoirqtGi 9rfJ- 5;o 3jal;{-*.B: 
noX^-'^-roqTOO 9£i^ oi Jbdatgieas 8<?w ,rro3i9iftf- £>9e6Cf aJbeXo 9tii- t_x-^£Bubivtbai 

t.ti'ifd- si nox^ne^noo i9;fd-sX sxrii" lo **£ocqwa nl festcalio 9t>iis£>Xv9 sxlT 

;ii t^fi.«qfi5oO •ssienoX'i ,t. .M ari* lo aotitp.xoqzotsal lo a»Xoi*T:4 «ff* nl 

ori^ ,9cr LXwoiie aoi*i"roqTOO &At lo aCoo*© Istiq^o ©rf* *Brf^ ^i^IosT 

ej5 bsdlroBBb ssiS^'xaqoiq ni£*iao o* 8.e dtoiB ai *fl»tta*s#8 galwoXXol 

"A<*i.ounts receivable, work in prooeas, tools, p-^tterns, 
good will, and any other misoellaneoue assets of the present 
M. J. Plonsker Company, a sole loroprietorship doing business 
at 608 f. Randolph Street, Ohio.-' go. 111." 

Prior to eliterlng upon the work of installing the refrig- 
eration machinery, a doouiaent dated March 21st, 19J?9, was presented 
to Jacob H« Schwimmer toy M, J, i'lonsker, which is designated as a 
"proposal", and which contains, among other things, certain specifi- 
cations for the installation of the refrigeration machinery and 
equipment proposed to be installed in the premises at 445r^ Oiversey 
Avenue, - the property in question - for the "price" of vl,700,00« 
The "propospl", Fimong other items, contains the following: 

"Title, The title to the apparatus and machinery 
covered by this proposal and apecificf'tion shall remain 
in the a, J, Plonsker Oompany until all payments hereunder, 
including all deferred payments, whether evidenced by notes 
or otherwise, shall have been fully paid in cash. Pur- 
chaser also agrees to do all acts necessary to perfect and 
maintain such retention of title in the M, J. Plonsker 

This "proposal" wbs not signed nor formally accepted in writing by 

Jacob H» Schwimmer and Emanuel 2. Swimmer. There is no question 

but that the refrigeration plant was installed, as alleged. 

The Master's report contains a finding that the work 
performed and the materials furnished are not lienable, that the 
evidence did not show th-^t the work performed and materials furnished 
enhanced the v^lue of the premises, and th.?t under the terms of the 
contract entered into on March 39th, 1929, the materials and equipment 
fizrnished did not become and were not fixtures permanently attached 
to the premises sought to be foreclosed, but Fere at p11 times, ?nd 
are now, personal property* 

As stated, it is insisted by the owners of this property 
that the installation of this refrigeration plant did not enhance 
the v-T'lue of the re^l est te, While there is some testimony by a 
real estate opinion witness thst there w-s an enhancement of the 
value of the property by the instslletion of this pl?.nt, still the 

essnxsifd" gciofc qin's'xo^f'e-itqoiq sloe « j-^iiBqieoO 'z&:^eaol^ ,X, .M 
«.XiJ. ^og.^-JOlrfO jtSQXil-i dqX^fcilRii »W 808 *J3 

bt>^ii9BBrq a.sw «6£6I 4,t8lS doiBhi. b&teh tam^s^^ b ^-^sniffosa; aoitstQ 

-.^^losqs tilsS^iso ta'^ixil i^ii'do ^oias » exix.»;}-xxco doiri^ M* ^"XjBeoqo^q'^ 

VESicJtffo.'SR:. M-K eif^e'S.^qq.R 9rf* ot Qltii stiT «0X#XT» 
iijtijffisi XlRtfs .aol^.soi1:iosq8 fon£ i^eoqoTO slrid" ^G bsievoo 

esiton ^cf ijsousLiY® ^9rf5-3rfw ^&taQs^XBq bB'itQ'iBb XXs snXJbirX&isi 

~iu^ ,jff8so ci &i«q X'^'^^-f^ isssd 9"«rsfC Xi:3ri® ^ssi^fteff^o to 

l)fl.s itoslis- o& xifiBB&ofia ad-oj? XXs cb o* bss^q-s obX.? trsee-rlo 

Xcf :gfli*i'£Tf!r ni becrqsoos YXI^'ffliol: ^on b9a-giB ion eav? '^Is&oqotq" aldT 

sria"- j-prfJ ^Bloaaell ton s'xs hsffeiii^ii/l sXcixsl'i'iixs ©^# M.« fesaiioltsq 

£i9il8ifiii/t s-Xwlisd^srii bns besiiot'xQq iiow 8dj- #Bri^ worfe *Ofi l)i£> soxieJbivs 

efts' to 8iT:i9;t ^/Id- iQliruj Jrnj- bae tgesims-sq sri;}' to suXsv 9££# b90a&tia& 

trt^s^qiup^ bfiR BlnXaa^^ea Sfi^f iGSSX ^ifS-fiS xloaeM flo otni b^zstaB for>r^aoo 

B[io.eit.p. xiitisasmiBq B&rutxJt^ itoa stsv bcm acsooscf *o£f bib bBdBlaxsil 

;ae teemi:? IXr? Jb exs?,- Jwcf ^tsacXosiOi sd o& tffgtroe essiaSTq ad^ 0* 

Y^TSgoiq Bind' lo eisnv?© 9iif Y^f i)3i"8i:eni ex ft ^bsfsta bA 
son.sxfns *ort bib rf-njsXq noitBia-aXrElei aia* lo GolSz£ls;^Baii 9sit *.?ii'J 
s Ycf xnomitse;?- emOB ax «)t:©£I3- sXixfW •©'J' *8e X£:s^ sri* l:o 9iiX5V JMft 
arf* lo i-itsffisoiiRmia flJ5 8'^w atarfi^ te^di sesn^iw aoiiiiqto ©*s4"88 Xi?9T 

9dt litis «;ta.6Xq eirfd" lo noicffiXXsJaxiX 9x1* yo' Y*".t9go2q sdi" lo aj;X.PV 


weight of the evidence is to the effect th,?t it did not do so. It 
is shown by the evidence, and not denied, thnt the plant did not 
work properly, thrt considerable a\ma of noney were spent by the 
owners in attempting to make it operate, and thr<t notwithstanding 
such expenditures, it did not perform ?s it should. There is also 
considerable testimony to the effect th-t this refrigeration plant 
did not become a permanent part of the rp'l est- te. It is in 
evidence, and not denied, th'^.t all the machinery composing the plant, 
could be easily and readily removed without d?,mafi;e to the real 


While, as str^ted, the "proposal" submitted w^s not form-illy 

accepted by the owners in writinj.;, still it is shown th t the 
refrigeration plant was installed in substantial conformity with 
the specifications contained in this "proposal", and that the price 
to be paid therefor is the price fixed by the proposal, and, less 
the amount paid, is the amount claimed. 

We are of the opinion th?t this "proposal", under the 
circumstsnces, became the contract between the parties, and that 
the seller, the original claimant here, by its terms, never pf>rted 
with the title to the plant. In view of this and of -^11 the other 
facts end oiroumstpnces in the c?se, we nre further of the opinion 
that the decree of the Circuit Court should be, and it is affirmed, 


1^ *w-* rr* -i-e^ri-t {59in©l> ton ^° -s>afl©fci'9^s 

IBS^ srit o;r ^^sfrte^ :ri^oi£*iw heiroma^ XXx&*^^^«^ xI^b^b ^ bluot 


eoi.q .rit i.n^ 6n^ ,«X.^qo^q« ei^# «! tml.tmo uuoiimniom^ erf* 
.b.« .X :ri ta. ,b4 M..Oiia *-x^oC .xaorrlO BCit lo ^aToeb srf* t^if^ 

^ f^'" -jr 

-- / :./^ 

.X- ^..^ 

Jff^EAL FRQjr^ 


KfiLLIE I. FEJIDEU and FRiavOIS H. FliNDEl';, 

(Plaintiffs) Appellants, 


Executors, and IRA K. FEHDER and WILBUR ] COOK COUNTY. 

G. FEHDSi^, 

(Defendants) Appellees, ^^ e? <G T fi ^ 


This is an apioeal from a decree sust^^ining a motion to 
strike and dismissing the opuse of the plaintiffs under their 
amended bill of complaint, herein plaintiffs prayed for a con- 
struction of certain provisions of the will of Elmer E. Fender, 

The amended "bill of complaint on behalf of the plrtintiffs, 
filed on July 30, 1935, alleged in substance that Elmer E. Fender, 
late of the City of Chicago, County of Cook end State of Illinois, 
died on the 39th day of December, 1934, le -^ving r Ipst will and 
testament, dated Qecesber 4, 1934, m'hich was duly admitted to 
probate by the Prob?te Court of Cook County, Illinois, on the 3rd 
day of January, 1935; that letters testajnentary were duly issued 
to Ira N, Fender and Francis M, Fender, the s^me b«tng parties 
defendant herein and a son and brother respectively of said deceased; 
that the s'^id executors accepted the duties imposed upon them by 
said will, and hpve been and are now acting in said capacity as 
executors; that among the assets of s'^id estate nre a going grocery 
and market business, and a building and other realty used by ?)nd 
appurtenant to said business; that among the assets of said business 
are accounts receivable of 119,000,, a stock in trade and supplies 
inventoried at 15,410.32, fixtures inventoried et ";2,241.05, 
delivery trucks inventoried at |350, and the good will attached to 
said business as a going concern, the value of which is not less 
thaa 120,000. 

\.:. d5V85 


^ 1 CF <..a.l 5 t>^ 

4'ssl>fi®'5i ,S" tseXS^ jfsr;# 8c,ix.s;j'3Cixrs £fi ^939X1.3 ,SS€X ,0S -^Xar^ a<> JbsXXl 
^sionlXlI l;c. ?s;fBCfS &n6 3C00D lo y^uj/oO «ogisoXjtfO lo t*-£^ ©Ji'f* ^® stJsX 

b'x.S erf;t no ,"E.tonXIII t^tniroO jJooO to #tjuoO sd-^GCfe^i srit ^d" Qtsdprq 

a.R Y^X^^-Q^^ £)Xi"is rsi ;gnito.s won bi:s fen^ ns9Cf avi^rf bus ^XXiw JbXjaa 

baa \d .beai/ ^"^■'5®''; "i^il-o .bus ^aXbXiwcf r Mjs tassniaijtf ^siiisfs J&hk 

eaiXcqiis £n.B 3£)st;}- al ioo^s ."3 ^»OO0jGXt 1:o sXcfj^viaoen eJfurooo.? sis 

4aQ.X^SeSJ|• *B bBs.t0ta.9rai JsQtuixil ,SS»0X*,3| *B f>»ii©*fl9v«x 

oi b9dosii.2 XXxvt f>oos ©iit hnn ^0S€$ iji b9tiotai>rat eioxrtt jxsrtl^b 

S89l ion ex xioxrfw to buIbv adi ^at&oaoo snio^ a" b& aeeniewtf Wsa 

That on January 35, 1935, Nellie I, Fender, one of the 
plaintiffs herein and surviving wife of iiilmer E. Fender, 
renounced the provisions made for her in s?>id will by an iistrument 
in writing duly executed and filed in the Probate Court of Oook 
County, Illinois* 

That on March 21, 1935, ^ dny subsequent to s?id renun- 
ciation, the said Ira IS, Fender, defendant herein purported to 
exercise an option created by the second provision of said will 
and to purchase thereby the s^^id business find all the assets thereof 
in their entirety, to lease said store premises in the entirety, and 
to obtain all the income and profits arising from, by and during 
the operation of said business by said executors* 

That in pursuance of said purported election to purchase 

and lease, said Ira N, Fender has paid or proposes to i^ay to the 

estate, in either cash, notes, or both notes nnd c?sh, a sum ecual 

to the total book value of said fixtures, delivery trucks, stock in and supplies as shown by the testator's books at the d-te of 

the testator's death, the said s\im being less than #10,000 in total 

amount • 

It is further alleged that said Ira |.J, Fender, by said 

purported election to lease and purchase, hag neither paid nor 

proposes to pay to the estate any &ym for the accounts receivable, 

good will and going business values of said business. 

The material parts of the second provision of the will of 

Slmer £• Fender, deceased, the subject, of this litigation, provide 

as follows: 

"that my son, iTn K. Fender, be permitted to purchase from 
my est'^te the accounts, due at the date of lay death, stock 
in trade, fixtures, delivery wogons or trucks, and all other 
utensils and equipiaent, good vrill and going business of the 
grocery and market now conducted by me under the narae of 
Longwood Grocery and M-rket, together with the shares of 
stock which I own in the Central 'Vholesale Grocery, at the 
book value of said stock in trade, fixtures, delivery wagons 
or trucks, utensils and equipment as shown by my books at 
the date of ray de^th; the oxirchase price to be paid at the 
rate of Five H\indred Dollars (i500»6o) or more per year with 


0rf:^ xo ©CO ^i^bae'H. «I ^xlXaS tdS9X 4SS yi^^-'j^-^I, ao tBdii: ' 

iSooU Ic ;f«i/oC s^J-.^doT*! Off* £il bBlll bas b^issQ&x'B xlab ^itlnt ml 

it exoal 111 ^t-flifoO 

od- &s*:toq^j/q xxl^isd *nBtia3l:s£! ^!s:8M9'5 ,a .stKl hiss Bdt ,noltsio 

IXx? Ms? to a!ol3xvo^q l:;xrocj9a srfJ xd Ijsd-i'Sico aoi#qo m^ seXoiaxe 

'tooisai? a*98 8J:- s-cfj XXb Mb eesnXsfiCf btBB srft •^s^sd:;*' S8.srf02yq o* has 

bae tY^ssTxS-iis sri:r ni B.&Blm.&tq BxotB blBB bbs^I 0* ^x^QiitaB ■xlsdi ai 

sri^ oj|- "i-pq o;t seeoqorrq to l>X.sq e^ri ss&oel •! biI felBS ^assdX: i)xiB 

l^sspB msjB s trfs'^o J>c[.p eston rf#ocf so ^es^oxi ^ifBso tesiiflii at ft»#8^©s 

r?i a'sots 482'oi/'5:>t X"^*5?iXaA> ^gstx/d-xil £>Xjss to Sijlav ■:ioo^ Istai 9rf* o* 

.5Xb4? Yi:; ,a3£>c9'5' tii js^I blBs ;^£il4 lb9riQ4.l& rcMt%ift 8i iti 

tSXf.f/-4Visi!>0'3: 8*aueoO£ arijf tot mys ijas ©djsif-ss ©dif q.* t-asj oj^ stesoqoicq 

*ses>ni8ucf Jr-ise te> eQirisv assaiexKf gaios J&xx-s XXiw Jb^cs 

to XXiw axis- to iioX8X-?o:Eq fenooss ^di to aJTieq Xsiid^jsa srff -. 

sjbivoTQ taoilssxitlX eid^ to .*a©ccfye sd^ «i)98,5«09Jb ^'isfefl^l'S . »S Tco«IS 

, .;e«oXXot BB 

«o^t esjEilo^trcr o# Jbe*d(Xiaisq ed ^liBba^l. ,% sti ,noa xm teAt^' 
2100*8 ^jdJeafe'T^ to sir.b 9dt d-f* 9xt£> jCJm/ooo.s 91ft s>t??:^e9 y« 

sirfj" to sasnlsucT ^nXo^ bfr.G XXiw ftoog ^Sa&mqluf>3 bas aXiaus^w 

to Mfliui 0rit T:9l5jcir©m ijcl Jb»rf'Oi/i)iioo won ^ajfTjaiE isflB x^sooi^ 

to sstfirfe: sffi- ri:tivr ■rariJsigod' t;t9:jf's-,ii£ brxf x^aaoxij fcco^SnoJ 

©riif *ft tYtaooTO 9X^e©Xorf« IsiJnsO ©li* iii xiro I doxxtw iood'e 

saogp'? tT^sviXsfc taaTttrd-xit ^sJ^aid- rti aJoode bi^a to ajjX.ov ioo«f 

i-jB ei^occf \JM x^ a^fOfiB se Jxxsaiqxwp© bas eXisusifi/ ^AJio*/aji' ^o 

ed;f 3t, blm ©c v>* ©oX'sq ©eedoTwo »rii- irfd-.^eb t^ to 9tp.b ^dt 

ditif fav Tsq STOffi to (00*(X)fi4) eiBlXoO i>9T:X;m/H evil to ©^an 

interest at the rate of five (5) per cent per pinnum, 
the same to be evidenced by the oersonal notes of my 
s*?id son; said notes may be distributed in kind as a 
part of my estate, 

i^ 83id son, Ira N, i<ender, shall have a period of 
three (3) months from the dste of my death in which to 
elect whether or not he will ourohase the assets of the 
aforesaid business on the terms Hbove aet forth; and my 
executors, hereinafter nnrsed, are hereby given full power 
and authority to continiie the operation of my said business 
during said three (3) month period, ??nd, in tlie event of 
my son's election to purchase, for such further period as 
may be necessary for the consuaiiistion of such transaction. 

It is my wish and I hereby direct th?t the purchase 
of the assets of my said business by my said son shall be 
subject to the current debts and oblig-^tions of the 
business which he shsll assume and pay in due course and 
that he shall rSoeive the i.enefits derived from the operation 
of the business by my executors from the time of my deeth 
to the time of his election to purchase, 

• • * that my said son be permitted to lef se the premises 
now occupied by s-'id store for the term of ten (10) years 
at a monthly rental of One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars 
(#125,00) per month, » 

By the will of the testator the power granted to the 

executors is in these words: 

"I hereby give my seid executors, and the siirvivor of 
them, fxxll poiirer and authority to sell or le'^vge, without 
order of court, any property, ?rhether re^l or personal, 
belonging to my estate for the purpose of carrying out any 
provision of my will ^-nd to carry on my said business as 
hereinbefore provided, I also give my said executors, and 
the survivor of them, full power and authority to settle 
and compoxHid any claims either in favor of or against asy 
estate as to my ardd executors shall seem best, and, for 
the purposes aforesaid, to execute and deliver all proper 
and necessary conveyances and to give full receipts and 

Plaintiffs by the amended bill pray that in accordance 

with such ooBstruotion and legal effect, the respective interests 

of the parties hereto, in and to the assets affected thereby, be 

determined, declared and decreed to be as follows: (ft) that Nellie 

I, Fender is entitled to and has an absolute one-third (l/S) 

interest in the realty and a one-third (l/3) interest in either 

the personalty or the fair market value thereof; and (b) thst Ira 

N» Fender, 'Mlbur a. Fender and Fxancis R, Fender, os residuary 

s -3j5 fcai^ iti Detudx-rJeiA stf XBtn sad-on hlp,t ^xjoe Jbi^ea 

o^' iiDiflty nl £f#.-s0l) Yfs lo 9#M5 tJilt soil: effi'noa (S) s3Tf£r 
9£f^ ^Q ayeses sii* ssiido-Xfj-q IIlw Bd ton ro Tsxitsdw Jesis 

r£9?;c'V Ilift" jQfiivig ^^019:5:5x1 a-s^ tjb&jssri leS'lr.saisiarf ^BTiod-uosxa 

ari* to Baot&'?'^iildQ ban std^b itiBTriso ^dt ct tostows 

»&QBiio'wq of iioi.tosXe sl^i" to Bgsi^ 9ii# ot 

eosif»5si:q sdi bb".o1 o# Bs^JiiSTft'-v ed" sos &x.^■!s ^ asri;^ ♦ * ♦ 
s'xssY (OX) xr?>tf to isis* ^iii ^oi sxocfs iJise t*^ beiqs/ooo w©a • 
srr^IXoC svil y^^®^"^" ^sitfim/H ©nO tc XjsJast xlsitiiom & ^s 

»,if;fm>a5 laq (00*52X1) 

eif? ©J £5Stcsi?3 ^dwoq ^dt so^pfes* sxft lo XXi^ »ff* t^ 

ii:oi<&£7i- tS8,:3l tEo lies- of xiiioiitvs- Mb T©??oq Xii/t ^m^di 

,Xi5no8-fec ICC Ibsi: ■^s^^M'P ^xftsi-^i^tq Yfs« t^^'^i^^^ 1:o as&'xo 

•v:£ss tuc siJix^crtos lo ©a<Ki5i/q Sft# tot 9*P:#8® -^ai o? gnjEgaoXscf 

sfi cjssitis.LCJ .5j:/"8 y^ no Tj-iieo ot fcUB IXIt? Yin lo isoieivoicj 
Mr 43i-o#.u:>sx3 fe^ES Y^"' '^'^^8 osXs I .fiSfcivo-scr sso'xscfitxerrari 

tea *sxi£'s^,J3; xo lo 2cv«i fli ^adtie 8iisi.^XD Y^- taiSoqm<io has 

"jiot ^bax^' ^iBS'd msss XXsiis errotwosxa ibiee x^^- ©* ^-*'' s$-,n*89 

^aqoT':^ XX.6 ^svlXsf) .&«« 9d-£f0©ze o# efcisesToIrs sssoqrijrar ftrf?' 

Xiflr/eitcjiso©:!: XXi/l e^xy ocT I'.a." seon.Ri:9vnoo x^aesaoan i>a5 


©DUiifctcooo/? «i *^dt TJP^tq XXXd b^&Et»msi 9dt x*^ Bttitat^Vi 

ntllffH ^^fi* (B) iswoXXoI &£; &q oi feaarcafc i)n.?' bsisXoadb ^Sb^stlBiXB&Bb 

(£;\X) ljviilrf-~9fio s:+x/Xoatf.e ub 8.sri laijB o# l>eX^i;fn9 ai i^JBaS'? .2 

^i-^d&iB ni *esTd?nx (S\x) brtdi-sao b ban xtls&r 9di aX t^9TQiat 

Y'X£0bXs»*x ee .tsbae*? .P eiftflBt^ f>fl« lefcas'i #0 x^rfXlf? ^TOliflte'? *« 


legatees and devisees under sfid will, pre CECh respeotively 
entitled to and have an absolute two-nintha (3/9) interest in the 
realty and a two ninths (s/9) interest in either the personalty 
or the fair market v^lue thereof* 

In the discussion of the auestions which arise upon 
this appeal, ?re must take into consideration th^t upon the death 
of the testator title to the real estate vests immediately in his 
heirs at law, unless otherwise provided in the will. The ^idow, 
by reason of her renunciation of the terms of the will, becomes 
a one-third owner of the realty where, as in this case, there -'re 
children of the testator and the widow, and she also is entitled 
to one-third interest in the personal property owned and possessed 
by the testator at the time of his death. The title to the personal 
property is vested in the executors upon their appointjaent, to 
remain in them \mtil the payment of debts and a distribution of 
the remainder of personal property to the next of kin. The only 
interest the executor may have in the real estate is the power to 
petition that the real property be sold to pay the debts of the 
deceased where the personal property is not sufficient to pay them* 

It is not clear from the powers granted to the executors 

that the title to the real estate vests in them as trustees to hold 

for the purposes provided for in the will, and while it is the i^ish 

of the testator that his son Ira K, Fender be permitted to lease 

the real estate, this leasing would have to be consented to by the 

heirs at law of the testator who are irarested with title to the 

real estate. This, in effect, is admitted by the defendants in 

their brief, where they say: 

"It may be th^t the widow* s renunci'?tion which vested 
her with an undivided one-third of the real estate prevents 
the exercise of the option to lease the real eet'^te, Even 
if this is true it does not warrant the aaintenance of the 
amended complaint to construe the decedent's will, it 
merely makes the parties to the proceeding tenants in coiimon 
with reg?rd to the real est fit e and leaves them to their 
rights and remedies as such," 



Xl'^'.^ito&qBB'z iifoas e.'i't ^lllv} birn iBbav sssslveb bits essjfjK?*©! 
Bdt fil Ssf>TS^xji (SV^) afl*flia~0'a'* 9#i/Xoscfs ca svsii Mi? o* beliltas 

fioqu ssxts rioiaw saci«-sa«p ssfiT lo fltoieawoaiJb ^si^ al 
ii^fit^ ©ilct flOCJj- ^.ftjl;.* i^ox^siai'isnoo ctoi &a[.s.;f *SiRK si? ,X5i9qqA airii" 
81/1 i2i; Y-^^'tsi.teaffii e^sBV ©ta*a9 I&ax &ifi^ o# ^Xti;} •sotstBQt 9ri* to 

£!©Idi:lfi8 sx osI« s&ila l>its 4??0i;i«; Sil* fins xot&t&^t QMS to aascMirio 
i)©8ass»oq ba^. fesiJwo x^^^^^J^-XQ Xaaos'iisq act;^ at ts^rs tai brlsS^'-Bao ot 

Isao3tc@q mit oi Bliit SilT «^d-.©iS& six! lo ^s-i* axi^ tB 'nQi^^&at $/f* -^cf 

■^Xgo srfT ,ffi^ to rf-xsii ©xl:? od" tJ^^®<?o^:q Xj&aosrrsq lo "sefciiXftassT ©d* 
oJ iGT/cq Sfiit ax 9;tPd'S'3 l^.^r sdS ai svBd x^® T0*i/09X9 srf^ #-©9i9*ni 

,fn9rjj '^m ot in^xoitlaa iton us. t^^saotq X^aos^sq arf* »%Qdv 6»BB90©Jb 

•■■^jro^yesxs 9fi# o# .ijatiifii^ sicswoq e^d* ISO-it's x£sXo tfoxs el' |?X ,,/ ': : 

rfex^f &sli aX Jx sXxxCw bne «XXXw aii* fii lol ^3Jbiv©!£q esaoqxiiq JMf* ^ot 

saseX Ou fcsS'.tiasToq etf T:5£5fi9'^ ,(4 .bxI iioe ei/f ^Bif* /xoi-ststst 9x1* lo 

H-rfj- xd" od" Jbstaesnoo so o* avaxf I>Xj;/ow gnXa' ®X exii;f «a;}-,5*e9 tnsr sriif- 

©ii^i- o? aXd-x;}- {{tfXw fea^a?. t/iis 9:ib oi!^ -soitBjB©* ft4:J 1© wAi ts ei:X©ri 

:t.®a ^»ii* aisfi'w ^Islid xtQdt 

stasvottq Q^'SJfea Xssx srlf lo bildi-'ecio hsblvibasj xis xl;l'ivr lec' 
a'ir'Ji ♦©d-.f *a9 XfiSi 9xI;J' seqaX od" aoitfqo QfsJl" lo ©aiotsxs ©»ij 
SiiJ lo SDniuisd-nicji: sd^ *fljeTii?w ^oit 8«of) ai swx* ai eiri.t tx 
*i %XXlw E'tffls6so9i> 9cii ouiisaoo ot ^niJsXqKOO X'sX/ii 
noim;!00 nl aJ-nijxisj gitXJbsaooTcq sri* at B^ttraq srI* aaifait. yX : 

xied^ oi s&Qrii eavjssX bxts QisiSsQ Lbsi Qrit o^ bis-^Qt ... ^' 


By reason of this fact it beo^me neceasRry from the 
allegations of the bill to oorebrue the \'?ill ^nd determine whether 
the executors are vested with power to enter into such o lerae 
with the defend' nt Ira I^, Fender. 

It is true th-t in construing the last will and testament 
of Elaer E. Fender, now deceased, -^'/e consider the document from 
its four corners and determine from the language used the intent 
of the testator* It ia apparent it was his wish thst his son Ira 
N, Fender be permitted to purchase the grocery business upon terms 
provided for in the will, and if the terms of the vrl'il meet the 
requirements of the law in the distribution of his property, then 
of course the court would say so in construing the language used 
by Mr. Fender. It ia well settled that by the renunciation of the 
widow she tsies what is provided for by law, and so far as she is 
concerned, the estate would be pnx intestate one, and she no longer 
bound to accept any of the provisions of the will. 

A great deal has been ssid with reference to the method 

of arriving at the price to be paid by Ira K<, Fender for the 

property in question. The testator had the right to indicate that 

the price to be paid by the beneficiary would be the book value 

shown by the books of account of the testator at the time of his 

death. This question was solved by the court in the case of (Mly v. 

Daly, 299 111. 268, wherein an option to purchase given by will w^.s 

approved. In that case the testator chose to fix the price of the 

land definitely in his will by naming a specified price, Hothing 

in the case indicates he could not have fixed the price in some 

other way. 

The defendants rely in a aegsure on the c?se of M?gin v, 

Niner. 110 Md, 299, which is also cited by the plaintiff^, where it 

appears that an option provided for in the will fixirg the purchase 

price by something outside the will was clearly siistained. The 

testator created an option to purchase at a price to be fixed by 


mo'sl #.i2SiEj;j-o<3f_> 5jtl-t laijisao© «w ^rae^oos^ -soot 4-!:s&£s«''i .S x9«iXS lo 
stl SOS eid tsdt d&ln girf Siiw :fi: ^asxsaq^ al tl *i:o*b*ss^ oiff lo 

rrsriS' sj\^#isqcxq' alii' Jo i5oiite'il^^si& 9rf^ ai isr-aX ®ii<f lo s^nastsrrXwpd'j: 
baaw sj^jsi/gGsX sd;? ^.iar-^saoo at os "^.es Mtio^ trtscG 9M SB-nsoo lo 

si sri8 s.a T.3I oa i/xts tWi'^I '^ TOl Bsdoivoiq ex *;aff?r a-asCx^^ atfa ?TOl)iw 

«XXxw 9ii& lo enoisiTctq 9£f* %o Xa* *qa«o« ©* .fcixuocf 

l:!0fId*@2Q Biii q$ ©ans'sstsi iis'-lw fcl'sa a^sd aaxl Isafe ^asigi & r--'----^ 

&UIBV HooQ Btlt so' l>Xifow tsaxoitftfldcf 9ri* -sjcf i)iijg 9<f o? ©olirq ^ff;^ 

eixi Ic affil* orfd* ^,e '5:ot.'5;f§8^ arfi- l© tmsooox^. to aalootf siitf \d" imoaa 

,x'- vXgii. lo ee.?^© e^nt nt ^n-jjoo 0£i;;f t^^ bBvloe scwr soxteaifp elilT ♦/!*„«!«£> 

sHvs XXiw Y«^ iJS^Xs 58.sriO!cyq- ot noiJqo n,s xtisigtfw ,89S «XXX 66S « Y,IaO 

sssoe nl soiiq erf;f fcsxil Qvsrf Jofi bXuoo sxi B94'£Oi:£xii ©sso erft al 

,v nxp^?M lo se^o Grid- no ©"cifS'-affi /^ nx yle^ si'Ufsijrrslsl) srfT 

;i ©sexfer i%'}-li:tni,'?Xq sriJ ^cf f>s*io oeXs ei rioirfw e®^S Jb>M OXX ^ -xsain 

98PriOTi«: j&rfcf gaJfcxxl: lli'^ ©ri* ni toI Jieijj&wo'xq aottqo hb t^i exBQqqB 

SrfT ,£)9fiiir.!fBt;B tlxosJ^o s^*^ -tXiw 9rf* 9bis^iso 'aaiii#9ffi08 ytf ©oiiq 

i{cf bSTiil: sd o* aoxiq b t£ ssBXtoxifq o;f floi#qo iue i»o*ef«© '%otstBB& 

appraiseifient of the land but did not designate any appraiser or 

method of selecting such appraiser. The court there said: 

"The privilege of buying at an appreiaed value out of 
the open market might be a valu'^ible one, and the testator 
olerrly intended th-'t the two sons named should have this 

and held that the failure of the testator to designate apprniserB 

or to fix a method of selection should not deprive his sons of the 

advantage he intended they should have. The court appointed 

appraisers; the appraisement was Biade, and the will of the testator 

ca.rried out. It would seem that the ia^^ applicable in that case 

would apply to the case at bar, namely, that the testator h??s the 

right to provide for an option in his will which would benefit, as 

in this case, a member of his family, and by that option recuire 

that the price to be paid for the assets be determined from the value 

appearing upon the books of the testator at the time of his death. 

Other Questions are raised on this appeal, but we believe 
there is sufficient in the bill to v?arrant the court in com truing 
the language of the v-'.rious provisions and in determining from the 
will itself the purpose the testator had in mind when he executed 
the will. 

Having sustained the motion to strike the amended bill, and 
plaintiffs electing to stand by such amended bill, the court erred 
in dismissing the bill for r/ant of equity. 

The comment we have made is only for the purpose of passitg 
upon the question of whether the court erred in sustaining the motion 
to strike, and it ^ill be necessary for the trial court to consider 
the various elements which may arise upon a hearing, and determine 
what construction is necessary to properly c--rry out the intention 
of the testator* 

The decree of dismissal is reversed and the catise remanded, 

',!il?'.B s-ESffi^ if"Cii«s srff «tssiaj^qq.g dOSJB gal-toslfsg lo Soit^sai 

S'T^Bisigq.p Sj'-'^frgia^.b o'i lo^B^BBt silt lo si:0i:iBx sriJ *Bili- M®i( Mb 
'nij ro Sifo^s ^iiri srii'qsij tofl blisodB. r/oljosies to l>o<ftSis ,s xi:l o* 10 

Bdt sbxj ^o;}-,f3#E3* 9fI;J- .tf^rij ^'flsEsa ^ti^c^ ^m saso sift ot x^qqs bluov 

SifX.ov ©ri^ mc^^J. bmiimiQ^Bb ©tf stsass srf;3" sol: !bt.m stf o# soitrq ©rf^ t&dt 
avsilQcf s>w *wcf jX^sqq.s sxff^" no b&Bisi 31:0 anoiifesi/p ^9d*0 
^dt siorrl ^aliixfrits^af) fii bxiB Baotatvoiq BuolTsr srlif lo sgsiJSii/;! ©ii* 

i)u^ t.lild bBbnsm.^. srl* s^fiT^a o;? noiuora sxld' i)Si-iXfcid-gx?s aaiVBH 

«t^iyp9 io tflj^w lol XXicf sxf* gaxsBliasiJb al 

coi^offl srJi' sfiin,Xo-:i.:feya at b&'iT.& ^'x^oo 9riJ Tsxfi'ariw to floxtestrp ail* aoqxr 

teJbieJioo of oTiroo X-pii* 9ri>t lol: xrt/^BESoan 9cf XXiw ii ba.& ,©^1^1*8 o* 

»nxmTC9d-9b fcrrs 4-§nxi£3fi .? aomj ssxTf^ x^^as rfoirfw Bfnsm&lsi eyeiriBV ori* 

♦ao^t/; Joes' ©ri^ to 
^b^ba&cxQi 9&aBO 9dt ImB .basTsvsi ex Xi?eBiffl«i:£) io s»ico»5) Sisf 

•ciacwAMaw aeuAG oka aaisHzystii i^osd 


/ .^ 


38784 .^■'"■'''''"") / / J.. 


(Plaintiff) Apoellant, 



(Defendant) Appellee, ) ^ 


Upon application of the plaintiff this court allowed an 
appeal from a judgment entered in the Municipal Oourt of Chicago 
for the defendant in a suit instituted hy the pl^^.intiff, wherein 
plaintiff sought, as assignee, to recover from the defendant on 
five promissory notes, \.r.<i in the sum of S4,500 each, and three in 
the sum of $450 each. 

The statement of claim alleges th?.t the notes ^rere executed 
for and on behalf of the defendant hy G. s, Mann, who was employed 
?s his stenographer, and that the defendant also endorsed said 
promissory notes; th-t these notes were made and executed in Ohio, 
and were secured by a mortgage on real estate located in th^t St^te; 
that there had been a defaxilt and n. foreclosure, and Wx^.X plaintiff 
was seeking to recover the balance due after allowing all credits. 
At the time of the trirl it -^°s alleged there wns due the sum of 

The defendant filed his affidavit of merits settir^ forth 
failure of consideration, in ithat the payee of the notes, which were 
non-negotiable, had failed to fulfill certain covenants in the 
purchase of real estate, the notes being part of the purchase price; 
that there had been an accord end satisfaction, and th-t the defend- 
ant had suffered daara^ges in excess of the amount alleged to be due, 
on accotuat of the breach of the covenants of plaintiff's assignor* 
Upon a trial by the court, a jury having been waived, judj^jment v^as 
entered for the defendant* 

tHIiOO J4 llOIlil 

18 ,A.I8 8S 

:i^~'sv^ '3/-. Mr. Ti/i t.:t/-i 'vTrv n':j' 

»rf05?9 O&H ^o awe »ri* 

^oJtrfO ai bsd-wDSxs brf?^ ^ stst^t ss^on 9Bsd& .tf-ri-t jesJon \rs:osBiKoiq 
;^j-e*S &^d^ cil Xi9^MOoI QjRitss iBSrt ao 9'gfi-gtrom b y*^ i)STuoss susw baa 

.s^ibs^co Lis ■gatr.oli^ 'i-3ilp. Bub ^otts^lfd &dt lavooai 03- ^Jtis&B asw 
I0 fisifB srf* 90Jb sr\'-' stsrf* bs-aslljs ei5«^ dH IrXt:* »At to 9ffii# aifj- *A 

9'X9if rioiri"/ ^n't^^oa &dt to ssx.p.q edt tsdi> at tnoJtt,®TSl)i8flon to atifXlBl 
fsfiS ai. effiBHSVoo ffis^ieo IlxlXx/t o* iseXiel fw^rf ^aXdaitoasn-non 

-\a?l9f) 9t{;^ d--ri? bas ^xxoito^jLeiJee l)n>s i)^oooj3 jels nescf b&d 9t9dt tsdt 

^euh 9cf 0^ bs-gsLle- d-ru.rcflt<? ©rid- lo saaoxs iiJt e93SB!,sl) iistsllwa l)Bxf tas 

,T0-T^i38i^ B'tli-d^fliaXq 1:0 a*xu3n»voo ©xl* lo riOBSTd 8rf* lo tflxrooos no 

spw tasifT^^bxrt tbavi-r^ nescf ^nivsil vtxft « t;?Tuoo 3x1* x<^ XbXx* b noqU 


The deed oonveying certain lots, which wna received in 
consideration of the execution and delivery of the promissory notes 
by the defendr^nt, contained the following provisions: 

**9aid Grantors ap;ree as part of the consideration for 
this conveyance, to install ;?nd pay for the gr^cding r*nd 
sidewalks in front of oil of the lots deeded herein, the 
grading to be comoleted on or before December 1, 1956, 
and the sidewalks to be fully comoleted on or before 
May 30th, 1927, 

As ^ further consideration for this conveyance, the 
said Grantors agree th't they will cause the proper 
authorities to lay sewer and water in front of all of the 
lots deeded herein and will cause the proper authorities 
to ppve the streets upon which f^ll of the sublots front, the 
cost of the said sewer, r-^ter pnd piaving to be assessed 
back upon the property described herein." 

There is evidence by the defendant that before the plain- 
tiff scquired the non-negotiable notes she i?as fully informed thj-t 
the instruments were given in psrt payment of vacant lots and that 
the deed reouired the grantor to install said improvements. Defend- 
ant testified that before plaintiff purchased the notes, Mr. "ieitz, 
agent of the plaintiff, discussed the purchase ^/^Ith the defendant; 
that Weitz said he w?s negotiating with the payee to acquire the 
notes, and the defendant called his attention to the fact that the 
notes were non-negotiable and that he had aiade them non-negotiable 
because the pa.yee was obliged to put improvements in the property. 
From the further evidence of defendant it appears that he informed 
.eitz that if the improvements were not completed, he would not pay 
the notes, and if eitz intended to buy the notes he should make 
sure that the improvements \?oiild be out in. It also appears from 
the evidence th-'t the improvements were never put in, and thpt the 
fair cash market vrlue of the lots 'vould be .1,000 per lot with 
the improvements, and |100 per lot without the improvements. In 
the record there is no evidence offered on behalf of plaintiff which 
disputes or contradicts defendant's testimony as to the damages 
sustained as a result of the breach of the covenant to furnish the 


It appears from the evidence that a settlement agreement 

■v s 

ill h&rl'30Qi sew xioxilw ,e;^oX ai^&i&o -gaix^rnoo £>esi> erTf 

rol 0CX it r-rsfei? ^8x100 3£ii lo ^^j;q 8b ss^ga stoin^ziQ ^l*^"- ' - ■• 
b«s 3fiJ:>'?fi'2Q 9riL*- icl y^Q baB ilBiBni ot ^Bon&x&raoo eirfd- 

^lOlBiS «:o ao fead-slqffido "«tXXi?l scf ot Bil£,^9blB 9d& ba^^ 

^Bqotq, srft 9sx7»o XXii* y®^* it Grid- sis^^.b ©To^fls^O isii'^s 

sdt lo XXb Ito Jfio^t ai r&&p^ hns tswse x^-2 ot BQi&txodtuB 

BVii^iiodfufi tsqoTq »i£# «sjjf.30 XX iw iJci.R nleTSrf bsMsB s^oX 

B£it ^^no'x.'i B^ox€uB srisf lo XXi*. rfoiriw notxu B^fasrti-s srft 9v<?,q^ ot 

^«iiiet#d Ijdcfliogsi) Y^xsqoiq ©ff* aoqss 3J©^cf 
ted* Z)9ffito1:fii: x^lsj'l s..-?f srfs se^oa QXcfBid-osarf-iXcn Bdi b^rltspofi. Hi* 

s£? stiupcj' o;t 99YJ^i Sift dtm -gaifBij^G^Ba asw etf feiBs atti^ istit 
srfd- Jsrid' d-GPl: Sffd- o* nottKBt&n Bid f)sXX-so tUBJbse'tafc srf? &i.e ^89;toA 
sXcf^^iid'ogsn-fTon {asriit QbBia bBd »ri J.-rid' Jbn^ BldBlto-gBa-^aoa sisw sston 
,Y**csqo^q srf* al 3 j-fisffis votqmi toq o;}- jbsgild"© sjsw s«t*<5 ®rf* eeyeoscf 

Ysq itofl bXjuo-*' erl t^a^J'sXqB^oo ios 9i9» staSins-roTqaX 9£i* li tMi stisvV 

9:iPK! .bXworie Sii geJon sri* Y^cf oi? l39£>£fs:fnl •gi'isv* tX f)fl,6 »89;^on »ri# 

moil 8T.«'9qq/; osXs *I *fli luq scf fcXi/ow BSrtaasevorrqjiiX dtf* tsdt ©•uia 

?>r{d- tRri,t l>jn.p ^ni it-jc ^evan ai^w etaaEevorrcjal sri* *«rf* soasfciva stf* 

rfuXvf d-oX T®c 000* X;4 acf JbXcow s*oX ari^ lo 8j:/X^v tsafies rfar^o tX?^1 

n?; .e*n9ir;SV0T:qflJi »rf* ^uoxltfiw *oX isq OCX| Jbns ^fjjJ-flSffiSVOTqsrl: »xl* 

;:.oirfw llitfiXaXq lo IXsriad no £)ST9rlo 60flei)iv9 on ei aisdii- fcioosi sfl* 

esSBss'^fc 9.(it ct B.B taooiiteBS e*tnnbaBlLQb Btoib&rtaot> to B^iuqBlb 

erfJ- rfalnrti/l ot tflpasvoo erirf- lo £fOJ?errtf sdt lo tXi/Dr?i « es fcaniotaJUB 



was entered into between the plaintiff and the defend?*nt, v/bioli 

agreement consists in part of ? letter d-ted "January 5, 1931, 

written by eltz to 3oha,nfartoer, the defendant, in New York, The 

letter is sa follows: 

"Confirming my oonversption w^ith you please be advised 
that settleraent of the Hirt and Lichtig claims by the 
payment of ;r;l,600 in full will be sr\tiaf?rctory. This amount 
is to be in monthly inst?llments of |1jO,00 e^ch, the 
first payment of which I hpve already received through 
Ulmer, iierne •'<nd Gordon, I, of course, understand that, in 
the event you .^.re unable in any one aionth to make a payment, 
this payment will be deferred for another month, but I do 
not 7r;^nt you to take advantage of this as the ..flatter hes 
now been dragging for some time and I do not want to be 
obliged to make any more explanations to ray clients ?s to 
why the money is not forthcoming," 

The defendant contends th?^t the letter from weitz to the 
defendant does not set forth all of the terms and agreements, and 
therefore "should not be given real consideration"* To this 
contention the plaintiff replies that it is true that this letter 
does not embody all the details, but it does embody two essential 
features which clearly show th~t there v^^b no intention to ?ocept 
the promise to i)€rform as satisfaction for the debt, unless the 
payment of the ;i,6CX3 was received in full. There seems to be no 
dispute as to the payment of the #1,500 to plaintiff's attorney, 
the amount in dispute being the 4100, which plaintiff contends has 
not been received by her» 

The defendant's evidence is to the effect that in May or 
June, 1932, he delivered to his attorneys Boskey & Schiller, in 
Hew York, the final payment of tlOO» 

There is also in the record a letter from Boskey & Schiller, 
dated July 11, 1933, and addressed to plaintiff's attorneys, that 
upon receipt of the required releases and satisfactions they would 
deliver to plaintiff's attorneys a check for the 3100 balance due 
under the settlement agreement. The defendant testified that the 5100 
which he delivered to these attorneys for release ?nd satisfaction 
required according to his attorneys' letter to plaintiff's attorneys> 


rioxm? 4#iTcf;n3lsfi Siii- baa JlitaipSq Sffrf- n^&s^tBd oiiil fegistfls saw 

3r::f ^d&.'r^.e■ 00*00X1 lo s^fiSiHlIfiffSGi: -^Idtaom al bxaq atf oi- ei 
dgifoxiiJ bBVlBost '^fiBs^Ir^ ssvBrf x rfoiriw *.© Jiisfrcsq 3'ai:x1: 

Ob 1 ^sjd tfi^nojs rsdtorxB lot .feSTislafe scf XIxw taetsix^ BMi 
^d oi tiiB-jf #oxs 0i) X Iifi?. mslt ©Koe rsol '5^axg.3«ii:£5 «s®sf woe 

•ss^d-eX aM^ ^f^ni 3£/-i,t ai ^i t£d& esilqss tliiJtni ?slq ^i^t aoi*££©*BB0O 

iqetiOB Q& aox^itry^itl os. ep^w sisflt tsdt worm ■^^jssio ffeMw asii/t-ssl: 

on. Bd ot ssisaa eTariT ♦Xixri ni Iss^^osti ^•^ O06«j;«i; sifd" lo ta&m'^^ 
f^X^iiio^ts s* 'tJ. I tat Blq Q^ CjQU^XM Q-t^^ ^o tm®m%^l ^iit oi bb pimiBi.i> 

iX&d ^4 bewiBoer nBod ion 

to x^*^ ^i ^^^^ io^Vka (»di Qi el eofiaMva B^ta&iia^t&t eilT 

si tTTSXXirl&C « xeMoU sxBato*fn 8Xi1 o^^ l^^rcsTiXa^f) &d ^SS8X r^amirL 

d-,urf* tatQnTto;}--.^ e'i'iii'fligXq cf b&BBQxbh^ bus. iSSex ^XX x^^ Jb^d^ef) 

i>XiK)w Y^ri* enox^OfilsJciifaa bas es&c&Xs*^ iisicXirpa-c ^rlS' lo *qi«osx tsoqu 

Bisb 9oni5XJsd OCX;;; ^ti^ xol io»rio a Bxan^otctB B^tXlinlBlq ot i^vtl^t 

001$; ©rfcT is^di bdilii-e3* ^nsJbns^eJb srtT ♦d'iX9mesx§s ;ieL&m®m&& 9di r&bats 

4BY*«toJ*« e'lli*nXBXq o* TSd-j-sX •e-.fejaiod'tB eixi o* anxJbToooB Jbs-xitrpss 


was never returned to defendant, ';?hile there is some dispute in the 

testimony as to when this last payment was made, still it was a 

question for the trial court, and it is not for this court to 

consider the credibility of the witnesses or determine the reight 

of the evidence. However, \ie pre of the opinion th-^t there is 

sufficient in the record to sustain the finding of the court on 

this question* 

The plaintiff, upon the groxmd that the settlement agree- 
ment was not satisfied by the defendant, seeks to recover the 
balance due upon the notes in question, after allowing credit for 
the $1500 paid on account of the compromise entered into by the 
parties* It is worthy of note that this compromise agreement was 
made not alone to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff, but slso that 
of Helen Lichtig, who was represented by the same counsel, and that 
counsel sent the letter to the defendant regarding their acceptance 
of the amount offered in settlement of their claims. 

There is no doubt thf^t there was a bona fide dispute between 
the plaintiff, the defendant and Helen Lichtig, and irrespective of 
what the result may have been regarding defendant's claim for 
recoupment for dama,ges sustained, the adjustment was entered into. 
The courts are inclined to encourage the compromise of a claim between 

litigants, and from the facts as we have them before us, it is 

apparent that the defendant endeavored to comply with the agreement 

to pay the amount agreed upon. 

The $100 balance due is still on deposit with the attorneys, 
as far as the record shows, pjid of course plaintiff's attorneys are 
entitled to this money whenever they comply with the request that 
the notes be produced and cancelled so that the litigation between 
the parties will end. 

The plaintiff, however, suggests that a fact, which appears 
In the record, is entirely overlooked by the defendant that in 1939, 

R B»w tl SSltB ^Sij^m efiT? jiiSffiYsq &Bjil siri* jKSdw OfJ" aa '^flomid'ag* 

si Bx^di ■S---.dt aoiaiqo edt lo S'xa ©v/ ^iQTStsroH ♦©oasfcivs 9rit to 
iio t-rrjoci ©fit lo galBfiit ©aj air-^sjyg ot l>"S009t MSI- at taBtoillus 

giip/ tnSEJsa'xa-s ssie;oiqffiOO sxil.t S-sd^ s^Qd to x^^'^^^^ si Jl tBBt&i&q 
tea* osl^ jJ-i/o 4 tlrij^/j ii5lq mit lo sji-slo ad* '^ei^se o* saols lOif sfesja 

■0 Q^i^a^qBQi'zi btiji ^glSdoi^ asIaH Bab te,B£jfia1:s& ®rf;t tllritnlBiQ srI* 

ai: j-i tSw ©lole-d pisd;? evsrf 9w ee siosJ: Qrf* fflo?tl tit.s ^eifffjBgitil 

^£toqiS f»©itSB JfliioiSB &d[# '^aq o* 
^uiearotts sdit n'-rfix-? .tisoqsi* no Xliita ex sy-& 0Ofl«X>»<:f 00X1 Sfi'T 

saew^ad rrojt3-(?3i^iX ©rfcJ- ;S-.stf* oe .bsXIsofiBO bixjs J&©ox/i)otq ©cf esc?^n ©fit 

«6n« XXlw 86i*TAq aff* 
e'T.r-^scfqe doldw t*^*^^ p' if>''^* a^eaasua ^i^vswori jTtlX^fnisXcr 8d? 


he reoonveyed the property in oueation to the Memphis Realty Company, 
and at the time of the reconveyance received a second mortg-'ge on 
the real estate in part payment. Assuming thia to be true, it would 
have no tnaterial bearing on the question of liability of the parties 
on the notes. If the defendant had ?.. claim against the .iemphia 
Realty Company, he would be privileged to adjust it with this 
Company irrespective of the outcome of the litigation between the 
parties in this case. Therefore we do not see how a claim of the 
defendant against the iieraphis Realty Oom^oany ©ould affect the 
interests of the vprious parties in the instant litigation* 

Another question raised by the defendant is the sufficiency 
of the affidavit to plaintiff's statement of claim, but in view of 
our conclusions expressed in this opinion, it will not be necessary 
to pass upon this pointji 

The judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed. 




■^ilJ n99i?d-©d" iioiS^A^^i'ifiX erf? lo smoo&sjo sdi to svi^oaqeST^i ^jflBc-jKoO 

ed^ to bLqIo js i9on 9S>e *on ofe ew srroieTSxff •© ais'S" xsi; saxS-t^eq 

edd' ^osllfi l3ijyo« YJffs^^oO \"*Is©B eidqassM ed^ ;f8ni:.e3« #a,«JbiS9!t3i> 

^^cloq eifid- noqu BBJSq; o;^ 


Defendant in Error, 




in Error. i28 8 I .A. 6 19 



This cause is in this court upon a writ of error by the 

defendant to review the judgment entered in the Municipal Court of 

Chicago upon the finding lay the court th-t the defendant wps guilty 

of operating or driving a motor vehicle upon a highway within the 

corporate limits of the City of Chicago, knowing th^t due to his 

negligent driving of the motor vehicle an injury had been sustained 

by Joan O'Connor, and of le-i^ving the place of the ftooldent \?ithout 

stopping and giving his name, the street number of his residence, 

and the motor vehicle numher, to Bernice O'Connor or to any police 

officer, nearest police station or judicial officer, contrary to 

the statutes of the State of Illinois, The court sentenced the 

defendant for a period of thirty days in the Ootinty J^.il of Oook 


The facts are th?t the defendant on April 15, 1936, was 

■backing his automobile out of a private driveway =?cro8s the sidewalk 

on Klmbark Avenue between 53nd and 53rd Streets, in Chicago. The 

evidence of the child Joan O'Connor is: "I am four years of ^ge, I 

went to the store rith my mother and walked out of the store and as 

I was talking on the sidewalk on Zimb?irk Avenue where there is a 

blind alley, I w s struck with the front psrt of the automobile and 

knoekiiA down. My leg wes acrstched, I rr^n to the gtore y^her? ny 

maajffla ?ras»'* The child's mother, Bernice O'Connor, testified th?t 

she was 40 feet away In the store, ^ind did not see ^h "t happened to 

the child; that the child came ninning into the store, and that she 



o'iihfim i ■ jSioMi.xn to STATS sr-iTtd sj^osf 

% ' ' ■ *t ■ 

V€- X "^ ©^i-e .&- O' '^w.^ ^ 
Bdt ■ijcf lotETS lo ^fliw J3 floqo- ^ii/po sifi* fli ax sex/^eo BixfT 

fisaift^ei/a isssd" iJisd Y'^ft'^^ '"^s eXoxrfstr ictois '&di Jo ^iZvi%h tuB^il'g^a 

^sonsiMes-x elf; lo iGdi0x?£i -J-saTS?© ^d& ^Bs&sm Bid gniYig Biijs galqqo^e 

soiloc Y^ss o^ no 7:omioO*0 ©oiesea ©jJ" tiecffflwfl ©ioirfev ^o^om Bdt bUB 

c^ XT^-'sitiioo t'csoirio Ir^ioibisl 10 aoits^Q ©oiioq tes^^sn jssoxrlo 

©ri* Jb90/i3rfn©i? d"X0oo Bdl •exonilXX lo a;fxit2 ad^ lo &BtatBts 9ji$ 

8.?=' 4 8581 t3i li-xqA no SitsbQti'iBb Bdi t'id& b&ob'% »df 
sflBvfS^is 9df eBOio?: ^s'^svi^jc s.+sviTq b lo i-wo slMomoiui?. aid Q/xliopc' 

I ,3-a?i lo e-s.ffSY 11/0I ru^ I'* ifii. lonnoO'O aeol. Mirfo 9dt lo sonsiJive 

.f>, isi BrBdi ©isriw ©unsvA ii^ciaii}! ko :ilBv9bi}i »dt ao snl^d.R^ bxsw I 

*.exf* Jbsili^ee^ ^icoflHoO'O ^oinaaa ^ted&om a*Miflo ©rfT '♦«a«w smflsjsat 
at Jb«fl»qq,j5rf ;^'^xfr 9 9s i'on bib baB ^STod-s 9ri* ai Ys^^e *»9"* 0,^ b^-w ©da 
~d3 &edt bas ^ertod-s ©rfit otai gninasjr saaso MxxJo ©d* frdt ibltdo sdi 


had bruises on her leg. Witness 'Robert Kellner testified he w-s 
at the northwest corner of 53rd street nd Kimb^^rk Avenue pnd saw 
the defendant standing with his automobile at the .-^lley; that a 
little girl ran away from the alley crying, and he obtained the 
license xiumber of the automobile. He fxarther testified thPt there 
was another man with the defendant and defendant motioned for him 
to hurry and get into the c?ir. Then defendant drove a'pay. The 
little girl he saw at the time he identified as Joan Q*Oonnor» 

The defendant offered as a witness S» Strauss, who wa.s 
walking on Ki»bark Avenue between 53nd and 53rd streets in Chicago, 
on the west side of the street. This witness testified th^t he saw 
an automobile in a private alleyway baeking across the side^-^lk; 
that he waved to the driver to stop; th-t he did so, snd the ^Fitness 
walked up to the automobile f?nd told the men (stone) in the gjt th-t 
a little girl had rixn into the right front fender and ren away; 
that he, the witness, called to the girl to stop but she continued 
running, and ?>ent into a store. Oefendant got out of the csr and 
wanted to kno^ where the little girl was; that defendant did not 
leave the scene of the aooident immediately. 

The defendant testified th't he lived at 846 East 62nd 
Street in Chicago; is a^.rried and lives with his f-^mily, consisting 
of his wife ?nd four children. From his evidence it appears thnt he 
drove his oar into the private alleyway on the west side of Kimbark 
Avenue between 53nd and 53rd streets, and stopped in the alley and 
looked through the rear window to see if it was all right to drive 
out* He further testified that he started to beck out and a man by 
the name of Strauss waved to hia to stop, which he did; that he w?s 
looking to the re^r of the oar; that he did not see or feel anyone 
strike his car. He testified he did not know the t^itneas Strauss, 
who testified that a little girl had run into the right front fender 
of his car and ran awsy; that he returned Ister i?ith his car and 


8BW Qd bolli&^st tsaljL^l tred&E B&&aflM (.gsl "ssd no aasiii'icf ijaif 
WBS tar, s^-jfxsTA aT^ daiA ba^ t&^T&& l)i:52 to tsiiitoo «rB!&i?rf*iOrt 9ri;r *a 

3iX* bBal-f'-Mo srf i?j[iB 53r£xr.£0 '•{©Xi/? ©rid- aro^l t-'^ff^ ^sss itis ^iiiil 

&%^A& tail* &©ili*£;9t *teilifiur3: ©H •©XlcfeisoI'M^ sd? to tsdKxra sjeijsoiX 

mid rot bsaoi&om .tnstffslsfc £sK.e insttL@1®b ®d,t rf3-iw xts» ireififoes asw 

©rif *Ys^rs svoTft ;3-i?i^l>«f5l:9fc nerfT .iso sd* oi^ftl i^eg has, "^i^j^rf o^^ 

jiX-sJsfcis ^dt BBOiojr, gisMSBO" v^.wifallB ad-Briiq .s al ©Xi€foiao3'ffS aa 
assfiiiw- Qdt ^on bJ:b Qd i^-d^ ;qo.ts o^ Tavl^fc Bri:^ o* b^vM§^ 9ii i&A^ 

l^cs ISO 9cd^ lo ;f«o Jog JflfifccslrsC •stod'S s o.*ni Jfast? J5n.s ^sixiflowT 

ioa bib i^MbllQlQb leiit jaa?? Xiig sX^d-JX ©ff* 9i©tfw wonaf o* b&Httt&if 

♦■^l9uBl53ffi»i; #n9l>iooB 9iit lo saese ijft St-ssX 

:ga£iBlBaoo ^xXiifir.l Bid il^iw ©sviX £>fls bnlximi &£ i 0-^.3 oirfvui #«»^|£ 

©vi-il) orf- trf'sio: XXa &&^ ;fi "ix ssa o;^ vQbatiir x&Bt adt dguoTCff* fcsiooX 
■^d flB« c' ^a.s 3-00 :S0Bcf oit i)9d-xsl8 M iBdi bsi.1ltB9t r^d^itul ©H <i*uo 

&xioY«*^' X9©1 to 986 J|-0£( feil) »il d'srf* ;"X«o ed^ I© iBj^x »if# o# -^aliool 

t»8x;.?T:;fe BeaflJXw sri* wo«3{ ton bib ©ri baXlid'sw^ sH ,#5;«o eiri eaJi-sts 

^»Jbns1: Jfiotcl: ;tjl^i'x 9rf* oial a.ui .b^m' Xai^ &XittX « ^biI* ;b9i5X;J-e9* odw 

bnjB iRO airi if:^iw i9*bX JbsaTUd-si 9rf *3ii;f ;t^TB a^T fens 1^0 eXff lo 


drew « diagrajB of the alley; th-:t nfter talking to Mr. Strauss he 
went around the block looking for the little girl; parked hie oar 
and stood on the corner to see if he could see this little girl, 
and after that he got into his opr and \vent home. 

The record does not show thtit the oourt questioned thie 
child four ye?.rs of age ^^q to her qualifications to testify vs a 
witness. Her evidence is r-'.ther unusual for a child of her ?; e. The 
defendant is charged with the oominisaion of a crime, and such viola- 
tion must be established beyond a reasonable doubt » The evidence 
contained in the record does not establish thpt the defendant beyond 
3 reasonable doubt unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully left the place 
where the accident occurred* 

The ^tneas Kellner, ^ho stood at the corner of 53rd street 
and Kimbark Avenue, was able to obtain the license number of defend- 
antSs automobile. This, together with all the facts, would not 
indicate that defendant drove away from the scene of the pocident in 
violation of the law, Ooament, however, ia m^^de by the State's 
Attorney in his brief upon the statement of the defendant to officer 
Goles, after the accident -^nd at the station, in which he admitted 
that he knew he struck the girl and that he did not stop. The 
accident ss described to him by the '/dtness Strs.uss was such that 
this adajiasion alone would not indicate sufficient to justify defend- 
ant's conviction. 

Taking all the evidence in the record into consideration, 

the facts do not show a violation vs.s established beyond p reasonable 

doubt • 

The defendant calls other Questions to the attention of this 

court, but in view of our conclusion, we do not deem it necessary 

to consider them. 

The jtidgiaent is reversed and the cause remanded, 



^X'iiS Blirtii ai.cit a©s Mc-o© sin 1:1 set; o.+ tairroo sat jceo Sects Ms 
«??giorf tiTte?^ brt.Q 'rats siff o^xsi to^ari i^dt r&tUrB btis 

~«.:-;Ioiv doj;,'© biiB ^mrtio -- to aolpslhitsoo ed* dfx-^ Jb9g^i?iio si ^a;8Msl»i3 

e*s#stE' odd' Tjo' 9.o.em si ^■xs'y&wojff ^^kssskoO *tr.??.X srfi" lo fsteld'sXoi'r 
-r^Ditlo o* :fji*bfl©'isb ©rfJ' lo tfl®K:®;?sd-8 &dt roqg tsiid" aiidT ill x^arottk 

sril .aoJi? ton JbiS &£f ifaflt fefte Xiia erf* itoi^x^R sd" ^©S2f sil *.edJ 

eldi to noi*n9;t;fe od;f o* afloiJeawp "sefUo »lXi»o itaBfeaalafe »£lf ., 

,ii9,&n,p.i>.ie!j: sswbs ©i{;j- bar. baziBvtsi ei *fl»JS3f)i/[; ©rfT 


GKOROB MALLKK, a Minor, by 
AJiiJl'OXiitlsiT'iii biiURitiiib , his n«xt 
frienJ and ciotlier, 








28 8I,A. Gl^ 


In an action on tae case icr personal injuries and upon 
trial by jury, tne defondarit, at the close ol all the evidence, 
made a motion lor ari ixistructed verdict. Wae court reserved its 
ruling, sul)jaitted the cause to tae jury •wnicix returned a verdict 
for plaint iiT in the sum oi #1000. Del'endant then made a motion 
for judgment notY?xti:t6t,^nding the verdict, whicii was denied; the 
court also denied the luotion mad© for a directed verdict at the 
oloBC of plaintiff's evidence, overruled deleridant ' s motion for a 
new trial, and a further motion for a new trial on the ground of 
alleged newly discovered evidence, and entered judgment upon the 
verdict, to reverse which defendant appeals. 

It is argued that the court erred in denying defendant's 
motion for judgment notwitiistanding the verdict because plaintiff 
was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, in the 
giving of eertain instructions zo tne jury at ilaintiff 's request, 
in denying the motioi; for a new trial on the ground of newly dis- 
covered evidence, it is also argued the jud|^^-ienl ia contrary to 
the law and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. 

The evidence shows { a? the declaration alleges) that plain- 
tiff, then a boy 15 years of age, was severely injured on July 11, 
1934, as a result of being struck by a Buicic automobile owned and 
driven by defendant, ihe accident occurred at about 7:30 a. m. , 
at or near tue intersection of an alley and Paulina street, about 
125 feet nortu of tne intersection of Paulina street and ^^ntros«> 

— !' ' ■;. 

TTaiTOTAM 5ffOIT8UX filllGIgSK^ ,HM ' ' 

,'rHUoo mn to aaidiTO 4ii'i' asHSViJsoG 

noi^oia « sjwim narij ■iri«JD«©'ia(X .OOoX^ 'lo ittw® oxi;t ai 'fti^axslg tqI 

©fid g,«j J-iji.i>'i0v b&io^ilb Jb 'lo't 9i>«ai aoxc^oia sal fes^iitssl) dai« i-i,t^:->o 

« lo'l nox^osa a* j/:i£LiJs'i:si> Jb&I«iisva ^aoaafexv© a' i'iilaijsXq "X« •aole^ 

'io fenjjo'ra sxi^ ao i^xii vmn je i:c't noxjoa i&di'Xij'i. e ha& ,Xeixi wen 

'ilx^axjeiq ©aujuoscf 4-»xi)i»v e-its a«>Xx;aBlBi.aiwd-oa i}'£«?a^»«t i:o1 JSoicTom 

9Cw ai ,w^X 'to Teii^m. & eja soflS^^xXaSii x.ioSu'it'x^aoQ *io tj^^Xxus ojsw 

(itasjjpsT a^Ttiialj&li ^s v^xtt SJOuJr oa BaaUotJ-'i^Siiii ajuaixao "to salvia 

"sxf) >clw»« 'to fcax'ois »rf-* '""3 Xexi* w»n « ^©"t aoxJoa •!££* Hai^fi«£> ni 

,?5ortf^.t)i.V!^ 9d;f "io ^ffjjiaw »i1,^ JTeaJUi^js x:X*«®'J'^Ji^w*'" fe*** **X siiJ- 

,XX YiwL no 6Qii/t«J: ^£f»i9V9« Qisw ,»3jr 'lo ai^ox SX X0<* « "•'^^^ ,Vii* 

fonus &snwo olxrfoiuoiJ'iJfi >Loxwii a x^ ioirxie ^alocf 'io iLusQt m aa ,*5ex 

, .m ..£, 06 :V iJuoda *4j fceitjjooo icmbiooa •AT ,*nai)«&'t»JE> )ctf a»rii:l> 

^jjocf£ ,d®di;r3 aniXuBl bm; ^silfi cm 'to aoliQ&ei^ial •xW i«9n 10 *s 

*/»ft'r.+nmi fam= Jas'i^Ts aailuAl to aoii'^^ai&iai &i^i to i.iion i@B't esX 


avenue in Chicago, Paalina street is a public iiiE^nway running 
north njid south; j.ontrose avenue a pu'^:lic .hif,hway runiiinp, eafit 
and west. At the time in cuestion a grocery store stood at tlie 
northeast corner ol' the intercection oT i.ontroBC avenue ax.d 
Paulina Btree-t, The builiin;. in wnicl. it was conducted wau a 
three-story brick, covering the entire lot. On the east siide ol' 
Paulina, 1??3 feet nortr. ol' the intersectioii, was an alley runr. ing 
east MXid T^'est, T'nicn ^ns from 1;"" to 15 fpct wide, and about 150 
feet ea-8t of Paulina this alley was intersected "by another alley 
running north and eouth in the rear of buildings wiich fronted 
west on Paulina, The neighborhood was densely populated. 

Defendant on this particulfir ajorninji was about to do some 
decorating in nis nonie at 6743 a^aple Square avenue, Shortly after 
seven o'clock a, ai, he drove to the rear of tae home of Otto J. 
Anderson, Aho «'ag to assipt him in doing the wor3c, Anderson's home 
was at 4555 iNorth Paaltna etreet. Ihey olaced some material in 
the autoi7-obile, Anderson also ^ot in, f^urid defendant Stulte drove 
the autoiiobile south in triC alley running in that direction, then 
turBed west in the alley leading west to Paulina street, the 
exact place where the accident occurred is in controversy - plaintiff 
contemning that he was struck Avhile croseing the alley on the side- 
T-alk running north on the east side of Paulina street, while defend- 
ant contends he was struck before the autcL.onile reachec the oide- 

Plaintiff was accompanied by another boy, Sdward Hodor, 
13 years old. Plaintiff lived in Chicago, but on the night 
previous to the accident caiiie with his coiapanion Hordor from lark 
Kiver, lilichigari, and arrived at the intersect ior. of ^^ontrose avenue 
and iiorth Paulina street at about tbe tijr.e the autociobile was being 
driven throu£ji the alley. By reason of the building, however, they 
could not see the autoz obile ana its occupants could not see then. 

:gniaa!*x tjbwI.U'''. oil'itiC & ei osot^j'e RaxLuB^ ,o^,r::iti£C ni «i»n»vfl' 
9ii^ J.® bcoin s'ioJb ■y;-i©ootB « i-ioiJ'aai;,) at dciii' "^^W jA »tB0W hna 

C2X i'ucc].e /:;a-3 .sljlw J-?5p>'t aX oJ -^I moi't a^w rfoiriw <58sw ftns is&» 

,1 oiJ:' 'to offioii: sdj- Io 'f.^9t erll oJ- svoiir. 9x1 *m ,« ;SooXoVo flfT®a 

»-/c'if: a^JXii^ja da«&n©'i9^ tac ^aX *C2 oelj? nosT:9Jbri& ^sXlrfOi&o^JUB ©xfi" 

nofid ,noiios-il.?) J.eii^ ni gaip-i^iii -i^sXXja 9ix>J ai ri^-uoB 9 lid ojiot um :9di 

©rlT .Jsc*-isi-9 «n,l:i:i;«M oJ J39«? gail>*?9X \j9XXj5 orij rd ta^vt bstnuS 

t-.tiasAlq - ^!ii&r::Tiao!y fti al beiiuooo tas&ioo* sii.t nisi^^ »Qc£q Jojaxd 

-ts.hia j»i/.j no ^®XJ:j3 s>£{* gair'ao^o oXirl^r afoificTs Sijw grf :t.-3rf* gfil^jns.tnoo 

-bno'tefc aXirlw , d-s-sii-a aaiXwjB^ 'to 'sbia ^q&b &di no riJiect ^atnntsi tlsv 

"Qtic en.J afti-ioB©^ ®Xii<'^uii SiW ©tolscf 5Coitn:d"B aan srf afcae^aoo i'lis 


.lofcoii &a«wb;'l ,xocf lariJ-on^ X^f" tsiitncf/aoooa euew TtlirfiBX'? 

;Jii:-jxa sriJ ao Jucf ,oa®oixiQ ni fcsviX Tiicf .'UkX'I ♦fcXo 81«»Y 5X 

jf-xecl Bioil -sobtoii noiariqaoo 3ii"i /iJiw 9f\v«o tnsbioofi eri:f o;r auolvstij 

i9i/.iif>.VK esonJao-kl Io aoiio^»t'^icii »L[i A& bsviiTiis bnn ^oB's^ldoVJ. ,tarifl 

aniocf a«w &Lidomoiu£ pdi 9iaii 9iiir Juocfa ia d-seita sniXif«9 cU-ioa fcrxs 

•?»rf* ,'i':.v9wo£[ «8nif)Xx)u<f 9t<^ to .aofifiST \S. .\;«XXjb ©rf* riauo'Xii;^ osrliii 

.n»x(* ;.)0B *on bluoo 8;txi3qiJOoo bSI brt? *f; n nfni. fli'i s-sa ^on bXtroo 


In front of the store each ol" the boys helped aiisell' to a box oT 
Btrawberriee, then both boys raai north on the east aide ;ix Paulina 
street. Hodor says he grabbed the strawberries an:3 rail, rutting 
the strawberries in his sweater; coiiun^; to the alley he vurned 
east itjto it; plaintiff was following; Hodor turned into the north 
side of the alley, and he says .e went about IG j'eet wher* he heard 
plaintiff cry out; he aays that he passed tiia auto, obile v/hen he 
turned; he did not see it; he was in a hurry to get ;jvay; he did 
not see suiy auto.:.obile pass him; he stopped on hearing plulntiff 
cry and looking back saw him lyint':; next to the builc'.in^i, south of 
the alley, with part of hie body tigainst it; he did not eee tne 
automobile strike plaintiff and does not know how far plaintiff 
was from the automobile. He saj's olaintiff was lying right 
of the left front wheel of the auto.obile, Hodor further testi- 
fied that the rear end of the autoKiobile was past the sidev.'alk; 
that it was past the cuilding line where the building comes ud to 
the sidewalk, but he did not know how far. The men f,ot out, 
picked up plaintiff, out nt. in the auto obile; Hodor also :iot in, 
and plaintiff was taken to tlie hospital* 

Plaintiff testified that he and Hodor had come on i^ontrose 
avenue to Paulina; that after the strawberries both of 
them ran toward the alley; Hodor was in front of hixa about 15 
feet. They were running pretty fast toward the alley; that then 
Hodor got to the alley, he turned into it and ran east; that 
plaintiff was following him but was going across the alley and not 
going into it. Plaintiff says he did not want to i:o i.nto the 
alley but intended to run farther down the block toward the north 
where he eaw an empty lot, i^e says he did not turn to go into the 
alley at all, de had been around the locality only once or twice 
before, but says he could see the empty lot, and that his idea was 
to turn into it and not go down the alley. The next thing he knew 
the auto.'i>obile hit him and threw him to the ground. 

isaiXiiJs^ '4.C sltfiij: +ffijs9 sxii- ao xi^ron umi st\od iliQ4 a^iU ^^^IfXBdmi'Xia 

b'x&i^i.i ©I'i asjiw ;J'ei9'i; OX ^i^uoc^js irusw f>r- fS'-i;jsa 9£t Shb ^^»ll& artJ- 'to ©BXs 

bib Qii ixsivn in^ oi^ i^ii«/{ e al es^ &d ;li sse ian l>i]^-9fi[ ;b9£ntji 
TllJaliilq_ ;^iilt^afi no fcsqqoj" e^d ]miii ss&q ©Xidoiao^iifi lijfMi o»® <tOK 

Oixj- s^ia ion Joil' ©rl ;*i d-sfu>3j^ -^i^ocf ©if! 'to ii^sq; riti'^ j-^XI* sxf^ 

'fiiJiUjiXq x«'i woii womi .toa sso.fc ^^^ 't'txd-axsX^ sii.t^a 9XicfoAio;twfl 

;ioi:,cf .i-jii^iT 3fUv;.i; ais?? 'fiJ.J'ax.alq av^s oK ^»lsci0iii&tu6 orit ao^ft .asw 

.;id,lBW&blB 9iiJ d-s-yq 8«W dllJOicoJ-i/is ©iU 'to biTS 'XJasi »ii3- iJ«fl* fcsit 

c„^ qu Bsaioo >;iaii'Xi:*j« sxfst attari?: sail ■Qsxtfoliuci ©riS" ;)-e«q »4sw ;J| Ji»xi# 

(^Tiwfo *oa ifiSfii 9iil .'SJs'l X''-o-f:i' woruC *oa JiJtfc 9ri ^Tifcf ,aIXjKWftl)Za &xW 

jHi J-ofe oaXs ucboli •sXi(Jo>iTo^ij« ©jQ^-t «i iiiiii J-wq ,'m;,iq qw l>»;3i'»i(3[ 

SX ^iJodjB alrf 'to ii-uoi't txX S4JW Toboh ^x^LIb &iii DXBWOit fus'i meri* 

jjBilJ- ;c^2Bri* tM?i .feitw .tx 6iiii. beirtui 9ri ,Y«-f-C« ^^^^ ^^ cro;^; ToJboH 

jort bnc y:»XXb uip soo"xo« a«Xf>8 ^«^ '^i'ti airi sjrsiwoiXo't a4»w 't'lid'HiaXq 

^ri* oiid. og o^ :'nj6-y *on bib arl ay;«a 't'tiinijel'a ,ii Ohtal rioi^^ 

dS'%oa 9iii JbtfiVfOvJ: jIooXcI arl;^ nvro£> laxid-xijt m« o4- b^bmi-nl iud sjaXIa 

»ii4 oini oji o;t O'lud- *on bib «il a\,ije »Ii .ioX x^^-"^ ^** **^ ®^ »«»4w 

eoivfi to *o«o \;Xao \;;tiXeooX &di hauots mad ftjsii »H .XI« *« -^oXXb 

aaw «9J[)1 Bid i&ili bm ,*oX Y^aoia »di ©es bXiioo «ri a^cfi* iu(i ,»3o't©cf 

wftnH Oil anlxicT Jxsn f^ifi' .ic9XX*». »xW flwoi> c?ij 9oa hcui il otaX aiui oi 

-\nder3on, tne deoor:itor, wao was riding -witxi del' :iidar.t , 

says that a^ t^ie ttiae taey uurned to drive wast in tiue ^iiey ap- 

proaeJiing Pa-ilina street they were going aoout 10 to 12 mles an 

hour but slowed lovm to about 5; tuat t.uey ^wers t.bout <' to 6 

feet codinji toward tUe sidewaii oi' raulina street when the "ooy 

turned into the alley and ran rigiat in front ol the oar, and 

after hin cai;ie ariother uoy aJtid tarxieci into the alley buad ran 

right into the car, rurr^in^ into tl.e left front wheel, he eays 

the automohiie wao at iJaat timfe froxii 4 to 6 leet fro. the side- 

walk and was going "arouna 5 iialea per hour"; t)iat the bo^^ran 

into tlie alley passed tne car in front of it and ran on the north 

side of the car or the right side of it, xhe other hoy ran into 

the alley ind look about four steps when he oarue directiy in front 

of tiie autO'io'bile, He says the autoniObile stopped at once; that 

the front wheel at that ti;ue v^as ahout 3 feet away froia the wall 

of the huildin^^; was at least 4 feet east of the sidewalk on 

Paulina street. Plaintiff, ue says, was lyint: even with the 

front wheel wita his bac'^ against the wail; his lege v.ere even 

with the front wheel; he took plaintiff up and carried him into 

the ear, anc^ the first thing plaintiff said was, "it's niy fault;" 

plaintiff said they had taken a box of strawberries and were 

running; away froni the slore. 

Defendant says he *'aB driviiit^ in a westerly direction Ai^* 

the alley; tuat his speed did not exceed lu to 12 .^^ilas at any 

time; that he slowed dowii as he approached i?aalina stn^et and 

was goin,^; to stop at tne sidewalk as ne had done iaany times before; 

that tlie first thixi^; he saw was plaintiff ooii^ing around the north 

corner of the building, the extrerae northwest comer where tixe 

alley and sidewalk intersect; tuat he came around the corner 

running; that as he came around the comer the autojoobile was 

6 or 7 feet from the corner, he says his best judtiiaent is that 

^c> o;? A J'iJoci'/i ©"IS""- Tc;©i:u .tajiid- ;(3 O'ifocfe oi rvA'Oi f>©«'oIs ^tuif luori 
Xod 9xia- ijariv/ deei^'ii isniljji^fi 'io 3i:Xii\vsJ7i5 add- biimo* gai^aoo ;t&»% 
ijn^; ,-ifio 9xrd- 'to jno'i'c ni J-xijj,i'i: imi bm; ■v;ftIX^ arW Ovfti hsniut " 
xis-i j:ia;3 x^-^-i^*! ®-fi* oifax b^itxiiCi- bun Tjocf Tt&rlioOfe ©;;iiso itiiri isi'tjs 

-sliia ©iirf ...iC7.'i J'sa'i ol .^ .lao-i'l siaXw* J-xirfd^ j£. ajs>'^ aXicfQadcMJ-s 9ff^ 

;)'uo'x'.l. ul ViljosiiJ- 0i;i)E?o -srl nsrfw aqsJa 'xtro'J: ti/oiiij stood ^n*:- •^sll^^ari* 

ii;«v? ailvj- iuoi't Y'Si'^-s d"Mo'i S cfuofe asw amic) ^J-jesiii- ^^ Ise^Mw tmott srft 
no 2iX0w©i)x.s silcJ- 'xo :^im& i^Q't i^ ^gjssX ia aaw j-.inlbliiKf silt *to' 

asTQ oi^.r e3©X slii ; Xlaw jjiy ^ianiki^a "iLaaii alii .dd'iw X9»rfw ^xtdt:'! 

".•jXij.»'l x^ 8'ul*' g-aew Ji:,xi5« 'l'lllai^.Xq artixl^ iB^tl't QdS bi'm ^"mo arf* 
©•3cs>w .botj asii-nscf^ix'id-f; 'io xo<i is ns^iJj- fwaif x®-^"^^ i>ljBa 't*ti:*n.I-.j3iq' 

,©■10^8 s>rfi sHoft i^JiWis ■^alaairt 
(tk iiotiosttsb YiXisiaf^w ij ai anivJc'il) sjbw ail f!\.^«} laaijiiolreG - ■ 
•^ixa :^ja aftXiu SX 0^ uX i)»so?;9 ;3o« lib Jba«><ifi aijri i^jRjcuJ- ;Y®Xi6 axf* 

cid-ion »rlcf l;ai.'uiJ3 a«J;ffl(oti Ttid-alfiXq a<ew was »ri aaiiid ;t9iXl orf^ i^^iU 
dii:^ enftiiw •xornoo *8«>wrf3^'xcn: scw^jJ'xs oitJ- ,5irii^Xi;ud' sfi^ to itanloo 

aijw aXicfoni6ii,ja ©rij iS/nod 9iid' &iit/o*t« ftjcijio ©fi «« iffirf* ja/iinraHf 
t^fJ at ^mssiihui *®ocf uiii axBo ©H »Texncoo ariJ' iflott d^6©l f 16 d 

at t^e time plaintiff came around the comer the autor o"bile was 

golnp 3 or 4 miles an hour, and that when he stopped the car after 

it struck plaintiff the front wheels of the car vrere probalsly 2 

or 3 feet (poceibly a little more or less) fron the 'baildinsi lin« 

on Paulina street, -and that at no time dii the auto.nobile reach 

the Bidewalk at tiie end of the alley. He did not recall seeing 

the other boy until lifter he ^^ot out of the car; that plaintiff 

was l7ring in the alley jiiat eT«n with the front Imh cap of the 

front wheel when he was picked, up. Plaintiff vras tal:en to the 

Raven swood hospital. It is not denied that his injuries were 


It is conceded the court erred in f^iving to the Jury, at 

plaintiff's reouest, an ingtruotion to the effect that -while as a 

matter of law the "burden of proof T^aa upon plaintiff, and it was 

for plaintifi" to wrove his case by a preponderance of the eviderice, 

still, if the 5ury found that the evidence bearing upon plaintiff's 

case preponderated in hie fsvor "although but slightly," it -would 

be sufficient for the jury to find the iE^sues in hie favor. This 

instruction was criticized in Mplloy v. «^ _ C hicago Rapid Transit Co . , 

335 111, 164, ind the judgment was reversed there, although not 

solely because of this instruction. In other cases the instruction 

has been criticized, but the giving of it held not to bV reversible 

error. CostelljtJLt^^MliraL^Ly^eJL^neu 359 111, App. 321; 

lil«on-B?others__v,_J^;egej. 261 111, App. 563; Gebhardt v. Vil lage of 

LaGrange Parjk. 268 111, Atjp. 556. The instruction should not have 

been given. 

Defendant contends that plaintiff was guilty of contritutoary 

negligence aa a matter of law, and that for that reason defendant's 

motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and his motion at 

the close of all -the evidence for an instructed verdict in his favor 

should have been given. 

ftnxl gaif ^.tiJ- uioVi (asei 10 ©lOBa &l$-is£ ^ Ajifiissotj) ^fe^sl S to 

Bnxssa XXaoa^ .ton hlh ai? ^.v;?=XX^3 iSifs^J "to baa 9,p;5 J-ss ^[JtB^raibio orid- 

TtsJiilalq jfiiij jxao ©ito '!.o iuo joa ®ii ne^'lr. iiwftjj ■'^od •ssil^e srf^ 

^s-IcJ- 'to «ifJ0 (Ian is^ot'i. «iU ittlv nsv?- *aj.ft v^^XXe ?>jrfd- «Jt ?5|jfil^I gjBW 

-SfU oJ ««:ii5j' stsKW 'llicfaiiiX'i *<!« ^saJyAq 8<bw gii rsa^ IfSHSriw inott 

a^w J^x,.5«ws .'.t'LhtxtisIq.rjoqA) a^w 'iocxq 'to (is^tHt^' sn-f^- w»i 'io •jta^ti'jsiK 

s''r5:x:Kil.£;Xq aoqu i^ni'j.'s&rf eona&ivs 9.ri^ #«ii* foHijp'i X'^^t «ri* :.'%i VjJXl^s 
.&£uow Ji **,-^I^rfsiXa #iu'i .d^worid'i/s* itj^s'l: alii ni j^B^^i&ha&.a^tti -^sso 

< .■O/0„_|l,^j'^s;?T,,M:e?;,, pa^p..t40 ,«y. yjIX^ia ai MsJfeo.i^l'sco a^is^ not&tis:ntBat 

ion xi}^iJodils^ ^btbiU hBsx^v^^ &0iff toBrnfibisl »af km' ,f«dX *XXI 6££ 

iioi^ot-riiSsfix eriJ- eosfio ncarl;?'© cil .aolJ-owi^iBtti: airid' "lo ^siijEeed" yX©Xo8 


©Xcrj-sisvsJiXaff o:J- ion jblaii ^i: "io .v^nlvlj-* ©fi* Jjud" ^f»»Kit;»x^ jrxs ftfisrf 8«jrl 

;XSir. .qqA ,1X1 GeS t «Pp...,,^.?.ry^'^iJ'PI!J.„..^l^,^"!^. ■^^?^-^.^».'^^ -*y. 0/<.4!.g>'ts^ ^TCOITEQ 

'j:o 'i^&j.ity ..V 4-i?i,^rii^»i) jeae .^qa .rxi xas ^aBi»Ml.^T-jiJMIi?5JLjp.oiiI 

»vx:ui J-on hlijoiip. noiitot'iitoaX ©liT .eae »tT(TA ,.j"XX 8dS . 2C?i«5^.„j?g!«^?M4 

sjio^wJii'iJ'Hoo lo v;cM.xw3 a«w t'tx^im&lq imi& Bf\««i*nf)0 #ai>bH»*JE«»G 
e' iftebcif'iaii ao8fi'r>i J^^ili^ rcc't Jrj3ii;r 6iiB ,w«I 't© a»**4JX3 « a» aon9siXs«a 

•xoro't slxl ai ;^oJti)-x9v boiouxiBsxl sm not •QiisMrs ftii* lla 'to seoXo nxtJ 

,Q»vl^ ad«tf 9T«xl bXwofifa 

TJierP! ifi much in the narrative oi" the occurrence, as 
^:iven "by plaintiff ard his companion, which ie highly improbahle. 
In virrr of all the circiunptances under which the accident took 
place, plaintiff 'e recital of his determination to o&rry the 
strawherriea ho had taken to a vacant lot rather than to follow 
his coiipanion dov-n the alley is quite improbable, and the evidence 
as to the poeition in which pleJ.ntiff 'a body was found after tha 
accident is not consistent with his testii>iony tliat he was proceed- 
ing northward across the intersection of the alley and Paulina 
street when he was hit, Tne taking of the strawberriee was not 
directly a part of the accident, but it is important as bearing 
upon the credibility of the testiraony given by plaintiff arid 
his companion. 

The question of the negligence of defendant was, under the 
evidence, for the jury; but on the theory of either plaintiff or 
defendant, and whether plaintiff turned and followed hia companion 
eastward into the alley or ran north across the sidewalk, all 
reasonable perscaas laust, we think, conclude that his own neglife-ence 
directly contributed to the injury he sustained, and that plain- 
tiff was therefore, as a matter of law, guilty of contributory neg- 
ligence which prevents recovery on uis suit. The motion for a 
directed verdict in defendant's favor at the close of all the 
evidence should have been granted, and it was error to refuse it. 
The judgment ie therefore reversed without remanding the cause, 


O'Connor and KeSurely, -TJ. , concur. 

^'^I'dj&dfstqj:^ x^^-i^^'- ®-^ ::»olr.W' ^aola«qii:^0'-> axri bae 'i'ti Jxiii^Iq "^^ ataylg 

ion Q/3'<i? s*)i"i'xecfw.«^;^0 ej^^ 'i.o jinxiiii^ sri'i' , .1-1x1 i§siS7^ srI issrirr ;^i«»i#8 : 

IXi'. ,;il*5'^a^s>f)la ©fij- asJOTTOj^ ri*-xoa net rt® xBlJU: sidi oJkJ; t<TJK^^a«» 

-nisXcf A&ii-i' ban ,.^0nj.ji*sue sii •v:;'swt»'J^ ®^'^ 0^ Beift-'^it^J-noo -^cXJfa-dXjtJI 
-asa ^^sQ$tJdi'iinoo 'Jto ^i.^XiiJs «wfiX ',co -asicl^mu « ss ,^'C0'l<^'!t*iU « jew 111* 

^4»s««o aif* .(^aihitamm: *a-o.'i>tiw Deaaavsn: sxo'ia'xaiiiJ' ai ;Jxi«ati^fc«Jj ©riX 


SHiiJSST J. £BUEi'GEl< et al. » 
Appellants , 


CO., et al., 




OF COOK coui*T-y, 




Tills is an ap^^eal "by vjlaintiffs from a decree in equity 
which disiiiissed tiieir "bill. The cause was heard upon the plain- 
tiffs' exceptions to the report of a master. The exceptions vere 
overruled find the decree entered as TecoiameTir\ed.. The bill -raB 
"brought to secure an injunction restraii ing defexidants from con- 
structinf-- or per;:dtting to be coristructed two advertising sign 
"boards on preniises at the northeast comer of Sheridan Road and 
Castlewood Terrace in Chicago, for the reason as alle^ved, th'jt the 
constraction would violate building restrictions of record, 

Sheridan Road is a pu"blic high-^s-ay on the l^!orti.l side of 
City of Chicago ?,ind extends in a general north and south direction, 
Castlewood Terrace is a public highway extending east -md west, 
Wiiich intersects Sheridan Hoad, Itn western extei^sion ends at the 
intersection; thence it runs eastward (for;aerly to the 1-aJs.e, but 
now to a new road extending nortl-i :ind south along thp "border of the 
lake and kno'-m as the Outer Drive;, The extensioii of Castlewood 
Terrace esfit and vfpst is? ahout HOC feet, iiorth of and parallel 
witn it is Alnslis street. The lote on the south side of Ainslie 
abut the lots on the north side of Castlewood Terrace, On the 
south side and parallel ^ith ISastlewood Terrace is L&i^ayette iark- 
way. The lots on the north side of Lai'ayette Parlc^ray abut the lots 
fronting on the s utn side of Castlewood Terrace. The proposed 
sign boards were to be located on the preiuises described as Lot 
Bumber 41 exoeot the east 3o feet thereof, and Lot SuHiber 42 of 


( .sv 

.Yt:4U00 aoOQ iO 

^ i 1.]' ®li^ J f> H^ 

~ii» <^,? 4^ 

t^EixoTiu^ soiteut o;ii(ii£SS'i .rm ' ■'■ •' '" 

-aii^Xq Slid- aoqw IjifiSii a*??? ©sw^bq aii* .IXXrf li^Jiij- feeasiivtaifi xipiifw 

.^'loos-x lo HCJoiiJoi-Xvifes'ii^axfoXitid ©;|-sXoiT l)X«ow aoilowid'afloo 

»rf,i 'to HBbiad sfi.j' aaoX/.: xi^ftioa bne, ai'iQa -^aibmixs beon '^©a « e* woa 

.boowsXi^asD 'xo woXsasJ-x© ©xi'i' »l«riitC: •xe^.ti^ ©tif a# ow&iXil ^as aiisl 

XsiXi'iJ^iq ib-'us 'to j,.taoii ,&^b'X OOXX d-xJotfii al d'asw bem Ju-ia^ »9AX'S9'i 

^ilakiiA "to 9X)ly diuos »ii* no ad-oXsilx' .*o»^^a eiXanJiA aJc ^i .tl*Jtw 

©xij- aO ♦©w.R'X'i^l' £)Oow9Xie^30 "to ebxs iiJ-iaii "srfd- ao a*oi ©ii# iud£ 

aJoX sxij- i^uJjs xfi^jt-iBg: sd-o*OY*^'iBJ 'to sfcia xii-xon 9xa «© a*oX adT .X«w 
fjsaocToiq axiT .ao*'i'iaT fcoowsXi-axsO 'to shie ciitjjQ sdi ao ^^aiiaoit 
tod 8JB fjacfXnoagfc aaeiiES'ic? Qdi no i>9*s;ioX ad oJ biq^ Bbifiod a^ie 
lo S.^ tadmuii ci-oJ. bas .'toeisxiJ *3»*t 0£ Hbo &di .tqsox© X^ iBdaus^ 

Caetlewood 'oubdivleion. Tliefie lots lie on the north si^le ol' 
Castlewood Terrace, frontiiii.!; souch, .and are ediuteiy adjacent 
to Sheridan Road on the v/est. The frontage oi' tae lots on Ikieri- 
dan Road is 114 feet; on Gastlewood Terrace 70 I'eet. Tue dei'ei.d- 
ant Jajnes C. Wileon holds the le^ial title to these lote. Xhe 
beneficial os-Tier is the American iiotorists Insurai'ice co-paiiy, 
for which the title -ras acquired hy purchase of the equity frofli 
the former ov^er in 1935, The prepiiees at t^at tiiae was incuii.'bered 
by a niort.;;age in the orinclpal ainoiirit of iiSO.ooO, which the Aiueri" 
can iiotorletB Insurance Coiripony purchased in 1927, All of Uastie- 
y/ood T'^rrace is located in Castle-wood Subdivision, corxBisting of 
87 16t8 "bounrTed on the vest by Sherioari hoad, on the north by 
Ainslie street, on the east by the Outer Drive extendinj/ aion^': the 
shore of LfrJce iyi-ichigan, i^md on the b uth by LaS'ayette Parkway, iiay 
8, 1896, this entire subdivision f'as conveyed by the then ovmer, 
Henry J, Peet and wife to tae Title Guaranty ;ind Trust Co, in 
trust, to whose rit.;>its the ChicatiO Title & Trust coiupaxiy succeeded 
by merger or consolidation. Ail of the lots I'rnnting on Castle- 
wood Terrace, vnicii are numbered 22 to64 inciusive, were there- 
after conveyed by the Chicago Title axid Trust Co. ao trustee to 
purchasers bv deed, each of which contained restrictions, wiiich 
vere to iie binding upon the neirs, successors mid assifc^ns of the 
vendee, Thtt material fieBtrictlons are: 

"2, That no building (except bjay-windows, porchee, porticos and 
front fooretepsi' shall be built or aaintained upo-i said lot be- 
tween the building line laid down and designated on the recorded 
plat of said subdivision and any wart of the street deai,§nated on 
said plat as Gastlewood Terrace, 

"3, r.iat no buildings (barns, stables and necessary outhouses 
excepted) shall be built or maintained on said real estate, or any 
part t creof , unless sucu building at the tii^e it shall have been 
built or placed on said real estate sliall iiAve cost and bepn Tvorth 
at least $5,000.00, 

"4, Tnat no more than one building to be used for a dwelxin?^ 
shall at any time be erected or maintained upon the lot above 

-Liis't^b «/:ii' . j^fti'l OV ao^'S'iiis'X ,&oow9lcfafiO rtt^ jd'^^i I'll el JwsoH asb 

©ill' ^ai'ol sssiii ioi &£:iji^ Ijfi^oX ^dd" gfeloii noell'® ,0 a9«u-'X Jna 

, -:rij,c....Ov.' soi'tsiijenl erfsiiaJ-Ov^ o^soirrsifiA dxi^ al 'fsnwo Xjsioi'tsaad 

jio'x't \J-ijjp© sii^j- to 9a«x.',o'£iiC{ -^cf b&xitjpQs Qjiv sljid srlj- rj.ol.fiw lo't 

l-jwaedi&jjoiui: ©aw si.xivi iadj Ojb ssaisieiq soT ,seei al tem^ro t&srzo't arf* 

■-'5X;fa£(U "to IIA .VSf^I nx fcss.arioTJjq va-sqmoO 90«eii/anl a.Jalio^oM neo 

©Xij^ .jiiols ;;jiiJ.j:fi.9d-xo 9'/xiCl ia;f-jjO ©rij -^^^rf Jeaa aiif ao ,#«©T.ta si.faa'iA 
t'xonwo ns-i'icf edo'^i^d' ija^pvaoo Q&'v noieiiribdifR. saxes' as atiiii' «d@8I ,S 

-siaauO Eo afud-aoi'i s^oX siicT 'lo ilk ,noi;Ji5&iXoai-ico to 'leaiftsi ■^tf- 

itoiiiv?' jSCvoid'oi'ccJsai fioai^jiioa .doiriw 'to do&s ,,tvs9fe ^-ef «'5©«,»iiotHq^ 

fuii "io caijiaais i?fif.i a'lo^aeouus ^eiXa/i ©xii aoqw ^aifuiia scf oJ" ©^©^ 

isxc ei:ioi;J-oi'.£ta©a X£l'3:5><r£ia£ ariT .ssboev 

f.uvti aoaiiioq ,9i» ,awoF;iiivy*\Vjgd' ^•(yeoxa) a^-i-o^--^'^ on ija.dT .S" 

fcsftioaen f^rlJ no fiod-^iixsiaab btus imob blsl Ball a«i&Xi£id' &di npsw* 

nc b3dsniiXBf.'5 J-^sid-B ^liS 'to iii^q ^uh f'-oxs aoielTJfclxJiie ties 'to ialq 

• ' ,0o.«'ri»T hoowaiia/sD eje iaXq IsjEjbb 

a^auoiiJ'iJo T^iaseaoof! foas aaXdecTe ^suxiL-rf) sanlljixtfd oa iAiiT .5" 

•V;j:us 10 ,9^JB;fa& Xaa-v JbX^iB lio l^s-fuc^^iiiji^a io ^Xti^-J sd XX4:fiB (fcojqsoxs 

a»ftc[ 9Vjss.ri XX/cSiia ;J-i aii'iJ" srit J-£ gal^Xlucf rioija aa--Xm>r ,1o«ts ,J d'xcg 

ii:t7.cvf r-^9cf l>iTU: ^3 00 ffVBxi Xlsila »^.ecra9 Xafti bx»z no jJso/.Xq io JXiJjrf 

.00.000,81 tBG'^I ^B 

.uiJtXXsirl) A 'lol {j©BU 9cf oi auiiiXiucf »no njBiiJ ©"XOiU oa *J»riT .^^ 
svod* *oX 9iiJ no^jj boiUJB^^ni&ui 10 JboJo©!:® orf ©aX^ V^s i^o XXerfa 

"5. Taat no apartiaent or ris.t-buLiding or structure tuilt, us^st! 
or aiaptf-i l"cr lae separate housekeeping ol" luore taan owi Tai-ily 
shall at any time be built or jri^intainel upo/* sail lot, 

"6. That no building or ntructure built, used or adapted i'or a 
livery stable or I'or co>;iactint, any xlrii oi' bueiness s-iall be 
built or maintained urjon riaid lot, 

"7, That no building or struoture at any tine built or maintained 
on &aid lot sfiall be occupied or used lor a livery stable or i'or 
conducting any kind of bu'^iness." 

These restrictions 3id not cover the entire CaKtlewood 
Sutdivislon but only those lots f -on ting on GriStle^ood Terracf:, 

fill of the lots looat<=d on Caatlewood Terrace were conveyed 
prior to April 5, 19 23, subject to the buildin/^ reiitrictions, anil 
prior to the passatie of any zoning; ordiniii:tce of the City Council 
of the Cit of Chicago affecting tliis territory. It ^?as evidevitly 
the intention of the subdivLders to create on Ca3tle-p?ood Terrace 
an exclusively reBidential district. That result has been sabstan- 
tially attained. There have been erected unon these lota hoMes 
-which vary in coat froa $10,000 to $100,000. Plaintiff s ,at the time 
they purchased, ici-evr of the restrictions &nd acquired th .ir proper- 
ties relying upon the saiae, '^Then the subdivision v^as origii.;illy 
created the property included tiierein, as ^.-eli as surrour.ding r*^'al 
estate, ras undeveloped and consisted for the B:OBt pajft of vacant 
sand and prairie land. Thereafter, in 19C0, the Elevated railroad 
was built to Wilson avenue, whicsh is a fe\sr blocks south of Oastle- 
wood PubdiviPion. Tne conrstraction of the road rsaulted in a sub- 
stantial increase in real estate values nxid in the rapid deveiop- 
ment and iiroroveijient of the area includinti this subdivision. After 
the Aonstruction of the Jlevated to Wileon avenue t-.e population 
increased. Saeridan Hoad, on Wiiich traffic tasretofore was for the 
most part carried on by horse-drawn ve.iicles, becasiie a coniTft8t(?d 
highway on -Phicn all sorts of conveyancee are used, aiid is at 
present one of the if.ost travelled stre ts in OhicafcO. However, 
the traffic nas been somewaat lessened recently by the construction 

«.j<5J. .6ij63 noqJJ ijftrtifiJriXi^ai ^c ilXu^ »cf ©3ti:l yt^ is IXsda 

, • .iol .bias a.oqjJ Jbsi'djsiiiljBifr ^o, J-X.ltjicf 
lo'i '10 ®XaV.ia x%^'^^^ * '^"'^ i>j5»aju "5:0 b&tq^jooo bqI llem ^oX fixaa no 
&oo-3f!)X;?a£0 9*xlv^«s ©ii.t i^voo io^i bi& anoxifoi.'xcfas'x «e©rfi: ; 

h^Xoracti eiew soai'tsX |voow©X3"siiO ko h^iisool a,toX srf* 'io XXA. , ,. , ■ 

£)ius ,aaoi^oi:'iC3i;9i ^"•i^'-J'^-^ijcf ®-ii^ od" d-oato'ija ,gSQX ,S XixqA oct loXiq 

lioaiiod x$XO a^-tJ 'to soiiiiiilijio smaos v"^ "^o ©ij«ae,&;g.,s>4^ 0^ %oi%ii 

XXj-ust-ivs a^w o'l ♦\;io#i'n:o<|' atiii aacctos'ile ogaoXxiO 'io. Y^XP axit 'to 

so&iiQl" l)oov^'-«Xi's*iv) ISO &t&»io oi &xabl9lhdsje Qdi to a0i:J'0«#ai 0fii 

-i-isJ-erfive asacf Riid ilu^Bt i&i^ ,ioli:i&lb XfiXjas&xsatc >cX«T^a»X©;s;f m 

a®i«oii €^oI 9S9Jio .ioc/x; fcsooe'xd a&ed' ar^jxi QiexlT *I}9ni«i-;!-» x^^^^ 

BiaU sAi- &jr>,ii'nLinisn .000,00X1 oi OOQ^Ol^^ naot'i *8oo aX x-tMr xlojtxlw 

-icjyo^Ci lii.iU b&%liJ^Qii hy-in saaiioir^QQi sdi lo wsiOt ^ijeeijiiOiuq \;oxi* 

Xjsa-x -iiazt: i.uiQ'sxiJ Si s.£i Xia^v 3*; ,, Jixai^i.;:;^ i^®lswXqHi v^-xsqoiq, ©xt*. b9$»p%ti 

Jii^s^v 'io j^i-i^ jsQiii sxf;t ■rio"! t'dJa ianoQ |jae Jb«aoXe>T5^nx/ b^t j.-^^t^si^a© 

B®o-xXXjsi fe9J"^;VBX^" ©ri:^ ,00eX «1 tisjJ'iuss'saiiT ,feii«I ai-xi^UQ ,|jjStB ,|iasa 

-tiXJ-scO 'I.© liduoE sjijjoXcf ^©1 « ax uoXxtw ^^wasTB aoaXi* od' iltud «&n 

-cfjja £ ax l'&;fXia«Ki l).i5ox di« lo n©id"owTEi^fl©o sin .aoisivltcTw? fc.oow 

~qoi.©v*>£' Ijiqiii sAt al .r>j,-u> R©*)X«y &(J^ecrsa« Xj&s-s; «i «««9"X0Hi X«idafi*« 

tejfU « aoiai YlfidiJJS laixU saliiwXoaJt. »»xa ©jEt^ to l«»fii«v©:tci.ut kmjmsa 

»di -xo'l cjBW ^i(»'tQ^9%Bi'a QXrxaxi iioixfw ao ,fc4to« oBfeiisue ^fc^aas-ioKA 

fo©*adi)aoo « $ffl«o?>cf .osXoxriSv aw^s'iib-sa'XOit X^ «0, *»-fc^*«e; *^**t: **^" 

ir ?1 btiiu ^bseu &t^ ■•o£U»x»Taoo lo adioa Xia xxolilvr ap Tc;«^rf»ixl 

^^j^i^^wQ^,^ ,o^«c>Wy ai 8;r33ti8 5«iXXov.«it:? Jaom axl;^ '1© »po Joeee-xq 

nox;foi;'x^Biioo oii* «(/ ^iX^Jnso^Tc b^mB^t,L daxlwa^oe ii©»cf a^ri oill*^* »rf* 

of th* Outer Driv*. The cliaracter of the occu-oatioy of b eridan 
road iiHS xIbo ciianged Irora tiaat of a strictly residence distriat 
Into a tiirivlrifi raid iiuriortaiit "hKisinese. section, improved v'ith 
8 teres arid apartment buildings, 

tn the lots in question, now h<»l(i ty James C, '^^J'i 1 eon , wro 
formerly ■ rected a dweliiiit; iiouse, I'ha evideiice does not aiiscloee 
at vhat cost. Ho'vever, it vaa iiilowed to coiae into a state oi dis- 
repair. Later it T^as dej.clisiied .ar^d wrecked, iiie prej^aees are xiow 

June £, 1926, Harry G. V^ill, the then owner of Uieee premi- 
6e8, and i'rank s^uneo, '^'iio f-aE the omiar of pioperiy on Castlewood 
terrace directly syuth of ai'id uerosa tae street froa: the Wilson 
property, filed a hill of co3:.plaiat iu the oirtuit court of ;-ooi£ 
county a:jainst all of trie c'ners oi" property' on Uiv.fctlewood Xeriace, 
prayin;.-. that tiese building, rssLrictioas he held nuli aad void and 
reao'^ed froiii tiie records as clouds on tiieir titles, fhe cauee was 
prosecuted to a final decree, tvaic-i was eutered on je'ebraary 15, 
1929, tliiiB dscree is in eviderxce, finds tue isyues lor the del'end- 
ant», holds the restrictions valid aud in full force and effect, 
Plaintiffs there prosecuted an appeal to the ciupxsiae court of 
Iliinoia. Xhe cause is reported in Cuneo v, Cnica go 'xitle and 
Trust Coapajiy . 33? ill, 689, i'he iSupreme court affinaed the decree 
of the Circuit court, iieid tae restrictions valid and in full force 
and effeot, Tne opinion iii txiat case was filed jJeceiuber 2o, iyS-y, 
Rehearing was dexiied Jebi-uary 8, 19 oo. 

karch 20, 19 35, defendant vieneral Outdoor Advertising Com- 
pany nude an application to tae 3uiidinj„; Departiiiei'.t of the Cit,y of 
Chicago for perinissioii to coxistruct two advertieinij 8i;in hoards at 
4865 aiiaridan hoad, heing upon tae preiuises in question, Ihe appli- 
cation asKed for permissioii to erect two sign boards, each 10 x 30 

a&hi'i'S.'c. 'io i^ofSrUTkOoa s>isJ 'to •£9d'0jeia«ii:6 ©xlT ,»vi"i(l ttotiirO ©ff^'t© 

ioltisib 9on&l)i:s9'i ■j;i:ioxa>ra <e 'io i-silJ- cio'i't ftoaoaifo osXs SBXf l>sol 

/i*iv,' fcsro'inffil. jKoiJosa Basiiisjjcf ifiMJioaeU bii^-^nirxiiUe.e^al 

3^3%' ^noaXri^ ,J esiaist -<j^cf bliyii '^&ui ^a&l'is&up til. BioX ©rf* c0 *' 

©aolofti-ft .■ton esoi^ QUi.mbi.VB Bii'i ^&&ij&ii an±II©w& a b^&os't xX'XQmtot 

l>oovi?''jXJ3;3Q no -^^Jx^qo'iciL 'io laxrvyo aild- aJB# eiiw , o«i«iiO sinus'il hm, , a»'« 

acaXli*' 9x13 sioi'l: jps-iJ'g 9£i,^ aatviajs fifia 'to dfm^ xli'jiti^lb ^OBiteT 

ioo^ 'to ^Jiiico ^ii.::.5-xiu' ssiii rii; iTiijiilQicoo 'io ilt<S m Mli'i ^^r^idqeig; 

,so<8ii&;i &oowc«Il3.-,U no •{■J'lsqoTcg 'lo ss'isumQ ©drf to IX« ^anijssjs'^^ifaMo 

bos biov /.■■Oia iXi;a tieil. od eaosJoitiB'^'i naskliud ismsfi' i&di ■^itl^^^'tti 

SUV/ aauso t-ni .afeXji^ 'xi'Siij- no BbuoLo sb sJbxooei arid" tfiofl f>«vi9a«s 

,SI \;ij55.u'xd9''i no ^siQ^ae iSBw iioi/iw ■,6©ta®/:- XiSKll' 'b o? l»5?iJtro»aotq 

-biia'tsl) 9ii3 -lo'l BSi.<a&i suivJ Bi)xii.'t ^eoi'ssfvlVs ai sX «©^os& aiiffi''^ i^SSX 

,ii0is"i'ta £)n« so'iot XX;j'i iiX 'bifc /jIXjsv aaol^)>l'xSaBi &sii eihlai ,a*nje 

ae-xofJi) JJi-y l>©aiiiTlj6 i|"ii(o» QimiqisU snT ,986 .XlX V5£ , yt^sgixsoO d'S.iJtT 

9oio'l XXw't III biui blU:v aaoi&tii'xi^JBi 6xt;f foXexi ^iisJoo diweiXO ©ni Io 

.WiiWX ,0S i(!»ati©i)ot.l foeXit a-ew s»aao 3J&iU nJt aolalqo »fS(T «#e9"fls baa 

'to \ilO siij- 'to ctrfait^ieqaa ^jalX>XXi/g oxlJ- 6* noXuitaiXqQjB tad ftJ&*iX3 Tcnaq 
Oe X OX doM9 .BbTiiJOt/ n-^Xa owJ- ;fo9i» o* mieeiiafq lot be:<ia.>: noUao 

feet in dinension, each 12 feet Jjigh anr ol' a ootal area oT 72o 

oquara feot, ''.li« psrvuit wa^ isijaed ty siriQ -iuildiiit^ Departtiont June 

1^, 19,'^5, ;:uid p;rcuit3 tc the Lumboriiieu's j..uta<il uaBuaity i^cjuoiiiiy 'P^JC' 

jai.Tsion to erect tlieaa sign 'boardc as requooted ii/ tne application, 

each si{|r.' toard to have an area of 3C0 square Teet, The tcatic^ony 

shoves that the Insertior of nanic of the LumY; ermeri ' s iiutaal 

Casualty Cotipisuy in t e amplication for a peri^it v/as by error; that 

the iign boards rere not intenred to te used by the clef cudriTit •,'. eneral 

Outdoor Advertising Cc-pciiiy in the asu&l course of its advertising 

■busineBe, but the intention v&s to f-nter into a contract «iti-. the 

Advert ie in (_; coaiparAV for the conKtj-v.ction of tnesc eibn ioai-Js, to 

the end that the sign boards znigiit be used in advei tisin^;; the busi- 

nep« of the American kotorints Ineurance Cca-ptny, which is the real, 

beneficial and ■=:Quitable o^ner. These ftcte v'ere eetablifched. by 

the testiv.ony of i«-r, liorris C, i"! an a^aa , who is eo/ployed by S. 

Kemper and Cr-mpeny, ^hioh is an insurmice luiinai^infe in&titi..t icn 

operating a large nutaber ol' subsidiary eorupaniee engaged in the in- 

euranee busineee. These ccmpeunies are at les-st fifteen in nuij^ttr, 

fend one of the subsidiaries is i'he Araerioan Eofrorists inturartce 

Conpsj^y, defer dart. Tae Lumbsrriien ' e iiutual Casualty Ccmpany, 

however, belor-j^s to the same ccinbination &e tna Americari motorists 

Insurance Go-ipany, 

The total lineal on i^astlowood i'errace on both 

Bides of the street is about 2450 feet, I'laintifl's v^re o-ners oi 

Bpproxi'.tately 550 feet ol this frontal;©, I'he Wilson lot rcpressnts 

a Castlcwood Terrace frontage of 70 ler-t. Xhe residences of plciin- 

tif J E located on GaBtlewood Terrao© are of consideraLae "Value, 

Pl^-iintiff .^:.rnest T. hruet^jen n:xs r-aided in ais noae on UUs street 

for thp last 12 years; his residence coat Uoo,uwO; pictinUff koehne, 

a business man, has resided on Gaatlewood Terrace for 32 yeaus, jnd 

has iiav8st«5d in "hiss -nmA -.'-..^ ~ir: 

u xn nis ^oae iroiu #35,ooo to i4G 

^^^.000; kr. Linton, ar.o th 


, ao .L J'&o 1 It; oij s-itt lii fescTeBiipai sijb afeiBQcf a^ln ©©arf;! d'o®'3;5 oJ' xxaiaaias 
\aoi:di:iQiyi ssf^ .J'Sis'l si,swpe Oj?; Io sn^Zif fits >^rBd.ot Btaoa iXBis ttojB© 

-iai;.:,! 9xij ,>.ai:3XJ-r9srb^^; iJi .beaw oof dtx^isJi-'K asx-socf a;§i8 miU iml^ ,&|^, fixfit- 

.Xsirx -Sill si i? ,;'t.«:a:i-.oO -'jDCiKji.y^.fil a^aitotoiv iBJoitam4 ©Jrt[| 'E« s"a»fi 

•^cf Ji®;iai,Ii.f.s;t.3e ©I'^w 3;?o.:,i't &aBdl .isxiwo ©Xcfiis^X-jif^.* Sij,® - Xsloi'i^Awtf 

©o.Xkj/2i..'anJ sda-cao'^o.M fjsoxisioA siH; ai a-jiiaifeiBafjja adj 't.0,©a0,J>«« 

'io sisriv/o ^li. 0'i'tiaai«l<:i ^^■^Si'i O^I^S |-*>«da si *»»•!*« a»ii4'. 'to 8©iji« 

.^mfeoH TUauAixq ;OuO,vJOif *isu« 9o«9bJte©-x siii ;aie9X SI *««X ojfi -xp*! 
b«.. ,s«»«^c St -lo'l ^ostioT boo^eliB^Q no Mlsie*^ e«xI ,aiMB (5S9ni,aiicf « 

plaintiff, is a broker vao n&B resided en LuIb street for 13 
years &,n.O lias invested v4u,uoU iri iiis iiorae ; i^r, i^ipor ^iub teen a 
resident on trie L'-treet for X^> ysare hud xuade aii iiivestiuent i..f 
$40,000; iar, ii^ltmaa, a resident lor 27 years, iiae sui investuient 
of |75,0C0; itr, Hiesenhue has been a resident for 22 yeais with 
an xnvestruent of «!35,000; itrs. uyde , a resident for 15 years, 
•witii an inveatment of ^66,000; kr, Bourasaa, a resident for 21 
y' are, witu an inveetjuent of ,i;i7,C00; i».r. Lower, a resident for 
32 years, ?.ith an investiJient of -^10,000, Wiiil© tne evider.ce does 
not specific lly aitclose tiie actual valut of all tue pre/.-ises to 
be affected, it woald seem tiiat tiae aj'aount involved in resideiitial 
values is aLout :i^l,woO,ivUOt 

Tke bill in t:iis Buit -was iiled oepteiaber 2b, 19 35, The 
amended complaint was xiled Ociiober 25tiX thereafter, i'he zoning 
ordinai'ice of t:ie Ci iy of uiiicago per^ito tne erection oi aigns 
on property loeatod as tiiis ia. Xiiere is a large Gi^n bosArd 12 x 
IOC feet on the preiiiiaes dixectiy norUi ox' these lots; a sii^^n toard 
12 X 50 on t.^e rest side of oheiidaii iio&d lacing the wesi. feJid of 
Castlewood terrace. There hxe- seine otner si^ns in the neigriborhood, 
but there are at present no Bign boards actually located on Gastle- 
T!7ood Terrace. 

Ths orij^'inal bill prayed that the zoning ordinance raight be 
deolai'ed void. In tiie couree of Ui.e hv^arin^^ plaintiffs abajidoned 
this prayer and in their tecond ai..ended coiuplaint owiitted any ref- 
er eiice to the zoning ordinar.ce, 

i'laintiffs &rt,ue t.^at every question in tiiis case, with the 
exceTjticn of miet.^er the pro:0£-;ed ^ i^n boards fall witnin tiie terms 
of the regtrictions, has been settled adv-rsexy to tiie oonten tione 
of tile ooJiipl'xinarits in Uuneo v. Ghioa.,o Title and ^Tr^at Oompany. 
337 111. 5b9. Xuey pcint out tiiai. in case the bill wae filed 

c£ ■rot yeB'iJt^ aixiJ- iio bsibia^t. ajsa oj&vr ■x?)ao1<J js nk /t'tiicii&lq 
4i .cta'3cf sfoTi inqt^l ,'tui. j acvoii 8J:.!i xxi 00u,0^| fcscJasrni: SjraI bn.?. aojsa'^ 

lo cfi-».'<.i8®Ti'-l i"i^i ©.D.C5.ri ':.i.w ata?'^ ill to't d"«>»i.ty flifd- na^^asfiiaet 

IS. "XQl laatia&'x -b ^Baa^ttsjoii ,iil jOOO,dd|' 'to -Isisalaavwi a& iUlw 

oJ" ®«>?,I.n»'iq diuf IliS to aijXjBV j;ai;;?ojs SiiJ" eaoloaib -^11 ■,oi *io3q[a *oa 

► 000,000,1$; Suodjti 81 asuX^T 

afitjis 'to aoijosit* sricj sjJ-itttisiq o^JsioxjciG 'to 1^/10 »il^ 1© aooEot^fe-ie 

X S;X i>xsoJ aula a-i^-x^l -b sji -aiaii.! .ex aiiii a.B l)oix50oX x;ihi:a€[6iq ctd 

JiiBOi Uijia .a ;®i)oX oamu "lo liv'-iQii xjXJos'XXij asaiiaei^ &iU no t9®l dd'l 

'io I) its vi'ass? Slid- 3iiio«'i fojjioH cs^hli'sM 'lo &hM J'aaw aiiji" a<s OS x Si 

-&l:ltar,0 no baitfiyoX -^IX^EUvtOfi ei6^*!od naia oa Jn»asi<j J*j ana »'%^di iud 

»9s^ai'i9t &00W 

0d ::fiiiiJ:i.K ooi-usrix&io BX-iiaos Sfxld" J".i:.ii,j* bbxaic XXi'd LBitiali© «ilT 

IjanoI'-'ifcHlo a't'tio niisXq ^aiic^yjl sJ.iJ' lo ^aiuoo 9!ii al ,6XoT JbaxtiXos* 

sxiJ" ii:^i:ifv ,»a*;u eXu^ xii itojtJ-V®iJ|; yjiavs ^sji.* st'iiTC*' «Tti:^aiisX4 

3iffie:r ©iU iiXiijiVi' XXxs't Bina&cf k^^xa heaocoiq S'Xf;}' a*ii*»/!w 'to jaol'tqsbxs 

,]£rtamgoJ_ j-s3.n'.i:' bu^- g. Xlig os.fcoXxlO .v oercjLfO .f.t B^riEiiiiiXqMoo sri* 'to 
beXiX aiiw XXia ©4;^ ©aaa J-jb.J ax j«i.;t ctx/o Jxiioq ^eiiT ' .g8a .1X1 VSE 

■by the then omers ol' the prer.iisea located at the southfnst m\'^ 
northeast cornerR ol' UagtlewoocT Terruce, thus invi^ivint;: the 
identical property !-mi the identical restrictions hers involvad. 
A c-arrful reading ol' the opinion discloBes that iiumy of the qui^e- 
tions arising on tine record ^"'ere eonsiviered t^y the Supreaie court 
in that case. While the proceedings are loth equitahle in their 
nature they are iu some rcsnects rUssitrilar, Tl;e case in- 
volved the nuestion of re'ioving all Ijiess restrictions ;.3 to ;i.ll 

the lots. This suit concerns only the Wo lots adjacent to Shsri- 

dari Road. Tlie former suit was on« to quiet ti --le, Tl.i_3^''orie 

askiiig the bonefit of the extraordincxy resaedy of an injunction. 
In the former hill the defeiida.nts relied upon their strict prooerty 
rights. In tiiis hill plaintiffs ask affirnati-ve rf^lief in a pro- 
ceeding where the granting of such relief lies in the ©oorid le,jal 
discretion of the Chancellor, While tlie former deorce does not ad- 
judicate the rigats of the parties as disclosed by this proceedingt. 
the opinion of the court ir. the former cB,se is persuasive although 
not controlling. In a proceeding of this kind each case luat he 
decided with reference to its own particular facte fi,rd circum- 
fitar-cea, O'Meill v,. Wolf. 338 111, 503. 

'The ar{,UEient of defendants seems to assurae that tiie fact 
(as clairaed by them) that it is the intention to use the si;^ 
■boards only in furtherance of the busineBs of defendant OTmsrs is 
of some importance, We are of the opinion that this fact, if such 
it is, is not Eiateri$LL, If the erection of tiie proposed si^^, 
boards Kill in fact violate the terms of the restrictions, the 
question of whether the uee is to be for the owner or sccie other 
person mattere very liLtle. In eitxier case the purpose for rhich 
the easement «-£^s created 'irould be destroyed. Indeed, txie prir. ary 
otject in imposing the restrictions v/as to liiLit the usee to which 
the owners themselves niie^ht devote tl^eir property. 

^■lijco Sitn-ntfifS ri .69'x«i.f)i:afj:ca «T'9w l^1ooi»% oiil no -gnij&ltA .i^aeit 

XX^ 0^ So. anui.tolT:daidi sssi'.| XXs -gcuvozm't 'to aold-5?9>0p Sffd- bs^XoT 

Xs^eX i^nt'oa arf* nJ: s&iX "If^il^t. rio*;a 'to s5«-i^^'««'X^ »xi.t ©-xexiw grii:1b©»t 

~l)Xi j'on asoi> t'tito^b 'SJSiuio't 9xii sXirfW .^loXlsoaexlO &M lo, aoi^dioBlfe 

f'iiiibs^oo'SCi, aiiij x6 JisgoXoeii;.' ae Qai:3"ia<5: ©.£iJ' 'to s#rigii; 9ii* «i#^oifciit 

jrlgwo/f-tl.'? n^lniMnixsq ai sa^o •xamio'I' suit xi Jiwot- sdif 'Io 0oifliQO ftrfj 

©cJ a'SW't I9S.B0 j1o>30 .bni-x' nlii^ 'to aaJtbeiiooicT ji. nl ^laiXXo-s^aoo *os 

.803 .XXI 85S ,lM:.^^.lil®^.'^ .as>onj?.*8 
^J-o.-'t aiJJ" d'j'sxfi'' 9i2UJjisj3 oct a.iKft'98 Hiki&ha-^s'iBh 'to tai»iaw,;jt^ 9x13! 

a J. Qi^iwo v1njB?5:ifl'i0l) to aaflniawd" «?>;1;J- *to 9&cmimitiifi ni '^Xno aMaosf 

fiSxa £.9-ioqotq axld- 'to nolitt>nTn 9iiS 'tl .XjaiawJ-sai iofl al .al. *1 

di'j- , ano.tJ-oi-icS'sQi dii^ 'to atarjsd- 9al;t HialQl-v t&n'i. ai Xliw ahii^sod' 

i^ilto Qiaoa 10 lacrvro ©xiJ" lo'i 'J»cf oJ^ el saw ©xi* %9}ii9iiv Io aoitssop 

xioiif:^ tot fsoq'iuq ©xi;t aaso 'ioiiJ-ia itX ,&Xiitl x^or la-t^iism meiBq 

ifoirfw o^ 890U ©x-W cfimiX o* saw anoic^oi:i*9©i ©rU aniaoqaii; fli *o®ttfo 

?efer,<''f.rite contend here, as plaintiffs contended in the 
Gun e case, thc.t the surrouKdine. conditions iiave bo ffi&torl- 
ally PS to ren'ler the enforceiiient of the reBtriot:. ovis in«{quitat'le« 
The master I'ourd in favor of the defendants as to this conte/riion , 
recitint the present conditions and comparing aa^ue witii the condi- 
tions w, ich existed at the tiiae the rescrictionB ^.ere imjjoc«d, as 
hftrfttofore narrated. It doic not appear "caa,\ tiie j>,erieral situation 
has chaiiged materially in this respect since the decision in the 
Cuneo case, in that case the iiupreme court stated tiie rule to be: 

"That equity -^^ill not eni'orce a restriction rasre, "by taa acts ol' 
the grantor who impofied it or of tiiose who derived title under 
him, the property -^^nd that in tiie Ticinage hf.s so caeaiii,ed in itB 
character ant^ Rnviroauient and. in the uses to ■wMch it may be put 
as to ZiBke it unfit or unprofitable for use if tiie restriction te 
enforced, or vrhere to grant aii injunction against violation of such 
restriction ■■ culd he a great hardsxiip on 'cab o^.ner and ol' no 'c-:ixelit 
to the complainant, or -where the comDlainant has waived or ahandoned 
the restriction, flvrertson v. C eratenurrg. 136 xll. 344; ctar -,rey;ery 
Co., , Y ,., P r imaa , 163 id, 652; Trust ees ..of jiolurohia .Gqllege v^., j?iatclaer, 
87 K.Y. 311; ricArtli ur t« \ood Hub"L-c-r i>^o . . 221 ii^ass." ~372,""l09 i^j^7 
1^2; Pa?^e V. Mu rray . '46 Li. J. Sq, 32S.** 

The Sttprene court then was of tiie opinion that the facts an<l circum- 
stances 13 roved as to changed conditions were not sufficient to .justi- 
fy a disregard of thead restrictions. We think the evidence in the 
present case shows that the situation has not laaterially changed in 
this respect since the Cimeo case was decided. These restrictions 
were imposed for the purpose of protecting the homes of these t>lain- 
tiffs froa deterioration as tne result of such chan.'.igs. The 
changes were not unforeseen; could have been easily forecast by any 
one fa;nili--*r with the development of real estate Grojects in 
Chicaf^o. Changes have ta^ken place in the neighborhood but not in 
the restricted district itself excer)t as to tJiese lots. Thus far 
the r'?Btrictions f=eem to have acconplished the pur vose for which 
they were desip;ned. The necesgity -t'or the restrictions is nor 
more apt^arent than hitherto. ITii^ i^ ne f^ufficient reason for 
destroying them. ,0!lieirL_v,j?olf^ 338 111. 508; Orexel State 


-x'xnd-.ara ou .bagiiaiio 9noi.iibaoo ^ai^lUlOTai;a sdi i^^rii ^9a«o ^dfltfO 
, aoiJiiSjaoo slxij o;t si. 2/siei>n9'is*& 9ii^ 'lo tova't ni baiso'i t^ltsasn. ^liT 

^ncT nj; nolsioat sxij eoaie t^&sqa^i sldi ni •^IXjsits;}'#,ai Ss^i-ifirfo serf 

-xabnij sXiii- foeviisf) oii'w ssa>i,t 'io '?o il b&nQqmi om •s.'Qiim't:^ »d^ 
aii ax b9;^iiBxIo oa sad s^jsrsioiy &di nx iMiii bOB -^^itaffo'ig sxl* .iaJtjl 

ad noi J'oi'xa'ssi axii 'ii r>gi, -xo'i 9XijsJ"i'ioiqniJ 'xo ^ilrti; j1 ajLea od ajs 
iioi/e 'to noiitaXair iaaliv^s noiioiujtnl rxs toaxs o* ©xiuisr 'lo ,fe©a*so-*ta9 

»t^nobas6& to .berxjf^-:- a^jrf diwmx£.X(jiaos ®j.U siailTT to «.txwniisXf?Ki©3 sii^ 0* 

-xi^sijf. oi^ .-tnBiox'i'tiia ion s-xew afloijXvbaoo Issgaijilo oiJ aa b^roio 8»one^s 

•.••rich ni ©oa-^bivs 9iii^ ilnxdj £»Vv .saoi:toii^B»T: feasii* 'to b't^'^»t&lb & x'X 

-:i.u-:.XcT •3a««xiJ' lo 8<^aoii 9x1^ .^oidos^iotQ 'to &aoq'imi ®rtj To'i l>©8 0C[ffii: eiew 

sifi' .a?>.-iiiAiio xiiijje- ic> i Ssms-x sxl-J ajs flipiJJBiox'is;^©^ «to^1 a'i'tiJ- 

^rits T^cT 4's^.rj9*xo't Y,Xi:aii9 nsed ov^xi isXnoo latsseaiolau *on »^««!' s^anexio 

xii ejoatotq si\«i'8S X^di "ic ;}'a®iCqoXsvsl) 9x;l xt*iw iKslXlflJa't ©flO 

al ^oa ;}-iji Boci^iodxisian sxiJ- ni eo^r^Xq nsx** svi^il «as«»^^ .©S^pixlO 

TCi^'l SX.XIT .3;^cX fte6xl;t oi se cTcrsox© ^tXsa^i ^oxtc^aXS fca.toXicJss'S sri;^ 

xfoti 3i saox;foJt^crs?>-t 9di to-i Y,.ti3aP0«a 9xIT .banaiecfc 919W x^di 
-io'n :u>a^^i *ae.toX'riyR on ^i alcH .Qit^dUd. mdt ta9tac(ai& 9X0ta 

>ank of Chic&£Q \. O'Do n nell . ?44 111, 172, It iiuiy po:iSiLly be 
true t'xac theee particular lota are Liore vaxubiLle i'or cufsinesB 
than I'oi- xesideiice, \j\x\. dal'endauts. purciiase^ at a compa- 
rativc?ly reocir^t (Tate axi,d. vritii i'uli itnowiedge of tue restrictions, 
T'aey are not nov*, in order to realize tiie greatest po-^Bitle 
■benefit irora the uae to which ti-.eir px'operty muy be put, erroitled 
to destroy restrictior^a w.^icii are inyalaable to others, mid v?iiicii 
were iE.posed ty ccixu.iort coxi&eut, wl fefcill v. Wpli'^ 5*5 J ill. 50S; 
heed , v« iiszard . 137 Lo. App, 54? (174 o,W, ill). It is perijaps 
trus taat the best use to "-'hici;- these particalar iota caxi be put 
is a coiru:ierGial one, cut tnis is not suTiiuient, lui-ney v, 
aiirivar . 2u9 111. 161, ivor is the iuere i'act taiit iu tj.Ae opiriioia 
oi' others such use v-'ould ^ot dauia^e the property of other pex'sous 
uhder the s,ara© reatrictioiia sufx ioieiit, ua-rtu^a^j. v» We^^ls . 257 
111. 167; Van .Kjatit v. Hpse . 260 111, 401, i^eitl^er does a 2ohing 
ordinance repeal auch restrictions placed prior to its en&ctj^ent, 
Pol an V. Brown ^ 358 111, 41?.; ocrdoxi v« waldwell y 235 ill, App, 
170, The fiiidiiit, of tixe j;i&stex in this re^^ard was not Justified, 

The muster was of trie opinion (as defeu-^wxts contexid) 
that eo;:ijplainiAiit8 are not en;,itl€d to relief because they are in 
court with unclean h.uiids, Poiiiercy'a Equity Jurisprudeaoe, vol, 
4, see, 1702, pat^es 3972-2974, and OurtJB v. hub in, 244 111, as, 
with otiier cases are cited, ixia contexition in aubatar.ce iu tuat 
a nvuQber of plah: tiffs have violt/ced one of the restrictions ii?;- 
posed by ouildin^; onto tiieir naiieB biui parlors whicu extend be- 
yond the buildiiit,- line and ^mich is in disrCt^ard oi one of "che 
reetricxiohs. The restrictions iUihts an exception of "buy 
windows" aiid evid?5nce was offered tending to show uuut the "sun 
par-ore" erected should properly be th^3 clusaified. Tn^ ter.. 
"sun parlor" do.^B not seeia to have oo^.e into ^ei^erai use at the 


IjoI.i-ija» ^^i'ijq :--JU "^.uiu ''s:v^'S«'.vo^q lis .J- oio.jjtw o;)- saw ©di- iiso'i'l Jlioa^'d' 

aoxi-iuo t^iiN? ai vi-,'it;r ^o^'i artoia ©ilj ex -loiti ,f'dX ,1X1 §0S . laaylririct 

■i^alao'd £i aao„;- x^siic^'xos'i ,S.O^ ♦XXI 03S .yap.^^, . , v ^fi | »;aj^^ Kjey jTS^i «iXl 

,J^xis::.iCl'0--a3 s -i X oa- 'ioiiq bSiO&Lq, aiioxc^yiiJas'x xiowe X^eqsi 

,!;,tu-. .XXItlui:; ^XX;:^;\'|)Xj^,y.. ,.i.y.-J^o=;j:xov ;Sii^ ,1X1 6e£ . ^yro-x^ ^v a^ . X^ofl'iii JaAJO itoii aaw &xs,viifa aid;}- ai aaJa^w sJJ- "So ■^ulhaxi srff *OTX 

(ijiiaoiico iii^Uiiiii^'teb a.*; ) iioxniQo SiiJ" 'to saw TdJe^-ixti srfT 
ijx ti-Lz •\{,*j_ij sawjfioycf ■i3XX9i 0^ .bSiXux^inu ion otj,i a^iK',ai**I^i-oo iJBiii 

,80 .:.X1 i••^S ^aiajju .7 axd-"XjjJ bae ,K9C-2V9£ 89;;^Jtjq ,30VX «©«b ^^ 

-fiii ija^J./CO i;ciiuw a-xoXi£q chjs afi-aou '1X9.1* o^no ijal.'-Ixjj'U' ijcf fcftaoq 

•sjilj 'lo '-jao Xo /;Xfojoa«i.l ai si .daXxiw bm-, oaiX ;3aii.)Xijjd sri;^ 6nox 

XiiQ* Xo acXXqooxa ;-ud siLuu 3aci;^ox'xJc&tc f^iiT .ofioii''oxT:d-asi 

.;.ii.d- &xiX .I)onicajBXy ei...i ©cT ^laoqcio. bLvode hfi^^o^t^ "aioX^^q 
exW ix. &BU Xaiansi o*.ti ewoo avxixi oi m^ss :ton asol. "^aXrii^q n««" 


time these restrictione -A-ere created, V'? tVLiiik tlie Bun p^irVors 
are not hay '^Indows. Erefidenbur;^ v^. La^^er ^ 273 111, r!14; Jirgjidfii- 
tmrg T. Tlie Country Clu'b I: ld p..Cor-porat ion. 53 S 111, 1?G. It ray 
"be concede'^ t.l;at these structures conBtitut© a technical vlolr=.- 
tion of nne of the rectrictioas, I'ut thip is not a ''Di.ll to re- 
strain the erection of sun parlors beyonl the "building linr, 
PlaintilTs FPok to enjoin the crectioi. of sitjn boari-'.s covering 
practically the area of tv,'o of the lot£5. Plaintiffs, by erecting 
sun parlors "beyond the building line ar:' thus viol; tint, la p-jrt 
one of the restrictions, i:rc not estopped to object to tiie erec- 
tion of sign boarc'6 covering., tlxe whole area of def en iiiante ' lots. 
The bueirteea of erectint^ sign boaads for arlverlipxn^ purpo'cs; as 
v/ell as tlie erection of sun parlors Las developed since tr^eee re- 
strictions ?'ere created, ae ij.&y be seen bj' sc- ex^fciviation of 
General Outdoor ivdvertising Co. y« I)epartuer-t of Public t'or a. 289 
Mass, 149, This theory of estoppel van alEO urged iv th.e Cuneo 
case, ana upon evidence aubutaritially the saaie as tiiat upon v-hich 
defendants here rely, the court said: 

"Ihough it be conceded tiiat the building lir.e restriction hf^;e in 
this particular been violated by some of the lot owners on 
Castlewoo'.' ierrace, there is no evidence of the bretich of any 
other of taese several restrictions. Abandonment or acquiescence 
in the violntion of one restriction doeb not Uaount tc the uoEndcn- 
ment of other separate and distinct restrictions material and 
beneficial to the oif.ners of lots affected by thefli. Oliver v , 
Wjliianis, , 221 ^ich. 471, 191 iv . W, 34; i^wertsen v. Ueretenber p. 
supra : ierry on hest. on Heal irop,, sec. 575,*' 

V/e held this defense canxiOt prevail, 

ilie controlling question ir. the case se€»-6 to turn upon 

defendants' ccnterition chat these restrictici.s do uot (properly 

interpreted) prohibit the erection of these 31^;^ boaus. It is 

admitted that this conteiticn not j^iude or considered ii. the 

Cuneo case, ".efencjants say, citin,;, iatu.^ cases ao xiolJing, that 

restriction 8 of this sort raust be strictly construed; Liat all 

doubts are x-o be resolved in favoi of the free use of real estate. 

B'tcLtAq aus exit ')injii\i o? ^b'^:tiaS%o ©is^a- aiK<i^olx!i@Qi sasiU Qtal& 
"l^'ibofx^'il ;^I5^ .i.;:;c ti'V'? .nJ:hi:^h.L^.»l.J&j^ii^SB£iM33i »9'ifol)ai-if "■jscT *ort ©xs 

-'VI o;}- IXlrf jt-t Jon aj: eir'.d- ^ijju ^rinol-jio !%)&&'£ Qxii \o sao "io woivf 
•gniio^t0 ^o f-i'Vli.taLs.n ^sJ-oX ari.^ 'to owJ- 'Ip a9i« ©j'id' \:IXjaoJc;^0«"X<j: 

3S 3L;3ocr-cug saJ:-3x.t'X9TC)j3 -ro't ai?-iJ*od iv^l& nalJioii-xa 'to easniawd": »rf? 
»svi aaaaj soi-i-xa bfiqol'sv^b SiSjl a'solxag- /.ijje 'to aoiioatfi sriit e« IX^^ , 
lo i-ioicTfinii^isxB ris vrrf na<s3 act ^i,is.■l\i ■&& iljat^^'sa f^ta^t saox.^©iiEd'ji„ 

^ 2 , e .109 olid;;''!, "to ^■-i3.i.lXo,(;^G„,^y uU^ js^xxi e 1 J -'X csyM '^Qo/j^yQ , Xs':ta , fga,a 

09n;jO 3,'.tl- ix f)9;,>'i-)j oaXa «w.? X0q>qoc)'3;^ 'io 'j^-xo9£ii al:iT ,3^1 «aaj3iA 

;AlisG ^-xiiios &iSi ,-^X3i ftiEsxi a*riaJfma'i»ii> 

no S'xa.a^io dol arU 16 SiKoe xd fe9^tBX©iv fl«>®cf %&liJolirss!.q nidi 

has Istxr'isim snoij'oiiis*'! ioatiBlb bujs o^AS'iGqsa isrid-o 'to ia&m 

.y -x^riX.) .^^aU" ^^^ b-^^i>eTU aJ-oX 'io a'XOii'.vo srfj- oS Xsioi'l^nscf 

*12il«g'^®jsi>^ j»X-'^«®f^,I2F^ :-*^^- •'«■ -^ -ttX ,XfJ^ .rfoXil XSS .jjSiSsiXXiW 

^m^s .-^axiiXoa oa a^a«o y;i'ujfi; -^iai^rxj .^bs si^mbayUQ .«ais» osflwa 

They then point out that restrictione IJoe. 2, 3 trnd 4 r^'lats only 
to tuildings, Wiiile Kos, 5, 6 and 7 relate to eit:'ier buii<2in£s or 
structures; that No, 2 is? a general restriction relating' to tuild- 
ings and providing tliat none of tJiem (vfitli the exceptions named) 
shall be erected teyond the 25 foot hull dint-; line. Defendants 
undertake to dletiniuish between structures and "buildii-gs. They 
aay that all buildings are etructures but t lat all structaree are 
not tuildings, nxii cite Bruen v. The People . 20e 111. 417, They 
say that a huildinc (unliite a more structure) laust he permar.ent in 
its nature &xid designed for the hahitation of laei. or ai.imals or 
for the eheltrr of property, i-e-vin^^- l^ tnln diBtii^ction eliiiiir*'a,ted 
refctrictions Koe, 2, 3 and 4 as to si^n toaids, they say 
that To, 5, properly construed, merely li^aite structures or h^^ilci- 
in{;e frcn. use fcy more than one faiuily, tiiue also el iulu cot ing this 
restriction in so f£»r ae sign boards &re concerned, iics, 6 snd 7, 
it IB said, are aubstfint tally the satfie in providing that no build- 
ing or structure aa&ll be built, adapted, used or ifl&intaii:ied for & 
livery stable or for "conducting any kind of business.*' Defendants 
then cite Webster's liew International Diebionury and V/ords and 
Phrases, second series, volf, 1 and 2, as to the meaning of tae 
words "conduct* and "business," ihey also cite iletcher Cyc, 
Corp., vol. 17, sees, 8438 and 8465, to tiie effect tiiat soliciting 
subscriptions or advertise.aents is not doine, business. Iheae aeo- 
tions have ref ersnce to sitaations wuere the question for decision 
was whether a foreign corporation -isras doing buainess Tisitnin the 
meaning of a state statute requiring a license so to do, .tkraitowsk i 
T. '^ite Liulp hur dprinKSB 161 i^.Y.S. 193, whicxx is also cited and 
relied on, is a aase --Adhere a siiuii^r c^uestion was considered, Inese 
authorities give little assistance in the detenuination of the 
eontrolling qaestlon here, whien is. What was the intention of the 


b&&H:'il^-i-il'd aoi Outlier a 15 aid^ X'^' i-^oUv^-ii .^Ittsqo-xq 'io i;?tX9i-Isi>rf'i' 'xoT 

-bXXijcf on ^iriilj sax&xvotfs al ©utsia axLt xil&ijn&iBdisa Btr. :, folsa'ajt ^'l 

baa- SJb^oW bxis T^gianoxsiaiG X«ftol;)-.e.:^sJ'iil w^'a;- g'^aj)'a#»W g>#J:?y |i®^i* 
axU 'to iiniiiAJ3*a &ii^ oJ- 6^3 ,S l)n*a I ♦«iXoT ,83x:i-«>a feaoosa ,8»e«U'ri*i. 
..ovcO ^©riOvTsX/'i- ®^io oaXja i^aiix » ,aasalaij<f'' km ^^^uhmts* tJjtow 

ed>i aidslw ssanxs.uo ^xiloib si^v? fseid^aTiogTseo Hsie-xo't « aftxWeifw eaw 
biXB b&ilii oaXiS ei uoidt?; .&ex .©.Y,?l X5X ,uMiH:5J^J?MsM^li^^^ 


parties at the time the restrictions were ere&tsd as dieclos^d by 

the language used? -tfrom this etsridpoint it is quite apparent tiiat 

tnose orifc:inally agreeing to the restrict! on p did not have in raind 

any technical distinction "between a stnicture and a building, nor 

between conducting an advertising tiusiness and other of 

commercial pursuits. The evident intertion, as disclosed by all 

the restrictions, v^'as to -orotect these particular preB'iseB frcrn 

every use which would ten-i to destroy the value of iioiiies to be 

erected on the premiees. It is apparent that the re«l intenticn 

was to preeerve Caetlewood Terrace perpetually as a resi^_e.uce 

street, and every interpretation of the restrictions m-ast keep 

this controlling purpose in view, 5?he Century Dictionary defines 

a building as - 

"Anything erected by ert, and fixed u-oon or in the soil, comnazeA 
of different pieces eonnaeted togetjaer, and desigiied for perBiaj-jent 
uee in the position in Triiic':. it i a so fixed, is a huxlding, rhua, 
a pule fixed h^ the earth i& not a buixdirig, but a feiice or wall is." 

It ia appajreio.t t -at & sign ooard may be a building witain 
the memAug, of tiii© defJuaitioB wh^ati considered with reference to tiie 
purpose of tiieee restrictions, and it has been esjpressly so held by 
the Appellate court of the second district in Woodburn _ v, K usse3 .,l ^ 
213 ill, App, 553, in a v^ell reasoned opinion, 'i'he same construc- 
tion has been put upon tnis word in otner Jurisdictions as applied 
under analogous circumstanees, iiiecca Realty Co, v, ^ellOjg^ i;oa,stej| 
Cprn .naKea_Go. , 148 i^. Y. Supp. 1040; MM£:LJLjL^Jl9mi3:.^tM&?M^ 
141 Cal. 392 (74 I'ac, 1031); PooocJc v. uilham, , 1 Cab, and .aiis 104; 
gM^t£_ljL._.£rovincial. _Mll Posting Go. . 25 Times Law Heport, 489, 1 
Chancery Div, l&oa, 734, 'ihe evidence siiowe that one of the pro- 
posed sign boards is to cost ^41d and tne other one ^796. We hold 
that cue proposed sign boards are within the meaning of the restric- 
tions, ana. tLal tii© erection and proposed use of tnem would constitute 
* violation of the provisions of tiie restrictions, particularly 


Ii©5oqi;iOO ,Xloa sj.l;f aJ. 'fo ascw fcaaqi'i ^its «iT0 X'^ bsi'^^^iB 3£iii"i>xa4'' 

t'sifrLi. ,sfix^,IJ; a el ,.bt)>>:i'A oa ei J-j; ifoXilv; al aoiliaog ©rfi' ixi. ftax; 
",si Xia«' -.£0 ©oas'l *5 sad ^■^js.lhXiijd & J Oil si: liixi^e biU r>;i iiisxli aXots; n 

-f. j; -x ;}•<!! no o auiss ©rii' .noialqo feanoa^afsi Xi®w & ai ^^d^ .qqA.XXX £XS 
b&s£qq^ a.::. KnoliiiShQlttJi iffiiJo. itl foiov; &ldi «oig« 3'aQ fj^sd' s^rl aolit 

^j^a^a ;ip y;j>ix;oO. „v:^.:s:g3iij^ i'-^^^-^'* .^I'ji'S .t .k a^x , , ;;.p s».ij!.iji.. ot jo 

;I>0I aiXia Ijos ,dB'J I ^ mdl li) .V iooo.e'-^ ;(X50X ,©«<i I^V ) £©£ ,Ia3 US 

fcXoxl »W .SeVi aao isif^o stxiJ one exi^ip *aoa ai ei: ftfe-x^ocT iisie l)&eoq. 
olijiicranoo foXwow xaericf -io f»ajj fcaaoefoiq i>rw3 aoi^Toeia »ii;r aAiid" feaa ,aaoi* 


numbers 3, 6, and 7, 

ffor the reasons indicated the decree of the Circuit onurt 
is reversed and the cause is reraanded '«?ith directions to sustain 
the exceptions to the report of the master and to issue a perma- 
x^aiit injuijction ae prayed. 


O'Connor and kcSureXy, JJ. , concur. 



ROBiiRT A, MORRBY, _ .,..^*'"'"") 

» ) 

( Plaint irr) Appellant, " ) / 

) iSi»PEAL i'pOk SIfl'jRIOR 
▼»♦ ) /^ 

FRKDiBRICK. H. BaRTLETT, Individually ) 

and KRiSBiiiRICK: H. B.ARLSTT as Trustee ) 

for nnd rioing business as PRTi'Di'.RICK ) 

(Defendant) Appr^llee* '28 8 I«A. t> Z 


This appeal is "by pleintiff from a judgment for the de- 
fendant entered upon the findin^^, of the court. The suit fras for 
the return of money said to hare "been paid 'hy plaintiff to defend- 
ant under the tenns of a v/rittei; contract, by which defendant 
agreed to sell and plaintiff to buy certain real 'estate, :ind for 
damages sustained ty reason of the alleged unla:wful forfeiture 
of this contract. The. contract was made August 4, 19 39, was in 
writing, and by its teriat defendant (upon conditions named in 
the contract) agreed to convey to plaintiff fwc lots in a subdi- 
vision in Waukegan, Lake county, Illinois, The lots constituted 
the nertheast corner of Rockland and Telegraph Roads, The preui- 
see are iiuproved by an oil station and a SEiall restaurant, and 
ocoupied by a tenant named Klein, 

The purcaase price was stated to be $37,500; |300 in cash, 
the receipt whereof was acknowledi;ied; $16,100 by "special allow- 
ance"; and plaintiff agreed to pay the balance of #21,100 in 
monthly installaients of |50 each or more on the 16th day of each 
and every aionth thereafter, coHimencing September 16, 1932, and to 
continue for six months; ^^100 or more on March 16, 1933, and the 
same amount on the same day of each month thereafter for six 
»onths; tuereaiter, beginning September 15, 1933, #150 a month 
until 45 n-onths from the date of the contract, at which time the 

IMV — ■"'^ 

X ■ 

jTrawoo ^000 to thuoo 



-'>?• '^dj lo't j'tftfii-jhi!?-. A? -loi't: 't'tiJ-fiLsicf X"^ si Xascfqis aliiT 
•xo't e.'jw itiup 9ffi' ^jitjoo sit 'i:o (i^nianJ;^ ©xi* icoqu .b«ii©itii9 iOMbOBl 
-&fia't3Jb o:^ 'JtlijTJi-i-Ic: Ycf .!uj3Cf nosd 37arl o;f fti^ia ^59^oa^ to ntut^i'X siii 

nJ: fesm-^a s noi: J if:: aco aoqp) ii:mb:is't9b m^t^t aJ"! ■^af &ix& ,gal:l-x'i;w 

^atuiilsixoo a3oI ©ill' ^riioaiXII ,'/d-mjoo 9:!t.eJ ,n©a9i[0fiV/ nl aoisiv 

bHB (.taetiJBosas'S llami e, baa aolisia lio^ tm X'^ JbsvoTtqai ©i-e eaa 

♦ nJ:a£S 6o(HJ8a ^fits^ns;^ «? '^d' Miqtroso 

ni OOXtXP.I 'to i^»j:tjeXc.d ^di x^q of beexi^i 'tt i&ni&lq bst^ ',*»o!3r 

iioM'r) 'to XMh r?iJ5I QiiS no a^os to xiojsa Oci| fo fe^taeiall^^-afii ■\£Xf:d-«offl 

oJ fen£ ,S6eX ,-:>X •xscT-iHeJcfeS gaionsaEiorj ,ii>.t'tsei©.'i^ rftfrtofi ^levo bae 

<»m bm ,S.b9.l ,dX lioxeM ae ft-xcn io OOXv :«iliaom xla lot awni;^cioo 

i-UiioGi /£ -oexi «££GX ,ei :ta:fe*9crq&S sflimiiascf ,i»drijs®iaxi* jaiiiTno® 
»rii maiw^ rioiiiw ^a ,io£iiaoo Qdi to 9;^«& ®f^i ^ot'i adiaom S> Xi^nu 

entire unpaid balance of the purchase price would "become due. 

All oi" t lose payiAents were to "be made with interest at ti;e I'ate 

of 6'^ Tier annum, payable montiily on the wnoxe fcuja I'roBi ti^ie to 

time remaining unpaid, ■'rith interest at t/c on all deliiiqaexit 

payments. Plaintifl' aleo agreed to pay all taxes aiid special 

assessraents levied for improvements not completed on May 1, 1926. 

The contract provided: 

*In case of the failu''e of the said purchaser to make any of t-ie 
paymente, or any part tuereof , or pcrforcit aiiy of UiC cov?J:;aiits on 
purchaser's part hereby made and entered into, or to keep and 
olieerve all the conditions, covenants aiid restrictions herein 
a"bove set forth, t'lis contract shall, at the option of the vendor, 
"be forfeited and detertidned, ^^itnout notice, wnetner time of pay- 
"lent has been extended or not, provided purchaser shall be in de- 
fault as to Euch extension, ii' any, at xne xxiHQ of vendor's exer- 
cise of said oT)tion, and the purchaser shall forfeit all payiuftnts 
nade on this contract, and sacn payiuents shall, "witiiout notice or 
de"oand of any kind, be retained by the said vendor as voluntary 
payments made on account of purciiase price iu full satisfaction 
and in liquidation of all daiuages by him sustained, " 

Tia-C TPae made of the essence of the contract. 

Prior to the execution of this contract on August 4, 1932, 
defendant was under contract to convey these preiuisee to ^red A. 
Boswell; tnat contract, however, was (on the day this contract wae 
raade) cancelled and surrendered to defitodant, Ihe contract of 
August 4th was executed at defendant's office in Chicago in the 
presence of Bos'^ell and his wife and the plaintiff. John Henry, 
an ©Hployee, handed the contract to plaintiff for execution. Eos- 
well eayg he told Henry that he was about to sell his rights in 
the land to plaintiff and asked that the amount which had been 
paid in by him on his contract be credited on the new contract 
with plaintiff. He say« that Henry said the arrangement could be 
made, and that Beswell at that time delivered s quitclaim deed 
for the prsEtisee to Bartlett, The evidence, however, indicates 
that Henry was not authorized to make any such agre^uent. The 
written contract, which is presumed to contein the entire agree- 
ment of the parties, does not contain any such provision, and the 

,SiVb ©fiioo^^cf blsjo"^ aoiic; i^s/s-d'iiijq sti^ "to sQxtfilBd' &i„^jqm/ eixj-n© 
^iitriji.tpnxlwb XXis iio ^^^ •;?,; Je?>if>d'nj: <i.ii;:'^ ^fciisqnxf jjiniai*',;),©-!- sMicJ' 

0;oit 'lo 1^^'^ oiii.uii oj- isasiio'iirq hi&s BiU 'to «»-fL-i;j:jB't fi.<<d- *to sis*© fil" 

'-■'ij^u'i lo »;xJ.j ioi-i;}-0ii«- «©oiica .j-i/oxiit-i"/ ^botitiXii^i'Sib BttB Jbad-islTo't scf 
-&b ill 30* ili^Jiie isaA?iio"X0g i)9.f>i:vo'xg ^Joa to ^iibKfltx® nfi»cf sifri ia&s" 

" «ji)«ii.i:,s58fjs «ciii Y^ a9S)*u^-j3ft JXf; 't© n©idjRJt.i.ifplI fli bnis 
.oi'^Biinoci et>.i 'to »on&9ss ©li^ 'jto 9^fii« a.sw »mlf 
,S;o iJi; ,^ v-fsiQjijfi. iip d-owxj-jfioo aln.i' 'to noii-uoex® ari-t oc^ toil*! 

as''^ crs^iii'Ttoo aiilj •'^sii ©xU' ao) ssajw ^i-jyis^ari«Tt^noo iani jXXawaaS 

'lo *o«iJ-fioo 9ri'i' ,«d'nt>i>«9'l©p ot i>ai«l>n©taif® .r>ci« .e>eIX0s«iBo («JM»iw 

Sii,t ax csBoiflO n.i soi't'to s* Siw.haet^h ie- !bf?d-iJo»x© aaw ri^.^ tBu^tsA 

iXtiti^ii ii£l&t /.ffis-alslff <s.n,;t him e'Uw ssirf .bfm iXowaofcl 'to sortessiicr 

ai aJfltiX-i sxxi Ilsa oc^ d-ued.^. saw r:)rf .t45.f(.t ^Tfr©H feXo-t 9£{ st-^s XXew 

ioaiiluoo won ©fid' no |);«>*i,^?rta s«f dojBi^Tnoo airt no faicJ x:*^ «i. feijs^ 

9C I:.Iti-o tm!xm7iiiit&t^i& &iii bis® \i;"xa9H i^eiicJ- fe\;«B ©H ,'l'iiJ.cji«X«i if*iw 

laei'ja&Xinti ,'19^9^0x1 ,9omi^iT» ©flT ,i*'^>X^TjjS 0* s©aiii39"xi| »4* lo't 

fact that defendant insiated on the cancellation and delivery to 
it ol" the contract Tith Boewell iie£,ativ«s rmy inteiition oi' tiie 
parties to make any such agreeiiient. 

There is no proof in the record ua to the actual amount 
of money paid by Boswell to defendant tinder the prior contract, 
or that other consideration was given t»y wliich the amount of the 
special allowance wae deterjidned, Boswell thereafter acted as 
the agent and representative of plaintiff in making paymente, and 
the evidence indicates that Bo swell was in fact the real party in 
int.=?re3t in the new as ■well as under blie old contract. In addi- 
tion to the payment of ^300 aade August 4, 1932, pajiaentB of #50 
each were made under the contract on Septemher 24, October 19, 
KoveiaTjer 17, December 17, 1932, and payjiients of the same aaiount 
on March 18 and April 17, 1933. There was ^ further payxaent of 
#100 on May 16, 19 33, and payments of #50 each on July S6, Sep- 
temher 28, and JSovemher 17, 1933, A furtaer payment of s-lOO was 
made on December 12, 1933. Taxes for the year 1932-33 aiiiounting 
to 5^397,14 accrued, vfhich plaintiff was ohligated under his con- 
tract to pay, hut on which only $100 ^as paid, leaving a balance 
unpaid pf ^29 7.14. March 1, 1934, payments, under the teres of 
the contract, were due and \inpaid to the total amount of $1250, 
with interest at 6% on the tialanoe due xm the contract, arid March 
16, 1934, the further sum of |150 fell due, which was unpaid. The 
plaintiff concedes that on March 1, 1934, ifl547,14 wita interest 
wae due and unpaid, and that on March 16, 1934, ';^169 7,14 ""ith 
interest was due and unpaid under the terms of the contract. 

During this tin* W, B. Ames was the office laanager of de- 
fendant, and the collection ol' the amount due under this contract 
was under his direction. The matter was at first handled by the 
colleetion department without his direct intervention, but later 
in 1933 the fact that plaintiff was delinquent in his payments was 


^I'a '.to i;ioi:o\!i©<hxi: vxv, ?i^■7l&■&■^■^i1i XX««'aoa liti^jT :fo«.i:J'uoo ©ii^ 'to ii 

rii 'v:j*s:i?cr, X^?n" «xy^ :to.«'l ni- &mf il&'fTnoti $>bs:Iv e&s&olbnt ffloa&isive 9di 

"kbM al ,:Sf:>s'S:&aoo bio ©jiii- ^mbmj sa XIs\? a« t»&n sxl^ fii: •d'Sst&i^ni 

OcJ^ lo aJrtaiii'SjBQ: <SS4?X ,1^ dTji.ugiiA ©ib^xa OOfit to iixamxsxi ndS .©df' coif 

,, QX •x^sdojfoo ^M. as<Xia©dq>'S ao ^o*,rx#0oa ®ij.j" i£!©l3ny &£>em ©'isw j&as 

'1© .j-.a-'?ri'^jSii 'jg-i.Jjiii't 3 e*i'» oisrJT .eiSeX ,'CX lltqA bOM 8X xfeiueM ao 

*.(l&8 ,as ^X.ul- xio ii»a® OQ^ 'lo «aJiisiirv;jj>i5 iiia^ ^se^X ,6X ^jsM ft© 00I# 

sijsvv 00X$ 1o v;a6ifiv;,iiq i^x.J'iw'i A ,€c;(5X ,,jVX vjcfms'VSJ'd Ij-fiM ,8£ nwcfaied' 

^aiinumie. C'l^'-Sr/SX is^^^ ©xsd 'rot aexsi' »o£CX ,iU iscffaQasCt flo Bbas& 

-net) tii-ii "Xf-^bfui fe'S^jBgiXcfo nsw Yit'^ixi&iq, dold^' ^bBuroas M,?efi# c* 

&o!Xplad Si ^jnivB'i X .Iubq q«^' OOXf';; •^Xri© xioixiw no tud ,<c^«5 o;t Jto.eit 

'io B'o^f^i yr;j- 19&X1W .liJiiSffi-'ia^ ,^e;ex ,I rfo^«M ,^X,TeSf! to feisgna 

<|.)6aX# 'to *awoffi{3 X^=ci-oJ- 63XiCf oj" ijlr.qni,'; .fefuj awft s'ssw ^i&MXSa&o 9ii# 

liCfifeM iiuii ,>-}ois'idraoo sd^ xm swjb ©srxfcXxsd" »ii;S- no ^& ofi? J-a^ia^tsi: xl* iw 

®i;T ^jbleqixxj- sjiw xiolrlw ,eijfj XXsl 06X1 1© ama -zafii-aul sxlt ,MeX «^&X 

j-a&'xsc^ni xi;^i?r l^X.TMXl ,l>ec?X ,X xisTiJsM fl© insit e«>fi©owoo Tii;*.nii?Xq 

n;r.t.w i^x.VeSXt ,M;GX ^ex xIotsM rxo Jaxli bim ^btMq,ssii bOB &iit a«w 

^io^iiaoo 9Xij lo auiif>;J axid' i^f.nxx hlBq^mj htm. 'S>ub ®jbw ^«9t»*fll 

ioetiiioo eiLi;i -itthiw &jjfe d-xtuoiiuri art* 'to noli-saXXoo »xl:f &xsb ,*ii«bfx®1: 
sxa Y,^ beXbti^d ^Hni'i ie ajsv? toiiistsi sxIX .floid-oe-xiJb alxi t:s»Sxk; a^w 

a.BW B^.axiv^jscf bM rxi ;^a^ixp.-ax@fc «*!W -i-tl^xix^Xq iad^ *&^'t sxli «£CX «i 

callsd to hl3 attention; he called in Boswell, wiio rapreaonted 
plaint! IT, tuid told him Uie fall amount aixoald "br p^id, v/hicli 
P'O swell said he would endeavor to do at an early dt.te. Lot:»vell 
did not couie in ;ind vao a^ain notified; he then in ana r.old 
Ames he had not "beei. able to raise the nioaey bul thoUiiht he was 
going to be able to get it; Ames told aim he would he allowed a 
few niore days, Eo9"well said ne would atteuipt to get ^500 and 
■bring it in to pay up tas account, i'hie was in the ea.rly pi*rt of 
December. Later in that month iJoBvrell brougiit in ijlQii and atii-ed 
to have it apjplied on the principal of Uis coiitract; Aiue& told 
him tnere was more tnaxx $100 due on the and .uuch uiore than 
llOC due on tlxe principal, and that he couli not acc'-pt -iplOu and 
apply it oii the principal, tut would a;)ply it on nis aundriea 
and tax account, fos'.'^ell insisted txiat Lhe .#10u be applied upon 
the principal and AKiee told hiiii it was iaiposeible, axid tJie .|100 
•was received and applied on the sundries &ccourit, .Boswell again 
agreed that he would endeavor to get additional money to the 
amount of fSOO to apply on the principal. Boswell did not come 
in until after the first of January, 1934, at which .ime he 
brought !|100, saying it was all he had been able to raise, and 
that he wanted it applied on his account; Ames told hxiii it was 
impopsible to apply $100 on ais account because his delinquency 
was so great that he could not accept it; he also told ioswell at 
tnat tiine that the payiaents were 4l50 for each month, and he 
could not accept .|10G« Ames refused to accept the |100 tendered, 
Eoswell was to co^xie in again, which he did not do, and Ames sent 
for iiim; he came in J?e;.ruary 19, 1934, but did not bring ©r tender 
any iiioney. Ames asied iJo swell if he had been able to get tne 
money; he replied he had not but thoufeht he could, Ames then asked 
him if he would assign the amount of money ne was receiving from 

IIqw-jo-^- ^s^i^b -,iIi^o fu.-i Js oJ ■ vt -xovsaNio ,f>Ixro-# erf .biiifa XlewaeO! 

Rati' a.'i JiiijjJorU Jijci ''j^aoiK $i-(j awiiii o.t gXtf^ A©©d Joit i!.«j:f Sii aexErA 
& !:.?.v/oIie ari oli/ov? sii inin bid SiiHiiA ;Jx 5"9,g o:? slii^s scf od' 'saio^ 

I'O J-'u^q '^iT:«.e 6i.a.i- iii s^evf aiifi .iaijooos^ ©ix* gi; Tjag o^ at cfi iawJiil 

i>IoJ jy.ei>i ; diois'iJ'ixoo axu 'io .teqidnluq: srij- no £)S'J.ic,i:<;^^ ^1 ©vbj:! o.t 
«sii;j iJioie nojLfiu fc-ab 0sxsJ 0.;.J ao ■ siuN' OCXf xxaiiJ sioffi 6i)¥»- sisril ffiiM" 
|)ua O^yii iqf^ooi::. c! oil I:Ii/oo j'.xi :y£.dJ bnu. ^lis^xo^itxa e^li rro ftiift'OO'il 

iioqw teaiXqQ.B do 00X4; si.U larJ i'^^-eiaiil IXs'-'/aoG .iriJjooiofi xe^-- fsttti 

OOXf^ SJEii' bas ,sXdJ:atJdqin;i ?ij:i-iir it ujXrf fiXoj a«»ffiti\ fens XJSjjxofti'S^ arfij 

ai^ip-; XX«>w5o£ ,Jiii/uooai aaiiljaija s.rii rxo &£.il(3;q.'2 5«je Ivdviso&l Sistf 

di'ioo ?oa t'i.f^ XXOi-yaoS ^inoJioiUT'^i eri^S tio vX^j'tja' dt OOdf 'Jt6'#mjdflte 

|jm?. ,»si:.£;*£ oJ- f>X'i*i aaod fe^.-ci ari XXii SiS'? $i aaiY/BS ,00X| ct-riaijottf 

S!i:{ Jba^ .rfcS-noui iio«© uo't Oo'X|: ©"taw s*;.i$iav;«^ 9X1;? tj&^fd' »atli tisjcfj 

t^^bcifj-i 'xo S'Sit'^l' -0*' ^'^'^ ^"'^ .'R^GX , ex ■^"UKi:/id'&U xii ©/r^^s ©ft ;®xxi lo't 
i)93lafi ft-^xii ss/aA .JoXjaao &ii ;rxJ^,troi4J ^u<f ^oa U^rii »ii fisiXysi t>d ;^«o3i 

from gas sales at the station, but he replied he could not do 
that, he would not have anytiiinj to live on, whereupon Anias 
said in that case there was no possible chance I'or a oontinuajnce 
Ol' thP contract, anr' that it ?rould be necessary to sf^rve hira with 
a ten days notica, Iht car.cellation of the contract was discussed 
and Ames sut;^csted th&t he go ii to sre Mt, Kenevf»3 , general 
Bales moriager, ■who v^as Ames' superior; they went in, where the 
facts heretofore recited were related to 1ir. Ksneval, and Bos- 
well "^^as told that it would be neceseary on that day to serve 
notice of intention to forfeit. Keneval as3if?d Boewell if he 
could not g'-:t the caoney; Boswell said he had not been al::le to and 
gave some of the reasons; Keneval again asked him if he would not 
give def fondant the gasoline money or assign it; Boswell said he 
could not; Keneval then told Amee to proceed with the forfeiture. 
Ames recalls, however, that Keneval did at that time say to Bos- 
well, *We will do this for you. We ^^riii not sell the property 
for thirty days,* stfid Ames says that when Boswell was leaving 
Keneval said, *I ^ill hold this property off the market for 
thirty days. If you are able and It is all right with Mr, Ames, 
I will be glad to readjust this contract within that period," At 
that tiitie, February 19, 19 34, the defaults under olai3itiff 'e con- 
tract aggregated |1547.14, On the same day, ifebruary 19th, Ames 
caused to be prepared a letter directed *To Whom It iay Concern." 
It stated that defendant had taken possession of the lots (des- 
cribing them) by cancellation of the contract, and notified that pay- 
ments for rent should not be made except at Bartlett'e office; 
that fir, Byl, who ^as then district manager for defendant in 
that territory, would serve the notice and make arrangeiiients for 
the further handling of the property. This nccicft was mailed to 
Byl who served it on Kloin, the tenant in poasescion of the 
premises on I&arch 4, 19 34, On the same day Byl also aeryeA a 

dfly: mic svTfes oJ ijisiss.'sso-^^n 3d" hXi/ow. j-x &srii hoe, .^©iJiJaoo sri* 'to 

avsea od- ■"^cs.b imU no xi-^'^saoen scf &X.aow *jt ^sJiS blot e«w XXow 

(S)ii 'U; ll&'^^otl bi)^S0 iBT&a&'M. ^il^'tio'i od- aoitn^ial 'to ©©iitort 

liaB oJ' QldB a:-»fld" J- on x).tsii nr[ fci^s XI0W8OS: ;y*>«<>JH »J3f;J' t'PS JoaJ^Ii^oo 

Off l>i:^€ Xiam-ioS ;;J-x jrsiaa*^ 10 Tjf^noiii salXQ^^-g ©rtj- t0Bfen«>t»f>,''»Tis 

.eTtutl^tto't 9jW iii-Jtvf fce©ooiq 0;^ aamA. Ivlo^s- wsrfi Xi?Vi9n«H i&en MJwos 

«aoK orf x-^B ©laid- i£m$ ;J^ Jii:l) X^TsnfiJA *®«tj .isvaworf ^nlJM^^t 9f»m. 

X^'wrfotp^ &dii. £10B cfon XXJtw s^V ,xfOY. 10'i 8J:rfv+ oi? XXiw eW* ,XXat? 

S^iv^^-^ ^^''^^ iXsfweoS ndxiw d'jai-f* a^.&a asffiA bfui "^atjafc ijsJtlirfj lo'i 

10't i-oMiAisi 9ii^ Tto Y*'^^«<i'^<T ai^-* isXcri lli.r' I* ,6i«i!' iufsnaS 

,as(BaA. ♦t^a il^xv? vtrigi's XXb si ^-i fcaa aids »te uoy '^^ •svr.afc '^^'xliii 

-ntoo s'TU#ai;*;Xq i:9fcmj'l9j& ©tti" ,^?"GX , Ri x*c.<5 sj-t -is»t ,9aii4' *fiJl* 

-aofc) aiol @rU 'to noieasaeoa tte-^-eJ- bad in«f>rt9'tft4) *«^ l>«t£*s d-I 
•^i&q ^.axid- J59i'i 1*0 CI bn'--. ,*oj6i'id'noa «if;^ 'to noid-^XXssrwo ^<f (mariff a^ftidl^o 

jaol'L'io a't^fet^T^ii J- .3 ;Jqetux» 9&sm »sf ton fcXwa^® #a»l itol at«©m 

10't Qd'a©iu«^i:Lsiti5; oststa |>aQ ©oiJ-oa o£icf »vt9r bluoyt ^x^dilttAi ti^i 

oj .6sXXb/k ajsw 0»X*,oa airil' ^x^^t&qotq^ 9if.tto j^oXXfeoefX TSJxftTwt ©ri;f 

»iii 'to aoiaa@ss!0<5 ai d-tians* «r:* ,aioXX no *i fcsnae oci«' JE^ff 

B 59Vi-:.r, oaX*i X^a xab Sffijea sxt* aO ,*^eX t*' rioi«J4 xio a^sJt.asiJj 

notice o& Adolph .tucera, manager Tor that district oi' the Ghsll 
Corporation from whom Klein ■was "buying gas. The service on i^ucera 
wa« on March 4, 1934, at Waukegau. 

Maroh 2, 1934, defendarit caused to Toe mailed to Dlaifitii'f 
a "Vendor's Declaration oi" Foi-feitare ajnd Determination of Con*^ 
tract," addressed to olaintiff at his Chicago address, reciting 
the execution of the contract on August 4, 1932, th« provisionB 
thereof with reference to forfeiture, defaults of the purdiaaer 
with referenoe thereto, ana declared that on account oi" sucii 
default defendant had elected to axtd did forfeit and datenftine 
the contract and all riglits and interest of the purchaser, his 
heire, representatives, suocestors and assigns, Xhe declaration 
stated t-:at defendant thereby forfeited tmd retained all paysients 
made by the purchaser as liquidated damages, as provided iii the 
contract. As a matter of fact defendant did not after the forfeit- 
ure take physical possession of the property, but permitted l^lein, 
who had been plaintiff's tenarit, to continue in possession. 

The eyidence shows that daring the entire time plaintiff 
had hie contract with defendaxst he paid, under the contract, a 
total of #9 50, flOO of ^hich *ae in part to reimburse defendant 
for tax advancements defendant had made to the amount of |397,14. 
Prom December, 1932, four months after the date of the contract, 
up to the end ef -February, 1934, the Shell Petroleum Corporation 
paid to plaintiff and to Boswell, ae plaintiff's agent, rent for 
the property aggregating :;?1481,71, Daring the saiae period plain- 
tiff paid to defendsurjt only $400 on tiie purchase ;rice and the 
$100 to reimburse defendant for tax advaneeraents. During the 
period that plaintiff Trae in possession under the contract; he made 
no improv^ents whatsoever upon the premises. Defendant i.ept the 
property off the market for over 30 days after the conference of 
Pebruary 19, 1934, and n€-itaer after that conference nor after the 


XXexiB Sf^i 'Lo iQitialh issi^ 'to'i iGr^^atiBta ^.iS'Xfioi;'! fCqXoBA 'aa »oi;J 
aaitissi ^nne%bb& ogi-ioiriO ®X'i£ #® T.ii:;tiUisj:® «* fm&^&i'$fyh& ®,#o«'5C^ 

,nx»XJ. &«S^Jt©.ts<i i'wcf ,^;ir'X0QO^tj ©fit 'io aoisssaaoq X^ois^rfC!: ^alad" Siw 

,^X,Ve5# lo JiUJOiTtfi ox-Id- oi- ®fcf?fa feisri :tiitsJbE0tisB «ti!»«!»oii®vfeja x«# "xo't 

-ic/t Joe's ^tn&nii a'Tti^rtijeXct s* jlXowaoS o;t btm Vliinlsilq. oA hi&q 

-cisj&lt!, bGii'i<£'(i mm& 9di :^}i^tuXl ,X?,Xfc>I| 'gans-^»%'mB Ml^xf.^o'iq »xi* 

Slid bm^ aoxav; as^jxiortijq asi^J' a© OO^t ^Xaa itiiai&ue't©!) oJ *t«? IH* 

&b^ hii ^o*ja;raoo diia^ 't^bnsi aoiaosaaoq ai a«w Tti^ai.oXq tAd;i fcoiiaq 

•io «ousi8'ixioo 9xi* s^jriii 3^«R OS ««ir0 lol #»ix«ffi «ri* Tto x*-^^^^*^ 
erfl -x.^n^ -low eoc«.^»'l«oo ^BXld rts.*'U ■X'^xl^isa 6n^ .^f.^X , 9X Y^^^'^rf*''^ 

serrice ol' the notice of intention to forfeit axid determine the coa- 
traot, nor after the service of the Vendor's Declaration of iror- 
feiture and Determination of tlie Contract did plaintiff, or anyone 
on his behalf, comuiunicate with defendant or offer to meet the de- 
faults under the contract or request any additional tirae in which 
to cure the defaults. 

aoxue time after the end ol ttiis 30 days, defendant sold 
the property to iilein for ^-lOjOOO, There ia evideiice tending to 
show that this was the full value or the property on February 19, 
1934, and March 2, 19 34. It is undisputed tnat at the time of 
the alleged forfeiture of the contract there "sas due to defendant 
thereunder the sura of |20,550, and the furtiier sum of |297,14 
advanced tj defendant for taxes. June 25, 1934, the attorney I'or 
plaintiff addressed a 1 fitter to defendant advising hiai that plain- 
tiff would ignore the forfeiture and v/ould hold defendant reepon- 
eible for all loss and dacriage* 

Plaintiff presents many points with citation of autiiori- 
ties, l:ut only a few points are argued in his brief, iiis conten- 
tion is in substance that the provisions of uae contract to the 
effect that time was of its essence had been waived by defendant 
through its conduct in accepting payments frora plaintiff after the 
same had become due according to the strict terms of the agreement; 
that, therefore, defendant would not be permitted to suddenly in- 
sist upon a forfeiture of the contract, but before availing himeelf 
of the time clause defendant was by law required to give reasonable, 
defii.ite and specific notice of his changed intention and determi- 
nation to enforce the strict terms of the agreement. The law to 
that effect is well settled as illustrated by Watson v. W;hite. 
152 111. 364; Strey v. Euehl. 265 111. App. 554; Craft v. Calmeyer , 
274 111. App, P.96, and Plui nmer v. Worthington. 321 111, 457, We 
hold the rule is not applicable here for the reason that the 

^noqas's ^«jsbaals£) fcloxl 5Xi;o«? l)iX4S i^tuSx&'tzo't mU e-soasi &X»ov 111'* 

m9^Bia£h b£m esdX XXfi ^co'l: aXcTi. 

;J'aB.5as'i3& '<;cf t®ri.£iw ix*5.rf .feisil soniseaa eti 'io eaw 0Bji;|- #«iit *9©'n 

tlit^w.iii T^aJIxjsv,B d'lotad' d-ifd .^ajr^'stnoo ©ill lo ftiui'Jdlico'l « ooqn i&lh 
,9XJ&nc.8js9i dvljj oj- fca'tijupai «rjaX ^^rf saw ^Tii^l) K»'t»ib ♦s.y^Xo ©ml* sii^- Ic 

oi- wji,3X ®il'i' ..-fctsfwaijiR ftrf:? 'to s/ai®^ ioltis mii so-sotas oi' noid-jsr 
.Qjlp'-'^ .y itpsitjsV.' T2(J l»sji3'x*«ii4XXi a» f)tX*.t»e XX«w al ;|9«ll9 dfii 
. Tsev.e fltXaC; >v ;y't^iQ ;*ci3 .CfqA ,XXI 83S; . Xftejua ,v Y9'aci3 ;M£ ..XXI SeJ 
«W .va* ,XXI XSe ^rto;r.s^alxii TteV .v xaiPapu/ X^ bcs& ,d98 ,qs,<jA ♦XXI i>-V. 

undisputed evideiio® Bho^^s that clel*«iud«unt did XiOt at aiiy tliiae 
waive tJie iixsie provi4*ioJi oi' ti-»e contract, on tne contrary the 
•vidence iiidicatos that del'tmd&i^it, through its coiieetion depart- 
mttnt and later 'by special reference ol" the matter ta the office 
nanacer, Aiues, sj^t »11 times ii:^3iatcci ti^at ya&iritlll' Bhouldk with 
all promptneas coiiqply with tlie terms oT the contract as to iim@ 
of payment, Piepeated daaiaiids were mad« u,pon ]:iOBW©ll, w/io repre- 
sented plaintilT in the traiiaACtioa, tn&t piaintiil" aoiLpiy witJi 
til* t9ria3 oi" tne oontraot iii thia re^iard, 

kore txian a aion^h prior ta ta« aotia© oi' iorl'eiture de- 
fendant actually refused the tender of & partial payment of tiie 
amount due, Itepeatad prciiiiisea ware x^ade by plaintiff miic^* he re- 
peatedly failed to keep, ihia is not & case wuere a Tendee nas 
been lulled into a sense of security and then sudciealy required 
to make payment prosq^tly with a ¥iew on tne part of the vendor of 
depriving the vendee of his proptsrty. W© do not titink it necea- 
earjr to analyze the caseB. 'faey are clearly inapt^iioahle to a 
situation such as is disclosed by the evidence. Defendant ealle 
attention to the fact that the contract expressly provided that 
the acceptance by the vendor, once or repeatedly, of pa.ym$iit@ made 
after they became due, should not operate as a wua.var af the pro- 
vieion of the contract taat tl'ae was of tae essence of it. It 
was indicated in Brown v. G hoycu-ulla l.aad Cp ,. . 59 Cal. *»pp. 154, 
210 Pao» 424, that sucn a provisioa aigat he aeld vuiid. it may 
well b3 doubted whetiier the Iliii.aia courts would so hold, Xne 
courts of thlii state hav*, however, iield that the acceptar.c© oy a 
vendor under such a contract of partial ^ayimiitQ iaade a few days 
after the maturity tinereof, according to the teri;.s of uie tantract, 
is not sufficient to constitute a "s-faiver or for^u the baais of «jx 
estoppel, jerauegn v. 3tainer . 808 Hi. Ap,j. 227; ^c^^MSLJ.' 
^^^^i^Si~^:^iiilM.M&L^^Sj^, 157 111. App. AZ9, it 48 undoubtedly the 

diiw hlisoi^H ".t'lJUnif^iq i&xit fos^aieal namXi lie, ts ,sdEs^ ,i©BJ6ii«« 
-:.?'x<'j®'3i oxiw ,i.i«'?.aoci nooirf »&«ijt stiew sfeii«iiiT«(fc b&iti^it;®^ ^t&»m%&^ lo 

siii' *to ^^as-M-i^Q lisid'stircx a 'io i;ol)a.-s^ ©£iiJ ^aajjl©! %Xle,ij6&& irrnhmt 

^^iij- hi&bivoxci %ii.s&^qx» irs>«id-ixo» 9xC# cf^n^' t&M'i, ndt &i aoi*c»»t^« 

,lKiX .q.^* .IsO {^ci , «&.-?_. A'^yi^ ■'^■■'-.^//•■»^W^P «.,?■■■ jty.^Sg ai J&ft*«o Ifenl li«W 

^am S-i .MXaT £kXsii »a ^'ita-^-^'a soieivc's^f s riowa Snni .^Si^ •0«^ 0X8 

ivjil' Jilo:u Qii IsXjjow a^iMoo siculXXi ftiiJ- i:fi-.d>»Mw &»#cfsfofe «€ XX«W 

^Soi&itiiOi> »iu '.to a^id* ©i« o^ T^tb%i3oi>& ^le&'xm^ ^#iiM*«« ©rf* w*"** 
,vjj;»a;u,;iaja jVSS .c,o.A .iXl gOS , Sg^>ia..,tT. . «Qa,t(s?«S. .i»<?«0#«« 


law that if the parties to euch an agreement lautually waive a 
pi'ovision therein that tin© is oi' the essence oJ* tne contract, 
one oi' the par'..ies will not be permitted to suddenly axid uni'riirly 
insist upon a forfeiture, 

ITorfeitures are not favored "by the courts. This is be- 
cause of the harsh aXid often inequitaTale results of such miforce- 
Eient, Ti-iis is the re&son for the rule. There has fcoen no conduct 
here producing iiiequitahle results, Ih© eviderice snows ciiat dur- 
ing the time th© contract was in force plaintiff received from 
the rentals of the premises purchased the euiii of 11431,71; he paid 
on the principal obligation under tlie contract #350 and expended 
$100 in partial discharge of tiie obligation assumed under the 
contract to pay the taxes on the preaiiaes. He paid out under the 
contract the total sum of |9 50, leaving hiiiJ. with a net profit on 
the transaction of #551,71, His original ixivestaient was 4d\jij, 
almost one-third of the total payments Eiade, In view of his de- 
linquency defendant &&k.ed. him to assign tkia ii. coKie of the pre.uii- 
ees as security for his obligation under the contract; he de- 
clined, saying that he needed it for hie living expenses, 

'Hie trial court eurumed up the reason for its finding, 

*Siorrey is suing for whatever he is entitled to recover from the 
Bartlett Real Estate Company, korrey evidently is a kind of 
figurehead C- gomething. He caiii® into the pi cure and so far 
as the record goes, he hasn't ^ot a dime invested in this thing. 
He is the new vendee from Bartlett and he ^ot credit for all tuat 
had been paid upon a real estate contract which was made viith one, 
or two or three or f uur parties, ^viiiGll is iEimaterial. ihe earn of 
fifteen or sixteen thousand dollars has been paid by various 
vendees upon that contract. l<ow .viorrcy coaies into the picutrn 
and he says: »I will take it over,* and Bartlett 's system of 

generosity they said, 'We will give you credit for ten Uio^'-jarid 

upon this upon the contract', whic-i is largely fiction, Ji^GBrrey 

goes along and collects |1400 or more out of tue proceeds o. the 
place and he pays in #800. In other words, he gets ^6uo net with- 
out investing a dijue and now he i^ets out froia under paying ^pa4o0 
wnica ne is in arrears on the contract to boy a AO.OuO piece of 
property. Tnen you come in nere ii.eisting ^orrey is entitled to 


.a >iairi£i'vr xl£Bi:i-is& ia^^sMBfiTi^a rm do/as o4- sif-siix^^f arlit 'tl jjgui^ wsX 
f vjd,ev£#«oo s>:i;f 'to ^oiiB3s& ®i'ii 'io al ©ails' j-.iij!-.[.t aisirati noi^ilTotg 

" . ■ ,, :-gal'5j;^8 

'io baxh. & ai \';iJ-nr»bj:v© ■^©■TC'soia; .tjiajiQEUoO 3,t^d-aa' X««»H ^-tsI-d'TsS 
-Xiit OS bite 9'ii'ciJ;q g.'il oihxx 9iu*;o «ti'i ,^>'«i^;!::^':>moa .0 J&aoii&iifsi'i 

imij 1£m -lo't :^ibS!t& Jos ©ii &njs; J'-i-'i Xvtxw^ mo-s'I esftaav wan ©xfJ ai: 3E 

»«>ao .rfJiYJ iihmi sm^ datiiw d-o^i-.tjjoo «d'^sJ'BS> Xjbsi >e aoqw fcxjsq iwocf hBsi 

'to daua ruJi!' .J^x-xscfjuAtvii gi /i&ii.ttt'?' ^aatcftBi^ li^o't to »B'irki to ow,J 'lo 

sjyoii.c^y rd h.t»q. ii®9tf Qfi4 arfisXIo.b fcoeaworfi' n»o*.7ci« -xo risf.^;)-'ti'l: 

OOi^Ii B«Av;aq 'i^tau aio's't JiJo acT^s ^^ ^<o« ^>-"^^ ®^^^ *i"''f^!rLiS2 


recover, I can't see it a.t all. There will te a ririding I'or 
the defendant," case is entirely different from St rej, y.^ Buehl j 265 
111. App. 554, Craft v, Galmeyer . 274 111. App, 296, and other 
cases upon ^hich plaintiff relies. 

The judgment is affirmed, 


O'Connor and Mc Surely, JJ, , concur. 


•X®il30 ban ,SQS *cfqA .XCI M'S ,%^tXMUM^^iI^J2&^S. .^'-6 .qc{A »XXI 


(PlaintilT) Apoell-e, f >-^"' 



(Defendant) Appellant. 


28 8I,A,620' 


This is an appeal "by the defendant husband, who was also a 
cross-complainant, frojr, a decree isidcii, dismissing his crose-till, 
granted to the plaintiff wife a divorce on her "bill, gave lo her 
the custody of their three children, directed that defendant pay 
$20 a montlJ. aliicony for their support, and referred tlie ctiuse 
to a faster in Chancery to report concerning the property ri-hts 
of the parties. 

The till ^as filed April 10, 1935, It averred Jurisdic- 
tional facts as to reeidez^ices; tlie marriage of the parties, uiiich 
took place January 2& , 1919; the birth of three ciiildren, ueor^-.e 
12, William 10 jmd Esther 9 years of age; tli&t tney had lived to- 
gether as husbitrui and wife until July 15, 1933. 

ihe bill as aiaended charged tUat defendant ■^a.s guilty of 
habitual drunkenness, of adultery, continuous inhuiuan treatiuent, 
failure to properly support, and rpeciiically charged that he was 
guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty in that he had twice as- 
saulted her - in April, 1932, T?ith a gun, and on October 31, 
1934, ^vith a knife. The specific allegation as to the occurrence 
in April, 1932, was not set up in the original bill but v/as pre- 
sented by way of aiuendi!.ent to it. Other averments of the bill 
concerned tne rights of the parties in property held by defendant. 
The bill prayed for divorce, custody of the cnildren, alii,.;ony and 
a settleiHJerit of these property rights. 


TTafioTAii scoiTam. ^maiasm. ,m 

"xaii Ov] ■•jts;!^ ,, liii i3.r{ no »o'xoTi.& jf* .s't.r.w Tti.jnlBlq 9fl;|- oi .hBiti«%'% 

aJ-i'tii'i: v;o-'X;i>qy'xq arid" gfixiTieonoo J-to^st od" y*'^*^''*'^*^'^' ^^ f^iie.B'A b oi 

,<3sxcr'x«q ©iU 'io 

-oiLa x-:iijt £>Q'ii.':'Vs ci-I ,SSt?X ,01 IliCiA b®Xl'): «sw Hid" DXiT 

"OJ .o®Yi.X ,u.i-it '■^9;t;t Jr.-a.!- ;9^« "to aic^x, ^ isxfcfeiC ?.as 01 jaslXXl^ ,SX 
.ti:'4L ,gX xLi^Z LiSau ■ilivr has foaeffsmi a.s -xsxijsa 

-SB «oiwd- fiiU-1 »ii Ji:.fL<- aX \iL^ijto h''^iB<^(i^% btvs w^mtix's 'to Tcd-Xlua 

,X£ 'ssd'od-oO .ao .i^fte ^eimi ■■■• dii'^ ,S5fiX ^XiiqA nl «• ^ori bsc^Xtrsa 

i9ou->'i-i.uooo siii- oi B.B aoi.i.i-:ii>&l.Ui ol'iio&qe. ©HT .s'tina: i* rf.,tX^v ,iv£ex 

-riq aijv; c'jjcf XXitf X^iai^jXTio 9iii aX qtf d'Ss J'Oxi B&vr ^^ZQL ^XiiqA aX 

has v;uo..; , «sii)Xixio edi 'Io Y'^^o^^uo .ao^ori.b lo't h^x^.tq Hid exlT 

Def'Tidarit answered denying all misconduot as? alleged and 
filer? a oropp-bill chf,.r{.lnt; plaintil'l" with desertion on ,July 15, 
1935. Sie ajifwered, denying the def=!ertion. The uaune was pvit at 
iesue i-'Xid heard by the chancellor in open court. The chancellor 
found the Issues for plairitiJl' axid entered a decree as hereto- 
fore recitrtd, 

Befendajit isays that the oiily ouewtion on the aa'oeal Ibj 
"Is thft evidprce nufl'icient to ■^■.'arrant tXi.e fixidinf of cruelty rjad 
entering a decree of divorce chereon?" With this statora^nt we 
agree. The only finding of guilty was v^ith reference to tiae 
charge of cruelty. xiie other caarfe-es, in the opinion of the 
chancellor, were I'^ot nuBtained, The caarge of the assault in 
April, 1932, tras corroborated "by a witness. The teatiitiony of 
plaintiff as to "che lataer assault vas not t.orro'box-ated hy any 
occurrence -Titness. Plaintiff lived witii defexiidant after the 
first alleged assault and thereby condoned it. If, liowever, the 
second assault occurred, this ;»'ould revive ihe forgiveu ciarge. 
Plaintiff was not corrotcrated as to the second Ciiarge , and 
therefore it is eiTtiiely correct to say taat tue Hierit of plain- 
tiff's case der^ends upon the proof of the second assault, 

Defendant insists that a decree for divorce i'cr cruelty 
cannot ^be BUBt&ined on the teetiu-ony of one of tut parties to 
the fiuit whpre tae act of cruelty is denied ty the other, and 
there is no corrohoration of plaintiff's ci.arfees, hel endant 
citfs a nuBiber of cases but relies upon Moore v« ■il'^OQj:e, 3b2 111. 
177, The rule for wuich defendsutit conte^.ds is not supijorted by 
the opinion in that case. It ie a rule of &*tatutory construction 
interpreting section 3 of the Divorce statute, (bee 111, i^tiite i&r 
Stats,, 1935, ciiap. 40, page 1£73. ) Inat section in sausta^ioe uro- 
videe that if the complaint is ta^exi as confesaed, the court snail 
proceed to near the cause by exai^dnation of ^itiiessea in open 

bmfi b*S-Ji'J JlSm a^-j ioubnoosin ijjii smv;n*>.b bs'iowaixfa cJ-it,<Ai!«pl»<I 

,aX Y-i^i^'''^ ^^& nois'tssa&b xiaiv/ ^t'UJaiflXq .;jiii;>iT>3.'i:s» ^ b;=5Xi'i 

,b9;J'X5©'r S'xo'I: 

bnsi yJ-L^iSj-io 'to '>jrii;I).ii't 9:i.t d'j.tiiTtjsv? oJ- ^fa-.'vio^'fiwe ooT-tbive exit al" 

'sxi.f oj^ aoa'»'.to'x dd I'n JSisw \.:/Xi. u,j "to ;?,iiif,n-ij;'t \^X«o ©rffi .a^i^B 

srl^ "tc- noxaicfo sfiJ ax jSa^^xriio •sy.Tiio s>ifX .YvTlftxra© 'to 9S'X«rio 

ai" &li..^^aji 9iii 'to Q-^tssio sxiT ,l)9iixiict'sx/t; d^oa cis"^ ,toXX90xi3£fo 

'to xaQ\rJ..iHB^ arfT ^aagrwivif je?, •^q' b^ti&io^o'zroo ajs?' ,SKftX , XJnrqA 

^fli- \d ,&9;tjB'xod'oi'ioa ;?o.a c^aw ^IiJtS33.a x^a^ial ©iij oJ- ©^ 't'tiiitlaXq; 

oxU ica'tjB ^xjiji) .if:) '1:9 1) ii;rxw /.)->vxX 'x'iioi'nl-aiX'i ,8ssuc^iw soa^a^xjooo 

sdj ,i9VBWoxi ,vi «jx LsnoiJiioo -xcfe-isi^j u:x>-5 ilsi£S8& Baji'i&XX^ d'Bli'l 

.9aiJ3i!o aavxs-xo'i: siU avxvs'x i)XiJovj siitvt ,ijai'XiiOi>Q ;^Ia;«s8jb Ijaoosa 

-nx«Xq 'to Jx-xsiu aiiJ- jj^xiJ ^^ise o;J- Joaiioa xl&ilJa^ al it a-iol^i^ii* 
.:i-Xi;£aa« baoosa aAJ; 'to 'iociq siii aoq.x/ eLmscfaf; aajso a''i*tx;J 
>{iXf>w'io lo'i: ao'iovifc xo'x ssTCoali « >}-^ii.J ad'aXa.tX Jnabriis'leC 

OJ a;3x.ifi3C} i3juij to ®ao 'io y;rio:;axia3.J sua ao ^GiniacJ-SJua ad" .touii^o 

^m* ,t3xiJo eai s.^ ftoiaafc ai vjli^wxn lo ^o-s -SiiJ^ 9i;^iiw dUxis ©xf* 

:riui)ai-i'ioa .i3-s^,^iJH..ia a' 'ni*iU*5Xq 'io flox Jfltodoi-ioo on ai atc^ri* 

.XXl SJcio ^, 6x004.. V a'l op^ «oqiJ aaiXsi .tucf asa^o 'to i9df«i/rt a ©stlo 

■tgd i-isj^'iOLiQua J- on ai abaeiaoo iivRhae't^h lioluw lo't oXi-ti axfX ,VVX 

noiJoiJj;ranoo ^iiOvJ wcra^a io qIhi £ ai ;^X .*a«o *isxU al aoifliqo •xf* 

XBit ©;ru:5-vj ,XXI S9ci) ,«;^w;}£ia aoioria &di 'xo 8 «oX*o»a axiiiSKitft^ai 

-0IU sorojiaa^oa ai aoi;fo-3a J^xiT ( .6V3I sgfiti .0^ .QiixLo ,e£«X ,.acr^^8 

XXjBde *aiioo sxli ,ib»B86'iuoo ajs usiLacT ai ^fii>iXqmoo ©di 'ii *«£t^ asftir 

naqo ai aaoasaoiw 'to^ x^ &nu>,:c, eriJ Msxi od" &*9oo:tg 

court, and that "iu no case of default shall the court grant a di- 
vorce unless the judge is satisfied that all proper mearie have 
teen taken to notify the defei-^daiit of the pendexicy of the suit, and 
that the cauae of rtivorce has been fully proven b y reliable yi t- 
ncsaes ," It is apparent that section of the statute was intended 
to safejiuard the rit;hts of the parties and the public in castis 
where default wae entered and has no application to caoes Y.hsre a 
trial is had after iesuee joined and the parties fi[gr>evi± ;ind testify. 
It has bepn 90 held in a number of cases: 3t« Loula & 'Gallon R., 
Co. V, Union Ir. & . Bay . ^Bank , 209 111. 457; y. J^o ose^ 30 C 111, 
134. The koore case when carefully read does not hold to the con- 
trary or support defendant's conteiition. 

The parties conflucted a restaurant and lived in rcoras above 
it. With reference to the first occurrence, plaintiff testified 
that on a particiilar morning in the first part of April, 19 33, she 
did not ,0 to help defeiidsjtt in the restauraijt ; tiiat he caia© up 
Btaira and started arj^uing tuid said, "If you don't like it you toiow 
wi\&t you can do;" tiiat one word led to another; that defendant had 
a blue steel gun; that he ahuffled along, and that plaintiff ^^ot 
bacii of a leather cnair in the living room; 'he said, 'i<ow you 

Jtnow -' pucn language — -you could not use that laiiguage in ccurt. 

I eoreaiued, I got frightened. This wos^an (who had conie in to do ray 
housework) stepped in when I be^an to scresun. She saw ue behind 
the chair and heard his words, 'I will blow'--- i don't use that 
profane language." The witness furtiier says that Catherine Bruclcs 
Was the woman ipho was present on that occasion. 

Catherine iirucks testified that she washed dinhee, <ind tixat 
at t'le end of March or April, 19 32, when she be^^an to work at de- 
fendant's restaurant, sue went up a flii^iit of stairs leading to the 
parlor and bedrooEne, and saw jkoustis w^oriiing; that one day 

"ib js tirte-t^i &'7.MQ0 axi:;?' IXmi^ -flii&'tBb 'to &««j8o oa .-;.£*• d'^il^ Bop ,^*raoo 

eji)3^o ixi oiXdi/Q ?ivii Ijixs. apicrxsq ©rU "to adii^jli ^nj" fc'iisUgsljsa g^ 
i5 »'2SXi>r eo3BO ud' iioi^.poiXqqs on af5Xi &tXP. b9^®#no fs^^ cJX/j^tsb siaxiw 

,3 nollfly 0, j^ al^pl .o'-g; :sssjk;ji 'to "sedrawn s ai fel^xi os a.»B':S ajsrf *I 
,111 jO€ ^^^:l!?oCl....?,.,SiLQoa ;VQJ^ ,Ii.I, OOS .JJllsa »va3. ;^ .1? itoiffU. \r ,0^ 

,aoiln©;jTioo a' ^•itsf)ns*l:s& ^toqcixs lo ^'^^T* 

jjsxtiJes^ l''tx.tiii.c Iq ,j»o«s&t:^juodo (J^s-xl'i; »£d' oot a 6 it® x© la's -ri*iW" ♦ft 

qij SffCBO Sri .lfiit;t ;a'ai5'X0£-J-a*ii 9ff.;t ai ,|$"isft Qlojtl Od- &a ioM blh 
wosTit .u-o\: ;J-1 '.Kixl di-*nc-.f. rjo'c 'iX*' ,i)iBH bim aKi«^,x,s .6s;t'3:jp.J-s fcflus stlBl^'Si 

«o\'; woVl* ,bi/ia eri' ;moo'3: B«i'''i'C s»'i^ ni Tijs*io "Xsxl+ssX jBf 'io :i£6«cf 

^jiijo.^i i-ii 9)ifiij;BfM5i- *«x.i* S3JU ion bXuoo uox t.BftfiSif^X noi/a ♦• won:i 

Xiii Ob o3' vii ©inoo .bx-sri oriw) asiiioir sixiT tb^mtii:^i%'t iO}j 1 j^sau^si&s I 
isairiea' o-ta 'wcy ©fia .jctAQios oi as^jad" I ti'^tilw ni toqqs;?a (sllowai/oxl 
;^^jLiJ ;^FU! ;^*nob 1 ---^woXci iXxvr I' .sisiow aid btASti bag tt&dt 9lii 

.aoiSBDOO *«i.U- no ^aossiq ajsw ©ilw awaiow «rii' 8«w 
tfiiii' bitki ,«sriaifc IjailQjaw o/ia ;?jsnJ' h'si'ticlaa* uiyuia aaiisili'JtO 

-<»b .^is ii'xov? y;^ >lsdf»cr 9jff8 nsriw ,Se«X .li^qA to xiortsM to 'btiB 9M ia 
mii oi aniififtX BTi,9*a 'to JilsjiXl « qw iix»w sxifi ,*ruati;c;rQ«'X B'^aefew©! 

she eaw defendaxit arnd J/'re, i-cuotis up Uiere; Uiat dctferidaitt li'-d a 
Btetl gun; taat vmer. she ttepped in he aaid, ••What the iaell do 
you want? 0?t the hell out oi" here or 1 V'ill s.hcot youi- brains 
out," 3he Ba,ys t' fcrs. Moustis looked scared; that defsridant had 
a. gun at her head and said, "I 'nill blow your trains out." .i>he 
then went out, and that ■'-vas all witneas saw. Then plaijitiif caifie 
down stairs and "vork^d in the restaurant, This was in the apring 
of 1932, an 3 &hn conti'iued to ■■•'ork tiiere at the request oT the 
plaintiff for two years. On cross-exa ..ination she said tnat this 
assault occurred on Saturday atout nine o'cloclc in the morning 
•when ahe started to work; that plaintiff was si Lting in a i^iiUir; 
t'lat deferidant had s. gun up to her head r^nd said tie ';?ould shoot 
her brains out. Thereafter defendant had soEie trouble --Bith ihe 
witness and ordered her out of the restaurant, saying, "Get out 
of here. You lon't have to hare a stool pigeon around here." 

The record of the 1934 oecurrsnce (as presented in plain- 
tiff's Additional Abstract) is as ioliows: 

"f-i. In 1934, wk-re Kf&s this, the tiix^e that he took a 
knife to you, v?here were j'ou? A, I came home to work, 

Q,. Wli«re were you staiiding when he threatened you? 

A, I caiQe right in here, here 1b the door, I caiue in 
and he was standing before the table, carving neat, and I backed 
up into the dining room. 

4, '■^^y were you ^'orkin^ there? A, I worJied in the rea- 
taursuit because he did not take care of the business. 

-l, Tn&t wtis why you were atanding there with him? 

A, Yes, I had to help in the icitchen, 

Q,, That w&s the only occasion he was cruel to you, in 
October, 1934, when you say he took a knife to you? A. I don't 
understand your question. 

H. At that time (in October, 1934) what else did he say 
to you when you said you screared did he say .inythine? 

A. de Baid he would cut my guts oat of i^e witji the knife." 

Plaintiff's story of tiiis occurrence is not coi-ro bo rated =.nd 
is denied by defendant* 

Defendant contends that this evidence is wholly insuificient 
to establish extreme and repeated cruelty, Isuaierous cases ure ^ited 
by tne parties, lua^.y of whicn it .viii oe urmecessary to consider in 

oi> XXfv.ii' ^i1;J ij.«ilt" ,.!bJ:B3 sii ni />-•■> qqei' a <?>ria a©xiw ij-isxi^ jfjijg I0S^J•a 

sfixx^i'ni 'Xsjo-{, &ox<:^.G llti? i 10 9'xs>,fe lo -tiio XX»d aii;t .t:'?0 f^cuew irc^ 

b^fs ch-iSjiriSi'lejir .tii.d:^ ifeai^oe BoiooX ai;^7uoH .ai-iS il£>xi^ svb3 01S! " ♦tco 

■ sfgl ^\iuo eaijG'id" •juc-f/; iSfoXcf IXhv I** ,l>isa liriB jfe^yd lari *«, flwjt .a, 

sriiiao i't.ici'ai^Xo asriT *^©a aa4;jn.-} iw I.Lb bh^ i'^tii hiVB ^iuo ia^n m>M 

^airxqa sili ni. e^vr rjxxiX ,.tJ^I&'1J■.■B;^s■s,•a ©rit ai li*Ato'i? has iitt&Ss smob 

Bni lo :^8.^i^;;a'3: end t>a »T:©ri;S' ^i-iov? o* B^.iirni^'aoo s./ia boB i^S^X 1:« 

•a.j;;-j,t v^Ar-iuf biyg ;)iia noi>ts?axsi4ij£»~s:sotJi:£> nO jse'tjS^^r ow.t Tfo'i Tti;^.!n[lj5|cj: 

d^wo .taC^** ,^:;nx^£ri , .tn.£'xt;iscr@fe'i: Qd^- 'to d'«io is^M J[)©:i90to htm aa®n^|w 
-..axislq iii: h-iinBti^iq fis) &.oiif')'X"iV0OQ i^£§X ©ji?l to, Siooei «>riT ■,;,,. 

4^ -fiooi^ -3x1 -?B;i:ci OiBi* a^J. -^sirfS^ a^.-s? ©-S'P^riw ,M(?X nl »|J*- ■" 

S'talxi i:ai\\' aia.iiJ^ sniljajsjf; -®io'57 is<o% x^w omT is^'i' ^9 
,miio&i:d. ©rit ni qleiL o:i bk,d X ,e©Y .A 

^'iici'' X '.A 'i'wo'i:; oi ^lirci js sfooj art x^s kiox ii»^'^ .I'SSX ^rcscToJoO 

XC& srl bzh ©aXa i-iuiw (^SyX .•xsao^oO ni.) iJisiiJ- i'-^^rt;f J-A 4' 

?a0X.aia-,i:ru-; ts«s art bii? — *fe©a;jssi09 woY fc-^^? J^o^ ^^®^^ WOX ©* 
".o'tiui. ad:i -ut 'io *a;o 8^1:3 AC^^i d'i^o Mi/ow eri I)Xfla «M ,A' 

f^riii fo6J«i(Kl...a-xoo doii ai ®uaa'.tii.<ooo aXii* 'io xc^o^e" a ' 'fU*iil«i:% 

detail. In 5Mli5.e^.-X'„.Z^, 268 111. 218, the huiBl'e*-.1 ^ued 
for iivorce o.^ tiie ground of adultery. Defendant filed ^xx aKf«r«T 
deryin^i the charge, ajid filed a cress-bill cliarglng hi-t ^ith ex- 
treme and repeated cruelty. Tae trial court heard the eYiienoe, 
foun-^ the ^^if? guilty, diaraieaed iisr cross-till and granted the 
Viu3"bani a divorce. The 3uprerae court, reviewing the ca<=!e, hi»ld Vm 
evlt^ence not sul'ficio^nt to -orov^ adultery. It also hel;! tliat the 
charge of f^xtrera© and rei-jeated cruelty ?/as not auetalnad, Tercfrned 
the decree ard reiutuided the caase. The opinion stated (p. 327): 

"To justify a divorce or. the ground of extreree and renf:8ted 
cruelty, the cruel tr®«Atiaenb proved ii^ast be actual vioierice and it 
murt be reoeated. What v^ould aEioun.t to extreme ra-ul reoeat'od 
cruelty deoenda largely uoon tue facts aiid circamstaiicea of each 
particular case. (Ward v,, y/ar d . 103 111, 477.) There is some cor- 
roboration fis to one of the allaj^ed acts, out the evidence, for 
the 11.0 3t part, is entirely t'aat of the defendant, ^x^d the com- 
plainant denied her onarties. i'nare siiouli be evidence of sacxi 
aete as would constitute sufficisBnt ca.use for divorce under tiie 
circuivistancea hesides the evidence oi tiie party to cne suit who 
maJtes such cnarges, wh^re such acts .'ire denied," 

^'^ 'xr ene hfird y. Tre;neh&rd,^ 245 111. 313, the wife sued, 

charcing extreme and repeated cruelty, .and. upon a hearing was 

granted a deer<?e whicn v-an affireied hy the Apppllr^te court. Upon 

writ of error to the Suprerse court the decree was reversed, the 

court Baying (p. 314): 

"We are of *;he opinion the hill does not state a cg,ee of 
extreme and repeated cruelty vithin the meaning of our statute. 
What 1p m^^ant by cruelty, as a?ed in our statute, has heen tlie 
subject of consideration hy tnis court in many cases, jsjid has been 
construed to ri;«an physical acts of ^^iolence; "bodily hvvm , ?uch as 
endaiif'^era life or limb; such acts s.e raise a reasonable apprezien- 
eion oJ' "bodily hariu rmd show a state of personal danger incompatible 
with the marriage state. Bad te^aper, petulEuice of raanner, rude 
language, 's'ant of civil attpntions or angry or aburive ^rords are 
not sufficient grounds for divorce for eirtrejae and repeated 
cruelty. ( Henderson^jy^^Hjga d erj8^^ 88 111, 848; v. Haman. 
it.^^'n. ^^' SSbroejLi-Smbree, 53 id, 394; Vignog v, s. 15 -"d. 
MlkiSzSliteiT^'i?' id^J38: MMlox^v,._KaMox. 139 id. 152; 

In J^ioore v. fcoore, 562 111. 177, thp plaintiff wife, in 
support of her diarge of extrei,ie and repeated cruelty, testified 
that the defendant atteuipted xo cake a letter fron. her and shoved 

tsscid&ivs ©nd fexfosij' i^^;i;oo Lsii^- ^df ,x.tlfsj-^5 b&iBScai bue ^sm%S 
©iij afciij .?^?X9fi oaXii d"I ,Y,ij,J-X0hs eiroict; oi' tn^io i'i'tust tort ©snsfciT^ 

3 1 .oa» ^oa&XoXv' X£i;jjo/j ©d' ^eiiji .Cvsvo-xc ^rJe^i4*5»t;J" X^iJ'xo exic^ ^^'^-t^^'lEO 

rio«s 'io BSOia^i^s/itLoiiu tiiB Bd^o? 'i ■&iii noow ^jXsgiaX 8finsq9&. igi'Xftw'xo- 
-100 9J>".ot^ si: ^-i-enT (^VVI^ ,1X1 S-OX , liS.^>...jX-|;2£E ) .^s^o i^siXi/o ; J-ijaq 

-iaoo eri:.t f)a'S ,J xzh^lBb siia 'to *«a^ ^Xrjti^iis si, «*iaq; #«c3m »xt4' 
iioi'a 'to c-~'qns,v ivs 9d X>Xi.fOw;i.a sitiiT .ssjiixuio '£sfl ibslrieJb driJiixifiXq 

,S&.i.j-.-.- otxw Slid' jSXfS ,1X1 3^S j^^^'t^ ^^jyh-i&jipp-p^X. aX 

saw ijfii'sa':*'-! /.^ aotxii ^nii .tj^X'^WIO Bi^rUii^Q©^ hUM &nx9'xiK.9 §f."iX;"^ijBrio 
noqU *i-£Aior^ ej-«XX'/»<jqA arf;^ Tjd" &©«'X,f:Yte saw ilogtrtw s@-xo9h jb fee*n»^Q 

:(^X€ ,<?) jjhii£«iB #i««o 

'to ©ajso R '^ii^i3 ioa eso^ XXicf sricl- Jioiai^io 9-ri".i 'to sib eW* 

.ad-jjJ-.c.j'B 5Ciio 'to iiaifjUBOis f>is:>.$ aXiiilv '^jX?>inca Jt^cf^^sg*^ ?)«© 9iE«"a;d'Sft 

>XdXi.s5qi)iJC3i;ii 'X«sn;^X' Xsnos'ioq 'to '.iiyje. *-. woi% ^^.^! .c;«.orI 'TcXlboo" 'to noie 

s^wt: ,t<snfiBia 'l:o ©oruiXiJ^sq. .-saiqtiiOj Is^^il .o*.0^5 ©;i£.l:ii.«i'" 9At xiiiw 

5-iB aMov ftv-^'sucTs r.C'. x%-%im to eaoxa-n??^^e XivXo 'to ^-juvw ,»|ii;i/?^xiaX 

ibfi^«f>q&'i .fc'U5 sue^tir.^ 'to'i doiorl/v t:o'i eliauoi^ j-asiox'niis cton 

".ITx cJX .ioixkxy ~'v EonaiS ;i'»" --^^^ -^ . MSti^I^. r_«»Stimii ;g8 -i^^ Jf 

•s:ex ,bt c^rrrrcT^iM^ .V >.:of;fojBM ^^^^ ..ex xr-' , ^^idxfj^^vy **J.!ixy4 ; Q^,|. 
,^ci .i.i. ^ X ,_ ti^t^j.^ ,5i sinrT«|202iT_^i_fij|^ijL 

wX .-stXw 'nx;fnxBXq ©lid" ,VVI .XXI mi .^-lOoM ,v cxogM isJ 
I)dJ'ti^a3:J .^dXoiJio Mcr.:ocj«ts /jn*3 eifta-sdx© ^o b^x&Hh t^& *to ;r^&qqiJa 
JE,9voiie btm i9fi morel is:rd sX « «i^i o* ijsJqma^J* iiie&iie-t9& ©xi* ^^ii* 


her around so that she wae injured; that on another occasion she 

■was going through hie clothing for her watch whic'^ ohe 

suspected he had ta^en, when he juiaped ou i, of bed ar^d graboed her. 

On yet another occasion, when she was enga^^ed in aii altercation with 

her sisteen year olJ. eon rvho yus-ued her d0''n and swore at her, and 

ai:ie hit hiB v/iovi. u hairtrash, tue iiusbiU'id seized li&r and twisted 

her arms, I^uraerous persons acquainted wit.- tlie f^dly testii'ied 

that while trie parties x'useed a great deal, the husband was upon 

the wnole a good provider ai^d a i^ood husb&nd, he xurnisi.ed her with 

an autOuiOC'ile and paid ner doctor bills; ne seeiiied to be able to 

make the caildren obey, -^-hicn she was unable to do. The court 

said (p. 179); 

"Crueit/ constituting ground for diivorce under our statute 
means physical acts of violence, bodily harm or suffering, or such 
acts as endanger life or limb or such as raise a reasonable appre- 
hension of great bodily hajrai. Bad temper, petulcOioe, rude language, 
wjjit 0*' civil atteutions, an^-ry aad abusive v?ords, J.o not constitute 
extreme and repeated cruelty vrithin the statute, Tren chard v. 
Trenchard, 245 ill. 313; .a-Addox -g. ^ uiLaddox . 139 id. 152; Henderson 
▼. Henderson . 83 id, 248,* 

A further extended examination of authorities would not 
a$d our decision in this case. £ach case must be considered as 
an individual matter. We have carefully gone over this record, 
keeping in mind the interest of this faiiiily as a v/hole as well as 
the relationship of these parties to eacli other. They were mar- 
ried January 29, 1919, The;, lived tot^ethar until July 15, 1933, 
more than fourteen years, -=aid 4hey had been acquainted 'sritn each 
other several years before txiey li^arried. She appears l;o have 
been by birth Danish, he a Greek; he operated a restaurant; she 
was a waitress sjad a cook, hotu seeiued to be industrious, thrifty 
and very uch interested in the business. They tried to settle 
their marital differences by contract, which is in evidence, on 
January 24, 1935, The contract does net indicate for whose fault 
they decided to separate, but recites triat differences had arisen 
between them, and thai; it had beooue impoasible for thea^ to live 

Siia Hoiseooo i^jdioas ito :i&Jii ib®ii)\,ai e^w '■-am &^iLi os brujoTs 'S®ri 

©ffe iioiriv fici'sw 'i0i{ 'xot ■^ciiaool ^alxUoLo aid d^^uc-ta^ s^wog saw 

,ic&xl .feodcf^'i^ lu^v* l^ed■ 'io two isQiawo ^^^ asdw ,it©.\ej fojBXx fSil hsdoaqaxis 

hfSii j-s^ii ciio $iowa i)fty avo.b istl ftaiisx/^ albr aoa f:Xo isf?'^ as^^aia tsd 
^ajsxws- Lne TSil fcosxcse f'tiscfsmi sxii ,iiaij-x;/'xi;^xl a rij iw ^hi i In grig 
iigi'iiJ'Siacf -^.Li -^/i SiiJ- rijjti* .fes iniijiipos snoaieq Bi/oi9iJTUti ,arais tiQif 
aoQ'tJ ssvr liUJCfsiiil aiij jlisaJb :}i6o;is -e Jbesau'i aoij'Sjiq sai ©Xiiiw Jfiii;J 
rfcMv/ -isti bariginxi;'! sL ♦tni^cfaiii-i Booa js fcaa tstiyoiq £003 « sloiiw srij 
o-t ofdB' «;cf ol f^sjiisaa sxi ;aJLii:cr loc^ooij t^d hlsq hoB sXidOi^o^ujs fie 

doL's %Q , ■xo is-iail \;£ltod, ,aoix^Xoiv 'io e^foa X^oieijiJ^ acDSftor 

,s:aj3iJ:3£ij£iX Bbur ,9i>ii£Xwd-©o; ^isqiae;? fejeS ,s?xft£' \libod #je©i2g 'io iiexarftd^f 

• Y-Ji3M^^iMl3£ »Biisisiia Qii-^ axxiJxw tjjiTXsji/'xo |»sf«9q«x bcm smoid-sft 
rtoBaafcaolJ: ';SeX .fcX 96X ^ JCQbljj^iu.«y xc&l>a.!a: ;CX£ .1X1 a,^S . fctaf-ons^T 

;J-on SX^ow a©xjx'io/i.3'.Uii; 'to noxJ'£ni;ass:9 fe9£)a9cfx» •rsiii-iw'l; A 

8*3 hB'i&biuaoo ;5d v^aua ©sjbo iiois^i ,ea«& aixij ai itoiaxasfc -Xi;© i^« 

,6"xoo9'x sxxiJ I'^vo ano-^ "^XX.y'isiJSO 9Vf;ri »W .^s^Jx^tfi l$iyblTiba.l an 

eta 116^ B& ©Xofiw s bx; \iXi;.'i*'l axiW 'to SaaiQiai mii balm al ^alq99JL 

-•xfiflx s-xaw- Yarn ,-xi?x(d-o xiojso Qi asiJ-sijq aasxl;^ 'io ^ixlsaoi;J^eX9a sill' 

,SS8X ,ei x-'^'^''' XxdT.xs isilJs^iOJ'- .t-aviX v^xlT .9X8X , eS xt^sioel bttti 

9VBri 03 8tiJ':'a.qi5 oxici ,J&9iTi£sa v,<3xu' ^lo'iacf 8'XSd>E l&tar»& tsdto 

Y-ftlixft ,«uoJ:'X^BXjf)ai scT oif jj^ma^a xU<?a .i^oo, A J^ae 8a»x*iaw- 6 s«r 

aXJt^s o>^ bsi'xJ i{;siiiT .aasniBUcf «xfJ- iil *9 Jssts^ni ^iem i^®T Aw», 

no ,o»ua£,xv's ai ei xioirfw ,d-o.a-sd'noo \cf asoaaifl'ttlfo X«J-ii4siii TciarW 

iX;jx3'.t ©soxiw -lo't s^«all;ai ^on asofc ^oaiiaoo «xIT ,S£yX ,^S ^cx^wosX 

as>ui'i£> bMii «9oa«i3rUb ii5xi.t 8»;Ho9a iud ^tis-xaqoB oS bsbioBb \:»ri* 

together as hustand and rife, XLe contract pro-vides tiiat tla.& Jaus- 
band shall iiave the exclusive ri^iUt to the firet floor oi the 
liuil-iinL: in which the Ashl.iurid avenue restauraiit .vas coii.iucxed; 
th?t he shall furnish the necessary food for t^ie Y;il'e axid tueir 
chil'^rsn; that she shall devote her time exclusively to ihe three 
chiliren ■ixi'*. give them notherly care; that ao siiall pay aer |5 a 
week on each kon.'J.ay, *'to BDend as she pleaaee"; that ehe v/iil not 
interfere rita ais ranniriji, of either of the restauraiits, s^ae is 
to the elder son to uO to Greece wi l/i. uIb ciuat and ;;tiiy for 
two years at the exoense of her rius'band, 3he is tc have the auto- 
mobile two dayr a weeh, every other Suriday, every other Konday, 
and evfry Thursday, 

-[•he hur'band testifies and Fhe doer not clergy that on April 
2C, 1933, when hp, upoK retux*r in^, from a trip to Michigan, vicited 
her; ehe saic! to iiir., ** Jiia, I don't love you .siiy rtiorc; we better 
split up.' I paifl, "Ihere are taree kids; don't you feel sorry for 
the thre- little kids?' and she said, '£o'. There 7<a8 no reason 
for niocussion. She gave n.e no reason* She oaid Bometiiing about 
nation^.lity, anc I eaid, '?/e hsve lived toj^ether seventeen yca.rB 
and have teen roing together for twenty aiid if you have somet ting 
against me, all rieht, but nationality ought to have notiiinj^, to do 
with it* • I ^ent dovm to the restaurant and stayed at ni-^iit, I 
went upstairs but tliere wass no chance she ^culd stay vjitn ue, I 
pleaded with her but ehe eaid no, I went upstairs to sleep aixd 
when I was aSleep ehe went a^'ay and stayod eiii weeks and there 
were the three left ^ith lus. I fouiid ehe was with a krs. 
Bums and I told the iiids to (.0 and bcfe her tc uca^e back. ahe 
earn? and stayed downstairs. I tried to get her to see after the 
criildren but nothing doing. She promised to be i^ooi and take care 
of the children but she did not show up," 

9iU 't& looll J'a-jil ©rij ccJ ^ri^i-x &vie«Iox9 9xi;f ^YBja: IJUrfa ll>n«cf 
'xisixii him o'tirr »jr'j- i&'t hoo'i ^TMStB-R^^itx 941 dRlatu'X Xlsrl© ^4 its^di 

ax QiSi «*j!v^iiiftMW£i;d^a«»'3: arU 'to t^ilii^. 'to ^uiua.u'x alfi iiijw ©T»'t'S9d'£il 
,■•^f,,«5i■io«i!i io!i;ro >;'i?vi> .x^jifexiuB tssjii-o ^rtsve ,:i©0W B a^sl) owcf ©IJ;^!^ 

aaJ-sao' aisf ;:>'xooa \;ai5 waif @v©I J^'aofe |^L^^^jJiia oS blks. ©xfa ;t»xl 

10 i ^c^T:oe Ii>a'.t jjoij .1'ao.b ;aX^J:i. a^ix'* 91^ eis/lT* ^ftias I *,fir JJrJflQa'x on fiijw si^iiT * ' Ov'i* ,&liss «iia bas *?a&ii 9X;)-d'JtI r-eTcxij- adi 

■QCilsiSi^sjiios BVisii iiO'i 'il tuc. ii;;J..-(®'??i' lo'i: T©fi5-'?T40,t b«^^B no-scf ©ViSff Bob 
o.b OCT a^-t-'i^o" svjiiil o;t d-ii>iiJO T£;]fi:X*aox;J«a i'wcf ^isi^i.•l XXjs ,9m *i5«l«a£ 

.fea« <i«>j*X£ 0* aiiaocqxr cfner- I ,0.1 bljs?. aria Jwrf ^0ri\ff;J'iw ftfjfcsdXq 

©•xsri-t ?;ai'. oatsow ;aa bc^'S^a ^ali■ \;j8w^ ^a^li? »xla qsdXfijs aaw 1 nariw 

.oxi « iWiw BB\'T fexia .bawo't I 3iK rf^iw ^'tsX a/^ijl satxi*. iti^ stow 

©xia ,jiosd ^3iaou oJ- 19x1 gad feaa oy o* abisi oxU tXo* I fccte ftrrii/a 

®iij -xsJ't^ 9»Q o* i-3xi ^9a ccr bsii^r 1 .Bilajenwofc fcs\;»ia &tt« e^fiiso 

",tjij woxlB cron MX> 9xi8 iud xxft-xfeXixio adiJ I0 


Defendant dei-ies that ho ever threatened olaintilT with 
either a knife or a gun, iind reading the v/iiole record we are vv- 
puaded that in this respect he states the truth. They quarreled 
a great deal; he used rou^ lan^jua^e toward her; she gave it back 
to hiw in kind, and she adiXiits that she has ability in that direc- 
tion, ^e has lived with liim and near hii.. for alidost twenty 
years, -and it does not appear tnat siie had ever suffered actual 
physical huriQ, It may be tuat a separation is inevitable. The 
interest of this fsuuily should be controlling, Soaie of the 
children are no-? of aii &^.6 when, in view of the seriousness of 
the situation, their evidence should be taien, ab the record 
stands, the decree entered is against the preponderance of the 
eyidenee, and it will be reversed and tlie cause remanded. 


O'Connor and ^cBurely, JJ, , concur. 


In the iattc-r oi" the Aetate oi' ^.sl^O ■^'''' 

LOUIS B. COHEN, Deceased, ' )./ J^-^^J 

Petitioi. ol* FJRi^J'aB CC-iEl'T xor ) '■-'" ^ 

a oittot-ion to Discover Assets, ) /^ 







k/*'^"" s^^ 

.y J!r 



^''^^''^'^ 'Appellant. ) 28 8 I. A. 6 20 


Eercard Corisn filed i.iis cl&.ii2i in the ProoRte court in the 
estate q1' Lcuis B. Cohen, deceased, which was allo'W^d Tor #63,600; 
he filed a petition apsertiag t^iat Sara Cohen, both as adaainiatra- 
trlx and individually, .aiid x.ouis Uoidirian had tn their posssession 
certain certificates of stocis: beion.^int^ to V.\e estate of j-ouis 
B, Cohen, ieceaaed, ;in.d asJied that a citation iesae a-gaiaist them; 
thif! was alio'Ted, Respondent Sara Cohen answered, denying the 
allegations of the petition. 

The c-=irtificateB of stocis. in :4ueation rgpresenteii 743 
shares of tha capital stook of Cohen Brotiiei'B JS'umitura Oo-upaiiy, 
an Illirioi'? corporation; the Prolate oourt found, th it this stock 
belonged to Sara Cohen personally; the olaiiriant apiiealcid to the 
Circuit court wiipre, after hearing, it was held tiaat these cer;>iri- 
cat'^s of 55toGk were the property of the estato of Louis B, Cohen, 
and 3ara Cohen alone appeals to tiiis court, 

her brief ir this court is for the raost part devoted to 
a discussion of alleged errors of txie trial court in adsiitting 
i,ne te6tir::oi2y of certain Titne8ses,_/ puint baing that they were 
penritt-^d to teatify as to statejaenta made by Louis i^. cohen out 
of the presence of 3aru Cohen and Louis Goldiaan. Coimsel for tiie 
olaiKajnt says that while objeci-ions were suggested by counsel, the 
record s-otts that the court ^idiuitted tiie eviderice subject to the 


■''.._ i ,Jb©aB©o©G ,5£3EOO ,££ 3IU0J 

.. \^, { lo'i. ;i'S..vv» CIiJu'>M^l:;.(I 'io ao id" id- 91 

( ■■ 

,-^xi<»Ci.i!;oO siijjiati.'ii (iiBi-iJotfi ii»rioy 'io i.ooC)e IjeHq^so oxLt 'io es^sria 
jIoooE BJ;rl:r JxxlJ bi-iJJo't iiuoo oix:dot^ $>ild ;iioi.tjsiof;-^xoo Bioallll ns 

^Li<%»o 9ayri;J- d-fiiio hl-.Hi 3*jw ;fi .a^iiii^it is^'I/j ,o*x«».flw tijjoo .tiwotiO 
.fiexIuO .fl eiiioa: 'to !^3t.J-o3 ;>j:icf "io Tii'"i9CiO"rq -axW ©tsw >l3od-e 'to Bf^iao 

^i'isjQQ Qiiii oi eXeoqqjE? oitoljs narfoO xitsfi Ijoa 

'aai-<JJii4t)& xu dxyo;j X^i^J^ oxxJ^ 'io aioi^o begaXlJij "io xjoiaauos-tb « 


©14JW li^ixi* JiiiU ,.jaiacf jxiiucL \i,<. BpaaaaJlv; iUjBcr-X90 'to -x:«o.).i*a5d- axl* 

d-uo risxioij .tL aiuoJ. ^ccf gfesm a*ii*m©4i3it8 o;J Be vJtkieBi oi ftf. j-J-inrtsq 

a.U- 'xoi XaeauoO .xii:i.Jl>Xo'L! oxuoX bm^ lujifoO utjiB to soiieoeifi eri* Io 

ftxW .Xaenijoo ^c^^ boJ-ao-aaxJa axew axtoxjoatcTo sXixiw c^^ii^ e^aa *apaix«Xo 

t.xij oif JoetcfJJB eon«i)iv8 aii;^ I)ei^iaf.*s i'luoo sxii i&dS awoxia Ltoosi 

oTbjections 'but mude no laliiig on Uiose objections, aor was any 
raquest jaide lay opposing joansel I'or auoii ruiirife nor any Motion 
nads to Btrllca riny tciti^o*iy. Ixji j^itotitfil v, w i lcai<j i;o . h. i n '^^^ 
Ry» Co., 265 -11, 3vvj , it "^as xioiu «uak, («(ii, tixie ruiixig on ob- 
Jeotions ^^a3 reserved and no ruliiiji al'terwurd made, "no ruling 
or court on the aclaiissioa oi" cvidsiije otuj be considered," nore- 
over, the st&temer.tB hy --ouib L. woiieu were v.'itii reierei^ce to the 
stock in the i^uri'.itare coupeuiy 6,t a. tiatt; v/hexi he veib tiie tuidie- 
puted ov^lc•r ac^d neither C£!,ra Gox^en nor i.oais uoldi..ari iiad or 
Clai3i9d to have any interest in tiie stock, li-iis testimony is 
coi/ipetert, io-.d t.ii^ only question bei'oxe us is wkfelaer tiie coiape- 
tent evidence sustains the finding, 

Jacol) Cohen uoid his Torotiier, Louis i», Cohen, were the 
two principal Koocilioidere of the Cohen Brottiers i'urnitare Corupany; 
louiy Cohan hnd invested in re?*! esi.ate, executing aajiy second 
r'ort£:v.ges; the oridence sho^vs that he was apprehensive ths^t the 
holders ol' theee mortfo&ges ijlgiiii resort to hi a personal property 
for ccll?ction, tx-c he riched to i^ake &ome trarisfer oi' his stock 
in the rurx-iture coix-ptiTiy bc hb to put it beyond the reach of 
possible creditors; after several diecuBsions with Lis attciney a/jd 
his brother, Louie Cohen in li3G transferred his stock tc his wife's 
brother, louip G-oldii^ajn, iund ner certif ic&te-B o^- stoelc v^ere re- 
issued in Gold;aian*s name; tiisse certificates «ere not delivered to 
Geldmar, tut ^ere "kept by Louis Cohen in nis safety deposit box in 
the Greene>)ax.Ti banlc. Tae attoraej' for t,.ie coiupaxxy testified that 
Louis 'Johan never ovved woldiiian any laoney; tiiat there was no con- 
eidarati-^n for the trail afer of wie stock to Goldman, 

Louis Cohen begfm to fail in nealth and differences arose 
between hiija and his ^irife oara, s'ao in Octocer, 1931, filed a suit 
in the Gircalt court asking for separate laaintenance; tnereupon 
Louis Coh«i attaeiapted to transfer b^cic to ais own naae the stock 


^i»-isa am- ion ,anoj:3-0& trfo ©acaij ao giiilM oa; ®I)iijri .c)-«o' efloJt>J-9#t^0 

—i?) no ■^i;i.ili)% ma ax-ii* ,;.jSau, i^i-t/ii iaAiW i'l ,« 00£. '.Ill aSS , . oD ,^^H 

-tJ-'xoM,, . " fr&a'xspxsa^a .sgf Uija 3SikU5/)iv6 'io .ioiaai<:vty*; 9x13- ao ^itioo to 

»xii oJ' sua^siir^j'sio's i^Jiv; •sai-jw asxiow .u aiijou. \';d a^'iidJJis.tad'g stdj ^XBva 

-.sJ:.6au ext^' air/ stti usiiw aiJii.:^ .d jjb %>.uiqi..iOQ i^tuiXini/'i 9iiii ixl alood'a 

■so bsd. iiSi-ifeloii eJc/joa. aon AiaiioU <bx>.;-; lax-J'iexi iiiw "X;>rOTO b«fiis(i 

;-^nsqiKoD ©^w«tlai«'a. si0i^©i<i a»AioO 9il,t 'io ai©bIoi.L..oOv8 XAS«>oniicq-;'6i!rt 

X^%BO(..iiq iMtio&tHG^ alii oJ' d"ioae^x Jx^'^xja^ 8!3»3Si4;f*xoia 9ffi!«*ilJ" lo aiBbloU 

'a© ^siTioJi*. Bid rWln- 8iioJtsawoai.fe I^iaraa 'mS'ts?. ;*io*i.&9*io ©X?fi:eaii>5 
a'a'ijtw/ 8i.-i o^ iools axd J30'i-x<i)'i3 0*iJ OS'<?X at fl^-iloO siuo^ ,'x-3rf;J-©'xd' ai;a[ 

OJ ba-i&rtX&b itGii Slim a^^xsoi'txd-iau 9a»ii3 ;s?ffl^« t^afiia&Xot:. l^i !><3WBai 
Ki cod ileoq^b \,*e'):jea aii-. ni: iv^xioO a i,ij<s^ Xrf .tq^i 9i9-/- tjWJ ilSfiifcX«-S 

-noo OK a«w etBiU imai {■\r®"<5''*E X''*® £ittia.t>io%i &©xo i®ir&n neiloC ©i;pc«X 

&srftu B!9ons»i'->Tiil> .f>x-ii3 siilM-^ci al Xl«"x od" r^'i^acT mAo'O eiwoJ 

jiue i£t fc»Xli ,X£6X ,i»a'oiroO itl oxm ,a^ij£ ©liw eirl ftiii. s^lf? neft^frf 

aoo^B arts- ^>axf.a iwo eifx oj- ii;.-.«a rif^tsrds-J.^ tt b&«*^x5 riPrioC ai^oJ. 

appearing in the na^^e oi" ixie, Louis Uoi.iaari. 

Sara Cohen ■uestil'ied tiiat Louis, her nusband, about two 
years prior lo ui;» death in April, 1933, vi sited Hooiiester, .Minne- 
sota, with r-ference t,o his physical condition; that bel'ore he- left 
for Kochester ne t;oojc her to tue dspossit Doac at the ureeaebaura 
banji aifid arranged for aer to have acdestj to it; tliat subsequeiitly, 
soiaetirue in 1932, she went i;o the depooit box, tooii out the aocu- 
ments and papers arid put thets. in another deposit box in the saxae 
bank in her own name; that later she took t^^ese pauers to Lie Madi- 
son and Xedzie State bank and th^^re tooi a box in iier own first 
natae anti her mother's iiiaidexi nai&e - Sara I'^iglartz, Louis did x^ot 
know that nia ^vifa had taisen these papers. 

It was shown that in the hearing in the separate maiiite^iance 
proceeding Sara Gohen testified taat ahe tooJi the stoeis. certificates 
from the ij-reenebaiiia safety deooait box ajid ii, tueai to aer 
brociier, Louis Goldman, when her husband, Louis wohexi, wae in 
Rochester for xaedical treatment, 

The attorney for the i'uraiture Uoupariy testified that in 
July, 1933, after Louis B, Cohen's deatn, inquired as to 
why Sara was not allo-r/ed to participate in the business, to whiofa. 
the attorney inquired as to whether he, uolli^an, or oara, owned 
the stock, as each claimed it, arid chat Uoldiiian reylied i.i sub- 
stance he was holding it "just to protect ^uouie," and ths^ the 
stock belonged to Louis' t^ifs and children by reason of iiia death. 

Malcolm MoKerchar testified under subpoena t^iat he vvas a 
lawyer arid tiae attorxaey for oara Uohea in her separate i^xainten^^ice 
suit againat Louis L. O&hen; that Louis aoldman and Sara Goiien were 
in his office in kay or June, 1932, ;xnd he wae sliomi tne certifi- 
cates of stock in question; taat he stated ^o tiiem t.iat he unaer- 
stood that these were tne share. belonging to Louie B. Go^en waicn 


fitwajcfsrissisj siis :T& xo'i *i:eo*59/j sns o.? "itjix-i ^iooj srI t&seetlooB. tot 

Jeii'i .«»'© isii ni .xod' a .aoo^ ©Tfriit bus ^iiscf ©jfai-S ©isijd^; S>ne noa 

»sis»ciA5(T sesxiif istsit^t stiw a±rf tfixfa' wea^t 

isjcL o$ KsnJ- 3v^g lins sod ilei^qah xi&1it» tm&(S3st»9%ii ^iiimitt 
eJ- ti^ ije-xivpni xiaAitfeloi) ,c*,t)efc a'nsfioO .S eli/oJL -x^JtA ,6€tX ,X<Ci^^ 

©otuu-isiaijBis «J.«iB(2se lerf ai esjfJoO fci^S lo't Tcea'xoiti* ^xi* fins no^WiiX 

a-saw osi^ioJ £iiic; Jbt^. miMjXol' aiiieJL it«xi^ josifoO .-l alwoa *««1^3* ^^^J* 

-m;ri©o »Ai^ owoiiB u&^ ©li J&m- ,SS@X .snuT. to \;«M rti ftoll'to alii nl 

rioiii^^ miloO .iL utuod o*aai;3ttoX9cra9T*iia sxlJ eteir wexfJ l^ri^ fcooia 

i-rs, Cohen had t&lren out of the box: niid turned over to Goldsasui i«x 
the protection ol" Louie Cohen "in thr event that anything :.oe« 
wroHR," and that Ooldman rpnlind, "YeB, taat is true, 1 have 
notuinj.' to do with it ;iiyBell', arid I would like to k®- them cut of 
my hands into a trust company inhere 1 will not be involved in a 
faijiily suit," 

Louis Goldman testified, but he was vague and had no 
recollection of a nuEiber of relevant roattere. He testified he 
had filed a voluntary petition In bankruptcy hut did not schedule 
the stock in queetion aes an aisset; he did not know 'ao^ long hie 
sister Sara had had poiRsession of the certificates an 3 could not 
recollect whether tie had ever had possecision of thera, althou^ he 
latFr said that he turned these certificates over to his sister in 
July, 1932, but said, "I had no interest in them," 

Sara Cehen on October 13, 19 31, about a year and a half 
after the purported transfer of the stoclc to Louis Goldaan, filed 
a bill of complaint seeking separate maintenance froa her husband 
Louis, in which she alleged under oath that Louis B, Cohen o-?med a 
half int-^rest in the Cohen BrotJiers JHirniture Cocipany; she asked 
that her husband be en,joined froia disposing of any of hie property; 
the master to vrhoa the case was referred reported that he found that 
Louis B. Gohsn was the o^^rner of one-half interest ij-i the Cohen 
B ro there i^miture Company, 

Ho theory is suggested, nor does the record present any, 
upon which it could be held that Sara Cohen owned the stock; the 
certificates were never in her narae and were never delivered to 
her, Uoodman might laake the semblance of a claim, but he disavows 
any interest in the stock and has not followed this appeal. 

It is suggested that the record fails to show that there 
were unsecured creditors of Louis B. Cohen, the deceased, at 
the time of the alleged transfer to Goldman, and no evidence that 

TDi; viti&blo'v 0^ TSVQ bQci'iij:j ria." xoo' Bd^ to <fi.w K9>:eJ ?>«.a[ fssrioO ,S'£.i£ 

JB ai bsylovni ad" io.i lit-' I s-x^riw x^^^cr^^'^o iaL'i^ is ocJ^kI afeasri "(cj® 

9ii fjfti'iluQpJ- 3K ,BtBiism. d-iisvelst 'to iscfirtun ,r to ho x^'oalXoost 
aI;jf:'6Xir>Fj :;on tlh ia^i X'^^^'^^'^'-^^'^^ "^ noi:5iJ-eq Y'^t-jd-.i-iuIoT a E3»iiT: ^jsri 

'tXsui s fcixe 'isi'\r .s cffjocffi ,XC3I. ,€1 tscfoJ-oO no naufoO ^i^S 

Ssfin ,£i£!fx&XoO ssitfo^l 0^ riooie srij 'to Tis'tsnsiiS' h&jroirtisq ©jri*' tsd-'tis 

j^iTu-KJeifi'l 'X.*>il Kj^oa't<? f>Oi'v;!fi©dTd;>:.>53 sd-.«i'Xfiqs>a sni^Ioea d-nislffrnpr? 'to IXldi & 

js ,&«iT.*-o aorioO ♦8. aliioa cl'jarij jf.i'jso -xti.-icit; if>9?i9ll.» ad© rloirlw -nl ^aiwoJ 

b^:^le.B srla j'^rxgcrin.oO d'i;jJJ:ar)Ci;'3. a-i^riJ-eiS nsiIoD 0x1* ni: .tasin^rtx 'iX«rf 

; v.:^'.tf^t,!OiCT Biii "io v.a'S 'to :gixieoa;Gi.5 rj^oi't J?«£ii:otfi» ad fensd'EWW t&ii i^iiit 

ssBiioO !'5X,ti- ■.■il cj-ea-iej-ni 'tXi5.-i-^:?ao 'to iBnyro fi-'xtrr asw .aaiToO .2 axi/oJ 

3fLt ;:ioo*s ©lici fcsiiwo nsxioO a7.i^a i^ii.^ bl-sri 9d M;joo il iioxxiw noqu 

o;? t.ii'i'.s''fi.L&ib 'i^y^^a *)'i©w fcim »■;».« tod ni. ■x»v<^n s'^^w aed'isoi't.i^'xso 

av/oraax/:- axj .tu-:? .uualo ,0 'to flo.aaXcf«t8« sri;^ ©ju^ai Jrfelia. cteJafcooO ,ioil 

,I*i9qqfi airii fis^roXXo't v+oa BBXi .fea« lioooR Siid" ni; tssieini. -^jns 

Jaxi* et>a»bxv9 on bns .n^nifiXoO 0* ^o'tSiMs^cT b^^^^IlB ©xi* 'to ©ari.t sri* 

anyone was defrauded, tuod therefoi'e there were no credicors viii^cse 
cl.'^i3ne bcuis Ooiien 'aad ojiy reason to fear at tae tirae oi" the 
tran^sfer. This is not material. The point is that Louxe Ooaen 
traiiBferred his stock to 3-old«ian because of apprehensicn of 
poesilsle creditors and that this traxisfer was without cor sa-dgra- 
tion arid fictitious, 

- The evidence before the urial court, v/no saw the witnesses 
and heard them testify, aniplj; sustains its conclusion, tnd the 
order of the Circuit Court is affirsied* 


Matchett, i, J., and O'Connor, J,, concur. 

SilJ- '.CQ SKXo Sii-v *& -x-k-.&'t oi xioR-es'-T i^a'.^ 'I)si1.' neiioO eit'Out ssdzlo 
nsrloO axijoi-i i.iii:i& ai i'iuoc; eii'T ,Is.i;i'K^A)E doH si: sir:'! «'SF/3:fcn.iat;t 




Appellee and Cross- Appelant, 


Pv£ILIJ^aBOKlS , doirifc busineas a» H. J", 
PillLIPSiOm. & CO., arid OTOl CGFiPORA- 
TlOiil, a Uorf3oration, 



) APPEAL "from -diPICRIOR 






Plaintiff filed iiis bill seeking am accounting, -with 
special reference to |>2270 deposited 'by him with H. i', Philips- 
bom cic Co., alleging that ^800 of tiis aiiiount had teen wrongfully 
paid "by this company for the use and "benefit of the Otoe Coroora- 
tion, hereafter called defendant. Plaintiff also claimed that the 
talarice of #1470 in the hands of Philipshom belonged to aJid should 
te paid to him. 

In an amended bill plaintiff, having acquired the notes and 
trust deed later mentioned, Bought a partial forecloaura by reason 
of the alleged default by defendant in the payixient of a f)rij:icipal 
note for $500 and interest. Answers were filed, a reference ruade to 
a master in chancery and a decree entered based upon hia report, 
finding that of #1470 deposited by Jacobson with Philipsbom #50 
be retained by Philipsbom for attorney's fees ;and the balance of 
#1420 be paid to Jacobson; that the #300 regaining be prorated be- 
tween plaintiff and defendant. Defendaiit appeals, dairying all 
the moneys deposited with Philipsbom, and plaintiff has filed a 
cross appeal clai/; ing all of the |800. 

Ihe controversy grew out of a sale of iiaproved real estate 
by plainti-iT to defe;Klant, and the question is WJiether certain in- 
stallments of principal and interest, and also the real estate 
taxes for 19 33 and 1934 should be paid by plaintiff out of the 


,T?i.uoo SIT '^0 ;ioitii^© sia- asii§nrijs.a tiSr^iuasM is&imw> ^m. 

■yiXXy'i^inoiw fio^tf feisii ^nuoaui ati'i 'to 008| ;J'«ifi3' ^al-^Qila ,^oO :^ aicocf 

-s'xoc-ioCJ ©qJ'O s>iij 'io 4'ilsnao'' Jbite ©8j; sxk*' -ro't •\j;rii3 epiioo sidl yjCf f>lj8<| 

9iij .tjidvt JbawiiiXo oexfi 'I'rlc^iUifX^i ,>tftE foci's 'Jtsl> IjsXXjso tsJr'iBS'jiSxi ,ciGiJ 

&Xsj0ii3 feiite q;J fcg-^noXscf aiodsqllXn'^i 'to abrmii &ii& ai QV^l% 'to 9QaelB(S 

X£qio£uiq e 'io ^ rt-^tExr-Re! Qdi nl tiisl'H's't&b \(S iluat&b bsasXX^ ehi 'to 

Ofi^ n-socfEqiXXaq. iWiw aoacfoo«l. -^cf i>oJiQoqs)b OT*X«? 'io imL^ -ariifjnJ'l 

to 9oa(:-;Xacf s^ij bm> sya'i e'^snicci-cri8 to't inocfai-TiXxilQ. tjcT l)9alB;tei Vv-f 

-9d bni'B'xorq. ©dT ^n.cruiiJte'a; 008^ »ri^ c^jijiii- jfloacfoojsX o;t J;)i£g 9Cf OS*X| 

XXii 3al:.:i.6lo ,o£j&^qqB itiUBbiis'l^a , i iiBb io^'i^ t tii& ttli-nltiLo, aa&yfi 

^ b&irt iitiii 'itidraisXq bOB , «'iodeqiXxfH riJxw &»;riaoq9i) a^9«0is 9di 

.Q08# ©riit '£0 XX^ 5i«iiHisXo Xissaqe es&io 
sJbj-es Xiaf-J'i i>9vo'.icjiv.i 'to aXjap u io -tijo w^is '^^aisroiaaoo ^dt 

©i^^ieo Xssi Sii^f obX^-. bae ,d"S9isi'nx £>n£ laqloaiio 'to 9i&nQm.£Lsi&a 
eiii 'to isjo 'niiai.jt,lq ^£d" bleq 9tf i>ii;oi{a ^£91 fim?, S£eX :io't sexsi- 


money deposited by axm YJitli Philipsborri, or whetiier defendant 
bought subject to all tixe prJiicipal indeLtednees v?itii iriterest 
and aj.3 the tax arrears. 

Defendant filed a counter el aim alleging taat plaintiff 
had misrepresented the preiiaises prior to purchase, ajid a masB of 
testi'^uony, witii many exi^iibits, was presented on this iscue, 'i'he 
decree ordered the count erelaiai disiuiased, and this is not ques- 
tioned in t;iis court. 

Plaintiff was the owier of the ilaproved real estate in 
Svanston, Illinois; April 4, 1933, he obtained a $10,000 loan 
from H, i", Phillpsbom & do,, which indebtedness was evidenced by 
five principal proifissory notes, four of them for ^^500 each, the 
first failing due on October 4, 1934, three on the saaie day in 
1935, 1936 and 1937, respectively, and the last one, for #8000, 
falling due in 193o, interest at the rate of 6',i per annum payable 
on April 4 and October 4 of eacia year. These notes T?ere secured 
by a deed of trust conveying the real estate to che Chicago Title 
& Trust Oompany as trustee, 

A construction of clause 12 of the trust deed is one of 
the important issues in the case. It provides in substance that 
for the purpose of providing funds for tne payiiicnt of principal, 
Interest and taxes the party of the first part (Jacobson and wife) 
agreed, beginning April 4, 1933, ai'id thereal'ter on the 4tn day of 
each succeeding month, to deposit with Phiiipsbona & Co, a sum 
of money equal, in the ag^jregate to one- twelfth of the ajaount of 
the principal payment due on the next principal payiiient date 
thereafter, and one-sixth of tue cuflount of interest payaole on 
the next interest payment date tiiereal'tar, cind also an amount 
equivalent to one-twelfth of the curreiit year's t-oxee, estimated 
upon the basis of the taxes for the preceding year, Clause 12 
further recites: 

rii. ad-ante's L&si bBvoiqAl Qtsit 'to Ttsrwo axlcr ©jew 't'tiJni:iiX'5 

risoX 000,0X4' -© hffi\tsi<i€o «ri ,£r,9X ,l» lltqA jaioniXXl' ,«o*enjSTS 

YcJ Saono^iv© e«w cigoaijea'cfsJbai xJoXaw , ,oO £• aaodaqiXixl'i .t ,E aicxt 

aria- ,xlo.6;9 006 •! lo't fiasiio lo -xiic'i , assort xxoB9i:^Qiq_ Isiqtoni's.q ©vit 

ni \;Bir; •iLma snU ao ss'ixi* .i^Sl'X ,*> 'j:3cfo;raO no «jjI-> jjfliXijst intit 

sXax^s'^i^.Q CEUjfinjB U'&i^ ^;3 'to ®^isi sxlcf ;}•«> iss>isiaX ^BSex «i ©wfe gaiXXat 

|}9-xijo&a stsw e&^oa sssii'i .i^j^y; iio«s» 'io !• iscfoJoO fcne J^ lliqA no 

©Xii'i' oa£;oxxiO sxio gj -ad-AiJs© Xsstc edl ■gaix®^'^^^ i^sjrS 'to ^a9l> e x<i 

^^»i9uti a& xcmqmoQ iatsx'S & 
'to ©ao ai ijssb d-ajjaj- sii;^ 'to SJX oaift^Xo 'to aotioirt^sao& A 

.X^qioruiq 'lo .Jasiiv^sQ siiJ To't e.bnij't a^^-J^^-^vo^q lo ©soqiuq 9di To't 
(s'lxTf jba'3 aoac[oo,oi;) ;J■l^^q Jail't ©iilJ' 'to \;d-aJBq suit 8©3C«* Ams *89is*fli 
'to x^^> -i*'^ 9-fi* ^"^o -ssd-'tfis-xaij.^ bOB ,S£eX ,Jk XiiqA anXanigscf ^ijs^a^a 
aiua js ,oO ■& isxodeqllid^ d^lw iieoci&b o;t jfldrioaat i^nlbQ^^tms rio«*^ 
'io jncjjofius ^•jxU "to xfJ'tXOvyi^-sao oi s^fjsiiS'Xijj^B ©riJ- at ,X«up« x;9nom Ip; 

no sXc(£\;£q isf>ioiii.l lo ^^kjuohub ©ji* 'to ii*xl;«-«m> Jbnus ^ttstlesteriS" 

JflMoflUB a£i osXfi LfUi ,i:£;J'iffi©i©iid" ©*«& d^a0mx;«q i&^x&ini ix&a ©ri* 

.b9d-£iKi,JH9 ,a9:ju^J a''i«so\. i'noini/o &jtl;t 'io ilJ'iX9w4--©ao oi *a&l«Tlup» 

ax eaJJfiXO .'xoftx anXijeoe-iq 0il;t Ttot 80Jc«i siiif to oiaBcT »ri^ jctoQi/ 

*'T',ie intent her-^ol' is t:.Uat the a,-,gregate depoBits made 
during each j^aT s'aall ]olace in tXie hands oi" tlie dt=«noait,:ry a 
8um sul'i'ioitint to pay the principal, ^* interest dua during each 
y.^ar, tiid tue current taxes and special assees-iients, if ai^y, upon 
said preittises. ■*** Deposito ade in accordance with this oection 
shall be held for the benel'ifc of, aii-^ be pai-i to, the aoider or 
holders of said notes and. int'^rest coupons ttiereto entitled but 
aliall not const.", tute pa.ymont until oaid to the persons -:nuiiied 
thereto and shall not bear interest in the hands of the depositary," 

Plaintiff made all the deposits aa provided for by tiiis clause, and 

this litigation is eoncen ed with the dieposition of the amount 


i-'laintiff wie'aed to sell the property and listed it for 
that purpose '.(.•ith real esitate sgents, Kroll & Smith; ivroli t,ot in 
touch with defex-dant and in the BUKai;er of 1934 negotiations took 
place between Kroll and ikir. Or^ig, wiao represented the defendant; 
at these conversations the cost of operation and income from the 
building were diecussed; Orwig :^ad exaiuined the copy of the trust 
deed on file in the Recorder's office and inquired of plaintiff 
whether he had iiade the monthly deoosits called for by this pro- 
vision, to which plaintiff responded in the affirmative. That 
plaintiff made these deposits is not questioned* 

Defendant asserts that it ?;ae agreed by plaintiff that the 

amount of tae principal note, ;|500, and interest, i|300, falling due 

October 4, 1934, and also the taxes in o.rrears should be prorated 

as of the date of the contemplated purohf.ise. Plaintiff testified 

that his price for the property was |30,G00; that defendaiat, througl-: 

Orwig, offered ^27,500, to -Thich plaintii:i/a coimter offer that if 

defendant would pay $30,000 he 7?ould pay half of the 1934 taxes, an^ 
that this oroposition was not accepted, 

The oarties then met at the Chicago Title & Trust Con^any 
on August 10, 1934, to enter into an escrow a^jreement for the pur- 
chase of the property; plaintiff and his agent, Kroll, were present, 
also Orwig and Robert V. Jones, attorney for defendant; plaintiff 

@&ii.ra scfxaoqels vtc|,f--M"^'j:s>iB ^d.:^ t&t^i^t "toe'xsxi. ^m^nl ©li'T*' 
& X'l^il&Cfqpb ©rut 'te &hi'u?yi s,fW rtl ©obXq; XX«xia li:.©'^. .cIs-bsj ^elawfo 

«o1k1-oqc; ?3iiij- xioir BouBbtiooosi. I'll Sibxii-i QilBoqBCL *** .ssalax^ng blis\B 
J-jjcf JbsXJi.jn'-' o^ax-srig sxiocriJoo ^^as'ig-ttxi iaii:. b^^ox'? Ijlssi 'io s'xsfelod 

3niJ0.(S6 ©a;!' 'io aei:)^Iaoc/si|} ©jit iljiw .fosii'jsonoo ai aoiiBiglaiX side)- 

Ti/.3iii:ii:If| 'to .o^^vflupal fca:-? «aJ.'fio s^'iaLiooaH ©xW ai ©Xi'i ao J^®»A 
-oiq aixld' x'^i lol bglXfio B,3'.caoq®I> '^Xr'J'fiofa aiit ©j&JBfJ fosxi sxi i9ild"9rfw 

&i>i:llo'a<:!j 'ni.taiViX'i «aia/<.rioiifC[ b'i'julqin&iaoo f^dS le e^jAf) »riJ Io sr, 

&i^ ,a9X:<=i' ^e«X ariJ- 'io 'ilad \,eci JjXuow ®rf 000, 0«| Nj*<^ IsXiJOW *rs;®fcaii>'i»B 

,&«>;^tf900i? ion b«w noi^liaoGiOiq sifi* df^if* 

-ijjq ©xJi to't J-namsatAitj wonoisa cus oJal •s*^ct8 o;}' ,tS6X ,0X tei/guA no 

wttB not represented ty an attorney, dr, Jonea dictated the terfus 
of the escrow a{:reeir4int Bn(^ nil parties indicated tixcy v;ct£ eat- 
isflftd T^ith it; a warranty deed executed lay plaiutii'f ax^c '^'ile was 
depOE-ited v'itli the escrow E.£reeiuent; this deed ccnveyecl the premi- 
se r to def-^nacrjt sul^jcct to the t-.-.x^e ior 1933 and sut sequent 
yeart:, gr.c! to the |10,000 mortgage. The escrov :;U_, indi- 
cateo that tue purchase price was j?30,000, &r\6. del'eridant deposited 
a checlc for v^'O.OCO, The escrow agreement is on a printed foriii 
which was filld out "by i^r, Jonee, one of the qusstions in this 
agreeaient was, •*Haire all prorations been made?" to which jir, .Tones 
vrots the answer, "Kone thru Sscrow, *• 'Kius it appears that while 
this point *'as raised in the escrow c*t_^reement, neither there nor 
in the warranty deed was there -xny juiei.tion of prorating tne aiaoiint 
of the aiort^age or interest or taxes. 

Defendant argues t.iat parol evidence is acU,iis3itole to show 
the real agreement between the parties with, reference to prorating 
the taxes and the mortgage debt, citing cases like Erzin/^er y. 
QeTTitj, o'jfi xii. App. 450. Bui this and other cases cited hold 
that p-^rol evi^.e-nce is ad^ilBsible only to exolain some uncertainty 
or atibiguity, and t.iat parol evi^^euce is? not ad^-dssitle to affect 
the terms of a contract. The cuesticn preBented relat--a to the 
terms of the sale and tiiese aivjear clearly nr.d fre- froii any aiH- 
biguity tcti'i in the escrow agreement and in the warranty deed. 

The deed, dated August 10, 1934, prcvides tuat the real 
estate if? f^ubjeet to a trust deed to secure the pajiaent of pro-iiis- 
scry notes aggre45ating 110,000; at th&t date no part of t-is in- 
debtedness was due; the first principal note for 4&{j<j fell due 
October 4, 1934, vith |3CC of interest on the principal indebted- 
ness. Shanahan v . Perrj^ 130 Ji*aEs. 460, wae an action brougiit by 
the grantee aga.inst his grarjtor alleging a violation of a covenant 
against encuBabreuicee; the deed was irj^de subject to a aiortgage deed 

"jsa stsw i^i^fj fci'j-ijoiiiaJ: s'^il^ituq I'Ls bci& &ams.'5»'i'^ woTcoas ©^[^ 'io 

tnsijp.^sd'xja boa SSSi lo'r 3«i;c?i' ^itj oj J'89t<^*fa i:n&hixv-t»l} o*- a»« 

iiiio't f>3jaiiq ii ac aJ. J-n3;-a9sii:\«, wo-xoae s.rfT ,000, OSf. lel ^osilo « 
aiiiJ ax enoi^as^iup ©x^'J- 'to aaJ ^a^noZ ,%ii ^cf Jiro ^.sXii'i asvv riolrfw 

.sf^XB^ lo d-aeiaj-Kj: i© e'3i;^;!'i:oiE vAi 'to 
.bioj.1 fisdxo aasiio T-axi^o .bm-. aiiid- .? u£i ,031^ .qqA •HI XVS? .xlillSll 

-njfc ai.iJ 'to Ji*iq Oil 9^jsI> JaxC^ *b ; 000,0X1 aniljsytsiais'S aS'J'oa x^oa 

-Jba^jsjbnx Xisqiooxiq sjU cjo ^3©t-3Cf>u lo OOSt dii^ ^i^lQl ,h f^doioO 

*ni?,n9V00 -fl to nox;t«XoJtv j& aalseXIja lo^aiii/i aixi ^fenisaja ©»*ri£TS «^* 

to Beoure $3500 and the warrarjty deed coventuitf d that the preirdeeB 
wepR free iro , all encumbraricee except tiais; subsequently the 
mortgagee demanded and obtained from the grantee ^24 5 for interest 
which had accrued on the inortgai^:e before the date of conveyance, 
anr". the grantee Hued his grsj^tor under the contract of warraj.ty , 
aBpertlng that hif* grantor had covenanted against all encumbranceB 
in excess of $3500; the court held there could be no recovery, 
sayin,. that the mention in the deed of an existing mortgage of a 
certain amount v^as only jy way of description and ideritif ication 
of that Biortfe;a£i;e, "which, to the extent of all sumB due thereon 
for principal or interest, is a ein,^le in curab ranee; and that in- 
cumbrance is excepted out oi' Uie def endsxjt 's cover ant," In 
Tru mbul 1 v . Gal e , 222 111. App. , 113, this court approved of the 
holding in the Kliariahaji case. In Mi ller v, Robinson lisjrjk ^ 34 111. 
Apr*. 46C , 471, it was held tnat by tae acceptarce oi" a der-d recit- 
ing that the grantee takes the land subject to encumbrances, "it 
is as effectually charged with the incumbrance of tixe mortgage 
debt as if the purchaser had expressly assumed the payment of the 
debt." See also Russell v. Morau i. 164 111. App. 312; Aing v. Sea, 
6 111, Apx), 189; Goli s m i th v. Mey er. 94 ii.J.L, 40; Jo -ui son v. 
liicAols, 105 Iowa, 123, It follows that the defendaiit, the pur- 
chaser, bougnt the land August 10, 1934, subject to all unpaid 
taxes for 1933 and eubsequf^nt years, jticI also to all the unpaid 
portion of the Biortgage debt with interest, .jad tiiat it v/as 
obligated for these. 

Defendant ar^jues e&ri.estlj^ for the application to these 
obligations of the moneye deposited by plaintiff with Philipebom 
under clause 12 of the trust deed above referred to. It ie said 
that this provision creates a trust fund upon v/hich the prospective 
purchaser was entitled to rely and could properly conclude that 
the agr,re,vate of the sucis so deposited would be applied on account 

Bdi •^I.^'icuivaadi/i-i ; ic:oox© 89o.a>r4;(:.fJK0i3U9 lis ■r.ot't 9^%'t aisw 
.^oasTjavaoo 'to ©5x& ©xi^*^ ©lo'tfiKi @3^;3*'xoxjs sii-t no ,l»*»i?t3o.i5 fear! rioiflw 

,\%oroosi'i oa B>d bluoo BtBiii hl&s-l ;)"iuoo »ii^ jQOfiSi to aasox^ at 

-ai ^•wxlj bcui ;0o,wicfja>.toa4 dXjs^axs! ^ ai ,»t-6S)i3;J'nx ■so l4aqioni:*iq[ io1 
ill " .4'.TLsa£>70i) a' Ja-sfcfii/.'UA Qiii I'o ■j'wo Isad'qftQXiS si aondB-xqliaiio 

9i:-j 'to bdvo-xciqij ^luoo aiAi;f ^fill , ^qqA .XXI SSS .^ sJuaj? «T JJttfcfetOTif 
.III A5 t^:ii_JIO£.!2l^'0L^j».Z,.,-SSAiiM "^^ .»a-«a iHS^liMI^- ®*i«^ '■^■^ jjuifiXOid 
-jio^ji f5-33i) B 'io 90 iB^-fiSao^ siicf -^vS' iofH bLs>d ^i ^XtJ^ ,Od;l^ ,qgA 

cM" ^aQoite-xcffiuraa® oJ" ^oaf-fus tool arid Sf^sla-:* S'idcaBias 9sU issii ^ki 

.^s8 ,Y ^ gl.^ ;SX£ ^qcA .XII ^61 , njiioM «:y XX.ereat/a oaJLu ©®6 *,df«faJb 

-i:jL'q sxa ,j -'£.(T(i3i9i) 9i[# ^raji;^- »i?/oj:io'i cn .sex ,swoi dox .aipupljig 

£)lBcxiiJJ XI.« oj i^o^trfJJ® tl*f.ex ,01 isisj^kiA fecuaX «ffi* dixftuod" ,t9»«ri«> 

,©a«iU To't f^©i*BJbXtfo 

moiaqlXlfil Liilv 't'tiiaislq xrf feeiiaor^Jf* s\;i5«ofii afU 'to s<«>l*«alXtfo 

ftxjBa ai Jl .0^ bevi^'to'i ^voJa b9»b issjxi s>Ai to SI §au»Lo I9bau 

avli ooqaotq. oiLi iioiuw aoqu bcm't Jemii & ae^^ei:© aoiBiv&tq attii t&M 

i&iii s&uXoaoo \LiQqoiir i>Xjuo3 hsm xlvi ocT boliliiasf saw laa^fiotfle 

;taunoo6 no A9iXcL«c ©cf i»XAiow |>©jria6^<i!>i> oa ««»«« ©ilJ *to «l«s®iss« ©rf^ 

on the luorttiage indettedness and taxes. We do not so construe 
this clause. Accordinf-: to its terias the money deposited wae 
"for the purpose oi" Drcvidinj, funds for the paymenx of princi- 
pal, iritereet and taxes" when each payment b btcaiiie due, und that 
such deposits "shall not constitute payruent until paid to the 
persons entitled thereto,'* *e construe thie uo be a raetiiod of 
guaranteeing the pa^uient ol the mortit^age dett, witii interest ;^iid 
taxes, fcy accumulating a fund for this puroose. It cannot reaso»- 
ably be contexided that if plaintiff made a contract of t-ale by 
TThich the purchaser in express terwis assuiiied arid agreed tc pay all 
arrears of taxes and all of the ■■rincipal notes snd interest subse- 
quently j'alling due, that plaintil'f would not te eiititled to recover 
"back from the de:iositary the aniounts deposited by hiia under the 
provision ir. the trust deed. The provision that these deposits 
should not be eoneidered paymect until they were in fact paid 
precludes the idea that tney might not be uiiide the subject of a 
contract entitling the depositor to withdraw tiiem. As we nave 
seen, the contract for the convey aiice was subject to all unpaid 
encumbrances, and it follows tiiat olaintii'f x^as entitled to tne 
amounts deposited with i'nilipsborn. *e hold ti^at the decree, 
which held that the property was sold subject to the taxes for 
1933 and subseouent years, and that plaintiff was entitled to 
recover $1420 from I'hilipsborn, was proper. 

It also follows from what vje have said tiiat the position 
of plaintiff in his cross-appeal must be sustained. The iaaster's 
report and the decree prorated the amount due on the mortgage debt 
and interest October 4, 1934, as of Au^-ust 10, the date of the sale, 
on the theory that equity will do that -.hioh should be done - a 
general equitable principle 'Sfitti ^','aich we, of course, atree. But 
plaintiff properly asserts that while this is gerierally true, it 

..i;;>s?.l'iy 'to J jt.'^:Jav>)q ©ri? i.a't ebcia't iitllblvoiq 'to ©aoq-rxji^ fsHi lot" 

9i3j o^ biaq lliUii^ ^■iis«avjsq s^ij-j-iiaaoo joti Xl^xis* e^'JtaocjsX) ileus 
"io £iorijJ'&iu ^ 3d" Q-j silxli sjj*i#q«oo ©W •* .od'sTiiexij' ^leli'Jtd'fla sndsisq; 

vo" sXfes 'to ^lojs-i.taco ij ^bam TtiJ-nisLq 'i.1 ^sais feajf) its -t 0.00 ©cf x-td"JB 

XXi> ^^^<q 03' fr5 3T:,!jjr3 .um; fesiaijas^! smtscl" sasiqx© nl laa-sifo^ifq arid" rfoijciw 

-««rfij3 ■^B'^-x'iif.'ii hcLA ae^d'oa Xaqioaiir: 9rf+ lo iX« &lib a»xj3^ "io a-xjaQTCx-e 

i)Xiriq Joji'i ai 01SW ■itan.t XxJ^aw iciaanijsq h^tobiBaoo ad" doa fcluorfa 

a 'io ioetjiija &iii 9fc*»fii iid" .tow Jrla-t-Bf "i5Sii.t ci-i.ui;J ss&X »tii a»bulo^t<i 

QVi-ix aw eA »£a9iii wj^iMcMv/ oJ •s,oJiaog;9S ©;!>■ ;giaJtXd"ici a© ttrnttaoQ 

9xi>) od- bsXd-iaiio sjbw 'i'ii^ai.(5XQ i^J3ii%>' 8woXXo"x 11 Boj* ,89on,«td'fiuuo«fi 
,!*aioaf> s>ri3 ii^ui fcXoii »W .a-xoiiRqiXix-I'i ridJtw beiiaoq&b nitiUQsm 

Qi beXis.ii'is ajaw Vtliaieilq iadS {ui* ,c'i'i«»^(; ofasypoaerue i>as €S€!X 
^Taqo'ic 3«w jCraotfaqlXlftH ato:t't OS*X$ it«voo©i 
noiitisv-jo &sl3 ■ifRi'J t>l.<'>s svaxi ovi'i'w iaoi't fs^isroXXo"! osis &1 
a* I'S'^iu-M exiT jbOiiisiKjJS sd" i&mt Xaeoq-s-aeoto elrl k1 l'ti*ni«Xg Io 

,aX.G8 «dJ- 'to osab siiJ ,0X .taii.uiA 'to «ai .i^SRX J^ ■xsrfoJoO teei®d'aX i)H« 

ii - Bttoh 9Ci bXunrii? /loiii*: cfafU ol) XXlw xilsjpB taiLi '%io9tii ©rf* xio 

iu'l .sifJieiJ^ .seiuoo "to ,©w iioJUiw iij-iw «XQioriJ:T:q sXcfaJiupt latBOB^ 

5-i ,SiJi;t y;XXjB'3:oii&.5j ei elri^ sXJtriw iailcf s*»»«8fi •\jXioqoiq TtiialBlci 

has been repeatedly held that a court canriot, in tiie interest ©l' 
what it coiiceiTee to be equity, i ike a iiew contract I'or tne 
parties, Hodalaki y, nodalaxl . 181 111. App, 156; MoeJa n v ^ 
H edrick . 193 Iowa, 555; Spra^;ue v. vJoehran . 144 ii. Y, 104; '-ai 
C. J, 2ijl, sec. 191. both counsel a^ree tliat the decree, wuich 
prorates the aiorte^age indebtedness but ao«a not prorate the t;!,xes, 
Ib inoonsistent. In this we also agree, ond our decieion tiiat 
neither should be prorated removes this inconBiateucy, 

When defendant olaimed an interest in the luiida deposited 
by plaintiif v/ith Philipaborn and rei'used to pay the principal 
note of |500 and the semi-annual interest ol' *3o0 becoming due 
October 4, 1^-34, pluintiiT for his own prutection purchased all 
the principal notes arid interest coupons. Ixi plaintiiJ 's amended 
bill he silleged t^aat he waB now the ou'uer ol the notes secured 
by a trust deed, tae default of the defendsuxt in payiient of the 
principal note of #500 and the seM-annual interest due October 
4, 19 34, ;an4 also in txhe payment of the semi-axmual interest 
coming due April 4, 1035. Shortly after purchasing these notes 
defendant was advised by plaintiff or his attox-neys taat all future 
payment of the notes should be itiade at the office of nis atcorneys 
and not to Philipaborn -i: Co.; tae artcruey ior the defendant was 
told by the attorney for plaintiff tuat Uie notes were in tue 
possession of plaintiff's attjixieya arid t lat ail payraents saould 
be made at their oiTice; shortly before the next aexai-aiiiiual in- 
terest fell due defendant was notified in writing tnat the) 
interest coupon notes were iu tae possession of piy-ii^tiff 's at- 
torneys and that payment of saiue should be made at their office. 
Defendant refused to do tiiis and insioted taat it was required to 
pay only at the ofl'ice of Philipsbom at. Co . in accordaiace witn the 
provisions of the trust deed. We do not think the point is im- 
portarjt. Apparently i^hilipsbom was antagonistic to plaintiff's 

j^y . misoM ;6aX .qc{A ,.ili XBX ^ i: i.B 1^1) L ^y ii^IisyboH ,,9ffi!Xtx«.f 

&ub I'jiilmoo^'d OJo| 'Xo i's^iodrii XiJirmw-iiaaa ari* Bos 006^ 'io 9«}"oa 

ILb l)'i>'Zjoq noija® jo-xq awo alii %o't YilJi-ai^lq ^^ZQ£ ,* tiadoJ'aQ 

b&bn&am a' tjLi.yal^.I.q al .siioqwoo j'ae'xoj-nx ba& asioa Lsgiottiiq arid" 

osiiiooa ss;toa a.fW lo 'XiSriwo »j.ij woa awsw ©il jjSiii- l)©afl>XX48 dxl XXxoT 

•XfscfctoO sub ds^'i-itJrii: iBiJaafi-iiitos Pii;J' b-oa 0054 'io 93'on Xaqiottiiiq 

d'as'i's.^rii Lsijnas-ifliSe ®Xi4' 'io ^a^ftr^aq 9x1? ai osXi? tOB ,^£0X ,^ 

a9;to« ©asiici ^..axaisxioife'q tailii \jX#nodci ,e£GX ,^ XJ;:ccr/- Bub ^atoipe 

orv.7u't XXb ^an:t s^smod 1x5 eixi io Yi xo'-nJ.sXci ^"^ fesaxvbx? 8«w drusJbnstsfc 

aY.i»a'iOwi« exxi lo siox't'io sri^ ^£ oisexa stf bXuoxia e»*on sxiJ 'to *a9Er\j;fiq; 

ssw ia*s£!ii&'i'3i^ suiiJ *xo't ^;^!!Xi'xocl jjb sxlc!' ;.oO ^. modsgiXxr^:^! odt Jon fcas 

aij'j ai ifisaf a&j'on ©xU ^fciio* 'i'ixJnxaXq lo'l \;»moo'Jjs Oii* i^tf l>.JC9* 

blsJoxi.B s!j-aem\;*iC; XXx; ;J«i'i'.J .hat? sxQitxoii-j^ s^ 'i'ixJiii.«Xq 'to aoia«»eBOcr 

-itx X£ijaiis-iiiJ-Wi3 3xaa taiCJ fihTi^TJacori \.X:JioxI« jeoxTto riedt itsi »bim &<S 

-jas «'"i'ixj-.ix.f.X(t lo aolesoaaoq &iU ui: <»i3w aad-ofi noqwoo d^esneJ-ai 

.Qoi'xlo -ixs^i.) J-Ai «t>«i« -sti" hlvodH 9;i.uBia 'to iTiTsaiYJsq cT^xi;^ bae. Bx©n-xo* 

oJ f:.«'iXiJi;9'i ajBW tl j\yiiJ fo-gJcixeui £>CU8 aiixJ- ob o:i bafvuu^t&'x tnsbn«*t(»(l 

dilj iUl^- &ou}hiooQii Hi. ,oO ii ii'io^sqlLla'l to ^oi't'io dxii" *« x-Cno ^x-q 

-iiii 3i jxiioc- -3ii^ c^oa oI> sW .Jiseb JaxiiJ- Sil^ 'to aaoislVP-^f 

a''iix;rni.c.XP o* ox^alnovije^ii* a*iw irxocf-^qiXxxi*! Y-t^mxcgqA .#itjj*tog 


claim, and the request tiiat tiie deler-^ant make payment? to 
plaintiff's autV?.ori2ed agents, H'ho had poaseseion of the notes, 
was reasonable and proper unier the circumstances. Defendant's 
refusal to accede to t^iis request does not coirirnenfS itaelf to ua. 
What we IiMve juet said is Also pertinent to the claim laat de- 
fendant tendered tue amount of principal and iiitereat I'-ie, i>o 
tender was ever 2;ade, eiti;er to pleir.tii'l or to ais attorneys. 

Counsel for dsfendaut maire a number of other points 
which scarcely reiuire coautient. Objection is liiade to the prorat- 
ing by the aiaster of an ineurarice -premium and taxing the defend- 
ajit with aai aiuount ol' '^l(3,7:i .-and 61 cents for inttrrest. The in- 
surance policy was obtained by plaintiff upon t^ie preidses pursu- 
ant to a provision in tne trust deed authorizing the placing of 
such insixrance, and defendant was properly cnarged with its 
share of the premium. 

We see no reas'on to disagree with tne allowance to plain- 
tiff's attorney of #250 as attorney's fees. The extended litiga- 
tion, as e-videnced by the large record and Hiany exiiibits, justified 
the allowance. We are also of uie opinion that this es^ensive liti- 
gation miiiht well nave been avoided, 

Def eiidant 's counsel also say thac the court should i^ave 
ordered plaintiff to pay defendimt for coPts incurred by it by 
reaeon of plaintiff's fs.ilure to admit certain facte said to be 
contained in a notice served upon plaintiff, to whicti it is sbid 
plaintiff did not reply. The notice 1b said to be served under 
rule .18(8) of the Supreme court of Illinois. It is sufficient 
to say ti:jaL we find no sucti notice in either abetract or record. 
This cannot be euppiied by printing the notice in the brief, 

Plaintifl' in his cross-aopeaJ. also Questions that part of 
the decree which taxes part of the costs agaiiist him. We suppose 


,®9j-oa 9dt la nc'issyasoq, bad oiW,&ia&-^& |)jisiioilJi»'js s''i'i;j:daij8lq 

"9.b jBiw ajl,i.-l£'> Oi:a oj jasniJ"iftq c-Ri/i fisi Biise jsijt QVissi 9w JerlW 

~-l.-fi'£oig axi^' 0.1 sSjiuii qI aQivToot^"*-' , j'-fHv.iiaoo ©liwpi&i v;XBOi*oa doixiw 
-fens't©!) OiUt ■:,',nxjc£i bete aiuiiii&'xc soiiisiuafiii iis to isiama &d;i ijcf gai; 
-ax 9xiT ,,■j•a■f>^'••)C^^i■ -io't sJnso Id j^ruE.- i::^,^!! 'io .tnuoiajR fts ff-jixf^OiS 

nJ-1 jtiiv/ |>*3'ijB/.io xli^vniq ajBW *,cij8Da?)'J$.f^ bits'- , 0oa3*xijaai ttoim 

'liiL svieofjcacs RXrio J£ul;l noxaiqo ®uj "Xo obXb ■siis sVf ^dooswoXlB axijj 

^ijobxuvjs iisscf "^y^^xC Xiaw d-ii^Xui noxit-Ba 
nviiii bluoiis .j'lxioo dri^ .;; j-.iil.t y^'JS osX.«5 X^eawoo ss' jii£ii:>ii»'ldQ: 

X'-i il x,<j t)0-j.^iuonl s4:::oy "xo'i: ;J-as.;?)tifl'tfti:) -^^q oJ" 'l*.lxtni«Xq bBtobico 

S'i o.)- biA-a aJ-OE-'i aiBi-x^o iliy;he oi s>'x;jXx,k'1: s' Ilid'xixfiXq 'to iioajss^ 

fix.----^ >il' j1 -ioxiivv oJ /i'i . J-ai£X<j aoqw JtoTi&a ©oicfort a ai ft&niB^noa 

i-nsxyi'l'twa i;:i ;t I ,aJtaaiXXX "io i-asoa '9<:i:.Q'iquB &d^ to (J5)ex^ dlui 
,b-tv:)Bi 10 Jo*s-t^sij.i£ 'xsiiiio nJ. S4i>i^on i;.oiJ» oii ibni't «w jjsuii i^a oJ 

'to j-iJiq J-^xiJ- 8iiox>j-a«iJp 03,Ijd XjBsqqjE-eeoTo sl/i «i Tl:i:^iit sXl 
fl^joq^xfa ®W ,jaxd ;^8itt/53Ji lieoo axlj Xo ^TC^q a»xjii xioi.dv dsioaiJ exiJ- 


this waB upon the theory that since th«- prior iflorte,ag6 eneuBibrance« 
oc the real eetate hud teen yrorated, it rae oiil.> fair to prorate 
the costs of the rel'erriice, Lut as we have held that lihiB iiiort- 
gage encuiBbrance should liot be prorated,, it I'ollowe txiere ie no 
basi? lor taxing any oT the costs o:^' the litigation against trie 
plaint il'l", 

xhe decree is al'i'irnied except as to those parts vvhich 
charge against plaint iff any part of the fliorti^^aBe debt and in- 
terest anci the I'ses of the liiastar; such parts ol' the decree axe 
reversed and the cause re-^anded "ith directions to modify it as 
iiidicated in this opinion; costs ii this appeal to be tiixed 
against the Otoe Corporation, 


Matchett, P. -T, , and O'Connor, J,, concur. 

-=tioat Blda ;j-i5/iil' Jblaii *T5i;. 9^;«' Si;- JwS »)!?$!ii-::rS9't«)i ftxl^ to eti?oo *£W" 

xbiii// aJ-'iaq eaoiio o;t an j"o-90ss» Mnni *'J:^.i ai s<?Ta0.& erfl' 
<>-jfi rTis'ioyI) S'ivj io EJ-i^:^q i-.:Qi>a ;i©;i-£Aif.i aridr "to east aifj tae ^.sftisd- 


JAi,.-SS W, SVAWTNER et al . , 


OJ' :WJIHICA, a Corporatioii, 

/ { / / / 


^ O O X oOl* O i^ i 


Upon trial cf a suit to recover the accldertal 'leath 

'benf>fit provided in a life ir13ura1.ce policy issued by dei'eiUlatit 
plaintiffs had a verdict for .j>2100; th' court, however, ontered 
jad"iriOnt for the defeudtint notvri thstatiiiing the verdict, and 
plaintiffs appeal. 

An ordinary life insurance policy fcr $2000 was issued 
upon the lif5 of John J, dvaritner, arid an additional :#2000 v/as 
proniised in case the insured oaai-?. to his deutn by accidental 
mear^s; he :Ued lu, 19 33; dafandant paid the ,:?2jOO under 
the life insurance praviaion cut refuaed to pay the additional 
;^2G00, mi tiiis 3ait follov?3d, Jefandaiit asserts t^iiit tae ins'-ired 
did not ajiset -.Tith tui accidental death as defined in tao policy. 

It .naay b© conceded t.iat cai a lootion for judg,ii*ent notwith- 
stai.ding the verdict tiie trial court has no power to weigia tlie 
evidence, but the court snould detarjiine from an exaiJ^nation of 
ail the evidence whetiier plaintii'f a, as a riattar of law, nave a 
right 10 recover, Kalewsici v. Kackiewich . 232 XIX. iipp, 593. 

Defendant first argues t.iat thv-re is no evidauce in the 
reco'd thai, the insured received aiiy lodily injuries througii ac- 
cidental deans, V/e cannot agree to tiiis, vjn the uiornine-; of 
Sepceaber 28, 1933, insured drove hie brother-in-law to his 
of i ice; the autoi-obile vva,s in good condition - just lii».e new; tiiat 
morning an Ogden avenue street car collided witu tne rear of an 

•■:;'5> !5^j,, S ~-r ,r\ r^, 

s '^ '-^t i\ i>. ','A l»' 'v- 
j^ --.f^, 'i..j' s ^o. s JL tL;< vi' v^t 

MgrI arKS^O ^ ^asIXaqqA 

.Xj89qg.6 e"t't.linis:sS.^ 

a.QW Ooufiij XAiuoxcfifjivje roi tri.',: t'lfdir^ctu^b ,t axicT, 'to s'iil Bdi aoq^is 

XjRjai^ijioaj;; v;cf :i3\:a.)3 alii ot 9iiix:o ijo'ijj&ui 9jLi3' ssbo «i Jbssirao^q 

laJbnjj OOGSct- s>iij tii^c' dri^oue'lsjb ;of. CX ,uX ttsdinsooG bsiJ: ari .-enssm 

IjsiioijifcbJB afi:! '1;;^=^ OCT ir/fceL'la'i d'i.d' aolslvciz aoncxi-'snl s'txX ^il# 

io uc>ii.;i:ii..iAiX9 fit Kio'i'i ©iiiii.-xfejyl; x>XA;ofie Jitioo ^di .tud ,eofisf!J:v* 

iS dV£iii ^wal 'io 7-:: j.tjDa s e/-. , a't'^. IS iiir, la tiinJotlv sonshjtv© ©ill XXb 

^'CQd .qqii ..tXI 2L.:^ ,xtpiwalao£iA ,r i7Lev &. Zali ^loroofii oj J-fifeli 

pAd ocJ- waX-ai;-i5?Hs.KTid eiil sr.o-ib batuBiil ,6g*lX ,8L1 •xecfaisj-qse 

iniii ;v/ocx s^ijtX ,t.; at - acxJx/iiio'j .uooa i^i-t a-siw ©XldO'.tocfiJa ftxii ;©oi'l*© 

Ofi "io -xjBsi arij xiiiw 6©£»iXXoo xeo i^asiJs suasva a9^aO ob aalrraoai 

autcr':ot>ile driven ty a yourij^ ii-an p,pproxi...ately ol' the? Rwiie ap- 
pearance toth as to rpi;:ht and hfi^:ht as the injured; the con- 
ductor of thp street car teBti]'i<»d that the young man then gave 
his name as Jo'r.r. Svantner, reniding at 24 50 3, Central Park 
avenue; thic was the name anr! the repiderice of the insured; '••hen 
the "brother-in-law returned .'ome in ttie evening he saw dents on 
the car that were not th»re in the morning; the spare tire or the 
rear was puahpd in, the rear fender siaashed, the hacir end ol the 
oar pushed in, the rear window broken and the cushione were 
ripped out slightly. 

The father of the insured testified thPit when his son re- 
turned nome that ruornin£, the back of the car was sciashed in; the 
insured e3q)lained that something had hapoened that morning, but 
the witxie'ee wae not permittee' to testify as to v^hat he ceid. The 
"brother-in-law -went -with the insured to see a Br, Kofrieehter 
about two blocks away; insured was stripped to the waist t-nd the 
Doctor exa'.'ined him and gave a preseription for sooie salve to "be 
aT)?>lied; the brother-in-law observed a red mark cose to the 
mine; the Doctor testified that he found contusions of the ri^nt 
rib, deep injury to the right rib, or spine, axio. on the rit,ht side 
of the spinal ref-ion v,'as a bruise, with evidence of tenderness and 
pain; the brother-in-law applied the salve as prescribed. 

About three days inter "Dr. uas&el called ezid found the in- 
sured lying domi and coniplaininf: of a severe pain in the middle 
of hie back, also of crajOips in the abdomen; after exa^dning him 
the Doctor said all he found was a discolored bluish and yellowish 
area in the middle of the back, also a little tenderness in the 
right front of the chest; the Doctor orescribed the application 
of a hot water bag or electric pad, and in his office applied 
heat from a heat larup; on subsequent days he detected there was 
more tenderness in the abdoraen, 'riti. a slight rise of te;:.perature. 

©ysa itsiiJ" ojsiii jjiiwov, s»;.'U J-j:^.tLt S-T x't icj-gs* tsa J$s*r^a pxli'to -xoitoi/l) 
2[X8*u. IjetinaO ,£ OiJ;^S el's a«i'"^-J^-^'x ,'Ssn^a®yB- ncfo'C s.^ ^mna ^lA 

->»i aoo aifl aoi.^:?? ;J'.aiid- b^l'txi'Q&i batissal mU 'to lari^Ja'l ©riX .. , r 
srfj ;ni: fcsasB^s aaw •sjso ?>.tii 'to ^ojtjq'' njti;}* -ia^nioisj. #*-jxii' acxoii Jbao'itf* 

QriX ,,& 3x1 ;J--0i:iw oJ 8« v;''i:i«J®»i oi' 5«i'd'.iA'Ji®q .toa saw sa«»aj'i'v §,x{i' 

^bia fii^^iX'x Qiii xto .?)ii£ , sfiiciB •xo ,di:T cfr-^isiT: sii.3- oi xtulstl qesh ,d'lTC 

-.1.1 i9i.U iinijo'i ijnss feslljisy If*''!s^jfi ,'xCr i&i&S. sx&b ©ssrf* rf-iJOdi. 

oXI:>t-iia 'sxil ax txlaq ©isvow jb "io ii:aiittx-yI.qffiOd bm-. mrob gnlyiX fcoit/a 
ailfl ^alati.Bxfi i&i'ta ; ^iiJ- iii acr.itJBio 'to oaX^ ,io«er elxl 'to 

xiaxwoXIsx ^'^ xigiuXci IssioXooeJ^ii « a«w f)niJo'.t ®xf ISm bl»B •xoS-ooO 'jft* 

);3Xi^ ni s&snt&bmi &.U3ii j6 ocXp ,3foacf »ai 1© *XI>fiai. »xi:* at ;&9'i& 

no.t.t(ji>xXf(qj3 siii i>9diioas>ic;: loioofi »xLt ;*a9ao ©aj4- 'to inot't 4fik&t%. 

h^llqqfi ©oi't'io ajfcii aJt fcoa ,£>aq oxxtoaX© to ^Acf 'xo;jf&yf iod « 1« 

It W58 a fair inference tint the irisured received an ac- 
cidental injury in the collision b^^tween his autOMo"bile and the 
street car, and "beyond doubt he received in soKie way, by exceraal 
and accidental neans, tin injur;- to his "back aril rido, Oefen 'tait 
argueo i'or the old rule tsiat you cani;ot base a preoUirption of 
death through accident upon a presuifrption tuat the ii).3ured v/as 
injureri through accident, h \x, , as ?/e held in £'um_s v, Praienti_al 
Inp. Co« of Agjorica ^ 283 II 1» Apr), 442, it is not contrary to 
the law to bf?np rm iiif^renoe on an ir.ferrxice, citing,- cec, 41, 
Wigcore on Evidence {26 ''4,) n,nd Sturra v» Employers' Liability 
A ssu r, Corr). , !^15 111. App, 354. We hold that thp evidei.ce euf- 
ficlently "roved that the insured received a.n injury throuth ac- 
cidental Bieans. 

The icxport-wt cueetior is, CouBidering all the evidence 

can it be h^ld that- this accidental injury caueed the death of 

the insured? The policy provides that accidental death ben sf its 

eh all be paid - 

••utjon receiT)t of due proof that the death of the Insured occurred 
*«-« a,s a result, directly and independently of all otner causes, 
of bodily injuries, eff^'cted solely through, '.'iolciit and 
aocidftiital iseans, of wnicii *^** there is a visible contusion or 
wound or the exterior of the body, *** larovided, ho's-'ever, that no 
Accidental deatu jseneiit Siiail be payable ii the death of tne 
Insured resulted *** directly or indirectly frooix bodily or .aental 
infirniity or disease in ai^y form," 

Did the death of the insured come within tnese provisions? 

Ur, fiiassel furt^ier testified txiat about the middle of 

October he found a slight swelling of the abdomen and advised 

that insured be taken to the Cook County hospitfil, where he was 

taken the follo^??in^ day and -created by the hospital staff, 'ihe 

patient's abdobien becaiae more and more distended, v/ith nign fever 

and pulse faster, the patient beco.-dng weaker and wesLker; he was 

taken iiome froia the hospital Xsovember 22; Doctor i-assel saw uim 

daily there until j-oveiuber 2b; his condition becaiae i^iore serious. 

-a-B ii.® ii^rl^o&t i.drcwaai j^ifd' imi& .©ocrsi'Xis 'till xLi-y't m b.'3w #1 

'io aoivi'-qaajas'sq « ©©.Aid" .torirtsa jjo\^ ^adS' ^lijrc Bio 9d;r -xo't esxij^t* 

od- vjxa'siwiioo v*'oft EX cJ-i ,S;J^^ ,qcrA 4111 SfeS' ( ^.d-ttoma 'to .eO .enl 

"'tfjii sausJiX'/B ^.rio J-siU blori ?iVJ : .^dZ ^cqA ♦III SIS . >o-;pO ,T.»a84 

. ^ *3iJ.!Sfltffi X^^KS^blo 

'Xo iU^Bb siJ'j . &dsus?o A^iijtJ^^-s: Xa>tas!blooJS filMi iazit hl&f^ &€ $1 mis> 

ba-i-iwoac £i©'swanX 9ri+ '.to iii&'jb mU ^s>i>:.& 'ioov.q ©uJb 'te ^ffJtsas'X aeffir" 

<a«>3i;j;>o aexi^o Xl« to Tj;lj'«®i>ai;qs.eu3i bar. i£X;J-odT;i.6 ,J'j:w®s'x is 8.3 ■•••f* 

haa iaoloJir ^XacnBixB diiUoTLiU Tjldloa |)®it3*'ft$ ^sai'swtni xlibodS 'to 

TO aoJLax;j-ao3 ©Xa'ieiv jb ai: STCSiid **■>'• aoxiiw to ,8.fteoa XfiJii»/>ioos 

XBjTisa 'xo x-*^-'^^'^^' ^^"^'"^ xlif)<^%lbai lo -^Xcto«<tJ:.b *** |>9#Xi;a9's mxmal 

^ tsno'i xnr. ai &sii&alt io ijdiuiix'iiil 

?aaoxsi;yo-iq asaxid- aiiiMxw ©jbco ijeiusnx ©xW 'to ri*.«a£» arlJ 1)1C£ 

'to sri* iuodB Uini boii-iiaai -x&Li'm't isaajs^ .id 

bfesirfexj f^£i« noraobdjK yxi^- 'to ^rixXIawe cJ-xi^iiia « fciXi/o't sil "i9d'«);J'oO 

eijw sxi ^-xsii.v ^X^icMffaori xirujoO jiooO axld' oJ as^i s«X J^saiisni: ^jbxO' 

©xric /t'ixjjci X«jXc;eor{ ftiU ^cf teJ^jBsaj btm xab giXf-woXXo't 9t£d" fl»3ijB* 

I9v»'t ii^^xxi. xiJ-lw ,Jb9ba9ioi:J.i Qtom fins o'xofls s^iiBO^tf «»i'ao5<J« s'*H9id'«q 

i-aixi wea XsaB^M ■xotooci j^'i': tstdMsvoA XeJiqtioxI ®xi^ iuot't 9moii njsatfi* 
,?jjjox'X9s 9-xoiu t>iii«o^icI aoliibiioo sid jCJS tscfias^voii Il^nti 9%»sii x^lab 

he waa delirious, pulse rate higher, and hecauBP' of hi? con ition 
he was sent back to the hospital arjd on Deceriher J? an exploratory 
operation was performed; the abdomen wae opened but the openinti 
Was inuuediately closed without furtaer operating; he riied December 

In answer to a hypothetical question Dr. iiiassel g^.YC It as 
his opijiion, as a reasonable and medical certainty, that the cause 
ol' Jiis death could have been by trauma or injury; this opiniou was 
based partly on his observation of insured before Bepten-ber 23, 
when he appeared to be a robust and healtay individuril. The Doc- 
tor also testified that v/hen the patient first -went to the hospi- 
tal on October 13 he was suffering from tuberculosis. 

The father of insured testified that he lived with him at 
2450 3, Central Park avenue, that tiie son Tiras 21 years of aj-e, 
weighing about 190 pounds, apparently in perfect health; that the 
son worked v/ith witness at the steam fitters trade; that he sav/ him 
on the morning of September 28 when he left iLome, that his aposar- 
ance was "pfrfect;" that when he returned in the eveninc; he 
found his son lying down, coBrplaining. 

Dr. Kearns, a physician find surgeon for the coroner of 
Cook County, performed an autopsy on the tody of insured; he tes- 
tified that at txiis time it weigned 100 pounds; that through the 
surgical inciaion in the abdominal wall tnere escaped fcul smelling 
pus; that he had a huge ulcer over the tuttox and prominence of the 
thigh bone; the Doctor found a v?et brain, indicating infection; in 
the cneat there were over two and one-half quarts of foul smelling 
fluid, causing a coi^^pression ol' tae left lung; the right lunc was 
enlarged 50> to cov.,pensate for the compressed left lung; the tis- 
sues surrounding the lungs were swollen and soft, studded with dtirk 
green-black pigment; the heart was swollen and the lizxing of the 
heart a color indicating infection; the abdomen ar^d small bowels 


aoliS'lmovs 9.M to '^mmtiad him « "xadis 14 ai&i ^eluq tenjoittl&b 8«w ©if. 

^:5di;;:&os<;r fef•^j•.^ ^d ;-giiliiit'=io,Q i-ailJ-xxji ajuortj-ivr fcesolo TjIoJ-jsJtfegmaiJl; qsw 

• a* 

SB :fi av^!5j j:s??asM ,'3:(I «oi:*asap XiioJti-Sif;Jo<?:T(;.c!; « o^ t&imae al ,,., 

®3if£o oat dsri^' <^jiti4;.Ja'jo I^oifisra bos ©lifBnoa^ax ja a^; ,«oinigo nld 
axiw aGXiilqg airii'^ jyjiiitnl 10 BMun'ii "icf na-scf sv£:xi bitfoo li^^js^i) «in '£0 

„i»aJB '-to H1&&X IS a43W ilO« 9X£# iSSii ,3Wa9V£ illJBSt JJBiiTisO ,8 Og^S 

iiii-i V'ABS oii jsxiit ;^i)^ii n'i-j^.ii'.t ms^ia eiU Jta eeen^tiw dil^-f bB±iovt hob 
-tft?5ncu-i Blii iBrl^ ,©iiToyi a-'iaX axi. xisxl:* 8S i^eTiae^'gee 'to '^iiiaio/a »££d'. ...fl^> 

•gaiiilsXcrmoo ^ancb "Bolxl nee aif^ F-ncn^* 
'I'O i^npioo Slid- xo'-t iiK>&ii)%ua ba& ft®ioJ:B-^f£(5 & ,eiiiJ3©4 ."iCC 

»iU d-guo'iiii &&ii:f ;s5«tfoq 001 Jb^figistw ifi ©fald' eXif* i» i&Ai bBllli 

ai ;ncJ;or)?'.lx£J: 3ni;;^«'.oibaJ: , fui^itf *8W a bstuo't loitooG axX;? ;dnocf jfi^irf* 
anxllomo XjjoI io ad-iiiwp 'tXbsxi-sao £>riA ow;t t©vo 9*x»^7 dan>riJ' tasxio oxlJ- 

•al* 9xU ;8nuX cf'iaX JbaaaeTiqjiOO axi* lo'i 9d'£»fl9(lvjioo oJ ^08 fesaifiXa® 

exii- 'io yctlnXX sds bus aeXXowa sijw ;faj8flri sxiJ ; d'naiJisiq ii.o*jXd-iX9aia 
aXswoa XXijaie bi\& asauQbde sxij ;aoiJJ©«'i:nJt anl^jBo 15al; -xoXoo b tra9ri 

adhered to eacii other; there was purulent fluid i.n the nhiorninal 
cavity; other organs also showed tuberculosis; the adrenal ;:l;jr)ds, 
Wilci. are above the kidneyo, indicated tuberculcsia. Dr. Kearrs, 
in aJiawer to a question ar. to the len^-th of time the patlrnt had 
been suffering- "from this cause," gave it as his opinion that it 
"v/as a relative acute proceBS of short duration, I will eay sev- 
eral weeks," The witness also gave it as his opinion that tabercu- 
loeis could be "activated by trauma,** and explained that wh^re one 
had tuberculosis of the adrenals or of the liriaph jlande or the 
mesentery, and received a blow in the abdoxaen, the chamge o^roduced 
in the circulatory system of the abdominal cavity could reasonably 
activate latent tuberculosis. In answer to a hypothetical creation 
Br, Kearns said that the condition he found at the post-mortem ex- 
amination might or could, within a reasonable certainty, have been 
a result of trauma. He said that the insured's death vas *the re- 
sult of sero-fibrinc purulent peritonitis superiraposed on tuberculosis* 
peritonitis. By that I mean sero-fibrino purulent peritonitis is 
the result of tuberculosis-peritonitis being infected vith ether 
orgatiisms than the cause of tuberculosia-peritorjitis; " that the 
patient had tuberculosis ii^ the peritoneal cavity, which vres the 
actual cause of death; he disclaimed knowledge of what causes this 
tuberculosis, although he repeated that if it ras present prior to 
receiving an hijury it could be "activated by trauraa, * 

Dr, Schlacic, called by defendsmt, gave it as his opinion 
that the patient had been suffering frou; tuberculesie at least for 
a period of one and one-iiali year to c"«'o yf-nxs to cause a condition 
where the rigiit lung '^as i/icreased in size 50;5 arid the left lunjj 
nearly collapsed and full of fluid; he ;ilso ^avo it as his opinion 
that where a patient died of sero-fiberous peritoneal adhesion by 
tubercular peritonitis it \7ould take approximately eijvnt iaontha to 
a year to develop this condition* Ihis witness said tuat sei^o- 


-vjiB ^<^^3 lli^T L ^aoxi^XiJt i-soila 'to sia&oo%q ©v^uox stxc^jsIst: b q^w" 

ar^J 'xo e&tmX-; liq&^il esU 'to tro B£BatiithB &di 'to niB0liJ0'X0fiis& b&d 
Sj^fOiibtniii 9-gimxio isis:iis ^ nBrnohtlB 9M i\i #oXcf £ fssria-©®-! fcas ,x'3:'9tfl®a©ia 
Ylci.snoB/'.ff'x fjXuoo ^d-iy>;o XBaimofecfs nfi:^ 'to iHsd-^Ys -^oJ^Ijjo'iIo sdj- «i 
nold'8f>Jc.P Xsoioy.vid'ocr-:*- ^- cJ- ti^.^mnss nl ,siaoXt;o^3d'ij*^ri«;S-.fiI ©d-avWofi' 
-xs» ia©i-^oj2X"^s?oci ^.di in fenuo'i noi:^!^'^!:©© ©rid' d-Bilt 3>x«s arfis92.,iC 

'x«!!uoo j-[t.h^' b9.:fo«3'l:nl -^aiod ni.Sl!:io$X'x»(f''mlsoliioii^dts^ lo rJti/ssi"- arid- 

'i."ij iBzi '* ,-siJxt-io:jiis>a-siaoXi/oi3cfjJi}- to asw^o «xlJ- lutsii* afiiaiiissio 

ari.? aa-? jrlolrw ,viHvso X.-saac^'iisq: Ofli" fil axaolwotscfw* bs^d iOQiisiq 

8i::>.t answ^o twiiw 'to snJi^Xvroast bami^Xoaifc tsfi ;*{J,B©^ 'to anutio LmsiJtOM 

.'t tsjBsjX ^."s ax2t)XtJ0i?icitJcr Kioit j^niis't'lins a»9<f 6.erf #fl»i:c^i*C[ axit *«rfJ 

j,aji;X i't&L oj:^ hrte .^.06 «xia ni fcaexi^'toai sjbw gntiX Wij^lt »rii exaxfw 
aoitiiqo airi e*'. ii ©vp:;, osls «ii jRljuXi 'to Xlju'i bcws ftaeqa/Xoo iclrtfisfi 

ni Briitirioiu ^/iai» TiX^.MiM.xoic,qs 03t/s* blmrt n alJ-iao*i'x«q ir^Xijatatful 

I'itoroua paritonitis is a tubercular disease, usubLLly carried down 

froiri the lungs or soi;:e other area iiivolved witxi tuberoulosis; that 

a person could t.o along lor iXiaiiy years and liot lose weight and yet 

have tl)at disease; that sometiiueB there are no symptoms and Btill 

the disease progresses witiiout any symptoms; it is possible 

for one to have tubercular ulcers of the "bowels and live out the 

natural life, and that it was possible to have latent tubercular 

ger»i.B iii the system and the person die ol" some other cause; the 

witness said Jie had never iieard oT tubercular peritonitis being 

caused by trauma, 

Dr, i.osenbluia, a specialist in tuberculosis and connected 

with tliC Cook County and tue iiunicipal tuberculosis Sanitariums, 

teetil'ied that the enlargement ei' one lung ^yi to compeiisate lor U-ie 

collapse of tne other was a slow process, lasting a year or 13 

mont^.s; tubercular peritonitis is cxiaracterized by tne outer liningis 

of the intestines becoiuing Jilcerated and rubbed off, causing the 

intestines to become matted together; in his opinion it took at 

or eight 
least six/uonti'xa - probtibly closer to a year - for this matting of 

the bowels -.vith adhesions to form; the witness had exaiained the 

insured at the Cook County hospital in the early part of October, 

found a tubercular lusion into the left chest which reflected 

peritonitis; the witness also said tiiat a man could be in apparent 

good health for a year and a naif with one lung enlarged 50;i and 

the other collapsed, and not ioiow of it; tnis would be latent 


It should be noted that wiien Dr. Eearns gave it as his 

opinion that insured's condition was a relative acute process of 

saort duration - several weeks - ue was referring; to the lymohnoids 

in the nesentery supporting the small bowel, and not to the other 

conditions found, iio we must consider the testin^ny of the two 

viwoib ijaiiiBS v;iXiiJj8ii ^aai'idai.i) iMLuiit&^jui & bL Bi^iaoilteq eitoiocfil: 

^e-^; t^m iixii:ir3iw ©soi Jon Ijite s-ijaaij;; vi^-tsjTi T;o"i ^;no£« og fcljuoo ftoeisq; « 
IIJt;i-a .bn.« BiiioJ'qiUxa on &'tB si&d^ asiaXaSiEoa iasis jsa^Qsift d^arf;t avfix! 

sxi^ ;©su£o iaxi;Jo ©raca 'lo oib uoaieq sdi- baa misi^ex'<^' &di al amias 
jjflxacf aijxrio^iri'xsq X;f3j[iJO'X©dij2)' 'io Ij^s^eii tav&a bs>xl Sii bias Ba««;)-iw 

8X 10 'tfi'fY & ^aiJaaX ,aa»oo'ig aroXs jb «.ew ^sxi^o arid' lo aaq^aXIoo 

'io axiLci'^J'SfK eixiJ lo't - 1.09^ jb 0* laaoXo ^Idadoiq - Biiiaoii\xiB ieaBl 
«xit Seniaiaxe x^jbxj aasnJ-iv.' Biii ;mxo't 0^ &aoiaa£Lb& ri^-iw aXewocf dri* 

|)9JD9X'i9i iiuiii:^ cJasxio cf'tsX axicr ocTni rxoxsiji; isLuoiSidui A .biiuo'l: 

Jxisiijqqfi ni ©cT .5Xjjoo xmxc b i&di hx&s obXjb aadn^iw ©xll ;»i:*ino*l»»q 

I>(ii3 ^oe i)eH'2:A' Xns S-oJ^i 9"o xicTXw iXjsxi £ fexsjs i«9^ « 'lo't rid-Xfiflil boos 

JmijeX S'Cf bXx/ov? aixxi d-xuJ ;ii lo '^yofxa. ;i-oa 6xub ^b9eq£l£oo t.9tiio 9di 

BXi^ a« Ji svB^i aa'ijsi>ii .-xCi nsxiw iaxi^ badont ocf |)XiJoria J- 1 
'to eeoooiq d^-jjoe svi^txiXai £ a£W aoxdiJbxiou a'bsiJjanx dexi* nolnlqo 
Bbio'tiiai-.f^X Qxi^ od- ■jaiii&'tsi asw eri - aJiesw Xj81©vs8 - floX*«ltiJfe 

•xsifi^o 9iii oi don bxixj , Xswoa XX^rua »ii^ anli^ioqqwa ^Tce^oeetci •ifaT ui 
ow* gxii 'to Y^ouiXtfaeJ- f>di isblattoo iaum ©w oB ,bauot eaQttlbaoo 

Doctors called by defendajrit as to the length of time required to 
pr dace the increased right lung sund the collapsed lei't lung aa a 
period oT oiie and a hall" to two years, an 1 the leniith oi" tiin« to 
produce tue matted intestines, indicating tubercular peritonitis, 
aa requiring nearly a year to Torm, ae uncontradicted. 'raeir tes- 
timony must also be considered, as well as tuat ol' the plaintil'i'H, 
in passing upon a motion I'or a ju j.^'ient notwithstanding the v:>rdict, 
Respective counsel hfive cited a large number ol' cases \'?here 
recoveries ^j^ere had or refiised vmere the accidental death heni°fit8 
were claimed. It would be ol" no avail to analyze these cases, No 
two oases involve exactly like facts. The governing prineiole 
has been stated by Mr, Justice Gardozo in Si 1 v e r e t e in . v « ..Met rp p o 1 >• 
tan l.iie Ins. Go . . 254 M, Y, 81, 84: 

"A distinction, then, is to be drawn between a morbid or 
abnormal con'^ition of such quality or decree uia.c in its iiataral 
and probable development it may be expected to be a source cf mi??- 
chief , in '^/'ij.icii event it may f&.irl^ be deacr-ubed as a disease or 
an iniirfiiity, and a condition abnoriJial or unsound when trat<*d by a 
stai'adar ol" perfection, yet go re.aote in its potential jtuioCiiief 
that comiaon speech would call it not disease or infirjuity, but at 
most a >oredit'r)o'^=ijig tezideiicy. * 

And in Leland v, uni ted Com'l Travelers of ^uaerica . 233 i^ass. 55d, 

564, the court said vith ciearr.ess: 

*If there is no active -iiaeaee, but asrely a frail general condi- 
t ion , so tiiat powers of resistarjce are easily overcome, or merely 
a teiT^pnc'?- to disease vhicp is started up und ii»iide operative, 
whereby deatn results, then there may be recovery even thouf-h the 
accident would net rif:ve caused tiiax effect upon a healtiiy person 
in a normal states * 

The line of distinction seen's to be, that where a person hr^s we-^k- 
ened powers of r^^si stance, through general physical frailness, 
there may be a recovery for accideatal benefits, but if the condi- 
tion is 80 abnoJTual and of such a qut^lity or degree as in its 
probable development would result in deati, it aay fairly be caller? 
a disease causing death, Even if an accifient may be said to acti- 
vate or accelerate a fatal disease, we do not gee how it can be 
said the injury caused the death when in fact tiie death was caused 

, Ri-c^.tiiO^J::cecT tjf-.Ijjoaoffiii*- gaxJ^t.iBfcA'i jSsr.i^fssdTri .b-si-jsii^ ©aj- e3wfeoit'q[ 

o;i ,='j9Si5o .^^s-siu*- 0SYl;-^n.? c^ IL-i.vt-- on iO ©d .6X/Jow 3-1 ^Jbejirlslo ©itew 
aXaJoai.icr aninigvo-: sriT .bj-ox-I 9:jIj:X ^XJ-ofiza ©vIoTiii ssR^ro ewi 

:*e ,18 ,T .a ^es . .oO .ax ^I all J. na^t 

•xo hid'zodf. B a©«'?cS-9a awrrxb arf oi ai .nsrii- «nox;roni;^sib A* 

-.'sx.Tj to »oi:t'oa b s<S o& botb^gx.© ©of ^^«j[e ^x ^nssscioltirsb ©Xd^d'oiq; bcto 

10 see&Kxi) B a>B ijscTi'toasI} dcf x^-xla'i jjisn &i iiwve xisli/w ax .i»iilo 

*; \!;df l>fs.t£';-=J n^dw bnaoBau to XjsifJioad'jB flol^xfinoa s has ^TciiBtal'tai ne 

''±£!Xxioa ia i^xjaaJoi^i oil al siatm-i o^ t^x , aoicfo9l;-x'?*q 'to •■■■x&tA'iBiB 

in &sjd tX^tnii'tai 10 SBJseail) *on ^l IXso fiXutiW jrfoseqs nocuiioo ^«ild" 

•' .-xjonsft-^ia^i -^jiiiSO-cTaxJbOTiq « ^Rflffl^ 

:e8?tnii4B9Xo a{;H7/ J)i«s ^frtuoo arf^J ,J^S6 

-ibiioo X«i9ii©^ Xi-£;'x't £ -^ijXoicv/a j-ucf ,r'.3S!&ei:f:' sviJoi; oa el aiari* 'tl* 

,ovi:d'-K'Xt)qo Qb;iu bns^ (jjj i^sii-s^R aX r'oiflv 3S£3aJ:.v oi' ■^snft.hissi' £ 

noa-xaq y;iivX«sii b noqu d-0G'ri3 j-jsx.u,' Iisaw^o svaii .t^oa bSucvr #«9Moo« 

-..i'-?**^ ©Brf ii-oei^c< r. aisxlv' d£-.xi.d- ,'so: 0.I" siH^aB noi-toal;tsijJ> 'to ©ail ©xfT 

jea-gnXii^il XjBoisY-tii^fj I^is^'^yi xigtfoirid- ,©oi^.*ei:«"T: 'to eipwocr i>9«9 

-xbixo:; eril 'ti: jjjq" ,©J-i't9U9o' Xisd-s»fcxoox;; to'i. xi^svooen; ^ scf y«2» 9t9di 

Bit nl r-iii <:>si2j9i) 10 xitUttc tx tious. 'lo bns>. X^ai'ioarfe o« ai no id 

r>9iI«o ©or vXixxs'i Y'C'^ *i «rij£9fi ni -tXtiesi bXirovf *n»fliQoX©vaJb oXcfjscfoacf 

«ido« oi^ i>x^8 9cr x»m cTagfcioofi cv" ti nevR ,Aisi9b saisnao »eis$aii> £ 

*cf ru50 di TToff. 995 *on ah ow ,»ejii9QiJi Xe;t/j1 b fbi&tQlQooM 10 »isv 

b>->Bimo aai* ilia^b siii joft't ni naxlw ii)B9b &AS b9asj£io x^iuiai •xi* fci«e 

by the disease. 

The orovinionE of the policy above referred to in 
clear and explicit language that no d&ath Lei.eiit yhall be pt^jibible 
if tlie liaath renalts "directly or indirectly froi.i Lt>dil;y <'^* dis- 
ease ir any forru" Piere all the Doctors eay the ijUiured c-ied from 
tuherculosic, vr'iich is a diseaee, Adai:i S v,., Milvauivee . 144 ', 371 
llie uncontradicted testi ony eUoKS that tubercaioBis wua Lx. tae 
patient in an advai:ced sta^e and icr a conniierable period before 
the injury on Septet ler C8, The conditions found on tae post- 
mortem were so destructive in their nature taat even laymen 
might maiie a prog;.0 3ip of c.eath wit^dn a Siiort tir^s, 

we ar*:- of the opinion that the jude^iient ordfer entered ty 
the Judge not?;it istaiiding the verdict T/as fully justified frooi the 
evidence, ;:jid it is tnerefore affinted, 


liatchstt, P, J,, -md O'Connor, J,, concur. 

ax &-i.i-^X.jrib oJ" be-t-io'tax -i-vodss, \^oxJ.oq- sdi 'to a.uolai:?oiy sxlX 

axo'isci iioix-.ic;. sId'.a-Xv?ftx.^rico £i -xo't baa ©s-^cfs |>9o;.!i3rBj3 ac aJt i^asiisiq, 
«9..t\,£l astv^) jBXiO' &x:-Ji{ja tlfjiU :u sviJoini'asJb eo ©low iss^ioxa 

ejxiJ iSiO':!:'!: fjsi'lxj awi, Y-'^-^*-'- SiJ5<>v' joi£*i3V sxii ijnxfcriBcJ-axia x"if^on sji&ijTi ®jl;t 


.Tijoaoo , ,!• ,-xcuTnoO*0 fcxi« , »T. ,^f '^i-^i&xlofijM 


J. H. AiilX']'rl'.BiJ , Doing j3uoinc?E9 as 


MRS. HATliiit^ ilY^'^iJ cr.d HYLIiHi Sc 
bTKLHOUtlB, liiC, , an Illinoie 
Corooration , 




^8 8 I.A. 62f 


PlaintiiT brou^jjit suit against ief er. jax.ts, claiiaing ;|293 
as a "baliii-ice due lor decorating two apartjaeiits in Luiidings man- 
aged ijy Hyiaen ■%. Steiiiaouae; upon trial, "by the cuurt jirs, l-a-tl^an 
Hymen was disTuissed by u;jree-..ent and the court Qu'b£.tix«^ted I'ox 
her Sleanor K&ling, a ?/itness who had testified, and entered 
judgBient against her rind jayuien &. Stenhouae i'ov ;|293, i'roii Ti-ich 
they appeal. The jud^/uexit afejainst Eleaiior iucJLing was iiuproperly 
entered and is reversed, B i e fe ;l e r v , ha r^ s on . 241 111, App. 600. 
The argument on beaalf of Hytieri & Stermouse is that it 
1b a real estate corporation, acting i'or certain properij.y owners, 
that plaintiff I;^iew this, iUid tii^t under sucu circuiudt,;a-.ces it 
cannot be held liale. The rule i^ tuat Wie Hgent becoiaes person- 
ally liable only when the prinaipal is not kiiown or -Mien there is 
no responsible principle, or viiere trie a^enz becorues liable in an 
undertakinc ir, hie own nai.xe. bprv Lupiber Co. v, M^k,-iij^^^ 
77 111. App. 280. 

The evidence in this case shows that defendaiit had customa- 
rily, End in its own ni:^e, ordered plaintiff to do decorating in the 
varioue buildings operat^.^. by it; tuere is no evidence tuat defend- 
ant ever told plaintiff who owned the buildix.g'. or that the defeiid- 
ant would not pay the bills; in fact, the bills for various jobs 
up to the present controversy, over a consideraole period, were 

-K- r^ O oi aion^XXI Its ,,aai .aaiUOHimTS 

T^I'iaaoiqini @,0W SiXiiXas-nI lOiXiisXS dfaxsi/iisJB JiX9ii'%l)ift Q^^'T .Xijecfq.*;; i(;®'rf''^ 
.OOd *qqA ,.111 X.^S « .a2£iJi5j4...»XJ?lj&iM§ .li-aaaeyoi ax I-n^ Bei^drt© 

,«-onwo vi-xsqotq axi^^-^so uo'i gfticio.'. ,«oi Jaaociioy siH^es Xi-.oic ^^ ei 
,i ^^oa,.:sumsoxiv ao>.a ^eD"^^ i^a;^ hm .ei^iJ" w^ii;i 'tlWaiBXq ^^ri* 

.1 3i;pii;> aeilv. ro ««oi^ toa ai X«qiaax-iq -^di ««xfvr ^Xao sXu^lX ^XXa 
OB ax «Xi.sxX 8<...ooacf ;lasa^ ^ni a-x^i^ uc ,^Iaioal^g .>Xdlaao(T8S<x on 

.Ofi.S .qgA ,1X1 VV 

-fca«,-telb warier «on.Mv. ou .X aa.u^ l^ ,i M^i^^ego ^sniMiud a«oi^sv 

adot «"ox-x.v .oi aXXid .ii^ ,^0.1 nl jsIXxd ..i. xm *on bi«o,. *n* 
0X0. .bol-xoq exa^iataoaoo . ^evo , Y.«^»^ox.noo ;^aeas'xq «xl. oi q^ 

paid by cVieoks from defendant. The fact tiiat after the naae of 
defendant the worde, "Trust Account" appear on the checke ie of 
no iroportance, I'he court properly held defendant o'bligated to 
pay i'or the '■ork done, 

I'he real dispute aeeii.s to be as to the estimated cost of 
the work Bubraitted to defendant by plaintiff, Plaintiff's testi- 
mony tended to saow that he aiade an estimate of |398 for decorat- 
ing an <".partnient in the buildin^, at 5103 Ellis 3,venue, ?-nd of 
f280 in the building at 5117 Kllis avenue, Defendarit introduced 
evidence tending to show that the proposal for '.he v^fork at 5103 
Bllie avenue was $325, and for the work at 5117 Ellis avenue, 
1250. The court, who saw and heard tjie witnesses, accepted ;^lain- 
tiff 's version as to the amount of the propoBals, ajid we see no 
sufficient reason to disagree with this conclusion. 

It is argued that plaintiff advised def endai^t tliat if John 
ii, Breese, an erapioyee of plaintiff, obtained future v^ork froic de- 
fendarit, plaintiff would pay Breeae coJiaaissions on that vrork so 
that Breese could pay his delinquent rental account due to defend- 
ant. But plaintiff further testified tiiat Breese earned no com- 
nissions oi! the work in question; that plaintilf was not indebted 
to Breese, who had not been employed by plaintiff for the past 
two years. 

Complaint ie made of the action of the trial Judge in re- 
fufiing, to aduit in eviderice certain waivers of liens sifsned by 
Breese. They were properly excluded, as tney did not affect the 
Itejis of the account in question, 

iiB we have said, the real dispute was as to the estimated 

cost of the work, a^id as to this the court, who saw tae witnesses 
and ;eard-th8ffi testify, properly could have accepted plaintifl 's 

The judi^a^ent agjainst hymen & Steniiouse, Inc. , is affir-x.ed. 

,. ^ AFi'IPj^i) AS TO lJYl-iL£i & Sl!El,iiOUSS.Ii.C. 

Matoh^,tt, P. J., arid O'Connor, J. .concur. 

l"o Bi cj£o9.uo 3!ii ao •SiiSqq-.e •'i'nuooaA Jew-XT'* ^^btoff sifcT d'/tjefcna'tfii.fc 

,©no|> 3i"XQW «fja- to't \Bq 

,©jjaav>ri ail.LK VJXQ c^j3 2iTo^ 0di lo'i bm. ,SS5# asw turtavis ellliS 
«.nxBl4 bsdoayoa ,Q'i)aaon^ti"^ sf.;}' biB^ri hoe wsa oriw ,*ijjop sjrfl .oeSf 

OS iio:nf isidjcao BStoishl^yuaoo B^-:>a%3. \mq JSIuow 't'UcTixtsX^ j^cxfifciTft't 

-ssioo on b»citi-;& ©B';?0i:S t.s.rf.o'- .b<5i'Ud-s©^ ts-iidr-xi-ri; Xtl^aiBlq tuff. ,^n;i3 

laBO <t)sU7 loz 'tliialBlq x^ feeicoXam© a&m *ecj i)*iil oilw ,©a,»*i:d o* 

^^;j fofti,v.ji8 aijal.t 'io a-ievijsw nUii'x^ti Boii»bxvs> ni ifj:ad)« o* ^fliaif'J: 
aoaasnc^iw srii wjbb oxtt,- , :}TiJOO s^i* aXu^ oi s^ ^x^ ,»[iow »di 'to *8 0o 

* *rr<.«nn..T, .lOailoO^O ftt'OS.J-.'i .HSi 


C rrpcinticn, .it; Trurtte under 
the Last Will and Testament of 
Wendell R, i-i-n^, Dectaped, 


▼ 8. 

WILLli^'i J. BRiTJGiiAH et al. 

On AT5,cal ol" 'ILlI.-viS J, BRIPCiii'AK, 


) -L^ 





128 8 I.A. 6 21^ 


TJie iiortherii Truist Uoaipany, as trastse undsr t.'.e laet Till 
and teEtaarj,eBt of ^.'endell H. Aing, deceased, filed its complaiiit In 
chancery feskiiig tLe court to construe xj.q '>7ill aad instruct the 
plaiutiff as to its iuties relating to tne disposition of part of 
tas- ast income of the trust estate. Aftsr the issues were made 
up t"5i? c^iuae waa referred to a master in chancc-ry. 3oiae exceptions 
tc his rc'TJort -rrere sustained "by th? ch^ancellor and a decree entered, 
froii parts of ■which the def eridaiits Biidgiaan appeal, Tlie guardian 
ad, litem of certain minor defendants, and aa trustee for issue 
not in "being, filed a cross appeal from certain parts of the de- 

i"or convenience defendants Bridgman will hereinafter he 
referred to as t}ie Bridgiaan heira, taose defers lants who iire satis- 
fied Trith th^i deor?je as adult defendants, and those represented hy 
the guardian ad liteia ao the minor defendants* 

The record discloses that Wendell H, Kin^ executed his 
Trill in ld8'5; tha'. he oied the next year cjad his will wae admitted 
to probate in the Prolate court of Coolt couTity, jU'ter mfiiing 
certain specific "bequests he devised fj^d tequeathed all the residue 


'-J ( 

XXitf 3-aaX ©.it* isfcixw ©elsjuij as j^as^aJoO i^a.u'xT «i9.;i,^t©M sfJl' "■'■•■■■ 

sra a'-oi.'xJ-sfiJ: ,ba« liin and- ©jj'S.JBaco od' *ijl;co &d^ %aittjs:'^%t9oakito 
lo .3-i»t 'io xicii'i;ao«?nx.fc ©£ii oJ- j^fiiJ^Xs-x asi:*.a^ ej-i 0^ ojs I'tx^'j/ljeX^ 

,bei^jn& 99"rsj©£ js ^iis ■xoI£?^oap,ri[d sri* xd btaii^StBSJB urevr itod'Ht elxf oil" 
OBlbii/.i^B 5f£f .XaatjQje aa.Ti;ii,/)i4II sixunt-M'tsfc sdi lioXtiw 'to t&iij&q molt 

-Ob aiit "to sd-iJBCi lUjE^^fiO m&ilI Xe©qci« asoto js i).'?Xi;'t ,s!^*<^ "-^ *03 
-^ii.t*«a eiH orit? gJ-jaaf aet^if^ Saoitd- .s-iieri i^^>n?sfciia a/W e« oJ b&tt&tf^t 

fonj^iijxiiB aijw ixi\'r airf i»ai tj^&x *x^" 'J^^* ^*-*^^ ^-^ ^^^^ :sa«x ai XXiw 

ouiaasT. oxiJ XX£ ijt>xio^J8»up9rf i>«« fotalvet e^I B&QQispad oiitioocja ni&:^t£so 

and remainder ol" his estate to Charlea F, Grey arid his succeBBor 
in trust during the lives oi' i-^ary i'ranceB i^^ing (the t'nataLor's 
daughter who was then atout X6 years old and who, after tiie 
death of her father, the testator, married defendant William J, 
Bridgman), Mattie Virginia King, Amanda King Hard, Soloiuon '&, 
King and Jane ^ing, and until the expiration of 21 years after 
the death of the last survivor of these B persons, kary i'rances 
King Bridgman was the last survivor of such five persons and 
died intestate February 20, 1954, leaving ae her only heirs at 
law the defendants, her hushand and 3 sons. 

The matter involved in this appeal is. What disposition 
should plaintiff trustee make ©f 1/2 of the net incoiae, or 
15000 annually, - ffliiohever was the greater - during the period 
of 21 years after the death of the testator's daugiiter, Mrs, 
Bridgman, the testator having failed to provide specifically for 
the disposition of such net incoiae during the 21 years? 

The Bridgman heirs contend that such income or $5000 - 
whichever is greater - slxould Toe paid to them annually under one 
of 3 different constructions of the will; while the guardian con- 
tends triat the net income should be aocumulated during such 21 
y^ars to increase the corpus of the tnist fand, and then be 
distributed as the will specifically provides* The position of 
the adult defendants is that the Bridgiaan heirs are entitled to 
but 1/2 of such inecBie, ap t:ie decree proviied. 

The will, after making provision for the paysient of 
debts and specific beouests to the testator's wife, devised and 
bequeathed all the residue and remainder of the estate co the 
trustee upon the following trusts: (2) That the trustee continue 
and carry on the business of the Illiiiois Leather Company owned 
by the testator, (5) Taat the "Trustee set apart 4/8" (of the 
net income of the estate) "for tae use, benefit and sup; crt of 


losseriOijS si id bitB ^S'sQ ,'€ asiTfc-iiO oi n^isia^ aiil 'to 'X&bat&m&'ihtUi . 
Slit i^^^'ia ^o/iw icte fc£c aoBSs^; iil *ijis>?r,a smM ajsw offw its3'jrfgM»fc; 

fiaijes^S IS &iii -^aiiui) aisooni Jaa rioiia 'to nolitaaqKlb »tU 

-noo nsxfiic^jja sni^ sXiriw ; XXiw ^dS io sfloi.^OiJTCd'saoo *£i!S2©Ttl{> S *to 

XS iioi'S ikatiub i)9.t£XiJ;ai/30« atf J&XiiOxie amooui J«n ©rf* ^»siS 9&a»i 

»cf a^iid- brts ^hais'i -Jaistt 9xU 'to awqioo 9Xii »aa9ioai 0* axad^ 

'to cioiii&oq. sfiT ,a©fcivoiq Y.iXisox'ii:o9qs IXiw srfi a« &9*ifrfl^*Bift 

,l3©MToiq asuoeb SiiJ sa ,»iHooni rfowa 'to S\X Jucf 

'to ^ciQiz-^aq 9i{j 'xot noislvoiq i^alAsm is)i'i& ^lltv s/ST 

hfxei jfei^Bivef) ,9'txw 3*ioiaisfi& ^dt oi aJBdupsrf oJt'lioeqa fcao a^cfaft 

9x?;f 00 9:t;;o6» siii *lo -xabnianiei JSios 3i;bico'x 9Jii XXjb Jb«rfts«0p»(f 

Jbsiwo X'-if'qi«P^ tBiiSfi^d. QloniXil oxl;^ "lo eaaxiisjjcf oil* no Tiiri«o baa 

ojr« *to) "bV *tt->q*i J»8 9»*am'x" 0xid- *axiT (fi) .io*fl*8»* «ri* ^cf 

to ^'losqwe i)rte c^llsnarf .oat 9xii lol* (©^iSitBa •ii;^ 't© ©moonl *»a 


my beloved daugliter"*** "'.rhat ( subject to the reservation and 

•xoeption hereinai'ter made)" the trustee pay 1/3 oi" tJUe ir,com# 
eaeh year to f^ie J*ollo"?'ing p^rsine, - his stnter, Mrs, Hard, 
his brotUar, Solomon S. Kinf;,, his sister-in-law, Jo-ne Kinf/, 
(^flridow oT Ills btother Jo-ui) aiid his riece Mattie Virginiri -ing, 
daughter of his deceased brother; that "In the event of the de- 
ceases oT any or all of the four named legatees," the bequest 
should f-;- to the -Tirect ispue of such deceased person, if aniy, 
(4) That in case the net income for any year did not escoeed 
$5,000, then the whole income for such year should be paid to 
his daughter; that ?ueli suhi should be arixmally "reserved *** by 
Biy said Trustee for the use of my said daughter" unless tlie es- 
tate failed to yield #5000 annually; that all other bequests and 
legaci«8 were eubject to this aiinual payment to the daughter* 
^y the 5th article the testator appointed Grey .'guardian and 
trustee of the dau^.-htar, "and I -svill and direct taat as aach, he 
collect, receive and hold tne four-eigiiths of the nex income of 
my estate, hereinbefore alio ted to ajad reserved for my said 
daughter's use and bf^nefit, paying over to her from tiiae to time, 
©n hf>r sole ar.r} individual receipt, such portion tiiereof &.b he 
deems suffioi ait and proper for her suitable itaintenance and sup- 
port, and invest ir J, the reriainder, if eny, in good income paying 
securities, for her use fsnd her' ©fit nnd I'olding tue &s^q , %b her 
trustee." That the apiount to be paid to his dau^^hter for her 
support should not be less than 450OQ per annum unless the in- 
eoEie froai the estate shoal i bfe leae than that anoont, Hy the 
6th article Grey -^as appointed executor of t-'ie estate and t^uardian 
of the daughter without bond, ihe 7tii article provided that, "In 
case of tiie deatli of «** Mary I^rances liing QauHiitef) , iaattie 
Virginia iiing, Amanda ^ing dard, Solomon E. King and Jane King, or 
any of them, leaving no direct issue. 1 will a«d direct that the 

fens noli'sTXse^'i' asU o* ^oattfijs T ^iiiT" ^***'i9*t3®aej& Mvoiad" t®^ 

-«»& 9il;l 'li^ *iii»T© 9ii^ nl'* terf* ;««&il;:j-oi:(f Msj»«i-03H> Bid to t^*fl^u«fe 

feesjox^ ton fcib t&ex X^"- '^^'' s^otini d-©« srft 98«s iti t»f!i$'(l^) 

0t &l0{j 9ef &XjJOiia ti^st ^ioos 10't 'asaoont ©l«0ifw ®K* a9df ^000,^$ 

-89 0r;if aaslajj "'isdrhjusb bisa -^cj "£0 ftsir ©rf* lot ©s*ainT Jbl«* 'X*^ 

\'x(^idsimh a/11 o^ SnB'mr^isi iMiinsm ai'ifif 0* ioBt^v^ »'S»w ««i©a3»X 
a/i pilous SB in^li ia&ilti brui XXlw I Mis* ,njs*xi?^mi& affd" Id^^e^aiM^ 

,«Hsivt od- ^EiiJ- molt «i«if od- is»vo i^fii-'^BC ., *i*tamcf ^nte »8u a'rEod-riaujR* 

i'5ri a*? ,s:;i.«.3 9^1* -^nlbldi ba^s ;ri1:«n3cf Sircg ^aif i^rl 10'J «Balil*t«o9a 

orW Ni;ti .c^nLou,* ;^siij- i'tfiiii aeel' »tf' Islf Oiit ei-JB*8«i »ii*' mo*t1 »fflOO 

mlbiAUci btus. aiBieii 6M 'to ioJjoS«.x9 tsiftiocKjJB 8^^^ ^©"sO iXJittis xi*S 

iil" ,iauJ l)9/)ive>"ic» •Xoicf^B HAV ©xTi' .fcitocT di/bri;^!^ la^tsSi-'eJi »ri# 'to 

bequestB herein made to such deceased peraon or perreona, without 
issue, stiali lapse bjid revert to liiy estate and "be divided pro rata, 
from time to time, hy n.y ss;,i(l trustee, amon^, the survivoro ci" the 
above named legatees," Ey the 10th article the t$8t%tor directed 
that the trust estate should f;ontinu8 until the expiration of 21 
years after tlie eath of the laat survivor of the five legatees. 
The 11th article is as follows: "On determination of aaid teria, 
as ahove, I direct my said trustee or his suceessor in trust, to 
v?inii up anl close said "business and to divide all of my estate as 
follows, viz: One half thereof to go to the issue of my daughter 
*** and 1/8 thereof each to the issue of said Araanda iiing Hard, 
Solomon K, King, Jane King, and Mattie Virginia iving arid this trust 
shall thereupon cease arid determine. In case of failure of iasus 
to any of the fire last ahove nsuiied persons, then eueh share or 
shares shall be divided pro rata aiiiong the issue of the remaining 
persons per stirpes and not per capita,* 

The chancellor found that 4/3 of the net income darived 
from the estate during the 21 ysax-g period was not diapo^ed oi' by 
the will i^md that it passed as intestate property to the teatator's 
daughter, Mrs. Bridgaian, and that since she died intesvata, it 
passed to her heirs - her husband and thrae sone v/ho are the 
Bridgm&n heirs. They appeal, contending that they should have been 
awarded #5000 annually if the Thole income amounted to that sum. 
Their position is that the will gave the dau^^xter, Mrs. Bridfman, 
"a bao8 or determinable fee for the duration of the trust in her 
share of income, which, upon her death intestate, leaving issue, 
descended to her heirs"; or if the will is considered to aave given 
Mrs. Uridgman only a life interest, "then the will jonuains a gift 
by implication of h^r share of income to her iusue after her .death"; 
or if both t^isse two alternative constructions be rejected, then i^rs, 
Bridgman's share of the income after her death was entirely undispo8« 

,,y*ai o's«[ Is»l>ivli5 fxi" fofljs s>-^.BSat-> x^ ©i jicaT^-x |}«twi Bsq^aX ll&m ,©iJaaJ: 

»3f>i!5*j8,s®X ©t/i't srtJ 'iQ %:Orlr%iia JajsX arid' 'to ■s:ii&9' 9r{.t i®5ls eijas"? 

,ca:-is.t ld.^a 'to itolJvsi'iii'sfX®j|-»i> fiO** jewoXXo'i 8js ax sloiJia rI;J-iJ[ difT 

Q,t jjswxJ ni ■soi?3-9oos;a eixl 10 ^QiQurtS bias x^ iofiilb I ^syotfjB •« 

@« 9ta4-9© x*2 I0 llB 9bXrs.h Q^ hem assalsiief f>t«a saolo iia« cfu fciixw 

••f3*4g;«*»-i) \& 'io 9U3e± ©xU o^ oji o* 'toeied^ 'tiB.xl »kO t^iv «BwoiXo*t 

,1>X£R ;^ni;.-?<: isi3ai";iKA i;i«;8 'io ©iaaai&ri^ o:J jriojs? 'ios^arid' S\X bs3M .*** 

0«a»J 'to 9-XL; 'io aaso iil . .aaiisris^si) 6ixs aaisao aoqut^iBfH ll&de 

10 sijSiia xiowa iieri-J ^ancsisg aeiosfi ©vocTb ^aijX «»l'i ©xfd- 'Ip -^^aai od" 

;^airfiof<f©T. »ri« to axjaal axiij' janoiaue »isit otq ^Bblrib s«f XXaxia adT^fis 

" tfiiiq^& i^q ioa btui a$q'£±is laq aaps-xaq 

a'loi-^jeea- «ri5 od" Y^-xago-xq olfsd-gs.^jrai ei? i>©e8«q 3i ^^silj fvae XXiw ojii 

9dt s-ia o*iv7 anps QSitiii bas i)Ci»<3assd %qA • a-sli^xi *£©xf od^ X)98ajse!: 

nsotf ^vssJi bLiiOda x^di.&sdt -^uLb its t moo ^l^nqqs x^Al ,ati&d ti&at^bliS. 

.jEJifa iRfiS or |)3^m;oiau3 Bt^ooaL ©Xorf-r exit 'tl ^XljaMnna 0009^ 5d.t'iewB 

^msim^fiita: ,a"iM ,^»*riaiJ«J& sxi^r «>VB;g XXiw (»M fadi «i nol^iao^ ■xleilT 

%e^ cxi ;^eii-icf sftt 't.o noi*«-xj/l) atiS 10't ats'i; ©Xcr«al;i{5«t©*9& ^ »bi?,u' «" 

,»ij8«i i;ii:uv»«X ^s^ii^asi'ai t.iB®b t»x1 k®<;u «iioiriw .©inooot to 9iASiB 

mivis sviSii 0;^ Jboieijiaaoi) si IXiw Qr[d- 'ti no j^jntJtori rreil 0* l)s*fi9&MA 

*'iia » aiua^J-uoa Xliw ojij rcoxU" ,.;ie9a:s*ni ©'JtJLX « \;Xn--> n«ffiaAilltt .«i^ 

"rld-isaJi^ laxi t^J-'lja Oi/aui laxi oJ smooi^l 'to sxsxia neri lo Hold-^olXqcii y^ 

of "by the will and descended as intesta-t© property to the testa- 
tor 'a heirs, Wiio are Mrs. Brid^uaii'e husband and three Bono, 

TJie I'iret contention ^fras sustained ty tue naBter 5Jad the 
last one "by the chancellor. The adult defendants make no com- 
plaint, except that they contend thf? net income whould tf, ;Uvided 
equally between the daui-,At?r on the one hiuid and thejaselvwa on the 
other. The guardian diaa^reeB T.'ith the mastftr and the chancellor, 
conttnding thvat since no disposition of the income in question ^»a 
Blade in tne will, it chould be aecumulated by the trustee, added 
to the corp us of the estate and then disposed of after tht 21 
yeare, as zne will provides, 

A consideration of the entire will lea(?-« us to the conclu- 
sion that throug:i an overs i»:5ht th-^; testator failed to make any 
disposition of that part of the income in question derived from 
his estate during the 21 year period, and that such ir co^yie passed 
as intestate property to the testator's heir, his dau^iter, and 
upon her df-ath, she hayinf, left nc will, it passed ty descent to 
her heirs - ht^r surviving spouse and three sens. Fob s v» u tatg 
Bank & Trust Co. . 343 111, 9i, In that 0£iBe t'le court said 
(p. 96): "There is no residuary or other clause srhieh directed tke 
trustees to use such surplus ineoae for any other purpose or throw 
it hack into tJie trust. There are no directions in the mriil for 
the accumulation of income to increase tVi.e corpus of tne trust fund. 
Testator gave over the cor pus of the trust to ultimate legatees but 
not uiQ income. In such cases, to the extent taat the uiiiounti? "be- 
queathed fail to eoiapletely dianose of the income tiie will becomee 
inoperative and testator as to the iiicoiae not bequeathed dies 

In the instant ease there is no direction iii the v;ili iqt 
the aocuiculation of the ixicone in questior to iuerawse the corpue 
of the trust fund. And there is no provision in the will for the 

.-tjsiioa f£>&'ui;i J'.asi bii&Q&sjj.;. a ' iJBuqjhx-sS *ai:M sie ©fir ,-a'ii:sii B''50i 

saw ooxiaojop itx saioanx SiliJ- 'lo aoiuieoqaxis oa ©onle j-jexi* sai&tt^lnoo 

IS siid' ^ejl* 'io fcsaoqaii: nsxid' ^xta s^^d-asj sri4^ 'lo s^fiXo^. ^'^^ o* 

-i/ioaco &iU oi Bij ebBsX XXiw oiidn^f adt .l:o aoxtJSisJeiisfloo Ji. - . - 

mot't b$irii:'iL, aoxdas^/p a^ sjcKosai ^si& to J-xtiq ^«ii;t 'io ttoiti.s.&qQib 

|>.^!5B<f3<j d.Siooni rfojja J-jsiii^ brts ,l>oi'XPq 'X£st£ XS j^xict ^cxitub ei4i^W9 mIA 

bcm t*i(iii!:gij.^t) siri ^tiaxi a.J 'SQ^siesi add- o:^ x*^s>g<Jti£? 9a«i-a6,tfl:l «* 

o* Ixssoeet) '^cT j&^ea^q ijt ,XXIw oat t'toi i^nlvsxC &dn i^dSa^fih i^d ooqi/ 

g>J#;}-.a . .*y..2^Q'>L »aa^B •as'i-lJ- l)Xis «aiao^-a ■aairl^rxaa *9.i£ - sil®il "tad 

■ blBa ^'iijoo ??':i' aaiiSt) O' nX ,>^ #XXI 5I^S ^,^qO it. JginX t^ 3L(xg€ 

&«cf IijJo3'xi.& ;.lax.i;i'.7 ssusXo i»iij-o -xo ^'xax/JslaoTt on aX siaiil!'' .:(«© ♦«) 

wo'xrit 10 saoqtuq %s.'ciio -^n^ lo't smooxxX sxrXqiija xioaa sew Oo aaai^aiiii" 

to't XXX vf sjij- ai saoii3*?iib oa 'i'le Bt'Si£i ,S&iJit ed^ oial slojsrf ti 

. iw'i d«Jj'x.i Siw "Xo SJugj^SL srl^ sSiSsxoffX ai SiGooni *to aoi^wXwiaiJosa SiiiJ" 

d-i;cf 3:-^»*is3«X ©;3-,'vc;J;;?Xi;f oi 5-axtiJ axiiJ- 'to MM%SS. ®^ *^*^^ ©v^ia XQi&in^T 

Qjsmoo'S-'i' XXiv.' sxir sjaooiU ftti^ 'io ©eoqexif; x-Xed-aXeatos Obt XX»'t fcorii'JSOi/j^ 
i:, aoxi) ijeaci"jB0ups!i ^on ©wooai exit oJ- bb 'xoi'^*8»* fcrtf; svi^Brs-scioiti 

.._,',.., ... '^ ^ ,; .. *,!f.^■j8«)■99«^^x 

i<>'.t XXI w Q rid- ax uoidos»iiX> oxx ax -^aexf;} oa/jo^rtx^d-RnX &fii al 
Qx/q'x<)Q »xi<r «o«fi>'iOixX oJ^ aoxJ-aaiip fli sxHorjai ©xl* '.to aoit-ijXixmuooB «xi* 
•jW -xo't XXiw 9x{4- oi ciolsxvoxq on ai aiorlct DhA ^ba^t tai/it »rf* 1© 

payKient by the trustee ol' th« inoone In oaostloK to anyone «-.ft*-r 
the dc»*t.h of tiif testator's dauep:iter, iira, BrldtTiai-i, Bter* is a 
pTOViaion, ho^eT«?^r, UsuodLit^ oi" .u-at part of i'.ie intoji^ bftgueaUied 
to thft tHatator's sieter, hie« tralricrr, ' sii:;t«r-.iii-la* js-^d hie 
nlec9. Till a provision is I'oujt?. Ir; paragraph 5» al/or* ciaot*?;!. 

By ref^ferue to iue v»ili it apt>ear?j, we thtblc, ti^at the 
testator clearly uifttlaguished t6t*«en tli© corfi.ii6 oj' i*ife estate 
and the iBoonie deri'v^ed thfjrsfrom, aa tj-x® court held in the £oas 
case. In these eiroiimstancea we hold, as stated, tiiat txie lnooai« 
in question ieeoendei a« intrstata pro-p^Tty, 

The BridgrKan helre furttieJ- eonterid that aithoagii it tte 
h^-Ir? -"iat the tnceia« In Question passed as Intestate tsroperty, yet 
they are entitled, to one-half thfs net inccirue, o;i- J5000, annually, - 
whichever .ia tiie greater, On the other side, tJae adult 6efmu^Mi%B* 
position is that under ttie -rfill 4/8 of the Xi&z incot.e, or I^Pk^lO , - 
whichevHr is the greater - ehould Ise pairl to the testatoi's 
daughter, Mrs, Erldgiaan, for her "ubs, benefit aiid support,'- atid 
tiiat such paymente oljviousiy elided upon the dtsath oi' H^rs. fi?4(^ieiari. 
The will provides: *I further vili 6snd dir*2ut tht*t oT the net in- 
come i'rmi Ely estate, *** my said truistee set spart 4/3 for the uee, 
■benefit ?irii support of ay tseloYed ii&ught«i:r, Mary Frances iUng 
(Bridgman) as hereinal't^r directed. That f;«ubj«^et to the resefpa* 
tio« eoifX exception hereinarter laade) he pay l/3th ol" said net in- 
come each year to each of th»9 J-oliotrmg natisd persons" (naj.dng the 
testator 'p nJ.Pt«r, hrothsr, :m^. t^o oth«r hoirs.) The reservation 
aj^d exoaption ie that if the t-?hcle net iuccsie i'cr ta^y y..&r does liet 
exosed ,45^.^00 it shall l:e up,,ii^a for the up© uid 'fceriefit of th'j 
daughter, and tiie trustee shall p^j it over to hev "on her sole and 
individual receipt,- or euch portion of the |5000 as he deeiae suf- 
ficient for h'sr "saitatle riaintenance and support, &nd inveetin^ 
the remainder, if any. in good income paying eecurities. for her 

.&©rfJa«»t;r>«ft ^AHa^EJ, ^kui 1© .3iii«j ^^..-jey 'iji iirll^equilt ^-^nr&^o.'' ^tioiaiiTOTS 

"Hi Jt&it ^iU "to iMdi ^u&itb biU Xiiw tffdtujl: I* :a*fcJ:vcrtit? lliw WKI- 

,*^ju ^aIS" nco't a\> i%&^B is^s ®'6*Bin^ ,6i«>8 ^m ***• ,»*»#«» t«t cwitlf »ct«i« 

:.di :3«ifliS}K) "«nofi-xsq l>*ajBif ^al'^&llot &xi# 'i© fi9«» d* Tusf^x •<^** »»wo 

oii4- 'io Ji't9ai>e' /ms ft^-stf frrfj xo"i haiXc^q^ ad JJL&sm SX Ouya*^ M«©s»» 

bnjR «ioe "xexi ko* %9ii oi i»vo J^i 'CA'Ct iX«£:a '9&iairti »xii ba&'^'i^isi^Mmh 

-.iijs s»>n©9l> 9£{ 3is OOaSS. 9iiS 'to Jtot*i©q xiai/a 10 ",,*<fl90»i X«u*ivxfcftJ: 

•x«ii to'i .«3i- i^i^ooa i^aH^^ oaooai ioos ««i .^e* "ii ,i«b«iACfl«tr «u* 

use 9ir:-d ■beiiel'it,** ai*d tuat he noid the same ae her traete<». It is 
obvious ti-at ti^eae payi^ient* were to be mad© by trie trustee I'or the 
daughter's support arid ujainteiiance, and ceased upon hsT d^ati'j. in 

We iioid that tuat purt oi' the net inooia© wnicii tl^e testa- 
tor gaT8 to iixe uaufcjiitsr, p^aaed, upon uer death., as intestate 
prcpsrty, i'hia Stua was 4/6 vjf the ammal net luoome, or v5^^0 , - 
whichever was greater, A Te^^^iJa^ oi" the will clearly snows that 
Uxe testator inteiidea ami directeri th%t nis daa^hter was to receive 
annually Kot less than 45uOO, il the ixicoiae araounted to ^hat sum. 
It ie exoreesly providfeci in the will tnat "all legacies sjid be- 
quests ^** excaot t/ioae to ^y wife ■^** arid ail payiriente or disburse- 
iftenfce *•«* are 3ub,jcct aria to be uoatpoiied to txie payaearit by my es- 
tate or at leaet |5uoO each .<iaid everjr v-iar sor the use and tenel'lt 
of nay cai 1 daughter," I'iie eisLer, brocier, t^nd tre testator's other 
belief iciariee, to ^'.iiofl! he beqafe<i.thed 4/8 oi thearinual income, were 
to receive >.\o ineosi© until aria unless the dau«,nter was paid ^5000; 
therefore the provision of the decree wnich provided ta.rit tney 
should be aaivi one-half of tae aiiiiual incoa.e is erroneous. 

jfor txiQ rsaisona stated Zha decree of &he Circuit ocurt of 
Cook county is reversed arid t.Ui cauae r«siaanded vrii^a cirectiorje to 
modify the decree in accordcuaoe viiin ^he views horeii! expressed. 


MafcCiiett, i*. J,, ajTid keSureiy, J,, coiicur* 

-s.tsww" »iii' iioiiw eMoaui dsii ®xij 'io ^iL&q i^ui i'&d.^ &Xox" oW 

" , OUuciii 'xo ,9>iiOoui os-M'i XfiAfjSi-is ailcf' 'to S\^ 8«w jatra aiiiT «-^t^8!q[3iQ[ 

-g-a hiii^ asioiii^si il.'.** J-vsrc XXi'<¥ ario aX £>t)I>ivoiC(; ^.-tssd-xxp:© ai d-X 
-&3'iuuex.c -IO 8;}iia£ty;.Bq; il«i ^ar, **^ «'iiv*. y^ui oi i^aodi -J^Cf&oxB **•* a^esfirp- 

•tA'tsascf '"Jill? 93ij- 3ii:l- lox" 4'is£»i v;'isvf» JSfi^ iio^S 00O6| i'&B&l J^'f© •«*!** 

©•saw ,»u';c.onX lijjuaffi.eii;? to S\* bmii&^^ijpsd ssrl m©£w' oa- ^n&lrM&il&sxti 

,sx.'oe.«o'i'ie el ©Bitjon;! XfiWiriB ©xii "to lXj6il-®-tto .fci«fe 9o feXueaa 



CITY 0.^' cmOAGO, a Municipal 
Co mo rt%t i on , e t al , , 


) ~-A:^P}3AL,4'R0Jt cia^uiT 

) ' '' ^ 

] 01 COOK cciUK'i'y. 

■TV*' 0^^ 


April i, 1955, plaiiitii'x filed a pttiviorx f4Ciiiri£;t tiac 

Civil Service Commit sicners acd ctJ-.ere praying that a rrit oi 

certiorriri issue directed to tiie coiniaissioners to certify tho 

prooeedlrig8A'^*i'''-'3:e theov, to quasn suoix proceedingB an.l to restore 

him to the position pi" p.itrol^an on the police ioroe of Chicatio, 

froia -which he olaimed to have "beon illegally disohars.^ed. i^ovember 

26, 1935, plaintiff filed 3j:i aatended petition, j3efendants filed a 

»otion, similar to a epeeial deraurrer, ^o Btrilce the r;ii'ienfle'<' peti-. 

tion and to dierrdss the suit. The motion was sustained, the guit 

diesaissed, and plaintiff appeals, 

Tlie question, then, for deeisiofl is the eufficieucy of the 
amended petition. 

The 5-.aterial allegations cf the petition, &o far as it is 
necessary to state theci here, are -chat on October 5, 1910, plain- 
tiff havinji. passed the required civil service exsiOiinstion ^n^B cer- 
tified ty the Civil Service Commission to the position of patrolmen 
on the police fcrce of Chicago; tiiat thereupon he entered upon the 
discharge of his duties £-nd continued to dc ao until AuguEst 16, 
1932; that on August 22, 1932, Captain Larkin of tiie City police 
fore* filed charges with the Civil Sejnrice Coiomission agsinet 
plaintiff charging that he had "been i.,uilty of conduct unheco-aing 
a police officer, taat he had been intoxicated, had used profane 
or insolent language to a citizen, had 7rilfully mistreated a 
person, and had unlawfully ueed a pistol or revolver. 

') ( .-^OBXIscraA 

( XJsq-ioinxrM ii ,O0AOIIit) 'fc'.0 YOIIS 

K„ .^ ,.;r^ ft IT 'Q O) ^ i «*i-» i^:'3 , flO X -ta-^ ««TO0 

®xj:>J- '^aalsiii^ iioxji:J;>ci iS i>3lx'i "f'Ud'ui.sIq ,aEGX ,X XltqA 

.o^jsoiiiO to aoio't ^o>aiioq aai ao iiaxaXoi^jsq 1q noi-^xaocr mii o:t aiiif 
tsffesvoll ..&©5i'i.<3x{osxii T^XXa.asXXJ: iioaa" ov.3ft" ©* i>®iKi«Xo sri xJoxrfr £jq*c1 
js j&sxrt rj*a«fcii«>°ta(l .iioid-ljeq fesiinsiae iiB fjsXl'i Tti;?«JtBX^ ,?55'?X ,aSl 

3l .ti a£i li^'i 03 ^aoxjxd-oq- sdJ' 'to Bi£oi:3-j3a»XX«i Xjssitw^^ia 6iiS 

iK£iXot:)-j3q 'to noX;ti:aoq Sild' o* noieaiitmoO ©sinsS Xx720 srfd" '^d b'Sl'tli 

&iU- noqw ,?>9if7d'n9 ftxl noqwsj^oi:j d^^xld" {oa^soixiO ta eoio't soxXoq ^rf;^ no 

.01 >taxjs"A lliaa or ofo oi j^j^e^miirMoo bnu lan^Uub aid "Jo as^iui&ai^ 

soxXoq Y*i^ S"^!-^ '^0 nislT'ia. aiosJ-qeO ,S6QX ,as i^augJiwl «© iad;^ ;S€:ex 

^fgiJl^Sii aoianJtiBMoQ »oivxao Xi:vx'J »£ii tiSl'v ««3-£fiilo ftsli'i ^oro't 

snlr.-oo<9d'nu *o0ftnoo lo Y,i^Xlu:j naacf f)j»ri «Jf i-JHrfif aa-ia«<8^io 'itltalslq 

»cu:'lotQ bSBu bBii ^b^&Boixoini nsacf bsid sA iziii .^©ol't'to ©olXoa « 

e &o:rx39'i*aliS xiXXu'tXx'vr btid ,n»sl*i3 « o* sgauarmX tasXoeni to 

.t&rloyQi 1© Xoiaiq & bUBU icXXi/'tWiiXnw fe«rf ?. as ,noais« 

Tix» petition then alleged that these charge* were miipli- 
fi&d by apfccilicatioiiB i iled vvith me ooiioniiseioji, and j;oe« into 
consideracle detail* tnat inore taaii i ive days prior to the ixearing 
of the caargeB plaiutiil" waa eer-ved ty tJa« 0«»aimis6ioi; with a copy 
of the charges and notice oi' the tisie i^ind place of iie&ring; 
that the hearing wae had, witnesses testilied, a»n<l alterward on 
Septem'ber 2, lSii2, the uoffiiniission rendered a finding and decision 
in which it was found tiiat plaintiff had teen served v?itn notice 
five days before tu& hearing and taat ti»e hearing ^as had, plain- 
tiff ^'&e found guilty and discharged, Xt wae tiien alleged tnat 
"none of tae. evidence or fslieged evidence offered on tixe n earing 
on Bald eh&rges" "^^,6 px^a&rv&i or iuade a part of the reoord oi tne 
CemmiBsion; taat during the hearing the Coiafiaiselon did xiot observe 
the **eu'b@tai.tati of the rules govexnisi^ trials at la^w; *' xuat he wae 
deniei a i'aix* hearing and not given a full opporsanity to present 
hie defet^ee; umt the Qoasaieaion admitted '^incompetent v^id ae&rsay 
testiaioay" ^t^ttiiist hijai .and refused to ad>;-it oou^itetent testi ,ony 
Offered "by him; that he wae not guilty oi" the cnarges; that the 
•rldence offered aid not suow he was guilty but disproved the 
charg-^s luade, aiid that because of this ff^et "the finding and deoision 
of the aosuL'ission was v/ithout jurisdiction,* 

Ihe petition then pui-ports to set up the substance of the 
testisieny heard by the Coiaatiasion, It was furtner alleged that prior 
to thp hearing of the cixargea the rules of the Uofiuaiseion provided 
that 5i person found guilty iaig^it apoly for a rehearing within 3u 
days after the rwidition of the decision; thai, on September 4, 1932, 
In coiifor^ty with the rules, plaintiff filed a petition for re- 
hearing, lu'c no action was taxen; that ons of the ooaaaissi oners frea 
tiisie to time assured hiiu that a rehearing would be allov.'ed; that 
plaintiff relied upon this assurance and refrained froin sooner filing 
a petition for T*rit of fcer^iorari. 

giiiT^sii e-iU OvT ■sciiq av;;i?,l) avil nxsid^ is-xoai j^^j^ iii.s^('^3fe ©liiiits-'taaoo 

-fti-aig ^b&d s&'^r ^^al%&'Hi b<S$ itan^ tiia i^aX's.M&d S'jiii ©a©'!®;? ©i;j3|? ,»v41; 

#ai"KJ' fcSiislJLi asa;)' s^v? ^1 ,bs3^!p.i::XcsaAb fc."i» x^'iiiiS Muq't «ja\'r lilt 

^i-ii^m&si &M i!.Q b^'Xf-'i'io ©caef.itf^ b&s>^£Ls> %& »Qiwblf» mli to sisws* 

■ ^M!&?.Q^q o^ x^XiUiSttfcmo ll^'i & ua'^ii^ Jon fcaa giiiiiissifl. ^^i^'t «i .i39^|U6i^ 
T^astsari ijmrd-ii^jaqiSiooai" £r:3jri^icib*;. aaiaaJiAiJiiJoy «rur #«uj ,; »3i;^ *!:#*, jailt 

noiaio^"*& Jja-a ijititiai't axW" So.o'i &IM 'io »au.':io®d cr^iiJ &ixfi «s*lf^.f ep'tft^aiid 

oe ETiiiUw aKA'^;^*^^®'^ « 'lo'*' Y>-t««*' vilax'tt Ajj'XIiig ijxtiic'i aoe^eq « .*s4# 
,2eei ,* ^®diJxoi^<f9a HO ;f,eiii iHoisioafc add" ">« noicMl).®? ®^ t9*l.e 9^«& 

Plaintiff contends that the Cowrrdspior. ras \7it;iout juriB- 
diction to enter the or<!er dieoi;iar£;ing HLt tecausp, as li-is counsel 
Bay, it ie alleged in the •ot^titlon that none of tiis evidence of- 
fered on the hearing "before the Commission ?'3.8 vnuxs ti, p.^rt ox' Uxe 
records ty the CommiBsion, an.i "that no evlder.ce tendinj, to sixow 
petitioner's guilt was ofl'ered at said hearing, and t iat tlie de- 
cision of the Commission wa? without jurisdiction," iUiere is no 
merit in this contention, :'i?flXS!l3^L_Xs--.MSi: » '^''"^ 111, App, 312; 
Carroll v. Houston^ "541 111. 531. 

In the Hanrahyi of%s«», the court, speaking by Mr, Juatioe 
Wilson, said (d, 316): "TVift record of the civil service co;.i'.aiB- 
sion in filing its return to the vrit of certiorcai si-owo on its 
face all the neoescary .jurisdictional f .cte: J'irct, that the 
charges were filed; second, that notice i"-a,<? served together with a 
copy of the charges; third, that a trial fras had and witnesses 
heard; and, fourth, that the petitioner was present and participated 
in the hearing. These facts as appearing in the reccid of the 
civil service ooEifldssion were amply sufficient tc confer jurisdic- 
tion on that body. The court -s^as i-athout power to f?ei^n aiid de- 
termine the evidence and the only question i^ith -^hioh. trial 
court was concerned was whether or not the civil service coui'flib- 
sAon had jurisdiction of the Tjetitioner, It -vas not neoe>s&a.ry to 
certify the evidence and the trial court ?/as liniited in ite con- 
sideration to the record alonp, Garroll v. j:oustan . 341 Hi, 531; 
Hopkins ▼. Agiga, 344 111. 527." 

In the instant case the petition shows all of the juris- 
dictional facts, and since this court has r.o power to vreigii and 
determine ^vhat the ©vif-'ajice ehows or fails to aiiow, the Lioij^ission, 
under the authcritips citPd, had jurisdiction. 

Nor is there any -jierit in plaintiff's contention trxat ae 
was not guilty of l-.chee in filinei his petition on ti.e ground tnat 


on al 3i-;?riA " *rxci;]"oi ^aliut :J'wo.Ki'l'«T gj^w aozBalmao'O srf* 'to xtolaid 
;SIg .frc^A ,111 ITS! * Ii»®6-_„i!XJ]iMff J?iJ(f M ,noid-n®d'aDO sifii* flti J-li«!>.iii 

.X€f^ ,1X1 Il'f: ^ no ^g^H. . Y J Jg.^Tf g, 

aoasonJ-ivf baa hsisS a^i? X«i'£,t ■« isd& ..h'tlrii jasa^^rfd »jrf* 1© -tijao 

-oxb&i-.tul ■xa'tnoo oj' ^J-njjIol'ttjje '^IcjiXis btsw aolaaimsaoo ©QiTidB llirio 
"®i) Lmi .ri^isv? ou -iswoq ;^i.'Oi'i*ivr iSiSW ;?^«oo ©riT ,';jfc©d' #Aj3;* a^ mini 

-aiflwiQo Qoiv-xss Ixrio erLt ion io if> rld-oriw s«w feeKls©«oo aJS"^ ;J'xiJoo 

o;f '^Xii0 89 0?^u ;l-0/i rj^v;- il ^isnoicMd'&cr ©lii" "io nelitoiJbsirriJt b£sd «©*« 

-woo Sv'J: ai fcacl-isiX sjgy? ;J-ii-oo JJairr;*' »xicf fcrm ©offebir© ©rT* ijlit^eo 

".VSa ,1X1 ^^C .apxa^ .v BcitMoU 

fciifl iiijisw oo la'ffoq on flax{ ;tr)i:i;oo alfld- Boats hcta ,«*o/i^ laaoi^Oiifc 
,«oisf3J:iauiOo oris ,"*oii8 oit sXi^'t 'xo BVfOJiB mamblm sriJ *«x{vy aniB«aieb 

he bad I'iled a petition for reiriearinf.; tf^iore tla? CoRUiiiaaicn, :nd 
one of the CoEanissioners had advised hini chat the rehearin; would 
"be alior.^ed, Ijut that the Commission nev?r acted on the r»etltion. 
In the instant case petition«»r was discharged by the Co:iL~.d ssion on 
Septemb«r 3, 1932; he diA not file his petition in the instant 
case until April 1, 1935; and his ?affiend9d petition was not filed 
until Movemter 5, 195f5, "he fact that the CoromisBion did riot 
pass on hi© T)etitior for rehearing and tliat one of the Ooirjai q r ion« 
er? told him it wovilrJ he sllo'^ed, we think i'asuff icient to warrfint 
plaintiff's delay in filinc the petition. The Civil Service Com- 
EiiBBloners act as a hndy rmd t^hat one of the inenhers may have said 
to plaintiff is '=>ntirely ir^ sufficient to warraiit us in holdirig 
that plaintiff was not r;uilty of laches. Pep p _ l e ex rel« JaJiri v . 
Cit.T of G hicaf-o Pt al. . 279 111. App, 624, People e x rel. Hoi land 
▼ . Finn. ??47 111. App, 53. 

In the ffinn case it was held that one who delays a year ioid 
seren months in filing his petition for certiorari tc sjmul an 
order of the Civil .Service CoiaKiission for his riieohrrge froE the 
pel lee department was ^xuilty of laches axid herred hie rife,i,t tc the 
writ. In that caee -we said (p. 56): "Petitioner reolicrs that on 
February 17, 19 25, he filed a petition for rehearin^^ and heing un- 
schooled in the latr supposed that he mueteirait some action en the 
petition for rehearine before he could file his petition for certio.- 
rarl, and that It m.B not lintil April 1, 1926, that said petition 
for rehearing v&e denied. This reply will not avail. The rule 
with reference to ection in civil cases pending the disposition of 
a petition for rehearing does not apply in civil service oases. 
Therefore citations relating to judicial practice are rot in 
point. **•♦ In Cox ▼. i?inn . 239 113. App. 670. it was held that, 
even if the rules of the commission did authorise a re^xearing, 
petitioner ^a.B not precluded tnerehy from suing out the vrit of 

-rxolncxM-TtoO »rij 'to 5 no .'I'aiij P-jfie snlii^sxis't lo'i noliii'fici «iri no se^q 
i i^rtiuvr ai j;ioi:oJ:'l:'t>..rB.!'.l sici-Lij- sw ,h^"7oXS.Si ®ff ftlAiov? t± xaiii- felo.t a:n® 

"fiioD ^oi-r-xsc; XItIO 'fill's .«oi-?j;.t«o; a.ric}' Tini-lJ:'?: r?l xralssf-. 8','t'ii.\+ai.s£q[ 

&Miii>lliii?X.M~2ia2§J; '^Sd *aaA ,1X1 e?S , ^Jdl^^MSPJMJ^-ljLi^ 

sdd- xao'il ^a'2;-3^^©2iJi sxxi ^c"i csoia^iiHaoO as>i-s'T»€! X):viO »if* to i«Md 

sxiJ- o.t j;i:il'i Bi:j,l .beixad bos a^rioaX lo -'S^^'Xif/.;-; s«!sr iSfmrntrmq^h »i» 

-Qij amsd" biii: aiti-ii3s>.i^rE To't aolcTXJsc iJ S-aXn sd ,flS9I ,^X v-tsswtd'^f 

fSiiJ- ao 0oi.ios scaoa c)-m.ib ^=3i.«ia flii .'i»i:fj fjsnaqcfys W'«-f '^•^* «-^ S*>X90xi»8 

-Kl.l«iiL "^o-^ iiotiii&q aid ^ll'i bXuoo &d sto'ts.f BciJttao.n'sii fo't «oi*l*^tf 

aoiJiJsq fci.3a .tiuij ,dSGX ^X XltgA Xi^fi;j *orr as^ ijt *Brf;t .^na ,MBS. 

^lui. axfi' .Xiavi} j^ca Xi.x>" ^iXga's si.x'r »fc^ia9f3 • 6&-^ ?^.ai%f3erl9*£ lo'i 

to aoxiiaoqoii; f>ri>t i»alfe««q a©S£0 Xxvio ni aoitoe o* soa^iols-s rfti:;»r 

,j^iii blQii aaw ^X .O^S ♦ciqA .iXl i?«vS , £miJL_sX..M2 xil ♦»■» »*nlee 
,^ni-x«©iis-i J8 ssiiOxiJti^ J!)XJt' floiaai-itaos sri^ 'io ssXi-a ».d* t'l fx»v9 

oertior^^,! irmjuediatcly after Ixer dieohartjie or at least after wait- 
ing a reasona'ble tiue for action tiier^on, citing ileopX? esc rej ., 
ji^CRuley v« Burdette . 285 iii, 48," 

Ilie judguient of the droait court of Cook coiuit.v is 
affl Tilled. 

JUDGliiii;!' Ai'FIi-atED. 

iLatchett, I-'. J,, and., J,, coricur. 




a Cor, 'Oration, ) />-"""'' 

Appellee, ) _J^ J , . ^j^' / X 

) A|>PgAI.- PP.OiM. iiUKiqjS'Aj/ COUHT 
vs. ) '' ' 


ARittlli G. KUaSWRM, j 

Appellant. ) 


kR, JbdXICE 0»COi^i.OB DiiOuIVSRlIS TM 0PIi\I01i O-l' Tifls; COUHT. 

Plaintil'f, the payee cl a note for |15C0 elated 
May 10, 1935, (Sue six ELontij.6 after date, trout/it suit agii-inet the 
def fridarit maker to recover the face of the note. Deferdcmt filed 
an affidavit of merits to plaintiff's, t of claiia v-hich, 
on motion of plaintiff, was stricken aiid leave ^.iven defendant to 
file an atiended affidavit of merits, Thereai'ter, he filed hie 
amended affidavit of merits wtiich 'A'ar lii ewise atriciren on motion 
of plaintiff, and thereupon the court entered judgment on plain- 
tiff's statement of claiia for -^l 500 and defendant appeals. 

In his stater-ent of claim plaintiff set up tns -ote 
verliBtim and also the follov'in;:^ endorseraent i?iiich the note bore: 
"This note is given as collateral to the note of tne jueuke County 
Distributing Go, nov' held by the Schoenhofen Edelweiss Co." 

The defense set up in defendant's oii^ended affidavit of 
Bierita was that the note was .vithout any good iar-.l valuable con- 
sideration - that "the defendant ^vas not, at tae tiice oi' the 
giving of said note, inietted to the Plaintiff upon &n> considera- 
tion ^rhatsoever, and that the said promise oi" t^xe Def endaxit was a 
mere naked proxaise," 

Defendaiit contende that to v-arraiit the holder of an accom- 
modation note to recover he nuist be a holder for value, an • tnat 
"a note given upon the understanding that no suit would be tr-Ufc,ht 
thereon is rithout cent iderat ion" and un nfcrceable, ihe difl'i- 
culty with ^his contention is that tiiere is no allegation in 


•4^<? ^ ft I H BS ^- ^" 

s'loxiiw iai^Io 'to ^na-najx^jE a'TriJ-nxBiq oJ ailism Io iirsbi'i'ljs cm 

sift hsii'i: srI ,i9d'lBgi«'rit .ejii'isii/ *to Jxvsbl'i'ts ^sonsiss as dXi't 
aoicJ-o.'s no a«i:i^ltia sclvysuil .i^r:-.- iioxrrv ai-i-xsr-t 'to ityishlVt& b^ba^itm 

Sj-o..:- cri;! qu ^33 'i'i; iaai^'Xg itJLaXjs 'i"o J-Ai«>i/:«jJi3d-« sir? nl 

zs'xocf 9,ton 5>iij :l3Xnw i-niuuse-xo.f.iis gxii^^oXXc'i srli oeiM ha& aijEcfisv 

-i^iiiijoO ®Ai3j; &ro 'to si'on ?,n;t oJ" Xjcx^taXXoo as risri^ii si e^on sixiT* 

'♦,oO eaiswXsljc n'/iorfnaoclsG sxl;}- -^tf blaci von ,dO -^nii-0cfXi;taia; 

'to .ti:v.ij.j.l'l'iB &oftrx9;.iB s' vfri^Bfjae'tab fxx <jiJ i&s sane 'is?) sxiT 

-noo oXdeiiXav True, hooa x-'^^ twrxiJ-iw aiiw &ica fs>iii iBdir bjsw a^lisffi 

BLii "to SiarxJ 3iiJ or; ,;Jcft a^w iiu:i>ii9"t96 ©rid-" c}-xir;i - aoliiit&bt.a 

s aBW d-atibng'tsCi au^f to aaLiioTq (-iije siU *iirl5^ F-:nx: .•ssveosJ-jBiiw nol* 11x5 Io labXoiL 9x1* J.uai-XJBW oJ ^^jedi stasi-aoo d-aefcnsldCt 
i'AUi^ ba£; .sjjXiiv -xo'i :i0i>Xoj,i s stf d-Bu.ii ©ri rtovoofju o.t sd-on aoii^boai 

&diu >'ri 9C3' bXwow Jijjs oa i^di saifcxisiGii-j.biu; o.ii.l no<'0 nevly 9*on a" 

-x'flxf) sxfi ^Bia&^o-xo'icioaxs bsie **ao I irys&bt a aoo Jt;oiid-iw ei aod'isxii 

ai uoJtcTirasJ^J^fi O" si ^-i^iiS ifiiW ai aoii^f^ i iioa RXil:? dtl^ x^LsJV 


dol'endaxit ' 6 amended al't'idavii of merits ti-^at the note Yf&e deliv- 
ered fey deferidant to pluintil'l with tlie undert tarif^nt that no f:uit 
would be brought on the note. 

If' Slgjn Ifational iJ ar.ic v. G oecke. 59 5 111, 403, the defend- 
ant, Goeoke, who was nana;v:er ol' the Elgin JNational Benic, borrowed 
$3000 from the -i-jational Bank, and Henry Liciamidt, president of the 
Brewing coiupany, guaratiteed payiuvnt of the note, i'he money wss 
turned over to defendant Goeeke, placed in the bank -uid cneoked 
out to pay the indebtedness of the Brevnne; company. The note waa 
not paid ©t maturity but was renewed froru tine to time, AfterT'ard 
the Brewing coKipany executed two notes payable to itself eaid by it 
endorsed; they were also endorsed by Goeeke, isiair, Ecj^ers and 
others. Afterward Goeeke directed that one of these notes be 
delivered to the bai^k as collateral -ieeurity for the note executed 
by hira, which was accordinf^^ly dene. The ha., k brGU.:_jht suit on this 
note against i'ivs findorsers. Taey were all defaulted except Mair 
and Bo^'^rs, -^ho defended the suit. Tiiere was a finding, arid judg- 
ment against theia, which on •.,pp3al was affirmed by the Appellate 
eourt an! the case taken to the Supr^tfiie court where the jud;gment 
of the Appellate- court nas affirmed, The court there 3aid (pp. 
406-7): "it is ar.iusd by plaintiffs in error thit the xaere volun- 
tary delivery by the brewery coiip^my of the brewery note as col- 
lateral security :"3r the Goeeke- Scliiiidt note ;Uii taa a3ceptarice of 
such note as coll-:'teral for the pre-existing debt, and without 
agreement i'or furtjier extension of tixae or otAer agree:; -siit, does 
not make the bank u. bona fide uolder for value ca,nd that tiie defers© 
of want of consideration should have been held by tut court as 
established. It ie -well established law ir. tnis juric.diction that 
an index see of a neg;otial;le ncte who has ca^i-en it, lel'cre its ma- 
turity, as collateral security lor a pre-existing debt and ^a^hout 

ilii'3 on J-sii* ;2i'si5,ia«^a^3.b£Ui ail.t il:?i;w "ft j:J-aJ:.'iIq od' ^ciBBaa'tab x<^ b&tB 

,'u>jon S'rf.t no ^ii^jJoid Qd" felwow- 

Said- 'to ;3'm^bi:fiS)T:q , ;r!>ijarioo ^'^''^^i •fc-'^i ,, -insSE iBiioi^JsS'i ©ii:^ ma't 000E| 

^i -,C^* -^-^^ "iXf^E^i i;:i ^Id&xj^q, asion ow;J ij£>^..'OSx® v^asquoo saiw^^S; ®rf* 
Bat, a-xs-oirl ,-xx..3^ ,-3:i39oD -vjcf i:flaiofjn9. oaXa ©its^jr \-9u3- jSi#8'S,0i>n9 

^riiflcv ^^®<)i arlt j.s.fiJ 'xoiift rti fiTS:i;ini.i'.X€f xd b&m'SM ^t «"£** ;("r-dO^ 
;rticijc:;tx^ Ltu JJ&l a"^vslx0-.ij>ig er:^ not ix?'ss;J-nXX«>o «b &ion Eiaua 

a,® :t'XJuoo ^ji;f id M'exl n9»4 ©v^ari fcXio'Oiifi sioi^&'s.'^bXHmo 'lo ^n^^ 1o 

J'i.ri^ noicfaxJPBiiuL aXxx^r ai w«kX liOi;.BiXc»ii4-a» J.X»vj ai :^I .&®ii8iXcf«if8S 

-.Kis 3i^i ^iQiiid ,ii ti9.U'^ si:d oH^ff eioa aXoicl^ossn & 'to 60SiQbai or 

iuodii^ biu. id^h .^nl*aix6.Q'iq « 'xol ^^-xi/Oee Xi3ie.t^XXoo ft« ,tcJi:tx.^ 

any exiiresa agreeiuent is deemed a aolrler i'or a valuable ccjisioera- 
tion, jand tiiat he '.ioids it j'ree troiu latent deiei^ses on tue p^xt 
ol' the maker." 

In tlie instant oase defendant executed the not'? in question 
bearing the endorsement that it was ".^iven as coll^-iteral to i!ae 
note ol" the Lake County Dietributinfo Co. now held bj Uie ochoeu- 
hol'en iidelviaiss Co," under tae law as fixiaoanced ii^ the usecAe 
caee, DlaintilT ';avint.i ta-'-ei: iiis note as collpteral secuxity lor 
a pre-existing de"bt axid "^itnout any express a(_recu.ent - ncne being 
alleged in dGfcndcii-jt 's amended ai'iidavit oi' Eerits - he i& UeeKied 
a holler for a valuable conaideration and holdiB the note Iree i'roia 
latent defenses on txie part of the iiaker. 

Froiu v-'hat we hare said it follows that tiie court did not 
err in Btriicin^; def ^^Jidairt 's ai-aeiided ai"fi;;;avit of iaurits ;ii.d enter- 
ing judg.K.ent for plaintiff. 

The judi?uent of the Munioi'oal court of Chicago is affir^sd. 

Matchett, P. -J., and l.cSureijr, J., concur* 

" *t»ji^»a si^d" 'to 

::o%'i aa-it ®j-cu5 .7*1;! ahloa tix,:-, aoxciBisfolailoiJ ©Xci^sHXiSV i^ TO't ts^|■>icrf JB 

/ni^TiUilq tot ^S-asfxis^Xfl S^i 

,,-Si;i5fsoy t ,X. ,vi©'r.tra»M !>£££ , J-- *^ ,* 



V!, S. lilLLEB, 


Appellee , 

COiiPAKY, a Corporation, 



) ""■"" .■/ Z' f 





Willitua S. Miller "brou&'it aii action a;->ainst iieanie ^lurris 
to recover dan.i-tgea, aiid it seeniS to be conceded ti;.at such 4oiia>i,ee 
grew out oi' a collision Tsetxiyeeri the autOi-.otile!3 of plaintiff oiid 
defendant , and t.-iat plaintiff had a judrment Dy d^fi-alt a^^ainat 
tile defendant, Bessie 'darris, for fSOO, He i^as analle to iiave the 
judgment satisfied and instituted garnishment proceedixigs in the 
same case. The American Eotorists Insurance Gosipany, a corpora- 
tion, 7?as served as garriishee, the theory teinfe tnat tiie insur- 
ance company had issued its policy to Bessie Harris, whien would 
cover the |200 Judf^a<?nt provided Bessie Uarris, the injured, had 
complied with the provisions of the policy, 'i'he Insuraiice compariy 
denied liability on the ground that the insured hiid failed to turn 
over to it the suiiViuons issued in the orii^inal ease, as the policy 
provided, The matter was heard "before the court ;ind there was a 
finding and judgiuent in plaintiff's favor ajjainet the inBuranee 
eoEpany fox f 206, 10, ajid it appeals. 

'/ne record is somewhat confused, in the affidavit for 
garnishee suiijmons, or &taL;ciLer.t cf claim as it is designated, it 
is alleg<->d tnat killer ottaiiied judc-:^er.t for •|200 against Bessie 
Harris on April 18, 1933, fcoid counsel in their briefs seer, to 
concede that this j'udgnjent was by default. Tlie record ■^oes not 
contain any Jud.iuent of April Id, 1933. but there is in the record 


, 3'9XXaq«A 


aaPiAHUSPil g^i'aiHOTOM ilAOiaSIiilA 

sxi'Xi.:^ e)icf;f*'- ,.J«iUev.:jB nQXtti^ ti& iiI:^iio's.d -saiXiM ,8 msiXXiW 
.fexii;-, TiiJ- aiijiq 'io ti'riI.i(i<na.oiiJ^ ©rid as9Wc|-9(i' ooiaiXXoo « 'lo d'.uo wsiB 

"^-loqirjo .s jTjacq.uoQ soaeiyaal ad-aixojo^i n^-oiisaiA, s»iiT ,s>fijSQ ©lauaa 

fejexi ,l56iiJBai auo ^aiiiai; sXaaaa JbaJbivcict jneia;.jbut OOSf arf* -xsvou 
Yasc>uoo &0i:i*iJJ0iiI Gii'i" »-\saiX9q &:ii 'io eaoiaivoig 9rft rid^Xw JbsiX^mo® 

.nlAQiiqB Jfi basi ,OX,aoS^^ lo't ^coegmoo 

ji ^.^.-iBnijiaeb ai ^i s^s shjLsXo 'to Jnauiajsla io ^enoiffiuixs ©©riaiixasg 

oi . e«P. siai-xd 'lisrii ai Xasnuoo l>ii« ,.^£eX ,8X XiiqA no ai'xt«H 

Jon Bsob Moos>t ©xiT ,JXu«-t«l) x<i a-'^ cMv^xjCsfcut airi;^ ;Jpii^ ©bdonoo 

Jb^xo^.t 0xlc^ ni en Biexii ii!'^ ^eceX ,81 Xxicr.. io ino^si-.bul Y^e aiactaoo 

a judgment entered July 10, 1933, in favor oT Miller and against 
Bei^Ae iiarris w/iicn chows that tjiere v/as a trial on Lhe luerite 
and H finding xiid Judtinient in plaintii"f • a favor lor ;:;300. 

The record discloses th.a.1 after tlie collision b^'tween the 
autou-o't^iles, the Xueuraiioe coiupany took the matter u; Trita the 
attori.eys for killer axui investibated the matter; some tiuie 
thereai'tc-r ililler lirouyht suit against Bessie iiarrie, oTjt-.ined 
judfeffient against her, iJiid that the ineLirance coripany had no 
notice of this suit uxitil well after the judgBient was entered, 

A-57icncs£.' for the Insurance company .eetified that ohe 
received no suiiusons in the orii^inal case an':^. that the first the 
Insurance compEiny "heard about the jui,:rfient T/as about a year 
after the accident, when kTS. Harris ioade a 'phone call about it. 
That ir the first we knew of a^y suit,** In rebuttal plaintiff 
ii-iller t(. stilled that "Then iiis case %as tried against Jiessie 
Harris in tae :iunicipal court aai attoriiey representin^j, the gar- 
nishee lusui'ance coiiipany was present, iU'ter tne close of the 
case the rearing of 'vhic.i aad been continued, the Insiurance coju- 
pany offered to prove Ij a vuitneas that in tue ordinary coarse of 
business all 3a:,.,.on8 of a siiiiiiar cuiaraeter would be received by 
him, and cnat jie received no suuuiions iu the i^ixler case. Hie 
Insurance coapany also sought to show by a witnepsa that Bessie 
Harris had stated that she liad not tarried the suxruaons over to the 
Insurance coii.pany, but tlie offer was excluded by the court, ap- 
parently on the theory that defend airt had closed hi? rase. In 
view of the entire record, i^e t.:iink the court should aave 
ted the Insurance coiupany to call these two »vitn€S3es, Xhe in- 
surance policy also provided tiiat if "suit is brought against the 
Assured to enforce &uch claim, the Assured s.uall Imiiiediatel:,^ Tor- 
ward to the Goiiipdny ever> sa...i43ns or other process served uoon the 
Assured," I'ais provision of the policy required the assured, 

e.^s.%&m SilJ ac Jjsiiuo £ fjjew s-xoavJ- a-i,.il:)^ av/ojia .biiiw aiuii-Jl axaasS 

■:uKij <i)mo3 i&.<i.i j'SoJ-c^Bta axii I)0jj.i^x;Ja3Tiii i-ns -xallxM -xol Bitsa-xoa-d-ij 
i'.^.'d.e.J-d'o j3i:T'i.«ji ^jisaaS j-eiix.?;g£ ^ioa ctxljiwoid" ioXIIjI Tffi^'.MS'xod.i 

^b^iBim e&'f: d-aantvhut a^i-^ lei'tB XXsw Xicl-iui ;}-iu.3 siil^ 'to aoi^oa 

't'tiii.iJsXq Xiic^i-jjcioi al *',3XiJ8 X''^ '^<^ wsxiil sw Jsii't srij 3I ^ailT 

Jixlj 'to :SKoXo sxiJ -ifj-'lix .J'aaasiq, QjSW Y-^^Jsq.aoo soax-iiifHuI ©sxfein 

'it> sa'iiioo \,'x^nii>-io &x\ct ui a*ii'U aaeiji;!!^' .£ 14 tf «voaq oJ b^'X^Tto ^^msq; 
\';'i Jbsv.taa&i acf l.-Xwow' "isf JOi;ax;ui) ifiXiaiis ^ 'io snoi'^^e lis sasnlaud" 

9xi* cj -xavo gaocaHAJS 'ddi b&a-iiji ica fc^xi ©ria ixxii heisaie fcjsxf ali^eM 

«1 ,<18js: axii bssoXo fei-ici Siifif-aQ'i^l) s&tii ^-sosriJ- ».rfdr no v;Xin9isq 

»crj:./i«>cv avail iiXjjoxie Jiiioa snj 3f.aiiAJ- ©vr ,J5)ioof»'JC s'xld'ns Bdi 'to wsir 

-ill Ja'dl ,6988911^ iw Qisfs SBsrii Xi^o od x^^ti''-<^o Qon^iifenl srfi J&9* 

siiJ not ij |»©nr-.G Rasooiq laxUo 10 Baoiiuyja \ii©v« x^^^^oO «x£* 0* fcrifiw 
.b^-iusaA BiU b&riapo'x v:olXoq sxi* 'to noieivo-xq sixlT ".fc^iifsaA 

Bessie Harris, to forward a copy ol' the suiiuuons sarved upon her 
to tile insurance co.ipuiy. But we think t^iat the failure to i'cr- 
ward the su:i!i-iorj,8 vjould not prevent plaintiff frofl: reooveriiig in 
th» in<3tant case il tiie Insurance cohipuxiy had notice of the 
pendency of the suit so that it coulcj rief<and. 

While, as above stated, the testinony of plaintiff, 
Miller, is that when hie case against Eessie li.arris wae heard in 
the Municipal court there '^as present an attorney repreaeit uing 
the garnishee Insuraj'ice ccrap&jr.iy, yet tl'iz ii* not cntirel;y clear, 

(..-winu- to the unsatisfactory ftate of the reccrd, we thixii: 
there stiould be a retrial* 

I'he ju.'^gment of the Municipal court of Chicago is revt'rsed 
and the c£.uf?e remanded, 

BIVIRSSB .fiKD ks;;d. 

Matcnett, t\ J,, and kciaurely, J,, concur. 

'larJ noGf-i fc&Vi^a Bnosiimn aril 'io XM^-J •*■ .fe^^^'ft'io't e.t ^Qit-x&K aisasa 
-•lal QCf ©"XL 11;:; 'I i>rU-' is;'t ilniri^ 'jw (J-j;,)-^! ♦■^?n£.:G,.iiOu ©on&tj.)SuX sfi^'' o;!' 

ui. -b'iayii Ci^iw 3i-ii£p. ®xar;t5Jf;[ cfRiti,e:;;;r;, !9f3;jo slii iisxlw itaca aJt ,:):0lIi:M 
^•uvjI-j y,X0'iJ,jno Joa «i: ahij ^s>x »'?rt/2txi!to3 s^oimtsjanX 99nf8i.ui«s sri^ 

.iijoitoo J .X- ,y;X«i'ivc;;t5ivt £>fis , .t* ,'i «j^§ri!» 


a corporation f 

Appellant 9 

MAl^Y i«B, 

Defendants I 

SUPi'LY COMPAITY, a corporation, 
(interrening petitioner)^ 




\ 28 8 I.A. 6 22^^ 


Plaintiff » Ajaico Companyt Inc.* instituted this replevin 
action in the mtinlcipal court to recover a laundry macMne known 
as a 48* Aaico extractor* naaaing as defendants Joe :iax©vsky» John 
Doe and Mary Boe. The extractor was recovered "by plaintiff imder 
the replevin writ* The named defendants did not appear and defend. 
By leave of court the Advaiace Laundry Machine & Supply Company 
filed its intervening petition, elaimng ownership of the extractor. 
The issue as to the ri^t of property was tried ty Idle court without 
a jury and found in favor of intervening petitioner. Judgment 
was entered on the finding, ordering the extractor delivered to 
said intervening petitioner, "niis sgppeal followed. 

The contsract of purchase and sale was executed April 18, 
1930, hy plaintiff and Sam Goldherg, doing business as i^ith's 
Latoxdry, on one of the i\mico CcHapany«s printed order fonas which 
contained "blank spaees to designate the particiolar terms upon 
which the merchandise was sold. 'Ehere was inserted in vriting 




■ I 

■— ^- rf--\ ^T^ ■^'^ \ ' ■■' ' 

fa ^« f-i f\ I H H ^ • ' «* YfMMIHO^JS YfUWJAJ. SIOIAWA 

^i%eacxisJ&q. gninDT'xs^nJ:} 

( 4 3©II®^qA 

• TmrOO 33IT W UOT^JIW SsHT (IS."aE'?M3t£ 

'lobm 11;iv'isi;^:Xci v;d" bo-mroo^'s. sbiv -xocroaxSxs sxJT .90S ■^teS feas sod 

.&iYa1:e& baa ■xsQqqs iou bib rtdTisfina'iab bscssis sriT ,•$!%& isxTsXaai ©if* 

^aaqsHoD "■cltrqi/S oS ©ijMofsM X's:^^^?/^ «orisT5A ©i{d $itsot> lo av-sol x^ 

siod-Oj^i^x^ sdi "£o fj£rI<5-xofps-o ®i5.cHJ:j:;Xo ^fioxoli-dq ^itiaoTXaial a^i fcsXil 

tf0or;(5i-v!f ^-100 orf;^ ^'^ !)&xsd' ai-;w -^j-xstiotq; to isij^rx &di ai as straax ©rH? 

oi. bf-Toyilob ^ocfOB'ji^xo srf;^ ^nlrESbtto tyfiibajl ©if* xso b^roiaa saw 
♦ bswoIXo"i XBSqcjG sirf?" •isnoxJi^Jsq gfilni&TTS^ni bias 
cSX XxxqA bsj^ifosxa s,jsi&- ©lea 5iss ee.f^oiifq 1:<> jfo^B^^noo eilT 

a*il*xfi£o er, aB©ni3i;tf s^i^ob «3tS€fbXoO laaC bos 1 ijt in iiiXq \:tf tOe??X 

xfoMw acttox 'x'5b^o b&;fa[i-£q a'liajsqxKoD ooxeA srfi lo sxio no tV-^bayjsJ 

cocri; Biata* 'xaXirox^t-ssq oiii siBagiaob oi sssjsqa ^IneXJ beaietaoo 

the date, the name and address of Goldherg* s IsusiaeBs, the 

description of the extr^ictor, the price of saii» as !i^;ii,400 with a 

credit allowance of $'350 for tv/o machines taken in trade and ''net 

cash ^2100«'* The contract then recites j "In considcjrution of 

which the undor&igned, ^ithVs^Iiaundrxj^ agrees to pay to the order 

of The .Ajnieo Company, Inc., f 2100 « Of terms: ^^100*00 with o:.'darj 

* * * §2000 »00 worth of gold hpnds which must "be uegotialsle & bear 

i nterest-in 30 daye* ** (Italicised portions of recital written in.) 

There also appeared on the face of the contract the following 

provision t "It is expressly agreed and understood that * * * this 

order * * * when it is accepted by THB .^JCICO COMPAHY, Inc., * * * 

hecoaces operatire and binding upon both the undersigned and THE 

AMICO CCMPiUiY, Inc., upon and including^ a ll o f the terms and co ndi- 

ti ons printed on the reverse s ide o f this sheet » which sre incor-_ 

porated her ein*" The following condition appeared on the reverse 

side of the order fonai 

*It is understood -and agreed that title to the gooHn here- 
inbefore described and purchased by this contract shall rcEjain in 
TEll; AMIGO GOMP^TY, Ino.» until the Sfuae shall have been paid fcff 
in full as prorideo , and that said goods shall remain strictly 
personal property whether placed on a permanent foundriti<m or in 
■whatever manner attached to the structure in which ccmtained, and 
not in any way be construed as a fixture.* 

Goldberg paid #100 upon signing the contract and tumed over 

to plaintiff bonds having a pax value of |2,000 about four weeks 

after the machine was delivered to him. Upoa investigation these 

b(mds were found to be Tvorthless aad were returned to and accepted 

by Goldberg. Aout one week later other bocidB also having a par 

value of $2^000 were delivered to plaintiff by Goldberg and these 

bonds upon investigation were found to have a sales value of fr«« 

|8 to ^10 per flOO. They were tendered back to Ck)ldberg, who refused 

to accept them but repeatedly promised to deliver to plaintiff other 

bonds having- an actual value of |2,000 or make a cash settlement* 

Plaintiff turned the bonds over to its attorney. Payment in casii 

*»fs'' fonis sft«i;t at as'Lai aeiitdo&m ov?J ^ol OgS€ lo esiiswoIXs ^it>9io 

T^iStf j> sIcrsl^osQit so" itsifgt rfolriw s&notf Mos lo ifi^'scw 00«OOOS| *■ * * 
{..«x xis^^x-xw iBitioQ^ to enoi:;f"ssq 6ssioxXi®4X) ^ j;.,^'',,?.! .V?.!^,.,.*^r ^.^^"^^^^^ 

gsivfcIXol sii? ^os'sirsjo ^rl^ lo ©sal srf^ 120 &9i:jS9cjqa osXfi stsifT 

siff^ ->;- -x * ^£^^ tioot&is&itar &ss .0-391^^ ■^laayxqxs si il* Jfloieiroag 

* * * «YiA'2M00 OOIE* laai? ijd ©iS^d-^aosja el >i «i«if^- * #• *;««<Mo 

-■£&goo 5K.r: siHis;?- QXi» '10 Us ^.i^ibulQ^i bfajs jsrogt? t»onI ,YaA^21£>0 OOtSLk 

dai"aTs:s SiiiJ dco fe&'tsotiq^s aei^xfenGO seiwcllol aril ^*ul9 t9Si Sa^aiog 

sersol !j06to »££* te sbia 

-G'tSif nboes 9av^ oi eX$l& isdi bes^^s &*''*^= booisitebms sx ;tX" 

nx rtifistss Ilsrfa *2',at*K00 bM* ^(f feaa^srfjyxwq &fijs &»<fi'soasj5 siolsdnx 

■aR'i biise ar^ecf r-vjari IXsrCs snsss ©rl^ Ilitas fsnl (.YluV-IMOO OOIM.i ^luiT 

'^X^i'oJr^ta nisatst IXistCa adoo® ftisa isiis bus , &3»iTOiq aa IXwl ni 

ni 10 no-v: Jr.cauol iti^QrisBrceq b kg boo^lq tsd^sri^ x^^r.oqprq XjenosToq 

tBro boirzus- biw d'ostd^rxco srfd an^Tgia rroqy OOIl bisq: s'tarffeXox) 

s^osw rsi/ol ;Jfio<fi? 000, S# lo ealsiV tsq « sai'VJari afcaocf lllialsl^i ei 

&©#(3[©oos fens 0? bpazuiB'i srt^w fexte s39Xif;.iov7 ©tf o* bEOffol 9t»v abiiocr 

'i^q ^ -aclTBif oqXjs sfoiaocf xoi{*o lei&l 2ls9w ©no ix/otf.- tsrrsefbXo© x^ 

asadJ- bnja s^stf&i©^ Xiif tllialalq oi bsisrlX^fo siei/ OC*Ota|: lo oulsr 

sfpxx ^ 8i;Ii3r esXsa a avjsxf o:> bjiool ssaw ttoli&^i&BBras: noqw s&noc' 

b®ei;l©2 oxiw ,3-xorfbIoO o* :^0£d' 6©r£«fiKPi s-saw ^sdl' »O0X| i©q 0X4 e;^ 6 

^oif^to^ltiicUXq o;f Travilsli o;J^ beaiaatOTq -^iXft® ^isaqsi ;^i;cf craxfJ d-qsea-:? o 

»^n9si3Xt;J9a disBO s sjiaa to WO^af "io aifXiiV Xaxrc^os na "gnivjsil abcoc" 

fJa.^0 rii *n©iwcjB<4 .Y®c:co.t;J\e atfl o* lavo abnocf sri* boirri;* 'iiicfaifiXI 

or "bonds having a ofish vnlue of $2»o<"'0 -waa never received "by 
plaintiff. Thereafter* Goldhcrg* having coneolidated his 
husinese with another laundry* incorporated same under the naone 
of limith's Hi-Grade Laundry, Inc. In ifarch, 1934, the co.r-porgtion 
went ixito h.'^jakrup tcy . .vpril 6, 1934, plaintiff filed its reclama- 
tion petition in the "bankruptcy proceeding to recover the extractor. 
Viithout a hearing on aucL reclamation petition having bee i had, by 
order of court the trustee in Daiikruptcy on June 29, 1954, a old all 
oi his right, title and interest in and to che assets of the hank- 
rupt corporation for 11,000 to one H» v. Frieder, who, it is claiffi©d» 
acted in hehalf of the Pirst United Finance Corporation. June 30 » 
1934, the intervening petiti<aier entered into a written contract 
with the First United Finance Corporation for the purchase of the 
latter* s right, title and interest in and to the assets of the 
"bankrupt Smith* s Hl-Orade Lsaindry for tHf270»78, of -rhich ?mQunt 
11,145.78 was paid in cash, the balance to he paid in installments. 

One Salk, who claimed to hold a chattel mortgage on all of 
the chattels of the "bankrupt corporation, including the extractor 
here involTed, was restrained "by the United States District Court 
frtffli interfering with the receiver in possession of the bankrupt* s 
assets. The First United 5'inanoe Corporationp under its ccxitrs-ct 
with the Intervening petitioner, agreed to and did acquire Balk's 
chattel mortgage for $1,500, which mortgage was released of record. 

Plaintiff contends that the InterTeniag petitioner failed 
to eBta"blish any title to the extractor j that the aaehine, having 
"been purchased from it ty Goldberg under a conditional sales contract* 
in and by which the title to same was reserved until its purchasiS 
price WC'S fully paid, the right of possession and property in the 
extractor remained in the yjnico Company, since Goldberg failed to 
pay $ZfO^'0 of its purchase price; and that it is not estopped by 
its conduct or otherwise freaa asserting its title and ownership. 

isoi?,st<:oq*coo ©il;t ,^-£©1 trfoiBM 0I .oiil 5"^o:&xiubJ 3&stD-.£H a*dils0 lo 

«; j5«>si.LaIo ai il iOnvi i'lebets.'i •W ♦a sco ©* 000, X# rtot jaoX^js^©^^©© iqvr 

erfj lo g^sfsaij ad;t qs fens Hi ^as^js^ni baa dl^ii ^id^lt s'jsa^iBX 

;?aj^/0:sf; rroM.? Iq iBf*OV?.^^f:. tal x^hmssl fif&axO-lH a»rf*.tarS ;tq;afT!£fl«(f 

, a^nsstXIa^sni: ni Mjs(| sd" 0^ aofi^glad &di trfsjiso ul blag; a^w S^. S-M<l| 


■2 *;iXsii ^•xxssgosi bib &s« oJ beetc^ij tr^noiiii&q, 'gsiia&yrx&iMX&j^Sil'J 

,010001 lo 5©8s9X©x saw e-^^itom, doMvif ,OQ^X^ t©"J ©afl^i*!:©* Xeil^pi 

^cfo^rcJrjoo asXa s Xsnplc^xfcaoo & tobsm g^scf&XoS xtf- *i jbotI boa^o-xwq aas^T; 

©;}■ fosXxfijL ^Tsef&XoD sonia tunsqcioO o«iaA siti xsi beaijoirs'S xod'&-Er!:*Xi;' 
♦qMatcanwo fixts «X*i4 aik gai^iseais laail ©aiwxadio ao itnjbmio^*ii 


ThH theory of the interyeniag petitioner is that it ac- 
quired title to the article in viusstion "by purchctse tvom the First 
T3hite^ finance Corporation of (1} title derived throu^jja chattel 
mortgage owied by Salk snd (2) of the rii^iit, title and interest 
of the trasitee in "bejikruptoy of J?Biith»3 Hi. -Grade L-i/uiadryi that 
the contract IsetTjeen plaintiff raid. Goldhi-.rg constituted an ahsolute 
sale and not a oon(5itional sale of tlie extracten and tha,t» feecause 
of plaintiff* s failure to assert 5.ts alleged right to the property 
■vvithin a reasonable time after the time fixed for final pajnaent* 
it is eetopped from claiming any ri£^t ae ags.inst it. 

Tae major question presented for our determination is 

whether Goldberg* s contract of purchase iiras a ccnditioaal . 

contract. In our opinion an exajci nation of the terms of the 

contract ixi the light cf the provisions of fehe uniform t^ales act 

(111. Btate Ear Stats. » 19S5» ch» 1<;1&) pai . 4» et seq*) shows 

concluBively that the parties expressly agreed to a conditional 

sale. The following pertinent proTisiona are wraatained in that 


"Par. 23 » sec. 20. (1) 7/here there is a contraot to 
sell specif ic goods, or v^here goods are auhsequently appropriated 
to the contractf the seller may, hy the terms of tae contract or 
appropriation, ressrve Vae right of poeser^aion or proiserty in 
the goods until certain conditions hare been fulfilled. The ri^ht 
of posseasion or property may be thus reeerroa notwithstanding 
the delivery of the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other 
bailee for the purpose of transmission to the buyer. 

"Par. 26, see. 23. (l) ^>ubject to the provision? of 
this xict ~«h;xe goods are sold by a person who is not the o^mer 
thereof, evid who does not sell them under the authority or viith 
the consent of the o^vner, the buyer aequirea no better title to 
the goode than the seller had , unless the owner of the goods is 
by his o<nduot precluded freai denying the seller's authority 
to sel7. .* 

Plaintiff's contract with Ckildberg ?/as for the sale of 
a specific article. The seller under the plain tenas thereof re- 
served title to said article until it was fully paid for. Goldberg 
defaulted in the payments specified and he still owes plaintiff 
#2,000 03. the purchase price of the machine. There can be no doubt 

iei^a^o diiMQcdi b^rxs^fi slii,^ {£}' "io sbiis'SctjioD ^ast&ai.% t;»9t'd!U 

itys-rojui bus ?5X^i:d- t^JcCsi'r. eiSd lo (S) bJtKt jUbS -^ctf &«s^© i9|gj5a^*£CK 

iMi i-n;'i.tiEi'.5.I Q&^i^D-lH .'3*ii;Jii«^ to xoS^-x:£a^ al sea sot J 94# \o 

JLsnoi^xoaeo a ei bsaia^ ^laastt^xs eai^i/MC arfif is^ ■^X«iriajfX6iSteo 
*.a/f;t ax bsiiisdne c qiq asolalvotcq ^asnidP^sq ^ai'sn^Xiet «riT •slas 

Be^i3£^qo^qn;s Yl;ris30peatfj;t. erti; a&ooB a'ieilvs;- to ts&oos oillosqe XXoa 
al ■V;;t'x»?co'rQ. '£0 coxtesfiaog. lo w^i'^ili sxfi ©rtrociQi ^xTrJi^Saiiqo'rq:^,^ 

*t^\ufS Qff:^ o;J Dkoiaaxeianaxc'' lo ssc^fTirq on* troM >;.eXJ:£cf 

■^^i^oxfcfWG a'isjEXas 9f{3 s^YKkjo iisDt'i i>©ii*Xoy^q iotfbxi;.c aid -^d" 

".XX.-^g Ov* 

"io oX/as sff^J 10I extw siocfbX«>r) iS*i# ioertJaoo a'lltll^aiaX'l 

-oT tosiad^ aiJi^E©* cifiXq sifi isbim isXXoa sriT .aXsWiB ol'ilosqe a 

S*--stf&XoO .-rol bisq Yili/^ ««» *i Xi;»atf eXoi#r£« bijaB oit e£;fl* l)»Tlse 

m^ftifiXq &awo XXlde sff fcoe batlfclosqa effsdancsq »if* fiJt 66#X0ete& 

d-dijob Oil ©tf xiBo Qtcs^ .9«ir£ofiai jwf;^ lo aoiT^ saiirfj>^x«I »^* co 000, S;J 


that the contract "between plaintiii" and Goldberg v/ae one of condi- 

tionea sale. The ralidity of the Uniform Sales act and conditional 

sales contracts was definitely dstahlished i n She rer-Gillet t Co* ▼• 

Long f 318 111* 432» where the court said at pp. 433-34-351 

"Before sales became a subject of tuaiform legislation it 
was settled by an overv/helming .veight of authority that the seller 
iB not estopped "by hia conduct in deliTering the possession of goods 
to the buyer upon a contract of conditional sale from aseerting his 
title agi\inst one v?ho purchases from the buyer » relying upon the 
apparent title of the latter, (1 .illistcMi on Sales, - 2d ed# - sec. 
324; Harkness t» Fuss ell & Jo^.j^ 118 U» :• 663 » 7 Liup. Gt« 51; Arnold 
T. Oha ndler Motors , "(R* iT)" 123 Atl. 85;) but in this State we h'aiS" 
hejd that a delirery of personal property to the purchaser upon a 
contract of conditional sale, with a retention of title in the 
seller, amoimts to constructive fraud, v/hich postpones the ri^^ht of 
the real ovvner In faTor of those who hare dealt without notice with 
the conditional vendee, who has been given the indicia of o^vnership. 
( Gi lbert v. i^ationa l Gash Re gi ster Co., 176 111. 288; Brimdnge v. 
Gamp, 21 id. 329.) Uniformity in the law of the several' States 
pertaining to sales being deemed essential to the commercial welfare 
of the country, leaders of the American bar prepr.recl and submitted 
to the legislatures of the several States a ixniform sales &ct and 
a tiniform conditional sales act. The former was adopted in this 
State in 1915 and is the law today. By section 20 of the 3,ct the 
validity of a contract of conditional sale is recognized. ;jection 23 
declares the law ol this 3tate respecting' the transfer of title to 
be that theretofore declared by the great majority of the courts of 
this coxjntry. * * * The Uniform Bales act recognizes the validity 
of such contracts and specifically provides that no title can be 
passed by the purchaser of goods under such a contract *tinless the 
owner of the goods ia by his conduct precluded from denying the 
seller's authority to sell.** 

It is idle to urge that by the use of the language *$U^QOQ 

worth of gold bonds which must be negotiable and bear interest-ia 

30 days" written into the contract to designate the tiase and method 

of pajnaent of the balance/ on the extractor, the parties intended 

that Goldberg's obligation vfould be satisfied by delivering to 

plaintiff gold baads of $2>000 par value, even thoueh such bonds 

were worthless or nearly so. The word "worth" in its usual and 

ordinary sense as defined in ebster's J^ew International Dictionary 

means "equal in value to** or "of the value of* and it v^oiild do 

violence to the v/ord as used in the caitract to give it any other 

meaning. As to the suggestion of the intervening petitioner that ttie 

quoted language must be ecaistrued a£ meaning th- 1 if CrOldberg delir- 


tae-:^5»c;S^ *qsi *® ■^■t'33 ^-iwoc e«i* exad'>7 ,gS^ .1X1 8XS «,^m*| 

fmll^a srLt :^&A^ xixtodSsjs to ^i^ie.v gaisffXsri'S'TsTc oa t«f &©X?*sa'ketr 

©xi? i5oq;y ^ixi'iiXa'i ■, i&-^i/tf adi jso^l: asaiSiisTX'q on-« one 4'sfii;»§£^ sX^ii 

.093 - »&& og -^ *a©X;3ts «o «o\ts ilXi* 1) t'ssii^l sri# to »X*i^ #fl9rcflc[^.s 

hlonpi lis »*0 .»q:£/G f t£S® *^ **; 8XX .ti»o.O ^ -^Xsaai^H; «r aasai'X^vH j^S€ 

"" bBrTaw e^B;t3 QMi jtI ^x/d" (rSS .I^TA SSl'T^*"! •HT~,a^^c*o?^ j^.giSrf ♦▼ 

Q ncq^ss 'SQ.ssrCo'aurq edJ oi^ '^jrrsqoiq; Xsitocisq "xo tc"x©vtTr5~Ts S BEI~lSled 

0ii* fii sl^xj '^<j isoiins^^'t b A&f^r teX.«?a Xseoi^ibaoo "io ^osi#h©o 

d^ilvr ooi^on ^S-^orfJ-iw S-'isoh eTiyl odw asoxli^ 1© ico'Vst III ^siwo Xsst &tli 
tq^idBTsmro lo ^iol.f>xii: ©ri^ JKSYXg jrassd u^rf oriw ,e9bxi9v Xefloi^jbnoo siC^ 

ae^siU Zs'iersB sd^ 1:© wbX e^J xsi ^^iSito^xnU {♦§£;€ .bi XS jjJSsO 

5'islXsw XBiotsfiaaoo adt o;J XsiJKsass hsme^h 3al9<f aeXisa ocf saifiia^r-xsq 

bBitxitKSise has uexo-sq&tq t/scf nBOi"£@Q/; sdJ 'io ais&^sX *-v;i*i.u/ot sxU io 

bna io£i asles ^TO'ixnxj p. 3s*i3iS Xs^s-yaa SfJ[;? 'io 8&T:js#«Xsi:^i3X sii* ai- 

aM;^ M haiq^b& as-w t&stxol srfT «v*gb a^X^a X^^ficiJiinioc st'fc'lii^j;/ s 

sx{^ *oa 9x£;t le OS acinose ^8^ *■^.9bo:^ w«X &di air tejs eX€X rsi :»*j8*«j 

::s GoiyosC .^sslnsoois:: e.t sX-sa LBixoliibnoo to io&iinQo a 'lo %JxbJ.Xay 

0* sX^fii? io 'S&lan^-So erfS' 'i}iiiio»q,ae% ti-«*!ri aM* Ic «rsX ©xft a^it^Xc^fe 

to aiiiioo &xf3 lo ic«-^"^o£,:Sa ^bg^ mU x^ b;,vii,>Xoe-D si-olo^J^^^toif;}- jarfd ecf 

t^x&iXA;v sil# ess-insoosT *o.g aaX^a arxolir^ exE' * * * »x'^ismoQ aidi 

©tf nso 3Xvi:;f on ^.fixicf ayoivotq viXX/.-oillnaqe feajs s^^oi52;tnoo\fioiJs "io 

edi ^asXHRT* ;to0^;*cO8i « xfoxra %-3bms Bboc-s 'io ■xeajSfio'Xi;'^ sxf:? x€ bsaajsq 

&i£-3- •^jKix-fi^fc fsK'-s'l b'abssloo'iq ioishnoo ^i'ri tjo' ax a&co^ ari^ 'io -loiiwc 

*».iX9a 03 %*ilOX{JiJB £; >1£9lX9a 

bs-oaa^tti: asicfx^ct exl^ i-xoioBifs^ odi no\§pn^X«cr ««£i lo itms^&q Io 

Oo -sniTeyxXob -^tf bsi'lBkiBs ©cf fcXi/o?- uoid-fisiX*^® s 'atscfhXoO i&di 

abnod" xfowa ff^aorivf- «3>ve tSfrlsv icq OOO^St lo a&a®cf feXOS llliisiaXq 

&f£S! Xcx/r-w g*j; nx "if:?iow" ftio^f oriT .oa x£.xa9a ie aasXif^tow »i:sr 

o6 bXtfow it bOE "lo auXsv erf;? lo" 'xo "o^ stslBf aX .Xxag.a'" anesis 
isii*o ■^«jB 3i 9Tl^ o;J ^OBT^xioo aji;f ni baexj aa biow »ri# 9* fWf^Xoj:^r 
5i'& if^ds iQc^liUofi jjaicavisJixi e^Ji lo aoiiascih^a &sii c-i sA .anluBor 
-viXob s'-t&rfbXoi^ Ix if -.dcf ^xiiiifisai as b»*ni^ai«>o ©^ ^eaa ss^sHTiii^X &**oi;p 

ered to plaintiff bonds of $2»000 par value which ware negotialal^ 
within thirty days and which "bore Interest within thirty dye? he 
complied with the terms of the caitract as to the payment of the 
halance due, it is sufficient to state that the suggestion is too 
fanciful to merit serious consideration. There was? o. "balance of 
^2»000 due plaintiff on the r?^:tractor and the langus^ge eraployed in 
the contract reasonahly construed can mean only that Goldberg was 
o"bligntad to dellTer to plaintiff within thirty days, in payment 
of the balance due «nder the contract, gold bonds eciual in value 
to 1^2,000, whidh. were negotiable ?jid bore interest* 

The validity of the contract haying been ©atablished as one 
of conditional sale, G?oldberg had no title to and was not the omier 
of the extractor, ajid no right or interest in same could have been 
acquired through hia except his special right in the property to 
become the owner thereof upon pasnaent in full of the purchase price, 
unless plaintiff by its conduat is precluded from denying CT0ldborg*s 
ownership. There is no showing that C-oldberg erer even attempted 
t» transfer title to the extractor to the bankrupt corporation, but, 
assuming tlmt he did, aiaith's Hi-Grade Laundry received nc better 
title than Goldberg had and the saiae is m cessarily true of the 
trustee in bankruptcy* By its purchase of the siachine frcra the 
trustee in bankruptcy the first Itoited finance Corporation could 
acquire no better title than he had and consequently eould transfer 
no better title to tt» intervening petitioner* 

But the intervening petitioner insists that in any event 
"Wy its contract of purchase from the Jirst United Pinanoe Corporation 
it acquired title to the extractor derived through the chattel 
■ortgage given by Goldbarg to 3alk. l^e difficulty vath this 
position is that when Goldberg executed the chattel mortgage to 
Salk, he had no legal right to do so in bo far as the extractor 

arl ^SYi"?) t^-^^ixicf nirfiliw #«*«i©#iix s-j:©^- lioi'ifw &ijb fffB& -^J^iifjt i££^fit« 

oo;J 3i noxd-a&gs&B &fi^ isd^ e*.3*a ©* ;rfl9J53J:lly8 el it « sat' ' aste^^^l^tf 

Hi fes'^olQjEas <»%2.^s^t &d^ ha^ '20^ cjs^itx^ eif:? iio 'itt^aiiJslq; s^fc 00©,^ 
Bfivr ^i-o«f5j:e?) ir^i xSs0 m&K nso &9tn:jajs60 ^Ictecosse^, ,#jS«8«-#JS0S sm^ 

^fiisro Bdi Son .5J5W 5/is e.t eX^tli? oa bsxC §:ssd"&XoQ tefse X«K«i**&ft>©:^o 

£j9scr sTaxI bXiJOD sfttsa trx *r STe^i^ni: 10 ^^3x1 pa feas t'SO^o^'S^x* Sj^ 'I© 

©.;? ■^.3"xeqoT<r ©ilJ? iti jrisi's Xsiosgs alxf ;tC[cox3 mid dQifOiAi b^-iSiMp^A 

tsoi-sg ©SBficrxTg Sif^ lo Xlij'i cl ;J-asiatsq Moqu lo'3'zeiii icaft?/© Oils' oawioQrf 

a*g"i©d^ioO gxii-iaa^/^©'^'^ hsibstit05%^ s,t iosibac'O sti -y;cf lli^nxsX^j as^lm 

b9^c^<^i^s xrgiv© *£si5« ^^?*«fMo-3 isil;^ ssiwoife exs el «t»xS - «5xiiei3r»r« 

'X-siiBQ as S«Ti9oa's: t^^s-^-s^ ofes^^**!]^ 3*^;^i3£a «fe±6 91! JsMi saEigEjeeje 
6Jf7 lo sjutc* -jii'xasa&o «i t?.i, 3^ bnss bsA "siQdoI^- ajuii sliii 

'SB'iBaB'&s bSJjQo ■^Xci«Q4fpoj3iJOo feiss &fixi Sil xteiftf aX*i* xs^tiafiT oe »T:JUrpa« 

• •recoxS'i^dQ: sKi*£9in:»^;sl acB o# 3X;Jii i^^ied on 

nMi di±^ xiStJolTtlb sal' »M&& Qi. stocfbXeO trf nerlg »s-sa*'ros£ 
-oaoxi:t;r^0 erfd aa 'x.«l o.-^ a± oc 00 0.- Ji«si-r X^^saX o« &i«f orf ,3fXs8 


waa concerned, not Ijeing the oraier thereof* But, eren though we 
asBume that the chattel mortg£>.c^ vfas T?,lld» still no titlo to the 
machine could hn,Te heen deriTsd throuj:ih Salk, the chattel mortgK.£9e, 
aince he nerer h;^d title himself, either hy the loreclOBure of the 
mortgage or hy talcing possession of the chattel under the 2iortg£.ae« 
,Heithcr did the Firgt Tinited Finance Corporation, cfter ita purchase 
of the chattel mortgage from Salic, forecloae aame or take posseasion 
of or title to ths machine under auch mortgage* The purchase of the 
xuortgage from Salk Tor- the First TInitad JTinance Corporation and its cf record resulted in its extinguishment, and no title could 
possihly have been vested in the intear?*ening petitioner "by reason 
of the purchase of said mortage. 

The rvile of p aveat emptor applies to judicial sales and a 
sale hy a trustee in "banjaruptcy pasoes only such title as the trustee 
possesses. The trustee pos&eesed only such title as the "bankiupt 
had. ( Hardin v. .Osbo rne, 94 111. 57X5 Craaer v. v<ilson^ 202 111. 
83; In Re Gor»ood, 138 Ped. 844 ;> Corpus Juris Vol. 7, pp. 230, 242.) 
The trial court improperly excluded frraa •Mae evidence the certified 
copy of plaintiff's reclamation petition filed in the hankruptcy 
proceeding in the United States District court. The reclacntioa 
petition was competent evidence since it ws.s notice to all concerned 
of plalatiff «£i claim to ownership of the extractor. With siich notice- 
neither the intervening petitioner nor its vendor were innocent 

It is claimed that, "because of plaintiff's unreasona'ole 
delay in asserting its rights after Goldberg had defaulted in his 
final payment under the contract, it is estopped from now asserting 
them. Under the plain provision of sec. 23- of the Uniform >:ales act 
that "where goods arc sold by a person Tsho was not the ovmer there- 
of, and he does act sell them under the authority or with the caa- 

,^0S«3giiQia l5iiBSi(i sii* ^^sB 4sa"0ixf^ bQTitr»& iissc evjirf &Xivt5o ©jciEtofl® 
sasjEioxijei aii is^l^' tiJPxJss'soipoD ssa^xill bsJicU d'e'xit ales' &1& 'xoditioh 

B bii.6 asXsa Isisl&at d'? s9lX?g3 '^ais^!LJSJSM. "^^ f>Xfit siiT 
Sq,m:^Ji€ ^di «a sX»iJ iioxjs xX^iO &«aasaso^ QB^Hirti esit «t?9S3©aseq 

♦ I XI' SOS jJC0f.*£|. ♦?■ ISisS^ |XVS »XXI Ji^' ,|Sgy&g'sO *V gXtj^JSili) ♦&«:» 
^oJcxit'A&xwcf srlJ^isi 5»Xil m>li^itaq seicf/msXost a'l'ixifiXsXc: 'ic xqo9 

ia^oottxil 0'isw '£05n3Y e^i ■son "z&SLQiils&q, ^MiMSv%9imM[- atit "XSff^iSE 
^' ''■■••■•■■ V "■'■■■■ ' •■:■;.:' -.^^ -tl. '' >» a^ssarfo^ag 

sXcffinajj/iO'raxj u'^rixajaiisX^ Ic sawsoeQ' «^B££d ^siaij^X© al *! 
Biri^ 0i fta^Xifclg!!) bsrf STScfbX«0 tsita aiifsii sii scX**X98ajB cl ^BXd5 

io^. eaXcCi mioiinir &m la £S •oss 'So isoiaivottq niaX? sd? 'xsba.' .asa'^ 
-9T:9B[i n©K5fftx efflti- ioxi acw ©.-{w jaosxaq jb ^^ Jb^a oas sfcoos stedfr*' it^si: 


sent of the owner, the "buyer acouirRs no "better title to th«» goo^a 
than the t" Her har! unless the OTmer of the goods Is hv hln coad»jct 
precluded from denjinir the seller's authority to sell*" the ri^^t 
of the InterveniniT petitioner, who was not a purchaser frnm th« con- 
ditional vende", to invoke the doctrine of ast05)pel is open to serious 
question. In r'.iiy eyent thore is not a scintilla of evideiioe in the 
record that plaintiff sade nny representation or was guilty of any 
conduct th.-'.t might pcr.sibly laii the intervening petitloiier to "belieTe 
thL.t the extraator was paid for and tha,t the title to nj^me w?Pi in 
Goldberg. In American Ty pe Poun dsrs Oo> v. Me t ro j) ol i tag_ Credi t & _ _ 
pisGOuat Corp.y 271 111* App» 330, -.vhere it was urged as it is urged 
here that the original vendor, haviag failed to assert its right 
"based upon its coiiditi<Maal ssIgs oontraat within a rea3ona"bl5 time 
after the exp.i ration o£ the time for final payment thereunder, it 
will be barred £xaa. asserting such rights, the court said at pp. 
385, 393, 394 and 595* 

"The main points here urged by counsel fcr the Sredit Company, 
as groimd'^ for the reversal of the judgment appealed froia are» * ^ * 
(2} that 'the law vdll not permit o'^noitlonal stiles c<sitract holders, 
who do not reposseBs the property within a reasonable time after de- 
faitLt in the paytrients, to arsert their sec'^et liene p.^inst innocent 
third persons*** * * 

"As bearing upon the ccmtentions oi counsel for the Credit 
company in the present case, the decision and holdings of the United 
otates Court ot Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in the case of 
iJLJ!^_^*f^iQ:®.?'s laTorpved I5re_v-/ork£ (^K®X.» Receiver v« Troy Laxmdry __ 
Mach inery Go»T > 44 i". C2d} 557, may be referred to* It wae' there 
decided in substance that the conditional seller's failure to re- 
possess chattels for over ei^t months after the laet payment becaaae 
cue did not create an estoppel, \mder the Illinois Uniform Gales Act, 
in favor of the receiver in bankruptcy of the estate of the condi- 
tional buyer. * * * 

"There is no statute of limitation, touching the time during 

which the possession and right 01 property laay bo retained by the 
seller, nor is there any limitation as to the time v/ithin which the 
seller laust retake the pi'opGrty in case of default. There is nothing 
in the statute to indicate that the seller, under such a contract, 
is subject to s.iXj' lijaitaoxon other than the general otatuie of 
limitations applicable to written contracts. Ve see no reason, if 
the purcl'iase pilaw is ap.-c i'uiiy paid, .vlv the seller isu-y iiot, at 
aay time within the period of limitations vinless he is estopped," 

ioi?&s(.'0 fjM ttT si »feos3 9f£5 lo ifsii5?o djC;? aaaXm.^ J?igif TdlX^a ail* t)t.sif^ 
-«eo gff^ ^'tl i^erMoru^ ,3 *O0 aaw or!*^ i.^eaol-^id-«q; •^ulsmr's^itl sd^ lo 

XStn to ■vjrliXQs Saw "xo smli-^inS'V.^i^si x^^ sbaer VtXtRlsIq istiii bwaosv: 

033 ^y si: ^1 s;j3 Ssb"^*^ ^■s^^ *■£ enari-v ^085 ♦qqii «rXII ITS ^ ^t . tfsoC; ims<ipBl§ 
ii^l'z e.Si. ^x&^fx& ocf "©Xxsl -^^isivaiT. <!robjaaT Xslrill'S^&^ srfif jTsiJ^ ^idiC 

...... ■■ .•■.:.• 43©S &as. *#£..,€«£« 38c 

* * -s- tsxs iSEJi'i fj&Xseqqfs ?K9ffls,bi/^ sri^ 1© Xiia-ssTSiC 9ii* loi afemjo'ig s Jo.s'td'ftoo aeXisa X^^aol^io^scs i ktmi^q^ .toa Xii's? 'a'sI @d^^ j.eii;? (S) 
-si) iQifla ami aXd"siSO assrx ss sitdilyf ■^^^©qo'sq adJ easaaocje'i ion o& o£fw 

9'XOi£j"iiii?/.-- J-X •g';^' .be'r-ie^a's: srf X'IE^ «?5d CoS) •'€ ^i «T«, oO Y ti»'nMo&M 

9fi^,y3cf ineiav;jSH JaaX srij" Ta^la aifiiica d^c£ii.i;c» %&rt> xoi slsii/zsiQ aaoaaoq. 
t^oA asXsS eno'iinlf sxoiiiXXI axi;? as&ru/ tX^ciqc^sy xii? fJissTO ^tp-C 515 9SJb 

, . . ■Jt * * ♦•EQvirtT Xsrtoict 

e/i* lioirlw j3iiJ>ri:w eati &tii oi a& sm Is ^i Jjszll x^^ ^■t?>sii si ^oa t leXXse 
iStxiiioa si oiori? •SXwsTisE) lo «aso fli x^*'-^<Jf>--J ^'^-^ s:^jB;t9T iairij tcXXsb 

lo siw^sia Xaiyiisa ajiiJ fiBrW 'xofiio nciiBileilL Tjas o;} i'C!;:!t'^j7S ai 

Ix ,jao«>x on 899 Sv. taSofitinoo asiil'vsr oi 9XtfaoiXc[G[s a«oid'c;txaTxX 

in SOB iiCU x^^ xalLoa mii \d[v/ t'ji^^g; X-^it/l ;fou al soiiq ssarfoiw^ sxlJ 

*.b9qqoia8 ai sxi esaXxaj Bnol^x^^laiX lo boJt^sq sif* alxfitlw osil^ ^as 

Other pointG are urged but in the viev. wa take ol tliia 
cause we deem it imnecessary to discuss them* 

For the reasons stated herein the Judgment ot tlie mimiclpal 
court is reyersed and judgment is entered here i'inding the ritjht 
of property in plaintill'. 

Friend and Scanlaa* JJ.t concur* 

I^<jj. oifiiM srl;? "to ^iiSfijgfojiJt 9^» cis'xsrf bsd'iv^a asosas i ©ri^ lo'C 


IHijUHMCiii COMPASTYt a corporation^ 

Appellee » 



Defendants "below. 

a corporatlonp 




This appeal seeks to rererse a decree in a foreclosure 
proceeding which foimd that the lien of a first mortgage trust 
deed» executed "by the owners of the premises involved to secure 
their indebtedness to plaintiff p Lincoln national Life Insurance 
Company, was as to two bake ovens in the Tauilding o& said premises 
superior to the title reserved "by the defendant, Petersen Oven 
Company, in its conditional sales contract with the aforesaid 
ovmers, under which contract such ovens were purchased and installed» 

The "bill for foreclosure alleged inter alia that the right* 
title, interest or lien, which defendant had or claimed to have in 
or to the ovfins in said mortgaged premises, was subject, inferior 
and suhordlnate to the lien of plaintiff*© mortgage* 

The material allegations of defendant's answer are that it 
retained title to, and was the owner of, two Petersen ovens installed 
"by it in the "building on the mortgaged premises "by virtue of the 
provisions of a conditional sales contract entered into June 10, 1927, 

mirmjjQ iS£0:T§; ji^sn^ 




( « *n.Bll©q:qA 

;}!3U%^ ^'BPfB^'i'Oia tailt b I'O xj©j:X Q^J"* id'BfiJ' bnwol .ffoMf/ s«i&®©ooiqr 
e'i:i;Ds>'3 Oc bovXcvfix a&a.<£i?aci ©da' "io a'is^nwo sil^ ^<f &si0o9xa tb30& 

blnaKi%o'im nd^ ditw io&xitioo a^Xsa X<Bisoi;ti&£joo sit ni < t^ixsqisxo 

&»XXja*8ni ansTO ttfiBi^Sel ov/;) lelo teixivo sri* aew 5iXi3 »o;J sX3 i;t bs/xijststt 
tT'^eX <0X 5nwX ocfni bsi^^na *oei^«oo a©X«;a X^coi^ibnoo f; 'io aitoiaivotq 


tetween it and Florian Vodniclc and Joseph Uhan» ovvners of the 
property, and their copartner* Mack Saoio, part of the purchase 
price of such orena remaining xmpaidi that it was expressly provided 
in said contract that the ovens should remain the property of the 
defendant* Petersen Oveu Company, until all the payments specified 
were made in full and that "the a\;taching of the ovens to the pur- 
chaser's tuilding or realty should not te conaidered aa a waiver of 

to the oven 
title/to the Petersen Oven Company until the purohaae price has 

"been fully paidj" that "defaidt having been made "by th<» purchasera 
under said agi-eement ahove set forth, this defendant became and iB 
entitled to remove the said ovena and retain all sims heretofore 
paid upon the price as liquidated daHia,ges for the breach 
of said agreei»2at and as rental for the use of said ovens; that ■tfae 
title of this defendant in and to said ovens, heating pipes? "brick- 
%'ork and fittings, is not subject to the lien of the trust deed sou{^t 
to be foreclosed by the complainant in this cause, but on the contrary 
is prior and superior to the right, title, interest and lien of said 
complainant and all parties whatsoever in and to said ovene and equip- 
ment? * * * that heretofore in a certain foreclosure cause pending in 
this court, entitled G. Verba v. Florian Vodnick et al., General So, 
582419, which is still pending and vvherein the complainant therein 
seeks to subject the premises described in the bill of ccaaplaint here- 
in to the lien of an alleged trust deed held by said complaixianti* John 
Vo^teck, the receiver duly ^pointed and acting in said cause, mis 
ordered and directed by an order dialy entered of record to pay to ttiis 
defendant the sum of '^.venty-f ive Dollars (|25) per month until further 
order of the court, as rental for the use of said ovens, and the said 
properties of this defendant now remain in and upon the s&id prgaisas 
herein sought to be foreclosed by virtue of said order in the pay- 
meat of sal d rental •■ 

-'Xvg '^li^ o:/ ansTO oriJ- lo ■:Q£iMT}fi2i:@ os&**» #Bf{v* hits iXol fii a&«ar 9i»V7 

aevo Sri* 0* 

ex^ ^.nrli immro bhe-n lo dkjj sti:f t&t Xminet as fccsi ^ueatseiga & lo 
-jIoxtscT ijasqiq s«i:;!'.ssfi ^ejifvyo foisa od" &«b stl cfosbnetsfe eM;^ I0" sX^lJ 

#ji*}jL;oi3 5e©& (J-au^d ssii;? lo nail s>iii oi jfost^ua ioxi si «as£ci3'd'il biws aCiOv? 

t;'"t.«'xJrioo MS no ^ud x^tasHO Bhii fix iOBtiiMlqwioo Qdi x^ bSBoIosTcol »<f o;!' 

-qxxfp9 bsxB 3n©vo feii^j oiJ- &fjs tii isTscad'sifw sax^tsq XXa 5£ca ixmalalqtmo 
i^l '^as.baeq, omj^o acsyaoXoo'xoi i-iijsiii&o a ai ©telo^^staxf ds^* * * *- litiesa 

cioieilct ;Jn.sxd3Xc£aioo sri* xiloxeifvii tmja anlbneg; XXi*a ai rioiifw ,SX^S8a 

iidot <d•iie^J:«XqJE^oo bij-js \d bX&d bQob *auit bSQalX^ no lo Jiaii «jGE:;f 0^ Hi 

ii.m i&auiio b is-ja at ^nlioa bus l)©;raJtoq^ xSiib i©Ti9»«x »1^ t3f09*to'V 

e?i:i* oi ijsq o;J b'loost lo b9tBia& x^b xfsibto xts T^tf boiostkb tea fc©ti9i>TO 

iiif'xwl Xicfcxf diaoB 'xoq (as^J citrjsXXovI .ovil-^^^mwT ^0 Wa Wf»'#a:«bxistiab 

bixsB ari:? biu?; »an©TO &J:b8 lo aciAr s/fd toI X«;Jc©^ &a ^S'liiOd 9j^ l© WjS«» 

89Bi-a«9'rq bi^^t; srf;f no(iis bos al jaxisatss won inp'onv^'i&b aik* i© aeiif^i^-xq 

*'«X£;faa« b ise lo Jneia 


The undisputed facts Bhow that June 10, 1927, the Petersen 
Oven Company entered Into a written contract with the owners of the 
property, Florlan Vodniok and Joseph Uhan, and their copartner? Mack 
Saoioy **whereby it agreed to build and Install In said premises tv^o 
Petersen ide Mouth Door Patent Ovens, 12* x 13' inside measurements 
and 30' x 16«6" outaide measurements for the sian of Seven Thousand 
Hine Hundred Dollars ($7,900) » said price also including all iron 
material, heating pipes and brickwork and all necessary fittings, 
hut not including foundation to the floor level of the "bakery, cMm- 
n^j or coiineotlons with existing chimney, steam connections, connec 
tion for oven light, htiilding permit or water taxi that the terms for 
payment of said ovens v^ere j^ine Himdred Dollars (|900) upon execution 
of the agreementp Fifteen Hundred Dollars (01500) on receipt of iron 
material, Fifteen Hundred Dollars (#1500) during the course of con- 
struction of the oven, the "balance of Four Thousand Dollars (.f4000) 
on or "before fifteen (15) months hy prcwiissory note "bearing interest 
at 6% per annum after completion of ovens j" and thet said contract 
ccKitained the following additional conditions: 

*'l. It is expressly understood and agreed that the ahove 
meutioned oven shall resiain the property of The Petersen Oven 
Company until all of the payments ahove specified are made in 
full; tluj,t all payments prior to the final payment shall stand 
and "be considered as rental for the use of the oven until the 
purchase price ic paid in full; and that payments on account of 
any note or notes less than the full payment shall not divest or 
impair the title of The Petersen Oven Gcmpany* 

*2» In case either of said notes and the interest accrued 
thereoii is not paid ishen due, and if such default in payment oon- 
tinuap for a period of ten days. The Peter seu CTsn Go3npany may at 
its option declare the balance of the purchase price ijomediately 
due wsofi payable, and may at its option retake poasesEion of s&id 
ovesi, and retain all sums theretofore paid upon the purchase price 
as Ixquidated df^iaagea for the "breach of this contract, and as rental 
for the use of the oven. The option which is herein granted to said oven upon cefnult ia etuaulr-tive and not exclusive of 
any ot^Tier remedies at law or in equity* 

*Z* In case The Petersen Oven Company shovild exercise its 
option to remove snid oven? it shrll have the right to enter upon 
the premises and take possession of and remove the oven^ and shall 
not "be liable for trespass in so doinr, nor shell it "be liable for 
any dams^ges occasioned by the removing of the oven froa the premises 

.ni^otsiB'^l &dA tVSiSX ^01 sxsxr'C isdi woxfe a^f-osl: fcs^wqaibixif sriT 

ri&sM iT.miiT&qoo '^Istdi 5rts ttrndB riijeaoi; bas aIoljal)oV imlrel'^ «X*'5t9qo'xq 

iHtsawoif? jMsvsC lo JUi/a stC:^ 'xol a^xieuaBiu'Sa^sK ©bia^uo «*d'&l x 'Ofi fojocs 
«o'i.l lis SKli)ifli>ii.t Ciila'? QOi'xq bias «(009<.V|;) a^^XIoa .toa^bmrH »«iB. 

nolSfJtoxj} noqis (006^) a^teXXoG ba^&ixtfH »nill strsw ansTO 51^8 I:© ia»§x^<i 

no's!: '?:o ^crisoo'x no (003X1;) ai/sXIod fesxfeiiWH nsdi^ll'S: iiixBm&erge ajBt* It© 

-Hoo lo sa-iiyoo ^n^ ■gai'rub (OOSXt) s^aXXdS be^xbitajH aedSlx^ ulalx&ij^ 

(or^O^I) si^XXo'l &ni50t/oa!r •sjjo'^ lo socbXbc}' oil* ^asvo arf-t lo nolimntB 

:ajsoi;?i&noo X.aG0x;fi&&3 s^iiwoXXol sd* fc9«is*i»o 

Hi 9oj3i?j O'ta bsiliosqa eTOtf/i aiJissfx^q ©rl;;^ "lO XX^ Xidriw TCixsqmoO 
.imiaiii XXx-ATle di-iSia^jsQ Xiicil ^jrlcf oi 'i;ol:cq >'i;JaycfY;3Ci XXb ;^l3I£;t kLlist 

&tl^ £iiim nsvo ^jtC* to saw sntf lol X£!;^aei aa bsicebiarieo scf &xis 
"io JKiJOoofi Jtc» ai-r'.S£ni/iq tj'axlw fcriis iXXj^t ax bxsq ok eoi'iq. aa^dcsi/qf 

-rseo *iiafiiY,sq ax ilfj^'iati xfojja li bos iBuh asriw bi.'scj *cxi ai flos'xexl^ 

XXs^'^xbeaiHii aoiiq G'dBsioiuq sdi to 9oaaX«cf art;? oisXosfa noiiq;© aix 

aoiiq oasdio'ijjq sfl^ «!oq;i; &±;sq -^lolo ie>i&d^ aaatta XXs «l«^ot bns ^arsvo 

oi* ij©*n«8ig ai-^roti ai xfoM?)- nol:fqo acCT .asvo sdi lo saw ©rf;^ 'xot ; 
lo 9TiaijXo:c0 cfoji jbixe ©TxjaXwmuo yl .tXu/nlod noctr xt^vo bxr-^ ftMvjJa^ 

•K:*JLfa-p© ax 10 wsX Jjs aalbefatsrt -zQicC^o ■^ta» 

XXjKiCc &rjKi <ta?iYCi nHi ©vokst brr^ to xioieaoeaoq S'sisit ban aBsimi^rqi MIS' 
Tol oXrr,e.vX ocf *i XX^xfa tea ,^nJ:ob 03 tts. ari^rraaii to't sXcT^lI otf dort 


The attacliing of the oren to the purchaser's tiiillding or realty 
shall not Tae considered av. a waiver of title zo the oven hy The 
Petersen Oven Company imtil the purchase price haa "been fully 
paid. On final pasrment the title 2hall vest in the purchaser- 

'•4» The purchaser shall keep the oven insured against 
loss by fire to the extent of the xmpaid halnnce thereon, for the 
use and henofit of the vendor, until the purchase price has heen 
fully paid." 

It is further undisputed that the Petersen Oven Company fumiahed 
all the necessary materials and performed the necessary labor, 
completing the installation of the ovens hy Octoher 25, 1927; that 
it received on account of the purchase price hefore and during the 
construction oi the ovens |5»900j that it thereafter received ^?1,000 
on account on the principal amount of the note taken hy it represent- 
ing the balance due on the contract; that prior to the filing of 
plaintiff's bill of complaint herein 1 oreclosure proceedings had "been 
commenced against the premises involved hy a junior mortgageeand a 
receiver was appointed, who was ordered hy the court to pay the Peter- 
sen Oven Company ^2B a month as and for rental of the ovens? th^^t an 
order was entered extending said receivership to the instant proceed- 
ing; that, including principal and interest, there was due and owing 
to tlio Petersen Oven Company |4, 093.69 when it filed its answer h«r»in; 
and that the last payment received on account of principal, with the 
exciiption oJT the payments made hy the receiver as rent for the ovens, 
Was on .-.ugxist 28, 1931. 

The findings of further undisputed facts appear in 
the decree t 

"That the basement end iirst floor oi the pxemiues herein 
involved were originally constinicted for the sole and exoluMive 
purpose of ui,e for a hakexy shop and a portion of said premises 
were conutructed for use as living qu&rters; that at the time of 
their construction, the ovens hereinabove deecrihed were thereupon 
installed upon foundations of re-enforeed concrete hrou^jht up from 
the solid ^roxxn-: vip-.. rcl throu&h the baseaient of said premi3ei5 to the 
let el of the bsikeshop. That said foundations and a chimuey used in 
cciineetion with said ovens i/era not erected by the dc-f eaclant, the 
eaid Petersen Oven Company. That these foundations and the chimney 
in que'.^-tion were arcjted la iojord&nce 75ith specifications fui'uished 
by said defendant, and in accordance mth requirements made by it| 
that ;3ai'5 foundations arc thirty feet loutj, and sixteen and one-half 
feet Tside, and are imbedded in the ground about two feet deeper 

- ^:83arrotM<i acf* fil Jb^v Il^rla ^Id-Jt? a'l^ ;fl-i9f!T^^g Xj8«x1 nO .6is(T 
Sitii •cot ^xito©-!®/!^ soix&'IacT E?x,egni/ ^di 1© ;ti.isi!'x» Sii^ oj- arjit Tjtf ssof 

*^rfJ' ;V2CX ,aG tsdoJoO ^cf anSTo arf* lo aojt:^sXXi3;J'a£ix srI* sills' sXgia«Br 

~;\cis-BQtq,h^. a xd fi©;i3.i' Q^on &£ii "io ;?furo0ji Xfiqloisitq &d4 ao taascof^si no 

"io aaJlXxl &xii cit 'soirq Ssdi |^gjsx#xioo ®tii aro ojub ©OijsXjBief siSi sal 

*io©d" £w«{ agjsi&soooiQ; ©siraoXos'io i jtsJ9'x©jd iai&lqisico lo IXM n*1t'tlttil&£q, 

j9 fiiL'Jsa^jig^ioia Toxm;|, s -y;^ osvXoraJ: 8©ai»oa^ edi dtaitia^js fcaaafaniaoo 

KB *sx£* laxisvo sif* le Xdd'nei toI: ttxa; as d^aoa b 9S# \;asq;£ioO xi©irQf i«Mr 

Snlrwo ^113 Sifb asw strsrl^t ^iatis^Gt has laqf,oat%q ^oibMloak »*«^# Igai 

■■ ■ ■ . " ' 1 0£'.:f^ ^ '-^r'i 

•T-t'JitfXaxa i:)iifl 3Xoa s-cf* lot bs^oxrcctaiseo YXXanigi^o a^av/ bssvlevni 

'to tn&i^ Qi'J d-« isisi^f ;a'x«l's.'3«p '^nlriX a,6 saw rto'i ii5;^oiJxtftmot> Ofov/ 

aarl qw ^fit^wo^tef si^sitinpt) &so'j;olno«s-x J.e snoiiobtmoi fioqu £iyXXx.tfi£ii 

axW Qi i-aeiifisiq &ij'i6 lo ^JxsoatOKxcf 3xi,J ifiji/c^iiJ b'X-jf-tX:J ^i2Irc"l:^j biloa arid" 

ci baan \;oij«lxi:o s hxiB Bnolis:btsssot bisii iJj»rfT ♦qoriaQaUcT srJi 1© XesreX 

sxW t;Jxij5£jx.3'ii*u Biii \;<r oed'os'so ion i-'aow ecsvo bx,'?a xlJiv? ne .L^ eo hao .o 

fi'&siQlii-us'ii &[\Qiis3ol'Xlo'^uji xfJ-iw BQti:?.bio-joi:. xJ. boJt.'^>:r.o oiyv; noxcraeii-- !.■ 

}*1 Y^f s^fifli Bd'naxttsaix'ijert if^xvf 9or:.(;btooxiR xti. baa ^tashns'tab hX <. 
"iXjgiXi-ono bsia xi©©*xiB bxu^ tjjirol iae-l ^i^a:ixij' o^ts anci.trvbxxuol t'i^e :.„.-. 
taqioitb *&oT: ow;t ^wocfa bxtt/oi^ wii at b&hboiSmi Qi-a baa toJbi'.T iao 


than said "baeement. That these foundations are Tauilt independently 
of the rouad3tion upon which the entire iDuilcUng^ rests, and there is 
a clearaiaoe in this particular case of several inchee hetv/een the 
ovens and the building wall. That the ioundaticne of this particular 
type v/ould not he neoeesary in a building fco he used z'or purposes 
other than "baking; that the approjcimate cost of said ioundation at 
the time of its insstallation waB approximately S8OO5 

••That the ovens in >iue3tion are installed so ac to rest upon 
the fomadatiouu hexeina-hove desorihedi thao each or^n weighs approxi- 
mately 100 tons, and each one conaii^ts of approximately 27,C€0 T»rickB> 
which are solidly cemented \,o fcach other. That in addition thereto* 
each of these ovens has metal parte » such aa grates, d^:>m,pers, flues* 
flue boxes, and doors. That in laying the hrick for said evens, con- 
struction work is comiBenced hy laying Qown dry brick wi Uioat i;he use 
of mortar so as io allow room to compensate for sliding or sxp-jision 
of the hrick due to the intense heat which emanates from the ovens. 
That this dry conBtruotion is used for about two feat frcra the bottom 
of the oven. That thereafter, the brick work is hald together with 
mortar apparently as in the case oi' ordinary lDuildin.g c(3istruGtionj 

"That in ordf>T to remove ovens, it v/ould "be necessary 
TJith pick-ax or other mechanical instruments to romove the aiortar 
and brick hereinabove described, and piece by piece to remove each 
individual brick down to the f otindation hereinabove deacribedj thtffi 
it would not be neceesary to totich or modify r-ald fovm!da.tlon in order 
to remove said ovens j further it wo\ild be necessary to diom^Jatle the 
metal parts of said oven in order to remove same frcE said premises j 
that if the ovens in question were removed* it v/ould be posjlble to 
substitute other ovens in lieu thereof! and, thereupon, to operate 
said premises as a beJceryj that it would be imporf ible to operate 
said premises as a "bakery without the Installation of ovens similar 
to the ones hereinabove described ; 

"That the coik tmiction and installation of said ovens was 
entirely completed aii the time of the execution ox the mortgage here- 
inabove described, and the notes thereby secured j 

"That at iha uime ox «.he execution thereof* the defendants 
Florian Vodnick and Frances Vodnik, his wife* were indebted on a 
mortgt-iif; upon ihe prcmsfas herein involved lield by one i'racxk J* Petru. 
That after a misunderstanding with him, the loan herein involved was 
negotiates \v/ jxnd t}xiOUGh the ^^orthex-n States Life Insurance Company; 
that prior to the consuramation of said loan s-nd the e xecuticm of the 
documcntB securin^, the same, representatives of said iJorthern States 
Life Insurance Company inspected the premises herein involved and 
observeri the condition tliereof with reference to the installation of 
said ovens, -which had at that time been ooBfipletsdj th;^. t erici Northern 
States Life Insurance Cosipariy had no knoArledga, actual or othei'vvise 
of the alleged ri^ts of the defendant Peterpen Oven Comp&ry, in and 
to the oven? hereinabove described; ■«■ * *.* 

These findings were also made by the ch^jac-llor, bc.aed on 

tSie HP star's r e por t : 

"16. That all of the aforesaid indebte.iness, amounting to 
l'50,913.98, is due and impald * ♦ * and that the complainant ^- ^ * 
has a firf't, ralid ^abt,i Uing lien upon n id preiaisoa for thd 
total amoiint so due ejid owing it as aforesaid, and that the ri^ta 
and iuterestJ ox all ouhar pa^tiea to &his ccuse in aiid to said 

ex o'xedi brts ^aiBer ■^itsJ.^jlkud atti^rts sdi xfoMr nocix; xxolctE^xajto'i «£* ir 

noqii ^aort oj as on boLlaiaal s'ib aoiJB&Ui' al arxdvo i^di isasHi:*' 
-ixouiqqa aff^^xoMr n&vo ifo^o i<;iiii iijscfiioiiao ovocfviii'-^-CttxI cjaoi;t-aS/«/o 
^■u:ilox.%d QdO^Vii \X5;J.iflil::0'xq.qi5 'lo a^aiaixoo oao xiojsa bfis <aiioi OCX xl , 
^oiJii';^ itoiJiliifi iii *iiilT .-s^iiio 4q.u3 Oi b»ifii>sjeo \X6xXo3 st« dels: 
tasi/Xi ^Q'laqiftBb »2s)*v..'£B ^^ iiojL"j <ii4"xaq Xs*3h acxf exiavo sssxfj 'to ilc/. 
-.-■soo (BiS-E-vg i-iija *xox :^ox'Scf sxid s^iijiiiX ni isxfT .aioob bus ^asxorf swX-: 
saw 0x£;; cJjuoiiJiw ^oiiii y^'ib mfob srxxjbX ^tf beonsLuTioo ai 3lrrovf noi^towii^a 
xioieiiQaxs 10 aaxfexXa 'xot &ijaac!CXfliGo o;t mot woIXjs oJ aa oa •zx'i-tom I0 
♦ artavo axf^ fflo'xl eisSBtv^ms doid^ iaad saa^iicil 9di 0^ sub afolirf sxfcf lo 
iBJO^iod srfJ crxl: JfiS'i owo' iucuSn iro'i bsaxi ei nc.viowror.non "^rfe exxlv ^.cufT 
ri^xw i3x€J9soJ bli-d ai i'xoi? jfcxtcf erf;* «i9*lj?.9'xsri;} i&s^ •nave srf^ "io 
jnoioCMi^a£R)p ■^tilbllud y;,i3m.bto 'to aaso ax£* nl ea xX^naiaqqLs ib;^tc 

•Xii#'xoiis odi ovoatT oi a#neiaHtr;?sxxJt Xcolniuloeja isdio to j:s-3fol(i ifJi: 

isriu sbscfl'ioagb oYOdioii'iod coi^sbxiuex -£f.t o;f rwrob 2£oi *j:cf Xi:ijCiiTx5x. 

•j;3f)'2.o nxncJ: **--[) HiJOx btse -^xxtiOi-u 10 xCn/c;^ pet X;ijBaaP09Xi fid" oOft 'iXxiOff *i 

3di eX;tjn,?.iBGi:l) 03^ \;i''5<?.a»oorf ed blisov.' il taditul janevo 51 ?',£» 9vo«3ic 0^ 

jEjsnlHftiq bi:«s aei'l ©auje svoisbi o^ ssb^o ni novo bisis to aitsq. X^sefafii 

0;,' aXcfieacq JKf &X.vo " ^1 ,barcia9i etov: nol^asxrp nx accTO erlJ li 3s:di 

Bt&ioqo oi ^aoqij&zodi %btm I'ioaioilj t/sJtX xti snsro -xs^^o y^w^iiadire 

3^xi'xciqo od- 9Xax330'4ffli sef MuavT ;fi d'sHcJ t'^adaLsrf s ss aaaiaa-xq 5i,Ga 

vc^Xiiaia an&vo lo ;soio-aXX«^axii odd ;^x;eaJ^iw x"^^^^ ^ s-s asBJtxrrs'rq; bijBa 

\b9tilx9SBb orocf.saisiarf aexio oK.^ '> 

Bfm ac'3T0 biQfs lo iiox^sXIsJefli one ixel^ oin;t arioo sil* *«xff" 
-9i©il ssnSJ^^<^» axi,? lo aoxvuotx© oxU 'to aciia eilJ J« fjsJdXqaico ^Xoxirf-as 
tb;?>^uo9a Tccfarsifi a&ion 3i£i bas ^h&^ii&cjb i3V0(fsfti 

edaaibri>'t&b sji;^ t'io^^2di u9tiaoQx» ^ds io «fiil«' Bd<i ss t&d^*^ 
i2 £10 ifc'^rfo;:^^:^ »Z9'.,' tsli.v sift tjCixi&O'/' oooxia-c? fjiis i'oixiboV xtr. ■ 

..rxc^a'i mX Jixtati sioe ^rcf oXaxf b&vLorul ki^^z^d ciaalH .'iq oxiu noqx; !9b-L 

a^sv/ i,©vXov;ii xil^::©d xlsoX ori:! ,tsxi{ gxtJUjntiJBiebnxfnxat b zoUs: iad^ 

S^fcOsqinoC. doXLyixrertl ©"iivl a3j.y^o ri'xsxIi^t.Oii JzLt rf:bi/c-^'v bu^: ^il hits !'.':C(yQSti 

9£fr lo ixoii^jxosxs sxfi' bos ai'oX bioo "io nciJ^iuacajsnoo 8jtl;f o;t toiTq i^i 

aeisiV, irxei{?%o"i4 biijt 'to a&viiii.itiyQsiq,iti « twtss ?^xJ* sclti/OAB n^tnsm.oob 

btio b&TXovci niei^erf Bselieeiq axt* bsiooqeal XJuaqBioO eoxLaauenl slXJ 

'io aoiisLl.-^i'dal Qdi ov oomoxatat xlji./ "io-j-x^ixf;? liOxJiircr '^;f ^^'rr.-E<ro 

n-<:ftri«^*:oU ol.j.a i c^di ibzi^lqpno r.Becf sbix^ ^tbxI^ i£i b^d doidw taiisYO bioa 

»aJr.v»iexi*o xo X^asitm xO^^b^lviQiiX ca ni-ii \;a,5:-.qi,tuc> oextniiic::! 3^2J: spopJ.': 

fK) fa»fcstf « -coXXaofljsBto «xW trf «fc*m ««Xjb »«©w s^oM^'i »«orfy 

• tS9qf«7 8'»*a.-^f-f 3x£:f 

o* £Rx;'cj!K)XK« t a«9rsb?>ttf jbnl biijeat^'ijs »if* ^t lla terfT .9X" 
* * ■>■ isiBtilsilqtaDO »di indi baa ♦ * « bJLeqjEUf fette sirfc al «8e»£X < 
©rij rto'i aoaitttc^Q^ hL^e aoc^u italX iiXdifxarfufc l^tx-.o feiXf-r ^^^''xl.'x ,. ..„, 
b^x^Xt tMl;< tsdt btm t&X'^aexols aA ;^1: 9aXv» btta 9itb oa j^a/xoi&a iai^S 
bJboe o;i bxxu ax ssjE^'to aJji;t o4 aai^^A^ xdjtio XXo *}" :* ' ' ' '* 


premisea are sulsjeot and inferior to said complaiuant' s lien upon 
its said mortgage, and that The Lincoln ifational Life Insur- 
ance Company is entitled to a forecloBure of said mortgage and to 
hare said premises sold under the directions of this Court fox 
the purpose of satisfying said lienf 

*32. That the ovens in question hereinaliove descriljed 
cannot possibly "be removed from the premises herein involved i> 
without material injury to said premises and without practically 
the complete destruction of said ovens* 

*33« That it was the intention of the parties to the 
conditional sales contract hereinabove described at the time of 
the execution thereof* that the ovens therein described should 
be and become permanent parts of the real estate herein involved; 

"34. That should the parties to said conditional sales 
contract have intended that seiid ovens be and remain ch.:ittelD> 
such intention will not, under the facts and circumstaiioes here 
in evidence be binding as against the complainmit , which is a 
subsequent bona fide mortgagee of the premises herein involved; 

*35» That the defendant Petersen Oven Coapanyi the con- 
ditional vendor* has failed to assert its right based upon said 
contract within a reasonable time after the expiration of the time 
for final payment thereunder; and that as against the complainant* 
vdaich ia the assignee of the bona fide mortgagee vshich extended 
credit upon the condition of said premises subsequent to the con- 
struction of said ovens, conditional vendor is estopped from 
asserting its ri^ts under said contract? 

"36. That the defendant Petersen Oven Ccaapany has inter- 
posed no valid defense to complainant's Bill of Oomplaint as amended 
and that said Petersen Oven Company is entitled to no claim or lien 
as against the complainant in the premises herein involved; ■<■ * »** 

The decree ordered a sale of the premises in the event the indebted- 
ness due plaintiff was not paid and "that the defendants in this 
cause, and all persons claiming vinder them, or aay of them, shall be 
forever barred frcm all equity of redemption and claim * - * in and 
to said premises and every part and parcel thereof, which shall hay© 
been sold as ai'oresaid and which shall not have been redeemed accord- 
ing to law." 

itefendant insists that the undisputed facts show that the 
ovens did not lose their character as personal property because (l) 
the parties to the annexation expressly declared that the chattels 
be sn6 remain personal property until paid for; (2) such intention 
is valid and enforceable? (3) plaintiff is but a subsequent lien 

-.'■.'. :'-':'« ^ «» 

9i©i£ BBOiuiinmisaii-o baB a^csi s/iS is&iau «;^C!ii XXXw fi0i*ijs*xii: ifowa 

diijsa aotii! ooQatf Msi^ a^i ^xsasijs o5 bsXiij^t e^^i ,iob£:?)Tr Xm^XJib 
»fltXi 9i£;f 1© fioXctssi^^® srfd- lo^la emts eXcfsnoarjaT J3 itiriwiw ioBtr.^aQO 

l*o.<s^^xico &xse la&jaur aiti^i's 8*1 sniij^saas 

be&aftfiia «j5 ^aiaXijiacO lo XXiS s •;tnjGXiieXqa95& cd- 3a/59l:9& AiXfiT cti b©&o<j 
usiX TO su-filo Oil oi &©Xiiixia ai "itzaqimO ri&vO noa-xa^to^i bl.^a d'sjf^ &ita 
•*»•<• * -^^ ibdTXoval £fi;j5T:0ri ssaiare'xq; &if5 iti JxfcscxaXqflioo siid ;^a«i3BJS as 

-&sMM&rt.x sxfiT fixers ©jf^ itl aefiiiaeiq siC;* lo &1&B « Jbaisftx©: 9»*t«fi>^ ftiiy 

acf XXa^s tfasii- I'O tcfs ^0 f:Smd^ ^■&btm ^iilml&lii Bimara^ lla bam teaifeso 

r.rijp fxi ->< v^ •"• fiiiflXo hx® noiSqfia&&0x 'i« xiisspa XXjs iaeal J&eTstjsrf a^Tortel 

or&d XX«rfi3 iio.Ltt?- ilroo-x^if* Xeoi.«^ ftlts i-xjng ■^t;?'r» fefiui aeeXosT^ l)J:«a Oit 

"•wsX o;J sni 
oxCiJ *sxi;f wQxIa a^nji^l b^tssqulbRV &£li S&:di alalani ..V««l>£i»1eG 

(X) 9axrx509<f ^^-xsqo'xg Xfiiioaiaq a« xstfo^rsjarfo zxorfi asoX *oa feib uaevo 
Bl»ii»do 9ti;i imiS bortaXooS tXa«i»Ttq?c9 fiDi;^ax9X£r^ srii o* aaisTitdq eii& 

rtoliastni ifcwa (s) uo'i bl&q llitas xir&qc'iq Xj^noanaq: «±.E«OTt ban &«r 


ola.iiaant, haTing no greater rights than its grantors j^ and in any 
event the terms of its mortgage are too narroi7 to Include the oreno 
under the lien thereof; (4) defendant is not estopped to claiH 
title to the ovens as against plaintiff » either Tjy its conduct or 
hy laches* and (5) the ovens can "be removed "srithoat material injury 
to the freehold; and contends that the trial court erred in finding 
that plaintiff has a first valid and subsisting lien on the ovens 
for the amovint found due it as mortgagee, superior to the rights 
and interest of the defendant and in ordering that said ovens "be 
included as part of the realty in the sale of the premises to a.itisfy 
the mortgage lien. 

Plaintiff*!? theory^ as stated in its "brief, is "that the 
nature and character of the two "baking ovens, the method of annexation 
and their purpose and adaptation to the{> constituted thesi a 
part of the realty impressed with the lien of the mortgage under 

\*aiile there is still diversity of opinion in other juris- 
dictions as to the proper tests and rules applicable tinder the modem 
law of fixtures, the law has been definitely declared and settled in 
this state on the questions presented for our determination on this 
appeal and contrary decisions of other states can have no hearing 
on this cQntroversy* 

It is impossilBle to reconcile the inconsistent and contra- 
dictory findings of the decree. After having found (l) that the 
parties to the contract under which the ovens were installed had 
expressly agreed that, irrespective of the attachment of the ovens 
to the building or realty, the ownership thereof should remain 
rested in defendant vendor until the purchase price had been paid 
in ftaijj and (2) that the ovens were not permanently affixed to tfae 
realty and could be dismantled without it being "necessary to toucfc 

^a&ro 9-rf^ ©ba-Xoux o^ wo^tefi o©;? arcs s^.csJ'Ioki e^i !fco Bisrcsi 9jc£* ;)'xiot9 

Xisslni. Isi'xocfeai ^jjorioxw hSTOfixe'x stf iieo aiisvo sxi^ (2) bm? «esi£o>Bl vcf 

BisJi&ni:!; «i: ba'xne i'xsjoo Xsi'i* ©if;? ;fsfi* sbn&taoo bim iblodoQ'iJ. 9dt oS 

ansvo oii^ ao usxX gjax^aiiacfoa bxis bxlsv ^ai:]:'!- b osxi Yilinl&lci ij&sii 

©cT saQYO bzssEi :^i.)iii p.aixeb-io al bna *ex>6£tel9b sxfit to taa-ro^'n.t fofis 

^ ISi3£ii b&is^^^licinoc iaseims^tq ©ri;J od' Koi;tje*Q:A^ft£; basi Qsoq-iiwq I'lsiiJ^ fens 

-filT.ul "f-edio tii. noinxqo "io "^id-laisTJcb Ilid'f! si s-xerf- aliffA" 
xrr3.f)oia sr'o TSfenu ©Xdr*30xXfyq.<5 ns-Cu-r baa ac^as* trstjo^g; sjtf* o* «fi afioi^oib 
ni bel;i-d'98 btm bdrsLoeh xl^'^ itif.teb neacf ssri vrsf. Biii tSOTH;tx.?:l io wr;I 
ahli «o noivrinJaas^sb ttifo to*c bsinsasiq snoi:;tB©j3'p eriiJ co 9;t.s^3 Bltii 
gjsiijKOcf on 9V.0i{ fi^o ae^B^G teji^o lo aeoxaxoob 'V^^.c'icdwoo biw. Issc?: 

-;5^*nco bns odetsienooas &tii all'oxioas^ o* sX^iBaoqcix aj: o'l 

eii;^ dijrfd' (l) bfa;ol" saiv&rf 5e;?1:A »a©'X09b sxfd' 10 asxix&nix Y*s:oooxb 

b^iS b^lSi&i^alii OTevr enovo 3Jcf;t jdoMw xabtm *Oi3'X;^coo axii oi 's©J:*iBq 

axisvo orij lo rfnoiffrforii^.T arid' 'io sv-cd-ooqasi^i <cf.ori^ badisjs \;X-ri89r£q2cs» 

alstBLQi bluoda tootodi qMaiaimo edi ^x^ls^'i "xo SinibltuQ sxU* o;t 

bijaq Ksatf b£ri ooiiq oc^ifoTXjq Qdi Ixtnu zobaor d'nsbrxslsb Hi. bsicsr 

©ffi' Oo bexi^lfs Yl*xi-oKsx5rx3q cfon qt9w anoYo off;f i^arid- (S) haa ijl-tox xix 

or modify said fcnjndation in order to remove said ovens," the 
chancellor concluded that it vrar. the Intention of the vsndor and 
veiideeB that the ovens "should "be and become permanent parts of 
the real estate* and that "the ovens in question herein above 
described cannot possibly be removed from the preiaiees herein 
involved without material injury to said preuBises." 

Early decisions in this country* as well as : England > were 
firm in holding that when personal property become a fixture by 
annexation to real estate by some permanent method» the personal 
property lost its identity as such and became part of the realty* 
( BanJc o f Republ ic v. Wells-Jackson Cor p», 358 111* S56, 364 •) 
This rule of a:ffixation v?as supplanted in more modern decisions 
which held that chattels, regardless of their a;anexrtion to the 
realty, remained personal property if the intent to have them sc 
remain could be gathered from the conduct or agresment of the 

'^^ Sword V. Low, 122 111. 487 > decided ia 1887, where an 

engine and boiler were the subject of controversy and the intention 

of the parties -wae recognized as the me.jor test in determining whether 

such engine and boiler retained their character as personal property^ 

the court said at pp. 496, 497 » 

*To determine the irremovable character of a fixture j three 
tests are, by the modem authorities^ applied, vizs *Pirst actual -^^^ii^ 
annexation to the realty, or something appurtenant thereto; second, 
application to the use or purpose to which that part of the realty 
with f;hich it is connected is appropriated? ajid third, the inten- 
tion of the parties making the annexation to make a permanent 
accession to the freehold.' Hen-man on Chattel Mortgages, 6; 
Bwell on Fixtures, 21 f 22; Tyler on Fixtures, 114 j v7ashburn on 
Real Prop. 16. * * * 

"There seems to be great unajiimity in the authorities? 

that things personal in their nature may retain their chiiracter of 
personalty by the express agreement of the parties, although 
attached to the realty in such as that, \7ithout cuch agree- 
ment, they would lose that chapaoter, provided they are so attached 
that ^hey may be removed v/it,hout mat^^rial injury to the article 
itself > or to the freehold. It is not held that parties may, by 
contract, make personal property real or personal at v/ill, bub ihat 
^"here an article personal in its nature is so attached to the realty 

fejja lotiXfsv 9i5* "io ncxtostrii arid' a^w is. isxli fcabxiXoxioo lollsoufixlo 
"•aseiat^itq bijss c^ X'^'^trt-'^i: XjbIis^sei d'^-oifiiw &$Tlofnl 

•^i'XsoT oiiv^ lo iisq, sfii^oatf bns xfowa as -^^lonsbi si i ;t3oJ[ y^'^9<S0^C[ 

OS sxJBPli sv.GiI Dd- ;iri?'3#£i.t arid' "xi: x^'~^'19'^Qi i'iifioaiaq bsrixjsias^ tTgd-JLsQi 
9x£j 'io sffficrass^s I'O d'OiT^noo erW bio7.1 botcerWsB scT blxjoo uLv^sasi 

ixs s^rsdv/ ,VS8.£: kx fcsiJio^B «?8:& a 1X3: SSX ^(Oil .v fe-iowS itl 
xiold-ns^Jni: edi hits YS^©voTJiioci lo j^o&t«^jj-o aiii 918W lafioc' bns sntefia 
. .^(texiw 3nixixxaxsd's& kJ; JasJ' ^oi,/.'© sdi is^ l)9six35^oo9T saw a»Jt;^^a<j[ siii" "Ss 
^vif'xeqoaq X/iiioa-xeq. as 'xad'o^x.^rfo -xxcrf* bsxiLo^si leXiod" f)n-3 onxaa'J liosja 

t&xiooaa jod-eiou^t ^iisris^^wqo;© gnxriifomoa to t'^d'Xv'ja'x sxicf oj noiisxeariB 

XiXi-^oT. etii 'io #t^.c[ ipjii dttitiw oi saoq-xx/q 'so eax; orf^ o;t nox;fBoiXq.qs 

-xictfix 9tli ttrJiiU biigi ibBiBltq_Qi(iq£i ai bGdoenaoo ax rfi xloxxf.? iJ;tiir 

iiitasensci a aii&ai 0'<j nclisxsintiB 9'sii 'giiMsasi seliisq esli Io noli 

td , as^jaaJtoM Xed^ifaxiO no OBSiaisH 'tdXoxI.^si'i oxl;^ o;t noxaasoojs 

KO fiiifcTxfajBV; j^XX « asTad'Xx'i xto xelxl \&2 «XS «s9XMJtxJ:U no XXev/S 

* ^ -:t »aX .qio^l XsaJI 

«a»i^x'ioiii^UB 9ii^ fix TC^lfiilaera; ^ss-cs stf o^ ajassas eisxir" 

rfgjjoxfctXs tasi;f'xs5 sxl^ lo rfnsmssrnss aasiqxs axiJ Tjef '^c^Xsnosieq 
-90*XSB xinjja dxroxSviv? t^jsifd ax; laansxt -'Iv;.;a ni -^clXfse'x sric od fisirlo^^JB 

9XOx;jT.i5 y£{i oi' Y'JfWtni: Jj:r:.aisai issod^l'tr bevoaei otf ■^^m yaa'; -rfiicf 

Xa' <Ysa a©x;t'XBq ^e^di bXsxI ;toit ax ;fl .bXcxieaix siirf' oJ io ^tXsa;}! 

issi^ .iUd tXX-br Jr. XjEnoa-SQti ao X^iSt Yo'xeqo-xq Xi3x;Dsisq o^jsm tdojc^dxioo 

Yd'XjB&t sxiu od' bsx£cBJd-j3 oa ei six/d-sxi aJ-x nx Xsnoa-xeq sXoicf'xs xts 9^»x£-if 


that it can "be removed without material injury to it or to the 
realty, the intention with whioh it is ^ tached will govern; 
and if there is an express agreement that it -ahall remain per- 
sonsuL property p or if, from the circumstances attending, it is 
evident or may "be presumed thnt such was the intention of the 
parties, it will he held to hare retained its personal character." 

The principles enunciated in the Sword case were adhered to 

in Schumacher et al > V' li d ward P» ^^111 s Goapany » 70 111. App» 557> 

decided in 1896, ^in holding that an engine, boiler and other manu- 
facturing machinery, although attached to the realty»remained per- 
sonal property, it was said at pp» 565, 566i 

"In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, there is 
no doubt that the machinery in question attached to the real estate 
as it was, as between mortgagor and mortgagee, or grantor and 
grantee, would he held to pass as a part of the realty, hut the 
agreement being legal and binding fixed the character of the 
property, and xmlees a removal would work injury to the freehold 
in consequence of its removal, injury to some substrmtial and 
material extent, we oan perceive no equitable reason why the 
mortgagee should be permitted to defeat the intention of the 

In Baker v. MoGlurg^ 96 111* App» 165| where it was held 

that baking ovens practically identical in construotlon with those 

involved here, together with certain machinery^ remained personal 

property because sueh was the intention of the parties, the court 

said at pp« 173 > 174 i 

"And if, ^toen the trade fixture was erected, the tenant, 
by his conduct, manifested the intention to retain ownership and 
remove it at the end of the lease, it appears that such intention 
should control, even if such removal necessitates a reconstruction 
of the fixture. * * * In this State the intention so manifested 
is regarded as the principal test to determine the ri^t of ranoval»" 

In affirming the Baker case, 189 Ill» 28, the Supreme court adopted 
the opinion of the appellate court in its entirety. 

^^ile the test of intention as the controlling factor in 
determining whether chattels affixed to the realty retain their 
character as personal property was thus developed and established* 
another line of cases applied the constructive fraud-secret lien 
theory in determining the rights of a vendor to personal property 
sold by him and affixed to the realty li^ere he reserved the title 

©rf* oJ 10 jx o;? vtj:/tfii X^jitg^J^at ^woifcTxw^ &©roBtei od" n<s© *! $Bsit 
ai ;^i oiKi'^nsi^is aaiDrisJ aas/o^lo nAJf doxl t'tl -3:0 (,ijiJ'i9qo'i:q; Xsnoe 

^TSS .qqA »XII OV « Y/iecgao C a 1. IXA . » : bo: sw tffi ,^ r »4.s y^o. t£j9.4&ggaitt oa ni 

~:n£5q bswieiHa-iitttj^I.oe"! 9sii oi bBtioBiiiB rigworfiia tignsiildisaa i^Bitato^'i 

JS82 ,393 *(iq: *b bluB asm ii. ^xi'^»<lotfl Ificoe 

folorCQ9*j'2: &sii <Ait x-xvtal altow bJCi/esr Xairoiasf js easXm; bii& tXit^^iqpici 

"'.a9 2d"ra(j 

bl^il esV7 ;ri orjsil?/ ^Sdl <qqA *IXI ac> ^^mX.Ccg «v J9^iig al 

X^nioaasq bsfiifijas'x tX'^s^i^to-ssi nfc^^rrao iliiw xsxCSsgoi «9T9rf bsrXoTiljk 

sl>VX toVX .ctq ^TjB blise 

t-Jctfjc^* ajf* tib9*D&^9 aaw stcwiJ'xx'i ofej3^;J ail* iioifiy |tl bnA* 

noi^ns^^ni i{oi;a isuii a'XseqcrB ^Ji «aajr=9X sdJ' lo bn? o^^f:? Jr ^i; ©voiaai: 

aoi.iomimiooii'x « a^SsJiasooen X-svoffl^Ji dotsB 11 cisrs iXoT^noo hXi/octe 

be';?^^!:.!:!!^^! os aolinoitii odS eisiB aijdi itl *■ ■* * .siiii^xil edi lo 

•♦•XsTQjcsBti: 1:0 d-i^xt sri;^ ardias^^sb. ©3- #86if Xs<[Jtonixq: sjC^ ijb feebifisei: si 

. b®*fiDba i'zuno siasiqifC sxid' ,9S #1X1 S6X «9a«© !g9.:^^.g ©if* ^aaiantilis Jtl 

»Xi9%ti^tiQi «*i ax diMoo 9i*jaIX» ndi to aoixjigo <wi;f 

tJ'.uri* xiixsJei \';c!XBSt£: oxl* 03^ ba^-illja aXs^^^sxfo x^diadw ^eii£ilir.Z'^$9h 

^baifsiXtfe^ss bm boijoXsvJ^fo &sf^tt ssjbw -^J-saqosq Xsiioqxs^s Jyi «s*o£i«jw1o 

rxeiX i&%ooB''iW.vit Grxiowiianoa sii* baxXq^fl 8»a«4> lo MilX iwxfdone 

^;^*xftc[0'a:q X^iioa-xs^q; o;i itoftxfsv .s lo a^xisis odi ^tiiamxeiQb al icsosi!* 

9X*j:tf,»xiJ be-rtosQi arf etftxf./ Tc«^X«o5 9x1* oi bsxills bxis fiiixi "^tf *Io« 

■ ■■'■ '■■'. ■'' ■ -' - '.-■..•: •oist9'd& 


In yifield e t al* v» yarmera* Hat* Btmt et al> » 148 111* 

163, the court held at p« 172 i 

" Sword V. Lpwy 122 111* 4 87» has "been cited, mid ie relied 
upon by the appellants. In the caoe cited an engine e-nd boiler 
nttached to the realty v/ere held to be personal property. But 
upon an examination of the case it will be found that it was agreed 
between the vendor and purchaser, when the engine and boiler were 
sold, that the purchaBer should xecute and deliver a chattel 
mortgage on the property to secure the payment of the purchase 
money. In pursuance of this agreerKsnt a chattel mortgage was 
executed and placed upon record, as required by statute, thereTey 
giving notice to third persons that the property was to be re^,rdfid 
as personal property. But here, however, no chattel mortgage was 
given to appellants. They relied solely upon a secret agreement 
made between Day and themselves, that the property should belong 
to them unless paid for by flay. In the sale of a chattel where the 
possession of the property passes to the purchaser, a secret lien 
in favor of the vendor is not valid as against creditors or subse- 
quent purchasers. Qhickering v. B astree s, 130 111. 216." 

With the enactment of the tSaiform Sales act (oh» 121a, 111* 

State Bar Stats., 1935) which became effective July 1, 1915, the 

constructive fraud theory became extinct as law in this state. The 

following pertinent provisions are contained in that aott 

"Par* 23, sec. 20. (1) ^aiere there is a contract to sell 
specific goods, or v^iere goods are subsequently appropriated to the 
contract, the seller may, by the terms of the contract or appropria- 
tion, reserve the right of possession or property in the goods until 
certain conditions have been fulfilled. The right of possession of 
property may be thus reserved notwithstanding the delivery of the 
goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee for the purpose 
of transmission to the buyer. 

"Par. 26> sec. 23. (1) Subject to the provisions of fliie 
Act, vshere goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof » 
8Jid who does not sell them under the authority or v/ith the consent 
of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods tliai 
the seller had, tmless the miner of the goods is by his conduct 
precluded from denying the seller^s authority to sell." 

The validity of the Uhif ora Sales act and conditional saleo 

contracts was definitely established in Hherer-Gillett (Jo* v. Long| 

318 111. 432, where the court said at pp* 433, 434-35 t 

"Before sales became a subject of xinif era legislation it 
was settled by an overwhelmng weight of authority that the seller 
is not estopped by his conduct in delivering ■Qie possession of 
goods to the buyer upon a contract of conditional sale from aeaertd 
ing his title against one v*io purchases from the buyer, relyinrj irpon 
the apparent title of the latter, (l illiston on Gales, -2d ed*- 
sec. 324; Earkness v. Russell & Oo., 118 TJ. S. 663» 7 Sup. Ct. 51j 
Arnold V. Chandler Motors , "(R.I.) 123 Atl. 85 1) but in thi.e Stat© 
we had held that a delivery of personal property to the purchaser 
upon a contract of conditional sale, with a retention of title in 

e*3is- 0BS3*'iCi0i X?*^.tjsx£o s iSiees^B'sga aidi 'to a^riBuaijyq; xtl .vexioJE 

^C6fli03TSJ5 i'S'Soss i5 Hoqi,' -^leXoQ foaxXst Y^^'? ♦G^nr>IX3qq;s o;t xiovia 
axfiJ cjxoiiw Xe^d-iitfs s Io aX^a >ii;t xil »tj;^ ■v:(f ao'i foiaq aaoXfu; JH9rI;^ o;f 

. » . dXa . ISl bSX «4«ffiills§|5 . V iaS^llftliM^ • atrsaBJlolwq * is&ug 

Qdi i&I^l <X YXsrt svi^sslls Qsi«o»«f iissiitff (gS^X ,.8*^i8! tsS »^fltar8 
©£['1 *&$aic eMj ni v/ijX y^s tonkixs 9msQ»^ T^Qiidi Im^i 9rii9^^j^p 
ji-ojra ^sfli^ isi fteaiacJ-noo. sts aaoXaivcsq: iijamx^ttsq gniwoIXol: 
XX^a 0$ ^TovSiE^i-foo £ ox 'Qtwtld &X9J^€ (X) •OS »»»a tSS ♦ob^*.: .^ ..u| 

Siims aboos sjeIJ «x ■^itrcaqo^q io noieaeaaoq lo ^rfgii ©xl;? avxsasri |XfOx;J 

5o noxaaeaeoq ^o i^tz arff .^oXXiiXwl iieetf svo-arf Gimtixbaoo nisd-too 

»xf* "io Y^ovxXsb &di ^■^^a.jibniiiBdii.mioa b^Tnaa&x audi o«f xmi xir&^.0'zq. 

• ■revi/cf ®xf;S' o^ aoisaixsaasi;;? lo 

< "S a.:i 'ioxi? *xsfi.'(V"0 oif* ion ui. eriv,- jjoi3i©q; .ss Tjcf bXoa 9"b afioog etsri. , 
^neafxoo e*«^ ££^iw -xo ij^J^xiOii^MB odi xobsas m^di Ll&'vt ion aQob o:i.> 
mdi^ aijooa Biii oi aX^it -ssa^ocf on as^JtMpo^;; xo^^d" edi ^isa^o siJi" 

".iXea Oi^ xi ^'^■^<>^" oa a^xaXXaa ©rf* snlY.fiob mo'i'i bebcXoa^q 

aaX^a Xjanoi^jtfcxioo foiiB *oj8 aeXsiJ flKoliixTJ 911* 1r* ^iJifexXsT «iiT 

j^fiOiI . Y ♦ ;^^ elXlS "T^g^eriL' ni berfBxXcfjB^aa ^cXs^Jtctilefi 8£iW a*bfiT*xioo 

i8S~^£l' e€S*> •qq ita btea ;fiuoo Qif;? 9TSriw ,S£^ tlXI 8X6 

;}x noid'xAXsisoX satotltiti to to^lduB js smiaootf ssX^a sioltsff** 
uaXXeo eiicJ^xixW -^cfi'xoriiw^ ^o id-^lsw artirnXoxIwiovo a« \:cf boXd-^ae 3v9vr 
1& noxr.nQBaoq ©x© antrsriXab nx ioubaoo aid x^ beqQOc^ao *oa ei 
95T»£iaB EiDii ©Xi5'3 X.'3Xioxd^i&K0o lo ^tsiiiioc: norjj is'^cs^rf odi oi aboog 

--•ba Jb'a- t^jaXjiSti flo noc^sillx,' X) ^'s&dir.l sdS "io 9X:^i.i ineti^ciq/; odi 
<X3 **C. ♦tiXf.?. f ,£8& •- .y fiXX j^oO ±Zl9iiUtJfi .v i«9?^^H J^SS .098 
sdB*a aixld flJt tfiirf (tee »li:. oliTT- I«>I TT^'-xo J o^ •XQXba^J^p ♦v bXofwA 
■i3af.xloTifq srf* o* ■^-'£e5qoi<j X^noateq 'to ■vi'i-viX'^'fe -a :>BiId "ftXeil Ewtsrl e^^ 
«i sXc^i;t io rioi:;fXie*o-2 jg xfi'irvV « Xsxioidx6noo lo o*o.ciJnr- - r?'"-' " 

the seller t rmouxits to oonetruotire fraud, vrtiich postpones the 
right of the real owner in faTor of those who liave dualt without 
notloe with the oonditlonal rendee, who has heen given the 
indicia of ownership. ( Crilhert v. National Oash^_He^Bter_^-ja.^ 
176 Til. 388; BnydRge ▼> Cajgg, 21 id* 329.T 'Unff orinity Tn the 
lav." of the several ^ tatee pertaining to sales heina deemec esaen- 
tial to the oomraercial welfare of the country, leaders of the 
jnerioan har prepared and submitted to the legiBlature of the 
several itateB a unifom eales act and a uniform conditional 
sale's aot. The former wau adopted in this State in 1915 and is 
the law toda^. By section 20 of the act the validity of a oon- 
traot of oondltional sale is recogniaed. :. action 23 declares the 
lav7 of this State retrpeoting the transfer of title to he that 
theretofore declared hy the great majority of the cotirt© tf this 
country. * * * The Unif oi"tt LSaless aot recognizee the validity of 
such contract3 and apecifioally providea that no title can he 
passed by the purchaser of gooda under such & contract *urLle£is 
the OTsner of the goods is hy his conduct precluded froa denying 
the seller* 8 authority to sell.** 

In HiuiBa V. Gyajaa da._ Hotel Corp «',t 269 111* -pp* 484 » deoidttd 

hy this court in 1933, "where OzltCf carpets* In-a-dor heds, ohiiui 

and kitchen cahlneta were involved and claimed under a chattel 

mortgage. In an ejdiaustive opinion ^Titten by Justice cicanlany 

reviewing practioally the entire field of law ea the £iuhjeot» 

it was held at p. 494 t 

**It l8 undouhtedly true that if the items in question may 
he removed without material injury to the property and respondent 
is merely a suhsequent mortgagee of the real estate, it is hound 
hy the Granada-Pick chattel mortgage aid by the intention of tha 
parties thereto to treat all of the properly conveyed as personal ty# 
(See S^rord v. Low, sugr^j 26 C. J. on S'ixtures, sees. 46 and 48 j 
13 A. 1. R. 431.} In Jones on Chattel Mortgages (5th ed.) sec* 
125, the author saysj 'The Courts of a fe-w States » particularly 
those of iiew York and Illinois, accord vory great efficaoy to the 
mortgagor's agreement that fixtures shall remain chattels, so ae 
to give ei'fect to a oh>^^ittel mortgage of them, as against subse- 
quent purohrsexs and mortgagees of th.® land.'" 

In Sea rs I. /^oebupk & Co. v. Pi, aga, B ldg. & Loan '-B3*n^ 276 

111. 389, where an action of replevin was brouf^t by a vendor of 

plumbing fixtures, sold under a conditional contract against 

a mortgagee who purchased at the foreclosure sale, the court, aft.«r 

citing and quoting from i'mQTp v. Low , supra , said at pp. 393-394: 

"Measured by this rule, it is apparent that appellant ajad 
Arst both regarded the plunObin^ fixtures as personalty* and intended 
that they ehoiild eo rciaain, until the price thereof vfas full/ 
paid. The conditional sales contracts expreasly stipulate that 
they TSBre to remain the property of appellant until they were fully 
paid for. This is wholly inoaasist^^nt with any idea thiU they w: u 
intended to become part of the realty. e entertain no doubt thau 

-jK&ss-ft .>9)isr'>a& ^fcisi'SOf soliss -a* Sii.toli;v^^©cj '^»;>«4;T"~X«'ai'ys'!s »i£i to 'v,®X 

ai: IsOtsS 5XSI «i: ■©#«*?-] aM* isi; b^tqtthm r.^n •s.oismo'l sut^ *io& K9lnB 
-fsos & "io "t^l&iXfiV ©if* to« sxi* l«j 0S JKolito®® •^S «1£r&«^ w/&X sii,i 

feefei;o;jb ^M.^ ^qei-^- *-tXl SaiE ,«» €WeS - JCitJfeH .jgltaiatsi^) *r £^^'Wt''' 
jsaifin <a&©«i T:?).f>*,'«»«5l ijs^'SxtTst? i'^it&O mnOn 'iSt^i atj: #*e©«»» a±£f;J x^ 

«*o©fe<C£is ^:^ ®s> waX 1© &£».t1; «"EiiiSG bxU i:XlB»l;!-©j3'«sSi arista It«« 

ojS* 'to rxoiit'K^irxsi ^fit# ^^ bm dB^si*-^ XsJ'd' .,':;' .vr-. - 

♦ 00a (.»§3«> ^i*8) asgiSgi'ioM Xad;tj?jMf; ao asnoL i^I TTX8I^ *fi[ »J •/. £X 

lo TEalnrev « \;rf Jjcfe«€%cf saw jBiT^Xt^i t« iiK»J:ia« ae a%9ijNr «V3£ *XX. 
^uaX.'x:^B So&'iinozt bsiXj^s JjemiXAibiKSia i^&xor.&X&e *39tuixl% 3flicFisas;X<i 
isjJtis ,*i«oo 9i» »»X©« ®xi/BoXo««o1 »aw ia b^mitj^itm od^x eoaa^^iejK .' 

.': %rXir't ■■ ,tU aoitij oif* X.t*f«; «n.c:5r.i::>-x o- ..X.iJ •.;...;; -j y^^- -■ 

*««;)' Bti&!.. r.asifiqjra oj^aaTJnoo a®X..^.e X«iJoi?i-»«ctp -^if , ■ \ 

"tXXtfl a-xavi/^eiij X'.^-.'i JfisilXor^qJ! ^o ^iisxjoiq erf* nl«cf - 
ixaf? y;«fS itidi d^hi. -^fxs rfd^iw *ii)it^i3nDPnJf. \^Xoif;¥ nl •. . 

the parties designed and proposed that they were to tie^ and 
rewaini articles of personalty until paid ior» and by their 
attaohment to the building were not to lose their ohaPiActer 
as sucii . " 

The latest expression of our supxeme court on the validity 

of a conditional sales oontraot under practiOcilly sixailiar circum- 

stc-mces is found in Ba n k of Republi c v« W ells- Ja ckson Corp» » supra^ 

where an autoimitic sprinkler syBteoa was sold under a conditional 

sales contract and installed in a building erected on a leasehold. 

In that case the Bank of Hepublic sought to include the sprinkler 

system in the property foreclosed tmder its trust deed. The owner 

of the fee, who had forfeited the leasehold, sought to quiet his 

title free and clear of all liens and claims and the unpaid v(3uaor 

of said sprinkler system alleged conversion of its chattels and 

sought recovery therefor. In sustaining the claim of the unpaid 

conditional sales vendor of the chattels involved, the court used 

the following language at pp« 362-63— 64s 

"Prior to the passage of the Uniform Sales act, conditional 
sales "by which the title to the property was reserved in the seller 
were held hy the decisions of thir- court as being in the nature of 
secret liens, and constituted constructive fraud as ags-inst judgment 
creditors, mortgagees and purchasers -yrithout notice that the title 
was not in the person in possession of the property. The Uniform 
Sales act rGcOtjnizes the validity of conditional sales contracts, 
and such contracts hs,ve been sustained by this court. aherer-Gillett 
Oo. V. Long, 5 18 111* 432 J Dayton Scale Go * v. (general "Market House 
Co. . 335 id. 342» 

"The question next arises whether the sprinkler system has 
lost its identity as personal property becaaee of the fact that it 
is bolted and fastened to different portions of the building, or 
Tffhether it is a trade fixture that can "be removed under the con- 
tract by which the title ?«as retained in the vendor. Kel t v. Henley, 
232 U. S» 678, 58 L. ed. 767, involved the rigjit of th© vendor, Holt, 
where tlitle was retained in him pending the payment in full lor tbhe 
chattel sold, to remore a sprinkler system from an industrial plant* 
The mortgagees claimed title to the sprinkler syutem vrnder their 
mortf^age, which ^as made and recorded before the sprinkler yystem 
was installed. The mortgage txiere created a lien upon the existing 
manuf ncturing plant and all property 'vjhich may be acquired and 
placed upon the said premises during the continuance of this tiust.' 
The Supreme ;^ourt of the TSiited States held that the property could 
be removed by the vendor under hie conditicual otlet; contract. In 
passing upon that s>»bject the court said s 'To hole, that the mere 
fact of annexing the system to the freehold overrode the agreement 
bhat it should r-^maiu personalty and still belonc to Tlolt ^otild be 
to give a mystic importance to attachments by bolts and c crews.' * * * 

jbxt^ <®tf 0^5^ S19W x^d^ tfjsil* h&aoqoTLq ba& bai^iaxaafe aai^'teq a£i 

,bXoi£aaj3»I ^ iso fte^oa-s* 'gnlhlkudi & ax bvUmi^tti baa ttelitms B&i»s 

^rooii97 5,t5^qxEi &cii bas afaJL^Xo tea ea©I:X XX^ lo i«©Io &ii» »«2:t 9X#1^ 

&n.s (3Xs^;Ji?.r{o a^i "xo uciBtertmo h&^alLs m&^Bxs •x.&lt^l'iaa bi..BB le 

blsq^isu sxid- "io iSJi.sXo ^sii sniijXAJdewa 4al ^lolsicefis -^'xsvoost *^uoa 

Ijoaw jt^oo 9f{^ «D3TXovHi eX^^d'srlo ©if;t 1:0 xobrisr aeXfiS Xa«ol;t"|:&fi»o 

iiV3«r,d«39g •q;q *£ ©jjAti^iifsX B«X«'OXXo'i sri* 

©X^^i- eric? ;^j3jri^ soi^Ojts d'f/ozicf iw evL@,BBJio'iaq_ bitB ^i^o-iiS^iiom ^e.tcii.b&'SQ 
firtolinu ©xf? »Vi9qot!|: Sifd' 2o iioiaa«)a8©(j si Koa^sq ©if* nJt *on ajsv? 

.'• j- g XX i:0 '■;'£ a^'ioitg^ ♦d'ljyoo s>ldi x^ b^ai^Hua xjf^ecT svjsxf a*o.Ridaoo sloua &as 

;t.i". i^dm d'OBi: ©iW "io ©aift'.oso' X''^'i®<40*ic[ XaftOatsq a^ -^JiJitobl ei-J" iaol 

'xo «S:«if>XljJcf ixi"^ "io aaoli'^ioq, inoiQ'i'ilb oi osnad'ojs'i biXB bei£o€ et 

-not) 9iti ^o5i:m bovoitt^a ad" xtbo ojsrf;/ st«,Jxj:1 ^bsit s at it 'carf^sriw 

K-^Sl-^SP^i •■*■ iL49ii •tob«9v 9x10' iti: baxiiis^Jsi aijw ^li^ii 9x13 rfoixiv/ ^jcf d-o^^trf 

V^IoiiV:cobKeY^"®f{;J 'tc ;^J3feii sxii' bsvXcTtii ^Vdf •&» .»! 69 «8V?5 *3 .iT r:5S 

sxfi'rf -xo'i XXwl ni ^ixaa^^q srCcf snlfcaoq lald ai hesv-^iai u.'-vr 9X*i:f o^Qdw 

»>tnaXq: XfiiicVawbiii xx.«j ibo^I im^BX'a 'i&l^ns.xqi^ & ©vowfrx oU «bXoa Xoirf^ar^o 

cciarid- -lobim itiod'''i\;Q tsXiUu'xqa ad* od' ©X^i;?' bsiai.aXo a;)©SJ^s;?*.i:o«t aaT 

ap3*a\:a 'xeXaJni-rtxa ajri* srrOiS-cT fesbrtooat bnjB ebsm a»=«// xfoxriw ,9^.^7^.*'-oia 

a«i;tai:x9 sili Hoqjur aoJfcX ja bejfjs&^o 9tBsii ep.aB^'voci ©jJT «boXX«*ajHX as»7 

bflfl boTiyp&iC acT \-;i5m xfolifw* ^d-x^rrcxq XXb bfis *xisi'.Xq. v,xiXii/;}o.'^^^i:^'-r..i 

'•^tixn* Qld& lo 9on^.)Lrni^iToo erf;? sxtltjjb aj»aiuH*>w bxfic oxCi' noqw bdo^sXcr 

hSjjoo Xi'iBq,orAi 9di iBiii foXsad e©;^«ja fi^iisfJ Btii Io cf':xjoC ©icsiqitfei CitZX 

si t^OBiitfOo eoX.aa Xfiaoi:;ti&jxio 'airf laftxai 'Scobriev exf* igcf bar"-- " -t^ 

iiiasiooT^.9 odi »boTttc9vo bXox{oattl sxid o^ lac^aY'S wt* T^nixsxixxe -■.■ oixi 
ecf foXuo . dXoiT oi rj.noXacf XXii^*:; bxxs ^c^XxixicB-isq uxmrnn blisrdk ii. i^.d-: 


*The general rule may "bo deduoed from the authorities 
cited, that ^ere the parties to a contract of sale of personal 
property in which the title is reserved in thr- vendor to the 
chattel soldi agree tlifit by the toinexation of such personal 
property to the real estate the chattel shall not lose its 
character as personal property, such contract is enforceahle 
b etv/een the parties thereto, and also acainst a purchaser or a 
prior mortgagee, or those occupying similar poeitions, -viftiere the 
chattel can he removed without material injury to the freehold or 
the usefulness of the chattel. Raymond Co . v. Bal l , 210 Fed. 217 | 
Camp bell v. T oddy, 44 ;i. J. Eq. 244 » 14 Atl. 279; Binkley v. 
yprkner, 117 Ind. 176, 19 N. i;. 753." 

In our opinion, under the l&aif orm Sales act and the rules 
enunciated in the foregcing oases, the lien reserved by the unpaid 
vendor, Petersen Oven Company, in the conditional sales contract 
in the instant case is enforceable against the plaintiff mortgagee, 
TBhose interest and title was derived through the vendees, who un- 
questionably are bound by the terms of said contract. If auoh a 
cotitr&ct is enforceable against a subsequent "purchaser or a prior 
mortgagee, or those occupying similar positions," as was held in 
the Bank of I. e pub lip case, it logically follows that it must also 
be enforceable against a subsequent mortgagee. It may well be that 
when the Uniform Sales act was enacted there shoxild also have been 
enacted as a companion measure the Uniform Recording act, but that 
was and is a /natter exclusively for the legislature. 

The intention of the parties in this case at the time of 
the annexation of the ovens to the real estate was expres::3ly de- 
clared to be that they retain their character as perscaaal property, 
and the undisputed evidence shows that they "can be removed v/ithout 
injury to the freehold." It is true that the ovens will have to 
"be dismantled to be so removed. So did the sprinkler system in the 
Bank of Republic case, but that ^as not considered stiff icient to 
impress the chattels there T;^ith a different property character than 
the parties themselves intended them to retain. Both the ovens and 
the sprinkler system could be rebuilt out of the materials removed 

B xo tii33.,efloimi ^ ^anlBB^i oaXis? ana ,e;t:-;'-j:sx:i;r sali-j^^q ariji- nasv?^^ {f 
'TO blodeQ'il edi od- ^twt^Mi; £&ii9ifm iaosiih'^ b&vo&o% acf iiso Xa^^jsrfo 

.T mXiiHli^' *"'^^*^ ••'^^^•^ ^*i *«"i-'^^ •oS .1, ♦! M jXbclp" ov XXS'tfciagO 

».ev3ip ,% .If 0X tdVX *&iil ?XI t-Z9n3l,gJ| 

asXu^ Sif^ feiis ^Ojs aaXsli a'xolljf^T oiii zBbsm «xjoixtic|o ijuo ul ^ . .. ■' 

3'0^5#fK5o esfcss X^fsoiJ-itooo &di fix «'^iafjtiffio0' aavO fi»a2»4^©3 ,«,QlixwT 
tS92;.«li*tio© 'x'ix^JnijsXcr ad-* ifanxjsa-B sXd'^sojyso'in^ el ©s«o Jna^sxsi »4* ai 

oaXx-. icam ix isslt avrsXXel ^XXeox^oX <Ji: «eajRO ^iXiluqaa lo atxiaS Sii* 
ri0»cf sTsxr oaXa bXnaifa stiexi* Sa^oan© asw tfo« sit£^^> Mltet'Xa^ :^i^ msi^ 

-oii XjCaaaiqxa a.QW si^^rsj© Xss>iE aifct ocT ax»svo ariS lo apidf«3C9ru:t£ ^M 

d'iiQiivfiw fcs-vomatE o«f iteo" -^ad* Iwtijt Kwo^a 9«*t9bi:T9 isiiiq[8l,l!iiBttJ ©C^ il«a 
ad &v&k XXiw 8«syo axCd> t&dt 9a%i al 41 '»»Woifo«:c'k «^ i^#' t*3y^j^Ji-i 

*«ir{* To;ro.f^'XflfIo x^t&qetsi #iiotra1tlJ:b « xi^i^ stanf* ?»X»rftf«|Co oa'J 


wi '.iiout permanent impairment of the usefulness of such materials* 

In discussing the rsmovahility of the ovens in Baiter t. Mc^Jlurgp 

96 111. App. 165, the court said D.t pp» 170-171 » 

"It Is alBO true, doubtless j that the 'brick structure of 
the ovens* when removed, v/ould have to he taken dovvn hriok Tsy 
brick} "but this need not oe injurious bo the "building or premioes 
if the 7/ork should he properly done, . e conclude, therefore, 
that the facts do not justify the conclusion thct the ovens heoame 
necessarily a part of the building "by reason of the purposes for 
which both building and ovens y/era oonotructed, nor that the re- 
moval of the fixtures would uecessr^rily injure the freehold. 

"But it is said that fixtures are not removable, if "by 

removing them their identity and character as fixtures are 
destroyed. That taking dovm the ovens Tsriek by hrlck and removing 
the iron of the structure piece by piece v/ould change the form of 
the original ntructure for the being, is made olear by the 
evidence, and is obvious. It could never again be precisely the 
same structure of brick and mortar as "tefore, but the iron ^ork 
could doubtless retain its identity even though taken dowi in 
pieces end subsequently re-erected; and there is evidence tending 
to show that the ovens can be profitably removed and re-erected by 
the tenant . " 

The only other question in this case is whether the Petersen 

Oven Company is estopped by its conduct or by laches from denying the 

vendees* authority to convey the ovens to the mortgagee. Sec. 23 

of the Uniform Sales act, heretofore set forth, provides that "where 

goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and he does 

not sell then under the authority or with the consent of the owner, 

the buyer acquires ac better title to the goods than the seller had 

unless the ovvner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from ieby-* 

ing the seller* s authority to sell." 

Under the plain prorlsions of sec. 25 the principle of 

estoppeO. may be invoked only by a purchaser frc® e conditional vendee 

( Silverthome v. Chapman, 259 111. App. S89), and the right of plain- 

tifff , who was not a purchaser, to invoke the doctrine of estoppel 

is open to serious question. In any event tSae evidence is conclusire 

that the Petersen Oven Company did nothing to lead plaintiff to be- 

lisre that the property was paid for and that the title was in the 

Tsndee mortgagors* 

-Bt odi ^mU ion ibB^oM'iiBmo okm sjksto 6mi sisibXiwo d^ocf ifoxrfw 
..&X&d:s9i:'i wli a'fwtai: -^Xit^BaaiSo^a 6X«ow BS-mi^lt 9di lo X-sroar 

'io ffitcl oji;;? sj-axteilo 5Xxfov»c ©adxcx ^?f sSi3»ifX ©'ilicSojjid'JS ©it* lo it©ix srlJ 
sdi '^X»si;3!i?*i:q ocT ctssa ■xover: &X£ro» ;JI .awe-tycfo si: &K3 ,aoa9J>i:v3 

^m.htt&4 ©oii!9.f)iy© ai oi^ri^J .bits |&&»to&'K©-e^ XXJnowpsarfwB bm? asooiq 
-^fif &&JosTe»oi ftois bsvoaEo*c -^XrfjGi llOTEcr ©cf xxgo anfJTO Bdi isdi wofle ©* 

X...; , ..<:.:..,&;.■,,,,,:. .■,■:.::;.; , « . , , , "*&smnet ')di 

si&Qb 94 6as «'i03'jfiiild' "SS'XftW 94^ San ai o^ isOBtoq^ « x^ feX©a a'ls ahooa 
«^em?o eiU "io w^aoa/foo arli' fl*iw to ^j^itaif^wa ad* X9bmr ifflaif* £199 t9a 
bad iSiXXya £>jl;f fj.srfi BbvQ'% eM o* ©X^ii TaJ^ecT 04a ««>xJtapoa is^tf frf* 

-'I^EfeSfe xffioi;! l>^|)juXooiCf ioubaco aJtxf -^rf ol sboo-^ »di to ^caxiwo «ri# aeoXfcii 

*»»XX»a 0* xiltodim a»i»Xl©«i ait* sci 

"sxl/mlti ^0 titaiT ori.? &«a (t(08S •q;c[A *IXI ^es « ngmoffO .v scrxoAt'iaTXxK ) 

X©q<ja;^p.o to ttni:c*oo6 arf* ©iiifoviii o* ^'tn^BAoTuq, m ioa bow Qsirr ^1'i'ii.i 

ovltuxXonoo ai »oufflJ^iv9 as& ia&Y& -^-a ixl .jaottfaei/p sj^'olxea «* Gsqo ai 

-acf 0^ Iti^aiJiiXq; bjasX o;f gjcifiitoc bib xoMqissoQ a9 jO ssBB'i&i9lsiiii i^&di 

exW aX am QliXt &di tBdi luKfi %ot bX^q. aew x*'*»«COXce ©ii'. rtXl 


Waa the Petersen Orea Gompaay guilty of laohes? The 
record diaoloseo thnt it aaserted ita title and that its olaim 
was allowed for rent of the ovens in the prior forecloetire pro- 
ceeding "brought toy the jvjnilor mortgagee, the alloT^anoe of rent 
continuing until the master's report was returned in the inatant 
proceeding. In ^gri can Type .Foundars Co» v. Me tr opqll tan Or edlt 
and Dispou n t :orp », 271 111. App. 380* where it was urged, as it 
is here, that the vendor having failed to assert its rights "based 
upon its conditional sales contract v/ithin a rt^asonable time after 
the expiration of the tiae for final payment thereixnder, it will 
he harred from asserting such rights, the cotirt said a t pp* 3&5| 

"The main points here urged "by counsel for the Credit 
Company, as grotmds for the reversal of the Judgment appealed from 
are: * * * (2) that * the law will not permit conditional sales 
contract holders, who do not repossess the property \vithin a 
reasonahle time after default in the payments, to assert their 
secret liens against innocent third pereone. * * * 

"As hearing upon the coatsntions of counsel for the 
Credit company in the present case, the decision and holdings of 
the Unitcea States Court of Appeals? for the Geventh Circuit, in 
the case of In re gteiners Im2royed I)ye work j s (McKey, receiver v. 
T roy Laundry Ma"ohiaery"GoT }',"44~gVl2d j BS'y't'Biay he "re?erreS~^'o. 
It was there decided in substance that the conditional seller* s 
failure to repossess chattels for over eight monthB sf ter the 
last payment hecame due did not create an estoppel, under the 
Illinois Uniform Sales act, in favor of the receiver in "bankruptcy 
of the estate of the conditional "buyer. * * * 

"There is no statute of limitation, touching the time during 
which the possession and right of property may he retained by the 
seller, ncr is there any limitation aa to the time within v.hich tiie 
seller must ret^e the property in case of default. There ie nothing 
ia the statute to indicate that the seller, under such a contract, 
is i"a"bjeot to any limitation other than the general statute of 
limitations applica'ble to vvritten oontracts. ae see no reason, 
if the jnirchase price is not fully paid, why the seller may not 
act at an:y time i.vithin the period of limitations unlees he is 

The vendee mortgagors have merely a s;pecial property right in the 
ovens and that is their ri^t to ownership of same upon fxill payment 
of the ptir chase price thereof. It is that ri^t only tha.t is sub- 
ject to the lien of plaintiff's mortgage and that m£,y "be sold to 

"Otq o^mscio&'i-ol xal*iq &di nl enavo fexi* lo lass' lol' JbdwoIXs ajsw 

d-i: a£ ib-^^xs aar iU stg^w t'OSe; »q,qA •ill XfS < •JIX'^P, .t^^ ^.^X^, , %gg, 
l)^^/}^ aMejlt iiiX j'"£9ss3 o;? bsliiil sjaxrarf -iofonsv axf* #«.{!;}• *9:Eex£ ai 

6!©Ibq XsKoi;fx6iiOi; i-iia-xaq; ^on Hi?/ vj,tjX srf^f * d^arfj (2) * * -^ j^tb 

nX ^ihsoTi^tO iiia^^s>o sdi "xel aXasqqrA 'to ;J-iiroC b&^-s^S; ito^int-T ©r{t 

»v -<5VX5o3;i;_t'^^o^3|') _aj[:£0;:,;;^j»-^ bs-'jtJ'igM axamf^Cj g^ 0I l;o-.®s*"5o axIJ 

»oT"'&©'s'X9fer Q'i^xzm'T^QS ~il3'€T"*%"S^ tf^^^x^fEISpjM x'tinv.s&l ..^otT 

a»'isXX9a X.i3noi*i:f)EOO arid' xt4Ji£^ aoitis^ecfxra «! bs^oicaft" Q-farlct gx^w rJ'X 

Qiii 'isbmj tXotx<Io<*a8 n^s ®d'i<3©io i^a. bib eufe assaaoscf d-iioers-Bq iasl 
Xpd'qif'sali^cf fii: 'XievXyott's ©lid"!© ■xgvsI aJt ,^s« asX^S isiolixiTJ axoxilXII 

*■* * .'leYijcT Xsnoigipijoo ailc? lo &iMiaa Qdi 'io 

©rf;!^ Xd baai-si ':■ x ocf \;i3fa Tc^"i®50's;q ^0 itt^tt bos xioieasasoq ssrf* jfoMv. 
erti xloiiiw nifW xv/ sisid' sxld" 0? e,g! flolJv'55^im.X \;«b aisxi'iJ b1 'ion «'xsXXo:^ 

ei ail aaoXx^'w BHOi^i^s^XiciiX fo boiiisq silS^ jt2Md-i:**r sflficf ^xte J.-?. Jo.'? 
*£t9at%eq XXal xioqir t^tsi'-ia to qMaisnvro o;» Jri^ili xX^xif ai Jjsritf ftua axsevo 


satisfy oaid lien. \/e are impelled to hold that the rigiit and 
interest of plaintiff mortgagee in arid to the two Pe-tertjen areae 
is subordinate and subject to the title> Oisntrehip and rij^ht to 
posse6??ion thereof of the Petersen Oren Company* 

The exigencies of modern trade reciuire that persoua.1 property 
Xte acauired for uee in Tjusineas and that aanufacturers of r,\xoix piop- 
erty extend credit to the purchasers of bok©* Certain types of 
ohattsls must he affixed to the real estate in order to "be used. 
Protection of the property rights of tha sellers of such chattisla 
on credit deraands that they be ponaitted to retain title to the 
property until final pa^.Tnent is made. It ^'as in recognitiMi of the 
re::uirement3 of trade in thia regard that the Uniform Sales act was 
enacted in this state, authorising a reservation of title by the 
seller as against not only the buyer but as to all persons holding 
throu^ such biiyer, unless the aell«r by Mb conduct precludes him- 
self froo denying the authority of his rendee to sell the chattels • 

The decree of the Stiperior court is reversed and the cause 
remanded with directions to enter a deoree in coaformity with the 
views herein e:3qpressed* 

Friend and Scanlan, JJ»» conour* 

♦ eXaJ'S^da qxC^ XX»a,o# OQi&naf eM to •^;^i;*E»iij^«r4s>:i{# •gi2l'^a©& laoil ll®a 


MAHY C» KRi'TaiAHil and 



a oorporation, and MIESW 
BAuTOLI, Jr»s> 



28 8 I.A. 6 i 



This appeal seeks to reverse a judgment entered on the 
jury's Terdict of not guilty in an action brought "by plaintiffs, 
Mary C« Kretzmann and Janet Michaelson, for damages for personal 
injuries alleged to have been sustained by them through the 
negligence of the defendants, ^^oaerioan Develoiment Co. and 
Andrew Bartoli, Jr., the o\mer and driver, respectively p of a 
truok which was involved in a collision with an automobile in 
V5hich plaintiffs were riding as guests. JJo question arises on 
the pleadings and defendants concede in their brief that plain- 
tiffs were not guilty of contributory negligence. 

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged inter alia that January 22, 
1934, they were passengers in an automobile ovtfned by one A. V/. 
v/elshon, who v»as driving same in a southerly direction on Indiana 
avenue and aoroas 74th street at the intersection of said streets 
in Chicago; that defendants, vdio were in possession and control 
of a motor truck, go carelessly and negligently managed and 
operated the truck in a westerly direction upon and along said 
74th street as to cause a collisi»m between it and the automobile 


el's as 


C^' ?l 

•if ^s 

?wS^ *.X1.5 

M K5 


« s^ixoIIsqcjA 


Ijxio •oD ^n^Kfi^oXsTeO; ijsoi'xsiaft < a*iiis£)«9t9b Dili lo oorissxXssjci 

ai. sXxtfoiffi)d-i/B n« xid'iw KoiailXoo js sxl Ix&vXovwi eaw xloMw alpiftsj? 
no &s>Qlt.a noli&&v^> oK •atsei;;^ bb. -guXbli ai^w alrlidfiijaXq xioiifw 
■^alzxq #j3i'iri" 'i'^.tTd" T:isxf^ ni absonQo Q:tii^5ii»l©b fens EigflibBoXq; sxC* 

» „ «;■. exio Yci" ooiTivo 3XltfO0o,txfs iib «i s'lssnaaaj^q ^t0'?F ijoxLI ^IS'o'JX 

Btwxbnl no xjoi:3o©xi:b YX'saxId'won b ttt ©losa gniTiTb e^rvv ojiw tXtoxlalsW 

aJostsJH &xi3a "io Kox:fo9aiod'ni: axW ;?« *o®'a;:*a rf^l^'C aaoiois ban yirxiovja 

Xo'j;^xioo biiij xttj-taasaffloq al »imi odbf » e^a*j5«e^s^& Jjail;? jobboMO jsI 

bXfis I)t)asi»5iia ^iXdnaaiXjiSn baa xlae&lfj'z&o ou «:i^owi;^ TO^Jois s to 

bii5a sxfoXs fefis noq,u aoiio&tib ^cXis^agw js kx :^Disri otii ftadsi^qo 

aXldomoiwE srfd^ ba£^ ik xiaswd'stf ««Jtei-XXo«) a qbubo oi hb #9®aia xfrfl^V 

in vhich plaintiffo v;ere ridin^l that rlrfendants negligently 
operated the truck at an exceasiye rate of speed | that they neg- 
ligently failed to yield the rirht of way to the car in whioh 
plc.irxtiff 3 irere passengere end which was approaching the inter- 
section from the rit^t; that they negligently fniled to keep a 
proper lookout; and th^xt defendants drove their truck with a con- 
acious indifference to the safety and lires of others and therelby 
willfully, wantonly aud maliciously caused the oollission resulting 
in plaintiffs* injuries. 

Plaintiffs* theory is that, while exercising ordinary care 
and caution for their own safety and while they were passengers in 
the southhound outomohile, they were injured in the collision l»e- 
tv/een that automohile and the westhound motor truck wantonly and 
vrillf illy or at leaiet negligently operated "by defendpjite. 

Defendants' theory is that the negligence of Welshon, the 
driver of the automohile in which plaintiffs were passengers, was 
the sole cause of the collision and that that question, as well as 
the qus^stion of defend-^nts* negligence or willful conduct© Toeing 
peculiarly questions of facts for the jury, the verdict of the 
jury should not he disturhed, especially in view of the conflicting 
nature of the evidence. 

Plaintiff Janet Michaelson lived with her hushand at 11527 
Stewart avenue, Chicago, blie was sixty-five years old and for several 
months preceding the accident had "been going at varying intervals to 
the University of Chicago clinic at Billings Memorial Hospital for 
treatment of ailments from which she suffered. Her ooplaintiff and 
friend, Mary C. Kretzmaim, 'Ato ovmed an autcaaobile and v/as in the 
real estate husiness at 11112 South Michigan avenue, usually drove 
Mrs. Michaelson to and from the hospital. January 22, 1934» V^elshonp 
a friend of hoth plaintiffs, volunteered to drive Mrs. Michaelson 

-"^,sn -v;oiiJ i<^Mi ib^^ficte lo 3.^.";t sTiaesoxs «.o :>r. jloMivt srCif bed'.sisiqo 

-noo £ li^iw afowxi ti:©!!* ©vo'xb Ei^rr.sfm©l::>b ;J^?j{j bWR iia'Q:£QQl tiqo'iq 

'^wiJJirsei: uoiasilXoo s^* beawso Y.Xsi?oivOi.XB«j feiijes xSsaiiam t\;XXyiXXi:w 

v'v ,,^. •esliirtxiJf"»iit1:l^Hi:45:5X'q; ni 

*-©«f .fflOieiXXoo iidi ni bsiulni. siavi' ^sx^;* tsXicfoBio;? itR btxuodAiuQ^ ®ri# 

« 9.tfiG£jntl'jb Y«r bslsTSQO XjC*ns®iX30fi ^aissX ^» k©' xllsAlIl'W 
Bdi tiiOiisXsW Ic 9Dri@BiXS9n &d$ igiAi si X's^®®^- ^ad-nabno^aCE 

8.'3 IX&v/ a^B tri:oJ'.*G9ijp *^^ ;lf£idi bixs noiaiXXoo arf* lo Qm&o eloe 9di 

S«i;JoiX'i«oc ©ild- lo v/Qzy ax xll^tosqas tbad'itsiaib scf *o« bXuojte '^fft 

.es 0X49 & Its aiS* 1© »i:ai&n 
?£:3XX i& bisricrauxl 'xetl dim b&riX noaXaeiioiM d'snali 'i'ilialBl^ 
IsiXersQ -xox bus bXo aiaf^x ovi'^-x^xia asw sffc; ♦o*<ssoixJO «9«fi9T« ;fiaw9t3 

10a XiJ^iqeoH Isitosam Bj>,ns.S.llK ^& olnilc OijijoMO 1© '^# iSTftTixtU 9xf* 
baa l:l:i:;rHi.'?>Xfjoo xs>ll .fteio'ilwa ©rfa fiotrfw uK)^t ainetaXijs lo *i3«fi*^®«t* 

svo%b y,XX43x;hi; ,©ji;xieTj.T ixsji Mo iffi rf;?i^oS SXXXX *jb aaeaioirtf «s*«^q«» Xbw 
,nc££t!XaM <l>£ex ^oiS ijTa»rt;3l. •X.^iif JUjeoil ©xfvt saost bits o* xroaXsadolM .s-sM 

to the horpital in his car and Minr Kretzmann accomppnied her. 
.fter Mrs. Fdchaelson hd reoeired her treatment, Welahon proceeded 
to drive the ladies home in his car, Miso Kretanann occupyinc the 
front seat to his ri^t and Mrs. Mxchaelson the rear aeat 
He drove on various park drives and city streets, finally turning 
south into Indiana avenue from C7th street. Visihllity was diEiinish- 
ed and tho asphalt pavement on Indiana avenue rendered slippery "by 
a oontinuous downpour of rain, ilorth of its intersection with 74th 
street, Indiajia avenue is 26 feet, 2 inches wide from curio to curia, 
and 74th street is 30 feet, 4 inches wide from curh to curb. The 
grade of the asphalt pavement on toth streets was equal and uniform 
and aaid pavement was in a state of good repair. The lot on the 
northeast corner of the intersection was improved with a one-story 
"brick bungaloTs, vshich stood 49 feet, 1 inch east of the east curb of 
Indiana avenue and 40 feet, 11 inches north of the north curl) of 
74th street. The other three corners were also improved, the inter- 
section "being within a closely "built-up residential section. 

V/elshon testified in plaintiffs* hehalf, su'bstantially, that 
he \vas driving his automobile on the west side of Indiana avenue in 
the south"bound traffic lane at a speed of fifteen miles an hour; 
that, when he i^as froa forty to fifty feet north of the intersection 
in question, he looked to the east across the front yard of the 
Gemeinhardt residence on the northeast corner and did not see defend- 
ants' truck or any other vehicle approaching froni the eastj that ha 
then looked to the west and, seeing no vehicle coming from that dir- 
ectioi}» continued southward toward the interseotionj that as hiij auto- 
mo oile entering the intersection he heard Miss Kretziaaun *yell' 
and then for the first time saw defendants* truck a'bout t\fenty or 
twenty-five feet east of the intersection, apprO':.ching at a speed of 
at le.vst forty miles ;^n hour; thrt at that time his automobile wao 

*efioi:*5 :^i5sa ^i;s>:x •■<fl* no~.lossdox'J. *&*sM. fcra^a ifttjl'i: ai/C erf tBtie acotcit 
Si^itniy.l "^IXftxril <Q#fi@iij^a x'^lo iiim 89Ti"ii? ^Ctsq; ajb'Oiijs'V ao 9T01& »fi 

X^ X'x.&il(Xj:lB bstsfoiia'X 8JL?n©T^, ^Bssibnl ec iJ-i-xeejewq oXjBrfqss all;* foiis b& 

,;C-j:i;f^ od tf'xuo kicxI ejaiw aeiiofii S ^j^ssl df, ei sifjRSTB sasifei^:! ^tfaei^a 

©xif «<!fxiic o:5- eftuo M©^'t 4;>bi*v' rj^sionk *■ tiJse'i 0£ fi JftST^a £i.tM' bfijs 

iei:"s:olim/ 50*o Xai;j,-s y.-vsr e*o©t^N^ £i;J(3Cf jks iti-i©Ei©veq ilEidqiiiB sdi 'io sbesg 

Io tf'Bio .Astos. strict Io d^'xon aexioKi XX ,^9©! O^.&ca swasva Sixsifeal 
.aol.uosa XitjcJnabiae'i.tTjj-JXiijd' -^Xs>3oXo ii jkxiJJxv/ 3i:£X3«f iioidoaf 

-.J>xi©l»iD eoa ion bxb bxto rtexiioo |fe-s'ari;^^«)fx gxlJ no aoaefoiasi ;^&i^ziixisia:©0 
-•xxfc> ^juil;} rao'x'i ijcXcioo ©XoiriST on aiii:3&& jfice ts^w ajitf od b»:*[opX nsxlJ 
'XXaY** iUiiiEis.i&iyi aialM farrssrl 3/i noid-osartsitni Qdi sJSii*8*fl9 saw ©Xicfom 
to 69©qo n ia ■sxtirfo/io-.tsicia <«oX*osfaasid'«x oxli to itaii© dest OTil-^-f rt?!' 

approe.cliing the center of the westbound traffic lane of 74th 
street; that the witnecs imnieciictely turned or sttempted to turn 
his cer toward the v^ezt into 74th street so ae, to avoid colliding 
with the approaching truck; that Bartoli, the driver of the tr\iok» 
turned toward the south, away from the path of the v/itness^s auto- 
molDile; that tht truck struck a large lamp post et the southwest 
comer and the automobile of the mtness then struck t?ie rl-Jit 
side of the truck at ahout the canter; th-.t hxs car did not move 
after the rmpact and was then facing in an almoRt westerly direc- 
tion - slightly southwesterly; that both dafandants were injured; 
and that Mrs. Michaelson v/as driven hack to Billings J.iemorial 
Hospital and Miss Kretzmann to a doctor's office and then to her hcmei 

Plaintiff Mary C. Kretzmann testified in substance that 
Welshon was driving south on the west side of Indiana avenue near 
the curh at a speed of ahout fifteen miles an hour as he approached 
and reached the intersection; that when Welshon' s car was oh out forty 
feet north of the intersection she saw defendants' truck at the alley 
ahout one hundred and seventy-fire feet east of Indiana .evenue coming 
west on 74th street; thst after glancing to the west she aga3.n looked 
east and at that time defendants' truck was near the intersection? 
that B.B it was not stopping she screened and Welshcn turned his auto- 
mobile;, which was ^hout at the intersection* toward the west; and 
that eji instant later the vehicles collided a little south of the 
middle of 74th street and just west of Indiana avenue. 

Plaintiff Janet Miohaelson testified that she loGked when 
the automobile in which she was riding came to the corner hut did 
not see the truck; that the weather was "very had," that there was 
a "terrihle had rain" and that the automobile window was "steamed 
up;« and that she heard Miss Kretzmann' s scream, which was immed- 
iately followed by the impact which threw her to the floor of ttie 

awifeiXIoo bioYJj oj a^ os ctoQid'c! dS^V oiui ise'^ ed^ 5^-gwoc)- xsg bxx£ 

9VOi2S rf'OK 5x5 -iicso Bid i i^Ai ^le^nnn sxfi ^'irotf^r, j-fi i^osj'i.^ Qtiii "to abie 
-oailb Y-J'i&d-Kavi ^'•80i2I*-i as n.t 'snioxi^ narici- ax* 5nf3 ;tosqi3a[]: srW it-.jV'is 

^3ȣi si;xi9T.R fiasxftfil I'o ebxB ;?a9w s*fl;? no ffui.'oa g,rjxvi:!s:b ejBVi? obrlaXsW 

b&dOBO'zq.q.^ &d a& ^uQd na asXiffl nss^'ili ^j;;od".s lo baaije a is cTtwc aa« 

-^iiol ^lUQik -^^.w *xso a'ncileXaV/ nsjiv? i.ndi inof.iooBf.atnl aii.i bedoesTL bak 

Sniuaoo 90it3T^ sxisx£>Kl 'io ^r:'^.e cJoifrl E'Tl'i*-^^ii8T93 tos ftaT^mrif sxio d-j;;ocf,e 

-Ov+i/£i oM i5gri'rjj-+ aoxialav/ bits bsfaRQioaaxia sfii^QiO-ta *oxs g^^w ii bs j-isxfd- 
brts ;,J(',:3v; erii biB'frci ^aoiioes'x^^rtl edi is issodf-c a£^ dotd^' uelicfom 
orii lo diUGu Qliiil b bebtLLoo aoloidev edi teisil inBisrrx rra t&di 
«3«fl2'%'-rj htsilbaJ lo -iaQVf ie.fjl bus i: 301^3 xfcfj>r 'io e-Xftbim 
nejcfiv fo&jlcol sx£a ;f.3£io' bsilicJao* aoslssdoi¥ ieitcl JliiaxBm 
bit *x;<f *xsui-oo sdi oi s-xsx-o BKJtbxi asw axle iloMw 9XJ:o''OEoJx/fi sdi 
bjspet etQxW *«.rf.-f '*tftjBCf ijiev" s&tw TQxWygv/ srfi d-Bxf;^ ?5[oAf'iJ' axW sea <^o« 
Ijeausad-a" e.DW woi>xiiv; 9Xxaoino*xf.c 9x1;^ *sx^;f bxts "nlsx bBcT sXtfitrrcs** '« 
-becEOia em dotm ^a.ssToa a »nxjsitisa^9i-Z aa.Mi b^^&d sda i£idi has ^iqv 
Qiii 1:0 vocXl sxlcf o;t ted wsirlcf xToixi* (^ojsqfitJ: 9x« xd be^oIXol ^Xs^^i 


Defendant Bartolif the drirer of the truok, who wac called 
by plaintiffs as an adTerse party under sec. 60 of the Oivll Prpctioe 
act» testified Bubstantially that he was employed by his cod'^f enf- 
ant tmerlcan Deyelopment Company; that he had "been driving 'west on 
74th street for about a mile; he was alone in the c^b of the 
truok; that the vdndohield in front of the cab v;as closed as were 
the doors on both sides of samei that it was raining hard, "coming 
straight down;" that raindrops had accumulated on his v.lndshield, 
aB well as on the glass windows in the doors of the cab, cutting 
down his vision a little, and that it vj-as hard to see through the 
driving rain; that rain always rec^uces visibility; that, as he ap- 
roached Indiana avenue, he was driving in the v/eetl)ound traffic lane 
on 74th street; that, T/hen he reached the alley two hundred feet east 
of the intersection, he looked at the truck's speedometer and noted 
that its speed was twenty-five miles an hour, that he maintained 
that same speed prrctically up to the intersection; that, when he 
first saw w'elshon's automobile, his truck v.-as *a little past the 
intersection" - out in the intersection of 74th street and Indiana 
avexiue; that at that time the other car v^aa about ten feet uv.ay 
to the north of him; that as he came to the iutorsection he took 
hir. foot off the gas with the motor closed, reudcing his speed 
to something less than twenty-five miles au houi I that h© first 
applied his brakes when he saw the other oar coming toward hia 
and at that time also swerved his truok to the southwest to avoid 
the accident; that he did not hit tlie curb or lamp post on the 
southwest comer until .elahon's automobile had struck his truck 
on the right side; and that both vehicles had goti>en over aa far 
west as the west curl» near the southwest comer when the impact 

took plaxse* 

Beteer GeaeinhaiTdt, whose home was yn the northeast corner, 


Q-xaw SB &o?iOXs aH«- a"so &tii to *«0"xl «i i)X©lxia&Hlw ©rfd- ^iiiJ* jiToj/T* 

xbl-3liiBbn.trJ Bid no fes^alirfawooa ftjarl aqi^ibMlBi ixitli »%mo^ difelai*^ 

'3£tijf:^i.'o <.cfi?o ^:>rf^ to ejioob 3ii;t si a??o5ni'/; aaaXg ©ifi no ac IXdw as 

-3f{* cfefl'o'jciis^ eoa oi b'r.'SjEf a^w ^i d^sri* bite ,sl#*lf js mal^l-v aM iiwob 

-tt?; 9(f as <;f;3xf:> r^;tJXJ:(.ac!iv smoubei: a^^wXa nisi: #^rf^ jjcriBir S^i^-fcTfe 

-nal oxl'trj'r;^ bflwod^-jsmf orC.t ni ^itiTXfb es!? 9/£ tSunsT*! jBfiAi&nl borfOBOi 

baiofs bxsa •3:©jf3ist6'b»9£j3 afjiow'j'i sM^J'^s bsaCocI' oM tnotio^ei^ial 9i(i^t> 

beniMiiiiBSi arf ^.sxfa n'rwoif ns aellm Byi'l'-x^a^'^^ aaw feasqe ail iMdi 

&d n&xfcy «;}i}rii inoliosais^ai siii oj cxi/ xXIf^oici'O.'^xq bo9qa sates i^j&rf;? 

9i£i' iasq 'jliii.1 s" a^-A' 3faM*c.+ sM n&lidenaoiifB a'aoi£aX«W was #alll 

:;lGoi Off «oi*oo©'xs#isx aif^ o;* ssco ©rf a^s ijsxf* iaiiri lo rf^Jaori srfd^ 03 

bsoqii aixJ sniobyy^ sbsaoXo -xodOM axf^t r{,tivj aijs Qti^ 'i^o i oqI aid 

isti'i &d u.-jiJ {xwoii iia eaXini qtx l--.C^n9w;t ns£f;t aaftX ^uM^tsBioa o;J 

sslA b'lnifoi anicioo 'x.oo 'x&tf^o Sil^ w<sa erf aodw aeateief aXxf beiXcrqs 

biovs oJ *aevTiiJuo3 odi oi 'Aoisti a ixi b arte 3W a oqX« 9mii JijrfJ ia bus 

arfct no iRoq qtasX ao d-'-ci/o edi i Id ion bib ®jc£ *Bri^ tiasbtooB edi 

^outi Gid ^oi/-^a ?)«ri eXitfoiaoJi/a a 'noriaXor Xi;^m ttainoo inmdiuoe 

^sT: 3« aovo noOJos bstt a®Xoin'sv rfcfotf ;fBii;t bus jebla isi^tt odi ao 

:^o«qrai 9xi;? irorfw -rofrtoo *asv.'rfc/iroa ari^ a^a„ tf^^^o ^eew oxfj gjs iaaw 

• ao^Icj jfoocf 


tetjtified that from her kitchen window about one hundred feet cast 
of the intersection ehe saw defendants' truck pass at a speed of 
from thirty to thirty-fiTe lolles an hour* 

Homer Geller, thirteen years old at the time of the 
collision^ testified that he was walking north on the west side 
of Indiana avenue and that» when he vras about one hundred and fifty 
feet south of 74th streot» he saw .7elshon' s automobile about half 
a block north of 74th street being driven south on the right side 
of the street at a speed of fifteen to twenty miles an hour| that> 
Vifhen he first Baw the truck travelling west on 74th street* it -was 
about twenty or t /enty-f ive feet east of the intersection and ap- 
roaching at a speed of thirty-five or forty miles an hour; that 
the vehicles; o^^me together about in the middle of the intersection* 
the truck thereafter striking the lamp-post} that Welshon's auto- 
mobile did not do anything before the accident other than go strai^t 
slxead; and that after the collision he saw skid marks extending in 
B:n easterly and westerly direction for about twenty-fire or thirty 
feet on 74th street. 

Donald Cliff, twelve years old at the time of the trial f 
testified in substance that about noon on January 22 p 1934 1 he was 
walking ^^ast on the north side of 74th street near the alley half 
a block wei:t of Indiana avenue; thf^t he saw the westbound truck 
v.'h^n it was at the alley east of Indiana avenue, but that he did not 
notice it very carefully until it c-ane up to the intersection; that 
he could "form a peetty good opinion of the speed of an nutomobile 
coming toward me" and that the truck approached the intersection at 
a speed of about thirty or thirty-five asJles an hour; th- 1 its speed 
was reduced a little as it came up closer to the intersection; that 
the brakes were applied to the truck aad it skidded; th.a the truck 

. is*^« 

X^^'lti'i 5fi^ bB'ihmjd sko ;fi?ojJ^; saw ©iC noff?/ , discs' brw? sffnsTB j8fi:si:&/il lo 
~qs tor. 4^oJ:;5•ossts:o^JKi s^f;;}' "io 'Jtmio #3£)1 ©Ti'j:«»Y,Jtl5t9vsiJ so \^J'fi9wi' a-irOcfs 

X^2M.+ '10 »Ti;i~TCifMSf^3- *j/0cf£ 'tot ml-^ti^'tli} xlxoiBm htm TjXis^sja®. xis 
tXia-x.t ©r{t to 9&i-i 9xf# jTii &Xo H1B&X &rlmi .« 111X0 bXaiioC 

.-ton f>,tb od isidj iudi Jt^mievB ^xiei&nl "Jio *8xs9 -^©XX^j sifir *45 sm it xxsriw 

*i>.rf* {fiolv^oeav&S'fil 9xi<f Qi gtr sfluio cfi XLJxjw ^XXwlsii^o.Tt^v ^^j: &^i:±m 

aXitojHOC^ur, na ^o b'-sqa sxTi lo coixtiijo booa ^iJeaq; £ «aol« fcXtroo sxl 

ij5 noiio&BiQ3ai aii^ &e/Xf.?a©T(iqja ;^oi;x;t adi ^sdi bm «9ai fe'icwoJ ^,£1X0100 

*^l;f iiiOlio^ntotni odi PS ,»aoXo (i^- sx^cso *i «« oXc^.^iX *. fiaoxxbo^ a.^w 


Btopped near a lamp poet at the southwest corner j th?it he oTjeerred 
Bkid marks extending eastward from the truck, after it come tc a 
stop, to the east sidewalk oi" Indiana arenue? that '.'eiahon's auto- 
mo laile entered the intersection hei'ore defendants* truck; and that 
he did not see -Velshon'a automobile lor a sufficient lenrrth of time 
to estimate its speed* 

The first question presented for our consideratlor is whether 
the verdict v.'as against the maxiifest weight of the evidence* In our 
opinion it unquestionahly was* Although the verdict of the jury is 
usually final and "binding upon the court as to questions of fact, if 
it can "be seen frora an examination of the entire record that the ver- 
dict is claarly and manifestly against the svei^t of the eridenee 
arid should have been set aaide by the trial court, tMs court v/ili 
not heaitate to reverse the judgmaat on appeal* J Mississippi I»ime _ 
and ilatarial Oo» v. Smi th , 282 111* App* 561} jJonelscm v* E* £>t* 
Louis I^ailv/ay Go*, 233 111* 625j Gorinors v* vVinke, 200 111, App« 351* 

As has "been heretofore stated, it is conceded on the record 
brought to us that plaintiffs were not guilty of ccaitributory negli- 
geaee and the law is settled that the negligence, if any, of ; elshon, 
the driver of !,he automobile in which they v/ere pasaengers, cannot be 
imputsd to them* 

For a clearer understanding of the facts anci circumstances 
surrounding the collision* we have set forth at considerable length 
the testimony of all the eyewitnesses which had any material bearing 
on the occurrenee, "but, inasmuch as the case will in all likiilihood 
be retried, \^e refrain from di.-oussing the viusution of .vhether or 
not ..elshon was negligent or the teetimonj'' of any of the wituesses» 
except that of Bartoli, the driver of defendants' truck* 

Bartoli*s o-sm version of the occurrence aa testified by him 
convicts hxa at least of nasligence. He stated that he drore the 

^^0^ ©iTf.fto ^i 'loilB tjCauic-r ©££* xao-j"! iji£sw#ej3a> tifijtbns^x© aiJijiitf&Jbia 

ssti::* lo d^ in^loi'ilsjs js 'xol 9XxocKfoiy.s a »iiojrfe ir^'\'' ©sa •^ftcr filti^'dii 
!£«irf^©iiw ai ffOl;^.ai96i:?{fiOO lit© -so T bsfm^gorrq .aoiiasjLf.p ?s*xl1: ei^' «' - ■ 

si ■^ii.'t ^^•^'^-^ "''^o ^tex'jtoT ©iltf xC-:juor{;J-XA .es^p? xJCtfsnoi;ds©j;;pmr ^1 iioinicj;- 
li: ,#0^1 'to 6xiox;iras«p 0* a^, ^^uoo mii ttoqu 'galhnitSi fefts LesiSit -v^XXsi/aw 

IXiw i'lijoo aM^ i^'iijoo Lexai' s^* T^tf sbxos tae ft©stf sy^ri bXwojia J^jrs 

«j'a tS: «T gpsXsiaOil ' iXaS •qqX *XII S82 ^d*tJM& »r » p& lBi.'s.^iB&■hkB 

*I3S ^qoA. «IXI COS tt>3tolvV .V irxofiiiob ISSS *XXI 5£S ««e!5 ^.s^ttlsik eltmJ: 

S'xoos'x QxiJ' no bsbeocon ai: *1 ,b&*ai3^B ssTO'tots^^rfrtSecf a^rl sA - '^-" 

-iXE^-^n Y'3:o*^'<^''i'J"^«t)2 aO "^^Xixfs don s'£»w tit1ti::rii.t£Xq tj8ia^ 6Jar 6* tfriSstrtJ^cT 

tHorfaXa; lo iiYA3 "^i eSsrtaslXssn sx£4' *sf£i beX3-*»a al wsX »irfi^ bn« socc- 

3tf 4oaHGO <2io;an9 8a^.(3t axsw ^©rfd iioMw fix aXicforaoJjjs sxfd lo -xsvlxb &ni- 

♦ ffiSfiii Oif b63'Jjc[aix 

ii^aitoX ©XtTjs'xobianoo ;t/5 xlcfioi ;Jsa snrcri 9W ^iroielXXoo srf^ sjaX&rujo'xaue 

BXJixjj&fJ XfiX'Xo^sftt Y^is l)i3X{ iioxif!;. a^aa9xIJtiv?al^c^ ox£* XXxs to ^noiaiJas* &£li 

5oorU.Xi'5CiX XLb xsX XXx^ oa^o orfj" e« xfowflia^nx ^^ti/tf syoissfxiioco sxfi no 

taetjSoriixv/ exii "io xa& to xtiOcaliaBi isxii xo ;tnosiXs^« Rsw noxiaXaii/ ;Joxi 

n^oij-£:i ♦sia.wlbneleS lo 'xsvi :.0 sxi^ «xX©^-c.«ff lo ^t.'rii^ ;tq9ox 
iaJxf x<f bjXliiaod o-js saauatcirooo axf;? lo coiaiev if^o B'xXo;ttea; 

©rid- sTox!.' sxi j'Xi;? baJs^a eH ♦sonaaxXsen lo ;tRs©X ^^ tt.trf arfoivxico 


truok westvvard on 7lth street as he approached and practically 
ri^t up to the Intersection at a speed of twenty-flYe miles an 
hour over a slippery pavement and through a violent rainstorm 
which reduced visil)ility. He admitted that he did not giTe any 
warning as he approached the intersection iand asserted that he did 
not see the automobile in v.fhioh plaintiffs were riding vmtil he had 
actually entered the intersection* 

In Crowe Hame Plate & Mfg» Go# v» Ite jmnerich; 279 111. App« 
103 » v/here conduct found to he negligence as a matter of law was far 
less aggravated than the conduct admitted hy Bartoli in the in- 
stant case, the court said at p. 108 » 

"That appellee's driver failed to look as he came to^^ard 
the crossing of A street and Florida avenue is manifest. He 
testified he did not see the taxi until he was at or in the 
intersection, and that it was then straight ahead of him, and 
only 10 feet away. That he could hfive seen it in ample time to 
have stopped hie car, and thus avoided the collision, had he heen 
on the lookout for other vehicles, as the lav/ reqtiired him, is 
obvious. He could not under such circtimstances, he heard to 
say that he did not see the cab, when, had he looked, he necesaarily 
woiild have seen it. I> eBow v« Cleveland, d C»_&_.St_« L. Ry > Co»y 
245 111, App. 158 J Grine st aff v. "ifew York Cent." R. eV, 263 111. 
App. 589. The driver of appellee's car did^ii'ot testify that he 
looked in aiiy direction as he apxjroaohed the crosaiug, and the 
proof thoroughly establishes that he did not do so. This failure 
to so look was negligence as a matter of law.* 

We agree with defendants that under the right of way statute, 

reasonably G<aistrued, the car on the preferred highway to the ri^t 

does not have the absolute right of way across a street or hi^way 

intersection under any and all circxmiBtances, and that this court 

placed a proper oonstiuction upon such statute in Heidler Oo» v. 

Wilson & Bennett ^ Go. j 243 111. App. 89, v/here it vfas held at pp. 

94, 951 

"In passing on the question of whether due care was exer- 
cised by the drivers of the respective cars involved, tvro principal 
elements must be taken into consideration, namely, the relative 
position of the two cars with refjpect to the intersection and theix 
respective ratoa of speed. Usually the question of v/hether, in 
view of the relative positions of the two cars? with respect to 
the intersection, and their respective rates of speed, the driver 
of the car approaching the intersection froa the left, should have 
seen that the cars would or might collide, unless he yielded the 

l)sil 9^ ix;^!!^ g,«ii:u'i s-i&w a1:tx;:fiilaXq: xioMv/ ni alidoffloows Q4i SQS .*0*t 

«qqA ,XII QI'S t^fi[oi:;xoxgiaQa. .*y »oO,, *^t M :& o^aX^ ej CttsK , 9wq?, xsj 
'iisl 3,fiW ¥sX lo Tt^i*-.!!! ,0 as aonoslXson ocf o;l- hasjol ioubsxoo 8>n:8ifw %fiOX 
«ni ox(;^ ni ■ Moii-sS "^.jjcf bsiilsiiiSi iosjbnoo Bsi\i rtsrii bo*sTST:3S« saeX 

©H «#?;'r>3;in.Kffl si; s^nsT!?. Bi)J:it>X''C bixs ^&c>iii^ A lo gniasoTTO ©Kv 
ed$ fii rro cfs aaw Qxi llims ±xs* aii^f ©aa tfort bi5 axl foslli^taso' 

Qi sxaiw^ oXqaij:?. ni ^1 nsaa svsil bXiioo oil i^T tX^'^f^ tQ^i OX yXko 

ax ^BiM b9Uixjp9i \?bX &iii aa «s©XoMov isiid'o "lol JuorfooX sxiJ co 

•^Xi^jKaasosfi »ii ^sfttsatooX oxf b^sii jixsrlw ,cf,i3o srft 99a doxt fol& ail d'jaif;}' \&a 

^jj.op ♦Tgg 4 11 1^3 !& «0 t»0 t&neXsYaXO >v H'?,^^^ -^i ts&Qa &T&d hSjso\7 

rxf f '5dS'^«T^"'«'H'"'*";j'gsD'k^oY W8fe '""/v" Ite^aenxttS jS^X .qgA .IXl 5M 

Oil »tijxf;t -^"ixd^'sad ooix olb a^o a»©QXXoq;c£i3 lo iSTiTb &if£ »QB5 •ccqA 

arf^ bxm t'Bniaad'xo ©ff-J bodbso'rqq^ sxi as KOiio®'i:xi) i£fXB ni b3:iooX 

g^tiXxijI: BXifi" ,os o& 4oxi bi& ed ^Bdi esxfeiXtfB^tas \;XrfEtfoioxl;f "iootq 

".'fifjsX aO 'xa^^d-aBi a a^ »SK0SiXB»ii aaw :^c<oX ©a oct 

Y^swrfaM to g-ea'x^a .3 aao-xas tjjsw 1o c^xfB't'^ siwXoucfrj a/f* sfjarf d'Ofi Bdob 
3"i;woo axfl^ ^.sjl;? bmi « avowed emrjviio IXfi biis x^is "^sfcxiH ao Hob atrial 

•qq ;t« bX»ii «Jaw d-1 stsri:?/ t0B •<jtfA .XXI £1^ < »oO ^ j-e/t rroR rS goaXxW 

, .^ .'.^^ - r,.:..i' ., .0.,:,. .;•„.'.. 889 ^^Q 

Xaci-toni'tq ovr^t (b&vXovnJt aijrjO svx^ooqasT oxic^ lo e^ovittb 9di ^cf ftsaio 
»vi:i^XQT »ii;t tYX'Jfft^^js ^rxciiri'X3&isKOo oinX nealBd ocf isim s^iieasX© 

•xisxW f:)n.«3 ixol^tooais^ni 9di oi *09qfi»*i rfJ^iv/ Qii>.o ow* edi lo noi;tlaog 

ni tT:9r!*ejffw la xiOJt;Jst3iJi' «>ri* ^sjXXjewsU •osaqH lo ««;?«« syxooaqusit 

od' d-ooqaa-i rf*iw ^aiao ovir^ oxW lo axioi;!"xeoq ©viJsXo-x ax£i lo wsiv 

OYxuri bXworia <;fl9X sxl<f moil noicfosaaotfni sxJ:? aaxxloiiOTciqfl xbo &xf*+ lo 
Qdt babXssi\: ttd aeaXriw t^&i-C-Coo iri^iic -xo feXwow ariBO &d$ iiadf ti^&Q 


right of way, ie one of fact for the jury to deteriaine. Of course, 
like similar questions of faot, this may sometimes become one <yf 
law» "but only where, in the opinion of the court, all reaeonable 
minds would reach the same conclusion. 

"It vi/ould seem to "be clear that the statute doee r'.ot mean 
that the driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection mui^t yield 
the right of way to one approaching the same intersection on his 
right, without regard to the distance that vehicle may be from the 
intersection when he reaches it or to the rates of speed at whioh 
the two vehicles are traveling. vihen the driver of a vehicle 
approaches an intersection and he sees another vehicle approaching 
from the right, at a greater distance from the intersection and 
at a Bpeed such that, in the exercise of due care, he believes he 
will be across the intersection before the vehicle approachinlj from 
the right reaches it, then, in our opinion, the latter car is not 
one 'approaching frcmi the right' within the meaning of th e stat utaj^ 
and so as to reciuire such driver to stop or yield the right of way*" 

The rule enunicated in the Heidler case that the relative 
positions of the two cars and their respective speeds must be con- 
sidered in dctormining the ripjits of the drivers of such cars to 
precedence in crossing an intersection, aotald, in our oj>inion, hay* 
been intended to apply only to a driver of a car vvho, before enter- 
ing an intersection, observed the position of the other car and noted 
its speed. H*w could it possibly apply to a driver on the unpre- 
Iferred highway who did not until he entered the intersection even see 
the other oar on the preferred highway to his rig;;ht x;o either note 
its position or estimate its speed? We repeat that the negligence, 
if any, of Welshon cannot be imputed to plaintiffs, and even thou^ 
he was in some manner negligent as he approached, entered or crossed 
the intersection, they are Btill entitled to recover from defendants 
if Bartoli's negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries* 

The verdict in this case* in our opinion, could have been 
reached only as a result of prejudice engendered in the minds of the 
jury by erroneous rulings of the trial court upon the evidence. A 
written statement that had been previously signed by elshon was 
offered in evidence by defendants and received mthout objection. 
It was obviously introduced on the theory that it impeached the 

witness. It was not read to the jury prior to the closing argu- 

1:o> ©no ©^Hooscf aarerii.tQsjsc-.-j XBiS 8 Mi' ^ioal lo snoidasjjp x.^Xiraia eaixX 
©I^BiioaiHa'r iXb tJ-^i^JO Kxi* lo noirtlqo arfS' ni: ^atteriw ^Xno ;tjjcf «w©X 

• noi3fe"Xonoo 'i^aa artd Ji0';yx bXaow a&iiiei 

&lohiQV Si lo la-vl'xh ©if it GsrfvV .gniXsvfi'J:^ oxe aaXoMev Oi«i oAi 

tjnirloso'^qqs sloMov 'saxl^ofia ®®©q &i1 btm noi^oaaie^iii its aeifoBO^qq^ 

bits aotJ-ooatco^S'isi si'i* sio'i'i sofiivjaib 'xsJas-ss s ;tB e'^'i^a^'^ Q-^^ motit 

9ii BaraiXQCi Sii «c>'ijBO ^asb lo ©bXo^sx© sxiS' ill tisd-i dois& hQ&qu b J^s 

lao'xt gniuioj30'£gg.6 ©XoixIsT 9i>'';J s'lo Is cf aolioQSTSitix odi saoroB scf XXriv" 

4Mi 3k tso 'X8^^.eX «rla^ .» ito-xnicio itiSQ «l ^no/ii^ «#1 e%»xfos&^ dxfeii oxl;^ 

'*■"« viii? 'lo ^.tfel'x aiii^ '&X0x^ no 'qo*a cs- "xsTi'xb rfoxre oxii/ps-x o* as oa /?iJ6 

eTXiijsXo^ Gil* jJ^ttC* ©e«o _g 3_XbJ: gH oii* xii fosisolxiuiss eXsiT eiiT 

ayar: ^iioliiiqa "euo £Ex «M«oo ^tiol'^o^a'x&iak sis '^o.iMBO'iQ ai 9&smb&&9%tii 

a$a aoYo aolioQBi^^SiL 9sii b&^x&itx& Bii Iltsm ■^uiz bib orfw ^AWifeltC fca^xi^t 

ffauoil^ nsYS &i'£s iatliinxBlq, oi be^uqj^l 90* ioxiaeo xsoxlalsW lo tiC'CE« ix 

s^n.Bbxte'iob lao'i'i i©too9:i: oo feoXi'l^xxa XXl^a s^b x^J^^ ,aoi;Jo9a's:s*ni srf* 

naao svi',fJ bXi/oo «jaoifiJtq[o 'oro ni ^©aBo sijct;? ai ioibtev &tS}S 

A «fi)0ftabf-y<3 axEd' isoqxr ^ti/oo X^gIt:;? sdi 1o ss-Kii^J:^ lajjosxioi'ia x«f "^"JCJ^C 

,noliQ^ltfo ^ijoiUivr bsTitJOST Jbcs a;f£rii!)fi9'isb ^tf sonsbiTS «i JbaTsllo 
aii* bexlofiaqaxi ii imii ^to^ri;^ erf* no 6»oflb03*£ii v-^'^J^o^vtrf) -«■•' ^^ 


jserit3. hen ruch argianentE lir-d Tieea oomplettd by counsel foi toth 

.aides, plaintiffs' oounaol suggeateci lliat eucii v*ritten statement 

zQMl6 not "be takea to the jury room, Lt first the trial oourt ruled 

that the ^tatemeai coulti be tciken "by ihe jury upon retirement. The 

co-art then changed its ruling niid peniiitted defend ants* couriaelj 

CYar r'X.iintifi'e' ouj'-ci,ion» to read the Ets^tement to the jui'y and 

pane it ainong the jaroxa to inspect and read themselves,, .e agree 

-Tith plaintlffa' contencioii that to permit the statement to he read 

to the Jury at that stage of the trial and to permit the jury to 

read the statement Gonatituted prejudicial error. It hae heen re- 

pesteoly held in thi;; state that depositions may not be tcl&en by the 

;*ury to th-) jury room. This rule has also been held to "-pplv to 

the xollowiaK other documentb in the natui"© of depositions ? a written 

oonfeGcion C 'i'he xeople v. Spra nger^ '614.- Ill* 602); a v/ritten dying '' 

declaration v -liuiu ^ v. The Pe ople > I'/'d 111. 582); and a ^'Trltten ad- 

laission oJ" Y;hat a. party would testify to if he Yfere present (L_gilth. t* 

¥ise> i^ii^-lomau & Oo» t 58 111* 141.) 

^^ -'6 0l)1 , -j v# ^-^I'uxi^cx t Bupra » the court said at p# 612 1 

"The court permitted the jury lo taice 'ftieodore's statement 
to the jury room with them upon their rr-tireiiient to r;onaxder their 
rerdict} ovenullnt; the defendants' objection* This waa erroneous. 
It is error to peimit the jury to tyJse r.ith them for con^i iteration 
in the jury room dcpo-.ltionf; or ciyinr declarations. (Raweon t. 
Curtiss, 19 111. 456; Dunn y. People , 172 id. 582.) The : ame 
rule applies to confssoiona yr other instruments of evidence 
depending for their v.alue oxi the credibility of the naker.» 

This rule has been consistently applied to wTittrtn ctstcinentB introduce* 

into evidence for the purpose of impeaching a witnoss. (H el a on t. 

I.*__: • elevated 5. Co., 170 111. App. 119; Johixson v. jJ. K. gairbfmk 

Co_. » 156 111. App. 331. -rs think it is jx\st 8.t; -riuoh a bre-ioh of the 

ruin to permit the jury to inspect such a statement while in the 

jury box as to iniiJiict iOid read it in the jury room, ven permitting 

the Ktateisent to be road to the jurors at the conclusion of the closing 

arguments and as the fir^al act of the '^rial before the court's inctruc- 

l)©J.«"i ^isjQo Xal^n s-iicr *aail oVi ,^{30i f^i-'l sfi* 6;t issst-si^ &(f ion bztjon 

oi x.l<^<l''<- oi blsii n99d' osXs aarf aX«i axiiT »iaooT X'^"l -'■rf^* o^ ^"rc?; 

■Bnti'i nBfitTij p- I (goo *IXI i^lC jL3S,Sia§'^JSi 'V aXgoau sd^} no i sea two o 
~b,!5 nf);ti^j-'rvT s bnfi ?(S8C »IXI aVX ji^l2P,s5._3dT .v ^S£i) tioii£^«Xod& 

'ixodi iQl)i.aAion o^^ iliirtjaG'xi^^-'Jti ttie^i? ftocnr aisrij ifJiw jcaoot ^"lift ^^ ©* 

noiu-s'isbiwKQO %o1 OT'sji* xfrtiw ajis* oJ- Tjizr^ ail:; .-fiETtatX o* torr.B at iX 

oi^TUTIT" (.?^S5 *b}. 'ZVl t^l£J3J>:i *r -amjci ;ag|v' ,XXI GX .eei^JM^ 

^»to±Bi^ hiJJ "io Y,*iXi: t/ibsio etli xxo difXev iJtoif* •joI ^aibflaqaf) 

aoubo villi a^r.aticiL'ija^c. nfi;J^lTf/ o:^' f)e±X<iqa vX^nsJaxaitoo KS«tf QBif sXwi sirfT 

:i0e<f-rxfrc_.:i ,^ .V nocuirfol ?i'XX .qq/.. .XXI OTX t«oO »g be^svsXt «T)' ytt 

£)£ii lo ifo.'^o'so' s rIo.ijAf aj?- *«;/J, ai *i 5[iy;ii.t &fe .XfiS •qgA *XXI d6X <>oS> 

edi ai. sIMw dnoxns;? :,*c b tiosja ioeqaai oi X'tisl oxti tim^^ &i 6tsn 

SnJ-BoXo eil;i iO jtSOxa/rXoiico sxfJ *i=i Rioiwt sxlJ o3 bM&t ©«f d* *^«9ct»J-B«l'.«3 ail* 


tioua was prejudicialo but to permit it to "be xm-prns-Z'Sd. and 
eapiiasxzed on th'3ir mind 3 "by ailofdjiT th^m to rsad it w&^s most 
dajaaging and hifihly prejuciioial. Tha proiaineace given to the 
statement stressed itd i^tportajitce, coinirife to the jurors vhijj.i acid 
es it did, anci it xafij well nave caused tiaem to tieliere that 
v.elsiion had been impeached mvi lor that reason plaintiffs v/ere 
not entitled to recover. 

.-everal other rulings of the trial coiirt on evidence Ciil- 
oulated to impeacn velshon and on other matters are oowplained of» 
■but Kve thiiik it luineoesaary to unduly lexigthen this opinion bv 
discusaiag samep as the improprieties charged are ox such a nature 
that they will hardly recur on another trial. 

^e are impelled to state that the criticism and abuse of 
plaintiffs' coviasel, as well aa the unwarranted and dcrogiitory 
accusations against them contained in defendants' brief are entirely 
unjustified and uncalled for. They filed a fair abstraot and care- 
ful and diligent Bcrutiny of their briefs reveals neither iaatcrial 
nor intentional mis-statement or misreprebentatiou of the evidsnce. 
The intemperate and unfair character 01 the lansu^ige of deft^udj^uits' 
brief coiild only have been c aiculated to aistract attention from 
the weakness of their cause. ii.-.rt,iculaily apiJlioable to defend- 
ants' printed brief and argument is the Ic^guago of Kline ct al. v. 
Karty » 171 111* /^pp* 495> whore the court aald at p. 504: 

"Befors discussing the corra^tneEs of this deeroe uiidcr 
the shoving of the record, v;e feel it necessary to advert to the 
impropriety of much ox the appellees' printed arcvuacnt submitted 
to ust It is in parts flippant and in passage is abuaive of the 
counsel for the r.ppeiiants. .,t- Forneys, ; olicit;ors and counsel 
pr-.3ticmg in this court are officers of the court and shotild treat 
each other v/i ^h at le^-st the forj-oal courtesy tlic-t such a relation to 
the court demands. M regard a contrary spirit shown in arguments 
submitted to uc; ciarebpectvul -o the court as v/ell as to the oppos- 
ing counsel." 

Tot the r easons indicated the judgment of the superior court 

is revt.rseci and tni^ c::us>- j > ; isiin 1 c' for a ne./ trial, 

73;lend and Scanlan» JJ.» concur. 

6*1.3 b^^rjQfi'xqu'.i ad" o* *i iim'x.Bz oi i.u-^ «£8i9£bjv|^9lfq; saw a/ioii 
Mom a«^^- ;ri t.',e*x o;^ istsii:- ".nl-vfoXX-? X«^ nham ilt'Sii £» Sasxafuvqaas 

o'low a'i'tcJ'azBXq ■ao^^BQ% ijs.ds 'xo'i »fia l)exiC'33a<isii xisatf bisri aorfaX^w 

#'i0voos* od bsXiiixfs ^Ofl: 

• Xjiii^ -xexi^oxiei ao xyooi \£b%£>si Jili^' x^di i&A^ 

Y.iocr4j^o«iu& '0£m bSi>ia£.iTx^i>j9nij ^di e« XXow ^.g «X©«x«fGc ♦e1:li:*££ialg: 

-sTcsiJ brta do^jx^acTs iljB'i s bolri xsd'i:: »%o'i b^ll&om bim b&ili^aul^ias 
S.isx.-i::--Jz'ji -xodilr^^a sX^ovso: alaitrcf sisxf* lo •^xtxi^ji/'roa d-flf^giXib' Sius'lifT; 

I'adxtHbisa'iob "io 3§>Pst©iiiiX edi 'io XiJios-xsrio 'Xiislrxaf &nfi Wei ©gats d-d oxIT 
HO'il nox;tri!yjd^s ctojsxJsib oi- baijiluolR o tie^<f srsd "VjXiHd ftlsfib 'ielitf 
-bnn'iub oi 3Xcf.ooxXiiQ.x5 TcX'iJ^XifOi^ijul ♦eauao :2i:ei{*,lo aesiqUew' ©rf* 

♦'^ *.I-' ^;> -'^ fiXI .^ ^Q na^jj^HisX odi? ei iii9mL-:^Xii baa Isi'icf I)»*nxiq 'a^fis 

:^Qe «ci o« &xjiu i-ix/oo axlo ouoxiw ijGi?!' *(iqA «XXjE XVX «X:l3i^ 

xo5«ir iifj-soeo axri^t "Ip aaofirfcsx'xoo &ri5 ?iiiXs£«&ex!> s'io'iafi." 

odi oi ^t-xaviV. oi ^XBQaaoan ii lest ow tb-xocoT: oxf;^ Io sniwoxfa axfd- 

bac^i'ixiidwb .rnoaijj-ijtcx: JDs;^x^ii:q *ei>oLleq,q& &di io dcsjm 'to "^iasiiQO'xcittJ: 

sxlj "io ti:v.lcxi£fij ai sgj^afcisq ai has iixsqqiXl ai"isq «i ai il ,2u o^ 

Iciixiij-to bus, siaOoiolXou t a\;fi)«'c ck; rfij. .a;fxi!<jXX9q3:;i 3Xly< c£Ot £^&auQp 

iaQ-xi bluodii &ax3 ^ttxjoo oxf* Io ai9oXi*io sxsj iiisoo eidi ni Bixiox:tc.>trtj 

y.i- itottzl"-.': JG iioj/e j\:i:r,) xo»*'i«0" l-^-'io't iidi SfssoX ^^ xii'xw -xailtfo xiaea 

t-;*m)mj/ax« xti xxworfa i iitqe xifs^jnoo s bTi^jga^ 9V .afciuejo^ft (t-rx/oo ^?r^'.-f 

"«X9eiif/oo "f?!!!! 
"-jjroo aoxT:s>qya odi io inomsfcut SJ^W baiisoibni axxoass i erf* to7 

• a; .OLMMK a CEKA crseHJTWH 

/ f / -^- ■■ , 

38692 I y'' ^ \ ,,BvffiJiBWB8»I»'««»«^> 

AIBERT FBT^SOU et al., ) 

Appellants, ) 


JASOEB. irVAHS et al.. 

Appellees* ) 



38 8I.A. 623' 


This appeal seeks to rererse a decree v/hicli ordered 
that the fxmds of the Amalgamated Union of Operating ngineers 
(hereinafter for convenience referred to as the Aiaalgamated ) 
in the hands of M« J* Pufahl, reoelrer of the Austin Ifational 
Bank, he distributed rateahly to those members of such asBOCiation 
who were in good standing April 19, 1930, in proportion to the 
amounts contributed hy them to said fimds* 

Plaintiffs yOLhert Peterson, as general president, and 
Charley Kleaz, H» W« Brown and Gregory Zieske, as trustees of the 
Amalgamated Union of Operating TDngineers, a voluntary association, 
alleged in their hill of complaint filed December 1, 1931, that 
they were elected i^.nd qualified as such officers and that they 
brought this proceeding on their ovm hehalf and "on behalf of all 
other members of said Ajaalgamated Union of Operating Sngineers." 
The defendants named in the bill were Jason B. vans, who as 
secretary-treasurer of the foresaid /aaalgamat ed had deposited 
the funds in question in the "bank and received the receiver's 
certificate therefor,. John Possehl» general president of the 
International Union of Steam and Operating Engineers, and M. J« 

.Tl'SlIDO 31000 I 

EA^IJJtJS S?:DITam »H2aiS5EfH -.SBK ; ^^; ... ■ 

XRm}X&£iE uliBisA e.£ii to le'vl^o^^- ^Idn'iifl »!. »M 'io afoosxi ^ri* jhx 

ftoi Saloon as xiosra "So a^?Jo'Msm 9«0iii' o^ xi:<^^^»*^^« bei0eriT:*Bl&. 0<f ,:iixsa: 

Qsii 0* noiiJ'JioqO'xq: iU «0^^X t-'X Xi'xq[A gtXjXbaad'a beos fjjt 3t»v»: oifw 

Y®ii^ ^Kr{:r bitB a"3r?>oi.'.t^C} iJoms a,?, fywileiXjajErp baa &e#«»X(| WW? ■■^Eatf* 

XXs lo IX^sxfecf no" .&«£ IXASJlsd" xk/o al»xli^ kg gajibasoo'xq aMt ^ Jilaifoad' 

".a^®s«1.3jnK 3jai^.si«>q0 ^© GOinll l)9*jBaiE^Xsaii'i. &.isa 1:«> atsdbaaia isilSo 

a't9-*i.9o®^ «Bl;r &©ti;!909t bxts afaratf eii^ cti no i;t a «>flp i«i ebm/l: ©rfcf 

■ em Iq J^^c61^^9o:g X.?,i:e«9a fXiTsaeo^X m£ot vito'if3T©xf* •#aonWtoo 

.T. *M bm te'xasKlgHii bwX^b'isctO fine lOBS^^a J.o aoicU Xi^xtl>X;t.^rrx9irisI 

Pufahl, receiver of the Austin i^fational Bank* 

Possehl appeared "but was defaulted for -A-mt of sm answer. 
^raz}M and f-ufahl answered the "bill. Thereafter "by leave of court 
an intervening petition vfas filed by Douglas L» Abbott and several 
hundred others, vho alleged, inter ali &a that they \Yere members in 
good etc;ndiug of the ionalgamated on and prior to April 24, 1930, to 
which petition answers were filed by plaintiffs and defendantP 
x-Tsois and Pufahl* 

The original bill sougiit to determine conflicting olaiias 
to the f\mde in the hands of defendant Ptifahl, as reoeirer of the 
aforesaid closed bank, and for an order on defendant T^vans to turn 
orar to plaintiffs the books of account and the receiver's certifi- 
cate belonging to the ;jaalgaiaated • The intervening petitioners 
sought to have the funds in question prorated among them. 

In addition to ordering the receiver of the "bank to pay 
the funds to ••vaas for pro rata distribution to the members of the 
asaooiation in good standing on April 19, 1930, the decree ordered 
that vans first retain for himself out of the fxmda a fee of |100 
for hie eervioee attendant upon such distribution and that he pay 
the solioitors of the respective parties t except those representing 
the receiver, a fee of |30u each. 

Plaintiffs contend that defendant l".vaas and the intervening 
petitioners withdrew from the i\aialgamated April 19, 1930, and that 
when they did so their interests in its funds and property ceased 
and the remaining members became jointly entitled thereto? and 
"that the withdrawal of any number of members less than the whole 
did not affect the identity of the association, and those remaining 
were entitled to carry on and to the use of their property for 
tl^at purpose.* 

'J'tiroo lo ©T.'^isX •'5£f ^si'iii&'s.ziirj: ♦Ilia &£it bsjiawaoe Xxteljt^i. bfxn. crsffT-"' 

iti 3-i»'Jci«>Jst 3'xew xMis is£L:i t»ll,s., .x®M4 tbiSB^XXs ojciw ^a-xaii^o be^&awri 
0^ fOCeX i^^^ Itiql. «^ ToJi'iq £)tiB no b®!j#,fltBBX^?JM-'^ <5ii5 'io S^tibasiia boo® 

\. .., ^Isifi'iifi has aasV ' 

am-BXo g«i;roiX'ino3 outsn^iob ©d d/fejyoa XXluf X««is-i5o s^'*^ 

®4la lo 'i&Ti;y09'r as tXd^tj/I ;?n.':jbfls1:ob 'to abaaii 9Jf# ax afent/'i s.K.t o5 

xnifd o* ansvT diis&xxs^&& no tju&tco ub to'i bivs tilm^tf beaoXo bjtaaa'xola 

~il:ldxso a'rtOT/.siosis isxf* &«;3 im}&ov>.n "io BSEoecT ©fit a1:lli^ftJ:«Xq e* ' t^'V© 

-^B^ oi ^!X.t£ ©rid- lo t»Tl9o«*r ^ri* S^ii-obto e* JSO±*i&bjS «X 

beasbtco os-coGb 9jtl* tOf,t?X. t^M Xiuq:A iso S££-t:&Ka#a Jbebs ni aoiiaioos'-. 
00X$ 'to oal r, abfio-l: aiii to ;fjuro tXosisLlifi niol jal.^;t9l ^arril isftsT'i *afl[* 

• ■' ■■ ' ■ ''■ .jrf»»9 00£# 1:« '9s>l: B ^ierieo^i: edt 

^jsxiJ bftf5 tO«(?X <ei XxTqrA bs<t#iaasXijaw'. «?iJi ejo^l w©2fe/l*ivv ansnoiJlf «nq[ 
baaj?3 xitsqptq;, 'oiai s,)amjt a4i al a^aexisrftti ulstdi oa bXb ■^srld' no.'- 

folio jocTsiori* bsX^liisco Yi^^iiioi 'smaositi aieKJjR&«i gfilaisflia^ ©ifi' bms 
sXoiiw s-riiT narf;} aaoX u'i:5i;(fei3flf to tsiSmsst •^xis "io X.o^^>i&xf*iw ©ifc^ tac. 
actifxl^Bis^ ©aexIiT brio ,coXisioos8j8 sxfi lo \'^±;tfl5bi orf;^ *09'it/j i&tt bV^ 
rot xi'^sqoiq ^JL&sii ta ea« axC* o;^ baa ao x««6» »* baX^ti^iiiS s^dw 


The theory of defendant Evans and the intervening peti- 
tioners, who filed a joint \)rief in this court, as stated "by 
them is as follows i 

"(a) The Amalgamated Union ceased to exist after April 
1930, and its funda, therefore, should be diatri'buteci to th*? 
memhers in good standing at that time I 

"(b) ilrior to April 1930 the /oaalgamated Union consisted 
of three local unions, 464, 4 64 A end 401 • Qo 'vpril 19, 1930, 
locals 464 and 464A agreed to disband and join local 150 of the 
International TJnion of Operating .nfjineere. Local 401, while it 
did not adopt a resolution to disband, ceased to function after 
\pril, 1930. 

"(o) Ho meniber of any of these three local unions, except 

the defeiidant -ivans, paid aiiy duea into tiio fuiid iu coritr jvurciy 
after April 19, 1930. 

"(d) ^"^ren though it may be held that the i^algamated Union 
did continue a legal e:vistoncs after .vpril, 1930, it held no business 
meetings, transacted no business, and the members of Local Union 464 
and 454A, continuad ;ii3 nomt-ors of the /uaalgamatQu to the stuas extent 
as members of local 401, becaase the members of local 464 and 464A 
never ^nthdr9w thoir maabersMp from the .unalgavoatcd Union. There is 
no provision in the Constitution of the Amalgamated Union which pro- 
hibits a member from joining another union. Heither Is there any I 
provision that a rjember of a disbanding local union ceases to be a 
member of the Amalgamated." 

The Amalgamated v/as a voluntary association, as heretofore 
stated, "^hen it was organized in 1927, it comprised five local unions, 
400, 401, 402, 464 and 464A, each consisting of varying numbers of in- 
Sivldual members. It had a constitution as well as laws for the govern- 
ment of the local tmions. Local 400 dropped out of the Amalgamated 
shortly after its organization. Local 402 thereafter consolidated 
with local 401, adopting the number of the latter. Sach local paid 
llOO into the general fund of the Amalgamated at the time of its in- 
stitution. A death benefit fund was created by assessing the locals 
|2 for each member. The general f\md and death benefit fund of the 
Amalgamated were built up by a per capita tax of fifty cents a member 
a month, which was paid "by the local unions out of their general 
funds, the locals being permitted to charge whatever dues the 
members thereof decided upon, and out of such per capita tax twenty- 
five cents a month went into the general fund and twenty-five 
cents into the death benefit fund of the association. April 19, 1930p 

XiiriA z&its$ ^skzo ci J&3.i-,,-;do isoxitTT bs^^-^iXBaj^Xi-isacA »rIT (e)" 

. tOmi «ei: Xl-scfA li^ ♦lOlv ijms A^^ «^^ ,Bf50i:nu XbooX sfiidi lo 

®xi^' "io 061 XsooX xiio^ btis &£iEtfsXh oj yae'SSJS Al^l^ biss iid^ aXs&oX 

•ofiex »xit«A 

,+gs>oxi9 ,a«oxixsj XacroX a^^^ri* sasjiw* lo icca "20 'iscfesat oH (0)" 

*o£ex ■ ,ex .xxrs(j[A. i»#ic 

«3£i9r:;r.aijcf ofx bLoxi il «0£&i tJtliy;/. i&dl.'-i ^QOie^ieixB iB-g^^i ss' SiutilSuQc bib 
»trjR-tx© suica '3rfj ot SedfiKBglMt^. SffiJ ^0 aiftd'fft^.rr; Q.'^ be^nlijriOG <Ai^ft^ fens 

■^o'xq xfoxffw noxeU bsiBSiB'^lma. QHi to Koiitt/a-x^taiioO ?>xii as. tiolaxroiq ok 

-;^iKJ sioxio ai isfiJistt snoltm '2S}dJ^3iig! Bnlxxief, jbioiI xsdmara & eSltfirf 

« sd &i aaaiiiSO fjeiai/ I^ooX SJSllJmida ifo b Io 'lea'aoa « ^tsii* noxsivaxti 

~a:x lo ais<fai«ft s'^i'^^-sy xo BK-t^^s-E^-SJCO xCo^© (tAl>9^ 5jss .^d-^ tSO^ %10^ «CK>^ 
•rrx&voB ®xidr -sol av^ a« XX3W ajs fiex * ad 1:^8*1© o .a d^ *I ♦a-ratfat^a XawbiviSl 

-fTx ad'l 'io sjai* pxl^ i^-a b&isims^lBmA oxi* "to fem;!: Xsj-iCdcoa 9di oial OOl$ 

sflv^ Io bmj'l dileaotf ri^aab brte html lu'%9n&i^ sifT .lacfeisiii ifaea xp't Sl 

XaiSHsa TiGXi* io duo aooim/ XbooX ©if* ^£tf bi^q asw lioJbiw ^if^nofif s 

arfi s©Afb le-ycoiixlw qs'xbxIo o;J^ bs^fiiffl^aci •&Xiisd' aX^^ooX orf* «afeKtf^ 

-iCJnsw;^ x&i «*iqj30 neq dowa 'io iuo bus <iioqt/ babiosb los^oriJ aierfMsai 

9Til-Y^"»** &«« '^^^''^'■^ Xfiteiiog 9di oiai *n©w ifdnoai iu 8#neo »Ti^ 

tOfiSX <9X Xi'-rqA .isoi^ivxoona^ »xi:r ^0 bml .+ il:>n9rf diBiib art* o.-tcx e*aoo 


the gen©rp.l fvaid of the Amalgamated in the Austin National Bank 
haci accixmi'.latc>r! to the extent of .^4,128.85 and the death "benefit 
fund to the extent of .^'S, 287. 72. Dividends hKve been declared 
muoxintinG to pO^ "by the receiver of the "bank, ^'»hich "banlc is otill 
in liqxiidation* 

April i:;, 193C, lOGalc 464 and a64A adopted a resolutioxi 
"that Locals 464 aad 464A disband and that the jnenbers thereof as 
a body Joia Local 150 of the International Union of Operating 
i ngineerB." The resolution, prs.otl4ally unanimously adopted^ 
provi<ied for the dia^olution of said locals sxid that after liie 
payraent of their debts che surplus funds remaining *should be 
divided pro rata among the members of said Locals in good st-jnding 
as appears from the books. ♦' The funds of these locals were dis- 
bursed accord.ln^y* 

.hen locals 464 and 4 64A disbanded and their Eiembers joined 
the International Union, 401 ■^s.b left as the only remaining local 
under the Jurisdiction of the .4mal<?s.taated . Based on their last per 
capita tsx payments prior to April 19, 193C, Local 401 had one 
hundred and tvvo menibera. Local 464 had two hundred Sifty-one laeEtoers 
and Local 464A had two hundred and fifty-four members in good stand- 
ing. Plaintiff Peterson testified that he attended a meeting of 
Local 401 on the Ilonday following April 19, 1950 j th^it he related 
to the members present, about sixty in number, what had transpired 
with reference to Looala 464 and 464A and submitted the question as 
to v7hether the members of Local 401 desired to continue ae an 
organisation or disbr-jad as Locals 464 and 464A had done| that the 
question was put to a vote and it was decided to continue as a local 
union; and that April 24, 1930, a meeting of the general officers 
ci the Amalgamated was held for the purpose of di&eussing the 
withdraisal of Locals 464 and 464A and that after he, at president 
of trie Amalgamated, had adTised the meeting that the office of 

f x'iarrod' f!.+ .3©& on'* fonn a8»8SX«^;|; lo .inofeo sxfi diJ 5.9;^.«J[jJ83jioo^ &M 

a,s 'ioei'isiiu ai«cfe!©Jii s>rl.i- ^ •;?,<>;)Ki^ Sits &xiE<failf A^-l^ I>iSiB ^S^tI^ elsddj: S«<i*t 
■ ^&s*QOb£s '^iBwoaiirierii/ Yi^Xi5?13'.!>.ai<| usDi^i/X^as^* sxiX . '♦.exseaiaJ'*^ 

^ixibrmSB boos a-^^ bLisooJ Mjtja lo sacsda©.® @xl^ '^om'0jrt\<i%%'P^^hiyX^^ 
'■e.xb Slew sXsooJ, ©afm'^- lc> el-uojjl aiCf "^a^oocf :«»i{i. jnp's'i a5:#94o5|#^j|i||r. 

9i$o bad XOli XaoQt£ «0£(?X <(i'£ lifqA e;f ^©iac!: ^stimtspc&q. xb^ 0i;tq0^ 

BtsicMmi oho^x'^llSi b&thswd ©w^ bnH |!^^ X^obJ stBtettosto 0W* bfls"^0-«bimtf 

-fc«»*a booB f*i iB'xecfxaafii •rijo'i-tij'ilt &ia:.a b^ihmi^ mr^ 'bM A*d^ X«o©iI feixfl 

"io SKiiJcom a bol)ri8id'*j3 Sii iadi foax'JiiJ'aa^ aogts*©^ "i'iiS^iiljaXIC i^^^i;- 

b&iir.l^r &d ^Mi s0£fel <^-;X LltCyl ■gnlswllo't t-s&HoM dM# ao XO* X»«lU 

nn Bij a^nidiioo oS !l)3u:ia©6 XOI- Xnii**! lo e-xecfiaara dif^t TSfWaifW oi 

X.BO0X a £3 ©ifaidf.0 o:f fjsfeioeE) aaw d^i bfjje ©iJ-or is o^ dsi^ sew ttoiieawp 

KTsoitlo X(S'x5tT.E>s 9i« 1© s«lcffl0rj js ,0£9i ,|kS XJk^qiA: tfjfe'jii* feofi '|x.'o'Xafir 

ndd t^M^-^iJO'ilb Jo eeoqtyq arftf tot ^Xaxf ^jbw' fcMijiaa^jiT- ^''^ 1<? 

to ©on^o 9X{* iadi ^ntiQdsi srf;^ bsairfifl &W tb&iamJS^IJ:■,^^ sdi to 


secretary-treuBurer was autoBi'.tically yacated by reason of the 
fact that i!^yans» the incumbent thereof » vvas a member of Local 464f 
which had disbanded* those present at the meeting lin^inimously 
elected one v!m« Crookert who was chairman of the "board of trusteesi 
as ETanB*8 suooeesort and directed him to demand of F^Tans that he 
surrender the books* reports and other property of the Amalgamated 
in his possessionf as v/ell as the r ecciver* s certificate, which he 
had received from Pufahl on accotint of the fxinds of the Amalgamated 
on deposit in the bank. "Yans refused to comply with Crocker's 
demand, but offered to meet with him, audit the l)ooks and divide 
the funds pro rata among those isho had contributed to them. 

Local 401 continued to hold meetings of a sort until some- 
time in 1932, nAien it was decided to suspend payment of dues. There 
is no satisfactory evidence in the record timt Local 401 was in 
existence thereafter. Peterson testified also that a fesi perfunc- 
tory meetings of the officers of the iimalgaroated were held after 
pril 24, 1930, at his or some other officer's home. The -/amalgamated 
received no payments of per capita taxes from Local 401 or revenue 
from any other source subse<peart; to /ipril 19, 1930. 

The real (iuestion presented for our deteanalnation is whether 
tmder all the facts and circumstances in evidence the funds in coaa- 
troversy should be ordered paid only to plaintiffs and the few, if 
any, surviving members of Local 401 or distributed to all the maabere 
of Locals 401, 464 and 464A, who were in good standing April 19,1930, 
in proportion to their contributions to said funds. 

The rule is well settled that the withdrawal of any number 
of members of a voluntary association less than the full mesiberBhip 
does not affect the identity of such association or the ri^t of the 
remaining members to carry on the business thereof and to the use of 
its property for that purpose, (greun dschaft v. Alchenburgeri 235 


e51vl& SHs aslcocr sri3 cTxte *MM Hiiw *M« 0* foe^allo #««? , &«^-5b 
£fi 3^w lOi. £«OG,I 5i:Jl;t b^oo^'S erf:? nj: 0oa9&xT© i[;w;?0Btalta8 6^'»i 

emOT^x ito X<:^l^ Xsoo*I mcxl asxs* iJ-^l^^o ^©^ lo a*«&Hr\:«<i oo b»Ti«i>»^ 
.0£t*X <s^X Xi'xcLA o;}' ^Jassffijaatfwa somoa tsxfto Y.afi wo"f"^ 

li ,ws'i OfS htm allti^^nifiXq e* ^'iXno bij^q; ^aisErao 9d ftXwoiia ^attftvoti;^ 
,05^X,??X XiiqA SWibfi^^!^' boos al «^dw orf» ,A*6* ftflOB *»* iiO* dXJSoel lo 

•j»tfra«a tnjs ird Xsws'iftrfJlw »di *««[* feeXiiaa XXaw ai etm »^T 
(jirfBT:3(to9£T. XIwl eri* asidi easX floii^iftOaaA Tta^ni/XoT 4 ^o atorfoisiB ^o 


111 • 438; ge trolt L ight Guard, Band t» Michiga n Independent Infan- ^^ 
try et al» > 134 Mich. 598; MoF adde n et al > v. Murphy e t al> f 149 
Maes. 341, 21 ii, ;• 868*) 

If Locals 464 and 464A had vrithdrawn from the Amalgamatftd 
and attempted to take with them its fimds and property, under cir- 
cumctances which showed that the association continued to function 
and carry out the purpoees for which it wae organized? the foregoing 
rule would "be applicable. However, an entirely different situation 
is presented here* 

The distinction hetween Local 401 and the .Amalgamatecl rmx&t 
be clearly dxava* The fact that the former continued to meet and 
function suhsequent to April, 1930, alheit in a desultory fashion, 
\intil finally it existed only, if at all, on paper and was little 
more than a memory, is not conclusive of the issues we are called 
upon to determine* This cause is concerned primarily with the 
Amalgamated and the funds in controversy are its funds* After the 
withdrawal of Locals 464 and 464A was there any reason for the con* 
tinued existence of the Amalgamated? There was only one local left 
and no effort was made to organize other local unions. The Amalgamated 
Union of Operating ""ngineers as stated in its constitution *shall 
consist of Local Unions" and the very purpose of its organization 
was to gather into one cohesive association the several individual 
vmions so that by their vinited action higher employment standards 
in the craft might "be ohtained. The ordinary le^l mejining of the 
word "amalgamate" is to join in a single "body two or more associa- 
tions, organizations or corporations, f/ith 401 as the only one of 
the looal unions still functioning and that ahout ready to expire 
there was no longer any reason or necessity for the existence of 

the /amalgamated • 

The ol3vious purpose of Peterson and the other plaintiffs 

^trici •xs&XTW ,^iieqoiQ: bmt a&mf't aii smdi rfiiw «>%;? o* fc©d<i^|4'« bm& 

uoiiJisw^is tffis'ia'i^lfi t,X9*xi*«9 cm «'s®V9WoH . dXcteGiIg;<I3 ^ 6,X»0W »X«^: 
^a.tjjs; hsi^jm-^l^soA &sii bxis XO^ Xaoo^I it&mr^&d a&lSetsliBlb ©JlCT 
aooM-as^'t XtoHlaB&b m ai ^IstfXs «oe®X «Xii:c[A ©* srnei/peaGrifa.xxoiJoxwl 

&s(f.BflissXBia/5' ©Iff *eiioixKx Xao©X "I^jS^o asJ;«f3B*£p o.}- ,o&AtK stm ^lf%&'%^ ■^Si.J^Ja^^:. 

aJbtCBbCssd'a i^nsimcoXcgaa x^yfisiii fi©x;fojB b^iism Ti:i«Mi| ^^ *«rf* ea anoiriw 

©■siqxs oi Tc&xjai: ;j«o«fj8 ^/uli^ ij«^ ®niaoXd-t>rtx,fl XXita aaolxiu X»a«X w^- 
"io »oa»*aXxe 9i£;t tco'i x^iaaao^a ao noijs©! ^jae ^tejjxioX on asw axoxU 

in holding the perfunctory meetings of the officers of the Amalga- 
mated, which Peterson testified were held, was, vie think, merely 
to huttress their claim in this cause. Peterson and his three 
coplaintiffB alleged that **thie hill is filed on their ovm hehalf , 
and on hehalf of all other members of said /amalgamated Union of 
Operating Engineers." It is admitted that Local 401 discontinued 
holding meetings and colleoting dues in the fall or winter of 1932 
and that it paid no per capita tax to the Amalgamated subsequent to 
April 19, 1930. The constitution of the ^^jnalgamated proTided that 
"all local unions that are two months in arrears to the Aasaalgaraated 
Union shall he suspended until it pays all per capita tajces." Thusp 
even though we assume that the Amalgamated continued to fimotioa. 
Local 401 stood autoraatloally susp'anded froa the association and was 
never reinstated. The foregoing provision of the constitution was 
not ahrogated and was not amended. Neither could it have heen sub- 
sequent to April 19, 1930. The constitution of the association could 
■fee amended only at a "convention*. Mo "convent ion'* was held or could 
have "been held becaxiBe after the withdrawal of Locale 464 and 464A 
the only person eligiljle to sit in such convention was one delegate 
from Local 401 and it is 1)ut fair to assume that the framers of the 
constitution of the aesooiation never conteis^lated a one man con- 

Plaintiffs predicate their ri^t to prevail in this proceed- 
ing upon their memhership in the iXmalgamated through their mersiberehip 
in Local 401. After the automatic suspension of Local 401 for failure 
to pay its per capita taxes, plaintiffs were no longer members of the 
Amalgamated and it is idle to urge in avoidance of such suspension that 
per capita taxes were not paid to Svans "by Local 401 "because he "was 
not reeognized as the general secretary-treasurer of the association 
after April 24, 1930. It is claimed that Crocker v?e.s regularly elected 

a'C'sw , 

,UM^d nwo lisil* 00 .&aXn al Ilirf alrfit* ^d'ancT bassIJIs Elli^fni^X^oo 

ir^^iH bMY<^'x<l bs^Bi^BXBiflA SiicJ ^o noxc5x;;ti:*B0OO i^ .om ,©X XlttqA 
bs;r«^XB.^. ei^i ^^ ^-^-^^ ^^ axiSnoi^ ci^t e.B *^* «rici«« XbooX XXb« 

■ .noi^omfl o:J 5^.an,xcJxxoo^ i^^^^^ittssXai^X axid' dr,xi;J *xnuaa;3 ^w rfsi/oif* tiara 
..^^a nee^f av^d *i bX.o. •.^rf^sl^l .'&-fe«^^^ ^«^^ '^^^^^ '^^'^ ft.*^o^tf« #c.«t 

Al^.^ to -^d^ aX^^oou: ^o XBW^xbfiiflw 0i£# rcoilB c^aoatf bXed n^etf sv«ri 
ei^S«X.b oao a.w no i*.....o ..... a^. .Xa c. eI<fisXX. no...c, xX«o oii* 
.x£^ ^o .'K->^«^ erf* ^raiii ««a«a ocf .X.3I ^'.-i ai iL bm lOi^ Ib6o1 mit 

s,rf* lo a^csdmos^c^^nol «^n sxs'.. alt.ti«iBXq .;^^33* i3#i<J^e> -r^q e^^i w o# 


secrFtary-treaBurer April 24, 1930, to eucceed Ti:;van0» Taut it is 
not even suggested that any per capita taxes were ever paid to 
him Toy Local 401 Bul)sequent to said date. 

The truth, in so far as we are ahle to glean it from all 
the facts and circumstances in evidence, is that subsequent to 
April 19, 1930, the functions of the y\malgamated beoame atrophied 
from disuse, that it did not thereafter perform a single act within 
the scope of the ohjecto for which it was organized as set forth 
in its constitution and laws and that it Y/as dissolved for all 
practical intents and purposes. 

Although the members of the disbanded locals represented in 
number a majority of more than five to one as compared to the 
nembere of Local 401, it is not on the theory that as such majority 
thsy were entitled to the ftmds or property of the association that 
the defendmt T'vane and the intervening petitioners claim the ri^t 
to share in the distribution of the funds involved, but rather that, 
having contributed to such funds, they have as much ri^t in justice 
and equity as the members of local 401 to share in the distribution 
of the same since the iUnalgamated no longer continued as an organi- 
zation after Locals 464 and 464A disbanded. In our opinion the 
Amalgamated had no real existence subsequent to April 19, 1930, and 
the meetings claimed to have been held lafy its officers to carry on 
the business affairs of the organization were perfunctory only Mid 
a mere pretense since no actual business was in fact transacted at 
such meetings. 

The funds ordered distributed were not augmented by a single 
dollar paid by Local 401 or by plaintiffs, or by any member of seii d 
local since April 19, 1930, and we think it would be highly inequit- 
able to turn the funds over to plaintiffs in their entirety. The 
objects and uses of the association having failed and its operations 


o;t iils-q; 2ave ©*j;<aw aeiDis* js^iqao tiMj, ^jiia iziii fts^aQBa^^s xiaT® ,:-*flWK 

,9fe& felcQ oi ;Jjasju;p®acfxja XO^ X^&Otl ^cf mid 
lla mi's.! di r«5eXs oi' 9ltfj3 stis 9w rijs "isl oe nl «xf;S-tti;}- sxE? 

XXb 'iol ibsjvXoaaii) asw Jx ^v°.rf:t tos mwsX &m2 jaeicfyi-i^^auop «#1 ttt 

^u&OQqrjsq, bos G'ia&ial XsoxJ-oa^ 

aii^ ci .bB.%Bqmo. us &iio ou ©yit imd^ sis^oia Io xJ^itce|i,0jEg ^ 5®'#iwn 

td'j?,xi;t •iQtl^B'i iud «£ievXov«i afomfi arl^f 'io tsQxHinSlii&ib stdi nl ^sife o^ 

-ia^io 03 53^ hBtmttmQ xei^mljaa beimjs^l^^i- 9dt .^oalB aca,tia an* Io 

bsui «0£eX t^X li-xqA o* itx&iipaadis^ &0imtB£X9 Xjssi oa 5srf fed^satssXaoA 
no •^■iTBO ocf aiaoXilo «^i T^cf bXaxi c^sd" svaa' o;J hsmlalo sanictoaia oxi;J 
&nB \:Xfio -^o *o EOf Ixaq arraw TOJi*jai;iiti3a'xe s>vil.t ^o atifi'il:^ aaaiuawcf 9i£J- 
ifs ijQS'ojiajxe'i:* ^ual ax r^w a»flM5i;jajsicr X«iw;J»4i oa ^oisia daa©;to^q stem a 

6 fee ^o :cecte©ia viiw ^tf :s:o « st^ki^^xilsXq: Iftf to XOj^ XcooJ i£«f &iji?Q li&llQb 
-^li/psnx -icXfSglrf' ad" bXiJfOw ii jLxlsli m baa ,On§X tWX liiqA eo«ia X^^c-oX 


haring "beea discontinued, a coun; oi' equity had the righi to 
declare it dissolTetl and to difitribute the funds among tlio con- 
tributors to whom they reverted» in proportion to the araounte 
they respectively contrlhuted. (Burks v. Soger, 79 Ala* ISS.) 
The decree provides that plaintiffs and such other meiabera of 
looal 401 aa were i/i good standing April 19, 1930, share in the 
cUntri'bution of the funds on the saige "basis as the meiiibers c.f 
Locals 464 and 4e4A, and we are convinced that its provieions 
fully Oiid fairly recognize the rights of ail the parties as »nowi 
"by the evidence. 

Ab to the allowance cf soiicitori?' fees to thi respective 
parties, we fail to find any authority for such alloi^aaca out of 
the funds in controversy. Solicitors* fees were not asked for in 
the pleadings of any of the parties and no petition was filed ra- 
questiiig payment of same or asserting the right to have sais^ paid 
frcm i;aid fundiu. Gouneel will have to look for their fees to those 
who employed them or for proportional eontrihution frea those ^ho 

accept the "benefit of their efforts, 
Suoh^oints hs are urged have been considered, "but in tiie 

view -»ve take of this cause we deem it unnecessa.ry to discuss thsa« 

For the reasons stated herein the decree of the Superior 

court is affirmed, except that portion of sajae allowing eolicltors' 

fees. That part of the decree allowing such fees iB reversed and 

i:he oauee is reaanded with direotione to modify the aecree in cnij- 

ioiiaity ViTith tlie views ei^^preeseci herein. 

Friend and Soanlan, JJ«» ooneur» 

■-mo oiU y^ammi Bbmt't mi^ e;lfc-d'.tT*5ii.& ft't hm hs-^to &Bs.b 4 X ©^aXo&fc 

■ "io »'ieo'Ki©3£ ©rid a^-s aisijc? sss^sa ©rl* iso a.?>fiirt »Ji* lo xieidrjitfindaife 
^m^iztiroxq, st^l dmU bf^otiiraoo o-xa mr hiu^ ,A^i» htm S-&^ sX.'aooiX 

lo c^wo ftoxj^vvoXia rl©»i6 -vol T^*i:acriiVw.G x-ias bail o^- Xl.^.l' »w .laeWtst 
££i •£&!• baisijs J'-Oii axsw gi©4>l 'a-xo^l&iXoG ^,XBrs:-v6'ziitiiz til ehmt &sii 
-QS bslxl e.asW Koi>J-ld-9tx ou toy; a^^x^'x^q sdj "iG Y-£^ lo agJtiliBSlq 9|S* 
&i/5q[ sHti:3Ei -^Tfeff od cfjefei.! Qii* ^al^xsaa^j 10 ajjfsa 'to inass'-^q t^ilia^up 

®-2£t ax d-jatl" «&»'£»& la :!»» naacT ©tM d^-six? ais aa a#ixi:oc£N/Io^^ ■" ■'"''' ■'■ 
*ia3il^ Baixoai:& o^i •^•.t.ij8»or>sxTiHj' ^i jSKasS sw $5m?o aM* 1© sate* ©w welv 
'loi'xogwc; ■ Gi£iJ lo ss>^s*jl5 ml* axo'z&ii t3$:B^n Bim&^^&'s siM •£&% 



Appellant » 

Appellee • 


z ,.--' 

/ y-"7 



C0?:1K G01WTY# 


I.A. 623" 

By thie appeal plaintiff, Virjrinia \v. Hawkins, seeks to 
reverse a decree of ths circuit court diesiissing her hill of 
coiiipiaint for v.-iit of sqixity on the ground that the aoiirt lacked 
juriodxction oi tins subj ect liiatter . 

Plaintiff filed Ucv bill T>&cowt>eT 14, 1931, &.lleginf; tiiat 
siis ano (iefendantp vtillard Trioe Ke.wkins, are and have "been resid- 
cnte of Ciiicr.t,c, Cook county, Illiaoie, since 1929 j that bhe and 
defendant \,era married Hay 18, 1917, a^id lived together ac huelJEiRd 
and wife until September IB, 1928; that "there was born vuito them 
one ^- *• -i^ chile, ' illarc ..estern IlaYikins, novv aged thirteen ■■ ^ * 
years; • •ihat, oiily ;:, 1929p she viD.G a resident of ^'"un'r-au, Lodge 
GOunty> v.'isconsia, and at that tiaae- jiud plaoe 3c;aured a dccrte of 
uivorco from defendetnt on statutory grounds "toy defiiiiit and "by 
publication" against saici defcndajat; th^-t "by eaid o-3cree the cua^r^dy 
of ths si.irior olriild v.-as awarded to her J and th^,t bho decro-e jirovided 
tho.t "the question cc" •..illaaon.v to "be p-iid by def?nc-vnt, be held open 
until the further order of the court." 

"Plaintiff* a bill further alleged that she •was without funds 
and unable longer to support s-iid minor child and that defendtint, 
although adequately capable of supporting; her and the child, vdl- 


■-' .■:- A;=6)(6' i**«'»iM=i^>AjtjijH(^^ 

( »a9l.r.sqgA 

^ ^^ Ks¥ij:jtrg -roiT^ot; i)Liffias-^ •sxsi ^ 

*,-^xivf Bfllas.CXiS tXe«^X tkC tJiadiaa 0*5*1: XXi:d" 'jcarl &oX±';t 'iliSniiil^i. 

M^tiif od'fjjtf isxDCf a^ivv- s-isj:C;J*' *«fi;} |8gOX »iM Twcfintadiiac Xi:;^aw alia bnr, 
* it -^- ri3o;}"iixiJ" uotja *oxi ^ GaiiC^^uH xjia.^'caV; 5-j;j3XJ,iiSf t^XX^O * * ■'■ ©iso 

lo 3 )'ap :.b a &s'IjjO«>s aa^sXcj; bix*3 saiiw iis^i i& htm «ftXanoo&ii. ^^^iatfco 

^»i'xisoo &di lo nab^o •xsfldiir'i sricf Xi;Jru; 
~Xivv <5XirIc eiL$ tnsi -xnii -^.Kltiiociq^ua io sXcfjcq^^o -^JioiBUi^abB rfeuoxf^La 

I'ully failed and reruaed tu do iioj tiiat defendant is a m&n of 
aeartSi iUtB propei'ty and conduote va:.iouE "buaiiiefcis »!uterprij;ec in 
Jiiioe.rro; that he has rtwiij-risd ■^nd lives i„i iiircr i'oreut, Illinois; 
that his inoome approjciniates xi>30>000 a year, with e, rcgulEiX ealary 
or about 1,600 a month aa «/ell ais other salaries, coitniaisslonn and 
bonuses from hla varioufci "buBinoBa enterprioes; rjic'i tluit he hao 
threatened Lo Iraudulently diapoae of his aBsets rnther than pay a 
rern-sonable sum toward her support sad the support, maintenance, 
care and education of their Liinor cliild • It then alleges that 
plaintiil iB without remedy except in a court of equity and prays 
that aeiencant be cajoined froti dit;pobiufe; of Mb aasete und that 
he be recuircu to pay £-limony to her and to support the xoinor child, 
.littached to aiid specixic...lly made a part of che till of coiaplaint in 
the xnstcait case is an authenticated and exemplified copy of the 
decree of divorce of the Wisconsin court. 

Defendant filed his appearance 25ecember 21, 1931, and on 
December 29, 1931, filed a demurrer averring inter alia (l) that 
plaintiff's till of complsint has no foundation in la%7 or eci.uity," 
(2) that "this court is without legal or equitable power or authority 
to pasB upr;n or adjudicat© the niatters and things alleged in the 
till-' aii.d (o) that jlainuiTf liaa not stated such a case as entitles 
her to rtilief in a court of ei^uity. 

April 4, 1932» the court entered the decree appealed from, 
the pertinent and material portion of which reads* "IT 13 a-tjaTiRSlD, 
Ax^iTDQi^'D AJSi) SjilCRiSilJ, that the demurrer of the defendFsnt to the Bill 
of Coiaplaint of the complainant, he, and the ewma is hereby Bustained 
and the complainant* b Bill of Complaint is here1»y diaair.sed for want 
of euuity, the court finding that it has no Jurisdiction of the sub- 
ject nat=:er h-iveof ." The trial court allov/ed pliintiff an apoeal to 
the r;upreme Court lT<-m its decree and ordered defendant to pay her 

jil a@i:s.'%f{'s.eiiv:i aBS>ii±Qjjd" axsQ rsMr siaubttoo has ^^S'-.taqo'SCi and ^aa&^ei 

B Ysg mzdi iari;i\ui aisaa^ eix( lo esoqalb Yli^c^iJJ-&-W^^5 oi &Sl•x9*afi'Xiid■ 
^Bf{j 3©39ll3 i-faxi'df ;3I 4,hlMci lopttm ^tl&di 'to mlininjhQ biue B'i&o 
iriBici £>nj8 •^:JiA/ps to j'Xaioo ,e iix ci-c|iioxo ■^fo3s;;>'X iaedit^ esX IxUtttMlq 
S&d^ bxisi idien&ff. skd la -aifiaoqeiib gro'il ^^axo^JptS ocf- ^xisoao'isb djsxiJ 

Qsiii lo \';ctoo bsi'iilqxaoxa fexta bS>iiioiiaudisjM ti& ui qbmo Sa^faai 9d;i 

**,v;ti:tfp9 10 7ml as. aoxinbivjo'l on ajsxf iitLsIqiaoo to Ilic?' a'lli^niBlcr 

odoV xix bagpIXis aarilrii!' bxta a'X9**.s;t3 sdi ,eJ.soibxrt,&JS "Xp x:?q0 aaeg oi 
^siiiiiio as oaao a rioue bsijiia cton asrt "ilxitnlelq, d-jaxlJ (S) bxxxi ''liiiT 

•■\i;*.btfi;© lo iJ^Bo© .e ai IslXet 

6sriif3*i-:i.W3 \(f^-i3d ax owsa «wC>^ foxjs «9«f ,;^jasiii:i*IqiBoo 9ri^ lo tf«ij8XQ[moO lo 

iUBV 10I bQciHxiBRxb HCfOTarf at iaLfilcimoO lo IXJ:a s»*iSBn.fcjsXcraK50 sri* bxi.'s 

-cfwj; OA'* lo tio}::tolbal'xul on Mxf ^x j-biC;* ^.atban ituoo Bdi tXiiu9& lo 

0;^ iM&oqy. tm lliJfUBlq fcowoll^ ^T'xxfoo X^'iTci ©xfr ".losieii i9;^*«ia *oet 

Toxf ^jati oS *x(,':.bfj9l3b b&'xvbxo btm ®o^o&b a^i {BOtil ituoX? ©arwrrqiio orl* 


$75 to cover the costs of appeal and ^U50 for her solicitor's 
feeiSf v/hich sums were paid upon the entry of the deoree* The 
Gupre»e Court transferred the appeal to this court. 

In its opinion in Hawkins t. HavlcinB , 35C 111. 227 9 trans- 
ferring the appeal» the Supreme court in di3pofc;ing of «vhat were 
urged as constitutional questions said at pp* 229 p 230 t 

"The appellant seeks to justify a direct appeal to thia 
court on the grotind that constitutional, questions are involTed 
in the case, ;jhe asperts that the circuit court, by the dis- 
missal of her bill, violated! first, section 1 of article 4 of 
the Federal constitution -'hich provides that ♦Fiill faith and credit 
shall be given in each State to the public E.cta, rcjcords and .jurii- 
cial proceedings of every other ;,tate;' aecond, aection 2 of the 
srme article that 'The citi?:ens of each '3tate shall be entitled to 
all priyileges and imraiuiities of citiaens in the several t-itates;' 
and third, section 19 of article 2 of the State constitution vhich 
provides that ♦Itery peiwoii ought to find a certain remedy in the 
laws for all injuries r>ad ^^-onge Vilii ch he mr.y -t'ooive in hio perconj 
property or reputation; he ought to obtain, by law, ri^t and justice 
freely, and v.'ithout being ©"bliged to piirchacG it, oomplotoly and 
without denial, promptly and without delay** 

"By the decree of a court of a r;ister ;:tate the a,p^:sllcait 
was granted a divorce and the custody of her child and the question 
of the alimony to be paid by the defendant \r:is re^ssrved for future 
consideration. The decision of the foreign court upon the issues 
presented to it and its reservation of the question of alimony were 
not challenged, iBut, on the contrary, w^ere respected by the circuit 
court of Cook county. Hence full f^.ith and credit ..ei\. aiveii by that 
court to the decree of the county court of Dodge county, v/isccaisin. 

"The appellant alleges in hvrr present oilo. tii>. t aiie is a 
resident, and she argues in her brief that she is a citizen of this 
3tste, The protection detsitrned by section 2 of article 4 of f 
the Federal constitution has no application to a citizen of the 
State of or concerning vrhose lava's complaint is made* ( Bradwell v» 
Illinois, 83 U. o» (16 Wall.) 130, 138.) iifo discrimination against 
a citizen of another Ctate within our jurisdiction nor a denial of 
his equal privileges and immunities has been charged. Obviously jj 
the section invoked caiHiot avail the appellant. 

"The circuit court, it appears from the decree, dismissed 
the appellant's bill for the v.'ant of equity because the court found 
that it had no jurisdiction of ths subject matter. If the court 
lacked such jurisdiction, it could not dotsrmine the merits of the 
cause. ( People v. Illiaoi a Cent ral aailroad Co. , 5 24 111. 591, 614.) 
The dismissal of a bill> howeverVTor inconsistent reasons and even 
if msiiifestly erroneous, does not warrant recourse to section 19 of 
article 2 of the State constitution. That section does not dispense 
with ail orderly procedure and a decree of dismisLsal, v.hether for the 
want of jurisdiction or the want of equity, is a final order subject 
to review by an appellate tribunal of competent jurisdiction." 

As was said by the Supreme court the decision of the V/isconsin court 
was not challenged in the trial court but was respected. hat plain- 
tiff retlly contends as to the efficacy of that decision is not that 

9xlT *»€>ioef> Off:* lo Y'i^''^£K' i>J^* aoqjj oiaq Qiev-r aiss/s iiox£C<r <as9l 
^^^Tti/OD nidi oi iBsqqs «xfd' bai:'X6'ia£i3'i^ itssQO ^mBtq^ii 
-aji.r'Svf- isfga .III 03£ iL5J2l^Mi »^ J.^.f^E-?.! «i aocaiqo sil fil 

s'iovs- ^arfvv J.Q gniaoqaib x^sj: i^iuoo srserfqwa edi , XB®q:q-A", add ssiii®!: 

beifXoTiiJE: a-s.s afjoiiJaswp Isisoxi^r/xi-i^Eaoo 4*5xf^ &fti/oi:g «iit no i'moa 

li) *> 9£t>ii'.CA to I noi^'osa ttatil: tfee^sloiv tXild' :Esrf to I-sasifflf 

#ib9'.T{> ibc^ ildUst XXi/i* ^^.bjIc!- .:^f}DXvoiq: aoJcnV fioiiJai ic: s no o Xistsfee'S ari* 

"tbul bits sMooai ^aj'os olX'.fiig bs.U et«t s^/i^cj iloa® fJi is&rt^ s^cf XlJisila 

edit to iJ aoiJosa tWicoaa 'je^ts;^''; vi^ifJo 1J1&T;? lo 3S«ii>-'^-^-«i Xsio 

ot fcsX;)-]:?!!" scf Xljsris sjl-^sta ric-s-:? "io siteEi^io tsjiiT* #«£[# s>X©i^tB es3*iB 

'jasit/jcfG XaiQTOs; ©rlj^ «i anasi^io 'io aeiiljitfffjau Bri^ BsaaXxTitq XXfi 

«xf^ Mi 'v;b9ifi0i: nx.siiao s f)ri;i:l o* it^k'O sm^^^q X'^s^^* iadi CiBbiyo'iq, 
^ncotoq exd xsi evl';>o.-~'x '^aai erf rioM\r e^no'iTK- fjfj.n ssiaxrtxiJt XXs t9t unr&l 

brm •v;Xt;^sXSffitoo e;Jx os,«f{ox/T^ o^ fj^-sHcfo sniocf ;ti/oji;tiw hHis «vXe»x1; 
^ >XGleb i-j;;oiii>i:w bits Y^^Jq^oicx tXaiaeb ffucuf^iw 

itoidaoirp Bdi 5ns bXiJio 'xoil lo •^boi'axfo sdi brcs ooxovib js be^aaxg asw 

G-iwcJixl aol osTJicuG-x R.ovr 5n.o&xiol3b M;t Y<f feiaq; etf o;t -^^noaixXB arf;J lo 

eesxaax ©rftf xioqu ^"xwoo xisiaiol odi lo noiaioab &xiT •xtoXii's^sibiaxioo 

3T»w ii,noiaiXi2 lo isoijeewp ©xf* lo noicfjsTisas-x a;Ji bus ;^± oi bsiasaaiq 

ihJorXo Qsii Ytf &5>^03qast£ e'xsw «i5*r,oi;fnoo oxf;? fto «;^i/rf * &«aceXX^3iio ;foxi 

J^feirfi^ '^d' «BVX'^ ^'X.Oii ^ibs'xo b«a rf;tx^:'>. Xlxfl ©onsH «Y*^^f>o aooO lo ituOQ 

js ai ©xifei ;iiuW XXld ixt;;jas;:iq; i^x{ nl aegelXa ;JnBXXsqq.B aifl"' 
01 Md lo rji©si*io s ai exfa i&d.$ l^iicf x&d nl s®tfB^.i?. sxla b«a ■,^a-3&ia&^ 
a io i^ aXoij'txi lo S xxoicTcea x^ ^SKyiasb rtoijto9*0'iq gxfT .»^j&*a 

*^ Mi^i^^SM) *^^P'&^ ai is,ts.BLqmQ tv^'^sX saoxfw ©nixx-xsoxxoo 1:0 lo s*jb*c: 

^snlTji's ao.tcr,Pxs:jJid'3:j>ei& oil (.8r;X ,OSX <»XXsW 6X) •i^ ■ttJ 58 jj^ioxixXXI 

lo Xxixxiab p. lOis xioX^oxb<ji-2;x;t "XUO iiJtfl[;f±.7 3;Jxj3o i»xi:;}oxiB lo n92x;tio a 

5\:XaixoxYdO .fe&atsrio itaecf ii^jxl eoli iisuajaix 5r«3 as^sXivi-xq Xawpa axx£ 

« ^xuEXXacicis ©rid" XiBv.o ;toxtfiso b^iLornl xxoiioss axf* 

^eaaxsiaxb ,.?»^aeD »x^;|- jijo'xl a-x^esqcx.'! ;Ji »i'x«&-j! iiuo'xxo exIT** 

bxtjjo'i 511/00 £)x{.t saxff.oscr ^^i^x^^ -o itK?/*^ eki tol XXitf a *;JnBXX©qqj3 ©ii* 

diiTOo sjrf* II »Ta*#sia ^0%-tcfxrc &sSi lo i3oxioi&j.'j:r£:irt OJ" ojsx£ ii oiiri^ 

©xf* lo e^tiBiw ©xf;? awimxa^ab rfOK bXxroo Ji: ^coiJoi.'^sltrxjt xfoxjK b93io>3X 

(»^>I& <XOS •XXI ^S><'. % . 0,0 bBO-xXij^-g. X^'it J'CsO .slcxxxXXI «7 sX^qoa'l) , 3£;i;30 

rcova bxjfl anou^ai ^^ns^aiaxiooni -xoi '« -T© veiwofi \.tXxcf ,3 lo XBaexmaib sifT 

lo C'X xxoic^D^a oi OErxwooai ,txixrs'j;ai.-.' ^cxt aeob taiio©iiO'XT:9 xXisolxxx^af li 

^ansc/alb *on asob fioi^osa i&sSt .noi^ij;^iv1'exroo sitiic 9xii lo S sXox^^ifi 

sx'Sf' -sol lex^iexivv ,Xj;'.«alfisaiia 'lo ay-xoab <@ £1x133 bibshsooi^ \5.t3hTL0 xiij xlrfi:«f 

;fo5>tcfixs 'tsbio b 8x tY^-CwPS "io ^ftsw ejf* 10 xioiJoi&einx/t lo insw 

".xioi^J&ibsiliwt *a3^3qiaco lo lRsm<S'ixi ot&Li.^q,%B aa \^ weiy^'x 04 

c^aifoo iiisKOoalA-' sxf# lo xsoisxosb ©xl* irsdoo &^at»iqu'o ^Ad x^ hi&u sjbw aA 

-alxiXcf *vTx£; «b9;^oS(2;a3'x sxw ix/cT ;?^i;03 Xaxi^-lr axfj xil baaxisXXsxfo *Ois ajssy 

;J;;?ri[j ion s.i noxaxoab is&i lo ^o.eoill9 sxii' 0* a« afens^fioo ^XXiJStc llJti 

full faith and credit were not Kiven the decree of c oourt of a 
Bister state, "but that she may use such decree, which did not 
and could not without pereonal service upon defendant determine 
the Ciueetion of alimony and money for the support of the chxld , 
as the authority of the trial court to exercise juriadiatlon to 
decide plaintiff's claim in the iiiiit;Ant cttie* In our opinion 
the r e serration of the question of alimony "by the loraigu court 
could Toe effeotire only as retaining jurisdiction "by that court 
for the purpose of thereafter determining the question of a^limony 
in the event personal serrice was had in \?isoonsin upon defendant* 
The Wisconsin court could not enter a decree in personam against 
defendant and it is difficult to understand how, under the oircuia- 
stanooG, its decree could serve an authority for a court of anQthisr 
state to do so. .Turisrliction of the subject matter of a suit at law 
or in et^uity must he derived from the sovereign authority or law 
vhich organi?;ed the tribunal. ( Cooper v» Beyaoldsj 10 ¥allace 308, 
19 L. Sd. 1931; west Qove Grain .o* v. B&rtley, 10 d Me. 293* 74 ,ktl» 

This action then miiy only "be considered as an original 
independent proceeding, one of the purposes of v;hich is to compel 
defendsnt to pay alimony to hi& divorced wife. 

In answer to plaini;if f s contention that under the facts 
allviged in her hill a court of equity in the exercise of its general 
ch'incery Jurisdiction has Inherent power to entertain independent 
suits lor alimony in the absence of a direct legal Inhibition, it 
is sufficient to cite Kelley v. Kelley, 317 111. 104, where the court 
poiiitf; out that courts never had power in the exercise of their 
general etiuity jurisdiction to award payment of alimony and only 
have such power now to order the payment of alimony as has been 
conferred upon thea by legislatire grant. In the Kelley case, 

dOK bxb doMw t^&^P^^ doira ©ajj xss £>xie (tjsrf^ ^wd' «e*^*a T^j^aia 
9iiMi9;!-Db jn4:£)iit<l3t) iiOQ;w aoivioa Xsapo'ssg ^xroriiiw .ton &Ix;o', 6itR 

ixoiftxciO 'xjj-o nl ^aci^o isti'Jsal Qxli ni satsXo a' iii,i«i;«,Ic![ 96Jto96 
^Xifoo rtixs-icx arij!- -^tf \,iiOcsxlAj to aoiia&iss) &£ii 'io aoi^e-visse i sx£J 

^iniibnQ'iyih moqis xtiaxsooaiv/ ai. bsil asw soItiss l&ttoat&q ittaTS ©il* at 

w&X ;f3 vi±i:;o & lo 'zajt.^rr! j"ror;cfjja &ii& Io rxotio lb strut •oa *b o^f Biat& 

\T.c>S •r.o Y^'J'-orl.'yB rr^io-r^voa afl? xao-xl 5©Tj:tf©b @«r ^^5£S£( ■^Jii/.pa Hi %o 

«80S @«5.3lXo¥ OX xiiMSiiS-SS *''■ V^fiP PP) %££SSj!ftxi Bsii fees j:i5t.B8if«/ii^lx&r 

♦ X<] 7 ?o?S .912 GQl ii %e,LJ:yzK »y' ^^oU HXBt-p., »? qO #6aW |Xe©X •ligt ««JE-^^^ 

XcXiX^i'iO lUi a^i ns'xabxajuffio ecf xS!.£iO xsm. aa^i moiios aidT 

Xe-icsnag Bit "io esiotrsxs »rf* iix -^JXjxps to ituoQ a llt€ t^H at b^i^lXs 

dftebaeqabiix ai.Qi%&iao oi xewoq *a©'i9x[«i end mtstttb^iXBl x'^^QSisdii 

^x ,Koi:il-ici"i.cijrii X,sS«ii i^osiib js to, »o«»sera ©jf* aj: ^ijfjofirlXs tot ad'l;ya 

^'jcjyoo Ml;* 9iexfw ^i-OX .XXI TXC tX^Ll<^yi *t 3i;gXX©;2 ffl*Xo ©d' i^iWJteilljtfs ai 

•Lt&cli lo staXc-xar.o ad* ui -jcewcq b,ajf{ istsn alTt»d» ;f«iW tuo B^ateq, 

noerf B>:ui as xaosall::. 'io inaxanc-sq arf;^ 'xeJbio oi voa *x9wocx xfowa ©yfixf 


which ie deoiGlre of plaintiff »s instant contention* the court 
said at pp. 108, 109 i 

"The Mosaic law recognized the right of a man to divorce 

his wife, , ud tinder the civil law cither party might reuounoe the 
marriage union at pleasure. The rii^ht of a court to grant ^n 
ulscioliite divorce is derived entirely I'roia legislative grturit. 
Prior to the English Divorce act of 1857 the right of the 
-socleaiastioal courts to grimt a divorce a mens a et thor q was 
recognized, hut thete courts dio not have the power to'^rnnt a 
divorce a v i nculo matr imonii * They sometimes entered decrees 
of annulment for causes which rendered the iny,rria.(?'e void ah initi o p 
"but the only absolute divorces fc;;ranted in ",ngland were by special 
aots of Parliament* hile in this couni.ry the matter of ^iVautin^ a 
divorcrj involves the judicial process, it has always been recognized 
that the courts have only such power with respect to grtntin^ a 
divorce abBclutely severing and canceling the marital bonds as the 
legislature sees fit to confer upon them. the divorce amounts 
to nothing more than a separate maintenance, which is the kind of 
divorce that was granted by the eccleuia:jtical oourts of ::iigloUidp 
the stntus of marriage continues, and the power to grant aliirioay 
with £uch a divorce carries vath it thu povvei- to iuouii'y ox r^lter 
the allowance of alimony to meet new conditions. This is not true> 
however, vj^ith rospect to a, divorcv. \.luoh duotioyi tiic i.U;.a :.'iaga 
relation. In that case the obligation to support the wife ce;l,e^3s 
« the GGvenuice of the Biarriage rel,j,tion -"ivc-pt in so ia.x &-^ the 
decree of divorce by authority of the statute provides for alimony. 
Unless the e tatuto granting- the povver to avvard alimony to thu v;ife 
authorizes the court to alter the decree to raeet new conditions, 
the decree is like a iinal uecree in any other aat.e ano caxuiOu be 
changed. Huge v. Ruge . 97 Wash. 51, 165 Pac. 1063 p L. R. A. 1917-y, 
701. * * "^ In po far au it is author laed by statute, alimony may "be 
allowed to the wife as a part of a decree for divorce or for separate 
maintenance, but alimony CMairiot be &tllowed on a bill liiea lor that 
purpose, alone, (Trotter v. Tro tter, 77 111. BIO.)** 

Plaintiff then claims that in any event a court of equity hcs juris- 
diction to enforce the father's conUnulng liability to properly 
support his child vdiere cin original bill in equity is filed to compel 
such support. 

In Thomas v« Thomas , 250 111. 354 » it was held at p. 364 j 

"Neither a v«tuit of harmony betv?een a husband and vdf e re- 
lating to the management of their children, nor the right of cither 
to their custody, control, support or educ^.tion, involves any 
ecuitr>0le title or question of a.n cquitt;,ble nature. The priiiciples 
upon v.hich equitable powers are exercised do not sustain the claim 
that a husbrnd and v/ife ms.y litigate vrith. each other in a court of 
equity over the question Ahich one shall have the custody of their 

If the custody of the child p as held in the Thomas case, caimot toe 

made the subject matter of an independent action in equity, it is 

obvious that the support of a child cannot be the subject of such an 

action within the conteisplation of the statute and in consonance 

;- - .' " tQOl ,80X' *q[{i *J3- tisa 

eild' smiwoxj'Si ^jiigj-isj ■^o".>:iaq '.c&diis vmS. lirio i'.'jrid' "Xivoiiu biio ,a'5:i-« sirl 

saw o^orio d'e gagais .3 oo'iovib .fs JaoTig oi &iiuov XBoi-SBioalsoo 

sJl.^JL£Sit.jfM 'okor a-Baiicxswa ails' bBivbna'x doi;^ seatrao loi" *ffSiaJ:0jruis lo 
I^.£o3(ja~'\;«f O'xaw fc-milaxf'- al. jb0.j'nfiiv, asto'xovxu ^issloadr, xlixo scCd" ^.ucf 

a :;5Xixixj:v^'X3 o.d ^ooq^ao'i d.ji^ 'xawoq xfoye Y,Iixo av.ofi -s^Xi/oo ^rfS ;^-'3ff;f 
0Xi;!' EiB, abaod I.£,ii'XBu edi gclXaonao btiM sxix-xav-sa ■^eXo^wIo-acfs aoTovifc 

iibuj^.I^xi^- 'to Qi'SMoo Z£:Qxiii&lu&loQ& niU \(S b&;iaBXu a.sw *.3jc£,t aoTOvib 

•iQilB to. x'^^'^^^'-i oj iOVi/oq uxic» jx iiji-Vi «'i>x:£'i30 so^ovil) s xfowa xtdfiT? 

tswi^ 5'ori ai airfT •anGi^tiBnoo w^n dosia Oit xacmlln lo ©okcwoIIJs ad* 

e^--ix:;Xi:fii oiii a^o'xi^&ai; iloxxiv.' ooxovxb s cJ ;to£>q:3S7: rUiv^ ,i3T9worf 

?i&a/5S0 ©1:iw orCJ *triOQ.Q;0a o;f «oi;J,RB-tXffo sdt ^es^o i&sii: a.1 •fidid'^XsT 

siU Qin Ti^'t 3 jfxi vq^joxt; iioli^,.Lo'x. &gi.(;;i:'.t'i:sM SiW lo ©oivjiavzn-; odi xiJr.v 

s1:iv7 ax£^ o^ \.xioaixlK b'XisWii oi 'iswoq; odi ■^i'liiina'X.'^ viaiai ^i oil* aeelMJ 

tenaliihaoo w^n ^e&m o* ee^OQ^ »i£* te&^Xs Qi traoe biU a&'&itosiiiSB 

gtd" vioiia^so Oils Qsso 'xoxii^o \;iw xtx '39:Eoe5 X^ax'i b 92£xX al osaos?} e-xfi 

.t-^XtJX »A *g .J .«edOX .o-s^ SdX «Xa •xfa.-sW ft\3g^ .t ©ap .baansxio 

sd" X£isz Tjaoaixlis t^^^'j^ia ^cf £j©£ii'ioi£-;?wje ax *x a.s i^jI; o^ at * '>* * *X?'P' 

*Bxfct 'xox bsXxi iX-to' *^- -tio bswoXX.y ycT j' -"^omxXjs i-ccT , soaexiSinxjBra 
"(*GXo .III ?V .«j;c3**©xT •'^ J,gHoj£T) ,»KoX» «?jaoq:Ti/q 

-aJtii/t J9.?iff xitijp^ 'io itssoo b itmrs i£jas aX 4 sxi*' aaiiiaXa ixstiiv' 'lllialsl'i 

XT-'^''<i^'>'(i. o.t ■^cj'irlxd'.exl saiiyxi iif xko a'-ssji^.^l ad* ©O'lolna o* hg i:*»ib 

leqmc oi bsXil ax v*ix;p2i ui XXio XsttiaX's©- as .©■20il-# feXlrfo siii *«»<j«(;tfe 

' ■ »*Toqq[«a jrfoi/a 

l,^5£ .q; ji?, &l£>4 u£W :J1 «is.8S .XXI Oaa ^^i^i^ii;^ .T aaigo x ii,!' xil 

"O-x &1;i:v/ ftxxtj xxiJ^cfawrf ;3 xss9W*-^rf xsajM-iaai Ic iim>\'f & I0ii*lal4«* 

X«8 earXovni «xiol^.;owb9 'xo itcxitiiss «Xo-x*floo^Y&ocJa«o ilsxii 0* 

QeXqionitCT exiT , &-usi! sixi Qldi:.ilisyO n.?. 'Xo tiolis^up to Qlili sXdRd-l.trps 

iaJtj.:5Xo 9ii* alBJaua iau ox> jjssXoti^'Jwss 0'ij!^ o'xawcui aXif.s^ljJiJO xioMw noqw 

'iq j-zjioo B «1 ta£t*o rfo-^0 ii*lw 9$si^xJi.£ x^m ett^ has bixfjcfawrf b sMi 

lioili "Xo •v;bo;fiJiJO M^ av^vxi xXjula oao xloirivs ixoX*a©«ip a*f* isvo x^ixips 

©<f iertn/j© 4:3ei?o a.e^xIT aii* ni feXerf ;s.<? ,5XMa S'rf* Io vboc/airo 3si$ tl 

ax ii. tX^l^iJS) ui. nol*ox4 !inebti-^(s,ebax. an "to T9**^ik io-^J.tfxra srfj ?j?j«ja 

lis iici)''.! lo *of!i,'*J^^^ ®f^^-* fJ^ oO£UT[«o bXMo n "10 *«OQq.;;fa arC* 4s4* awoivtfo 

aoni'inoenoo n± Jbxis ©*tr*«*3 ari* to isol:*.«X(;gn9*fioo ari* atdilxt aolioji 


Mth its general intent. It is unquestionably the law of thia 
state that procecdinga for the allowance of alimony and for the 
support of a minor child or children or for the alteration of eur^h 
ail allowance may be had only in the cause in which the divorce is 
sought or granted. 

We find the ctatenent in defendant's "brief that "he has 
always supported the minor child and is now supporting the minor 
child, and that the minor child is now living with appellee.** 
while this statement is apart from the record and has no be-oring 
on the is38ues involyed, plaintiff has not sem fit to raake any 
reply disputing it. If true* it reflects a situation radically 
different than tliat pruseated by plaintiff's bill, 

yor the reasons indicated herein the decree of the circuit 
court is affirmed. 


3?riend and 3canlan» JJ.f concur* 

©xii 'xol bus xnoKillB to soii^v.-oILs sri* ao'i aBixlb&a^xitq ^^jarT* 9*a:?'o 

e£«i »M" it.scii ^®.^£Cf ^i*3smhi:ir:l£.&h ml itws%ei.Bis 9sii tall 9W-- ,■ 

igUiTr^ecf Oil fxnd foxiE btooers »i£^ rao'j'i Jtsq* al imjaai^.e^a siifiJ ©lirft" 
^ri55 f>£Q0 o,t itJ;*£ riBsa *<3is ssri ^"ti^ntslq «.&3TJEoviii asBa«i Bdi ni 

; ',n^. 

f ,^^:.-<' „ ^^iQ.'j0<, ^ 



CHAHLBS B. POwLliIR et al., 
Appellees f 

▼ • 

VIGTCR LEIi^ySBSav et al*, 



CURTIS H. Ki:i£r\v]SBi5Rp deceased, 
and WILLIAM H. ITIS nmm, 


) ^ o 


Plaintiffs filed a ainority stockholders' till against 
Hi-Lo Pan Corporation and others, seeking to rescind and set 
aside certain corporate dealings on the ground of fraud, praying 
for the assignment of a certain patent to the corporation, and 
for an accounting. Upon joinder of isaue tH* cause ^b referred 
generaUy to a master in chancery, vsho, after a full hearing, 
recomraended that the bill be dismissed for want of equity* Oa 
hearing of plaintiffs* excepticaas to the master* s report the 
chancellor sustained the exceptions and entered a decree granting 
the relief sought. Hi-L© Pan Corporation, .illiam H., Curtis H. 
and Victor H. Leinweher have prosecuted this appeal. 

It appears from the evidence adduced hsfore the master 
that Continental Aircraft & Transportation Co., who had been 
engaged in the experimental and commercial development of 
helicopters, oisned the following patents i (i) i^ited itates 
letters patent So. 1,401,992, issued to illiaa H. Leinweber 
January 3, 1922, for propeller; (2) United States letters 


Tiuoaio Mo^ xm.<i%A 

•Yl'TiUDO SOOD ,TmroD 

C^ 5$!, 

^ Q P 

.fmjoo 5tHf '^ Msiix^D a:^ ^^?m?ij.^ smrtit ti^itstn; ,8^ 

SniTC^r.i;c[ ^bi/fj^l to bm/o'xs ^^^^ *i<5 Qg^ailj3«& s^s^oqpcoc six**!©© td.4^ 
i>©'£i©'i.3''j Sim 9Sjy.30 esidt siiaei lo tsfc«xot aoqU tgnUrmooos as TOt 

SittiiiiBT^ s&rtt3b js b^xBiste has aaoii?qyo2cs siii b&mX^imsa uoXXsojcibiIo 

^9cf9waJ:oj •HiaalXXi?^ oJ bajwiai ,see,XOi^«X *oE *ixe^jBq a^acJitaX 
era:»*#©X a©*s*a bs^isa (s) jTSlXsqortq; trol: ,SS^'X «<£ v;xB0ii;iI 


patent Ho» 1,344 »640, issued to Victor H. Leinweter January 2^» 
192);) for propeller blades^ (3) TJiiited States letters pateit 
:ffo« 1,372,441) issued to Curtis H«, dlliam H* and Victor Leinweber 
and vntoa ^^enaon, March 22, 1921, for propeller* 

ISilliaa H. Leinweber, one of the defendants herein, conceived 
the idea of scaling dovn the aircraft propeller, protected under 
these patents, and adapting its design and principle to humidifier 
fans. He procured a license from Continental Aircraft k Transporta- 
tion Co., under patent Uo» 1,372,441, covering a ten year period, to 
manixfacture, sell and use propellers for other than aircraft pur- 
poses, and for a period of about one year manufactured fans undtar 
this license. In Septeaaber, 1922, the Hi-Lo Pan Corporation was 
formed for the purpose of manufacturing these fans. The foregoing 
patents were duly assigned by the corporation. Continental Aircraft 
& TranBportati<«i Co* reserving to itself the right to use them for 
aircraft purposes only* For this assignment it received 3,600 
shares of the capital stock of Hi-Lo Pan Corporation, which was 
assigned to Victor H. Leinweber, as trustee* At the same time 
William H. Leinweber released all rights under his license to tiae 
new corxK>ration, together \ certain tools, dies and manufactured 
goods on hand, for which he received 800 shares of the capital 
stock of Hi-Lo Fan Corporation* In the spring of 1923 stock of the 
nev/ corporation was qualified for sale to the public, as a class 
«B" speculative stock imder the Blue Sky laws of Illinois* Francis 
M* ..chieble was employed to sell the stock* Sach subscription form 
bore the legend required by the statute, "These are speculative 

About a year after the Hi-Lo Fan Corporation was organized 
the three Leinweber brothers were engaged by the company, Victor 
as office manager, Curtis as General sales manager, and dlliam as 

j^s^J-jgq etsi^sX us^^^a bscl'.JitU (S) lae&BX^ rallsqo'sq^ -sol: «(&ei 

^3bms bBioo&otq ^'s&Xlaq&xq ^"ts^-xo^i-B ed^ stsob SJSiXaoe lo jEjdbi Bdi 

or ,&oi-xso[ IBS"?: K9^ s B«-'^9'5"oo *X:!-^«5rs<X *aM. dxis^isq 'iBbcas «.oD fioij 
-■ZijCi: ^iB-so-xis fij3x£* "ssri^o lol sielXsgo'zq oajtf ims XXaa ^ sTxj^osljaiasfii 

OOd^e .b&wxDoti't d-j; ;}iisBia?JXgas «M| "re's t^i^fse esao^'XBq- ^liiioiiB, 
s,gi» xioxrf./ (HOlJii^oqioO xsaf OtI~xH to icocl-?a Is;Mq:&o arf^ lo asiaiia 

©a";* od- ©afe-3oiI alrl is&ia; Bid^ii XXa &9B«9Xs« xscfaw^^iJ «H atsiXXliW' 

QifJ lo ^'00^3 SSeX lo a^sti^qe sfid tii ♦i:5Ox;t,^:x©gi©0 as^ 6iI-iH "^0 :f#0#% 

es^Xo & aa ^oJiX^fuq ^xfJ o^ sXbs :fOl &dilJt£jsj;rp euMr a»i$sto^4d wiMi 

eionaiU ♦aioxsiXXI lo aw^aX "Visfi^ ©wXS srf;f tsbiiu ^loo^y avi^.fjXMoaqa •*€'' 

sa':cox tio UtilUQBdsja doaZ •3iooJ'@ eKS IXoe oi ba'^oXqmo aaw sX<f©iilo^- •M 

bssxass^o ssw Hoiiis^oq^oO nsi: oJ-JtH arid- ts^lis 'xsst b iuoffJ 

noJcxV ,ii;a0qcK)o ©ri? ^cT bs-^asA^ »^sw a-x0d:>roTcf xscfawnisj; saixf^ exf# 


production manager, each at the salary of |300 a month, and their 
employment was duly approved by the "board of directors in October, 
1933* The new corporatioa took over the office of the Leinwetior 
"brothers in the Monadnock hlock, Chicago, and proceeded at firet 
with the production of a small humidor fan and a fan used for 
Ford a tomotiles. Lacking space and facilitiesf the actual manu- 
facture of these fans was contracted for in outside shops; and 
only the assemhly worky boxing, erecting, ete«, was attended to by 
the corporati(m* A stock sales campaign, under the direction of 
Schieble, was inaugurated in 1924, and prospective purchasers of 
stock were invited to the offices of the corporaticaif v/here the 
new uses and adaptations to which the fans were being put were 
explained and demonstrated by Victor and Curtis Leinweber# S<aae 
^80>0O0 in stock was sold under Schieble* s directi(m« 

From the time the corporation was organized, until 19^, 
various salesm^i and the Leinwe'ber brothers were trying to market 
its products, but v7ith indifferent success, and in the spring ef 
1927 the corporation became financially embarrassed and the Leinwebera 
thereupon made a series of agreements "by ^shich they should manufacture 
and sell fans as individuals under a license from the corporatirai. The 
situation at that time, with reference to the patents involved^ xms 
SB follows 4 the Hi-L« 5'an Corporatitna owned patent Ho. 1,372,441, but 
by license agreement of March 23, 1927, it granted William H» Lein- 
weber the ri^t to manufacture and sell blades under 12" in diameter 
for a royalty of 5% of all money received* William H. Leimfeber 
owned patent Ho. 1|623,420, "but by license agreement of March 25, 
1927, he granted to Hi-Lo Fan Corporation the ri^t to manuf3X3ttire 
and sell blades 12" or larger in diameter, for a royalty of 30^ of 
all money received. In other words, Hi-L© Pan Corporation had the 
right to manufacture and sell blades snd fans 12" in diameter or 

,^'x»^ciio-0 as. sioioo-ilb to b-%BQii od^ x€ bevoTccrq;!? xXsih ajsw ^esK^oXqcss 

.•£4>1 -fess^/ anil's &£f.s cat tQbxjm^d llama s 1© ooi^oirfeox? 9di dilv 

Xd fki'b&ba&iii akw ^♦©t© ^Sisi^oi-is ^TiC-i^cod' ^-iTow xldBS&a&m sif*' -^Xao 

essw d-srq: Bsisc' 9^0^ Snst sd&'doid^'' ti fi«oi*\s*g.©5s 5|je b®s« west 
ss£qS * ■xsd'ewijtojl ax^^jyO fcas ^Coo IT -^d" 59#si:#3K««»& felts 'iNsriXi^i^X© 

^ VStX X. ii^ni/ ,6»sla«@'xo ajS*" aDi^s^o^tOO Md^ esii^ Bdi atot'I 
,-J 03[xss' OJ -Sstb^ti Q's^^T aT«ii#oi*f iscfswKisJ sj£# bits tiBsm&leE s&oirsr 

s^sstfswnls,! 9dffm& b^assTZBd^s 'cXX^sioccni:! set^o^d aolir.^Qqr&c Qdt fgtl 

ssVS ♦coiJ^iEoqioo ©ri;f aso'i't sassoiX e -isftsa aXsx/blYir&ai ^b anet XXsa fefifi 

axssT t&gvXOT-fji 3#xi©*sQ 9if« o;f ssrmis'is* dtiw ^saiS is^t $& ssoii&jSla 

i^ 0' i.X-i>^«Sfc.<X .0^ ^ss8;*£-(j bssBBO isoxisntoq'itO astt oJ«lH Sfi'l? sawoXXel i- . 

-liiej *M jStsilXxfe- fos^asiSB Ji *72§X tSS rfo-x^ lo dee is»©'Its>s saaaoxX "^jcf 

-icad^&atslfi Bi "ax taS^ae s&bsld IXas fists otcj^fesli/rijafii od *ifeii siJ* xod&v 

'^dmmlSil *E nBiXXiW tfeeTisosi ^©jso^a XXr, lo ^5 lo x^ilMt^vi rj 'xo'i 

,Oiii rfoi:^!a to :ia3s&s>'ies>& QBa& x^ -''^^ ^OS|kfe.::a^X .oK ifjxerf«q oi^crso 

'j^SiJi'oslyaeEi oi 4d^lr odi ttoicf.ssioq-xoO xie^ OvI~xH of^ Dd^nBTtsj »ii tVSeX 

I0 ^0£ I0 t*X.B^©i ,3 t&t tXBi'3Sj&tb ill rres^raX 10 "SX s&bsld XXaa fjcs 

0£l* bsd aolifiicqro'O rrI oJ-iH ,abiaw -x^d^o st »bftT±9o3»^ ^sfic^ia XXs 

^0 tBtaamtb at "SX arsiBl bass. sabaXcf Xl»a fti^ 9r£B*ois1tirfi.9fit ©i ;^risi'r 


larger, and /dlliaa H. Leinwe'ber retained tho o^ixmn right on 
bXadus and fans under 12 *• 

Ia the sprin;^ of 1^23 the Leinwebera interested t^e 
Pedsral Merchaiidiae Jo., one of the dsfendaats herein* in taking 
an exclusiT© liconas to Eaanufacture and .sell blades and fans 
\mdsr 12» in diameter, aad Airmaster Gori>oration, snother defendant, 
in taking an exalusire lioease oa blades ^nd fans of a diameter of 
12* snd orer. Both of these defendants were responsible coKceme. 
It in the ro;.'altieB paid to the leiniseljers under the Federal 
Merchandise Go. egreement which plaintiffs here seek to recover, 
on the theory that patent Mo, 1,623,420 belongs to the Hi-I^ Fan 
Corporation and should be tiZBimed to it, and not to ^'illiam H. 
Leinweber, the ps.tentee* 

After operating under these rarious license agreements 
for approximately two years, the corporation and the Lein?/ebers 
again ohtnged the arrsngeiaent for the manufacture and sale of fans, 
through an agreement between dlliasi H. Leinweber end the corpor- 
ation, by ?:hich Leinweber wso to retMn Pll the royalties receired 
on fans under 12" in dianeter, and the corporation was to receire 
royalties on fans and blades 12*' in diaaeter or over. All moneys 
received as royalties under theye various license agreements have 
been distributed and paid, and the perfonaance of these contracts 
is not chellenged. 

Plaintiffs herein had become stockholders of the Hi-Lo i'an 
Corporation as a result of the selling cas^aign of 1924» In 1929, 
^ixen the security market was at its height, they began to c(mplain 
that no dividenaJs were being paid on their stock, and indignation 
meetings were called \diich finally resulted in a v/ritten deimnd on 
the directors of Hi-Lo i'an Corporation, dated October 13, 1930, 
tlvat aeti(»i be taken to procure the cancellation and abrogati(m of 
the license agreement betx/een Continental Aircraft & Transportatiim 


.aim's fess..^sj»£X«i'/£©s -hw^ ^■m-tt^liiSLssi^ Qi fumoM stIsuIoxs. *te 
to %s>iBm3J:'o £ to aast bus s^b&lQ no dSiKSsiX stxswXcx© a« sai^f^i oi 

.H .^iXXit Qi ion bM&. ,n 07 . fe9«|illia« otf feXirorfe &0« iasi^.«x(*5X©0 
«8i3Sl to ©last baa ©'^tii«65j 9JS^ t£ol-*ii»ffi©Si£.fi3XA «f^ ha^mids ia«S£ 

a^asom XiUi •ijoto to tQi^ssBib bI "SX as&«Id 6«j3 an«t «» a»i*X»x«^ 
©Tsii a^naffleeiss asasoiX airoii^v ou@xi;f rcsfem; a0i:;lXii)CO'i a« «»»Ti»»art 
aj^os-x^rroo aaorfj lo sonGfifiol-ceq &di forte ,fei«q ft^J^ f>a*sfd-i^*3il) JC»*«f 

• b3S«*XXyx(o ioii ai 

noi^r^nsibiti bfu? tJfoo^a txsil* no ibirq anietf ai»w sfecabivib oa isxC^ 

no kmxn»b a&mvti a at boilisBB% xXXsail rioixfef balXBO «Tt«w B^alisem 

tOeeX *5X ^stfo.ioO &9*sb ,noiJ3:£oqioO nsU oJ-iH 'to Biod^oa^ib 9x1^ 

lo x:oicJi.i3o:£Cfi5 boc uoiiijXXsoiiBO sxii s-ruootcq; o;; ws:^?;^ ©tf noXcfos isaii 


Go« and illlajB E. Leinwe"ber, the cancellatic'i oi' certificrites 
for S^X' shares of coE-ruOn stock issued to ..illlaia H# Leinwc-her, 
to procure for the corporation the ownership of United btates 
lc;tter3 patent; ^o« l»CS3»420y to procure froia the Leinwehdrsy 
Ainoa-otsr Coi aiid :&'&deral Ji£erol'iL&ndise Go*» a full accounting 
of all roydtic's p^icl or fecsiredy and to procure for the cor- 
poTfttlon the aative hsHeficial OT/narshlp of any s^jplicttion for 
ps,terjte or iaiproTanents on patents* filed or in process coirering 
rropcllcrs and exhaust fsne* and applied for by any of the dir- 
ectors! • This demand was- referred to coun6el» who, replying on 
"behr^lf of the (31rector3» advised plaintiffs that the matter would 
he presented at the K-gular meeting of the hoard in due course, stat- 
ing &l30 thgfe there was no legal .juatificstion for complying with the 
demands mad^ ssid that in^siauch es the hooks of the company were acoes" 
sihle to the ptockholders there was no necessity for any fur^er 
accounting' ^^one of the plaintiffs appeared hefore tije hoard as they 
were incited to do, and Movsaher 2C, 1930, the ^aill of ccacplaint was 

Plaintiffs presented the cause to the master upon the follow- 
ing theories: (1) The.t the United States letters patent Ho. 
1,623,420, issued to illiaa H. Leinweher in 1927, long after plain- 
tiffs* hecfiffie stockholders, should he assigned to the HiviO J'an Gor- 
poration, because the patentee, Leinweber, was employed by the cor- 
poration at the time application was laade for the patent, and the 
so-called "shop rigjits* to the invention therefore belonged to the 
corpora ticmi (2) that in connection with the sale of stock to plain- 
tiffs certain representations were made that "all improveraents in 
fans" Aould be the property of the corporation? and (3) thp.t the 
Leinwebers, being directors of the corporation, could not legally 
deal vdth corporate assets at a profit to themt>elves, and therefore 

« "'^.d'sHixiSil *H RiBi-IIiW 0* Masai ifooJa RSaiiaoo 1© etsissM Qi'>Q -iot 

'' ■"' "is?il'i:si3o'-o04s I:£s;1; i-^'v.oO' S3ifess£b*©M lJsTefe^€-^fe|fia ■»9i5'^'i:*3'&'6iKt-i*' 

^tib'sdi "to -^iSE "^d" so'i'^Mlqg;® ha^ tSfi«1 ^aifBxisES tm^.: ©j-eiXa^jo-rq; 

0il$ iiJTiw BnlvlqRsoo -sol i3oi*soJfcli:i-3et X^^el on &mr ^t&dy digtff J, ewXe- BiHi 
-6© COS 3xaw ^ificTiscoo S'rf* to »:^p5r siff* ms :MQtM^BSii. t^^ bm mt>^i aimism^b 

es'sr '^ursi'-pjos lo llicf a'fi- «0£^X *3S 'ss^^voK t>i&8 ,©b Q#-,:fe©*iiral;.-iBS©^- 

-aoXXiOt sift fsdq0 ^s^imm &M^ oi s^mQ ^di ^^i^sastq hTiHai&£^^ 

. ♦©"is lao^asi a-ssi^sX a®^*s.*S b&^tiSI srf* tsilT (X) iatJfcTcesd:? %at 
stiBlt ^s^'t^ giacX «?sex fiX s«€r«iriil3^ .H SA-lXXiU' ©:? bairaei <0SI^*SS5«X 
•"SOD is^'S. X^.i-iil 9ilv* o5 bajsaisao »5f bXuexiss ^srtsbXOGSfaoiire ©siBoa«f 'sl^juf 

^di &Hfi" t d'fi©;? jxiX arf^t xol a&jBEt aaw «»l;J-®oiXi»iB ©sis' atfl *d jeraxisaoq; 
©ri^ d^ fes^ireXacr B-x^l&i&di mlttt^Tmi. qM o^ *eti^ti ^oda* !>»xr«o-©« 

fiJL a!}-ttRfii9Tai:c[fiii XXjs" J-X'Jil;* •stlxMS oism Bti^iiMi ttf>s^tqs% ttljsi^mo 8lh:lf 

&dS i!^Li is) bitiS usoiisrceqioo »it? lo x^^^^sosq aa"J srf 5Xiiotr *aiM5l 

YXXt;?i9X oofl bXiJOs* «uoi:^ot0Q«oo exfiJ jJe^ artoJ^beilfe ^isd" , ai^tfswnistt 

p&tent Ho* 196239420 Bhould "be assigned to the corporation* 

The first and third of these theories were apparently 
abandoned upon argument of the e xceptione hefore the chancellor^ 
M9ho told counsel that so far as these theories ^rere concerned he 
was in favor of sustaining the master's report » and that he wished 
to hare the argument directed <Kily to the question \i4i8ther represen- 
tations were made in connection with the sale of stock that all 
future patents and improvements would belong to the corporation* 
At the court* s suggestion and request a stipulation was eritered 
into "by counsel for both sides, which contained the following recital: 

"Pursuant to the suggestion of this court, April 4, 1935, 
counsel for complainants have su'bmitted the following quotations 
from the record of alleged representations of c ertain of the 
defendants upon which complainants will rely at the hearing now 
set before this court April 11, 1935* Counsel for defendants hare 
agreed to address thea^elyes to the argument of these representa- 
tions, and these only." 

Attached to this stipulation were excerpts from the testimony of 
AlTina Lenke, Francis M* ScMeble, Charles E* Fowler, Sathan M* 
Sharpe, oelma Leinweber ./ittl, and Katherine Patterson* By con- 
sent of the parties the ieeues were thus narrowed down solely to 
the question whether the evidence sustained plaintiffs* cont@ation 
that the representations charged in the complaint were made. V.ithout 
attempting to analyze in detail the testimony of these various wit- 
nesses as disclosed by the excerpts attached to the stipulation^ 
the following suuKiary may be madei 

Alvina Lenke testified that she was present at the offices 
of the Hi-I^ Fan Corpora ti<KX, Monadnoek building, in May, 1924, and 
that she heard Victor Leinwe%er say thot if there were any new patents 
on any new improvements they v/ould belong to the fan company* 

Francis M. Sehiebley sales manager for the corporation, 
stated that in prottoting the sale of stock it was his understanding 
that all improvements in the fan wotad inure to the benefit of the 
corporation; that Victor and Curtis Leinweber had so told him. He 

XlistQtmqciB Q%^'w a^ixoexi^ &-&&M.i.TL9 U'iM^ bos iaTlt 9^ , :: . 

0x£ b&iiT^ofJS n stow b&1'%obM aasrf# sj^ ^igst ©a .*^i Issatfs© &,X©* o4«' 

- STBii aiissbi^alab sot X#at«s«»0 ♦■SSfiJC iXX litqA **£ifl&s elrfi;^ &iol:&(S i&e 

-xsoo xE .0OQ"se;S'd'i5*-i; ©uissifts:^ feii« ,Xi^J}"X^" i©«f«wBi»iI jpaXs^ ,9^aj(68 

aJ -^XeXca ttwob bswoitBG sudi 9^»w aeiiaei est* e^iit&q 9x£^ io #a©3 

uoiJKGc'Koo ^sttiizislq^ fo&aiBietjs ©Dn^bira 9ii;f isufisjlw noiSBSup ©r.; 

enoid'^Xyq:J;3a 9il# oi .boifosd*s a;):^^sex9 9if$ Tjtf &9soXf8l£ as .a<*«tt«m 
r^o''Hs*sq[ W3ii ■>£«£! 3TBW aisfi^ ti #jGrf* x-se lerfswaXsiI <st<»4a|T fi«js«4 ©da |.«u4i* 

■ ' '- 0X0 d- oa h&d TL^dBwai-Qj, alitaXi baa locrolV t^4 ^jaiQii&%&%m%\ 


BliO Stated » however, that he had mad<= an indepeudent investigation 
before engaging in the sale of stock and that statements made to 
prospective customers and purchasers were based upon hie o"«m in- 

Charles S. S'owler gave no testimony that would furnish aid 
to plaintiffs. He merely stated: "To ay knowledge, the improve- 
ments were made subsequent to 1932. I seen them in the office. They 
belonged to the corporation. They were brought up there and exhib- 
ited. The statements that I relied upon were astually fulfilled." 

Sathsin M. Sharpens tsatimoay appears to have no particular 
Tsearing on the issue involved. He stated s "I had several conver- 
satione with Mr. ::>chiebl@ in regard to buying the stock, and during 
those conversations he stated that the patents were the property of 
the company, and that they had other patents or were applying for 
patents in Canada. I cannot recall now what the exact fact waB there." 

Selma Leinweber Ittl testified that she overheai^d William H« 
Leinweber tell Mrs. Haiffiner» a stockholder who is not a plaintiff here- 
in, that improvements would belong to the company j that this conver- 
sation took place in the basement of her home, and that she overheard 
it while upstairs visiting vvilliamH. Leinweber* s Mfe. 

Katharine Patterson, viho had originally invested in stock of 
the Continental Airorsi't & Transportation Co., and later in the Hi-Lo 
Pan Corporation, testified that she had a comversation with Victor 
and Curtis Leinweber before purchasing her stock* and that #tlioy aald 
that anything in patents that Vfus taken out at any time or place » 
whether in the United States, Canada or T^urope, absolutely belonged 
to the Hi-lo Fan Corporation." 

Of th© six complainants who brou^t this suit only three testi- 
fied ? rowler, Patterson ssx6 Lenke. Fowler* s testimony is to the effect 
nh&t every representation made to him prior to the time he purchased 
his stock had been fulfilled. Thus only two complaining stock- 

-«x awo sM JK©ex*J^ baastf ^'i&w uisBaiiSitmi &acj 3«©r»^E«'o arTl^oijjsofKfj 

aol gisJcY.Xqti's ©law "xo »*aa^sq 'ssrl^o h&jd xsiU t^M .f>«® «%tt»?fii«o ad:* 

"*r^''xs.?:ri!- I5J3W iost it>p>KB e^^ Hb^ ■^GM llsit>B% 3'«im^« I •fi6»fi«D fli 8f'fi?i?.!!KJ 

bx&iiJiX9V<? &da tsidi bsiB ^^aod tad to ^ssmasscF ejit itr^Ojilt^^^^ ixIkM'MB 
o2-iii arid fix •jsd'.el i)fi^ ,.gO aoli^'S^oqstmtf A .f'ifi'So^JLA. Xjs^naisx^nou siia 

bosacXocf \:Xei*wXof2efj3 tg^qotwd io «.bj3fifi0 «a9#J3^3 fcd^xiiffj ®^^ ex Tsifisifw 
-xd-ne* fiirtdi x£no ^Iub BMi ^ifexroaef eiifw 8#ixBjKiJsX<5fiH©o stla sxfdf "to 


holders, Patterson and Lenke, now GhiWge the LtJi.iwe'bera witli aiis- 
pepresentation in the sale of a took. The patent f iifo. 1»6S3»420» 
whloh j/laintiffB seek to hare asaigneci to the Hi-Lo Pan Corporation» 
was taken out in the name of vi'illiam H. Leinweher» and later one- 
third interest therein was assigned to each of Ms two hrothere. 
There is no eyicJenoe that .iilliJiia H» Leinweher ever engag-ed in or 
had anything to do with the sale of stock in the Hi-Lo i'an Corporation* 
The statements testified bo hy the rarioua VritnesBes ware al.legod to 
have been niade hy the other hrothers. 

Roswell B. MRBon, to vihoiij the cause was referred » ;aade an 
exhaustive report v.lth findings of fret and his conclusions a& to the 
law applicahle to the vr^rious theorier, advanced by plaintiffs. As 
applieahle to the representations alleged to have 'bsen made by the 
LeiiiW'Sbers in connection with the sale of stock, he concluded 5 

"I find th«t thercj were general conversations "between 
complainants and the defendants Leinweber at difierent times 
about the changeB in the f^in that were "being sold f?nd used by 
the defendants Leinweber and Hi-Lo Fan Corporation* but these 
conv«rsation9 related to adaptatioiis of the fans made under U. 
D. Patent Jo» 1,37J?»441» At the tiae thes^ oouvereationii took 
place , X1924 ] j> „ the . jjivent i on sub se -^u en t ly^'pr p t & cTed ~|Sy] trTIJT*!!"" 
p_atent. Spjr'l»623'»"42b,i!. il^W7T.)^4. pot been thp-ag:ht of « Mo 
reprGsentation was ever made by any of the defendants Leinweber 
that new patentable inventions, as dit'tingtiXBhed zrcsa iuiio'slonal 
Improvements, would be asEit'aed to Hi-Lo Pan Gorporation* -iven 
if su ch representationa Jmd^e ©jfOfi^J^^jL,* I^EiL- *_®i.^J^ilT__*'J^_ the'TuTure, 
as diatinguiihed from the present aiad past y and are n ot sufii b lent 
to uahold aiiy ac ti on" p.f , frau d or dec ei t » ** Ti'tallcs ours.**) 

^^here is ooneiderable lores to the master's finding, /^l 
the conversations testified to are alleged to have taken place in 
1924, in conasction with the selling ctaapai^pa of Hi-Lo Pen Cor- 
poration's stook. The patent ?vhich plaintiffs t^eek to have assigned 
to the corporation was not issued linl-il 1927, some Jhrer years 
later, and it is diriiculti therefore to unc crstaud how tMs patent 
ccv?".d have been the subject matter of aiiy reprssentation." , wi>en, 
^s the master found, the invention covered by this patoat "had not 
[then] been thought of." The master saw auid heard these various 

~e:^o i»*£X bri£j t'lecfswriisJ .HuiBiiXxW 1© ©ittfm sd* nl (two nsSsf aaw 

■'"■■■■"■■■"'■ ■ '". ''^"■""' '"'" \er&siiot€ 's^Bdio Bdh x^ a&Bar ceatf 9Y4«C 

sdi? ol vis SKOxsi?! 01X0 sixi mis^osl: io aanl&fiil: ri*Xvj jJ-ioq©^ «-vl#ei?aj^EK» 
Bk ♦al'iid-wialq; •'jtf B^tjn.eir&'js Rftii'iosri*' te^lxs^ ®a^- ot ■0i«fB®iXq:q[jai 'slWRl- 
giri,+ Y*^ 3&v«:<0i weed' STsri o.t l>i5i9XX>s 8ii6i*^#fi©«&«Q«>iE' M# ol ©Xtf-^fiiJIqiid 

tifi&v^&d enex^Betovxi'Oc XeiscKi® arrow o-reif* ^J.e-xf,-^ tnil I" 

asxRXt iaet-^'klUt i£i t&d&^ak^J. QiaBbm'i3h 9M baa aftmalslqmo 
YCf bSjBU bus:- &Xoa gnietf e^aw ^.cilit xxj:j't 9.<i^ Kl B^^muio &£li (fi/oiTfi 

Imiolioiw^l mcx^'i busia Ikr^aii 'J. kb ssjs *a«oi;^fl9Viii: ^Idaiaoiaq^ won (^arfi 
neT-I ♦npXJB'socr'soO nsl OtI-J:E o5 ^siailaiu? ed" &Xi/ow «sir!:oBi9vo"xgBii 

XX.. ♦lijaianJ:! s '^s^a-eat 9rf;t o* sotol eXrfaasiiXaciOD ai sjiaiif 

iti aojisXq nal^i 3T.sit od" D;>^aIX*s a-xii ocS iasiliiastf Qjccol^jsatESTfl©-©. «xf| 

(HI sex -^otif.' sjiawis ,T'2eX Xi^fm/ Lvot/aai ;tof![ SfW H©X«s«.«q;rso» ♦ifd' o* 

d'iisef.Bq aixl;!- 'iioxi l)xx,»3*a i^d fern; ocr ^^aie^aif^ sXu&iiti.b fii #X !>«« «*c©*isX 

two/X"./ iSEiQlstiiasjUi-aiq^iji xaa lo Tfis»Jtf;6fli *-0(aj;cfue 9df a&&^ 9"r«j(X !>."«/,©* 


wltneseee, and while his findings are not concluslre on the 
chancellor or on this cotirt, the testimony of p3.aintiffB» wit- 
nesses, \Yhen taken in connection with the alasclute denial of th© 
I.einwehers that rny such representations were made» affordsj no 
justification for a deoree which is so sweeping in its terms as 
to rest in the Hi-Lo Pan Corporation "all of the Improvemente 
which thereafter might he made, inyented or developed or acquired 
by the said defendants or any of them," and thus deprive the Lein- 
js-ehers frcan ever receiving any "benefit froa their individual effort 
as to new inventions and from the Inventive enterprise in which 
they had spent all their lives. le think tha,t the caiversation© 
related by these various witnesses referred only to functiraial 
improvements in existing patents, ^sMch are not patentable ( Atlantic 
^'- orks v» Brady, 107 tJ» S. 192 •) They vjere certaiUly not intended 
to cover an entirely new invention such as is protected "by patent 
Ho» l,623y420y issued some three years after the conversations 
took place* 

This conclusion is supported "by the inherent difference 
het^sreen the inventions represented by patents jjfos» 1,372»441 and 
1,623>420. The former relates to propellers and seeks as one of 
its principal objects to provide a screw propeller so designed 
as to exert a thrust evenly distributed from the tip to the hub 
of a propeller. Propellers, aa suoh, were generally known in 
the art long before either of these inventions was conceived, but 
the novelty of this design was a distinct contribution to the art 
because prior thereto practically all the driving thrust was pro- 
duced at or near the end or tip of the blades. The invention 
covered by letters patent Mo. 1,623,420 was not an improvement on 
the former patent, but an entirely new design; otlierwiBe it vrould 
not have been protected by new letters patent. It was an advance 
in the art along radically different lines. One of its Bsain 

■'■■ ais' sffi-c©:^' &tt ss.i tfi|;«|.'©s-ra ©a s'l iJoiife? ©©i©s& « 5561. ixoJ:*4^iiU{^aif| 

Xsiioi'JciHfl at xlJSp. hB^ztolLBt ,a©sis«i^i^, i8»oiifiT; «»«)»]# :i^'-:l|«#iy^; 

atioi.i&a'Xfdr£ioo srf^ astl^ s«ij9X asiJEf*- «ia©a baimai: »C^I»«SSdji •©£ 

•sosXg ^-0* 
• 90S9^3'5'iila iRQZ&dmi odi ^ 5s^xs<i^ifa ai: xsolaeXfico^ *|j{£ 

Ijiis X1''I^?S\^£«X »soH a4a&^BqiX^ ■hQ.^ms&%^m%':eu^»lia&-vr8il,9di M&^ 

cfifil arfcT o^ q-c;^ arid flso^l bad'ytfiiJaib •^Xasv© i^ew^if* a tTSX© o;^ as 

~otq eark? ieu-idi snivJttcb ©d;t 11^. \:X£«oi?Oi5aq[ oiBxedi -colrtq aayaoarf 

ao ;tfieiitavoit£jaJ: ab ;?o£( ajav? CS^,SSa«X .oM *a9**q ateJ^X xd bsasvoo 
6Xi/o-iir cTi 03i,/'x9ii*o {aslasb wen xX8tj:*«e «« *u«f tin9imi tssnol &dS 

QoWiTbB im asm il ,;iaBis^q, m&iS&X wan ^ b&ioeio^q. a»©«f «vi|if ^oa 


purposee was to provide a propeller to be used for setting fluids, 

both gaseous and liquid* in motion where the entering edge of the 

operating surface ia in a plane substantially at right angles to 

the axis of the propeller shaft. In granting this patent to 

Williea H. Leinweber, entirely different olaimB were allowed by the 

patent office orer those adyanced in the other invei tion* Upon 

this phase af the litigation the master made the following findia^??! 

"I find that in the patent Ism aensa of the word 'imDroye- 
ments* both U« S» Letters Patent Mo* 1,372,441 and l,623,420'are 
iaproyement p^.tcnto ^;?ithia Title ?,5, II* G* G» *♦, section 31 (H. S. 
4886) • neither the patentee of iio. Ip372,441s» nor the patentee of 
Ivio. 1,623,420 claims to be ar. inyontor of the machine known ae. the 
' Propeller •' Propellers, ae euch, were generally knoim in the art 
long before thsae inventions were conceired. Presumably, the two 
inventions protected by said Ut S, Letters Patent IJos. 1,372,441 
and 1,623,420 are both patentable, novel and useful. There is a 
presumption that both letters patent are valid and this presumptioii 
has not been overcome or attacked by the cosplainants. The later 
invention is not an improvement on the foraer, but it is patentably 
different* and both inventions are improvements on propellers. 
Complainants have not prored any obligation on the part of the 
defendants Leinweber to transfer U» 3» Letters Patent Jo. 1,623,420 
to Hi-Lo ?an Corporatid^*" 

In analyzing the evidenoe upon ^rhioh the loaster based his 
findings, it appears that plaintiffs* ¥.fitnesses evidently had tn 
Bind net the technical thing Imo^is as a patent but raider improve- 
ments or adaptations corered by the existing patents. They were 
interested in a device which employed the principle of the big 
aeroplane propeller and made it adaptable to smaller fans for various 
uses. Hone of the witnesses understood the legal difference between 
patents and improvements on existing ^mtents, and they used these 
two words interchangeably. Therefore, to attach a technical meaning 
to the use of the word "patent," as employed by them in their testi- 
mratiy, when it appears reasonably dear that they were referring to 
improvements in form, size, shape, etc., to fit different uses of an 
existing patent, and thereby give their testimony so broad a meaning 
as to include every new invention in propellers and fans that mi^t 

be made by the Leinwebers in the futixre, would be giving a meaning to 


sua lo &g»s sml'iBisis ®st$ s^sjrfw aoi^os ai iblsjpll boB ai}0&m:& 44(i€ 

srf* '^^f bsiViOllB 9^«>vif aiet^Xo iis©t©m§ Y.Xs'xiiJiie -ttcs^mfulsj^ .H jtKsi:Xi#' 
jKsqU .eol* fBTSl ia£S#c- 9£s;? al fcssiJ.'sTb^ sg<3^ ita?© 9©1\1:©, *«»^aq[ 

sxs'OSr^^SSdtX btt4 XM«SfS%'X •©1 i-n^ifs^ ata^ifsii: ♦£ «tr ££*od" ■♦itu^isj 
*S -.H) X<S £roi.d-oda ,»„'■, ..0 *3 4^ %S£ aXd-IrT sM^iw s^noL^q: SKSjasTOxqiKX 

&di BB fiisoesi snxilDsai sridr 'ic io^'tioT£tl k« otf ed" 8aii«Xo OSc^toSS^X *€^:: 

j3 ex s5*J-©xiT .Xals^ei? bxis X'^Tort JseX^sjfissJBg. riJ-ed" 3-x« OS^«£SS«X fexjs 
tXtf£!*r£sc)-^>g. ax ti *»d" t'^sEiio^ aif* m 'tiisfaovoierisi rsi^ d-otx al noi^Jn .Ti-.r 

jEx 5^ xlitsobtra a&niiondla ^a^lliniBlq i&di a^seqqs Ji tegnxBiixt 

QX3W X&^T ■.Qdasi-aq sn-^^a-itxa- ©if* x^ fts^SYO© aaoli'®*q&?&jss t© ts^ii^js 

SM siS^ to aXqxonitcfj siC# b&x.^^^P^ xfjsMw solTsb « iii beiBot^tBt 

aiSQtr^r tot aaat 'xsIXjsiaa cS ^ItSaicrsihsi iJL sbsfli bKiS lollQqo'iq snaXgoifliB 

©sail;? fessfir -^aiftf bae « eifrjat^r.'^iii^ajbcs ko aj'c-ojMg^yd^qflii OfxE £*/H^2 

gninaem X«i>lfiiio©^ 3 xiosd-Js o^ ^^xcl&'X&s^ •Y.Xtfj8®snaxro'X9#fri aJSrro^r owtf 

~i;Jae;f tt^dt as. taaxIJ- •s;cr 59Y0Xqi«£9 as '•^inad'sq" &io^ sxl* lo eai; ori^ oJ 

od sni-r-xelort ©::©v7 xedii i&di -z-ooXo -^Xrfjsnoaisarr siJ59q:q:jR il i&ci-ff ,YnojK 

ris lo Goeu ^n9'3;Si:li& ^i^i o;? t.o^^a tsq^jria t^sia tfiixol id ainezx&roiqmi 

o>.^ v.xiiniieia js ^nl'Tx-g ©cf bXi/ov/ tS'iifix/l off* ax. a^sefownlsX axW ^d" ®be«j 9cf 


their statements wliich lander tlv^ eircuuictancsy was certainly not 
l.ntenJfe<?» ami the master in making the ioregoing findings evi- 
'3ently reoo^ixecJ tliie difierenca in arriving at his conclutsiona. 

Various otlier contentions are argued for sustaining tlie 
dooree requiring that patent ]Jo« 1, 623,420 he assigned to the 
corporation c.u the ground that it had acquired so-called "shop 
rigjits" in the patent because Vdlliam H» Leinweber was at the time 
employed by the corporation; refonaing the license agreeinents 
\^ith Federal kcrchaiidise Company and Airmaster Corporation^ so 
as to joalca Hi-Lo Fas Corporation the sole licensor; and directing 
that all future royalties 1»e paid to the corporation instead of 
to the Leinwebers ; but the master found that as a matter of law 
Hi-Lo S'an Corporation h9.d no shoprights in the patent, and that the 
eridenco adduced by plaintiffs does not support the charges of fraud 
made with reference to the license agreements. Plaintiffs also 
chargo a conspiracy between the Leinwebers and the corporation, to 
direst the latter of its property and assets, but there is no proof 
to sustain ther^e charges. Tife think the master* s findings of fact 
were abundantly sapported by the eridenoe sad that his craaclusions 
and recommendations should hare been followed by the chancellor. 
The decree of the circuit court is rerersed and the cause is re* 
manded with directions to overrule plaintiffs* exceptions and enter 
a dscree in accordanee with the master's recaramendations. 

Dullivan, P. J., and Scanlan, J«, concur* 

©isiit Oil;? ie aaw 'xsd'fi'Wniad: »H ffljsiXXiS 9saxio«tf ^isa^jsij 9jS# fli *'a*4Si^ 

■^nlio^rlb hits, tioBn&^ll sloe siia ^jJt^s^o^oD mst o»|*lJI, 'efiaSaas; -O'^ as 

©flit ^siii 6fiB , *i59ai'.s«5|: esf# ni: s^iigi'x^o^ (&a bjerf aoiifi^ocsdO Hfss^'otl-IH 

oJ «isoJ:u.'ii'ioq;'£oo ©xliJ- das a-s^^swxjls^.sjli £i0&vi^&^ x.^^'!^kqsnp^ & e§t.«ris 

•■xoJXft&osflo 94* •^if ^swoXXel iiQ©«r ®irs4 &Xei«Et3 sfiOi^BfeasEaKjodi &ae 
■^■j si »sfrso odi fees &©si9va^ sJ: c^T:i/ot> ;?iuoTio stiS to aouoafo ©rfT 

/ / 






ii.ppell£ijnt t ) 



LESLIE "W« BMVisU!*, ) 6^ u 




Central l^uel Corporation, e. jdbher and wholesale d ealer 
in coal and coke, "brou£^t an action in tort against Leslie ¥• 
Beaven ior conversion of money reallaed from the sale of coal 
consigned to him iinder three '.bitten eontracts, the first of 
v/hich '.7aB nade by Beaven, indivi dually > anct the remaining tv/o 
"by the Beaven Company, a corporation which he organised aad is 
alleged to have dominated and controlled. Trial -st.s had "by 
the court v-dthout a jury, resulting ixi judgment against plain- 
tiff, Alio prosecutes this appeal. 

Tt appears from the evidenoe that late in January, 19339 
Beaven determined to take over an aTaandoned coal yard v;hich had 
"been vacant for several years and to engage in the retail coal 
"business. He f^ntered into negotiations v/ith plaintiff to furnish 
Mm coal nnd coke on consignment for the purpose of sale, resvlting 
in the execution of an agreement betv/een plaintiff and I. • Beaven, 
doing business as Beaven Co., dated "February 2$ 1933. Under thio 
contract plaintiff agreed to ship to Beaven, who is deai^piated as 
"factor," coal on consignment, .vithout any charge or expense to him. 
Bep.ven on his part agreed to keep the coal separate from other coal 






'to 4'aai't srXd' , 3;toiS"x;^r:oo ii©;!--*xtu' .a.a^4* ';£i&.%i'i«. .J|tM>## l>«p@.i«»l«&.(&. . 
Q'w^ -gxiixtiiijffitrji: oili bns ^-liXLsifjrjJtviiifxx «iiS*VB®S -^^ ©ijj^ as-w ifolxfw 

%€ bjail a,p.»v Xi:iiT .^Qllo'iiiioo bos bs^jsaiBaab sfM o* J>oas>XX-K 
-ni^iXq Jsfilr.BJS ;}n3aj^5«^ fsi Sni;;fXtJ£i9*i «T£xyt '"s *»o4c>iw dii/oo ari? 

• Xfiscxqa sMi a&*jtfo»ao'£q[ oxfer «l*iJt^ 
(jocl^X «. v;fsi^'i-^ '-^ «i- yd'xX ;ta£iJ s©no5xT9 ©if;) eso%t &i»&qq^e f^ , 

ilain'Siix oi x'ix^nijgsXq rfiiv anei^BiJOii-in oiisi boisin^ sH .aaexilaucf 

Bnidl.-r36't ,9lf;3 lo saoqiuq; sil;t 10 1 ^nsiiircsianoo no ojfoo i»mj Xboo «44 

,.;?i!VJ5o£I .. ,J brw. TixiaLnlq nssvi'JocT dn©HrD9a33 nc ^0 /lot^txioaxa sxf* nl 

aj3 bo^arciloQb ai oxfv. ,xi9v.ocjS Osf qMa o;t baaisa lli^fxiiaXq ioGtSxioo 

.Mb! o;» sanoqic© xo sa'xMo \;nB rf«od.ti>./ ,rf«aiHi:tiis"oo no X.«oo '*t'ioio^V' 

li:;oo 'i&dio m-x't ©^^^^^qoa Xjboo odi qosal oi bae^jjs ixs^q a.tri no lisyfiaff 

in the yard, to bear all expense incurred in sellinc the consit?ied 
coal, pnc^ to individurlly gu-,ranter the prompt ppyment on all sales 
made hy him on crerUt enuring- any month, at the price of cof.1 at the 
mine, plus freight, ooverage aiid other chrrges, promptly on the 
tenth oi the nsjct succeeding month, and to pay daily, upon the same 
tviixuB, on all coal odd I or cash. Beavon agreed to keep hooks of 
account showing all sales made in pursuance of the agrev:-Bienfc, and 
to reader on or be Lore the lix th day Of each month a true and correct 
statement of all tonnage sola during the month next imxaediatcly pre- 
ceding. i^^8 compensatioa or comiaiaBion Beavea was to receive the 
difference "between the sale price of the coal and the ooif<t thereof 
at the mine, plus freight to Chicago. The agreement provided that 
title to the coal and the right to possession thereof should remain 
in plaintiff mitil it was sold, ant^ in the rvent of Searen' a insol- 
vency or his inability to pay plaintiff, the latter should have the 
ri^t to reclaim any coal unsold and take possession thereof immed- 
i&tely and v/ithout notice. 

Celiveries started within s. day or two after the contract 
was executed, and the first payment became due thereimder March 10, 
1933 ♦ for withdrawals of coal from inventory during February of 
that year. Beaven testified to conversations had during the month 
of February with lir. H. A. Requa> plaintiif's president, and also 
with H* J« Linn, its assistant secretary and treasurer, wherein he 
advised them that certain iaproveiaents retiuired by law and other- 
wise necessary in and about the coal yard had to be made, including 
the repair of scales p a new beaiftf the replaceiaejat of planks on the 
scale which had rotted, replacement of windoiso in the office, a coal 
elevator, aad repair of a concrete run^^ra-y leading to the street and 
that Requa consented to the use of some of the money realized from 

afi>i>.r} X.[.« fit- ineRvr/^q Sqm-rM ©rfd' ivo^aoipi/S YiI-^J7&xv>.bn.l: o* basi ,Isoo 
©xfd' J-fl X,?!oo lo soi'iQ 3/f* d.f> trio'noia y.^.b sititisb il'v^io no csM xd ob.3ffl 

lo 8:^400 d cjooji o;f boa-i^s iiyVi-.:3tt .jia.eo 10 i .b£oe Isoo IXo wo «ain'is* 

bfI/5 i(.'iiii>£a39'i^j3 3iii "Xo SOSXBfJ B'liJ<l Xil ObSfil 33X^3 XXi5 aUXWOXiirJ JiXXfOOOJS 

-3^q '',jls;3i5i&3iiarii: ix^n sHaom sxli ■'sninuh bXoa i3§Bnnod- IX^ "io cfxisiaocts^a 

KX^H3'X bXiioriti loo'cojiit noisseaaoq o# ;frfe,lT 9rf.i ficifi Lboo sxld 0,1 aX^i."' 
Qdi BTMl blisode. isiiaX siii < rii^ntoXa -^gq o;f "^aiXioeni alrf 10 \;o«»T 

^01 do'uM •xsbmj^rodi s>vb Oiasosd' -J a^m^'/.q. tBitt adi bus ,£)9d'«o3X9 aaw 

"•zQilSo bas vml x^ b&i:iu/p»*x s^ixeisrsTO'iqiai xxijs^iao i^£rf;f modi baalrbB 

^ixxbjjXoiil «o£r«ia acf oJ ixeil .&'x*:'^ X-^'Oo auda iuoda Jbixts hX ^i*53a909« aaiw 

sif^ no E33txt;:5l<i lo ijK'JtaQo^HXqo'i odi tate9«f ws« jb «ooIj8oa "io xlaq^&ii oxJ* 

Xfloo £ ^oosl'io '~:tii iii owcbajw lo d'ciecfsoaXqaa: «59^*oi &.■?;£[ xfolcfw dX^.oB 

biui d'®S''j£d-a oxfi OCT gnifajsoX y-^gssrixin: oJsaoaoo b lo ilBq^^-i brts «tto;^.aTeX9 


the s^le of cor.l coniit,iied to defendant during i'ebruary to expedite 
thene reppirc. ..Ithoutji Requa end Linn denied the conversations 
in pp.rt» ';' - find fiow tiic ovideinoe Uriat in March Beayen made a 
report o.'i concirnec! coal withdrawn rrom uhe yard durine the previous 
iTicmth nnd. »^>ncloecd i^oteo in lieu oi" the payments contempla«ed by 
the contract. The anlivery of notes in lieu oi cash was explained 
by Bepven ae having Taecu necessitated thtou^h th^ ouiilay oi money 
for operating GXpenses and In fixing up the yard* Xhe notes were 
accepted "by plaintiff and ware later paid. 

i'rom a r>iiE;;.iary of the transactions had under the contract 
of "Pebrua-^^y 2» >re find th^t plain Ciif maJc deliveries as^'rcgatiag 
f3»396> upon which oe.y%entB v/ere uiade "by Bcavoa in the cuxa of 
fl»955»39> leaving coal on hand at the time thiu cor tract u.'as 
superseded "by the second agreeai&nt in tl\e ag^rogate value of 
|1»442.87, '.^hich vas ao sifted and trimsferied by Boaven to the 
newly organised Esaven Comrpejiyt with whom the oocond and third 
contracta were jiade* 

During the period of the first agreeaient Beaven frcaa time 
to time gave plrlntiff notes in liou of ceah, and later paid these 
notes. Some of the payii^ento extitad^d into Juncp July» .vuguist and 
SeptecibGr, 1923, a^id plaintiff takns the jjoaition that these pay- 
ments were made undor the tsnas of th2 second coutracti aiid» aa 
a matter of bookkeeping th^y were so credited "by plaiatiiTi but an 
exaninttiti on of the r?cord indicates thai» although ms-ny ox the checks 
were received a-fter the aecond contract hiJ.d been executed, they were 
in ff.ct p-ivr,n on account of •..ithdrav/alii Eiade unoov the contract of 
February 2, 1955. Ve are catlafied that the first agreement was 
fully perforffied, that the method of performance by the p.xyment of 
notes t;a£ consented to and approved by plHxntlff , and that Beaven's 
liability under this a.greement was fully discharged. 

B.0oi:T9^:Q axC* Bcixtfb fc-xay; slid i-iso'il iftv^ii:M*i-:ff X»<so© jtaficijitmoo no ^*roq*i!; 

• 9&im. ©'law ■6;^D3t*JK«.o 

Siifi d'ai/sij..' t^Xij't «GiwL oixix Jb^&a&^xs ai-£t£>itii%e-if :©4t "I* «iBOS »&oioa 
"Xaq ausxic^ i^rfd xtoiuie.oq: Bd4 so:^s 'i.1l:i&l0lq kim, «SS^X t,t©:(fia9#gE0a 

aia ififcf t l*i5jttxr.X'i X'^ b^il'o&%& 02 saa^v 'sce-il^ guiciQ^^oad tct *t:a^*tfam e 
alosttio axl;j 10 Atwisia; x(si/cxi,i Xj3 t*JB4i eq»;*a.oi&«i: k'-m^'^. mU "Sao «oi*j3«li3^xs 

'io d-o.on;taoo sjiis' ishasj obma uXiiw^'X&xl-iJtvv' ^o ^fwopofi ne ftavit; #o^t al 


Gometime during Pebruaiy, 1933, the Boulevard Bridge Bank 
procured a JudgEient ugainbt E,>.cr@n axiC cuuoea a levy to "be made on 
hli CC0.1 yard* wlxicii autiss^^uently released because of e, time- 
paymont BcttlsEicnt laade ^rith the 'hank, v.ome of the checks given 
to the ourJc were countersicacd hy Chn..rle8 R. Ironside, plaintiff's 
iiucitor. /va a rcf,ult of nhlB levy and its siibaequent release, 
■Jittavoxi orij;ini;^,ed tho ;Oo;iTen Gc^npany, ?. cnrjooration, T,.ith whom 
piaini-iif miui;.^ the -jeooad ao-itr^vot, d'itod June 7, 1953, The yard 
was thsrsupoii coiiveyad to the aorporr'tion, and all the coal re- 
mainint? in tha yard, which lavcntorierJ at !ill,442»87, wgb aenigned 
to ths nee/ coiapaay. This ic-reanent ?;?),£• sjTnj.i9,r fco the contract 
of i'ehruaiy 2, 1S33, except that the corpcratn.on was named as 
"factor ana agent" of pl£.intiff » ?}ie aerifrnmcnt and delivery by 
Beaven, of the coal on hauci at the expiration of the first contract, 
to the Beaven Compa.ayt with jjlaintiff 'e knovvladge aiid approval, and 
the execution of an agreemaxi- hy plaintiff iri^Jh th^ newly organized 
Beaven Company, 'i-ould iJoeEi to iadioate chat Beavsii \'vas no longor to 
he considered pereoaally li£.hle in contrs-ct or othervdae for the 
coal thus takeii over by the cjorporation, liecc-use when this coal 
was later sold by tho S-,::*T8n Company xiudsr the 3::cond agreement » 
plaintiff took uotei; of t,} c corporation on ©.ccount, and also accepted 
payment of thfati© notec in 6^xQ course hy checks of the Btoaven Company. 
One arethel, plt-intiff's assistant eesratary, testified that the 
Central Tuol Corporation din not keep ceparate aecomits for Beaven 
said tiie Beiiven Company, hiil that all the ,^5,000 worth of coal de- 
livt^iad tindsr these va.riouK. coiitracts, and for which plaintiff 
nO" 3U03, appeared on plaintiff's "jookG as heinp; due from the cor- 
poration and not from Beaven perr, onally« 

Under the 3Qcond agre^imeut the parties pursued substantially 

the sane course of procedure as under tiie coiitrr-ot of Tebruary 2f 

.00 f^bmi ^d" o^ -eTQ-T- --* »3»*w.6o Ibjriij *-x,^T^i-/S; l^aalasii txi©£©&xii a -bstswooa^ 
«9T^ a;^of)4o f^i-t;^ to ©010a ^ixiscf ©rid ^lifLv.' -eiljjs^ $itoKiBUis>B, SsLOSsis^im. 

*e% liioo 3Ui ISm ban ^po ii Bioq^xot, &di os Xo^j«7aos> UQqtj&xmii a«w 

ai-i f>©iai?.n aow noxJ^ioq.%00 a:<J i&di Sfq^o^ys 4£&8X *S YtsirxtfS;? -lift 
Xd x^isrU.ob f?nn :i-fioia£raXaaif5 ©rft ,TUixs£*®Xi£ io "^iJ^^ bas •xodFo^l'" 

?,'>os2i-.aoc. :s';rxJ-A- arU lo nc li .^xlq^xc'- odi ^a iHi&£l ao Xaoo edi 'lo tiierB^S, 

odi lo'i Qahriodio %o. iQstinoo ax aX^f^xX %l-lsi£ioa%®q, 5ai9|)iarioo ©rf 

Xsco Bid;? xisrlv/ 9ajt;;:;o©d j.Jif.i.j-'otrofjioo sfl^ %(i 'Xsto ii^jiiat, sjurijt ;Xjbo« 

e;tiiaraoois,« bncora ^di 'zsbiSh' ■YnsqjK&O xiaT-davS ©^^^ /pf feXofl T9*jqX eav/ 

.\ffsqDioO navij3a oxli "ic asloorio ^^tf a^'iaco ©,»!) nx 89#o« se^xW 'lo sl-neaniisq 
Qrfi terf* f)si:'ix;!-3'v.;^ t'^-v.^cjr^^csa dtn.^s.*sxi;:<aa sniictisiusXQ «XsxiJ-8^# saO 

-eb Xboo lo 4?o;o^? OOOtgf Qslt XXa Jarf;! JM ^^.m^im^ mvstvS. 9si$ fcae 

1:li^i3J:.p.Xq do-b-^.y xo 1 bnr, <a^ 0.35* two axjoixjiT ss-^xt? •xg'^jm b®TC#*vxX 

-:£oo &xli mQ'i'i ;?»& sniorf aB ai^ooff u'llxJaijBXci «o 59q:«©cig;,s ,«soxf& v»ok 

tS "vrxfix/tcf j'l "5:0 ^yj/iJ'uDo 3ii* ts&xuf «£ aa'xr&idoo'xq "ib 9Biwoe assjsa axf* 


1933 • The first payment for coal due under this contract fell 

due July 10, 1933. I> . J. Linn» plaintiff's assistant secretary 
and treasurer I called at the yard alaout July 8, 1933, looked orer 
defendant's accountso checked up on the coal in the yard and talked 
with Beaven ahout the cord elevator then "being constructed. Beaven 
testified that Limi agreed to accept a note from the Beaven Company 
for the June withdra\?alSs and a note was in fact executed for 5555.21 
and delivered to Linn, which was liter paid by two checks dated 
tJeptemher 29, 1933, and Octoher 11, 1933, and the note was returned 
to the Beaven Company marked "paid". The next payment fell due 
under the contract on ...ugust 10. Linn called at the yard ahout that 
time, inspected the coal piles and again talked with Seeven ahout 
some improvements on the property. Beaven gave Linn a report on 
the July vvithdrawals and req.uested that a note he -accepted in payment 
of the amount due. Linn consented and a note for $681*23, signed 
"by the corporation, was delivered to Linn, Under the same circua- 
stancee the Beaven Company gave Limi a note on il-eptembsr 14 j, 1933» 
for the "lUgust ?,lthdrawals, and another on October 18 for the 
September account. These notes represented pa^iaents due for July# 
;-.ugust and September, aggregating 4'1»841»58, and v;ere due at the 
time the petition in baiikruptcy was filed against the corpoj^ation. 
Under a reasonable construction of the second agreements Bear en 
Company v/as not obliged to deliver the proceeds of sales to plain- 
tiff in specie, but rather to pay for all sales by the tsnth of 
the month following. By accepting notes in lieu of cash, plaintiff 
extended the time within ^ich the various payments became due, but 
it certainly cannot be held that these extensions made Beaven per- 
sonally liable in trover on plaintiif's theory of the case. 

.•hen the third contract, dated xTovember 1, 1933, was executed, 
plaintiff took cognizance of the indebtedness, amounting to *1,841.58, 

Xt&i^'XQ&B Smt^liiBis, en^ilialBlq. ^m\iX ,l ,fL ȣ,eSX tOX xlal sab 

Jirocfj^ nsv^as; i{.:tiY/ bsjsl.?3i kIoSvO bos aaiJfcq Iboo ^i^i fostfoeqeol t®iai;t 

^xie>ani>3q nJt h^iiiooos ©cf 9*0x1. s^Brfcf b^cfeowp&ic &xi^ aXisvvsabriiM// x£isT» mii 

b&isiUei < £2*1801 %e1 s^on B ba£> b&^tsBmiQQ mtLl *&0b imwass ®xii..lo 

%oi-/f,'X «^X aiscfesdaor. no eioa b mill sv.3ii ^^niiqcjoi) xiotj-joG eif* C3?i0iifl#a 

sii;} -xol 61 a'sdoooO co TSxC^Ofixs Bxxe iBl:m&ti)£ii Is fQirgtsA ©ff# !£©1 

t"*cX.uT, lol sijb a^nsfiTiiaq 5sun98axqe»'x assort a aaxlT »iimooosi lodmoiqBQ 

6di iss. S'Ub aiow btm «8a*I/^8«X;J sax^tjsso-xsss «a»tfia9;tcC9S Bxajs j-ajJ3i;A 

.jaold-.n'xoqctco sxlv1 cJ-sniigja deXxl; ej:-w ^oct'qwfijfxxscr nl noi;;tii3(j; ®sii mili 

nsimofi s^K9m30i8£; bxajosa &di lo noi*owx*8jcoo aldaxioaeax s zsbaU 

-axcXq oc^ esXsa lo ubsoootq ©il* isvilob o;f bsaiXi/o^ofa ^sW" '^i'tS'tiaoO 

1-0 tUciT,^ Bili x<^ BOlmi XX,i5 "co'l Y^^'i o«t ^atlJ.8T iud ^aiodqa fix 'l:*3;i;t 

"illJnijsXq ,n«j:;o lo ueiX iii aed'on axxid-qeooe >£a •SniwoXXo'J: rf^rioia 9xi* 

iud , O0i) ©a:;ooci" aineci^ag ejjoJtiBV exCrf xloirfv/ x3M;?iw otji* etf* bebas^xo 

-"laq; nav/sad 9bBf.i i3rxoJtGnad'X0 stsaxl;? i^di bXerl ecf cfOiin.«o Y^^x^i^i^o *Jt 

• QGiJO 9ii.t lo \;roeifJ a'l'iiaxxx^^Xq xxo nevo'xrf xti oXtfjsiX TClIsrjoa 

tboj'xfooxa BBW ,£eex tX tcscfuisvoii b9;JiJb t*o«r£;Jrso& biMJ asl^ isoxfv 


remalniiii: due under the second contract, and provided that» 
except for actual operating 8:<cpenses of the coal yard» and 
a v/eek to he paid to Beaven» individupJLly, no conmiasiona should 
hs credited to the Beaven Company, as agent, \antil the indeTated- 
neBs of CM,841»58, Btill due plaintiff from the corporation, should 
he pcid in full. This agreement prorided that plaintiff* s auditor 
should check the receipts and diBhursements of the Beaveii Company, 
approve credits where coal vme sold on credit, that all money "be 
deposited in the Jileij Center Jtate 3ank, and that checks for dis- 
hursementF. he signed by Beaven as president, and countersigned "by 
Ironside, as auditor, the latter being designated by plaintiff as 
a signatory on the account at the bank* These provisions were 
fully carried out by the Bevean Company, and all oolleotions made 
subsequent to Tovember 1, 1933, were deposited in the bank designat- 
ed, except some s'^SO for petty cash items. Ironside visited the 
Beaven Goinpany'E coal yard frequently during Movember and December, 
1933, and at all times had a ccess to its books and records, from 
which he took statements at srill. He also countersigned checks 
durin.-^ this period ^uad supervised all expenditures, and V'/e find no 
indication in the record that any of the prcvi 3ions of this agree- 
ment \?ere violated by the Beaven Company. 

In December, 1933, the corporation owed plaintiff a consid- 
erable balance for coal that had been ocaisigned to it, and plaintiff 
attempted to take over the Beaven Company. A retiuest was made that 
all stock of defendant corporation be turned over to plaintiff p and 
that Beaven resign as president, and receivership proceedinga were 
threatened as an alternative. The Beaven Company had then established 
a going business. As of December 31, 1933, its accounts receivable 
aggregated $2,977.92, coal on hand inventoried at !t579«18, there 
was other material on hand the value of which does not appear in 

I)j:wc;rfe Bnoiaa.tiittiioo of; nvLlrMhxribnl «xt6r*i»8r' 0* blisq; ©<f Oit^isew «' 

od" -i£snoia IXs isds t^xba'xo no 6Xc® a.yw laOQ ra*£9x£w s^lfa^'SO STOtqqs 

-aib xol aac-jsrio ^bxI^ fofis n:^m5a 9^6;?'3 ^aJmO asXikl 9i£^ fLi: bejJ'ise^sfe 

Xdl bBvs^iaioirmoo asm (d-xisbias'xq aj3 jtis&TB&iS! x^ bsissis stf ad-jCtsiaSieii/tf 

a^ "SLWnifiXq %(][ bsii}ngiia9& snxscT X9J;J-£iX sri;!' ^'iciibnsi ss «9bJ:siioxl 

-j^jsrtjiiaab jfajed" srii ni baj-i-soqeb ai-sw ,g£8X «X TSdk©To¥ &d iiimg'^&^&B 

trsscfe^Docr biY*5 •:•*. djaofol ^niitrb x^^^^^JP^'^'^ bt&X Xso c S ♦'^xw^O "d ciSlrfeaiaL 

ajoil tebT009*r bmi BiJoocf a*i o* easoo £ fesfl asiaJt* Xfja ^«t feft* iS^iCX 

s^osilo baxisia'xotnwoo o?iXje sH •IXi's- .ta a^ii©«ts3.9#8 Soo^ sxf il»irfw 

on brJ-l Ofj bus iB®'£sj-^ibfs&(tJ^@ ££& h&siineqfjn b^m boi'soq, UMi 'siti'Wb 

-©9ian exffJ lo axiola isroiq sifd I3 -^s >«xl5 btooea '^H* ijtvliojctfaejrfjtii 

-biuaoo D TiiSnxsXq i>owo Koj:3ian:o<jt<jo 9Xf* ^SSeX t'Xec&BsooCE ttX ' 
ili^ni:^iXci; bxis *c^i o;) bonaiaiK-o xxs>»ef brM -^sdi Xaoo 'ioi OOKflXjcscT eXcfets 

bxi£3 ^'il: ]:<('■ xtlaXq oi tf^vo bon'Ofxi y<f noi^^vioqioo d«fs&«olsxb It© afoo^ta XXjs 

o-xetV Ggnlb^QS>ot£q q^Mt^r^vlp-o^^r fejrtfj (.;Jiifib±ft0's<v a.'s is^iosT: xiorfsfiE *x;rf* 

i)9ii3J:Xcfs*eo nerfi bjsxf Yn/KfctcO«: sxd' .avA^Bfl'XsSXB aa b.s b9xto*B0*tri# 

oXcf^svJ-.&oo'X Sifxxuooos »*i «5fi(?X »X^ T:@dia©09fl lo bA .aa®jBiaij!;r snlotg « 

etexlJ- ,8X*?'['3> if. bsi:TO:ffi!?>vhJ: btiBtl no X^oo ,se.V"re,S| 6e*j5S9*!:^.^« 


the record* and cn^taLn cash* Defendant contends that the aBuets 
of the corporation were then in exceos of v'3»6r)7»10» aa against a 
total indebtedness of t'5f054.57» of which -1:1,841.58 was invested 
in improvements in the coal yard, «uad that plaintiff v»ae not in 
jeopardy of loss* Ho plausihle reason appears for abruptly termi- 
nating the agreement at that time, and def end-nnt* s cownsel uugceota 
that plaintiff was motivated "by a (Jeaire to take over a viliiahle 
outlet for its products, ajid hecruae Beaven and other ..itockholdars 
of his oompany refused to comply with plaintiff* b di^fmd, the con- 
tract was arbitrarily caacelled. Following its termination by 
plaintiff, an Involuntary petition In bsnkruptcy was filed against 
Beaven Company, January 5, 1934, and in due course the Beaven Company 
delivered all its money, accounts receivable and other aswets to the 
trustee in bankruptcy. Plaintiff sou^t to collect the debt due from 
the Beaven Company in the bankruptcy proceejdinga, but fifter the costs 
of administration and other expenses were paid, very little remained. 
The instant proceeding wae thereafter instituted against Leslie V$* 
Beaven on the theory that he as an individual under the contract of 
Jebruary 2, 1933, and later as president of the Beaven Company, 
which he is alleged to have dominated and controlled, converted the 
proceeds of the sale of coal to himself and to the corporaticaa under 
the three agreeiaentB hereinbefore set forth* 

Plaintiff's amended statement of claim charges that "the 
acts and doinga of Leslie W. Beaven * * * were done willfully and 
v.ith the malieioiis intent to cheat and defraud plaintiff, and v-ith 
the fraudulent intent to convert the Bvm of 1^5,000 to his own use 
and to the use of b? id Beaven COTapany * * *" and that "on or about 
December 31, 1933 » he, the said Leslie .. Beaven, wrongiully, jltor- 
tiouBly and fraudulently converted and disposed of said cum of 
money, [$5,00G]#* The evidence does not sustain these charges. 

a^89>SS«u Xaaitmso s '^ftx; basis & bfm ^&tsdS insU is^ iimBmsTi& »«£# ^aitBti 
BiQ&Xo^fsfooda lodio baa asT^saS satfeo^'d' &x:j^ <i2*£>xr5©:tc[ adi; lol: ^sX^ue 

X^ Xfctt-GfiiariQ* a4fi ^jaiwelXo'f •&aXXs«ixao -(gXitJst^iicfxs atiw' i»««> 
<?aai:sB-B &aXit B:S;w toJ^ffa^sfctc-tf ci noi^iiacf. x'^Js^tiiuXoTiii: ii» « lit J;^«1bX<j 

ad^ oS «^9B3s ^laj'i*-^© bxis ©Xasviess's: B;txu;»os£ ^-t^noci asfi XX.B fjaisviZiSd) 

. bsa,l:4«ao"2 oXi'3xX •\;i©v «bi;j8q a:£9w a©3asgpca adriio fexis col^JjEsi^ainjfcab* lo 

1:0 iJos*£*rtoo s^i^J' 'i^^biti; tMUhlrlbBl im <Jij aif d-i-ol;* -^rto^il* ©rfif no n«Ti'>s>€ 
nYHsQiaoO asTH-aS a/id lo ;Jfisbls9ig Qis xoiel bsui ,g£ex »2 XTsxrarfs^ 

rl^fiv biiB « riXifttiaXq buBttt'b iBQrUs oS iasniai GuoioXXjsa 9di 4iiv 
©ay a\?fo aid oi 000, 5r^, lo otjb &di iiorxioo cj iaeiai *o»Xi;/i)»sTt axfi 

-wd. ,\;XXwiBCOTrf ,xi©Teyg .. ©XXeao: J&iaa 9x£* ,9rf ,£gW .Xe %9m9wa 
lo iawa blaa lo bsaocjaib bnc b»d«toTiioo YXJiroXubwait fene xlaaoli 


Bearen embarked on the enterprise with very meager c.ipital, and 
plaintiff wps evidently fully apprised of the fact. He took over 
a delapidated coal yard which had "been abandoned for about three 
years. Improvements required by the ordinances and statutes, and 
other repairs » were necessary to enable Beaven to transact the 
business tf retail coal dealer. Plaintiff lauat also have been 
fully av/are of these circvuustances. rihortly after he began to operate 
the coal yard Beaven fourid that it would be necessary to make certain 
expenditures foi' the improvements and repairs required, and notv/ith- 
standing the denial of plaintiff's officers that they approved the use 
of money realized from the sale of consigned coal for making these re- 
pairs, we are convinced that plaintiff acquiesced therein. This 
necessitated the extension of payments required under the contractp 
and notes were executed to evidence the arrears in payments \7hich 
were accepted by plaintiff and later paid by Beaven. v.hen the first 
contract was terminated all the coal on hand was transferred and 
assigned to the newly organized corporation, and Beaven' s title to 
the property and all interest that he had in the coal yard was con- 
veyed to the new company. Under the second contract the Beaven Com- 
pany went into possession of the coal yard, with the knowledge and 
approval of plaintiff, and from the transactions that ensued during 
this period it is evident that plaintiff no longer considered Beaven 
personally liable. i.hen this contract expired, the balance due 
thereunder was expressly asstaaed by the Beaven Company, and provisions 
were made in the third contract for payment thereof. Plaintiff's audi- 
tor supervised all expenditures made by the Beaven Company, examined 
its books, countersigned its checks, and was fully cognizant of its 
transactions with plaintiff and customers of the Beaven CompsJiy, and 
there is nothing in the record to indicate that either Beaven, indivi- 
dually, or the corporation which he organized, and which he is alleged 

rwsd 9V.sii 05YIS i^sjusr I'ii^^ri^sH *r£9Xi30& ,Isoo li^d-stc tsi «a9«i:B«cr 

saw eri* bevo-socta ^£9x1^ iiSjii stooi'i'io a''i;li.tni:slq lo Isineb &sii j^aXbtfsiB 

-oa aawii s^i-tif^ftt -zol Lsqo bscaisfloo 'io ales &iU smxl feesil^s^ TCanoia lo 

Bin's »iu:)t^d^ baoasiijpo.'? 'i'i.l;in;ii3l<4 ^^uij)- baoainieo aXB ©vsr ,.exi/3q 

-noo arsw btBY. Lboo offo fi.r ftivf 9rf i<\di- *Matfs.trii iX^ £>«« x^-tcscrescr #rf:t 

-3ioO navflsff arid ifo/ji^no^ bJKOoas srf* •xabirll . Y,xxsqRK> » vjen ®xf^ oi bd"(C9v 

bxts a3boIv;on3i ©r'* tfrfJtw ,61^5-^ Isoo ©il;} lo jra©Ji:=a«Raef o^fix iii»w ^nsg 

nevv.afi bn'iQblanoo T;-^;g«oX on: I'iiJciijsXq. ^/jxC;^ itishl'V^ ei :Ji: boJtlsq; aM* 

9Wb oftxu^Xsrf ©ri:t «bs*tiqx0 Joist^xioo aixi# asiiSlvv .©Xcf^iX^XXBisoarisq. 

a«oi?iJ.vortq[ bias ^YnaqxaoO a&r.".QS. adi tcf b^BKrasij xlcin&'xqxs asm it^bsmatsdi 

-iftwjs Q'i'ix;tflir.X*J: .loa'iaxij iJnwancfiq; to'l ioBXit^o hxhU odi al ©bjBffi ©isvy 

bonxxttrix© ,-^^ciiiwC H'SxhsS axXi i^ abjsin satssilbaaqpcB Lia b90i:TTC»«Iffa to* 

a;fi l;o .-fxioKinxoo t^XXuI aaw 5x»8 ^a^IoQrfo a*.c 6©it^^iaieiJxu/co ,s^oocr aJi 

-Ivxbnl ,fxQVa9jr Tsrf^io ^t-irf^t ei^Roj:bfli oi b«009i axfcf ai gftiifJott «i s:t«if;J 


to have dominated and controlled, did anytMng to Justify the 
summary action triken "by plaintiff in the latter part of Jeceniber* 
1933, \ThiGh culminated in the filing of involuntary hankruptcy 
proceedings the following month, i^ior is the cliarge that Bcciven 
attempte.) to cheat and defraud plaintiff or thai, he tortiouBly and 
fraudulently conrerted the proceeds of the sale of conGXjjiiec coal 
to himself, sustained by the evidence. 

Plaintiff's case is predicated upon the theory of the la.w 
that "where the goods are Bold on consignment, and ttxe consignee 
makes a BtHe of the consigned goods, "but fails to remit the consigned 
price to the ooasignor, am action in tort may "be maintained agninst 
the consignee for the price of the consigned goods,** and several 
cases are cited to support this propoBition. However, the decinione 
cited are not pertinent to the facts of this case. In moat of these 
decisions, vdiere it V7a.s claimed that a tort was committed through 
the conversion of money, the question turned on fJhether the principal 
vms entitled to have delivered to him by the factor the specific 
money, notes, bills sja.d coins ishioh he collected. The contracts in 
the case at bar contained no such provision, and they caionot be con- 
strued to hold that Beaven, or the Beaven Company, were obligated to 
deliver the specific money received from the sale of consi^^ned coal. 
The transactions between plaintiif and Beaven and later with the cor- 
poration indicate that these were ru ning accounts, sometimes paid 
on the tenth of the month succeeding the sales made and sometimes ex- 
tended by the acceptance of notes. If it were true th- t Beaven or 
the Beaven Company were in duty bound to turn over the proceeds of 
sales in specie, it is difficult to understand why books of account 
were kept, supervised by plaintiff's auditor, and checks counter si t?ied 
by hia on an account carried in a bank designated by plaintiif , or why 
plaintiff should have accepted notes in lieu of cash from time to time 

X.s^sT?>s bttn "ea&ooa feSfigiBKOO ©ii.i "io ooi' t»di rco'i ©erusi^aJHOp ®xlu 

oi'ii:oJ>qs! sjii:3 'XOsiOv'Si'S &rl^ ^cf wM oi f)9tc3TirlX5>J) svjBfC o:l bsX^i^txis aew 
ni ed-o^id-woo oii^: *5)&,to©XXoo ®if rfDMv/ Baton has, eXXxcf ^3$J^ofi ,t%@xjQ«a; 

.Iflco bdii5^i iaxTo to olaa a.ri;f MOi'i bsTisos's x®jf^o^ oitlosg;® s^* «©vJfcXel> 

.-'.too ©rfi- rf^tlw 'x^^sl &XIJ5 ri'3v,s9a bfifi Til-«i:sXc[ «90W*a<^. ajKoiiJoeaxusid sdf 

biaq aomiaaca t.--c3'rarooo3 sf-t.^^>'XJ^ qs&w 9&&tii i&sii &i^oiba.i ia!Qli£i'ieq, 

-zo a9f&UQmoa bajsi ob^sa es> 9ft* s^Xfes^oowa if;?ncffl dxfi lo itin&t ©rf* xjo 

10 i-iisVB3S d'sff;^ oy-Sit si&fi- ;»! II «a»ion lo »&iXfi*(ieoi>£i arfj ^^ Jbafeneit 

imsobOB 10 a3£aocr yjdn: bnBie-tsbntt oi ixsjoLltlb ai *i «9ipaq;a isi aoXs* 

-^r/ TO t'ilXd'itiaXq; \;cr boi-jsfljjXaab slnad a ni bei^ttijo *£a;oooa aa xro Jttjl •^tf 
sai^ oi omli smit ifajr^o lo yoiX ££X aodoxi bs^qsooa avjjd bluods llX^fxjlsXq: 


and thus granted extensions for the time of these various pay- 

In order to maintain trorer for oonrersion of money, plain- 
tiff must show that defendant was boxind to pay over the specific 
money received. In Vandelle t. Rohan » 73 i:i, Y» Supp. 285? it was 
held that an action for conversion cannot "be maintained against a 
person vvho receives money in a fiduciary capacity unless he is 
bound to return the identical money, m Larson v. DiMBont 24 R. I, 
317, it was held that the question whether money can be the subject 
matter of an action of trover generally depends upon whether there 
is any obligation on the part of the defendant to deliver specific 
money to the plaintiff. In Taylor v. Turner, 87 111. 29G, a suit 
was brought to recover proceeds from the sale of ft'heat by defendant, 
who had received the same on consignment, and the court characterized 
the transaction as follows (p. 302) I 

"It seems to us to be a simple case of the bailment of 
property to a factor to sell, and his refusal to pay over the pro- 
ceeds of the sale to the ovmer of the property, and v/e know not why 
the legal remedy of an action for money had and received is not ample." 

In 1 Ghitty on Pleading (9th Am. Ed.) 147 par. 148, it was held 

to be the general rule that "to support trover the plaintiff must 

have the right to some identical or specific goods. Trover does 

not lie for money had and received generally.* 

Numerous other authorities cited by defendant are to the 

same effect. =e have in this proceeding the additional facts, 

apparent from a reading of the various agreements, that Beaven 

and Beaven Company were authorized to sell coal on credit, and 

were not obliged to pay plaintiif until the tenth of the month 

following the sales, all of which indicates a running account betv/een 

the parties and not any obligation to pay in specie. In the course of 

the trial plaintiff's counsel had marked for identification and offered 

in evidence photostatic copies of the schedule of unsecured debts of 

oltiosq,!^ ^ii!lf iQro Y-sq oJ' bnwod" ssw i'-fisft/ial^f) #afi;t wpiie t^um 111^ 
a^?ir J;l «g8S »q:qir;:: ,Y .Vi GV ^iJgrfog. .r v aXX a&rts V ni .«&9Tieo®.'5C.ifi<5fiX3ia 

»3: *H >&S jiKoa^K^l .V ,;^£1^ sK ♦Y^^'SiS X.3»i::Jjfie>if)i Oil? /nwd'sx od' bmrod" 

^oc>t^-^*=' ®-*-^* ^^' ^'-'^^ ■^■snoH ^©ii;?©iSw noii^asirp »jlct- *.tirf^ blssi asm Ai « 'rX£ 

^ix/a & >des «XXI ?'e jjy!i£^l^ '^ «eX^aT nl t i'iiiJatelq ®iS:J o^ X^^^ts. 

8 (SOS «s) awoXXol a.s aoijTojiaari'^i" srfi" 

lo inGiaXiacf 9xf;t lo oajcjo. oX^isia & ©cf ©d axr o* am.^9e ^I* 
"O'xq STi? 'xavo x>"Q od- Xeau'isy: alrl bias nXXsQ 0,3' •roioo'i ."j oi -^^itsqiotq: 
Xrf.i^ iofl vrocsl 9Vif brxB ^■%i'ZQq_o'xq_ Qdi 'io :!:©rf.yo axCJ oi qLbb Bdi to e&oap 

800!) '.ti3T0';i:T .af.ooi tktlo&qB rro XBOxi-fio&Jr onroa ©;?■ Jtfelti: adi •^Siii 
" ♦ 'i:IXB'£.''^.miS feoVieao^ ^aa hmi i^oiiofir ^ol ®'j:l Sou 
eiii OCT o-rs >xt^-:bnf/t3& ■^d' boito eft^ittttd^ua tedio assotdmsK 

l>ni^ «;M&9'ro no Xj-'soo XX&a o# baKiiOitf^jyi? 9rmf "\j;a*(nnot)\fi3v«oS ftwa 

, jd[^iK>fir Qdi "io xXc5K©i axii Xx^mr 'lilinlnlq, x^q, oi foaalXcfo *on ©Y9w 

K9dvv^©tf ,'iTu;;ooor> a^iifffsjifx a &&tat>Lbnl iloMW '±o XXjs ,aaXi=ka arf* attiwolXol 

Io 9a«w»o orfJ' Kl .oxosqa fji -(eiiq: o^ woiiJeslXtfo Xfi^ ion fottjs asi^x^q ©ii# 


L* W. Beayen, filed in the "bankruptcy proceeding> purporting: to 
show credits claimed lay Bearen from the Beaven Company and sums 
collected "by him on accounts reoeivalJle. The exhibit was not re- 
ceired in evidence, and upon oral argument plaintiff* s counsel 
again offered the doctiment under the provisions of sec* 9Zf subeeo* 
Id, chap. 110, Civil Practice aot, Illinois State Bar otats,, 1935, 
and has renewed Mb offer in vrriting hy motion eubeequently made* 
We think the offer was properly denied by the trial court, "because 
the claims of the respective parties were fully heard ^ tried and 
determined in the "bankruptcy prooeeding* The preferred document 
relates to ohligatioas and accounts 1»etween Beaven and the "bankrupt* s 
trustee, and shows nothing of the accounts between the Beaven Compainy 
and plaintiff* neither does it distinguish between specific moneys 
derived from th* sj^e of plaintiff's coal, shipped under the third 
contract from shipaents made under the two previous agreements j 
nor the proceeds of sale of other materials* It certainly does not 
indicate that plaintiff was emtitled to have delivered to it any 
specific money or to the immediate possession of any specific property 
or money in specie, and that is the factual issue upon which plain- 
tiff's claim is predicated* 

It follows from what has "been said that plaintiff cannot 
maintain trover under the circtBastances of this case and procure a 
judgment in tort against Beaven, individually, with a finding of 
malice and fraud. Beaven* s ©"bligations to the plaintiff were fully 
acquitted under the first contract, and under the seocsid and third 
contracts there could "be no conversion of money in any event* The 
Judggient of the municipal court is affirmed* 

Sullivan, ?• J*, and Beanlan, J., ocmcur* 


o^ ^Ml^toq^taq iZaiba&oiaxq xo;^Qjyrr£Sis.$cf Qdi at bBlxl tKSTaaS .¥ .J. 
-ai£ *on J3Bi'/ ^1qMx.9 ©iff *3X^fevJ:&oei: a^j-^wooos ijo mid x^ bs-tosXIoo 

©ai;i3oe{f t^tmo l^Xti esii x^ b&ln^b -^^iXisq© iq asw tslt© dil^ aLnM^ aft' 

B^i-q_:s'a^nsd 9di hsm a&VB&K ii«5©W!3'®^ vtiiUJCtiOB .^iie. amli^kldG oi aa^BXai 

s^je^OK oi'txoaqa iJO0w*«?tf jri[c}iirafix;fBib il QQOb tedfi&K .lllJnieXq b«B 
btldi ^Ai 'Xttfecw &9£XQ:-^^Q tiaoe s*^'tJ:.t«J:j«lq to »Xb8 srf* jkdiI bsviiafe 

d&n aQ©& xXfiifi^iso *I «B£si:ie*.aia "ssrlSo I'D sXso "io aJstsodq; sifo tort 

-nisXq rfoirfvv «o<Xi» si;BBi iBsr.Joa'S ©i{;? 3i; tad^ baa t^iosqa ai ■^©xsois to 
*omxeo lUtifiiaX!.! ^sfl^ Siaa H9»cf esxf #sjf«ir roexl ewoXXol :^I 

9XiT •^Jfje-ro "^is xzj: voxioat 'io aoiarf^vnoo on aif ibXirco oxedi Bio.&riraQO 

• foscrxilla ai iJxwao Xrsqioicwta: afli lo .*txSBJ8i)tft 
• trwoiwo «.! fXifiXna&i? forts t»t «1 <.i.{jBviXXiru 



a corpor;;.tion, ) 

Appollantj ) 

mp.(ix^U,i: L. REm^OlO) and 

HiciL'ja; A. fi:dm(sti>. 


-.ppellsee. ) r> Q O T ;1 /j ^j -^ 

i /i -C* C| yf- 

x@iii® O ^ ^ 


Arthur S. Kahn ^^ Company, a corporation, as plaintiff, 
filed its statement of claim in the launicipal cau;:t alleging 
that it had on M&y 18, 1929 > leaeed froia defendants 9 Marg&ret L» 
and Richard A» Redmond, store premises in Chicago for a term of 
25 years, commencing jugust 1» 1929 j at the stipulated rental of 
$700 a month; that pursuant to the terms of the lease plaintiff 
paid defendants, at the time of the execution thereof, |«>400 
to "be applied as rental for the fifth year of the term, co33saenoing 
jVugtiEt 1, 1934, Pjad ending July 31, 193f>; that August 16, 1933, 
defendants terminated the lease, took and still retain possession 
of the demised premises, and that plaintiff ie entitled no the 
repayment of $8,400. After dofendants< motion to strike the 
staiement of claim had "been overruled j> they filed an affidavit 
of merits, suhsequently amended, admitting the execution of the 
lease, the supplemental agreement attached thereto, and the payment 
of t8,4O0 hy plaintiff, "but averred that said Bum constituted pay- 
ment of rent for the fifth year of the term; that v/ithin the provi- 
sions of the lease the only contingency under which plaintiff would 
"be entitlet". to repayment of said s\sa, would "be the termination of 




( ■ has CTOMCKH «.! f1!©i»a^ 



lo Xoiiioi *>sil,»Xii<2£a 3 »*!* ^j3 «i?£v'X *I ^ s3c?i«:-i. srsibasffiH© d «QX-sai: 3i§' 
lEixonxjsXci sa«0l 9rfd- lo eiirae* ai£d o^ itmiss'xtsq, i^isiS idiaoa s 00f# 

tSSGX «-3X (tau^jjA ^tiuxlcf jee^X «X5 yXwI. .ISni&n© &i*3 niygeX «X J'aijaifA 
©JEW |>;^ &»X^'ii^ii9 al ITcidwiaXq *i3ff* &«.« ,S9a±jEff9itq &sex£i35 «jS4 lo 

d-nocrjaa aif;^ btm •lOioT&di bexioBitiSi ^at^ai^iBt^B IfiitmtmLqquB Bdi «©a,a*X 
^'ZBti bQiuixiacfoo mtj^ foxs»s *ii£f;^ bo^ior& *u«f tfilinl^Xg "^ff Oi>fr<8f id 

bluGm i^iinljiilq. doXti*f lobasj xosi»^ifiitwo xSJ^ Qti& msie>l 4di to eoSl^ 
to noUr,r:urxBi Qdi ocf fjXi/ovr ^eujb £»l.xa 'lo i asi^n^c^^'^ ©* ^sXifid'/ie »(i" 


tlae leas© for any reason other than through the defaiilt of the 
leauee; and Uoat since the termination rej?in,t«fl ■frcaa the le&r.?e*s 
default m the payment of 3>^ut, the contingency providef' for in 
the lease did not happen, end accordingly plaintiff nerer 'becam? 
entitled to rcpcyraent of th© ?;8,400, The csauee %,aa hoi.rd hy the 
court ?ri ;hout a jwry, reculting ia a iinding in favor cf d&fend?mts» - 
TMe appeal followed. 

Upon trial of the ciuee the execution and delivery of the 
leafce, the eupplemental agret'aeat and the payment of t»8»400 hy 
plaintiff to defendants were admitted* and it was stipulated between 
the parties that the lease was terminated lay defendants August 16, 
1932, for def!^T,uit in the payment of rent, plaintiff having prior 
thereto ahandoaed ths premises ajid surrendered posBession thereof 
to defendants* 

Tb.& portion of the lease providing for the payment of 
rent reads as follows s 

"In consideratloa of E,'?ld dSRise, the lessee covenants 
siiCi Eigsees feith ths iGssjors f.z follovTas 

"^IRST, To pay as rent for said |»reiBlseB, for said term, 
the euBi of Two Eundrec and Ten Thousand ^#210,000) dollsrs, * ■< ■"' 
In rsonthly inatailments of Oeven Hun-^rsd (.^'700) dollars, "begirining 
August If 1929, t-ja6 on the first ciay oi" aeich and erery saonth there- 
after during said term, except that the rental for the fifth year 
of said term in the sum of f 8,400 has at the time of the e xeciition 
of this lease "been paid in advance, each in advance upon the first 
day of evsry calendar month of ths ters hfc3'eof , and r-t the avjas 
rate for fractiionB of a mouth if said term shall he terminated, as 
hereinafter provided, on -jsy other day than the last dsy of the 
month, and all of said payments shall he made at the office of the 
lessors, Chicago, or 3,t such other place in Chicago as the l£r.3crs 
shall from time to time, "by ^iXltten notice left at said premises, 
appoixit •" 

Other paragraphs of the lease provided that if the lessee should 

ahandon or vacate the preaolBes, lessors had the option of terminating 

the lease, tsMng imntediate p06 session, subletting the premises itt 

whole or in part to one or more tenants at th^ highest rental oh- 

tainahle, and holding the lessee acccuntahle lor \.h.e. differsdice 

*sct«.5an tiac irent stipulated in the lease and the amount paid hy the 

omsoscf 'JSTslj 11iinlfsil':i vljixjib-rooo i? bna tr<eqq£.jl d-oa bib ®a3&£ 9i^ 

X(S 00-^%B^i> lo dxi»ia:^,>SQ ©iiS ban d-ns^fSS'XB-s XB*«am^l<ig:0a ail^ «©3JsaX 
xissw^sd" .b3*j3XiUqx;ta bbw ^i: bn.s iib&meLb& oi&vf aJat^&na'Stjb o;t 'ijtiJnlsXcc 

loiiq -^^nrvBii Viiisitslq, «ixi&*i Io iaQsui^Xiq otl:i ul ;?XiJj''i3b lot ,Sfi8X 

.,,,., Jsr^rcXXol a.e aB.'Si?! ^aei 

iU'iveXXotk 3-;n atj:o;3SoX s/fcJ xfji.« sjiessa httM 

■'^ ■•^- ••'- tB'SSillob (0OC',0I2l^« fcHAsa/JOill? a^l hti;^ b&tbitsli cwT lo sma' 9Mi 

^nlarJ.jj^o' tBiJsXXon (0C?|J &»'5ri:-.mrH n«>ys^ "io sS-nemXX^^ani iiXx£.*no« ui 

"^rssU disiom V-3T0 bri£5 ifo-'^s I'o -cs.5 ^5 ■six 9ii,t iJO 5a3 t^S^X t-C ^a.ugi/cV 

^aixl exi;^ noqu sousT&a as xio^s iSOiifisY&B xxi; bisq need" 8s.o©X aXrf* lo 

eriJ Io j>oi:il'o exf^ ;J^ absis acf XXaxfa a#xt9ffi^A?<j &iuja Io 11b bim edition 

fUXQBBsl &sii s;dO^i30''M0 M g»c>j8Xq i©£(*® zfftfirs- *fv tto -^ossoMO tta-sdeBaX 

«a9a lias zee blaa -Js tl^X scl^oa siai :i xxif x'i ^siax^ o;^ sjsxij motel IXjsjftJ 

fcXiiori3 !3«a«^X ©liS li d-isxtd" &!j^iTO"xcc oas^X ajScf 'to axfija^&ssq -z&tiiO 

snx;fj3Hlfittc9d' Io Kci:tc[0 sxt^ feaxi etiosasX ^esaiffls'x^ 044 »*sos7 t:o xioDoecfjB 

jkx Qaax(Hyi(^ sxid" -gGlJisXo'jJB taioiaaaaao«j »^Mls)&mai. •gnl^'ii t*a^.oX SH^ 

-«fo X.3;^n:5:j: ifaadaM -arfd- ^'js B^oi^atui e'xoia 'xo awo ocf .#aaq til xc ©Xoxfw 

^ GorirtQltxi) axfj toi aXtf/^i^rtWOOoa ssuaaX ofW stixi?Xoxi has tsXtfBnlBiJ 


new tencmti or t^inonts i or that in case of defaui.t by leseee, 
leeiiors shoiilci hare the s^lternative option of at ouce tenid.n&ting 
the ar-ft talcing poBeeeplon of the preadeeE or re-entering into 
possession vdthout declnrinfe a forfeiture and holfiine the leBfl«© 
to aecowct un(^er the covenants of the lease* 

The f;t5.pulp.ted facts dieolose that upon plaintiff's defatjlt 
fUid nhuiclonxaeut of the preinines defendants elected to exeroiee the 
option of terminatin,^ the lease, and they re-entered into posseesion 
August 16 f 1^3S* TT^ider ther;'?- oircijrastjanees, and in the fibsence of 
any proTision in the lease for aontinuiag the liahility of the 
les&ee in aaue of terminationf the law in well lu^ttle^l th's.t plain- 
tiff thereafter "became ahsclTed from sny further nihility bo pay 
rent* ( Sromrne s v» _^t«_/.aul I'rust C_o. » 147 111. 634 j [ u t y on v. 
Ooodfflan, 1Q4 Mass. SS'y; .Tohannea v» KielgaBt^ 27 111* Appt 576, 
and 16 Kuling Saee lew, 1157 i par* 658.) 

It is pliiintlff«B oontention that the #8>400 paid to 
defendant©, upon execmtion of the lease > \"rae intended for end 
constituted a deposit to secure the payment of rent, and that 
since all liahility for the paymeist of rent eecsed ui:-on termination 
of the lease, plaintiff is entitled to rec0f"er the siaa so deposited* 
Defendants filed no hrief on this appeal, "but plaintiff's counsel 
Buy tlie,t it w?i3 defendants' oonteniiion upon trial of the cause that 
said Bum diu not constitute s. deposit hmt rather an af'Vanee payment 
of rent for the fifth yciar of the term, ^?Mch could 'use r mcorQxed . 

hy plaintiff -inly if the l-^ase were terminatsa fo-'.' any reason other i 
than loavee'e default prior to ^.ugust 11, 1954, ?aad that since the 
lease was terminated on account of lessee's default, plaintiff I 

cannot reoover the aua paid. 

"Fxcm an examination of the lease and ri.v2r attached thereto. 
It appears that thiee references are m&cie to the -t8,4CC payment. One 

e^saeX ©4w arii&XejEf bna Q%y;i isittoli & ^ii£%jsXt>-nb #sr®ilifiE? il0J:aa^Q8j?l• 
10 &oiiaa€f? pits fzk bsm ^QQetw-i&mjo'^lpJ'^^sli^ z^bi^ »S5<5i; ,,„f>4; ss4£BiM,. 

^Sf3 »qq:H. -XXI ?S .i^lt^jB^Xei^ ^7 ig& naaiioT. Si?8£ *^^^^-^'^^^M0S^ 

. , ...V ,; ... : .. ' ...., {*e5S »-'fcR<| t?CXX *Wj&I sajs© SitiXwK SX bi^is 

ij92;ovo»»i £i>iX bX^foo rloix*'/ tjntaj ®ifx? lo "^b&x di'izt &di '3:et' im%,t9 
o.di 3oas.3^siU btv?. ^^6QX «XX im^^mi p^ tol^iq ilsm'ifib a»®«rriaoX u&di 


part of the lease contains the follov^fing proTleloni 

"Bxospt that the rental for the fifth year of said tea?m 
In the sum of $8)400 has at the time of the execution of this 
lease "besn paid in advemoe*" (italics ours*) 

The typewritten rider attached to the lease provides i 

**The lessee has this day paid to the lessors the sum of 
f8»400, receipt of \;hich is here'by acknovaadged hy the lessors > 
in payment oi the rent for the year coiaraenaing Auguat 1, 1934, 
and ending July 31b 1935." (italics ours*) 

In another portion of the rider appears the followingi 

"It is expressly understood and agreed that in case 
this lease shall he terminated for any reas<5n other than the 
default of the lessee, prior to August 31, 193^, then and in 
such event the sum of t8,40o this day deposited with the lessors 
shall he returned to the lessee; and in case this lease shs.ll be 
terminated for any reason other than the default of the lessee 
during the year commencing -ugust 1, 1934, and ending July 31, 
1935, then the unused portion of said rent at the time of said 
termination shall he immediately returned to the lessee** 

In rendering judgment for dt^fendaats the trial court was 
of the opinion that these three references to the payment of 
|>8,400 were not ajabiguous and conB trued theim to he payments of 
rent in advanc© t^ich ooixld not he recovered hy plaintiff because 
the lease was terminated through its default, irevertheless, Hie 
court admitted evidence, over plaintiff's objection, tending to 
show that when the parties were negotiating for a lease, and 
before the document was executed, plaintiff insisted on certain 
repairs and improvements aggregating fe6,000 or |7,000, and also 
that defendants pay a broker* s coBcaission of $2,500, and that 
because of defendants' inability to lay out these sums plaintiff 
advanced the ^8,400 in question. e think it was error to admit 
this extrinsic evidence. If there is any ambiguity in the three 
provisions of the lease and rider, hereinbefore quoted, it is 
patent upon the face ©f the instruments, and parol evidence is 
inadmissible to explain it. It was so held in Rees v. Johne«u 
191 111. App. 182, where the court laid down the rule as follows 
(p. 184)1 

(■•ai£?o ajoJtXss^l) '".^-oajfsTbjis «i oxb^ xxsed" •so^^l 
sa&.bxrd'xci ©as©! 0jii4' tti hajixi&tji& isfelit n©;r#l'3Cv;©cr^J' ©40? 
to ax^;e sx£^ R'^oaasI aii^t vt feljcsg ■^q& 8xifc>' B«if ©oaa&I ©ilT* 

®cf IXMla 9Q^5sX alHi- aa^o ni biis jo^assX" Qidfl" oi i>Ba'w^Bt otf IXMs 

' "' ' t*«ssa83X 'i^di o« &9xiiifd';^^ YX3^BJ;&©i!2:ai ©d' Xlaif 9 ISO i^^snJbjrx®;^ 

fo M'fisjstag Silo ocf asaixstcol^^ tsiS'xsf^ oaaxf^ iisUS" no inicEO 8x1* . 1© 

ow3- iesa9X©M^'X«V9l ,*Xfi-3't©6 s*£ if^we'^ifd^ &6#^fsl>-a^©* sjsw s«s9X ®ifj 

biiB «©aasX ^ rs0l sflxc^^sX'd-ossK &%qw ^sUtsq Qdi mtisf isdi w©rfu 
,£tiw^i30 ,rfo bsJaia^i 1;'3:i*mtsX(r ,&®jfi/»«2£» q«w ^mjaxfeob &di ©toiler 

^l>ifti:^.Xff 3M«8 saeff;^ djro irsx o^ Y;tiXirf*s«l fai«fi&K»1t95 lo eajjAoscf 

»1 ;ri. t &e*Oi/p a^olocfnlsierf ,xo&i.'x bius asaeX ©xi;? lo anolsirQrq 

avvoXXol .^ nxr. aif^ a^^ob M«X ^.i.00 «xiiJ ^a^rfw ,&>M ..itA ,XXX xex 

"It io a legal maxim that 'a patent aiabigiaity cannot "be 
cleEired up "by extrinsic evidence*'" Citing 2 Cyc» 278 and 
S&nton v« Tefft » 23 111* 367. 

Moreover, the testimony of Bichard At Hedmond, one of the defend- 
ants, relating to the negotiations preceding the execution of the 
lease, v/as clearly an attempt to modify or vp^irj the terms of the 
■written lease. ThiD cjxnnot he done, ( Lanum v. Harrington^ 267 
111* 57} Bector v» Hartford Xteposit Co. i 190 111* 380| Hoefeid 
"f* Ozello* 21S 111* App» 152*) 

Plaintiff's coimael assign a third reason why the testimony 
should not hare heen reeeiTed, namely, the failure of defendants in 
their aff idarit of merits to make any averments with reference to 
improvements or of any conversations tending to estahlish an ^ree- 
ment or understanding as to the use of the $3,400 paid hy plaintiffs 
Beddip- v» Looney , 208 111* App* 413, is cited, holding that 
defendants are "confined to the defense S'et up in th<8ir affidavit 
of merits*" It follows, therefore, that the rights of the parties 
to the sum in question must he determined from the provisions of 
the lease and rider, and this Involves a legal construction of the 
documents under the uncontroverted facts of the case. 

Plaintiff's counsel say that upon trial defendants relied 
on the case of Galhraitii v* Wood , 124 Minn* 210, ?vherein Seorge 
B. Kihhe entered into negotiations with defendants for a lease of 
the west hotel in Minneapolis, and submitted a proposal in writing 
offering to take a lease for a term of fifteen years from Septemher 
1, 19X1» "upon the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, and ia 
the form of the lease hereto attached and made a part hereof,* 
After specifying that defendants were to expend for alterations aid 
repairs not less than $100,000, nor more than ^^150,000, and that 
Kihhe wao to pay as rental the sum of f?40,000 for the first year, 
mth a graduated scale during suhsequent years, Kihhe made the 
following proposal: 

blBlfM ?oa£ .1X1 O^X t »<>p.J.liio%§^M^llM «y •^o^.^ag |T9 ♦XXI 

(♦sex A<sqA ♦XXI §XS «^£^£0 *T 

« i'i:l^fil.e.lq Y^ bi^si^ 001^*8*^ aiiS lo self si£# 0* b» BcibixsJaisbJOtf ^« tfixsa 
ijsnE^ B«ifcXoxi[ rfes^io si ,£X^ ♦qqrA #XX3C..80g t;^agoo>I .t ^Jlfebag 

»®Br.o erf* ■!«> G^oflt b^ttsrQttnQoms &dS i^bmt a^xisttmoeb 

&^tOi^ ixl&'ms!xf t^>XS •fiiiiM h&L t.^£2». *'^,^Jl^!S^M ^0 »aj80 &iii ao 
gciJi'Ziv rtx XsaoCiO-xq s t&iihiLdiiQ dXic taiXocfsOHalM «i Xsi.-torf xi^Eji, cjilt 

feus aaoUs^is^lp, %ot ba^qxs oi ©^ew Q*ttj3&«0l3ii i'jjirii gAJh^'^t-tosga ts*^i 

33iia ttij& tO00<0BX-$ rj>3Xf* oaoia -xok «0OOfOOX^ ttari* uaeX <J©n eni/sqax 

ttmx »a7.n axf* tcoI OOOtOJ^.'fe lo as/a sif* Xajfnst e^ x»<i oi a^sw atfrfia 

ftrf* sbaffl 9drfi5i lOTaoY ;^nei;p@8tf«a guiijub sX^ooh het&ubjus^ a dStv 

tlBBOqo'xq sniTToXXol 

"At the time of the execution of aald I will pay 
you the sum of $20»000 an an artvanoe payment on rent» which 
adranoe I xvill keep good during the first five ye%TB of said 
lease, ?jith privilege of i'eUuoing at the rate of ^666*66 per 
year for the third, fourt;h cjcid fifth yes'.r of said term." 

Defendants accepted the proposition. The leaee dated Septeaiber 

1> 1911, was executed September SB, 1911» and on the following; 

day Kihhe paid defendants |520,O00 and obtained the following 


"Keoeiyed of George fi. Kibhe f20,000 as advance payment 
of rent of est Hotel according to proposal for leaee of est 
Hotel, ifeted august 31, 1911*'' 

Klbhe took possession September 1, 191i» jsaade monthly payments to 
aiid including Pebmiaryj 1912, and remained in posBession until 
March 12, 1912, when inyoluntary bankruptcy proceedings ?/ere filed 
against him, and plaintiff in that suit was appointed receiver and 
after-ward trustee in hankruptcy. Shortly thereafter defendants 
served notice upon Kilsbe and his tmstee that the lease was ter- 
minated because Kihbe had been adjudged hpjakxupt, and possession 
was surrendered to defendants* Thereafter plaintiff instituted 
suit to recover the ,f20,000, and his complaint all,eged that said 
sum was paid by Kihhe to defendants ''as an advance payment of rent?" 
that Kibhe had kept this advance payment good at all times, and when 
defendants declared the lease terminated ajid re-entered the praHises 
they had in their possession the "advance payment" of ^20,000, and 
that there then hecame due to Kibbe and plaintiffae his trustee in 
bankruptcy that sum of money. Hotwithatanding that plaintii^f ia 
his ova pleading had designated the sum as ^advance payment" of 
rent, the Kinnesota court held that plaintiff could not recover* 
However, the provisions of the lease in the Qalbraith case were 
materially different from those in the lease at har, in so far as 
the question of the termination of the lease is concerned. In the 
Galhraith case the instrument provided that upon termination, the 

"jcioMvf s^tar-rt go jf£9np^,'',(i 9».rw5Vi:).e njs n^ 0CK'«OSJ' Is misa osii uox 
Jal.i.;« to ii-XB^-iX ©Tx'i J^a-cil srC^ isi"aTb bo.p-^- qB^:i IXiw I soiXBTba 

'•♦is'xs.* bi.'sa lo t.«s?i^ if;t'jtil bvu.i di-XifOl: ^.bxtdt ^A^ tot ia&% 

iss&m^-^ ©oiiav&i3 aij 000, 0S| &Mi'^i »n ^s^oaS xo &®Tii«o0a» 

i rift,/ to &rv:^&L 10'x Xfsaoqoiq ocS' •galb'^^oo-B l&ioE^n^ '3;48,lfiOlc Xft 

»*XX^X «l£ #ai^3i/A baijaO; ♦■XJJioH 

Ii#nw aelajisaaeq; ni bmiL'zRi&'s. baa ^i-ilQl tX'istn^Bt ^nlbulual haa 
hslll 9t&w BSiii&ssoo'xq x&^qiriilaM fijs^iujXoval fisxiw «SXeX «SX A&%jM 
1)113 TSTii'oat ^si^nioaqja sbw ^Jli/s ^iucfi^ nfc ■l'ii;J'«JfeAXq bar. tMld d&al&^a 

-^0* a.f?w ©SBsX ail^ ;J'ii'vr{o'- oSrfawT;^ aid bos scftfiS xcoqir 9oi*©n''fe«'ri9a 

oa^u^x^anj: "ili^ai'niXcy xsd't.e^T^ifT ta;^as5«etsb o^- b&x&ba®tvjB aaw 
bx^'-^a d'aif;^ bfi^^aXXis inlslqtaKiO &lsl bna ,00r:«0S't ajf* t&vo&dt ei ilua 

8S5B iEB-jiij Slid' b3*x0d'£j?}~2i'x oixs »9*aaxisr2s;f saseX Bdi beijultieb 9taMba9liob 
ftna «aoo,OS$ to "^asariisq ooit.BVte'* sffj noJ:8s»asi©g[ %l9iit al bad xftdt 
ai osd-as^J ulrl asYxJto'jitiaXq .£)ii0 atftfil oi essb eiatsostf n®ja[* drs8i£# iaki 

lo "d«s)aicj3q 9©iisvbj3« 6« mra &£ii oasJ-BCsXaefe b.«ri aatfessXq awo aM 

*xsrcs)&t ion hlsieo nual^^lq *^* blsif ittwoo ja*oaeaeJtK 9rfj',*xs®!t 

s%^rs B-auo tiihBidZ^ &di ci: susaX 9rf* 'to aKoislvo^q ©jrf^ tnarowoH 

a« -xsl oa nx txstf ^s 9a£©X sil;^ «i aaodi mxl isi»t9tlib xXXjsi^s^att 


right of the lessor to collect rents should not in any way be 
affected, whereas in the lease here in question no right is 
reserved to the lescors to collect rent after the tcriainetion 
thereof* Although under paragraph eix of the lease at 'bar 
lessors had the option* in case the lessee should abandon or 
racate the premises "without terminating this lease" to talcs 
immediate possession, relet the premises and look to the lessee 
to satisfy any deficiency, but, as appears from the stipulation 
of the parties, ihey terminated the lease and therefore had no 
further right to colleet rents from plaintiff* 

Plaintiff cites various decisions in this sad other states 
dealing with analogous situations. In Virgini a i\ausement (;o» v« 
Mid -City Trust & Savings Bankj 220 111* App# 147 , although the 
payment made Toy the lessee to the lessor was clearly designated 
as rent, and not as a deposit, the court nevertheless held, as 
a matter of law, that the les'^or could not retain the sxam deposited 
upon terminating the lease, except oalj bo much thereof as was 
necessary to satisfy '.he actually accrued rent* 

In Jcfanson v* I^:ngle3tein, 236 111* App« 215, it appeared 
from the eaaended statement of claim that at the time the lease was 
executed the lessee paid the lessors $2,50O to be applied in payment 
of rent v/hich vould accrue in case the lessee remained in poeuession 
dturing the last ten v/eeks of the term* The lease having been ter- 
minated prior to that time, the court held that the #2,500 could 
not be applied to the payment of rent for the last ten weeks, and 
that -wiiile there was no express provision that the sum should bs 
refunded in case the lease was terminated before the commencement 
of the last ten week period, and said that - 

"under the authorities, * * * the .^2,500 was given to the lessors 
as a deposit to secure the faithful performance of the terms of 
the lease by the lessee, * * * to be applied to the payment of 
the rent for the last ten -weeks of the term in case the lease was 

s© cafer^jedjs ajDJoifa sasasX s'MJ as^o ni tKeiitijc ©ri^ &Bi£ a-xoas&X 

nei^-sX^^x^a t^^ ssar'l aSB©e[qs ass ^rwtf sTgottsljollafe x^ ''C^f ■^'^^ *#- 
♦ tlitJSjL^Xq: xaoi'l a^^nat SosXXoo o* #^±1 t»iI*Tif5 

' eiSfit il5iirO££*Ii4 , fJi^I ♦qqA .XII OSS ,^:^faBg ay>lvji>3 £ i^a.ifxT •^jtip '-.&jat 
&9*iso€[95 ffltfa Qff* jtiEs^ei Jojti blm& itoagsl ari* tail* «WjS1 Id it»#.#ja« « 

fes'TBsqqB *i «eXS ©qqA *XXI 6£S jjO±§*£Sl»i^ ^"^ MlSiH^ '^-'- 

ix>l3BBiidx>c£ Sis. b&silsm&t soassX odi qhbo nx 9inooj5 bX«o^ doxd\'! ia.9% te 

&Xjwog 005tS| &di *ai£i l)X9xl ^ttji/oo od^ t&mii i&di &i ^oitti i^Q^BaiM 

0dr &X.vorfa flixB odi iiidi nolalvoig aseup:® oa aj=jw »i®xf* ©XIjcIw isdi 
Jrtsataonommoo on;? sto'tatf bsd'sain^iod' sbw aeijssX erf* aa^o «i fesbmrTrs'x 

a-toaaeX erfcf oi nsvi^ «i3W 009, S# 9xf* * * * ,a«Wi20Jf4tffl »ii;f aebm/" 

*io inojay;^;q siW 0;? baxX-H^ ©tf cd' * ^ * ,QS>aa©X oi£;J -^ctf ssissX 9^ 


not terminated prior to Fstru.c.ry 17, 1924 » an<3 since the lease 
was termi.nat;'c5 prior t» tliot tiias » ttie '2,50') muat "be refimded , 
less T^hnterer sMsnt if i"Jiy» is due and owijitj w t'no leaaors for 
rent or any other clnm;-.ges sui-tained by thera on account of leseee^a 
failure to oariy out Ms contract." 

Cuanin^ gm v. :t pk pn, 31 Kans. 730, io clOBely analo^'Oua 
to the cape at \iax • There the loase provided that the lessee 
Dhould pay as rent for the premises demised ?21,0'X), of \/hioh 
f'At2'0 WBs to l3o p?.ic5 on July 1, 1905, and a.;.pll<3d upon the disa- 
oharge of the last, or fifth, year's rent* mid the b&lfmoe Bhould 
"be paid in etiuxd monthly inetallaienta of ?'550 each. Lessor under- 
took to erect anx? furnish r theater. y4,24K5 was paid laefore ftie 
erection of the huilding v/as coaasenced , and after ohtaining possession 
the lessee defaulted » by re-'son of ^Mch the; Ibb^otb re-entered into 
possession ef the building. The lessee wee then in arrej;jrs for fire 
xBonthe' ront, e^rT eating tXtfZQ* and instituted suit far the sua 
of $2,^.50, being the aiaount of th« d<?poslt less the accrued yent# 
Judgment was entered la faro? of the lessee and e'.ffiriaed "by the 
Kansas L-upx^ae oourt, ■.vhich held (pp. 786-787) t 

''Tha Itaso did aot ooaiiaixi pn express i'tiiteuaent thr.t the 
money fidTanced eheuld constitute a deposit to insure pprforaanoe 
by appellee, "but the adTaac^ment of so large an asiomat, the ps.y" 
meiit of the mam before the conBtruotion of tho Siiildiag was begun, 
and Tibottt six saaaths before pooneaaltm could be obtained » atid the 
provirfioa tltat the toaotint a-dyaiiced should be applied on the rental 
for the Isat ye.-:.r of the ters5, clearly indic-jtte that it vaa a 
dapoait to iasui's pen" QraariGe 'by appellee. How the lease did not 
prorids that a failure to pji^,'" reat ?/hea due should i'ctrfssit she 
cash de£iaeit, nor that it should be fo:^feit««i for axiy reuuoa. KadtJr 
the statute, if a tenant neglects to pay rant for a certain period 
the Ijtndlord may tei'minato the lease by giving a certain nuidbax of 
days* notice in v/rii;ing, ualsss the rijnt is paid baiors the term 
expires.. * * * Cunningham, being in default as to rentp appsilants 
had the rig^t to terminate the lease} but there is nothing in the 
agruyxa;-ut or tlae ;;ti-^tut3 v.-h.lch v/ou3.d u.xrrant us iii %TK.ntlii.^ Uie 
f>4,SO0 deposit as liquidated damages, or justify the forfeiture of 
the sau^ for noupsva®^^^ O'^ 3re;it. According to ulm thtjory of 
appellpjits, the default of a tenant in the payment of rent for a 
week, or even f- c'av, vculc ■7?e-r;5.nt thera iri tnlgLug posiwoefii^n of the 
property and aFP^-opris ting to themselTes the |4,2O0 of indemnity 
which the ten&nt i^dvo./.ced ." 

tinder fhc pror^slona of the leepe Irs the of;.re <?t bar» 
defendants had the ri^j^t to re-onter the praadsss -without terKinefiting 


** ■,3it}^'X.taoo aid. isso i:xt^^o bt »T£fXJtsl 

d&Mii '10 ,0C>O*i:a'::: fceieliao?) aoexisiatg. 0jiii tcl insii: as %«« bXjsi^i 

'^'i&bim "sonfiQ.! «ito«® 025$ lo «*ri®raXIsJ'aisI xIil.taosK Xiuips isJfc bljaQ #i!f 
lalassT/iSJ^oci: ^etinXeJ €0 r^i'ts has. t^^omi'ssaoz' a.«w >^cJt&Xiujcf qi£;J 16' a0l#of>^i9 

Ksja s»fi;r -:x©:t JJaja ftc*.y*Jt;^enl txcis «03"e«X':. ?SK-J:^-S3t»irri^.<s «*fle* 'Sif^aOBi 
»^n«t bQifsoos BxU m9L ilBocioh'-k^i tv- iwsvmB odd ^njf'.a^ »«>?!. ^««rC- '^ 

-i-«sm i^lfe- sassX m:i3 mil . • <->«iXX.9qq^ ^!;e" 9axi£5iK7.ti'xxa<^ j-nysal o^ ^Xt!so«i«i> 
3ii;f ;? l&t'-tfjx bXwoiia ©wfe c®ffe *«»'x x^q^ oj- stwiltel a-iJMit «>fiT^tq- 

S!i%&!$ ^di'^io'UyiS bknti sit in^t 9£!Li a«3&XEa» «s«l-tx*3;w ul ^sHoa »a-^«& 

nils til -iitiiiii&ii uX arosi!^- ^trd" i{eu^.»X &ilS ais^aSMi^^ ©i $]^k% edi hssid 

lo »iuriSX»'i-rol »£Ci vlx*axf|; rio ,sS»S^.iH«fe i>8*.v:;feii{.pXX a» jfla^^ssJb COS**! 

©If? 'io icr'i:a3e.-:,fc:<?Ci_ jaJ;:!,:^ txs. maiU in:ri.:.:/r ftitiov ,'^£s^ ..^ risvs to t^Wfl" 
SH.t jiteiEilisitta* ^jtfftdi^lv.' z()zM»'Z(i ^At •xpjfcp-ai oJ' i-iii^^)!* 9siit &««{ atiii-.K''>; l-»i;' 

tile le&B© ariii apply the moneya in their hnnds on aoootmt of 
accruing reute. HcvreTer , they did no-ii ex«;i.*ciss'-i tho option 
affor<3ed them, "out tenidnatcd t'm lease and regainei? poBsscEion 
of the diittiaed prassaises, which ihey hacl a right to do. There is 
no eTideacs that cef eada^xts aajt.u,inGcI eziy dxtrnxge "by rei:.tion of the 
t^x-si-UiAtic-a, nor is: ther»i axi-j clf.lra '-."'VAt they ~ersj i5fj8s;gea» '.fhore- 
foro, -jLide:;:- th3 authoritief^ h03r«4inl)ef or<9 ritsA, v;Iaioh in ovir opinion 
enunoiats the purine Iplo -vijpli oa"ble ta ■?• situ^.tinn of th:', s kind; 
tiiey s-ioulci uot t-a porwitt?;! to ■^:^ro.ll thjms^J.veu of tiiB riiihts* 
"both to texaiinato the le:;!.t:*e a-id ta collect rynt subsequonsily accruing 
tii-^re-ondor » It a^rgaaxi oo vi.o from a?i.l tire oli'gixfia i*\riC9g of -"Ae case 
sad the pvovisioas of the l.e?,oe that the fia»400 ^nc d6po'5T,t3i as 
security xoi xentt *'i!'5 the iQ&nc haYiaj oem 'j^irmiaf^t"?? "h^^^oro tho 
r(;:itQ.l i'o^ th3 period de'd^c^-jatecT sooinried ? tbs rari'ney ^^-^ould ;i:.??.ve heen 
returned ';o fciie lessee. Th?; jiadipient of the iaunioipiil court, is 
rnverseCij there "bt-iiig no coritroTertvCt facts ir i-^-^vtSf ^nd^ment 
i.? entered herr, for plaintiff and again^ ae-fendsnts for .*.8,400, 
with interest froEi a-ruet 1€ , 1930 y the fi.3,to on ^''hlch def C:nc'??.n't8 
f^lec. !cC: U- teraicate iht le.r,t?c an? gs. vvh.ich date they 'bec?.^e llahle 
i-jr rep^yaent of that £-iibs» 

HKii/i ViM Is, 400.. 

ax o'rsiitJ' .ofj 0- ^risl-s & b.r^d x»iU doldi? ^ ^^uMi-^q, bmnlss.'&b &di 'io 
-stjoxfj. «2>£is-^»t.'^-^"> s'Sf*-.- ^or-';^ i-j3xl? Mi:.;-.Co -^^^ts ytrsii.* lij; ^ois «JCOl;3.t5Xxifli.xs.? 

■ . -i 

utm-b'yir^l'^b rfoirf'-'- ao o^.r-.t, ©res'- (.S£??X «dX »-tai/-:jiirA raoil, das.T^^iu iXit-iw 
oldfiiX fiiKt^o-eef v-^-'f;? ^dhsfe rifoMvr .:?o turn 9sb&X sAi ^tmim'sit ] ^^ ^'S^ o^^ 



Appellee $ 





^^ ■- - .Xi. 

MR. JUSTICE FRiiain) Tr^irmiM) tss opnnosj op the coubt. 

i?mily MagnuBon* as plaintiff, filed a joint action of 
foroi"ble detainer for possession and rent for an apartment in 
the "building at 8854 Dante avenue, Chicafjo. Upon a hearing, 
the olaira for rent was withdraisn and Judgment for possession 
was rendered in f^vor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals. 

The salient facts, as to which there is substantially 
no dispute, disclose that October 23, 1928, Joseph W. O'Connor 
executed an agreement v.'ith John Jechort, Jr., and Delia Jechort» 
his wife, for the sale by installment payments of the three- 
apartment l)uilding at 8854 Dante avenue, Chicago, for 126,700. 
The Jeohorts entered into possession of the premises and on 
August 26, 1932, executed an assignment of the rents to Sdrmrd 
A. Lyden, then o^mer of the property, reserving to themselves 
possession of apartment Ho. 2, which they occupied. In 1933 
the Jeohorts applied to the Home Owxers' Loan Corporation for a 
loan upon the property, which wao rejected. December 15, 1934, 
:']lsa Klarine, T?ho thr-n held title, filed a forcible detainer 
action against the Jeohorts in the miinicipal court to recover 
possession oi the three -apartment Ijuilding. Jeohorts were served 





• •? 

no briB aoeJaaa'xq sxC* lo ii»iea0aao(| oifii &ex©tfi;i© ad-'iorfo©L oifT 

&iijvTbr£ od' s^i-nsi axf^ 'to ;^i:iSflU^l.saB xta bsdfwosxa <Sf,GX «as ^sju^wA 

asvXearaori;? oJ '^nlvisssrc tUii^'5^95**'^'! ©Jl* to nsjCRre nari* *«9&y«X ♦A 

SCeX nl «&.-)iQ:j;iooo ^©rf:! ilyJ:.r[57 jS •oM *n©fir*Tsri'B to notaaesaoq 

'x.'sni^^sb ©Xtfioiol fl bsXll ,oX*i* bXsif n^rfd- orfw ,©nxxp.X?I .eaXK 


with ausmona and on. trial had on January 25 » 1935, the court 
found thea gvdlty of vd.thholding the preaises, and entered judg- 
aient in faror of Elsa KXarine for poesession thereof* The follow- 
ing month Delia Jechort paid ^30 to the agent of the then owixer 
of the property for apartmexit iJo. 2, and continued to pay the 
same amount as rental for the apartment » which she ocotipied tintil 
the aonth of ioTember» 1935. By reason of her failure to pay 
ijent for December » 1935 » and January, 2'e'bruary, March and April » 
1936, 2niily Magnuaon, plaintiff herein, who had previously obtained 
title to the property, served notice on Delia Jechort, the defendant, 
claiming rent of f.l50, and April 20, 1936, she filed the forcihle de- 
tainer action which is the subject matter of this controversy. 

At the eonnusncement of the trial defendant's counsel 
moved to quash the summons and dismiss the suit on the ground that 
the court was without Jurisdiction of the subject matter, because 
the complaint failed to allege under which of the six clauses of 
sec. 2 of the Forcible Sntry and Detainer act (Illinois State Bar 
Stats., 1935, chap. 57) plaintiff was proceeding, and this is 
urged as the first groimd for reversal. The proceeding of forcible 
entry and detfiiner is statutory and the decisions interpreting 
the statute consistently hold that the statute does not reculre 
the complaint to set forth the circumstances under Milch the 
defendant entered but simply that he is in possession and unlav/fully 
withholds the premises, and on trial the plaintiff may prove his 
right to recover under any clause of sec. 2 of the statute. Sec- 
tion 5 of the statute provides » 

"On complaint in \vriting by the party * * * entitlod to 
the poasession of Buch premises being filed in any court of record, 
* * * stating that such party is entitled to the possesaion of such 
premises -^ * '^p and that the defendant * * ^ unlavfully withholds 
the possespion from him * * *, the clerk of such court shall issue 
a sximiflOns ^- * •'^•" 

Xkirus .osigwooo offa xfoxiiv? t$s.i0mii.Qqjs sdt rat Is;}/!^^ a^^iiHrontB aucse 

"Qb oXcflDioJi -3/;^ h«*Xil: sxle ,dCe£ %0S Xi-xaA &ns «OSX# 1:0 ;r«»^ 'a^ie^i^Xo 

♦■v;a-:£®T'©'i^noo ai-rC^-f 'lo 'loii^aat tQ&i^^sjB sxii aj; d^Mw aoiip* i9Xii&4' 

Xeamjoc! a'ifXGCxss'^oi) lsii:7.^ ©xf* 'to ^itaaieoiisnMOO sx£it iA 

S^kU bsuiOTQ mii' no ilua adi aaiisisx-b fexis a«ofiiaTi/8 ^di dasvp oi bavosa. 

©awjsoocf ti8.j»t,>3xa: iosl^ua orli lo jHoicToibaiijjt isj&tiiiw a«w #^jjoo s^* 

lo B&Qu&So 3CXB oil;t lo 4loM%? liibtssj SQoXXe. o;t bsXJt^l i^xsxsXq:inop asii 

ai: oirfcf bnv, tS.Ri:sv;.9oo-xg asw Iti^isisXq (VQ ♦G[«do , esSX . , . «*a#a 

©siwpei .tor? ufob &tsj$s:.i^. axld' isiii bLod yX^Rateiaxiop Qiirisiu oKi 

0if* xioixilv^ 'j:9&mf af)oxi?.*qjfmoiio exi;? ti-jto't isa oi ^«ljcsXc[iooo ©xf;* 

XXXw^vsIrtu bxi!:' ao.t'gieaBaog rxX ei orf ^tjsit* xX^iaia jl-jutf Bessd-na imibaalQb 

•■iid s-vo'^q; ^j^jn TiiirixLflXq:. axi^f Jiatxi ao bxus teosiiasaq sxl^t ebXorixfitivT 

- 8 89&lvo-iq &iiifiBiii oiii lo C nox^ 

o* ftoXJiine * * * -^c^t'icq sxid- ^cT a^ii^itw xii ;txiifiXqaroo nO" 

tbiooQi "io ct'iwoo icfis ni baXxl aaistf asaictsaq xlojja lo xxoieaoaaog oxU 

xiox;« lo iioxaaaanoq; ©xfi o:^ bsX^txJxi*^ ax "Vi^^'x^q xloua *BcCtf ani^^d'a * * * 

aliXoifefiiw •v,XXi>lvv.3Xxi« * * *■ »'ri;^oxi9l&F3 ©jcUf ojsii; bxxji. «^f * * aoaxfiteitj, 

awBai IXjsxfs v+ixxoo tiou^i lo aJ-xaXo ©xl;t «* * * jHlxi taoxt noi'saaBuoq &di 

««* * -x anO{;!Cu;H .r. 


The complaint in this cause alleged the esBentisLl requirements 
of the statute (l) that plaintiff was entitled to posaeeeionp 
and (2) that defendant unlawfully withheld posseseion thereof 
fxofli plaintiff. 

In the early case of Mar tens t. gieldB» 17 111. ipp* 483 » 
an action of lorcihle entry and detainer was instituted hy filing 
a complaint which merely alleged that Martens was entitled to 
the possession of the premises described in the complaint and 
that Henry Fields and finother ^ere unlr>/g¥fully v/ithholding 
possession thereof from him. Summons issued and was served 
on defendants f Viho demurred to the complaint. The court sus- 
tained the demurrer and entered ^uc'pinent for costs against 
plaintiff. On appeal the judgment T/as reversed and the caure 
remanded, the court holding fj^» 484) « 

"The proceeding is statutory, and it is safe to follow 
the form prescribed, undor vrhich any of the statutory grounds of 
recovery may he proved. This ccsmplaint contains all the statute 
required. The court erred in Buataininij the demurrer." 

^ Harms v. Stier^ 70 111. App. 213, a forcihle entry and 
detainer action was instituted under sec. 5, chap* 57 of the re- 
vised statutes. It was there held that in such an action the 
statute doea not require the oomplaint to state the oircumstanoes 
under which the defendant entered, hut simply that he unlawfully 
withholda poasesaion, and that on trial plaintiff may prove his 
ri^t to recovery under any clause of sec. 2. These decisions 
have been followed ( ^oodbtiry v. l^el, 128 111. App» 459, 461) 
and defendant cites no cases to the contrary. 

As a remaining ground for reversal defendant argues that 
the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, because an 
affidavit filed in support of her motion to dismiss tended to 
jihow that she was entitled to possession by virtue of an uncai- 

<SSii *i^_q,::, »ixi Vi ji'JiIsi;^ *T m©|j:;£M "io aa^o yXi^. a exi;^ «I 

fejKn .tni.sIqiKOD arlc^ isi bQcStxoBsb ssaixua'xq ari^ 1:o ffoieasaeoq ddi 

hoT''.G« e,.sv/ fenjE? boyaax ariOiaaa/S .stiri moil l<:isrodi jtoiaaeasoq 

'9^«j30 QMS' bH« bosi'-:i-90's a.r-OT ^tnasc^biri. 9r.f^ Lamiqi; EfO t'tlkinlx-Zq 

woXXOi 0* oIbs &l *i fefts t^'ioc-'irtaia al -galboaQOiq ©iff" 
■Jo ciijxjuo'ia ^£'AOJ;j^Bd'a &si^ 1.0 vxiB da'idbt %ohim ,fe*4fli:rj»gs'j:q artol sfW 

&m-i ■\{;Xvtr3 aXti'.to'icl e ^&JS. ,ciq;/. ,XIX Df. . ^'gei^ S «v MtmH ul * ' 

-si: asii ^o ?<! *i;i;iuiC' ^^i •■osa tsMw fo'S^xf^'UiJajxl a«w noMos iBtii&tBb 
oiicl- rioioo/^j n^, doixa fii tf^if^ Mexf e'l&ii;*' esw ^i' » asd'uJscJe ftsaiv 

Y.XXXr'iw.sXKi/ esi" o.fixij \-;Xci0j:K iwcf t^«it©i'ao ^fixa&iis^Aeb ®i3E# iicifftsr iQ&fa?' 

wM $iro'j:q[ vjm I'lliitUilri Xal-x^ no ^iui^ bs:m («aoiJja©asoq ebX0i.li3f:^ix¥ 

Bixoiaiool) sasjlT »S. ..oea lo si>sxrsXo ^ii» ■?..©&££» '^'X»Y€'0»^ o;? d'ifeix 

(Xd.^ 4<?G-& .gt^i. .XX.I OSX jXr^ ♦'' .X*S£L°-2E^ Jba^yoXXo'i jss&tf svjsil 

*Xt^^'%oo «ri^ oi aea^po on a»*io iJHHbitalsi'fo fecuB 

lUi eaufostf ,«'re^;Jj-fK »ta9t<^i;o srf;^ lo iioWoibal"j:jj^ <&iai l!>«x£ i^if«oo sri;^ 


celled contract of purchase. rliile it was altogether proper 
for defendrnt to interpose the eubjeot matter of the affidavit 
"by way of defense, the ayerments thereof did not in f.ny way 
affect the jurisdiction of the court so as to justify a dismiBsal 
Of the case, uno it vjould have been error for the court to hare 
done so. Defendant's affidavit in support of her laotion to 
diPmiSB the complaint averred EubetcUitially the facto hereinbefore 
Bet forth reletinf? to the contract of purchac-e and the Gub-oCfiUent 
trariBferc of title. Upon the hearing she introduced the .vritten 
contract for a warranty deed* dated Octxibes' 23, 1928, betfi^een 
OtConnor -nd the Jechorts, wherein the grmtor agreed to ccaavey 
the property in ^,uestion» improved by a three -apartment building» 
conditioned upon certain installment payments to be made by the 
grantees. From an indorBement on ftie contract it appears that 
John Jechort, Jr.*s interest wae, on February 3, 1932 » asBisaed to 
defendant. Bridenee adduced Tsy plaintiff diBcloses that December 
15f 1934, one JiJlsa Klarine filed a forcible detainer action in the 
municipal court against defendant and her husband for poseeGsion of 
the premises described in the contract of purchase. Trial 'W&a had 
by the court v/ithout a Jury, and, as previously stated, defendants 
were found to be unlr^wfully withholding the premisee and Judgment 
for possession was entered against them» 

Defend-mt argues thrt this was not an adjudication of her 
right to possession under the oontrr.ct becaure (l) the court had 
no jurisdiction under sec. 2 of the act (this contention is s,ls« 
made in the instant proceeding and in viev of the conclusion here- 
inbefore reached requires no further discussion), and (2) because 
in the Klariue case the parties are not the same aa in the case at 
bar, identity of parties being an essential element to constitute 


X^aaiEaxb /j Y'ii-^^-'t. ^^ «'» oa iiuoo arti "to KOitfo2I)a|:T«^ axy' uOsUfi 
- srj5x£ tjii dtsjoo 6xfd- /ro'i ^.crxo noscf evBsi bSssQU ^i bras .jias^o 9x{;f to 

cios-^^^Qo «3SeX «SS •astfwJoO !>9*.3fe ^bo&b X^n.^t:tm .^ i&'X 'i^%imo 
Xernao od- foeoTJS.s roiixj^-.t-^ Qsii fxisi^rf-^f t3*-'xoiio9"S sxid" feat loasaoO'O 

iT^yii^ a^ssqq..^ cfi ;S'i»j'2^ricto sfS na. ^:.«»fiiaa'Xo5iii as moil »aoo#iis'£3 
oi fieirixaaa sUoCI t^:^ xuru-'sdlQ'i no «asTv J"3:5'xs^x-ij: a''*'* I. ^^^oxfoot crfot 
X9€f2f3os«I ??«M,t seaoXoaib Tii,tnl:.aXq: tj^ iJOOMblsB B-oaabiiM' .^xiB&natab 

lo rroxsaaeacq -£01 hnsd'euxl loff bn^s ^Josfens'^Qb ^Janxssjs *iJiOo X^qioJ-.xaiffl 
bBri asw XsiiT ♦ssBrfocorq lo *osx*xtoo 9xld ni barfi-joasb assljastiq oxf* 

^uefiiS&wi; biui asaiaxs'tq:' aifJ- BnlbXoiCriitiw icXXw^.'srr.Xra/ acf o^ fenwol a*x9w 

*EEi3ff* d'cnlisga bsi:9*m) bsw aoiaaeeaoq; TOl 

*Esrf to iio.i;j-soi&jy|;fo£} njs .ton amv bM;^ ferf,t aau^tc^i; Jns&ns^sff 

bisii cftwoo Qf{^ (X) ©Gweor^cT d•o.Gs;^^oo sil* tsbiiM xioxaadaaoq o* idQti 

©aXs ui X50icfne;}noo shli) io.o eiii lo S »03a labxa/ £iQXiol&sx!u;/^ OH 

-sj^sfi aolaiiXooco sil^ xo v/aiv ai imj& giuoaaoo'xg; ia^^sct srf^ ni ob&«a 

setWfO&cT (i:^ i)xtB « (xioxaauoaib lodf^-xir'i oxi asiitfpet bsiXcsiJoi: o'xo'ied'xii: 

*J9 Qsao odi xi.t e;3 9Ksa aiW *ofi stcs uoJtJieq Bdi oaso ©nltcaXH oxfit xjl 

a^x/.tid'sxioc o;^ ;^xxs?iiiaXs Xi3i*jri9aa© «b B^-tstf s&iixj^q^ lo x*i*c©bi ,Taif 


rea ad .iudioata * Plaintiff's reply to this second contention 
iB that the former proceeding is bhovra* not to piovo res adjudxaata 
"but "by ''TiB.y of estoppel by Terdict» aiid we think the distinction io 
well taken. hile identity of parties ic essential to a plet. of 
res aci.iudicata * only identify of the subject natter isj recuircd to 
prove estoppel by vtrdict. It vvaa held in OMpa^o Title & Tru st Oo> 
V. national Storage Go» , 260 111. 485 j and. City of Chlo?..^ t* |!iart» 
rid |rejf 248 111. 44<J, that v/here an adjudication i;3 relied on as de- 
termining some controlling faot or matter arising in a subaequent 
action* it is indispensable that ouch faot be involved in the deter- 
mination of the isfiues between the same parties, or their .pj^iviegx 
in both actions. It was held in the Klarine case that plaintiff was 
entitled to possession of the premises, subsequently, Slsa Klarine 
conveyed title to the property to ISmily Magnuson, plaintiff hereint 
who became privy to the rights of :Slsa Klarine* and under the liold- 
ing in the Partridge case, supr a* the judgment in the Klarine case 
was a determination of defendarit*s ri^ts to posteasicn and may "be 
set up as an estoppel by verciict of def enciru:it' l' rights in this pro- 
ceeding. It follows that subsequent to tlia .noxy of judgment 
against her in the Klarine case, deiendijat uecame a mere tenant and 
she evidently regarded herself ae such by payirt, re^it for five 
months. hen she ceased to make th'jse payments, plaintiff herein> 
who had acquired title to the property, was entitled, as landlord, 
to rofrain possession. 

K'e find no convincing reasons for reversal of the judgment 

of the municipal court and it is affirmed. 

■>ullivan, ?. J., and Ccanlan, J.j conciir* 

-;:;!> as JiO f^e^tX^si ex nol;!'soii^if^S>^j jss axoaC*/ ^'*i.ij[it tSJ*^ *III 8^S ^j.^?!lIZ 

^i^e0ijo«o«G s til ^,£3tiai:as -x&S^iaet ■as tnei •gniXXoiwrioo aaies BGXfxiarxsi 

~"rs^9.o osii £ii iksvlox'-ai- sd* ^oeI xJo/iu i^axisS' 3x^,Baa»qa*i}£xx ai ;fi ^noid-OB 

-o:£%' Q-trl:^ iai: a ;fxis ■£'■»• 'i *J/iXf-o«©i55 'io tol&'jC»v Tjtf Xsqgod'as' iiB @a (ji/ ^9-a 

bOB ihi'.'uiej ..i-rem j3 aissoad' J.naJltfio'iijb ,»Ojio 9fil'xxii>[ Biii tii. tod isnls^^ 
Ovi:'i' 'ro'l ciHOts jiTi:\;sq ve" riowa as lXa?a'x©if bsbisv^a? Y.£*£i-''^iv'i ©xSa 

^uJistrr^xf il:lJx-i:isI.q ,c;JxiGia\^aq sa^jli ©:^^i 6t feaaEso aria KSffv'/ .aifJitoia 

^^xiarasbi/t eri* lo lea- ova's 'co't eisoa^ei ■saxa&kya.oD ojh bnit ©W" 

*t.siv>aoo ».Xi ,a'«Xixs«iS ftua n^Z :«^I «aiJYiXXtfi-; 



A. L. CCHH'Pf ) 

Appellee p ) 



J. A. i- JCK and KaTIE i'hCK, 

jointly and severallyp ) t^ r^ n Y H /* <^ ^^ 

Appellants. ) 4, ^ Q 1 oil* O ^S 


Thio apper.l prcBents for coneideration the question ^liiether 
tenants jaay abandon an apartment occupied "by them under a va-itten 
lease v.ithout the payment of rentj on the groimd that the preeenoe 
of hedhugs in lar^e nicnhsrs rendered the premises iminhahi tahle and 
thus furnished the basis for a conetruotire eyiction. 

A. L. . ohiff was the oviner of a six-apartment building at 
6640 Parnell arenue, Chicago. Septemher Ip 1933p he leased a 
four-room apartment on the third floor of the "building to J. A» 
?eck and Katie Peck for two years ending August 31 » 1955 » at the 
stipulated rental of '^35 a month. The Pecks occupied the demised 
premises and regularly paid rental therefor until July 31 » 19359 
when they abandoned the apartment » as they claim* because the influx 
of bedbugs in large numbers from other parts of the building rendered 
it uninhabitable. Thereafter, August 15, 1935, plaintiff procured 
a judgment by confession in the sum of !;H7.75, representing rental 
for August, 1935, costs and attorney's fees. Thereafter defendants 
mored to Tacate the judgment and had leave to appeal and defend. By- 
stipulation of the parties, trial was had by a jury oi five, result- 
ing in a verdict finding the issues agninst plaintif i . '^'hereupon 
plaintiff moved for a judgment non obstante ve redicto , v/hich 

V . S 

JA^IOimJM HOH^ l^M^^k ( 

5 ^ { *ciiisXl9t£(lA 

6£LS aXtfatHrfsifnijHW ssi^icasiq; oil;]' &33£i&xt3"3: s'lacfatun ©a'^^'Sl ni sswdb^tf 16 

»A ■»!. oo' >jaxf>Xxi/d aji;; lo ^ooXl &tM* sii^it no itnsHiif'XBq.a jstoot-rrael 

ofi^ (3'si t5S8I «XS iosr^tsk sfii^^a s-Si35>-^ ow* ^ol ilo^l ©1J«S fens a[od''it 

SosiasBb sxf;J bfi^igi/ooo fiafoa'i siCT ♦rfcfnom js 0C# to XsiJri^'^'x &o*i8Xu<|i#a 

«3'S9X tX£ YXi/X. li^ti-ay lolstorfd' X^^nat bi^q \^Xi.GXns©a: &«iS Bsaifflotq 

Xi!;X'^x;.i axW ©ajij'i-.oocf tSxi^iiXo Tjsrf^f aa < ct-ftsra^isq^i ©rf^ b^nofoxieeT^. "^sif* nsjtff 

5©i:05££ei •galblhjc ^'di 'io a^xsq 'laxid-o storl Qioilfmun asijsl ni e^jytf&stf lo 

&S'X«ooiq; llictnx.^Xq; «af.CX «aX iaitfsw. ,«>*ls&'X0/iT •sXifeiMtfjsxfHi'Kii- ^1 

Xsiissi afiid-xissa'sqs^ t6V»7l4 "3:0 xnus ojij- at Kolaselaoo Y,d" *G9ins&jt;f, .a 

Btasbn&leb t&ilsi'H'XQxi'T .aoel: a'^sn-xo^f^s te>e adsoo «2S«?X i;^aj;:sir/ lol 

YE -.On^A.^b biiB •x,«<9qqjR o* bvb©X bsrf bur. ^ct&mPibul odS b:^30&v oi borom 

-.flsnitri ,8vi:'i io xiul s x<S bsd a^sw Xf^itit tooicfctaq sif* 'io noxdjsXwqi^a 

motlon was sustained by the court* The amoimt of the Judgment j 
"by confesBlon was reduced from |'47«75 to $36»67j and judgment 
entered in the latter sua for plaintiff. This appeal followed. j 

J)efendants' petition to vacate the judgment which was 
allowed to stand as their affidaTit of merits, alleged in sub- 
stance that prior to the expiration of the lease defendants dis- 
corered in the rooms, halle, floors and walls of their apartment, 
and in the beds and upon their clothing^ 

"certain vermin, commonly as beahugs ; that bedbugs were 
found in other parts of the 'ouildina" '^Jid particularly in the 
second aptjrtment, Qxrectly beneath that of the d feudants, before 
the bedbugs entered the apartment of the defendants; that the 

presouoe oi thetie tiugo was iiaia&diately brout^^ht to the attention 
of the landlord, who, after the lapse of about tv/o weeks, made 
some ^.tteaipt "by the use of kexosene to er.teriainr.te the bugs;* 
but without suceess, and instead the bugs "continued to grow 
^.ortie and gro'o in nuiabfer ao that it beo;imft necessary for the 
defendants to spend about £40 to have the bugs extenninated and 
C.130 r::port the miitter to the he;ilth department of the city of 
Chicago; that the bugs were never eradicated, so that by the 
Ir.^-t of July, 1935, the E.partment ;vas so infested that it became 
uninhabitable aiid the defendants were coarpelled to move," 

There is abundant evidence in the record to sustain the 

contention that the "building v/as infested ..Ith bedbugs, ajad that 

notwithstanding the ordina:.y efforts made by Mrs. Peck to exterminate 

them in her ov.ii apartment, they entered from the apartment below end 

other parts of the building, through the v/alls and floors, to such 

an extent that the Peck premises became extremely offensive, \incom- 

fortable and rendered unfit for occupancy. The landlord was notified 

of this condition and attempted to exterminate the bug" by spraying 

kerosene bh-ou^phout the building, but without results. The Seeks 

notified the bo -;ra of health of the city of Chicago, arid notice was 

served on plaintiff to exterminate the vermin, but nothing further 

was djue. defendants testified that the bugs crawled arouiid on the 

floor in the various rooms, on the ceilings, and were present in the 

bed and closets and on their clothes, and that they could no longer 

k^iixBstiizaqB %iBdS to aLln^' bsm s'looX'i ^tllBd iQsmo'x 9si^ ai ^s-^sv^o 

eri* ni "<£,X^BXwoid"xi:q J-.n/^ ^nifoXiwa" art* "in n^-xia^: "serf^o Ki fciwjol 
@fc£5KX ^ajJoaw o?/d' .^i/ocfxi lo sac[BX ©il^ is^Ib ,oiiw ^bwlbsx^l &sii lo 

arW x^ ifiif-J ^bed-^oiib^^o tovsK e-xQv: sgxjcf orlj :^«x{;t jov^-tsoMO 
©fii^ood" Ji tJ'Md' &©;J'eelM:ii: os asw ^£j9i«K?*3Lie;qps; a^ili}- ,5SSX <\;X«''& ^^o i^ssX 

sidi airsmss oi b-iocst edi xiX eoxi&bivs cfc^fcrn/tfa si d'X9i£T 

^jsxiJ- ibxxs ,fflgi/crfio(f elite: bsic'.elL£ii am; srilfeXix/tf oi£* iMi tioliuei^mo 

bSLB TVoXscT .txfQm*-.t*5cr« Bd!i xao'x'l fjs'xB^xxs -vi&xl* ^rfXiaiai'Xisqfi jEff/o "Kexi nx atexf* 

xfotra Qi iB^Qolt &xt3 sXXbw oxi^ xiBwotxi^ «iiislbXi:i;tf &xli lo ad"s:j8q tesiio 

-iaooxiij ii<5VXBXso'ilo •^I^xas^d'Xfs sxsieoorf aaeiffia'iq aCoa9; oxf^ isri;* ;^a»^X9 ns 

fcaitx^oa aj3w b'xoXbxisX ©xIT *xoa&quooo xoi oi'iiiu ooi&bns:c bxiJe eXcfeisol 

gxtx'^.ki'xqt, 'ta agiid ex£# etiMiiLui'x&^x.&- oi bsiq^nii^ bass ooXilbnap aixiW 1© 

a:£oo'i eilT »a*Xx/a9M: iaoxC^iw ;fij«f tjanibXiwcf ©xfet v^uoxIaiifO'uIJ ©jisao'iaaC 

sflv/ ooxioxi faxia ,o:.u^oix£v'> I'o 15*10 erf* lo xf^JX^Oif lo fctijeerf eki hialtlica 

iosii'"t i\£ildiOii Jwcf txxxurtev axl,* »^B«ijffi9;tx9 o;f ili»tjtiiijXq 00 b*Ti3« 

&iU no bxttfO'xjB bsXwaxo Qswcf e>iii it^Ai bektiieQi eitORbxiolad: ', Mtob a^w 

»xi* xiJ: *xioa«i(i s'lew bxtc ^agiixXxRo 3xf;t ri6 ,0x2001 bwoXisv oxf^f £ri IboXx 

TsaxiuX oa I)Xuoo Y9i£cf j«if.t bcus ^e&dtoXo xi&di no &nc e^tesoXo :.xic bail 


remain in the apartment v/ith ooini'ort. 

Our courts ha.Tc held that a o on b true Live eviction may take 

places eyen thou'-h there bs no -^.ctual physical exptdfiion, where acts 

of a grare nnd permanent charBcter, amountin?: to e clear indie- tion 

of intention on the part of the Landlord, are coimaitted, 1:0 as to 

deprive the tennjit of the eujoymsnt of the demised premicos. ( geney 

Vt aimmerroan, v^29 111. 75, citing GibTjpna v» Hoefeld^ 2vC 111. 455^ 

and Keptin;-'' v. gpxin^ejjt. 146 111. 481 f v;here it was said (in the 

Keating case 7 s upra ) 9 that 

"the landlord, \«ifchout beinc guilty of actual disturbanoe of the 
tenant' e posioesisioa, may yt t do i. uch actE as will Ju^rtify or 
vmrrant the tenant in leaving the premises. The latter may 
abaxidon thu picm&es in c ontj e -^uenc e 01 ti-uch acte, or he may 
continue to occupy them. If he abandons them, then the circisa- 
stti-ucea "v.iiich jut uxxy euch al).;Xic'onraent, taken in co/iaection ,/ith 
the act of abfindonment itaelf , will support a plea of eviction 
aa against an &.ction for rent.** 

'.vis find no bedbug in Illinois, bu"o dGfendc?iits' counsel 

cites tvvo authorities- in sieter states which are precisely in point. 

The first of thcBe is I-elamoter v. I"jorem,nj^ 184 Minn. 428, wherein 

the presence of bedbugs in the defend.^it' e apartment rendered it un- 

tentable and it wae held to be a valid defeiase in an action brought 

by the landlord for the payment of rent. The court there said (pp. 

429, 430): 

"There is much in and -bout euoh an apartmen-;; bnilding 
far beyond tht oorsitrol of a tenant in one of the apartments. He 
oannot interfere mth the Yvalls, partitions, flaons, and ceilings 
"7."herrin th : verminous ciemy may "propagate; nor can he interfere 
■with the cracks sjad openings afrcoruing an opportunity of access 
from such V7-, lis, partitions, floors, and ceilings into the 
apartment. If the attack is sufficiently asrious iurid coaaes from 
this source, it vlolrtfs the laji^ilord^a implied coven.:int that the 
premises wxll be habitable. ( S bil th v. liarrabl e, 11 M. l-. W. 5} 
* * * Battermsji v. Levenson. 102 Miso. 92," 168 if. Y. S. 197j * * *.) 

'^.i are of the opinion that the evidence iiupports the find- 
ing of the jury that the vermin c-irae from a source within the juris- 
diction 01 t|ie landlord under the rule str-.tsd. 

"The evidence is also sufficient to show 4hat the presence 
of the bedbug:; in .iuch larc^ numbers caused the gre^.test discomfort 
and distress to plaintiff and hia familyj and, nince it i/as, under 
thrj firidijigs of th' jury, due to d'/fendsntn* fr:ult, it was sufii- 
cient in law to constitute a constructive eviction, and plaintiff 
was justified in vacating the premisea aa he did." 

st'&i^ X^m rfoXrto.b/9 9Tx;'-»wx?enoo s ^Bd.i blBd erssi a^-ryoo T-uO 
aojt^r-.oibnx xssXo s o.t Bni-itrajcisx- t-isicimpiio i-non',-jsnsq fortes 9r.fsrts e lo 

<cR^ »XIT 09C j|A41?L^l?ii ♦"■''■ ggotftfl^) sniJ-io t3V «XXi ^SC j^asmTaaraJtS .t 

s.d5 ni) ii>x,sa a*iw iM ©'£srfv/ ,X8^ ♦XXI hi?! ^'ZO^ntts^Q .V sMiMi ^«® 

■^3Ki rss,t5'^X stiff .ssstoaiq ^isf* ■rii'iiTsoX aX iTftsiis^' ©xi^ jnjsi'x^?/ 
'^mt axi TO tSto£ xio-ya io ©cAi»fii.;yefloo xii saaiiacixg i»xi^ iiobuBCfja 

iJ;?^±w xiox;tooi-?xico as. ii3:i3i tiiismi<i')aHdi& liox/a 'c'iiw3£i£, iioXxiw asoiy&A^ 
iioi^ox'/& Ip .39Xq ^ i-ioqqii-H XXImt ,lX«)a.ifi: ;?.ci©w?ab«ad'« 1.0 ioB a*f * ; 

^.^iis-x •XGx floicto^ I5i3 ;Jani^g,a SIS 

»ixixoq iti: %Xaai:oa'x<j $'i:.s iioMw a9*B*ii xotaJLa itl :-isi:^it©4*^'6 ^^* *®|f^l?^.i 

ixisiadw «8S*' .xmiM i^SX x^M6>JjO_;? .v tca^ BBtsX ag ai ©asif* 'io ^a»il: silT 

-j:?^ *i ba'xabxto^x ^sasisiijsqr. 3 ♦^^arj&nslaft sj{i jcii s^udhed lo soaoaeiQ oil* 

uxISLfO'icf noii'-oj3 ixs jhx ^amtob biXav s so' o;} bXsrf saw *l bos ©XrfjD^na* 

sH . a^xi6iKi5- .cy^i; orli '5:0 aiio fiJ: dximia;^ a to lotimo adi l'noxf>cf -tsl 

BSai,XiQ» bixe tOMcXl ?iSflOx;JX;t'ir.q ,?iXX^.w @di diiv^ 9lsli®Sni :roi:mao 

9'xs'i'Xf3*xU 3ii 0/:5O ■XO0 J o?.3jii;K;[0"i;Q i:>8m M;r5i3iio axionimtisY eriJ nXartarf-^^ 

oHd' oJi-sX a-ifuXloo bjCB ,aiooXl tanoliiiXBq, taXXswifoxrs moi'i 

laoil 8®isK)o bn.G awoi^aa ■'iX^xis.ioi'ilija fai jfojsd-^a Qdt 11 ♦^rrscx* "3:0(1.0 

©jfl* ^.rj^d' ;}xi.rin5VOo b»iXc£mx 8»6ioXbnx,?X 9xf:f aeJ.GXoiv it tootcwon aMcf 

10 ,¥/ A ,K XX taXcf.ofXfii:'^ ,v dil^) . sXcfr^i icf.^ ad XXiA^ assxma^q 

[.a- * * j\'(?X«a .Y .¥ 8dX «1j» .obxM'SOX .nocnoval ,-y JX'';f!n:sJiBa> * * 

-onil ed^ aitoqqjsa ©ons&Xvs v>if* *.sirfcf riOxxixci© srfj 'io 0X.9 &*.'^' 
-atrsjl &iii £ildi}.\-f ao'zuoe s morl sra-so ahsnev »jd* ^t.^^u^;^ XtiJl ^di Io s«i 

*&«;f.c:^a BUn &di ♦xs&iiu &ioXbmsX a^!;i;J-'iO aoXdoJ:i> 

jf-iOlctooeXb ^aa^.eo^S arJ-J . hsam-.o aT:itvcfimrn ':^-:ljsI dosja xit egi/crbecf $xt* 'to 

xabtw 5 jisw j^i: ao«ii^ tbxts lYXifflcl airf hn-s tlXinixsXq oi asBtialb baa 

-il'lwa 3BW Ji t*Xtrf<^ 'ei*H'''f)ii^''lo5 o;t .oxfb ■ <Y'^J=xt -'XJ^ "io usxi-tbril: £xfJ 

'i'iJfcc^niiiXq bnu ,noxJoXvo ©vld-owtctenoo 5 e^yd'iJ'anoo o* wal ni ineio 

".bib Bd a« aoaxxrrs^-xq srW Tiiii:;f.iOi>v ni iJc.niJej.rt '^£<w 


In Streep v. Simp song 80 Miso. 11. Y. 666 (141 M, Y. Supp» 
863) » the tenant vacated the premises one month 'before the expir- 
ation of his lease » and when sued for rent defended on the groxind 
"that the presence of "bedhugs caused difjcomfort and distress and 
rendered the premises untenantahle as living quarters, •• There, too, 
it appears that the landlord had made attempts to exterminate the 
"bugs, without success, and that the l5ugs came from the apartment 
below defendant's. The court held (p. 668) J 

"An intolerahle condition v/hich the defendant neither causes 
nor can remedy seems to me warrants the application of the doctrine 
of constructive eviction. The rule in Jaoobff v. Morand , fs9 Misc. 
[St Y.) 200, in regard to "bugs and .-mts witldxi the ap-rtments, v.hich 
can be dealt with by the tenant "by processes kno./n to all housewives, 
should not he extended to cower offensire and unhearable nuiaa,nceB 
outside of the apartment. This tenant could not pull doi.m the walls 
of the ceilings. Ke and his family ought not to be compelled to pay 
rent for an apartment in which they could not live." 

The law is well settled that evidence cannot "be considered in 
passing upon the question of the legal propriety of entering a judg- 
ment non obstant e veredi cto* Such a judgment "will not be rendered 
where there is substantially a material issue or a good defense, * * -*« 
hut only in cases where it is clear tha.t the defendant has no merito- 
rious defense under v/hatever form his plea may be interposed, vhsre 
there is a conflict in the testimony, in actions at law, it is for 
the jury to weigh and determine the evidence admitted by the court 
as competent, and a trial court has no power, when a jury is not 
waived f to determine the weight and preponderance of conflicting evi- 
dence introduced to establish or disprove the facts. To do so would 
be an invasion of a defendant's constitutional rirhts to have the 
facts passed on by a jury* ( Mi rich v. Forschner Co ntract ing Co ., 
312 111* 343, 356.) In passing upon a motion for judgment non obstante 
veredicto under the new civil practice act, the trial court has no more 
authority to weigh and determine controverted questions of fact than 
under the practice act of 1907. ( I12i:B.QJJ,J^.®.^°"^o^^ ^ ^^^ tarium v. 

-cf.ig:55:sf sjflJ &'£o'i&d' rfiaoaa ©no asaJteis-ig Qdi bs^aojev ,J«Ba©* ©i:?^'' «(o98 

b£iMO'x.'B> sri^ iso So.&rj[i9l:©& dKart -xo'i bona naiiw 5ae ,9essX s.fcx£ "io ii©J:J* 

&!i:js 8S9's:;t3i;b bun « so'lraooaib Sssji/xGO agircT&ecf lo eonoaetq axf;^ JBfl*'* 

^JnsflCtiBq.e s£f^ hoxI antso e^^wcf arid ^sctcf biim «aa3ooxiis Jworlct-iw «as*rcf 
t{8dd .q) blQd i-issoo ©xiT . a ♦ #ai3.6ao"W6 wolatf 

©nitcd-oob 9rict xo noictGoiXqqs ©iiij a^ri^-xT^BV/ ©fit oi bssq&s ^siaai iico rsoxx 

aeoi^iJBaifcn: alds'xB&ditj/ diie STii^ftal:'!© tsrvcs fsJ feobiisi^jce scT J or; &Xi;©ria 

0XX.3W s£f* jTvvOf) IXujj iort feXwoo tm^fia* alifT **n©Rt>J'S£q^ Biii lo 3bin,Jiro 

^^sq 0^ fo©XX©q;JBCO s^ o:f .-Jon cJrfsyo x£h&£i'i sM bxis sH #es«iXJ:c>6 ©ft* ^o 

♦*,QviX wOfi bXwoc" fojid- ifoMw h1 ;Jn©aj*'iBq;*'. rtG ao'l Jnstt 

stl bot^bieaoo ad" ^omxr.s eoH2.biTa i^di feal^^oe XXsw el vteX ©if? 

&0^0b«©^ etf (ton Xlivi* *jti©iE3lE)i;j; js. jdoi/c ♦ojr.q l&aiay &ismiGdxi nosi inBm 

t>-xr * * ,6ario"3:ob .boos s -0 siraai Isx-i9d-.3JBr ^ tXXaiixiiJiJ'atfaa ai si sif;? sterfi-/ 

-o;^ii9ja oa a.Bri iT£B5i:i3lQ& erid' ^.G£l^ ^rjsaXo "ai #x sisifw aoaxso «1 -^XfiO tfurf 

♦col al #i «waX i'B SGOiv+ojG kI t^ixsofflla-soj »rf* ax ^olXllxoO jb a'i-9T«iJ* 

ioa ax si'tisl a a&dw ,'X3woq on euiCi d^oo X-ell* a bnj& «*ja9^»q.iooo,;BB 

foXwow oa o& oT .a^o.a't eric? sroTcqaib teo .^SixXrfBis© o^ b^ovbaiiai. o^nsb 

■^j8,«oQ ^jtiiitJBiiaoO •geigfoa^o^i: «y ffoitl^) *^rcwt.« "tcf ap SsiaSiSQ stent 

a^rtfl^Hdo noxif ^rtsisa&at lo'i woi^oas J3 I5H3(£0 auiacsisq; «I (.aS€ ,S*S 4XXI SXS 

aioa on 2SJ3II ;^:txroo Xsi-x;? ari^ «*c« ©oX^oB'xq^ Xirii) w»J3 ©jl* T^fem? oioi bersr 

imdi. ioiit 'to aiififiiaejHp 5e*x&voi^ixoo fsaimnoiBb fixw i^iew 0* '^dlttorfd'xjfi 

Springflelfl Marine Bank i 282 111* App, 14 •) 

Subsection 3o of seo. 68 of the Civil Practice act 

(Illinois ctate Bar -tats., 1935, chap» 110) provides that 

"If the party in whose favor the verdict of the jury v/as rendered 
shall assign eri'or in the . ppellate or bupreme court upon the 
order of the trial court entering judgment notiirithatanding the 
verdict, and the Appellate or Supremo Courh shall be of opinion 
that the trial court committed error in ordering or entering judg- 
ment notv.ithitandinG the verdict, such court shall reverse auch 
order and judgment and shall order or enter judgment in accordance 
with the verdict of the jury, unless it shall appear thiit there v/as 
error in the case that would have entitled the party in v/hose favor 
judgment notwitheitajiding the verdict was entered, to a new trial if 
such judgment had not "been entered by the trial court, in Vchich case 
a new trial shall be ordered." 

A esse in point construing this provision of the statute is McJJeill 

v» Harrison & Gons , 286 111* app. 120» A careful exr.mlnation of 

the record fails to dir, close th&.t there was any such error in the 

case as to have entitled plaintiff to a nev/ trial, and, in fact, 

no t;uch motion wc.£ made by plaintiff. The cause ?.'at3 fairly tried 

and the jury v/ere fully justified in finding from the evidence that 

defendants* apartment became table. Under the circumstances, 

it was error for the court to enter judgment non obstante v erediet Oj>_ 

and it is therefore reversed tun] the cause remanded with directions 

to enter judgment on the verdict of the jury* 


3\jillivan, i^» J«, and Cicanlan, J., concur* 

{•M ♦nqA .1X1 £8S .(.^nag &SJirm^l»ri^Jat'i3^ 

i.adi^ aeh^oici (Oil .q^^fD ^c'oSI ^^BtB^r. 'ifM BiM»3 alontlll) 

xioiii.5:cj[0 lo 9tf Xljjiia ,tiij'00 a«r^."i<i«S ^o ©^^'.XI-scrcxA sri;t bxic td*aibt6T 

©oxxj?»'£ooo.£-» iil itGCisQ&jjit 'ssSks 10 tfttb'ro .CXfjrfa bos ii-£aiagfej..«-t iE)ns -lebio 

^OTa'i 9flo.dw ni "^^l^csq &tii bn£.il-ja.& QV-ml bluov; i\s.siy o-xeo ®sii ai. rozi& 

aeso iloId[;v ai t^'xaoo X^irs;} Sii;} .^tf bexe^^o rsaad' Jon h.?id iaatm^hvl doU& 

*',&9T9b'io 9cf XXv!xla Xaii^ wsrx js 

^^^^isW;^ sJ?: 3#j;K'\cid:3 &d^ "to jso-taiTro'iq aM;^ laliirx^ajisoo iett&ii &i sq^o A 
1:o xioicfjsalnfcsjca Ii/"X9XB0 A ♦QSX aQctA .XXI dSS ^ eia^ 5 :& no. a Xx' i aH ,t 

itioa't ns. « bOB iX^x'sd' w»n s oj lli^tnisXq, S^X^Xd'na sYsif 0* bs ©gbo 

i^&'SJvmismsD'tlo ftxf.t lubnTT .oXcfscMtfariaxwi/ snisoQcf itnsct^iiiqs 'si^itabnalsb 

snox.-toG'tib riifxw 5.9fjx}sM»'x ©aai^o oil* &xia ftsJS'savst sialiS'xorf* ei *i fees 

»X^0t ^J^^ ■*^© d^oibioy Strict no ;3'n9fiis50t ii^ifi© oi 




EU JCiiTCCEPy, as Receirer of 

Appellee , 


CHICACX) et al«> 



Appellant ♦ 





■y r- 


© W ^Qj ^^ 


The first National Bank of nhicago, appellant, appeals 
from a decree for '^^'48, 341*98 rendered against it. Complainant, 
receiver of Rosenwald & VfCil, a corporation, appointed at the 
inBtnnce of a Judgment creditor of the corporation, filed his 
"bill against The First xJational Bank of Chicago, J. Capps & Son, 
a corporation, and Harry G. Kipfer, Max J. Beep, John H. Vogwill, 
Dam Schackaan, Leon F. Oppenheimer (Ottenheiaer) and Sd-ward S. 
Weil, as officers and directors of Rosenwald & -eil. 

The hill contains two principal charges: (1) That the 
officers and directors of Rosenwald & Weil conspired to defraud 
its creditors hy pleding all of its merchandise to the defendant 
■bat^, thus preferring the hank's de"bt to the claims of holders 
of hends secured ^y real estate formerly owned hy it; that the 
pledge was made in violation of a provision of the charter of 
Rosenwald & veil requiring the consent of two-thirds in amount 
of the holders tf preferred stock to any mortgage or the creation 
of any lien on its assets, and was, therefore, invalid. (2) That 



'■■-- '■ ''V 

,:^. -N. 

,. ■, .'^^•la-t^S"^*!^ 


'v • 



©If ae' ' 

*i%iiUDD iiaoo\i,Tfiuoo (' ^. -. ;^ . , 10 ^iAS ^is^ifAE ^gi«t rap-' 

•^ -O, *^i, 1^ g ?J W ^® / 

( »ttdjis£>fiolsCi 

"50 JlA€t aJi.aOI5:A« fSHIl RS3f 

• XiaV.' !& &Xswii9iSOil to a*sod-ad!s:ils biifj Bt^omo as tXis^' 
*BrfT (S) .oiiL^vni ^..xpJetsd^ ,as^ ttu^ .^teaa^Bix m noil x^^^ Ic 


the same ofiicerB anc' directorfci f ruuc'ulently assigned the lease- 
hold oi the place of businesn of RoBenwc.ld ft ,.eil to J. CappB & 
Sent a corporation, defondant, and fraudulently entered into &n 
agreement ^J?ith it for the aale "by it of the merchandise of Roeeiiwald 
& ..eil on a commission basis » and pursuant to the agreement said 
officers and directora turned over to J. Capps & Son the customers' 
lists of UoisenYrald & weil snd direrted profits from the latter cor- 
poration fcr rfhich they and J» Capps k Gon should account. As the 
decree dismissed the cause as to .T . Ca,pps & Son It is only necessary 
for us to consider charge (l)* The cause v^as referred to a master 
in chaiiccry* who heard all of the evidence. t that point in the 
hearing the term of of x ice of the ajaster expired » hut by stipulation 
he was appointed a special coiflmissioner and ordered to file his 
report of the testimony together with his conclusions of law and 
fact* Hi8 reT)ort found that the allegations oi the bill were not 
sustained "by the evideuoe aad recommended that the hill he dismissed 
for \!?;-.nt of equity. Complainant* s exceptions to the report were 
sustained by the chancellor > and a dRcree waB entered finding that 
the pledge of msrohandi&e to the Baiok w?,s fraudulent and void and 
ordering that complainant rccorer from defendant The First National 
Bank of Chicago the sum of ;^48»341.98 and that the said officers 
and directors of Hosenijyald & Voil r.^ndeT an acooxmt of all moneys 
received by theaa as commis?tons or othf^rwisc from January 20» 193l»i 
to the d^ e of the appointment of complainant as receiver, "and tiaat 
the court retain jurisdiction of the subject matter until the coming 
in Ox said accoiint for the further disposition of the matter as to 
such defendants, and that said a ccoxmt be filed within thirty days 
from date hereof. It is further ordered that the proceedings be dis- 
missed as to the defendant, J. Capps is Sons." 

The theory of appellant is -that the pledge in c^uestion m.B 

St Mq.q.0^' '■?• Qi Xi&vl rS bXswjSsao^ lo assnigx/cf "Jo soj&Xq mlS lo 6Iorf 

&X0wr»2OH 1:0 saJ:&iii;^o'?9m BiU tc vtx va eX.'^cj odi 'xox ^i: rlJxvr tfnsmosrrsjs 
bxBa ixi?3fit 99^55:? 9iij o;J ^niEUBtiiq bciB taia.-scf noiaexiKsioo ,b no i;i»#' 4 

si^ all »inijoooB felircria £ro3 #. 8<jqsO ^X bxxa -^csxfiJ ifoxife lot aoi^tsrroq: 

sifJ Ki iwxoci i'^^xf^ *A. .c^oaa^Jtvs sdi io llsi fe^aaif ©xlwr ,X5fSsr ■- '" -■ 

x£0,UjeXijqxij'a ^jd" ^^j^d* « ^C'-sIqxe isifssm QfC* "io'o&i^ito .1e jat?if 3;d;* giiii^-aii 

aifi &U'l o* bsxab^ &ixs xsxioi3sxmax5.o Xsioaqa jfs &sdxii©(jqe a^ SKf 

bns K^l to anoxsx/Xocoo sirf r£;}xw ledi&'^oi -^J£lO£Etxd^3o;^ sxi* lo dioijrd* 

#oa 9i3sr IXxg' &«£? 1© finoxJ-Bsell* &sii tnAi bcmdl ixcqo'i alH •^oa'l 

ste-vir ^xo^L'S^ ©rf^ ot ancit^soxis" 8 ♦*«eai«XqiaoD •'ti'Jti^pe 1:©' j^jS^tr 'Yol 

e-xsoillo &Lea 9i£* *,Bifd^ bfifc 8§*Xf*S48l'* lo Ws edd o^Mnkm lo a(x?«Jr 

^XiS?X ,05. 'ts'r.oxjriinX jsotI saiwTcs?>ri^o ^o eiiol'seisaffieo fe^ SseJS^Sstf &&Tiso»t 

snxraQo sdi Itims x^iiBm #o©&rf0a ©rf* to noi^toifeaix^t jra^i8J%* *tc«oo ox£j 

-;jx& se' as£(ib©9ooa(i airC* iBsii boisbio tQdizjsl iii ^t .ld©tsi( »^fe BOtl 


mac'e In good faith upon a valuable considf^ration, Tiz«» the exten- 
sl-A of an admittedly vslic' indelitednese of t215»000» which waa 
then du3» pnd the adTanceiaeat "by the hank of $10 » 000 of adciit^.onai 
ftmds; that at th^ time of the pledge Roaen'smld & veil w?is not in- 
dehted tc any trade creditor, 'snd its 'bookn did not show the exist- 
ence of jay ohligatien to hondholders hecause» in 1997» l"i ha<l 
coiiTcyed the premfeeF f;' curing said honds to a purchaser, Who had 
asotuaed their payropnt, and had in fact made all ppywentB due thereon 
ittitll January J 1931: thr-.t the bnnJc dlf^ n^^t kno?? of the Itehility of 
Rosenwald & veil on these hondB at the time it accepted the pledge 
anc' extended adf'itional c reditj th^-t there ie no evidence of any 
intent on the part ci rjayoae to defraud creditors and that, at most* 
the pledge -was a preference which could only he avoided, if at all# 
in bankruptcy within the four aonths* period prescrihed in the Bank- 
ruptcy Act? * * * that the pledge cannot "be attacked* an "beyond the 
limitation of the charter of Kosen^ald & /eil, because it was given 
to secure a loan made in the regular course of Dusiness, arid was 
afterward ratified "by the preferred stookhoiders; and that in any 
event, the charter provision was intended solely for the protection 
of atookholdersf &M its transgression could not "be challenged "by 
the coinplaii»U3it ; * * * that the amount of damages awarded against it 
cannot be reconciled with ai^ possible theory of the evidence. •» 

The following ere the material findings of the special 

"I find fro» the evidence that Tosenvirald & V/eii, Inc. 
carried its account v/ith Mrst Jiational Jajrik of Chicago for a numljer 
of years prior to the incidents complained of hy the Compla.lnant 
herein, i^'o proof was offered a^ to the exact d&te when bankin- re- 
lations were first estahlished hetweeB Hosenwald & veil, inc. and 
the defendait S'irst .National Bank of Chicago. 

•*The testimony shows an indehtednens of F.osen^^ld ?:■ veil 
created in December, 1933, ag,/reg:iting #300,000.00, of ^Oaioh there 

-«i ^-on's/jw ^II:si&' S> blB'wnQBO'K sgfesXq; Siid: !«; -ami* ®i"fl *s d'&d^: la^^i^ft 
had i:i «t'sei itl sSaWBOScf sreblorlbnoti ©* noi^jsgiloo ^ij !:$>■., a&||& 

%£l& *J3 li ^isfeiOTJB ^d Xiao blsioo 4^iiii^' soasioterq, a ««w ^l>9Xg ffil* 

%(£ b^th'Blliido &^ ism bluoct HQJtan&'s^BSisni Bit !mB ia^©4Xeii!foo#a lo 
*i: ^axji^^ Ssfe*£sw£ aagsatsft "io ^naciss ©ifd- t»A^ * * ^ iiuisMB£q,moo ed^ 

Xaiosqia sMJ- io BSi-u5i2J:l: Xsiiod'ajEr arfJ 9^.3 gniwoXXo^ adT 

..■ ■ ' ., ; V ,/ .,.,-.„'...■;:.; !,. J t9XSCX3SXiIIfiI360 

-SI ^jXii;inj3cf nssrfw s^^f) dosxs -^di- oi ess bai^'iio ai?^' locscq o& .aioaorf 
fens tom «Xio& si &lsv;«OHo5i isssw^ed' bcirfaiXcfaJao ^a-sii s'isv aaoi^fjsl 

X±»W :^ 6X.f«^£iyi;©H to an&iib®i4f&bak ac awoiSa y;fiojKi4-BP!i' exfif'' 

XaoH 0,cii^ o;} CO.OOO^oa^ 6ub ,i['xoY woL lo xccxiti jf^i--^ Isxiolis^li si^* e* 

of GhioagOf and this collateral consisted of assigned accounts 
receiTatle. In the month of December, 1929, the indehtedzieso 
above referred to was paid in full throu^^ collection of the 
collateral so deposited aa eeourity* 

"In January» 1929, another loan \ms made by the Pirst 
National Bank of Chicago, to Losenv/ald & ..eil. Inc., and on 
April 15, 1931, an additional vlO,'X>o.O'' of nev/ money was Ijaned 
by the iirst National Bank of Chicago. The loans last above 
referred to were made in regular course of business and the 
proceeds of such loans were used "by >:0Benwald & jeil, Inc. in 
due course of business. 

••In addition to the llOjOOO.OO loan so made on April 15, 
1931, and at that time, a note for *215>0CK).0O was also executed 
by Rosenwald & .eil. Inc. in faTor of the defendant, l?irst National 
Bank of Chicago, said last mentioned sim being new indebtednesB 
Incurred by Sosenv.ald & ..eil, Inc. ccmr^.enoing in January, 1929 > 
and continuing in increased amounts to April 15, 1931, - the note 
for f 215,'"i''O.0O 60 last above referred to consolidating into one 
note various smaller notes representing moneys loaned frcm. time 
to time prior to April 15, 1931. The two notes for '10,000.00 and 
C^215,'^^0.00 respectively were produced before the Master, and 
photostatio copies thereof vfexe offered in evidence and are here- 
with returned as Complainant's Exhibits Ho. 6 and 8. Photostatio 
copies were also offered in evidence as i-lxhi'bits tro. 4, 5 and 7, 
such being notes given to represent current indebtedneBs of 
Bosenv/ald & .,eil. Inc. to the First iiational Bank of Chicago. 
The total indebtedness on said notes at the time of the hearing 
before the Master aggregated |113,112«6l, consisting of CIO, 000.00 
evidenced by Exhibit Ho. 4f S7500.O0 evidenced by Exhibit Mo» 5| 
{;.10,0C)0,QO evidenced by abdiibit Mo. 6j |5000#00 evidenced by 
Exhibit Mo* 7 and ■ 80,612.61 evidenced by iishibit Ho. 3. 

"At the tiae the |'10,000.O0 loan was obtained on i.pril 15, 
1931, there ^e pledged with tke defendajat First National Bank of 
Chicago as security therefor certain raw and unfinished merchan- 

"The resolution of the Board of Directors of Rosenwald & 
Weil, Inc. passed for the purpose of obtaining such loan, authorizes 
the pledging of said assets for security in addition to the assigned 
accounts theretofore held to secure prior indebtedness. The testi- 
mony bears out the resolution of the Board of Directors of Rosenwald 
& eil, Inc. to the effect that the laerciiandise in luestion was Uae 
only asset pledged at that time. 

"All the collateral, including the raw and unfinished mer- 
chandise pledged as above set forth, given to the First National 
Bank of Chicago By Hosenwald & v/eil. Inc. to secure its indebtedness, 
was liquidated in due course of business with the exception of a 
faee value amount of |36,234.49, consisting of* Junior mortgages, 
?14»204.66; Sundry notes #llp361.43 and assigned accounts, f'10p2e8.40. 
Said last mentioned items were held by defendant » First ¥ational Bank 
of Chicago on the date of the hearing before the Master, to secure 
the balance due said bank of i^ll3,112«61« 

"The testiacmy further shows that Bosenwald & eil. Inc. 
had only one account with the defendant, First ilational Bank of 
Chicago, at the time of the aforesaid transactions, and such 
account was represented by the signature card introduced in evi- 
dence as Itefendant First isational Bank of Chicago's .exhibit So. 3. 

a^xajfJcofi seisgicaa 'to bsj^aiano? laicajslloo axrf* bos tor^soltiO to 
M;>' 'io a:oi;}e9i:X<JO s^^i(y%Jii T.Lst as. bk^q, asw o* b&tXQ'i&t atods 

aa l«ss <»onI tXi-dfif :& fcXsaraaaoiJ o;? tOSssJtrfO Io :^a&6. ImtoliaU 

osiiBoX a^w Tf^nois sfori Io O0.0Of>«0X> Xx^noi:;l'ibt>fi ££3 tX^iftX <2X XiicqA 

svae'js iQBL axiecX srf5 .ojiisoMO "Jo i^isaS X^noiifB^i Jarti'-I sif* '^ftf 

■ el •onl ^X^a^V 5& blami&BOhi xd b^Bu .»^3vf aneoX dtiira Io ab-3«o<5xq 

• aesalsycf 'io ©arctfoo 9«f> . 

tdX XiiijA no 9&sa oa nsoX O0»O00«OX| sxii o;f isox^xfeba uI" 
&sti?o©sa oaX.'-! ae*- (X)»0O0*3X£^ t£Ox f^JoK « t^mXi i^^i in bti^ «XCeX 

aseafes'dfffs&jfii vsxi gaiacf mse b&tiolisi'sss $r,&L bias tOrgBoMO Iro 3Eus£ 

g-^-6'X t'V:-J3J»K^'^ "i SciowsniKiOo tOxsX »Xle^- ;& bX^xmoaoH i:cf baTiiiofli 

s^Oit 9il# - t^sei ,ax X-itqA o;J aiiXifOiac &sai;iiaiC0i-ti al gaiiinid-iioo bets 

©BO C'*3i: B/iiJ-ssSiXo.^noo 6* belts tsT STOrfa is^X os Cm", 0' 00' ,3X5*. ^Ot 

bUM Ofy,000^0l^' ^ol as;fo« ©j^J sriT ,XCeX ,ex XlTqA ocT loitcfi &mii 0* 
b«s ,T9#eiif^ 9rf* »tcoletf &eof;&OT:<j 9t£9-.Y yXstI^osiibsi 00.000, exSf 

oWs-feodofH .8 &XJJS y ^eH s^Jtd'iifciS s»;fx«5xii:j3XqaK>0 ss fs^cxu^Js-s: xfcTiw 

. t? &XXS a t* 4^1- ad-XcFxifeUH" Si^ ©©ao&ivo ni ?)9i9lld oaX.3 siovr aoiqos 

Io SB3nb34-d"sbni. JfiO'Xiuc Jaeao'rq:©'^ o:t csvxa sajoii. ^alsfi xloiSB 

tG^Siold^ le 3feBJf Xsno±*«la ^stI'? sri* o* * o«i «Xi3w A bXawaaaoff 

00*0(HJ^OXS iG ;'iriIi'ai?noo ,X3»2XX,5XX^ ba^a^sttsss -is^a/sM sxiJ s-soletf 

13 »oa oic'MxE -^cf beaitsriXTO 00.003^6 f-^ ^ol^ -iidiMxii \^ baoa^bira 

♦<tf 5®&f-9fei:vs O0*0005| |5 401 iticTixferE '^rf bssn^oiirs aO.O^ 0,0X4 

*8 *old Jicfii^^ Y^ feos«9&i:T3 Xo»SXd«08^f bits V .cE *ic:"xxfxPT 

^3X Xiiqy. £a> b©jffx«;td'o 3jgw naoX OO.00O,0X-l; edi aali :idi ^A" . 
Io ^^BS X«fi©i^xj|i i^sxii; ;t«tGtealo& sdi d:i±><7 bo^b^lq asw sisifd* «XSt^ 
«£EsMoi&s bsiiainxlnw bns ?f^=i aisitso ■xolsioxii x^-^^^osa as ogsoijctO 

■^ &Xs«?flE©aoli Io e-SQioo'iM Io b'xso€ «rfct 1© ia>i^»Xese'S ^^' 
e^sx-sorit^jx^ «fifioI rfoijs -^nlxxisSrfo to 9iiOJ/i.isqi 9di •eoI bsassq .oru tXxs. 

&3ir%x3a3 9jd# oj noxitibfes nJ: -^jtixjcaa '^co'i 8*®8s.g feisa; "ie 8flii>&®Xg ©xW 

l>Xsr/a©a©E 1:o s'iO^&s'ixG: to b^cs«€ "siJ^ Io aoiv^ijrXoe^'X ©rf* 300 a^.^isd" ^fics 

tumii f^BdA iB bs^&sXg ;f ©-?-?« Y,Xoo 

-isa beiiainilm/ bits wat sii^ SU-J^wXnnX ,Xst9*aiXoo ©d* IXA' 

teaoiit)©dcf©6iix a^i stijtoor: oJ ,ajKl «Xi:©./ s& bXswjasa^H tlS CBsstriO Io a'rtad 

^ae-^ii-%i-iQ& %olmil.'ito rxiX^aisfiOD «e.^. ^S^^^S^ "io ^fii/oistc eiiX«v sosl 

• 0I^*??.32^0X:^' ^sixiiJCaojB fe-as±«S£ baa e^»XdS<tIX| as^osc ig^tbaya |dS.^O£<^X'!^ 

^ifiS Xi3XiOiJ>sH asTCif I i a/ibzst3 Is bT^tf bl'Jd s*^sw ajas^i; bsisei^issia #S£X 5ia-. 

tXaitlXX^eXX"^ lo ^ubkT blise si/b ssasX.scj exC* 
„ 5e :ifriiia: X.-3Coid'3?i iaxk'^ tim^l•^£lBtrtb ^di rfrfj*r ;tis«oooa ^no vXno bad 

This card shows thot the accoiuit was closed on April 8, 1932» 
and such documentary eyidence confirms the testimony of Harry 
S. Kipfer as to the date of the closing of such account. 

"The assigned accounts of the defendant Roseawald & ?'ell, 
Inc. held hy the d?5fendant, Firat ilational Bank of Chicago, b t 
the date of the passing ©f the resolution of the Board of iJirectoru 
of Hosenwald & \7eil, Inc. upon which complainant relies^ w«*re 
handled by the hank on a rcTOlvlng collateral basis in accordance 
with the usual cuetom. Such procedure consists of an interior 
bank account over whida the bank has sole control, and is us;3d 
primarily for se^reg-ation of funds arising out of the collection 
of accounts held as collateral. Collections on assigned collateral 
made by Kosenv^ald & eiX, Inc* '»^ere turned over to the defendant , 
First i^ational Bank of Chicago, and were placed ia this account 
called 'Hosenwald & ..eil Collateral .ccount.* Transfers from this 
account were made only on instruction of the offict^r of the bank 
in charge of the account. Money -isas transferred therefrcaa for but 
ti,vo purposes! (l) To apply on the loan? and (2) To substitute 
for new accounts receiirable in order that the compar.y might hare 
working funds. Both of such transfers v/ere made only by the bank 
xn xta sole discretion. The practice of the bank ia relation to 
the so-called 'revolving assigned accotint collateral srrcmgements , ♦ 
was that so long as a debtor \?aa in good standing substitutions 
were generally allowed at the reiiuest of the debtor> becmse the 
debtor was familiar with its o>m requirements. The whole procedure 
was, hov/erer, optional with the bc-mk. The .witness ICipfer, former 
President of Hosenvmld & ;;eil, Inc., testifying as Complainant* s 
Witness, among other things testified that v^ere money was collected 
^y Sosenwald & .7eilj Inc. on the assigned accounts it was immediately 
turned over to the deffsndant Yirst National Bank of Chicago, and 
that Rosenwald & v/eil. Inc. did not get any of the funds represented 
by the assigned accounts. 

"It further appears from the evidence that during the period 
of these loans, so far as was kno^sn to the First National Beak of 
Chicago, the only other crer? iters of Sosenwald & Weil, Inc. were 
trade crec iters, of whom there were but few, due to the fact that 
practically all bills payable were discounted. The witness Kipfer 
further testified that in 1931 Boseriwald & Veil, Inc. had no creditors 
except the bank, and that this fact v/as showi on the company's state- 
ments. It -ifc.B further testified by the witness Kipfer that such 
bond issue liability was not included in Hosenwald & eil, Inc. 
financial stat^aents* 

*The witness Kipfer further testified that in 1927 or 
thereabouts, and "before incurring any of the present bank indebt- 
edness, Eosemvald & ^eil, Inc. sold the premises securing the bond 
issue to the vjhite Bookhouse, and thereafter the said prmiees 
v;ere iiot carried on the books of Hosenwald & -.ieil, Inc. as an 
asset, nor was the bond issue carried as a liability. He further 
testified ths.t at such time Hosenwald Is veil, Inc. had no crcditorfi 
other than the bondholders. 

"Coimsel for ccanplainant admitted into the record that 
Greenebaua Sons Investment Company, the house of issue of the bond 
issue, knew about the transfer of bhe title to the hite Bookhouse, 
and that Sreenebaum Scms Investment Company, Trustee, was the 
trustee named in the bond issue last above referred to. 

"Counsel for complainant att^npted to bring home notice of 

®^»VT tS9lt«''s: ;tisaflXBlq:E:oo lioM* fioc.if »oiRi tJCiS'^ s^ fcXi'.wxroeciE td 
foitn-brooaa nl alBsd Xs'£s*«XXpo g^TXovss s iso 3ixisd' sjii '^jcf &6X5riJ8rf 

aol^oaXXoo »£Ci^ lo ffwo gclsi'is abnul lo noiJ«3S*S&a sol Y.Xi:i£;i3lT:f 

Is'xe^sXXoo b3n?3iaaa no aaoi^oQlLoO ^Istad-jeXXoo jjb foXexf eimsoocsi Id 

i^fi.afeiislsj) 3rf;J o* %&vo b&mssi ©"saw .»aKi «Xi»W ^ oLs^'iSoac^i 150' s&jssi 

,fffigroGr543 sifi^ tit bBib^ii axatr baa ,os-s»-j^!^"^ "io aC/iJsS X.«jao li^^U tfaii'iL 

siiif aoxi aTslsisaxT ♦.^ru^&ooA Xa'2eif^X©0 Xis&W i^ bljywsmaoE^ b9£l&p 

3iitsa' sxf^ ta tyoill© afi-J a$ xiJOi^ajifT^wxii: no xlm s&sat et9w Jmroooa 

©TjtfiMadsfa oT (S) &nB ^fisoX o£(i- ffo -^XqqjB «T (i) ias80<ixuq ow# 

yjissdl &sii ^<f -cluo o5aM s^o* a'Si^taxiax.;^ j^oiia 'i© xi3o€ •afcai/l s^jia'iovr 

mii eajasosd" fto;fa*f»ij oi£? "io Jasirpst sdi im (ievs^eXXr, -ijiXXaiCiixtss seals' 

tomxol iiBitaDi nnsnik?*' ^'Xf? *£titzt£ orf^ x{*i&- iimoiigo t TSTeu-orl «.ssw 
a»#i3:,SjKx*>XoisoO as ^axXl^.;Js9;^ ««i>ijl «Xi®¥ ^a bXwWu^ooS to fca5is«T^I 

•^iXe*«2i:l?fejJ33-i a.Gvii' ;^i e^sirGoes osaslss*^ srfd- no »ocI «XiO'.'/ ;& & L'j'moao^i ^^ 

fosJfie?a-3'i(j3'X B^nwl 9£[jf l5> X«*» *»B f^-K &ife •ok'^ tXi®''*' sS bXjr^KssoH .fM* 

^mii iost &d!j oi ais'o «%-©! iud b%^w otadi soxf?; 'io ,3To^l'-'e^o ©fcssi" 
■sslqx^ Q39f5;*iv; sxCT .&9*xiiJ0cyi& oisw 9XcfK'\:£Ki sXXio' XXs xllaoiiosn(i 

-s^jsJ'a 3*\g;n;:,-q;!stoo sd^ uo txnodn aew ^i'o^l &£.di ijcidi bdr» tifei^if exf* iq^oxs 
douii ti',d^. 'se'iqi:^ aasaa-iv* silt %cf baiix^aei 'x3if#Tji;'i a-gir il .a^nssi 

."",'/_"■ '■'•■'■'"* a;? fzaisEsiBifa X^-loasul'i 

10 Vsex isi i&£li b3itti&0i n&tUtiiji't tslqia asen^^isr dfiS* 

bfjod" Siicf Biiilucos fisaxeio-jiq 8x1* bloa .oixl tX-tov; rS ftXcwn-aaofl ^aaon&s 

as ea »oft;c ^lisY/ sS bXa'STisoaeH: lo fJaCoooT ^ui* itc bslirs^o ^on atsw 
Tari*'Xi;'i sH .Yi^iXxcfaiJ <s sjs boi^xeo 0i;»-8i: ^aocf srii- ftBt/ toxi «ie?.es 

*B*i9hlodbiac ' ~'^'- :: '" - r{;^o 

&KOtf ed* lo sx/Q^ai: lo oawcxl axiJ «TjmiqfaDi> Sneiffcrcjovril sno-; Baf.3rf»H9©i!B 

• 0* bzii^lQi svocfis #rjBX ®j*8a£ ftfssrf ««fc^ ni osiasfr .ss^aw-t;t 

the bond issue to the defendant Firtt wational Bank of Chic?:.go 
through ; ud "by means of checks produced purporting- to he part 
of the proceeds of the bond iBS-ue loan. It appearsp howerer, 
from the testimony that the checks in question were placed in 
the general checking account of Rosenwald & .;eil. Inc. in the 
First i-fational Bank of Chicago, and no notice other than suoh 
as mi^t toe inferred from the deposit of cuch checks in the 
general checklnij, account of HoKemfald & eil. Inc. was brcijo-ht 
home to the defendant, First i-fational Bank of Chicago. 

"/iCGOrding to the te3tiBiony» the current indebtedness 

to defendant, IFirst iF.tional Bank of Chioago» vvas incurred In 
January, 1929, and there is na shov/ing thr t any oollaTjeral iieid 
by the b£ink MVfi pledgee? after oepteraber 24, 1929> with tfc© 
exception of merchsjidiBe, incluaxTe of "both raw and finiahed 

"ITo tofeitlBiony vme offered tendinrr to shew that the loans 
here in tiueution \iqxh not laade, and collateral pledged, other 
than in the regular and current course of buBiness, 

"The defendant, First Mational Barik of Chicago, produced 
as n witiiesy, ThoBias J. Butler > an .Asfl ctr.nt Cashier of the 
Firct national Bank of Chicago, who testified ?is to the identity 
of the signature of Leasing Bosenws^d appended to def -ndant 
Jiret iTational Bank of Chicago :axh.ibit ifo» 1, and thereupon 
counsel for the defendant Mrst National Bank of Chicago further 
offered in eTidenoe certified copj'' of letters testamentary 
issued in the JDtjtate of Julius Roaenwald, deceaaed, wherein 
Lessing Hosenwald and Merion H. ttern were named i^ecutors* 

•The ^tneas Butler lurther identified the signature 
card of Bosanwald *; eil, Inc« on file in the First Mational 
Bank of Chicago, and identified the outstanding and unpaid 
notes evidencinrj the indebtedness due said bank iroai HosemvaM 
& sell. Inc. 

••Anong the documents so identified "by the witness Butler, 
and offered in evidence on behalf of the defendant Pirst national 
Bank of Chicago, is a consent in ifriting signed by the preferred 
stockholders of Rosenwald & Weil, Inc. reading aB followai 

»t\\!}iereaB, the Board of Birectcrs of Rocenwald & V/eil, 
Inc.. a corporation, at a meeting held on to-wit January 20> 
1931, adopted a certain resolution reciting the indebtedness of 
the corporation to The Pirst iJational Bank of Chica-O ia the sum 
of 0215,000.00, partially secured by the pledge of sundry notes 
and accounts receivable amounting to approximately |130y000»0n, 
payment whereof had been demanded j aaid 

"<¥/hereass, said resolution aithorized and approved the 
exteneion of the existing indebtedness, the lo&n of an additional 
sum of J5lO,OCX).tX) from Bank, the pledge of the corporation's 
stock of merchandise, and the pledge and hypothecation of the 
notes and accounts receivable. 

•»«How, Therefore, in cant-iceraticm of the premises and of 
the sum of One Dollar (#1.00) in hand paid, the undersigned 
preferred stockholders of Rosenw^ad & 'e^l, Inc., a corporation. 
Tout of a total of seven hundred and fifty shares issued and out- 
standing), as Bueh pre^f erred stockholders hereby ^a*ify» J?^^ 
firm and approve the aforementioned resolution and all pledges 
and hypothecations of merchandise of every character, accounts 

©i£^ £?! .©»xC sXtsv & fiJbmms&rOtt "so tm;o&Qs g«i:i;&s£lo Xexafos ea^f 

xie«s! is^^J i^ydi® ^y&ti^.&M qm bm sSsaoMO 1® ifxr^sa I^^fsoi^fcli JiJ'^l'S 

:S-fC-ro'^ef- a^-w ».i>sl < £!:»?? & &j[£syis&v-i0ji: lo tm^osss -si^iioarf©- £.s^:2>n9s 

ias^hneiBti. qS bBbuei^jgiii bLmmtmB. ^ixlma^il In ©♦ji.vtfivijgia zili lo 

0«L'3-jin5jia 6d.t Ijsil'itaa&i: -mdt'xa'i ii^Iti/C ea®/ft#-^ 0i£S*: •: ■■f>'-^ 

• Xaisoxffal $BTl% st£i£ ssi &llt fic .«oisI <iXxef j8. ,feXs'#«DsoH 1:e-^e*fc8# 
l)isc£*sc- DfiB ixsXfoiia^ai j^^o ®ii4' bslii^Jasfei baa iSeu.BQXiiO Tto 3tite€ 
^s7/is3aQH mo's'l xnscf Ssisa sxrS aasxj&a^^shni esi^ r!nit>ii©feive> astojc 

... ;. .,... .,,.■/../, ,/^ «««tl «X:l»f.d|:: 

lawoXXol a£5'§igii:b^»'!: »OiXi: ^XloW aS &Xi3W£S06©g "Ite Bt9ftXofl3C&o;ta 

,.t[GO«000,sCSX^ '^Xs^^islxo'scsgfa od' }}£xliirtsoms sX^svigftCT aifxiofooa^ San 

erf;? lo fioi:^.'SO0if*oq;xii bnjs ©alJsXq arfj ona i oaifeasiioiaar io io©*3 

to fens aaalsasst^ exlj lo floJ:*;8t9*>i3flDo ai «9ic«la«»^ ,woT »" 

;^53agi8rt95fstf ^di ,bJ:s? ftnjsil si (O0.x|) ^bXIou anO Ic i^iao oxl* 

-tiso btm boiSnMi. eaxerfa ^^lil ba& h^^buud ns-ysa lo Isaioi m lo isso) 
as^asXis XX^ !m& n&iijjioa&i: b&tiQiia&ss^^noia sd^ arotqr.p &£«> tsnn 


reoeivaT)le» and/or notes recaiTaMe wMcb. hare "been made to The 
Pirst i-iixoioaal Iraiik of Cliiaaco or Ite noBilnee to atoure and/or 
apply on the indelstedness of Rosenwald & weil* las. 

"•iJ umber of 

Jhares Fame 

50 Max J» Keep (Ge&l) 

50 Bam Schactonsn I Seal) 

50 Jolm H» Vogwill (Seclj 

50 Leon 1?. Ottenheimer (Geal; 

360 Lessiag Rosenwaldj (Seal; 

Sxec^itor Estate of Julius 

Hecenv/ald Deod« 

100 @« A. Hudsoa (Seal)t« 

Yhe coiamissiffiaer concluded his report as f ollovv^s s 

"aae GQB»Qissi<Mier finds that ths ertdenae offered "by the 
Complaiaant is aot exifflcient to orercome the sworn ansvtrers of 
the defendants* 

"S5he QosmlBBlonex conclv-des» "bssiiif? his conclusion upon 
the foregoing facts, that the l3ill of complaint as amended is 
without eCiUity and ohould "be Toy the Court disaiiased for want of 

Complainant contends that the master erred in aasimiag tliat 

xaad&r tiie pleadings in the case tha sworn answer of appellant had t© 

■be OTercome "by two witnesses or the equi*valent thereto > for the 

reason that the general rule invoiced "by the maater doea aot apply 

to the instant pleadings as ths Terifieation to the answer is Isasad 

*'on inforaatiosi suid "belief and such answers have no probative value.* 

Complainant Bisstates the lBXi, 3f the Terification» v/hich is aa 


"Thraaas J. Butler, "being first duly sworn on oath» deposes 
and says that he has read the forer^lng answer by him suhscrihed^ 
ScQOWs the contents thereof ?i.xid that the ssaae ia true to the Taest 
of hlB kriof^'ledge and helief. 

•"Uhomas J . Butler* 

"GubscriTsed and eworn to he fore B»e 
this POth day of Aprilj A* :: . 1933. 

"S« C. Morris y 
(Seal) notary Public* 

In support of his c(Hitenti<m complainant cites Beimel r* Broifan» 136 

111. 586, and People t. \ije8t I^nglev^o od B aHkj)_ 353 111* 451# wherein the 

answers were Tcrified upon inforiaation and helief only. In view of 

our opinion in Relxa aee_ Baak & T rust ao. r* fjalsey j^ 263 ill* App* 546, 

siO" Ou 9&aa na&d &r&£L rioMs/? .9Xg"£3Ti:®»as as^oje ^©\bfis « QX«feTiQo«Tc 

o^ bad i^a;5XXeq:Q;/3 lo 'xswans XHtowa ^ff;t ©aso ©if^ ai Bgnl&A®Xq:' siC*. x©l>7Ci8f 
\lq,q,s3 Son se©^ •sceta.efi ©MJ vtf be^o^ax sXxjt Iat-sis9:i'««f# *eii;t fiOaieaT 

-•-•■■■■■"■ •-■■- ■■•■-^-- ....--■ \vv^- '^v.^:-^^.: ■^« ;-■•-.:# ",-.;r^- _,, , «3wo.rioi 

Beaeq:so tficheo fjo tirmjs y^Issh tsxkt BjkIsi^ ,'Xsi*ja<K •l&/'«ieB)RI^''* 
^batfxioatfria strrf Y.<f rg^wsKs galo^js^ol <?^ life's aeit; ©*£ J^jBifiJ aijr.a qx:^ 

&di riis'xsifw^'tXaJ^' •XXI e8£ ^sCa^g bocweXsaa:: ^a^f *y" #X<^09t 'Sag" i'^^c . rxi 
,9^e ^qtg;^' *ill Sas t-^gaXag ♦■» #gO-tBg^ Y 8& .3lStM.»inmil zuo 

w« are inclined to 'beliere that the master did not err in his 
legal conulusion as to the effect of the pleadings* But if 
it be assumed for the purposes of this ease that the master erredf 
nevertheless 9 the argument of complainant that hecause of the 
alleged error "the ataster'a report is of no valwe," is without 
the slightest aerit» as we are satisfied that the findings of 
fact contained in the report are not only Justified "by the evidence* 
but that contrary findings would have bee© wholly unjustified under 
the proof* 

Appellant contends that "there is no eridenee of any intent 
to defraud creditors. The mere fact tMt a preference al^^t hare 
resulted to d(?feadant by reasoii of the pledge afforda no ground for 
its avoidance. •* I'he principle of law stated in the contention is 
undoubtedly sound. (See Wood v. Clarlct 121 111. 359# 366j Merchants* 
jiational BanJc v. I^SaSL* ^.^^ -^^^ ^^9 S54| Ba%yer v. goyer^ 109 ill. 
461» 465; Bo\«a,n v. /ish, 143 111. 649, 661> ^IXl&tm, Beceiver y. 
labhart. 269 111. App. 93* ) In support of its sj'gufflent that "there 
is not a scintilla of evidence tending to establish a prima f acie_ 
case of fraud, or of an intent to defraud»** appellant analyses all 
of th^ evidence that bears upon the stibject. Complainant* in answer 
to the argument of appellant » cites the findings of fact in the 
decree and contends that 'wftitle appellant assigned as Qiem of the 
errors relied upon for a reversal thst the finding in the decree 
are ivithout support in the evidence. It waived the point becsuse it 
failed to argue it and ""Wae findings of facts mint therefor© be taken 
as true, and :we-ari 11 only answer the ar^taaent^ that the cpnclusiona^ 
were er roneoua . " (Italics ours.) a.s a large part of appellant's 
brief is an argument that the findings of the chancellor are not 
Aa?arranted by the evidence, the poaition of complainant practically 
amounts to an admission that the findings of the <^ancc llor c'umot 
be Qupported by the proof and mast be sustained upon teci nical 

■• s.M ftt. "i't*^ t&u Mb T'sf^sm mU ^.sili?- STelXstf oj* fmnilQtil ^-se mt 

d'itjMixw al ^,9fifXjsrv on to el d^^get ia*ir03'a.«ia -*il*'' toiT« b93aXX» 
^sbji*; bBttUBistxiis TjIXoftT:' rjsscf «tJ5ff &Xi?ow e^isibairt x^&xim^ti isu^ $ai 

e^^if ^^ffcjlis i&ocs'ssls'sij B ^mdi is-s't ssa® »i£l* •«'xeli&lt& fejafifi'x'.r.'i;^ o? 

Bl s^lisbifmo -sti^ Hi &SiJ^^s waX to elatonX'sai »iif '*»sSsyK^&ierf«,'af:i 
JLtte^t*! *^**^ «^S5 »-^^^ XfX «T^-£.%Xt> ^-y l^aw, s»a) •li0ij«.Q •ti&ddrfju©t>mi 

• XXI -fox j.'lg.l§i ♦'^ 1®;^S§ ?-Mi «S*€ •XXI iSX ^JISS* '■^ MgaS XggoXJig^ 

•"^ js®:tl.^-^®§-.*M§M.II ^xa§ ^0M ♦xxi sM j|ii^ »'9- i^sg^ctK laa^ «xa* 

&^s4t* *J^£Ci- tftso^B'^^ ^** "^^ S^oq^^it ill C*^s^ »«€^'^ *zii. ^s .^i-SM^i^ 

_©ig£|_,^_i2E ■« ^alXsljS#?3® $4' satXtoatit g&fss&iT^ lo i5XXi#«Xea .a *«s «i: 

. 11b sesx-f.Biii's iS-naXXs^^a *'%.l!>.kk:«5^l3&, ©^ |ps9#sX is® "i^.i© «feCM}%l- %0 a^jse 

ts^^ai^ Kx ^tLisalMlqjm'O •4©-9&^y8 0iS# so^jj aPE3*0' ^mt 9©j?fS&J^.# ia# .,^0 

B©5:s>i?.tJ ^xi* iti aii:r^BK^ Rji:? ^.siJS XJ9«!««T9"t »«»1: i^^ff ft.»XXsWt 83»«S# 

BcgalgcfJsKoo a££^ ;^a tf j _#£t®{ffl3;j|^^ ej£^ ^rywaxaa ^«H» .XXI«i^ <<iv; Not ««j;r%i as 
a**isjBXX®qtTfi 't© ;?x»q: sg-saX jb sa (.81»© aoJtX.n*I) **» ax/^R»ao^T» ai»» 

illroiS OMxq, Stx&aijs^lq^siQQ 'to wox^luoq, »d;^ ,»»«»]> l^aflfir -^ Siia;^a«TSfiO/ 

ipsumo loXX.^acyifo sff^t la asiiibiti'l ♦iil .4^jmI^ aijiealafjr rt?. e$ 9$jisiipmst 

laotruio&S notia b&atstasim »rf itmm hats Tlq^t^ ».r . -„ i-soqqvn »<f 

grounds. All of the eTidenoe was taken "by the special commissioner, 

and as the chajicellor heard no witnesses the general rule as to the 

weight to he given to a chancellor's findings has no application here. 

"All of the testimony taken in this case was taken "before 
the master in chancery. x4one of it was taken in open court. The 
master had seme advantage in being able to see and hear practically 
all the witnesses, but the oheuicelior was in no better position to 
weigh the evidence than we are. Inasmuch* therefore, as the 
chancellor has not seen and heard the witnesses we are not bound 
hy the rule that the finding of the chancellor will not he dis- 
turted unless it is claarly and maiiii eatly against the weight of 
the evidence." ( Ol iver ▼. Robs, 239 111. 624, 637. See also 
the late case of Dtasoh v. Staso'h, 355 111* 581, 583.) 

The question in this coiurt is, Is the decree rendered hy the chan- 
cellor the proper one under the law and the evidence? 

The validity of the de^t of Rosenwald & ¥eil to the Bank is 
not questioned, nor is the validity of any pledge of assets made prior 
to the meeting of the hoard of directors of Rosenwald A Weil on Janu- 
ary 20, 1931, questioned. e are satisfied that the followii^ argu- 
ment of appellsmt is fully supported hy the proofs "It was sound 
hanking practice for defendant, before it advanced the additional 
110,000 on April 15, 1931, to require Rosenwald & V.eil to pledge 
additional collateral, not only for the additional amount then 
borrowed, "but for all of its existing indelitedness to the defendant; 
there was ample present consideration for the pledge, in the form 
of the new loan and the extension of the old one, sad there was 
nothing out of the ordinary in the transaction.*' as we read the 
record appellant merely exercised its le^l right to protect its 
interests as a hank and as a bona fide creditor. Complainant's 
major point that the pledge of merchandise on April 15, 1931f 
"violated the prohibition provision of the chapter and was void," 
and that the moneys received by the hank by reason of the pledge 
should be returned, is without merit. 

In the view that ./e have taken of this appeal we do not 
deem it necessary to consider several other points raised by 

-ax& arf Jos XXx?? tceXX^siisc'c- Q&i lo rjfix&iii'i sil;J iijjrf* ^Isji: Bdi '^cf 

la .tifeiew sdt Ssxsisss •^X^Jas? ixriae ftrm T^Xxf-.-eXo sX i s. -aaolms he€'!i.ut 

o»S.2 9©a .?e3 ,Md *XXI ^SS i.KSoH .T :£SvlB>i »'««ara3i>iT3 d£[;? 

(»£8S eXScl »XXI 855 jdcjsjsJQ .v i^sSBJjj, lo seao s^^X 9if* 

Veoiisfeira sx{* bus wssl edi tahtm strto *r©q:oiq &di «cXX30 
toxtq Bbssst sti&GBs^. "to s|ifcsXg Y^Ji lo ■\4dibi:Xsv ad;? ai tois tbsxiOitasjup Jon 

bmjoe esv ^I''' : Isoiq; erf* \:(r !>©i"ioqqx;a '^XXiJl^^l; ;tiseXXs{iqs 16 ^li«S 

©fgbeXg od- X.E@V7 ^ bl-i-mt^BOfi ^'xXspe^ Off tl&Ql t'dZ Xx-xgA i»"'0O0«"Olt 

a&di iiiL'om^ Xenox^lbba 9di -xoi t^^io *©k tXe!E»^®XXo» £jsneiitbb& 

ldxi3bnslsfo 9ii;} o;^ a3Sxifes';Jrf9bc£ ^xiXi'^axxd s^i lo XXb toI iis<i tfeawoirtetf 

"* srtol 8rx7 X2.C tagfosXq arfo •rox floi^aie&ieisoo ^caae^q slqaas as-sr sisxft 

asvr eo:si-{;t .biM <9Kg 5Xo 9xi^ lo aolarrejJ^xs sjSi bisis njsoX "Sf&m &^ 1© 

sr£* feiSQt 3W s>i ».«ox;^o^38fisiE;t ©i15 nx ■^'XjsnX&xo dri^ 1© ;tifO 3£(M;fO£t 

a^x ^os^o-sq od d-fCgxi XsasX ecfi bsaiotrax© TjXai®® d'xcsXXsqqs Ijiooas 

8 «^££«xii3Xq:isioO .'xoJxfos'xo gi&ll .^od| £! ss biss ^[aBd' fi as 3.^Q9ti:9;fni 

i,lZ9l , ax XJ;'.tqA a;o eaxbaBxio-xoxH lo sgbsXg: Qiii $bsU inlcq Tot^® 

**tfaxov a.n^'- biiK t^jiJiiyio sxltf lo rtoiaivoaij ueliJicfMotq ©xf* bs^aXolT** 

• *ii«ni ii;o£;txw ai , E>acTtr^ a T 9«f bXxfOila 



The officers and directors of Eosenwald and v«eil have 
not appealed from the decree* 

The decree of the Superior court of Cook county as to 

The First Hatioaal Bank of Chicago* appellant, is reversed, 

and the cause is reaaanded with directions to dlsmies coiaplain- 

ant^B bill as to The First National Bank of GMcago, appellaiitf 

for vi/cnt of equity. 

3-m ViMT <.)F a^UITY. 

Sullivan» jP# J*» and Friend, J., concur* 


-*"afor«)o ,„>; ^fessii'i fens it% »-£ sXiaTilXxjS 

1 'is^sr 

__^^_„-~— ^: 


POIL^TIOff, a corporation, 

Avipellee j> 


QiaCO, IJSfC.j ». corporation, 

and DA.VTD (Fjrt^BUBa, 






PtOOJc^'Ola MsxiufB-Gtiaxlns CorporatiOii, a corporation, filed 
its coapisint against Geneo, Inc., a corporation, and three of 
its officers, Lowis ¥. GenElsurg, l^er Gfenelsurg &nd IteTid Oenslnirg. 
Plaintiff \?aB isarmf ac turing and selling e ooin-operated Machine 
sianilatirig' & "baseball gaae, naaed "World's SAXles*** Defendants 
were also laanufacturing and selling a ooin-operated aacMne 
siaailatinf? © "bRBctall gwae, named "Ctenoo Official Basebi^ll . *' The 
cesjplsint alleges that iJefendante were guilty of imfair competition 
in that their maoMne siaiulated plaintiff's, that their at^Tertise- 
ments sijaulatsd plaintiff's adrertisessents, and that such unfair 
practices were calculated to confuse Ijuyers into the heliei that 
tbey were "buying the saae game as plaintiff's. /!il though defendants \ 
pr^iptly filed a verified answer to the complaint a temporary injunction 

was issued. i 


The oais^e was referred to a master and the material parte ' 

of his report are as follows i 

"That the plaintiff, BocTfc-Ola Manufacturing Corporation, 
is a coarporation dtily organized under and "by Tirtue of the laws 
of the State of Illinois and engaged in tha manufacture of coin 
ccxitrolled affiusement machine games and devices, and is located at 
625 v/est Jackson Boulevard, ChicagOi Illinois j that the saii 
corporation manufactures a game kno^im as 'World's Series'; that 



( ■. ■• 

,YTkXJOD 3000. "SS 'SmOO { ■■^-. „;:. ■ ;- ■ ; *r i V . 

'"■■'^ tf^ n L?\ IT O Q C«- '^ ©HtrSs^liaS aSYM ,€ . •¥ 811151 

G ^ O ^li^l 0^( tS^... , . ilYAii brm 

erff' ''.IX^scfassS: Xjalni'llO ooiit^s'' fesficsn' *saiej? .Clad'sascf « jj^-t^alixaiic 

a^i2i5l>xi3l:a& flBwoii^XA •a»'i'i:i;ti5i:.'iXq; as sbics 9 sea atC^ SJHiY^tf ^tm; y^tuSi^ 

6*rcBq XjsxTCS^sar arid" bns ^sJaeat s ai b^-xiBt&t bbw setr^o srTT 

ffioo 1o s^iiiofitvaBi3 sf{* xti: to??ssrrs bar, siioailXI ^c ©i-B*?- qx{* lo 
ii5 Jb9^£5ooX ai bxie tasoiT^b b£m esstes anlrio.'^fix ^JnsmesjjiaB bsXXoTiiKso 

tho \;orciu 'World's Uorlcs' wgxo iegisterod in the United titatea 
Patent Ofiice as Plaintiff's Trade-Mark on, to-wit, Oc toiler 24th, 

105.j» &:.; I'rads-LLcirl: Juxaber 3074;:^1. 

"Tliat the defandfint, Geaoo, Inc., is a corporation July 
organized tmder and "by virtue of the laws of the f^tate of Illi?.ioi8» 
ai'iO euj;:a£;ed i-^ the laaxvai'actaxe oi piu. games, novelties and tjkill 
games, and is located in the City of Chicago, Illinois; among the 
giiie^. mr.iiufacturod oy G^snc!0» Inc»i is one knovm as 'Genco Offiaial 

•♦That the defendant, Louis 7^. Gensl9urg, is President of 
Cenco, Ino.? ^m r^ hiotiis at the P&rk Lsajae Lctel, Lheridan and Giirf 
Street, Chicago, Illinois* 

"That the defendant, Myer GeAs1»urg, is Secretary of (Jenco, 
Inc., pnr' TSBi^eB r.t 1436 Be'r^^Ti .venue, ChiotisOt Illinois* 

"That the defeadsjat, David Gteiis"burg is Treasurer of Qenco, 
Inc*, and resides at 1055 Granville Avenue, Chica,go, Illinois. 

"That the evidence adduced does not support plaintiff* a 
contention that the product of defendants ( ♦ Oenco Official BaueballM 
is inferior to that of plaintiff or that it has a tendency to deceive 
the public inte "buying defendants' game in lieu of that ox' plaintiff* 

"That plaintiff's ctmtention that prohaMe deception vill 
result "by reaeon oi defendants advertising and selling their game, 
* Genco Official Baseball', is sot supported hy the evidence? nor 
■ffas any evidence offered to substajatiate the charge that actual 
confusion has arisen with the "buying public* 

"The plaintiff has charged that because of defendants having 
had pictures laade of their machine, aiid advertising the Rome as 
♦Official Baseball', <The Balls AnOtually Hun the Bases', have catised 
btiyers to order its Tsaohlns, tMnJclno they are receiving the 'iVorld's 
Series* macfiiae ; many letters and telegrams, part of Plaintiff's 
Exhibits Ctae hundred seventy-four (174) to flight huiidred eight (808), 
"both inclusive, containing orders for defendants' ^me, plainly in- 
dicate that the buyers were dealers in gaises and Icnetir %?hose product 
thay were buying ■vt'tmn they ordered 'Genco Official Baseball.' 

**Aa examnation of pictures of 'Genco Official Baseball* and 
'World's Series', contained ia advertisements appearing in many 
magaaiuss offered as exhibits, both plaintiff ' 6 and defendants', 
Including iibdaibit A and Exhibit B, as attached to the Complaint 
fails to conviiice one that an average buyer ;vould be deceived into 
buying caae for the other* 

"Incidental to the charge of unfair competition, the testi- 
mony conceriilng the price charged for the respective machines in con- 
troversy is not clear enough to warrsmt the Mast<5r making a finding 
ai this point, different prices having been charged for each machine 
at different times} however, the mere selling cf a prodxict "by a 
coi^etitor at a reduced price^ of itself, does not constitute txnfair 
competition, andy other charges failing, v.'ould not have to be c<ai- 
sidered • 

"There was a prepondsrencs of evidence to support defend j«i8 
in their statement that ♦Genco Official Baseball* was autoat-itlc and 
an inspection and playiiiii of the ga^e itself canfiras this ststement* 

5 3J;o«iIXI J.Q B$sS■^ ^di to 5t?sl sffcf lo ©0*iiv ijcf brt« -jsJjxiw &©sf«»sic# 

'--■■ '- -''■' ' *iXX^<f9geg 

*alo«lXXI tds&soXdD t^ea^ifB 

*aioaiXXI «0'gfioMO tS^asTA ST-ipn^aS, dSiM tsa aeSia®-! rm.^ f»o-'"U 

tai^nltn sOS-soiilD ^amiSiTA ^lltrtm"^) S20X its ss&iasti: &£i-oi t.offi 
fc-^'ilivriisXcx oxoqt«a ^Ofx saoS &®»xjfoba ^nasbivs sift ^*5ilT'* 

B^3fif.i!?o ©T£5i£ < "Ksai^S sxf# n«fl YXXB«i?ai4 aXX^sS 3ilT> « 'XXBcfsasS X-iioiil-O* 
s^^li^ni^X'X 1:0 *^sq ^ sars'rssXs;^ liits a^cjd^gX x^'^ ; sniiioauf 'aaliEsa 

^«XXecf98.sS; XsJtoil'K) ooisoS^ b&^&bio x&sii aadw gnl^ycf ^i^w ^l^tf* 
fciX9 UX.3<f3Si?.a: XBioiilO oonyB ' le i-s-sj-d-oxq 7o aoUssih^p^xe iiA* ' •;: 

••serl^o 9i^# 'iOt siso a«iY-wci" 

&nldo&!^ dOBfi 'x.0'1 by^-xj^o nescf ^air^d s^oxig dnsxallib «i'rjJfcoq: airii- no 

*iviQm^imp& sijli ^xscT.rxt3>c "iXsaii ma^ sdi 1© jiifi^Xq; toe fiiOi^oaqenJ: as 

''The eyicence, ruid exi iu; pGction and playing of tLe ^rame 
•Genoo Official Baseball' supports the defeadants in tVielx etate- 
n-.fciit ti^rt 'rite "...llr. Actually Hi^i ihts EaoeB« to an .extent thai 
the "balls used on any eimilar game could bo said to run the batsfie. 

"The above being true, the defendants would hare a legal 

ri-»ht ^.o use- the -:hra;:o < Tii'^ "Biilln Actu^i.lly V^un U\e. V.ap.eB^ .In theiT 
adrertislng and not be guilty of plagiarizing the rerbiage contained 
in '^I'-.i.ntiff ' '= f-vve-tiGiag \v>i<.^re;in plainfciii '^tatcat 'It Xs the Only 
Game Ryer Invented ^ere Players Actually Hun from Base to Baa«*.» 

"Tha-t the balls on plaintiff's machine ♦ .orld*s £>erleB« do 
not T\m thfi "hciP*??. 

"ITo -^vldencs was offers^ by plaintiff to Bubstaxiti&te the 
charge that the def eadarits haTe taken the aeoondary aeaning of 
words of plaintiff* R adroir tiding ar-d re=-vfj^.pec! their advertising 
so that the giat of plaintiff's advertising was published on behalf 
of said defendants* 

•"nie evidence adduced both by iJlaintiff and def eiKiants fully 
supports pl£.intifi'G contention that at the time plaintiff ojJaibited 
its '^siforld's Series' gaae at the Convention and iiixhibit of the Coin 
Machine M£j.rafacturers Association held at Ch-'cago, Illinois, between 
February 19th, 1934 and S'ebruary 22nd f 1934, defendants h^d no 
machine like the machine of 'Official Baseball' J however, defend- 
ants' evidence that they had cantemplated and produced one at this 
ti»e reii-nins unchalleng**d| liks'slse defendants' evidence that they 
h&d conceived '(teiico Official Baseball' before the exhibition of 
plaintiff's laachine at Convention, wae ample to overcoKe plain- 
tiff's charge to the contrary* 

■^I'. is cfes.rged by plaintiff 'that only after the exhibition 
of plair, tiff's " orld's Series" game at the Convention sjad Exhibit 
did OefenduntB first build a coin-controlled smuseaent machine, 
imitating plaintiff's ** orld<s Series'* na chine « ♦ while th^^ eT'idence 
sho'.?s that the plaintiif jtianufactursd two models of Its game 'v/orld's 
Series', one referred to as the 'Pin Model' and the other referred 
to ne the 'R?j.l ^Jodsl' ; tli^t %h.e g-sme exhibited a.% the Com ention 
arid Exhibit of the Coin Machine Majaufacturers Aesoeiatioa was the 
'Pin Kodiil^ f -^fFhile In all the advertisements appearing in the 
different magazines offered as plaintiff's and defendants' exhibits, 
a picture '■)f the 'a-^ll Model' appears and Schibit 'A', attached to 
compla,int filed herein, is a picture of the 'Rail Model •« 

"An inspection of 'World's Series* shows a series of pins 
at the top of ths playing boai'd thereof, and an examination of ' Geaco 
Official Baseball* shows QfOly rails at the top of the playing board 

•"That the defendants are not g\iilty of palming off their 
•Genco Ofiicial Baseball' machine as and for that of plaintiff 's 
'world's Series' xsachine. 

"That the defendants are not guilty of unfair oaapetition 
and unfair trade* 

"The violation of the Code of i'air Coaipetitlon for the Coin 
Operated Machine Manufacturing Industry is incidental to the msdux 
charge of unfair competition* The evidence aoeis not support plaoja- 
tiff's charge that defendants are guilty of violating seciiona A, 
C axjd J ox .article YI of said Code* 

-a^s*,^ risjii nl msmba^^sb/^m sts^qc/jja ms^assS: l&toll^ «.9asU » 
,35>3acr 9Xi4 su-j oJ atf foXuoo siseg ijeXiiala ^as no beais alljetf 94^ 
X^B^X & B^^n 6Xia©^ 8*iSB5££0*t9& srI* tsssii gnistf eTO<f« 9*f5** 

♦ assstf 9.4* mil iQfii 

■^IXifi aijtisl^iiw'ie& &fjB ll'ltaiaXq x^ rf#t>cf b©©£r6i^fi 9©K9&iv9 sin'* ■'.—■••■ 

..:,fi©@W^s2«! ,«iji?)fUXl4, iO'SiiSpfJiO i& blBH imi^alcoQSiA -ssais^io^lmL^U 9SiMo.sM. 
oc &arf s*asfeKi3t8& «M0X. *&«SS ^^sjrxd^o'E basi J>£9| tifi^X- "t'xjeyxsf&'S: 

9aii©a.tT^ '»rli aXMw * i^afjifioBra *'asfr£^a Js^feX'sy&W'' e^l'iiliiMXq ,sx:-' 
a'l>X:Jov'» 9isis3 a^dt 1:0. aX-3&»M ow;? b9'S0jl'aslu««a tli;tal*/,'.lq 3di tnd^ .^ u 

vflifiii' Ki BHixesgqjB BSfasiusaitif^rlJ^ «s4$i? lis ai sXiifA* ^'X^L-. . ..:..' 
^ r ♦♦XsfeoM Xi.«S' sjli te &tu^ol% » til %^l^%9si hmlXt i&i&lqikio 

a^lliitai^Xq lex ^^^ifcr «©"i 6«s ea ©fiiifpJa^. 'ILstTssijcI X.sioxi'^C- Gon»S» 

.©i-siuloxiia *s9ircs*« aH^Xior* 

ccioO sii;f lo'x jaoJt^f xrfsqiEOO ixal *o oboC !>riJ- lo ncx^uXoxv dfJT** "' 

■ ■-■ ■ -■■■■ -'-'■'*-ab*0 6i«a- i» iV eXoxiTlA lo I: baa 



••That the material allegations oi the plaintiff hare not 
been sustained Toy the tjvidence* 

"That the equities of the cs&e are with the dftjVtndrnte 
end p.gai-TPt the jj.vlu-tj.ffu 

"f'h.Rt the plrJnf-iff it: not. exititled io the relief cr aiiv 
part thereof s.s^ pr&yea for in its complaint. 

"■fhat the defendants are not Kuilty of unfair coE-Detitlon 
and unfair trade* ' 

"That the nl'^intiff is not .entitled to an accounting ©f 

'^®,^'f*^-'^^^ ""^'^^ ^Y def^iidurits in the sala of their game ' Genac* 

^mmi^mJi., I EIZL^FSC-SF^lUlf T^.OVms:m-J} that the injunction 
S-3^denj5lite iSBued herein by this Honornhle Court on . pril 
id?Ux, 19c4, shoiad be dissolved suad a permanerit Injunction shotad 
not_ issue? thfit plaiatiif a coraplalnt be dismisse*;! for -^^t oi" 
equity and a decree he entered accord in^ljr.w 

i'laintiff^s exceptions to the m?-.ster»Q report were sustained 
hy the court and a deoree was entered, the irijunction?.! parte of 
whioh ai-e b.b follows s 

*'That the temporary injunction heretofore issued hy this 
oourt be and the same is hereb^^ Eade permaaeat aud perpetual. 

w r-.v. .'*^^^*.<*® defendants, Gtnco, Inc., a corporation, Louis 
J. Gena-fetirg, kyer u^ris-burg and Darid Sensburg, be and the" are 
hereby perpetually restrained and enjoined ff^ tae., are 

i-^^^, V, li' ^^°^ selling the machine OBXLefi • Official Ba-ehall' 
^^oJf :r-h^^\'^!'2" ':l -''^'"^-'^-^enont or ^rritten statements hereto- 
lore published by thea; 

"2. Vxcm selling, distributing or delivering anv of s^id 
mchznej on orders herebofore received by theaa, or rer^ewals of 
suoa orders, by reasoa of such unf^^ir cnSpetitioa Jid -ach ad- 
vertising and publication; " 

Hnri^-^o,-"?' '^""^ advertisiing or publieMng, either directly or 
o? t:?riJj:>,t'' ^^' s-'f^er, the manufacture, sale or distriJuti^ 
?w«. ^J^"** ""^ ^* pres^eat constituted or vlth any changes 
in tM« n^^"*** noT; BubBtantially affect ite present formf iiothing 
d?JSL?^r P°°^i^r^''^^'^ f^'-^ prohibit the manufaetui=e, sale aSd 
be^^?ai??jLd:' '^"'^''^ '^'''^^* ^'^^ advertising aud puolication 

The ^ove paragraphs, aavr? the first, follow verbatim the injunctional 
parte of the preliminary injunction. The costs of the siait, axrujuating 
to more than $5,000 were taxed against defendant corpora tiea. 

Tho complaint also contains a charge that dsfend^nte riciated 
the provisions of the Hational Recovery Act. but plaintiff concedes 

ton srBJi TtzisiL%£q, Bd^ 'U msblSi^^^Zls Mln-i&m &sf* ^s^'* 
■^iie '25 IslX^-s a«^* t?;^ feai;i'i:;JiX3 .-ten aX 1;T;lr>al,f?Xf| 9if^ ^55fff* 

lo ifiusvr xel &©ealjaai5 ed" *£cxAX?iisod a'l'iMi-iijsi^r ^.ssrftf jsijagx -toil 

' ' ' - ■.:•■.;■■..;,': tarToIXot' am"'^js doliM\ 

aiiit x<^ ij©03ai: o'colo^taisd jsox^oiiift®^ '^3::a'£o^s&# «^4f isitSS:" 

.Xjg&f^sq"xsq !5iis i?£i©£csiffr9q[ 9&«i52r 'ytf'9'£9il si aatse »if# fens sef d-imeO 

,. . ^; ,r iim'L'i h&siI^lJ^ htm l)»himi®d^ xll&sy^sq'Si'&q, i(Tei9'x9ii 

*Xl£<fs3sS CsioiltO' osIX^o ©xsMspjff sfl.t sjkIXIss eaei? . •£* 

,■ :.^-:.-;' ■--"•;■.,:. -:. t^Sii* "."^if ;&«jC8iX<ft;'. 

!jflei:;tsoiXd«q bxx.o inial^iev 

as3£i£-iio ii;ri3 xfct x* 10 'o->iud xdanoo iss&no'zs ik\ en ^ahio^a bLiso "xo 
S£s:JLrC:fOfa »ia'xol ia^as'zq ail io^tts -y:XX.'-xJxiB;?.vcfx/3 ion 00 xtoMv? nisjisxlv* 

£Ai5:ox;toxiJift''^ii sfl^ jaxj^nitfyeT -aeXXol" ^Jstsil ori* dvb8 , arfg^osa'sjcc svofifo ©xfE., 


that this charge need not he considered hecause of the decision 

in gohechter Corp* v. U« S», 295 U* ii. 495, declaring that act 

line ons t i tut i onal • 

The first question to determine is, ivhat constitutes 

unfedr competition within the meaning of the law of this state? 

)lie quote from S te y ens -"Da vis Co« v. Mathe r & C o., 230 lll.Appo45j)64-66i 

"In Howe Bcale Co» v» yokofft Seamans & Benedict, 198 
U. '^» 119, a leading case, the Supreme Court"©? the United States 
said (p» 140) thats 'The essence of the v/rong in unfair competition 
consists in the sjxLe of goods of one manufacturer or vendor for those 
of another and if defendant so conducts its "business Q,i^ not f.n palm 
off its goods as those of complainant, the acti on fail3 ^ »< It is \m- 
necessary to cite the numerous decisions that have announced this 
rule. It may he confidently and positively stated thst the rule has 
been adopted by nearly all of the courts of the United 'itates, both 
federal and state. In harmony Viith the other juriedictions, the 
Bupreme Court of this state has adopted the ♦palming off rule as 
the rule of decision in cases of unfair competition, and that rule 
has been repeatedly annoxmced by this court and other apx^llate 
courts of the state* 

«In Bal , l V. Si e gel, 116 111, 137, the court said (p* 146) i 
The test is, whether the words used 'v/aild be likely to mislead 
persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the goods and induce 
theja to suppose they v^ere purchasing the genuine article*' 

"In Hazelton Boiler Op, v. Hazelton Tripod Boiler Co., 142 
111. 494, the court said Tp» 5209): »It is not shorn that the 
defendsjit has ever attempted in any way to palm off its own boilers 
as being of the complainant's manufacture.* 

"In IteXong Hook & Sye Oo» v. Homp Hairpin Mfg* Go^, 297 
111. 359, the court saidTpT^^?)* 'SJeburdin of 'proof of the 
secondary meaning of the htaop as referring to the appellee is upon 
the appellee * * * to show that the use of the word by appellant 
vd.ll retiiilt in passing off its goods as the manufacture of the 
appellee' ; and on page 371 the court quoted vdth approval from 
the case of Howe .Scale Go. v. jyokoff > Seamans &, Bsned^iejb, 198 U# S. 
119, vjhich holds that unfair competition 'consists in the sale of 
the goods of one manufacturer or vendor for those of another, and 
if defendant so conducts its business as not to palm off its goods 
as those of complainant, the action fails.' 

"In Chicago Directory Go* v. Herringshawj^ 187 111* App* 
489, the court said (p. 4991 : ~ »Unf air competition consists in 
passing off or attempting to pass off upon the public the goods 
or business of one person as and for the goods or business of 
another.' To the ss.^ effect are the cases of Merc haiits' 33etective 
Aas'n V. Detective Merca ntile Agency, 25 111. App. 250, 259;"^6Hder 
"»■• Bender S tore & Office Fixture Go., 178 111* App. 203, 207 1 
Yellow Cab Go ." v. ansler, 214 111. App* ©07, 610; Hughes v. ^vest 
Pub* Co. , 225 111. "app* 58, 66 | tfestor Johnson Mfg. Go. v. Alfred 
Johnson okate Co ., 229 111* App* 549. 

*The courts in this state do not treat the 'palming off 
doctrine as merely the designation of a typical class of cases of 
unfair competition, but they aicmounce it as the rule of lav/ itself - 

aoiaioai) 8xl;t lo ©acxjosd" fes^isbiajaeo acf ^oii bsan s^i^o nidi iaiii 

f8S«^o«2^»<jqA,iii OSS .ti^P-JiJ^M*^ .v »oS'^-aasyoj'g mo^l o^euts »W 

jaXai'^C-t. ,.j-gi4.j^ gsfsanicjircf B$i s#oj/6fioo oa i'csbrcslsfo "ii fexsiJ tsxld'oxis 'io 

-m/ el il *.«„tX.i:i3i„Kol*q£,_3if£ tdasal-sXcfiaoo lo seori^ a^s afooos aJl lip 

aiutt;? beotmottim ersiid iBdi ^aoinla&b Bssoi^ssssn edi silo o^ ^^xesnaoac 

iii'-od ,as#a^G- dc-^iTKlJ di{* "io ^irsimt OifJ to fir, xltsen \d betfqob^ G9S>«f 

^(d^X ".q) feisa i'T.isoo ©if;* >?SX •XXX dXX ^^a^siS »t XXj;g ai"' 

SM «»£t^.S9Xio£[_&Q2i;£T ^J^sbH .t •o^..^rioS_aq£X9&sK nX'* 
s'XsXiecI a«o a^^JE: xlo aiXsq o* ^^isf xs^ ^i hBiq,s&9iis ists esii daebnelafe 

^SS «i.GO^glM ni^'siixH tjmiH .v «,g,D,.3X^i ^„^^l2lL ^^i^-ISS **^" 

;txiGXX9CTQ-.!3 ■\scf &10W sdi to &sij ddi iM:i woxCe o* * * * ©sXXsqq-s srfjJ 
sxfi io arafioiili/xisia axJ* as afcoos aii alo 3Xii8a^,c[ ai d-JiTssi XXr^' 

to sXaa 9HF""rri"a#aisKoo»'"flo0i:;tsqfl3Oo li&'imi i--d3 "abXorf rioirft? «§XX 

&£«5 t-xetii^fons lo oaorCif to'i to&xs&v 'so ^s.^i'crd'Ofsli/xtB.'i! »no lo a&oo?^ 9di 

a&o©s e^i llo isXbq; ojI' Son e*-? aasnlawd" aSx a;?ofj&ijoo oa ^ffxi^bxteldb 11 

J,«.3Xi sl gol^oa ,.,a:x£j; ,#««isi0Xq[iaoo tfi 9»^yr^ as 

♦ j^rrA •IXI VSX jt_wjsilaBniTT:jH .t »o /igt ^ pe-x Id o;;^ ao tti D nl " 

ax •azS'fiianoo isoiJifsKiXBOo aiislaU*" "t fs 91^, »'?) Si^sa ^f-riroo 011;^ ,08> 

abooa Qdi oiXtfirq &£iif «oc[JtJ llo aa^q o* s«ii^jt8[sJ;tj« lo llo sniaasq; 

lo aasciLassd '£0 a&oos "^di 'lol bcm a^ nosisq ©no lo BsssiiQud ,1© 

Q-yl^o^ji'B' Z *'3iinndo' isM. lo a&sno 9rf3 etja ^o^lli^ Dstoa axW oT ^ ^rsdiooB 

uW H^ Tils' "Vfe'S^ »cpfA .XXI ss ££2S£Bi\^X-L^^J5'i®MJ*XiL?S^X^§ •"'■ l^ ^aajfi - 

;VOS tSOS' *q<iA •III BV£ i_*cO Qjaixx% ao|lio £ sioiC: •xabasS .t 

fe»V<; ♦y eatJjg^ijH ?0X3 e'!''Q& •QqA .rxiTxJi t"^'®XmsI""4 t'.'oO cTbO »oXXaY 

feg'gl X/" .V «^o D , g IM no iiiidaZ re * ■.' p^ jBS ,85 .quA .XXI 3aS <«oD «tf^<i 

^giSi'a .qq;A ♦XXI i?Sg >».oD stx;:^^.■ a aSBxiriol. 

«lio ;i,Ki:iaXsq* aric^ i^siEi 4oa ob 9i&i3 shii cii. a^xwoo exf?" 
lo aaa/jo lo aaj3Xo XiioiQ[TC* >u lo no i;t Bag iasb sxl^ vi^nsm a^ 9frirt*oo5 
• IXoa^i wbX lo 8X;:ji: edi bs *i ooftuonrc^ X®^* '^■wtf «noi?X*i^q[Eioo •3:i,«lfsij 


the test by which it is determined \<hether a given state of facte 
constitutes unfair competition as a m&tter of law. As the Supreme 
Court of this Ltate said in the case of . DeLong H ook & }gye Cpj . r, 
Htaap B airp in Mfg* Oo», s upra » quoting from the Supreme Court of 
the United Gtates in the case of Hov/ e Sc ale po» y# vyckof f » Sea m ane 
& Be nedic t t supra : 'If defendant so conducts its business as liot 
to palm off its goods as those of complainant » the action fails » ' 

e are of the opinion frOTi our examination of the authorities, 
that the 'palming off doctrine has been followed by both the state 
and federal courts in an almost unbroken line of decisions, as a 
rule of lavif, and that the courts of this state also deem it to be 
a rule of law." 

Plaintiff concedes that the rule stated In Belong Hook & ;3ye Go» 
▼• Hwap Hairpin Co* . 297 111. 359, was the rule in this state, 
but contends that it W8.s overruled in John son Mfg. Qo ^ r. Johnson 
Skate Co., 313 111. 106. That case, in our judgment, not only 
did not change the rule laid down in the Iteliong case but refers 
to the latter case with approval. In the opinion in the Johnson 
case (pp. 121 and 122) the court, in support of its ruling, points 
out numerous instances in v^Jhich the defendant siimilated the nsum of 
complainant, the location of the business, the advertising, and 
other features calculated to deceive the ordinary purchaser. 

Ifefendsjats cwitend that the meaning end effect of the in- \ 
junctional parts of the decree are not plain and thsit "it is difficult 
to understand ^at the decree does mean." That there is some merit 
in this contention is obvious. Rie decree does not adjudge that 
defendants' gsme is a simulation of the game of plaintiff, nor that 
the sale of the same would, in itself, constitute unfair competition. 
Vfhen par- grafha 1, 2 and 3 are considered together, it ould seaa 
that the court intended only to enjoin the sale of defendants* 
machine through the means of the advertisement in question. Defend- 
ants are justified in contending that the decree must be construed 
to mean that neither defendants' machine nor its name simulated that 
of plaintiff, and that as plaintiff did not file a cross-appeal it 
cannot now te question, in any way, the decree, we have concluded, 
however, to also consider the siaulation charges la tke consider- 

•''■ »R.?. .^ "^^r A .^^^^^■■■S^'^fi'^^S "^^^ ©e,f7.o arf^ ci bins s*^^a airfj- lo ^two?) 

1« ^l-iiron sieJiiaSs ©irf'te^^xl B«tt^Of/p tM'3SJl?. t ' 9SLJt^iM.jd3JMM.SM^ 

&€ <^ ^l miiib oal£: sit.e^a sMS lo s^^iios arfi^axl* bas tW«X to ©X«ra 

"•WfiX lo »Xjcn £ 

t®*^*8 aM* Hi: eX*rx srfd satf «8es ♦XXI 7fK ,»oD atc^Tlj?! <s^ai^ *^ 

\lsiQ i&si t^tmmB'oul 'WO fsl tsa^c^o *isiiT •SOX,. •XXX' £!-£ xiE^^-M^^ 

ig>ei|^X axis 'rji ao xislq^ sji^ ixl ♦X;^voii^£ AiiM Siae.9 «»^;S*iif ;oiar «i 
a^axoij «sai;X«*i ail Ic itieqqHis ni «;t'i:i)-oo &ti^ (S2i feaas XSX *<ifT »i^|> 

*[iQl&Usqmoo xislmj 9^0,1' iiJ^aodo ♦IXegiCi ai .«I>Xjbow «aBs«.,e^. 'tis 9X&9 »<& 
fii5»a &X«ow'f,ifi ,'13^*930* &s^siilaao« 9«6 g frisa 2 >4 «ife{«53s2S5 tafcafs; 

^.fsdi b^i&limXsi 3ssma &a too. •iii;(£j{Msar ' s^tx^&as^d^ %9^M^^$i:i»{^-^ rvr-«.- r.* 


ation of this appeal we had before us, as exM"bita» "^oth macblnes* 
The master found that defendants were iiot ^r^llty of pnladng off 
the "Geuco Official Basehall" machine as and for that of plain- 
tiff's "World* 6 Series" machine , and after an examinrition of the 
evidence hearing upon the subject, including the said exhibits, 
we are s&tisfied that no other finding would hare been justified 
under the proof* In their brief defendants illustrate, in the 
following apt way, twenty-two differences in the machines* 

"World Series* '•Genco Official Baseball* 

"1* The balls do not run the **X* The balls do run the bases • 

"2* Revolving disc or diamond* *2* Stationary diamond* 

"3* In upper end of playing •'S* Rails forming runways in 
board, numerous pins not forming upper end of playing board* 
lanes or runways* 

*4* No rail surrounding the 
playing field* 

"5* STo permants (m outside 
rail surrounding the playing 

"e* bmall baseball with small 
flag* Above baseball a large 
baraier and inscribed thereon the 
word *rfOrld*s Series'* 

"V* lii Exhibit 'A» top of 
rails in upper end of playing 
board uneven, forming more or 
leas a half circle* 

"8. ^o runways , legends. 

"9* Mo celluloid covers* 
*10* Ho metal traps or gates* 
»11. Mo «foul balls'* 

••12 • iJothing in center of 

"13* ilo rails surrounding 

♦*4* Rail surrounding the play- 
ing field* 

"5* Pennants on outside rail 
surrounding the playing field* 

••6. Large baseball with 'Genco 
OfficisJL' imprinted thereon* Across 
baseball a banner with the ¥;ord 
•Baseball* inscribed thereon* 

*7* fop of rails in upper playing 
board out off in straight line* 

♦♦8* At top end of runways in upper 
playing board, legends indicating 
bases 2 'Ist', »2nd», 'Srd' and 

••9» Celluloid covers over rails* 

"10* Metal traps or gates* 

"11* 'FoTil ball' openings and 

"12* Metallic baseball player ^vith 
bat in center of diamond* 

"13* Metal rails entirely surround- 
ing diamfflid* 

*1» -gnissXBfX "So ij^Xiijs ;Joii ©-a:©?? a*at£&fi9l€4 ;?s;eC# bPMct tQiti&a edT 
■^sfiC^- io xjsiiiix^imsx^ ss t£»5t4' I>k« i&eMQBm "aoiieS 8'*SXi5oW* a'tlJtf 
fesili-isijl isesef ©vad[ bX«ioH sfiifem 1 xsiitJe &a *af^;f !>^ll8ij^;^8 »16 Hm 

»eess(f ©ri* 031 

sIXa<f 0ir{T •X" 

0jl;t m;a ion ob eXXatf sxfT •X*' 

s&isd-tro no es^aatstieq ol£ •%* 

• f)Xell 

X.L9ia3 if^xvi' IX^.cfsai^cT XXfiffi3 .0" 
ss'isX iS XX-BCfSfiijo" 9TO<f::. •3sXi 

b-xow .'ara c[:5-iw saxiaail & Ilflcfssjeo' aslS iio^'ssxfj Sstfiioaai: baa T:©muscf 

Sxjs »i) ■£,!;» ^^^r^S* t*i'-jl' isssa^ 
. ^WM SftlOH' 

♦ eli'^-s lavo eT:eroo bioXifXX^O «§** 

fees aaairiaqo 'XXjstf X.uo"l» ♦XX" 

iiH;o"i:£ua Y-Iati^tna aXJLsi XaJaM ♦SX" 

»eXo'£io IXisii J3 easX 

• a^svoo &ioXtfXXao oH .5'' 
« ao^-oB "SO Bqjsti^ Xsism oH •OX" 

• 'sxxjbct Xifoi» om .xx" 


"14. Large casting in center 
of playing "board* 

*15. 'Balls* and » strikes* 
indicated above metal casting 
in center of playing board* 

•le. 'Outs' indicated by 
registering device in center 
of playing board to left of 
the center casting - 'Outs* 
being shown by oh-mging numbers. 

"!?• Ho casting in bottom 
of playing board. 

"IS. Tilting device, of ir- 
regular shape* located in right- 
hand lower comer of game. 

"19. «Runs» indicated by hole 
in board in lower end of playing 


'Iirrors^ not indicated. 

"14. Mo casting in center of 
playing board . 

••15. Mo 'balls* or 'strikes' 

"16. 'Outs' indicated by balls 
themselves in metal casting at 
bottom of playing board ; no 
numbers chfmging* 

"17 • Lower end of playing board 
consists of a large rectangular 

"18 • In the center and at the 
lower end of the playing board, 
diamond shaped tilting devioe 

"19« 'Runs' indicated by run 
trou£^ in large metal casting in 
lower end of playing field. 

"SO. 'Errors' indicated by open- 
ing in louver end of playing board c 

"•SI. tvhen ball gets in runway 
player knows exactly what nimber 
of bases he is going to get. 

*'22» Eo provision for 'base on 
balls' •♦• 

"gl. Vihen ball get in 'hit* 
rimway, player does not know how 
many bases he is going to get. 

*22. when player has 3 balls 
in ball groove and he gets a 
fourth ball> the ball overflows 
into 'hit* col\imn and he may get 
a <aie, two, or three base hitf 
or a home run." 

Plaintiff does not seriously question these differences in the 
maohines. The absurdity of the claim that defendmts' machine 
simulates plaintiff's is shown by the testimony of David C» Rockola» 
president of plaintiff corporation. That witness, in attempting to 
prove that plaintiff *s machine was superior to defendants', emphasized 
many differences in the two machines. The name of plaintiff's 
machine is " .orld's Series,^ and the name of defendants' is "Geneo 
Official Baseball." The argument that there is a similarity in 
the names is an idle one. nhile both machines are coin operated end 
siBiulats "Daseball, it is conceded, of course, that plaintiff has no 
excliisivc right to sell coin-operated machines nor machines that 


I'as^&i'S*®^ :t:e *. 

#eir©.& §«ici-Xi* »9q,silF; i>«;& 

b-s^sotf ^,st<CBlq lo &aa tt9?/eX" fit -s^sxi. 
ti3Wis/'i ni: sies XXjad* ESfCv/ ♦XS* 


sd^ ni Q&^a'^z^'itlb aesif^ fjoi^aeyp ^Xasmises *«ir.a&*fe ttMijtia^' 
on irisid "ilitaijsXg. asri;? ^fiertx/oo 'io tbsbeonoo ai d'i ^XXacfsaso s^aXxaila 

SrtXc^Br,^ lacTsjs ©vp<fs &s*^oxb«X 

to *'i©X o;t bt^etf BHitaXq to 

♦a;?x}Q* - sKicfaj?;© ttp^hgo add 

-Ti; lo tsoirab iiti#XiT: • BX* 

^tfM seacf osi:^^ "10 «ow;^ «9no a 

« to 


Aa to the alleged unfair adverti»«n)ent, tha ic^Mtev found 
that tlier<3 was no a^rit in thie claim* and we are fiilly ia anoard I 
with thnt finding* I 

TJ-w norelty of atioMnes ol" the kiad in uuaistlon norm v/sara 
off aad th«? deiaand for thoin ceases » aaci u^tandt^itH "bitterly cCB^Aala 
that plaintiff's s'tiit was instituted salely to Becuire to it an 
unwarranted monopoly in tfe^ isal© of sueh machines and that plaintiff » 
throus^ the prclimnary itt^uncticoa and the injimctional decree, 
feocoaplitshed its puxposet to the great injury of defendants^ v/e 
feel impelled to eay that this complaint ie not without merit ♦ 

TiiQ dseree of tha Superior court of OooJc county Je rerer@ed» 
and the gcaisb ia remaadad with dlrfjotiea® to ths trial oourt to die- 
siisa plaintiff's complaint for want of equity, at plain i;ii''f»s costs, 
that court retaining jurisdiction for the asscesment of dmrngos for 
the vwongfuJ. issuance of the preliminary fm.6. psrasaaat injuaotions, 


THAT QQiiixf nv.fAmma jmu3:;iaT:^iCii( fop. ths 

ASSSSoieSilT <F BimAQSS FOR T^ "^(MOFl/l 

Sullivan, i** J., snd Friend, J., coaour* 


AiOKICAf a corporation^ 

( Complainant ) Appell ee i 


WALT^I^ DOSHCSS et al.? 





MARIOS MAEVHJ, individually and 
as AdminiBtrator of Vae Sntate 
of Teodor Zamlara* Decsasedi* 

(Dfjfendsnt) Appellant. 

JSAi^.IOH UA'i^lJS, indiTidUFlly and 
as Administrator of the Estate 
of Teodor Eamiarai deceased > 

(Croas-Oomplainant) Appellants 



ASCT'ICA, a corporation* and 
CITY OF GHICACK), a mmiicipal 
corporation, et al»? 

(OroBS-Defendaats) Appellees* 


Complainant, Polish Boman Catholic Union of iaaerica, a 
corporation, filed its snit to foreclose a firsst mortgage c« 
certain preaises. Marion Marvin, administrator of the estate 
of Teodor Zaaiara, deceased, one of the defendants, filed his 
cross-'bill asking affirmative relief against complainant and 
oertaiB defendants. The cause was referred to a master ia 
chanoery, who, after a hearing, filed a report finding that 
complainant had a first lien on the property sought to he fore- 
closed and that the estate of Teodor Saaiara was liable to the 



V .v:^mB^. 


tie .Jl O "W^ "©^ 


\,iB s& ismmoa fm^im 


bus xlUtshXribnt ,-KIV?IAM Wimf. 



e&:.iia& &d^ lo to^ a fi a l£imb£i t^atriSiU r:oi's^ .aaairasicjr xxiiecfi&o 
fcae ^xijBfcxsXqjsioo ^arcijosis 'tt'iiXs'j: ©vi^fim^x'iljs sfl-lalajs XXid'-auo'io 


extent of the first mortgage, plus interaot and all ooste and ^ 

taxes paid I that cross-oomplninant load not sustained the allegatioae 
of h.i& croBs-bill> and his prayer fo:.' affiriaatire relief against 
certain defendajtits should he denied. The chaactllor sustained 
the maBter in all respects save as to the question of the liability 
of the OBtatc of Teodor Zamiara» ruling t]ri£.t tliere v/as no liability 
of that estate under the first iBortgage. Marion Jiarvinf individually | 
and as trustee, appeals from the decree* The amount foimd due 
complainant is not disputed save that appellant claiHJfi to "be entitled 
to a setoff as to the matters he rjlleges in his oross-bill» Appellant 
states in his brief that his cross-'bill asks for *aff irmatiT© relief 
against the complainant and several others and sets up that money 
arising out of e condemnation proceeding had been v/rongfully and 
fraudulently paid by the City of Chicago and that the complainant 
aad other defcnde^ts herein entered into a conspiracy against Marion 
Marvin, administrator, and did '.srongfully and fraudulently obtai» 
money belonging to him, end did wrongfully and fraudulently obtain 
an unauthoriiaed partial release of the property sought to be fore- 
clos'5d and uaod the money to destroy the s eotirity of a Junior mort- 
gage belonging to Marion Marvin as said administrator** 

The mortgage foreclosed was for ^15,000. It was executed 
on Oetohex 2I3 1920, by defendant Boanges, the then ovvner of &e 
property* Ahout the saaie date Soenges gave complainant a second , 
mortgage on the pr^aises in the sun of #4>000« ©le property, upon 
v;hioh were three "buildings ur,ed as stores and apartments, was located 
at Ashland avenue and Superior street, in Chicago. On. January 20, 
1922, iioenges conveyed the premises to Teodor Zaaiara and Zofia 
Zamiars, his wife, as joint tenants, su'bject to c«nplainant»s 
mortgag«8. The appellant iR a son of this couple. On October 21, 
1925, the two mort^ges were extended > by agreement, for a peilo4 

bust ssd-Roo IX« 6na.' *ot.''io^K.i; Eirlq *aBJ3a^-0ia ^atlt ail* 'Jo Jm>*x© 

&©X*1^«© ©rf o;t aiat,aXo *ui3XXsqQ;s *rjr£* i'>rsa &®*wqaJb& *0£: al JimciflXqflioo 
,tiseXI#(|qi:. «XXicl~i-jao'20 aid ■«! s9^s»XXs orf B'lLBiiBSS ©rf* o* e.s *5:'io*«a « «* 

X^U(}>m i.ndi qp b^qg fefijE? B-x&dio Lax^rr^n bass imssil^lqsiotii d4* taitlsgB 
&imntBl>:mati mH SM^ bxfs ossvtdO id x^^^ ^^^ X^ ^^^ ■^X^jKoXu&iTiSrl; 

sit'iiia'Q xlinBlMbimtJ: bim xlSss^noi^r bib bzt& ifioiaxSsltilsa'iiB .fixTisK 
■ fiijB^tfo Y-t^-xiS'X.t/.by.s'r'i: bvio ^iXXwl^now bib b£m ,aiJUi 0* auisisoXscf -^©floai 

-c^^ioiii 'xoxjtti/t B 'io Y^'.ixyoo ij sii^ YO^s®*^ fE^* x»i3X>m eri^ fefeatf -few* &e*aoJEb 
3ft lo rssm'o ns»if* oiC^ ^ess^Kso^^ ijii^&Xi?*'!©!? Y«f *®SfX ^XSr^'ti&sroJ-oO xro 

<0$s \;':£j3irjtid fit) 4 osisoxifO ni ,dsa'«*e 'Joi'iacCWG 6ixe 9jjxt9V« iijoeXffsA *j3 

/iBiltoS btt© «'i,Bii?w.'v iobO'-)T ocJ- aooiiisiottr »xl* borjsvrtoo aesceou (.JiSQX 

E*;^xijBfilaXq"£uoo o;f io^t^r;?; tad'Xiiinai dxtioj; g.h fOtiw bM ^aSiailSjeS 

tX2 '£9(fo;to0 flO *oXq.txot> aM* 'xo coa x? «.t *iX'jXXQQ]qa sxW * tj^s.esil^itbja 

fcoiioq B 'xol « ;Jxi&Mf-.®'iaa \;<f ^Ibabiis^xa ot9W aoasgtf^toia ow;t &xii^ «8S0X 


of fire years. On 3epteaiber 22, 1925, Teodor and Zofia ZaaJara 
conveyed the prcalees to Jeanette Grossatan and on the eame date 
the latter conveyed them to Teodor Zamlara* On June 1, 1926y 
Teodor Zaaiara and his wife conveyed the premLses to Wanda &zuib- 
kowskly defendant, and ahe and her hus1»andf Alfons 3* Szumkowskif 
gare a trust deed on the property to Wladyslawa Jankovrski, tx^stee* 
to secure their two notes, one in the sum of $10, 000 ^ made payable 
to the makers and indorsed hy them In 'blank» payalsle (m or he fore 
five years after date, and one in the swa of #5,000, payahle two 
years after date. The notes and mortgage were taken by Zamiara as 
part of the purchase price. The t5,000 note %vas paid Tsy the Szxm- 
kowskis and returned to them. .4lfons J. Szunikowski is an tmole of 
appellant and a brother of Zofia Xamiara. On July 8, 1928, the 
Szumkowslcis executed a trust deed to Samuel Susina; trustee, to 
secure notes in the sum of f6,244»70, ^ich trust deed and notes 
were owned by Sr. Leonard Szumkowski, brother of Alftnas J« SzuakoTsski 
and Zofia S^amiara, and brother-in-law of Wanda Szumkoweki* Semetlae 
between 1925 and 1930, City of ChicagOp defendant (hereinafter 
called City), coamenoed proceedings to condemn approximately seventeen 
feet of the property, and a jud^ent for condemnation was entered in 
-Bfeich the award for the property condemned was fixed at $40>000» Upon 
the d ealA of Teodor f.amla^ the ^10,000 note and the trust deed secur- 
ing the same became the property of his e state > represented in this 
cause by appellant, adiainistrator* Wanda Szumkowski, the then owner 
of the property, and her husband employed Frank Posvic, defendant, a 
lawyer, to represent them in the condemnation proceedings. On June 
30, 1930, the Bzuaflcowskis jaade a contract with Carlson & Berggren 
Company "to raake certain improvements, alterations, moving, wrecktngj 
heating, plumlsing, tile work, etc.,» in connection with the prosriaes 
in question, for (:vl3»250, |10,000 of i/hich isas to be paid in cash? 

axstasS silos, jsns -xo&osf ^esex «SS ^sdksiqaa fjD «JiTse^ sTil lo 

tl^awoi&sajsa ■»"& aaolX*\ %6its^a4?il iceifj bite ©48 baa t^si^buB^ab ^MBVot 
sMaXsg &b&m ^ 000 « 0X1: iO aE?e esii ^ sro ,a©#«ii: ow^ iksiif ©TJEfoaa «^ 

mi ©Icfsigsij tOCKJi^al ^o msQ 'adi til bhq bsm «s5.ob Ts^Ta a^^s^ qxI'X 
Bs js^sIssjbS v;d' xissfsi? s^ss? ss^*^effi bsts> satoa ©ril* »»*sfc ts^ta 3'XsO'^ 
-irnvs-u t>di -^ Slag aim Q^on OOCV«a# srC^ •eoirsq; ssws^toifir^ wii 'U^ $^%aq, 

s£id- ^.S2©X aS \:Xx?u fiO »3'Xfii:EsS jel.'3:0:.; 1o 'isilifo'xrf £ .&£» tB»SX9iSl» 

as#oja £>ri4S &3sB iawx;* xiolxifiY «QV»^Std4 ^e ««© arfd- jkI a&ioa 9%uo99 

ssii^eiaoS » isfawo^tgaraa sfeiueV/ t© i7jsX~iSJt'»5SiSd'oiif bas t^issiiasS siT:©S Emu 
iss'-taisxaisxf) :5xia&iTst96 «OB^'9*«t3 to ^JJtO tO<S©X fe«,$ 8S©X rr©©w*»tf 

,rf«jso fli biJsqL acf Ov^ Sfiv; xCoMv.- I9 000*OX# »0gS<£44 l*^ ««oidB6i/i> kI 


and !^3p250 in notee. It is adraitteri that on Novenber 12, 1930, 
appellant* although he was not appointed admlniBtrator of the 
estate of Teodor Zo«iaraj his father? until Novemher 20, 1930, 
went with a man from Popvic's office to some department of the Gity^ 
in the -ity Hall» presumatnly the "board of local improvemente, and 
presented the $10»000 note belonging to the 2*a2Biara estate and the 
trust deed securing the same, to some unidentified clerk, suid that 
the latter, in the presence of appellant, stamped indorsements on 
the back of the trust deed and note» The indorsement on the back 
of the note is as follows s 

"The Trust Deed securing this note, by consent of the 

owners and holders hereof, has been released by the Trustee named 
therein as to that portion of the real estate in said Trust Deed 
descrihed i^hich wan taken by the City of Chicago for puulio use 
in condemnation proceeding known as Case iJtamber B-71144 Cir. Court 
of Cook Gountyp said Trust Deed is no longer a lien Oii that por- 
tion of said real estate so taken for public use in said proceed- 
ing. This endorsement made ll/l2/3e«* 

The indorsement on the hack of the trust deed is as followsj 

"This Trust Deed, by consent of the o'^ners and holders of 
all principal and interest notes secured here"by, has been released 
by the Trustee herein named as to that portion of the real estate 
herein described which was taken by the City of Chicago for public 
use in condemnation proceeding knovvn as Case Jumber B-71144 Cir. 
Court of Cook County and is no longer a lien on that portion of 
said real eEtate so taken for public use in said proceeding. This 
endorsement made ll/lki/SO." 

The City claims that appellant also delivered to the clerk a partial 
release of the trust deed ovoied "by appellant as administrator* In 
his hrief appellant disputes this claim* It is tmdisputed that 
Alfona J. Szumkowski; accompanied by his sister, ^ofia Zamiara, went 
to the trustee of the said trust deed and obtained from her a 
partial release of the trust deed, which they then gave to Posvio. 
Szumko"wski testified that they received the partial release of the 
trust deed from the trustee and Zofia Xamiara turned it over to 
Posvie, and "it was taken over to the City Hall and turned over to 
the authorities there, after the changes were made.** Posvie testi- 
fied that Alfons Szumko-wski, 7,efia Zamiara and appellant came to 

«o isSB^fm&T.Qbal fe©<pj,%ifs «^-m5lXsqq.iri5 It© ©oiJtetss^Q ©££# ni «f»*^sX »rf* 
■ ,,:■ tsYfoXXol a^ ai' 0*o« ©xfd' to 

"*xo<| ^BiiJ no fif?]:I i5 -xr^nol on si bseJi :^ac^*rT blna nX^aiSoV' iTooC lo 

"V savv'oXIol &« ©1 bo&b'si Q&i to 3los<f ©if* no i.£X®iff38tobi2i 0£lT 
■"''1:0 i^i96X«3if 5fi45 siqWo sf£* lo Jn^snoo -^d' <&©sCi ^aoaT isxdT" 

to fioi^'/og ixiifi* no nsiX >s ^-ssx^oX Oil e.t bite x»^istyoO iiooO lo iJ'iiioP 
aMT .siii^esootiq: bJ::S!tB ni aew ©ilifitg ibl' si«ia^ ©a s^ail*as» X^ot 51,03 

♦ oivaos; oi aYxsg nsriJ '^f'rf;^ ifoMw «f)9©& ^owtct oifjf lo sajseXsic Xsi^^aq 

oi TfsTO bsriiircf dixs IXbH y^-'^O ©xf* o* isvo na:tai^ qbw ;ti^ bfifi «oiTao5 
-.h.+Hed- oxT'c*-! ".©barn s^sv tsssneifo erii isd^l^: t^rosit aeij'iioxfiirja sxf* 


his office and Sofia Zamiara handed lilai the release deed and he 
gave it to appellsint and told Ma to take it and the note and trust 
deed to the hoard of looal improvements. -^ifteT Poavio had so testi- 
fied appellant again testified, h'lt he did not deny the statement 
by PosviOf although he stated that he never authorized anyone to 
ohtain a release from the trustee. e shall a^i^in refer to the silb- 
ject matter of the delivery of the partial relsase deed to the City. 

'^hile the condeiamation proceedings w&re pendtog Wajida 
Szmnkowskl and Fosvic» her attorney » appeared sjt a meeting of the 
heard of directors of complainant, v?ho agreed, upon her urgent re- 
quest, to give her au opportunity to protect her interest in the 
property hy not demanding of the City the peyment of the firat 
mortgage of $15,0(X)> and agreed with Mrs. SzuBikowski that out of 
the proceeds of the condeaination award 1X0,000 should he turned over 
to complainant, to he used in paying for laTior and materials in the 
matter of the f3.1teration and remodeling, etc., of the "buildings, and 
in furtherance of the agreement complainant was to give a partial re- 
lease of lien to tha City. In aocordanee ^ith the agreement cois- 
plai'oant's notes and trust deed were indorsed hy the City %?ith a 
"pa.rtial release of lien" stamp. The note and truat deed for 
#6, 244.70, ovvned "by Dr. Leonard Bsximko\^Bki» were also so indorsed 
hy the City. Saanuel Su@ina, the trustee in that trust deed, an 
attorney at lawj acted for Dr. Sausikowski in the matter. ¥anda 
BzuxakowEki and hushand collected the award from the City and 
turned over to their attorcey, PoBvic, |35,070. .anda rzumkowski 
tefeiified that the City gave her the net amourit of the award and 
that Bh€5 turned it over to her attorney, Posvlc. Complainant re- 
ceived '^-lOtOCK) and has accoiuited for it. The account shows a 
hali.aice of $1,335 on hmid, which the mtmtQT and chaiicellor found 
ahould he creaited on oomplaiaaat's mortgage, and it has heen so 

^nsjii bfiUB ©d'cxx 0M him $k '^ii&ni &i mid &Xg* htm *«:a£Xsq<3:« ©i^ tl €fr»^ 
-(JiJis aif* o;^ Tstfit jxioK^^ffl liaiia ©V? <!P9:^«intd' »i>'i lao'st jja.^eXs's jej aiB;*«to 

l2rawo3{iaiJs3 a&issW ,0?0<3£# tOivao*! ,y»*^^o**^ %i«d$ 6i %drQ bsinui 
&xtB b!£jsv/« srld" 10 iiswoata ;I'»J3 &jii tad ©vas \;d^lO silJ iasli b^ll^iaoi 

J3 awoda ^£k/o>ocv,c 9iiT ^Ji 'co'i bsd'miooojs ajBXl bos 000,01$ &eTi»o 
bmWi ToXXsonBxio bxus 'Eo;*afjm 9xf;5' jcCoiifw ,&xij8il xso 2S5«i# 'io a^uausXecf 


cradited in tlie decree. 

Appellant coatendb tsiat, laoney arising out of c^, cOK^r-mrifttiLon 
prooeeding is the propei^'ty of thy inorcgagee, and nob the property 
of the mortfjaiiora; that at the tirae of the av/nrd, as a.-iiiiinistrator 
of the estate of ?eo<5or Zeiaiaraj h« had C-10>500 to him under 
the mortt-raije "belonging to the r.smiara este.te, that the lien of this 
iacrt3?.ge attached to the fund in tlie hands of the City, that the 
pRymant to the £>i?.uinkow8kis was '•vathout any authority and \Jlth 
notice the.t l^arvin claimed the soacj,'* and thiit the payment of 
tlC,5C0 to the Sz-umkowskia constituted a "negligent payment "by the 
Oity ©f ChicagOf* "because of which he is entitled to a judgment 
against the City for the payssent due hisi under his trust deed, etc. 
fthen the power of eainent domain is exercised the ftind paid stands 
in place of the land condemned, a mortcagee's lien attaohef; to the 
fund, and he luns the right to hove the money, in place of the land, 
applied to the pajrment of his claim ( Oalumet BiTar liy >_ Co » v. 3Tom.p 
136 111. 322) I hut where the mortgagee releases hie lien on th« 
Gondencied property he loaes that ri^t. If appellant had stood 
upon his rights, the Oitj'- would not have heen justified in paying 
the 510,500 to the Sztaako^rakia. Ihe same vrould "be true as to cqib- 
plainant's mortgage and Dr. Leonard Ssumkowski's mortgage, if they 
had stood upon their rights. Appellant does not alle^ ncr contend 
that the City was a party to the alleged conspiracy. In support of 
his claim that the v1ity is liable appellant testified as follows* 
"Mr. PoBTic stated that it was hb cessary for me to take the principal 
note due on this mortgage to the City Hall and have it indorsed "by 
the Clerk "oefore payment could "be made, and if I did take the note 
zoid. have it indorsed, a separate check in the amount of :';10»500 
v/ould he issued Tsy the City of Ohio a go to Ifons Sz-ufflkov/ski and 

he visould immediately indcrse it and turn it over to me as payment 

'%i%BqQ'^% 9-Xi* t'on L-njB i &QBS:\^t' &di "iQ xi^^&qotii stii si ^ntb&n&is^ 

iOJ-S) nd^sB d-Gjj'j^t G.crl isanu sixrf 3ir5 ^fJ0!3:v:sq 9sii tot t^i^5^' s-ff^ *8nx.^js 

(Ofijsi- ©xfi' 'i:o soaXq ni t'^snem srf;J ^roxf oir iA-§.M nM &mi[ dif bits- Vfe^W^ 
■■ - ad[i xio rxsi;X uxrf asa.seXel ^as^B^'XCjat ©iii 0te®c[w ifi«f tCSSiS ♦XXl'dsi"" 

-fia&o o* a,s Qirzi acr bXoow sia:.??F. siCT .ei5fai>ro.-ImrsS art* oi OOS,0"i^ ©Ji# '' 

•^&^;}' li t9s^s-'3:oci & ^tiiSWo;>ffiiJwr2 ba^fiosJ .«X ban as^s^rrosi a ' J'nsxjijaiis 

&ns;?xJoo ^aa &^^X£a ton a;5ob J'aGlIscrq.. .ist^ifsit lisii* noqy UooJa Sail' 

'to di04\yjs ill »\0Qiiq_BTi0C) .b&$&XX« ©ffd o* -zii&q a g«w x*iS exf* tsrf* 

sevJoXXo'i as bQitxia^i imillQc^n ^I€ui:I ex ^^xS prfvt *.f3x£* h±sXo aiif 

"^dr boa.^ob^i: ;ti ©vbiI axi^ XIsH \;driO sxfi' oi asca^^os aixlc? no oub «^oii 
9*on ©ii* 35fe;J bxf) I :i.c txi-e tehsam ec" fcXi/oo ^msrt^sQ oiolsc Htsl'^'- i^^'' 

6ee limTositarsC snolX^^ oi o,:«j)ixfO lo i:;^xO ©if^ ^ b»f.i&el &€ bJbsov 
tn&srzaq, er. sat oj isvo ^1 xnjyi boA i± »Rr£46JKi^X«*x5i&9aBai felBow ail 


of this mortgage. He asked ne if I would do this. ITat "being 
acquainted with the City Hall I asked him If he would eend soiaa'&<Jdy 
along with me I so he r.sked tfr» PaTlak to go along with m&t ancl the 
note was indorsed nnd I asked the Clerk as he was wakln/r a m^norandum 
of the ,^10 » 500, -whether or not he vtjs ^oing to issue a check for t}iat 
amount separately and he ^ald thnt ws.n; the reason ot the miraoraudum 
and I asked hia ^^hether I Tfould r ?(ceive the cheok. He eei d the cl.aok^ 
M^cours©j|_ would, -^ e_.Pi^yahJe t o jgiXoas f^^ hie _ 

indor sement would ooBe to mej* that the cler'k made the inaorcemrr.tB 
on the trust deed and the note in red j thnt PoBVic fiorther stated 
that in approximately thirty days the City v/ould sake payment. The 
witrieBs stated that he had ^ive-n "the gist of the conversation" 'sith 
PosTie. In his oross-hill appellant alleges that the "purported re- 
lease deed was a forijery and a nullity," and that the Oity d^^priTed 
him of the security under the trust deed on a, frr-udulent release deed* 
In his reply T3rief he argues that the evidenee does not show that a 
release deed was presented to the ^ity "by anyone. The uncontradicted 
3Tiden«G showe. that .'lofia Safflu.ara» wido-w of Taodor Sanlara and mother 
of appellant, and Alfons J. Bzuiaikowski » uncle of appellant, went to 
Hadyslawa Jankowski, trustee, and obtained a partial release deed 
from her; that the trustee handed the release deed to '^ofia .-asiiara 
and the latter thereafter, in the presence of appellant, gave it to 
Posvio* As we have heretofore stated, Poarie's testimony as to -^diat 
occurred v/as not answered "by appellant* The trustee t-stifled that 
she gave .Ifons r>zuiakof?ski and appellant* s mother the release deed. 
•a.e indorsements on the note and trust deed, v.hich appellant admits 
handing to the clsrk, specifically recite that the trust deed has "been 
partially released hy the trustee. The record shows that appsllaat 
is an intelligent man, and it is quite plain that he understood the 
nature of the transaction with the City. The instant contention mat 

&Jit his^: \-^m ii^'f^r ^iH-eXs o'^ oi rffelTsf *'M fessSsa »c[. os %»kt i£*iw ^jbojCs 

&e*.?:*s ■x9iJ#nu"2 isii'Vfso'^ ;?ajjj j|)»^ jKl s^ton »ii^ hasi ba&b $isuTi edi ssq 
B®T.t'Tq?*f: ^S-iO oil* isdS fefi« *,Y* !•£•£«?« « fe«» ■^•rea^o'i a a«w bs^^ectfisX 

o* JjHew t #jf5«XX©.qq:s to ^£omj , xaTawo^^ea/sS .n; afiolXA btw. tismll3q.q& lo 
slB-tateS ffl.l:'^©."^ o* bseb «es»Xot »if^ bobixssiJ '•sai^uxi sdd isuti %%»4 asoil 

"i'«xlt bailid-^s;? ©s^taws:* SilT • #jK»XXaq;q:.G ^ff b«i®warEB ■ *©« aaw .&« 1:11; coo 

Biitahsi- iUBlLoqm iioitfcv t&aofc jTsilt's* baa o#on ©ilj fi© aiaemaeTtobai ariX 

5f£*3lXe^(Ifl ^,-:rii aworfe &^os3:t ©fPP .©3;f3L-^i a/U Ycf b9ai^©Xs«,..xXX*,t#^JSC[ 
^i hi^oiorebm od isdi nxaXq aiisip ai ^i bum ,s^m if^p^lU^Uit pm ai 


there is no evidence to show that a release deed was presented to 
the Oi\.y iB an afterthought and oonfllots with the allegatloB of 
his cross-bill that the City paid the money upon a forged release^ 
The master found that the note, trust deed and release deed were 
delivered to the City on Isfovamber I2f 1930. liTo other finding 
would "be justified under the evidence. Indeed, appellant j accord- 
ing to his own testimony, expected the City to pay the #10,500 by 
giving a check for that amount to Alfona Szumkowski, made payable 
to the latter, and that Szumkov/ski v/ould immediately indorse the 
check and turn it over to appellant. ,&ien the clerk in the board 
of local improvements reeceired the release deec from appellant 
and aiade the customary indorsements on the trust deed and note 
presented to him by appellant* so far as the City was concerned the 
property condemned was cleared of the lien of appellant's trust 
deed. The clerk represented the interests of the City and it was 
liOt his duty to see that Ljzumkowskl paid Uie tlO>500 to appellant. 
The City's duty, under the circumstances , v?as to pay the award to 
the ovmers of the property, ilot only appellant, but his mother, 
the wldOV of Teodor Zaxaiara, seem to have been willing to have the 
trustee pari.iaily release the trxist deed so that the City would pay 
the award to the flzutakowskis. Jor aught that appears in the record 
appellant and his mother were the only heirs of Teodor Zaaiara* 
yurthermore* as we have heretofore stated* appellant was not 
appointed administrator until Hovember S0» 1930» The Sz\»akowskii3 
were endeavoring to sare their interest in the property, and it is 
a reasonable inference frcm the evidenee that appellant and his 
mother, in what they didj were endeavoring to aid their close re- 
latives. The naster and the chancellor would have been fully justi- 
fied in finding, from all the facts pJid clrctBastanoes, that the clerk 
made no promiseB of any kind to appellant in reference to the payment 

*&m^lo% fea^^ot 3 neqw \;i'>aafft srCi^ fji^q; Ti^ivO »££* *iPjl;t XXitf-saeao eiiC 

%€ 003*0X1 mL?t x^iCi o.* xilD.mdS b&ii}&iixn ,-^»i^Js®* JKw® s^^ oJ* S«i- 
,_^9ilf &B%,iQb£ix. x^'-'^-^J'-'-^^^^^ liluom i:i"av;-05tewse-:ij5££df fells «:«»tt«Xfl^ 

^3iji;? a*4fiA5XXsc[<iA? lo fiiSiX sif.* io ^atcsaXo bsw ^©aBs&xxoo X^tsqcf-xg. 

3^7 ix htm •^*.tO sxf* "io adeote^isi &sii 09d^«Q8t>t^<sra aftfsXs «iiS'.i 

.c^J)usXX©q!5;.'•l oJ" 00a<0X'i ^4* bi^^q XjteWoaEtatisil ^sxii aaa is^ t*ja& aM >d4i 

0* bVL^vm o-sH YAcr oi e.avy tBasosj^auu/otiio exf^ %wbim itX^i^^ a*^3iO ®j4f- 

^rosi&oM i»id tad t *ii*XX..®ciq,c -^iiitia d&fe .X*'i»toit ex^* lo a-ie'tof/O »jBt# 

X^q. bJjsQW xtlQ fiiU- 4sitU OS b9©l) i^nti siW seasXe's: '^£XaX<^*£«^ «»©*Sij^ 

. .ajiisiSiS^ ttofcOdl' lo aai®4 "'^Xao ©ifd- ©saw TCfaft.ois ai:ji fe^iB ^tisXXaci^B- 

ai3faw®:tojs5 ©iiSr «0£ex ^OS is-rfBteTeK Xi^m; iota's *eijKM&j3 Ds>#flio<j<2«3 
ai il htm iX^x^q^otq ejli ni iasiad'fii 'ii:®rj;t orsa o^ seX^oys^&xss ex»w 

"BIT saoXo lisrfd- bj;« 0* ^.aX'ztir&9huQ Q-im ^b'ib x®m tn.^» nt v«»ilto« 

-ij-strf; ■(sXXi/'i «&»rf bjpA fcXsrow »©XX9«nAjiio o£f;r Sim tQinmi 9X0; .asvirf^X 

sr-E-aXo ©rfcf ^&sii <a«ftrL8#ffiia»i3aio fens a;^ojB'i ©x£;t LLr m%^ tV^aib^A.\ til h&fi 


ol' the aYarfi. But even if he made the Btatements appellant clainiB 
h€ did, the City, under the record* would not "be hound therehy. 
If appellfint heliered that he had a claim against the City* why 
did he defer Baking it \mtil the cross-hill was filed, nearly two 
years after the payment of the award? When he received infonaation 
that the City had made payment to the Szurakowekis he did not go to 
the City ahout the matter, hut to Poerict to whom he etated that h« 
had hoard that the Oity had made the payment to the Szunakowslcis hut 
that he "had not received the mon;?y due on the morti^age." The claim 
against the City appears to have heen aia afterthought and is without 
the sli^lbifet merit* As the C!ity argues* appellant ''should not he 
penaitted to saddle upon the city a loss he might have suBip^ined hy 
reason of his o^yn acts," The authorities cited by appellant in 
su^^port of his contention that the City is liable have no application 
to the facts as we find them* 

As to appellant's present position that complainant Tms a 
party to a conspiracy to defraud hims ITeither in appellant's cross- 
hill nor in the amendment to it is there any allegation that 
complainant v.'aB a party tc such conspiracy. The croBs-hill alleges 
that ".vanda ;:>zuuii!CO"wslci, /JLfons J. Saumko-^^ski * end Prank PosTioj?: * 
entered into a conspiracy to deprive cross complainant of large 
sums of money ^^hicto the Oity of Chicago had and poasessed from the 
condemnation proceedings," and that if the City has paid the money 
bdlonging to appellant* it has beea wrongfully p '^Ifully* and fraudu- 
lently retained by "Wanda BzumkOT.vski > .afons J. Hzumkowski, and Prank 
Posvic** 'i^e have very carefully examined all of the evidence that 
bears upon the alleged couBpiraey to defraud appellant trnd are 
unable to find aoiy groxxnd upon ^Jhich a claim could be reasonably 
based that complainarit was a party to such a conspiracy, /.coording 

to appellant the conspiracy started in Posvic»s office on ifoventoer 12, 

v\r-0j?13- i'vj si bar, ;.!'il|:iira«lJ";i:&i'l0 ,as KDatf @t-S5j;1 o* a'la^^q^a'X^iO &dt taxslBSa 

i.Hd^ iiiDi*.'^i50XX-:S ^jK/3 ©rteatJ ai; jji c^ir te®^5ji®iKss ^i^ ni ton XXicT 

osii m^tl feoaaseaog has. teif ©stssMt) lo \ilD Sf{;? xfeJtrlw ^gnoac Ic etiaj-a 
■V;axxoai qlU & isjij e©ri '^ii^xC- ©ii:!^ li ^bM.^ has ^ tSznibo&ooxqiriQs.ii^ms^'bmo 


1930» "but he la forced to concede that neither complainant nor 
the City was represented at that meeting. He ia further forced to 
admit that ao repraeentatlTe of ccanplainant was present when he 
went to the City department and had the indorsements put on Mb 
note and trust deed. He doee not contend that there is any eviieneo 
that any representatlre of ecroplainant had anything to do with gecar- 
ing the partial release deed or turnin? it over to the City. Tt Ic 
true, as appellant argues, that the general counsel of oamplalnsmt 
was present at the City Hall when the award wsis paid, Fe vras there 
to get the .*10,000 which the Szumkowskis had agreed should "be left 
in escrow with complainant for the purpose of for the r.lter- 
ations, etc., of the building* He did get it, it was placsd hy coa"» 
plainant in an escrow fund, has heen accounted for hy it, and the 
Szumkowskis are raising no issue in reference thereto. Indeed, they 
filed no objections to the report of the master. As to the meeting 
in PobtIc'b office on NoTeaber 12, 19303 Appellant testified that 
there were present his uncle, /JLfona J. Bzumkowski; his mother, 
Zofia 2aiaiarp? 3)r. Jeanette Leszcynslci j Pavlak, and Posric* ''^e 
liare heretofore stated appellant* b testimony as to what occurred 
there. Two other witre sees testified in reference thereto, /Ifons 
J. Szuakowski and PobtI.c* %en he ^/?as first called ac a witness 
■fey appellant^ SgtmdiowBM testified that there was a conversation 
"between appellant and Posvic} that "PoeTic said in order to apeed up 
the release necessary to pay the award by the City for Mr. Marvin to 
go to the City Hall and have hi a papers, I guess there ^®.s a mort- 
ga^ and note, endorsed by the City I " that appellant said he was aot 
familiar with the City Hall and did not Tcnow i^ere to go, so PavlsSc 
said he would show him where it was, '*and so they left the office 
and that is the last I S9W of them." The witness then stated that 
PosTlc instructed appellant to bring the papers back "within the 
time that the City was going to pay the award.* PosTic testified 


eM Ro ;5-fiq s^asj^^sa'SG^ai: 3>^ b»d bBB Jnesx^tstjsfe ic^iO erf* ©;{■ .;^is9v. 


JjHf^jcti.'^X^.Krc'.o 'io leaitaoo X^R^cscs^ Qdi isidji «a»«s^^ iBU3lX9(3pj« SjS «®«5t^ 
^tsxi:? aijw ell .fexsq; sso? fe-sswii ©riJ wsrfTr XXfiH ^*iO silcf *b ■tJHtaat^ Sjaiir 
■^IsX ocf bXuoiia fea&'iiS^ bsr£ aJ:iIswo:s£mi;aa sJtif ifcxxlw 000«0X^ erf* jTaS 0* 

^crdo •'jd' bGOflXq emi ^'^ t«^i *^^ ^i& oH •eg.rU&XXifd' ©4* IE0 t*8>0 »«UB»J:*43 

sdi has til -v^cf tol be:^£uiooo& a&Sfd ajssi nbrnfl wo*f®«i9 xss ci ^xiiSfllaXq 

•^©xii «fo3»9l')nl ^oiatBsU Qonois'lBx itl Qwaai oa :gulQls'S. &%& BiaCawostjGiysS 

■■'■■'■ ■' ;'■' ' ...i/i '''> 

eiKJlXA rO^a^r^xC^ ©onDT'r^lstc fU &si'i;i;fas* asaa m^lw ^sjC3;o ®^ *«ta^ 
isox^aafevaoo 43 saw ^-rsrlS i&di f>sXli:*a9# is'awoil&iBjia ^jfiijBXXfigQfi X<^ 

-;?'ic«i JB ^sss a-isxld- saai/a I tS'Xsqsq; airf sverf bxijB XXjsH ■yj^JbD oil* 9* 0^ 
-i^XVij'S; OB ,as oi* e^&rfsr tp/ocnf c^oi3 MS fttijs XXbJI xilXi biH dii^ talULmai 


that appellant* b mother handed hia the releoae deud t^ad ho turned 
it over to appellant and told him to take the rsieLiBe together 
with the ij^iO^tXiO note and trust deed to the Taoard of looa.1 JLapiore- 
ments; that Pavlak accompanied appellant to the City Kail} that he 
did not promise appellant that he wotild pay Mm |10,500 out of the 
award but that Alfons Szumkowski and Wejada Sssuaiko^sneki told appellant 
thf*t they would pay hia the money if there was enough left sitav 
Dr. Szumkowski and complainant had heen taken oare of c.rM P^svlc's 
fees had heen paid. Although appellant's mother, J)r, Leonard 
Szumkowski, It. Jeannette IcBzcytiski and Pavlak, none of T?hom 
appellant claims was a party to the alleged ecnepiracys rmre also 
present at the time of the inception of the nlleged ooncpiracy, none 
was called ae a ^-itnese "by api.)ellant« Appellant contends thf^.t the 
evideaee shows that the release deed secured by his Kother ii'.nd Me 
uncle ^s altered by j^osTic eJ'ter it had been delirered to him and 
that it was therefore invalidated, and he seems to argue that this 
is a circtmstaaoe tending to prove the alleged conspiracy. The 
teBtiraony upoa ';*ich appellant relies in support of this contentiOTsi 
was given by Altonn J. Satimkowski^ ^?ho was twice called by appellant 
as :% witness. In his first testiaony> heretctf'ore stated by UBj» 
as to whcit ooouired in Posrio^s of a oe on iiovembe^ la^ 1930, he made 
no mention that there had been any alteration in the release deed* 
He was again called by appellant at the close of all the evidenee 
and he then testified that losTic read over the release deed and 
stated that changes should be Bsade in it or a different release ob- 
tained from the trustee. Hon© ef the persons present at the timis 
in question* not erev. appellant, corroborated this laet testimony by 
Bzumkoueki. .^fter a eareful study of the record it seeaus reeeonably 
clear to us tbat appellant did not regard the SauBfcowekis as real 
defendente to his cross -bill* .^hile attorneys filed an answer for 


%Qdio'i,os ©SiioX©'-; oii* sslg^ o^ ssU!. oXoi bns- *aslX9qiii« o* raro it 
^^ro-iq^^l X.eooX "sa b-Zi^cd iji:t oi ^esb iay-2^ baa sS'Ok GOO^^OX^^ exi* xf^i^ 

^iiS 'to iiSQ O0StOX| mid x^>q felfjow srf is^s i^x&sXXsqqs- saiaiOT^ *Ofi blfe 

i<:iSZleq.CQ bZot i'.5{swo^cfXfti8 jb&isoW axis l:^ewoJifiRrsci srxolX^i JbiIj- d£;2f Ls^wjs 

tsS'x,t SJ.BI dsjLWrxo aaw s^srfd- Ix '^;onoia ©xCu- jaiil x^ bliso'tf x^M* *^# 

s*L-£Tacl Bns lo ©ti^a nsii-oi nsec' fe^ii iciBal^Xqsioo brm. liiswo^^ssQ t'Sfl 

btr>m<i^ t-sG uteris om Q^StisLlaqq,^ di^sjosiilk *blaq a@9iS b&d a©»l 

saXs j'fQTr «vD.a"xxq;-:!aoa l»©Se-X£ sjfi;^ oi TC^isg; ^5 3i3iiir 3ia.f:sXo ^iasXXsqga 

&di iszdi libitoixii^o ^miXXsqqiA i$tv&lL^q& ^<f QGSK;?lr»/ & as feeXIa© ssaw 
cixt jfi-3 'isrC^oni alii -^o* bsiiiosa tiosb oqmbIbx edi i^i awoxfa o»j3#&i£T!» 
fiSis mid oi boz&vlleb aeoiS b^il it ts^^b oxTao? vtf i>Q%o3£f& sm 9t&mi 
Wixdi isdi 0ir&zj2 ai sjEaeaa 0rf bos < Ss^sbxI^-vrxi: o'iOl'S!i£«5»£* amr i^' ittsAi 

zoiiii9^rBQo sliii 'to ^t-xoarrjua xsl asxlQ-s JftsIIaqqs iioxsfe' m»^# •^aWKi^es^ 
#iiaXX0crq.s ^tf &9lX.po so.fe'g' a-.w oxi';'/ ^5 l:sa^vo:feu£3 ,1, suotXA /^ iidvl^' a^v/ 

s&^ia ed tOc^JX <S:X -radkevotl a-o eo fi'io a*oi"Tao^ it± l^©«'2;flooo A^w ©^- ajs 

dexitJbivc- 0i£5 XX-kJ 'io eaoXo &sif #b cTjxaXXaqq^s Tija" baXXie-o nii^s assW 9H 

-tfo ea^asXett inGtcallio b 10 iX nl Qbam o€ OXx/orfa as'aK£5ifo ^sif;^ Ssi's^s 

SiHii 9ii;f ss ;t«Qa3xq aaoa".!:sq: siU 'io ©cold .asiairi* 9rf;f sprt bQssXj^i 

^tf •^ii0£a±;?3e* *a.gX bM;* &9*s:£qo"o'X'xoo ^^^rrjsXXQqq^ c^ts ;tOG filox*a^i<;p ixi 

Xasi 2^ Qi3Ca./02£su/ii3 srCi hifjass-i ion bib iaalloqq^ i^di au o^.'m&io 


the Ssufflkowskis, to tlic "bill, th©y appear to hare thereafter takftn 
no part in the procesdings. Mo answer was? filed "by tlie Sauiukoiifa'icie 
to the orosB-l:)ill axio iio d^faiat vjas taJkea agninat thea* In thla 
state of the reooxd a judgment oorild not have been takea ae^ainst 
the Sziaaicow8ki« had appellant Bucceeded on his croas-hill. Ho hrlef 
in their hehalf has heen filed in this court • They seen to haTa 
taken no interest in the proceedings before the master until th&j 
uere oelled aa witnesses hy appellant* and the aamer in ^vhich they 
were ejcajmined hy his counsel ehowa no effort to prove that they 
?;are, in faot> parties to & fraudulaat oonspiraoy a^aisist appellant* 
We cannot escape the oonolusion that they were used "by appellant in 
an effort to mak© out a case against the Oity and complainant » the 
two financially responaihle cross-defendants. Upon oross-sx-aainatlwi 
iSsumkowski admitted that when he taas eujamoned he went to the office of 
appellant's atlorney and asked Mm "ahout »y affair in the case* ■•hat 
ray chaiices ©xej* th;\t he talked %yith the attorney "aheut ay omn inter- 
est in iti" "whether I have a good Buit agalasst the Polish Soman 
Catholic Union?" thfit h© told the attorney he had h©®n served with 
8\affinons; that the attorney eaid, '••Hire a lawyer and go to it«» * * * 
He cannot act in my case.'* fhe raiaster and the ohaacellor were fully 
warranted ia refusing to "believe ftx-aakowski'e teetimony as to the 
alleg<:^d alteration of the release deed &nd in oonoluding that it -m^ 
given in a final effort to helfcter up appellmit's case against the 
City* In any event t appellant knew all that happened in Posvio»s 
office at the time ia question and he thereafter took the not<3> 
trust deed and release deed to the Oity and caused it to act upon 

Counsel for appellaxit* in their effort to fortify ttieir 
claim against the City and complainant p have seen fit to refer t® 
several alleged matters '^ioh they concede arts outside ©f the record* 

^asitBT^B j^aafeg n*?»<f sv^ SQa .^liico *a©6gatat a ^>xiJ»a« ©rfsJ' 1© *!*«^a 

iai iSHlX^qxi^ x^ £>aew «i2«»?? "Sjinif^ ;^M^ tmlAstl^mo »^ miaou® ien&BP.»p 

^^jI;? •*aj!?> si!^;? si 'si.a't'tfj ^111 #«o<f.6" sjcti fcS5i5*.« bias x-«**^«^*#« 8'5.rtai;X*ti:« 
"Ts^jKx rK^o -y^s *8f©.sfis** x?iSi'Z03i&i ®xW 4?i-Xkv .l»,®2t£asJ tsif ^isi^ *'in>%& 3®oftsil0u'-,^ 
ixcwK ££«iI«>^i'»jHP;t ^s^aljsa^^flwa fe«©s a »V0fi I i»di' si^'*'-- «.^f* Jt ist .^a^- 
*&20o«n: sif* 'Sto el>la*m> ®ijs »ls»ei5foo x^i rfoMw a«©^;t«tr 6«?a«XXA X,o-3:«ivto 

Furtheanaore, they Intimate that the experienced and uprif^ht master 
who heard the cause may not have Taeen impartial in hi3 determinatiun 
of it» and to support this entirely unwarranted intimation counsel 
refer to an allegecl conversation, held since the termination oi the 
proceedings, between one of appellant *b counsel and a partner of 
the master* Such unfair tactics do not aid a litigant, and they 
are to be condeained. 

Because of the way in ahich this case has been argued lay 
appellant, we have been compelled to devote iindue time to its con- 
sideration. It may be that appellant caused the City to pay over 
the -10,500 to the Szuiakowskis because of proauses made to him by 
them which they have not kept; but Ms present plight is due to his 
own aoti<ms in the preaisee, and the fact that the Szoakowskis are, 
apparently, financially irresponsible, is no 4«stification for the 
present attempt to make the City and eaaplainant pay the loas ke 
has sustained* However, it may well be doubted if the Sziuako^skis 
promised appellant to pay him the tl0,500 as soon as they received 
it fr»^ the City. Wanda Saumkowski testified that she got tJae 
money from the City and immediately turned it over to her la^'^r^ 
Posvic. ^kppellant did not see fit to interrogate her nor her 
husband as to why they did not turn over the ^0,500 to him. 

The decree of the Circuit court of Cook county is affirmed. 

Siallivan, ?• J., and Pxiend, J., ccs^tir* 

isisaa ixi^-il-xq^sj 5xib bonus its q'x.Q ©iid- is^s simikial t£©j1* « ©■xoarraddte'S: 
'^sxis Lisa t'i!xs,'^x3s.l &, biB ^oa g^ soiSO.sS' !i:i«'ii25F iioijfi .toJ^a,efit ^jdy' 

^eia aJ:fewc3£i2£?s3 s«t5 ;)Bii^ #s«!i JBd4 fens «ssai3KJtsq 0£fi xsi aaoxtfas awo 

&3vi:905T "^!3x£;J as aeoa s© 003«0X# srii HEi:ii' "^getq o;t ^aellaqqs bsala&iq; 
©^ d^oa siia ;j.srfv^ fo&iliifas* laCaw&afett/sS 3&xi«W •■^d-lD sjd* fiS&T.l: d'i 

^0x1 *iOja -xsif s$;s^Q-xi:&4 al oi ^I'i ooe *©n bib d'aelXsiiiqA .ox-fBo^ 

«.!SlM o^ ODStOXt e^ -save aHs;^ iJrcc fei:&. tcaffw- TsxfEr od- ajs foiisd'Bird 

• ^s»©eoo ,»u tbiTsisI fens ^*t «? tfiSTxIIc^S 






I COCK couN'ry. 

> 28 8I,A. 6 



On March. 6, 1933, coraplainants filed their 1)111 against 
Joseph Luhan and Bessie Luhan. After an appearance had been 
entered for both defendants, "but "before the filing of an answer » 
Joseph Liohan died and the cause proceeded against Bessie Luhan. 
There was a reference to a master whoo after hearing evidence, 
filed a report recominending a decree in accordance with the 
prayer of the "bill. IDxooptions to the maeter's report were 
overruled and a decree, in accordance with his recoiainendations, 
was entered, requiring Bessie Luhan to pay complainants C*6? 135.20 
and the coats of the proceedings and to indeumify complainants 
against sxijy loss they ai.^t suffer hy reason of a certain judjpient 
entered in the Municipal court of Chicago on January 12, 1932. 
Bessie Luhan, defendant , appeals* 

No question is raised on the pleadines* On March 22, 1929 > 
complainants oinned lots 21 and 23 in Knight & Wilson's Re suhdi vision 
of Block 11 of Hidge Acres, in the Village of Western Springs, Cook | 
county, Illinois. Each lot was subject to the lien of a trust deed, 1 
"both dated Hay 25? 1928, executed and delivered "by complainants to \ 
secure their eight principal promissory notes for the aggregate 
principal sum of ';8,000, paya"ble five years after the date thereof, 







'«\. ^i ■4^. A "T> O^ O O ( 


;^arii.9BS Xlxtf *3:i;&ffd* fesXll a^^sjsnxjBXqiaoo «SeSX «3 ^0'x.eM ^ * ' 

A'lsocT fosxf ©©«j!i'x/59i|.<is fie •fO^tA •nsxlirj eieaoS bixa ujBxfijii fii^eedt 

, ^-xswafjaj XS.3 lo gfllXXIt ©if* ©'rolorf v^wcf tacfneljKslofc ifd'otf to\ hat^in'^ 

^.trndisl sxeasS *t3ixxa5i« bebssoo^fg sei/s-o ajdd b«a bsife a&AuJi dq_QBti% 

Sifl^ rWX-w eojojab-zooas kx 5i&to':»& e B^Xfen^^ac^os- ^^o^S'S s b«XXl 

0S»5gX (<Sft e^naaiaXgpp ft Y^q o;t itsffsjiX ©Xf.'ssfi •^m.lf.kup^t ,l>st?>*j»9 Wsw" 

i'ii'i>iag,bnt iriX^.t^ao e lo-; Koa^^s'if x4 tallii/e, ^^xfeXia ^ef# sstfitX "^na ^■siti.i*®^ 
»sr,ex ^StX ■^•s.sijurc^x. no 05)j3Ol.fl0 to :;J-ti?otJ X/s^isASiM ari* k1 &sis;5-X£9 

fioiaivibcfwasfl: a »KoaXX.. sS J-tisX-fi^ ni fi^: bCB X2 s^oj bsfi^o s^nsnXnXqraoo 

2ioo0 ^E^fiiiqa nt9*ao, lo os^lXiV arij ni: ^asTo^'^ QS&ifl to XX ^ooXS to 

nb^Qb iauti ^j lo nsXX sdi oa- ,toef,«fw3 axw j-oX riosS .aionilll ti^^ti-afoo 

od' ii;?ftBni£Xqiaoo x*^ JasTsviXob &«j3 b9*wo3-^9 «82&X ? clS ^sM rf^+orf 

ajtfi39t£a83 Qrii'iol a-y^ioa x'^oaatmotq XaqxoitiTti ^d^Us tisd^ a^yoas 

,t09i9rfcr si.. 30 9x1* t3i\B BTCBBy, svil 9Xcf.JX--,q ,000,8; to siwB Xsqxoni^q 


with interest at the rate of six por cent per annum, paya-ble Bemi- 
annually, evidenced Dy ?i^ty interest coupon notes of eyen date 
therav/ith ior the sum of i^SO each, v/hich trust deeds were duly re- 
corded as documents numbered 10049321 and 10049323, respectively. I 
Bach lot v/ay aloo euhjcot to the lien of a junior truet de«d, both 
dated May 25, 1923, executed and delivered by complainants to j 
secure their principal promiSBory note of ev«n date therev/ith for 1 
the sum of 43,000, paynble one year after the date thereof, to- 
gether with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per amium, 
payable semi-annually, wMdh. junior trust deeds were duly recorded 
as documents numbered 1004932S and 10049324, respectively. On March j 
22, 1929, complainants sold the premises to Joseph luhan and Bessie 
Luhan and executed and delivered their warranty deed conveying the 
premises co them, "subject to all {-eneral ts;jces levied after the \ 
year 1927, • all unpaid special tejces and special assessments; party 
wall agreements of record; building line restrictions and building 
restrictions of record; and to the following trust deeds: Trust 
deed dated May 25, 1928, recorded as Doouiasnt Ho. 10049321, conveying 
Lot 21; Trust deed dated !fey 25, 1928, and recorded as JDocument Ho. 
10049322, conveying Lot 21j Trust deed dated May 25, 1928, e^d 
recorded as Jocument No. 10049323, conveying Lot 23; Trust deed 
dated iiay 25, 192G, and recorded as T)ocument No. 10049324, conveying 
^®* ^^' ^i^^^^-^£i^a.^^Mj]:grein_b^the a^ce^^^ deed hereby 

agree to assume and j^f^j t,j]e_inCTmb.r;mgee_sjcu^^^ trust deeds." 
The aggregate indebtedness secured by the four trust deeds was credited 
on the purchase price of the premises. As soon as the deed was deliv- 
ered to the Luhens th-y executed tvo v^rranty deeds, one conveying Lot 
21 to Leslie B. Villiams, e.n^^ the ether conveying Lot 23 to the same / 
party, ^ach deed provided that the grantee ass^umed and agreed to pay 
the incumbrances secured by tho s^i. d Tour truat deeds. On May 25. 192S 

*-©•!£' ^Xirb ©lew al)^©!? .^Sa/i;^' jioxxffe' <rioss Oos) lo ioua 3rii lo'i di kvi&i^dt 

,Tj,Isv.tuOftg;B-5U ,ES£y:^OOX forioe JCSS^^OOI ba'ccscfaDin a^j-KOjajjoob a^. habtoo. 

i dsod xb&sb toiuxi soJiJKWt -^ -<J iisi'-i ari^ o.^ ;?oBi,rfw9 oiiila esw^ol xCo^ 

"Oi ii'tooxodi s;Jj5& Sii;}- ^eitsi is&x. ©no oXcfp.Xi;g; %000,S^ t<^ msn mdS 

b&b'iooot xlfjb o'xaw sfesafe *6i,fTi:d' tolmri ffoiifw ^t^X^wfixis-lfflsa ©Xcf^jntsq 
jrio-iXiM n^> *\£oTxioBqe,®'i tli25^*>00X bxia Sase^r^OX 5©i0cfiaun a^naait/ooo aa 

sdi •zQ!^t.B ^eiTe£ b^.taj* ^s^en©::, IX/5 o:i' d'out^sfms" 4i39fi;f oi- asaiaia'tq: 

;gni:&Xxmf brm aao}Jt)i^.i&^'f~ etis.1 ■%mbli.ij<S thrnoQ^ lo a^rssrasQSsx; XXjsw 

i*au':T isBeob ^'3Lrxi %My^QLlo1 odi oi .on.8 ibtoosi io anox^toi'i^asx 

Bn.tY.S'VHQi) «XSC'>?*Ov"X .oS JmiffiB'so^X' a>o ba^tootrc ^SaeX tSS "^jaM ba^sib fi&«i> 

BXiJtYovriOo «^S£S'i5'0QX •oil J^KS/iTwse€ «a b»&xo£)f^'i &as %^Ql tfiS ^aM fea*jal> 

e*iF)&"£0 B,ew ao99fe *awx* i«ol s>il^ Y.d' betxfoaa aasn-baiJcrobjctl. aissaia^js ©ifT 
-v.tXgb BBV be&b Bsi^ ^s nooa J3;\ ♦agelMsiq sjrfd' "io ©aJi'tg; aa:>jio'isjq &sii no, 

gC^X «2S "^^ isO ,afoo6^ ^GiTtd- -xifo'J: ^tes sjjf^f X'cf bo-suooa asoneicfxayoai exIS 


there matured Tinder the terms of thn tv/o Jimior trust deeds 
principal indebtednesses aggregating $6»000» together with instal- I 

raenta of interest thereon aggregating 1^180. K"o part of the saflie \ 

wat> paid hy the Luhans and the ovi/ners of the notes and interest \ 

coupons demancied payment from complainants. Thereupon complainants I 
demanded of tiie Luhans that they pay the same. Neither of th<r Luhans ' 
paid the oame, and on January 20, 1930, the owners of the notes ajid 
interest coupons obtained a judgment against complainants in the 
Municipal court of Chicago^ Case Mo* 1426764, in the sum of ^^in^AC-, 
"being the rmount of principal and interest due, and that was secured 
"by the junior trust deed recorded as document i^o. 10049324. Complain- 
ants thereupon paid the sjaount of that jud^ent. The Luhans de- 
faulted in the pejiment of certain instalments of interest as they 
matured on th^ indebtedness secured by the tYvo senior trust deeds 
re3ord3d as documents iTos. 10049321 and lQG49323p and also the 
general taxes o-i the premises for the year 1928, and "by reason of 
such defaults complainants T/ere obliged to expend the following sums:^ 
■$248.40 on May 8, 1930;) for interest coupons due iiJovember 25, 1929, 
and accrued intere^it ther'ionj #240 on Jime 9, 1930, for interest 
coupons due Uixy 25, 1930; ^244.58 on ji'ebruary 16, 1931, for interest 
coupons 6uQ wov3xaber 25, 1930, suid accrued interest thereoni 4«241.85 
on July 7, 1931, for Interest coupons due iiay 25, 1951, and accrued 
inr.ere^it thc5r3on; ri240 on Docember 16, 1931, for interest coupons due 
Noveraber 2V , 1931; .''192.61 on July 14, 1930, lor general tsjces for 
the year 1^28, and -Denalties thereon." On January 12, 1932, further , 
proceedings were had in the caus« in the Municipal court of Chicago I 
and an additional judgment was entered against complainants in the 
suii of ;|35 659, %tg^cieT cocts of suit, being the amcuxit of » 

principal arid interest secured by the ju^nior trust deed recvirded as \ 
docx'jnent 5To. 10049322 5 Trhich judsmsnt remains vmsatiiif ied and in 

sbsBb iasj-zi 'toianl ^''-''^ ^^'^' *^o mtte'^ &d^ robtia bBtu&Bsi sxsri^ 

QBtet! Sift 'lo &"£Bq_ oH a 08X4 snJt^jsB^'iSBS rrdsiarfcf JssrrsJni "io Rd^neci 

aJruQXixjsIqmoo noqua-xoilT .aixxani^Xqiaoo lifo-il ine&%.Bq heboBSRsb anoqCTbo 

bm. e&^oa odi 'io s:<:arivTO Bd& tO£9I «0S "^■x.3nij.«u no bnss «3CIb£ sif^t &isq 

&d^ ni ac^fiofixslixraoo -c^aiii/JB'JS ;JxtSBX3turf, s benxBido arioquoo d-ssiQitxix 

^Oii^|i5l lo tsr?a 9JCC* ni t^avas^l .old scsO <03BSixfO lo ^ijooo XaqioimiM 

-nisIijfiioO «^S£9->00I .ok c!-i<si<i;joo& sJ^^psfetooss ijsj3& .tair'tj- 'loxmjJi srf* ^^ 

ebosb iavzi 'xoliwa 0'/?d &£ii \i^ foa-xi/osa aescos^cfobni: erlit no bsrij^&m 
Qsii okIb bjKs ^SSSe^OOX bns XSo&i-'COX «aoIl G,-tx5Sfflt/oof) bb bebioo&t 

5 amsa ■^nhioll.o'i ©il,t bi'ijjqxa c;^ ba'^x.ldo s'isvr €d-n.^rii:sXqEioc a^Xixalsb ffoi;;a 

dTiox&JTil -xol ?OS@X i^ on/j-1. fit) 0-.^Sf jfioi^ieif;* ice'ieiai bauioo.s bns 

^a9'i9;3-ni '£01 ^XCei tdX v-gjirxCfs'-i xso 83#:S"^S«^ \0&Q£ k^^ Y^^-M oj;;b jjcoqi'ao 

38.Xi^S''i •eiioa'.cexld iao-xsinL bssjtoos bi-^ tOCQl « 8S 'xsdi&tsvoll oub naoqiroo 

i>©;,rj;3o '-5 bnc ,X2iBX , 3R \;3ixl aub enoqju'oo cfao'roJn.i: rsol tXS§X «V yXjtT, no 

eub anocijjoo ^'^s'leoiij: '£o'.: «Xt:::9X <9X '.cscfiaoor.Ci: kq O^S»ii; inosisiij- viisis.txii 

Y.0I: 30xi<d Xbi-okos 'xoi i05;9X ^kC xXnt no XS.SSX^ |X£€X ,3S istfmsvol 

TSxLd-'x.y'x «S£'?X <SX istQifnjsI. nO ".no^^aciij aaiv-tX^sKSiq Bxsn «8g3X xgsy sj^* 

JB-ai^oixIO to ixuoo Xaqtioirsw:.! sxij- ni ©bje;bo orLt nX &.sjrf 9:tow a^nxboaco-iq 

5di as. eitnani:r.Xqi20o ;^anir>BJ3 b9X3cfn& esv/ inamgbi/t Xisno x;txbbs njs ferns 

lo iuuomn 9?rii- snisd" «l^j:/js 'io si?.oo diiv/ lerSaa®*^ (ea3«.S.t.,^ lo mua 

BB bab-xcJOOT boab ;^3{j'x,t xoirtul ^^-^ X^^ baixroas ^co-xeinL bna X^qroniiq 

nx bxi,3 beil^ic^.eanu anlxJiaciT JnsnEbxrf; rfoixfe <SS59=5^00X .oK d-nsmt/cob 


full force and effect. 

Complainants filed their iDill to reoover from defendants 

the various sums of money advanced by them, together with Intorosfe 

thereon* and for inderanif icatlon by defendants against any loat^ or 

damage complainants mlj'ht sustain heoause or on account of the 

judgments entered ajj-alnat them in the MunicipatL court on January 

12, 1932. I 

Defendant Bessie Luhan concedes » in her brief , that -vhere I 

the purchaser of real estate retains from the purcha&e price an j 

amoimt sufficient to pay existing incumbrances that a promise to \ 

pay such incumbrances is implied, but she contends that Ruch rule 

does not apply to her because, she argues, she was not the pio'chaser 

of the premises; she was not a party to any contract v?ic;h complain- 

anta; she did not pay any part of the purchase price; she did not 

deduct any part of the purchase price because she did not pay any 

part of the purchase price; "she was in no way a party to the j 

transaction in question;" that if her name appears on the several / 

deeds introduced in evidence she signed such instruments solely I 

because of directions given her by her husband; and that she did \ 

not know there was an assvuaption clause in the deed from complainants \ 

to the Luhans. The master and the chancellor found against all of | 

these contentions, and after a carefiil sKamination of the facts and 

circumstajnces in evidence we are satisfied that they were warranted ' 

in so finding. Defendant suggests that the evidence would hardly 

warrant the conclusion that the amount of the incumbrances was de- | 

ducted from the purchase price. This suggestion is an afterthought 

and without merit. The bill specifically alleges that complainants 

at the time of the sale "credited the said defendants v/ith the sxm 

of i; 22, 499, being the amount of the aggregate principal indebtednesses 

and fche interest thereon vvhidh had accrued as of said data, secured 

by the said fotir Trust Deeds, which said sum wae then and there 

' ©Mo^ "iio imsooQti no -so sawi^oacf £ii«*euo ^rC^Jtm B^nsfiifilgaioo ©Bjaflts^ 

sXtjt rfoue i^si'i sbmjJxtoo exie o^utT , beiXeflJi a J: ay-oiiB'io'mroxil ifoira '^a<j; 

'i©<';;,^>i.{o'swcj[ ed-^ Jon a.r;W oxCa < ae«^i.a &da ^&ais.'iO&€ lod t)i xlq,qj& ton ao^b 

^al&Lqmoo diiv ioB'iisioo -^b oi Tjiisq b iQO. s,sw .s4a jeea^etcq srii^ to 

tort aiJb orJa jaoiiq saadoxi/cc erfit aO dijsq '^iia Yj3<1 ^00 fel& aiia 4a?tl^ 

•^os X^q ;;on bx!b 9JfG 980.6030'' ©oisq ©a.ejfio'xwq 9di lo ixaq •^«s ^otf^d^ 

adi o^' ■^^■xsq s \^sw 041 aJ: sew ©rfa** ^aoiaq aa^iSo^Aig; »iii 'to 4%^- 

XXoIoa a;ijaei?a;'i;?8fii: dois& bansglB ©Ms ©oasfeJtys «.f: bsoubetial e&9»i 

aixt*5xiXBXqCTCo Kto^'i &S8& 01^^ si- ssjtraXo coli-qaojsas g» aaw 3xyx{;t woiuC ion 
"to LL'^ istiiii^^.r: fera/ol ToXXso^Bilo oif* bJSis xs^s-sar o4T t&usdisJ. 9di oi 
5as stfof;! edi lo'axixflioxs Xifls-uso s •x&ilsi btm ,axiox;j£i9itnoo ©ssxi* 
be<}'KBii.GW ©'£0?; XP^^ ^ssdJ- bsllaliQa sic!v aw soissblva ai.asojraja^awwoxio 
•^Xh'xsil r)Xi;ov/.9ons>f>xve sxi^ is^xii g^aejiswe! ;fTta&w9lstE ♦soifenil oa jai 

•9b saw aeorjE-GicTnxupai: 9x-W lo iaucmK edi iBd^ aoXsuioxioo Bdi iiwit&fr 
idfjUodi:'s.ei'x.(i ns ai jaoiJaosswe 3i.crr •eoxiq 98jsiioaM<i; arl# £3oa1 bss;Jo»fe 
a;tnjtinJ.«XqMo c^arfcf asgeXXa YXXeoiUiooqe XXicf ailT *;tixem 4x;e»il;^xv 6xij8 

auQ &di rfrJIw aJnabcio^ab biijG sri* b9#io9:io" qImq 9Jdi to essXi ^di t» 

feoirrooE ta*$,f) bine; lo as bsiwiooB bad doid^ aoo'i&d^ ia9%9tal 9d^ btw 
B-xcdi un,r. naxfi acv/ inue b iijo xfciiiw ,a5s9tt ^auxT luol &.t::c sri;^ -^rf 


deducted from the purohftse price of the said real estate and 
premiaen , anri the helj^jace of the consideration therefor v.ati th«sn 
and there receivec? by your orators from the Pt-in def endazitB." 
Defendant, iu her answers did not deny the efcresaid allegr.tion^ 
as to the def^uctiontj fiom the purchase price, "but merely etatos 
that she " did not assexit to or agree to the allowance or crediting 
of Bxiy part of the principal indelatedness or interest secured "by 
said four tr^jut deeds referred to in s?.id "bill of coir.plaint upon 
the purchase pricn of said premises, nor did she asoent or agree 
to the deduction of the principal indehtednesa or the interest 
secured hy B-id four trust deeds from the purchase price of on,id 
premises." The record shows that this was her pof^ition upon the 
trial. Uor vras the aforesaid allegation in the hill that "the 
balance of thf; conBideration therefor v/as then and there recoiTed 
by your orators from the said defendants" denied in defendant's 
anc-wer, although the answer »;as filed by Attorney Porter* who was 
preeerit at the consummation of the deal. Y/alter A© Wade* a witness 
for complainants and their attorney, testified that the indebtedness 
secured by the trust deeds described in the deed from complainants 
to the Luhans tsbm credited to the Liihans on the purchase price of 
the property conveyed, and defendant did not cross-examine the wit- 
ness upon the subject. Joseph (J. Porter, present attorney for 
defendant and a Vifitneas for her upon the trial, testified that he 
Wan present at the time of the cansummation of the deal, but he did 
not contradict IVade's testimony in any way. Indeed, Porter's testi- 
mony tends, rather, to corroborate that given by \¥ade. As to the 
strained argtiment of defendant that she was not a party to the 
transaction: The bill alleges that c "^aplainants sold the premises 
to Joseph Luhan and Bessie Luhan* and that the balance of the con- 
si disr-tion due complainants after the aggregate amount of the in- 
debtednesses secured by the four trust deeds had been deducted from 

©s-xga TO :^ £19 3^451 affa bib lort , Ksaimssaq Mr.s "i© 9oi;t);<j,^SJS!Jfo.x^q. ,a4* 

;&1/^G 1© jfsol.'s;;! f>a;:3i:la'£xr<:; ojd'4' jsottl aAasK) inarxi xuQ'l i»,.M9 "^tf l>ST-j;fa9a 
©li* noqw «cXo±®oq lexl Bam Qldi ijnii mfSiSiSi bim^i QiJT ,".,«jftsi;^,*sct 
aii;?*' *.!uiv X£xd" sjSdi- al sml;^ss%&llB foijaaa-x^'i-B fsri* aat/ •sol tXalxA 
fcSTlosats; ss'xofU biio nod:^ scvr xoxatjorf* noXi,R^©&Xaaoo siri;J I0 9^iml@xS 

B&Btiil'ff B t©SfiW «A ^si^XisW «X.30b axf^ lo fitjiJ'SKMittraiioo 0if;t *« ;faaaei:q 

lio soxi^ oa^uflo'Xfc-q; edi no ajsailw*! sd^ o^ bs4'ib®ao 83*7. aj:xBXl0j ©JiS 0* 

— ^1.^' ©iii saiEtKXS-saoti-o don bXb d-fi-sbns'ieb fcjB tfooij^Tiioo '^Jt^cagoiijx ^ii* 

iQl X^it-xttiSiS iszoB'^ic tistxci^i .C rfq&BoT. »*o9^«f0a ©riJf noqir as^fl 

bib &ii .Lurf tX*3Gb orij- 1© X!£Oii«iaE!i/a«©o ©ri^ lo ©mi;«^ srfcJ ia ^J-xisas^cq 3«iw 

-idc9.t 3 ti^iS-xol sboQ&Kl ."^prA' ■^f«i Hi x«oai-i^'S9^1' k '^fesS ^oibjs-ritiioo don 

&xli oi J2.A , BbisW -^d" m-'Yih ^BiH sisioefG-x-soo OiJ- tttsiiJifx tsbiiec? Xf^oH 

Gxi.)- o.t "^d-x^q B 4-?oa asw ex£a ;J«ifd Jambatyl&b J.o ia&mj^x^ bQCxsxis 

see isBSf-xi^ »d5 blon aoju^JxiifiXoiBco i.sisii aiigJiXXs XXicf Qdl ; noiito,sBXtB*s* 

"ill Qsii 'to imsomi b4£S&£>tp/^& etLi ^oits aimul&i(iapo J^ub soXcl-jr-xcbia 
amtt boi(£)ii'oQb ao&d b«x£ abasb iatrii lisgt eui* "^tf bstojosa a9easnb®*«fab 

the purch.^se price » ••va;3 p.iic' hy Joseph T,tihan and Bessie Luhan* 
In her anEVvcr dsf ?iid;xnt 6oei not deny these allegatioas, buc 
Dii rely states that she "did not take any part pergonall;^ in the 
purchfise of the prcraJ-Bes." ;he r/ne one of the two grantees In 
the dtied i'::oia complainantr tc tho L'ahsuxs and she wae one oi" the 
grtmtors in the deeda to V;illisms. 'he adniltg that ahe w as present 
at the time of the GcnbuinmE.tion of the d eal and that Porter represent- 
ed Joseph LMhixn., htit denies that he represented her. Porter's evi- 
dence is to the effect that defendant took little pprt in the con- 
BUMmation of the deal* that she signed v/haterer documents her husljand 
requested her to ci£rii, and that che made no exemination of the docu- 
ments. Upon crosE-exrjoination he fdmittec that he aGkno'.vledged» as 
a notary, th? sicjii'V.tureB of Ihe Luhens to the deeds from them to 
viilliauis. \?ade teetified thiit ho -/as:' present at the time of the con- 
suifiiiiation of the deal; that i'orter wru the attorney for Joseph Luhan 
and Bessie luhrji; ths.t ha, the vltness, handed the deed frcsji complain- 
ajitu to the Lnhan^> to Porter, who handed it to Joseph Ltihan, 'rho in 
tLirn hsjided it to BeE3ie L\zhiaji; that thiit ieed B.n3 the t;/o '.lecdn froa 
the Liihana to illiaa?. vfeve hand^^d to the latter "by Porter with the 
rac^uest tiuit he rc^ciord then; th-t Porter at the Enme tine turned to 
Mi", and Mrs. r'.xihan and ^, "'Till it he ull ricjht for Hr» vllllaBL«. 
to take all of there deeds, * * * and -record them for you?" and that 
it Mas his roooll'^^ction th,-;!.! Mr. Luhsaa said* »*Yes, that v/ould be 
satisfactory," -nd th-?t Mrs. Luhan then nodded her head in the affiy- 
matiTe; th?t Vllll^^? ^rid th t he v^ould haire to hare the recording 
fee, and th^.t Mr. nnd Mrs. Luh?.n then paid him the amount of the 
same. L. B. "illiamr: , the granteo in the two deeds from the Luhans* 
teetified to the i^ignituree of Jos^eph ixnd Bos-iio J/alisin to the docu- 
ments. He further testified th'it Ur. and ^'3. Lijhaii looked oTcr the 
deed from com-ol?_inants to them ;xri6 also the de.3dB frcHB. theEiselres tc 

QiCiTdf Hi: vjtl^n^&ettg^q; #'i'.srr ■'^n.o 02I.B:? vOn oib" oila i-Bifd^ as^JsJa vXataia 

9ill 'to e«o asw sifa feaa erj-f?jJi/,X sif* Oi^ -jiitxusnxsXqiaoo flio'xl: bsafe axt* 

-Jiisaa'ici©^. T^d-'so^I ^I'^.t briG Low & sxid' lo xso lu AsmRo; i3«o o oil;? "io sxsli* axfit Js 

-XY© u*'iQi%o^l »iefC bs5Si:f?5f?9'xqo3: ©ft ^ajci;} aelxtafi isjd (£03x0;;^ xiq[38oti &9 

"smo srfj fit]; »t'r..??q fiIj;tiX >loQ^ cfasbuslsb *3ii4 ^oa'ilo Off* o;^ ei aoxisb 

-iTooL) 0rl* lo noi^aniKtsxo oa 3b.(5ja ^rJa j-arict' una tnsia 0;t 10^ ba^eajjp&s 

as ^bs^b^XwoMt'..?! sxf dsxW bai^xxab ^, 3d noi:J.'?itJtffi3X©-sao*io no<jlf ,adfli9M 

o* m&rii mo't't uheob ^di 00'' nriaffe/vl arfi lo es'iif^^-sxr^ia oiW <tY.i'SJ*OiX js 

-uoo sxfj' I'o ssixj 9iii cfs ^nasoTq Qf«-- orf ;3'/)ii£* b9xll;^a©5 abjsS' »aaiB.£XIi»v 

tiBdss.l dq/.^eoZ -lo'z ■<^3n'X0vtj,K sH^ v.'Mv 'tsiio^ *c:£d- «Xs9& aiij lo noij'siacauB 

laoax nb<33b ov7i 3xi.t tnr, fesst ;ti'xlrf- drj{;t insj&jJ s^aasS oc^ di bebriferf tviiji 
9dt d-Jhr lei'sio'l -"^cf 'isu^bX srf* o;t fcofoarjf snow sfirsilxr?' 0* ensftoJ eA^t 
0^ bairwd amiJ ©fit!-? a aifc!' J-jj ■xst'xo^l' int.) tn'&sii feiooet erf i^aiS $misp»t 
aKfBilXxiV ♦tM rtol .life^xa XXx* scf *4 XXM" t f>jL.^'-3 bttc tmttiC: .81M &it« .^ 

iBiliJ' I)n,i3 *'?ifOv ao'l: fstail;^ f^TOos'it: bna •«■ ■5?- * <Qb??sb adsfr* lo XX« si^i' 0;t 
etf 5XXI0V/ i<ni;jt ,8©Y'* (jbi^-^a ixsrfuj .trM ^florfd' ficiio^XXoooi aM a«w ii 

Snifircoo9'X 9fl# ©vmi oJ aTr.srf bXwow ®rf ;t'^-.rfd- bjc^ja aalBiXXJtW tfsil* jaTl.tBjH 

9x{;t lo ^fjwoflty srl* mixl bi-fiq; n©rf.t rt-^xCwO: . stM ban .tM ^Bdi bm i'mt 

^i]imtii!i.i eivi iKO'^t Rboafc ovriJ Qx£,t jtii. e&^Stm'xi:, edi ^nfflsrXXK'^ »ff ♦Jt •mzaa 

arfit T.oTO bs3{ooX fxijifc/tl .>j*iH bnw, «tK *«x£* bsillcfaa* tsxCStuI oR •a^xiem 
9.t BerX&aiicojrf.'J iootI Qbsab S'di oaXxj 5x^ iscs/fd' oi sitmai nLcmoo mox'i 6©©b 


the witness, and that they asked him to record the deeds. Defend- 
ant testified that the deal was ccaisuomiated at the Stock Yards 
BankI that she sat seven or eight feet away from the table near 
which the others satj that she does not remember whether there 
were any papers signed there or not; that she did not sign any 
deeds or papers that day but that her husband didf '^Ke took eare 
of everything* I depended on him. I didn't understand anything. 
I done what he wanted to do. I made him do it?" that if she signed 
any papers there it was nt her husband's d ire ot ions j that she did 
not look over any deeds, nor did anybody hand her piny deeds j that 
nobody showed her the deed from complainants to her husband and 
herself; "1^ husband was taking care of everything?" that neither 
she nor her husband gave any money to Mr. Williams on that day? "I 
did not examine it [the deed from complainants to the Ltihans]. You 
see my husband done all that and I took his word. He understood 
it. I don't even know what a deed is|" that she "didn't give the 
deed to Mr. y^lliafflfl on tha* day." ♦•^. And ytm were sitting over 

in the corner? A. Yes. He had nothing to do with it. ¥e had 

our lawyers and my husband was there." Upon cross-examination the 
following occurred* "(i* You said you left everything to your 
lawyer. hat was his name? Mr. Abraham (attorney for defendant) a 
I object. She said she left everything to her husband. She didn't 
say she had any lawyer. Mr. Oullen (attorney for c omplainants ) s 
The record shows what she said. I will ask that the reporter read 
the record. (The record was read by the reporter.) Mr. Oullen « 
She said there 'we had our lawyer.' The witness s I said I left 
everything to my husband. * * * Q,. Mrs. Luhan» did your husband 
examine ail the papers? A. I guess so, I don't know. Q,. So far 
as you taiow? A. I guess so, I don't know." The witness then 
admitted that she signed the two Luhan deeds to ,<illiams. Upon 

Xi^sifl ©JCtfij;? aii^ ffioi'i '^*iv;,a 5eal *ifeia to asToa ;Jsa oils iBtli \%sxs^ 

*;Cft0 rxijxa 2o£y. tjib sjrfa iHUff }^os to ?--s3c[* b9Ji?,i's axsqsq y«^ oiavr 

♦ ^cMJtfXjs b£iBi-af.Qbtui J? »xi&xfc> I .MXfi xio hBb£i&q,@b X *sxxM;3"^^3va 1« 

jXi? ©£!a 11 ;t.3i-i3 "jd-i 05 sitii objm. I .06 0* beiiiBW ©iS i^silfir 0110b I 

htb &dB isiSii iBtmlioirsil'o s^ba&d&usi tail in ss«r *i; ®^«M* 8i:oq«f x«i» 

^&di %iibseh v^?. %-^si bxmd xbG4rM& bib •xtrn ^^btiBb x^^ ^^'vo Hoot *o« 

ferns bB^^eud 'cmi e$ a$rm£Ll&lq,mi> mot't bssb &dt i©rf feowTOxia Asbotfoxs 

I" ix£:.h i&di ao aiffiBxXXiiW «^K o^ •^oaoxis '>j;xu! QV^a bsi&d&ud ted loa sjfs^ 

a^u' #[afiBriwI ©rid' o.i- a^aBitxjsIcxffic is mo^'i &esE) Gii^j */ ofliaiaxo ;joh bib 

booisiBbi-JS oH .fe^ow sM sIgo;? I 6aB ii^^I^t XXs 9mb bmi^Bsjd "^sa :d«e^ 9T.tB *'£i&i&" sde ^xsii;? "?ai &agb .e ^.ciiCw wocaC nars df 'flo& I •#! 

laTO >3<ii:.tdi:a s&tow wov bRl\ *;,:'** •'*•'££& iJ:*sfiJ gg efflwiXXB^ slM ()<»• &9»b 

5^^ &W til Aitw Ob od^ lialdSroa b^ sH .aaY .,i "i'^exnoo sjI* ai 

«(8;Sxi0ni0Xqsaoo 10 'i -^©moJia) jReXXitrD »iSi .x^x^sTifiX X^^ mil aifs t^aa 

6®at xB^toq.n's. Qdi i-ariit jJaa XXivT I *bljz» &dB iadrr awo4a l»iopai arfT 

««®IXrO .^ {,i9^iocc»'X arid' -^cf b&er aaw btooe^ sxfT) •6^oo»t »if* 

JltsX I bfes I saesiid-JtY/ »ffT Nie-^ifsX two &«x1 0w» aiarfj fojse si|B- 

bisjscfatfjff 'XA/OY. bio ittMuJ. .ecrSt ,p * * * . fonatfawfl y/a ci -^aU^hcie^^ 

XMt on .p .wora' cr'nob T ,os sasug I ,A ^arroqr.g sjtl;^ XIjs &alsmx» 

redirect the follov/ing occurred: "Q,. Did you read either of those 

deeds before you signed them? A. iJo sir# I never kneir.' v/hat I 

done. My husband did» but I never understood anything." In her 

testimony she did not deny the allegations in the bill that she 

and her husband purchased the property from the coBiplainaats* nor 

the further allegation thr.t she and her husband paid the balance 

due oomjlainants after the deductions had been made. Complainants 

introduced in evidence the following letter: 

First JJational Bank Building 


"January 12» 1932. 

"In reply please refer to 

ao. 34591 

"Bes Boy Kroeechell and W. Calvin Orth 
V Edward J. Morrissey and Marie 
S. ISorrissey 

"Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Luhan, ... 

2310 S* Suclid Avenue j 
Berwynf Illinois. 

"Bear Sir ^ Ifiadamt 

"We wish to advise that we reprecent JSx, and ¥j^s» Kdward 
J. Morrissey» whomj on iiarch 22p 1929> ccKiveyed to you certain 
property in illow ^'prlngs, Illinois, upon whidh thsre were 
certain mortgages, the payment of wliich you assumed and agreed 
to pay, a photostatic copy of the deed by -vvhich you acquired 
title to said property, is encloaed herewith. 

"A judgment was today entered in favor of Hoy KrO^'Schell 

and Y/. Calvin Orth, Municipal Court Ho. 1426764, against Sdward J. 
and Marie i; ♦ Morrissey in the amount of <'3659»00, and costs. This 
judgment was rendered on the note secured by the Mortgage or Trust 
Deed on lot 21 in ^Jnighfe & uilson's Hesubdivision, etc. In addition 
thereto Mr* Morrissey has been required to take up ^e second 
mortga^ on l.ot 23 and pay the interest on the first mortgace on 
Lots 21 and 23* 

"Demand is herelay made upon you for reimbursement to 

Edward J. and Marie 3. Morrissey, pursuant to the terms of the 
deed of March 22, 1929. May we suggest that immediately upon 
receipt of this letter you airange to see Mr. ^ade of this off