Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats 


Kiilliiilisl*3 


•pv'jrjp;'*'' 


1-^    '    1 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

CARL!:  Consortium  of  Academic  and  Research  Libraries  in  Illinois 


http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat288illi 


77727 


FEB  9   ^61 


3909  5 


ijCo/ 


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

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

GRSISM ,  ) 


vs. 


APPSA.L  FROM  CXRCIJIT   COURT 
OV  OOOK  COUiJiXY. 


Corporation,  )  . 

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

DiJLuIV.SRED   nm  OPIi^IOi'*   Oi!'   IHB   COURT. 
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 


.er 


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«> 


a 

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* 


3 

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's.ir-fi&si  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; 

*3SiUii>,    BOEBUGK  MS  GC, 
Sxeoutive  Oi'ficet 

uhicagc 

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: 

the 
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  ue-.im/X'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;   ikuetin  _  v,   x*'irst  _'i:.rust  _sirjd__Savij::.^9.  .safiJ^ .   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   ce.ee  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 


r 


a 

'^'■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  ^iij.s^40   l^£   »m^-  '^l-^^ 
-ni.aX^      ,QA6    .coA    .ill  iiBS    « '..ftp  ^Mg?^^.   .iff. ..'^.,..^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 
evidence, 

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

the  pleadings   a.re  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   Dountry 
Cluh  ▼.   McBlhatton,    282  111,   App.    S21;   Lyons  v.    555  h,   MJoxiit^^ 
Avenue  Bid;':.    Corp..    ?77  111,    App,   93;  M.arcue  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;   Leitzmaxi  v.   Radio  jbroadcast   station,,   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. 


d 

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

%iJtaijoO  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- /aif.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' 
satloc. 

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   ,»vl.to©'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 


10 

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«  '■^&»tertqwja  ii'a.jieT  Co.  , 
169   led.    252;    U.iited  states  y..  .uelaiware^  j^ acJt-awanna  {^    ■^gsterja  .H.H.. 
Co.  .    238  U,    o«    51 13;    u"t,iica,AQ.   jifell;i>ya,uk:ee&  w?t.   .ir'aul  Hail>way  ,  uo)iaoany,,,y. 
juin-. eapolie  Sivio  4-  CoEjserce  Ass'n.,,      247  U,    a,    49w:   jtlirij^atpn  i)rg; 
Dock  Co.    v«  Lake   Chaatiaiaia  TrfaJasrortation   Ooj..    '61  -^'edl.    (2d)    £65; 
In   re  Kentucky  Wagon  M.rg.    Co.  »    3  i-^nX,    ►iupo,    953,      ilie  ilii^.ois   caaee 
of  ?--cT)erTi\ott  v.,  A.  I:-.    C.   Oil  Burner  oalea  GQrt-)oratiori  .et,  ax. ,    266 
111.   At5)i.    1:^5;   Donovan   v.   Furt ell ,    216   111,    G29;    Seymour  y,    >l'Qodstock 
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   al.^    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  CorporatioD 
et   al . .   266   111.    App.    1x5,      In  i^ingstoa  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   contract  or  on  grounds  of  tuzJi^^^^ 


ox 

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.ai.ffiitfjf(Q^  a jjauI   ^ ,v  ,  ,,^  fiv   '^o  oC: 

39SJB9  aioiiilli  ©ifi      .SgJJ    .cQ.Wti   J-5G'''l  £   t . 0 ^^ 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 


XX 

of   estoppel,    or   because   the    controlled   coijp_g_ration_.^a^_b^^ 
and  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  :ajrkenbrecher  v.    tiranjb.   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 
debt. 

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 


XI 

,g,.x,^-  06  ;^^8  »^  .s-i  i--is  ,jgj^.,.i>.Y.fi>-»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.ij^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^ 


12 

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.      lVi.is 
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." 


SI 
■.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'tjt4.ni.islq.  '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  3x.ai-    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 


IS 

As  c'.cfendaiit  points  out,    the   cases    citfO.   oy  pl^ir;t.lffa 
laay   be  grouped  ir.to    three   clasccE-:      First,    those  v-h'-rp   the    s-.iu'b«i- 
diury  cor  oration  v/as  Leid  to  iii.ve  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- 
plaint, 

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, 

AJ'FIRMED, 

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  #.tf  ^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 

,^a:xjgXq 

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

.asiKi'X'tiA 


37726  ^-^       / 

/ 
/ 

SAM  BLUM,  /  ;;v(  ) 

Appellant ,         v.v''"       \)  / 

)      APPISaL  i'HibM  CIRCUIT   COURT 
vs.  \ 

)  OF  COOK  COUilTY. 

PROVIDiBliT  MUTUAL  hlVE   IlfSURAi^GB      ) 
COMPrvKY  OF  PillLADSLPHIA,    a  \ 

Corporation,  ) 

Appell««.  )  ^-^ 


.615 


i^.    JOSTICS  Mc SURELY  IXSLIVIRSB  IKS  OPII^ION  OF  TliK   COURT. 

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 
S9155, 

-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, 

AyFIRiiuBD. 

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


as'rve 


%,.-, 


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


*tv 


..  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 

,asxe€ 

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 


39Qd9 


£2XXI£  QiilihLr, 


V*. 


Appellee, 


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. 


ia'Pii, 


o 


5 


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- 
section. 

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   o.ne 
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 


<t 


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   tn.st 
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,*     »tuell,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*   ^9.fi   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 


3912S 


Appellant,  ) 


vs. 


APPEAL  JTROM  |&PSRIOk   COURT 
0?   COOK  COUii'fX, 


EDWARD  1'.    ALLISON    COMPANY,    liJC.  ,       ) 
a  iJorporatiuri ,  ) 


Mil,    JUSf  ICS  McoURELY   OELIVEllBD   Xi-ia;  OPMIOii   OF   THE   QOQRT, 

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  JbQXj.ci'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 


.3« 

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  ©^^^^ 


-4- 

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 
govemiaent, 

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  air.ci-   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  •  "'  ■  ' ;;     ''  '! 


39165 


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

Plaint  il'i', 

▼8, 

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

i)el'??iidant  s. 


SAM  £LUM, 


(Cross  Piaiiitifl') 

Appellant , 

V8. 


PR0VII5ai^T  kUTUAb  LIJE   IKSURaKCS 
COKPMY  Oii'  PHILADELPHIA,    a 
Corporation,    (Gross  lOel'sndaj^t) 
Appellee. 


X 


„,^^L»a~o'5f**'' 


/ 


;**♦ 


X  «ri.»    ^  X  ^ 


APP.H1AL   FROM   CIHOUIT 
COURT  OF   GOOK  GOIJMTY. 


MR.    JUaTIGQS  MeSJRjiLY  DM.XV3KS35  '£m   OPIiSlOfi  Oi'   TiiE   COURT. 

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 
(  . 


o 


( 

{  ,«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(3.tr.i  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  aaij.si£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.  MetropGlitan  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\.    Bank  <i  T,  _ Co,    v.    Traveller 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,    Griffltlif.    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- 
quested. 

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  s.aw  ©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,  x.ile  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..  :iiioi:   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^hi.aq   ,\;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^  Metropolitan  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 
fjijX.cv  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 


38875 


PiSOPLiS  05'   THE    SXaTE  OJ'   ILLIi^OlS 
•X  rsl.    C.'lA.'n.3S  H.    BORimii   and 
IRViiVu    J.    oOLOitOM, 

Appellees,  ) 


APi'liAL  moU.  CIKGjII 


vs. 

VILLAGS  OS   FOREST  PARK  et  al., 
Appellants. 


! 

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$ 


,TMUOO  MQOO   '10  THUOD         { 
^         »      -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.io<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  ■galt.lt'=>%  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   ti:.ie   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  bsXix.ni'^    .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  Vilxi.ge   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  Vili..ge  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 
evidence. 

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-^t.im  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 0   ^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 


5 


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  noid.si'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  th.ing  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      ":.aw&ii 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 
officials. 

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  aoii.ai'X^'O^a' 

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


8 

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* 

itEVilKSaD  Ai^D  RgMAKHKD  WITH  DIRECTIONS. 

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


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


-..^.  ■--■J' 

/    / 

39007  /  /         ./ 

ALVIB  MEYER,  )  /  /        / 

Appellee,  ' 


va. 

CillCAOO    aRS.Aa!  V/E3T3RU   RAILROAD 
COiCPAliY,    a  Corporation, 
Appellant. 


r 


APFffc..    i'^HOM  dlROUli:    COURT 
OF   COOK  COTJETY. 

28  8I.A.  6 16^ 


iffi,    JUSTICE  0»CaN^OH  DILIVEIIED   THE   OFIJJlOSi   OF   TlilS    GOUiiT. 

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  trs.in 
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  iiii.er  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^s.gs   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    th.at   =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 
trains. 

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  x.to'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   '^^'^^  ts.mt  ■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^aTjQiaiVv    ; 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,      aillg  v>    il.Y.C.    Lz  St.   L.R.R.Go.  .    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 
affirmed, 

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,  ) 


r 


)  APPEAL   FHOIv'    3UPB3I0R   COURT 

rs,  )  ' 


)  OP   COOK  COUKTY. 


TRAtTS-AfcSRiCAlf  I^lIftllT  LIliES, 

II^C,,    a  Corooration,  ) 

Ap  reliant,  ) 


lOi.    JUSTICE  O'COlNliCR  ESLIVSRlilD   THE   OPIlJlOl^   Oli'   T1£I3    COURT. 

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 


osoes 


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

''id  63nii)*.s.ua  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 


2 

•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   Junction  Ry.    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.    Chicago   City  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  aoiipaul  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*:  coir.ing  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  w.as   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. 


s 

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«« 
0  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;    tr.at   *  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«*   rii.ht.  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    ta.at  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   tr.si'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^ 


d 


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

'>{   "i'^>ae.si©  .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- 

yiVS.f.tl   »*«    fe«!»a»  iiJ OiJ'  ^«^i*    ad   «»ii'^   JJIt:?    j  # iSflti  »&#  »iii    m    tfiif^  mrMmt 
,rtw«*-.  iSt«>s:-»i.ai  ea  |,<?rti?    jfeft^i  itt»4y   s»ii$'«  ii#*%!iiii  »itii  ^<a^  .aei^aM****:** 


or   20  milfts  vi   'lour;    "I    lid  not   see  i.ir,  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.  v.as   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#   o-sni.s.is«  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 


8 

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 
r«a(©y«r. 

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 


10 

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©  gi.ci  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 


11 

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 
affirmed, 

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»c.ae>tire   axf-:?'   .[le  'io    aox^r.isManoo  «   nor'J 

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


39274 


JOHN   RATLAV/SKI,           'X       f;:?<^  f   ,-■  if  APPEAL   FROM  INTraLOGUTCRY 
"-^                               '       )/     ORDER  OF  THE  CIRCUIT 


Appellee,  -| 


OASIMIR  DTNISWIOZ,  et  al.. 

Defendants, 


7   COURT  OF  COOK  OOUHTY 
■     GHAMTIKO  AN  IHJUSCTION 
AND  ALSO  ORDER 
APPOIxNTlUa  A 
REOSIVER* 


On  Aoueal  of  L.  A,  WICISS, 

'  O  P  P  T  A>   •'" 

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

MR.  PRESIDING  JUSTICE  DENIS  S,  SULLIVAN  DELIVERED  THE 
OPIiriON  OF  THE  COURT. 

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 

,,ii8v?ffX;?'.gJi  ndol   ^.bsXjiifxid  lliJKi.p.Xq-  ©ri^  Y<^  *itioO  i-i/jOTiO  aifit  nl 

^^gsoiwexiv^  ^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 


a 

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 

bn.is  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 


3 

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

Complaint  is  laa.de  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: 

"255,  RULE  31.   APF:?AL  i-ROM  IHTERLCOUTORY  OaQmS, 
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. 

AFPIAL  DISMISSED, 


HEBEL  AHO  HAIiL,    JJ.   QOMOUR, 


5 

«^^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;?so.sv 

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 


38369 

IN  TH2  iiATTER  OF  THE  ESTATE  OF 
JAMES  THOMAS  KELLY,  Deceased, 


THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  \  PROBATE  COURT 

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

Plaintiff  in  Error. 


OF  COOK  COUNTY. 

8I,A.  6l7' 


MR.  PRSSIDING  JUSTICE  DEMIS  E.  SUI.LIVAH  DELIVERED  THE 
OPINION  OF  THE  COLTIT. 

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 
cause. 

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. 


eases 


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.^.i.bf,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 

«esxrso 
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* 

OHOER  Ai-'FIRMID. 

HEBEL  AHO  HALL,  J J,  OONCUR, 


s 

*,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 

gJj;..lq._6_Xaof^'   — —  «fcft{j.eQOSQ    ^-^gXXsl  ?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 


38949 

UIOHAL  SEKELA  and  3USIE  SEKELA, 
Appellees, 

BERHIOE  TOKARZ, 

Appellant # 


MUNICIPAL  OOUR|/''  -^^ 
OF  0HI0A(10» 

28  8  LA.  617^ 


MR,  PRESIDING  JUSTICE  OEM  IS  E.  SULLIVAN  0£LIVERi<:D  THE 
OPINION  OF  THE  OOURT, 

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, 
Illinois* 

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 


2 

copy 
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, 


Yqoo 

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>J:.be  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« 


3 

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 

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 


4 

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 

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^ 


5 

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, 

99. 

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 

now 
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, 

ORDER  RSFUSIHG  TO  ?ACATE  JUOGMEST  AFFIHMSiO, 

HEBEL  AMD  ilALL,  JJ.  OOKOUR, 


■  ■  :        '■;,.:>      *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 

son 
•j.ebio  &d&  jffsvig  isisxsil  aricajs^TE  SiJ'i  tot  f>a«  aoi^il-^q  1^^  bBiit^b 

*Huoaoo  ,1%  ,»itiAii  CIA  aaasH 


38143 

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 
as   MARLEY   DAIRY   CO.,    MODEL   OAIRY  CO.,    a 
Corporation,    M.1LK   OEALEi^  BOTTLE  EXCHANGE, 
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, 


APPEAL   FROM 


CIRCf'lT   COURT 


COOK  OOUUTY. 


25 B  loA 


tC?  -r.    ^' 


JOHN  JURCA,    Doing  Business   as  TURNER  DAIRY, 

Defendant, 


jaiK  JURCA  and  3TEVS  JURCA, 

(Respondents)  Appellants. 


MR.  JUSTICE  HALL  DELIVERED  THE  OPIiilON  OF  THE  OOUHT. 

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> 


8 

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 


s 

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 


s 

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,  deaJ.ing  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 


5 

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 


4 

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    eoi.at.  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 
commitment. 

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 


c 

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 

mv.it  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* 


6 

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, 


a 

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 


7 

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* 

AFFIRMED, 

DEHIS  S.    SULLIVAN,    P.J.    AND  HSBjBL,   J.    OCKOUR. 


«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 


38237 

In  the  Matter  of  the  Eatate  of 
JAMES  THOMAS  KELIT,  Oeoei9sed,       )   ""  ERROR  TO  THB'^'"  >'*'" 

THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  STATHi  OF  ILLINOIS,  j       PROB/-TE  COURT 
Defendant  in  Krror, 

V, 

JOHN  J.  BAGDOMAS,  (Impleaded) 


COOK  COUNTY 


Plsintiff  in  Error.     )     ^  O  O 


MR.  JUSTICE  HALL  DELIVERED  THE  OPINIC*  OF  THE  COURT. 

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 

cases 
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 


T5S85 


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      tbQW.ril'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  8.sd  *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* 


3 

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. 

AFFIHMSD, 
maiS   S.  SULLIVAU,  P.J.  and  HEBSL,  J.  OONOUR, 


&iM  belli  l3i%Li  s&i-  ai  .br.sl.si  »^.s  8aoi;fa9i;p  buoIis^ 


38698  S-'-r""        j^' 

JOSEPH   F.    SANDERS,  )         AFJ=EAL  ESr^M  ^&,^.. 

CIROLfIT  OOURT 


(Plaintiff)   Appellant,         )  ,/  / 


W.    W.   McOALLUM,  \  COOK  COUNTY, 

(Defendant)  Appellee, 


28  8  I.A.  618 


MR,  JU3TI0JS  HALIi  DELIVERfiD  tiiE  OflNION  OF  THE  OOUHT, 
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 


■x\ 


S;-\  86885 


tmOQ   TIUOHIC 


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 


3 

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 


s 

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 


4 

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 
mentioned 
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^)  esyXI.st'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  oa.ae  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^ 

AFFIHMED* 


DEHIS  E,   SULUVAii,   i^J.   AND  HEBEL,   J.   OOSOUR, 


a 

'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     *#o.ist  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 


*a3MEI'?'?A 


sSUOiOQ  Jt;,  *4a:aa^  gka  ♦V*^  «^'"'':  ^^"^  *a  emaa 


38733 

OHIOAGO  TITLE  &   TRUST  OOMPAM, 
as  Trustee,  etc.. 

Appellee, 


EiiANUEL.  Z.    SWitMER,   et   el,. 

Defendant a. 


y 


L 


On  Appe?^l  of  MORRIS  COHN,   A8sig;nee 
of  the  iUeohanic's  Lien  Oiaim  of 

M,  J.  TLOHSKER  OOiil'A^iy, 

Appellant* 


APi3»C  FROM 
CIROUIT   COURT 
COOK   COUNTY. 


1 


^,  JUSTICE  HAI,L  DELIVtSiJD  TH£  OPINIOI^  OF  THg  COURT, 

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  ^J.ls^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-+  E.sa^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 


2 

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: 


s 

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 
Oompany%" 

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 


4 

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 

estate* 

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, 

AFFIHMSD, 
DEifIS  E.  SULLIVAN,  P.J,  AND  HEBSL,  J.  OOKCUR, 


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 

*s3-^t8© 

eoi.q  .rit  i.n^  6n^   ,«X.^qo^q«  ei^#  «!  tml.tmo  uuoiimniom^  erf* 
.b.«..in.  .X   :ri  ta.  ,b4  M..Oiia  *-x^oC   .xaorrlO  BCit  lo  ^aToeb  srf*  t^if^ 


^                    f^'"         -jr 

--       /  :./^ 

.X-   ^..^ 

Jff^EAL  FRQjr^ 

38735 

KfiLLIE  I.  FEJIDEU  and  FRiavOIS  H.  FliNDEl';, 

(Plaintiffs)  Appellants, 

V,  )      OIHCUIT  Qfil5RT 

IRA  N.  BLENDER  and  FRANCIS  M*  PSNDER,  as 
Executors,  and  IRA  K.  FEHDER  and  WILBUR  ]  COOK  COUNTY. 

G.  FEHDSi^, 

(Defendants)  Appellees,    ^^  e?  <G  T  fi        ^ 


MR.  JUSTICE  HEBEL  DELIVERED  THE  OPIKIOM  OF  THii  COURT. 

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, 
deceased. 

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 


.t.^rf-Wfr'f^ 


^  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  se.id  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 

trg.de  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 


s 

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 
discharges*" 

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 

*'«8©gxsx£oejtb 

©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'?  *« 


4 

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," 


( 


1^ 

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  ...  ^' 


5 

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 


a 

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 
advantage," 

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, 
DEORKE  ia]^£R3£D  AND  CAUSE  RSMaMDiiD, 
DENIS  £.  SUM.IVAa',  P.J,  AiaD  HALI.,  J.  CONCUR. 


',!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 


^'-^^ 


/  .^ 


MUNICIPAL  COURT 


38784  .^■'"■'''''"")  /  /    J.. 


FLORENCE  E.  HIRT,  )    pt?%^   FROM 

(Plaintiff)  Apoellant, 

V. 

A,  J.  SCHANFARBER,  )  OF  CHICAGO, 

(Defendant)  Appellee,    )  ^ 

MR.  JUSTICE  REBEL  DELIVERED  THE  OPIi.i  ^T. 

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 
|3,484»43« 

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?^  ^b.mt  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 


2 

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 

improvements. 

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 

•atfismevoTcqail 


3 

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  pe.id  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> 


s 

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 


4 

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 

/I 
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? 


5 

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. 

JUDGMENT  AFFIRMED. 

DENIS  E,  SULLIVAB,  P.J*  AND  HALL,  J.  OONOUR. 


s 

■^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     •©8.bq   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;^ 


39034 

PEOPLK  OF  THii;-  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, 
Defendant  in  Error, 

BERKAHD  M.  STOiJlS,  )  OF  CillOAGO. 

Plaintiff 


MUNIOIPAL  OOUHr^' 


in  Error.    i28  8  I  .A.  6  19 


3 


MR,  JUSTICE  HEBEL  DSLIVERED  THE  OPINIOW  OF  THE  OOIIHT. 

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 

County. 

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 


-V 


*soes 

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&  sr.fi  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 


2 

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 


s 

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  bn.fi-   ^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 


3 

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, 

JUDGiSENT  REVSRSED  AMD  CAUSE  REMANDED, 

DENIS  E.  SUUilVAiJ,  F,J,  AND  rlAU.,  J,  OOMOUR, 


^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 

%t<iaob 
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 


39010 


GKOROB  MALLKK,    a  Minor,   by 
AJiiJl'OXiitlsiT'iii   biiURitiiib ,   his  n«xt 
frienJ  and  ciotlier, 

Appellee, 


V6, 

ALBJSRX   J,    3XULI3, 


Appellant, 


\ 


/ 


QM   COOK  COUnXY. 


28  8I,A.  Gl^ 


MR.   PltSSlDIECi   JU3TICB  iUTCirSTT 
DBLIVKKSD   TiiE  OPIlIOi.'    OF   TifF.    COURT. 

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 


2 

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- 
walk. 

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<'o.ao^uii  SiW   ©tolscf  5Coitn:d"B   aan  srf  afcae^aoo   i'lis 

«3i:XiBW 

.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 


8 

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  bj.ck 
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   ta-.ing  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;fiii.ir,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- 

txiat 
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  0   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 

severe. 

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. «^  _ Chicago  Rapid  Transit   Co. , 

335  111,   164,     ind   the  judgment  was  reversed  there,    although  not 

solely  because  of   this  instruction.      In   other  cases   the   instruction 

necessarily 
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.  Village  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  iit.cr  ^.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?;,s.fi,  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 

XXiiBseeodn 

©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, 

REVERSED. 

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 


39129 


SHiiJSST   J.    £BUEi'GEl<    et    al.  » 
Appellants , 

vs. 

GffifSKAL   GUTD'JOR  ADVERTISING 
CO.,    et   al., 

Appellees, 


'*«yi51!|SM<ti&*:^'AVj;^' 


APPEAL  MOU  CMCUX 

OF  COOK  coui*T-y, 


OURT 


881 


MR.    PRESIDING   JUSTICE  KATCTiBTT 
DjSLIVilRKD   THl!;   OPIiMON   0?  THE    (JOURT. 

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    Ll.ie 
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 


(ScSciSlXsoqA 


(  .sv 


.Yt:4U00  aoOQ    iO 


^   i    1.]'    ®li^  J     f>  H^ 


0    ~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   ii.au 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 
described. 


-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»i.io-roq   ,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 
Tacant, 

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,   Cnicago   '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   tJ.ie  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   Jaii.ee   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   fronta.ge   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 


er 


, 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?ai:..is-   ,;'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    u.at   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  foriT.ftr  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- 

is 
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  5:.id-    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 
ei: 

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 0    case,    thc.t   the    surrouKdine.   conditions  iiave   chsi.gea   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.    Ceratenurrg.    136   xll.    344;    ctar  -,rey;ery 
Co., ,  Y ,.,  P r imaa ,   163   id,    652;   Trustees  ..of  jiolurohia  .Gqllege  v^.,  j?iatclaer, 
87  K.Y.    311;   ricArtliur  t«    \ood  Hub"L-c-r  i>^o.  .    221  ii^ass."  ~372,""l09  i^j^7 
1^2;   Pa?^e  V.   Murray.  '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 


8 


-x'xnd-.ara  ou  .bagiiaiio  av.nu  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'Donnell.    ?44    111,    172,      It   iiuiy   po:iSiLly  be 
true  t'xac   theee  particular  lota   are  Liore  vaxubiLle  i'or   cufsinesB 
than   I'oi-   xesideiice   purpoe.es,   \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,      wlfefcill  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«    waldwelly   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 


Q 


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  sooBnx.bio 

,!;,tu-.    .XXItlui:;   ^XX;:^;\'|)Xj^,y..  ,.i.y.-J^o=;j:xov    ;Sii^    ,1X1  6e£   .  ^yro-x^  ^v  a^.X^ofl 

..bi'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««" 


10 

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:ldp..Cor-poration.    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.   Ueretenberp. 
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  v.as  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-'XcsyM  '^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   apoj.ice.tle    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,    .tkraitowski 
T.  '^ite   Liulphur  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 


IX 

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^^^ 


It 


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  kirt.is   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,  Kusse3.,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 


SI 

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;i.cf  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  ^mdlli)    .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* 


IS 


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. 

REVERSED  AJID  RmaMinBD  WITH  DIRSCTI0J8B. 


O'Connor  and  kcSureXy,    JJ. ,    concur. 


ex 


39149 

ROBiiRT  A,   MORRBY,    _  .,..^*'"'"") 

»  ) 


( Plaint irr)     Appellant,        "  )        / 

)      iSi»PEAL  i'pOk  SIfl'jRIOR 
▼»♦  )  /^ 

)       COURT   OF   COCK  COUKTY, 
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 


MR,   PRESIDIl^G  JUSTICB  MAlCffiSTT 
DELIVERED   TI!E   OPIKIOii  OF   Tire    CCUJiT. 

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 

( 
{ 


TTISHOSAM  SDlTaUt   O^dlCTla&JH    .©$ 

-'>?•    '^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  i.to«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   ca.ie   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    tai.es  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  B.tX.ye'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 


6ii 


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  Pluinmer  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.efltXaC;   >v  ;y't^iQ    ;*ci3    .CfqA  ,XXI  83S;  .Xftejua  ,v  Y9'aci3   ;M£  ..XXI  SeJ 
«W      .va*    ,XXI  XSe   ^rto;r.s^alxiiTteV  .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.    Ghoycu-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#«« 


9 

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, 
saying: 

*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 


t 


.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 


5lO 


recover,      I    can't   see  it  a.t   all.      There  will  te  a  ririding  I'or 
the  defendant," 

Ti.is   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, 

AFFIRMED. 

O'Connor   and  Mc Surely,    JJ, ,    concur. 


0* 


•X®il30   ban    ,SQS    *cfqA    .XCI   M'S    ,%^tXMUM^^iI^J2&^S.  .^'-6    .qc{A    »XXI 


yA 


(PlaintilT)   Apoell-e,  f  >-^"' 

AJePlSAL  FROM  SUf^IOR   COURT 
vs. 


JAL£SS  M9USTIS, 

(Defendant)    Appellant. 


OW   COOK  COUiiTY. 


28  8I,A,620' 


kR.   PRiilSIDIi^G   JUSTICIS  MATCiiBTT 
DSLlTiSRED   THE   0PI15I0;ci    OF   Tlffi    COURT. 

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. 


861^5 


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..;.i:X.vi    ,  «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»    XXxti--iar.io  ^   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'-.it»'.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'lop^  «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  aotiuuL.sx^  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  by  reliable  yit- 
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  &  0 'Gallon  R., 
Co.    V,    Union   Ir.    &  . Bay .^Bank ,    209   111.    457;   Bop.se  y.  J^oose^  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  B.rs.  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   ,|nj8.bn$"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'o.at  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  j..vi:w   -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^.lkl2.ck,    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/ard.    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," 

^'^  'xrenehfird  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;   .UarB-.an  v.   Haman. 
it.^^'n.  ^^'   SSbroejLi-Smbree,    53   id,    394;   Vignog  v,   ViK.no 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^^pj.s.mm^'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* 


6 

her  around   so   that   she  wae   injured;    that   on   another  occasion   she 

■was   going  through  hie   clothing  j.ooJ6.ing  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   ,giaiTtsTii.ie  ■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  per-.it   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  ki.de   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  | -.is^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 

aoe.ae'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 


8 

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. 

HEVERSSD  Aim  RgLAKDED, 

O'Connor  and  ^cBurely,    JJ,  ,    concur. 


39026 


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,  )  /^ 


.-'" 

..^ 

„■/'" 

y^ 

"*3***««««^ 

iCfeBS^ 

k/*'^""                          s^^ 

.y               J!r 

VB,  )  Oi'  CO.UK  COUJ^TY. 

) 

^''^^''^'^ 'Appellant.       )    28  8  I. A.  6  20 


iiR.    JUSTICE  MeSUBSLY  BKLIVIRSD   THE  OPIIniIOK   Off  TriB   GGUKT. 

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 


ssoee 

■''.._  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  « 

©Xfj' 

©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,   wilcai<ji;o  .  h.   in  '^^^ 
Ry»    Co.,    265  -11,    3vvj ,   it  "^as  xioiu   «uak,   («(ii,v.re    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 


s 

^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&iqr.fi.«*^x5   riPrioC   ai^oJ. 


appearing  in   the  na^^e  oi"  ixie  brotiier-ixi-i.aw,  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,ii.re   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,    G-oldrr.an  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  fejs.fi  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* 

AffPIRfCED, 

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 


39061 


.y 


7 


Appellee   and  Cross- Appelant, 


vs. 


HERBERT  F,    PHILIP SBOHJi    and  H.    G. 
Pv£ILIJ^aBOKlS ,    doirifc  busineas   a»  H.   J", 
PillLIPSiOm.    &   CO.,    arid  OTOl    CGFiPORA- 
TlOiil,    a  Uorf3oration, 
Appellaxite. 


/ 


,/ 


)      APPEAL  "from  -diPICRIOR 

) 

)      COUKT  OF   COOK  GOUKTY. 

) 


A 


kli,    JUSTICE  M0SURBli,y  DELIVERED   THE   OPIUIOK  OF   Till    COUHT, 


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- 


8 

money  deposited  by  axm  YJitli  Philipsborri,   or  whetiier  defendant 
bought   subject   to  all   tixe  prJiicipal   indeLtednees  v?itii  iriterest 
and  aj.3  0    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 

deposited. 

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-: 

made 
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, 
BbBm 

&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_,reeii.fr.t  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 
Trumbul 1   v .    Gal e ,    222  111.    App. ,    113,    this   court   approved  of   the 
holding   in    the   Kliariahaji   case.      In  Miller  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.  Moraui.   164  111.    App.    312;   Aing  v.    Sea, 
6   111,    Apx),    189;    Goli smith  v.  Meyer.   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    ;a.l:.ao    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  a.sv/  ^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  j-.eu'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;   MoeJan  v^ 
Hedrick.   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   ag3.in  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) 0 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>8ia.ao'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^  :iair..ci-    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 


8 

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 


8 

,®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- 


9 

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, 

AFFIRM}^])   Hi   Pi^l'  ASH  ESVJRSiSD   li.   PaKT 
AHD  KSkAKHKH  WITH  DIRaGTlOi^S. 

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- 


S9102 


JAi,.-SS  W,    SVAWTNER   et    al .  , 

TS. 

PRUTIlfil/riAL    li^SURANCE    COMPANY 
OJ'   :WJIHICA,    a  Corporatioii, 
Appellee. 


/      {  /  /      / 

03?    CHICAGO, 

^  O  O    X  oOl*   O  i^  i 


kR,    JUSTICE  McSURISLY  DELIVERED   THii!   OPINIOXi   Oi^'  Tiliii    COU.iX, 

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  Decen.bar  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    ,,&l.sa   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    ; woiSiCjfcuT.fi   ^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 
Assur,    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  exterr.al,    '.'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  9X.bi)Ld  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 
10. 

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 


1^ 

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- 


a 


-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  9.fi  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;    tii.at   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;    t..at   tnis  would  be  latent 

tuberculosis. 

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 

•sleoXJJOiecfjjr^ 
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,    united  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   tlecic.re   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:iS  v,.,  Milvauivee.  144  '..io,    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, 

APjIimiiD. 

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 


^(lia^IXi'iA, 


.Tijoaoo    ,  ,!•    ,-xcuTnoO*0  fcxi«    ,  »T.    ,^f '^i-^i&xlofijM 


39143 


J.    H.    AiilX']'rl'.BiJ ,    Doing  j3uoinc?E9    as 
F,    H.    ABDERSEK   DJSCORATIiiG-   CO,  , 

Appellee, 

MRS.   HATliiit^   ilY^'^iJ    cr.d  HYLIiHi    Sc 
bTKLHOUtlB,    liiC,  ,   an  Illinoie 
Corooration , 

Appellants 


y      

COURT  OF   CHICAGO. 


^8  8  I.A.  62f 


iJi.    JUSTICB  McSURELY  DIELIVilHSD  TM  OPIiilOI^  Oi'  TliiJi   COUHl. 


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 ,   har^ 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.      Jo.in  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 
version. 

The   judi^a^ent   agjainst  hymen  &  Steniiouse,    Inc.  , is  affir-x.ed. 

KfiVSRSBD  AS   TO  m*SAi*OR  KkLVaQ , 
,.    ^  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 


39017 


THE  HORTTISRH    TRUST   COkPAtT: ,    a 
C   rrpcinticn,    .it;   Trurtte   under 
the  Last  Will    and  Testament  of 
Wendell  R,    i-i-n^,   Dectaped, 

Appellee, 

▼  8. 

WILLli^'i  J.    BRiTJGiiAH   et    al. 


On    AT5,cal    ol"     'ILlI.-viS    J,    BRIPCiii'AK, 
■tfSBDELL  K,    BRlDGMiiK,    JPRANCIS  K. 

Apnellaxits, 


)   -L^ 

) 

) 

)       kPPEAl.  FKCM   CIBCL'Il'    COLRT 

) 


128  8  I.A.  6  21^ 


itK.    JUSTICE  0»COJ>ii*OR  IfflLIVSKSD  THE  OPIIilOK   OF   TJffi   CO'JKT. 


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- 
cree* 

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 


fxoee 


'-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 


s 

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 


8 


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;Xi:.sl  '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   corpus  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.      Fobs  v»    utatg 
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  corpus  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 
intestate," 

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'an.ci-  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,  'h.is   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 
19.14, 

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. 

HEV3RSKB  AxiD  BEU^IMD    rH'^u  XUKSCTiCiio. 

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 


39115 


Appell.^ait, 

CITY  0.^'  cmOAGO,   a  Municipal 
Co  mo  rt%t  i  on ,    e  t   al ,  , 
Ai>T>ellee8, 


i 


)       ~-A:^P}3AL,4'R0Jt  cia^uiT 

)  '         ''      ^ 

]  01  COOK  cciUK'i'y. 


■TV*'    0^^ 


liR.    JUSi'ICii  0*COJsiiiOH  DISLIVJiiiBD  THE  OPIiMlOJsi   OF   THE   COUKT. 


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 

had 
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   t.ae  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.   t:.ie   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 


s 

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.      Pepp_le   ex  rel«    JaJiri   v. 
Cit.T  of  Ghicaf-o    Pt   al.  .    279   111.   App,    624,      People   ex  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»i.to(t 

-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.  kcGure.ly,    J,,    coricur. 


i'' 


39146 

SCHOai^-lIOFHlfi'  l^DEL^VEISS   COMPANY,       )  / 

a  Cor, 'Oration,  )         />-"""'' 

Appellee,  )       _J^     J    ,  .  ^j^'  /     X 

)        A|>PgAI.-  PP.OiM.  iiUKiqjS'Aj/  COUHT 
vs.  )  ''         ' 

\  OP   CIIIOaGC. 

ARittlli   G.    KUaSWRM,  j 

Appellant.        ) 


1^ 


kR,    JbdXICE  0»COi^i.OB  DiiOuIVSRlIS  TM  0PIi\I01i   O-l'    Tifls;   COUHT. 


Plaintil'f,    the  payee  cl   a  proir.is:?ory  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    etatei.er,  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* 

-..iq:jo4s  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 


8 

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  iJar.ic  v.    Goecke.    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--    *^   ,* 


/ 


39152 

V!,    S.    lilLLEB, 

V8, 


Appellee , 


.-tfiERIGAt,  M0T0III3TS   IKSUH/uJCE 
COiiPAKY,    a  Corporation, 
Appellant, 


/ 
r 


,f 


)  ""■""  .■/  Z'  f 

)       APPEAL   FROL.  MldxCIPA^   CO^If^ 
) 


OJ"   CHICAGO, 


m 


MR.    JU3TIGB  O'COiiMOR  DELIVERED   THE  OPIHIOiN   OF   TTIE    COajLT. 


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 


SciX«K 


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;    ti..at    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  pern.it- 
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;i:.ai.3s;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!» 


38574 


THDS  AMICO  COMPMY,  Inc.? 
a  corporation f 

Appellant 9 

JOE  iiAROVSKT,  JOHiT  DOS  and 
MAl^Y  i«B, 

Defendants  I 


AWMCE  LAmra-T  MAGHIUIIRY  & 
SUPi'LY  COMPAITY,  a  corporation, 
(interrening  petitioner)^ 

Appellee* 


^■^' 


AFEEAL  TEOM  MUiilGI  PAl 
COXTRT  OF  CHICAGO. 

\  28  8  I.A.  6 22^^ 


MB.   PHlSIDBfG  JUSTICR  SCJLLIVM 
IILLITiiEiiiD  THi:  OPIiHOM  OF   THE  COURT. 


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^V^B$ 


■       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  0  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 

interest-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^  all   of  the  terms  and  condi- 

ti ons  printed  on  the  reverse  side  of   this  sheet »  which  sre  incor-_ 

porated  herein*"        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 

*  *  *   t.onl  «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        ^*ul9t9Si  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| 

T 

■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 


-4- 

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  EsJ.es    . 

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 

acts 

"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 


-5-* 

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  in  Sherer-Gillett  Co*  ▼• 

Longf  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.  Ohandler  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. 
( Gilbert  v.  i^ational  Gash  Register  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 

due 
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- 


-a- 

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,  aa.sa  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 


-7- 

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 
relep.se  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  paveat  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.  .Osborne,   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 
purchasers. 

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: 


-8- 

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  Type  Poundsrs  Oo>  v.  Me t ro j) ol i tag_  Credit  &  _ _ 
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  __ 
Machinery  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,  a.cz   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 

t3t36Xo.fi  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  Yti»'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«3.at>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 


38657 


THE  LMGOM  JsTATIOiJvU,  LIFE 
IHijUHMCiii  COMPASTYt   a  corporation^ 

Appellee » 


T» 


FLORIAS  VODHIK  et  al.. 

Defendants  "below. 


a  corporatlonp 

Appellant* 


APPEAL  K?QH  SUPERIOR 
COURT »  COCK  COUNTr. 


MR,  PKSaiDILia  JUSTICS!  StlLIIVAI 
DliXIVHRED  THE  OPIMIOIT  Cfe*  THE  GOUBT. 


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^ 


fmu 


I 


\ 


(  « *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 0 

&»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 


-2- 

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  purchr.se  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  &i.ca  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 


-3- 

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 
retfi.ke  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 


-4- 

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  rollo.-.ing  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 


-5- 

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   er.id   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   r.ad    ^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'iO.tl;^   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{  xfi.tw  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>  0  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  *}"      :*  '      ' ' '* 


-6- 

premisea  are  sulsjeot  and  inferior  to  said  complaiuant' s  lien  upon 
its  said  mortgage,  and  that  8o.id  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,  Be.id  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 


-7« 

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  pread.ses{>  constituted  thesi  a 
part  of  the  realty  impressed  with  the  lien  of  the  mortgage  under 
foreclosure** 

\*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  of  Republic  v.  Wells-Jackson  Corp»,  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 
parties. 

'^^   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  us.nn.er   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 


-9- 

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'  lid  ward  P»  ^^111  s  Goapany»  70  111.  App»  557> 

where, 
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 
parties." 

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 
thereto. 


©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: swtffi  ,^ r  »4.s   y^o.  t£j9.4&ggaittoa  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»qQ.ie  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& 


-10- 

In  yifield  et  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.  Bastrees,  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  ♦  0 0  ;^^ 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:  0  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   «9X.ca  Xsxioidx6noo  lo   o*o.ciJnr-    -   r?'"-'  " 


-li- 
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.   Gyajaada._ 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  Sears  I.  /^oebupk  &  Co.  v.  Pi,aga,  Bldg.  &  Loan  '-B3*n^  276 

111.  389,  where  an  action  of  replevin  was  brouf^t  by  a  vendor  of 

plumbing  fixtures,  sold  under  a  conditional  ssj.es  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  0  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   •.    . 


-la- 
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  Bank  of  Republic  v«  Wells-Jackson  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,  518  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.  Kelt  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-: 


-13- 

*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.  Ball ,  210  Fed.  217 | 
Campbell  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    -.ao-xgiiHi 


-14- 

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  t3.me  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 


-15- 

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  Oredlt 
and  Dispount  :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| 
393-94-951 

"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  workjs  (McKey,  receiver  v. 
Troy  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 
estopped.* 

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 


-IG- 

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* 

mSTSESJUI)  MD  KEatAi!n2.5I>  WITH  DBKCUCSSfS* 
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 


38673 


MAHY  C»  KRi'TaiAHil  and 

Appellants, 

T» 

m^ilGAS  DEVELOPMSST  CCMPA33Y, 
a  oorporation,   and  MIESW 
BAuTOLI,   Jr»s> 

Appellees. 


APPEAL  TRm  SUPERIOR 
COURT,   GOCK  COUNTY. 

28  8  I.A.  6  i 


MR.  PRS8IDIMG  JUSTIC1!  SULIIVAH 

DJLIViiliiia)  THE  OPIUIOU  0?  TEU  COURT. 


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 


i 


C^'   ?l 


•if  ^s 


?wS^      *.X1.5 


M  K5 


dns  KEAM2TEHS  «0  Y5IAH 


« s^ixoIIsqcjA 


•V 


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  a3.one. 
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  T.as  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 
car. 


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  f.fi:  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 


•5- 

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;  th.at  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, 


-a* 

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 


-6- 

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 


-7- 

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*  JMississippi  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^iv.fi&l  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 


-8- 

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»  Itejmnerich;  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 staff  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,,*^tM  :&  o^aX^  ejCttsK ,  9wq?, 0  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/trroR  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 


-9- 

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  the  statutaj^ 
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  _g3_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)   -«■•'  ^^ 


-10- 

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.  Spranger^  '614.-   Ill*  602);  a  v/ritten  dying    '' 

declaration  v-liuiu^  v.  The  People >  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* 


-11- 

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, 

RSVSRSED  AHD  B  EMAHIKD. 
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,  ) 


T« 


JASOEB.  irVAHS  et  al.. 

Appellees*      ) 


)   APPEAL  FROM  SUPERIOR  COOnT, 


COOK  COUUTY. 


38  8I.A.  623' 


KH*  HffiiJlPIUG  JUCTICS  StlLLIVAJJ 
22ELIV}aED  THE  OPIisTIOiI  <F  'fHS  G(XJr:T« 

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  0  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 


-3- 

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 


-4- 

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  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 


-5- 

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,  (greundschaft  v.  Alchenburgeri  235 


M«t3«» 


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 


-6- 

111  •  438;  getrolt  Light  Guard,  Band  t»  Michigan  Independent  Infan-^^ 
try  et  al»>  134  Mich.  598;  MoFadden  et  al>  v.  Murphy  et  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- 
vention* 

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# 


—6*" 

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 


v«8** 


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 


-9- 

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, 
other 
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. 

AKD  KHat/^'D3£D  MTH  DIKECTICiUS. 
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  •£&% 


38859 


VrrVHJJIA  ^.7.  HAVKTHS, 

Appellant » 

WIILAKD   TRIG].  HawKMS, 
Appellee • 


/- 


X 
z       ,.--' 


/     y-"7 


/ 


/■ 


APPEAJ.  yROM  CIFCUIT  COUHT, 
C0?:1K  G01WTY# 


12K.    Pi^2SII;l.,!lc;  JUSTICE     LULLIVAJSr 
DSLIVJ^lRJJiD  Tm^  OPIlfTCM  OP   TH>3  COURT* 


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- 


X, 


■-'  .■:- 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* 


-3- 

$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  Central  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  lRa.lt  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» 
730.) 

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^fiPPP)      %££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 


-5- 

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  thorq  was 
recognized,  hut  thete  courts  dio   not  have  the  power  to'^rnnt  a 
divorce  a  vinculo  matrimonii*  They  sometimes  entered  decrees 
of  annulment  for  causes  which  rendered  the  iny,rria.(?'e  void  ah  initio 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.   ..here  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 
«i.th  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.  Trotter,  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 
children." 

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  0  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'oriri.ao  -"^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  aaigoxii,!'  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 


-6- 

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. 

jiFriRMSiJ. 

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<,    ^ 


.<^k 


38562 


CHAHLBS  B.  POwLliIR   et  al., 
Appellees f 

▼  • 

HI -10  JAM  C0RP0RATIC2J, 
VIGTCR  LEIi^ySBSav  et  al*, 

i)efendants, 


)  APPEAL  FROM  CIBCUIT 


OS  APPEAL  aw  HI-LO  ¥AS 
COHPQRATIQiJ,   VICTOR  H.   L3Br\VSBER. 
CURTIS  H.  Ki:i£r\v]SBi5Rp   deceased, 
and   WILLIAM  H.  ITIS  nmm, 
Appellants* 


COURT,  COOK  GOUHTY. 


)  ^  o 


MR.  JUSTICE  FRIUfD  IF.Lirain)  THE  OPmc^  CF  THE  COURT. 

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 


SdS85 


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 


-3- 

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  \d.th  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 
securities** 

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# 


-3- 

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&o.tl  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 


-4- 

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  ©'tif.to^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 


-5- 

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 
filed. 

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©^- 

,?)3Xn 
-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%\ 


-7- 

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- 
vestigation. 

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 


-8- 

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   such  representationa  Jmd^e ©jfOfi^J^^jL,* I^EiL- *_®i.^J^ilT__*'J^_  the'TuTure, 
as   diatinguiihed  from  the  present  aiad  pasty   and   are  not  sufii blent 
to  uahold  aiiy  ac ti on" p.f ,  fraud   or  decei 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  0  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  !>."«/,©* 


-9- 

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 


-10- 

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 


-ox- 

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 


-11- 

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. 

REYHlliSED  AHB  WMMill^  \?riH  DIISCTIOiJS. 
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 


/  / 


/ 


J" 


/ 


38915 


CT^ITTRAL  FUI?!  CORPOftATIQN*  ) 

ii.ppell£ijnt  t  ) 


APJffiAL  FRCM  WMiaWAL 


Tt 


COID^vT  OF  CHICAvX). 
LESLIE  "W«  BMVisU!*,  )         6^  u 


Appellee. 

MR.   JUSTIG".  yRinSTD  D::LIV7T?-3I)  THE   OPIiTIOM   OP   TICB  COURT. 


4' 


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 


=->^- 


axeoc 


( 


»▼ 


•  ODAOIHO  'Cf  TfOJOO        ( 

'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 


-5«» 

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 


-4- 

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  v.ao   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* 


-5- 

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 


-6' 

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  n9Y.na«:  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*!:^.^« 


-7- 

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  ba.fi  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 


-8- 

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 


-9- 

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'y.fj  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 0    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>X.se  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: 


-10- 

and  thus  granted  extensions  for  the  time  of  these  various  pay- 
ments* 

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  0  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  aXXa&rtsV  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# 


-11- 


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* 

JTOXMRHIT  AFTIRMaD. 
Sullivan,  ?•  J*,  and  Beanlan,  J.,  ocmcur* 


«xj:~ 


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 


38940 


AI^THUR  S.  KAm  &  C^JIPAJIY,  ) 

a  corpor;;.tion,  ) 

Appollantj  ) 


mp.(ix^U,i:   L.  REm^OlO)  and 

HiciL'ja;  A.  fi:dm(sti>. 


)    APPEAL  VnOU.  MUHIGIPAL 
COUBT  OF  CHICAGO* 


-.ppellsee.       )   r>  Q  O  T  ;1   /j  ^j    -^ 


i   /i    -C*  C|  yf- 

x@iii®  O  ^  ^ 

MR.  JUSTICIi:  FRIESD  Jfl.lVim'EJ)  WE   OPIITTOU  OE"  THI'J  CdTBT. 

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 


x. 


\ 


*T 


(  ■  has  CTOMCKH  «.!  f1!©i»a^ 


e&x® 


v^ 


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" 


-2- 

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 


-3- 

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  l6r.se  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*      (Sromrnes  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 


-4* 

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  ler.sa  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 

receipt* 

"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 


-7- 

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  Virginia  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^ 


-8- 

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.    :tpkpn,   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 


-8- 

**  ■,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^^ 


39X98 


EMILY  MACanJSON, 

Appellee  $ 

DSILA  JI'ICHORT, 

appellant* 


1""^/ 


APPEAL  ^ROM  MUHICIPAL 
OOUHT  (F  CHICAGO. 


^^    ■-     -   .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 


■\, 


•V 


\ 


( 


•  •? 


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 


•29 

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. 


-3" 

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  Martens  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;^ 


-4-. 

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 


-s.-. 


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 


-5- 

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  &  Trust  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,   supra*   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. 

astibk;:'!). 
■>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-; 


^'**w.taii««v«"'^ 


392S3 


A.  L.   CCHH'Pf  ) 

Appellee  p  ) 


▼• 


)        AP.PS.Oi  FROM  iro>TICI?AL 
COURT  OF  CHIC/ GO. 


J.  A.  i- JCK  and  KaTIE  i'hCK, 

jointly  and  severallyp  )      t^  r^    n    Y     H        /*  <^  ^^ 


Appellants.  )  4,  ^  Q    1  oil*  O  ^S 

MR.  JUSTICE  FEISUII  II^LIYEI^D  THS  OPmiCM  OF  THE  COUET* 

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  veredicto,  v/hich 


V  .     S 


JA^IOimJM  HOH^  l^M^^k        ( 


5   0  ^      {  *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  kno.vn  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   0  0    ^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's.is"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 


-3^ 

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   supra) 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  ca.ses   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.      ( Sbil th  v.  liarrable,   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^BBtsXag  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 


-4- 

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  obstante  veredicto*   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  Contracting  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.ql&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?  oioibersr 

imdi.  ioiit  'to  aiififiiaejHp  5e*x&voi^ixoo  fsaimnoiBb  fixw  i^iew  0*  '^dlttorfd'xjfi 


Springflelfl  Marine  Banki  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  uninhe.bi table.  Under  the  circumstances, 

it  was  error  for  the  court  to  enter  judgment  non  obstante  veredietOj>_ 

and  it  is  therefore  reversed  tun]   the  cause  remanded  with  directions 

to  enter  judgment  on  the  verdict  of  the  jury* 

EEVjURSSE  Atro  ESMpIO:!!  \.ITPI  DIRECTX CKS. 

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 


jalamttuatf^*ltiA,^'c%t^ 


38390 


-y'-r 


EU  JCiiTCCEPy,  as  Receirer  of 

Appellee , 

v» 

THE  FIRST  iTATIOJAL  BAtJi:  OP 
CHICACX)  et  al«> 

Defendants* 

TKSl  irrBST  HATIQET/O,  B.'VHK  OF 
CHICAGO, 

Appellant ♦ 


) 

) 
) 
)      APPHAL  HiOM  BTJi^;;^IOH 

)      COURT,   GfX^K  GOUiTTY. 


,ii 


■y  r- 


^- 


©  W       ^Qj      ^^ 


ME.  JUSTICE  3CA21LAM  BBLIVlPuilD  THS  OPIis'IOM  W   TEB  COUllT. 


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 


-\' 


>-.i^-'.^:dtv»»>^ 


'■■--    '■  ''V 

,:^.     -N. 

,.  ■,  .'^^•la-t^S"^*!^ 

"Hi-. 

'v  • 

"''«;v 

o^ea^: 


©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 


-2- 

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 


-3- 

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 
coasnissionert 

"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- 
dise* 

"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 
products. 

"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  se.id  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 


-7- 

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 
equity."* 

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,mB.ge   3f   the  Terification»  v/hich  is  aa 

follows! 

"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^ood  BaHkj)_  353  111*  451#  wherein  the 

answers  were  Tcrified  upon  inforiaation  and  helief  only.     In  view  of 

our  opinion  in  Relxaaee_  Baak  &  Trust  ao.  r*  fjalseyj^   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££^  ;^atf 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."   ( Oliver  ▼.  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 


-10- 

appellant* 

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. 

DSCBMS  AS   TO  THTi;  FIRST  iTATIOSF/a  BAilK  OF  CHJCAGO, 
APPEILMT,  KE.T:iP.SlI}|   AMD  CAUSE  Hi.m'UOKB  WI!ffi 
DIKSCTICMS  TO  DISMISS  C CMPXAIiT;^! T ' L.  BILL  AS   TO 
THIS  FIRST  ISATliMAL  BAxSK  01    GHIC.^0,   APP3LLAUT, 
3-m   ViMT  <.)F  a^UITY. 

Sullivan»  jP#  J*»   and  Friend,  J.,  concur* 


-ox- 

-*"afor«)o  ,„>;  ^fessii'i  fens   it%  »-£  sXiaTilXxjS 


1  'is^sr 


__^^_„-~— ^: 


38418 


BCCE-OL.i.  M/JfUy;vCTU>^IiJG  COS- 
POIL^TIOff,   a  corporation, 

Avipellee  j> 


T» 


QiaCO,  IJSfC.j   ».  corporation, 

and  DA.VTD   (Fjrt^BUBa, 

Appellants* 


)        A'PmjO,  FROM  SUPSMOB 
) 


1 


,3 


ISR.   JUSTICE  SCMLM  EFiLIVEBSlJ  THE  O^ISIOS  OF    mS  COURT, 


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 

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 


X 


ei^oe 


(  ■.      ■• 

,YTkXJOD  3000.  "SS   'SmOO        {  ■■^-.     „;:.  ■    ;-    ■ ;  *r  i  V  . 

'"■■'^   tf^    n         L?\      IT     O    Q  C«-  '^  ©HtrSs^liaS  aSYM  ,€   .  •¥  811151 

G  ^  O    ^li^l    0  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 
Ea3eT?all** 

•♦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   so.id  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 
thereof* 

•"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   bl.na   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  0 


o^i* 


'^Ccucluoloa&o 


••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., 


-5- 

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  yens -"Da  vis  Co«  v.  Mather  &  Co.,  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  action  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  Merchaiits'  33etective 
Aas'n  V.  Detective  Mercantile  Agency,  25  111.  App.  250,  259;"^6Hder 
"»■•  Bender  Store  &  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  - 


-5- 
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'  aiy.sg^-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,«.3Xisl  gol^oa,.,a:x£j;  ,#««isi0Xq[iaoo  tfi  9»^yr^  as 

♦  j^rrA  •IXI  VSX  jt_wjsilaBniTT:jH  .t  »o  0  /igt 0 ^ 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 

uWH^ 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'glX/"  .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;:^^.■   aaSBxiriol. 

«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 


-6- 

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  Hook  &  }gye  Cpj.  r, 
Htaap  Bairpin  Mfg*  Oo»,   supra »  quoting  from  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United   Gtates  in  the  case  of  Hov/e   Scale  po»  y#    vyckof f »   Seamane 
&  Benedict 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  Johnson  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.* 


-7- 


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 • 
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 
field. 

"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  ,d.th  legends. 


"9*  Mo  celluloid  covers* 
*10*  Ho  metal  traps  or  gates* 
»11.  Mo  «foul  balls'* 


••12 •     iJothing  in  center  of 
diamond* 

"13*     ilo  rails  surrounding 
diamond* 


♦*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 
'HOKE  RUS' . 

••9»     Celluloid  covers  over  rails* 

"10*     Metal  traps  or  gates* 

"11*     'FoTil  ball'   openings  and 
indications* 

"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" 
»siiOld^,eot&KX 

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" 


-8- 


"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 
field. 


'2G- 


'Iirrors^  not  indicated. 


"14.  Mo  casting  in  center  of 
playing  board . 

••15.  Mo  'balls*  or  'strikes' 
indicated* 


"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 
casting. 

"18 •  In  the  center  and  at  the 
lower  end   of  the  playing  board, 
diamond  shaped  tilting  devioe 
casting* 

"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 


-e- 


I'as^&i'S*®^  :t:e    *. 


#eir©.&  §«ici-Xi*  »9q,silF;  i>«eai.si;& 

b-s^sotf  ^,st<CBlq  lo  &aa  tt9?/eX"  fit  -s^sxi. 
ti3Wis/'i  ni:  sies  XXjad*  ESfCv/     ♦XS* 


»*»aXX.9cr 


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 


-9» 

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, 

i'OE  "HAm  OF'   liiOITY,  At  HAIHTIFF'S  COGTS, 

THAT  QQiiixf  nv.fAmma  jmu3:;iaT:^iCii(  fop.  ths 

ASSSSoieSilT  <F  BimAQSS  FOR   T^  "^(MOFl/l 
IBSUiMGH:  OF  tm  VESM^IBAB^  AHB  PJSMAaMf 
lyjMCTIQSfS* 

Sullivan,  i**  J.,  snd  Friend,  J.,  coaour* 


38633 


POLItJi  ROMAif  CaTHOLIO   UiilOH  OF 
AiOKICAf   a  corporation^ 

( Complainant )  Appell ee  i 


▼• 


WALT^I^  DOSHCSS  et  al.? 


Defendants* 


/ 


„i^lStff 


./ 


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 


T» 


APjPSAL  IfliUM  OIBOUIT 


POLISH  ROMAiJ  CATHOLIC   XMIOM  OS' 
ASCT'ICA,   a  corporation*   and 
CITY  OF  GHICACK),   a  mmiicipal 
corporation,   et  al»? 

(OroBS-Defendaats)      Appellees* 


HR«   JUSTICE  SCAJSLAU  miUTjSIiiSU  THE  OPliSTIOSr  CF  TKE  COURT^ 


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 


\ 


X, 


V  .v:^mB^. 


n. 


tie  .Jl     O    "W^  "©^ 


*▼ 


\,iB  s&  ismmoa  fm^im 


tfii.m&M^t^ 


bus  xlUtshXribnt  ,-KIV?IAM  Wimf. 


*T 


*©  Wim   OJ-JOHTAO  liLAMOH  Hai,JO^ 


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 


-2- 

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 


-3- 

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 


-4- 

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  ie.is'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* 


-5- 

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  h.er  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 


-6- 

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  cciiij.ng  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'f.cm  &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 


-7- 

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  _ 

indorsement  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 


-8- 

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    ...li&a&'.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 


-9- 

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 


-10- 

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  payr.ag  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 


-ox- 

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 


-11- 

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 


-IX- 

%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 


-12- 

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 
them* 

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. 

BSCKSS  APl'IRM::rD. 
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 


38791 


SlMilRD  J.  MO-RKISSEY  and 
Appellees, 


V. 

BES3IE  LUHAU, 


}        APi-SAL  PR  CM  SUPilKIOR  COUOT', 

I  COCK  couN'ry. 

>     28  8I,A.  6 

MR.   JUSTICr.'   SC/U^OoM  JDiaiVJRSD  THE  OPIiflOiJ  OB'   THE  COORT. 


Appellant. 


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, 


-.-^ 


K 


V- 


X 


■V;'^ 


\. 


'«\.  ^i  ■4^.        A     "T>    O^   O  O  ( 


^J* 


;^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  5si.sb  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 


-2- 


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 


-3- 

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  \ 

I 
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  vrf.th  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 


-4- 

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 

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  no.td'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 0  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 


-5- 

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   ^-p.id,    "'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 


-7- 

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 

0.cf^  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: 

^'VimSTOE   STHATiJ  &   GHA'vT 
First  JJational  Bank  Building 

Chicago 

"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  office, 
and  oblige 

•Very  truly  yours ^ 

"Winston  Stra^ni  &  Shaw  (signed) 

46-  Ml£ 
Enclosure." 


1  laiiw  wsii^  'Sevan  I     ^^la  ol     ,A     ?ffl*&if#  bsjagis  uo-^c  siolecT  ^b^ofe 

sifa  *mI;J  Illcf  iMiJ  «x  axsol;f5!B.3XIs  e^d  Y^sb  «*©«  bi&  sns  -t;nomi;t»®^ 

«o«  «e*ri.p,xx2.i:?J.ciiaoo  ad*  sjdxI:  ^di^ijoTiq:  ©iil   bseofio'iifo;  &iii3tfsmf  t9d  hue 

a©a*5ljscf  0jp((f   bxjBtj  Bxtstf a.taf  'xo£  &xis  siie   -::trjio   itci^f.sB^IIiS  laif^iirl  aif;^ 

■'     ■  tt'AHH:  OS  WAHt^::  ^Tem:\?"  '-         ■        ... 

o*  "s&lai:  90eoX«|  YXqESt  eI" 

ex'-t^M  hoe,  ig&aai'xxoM  .X,  fe^/awfoi:  v 

«9ij«avA  fciXoJjS"  *a  0X52 

.    s,«i^fo^M  Aa:ia  xaaa* 

alBiii3o  isQx  oi   bs'^eTfJoo   «esc?X  tSS  j^o-isM  no   ««toriw  tTjdeaitildK  si 

•ii^iiws'Eaii  f)9aoX£>i:t3  af  tY^'£^Q;o^1  &i.a8  od   ©X*  ii 

ftX  M.-b'.vM:  iv.KlsQs  t^'^^'^^  -oH  *^ifoO  XBq[ioici;M  ,£[J"jO  nivXsO  .W  &a-, 
aiifr  .a*  .300  bi-.s   tO0«69Sf4"  "So  cfxHroraj^s  9i:£S^  til  •^©aaxtioH  *  ^  gx-xsS  bfi„'3 

isoic^ibb^  nl   «Ovts   tHOlZitrxb^^js^R  a'uoaXi-/  sS  ^jcfexftrl  ni  XS  ^oJ  ixc  baaC 

ao   3^^i^;J"iOfit  ^aiil  sri^  ko  d'asisdxji   Qdt  x*^^  ^^^  C£  *o«i  "O  egfi-gi-'SOffli 

•  £S   &it.3  X2   a*oJ 

o*  ^J^xiQfitQaijjcrxaistic  /so'i  i;o\>;  aoqss  -ibssi  Ytf»T©x£  ejt  &njga£S<I" 

aoqu  x£eiBibiimtsi  Ss-di  j^Bsg^jLra   9W  x-sM     .*?sex  tSS  rio'i.nii  lo  5®sb  ' 
tsoilio   aid?    "io   9£>jsv;    « ■:«;■{  ase  ocf  ©sa!3T;a.s  vox  't':iii9X  Bidi   lo  ^qisosn 

©SiXcTo  fei2» 

-:■■  lilt  -d^ 

**9tSiti0l0S3S. 


-9- 

Wade  testified  that  after  that  letter  had  heen  sent  he  recsired  a 
telephone  call  from  Porter  in  whioh  the  latter  stated  that  he  was 
the  attorney  for  Mr.  and  Mrs*  Uihant   that  the  letter  of  Jsnuary  12;? 
1932 f  had  Taeen  received  "by  them  and  referred  to  him,  and  that  they 
did  not  recognize  that  they  were  required  to  maJke  any  payment!  and 
hey  Porter,  suggested  that  Morrisaey  "look  to  a  chap  "by  the  p.pmq   of 
Williams,  M»ho  had  acquired  title  to  the  lots  in  question  suhsequent 
to  the  conveyance  "by  Edward  J«  Morrissey  nnd   wife  to  Joseph  Luhan 
and  Bessie  Luhan."   Porter  did  not  testify  in  reference  to  this 
telephone  call.  He  was  one  of  the  attorneys  who  entered  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Luhans  in  this  cause  and  who  filed  the  answer  of  the 
defendant.  He  represents  her  in  this  court.  Uovvliere  in  hio  testi- 
mony does  he  attempt  to  explain  why  defendant,  one  of  the  grantees 
in  the  Morrissey  deed  and  one  of  the  grantors  in  the  deeds  to 
«illiams,  should  have  heen  kept  in  the  dark  as  to  the  nature  ejid  con- 
tents of  the  said  instruments.  Porter^  acting  as  attorney  for  both 
of  the  Liihans,  in  response  to  the  letter  of  January  12,  1932»  stated 
to  Viade  that  the  Luhans  did  not  recognize  that  they  were  required  to 
make  any  payments  under  the  asstuoptioa  clause,  and  for  the  Morrisseys  j 
to  look  to  (.illiama.   But  at  the  time  of  the  trial  Joseph  Luhan  ■m.s      ■ 
deceased,  the  cause  was  proceeding  against  defendant  alone,  and  the    \ 
defease  interposed  \yas  an  attempt  to  shift  all  responsibility  upon    | 
the  decfcasod  hushand.  There  is  no  allegation  in  the  answer  and  no    I 

fact  or  cire-otustance  in  evidence  to  the  effect  that  any  fraud  was     | 

I 
practiced  upon  defendant  "by  anybody.   The  master  found,  inter  aliaa  \ 

that  complainants  sold  the  premises  to  Joseph  Ltihan  and  Besoio  Luhan  I 

and  that  as  part  of  the  consideration  of  the  sale  the  indehtedness  | 

secured  "by  four  trust  deeds  was  credited  to  the  grantees  on  the  pux-  | 

chase  price  of  the  premises;  that  defendant  knew  the  contents  of  the  j 

deed  from  complainants  to  the  Luhans  and  also  knew  the  contents  of 


&fi,a  j^flSftiii^Bq  y^'je:  9:^!;sis  oi  boiitfpQ's  aisw  3;ej^  t^grTJ  es^iisooe^  Jon  feib 

alii;!'  cc>    iioai-no'i^:n  si  ^'i-^^^aa*   ;^0i»  ^io   lOiJ^o^       '*»x5rBrfuJ  aiaasS  5n.. 
-issgqvS  odi   be-£&*n9  OJtfe'  iHc9inoi'^,s  etC^   *io   otso  e^w   sH     .IXj=iO  anorfqsX^w 
3ji*  lo  -iiQwaiLfB  9r£o'  i)9Xx'i  oifvr  brm  saHao  aiii^-  ni  Bo^duJ.  ad'i   "io  son: 

e;^  a^9is>b  9xi#  ill  ©-^otaa'xs  arid  lo  ©ixo  b&:M  bss&  -^jsuaxTioM  dil^  ni 
~noa  &n.«  o-xxr^sc  ©xi;J-  o^   a^  :iii^b  osii  ni;  igsjl  xiaocT  &-WBsi  bJLuoda   taisaiXXiW 

o*   bo-iitnySiX  yie??  ij;©jc£*   itsxl;}   osxfigooQ'S  *oi5  bib  anpxlwl  sjtf^   isiid-   'nbsi'X  os 

e-^a-'^ax'X'joM  &il^   'loi  l>isa  taawaX©  iiciSqsmraajs  ©ri;?  ■ssl-sfiir  a^asas^q  isos  ^aOsn 

a^sr  xja4w^  rigasoX.  l£ilxi  ©ilit  lo  Kisi*  oiii  ^.s  .ttfS:       .aiaelXIl^  Od-  :tfo©X  o* 

«5»f£i*  &i:i«  ts^iioXs  ^iss&txeleb  isni^S^j  sistifeoeaorfq-  ajsw  ©aw.QO  ©fit  ,&«ei!eoeb 

asw  Sufi's  A  y:n^  cfjurf;^  ioeTxa  »jEii*   ojS   ©iMisbiT©.  «A  ^OoSiJaMfOtio  ^o  ^oat 
t&lls  xojini  nbmse'i  's.&&r?.sim  axiT       ^x^odxaa  ^cf  *aQbii9^a&  joe^fir  Ibe9i,j-dj3?<l 

afe^nb&^JfifQMii;  axW  ©Xsa  eii;^  1©  aokiBt^blBSttm  ftcW   ^  ^its^  bb  imi^   bus 

&di   -Xo  ssn^iaoo  Qdi  wawt  &sl.»rme^^b  imt^   ?a»aim9ic[  axict  lo  goi^q  ea&do 


the  two  deeda  fron  the  Ltahans  to     llliBms:   that  Joseph  Lichen  anC 
defendant  were  represented   oy  coiuissl  at   the   tine  cf   the  conswaaaa- 
tion  of  the   deal  and    thst  the  aG;5?amptiori  clause  in   the  deed   Cxcffl 
compl.i.inants   to  the  Luhane  was  aocepted   aid   cgroed   to  by  her,   Th« 
chencellor  made   the  ssjoe  findings  in  the  decree,     We  are  in  accord 
Tslth  their  findings. 

In  our  view  of    the  evidence  it  is   entirely  unneceeeary  fey 
us   to  consider  authoritiee  cited  Tsy  defendant   that  hare  no  a.yplication 
to   the  facts   of    this  oase* 

Itoder   the  facts  as   we  find   them  there  can  b©  no  doubt   that 
the  decree  should  be  affirmed»  and  it  is  accordingly  e-o  ordered, 

Sullivan »  P«  J.,   and  :^riend»  J,,  ctaicur* 


»'i';l  i:»8,*?0  '^m  al  issmiS^  ml^q&m^^u^  ®^^  jf^jj"  bus  lB»b  9iif  'to  mlt 
MosoiS  iti  ^iB  s>l^     ,a©i©s&  e^f*  Tii  agitifcisi't  aisjse  arid-  sbrnt  tctl^&tt^tlo 


-7 


38922  /  / 


/      .    / 


Appellant »  "    '^ 


MSLVILLJ^  J»  KOLUiiTxlR  et   al., 
ippeilees* 


APPEAL  FROM  yUPERICR  COUBT 


OF  COOK  COIBITY. 


MR.  JUSTICE  SGAlfLAH  PrUVSRED  THE   OPIiaOlJ  W  THE  COURT. 

Plaintiff  filed  his  complaint  a^inst  defendants  seeking 
to  recover  moneys  paid  under  a  contract  l)y  the  terms  of  y»hich 
Melville  J.  Kolliner,   defendant!   agreed   to  sell  to  plaintiff 
certain  real   estate  located   in  Chicago.     Plaintiff  alleged 
that   the  purchase  price   of   the  property  wec  t'19»000;    that  in 
accordance  with  the  terms   of    the  contract  he  paid  a   total  oiai  of 
^12»350s   that  defendant  "breaclied  the  contract  in  certain  particiilare  j 
that   there  waR    then  a  mutual  rescission  of   the  contract  and  "both  par- 
ties  to  it   "are   entitled   to  "be  placed  in^_s tatus_ gu0j;_"^ 

The  cause  was  tried  "by  the  court  and  immediately  upon  the 
conclusion  of  the  evidence  the  following  occurred j     "The  Ocurt: 
You  [addressing  the  plaintiff]  haven't  any  right  to  come  in  here 
in  this  court  ;ind  claim  Il2f000  and  live  in  this  man's  house  and 
avail  yourself   of  his  property.       He  is  entitled   to  certain  setoffs. 
I  will  not  make  a  judgment  for  |il2,CX)0  against  this  man,    that    is  a 
certainty  Ijecause  it  is  highly  unjust*         thether  you  are  in  an  equity 
court  or  a  law  court  you  should   do  juiitice   and   equity*      I   don't  want 
to  ait  here  and  allow  you  to  ravish  justice*     I  will  let  you  go 
back  where  you  properly  helongp   and   that  is  in  the  Chancery  side 
of   this  court,  or  I  will  enter  a  finding  against  you.     Mr.  Dotson 


a.. 

1 

*rTMToo  moo  ^id       ( 


•T 

^O^         ft     ^     R    8S  ^  .S5^Il3<i:qA 

'io  iSE/e  XciOo    />  blfig  sxl  Jc^sictaoo  eif:t    1o   a£i*x55  eiii  rf;Jiw  eortsb-iooos 

.'Lt9JlP..-3M^jfi^3,.I^i  ooO'SXq  dcf  ocJ-   boli i^aa  Otis"   d-J:  o.t  a&'s.i 
&di   noqu  '^Xofeioeeoax  brLs  ixuoo  edi  xd  b&lii  sew  sau&o  szfl' 

:o'ttwoO  SilT**     :f)-3'xiyooo  ■^aivToXXol  ai^^t  oorisbivo  sit*   lo  noiai/Xoxtoo 

biXB   oyirori  a'n.sflf  sldi  nl  £.viX  fcxis  0()0,SXi^  ol-sXo  bxi,-;  J"iifoo  axrf;f  ni 

•  a'tloJ^aa  niacriao  o.J   bsX^ti^ns  ei  sH       *xi'xeqp%q  aid  'io   iXsaiwoy  Xxjsvs 

j3  ai    derii-    tfism  aixLi    iBal&'^si  000<SX#  ici  ^tneassbj;;^  e  <y^£,m  .ion  XXiw  I 

d-n^w  d^'noN   I     *\i:d'iwpy  bxio  ooicfajjj;,  o&  bXiroxfa   wov  d-ii/oc  wgX  .n  ico  *twoo 
03  uo\:  cfsX  XXiv/  I     .eoiiclut  liaivsi  o;f  woy  I'/oXX^  biin  ©lod  iis  oJ 

ttoacfoa  .'iM     .x/OY  ianiags  snit^fll'i  «  xeine  XXxw  I  tso   tcfax/oo  a£xf;t    10 


[attoraey  for  plaintiff]!  This  cause  vvaa  brougiit  as  a  law  action 
and  I  am  conviaced  tiiat  ibirtiere  it  'belongs.   I  y>/x11  auk  the  Court 
to  make  its  finding©*  The  oourt  thereupon  eutered  a  judgment  find- 
ing the  issusa  for  defendants  and  that  they  recorer  their  ooetB 
from  plaintiff.  Plaintiff  appeals* 

Plaintiff  strenuously  contends  that  the  judgment  entered 
was  the  reuult  of  aii  ar'jitrary  and  punitiye  action  "by  the  trial 
court  and  argues  that  from  the  ovideace  presented  and  the  opinion 
of  the  trial  court  it  is  clear  that  the  trial  court  was  not  justi- 
fied in  entering  a  judgment  for  defendants. 

iVe  have  carefiilly  examined  the  short  transcript  of  the 
evidence  and  hare  reached  the  conclusion  that  justice  requires 
that  there  he  a  retrial  of  this  cause.  It  appears  th^it  the  trial 
oourt  Was  of  the  opiuioa  that   pls^intirf  was  entitled  to  a  finding 
hut  not  for  the  full  amount  he  cliiiued »  and  th.it  the  cause  should 
he  heard  hy  the  chancery  side  of  the  court,  i^t&x   an  ©jciunination 
of  plaintiff's  complaint  and  the  evidence  he:  ring  upon  liis  claim 
we  think  that  the  trial  oourt  wc.s  right  in  his  conclusion  that  the 
cause  properly  helonged  to  the  chancery  side  of  the  court  5  hut 
merely  "because  the  attorney  for  plaintiff  insisted  that  it  helonged 
to  the  law  side  of  the  courts  did  not  justify  the  tri^  court  in 
entering  a  judgment  for  defendants.   Such  a  judgment,  if  allowed    | 
to  stand,  would  result  in  a  miscarriage  of  justice,  when  the 
court  concluded  that  the  cause  hslonged  to  the  chancery  side  of 
the  court  he  h'»d  full  po-v/er,  under  the  rules  of  court »  to  transfer 
it  to  that  side,  and  he  should  have  entered  m    order  to  that  effect 
regardless  of  the  position  of  coimsel  for  plaintiff.  Plaintiff 
complains  that  he  is  a  poor  mar?.,  that  he  has  already  heen  penalized 
hy  being  compelled  to  appeal  from  an   uxijuat  jud^asnt,  and  that  if 


•Jji- 


^tuoO  sri;}  2lfco  XXxw  I        ,BS£«>l9cf  Ji  a-xsxSffai  iffdii  b&oxiiyraoo  sm  I   biis 
'bntt  itiQtSB'bi-'l  -e  -be^cc^^i.©  fiOsii.-9^eri*   t'lmo  exfT     **gai:bai'i  a;}!   diss  Qi 

ndixiiqo   aiid   has  bois:i&3etq,  so^i'oblr^   &d;f  moil  i^JJ   bsiissb  ba£i  i-woo 
-x.1aift  ^f'^i  saw  #1000   Xfsjt;?   ?^c!J  iaii^  isi&lo  ai  *1  ;fs«©^  Xali*  dtf;f  to 

Bni&rill-  n  oi   holi Una  a^iW  1ix;tai£.Xq:  i&d^  aai£iiq.Q  9d^  %»  a«w  ;txtfO» 
blijorfs  saifx^o   edi  vsxlj    bi;-j3  ,  oafcJXi^Io  »iX  #atfr>f3s  LSjat  9£i  '£0l  iOM  iu^ 

Segno Xsd"  ix  i^sxW   bsJisisKx   i'il^HisXq;  xot  x&mQ4:i.s  &^   a®.«.3©96f  yX®^«« 

^^w©XX-s  Ix  «;la&x:£gbArt  «  ■'loi'''      .  atfifi&xtslol)  3:ol  ;^m«iagb«t  «  Si»i:t®*i5© 
erfrf-   r»jdw     ,©oi;is/ft    io  sie^ii'iBoaiisi  ^  ni.  'J lava's.  bXaow  «l>fs£je^a  oit 

xotjse^i;?  o:-    ^ct^jjoo  Ic   e<?XiJi   f>f(Jt  ♦xo&xis/  t^owoq;  Lint  b nil  «*£  ^^riffito  0rfi 

llid-fliaX^s':  ,  "i'liJ-xxisXci  10't  Xoajsiroo  lo  noi^Msoq  9xi*  lo  saaXbLsges 

:)9f:iX.3a9g  «-sod-  igbfteiX^J  3,oii[  3i£  ^«if;^   .rjigcr  tcooq  js  «j:  srf  Jed;?   aaidXerjuo© 

li  i&di  btui   tiiins^btjl:  iettltw  n.^  sat- -I  L-sqcL^  o;^  &oXXs«jkido  -^nlstf  ^a' 


-3- 

tlie   cause  is   reversed   and   remanded    ?md   then  aSBi.'^ecl   to  the 
chancery  side   of   the  court  a  reference   to  a  master  vfill  prf  ctioally 
dejirive  him  of  a  reasonable   opportunity  to  eniorce  his  claim*  It  its 
a   nufficient  pjiswer   to   this  complaint  to  say  that  ve  are   of   the 
opinion*   from  mi  ex.'iminati on  of   the  xjI endings  and    the  evi denes f 
thr.t  p.  trial   of   plaintiff's   claim  on  the  chancery  side   of   the   court 
should  not  rei;uire  a  reference    to  a  master.      A3   the  o^?use  ma^iT  be 
tried  againwe  have  purposely  refrained  from  analyzing  and  coiamenting 
upon  the  evidence  introduced* 

The  judgment  of   the    Superior  court   of  Cook  comity  is  reversed* 
and   the  cause  is   reinandeci   for  a  new  trial. 

JDSQfSilT  Rl;rrT.SS]),   AMD  CAUSE  mmMW,3  FOB   A 

Sullivan*   P.  J.>    and  Friend,  J.,  concur* 


t&ony&lvs   cSJ   bi'iE  aB«if''J"^"''-ff-i  ^-tl^   "io  isofJBSxhcs'.xo  suk  motel  «,itoiaifXG 

i^^i??..©  ®di   1:«  ofiiiB  ■^^-xaoK.p.rfs  s'S'ni-  ,0,0  mhSo  Q^VilialBiq,  tp  lal'fJ  *  iBdi 

#XBi*c*  vr®n  s  ^asU  bafeiiesjs'X  al  ssxtso  &ds   b«B 


•jonoo  t*'D  «bii9ii''l  brxB  t.t,  *U  titfevlIXjuci 


if/i 


^'^^ 


AT  A   TERM   OF   TPiE   ATFELLATE    COURT, 
Begun  and  held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   of  October,    in 
the   year    of   rur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the   State    of  Illinois: 


Present   —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFFMAN,    Presiding   -Justice. 
Hon.    FRi>J\:iCLIN  H  .    DOVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRSL   Ct.    V^OLFE,    Justice. 


JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Clerk:. 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff. 


O 


FE   IT  REI.IEMBEREP,    that   afterrrards,    to-wit:    On 
J/^'  ?p  t:07  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   tie 

Cleric's   cffice    of  said   Court,    in   the   v/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-wit: 


Gen.    No.    9131  Agenda  No.    27 


IN  THE 
APPELLATE   COURT   OF   ILLIIIOIS 
SECOND   DISTRICT 


OCTOBF.R   TERi/I,    A-D.    1936. 


vaLLIAi'i  L.    O'OOKNELL,    Receiver  of 
the  Otte.wa  Banking.;  cjid  Trust 
Company,    etc., 


vs. 

GEORGE  ERICKSON, 


Appellcint  Appeal  from  tiie  Circuit   Court 

LaSalle  Coui\ty« 


Appellee, 


Kui'Fi^AN,    PJ 

Ttie  Ottawa  Eanking  and  Trust  Gi^iipany  suspendeci  tueiness  in 
Septejilcer,  1321.   At  such  tiaie,  tT/o  notes  of  appelles  were  in  the 
assets  of  said  bank.   One  note  in  the  principal  suin  of  §4:!30,  dated 
August  10,  1931,  payable  in  ninety  days  to  cne  Dank,  with  interest 
at  siz  per  cent.   The  second  note,  in  the  prinoioal  scurs  of  |;1500, 
d8.,ted  .Septemtier  7,  1931,  payable  in  ninety  days  to  the  bank,  with 
interest  at  six  per  cent.   The  receiver  after  taking  charge,  talked 
to  appellee  about  the  payment  of  the  above  indebtedjiess.   Appellee 
v/as  unable  to  pay  sa.-iie  and  clai:a8  tnat  he  told  the  receiver  his  wife 
was  the  ovjner  of  two  -^1000  first  inortga,^e  notes,  secured  by  certain 
far-ii  land  in  saia.  cO'-mtj^  known  as  tae  Yermeland  land,  and  suggested 
to  the  receiver  that  na  give  him  these  notes  held  by  his  mf  e  in 
esohange  for  his  notes  held  by  the  bank.   The  above  notes  were  part 
of  3X1   issue  of  thirteen  notes  in  the  total  s-u.ii  of  :|15,500,  secured  by 
a  trust  deed  upoxi  uha  Veritielaud  land.   Subsequent  to  tiie  aoove 
conversation,  appellate  went  to  tae  oaiik  ?/ith  his  wife's  notes. 
Finding  the  bank  closed  a,t  that  time,  he  went  to  the  office  of  Mr. 
Anderson,  an  attorney  in  ths  city  of  Ot\.aw.i,  .aic  deiiverea  these 
trust  deed  notes  to  hiui.   Atu:.  rney  Anderson  later  cislivered  the  notes 
to  Ghe  receiver,  taking  Lis  reoeip";.  t-herefor.   This  receipt  states  that 


VS    .  cli  3.bji8^A 


I^.IQ    .cw    .n&Q 


»o:.-t-,M     .Ci.A    ,  .;n;"/.d '.i'    H'.iUOi'OO 


s&IIec-'-j.. 


»]JCd3CIH3  &-DH02^J 


jbsiljso    tegxtC'O  :^;;:.j;:r?«J"    x^d'ls   'isvisae:!  eaT      .J"ixao  xeq  xte   ts  ^ss'X'$iri;^.l 
?:>1j;t/  Bill  r^-ifl-z^oi^j.   e.u.i  blcji   era  d'oxiJ'   sni^Io  l)ic.ft  axiisa   Y-s^q  oct'  alds5iisj  ajsw 

rzi   slxvv  aiii   vu  jbli-ii  saitcr;  oasrij  miXi  &vx^  sii  uX.aa    isvisoeo:  e.dy    od' 

YcT  -be'xifoes    jOOS,:]!!   lo  i^xixe   I.£uoc^   arid"  nl  sedon"  rcssj-rfrx-ld"   lo  sicai  .ifj^;    'Ic 
6Too,-^   5iij    oci"   tfndxfp&sojja      .Lrfjsl  ciiBlstfii5V  6iio-  noqi;'  be-ob  i^asjit  js 

ss^rici-  .ij6rv.iv.rj:3.b  X'iW    ,av&j^iO   jCo   sc^rio  eA«   nx   x&r.xo'j&si.  .'i£.    ,xio8X&iaaA 
isdi-  S9if.s.ta   itqisos-x   ax;iT      .'xcj:cX5-ji^  3-qIj.'Oa'x  aiii  gxtxaijsi'    fTeYl^oe%  eds-   ot 


-2- 
the  above  notes  had  been  received  fro.ai  the  attorney,  Owen  Anderson, 
as  attorney  for  appellee,  as  additional  collateral  to  secure  the 
obligations  of  appellee  to  said  bsi,nl<:. 

Subsequently,  a  foreclos\ire  proceeding  was  started  against  the 
Vermeland  land,  under  the  trust  deed,  and  the  appellee  v/as  appointed 
receiver.   Tuis  foreclosure  suit  never  v^ent  to  a  decree  due  to  the 
facx  that  the  landowners,  Neut  Ver;aeland  and  wile,    agreed  to  convey 
the  mortgaged,  premises  to  a  trustee  for  the  benefit  of  the  note- 
holders, and  piirsuant  thereto  did  so  convey  the  preixiises  to  appellee 
as  trustee  icr  said  noteholders.   Txis  trust  a^^ree-a-ient  bears  date  of 
March  3,  1954.   It  set  out  the  interest  of  the  various  parties  and 
listed  "-Jennie  Erickson  (appellee's  v/ife)  amd  ftilliaai  L.  O'Ccnnell, 
receiver  of  the  Ottawa,  Banking  and  Trust  Conrpany  of  Otta?;a,  Illinois," 
as  the  o^-ners  of  an  undivided  4-/51  interest.   This  trust  agreement 
?7as  executed  by  appellee,  as  trustee, on  tne  one  part,  grid  the  various 
parties  interested,  as  parties  of  the  second,  part.   Appellee's  wife, 
Jennie  Erickscn,  signed  the  agreenient  as  a  party  of  the  second  part, 
gold  appellee,  ae  trustee,  signed  as  party  of  the  first  :oa,rt. 

On  July  2,  1934,  ^juagnasnt  by  confession  was  entered  against  the"* 
appellee  upon  his  t?;o  notes,  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  LaSalle  County. 
The  ;iudgment  was  in  favor  of  appellant  add  for  the  sijcn  of  :#2409.4r2, 
which  included  the  principal  and  interest  due  on  appellee's  two  notes. 
About  a  ye8T  later,  ano.  on   April  8,  1SS5,  appellee  filed  his  motion 
in  said  court  to  open  up  the  judgaient  and  for  leave  to  plead.   The   j 
motion  was  granted  and  a  trial  ensued.   Appellee's  contention  upon 
the  trial  was  that  the  receiver  had  agreed  with  hii  that  he  would 
accept  the  two  mortgage  notes  held  by  his  wife  on  the  Verr-ieland  land, 
as  payment  of  appellee's  notes,  sjid  woula  return  appellee's  notes  ic 
him  in  exchange  for  the  notes  of  his  wife.   The  appellee  therefore 
claiined  that  he  did  not  owe  the  appellant  ejiything  upon  his  notes 
which  had  besi  put  in  .judgraent,  and  that  they  c&d   been  fully  satisfied 
and  discharged  by  the  delivery  of  the  aforesaid  notes  of  his  wife.   The 
jTory  found  in  favor  of  appellee  and  appellant  prosecutes  this  appeal 
from  the  judgment  thereon. 


^nc3i3bxi:  .aa?;-0    ,Ysn'»:oj  r-ts  erl;r  s.iOT.1  be-vtsos'i  need  Jb-Sif  s&ci'Oir  svoas  qM 
9'Ui-   9'x.ao93   OCT   iBi&J.sIIoo  l^noiv lijsjs  Bs   jSsIXeqq.s  -xoi   \^s;i^Oo«'-3   (i& 

.2L:ij3d  i.jj:£s   od"  ssllsqq^  'io  arroioBgilcio 

sxici'   o.t  SijX)  os'ios-c  3  Co    jfiew  Tev9.a  it-tf-'S   3'x.uaoloeacl'  Bi:;i3?      .^svisos-r 

.D/i:.?!   aei3'x..iq  zi/cxijiv  ■siti  'to  ;xs^id^ul  mU  ciijo  Jaa  al      .I'oGI    ,8  £lQ'isii 

^eiiw  B'o-silsqqf.      ..txsg  .Diiiooss  -jx^j    Ic  aei:c^'j:.sq  e;?    ,jOSJ83:cscj2i  2sXi:}"iJ3;q 

.cl'T^q  iirvcoss   3rit  Io   vji^q  3   a^;  j'x:Si;3e'Xg>3  sad'  l)Sit£iB    ^xxosj^oliS  sliircs't 

,i'T^;:r  a-atii   eia    1:g  x^'-^-^^a  s--'  i^S-CCibi'^    ^esi'aiitcj-  3j3  <j8lIsqqB  f)aj5 

.\;a'i"r/oD   !?IIj3.i?,3J   lo   tisscO   JixsoitO  i.:j^   i.:i    ,?.S[loa.   owt  siii  Xiocji/  e-sXXstjqB- 
^ai^.feOi'^Si.  'xo  u£ja  5.dv    'xcl  iiha  ia.slleqq£   xo  iqvsJ.  al  qpv  7ii3mjbisi  s/lT 

.sooc/t  ov/o-   e'ssXXsqqs  no  ^ssb  vTaeie^fivj:  l;xi.;3   Ij^qioui-sq  SilcT  iysJbirlo^i  jiojiiw 
iiOXoo:;;  &in  t'jjXl'i   eeXX;=-aqj3    ,qSi3I    ,8  li^qA  ac  i3X!®    ^isj-.bI  xa3Y  -^^  ^xrodA 

^liscvf  Sri  3-j?n;t  .--X'!  .::*xw  LasiX'^JS  txs.a  i8Ti,-:;oe'x:  3iC:t   ^scit  a.s^  Ii?i:i^  ari^- 

tbiiifrX  v/X'iX8:-'iaV  csa^  no  aiXw  airf  xC  13X3x1  a&*on  a^.'S^l^'roui  ov'cr  oad"  tqeoos 

or  3ei-.:.xr  D 'r::3XXoqg.5  nisjo^i  xjl^rm  .br.cs    (Seto/y  s'asXXeqqje  ?:o  i-itaffi^^eq  ea 

&'X0i;5-^&iT.o    selXaqc^  srlT      .eixT.-  aXa  "io   BsS-or.f  Qi't  '.col  sgni^rfoxe  .a±  ffiiri 

aeJofi  a.cii  rroLiX/.  SiiXriMYxr-s  ^J-iisIXeqqB  sd&  swo  Jroa  .t-xX)   sil  ■;r3d&  bemlBlo 

srIT      .e'rx--   aid  Ic   ssi'-ojix  LxsEeTOiB  erlo    Io  visvs:l3i>  eiid"  Y^f  i)»3i^xfoajt£.t  l>.as- 
Lasqqsi  axxiiJ-  .^sJ-.voQsoiq  ;riT..^:;XXe(.[q.6  Lva,s  aeXXsqqjs  "io  xova'i  ni  Bxuxol  X'^t 


It  is   tiie  contention  of  appellee  thet  the  receiver  e^greed  to 
deliver  to  hiui  his   two  notes   in  exchange   for   th«  xvo  notes   oelong- 
ing  to  his   wife.      Delivery  of  the  T,7ife's  notes  was  made  by  appellee's 
attorney  at  a  time  subsequent  to   the  a;»jreement  appellee  claiias   to 
have  had  v?ith   the  receiver,      llo  delivery  of   appellee's  notes  Tsras  made 
by  tue  receiver   to   either  appellee's  attorney  or  to   appellee.,    but 
instead,    the  receiver  delivered  to  appellee's  attorney  a  receipt  for 
said  not.:7S,    which  states   in  positive  langua^^e  that   they  -syere  received 
as  collateral  to    secure  appellee's  obligations    at   the  bank.      This  was 
in  Decsaber,    1931,      Tue  Liatter  ran  along  until  Harch  8,    1934,  when 
appellee  becajiie  trustee   for    Ghe  Verineland  lands  upon  which  his  wife's 
notes  VBxe  s.  lien  by  virtus   of  the  trust  deed.      There  is  no  evidence 
that  he  took  any   steps  to   obtain  his  notes  from  the  receiver.      His 
wife   signed  this  trust  agrsenent  for   the   interest   in  the  predisss  as 
eyidenoed  by  the  two  $1000  notes  r/hich   she  had  given  to  ht^r  husband, 
and  which  he  had  caused  to   be  delivered  to   the   receiver,    e,s   o^jming 
sa^ae  together  with  the  receiver  of   sad  bank,     Appellee  snd  his   'Kife 
being  parties   to  this   agreeiisnt,    are  chargeable  wi-cn  notice  of   its 
contents,    and  the  results  that  ^jould  naturally  floT?  therefroia. 
Apx^sllee  stp.tes  that  he  read  it. 

On  liay  31,    1933,    the  receiver  Ti-rote  appellee  regarding  jjay/aent 
of  both  his   :'i400  note  aiid  his   I'SlSOO  note.      Again  on  August  15,    1932, 
and  on  Janaary  30,    1933,    he  wrote  appellee.      It   does  not    sppeax 
that  appellee  iuade  any  response  to  these  letters  or  v/ent   to   the 
receiver  and  made  a.ny  deaand  for  his   notes,    in  lieu  of  his  vjife's 
notes  which  he  had  turned  over  tc    the  receiver  on  Ijecemter  30,    1931, 
On  April  3,    1934,    the  receiver  v/rote  a-ppellee  requesting  that  he  and 
his  ■^ife  come  in  ajid  execute  papers  necessary  for  the  assigui-iient   of 
their   interest   in  the  Verneland  property,    to   the  bank.      Following 
this,    and  on  September  29,    1934,    they  went  to  Ottawa  and  there 
s-sqH-e  es.ecuted   and  delivered  their  conveyance  to  appellant  as  receive^ 
quit  claiining  all  their  right  in  the  Yermeland  land  by  virtue  of  the 
trast   deed  thereon. 


0-J  be&Tu.^  's.-?vj:~,03x  Siid"   j.rijEir  36ilsc;q3  "io  xcotcfxj&j-aoo  arid-  ai  iJI 
~gifol£'d   a?;tCii   owJ-  ®-jC;.C'   %o'l  b^^asaoxo.  .crx  aa^-on  ORf^   aid  inid  o^  -x&vxXsi; 

&isd    (.vS,IIr:;-;:q©   oci"  'Sc  ^Kii'xc^'j'ii  a'eeXIsccs  i:;5rl3"j;s   o^   aavieoai,  ?5m^    \jcf 

;;;3vxod&'l:  hx&w  vv;;io-  u-ar'?  s^-srj^jnjsl  evltJiBoq  as  a©;l'.a^a  rfoiiiK  ^as;J'ai:i  wiss 
ajsw  axii"'      .;{iy,'j'.i  ?•;:;;■  i^s   a£:cxJ..5£,.uIdQ  a'rfeIX£?cycii  eii/oss   o?  I.e-xa^^IXoo  a.s 

iiBfiv?  .;^CGX    58  dorsH  XxjJm;-  :i:.n;olL&  li'i^x  ^Sifsxa  ©«T      .lo^I    ,xeaflii©o*CI  iix 

a'a'xx'vT  axi)  .cfc'iri?/  iioe-j   «i.j.K.'iI  ;jr:j3l&*iitj:£'Y  =?x"    xol   a9;i'®ir'x^  smBoao  selXeqoB 

eoj:t6>5xve  on  <3X.  ©"i^XT      .os-sfe   d-aii"5:3"  say  'io   i'ijj'xxv  vd  ±19 xl  £-  &^3W  a@i-oxi 

exH      ♦Ac:  vX;K;>i£'.'i:  ^di-  :«'Xt  s^»'oa  sin  .fii.5;J-do  oo'  yqss'g    y;r£a  iooo    6xi  ^'S-ff^ 

^.trrBQeivA  ',:-.■:  c:y  x^vx^,  isd  sds   xox.dv^  se^on  0O0I|  cw;J-  iilO"  vcf  i)eoxs:s^va 

^2381    jCX  'tre-uyx.;/'.  no  iixjigA      .B voa  0C3X^e   rjxi.  ixfec  e3-0u  OG^^Jii .aixi  iicJ-oa  to 

•sssqqc    J-on  asoXi  vil      .ssXX&qa-s  sj-oir  &il    .SSftX    ,0^1  vxainus^  xio  Jjix.g 

ftxi.;t  o;;'    •fae.xi  to  a"xs;J'*J"sX  sssdc"  C3"  sa.crccfB6'x  ^v^M  Q.bsm  ■d^lleqciB  '^Bdt 

a'alxi,?  ax.il  "io  i/DXX  gx    ,aBao.a.  eld  10I  x!x;,3itiab  yxx>s  sis^ffi  iiOB  t^a-^Xooe'i; 

,XSCX    ^OS  -x  :k::!^jooov,  ik'   ^svxoob's  erii    ocT  xqvo  LBn^csji'  iiBii  B.fi  lioiiiw  Beitoa 

Xtrf3  su  ;J'/:ri>   ^-r^XTciBirp?';!:  eeXXsaciVB  '?;^o'r;(?^  ^avlao^'X  exlci"    ^l^c'BI    ^S  XxrrqA  nO 

1<:   c-x?}.c=ro3X':axi  carf   'ic'i  Yix?t:3S03n  ai'sasq  giji/oexsr  fins  0I  scrcg  slXw  airl 

,-.y\iv;o.rit;Ti      ,?(r\-j3f:"  rrlJ'   oj    ,i,^J"a:i3gc'3:q  ij;i.sXstrxeV  s/i^  flX   ■>'-ES>5:QJxrx  'xlexl^t 

tisri;?-  .CiT.c-  ^-v.'BtJO  Co    ;Ltsi7   {ed^    ,^o«-,'X    ,Gf;  tj:sd'jE3?q3<?.  "O  ijxis    ^siiji*?' 

yevx'jo.:>-.t  a.e-  d'j!:u-XXoc_q.s  ot  eonsx&vr(.oo  ■xxed&  .beze'iriXel3  Xjnx^-  b^ii'osxe  a-sf&f*-* 

sdJ  "xr  '-..o-d'xxv  T/S  ionj^I  basIeKiteV  sxij  ni  itd'^u:'):  Txed*  Xlis  gfiies^slo  ^ixfp 


-4- 
A  court   is   not  at   liberty   to   infer  facts  not   proven,    yet   it 
is   at   liberty   to    dxecn  all  the   inferences  wiiicli  loj^lcally  auid 
naturally  flow  frora  the   facts  proven.      The   conduct  of  appellee 
is   so   inconsistent  with  the  agreeuient  he  claims   to  have  had  with 
the  receiver,    that   one  Ccoinot  recoucile   thein.      During  the   trial  and 
in  the  presence  of  tl^e  jury,    reaarL's   0}    counsel   for  appellee,    were 
inade,   v/hich  could  not  have  been  otherwise  than  infla.iiaaatoxy   in   their 
nctuie.      Cne  cf  t-uch  ren^arks  was  made  with  reference  to  the  interest 
i-ppellrnt  vii^  holuint,-  in  the  Vea-melana  land  by   virtue  of   itfc  assign- 
ment frou:  appellee's  \','ifti-  of  her  particip^-cing  intoxrot   in   the  trust 
deed,    ae  seovirity  fcr  appellee's  notes.      In  this  respect   anu  in 
xeferrii)^-  to   the   interest  in  t.ae   Verineland  mortge-ge  held  by  appellant, 
the  attorney  ste.teu,    "V/e  I'.eve  a  rl^ht   to   show   the  velue  cf  the  land 
and  the   i.aprovsiiients   on  it,    ana  whst   they  got,    aad  that  they  ke;^t   it, 
and  they  kept  it  to   tneix   owu  use;    converted  it   to  their  om:-.  use, 
and  kept  it,    and  never  offered  'oo  give   thesi  a  dauin  cent  back,    and 
never  intended  to.      And  he  has  partej  '.nth   everythint._  that  he   and 
his  wife  had,"      The  appellee  is  v^niste?  of  the  lax.d  ondcr  "che  trixst 
agreement.      It  will  soi'jetijr.e  ha.ve  to   be  liquidated  and  no  doubt   the 
nort^age  proceeding  we.s  abandoned  in  the  msjxner   in  which   it   we.s,    in 
order  to  permit  Mr.  Vernieland  tirae   in  which  to  procure  a  new  loan, 
or  in  the  hopes  that  land  values  raight   increase.      Appellee  stated 
in  his   testi;:icr.y  with  reference  to  his   csn  notes,    that  hs  had  no 
isoney   aid  cculd  i->ot  borrow  ;-3iy  money.      Api-ells-iit  holds  his  ncifees  and 
his  wife's   interest  in  the  M exi'ielsxiA  .uort^age,   which  it  adiuits  it 
holds  as  collateral   secxixity   to  appellee's  notes.      Se  a,re  of  tne 
opinior  that   the  verdict   in  this   case  was  agaj-'.ist  the  uianifest 
Teight   of  the  evidence.      Tbe   judgTaent    entered  thereon  is  therefore 
erroneous.      The    iuci-3,'ment   is  reversed  and  tne  cause  remanded. 

Reversed  eno   remanded. 


iLrl'ij  £i£!fi  evBxf  oif  aialelo  s..!  Jzzbu.^.'^'x-^ji  sni  di^j^f!■  &i7.e&atB£:ociil   ca   ax 
SiiB  £:^iii:    siii  'i^alisjO.      .i;is-l"j    s  Ci:oaC09'-i  jcaijiso  sac   uUilit    .levioosi  's.ud" 

irx&.a^-   0/    .'.x:,:j:ih-.u.2llas.  /rsrfci-  s2i:^?rr->ii;i-o  noad"  sv.s.n   J-o/i  'jIxj-oo  xlo.f:/i;v7    jaL-aa 

jsi/Xo    i/.:j    r;:.:   o.^:::  i.;' j.rxi:  g^iXj-sqxoi^Xf-q   't^ii   ^;o  c:  iivi'  a'iallaqqs  .^oi"^   cf'/raa 

.toslLvcc/r  \:i  hied  3o.2^:j-y.o-:    ja..I  Jl/vt'I'V   siiJ-  .ix   Jaa'i3;ii-i   s;^"^   02   .^lixxstsi 

iixtBl   V  •:!:■    iv   3;:i.£y\/-  o.^t   ^oas   ci"   ;iT',^ii  i   3T;;;:    5:7''    ,.v3J-?d's  -i::r;xoL^J•R   'odi 

^tl   (J-ST'-if   t.;^\i    i-vu^   h^:.::    ^a-::^    ;,v/i'v    d,c-iW  .:r:£    .J- .t  uc   sir^enu vctcqii\i   scij   ijxrj; 

i>ix;    ^ioe-j   c)':;.;:  c  i;f:.:,i.o   £;   ;::r'.!;5    'ivJc-;->  00    fcSiS'x'io   ~::.Vv;.;;   ;j;3    ^i^s.   jq?::^  ..>rr£ 

oBiixi   :-.::C:-    .:^i.L.:;   c;Tt.r  eat    ';o  s^io^yi"   oi  Sil.leMjj^  su';'      '^  .tr,:-   o'iJ-w   -aiii 
o.flir   i-c.;,,, , _>    :>..:  Lc:._  j?j-£.^xx7-:.l  vii   ct   sv.':,^  eiaxjer.oa  IIxw  Tl      .  j■;JSK8^•t;g£• 
^:x    ,;■£■;;   i-x   ,i,,o.;:i-vi   .di   ■la.Tifsi.i   ■■)^I;;  ;Ti    oeno-dft^sa':    ej-S'^i  ,j;ix.;.i-:eoo'xq  32,3;3i-iOCi 
{ii-Bol   V.  :xj:   rf   "aijooic;;   ot  dolih:  .ax   snxt  XirrrjIeurrsV  .  r.f  j.caiXrq  oc^   IS.&T0 

0.::  .b.f}.J  ox'   j"..:-ii.i'    ^ai^vTca   nfo   c?.i;:i  gi?   eone'isl^i   rfj^i^^^   v;,:xjiiixja5  3'   sixl  Xii 

M£   8=iSc-,:J  ■-!■:■   ax)Ioa   J'/ieI.r'7.-;,.A      ."^■f-T'-n-   y  fc-  '■loiicd  ?0'i   bliioo  .i^  xk    c^-'fO-i 

irx   aJ.o^.o«   ::i  ij.ci:fiv^    .  j^;;>r;^.a '^;o!u  J^.TJ^Ieo^X:-'Y  sxi:!"  xiX   osa'xs^rnx   e'?!nx7?   aixf 

9i:.a    lo  oXo   ;- ,7      .g:3^oa  ^ '■i:elle:i:; y  oj   v^-x-ruo-?a  I^aC' j.-5xIoo  as   aniod 

c-"XoX;a..-:c-  i;x  .iCrv^Lj-  bet::!C^Xi:3    txreG!X>;)jxu   ?^fT      .■?offej;>xve   ?no    lo  « 1131377 
....o,3;;s:::?  X  xsx'B"  3/0    .303   ^ies'TOYsx   aJ:   iTf^arhOxi  j:    rirfT      ,3Xf05  aerie 


STATE    OF    ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DiSTBiCT  J     '  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  th.e  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Ajipellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

AppeUate   Court,  at  Otta^^•a.  this day  of 

in  the  vear  of  our  Lord  one  thovisand  nine 


hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  AppeVaie  Couri 

(73815 — 5M — 3-32)  t^^fe.; 


^iLho 


AT   A   TERM   OF   TliE  AITELLATE    COURT, 
Begun  and   held   at   Ottavv-a,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   of  October,    in 
the   year    of   our   Lord   one    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present   --   the    Hon.    BLaINS  HUFFAIAN ,    Presiding    Justice 
Hon.    FRANiaiNR.    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon,    FRED   G.    Y.'OLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS  L.    JOHNSON,    Clerl-Co     ' 
RALPH  H.    PESPSR,    Sheriff,     ■ 


t>    6>     i-  q/Ic     'vi5 


i- 


BE   IT  REI.lEMBEaEr ,    that   afterrzards,    to-wit:    On 
'^^■''^  -^   ■^<^'  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's    cffice   of   said    Court,    in   the   "/ords   ani   figures 
following,    tc-?dt: 


Gen.  No.  9140  Ageaada  No.  SO 

In  the  Appellate  Court  of  Illinois 

Second   District 

October  Term,  ,.U  E.  1956, 

G-eorse  W.  Pyott, 

Appellee, 

Appeal  from  the  County  Court 
vs. 

of  McHenry  County 
Samuel  Kahn, 

Appellant, 

HUFFIvii'il^-P.J. 

This  was  a   "crial  of  the  rights  of  property.      Appellant   recovered 
a  JuugBient   against  the  Pyott   Sand  and  Gravel  Company,    a    corporation, 
and  Jaiaes  M.  Pyott,    on  August   22,    1935,    in  the    sum  of  #6245.61. 
Execution  issued  thereon  and  the   sheriff  levied  upon  certain  rails 
ar-id  equipment   located  at  a  gravel  pit  li^ieh  had  been  operated  by  said 
defendants.      Appellee   filed  notice  of   cl-im  with  the   sheriff,    to 
the  property  levied  upon,    and   trial   was  had   before   the   Judge  of   the 
County   Court   of  McHenry  County.      The   court   found   in   favor  of  the 
claimant    (appellee),    and  entered   judgment   accordingly.     Appellant 
brings  this   appeal. 

Appellee   claims  that  James  M.  Pyott  was  the   sole   surviving  s-ock- 
holder   of  the  Pyott  Ga^d  and   Gravel   Company,    and  that    as   such,   he  con- 
veyed  the  property   involved  herein,    by  bill   of   sale,    to  appellee, 
under  date  of  August  2,    1955,    as  part  payment  upon  rent    for  the   lands 
upon  which  the  Pyott  Gravel   Company  had  operated.     The  lands  belonged 
to   appellee.      In  support   of  this   contention,    appellee   claims   that  the 
corporation  had  been  legally   dissolved  for  more  then,   three  years  prior 
to   the   day  upon  whicsh  appellant  recovered  his   judgment,    and  that  by 
virtue  of   Sec.   94,    ch.    S2,    111,    St,    S.H.    Sec,    157,94;    19S5,    the 
appellant's    judgment  recovered  belov;  was   void  because   suit  was  not 
beg-on  within   two   years    after   date   of   dissolution.      Appellee,    by  his 
brief,    states  that  this  is  his   contention  with- respect   to   this   case. 


Oi'ie    .oW   .HSU 
Icnllll  'to   jTtfoC   e:!-sII'?(rqA  sf'i'   nl 

,8V 

i):vir::V0Ge'i   ^aslleqc^..      .■'■^^■'izqoiq  '"lo  adTig.?:^  ^/iw    '::o  lAiio-   /3  e^w   axdT 
^ no i: 3. 3 •■2:00:;/. 00    3    , Y^-i'''I8io-''  X3?3i-?  6n3  &.a£:c   li'cfov'T  oifJ  izni/i^   ctnaiii-gSut  fl 

6iK    Io  lovB'i    iii  fjruol  ci-i^joG    3iir      ,^?j3;iJ0v^  viii?:»HolK  "Jo  o'y/cO   v^m/oD 

<9?i.C.l9qq5  00    ^elsB    'ic   IIM  rd    tii-tG^iiuI  .03X'ic-.-,LEi:   x^'risqo-ic,  asr^   he\QY 

DQSincl'^c:    ^i^aBx  exiT      .b&JB'zcqp  b^n  xn'^^qs^oO  lev: '.'D  oc^ov^  3;-fc?  liclilw  noqir 

■3£[;J   ir'-^-Dd'   BiVi-tdlc-    ^sllsqga    «r>-cljxssjnc&  sxric^  'ic   ^icaqijs  jil      .seXIc:;o-Q»   ocf 

'ioi':.o;  ai.r.oY   eoirltl   losil;)"   e-iox;;  ■ic'i  bevlo^cth   vj.ln-gol  aesd  hB£i  tic xi Bioq'ioa 

Ycf  ■i^}sii  has    jCTiieffi^iSxrf,    ^Ixf  f-ciavoos-u.  c'n;;Il3cqi;   xfcixift-  noq:;  \;Bb   adJ  od- 

©lie-    ,ac;GI    j:^i;.^SI    .093    ,H.a    .o-e    .111    ,23    .xlo    ,i^§   .09w   Io  sxrd-ilv 

rroft  3Bvr  ;Jii/;;    Ga.ooes'j   .bxov   Si*>7  rolac  i56'r?>voo9'x  tnsEsbi/f,    e '0  xtsIisqqB 

aXil  vfl    tasIIsqqA      .nox.tjj-ioaa in   Ic   aiBb   xe^flL   Eiae^   aj7o    xsixljlw  nx/sed 

.aa>'.o    3i:xi;j-    oct    J-oeqaon  rlo'i??-   cold-nociTioo    axii   ax   Sjirl?   ^aild"  asd'ad-a    (Isijicf 


-2- 

^:e   do  not  find  any  competent   evidence  in  the  recoiM  tending 
to  prove  th?t  James  M.    Pyott  was  the   sole   surviving  stoclcholder 
of  the    corporation,    nor  do    vA'e  find  any  evidence   tending  to  prove 
t'le  dissolution  of  said  corporation  as   claimed  by  appellee,     ixppellee 
has  filed  his  motion  in   this    court   to   amend   and   sup'^lement   the  record, 
by  the   introduction  of   documentary  evidence,    that  yaas  not   introduced 
at   the   time  of   the   trial,    and  not  a  part  of   the  record   et   the   time 
of  final   judgment,    nor  at  the  time  of  appeal.      v.e  are  not   disposed 
to  grant  such  motion.     iXirthermore,    it   is   not  filed  in  compliance 
with  rule   12  of  this  court,    to   the  effect    that   all  motions  when  not 
based   on  matter   appearing  of  record,    shall  be   supported  by  affidavit. 
The  motion  of  appellee   to  suppleiuent   the  record  by  the   documentary 
evidence  offered,    is   denied. 

The   judgment   of  the  County   Court  is  reversed  and  the  cause 
remanded. 

Reversed  and  remanded. 


ovoiq  cj  g!iii:).a9;]'   Bcvmbive  y-^s  x>ai'r  e^  Ci>  0:0.1'    .no ii'sr^o-Tico    yilJ    io 

.!> 'ICON'S  c'Xl.^   vi-.c;3iCoI'-^qij:;    5i!B   bjiOi'F   od'   *ii;co    eiii?   rxl  x:!:oi"oOiif  siii  bsLi'i  h-ed 

S5:rc;t   sisf   t.o  ^'looe'i   eii^   'xo   cri'.c;  ^  don  oii£-    <Ai3i:'j:d'    eild"   ";o  esli   z>£^t  is 

.565X11311131 


STATE    OF    ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DiSTBiCT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Ajjpellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  ofBce. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73S15— 3M— 3-32)   ■f.^^&o; 


^\^1/ 


AT   A   TERM   OF   THE.  APFELLATE    COUHT, 
Begun  and  held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   cf   October,    in 
the   year    of   our   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and   thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    cf  Illinois: 


Present    --   the    Hon.    BLaINE  HUEFIIAN ,    Presiding    Justice. 
Hon.    FRi\Nia.IN  R.    DOVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRED    Cr.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS  L.    JOHNSON,    Clerk, 
RALPH  H.    DESPER,    Sheriff. 


^2 


BE   IT  RmiEMBERED,    that   afterwards,    to-wit:    On 
uA:i  xo  i937  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Cleric's   office    of  said    Court,    in   the   T/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-vlt: 


Gen-    No.    9142 


A„enda  No.    33 


IN   THE  APPELLATE   COURT   OF   UaJ'ukjIS, 
S£CO!;.iJ   iJiSTRICT 
OGTOBER  Tiiiui,    A.    JD.    1936 


NETTIE   vfHITi:, 


ApD2ll£_'it 


▼S. 


FIDELITY  "^lUTUAL    BSN-^FIT 
ASyOCIATIOii, 

Appellse. 


Appeal   fro:a  the  Girc\ilt  Oo^ort 


IiUFFMAN  -  P.J. 

Tills  wa.s   a  suit   toy  appellant  to  recovsr  upon  a.  benefit 
certificate   issued  tc  hex  riasoaril  by  appellee  association.    Anpellee 
is  a  livataal   benefit   association  sucii  as  provided  for  zander   Sec.    435 
et   seq. ,    cl^.    71,    111.    yt.    1955,    oec.    515,    ch^    33,    B-K  St.    1935. 

Section  14  of   the  policy  provided  aiiiong  other    unin^s  tnat 
"Sliould  tiie  member  die  or   death  be  caused,    directly  or   indirectly, 
froiii  an>'   of  the  follo"ri.ng  diseases   or  causes,    either  a-ctite  or 
chronic,   within  tv<elve  montas  fro-i  the   date  of   this   certificate 
or  from  date  of   reinstatement;    from  any  organic  troacle  or  trouble 
thereof,   bacterial  trouble,****  the  association  mil  pay  only 
one-fiftii  of  the  ainount  wnich  would  otherwise  be  payable  uno.er  the 
teruis   of   the   certificate.''      Tne   certificate  issued  to  the  neaber 
on  iiiarcn  1^,    1935.      he  died  from  looar  pnsuiaonia  on  June  6,    j.955. 
Appellee  association  tooK   tne  position  that   tne   cause  of   death  was 
a  i:'acterial  trouble  and  tnat   oy   tne  provisions  of   said  paragraph 
14  01    the  certificate,    tne  appellee  was   bouna  to  pay  only  one-fifth 
of   tne  aao'ont   wnicn  wotild  otherwise   oe  payable.      Hue  certificate 
provideci.  that  during  the  first  one  hundred  eighty  days   tne  total 


;M  30fie,,/ 


I^IQ    .oM    ..aeO 


ilD'CC    iJ'i.IJC'^;  XL'     SXlu     c;Oli 


,c.lIKh   ['ITT3.t^ 


.t?3li.3C,qA 


»aot?i   .^-^  H-c;   ,;;o  .do   ^i 


09.i    .ciofi    .; 


-S'jciij"  &^;riJ:dJ   'Ti^.iicro  jHOi-ii  Joejbxx^o^g  \:oj:Xoq  3ncr   io  ;i;'I  rioii^oeS 
(^'j^iolt.lt'iicO   ?:xc'o    'ito   Ji;',:;;:.    ^v,^  i^iCzZ.   ^liSnOiU  -cvLsffJ'  titii'^i^    .oxnoxiio 


vlao  'Z'^-^<   i^x'^  r5:oxc:j;iocce.2  s-aif" 


c.Iojjc-xii-  lsixeij"0£a    .xos^iceri; 


9iio    le-x^Ax;  sldB-'^ji.Q  ad  £iai:vi-i;;ii?o  bli.:cw  .-^oxavv   oixjuoiii:;  axi?  "re  xi^  1x1-3 rro 

•x3Cji;SKi  exiJ"  oJ"  .ibex;oai  e^soxxxjico  e^.f/r      '•  .y^.coxxxj'xeo  bilii"   lo  Siii'SoCf 

.clJ^&v'    ,c   snxxL   ac:  x;i:.c:o!ii£/aacr  Xo.:ioJ'   ;  ioix  aexi:;   9r.-      .ccCl    {i/I  xioi-HM  xio 

ai;w  jioji&x^   XQ   ^f'jj'oo  eixw    o.siicr   Kox^xscq  siij    isooa'   ao.i:<t£iooas£;  i-ailsqqA 

ncf£'x;^-6Xi;c_  ^;xx\:   'lo   axxcxaivoxq  i;.dG'  X'^i  'i^a^'  Jo<x^  siuxrcx^i"  Ixu'xauOjoci'  & 

djlxx-o-tio  Y-'-f'^^  ~v.-^'-f   -?  ijxruoc,   £;x;vr  i/allsqaii   ^iiiT    .8*i;oxxxc"iso  eri-i   io  if'I 

9dj?yx'xxJt£&o  ex.T      .^vIo.s\r^o    3C   sj-.iV.xftxlrf'o  liix/ow  uoiixs   sai:-ot^£,  siJ'   "to 

L^iorr  eii^'   8',.,rjj   i^ouvj;^   js xJDXtxrjI  sXiO  rf-axxx   :^xid'  ^-xfJ:ta.'Xi    i'XjXi.x  i'^iJivonq 


amount  payable  thereunder  was  the  sum  of  ij^SOO.   Appellee  tendered 
appellant  $4i) ,    which  was  one-fifth  of  this  ainount,  the  tender  being 
rtp- de  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  para;^raph  14.   Appellant  refueed 
the  tender  and  this  suit  resulted. 

Upon  the  trial,  appellee  by  its  vatness  Dr.  Roseboroug-h, 
introduced  testimony  tc  the  etiecit  that  lobp.r  pneumonia  In   a 
baottrial  trouble,  and  that  the  germ  or  pne'amoccccus  is  a  form 
of  bacteria.   There  was  no  evidence  of v'ereu  by  a.ppellant  tending 
in  any  way  to  refute  this  testiiaony.   It  sxtnas  in  the  record 
unoont radio t£d.   It  therefore  appears  tha"a  pneumonia  is  an 
infectious  dissase,  oaused  by  tha  pneuiiio coccus;  that  the  pneuiao- 
coGcus  is  a  bacterium;  and  henoe,  that  lobar  pne^'juaonia  is  a 
bacterial  diasase.   Tito  witnesses  testified  for  appellant  -  herself 
and  Dr.  L-ioore,  who  stated  that  the  deceased  died  fron  lobar 
piif/Luaonia.   Jr.  rtosefcoxoukh  was  the  only  v^'itness  on  behalf  of 
appellee.   His  tsstiaony  is  as  s.uo^'i'S   indicated.   Under  the  atate 
of  tne  eviaence,  xhe  trial  court  cjuld  not  do  other  than  render 
the  judgiaent  entered,  finding  that  a.ppellant  was  entitled  tc 
have  and  receive  fro^a  a-ppellea  th3  sum  of  $40, 

The  judgment  of  tne  Oircait  Oo'ort  is  afiirjued. 

Jud^^d  ent  af  Sr c,  e  d. 


,o  ;ii:  iiinci-iijen;:   i^QoI    i'ji-tlo'  ■d'cavia  e;:i«    off    \jxxo:-i:l"aey  :;^9OiI0  02JJax 

^oL^cea   k;!;:-  'Aco.j'c.    ci^   ^o:;-  .^^luco  ;j-Xi:oo  Izi'io    dilo'    tv-0£rs.ji;v3   sao    1o 
.G^v   ^0  i:x ';  c;;.d'   esilscqa-i  i-.oil  avisos'';  d«3  sv£rf 


J^jo  :;x5;^::i^   jfrc5iS;:pjLji:, 


STATE    OF    ILLINOIS, 

1  T    TTTSTUS  L   JOHNSON.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

SECOND    DISTRICT  J  i.  J  U  D  i  L  C'  J  j.  ^  v  -li--    - 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  th.  keeper  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,,  do  hereby 
certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof.  I  hereunto  set  ray  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at   Ottawa,  this. -"i^>'  °* 

in  the  vear  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 


hundred  and  thirty-_ 


CJerl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 

815— 5M— 3-32)  .^.-^^V 


f^ 


^i*^, 


AT  A   TERM   OF   THE  APTELLATE    COLIRT, 
Begun   and  held   at   Ottaiva,    cu  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   nf   Ootcber,    in 
the   year    of   our   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois  : 


Present   —   the    Hon.    BLaINE  HUFFMAN",    Presiding   Justice. 
Hon.    FRiJJICLIN  R.    DOVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRED   G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Cler'r:c 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff. 


Q 

5 


T 
jL 


A- 


EE   IT  REI.lSMBEREr,    that   afterwards,    to-wit:    On 
viAN  lu  i,"'37  "the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's   office   of  said    Court,    in   the   words   and   figures 
f  ol Icv'in. g ,    tc-vd  t : 


Gen.    No.    9147  k^enas.  Mo.    36 

IN    THiC  APPELLATE  COURT   OF    ILLlJ^iOIS 
SEGOiJD     DISTRICT 
OCTOBER  TjLRjM,    A.    D.    1936 

Harold  Cadmaii, 

Appellant 

vs.  Appeal  from  Circuit  Court 

School  Directors  of  Scxiool         Winnebago  County 
District  No.  14,  Winnebago 
County,  Illinois  J 

Appelless. 

HUFFMAN  -  P.J. 

Appellant  was  employed  by  the   directors  of  appellee  school 
district  to  teach  in  a  country  sciiool.   His  contract  covered  a 
period  of  nine  Uionths  comLjencinj^  with  September  3,  1935.   Ke 
continued  to  teach  under  this  contract  of  emploji'ment  until  March 
7,  1936,  wiaen  his  services  -s^exe  terminated  by  the  board  of  directors 
on  the  ground  of  incoupetency  and  negligence.   Following  such  dis- 
missal, appellant  brought  this  suit  a^^-ainst  the  district  for  $210 
which  he  claims  is  the  balance  due  hia  under  his  contract  for  the 
last  three  iiionths  of  the  term  durin^j;  which  he  was  not  permitted  to 
teach.   Tne  cause  was  heard  before  the  court  and  judgment  rendered 
in  favor  of  the  defendant  district. 

The  contract  of  employnient  be-fenreen  the  parties,  a^nong  other 
things,  proviaed  that  the  teacher  might  be  ais^iiissed  by  the  directors 
for  incompetency,  negligence,  and  a  nuinber  of  other  things  therein 
set  out.   Tills  pov«'er  is  granted  the  board  of  directors  by  statute. 
Ssc.  123,  ch  122,  S-H;   111.  St.;  1935.   T-'te  school  directors  have 
this  right  notwithstanaing  the  teacher  may  have  been  employed  for  a 
definite  perioa  of  tiiue.   school  Directors  v.  R??ddiGlc,  7?  111.  628. 


vD-.axroO   o^sd'exini^;  I001-06  "xo  aio^oeiiCI   looxiog 

>B2oniIXI    ^Y^'fi^s^t-^O 

sd:;"  xo'i  d-0£'s;]rrco  n.td  x^bruj  Kid  ajjb  eoaslsd  &d^  ax  aiuialo  ^d  doidw 
oC"  bsi'ii'i^zeQ  u'cir  a.av?.5!d  iioiiins'  ^aiiijb  i^^aj  aiUio  axfcl'jGOiii  sactad"  iasl 
biiiebj.iB'x.  Ti:v3:;\-£)X! Q  I)X5:>s  ttixroo   e.hi  exoXed  b'££iSd  a.sw  ssifiJO   3ZiT      .ilDi^sd- 

.-jowcj-.b.'iB  Yd'  sioifoe-iij;'   'io  .'oxsocr  ex'^d"  iD-sJ-iiijT^   ax   XfiT.70q   aXi-.T      .i''ixo   i'aa 

p-vrj3X!   y^:oc^o^'xx!:■   looxloa   ariT      .SiCei    j  .dt;    .III      iil-iJ    ^sai  ilo    ,i;8I    .038 

a   lot  i^sY--tq''':^  /-fosci   sv£d  v.3a  -ca/foBacJ-  sil?  2iIxiXIjsd-3XlJ■j:;i;c^oa  ^xi^x^  airio 

.aSo    .III  ?V    jiolbiseH    .v  SiOd-c-a-txC   IccxioC      .aiul^   lo  iDox-iacr  ©3'xxrxl9i3 


-3- 

We  have  carefully  exaiiiined.  the  evidence  in  this  case  and 

of 
are  not  disposed  to  aistur'u  the  findinii,/the  court.   It  was  within 

the  province  of  the  trial  court,  aci;ing  in  tne  place  of  a  jury,  to 
weigh  and  aete:oiiiue  the  credibility  of  the  evidence  offered.   The 
evidence  discloses  a.uion^  other  thin;i;s,  that  appellant  was  late  in 
arriving  at  the  school  and  on  luany  occasions  did  not  arrive  until 
after  the  school  hour  haa  comiuencea;  th£.t  he  iivould  leave  tne  build- 
ing auring  school  hours,  for  extenaea  periods  of  time;  that  he  would 
eat  during  school  hours  and  permit  the  children  to  do  so;  that 
lessons  were  not  regularly  assignea  and  in  some  instances  a  period 
of  two  or  three  weeks  woula  elapse  between  tne  assignment  of  a 
lesson  axid  the  recitation  thereon;  tnat  he  Drought  a  snaJce  to 
school  which  he  perixiitted  to  curl  about  his  face  and  head  during 
the  school  hotirs;  that  auring  school  hours  he  would  perform  experi- 
ments with  explosives,  demonstra.ting  to  the  children  their  various 
charact eristics;  that  he  g£,ve  a  lesson  in  shorthand;  that  he  would 
crack  cocoanuts  dtiring  tx.s.   school  hours;  drink  the  milk  therefrom 
and  then  pass  the  same  around  for  the  delectation  of  the  students; 
and  that  he  would  play  checkers  with  the  students  during  school 
hours.   Although  it  might  be  said  that  tlie  above  things  were  harm- 
less in  their  natizre,  yet  they  were  not  consistent  with  the  pxirposes 
for  which  he  W8.s  employed. 

The  judgraent  of  the  trial  court  is  affirmed. 

Judgment  affirmed. 


bw:   38-80  axili"  hi   soneiiXYS   sdi  jjaaixiLSXs  vZLu'tsiso  avM  sW 

03'    ( *<,x.:r(;  b   'lo  f>o.eXq  sf'.j   nl   ".^niiio."    (C'li/oo  iBixJ   s/Io'   lo  aorrlvo'xq  ©rid" 
9.txT      .jjeTs'ilo  90fi;3.5xvs  c/i;j   lo  v&lllotbe'xo  eri^-  eiiisj::i^ish  baa  xi'^i&n 

IxJnu   3vxi:x..s   O'Ou   ?>Xi;   sftOiB.^ooo    ffi^Ji:  no  ,Dnj5  looiioa  sdJ"   u,6  ^iiivxii.8 

-jilxi/d  &xl;l    BVSiBl  iilxrow   34  J-i^uo    jijSOiS&ui-iaoo  s.\~il  -nsod  luoaoa  axit  •i©3"1b 

sjis:ow   rd  J.SX1J    ;9£uid-   lo   Bhoinsq  ijisLned-x©   a:ox    (S^^oxf  IcoxtQa  gnxiirb  gni: 

Ci-Biij    ;oa   Cuj   ot  aax^^Lldo   suit   d-liuisq  jiiijs  a"Xiro.a  Xocilos   i^iii^ij;;;    ujsa 

Lolxsq  B  a9  0iisc!"3.!ii   eii:cf;  rtJ:  x;f>.3  Xi&itgx^a-B  vI-x.BLjgs:-:    vicii  siew  isnoaael 

vS  lo  i^-ieajx^l-ass  eff;t  rf&ewd"Su   eaq^Is  blijow  ai?e&^  esirij  lo  owd"  lo 

i;.ii\ci;/.)  ijisxi  ^li^;^  aoBi  ai/I  c^x;(:.c:J3  Ixt/o  0?  .bac;c!'ia5ieq  &4  iioln^  locjdos 

-x-'caqxa  tincx'^Qu  hluov  en  ^'5:i.!Cii  locuioe  ■/iat'tUjj  ^.t^.aJ"    ^atci/ori  looiloa   Sifd" 

Bi/olisr  •r.rs.rf+  rt^ixlxilo  sfiCi-  ciJ-  a;x.i:^.^i;taiTo;>ii:fj    ,eeTiaoXqxs  xf^xw  a^nam 

■jIuow  ed  Ji5iit    rijjxsdcfToaa  xxi  noaissi  s  ev^;^  aii  J.o.aJ    jaoi,J-aixs*oj3t£xfo 

j;^o:£i§r?;s;-i:t   ijllis-  ariS'  i£rx:i:i*    jaarxron  looiioa  s^at  grrxij-rfi  aa-ji/iiBoooo  ia^io 

;3ui5:6i>;jS-a  -srll  lo  iioicfxrloelsi)  e.iu  'xcl  x>nsjci:s  siii^^a  8iii}'  asjsq  .fisd'a   bas 

Icoiioa  grirtifi}  s^noxassB  odi  dvm  a-xsiosrio  xslc  JbLisotf  ed  lend"  oas 

-ffiiBxJ  52ew  3gnJ;.fi.^  ©vod^  en:J-   ;i-,sjj:t  r^lBa  ©d    dTi§x;a  Jx  ^uoii^lA      .sixioxi 

..uem'X'Elli;  b1   &'iijOo  1.^X1  j  srio    lo  7ix3h%:ohi  edf 


STATE   OF   ILLINOIS, 

'■ss. 
SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON,  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  tlie  keeper  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,  do  herebj' 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this , day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl:  of  the  Appellate  Couri 

(73S15— 5M— 3-32) 


qii  7 


AT  A   TERM   OF   THE   ATFELLATE    COURT,    " 
Begun  and  held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday ^    the    sixth    day   of  October,    in 
the   year    of   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six^ 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    —    the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFE?-![A!Sr ,    Presiding    Justice. 
Hon.    ERA1TI<XINR.    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRSL   Cr.    Vv'OLFS,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Clerk,    ^  ^     ^ 

2  R  R 

RALPH  H.    FESPER,    Sheriff.   -^^  ^    O 


^r 


FE   IT  REI.IEMBERET,    that   af  terT;'ards ,    to-wit:    On 
J/\ l\|  ]  g  ]qQ7  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's   office   of   said   Court,    in   the   7/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-wit: 


Gen.    Wo.    9157 


AR-enda  Ho.    48 


IN   THE  APPSLLATii  COURT  OF    ILLIilOlS^ 
SEOOND   iJl  STRICT 

OCTOBER  TL./a»:,  ii.  w.  lyse 


ROSS   AMDHSfS, 

Appellarxt 
vs. 
J,    S.    LMRhJNCE, 

Apio3ilee. 


iP?B.AL   PROM   CITY  COURT  OF    ELOIN 


HUFFiiA.!?  -  P.J. 

Tills  is  an  appeal  proseouted  fro'ii  the  city  court  of  iilgin* 
Appellant  brougtt  suit  p.^3.inst  a  ope  11  eo  in  b3±u   com-t,  to  the 
January  texiu,  19b^, thersof .   Due  lej-al  service  ?/as  had  or.  a.ppellee 
mors  tLan  ten  days  befcxs  the  first  aay  of  said  teri^i.  Arpellant 
fileu  no  declaration  tc  ths  J:..nuary  ter-i  of  said  court,  nor  to  the 
folloATing  March  term  tixereof.   Sabsequcntly,  and  on  May  4,  1933, 
appellant  (plaintiff  belo^) ,  filsc  his  declaration  in  said  cause, 
ana  on  Octouor  5,  1933,  without  notice  to  appellee  or  his  attorneys, 
appellant  caused  appellee  (defendant  below)  to  be  defaulted  and  a 
judgment  in  danages  enterea  against  him  in  the  sxun  of  #10,000. 

Appellee  did  not  knovr  e.nything  about  the  judgment  vntil 
December  19,  1956,  when  execution  was  served  on  hiu,  whereupon  he 
instituted  this  procsediug  -onder  Paragraph  72  of  the  Practice  Act, 
to  correct  errors  of  fact.   The  trial  court  after  hearin-  the  cause, 
eet  aside  i;he  order  of  defa-olt  entered  against  appellee  in  October, 
1933,  vacatea  the  juag-ment  aiid  quashed  the  execution  issued  there- 
under. Juagiuent  ms  entered  in  favor  of  appellee  and  against  appel- 
lant as  in  case  of  involuntary  non-suit,  and  appellant 'b  case  belo^ 
was  tnereupon  dismissed.   It  is  froa  the  above  action  of  the  court 

that  appellant  prosecutes  thia  appeal.  \ 

\ 


3J>    .oil  .^^as-^A  ■       ■  ,.      ^        VSIQ^  .off    .neCs 

»ai'gL:-.   -c   ;?i.;:co    ,:jJ:o  3-->;f  ^^co:!  i;^i:iJoeaciq  I^sqq^  ixs   i5i   sifi'T  ■ 

,3YCx:;::t:co'"J-6   Bid  10  3eiXeqq.3   o;i'  i-oiooa  <jiiOiids.v    ,iioi:M    ,3  ■Xc-aovi'":>0  lio  biX£, 

B  iiria  ^'^siit-jj-r^iei:'  ed  ocr    (aolsu   ;i-a'3X>xia le,.;;}   soi.Leqq,:^  ijoax/ao   ;J'jCU3iIeqqd3 

•  OOCtCIfs  "io  ;;ffjs  -sac:  ni;   ii:i;j[  issix.i^B  jD3aa«rKi   a^g-s/ssi!  iti  cfneiii^pij i, 

ed  .aoq.fjstcs/lvr   ,&j;jl  ao  .osv^ecj   ail's,'  .aoxoVoaxe  xisnw   -r..5g.r.   «GI  leoflioosG. 

,JoA  eo.t:io ■?'<;'.  :;.a^-  >o  SS'   dq.ryx-gsx^'^i  'Xz:bnv  -yilbssooxq  aiay  ijsJxr^id-ani 

^esxAso   3fl:t-  ^.-ri-'r  ^5ji.i   •x^d-ia  j-xjjoo  I_~.t:J    yaT      .^-o^l  lo  s-iC-xtca   Jos-x-xoo  0^ 

jtr^ood-oO  ixi   ?3ll8qv.s  ^aata-j^s  Ls'ibooe   i-lii-£'t&b  lo  iei)io  sxiu    siji;^£.   ;r&a 

-x€'qq„8  o'"3i'f_^;jj-:  bits  ?3lxaqqi3  'to    iCf£.j:  rii  iJSTisdTECi  nsw  a-ngi;:^.:^!,      .■xsi)ii-xf 

-voloo'  ear,;-)  t^  •  ;]-xjBll9qq.3  ijxfc    ,tii.!3~xxoi-i'   ^;x.3d■ra^Iov^Il    10  93.S0  rxi:  83  tfxLsX 

o-7ij"oo  -^txiJ-  lo  /ioJ-;roj3  -evoas  'Bdi  luoor'i  ex  rf*I      .^.saaJbaexA)  aocxieiadt  asw 

.Ix?6qq£;  aiii.i"  s9;t;/o-3ao"Xq   ^fiisIIaaqB  ^3d& 


-2- 

'..■hsre  a  del'enaant   is   eervea  vita   sixii/aons   ten  days  before   the 
teru   of   court,    and  no   declaration   is   filed  until   after  the   com- 
inenceiflsnt  of  tae  next   succeeai-ig  terui,    tne  defendant  unaex   tae 
circ'LiiiiStances,ia±  cannot   be   considered  as  "beinj^-  in  default,    and  it 
is   error   to   render  a   judgraent    by  default   ,-^-aintow   hini.      i^oody  v. 
Tho;,;:--9,    7i;    I..1.    ■?74.      under   such  oi  rcuj  Gt;.nce&,    a  uefeuaanl   is 
not  by  lavr  required  to   plcac,    and  if   lie   i;:.  not    required  to   plead, 
he  caiinot   oo   said   to  'oe   in   default   for   not   doing   so.      This   court 
passed  airectly  upon  tnis   cuesticri   in  G-arnt-ey   v.    Schwartz,    154  111. 
Ay;-    154.      Wuere   the  aecleration  ie   not   filed  ten  days   before  the 
seco;-id  •cern  of  tiie  court,    the  defsxioant   is   entitle:,  to   jud^ent  as 
in  c^se  of  non-suit.      Garnsey  v.    Sohiirartz.,    supra.,   p.    153;    Fish  v. 
Regez,    46  111.    App.    438;    jtaley  v.    Illinois   Tnrsoheraien' a  l.Iut. 
Ins.    Co.,    346   111.    App.    279,      k  aefenda.at    does  nou    ■.vaiva  his   right 
to  have   the   action  ciaEissod  beca,use  of  dsl3,y  in  inal5:ini.3  sucn  aotion. 
Rueager  v.    Toledo,   p.   &  vf.    Ry.    Co.    ;147   III.   App.    388,    oal. 

It  does  not    appear  from  the   record  that  appellee  cid  anything 
to  deprive  hi:a  of  the   right   to   file  his  motion  and  to  move   to   aisiaiss 
th:^  suit  because    the  aeclaration  7<as  not   filed  ?<-ithin  the  time  pro- 
vided by  statute.      It  -^^ili   be  observed  that   tnis   suit  vfa-s  brought 
under  the  former  practice  Act  of  this   state,    and  what   ii-   aaia  herein 
is  basea  upon  tne  statute  as  it   then  existed. 

Tne    iad,5Lient  of   the  city  coiirt   is   effir-aied. 

Jud.^^'■,  ent  af f i  r uae d . 


Silt  icrolad   8\:.3.ij  XT&^  anoiriftxfe   iiuia}-  iDsvrsa  ai;   d"i;BJ:;Ael3.&  £  sxed'i'! 

-fuco   oil^   ^cecM£   Ii3-n;-;  oeJ.it  ai  iioi;i?'i:.!ao©i)  o;;  X)i;3    .t-xuoo  io   fifxsd- 

,':;.=ielq    oJ   .;)i-L.L.jyS  ■:    j-cxu    ai    rr    11  .;n"    ,.0'?-I'-:    ori-  .0eiiX;p5^  WJOl   Y^   ^^ii 
.III  ?i-cl    5Si";i;.,-w;j.c.'.    .V   v.san'r?:;)  jii   a^.  x  j-=:"i,yp  aJ;.a;r  acci/  '^lyosiijj  .6&aa,sq 

.t^h:  a  »j.iA,;'rv:-.fih^K':CjL.;   ei.oi.iJ'xI    .v  tsS.bcC,    ;8;--a    .ccA   .III  3:?^    ^^^ssH 

oj:i'^Ii   Bid.  tiVls't!   ^c£:  a£:jl;    Jj'i£;^:ics 'ieij   ;       .STti    -^Qw    .IJ~X   S^'c;    ,  .cO    .axil 

.acUcu-   i-o-j-a  ^^iiiaiL  rex  Yx.I«i:}  lo  eajj-soso  i;oaGi3fe:i;i;  x^ciyo;?;   a.i^t   ?v£d  ©:^ 

.JIv':;    ,8v3o    .cqA    ,XII   V#''r;    ,o'o    .vSi    .W  jS    .-I    ,0l)5lcT    .v  .•xa:^sirH 

d'ifg.uG'iid  as^.7  j1jj3   slriv-   c:iuj'   DevtciBCtc  eci   iJ:i:';v  jl      ,8?i.f*ad'a  ^"^  iisblv 


STATE    OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON".  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  "Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  ray  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at   Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73815— 5M — 3-32)  , 


^IjO. 


AT  A   TERM   OF   TliE   ATIELLATE    COUP.T. 
5egun  and  held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day  of  Oatcp^v  ,ji^n 
the   year    of   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and   thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the   State    of  Illinois 


Present    —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFFMAN",    Presiding    -Justice. 
Hon.    FRMTICLIN  R,    DCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRED   G.    Y/OLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Cler'r:» 
RALPH  H.    DESPER,    Sheriff. 


^■ 


^1 


PS   IT  REI.IEMBERED,    that   af  teri^-ards ,    to-^ffit:    On 
JAN  18  1937  the   opinion   ;.  f   the    Court   was    filed    in   the 

Clerk's    cffice    of  said    Court,    in   the   "/ords   and   figures 
following,    to-Tdt: 


Gen.    No.    9110  Aaenda,  No.    1] 


APPELLATE  GOIRT   OIT    IL'IVi'IS 
SECO.^iJ  ]JI STRICT 


October   Tt^Xih,    a.    j.    1-J2^'6 


Rayiiiona  txe^enzex, 

Appellee 

Appeo.l  f  roui  the 
va.  Circuit   Coiirt 


of  Lc^ke  County. 


Lillian  a.   Rothers,   as   Administr-trix 
■?/ixh    uue   .ixli  annexea  of   tiie  Estate  of 
Louis  A.    Rothers,    DecepsecL,    a.nrt  "s 
iruBtee  ujiasix  xne  La.st   Vjiil   9jid  Testajnent 
of   Louis  A.    RotaerB,    Deceased;    for  the 
benelit  of  Gertraas  Osmonu,    Louise 
Rothers  and  Charles  Rothers, 

Aopellant. 


LOYS.,   J. 

On  July  3'ch,    132b  Micnael  E.    8nith  and  wife   executed  a  note  for 
|7,00Q,00,   payaijie  %o   xsie  order  of  August  i'anknin  a.nd  Grace  Psoiknin 
five  years  after  aa'ce,    wi  dh   six  per  cent   irt&rest.     fhe  pa.yiaent  of 
tl.is  note  %a£   securea  oy  a  mortgage  on  certain  preitiises   in  Lake 
Counti/   and  for  a  valuable  consiaeration  the  note  and  mortg3.ge  were 
sold  anc^  assi.t,nea  on  January   7,    1928  by  -^he  pe.yees  and  uiort^a.gees  to 
Rsyuiona  jFrsgen^er,    tiie  piaintii'f  herein,    and  the  assigniiient  thereof 
v?as   c.uiy  filed  for  record  at   that   ti;ne.      At  the  time  Pregenzer  pur- 
chasea   «nesa   securities,    he  and  Louis  a.    Rothers  were  partners   en- 
gaged m  tne   oueiiiess  of   contracting,    dredging  and  grading  land. 

In 
Tneir  association  as  partners  begain/ly25  ejad  continued  vmtil  April 

25,    i'jSS,    ac  whic-.i  viuxe  i,'j.    Rothers  died.      During  tne  course  of  the 
partnars.iip,    Vragenzer  ana  Hotners  aid  considerable  arsdging  work  for 
tne   said  w:.icnaei  i..    Soiitu  upon  tne  land  which  Smitn  ana  his  v/if  e  had 
mortgagea  to   Panknin  on  duly  b,    1925.      In  payment  for   said  work,    Smith 
ana  nis  wife  in  19S7  anu.  in  1928  executed  two   other  notes,    one  for 


;.fI;?V.-  one     .Oli     ,X190 

::xri'i    lil 


-i  .1.     ,  .  . ,.-  •», 


iC  e^'3ci'aS.  6rIo    io  j-jexo/ins  ilxtv  saw   rioi"' 
-•■i.lT  rex    ./)s?5.?!eo5(T    ,f,o;axfctoH    .A  Biuod  'ic 


rol  eJ'o.a  .?  ^scJ-uoexe   s^iv;  jjiis  .d^Mi^y    .,R  la^iioxii  di^fel    ,fio"G  -^ItiG  riO 

r^J:jXJi,?%  90.3^C)  -oa^  rriaiaisH  rsx/^^ifA    lo  -xetoio   ijiJJ    o^  sIuj^TiiiCt    ,00.000 <?!; 

'to   &sxe>tl.:v^^  ei'.T     .;3-a©i5lxx   ^fiiar;   -xsq  xiB   nirxw    ,e./j^..D   •xoc'tx'  frx^s'i  evxl 

eiBiI  jo:i   seair-ie-iq  .cix.ei-iao   .•::o  e.g.sgS-'xav:  js  y^  js'xjjoaa  a.oy/  duOj^;  axilcr 

e:r.ew  S3,'-v;j'ioia  ■bx:^  sJcir  6£[i-  xrci^^'risr^JtaxToo  9Xu.6.0L-3V  o3   "xo'r  ijsis^   \iJ-jjioO 

■i:^'e'i,yijv    ;j'Xf&i;;.Q;3xaa,e  o/I;!-  hnsi    ^c:ie-ied  IxiT^iiAiq  Gi..,J"    ^xi&sxis^3i=5  JOiic.iaY=.S 

-Xij:;  a92n=r;^ao:^i   ©aiJ-   etla'   3"A      .ejiic?'   o  ^xlcr   irr^  ijiooex  lol  i.slx1:  v;ixiX    3^:'^ 

-i-i3   5^3jTi'ac3q  sotsy;  strsj^y-o.'^    ..^   bxxioJ  X);X3  sri    (.aixa-iii/oi-a   saexii-  x^Qs.exio 

,haj=l  3f;x.j..3x^,  xi.ots   %ai-^.!j?xi:>    .i^nxd-cviiun'.-.o    io  aasriiaxjC!   axi:;-  ni:  ^sSjXig 

ill  ' 
IxTOA  ixcl-.'ii;  :o9xxnxJ-.aoo  Lri.s  3?iW\rii:/3'^e'J  s'x&ndxto   a^  xioi-.siooaax;  lisxiT 

o:oi  7!'xow  -^-.aigjjoT.o  sIci'^'X-iX'ieriGO   ox.y  az9.uu0>i   .u;xb   XvSi'i^-jgoi'i    4qxj^.aoxr3"-xxjq 
LbxI  6"Tj:w  Qiii  ciXjb   r.d-x:i;c   riox^v,   .oasl  ans  liooxt  uJx.t.a    .a   iQ.-sjI'ox:.!  ^ti:3   eat 


-2- 

$8550.00  and   Siie  other  for  ^5179.10   and  to   secure  their  payment 

executed  a  &ec:.-nd  and.  trird  raortf^^.-'^s  or  tr\).Bt   aeec.  upon  the   f3n::a6 

pre:;;ise3  covtrscl  ty  the  mort,.,a,g£   of  July  n,    19?.5.      Upon  the   death  of 

Louie  A.    Hotriei-s,    nis  ^■ic.o•':,    i).llll?.:a  i^.    R'.jtju.-rs  ^vas  appointed  a-iuinis- 

tr?  trix  with  ti  e  will  .■E:nne:sed  of   uie   entate  z.:ad  trustee  under  the 

prcvi£iou3  of   nis  will. 

On  Juji£   10,    1935   ti-s  ijitit.-;.rit  coi'iplaivit  w-i,s   filed  Qy  Pregenser, 

whieli   averrea,    5..aono  other   things,    that  he,    Pregenzer,   xirar.  the   o^raer 

of    ihe   $7,-00.00   note   -lad  first  iiortgaj^-e  to   secure  its  payment   ^Jid 

also   xhe  ov^ner  of  an  unciviasd  one-hs.lf  interest   In  the  said  notes 

of   ^0550. CO   rjxC    ;,'5?;i7n.lL'   raspectivsly  and  the  I'lort^'ages  or   trust   deeds 

given  to   DOou::'e  thsJ.r  p£.yii.ant.      Thai,   the  ot:^ier  one-half  intsrcBt  in 

the   Sciid  notes  of   .|3l.it.0.0'.)   anci  ^v5179.10   and  the  trust  deeds   to   secLirc 

theii-  peyiaent  belonged  to  Louis  A.   Rothers   in  his  lifetime.      The  coia- 

plodnt  then  alleged  hia  aej-th  and  neirship  f  nd  ir^-sked  tn.bt  a  d.scree  "x 

entered  fino-iri^;  the  cjuiount   due  t/.e  plaintiff  uj>on  hie  note  of  ^7, 000, 00 

and  that   the  .viort^^^e  ^ivcn   to    seciire  its   oF.yiaent   be   decreed  to  be  a 

f  ii  at  lien  upon  said  premises   and  for  foreolosirg  r.nd  sc.le   of   the  !;ort- 

gaged  T^reiiiisee.      LilliaXi  A.    RotherD,    individuc.lly  and  as  ac.c.'nistratrix, 

s,nb'.vered  the   couiplaiu"G   snd  filed  a  counter  cleiw  in  ^'hich  ehe   neither 

adsiiiut'^d  aox  denied  th?.t   the  plaii-tirf  wat.   txie   bole  oMrne-T  of   the   first 

lien  upon  £S.id  prsaises  but   did  ^ wi.it  ths.t   the  plaintiff  ires   the   ovmer 

of  .r.n  uiilividec  or.e-halx    interest    in  the  notes   ^nd  junior   trust   de-ds. 

In  her  '^-.nswer  .  nd  counter  clcdi-'i  she  c'lle^ed  tl'st   s.t  the  tise  the  pl',in~ 

tiff  acquired  t.\f   first  jiortge.ge  \vhich  he  now  seeks   to  foreclose,    the 

pliantiff  txid  her  ueceased  hut-bend  were   partnerK  and  as   v-artners  they 

acquired  the  junior  lisn^.  upon  said  preiuises,    thst  up>cn  the  cl,zsth  of       i 

Louis  A.    PvOthers,    the  pl?,:^ntiff  became  trustee  of   Vnt   c.ssetsr   of   the 

partnership  for   the  benefit  of  the  mdow  end  ci-'ildren  of  Rothers, 

1 
that   t.'.ie  piaiiitiff   seeks  to   foreclose  £.nd  forever  bc.r   saia  vddo^-  and        ! 

children  of    sail  deoeased  pejtnsr  of   their   interests   in  saifi  land  .?Tid 

prayed  f'lat   eaid  first  ruort^-age   _e  asoresd  to  he  a  piir.tnersJiip  asset, 

rifter  the   isouee  vzere  uade  up,    the  oause  was  referred  to  t'le 

Master,   who  took  the  evidence  ajid  fcuiad  therefroai  ths,t  the  plaintiff 


exit  ■x^Jb.cxj-'  ■5ji;}'si.!T3-  nc*.^-  sJ"j;.J'5i&   s.ui   i^'  tsxsnns  IIl^  c. iJ  i:'Jli^'  xx'Xo3a;)' 

.LLiv  ax,-:   lo  anclsxvonq 

bar-    J-flSiiiYsg  a^i   3:cx/03a   ci   -a^B-^i'io:.:  j&xil  jxr,?   eJorr   OO.OCOtV^;    ?nj   lo 
a.^5ej   i-s,r/'r<^   to  a&^..i,J-'XOin  b;iJ   ^ii.&  xls  vxToacatx   0I.'!VI3^;.    5ii.^   00.0320^   lo 

-;iioo   3:iT      .OjT'XJ'sXxI  3j-j(   ai.   axsauoH    .A  ai-joj.  cj   .^ie^s-'-^-^'^-^^  J'.ie.i^xs-;^,  's:ibdi 

z  ©cT  ccf   '  :exoT.j   -^a   ^nyi/jv;.?o   eox  ^xi/oea    oj    aovi^   e^i^J-xou.  3^IJ"  j.-:iilvr  has 

~t%ct-   ^fii   Ic    ?X3a   'iCis-  j%'ij..aoIae'iol  xcl  Lm;   aj^xLjaxc  .)S.^^.  miin  rrsxl  j-axll 

,xlx^:^xd'::ifra;-3  a.-  iuis  vJI::;xLJ:vx.!^:iti    ,CiX9i'J-o£    .A  tXi.i^Lil      .ar-iiXi-iaxq  i;&^£S 

x/'utxnr;   sea   i:Oi:if'/  nx  alilo  x;:;i"ajjoo  ^v  jalx'l  1>.ih   Juixslqiioo   ?jid"  .taxsij/afLs 

;^2'cIi   .5/iJ'   lo  X;ai/j  t7xo.;j   aiiJ    aji'v..   I'iiii-::./:.;!:;  ■;;:'J'  u•.?|■x:^  Jjc'XiOi)  xon  ij^iti)  xxit&s 

xi..ifwc  ^.ift  a3'T   x'j:.cD'n.;-3lq   :i:{vr   i'^iiJ'  ji^^.'.i  ,>:;x.,   jxrci  3eii.a.oxq  :jixft  jucqxr  fiisil 

.^;-:3.5   ;t^.w'CJ"    xoxii;:';,    ;.^n>^    iS-ri^roxi  QiiS  .il    ir^^i-z-ot:-.!    xl^vii-s/^o  .j3/)iVxI;iai  a.->  lo 

fdt    (^-SwIo:^xo'):  Ou    8i3e«  wo;t  ad  .-oi.!;/  -s;ij.^:^;txoK  taXAl   .Jut  jjsxii/pos   itiiJ 

Y3Ji3-  9x:bno'x=v   g.e  xjiIo   HX^/i;?x.e'-:    s^c^w  ir;3di..jJ  issjiy^iou-^;   "X;:?;:!  J)yj:^  I'licraiolq 

to  'li -'-J  \^d-i  :d  >\is  J'oifo-    t3sei:iU3Xq  ioLwa  Rc'ip  <3:v?xl  xoJ:/uj(,  3xi#  be'iiupos 

•  rj"  lo  ■>;)■  i:^a..~   ^;nLr   lo  iyiZBisii  e:!:fxo3cr   riiji^t^^acj  ^:Ici'    tSia^IjOJi   .A  axi'OJ 

Jit."  "•■o^.X'V  -o.t'wp  •:•■;"  xov&xo'i  i:;G.5  •^zolo-y-:<ri.  Co  -irl^eti  x!i:Xv^iij;aQ  eil;?'  '^.etlt 
ha-  ^?'::'yL  .)t^c  nL  e^jA-z'-c-^sti  ■Miti.iu-  Ic  Xcvrrerx.-?';^  i:i&s.?ew6>I/  xx---fi  ^o  rxsxi>Xx£fo 
.^J":  ^«jT  cJii^'CurrJ-.x.'; q  -•.  ec:  oJ'  jjiexosD  9j  sgiS^Jxoa  oExi'i  ii)j;j2a  lfJ3J'c^  £;e'<^£2q 
ei'u   c:c)-  i->s':'xsx&x  so-y;  naii^o  -^d-i-    ,qx"  ^Jb-SiM  sxov/  sei/r.aJ:   i^no"  xe;tl>» 

'l;lioj:i:£;Iq   exlo    -J-.^jId'  aoxlc^xerit  £>.;iu-ol  ijjxc  ^onsLxvr-*  sjiJ  ioo*  o/iw   ^xeiasM 


-3- 

p-urchased  vath  his  own  funds,  on  January  7,  1928,  the  i|;7,000.00  note 
ana  I'iret  aiortgai-^e  ^iven  to  sec\u'e  its  payroent,  thi.t  Louis  A.  Rothers, 
or  no  one  for  hira,  contribated  anv thing  toward  the  purchase  oi'  said 
note  or  mcrt{j;ag5,  th:-it  the  plaintiff  ;--nd  LiJ^ian  A.  Kothers,  as 
aoiiiirlKtratrix,  etc.,  ecch  owned  a  one-half  Interest  in  the  |3550.00 
note  and  the  §5179.10  noto,  tog,ethfX  witn  the  second  and  third  trust 
det.ds  which  T?ere  given  to  Bscui'e  their  payment,  that  their  interest, 
by  virtus  of  saici  ovT.ership  is  subject  and  Bubordinate  to  the  rights 
01  the  jl?.intiff  and  thct  trse  .aortgag©  of  the  plaintiff  is  ?.  first 
aad  superior  lien  apon  the  property  described  in  the  vjcrtga^^e.   The 
iiiasOer,  ta^acefors,  reco;:i3iended  txiat  a.  decree  of  foreclosure  c\na  sale 
be  'iintr3rea  in  favor  of  the  plaint  iff.   Thereafter  exceptions  to  the  \ 
report  of  tae  Master  7;exe  overruled  and  a  decree  of  foreclosure  and 
sale  wv.s  renaered  as  reoouiisinaed  by  the  Master  and  from  that  decree  | 
this  appeal  h?is  tasen  prosecuted. 

There  is  no  conflict  in  the  evidence  in  this  record.  T'ae   facts 
are  as  the  Ivlaster  found.   Appellant  concedes  that  the  i;!?, 000. 00  note 
8-ou:u-ed  by  a  first  raortgags  upon  the  premises  therein  desoribea  was 
purchased  by  appellee  vrith  his  owii  money  and  not  with  partnership 
funds  or  assets.   As  \ie   understand  appellant's  contention,  however, 
it  is  that  because  appellee  cind  appellant'^  husband  were  then  partners 
and  held  junior  liens  upon  the  saae  premises  described  in  the  iiiort.L^.a.ge 
which  appellee  purchased,  it  then  becatue  the  duty  dsf  appellee  to  eo 
advise  app5llf.nt«s  huabanci  of  his  purchase,  ana  inasmuch  as  the  evidence 
discloses  that  he  did  net  do  sp,  that  then  appellee  occupies  the 
position  of  a  partner  who  buys  an  outstejiding  adverse  titl*  to  property 
belonging  to  tne  fira  and  having  acquired  such  interest  v'ithout  his 
CO  :artnex8  consent,  suon  purchase  will  oe  deeiaea  to  be  for  the  benefit 
of  tns  lira  and  jp  plying  this  principle  in  the  instant  case  it  is  in- 
sisted taat  tile  trial  court  erred  in  not   aecreeing  that  appellee  held 
this  37,000.00  note  ?jid  first  mortgage  as  an  asset  of  the  oartnership. 
In  support  of  this  contention,  counsel  for  appellant  call  our  attention 
to  text  writers  TFho  S3.y  and  cases  which  hold  that  a  partner  cannot  derive 


etcn.  00. 000 J V«  siiu    ,8S§I    ,S'   YXsxjabL-  no    ,8.5fiirl  r/t/c   Bid  :^J iv!  .basBrfoitrq 

blsa   'lo  S8j3rio:i:r.fC[  edi'  is-XBrocf  -^nxd'^iaB  oeii:i>cil'XJaoo   ,:uJ:£i  aoi  ano  on  xo 

00.0dC8|  eflo'  nJ:  3•?^'::ec^^.i■  'ilsxi-errc  ^  Jieasro  doos  ,  .oja  tXiTr^'sxoaxniiiuj^ 
taxTii-  L-xi.cij-  uiTs  j)rroo9  3  9/{t  iia'iiRr  ^'^ail's^.od-  ,evCja  OI.QTIfJ^  sxitr  dub  s^-oxi 
,0  3818 J" iTi    Ts.'tdi-  ■^.srit    ^tnem'iBq  xledi   c='X0O3s   ocT  navjc^  ster?   .I'yiaw  aaesii 

uaiil  „■■■  si  l^xc^aislq  9Xi.T  'io  sgi-i-^ju  loiu  3,a.t  -J-srlrf-  .tn.r-s   tlit/ix.si'r    i>iid-  Xo 

SiiT      .5£rS:it-rou:   'Mij-  j:ti  b5di%oaQb  Y-''2:9cro"Q:  ©-''J^*  noqir  neii   loittsqi/a  i>jci..B 

sIbs  jOttx;  a-x'-scXoc'xol:  lo  a-itoab  s  fcni'  ijs.uueffifiiooC't    ,oi-ci8a€'f-ff   ,*isJ8XiiI 

/   8ii5   oJ   artctiqsoxB  x.^'-^'f.ser&d'l      .imaiAlq  s.c';>   lo  lov.si  nx  jjerre^'Xii'  so 

;^    jboB  e-Xisaof.oeroJ.  Ic   390:05.0    s  ijii-e  i)&lij"i'isvc  qxs'.t  T:©;f8£M  euo    10  o-;.ocei 

i 

scro,n1:  9r;T      ..dioost:  pirrzcj-  ai  eoiK.bivs   su^j-  ni  d'oil'incc  ci   •:3i  si^ii" 

ed-Qii  0('.000,T|;  e.aci"   ?.-uij   8gti)80iioo  iJ-asIIeaqyi      .x)ax;c?:  ^tsJa^M  dxia-  s^  ei-B 

a.s'^  .oedx'toaoi.-)  .ff.ct3:coxr.t  eeaxf'-S'xq  exfJ'  noqir  s^&g'.^'x.ciii  ia'x.ir  ,15  xq  i)S-xjj-osa 

cLL^idi^.tij-iq  rllj'w   itoii  .bxiii  Y9XIOW  nvio  iiiri  dwiv/  seiXsqqr.   \:ct  x>93.siio'XXfq 

,ii'Vfwon    jHoxtne JTioo  a'^xxslisaas  XiXXjod'a-xsimx.^  e-.r  aij.      .au63?%   -ic  ax»fix:l 

ar.'ia-'ix^c  aridi^  s^ew  .OiT.»de.cjxi  •.•••oXDBlIOi.t.qs  ijusi  jsHec-q.?  eaij.ioed   dT:iiar   ax   «'i 

e'^^ji'zom  Bii&  a.t  .oadxiogsfe  a8B.cjT<et'.T  esujSB  sdi  noc^  anoil  lolJissi,  .olsn  ba& 

OB   Oxt  sQlIeqcB  tn)  Y:t;xij   ,~-i1cl-  suubOj^d"  n^iao    tx    ^jes^xioorixq  9&j.i9qq£  .i"oxjiw 

)r£9i3l"V9   Sil^  a.i;;   clojjifiaBxix  x^a^    ,fc3i?dO'Xijq   -ild  10  sjaj^dsLn:.  '^'tn.-lisqas  eQivbs 

Qiii  ©Bxqxrooo  eelLeqoji  nsiirf-  j^ttfij    ^9.5  ox'  (foe  oic  a,".  Ji=£i;J-  seaolofaxja 

[ci-ccsfToaq  oo'-  ^Xi-id-  seisviie  giSl.un.si^aJ'Xi-o  n.6  a\rxra   crfv  z^h^xbq  £   io  iioxifisoq 

Bxrf  j'/xoritx'T  t-^oi^s-nx   rioxja  L&iiiJ-poB  ^inxv^xi  x>n.6  axil"  er.J   od'  '^r;i%,ncI'5Cf 

^xx'-ffaJ  sri.+  ao't  so    oj  hsa.sQb  ed  IJis  9ajsn.o::xrq  xiowa    ,^j'iseiioo  ettsxiJiBcoo 

~)ix   gr   ti:    tSso  i.r-:.s3-!3rrx   ariS   ni   slqlox.iiq  ?jxuJ  :§f:x^ilqcc  .c/ie  kixt.  snd-   io 

-olecj   ;!eXIsqq.K   d-.srfj  grixseiyoi   jod:  iix  xiG-xa&   Jtcxtoo   jl^xid-   enJ-  t.rrd-  .oad-^ia 

.qixiviO: fXia-xso   exiyf   ?:o  S-ssr^js  xr.s  aa  eg^'-^-ttcw  d-a'xil  x^n.^  ed-ofi  00 . CK>0 , Vf';:  aixi;^ 

xoi:d-neJd-.3  'xx/o  IIso  ;fn.5lXeqq3  'xol  leanx/oo    ,xicx5'/isJ'xcoo  airij  lo  5-a:o;::Qx/a  nl 

taex)   ^oxmeo  ^enirxsq  j3   ^l-jSild-  i)Ioxl  xlox'fw  assso  jj/is  x-sa   crfw  a-xsJ-i'rw  jxsj    ot 


-4- 

any  benefit  from  the  partnereiiip  re^.E-tionship  for  himself  alone  as 
against  his  copHxtners.   Of  course  tnis  is  the  1?jw  and  likewise  it 
is  tiis  la-w  th:-''!;  one  partner  ceainot  uractice  freud  and  wisrspresenta- 
tioia  upon  his  copartner  and  divsrt  'jie  pro-:>erty  or  aeuets  of  the 
firai  to  his  Individual  use  witjiout  oeinij  compelled  to  restore  that 
which  be  has  so  diverted.   These  general  legsl  principles  are  not 
applicable,  however,  to  tne  facts  in  thic  record.   In  la?  instant 
case  partnership  funds  were  not  used  to  buy  the  mortgage  foreclosed 
herein,  nor  was  the  purchase  of  tdat  mortgage  made  for  partnership 
purposes.   T'-*5  uere  fatft  that  appellee  ana  appellant's  deceased 
hucbajid  were  partners  in  tae  dredging  busiuesc-  v/ould  not  preolujd© 
appellee  from  buying  mth  his  own  funds  the  first  lien  upon  the 
preaises  upon  which  the  partners  heia  ,iunior  encuQibrances.   By  the 
purchase  of  the  firs^G  lien,  appellee  stepped  into  the  place  then  neld 
by  the  oflners  oi"  saia  fir3"c  lien,  August  and  ©race  Pahlcnin.   Tae  fee 
to  the  mortgaged  prsaises  v/as  at  all  times  owned  by  Mich3.el  E.  Snith 
and  wife.   All  that  tne  partnership  oifbd   were  junior  liens  thereon. 
By  the  purchase  of  tne  first  lien  by  a^-pellea,  no  chang;e  of  priorities 
in  the  !aort,y;age  indeD-sedness  toolc  place  and  the  rights  or  interests 
of  the  partnership  were  in  no  way  affected.  Tne  mere   fact  t/iat  a 
partnersnip  existed  between  appellee  and   appellant's  deceased  husband 
did  not  make  this  note  anc  first  mortgage  whioxi  appellee  purchased 
with  Ills  own  fanas  partnership  property.   Tfianoe  v.  Tnanos,  313  111. 
499. 

In  our  opinion  there  is  no  merit  in  appellant's  contention.   The 
Chejicellor  entered  tne  only  decree  warranted  by  the  undisputed  facts 
as  foiiiia  in  this  record  ano.  tl-iat  decree  will  be  affirmed. 

DECREE  AFFIKaiED 


-p  — 


yx  eelve^'-ii  bus  ■?i'.c^I  erfj   Bi   nlrit  sa'x.yoo  10      .gisnyxBocc  ax;i  d'3x:J:i;;j^J3 

#j-f'o    eiOugeii  oa'  h^IJ'ririfiOO  ^aiso   ;J"i,/oj\;rj:i,   as-i;  Iaii'l;-Ivij;.xix  8Xi'   cu   u.'Si'i 

d"Cu  ex.-   ssIcJ:oryx'!;c-    .^  ■=;:;?  [    Isa-ne,;   ee;v.:iT       J^a^J-isvii;   c£   ssa  sri  xioxxj.?? 

Jrscrs.jx    ~rjJ"  nj      .!:ioo^x   axai"  nl   ai'O';!  eat  oo    sIjv&ivOj:;    ,5ld£0xlqcis 

r>9i?cI03^o^  e;iii^;i,3-'xoa;   ?ri^   T.u\i  cJ  i9S.v  J"o/i  3ie-ii   6X30t1  qiifaasrtd-xsq  easo 

cidB-ien^i^c  Tcl  iib^\:<  e^sgd'aoffl  cts.dcl-   to  ea.viioixrc  ga;^   8j3W  "ron:    ^r'ie-zsxi 

.oaa.o-;-0:^J:    .s'j-A.:.il3.'q.3  ra^  osllaacfj?  l3ifc^   taol  &j:3i::i  er-'i;      .s^soc^cxfq 

Q.dj  xioau  ir-vxl  i-axiJ  scAt   aiixrwl  nwo  sir;  .ucrx:'  /■.iiivxrc   .l'O'xI:  ftsllsqqjs 

erid"  v:a      .stoiT£xdVii;oiie   -xoiaiif;  axsj:!  si5n2"Xj:-a   ^iid'  ifoxxf^v  ncqu  asaii-i&xq 

iiXaii  nsxis-  i^o^Iq  sii^  o&nl  heqqe&a    -niieoiiB    (iiexx  c-sixl  i./:o    to  ?&, sx'occxfq 

■sal  SiiT      .rrxii3ix:^<i  60£tdS  i'xr.o   TaxrgirA    ^szblI  :r&--:£X  ui^g    'xc  sxetwo  Si'-J  vd 

x;:d-xr.a    .■£   IsxiiiOxIA  vd  beimo  semii-  Xix;    j-„e   a.=^K  aesxiisiq  Ls-^.ojjd-Tcoffi  ^rio    oJ 

.■:LoeiQf!i  aaoxl  ti:oi£//r   ao:evr  ba^rc  QiuB'z&a^ii-x.   Qr.,-^  7sd.t   ilk      .si.tw  x^r^^ 

8  9J:3"X-:^oJ':rc   aO  e;^^^OAO   on    .f'tllec;;p  y^'  ^ibxl   Je-sxl  s^Vo'  lo  sft.Kiio^j.c;-  Siii"  vS 

■^osetcuJ-ixx   rx)  ^iv:^i:7.   e.iT  i-xr«  ec^Ifj  iioc?   BG£i:lj&uC3ia. a  s;^£;Mo'J!;ofli  and"  ixx 

3  c^3x•^)•   ;^o.yl  f^xSt.  sitT      -ijeuooHi-.   vbt/  cxr  fix  srxev*  qxmi'j:6a?X3Q   erJd-  lo 

r.r!:£;ds.a"i  dssssosx;   ^'j-uslleqcs  r^it:  sfilisqc-.  n-89;7Jsa   oeiJaizs  t;i:i-i5'x&r;t*Xi?q 

Leas-dccxfCj    aellscq.s  iioxa^s-  s^BUj-xo^a  thi.i1    jiii;  scfOAi   slj.i*   sxxiiii  ioa.  b'lh 

.L'-i   V.J.'6    ^soiTet'T    ./  scn;;)iT      .\:S-tcsqoiq  qiriS'xend-tt.Gq  axjxijji  itwo  3X)i  rij-^iv 

sriT      .(icxc-aeyx:oo  a 'c^.!TX.XIeqqx^  '-'.x   d"l:r3Ki  oxr  e.i  e'xe:.;3"  r:oxxxxqo  'Xjxo  m 
a^o.s't  .osd-x-qs:L,>r.x;   er.'ci   vq  .oe Jn^^ci,?"*-  e.B'zoe-o  \Sj:ic  sn^  JjSi;erf".aa  lo.i. XeonjjiiO 
,boan"l'lA  90   Ilirw  •esaoe.O   crx:.i-i;3    oxi;-  qicooT  sxxio   x;x  .oxaro^   a^ 


STATE   OF  ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSOX.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  tlie  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 
certifj'  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Ajipellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 
of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  AVhereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

^in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73S15 — 5M— 3-32) 


^/y" 


AT  A   TERM   OF   THE,   ATTELLATE  ,sf)W.T , 
Begun  and   held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tupsday,    the    sixth    day   of  08l:cber,    in 
the   year    of   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six_, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFFA1AN ,    Presiding   -Justice. 
Hon.    FRi^lJIOLIN  R  ,    DOVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRED   G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L=    JOHNSOK.    Clerl':  = 


BE   IT.  RET.IEMBERED,    that   afteri-ards,    to-wit:    On 
JA;:  lo  l337  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed    in   the 

Clerk's    rffice   of  said    Court,    in   the   -/ords   ar.i.   figures 
following,    tc-'^t: 


Gen.  No.  9121 


Agenda  No.  17 


IN  THE 
APPELLATE  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS 
SECOND  DISTRICT 

October  T^^ru,  a.  D.  1936 


Vito  Buff a,  Administrator  of  the 

Estate  of  Franklin  Donala  ;Buffa, 
Deceased, 


vs. 
Louis  Blank, 


Appellant 


Appellee. 


Appeal  from  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Winnebaip  County. 


DOVE,  J. 

This  is  a  suit  instituted  by  the  father  of  Franklin  Uono.ld 
Buff a,  as  the  administrator  of  his  estate,  to  recover  damages  for 
his  alleged  vn^ongful  death.   At  the  close  of  all  the  evidence  offered 
on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  the  jury,  in  obecienee  to  a  pExemptory 
instruction,  retiarned  a  verdict  finding  the  defendant  not  guilty. 
Upon  txiis  verdict  judgment  was  rendered  and  the  record  is  brought 
to  this  court  for  review. 

Tiie  coiiiplaint  averred  that  on  December  15th,  1955  FrarJilin 
Donald  Buff  a  ws.s  riding  his  bic\cle  in  a  northerly  direction  along 
a  public  highway  kno'A'n  as  North  Second  Street  Road  about  a  mile 
south  of  the  V/isconsin-Illinois  State  line,  that  4t  this  time  Franklin 
?ras  a  boy  twelve  years  of  age  anain  the  exercise  of  due  care  and 
caution  for  his  own  saxeti  and  the  safety  of  his  bicycle,  that  at 
the  time  and  place  aforesaid,  the  defendant  VTas  driving  hie  automobile 
also  in  a  northerly  direction  upon  said  highway,  that  the  defendsmt 
could  and  did  see  plaintiff's  intestate  upon  the  highway  and  by  the 
ezercise  of  reasonable  care  could  have  avoided  colliding  v?ith  the 
bicycle  upon  which  pla.intiff's  intestate  was  riding,  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  so  operate  his  autorflobile  so  as  not  to  injure  Franklin  Donald 
Buffa,  that  notwithstanding  such  duty,  he  so  negligently  and  carelessly 


TI    .oW  F'iiie^j.A 


ISI9   ,011    .fisi) 


.sellsqcfA 


(SiiXfilK   ahsoj. 


y-siotqiii&i^-l  s  oi'  soxxexj.)tjac  ui 


ssiV    f'jiliJnlBLq  3if^  lo  tlsded  xrc 


{d-xijxq  ;? 


exiu   i^xxi.biii'x  C('oii>'3:ev  b  Ija£[:Ciy«9*i;    .^i^icLioirzi■al:ii 


•v/aivetc  a-ol  ij-xu-oo  airlJ  o# 

biiB  3'x.60   ej-cl)  Ic   9  3ioXc-xe  eij  iiiijii.,?  syi;  lo  a"x.s9  ^  t?  view  J"  Yo^i   a  as^y 
d"i5   '^^dir    ,eIo  :Oi'i  axxi  lo    ■cj-eljsa  oxi^  xui^s    ^J"el.63  XRiro  axil  T-o'I  -Aoituao 

J..to"oi::oc!"iJf..   sxri'  "jjrrivxxo"  3S^i7  J-n.GijXX9l3.o  -^lU'    , jisas'toi^,  wOo^Iq  baa  sraiis  ed^ 

5jd-t  vd  oKf?  •',;.i.\yxr^Xii   i/id-  xiccixf  QJi-jao;tux  n 'llxi-nx^i^Iq  s&s  x^xb  .bru;  hlssoQ 

Slit  iii r:;   ij.;x,l,i:Iloo   LiS^yiovo  ^•v.gJ  lilxjuC)   sm:.30  eIcl.tsnoa.S9  0L    lo  QBioi3X3 

DXit  SKv;    J-j:    c\;.ric;     ^-^jsX/X'i  ,i.-iw   Aj-£ti-:-,iv  jxx    «  '  xix  jax^lq  aLoxjiIt/  xicqi/  aIO\oi"cf 

ijI^ncQ   axli:fv£':u  etnxjQr:!   oJ"   d"oxi  a^  oa   elidoffioJifB  aid  sd'.sxeqo  os  o;f  Y'^J^i> 

c^aoLsiso  i,ii£  Y'lo'-ns-^xlgsxr  ca  Sii    ^yJ^j^  iioua  ■^ri.xbxijia-aiirf'xwjoxx  d'^xtd"    j£lix/H 


-3- 

drove  and  manag;ed  his  automobile  that  it  ra.n  against  the  bicycle 
upon  which  Franklin  Donald  was  riding,  throwing  the  rider  urjon  the 
road  and  s.s  the  proxiiaate  result  thereof  plaintiff's  intestate 
shortly  thereafter  died.   The  bill  of  particulgrs  filed  by  the  plain- 
tiff stated  that  the  defendant,  at  the  time  and  place  mentioned  in 
the  complaint,  saw  the  plaintiff's  intestate  on  the  bicycle  at  a 
considere-ble  ol stance  before  the  collision,  that  the  defendant  was 
travelling'  at  a  high  rate  of  speed,  that  as  the  defendant  started 
to  pass  plaintiff's  intestate,  he  did  not  sound  his  automobile  horn, 
that  defendant  had  been  drinking  intoxicating  liquor,  that  he  did 
not  allow  sufficient  room  in  which  to  pass  the  bicycle  and  fs.iled 
to  keep  his  automobile  under  control. 

The  ajiswer  of  the  defendant  F^dmlt ted  that  plaintiff's  intestate 
was  a  boy  twelve  years  of  :  age  and  that  at  the  time  and  place  in 
question  he  was  riding  his  bicycle  in  a  northerly  direction,  adJiiitted 
that  at  some  aistance  behind  him,  he,  the  defendant,  was  oiling  his 
a.utomobile  also  in  a  northerly  direction,  and  admitted  that  at  a 
certain  time  he  did  see  pledntiff's  intests.te  upon  said  highway.   By 
his  answer,  however,  he  denied  tha-t  pla,intiff's  intestate  was,  at  the 
time  and  place  in  question,  in  the  exercise  of  due  care  and  ccution 
for  his  own.   safety  and  the  safety  of  his  bicycle,  and  denies  that  he, 
the  defendant,  as  he  was  driving  his  automobile  along  said  road, 
operated  his  s-utoniobile  carelessly  or  was  guilty  of  any  negligence  or 
want  of  any  reasonable  care  and  averred  thst  it  was  the  duty  of 
plaintiff's  intesta.te  to  so  manage  and  control  his  bicycle  so  that 
it  would  not  run  into  the  automobile  being  driven  by  defendant. 

Ijoring  tne  night  of  December  14,  1935  it  had  snowed  some  and 
ra-ined  during  the  early  morning  of  the  15th,  the  pavement  was  icy. 
The  plaintiff  called  the  defendant  for  cross  exaxnination  under  the 
practice  Act  and  he  testified  ths.t  he  lived  in  Rochelle,  Illinois, 
and  on  the  morning  of  December  15th,  he  was  driving  his  automobile 
on  Korth  Second  Street  highway  a  mile  or  two  south  of  Beloit,  and 
that  the  car  he  was  driving  struck  plaintiff's  intestate.   Herman 
Stoll  testifiedthat  on  December  15,  1935  he  lii^ved  on  a  dairy  farm 


sJ.stse^:r.;;   s ''ixx>/-ri:i:~Icr  "io&ien;)"   i-Iirss'i  aisEXXOTc  ^Jlc^  8.3  i/ics  h^ox^ 
-hIbS.-::,   e:f.i'  vr^  -belx'x  •si^Ls^viiisc:   lo  IIxcl  erIT      .bsi.b  let'iBei^sdit  x^^^'^o^a. 

B   i.T.  alovoia   exii'   «c  ed-Svl-gsdrix  a*Yli-t.^J.'slc  end"  w.6a    4d-xix.5Xqffioo  ©xld" 

asw  ,jrj:3x,xis  X6-0  o.a^   vs^s-    tXioxBilloo  eiSt  eiCi^cf  aoixsd-atlo  eldsi9.bxa<!ioo 

i)©^x.r^-8   rf-n/ibrislejo  ^.i;:^  3jS  ;^Biio    5j;js9q8   to  st-r  ifglxl  ^  d-,s  ^niXi9V£XJ 

^nxoa  siicfcufoi';j-3  sxrf  jbni;os   ton  i)XX)  sxi    ,8.t,63-83oax  a  •llioiix.elcr  aa^q  o* 

.fcsIx.Si  .b.as  slo^i'oio   srW  3S.eq  oi"  2:;oi.dv/  /i.!:  tioote   cr-nsi"oxi"j:j.ia  wollji  d'oix 

.Xoid'iToo  zsvau  QlMosictn£:   aid  c:ea2f  oJ' 

nx  soslq  ta~    sriiXil"  exi^   o-.s   i-^xlo   Das  S'gjB  ■:■  lo  a'rssx  ^''-^-'^swd'  ^i'oci'  3  ej?w, 

£*ey3-i:iiU^i3    .rjoii'os^J.b  Y-^^a^''^'^'^^  -j^  ^'^-^  elovoio   aid  ;jsiTXfei:^  sjsw  sxI  aox^asirp 

axri  ^If:^^  sB-sr    ,j-a.si>iiels£;  9(1;?    .erf   ^a^xxl  haidsd  «:,orcstaio  ©r'-oa   cJ-is  !££[;}•, 

•s   SB  :fj2.di  bQ&txii>b£  hns    ,n-cx3'0S''xLi  xviedtica  .s  ni   osle  slxdomcd-xfjj,- 

X^d      .Y.6Wil3.i;rf  iDiss   acqif  od-.fro-aei-xvi:   a  »'xl.rJ.axBiq  3'3a  jdx:-  sn  ?ffi.fc^  nLat-tsO 

Siicr  ?-.s    ,3.MW  aoi^jifieD-iXi   3 '  x'^riyrilsXc:   Sjixia   iiSinefc  exf    ,i;^vswoii    (iswaxij;  exxf 

jiOX.tixec  jXx;?  3'j:qo  e-cr:,  'j:c  aexo'iexs   srid"  iifx    ^not^'aeisp  al  soaXq  bxi-a  sxixt 

,3.'r  o~,:xx:d-  BSXxTaL  i:)xx^.    .aXcr;oxo:  axr?   10   ■'tsisB  odi  bn£  vjelaa  mra  Qlii  tcl 

(jj.;;ox  bx.^a   jjnoXjS  9ixacffiCoj:A3   airl  -xixvxttJ  3./3w   Bd  s.b    ^^iX^inelrsJb  axld- 

'10  eonagxX^Sii  '/xrc.   Ic  vc^Xxiig  sxr-s^  'x.o   ilasele'x.^o  QLtdomciua  sM  X>6^,ei9qo 

lo   v&ub  ■arid-  a.5w  ^i:   :ir:-A&  .betExec-.a   b/i:-   sxeo   sXctexioa^-si  yxxs-   In  d-asw 

Ti?xid-   g::   eLoYoicI  aiii  Xo:s:uii  .0   oxij;  s^.^ii^a;  oe   oi  So■s>tas;^Xii   s'llxJxii^sXq 

. J" a^i'Xxs 'iaii    -f-J  xxsvxir-   giijisci'  aXxcioaicd'Xj."   exlj    oiX'X  xxi/";;   ten  JoXirow   d"x 

x^i'jr;   auvoa  i9v;ofla  t^xl  JX   3o';"^X    .:^X  lacfiiiOoeQ  "to  ;txiv,x;-.   edt  sxriuxi 

./oi   i:,s-v?  JTX3xi!:-'V.sq  exiv*-    .:i&^l  3 (is   xo  .r/rX.ni'xoiiT  xlrsQ  e£^t  ^alT.vb  bentAX 

5.ri»t  lex^rsss  xxoi J-.-:.x..cu-.i.£j!;&   si^o-ro  ic"3:   c}-n.ii».ctel&jfc  os^i  .osXX.so  lJ..t&iiiisLq_  &fiT 

jexoxvxlXI    ^ellBi-ooFl  nx  ijeviX   an  d'^riff  bsl'liias^  sa  r,i:rL'3   toA  soxJ-o£T<a: 

3Xxcf.!jLaoS-ti5  8ixi  g^xrxTij   hjgw   3ii    ^d^lil  irecirceoea   lio  gxixxxsiott;  exi^-  no  bnii 

.ju:3    ^.tXoXsg  !co  lithxj-oa   owd-  10  sXXu;  .?,   -{BMSx-ixd  &&3's:iQ  ifl0098  xf^J'tEoV^  no 

rxamisH      .9:i-3ja6dTix  - 'I'ixd-xrx^Xq  ioxrita   axiivixb  a,sw  ed  'x.bO  sxii"   d'XJxi* 

i^ii.  1    ixX.^sr.  X?  xio  /isvjjrxi  ©d  35GX    ,ax  'xadicsoea  jio  tadtb^lllJaBt  XXod^v- 


-3- 

two  iiiiles  south  of  Beloit  and  delivered,  milk  to  Beloit,  that  alDOut 
6:45  A.I^.  of  thr.t  day  he  caiue  upon  the  highway  about  one  mile  south 
of  where  the  accident  occurred  and  drove  north,  that  v/hen  he  KJcgK 
arrived  at  the  place  where  tx:e  acciaent  haa  occurrea,  a  lady  signalled 
him  to  stop  and  he  did  and  saw  a  young  man  and  this  lady  there.   At 
that  tiuie  plaintiff's  intestate  was  lying  on  tne  ground  forty-five 
or  fifty  feet  north  of  a  mail  box,  his  head  was  facing  northeast  and 
was  a  foot  or  eighteen  inches  east  of  the  edge  of  the  pavement,  the 
bicycle  was  ten  or  twelve  feet  north  of  the  mail  boz  ana  about  eight 
feet  er.et  of  the  ed^e  of  the  pavement.   This  witness  and  the  young 
man  picked  up  tue  toy,  who  was  unconscious,  bind   this  witness  took 
hiai  to  the  hospital.   About  noon  that  day  this  witness  returned  to 
the  scene  of  the  acciaent  and  found  some  blood  stains  on  the  grovind 
where  the  body  of  plaintiff's  intestate  was  picked  up  by  the  witness 
earlier  in  the  oay,   Charles  Erickson  testified  that  he  was  a  policy- 
of xicer  in  Beloit  and  went  to  tne  scene  of  tne  accident  with  Otto 
Reichard,  another  police  officer,  about  2:30  in  tne  afternoon  of 
Dsoejnber  15,  1935,  that  he  observed  blooa  in  tne  snow  aoout  thirty- 
five  feet  nortii  of  the  mail  box  on  the  east  side  of  the  highway  about 
two  or  tnree  fe^t  east  of  the  edge  of  the  pavement,  lookea  around  for 
a  ai stance  of  one  hunared  feet  on  both  sides  of  the  pavement  but 
foxuid  no  other  blooa  stains.   This  witness  and  also  Mr.  Reichard, 
both  testified  that  they  obsrved  bicycle  marks  about  three  feet  east 
of  the  east  edge  of  tne  pavement  and  fifteen  feet  nortn  of  the  mail 
box  and  also  observed  automobile  tire  tracks  which  led  frojn  the  west 
siae  of  the  pavement  northwest  about  one  hundrea  fifty  feet  to  a 
telephone  pole,  which  had  been  crackea  almost  off  toward  the  bottom, 
Howard  ivioff it  testified  that  North  Second  Street  Road  was  also  known 
as  Route  One,  that  it  is  an  eighteen  foot  concrete  pavement  with  a 
black  line  drawn  down  the  center,  that  he  lived  on  this  Route  one 
quarter  of  a  mile  fromwhere  the  accident  occurred.   He  further  testified 
that  "a  fellow  that  was  with  Louis  Block,  the  defendant,  knocked  at 
tke  door  of  my  house  ana  he,  the  witness,  drove  to  the  scene  of  the 


-5- 

ijjod-   :-:id;j    ,ci-ioXsS  oa'  yJ.hi'  ijsisvxisri  bus  d-ioIeG   ro  di-sjoa  ssllm  owd" 
ilrf'ifoa   wliiii  Sflo   cfirods  X'SWjiaxd   sUj   xroqi;  anus-i   ed  v.a.b   ii-^rii   lo    .M.A  31^; 8 

xollsxi^xs  xb3l  .8    (i^stciiiooG  riiii  arieciooB  sxid'   siBstjv   so^Iq  ant  j-js  bevrritx:. 

iA      .S'csaj  ^^ioi-I  ai.u;^  l;n.5  rtBii;  aftj/o^i;  .s  wsa  bisB  tlh  ad  ^n.e  qorf'a  o;f  Biiii 

8vi:l-~--^3-:xo"i  i-.xi'.c'T^,;  •sAi  no  -^iiiYl  aev?  •aJ-ii^J-aso-ni   a 'xlij'xix.sle  Sffiio    d-jBrfi- 

I^jaxi   jQ.ssiid 'xofx  ;;jrrxo.c:i   3.3w  .b^sxl  sxxl    ,xoa   liijiu  s  lo  du-acri   o''S3l  ^Jlil  xo 

edt    tdiiscssvisq  eri^-    xo  S'gX)S  6n#   '3:0  i'a.se   aononi  aes^A'^ie   "xo   d'ool  £   agsw 

M'gia   ih'od&  Da£  xod  lis;::  exij  lo  rit'ioii  ■xse'i  S'/Ias^d"   -xo  xrs*  aj^jtr  slo^olcf 

•^ifxrov  esli-  ijas   saaaii'if  sxflT      .o'lreiasy-sq  sxid"  lo  6-^-^s   8uJ'   I'o   ^-jas    J'Ssl 

ifco^  aasn;Jxvi'  &iifo    Lxi*    ,  i-x/oxoanooxuj-  ;^j5v5-  oxi^/    <v;ocf  3au    qx;  ibeioic   asia 

c;i-  hsrrt-rjos'x  sasnu-i\Y  axifd-  voJ:)  'c^.surf'  ifocii  ifi-'odA      .I*ticraoxf  sxij   c3-  ibiil 

!:■/'.'; oa;ti  -aii-j    nc  aiii^-i-a  ocoIq   Siuoa  .o.n;xicl  X)rx5  driSiOioojs  Siit   lo  Siisoa   snu 

aa9iT5"XF.r  edj    tcf  qxi'  £)8ioxq  s-sw  &^.s:^aeiat  3 '"ilx  jxiislq  lo   ■><,i)Ou  erlu    sas-ifw 

^oiloq  -s  83\-v   sxl  oirlj  X)9J:'ild-a9cr  fi08:5loi;T2   ealaxiflC      .^-si'   S-i"^'-"  -f-i  isxXaBS 

od-;^0  rid-iw  ^aerjloos  siid'  't.o  srisoa   ?  fi ;f  o&  itxiaw  i^rxs  dioIeS.  fix  'i&oi'xJ.o 

lo  aoonieils  siis  nx   Oo:S   tucdsi    <-::&oiilc  -acixloq  'loxld-oxuc    ^X)%&doieE 

-vJ-rxriJ    crj-j-003  v7ona   sxl^  nt  .oooXd  .oevissJc  an   cJ"js.uo    ,dSf.I    ,dl  -isdinsooQ 

^■jjcu,j   v,BVv-x[-^i:ri  -^rio    lo  si)l3   d'a«5   siij   no  zoci   LL.,ti  si^-^  lo  diroa  ;i"£3l  evxl 

"xol  i)xti;o"x.s  -osiocX    ,5-i:;3i03?3q  srij   lo  3;ijDy  sxiii'   lo  ^b.os   3"ai©l  seinJ  "xc  owt 

d'j.rd  d'HSXiiSV^q  3xf5'  lo   'isxiia   c.ia-ou  i::o  S"33l  jjeijji'mii  9xto   xo  c-toxi.ni'aiJb   3 

^ij-xp.iioxeJi    ."xivl  oals  .oxis    aasrro'xw  axxi':"      .sat-va  Dool<i   toxio'o  on  irorol 

d-a.sc3   -tssi  ds'xxld-   cfjjod.3   el'xsfii  eloxotd  ijovttsuo    read"  i.jxid'  .oexliosed-  ii;-'-od 

Ii,?£,;  srid-   lo  ri'rf"!:oxi-  Jesl  .uaed-rll  ijxi.o  d-iiQfrsevjbq  exij    lo  8-^Jd3   S-a^s  sil.t-  lo 

:)"S8w  9:1^  i>;oTf  X)Ol  xio-txiw  sxcstci"  slid"  clxcfoffiod'ir.s  i>6VX6ac[o   oal£  ans  xod 

s   od'   d-'39l  x^'5:Xl  .os:!c£ini.r.fi  erco   d-xrod.s  JaewxiJaioxr  d-rroiiiav^o  sad'  lo  ©;ji;a 

.iTicJ"d"od   sifs-  loxsTTod'    xlo   Jacislx;  xjeilo.s'io  xisQO'  xj^xi  xioiilfi'    ,0100  anoxlqylad" 

XBTOiTJl  08i>   a£w  IJBofi  d-9S2crS  .bxioosS  nd-i:o!:i  d-^jrld-  i>8xl.tJ"a9J   oilloAi  Jbl^woH 

>3  .v:c^xv7   d-rreji!avj5a  ad-eTiorxoo   Jool  neB^iigte  xis   al  d-x   ^sii&    ,sxrO  Qi^xxcH  aa 

3iTC  sd'woH  3lri:r  ixo  xjsvll  sn   jV^xid-    ,T93'fl90  exld"  rrcoi)  xiwsi.b  sxfxl  io^Id 

bsxlid-ssj    i3xlj'ix/l  sH      ..fesiix-'ooo  ujishloos  eai  s-xerfwxaoil  elLa  s  Ic  TSd^^xrp 

*B  i)eiooxti    ,d-n.B.ciiolQi;  sxid-    .iooIH  alixcJ  rid-Xw  asw  t-sxid-  woXIsl  b"   isd^ 

eff;J   lo  sflfios  9/fd-  od-  svoil:.    jasend-xw  exid-    ,9x1  dus  eaxxoxC   >ifii  lo  looi?  sMi 


-4- 

accident,  which  happened  about  the  middle  of  a  hill,  one-half  mile 
south  of  the  Wisconein-Illinois  line.   This  witness  identifiea  some 
photographs  which  were  taken  on  April  20th,  1936  s.s  correct  repre- 
aentations  of  tiie  highway  and  surroanaintiS,  except  th^^t  the  uavement 
was  icy  on  the  morning  of  December  15,  1935,   These  photographs  were 
offered  ana  received  in  evidence  isrithout  objection.   Txiis  witness 
further  testified  that  as  he  drove  fro.a  his  hoiae  to  the  scene  of  the 
accident  he  observed  the  defenaant's  car  on  the  west  side  of  the 
highway  heading  south  with  tiie  right  front  fender  against  a  telephone 
pole.   "That  the  tracks  of  tne  automobile  from  where  the  car  was  led 
southeast  about  fifty  feet  to  where  it  caae  off  the  highway.   The 
marks  were  a  little  wider  than  ordinary  tire  marks  like  a  car  was 
sliding.   The  right  front  fender  of  the  car  was  smashed  and  the 
clutch  had  jumped  out  of  place.   Besides  Louis  Blank  I  seki  two  women 
and  a  boy  in  the  car.   The  defendant  said  he  had  hit  a  chile,  Franklin 
Donald  Buff a,  with  the  car.   On  the  east  side  of  the  highway  I  saw 
the  bicycle  the  boy  was  hit  on  and  a  pool  of  blood  on  the  pavement. 
The  bicycle  was  tvirelve  to  fifteen  feet  north  of  the  mail  bos  shown 
in  Plaintiff's  Exhibit  2,  on  the  east  side  of  the  nig.away,  ana  two 
or  three  feet  off  tne  pavement.   The  pool  of  blood  wa.3  about  thirty- 
five  feet  north  of  the  bicycle,  ana  two  feet  east  of  the  edge  of  the 
pavement.   It  was  a  foot  or  foot  and  a  half  square.   I  aidn't  notice 
any  other  blood  at  any  other  point.  ♦  *  *  The  bicycle  was  twelve  to 
fifteen  fest  north  of  the  Jiiail  box  on  the  east  side  of  the  highway. 
The  pool  of  blood  was  also  on  the  east  side  of  tne  highway  about 
thirty-five  feet  north  of  the  bicycle.   I  drove  Mr.  Blank  to  the 

hospital  in  my  car.   He  sat  in  the  same  seat  with  me.   It  was  a  closed 

.^i--d  y:liiK^^\:Ei    ij^x3   o'-uOseL..      I  aic..r)'t  notice  anything  in  :..•/  c-:r. 
car. /  After  I  took  him  to  the  hospital  I  picked  him  up  again  in  my 

wrecker.   He  sat  next  to  me.   I  ccula  smell  liquor.   Mr.  Blank  sat 

the  closest  to  me.«  On  cross-examination  tnis  witness  testified: 

"I  rode  al)out  two  miles  with  Mr.  Blank  froa  the  scene  of  the  accident 

in  my  car  to  the  hospital.   He  was  sixa  alone  in  the  front  seat  with 

me.   After  that  I  cajae  back  to  the  hospital  in  the  wrecker  and  Mr. 


eu\c3  ijeiiiu.o:-3.ox   3s?JiJrvv  airiT      .a.a.f:I  aloiiilll-nJiaiiccaxV.'  euj)'   ic  ii;ti.roa 

-ei::^!:  ^o'i-iici^  a.c   SoGI    ,iii"OS  liiqA  no  XiSiiCr  9'xsv?  xloixiw  BdqBTgOucdq 

dA0ii:6T£i.   ";;-.;■   2-.-.i:.a-   j-q::idzs    ^u--^j.iiDn.Jc/xiij3   jaz    is-n-iyxu  a^:d"   lo  airoxd'.s^nsa 

0I9V7   :idq.6iv.,o^oiiq  33e<:;T      .<!lov:I    ,£I  i^r^JiiiSooCi   Ico  ;^nxnr!:oiit  snu   no    foi.  asw 

sae-cr-:' !?;•  axul'      .^oi;^^oo!;do  .'Ixi;. j.'-ji-?-'  9orx9bx\s   rii  Jbevisoei  x;n.B  i^a^ello 

sdrf-  lo  s,a30H  sdi    oi   ^uicd  Bi.1l  i.oti  avcxo  ftii  a.a  axxici'  ijexxxxaej  "rsrfd-iyl 

Sild'   lo  &Dxa   J-se^T  -nii  xro  xso   « '  j.a^-brislsi  eilj  Lsv^isecfc  sxi  ^i-asjxooij 

6n:oiiq;eIe;f   .3   ;fsrri.i;^i  xs.b^v3'j:  itnoil   Jiigii  SiiCt"  riixw  xi*iioa   gaxxjjssrf  \;.ev5rrigirf 

JdsI  Bsm  liio  si'Id-  s'tsiiw  Kcil  elxJci?oo':.:x  Siic^  lo  a^iOBtc*  exit   i-^xfT"      ,QLoq_ 

snT      .'i.t-f''i:i;gi.ii  9x1^'  'tio  s^iSO   jx   SiSxiw  oJ"   s'osx  Y'J'^i'i   ^i/ociB  ^a^erfitiroa 

9.aJ-   .JI.J  riftiia^-ua   n^T  ^:::;o  sxicr   lo  leMsl  taoil  in^ts.  sxfT      .;ynxx)iXa 

asiiiow   c.;/d-   jrjsa   T   JiiiSlC:.   e.to:;J   asLxaea      .veoslq  lo   J7xo  i)6qiiiXJt  bsisx  siotisio 

iii-Icisi'1%    ^oLi:io  ,y   iiil  ^ad  iX;.  Idx^s  ccxi^jirslsj  SilT      .iso  exd-  xil   v'ocf  ^  has 

^i\sa   I    ,:--swii^.}i;i[  s.uj    1g  sxjia   jasy   s^i;;  xu      .xeo  sao-  ji#x«r   j^llx/cl  £)Isxrod 

,ri:r3i52v.-iv   t-iicr  xio  i^colci'   xo  iooq  £;  hn.s  110  jxxI  a-ow  vocf  sxiS'  sIoYoicf  sxi;}" 

irwcxla   rco   ixBii:  5x(.-t    xo  iii-io.-..  d-esl  xi^ey'iil   oJ-  evlswd-  8J3W  elo-^oM  srlT 

o'?^d-  x.:v.i    5^i--??iij^xn  s.':;-   xc  9i)xa   uajse  wxi^-  nc    ,S   jxcrxxix^  a  •i'ixi"nx.sl'2  at 

-v;j-'xxiia-   ji/oa  :;  ax.^?  L'/oIi  'to  Iooq  sxlT      .  jxreiiisvxjq  exl^   xio  xsex  ejsixl^  -xo 

3xid-  lo  K^i)*  e:ij-   ^;o   jsse   J-^ai    cwJ-jdxi^    ,&Ioyoxo  exi;?    ro  iio-xorr  ^asl  svil 

eoid-cxj  ;r  <<':::  I-   I      .ov£xrpa    xlj^xf  js  JM..3   J-co'i  ^c  tool  &  a.s-v  il      .Jxiexaevxiq 

oit  9Yl6nj    a.Si-v  sXoYoxu   sxiT   *    *    •*    .Jxxxoq  ■^^x.l:^o  yxti?  S-.3  i)ooId"  ^esxIJo  vxi^ 

.■i&wd'gtd  9-iJcr  lo  -3.5x3   0333  3 iicf  x^o  sod  I^JSH  exW-  lo  xld-xoxi  d'ee'S  xraad^lil 

d-ioof.e  Y,JoV'd-^^i:\  &>:.i:  lo  s.oxs   efsss   ftXiC*-  no  oali^    y.ijvx  Xioold"  lo  Iooq  ©xiT 

Sii'j    cJ-  ■x.ii!::£E.    .-xU  Ov-o-xo   I      .sXovoxa'  exii  'lo  xid-aoxi  Jael  svxl-x^'xxrfd- 

laaolo  .K  as-.;?  J I      .eai  iid'r?  t^sa   3r!..:3s  axltl"  xt.x   d-^a  sK      .xso  vn  nl  lai^j-icaori 

^r;  xlx  j'.;;:->^£  ci/   iCid  b-jkolq  1   iJ^itqaori  sdi  oi  aiixi  2foo*   I  xatlA  \  .%B0 

;;-.sfi   iLiiJiLL    .xk      .'xo.i.piI    iL^vi^  xjIxxoo  I      .9Ci  o*   u-x:^r.   *>i3   sK      .^ssfcesir- 

:I^3Xiii£o;^  e f:3 sr;;' xw  axxj'u    f);oxi'.3flXiiix;z9~aao!Co  nO     "  .ooi  Cv^   Jseaolo  eif* 

:fxi:=>x,'i:oo^j  siicr   lo  ixxso?.  ?;x;.;r  ■ii-so-xl  jlfx.^Id    .^c"^  xiSxw  aaXxrr;  owi"  s-xxocfB  3f)o2   I" 

xi'i-l-.r  d-.3&s   d-noil  exic^  xix  sxiola  Ea;±s  a^v/  sH      .IjscJ-iqaorf  sxIJ   od"  tso  y^  ^^ 

♦•xM  jjxt.s  as^Ioe*:.!?  srtt  nx  Isd-xqaoxl  sdi   o&  -lo-ad  scxso   I  i^iii-  xatlA      .&m. 


-5- 
Blank  and  a  young  man  rode  with  me   in  the  wrecker.   This  was  one- 
hSlf  to  three-quarters  of  an  hour  after  the  accident.   Mr.  Blank  was 
not  in  an  intoxicated  condition.   I  didn't  notice  Trnether  he  gave  any 
indication  of  being  under  the  influence  of  liquor.   The  first  ti.ne  I 
wfts  conscious  of  smelling  liquor  was  efter  I  picked  up  llx.    Blank  at 
tne  hospital.   The  pool  of  blood  was  on  tne  shoulder,  two  feet  east 
of  the  eage  of  the  pavement.   I  didn't  see  the  boy  lying  on  the  pave- 
ment.  Ke  had  beai  taken  in  a  truck  before  I  got  there.   The  Blank 
car  was  on  the  west  side  of  the  highway  off  the  pavejasnt  in  a  ditch 
facing  in  a  south;^ easterly  direction  with  its  right  front  fender 
against  tne  telephone  post.   There  was  quite  a  bit  of  snow  on  the 
ground.   The  tire  marks  showed  in  ti.'.e  snow  on  the  eide.   Ididn't 
notice  any  mark  on  the  cement  highway.   The  boy's  bicycle  was  li/ing 
on  the  snoulder  on  the  east  side  of  the  paveaient  three  or  foixr  feet 
east  of  the  edge  of  the  pave:nent."   The  foregoing  is  all  the  evidence 
found  in  this  record  except  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Brinkerhoff,  who 
testified  that  he  attended  plaintiff's  intestate  at  the  hospital, 
in  Beloit  about  eight  or  eighty-thirty  o'clock  the  morning  of  the 
accident.   Kis  examination  disclosed  thet  the  deceased  was  bleeding 
from  the  nose  and  mouth,  was  lonconscious  and  had  suffered  a  skull 
fractxire,  from  which  he  died  the  same  afternoon. 

Counsel  for  a.ppellant  insist  that  the  evidence  discloses  three 
distinct  negligent  acts  of  the  defendaj).t:  first,  operation  of  his 
automobile  at  a  jiExgs  dangeroixs  rate  of  speed  under  the  icy  and 
slippery  conditions  of  the  highway;  second,  a  violation  of  the  statute 
forbidaing  the  passing  of  another  vehicle  when  approaching  the  crest 
of  a  hill  E.nd  third,  the  failuxe  of  defendant  to  have  his  automobile 
vmder  proper  control  while  approaching  another  vehicle  going  in  the 
same  direction.   The  pleadings  and  the  evidence  discloses  that 
appellee's  car  struck  the  bicycle  upon  ?;hich  appellant's  intestate 
was  riding  but  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  H.a  to  where  the 
collision  took  place,  except  about  the  middle  of  the  grade  or  hill. 
The  bicycle  after  the  accident,  so  the  evidence  discloses,  was  eight 


\;n£  8V£g  fji..  :cBj:..i's-u'?  soicrcn  .t'liDxi   I      .c:oiti;J>nco  Lsj.soizocfjxl  a.a  ai:   ton 

ua,':©   d-fi^x  owd'    ,'xsvIij-or/s   sao    no  a^-w  .ooolo   "ic  Xoo:^  siiT      .IK^d•i:qBOIi;  es\& 
-■^'VL'j    --r-'v    rio  j^riJv;!   v;cd  srt  eee   ;t'.f5:;ji:..;   I      , J-iie;fi9V.ec  s^Ad    lo  e^ije  stiJt   lo 

SiiJ  no  V;rc£j;e  "Ico   d"i:d  s  sd-ixjp  ssw  ©XS'IT      .tsoq  sXiOjElqs Is d"   sji.t  tBnxBg.s 

'^a.t  (.1  cry^r  slo/o^a   3»\,ocr  s/iT      .•v;,t^wr?g^ri  s-ivgLoy  exld"  no  ii.sis  'ins  eolion. 

t'^Bx   X-uxl  ');o  e&a::ic^   #iiei;3v.sc{  er(t  "lo  s.':.!:^    i'a&s  v-ii'i'  <no  y.!?.bLuoii.e,  3ii^  no 

QOiiBbivd   sr'^r  il.;.;   ki  ^iis.c./;,e'^o'i  e^-T      ''  .^(■B..-^'^s.q_  edj  lo   s^ho  each   lo  «fss9 

•  ,X£oiqaoil  and-   t -^  etsjsed-Ai   ;?»  xtxi^/rlslrf  .osi>ns.t;i-.c   f./i  S-jf-.fij   xisiAxJaair 

•ri.ii    to  gniaioiu  aaS-  ioclo'o    i;ri:i.ri^-^^a^is   xc   iJ:^£s  ixfodf?,  jfioIsS  xii 

^.i.J;£>as.[u   3.SV  t'Ss^aoe.^  3rfj-   i-d^  beaclo&hj  aoii^saiiuBx^   bxH      .^nsx>ioo3 

IX.ois    t  be'iert'iti.'-s  .Lfx,'  Arts    afjo  loan  com;  ajsw    f.:i;J-irofi  Jinf:;  s-aoii  and'  moil 

ss'iinrJ-   39aoXoai:.:;i  f^onax^iv!^   art:!-   :t.-/[.r   izinr^i  i-aslleqqs  lol   i'.otiOL'oO 

elii  3.0  iioi:o.?i;,'(.j.o    (r'S-xii    r^rtsMe-ti-x.  siYd    fc   3;ro.e   ;)'Xte^;ixlM;^en  efOflx^J-ail) 

ii.as:  vox  3;{u    i:^.i>r^;j7  be^sqs    xo  Qi,--i  a..!o'X''gviBb  asgjLEQ  ,ii   J-.f:  ■»ls:dos:oti.<s 

■S'^sj'i.'^.tp.   S'i-d'    ac   rici:i.?-Ioi;v  b    ,.bxioo9B    *','.3Tm'v;irI  snJ"   xo  sso li' tbaoo  '.^tsqaiXa 

elxr-'oiiio.s-ixa   sxa  s/.Dr;   o'l  orr^JDns^ei)   lo  stuIx;?!  sri;:!-    j.b:rxn3-  j:.xs3  Ilir  s  lo 

?ilj  ifj.  .^ifxoj^  olox-.:0v  a:9i(joxxs  ■;^ii:doso'TcqB  eljixfw  ioo:Jxioo  tcsqoiq  ^sl>m; 

i^-■•..'..a■  aeaoloe.th  soiierxve  ex::3-  .bns  agxix.b^sylq  enT      .iroxd-oa:!:J:i)  Sffi^a 

eJX:,rs.u.;i-.r:J:   a  '  JmilXeqqji   ■■oxrltT  itooxr  eXovoxd   .%.d;j-  loui-^-?.  Xi>o  a'esXI^Qgs 

a^.J"  a'xeii?!:  r;,T   r.  v:  ,:.'ico6i  s.^;}'  .ax   eo£iebi\r-3   oa  el  aier-it  ;)x/a  "^nijolt  e^tr 

.XIxm  ic  5Jb.?-x-q  enX   lo  sXabi!-,'  exid-  txiods  crrsoze    jsoslq  .-Meet  xcoxailXoo 


-6- 

feet  east  of  the  east  edf^e  of  the  pavement  amd  the  body  of  appellee's 
intestate  vvas  found  thirty  or  more  fce.t  north  of  the  bicycle  and 
appellee's  automobile  travelled  or|^]vi,indxed  and  fifty  fe-;t  off  of 
the  paveiaent  on  ti^e  west  fside  thereof  before  it  stop>)ed  against  a 
telephone  post  and  from  the  positions  of  the  bic.ycle,  tne  boay  and 
appellee's  car,  counsel  arg'ue  that  tue  speed  of  tiie  automobile 
inust  have  been  unreasonable.   We  do  not  believe  ta^.t  this  inference 
must  necessarily  be  drarai  from  these  facts.   Just  what  a  driver  of 
an  autOiaoL'ile  aiigiit  or  wight  xiot  do  v7hen  driving  along  a  slippery, 
ley  pavement  wnen  he  obervea  a  bioycliso  cUieacl  of  hita  is  a  ;aa.tter 
of  conjecture.   He  ;aight  use  his  brakea  dnu  his  braicea^s  vTould 
probably  prove  unavailing.   Frora  the  physical  positions  of  the  auto- 
raobile,  the  injured  boy  s.nd  his  bicycle,  a  court  would  not  be  justified 
in  presiiijiing  that  appellee  was  negligent  and   then  base  upon  that 
presumption  s.  further  one  that  such  negligence  v/as  the  proximate 
cause  of  the  accident.   "Liability  cannot  rest  upon  iuiagination, 
speculation  or  conjecture  nor  upon  the  choice  between  two   views 
squally  coiiipatible  with  the  evidence,  but  laust  be  ^ased  upon  facts 
established  by  evia.ence  firnly  tending  to  prove  thea."  Burns  v, 
Onicagc  and  Alton  Railroad  Co.,  223  111.  Ap.-^.  439. 

F xctheTftiox e f    there  is  no  evidence  in  this  record  which  sustain 
appell.ant's  a-veriuent  in  his  coaiplaint  that  his  intestate  was  in  the 
ezercise  of  ®Ta;;£sxax  due  care  ajid  caution  prior  to  and  at  the  time  of 
the  acoiaent.   His  counsel  again  ca.ll  the  court's  attention  to  the 
position  of  appellee'?;  car,  the  bicycle  cind  the  body  of  appellant's 
intestate  aft^r  the  accident  and  ar^jue  thc.t  from  these  facte  it  is 
evident  that  tne  deceased  must  ha.ve  b9-2.\  riaing  his  bicycle  on  the 
east  side  of  tne  paveaient  and  since  he  was  riding  on  the  right  side 
of  the  road,  he  was  therefore  in  the  exercise  of  due  ca.re  for  his 
ovra  safety.   We  do  not  think  either  of  these  C'inclusions  necessarily 
arise  fro:r,  the  positions  of  the  automobile,  bicycle  or  the  body  of 
appellant's  intestate  3.fter  the  accident,  whether  the  deceased  turned 
his  bicycle  into  the  path  of  the  approaching  automobile  or  stopped, 


j3  Jan.: .Sjj.s  £;-ico;o J"  s  jI  sic'iau   lof^ieiicJ"  si>ia   if^ee:?/  sad"  no  ^nsius.vsq  eriw 

bftt")  \jCG   3ii.t    jolo-.^oicf  3ilu    lo  sacsilaoq  sriJ"  ivioccl  L-n.s  0'aoq  SfiOiiqal&d" 

9lJ:o'Cif:od-jji>  Si_i-  lo  -bssqs   enii   tsdt  9Jj:^'Xi   iss.cujc-o    ,-isc  ti'rjsXXoqq^ 

eofis^eirrx  BXi.ij"   j'.vi.;^   svsilac;  ;^cri  cb  3Vi"      . 3 luBaoase ifr.tr  n&ad'  svjsil  aax/m 

iO  'xsvixjj  .s  d".yir;T   d'sxi'G      .ad'C's'i  saeric!'  Hicxl  cm^h-xb  ec'   '(.■•Cj-'xsKaeos.a  :?aiU'Xi: 

^^^'xsqcj'xla  ,s  -j^iioLx,  ^,n:rYi'x.b  n&iixi  vb   ^cix  ii:i-^£i/.  xo  d"X!.^;xf;i  BlMosnotuB  ixb 

XBtt3i''.  s  at  li.xri  'to  loseds  uaxXoroxa"  ,&  c;9V*x3i'.i'o  ed  nsiiw  dxi&ffS'VXiq  y^-^ 

/i'lifOV'   a^si^xi-xcf  Bid  /jah   aa:)i.5a:d'  ex/1  sax/  ciy,ii.:  s^H      .at^.u^os^aoo  lo 

-cdx'i-  eni    xo  ar^rcicfisoo'  I.6oxa'iXk.   &a*  x^o^'i      .'^riilx-svjsriX'  svo'xq  xloso'o'xq 

cxid'Si;!;   scT  r!-ofi  i?IiJow  c^^JJCO   s    ^cZoxolo    axd  tn.a  voG  I)3ii/;;iix   ertj    ,©Ixqoiu 

5£ilJ  x:cc;ii  ssiic   jX-idi  Xiix?    ;;>ii^x.L^sn  sxw  &sllsqqs  s-sifs"  ^nxhajasiG  rjri 

{-(TCi:;i"Rx-j:;=:Bi:.)i  rxcqxi-  tBei  i-oar.BO  Y^x-f^-^^'-xi"      .taQDioo.?,  eri;*-    xo  aax.'so 

aT/exv  cwj  r>SijV7i"3c:'  soicJo  self  aocjxr  icn  s'Xf;:rofti;noo  tco  xrcl.^Blx;o©ca 

gJ'os'i-  ncqxi  J36a£d  ecf  i-ax/x:  d-jicT    ,.~cjitoI'>xv3   eiii-  .d^hi  elaxtsapico  vil^.trps 

.V  snii;<ri      ■' .ii.Bd.i'  evozq  Cv    gr.;x.bn3  3'  y^'x^-C^  sonsx>ivs    ■ia"  fjsrlaiilci'.'sJas 

.es>    ..c;A    .XII   SSG    ,.cO  ib.?o^XJ:.?H  .ac;tlA  bn^i  o\?,soxrX} 

'TiXB^ssJti  iioxi::w  i/Zooe'-    axni"  ux   soxielbxvs   cc  sx  sxerid"    tStosncei'o^ju'? 

axCd'  iU  e,5?^  o\ix.iasiriX   3x:I  ux^ilt   ^nxx;IcxfCo  airl  ci.   uxrs:i('rav.'3  3 'cfnBlIsqqs 

lo  ei'ix^  fid::  &3  Lxt-a   oo    loxttq  nclvi>.f:-o  .oas  s*x.-;o  sx;ti  xsxsii;£rE  lo  saxoiese 

Slid'   o;i"  fioxJ-iiexj-js   8'i"o;iJOO  sna^  XX30  f;x.s;^A   Xeam/co  sxK      ,cl"Xi&ji)  xooj?  srii' 

s 'd'HBlXsqqjs  'to  'iLou  &i-i"  onx;  sXovoi'd  r>x'u    5'x.so  s 'asIXscqB  'io  noxcl'iaoq 

9X"   il   3-to.B't  .9s.€m-!j  wcil'  ci'.rii';;'  t*xr^XG   i-'n.s  o"nejjxooj~   ?iid    -feJiB  ©Jt'^cfae.fnx 

3ii&  no  sXO'.oXg    3Xii  grlotr.   Ji-to   evs^f   ^i-,j:.,i,i  j^sk.ssosx'  9 ho'   j~xi;l    cneiiive 

erxa   c^r[^i'r  c'Ci;;   xxo  ^nxi^xi  f:0w   eu  soiixa  Jjr:^.  liTisiiSVX'q  s:.:r   Ic  sX^ia   oaxis 

r;Xr  "xol  sxso  ex'.O   "Jo  Sc^xoi&xs   -arid"   rri:  ?'xol^"'xeiW-  axnv  3if    ,l)Xioi"  Siii"  lo 

"jXxisassoexr  arioisi/IC'XiC'O  PD-ari.<i   'co  nsxlixe  :ii  xxU'    Jort  ob   aV/      .x'-^sJ-s^a  iV,7Q 

'to  ■?;dcrf  saJ   'xo  sXo\;ol;f    taXiclo;n::;,*-i:£-  t-xly-  lo  axioXd-xaoq  c-riu"  wui:c  asirtE. 

)9atz-u?"  bo:-?.s60Sb  Siio-  'xti/ii'ynTi'/    ,d'n;sJbXoo£  srid-  ^&d-!t.c   eyso-as.tnx   e 'l^fIsXIsqqB 

^osqqoca   X"C  sll.'iomoiijB  ■^aii'oAoiciq^  eri&  lo   n'd-.sq  ed^   otrti  ivlo^oM  airi 


-7- 

or  his  bicyc3.e   slipped  rmv.  he  fell  or   th>t  his  bicycle  exhibited 
a  reO.  lii^ht   to   the  rear  aose  not  spvjear  from  the   evicarce.      Due 
ca.re  on  the  j:art  of  the  cleceasecl  lauyt   ap.ve  been  proven.      Thsre 
were   eye  vritr.esses   to  this    acciaent   who   cculcl  have   been  called 
to   testify,      a  plaintiff  is  not  permitted  to   eetahlish  a  dec.th 
as  E  result   of   an  accident   and  then  rely  upon  the   instinct  of 
Belf  preservation  coaimon  to   all  to   establish  the  exercise  of  due 
care  and  caution  on  the  part   of  the  decea.ped  and   in   our  opinion 
appellant  h?ving  failed  to  prove  this  airterial  s.verEent  of 
his   declaration,    t.-.ie  trial   court  very  properly  instruct sd  a 
verdict  for  appellee.      Tf-e  jud[.Tflent  mil  be  ?-if firmed. 

JUDGMENT  AFJilRMED. 


IbQ^ld'-  J.S  'ilcxolJ  aid  -t  ^lij-   ^o  11:^1  e-i  brie  Iieciqila  0.Co>iOi:d   oiri  10 


S>  '.I  S'':'' 


.'■■eVOX'-]     iirc'I     ?"/"(.     tHWV;    :)a8S?0;::^     3  li:^'    ^O     J^i^C:     6/?*    iXO    SlBO 

ror:i;yia.rri:   5x:t  ao~xf  "(j;  re's   'lexit  ijXTi?   J'/re-bioos  .ct..T   to   (^Ii'^rti  s  s.5 
;;3j0i'"';d"aiii  ~/;Iieqo'j;',   'r:^'yY  Jxiroo   L^i';.;]"  9l:.■c^    trroid's'isloel)  s.tri 


,a."2.CHr5'^.i  Tii;A^r-caiii. 


STATE    OP   ILLINOIS, 

j-ss. 
SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSOX.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 
certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  df  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 
of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this . day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  thp  Appellate  Court 

(73S15 — oM — 3-32) 


ar 


ytf- 


AT  A   TERM.   OF   THE   ATTELLATE    COl/f^T, 
Begun  and   liPld   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day  of  Octcher,    in 
the   year    rf   our   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six^ 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    —   the    Hon.    BLaINE  HUFFilAN,    Presiding    -Justice. 
Hon.    FRANiaiN  R.    POVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FREL   G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Clerk o         28    3     I 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff. 


BE   IT  REI.'iEMBEREr,    that   afterr/ards,    to- wit:    On 
J'-'.l'>.  10  ii'jj  the   opinion   Lf   the    Court   was    filed    in   the 

Clerk:'p    cffice    of  said    Court,    in   the   v/ords  anl   figures 
following,    to-wit: 


Gen.  Nv'.  9124 


Agendc.  No.  20 


IN  THE 

APPELLATE  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS 

S£COr.ID  DISTRICT 

October  Term,  A.D.  1936 


K~thryn  Erickaon,  by  Thori^sten 
Erickson,  her  father  and  next 
friend,  and  TLorsten  Erickson, 

Appellees 


vs. 


Central  Illinois  Electric  and 
Gas  Co.,  a  corporation, 

jSppelle.nt. 


Appeal  from  the  Circuit 
Court  of  WinnelDago  County 


DOVE,  J. 

Oil  May  9,  1934,  Kcthryn  Erickson,  a  girl  ten  and  one-ha^lf  years 
old,  was  riding  a  bicycle,  proceeding  north  on  London  Street,  in  the 
City  of  Rockford,  Illinois.   London  Street  runs  north  and  south  and 
into  Rural  Street  but  ends  at  the  intery^section  and  does  not  extend 
north  beyona  the  north  side  of  Rural  Street.   Rural  Street  extends 
east  and  west  from  this  intersection.   The  Central  Illinois  Electric 
and  Gas  Company  operates  a  bus  line  in  saia  city  and  on  the  day  in 
question  a  bus  belonging  to  it  was  proceeding  east  along  the  south 
side  of  Riiral  Street.   It  stopped  at  the  southwest  corner  of  the  inter- 
section and  dischargeu  passengers.   It  then  proceeded  east  across  the 
intersection,  near  the  south  line  of  Rural  Street,   As  it  reached  the 
east  side  of  the  intersection,  Kathryn  caoie  up  from  the  south,  riding 
her  bicycle  very  slowly  and  there  was  a  collision  as  a  result  of  which 
Kathryn  was  injured.   To  recover  for  the  injuries  she  suffered  and  for 
the  expense  incurred  by  her  father  in  caring  for  her,  this  suit  was 
^■^■%"" instituted,  resulting  in  a  verdict  for  her,  in  the  sum  of  ;jf8,000.00, 

and  one  in  favor  of  her  father  in  the  suxii  of  ij770.00.   The  trial  court 
/'^*«gajLs.®4'-«?''ipe»i^t4iaij£,,£i£.v4.5OO^«'0Q^-f*^  wsus  filed  and"  there — -" 


f 


^ 


^ 


^ 


■'S    .0^1  JiDiLBgk  I'SIG    .<M.    .xia-D 


SHT  MI 
TDIHT8IC  iiMOOm 
Dg9i    .u.r^    .tsXB'j:   'ir-doioO 


-J-iiiO'-txD  ejticT  ii.G-x'i  X-ssoiqA 


l3.fi:j5   ol-x^osl'S.    sioallil   l^i&aQO 
^aoloaioqiQO  s    ,,oO   ajsC 

.L    ,3.1/OC 

Ijas^i'xs   ^oa  aaob  .ohjS  ixoxc)TJ8a:^'i8Jii-i   sricr  ts  ahne   juii  jsei^e   LbxvE  oini 

3..bn3d-x6   cj-s3c.:ct:-i   la'iL'H      .o'ssa'^a   l3xrH  lo  sJdxb  n'aaon  sriJ  cnoiiscf  xi^son 

oiioOsX'i   axonilll   Ij?'x:i-.(rsO   8.a'T      .noxd-o5a"r33-ni  ai.a^i'  fficrxl  j-as^?  i^cs   tajse 

rxi  Y-s.D  aui   .y.o  bas  x^^o  jLdb   ai  enil  ax/d  js  as^s'zecio  ^iXi^qmoO  bsQ  dob 

xfd-.uoa   enc  grioli;   da.!:-3  gnxjj-eeooTiq  a.3Y»'  cH    oi  ■^:arga.ol'3(i   axfcf  .s  xioxJaei/p 

-X5.tnx  sivS   10   xsrrioo   •taev7A;rxfoa   siLx   J-^;  .?)sqqoct-'=2  .^I      .d-ssTd-S   IszisH  lo  9X)is 

saj-   830X05   cls^e  i>e.&^&oo"xq  nenu    J"I      .aissrreaa.sq  be.^'XBiioaii)  bns  rroi:d"osa 

sdJ-  ib9rIo£32   &i  3A      .Jse'xd'S  la^i/H   10  e:iil  diuoe   end"  'iBdxr    jXrcxd-oeaaaiTil 

gaxJDX'x    ,;i*xro8  ed7  cioi:!  qjj  s>zeo  iriixlJ.sI'I    ^rfciitosstEsd-jiii  erid"  Ic  abta   tasQ 

iloiii:/j   10  d-Ixf3si  J3   SB  xio xbIIIoo   .3  a£7/  S'lsricl-  i-;ni5  yXwoXs  y^sv  eXoijoxu   isxl 

•xoi  .0117  i^'Sii'tlua  8ils   3sx-xxf(;nx  exid"   lol  'xsvcoa'x  oT      ..osxtrQxix  a.sw  cpitiiisl 

SAW  J-XJX3   slr;u    ,xorl  'xol  giiX'X-so  xri  ■xsii-J-.-.i   isd  \(.i  bsiiuont  sensqxQ   scit 

jOO.OOO,?:^  'io  cix/a   eild-  ;ri    ,^sxi  aol  d-oxj^tev  b  ai  -gnxd-Xi/es'i    ,ijsd-0i-it3nx 

d-ijjco  X.sx'xd-   suT      .uCOS^Y;:!;   lo  axE/a   aiid'  nx  I9rf5-.sl  isa  lo  rtovjsx  nx  sno  Jbxxjs 

— eisiit  f^n.vi  i)6Xx't  a.sw  xioXffw    /lerf  luotcl  00.005|i  •  lo  .x£;d:i  Jd-las';  js  iaa-sixipei 

fref.rsy'i  t^R'ni  'OO.OVS'I  -lolnirjs  icvjsl  "leii  &  I  00, 0a;}^^$%&^'^8^&a&mgiMiJi'-4sosttJ 


-2- 

and  t-ie  record,  is  brought  to  txiis  court  for  review. 

The  accident  occurred  about  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of 
May  9,  1954,  the  sun  was  shining,  the  pavement  was  dry   a.nd  the 
reu,ular  route  of  tne  bus  was  from  the  west  toward  the  east  on  Rural 
Street.   As  the  bus  proceeaed  across  the  intersection  and  as  it 
reached  the  east  siae  of  L'-'ndon  Street,  it  was  ei'C'i^b  about  ten  uiiles 
per  hour  a.nd  there  was  no  automobile  or  traffic  in  any  direction  from 
the  intersection,  except  the  bus  and.  the  bicycle  which  Katiiryn  was 
riding.   According  to  tue   testimony  of  Kathryn,  she  turned  into  Rural 
Street  about  fo'ur  feet  ahead  of  tne  bus  and  was  riding  in  Rural  Street 
close  to  the  curb,  that  the  bus  was  back  of  her  and  as  she  was  riding 
along  the  bus  crowded  her  toward  tne  curb  and  before  she  knew  it,  she 
had  tipped  over.   Her  testimony  that  she  turned  into  Rural  Street  in 
front  of  the  bus  and  that  the  bus  crowded  her  toward  the  curb  is  not 
corroborated  by  any  witness  or  by  any  facts  or  circumstances  in  evidence. 
The  testimony  of  the  passengers  on  tne  bus  ana  other  witnesses  was  to 
the  effect  that  the  front  end  of  the  bus  haa  already  passed  out  of  the 
east  side  of  the  intersection  prior  to  tne  time  Kathryn  arrived  at 
the  corner  on  her  bicycle  ana  when  she  turned  the  corner  she  did  so 
just  in  front  of  the  rear  wheels  of  the  bus  ana  ra/n  her  bicycle  into 
the  side  of  the  bus.   As  the  judgment  must  be  reversed,  we  will  not 
set  forth  in  this  opinion  a  resurae  of  all  the  testimony,  but  we  have 
read  the  evidence  as  the  sarae  appears  in  the  abstract  and  are  inclined 
to  the  opinion  that  the  veraict  is  manifestly  against  the  weight  of  the 
evidence. 

Tne  sixth  instruction  tendered  by  appellee  and  given  by  the 
court  is  as  follows:   "Ti.e  court  instructs  the  jury  tn^.t  if  you  be- 
lieve from  a  preponderance  of  tne  evidence  tnat  the  defendant,  by 
its  servsnt,  in  the  exercise  of  reasonable  and  ordinary  care,  could 
and  should  have  avoided  the  accident  in  question,  s.nd  if  you  further 
believe  from  a  preponderance  of  tne  evidence  tha,t,  at  the  time  and 
immediately  before  the  accident,  the  plaintiff  Kathryn  srickson,  was 
in  the  exercise  of  such  care  and  caution  as  an  ordinarly  prudent  girl 


E)iv9i  lo't   c^Xu••C'0  axLii-  cS  d-ii^.wcxd  as:  bioo^'X  e:.)^  has  x!ii^.'i^?^^^M.:i^^^:TS^^!P^'h:si- 

lo  rioouxs:^"::^  Bd^  nx  :?'ocIc'o  -jjjo':.   'Synods  bsrcxsjooo  ;i'icsi>..tooB  eaT 

eiiJ"  .■-■n.s   vih  osvi   '^nsinevsc.  9.do    ,iiXiXiiirla   £bw  ixas   srfd-    ,^5i3I    ,S  x.bK 

I^'zvR  no   o5\3S   exid-  i-yis^'oi  &aBw  e.dif  moTx  a.sw  bjjq  s.u"it  'ic  sd-x/o'x  *rsl.u^^9l 

i'Oil  ficxj'oo^ixij  x,^i3  .ffi:   oxlli^ij   TO  elxdoaiojjy;©   ca  a.5TY  sied^   oas  ^.uoxs  ^csrr 
2.fflw  xxv;iiid'3){  .aoxiiw  ;?Io'y;Dxd  ea;!'  .b0£   s^Kf  sdt  S'qeoxe    5noxd"oear5:©^jCii  ©£!#■■ 
r^ajJli  cJ.cij:  .oeiiii/'u    saa    ,j~;Yi-rtv',&5i   io  vnomijaso    eacr   ocf  ^/ixib'ioooA      .gxixi)!^ 
;c?o:J-e   IsiiJLfi:!;  ffi   ^:jr!:i:i3ii   e-^vr  dcls   aud   f>rJ-   lo  i:'j39n.s   d'ssl  ix/ci   ^jjccte   cfeDiO'B 
vniiaii  ssvi  ena   as  l^fii^  're:I  lo  ;rio.3d   y.5T?  aijtf  ?ad-  ;i^&d3-    ^dii/o  sJit  o;}"  eaolo 

ni   d'saoici'S  Is'iun  o&i-i  ^ienrmr  siia   d"j3J:ic   ■^rxoiaid'aea'  x-sH      .t:9vo  ib9qqi;i-  x>^xf 

iO'Z   zit  'J'zuo  ©iid'  fjij^wcJ"  %?.a  jbs^jvroio    3/rd  eil:r  cr.sdj   due  a^d  &di   1:o   d"xrd*j:^ 

zbtvs  Oil  asOii-BCi'aLii/oTxo  'xo  avO..-;!  xaa  \d  xo  asexiJiw  y^i^^  'i^  betsis^cdoi'noo 

ic»'   lo  ^sjo  X5asa.sq    ^;'d.s3xIjb  .osd  sjsd  sntr   'ic  iiie  d-aoti  axld'  cfisilJ"   d-oslis  sffct"   ■ 

j.B  iosyi"ii.fc  ir ,■;'.>: ri J. i/i  en.xd"  an;!    o^j"  xoiiq  sxziioeasiQt-al  srci'   ic  s.uia   jSisS 

OS  J:!X.b  &ne   x?-.aico  e;;of  .cenx!-ii'   srla   naifv/  .on.3  sIoYOxd  leii  00  i;s.n"j:oo  arid" 

GO'rrx  elc'voia'  T.sa  r.i..etc  .ons   airo   en'o    io  slaex'/.v   a;-i6'x   s.oo    lo  jricx'i  .ai  Jsxjj; 

i^o^f  II Iw  ©^    51)93*13 V31  -?:d  J3.jj-fv.  ;j'xisxKgi3x/j;   axIJ'   sA      .smJ  3x1^  lo  sJbxs  exid" 

^>\'.'3ri  5w   ;{-.tjrf    ^v.(Tcsxd'8S3"  s^riJ-  Hi?   ivo  s;ax;.3-3a  i;  iTox,axqo  axrfo   iri;  xLtiot  d^aa 

f  lo  J.i^xfev;-  9.(13-   -^Bals-ga  ^'IJ-asixxL;.!..  £.j:   i'oix'xav  arit  :f.v:Xi3"  iiolxtxco  sri^  od" 

.9on:eJDxv9 

siij   Y,d  nc^vtg  J:)ri5;   .-■sj.Is.jgb  xc  ijs'xsDiisif  xxoid-Oi/'xd's/ri   nd'xxa   saT 

-;■<■!'  UjY  'i-£   ^..-■■nd'  "p-^'C  S''^'^''   ad'oxjij-ariJ:   d"'Xi;oo  to.'iT"      :8?roIIo'i  a.e  ax   d-xx/00 

Yo    , .TxiBiiiJS'ie;:  sii&  cf.sad"  soxiejxvs   .^act   Ic  soii-xsjoxioqeTq  .«?  mcii  sveil 

lol/joo    ,s-x^o  -tT-jSixj-jjio  .o/xx,   i^Iciisnoa.ssj:   lo  ssxo'iexs  sju'  ai:    ,rfn,svxea   ai"i: 

X3x:,d-xtrx  woY  11  ijxx.6   ,/roxd-a^iwp   ni   'Jia&vioo.'i  Siii  beblovs  avsa  wlxfoxls  bim  ■' 

bnz  ■3i.ii&  Qrl&  ^b    ^&s,L..t  sonbbive   erl-^r  lo  Qorx£,'x.ebnoq'3'sq  .s  ^lO'xl  svsxiscf 
837/    ,no3:ioJ:xi[  ^Y'li'i.J^':■JI  'i-l;t.cilr>Xc7  exii!"    tdTia.bxoo?.  anJ-  s'xolsci   Y-C9^-si:i>eflrtij:    . 
iT-i;-^  d^i^shx/iq  Y-C^-BxiiJj'xo  xl3   sjs  noxd~x/.oo  .uxi^o  ei£0  lioua   lo  aalorresQ   &x£d"  aX 


-3- 
of  her  a^e,  intelligence,  capacity  and  experience  T/ould  exercise 
under  tiie  circ-uiastances  a.s  siiown  by  the  evidence,  then  your  verdict 
should  be  for  the  plaintiff."   Tiiis  instruction  directs  a  verdict 
and  in  our  opinion  should  not  have  oeen  given.   The  charge  of 
negligence  in  the  complaint  was  most  general  in  character.   It  was 
that  "the  operator  of  the  bus  so  negligently  opere.ted  and  uianaged 
said  bus  that  tne  said  bicycle  so  ridaen  by  tne  said  Kathryn  Erickson 
and  the  said  bus  operated  by  the  defendant  collided,  because  the 
driver  of  said  bus  was  negligent  and  careless  in  the  operation  of 
said  bus."   No  instruction  was  given  to  the  jury,  purporting  to  stait^ 
tne  charge  of  negligence  stated  in  the  coarplaint  ajid  it  has  oeen  neld 
that  an  instruction  which  directs  a,  verdict  must  limit  the  jury  to 
the  negligence  charged  against  the  defendant  in  the  complaint. 
Herring  v.  Chicago  and  Alton  RR  Go.,  299  111.  214;  lAolloy  v.  Chicago 
Rapid  Transit  Co.,  355  111.  164;  Ratner  v.  Chicago  City  Ry  Co.,  233 
111.  169;  Kacket  v.  Cnicago  City  Ry.  Co.,  235  111.  116^   Tnis  in- 
struction should  have  stated  the  necessity  of  proving  that  charge 
of  general  negligence.   It  does  not  do  so,  but  told  the  jury  in  effect 
that  the  driver  of  the  bus  was  g,uilty  of  actionable  negligence,  unless 
by  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  he  could  and  should  have  avoided  the 
collision.   Furthermore,  before  the  jury  was  warra.nted  in  returning  a 
verdict  for  the  plaintiff  Kathryn  Erickson  they  must  have  found  from 
a  preponderance  of  tne  evidence  the.t  the  negligence  of  the  operator 
of  the  bus  was  the  direct  and  proximate  cause  of  the  accident.   This 

element  of  liability  was  omitted.   The  law,  however,  was  correctly 

seventh 
stated  in  the/given  instruction  which  is  as  follows:  "The  court  in- 
structs tne  jury  that,  if  you  believe  from  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  tnat  at  the  time  and  place  of  and  immediately  before  the 
accident,  the  defendant,  by  its  servant,  operated  its  said  bus  in  a 
negligent  and  careless  manner  and  that  as  a  direct  result  thereof, 
the  said  bus  coilidea  with  the  bicycle  ridden  by  the  plaintiff, 
Kathryn  i^rickson,  thereby  injuring  her,  and  if  you  further  believe 
from  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that,  at  the  time  of  and  im- 
mediately before  the  accident,  the  plaintiff,  Kathryn  Erickson,  was 


lo  &3-i.sdo  9,uT      ..g;9vx^  ryeao  &Y.fffi  a'oii  i:;Ix*'oiia  iXoXi:ri:c;;o  xuc  ai  bus 
33W   li'I      .'xs^'-O-e'xr-^co  ni   I.?'2:?.j3iv^  a-SQia  aisw   rrnxBlqi^oo   o/iS"  ill  eoiisjgxl'^sxi 

£iCB:^0x-i2:.  ixX'.'ui'A's.-'A  .;).Lsa  .rXut  'y;ci   a^bjoxi  oa  ©lovoxd  bx^ia   s-iJ    ijaxj.o    na-di  ijx.as 

Siij'  {i3Xf.609o    ^.DSijilloc;  j'Giii-rie'iei:)  9.f{5"  x^^  x.o3"j3"X6co  auo'  l)i.sa  srici'  isii^s 

to  txOiiy^'Xvqo  s.do   xri   aasI^jT~o  biii;  cixxeij^xlgeir  asw  sj-jq'  ax^a  'to  'iBviit 

'~^:k-i2-a   Ou    ■^■nxL^zoq^x.-q    ,\"^-t   ^'-'^   c-?  rravx^  a^w  ii-^id'oi/ifsai   on      ".axid  .bi.B3 

jcl'sr-   fKsd   3.ai'   ji  .3n>   3-ri.:\sIqi::oo  8/i«   xxx  r.-3;t£d"8   3oa-iiiu.l2S^  '^(-^  s-^jXjDao  a^xi^ 

o'J"    •/!;'i'-f-''u   si-'Id'  :!";.;uxX   insji::  uoxdsv  .s  3.toe-:x;b   tloxxiw  (ictiouxiaal  as  Ji'.srit 

.iraxzIqiucD   axia   ixi    d-.nj:?Jji;8!i;9.b  sxiS"   fl-s/ix^sj^j^-  jDagT^ixIo  a OfKjgx  1^^6X1  &iU' 

o^aioixIC    .V  vclloi,"    ji^IS    .1X1   fcvS    <  .cD  JiS  nod-JU  ;:)ns  o:^BcxriO    .v  ^rrxm^H 

ocS    ,.oO   •■:£:  Y^'-i^O   Ci,.50x:iC    .v  'xsno'^Ji    ;K'iX    .lil   cciS    ^-oO   $XBii;yiZ  blqsH. 

-xil   zs.c'2        i'dli    .111  3SS    ,  ,cO    .'ii-i  ;;^.i:0   o^oxnQ    .y  yesIoicH  ;iSclJ    .III 

sj^LSXiO  ^■^:li^  ^xsxvc^q  'to    vioxsasosn  &qj'  ijeJBCfs   avisu  LXxioxio  /ioidox/^^s 

^'jS:i;t8  itx  Y'xtfr;   64rJ-  iiloiJ-   t-ud    ,oa   oh  d'oi>;  ascD   ^I      .eonesir^en  ixixoivs^   'io 

aaeX/o/   ,soxjrew}.i:X;L3i7:  'jidsnoxJo.s   xo  ■i;MJ:ij^  a.^w  s.!jo   eatr   'io  ievi:=;!:ij  g<£[f  ;|-j3Xid' 

cfii"  DsX:xov,B  s'v^jx^  iiixjcDB  ^iis  .oXxfoo   Oil  & X30    ■^i.saxij'io  lo  sslotcesa   sxi^  Yd 

3  ^/riirrxijcfe'x  ai   ba c;xt6i!i,5w  ai3w  "^iixii;  enJ-  siolsd    5  3xo:&j:sxi2-^xr'i      .iToiaxXIoo 

;iiOix  -OXDio'i  B-fad  a-sxTra  --^sjit  noaio-t'sS  irc^fi:J-=iI  ■ilIg*nJ:x:Iq  edi  -xo'i  croiX)isv 

•xc;J-x.'xsqw'  er.'j"  "to  aoxxegxigsxi:  sxlo    S'srij  soffeLivs  Siid'   lo  socBisiiiioqsxq  s 

3x;^T      .Ci^Jie-oxoo-s  sri;!"    lo  saxxso  &i\svi£XO%q  oi/ij  d'ostlo  snt  ajsw  axrd"  aiii"   aO 

qXcfOo'X'xoo  a.si^'    ,"xov3'^"oxi'    .".tbI   8riT      ..DSJcrxno  aew  qjiXxo£iI  io  ;i"ja8ffiaXs 

xid-iisvsa 
-ex  t'TJioo  v^jiT"    :a~oIIo'i  ^aB   ax  rtox.lv;  acii-ouiizni  xfevxaV&xiJ  xii:  XjScfaJa 

ddj    .to  eoxx.'ri'xe.Qxxoqs-iq  .s  xucx't  aveiXsa  xjoy  l-'i    ,^i^xiO"  vax'^  sxlJ  sitox/Tita 

c.'ir  s'lo'taJ  vl3j"x..tij£.-xi.x'jx  bus   to  cjO.'iLq  brtx:  3mt&  srlJ  is  d-jsxiJ  norrstiivs 

..;    iii:   sxxo'  .'ji.sa  aJ"x  .o-strs'xsqo    ^ci'iiev'j.aa   bJ'x   '<"J    ^c^x:csiJ^s'isl^  axii    ,3-xie.biooB 

i'icsi.hs.:^  J-Xi/aai   d-09'xxx)  ,3  as   d.^xla'  ijic^^j  'xanniixa  saslei/io  baa  d'xxsgxlgsa 

,'i'..UiiJ:5Xq  axi-J    v:c!'  aehbtt  elox^io   '-^i^^'  iiJ"i:>v  x:&I)iIIoo  axxcr  bio's  Qiit 

svBiloJ  -.t'^xlvtiij-j:  xfc\-  'tx  i3xi::->    ^i!;©fl  -gxi-x-xi/iirxx    ■iC9'x&n&   ^aoaMox-xa  rxx'^-cf^.S'S 

~xi;.t   oiiXi   lo  siuiit   5!iCi-  dB    ,;i.6Xi;;  soaebive  ©xtJ-   'io  ^oite^sDnoqaaq  .s  ffioil 

a.ew    jrxoa2lox'x3'  iTv:!:xij-.syi    tllxd-fixslq  sxlj    ,c)-iX9J:)iooi.-   and-  a-iolaa'  x-C^^^Xjbem 


-4- 

exercising  such  care  and  caution  as  an  ordinarily  prudent  girl  of 
her  age,  intelli-,ence,  capacity  and  experience  would  have  exercised 
under  the  circuusta-nces  saown  by  the  evidence,  then  your  verdict 
should  De  for  the  plaintiff,  Kathxyn  Erickson. "   This  instruction 
is  a  plain  anc  fair  stateraent  of  tne  law  on  the  suliject  of  negligence, 
actionable  ano  contributory  and  the  giving  of  it  was  sufficient  and 
rendered  \mnecessary  tne  giving  of  the  preceding  instruction  even 
if  it  was  unobjectionable, 

III  9K  the  argument  to  the  jury,  counsel  for  appellees  referred  to 
appellant  as  "a  utility  operating  for  profit,"  spoke  of  the  bus  as 
a  "traction"  bus  end  "aji  instruiaent  of  destruction,"  charged  the 
driver  of  the  bus  with  "a  high  degree  of  responsibility,"  appealed 
to  the  jury  "in  the  naiae  of  other  little  girls  throughout  the  city" 
and  in  other  respects  indulged  in  thoxcLb,    phrases  and  sentences  wholly 
uncalled  for  and  highly  pregLudicial.   Objections  were  made  and  sus- 
tained by  tne  court  to  several  of  the  improper  statements  but  counsel 
aid  not  cease  the  prejudicial  trend  of  his  arg-oment.   In  sustaining 
one  ^fobjection  the  trial  coiart  characterized  the  axguirient  of  appellee's 
counsel  as  inflaiHrnatory.   The  serious  injuries  which  Kathryn  received 
were  calculated  to  enlist  the  sympathy  of  the  jury  and  a  forceful 
and  impassioned  argument  interspersed  with  inflarjiuiatory  and  pre- 
juaicial  statements  liaving  no  bearing  upon  the  real  issues  involved 
and  throwing  no  light  upon  the  question  for  decision  ms,y  have  resulted 
in  tne  ends  of  justice  being  defeated. 

Unless  the  judgmsnt  in  fa-vor  of  Kathryn  is  affirmed,  the  judgment 
in  favor  of  her  f ?.ther,  Thorsten  Srickson,  can  not  stand  as  his 
right  to  recover  depends  upon  his  daughter's  right  of  action. 

The  judgments  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Winnebago  County  will  be 
reversed  and  the  cause  reruah-aed. 

REVERSED  AHD  RiaLA.NDED. 


cf-Di:.;;i3Jr  -jjuoy  xreri;?    ,soae£)i:vs  e.i-a-    jci  n?;oxiS   ssonsi"8aiJjO"clo  sxiS"  :i:el)ni; 

i)ji-^  d-nexoil^ii-ra  a^-Tr   oi  'i;r   j^rrxvx:^  e;:^J-  i).'-fj3    i'toi^i.idi'x&noo   oik  2idj3/:ioi:d"os 

.eid"Bircx2'oe  rdorxLf  8i2>;  -x   ts. 

o^y  heziQlsi  seellsqqs  ^ot  leam/oo   .^lut  Silcr  o;^  i'iisiaxr;^xs  eut  M^  J^I 

a-  axj-d'  8if?   '3:0  s:5foqa    ".^xloiq  -;c"t  -^^nl^x- Tsqi.  X'J^iil:rss  js"   a£  ;J-rtBlJ©qqB 

edri-   .^ag^iipilo    *>  jrxoicJ'Oijauas^^   lo  c^rj:!:3inj/'t;i-KiiiX  rxs"  I)-xb  axrd   ''aoiJoxiii^*'   .£> 

bBlsBQqB   " . v^i'xl^oiarforaai    xo  ss"ci^6^  xi^xxl  js*'   d&h-j  aisd  sd;)-  Ic   iBVXxb 

**-{,^io  «::'«    d-xrorigxroi'la-  eltiy  c^fcr^txl  'rexi+c    xo  ^i-msi  SilJ-  ai''   'cmi,  SiiJ-   c* 

;IIorIw  aaoixsa-.aas  .ij/r.3  ssaB'xrfq    ja-b'icvr  x.ri:  BajjI/xon.!:   sooscasa  -rerfcfo  ni  jiXi-e 

~3x:a   i:;xx£  ejbx-ifi  sisw  snci:;i03i;cfO      .I.^ioxS^irigs'irq  v:Iii3XiI  I)aB   '?;o1:  .bslljsomf 

[©••^nixoo   tjxcf  ad'XiSA'reJ-s'l'a  -xsqc'xqf'i:  eud"   xc   I.^'xevac   o^  J'Tjlj'co  sxicr  vd  b&iziBt 

^.axfi  X3  it  a  jfxa  .hI      ,ci-.!X9mxj'^?i.s  3xxf   xo  bn&si-  Lexol.o.cfi.sT.q  sa.t  saseo   .toxi  .oii.) 

slleqqos    'cc  oixsi.ci-/;:-:-X3   sri\t  .baaxxeoox'.i.stio  j"xx'oo   Lsitd-  Qd&  noXo'03{;d'c|i  erxo 

"3"X50sa  xiY^xlo-aS  xioxrl-v  sexTo-i;!^^;   aroxiea   sxiT      .■i^o3'X5/)5^sIl:x[x  a.s   XsaxiX/oo 

-exq  hiiS:  ■'Cio&i-i-iiiiJinni  xl^iw  i^ssisqc^'xefXiX   oriei!;i.(^;2£  xjsxxoiaaxiqnxx  x;£i£ 

ijSvXov/iX  aexraai;   I.asx  s/io   X5:oc-.fx  .i^xa^sa   cxc  :^,::xYBiI  a<lnsa!e^3va   Ijsxoijjxxi; 

■ylxi'seT  sy-iiti   v;^;!.  xicxaxosb  ao'i  ixcxoas.ixp  eiij-  xcocxi:;  dxf^^xl  or:  '^^Vi/ordo   bUB 

.JusJ.S'slsi.)  jjxx.tecf  ooit^a.(:f(,   lo  a.one  sila"  xri" 

axxf  ax  i)Ai.35'a   J'Cjx  xxso    ,:::oaloiiS  r.is<t3'xoxIT    , asrlv'".--.- 'i  xo'i  Ic  Tovjslt  xi± 
.xioid-0.3  lo   jxigxx  3 ''X3J"xI;x.ox;-)  aixi  xioqxr  sbasqeb  ■2;.3\=^oos^  oer  d-xi-ijiii 

.Jjaoxta.ii:'^  saxr^o  9il:t  .bxiB  ijSaasvsi 


STATE   OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON".  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

fox  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereb}^ 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  ofBce. 

In  Testimony  Whereof.  I  hereunto  set  ray  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Clp.rl-  of  the  AypeVaie  Court 

(73815— 5M— 3-32)  .,5^^7 


Hi 


AT  A   TERM   OF   THE   ATFELLATE    COURT, 
Begun  and  held   at   Ottawa,    nn  TuPGday,    the    sixth    day   of  Qctrter,    in 
the   year    ef   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFFJ.'LAN',   Presiding   Justice 
Hon.    ERMJICLIN  R .   LOVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRSL   G.    V;OLEE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHMSON,    Clerk:.      '^jf  ^^    --^ 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff* 


Q    O     y      j^..         ^n    Cj)  QJ 

O  O    -iLoii.©    D  ^  O 


BE   IT  REJ.IEMBEREP,    that   af  ter-svards ,    to-wit:    On 
'^'"•■'  ^  ^'  '■-■-'■  the   opinion   lT   the    Court   was    filed    in   the 

Clerk's    rffice   of  said    Court,    in   the   r/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-wit: 


Gen.  Ho.  9136  Agenda  Ho.  44 


in  1!¥X 
APPELLATE  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS 
aSOOND  DiaTHIQT 


October  'rer.ii,  a.  d,    1936 


H?.nna  Beohtel, 


Auoellee 


vs. 

J-ff  H'Xike, 
Liwiy  Hoc  ice, 
Byron  L.   uolijurii.   Trustee,  Appeal  fro^a  the  Ulrcuxt 

Appellees,  Court  of  Woodford  C'^imty 

Willisuia  s?;.   G-lbson, 

Appellant, 
Byron  L.   Colbum, 
F&riflers  state  iBank  of   Eureka, 

CjrosB-appellants. 

iX)V&,   J. 

on  May  2,   1932  Kanna  Bechtsl  fil#d  a&s  bill  to  for^cloge  a 
trust  deed  executed  to  Svron  L.   Colburn,   trustise,  Isy  Jefl  Racke  a,nd 
Lacy  Rooks.      Byron  L.   Ct^rbum,    inaividually  and  as  trustee  and  ths 
said  Jeff  Rocke  anc  Luoy  Rocfee  "rere  made  parties  defendant.     Tl*iB 
trust  deed  vras  given  to  secure  the  paysnent  of  '|10,000.00  and  covered 
ei^-hty  acres  of  land  dtsigiiated  ia  the  record  as  Tract  A.     Subse- 
quently the  bill  was  affiended  ajad  lastts  tiie  Fgjraiers  svate  aaslc  of 
Eureka  and  -i^illiass  £.   Gll:>so«.  def endExita.      Tnereaftsr  the  bank  ana 
Byron  L.   o^lburn,   trustee,   filed  a  cross  bill  to  ioraclos©  a  trust 
deea  wnlcb.  iras  &lso  execsuted  by  tns  said  Jeff  Rooks  sj\d  Lucy  Rooke 
and  -fliiich  ^as  given  to  secure  the  payxfient  of  #8100.00  and  which 
conveyed  to  Byran  L.   Colbuxn  as  trxistee  S8,id  tract  A  ana  also  anotlier 
tract  consisting  of  12B  acres  which  is  designated  in  tiie  record  as 
tract  xi,      ^'illia^a  2.    Gibson  eIso  filea  a  cross  bill  to  foreclose 
t-sK;>  trust  deeds  which,  he  h®ld,   on®  of  ifiiioli  oovared  tract  A  and  tii© 
o^ii@r  both  tracts,      upon  a  hearing  a  decree  of  foreclosure  and  sale 
was  rendered  in  favor  of  tne  origins.l  eoapl&lnant  ana  which  held  that 
her  trust  a©ed  was  a  first  lien  on  tract  A  and  disifllssed  the  cross 
bills  of  the  bank  ana  of  aibson.      Frora  th&t  decree  Golburn,   individually 


i>4     ,in:     :ci/.«i?,^J,  £K2iG     ,0M     .itO-D 


•'■W'i    Ifl 


^.  t:!'  !:■::--••: J- aO 


XaJAiosK  .snxrrH 


sa*i.a.,:c/,. 


.ay 
^1113  j:>i\j:  .i.  i'o.-$a;f  A*t s.iTOd  tloiii-j    to  a^o   <x^i?il  *•;;  iic^/jiw  ;*i,S'&i>  ^mt^y  im^. 


ana  as  truster:,   and  tne  bank  prosecuted  an  ai;  .eal  to  this  court 
wiiicA  reversec  tne  aecree  of  tue  Circuit  Court  i-.na  reiaanued  tue  case 
to  tiiKt  court  witu  alrectiona  to   enter  a   aecrea  in  coni'ortaity  with 
the  opinion  of  tiiis  court.      BeohteX  ▼.    Hooke,    330   111.    App.    631. 

After  the  laantiats  of  this  court  was  filea  in  tiie  Uirouit  Court,!. 
the  cause  was  redocketed  and  a  decree  rendered  froid  wHoh  ivillis^  S. 
Gribecn  prosecutes  %)Ab  appeal  ana  jyron  L.    Colbum  inalviuually  and 
ths  F'ajfuers  State  Bink  of   eureka  Imve  prosseuted  a  cross  ap.-^eal. 

She  decree  fpoia  whioli  this  appeal  sjid  cross  appeal  are  prosecuted 
founa  the  s^ount  aue  llanna  Beohtel  to  be  i|:15,937,31,   the  aaiount  uue 
tiift  bank  to  be  .i**, 913. 34  and  the  amount  aue  William  £.   Gibson  upon 
ills  S'rcond  lien  on  tract  B  to  be  $15,204.71  and  upon  his  thira  liens 
on  tracts  A  and  3  to  be  $39,533.27.      Tlie   decree  then  found  that  the 
bank  h^  a  first  and  prior  lien  on  both  tracts  A  and  B  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  aaount  found  to  be  cue  it,   that  Hanna  Bechtel  had  a  second 
lien  on  tract  A  for  the  payment  of  the  aaiount  founa  aue  her,   that 
Gibson  haa  a  second  lien  on  traxst  B  for  the  payment  of  sedd  aiaount 
of  $15,^4.71  and  a  third  lian  on  tracts  a.  and  B  for  the  payaent  cf 
saia  aaoxint  of  129,533,27  so  found  due  him.     i'tte  decree  then  ordered 
Jeff  Rocke  &.nd  Lucy  Hocke  to  pay  tne  respective  amounts  so  found  due 
the  baiik,   Hanna  Bechtel  and  Gibson  and  that  in  default  thereof  that 
the  pr^iises  be  sold  separately.      T*e  decree  also  found  tho,t  the 
mortgage  upon  certain  real  estate  located  in  Paulding  County,   Ohio, 
referred  to  in  our  former  opinion  and  there  fo\ind  to  have  been  held 
by  tae  bank  to   secure  tlie  payment  of  the  araount  feand  due  it  froia  Jeff 
ana  Lucy  Rocke,   was  a  first  lien  upon  the  land  therein  described  and 
oruered  that  in  the  event  the  amount  so  founa  due  tue  bank  was  satisfied 
in  full  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  tracts  A  and  3,    and  if  the 
lien  of  Hanna  Beohtel  on  tract  A  ^&s  not  satisfied  in  full  fro.-i  the 
proceeds  of   ths  sale,    that  then  the  mortgage  on  the  Ohio  land  should 
be  by  the  bank  aseitpied  to  her  or  to  eosieone  naa«d  by  her  or  by  the 
court  fox  her  use. 


j'     j.Uj.>a  \ii-iiii%'./x.:^:jo  :il  ■S'i>:;i:&f?.o  -^^  -x^.j/Ki>   o4'  «;fox;f5^f=>-?;l.o  i:iiJ"iw  iruoo  t/:.ii^  o^ 
\  *£(:•<}    .^;;:..    .111  <joS   «is3scl^s    ,«    x5tx"u3-.i      .S^xtfco  ai-iif-  !(;o  acxalqo  ®ii>? 

SK;viX   ir-fioij  )«l;i   ."fccir  fjm   n,^(M^iilk  9'd  Qj7  :f   ^.w^*):*  JM  05?i:X,  .angoi^ifi  alii 
■i;iij<jim  i^k3B  "^o  J^fv&a'e^'.;  ^i';^   tot  E  .;!■»« tt  iiJO  ^•511  .baGO-!?!^  .«:  Isigxi  ftt,ja^X0 

■Olo-'i  .iiiied'  &vjHfi  0^  tnuci  si^dil'  Laj^s  iicifi^qo  "xsiinol;  100  al  oi?  J^iS6i'5r*'Se« 

.bam   05ia'i,'i.-Oi3S-:'-  ;-ri&-j,?n-j'  .o/ival.  -.:. :;j   jifoqA..-  .asll  ^a'.iil  ^   n-^\t   ^9^dooH  X'^'^  ^i'^^ 

Sii$  '}:i  ij£!.'    ^i{  i^u,^  ;.   ajo..:c^/   i;<;  p-Ia^^   ■^^M  ig  siJosiSocrri^  asij?   to  iiJt  Hut  ai. 

bSjsodo  .v-iT;-:!  o^^io  ?.r'';r  j'^:;'  a;'i.«?i5t:s:om  e.a*#  itsrfi*  itM£U    fii'lim  e^  to  afeasac'jtQ 


-3- 

A  rssference  to  our  forjafcr  opinion  uiscloses  that  Hanna  Beoixtel 
prooursd  tlie  trust  dead  executed  by  Jeff  Rocke  ana  l.ux3y  Hocks  and  the 
notes  for  which  it  was  tiivan  to  aecure  in.  exchange  for  notes  whicn.  she 
hela  referred  to  in  the  record  as  tLe   Banta.  notes.   In  out  former 
opinion  w«  rsvievYed  tii®  eviaence  ae  tc  wLat  occurred  wUen  the  exchange 
was  made,  held  that  while  Coltairn  effected  the  exohsngs,  t.hs  Hoolce 
notes  ena.  trust  deed  in  fact  Delongjed  to  aibson,  that  Hanna  Bechtel 
was  so  advised,  that  the  b?mk  in  no  way  profited  by  the  excfianjie,  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it  end  if  its  casj.ier  iaade  th©  statement  ©.ttributed 
to  him  by  Hanna  Beehtel  to  th«s  effect  that  the  Rocke  aiortgage  -ffhioh 
she  was  aocspting  wae  a  first  lien,  he  saade  it  about  a  laorttiage  not 
then  in  the  poasesslon  of  or  owned  by  the  bank  and  the  ba-rik  therefore 
was  not  estoppea  in  this  proeesding  froja  assemng  its  prior  lien  on 
tract  A.  In  tii®  aeores  ■^hioh  ws  are  now  reviewing  in  this  recital: 
"That  froiii  the  weight  of  the  evidenoe  in  tais  oas©  it  appears  ths.t 
Byron  L.  Golburn  r®pressnt©4  sjfia  stated  to  Kanim  Beohtel  that  the 
Rocke  saortgag-e  ^'hich  she  wi.s  accepting  in  exchange  for  tuB   Bants,  notes 
and  fsortjiage,  was  e.  first  lien  on  tract  a  but  that  said  rapresentation 
so  aaade  by  the  aald  Byron  L.  uolburn,  while,  in  fact,  a  misrepresenta- 
tion upon  his  part,  isaB  not  binding  upon  ths  FsiXmsrs  Stat®  Bank."  The 
eonciudlng  portion  of  the  decree  is  in  the  usual  form  foreclosing  th® 
defendants  and  &11  persons  claijffiing  by,  through  or  unasr  thea  from 
all  equity  et   redemption  and  olaia  of  titls  to  th®  aoxtgaged  praaisss 
unless  tae  bbm^   are  redssmea  and  airects  the  St^ecial  Master  to  execute 
the  decree  and  report  hjfee  proceedings  to  the  court,  f.t^e  finsJL  para- 
gra,ph  of  the  deore©  states  that  the  ca,u@e  thsn  csjae  on  to  ee  heard 
upon  the  action  of  the  bank  to  refsr  the  cause  to  the  Master  for  the 
Bole  and  only  purpose  of  taking  testiiaony  as  to  reasonable  value  of 
the  services  rendered  by  atioraeye  for  the  bank  since  the  former 
decree  in  connection  with  the  appeal  to  this  court  which  motion  the 
decree  stated,  the  court  denied. 

Counsel  for  appellant,  Williafii  £.  Gibson  insists  that  thf  aecrse 


5?,ds    'k'i;.:*  a&^osi  i::'i  ««:j:Xir;£ioxs>  i:ji:  *aix/c>sa  o*  m^Jt^^  Bsm  it  rioldw  ■sol  ss SOX? 
:?:?oo>i   e/;;r    ,, »g;fr5 ifoxs   ecf^  tiS-fm's'tQ  nT-volc-D  ^IJtm  i.ziii  bl^ii   »si»Ji5.  s^-if 

i::.Ql^.::ir    ^^iii;^i'-:Oi:   ^ioc;t    Sift    ;^^i:*    SQS"'~t^   'i'di    Ot    Is^iii^^O    SIX!SSH   X6    Ciitd    ot 
tor?  -t:  ,^::.t'i.o<-':  /^   Jx/cxis    :J-.?:   so^.i;    Jx:    ,n:^XI   ^ati^   -S  ;l*>w  ;gri:(fcSOOjS  8JS«  iSda 


is  erroneous  toecaue®  it  orciers  tne  bank  to  aesl^-n  its  mortjiaii-e  on 
tlis  Ot'io  lanu  to  Jianna  Bechtel  or  to  someone  najiieci  by  har  or  by 
the  court  for  hex  use  in  the  event  the  bank's  lisn  it-   s-.tisfied  in 
full  out  of  tiie  r>roceeds  of  t£-.e  sale  of  tracts  A  anti  B  and  Hanna 
Beolatel*8  lien  is  not  eo  satlefiea,  whereas  the  assignwient  Bhould  be 
for  tils  benefit  s.b  well  ae  for  the  benefit  of  Hanna  Bechtel, 

Com\ssl  for  Byron  I..   Golbxirn,   cross  apy^ellant,   insista  that  tbe 
recital  in  the  decree  above  set  forth  to   the  efteot  that  he  ;iJlarepre- 
sented  i»  Jkx  to  H&nna  Beehtel  that  the  Hooke  aortga^e  waa  e  first  lien 
on  tract  h  has  no  place  in  tnis  decree  E.nd  sho\ild  be  eliflsinated  there- 
frosiand  on  behalf  of  tiie  Faraiers  State  Ite,nk,   croes-gLppellant,   it  is 
insisted  thst  it  wa,s  error  to  asny  ita  motion  to  rs-eefer  the  cause 
to  the  M&atcr  for  the  purpose  of  taking  evidsnca  as  to  the  reasonable 
v?:.lue  of  its  attorasye  fees  for  services  rendered  upon  the  appe&l  and 
which  were  not   included  in  the  former  deGxee, 

The  concluding  portion  of  ovir  former  opinion  is  as  follows:    "If, 
therefore,   the  b&aak  is  not  estopped  froai  asserting  its  prior  lien  on 
trs«t  A,   Wiat  decree  should  bs  entered  that  i©  equitable  to  all  the 
parties?     As  ssourity  for  tre  principal  sumof  |53O0.04j,   the  bank  holds 
a  first  aoTtgage  on  forty-seven  acres  of  Isnd  in  p&iilding  Oounty, 
Ohio,   and  if  th©  rsleae©  as  to  tract  B  had  not  been  executed,   it  would 
also  lia,ve  h&d  s  first  lien  on  tracts  A  m.d  B.     Appellee  only  had.  a  lien 
on  tract  a.     It  is  only  fair  mid  just  tliat  th@  releas©  of  the  baailt's 
lien  on  tract  8  be  cancelled    Bo  consideration  passed  therefor  and  no 
one  is  ob;jeoting  to  a  decree  ao  providing.     The  benk  is  clearly  en- 
titled to  have  its  lisn  foreclosed  on  both  tracts  k  and  zi.     Appellee 
Is  also  entitled  to  have  her  lien  on  tract  A  foreoloeea.     tne  decree 
should  provide  that  each  tract  be  sold  sspsjfately  aad  oat  of  the  pro- 
ceeds derived  from  the  sale  of  tract  B,   there  should  be  paid  the  bank, 
to  apply  on  tha  SEiount  due  it,   a  B\m  in  the  proportion  which  the 
aaount  it  sells  for  bears  to  tiie  aiaount  derived  froaa  the  sals  of  both 
tracts.     In  other  words,   if  tract  B  sells  for  §18,000.00,   the  aaotmt 
the  Mastsz  found  it  «as  wsrtli  in  March,   1931,   and  tract  A  sells  for 


/:;i  iS'SilLSi^fj^a   ,^1  it-^f.£  ^^isi^(i   ^nU  ti^-'s^s  -^rC;?   r?l  sau  'r'Sx^  lol:  .if'sw.mo  mi'i 

ill  a  .b.au  Yi'iir  s@.iIe!,rq,A     .S  bm  A  ^^-Qsri  tto  iis^ll  iBtXt  i^  ^sii  &^Mi  oaXiS 
-(•re  YX'i-':^*Xo  ai  .:uT?sd  ■d^tT     ,,i;nii;'|ir<rxq  oa  s»^ft*i^  a  oif  ^ittJ-osta'c*  6-fc  affo 

/i^ova'  iQ  -aXsa  s?!^  ^-x.'x'i;  iji^viTi';-'   '^rsMooiSi  9.d#  ci?  axsao  -rot  sIXaa  tl  tmsami 


-5- 
116,000.00,    the  eauount  ths  Master  founti  It  W6e  wortl*  In  M&jroh, 
1931,   then  tract  B  aiioula  contribute  d/Vtu  of  ths  aiaount  of  the 
inaabtedness  eo  found  uus  tJie  bsjik.      The  balance  of   tha  proceeds 
derived  frow  the   sale  of  tract  h  ahould  be  paid  Gibson,   who  now 
liaa  the  It^al  title  thereto.     Gibson  is   entitleci  to  have  his 
#20,000.00  tinist  deed  forecloeed  in  this  procesainii  as  to   tract 
A,    It  beln^i;  a  lien  thereon  8ub|ect  to  the  liens  of  the  bank  and 
appellee.     The  decree  ahould  also  provide  that  in  tJis  event  the 
bank's  lien  1b  satisfied  in  full  out  of  tiie  proceeds  of  the   sale 
ana  appellee's  lien  is  not  satisfied  in  full,   that  then  the  bank 
shalldeliver  to  appellee  the  trust  deed  or  mortgage  on  the  Paulding 
County,   Ohio,   land,   together  irith  proper  assignment  thereof.     This, 
we  understand,   the  bank  offers  to  do.     Tha  decree  of  the  Circuit 
Court  of  '^^oodford  county  is  reversed  and  this  cause  is  remanded 
with  directions  to  tiiat  court  to   enter  a  decree  in  eonforaity  with 
this  opinion.* 

the  law  is  well  eetiled  th&t  when  a  decree  is  reversed  by  an 
Appellate  Oourt  end  the  cause  reiaanded  to  the  loirex  court  with 
directions  to  enter  &  decree  in  conformity  with  the  opinion  of   the 
Appellate  Oourt  that  the  trial  coiirt  can  not  err  if  it  follos^s  the 
dlreotioag  contained  in  the  opinion  and  aaJidate  of  th@  Appellate 
Court  and  enters  the  decre®  whioa  tue  Appellate  Ooiiart  says  should 
have  be  en  entered  in  the  first  inatajiee  and  upon  an  appeal   froai  sucli 
a  decree,   the  only  question  presented  is  whether  tlie  decree  entered 
is  in  aiceoraanoe  ^ith  the  laaadate  and  directions  of  the  court  of 
review.     Belding  v.   Belding  881  111.   App.   351. 

The  paragraphof  our  fonaer  opinion  ^lixMm  set  forth  speciflGjilly 
directed  the  lower  cotirt  how  to  proceed  and  irtiat  it_.g  decree  should 
contain.     The  decree  entered  followe  the  taandete  and  the  former 
opinion  of  this  court  and  conforms  in  all  essential  respects  to  the 
directions  therein  oontainsd-     fae  reoora  in  the  first  instance  came 
to  this  court  ur>on  an  ?Lppeal  by  Byron  L.   Colbum,    individually  and 
as  trustee,  and  the  Farmers  State  Bank.     Jeff  ana  Iwcy  Rocke  defailte 
in  the  lower  court  and  in  this  ooxirt.     aibson  prosecuted  no  appeal 


,%j;c.s.;   sj-j  ivi;il.i    iy.cr.;'   ,ir,ui     :i:   ij©.i;'i.^i;^:-?e   J-cxi  ai:  ix^r^il  a*a«'II^cq4  bii& 

si/i-   ii^  as^j-i-^v^r   ■^u  ^ :^-^ii'?u   •■   it-ai^^  ^.ad;5"  mJ,:So-ri   flaw  el  w^  SilT 

rii-Xw  j-xrjca  x^j^/oi  .-j^/iJ-  Gd'  b^LaiBii^er  snasv  «<!;?  i^aoi  ;J-iiTOD  stsiX&qqA 

Mj  KsrolXci  t^:  11;  'r^s;^  .fcix  -XvO  f'sxio-^  iBlti  aiU  ^.^Mt  TUtOi)  w^sXIi'qefA 

;iXi;.M;'«   yv.;:*:;   ^Ki.f<"0   g-S'sXXa.qq.ji  t;;^  (ioiiJ.^   I'^p-'syij:!)  exij   sisiJ-iTS  .baa  I'moO 

..raS    ,:.;q/,.    .Ill  ISS  :;j,fli^Iaa   .¥  :^r?i^5X«^^I      .■ws>i-y9a 

3.:ii'.-i;ul    ui$  ,0.11..:  .:'4-3o/t3a'-  I'^ni'   (iJ^oilol  iss'timw  ^&'/..3*i)  f5,.(^t      .Ms#ft©o 
sdJ-   C.V  a3.><3..A.!;:s'4;   I.«i^/j3aB.'»  .J.X.is  ni   aruitotei.-o  i.!«9  4-t,jj-co  8X*1#  lo^croiaicfo 

M)   \.II;:'tj]::ivX;>,ii    ,.frSiJ'JXoO   ..I  ixox'^u  X^  X«9qq.<*  iiis  no<j«/  5hr;/oci  ajt'tf*  of 

ftZl'lR-viXeXi  ajtooji  -'^o;;!.!  ,on.«  i:i4it,      .Irica  ®3-£^3'e  s^&iKiiS'f  srft  5)«,;s  ,«aw^aiit*  Sj9 

X.;^3qci^  on  ;j» ;i-.o»c> a, v;tq  i?C'??dii'      .{f'jy/oo  (siri*  til  ma  ^xifciO  i*iWoX  8/l#  ill 


and  filed  no  brief  in  ti.via  Oom-t.  H^nna  Beohtel  was  the  only 
appell«a  who  appeaxed  or  filsti.  a  brief  in  this  coxirt  and  no  one  other 

than  g3i3  Ie  referretl  to  throughout  the  opinion  as  appellee.  It   is 
clsar,  therefors,  tiiat  in  the  sentence:  "Tae  decree  should  also 
provide  that  in  the  event  tae  b£?,nk»6  lien  is  satisfied  in  full  out 
of  the  proo6'?d8  of  the  sale  and  appelie-a's  lisn  ie  not  eatislled  in 
full,  that  then  the  bank  shall  deliver  to  appellee  th«i  trust  deed 
or  mortgage  on  the  P&uldin^  CJounty,  Ohio,  Isjid,  togsther  with  proper 
assignment  thereof,"  where  W8  used  the  word  "appellee"  we  meant 
Haxma  Beohtel  a,na   the  Ohanoellor  correctly  conetruea  our  language 
and  so  decreed.  Furthermore,  in  our  foreier  opinion  ws  found  that 
in  making  the  exchange  of  the  Bejata  esciirlties  for  the  Hock©  notes 
and  triiBt  ds#d,  Ooltourn,  acting  on  fcehall"  of  Gibson,  deceived  Haana 
Beohtel  in  repreeentfcag  to  ker  that  the  Rooke  trust  dead  was  a.  first 
lien  on  tract  A,  Gibson  therefore  is  not  entitled  in€quity  to  hsve 
the  assets  which  the  basis:  held  to  secure  its  lien  marshalled  in  his 
favor  to  tiie  uetriiTient  of  Kanna  Beohtel. 

In  trie  douxss  of  our  iox&nx   oplaion  we  also  saidj  "The  weight 
of  the  evidence  is  the-t  Oolburn  st&ted  to  appellee  tjmt  the  Eocke 
jaortgag-e  which  sh'g  "i^as  accepting  in  exch&nga  for  the  ~^m\tB.   notes  and 
jaort^^age  we-s  a  first  lien  on  tract  A.*  The  decree  appesJed  fro,® 
seeks  to  prss'srve  this  finding.  It  reoltes;  »That  from  the  -areight 
of  th«  evicence  in  tnis  case  it  appears  that  Byron  L.  Colburn  repre- 
sented and  stated  to  Hanna  Beohtel  that  the  Hocke  mortgage,  whicli 
she  was  accepting  in  sxch&nga  for  the  Baata  notes  and  mortgage  wa-S 
a  first  lien  on  tr-xct  a,  but  t^iat  said  representation  so  made  by  said 
Byron  L.  Colburn,  while,  in  fact,  a  aiarepresentation  upon  his  part, 
was  not  binding  upon  the  Far^aers  Stat©  S&xik.*  This  language  in  our 
fori^ex  opinion  ■gras  used  in  connection  with  a  coaaideration  of  the 
issue  bstwe-t-n  Hanna.  Beohtel  and  the  bank  upon  tha  question  whether 
she  ox  the  bank  hada  prior  lien  on  tract  A.  the  present  decree 
correctly  dlesilssee  the  bill  for  want  of  eq\iity  against  Oolbxirn 
indivlduelly  and  the  decree  entered  by  the  trial  coxirt  witn  this 
recital  ellxfjinated  effectively  adjudlcatea  thg  Issues  raised  by  the 


~0- 

?.^R*f^-iR.i.  ^,wo  ii.i;^jii'i;¥-a.;i:c.a   iX^'i'Si'A'Xt)^  ^oIIaoiT^iiD  ijyit  ^*>rji£ .  iti;!:^^^^  .iSfmiiii 

ts'sX'i  ,%  -a,;j«  ;/':eii   :?b.ju.^   S5,viQtyi  -.UiJ   w:>:*:.«   ^*g  s3;r  '^.i^Mil^mzq^^  ird,  X&i:&^^_ 

;?fv-^i&v  oiit"    ;jj>i,'is  CiX-S  &??   uci^i'^fO  XiS^^a^l  Xwo   Ic^  syxii^o^ ,  ^r-v   £$X,  .,... 
e,:^C(;,:vi  6*jw   .i.^i.;vj-  ii^-KLIi'j.c^^   oJ"  i>s?if.(virj»  ,iTzi;di;v.iL:  .*.-^.^>^  ai.  arpi'si&ijive  «!;ii</-,. 'tis 

■a-3"«o?'JD  ?.-:o«d-X',    i.ri      ,.4  io.ax^  xto  iis-JU  '^oi-jw  ^I>M  Mui^  ^ai  xo  fiiia 


•7- 

pleadings  in  tais  oauee. 

Tiae  reooru  discloses  tHat  $349.22  was  inciuded  in  tne  aidount 
I'ounu  due  tne  bajik  for  its  attorney  fe-s  ia  tiie  decree  -sraicn  we  are 
reviewlnt;^.      Go  ..r.sei  for   tiie  baiiK   state  that  upon  this  Ciiuse   being 
redooketel  in  the  lower  court,    a  ^lotion  was  aiede  to  re-refer  the 
cause  to  the  Master  for  the  purpose  of  taking  evidence  as  to  the 
reasonable  value  of   its  attorney  fees  for  services  x-endered  in  this 
court  upon  the  for-ier  appeal.     If   a  written  amotion  of  this  character 
was  iaadts,   it  nowhere  appears  in  tiie  record,      fhe  only  reference  iaade 
to  such  a  iiiotion  ie  in  tka  final  p&ragx&pii  of  tus  aeoree.      The  language 
there  used  indicates  that  it  was  after  th«5  final  aecrs';;  h&a  'been   pro- 
nounced by  the  court  tiiat  tha  laotion  of  tne  bank:  to  rs-refer  the  cause 
to  the  Idaster  osuae  on  to  be  heara  and  such  motion  isust  nsve  been  sn 
oral  one.      Furthermore,   tiiere  is  nothing  in  this  record  waich  dis- 
closes the  provisions  of  the  bank»«!  trust  deed  with  reference  to  the 
assesBiaent  anu  allowance  of  fees  to  its  attorneys  and  in  view  of  the 
mandate  of  this  oourt  reversing  the  forMer  a@cre«  ana  rsiiianding:  the 
cause  witii  s]>ecific  directions,  "^b  s.re  not  inclined  to  reverse  this 
aecree  in  oraer  that  the  bank  say  be  given  an  opportunity  to  offer 
furtiicr  evidence  on  the  question  of  attorney  fees. 

The  decree  appealed  from  will  be  saodified  by  Btrisin^  therefrom 
the  following  recital,   vix:    "That  froa  the  weight  of  tiie  evidence 
in  tiiis  case  it   sppaars   i-.yron  L,   Oolbiirs  represented  and  statsd  to 
Kanna  Becatel  (apiJ^llee)    that  the  Itocke  jflortgags,    wnich  she  was 
accepting  in  exchange  for  the  Banta  notes  snd  jaortgage,   was  &  first 
lien  on  tract   'A*   but  taat  said  representation  so  made  by  the  said 
Byron  L.   Oolbum,   \s^iie,   in  f6.ct,   a  aisiepresentation  upon  his  part, 
was  not  binding  upon  tne  Fsraerg  State  Sank,*  and  as  so  iao<iified 
the  aecree  will  toe  affirmedi     Appellant  and  tne  cross-appellant 
baxik  will  pay  tae  coets  in  this  court* 

DECREE  KGDIFIED  AND  AS  KODIFIS^D  AFFIRliSD. 


.isetrst?  slews'  ai  r^mh-i&^l.. 

^jSii^c   e;5j:j..;?£i  etr.^   vtuuij  ys,.^  ^j^JsJa    siij.vJ  f£$   lot  i?a«,.:cO      .^usi'STglVi^Ti 
;^!irt^  Lix   v;:5'X;^-..v;'jft:r  '^esjt^l:vfi   ■so'-:  ae«t  ^s«*cj^/;  aix    iC   ^uX;?^  s^Id^uoa.^©'! 

im  n^'^fi!  f&y.^^!  j-^sijii:  Ho/i-cra  t^jfm  hn.?.  ^r^^^^^  f^:i  cf  ^o  <si.i.fio  %BS^Mi  ^tit  o;J- 
yr?v   c-3-  --o.ie^'j^Se'i  i^ir^vv  ]>«•*.«  .uy::i^;i-  i»>*^(/fsvl  Md-  1x  eiic^stTo^q  anj^  a»»olo 


STATE    OF   ILLINOIS. 

Vss. 
SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSOIST.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  tlio  keeixT  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereb}^ 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  ofBce. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Otta-\\-a.  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Clfrl'  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73S15— 5M — 3-32)    -r;^^? 


^p^ 


AT  A   TERM.   OF   THE   ATIELLATE    COURT, 
Begun  and   held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   of   Octcter,    in 
the   year    of   our   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    —   the    Hon.    BLaINE  HUFFMAN,    Presiding   Justice^ 
Hon.    FRMKLIN  R.    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRED   G.    V.'OLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSOK,    Clerks 

O  0  J-  oPki 


•w 


PS   IT  REMEMBER  EI',    that   af  terr/ards ,    to-wit:    On 
JAN  1  8  1937  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's    cffice    of  said    Court,    in   the   -/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-mt: 


Gen.    No.    9139 


ktcenaa  No.    <id 


IN  THE 
AI'PalLLATE   UOURT   0?   ILLINOIS 
SEOOMD  Dlf^TRIGT 

October   Terui,    /•-    D.    1836 


Dr.  F.  J.  Otis, 

Appellant 

Mrs.  Roberta  3riar  and 
T.  S.  Ort.it^, 

jip^jellees. 


Appeal  fro/ii  the  Circuit  C'.>art 
of  Rock  Island  County. 


DOVE,  J, 

Ti.ia  action  was  instituted  by  F.  J.  Otis  against  Roberta  Briar 
before  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  resulting  in  a  judgraent  otx   Jarurry 
Id-,  1935  against  the  defendant  for  *?110.00  an'i  costs  of  suit.   On 
January  13,  1955  the  defendant  Roberta  Blair  as  principal  ana  T.B. 
Craig,  as  surety,  executed  an  appeal  bond  in  the  penal  sum  of  ;i^250.00, 
which  i.^as  duly  filed  and  approved  by  the  JuEtice  of  the  Peace  and 
tnis  bond  and  a  transcript  of  proceedings  in  the  Justice  C"urt  \Tas 
filed  in  tne  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Ooijirt  of  Rocic  I  eland 
County  on  January  23,  1956.   On  February  1,  19?5  the  s.ppe3.Tance  cf  the 
plaintiff  and  a  waiver  of  a  jury  trial  luae  filed  iv.    the  Circuit  Q-^vxt 
by  plaintiff's  attorney,  sjid  theresfter  the  cause  was  duly  set  dovm 
for  trial  as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Iiock  Island 
county  and  on  F5br\iary  6,  1935  the  cause  vhs   called  for  triel.   The 
defendant  aid  not  appear  a^nd  was  defaulted  and  jua^^uont  i^as  rendered 
in  favor  of  the  plaintiff  and  against  the  defenda.nt  for  '^850. 00  and 
a  scire  fexias  oraerea  to  issue  a;-.alnst  the  siu'ety  on  the  appea.1  bond. 
On  the  next  d£;,y  a  scire  faxias  wp.s  issued  and  on  February  9,  1935  was 
duly  served  on  saici  surety. 

On  February  11,  1935  the  defendant  filed  her  motion  to  set  aside 
the  default  judgment  and  scire  facias  and  declare  the  same  null  and 


?^>;.     .O^'i    £-riilhMh. 


GSXe    .oH    .nei) 


:i!liT  ''il 
TCIHT?  IG  CD! COS 8 


a-U,.£J..l&.;C;.K 


'XEiiC  .?:j"'::t<'..V:>{   :)" &::!:.•:  ;r;,-    hi^C 


.b  ,evog: 

,00.C'].;::".   io  jHifa  Ij^ric^.;  eaJ-   a;:   b£'0(S.   Ib^'jcs  as  b^iuoexe    ^x'^b'zsjb   as    ^-^Is-xO 

^srt  i'xjr^'O  v'>ii^.i.-'\,  e'^f   r.i    B:^«2;>e^ooxq  lo   cfqi-voa/X;:^! j  s  isxis  Mod  airid- 
baoXel  ;[ooH  ':to  o-a/oO  J-tu-o*r.xO   sr'^   '±0   'i-teXO   su^    xo  soil- 10  exit  nj.  bQlI'i 

iXiTo:;:;   -j-^s  Y-t-^'-5   ^'--"^^  -SE-^'so  aaj  •xe Jlseisrio"  hits,    ^^I'b ntoz i i^  a'xiliciiBlxi  x^ 
itfcyXal  iiOCx:   t.o  i"i;;oO   crix/oii:')  scicl-  lo  ■3&l0'x  s/I:!'  Y<^f  IJsX/iv"0'xq   s.b  Xsi'iu    iCx 

:. sw   ?.c.G'r    ,P  vxf.i.r'..:>'-c/'I  nc  l>rr,?!  Iie.'jss.t  3-=^w  gi.''iXo3l  alios  .s   ^.sL   txsa  bi'^  aO 

.-id-s'-Cir©   oi.s3  ac  x)&v'xaa  ■\:I.aX) 
9.oXa.-   o03   o:f  azLi-M^.  -xsd  b'^-Zil   ;tfT.'?.t')nQi9i)  sric^  Q<'\QL    ,XI  ^^■^■^^'^9'"^  •*^0 


-2- 
voici,    alle,i^iii£,   the  TwxtJ:uir3.Yi-ai  of   her   attorney  without   notice    to 
her.      Alter   a  hee-rin;^  en   ,i&Druo,ri    19,    1935  upon  this   motion  an  order 
entered  that" said.  jud^uic:nt   is   opened  ana   si^ecution  and  scire   facias 
stayed  at  ceiendc/nt's  costs."      b,o"c.oing  further  appears  to  have   been 
done  until  May   6,    193iD,    at   wnicn   time  tne  plaintiff   filed  her    motion 
for   a  rule  on  the  defendant    Lo   file   a  g,ood  3Xid  sufficient  appeal 
bona.      On  Li&j   8,    19SC  an  order  was   entered  recitinj^-  that   tire  plaintiff, 
the   defendant  and   the   surety  were  represented  by   coansr.l   and  that   this 
cause  caiive  on  to  be  hea.ra  upon  plaintiff's  sctiou  to  be.ve  the  court 
require  the   dsienaant   to   file  &.  good  ana  sufficient  appeal  bond  and 
•'the  court  hasjing  heard  the  argUiiient   of  counsel   ana  hnin^   now  fully 
„_     .advised  in  the  pre..iiseb,   allo^is  said  Kiotion  ana  the   ori^^inal  a_-jpeal 
■t       bond  is  oanoelled,    and  the   saiu  aefendant   is  '^ranted  ten  days   in  which 
tc  file  a  new  and  sufiicient  bond."      On  June   d,    i9|6^  che  plaintiff 
filed  his  uotion  rscitinu,  the  various   steps    ohat   had  'oeen.  taken  in 
the  case,   particularly    the   entry   of    the  orasr  of  kay  b,    1G36  and  \ 

allei^:eo-  that  more  than  ten  days  had  elapsec  since   "Ghat  oroier   was  i 

entered  and  that   riOj^appe6,l  bend  had  'ceen  filed  and  prayeu  that   the 
order  of  February   19,    IGoL   be  vacated,    -chat   the  original  jua^nent  of 
February  6,    1935  rendered  by  tne   dia'cuit   '.Jouxt   for   ;ji;!j50.00   sttJid  in 
full  force  -^na  efrect   rjjx^  that    ihe  oroLer  of  haj    8,    1956  in  bo  far  as 
it  purports  to   cancel  the  appeal  bona  be  ve.catea  end  tui-.    surety   be 
required  to   j^-leau  to  tJie  Tsrit  of   scire  facias.      On  June  8,    19S6  an 
order  was   entered  reciting  th.at  the   severa-l  parties   TiTere  repree anted 
by  coLaisel  ana.  that  this  u^otion  cEJiie  on  for  hearing   and  was   deniea.      i   j 

-  ^    u 

T--e   sajae  order  .dxs^iissed  tne  appeal  ana  avraraea  a  procecienuo.      u-t  j 

July  22,    1956  a  notice  cf    appeal  by  the  plaixjtiif  ras  filed  an^  the    j  / 
record  is  before  this   court   for  review. 

Mo  c^ppearsnoe  and  no  briefs  have  been  filed  by  R..-'berta  Briar. 
T.    S.    Gi-aig,    'che   surety  on  the   appeal  bono.   ano.  aefsnasait   in  tne   writ 
of    acixe  facias,    has  fileu  a  brief   in  this   cour-^   in  which  he  contends 
that   tne  oruer  of  i.iay  8,    12S6  ^as  not   objected  to   by   the  plaintixf   in 
the   trial  court   at  the   time   it  i/^as   enterea,    that   it  was   in  fact   entered 


-S- 

•xehxo  at  rioxjoi'.,  aixAo    aocu  QZ^jI.    .fcl    ,^v; ioj j:o e ij   ixo  ^rii-i_:sd  _:•   isd-xA      .lerf 
3.8ic;.--i   sxio3  jj££.i  Xioid-.uoes.;^   :::;ib   -./Srjoqc   si   ?ne;.;^_i;i;^  i;'i::;:3"J"iiiiJ  L^^si-ixs 

LsdqcE  ;f:i.?.cc:ixij;/s  .:;iis  .:;cc^,   s  sill   oJ    ^tixsj^iA^'is-:;  e.ui^  .ac   sIjj-:::  js  toI. 

^-.xui  i^-^l7  biis  I:r3rr.!.oo  /cf  iJst.iYes^iS'xqe:!:  s::sw  •/ct'e'iira  Siicf  i3r>:£  it-ti.ab^£)ls:j  sai" 
J"xtco  '^jit  '>iv.r-  oj  aciirr-:;;  s^'x'y.i'sixtnlq  acqu  siX^2.A  so  c?  ::c  s^iH-AO  ysixso 
I>ii;:i  ^ifc-:;  Lsie-vs]^  J^aeio c'll^a  ons-  boc.^,  a  elil  cj  ;^iv.:S.Oi.ie?.e';  tiicf  s^rxjirpe^ 
\iLifx.  z'0>.:  ^alir^S  oiia  isamioo  'xo  JTf^u.ji.^xs  e'i;f  i:>"X.6^.ri  y.;::ia:3ii  s-ix/oo  sxli"" 
.L,;:6:^v.js   Iji;:-;,-i:-io   sx..^  .ou.-  rroxJO;:;   6i:.h.&   suclls    <sa5i;nie';!.4   -?it;^   ni:  ^;eaxvi33.. 

ii j. ,  r/c^ioiJ"   r).6:j^':i"  ;j;.i'    w;;i.c'   sqsi'a   ai/ox':.;iiV  a^io"  ^jiix.:  iio^:;:  .cioxcxii;  sxi^i  i)5lit,. 
.  a.av'   'lu^' -f.  j^itcr    so^le  ^>Bec|£>U:   iJ.G^.  c.v.?;X;  -ist  JijSiij-  aicc.  :S-.o.xIJ-  Joar^ella 

.11   yrisoa    OO.OcJ'-iii    'xoi   ;'"Xxrou    crIiJO.iiO    r;.j    ^d  liyxyLxi-uX   iio^il    ,G  Y-----'J'^'^-'i 

fXB  x.:.  i  o.-i   .■■"iX  ci'"'.i'x    j.'j   v;.>?t;;  !■.■  'Xisj'xo  tt^j    5'i;/ij   „r;.-j   o"0!:-. .'io  jViS.',  soxol  i.lis'i 

i)J    >j;>o'Xij:j   c;ii:0'  .0XC3   :j&i\^.osv  ad  xn.'J  Ijioq^.--   oii.*    Id-oxLiO   ^-J    acfiu^^cjjq  d'x, 

r^«irj::ivx.;3'r  3xa^   snijxsq  i^xe^j^a  xrXiJ    J.i^Lcr  ^^xjxosx  x>c;i6x.£-?   b^w  "Xsjjiq 

..;.=  x£i:6;>  Cov7  ,3x1:':   'yxxx^sej*   xoi  iio  jiiX;i:o  il'^-XuCj:  il.:\$  7.'aci"    'jxts  Ie&it..ico  '"iu 

:  >.fj      .0jj:i9ij30cxq  .J  .:;ex)X3'.;-i   s-jn^h  Isi^c^qs   eJ;]-  j.'333i:;:3X^   "xexiTC  siit^a   8iJT 

•     2ii3"  .^x?:x  liislx'x   is5'3'  lxic\!:i.3lq  o.ij    ^(;c[  i.seqq£}    'io  solJOu  x;  coGI   ,21^  '{-^'-^^ 

..73^vex  lol   J'xxoo   alxlJ-  excxaii  3X  i>iooax 

.x.3xxit  ,:j"X£0^-x   ■::!'  ^8ii;x  xyeJ  3'/vS:i  altexxci  o/r  .i)Xi=  oox!,o'c:;9f:C;j5  oM  , 

o^iX's-    5ux  ;cj:   3';iX5-ji:i"J;s.o  ^rLc    j^ncd  I.sacvqx   Siix  ^iO  ■^js.ii/x    ariJ"    ,;iiXx;*i.O    -G    .T 

sjoa~ci:coo  9il  nox.".?;  ;ix   cxxrco   axxxj"  ^:i   xuixu   Ja.  jjoIx*  Sjiu    ,s.sxu.sl  ©xxoa   lo 

nx   'ixxuX'.x.sIq  eriS"  \'o    yj'  .Dc^i'oe i,uo  ooa  a."xv»   Oo^:^!    ,G  "i-sJ.;  lo  i-zdiq  oni  ^Sidi 

3'xsd'ae   ;J'D..-.'3:  nx  qsv  O'x   J-3jicr    jX'S'xad'nB   a£w  .tx   sifi-td"  silt  d'x:   d"a'Xi"co  Lsli^t  edii 


-3- 

pvixsuant  to  appella.nt 's  motion  ana  is  therefore  not  subject  to  be 
reviewed  bj^  t-iiis  coui't.   Tiiis  is  clearly  a  iJixsap.-jreiieneion  on  the 
part  of  counBel.   siihat  the  record  aiscloses  is  that  on  k".ay  6,  193S 
appell£:.nt  enterea,  in  the  trial  court,  ?.   ::aotion  for  a  rule  on  the 
defendant,  Robertci  Briar,  to  file  a  good  and  sufficient  appeal  bond. 
This  motion  r/as  allowed  on  liay  8,  1936  and  the  defendant  vras  granted 
ten  uays  frora  that  date  to  filea  ^ood  and  sufficient  bond.   It  is 
true  the  order  says  tiiat  the  origins,!  appeal  bond  was  cancelled  but 
there  v>as  nothing  in  appellant's  motion  which  asked  for  that  portion 
of  tiie  order  a,nd  no  reason  appears  in  the  record  why  it  was  included 
in  tne  order.   To  hola  that  if  a  plaintiff  files  a  motion  in  an 
appellate  court,  after  the  defendant  reinoves  a  c  ase  to  such  appellate 
court  froiii  a  justice  court  by  filing  a  bond  e„s  providea  by  statute, 
for  a  rule  on  such  defendent  to  give  a  good  ana  sufficient  appeal 
bond,  s.nd  the  ap];ellate  court  grants  such  motion  &Jia  enters  such  a 
rule,  that  then  the  sppellati;  court  Diay  s.lso  in  the  same  order  cancel 
the  original  bone,  without  any  request  or  motion  therefor  and  by  so 
doing,  aeprive  sucii  pla.intiff  of"  the  benefits,  whatever  they  ma,y  amount 
to,  Wxiicn  enure  to  iiixu  as  obligee  in  such  bond  has  no  support  in  reason 
or  authority. 

Gounssi  for  appellee  insists  that  if  appellant's  motion  of  May 
6,  19S6  aid  not  expressly  request  a  cancellation  of  the  original  apoeal 
bond,  it  did  so  by  iniplication  and  argue  that  by  this  iiiotion  to  require 
the  dsfenaant  to  file  a  good  and  sufficient  appeal  bond,  appellant  in 
effect  elected  to  reject  the  defendant  in  scire  facias  as  surety  on 
that  bona.   Oouns'^-l  also  argue  'that  i^hen  the  'uen  days  elapsed  as  pro- 
vided in  the  order  of  May  8,  1936,  and  no  new  bona  wa.s  filed  in  coui- 
pliance  xherewith,  that  then  the  Circxiit  Court  wa.s  vathout  jurisdiction 
to  laake  ajiy  farther  orders  and  had  it  allowed  appellant's  motion  of 
June  3,  195S  and  vacated  the  portion  of  the  order  of  May  8,  1936  which 
cancelled  the  appeal  bond,  that  such  aji  order  would  have  been  a  nullity 
and  concludes  their  argument  by  stating:  "Actually,  no  hardship  will 
be  imposed  upon  appellant  by  an  affirmance  of  the  lower  court's  rulings. 


sd   ou    o09i;d!:;8   .toj:;.  siols'xec'J  si  hem  iicicfciii  s'^J-xiBlIeqci-s   oi  trnjisaixsq 

eiii'  no  rrclan.-erfS'snQKaxri  s  v,.fi.?sIo  si   airlT      .o-n/oo  s.t.aJ'  %(i  beweivei 

o5?I    .o  ^^,sM  iio   d-^fiJ-   ai  3ssoIo=?Xjj  otoosi  edj    dBffW      ^Issfi/ioo  'io   d"xsq 

9d;^    '::o  f-lsjx  s   's.cx   rrciitoK.   s    ^i'Z-uoo  i.3i^J   9Xl7   ai:    ,1)9^^0/^6    -^a^lL^cqB 

.h'='d,rc3i;.]   Ctf-   irxs. ;j:ieA?£/  f^ji^i"  dhs  3SSI    ,8  v.^i.^  no  i>9^?oilA   s.sv/  KolJ"om  alxlT 

32  ;tl      .haod  iasiotl.Ju?.  b.Ks  ^oo?:;  .mli'l   oS  ^jst  tsd^  i^-o'y.'l  s^ijsi)  as:}: 

jjyc  .591  leo £1.30  a.i^'i?  JbjLfod'  iB^ccy?  I^ni'g-^'^^  Sif.f  fend"  a^aa  'is::)'xo  sxiif  eiJ'ijS' 

;iCoi:s"j;oq    cl■3-a:^   xox  J:;sig3  rioirnw  iioxd'OE:  a 'd"jK£lX8qas  nx  ^-^iiid'ca  as^  aocailj 

bSi)i!S.-:iii.L   S81?   ai  vxiw  .bvcoosi  exiir  ni  s"3©crqs  nceise-x  o.fi  beta  'xet'io  eild-'io 

/i.3  n.i  floijoffi  B   salii  'ixi^rri «!';■•■  .e  11   j.r-xiJ-  i^Icxi  oT      ,i3i>-xc  Sii&  ixl 

,^JM;■,J..5;^8  va   be.oi:vcxa  b-j  tiaoxA  .e  ;§rixXxl   !r;cf  d-3:j;;oo  ©oxd-ajjj;  3  ico'xl   d-ix/oo 

Isieoqii  ;i-xrc'Xo.t't2ija  jD/ib  .ccc^   g  evx^  cd"   JaS-daexsi)  iioxfs  xic  sXi/'i  .5  tcol 

3  ifo.u'a   a-xe^vra-  lxl-:  .aoici-CM  u-o/xa   sJ^jris-xg   .,ri/jco  aJ'.-II^^qq.f.  3i;f  x>A3    ^.baocf 

le.oaac   ifti>to  sidbs   6llj   .ai   obIs  ■ists  cJ-:rj:vOo  ^J-Bllsqae  s.aJ"  ii^rl^-  ffadj    ^c^Ix;! 

oa  \'ci  ii/t^  tojiattsrlw   Xi-cirioci  to  iJ'saxipe^  ■•(ixjj  j-i.cuifxw  Liiocf  I^^nigiixo  adit' 

:rni;oiii:i   '{Bus   v^a-j  t£Sve-t,sxhv    ^niJ-xxsned  9il;f-  -fo  'r'l-iJ'fil.filq  iioj-x^  ©vrxq^^'  -^xiioi) 

xtoa-ssi  AX  J 'X Oh cfixa  o.a  fe^sxi  .bnod  douB  n.t  eegiidc  tLx;  niixi  oJ'  e'xxfns  xioxxa?   ,o;f 

.XiTli.o.di-uB  to 

I.i9'.Kr/i   X.sftX'-i'xo  9i,\cf  io  aoijalleio/ixio   5   cri;3Xfp£'-x  \Ia8-3xqze    don.  t-io  8S5I    ^3 

':"xxxfpsi   oJ   ■^GiJojii  axilt  vcf  T.s.-id-  Sij>^'xs  biii;  iioi^soilajr-l  x<^  cs  xjIL   ffx    (.iiriccf 

ni   :^r:.e.LXecqB    Jmycu   X£;af,xr-ic   ;J'fX9iox';;'ti.''8  ija^^  boog  3  eltJ.  oJ"  a"x:.3i)xi'3ls.C  exfd' 

no  v'^&iijs   a.s  a.3io.8'i  s'xioa  .ax   .tja-Bivxeleij  Siid'  tos^si  ocf  Ss^oeXs   cfosxle 

-cv'xc   8fi  .b-a£q.sl©  &XBb  aeo'  ecf  ngrlw   i'.s.'-i-j   sxr^qi-B  oaljs  Xas.nx:x.O      .i)xioa'  d"^ri'# 

-<;;oo  ixx  .bsLi-'i  b.oVy  jjxxoi'i  wsrt  oxf  ha.-$    ,o(3G"X    ,8   ^.sM  ^o  i-bLxo  aJd-  ax  XisbiT 

rxoid-cxJDaix'.M^   iuoii'^xv  a^w  s-i.r/oO  ^x.*-'t>'xiO  sru''  n&iii  t.Bdi    ,xidxwa'xs.fi.r  son^iiq 

lo  xioxcrcui  3  '  Jxxi;XXeqq.6  xj&wcXIs   Ji  Ij^sxt  .ixxx?  ate.f/'xo  "ssxTd-^i.j'i  y«-^'  siLsffi  od" 

floixlw  dilQi    ,8  Y.8M  'io   i3.bio  3if;)-  lo  xioiifti-oq  ajld'  JoeJeo.sv  hue  doQL    ,^J   sxii/L 

Y^iXXxxxx  3  as-ad  svaxf   bXjL-ovf  t-vj'TO  xis  xiojxa   IsxIJ-    ,i)nccG'  I.fi&qq^   edi  i)9XX90Xi£0 

IXxw  qiriabi^^xf  en:   ,Yi -feJ^'ii'OA"    igaiista  YCf  ^xvsxfli/g'rs  liei-ic?  sobxrXonoo  iJiis 

.S'JirtiXxri  E'd-ti/oo   lev^^oX  eiU  lo  9  0ii.'.»ii'xi'i'iX)  xijs  y^T  i"ii:i3XX9qq£  rroqx;  I)3aoqiiii  ed 


-4- 

He  received  a  jud^iraent   i:-.   the   justice  of  tLe   peace   court.      T'het  he 
Wc.s   appr.renbl:/    satiBfied  witli  tae   .^aiue   ie    3viaenced  by  the  fact   that 
he  aid  not   appeal   fherefroiii,   tut   rotner   tcot:  iauiediate   Bt*p6  tc   levy 
execution  thereon.      Th-.   fir.al    iction   of  toe  Circuit    Gourt   leaves  that 
,iua.v,inent   in  full   force   3i\d   effect.      Of  wiir.t,    then,   has   the  appellant 
to  coi:i])lc.in?" 

We  fail   tc   find  any  merit  in  appellee's  contentions  or  ar;3'ameiit. 
Appellant  never   exjrresBly  requested  the   court  to    enter  an  order  can- 
celling the   appeal  bond,    nor  did  hs   do   anything  wnica  can  be   construed 
as   iviipliec'ly  requesting   '.r..y   sucn  action,    tior  has  any  authority   been 
cj.ted   vrhich  hold?   that  Fhen   nc  ns"?;   tjond   v?as  filed  within  ten  days  after 
May  0,    1936,    that   the   coxirt,    viiich  ea-cered  the  orcer,    vas  -/ithout  I 

iuriedicticn  to  inal-ce  sny  further  orders  in  this  cause.      In  thh   ircstant      i 
case,    by  reaecn  of  the  api:eal  bond  \?nich  was   filed  and  apprc'\.''ed  by  the 
justice   of  the  peace  or-  January   ?uS,    laSS,    iLi.pelie.nt  hare  was  precluded 
frois  proceediaj^^  to   collect   the   jadj;:acnt   whiol'..  i'.e  had  obtc-.ined  heio.t-e 
tne   ^usstice  of  t'-.e  p6?ce  on  Js.nuary   14,    1935.      The  ooiigation  of    £.ppelle€ 
upon  the  appe?..l  bond  miich  he   exr-cuteu.  is  a  valid  ana  effectual  obliga- 
tion in  favor  of  appellant   5.nd  executed  for  his  benefit   rXid  no   reason 
appears  T<fhy  appelld:rit   should  be  deprived  of    the  benef i i-  of  ita  ^.ro- 
visionp. 

The   I'o.d^^inent   of  the  Circuit   Court    ^f  Roc^c  Island  County  is 

reversed  and  thi?   cause  is   rsrr.anied  to   'jh-;t  coui't   ?rit'i  directicas   to 

I 

set   aside   zjnd  vacate  the  order  of  June   3,    1336  wnich  disaisaed  the 
appeal  and  a^irarded  a  writ   of  procedendo    and  to  Bet   aside  and  vacate 
that  part  of  the  order  of  ;hiy  3,    1936  which  xDurported  to   cancel  the 
appeal  bond   and  to   enter  an   order   raling  the   defendant  Hoberta  Briar 
to   file  a  good  and  s-off ioient   appeal,    bond  "Within  ten  aaya   froi:  the 
e/itry  of   the  order,    said  order  t3  provide  -chat   if   such  good  ozi.-  suf- 
ficient  appeal  bond  is   not  lileu   -■■ritnin  said  ten  days,    tnat   za^n  the 
order   of   February   19,    1^35  which  opened  up  tne   judg-^ient  of  peoruary   3, 
193B  is  vaoateci  and  the  .jadgment   of  Feor^aary  6,    1925  for   ^iJSO.OO  is 
ordered  to  stand.      Said  order  to   further  rule  appelise  T.    3.    Orai;^  to 


jails'   J--^.=  i  3A"  :.o   j;}eono;:.ive    3i:   s;-;.?;;    3i..j  i.;Mu'   bv^xlaiu^a    \,Idf3xrc[qs  a^js? 
■iiToI   ou'   aqSiJs    -;t.3X:;?;~...r  :Hoc;i   x£;;,.o-oT   criicT    ^■.^czzexszii   Lisqc^s   Tor:  .oiX)   dja  . 

"Txr-t£,IqfgOO   ojf 

iieea    (_.!rlioL-.j-..;.',  vkb  3^h  xoi^    ^uoJivOS  iiasja  y---  yil:;^3&;.r:;t?'s  ^i^It!8i:Xqj;;J:   a^ 
i'm  H'^.iO   !;--Vu    .rciJ^ai-,;    celi'Jc   ::,■;■;■    ...■r;oo   vre/i   on   iT:^;:'v   oru'd-   -^i.^IC'r;  x:'o.LiW  I>9«io 

Id"   ^iU  Jr?  v  o'^vc-;  -iA.'^   'jsl-fx   2.i'V   ::oA.a"  i>'ioj   I^sic-   s--    1o  ixoe.ae-i  x'd    .esijO 

zcc.:.^:-i:   0.U  .Lxi.;    saVcu^o   ,v X r/  ■li.v.l:  ,c^Ji.od;i6  I;o..v    Jxr=Ii3Qq;=^   tc  lo'/f^l  ni  .not* 

.sjToiax'/ 

aj;  VC.1J.':/.   L'csj.sl  ..\k.£  "ic    ^xucC    J-li/o^^iC   ;^ii!-   3-0   cr/75- aiybj^ r   sdT 

^L.«   .:e,:;5i::'sii:<  no.tH'&    i^oC^j'    ,t   iii":.:.-'.:  Ic   :c&Jj1o  :^^'^■  3;i"-^o.sv  bxts  ©joisi?   tag 

T:;..rxc    .-:::  •i':3<ic5.;   j::..-:.;j;i;6:s;.    ^^^iT   v./:Xij,;-o;   Xz'krx-i    :\>i   'r.^iii'r   c4  bi\.t   brxo'^    I~dqq£ 

.;;.;;    ?:^ii   'ii^a  .  :..^^   i:;l!:-.ijr?:  tried    .it&:^q>^   j'i,.:-ii.-l':..J.vn  .l;.cf    Lto^  ^^^  sXxi   ct 

"Xjja  .;.';i,-   Dec...   ii.o;--a   Ll  ^/.-ijIj  si^ivo'w   ci"   t^ervc   cl^-a    ^-iebic  eilo    lo  \:^jx:9 

~:i.C'  rvt;''j   i::-.-    ,e''X.o  xiivi'  IXi^e   ;\.;:i-n'.i:vv   wslxx   oo-t   i?i  b::o<i   Xx;ac;q,b  driaxoil 

L    qtcix/'xe:'^:  lo  ifrvetviJix;;   e^.J-   q..  .-oxiacrc   i^cx^^/  gfifl    ,GX   ^(i^xj.ia'v'?    iC  t&hici 

oj  -^i^'il     .':.     .T  eiXI^;,qii   =^^i.'X  i^Xuix;!   cd'  i9i»ao  J3Xij8      .ri^sd-s  c^  b3'j:er'r.o 


-5- 

to   pleaa  to   X'.-S  writ  of    ^cire  fc.ci^\P   within  twelit:.    days,    in   the   event 
no  bood  end  suflicient   appe-3l  boiicl  is  filea  within  said  ten  day   ptxiod. 
This   cause  xhen   to   proceciu  B.e  tue  luw  directs. 

RdTVERSED   MD  REMNDED  WITH   DIRcCOTIOiiS. 


lc:dv_^   -stU   .11    .fiv^:-  -^:^&~-J:&  nj-,i:d-iw   ■i^ioz'i  ©i.to^v    xo   cj-xitv   e.:iJ   ca  ijsslq  ot 


.c;i:\.'iT;,)JKIC{    i-i;:!?::    .JEuKAo'-'H   ■,^«A   (iStl^viVi.i; 


STATE    OF   ILLIKOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  tlie  keep(>r  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,  do  herebj' 

eertif}'  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  .«aid  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  ca\ise, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at   Ottavra.  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appdhite  Court 


(73S15 — oM — 3-32) 


^//r 


AT  A   TERM   OF  THE  ATFELLATE    COITRT, 
Begun  and.   liPld   at   Ottawa,    on  TuPGday,    the    sixth    day   ef   Octcter,    in 
the   year    rf   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and   thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present   --   the    Hon.    BLaINS  HUFFA/LAN",    Presiding   Justice 
Hon.    FRANiaiNR.    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRSL   G.    Vv'OLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS  L,    JOHNSOK,    Cler'r:,      t/^  O    O 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff, 


Ao     6 


BE   IT  REi:EMEEREr,    that   aftenrards,    to-wit:    On 
JAN  I  8  i937  "the   opinion   Lf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's    cffice   of  said    Court,    in   the   v/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-wit: 


Gen.  No.  9155  Agenda  No.  47 

In  the  Appellate  Court  of Illinois 

Second  Llstrict 

October  Term,  A.  D.  1936. 

Arthur  T.  Saltzgiver,  Ezecutor 
of  the  Last  '/i/ill  and  Testament 
of  Frank  Saltzgiver,  deceased, 


Appeal  from  the  Co\inty  Court 
of  Kankakee  County 


Appellant, 

vs. 

William  McGrath,  Frances  MoGrath, 
William  Allers,  Jr.,  and  Maude 
Allers, 

Appellees. 

DOVE, J. 

This  is  a  suit  instituted  by  the  ezecutor  of  the  last  will  of 
Frank  Saltzgiver  to  recover  ^280,00  and  interest,  evidenced  by  a 
promissory  note  executed  by  the  defendants  and  dated  July  6,  1923, 
due  Februaj';/  1,  1925,  paj'-able  to  the  order  of  S.  D.  and  Frank 
Saltzgiver,  with  Sis  per  cent  interest  from  date.  The  cora.plaint 
was  filed  on  March  12,  1935  and  alleged  that  the  payee,  S.  D. 
Saltzgiver,  died  testate  on  August  29,  1926,  leaving  his  property 
to  the  other  payee,  that  on  Januaryv?,  1935  Frank  Sa-ltzgiver  died 
testate  and  that  his  will  has  been  admitted  to  probate  and  the 
plaintiff  herein  has  duly  qualified  au-d  is  acting  as  executor 
tfetereof.   The  defendants  answered,  admitting  the  execution  of  the 
note  set  forth  in  the  complaint,  the  death  of  the  payees  and  the 
appointment  of  the  plaintiff  as  executor  of  the  last  will  of  Frank 
Saltzgiver.  By  their  answer  they  aver  that  after  the  note  was 
executed  but  prior  to  February  1,  1925  the  defendant  iVilliam  McGrath 
paid  to  the  payees  and  they  accepted  frcm  him  the  sum  of  vSSO.OO, 
together  with  all  accrued  interest  thereon,  in  full  satisfaction 
and  discharge  of  said  note.   Their  eoiswer  further  averred  that  at 
the  time  the  note  v;as  paid  the  payees  assured  IVilliam  McGrath  that 


.5;5(?J    . •  J    .A    ,J'^l1oT   ':codoJf)0 

ir:.9mf:tae'J:   bEB  lll^i    jbbJ  oild'  1o 


^inslloqqA 


tdtBiDoll  S8fjn,6'i:^l   jiitBiOoM  ffisllliw 

"iQ  II±?v   J3.F.-I  s'fici-  •;to  's.o:f;.ioe-s.Q  Qiii  vd  bo:fL<jJ:tasil  d'x;.;a   b  ai  airlT 

■ixiBT";   i'jiu    .r    ,G  lo   '■Lsb'io  3si.t  oj"   sld/jveci   ,c3?i9I    ,1  viBJuaids'^r  ojj.5 

j^ri:i^IQ.Inoo   oxlT      .e?3^  0011   uss-isd-n-i:  ci'/ieo   leg  sx^  ilji^    ,  iaYi^f:.olB8 

.o;    .£    ,93v.r-';q  eric!-    ^oxfd'  £1039 1  Is  .bJifi  6rJC?I    <?.!  flo^-sM  juo   .&3iJ:1:  asw 

Yrfiaqoaq-  8J;xi  s.aXYiiei    ,eS9l    ^QS,  «8if::yjA  no  9;{-.ac)-a8d-  iiaif)    t^syigscf-lBa 

bc-lb   '7.3Vf.rj~s;^lBS,  mf:,'sS.  2S9I    ^Vvx'^f-'^-^'-"^   -i^'o   :l".Gxl7    ^seY/^o:  rspu'd'o   ©rfd"  od" 

©xid"  aiie.  so.&.fGiq  o;t  iJajci-iittS;--;  .aeed  aBii  Iliw  ala  cr--:#   .5cs  od-^iv'-ae;^' 

TOvtifoeso  8s  sii;L;j-0£   81   oris  .DaitilBjip  ■^I;.;6  sBil  nioxsii  ll-lct-xilslg 

arid-   "CO  ricio-j;!-,9xa  s.dcf-  giT:xd-;Jii5i.6.2    ,I)8iewaji3  QiriBbnsleb  silT      .loois^c)- 

sixis'x'i  '•c   Jliw   Da.el  sxlcJ-  "to   lo-J-jj-oexs   a^^   l-'i.Litnx.Qj.q  eri;t  I0  :^£i, stain ioQq,B 
a.;-;?T  e.-+o.a  b iM    -xsi^'lf-  isd'J'   isve    '^sxlcT   'xowofis   1i9xic^  y^^-      .isvisso-XeS 

,00.06?;':;   to  mtSB   e/rio   it^id  r.ci'i   nac^qsoojB  y^J^^^  ■^-'^-''b   399Y-3Q  s-oa'   ocf  Jbisq 

0o.^•i•OGleic^82   IIiTi   ni    5r;o9'i3r[*    oas'isd-rtJ:  Ijqxjiocb  IIb  xiJxw  is£lj3so;f 

:'■£   d-.:3nd-  ^9i'ii^T£,  'iGii.i-air.t   lewEr;^   liailT      .aiJoii  Bxbs  1o  9S"^i^osii;  iiriB 

ci-Bjri:i-  ilo'oiOoM  ::iBl.lll.\:  bQivsBB  asoYBq  srid-   biaq  ajew  c-dcxi  siid-  sijii^t   arlJ 


-2- 

they  would  return  tlie  note  to  him  but  charges  that  they  failed  and 
neglected  to  do  so.   A  jury  v/as  waived  and  the  cause  submitted  to 
the  court  for  determination,  who  found  the  issues  for  the  defendants 
and  rendered  judgment  in  bar  Ox    the  action  and  for  costs.   From 
this  judgment  the  plaintiff  has  prosecuted  this  appeal. 

Upon  the  trial  the  plaintiff  produced  the  note  which  was  ad- 
mitted in  evidence  i^^itLout  objection  and  rested.   On  behalf  of  the 
defendants,  it  ?ms  stipulf.ted  that  on  July  6,  1923,  S.D.  Saltzgiver 
^nd  Frani:  Saltzgiver,  the  payees  of  said  note,  entered  into  a  written 
Irase  with  appellees.   In  the  body  of  the  lease,  William  and  Frances 
McGrath  are  designated  as  party  of  the  second  part,  but  tiie  lease 
7/as  executed  by  them  and  also  by  William  Allers  and  Maude  Allers, 
By  the  provisions  of  the  lease,  S.  D.  and  Frank  Saltzgiver  leased 
eighty  acres  of  land  in  Kmkakee  County  to  second  party  from  March 
1,  1924  to  the  last  day  of  February,  1929  for  which  second  party 
agreed  to  pay  as  rent  |560.00  each  year,  one-half  thereof  on 
September  1st  and  the  remaining  one-half  on  February  1st  of  each 
year.   The  lease  recites  that  two  notes  are  given,  each  in  equal 
amounts,  drawing  no  interest  if  paid  when  due,  each  note  to  bear 
six  per  cent  interest  and  that  ¥/illiam  Allers  and  Maude,  his  wife, 
agree  to  sign  with  second  party  as  surety  both  the  lease  and  the 
notes.   It  also  appears  from  the  record  that  the  defendant  William 
McGrath  testified  and  his  testimony  was  received  by  the  court 
subject  to  the  objection  of  counsel  for  appellant.  He  testified 
that  he  paid  the  note  on  February  7,  1925  by  delivering  to  S  .  D. 
Saltzgiver  a  cljeck  for  grain  which  he  had  received  from  a  local 
grain  dealer;  that  he  did  not  receive  the  note  but  Saltzgiver  prom- 
ised to  send  it  to  him;  that  Saltzgiver  did  give  him  a  receipt  but 
he  had  lost  the  receipt  and  the  note  had  never  been  returned  to  him; 
that  the  records  of  the  grain  company  had  been  destroyed  and  he  was 
u  able  to  substantiate  his  statement  that  he  received  a  check  for 
$280.00  from  the  grain  company.  It  also  appears  from  the  evidence 


-a- 

o;t   .:;oc^3•±u:v:fJJ■a   <3i;i;jo   c-l:;    i^ns  &9V.?:5^-  saw  ^iwt  ^^      'Cs   oi^  ot  ijed-osls^xi 

fl!0\£'T      .ajaoc    \!:ol  .brio  .aoj:;"c-:.  si'd"   'io   'igJ  ui   ^fiieisgairt   .Dei^iiiis':..  fina 

■•b:i  B£m  .do, LIT  '.'■j'-on  arirf-  SeOi-ff-iOixT   aIxcMI^Iq   3ilt   iBi'si  edt  noqV 
er'o    'Sc  'tlBiled  sxQ      »bet.:io-y  bnti   noi-Jootcfo   Inoiio'l^-  eonQblre  fil  Bsci'd- iin 
iflvX'giSolQa   .a. 3    53Sei    ,a  ^InX  co  ^^^d:/  be:r:-lssqj:i^  sBw  :ri:    ^aJnB&aslsl) 

esr^el   &<iv    dx/(J    f^'L->q  baooc-ic  odi  to  ^jcJibi  33  i)9\!s£©i:2&£   o^a  xf^B'x-DoM 

nosAsI  -leTlasJlBc;  iLebii  x)nB    .a    .0    ,oa,G9X  aiicf   "Vo   anoxaxTciq.  srf;?-  ^i^H 

X:^'wq  bnoosa  rio.Iiiv^    'iCl;   9"iei    , ■<; xtiwrrde :'.  to  ys-&   a'a.sl  edi  oo"  i^Ser  ^X 

iioBCJ  lo  03.1  vj.BU':i6o%  no  tlsxi-ano  gxiiitJ:.Q£;T©  1  sfic!-  .5j-xb   cTbI  lotfiBsdqaa 

iBiJnQ  ni  xlo.ac^    tiia^-i.-.^  e-xa  e&ioz  ow>t  J.sil*   ao^Mosi  sacsl,  e-iiT      .aBa^ 

■iBc^tf  G?  8.0'aii  ilOBe    ^SiiJl  iierli/  ftteq  li:   o'esisSrix  on  gcxw.s-ib   ^a^fiUxoiiXB 

,yj:iv;   ai-xi    ,e50£sM  -?>n.s  aieXlA  iBBilliV;   tBiit  .5X13  rTae^ad-xxl   ?xioo   lei  xJts 

.ETSxiliv;    ^Eisbao'\5b  .oxi'd'   I'^ofl^'   f)'-j.oc>0''i  srf-t  xavOit  a-ussgajs   oal^   d"!      .Ei9d"O0. 

liiiioo  Qi'ii  Y^J  lieTlaos"!  saw  x^omltB&^  slxi  l)rix-5  ftem^f-as J  xld',s'x-OoM 

belltti^o-^-  icj.FI     .itx-i.sIifoq,cjs   I'o'i  leariixoo    ^o  xioJcd'ostefo  sxl*   oiJ"-  rf'cst'rfi/B 

.0.   ,   a  ct  3Xfxisvi:Ie.&  %€  cSSI    <V  Y^^'^'^'^'f^''^  ^'^-O  s^oxi  .qxW  .VilBQ'  oxi   texiu 

I.yool  B  Ji'JO-x"*-   &3Ti-oo8'x  bBxl  sii  iloidw  xiiBij-   lo'i  :Jioe;^o  b   'i3vi:rj,5;;J-Xj8£ 

-Go-rt;   isv.f2vS;i''Xe;i  ^ijjcf  sdoxi  erld"  o%'-ieo9').  ;iox£   51.5   3ti  fe.do'"    jieXBoS  niiiis 

ci-L'tf  'jclaoe-x  B  miri  erig   &i.h   i&v l^s.f lue,  -^issi^    \mlri  oi-   Jx  Snsa  ori;  6sai 

jxnixx   ocf  ben':jji&i  jjo.^J  iSi/sxT  fisxl  ©-j-oxx   sxlo    bxi*?.  oqXsosi  arfi!"   cfsoX  b&d   9x1 

8£r'-  yil   bna  bs^ioiia&b  .nead  £i.8il  ^''''^eqxcioo  .uxxi-xs  9x1;?  lo  8.6'iOOST.  ^xld"   ^ad* 

'lot  5!f>e-xIo  .0  .OsTleoa-x  sxl  d'sfld-   d•xxsxsGtffl«^'d  aXxi  edr^Id-nxsd-ecfxjs  oJ-  old^au 

90.aoJ>xvo  oxid-  xiioi"?:  aTasqqfl    oiX^;  cM      .Ycsqxaoo   xiXais  erW  inoil:  C0.08S|. 


that  on  February  7,  1925  the  account  of  S.  D.  Saltzgiver  in  the 
First  Trust  and  Savings  Bank  of  Kankakee,  v^iare  he  did  his  banking 
business  was  credited,  with  .':>140.00,  the  deposit  ticket  showing 
that  on  ?ebi*uary  7,  19.?5  he  had  an  outside  check,  that  is  a  check 
drawn  on  a  bank  other  than  the  I'irst  Trust  and  t3avings  Bank,  for 
1280.00,  t'lat  one-half  of  that  amount  deposited  to  his  credit  in 
the  Trust  and  Savings  Sank  and  'pl40.00  was  not  deposited  to  the 
account  of  S.  D.  Saltzgiver,  but  that  £'rank  Saltzgiver  had  a 
separate  bank  account. 

Albin  Anderson  testified  on  behalf  of  the  appellees  that  he 
knew  S.  J),    and  Frank  .Saltzgiver,  that  they  owned  eighty  acres  of 
farm  land  and  he  was  their  tenant  and  that  v^hile  he  was  thereon  his 
landlords  would  not  extend  the  payment  of  the  reht  from  one  year  to 
another '5;:  that  after  ^e  left  the  farm,  appellee,  William  McGrath, 
moved  on  it  and  remained  there  five  years.  He  and  Guy  Strawson  both 
testified  that  between  1924  and  1929,  .illitun  McC-rath,  while  he  lived 
on  the  Saltzgiver  farm,  raised  average  crops,  and  owned  cattle  and 
farm  implements  and  stock,  and  if  there  was  any  mortgage  upon  his 
stock,  these  witnesses  didn't  know  of  it.   That  after  McGrath  left 
the  farm  he  moved  to  another  farm  of  one  hxmdred  and  twenty  acres 
and  farmed  it,  had  livestock  and  farm  implements  sufficient  to 
farm  and  produced  crops  dtrcing  the  years  he  farmed. 

Wiliiam  McGra'ch  and  William  Allers,  two  of  the  defendants, 
testified  that  no  demand  was  ever  m-de  upon  them  to  pay  the  note 
sued  on  after  the  death  of  3.  D.  Saltzgiver,  which  occurred  on 
August  29,  1926,  until  after  the  death  of  I'rank  Saltzgiver,  whidi 
occurred  on  January  7,  19'.55.  That  the  only  demand  to  pay  was  made 
by  the  attorney  representing  the  estate  of  Frank  Saltzgiver. 

The  foregoing  is  a  fair  resume  of  all  the  evidence  found  in 
this  record.  Appellant  insists  that  William  McGrath  -was  an  incompe- 
tent witness  and  without  his  testimony  there  is  no  evidence  in  the 
record  to  sustain  "Ghe  judgment  of  the  trial  court.   Counsel  for 
appellees  concedes  that  section  two  of  the  Evidence  Act  bars  the 


giiJ::::^!:.'  airi  i)!.?)  eii  eiexbj    .eeti^i^.Bl-i  "1:0  alnsS  e^it.c-^j^:;  Jdjis  cfsifiT  i'eii'? 

pxi-U'orfa   i3'Aox&  tiaocsh  eiU-    ^OO.OM':   itifiw  .&0cM.6o'j.o   3Bv  aasniand 

iIoofiD  x;  sJ:  ctr,/!^    5>io©ilo  9.6J:8:'.fic   ns  .o.eii  oil  cSSi    ,^  yiQ.o'ids'^  nc   ^atit 

•lo'l    (iliiBa  fi;}iii:"5-^a   bnB  r?e.i;T'-   cf"a':;l'^i   erf?  .(isfl*   i^^xivC  lif^jocf  s  ±10  jittbiB 

xij;   &i:b@-i:o   a.tii  o^  bs-fiaoqeb   imsoivtB  fF-di'  '^:c  tlnd^eno  ;^r•^:d"   ,00.00S| 

erbi   c-^   hetizoqob   .fan  esv?  OOJ}i^£:''  .dub  ^-ISBg  a-'t^nlvBS  .6x1.©  it'airiT  oxl^t 

sxl   :;'>sftj    a0y.ria';:qB  ©xfrf   lo  ll.sxfocf  no  JisixiJcs^'  noa'iebaA  nidlA. 

to  ye-xoB  Y"'"dri-'"-'  hcsavm  Y''-ti^    oBriu    .'£svx«ac"lB':  in^'i^'  bus    .CI   .?  ^Tsna 

s.rn  xioc;'};t)/tt'   bbw  e/i  ellnV  ^trfJ  has  clxL^*ria:J"   'ixsd^f-   a.e\T  ec   bits  bxml  saisJ. 

o:f    -Tp.sv  oao  K0-1I  rj'iteo'  orfif'   lo  d'neim/iisq  ori.i    .f?.aeci-:^;9   .tea  £>l£;o«7  sft^ol&ixol 

(■ioBi-OoM  ivjslIIiW   ,yeIIecgB    <x;i'i£>  eil7   dls.!!  ori  ioo^b  d-silJ-  ^isxlcfonB 

.ciyocf  ii087vs'io3  Y,i;~D  .&xi3  oH     .sxa?)^  siril  sisr.?*  fiecixiiijgi  J&xxe.^  :M  rxo  Jbs^'Oi;! 

Ssvll  3x1  o-fixiv/    ,iic!Bi.OoM  lifSxXii:  .    ,GSGI  ba.B  i-QQl  reevfuf^d  ci-sxid-  f'Qi'':'i:cf8©d- 

b.a.B  bIv^j-bo   b3n::o   bas    ,8qo-io    a"-BieT/j  fiesi?:*::    jKisj:  •isv.cgsd-I.sG  exit  xio 

alii  noqu  ssBsc^iGui  y"^^  st^w  s'xerfd"  11  r>xie    ,iloo'J"8  fuiB  BitnsnTeicfxal  ■m'xsl 

c^'3:<:^.i   x;!J-.ei€'oM  ttsol's  feill'      .ci-j'   'lo  woxis!  iUtblb  soaaoxicMv;-  easxirf-  jjlood's 

SQ10.G  vci'iiS^??  .5n>,^  fssTl-xLuxi.  sno    xc  hvibI  'x:sxi7-on.s  ct  I'sovoxw  91I  xkibI   srf? 

o:f   cLfisxccTiwa   8;i-xi©X(isiqifT-t  mie.J.  bus  loc^re^.^riJ,  bsd    ^^t  besiis']:  bsxB 

B^on  orfcJ-  Y£^<i  ot  netii^  nocu  e.t--r::  isvs   esf?  ftxas-Cisb  on  c^^rj:?   5si:■li;?5^;^ 

XIO  .69Ti.o'ooo  xloixf-A'    ,'X9Ti?.>2o'-lB3   .'I   ,8  'lo  si^B^b  oxl.t   isyl's  fio  fiexxa 

xbltfi^   <.:roTi-:a,sc^I.83  jinsi'ii'  1c  ifd-B3b,ert+    i9;fl£   l.tt£^.!J   .d'iQl   <PS  ^aixtji/A 

.•xeyJ:;fisctIao  ikrs's:''!  lo   3&  izt'ie  edt  sxiictxxsseigei"  Ysn-xo^JjS  sxij  -id 

xxi'  i.>xiL'ol  eonsfixve  6x1;+   lS.e>  lo  exuj/es'-x  T:iBl  b  ax  3x;j:c:39'rc1   sxfT 

-9f'X«oor<;l   rrr,  S3<F  xld-eiOoM  xnsiilxV;   J-.nficf-  sJaisxiJ:  S-xrelleacA   .biooe'i  zMt 

9X.IC-    xii:  6ox-i©.5i:T'^   oxi  el  e'ssiiil  '\^^^off;itc^o   axxl  d-uoxicf iff   bxra  sBenct"!'?   ^■flacf 

•xcl  leaxi^jon      .^txxoo   Isit^J-  srlo-   lo   rf-i38J3iax>iJt   axisr  flx.3:''3J:f2   ocT  fitocai 

edi  Qiiid  doxi.  9onoJt)lva  9Xl«-  Jo  Gw.t  xioJt^J^oas  d.extcl-  asfisonoo   aooIIsqqB 


testimony  of  i/illiam  McGrath  as  to  facts  and  circumsbances  pertaining 
to  the  execution  of  the  note  ajjd  to  any  other  part  of  that  transaction 
but  does  not  prevent  him  from  testifying  that  he  received  a  receipt 
from  the  deceased  and  that  he  lost  it  and  then  stating  the  contents 
of  such  receipt,  nor  does  it  prevent  him  from  testifying  that  he 
received  a  check:  from  the  grain  company,  that  the  check  has  been  lost 
and  then  testifying  as  to  its  contents.   In  support  of  this  contention 
the  case  of  Lueth  v,  Goodknecht,  545  111.  197  is  called  to  our 
attention.  Section  two  of  the  Evidence  Act  provides  in  paxt  that  no 
party  to  any  civil  action  shall  be  allowed  to  testify  of  his  own  motion 
when  any  adverse  party  sues  as  executed  of  any  deceased  person.   It 
has  been  held  that  the  dis  qualification  from  testifying  is  against 
the  party  defending  adversely  to  the  executor.   Eailey  v.  .Robison, 
244  111.  16,  and  the  reason  for  the  rule  is  the  inability  of  the 
executor  to  oppose  the  statements  or  raeet  the  e  idence  of  such  adverse 
party.  In  the  Lueth  case,  supra,  the  plaintiff  John  F.  Lueth  sued  in 
his  individual  capacity  as  surviviving  partner  and  Ti^as  not  suing  as 
trustee,  conservator,  executor,  administrator,  heir  legatee,  devisee 
or  guardian  and  therefore  the  provisions  of  Section  2  of  the  Evidence 
Act  were  not  ihvolved.   What  the  court  held  in  the  Lueth  case  Y^as  that 
Section  4  of  the  Evidence  Act  was  applicable,  that  a  partnership 
estate  possesses  certain  characteristics  which  distinguish  it  from 
the  personal  estate  of  a  deceased  person  and  afford  ample  basis  for 
the  classification  made  by  the  Evidence  Act.  Under  the  statute  and 
the  authorities  ^jVilliam  McGrath  was  not  a  competent  ritness  to  testify 
thet  he  received  a  check:  from  the  grain  company,  or  to  state  what  he 
did  TTith  it  or  thet  it  was  lost  or  what  the  contents  of  that  check 
were,  nor  ve.s   he  a  competent  -.atness  to  testify  thet  he  paid  the 
deceased  payee  the  note  sued  on  or  detail  ho-p?  he  paid  him  or  what 
the  deceased  payee  said  or  did  when  ce  paid  him  nor  was  he  a  competent 
witness  to  prove  that  he  obtained  from  the  payee  a  receipt  for  the 
money  which  he  paid  or  that  he  lost  the  receipt  or  to  the  contents  of 


jqisoei  3  bavleos'i  ori  d'.i-ric!"  gni^lijJ'Boo'  bic-A  mlii  drz-svoiq  ^ton  asofi  d"ucf 
sxi  jaa:}   3n.':'.i tJieor  ri-ort  xciii  c^^fOY9'vq  c^i:   3ec.5   aoii    ,:Jei:80o'i  iloi;js  lo 

d-aCi    XiSiid     3.6X1    ;>i05Xio     Bili     ii^liiV     ,'^£D3(ja;00    X^XBI;;;    ©d;'     Z^O'll    2i09XiO     B    JD9VX9091 

Oil   .iB^iC^   o'loq  Xf.-i:   sel)xvc'xq  ;J"oA  eo.neDXvS  orit  1o   owo    xioxdosa      .Ijoicrnstj-js 
xfoio'ci:!?  r[7/o   axri   1o   '{,'): t^-se^  o"vJ"  £;0':foIXx-   eo'   Iljoiia   aoi^os  Ixvxc  v.a£  o;t  ^j^tisq 

i^iixB:p.B  zs.  gxiiYA-ii'"s&JJ'  noij:  /'.vOXv-txioxliJ-.s-up   e.tb   .?xij    d"M;t   hlsd.  .aaeo'  sbxI 

^iioaidcE  .Y  Y31X..38:      .*xocrx/oss5   ^ri^  od-  v.r©3i3Ti3B   -^nlbsielieb  ^d-iBC  s.dcl' 

ony   "ic   ^^jJiLJidxiai.  si;ci-   ax   9lyx  erf.';-   -ic't  rtos.'sei  sxio    £?r?ji-    ,31    .XII  ^:&S 

es'xevoB   xio.ua    /o   3oa.ebi  ■:■   qsIj   rf'saa   to   s^fnem-iiKi's   exfj'"  saocqo  oo""  'xo;|;jjo9:c9 

Hi  i)8XJ3   xij-oi/u:    .■{  .cirio'i   lirJnxBlq,  3ii:t    j,3iq.-j3    tOSBO  xld-30j  sxfd-  nl      .^^'XBq 

83  n-axuG   .ton  as'!   oris   ■xsc-cr^.sq  ^nlvivxY'x.c;?.   5.3  vtxoBcso   iB-uxiXYXlini   aM 

8oxio.&iv:'x  9xi:;    'ito  3   aoij-osS  "io   f-XiCX2jtvoTq  erf;^   3i0i0i9xlo    bus  azlh^'iov:^  10 

oX'iicf-  cr;-r  esBo  xioS'ij.I  9x!..t   cix  .5i?;l   o'-'Ijljoo   oxI"    o.3xf.Y      ,.o9-/IoTxix  d'crx  ai&n  d^oA 

qxxis'xsjii-:!  i;3q  jv  oV'^/.'i;-    ^sld^ixlqq'i   3.8,v   ci'OXv  a 0X7,9.5 xyS.  sxld"   lo  ^  noltosQ 

ino'sH  3"j:  lisiifgnictajro   r-olfr.v  .--c xd"3xi9ct-c.3i.«xIo    r(.t6a":['3>o   aoaasasoq  sia^so 

'lot  aiiB.ecf  9lqru3  S'xol'Ji.s  bas  ixocisq  bse-Bsoob   a  lo  etBi^o  iBCczisq  B£i& 

,0i-'=--   3c!-.o-d-f?,cr3   exld-   leibaU     .-JoA  eoxis&i-ra'  sxfd-  \^  sbsin  n.olip.r>tll&BeIo   edi 

9Xi  t:::i':j  sitc-ta   o.t   10    ^'i.aBqxnoo   ni:r3^3  er-'cT  xrro  1I  :-!e9xJo  b  bsvleo^i  3x1  .J.O£[c|- 

Muexlo    ^y.!:i:r   'l-o   e.f  rs-i^co    exl:^   ;J  >xi'.7   -xo   tacl  aBvj-  ^+j:   d-^xlt  tc   ti  sijln  bib 

au.t  JDX'/.    ex!   j   xicf  vl-xJ-asy-  ceJ-   e^iiencflv  orocfaqxaco  /:!   sxl  asT  loxt   ,9i9w 

O.ju'.f'A"-   "xo  .kjXxI  ;>i:x'?.  Bii  ijzo£l  llB^Qb   'xo  rxo  bt>ua   e^t on  axld-  ©s-^bc  fissxssosl) 

&no^e.f£'oo   e  oxl  a.^"-   tci:  fclxl  fjixjq  sr;  noxi-^'  ij.tf^    ■:o  bt^'   GeT>Bq  f>e3X5sce£)  ©rfd" 

op:3-   -.Lo't  cToxGoa-i  .e  3&-\iXiC  ed:r  ^;oil:  .b9xxX3Cl-do   exi  d'axi.t  svoTq  o;f  assfldlw 

"ic   aj-xi^dxico   sdi   o*   :£c  rf-qlsooi  oxld"   ieol  ad  -J-bxIo    'xo  Iilxsq  od  dcldw  voxioxn 


-5- 


such  lost  receipt.      To  permit  him  to   do   so  would  do  violence   to    the 
plain  provisions   of   the   statate. 

Counsel  for   appellees  finally   oontead  that   without   the  evidence 
of   the  defendant,    v.illiam  I/IcGrath,    there  is   suffieient   testimony  in 
the  record   to   sustain  the   judgment   of   the   trial   court.      'Vhat   this 
evidence   shovvs   is   that   the  First  Trustand  Savinf^s   Bank  of  Kankakee 
credited  xksracxxfcx  the  acco'-int   of  S.    D.    Saltzr.dver   on  February   7,    1925 
with    ;140,00,    that   the  deposit   ticket   shows    thot  an  outside   check  for 
^£80.00  formed  the  basis  for   the  deposit,    what  became  of  the  remaining 
SllO.OO  or  from  whom  this   check  was  received  by  S.   D.    Saltzgiver   or   for 
whs-t  purpose  are  all   left   to   conjecture.      The  evidence  further  shows 
that   on  •:^Iarch  5,    1927    the   de?"endant    Silliam  McGrath  borrovired  l'-57o00 
from  this  banic,    executed  a  note   to   this  bank  upon  which  I*rank  iialtagiver 
was   surety,    that   on  the   same  day   the  account  of  Frank  Saltzgiver 
was    credited  with  this    t^57.00  ajid   also  |£22.00,      Counsel  assert   that 
this  1^250.00  was  in  paymeixt   of   the  Mearath  rent  note   due  February 
1,   1927   and  argue  that   the  act  of  I'rank  Saltzgiver   in   signing  a 
t'57.00   surety  note  for  McGrath  on  March  5,    1927  is  not   consistent 
with  the   ccnter.tion  of  appellant  that  I»';cGratb.  hod  not  paid  the 
$230.30   due  more  than  two   years  previous.      Counsel  for   appellees 
further  argue  that   it   is  unr-easonable   to  belie've  that    the  payees 
of  the  note   sued  on  would  have  reoaineo'  lib: .   McGrath  as   a  tenant 
for  four  years  after    the  note  became   due  if  he  viere  delinquent  in 
paying  the  note   sued  on,    that   as  the  note  or  any  part   thereof  was 
not   inventoried  as   an   asset   of  the   esl,ate  of  3.   D.    Saltz,giver,    and 
no   demand  for  payment  made  until   after    the  desth  of   both  the  payees, 
and  that   suit   thereon  was  not   inscituted  until  March  12,    1935,    which 
was    Just   twenty-three   days   before   the  Sts-tate   of  Limitations  would 
have  been   available   to   thi;   defendants   as   a  plea  in  bar-   to   the  prose- 
cution of    this    suit,    that   the   only  fair   conclusion   that   can  be  drawn 
is   that   the  note   sued  on  was  paid. 

The  defense  of  payment   is  an   affirmative  defense,    which  it 


srI*   o;:?'  90.a-3-Coiv  ob  bliJorf  cs   of)   o*  fciri  cHrM.oc!;  oT      .^oiaoB'-i  d-sol  n'oira 
iij:  rKO£^xd■eac^   ^tnsioiltio   si  e-rexfe    , rut .s -jl-DoM  Liailli'A'    ,'tosf>nel©f)  eri^  l6 

6S&1.    ,Y  •■;'j:a^'rd's'7  re   rorlz^l^l&i^   .'J    .3  ^e  riTirycooe  srU  sixarsrs:^  B9d-if;.s'3:6 

aLnlBme'j  suit  to  emBoed  i''Biva-   ^i-iBocieb  edi   10?:  aiac-d  erif  dsxzoI  00,08S| 

x   ICC   ');9TX3Svi"Is3    .C{    ,B  Ytf  .osvlsoev;  s£w  slosrio   ei:i?:l"  inorlr  ffio-'il  io  OO.OI^rl 

aciToria   iDxid-Ti/l-  eonslii'Te  eJT'      .orv&oetlr;.co  oi   .tlo  r  IIb  s'3:b  aeoq'wq  tod-w 

00. ve^;   ^K-vroT^od'  riits^iOoM  JErillx'ft    c;cfj5&xis "1^.5  ex!^'    Vg5l    ^G  doisM  ao   Jtsilxt 

igstii;,::  sln^if  dclny:  socru  ilcci^o  siil.r   c^    siai  ja  5&d-i;osxfi    ^sirrBcf   siifd'  fficil 

v'-3.dc!-   -•••i&s&.e  l88i;iroD      .00.3S£f;  calB   uuB  OG.^gv   axiid-  X!d-.i.w  .bs^^xijo^o   saw 

't(;iiiij'XdG?  9iJ.5   Suon  oissi  iI^s'sSoK.  effd    to   iQs>m%&z  ai  a^^  0C.C3S;?  atni 

B  SJf-i^'^Si'^^   J"i-   "■i&vxasCj-J.BS  iriBfi  lo  d"03  ■ail;!'   c^rirIJ•  ewgis  £!Hj3   VSS'I    jI 

ctnoS'a xancD   ?'or.'  si  VStI    ^S  .doi.eM  X7.o- rfJ-,8iy)oM  10I  sd-oii  v;ts'it'B  OO.VSf 

Qjii  blcq  tort  5c'.tJ  jSd'inxOOA'.'  taiii'  d'ii'SlIagg.e  '5:o  xioiitar-ajxtoo   sil;?'  iliin 

E3sll3ac;j3   ■lo';!:  iesHj^oO      ,E.yoxve-icr  3'xboy   or;;!"   risji;?-  sioxa  sjjIi   OC.OSSf. 

0 :i.Bjs;5 cf   .0  e3  iiJ-.3iDoM  ,'M  09i:f.cs;'Q-x  sviifi  ilwov/-  Xto  dojjs   scroit  ad#  10 

lit  ^iaovon.ilsb  eiov;  sil  '.tj:  a^'o  om&oe-d  &cov.  siid-    leils,  s.i,ie%  ^sjol  lol 

asw  loyioii';]-   o-XBq  YJf^^  '-^o  scfoxi  exicl-  83   tcsii    ,xto  i)9Xfe,  sj'on  axIS"  sxci'^isq 

50.3    .':LOVx;;.vtoI.68    .;!   .G  lo  sd'aJas   siid"  'io   J-eaaxj   iie  ub  iJsxioc^jKevxix   ;to£t 

,?.wo\;oo,   o.rl;^  ri;fo:T   "ic  .Lcf.^sZi  sxf;!-    •i6)i''i.'3   Ixv'xl::-  ©.ijjia  :fi:ajcni;jsq:  ^o'l  baasiab  on 

rioxfivr    .gS&I    ,ai  jIckM  Ilixii;  Jboitxro  i"  axil   J-oxs  a.av-  xiosnsxlv    ci  XjXa   .rsild   ixte 

hluow  Zixxcli .Ainrl-j   tc  sJ.i.vj' :;;fb  ^liJ    sioi&c'  a^jax    9siita''-\;d'.'xevrci'-  jai/i,   asw 

-92ciq  v)iid-  oJ-   iBcf  x-2  xslg  xa  i^s  Bo'xrs.oflexox)   tild-   oi  eldallBW.   need  9V.8rI 

nv7;^T;i  ocf  Hiic   i^;;i£;:J    nolairloaoo   -ilal   \liio   eil^  ^3ii^    ,txus    tixl^t  'to  xicid-^o 

tblaq  e.a^.'^  ao  b'jui:  o;fOii  Qii^  tsd-j  el 
^1  ncxjriw    ,osm'j.ob  ©v.UBiii'xil'is   itB  si   S-noxaYsq  lo  asnelsf)  sxlT 


-6- 

v.-as  incumbent  upon  appelleesato  establish  by  com.|)etent  evidence, 
and  the  competent  evidence  vitbout  considerable  more  prooi  than  is 
found  in  this  record  does  not  in  our  opinion  establish  that  the 
note  sued  on  has  been  paid.   If  appellees  are  compelled  to  pay  an 
obligation  that  has  been  once  discharged,  it  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  they  failed  to  procure,  ^men   it  ^/fa?  paid,  the  instrument  i^'hich 
evidenced  their  in-^ebtedness  or  preserve  some  competent  evidence  of 
its  payment. 

The  judp;inent  of  the  trial-  court^must  be  reversed  and  the  cause 
remanded. 

Reversed  and  ^ emended. 


si  Xf^ii'jo    ';.oo\r(x  sioin  elfLriisJiiauoo   cfiroci ;:'■ /w  ©Od^sfiiTc   dns.J'eaiEco  srJcf   fens 
cfo^ry   e;5,ei   GO'   ?irij   j?x   Tx    J/^e£13^!03j:I)  ecno  nssc?  serf  ^sxl.-   iioirf-g^xXcfo 


STATE   OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DiSTKiCT  J  I.  JUSTPS  L.  JOHNSOX.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  liand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl'  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73S15— 5M — 3-32) 


f/^  / 


AT  A   TERM   OF   THE   AFFELLATE    COURT. 
Begun   arxfi   held   at   Ottawa,    on  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   nf   October,    in 
the   year    of   our   Lord   one    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFFMAN",    Presiding    Justice. 
Hon.    FRANKLIN  R ,    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FREE   G.    Vv'OLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Clerk, 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff.    ^Q    Q 


BE   IT  REI.IEMBEREP,    that   afterwards,    tc-wit:    On 
JA.JI8  1,9.37  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's    office    of   said    Court,    in   the   r/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-wit: 


aen.  No.  9161  Agenda  No.  50 

IK  THE 
APPELLATE  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS 
SSCCt'JD  DISTRICT 

October  Term,  k.    D.  1936. 

Harlcw  h:.  Bslding, 

Apyellant  Appeal  from  the  Circuit 

vs.  Court  of  Du.Page  County 

EcLitii  L.  Belding,  Individually  and 
as  Auiiiinistratrix  of  tiie  Estate  of 
Wilbert  1).  Balding,  deceased,  et  al., 

Appellees. 

D0V2,  J. 

On  Jauuary  7th,  193S  Harlow  H.  Belding  filed  his  cowplaint  in 

the  Circuit  Court  of  D'OPage  County  to  wind  up  the  affairs  of  a 

partnership  entered  into  on  January  7,  1918  by  and  between  Wilbert 

D.  Belding,  Edg.ar  E.  Belding  and  the  plaintiff.   Among  other  things 

the  complaint  alleged  that  the  partnership  business  was  conduoted 

under  the  name  and  style  of  S.  E.  Belding  and  Sons;  tha.t  on  September 

19,  1928  vaibert  D.  Belding  died  and  on  October  1,  1923  Edith  L. 

Belding  "ssas  t-ppointed  administratrix  of  his  estate:  that  on  November 

27,  1933,  £dge.r  E.  Belding  died  testate,  and  thereafter  the  plaintiff 

and  Ora  L.  Finley  were  appointed  executors  of  his  Last  Y/ill  and 

Testament.   T^e  complaint  then  alleged  that  the  said  Edgar  E.  Belding, 

deceased,  contributed  certain  assets  at  the  tiiae  of  the  formation  of 

the  partnership  and  that  the  partnership  thereafter  acquired  certain 

real  estate;  that  at  the  xime  of  the  death  of  the  said  l?ilbert  D. 

Belding,  the  partnership  owned  certs  in  personal  property  ks  well  as 

said  real  estate  cjid  that  there  were  certain  uncompleted  contracts 

which  -were  finished  after  the  deatn  of  the  said  Wilbert  D.  Belding 

and  tne.t,  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  said  wilbert  D.  Belding, 

the  partnership  was  indebted  in  the  various  amoruats  8,s  set  forth  in 

the  complaint.   It-  was  then  alleged  that  since  the  death  of  Wilbert 


Ail  J.      Vi  J. 

TOIHTRia  (BJG0£8 
.SSei    .Q    .A    ^iu'xe'T  i^ao^foO 

d-ii/oirO   sriu   iao*£l  Ij=sqqA  ?f:c3lI-3qqA 

.390lI©Crf'A 

.L  ,svoa 

itisc/IxV  A-3swje3cf  i>ns  ^^c   SIGI    jV  Y'i-Si.'xt-^-l}  .ric  oc^iti:  i-sttsdrid   q.trletrs-.fiKJ'^Bq 
E^^iTXil^  -ssjiiii-o  grroia.      .iiXd-.n:xjsIq  edo    oas  gai.&XeS    .3"  zs-gb'S    ^^ialbleB.    .G 

ledi^soqye   no  S-Jrsix^    •.p.tioB  bcs  -galbleS.    ,'3    .a   Ic   slY^a  £iix:3  eisiBxt  Silt  i&btisj 

.J  lio  xi->K  oKBl    jl  rcBdoioO  no  ivrrxs  ijsxi  ariXJbIsS    ,G  $iBCilh<   SSGI    ,,GI 

'xedr.evc;!  ac  J--7ocJ-    ;ecf--Bj-s?.   aXrf  to  xxad-.o:cd-gJ:ni-flin£  be^Trfiogq-:;  3.65?  gniiiXsa 

l)xi;;  liiY  ja.eJ   oj'rl   xo  axorf-xrosxe  be^aioq_c£:  srrsw  YsXax'?.    .J  .s'xo  ba^ 

■^i'fxlLIsQ    ,2   •x.°^ija  tiBa  siid-  o.6.(.(d-  LsgellB  irsxfd-   i^njiislqraoo  enT      .^xiecisd-ssT 

^;o  rxoxd-.sarxcl  aAd'    y.o  etdxt  siIj"  cl"ji.  8C^9aa.e  ir.l.:s,t%eo  betsjdixtnvo   ^b^ss&osb 

ffx^cr-iso  £)5'xi.u-po.s  xs^l.'ioiQd:^  qxria'r9rc;l''rsq  edv  tsd&  bas  qxxfa-istid'xsq  sdtf" 

,a'  d-'x&dlxv,  i)XB3  Biii    xo  dO:3sb  exid"    xo  Sijixj  sdJ-   cfjs  ;j'.sxict-    j8ci-.Q?39  la&t 

SB  Il9v/  a.iT  •^;j-raqoa-q  L&noBieq  iii^ittoo  .b&nwo  gxrlB-xs/xoiosq  erf^-    ^gaibl&S. 

otos'iiaoo  beif)l<i't.vooia.<  niei'X'oo  eisw  stse.rfo'   i'.a.iii  ibxis  a^-sd-sa   Is^a  biss 

ynlLXacf    .u   disriXlVv  b.t&8  ^ilcT   'to  /jd-.ss.b  sxla"  asJ"!?;  bBdalritt  exew  rfoxitw 

{^^j:ii:ijX3a    .(1   .tXr.dXxiV  X>x.p,a  arit  lo  .act'ssb  srit  'io  ssxd'  Oii.t  *.s    ,d-.axid-  ijrr^ 

xxj:  xi;J"roi   osa   sb   aa-xiffoms  ai;oxx.sv  sxlit  nx  b6&6sbcix  a.sw  qi.asx6xid-rj3Cf  sdct" 

d-'xedXXW   io  rlJASii  axio'-  aorcxa   woriJ-  i>9gsXXB  nsiid"  aBvr  :>I      .iJ-nx^Xqittoo  6x1* 


-8- 

D.  Bslding,  the  plaintiff  has  continuea  to  hola  and  ptfesess  the 
partnership  property  for  partnership  purposes  in  accorLi;-nce  with 
tne  Statute  ana  that  Editn  L.  Balding,  as  administratrix  of  vlilbert's 
estate  on  January  25,  1935  in  case  No.  18641  in  the  Circuit  Oourt  of 
DuPage  County,  procured  the  entry  of  a  decree  by  virtue  of  wnich 
she  claims  that  there  is  due  and  owing  to  her  from  tne  partnership 
the  sum  of  $13,150.68.   The  couiplaint  concludes  by  an  averment  that 
the  plaintiff  is  the  sole  surviving  partner  ana  that  he  desires  to 
wind  up  the  partnership  affairs  in  accordance  vdth  the  Statute  and 
prays  that  tne  rights  of  all  of  the  partnership  creditors  anc  partners 
and  their  legal  representatives  be  ascertained  and  declared  by  the 
court,  that  all  the  liabilities  of  the  partnership  may  be  paid  and 
satisfied  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  partnership  assets  and 
that  the  surplus,  if  any,  may  be  divided  between  the  plaintiff  and 
the  legal  representatives  of  said  deceased  partners  or  that  in  the 
event  the  proceeas  are  not  sufficient  to  pay  such  liabilities  that 
then  the  estates  of  the  deceased  partners  may  be  required  to  con- 
tribute, in  the  relative  proportions  in  which  they  share  in  the 
proceeds  of  the  partnership,  the  additional  amount  necessary  to  pay 
such  liabilities.   The  complaint  also  prays  that  Edith  L.  Belding, 
as  administratrix  of  the  estate  of  Y/ilbert  D.  Belding,  be  enjoined 
from  selling  or  attempting  to  sell  any  of  the  property  of  the  partner- 
ship or  of  the  plaintiff  in  order  to  satisfy  the  sa.id  judgment  rendered 
in  the  case  of  Edith  L.  Belding  vs.  Harlow  H.  Belding,  et  al,  being 
Gen.  Ho.  18,641,  until  the  further  order  of  the  court. 

The  defendant  Edith  L.  Belding;,  individually  and  as  administratix, 
filed  an  answer  in  whicj:iehe^  set  out  in  detail  the  proceedings  in  said 
case  of  Edith  L.  Belding  vs.  Harlow  K.  Belding,  et  al,  being  cause 
No.  18,641  as  a  bar  to  the  maintenance  of  the  pction  of  the  plaintiff. 
In  this  ajiswer  she  set  forth  the  original  bill  of  complaint  in  this 
cause  No.  18,641  and  attached  to  her  answer  a  copy  thereof,  by  which 
it  appears  that  on  August  31,  1931  she  filed  her  bill  for  an  account, 
settlement  and  division  of  the  partnership  property.   This  coxfiplaint 


e^l:i  aasaax;    'jivi  .blo.d  o^/   asaaxtaoo  33a.  "yixi'n.t-BZq  e:i^    ^^aihlsQ    .Q 

'  j-::sdIJ:V.    io  ri:\cj,Big-3lJ.i:aik>v5   8i:    .^nj.ola&i    ..I  ii3-ir)5{   d-^jiij-  i>i:,n   =d-.i:;tj3u3  end" 

lo  j^'foC    d-xjLQ:;xQ   8^:ui    /xi;  JJ-dSL    .oil  en^so  ni   dfiQI    ,68  ■■cx.^vmio  no  et.ejss 

ilolrlu-  lo  swoixv   Y--   .:;©'xos.b  vi.    xc   \r:!;i-ns   sua-  i:^eax;ocxq    ,Y^'-ff-i-'oO  e^£*Ii;G 

qi.dSi&i'a"a:sq  erij-  .i^oii  tea  oJ'  jjjiixso  ijn,s  ©taj   si:  sisiJ?   ^splt  acrxslo  sde 

i-^A^i'   :tn:3is..*x3v.:=.  ffc  vu   aaJbi-IOiico   i^£'i.3lcTiuOo  a.f.T      .88.031 5 oXo-,   lo  isxfB   edi 

oJ    se'xiBsJj  e.u  :t^£ri:;'   tnB  'r5;j:;t'Xj5q   y/ilvlvissa   aloa  9xi«    ai    jrliiJ'iix.fila-  sdS 

bus  iis.is^:jB  efit   rid-ir   6cn;.sI}Sooos  rri   etxoaI^  qJt.iiai6ffC!"i^q  sri*  ajs  .uEiw 

srij-  vd  i>ei:.?ioet-  .ixi/:?  i:;S-al^.?3-aec^3j;>  ad"  ae^li'.s^fidae'rgei  l3^3l  .Tiien;}-  ^n£ 

i)re?   oxBO    sd   v.3iii  qi/i3:;aiiCix«q  'da*  'io  asx::ixliu.si:i  eiiii'  lis   'tjid'<i    ,txu'oo 

i);T^  Bcrsaai?  qirfatiofijioc;   a;o   eljsa  edo    to  Bbssooxo^  silt  lo   oifo  iailaicJ-Ba 

ivJis    xlx-t-AX^ICi   sri3   xcsawJed  JDsJijXvxx;   aa  ^.60    ,-v;-J^   ^•J    «3xrlqi;j;;a   scd'   iJ-M^ 

rjf'J'  ill   i^zd^i   10  ai&aJisa  Xjes^^ioeh  bis?.  J.q  aevUsoXSsaaiqsi  iB'jkBl  -siit 

3"'-?ili'   sex^ilxdsxX  .iiC-jja  v.^q  oJ"  c'w^xox'ttxra    ^o.a  sis  soosoo^q  erf:!"   J/ryve 

-:xco  oi"  ijsixij-pax  i;J  \iia  s'^axid'ijsq  issaasoox)  sito    xo  ascJ-XiJ-ae  edtned^ 

SAi'    iix  soisxia  vAsix  rlDXiiW  r/x   anoii-xoqoo:q  9VX3"sIsx  an*  nx    -feoi/crxxd* 

Y^q  o*   'i-s^aasoai:  ^rajohi^  I-i.iToxtx.oiis   saj    jqlfiax^a^'r.aq  exid"   'io  aijeeooiq 

^:a):x.oI^-a    .J  ri;J-xi:S  ■J:asii  a\3io   oals  c^J:x.£J?Iqieoo  e^IT      .BeimilcLail  Aoim 

JbaiUoraa  aq    ^^nii.I^tl    .u   d'X3:fXxY;   lo  9j-.sjs3   ^ric^  'lo  xxxii^z^jii&Xnisiba  as 

leatXBc  tKij-  'to  Y-t-xsqciq  sriJ-    'io  "^xia  Ilea   Ou"  ■^rix^fqisJsJJ.s  0:0  a/ixllsa  ffioil 

:t?Oii9-i  fcaKi;v,Lu/i;  axiia  siio    xxbxjsb   ocr  'TraJitco  itx   ■iliy.ax.filq  'i'di'  lo  "xo  qMa 

;;:;,nxsq    ^ia   ts    ^gnxi^Isa    .H  woI^rx^K    .8V  Q.axJblsa    .J  u^xJ^S  lo  aaso   axidr  xci 

,c^■;cx'■oo  axij-  lo  xsni-o  'x^i'id'axf'i  sri;!"  ix;jff.v   ^I^b^SI    .os'I    .ae-D 

■BB  qx  ^ssiixJvseooxq  edt  ll^.^^eb  :it   juo  taa  /3fi!^x:{oi:.dvi-  iix  xavraxts  as  jyslx^ 

QBSsso  'gnlsd    ,1?,  j9    jgnxjblsa    ,H  woLx£,E    .sv  aaiLXafi    .J  dtLb'Si   10  saso 

;.lxc)-.axxslq  eild    'io  iio.tdo-    add-   'to  eofl.sn;e;|-jiTxaiss  edi  oi  xjeo'  jj  s£  1*^3, 81    .oM 

BXfi:)-  jTx   a-i.Tij3lqiiJ00    xo  ilio   Xjsrxxglio  srfd"   rf^'xol-  Jea  arfa   lawsa-js  axiid"  rrl 

cio-U'"'  X^    ^y.QQ'.siU  vqoo  £  ^9W3ii-s  'xe-a  o*  i)oxlosJ"i"B  .bos  L!^3 ^8I   .oM  saxf.so 

.dAXjcojg   ii.G   'xo'l  Ilxcf  'led  bslll  sria   I58I    ^IS   t©jj-;jJA  no   J-b/IJ  at^oqqs   i"! 

;f£ii:.sIq!!ioo   sXiiT      .YoTioqo'xq  qxao'xend'iBq  a/W    lo  noisxvxi)  aos.  d'xiam3l^i''sa 


-3- 

alleged  the  formation  of  the  partnership  between  Wilbert  D.  Beldin^ 
Harlow  E.  Belain^-  &.na  Ed^ar  E.  Belding,  on  or  about  Janue.ry  7,  1918, 
pursuant  to  the  partnership  agreeiiient,  a  copy  oi  which  we^s   attached 
to  said  original  complaint.   Tiiis  ori^iina-l  couiplaint  m5.de  Harlow  H. 
Belaing  and  Edgar  E.  Beluing,  who  were  then  living,  pa^rties  defendant 
as  surviving  partners  of  the  partnership  of  E.  E.  Belding  &  Sons, 
allegea  the  termination  of  thai;  partnership  by  the  death  of  Wilbert 
D.  Belaing  on  September  19,  1928  and  averred  that  tne  partnership 
articles  were  moaiiied  after  they  were  executed  so  thrit  the  interest 
of  the  several  partners  would  be  equal.   In  her  answer  in  the  instant 
case  it  was  averred  that  the  partnership  property  which  she  described 
in  her  original  bill  of  coiiiplaint  was  the  saaie  property  referred  to 
and  described  in  plaintiff's  coaplaint  and  fxirther  a.verred  that  after 
her  complaint  was  filea,  the  surviving  partners  filed  an  answer  and 
also  an  inventory  of  the  partnership  assets,  which  disclosed  the  same 
mortgage  ind.ebtedness  ana  liabilities  referred  to  in  the  plaintiff's 
complaint  herein.  Her  answer  in  the  instant  case  further  averred 
that  after  the  surviving  partners  haa  appeared  and  filed  an  answer 
to  her  original  complaint,  she  filed  a  replication  to   th.-.t  answer 
and  that  tne  cause  was  referred  to  the  Master-in-Ghancery,  who  pro- 
ceeded to  take  the  proofs  of  the  respective  parties  and  made  a  report 
thereof  to  tne  court.   Her  answer  then  alleges  that  after  the  death 
of  Wilbert  D.  Belaing,  the  siirviving  partners  Harlow  H.  Belding  and 
Edgar  E.  Belding  remained  in  the  possession  of  the  partnersnip 
property  and  continued  the  partnership  business  without  making  any 
settlement  of  accunts  with  her  as  adrainistratriz  a.na  that  on  March  37, 
1931  Edgar  E.  Belding  conveyed  sllof  his  right,  title  anu  interest  in 
the  partnership  property  to  Harlow  H.  Belaing,  the  plaintiff  herein, 
and  that  he  continued  to  carry  on  the  partnership  business  in  the 
partnership  name,  using  the  partnership  property  ana  effects.  Her 
answer  tiien   set  forth  the  provisions  of  the  decree  entered  in  said 
original  cause  Ho.  18641  and  averred  that  the  cause  was  thereafter 
appealed  to  the  Appellate  Court,  where  the  decree  of  tne  trial  court 
was  reversed  in  part.   (Belding  v,  Belding,  272  111.  App.  196).  Her 


^axLIsg    .a  tiBoln;  neew&^Q  qixiaiariJ-i^c  sii^    j:o   aol^i&xo'l  exit  be-gells 

^8I^;I    jV    y^oJjiisL  di^cu.s  'xo  .(Tc    , [giT.tials.i    .^   i^^jjiDa  i>nB  ^xjiLIad    .H  woxxjSH 

r-ana-^t;*^  a.s^T  /ici:3/    to  ■'<:^ioo  b    jy\ae;ue0i^^  qixfssanjxsq   sxi^   oJ"  Jioi/a'xyq 

d-aOiS^-iii   eilJ-   cj-juiJ-   oa  ^•)e^;-x/o&:c9   s^ifeT^-  ^e-iicr  'x3d-i.3  JLieJr'ii-Ooxu  d-xqw  aaXoxci-Xie 

"xKuaivi   i2<io   xix   ':;svr3r:t.s  ^eii  al      .Isnpo  ecf  iXiroi?  a'So.ii^'Xiq  Xsicavsa  eacf   Id 

^scixioasiD  erfs   uox.irs-  virisqoio;   -;xnsrxe.ai'xsq  8^i:f   v^nd'  be-i-xevB  ajsw  ;i-i;   eaao 

Co   I^Dx-xsxs-x  Y^^sgo^q  £i!!^a  sncr   ajavr  ^■r:xsIq;..oo   ic   Xlxd"  Xsftx^xrso  len  at 

LSS'la  3\snu   ijS7idT.o  2:9nu'ixr!i;  jxiG   crnxAlqti.oo  a 'ilii^nisXq  .iix  ijecfXtoasij  Jjhjs 

.onir  •i9vr3Xi£  iLR  i>oXJ;;L  ^-loattz^Q   ^iixv^ivxij";:  8sIo"    .iosXil  ajsw^  iaiaiqaoo  isrd 

sjisa   Siad-  .ossoXoslo  riolri'?    ja^sess  rxns^ciaS-x^q  eno'   "iy   y;'XCuHaviisx  xxjb  oeXiS 

8 '  iliu/^xsiq  9U?  ni  o:t  .bea^iOiS'x  soXJxXivijsiiX  ajjs^  aasnxje^dsoxix  sg-s^^^^osi 

Ijet":-x-3^'j3  'xe-ijixri  sqjso   hcsuanl   exici'   ~x   'xswa;i/i  I'sH      .nletoa  d'xiislqnioo 

'i3v.-i^iX3  ixs  i>5lxT:  Ljnsi  jsr^ssqa-s  JD£ii  a'xsxiw'x.^q  '^snxyxvxi/s   sxij   ^ei-^^  ;i".s.iid" 

xevrair-s  a".;.o.3-   oJ   ':xoi;r,c  arlqsa  .s  i^oXil  ede    .inL-iXxmoo  iMiil^rzQ  xed  od", 

-oxq  criw    ^ixaoii-oiLO-rri-'Xriis^ki;  exlo"   oc;'  ijor^'xe'ie'x  a^w  eaxixp  e/iJ  cr^ucf  isxLS 

•  locsr.  s  ebs^i  bets  e-is'x^c  evxcrosqas'x  e/iii    to  slcoiq  edd-  a'uLst  ci  bBteso 

DOS  -^urxxjlaa    .H  ^roIi..rfi-x  a'xarij'xxjq  ^^nxvi-vixra  e.a*    ,gnxx>Xsg.  .u   if^iiaaXiV/ J:o 

ci;risiond-x«q  exl;}    Ic  iioxaasaaoq  srlct  al  beniams's.  -gaiblsQ    .3  'XJSgijS 

Yxi.G  si:x;i.;^«  tooiid-i\?  ssexixax'-d  qixia'xsii-d-xaq  e-rii''  f)9i/xtidTxoo  i)a:.s  vi^xaqoiq 

'S  Aoi^^h  ac  a.s:if  jxa.s  s:i:-xJ-.3'iJ-exii;i!.!j:>5  bs  i3ii  Jlrf-j:??  ai'mtoo^  lo  drteiaalo-Jaa 

ri   ^i-aeTsi-nx  xur-   alvTiJ-    ^^ii^lx  axri  IcXX^  Lq-^sv/joo  gxxlXjXsS    .S  ::s3i);R  XSeX 

,rxi:ai£';:(  ■ixx^jxa.olq  eni    »gfi:xX)Xs'i    .H  wcX^^H  off  xtteqoxq  qxnaisacf'x.Bq  sxIiJ' 

orfo   j-x   aasxsxaxrcf  qxriattGn^ccsr  sdJ  xic  y'xxso  o^  heuai&iroo  eri  tssiij-  biss, 

•xeH      «Bci-osr/x'J;9  rxis  Y^^^qoxq  qxxfeiarioxxsq  axij-  iigniaxf   ^sjBsn  qixfsTsnd'i^q 

i^jx,p;3  ax  bz:'x^iiiiB  r^etoeb  sri*  lo  arxoxalvoaq  Bilj    dtxol  tse  xxsa'd"  lawaxis 

tei'L'^e'iQU:;-  s--:i-v  eKxxiso  oa'J-   d-cxlo-  bexiiSYjS.  Lxc.g  X4^c*GX   .oW   aeuieo  XB^igxio 

;}-iirco  I/jX-xJ-  erici-   iO  sexosb  eiv^  saextw    ,JTixoO  9;^BXX9qqA  exiJ  oj  ^eX.'seqqi; 

aeH      .  (8GiX    .qqA    .XXI  SVSJ    ^.gfllijXsa    .v  -^ibleb.)      .J^xsq  fli  xoaisvaT:  asw 


-4- 

answer  tnen  averred  that  thereafter  the  juugment  of  this  court  and 
the  decree  of  tne  Circuit  Court  were  reversed  by  the  Fjupreme  Court. 
(Belding  v.  Belding,  358  III.  216).   That  thereafter  and  on  Janviary 
25,  1935,  in  accordance  with  the  views  expressed  in  the  opinion  of   | 
the  Supre:ue  Court,  a.  decree  was  entered  in  tne  Circuit  Court  which 
foxind,  ainon^:   other  things,  that  tiie  net  value  of  the  partnership    i 
assets  of  E.  E.  Belaing  c%   bons  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  'iVilbert 

D.  Belding;  vsras  f|51,325.96,  and  th&t  tae  interest  of  this  defendant, 
as  administratrix  of  tkx  Wilbert  D.  Belaing,  deceased.,  was  one-third 
therof  subject  to  a  deduction  which  ha-d  been  pa-id  her  and  that  she 
was  entitled  to  receive  the  suni  of  -ylo,  158.13,  with  interest  thereon 
from  liaxlow  K.  Belaing  inciivicaially  and  Harlow  H.  Belding  and  Ora  L. 
Finley,  Executors  of  the  Estate  of  Edgar  E.  Belding,  deceased.   Tfeiat 
thereafter  ana  on  Augxist  14,  1935  this  court  afiirraed  the  decree  of 
the  trial  court,  Belding-  v.  Bslding,  281  111.  ^pp.  351,  and  sub- 
sequently a  petition  by  the  plaintiff  herein  for  lee.ve  to  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Court  was  denied  and  theree-fter  the  mandate  of  this  court 
was  filed  in  the  trial  coiirt  and  thst  ssld  decree  reiiiains  unsatisfied 
and  in  full  force  and  effect.   By  her  cjiswer  she  fxirther  alleged  that 
said  s\ii2  of  ijiSlo,  158.15,  so  found  to  be  aue  her,  was  the  result  of  the 
acuouaitii'ig  and  settletient  of  the  partnership  a.f fairs  of  ;7ilbert  D. 
Belding,  Kaixlovj  H.  Belaing  and  Sdgar  S.  Belding,  doing  business  as 

E.  E.  Belding  and  Sons,  pursu'int  to  the  terms  of  the  Uniforra  Partner- 
ship Act,  and  that  the  decree  of  Je.nuary  25,  1935  is  the  identical 
order,  judgjaent  and  decree  aientioned  in  plaintiff's  compliant,  and 
the  identical  partnership  ma.tter,  accounting  and  set'clement  which 
plaintiff  asks  to  relltigate  and  she  tnerefore  claims  the  bar  of 
S2,id  decree  as  res  adiudicata. 

The  record  liscloses  taat  issue  was  joined  upon  the  allegations 
of  tnis  answer  and  a  he3.ring  h£.d  in  o'cen  court  ajid  upon  the  hearing 
there  was  offered  in  evidence  the  original  conplaint  of  Edith  L. 
Belding,  filed  August  31,  1931,  the  joint  and  several  answer  of  Edg-ar 
£.  Belcing  and  Harlow  H.  Belding  thsret9,  together  with  the  original 
decree  entered  January  2  3,  1933,  the  nandate  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the 


\;i:.srj(v;.9L  no  bixB  aod'lsexftaci-   :i-j3JlT      .  (oIS    .iil   8a^    ^iicilniQci    .v  sx3;l.Dl9S) 

qxa3v^.u£-x.st-;[  y.id"  'to  qjjIbv   ^■e<jr  3/iJ'  e^J3<lj■    ,3grii:iid"  -rsrigo  gxicfas    ,J0iu/o1t 
^"xecfl'iW  Z:o  jlif'?i)i:>  siiu   "^o  &i?i:ir   e.nfi"   oj5  ano3  -^  grrialeS    .a    .3  lo  s^ea^s 

}.,'xJ:d&~3-io  Bsvr   jXJSjiBeoab    ^■^ixxl}lB^3.    .\S   >"iscfltft   m.si.X  'to  TJ.xiB'S/Salni.'.iib.B  ss 

jsos'sieiiJ'  c^3'i)'r^^Jn;i;   a.i*i',r    i<i£  ,&dl  ^<iliij.    lo  sua  ed?  ©TlriO&T  otT  rielci-ia'rty  aaw 

-dija  I).avS    jISo    ,q(;A   .III    tSS    ,;>ifii:}>ii?-a    .v  -^alblBS.'  ^t'uroo  l.^i-x'^  qM 
b-3.txBi^£:3fm  &aiAi&i  e^iosi)  i^i.ss   l8rf;r  bus  ^tisoo  .l.r,r.it  ^iit  nt  haLiTe.  Bsw 

I.:3oi;rrrs.bi:  ec;)'  &!  So'?/    ^d£.   v/zAssa^i,  J.o  ^exo&h  ens  tsii^t- hs^    ,^oA  qtdia 
baj:    t  :^;f X3lar.;oo   •-: 'I'tidTflsIq  at  i:)SJTo ic^n'Sfu  ?je'):o3.b  i-a;;  3'-fi»aj^i:;i;f;    j-isii^co 

.. 3 rf- so ib.'/ (;!).':■  ao'X  as   ©•^-iosx)  Jbi.ee 

3.fii-xjB3il  e.di  rrooif  .Dfi'^   d^xjjco  rr'r.qo  -ox  hsu  gala.se/i  .e  ooe  t^^Bn£  stdt  to 
,J  ifaioiH  'io  cJ'fiXG.ft'H.co   L'^sxl-gt'siO  eiH  sonstxvs  r;l  iisisllo  &&y<t  oiBtis 

Ixiftxiji'xo  Slid-   n-jixt  isoJego;]-    «9*si©ri3-  'grUIils*    .H  wcIxkH  hxia  aiilx»Isa    .2 
rid-    ^utofoD   9!Vjaqxfe   ©fid    lo  s;f«i)nBCt  ^.Mt    ,Sf'9I    jSU  vx6x.ffLBU  I)sa®*fi0  »9aco®X) 


-5- 
decxee  of  January  S5,  1935  entered  by  the  Circuit  Court  in  pursuance 
to  that  mandate,  the  mandate  of  this  court  affirming  that  decree, a 
together  with  the  order  of  the  Supreme  Court  denying  the  petition  for 
leave  to  s.pjjeal  froii  the  judgment  of  this  Court.   T^'e  trial  court 
sustained  defeiidant's  pleai  £s   of  rec-  adjudiCe.ta  and  dismissed  the 
complc'int  for  want  of  eqviity  and  it  is  frou  this  decree  that  this 
appeal  hes  been  perfected. 

Ooimsel  for  appellant  insists  that  the  loriner  decree  does  not 
adjudicate  either  that  th.e  stirviving  partner  may  wind  up  cr  that  he 
may  not  wind  up  the  affairs  cf  a  partnership  t,nd  calls  our  attention 
to  Section  37  of  the  Uniform  Partnership  A<St,  which,  counsel  contend, 
gives  appellant,  Harlow  H.  Belding,  surviving  partner,  tne  right  to 
wind  up  the  rjartnership  affitrs  and  lorovides  that  he  -.uay  obtain  such 
winding  up  by  the  court. 

It  is  not  nscsRSfiLiy  for  us  to  review  at  lengtn  the  history  of 
this  litigation.   But  we  respectfully  refer  coumBsl  to  the  case  of 
Belding  v.  !3elding,  272  111,  App.  196,  Beldin.^-  v.  Belding,  358  111. 
313  and  Belding  v.  Eelaing,  381  111.  App.  351.   An  examination  of 
those  opinions  disclose  that  the  identical  pg.rtnership  affairs, 
which  appellant  seeks  to  settle,  were  fo^-ind  to  be  cdasolved  by  the 
death  of  Wilbert  D.  Belding  on  September  19,  192S,  that  on  October  1, 
1928  Edith  L.  Belding  ^ras  appointed  and  qualified  a,s  adurinistratrix 
of  the  estate  of  her  deceased  husbsxid,  t'Jilbert  D.  Beluing,  that  she 
is  still  8,cting  ae  such  ad'fiinistrat±tx  and  thst  the  assets  of  the 
partnership  were  left  in  the  possession  of  the  surviving  partners 
Karlovf  K.  Belding  and  Edgar  E.  Belding.   Under  the  provisions  of  the 
Uniform  Partnership  Act,  the  title  to  the  partnership  property  became 
vested  in  the  said  Harlow  K.  Belding  and  Edgar  E.  Belding  and  they 
had  3  right  to  windup  the  partnership  a-ffairs.   These  siixviving 
partners,  however,  did  not  proceed  to  wind  up  the  partnership  affairs, 
but  continued  the  partnership  business,  using  the  partnership  name 
and  the  partTiership  property  without  msJcing  any  setclo:aent  with  the 
representative  of  the  estate  of  their  deceased  partner.   It  further 
appears  that  on   March  27,  1931  Sdgar  E.  Belding  conveyed  all  of  his 


®,&e=soeb  d-Siia"  ^xxxia^ill-s  cJXLfoo  eirfS"  1:o  eS'veJbc^m  arid-    , s crBi)XtG;i!  ;J'j3rId'  od" 
'ici  .aoia-XB-sq  exij  gixx Yixei)   vt-xucO  ©£i8Tqj;;8  end"    xo  isoio  e.d^  iLtiw  ^srfcfsgOjf 

eiiCi"  J:;f3  3-3l;.>':'il'')  te«  ■B^'"£:Oi:.bjj"Qi3j3  2-7.  ?co  sS  selci  a '  ta>j|;ri© xs>i3  £i5>.ai:.3o'"aii'a 
sxilt   &M^   oi^xoeb  hf.A&  aoii  rai;   ji   iins  voxx/pe  lo  d-iii5w  *xox  ^axslajaoo 

i-on  aec-b  ?5aoaf>  ■:r3OT!roi  Bclt  vT^iid'   s^axeixi:  ^iJ.'jJXaqgB  "Sol  leaiSHoO        ,  . 

od'  d-dsxT  sxltf    ,iexid-'x;'jr;   3ni-3xvT:x;a    ,giixJ:>I&.6I    ,H  viroIt!;>E3H    ^tri!3XI^Q:c.e  sav.tg 
xloxf$  Kx.ss-cl'o   ?.£5n  sri  ihd;;  e&D.£vo'rq  i^n?  axisSl'i.^  qiiia^&nJ'iix^q  extj-  cm  ha.J(m 

^o  "vrJ-'»^^''sxa  .3x13"   rid-gxisl  *-?  wexvet  od"  bij  I'd!!;   \"ijB3rrecsii  3'cxl  sx  rf-I 

10  oaBO   o-'ivl-   o^i-   I:-^Rn.c'co  xaiei  ',i.[X/>t^09q®e'X  ew  tifd      ./loxd-Bsxd-J;!  sxxW 

.XXI  853    ,giiX.oXoci    .V  ^KXoXag    (OGX    .qqA    .XXX  SVS    ,-gcil?X&t.    .v  :gni:JiIe£ 

lo  noiCi..:.axi2j8Xfc?  rrA      »X5S    ,.ctcA   »XXI  X8t    ^'^ntol&S.    ,v  ;i;ni,bXea  foftB  aXS 

^^li&'y.'lB  GXowxsniJi?q  X.eoiS'Kajr.'X  ©r-j  iJ^^ifi'  "ssolasil)  sxjcJE/iXqo  eaoxiJ 

Sil^-  Y*^  x:.e7XcasXJ  ©o'  o;r  .bayoi  exs^?    j8X;J'C''S<s   ecf  8jI®@s   d'XLBXXsqqB  uoia'w 

^X  ^oooJ-oO  no  ii.niii    ,SS9i    ,gX   xacfffls^qsS  Xi'o  -griXoXaS    .Q   i'TSctXXW  lo  sii&^b 

Sifii   .tBiid"    ,gX!;x-ji!?S    .fl   2-x-?AfXxV/  ^buso^ssd  bas-Beosib  ^r-axi  Ic  s^-sta©'  edt  Ic 

arU-  Ic  suSftajB  sdi-  .TE;i■c^  JbrtB  z'ii-Jje'sa-sxitiiiL.aa  xioua  as  g'Ti^ro^  Xlid-a  si  • 

sxexisfisq   -rixviv'KX's   ^sU   lo  r!;oia5es3oq  SifJ'  x:;!   d'leX  bz&w  qt.daTen.&%4q 

e<U   Ic  snolsxvo-iq  exicf   -ielAaiJ      .;a,ax&X3a    .3:  ^s^M  Jbiti.s  ^jixiiilaS   »K  ^oXxsH 

siiifioed"  vu'xgqoaq  q.tasrxerrd'xeq  erfeiVo'J"  oX^X-J-  arid-    ^d-Qil  '5:x£ts'X3iijrx3*ii'  m^ollxiU 

Y^rld-  J:ux.s  >:nlbi38.    .a  •3;.s3\ijS  .&n;s  gnXxjXs^    .K  wolxzH  bXBa.  eda   at  :^stBtiV 

^a'xj■.s't'ls  qi'd.a'iBait&q  3ii3-  qx;-  £>nXw  oi  beeootq  toa  bib    ^'x.®\'■^■wQd   ^BiesztTsq 

erasw  qi deti: a jToXsq  sxij  ■^■jixiBis   ^saaii'lsxrcf  crxxfstrao:d*Tj;q  sxiii'  .bexfisXjiTroo  tad 

oxi'o"-  fftX^  vtn3{ii6Xi-:J-9s  vxis  ■Q!iiyL2M  o-xfoaffx;?  ■>j;?iaq;cTq  qMa-xe/jS-^casq  gxi!?  ba£ 

rediiui  i^l     .naxi-tiBc  fe^aiSsosx)  ^xend-  lo  sd-sd-Qe  exld-  Ic  6vifjdto©a^a:q-0T 

.  eXii  lo  XX-JS  X)eY©vxcoo  -^niblBS.    .^  ijBjpgL  XSeX,  ,VS  xloxeii  no  j»£..£l«i-  a^^^qqis 


-6- 

xigjht,  title  and  interest  in  ana  to  the  partnership  property,  both 
real  and  personal,  to  appellant  the  other  survivinij'  partner,   fjs-i'low 
H.  Belding.   Aliaost  three  years  had  ela.psed  after  the  death  of  Wilbert 
D.  Belding  before  his  widow,  as  representative  of  his  eBt£.te,  took 
any  legal  steps  to  settle  the  partnership  affiArs  and  it  was  not 
until  August  31,  1921  that  she  filed  her  orik,iiaal  bill  of  complaint, 
in  Which  she  asked  for  an  accouriting,  settle'uent  ^.no  division  of  the 
partnership  property.   The  survivirifx;  partners,  Harlow  H.  Belding  and 
Eagar  E.  Belding,  were  made  i^artxes  dsfenaant.   They  answered.   The 
cause  proceed.ed  to  a  decree,  and  ths.t  decree  found  that  o.ppellee 
here  elected  to  teJke  in  her  repreBentativs  capacity  as  :\'.Ministratrix 
under  Section  42  of  the  llniforiii  partnerahio  Act  an  anount  equal  to 
the  value  of  the  interefst  of  Wilbert  D.  Belding  in  the  oa.rtnership 
of  E.  IS.  Belding  &  Sons,  at  the  time  of  his  dea-h,  with  interest 
from  the  date  of  his  death.   That  decree  also  found  that  the  net 
worth  of  the  partnership  at  the  tiae  of  death  of  Wilbert  D.  Belding 
was  ^53,144.45,  and  the  surviving  partners  were  ordered  to  pay  to 
the  plaintiff  as  adjiiinistratrix  $12,728.29  with  interest.   Tiiis  is 
the  first  decree  that  tnis  court  reviewed  ano  our  opinion  is  reported 
in  Belding  v.  Belding,  272  111.  App.  196.   Thereafter  the  judgment 
of  this  Court  was  reversed  by  the  Suprerae  Court  imd  thu  cause  was 
remanded  to  tne  trial  court  with  directions  to  enter  a  cecree  in 
accordance  with  the  views  expressed-  by  the  Sapreifls  Oourt.   Belding  v, 
Belding,  358  111.  216.   Ib  coapliajice  with  the  directions  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  the  Circuit  Oourt  entered,  on  January  35,  1935,  a 
decree  which  was  reviewed  by  this  court,  Belding  v,  Belding,  281  111. 
App.  351,  and  the  decree  of  the  trial  court  was  affirmed.   Subsequently 
leave  to  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Oourt,  was  denied  by  the  court,  and 
the  majidate  of  this  court  was  thereupon  filed  in  the  Circuit  Court, 
and  the  evidence  discloses  that  that  decree  has  never  been  satisfied 
or  complied  with. 

Upon  its  review  of  the  original  case,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that 
Edith  L,  Belding,  appellee  herein,  had  a  right  to  elect  r.hether  she 


dtod   tYJieqc'cg  qixla'xsiijx^q  erid-  o^  iin.s  rii   ^aaaaJni  .0x13  elffid-    «Jxigia 

coaliV,   1:0   :-3->s9o  end-   ^e^cM^  .oeaqsXs  usri  axss-^  e&ixit  teCiixlA      ,-^nibLeS.    .K 
.:Ioo2-    .9.t.3jE3   eiii'  '^o  3Yx3-,;i5-,o:9asi,:;;:>3:  33    ,woi)i:w  alii  &'Xo'J5a''  §ni:£>Iija    ,C1 

L~n.B  grxi>l&e    .H  \7oX'tsK    .R-xs,iiac>;j3q  £>!■!. xvivxjt/s   siiT      .Y^tsqc^q  qX;iaa;9ij;3'ts:j5q 
snT      .i;»e^i"iW8iXi.  Y'-rfT      .^^"riBrn-s'isiD  aais-i.-iq  &i>Bm  axe's?   t^nicIyS    .a;  ^jsj^a^ 

cs'  l£.ups  ani:.o;HS   /:i"   toi:  cj:i:ltis-n&x£<i  im-'ilnU  sxyt  'to  C>i>  zo.i^oo^  %eba.u 

Qlds'xwaixsf:  er-.d   ml  5c  iblsCi    .;!   d-iBcilxW   10   ^a9*s:3?ni  axiir   lo  sx;I.sv  ari'J 

&avisi:iJ:   ay^ifi    ^A..■4.;f^b  &i:il  lo  erixd-  saJ'  ;ts    ,sxtoa  :S  'gsxliylQS.   .2    .3  Ip 

gA'XDl'Sfi    -C;   3'i:sdXx'f/   1u  aj,Be£)   lo  siiXJ.  suci'  •t.s  qxriaisiiu^iiq  sdij-  lo  iiirxow 

ot  XJiq  CO"  jbs'xe.cxo  v's/jn  H'M^aiVL^q  :gns.v.i-.r-zL<a  eri^  Xjob    ,Gi\.-i^M.SG|,  a^vr 

el  8X..iT      .<:-aoT^ j-ux  .ucrxw  (iS.tiSVtaX^!;  xi3:J3i?pi.aXi\a3£;   b-s   x^tx^ija^Xq  &sra 

t9J"3;oqs"i  3  1  xXcxiiicG    x;;o   otis  s)ev::-Xv&%  Sxm-O  Bid:}   j.G/ij  ssxoaii  ?bix1  axid" 

:)-/t9iiTg.bj:f^   snJ-  •?:e;i'T33'i6i.'T      ttin-X    .cqA   .XXI   BVS    .•^nibleiEi    .v  ;vjXixoXsa  ai: 

a^w  Qaxjjio   e-...v.    i'j.cii   ,i"Sij-GO  Si'uO'roiib  anJ  vcf  Jboaisvsi  -s-SiT  oixroO  axxld"   lo 

ex  esticoo.':  .-.   -xaj-rc-'D   gj"  a;ioi;fo::i.t'3   riuiw  ;i'"xi;oo   XbxiS'  ezij  oj"  L&jorLSiiiSi 

,7  xnxbleS      .-ix'-roO   sois'xqjj'fi   'iai^  ^■;ci■  i)9Ba3acxs  awaiv  e.fiu    li'.tiw  60jcra£)'£oco;5 

&iii~  "10  >-2r.o.Lvj-06'xio  &'.fl.a-  dcfiv-/  soriE.t;Iqi'.;oo  iil      .QXS    ,XXI   8SS    ^-gaiblsS. 

fi    ^Coi^l    jcE   Y''i-fi^'''Cf-^'X'  ^"^    ^hB'itiiaQ   -J'xsjoC   d^xwo-xXO  sxia    ^ixijoD  aixexqxrg 

.XXI   XS'S    ,vixj;;jlsS    .v  ^jXiXj:)Xsa    ,i''Xiioo   -axxli-  ■>/;d'  Jbawaxv&tc  asw  rioxiiw  ssiooia 

'iieixpe  atfj^a      .;,ybui'ixj.'if._  3Bvr  o',aioo   Ibxi?  ax1.j  "jo  ssaoe^fe  ^IIi^  Joxts   jX6S   .qqA 

.5fl;:s    (d-xiJoO   3iiu'   --ifi  bdijiiih  8,e«     ^txc/oO   8)r©iqx/£   sad"   03"  XB^qqjs   o^  3V,«3SX 

jj"'.-oO  ci-xjj'or.XD  .•;a.t  i-rx  X»-9XX1  uoqjus^s.icr  a^^w  d'rExxoo  aiiiJJ'   20  Qd-jspiiisct  64* 

iJ9X'JsliJ,a3  fxedo  Tsv^a:  aiH.!  esTOSi)  u.s.ai"  d^jzau   s6BoXoai.v  soxjsLivs  mit  dxlb 

•xiaxw  x>sJ:Iqtooo  xo 
srfj  *;X8rl  d-'ificO  Sit;.exq.t;e  sxia-    ,aajBO  X.sxrxgi'xo  ^ilc^  I0  is-slvex  ad"!  noqU 


-7- 

woula  teJ<e  the  value  of  ner  deceased  husband's  interest  in  the 
partnership  property  at  the  tirae  of  his  death,  with  interest 
thereon  or  in  lieu  of  interest  taJce  the  profits  attributable  to 
the  use  of  his  interest  in  the  property  arising  thereafter  and 
found  thcvb  she  elected  to  receive  the  value  of  rfilbert's  interest 
at  the  tiiiie  of  his  desth  with  interest  thereon  and  determined  the 
value  thereof  ana  the  decree  of  January  25,  i9?5  found  th?t  she 
was  entioleci.  to  reuovcx  a  money  judi^tiient  for  the  amount  tiue  her  arid 
ordered  iTarlu\sr  H.  BelO.ing  individually  and  Ha.rlo\'7  K.  Belding  and 
Ora  L.  Finley,  es   executors  of  the   last  "fill  ana  Testament  of  Edgar 
E.  Belding,  deceased,  to  pe.y  the  aiaount  so  found  due  her,  as  the 
personal  representa,tive  of  her  deceaseo.  husband.   The  rignt,  there- 
fore, of  '"■iith  L.  Belding  to  recover  the  foregoing  amount  has  been 
deterininea  ana  it  is  a  well  settled  principle  of  laisf  tnat  not  only 
ths  questions  that  were  actually  decided  upon  the  trial  of  a  cause 
b^t  all  questions  and  ms.toers  \7hioh  iiight  ha,ve  bean  raisea,  determined 
and  litigated  liust  be  coiisidered  as  passed  upon  and  gxe  to  be  treated 
as  res  adjudicata  in  any  subsequent  litigs/cion.   G-odschalclv  v.  >iifeber, 
?-47  111.  263.   In  the  instant  case  the  evidence  cdscloBee  that  there 
is  a  complete  identity  of  parties  and  their  privie?  and  subject 
matter  vfith  the  parties  cind  the  subject  n.atter  of  the  original  suit 
and  in  our  opinion  appellee's  evidence  preeentea  a  complete  defense 
ana  the  trial  court  correctly  sustained  the  pioa  and  rendered  the 
decree  appealea  iroiu. 

Appellee  insists  the.t  the  institution  of  tnis  nviit  and  the 
prosecution  of  this  appeal  are  for  U3la.y  only  and  insist  that  damages 
should  be  allowed  as  provided  by  the  Statute  (111.  state  Bar  Stats. 
1935,  Ohap.  33,  par.  23).   In  Drainage  CoiiUiiission^rs  v.  Kansfield, 
•348  111.  page  50,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  tnis  provision  can  only 
be  invoiced  where  the  appeal  is  not  prosecuted  in  gooa  faith.   In 
the  instant  case,  while  we  are  ol  tne  opinion  tnat  there  is  no  merit 
in  appellant's  contention,  we  do  not  believe  the  statutory  provision 
applicable. 


siio   al   -^se'ir-oax  ^'hrL^dsiJ^  iDSSBioeib  ren  '±o  s;.;Ij:V   siii  alsJ  ^^lu-ow 
isei^^&iix  ix&iw    ^ni.ssL  aid  Ic  siaij  3n3'  c!s  Yd-raqcrc;  .c;i:fl3*2:&jd3"i.<3q 

Sf[^  J)eiii(.uT:?i^s.b  1)0 .'::  rtos i^.a'i-  Jaetcso'nx  i[d"i^^  xi.T.?e.2'  ax/i   re  Siiixj  sao    it.s 
Ms.8  rjsri  evo  o-irjjoni.3  erfrf"   To'it  oh-i.-^;?/^.oj;(;   x^xica   x^  •ifjvoo&x  oa-  iisici-x^fns   jibw 

ei;i2"  a^'    .'xssi  3ii:o  bxDJcl  os   ;?a!jci.3   ?;ri^  v,.3q  cJ-    ^.i^&a/^eoori    ^^sxilaa    .3 

-eieixd"    ,JiV,::X'x  ?'iT      .b^siSsini  bss.&eosb  "xau'  lo  £>vi;if.Bon9a8a:c-3'x  Xsxicatcsq 

fraeci   ai?a  jrif/orai:.  •iii^roj^stc't   erio    i&voo;^i;   o:i-  ^iixbl^K    .J   .do-lDT  lo    .s^ol 

^liio^'O/-;  u-^iici-  ■{■rjil  'to   elqiorcixc,   ij-ilcci'sa  IIe?f  &    si   ^x  UriQ  beaxsdist&h 

esixso  s   lo  I^xTd-  exit  noqn-  .osbioai)  YXI.t3i;2-0A  ©ttevr  tjjrf;^  ^noid-s3xrp"arf^ 

liiiffiisJeL    .reaijri    /fad  G^^^;;i   ^t-xlgxx-;  ifoxxi'^;  ai&.vi.a.ns  i,ui3  anoiusaiip   lls^  vi^ 

.■xeoisW    .V  jrolv/'os.oc-':      .i-cXuSglJ-il  cf.nisu'paisicix/s    -^n^  rxi  .Gtj;oxrj.!/{;.&ji  ss-x   as 
e-xediT  t^dv  aeticlr^slr-  eox-sLxvs   e/f^-  eax^o  d-iijjirsnx  eiid-  ::I      .^;3S    .III   V^-fi 

i'xxra   I.axii:ifi'xo  trit  to  tuSod-.£;!i  jos^d'xfa   Sili'  xm^s  sexx'xBq,  exi&  xij^xw  leJd-jsxa 

aaxi©x3.&   a3sIi.:«:oo   s  .oed-nsaixc,;  :jonsLi:T-3  a'e^IIeqoyi;  noxrxiqo  xxro  nx  bxxjs 

3xlt  J>3*xsx.'.T3'!;  01-X3  .sslq  9.fj   ijeax.--3J-s.u3  -^^Itoe-x-xoo  d-XD-oo  IxjI-x?  eiiJ  bas 

..■i;o:i:x  x><5l£^q_qB  es'xosb 
fixiid-   ix.:.:;  ji/x?   sJ::-.3-    io  XiolTxrci'xcrs.ri-l  eui-  ;^axij   a^alarxi  ©sIIsqqA 
;s>i£xisi;}   x.BX''o    o-gierrx  .biL^5   Y-^^-'JC  '  {^leL  'xox  eis  Issoas  alxi&  j.o  .ixox-J'xxosao'iq; 

^i>L^xi3Lis}:    .■■;■  s-^iexrcx^sxa-iiicD   e^Hcrxcxa  xil      .  (5S   .lisq    t;^5    .qsdO    ,aSSX 

[IxiC'  fX£0   noxsxvoiq   sirfs-   j£;;{*  idt^rl  d-ixxoO  saie-xquB  exl^    ,09   &ajBq    .III   8:^5 

rtl      .xii-itl:  xoo^j  Xii  jbsd"jxoeao'xq  don  8X  X&'sqqs   sxfrf"  e'xeiiv  jbesIoTxix  scf 

a-x"ioxrf  oxi  a_t  fr'x-;:\aj-   J-.iXid'  xrolnxqo  exi^  lo  &'iB  ew  elixiiif  ^bbbo  tustsat  QXii 

xtex8X'/c.viq  -xou-Uu  oJa   s.iiJ'  BvalLi^d  ion  oxi  st7   ,noXcl-ns;|-Aoo  a*&mllec{a£  Ki 

,9la'3oi:IqqjD 


-8- 

Appellee,    prior  to   filing  her   briefs   in  this  cpuse,    filed 
hex  iiiotlon  to   disudss   the  appeal  because  of  the  claimed  insuf- 
ficiency of  the  Notice  of   appeal,    the  praecipe  for  tue  record  a.nd 
the   aDstrr-cta   b.:-.i>-  "DirieiB   xiled  liy  appelle.nt.      Th.ie  motion  was    . 
tcvken  vdth  tlie  case.      The  notice-   of  appec.l  is  not   in  strict   cori-    , 
formity  with   rule  thirty-threecf  the   Uupxerue   Court  and  it  i^ie.s 
liecesisary  for    oLiB  co"ui't   to   ^^o   to  the  record  taid  exaudne   there 
the  coiiiplete  answer  of    3,ppellee  filed  herein  and  the   several 
pleadin,_i's   and  decrees  -'.Thich  \i8re  offered  in  eviuence  upon   this 
heariHji,   l)ut  we  h?.Ye  deemed  it   sidvisatle   to  pays  upon  the  /yierits 
of  the  controversy   and  bring  this  litiyation  to  an  end.      The 
motion  of   appellert  to  dis?aiae  the  appeal    will  "be  denied  and  as 
we  are  of   the   opinion  that   the  only  oecree  tl-at  could  have  been 
rendered  was  the   decree  appealed  froia,    that  decree  will  be 
a.f  firmed. 

DECREE  AFFIRMED.  .        ' .. 


^^ 


/  \ 


8^.hcei:i  :>.Kci  aDau  easq  oJ-   eldssivr.:?   ti:  i:)f5i:oe3jb  5v:sii  f)V/  fed"   ^:$a.t'X£iBd 

9'I'^      ..o.ii*  xx,3  Ou   ixck<..>::-^l:jil  aid.]-  giix'tJ  Jtiixs  Yaiavo^JuOO  ^aj  lo 

as    i:/n;-B  J;>8i:aii.b    f>J  Hit?    .ti^qou  eii^  a3Xiu:ai.;j  c;i  ^slx^qqa  ic  x?oiJCia 

nrisd"  ev3il  .;Ixroo  che-Ij-  seioao  Ylriv  c.d:i'   s-.oa;}   noixixqo  3iiO    Ic  eia  o^ 


STATE    OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DiSTEiCT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  .JOHNSOISr,  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  kecjier  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  reec)rd  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Otta\\-a.  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate  Cmirt 

(73815 — 5M — 3-32)  . 


AT  A   TZSM   OF   THE  ATIELLATE    COURT,  .f^^ ^^^ 

Begun   and.  held   at   Ottavv'a,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day  of  Octcber,    in 
the   year    rf   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and   thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illincis  : 

Present    —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFFMAN",   Presiding   Justice. 
Hon.    FRANiaiM  R  .    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon,    FRSL   G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 

JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Clerl':„      OQOt-      /8  ^    ^    ^^ 

RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff. 


H    K     T      /I         /T*    O    ^ 


BE   IT  REI.'IEMBEREr,    that   afterivards,    to-wit:    On 
JAM  I  3  t^tf  "the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's   office    of  said    Court,    in   the   -rords   and   figures 
foll'^Fing,    tc-vit: 


Gen.    No.    9102 


Agenda  No.    7. 


IN  THE 
APPLJ.LaTE    court   of   liJ-JNOIS 
SECOND      DISTRICT 

OCTOBER  TKRlii,    A.  D.    1936 


Louis   Siiiitn, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 


vs. 


Appeal  from  Circuit  Court, 
Peoria  County. 


Illinois  Power  ^-:nd  Light 
Corporation,  a  corporation, 
i)efende,nt- Appellant . 


Wolfe,  J. 

Tflis  case  c0i:ieB  to  us  upon  an  appeal  frois  a  judg,iaent  entered 
by  tne  Circuit  Court  of  Peoria  Govinty,  on  a  vero.ict  of  tiie  jury  in 
favor  of  the  Plaintiff,  Louis  Saitli,  against  the  Illinois  Power 
and  Light  Corporation,  the  defendant,  in  the  amount  of  ;jl5, 000.00. 

The  coraplaint  filed  by  the  plaintiff,  consistea  of  three 
counts  identically  the  saine,  as  to  tne  first  six  paragraphs.   After 
stating  tne  tiiae,  the  place  ana  tiie  nature  of  the  business,  in  which 
the  defendant  was  engaged,  he  charges  tiiat  tae  defendant  v/as  operat- 
ing a  certain  street  car  on  Adarns  Street,  in  the  City  of  Peoria, 
Illinois;  that  tne  a^^ent  or  servant  of  saiu  company,  had  brought 
the  car  to  a  stop  at  tne  intersection  of  Adains  Street  and  v.'estern 
Avenue,  for  the  purpose  of  discharging  and  receiving  passengers,  and 
the  same   was  a  reiv,ular  stopping  plexe  for  said  cars;  that  the  plain- 
tiff, at  all  times,  was  in  the  exercise  of  due  care  and  caution  for 
his  own  safety.   The  petition  then  continues  witu  paragraphs  6  and 
7,  which  are  as  follows:   6.   "That  said  plaintiff  at  tne  time  and 
place  aforesaid  was  attempting  to  boara  said  street  car  in  order  to 
become  a  passenger  thereon  for  hire  while  it  was  so  stopped,  and  that 
it  then  and  there  beceme  the  duty  of  said  aefendant,  by  and  through 
its  agent  or  servant  then  in  charge,  to  cause  said  street  car  to 
remain  at  said  stopping  plaice  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to  give 
the  plaintiff  a  reasonable  opportunity  safely  to  board  said  street 


.cb.  ^oae; 


SOie  .oa  .iiai) 


810(11,1..' I  10   TKUOD  STAJu.rHqA 


9 rt  1 1 s qqA -'i '1 X  5"fl x.sl<^'j; 


.av 


L9'x©,tni:8   ^•xiSiiir^U^i/i,  .s  ucix    Issqqs  ns  nccu   zu  oj    asi.oo   saBO  BXitT 

.cil   v:xur    Biis  1o   -i 0 h:.yz-3'i  S:.  ao    ^yJujscv  ^xaos^t  lo   d-xircO   JtsjoiiO  sc.;^    '{d 

aevfo-I  alonxIII   saj-   d-3nx.%^    <xic}i:jx:c   axi/oJ    jiiXunxal^I  sxi3-   'ro  aovs'i 

.CO.OOOjgXs':  ^o   ■J-.ni/Oiii.G  siIj   ci    , J-a ui^rmlsi:.  srij    tuOxJ'irxoq'xcO  td'gij.  bas 

se-xri.t   'ic  iia^'axerfop    ,r'ixJ-0xi5lq  srit  x'J  nsin  iaislquioo  esil  • 

x8d-'iA      ,axl.q£'r£,.&'xjs.q  zxs   t-cTi't  siid'  cci'   2-^    ,ifl:sa  sx.J'  yJIboxjixsjoI   aJm/oo 

rioxii?/  xii    ,a3&nxau"cf  s/IJ"   lo  s-xi/JjSix  suJ   Lu.s  soslq  eu;j'    jSucx*  srij  ^.axtA&'a 

,.sx-xoe<^.{  to  Yd^xO  Silo   nx    ^.tssiJ'S  a/sLSijA  no  xbo   tasi'Sa  /tx-Sj-iso  .8  '^^il 

iTix^jjorzi  jD.eri    ,-'iii£qi;.oo  jux.ea    ;cc   J'n^vxsa   -xo  d"iis^,3  sii*   u*-3riif    jsxorrxill 

nx3i'3eW   bn£  d'ssuuc   sriYebA   lo  .acijos'ii&'diii  ani  is  qcj'a   b  go    i.oO   arii)" 

jbrcjs    j-:x9-.5.ne883q   -:.axvi;8ci9'i  .on.s  .yiix^'x/idoaxJ^  lo  asoqix/q  siici'   lo'i    ,f5J.;navA 

-iij-iilq  Silcf-   Jjvx'ld'    ;a'ij;o  bxss   'xo'i  so,5lq  g.aiqqoc^s   z^Ixi^i^'^^  -s  a.sw  ©liiss   sn'J 

'xo'i  nox^ijjso  -OiT.?  etso  &.ij.b   lo  saxoTaxa  saj  nx  a.sw    ^esixixd-   li.e  d^a    t'ilxcr 

ha3  B  adqsr^&'x.3q  :.:j-xr;  aauxiia rioo  ns.cio   nox;fxj9q  s3fIT      .vcI-sIbb  riv/o  ajtxi 

.oxc-3  er.ixd-  s-ud-  iji   ill-t.aji.^lq  bxisa   d'.srlT"      .3        :a7/oIIoi   a.s  aa^  xioixiw    tV 

ct  -iejio  fiX   ixjo   u33':..;j-3   bxsa  J3X.:rOd   od"  ^nijqiaeJ.'t-s  ax!w  ii  1388X01^3  eoalq 

t3ii;l"  od:*    (Oaqqc^ta   oa   asw  d-.c   slxny;  s''£X.n  xol  cios'xsxrd"  is^ns-ja-sq  .s  sicooscf 

rl^iLfo'x.r:;t  X)rr.i:   ycf    to-A.'?J3Xi9leo  i^xsa   lo  vifxrii   eaj*-  efitcoeo'  exs.'i^u   biia  aQdo    d'l 

Oj    I'x^o   j-ss-x;ta  isljsa   93j:;>.so   od"    ,3;-,T:j3rio  nx  nsnd"  jn.e/ctsa   -xo  J-n&-^.3  aii 

;vx-^,  oJ-  srud-  lo  iia-'^nsl  onsxoxixjja  .3   toI  so.elq  gnxqqocfa  iix^s   d-B  nx^iasa 

Jestd-a  J3X.3S  iiTjscd  ocf  Yleijsa    v-d-lfioJ-'xoqqo  eldsacBss-x  £  Yii&nx£lq  erii 


-3- 

car  for  tue  purpose  of  t>eco:^iin^  a  passenu,er  thereon. 
7.   Tiiat  the  aefendant,  wholly  disregarding-  its  duty  in  that  behalf 
negliji;entli/  ana  carelessly  closed  the  aoor  aesij^nated  for  the  pur- 
pose of  receiving  end  aischar^in^  passeni£jers  on  said  street  car  and 
caused  said  street  car  to  start  and  move  forward  Wiiile  the  plaintiff 
was  in  the  act  of  ooaraing  saia  street  car  end  before  plaintiff  had 
a  reasonable  opportunity  tu  board  said  street  car,  and  by  reason 
tiiereof  plaintiff's  overcoat  became  caught  and  entangled  in  the  door 
or  step,  or  either  or  both  of  them,  and  by  reason  thereof  plaiAtiff 
was  draggled  by  saia  street  car  end  thrown  to,  upon  and  against  the 
pavement  on  said  Aaams  Street  at  the  said  intersection,  and  draj^^^ed, 
thrown  and  otherwise  propelled  under  and  beneath  the  wheels  of  said 
street  car  and  tue  v/heel  or  wheels  of  said  street  car  ren  over  the 
ri^iit  leg  of  plaintiff,  so  crushing,  injuring  and  lautilatin.  said 
leg,  that  amputation  thereof,  imiaediately  belo\7  the  right  knee,  be- 
came necessary,  and  said  leg  was  so  aiiiputated. " 

Paragraph  7,  of  the  second  and  third  counts  of  the  petition 
are  a  little  different  in  langusLge,  but  in  substance  are  the  same 
as  paragraph  7,  of  the  first  count.   The  petition  concludes  with 
the  description  of  the  injuries  and  prays  damages  in  tne  s\m   of 
;|50,000.00. 

The  case  was  tried  before  a  jury,  who  found  the  issues  in  favor 
of  the  plaintiff  and  assessed  his  daraages  at  ^15,000.00.   The  usual 
motion  for  a  new  trial  was  entered,  specifying  numerous  reasons  to 
sustain  the  Company's  contention  that  the  verdict  was  against  the 
manifest  weight  of  the  evidence.   Also  that  there  were  numerous 
errors  of  law.   The  motion  for  a  new  trial  was  overrulea,  and  judgmeAt 
entered  on  the  verdict  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff  for  ;iJ15,000.00 

The  appellant  seriously  insists  that  the  verdict  in  tnis  case, 
is  manifestly  against  the  weight  of  the  evidence,  and  that  the  judg- 
ment of  the  tri.-.l  court  should  be  reversed  on  this  account.   We  will 
not  pass  upon  this  assignment  of  error,  as  the  judg-ment  will  have 
to  be  reversed  for  other  reasons,   v/e  express  no  opinion  as  to  the 
weight  of  the  eviaence. 


-s- 

.noeiSLio"  'xQ^nBe.p.sq  5  ;=,r{Xikioo9Q''  'ic  ssocijjq  siid-   'xol  1.30 
'jiLsAso   ij:ds  :ix  ■■{cri/i!   scM  •^ihl:X)isi-^eiBiX)  yJ.Ioim-    .jix^bnaxsij  sad'   cr^^T      .V 

ibiijv.  XiHo  cf53ic]-3  bx-sa  rr'~    B^is^jciasaxsq  ^j;;i^ijiAi02ii>  Jvns  vnivxsoso.   io  sacq 

i'ji.c^ftislq   silO"  sXiuw  uimcxol  svoa  jhb  cJ-;r:j?ua   oJ'   'i.eo  cJ-sexua  Dx«a  X)e8iAso 

.j.e.il  't'll7aisLq  e-xo'ie'i  .ori.:..  150   3"e3-i,?s  .ci'sa  vrix.oxsoo    lo   i'OB  sxid"  rix   as\i 

iiossei   id  ccis   ,'i.GO  u-?.a'2cfa  .bx.ea  t'^soci   :. o'-  ■rjiiii.'&'toqQO  elasaoassT  s 

u:oo.o  siii'  ixx   bsIj^^nHrf-fie  A>iii^   d-/i^uso  aai£09a   j^oo'-iayo  3 'I'ixd'ixx-ilq  losTena 

■^j'ixJAx.sIq  'xosxsiid"   aoai53:i;   vg  jjits    ,m9rfcJ"  'ic  diod  10   'isil^J-x©  10    ,qeC)3  10 

ario    uani.3^3  J^iTis  ncqx;   ,cd"  riwo'xrid"  bixs  xso  ^^9•.tc^3  Ld.3&   \cf  i)6^ig£'xi)  sa^ 

,ij9;v;-^£:ci.'  bns    ^aoiioesxe^rii  b.t.aa  9x!o    j''s  oeexcri;   scusijA  jax^a  ao   d'jctsffisvBq 

bi.s3  lo  alssjiw  8fi..r  niJ-josnecf  b.cts  'xaLav  iiellsqoxc  &ai:wi8il5"0  i:>n.s  infonii 

snj-  -xsvc  iiTi   i-o   i-'~xia  ix^a    io  alsea'f  :tc   Iss-'v;  sxij  >:.ii-o  a£o  jsexv^s 

btsB   ..i^ii-sli^Liu  jjUj-   ^.r;jcix;^rix    ,i.oi:fxxiai)'xo  oa    j':i.xi^flxjslq  lo  ^sl   3-i;^;X^ 

"  ..csct'.e^i'ij'qiiin  oa   a^v?  ;;59l   ol^s  djib    ,\;r££sa90sn  saiso 

rioivici-sq  snj-  'io  adrxfco  .o^■X-cict■  i-)nB  x)iioo93  edj    10    «Y  rlqxsx^BijS'? 

3iii.se  ei\3-  ai.e  eoix.L-Jsdj.e  xix   o-i/a    ^B'^sa-^nBl  xil   tasielxib  alirtil  s,  qi& 

xTjxvj   as.5irIoaoo  iioicfxjsq  sriT      ,tnsjoo  J's'iil   siiri-   lo    «V  xiqoSigsiiq  a£ 

lo  liiJ.fe   9'iJ   ax   BQ'^i&BSij   S'iB'iq  soas  aelTxrcxix    3;.iy  lo  «GX3-qxxo89i:»  ©ifd" 

.  00.000, 03^; 

X0V3X  :ix   S3i:/2ax  sxiJ"  .crfijol  cd-w    {Y'^J^u  -'S  ©'■lolsa  rei'xj  ssv:  ssbo  sd'S 

Lzvav  Si'iT      .00.000,gI|,   J'js   esx^siiLsx)   aixi  iosaaas-iiis  i\(X3   xlxfiix.3lq  Siio    lo 

o?   axioaBsi:  a.uca3fi:x;xi  aXixYlioeqa    ,i>3a8d-ne-   aii\?  Lejm  vrsix  a  'icx  noifoia 

6Xii'-   ii-axix.iv;5.d  asw  cf-oiti'xsv  &.(>;)•   &.!iii&  noicnsd-noo  a 'Yf^-SQ^-i'^^'S   exicl"  xiXjsJ-axra 

suoiecaxn  s-xsw  3i8i.-f:t-  ;^Bx^cf  oalA      .Qoaebxv&  siis  lo  ciT./^xew  JaslxxiiiXB 

9ffi^i:'X/r  .DHB    ,x)3li-i'isyo  a.sv/  liX'Xu   waxi  a  aol  .aoxjoti  snT      .w.r,I    10  azoa-re 

00.000,51:;;,  'xol  llxcrtxjsXq  anJ  lo  iov.bI  xtx   :J-oxx)'xsy  srj^-  xto  f)9T9Jnc9 

,.'.!r-;.;:u   Hi.:.:it  ax   :'-ox.:a3V  eixj-   d\arjj-   arf-aiaxix   xIasjolr.sB   d-.ii^-.Xl9qq.3  exlT 

-,;,|3joX   ^•'■7   tBxi&  ;:xLs    ,90xi9jjxva   s/jj"   lo  J-Xiglsw  sjid    d-sni;,3^3   ^Xo:aalxasxii  si 

Lli.v  9'iV      .a-mjooos  axxicf  xio  Lsaiavs'x  sa  .bXLforIa   J-'UfOO  X.^.xxd-  cffJ  lo   itxisxi! 

evnn  ILrn  &ae^^bul   siicr  a.o    ,'xo'iTS    lo   d-iiejnxr^xaE3   eixid"  acqs:  bq.pc;  &ca 

siU"  od'  B£  iioixxxqc   oa.  aasiqxa   sVi-      .anoaBact  •lariJ'o  lol  Ji)6Qrj:sv3'x  sd   o* 

♦eor:9i)lvs  exij  lo  d"xi-^U9w 


-3- 

At  tne  request  of  the  plaintiff,  the  Curt  gave  to  the  jury 
plaintiff's  Instruction  Yto.    1,  which  is:  "You  are  instructed  that 
if  vou  believe  from  a  prepondsrance  of  tne  evidence  thr.t  the  plain- 
tiff was  injured  by  or  in  consequence  of  the  nej<;ligence  of  the 
defendant  as  charged  in  the  coiaplaint  ana  that  such  ne^ilicience  was 
the  direct  and  proxicuate  cause  of  the  plaintiff's  injuries,  if  any, 
and  that  the  plaintiff  was  in  t'le  exercise  of  ordinary  care  before 
ana  at  the  ti.ue  he  was  injured  then  you  should  find  the  defendant 
guilty."  The  apv/ellant  criticizes  this  instruction  a.nd  maintains 
it  was  reversible  error  for  tlie  court  to  read  it  to  the  jury. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  instruction  directs  a  verdict. 
The  law  is  well  settled  that  an  instruction  which  directs  a  verdict 
for  either  party,  or  ajiiounts  to  such  a  direction,  in  case  tne  jury 
finds  certain  facts,  must  necessarily  contain  all  the  facts,  wnich 
will  authorize  the  verdict  as  directed.   Belkis  vs.  Derring  Coal 
Competny  146,  Illipipis  Appellate  124.   ort,^o;ier\  Co-i-.  Co  i  Ji-n;,  v. 

The  instruction  directs  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff, 
if  he  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  tlaat  he  was 
iiij\xred  by  the  negligence  of  the  defendant,  as  charged  in  the  coin- 
plaint.   This  instruction,  or  no  other  instruction,  given  by  the 
Court,  informs  the  jury  of  the  negligent  acts  charged  in  the  com- 
plaint.  The  giving  of  such  instructions  was  criticized  by  the 
Appellate  Goui't  of  the  First  District  in  the  case  of  Boyd  vs.  Kii:iiiiel 
161,  Illinois  Appellate  306,  but  by  that  court,  it  was  held  not  to 
be  reversible  error. 

The  instruction  is  also  faulty  in  that  it  states:  "That  the 
plaintiff  was  in  exercise  of  ordinary  care  before  and  at  the  time 
of  the  injury  etJc."   It  omits  an  important  eleoient  that  should  have 
been  included;  namely,  that. he  should  be  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary 
care  for  his  own  safety.   The  omission  of  these  words  probably 
would  not  be  sufficient  to  reverse  the  judgment.   There  is  a  much 
more  serious  objection  to  this  instruction.  The  petition  charges 
that  the  plaintiff,  just  before,  and  at  the  time  of  the  accident  in 


^£-ricr  j5e:^GiJ■^:JS^.(:   8X£-  uoY"    :ai   :j'oxr:w   jA:    .oi^i  PixiiJojjid-anl  a'll-Uai^Iq 

-nx^Iq  srii-   j.^-rf;?   sossi^xva   e/ic!    lo  5.00.0'reo-Cf.cqeiq  xi  mcxl  9V9il6Ci"  uo'/   li: 

9fid^   lo  eoaQ-gll-^.nti  sX'i-  'io  eonsijpsaiToo  rr.f   -lo   vri  rtg-xxfj^rrx   asw   il\f.j- 

SBW  9on.9-^iX-fc^s-'"i  JiOi-'a   j,3rJd'  dh.s   d"fix.Blq;uoo   snc*-  x;x  Jj6>;,'r3£io  a.s  tnabaeisx) 

ttHiS  Ix    ,2&xiJ-j(;Ai:   3 '"i'ixJ-nxjsiq   3/1,1    10   =si.Eo   jrJ-Aiuxzoaq  b/ts  ,toe-xxi   sxiii' 

saol:eG  eicjso  v*xj-f;fix.bio  Ic    saioiaxe  srio-  ni   sbv  '"xxi:;^cx.3Iq  silc*-  -tsnd-  Xins 

anxsa-fix^j-c:  I)fi:.E  noiJ'oyxil-afix   Bidi  aesxcxiMTO   dn-£iIeo-q.a  'S-riT      ".Yd'-Ixirg 

.'■■Cus'i  Bits   ot   Ji  x)3e^   cd"  ixuro  &ncl'  tcx  'I'lo-xtre   slJxeisvs^  5.S7/  d-x 

.cI'oIdisy  £■  soo&TXD  iiCloOXi'iJBnx   axri.t   :J-_oiiJ-  Dsvisadc   ed   ilxv^   jI 

toxir^sv  .3  asoezlb  noxJy;  xtcx^foiixxani   ■:!£;   iJ-arfct-  bsL-J-^es.   IIsw  3X  vtsI  sxi'T 

rxxfr    a/id-  £-a.so  ni    ,ixcxt05 'cIjj  j5  lioxre   oJ-   a d'XixroiTi^^.    xc    ^Y^rrje-q  isxlJis   lol 

xlol-vw   ,3?CKsr  sxij'  XI.B  ..ix.s^'aoo  vlx-XBaasoeii  ■j-axm-i   ,3^-031  aisS-xso  aDnii 

I.S0O  ^.al-xi£G    .3V  aiilea      .x)95os'xli';   a.s   d-oirr^asv  eri&  Qs.rrod.tus  lLh7 

•  ^    -..^f-    '-J    -. -:0.J    .;vs;  ;:,o-  .^SI  9*3lis,qcrA  etcmlill  ^dt-^I  ^xxj^fiaoO 

,iixj"nx£lq  arij    10  o:o-r5l  xix   toib'xs-v  ,s  a3-09ii:i>  noxJoxjid-axii:  sxIT 

a^w  Sil  d'siii"    ^soriS-bivs  edi  lo  soniii9.5iXoq9xq  jb  vcf  xiDvoaq  a-exl  sxi  Ix 

-i^ioo  srio   nx  ie-^-XBxIC/  35   jd-rr^s-bnalex)  sx^.d-  lo  eofie^xLg^^a  suj   y^  bs.'smlai 

3d&  \d  .fidvis    ,Aioi3-ox;TcranJ:  iiexlcfo   o;;i  10    tXxoii-Di/tr^snx   alnT      .tfTElxsIq 

-j'jjoo  axid'  nx  begiaxio  'i,-tosi   ias'^H-gQn  efit   Ic  y'^x;[;  edi'  ama:olriX    ,Jax!-oO 

Silcr  \:d  iissxoxoxxo  a^isr  enoxd-ox/'xo'-a;i.£  xioyxs   Ic  -^alvi-u,  siiT      .3-xrx5iq 

Is;riiax>i    .3V  b'-ioE   Ic  ~;£;:0   9iiJ  i;x   i-oxiiiilG.   iazil  dd&  lo  o-xfjoO  So/illsQqA 

OiJ-   ;i-o.n  i)l9ri  ajsvx  ii    ,ji^oo   J-jSilo"  Ycf  ^w-J    <8CS  sJ-BlIsqqA  sioxixIII    ,181 

.'xor'ce  aldlazsvez  sa 
sxfj   ^.;.1T»    :ae-3\5.ta   il   j-^uicr  ni   v;a^Irj,Bl  oalB  a.t  rrcxd-Ojj-xi-axix  SilT 

SffiXCf-    9X(J-    3X3    J^XCS    S'XClS'J    9TS0    Y'^^SJXXiiTO    lO    93lo:CSX9    Xll    3i57f    llli-i£X.Slq 

9Vj3rr  •.blx/offa   &j:ai-  -ja&msls   &n.3txcc^i  a.-   stxnic   dl      ",o*€>  \;xu-(;aJ:   sxfd-   lo 

\o:^nxLao  lo  saxaa-sxs   srld-  nx  so  .oljjoria  sri  t^ria-    ,  s^I eaten    \bebsj£oril  risgcf 

Ylci.sdotrq  a.';"iow  saerisf    lo  aoxB«Xfflo  arfT        .•'^telxjs  fxyq  sxxl  10 1  eiBO 

xIoi/K  .3  at   e-xsaT      .Jxisn^owj;   g^is-  sai-e-rsT  o;f   triexoxxlxs   ed  ^-cfr  LXxrcvr 

asgisrfo  nctstifeq  sxlT    .X£oxJoirr;Jan^   aixfu*  oa"  ficiitostdo  sn-oxies   sa-cm 

xcx   taishloos  srid    lo  sxuxcT  sxid    3-£  has   ,s'xoleJ  i-airc    «lli;fx:ii;Iq  sxi;r   tsd;^ 


-4- 
question,  was  at  oemptin^i  to  boara  the  street  car,  as  a.  passenger  of 
tlie  deienciant  coiiipany.   Tliie  waB  a  material  allegation  in  tue  plain- 
tiff's bill  of  Complaint,  and  iiie   burden  was  upon  him  to  prove  txiis 
allegation.   Tlie  instruction  wholly  omits  tuis  important  part  of  the 
plaintiff's  case  and  tells  tiie  jury  tnat  all  that  is  necessary  for 
them  to  believe,  that  the  plaintiff  had  proven  that  the  defendant 
was  guilty  of  negligence,  as  chaxged  in  the  coaiplaint,  and  that  the 
plaiuxiff  was  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  at  tne  time  of  the 
acciaent.   It  is  our  conclusion  that  xne  g^iving  of  this  instruction, 
under  the  circuiastanoes  in  tiiis  case,  is  reversiole  error. 

Tlie  appellee  intimates,  in  his  argument,  that  the  defects  in 
this  instruction  was  o\ired  by  plaintiff's  given  instruction  9  and 
14.   We  have  examined  all  of  the  instructions  given  on  behalf  of  the 
defendsmt  and  in  none  of  them  does  it  set  forth  the  acts  of  negligence 
charged  in  tne  plaintiff's  petition,  but  even  if  they  did,  under  the 
ruling  of  Ga;_,e  vs.  City  of  Vienna,  196  Appellate  535,  it  would  not  cure 
the  defects  in  xhe  given  instruction.   The  Court,  in  that  case,  use 
this  language:   "Where  an  instruction  undertakes  to  state  the  facts 
necessary  to  be  proven  to  entitle  the  plaintiff  to  recover,  it  must 
contain  all  of  tne  material  facts,  and  where  an  instruction  directs 
a  verdict  the  failure  to  include  all  such  facts  is  fatal  and  cannot 
be  cured  by  other  instructions  in  the  case.   It  has  always  been  held 
that:  \fnere  a  Court  directs  a  particular  verdict  if  the  jury  should 
find  certain  facts,  the  instruction  must  embrace  all  the  facts  and 
conditions  essential  to  such  a  verdict."   Iron  and  lAetal  Company  vs. 
Metal  196,  Illinois  531.   Swiercz  vs.  Illinois  Steele  Company  231, 
Illinois  456.   Cromer  vs.  Border's  Coal  Company  246,  Illinois  451. 

The  record  contains  a  part  of  the  argument  to  the  jury,  made  by 
the  attorney  for  the  plaintiff,  to  which  the  attorney  entered  objections 
for  the  defendant  and  tne  Court  sustained  the  objections.   .'/e  think 
the  Court  very  properly  sustained  the  objection  to  this  line  of 
argument,  as  it  was  wholly  improper,   liiliat  effect  it  had  on  the  jury 
would  only  b -conjectural.   Both  «*«  our  Supreme  and  Appellate  Couxts 


Qxii  to  c^isq  a'n.sJ-.uoqiiii  axiii'  acMfflo  yI-^'^"-^--''^  ncxdoij'xJaiii   &iiT      ,aoi^Gy,fslls 

eii^    Id  SLaxii"   eaj   i'.s  S'^£-o   i^^riinxjj'io  lo  ©axoioxs  suS-  hi  ajaW  iilj'xxljslq 

4j7::i:;;f'OXi"i3-siTl   eJ-'ii'   lo  j^rtivx'^   Siij-   ;iT.n.i-  avx^ssLvnoo  tx/g   ax   rf'I      .irf&jjioo.i5 

•  lo'i'xs   aldxBieve'x   sx    ,33.50  sx^ii^  r;x   sso-a-Sw^aiiixfO-x la  sild"   'isjnxi" 

rrx   sJos'tso  ods   uscii'    ,d-n9aafj^'iB  axxi  ai    ^se'Ji'sii'.i'Snx  seil9cq.6  eiiT 

i)n:.3  Q  iio£SQx;i.&an.i   ;;3VX'J,   b 'i'ii^j'ii.LsIq  Y'^  haiu:>  aj^sw  xrcxJ'oxr^iJ-ani:    ainvi' 

6iicr    'io    xi£ri?-.i   no  xisvl;^-  aacixtoi.fXj3iix   eiis-   lo  I.x»  o&nlui&xe  ev&d  eV/      ,^£ 

as'^xLgea  lo  aJ'Oj?      sil?  nd'-iol   ^ea   crx  390X)  ineii&   xo  srion  nx  X)ixe  jiiadns isi-j 

©iiiJ'  Tcs-bmr    jCXi;    -isiio    xx  xtsvs    3"Xfd    (iioxoxc^sq  a '  lixJiixsIq  3iX7  ni  Jos^^xsxiu 

xro   J-oii  hlij'o-'H-  si    ,385  sc^j-sXisqqA  aei    ,firixiexV  lo   v:c>xO    .av  s._jst;'  lo  :^£ijjx 

BBSJ   ,a3£0  o^siiJ  iix    ^■xi.uoo  exiT      ,nci:d'0xr'x3"ajrfj:  rxevx;^  exid    nx  ajoaiax)   3x13- 

35-osl;   srid'  sJ'.sJa   c2-  a 8ij;d"i 9.0 nix  xrcxJoxx'iJsx^:!  ivjB  etSixW"      is-gBifgaal  ain'J 

iBssis.  il    ,-i9Vooei  ca    1  iXuXixisiq  8^3"  eUxcJ-fta   co'  lisvoiq  sd  ci"  Y^^as9^'*^i 

au'oei:xI';  iioijoj/xjani  rrs  sxsxiw  iiix.s   ,aJos't  LBlis^sm  eiiJ   1:o  lis  ixisijn.QQ 

&<:.::'r:..Ao  has  l.svs:i  si  Q^fosi  dossa  I.Z&  9iixrxo/tx  oi  e'lisLlsl  edy   ioiuxQV  s 

Dlira  iisetf  SYBv./I,3   asd  -tl      .ss.so  sxij  ai  aazi::osJ13^■^ni  xrd'jo  xq  beiiso  sc 

xjlxxcxia   v'xxxj:   ex;:x   ix   ^'ox.b'vsv  'i3lssoii'i3Q_  .3   sjo8\:x  :   ^TXfoO  3  s-xexiw    ;J"«riJ- 

xji.iB  BtOB'l  erJ-   LLb  sos'xdiiiB   taxrru  iioia-oi/x^grix   a^^J   <ayo.3l  nx.-j-j'xso  j.^xii:i 

.ay   iiisqhi'^O  I.sj-e:i  injS  nc-xl      ".d'oxi^'xsv  £.  noxxs   cd'  i.sxri'xxs^^ss  axxoxd'Xib/coo 

,ISS   •([■rt-sqiiioO  sissta   axcxrxi'il    .sv  ■sioreivrQ      .153  axorriixl    ^BQ£   l3asM 

.I6->  aioXiXlil    tD:^S  \as,qjix,'0  i.3oO  a 'tre.'.rxoS    .8/  •rexito'xD      ,'dc^  aloaxIXI 

{d  3ijx:m    ,Y'^-''[;   '^-^  '--"  •3"ae.3'jj-^aj5  sxiJ  "ic   ■i-x.sq  .g  aaisiJiioo  .oxoo9"x   sxiT 

io'-oep'o  .bais^ns  ■{snaoua-.e  eriu   rioixiw  oi    ,ixxcrr;.x.3lv;  s.dd"  "xol  \'©KioJCi'B  9d& 

jlrxirLt  ev;      .axioxJos t;ac   s-iS'  x)9xrjtJBJaxfa   o'"xxjoO  an'u  ijxiji  i-axiX/njisi)  eiit  To'i 

■?:o  enlj;   axxld'  oi'  noic>"09f;cfo  grit  ierrxj; tax/a  yl'ieqcxq  -iiev  .ttDjoO  sxlt 

Y'x.c'-i;   ;?il:?  .r.fc  xj.exi   :tx   ^osll's    d-.6xi.V.''      .•reqoncqjMx  xliodyf  asm  ii  a£-    ^iatriiajg-xs 

rifxssQD  Bi£lJe.cqA  has  siiisrqv'd  rj-so  J#«»e  xiJoa      ,L3ii'SoelnodiC:d  %iao  x^Xxrow 


-5- 
have  reversed  cases  where  tlie  argoiaent  to  tiie  jury  see.ned.  less 
objectionable.   Sucii  ari^uwents  slioulu  not  be  indul^u.  in  by  the 
attorneys. 

As  before  stated,  we  do  not  pass  upon  the  weit^ht  of  the  evidence, 
but  to  say  the  least,  it  was  a  ver>  close  cabe,  therefore,  the  in- 
structions must  oe  accurate,  and  the  arguments  of  coijnsel  confined 
to  the  facts  in  the  record. 

The  Oourt  erred  in  ^-iving  plaintiff's  ins'cruction  No.  1.   The 
arjijUiiient  of  the  plaintiff's  coansel  was  objectionable  and  for  these 
errors,  the  judgment  of  the  Oirouit  Court  of  Peoria  County  is  hereby 
reversed  and  the  cause  remanded. 

Judgment  reversed  and  the  cause  remanded. 


.i;TO06x  aiid-  xrx  airosj.  sxlrf"  o3- 
633xi;r   -xol  i^iiB  elG>Bi;oii-os(,c/o  3J3w  lesiuuo  3 '  i'Tio-iiXJilq  end"    10  JxiSfliLr^T:^ 


STATE    OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Wliereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottav>"a.  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clcrl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73815— 5M — 3-32) 


^1 


AT  A   TK^M   OF   THE   AITELLATE    COUPT,  y^\„ 

Begun  and   held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   of  Octrber,    in 
the   year    ef   rur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and   thirty-six^ 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    --   the    Hon.    BLaINE  HUFEf/[AN" ,   Presiding   -Justice 
Hon.    ERi^inOLIN  R,    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRSI>   G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Cler^-:, 
RALPH  H.    rESPER,    Sheriff. 


(O    Q     T      A 

O  O   1.  orkc 


BE   IT  REI;:EMBEREr,    that   afterr/ards,    tc-xit:    On 
.    JAN  18  1937  the   opinion   .f  the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's   cffice    of  said    Court,    in   the   T/or  ds   and   figures 
following,    tc-v-lt: 


Gen.  No.  9113  Agenda  No.  13. 


IK  THE 
APPELLATE  GOUnT  OF  ILLINOIS 
SECOND  DISTRICT 


OCTOBER  TERM,  A.D.  1936 


PURE  i,HLK  ASSOCIATION,  a 
corporatioii, 

Appellee  Appeal  fro;i  Circuit  Court, 

Kane  County. 
\s. 

JOSiiiPK  WAGN-mI,  SR.  ,  et  al. , 

Appellants. 

Wolfe,  J. 

Tiie  Pure  Milk  Association,  a  coxporation,  procured  an  injunction, 
in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Kane  County,  restraining  the  appellants  and 
others  froiii  selling  and  delivering  their  milk,  produced  on  their 
respective  farms,  to  any  one  except  as  authorized  by  a  T?/ritten  agree- 
ment, heretofore  entered  into  between  the  parties.   An  appeal  was 
prayed  to  the  Supreiiie  Court,  but  not  perfected  from  tnie  injunction 
order. 

The  Pure  Milk  Association  filed  a  petition,  alleging  that  the 
appellants  had  violated  the  injunction,  and  asked  that  the  court 
enter  a  rule  for  them  to  show  cause  why  they  should  not  be  punished 
for  violating  the  injunction  order.   The  court,  after  hearing  evidence, 
found  that  the  appellants  were  guilty  of  violating  the  injunction 
order,  and  that  e3,<fh  of  them  was  guilty  of  contempt  of  court.   He 
sentenced  -Joseph  Wagner,  Sr. ,  to  pay  a  fine  of  :$150.00  and  the  other 
appellants  |25.00  each,  and  that  they  pay  the  costs  of  the  prosecution 
of  the  proceedings  within  30  days.   In  default  of  the  payment  of  the 
fines  and  costs,  the  Court  further  ordered  that  each  of  the  respondents 
be  coiCiiiitted  to  the  county  jail  lontil  his  fine  a^nd  costs  were  paid. 
From  this  order,  the  appellants  perfected  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  this  State. 


,±±ki     .Oi 


ah'T  if  I 
TOIiiTSIG  GKCDlse 


-:  yj.j.=)UG 


.YJTU..CO    3fij5}i 


•  £  u";";;.S .;.  .1 S  u  C^jri 

-seag^   •isj^i-iv!'  .<?    liC!  hesxio<::ss.:s  as  tqsoxe   3.ao   ^in^  oj-    <sxi;i£x  wvia-oeqssi 

3j3w  Ia;Suqe  j:;;;,.      .eeioizq  aria"  ii;?s-iA';:fed  oj"nj;  De'LQjiMj  eio'io<ts-xeil    id-nstti 

iici30flif(;xii   axnd'  a,::c'xx  esjcslisq  ^orr  ;i-i;cy   jJ-tjj-oO  siiiS'iqxro  eil^"  cd"  ijeYsiq 

■3iii-   tz(-.&  ■-.ar^'^Ll:^.    ,n:oxJ^xJ'3q  s  Xiai.tl  aoid".3J;ooaaA  jJTili  STW*!  sxiT 

birizirs,}-i  so   J-cff  jOlX'Ciii  vsriJ'   ■■{nw  33x;j?o  woaa   oJ-  iusrt^   lo't  'i^lur  .-;  'la^ad 

noxifoffljiijai   id:!  ^nxo'^ilcxv  Ic   vi'Ixx;^.  e-xs'S'  <j^.aBlIsqqs  sdri'   jj^ilcf  Dixxio^ 

•xexij-o  stii^  Ln-s  OCOoLif   xo  snil  jS  "?;Bq  oJ    ,.x-j    ^isxrgaV/  xfqssoL  i:'5orj3d"-:sa 

no J3'iiosao"iq  e:iJ-   lo  3d"aco  srict-  vsq  Ysn'd'   cr^.xld'  iixi^    ,iiOBe   00. aS?-;   adTCBlIsqq.s 

5i(^  'xo   d-a55.;;--i-o-..   eoi    'ic    jlx;.i??.9i-.  nl      .^y-sx)   OS  £:x;loXW   ajinxcesDoiq  3x1  j-   lo 

ad'rxr'rnoqasi  e;.;a-   xO  rio.se   d.i.at  .;j&rxe.bi:o  •XQii^^'x:;!   itxt;cO  sxfj^    tSd'aoo  bn&  asuccil 

,.:u.3<;  i:^s:s«;•  arf"soo  r;n.j^  eaii   sid  Ixd-.ax'  Xx^i,   x^iuoo  sdS   oi  .oe?'JX!;ixi;00  ad 

5iii.-JTqi/S   3iio    o3-   I>3&c;q:s  ixs  .i->s3"0S- xa^eq  -3dr;sXIsqqjB  saj    ,i-3f55co  sXil;}'  iccal 


-2- 

Tlie  appellants  oontfenaed  in  the  Supre^ue  Court  tiic.t  their 
ccnctitutional  ri^htb  hau.  been  violatea,  aiiu  tnarefore,  the  Supreme 
Court  was  the  proper  ioruju  to  hear  the  appeal.   The  Supreme  Court 
held  that  there  was  nc'  a  constitutional  question  involvea  and  trs.ns- 
ferred  the  o&.se  to  this  Court.   The  opinion  of  tue   Supreue  Court  is 
reported  in  Pure  Jxiilk  i..£Sociation  vs.  Wagner,  3bb,  Illinois  pa^e  316, 
The  facts  in  the  case  are  clearly  set  forth  in  tnat  opinion,  there- 
fore, vve  have  not  stated  them  in  detail  here. 

Tne  Court,  in  its  opinion,  s.fter  the  stateiuent  of  facts,  and 
their  conclusion  that  a  constitutional  question  was  not  involved 
in  the  case,  ases  tnis  language:   "Tne  question  b.b   to  v/hether  the 
decree  was  correct  or  incorrect  did  not  control  tne  jurisdiction  of 
the  court  to  pronounce  a  particular  decree,  regardless  of  whether 
tne  decree  was  proper  or  improper.   If  it  was  the  claim  then  that 
the  decree  was  based  on  an  unconstitutional  law,  that  point  should 
have  been  raised  by  a  proceeain;;^  to  review  the  original  decree.   The 
defendants  vfere  not  ^ustiiitdJSL   in  ignor^ing  the  decree,  inasuiuch 
as  the  court  had  jurisdiction  of  the  parties  to  the  proceeding  and 
the  subject  matter  of  the  proceeding  in  whicn  tne  oritjir^al  decree 
making  the  injtmction  permanent  was  entered.   Franklin  Union  No.  4 
V.  People,  220  111.  35b;  Plannery  v.  People,  225  id.  62."         ^J, 

The  Supreme  Court  passea  on  practically  allioi  the  questions^in 
the  appeal,  with  the  exception  of  whether  the  evidence  shov;s,  that 
the  aefenaants  were  guilty  of  violating  the  terms  of  the  injunction. 
We  think  that  the  eviaence  clearly  shows  that  each  and  every  one  of 
the  appellants  were  guilty  of  violating  the  inj\anction  order. 

The  appellants  seriously  insist,  that  the  court  erred  xn  proceed- 
ing to  a  hearing  in  tne  contei-pt  proceeding,  without  an  order  requiring 
tbe  responaents  to  answer  the  petition,  and  entering  a  rule  to  show 
cause,  ana  that  the  respondents  have  done  nothing  or  taken  any  steps, 
which  could  be  hela  to  be  a  ¥;aiver  of  such  objections.   The  order  of 
the  couri:  entered  the  13th  day  of  September  1934,  bgglns  as  follov/s: 


-aiT-^Ay  .brfjs  j;)cri7lc>.'iix  ricxossijx   I.3;ic..c.1^'o  iJ'aii/co  -S 'Cjd;  8..-t.vii-  e'lSiiJ   u,su;r  jC>I5j."i 
8i   Jx;..cO  ^'.{e'lqijB   Stit    io  acxniqo  s^iiT      .u^xu-cO   3Xii.3    oJ"  ea.so  9ad'   be-^ial 

-&a3ii:j'    ^aczj::iiiO   c!",fciicr  i5:i  xtutcoi   ^tss   vI-x.3S.Lo  sib  &s.so  axici   ni  scToi^'i  axIT 

.sasii  Ix^c)-£.D  ex  Kic^Jiv    i;5t_rei-a   joa  e'/^xi  6v>'    tr.--io'i 

JbsvIcvGx  o^oxr  ax;w  noxjssx/p  i-SJiciJi/j'XJ'Enco  -s   ii".Bd^  noxajjloiioo  lizdi 

enii"  nsiijs.ii-^   cU-   sb  ixcx;;ae.iup  eiiT"      ;8^j,>5.u-i;,c:v£l   axn?   asau    ^saBO  arii'   ni 

'io  iio.i:;J"Oj..oaJ:'r.ur   ^L\■j■   lo-i^nco    d-on  fcxiJ   xosxxooflx  10   aoe-i-ico  33w  &9109X) 

o:snD"9ff«    Ic  aaslox^^s-x    ,3sios.c  a:£ljjaxcrxi?q  r   sorix/on^.'xq  od"   J-xx/oo  sxid' 

:^.^.xiJ•  nezi  iAl^lo  ?xlj  3x;w  jx  "il      .leqcxqiid  xo  xsqoiq  a^w  ^9';co9£>  siid- 

i;-Ixroila   d^uxcq  O'.sild'    ^fisil  Ldrxc £^u$ xyanooass  rxs  no  £i©3X50  a.aw  es^os-b  siii' 

3^1T      .s&iosi)  I.SiTx;^xrro  Siid-  weive'i  od-  ^rrxx^&aooxq  jb  vg  beBiB%  liiiOcl-  s^i?;6x[ 

sioiSinssrix    ,&aio9.b  erid'  g,fi-xiyTOir^,J;  .ax  irJa-^xIxj-ixfi,   .xoa  &'xa>*  a.xix.fi£!risxsx) 

iKB  gc:il'eijoox<.i  sd^  our  asxti.Bq  srlo-    10  rioxd'oxijsxxiji,  Lx-sxx  d-xc/co  exicT  as, 

eexoeb  L3c:s:^zio  sdj    aoxnisr  ax  -gaibeBooiq  esic    xo  idd-d-^ia  uoe(,d"xfs  sxld" 

■I^    .cK  -TOifiU  uxii'xs'i'i      .bs'X9d"xr9   3.y\iy  •txr--rj:5iiix&c  rfcx4'0xa;i;n.':  mi^  giilsLse 

•J,  „■  "--^^    .-t^i   dKS    ,3loo9S:    .V  -i'xenrxijl'ii    jdco    .III   OSS    ^elooeH    .v 

ax^snox-fasisp  s-nd-    toixxxs  yxL^oIjoxjic  hc  ijeaasq  ■J:asoO  Qid&iqsjQ  SiiT 

d-^XLJ    ,a^?cae  eonexiiv-^   ead-  aeiijca-r  Io  noid-qeoxa  sifd-  .drriw    ,Is9.:;q^  ex-ar 

,ric.t&o.[WQj.~.x.  exid'   'to  aiUia.i'  end"  "^r,:xd.3lGXV   xo  yjIxi;,.,  s'xsvv   ad-fl^rjrje'isl)  ©ifd" 

xo  Siio   \;-i8V9  .t;n3  rfoae   d-.snd-  awoiia    ■iXx-i'3io  eo.xsjxvs   Siid-   d-jsrid"  Ini'Id-  a'V 

."X6i;-io  aoifoxujlal  silf  gfixd-.eloJ:v  'lo  YC'-li.'jy  a-xe-?/  q  jxx.sllsqqx!  exl* 

-^eeooxi-  .ax  .ba'xxs   d-'xxroo  axle'-   7x.xid"    ^.tsxexrx  yJ-Bnoitsa  ad^nsixsqq^  srlT 

arrx'xi:.up:;i   xt-rxo  ,vi    ^uooslvi    ^gnxi^eaoo^q  d-cj.!.ed-nco  t^X'j  xxx  ^iix'XBSii  .s  ot  '^ai 

•v.-;^r.   od'   six;-.;;  x-  j.;K.r'xe^*-n-9  idxt.a    tfroid"x.?e-,.-  s.'id-  lawsrix-.   CvJ-   BiiV3S)noq&'d-x.   sd'd" 

5:^q9d-£i    \rxc.-j  ij;3l-:J-   xo  rjitxrfd-ojT  enoj:)   svsxf  8d-xt3X)noqa6X  srfd-   d'^xid"  Dns   ^eax/jso 

'10  T'-ib-xr,   3iiT      .9X5C'J:J-oe>tcfc  n'oxxa   lo   xsvx.rjw  b  5 J  od"  i^Isri  sd  X)Ixxoo  ;ioxilw 

:3v,'oJ:Io1  a.s  an%§cr   ,-^se,X  ladViied-qaG  lo   v'-sD  ^i^S£  3...id-  xjsxg-d-ns   J-ixfoo  add" 


-3-  I 

"This  cause  comiiiji  on  to  be  heard  tiiis  day  upon  the  petitions  for 
contejiipt,  heretofore  filed  herein  ana  the  rules  to  show  cause,  here- 
tofore entered  pursua.nt  tnereto,  and  the  motion  to  disiaiss,  etcj " 
The  oraer  then  continues  with  a  definite  date  of  Gsptsmbex  34,  at 

10:00  o'clocK  for  a  hearing  on  Ice   i-ierits  of  the   case. 

The  order  finain.-^-  the  appellants  guilty  of  ccnternpt  of  court 
entered  by  the  court  on  September  the  4th,  A- D.  19S5,  the  first 
par8,graph  is  as  follo\?s:  "This  cause  coining  on  to  be  heard  upon  the 
rules  or  oraers  to  show  cause  hereinbefore  entered  upon  notion  of 
Pure  j.iilk  Association,  a  corporation,  the  petitioner,  by  its  attorneys 
ag,'ainst  Joseph  A'agnsr,  Sx.,  Joseph  l{a::^nei',    Jr.,  Frank  \-la.^ne.x,    .'(illiam 
G.  Allen,  Orval  jrvans,  Alek  Davis  and  Karry  Getzleaan,  the  respondents 
herein,  and  upon  the  return  of  said  rules  or  orders  together  with  the 
petitions  of  said  pure  Aiilk  Association  and  upon  the  appearance  in  court 
of  each  and  all  of  tae  saia  respondents  in  person  and  by  their  attorneys, 
and  upon  the  affidaviiss  and  s;aswers,  both  oral  and  written,  of  the 
several  defendants  in  reply  to  the  said  petitions  and  orders  to  show 
cause,  and  upon  the  evidence  presented  in  open  court;  and."   Paragraph 
2,  of  said  order  beiJ-ins  as  follows:  "WHEREAS,  an  order  v?as  hereinbefore 
entered  requiring  the  dsfendante,  Joseph  Y/a._:ner,  Sr.,  Joseph  Y/agner, 
Jr.,  Frsjak  'iVagner,  William  C.  Allen,  Orval  Evans,  Alek  Davis  and  Harry 
Getzleaan,  to  shov;  cause,  if  any  they  have,  why  they  should  not  be 
adjudgea  guilty  of  contempt  of  this  court  for  f ai lure  to  abide  by  and 
conform  to  the  provisions  of  a  certain  decree  for  permanent  injunction, 
etc." 

Froffi  the  recitals  in  the  record  in  this  case,  this  Court  will 
assume  that  the  trial  co\irt  d.id  ent.^r  a  rule  to  answer  the  petition, 
and  to  sho'w  cause  why  the  appellants  should  not  be  adjudj^-ed  guilty 
of  contempx  of  Court. 

It  is  our  conclusion  that  the  court  properly  found,  that  each 
and  every  ond  of  the  appellants  are  ._=,uilty  of  contempt  of  court. 
The  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Kane  GoLinty,  is  aereby  affirmed. 

Judgment  affirmed. 


loJ.   ynclci'xJeq  ano"  .aoqjj-  vs::   3i:;io   bxa-ati  so    oJ-  .cxc    naiiiioo  qsubo  aiiiT'' 

;fs    ^^S  'XscJfjg-lqsS  'ic  scTsi:    'jjiailsj  3   oid-iw  ssxjniJ'Jioc  fierier  "xsoio  sriT 
.■:5B30   ■^i-'&  '10  Bd-jcriSH!  e.io'  iro  ^ni-UHaxi  a  10'x  >lDoIo'c   00:01 

fiiir!"  .rioc.'/  baiv'M'   sci   Ou   no  ^aiiHoo  sDiia;o  '^xnT''    :o\?oilol  3js  si  iqaij^jSiBq 

vaxi'-.oc'J.-j  a;,  i  vc;  ,:^.&;Iol;^i:o'£■q  eau  , cjoi: ii'.6"jLC'™'roc  j.  tXi'oiir.sioosaA  J.XIM  aii/^ 
iii.3xiIiV-  ^z^jx^^^!  i£i.3,y.'-i  t.xT,  ,i9ii;;.sl?  acpBoT,  (.li--  ,ie£[yv3^  iiqssuL  crsrrxBgfi 
crxieioriocBS^  edJ  ^iiiinoIsJ-oO  -^itiBK  Jorrs  bxv^C  2ielA  ,axi3Ta.  I^vtiC  tXxellA  .0 
aad"  Ji'xv/  isr;cJ"s;^c:i"  sie.^^ic  'ro  si^Iin  btsa  to  xrxf/cra'x  8ii3-  jaoqp-  x>ils  ^iixs'xarf 
■00  iij:  eon/rixjaoqi?  9x»i5"  rioq.o  fjius  aciJa:iX0C3SA  ilx.vi  e'xx/fi:  iDX,sa  xo  sxtcxrrxjaq 
cic^tcTij  ixs.'icr  vc  i;n.R  aoptcsq  KJ;  sdixsibrvcqae^  iixca  en;^  xo  I.I&  L/i^  iiose  ^o 
?rir   iC    ,nsn--j-x'r??  .o.a.3  Ibto  xi»od    ^^s^ev^ns  bns  SJivaLl'i'ix:;  ex;;?  XiOqii  xmsi 

\7or'.3  oJ-  .-Aei-T-o  0X3  sncijltTri  h±.B&  y/ij  03"  vXce'x  r-x  a*xta&iiel8i)  I.s'^evsa 
[qp.a;_;j!?'xs<"i  *•  .bee  jiJ'Tx/co  f.scro  xxx  X)9jX\&a9'xq  sorfsijira  s-xicr  noqif  Luig  tsax^so 
:oisci.rii:6isii  zs/fi  lex^ic  ns    <BAa/iSK#"    :awoIIol:  ax5  airx^sd  X9X;CiO  bi:=;a    io    ,3 

jXeagsW  xfqescb    ,.'ii    ,i3xr,vis'.v   xiqeaoL    -•jJxj.-^oxisiejj  Sii^  gaxilxfpe'x  LsiecJ-Cio 

■r.isK  o.TS  axTsa   liS-lA    ^arr^ir.ij"  I.svrO    fCrellA    .0  fiL^xIiiw    (Xsn^gisW  :i!i"L3'x'a    j.xL 

9c;   a''on  .oliroria   Y,-z-d,j   ydf:    ,3v.sxf  i^sn't  '^as  'it    ^sbsj.&o  woxla   oi"    ^xijaarels^s-D 

.cxis  vcf  ftfixcte  o;t  s-xf/I  .K'i  -io't  iJ-Tuoo  ax-id"  "xo   ■j-qiiwjijoo    io  vd'Ixxj^  x5Sgi>x;i;ijB 

rcxtoijixrfii   jDfeiiSiUxec  'ioi  dS'xosi)  axscr-iiao  b  Io  anoiaxvoTq  aaJ-  oJ  iiiiolnoo 

IIXT?  d--ixroO  axrf;}'    ^aa-so  ssxili"  ax  Ivxooe'X  s>.d;f-  .'xx   3lB*loe%  3iiw   Cioxl 
tircxc-xcr^q  sfij-  Tt^waxia  oi-  sl^;^  .-^  i;-.j;ie  jbx.o   y^/foo  J.j3Xi3-  oiii   3-X:j;l;r  Oiiu/sas 
■^crixif;^  ri3^jbxrf;jj.?   sg   .i-o/i  jplx'cxis   HJ-juBfleqqB  sa3    v;iiw  esjx^o  vroxis   o;i"  JDnis 

•  j-'XiJcO   "±o   a'qffisjxcoo  lo 
.iioB9    rh.eiio''    .X)Xi,o"0^   '/i'x-3CTOi.q   ozsjco   ?ri.t   ;^?.ll;^  xioiauionco  isjo  si   «I 

,c!-xjjOo    iO  d-QXiie^noo  lo   yd-Xxx/,..  s'xjs  sdrtj^IIeocx;  eds    io  sno  yievs  i)n.« 
.heiinli'iB  Yo'exsil  ax    ,Y3-iU!cD   snaj}I  'lo  cri/joO   cM;/oixD  ejiJ-  "io  3{i&&-^bu^  adT 


STATE   OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JFSTUS  L.  JOHNSON.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,  do  herebj- 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  (jf  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  WHiereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  OttaA\-a.  this day  of 

in  the  rear  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73815— 5M — 3-32)  -ri^^y 


?/l 


AT  A   TERM   OF   THE   ATTELLATE    COITR-T, 
Begun   and  held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   of  Octcbep^f^in^ 
the   year    rf   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-sixf^ 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present   —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFFR'LAN',    Presiding   Justice. 
Hon.    FRiiUKLIN  R.    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FREE    G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS  Lc    JOHNSON,    Clerl-:, 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff. 


O 
O 


}J 


BE   IT  REI.'EMBERET,    that   afterwards,    to-wit:    On 
JAN  18  1937  the   opinion   Lf   the    Court   was    filed    in   the 

Olerk'p   cffioe    of   said    Court,    in   the   words   and   figures 
fcllr-wing,    tc-'isdt: 


Gen.  No.  9118  ^.genda  No.  16. 

In  the  Appellate  Court  of  Illinois 
Second    District 
October  Term,   A.  D.  1956, 
Lena  Miller, 

Complainant  and  Appellee,  Appeal  from  the  Circuit 

TS,  Court  of  Rock  Island 

Louis  Rich,  County,  Illinois 

Defendant  and  Appellant, 

Wolfe,  J. 

This  is  a  case  ^'here  the  appellant  fead  heretofore  entered  into 
a  sales   contract  with  the   appellee,   her  heirs  and  assigns,    for   the 
purchase  of  a  lot.     He  became   delinquent  in  his  payments  \mder  the 
terijs  of  the    contract    and   the  appellee  ihstituted  a  foreclosure 
proceeding  to  terminate  the    contract   and  his   equity  of  redemption 
because  of  the  appellant's  defaults.      To   the  bill  of    complaint, 
the    defendeiit.   filed  his   answer.      The  case  was  referred  to  the  Master 
in  Chancery  to   take  proof   and   to  report  his  findings,    both  of   the 
facts  and   the  law  applicable  thereto. 

The    abstract   shows   the  report   of   the  Master   in   Chancery  to   be 
as  follows:      "And  from  the   competent   evidence   so    submitted  I  find: 
The  bill   in  this   case  sets  up  a   contract   of  sale   between  the   defend- 
ant,  Louis  Rich,    of  the  one  part,    and  David  Halpern  and  Fannie 
Halpern,    his    wife,    of  the  other  partjr,    under   x^hich  the  Halperns 
agree   to   convey   certain  real    estate   to  Rich  upon  payment   of  the   sum 
of  33,250.00,    as  follows:    #1,000.00   January  17,    1930,    the  date  of 
said   contract;    4'500.00  January  17,    1931,    and   $500.00  annually   there- 
after,   with  interest   at    the  rate  of   siz  and  one-half  per   ceht  per 
annum.      That   on  November   28,    1931,    the  Halperns  assigned   said   contract 
and   conveyed  the   real  estate  therein   described  to   the   complainant, 
Lena  Mller.      That   on  January  21,    1932,    .;-500.00   and   interest   to  that 


.61    .cTl  j3Bg9§-  8IIC    .on   .asO 

exoniXil  Ic   d-i;jjoO  sid-alleqciA  eiid'   0.I 

.QcjG'I    .a.    .A       jXiilsT    trscJOvtoO 

jTelllM  sua J 
d'ii:;oi.f:0   srio  iiro*x'"t  IsscfqA  ^aellsqcjA  £)rxB  ;}"n.3J2i;.elq.raoil 

slorililx    ^x^iiuo':}  ,f!c.tF;  axuoJ 

.X   , allow 

oi'.iti  i:'0*i3aT;o  eiolocl'o 'xsxl  £'Bd  oVi'-sIIoqc-fi  exio'  er-GJiw  9e.f?c  .s  si  alrlT 

Qsii  i.eb.nL'  ?.i-a&Ei-ZJ2.a  elil  al  ;isiQisp.r<.lieF.>  sffi.aosd  9II     ,o-ol  £•  lo  ssisrioxo-q 

a'i.yaoI*JS'io'j;  c  5od-jj;J-xc!"asx  eBlleqqa.  sM  bos-   itosijiicc    sd.t  lo  .altia;? 

noiuQfr]9f>&-"i   iC  vd-JtiJps  axii  ^iis   c}-o.B'ivaoo    aiic)'  e^iBi^th^riQt  at  jiriib ©so 0*3:^ 

<«a.t£lqfsoo    lo  Hid  odo    oT      .ac^Ias'tdS  3 'djcrsXIsgqB  sxld    lo  aausoscf 

■xad'sBM  orij    o:r  baii^loi"  bb'?  eaBo  erlT      ,iew?,0£    sixi  Sslii   .;■.'■ ':sjbn9laf)    end" 

eric    lo  flood    ,G§iix3nil  aid  tiois'x  od"   Ijixb   looiq  o:>iJ3;J'   oj  Y^rsoiiariC  xil 

.o^'-acterlu    ©XciBctlqqc  vbI  g  rJ^   .bcs  a. 1 0.6*3: 

9cf  orf-  Y'^soiTisriO   Eix   Ts;i  &£;■>(.  sxlJ'    lO   d-io(iSi  8£ij    awoiia  dOB-xd'ad'B   sxiT 

:  bail  I  j&9d-.rijsd.y3    oa   eonoblrs   u-jia ci's qxriOo   drfd-  isoi'i  .&xiA"      lavolS.o't  z& 

-bjJB'leb   sxi;^  nse^ij'ssd   elsa  lo   jos-iilnoci   /j  qu  a;l"9a  saso   airfcf  nx  Illd  eilT 

oixuj.B'U  Mb  rx'xeqIsH  f)iv.3CI  brnj,    ,.tisc  axio  oxicr  ^o    ,rfoi/i  sijjoj   ,  d-xiB 

sxrieqiBH   oxiS-  lioxxlv;   Tsbnu    5t^'"-fJS<I  isxi^c  sxf:)-   lo    ,9lxw    aixi    ^XiisqlsH 

xaifs   ox'd'   j'O   cS'Xiiom'YBq  noqu  rioiS   od"   ed'Bd'se   les'i  iii.ecf'iQC   yovxioo   oi   ©stsb 

"^0   GCi-sfj   orir;-    ^OSGI    ,VI  vacx/nBi;   00.000 ,It    :377oIInt  s.s    « 00. OcS  ,<:;.':.   lo 

-^-•^ir-xi*   ^IlAi/iTnii  OO.OOe';    tas    ,XSQI    ,?I  Y*iai^nj3T,   00.005^    i^OR'.ciaoo   tx&Q 

soq  orfGO   'xeq  "ilsxi-srxo  b.iiB  xls   to  ei-Bi  exio    te   cfEeiedni  xld-iv;    ^'xed-lB 

3-o.s'):;frfoo   .^Jx.B8;iF)srf.:|^is30  anrieqlBE  sxic!-    ,Ie;eX    ,bS   'lod.cnsro'K  xtc   d-.^xi'i'      .xaixxiiiB 

,cf.fx;:TfxsXqr>co   -idJ-   od"   5odlioseI;   aierod^  s:'-Bd-so  Xbsj-x   add"  fteve-moo   Mb 

^-ixlcl-  od-   ci-eetsoci-fli-   Mb   00,005'.;    ,S5'?X    ,XS  x"i^3ijaBZ  ao  cTsilT      . isXXxM  saeJ. 


-g- 

date  was  paid   to   said  complainant.      The  bill  wtiich  was  filed 
September   7,    1933,    alleges  a   default   on  the  part   of   the  defendant 
in  the  payment  of  $500 « 00   due  January  17,    1953,    and  interest   from 
January  17,    1932,    and  all  payments  maturing-   thereafter.      The   defend- 
ant for  his   answer  alleges  that  he    did  not  and   oould  not  pay  the 
installment  falling   due  January  17,    1933,    because  his  money  was  tied 
up   in  a  closed  bank,      ^Te  denies   that   the    complainant   elected   to  de- 
clare the  whole  sum  due;    alleges  a  failure  to  tender  an  abstract  of 
title  upon  request   and  expresses  a   willingness  to  pay  interest  up 
to   the   time  the  bank  was   closed  but  not   thereafter.      In   the  hearing 
the  defendant   tendered  the   sum  of  $1,537.12,    which  amount  was  not 
accepted  by   th'     complainant   on  the  ground  th&t   iC  did  not   include 
the  attoi'ney's   fees  and  costs.      Eot|i  attorneys  testified  respecting 
the   abstract.      The   attorney   for   the  defendant  to  the   effect  that 
an  abstract  was  donanded  by  him  and  the   attorney  for   the  comolainant 
denyimg  suck  demand.     Upoh  a   careful   examination  of  the   evidence  and 
of  the    documents   sutmitted,    I   find  the    fbllowirig  facts:      That  on 
the   17th  day  of  January,    1930,    a   contract  of  sale  was  entered   into 
between  David  Halpern  and  Fannie  Halpern  of  one  part  and  Louis  Rich 
of   the   second  part    setting  forth   contract   in  t'ords  and   figures   as 
in  Exhibit  A,    attached  to  complaint." 

"I   find  further   that    the    defendant  paid  on  execution   of  contract 
^^■l, 000. 00  and  has   since  paid  additional   sum  of  i'ia,  500.00,    together 
with  all  interest   due  up   to   January  17,    1932;    that  defendant   default- 
ed in  the  payment   of  the    vSOO.OO  which  becarae   due  on  contract   January 
17,    1933,    and  in  the  payment  of  all  interest  accruing'  thereon  sub- 
sequent to  January  17,    1932;    that  upon  such   default,    the   cocrplainant 
became  entitled  to   foreclose  \mder   said   contract  and,   upon  the 
institution   of   foreclosure  proceedings,    beceme   entitled  to   her 
reasonable   attorney's  fees;    that   on  May  24,    1935,    defendant   tendered 
to  plaintiff   the  full   amount   of  principal  and   interest  claimed  by 


bBllt  a.Gw  xloi-'fi'?  lit-}   srlT      .'Jxif^cxslq/aoo  blBZ   od'    ?)i:.SQ;  8bw  eisb 

ojjsjjrar- Isis  er'j   'ro   d-xcc  odo"-   no   rLiltslaii   .e  asgoIlB    ,2581    ,  ?   i3r{ffiorf"Q'98 

CiO-i'/   d-aa-ieririi  biiB   jS'-'GI    ,\'I  v ■'x.p.iji-fr^.'L  a.t;5   00.005:^-  ^o  ^-aamx&q  sii-j  at 

-jDr..'-v::9b   &.(i'?      , -xs^t'lso'isilJ'    '^n-Cii/w-tiffi  8ci'£K>an^:£ff  He  bsiB   ,SS8i    ,*?.[  ■^'x.rjjUs'C 

Bi-J-  xsQ  -oil  blLsoo  bnB  3"on  bib    s.ri   osxi?  aegeilB  i&^euB  eiii  ■xc'i  c>TiB 

qu  d'ao-ioyrri"  ^sc   ocJ-   aeea^jii.llj"'^  b  aoeeenqxe   bus   rlasups'x  rioox'  old'ld' 

aniiBSil  ?.rf.j    xil      t'lait&Qieai   ion  o-jvcf  ijesolc   a.a.:  lAasd  eAt  ami:}   siit   cc^ 

i-QU.  B«?r   d-jS0cxLVB  .aoj;r:\r    jaLVSc^Il   1o  mue.  eu':f  i}9a8bxi9«    d-nsMoleft  QAt 

e.oiiloiii:   I'-cix  Lu'I>  ^fc   c'jfic'-   ,5i.<;.o*oi3  sii;!'  no   ."i'ltBiti-Blamoo      'lij   vd  Ssogeoos 

d-.e-rfit  cS-ns'tOs  e.d.t  cd"  d-i-i-Bns'iaf'  ©rid-  lo'i^.  ^^-'^■"■^-^•"^•'s   Q-CfT      .d"0«id-acfB  sri* 

dTLsniBlcinoo   erri'   ic'l   '/,eiK.od'S-.-3   ?iIo    5n.e  isi.d  y>^  J":'S.5.r{j3X;is&   e^.',??  d^ojsid'acfii  ns 

'jnB  oonebi.\-9   srid'  'io  ncid'saL'CBXs   luJeiao   b  itogU      .SriBasf)  ifoua  gisxYnsf) 

iio   crcxiO?      :adoB^  ::;:;x7/cll0x    sxfJ-  bs^iil  I    ,I)sd'd-J:i35jjB    3;ta:9X:^ooj&    srlci-  lo 

od->-i   fieie-i'cie  b^w  bIse  'xo   jOBTJnoo   .s    ,OSC'I    ^x'^aunal,  'Ic  Y-3i>  iid-Vl   add- 

noJ;£  3i;i;"oJ  ratB  d'ls'j  eno  'io  .rj:iec[lBH  '3J:£LaB''.i  -&.n.B  .aioqlBB'  blvBCi  nsswd'ed 

aB  a3';..o>}J:'i    brs  ar-io^"'  nl   d'OB'xd'noo    n."^-io']:  ■^nl'd'd-aa    d"'i'.3q  b.r.ooQa  sild'  to 

.tos-a-rirtoo   "^jo   r..o idrjosx;?  xio  oiaq  t.nabm'lob    r^iiJ   d^rid'   isrid-iju?;  onil  I" 

^•3ii:f:<;2od-    jOC.OOc' (I^;:  lo  xk.us   lfiacl;i:tbb-s  blBci  sonis   eisri  iJiiB  OO.OOGjI': 

-■jlsfslsb    oxi;}.biie*'i9 &  d-exid-    ;SS9I    ,"0I  Y^BJiJxi.at   od"   gjj  sM)   dae-iSonx   IIb  £id  i^ 

•'.,r':i.ei;r)Xl,   d-O/iid-iico  xto  3x;f)  emsoecf  xlolriw  00.005^'.  eild  "^lo  7n.emxBq,  oxld   nl  fis 

-fins  no9'X8.':fd-  j-nluioo.:;  d-saier^nx   II3   lO  ^nosix&q  exfd-  nx  bfls    ,5Sei    ^V1 

'J^acniBlcmco   stiA    ^;rlsjB'iei:<  lioua  aoqu  ti-sdi    jSSQX    ,VI  \;t:3JJX13Tj  cd-  d-nsjjpea 

arid   noqjj    ,;')iie   d-o.sidxtoo   M^a  isi-.oxr  esolos'io'i:    o*  beld'tons  sJiiBoscf 

i^ii   od-  bold-xd-na   ev:ie.o>.^d    ^zv^ASooooiq  ai.u^clGQ'io'i  lo  flol-i-x;d"i:d-3ni 

x'e'j.?5ri£.d-  ^fnoono'io.o    ,5?:qI    ,:^S  Y^'^'i  r^'o   d-srfd'    jaasl  b '^an'rcd-^a   eldBCosiJei; 

^itf  Lsaixslo  d-soied-nx   f)fi;3  Xscrioni-icr  -5:0   dxiiroxae   IIu'i  add-  ■^'iid-fiislg  cd- 


-3- 


plaintiff  to  be   due  and  demanded  an  abstract   of  title  to   said  premises. 
That   said  tender    did  not   include  the    court   costs   or    attorney's   fees 
incurred   in  this   suit,    and  I,    therefore  find  that  said   tender  \vas 
and  is   not   sufficient;    that   the  filing  of  the  bill   of   complaint  in 
this   suit   constituted  an  election  on  the  part   of  the   coraplainant 
which  rendered  the    entire  amount   covered  by  said  contract   due  and 
payable;    tia;;t  .Complainant  is   ehtitled  to  her  reasonable  ettorney's 
fees  incurred  in  this   suit;    that   the    sum  of  $250.00  is   the  usual, 
reasonable  and  customary  attorney's  fee;    thst  there  is  now  due  from 
defendant  to   complainant  a  total   of  #1,800.66,   made  up  of  principal, 
|1,250.00;    interest,    §500.66;    rnd  a ttorney   fees,    #250.00,    for   which 
complainant   is  entitled  to   a   firs*  lieh  on  the  premises   described  in 
the   complaint;    that   the    covenants  to   convey  and  the    covenants  to  pay, 
as   set  out   in  the  foregoing  contract,    are  mutual   to   the  extent  that 
complainant   is  bound  to  deliver   the  deed  and  an  abstract  upon  payment 
or  proper   tender   of   the  full  amount  due   under  the    contract.     It  is 
conceded  thet  the  full  amount   specified  in  the    contract  was  not  paid 
and  it   is  my  conclusion  that   the  only  tender   on   the   part   of   the  de- 
fendant,   disclosed  by  the  evidence,    v/as  wholly  insufficient;    that   the 
ecjiities   in  this   suit   are  \ith   the    complainant;    that  the    complainant 
is   entitled  to  the  ro^lief  prayed  for  in  her  bill   of   complaint." 

¥:e  have  examined  the    evidence  as   sho^^  by  the    abstract,   and   it 
is  our   conclusion  ta&t    the  report  of  the  Master,   reletive   to   the 
findings   in  the   case  are    correct.      The  Master  found  thst   the  cppellant 
was   in  default   on  his  payment,    both  of  principal  aad  interest.     He 
also  found  that   the  appellant,    durin{?  the  hearing,    tendered  to   the 
appellee,    all   that   was  due  und  t   the    contract,    including  the   interest     \ 
and   debt,    but  that  the   sum  did  not    include  attorney's  fees   end    cost 
of   suit,    therefore   the   amount   tendered  --p.es  not   a  legal    tender.      The 
court  found  th-t  the  Master's  report  isras   true  and   correct   and   entered 
a  decree   in    conformitb  with   the  Master's   findings. 


esiius'xci   5J:s8   orf  el^ii  "o   itoisio'stfa  ns  b&baameb  bas  oub  ed  od-  "i^idnialg 

seal  e'yan'xoote    -xo   soeoo   cfij/oc-   prid'  eBi'Iorri   ton  J&i5   lebcoc^  olaa   JBdT 

BBJ  lebiaet   .5X32  it.sri;?  djcJ:'.:  eioJeic^Ai    ,1  .ofii?    ^^j-ixs?  si'iio    ni  hs'iiuoal 

at  ^nlelrxKCQ   ^-^   ^-^^^^   sIlc^  "io  griiil.f:'];  gcIJ-  isa'A    z^asiol'TiUR  ion   s.l  briB 

vJXsnxjDiuiriOO   sr^tf  lo  tiBi  aii*  no  jicicir. els  xib  Sed^uttUsnoo  ^-Ii/e   aixls" 

bas  &sjb   tOBTtacrt  hinB  v;^  boiovcc   C'^woutb  eiLtHs    sd^  Lsiefuaei  lio l:jriw 

,lBirair  9.ii;)-   ai  OO.OcS.-:::  lo  msjo   ed^  jBiii-    i^isjB   aliicJ-  nJ:  i-eiiucrix  aosi 

iucn'2"  9U&  t'OK  3X  f)'Tori.t  fori?    :asl  e  •^an'iod'd'B  YT[6nod"3;jo  brs  aldflnoB.esi 

,IoqioGi"icf  ':to  q;;  e.o;3iE!   ,53.008,ll';  "^ro   Ls&vt  s  »t£!«i£x.elga?oo    cd'  ;t.iiBJ?iiQl9fi 

dolm  lol;   ,OO.Oc!S|    ,36ol  ysg*^©;;^  ^  i)n ;    lad.QO^^   ^is,iz>iB^nl   jOO.OSa,I| 

ni  f'Gcf lioaeb   ssntmeiq  exL^  no   .ieil  isiJ:'".!    £   oi  baltlSna  B.t  irisclslajnoo 

iX"1  Co    sin.BS3Qvoo    srid"  5xi£  Ys'^f-f^co   o^  edfisr?370-D    6j:';J'  ^J-ca-t    {cfrxiaiq^oo- exJ:f 

cf.siij   .■?x:i;e;;'s:£   siJo-   oo''  .Ca!Jj"L'i!i  ei.s    td"o;:*'A^ffoo  jsir.iogsiQ?:  •■^iic^  ex  iuo  oss   a.e 

tnaiinjBq  n.ocis  do.stctsdfi  iie  &nR  fiosf)  sncJ-  'xevilsb  od'  .o.cijod'  3.1:   ^iiBxxielQEiQO 

B.t   jI     .o'ociu-iToo   3iltf   isbnsj  evb  itissosm  llu'i  oAf   ?.o   'lebaet   feqotiq  io 

ox.sa  ;tos  BB?;   i^o.-aiJ-nco    srl^  xii  bstitoaqs   iaiJom&  Ilii^  exi*   Jsii^  beb&oaoo 

-eb  sxft   '^o   ci"-i£!0'   eil'i-  no   •xofjus-t  ^•^^''^0   oxJJ    i'BAt  ttolsulonoo   x^^  £•-    ^-t  -&iiB 

oTw    :!:?Xiv    J  :^jj,oioiiliic;x;J:  \jll0ii-v7   a/j'rv    ,9oxxsi>Xv'-9  e.fi3-  ^^  B©?Joiosi.r>    ^:j-nBbsie'i 

"  .in.i3lq_mo:.)   'Ic   llio    lod  ni   lol  .Dsys'^-i  IqIIdi  ed.^  o^  .osId"i;.jii3   ?.  i: 
ui:   .One   ,cfo,yid-acfa   "jrliJ-  y*'^  xf/^oiis   sb  sojriQ&ivQ    sxi.t  .bsniniMXo  svexl  oft' 

orit   Co    sTlcf-'^aca:   ^isJa^iM  ai^J  'lo  tioqe'i  aiiirf-    ^.aily  noiaifionco   ijjo  ai 

^m^XIog<,T3  srij    isdt  bauo"^.  zsiefM  sii'T      .d-09'iiot.-    3 is  esBo   exl^  n±  asiri.orfx'!- 

ell     .  ;;-29isrJflI   i^fB  Iiqxojiliq   lo  rittoJ    jiJnPiC-^jji-q  aiii  xjo  ^It/Blsib  :ii   a.svr 

srlrr   o;+  x-s'ieiMi.ecJ-    , ja,7 j: tre oii   oxi?  ?-;^£iJ:i;ji;'    .^fn.'^-r.Iaqqe  en*   cf^ff*  .brmol   Oi^lB 

jee'iocliij:   srif  ^nxbirJccJ:    ,v' oi^'rc^fio)    sjlt   a. •Dili/  9s;f/>  csw  cf-rrrfj    IIb    ^cyXIoqgB 

cJ-eoo   .bas  pes'!   3 'veii'i-od-d-e   afiulor/i:   cTok  btb  mss  sii-t  terlt  cfM    ,Jdnb   boB 

edT      .-leCfieu    I^c?^. e>I   a   ;}-on  S'^ry   osTiebnaf   d-niro^TT   lydt  aiclsisil*    .d-iue  lo 

DoiPvn?   bus,  joe-xioo  fiHB  e0'i;t   cib-   i-icqc^.  a'asdceM  Sild-  ?^xf;t  f)m;£)''r  iiisoo 

.eliatbari  a'lscfasM  3rid-   rfcMw  Efcfx-fuiolixco   xtx  se^oei  e 


-4:- 

The   bill   of  sale  expressly  provides  that   all   expenses  and  dis- 
bursements paid  or    incurred  on  behalf  of  the   complainant    in  connection 
with  the    foreclosure   thereof,    including  reasonable   solicitor's  fees, 
costs,    etc.,    shall   be  paid  by  the   appibllant  and   shall  become  an  addi- 
tional  charge  upon   the  premises.      rhe  evidence   shows  thet    the    suit 
was   started  in  good   faith  and  the    amount   charged  as   attorney's   fees 
was   the   usual,    customary  and  reasonable  fee  to  be  charged  by  attorneys 
in  similar   cases.      It  is   our   opiniin  that   a   tender   that   did  not   in- 
clude attorney's  fees  and    costs  was  not    a  legal  tender. 

The  appellant  also  insisted   that    the  bill   was  prematurely  filed 
because  the  complainant  did  not  tender  to   the  appellant  an  abstract 
showing  a  merchantable   title  in  herself.      We   think  this  objection 
is  not  well  taken.      The  rights  of  the   appellant   are  fully  protected 
by   the   decree,    and   it  is   our   conclusion  tjziat   the   trial   court's   find- 
ings of    facts   and  the   decree   are    correct   end  the   same  should   be 
affirmed. 

Decree  Affirmed. 


vV^ 


--j.lb  h.oB  B-3BiB.eqr.e   lis  d^GiiT  aebrcciq  vlaae'icixs  ftJ.ea  lo  LIM  silT 
loltc&raico   ■■i"   d'.a.-r.ci.slqri'ioo   ©rid"  lo  ■jlfuiscf  Jic  .bei'ixionj:   10  blsq  s^nonsG'iJucf 
.8991   3*  led' 2-0x1  OQ   olcfe. 0:02331  -iXii&i-'IonJ:    ,"ic3"i;i)xlu'    aiuaolo9-io  a    slid'  rUiF 
-i.CvoB  as  ssioosd'  Xlsria   I;ii£:   tnBlS<&'icB    3£i:'r  \i6   ozBa  scT   llaiis    ^.ois    ,3:1300 

sast   i ^  vt Ji'iot ^'a   as  bsaisiio   ujiiroiaf!    sd;."   r:£j3  ii^iB'l   &003  iil  fis^isd's   Snjw 

iYSi?'^oo't&  Yc!'  .5osx-5i;o  so   ocf  Gs"!  slcfsnos se '1  Lcb  ijiBKOitawo    ^Ibuzb   Slid'   ssw 

~;'.i   v5-o0.  .olo   vt.t-.'iic)-   'xs.Fjns;?'   a   o'srlcf  si&iniqo   luo   al  rf-J      .ssgbo   iBlxmtd.  nx 

c'-ojS'.q-3cL;3  £!£  ■TxxsIIsqq.o  Silt   CO'  '^e .^ ££5 o    -toxi  bi.fj  JUBnifilqinoo  eiiu"  eBrj^osd 

Ssyosu'oiq  Y-^-^J^'j^  3 IB  ^xisII^o;C:?;   91?^   "i;o  3;^rf?^j:'I:   sd"?      .xisrtetl"  IIsw  d'on  iii: 

~ba.i."i  a'd-'T.jicc'   Ibx'Sj    o/i^   d-.sitd'  isoxs-j'Ionoo   'iiro  al  ;ri   Idhb    ,33i03ib  aiio-   Y^f 

eu    &.r.i:;c;fe  om.e'a   sd7  b:ir^  ri-nsiMcx:.    9':Cv  ©i-rxooS   orlci  .on-;  370.al    ''3:0  s^ni: 

.i;'Sffi^x'.!"jA.  es*X09J 


STATE    OF    ILLINOIS, 

"■SS. 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSOX.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereb}' 
certify  that  the  foresroing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 
of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  tliirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  AppelJaie  Coiiri 

(73815 — 5M— 3-32) 


AT  A   TSiM   OF   TFIE   ATTELLATE    COUP.T, 
Begun  and   held   at   Ottavra,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   cf  October,    in 
the   year    rf   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six^ 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    cf  Illinois: 


Present    —   the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUEFI/LAJM" ,   Presiding   -Justice 
Hon.    FRM.^aiNR.    PCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRSIi   G.    WOLFE,    Justice 
JUSTUS   Lc    JOHNSON,    Clerk:, 
RALPH  H.    FESPER,    Sheriff. 


P    Q     T 


PE   IT  REI/IEMBEREI',    that   afterr^ards,    tc-wit:    On 
JAN  18  1937  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filer!    in   the 

Clerk:' B   office    of  said   Court,    in   the   Tfords   and   figures 
following,    tc-wit: 


Gen.  No.  9133 


Ai^ijenda  No.  19 


IN  THE 
APPELLATE  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS 
SECOND  DISTRICT 

OCTOBER  TERii,  A.D.  1936 


CHARLES  A.  KARVEY, 

(i'laintiff)  Appellant 


vs« 


PRICL'  DEAN, 

( jjefendant)  Appellee. 


Appeal  from  Qircait 
Court,  Grundy  County, 
Illinois. 


Wolfe,  J. 

Charles  A.  Harvey,  the  appellant,  filed  a  complaint  in  the 
Circuit  Court  of  Grundy  County,  age-inst  price  Dean,  his  stepson, 
alle^^ing  that  he  had  furnished  board,  room,  lodging  and  garage 
space  for  Dean  for  a  period  of  five  years  and  that  Dean  hp.d  agreed 
to  pay  hiin  a  reasonable  amount  for  sa.id  board,  room,  etc.  ,  but  now 
refu.ses  to  pay  him.   The  appellee,  Dean,  filed  an  ansv/er,  denying 
the  allegations  of  the  co^aplaint,  aii,d  stated  that  he  never  had 
boarded  xi^ith  his  stepfather,  but  had  boarded  ?ath  his  iiiother  and 
paid  her  for  his  board  during  the  entire  time  in  which  the  apcellant 
claisiS  he  agreed  to  pay  hiui  board. 

It  appears  froia  the  evidence  that  the  s.ppellant-,  married  the 
appellee's  moxher  January  S8,  1938,   At  the  time  of  the  marriage, 
the  appellee  was  about  20  years  of  age,  and  had  previously  made  his 
liome  with  his  iiiother  and  had  continued  to  live  with  her  and  nis 
stepfather  durinj^  their  married  life.   The  ?aother  died  June  3,  1934, 
and  it  was  for  this  period  of  tivee,  that  the  plaintiff  olai;i.B  that 
the  defendant  promised  to  pay  hi--.:  board  and  room  rent.   T"-e  case 
was  submitted  to  a  jury,  who  found  in  favor  of  the  defendant.   A 
judgriisnt  was  entered  by  the  trial  court  on  this  verdict,  and  the 
plaintiff  brings  the  case  to  this  court  on  appeal. 


2rIT    i-.'  I 
SiC(-'IJJI    '10  THUOO  ITAJ.IS'ISiA 
T  G  IflT  a  1(1  GMoose 

di'^I    .G.A    ,.v>:;>rT  R^cOTOO 

;Y:;y>iAii  .A  «5IJHa'-io 

J .Tj;  lis  qq>-.    ( i"  i  i  ot?  x.s  I  -I ) 

.siOi-xillx 

.1,    <3lXoW 

.(<o:<qecl'e  :^ir    .n^^G   soi-r-i   ?.3aX.Sj;.s    <i?-*rii./oO    .:irttr^-0  lo  jXucO   J-jiuotIO 

GSv'iX-i;"   .6.!T;.T   ■■:•  ni: ,-....' oX    jitoc^    ..''7..~0''j   i:"5.0  8i£^'£u'l  i..?/i  sxi.   u,e.C':'t  '^u.X'ij3~ls 

beb'T^ii  bsii  n^sC   J'.i^r':r  .br;^  BT.e£v  evix  'io  ,~cirrsq  3  xcx  rijissG  aci  eosqa 

J-Xi.fiJlIs:;:;.^  ex;j   doi:.d\ff  ai   saIj   e-y.iitxs   siid'  :3friTjr^  bisoii   aid  •:co1  '.ted  bXBq 

edi   .osJ:i':j5iii    j j-i;;.slls-:rq,£;   ir^i-J   d";vA7  sofisbivs  eud"  ftio^A  ais&qqs   cM 

.eixJiii-XB;:!  5'irf-    'io  9i\ix3-  edJ   ej-A      .8C9I    ^oS   v-i.ewxrjeL  i&xia-ciii  a'ssIIsqqB 

ci:.':'   sJOo;;!  \;X3'jc-xv^?T.q"  .bBxf  iva.^    r^o-^'    '^"''■'  ■^'■'^■^^^1  OE   jxjoJ.s  s>e-w  e8lX8qq.s  exit 

al.ri  x>jxxi  treii  xio-x'jir  evxl   o^   b3ifi;x:tnoo  X)i;xl  LiiB  iprld-cu  bxxC  xfd".cw  eiiroxf 

j±^5GI    ,:;  ec-rL  i;sx;:>  Xisrid'Ci)    xd/r      -e'xil  b&t'i'iBin  -ixeil^  -^al'iuh  yejid-ijlcsJ'a 

txid^-   2.:-.i=^.:.z  listjtsLq  ei'iT   t?dj    .eydt  J.o  boi'xvq  siiij   -xox   axjw  Jx  J5Xf.e 

soxio  sf::T      .iasi  /soot    ^r;;^  iirrsod"  i-'in  t^c   c>^  I)e8irioxq  J'njsxi.crs'isl)   ©xfJ" 

A      .&aBbai)l:''j   e.'j"  "ro  rovB:-:  nx  i^m/ol  orfv.'    ("tixri;  .s  cc^  .be ;! cfimd'x'-a   b.gw 

s-:'c    ;.•££.■;    ,JoxlDt-ev  exiio'-  no   oa-xroo  Ibxio    er("J-  y'-^  Jbi-ji^J^te   sisw  dTi3tt^X/xr[; 


-2- 

TlE  appellant  first  insists  that  the  verdict  of  the  jury 
is  against  the  manifest  wei^-ht  of  the  evidence.   After  reading 
the  evidence,  it  is  our  conclusion  that  the  verdict  is  not  against 
the  manifest  weight  of  tue  eviuence,  but  that  the  evidence  sustains 
the  verdict. 

Ti'.e  appellant  a.lso  insists,  that  tne  court  erred  in  giving 
appellee's  instruction  .lio.  1,  miich  is  as  foilo\vs:  "The  court 
instructs  the  jur^  that  if  they  find  froai  the  evidence  tnat  the 
hoiiie  in  which  Pxice  Dean,  the  aefendant,  was  liviixg  with  his  uiother 
was  the  property  of  his  liotner  and  if  -Ghey  further  find  fro/ii  the 
evidence  theit  Price  Dean  paid  to  his  mother  an  c,greed  price  for 
board  during  the  ■ciaie  that  he  lived  in  her  home,  and  if  they  further 
find  fi'om  the  evidence  that  after  the  death  of  his  mother  the 
defendant  contributed  his  share  to\fard  the  expense  of  the  comuon 
household  maintained  by  the  plaintiff  and  defendant,  and  if  you 
ivirther  fina  from  the  evidence  that  there  was  no  express  proraise 
made  by  the  defendant  to  the  plaint  iff  to  pay  hiiit  any  board  during 
the  period  for  whicn  board  is  claimed  by  the  plaintiff  frojii  the 
defendant,  thenand  in  such  case  your  verdict  should  be  for  the 
defendant. " 

In  our  opinion,  this  instruction  properly  states  the  law 
relative  to  this  particiklar  case.   We  find  no  reversible  error 
in  the  case,  and  the  judgiaent  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Grundy 
County,  is  hereby  affirmed. 

Judgment  affiiriued. 


taxix.z:v.!i:   ^cr:  ai   joi:.i;:■:^iv?■  siia-   :j-:?,f[d-  lictaifloxioo  -Euo  ax    :?i    ^Gortaliixvtr   Qui 
a^tijiiaua  soxis^r/s  arid-  cr^dj    &.L'd    .sOxiebxve   3-.T    xo   :i:%xew  taeliaj^^u.  arid- 

d"i.tj.>o  e/Ji''    :3^cllci  :i^  sx  iioi-ivf    .1    .o^i   ii-jliOij-xuanx  s'seXIeqqB 

asj-  i-.y.^j   5  0.;Ae::>x''/-9   =i::;a  a^o-il  ^.axl    ^inj    li   :j-.:s.ii    t'^^JC   y-rCd'  adoxrxiBni 

'x.'iii^Oi-    Bid  .^tivv   v:'i''-iX  HCiv   ,ifiT;^;^r:-s3:sL'   c'^-'j    fCrj^Ou  soix^  rioinw  ax   Si..:jii 

en^r  s:  c-tx  bx:::!:  isrCJXu't    \;;;  j-t  ^x  .Drix-   'z^is\^o.:.  six.  "xo  VjXSCc^v;   Siio    a.Biv 

■loi  eox-xc   becjx;^-;:;  ATi-   xe^id'oiu  jsxil  ow   X/XXiq  xxsaa  soxtx-L   Jjiid"  so.nsi)i:v9 

?:SiicJ"rxx  \;eiio    r.t  bn.B    .efiiod  i^ii  its.  bavil  a-;.  z^s.^a>s    eax;^   ^rij   ^ai'iuh  jjx5oo" 

oat   x^ft^roi/  axr)    xo  .;'J'j3s,b  oiiu    •xsJ-'sx  J^cld    yoxiaiii'/e  bjxj   ao^i  ixaxx 

xsOi.^si.oo  sdi  'io  aanaqss  exLd"  iisis-ox  eiBiis   aid  jjscrjxa'J:xdx:ico   te^3i>fxs lei) 

xfo-^  11  l^an    •rf-;i,'iLne!:s.o  ijirjs   3;'ii:^ax£Iq  eay  ija  iiSiix^J'iXi.siij  x)Ionsax;oit 

33J;;a;^e   saexqxc    on  a,-?w  axarCo    Jsad"  sori9.bj;vs  e/it  xioil  x)iijLi  xsrlitix?!; 

^^izi^ji-'j  .:'XBod  vn£  /iiXil  vj?q   Oy  xlxJ'.axBlq  jjIo    ocl'   ;!"iiBi:xi3i:di)  3i(d'  x^  Qh^m 

s/icr    a.c'xl  ll^yax-sfcr  erlct-  'i'-'  ■ft?'i^.i:x:Io  si  i>a;^oo  hoi^i'-f  'lo'X  boixaq  edi 

eaS-  io":  Sfi  .uljjojia   :;'oiJ;>xo\r  ■xx/o^  33^30  ilox/a  xrl  x>ii.oxi9iia    ,jiBi)i2slsx) 

■!7fil  3rix   K-scTx;;;-;?  xLreqoxc  rrcxcroinioarri    3X.a*   ,X!0if5:xc;c  ^cx/o  al 
•XCX10  yldxsx'-v?;)-!  0x1:  Dixxl   e'v/      .e?i-50  TBXj&oioxaq  ax;a   ou.  avlt&loi 
Y^jiixxi)   lo   g"xx!-C;0   d-xi/o^xy  ed:i    'io  &asL::^,uSJi  srfj   Mb    i&a.BO   ^iit  al 


STATE   OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSOX.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  tlie  keeper  of  the  Records  and  Seal  thereof,  do  herebj- 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  "Whereof.  I  hereunto  set  ray  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at   Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 


(73S15— oM — 3-32) 


^1^1 


AT  A   TKRLT   OF   TflE   AJTELLATE    COURT, 
Begun  and   liPld   at   Ottaiva,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   nf  Octrber,    in 
the   year    of   our   Lord   one    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six^ 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present   —   the    Hon.    BLaINE  HUFF?-IAN"  ,    Presiding    Justice. 
Hon.    FRANKLIN  R.    POVE,    Justice. 

Hon.    FRSI;   G.    WOLFE,    Justic^Q    ,C)     T" 

^  O    O     Xo 

JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Cler^r, 

RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff. 


U 


BE   IT  REI.!EMBEREP,    that   afterivards,    tc-wit:    On 

'"•'''  -^ ->  lioZ  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's    cffice    of   said    Court,    in   the   words   and   figures 

following,    to-vat: 


Gen.  No.  9127  Agenda  No.  28 

In  the  Appellate  Court  of  Illinois 
Second  District 

October  Term,  A.  D.  1936, 

Frances  T.  Male,  as  Administratrix  of 
the  Ustate  of  Frances  A.  Lovegran,  De- 
ceased, and  as  jixecutriz  of  the  Last  V/ill 
and  Testament  of  Godfrey  T, Lovegran,  De- 
ceased, 

Plaintiff -Appellee,        Appeal  from  the  Circuit 


'ourt  of  Winnebago  County 


City  of  Rockford,  a  Municipal  Corporation, 
Defendant-Appellant. 


Wolfe,  J. 

n         This  is  an  action  to  recover  damages  alleged  to  have  been   caused     \ 
to  the  property  of  the  appellee  by  the  construction  of   a  bridge  and  | 

viaduct  across  Rook  River  at  east   Jefferson  Street,    in  the  City  of 
Hockford,    Illinois.      The  miork  was  commenced  in  January  1927,    ahd  the 
bridge  opened  to  traffic  in  July,    1928. 

At   the   time   of  the  completion  of  the  bridge,    Godfrey  Lovegran  and 
Frances  A.   Lovegran  were  the    ovmers  of  two  lots,   which  were  located  on 
the  northeast    corner   of  MadisSn  and   east  Jefferson  Street.     The   said 
lots  had  a  frontage  of  122  feet   on  Madison  Street   and  156  feet   oh 
East  Jefferson  Street.      On  these  lots  was   a  building  containing  seven 
flats   or   apartments,    and  another   house  occupied  by   tenants  which  rented 
for  §27.50  a  month.     On  the  rear  of  the  lots  was  a  frame   building  used 
for  garage  purposes.      The  bridge  v'hen   completed  was  about   18|-  feet 
above  North  Madison  Street  at   the   west    md  of  the  plaintiff's  property 
and  about  7|  feet   above   the   east   end   of  the  property o 

This  suit   is  brought  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that   the  bridge, 
as   erected,   has   damaged  and  riduced   the  market  value  of   the  property 
of  the  plaintiff.      The   origins  1  declaration  was  filed  on  January  4, 
1929,    by  the  Lovegrans,   but  since   that  time  both  plaintiffs  have  died 
and   the  present   plaintiff  ?;ho  is   an  adopted  daughter   of  the   original 


"ird-nxioC   osBdaGii'-R;'"  "lo   cJ-iircO  .av 


,\    , allow 

besssBo   .ac'©cf  ©V3,cl  o-j   bei-isXIo  B9';>r.ffisf)  'i&Tooe'i  Oo  liostOB  as  el  elxfT         n 

bns  Qv,bx.id  B   'xo   noid-oif'ijaficc;  erld"  -^cf  asIIe-tjciB  sfici-  lo  -{d-xsqoiq  qxW  od- 

iC  \'j''iO  edJ  ax    ^a-e&iiro  ncs'ie'x.re'G.  osbq  d"j3  isvxE  :!ooH  ascioB  d'ouBsiv 

9£id-  bilB   //CGI  Y'^s.r/asT,  nx  be oaamnxio o  a.3w  slier  srIT      .3J:oxi:i:III    ^biot:AooR 

.a^iei    t'ili/'U  xci:  axl'^ce-x*  oo   I>oxi9qo  83f)Xicf 

L'Hs  ae'xgsvoJ  ys-i'Ioo')    ^snijiid  9Xicf  Ic  xiolrf-slqiiioo  en^  J.o  ®mi^   o.ri-;    c!'A 

CO  beiBool  s-'-'^ht  xl;:ixi^    (aS'oI  O'n*  lo   s-xoxis^c    oif;:!'  9i3W   ubi^q-^oJ.   «A  saoxiusn'S 

Ll^s  siiT      .Tocrd-B  noatro'l-J&X.  o's.^-q   brii^  xxiBifial^'I  lo   'lonia.'    ?3B9x{d"io.Q   sxicf- 

ilo   ^9&i  361  bxx/3  ciso'Xl^o  rxoaifxaJ."  no   :^se't  SSX  'io  egsd'xioil  s  bBri  siol 

iiev92  ^"'•cxxii..s.t0,co  ^.nr^jlluc:   £■,   ss'v   aool  aeaxW'  nO      ^tseniQ  isoaie'lte^,  tQGK 

botazii  n'oxxii?  stoBnct   -jd   osLc/Jjooo  i-^sjjoil  leix^jcuJi  iJriB    jScJ'xtsmrf'ijsqB   7-o  acfsll 

beau  ■s^ai.blisjt'i  em:^'Tl:  b  aavr   stol  Qd^  "lo  'jj3si  exl.t  cO     .xfi-no£i  £  oe.VSf.  lol 

&6&t  -|0X  c'-yodii  BS'v  fteitfeXqffioo   risxl"?-  ss&xid  axlT      .assogoxxj  ssbi'xjs  lo'i 

vcf'xaqciq  a ' TclxS-t-isXq  oxiu   lo  Lsb    -^aav   eri^f-   Jis  C'&o-^.o'-S  nozlbri^i  ii-.fio}l  svodB 

.Y^'xcjqo'xq  sxlci"  ''Jo   bas  d-sss   oxfd-  avodB   cfssl  I?  Jx/ocfe  Ms 

(OP.&x'xo'  &X10'   iJexij-  sjnJ:.7o42  lo  aaoq'xx/q  exl:'  'xo'i  cfii^x/o'icf  al   ;fi:i;3  qMT 

X^iBCO'ia  is>iiJi    'lo  6ixXj3T  ci-sjiasxn  sjdi  beoabBi  bxtd  69j.£iiHBJb  sjaxi   ^be^osiQ  axj 

,J.i-  vTOXJCGt  no  bein  aan  r/old-s-xi-Xoob  X isiu^ i: -xo   axIT      ^ItltaxBlq  exlrf-  lo 

boXi)  o'/sfi  sUlo'-XTiisXq  ilJ-od"  smid"  d-jixld-   eoale   tud    ,3XIBi-S'3VoJ  sxld-  '^cT    ,9SGX 

X;oxxi3i'xo   ariJ-  lo   isdxlaxxijfi  JiedqoiJii  rm  ai  o.dv/  llid'xiXBXq  d-xies©iq  sxld-   baa 


-2- 

plaintiffs,    is  proseciit4ng  this  suit  as  administratrix  of  the  estate 
of  J^'rances  Lovegran,    deceased,    and  the  executrix  of   the  last   will  and 
testament   of   Godfrey   T.   Lovegran,    deceased. 

The   defendants  filed   a  plea  of   the  general  issue.      The    case  Vvas 
tried  in  March,   1924,    before   a   jury,    which  returned  a  verdict  assess- 
ing the  plaintiff's   damages  at   O©, 000.00.      The  trial   court  required  a 
remittitur  of  f-500.00,    then   entered  a    judgment  on  the   verdict  for  the    i 
sum  of  |7,500o00.      The   defendants  entered  a  motion  for    judgment  not-      f 

withstanding   the  verdict.      This  motion  was   denied,    then  a  motion  was      | 

1 
made  for  a  new  trial,    which  was   also  denied,    and  the   case   is  brought       j 

to  this  court   on  appeal. 

The   appellant   first   insists   that   tlie   testimony  of  witnesses  for 
the  appellee,    e.s  to   the  depreciation  in   the  market  value   of  her  property 
because  of  the  construotion  of   the  bridge,    and  included  elements  of 
damages  for   which   there   could  be  no  recovery,    and   their   testimony  should 
have  been  stricken,    and   that  the  court    erred  in  not    striking  such  testi- 
mony,   and   that    the  defendant  did  not    have  a  fair  trial  upon  a  proper 
basis  as  to  damages.      The  appellee,    in  her  written  brief,   points  out 
that    there  was  no   objection  made   to   this   testimony,    but  it   was  brought 
out  largely  by  the   attorney  for   the  city  upon  cross-examination  of 
the  plaintiff's  witnesses,    and  that   there  is  no  motion  to  strike   such 
testimony.     The   appellant  in  its  reply  brief   says:      "Such  testimony 
should  have  been  stricken  upon  such  motion  made  by  counsel  for  the 
appellant,"     This  assumes   that    such  motion  was  made,    but   the  appellant 
does  not   cite  wherein  the  record   shovjs  any   such  motion.     We  have   exam- 
ined the  record  as   abstracted  and  we  find  only  in  one  instance  was   such 
motion  made,    and  the   court  sustained  the  motion  and  struck  from  the 
record  the  vdtness'    entire  testimony.     All  the  other  witnesses'    testi-    \ 
mony  stands   in  the   record   without   objection.      It   is   our    conclusion 
that   the  appellant   is  not  in  a  position  to  urge  this   assignment  of 
error.      What  we  have   said  relative   to  the    first  assignment  of   error 


•3,".v:  3520   eii-^      .f:iij£3i  I«'i3BS3  Oil"/   ?:o  r.eS.q  g  .&elil-  eS-imlixiaisS  sjIT 
s   Cs'ixni)©'!  ;f':i-XJCO   iBi'ii-  exiT      ,OC«000,8:i^   y,3  easBiaafi   s 't'lici-itxslq  arid'  giii 

f-TSTroTg  iQif  "ic   SL'Isv  c! si^'xsiir  -^ifcf   XIX  aoi:S^iil0  9iqef)  eri^   cri-  33    ,s9lIsqq.B  srf:)' 

lo  BtoeiSele  £>ei!>;;rortx  one    ,c:3.6i*:!:a   3iii   "io  n.oi^oi.:T<jeao  0  e.ii   lo  eex/Boecf 

ruoxia  xnositE:-^^'   "liocl-t   Aji-g    ,\^i9yocRi  on  orJ  5I,<:jo&   s'laxf?   i;oi:xf«'   'r.ol  a^p^BtaBb 

i:;ts3.t  xlcL's  afiljii'ida    -toil  ni  .be'iio   J'jjjoo   a.ri;^  f^drf^    bue    -i:.s5lci*i;l"3  fxoocT  9VBd 

i^qciq  £  xxcqi;  iBiiJ-  lis'i   b   sT-r    ct-cn  5.ti)  ustBoss'iel)   srst    jsii;f    .ons    (-^nox!! 

v-xjo  Bo-xiioq   j^oi'id   ao^tfii".'  isri  r.i:    jS^JlIaqqe  odT     .asgaKiBfi  of  aj3  sisscf 

lo  iic.f:d-i3JD:J:ia32:o-aao''io  lioqjy  ^^^lo  ed'-^   '^x>1    v:s.o:'rod'crs   siia-  ^d'  ^Ib-qibI  ^sjo 

do'ae   s^Lt'vci-E   oci'  noi^-cti  oa  el  ^'lexJ*    d-iSiid-  boB    ,3e8a9xiJ-ir5r  a 'vii^fxtlijlq  arid" 

-^j7.oi!T.l:d-3  6u'-  x!o.ya"      laiji.os   lal-'Cf   v^Iqsi  e;?'!:  ill   d-.a«ri6qq.3   oriT     .viiofflid'asS- 

s-riv    10 '1   IsaxiiJo;:   ^d  eftaw'  iioicfoizi  ilo.U3  itcqjy  iis^loliita  iissd"  svacl  .6Ix/ox1b 

cfn..-3j: 1 3 qqB  ed*   ?ucf    ,3.oBifi  sevv   aolSom  dosjd.    texld-   aeisxjsBB  alilT     ".tasIdsqqB 

•-ii:;?x9   3Vf?xI  e.V      .aolc^ojrc.  boub   xsb  axvoils   iiioosi  eUcf  ois'iefi:  edlo   ;ton  aeol) 

loye  sarr  scao^Jexii  ano  xii  y-^o  brJ:J  9;^  .5ns  ?;9;tOBiJ)-5dB  a^  bioc9'i  sjd*  I)9nl 

©ji*  HOTx  2lcri^d-8  bxi£?  noicfoiii  sxf.-j-  fter^laJstra  o^iloo   edit  bab    ,e£>Bi!i  noi^oiii 

-l.'-asJ-    ♦esaas.n.t.hv  ^srL^c   r:rJc)-  Ila      ,\s.oml:fzQ:r  sixSr.e    'Eae.nd-hv  adcf  fjioosi 

riolaulonoo   ii/o  al  c^I      .noldootrfo  cfi/oilolw    orcooai   exit  al   aSoada  -^jnoin 

lo  o-ce-tms^laaB   sirfJ  9510  o;t  xioicMaoq  b  iil  J ou  si   tasllQaqB  sc*  Jfsrf* 

•rotie   "^o  ;f,a9Xiin^l3ae  ^s-jn    srCf  o:t   DVlcI'.Blatt  btsa   avsxl  ©w  cfsriW      .tciis 


-3- 

is  applioable   with  equal   force  to   the   2nd,    3rd  and  4th  assignments. 

At    the  request   of   the  plaintiff,    the    court   gave  the    jury  the 
following   instruction:      "The   court   instructs   the    jury   that   the    .Jon- 
stitution  of  this  3tate  provides   that  private  property    shall  not   be 
taken   or  damaged  for  public  use  vrithout   just   compensation;    and   in  this 
case,    if  you  believe  f^om  the  evidence,    that   the  property  of  the 
plaintiffs  was   damaged  by  the  construction  of  the  Jefferson  Street 
bridge   and  viaduct   and   the  approaches   thereto,    then   the  plaintiffs 
are  entitled  to  recover   just    compensation  for    such  damages,    if  any." 
It   is   insisted  that  from  a   considejcation  of   the   instruction  as   given 
by  the   trial    court,    that   the  question  as   to   v^hat   damage   v^as  properly 
recoverable  and  what   damage  was  not  properly  recoverable  in  this   case, 
was  not    explained  to  the   jury,    and  further,    that   tjie  instruction   stated 
that   if   the   jury  believed  that  the  property  of   the  plaintiff  was   dam- 
aged in  any  respect  by  the  erection  of  the  bridge,    she  was  entitled 
to  recover,    and  that  the   court    erred  in  giving  this  instruction.      If 
this  instruction  were  standing  alone  it   would  not   be  sufficient  to 
advise  the   jury  of  the  measure  of  damage,    if  any,    that  the  plaintiff 
was  entitled  to  recover,    but   at  the  request  of   the  defendant,    the 
court   gave   seven   instructions.      Instruction  No.   4  sets  forth  fully 
the  measure  of   damage  that   the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to   recover,    if 
at  all.      The  instructions   should  be  read  as   a  whole   and  not  as    separate 
instructions.      Taken  as  a   series,    it  is  our   conslusion  that   the   jury 
could  not   have  been  misled  relative  to   the  measure  of  damages  on  which 
the  plaintiff  was   entitled  to  recover. 

The  appellant  also    complains  because  the    court  refused  to  give 
its   instructions  No.    2   and  3  as  presented.      Instruction  IIo.    2,   refers 
to   damages  sustained  from  the  diversion  of  traffic  off  of  ivladison  -..j^ 

Street   which  is   in  front   of   the  premises   in  question.      There  is  no 
claim  for   such  damages   and    the   court  properly  refused  this   instruction. 
Number  ^  relates  to  the  measure   of  damages   to   the  property,    and  nega- 
tives  certain  things  which   the    jury   should  not   consider.      We  think 


.ej  rt3js:j:5;X33  3  £:^^  biLS5  fi'itcJ    ,£!xrS  Slid-  o:'-  qoioI   Ik>kir!e  niJ- m  sldBcHQjiB  ax 
Off   cfcii  Ilaria    ■7:c'':^':;qo*:i-c{  ao.vi-jq   O'.Kiicf'   go&ivciq  «j.6vi^.   cixlci'  Ic  xs.oxtfjjd'id'a 

o-j6'v^3  uosisllol,  &iui-  ^o  noioou'ioarico  arid-  \.d  LenBi;iB6   3j3v?  s'JIi^rfiaXq 

ailxcl'Xvl^^Ia.  -sijci'  xiiixiv  ,c.ie*iex;o-  sadosoxqqB  sxiw  hij.B  ■io.vby.jl-'r  Bxis  ssbxicf 
".^x:a;  'ii  ,ss3tJiiBiJ  Xi0it3  icl  xrD  12^3^1: 3 cffi^oo  (J-E-au  xGVoeei  oj  .bPliri^Jxis  sis 
r:!3v.i;:?   as  x:soxjoxxi:S  aiil   6fi;f   Ic  ncid-susij  2axxoo   *;  gvc:!.!  d-axlj   fisci-aisxil   al  d-I 

.S3V.0  aMcr  -CJ:  alcfaiyvooe'x  ^I-ir-s go iq-  :Jch  a3i?j'  s^Bxaal)   uBxiv/  Brrs  eldsievcoei 

iJad'K^iO   rjcx^oxiitfoxi.':  ai*^  vi^x'o    ^loxic!  tu":  Siiji;    t't--^t   9x1  d'  ci?"  boaiBlqxQ   oon  saw 

-ic^c- sfc.v;  I'xiJ-xix^^iq  s>iic!-   lo  -i^ri 'XiCioig  siW  y.oxirf"  beve}J.=^6   v;-ixxi;  eii^   'ix  cl'sxici' 

beiil^Lio  a.sw  axis    ,esi).l'id  3xi;i    "ic  xioxoos'xa  sxid-  vd  ooaqaai  ^hb   xii  i)egB 

xl      ♦.io.i;o'ox;i;?ex.x  axxij   juiivxj;  xil  So^'^.r:    cfixxoo   sexier  cfexii   i)Xi3    ,^970oe'x  o^ 

Co    cl'B:3i:o.!:j;lxxa  ^d   rxcxx  31xi0i/   jJ:  eixxols  gxxx.Qxie^'3  s-xevv'   x:oi;/cxr'io.axil  aixlo 

'i'JxoTi.Lf^lQ;  s.n'c^  i/'/ixlcf-    ^y^^x^s  Ix    ^s^gBmeb  lo  so^usBSiJx  ■jxfcl'  lo  Trxxj'r,   exici'  -ssItSx! 

c;;.i:r    <.trr.i.orxcl."Xi  eu&   lo   vCiaupei  ario'   ."fxj   cixxd    ^levooB-i  oo"  ^3.[;txo''xx3   ebw 

vlli/l  ilo'" icl  "ic'ss   :&    ,cK  xtox'J'Ofiii-anl      .axiox^-oxx'i^a.rei   xssvea.  evxig   ci"ixroe 

IJ:    ,*X£r/GOciX   c";   xjelcl-XoiK-   si:  llJ  jxtx.^lf;;  srfi'    ri;--.xij    sjr^^iiusfi   Ic  &'xuQiS3m  axid 

sy-s'jjioas    r;3  3cx£  ^^xxs  siox/^  ,5   exi  iDBea  acf  5l!;;ox;8   &no jijoixicf .Lixxj:  axiT      ♦XIxj  db 

■y;':i:i;|:    siliJ'    ci-x-'Xlrf  .ftoxei/Iajj.oo   luo  e.!.  iti    ,3c)ii9a   /^  C3  xx9:^bT      .exxoxd-oxfi^faxij: 

xioxii'v--  xxo  Bs^iBXCGb   lo  8 '.fX's £5 oxD  tXiCl'   o«    bvI^jbIot.  Lelsiixn  xissci   sv.sxf   i^-oxx  hliJoo 

.'xovooe-x  ocJ    D 9 Id  i; 0  1X9   s^^k-  lliyxiJr/jIg   odi 

©TxS   3^  ^eexxry-^    ^^.x^oo    sxU  9-;.7Bot.a   aiiXBlqxLOO    osIb  d-xijIIooqB  ©xIT 

&-".vlr:- o;   5:;    .c'.    rcio'oxi-iJ-aiil      ..c-auxxsBPiq  8ii  ci  .h.ns   '-S    .c'-i  axxoxrfcx/ict'extl   ad"i 

x:c.?.,:i.£  ■;  Ir;  llo  SilVlB:-&  lo  noxa'xsx-ir.'   -xC::'   xnoTn:!  bs.fU'Bcfata  asjiaxixGl)   od" 

Oil  pj:  e':j.eriT      .noxd-aoi/p  xi.f  333xr.Js'xo   fjri:r   lo  c^no'xl  xli   ai  aoM\"  ^ii&iio 

.xxoIJ-c;;-xjf5xxi-.   sxxirf  Jbeaxxl'^'x  \',I-i3Qoi:ci  o'-ixjod   ftrfd"    Lkb  ss.nexiiali  .doxxa   lol  xcleio 

-xsjsn  .'i  ae    ,  y^*"! -Qoiq  axij    otf-  aegiruxtfij:"'  lo   eix/ssaw  erid   o^  a9^\sx'£ii  4'  leoffiwPI 

:;Ix.fXiic^  aW      .le^'Xr.xioo   d'oxx   jIuci'jS    -^ist    sili   xfo.tii-/  s-vxiliid-  nxrid-'iso   asvxd- 


the   other   instructions  properly  state   the   measure   of   damage  and   it   was 
not   error    to  refuse   this   instruction. 

It   is   seriously  insisted  that    the   verdict   of  the    jury  is  manifestly 
against  th3  V7ei;2-ht   of   the  evidence,    and   for   this  reason  the    judgment 
should   be   set  aside,      as   is  usual    in   such   cases,    the  plaintiff  intro- 
duced a  number   of   ^'itnesses   to  testify  thot   the  property  was   damaged 
by  the   erection  of   this  bridge.      They   stated  their  opinion  as  to  the 
amount   of  damages.      The  defendant   called  in   a  greater  number   of  witness- 
es,   who   testified   thet  in   uheir  opinion,    the  property  had  not  been  dam- 
aged by  the  erection  of   the  bridge,   but  the   market  value  hsd  been  en- 
hanced.     Such  evidence  is  more  or  less   speculative.      In  addition  to 
the  evidence  which  was  introduced  in  open  court,    the   jury  was   talzen 
upon  the  lots   to  \ltew  the  premises  and  surroundings,    so   that   they 
could   clearly   see  the  location   of  the  bridge  and   the   character   of  the 
lot  and  improvements  thereon.      It   has   long  been  the   established  rule 
of  court,    that  unless   the  verdict   of  the   jury  is  manifestly  against 
the  weight  of   the   evidence,    the  reviewinc   court   is  not   justified  in 
reversing  their  findings.      We  cannot  say    that  this   verdict   is    against 
the  msnifest  weight  of  the  evidence. 

We  find  no  reversible  error  in  this  record  and  the   judgment  of 
the  Circuit  Court  of  Winiiebago  County   is  here  affirmed. 

Judgment  Affirmed. 


-S- 


■ifi3.&  x:e©c  ^c£i  x>oXi  v^i-qciq  s/id'    ciioxiiiao  Tisri^   ii,i:   crr^fi;*'   J!)3i;'ii:d'S2l   cri??   ^s^ 
o:f  nolvi:.55;:  .al      .svxc^Bl.aoeqa   sgsI   -to  ©loii-  si  eonaiUv^^  xlo-uB      .ossfiBrl 

eric?  "io   'netos'xtirio   ed^  rms  ©^-bxid  odj-  'lO    -loirf'isool  sxlcf   oes   y-'^-Ic  JMx/oo 

3lx;'i:  £;3xfeilriec  3©   oxii'  xised  gnoX  sjsxf   ^I     iaos^sisxi?   arrxxeffioTcxqifii  5xib  ;toI 

;}-ax:i.3S6  Y-^^sa'>ix:Bii:  al   vrxni;    oxfO"  'to   j-oxSisv  eiif   saol.ajj  -tsxio-   ^^'li/oo  lo 

ai  i39J:x,U''Bi?f;   o-on  si   cf'^xxoo   :uri'7raivs'x  ajdi^^    tSOjis.oiri'-a   sdci-    ?.:o  -txlsiew  s'j.dd" 

JaxiX3g/3    al   ;:i'oi:iriOY   axxiJ  ^  siU    ^^8  :^OfJxtso  {i?*?/      .sQfiJ.&xil'};   -ixexi;:!'  snia-xsvai 

,  ot'Xiofrivo  sxlc  '?:o  ^xl^ie'.?  cfss'llxTrxn  sxli- 
lo  d"0.9i3ar)y(;,    f'Xlc.;    pjxxa   i-xcoev;  c-ixi;t  xxl   'xo'r.'s.Q  eldie^'evsi   on  Jiriil  sV; 

. D ':-&nl'i'ki  9i&xf  sx  -v^ifiioC  ogadeiiitxT;  'ic  sisjcD  iivc^ro  Qslt 


STATE    OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON".  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  tlie  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  A])pellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Cleric  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73S15— oM— 3-32)  ••*^^^7 


Ilf^ 


AT  A   TERM   OF   THE   ATTELLATE    COURT, 
Begun   and   held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   of   Octcber,    in 
the   year    of   cur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    —    the    Hon.    BLaINE  HUFFKIAN  ,   Presiding   Justice, 
Hon.    FRAiTiaiNR.    DOVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FREE   G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Clerlr:o 
RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff.     ^J 
/ 


3    JL 


ff. 


ES   IT  REf.iEMBEREr,    that  afterwards,    to-wit:    On 
'JAl'i  i^  ;j37  the   opinion   it  the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's   office    of  said    Court,    in   the   "/ords  ani   figures 
follo^-ing,    tc-T/7it: 


Gen.  No.  9146  Agenda  No.  46 

IK  THE 
APPELLATE  GOUKT  OF  ILLINOIS 
S£COND  DISTRICT 

OCTOBER  TERI,i,  A.  D.  1936 


Kewanee  State  Saving^s  Bank 

&  Trust  COiiipany, 

"  Couiplain.ant. 

vs. 
Warren  E.  Green,  et  al. , 

Defendants. 


William  L.  O'Gonnell,  Receiver 

of  Kewanee  State  Savings  Bank  Appeal  fro.u  the  Circuit 

&  Trust  Company,  Court  of  Henry  County. 

Appellant  and  GroBs-Api'jellee 


Elizabeth  Green  O'Neill,  Warren 
E.  Green  and  John  Green  O'Neill, 
Elizabeth  J.  O'Neill,  Geor£i;e 
Edwin  Green  and  Thoiuas  J.  Viielch, 
their  Guardian  ad  Litem, 

Appellees  and  Cross-Appellants. 

Wolfe,  J. 

This  cause  involves  a  trust  estate  created,  by  the  Last  Will   1 
and  Testament  of  Edwin  G.  Green,  aeceased,  of  the  City  of  Kewanee,  I 
Henry  Co'onty,  Illinois,  for  the  benefit  of  nis  dau£,hter,  son  and 
three  grsjidchildren. 

On  December  11,  1924,  by  a  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Kenry 
County,  Illinois,  in  a  case  entitled  Kewanee  State  Savings  Bank  & 
Trust  Coapany  vs.  Y/arren  E.  Green,  et  al. ,  the  Kewanee  State  Savings 
Bank  &  Trust  Company,  a  corporation,  was  appointed  Trustee  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  the  Last  V/ill  and  Testament  of  Edwin  G.  Green, 
deceased.   The  ba.nk  acted  as  Trustee  of  the  estate  until  the  bank 
was  closed  by  the  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
on  February  9,  1933. 

On  March  27,  1933,  the  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  appointed 
William  L.  O'Gonnell  as  Receiver  of  said  Bank.   The  Court  administer- 
ing the  Trust  Estate  of  Edwin  G.  Green,  deceased,  is  the  same  court 


&^    ,0'A.  ..?r;ns-f,A  6-M8    .oi-i    .nai) 


levxaosfi    jllsxixrcU'O    .J  iiiiJillxvi' 

,av 

jiixel-a'O  xi83:!;-0  xtncL  !o.a&  iissiO    .SL 
9,i,T:o&0    ,IIiSi/l»0    .L  il^^Q'-BSxla 

,1,    , allow 

.asixswsji   iO   \>f'iO   sii'S'    j;o    .j^ea.ssoal!)    ^aes'i-^i    .S  niwcS  lo  Jri-sfiLCd'aaT  das 

,n&aIjIiriox)iis'.cg  es'xxf;*- 
Yiiisli   'io   d-x.o-oC   :i-i:xj-0'xiD   srlci-    xo  sstosJo  £>  vd'    ,^Sei    ,11  "xadindoeU.  aO 

Xtiso   oi   5s3'£.irxT  jed-xxxcqas   a.sw    .£!:cx;S-B-ioq'xoo  s    ^ximqiuoO  iaui'^  &  2L'i\sS 

,n&i'iD    .-':■  :ixw.b£  lo   j^■9fiLBC^esT  iaa  IIl'V.'  *g/3j  and"  'ic  axioiaxvcic   srii  &uo 

iriii'i  ad&  iltsiij  sJ"-s?as  9fi3-  lo  sed'sxr-xT  axs  X)'3^0£  2Li.scf  srlT      .b&BseoBb 

aicru.lil  'to  siiSii^   sd?  lo   -a-J-nsjoook  olld.u'i   lo  'xcd"/Jjx;A  sci^  ^a  :o93olo  a3w 

.oao-rfxor,c3   3.j-X):t:;oooA  oil'iifq   lo  •ioii-x.bn.k  ed:f    ,GSs^X    .S'S   rioxsM  nO 
-■X3vfax.;;xi.i)3   JixroO  SiiT      .itxraa  J:)iJ5a   Tec  -reAfxsosH  a.s  IlsfinoO'C    .il  msilliW 
j'xxroo   3i';ij3a   sjiu    ax    ,.osB.eeo9b    tfr&aaO    .4^  aiwb'JL  lo  sJ-oJaa   JaiirT  sxtvJ-  gxti 


-3- 

in  whicii  the  dissolution  suit  of  the  Kewanee  State  Savings  Bank 
&  Trust  Goiapany  is  penaing.   OR  November  10,  1933,  I/Villiain  L. 
O'Connell,  as  Receiver  of  the  Kewanee  State  Savings  Ba-nk  &  Trust 
Goupany  filed  a  report  in  said  trust  estate  and  asked  the  Court 
to  per.uit  the  Trustee  to  resign  and  turn  over  the  trust  estate  to 
a  successor. 

Objections  were  filed  by  the  appellees  to  this  report  of  the 
Receiver,  based  on  the  ground  that  the  bank  as  Tmstee  held  during 
the  entire  trusteeship,  as  assets  of  the  trust  estate,  ei/hteen 
shares  of  its  own  bank  stock,  in  violation  of  the  express  provisions 
of  the  will  of  Edwin  G-.  Green,  and  had  purchased  fro:n  itself  securities 
which  were  not  sufficiently  secured  and  without  any  oraer  of  court. 
A  full  hearing  was  had  on  the  report  and  objections  and  much  testiiaony 
was  taken  before  the  Co'urt.   On  March  29,  1935,  the  court  entered  a 
final  order,  surcharging  the  bank  and  receiver  with  the  several 
principal  sums,  amounting  to  $42,050.00  and  interest  frou  the  date 
the  illegal  investments  v/ere  made,  less  the  deductions  for  all 
dividends  and  interest  received  and  accounted  for  by  the  trustee. 

On  J-une  28,  1935,  V/illiam  L.  O'Connell,  as  Receiver  of  the 
Bank,  filed  a  corrected  report  covering  the  period  from  June  4,  1928, 
to  June  21,  1935,  which  the  Receiver  stated  was  "Made  pxirsuant  to 
the  order  of  this  Court  on  Llarch  29,  A.D.  1935,  requiring  the  under- 
signed to  restate  the  account  herein."   In  this  report  the  Receiver 
Recounted  for  interest  as  provided  by  the  terms  of  the  Final  Decree 
of  March  29,  1935.   On  July  12,  1935,  objections  to  this  report  were 
sustained  for  the  reason  that  some  of  the  assets  were  not  accounted 
for,  and  the  Receiver  was  ordered  to  file  a  corrected  report  within 
15  days. 

On  September  16,  1935,  the  Receiver  filed  amother  report  cover- 
ing the  period  from  June  4,  1928,  to  September  11,  1935,  a.nd  in  this 
report  the  Receiver  accounted  for  interest  only  until  March  27,  1933, 
being  the  date  on  which  he  was  appointed  Receiver.   Objections  to 
the  report  were  filed  by  appellees  on  the  ground  that  the  report  did 


,d  lis  ill  Pis    4  6oG,'I    5  01  •xedhiDYOii   rtO      .gnxorisq  3X  vrxBcnucD   d'8.u-iT   & 

gfii'Xjxb  .tlen  eed-airxT  a.^-  3i.asd   edj-   jijjicf  .bnxro^g  ericr  no  isasjscf   ,x&v,c909H 

iT9©5-.ti;^J:6    .sJscras   '^zn-Xj   snJ"   ic  8«9sa3  aa   tcrxriase^/ai/iit  siidrte  sxiij" 

s.aoiaivo'xq  sas*xqx8  sd.*  lo  noiujaloxv  gI    ^I'iooJ'b   -Aixsd  n'wo  a"J"l  'xo  as"X„sxl8 

:;?i^£0DaB   !tlead-x  iaoix  ii)sa.3{lotrj:.rq  ib.sfl  xjira    ..nss'X-D    .%)  nxwiia   'io  Iliw  ©dt  lo 

:oiiix:l"esc*'  aojjic;  bHs  a;Io.i:^^oe(;cfc  xixtB  J"i[0fi,9A  sii;^  rto  Jbisrf  aa^  ^rxxxasxl  lint  A 
.6  JD9'X--j.fT&   <S-ir.rco  eaJ"    ,3<';;GI    ,G'S  ilo'Xx-:M  riO      .«''ixi-ot'3   srich  e.'xoled'  n&stBd'  asW 

sd'iBb   aiij-  x;.o"xl  jo?ie^nl  baiB  00 . 050 , S^f'li  oJ  ■^nl^.auos'is    ,aa)Xfa  Isqxof.;xxq 

11.^   10X   axfoxd-oioen   sxii  saeX    jSb^ia  3a;sw  a^-fiamjasviix  IbssIII  sxlcr 

.se;J"B.o'tr:ct-  sJy   vd  To'i  .D9;i-xijjooD.s  x>XL5  .bsviaoso:  iBQiotat  .oasi  B-busbirib 

QSii-   "io  's:ovr:JO^H  sx=    .IlaxriiioO'O    .a   ikbxxIIV    <5SSI    ,32   oaxfL  xtO 

SSei    5*^  axLui  f.;o:j;i  x-oxttsq-  s/fj  ;^XLJ:xf;voo  i"ioqsa  DSi^^oaxioo  .s  i^eXxi    ^lasS. 

cxf   JHisxy-a xx/cr  eLxsM"   8i5W  Jjoii-sJ-a   t&vxsoeH  9'.i.t  ii'oxxlx7   ^cGl'X    ,XS  en-jl,  o,t 

-'xaXrijj-  ©xi^J-  >jt.:i'X.tfjpss    ^SSGX    .Q.A    ,Ga   xioxe,.--  xio  ;l'xsjoD  alJ■ic^  Ito  lex-'xo  exl^f 

iSvisosH  sricj-   i-'xoqs^   siiid"  rxl      "  .xcXsiari  o''xxx'coob  sxuf   eo'Bd'as'r  od"  .^srisxa 

satosi.1  Xba-x'S  -a-ixj-   'ic  aiiiisd"  sdd-  ^d  JDex>ivo^q  aa  uaozsci'xrx  icl  Ijejxxifooojp 

6:i:S7?  ;f7.oq9t?:  Bixid"  03"  aiioxiroecdo    ,3eSX    ^SX  xlvl  xxO      .dSeX    ^es  xioxsM  'io 

:bBt.n.i.f 00 OS.  toa  sxew  atsa's.s   ed^  lo  saoa   d-jsild'  rxoajBei  Bdt  io1  bealsiiBxre 

ald&lv  iraoos-x  dB&097.y.Q0  .s  eXl'i   cd"  ijeccaxj-xo  B£^{  iQvieoe-K  3xii  arrs  V^o!!: 

.aYJsX)  c3X 
-tcvoo  j'xoqei  ■xeri^-oxi.s  LsXx'i  isvieosK  s^tt  ,SSt5X  ^c'X  aerfj-j^S-qsa  xtO 
Blili  XXX  x>n,?.  .a?G'X  ,JX  •):©a*-!^.t.-:na  o;^  ,8SGX  ,;>  er.xsl,  lucxl  holieq  9x1*  gxix 
CSSX  ,78  xio'xsii!  XltxTx.'  vrXxfo  d•ae•x9i^^.f■  'xo'i  .bfc^xixjooos  isi'xeo&fl  sric?  ^loqsa 
od-  3.acxd-03{;d0  .'csvxeosyi  xjsxxixoqqB  a.sw  sxi  uoXxi"?  x^o  et^sb  3&  aniscf 
bi^   J'xcce.'x   ed3-  ^hoXiJ"  iDxtacx^^  •3i"iJ'  no  asaXXaqqc  vcf  XjSXXI  sisvt  d-oioqetr  sdi 


not  comply  with  the  order  of  Llarcii  29,  1935,  and  did  not  account 
for  interest  as  directed  by  the  Court  orcer.   On  December  4,  1935, 
these  objections  were  sustained  ana  the  Receiver  ordered  to  file  a 
corrected  report  in  30  days. 

On  DecBiUber  4,  1935,  William  L.  O'Oonnell  as  Received  filed  a 
notion  to  modify  the  order  of  March  29,  1935,  so  as  not  to  require 
the  Receiver  to  account  for  interest  after  the  date  of  his  appoint- 
ment.  This  motion  was  denied  December  4,  1935.   Ho  attempt  to 
appeal  from  any  of  the  previous  orders  was  made  by  the  Receiver, 

On  January  6,  1936,  William  L.  O'Oonnell  as  Receiver  of  the 
bank  filed  another  report,  which  was  the  same  account  ae  filed  on 
September  16,  1935.   On  Janua.ry  16,  1936,  objections  to  this  report 
were  filed  by  appellees,  principally  on   the  ground  that  the  report 
was  not  in  compliance  with  the  final  order  of  March  29,  1935,  since 
the  Receiver  did  not  account  for  interest  as  directed  by  the  order 
of  March  29,  1935.   On  M^'.rch  17,  1936,  objections  were  sustained  to 
the  report  filed  January  16,  1936,  and  the  Receiver  directed  to  file 
a  report  within  30  days.   The  order  provides,  "Which  report  will 
comply  with  tne  order  and  decree  of  this  court  entered  on  liarch  29, 

1935,  except  that  the  Receiver  shall  account  for  interest,  after 
the  date  of  his  appointment  of  securities  and  cash  loo.ged  with  the 
State  Auditor,  in  the  account  of  the  Kew.anes  State  Savings  Bank  & 
Trust  Company  and  out  of  the  proceeds  received  from  the  assets  and 
securities  held  by  William  L.  O'Oonnell  as  Receiver  of  the  bank 
belonging  to  the  Edwin  G.  Gi'een  Trust  Estate  at  the  time  of  the  entry 
of  the  decree  on  March  29,  1935."  On  March  30,  1936,  O'Oonnell  as 
Receiver  filed  a  motion  to  vacate  the  order  of  March  17,  1936,  which 
motion  was  denied. 

The  appeal  in  this  case  is  taken  from  the  order  of  uS-rch  17, 

1936.  Hotice  of  appeal  being  filed  and  served  on  April  17,  1936, 

more  than  a  year  a,fter  the  final  order  of  March  29,  1935, 
have 
The  appellees/filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  the  appeal  because  the 


.ex->'i'£i  OS  ai"   jhxoqs':  .oe;to5-x'iOO 

e-riupet   od-  .toa  sa   oe    ,5 SGI    ,es   noTSsi  Ic  xebro  9a:>-    i^liiiom  o3-  aoriom 

— tniocq,^  s.a.\  'to  e^t^i)  ©iio'  'iCol.s  'J'seae-Tiij;   ■xoi    oOuGOOiS  cit  'sevleooH  srl^ 

ot  tqi;::;; J ?ii  oli      .oSSI    ,i^  "jrednaosO   i?QJ:fle.D   8jjw  noxocu  axaT      .jasia 

uioqsT  sic: 5"  0^  e rue x5  OS  !;d"o  .8521  ^21  x^MSiWli  nC  ,3o8I  jol  xscitiiecfqaB 
J  ■;fi::^qsa:  SiiJ-   JBXiJ  iixr/KSiji  exiJ-  1:0  YXXi>qxOiXXiq    ^sseXIsGCi;^  vcf-bellj:  8^9^ 

so.rtJa  ,cSvX  ,CS  lioi^'e;  !tc  tevro  X^jgxx  9fi«'  ,rf3-.{~«-  sofisilqusoo  ixl  ^oxi  a^sw- 
•2:9jj^;o  Oiloi-  vd  .bstocxXij  83  d"e3':i:9Ci-.a:.i:  101  &msor}:}'j  jon  i>Xb  isvlsosH  3jS# 

03-  be>.ts.ist'ai(ii  Q'Xi:-^  s;rcxcro2rcic    j^ii&X    ,?X  ifoi-.i£  xxO      ,5£QI    ,SS  xto-ii^M  lo 

IXx?f  ot:cv_&'X  iioxi:iV^*'    .as.bxvoiq  ^©Xjio  oiiT      .a%nJb  OS  xyxajxv?  ^xoqei  a 
^G'S  iioxs:.!  no  ib6^sct-ii6   iJ-xuGo  alxU'   Ic  esioai)  .j.kb  is^ic  aua^  ii^juw  -^Iqatco 

sja;]"  d;ti-tf  I)r^gf.oI  risjjo  ij«5.   BsXJXAiJO^ja   lo   Jxiaa^Jsioi^qs   sir'    Ic  sj-sxi  SjIJ 

jbrrs  aJeaSjS   exi-t  v^cxJ.  £;-37.tcC5T.  aijieooiq  ©rid'   xo-  cfx/c  Xifte  Y-U'Sqfi-oO  ct'Si/xS 
3ixt6d'  edi   iO  'X3VXS0SH  n.£  XXaxn-icO'O    .J.  iiXaXXxV/  vd  XiXaxi  aexJx'Xi/aea 

aa  XXqxcxioO'sO   ,0S-^X    5O0  iioXBii  jiO      "  .SSex    t^S  xloisM  00  ao^xo-si?  sxtd"  lo 
loxjj'vr    tc3SGX    ,S'X  ao'XAii   xo  tssjjic   sivJ  So;30x;v  ot  aox^oti  £  l)eXxl  asvisosfl 

.beiueh  83w  nox^lofa 
jTX  r.ox--,.,   io  'isoic  siiu   mc-x't  rraxsd-  ax  eajso  alriit  k1   X.seqq.a  eaT 
.::S'iX    ,VX  ixiqA  ao  ijsvxss  x^rts   d^sX.^;  ^jitiscf  X.seqQS   Io  aoicf-oH      .6^61 

erfd"  &ex;j50£d  X£eqq>^  ^j-^Id"  aaxr,;3Xl)  oo'  noi:>toai  £.  i:;3Xx'i\3S9XX©qqjs  sdl 


-4- 
order  of  Marca  17,  1935,  was  not  a  final  and  appealable  oraer. 
The  oraer  of  j,.aroii  29,  1935,  declares  the  auiount  that  the  Receiver 
was  to  account  for,  aiiu   he  was  ordered  to  wake  a  report  in  con- 
formity witn  that  order.   Nothinji,  remains  to  be  done  in  the  case, 
but  for  hi:u  to  comply  i^/ith  the  aecree  of  Court.   If  he  lifas  not 
satisfied  with  the  decree,  he  had  a  ri^nt  to  appeal  to  a  higher 
court.   He  aid  not  see  fit  to  do  so  within  the  Statutory  period 
of  one  year,  ana  he  is  now  barred  from  prosecuting  an  appeal  from 
that  order. 

It  is  our  conclusion  that  the  order  of  tne  Court  of  L'arch  17, 
1936  was  not  a  final  nor  an  appealable  order,  and  the  .aotion  of 
appellees  to  dismiss  the  appeal  should  be  allowed  ana  the  appeal 
is  hereby  dismissed. 

Appeal  diemisBed. 


-rico  ;:i    jior^a  i.   si.^.;i;  oo"  i^^'xc^.'-xo  a.sw   eu  .bii£    ,'2:o'.f   jCixsooo^  oj  as-?? 

^■oa  3^«    sri  ■>!      ,T\!:i;oO    xo  sSiDej.;  til?   uc^iv;-  Yl>,jnOG   oj    ;:<  in  :£ox   utrc 

Loivioc   'i^-i:t;3ijc;\;5:fE    ■j/iu   ixixi^ivi'  C8    oi)   oj    d-x'i   fJS3   Joc  x;xX>  sFi:      .j-^i;oo 
mu'zl  Iji&qqsi  xis   :jixiJi/oeao^q  woi't  b&'s.ijiQ   soxi  ax  axf  inis    ^z.s&y,  sxio  'to 

t7J"   dc3:£::'   xc  .■f'XLoD   £."T  'to  '^aiyio  eix'j    i"j?.aj"  rcoiaiiloaoo   tmo  ai   i'l 

•iDsaaiii-aib   v;asr:;9il  ei: 


STATE    OF    ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSOIS'.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof.  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

. in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Clerl-  of  the  AppelJate  Court 

(73815 — 5M — 3-32) 


v^^ 


AT  A   TERM   OF   TflE   APFELLATE    COURT, 
Begun   and  held   at   Ottawa,    en  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   ef  Octcber,    in 
the   year    of   rur   Lord   cne    thousand   nine   hundred   and   thirty-six, 
\Tithin  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present    --    the    Hon.    BLAINE  HUFF?/[AN',    Presiding   -Justice 
Hon.    FRi'JVICLIN  R  .    nCVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FRSL   G.    V»'OLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSON,    Cleric,  C%  O     ' 

RALPH  H.    PESPER,    Sheriff. 


1:1 


I 


r 


BE   IT  RET.IEMBEREP,    that   aftery-ards,    to-wit:    On 
J/''^'I8  1937  "the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in   the 

Clerk's   cffioe    of  said    Court,    in   the   v/ords   and   figures 
following,    to-wit: 


Gen.  No.  9152  Agenda  No.  40 

In  the  Appellate  Court  of  Illinois 

Second   District 

October  Term,  A.  D.  1936. 

Anthony  Durka  and  Mary  Durka, 

(Complainants)  Appellees, 

vs. 

Anton  Wy^yoh  and  Mary  Wypych, 

(Defendants)      Appellants. 


Appeal  from  the 
Anton  Wypych  and  Mary  i/ypych, 

(Cross-Complainants)   Appellants,  Circuit    Court 


Lake   County 


Anthony  Durka  and  Mary  Durka, 

(Cross-defendants)     Appellees. 


Wolfe,    J/ 

Anthony  Durka  «ind  Mary  Durka,    the  appellees,    filed  a  bill       i 
of    complaint   for  foreclosure  6f  a  real   estate  c ontract.      The  1 

i 

appellees  had  previously  sold   the  property  in  question,    to 
Anton  rypych  and  Waxy  Fypych,    the  appellants  in  this  suit,    for 
#27,000.00.      The  Wjrpychs   deeded  a  property  which   they  owned, 
to  the  Durkas,    as  part   consideration,    and  ?/ere  to  make  monthly 
payments  of  f 300. 00  per  month  until   the  balance  of  the  purchase 
price  was  paid.      The   sale   and  exchange  of  property  was  made   in 
August,   1929.      The  Vypychs  made  their  regular  payments  until 
July  6,    1952,    when  they  only  paid  C>100.00.      Since   that   date 
until   the   suit  for   foreclosure   was   started,    they  have  not  paid 
the  full  amount   which  was   due   each  month. 

To  the  bill   to  foreclose,    the  defendants   filed  their  answer. 
They  also   filed   a   cross-bill,    in  which   they  allege  that   the   Durkas 
were  eicperienced  and  shrewd  dealers  in  real   estcte  and  that  the 
Wypychs  were  without  the  advantage  of  an   education  or   business 
experience,    and  had  no   knowledge  of  the   value   of  real  estate; 


O-l-    .oil  absier^k  £19 XG    ,oYi   .na-O 

.ST 

<  rfo'^rq-^v,  YX3M  Sj^.e  lioYQ^W  xiod'.aA 


\X>    <  olXosi 

ofil      .rf-Oiivxj-.aoo  93-3^8©   Isei  £  IQ:  o-K/eoIoe-xol   'lol   cJ-iiiBlqirioo  .lo 

orj-    5  jc  ic^asirp  r;l  Y^''''^9C(oir  eifc"   .&Ics  -v^Laj,/oiTe'.i;cv  .5ad  esslleqgs 
"j-ol    t'^lsi'i  aij:^  i^i   £c)TajIIf5q':;j3  ado    ^liox^''  X'isM  Mjs  xaoY<IY^''   nocfjciA 

QGBnjisjq  exia  lo  og.cbI3o   aii;'    IxiJi-.^  /icriiOE  'leq  OO.OOS:.';:  lo  a^r^am^Bq. 

ill   obBZi  BBW  Y^'S-'^'iO'^?  'ic  ogHBfiOzo  1)113  eiss   axlT      mbiac  qbw  ©oiiq 

X.L"d-iiir  BJ-rrflX5T'>j/,;cr  -Xfilxiss  1  iXoxirf-  oft  Bid  aifoYcpi;''   ailT      ,eseX    ,cf3Ws.t;A 

9"JBb  J-HKi"   eonia      .OO.OOX;'    cxtsq  ^Xxro  -^^srid-  nsii!'.?    ,S!c;^X    ,3  jIsjI, 

SlBq  >tc£C  ©veri  ^©^^    ,.&oo'-ib.-+.3;   ei.w   ©■xi/GoXoaici  lot   ;txif2   3x1  ct-  Ii;fxixr 

.i'Ja.Qm  D'OB-o   eub   8bw  xloXxf-r  itni/oias  XXi/l  sdi- 

.xfjwaxiE   •ilQti&  bell'-::   actx.'.ybxislso  -srid'    ,ec.oJ.o9'j.o'j-  ocf   IXxcf   Sii;}-  oT 

Bs:ii'ma  ad^  d-oxid"  er.&XXa  x,od:f  xicixl?:  ni    ^XXxd-ssoao   s   bsliil   oals  xedT 

sxl:'    -iilj-  bus.  -zii.^^ee   X£.9i  ni  a'lsXssI)  fiwe^e  f>ns  Beonsxiaqxs  sisw 

aeanXaiJd   'lo  r.oIU5D.a.09  Xib  1o  9af>=X!-.cvI)3  pxfcf  cf i/oxJJ- .iw  a^caw  exIoYCfyW 

;od-Boe'5   XBe-rc  "5:0   si/XxiV   3Xf;J-  lo  ©sXiaXwoxtii   oxi  J^BXl  Sfxe.    ,eon9Xieqx9 


-2- 
that   a  confidential   and  fiduciary  relationship  existed  b^^tween 
the  parties;    that  the  Durkas  reported  that  the  property  was  valued 
at  40   to   50  thousand  dollars;    that   a  road  was  going  to   be  built 
to  tjie  property;    that   the  railroad   company  was  going  to  build  a 
depot  and  T/sarehouse  near  the  property;    that  the  railroad  company 
was  trying  to  purchase  the  property;    that  these  representations 
were    false   and  made  for   the  purpose   of  deceiving  the  Wypychs  and 
that   tjhe  property,    at    the   time  it  wi..s  purchased,   was  not   worth 
more  than  |10, 000.00. 

The   case  was  referred  to    the   Master   in  Chencery  to   take 
evidence,    and  report   to  the   court  his   conclusions  of  facts  and 
law  applicable  thereto.      The  Master  found  in  favor    of  the  Wypychs 
on  their    cross-bill.      The  Durkas   filed  objections   to  this  report, 
but  vere  overruled  by  the  Master.     The  Master   then  filed  his  re- 
port 8Jid  the  objections   were  ordered  to   stand  as   exceptions. 

The   court    sustained  the  exceptions   to  the  Master's  report  and  | 

I 
entered   a  decree  of  foreclosure   in  favor  of  the  Durkas,    and  it  | 

is  from  this  decree   that  this   appeal  is   prosecuted. 

The   apoellees  have   filed  their   written  motion   tib  dismiss 
the  appeal,    alleging  that    the   same  had  not  been   filed  within 
the   time  prescribed  by  the  rules  of   this  court.      This  motion 
was  taken  with  the   case   and    there  is    probably  some  merit   in 
appellees'    motion,    that  the   same  was  not   filed  in  time,    but  we 
have    considered  the  case   on  its  merits  and   have   decided   that 
the   decree  must  be  affirmed;    therefore,    the  motion  to  dismiss 
will  be  denied,    but   we  do  not   attempt  to  pass  upon  the  merits 
of  the  motion. 

It  is  first   insisted  by  the  appellants  that  the   clear  pre- 
ponderance of   evidence,    sustained  the   charge  of  fraud  alleged   in 
the  cross-billo      Fraud  is   never   presumed,    but   it  must  be   establish© 
ed  by  a   clear  preponderance   of  the  evidence.      The   burden  was  upon 


o-Il..::cf   aiJ    ccJ-  rajtiio;^  af-v/  ibscx  b   d-Bii^    js'sllof)  Snssiiodo    Ca   o^   0:^  ^s 

JbG;.E   BilQXcpi'fi  9Xiu    ijjTtiv laesJj  'lo".=>acqi.c/q  oiis-   -icl  95Bin  I^xijo   gsIsI    aiow 

.00,000,01:'''   iiBfio    oioflT 

s^ibj    oj  'i'isoa;-j:{0  iii   leoasM  exS?    od"  iia^'s'isi  sb'K'  qsbo   3XfT 

.5xLe   ai^cc'i   'io  ;^.a.oxaxfIoi3ci.o   sixl  u-ij:j-oo   orl^'  erf"   cfiogs'i  biw.    <©one.6xvs 

BxloYCtY''   -^-f^^   '1*^    aov3^  ni  3i:JXfo'j;  ^ce^reeM  axlT      .o;:!'&isxiei'   sldBcilqaB  '^b£ 

^orcqsi  3x.fl^   orf    siioli'osr  ::C  bvilx'?:   affiiiuCI  sxiT      .Ilici-Ksoio    ^leiii'  no 

.30oi:jc:so:c&    ;-,;■■.   fj.a.5oa   cu^  Iie'is.b'io   sisw   aact-J-o-^ldo  oiit  Skb  cl'ioq 

.5x1. a  cr?;Dqoi  a'*x©o-3BM  <9iiv    o.t   axxoict-qsoTis  ex?.;!'  benxBtBua   ^il'oo  ©xIT 

c!-i   ftna    ^zB::ii!fj    eii-J-  Io  ^ov.ol  xil   o'iuaolca'xcl   Jo  ee-s.03b  s   fls'is^xxs 

.£•00 .o'CisBO'XQ"  rtx  I.ssqcrj?   sin'o'  d'Bxlrf'  se'xssi  sxci^t  uroil  ai 

aeirasxi;!  d;?   .aci:("OiTf  xiad'^xTT   ale-dc!-  BelTi   evMi  assIIsaqB   exJT 

0xxrjj:vr  Selxl'   xrsso   vor:  Iifd  sitiBc  s-rlc!-    indi  5;xilgaII.s    jlxisags  3ii.t 

xiolrf'Offi  cxiiO;      .rf-'xx/co  fiXiiJ   Io   ss-Hfx  s-ici"  Y'^   5sdx'xo2©ig  axa'J:^   Qrld- 

xix    *liBit  ei^'Oa   Y-^isd'o ':;;:■•    ax  e-xoxicl"    bsiB   esse   srio'   riJ"i"w  nsjiscJ   sbw 

37'/  dwcf    ,©£71:;'  Hx  xalxl   toxi  eavr  ©iebs  arid"  ^ .odi    ,.acid-ouv   'aooIIoQrB 

^f'trl;!   t&iiloaL   ev  ari  ^jxg  a.tl'.fsra  3:tj:  no   eaao  sxl;;  f'S'rsJ!;  xaxico    3\raxi 

dBxEiE^x.fj  oo    xioicfoiTi  silc*    ,9 1'01'e 'X!;ri-J    ;  oejTix'i'iB  etf  Jsjjin  ss^oex)    r'lid' 

STlaoin  8^ic^  xtoqx;  3B;:'g;  co'   JqxJ9r^Jf;   jon  ol)  e'!?'   ;ix/cf    ^fesixteii  ecf  II.tw 

..Goi.+  OJE  oxirf-  ^c 

-sxq  iBsIo   sxfjf  dsxid-  ^:;£(sII.'■^q.:B  qtH  ^d  bQ^zXtnix  cf-eix'i  ai  jM 

fii  .59j-^9llj..'  A/XG'xt  'xc  £T./j_.;-X3;.'   sxl;)'  bsxi^B^tex/J:'.    (8o;i'9£)XV8   ^o  eoasiebnoq 

e.rfsxIcfB;f3G  9d  rf-si/xr:  c/-.?:   iu^   .ftsmji/aoiq   levon  si  Sx/b*!^      .Ilid-sQoio  adi 

noqij  Esw  noibiud'   ecil      ,eoueblre  Q£i&  Io  soiierreSaoqaiq  iselo   b  tjcT  J5e 


the  appellants  to  prove  fraud.      They   testified  to  a   conversation 
which    took  place  between  Burke  and  themselves,   relative  ti  the 
purchasing   of  the  property.      Durka   denied  thet   there   v-as  any  false 
representation  made  ih  regard  to  iti     In  the   case  of  Hustad  v, 
Gerny,   321  Illo    354,    the  Supreme  Court   in  discussing  #iat  repre- 
sentations  would  vitiate  a  contract,    use  this   language,    at   page 
359:      "Though  representations  made  in  the   sale   of  property  be  not 
true,    if  the  purchaser  has  an  opportunity  to  view  the  property 
it  is  his   duty  to  make  use  of   that  opportunity.      The   law  charges 
him  with  fchowledge  which  he  might  have  obtained  by  making  use  of 
the  means  afforded  hira,    and  vfhere  he  does  not  rely  upon  statements 
concerning  the  value  of  the  property  and  its   character  but  goes 
upon  the  land  and  examihes  it,   relying  upon  no  one's  representa- 
tions as  to   what    it   is,    it   cannot   be   said  that  misrepresai  tations , 
though  made,  afford  a  basis   for  relief   in  eqiity  for    the  reason 
that    they  were  not  relied  upon  aad  unless   they  be   concerning 
matters  which   the  prospective  purchaser  cannot  readily  deter- 
mine upon  examination,    he  vail  be  held  to  have  exercised  his 
own    judgment  rather   than  to  have  relied  on  the   statements  of   the 
seller.     Representations  as  to  value  of  property,    though  exagger- 
ated,   do  not  ordinarily  afford  a  basis   for  relief  where  the  party 
claiming  to  have  been  deceived  has  had  ample  opportunity   to  learn 
as   to  the   truth  or  falsity  of   the  representations." 

In  the  present    case,    the   vfy^ychs   had  an   opportunity  to   in- 
spect the  property  and  did  inspect   it   several  times.     The  Durkas 
didn't   conceal  anything  from  theVypychs.      On  the  premises  lyas  a 
building  of   thirty-two  rooms  used  for   a  lodging  house   snd  hotel. 
The  Wypychs  had  previously  loaned  Durkas  |2,000.00.      Thet   appears 
to   be   the   only  business    dealing  between  the  parties  prior   to  the 
sale   of   the  real  es   ste.      They  had  been   friends    snd    came   from  the 
same   community   in  the   old   countryo      The  evidence  discloses  no 
facts,    tending  to   show  a  fiduciary  or    confidential  relationship 


siiu    5<t  67lo''.£l3i    ..^evIaaxKerld'  dhb  s'liu®  /-isevr-j-aci    soBlq  slooJ    rioxrf'" 

-aijsa  #;ii4v  g/xiaRi/osxf)  ci   cT'i^.toO  ©iceigx/S  sxit    ,icC    .III  IS£    jY^i:®^ 
0/^BC[   ^B    ,5gj3i/3.aj5l  3i:.i:Jct   saw    ^oOBiJnoo  .3  !?jiii:d-iT  iblijo-r   sitoia-Bd-ixsB 

v&-x.sqoiq  9il;»'  'Jtoxv   oi'  y^^^-^--^^  *3Q'5<^  -^  ^s.d   iisaBxtOTCirq  eric!"  ^x    ^SiU'id" 

ass'icxfo   vj^'I   3fr?r      .^;;^'i.aDct loaqc-  Joii.t   'io  930  osiBffi  ocf  ^'Jub   3J:xi  si   :t-l 

lo  sBi/  s-aiilBM  vcf  .bsnlRd-cro   svsri  ;5"xlgxffi-  ex!  x^ojtjclv;  e^bel'ncAt  dttn  mid 

sd-ii?a;9Ct  ^:r3   .aoqi!'  vl^:^'!  cfcn  sscij   s&  sis;;'/:  .cuij    ,fflJri  AsJi'iol'SiJ  soBsm  eiit 

S'aog  cfu'd  nD0^D31cirio   a^i:  ,fc.j>-v  ■'^j"'X3Cforj:q"  sdil-  lo  eulBr  eut  siiijaiaoiioo 

5  ar.(oioBd  r&ao"2::i*'J3XH  -JBdi  blsz   ecf    o'onxiso   7X   ,ai:   oi:    cf.flriw   ocr  sx;  enoli 

iiosDei  sx^-J-    "icl  Yoiip'd  i5x   IsxIg'x  o;ci   a2a.3cf  b  b'Lolls  t  sjdbjki  xla/jox!* 

jixtiit/ieofico   sd  xedi   aasim;  ijii3  x:oqx;  f)9xle'3:  ooxi  slew  -^isifi-    d•3£[c^ 

-'XO"'e-&   tiiu&e'i  :rcxm£;o  i98£r[oiiiq  evirf-csqaoiq  sxij   rioxxiw  qiq^^bss 

slri  5s3.i:o'3c»xo  ot sil   c4  bled  qo   Illvi  sxf    ,xi:old-Briiiiiex9  xioqi/  srtxxa 

Olid'   Ic  a^-'.3j:!"!©j.s j-a   9X((I"  xsxj  &sJ:Iei  3Y.2xI  od"  .osxi;}'   isrigB*!  -tnefflgJowt    xiwo 

-  iDsasxs  xisxrcxicf    .T!;.j-x3q;ooxi  lo  3i;I.eY  oi'  as   eno  xa"ad"ff£'a8 itjsfj      ,  is  Ilea 

•^^Tf'XBq  sxlvt  a-raxlif  '^ollsi  a-ol   sxa/jcf  .g  fiio'ilB  ^^^-^ -^-'^•^■'^•''^0  S'oxi  oi>    ^be&B 

n'lBol  00    '<£;!■  ic./xa-'xoqqo  slqiivjs  bM  perl  f)9vi90©£i  fl90d  9V3xi   oci'  gnxinislo 

'^  .sr.ioI.TBJcss&'rqs'r  exlcf^   lo  igcJ'xsIsl  10  r<,&L!it   axlu   cJ-  ajs 

-iji   o;!"  ■fj;txruj*voqqo   ae  .5B.fi   adoxT^J'   sdi-    ^Q^sc    Sasse'iq  &&  xiT 

e.£i['.a!CI   9riT      .aexnxij-  Isisvya   it   do^qaxxi  i)J:Jj  iins  ^J^'-isqoiq  3iU  *09q3 

B  em  asalme-xq  sxicJ-  :iQ      .EilcYqY«  ari^t  ao^i']:  anxxf^^sa   1^90x100   t^abtb 

.ied"oxi  .5x13   .9:'.uori  ^nl^bol  z  lol  Aasxr  Bisoorj;  o'^i-\t'sld.^   Io  snIlsIliJd 

a-xeoqq-B   cJ-f^iJT      .00.000,5;*  axi^i'xixG  beHBol  -^iBx/oivgiq  i:)sxl  axfo^CY'^'  Q'dT 

y.c{:'    jJ-   'xoxiq  39icrixiq  a.dt  nsaw^^sd  ^xiiljss.o   ssjxfiai/cT  xir.o  eAo    ed  oi 

add  jfoT.*  exHBO   .oxis    Q/)cf9.iL-'rt   rjsao'  £>j3iI  ^:9ilT      .scf:-j   s.-:)  lasi  sdi  lo  9.CBe 

o.ri  injBcIoair)  ooxtsbxvo  9£lT      .•^f'X^fxitxoo   bio   9x1  :?•  at  -^-^fixijurniffioc   exDse 

qixJaxioxct£5l9i  iBLtxisX^ilnoo    to  Y'^-siox;£)J:l  b  woria  o^  ■giitbnat    ,a*ofll 


-4- 

between  the  parties.      The  lYypychs   testified  that   for    several 
months  he  had  the  rooms   all  filled.      The  examination  of  the 
abstracts  show  his   testimony  is  as   follov/s:        "l  had  it  filled 
up  about   three  months  and  after   tni'ee  months  it  ?rent   down.     At 
that  time,    the  tannery  was  working;    and    after  that  everybody 
4oved  to   Chicago.     After   the  tanneries  shut   down,    I  didn't   do 
so  well."     The   Wypychs  went   into  possession  of   the  property 
immediately  after  the  trade  uas  made  and  stayed  in  possession 
all  the  time   and  made  no   complaint  in  regard  to  bein^.-   swindled, 
until  the    foreclosure  siiit   was   started.      It   seems   to  us,    this 
indicates  very    straigly   (and    corroborates   the   appellees)    that 
the   false  representations   chsrged  by  the  appellants  in  their 
cross-bill   v>'ere  not  made. 

The  appellants   seriously  insisted  that   the    contract  pro- 
visions for    the  payment  of  $500. 00  monthly,   under  which  tjie  fore- 
closure  suit   vra.s   instituted,    were  waived.      As   before   stated,    the 
appellants  paid  their  monthly  payments  until  July  6,    1932,    i^hen 
they   only  paid  .?100.00,    then  the  record  shows  that   on  August  8, 
1932,    i'100.00;    September  6,    1932,    |580/00;    September   22,    1932, 
^214,00;    November   7,    1932,    §150.00;    December   7,    1932,    -:'100.00; 
January  5,    1933,    $100.00;   February  5,    1933,     ;100.00;    and  February 
23,    1933,    $100.00.      It  will   be   observed  from  these  records   of 
payments,    that  there  was  no  regular   amount  paid    each  month.     Dur- 
ing the  month  of   September,  Wypychs  paid  |594.00,    in  Octcfoer  he 
made  no  payment  whatsoever,   and  in  Ilovember,   he  paid  .fl50.00  and 
in  the   other  months  CIOO.OO   each.      .hen  he  offered  to  make  a  pay- 
ment of  6100.00  in  :,!arch,    1933,    the  Durkas  refused  to   accept  that 
amount  and  brouglit  suit  to   foreclose,    alleging  that  there  was 
over    :l, 600.00   due,    which  included  the   amount   of  his   delinquency, 
both  in  principal   and  interest,   and  also  money  advanced  for   in- 
surance and  tases. 


hell)!!!:  -rx  bjsd  l"        ;e..7oIio'i  &£■•  si  ■'{jtioinx.Taej    airi  s'Ojci?.  i-.iroBit^BdB 

CO   ^'s.5i:5   I    ^rsjcb   ciirxla  asliaiTnaJ-  oiiu    '^isJ'U.     .OT,3oiiff    od-  JisTo^ 

•y^^Jiaqpiq  edi   'io  liolBeeoaoq:  ccrxxi   ^n©?j   esicrcri-^  ^^     ''.Hew  oa 

fxoxassasoq.  al  b&i&^B   IJr£  oSaxa  s.gw  obai^f   e.cl:l  ■xscitis  -^^letfiaiiiecJE/ 

5i>oi7).!:iJ.T;s   veiled  ot  b-iogtvi  Ki   jnxjsICjXGoo  oc;  3i/;jic   criB   scflo   sxiu   11b 

.ebaK   d"Oji  s'ler"   ili'd-aaoic 
-oic^  tofrjjxja'    oxi'c    -j.vnj  I»s;j-Kla.nJ;  y-^s/joI'isk   a;iTiBiIs&Xi:B  siiZ  ' 
•'^'XQt  sijo    aoJcdti-  -lebms   j^jiiIdJnoEi  OO.COSf  lo  tnoiJ!"p;g  9£j    ioI;  aneJiaJT 

jieffj.T    jSc^Rl    ,c-  xl^~'^  ll^iw  eineisjsrsu,  ■■(.-^^'^■^^■'^^^  'zlaii^i'  nxsg   aoiisllsaqs 
j6  yai/guA  .uo   caiirf-   b^-^cjIb  Jii'iooei  iOilJ-  xteri^    ^OC.OUI*  aisiT  "'JIgc  ys^^ 

:00.00I'''    ^S.'C91    (V   ^oduiaooC    ;00.05jlO    sSSOI    ,7    !& oiria vole    jOO^S'IS^ 
Y'xriJ-ncfs'f;:  x>i.i::^    jOO.OOI:;    ,ectl    .6  Y'^i^'-kJs'^    jGQ.OOIv    ,So&I    ,8   Y'^^^^i^^^^Jsl- 

-"iXfL!'      .xftnor:!  iioB6    J^'XjGq;  Jxiu'Oi'i's   ij?.Ij.fge'r  oxr  asu  siariS"  J'bxI?    jSS'xisfu'iCBq 
3x1   u;e(i:):^'oO  ni    ^OC.I^Oci^  Jii^g  silo'^qT^'iv   ,i9dx;f6jqe3   Ic   xicf-coav  sxfd-  gxij: 

-•;;;sq  b  axBR   orf-  Jl/ei-i.-.'>'!tc   sif   nexl'.'      .xlo£'::   OO.OOXv   Brt:;t.cciH  ^aiUc   sd:^  at 

erExK+   d-qsooo   ::-d-   bsai/xGi  ES^'ixr'J   eric/-    ^SSPI    ^xioris'.'  nT.  OC.OOl't  lo  d-xxsts: 

s-e-"/  ij'i.si^i   &:-i£i.-j   loiiisslls    ,deoIC'-3'j.c'i   oS'   t.'jxxs   .txfyx/o'xd'  &n£5  ;txxxxoiae 

, Yoaei'pnxlsi:-'   alxl  'ic   ^.ajjorr;^  arid"  SeSuIoxxx  .aoixiw    ,9y&   00.005^11'.  levo 

-ji1   lo'l  -Osoite.v.bis  varcoiT!  oals  .oxis    ,jasie  jxxx   dxis   lBq;j;ox«iiq  xix  xI#od 

,39XBd-    f)IXJ6    0OXlB1i;e 


-5- 


The    court   found  Durkas  by  aeceptin.r  these   irEegular  pa3n:aents, 
inst*Ad  of   insisting  upon  the  full  ai^ount  being  paid,    did  not  waive 
the   rig;'t  to   insist   on  the   full  payments,    but  had  a  right   at   any 
time,    to    demand   the  full   amount  of   the  monthly  pasnuent,    as   stated 
in  the  contract.      In  this,    we  thinlc  there   is  no  error   in  the 
court's  holding.      The   trial   court  entered  the  usual   decree,   as 
in  foreclosure  proceedings  and  any  rights  t^at  Wypychs  had  in  the 
property  are  fully  protected. 

We  find  no  reversible  error  in  the   ce.se  and  the  decree  is 
affirmed. 

Cecree  affirmed. 


ai  ee.'xos.b  erid   .&xj:a  ea.-^o   erl^f  rii   ici'ia'  eidxa'-JisYO'i  on  baxl  a\V 


STATE    OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JU.STUS  L.  JOHNSON,  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certif\'  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copj^  of  the  opinion  of  tlie  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Wliereof,  I  liereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Otta^va.  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  AppeVate  Court 


^/J'/ 


AT   A   TERM   OF   THE.   APPELLATE    COLIRT, 
Begun  and   held   at   Ottavv^a,    on  Tuesday,    the    sixth    day   nf  OGtclDer./'"''in 
the   year    of   our   Lord   one    thousand   nine   hundred   and    thirty-six, 
within  and   for    the    Second  District   of  the    State    of  Illinois: 


Present   --   the    Hon,    BLAINE  HUFFMAN",    Presiding   Justice, 
Hon.    FRM^CLIN  R  .    DGVE,    Justice. 
Hon.    FREL   G.    WOLFE,    Justice. 
JUSTUS   L.    JOHNSOK,    Clerk:,  <^  O    O 

RALPH  H.    TESPER,    Sheriff. 


I.A.  031 


BE   IT  REI.'iEMBERET',    that   afterr;ards,    to-wit:    On 
JA^!  13  1937  the   opinion   cf   the    Court   was    filed   in  th&- 

Clerk"'s    cffice    of   said   Court,    in   the   T/ords   and   figures 
following,    tc-wit; 


Gen.  No.  9159  Agenda  No.  43. 

IK  1KI 
APPELLATE  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS 
SECOND  DIOTRICT 

OOTOBSR  T:i;RM,  A.  D.  1936 

Nels  p.  Rasiaussen, 

Appellant       Froai  the  City  Court  of 

btsrling,  ,&iteside  County, 
vs.  Iliinois. 

Catherine  Rasmus  sen, 

Appellee. 

Wolfe,  J. 

Nels  Rasmus  sen  filec^  his  "bill  of  coiapls.int  for  e.  divorce  in 
the  City  Court  of  Gterlin;;,,  charging  Lis  ig-iie  Oatherins  Rasmussen 
with  several  acts  of  cruelty,  ^uid  that  on  accoimt  of  such  cruelty 
he  v/as  cos-oelled  to  leave  hex. 

The  wife  filed  her  ans'jrer  to  the  "bill  of  compls.iat  in  ?rhich 
she  denied  any  and  all  acts  of  cruelty.   She  filed  a  counter  cls.im, 
in  which  she  alleg-ed  that  the  plaintiff  started  gainblinj;  on  the 
Board  of  Trade  and  neglected  his  farr.  work;  he  becairie  heavily  in 
debt;  that  a  j ud.'i^iiient  vr?x  rendered  agsdnst  hiu;  that  allhis 
personal  property  was  sold  under  execution;  that  the  plaintiff 
a.ssigned  the  leaee  on  the  prenises  on  which  they  resided,  and 
that  the  defendant  and  her  fanily  were  compelled  to  leave  the 
horse,  through  a  judg^aent,  for  forcible  entry  and  detainer;  th-~t 
the  defenda.nt  importvined  the  plaintiff  to  quit  gainbling  on  the 
Board  of  Trade,  but  he  contiraied  tc  do  so  under  the  name  of 
his  minor  son;  tha.t  she  iras  compelled  to  ;iiove  from  the  farm, 
that  she  and  the  plaintiff  had  been  occupyijig;  thcvt  the  plaintiff, 
through  some  arrangement  Ya%h   the  party  ut.o  purchtised  the  personal 
property  at  the  execution  sale,  has  Liovsd  back  to  the  fartu  and 
is  operating  it. 

The  defendant  further  alleges  that  she  has  always  conducted 
herself  e,s  a  true,  o'utiful  and  affectionate  wife  and  that  the 
plaintiff  becajne  angered  and  left  her,  fox  no  reason,  except, 


.cZ  BJbnagA  ^  Q'dLQ   ,oH    .ns© 


TOIHTSIG  QHODIf: 


ssei  .c  ...,.  ,:.■>[•■  X  j^yanTOO 


.■j'-jILuqqA 


,io:i  evsBl  Qc    bell.QqsiiCO  sbw  si1 

.talsio  iconsjoo  Si  i:eliJ-   2t:B      r^d-ijuTO   1c  zAo.z  i£ji  .oni?  '(•^•s  iiieinsA  drfs 

,u(ri-  rxc  vnilciji;r-v;  ieJr.^cS   'iixj-rrxslq  Gx^l^   c^'^ni'ri'  ho-ii^IIs.  erls  jioi:ii?ir  rrx 

ex    /Ixv3;>.d  SiiiXtoad  3x[   p[^c^7  ■;::'2.3l:  aid  b;; ;toGl23ja  ij^rs   y.£:^::t'  lo  brxiSofT 

I'isiax^Za  e:lt  £-.^;[<r    ;j:iCxtj.-oa3:c   'ishaiy  blo3   n.avr  x^'^oqatc;  Xsxjoaasq 

JoK.i    .::e.oxa3T:  '{3a;j'  jIox-st  no   ajfsxnctq  srfj   no  e?);33l  3:"i'^  kesxgi^aji. 

Bdi-  ?-x:2X   ot  il/ollaqwcc  c-x£~-  Y---^--^^  ^"^^  -i^s-e  c!".r:j?.bx<rjl3ij  9il#  cr.^d;? 

o-xad-    •'Ti.fir.etaio  i^^ls  vtr^xts   elcfxo'^ro'a:  :-o^    , ;}'xran^xix; q  -s  xigxjcrrx-ict    jSncxX 

e'x:]"  :ro  gxrx.r';;.:-^^   &ssj;2  o&   xix^.'ixal...   ant  x.8i^jyc{-roq;::x   $a.zhnvlBb  ed& 

xo  £iii:xr  ©a:;-   I'^Lsxi!  03'  0.5   ct  .&oxr/Tx:J-iToo  erf  i-uo    .aiJ.c'xT  'io  .bixsoS 

t  x'"ti::j"jfxs.['j  ejf;:^   d■:^xi■;j    i^ii.I:x(:pooc:  neoo  b£n   '::'ii&r'.t£,£q  edi'  b.\i.s  exie   ^srii' 

.j.t  ^iixJt-.oAsqo  ai: 

r^/i.t  .v.b  iJ-  b/i?  o'lXv,-  .i.\sx!c  i:d-09?:';i;.3  .Oixs  !.■. 'jt J: jltX;    j^xr-xi-  .3  a.s  Il6arc9ii 
^■■i:■/J^.x.:B    ,aoaj39'x  on:   lal    ,ie;i  :f*i:el  .oxr.c  .baisgxfs  sraijosd"  'il'iid'nxBlq 


-2- 
tuat  she  protestea  ayainst  his  j^-sjnblin^  on  tne  Board  of  Trr.de. 

Tae  case  was  sxibmitted  to  the  Court  ?/ithout  a  jury.   Evidence 
was  iieard  on  behalf  of  the  parties.   The  Court  found  in  favor  of 
the  defenaant  on  ner  counter  claiifl,  and  aj^ainst  tne  olaintiff,  ajid 
entered  a  ueoree  ordering  the  plaintiff,  Hels  Rasiaussen,  to  pay  the  i 
defendant,  Catherine  Rasiuussen,  tj^e  sum  of  :;^3.0()  a  weel;:  for  support 
ana  uaintainanoe.   Kels  P.  Rasmussen,  tne  original  yjlaintiff ,  ha.s 
brougnt  the  case  to  this  Court  on  appeal. 

The  appellant  first  assigns  as  error  that  the  court  erred  in 
not  finaing  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  as  he  contends  the  evidence 
preponderates  in  his  favor.   Y/e  have  read  tie  evidence  of  the 
different  vfltnesses,  and  have  concluded  that  the  eviaence  strongly 
preponaexaxes  in  favor  of  the  defend3.nt,  a.nd  that  the  plaintiff 
failea  to  estaolish  his  case  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence. 

It  is  next  contended  th=.t  the  counter  claim  does  not  state  9 
cause  of  action  for  separate  maintainance.   This  point  is  not  -^rell 
taken.   The  counter  clp.im  charges  that  Nels  Rasmussen  becaine 
angered  and  left  his  ra.fe,  for  no  other  reason,  except  that  his 
wife  protested  abdut  nis  gambling  on  the  Boara  of  Trade.   We  think 
tnis  charge  is  sufficient  for  a  separate  maintainance  action.   It 
is  the  duty  of  a  husba.nd  and  wife  to  live  together  a.nd  for  him  not 
to  leave  her  without  a  reasonable  cs.use.   If  she  has  conducted  her- 
self as  a  dutiful  vdf e,  then  she  is  entitled  to  support  and  maintain- 
a.nce  from  her  husband. 

It  is  further  contended  by  the  appellant  that  the  appellee  did 
not  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  that  the  separation 
was  due  to  the  fault  of  the  plaintiff  and  not  her  own  fault.   The 
evidence  in  this  case  is  in  hopeless  conflict.   The  mother  and  the 
Guildren  arrayed  against  the  father.   A  review  of  this  evidence 
would  serve  no  useful  purpose.   The  Judge  who  heard  this  case  '^as  in 
a  much  better  position  to  pass  on  the  evidence  th.an  a  Court  of  Review. 
He  had  the  advantage  of  seeing  and  hearing  the  witnesses  testify. 


.5m:-    ^'txl.i^i^ii.:iLn   e-j.3-   o3ni:.G^.£  Jin.3    ^ui:^J.o  •x.v^stsjcc  lea  no   fn^siiisleii   esii 
^iQccus   r.cx  j^e^r^  .n   00, ^v.   "io  txrs  eud'    ,.(ie3^>;iugBH  9iii-xi>jlJB0    ^^'.asijns'iai) 

Hit:i:lj~,l<i   3^-1^    f.c.iiu    :...£S3    ^vHAijiiszob  sdi   So  lovsx  ni;  8  3  7x;xejjX£Gqeu:q 

IxeTT  cf-crr  ax   s-c.xcq  s.^ii.T      .sojas.a:i:.ecl"nJ:.sjri  sS^e-'xaqsa  aox  ncIi^cs  'iosai/jso 

ail-'  d-.TiI;l"   d'osoxs    51703.7.61  rrsrfcfo  on  "xox    ^sxli?    sxa  S-'xsl  .^jxijo  i:;3X9aii>B 

2i:iT.c.-:j   Sri      .ei:.B-:T   lo  :.:^:;-;o3   sx^a-  no  gxixicik.ag  sxix   ;i-xjvu.B  I)a«•asc^oa:Q  Sxlw 

JI      .riu xci-D..:?  e:'n.ii.<jx:^;;1'!rxxr'i  9d-.=57:i3q?8  i;  lol.  Jneioi^xx/a   ai;   s^xsiio  sxu^ 

J'oK  iixxii  ■XO+  j:)jr:i:=   ■XD,xxJ5^\G^  ^''^rll   od'  ixxw  .Oiis   ion.sag./jd  3  1;o   )?jXjX!  s4if  ai 

-tcfii  .0 ^ ;■  oi.ri).a o 0  a.B/{  sds  11      .93X/ao  tudsnoaee!!  .6   teorld-xw  "xoji  svssl  o& 

alitnl'^n  x>ii?^  s-ttoqcfi'-y   Oo   J:>eX;txtn9    ax   arte  .aari^    ^alxw   .Exf'txrf-xffi  b  a.£   lias 

.jfij5da.!j-n  tjsxi.  liiotcl  sohjs 

noxtsusqea  a.-^J-   o-.^rto    ^svoneiDivs   sxt3'   Ic  saiL^iaxJiicqe^cq  b  ^d   svo^q  -loa 

ej^T      .d-.r;.:?^:  rr?:o  T^a  ;|-cxj  tu^  lixxd-fcx-slq  edj  "io   ilvs^  sxij   00   axri*  bbw 

QXi'J-   va-    •xef';!-o<M  -s:!!      .toxltxroo  aaelsqoti  ir.i  ai  ee^o   yx.aif  ixi  sorisi/ivs 

£0:15  ^'iv?   gi::3-   Ic   vr&iV3x   A      .xp:i>t.L't   e.dJ-   JSi.rTi3;gj3  x)9Y-sxx,6  n9xi)Iiiio 

n'X   a -'.v  fSoO  oxu:]:  bisen  oiivr  e-^^oirZ  e.il!      .qsoqisso  I.oxsbxj  cxi  svxea  i:»Ix;o«v 

elvsH  "fc    j-rLcO  x;   arx'^-  .-.O0a.Mvs  erf:!-  ac  as^q  o'J-  noxifxeoq  xed-d"3d  xfou-ffi  b 

,\"X.i:jS5-j-  Rssae/tjxw  sr't  -^axriXBOi  bjcjj  ^nxsac   'io  8g}£d"x:j3vx).fc.  sad"  ijjsJ  sH 


-3- 

He   sa'.?  fit  to  tslieve  the  witnesses   for  tl:.s  defendant,    lather  than 
for  the  plaintiff.      V'e  o--i-iinot   say  thrt   his  finc'ings   are  contrary  to 
the  manif-cst.  ^ei^^ht  of   the  evidence.      Therefore,    we  ccnclude  that  he 
properly  found  that   t]je  p?.rtieB   to  the   suit   were  living  separate   and 
apart,    through  the  fjailt  of  the  i^laintiff ,   rather  than  the  defendant. 

The  appellant  oonpiains  that  lie  is  not  able   to  pay  anything  to 
help   support  his  vdfe,    and  that   the   court   erred  in  ordering  him  to 
pay  ;|3.00  a  Tieek  for  her   Bapport.      T\e  vfitness,    Hennali  Holland, 
testified  t'aax   sha  saw  hiio  on  one   Toca-slon,    talce  a  roll  of  bills  out 
of   the   safe;    that  lye  bought  ^65.00  worth  of  clothes  for   some   girl, 
tfhom  he  had  tslcen  to  the   State  Fair  at   3priri;';field.      Toe  Court   sus- 
tained an  objection  to   this   teptimony  a,t   the   suggestion  of  the 
attorney  for  -zha  plaintiff,   hut  after  tliis   objection  was  sustained, 
the  plaintiff  proceeded  to    cross   sxazi-.tne  this   G,?me  -vritnese   and  ;3ore 
dazaaging  tostiiaon;;   was  "oroUj^'ht   out  on  croBn   examination  than  in  the 
direct,    and    chis  noiiif  eta-nds   in  the  record  at   this  time.      Plaintiff 
is  a.  strong  s-ble-bodied  .iian..      Fronithe  -^hole  of  t];e  evidences    we  do 
not  think  tz^e   Court  assssead  an  unreason.rbls  amcun^  against  the 
plaintiff  for  the   support   and  aaintainance  of  his  wife,      V/e  find 
no  reversible   error  in  the  case. 

The  juu^ent  of  tne   City  Covjrt  of   Sterling   is  hereby  affirmed. 

Aff irraec. 


oj  ii-ifi  '^"iii^fc^nc  Kx  -bej:?:©   d"xx;co   srfcr   •j■.^-:i:i:^   b.cj3    ,:?''t.r*'  si:a  ;^'IO'.lqJ/a   qlsxf 

jx;a  sllx"^  lo  ilorr   ;;    esif^f    ^nol^-^-ooc   eac  ac  r:.iri  w.sa  'sda   fsricJ'  r)6XJ:i:^s£d• 

,X-iiy  SA!03   ^ol:  ssritolo  1-c   iid'^io'^  OO.SSt  it.d^x/cd  ari  ji?£ii-    jeXts   9a2-  lo 

-SUB  :?aiL;-oD  &/~iT      .IjIsii^^fxliriB   ?/:;  ixji'2  si'-if-^B  e/Id-  o;?-  as±sS  i>Mi  sd  moiiv 

STcra  hft3   snerr&xx:  er3?;a  siriit   3os.:i;3Xr:   8boi;c'    oif  I?si)9oooiq   'i  1  Iti- it Xijiq  -SXid" 

iXion-t^i^:      .3iv:ig'  sir^j  t.c  b'^:ooe-y.  erf:'  nl   aJjiXES-iy  won   a.:.:io'  ins    ,,^09ii:r) 

oi3  9W   5aorra/,)Xve  s-nd"  lo  slnjf^-  e-df ticz'>\      .cisi-i  Lslbocf~aXa'^  g-Aoits  .s  si 

©rfs"  <J"3ia:£7;/B  j^m/ora,.?:  aXuB-rtoess'ifti;  !.t£-  'bBosesaa  i!"X/joC  and"  ^ii'tia^*"  toa 

,33.30  sai?  iii  'Z01XS   s£<i±BXQV(3i  oa 


STATE   OF   ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I.  JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON.  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  keeper  of  the  Becords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  liand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Otta^\ii.  this . day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

hundred  and  thirty- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate  Court 

(73S15 — dM— 3-32)  .r^g 


qlK 


AT  A  TERM  OF  THE  -\P  PELL  ATE  COURT, 


Jegun  and  held  at  Ottawa,  on  Tuesday,  the  2nd  day  of  February,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirty-seven, 
within  and  for  the  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois: 


present  —  The  Hon.  BLAINE  HUFFMAN,  Presiding  Justice. 
Hon.  FPANKLIN  R-  DOYE,  Justice. 
Hon.  FREB  G-  WOLFE,'  Justice. 

JUSTUS  L.  JOHNSON,  Clerk.    33  U  b  i  o  Ae  fe  3  J 
RALPH  H.  DESPER,  Sheriff. 


BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  afterv/ards,  to-wit:  On 
'- ■- ,   -  ■ ;  :"      the  opinion  of  the  Court  v/as  filed  in  the  Clerk' 
Office  of  said  Court,  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to-wit; 


GSN.  NO.  9145 


AG^]NDA  NO.  35 


IN  TriE 

APPELLATE  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS 

SECOND  DISTRICT 


October  Term,  A.  D.  1936. 


PEOPLE  OF  Trm   STATS  OF  ILLINOIS, 
ex  rel  ARTIIUP  L.  BSTOURNE, 

Appellee, 


vs. 


CITY  OF  ICANKSKSE,   a  municipal 
corpoiB.tion,    et  al . , 

Appellants. 


A;?PSi\L  FROM  THE  CIRCUIT 
COURT   OF  KAKECAKEE   COUNTY. 


DOVE,    J. 

On  June  IS,    1936,   Arthur  L.   Betourne  filed   Ms  petition   in 
the    Circuit  Court  of  Kankakee   County,  be  which   he   sou,ght  to   be 
reinstated  as  a  meijber  of  the   Fire  Department   of  the  City  of 
Kankakee  and    to   have   his   name   placed   on  1iie    payroll   of  that   city 
as   of  May   4,    1935.      The   petition  as  amended   alleged  among    other 
things   that  on  May  26,    1933,   petitioner  took  an  examination  con- 
duced by  the  respondent,   Board  of  Fire   and    rolice   Commissioners, 
and    was  temporarily  appointed  by  said  board  as  a  fireman  in  the 
fire  department   of  the    City   of  KanMkee,    that  thereafter  smd   on 
August  5,    1935,    he  was  by   said   board  appointed  as  a  permanent 
member  of  said  department  and   his   name  t/as   so  posted  by   said 
board,    that  he  filed   his  bond   and    took   the    oath  as  required  by 
law   and  served  as    such  maaber  from  said  Aui^ust   5,    1933,    to  May  4, 
1935.      The  amended  petition   set  forth   an  ordinance  adopted  by   the 
City  of  Kankakee,   which  established  a  department   of  the  fiunicipal 


.S€    ,Ca.  AGIlf'OA Q^LQ    .OM    .viaO 

•  OSi?!    .a    .A    ,ni'::9T  isdorfoO 


{  jSI-iaUOTSS,  .J  KUIITHA   lai  X9 

( 

(        ,o©iIacr(7A, 

(  .QT 

(  ie<TXOim.ffi  .s    5;^;OEaKiijI  "tlO  YTIO 

( 

{    .  ad-nBlIscqA 


.cx.t  ijc J:cr.i.t9q:  eJui   b^Ixl  aiiii/ocfsS   .J  -iirfd-iA   ,d5©I    ,??I  emfl  siO 

so    o^  3-dg.i,'03   Bd   floimv  3d  ^x^jiuoO   aoiiBjLccBa  lo  ^•'o;roO  cMifOiiO   arid". 

10  "^d-iO  e.dd'  lo   J'.ieaJ'isqsCI  o-xil   £--:i:l'  "lo  iscffctan  fi  as  iDso'sd'anisi 

vj-jco  d'Bfld'  lo   Ila'r-'ic.o;    sit'-  no   booBlo    9;ffl?u   aid   svsrf   oj   i.-'ne  essCBstasS-- 

'i&riJo    e.fiOiu3  fisgeJ.  In  baoflaiEB  es  xioWid-eg  sriT      .d^QL    ,!>   Y-sM  xO.  as 

-j'xoo  /loioBnlrxsiXS  iib  itood'  i ex;: old" Id" eg   ,SS9I    ,3S  tjsM  no  d"i3ri;t   asniri;t 

jS'TcenolsEiiiKioO   eoilo-:    okc   six'*!  'i  o  Bijaotr   ,^ri9f)iiocf3si  ari;!"  y^  beofsb 

3rlcr  ai:  .aoriiei ij;  b  ao  fi'iBod  .oiisa  y^  ssj-flioqcfij  •^liiBioaiao^i"  aa';    6xib 

SGenBsrtaq    «  sb  usi'tii.oqqii  b-isod    blaa   x^  sbw  ed    ,'^£SI    t3  d"3i;§JLUV 

I'lsa   Yd'  bsteoq  03   asvT  ajjtr.n   airi   ana  •^.a^nsfiBqeb  jbiea  Ic  isdjssin! 

vd"  ij8i:xijr.-3i  ss  iiJBo    srio    i<ooj   -ojeis   j^nod  axi/  /ielii  erf  rl-^do    ^Jbieocf 

I  i^  Y£if-  0^    «';CGI    ,2  JGx/j.ijL  51  aa  r.roit  lodnBm  riojjE    es  5e-n9a  btm  wbX. 

3iiJ-   Yxf  J:)Oo''.To&3  BonB:tib-7.o  hb  rid' -x 01  cJ"oa    ncxd'loaq  bebaemB  er.iT      ,SSei 

JJ;.VxoJ:.atixj  a  dcf  xo   inoB^^i&.qeb  b  jj&daxidfld-a  9  doxd-?   ^dsiCnjIrtsS  lo  y*xO 


government  of  that   city,    known  as  tlie  Fire  Department,   wliieh   was 
to   consist   of   one  chief   of   the   fire  deioartrient  ,    one  assistant,    ten 
firemen  and  such  other  and   further  members  as  the  City   Council  may 
thereafter  from  time  to    time  by  ordinance   or  resolution  provide  and 
averred   that  petitioner  was  duly  appointed  as   one    of  the    ten    fire- 
men mentioned  in  said  ordinance.      The  answer  of  the    respondents 
admitted  meny  of  the   allegations  of    the   petition  but    sjsectf ically 
denied  that    the  petitioner  was  ever  apioointed  a   permanent  manber  of 
the  Fire  Department  and   averred  that  at  the   ti  rae    of  the   alleged  ap- 
pointment,  there  were  no  vacancies   in  said   department  as   the    ten 
men  v/ho  were   then   serving  in  said    department   had  been  servirg    since 
the   adoption  of  the  Fire  and  Police  Commissioner  Act  by  the   City  of 
Kankakee  on  September  28,    19S8.      The    ans?/er  further  alleged  that 
none   of  said   firemen,    so   serving,  ?/ere   ever  discharged   or  removed, 
that  no  charges  had   ever  been    filed  against  them  and  therefore  there 
was  no  vacancy  existing  to   which   petitioner  could  be   appointed. 
After  the  cause  was  at   issue,   a  hearing  was  had  rer-ulting    in   a  find-  / 
Ing  by  the   trial  court   tta  t  the   petitioner,    on  May  4,    1935,    was  a         j 
de   jxire   officer   of  the  fire    departnient  of  the   City  of  Kankakee  and 
ordering  a   writ  of  mandamus    to    issue   directing   the   board   of  Fire  j 

and  Police  Commissioners  to   restore  petitioner  to   his   office  of  I 

1 
fireman  as  of  May  4,    19  35,    and  directing  the    other  respondents  to  ! 

place  petitioner's  name    on  the   payroll   of  the    City  of  Kankakee  as 

such  fireman  and  to  pay    to    him  the    salary   to  which  he    is  entitled  j 

under  the   appropriation  ordinances    of  the  City.     From   this  order  ' 

the   record   is  brought  to    this   court   for  review  by  apneal. 

The   pleadings,   stipulations   of    counsel  and   evidence  produced 

upon  the   hearing  disclose  th-  t   the    City   of  Kanlsifeee  was  legally 

organized  under  the    Cities   and  Villages  act  and    on   September  4,    1928, 

legally  adopted   the  Fire  and   Police   Commission   Act  which   has  been 

-   2    - 


uei    f^sazoe  iaaB  acto    ,  ci'cep.j'x.Qrjei)  aTil  Qii$  lo  loiiio  siro   lo   r)"8X3noo  od" 

vH^r  Xxo/HJoO   Y^-i^^  9-''^^  S3  3TQci"£ien  ^xsjicJ-ii; x   bca  lerici'o  rioiia  J3££3  nsataiil: 

bas  obr^cnq  no  i.;'uIoao'x  -xo   m^  on  .on  id  mo  x<S  emi-t    oj-   BifXiJ-   steal  le^tBeieAi' 

B Jnabnoqasi   -jiid"  lo  'isv/ans  edT      .9  0ja.^i.'-,0\i;o  ^isa  xii  .Sexto x.-Jixeifi  nefli 

Y-i^^^'i'-i^'^-sro©":^'^    --^^'g'  noi.-i'i.teo;  siir    lo  sno id- Bg si Ii3   aio'  'lo  xn '■m  b&^-^lns&B 

xo  •■I3cf5®x!t  Jrxnrt.sini'efi-  s  .5e;i'.aior.'-r£'   'lev^  asi?  10 no  !:&  l.i €■  q  qA^    *sci.t  5sifx©fi 

--a.e  .&8§sII.:3   9P'a   TtC'   Si:.>::^   edj    rs  i' :odf  beiisvQ   SiiD  rJ-nexat'tac'eCI  ^iri  edt 

.asJ'    erij   ;;b  rJ-riSfrJiBaob   I)j.sa  nx   aeiojiBO/ay  on  eis~'r  e'xedt   < -tnsiiid'nxoq 

ooriia    ?<\'.n/-iaa  nc-'sci'  losd   -t r.iD:;ir -x aral)   Jaxsa  ni  sax'^isa   nori-i'   9i6w  oriw  nsitt 

■j;o   ■v:d-xO   sftf  Yff  ^oi  =iexiO.;:33X/ni?foO  •soxlo'i:  &;j:.j  s'li'l  oii^J"  to  riox;i"Q:of>B   erf^ 

^^3ric^   beaaXlB  •xorio'iUx  TaivsnB    or'T      .SSGI    ,35  lecfnedqsS  no   992[B?[aB3I 

,  be^^-ofrra-i  'jd   begiBiloax^.  leve   3o:evr  .^ajr.ies   oa    ^ifoxae'xx'i   5xbb  "io   aaoa 

B'ledf  3ioloi9iId'  iifiB  mod7  '^caiB^iB  belit   iieod  -"xavs  b3i:i  ses'iBifo  on  Jal^ 

.Bod-Xiiogge   od  .oluoo  1  shd irf- i J c->cf   rfolxiw   od   i-^n.t^J'aijee  x^'^'^^^  o^  ^'"^^ 

"Siii"!  P-   Hi;    3nid'I.u.;;Si  5Bri  asi?-  sxixxseri  b   je/jael*   jb  s£w  &asji:iO  eiit  isttA 

LfiB  tJO>'e-2£fiB>I    xo  xi-10   3.ij    ''1:0  -J-fierrvih^Boob    e-iiix  o.rfcf  l:o   leortlc   siut    9f> 

^'il^'I.   iO   DtBod   sil;}    lonX-^oeiJio   3i.i'aaj:-  ot    ai;xiis6.K.'3in  1  o'' d- xt^a-    a  sn:ii3.5TO 

lo  soillo    ";  irf   oi!-  IS  ac  x.j' xj-s q  e^oJas'i   o*  a'xo  rioissL'SEioO  soJtlo^i;  i>ns 

ot  ^^iTisbaof'noT.  larfrf-o    sriit-   gnlJoeiiS  bna   ,SS8I    <:&  ^J^iSk!  lo  bb  nfixasiil 

3  a  sc^is^sffttvi   lo  x^  to    3il.t  lo   IIoiijBq-  edj-   no    sittsn  3 'loiio  id-to  og  sOBig 

.5elcf i.-::-i©  ai:    oxi  rfolrf?  ex'   \-^b. ££•<;•.    sdd-   xrfirf    oJ    Y'^^Q'  -^'   Si^'^  XiBMf.'EJcl  riox/a 

•■•■■-    •TSi*!i:o  slxS'   i-TOT-f      .  ".^tiO  srft  lo   «9oxiSE±.5i"o  nol.tBiiqoico-fi    srI;?  lefirttf 

.lij&'rqB  xd  we/Tott  aol   itiuoo   sixriJ'    ot  JriSixo'iJ  ai   JbtooeT  ©if*- 

beosiboni:^  eofebxve  fjrxG  I©8xx_oof;    lo  axio WBlxiC/xta   ,aga±£>3elq   ©jdO? 

■\^Ll.0Ji?5l    3£??-    &3!iiIv(iXaS   lo    X^-t  ^    ^^'    »'     -'C'    a30loai&    JXi-iliSSfi    etto    nocrX' 

,8201    ,>   IS  irjK)i"o-9^^   i£c    .oxil;  tfoB  aa^^elli'V  f;xiB  Eexcl'jtO   eri^-  i9&nxi  Bssixxegio 
ar-r-Tcf  3f«if    liciris-  ^^oA   xic xs a xximioC   ooxXo'^::    bnx!  slxl  Oiic!'    &e?(iof)3  yXXbs©X 


continuously   in  force  since  that   time,    that  a  board  of   Fire  and  Police 
Coiumis  si  oners  was  duly  sppointed  thereunder  and    it  adopted  rules  and 
regulations  governing  the    fire  and  police  departments  of  the    City. 
By  proper  ordinance   the    city   establislied  a   de.-artment    of    the  municipal 
government  known  as  the    fire  department,  v-iiich   embraced   one   chief  of 
the  department,   one  assistant   chief,   ten  firanen  and    such  other  members 
as  the   City   Council  may  by  ordinance   or  resolution  provide.      On  May 
26,    1933,   petitioner,   with  a   number   of  other  gentlecien,    including 
Thomas  D.   Rei:^ly,    took  a  v:rit  ten   examination  for  fireraen  as  required 
by  the  acdj,   and   on   June   ",    1933,    filed  an  oath  Tvhich    v/as  approved  by 
the   council  and  petitioner  started  to  v;ork  as  a  fireman.      On  May  4, 
1955,    the   Board  of  Commissioners  adopted  a  resolution  suspending 
appellee,   Mr.    Reilly,  and    other  persons  until  the   further  action  of 
the  commission  and    on  July  1,    1935,    he  ^ivas  discharged. 

The  pleadings  and  evidence  found   in    "this  record  are    aibstantially 
the  same   as   in  the  case   of  ??eople    of  the    State   of  Illinois,   ex  rel, 
Thomas  D.   Reilly  v. City  of  Kankakee,    General  No.    9097,  which   was  sub- 
mitted at  the  October  Term,    1936,    of   tiiis  court  and    in  v;hich  an  opinion 
has    just  recently  been  filed.      There   is  no   necessity   for  us  to  re- 
iterate Ti^at  we  said   in  that   opinion.      Official  action  by  a   board  of 
Fire  and  Police   Commissioi^rs  can  only  be   taken  at  an   official  meeting 
of  the   board  and   its  records  are  the  only  lanful   evidence  of  its  action, 
and   the  averments   of   the   petition  in  this  case  to    the    effect  that  peti- 
tioner was  permanently  appointed  a    fireman  are  not   sustained  by  the 
evidence.      Petitioner  did   not    diow  that  he  T.^as  a   de    jure   officer  at  the 
time   he  was  suspended  and  discharged  and  therefore  the    trial  court 
erred  in  rendering  the    judgmait  appealed  from.      The    judgnent   vdil  there- 
fore be  reversed. 

JUDGMENT  REVERSED. 


aolXo'^  bn.&  a-xi'i  'xo  a-isod  s  i  Bii&   ^es:X^  i  cali  s  oai  ri  soio'l  as.   M.L'Q.uounliiXGO 

!:n:i  ^^oissn  botqobB   ''- i    baa  ^i&hixmi'j.od-j  tsi.aioo.qc  \S,ud  asw  eiBiiox-^aixmioO 

.Y.'JiO   a.clt  to  aifiLSi.x'iBqsD  oo.tloq-  baa  S'xxt    erij  gain-ievos  ajrcoi.tBXjJi39'i 

la'f.toiixiTii  ;?!#  "to  o-.u9jr<iii"iSv';sI)  6  J3c£!'£:i;I JiSi'Bs  Y^""-^-^  --^j-"  3or.i:£ifiii!)'xo  lagoia  ^S 
'io  te,nlo   .xa:o   fsooBici'xrfe  lio.cif//  ,  jrrviTri'xsq[3&  9 ill   axlj   £i3  nwon>I  ;j.n:a'acrc6V0g 

y^Bti  ixO      .9f).c?-0'rq-  nox:ryIoaiiJ'x   10   Gouaaxo'io  fo   ^rrjK  Xxom;GD   x^iO  sxlo   as 

a.aJ:-&jj-Ioai    5  ai; rat- Id  .asp  ^iisrfo-o  lo   'lecfatirn  b  xi:c!'^iv   ti6_-oic-I;teq   ,-5361    ,a£5 

iisvtiixfpei  as  iiacia^x'i  to"x  no .td' .ssiiffiBXs  rssd  ci'Ji'cv;   s  :loo4    ,'^IixeS   .0.  astKorlT 

«i^   "iaM  fiO      .aBifie'n'x  .-'.  sb  rircow  ot  Sa^t'x.s;? a  i0Koxci'i;}£'(j:   oaB  X  10x1000   edt 

v.nxb.isq&!.;H  j>:oLdi;Io<;i9i  b  .5s?qoi*>i3  sionoiauieinxoO  lo  diboS;  aifj    ,ciSGI 

'10  r;oxc)'os  'x©xi3"ii:/'s:   oiU   I.iriiiif  aiic-a's:©^  lari^to   i)G.e  ^xlLloYi    .iM   t39llaqq£ 

,53i','x.3r!0?:  i.5  3x;k'  r>d    ,52^1    ,X  Y--'^-''^'  J^''-'    -'^^-  flo  xsaxXEflxoo  sdc! 

.ie'T  xp  ,sj:on.f.iXI   lo   e3~a*3   erfJ"  to   oXqoi-"-.;.  lo   esso  ^.d;!'  ax   as    BULsa  edi 

-cfx/a  S.SV)-   ifcXrift'  t?90'i    ,oVi  Xb'X oxjsC'    ,3S3i.6:la.s'}I  'l:©  Hr^t-xO.v  -ydlXiaH   .(I  aiiinorll 

rfoXxixcrc   .'IS  floXii?/  XL":    oub  &i;:oo  ^xM   'lo   <d59I    ^aaeT  ledc&oO  sri;]"  2"js  i)9d'd'ii} 

"0=1  oi'  au  Td^    >3irj;3n6i>3.c   on  ax    aisxiT      .ooxXa  nescf  ■^Xlneoa-r  ci"8irf;   aBxJ 

'io  ft-i.e-cxf   3  xd  siosXron  X^JioXllC      .nctKigo  X  sri^    isi   biaa  ew  XBitv  oJbioX.i 

gnXJeotij   liiXoXl  It)   as  ts  «o:Ir'X   ed  vXxjc  xbo  a-x  ihsoxb;:- xuarioO   aoiXo'^  Lxm  &iJ:'!i 

,  ao.cXojB  ed^X  "xo  o&afcjxvivfr-    X.^rivz-X  ^i.-f^   exij-  :3'T3  c?..oioce-x  ad-X   baa  iiiisod    siiX  Ic 

-XoftCT  ;?eiul-  Xoe'XXe   orft    ot  eBx-^o   V'-iiiX  nX  0OXX  xJ-sq   fJif.X    io   ataaifrxsva  erfX   ,&.r£i; 

c'iX  YO''  bsnxziFiiir:-   .j-o;.:  ts'/ia   oi-'.iae  t.rl    0  .55  XfiXo-j  gx-i  Y-i^^'^^-Q-St^'^-'^l  s^''  isxioXci 

o.cIX   in  'teoytio   'j'xul    oh    b  bbt?  en  X  sriX   wo  cfe    Xon    5x?>  'isi.ioXXX.ts'X      .90xi3l>Xvg 

o^xii.  :^  Isi-rX    si.dX  s-xo  te-r.  oXu   3n.o  fteg.ijsilc^aii)  .6riB  beba^^qau?.  hs^t  &ii  sxnxd 

-sTjiiX  XJ  X?   XjKSjEf3.-':'.a':,    .odX      ..■•to'x'x  bsXoeqqB  immi^^hul    eiiX  .^JiLirtsfixisa  nJ:  beiis 

,X>9313V©rr    9Cf    SIO'J 


STATE    OF    ILLINOIS, 

SECOND  DISTRICT  J  I,  JUSTUS  L.  JGHNSOlSr,  Clerk  of  the  Appellate  Court,  in  and 

for  said  Second  District  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  tlie  keeper  of  the  Eecords  and  Seal  thereof,  do  hereby 

certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  Appellate  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause, 

of  record  in  my  office. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 

Appellate   Court,  at  Ottawa,  this day  of 

in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine 

bundled  and  thirtv- 


Clerl-  of  the  Appellate,  Court 

(73815 — oM — 3-32)  ok^^? 


■S-Vv^      ir-r-jtjL.£i 


-^     .^j^U. 


1.3 


K-->-.'/5,  /  f?-l 


rX- 


Published  in  Absteact 

S.  J.  Buckner,  Edward  T.  Morris,  W.  J.  Morris,  C. 

Morris  and  A.  H.  Buckner,  Appellees,  v.  Morris. 

Bros.  Shoe  Company,  a  corporation,  Evan  F. 

Mon-is,  Richard  J.  Morris,  Alice  Morris, 

Alice  Morris,  Executrix  of  the  Estate 

of  Frank  E.  Morris,  deceased  and 

Lawrence  Jochem,  Appellants.V^  >»4    % 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court,  Adams  County. 

April  Teem,  A.  D.  1936. 

Gen.  No.  8966  Agenda  No. 


Me.  Justice  Fulton  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 
Court. 

On  September  16th,  1930,  S.  J.  Buckner,  Edward  T. 
Morris,  W.  J.  Morris,  C.  I.  Morris  and  A.  H.  Buckner, 
the  Appellees,  filed  a  bill  in  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Adams  County  against  the  Appellants  Morris  Bros. 
Shoe  Company,  a  corporation,  Evan  F.  Morris,  Rich- 
ard J.  Morris,  Alice  Morris,  Alice  Morris,  Esecutris 
of  the  Estate  of  Frank  E.  Morris  deceased  and 
Lawrence  Jochem  asl^ing  for  an  accounting  of  the 
amounts  claimed  due  Appellees  from  Appellants,  dis- 
solution of  corporation  and  winding  up  of  its  affairs, 
also  for  the  appointment  of  a  Receiver.  All  of  the 
above  named  parties  are  stockholders  of  Morris  Bros. 
Shoe  Company,  a  corporation  which  was  located  and 
had  its  principal  place  of  business  at  Quincy,  Illinois. 

On  April  9th,  1935,  the  Court  entered  a  decree  upon 
the  bill  of  complaint,  and  amendments  thereto,  the  an- 
swer of  the  defendants,  replication  thereto,  the  cross- 
bill of  defendants,  the  answer  of  Plaintiffs  to  said 
crossbill,  the  Master's  report  of  evidence  and  findings, 
and  the  objections  of  both  Plaintiffs  and  defendants 
to  said  report  which  were  made  exceptions  in  the  Cir- 
cuit Court.  From  that  decree  this  appeal  is  prosecuted. 

The  amended  complaint  alleges  principally  that  the 
Morris  Bros.  Shoe  Company  was  organized  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  with  a  capital  stock  of 
$85,000.00,  divided  into  600  shares  of  common  stock 
of  the  par  value  of  $100  each  and  250  shares  of  pre- 


T 


\% 


^,'-   i; 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  8966 

f erred  stock  of  the  par  value  of  $100  each;  that  on 
February  8th,  1916  the  Secretary  of  State  issued  a 
complete  organization  certificate  which  was  duly  filed 
of  record  in  Adams  County  and  from  which  time  said 
organization  has  proceeded  to  transact  and  carry  on 
its  business.  On  or  about  June  30th,  1928,  the  capital 
stock  was  increased  to  25000  shares  common  stock,  no 
par  value,  and  2500  shares  preferred  7%  stock  $100.00 
par  value  and  that  of  this  stock  there  were  issued 
13713  shares  of  common  stock,  no  par  value  and  held 
as  follows : 

F.  E.  Morris 6930  shares 

E.  F.  Morris 220  shares 

W.  J.  Morris 2962  shares 

C.   I.   Morris 1584  shares 

E.  T.  Morris 1351  shares 

S.  J.  Buckner 616  shares 

A.  H.  Buckner 50  shares 

that  prior  to  this  date  279  shares  of  preferred  stock 
had  been  issued  but  now  all  preferred  stock  has  been 
retired  and  the  capital  stock  reduced  to  13,713  shares 
of  no  par  value,  however,  Edward  T.  Morris  surren- 
dered to  the  corporation  120  shares  held  by  him  re- 
dudng  his  share  to  1231  shares  and  leaving  the  total 
capital  stock  outstanding  13,593;  that  the  stock  re- 
mained in  this  condition  until  some  time  in  1929  when 
there  was  transferred  from  Estate  of  Frank  E.  Morris 
to  Alice  Morris  1798  shares  and  that  she  is  now  the 
owner  and  holder  of  said  1798  shares.  One  share  was 
issued  to  Lawrence  Jochem.  That  during  November 
1929,  business  became  unprofitable  and  the  corpora- 
tion ceased  manufacturing  and  selling  shoes  and  sold 
most  of  its  assets  located  at  Quincy  to  International 
Shoe  Company.  By  virtue  of  this  contract  of  sale  it 
was  entitled  to  collect  certain  accounts  and  one  of  the 
complainants,  S.  J.  Buckner,  made  certain  of  the  col- 
lections between  November  1929  and  May  1930  and 
was  paid  for  same  from  the  Morris  Bros.  Shoe  Com- 
pany. The  Company,  during  this  period  also  sold 
miscellaneous  items  of  its  property  of  stated  value 
and  made  some  expenditures ;  that  large  and  unneces- 
sary expenses  and  large  and  excessive  salaries  are 
being  paid  to  the  officers  of  the  corporation  for  per- 
forming no  services  whatever;  that  the  books  of  the 
corporation  represent  their  assets  to  be  $106  77319 
but  that  their  fair  cash  marlvet  value  was  much  less 
and  that  certain  items  of  value  were  not  listed  on  the 
books;  that  since  the  defendants  have  assumed  the 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  8966 

position  of  officers  and  directors  they  have  excluded 
the  phiintitfs  as  stockholders  from  any  participation 
in  management  or  operation  of  the  corporation  and 
that  they  refuse  to  confer  with  or  advise  them  as  to 
the  management  or  liquidation  of  the  business  affairs; 
that  during  the  years  from  1920  down  to  June  30th, 
1928,  Frank  E.  Morris  used  funds  belonging  to  the 
corporation  for  his  own  personal  use  in  the  sum  of 
$31,141.67  but  during  1926,  1927  and  1928  down  to 
June  30th,  1928,  made  certain  payments,  leaving  a  bal- 
ance now  owing  the  corporation  of  $18,907.72,  plus  in- 
terest; that  from  1921  down  to  June  30th,  1928,  Evan 
F.  Morris  withdrew  from  the  corporation  for  his  own 
use  $14,371.93  and  on  June  30th,  1928,  after  allowing 
all  payments  made  by  him  was  still  indebted  to  the 
corporation  in  said  amount;  that  C.  I.  Morris  with- 
drew from  1921  to  June  30th,  1928,  $3,878.87  and  after 
all  credits,  owes  the  corporation  the  said  sum;  that 
these  various  items,  amounting  to  $37,158.52,  were  en- 
tered upon  the  books  of  the  Company  as  a  charge 
against  each  of  said  parties  but  on  June  30th,  1928, 
F.  E.  Morris  and  Evan  F.  Morris,  who  were  then  the 
chief  managing  officers,  wrongfully  caused  these  sums 
to  be  charged  to  the  surplus  belonging  to  the  corpora- 
tion and  by  that  act  pretended  to  pay  said  overdrafts ; 
that  all  of  the  defendants,  except  C.  I.  Morris,  now 
have  control  of  the  corporation  and  have  refused  or 
neglected  to  present  any  claims  against  the  Estate  of 
Frank  E.  Morris ;  that  C.  I.  Morris,  one  of  the  plain- 
tiffs here,  is  ready  and  willing  to  account  to  the  cor- 
poration for  overdrafts  charged  against  him;  that 
plaintiffs  own  shares  of  capital  stock  as  follows : 

S.  J.   Buckner 616  shares 

A.  H.  Buckner 50  shares 

C.  I.  Morris 1584  shares 

William  J.  Morris 2962  shares 

Edward  I.  Morris 1231  shares 

and  that  they  always  have  owned  said  number  of 
shares  and  are  entitled  to  their  proportion  of  the 
$37,158.52  which  is  wrongfully  held  from  corporation ; 
that  they  have  made  demands  for  the  amounts  due 
them  and  that  said  sums  should  carry  5%  interest. 
The  bill  asks  for  an  accounting,  for  a  dissolution  of 
the  corporation  and  winding  up  of  its  affairs  and  also 
that  a  Eeceiver  be  appointed. 

On  June  25th,  1931,  defendants  filed  a  joint  and 
several  answer  admitting  the  organization  of  the 
Company  and  its  officers  but  deny  that  they  constitute 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  8966 

the  whole  board,  say  S.  J.  Bnckner  has  been  a  direc- 
tor since  Januaiy  10th,  1930;  admit  the  capital  stock 
issue  of  13,593  shares ;  say  the  book  value  of  corpora- 
tion is  $101,773.19  or  was  on  May  31st,  1930;  deny 
trying  to  exclude  plaintiffs  as  stockholders;  deny  ex- 
cessive expenditures;  deny  Moi'ris  Sr.  used  $31,141.67 
belonging  to  Corporation  or  that  he  now  owes 
$18,907.72  or  that  he  ever  did  owe  it;  denies  that  Es- 
tate owes  anything;  deny  that  Evan  F.  Morris  with- 
drew from  the  corporation  the  sum  of  $14,371.93  for 
his  own  use  or  that  he  is  indebted  to  the  Company  for 
any  sum  whatsoever;  that  by  proper  action  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  and  stockholders  all  of  the  indebt- 
edness, if  any,  of  Frank  E.  Morris  Sr.,  Evan  F.  Morris 
and  Charles  I.  Morris  had  been  cancelled  and  dis- 
charged; that  even  if  they  were  indebted  at  any  time 
the  obligations  are  now  barred  by  the  Statute  of  Limi- 
tations ;  admit  thej^  are  now  officers  in  control ;  admit 
plaintiffs  o^^^l  the  shares  of  stock  set  forth  in  the  bill; 
deny  that  the  charging  of  items  to  surplus  was  done 
without  knowledge  and  acquiesence  of  all  stockholders 
but  saj^  it  was  done  by  the  surrender  and  cancellation 
of  equal  amount  of  preferred  stock  at  its  par  value 
under  advice  of  the  Securities  Department  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  in  connection  with  the  revision  of  the 
capital  structure  and  ^ith  full  knowledge  of  the  Di- 
rectors; deny  mismanagement  of  any  kind;  deny  that 
the  corporation  has  not  carried  on  any  business  since 
October  15th,  1929  but  say  business  has  been  curtailed 
due  to  depression;  do  not  want  the  corporation  dis- 
solved but  wish  it  continued  under  present  man- 
agement. 

On  June  20th,  1932,  defendants  tiled  a  cross-bill  al- 
leging that  on  December  23rd,  1931  the  parties  to  this 
cause  entered  into  a  contract  to  compromise  and  settle 
the  controversy  by  plaintiffs  paying  defendants 
$11,000  for  their  stock  in  the  corporation,  plus  various 
taxes,  and  upon  this  agreement  plaintiffs  gave  defend- 
ants $1000.00  as  earnest  money  leaving  a  balance  of 
$10,000  to  be  paid  w-ithin  60  days  but  the  defendants 
were  to  transfer,  duly  endorsed,  their  shares  of  stock 
to  Lawrence  Jochem,  as  escrow  agent,  before  Janu- 
ary 1st,  1932,  to  hold  same  until  the  balance  of  money 
■was  paid,  and  that  upon  the  execution  of  this  con- 
tract plaintiffs  should  dismiss  this  action  and  that  all 
claims,  causes  of  action  and  indebtedness  would  then 
be  mutually  settled  between  all  parties ;  that  the  cross- 
complainants  were  at  all  times  ready  and  willing  to 


Page  5  Gen.  No.  8966 

carry  out  the  said  contract  on  their  part  hut  that  the 
cross-defendants  after  pajang  the  initial  payment  of 
$1000.00  on  the  contract  wholly  failed  and  refused  to 
make  payment  of  the  balance  due  on  said  contract  or 
to  perform  the  same. 

On  June  23rd,  1932,  cross-defendants  filed  their  an- 
swer to  cross-bill  admitting  that  on  December  23rd, 
1931,  Frank  E.  Morris,  Jr.  purporting  to  act  as  attor- 
ney for  cross-complainants  executed  such  an  agree- 
ment and  that  the  $1000.00  was  paid  to  him  as  earnest 
money  but  that  said  agreement  was  mailed  to  Quincy 
and  the  defendants  living  there  refused  to  be  bound 
by  it  and  said  Frank  E.  Morris  Jr.  was  not  authorized 
to  act  for  them  and  submitted  a  different  agreement 
which  cross-defendants  refused  saying  that  it  was  dif- 
ferent. Cross-defendants  alleged  that  all  this  consti- 
tuted a  rejection  and  repudiation  of  the  contract. 

On  June  19th,  1933  the  Court  referred  the  case  to  a 
Special  Master  in  Chancery  for  the  purpose  of  taking 
proofs  and  reporting  the  same  together  with  his  con- 
clusions as  to  both  law  and  fact. 

On  August  4th,  1934,  the  Special  Master  in  Chancery 
filed  his  report  to  which  objection  were  filed  and  made 
exceptions  in  the  Circuit  Court.  After  a  hearing  on 
the  exceptions  the  Court  entered  a  decree  on  April  9th, 
1935.  In  this  decree  the  Court  found  that  Frank  E. 
Morris,  during  his  lifetime,  received  funds  belonging 
to  the  corporation  amounting  to  $18,907.72  which  has 
never  been  repaid ;  that  the  corporation  is  entitled  to 
a  lien  on  all  shares  of  stock  belonging  to  him  or  his 
assignees;  the  Court  further  found  that  the  sum  of 
$1000.00  was  paid  by  Appellees  to  the  Appellants  on 
December  23rd.  1931,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out 
a  contract  for  the  purchase  of  Appellants  stock  by 
Appellees;  that  the  attempt  to  settle  and  adjust  the 
controversy  between  them  failed  and  that  the  Appel- 
lees were  therefore  entitled  to  recover  back  the 
$1000.00  from  Appellants  with  five  per  cent  interest; 
also  that  said  $1000.00  with  interest  be  declared  to  be 
a  lien  upon  all  the  shares  of  stock,  property  and  assets 
of  the  corporation  to  secure  the  payment  of  said  sum. 
It  was  further  decreed  that  the  Appellees  have  judg- 
ment against  all  of  the  defendants,  except  Lawrence 
Jochem,  for  said  sum  of  $1000.00  and  interest.  The 
Court  also  found  that  from  1921  to  June  30th,  1928 
Evan  F.  Morris  withdrew  from  the  corporation  funds 
for  his  own  use  and  benefit,  a  net  total  of  $14,371.93, 
and  a  lien  was  awarded  on  his  stock  to  secure  said  in- 


Page  6  Gen.  No.  8966 

debtedness.  A  similar  finding  was  made  and  lien  de- 
clared as  to  C.  I.  Morris,  the  amount  being  $3,878.87. 
Appellants  have  argued  several  grounds  in  support 
of  their  appeal.  It  is  first  contended  that  all  of  the 
testimony  upon  which  the  Court  based  its  findings  as 
against  the  Estate  of  Frank  E.  Morris  was  given  by 
incompetent  ^^^tnesses,  because  Frank  E.  Morris  died 
on  December  24th,  1928,  and  the  hearings  in  this  case 
were  all  had  several  years  thereafter ;  that  Chapter  51, 
Section  2,  Smith-Hurd  Illinois  Annotated  Statutes 
provides,  that  no  person  directly  interested  in  the  re- 
sult of  a  suit,  shall  be  allowed  to  testify  therein  of  his 
own  motion  or  in  his  own  behalf  when  any  adverse 
party  sues  or  defends  as  the  Executor  of  any  deceased 
person.  They  point  out  that  the  above  finding  was 
supported  only  by  the  evidence  of  interested  witnesses. 
An  examination  however,  of  the  objections  filed  to  the 
report  of  the  Special  Master  in  Chancery  by  Appel- 
lants, which  were  made  exceptions  in  the  Circuit 
Court,  shows  that  no  such  objection  was  raised  or  ar- 
gued either  before  the  Master  or  in  the  trial  Court 
and  therefore  must  be  considered  as  waived.  Northern 
Trust  Company  v.  Sanford,  308  111.  381.  Marble  v. 
Thomas,  178  111.  540.  Even  though  the  proper  objec- 
tions and  exceptions  had  been  saved,  we  believe  the 
testimony  offered  and  admitted  comes  within  excep- 
tions two  and  three  of  the  Statute  relied  on  and  was 
therefore  admissible. 

It  is  next  contended  that  the  Court  was  without 
authority  to  find  and  decree  a  lien  in  favor  of  Morris 
Bros.  Shoe  Company  or  of  any  of  the  complainants 
for  the  reason  that  no  facts  justifying  the  awarding 
of  a  lien  were  alleged  or  contained  in  any  of  Appellees 
pleadings  in  the  case.  An  examination  of  the  record 
discloses  that  on  February  15th,  1935  an  amendment 
to  the  amended  Bill  of  Complaint  was  filed  by  leave  of 
Court,  praying  that  a  lien  be  declared  against  the 
shares  of  stock  owned  by  Frank  E.  Morris  during  his 
lifetime;  that  a  lien  be  declared  upon  the  shares  of 
stock  standing  in  the  name  of  Evan  F.  Morris  in  the 
amounts  due  the  corporation,  with  interest.  The  Bill 
also  contains  a  prayer  for  general  relief.  It  is  appar- 
ent, therefore,  that  the  allegations  in  the  pleading 
were  ample  to  permit  the  finding  of  the  Court  with  re- 
spect to  declaring  a  lien. 
1  The  Appellants  insist  that  the  Court  erred  in  award- 
i  ing  judgment  against  all  of  the  defendants  except 
I  Lawrence  Jochem,  in  the  sum  of  $1000.00,  and  in  de- 


Page  7  Gen.  No.  8966 

daring  a  lien  for  said  sum  upon  the  stock  and  assets 
of  the  corporation  for  the  reason  that  there  was  no 
prayer  of  any  kind  for  any  judgment  or  relief  on  this 
phase  of  the  case  that  consequently  the  Court  was 
without  power  to  render  such  judgment. 

The  cross-bill  of  the  defendants  sets  forth  a  settle- 
ment agreement  on  account  of  which  they  allege  that 
said  sum  of  $1000.00  had  been  paid  to  Frank  E.  Morris, 
Jr.,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  agreement  set 
forth  in  the  cross-bill,  but  further  answered  that  there 
had  been  a  rejection  and  repudiation  of  said  agree- 
ment. The  Court  therefore  found  in  its  decree  that 
the  Appellants  were  indebted  to  the  Appellees  on  ac- 
count of  money  had  and  received  in  the  sum  of 
$1000.00,  which  was  paid  to  the  appellants  as  earnest 
money  for  the  carrying  out  of  said  agreement. 

The  Court  further  found  that  the  settlement  con- 
tract failed  and  that  therefore  the  Appellees  Avere  en- 
titled to  recover  back  the  $1000.00  paid  as  earnest 
money.  There  was  a  general  prayer  for  relief  con- 
tained in  the  amended  Bill  of  Complaint  and  when  the 
Court  found  the  facts  as  above  outlined,  it  was  per- 
fectly proper  for  it  to  find  that  the  $1000.00  pavment 
be  returned  and  that  Appellees  have  a  judgment 
therefor,  as  against  all  the  defendants  except 
Lawrence  Jochem.  A  court  of  equity  has  the  power 
to  adjust  the  equities  between  the  parties  if  such  ad- 
justment does  not  contravene  the  provisions  of  the 
Statute.    Johnson  v.  Mutits,  364  111.  482. 

We  feel,  however,  that  there  was  no  warrant  or 
foundation  in  law  upon  which  the  Court  could  decree 
a  lien  for  such  judgTuent  against  the  shares  of  stock, 
property  and  assets  of  the  corporation.  This  was  a 
transaction  between  the  shareholders  themselves,  and 
the  by-laws  of  the  corporation  providing  for  a  lien 
upon  its  shares  of  stock  for  any  indebtedness  of  its 
shareholders  to  it,  does  not  apply,  because  this  indebt- 
edness is  due  to  a  group  of  individuals.  There  was 
DO  claim  that  anything  was  due  and  owing  to  the  cor- 
poration.   The  decree  incorrectly  awarded  such  a  lien. 

It  is  next  urged  by  Appellants  that  the  court  was 
clearly  without  authority  to  impress  the  shares  of 
stock  of  Morris  Bros.  Shoe  Company  with  a  lien  in 
favor  of  the  corporation.  Thev  relv  upon  the  pro- 
visions of  Section  15,  Chapter  32  of  Sm'ith-Hurd  Illinois 
Annotated  Statutes  being  the  Act  knowTi  as  the  Illinois 
Uniform  Stock  Transfer  Act  which  reads  as  follows- 

"There  shall  be  no  lien  in  favor  of  a  corporation 


Page  8  Gen.  No.  8966 

upon  the  shares  represented  hy  a  certificate  issued 
by  such  corporation  and  there  shall  be  no  restric- 
tion upon  the  transfer  of  shares  so  represented  by 
virtue  of  any  by-laws  of  such  corporation  or  other- 
wise, unless  the  right  of  the  corporation  to  such  lien 
or  the  restriction  is  stated  upon  the  certificate. ' ' 
Section  2  of  Article  14  of  the  bj^-laws  of  Morris  Bros. 
Shoe  Company  provided  as  follows: 
"Sec.  2.    The  Corporation  shall  at  all  times  have  a 
first  lien  on  all  the  shares  of  its  stockholders  and 
on  dividends  declared  thereon  for  any  and  all  in- 
debtedness of  such  stockholders  to  the  corj^oration. ' ' 
It  is  the  judg-ment  of  this  court  that  section  15  above 
quoted  Avas  enacted  for  the  protection  and  benefit  of 
innocent  purchasers  of  shares  of  stock  who  purchased 
said  shares  without  notice  of  the  existence  of  any  re- 
striction upon  their  transfer.     In  such  case  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  stockholders  would  not  be  bound  by 
any  restriction  or  lien  unless  a  copy  of  the  restriction 
appears  upon  the  face  of  the  certificate.     But  in  this 
case  all  of  the  defendants,  with  the  exception  of  Alice 
Morris  and  Lawrence  Jochem,  were  officers  of  the  cor- 
poration and  holders  of  stock  in  the  Mon-is  Bros.  Shoe 
Company  so  that  they  had  full  knowledge  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  by-law  and  are  not  protected  by  Section  15 
of  the  Uniform  Stock  Transfer  Act.    Consequently  we 
believe  the  Court  had  the  power  to  impress  the  shares 
of  stock  of  Morris  Bros.  Shoe  Company  with  the  lien 
in  favor  of  the  coi^poration. 

The  Appellants  further  contend  that  the  Court  was 
without  right  or  authority  to  find  and  decree  that  the 
shares  of  stock  formerly  owned  by  Frank  E.  Morris 
Sr.,  and  by  the  coii^oration  transferred  to  Alice 
Morris  his  -wddow,  were  impressed  with  a  lien  in  favor 
of  the  corporation.  If  Alice  Morris  had  been  purchas- 
ing these  shares  of  stock  as  a  third  party  or  a  stranger 
the  principle  of  law  announced  by  Appellants  would 
have  been  entirely  applicable  but  Alice  Morris  re- 
ceived the  shares  in  question  as  the  widow  of  Frank 
E.  Morris  Sr.,  the  deceased  president  and  largest 
stockholder  of  the  corporation.  By  operation  of  law 
she  then  occupied  the  position  of  an  assignee  and  as 
such  could  not  receive  a  better  title  to  the  shares  of 
stock  than  that  held  by  her  Assignor.  St.  Louis  Union 
Trnst  Co.  v.  Wahash  C.  d  W.  R.  Co.,  244  App.  466. 
BahcocTi  v.  Farwell,  245  111.  14.  It  follows  that  Alice 
Morris  receiving  such  shares  as  widow  of  her  deceased 
husband  took  them  subject  to  whatever  encumbrances 


Page  9  Gen.  No.  8966 

existed  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Fraiilc  E.  Morris  Sr. 
The  Court  further  found,  as  a  fact,  that  Alice  Morris 
was  not  an  innocent  purchaser  of  the  shares  of  stock 
to  which  finding  there  seems  to  have  been  no  objection 
or  exception  taken  before  the  Special  Master  in 
Chancery.  The  cases  cited  by  counsel  for  Appellants 
in  support  of  their  position  on  this  question  were  all 
dealing  with  a  purchaser  in  good  faith  and  for  value. 
The  distinction  is  quite  apparent  and  in  our  opinion 
there  was  no  waiver  by  the  corporation  of  the  lien  cre- 
ated by  the  by-laws  as  to  the  shares  of  stock  standing 
in  the  name  of  Alice  Morris. 

Another  point  presented  by  Appellants  is  that  the 
Appellees  have  waived  any  right  to  the  lien  which  they 
now  demand  by  reason  of  the  payment  of  the  dividend 
of  $2990.46,  paid  to  all  stockholders  on  April  21st, 
1930.  To  accept  Appellants  theory  it  would  be  neces- 
sary for  a  Court  to  say  that  the  acceptance  of  a  pro 
rata  distributive  share  by  a  stockholder  of  a  dividend 
rightfully  due  him  bars  the  right  of  that  stockholder 
to  insist  in  the  future  that  all  monies  due  the  corpora- 
tion be  paid.  The  payment  of  the  pro  rata  dividend 
share  to  the  stockholders  was  an  entirely  separate  and 
independent  payment  of  amounts  due  to  stockholders 
and  the  receipt  of  such  could  not  in  any  way  destroy 
the  right  of  such  stockholder  from  recovering  any 
further  sums  due  to  him  even  though  such  sums  might 
have  to  be  due  at  the  time  he  received  a  former  pay- 
ment. 

Appellants  assign  still  another  reason  why  the  Ap- 
pellees are  not  entitled  to  any  recovery  in  this  cause. 
They  say  that  the  Charge-otfs  to  the  surplus  account 
of  the  corporation  occurred  on  June  30th,  1928  and  at 
that  time  the  company  was  in  the  complete  and  ex- 
elusive  control  of  the  Management  Committee.  The 
active  Manager  under  that  committee  was  the  Appel- 
lee Buckner.  In  the  effort  to  effect  a  re-organization 
of  the  company  an  auditor  employed  suggested  and 
arranged  the  charge-off.  They  further  state  that  Ap- 
pellees had  knowledge  of  the  charge-oflf  of  the  over- 
drafts. But  it  is  further  shown  by  the  testimony  that 
there  was  an  understanding  between  all  the  parties  to 
this  suit  that  notes  were  to  be  given  to  the  Appellees 
herein  in  order  to  equalize  the  advantage  enjoyed  by 
any  other  stock  holder  as  a  result  of  the  charge-off  of 
the  overdrafts.  No  notes  were  ever  made  or  delivered  in 
compliance  A^-ith  this  understanding;  no  effort  was 
made  to  re-instate  the  overdrafts  on  the  books  of  the 


Page  10  Gen.  No.  8966 

corporation  and  no  claims  were  filed  against  the  Es- 
tate of  Frank  E.  Morris  or  against  the  other  parties 
liable  for  the  overdrafts.  Under  these  circnmstances 
the  Appellees  received  no  consideration  for  the  charge- 
off  or  for  the  amounts  due  the  corporation  and  cer- 
tainly as  stockholders  they  were  not  estopped  to  bring 
an  action  to  enforce  their  rights. 

We  cannot  find  any  basis  for  the  position  of  Appel- 
lants that  Appellees  are  baiTed  by  laches  from  the 
prosecution  of  this  suit. 

Lastly,  the  Appellants  insist  that  there  is  a  total 
failure  on  the  part  of  the  Appellees  to  establish  the 
liability  of  Frank  E.  Morris,  Sr.,  for  the  alleged  in- 
debtedness of  the  Quincy  Spray  Painting  Company. 
It  is  insisted  by  the  Appellees  that  the  Appellants 
have  waived  their  right  to  raise  this  question  on  ap- 
peal, because  when  the  Master  found  the  sum  of 
$18,907.72  due  from  Frank  E.  Morris,  Sr.,  to  the 
Morris  Brothers  Shoe  Company  the  Appellants  made 
no  objection  and  urged  no  exception  to  this  finding  of 
fact.  The  books  of  the  Company  showed  an  account 
with  the  Quincy  Spray  Painting  Company  on  Janu- 
ary 1st,  1928,  disclosing  a  debit  of  $16746.43.  There 
was  no  change  whatever  in  the  status  of  the  account 
until  June  30th,  1928  when  the  Spray  Painting  Com- 
pany was  credited  with  precisely  the  same  amount  and 
the  account  balanced.  On  the  same  day  the  Frank  E. 
Morris,  Sr.,  account  was  debited  for  $16,746.43,  which 
increased  his  total  account  due  the  corporation,  as 
shown  by  the  books,  to  $18,907.72.  While  the  testi- 
mony is  not  entirely  satisfactory  we  believe  there  was 
sufficient  evidence  in  the  record  to  support  the  finding 
of  the  Court  that  the  transfer  of  the  said  item  to  the 
account  of  Frank  E.  Mon-is,  Sr.,  during  his  lifetime, 
constituted  an  indebtedness  of  Frank  E.  Morris,  Sr. 

This  record  discloses  a  controversy  over  the  affairs 
of  a  corporation  which  was  controlled  largely  by 
members  of  one  family.  We  are  impressed  by  the  ar- 
guments of  counsel  for  the  Appellants  that  the  indebt- 
edness due  to  the  corporation,  and  the  other  facts  in 
the  testimony,  are  not  directly  challenged  but  they 
seek  to  avoid  liability,  because  of  certain  irregulari- 
ties and  technicalities  in  the  procedure  followed  by  Ap- 
pellees. The  evidence  was  taken  before  the  Master, 
was  fully  reviewed  by  the  Circuit  Court  and  the  main 
findings  of  its  decree  are  based  upon  equity  and  good 
conscience. 


Page  11  aen.  No.  8966 

With  the  exception  of  the  one  error  pointed  out,  the 
decree  in  all  other  respects  is  affirmed  and  the  cause  is 
remanded  with  directions  to  enter  a  decree  in  con- 
formity with  the  views  herein  expressed. 

Affirmed. 
(Thirteen  pages  in  original  opinion) 


(2036(>— 1-37     14) 


(PjuJvxAAnA^  Aic^   tu^yS,  H3y 


Published  in  Abstract 


The  Federal  Land  Bank  of  St.  Louis,  a  corporation, 

Appellee,  v.  William  J.  Leinweber,  Nancy  B. 

Leinweber  and  George  Pree,  Appellants. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court,  Tazewell  County. 

October  Term,  A.  D.  1936.  ^  H    8     I     R 

Gen.  No.  9001  Agenda  No.  7 

Mr.  Justice  Fulton  delivered  the  opinioii  of  the 
Court. 

On  February  1st,  1927,  William  J.  Leinweber  and 
Nancy  B.  Leinweber,  his  wife,  two  of  tlie  Appellants 
in  tliis  cause,  became  indebted  to  The  Federal  Land 
Bank  of  St.  Louis,  a  corporation,  in  the  sum  of 
$25,000.00,  borrowed  money.  To  evidence  this  in- 
debtedness tlie  two  Appellants  executed  a  note  for  the 
said  sum  of  $25,000.00  and  delivered  the  same  to  the 
Appellee  Land  Bank.  In  order  to  secure  said  note  and  , 
indebtedness,  on  the  same  date  they  executed  a  mort-  j 
gage  to  the  Appellee  covering  240  acres  of  land  in 
Tazewell  County,  Illinois.  The  payments  of  both 
principal  and  interest  were  to  be  made  semi-annually 
on  an  amortization  plan.  Default  was  made  in  the 
payment  of  installments  due  on  August  1st,  1934  and 
February  1st,  1935.  On  August  21st,  1935,  the  Appel-  \ 
lee  tiled  a  complaint  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  TazeweU  | 
County  asking  for  foreclosure  of  said  mortgage  be- 
cause of  said  defaults.  The  Appellants  were  all  prop-  | 
erly  served  with  summons  on  August  26th,  1935,  re-  I 
turnable  on  the  3rd  Monday  of  September  1935.  On 
September  9th,  1935,  Appellee  made  an  application  for 
a  Eeceiver  but  no  action  was  taken  or  Receiver  ap- 
pointed on  said  petition.  On  October  23rd,  1935,  the 
Appellants  had  neither  appeared  or  answered  the 
complaint  and  an  order  defaulting  said  Appellants 
and  referring  the  cause  to  the  Master  in  Chancery  of 
said  Court  for  the  purpose  of  taking  proofs  and  re- 
porting his  conclusions  was  filed  in  said  cause.  None 
of  the  Appellants  appeared  upon  the  hearings  before 
the  Master  in  Chancery.  On  November  6th,  1935,  the 
Master  filed  his  report,  notice  having  been  sent  to  the 
Appellants  of  the  filing  of  such  report.  No  objections 
were  filed  to  said  report  and  no  appearance  was  made 
in  behalf  of  Appellants  when  the  report  was  presented 


.^.^ 


If) 


^ 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9001 

to  the  Circuit  Court.  On  the  same  date  a  decree  of 
foreclosure  was  entered  approving  the  Master's  re- 
port, finding  that  the  total  amount  of  indebtedness 
then  due  upon  the  note  and  mortgage  was  the  sum  of 
$28,935.26  and  constituted  a  first  lien  upon  the  real 
estate  and  upon  the  rents,  issues  and  profits  thereof. 
The  usual  provisions  ordering  the  Master  to  advertise 
and  sell  and  to  specify  a  deficiency,  if  any,  after  sale 
were  included  in  the  decree.  On  November  29th,  1935, 
after  due  notice  sent  to  the  Appellants  the  Appellee 
renewed  its  application  for  a  Receiver.  No  appear- 
ance or  objection  being  made  on  the  part  of  the  Ap- 
pellants a  Receiver  was  appointed  and  promptly  quali- 
fied. After  due  publication,  on  December  6th,  1935, 
the  real  estate  was  sold  at  Master's  sale  to  the  Ap- 
pellee upon  their  bid  of  the  sum  of  $27,000.00.  The 
Master,  in  his  report  of  sale,  which  was  filed  on  De- 
cember 23rd,  1935,  stated  that  the  amount  paid  at  the 
sale  was  insufficient  to  fully  satisfy  the  amount  due 
the  Appellee  and  that  there  was  still  due  to  the  said 
Appellee  from  the  Appellants,  William  J.  Leiuweber 
and  Nancy  B.  Leinweber,  the  sum  of  $2355.87.  Before 
the  report  of  sale  was  filed  by  the  Master  and  on  De- 
cember 19th,  1935,  the  Appellants  filed  exceptions  to 
the  Master's  report.  On  February  16th,  1936,  the  Ap- 
pellee filed  a  motion  to  strike  the  exceptions  filed  by 
the  Appellants.  On  February  20th,  1936,  a  hearing 
was  had  upon  this  motion  and  the  Court  entered  an 
order  allowing  the  motion  and  striking  the  exceptions 
from  the  files.  On  the  same  date  an  order  was  en- 
tered by  the  Court  approving  the  Master's  report  of 
sale  and  for  a  deficiency  judgment  against  the  Ap- 
pellants, William  J.  Leinweber  and  Nancv  B.  Lein- 
weber in  the  sum  of  $2355.87,  with  interest  thereon 
at  the  legal  rate  from  December  6th,  1935.  From  the 
date  summons  was  served  upon  Appellants  they  were 
represented  by  the  attorney  who  filed  said  exceptions 
and  prosecutes  this  appeal  in  their  behalf.  The  ap- 
peal was  taken  from  the  judgment,  order  and  decree 
entered  on  February  20th,  1936. 

The  exceptions  filed  by  the  Appellants  on  December 
19th,  1935,  were  three  in  number.  The  first  was  formal 
m  character  alleging  that  the  Master  had  reported  his 
conclusions  and  findings  contrary  to  the  law  and  the 
evidence  in  the  case.  The  second  exception  stated  that 
m  July  1935  a  statement  was  made  by  an  Attorney  for 
the  Appellee  that  it  would  take  a  deed  to  the  land  but 
this   happened   while   the   case   was   pending   in   the 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9001 

Bankruptcy  Court  in  Springfield.  Further  that  on  the 
return  day,  specified  in  the  summons  the  Appellants 
agreed  to" make  a  deed  to  the  land  but  the  Attorney 
for  Appellee  stated  that  it  preferred  to  foreclose  the 
mortgage;  that  later  when  Appellee  filed  a  petition 
for  the  appointment  of  a  Receiver  an  arrangement 
was  made  whereby  Leinweber  was  to  turn  the  laud 
over  to  Appellee  and  it  was  to  give  him  a  lease  for  a 
year;  no  Receiver  was  appointed,  the  Appellants  suf- 
fered default  and  decree  was  entered.  That  after  Re- 
ceiver was  appointed  on  November  26th,  1935,  a  lease 
was  prepared  by  a  representative  of  the  Land  Bank 
and  signed  by  Leinweber  in  triplicate;  that  one  copy 
was  to  be  returned  to  Leinweber  by  the  Appellee,  but 
that  it  had  never  been  returned;  that  Appellee, 
through  its  attorney,  stated  that  it  would  not  ask  for 
a  deficiency  judgment  if  the  land  did  not  bring  enough 
to  satisfy  the  mortgage,  costs  and  expenses  of  fore- 
closure; that  the  agent  and  representative  of  Appel- 
lee, who  prepared  the  lease,  stated  verbally  and  in  the 
lease  that  the  Land  Bank  would  not  ask  for  a  de- 
ficiency judgment ;  that  the  Appellants  relied  upon  the 
representation  of  Appellee,  through  its  agents,  suf- 
fered a  default  and  permitted  a  Receiver  to  be  ap- 
pointed believing  that  no  deficiency  judgment  would 
be  asked  for  or  entered  by  Appellee.  The  third  ex- 
ception sought  credit  on  the  mortgage  indebtedness 
for  certain  stock  in  another  Land  Bank  and  paid  for 
out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  loan. 

Upon  a  hearing  on  Appellee's  motion  to  strike  Ap- 
pellants exceptions  to  the  Master's  report  the  Appel- 
lants offered  to  introduce  evidence  in  support  of  their 
exceptions  filed  to  which  offer  the  Appellee  objected. 
The  objections  v/ere  sustained  and  the  offer  denied. 
The  issue  before  the  Court  on  the  motion  to  strike  ex- 
ceptions to  the  Master's  report  was  in  law,  under  the 
New  Practice  Act,  a  demurrer  to  the  legal  sufficiency 
of  the  exceptions.  For  the  purpose  of  the  hearing  on 
the  motion  all  facts  contained  in  the  exceptions  were 
admitted  and  it  was  not  error  for  the  Court  to  refuse 
to  admit  any  e\ndence  on  the  hearing  of  such  motion. 

The  appeal  in  this  case  appears  to  be  for  the  pur- 
pose of  setting  aside  the  deficiency  judgment.  There 
is  no  complaint  about  the  foreclosure  or  the  proceed- 
ings taken  thereunder.  The  Appellants  rely  entirely 
upon  conversations  "with  attorney's  and  representa- 
tives of  the  Federal  Land  Bank  on  which  they  say  in 
consideration  of  no  objection  being  made  to  the  fore- 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9001 

closure  or  to  the  appointment  of  a  Receiver  that  a  de- 
ficiency would  not  be  asked  or  entered.  This,  in  effect, 
is  the  matter  set  forth  in  the  exceptions  filed  by  the 
Appellants.  Where  parties,  represented  seek  to  rely 
upon  verbal  agreements  with  opposing  counsel  out- 
side of  Court  and  mthout  any  record  of  the  same  be- 
ing made  in  the  proceedings  in  a  cause  Courts  mil  not 
set  aside  orders  and  decrees  duly  and  regularly  en- 
tered in  the  progress  of  a  suit.  In  this  case.  Appel- 
lants were  personally  served  with  summons.  The 
complaint  asked,  among  other  things,  that  in  case  the 
proceeds  of  sale  be  not  sufficient  to  pay  in  full  the 
amounts  found  due  Appellee,  a  deficiency  decree  be 
entered  in  favor  of  Appellee  and  against  Appellants. 
At  no  stage  of  the  proceedings  until  after  sale  was 
made  by  the  Master  was  there  any  appearance  of  any 
kind  in  the  cause  made  by  the  Appellants  and  no  at- 
tempt made  to  protect  their  rights  in  the  orders  and 
decree  of  the  Court.  No  motion  was  made  to  set  aside 
the  original  Master's  report  or  the  decree  of  the  Court 
based  upon  the  same,  and  the  filing  of  exceptions  on 
December  19th,  1935,  was  too  late  in  time  and  im- 
proper in  method  for  setting  aside  such  foreclosure 
decree. 

The  facts  contained  in  the  exceptions  do  not  set 
forth  any  good  defense  or  reason  why  the  deficiency 
judgment,  entered  after  the  filing  of  such  exceptions, 
should  be  vacated  and  set  aside.  For  the  reasons  here- 
in expressed  the  order  of  the  Court  entered  on  Feb- 
ruary 20th,  1936  sustaining  the  motion  to  strike  Ap- 
pellants exceptions  to  the  Master's  report  and  the 
judgment  of  the  Court  will  be  affirmed. 

Affirmed. 
(Five  pages  in  original  opinion) 


(20360—1-37     14) 


r 


./^  e^ 


'of- 


ilMUyvu^^tru^ 


Published  in  Abstract 


Flora  B.  Dorrah,  Plaintiff  in  Error,  v.  Orlo  Jordan,/ 

/ 
Highway  Commissioner  of  the  Town  of  Mt.     /     ^ 

Auburn,  Christian  County,  Defendant 

in  Error.  ^  ^    Q 

Error  to  Circuit  Court,  Christian  County. 

October  Term,  A.  D.  1936. 

Gen.  No.  9007  Agenda  No.  10 

Mr.  Justice  Fulton  delivered  the  opinion  of  tlie 
Court. 

This  is  a  companion  case  to  the  suit  of  Mary  C. 
Michael  v,  Orlo  Jordan,  Highway  Commissioner  of 
the  Town  of  Mt.  Auburn,  Christian  County,  Illinois, 
General  No.  9008,  decided  at  this  term.  Tlie  case  in- 
volves the  right  of  a  Highway  Commissioner  to  bor- 
row money  and  the  question  presented  by  this  writ  of 
error  is  identical  with  that  considered  and  passed  upon 
in  that  case. 

For  the  reasons  stated  in  our  opinion  in  that  case 
the  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  is  hereby  affirmed. 


(1  page  in  original  opinion) 


A/ftrmed. 


g' 


(20360—1-37     14)  ■■,^^-^. 


nl" 


Published  in  Abstract 


Joseph  F.  Bohrer,  Successor  in  Trust  for  tlsfe  Ua&4f 
Charles  J.  Werner,  and  Charles  J.  Werner^  Appel- 
lees, V.  John  M.  Wohidorf,  Appellant. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court  McLean  Count'ii. 


OcTOBEK  Teem  A.  D.  1936. 


Gen.  No.  9013 


Agenda  No.  14 


Mr.  Justice  Fulton  delivered  the  opiniou  of  the 
Court. 

On  June  5th,  1935,  this  action  was  filed  in  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  McLean  County,  Illinois,  to  foreclose  a 
Trust  Deed  on  real  estate  owned  by  the  Appellant, 
John  M.  Wohidorf,  otherwise  known  as  Martin  'VVohl' 
dorf.    The  Appellant,  by  his  Guardian  ad  Litem,  filed 
an   answer   to   the   complaint   alleging  that   John   M. 
Wohidorf  was  adjudicated  an  insane  person  on  Janu- 
ary 28th,  1895  in  the  County  Court  of  McLean  County, 
which  adjudication  was  prior  to  the  execution  of  a 
note  and  trast  deed  dated  March  7th,  1925.    The  cause 
was  referred  to  the  Master  in  Chancery  who  heard 
the  testimony  and  by  his  report  recommended  that  a 
decree  be  entered  finding  the  note  and  trust  deed  null 
and  void  by  reason  of  the  insanity  of  John  M.  Wohidorf 
at  the  time  of  their  execution.     The  Court  sustained 
exc^eptions  to  the  Master's  report  and  entered  a  decree 
ot  torclosure,  from  which  decree  this  appeal  is  taken, 
it  IS  the  contention  of  the  Appellant  that  at  the  time 
said  note  and  trust  deed  was  executed  John  M.  Wohi- 
dorf had  been  adjudged  insane  and  that  therefore  his 
acts  in  executing  said  instruments  were  void    there 
having-  been  no  legal  restoration  to  sanity.    A  great 
deal  of  space  in  the  briefs  of  both  counsel  is  devoted 
to  the  question  of  whether  or  not  there  is  any  compe- 
tent evidence  or  record  establishing  the  fact  that  Wohi- 
dorf was  m  1895  committed  to  the  State  Hospital  for 
he  Insane  a   Kankakee,  Illinois.    Without  reciting  the 
detail  of  such  record  we  believe  there  is  sufficient  testi- 
^qq?;!,"^'"  ''"^^  v"^  otherwise,  to   show  that  in 
1890  there  was  a  verdict  of  a  jury  and  other  evidence 

aLTint  a  /  ^'^^^'^.T^--,  -^-"^  declared  insTiie 
and  spent  a  few  months  m  the  State  Hospital  for  the 
Insane  at  Kankakee.     The  facts  in  the  case  further 


X  cO,e     ^C 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9013 

show  that  Wohldorf's  father  died  on  July  30th,  1910 
and  that  he  came  from  Oklahoma  for  the  funeral.  It 
is  not  contended  that  he  spent  more  than  nine  months 
at  the  State  Institution.  The  Will  of  Henry  Wohldorf, 
father  of  the  Appellant,  devised  to  the  latter  the  life 
use  of  approximately  12  acres  of  his  home  farm  and 
also,  subject  to  the  life  use  of  his  mother,  an  undivided 
1/3  interest  in  and  to  21  acres  of  land  near  Shirley, 
Illinois.  On  or  about  the  16th  day  of  January,  1920, 
the  Appellant  and  his  sisters  divided  this  21  acre  tract 
by  agreement  and  executed  quit-claim  deeds  to  each 
other  of  the  respective  tracts.  By  deed  from  his  sis- 
ters, the  Appellant  acquired  title  to  the  tract  of  land 
covered  by  the  trust  deed  sought  to  be  foreclosed.  Ever 
since  the  "death  of  his  father,  Wohldorf  has  lived  con- 
tinously  in  and  about  the  Village  of  Shirley.  During 
that  period  of  time  he  appears  to  have  lived  the  ordi- 
nary, normal  life  of  a  citizen  in  that  community.  He 
has"  taken  care  of  his  own  affairs,  managed  his  own 
property  and  shown  no  evidence  of  mental  inability  to 
transact  the  ordinary  business  in  which  he  was  en- 
gaged. His  neighbors  and  friends  who  were  called  as 
witnesses  testified  that  he  had  been  renting  out  his 
land,  collecting  the  rents  from  the  same,  making  im- 
provements and  otherwise  caring  for  the  premises. 
Some  of  these  witnesses  expressed  the  opinion  that  he 
was  mentally  capable  of  looking  after  his  own  business 
affairs  and  others  that  they  had  never  seen  or  heard 
anything  out  of  the  way  about  the  Appellant.  It  ap- 
pears that  he  had,  prior  to  1925,  borrowed  money  from 
Jacob  A.  Bohrer,  secured  the  same  by  mortgage  deed 
upon  his  premises,  and  fully  paid  the  indebtedness. 
The  present  mortgage,  executed  in  1925,  was  also 
given  to  Jacob  A.  Bohrer,  as  Trustee  for  the  use  of 
Rudolph  Salzman,  for  the  principal  sum  of  $500.00.  It 
appears  further  that  $200.00  of  this  amount  was  loaned 
back  to  Jacob  A.  Bohrer  and  by  his  Estate  paid  upon 
the  principal  of  this  mortgage.  None  of  these  facts 
are  disputed  by  any  testimony  on  behalf  of  the  Appel- 
lant except  his  own  evidence.  An  analysis  of  his  testi- 
mony indicates  that  he  was  largely  influenced  by  his 
interest  in  the  cause  and  it  is  quite  improbable  that 
his  memory  was  as  bad  as  the  record  discloses.  Charles 
J.  Wenier,  one  of  the  Appellees,  purchased  the  note 
sought  to  be  foreclosed  from  Joseph  F.  Bohrer  and 
paid  $300.00  for  the  same  about  a  year  prior  to  the  in- 
stitution of  this  suit.  He  was  a  neighbor  of  the  Appel- 
lant and  lived  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  distant  from 
the  premises. 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9013 

To  sustain  the  contention  made  on  the  part  of  the 
Appellant  he  relies  chieiiy  upon  the  Illinois  Eevised 
Statutes,  authorities  from  foreign  jurisdiction  and 
two  Illinois  cases.  The  Statute  Sec.  12  of  Chap.  85 
(1935)  provides  as  follows: 

"Every  note,  bill,  bond  or  other  contract  by  any 
person  adjudged  insane  under  the  prov;isions  of 
this  act,  made  after  such  person  has  been  adjudged 
insane  under  this  act,  shall  be  void  as  against  such 
lunatic  and  his  estate,  but  a  person  making  any 
contract  Avith  such  lunatic  shall  be  bound  thereby." 
In  one  of  the  Illinois  cases,  cited  by  Appellant,  lire  v. 
Lire,  223  111.  454,  there  was  a  verdict  of  a  jury  and  a 
judgment  of  the  Probate  Court  finding  Robert  Ure  to 
be  a  drunkard  and  a  spendthrift  on  March  19th,  1897. 
On  March  3rd,  1898,  he  conveyed  his  interest  in  some 
valuable  lots  to  a  grantee  in  exchange  for  three  practic- 
ally worthless  equities.  In  that  ease  the  Court  held 
that  the  grantee,  Yeomans,  did  not  occupy  the  position 
of  an  innocent  purchaser.  The  fact  that  Robert  Ure 
had  been  adjudged  incapable  of  managing  or  caring  for 
his  estate  and  that  a  Conservator  had  been  appointed 
for  him  were  all  matters  of  record  of  which  the  gran- 
tee was  presumed  to  have  notice.  The  Court  held  that 
the  conveyance  under  such  circumstances  could  not 
be  upheld.  In  the  other  case,  Morrison  v.  Beers,  327 
111.  139,  there  was  a  verdict  of  a  jury  on  January  11th, 
1917,  finding  Morrison  to  be  a  spendthrift  and  an  order 
of  the  Probate  Court  adjudicating  him  to  be  such.  On 
appeal  to  the  Circuit  Court  there  was  a  like  adjudica- 
tion on  September  14th,  1918.  No  Conservator  was 
appointed.  On  March  8th,  1919,  Morrison  conveyed 
the  premises  in  question.  On  October  21st,  1921,  he 
was  adjudicated  by  the  Probate  Court  to  be  no  longer  a 
spendthrift.  The  Court  held  that  deed  to  be  void.  In 
each  of  these  cases  the  conveyance  was  made  shortly 
after  the  adjudication  in  the  Probate  Court  and  the 
testimony  of  the  parties  who  sought  to  sustain  the 
deeds  was  unsatisfactory-  and  unreliable.  The  situa- 
tion in  those  cases  was  entirely  different  from  the  facts 
disclosed  by  the  record  in  this  case.  The  Courts  of  this 
State  have  often  held  that  notwithstanding  the  Statute 
makes  void  the  contract  of  a  person  adjudged  insane, 
yet  an  agreement  made  by  him  during  a  lucid  interval 
IS  binding  even  though  there  has  been  no  legal  restora- 
tion to  sanity.  Stitzel  v.  Farleij,  148  111  App  635 
McCormicT^  v.  Littler,  85  111.  62.  In  the  case  of  Belz  v' 
Peipenhrinlt,  318  111.  528,  the  Court  said  • 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9013 

"Where  judgTnent  of  County  Court  adjudicating 
testator  insane  was  not  rescinded,  reversed  or  super- 
seded, such  record,  when  properly  introduced  in  will 
contest,  was  not  conclusive  on  the  question  of  in- 
sanity at  time  of  making  Avill,  but  to  be  considered 
by  jury  only  for  what  it  was  worth." 
The    question    involved    in    this   case    is    therefore 
whether  or  not  the  note  and  trust  deed  given  on  March 
7th,  1925,  can  legally  be  inf orced.    So  far  as  the  record 
shows  there  is  nothing  to  show  at  that  date  that  John 
M.  Wohldorf  was  a  lunatic  or  incapable  of  transacting- 
ordinary  business.     The  testimony  does  not  develop 
any  outward  appearances  of  such  a  condition  and  the 
records  do  not  show  that  his  affairs  or  estate  was  in 
the  hands  of  a  Conservator.    He  was  in  the  exclusive 
possession  of  his  own  property,  borrowed  money,  and 
built  a  home  thereon,  attended  to  the  rental  of  the  same 
and  in  the  view  of  his  neighbors  and  the  public  was  the 
master  and  manager  of  his  own  business  affairs.     It 
had  been  nearly  thirty  years  since  the  insanity  pro- 
ceeding had  been  held  and  we  do  not  thinli  that  the 
Statute  quoted  was  designed  to  annul  contracts,  made 
in  good  faith,  and  under  the  circumstances  surround- 
ing the  parties  interested  in  this  case. 

This  Court  is  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  the  decree 
of  foreclosure  entered  by  the  trial  Court  should  be 
affirmed. 

Affirmed. 
(Five  pages  in  original  opinion) 


(20360—1-37     14) 


let 


Published  in  Abstract 


Charles  B.  Switzer,  Appellee,  v.  Elden  C.  Henry,  j/e 
fendant  and  Appellant  and  Jesse  Johnson,  Defendant 


Gen.  No.  9025 


Agenda  No.  20 


Appeal  from.  Circuit  Court,  Ford  County. 
October  Tebm,  A.  D.  1936. 

Me.  Justice  Fulton  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 
Court. 

On  October  13th,  1928,  Charles  B.  Switzer,  the  Ap- 
pellee, secured  a  jndgTnent  by  confession  in  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  Ford  County  on  a  note  signed  by  Elden 
C.  Henry  and  Jesse  Johnson.  The  judgment  was  en- 
tered against  both  defendants  for  the  sum  of  $614.23 
upon  which  execution  issued.  On  November  17th, 
1928,  the  defendants  made  a  motion,  supported  by  af- 
fidavit of  the  Appellant  Elden  C.  Henry,  to  open  up 
the  judgment,  which  motion  was  granted,  defendants 
given  leave  to  plead,  execution  stayed,  and  order  by 
the  Court  that  the  judgment  stand  as  a  lieu  until  the 
further  order  of  the  Court. 

Numerous  pleas,  demurrers,  replications,  motions, 
and  bills  of  particular  were  filed  but  on  the  final  hear- 
ing the  issues  tried  were  upon  the  claim  of  Plaintiff 
based  on  the  note  and  the  pleas  of  defendant  setting 
forth  defenses  of  no  consideration,  accomodation 
paper,  set-off  and  accord  and  satisfaction.  The  appel- 
lant, Elden  C.  Henry,  claimed  affirmative  relief  on  his 
claim  of  set-off  which  the  Appellee  denied.  By  agree- 
ment of  parties  a  jury  was  waived  and  the  cause  sub- 
mitted to  the  court  for  trial. 

_  In  plaintiff's  prima  facie  case  he  proved  the  execu- 
tion and  delivery  of  the  note  which  was  for  the  princi- 
pal sum  of  $337.00,  dated  February  23rd,  1918,  due  one 
year  after  date,  signed  by  Elden  C.  Henry  and  Jesse 
Johnson;  that  he  was  the  owner  and  legal  holder 
thereof,  the  non-payment  of  either  principal  or  inter- 
est, a  computation  of  the  amount  due  and  unpaid  and 
rested  his  case.  He  was  then  called  for  examination 
by  the  defendant  as  an  adverse  party  and  interrogated 
about  an  instrument  designated  Defendants  Exhibit  1, 
which  purported  to  be  an  account  stated  between  the 
appellee  and  appellant,  Elden  C.  Henrv,  under  date  of 
February  16,  1918.     The  statement  was  drawn  upon 


■f-^r'. 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9025 

stationery  of  the  Ford  Motor  Company,  for  which  ap- 
pellee was  the  local  agent  at'  Piper  Citj^,  Illinois,  and 
bore  the  signatures  of  C.  B.  Switzer  and  Elden  C. 
Henry.  At  the  top  the  statement  was  labeled, 
"Henry's  Account,"  on  the  back  of  the  instrument 
there  was  a  purported  balancing  of  accounts,  showing 
an  amount  or  balance  due  to  Henry  in  the  sum  of 
$315.58.  The  last  item  shown  on  the  account  was 
dated  February  16th,  1918,  for  one  Ford  Touring  car, 
$337.00.  The  Appellee  denied  ever  seeing  this  state- 
ment before  or  having  any.  knowledge  of  its  being- 
signed;  that  he  ever  met  the  Api^ellant,  Elden  C. 
Henry,  just  prior  to  February  23rd,  1913,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  going  over  their  respective  accounts,  or  that 
he  ever  talked  with  him  about  accounts  at  that  time. 
He  further  testitied  that  he  had  never  agreed  to  any 
such  statement  and  if  it  was  his  signature  appearing 
on  the  bottom  of  the  statement  it  was  placed  there  be- 
fore any  of  the  material  now  appearing  on  the  exhibit 
was  written  thereon.  His  testimony  further  showed 
on  this  examination  and  in  rebuttal  that  in  the  spring 
of  1917,  he  met  Henry  on  the  street  one  day  and  dis- 
cussed their  mutual  demands ;  that  it  was  then  and 
there  agreed  that  their  mutual  claims  were  nearly  even 
and  that  their  respective  accounts  should  cancel  each 
other  and  then  and  there  a  full  and  complete  settle- 
ment, one  against  the  other,  was  agreed  upon ;  that 
this  was  the  only  transaction  in  the  nature  of  an  ac- 
cord and  satisfaction  he  ever  had  between  himself  and 
the  Appellant  Henry.  Further,  that  shortly  prior  to 
February  23rd,  1918,  he  sold  to  Henry  a  second  hand 
automobile  for  $337.00,  and  offered  to  take  Henrys' 
note  therefor,  provided  Henry  secured  an  additional 
signer  or  surety  on  the  note;  that  Henry  signed  the 
note  and  within  a  day  or  two  procured  the  sigiiature 
of  Jesse  Johnson  who  was  the  other  defendant  in  this 
case  but  is  not  an  appellant  on  this  appeal.  At  the 
time  of  this  transaction  Switzer  was  postmaster  and 
Henry  had  just  secured  an  appointment  as  a  mail  car- 
rier and  intended  using  the  car  purchased  on  his  mail 
route.  By  way  of  corroboration  of  his  theory  of  the 
case,  Appellee,  on  rebuttal,  introduced  the  testimony 
of  A.  6.  Liebe,  another  mail  carrier,  who  stated  that 
he  had  a  conversation  in  the  Post  Office  with  Henry 
shortly  after  he  purchased  the  car,  during  the  course 
of  which,  he  asked  Henry  where  he  got  the  means  to 
buy  a  car  and  Henry  replied,  in  effect,  that  he,  Henry, 
could  buy  a  car  in  the  same  manner  that  Liebe  had 
done,  by  giving  a  note  for  it.  Also,that  in  1924,  he  heard 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9025 

a  conversation  between  the  Appellee  and  Plenry  in  the 
postoffice  at  Piper  City  wherein  Switzer  asked  Henry 
why  he  could  not  make  monthly  payments  on  the  car 
the  same  as  Liebe  was  doing,  and  that  Henry  replied 
that  he  would  takci  care  of  it  and  that  Switzer  would 
get  his  money. 

The  Appellant,  Elden  C.  Henry,  testified  that  for 
many  years  prior  to  1918,  he  had  sold  commodities  to 
the  Appellee,  and  had  worked  for  him  at  his  home  and 
at  his  garage;  that  in  February  1918,  he  received  an 
appointment  as  rural  mail  carrier ;  that  on  the  16th  of 
February  he  had  a  meeting  with  Switzer  at  the  latters 
garage  for  the  purpose  of  figuring  up  their  respec- 
tive accounts ;  that  they  started  early  in  the  morning 
and  worked  until  late  in  the  evening  upon  the  ac- 
counts and  after  they  were  completely  finished  both 
parties  signed  the  statements ;  that  defendants  Exhibit 
1,  was  a  copy  of  a  statement'  made  out  by  Switzer  of 
Henrys'  account  and  was  in  Henrys'  hand  writing; 
that  he  purchased  a  Ford  Touring  car  from  Switzer 
the  same  day  defendant's  exhibit  1  was  executed  for 
the  sum  of  $337.00 ;  that  he  started  using  the  ear  on  his 
mail  route  the  follo^\'ing  Monday;  that  a  day  or  two 
later  Switzer  came  to  him  and  told  him  the  car  he, 
Henry,  had  purchased  was  a  trade  in,  that  he  could  not 
deliver  a  new  car  just  then,  that  he  had  to  satisfy  the 
purchaser  some  way,  and  would  Henry  give  him  a 
note  for  accomodation  to  satisfy  the  customer;  that 
Switzer  further  said  Henry  would  never  have  a  penny 
to  pay  on  the  note,  either  by  way  of  principal  or  in- 
terest, and  that  he  never  would  hear  about  the  note 
again;  that  thereupon,  Henry  signed  the  note  and  a 
day  or  two  later  Switzer  came  back  and  told  Henry 
the  note  required  security  on  it  and  asked  him  to  se- 
cure another  signer ;  that  he  at  first  demurred  but  upon 
being  further  pressed  by  Switzer  he  then  asked  Jesse 
Johnson  to  sign  the  note  and  after  Johnson  had  done 
so  he  returned  the  note  to  S^vitzer  with  both  signatures 
appearing  thereon ;  that  he  never  heard  anything  fur- 
ther about  the  note  until  along  about  1927,  when  he 
sold  a  car  for  Switzer  upon  the  promise  of  Switzer 
to  pay  him  half  of  the  commission  which  amounted  to 
about  $125.00;  that  after  making  such  sale  and  secur- 
ing the  cash  for  Switzer  he  asked  the  latter  to  pay 
him  his  commission  and  Appellee  replied  that  he  would 
pay  him  when  he,  Henry,  paid  Switzer.     He  denied 
having  promised  to  pay  for  the  car  in  the  presence  of 
the  witness  Liebe  or  admitting  to  Liebe  that  he  had 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9025 

given  a  note  in  payment  for  the  same.  All  of  the  ma- 
terial parts  of  Appellant's  testimony  was  denied  by 
Appellee.  Jesse  Johnson  testified  that  Henry  brought 
the  note  out  to  his  farm,  asked  him  to  sign,  and  that 
it  pertained  to  a  car. 

The  chief  controversy  in  the  case  arises  over  Def  end- 
ant 's  Exhibit  1.  A  great  deal  of  testimony  was  taken 
by  both  parties  and  much  space  in  the  briefs  devoted 
to  the  genuiness  of  this  exhibit.  Experts  who  showed 
considerable  knowledge  and  experience  in  examining 
questioned  documents  testified  on  each  side  of  the  case 
but  the  effect  of  their  proof  was  pretty  much  of  a  draw. 
In  his  rebuttal  testimony,  Switzer  admitted  the  signa- 
ture at  the  bottom  of  the  exhibit  was  his  but  denied  em- 
phatically that  the  material  above  his  signature  was 
placed  thereon  before  he  signed.  By  reason  of  this 
testimony  many  of  the  mtnesses  called  by  Appellant 
to  prove  his  signature  and  much  of  the  testimony  of 
the  experts  was  not  controlling.  There  are  manj^  in- 
consistencies in  the  testimony  of  both  parties  but  to 
recite  the  detail  would  unduly  prolong  this  opinion.  It 
would  be  unusual,  indeed,  if  incidents  and  conversa- 
tions happening  approximately  ten  or  fifteen  years  be- 
fore the  trial  could  be  remembered  accurately. 

Appellant  criticizes  the  trial  Court  severely  for  its 
rulings  on  the  admissibility  and  refusal  of  evidence. 
He  first  insists  the  court  committed  substantial  error 
in  refusing  Appellant  the  right  in  cross  examination  to 
ask  Appellee  about  what  efforts  he  had  made  to  collect 
the  note.  While  there  might  have  been  a  little  more 
latitude  granted  Appellant  in  such  examination  we  can 
hardly  see  how  they  were  injured  by  such  refusal.  The 
clear  inference  from  all  the  testimony  is  that  no  effort 
was  made  to  collect  the  note  except  that  disclosed  in  the 
record  and  both  Appellant  Henry  and  the  other  maker 
of  the  note,  Jesse  Johnson,  were  permitted  to  testify 
that  they  heard  nothing  about  the  note  until  the  Stat- 
ute of  Limitations  was  about  to  expire.  Again  Appel- 
lant says  in  his  brief  that  a  correct  decision  of  this  case 
depends  entirely  upon  the  queston: 

"Did  Elden  C.  Henry  erase  a  writing  over  the 
signature  C.  B.  Switzer  on  defendants  Exhibit  1,  and 
then  write  the  present  writing  above  the  signature' 
The  entire  case  hinges  on  that  question.  The  answer 
to  the  question  lies  in  the  testimony  of  Switzer, 
Faxon,  Henry,  Keeler,  Gavins  and  the  exhibit  itself, 
together  with  such  light  as  the  other  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances proven  may  throw  upon  the  question." 


Page  5  Gen.  No.  9025 

With  this  statement  we  entirely  agree  and  the  ques- 
tions of  law  discussed  in  the  brief  are  merely  incidental. 
The  controlling  question  in  the  case  is  one  of  fact.  The 
statements  of  Appellee  and  Appellant  are  in  direct 
conflict.  Appellants  complain  that  defendants  Exhibit 
1  was  not  admitted  in  evidence  but  the  record  shows 
that  after  repeated  offers  it  was  finallj'  admitted  sub- 
ject to  objection.  Many  other  offers  of  proof  and 
documentary  evidence  were  admitted  by  the  court  sub- 
ject to  objection  but  no  other  ruling  was  made  there- 
after and  we  assume  it  was  admitted  by  the  court  and 
considered  by  him  in  making  his  finding  in  the  case. 

Our  courts  have  frequently  said  that  when  the  trial 
court  saw  and  heard  the  witnesses,  with  the  oppor- 
tunity of  observing  them  while  testifyving,  a  re\'iewing 
court  would  attach  much  weight  to  the  findings  of  the 
trial  court  and  would  not  reverse  upon  mere  questions 
of  fact  unless  such  finding  was  palpably  erroneous. 
Baiter  v.  Rockabird,  118  111.  365.  In  this  case  it  ap- 
pears to  us  that  the  testimony  reasonably  supports  the 
finding  of  the  trial  judge.  It  would  seem  strange  that 
Appellant  a  few  days  after  he  had  purchased  the  car 
and  had  stated  an  account  with  Appellee,  would,  not 
only  sign  a  note  for  Appellee  covering  the  exact  pur- 
chase price  of  such  car,  but  would  also  go  out  of  his 
way  to  procure  another  signer  on  the  note  all  for  the 
accomodation  of  the  payee.  It  is  further  unusual  we 
think  if  defendants  Exhibit  1  had  been  fully  and  fairly 
entered  into  at  the  time  Appellant  purchased  the  ear, 
that  he  would  not  have  set  up  in  detail  in  his  affidavit 
filed  in  support  of  motion  to  open  up  the  judgment,  all 
the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the  account 
stated  which  specifically  included  the  purchase  price 
of  the  car.  Apparently  all  the  representations  con- 
cerning the  note  being  for  accomodation  only  were  not 
made  to  Jesse  Johnson  at  the  time  he  was  asked  to  sign 
the  note  as  surety  or  he  would  likely  have  remembered 
the  same.  We  do  not  feel  that  because  the  evidence 
in  the  case  was  conflicting  that  we  are  warranted  in 
substituting  our  judgment  for  that  of  the  trial  court 
and  for  the  reasons  stated  the  judgment  of  the  trial 
court  is  affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

(Seven  pages  in  original  opinion.) 


(20360—1-37     14)  <«^ 


c^' 


.C~s5i 


I'i 


lC^ 


Published  in  Abstract 

Arthur  F.  Lee,  Plaintiff-Appellant,  v.  Nondas  L.  Lee,      j^  j^J^  ,V_ 

Defendant-Appellee.  /    ^f  ^^yg^^j^^l^^ 


Appeal  from  Circuit  Court  of  Champaign  County. 

October  Teem,  A.  D.  1936. 

Gen.  No.  9002  Agenda  No.  8 


6  1 


Me.  Justice  Davis  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

This  is  an  appeal  by  Arthur  F.  Lee,  Plaintiff-Ap- 
pellant, from  a  decree  and  order  of  the  Circuit  Court 
of  Champaign  County  dismissing  his  amended  com- 
plaint for  divorce  for  want  of  equity. 

In  his  amended  complaint  he  charged  Nondas  L.  Lee, 
Defendant-Appellee,  his  wife,  with  being  guilty  of 
habitual  drunkenness  for  a  period  of  more  than  two 
years  prior  to  the  filing  of  his  complaint;  and  that  in 
the  month  of  May,  1935,  the  defendant,  Nondas  L.  Lee, 
infected  the  plaintiff,  Arthur  F.  Lee,  with  a  comuni- 
cable  venereal  disease ;  and  that  on  June  15,  1935,  said 
defendant  had  sexual  intercourse  with  a  man,  other 
than  the  plaintiff,  whose  name  is  known  to  said  plain- 
tiff, and  that  plaintiff  is  ready  and  willing  to  state  the 
name  of  said  person  when  called  upon  to  do  so ;  that 
the  said  Nondas  L.  Lee  committed  adultery  at  other 
times  prior  to  June  15,  1935,  with  numerous  persons 
whose  names  are  unknown  to  plaintiff. 

The  two  errors  relied  upon  for  a  reversal  of  the  de- 
cree and  judgment  of  the  court  are,  that  the  judgment 
of  the  court  is  against  the  law  and  the  weight  of  the 
evidence  on  the  charge  of  communicating  a  venereal 
disease  to  plaintiif  and  is  also  against  the  weight  of 
the  evidence  on  the  charge  of  adultery. 

No  serious  attempt  was  made  to  prove  the  charge 
of  habitual  drunkenness ;  both  the  plaintiff  and  the  de- 
fendant Avere  suffering  from  a  communicable  venereal 
disease,  and  the  evidence  is  not  sufiScient  to  lead  the 
court  to  believe  that  the  plaintiff  proved  by  a  pre- 
ponderance of  the  evidence  that  the  defendant  com- 
municated such  disease  to  the  plaintiff.  To  so  hold 
would  be  a  mere  matter  of  conjecture. 

Appellant  while  admitting  that  there  is  no  direct 
evidence  of  adultery  on  the  part  of  appellee,  or  direct 
evidence  of  communication  of  the  venereal  disease,  yet 
insists  that  a  very  sufficient  case  was  made  out  against 


fJ: 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9002 

appellee.  Where  the  charge  of  adultery  is  the  grounds 
for  divorce  in  a  suit  brought  by  the  husband  against 
his  Avife,  the  proof  must  be  clear  and  convincing. 

"It  being  important  to  the  well-being  of  society  that 
the  marriage  relation  should  not  be  severed,  where  a 
divorce  is  sought  from  a  wife  for  adultery,  the  proof 
to  warrant  a  decree  must  clearly  convince  the  mind 
affirmatively  that  actual  adultery  Avas  committed,  as 
nothing  short  of  the  carnal  act  can  lay  the  foundation 
for  such  divorce."  Eoef  v.  Eoef,  323  111.  170;  153  N. 
E.  Rep.,  658 ;  Blaise  v.  Blake,  70  111.  61S. 

These  parties  were  married  in  1927  and  have  two 
children,  a  boy  seven  years  old  and  a  girl  seventeen 
months  old.  "VVlien  plaintiff  left  the  defendant,  on  June 
18,  he  took  the  children  with  him. 

The  evidence  discloses  that  appellant  frequently 
went  to  road  houses  wiih.  his  wife  and  that  they  went 
whenever  they  wanted  to  in  the  winter  time.  It  also 
appears  that  Appellee  left  her  home  unaccompanied 
by  her  husband  night  times,  which  she  admits,  and 
states  that  on  the  first  and  third  Thursdays  of  the 
month  she  attended  the  Eebecca  Lodge  and  occasion- 
ally on  Wednesday  evenings  during  the  week  they  had 
staff  practice.  She  also  testified  that  she  attended  va- 
rious card  parties  or  had  gone  to  shows  with  some  one 
else.  She  was  an  officer  in  the  Rebecca  Lodge.  The 
evidence  discloses  and  appellee  admits  that  she  had 
visited  the  house  of  Peggy  Butts,  a  person  who  was 
the  keeper  of  a  disorderly  house,  on  two  nights.  Ap- 
pellee testified  that  Mrs.  Butts  called  her  over  on  two 
occasions  to  see  if  she  could  not  get  her  father-in-law 
to  make  a  loan  to  her.  She  was  there  on  one  other  oc- 
casion when  her  husband  called  for  her.  Peggy  Butts 
was  an  old  school  mate  and  acquaintance  of  appellee 
and  her  husband.  They  went  to  Urbana  High  School 
at  the  same  time.  On  the  occasion  she  was  there 
Mrs.  Butts  and  her  husband  were  there  and  she  was 
there  only  twenty  minutes.  She  did  not  just  walk  in, 
as  testified  to  by  a  witness,  but  rang  the  bell. 

Appellee  testified  that  she  took  Peggy  Butts  and  her 
husband  and  two  girls  to  a  road  house  near  Thomas- 
boro,  and  they  were  there  about  two  hours  when  she 
took  the  party  back  to  Champaign.  Wliile  there  she 
danced  with  Don  Bennett.  That  there  was  nothing 
immoral  or  improper  on  her  part. 

Appellant  testified  that  he  knew  Don  Bennett  and 
had  a  conversation  with  him  and  asked  him   about 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9002 

going  out  with  his  wife  on  Saturday  night,  June  15; 
I  asked  him  if  he  would  help  me  out  on  this  and  he 
said:  Well  would  you  give  me  an  agreement  not  to 
bring  suit  for  alienation  of  aifections  against  him  and 
after  that  I  gave  him  the  agreement.  He  said  he  met 
appellee  at  a  road  house  near  Thomasboro  and  that 
she  danced  with  him  a  couple  of  times  and  that  they 
then  got  in  my  car  and  went  south  of  Thomasboro  and 
then  west  on  a  dirt  road  and  parked  their  car  and  got 
out  and  they  had  intercourse.  There  Avas  a  written  state- 
ment made,  that  was  drawn  up  by  my  father  and 
signed  by  Don  Bennett,  in  which  he  stated  that  he  had 
taken  appellee  in  a  car  on  a  road  north  of  Champaign 
on  June  15,  1935,  and  indulged  in  sexual  intercourse 
with  her. 

All  of  this  incompetent  evidence  was  admitted  with- 
out objection  on  the  part  of  the  defendant.  After  the 
signing  of  this  statement  and  the  making  of  the  dec- 
laration by  Bennett,  the  plaintiff  took  his  deposition. 
After  the  plaintiff  rested  his  case,  without  reading 
the  deposition,  the  defendant  stated  to  the  court  that 
depositions  w^ere  taken  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  and 
that  they  are  now  a  part  of  the  records  of  the  court, 
and  we  w^ant  to  insist  that  the  deposition  be  produced 
and  used  as  evidence.  Plaintiff  refused  to  offer  the 
deposition  as  their  evidence.  The  court  refused  to 
compel  plaintiff  to  offer  the  testimony. 

The  defendant  then  offered  and  read  in  evidence  the 
deposition  of  Don  Bennett.  He  denied  that  there  was 
any  truth  in  the  statement  made  by  him,  and  denied 
that  he  had  ever  had  improper  relations  with  appellee. 
He  testified  that  after  he  had  signed  the  statement,  D. 
E.  Lee,  father  of  the  plaintiff,  gave  liim  two  dollars  and 
a  pint  of  Avhiskey  to  induce  him  to  get  a  date  with  ap- 
pellee. He  testified  that  she  refused  to  make  a  date 
with  him. 

Only  on  one  occasion  did  she  dance  with  any  man 
and  she  never  visited  road  houses,  except  in  the  com- 
pany of  other  women,  and  never  made  dates  or  was 
constantly  in  the  company  of  any  man. 

Disregarding  the  incompetent  evidence  that  was  ad- 
mitted, without  objection  on  the  part  of  appellee,  all 
that  remains  are  the  occasions  when  she  admits  she 
visited  road  houses  with  other  women  and  the  visits 
to  the  house  of  Peggy  Butts.  Appellee  denies  specifi- 
cally that  she  ever  had  improper  relations  with  any 
man  and,  so  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  she  only  did 
what  many  other  women  do,  visit  road  houses  and  dine 
and  dance  and  occasionally  drink. 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9002 

While  her  conduct  may  have  aroused  suspicion,  yet 
it  was  explained  by  her,  and  no  inference  of  adulterous 
relations  on  her  part  can  reasonably  be  drawn  from 
them,  and  the  charge  of  adulterly  must  fail. 

Appellant  was  arrested  about  midnight  in  Bess  Max- 
well's place,  who  ran  a  house  of  prostitution,  on  June 
4,  1934,  and  taken  to  the  police  station  and  charged 
with  visiting  and  patronizing  a  place  kept  and  main- 
tained disorderly,  where  he  gave  his  name  as  Oscar 
Dubree,  and  gave  bond,  and  defaulted  and  his  bond 
was  forfeited. 

From  a  careful  consideration  of  the  evidence  we  are 
of  opinion  that  it  fails  to  preponderate  in  favor  of  ap- 
pellant, and  falls  far  short  of  convincing  the  court  that 
actual  adultery  was  committed  by  appellee. 

For  the  reasons  given  the  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court 
of  Champaign  County  is  affirmed. 

Decree  affirmed. 

(Five  pages  in  original  opinion.) 


(20360—1-37     14)  «^g^.. 


1-ac^ 


Published  in  Abstkact 


Neal  D.   Reardon,   Executor   of  the   Last   Will  and 
Testament    of   Francis    Gerald    GrifSn    Reardon,   y 
Deceased,  Appellant,  v.  Abraham  Lincoln  Life 
Insurance  Company,  a  Corporation,  Appellee. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court  of  Jersey  Comdy^,     ^^ 

October  Teem,  A.  D.  1936.        '^  '^^    w 

Gen.  No.  9010  Agenda  No.  12 

Me.  Justice  Davis  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

Neal  D.  Reardon,  Executor  of  the  Last  Will  and 
Testament  of  Francis  Gerald  Griffin  Eeardon,  De- 
ceased, appellant,  sued  the  Abraham  Lincoln  Life  In- 
surance Company,  appellee,  in  the  circuit  court  of 
Jersey  county  on  a  policy  of  insurance,  to  recover  the 
commuted  value  of  the  policy,  amounting  to  the  sum 
of  $5,775.00.  The  court  upon  a  trial  of  said  cause  with- 
out a  jury  found  the  issues  in  favor  of  the  defendant, 
and  judgment  was  entered  on  the  finding,  that  plain- 
tiff take  nothing  by  his  suit  and  that  he  pay  the  costs 
in  due  course  of  administration.  This  is  an  appeal 
from  that  judgment. 

The  judgment  w^as  rendered  on  June  14,  1935.  On 
June  22,  1935,  and  within  ten  days  after  tinal  judg- 
ment, the  plaintitf  filed  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the 
circuit  court  the  following  motion: 

"This  22nd  day  of  June,  1935,  comes  the  plaintiff, 
by  its  attorney,  and  the  court,  having  heretofore  found 
the  issues  for  the  defendant,  the  plaintiff  moves  the 
court  for  a  judgment  in  his  favor ;  and  that  he  recover 
damages  by  him  sustained  by  reason  of  the  premises 
in  the  said  complaint  mentioned,  notmthstandiug  the 
finding  of  the  court,  ujoon  the  issues  above  joined  be- 
tween the  parties,  and  because  it  appears  to  him,'  that 
the  answer  of  the  said  defendant  is  not  sufficient  in 
law,  and  that  the  defendant  has  not'  fully  avoided  the 
cause  of  action  in  the  plaintiff's  complaint  mentioned, 
and  that  judgment  ought  td  be  given  for  the  plaintiff, 
notwithstanding  the  verdict  or  finding  of  the  court." 
On  January  2,  1936,  the  court  denied  the  motion  of 
plaintiff  for  judgment,  notwithstanding  the  verdict, 
and  the  cause  was  stricken.  This  motion  of  plaintiff  is 
in  the  nature  of  an  application  for  judgment  non  ob- 
stante veredicto  at  common  law. 


Da 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9010 

Sec.  68  (1)  of  the  Civil  Practice  Act  provides: 

"It  sliall  be  sufficient  for  the  jury  to  pronounce  their 
verdict,  by  their  foreman,  in  open  court,  ^^^thout  re- 
ducing the  same  to  writing  if  it  is  a  general  verdict, 
and  the  clerk  shall  enter  the  same  in  form,  under  the 
direction  of  the  court;  and  if  eitlier  party  may  wish 
to  move  for  a  new  tnal  or  in  arrest  of  judgment  or  for 
a  judgment  notwithstanding  the  verdict,  he  shall,  be- 
fore final  judgment  be  entered,  or  within  ten  days 
thereafter,  or  within  such  timo  as  the  court  may  allow 
on  motion  made  within  ten  days,  by  himself,,  or  coun- 
sel, file  the  points  in  writing,  particularly  specifying 
the  grounds  of  such  motion,  and  final  judgment  and 
execution  thereon  shall  thereupon  be  stayed  until  such 
motion  can  be  heard  by  the  court. ' ' 

This  section  has  no  application  to  cases;  tried  with- 
out a  jury.  The  motion  did  not  present  to  the  court 
for  its  determination  the  question  as  to  the  sufficiency 
of  defendant's  pleadings.  It  is  only  when  a  verdict  of 
the  jury  has  been  rendered  that  a  party  may  move  for 
a  judgment  notwithstanding  the  verdict.  Nori  did  the 
motion  have  the  effect  of  staying  final  judgment  and 
execution  thereon.  After  the  entry  of  a  final  judg- 
ment in  a  case  tried  without  a  jury,  no  question  as  to 
the  sufficiency  of  the  pleadings  can  be  raised  in  the 
trial  court.  Sfephcns-Adamson.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fireman's 
Ins.  Co.,  257  LI.  App.  443. 

Plaintiff  filed  his  notice  of  appeal  on  April  2,  1936, 
in  which  he  specified  that  hei  appealed  from  the  judg- 
ment of  the  court  entered  on  June  14,  1935,  wherein 
it  is  adjudged  that  plaintiff  take  nothing  by  his  said 
suit  and  that  he  pay  the  costs  in  due  course  of  admin- 
istration. He  also  appealed  from  the  order  of  Janu- 
ary 2,  1936,  denying  his  motion  for  judgment  notwith- 
standing the  verdict  or  finding  of  the  court,  and  in 
striking  said  cause  from  the  docket. 

No  appeal  shall  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  or  Appel- 
late courtt  after  the  expiration  of  ninety  days  from  en- 
try of  the  order,  decree,  judgment,  or  other  determina- 
tion complained  of,  except  upon  order  of  the  review- 
ing court.  Sec.  76,  Civil  Practice  Act ;  chap.  110,  par. 
204,  HI.  Stat.  Bar  1935;  Smith-Hurd  Ann.  St.,  chap. 
110,  sec.  200. 

The  judgment  entered  on  June  14,  1935,  was  a  final 
judgment  effective  as  of  that  date,  and  more  than 
ninety  days  elapsed  between  the  entry  of  the  judgment 
on  June  14,  1935,  and  April  2,  1936,  when  notice  of  ap- 
peal was  filed. 

The  appeal  f'-om  the  judgment  of  June  14,  1935,  not 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9010 

having  been  perfected  by  the  filing  of  a  Notice  of  Ap- 
peal within  ninety  days  from  the  entry  thereof,  we  are 
without  jurisdiction  to  review  the  same.  The  Circuit 
court  of  Jersey  county  did  not  err  in  denying  the  mo- 
tion of  plaintiff  for  judgment  notwithstanding  the 
verdict. 

The_  order  of  the  Circuit  court,  denying  the  motion 
of  plaintiff  for  judgment  notwithstanding  the  verdict 
or  finding  of  the  court,  not'  being  a  final  order  or  judg- 
ment, no  appeal  will  lie  therefrom.  The  appeal  "from 
the  judgment  of  June  14,  1935,  and  the  order  of  the 
court;  of  January  2,  1936,  denying  the  motion  of  plain- 
tiff for  judgment  notwithstanding  the  verdict,  are 
dismissed. 

Appeals  dismissed. 
(Three  pages  in  original  opinion) 


(2036O— 1-37     14) 


^1,  O  0 


L  /  V  :^'  7 


Published  in  Ab&tejICT 


Anna    Dachroth,    Plaintiff-Appellee,    v.    William    0, 

Reimbold,  Defendant-Appellant.    Earl  C.  Main, 

Defendant. 

Appeal  from  the  Circuit  Court  of  Hancock  County. 

October  Tekm,  A.  D.  1936.  2  ^    R     T 


Gen.  No.  9020 


Agenda  No.  18 


Mr.  Justice  Davis  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

Anna  Dachroth,  plaintiff-appellee,  filed  her  amended 
and  supplemental  complaint  against  William  C.  Reim- 
bold, in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Hancock  Count}%  praying 
a  judgment  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  Countv,  en- 
tered on  October  29,  1930  in  favor  of  W.  C.  Reimbold, 
Jr.,  and  against  E.  J.  Dachroth,  G.  F.  Dachroth  and 
Anna  Dachroth  for  the  sum  of  $221.5.00  and  costs  of 
suit,  be  declared  void  as  against  plaintiff.  She  after- 
wards made  Earl  C.  Main,  Sheriff  of  Hancock  County, 
a  party  defendant. 

On  March  8,  1936,  upon  a  hearing  of  said  cause  a 
decree  was  entered  in  which  said  judgment  was  de- 
clared null  and  void  as  to  plaintiff.  W.  C.  Reimbold, 
defendant-appellant,  appealed  from  said  decree. 

The  amended  complaint  set  out  that  E.  J.  Dachroth 
and  George  F.  Dachroth  made  their  certain  note  to 
the  First  Trust  &  Savings  Bank  of  Nauvoo,  calling  for 
the  sum  of  $2,000.00;  that  before  the  maturity  of  said 
note  said  First  Trust  &  Savings  Bank  of  Nauvoo  by 
G.  F.  Dachroth,  cashier,  assigned  said  note  to  WiUiam 
C.  Reimbold ;  that  the  note  became  due  on  September 
6,  1930,  but  was  not  paid  by  either  E.  J.  Dachroth  or 
G.  _F.  Dachroth;  that  thereafter,  the  said  William  C. 
Reimbold  induced  the  plaintiff,  Anna  Dachroth,  to  sign 
said  note  and  affix  her  signature  on  the  face 'thereof 
after  the  names  of  E.  Dachroth  and  G.  F.  Dachroth; 
that  there  was  no  consideration  for  plaintiff  signing 
her  name  to  said  note;  that  the  said  William  C.  Reim- 
bold knew  at  the  time  he  induced  plaintiff  to  sign  said 
note  that  she  was  not  indebted  to  him,  and  knew  that 
there  was  no  good  and  valid  consideration  for  so  do- 
ing ;  that  after  the  signing  of  said  note  by  the  plaintiff 
said  Reimbold  assigned  said  note  to  his  son,  William  C 
Reimbold,  Jr. ;  that  said  William  C.  Reimbold,  Jr.,  had 
notice  of  the  absence  of  any  consideration  for  the  sign- 


\j  tj-  %j' 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9020 

ing  of  said  note  by  the  plaintiff,  ajid  also  had  notice 
that  in  so  far  as  said  note  concerned  the  plaintiff  the 
same  was  invalid,  and  the  power  of  attorney  to  confess 
judgment  contained  therein  was  likewise  invalid. 

On  October  29,  1930,  a  judgment  was  rendered  by  the 
Superior  Court  of  Cook  County  against  the  plaintiff 
and  E.  J.  Dachroth  and  G.  F.  Dachroth  for  the  sum  of 
$2215.00;  that  the  same  was  rendered  by  confession 
upon  a  declaration,  cognovit  and  affidavit  of  the  exe- 
cution of  the  note,  a  certified  copy  of  which  declaration, 
cognovit  and   affidavit   and   original   note   thereto   at- 
tached is  filed  with  this  amended  and  supplemental 
complaint  and  made  a  part  hereof  the  same  as  if  in- 
corporated herein ;  that  thereafter,  on  October  4,  1934, 
there  was  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Hancock  County,  Illinois,  a  transcript  of  said 
judg-ment,  and  the  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court  issued  an 
execution  on  said  transcript  and  delivered  the  same  to 
Eay  Mosley,  the  Sheriff  of  said  county,  in  which  execu- 
tion the  sheriff  was  directed  to  collect  from  tlie  plain- 
tiff and  E.  J.  Dachroth  and  G.  F.  Dachroth  the  sum  of 
$2215.00  and  costs ;  that  said  sheriff  le-ied  said  execu- 
tion upon  real  estate  belonging  to  the  plaintiff,  and 
advertised  the  same  for  sale  on  December  14,  1934,  to 
the  highest  and  best  bidder;  that  at  the  time  that  said 
Wdham  C.  Reimbold,  Jr.,  recovered  judgment  in  the 
Superior  Court  of  Cook  County  by  confession  on  said 
note  he  knew  that  there  was  no  consideration  for  the 
signature  of  plaintiff  thereto,  and  knew  that  her  sign- 
ing the_  same  and  affixing  her  sig-nature  thereto  was 
done  without  any  consideration  whatever,  and  knew 
that  she  was  not  indebted  to  his  father  at  the  time  that 
she  affixed  her  signature  thereto ;  that,  because  of  the 
foregoing  facts,  the  entry  of  the  judgment  by  confes- 
sion was  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  the  plaintiff   and 
said  Reimbold  Avas  guilty  of  fraud  in  recovering'  said 
,]u%ment  against  plaintiff,  and  that  the  Superior  Court 
of  Cook  County  did  not  acquire  any  jurisdiction  over 
die  person  of  the  plaintiff;  that  there  was  no  cognovit 
filed  m  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  County  to  confess 
judgment  in  favor  of  William  C.  Reimbold,  Jr.  ao-ainst 
plaintiff  and  no  cognovit  which  authorized 'oi^  per- 
mitted the  rendition  of  any  judgment  in  said  cause  for 
any  amount,  and  that  the  attempted  or  purported  co-- 
uovit  was  made  the  purported  basis  of  said  judgment 
and  did  not  authorize  the  rendition  of  any  judgment  in 
any  amount     Plaintiff  demanded  judgment^gainst 
^\illiam  C.  Reimbold,  Jr.,  and  prayed  that  a  decree  be 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9020 

entered  enjoining  and  restraining  Earl  Main,  as 
sheriff,  from  levying  said  execution  so  issued  on  the 
premises  described  in  her  complaint  and  from  en- 
deavoring to  collect  said  transcript  of  judgment  or  any 
part  thereof  from  the  real  estate  of  the  plaintiff,  and 
that  a  decree  may  be  entered  declaring  the  judgment 
of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  County  in  favor  of 
William  C.  Reimbold,  Jr.,  against  the  plaintiff  and  the 
transcript  thereof  to  be  void,  and  that  said  transcript 
may  be  cancelled  and  annulled  and  that  the  title  oi 
plaintiff  to  said  real  estate  be  relieved  from  said  cloud 
by  a  decree  of  this  court. 

Appellant  contends  that  the  court  erred  in  decreeing 
that  the  judgment  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook 
County,  the  transcript  thereof  filed  in  Hancock  County, 
the  execution  thereon,  the  levy,  sale  of  real  estate  and 
certificate  of  purchase  were  all  null  and  void. 

Appellee  insists  that  there  was  no  consideration  for 
her  signing  the  note.  That  the  evidence  shows  that 
after  the  note  became  due,  the  bank  closed  its  doors 
and  William  C.  Eeimbold  began  pressing  the  makers 
for  payment.  That  the  evidence  of  Reimbold,  Sr.,  the 
only  testimony  introduced  by  appellant  on  the  question, 
does  not  show  that  Mrs.  Dachroth  signed  the  note  on  a 
promise  that  the  note  would  not  be  put  in  judgment, 
and  even  if  he  had  said  if  you  sign  the  note  I  will  not 
put  it  in  judgment,  it  would  not  be  a  good  consideration 
because  no  time  was  fixed  nor  was  there  anything  from 
which  it  could  be  inferred,  that  an  agreement  to  for- 
bear need  not  be  for  a  definite  time,  if  it  shows  the 
parties  agreed  upon  a  reasonable  time,  but  one  or  the 
other  must  be  present,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  agree- 
ment not  to  put  the  note  in  judgment  or  refrain  from 
doing  something  that  would  benefit  appellee  or  her 
sons,  there  would  be  no  consideration  for  her  signing 
the  note.  That  appellee  having  signed  the  note  without 
consideration  the  note  and  power  of  attorney  were  in- 
valid as  to  her  and  for  this  reason  the  Superior  Court 
of  Cook  County  did  not  acquire  jurisdiction  of  her 
person  in  confession  of  judgment  proceeding,  and  the 
judgment  against  her  was  void.  That  when  a  note  is 
given  without  consideration  there  is  no  cause  of  action 
under  the  note.  There  is  no  debt  and  the  note  is 
invalid. 

Appellee  also  contends  that  appellant  was  also 
chargeable  with  notice  of  lack  of  consideration  and 
committed  a  fraud  on  the  court  when  he  confessed 
judgment.  That  he  having  acquired  the  note  after 
maturity  he  was  not  a  holder  in  due  course  and  in  law 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9020 

appellant  knew  as  his  father  had  known  that  there  was 
no  consideration  for  the  signature  of  Anna  Daehroth. 
The  legal  effect  therefore,  of  appellant  going  into 
court  and  taking  judgment  by  confession  on  a  note 
that  in  law  he  knew  was  not  the  note  of  Anna  Daehroth, 
amounted  to  a  legal  fraud  upon  the  court  and  rendered 
the  judgment  whollj^  void  and  subject  to  collateral 
attack. 

It  is  also  insisted  by  appellee  that  the  cognovit  and 
other  papers  filed  in  the  Superior  Court  as  the  basis  of 
the  confession  of  judgment  were  so  defective  they  did 
not  give  the  court  jurisdiction.  That  a  number  of 
blanks  were  unfilled.  The  cognovit  does  not  confess 
judg-ment  nor  does  it  confess  that  the  plaintiff  has  sus- 
tained the  damages  mentioned  in  tlie  declaration ;  that 
it  does  not  confess  judgment  for  any  amount. 

It  is  a  well  settled  rule  that  a  court  of  equity  vdll 
grant  relief  against  a  judgment  which  is  against  con- 
science, or  the  justice  of  which  can  be  impeached  by 
facts,  or  on  grounds  of  which  the  party  could  not  avail 
himself,  at  law,  or  of  which  he  was  prevented  from 
availing  himself  by  fraud,  accident,  or  mistake.  While 
a  court  of  equity  will  relieve  against  a  judgment  pro- 
cured by  fraud,  accident  or  mistake,  no  aid  wiU  be 
extended  merely  for  errors  intervening  in  the  proo-ress 
of  the  cause  or  the  entry  of  the  judgment.  AUeanza 
Tfahana  v.  Carmda  Papa,  et  al,  204  111.  App  343  A 
court  of  equity  has  the  undoubted  power  to  entertain 
a  bill  to  impeach  a  decree  or  judgment  of  anv  court 
obtained  by  fraud,  and  if  the  allegations  and  proof  are 
sulhcient  the  decree  or  judgment  may  be  vacated. 
i*  rench  v.  Thomas,  et  al,  252  III.  65,  96  N.  E  564 

Courts  of  equity  will  not,  however,  set  aside  a  decree 
upon  the  ground  that  it  was  obtained  by  false  evidence, 
but^only  for  fraud  which  gives  a  court  colorable  juris- 
diction over  the  defense  presented.  As  in  all  other 
cases,  where  fraud  is  alleged,  the  proof  must  be  clear 
and  satisfactory.  Evans  v.  Woodstvorth  213  III  404 
<2  N.  E.  1082.  ' 

a  Svff  Tf ''^'''^^?f  ^°"  ^^'  ''^'''S  «f  «  ^«te  is 
a  matter  of  defenseon  the  trial  of  the  cause  in  the  case 

of  a  judgment  obtained  by  confession  bv  virtue  of  the 

authority  contained  in  a  power  of  attorney  should  be 

leave  to  plead  and  cannot  be  taken  advantage  of  by  a 
complaint  m  chancery.  In  this  case  the  judgment  was 
VX  iV'  "  S"P-io^- Court  of  Cook  Co^untf  oii  02- 
ber  29,  19o0,  and  the  levy  was  made  on  October  26, 


Page  5  Gen.  No.  9020 

1934,  on  the  property  of  plaintiff,  on  the  execntion  is- 
sued on  the  transcript  of  judgment,  and  it  is  contended 
by  appellee  that  she  had  no  knowledge  of  such  judg- 
ment until  that  time.  There  is  proof  however  by  ap- 
pellant that  on  December  26,  1930,  Anna  Dachrotli  was 
served  with  a  summons,  complaint,  affidavit  of  attach- 
ment, undertaking  and  writ  of  attachment  in  an  attach- 
ment proceeding  instituted  in  the  District  Court,  Sec- 
ond Judicial  District,  in  the  State  of  North  Dakota, 
wherein  W.  C.  Reimbold,  Jr.,  was  plaintiff  and  Anna 
Dachroth,  et  al,  were  defendants,  wliich  appellant 
claims  was  a  suit  upon  the  Cook  County  judgment. 
Only  the  writ  of  attachment  was  introduced  in  evi- 
dence, which  did  not  refer  directly  to  the  judgment  of 
the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  County.  The  suit  was  be- 
tween the  same  parties  and  the  amount  claimed  was 
$2,235.00. 

The  testimony  of  Mrs.  Dachroth  was  very  unsatis- 
factory as  to  when  she  first  heard  about  thejudg-ment 
taken  in  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  County.  She  is 
quite  old  and  apparently  forgetful,  and  the  fact  that 
she  had  learned  of  the  judgment  within  the  last  few 
months  prior  to  the  taking  of  her  deposition  on  Au- 
gust 16,  1935,  was  elicited  by  leading  and  suggestive 
questions  on  the  part  of  her  attorney.  G.  F.  Dachroth, 
son  of  appellee,  testified  that  he  heard  that  a  judgment 
had  been  taken  on  the  note  in  Chicago,  Illinois.  That 
he  was  in  Joliet  because  of  trouble  arising  with  his 
connection  with  the  Nauvoo  bank.  He  was  served  with 
something  and  knew  some  proceedings  had  been  taken 
on  the  note.  We  are  of  opinion  that  plaintiff  failed 
to  prove,  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  the  alle- 
gation in  her  complaint,  that  she  had  no  notice  of  said 
judgment  until  the  pretended  transcript  thereof  was 
filed  in  Hancock  County,  Illinois,  and  a  levy  made  upon 
her  real  estate  on  October  26,  193-1:. 

In  her  charge  that  appellant  committed  a  fraud  on 
the  court  when  he  confessed  judgment  because  he  ac- 
quired the  note  after  maturity  and  was  not  a  holder 
in  due  course  and  in  law  he  knew  as  his  father  had 
known  that  there  was  no  consideration  for  the  signa- 
ture of  Mrs.  Dachroth,  appellee  assumes  that  there 
was  no  consideration  while  the  evidence  discloses  this 
to  be  a  controverted  question,  appellant  claiming  that 
Mrs.  Dachroth  placed  her  sig-nature  on  the  note  for  a 
good  consideration  and  appellee  denies  such  claim 
Appellant  committed  no  fraud  upon  the  court  by  taking 
a  judgment  by  confession  against  appellee  because  of 


Page  6  Gen.  No.  9020 

the  fact  that  he  was  not  a  holder  of  the  note  in  due 
course  and  was  therefore  charged  with  the  knowledge 
that,  as  claimed  by  appellee,  the  note  and  power  of 
attorney  were  void  as  to  her. 

In  the  case  of  Ward  v.  Durham,  134  111.  195,  25  N.  E. 
745,  where  a  claimant  filed  his  claim  against  an  estate, 
our  Supreme  Court  in  its  opinion  said :  The  complaint 
is,  that  she  did  not  inform  the  court  of  facts  which 
would,  it  is  said,  have  defeated  her  claim, — in  other 
words,  did  not  herself  interpose  the  defenses  which 
the  executrix  and  her  attorneys,  through  negligence, 
had  seen  fit  to  w^aive.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  note 
had  in  any  way  been  paid  or  satisfied.  There  was 
nothing  immoral,  unjust  or  inequitable  in  her  collect- 
ing it,  if  the  makers  or  their  representatives  chose  to 
pay  it  or  waive  defenses  to  it. 

To  entitle  a  defendant  to  relief  against  a  judgment 
or  decree  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  accident  or  mistake, 
it  must  be  made  evident  that  he  had  a  defense  on  the 
merits,  and  that  such  defense  has  been  lost  to  him, 
Avithout  such  loss  being  attributable  to  his  own  omis- 
sion, negligence  or  default.  The  loss  of  a  defense,  to 
justify  a  court  of  equity  in  removing  a  judgment,  must 
in  all  cases  be  occasioned  by  the  fraud  or  act  of  the 
prevailing  party,  or  by  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  los- 
ing party,  unmixed  with  any  fault  of  himself  or  agent. 

Mere  irregularity,  or  the  insisting  upon  rights  which, 
upon  a  due  investigation  of  those  rights,  might  be 
found  to  be  overstated  or  over  estimated,  is  not  the 
kind  of  fraud  which  will  authorize  a  court  of  equitj^  to 
set  aside  a  judgment. 

Even  though  it  be  conceded  that  there  was  no  con- 
sideration moving  to  appellee  for  placing  her  name  up- 
on the  note,  and  appellant  knew  that  fact,  he  could  not 
be  charged  with  perpetrating  a  fraud  upon  the  court 
by  taking  judgment,  as  want  of  consideration  is  a  de- 
fense which  might  or  might  not  be  interposed  and  that 
could  be  taken  advantage  of  by  a  motion  to  set  aside 
the  judgment  and  for  leave  to  plead.  We  are  of  opin- 
ion that  appellant  did  not  perpetrate  a  fraud  upon  the 
Superior  Court  of  Cook  County  in  obtaining  the 
judgment. 

As  for  the  contention  of  appellee  that  the  cognovit 
and  other  papers  filed  in  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook 
County  as  a  basis  of  the  confession  of  judgment  were 
so  defective  they  did  not  give  the  court  jurisdiction,  it 
appears  from  the  certified  copy  of  the  declaration  and 
cognovit  filed  with  and  made  a  part  of  appellee's 
amended  and  supplemental  complaint  that  judgment 


Page  7  Geu.  No.  9020 

Avas  entered  by  confession  at  the  October  Term,  1930, 
of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  County,  and  on  the  29th 
day  of  October.  A  declaration  was  filed  together  Avith 
a  cognovit  in  Avhich  Anna  Dachroth  appeared  by  Ar- 
thur U.  Maina,  her  attorney,  and  waived  service  of 
process  and  stated  that  she  could  not  deny  the  action 
of  plaintiif. 

The  same  presumptions  will  be  indulged  in  favor  of 
a  judgment  by  confession  entered  in  term  time  upon  a 
cognoAdt  as  are  indulged  in  the  case  of  original  judg- 
ments of  courts  of  general  jurisdiction.  There  being 
no^  bill  of  exceptions  filed  in  the  case  the  presumption 
arises  that  the  necessary  proof  Avas  introduced  to  sus- 
tain the  judgment.  "vVlien  a  court  of  general  jurisdic- 
tion has  proceeded  to  adjudicate  and  render  judgment 
in  a  matter  before  it,  all  reasonable  intendments  Avill  be 
indulged  in  favor  of  its  jurisdiction.  Boijlcs  v.  Chy- 
traus,  175  111.  370,  51  N.  E.  563. 

It  is  a  settled  rule  of  laAv  that  the  record  of  a  court 
shoAving  a  judgment  hy  confession  in  open  court,  im- 
ports verity,  and  can  not  be  contradicted  by  parole 
evidence.  The  record  of  such  judgment  is  the  only 
proper  evidence  of  itself,  and  is  conclusive  evidence 
of  the  fact  of  the  rendition  of  the  judgment,  and  of  all 
the  legal  consequences  resulting  from  that  fact,  both 
as  against  the  parties  to  the  judgment  and  all  others 
Avhose  interests  may  be  affected  thereby.  Wcigley  v 
Matson,  et  al,  125  111.  64,  16  N.  E.  831.  In  the  absence 
of  a  bill  of  exceptions  the  presumption  is  that  the  court 
heard  testimony  as  to  the  amount  due  and  that  the 
evidence  heard  by  the  court  was  ample  to  sustain  the 
judgment.    MiUer  v.  Glass,  118  111.  443,  8  N.  E.  833. 

The  record  in  this  case  shoAvs  that  a  declaration  was 
filed  by  the  plaintiff  and  a  cognovit  by  Anna  Dachroth, 
by  her  attorney  Arthur  U.  Maina,  waiv-ing  service  of 
process,  and  admitting  that  she  could  not  deny  the 
action  of  the  plaintiff,  nor  that  he  had  sustained 
damages  on  the  occasion  of  the  non-performance  of 
tile  several  promises  in  the  declaration  mentioned  and 
although  the  cognovit  did  not  confess  judgment  for  any 
stated  amount  the  presumption  is  that  the  court  had 
before  it  the  note  and  warrant  of  attorney  and  proof 
of  the  execution  thereof  and  all  other  facts  necessary 
to  the  entering  of  the  judgment. 

We  are  of  opinion  that  the  circuit  court  of  Hancock 
county  erred  in  entering  the  decree  declaring  null  and 
A^oid  the  judgment  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook 
County,  as  to  appellee.     The  decree  is  therefore  re- 


Page  8  Gen.  No.  9020 

versed  and  the  cause  remanded  to  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Hancock  county,  with  dirctions  to  dismiss  the  com- 
plaint for  want  of  equity. 

Reversed  and  remanded  with  directions. 

(Ten  pages  in  original  opinion.) 


(20360—1-37     14) 


J^ 


/  c... 

> 

/? 


.4  i?  '^ 


Published  in  Absteact 


Harold  E.  Pinnell,  PlaintifF  and  Appellee,  v.  0.  L./ 

Langellier,  doing  business  under  the  name  and 

style  of  Langellier  Motor  Company,  Defendant 

and  Appellant,  and  Everett  K.  Brooker, 

Defendant. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court  of  Logan  County. 


OcTOBEE  Teem,  A.  D.  1936. 


•O 

n 


Gen.  No,  9026 


Agenda  No.  21 


Me.  Justice  Davis  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 
This  is  an  appeal  by  0.  L.  Langellier,  doing  business 
under  the  name  and  style  of  Laugellier  Motor  Com- 
pany, one  of  the  defendants  and  appellants,  from  a 
judgment  for  $1200.00,  entered  in  the  circuit  court  of 
Logan  county,  in  favor  of  Harold  E.  Pimiell,  plaintiff- 
appellee,  and  against  the  appellant  and  Everett  K. 
Brooker,  defendant. 

The  defendant  Brooker  resided  at  Mt.  Pulaski,  Illi- 
nois, and  was  engaged  in  handling  Texaco  products 
and  running  a  Texaco  filling  station.  On  February  13, 
1935,  he  left  there  in  a  1934  Ford  V-8  automobile  to 
dnve  to  Delavan,  Illinois.  After  passing  Hartsburg, 
Illinois,  on  the  way  to  Delavan  he  collided  with  a  car 
driven  by  Frank  E.  Stevenson,  in  which  plaintiff-ap- 
pellee was  riding.  Appellant  was  not  in  the  car  driven 
by  Brooker,  nor  was  he  at  the  scene  of  the  accident. 
The  plaintiff  charges  that  the  motor  vehicle  was  then 
and  there  driven  and  operated  by  Brooker  as  agent  or 
servant  of  appellant. 

Appellant  by  his  appeal  raises  the  question  of 
agency  and  insists  that  the  defendant  Brooker  was  an 
independent  contractor  and  not  agent  or  servant  of 
appellant,  and  that,  even  had  Brooker  been  agent  or 
employee  of  appellant,  still  at  the  time  of  the  happen- 
mg  of  the  accident  he  was  not  acting  in  the  scope  of  his 
employment. 

Appellant  had  been  operating  a  Ford  agency  at  Lin- 
coln, Illinois,  under  the  name  of  Langellier  Motor 
Company.  On  August  18,  1934,  he  entered  into  a  con- 
tract with  the  defendant,  Everett  K.  Brooker  which 
was  headed  "Sub-Dealer's  Agreement,"  authorized 


633 


r' 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9026 

by  the  Ford  Motor  Company.  It  contained  several 
numbered  provisions,  and  the  Langellier  Motor  Com- 
pany was  called  "Dealer,"  and  the  defendant,  Brooker, 
was  called  ' '  Sub-Dealer. ' ' 

Provision,  numbered  1,  of  the  contract  reads : 

"(1)  The  dealer  ynW  sell  and  sub-dealer  will  buy 
Ford  automobiles,  trucks  and  chassis  at  a  discount  of 
fifteen  percent  (15%)  from  the  established  price  list, 
f.o.b.  Detroit;  sub-dealer  to  handle  cars  taken  in  trade, 
if  any. ' '  Other  provisions  of  the  contract  were  in  rela- 
tion "to  Ford  parts,  free  service,  maintenance  of  place 
of  business,  signs  and  advertising,  and  cancellation  and 
other  provisions  which  had  no  bearing  on  the  relation 
existing  between  appellant  and  the  defendant  Brooker. 
It  was  executed  by  E.  L.  Langellier  on  behalf  of  the 
Langellier  Motor  Company  and  by  Everett  K. 
Brooker.  R.  L.  Langellier  was  manager  of  the  Langel- 
lier Motor  Company,  of  Lincoln,  Illinois. 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  that,  on  the  morning 
of  February  13,  1935,  Brooker  went  to  Lincoln  to  the 
place  of  business  of  the  Langellier  Motor  Company 
with  Page  Waddell,  who  lived  at  Mt.  Pulaski.  Brooker 
and  the  Langellier  Motor  Company  had  traded  with 
Waddell  for  the  1934  Ford,  V-8  automobile,  that 
Brooker  Avas  driving  at  the  time  of  the  accident.  "Wad- 
dell delivered  it  to  the  Langellier  Motor  Companv  for 
a  1935  two-door  V-8  Ford.  They  had  traded  with  Wad- 
dell about  two  weeks  before.  Mr.  Langellier  appraised 
the  car.  Brooker  took  the  1934  Ford  back  to  Mt. 
Pulaski,  that  had  been  traded  for.  A  man  by  the  name 
of  Blackford,  shortly  after  he  heard  that  Brooker  had 
traded  with  Waddell,  said  he  was  interested  in  that 
automobile,  knoAving  the  car.  He  told  Brooker  he 
wanted  him  to  demonstrate  the  car,  and  Brooker  took 
it  back  so  he  could  demonstrate  it  to  Blackford. 

Robert  Langellier  gave  Brooker  permission  to  take 
the  auto  and  to  sell  it  the  best  way  possible.  When 
Brooker  asked  him  about  taking  the  car,  he  said :  "Yes, 
go  right  ahead. ' '  Brooker  had  told  him  about  Black- 
ford. Any  cars  that  Brooker  o-nmed  he  paid  for  the 
gas  and  oil  used,  but  he  did  not  always  pay  for  the 
upkeep  and  maintenance  of  cars  he  was  selling  for 
other  people.  He  generally  went  out  to  try  to  sell  a 
car,  and  then  brought  it  back.  He  received  a  slight 
commission,  and  any  cars  that  Langellier  had  on  the 
floor  he  allowed  Brooker  to  sell  on  a  commission  basis. 
Wlien  he  got  back  to  Mt.  Pulaski  he  met  Blackford  in 
the  afternoon  and  got  him  and  drove  out  with  him  a 
distance  of  about  four  miles,  and  Blackford  said  he 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9026 

could  not  stay  any  longer,  and  said  they  were  going  to 
Delavan  that  night  and  he  would  drive  the  car  some 
more. 

Between  6 :30  and  7  :00  o  'clock  Brooker,  Fred  Lipp, 
Fred  Zimmerman,  Cecil  McVey  and  Henry  Blackford 
started  to  go  to  Delavan.  They  got  to  Lincoln  and 
picked  up  Daniel  Cummings.  These  boys  were  an  in- 
dependent basket  ball  team  and  they  were  going  to  Del- 
avan to  play  basket  ball.  There  were  generally  seven  on 
the  team.  It  was  organized  in  the  fall  of  1934,  and  dur- 
ing the  winter  they  played  a  number  of  games  in  sur- 
rounding to^^^ls.  Brooker  usually  took  them  The  team 
was  called  Texaco  and  had  ' '  Texaco ' '  on  their  uniforms 
and  Brooker  loaned  them  the  money  to  buy  their  uni- 
forms. Brooker  was  not  manager  of  the  team  but  was 
veiy  much  interested  in  the  team  advertising  the 
Texaco  business.  It  was  very  foggy  that  night  and  it 
was  almost  impossible  to  see.  Fred  Zimmerman  and 
Blackford  and  Brooker  were  in  the  front  seat,  and  the 
other  three  boys  were  in  the  back  seat.  Blackford 
said  he  would  a  little  rather  Brooker  would  drive  being 
it  was  a  rather  bad  night  and  he  would  drive  home, 
but  he  did  not  drive  the  car. 

It  is  evident  from  the  testimony  that  the  193-t  Ford 
car  that  defendant  was  driving  at  the  time  of  the  acci- 
dent was  the  property  of  the  Langellier  Motor  Com- 
pany and  that  Brooker  had  obtained  the  car  from  ap- 
pellant to  find  a  buyer  for  the  same.  At  the  time  the 
trade  was  made  with  Page  Waddell  about  two  weeks 
before  the  delivery  to  him  of  the  1935  two-door  Ford 
V-8  car,  Langellier  appraised  the  1934  Ford  V-8  car 
and  fixed  the  price  at  which  it  was  to  be  taken,  and 
when  the  new  car  arrived  he  telephoned  Brooker  to 
bring  Waddell  and  get  the  new  car.  The  new  car  was 
delivered  to  V/addell  and,  upon  request  of  Brooker, 
Robert  Langellier  permitted  him  to  take  the  1934  Ford 
to  sell  and  so  far  as  this  particular  transaction  was 
concerned  Brooker,  in  the  sale  of  the  car,  acted  as  the 
agent  of  the  Langellier  Motor  Company.  In  the  case 
of  Nelson  v.  Stiitz  Chicago  Factory  Branch,  341  111  387 
173  N.  E.  368,  it  is  said: 

"The  general  rule  is,  that  one  who  is  injured  by  an- 
other's negligence  must  pursue  his  remedy  against  the 
person  whose  negligence  caused  the  injury.  "V^liere, 
however,  the  relation  of  master  and  servant  exists  be- 
tween the  person  guilty  of  the  negligence  and  another 
sought  to  be  held  for  the  resulting  damages,  the  negli- 
gence of  the  servant  may  be  imputed  to  the  master,  and 
he  may  be  held  liable  for  the  resulting  damages  if  the 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9026 

servant  guilty  of  the  negligence  was  at  the  time  acting 
in  the  master's  business  and  within  the  scope  of  his  em- 
ployment. Outside  the  scope  of  his  employment  the 
servant  is  as  much  a  stranger  to  his  master  as  any 
third  person." 

From  a  careful  consideration  of  the  evidence  we  are 
of  opinion  that  at  the  time  of  the  accident  Brooker  was 
not  acting  within  the  scope  of  his  employment.  He  was 
taking  members  of  a  basketball  team  in  which  he  was 
very  much  interested  to  Delavan  where  a  game  was 
scheduled. 

Henry  Blackford  was  one  of  the  occupants  of  the  car 
and  a  member  of  the  team.  He  was  an  occupant  of  the 
car  because  he  was  a  member  of  the  team  and  was  go- 
ing to  Delavan  to  play,  and  any  arrangements  that 
might  have  been  made  by  Brooker  for  him  to  drive  the 
car  as  a  prospective  purchaser  was  only  incidental  to 
the  purpose  of  the  trip  and  could  in  no  way  have  been 
any  part  of  any  business  transaction  in  which  appellant 
was  interested.    Canavan  v.  Canavan,  271  111.  App.  558. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  court  did  not  err  in  entering 
judgment  against  the  defendant,  Everett  K.  Brooker, 
on  the  verdict  of  the  jury;  but  the  court  erred  in  en- 
tering judgment  on  the  verdict  against  the  defendant, 
0.  L.  Langellier.  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  verdict  of 
the  jury  as  against  the  defendant,  0.  L.  Langellier,  ia 
contrary  to  the  manifest  weight  of  the  evidence  and 
that  the  evidence  fails  to  disclose  that  at  the  time  of 
the  accident  the  defendant,  Everett  K.  Brooker,  the 
driver  of  the  car,  was  acting  in  his  master's  business 
and  ^^^thin  the  scope  of  his  employment. 

Our  conclusion  is  that  the  judgment  of  the  circuit 
court  of  Logan  county  must  be  reversed  as  to  the  de- 
fendant, 0.  L.  Langellier,  and  sustained  as  to  the  de- 
fendant, Brooker.  Since  the  adoption  of  the  Civil 
Practice  Act  the  rule  that  a  judgment  against  two  or 
more  is  a  unit  and,  if  reversed  as  to  one  must  be  re- 
versed as  to  all,  does  not  hold  good.  Foqel  v  1324 
North  Clark  St.  Bldg.  Corp.  et  al,  278  111.  App.  286.'^ 

Section  92  (f )  of  the  Civil  Practice  Act,  Chap  110 
Par.  220,  Sec.  92  (f )  111.  State  Bar  Stats.  1935.  Smith- 
Hurd  Ann.  St.  Ch.  110,  Sec.  216  (f)  provides  in  part 
as  follows: 

"In  all  appeals  the  reviewing  court  may,  in  its  dis- 
cretion and  on  such  terms  as  it  deems  just^ " 

"(f).  Give  any  judgment  and  make  any  order  which 
ought  to  have  been  given  or  made,  and  make  such  other 
and  further  orders  and  grant  such  relief,  includin"-  a 


Page  5  Gen.  No.  9026 

remandment,  a  partial  reversal,  the  order  of  a  partial 
new  trial,  the  entry  of  a  remittitur,  or  the  issuance  of 
execution,  as  the  case  may  require." 

The  judgment  of  $1,200.00  rendered  by  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Logan  county  against  0.  L.  Langellier  and 
Everett  K.  Brooker  is  reversed  as  to  said  0.  L.  Langel- 
lier, but  affirmed  as  to  said  Brooker. 

Judgment  reversed  as  to  one  defendant  but  affirmed 
as  to  the  other  defendant. 

(Six  pages  in  original  opinion.) 


(20360—1-37     14) 


-■ct 


Published  in  Abstract 

J.   Wilbur  Lupton,   Administrator   of  the   estate 
Lowell  Gene  Lupton,  deceased,  Appellee,  v./ 
H.  A.  Bonser,  Appellant. 


Appeal  from  Circuit  Court,  Shelby  County. 

o 


Gen.  No.  9004 


Agenda  No.  9 


^1-R:  Justice  Eiess  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

This  is  an  appeal  from  a  judgment  in  the  sum  of 
$5,000.00  rendered  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  Shelby 
County  in  favor  of  J.  Wilbur  Lupton,  Administrator 
of  the  estate  of  Lowell  Gene  Lupton,  deceased,  the  Ap- 
pellee, hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Plaintiff,  and 
against  H.  A.  Bonser,  the  Appellant,  hereinafter  re- 
fered  to  as  the  Defendant.  Eecovery  was  had  by  the 
Plaintiff  for  the  benefit  of  the  next  of  kin  of  Plain- 
tiff's intestate  Lowell  Gene  Lupton,  in  an  action  aris- 
ing out  of  the  alleged  negligent  operation  of  Defend- 
ant's automobile,  resulting  in  the  death  of  said  named 
decedent. 

The  complaint  consists  of  four  counts:  the  first 
charging  general  negligence  and  the  third  alleging  sev- 
eral specific  charges  of  negligence.  The  second  and 
fourth  counts,  upon  which  verdicts  of  not  guilty  were 
returned,  charged  the  Defendant  with  wanton  and 
reckless  misconduct  in  operating  the  automobile  in 
question. 

The  third  count  charges  the  defendant  with  care- 
lessly, negligently  and  improperly  operating  his  auto- 
mobile at  a  speed  greater  than  was  reasonable  and 
proper,  having  regard  for  the  condition  of  the  traffic 
and  the  use  of  the  way,  and  so  as  to  endanger  the  life 
or  limb  or  injure  the  property  of  other  persons ;  mth 
negligent  failure  to  keep  a  reasonable  lookout  for 
other  persons  using  said  public  highway;  to  give 
reasonable  warning  of  his  approach  to  plaintiff 's"  in- 
testate; to  use  every  reasonable  precaution  to  avoid 
injuring  him  at  the  time  and  place  in  question,  and  in 
so  negligently  failing  to  have  his  automobile  under 
proper  control,  so  as  to  avoid  unnecessary  injury  to 
the  person  or  property  of  others  using  said  public 
highway. 


J-  o  A 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9004 

Defendant  filed  his  answer  making  denial  of  all  said 
charges.  Verdict  was  returned  by  the  jury  finding 
defendant  guilty  under  the  first  and  third  counts  and 
assessing  plaintiff's  damages  upon  which  the  judg- 
ment was  rendered. 

Lowell  Gene  Lupton,  the  Plaintitf 's  intestate,  was  a 
male  child  between  five  and  six  years  of  age.  He  lived 
with  his  father,  J.  Wilbur  Lupton,  who  sues  as  Ad- 
ministrator herein ;  his  mother  and  his  two  minor 
brothers  at  their  farm  home  located  five  and  one-half 
miles  west  of  Shelbj'ville  and  situated  about  twenty 
rods  south  of  Route  No.  16,  a  concrete  State  highway, 
passing  at  that  point  between  Shelbyville  and  Tower 
Hill,  a  village  five  miles  west  of  the  lane  leading  into 
the  Lupton  home.  The  paved  portion  of  the  state 
highway  is  eighteen  feet  wide,  with  a  black  line 
painted  down  the  center  thereof.  Robinson  Creek 
crosses  the  highway  at  right  angles  about  a  quarter  of 
a  mile  east  of  the  Lupton  home,  and  Robinson  Creek 
hill  is  located  about  a  half  mile  west  of  the  Lupton 
home;  the  highway  across  the  bottom  being  straight, 
with  fences  or  guard  rails  located  on  each  side  of  the 
concrete  highway  and  from  three  to  four  feet  distant 
therefrom.  The  Lupton  rural  mail  box  is  located  on 
the  opposite  or  north  side  of  the  highway  from  the 
Lupton  home  and  lane  leading  thereto. 

On  February  22,  3935,  Lowell  Gene  Lupton,  with  his 
brother  Carl,  aged  eleven  years,  Ch^Ie  and  Russell 
Furr  and  two  other  boys  started  to  walk  home  from 
the  district  public  school  located  on  a  road  leading 
south  from  the  highway  and  lying  about  sixty  rods 
east  of  the  Lupton  home. 

M.  S.  Deere  of  Tower  Hill  overtook  the  boys  on  the 
school  road  with  his  Chevrolet  truck,  and  permitted 
them  to  ride  with  him  northward  to  the  State  highway 
and  thence  west  along  this  highway  toward  their  re- 
spective homes.  The  truck  stopped  at  a  point  on  the 
north  side  of  the  highway  near  the  Lupton  mail  box 
and  opposite  the  lane  or  driveway  leading  into  the 
Lupton  home.  Lowell  Gene  Lupton  and  Russell  Furr 
were  riding  in  the  cab  with  Mr.  Deere,  and  the  other 
boys  rode  in  the  body  of  the  track  to  the  rear.  The 
truck  stopped  on  the  right  side  of  the  highway,  with 
its  right  or  north  wheels  off  of  the  pavement  and  with 
its  south  wheels  remaining  on  the  pavement;  leaving  a 
distance  of  about  four  feet  between  the  left  or  south 
side  of  the  truck  and  the  center  line  of  the  highway. 

The  Lupton  boys  got  off  of  the  right  side  of  the 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9004 

trnck;  Lowell  Gene  getting  out  of  the  open  cab  door 
while  his  brother  Carl  climbed  off  of  the  truck  body 
in  the  rear.  While  attempting  to  cross  the  highway 
fromthe  north  to  the  south  side  on  which  the  Lupton 
lane  is  located,  Lowell  Gene  Lupton  was  struck  while 
on  the  south  half  of  the  pavement  by  a  Ford  V8  car 
driven  by  the  defendant  Bonser,  then  travelling  in 
an  eastward  direction,  and  was  instantly  killed. 

Defendant  Bonser  with  his  wife,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Elmer 
Stine  and  Harry  Storm,  had  spent  the  earlier  portion 
of  the  day  in  Springfield,  and  were  on  their  way  home. 
They  were  travelling  east  on  Highway  No.  16  in  de- 
fendant's car. 

The  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  shows  that 
the  defendant  testified  at  the  Coroner's  inquest  that 
he  was  driving  at  the  rate  of  fifty-five  or  fifty-six  miles 
per  hour  at  the  time  of  the  accident ;  that  he  saw  the 
truck  stop  along  the  highway,  and  that  he  thought 
there  might  be  somebody  fixing  a  tire ;  that  he  said  he 
did  not  stop  his  car  because  there  was  another  car 
close  behind  him,  and  he  was  afraid  of  the  lives  that  he 
had  in  his  car. 

M.  S.  Deere,  driver  of  the  truck,  testified  that  he 
stopped  his  truck  at  the  place  in  question;  that  the 
front  door  was  open;  that\it  the  time  he  stopped  the 
truck  he  saw  two  cars  approaching  from  the  west; 
that  after  the  boys  had  gotten  out  of  the  truck  he 
started  his  track,  and  had  gone  approximatelv  one 
hundred  feet  when  he  met  the  car  operated  by  the  de- 
fendant; that  he  heard  Clyde  Furr  scream  when  he 
was  about  ninety  feet  from  where  he  had  first  stopped 
his  car.  Clyde  and  Allen  Furr  at  the  time  were  rid- 
ing m  the  back  end  of  his  truck.  He  immediately 
stopped  his  truck  and  found  plaintiff's  intestate  h^no- 
at  the  south  edge  of  the  pavement.  After  striking 
Lowell  Gene,  the  automobile  carried  the  bodv  about 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  feet  east  of  the  Lupton 
lane.  There  was  broken  glass  at  the  south  edge  of 
the  highway  Avhere  plaintiff's  intestate  had  been 
struck;  the  right  head  light  of  the  defendant's  auto- 
mobile had  been  broken,  and  the  right  side  of  the  front 
end  of  the  automobile  bent  in. 

After  the  accident  and  after  Mr.  Deere  had  stopped 
his  truck,  which  he  testified  only  took  a  few  seconds- 
the  defendant's  car  and  the  car  which  was  behind  him 
had  gone  east  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  from  the  place 
ot  the  accident. 

Allen  Furr  who  was  in  the  truck,  testified  that  at 
the  time  of  the  accident,  the  defendant's  automobile 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  900-1 

was  travelling  between  fifty-five  and  sixty  miles  per 
hour;  that  he  heard  the  defendant  testify  at  the  Coron- 
er's inquest  that  he  was  going  from  fifty-five  to  fifty- 
six  miles  per  hour;  that  he  did  not  put  on  the  brakes 
on  account  of  a  car  following  him ;  that  he  saw  a  truck 
parked  and  he  thought  there  was  a  man  out  fixing  a 
tire  or  something;  that  two  cars  passed  one  hundred 
to  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  apart;  that  Lowell 
Gene's  body  was  lying  on  the  pavement  about  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty  five  feet  east  of  the  lane ;  that  there 
was  broken  glass  at  the  lane. 

Clyde  Furr,  who  was  riding  in  the  track,  testified 
that  Carl  and  Gene  Lupton  got  off  at  the  mail  box; 
that  after  the  truck  started  he  looked  through  the  glass 
and  saw  the  defendant's  car  coming;  that  the  defend- 
ant's car  was  on  the  south  side  of  the  black  line;  that 
he  yelled  to  Deere  when  about  ninety  feet  east  of  the 
lane  and  Deere  stopped;  that  after  defendant's  car 
pased,  he  saw  the  deceased  lying  on  the  highway  along 
the  south  edge ;  that  he  heard  no  horn  sounded'. 

Bert  King  testified  that  the  defendant  passed  him 
on  Route  No.  16,  between  a  half  and  a  quarter  of  a 
mde  from  the  place  of  the  accident ;  that  in  his  judo-- 
ment,  the  defendant  was  driving  between  fifty  and 
sixty  miles  per  hour,  and  that  they  continued  to  drive 
at  that  rate  of  speed  until  after  the  accident. 

A  number  of  witnesses  testified  that  the  defend- 
ant at  the  Coroner's  inquest  stated  that  he  was  driving 
between  fifty  and  fifty-six  miles  per  hour,  at  the  time 
of  the  accident;  that  his  brakes  were  in  perfect  me- 
chamcal  condition;  that  they  had  been  checked  that 
day  m  Springfield,  and  that  he  was  afraid  to  apply  his 
brakes  because  another  car  was  foJlomng  him 

These  witnesses  further  testified  that  the  defendant 
stated  that  he  noticed  the  Chevrolet  truck  door  was 
open,  and  that  he  believed  someone  was  fixing  a  tire 

The  evidence  in  behalf  of  the  defendant  consisted 
bL  «'f  \fT''^  f,  the  parties  riding  in  his  automo- 
bile at  the  time  of  the  accident.  The  defendant  testi- 
f't  "'  ^'f /T  ^'^^^^-  ^'«  'P^^^fi«  objection  was 
plaintiff  was  suing  m  his  representative  capacity. 
J.  Ji^lmer  Stme,  an  occupant  of  the  defendant's  auto 

7ltLToff   T'  'f"'''''''  -"^'^  operating  M^t; 
at  a  speed  of  forty  miles  per  hour  at  the  time  of  the 

accident;  that  the  plaintiff's  intestate  and  his  brother 

stepped  from  behind  the  truck  directly  in  the  paJhof 

defendant's  automobile,  and  that  the  truck  presented 


Page  5  Gen.  No.  9004 

him  from  seeing  plaintiff's  intestate  until  he  stepped 
from  behind  the  truck.  He  did  not  testify  as  to 
"whether  or  not  the  defendant  sounded  his  horn. 

Harry  Storm,  an  occupant  of  defendant's  automo- 
bile, testified  that  when  defendant's  car  was  passing 
the  truck,  the  two  Lupton  boys  stepped  from  the  Deere 
truck  on  to  the  highway. 

Mrs.  Vida  Stine,  also  an  occupant  of  the  defendant 's 
car,  testified  that  the  truck  began  to  move  just  as  they 
reached  it;  that  defendant  sounded  his  horn  as  they 
approached ;  that  the  defendant  was  operating  his  car 
over  forty  miles  per  hour;  that  the  two  boys  stepped 
directly  from  beliind  the  truck. 

Mrs.  Bonser,  wife  of  the  defendant,  testified  that  the 
two  boys  came  from  behind  the  truck  immediately 
prior  to  the  time  plaintiff's  intestate  was  struck  and 
the  boy  jumped  ahead  of  their  car,  and  that  she  did 
not  know  the  truck  was  moving  when  they  passed  it. 

The  defendant  testified  that  he  had  been  operating 
an  automobile  since  1923 ;  that  he  was  riding  in  the 
front  seat;  that  at  the  time  of  the  accident  he  was  driv- 
ing about  forty  miles  per  hour;  that  as  he  got  opposite 
the  truck,  it  began  to  move  west ;  that  he  saw  the  truck 
with  door  open  as  he  came  close  to  it ;  that  as  he  got 
opposite  the  truck  the  two  boys  darted  from  behind 
the  truck  toward  the  middle  of  the  pavement;  that  he 
applied  the  brakes  when  sure  of  collision;  that  as  he 
approached  the  truck  he  sounded  his  horn;  that  he 
often  traveled  and  was  familiar  with  the  highway  and 
territory  at  the  place  of  the  accident  and  had  previously 
visited  the  home  of  the  Luptons. 

The  testimony  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  on  the 
whole,  tends  to  prove  that  the  defendant  was  driving 
between  fifty-five  and  sixty  miles  per  hour  at  the  time 
of  the  accident;  that  he  observed  a  truck  stopped  on 
the  highway  as  he  approached  with  the  right  door  open, 
and  that  he  believed  someone  was  fixing  a  tire ;  that  no 
horn  Avas  heard  by  the  witnesses. 

The  evidence  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  further  shows 
that  the  truck  had  moved  approximately  one  hundred 
feet  before  it  met  defendant's  car,  which  fact  Avould 
have  enabled  the  defendant  to  have  seen  plaintiff's 
intestate  on  the  highway,  and  which  might  have  en- 
abled him  to  turn  his  car  to  avoid  striking  him  or  to 
have  slowed  his  car  to  such  an  extent  as  to  have  per- 
mitted the  boy  to  step  off  the  highway. 

The  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  tended  to 
show  that  the  defendant  Avas  operating  his  automobile 


Page  6      .  Gen.  No.  9004 

at  the  rate  of  forty  miles  per  hour ;  that  he  sounded 
his  horn;  that  the  plaintiff's  intestate  stepped  directly 
from  behind  the  truck  into  the  path  of  his  automobile ; 
that  he  applied  brakes  just  before  striking  the  boy. 
It  Avas  strictly  within  the  province  of  the  jury  to  settle 
all  the  questions  of  fact.  It  is  for  the  jury  to  weigh 
the  evidence  and  determine  where  the  preponderance 
lies,  and  their  findings  will  not  be  disturbed  unless  they 
are  contrary  to  the  manifest  weight  of  the  evidence. 

Under  tlie  state  of  this  record,"the  Court  cannot  say 
that  the  verdict  was  contrary  to  the  manifest  weight 
of  the  evidence.  The  evidence  was  conflicting  and  it 
is  therefore  necessary  that  the  record  be  free""  of  sub- 
stantial error. 

Complaint  is  made  to  the  giving  of  plaintiff's  in- 
structions numbered  1,  2,  6,  and  7. 

Instruction  No.  l  refers  to  the  alleged  duty  of  the 
driver  of  a  motor  vehicle  on  a  public  highway  to  "keep 
a  reasonable  lookout  to  observe  persons,  including 
children,  who  may  be  on  the  highway."  Instruction 
No.  1  does  not  place  children  in  a  separate  class  from 
other  persons.  In  view  of  other  instructions  given, 
the  reference,  by  inclusion,  to  children  was  not  preju- 
dicial. 

The  objection  to  Instruction  No.  2  undertaking  to 
define  due  care  must  be  considered  in  connection  with 
the  latter  part  of  Instruction  No.  1  and  with  defend- 
ant's Instructions  No.  11,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  and 
24,  as  a  series,  rendering  harmless  the  objection  com- 
plained of.  It  does  not  undertake  to  state  facts  nor  to 
direct  a  verdict. 

Instruction  No.  6  making  reference  to  the  statute 
concerning  the  driving  of  a  vehicle  at  a  speed  greater 
than  reasonable,  having  regard  to  the  traffic,  use  of  the 
highway,  etc.,  should  be  considered  in  connection  wdth 
defendant's  given  instructions  20  and  25,  and  other 
instructions  upon  the  same  subject,  and  when  so  con- 
sidered is  not  subject  to  the  objections  complained  of; 
nor  does  this  instruction  undertake  to  recite  facts  or 
direct  a  verdict. 

Instruction  No.  7,  after  reciting  certain  duties  of  the 
defendant  set  forth  in  the  negligence  counts,  requires 
that  the  jury  beUeves  "from  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  in  this  case"  that  at  and  just  prior  to  the  time 
of  the  accident  in  question,  defendant  failed  to  ob- 
serve either  one  or  more  of  such  duties  before  "he 
may  be  found  guilty  of  negligence."  Several  of  the 
same  propositions  of  law  are  covered  in  the  defend- 


Page  7  Gen.  No.  9004 

ant's  instructions  in  making  application  thereof  to 
alleged  facts  and  charges  of  negligence  in  the  com- 
plaint. 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  element  of  proximate 
cause  omitted  in  plaintiff's  instruction  No.  7  was  like- 
wise omitted  from  defendant's  instructions  No.  19,  14, 
15  and  16;  hence  the  defendant  cannot  complain  on 
this  ground.  Gannon  v.  Kiel,  252  111.  App.,  550  (559) ; 
Mclnturf  v.  Ins.  Co.  of  N.  A.,  248  111.  92  (99) ;  Witmer 
V.  Curry,  206  111.  App.  318;  People  v.  Popovich,  295 
111.,  491  (497).  The  rule  was  also  fully  and  correctly 
given  in  defendant 's  instruction  No.  24. 

Defendant's  given  instruction  No.  11  expressly  cau- 
tioned the  jury  to  consider  the  instructions  together 
as  one  entire  series,  each  to  be  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  all  other  instructions  on  the  same  subject. 
Fleming  v.  City  of  Chicago,  260  111.  App.,  496 ;  Foote 
V.  Chicago  North  Shore  and  M.  P.  Co.,  256  111.  App. 
581. 

This  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  errors  com- 
plained of  were  cured  by  instructions  given  for  the  de- 
fendant, several  of  which  are  subject  to  the  same  ob- 
jections, and  by  further  correct  instructions  which  cure 
and  render  them  harmless. 

Defendants  refused  cautionary  instructions  No.  37 
and  38  were  fully  covered  by  defendants  given  instruc- 
tions No.  10,  12,  and  13,  and  it  was  not  error  to  refuse 
them. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  defendant's  counsel  and 
on  cross  examination  of  defendant,  it  was  disclosed 
that  he  was  engaged  in  the  insurance  business,  but 
neither  by  such  questions  nor  by  any  answers  thereto 
was  any  reference  or  disclosure  made  as  to  whether  or 
not  he  carried  any  liability  or  other  insurance;  hence 
there  is  no  force  to  this  objection  by  the  defendant. 

Complaint  is  also  made  to  certain  remarks  to  the 
jury  in  the  ai'gument  of  plaintiff's  counsel  to  which 
objection  was  made  and  sustained  by  the  Trial  Court 
and  the  jury  was  instructed  to  disregard  the  statemeni. 
In  the  opinion  of  this  Court,  the  statement  was  not  of 
such  nature  as  to  have  influenced  the  verdict  of  the 
jury. 

Finding  no  reversible  error  in  the  record,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Shelby  County  will  be 
affirmed. 

Judgment  Affirmed. 

(Nine  pages  in  original  opinion) 

(20360—1-37     14) 


''i.^i .  Ct". .,  ji^ 


\>rgc 


a 


1 1> 


.^0  C 


Published  in  Abstract 


Charles  Elmer  PhilUps,  Appellee,  v.   The  Travel^ 

Insurance  Company,  Hartford,  Connecticut, 

Appellant. 

Appeal  from  Circuit^  Court,  Christian  County. 

October  Term,  A.  D.  1936.   <^  O    ^^     T     A 

Gen.  No.  9012  Agenda  No.  13 

Mr.  Justice  Riess  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 
Court. 

This  is  an  appeal  from  a  judgment  in  the  sum  of  fif- 
teen hundred  dollars  rendered  by  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Christian  County  against  the  defendant,  The  Travel- 
ers Life  Insurance  Company,  appellant  herein  and  in 
favor  of  the  appellee,  Charles  Elmer  Phillips,  who  was 
the  plaintiff  below.  The  cause  was  heard  by  the  Court 
upon  waiver  of  a  jury. 

The  complaint  charges  in  substance  that  the  defend- 
ant company  issued  and  delivered  its  Certificate  of 
Insurance  No.  51700  to  the  above  named  plaintiff  on 
May  18,  1932,  under  the  terms  and  conditions  of  a 
Group  Life  Policy  No.  G  6619,  previouslv  issued  to 
phimtiff's  employer,  the  National  Dairy  Products 
Corporation,  in  which  certificate  the  defendant  com- 
pany promised  to  pay  to  the  plaintiff  $1500.00  in  the 
event  of  total  permanent  disabilitv  prior  to  the  age 
of  sixty;  that  on  April  14,  193-t,  the  plaintiff  became 
wholly  disabled  l^y  bodily  injuries  and  disease,  and  be- 
came and  was  thereafter  wholly  prevented  from  en- 
gaging in  his  usual  line  of  emplovment,  and  mil  be 
so  permanently  prevented  for  life  from  engaging  in 
any  occupation  or  emplojTnent  for  wages  or  profit; 
that  the  plaintiff  performed  all  conditions  precedent 
entitling  him  to  payment  of  said  certificate  according 
to  its  terms.  Attached  to  the  complaint  is  a  copy  of 
the  certificate  of  insurance  issued  by  the  Defendant 
company  to  the  plaintiff. 

Defendant 's  answer  denies  that  the  plaintiff  is  per- 
manently disabled  \Wthin  the  meaning  of  the  certificate, 
and  specifically  denies  that  the  plaintiff  furnished  the 
defendant  ^vith  "due  proof"  that  he  had  become  wholly 
and  permanently  disabled  by  injuries  and  bodily  dis- 
ease, and  was  thereby  prevented  for  life  from  engaging 
in  any  occupation  or  employment  for  wages  or  profit. 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9012 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  that  the  defendant 
companj-  on  the  first  daj^  of  July,  1930,  had  issued 
Polic5^  No.  G  6619  to  the  National  Dairy  Products 
Corporation,  by  the  terms  of  which  policy  the  defend- 
ant company  agreed  to  insure  the  lives  of  employees 
of  said  Corporation,  its  subsidiaries,  and  affiliates,  and 
to  insure  such  employees  against  total  disability  as 
defined  in  said  insurance  policy;  that  it  also  issued 
group  accident  and  sickness  policy  G  A  2028  to  said 
Dairy  Products  Corporation  and  affiliated  corpora- 
tions, by  the  terms  of  which  it  insured  all  of  the  em- 
ployees of  said  company  from  loss  of  time  due  to  acci- 
dent or  disease,  for  a  period  not  exceeding  thirteen 
weeks. 

Under  the  terms  of  said  group  policies,  the  plaintiif, 
an  employee  of  said  dairy  company,  was  issued  the 
aforementioned  Certificate  No.  51700,  by  the  defend- 
ant company,  effective  May  18,  1932,  wlaich  provided 
for  payment  of  insurance  totalling  $1500.00  in  the 
event  of  death  or  permanent  disability  under  terms  of 
Group  Policy  No.  G  6619,  and  weekly  benefits  in  the 
sum  of  $15.00  per  week,  which  might  arise  from  sick- 
ness or  non-occupational  accidents  for  a  period  of 
thirteen  weeks  under  the  terms  of  said  group  accident 
and  sickness  policy  No.  G  A  2028.  The  premiums  due 
under  his  employee's  certificate  were  regularly  de- 
ducted from  the  plaintiff's  wages. 

The  plaintiff  developed  a  varicose  condition  of  the 
veins  in  both  legs  and  ceased  his  employment  on  ac- 
count of  said  condition  on  April  15,  1934.  Thereupon, 
he  was  paid  by  the  defendant  company  the  sum  of 
$15.00  per  week  for  thirteen  weeks  under  the  terms  of 
said  Group  Accident  and  Sickness  Policy  No.  G  A 
2028,  which  was  referred  to  in  his  Certificate  No. 
51700,  and  which  payments  were  mailed  to  him  by  the 
National  Dairy  Products  Corporation. 

At  the  trial,  the  plaintiff  introduced  testimony  tend- 
ing to  show  permanent  disability  as  defined  in  Group 
Policy  No.  G  6619.  The  pertinent  provisions  of  said 
policy  with  reference  to  permanent  disability  benefits, 
which  are  set  out  in  the  plaintiff's  certificate,  are  as 
follows:  "If  an  employee  shall  furnish  the  company 
with  due  proof  that  while  insured  under  this  policy 
and  before  having  attained  the  age  of  sixty,  he  has 
become  wholly  disabled  by  bodily  injuries  or  disease, 
and  will  be  permanently,  continuously  and  wholly  pre- 
vented thereby  for  life  from  engaging  in  any  occupa- 
tion or  emplojTnent  for  wage  or  profit,  the  company 
will  waive  further  payment  of  premium  as  to  such  em- 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9012 

ployee  and  pay  in  full  settlement  of  all  obligations  to 
him  under  this  policy  the  amount  of  insurance  in  force 
hereunder  upon  his  life  at  the  time  of  the  receipt  of 
due  proofs  of  such  disability,  in  a  fixed  number  of  in- 
stallments chosen  by  the  employee,  the  first  install- 
ment to-  be  paid  immediately  upon  receipt  of  due 
proofs  of  such  disability.  Any  installments  remaining 
unpaid  at  the  death  of  the  employee  shall  be  payable 
as  they  become  due  to  the  beneficiary  designated  by 
such  employee.  Such  remaining  installments  may  be 
commuted  into  one  sum  on  the  basis  of  interest  at  the 
rate  of  three  and  one-half  per  cent  per  annum." 

The  Group  Accident  and  Sickness  Policy  No.  G  A 
202S,  under  the  terms  of  which  the  thirteen  weeks  tem- 
porary disability  was  paid,  contains  no  precedent  con- 
dition requiring  "due  proofs"  to  the  company  in  case 
benefits  are  claimed  by  the  employee,  as  is  expressly 
required  under  the  terms  of  said  Policy  No.  G  6619. 

A  provision  in  an  insurance  policy  requiring  "due 
proof"  of  claim,  requires  reasonable  proof  of  condi- 
tions upon  which  claim  under  the  contract  is  based  but 
does  not  require  any  particular  form  of  proof.  Zorger 
V.  Prudential  Ins.  Co.,  282  111.  App.  444. 

Wliether  or  not  the  plaintiff  had  in  fact  become 
wholly  disabled  by  bodily  injuries  or  disease,  whereby 
he  will  be  permanently  and  continuously  prevented  for 
life  from  engaging  in  any  occupation  or  employment 
for  wages  or  profit  became  strictly  a  question  of  fact 
to  be  determined  by  the  Trial  Court,  since  the  evidence 
on  that  question  conflicting.  From  an  examination  of 
the  record,  we  cannot  say  that  the  findina,^  of  the  Trial 
Court  therein  was  contrary  to  the  manifest  weight  of 
the  evidence.  Zorger  v.  Prudential  Ins.  Co.,  Supra; 
Toidoupas  V.  Equitable  Life  Assurance  Society,  286 
111.  App.,  136. 

However,  it  was  also  necessary  as  a  condition  prece- 
dent to  recovery  under  the  permanent  total  disability 
policy  in  evidence  and  referred  to  in  his  certificate  that 
the  plaintiff  furnish  the  defendant  company  "due 
proof"  that  while  insured  under  this  policy  and  before 
having  attained  the  age  of  sixty,  he  had  become  wholly 
disabled  by  bodily  injuries  or  disease,  and  thereby 
prevented  for  life  from  engaging  in  any  occupation  or 
employment  for  wages  or  profit. 

The  uncontradicted  testimony  shows  that  the  plain- 
tiff, through  his  mfe  notified  his  employer  of  his  con- 
dition, but  it  is  not  shown  that  the  facts  given  to  his 
employer  were  communicated  to  the  defendant  com- 
pany.   Plaintiff's  physician  testified  that  he  furnished 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9012 

reports  to  either  the  employer  or  the  defendant  com- 
pany, but  could  not  say  which.  Wliile  proof  to  the  in- 
surer may  in  some  instances  be  more  or  less  informal, 
still  such  proof  or  a  waiver  thereof  must  appear  from 
the  record  before  the  assured  is  entitled  to  recover 
under  the  terms  of  his  policy.  Zorger  v.  Prudential 
Ins.  Co.,  Supra;  Tonloupas  v.  Equitable  Life  Assur- 
ance Society,  286  111.  App.,  136. 

Whether  or  not  such  evidence  is  available  to  the 
plaintiff  does  not  appear.  Having  failed,  however,  to 
either  prove  compliance  on  his  part  with  such  condi- 
tion of  the  policy  precedent  to  his  right  to  recovery, 
or  to  show  facts  constituting  a  waiver  by  the  defend- 
ant, the  plaintiff  has  failed  to  make  out  a  case  of  lia- 
bility against  the  defendant  company  under  the  certifi- 
cate in  evidence. 

The  judgment  is  therefore  reversed,  and  the  cause 
remanded. 

Reversed  and  remanded. 

(Four  pages  in  original  opinion) 


(20360—1-37     14) 


>f>f- 


Published  in  Abstract 


Nelson  Weber,   doing  business   as  Weber's   Garage '>*',  ^*^-'" f   r^^     ^^i«<«»sj»*<» 
Appellee,  v.  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  Appellant. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court,  Sangamon  County. 

October  Te.m,  A.  D.  1936.     ggg     J^^^     634 
Gen.  No.  9017  Agenda  No.  16 

Mr.  Justice  Riess  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 
Court. 

This  is  an  appeal  by  the  defendant  from  c\  judgment 
in  the  sum  of  $198.71,  entered  in  favor  of  the  plain- 
titf  upon  the  verdict  of  a  jury  in  tlie  Circuit  Court  of 
Sangamon  County.  The  case  was  originally  tried,  and 
a  judgment  for  said  amount  was  rendered  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  from  which  an  appeal  was  taken 
by  the  defendant  to  the  Circuit  Court. 

The  plaintiff  Nelson  Weber  contended  that  William 
Earl  Norris,  while  indebted  to  the  plaintiff,  sold  a 
tractor  to  the  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  defendant  ap- 
pellant herein,  in  violation  of  the  Bulk  Sales  Law  of 
Illinois;  said  tractor  being,  at  the  time  of  such  sale, 
more  than  the  major  portion  of  the  merchandise,  fix- 
tures, goods,  and  chattels  of  Norris's  business,  and  not 
so  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  in  said  business. 
That  the  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  failed  to  pay  or 
notify  Norris  's  creditors  of  the  purchase  of  said  prop- 
erty, in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Illinois  Bulk 
Sales  Law. 

It  is  contended  by  the  defendant  that  the  verdict  of 
the  jury  was  manifestly  against  the  weight  of  the  evi- 
dence ;  that  the  lower  Court  erred  in  denying  the  mo- 
tion for  a  directed  verdict  in  favor  of  the  defendant; 
in  entering  judgment  against  the  defendant,  and  in  de- 
nying tho  motion  for  a  new  trial. 

The  evidence  shows  that  in  the  fall  of  1934,  and  in 
the  spring  of  1935,  Norris  was  engaged  in  a  trucking 
business  in  Springfield,  Illinois,  and  that  he  used  a 
tractor  and  semi-trailer  in  conducting  his  business. 
In  the  fall  of  1934,  the  tractor  and  trailer  were 
wrecked.  It  was  repaired  at  a  cost  of  $298.71,  by  the 
plaintiff,  Weber,  of  which  $100.00  was  paid  in  cash  by 
Norris,  leaving  a  balance  due  the'  plaintiff,  Weber,  on 
the  bill  of  $198.71.  The  amount  of  the  bill  was  not 
contested  at  the  trial.  The  sole  contention  of  the  de- 
fendant was  that  the  tractor  and  trailer  were  sold  by 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9017 

Norris  to  H.  H.  Hiland,  personally,  and  not  as  Presi- 
dent of  and  for  the  defendant  company. 

The  plaintiff  testified  that  the  tractor  and  trailer  in 
question  were  sold  to  the  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  of 
Chicago,  by  Norris  during  the  month  of  May,  1935, 
after  Norris  had  incurred  the  above  bill,  for  which 
suit  was  brought. 

Later,  the  Avitness  Weber  was  asked  from  what 
source  he  had  learned  that  Norris,  had  sold  the  truck 
to  the  Interstate  Dispatch.  His  answer,  to  the  effect 
that  Mr.  Norris  had  told  him,  was  objected  to  and  ex- 
cluded. The  witness  then  proceeded  to  testify  with- 
out objection  that  he  had  talked  to  one  of  the  em- 
ployees of  the  Interstate  Dispatch  named  Farrand,  and 
that  this  witness  had  told  him  the  same  thing. 

The  witness  further  testified  that  he  had  never  re- 
ceived from  the  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  or  any  of 
its  officers  or  directors  a  statement  by  registered  mail, 
as  required  by  the  Bulk  Sales  Law,  that  they  intended 
to  buy  the  equipment  of  William  Earl  Norris.  He 
further  so  testified  that  he  heardi  H.  H.  Hiland,  Presi- 
dent of  the  Company,  testify  before  a  justice  of  the 
peace  at  a  previous  trial,  that  he  had  not  obtained  an 
itemized  list  of  creditors  from  Norris  at  the  time  the 
equipment  was  purchased.  These  facts  were  later  ad- 
mitted by  H.  H.  Hiland,  President  of  the  Company,  on 
cross-examination. 

Plaintiff  also  offered  in  evidence  a  Certificate  of 
Title  issued  by  the  State  of  Missouri  to  William  Earl 
Norris  showing  that  on  May  24,  1935,  the  certificate 
was  assigned  by  Norris  to  an  unnamed  assignee. 

H.  H.  Hiland  testified  on  behalf  of  the  defendant, 
that  he  was'  President  of  the  defendant  company,  the 
Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  that  he  had  known  Norris 
for  two  and  a  half  years;  that  Norris  hauled  freight 
for  his  company  between  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  for 
eighteen  months  or  two  years ;  that  the  Interstate  Dis- 
patch, Inc.,  is  engaged  in  motor  tracking  transporta- 
tion. He  further  testified  that  he  personally  pur- 
chased the  tractor  and  equipment  from  Norris,  and 
that  the  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  transaction.  He  identified  a  bill  of  sale  pur- 
porting to  have  been  executed  on  May  24th,  1935,  by 
which  Norris  conveyed  to  H.  H.  Hiland  all  the  right, 
title  and  interest  of  William  E.  Norris  to  Interstate 
Tractor  No.  850  and  highway  trailer  No.  22901,  to- 
gether with  all  accessories  and  appliances  in  connec- 
tion with  the  equipment.  The  bill  of  sale  further  pro- 
vided that  H.  H.  Hiland  was  to  liquidate  Norris 's  ac- 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9017 

count  of  $125.00  with  the  Firestone  Service  Stores  of 
Springfield,  Illinois,  and  to  complete  payment  on  the 
tractor  amounting  to  $596.00  to  the  International  Har- 
vester Co.  The  bill  of  sale  was  signed  by  William  E. 
Norris  and  witnessed  by  W.  L.  Wilcox. 

Hiland  further  testified  that  he  paid  a  balance  of 
$596.00  due  to  the  International  Harvester  Company 
on  said  tractor,  and  offered  in  evidence  a  receipt  from 
said  Company  to  him  personally  for  $100.30.  Also  a 
letter,  a  receipt  and  a  note  from  the  Fruehauf  Trailer 
Company;  the  letter  being  addressed  to  William 
Norris,  showing  satisfaction  of  all  their  claims  against 
the  trailer.  Hiland  testified  that  these  papers  were 
handed  to  him  by  Norris  at  the  time  he  bought  the 
trailer. 

The  -watness  further  testitied  that  the  Interstate  Dis- 
patch, Inc.,  was  doing  business  at  2250-56  South,  Lum- 
ber Street,  Chicago,  and  that  the  names,  H.  H.  Hiland 
and  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  appear  on  the  door,  and 
that  he  was  doing  business  as  an  individual  at  the 
same  address,  and  operated  a  number  of  trucks. 

On  cross-examination  he  was  asked  if  he  had  paid 
Norris  by  check  or  cash.  He  stated  that  he  did  not 
remember  whether  it  was  check  or  cash ;  that  he  did 
not  have  the  check  in  Court;  and  that  he  had  come 
down  from  Chicago  to  testify  at  that  trial,  but  did  not 
know  what  the  trial  was  about  when  he  came. 

On  cross-examination,  the  witness  was  asked  if  he 
had  produced  before  the  justice  of  the  peace  the 
paper  marked  "Exhibit  1"  (being  the  bill  of  sale),  to 
which  he  replied:  "I  don't  think  I  did.".  He  was 
further  asked  if  he  did  not  testify  before  the  justice 
of  the  peace  that  the  Interstate  Dispatch  Company 
bought  the  trailer  from  William  Earl  Norris  and  his 
reply  was:    "I  couldn't  say  yes  or  no  about  that." 

Charles  Peregoy,  an  employee  of  H.  H.  Hiland, 
testified  that  he  was  familiar  with  the  truck  owned  by 
William  E.  Norris ;  that  Norris  sold  it  to  H.  H.  Hiland ; 
that  he  is  still  employed  by  Mr.  Hiland,  who  is  Presi- 
dent of  the  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc.,  on  the  freight, 
but  that  his  check  is  ahvays  signed  by  H.  H.  Hiland 
personally,  and  not  by  the  Interstate  Dispatch,  Inc. 

In  rebuttal  Nelson  Weber  testified  that  Hiland,  in 
his  testimony  before  the  justice  of  the  peace  said  there 
was  no  bill  of  sale,  but  a  Certificate  of  Title ;  that  the 
title  was  to  the  Interstate  Dispatch.  Norris  was  not 
present  and  did  not  testify. 

Harold  Malgreen  in  rebuttal  also  testified  that 
Hiland  made  the  following  statement,  under  oath,  be- 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9017 

fore  the  justice  of  the  peace:  "That  no  bill  of  sale 
was  made,  but  a  Certificate  of  Title  was  delivered: 
that  the  Certificate  of  Title  was  endorsed  to  the  com- 
panj^  he  represented,  the  Interstate  Dispatch."  The 
Certificate  of  Title  issued  by  the  State  of  Missouri  to 
William  Earl  Norris  was  also  offered  in  evidence.  The 
assignment  on  the  back  of  the  Certificate  of  Title 
shows  that  the  assignment  was  signed  by  Norris  on 
May  24th,  193'5,  to  an  unnamed  assignee. 

It  is  earnestly  contended  by  the  defendant  that  the 
verdict  in  this  case  is  contrary  to  the  manifest  weight 
of  the  evidence. 

The  evidence  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  including  all 
inferences  which  may  reasonably  be  drawn  therefrom 
would,  if  standing  alone,  amply  support  the  verdict  in 
this  case. 

The  testimony  of  Hiland  and  his  documentary  e-^d- 
dence  standing  alone  would  make  a  complete  defense 
to  this  action. 

True,  the  defendant  offered  in  evidence  a  purported 
bill  of  sale  dated  May  24,  1935,,  purporting  to  convey 
all  interest  in  this  equipment  to  H.  H.  Hiland,  but  on 
the  trial  of  this  case  before  the  justice  of  the  peace, 
the  bill  of  sale  was  not  produced  and  was  not  men- 
tioned in  the  direct  testimony  of  H.  H.  Hiland.  On 
the  contrary,  the  evidence  shows  that  he  then  testified 
that  there  was  no  bill  of  sale  and  that  the  Certificate 
of  Title  had  been  assigned  tO'  his  company,  the  Inter- 
state Dispatch,  Inc.  Further,  on  cross-examination  in 
the  Circuit  Court,  he  did  not  deny  that  he  had  made 
such  statements. 

The  testimony  of  the  President  of  the  defendant 
Company  before  the  justice  of  the  peace  might  well 
have  been  considered  by  the  jury  as  binding  on  the 
defendant.  It  may  be  further  noted  that  while  a  re- 
ceipt from  the  International  Harvester  Company  was 
produced,  showing  payments  by  said  Hiland;  the  wit- 
ness, Peregoy,  testified  that  payment  for  his  services 
rendered  to  the  defendant  company  was  also  paid  by 
the  personal  check  of  said  Hiland.  Furthermore, 
Hiland  testified  that  he  did  not  remember  if  Norris 
was  paid  by  cash  or  check  and  that  he  did  not  have  the 
check  in  court.  Such  cancelled  check,  if  one  was  in 
existence,  would  have  been  material  to  the  issues  in 
this  case.  Where  facts  material  to  the  issues  are  with- 
in the  knowledge  of  the  party  to  the  cause  and  oppor- 
tunity is  afforded  such  party  for  the  disclosure  of  such 
facts,  but  is  not  availed  of,  a  presumption  arises  that 
such  evidence,  if  given,  would  have  been  unfavorable 
to  him.    Page  v.  Keeves,  362  111.,  64. 


Page  5  Gen.  No.  9017 

In  this  conflicting  state  of  the  record,  it  was  pecnlar- 
ily  within  the  province  of  the  jury  to  pass  upon  the 
credibility  of  the  witnesses,  and  the  probative  value  of 
the  evidence  offered  therein. 

After  considering  all  of  the  evidence  and  the  infer- 
ences that  could  reasonably  be  deduced  therefrom,  we 
cannot  say  that  the  verdict  in  this  case  was  against 
the  manifest  weight  of  the  evidence.  The  jury  and 
Trial  Judge  were  in  a  better  position  to  consider  and 
pass  upon  the  question  of  the  credibility  of  the  testi- 
mony, and  the  tindings  of  the  jury  approved  by  the 
Trial  Judge  should  not  be  disturbed,  on  appeal,  unless 
they  appear  to  be  manifestly  against  the  weight  of  the 
evidence.  Doerr  v.  City  of  Freeport,  239  111.  App.,  560 
(568)  ;•  Freeman  v.  Chicago  £  J.  Elec.  By.  Co.,  208  111. 
App.,  350. 

The  judgment  will  therefore  be  affinned. 

Judgment  affirmed. 

(Six  pages  in  original  opinion) 


(20360—1-37     14)  cf^pa 


Published  in  Abstract 


Lillian  Young,  Appellee,  v.  United  Cab  and  Drivurself , 

Incorporated,  doing  business  as  Yellov/  Cab 

Company,  and  Peter  Palmisano, 

Appellants. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court,  Chawpaign  County. 

^  f>    C^ 
October  Term,  A.  D.  1936.  ^'    ^' 

Gen.  No.  9035  Agenda  No.  28 

Mr.  Justice  Riess  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

This  is  an  appeal  by  the  defendants  from  a  jiidsi-ment 
in  the  snm  of  $1500.00  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  ren- 
dered inthe  Circuit  Court  of  Champaign  County,  on 
the  verdict  of  a  jury,  for  personal  injui'ies  sustained 
by  the  plaintiff.  The  plaintiff,  Lillian  Young,  was 
struck  and  injured  on  the  fifth  day  of  Octoljer",  1935, 
by  a  taxi  cab  owned  by  defendant.  United  Cab  and 
Drivnrself,  Incorporated,  doing  business  as  Yellow 
Cab  Company  and  driven  by  its  servant  and  co- 
defendant,  Peter  Palmisano. 

The  amended  complaint  consists  of  three  counts.  The 
first  count  charges  general  negligence;  the  second 
count  charges  that  the  taxicab  driver  carelessly,  negli- 
gently and  improperly  drove,  managed,  and  operated 
his  said  motor  vehicle  at  a  high  and  dangerous  rate 
of  speed  at  the  place  of  the  accident,  to-'^dt :  f ortv-five 
miles  per  hour;  the  third  count  charges  that  the" taxi- 
cab  driver  carelessly,  negligently  and  improperly 
drove,  managed  and  operated  his  said  motor  vehicle 
on  said  public  highway  and  approached  the  plaintiff 
without  giving  any  reasonable  w-arning  of  the  approach 
of  his  cab,  without  having  used  every  reasonable  pre- 
caution to  avoid  injuring  the  plaintiff,  and  without 
stopping  his  said  motor  vehicle  until  he  could  safely 
proceed  along  and  upon  said  public  highway. 

Each  defendant,  answering  severally,  denied  all 
charges  of  negligence  averred  in  the  complaint,  and 
charged  that  the  plaintiff,  while  crossing  said  public 
street,  carelessly  and  negligently  collided  with  the 
taxicab,  and  thereby  proximately  contributed  to  her 
injuries,  and  further  charged  that  the  plaintiff  was 
gnilty  of  contributory  negligence  in  crossing  the  paved 
portion  of  said  public  street  at  a  point  other  than  a 


I«Ao  634^ 


Page  2  Gen.  No.  9035 

cross  walk  as  defined  hy  par.  172,  Section  75,  Chap- 
ter 951,  Smitli-Hurd  1935  Revised  Statute.  A  reply 
filed  by  the  plaintiff  denied  all  contributory  negligence 
as  set  forth  in  said  answers.  The  case  went  to  the 
jury  on  the  issues  made  by  the  above  pleadings. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  that  the  collision  oc- 
curred about  11 :30  at  night,  on  October  5,  1935,  near 
the  intersection  of  First  Street  and  East  Springfield 
Avenue,  in  the  city  of  Champaign,  Illinois.  East 
Springfield  Avenue  is  thirty-six  feet  wide,  paved  with 
concrete,  and  extends  east  and  vv'est.  First  Street  is 
forty  feet  wide,  paved  with  concrete,  with  a  black  line 
do"\\ai  the  center,  and  is  a  part  of  State  Bond  Issue 
Highv/ay  No.  10,  extending  north  and  south,  at  the 
point  Avhere  it  intersects  Springfield  Avenue.  The 
sidewalk  on  the  north  side  of  Springfield  Avenue  is 
five  feet  in  width  and  it  is  2.7  feet  from  the  south 
sidewalk  line  to  the  north  curb  line  of  Springfield  Ave- 
nue on  the  west  side  and  on  the  east  side  it  is  3.3  feet 
from  the  south  line  of  said  sidewalk  to  the  north  curb 
line  of  Springfield  Avenue.  The  distance  between  the 
inside  of  the  concrete  x^ortion  of  the  walk  and  the  prop- 
erty line  is  not  given. 

The  plaintiff  testified  that  on  the  night  of  October 
5,  1935,  at  about  11 :30  P.  M.,  she  was  walking  south 
on  the  west  side  of  First  Street;  that  she  started  to 
cross  First  Street  where  it  intersects  Spring-field  Ave- 
nue, and  in  so  doing,  walked  directly  east ;  that  before 
she  left  the  curb  and  also  after  she  had  taken  several 
steps  into  the  street,  she  looked  both  north  and  south, 
and  saw  dim  headlights  about  a  block  and  a  half  or  two 
blocks  south  of  First  Street ;  that  she  proceeded  east 
across  First  Street,  and  when  she  was  approximately 
at  the  center  of  the  street,  she  looked  north  and  was 
struck  by  the  taxicab  before  she  had  time  to  again 
look  south. 

Joseph  Modjeski,  a  student  of  the  University  of  Illi- 
nois, on  behalf  of  plaintiff,  testified  that  he  was  walk- 
ing south  on  the  west  side  of  First  Street  near  the  in- 
tersection of  First  Street  and  Springfield  Avenue  at 
the  time  of  the  collision,  and  that  he  saw  the  plaintiff 
at  the  time  the  taxicab  struck  her.  He  testified  that  she 
was  in  front  of  the  cab  and  that  the  front  end  and 
bumper  on  the  left  side  of  the  cab,  which  was  going- 
north,  struck  her ;  that  the  plaintiif  was  thrown  in  the 
air  and  a  little  west  of  the  cab.  He  further  testified 
that  the  headlights  were  out  at  the  time  of  the  collision, 
and  that  he  heard  no  horn  sounded.  He  said  the  plain- 
tiff was  picked  up  about  fifteen  feet  north  of  the  north 


Page  3  Gen.  No.  9035 

curb  of  Springfield  Avenue,  and  that  slie  was  about 
eight  feet  north  of  the  point  where  he  first  saw  her.  He 
estimated  the  speed  of  the  taxicab  between  forty  and 
forty-five  miles  per  hour,  and  placed  the  plaintiff's 
position  seven  or  eight  feet  north  of  the  north  curb  line 
of  Springfield  Avenue  at  the  time  he  first  observed  her. 
He  said  that  he  heard  the  brakes  applied  immediately 
after  the  plaintiff  was  struck  by  the  taxicab,  at  about 
the  center  or  a  bit  east  of  the  center  of  First  Street; 
and  that  after  plaintiff  was  struck,  her  body  was  a  few 
feet  vrest  of  the  point  of  collision. 

Beulah  Featherstone  testified  that  she  was  a  fresh- 
man student  at  the  University  of  Illinois ;  that  she  was 
walking  south  with  mtness  Modjeski  on  the  west  side 
of  First  Street  at  the  time  of  the  collision  and  tbat  she 
saw  the  taxicab  when  it  was  twenty  or  thirty  feet  south 
of  the  south  curb  line  of  First  Street.  She  stated  that 
the  cab  did  not  have  lights  and  that  she  heard  no  horn 
blo-wn  prior  to  the  ci'ash ;  that  the  brakes  were  applied 
at  the  time  of  the  crash. 

George  Pierce,  a  senior  student  at  the  College  of 
Engineering  at  the  University  of  Illinois,  testified  that 
he  was  walking  south  on  the  west  side  of  First  Street 
at  the  time  Mrs.  Young  was  struck  by  the  taxicab ;  that 
he  noticed  the  taxicab  on  First  Street  as  it  was  entering 
the  intersection;  that  when  he  first  noticed  the  plain- 
tiff, she  was  two  or  three  feet  on  the  west  side  of  the 
center  line  of  First  Street  and  that  she  was  walking 
straight  east ;  that  she  stejjped  into  the  path  of  the 
taxicab  and  that  she  was  struck  by  the  left  front  side 
of  the  car;  that  he  did  not  hear  a  horn  sounded  before 
the  crash;  that  after  the  impact,  the  cab  swerved  to- 
ward the  east  curb ;  that  prior  to  the  crash,  it  was  go- 
ing straight,  north,  parellel  to  the  curb,  that,  in  his 
opinion,  the  taxicab  was  traveling  forty-five  miles  per 
hour,  and  that  the  lights  were  dim;  that  after  the  car 
struck  the  plaintiff,  he  heard  the  brakes  applied;  that 
she  was  lying  probably  ten  feet  north  of  the  north  line 
of  Springfield  Avenue ;  that  the  taxicab  came  to  a  stop 
one  hundred  and  sixty  or  one  hundred  and  seventy 
feet  north  of  the  north  line  of  Springfield  Avenue. 
When  the  witness  first  saW  Mrs.  Young  she  was  about 
three  feet  west  of  the  center  line  of  First  Street  and 
was  walking  east. 

Mary  Rucker,  a  senior  student  at  the  University  of 
Illinois,  was  also  walking  south  on  the  west  side  of 
First  Street  at  the  time  of  the  collision.  She  testified 
that  she  saw  the  taxicab  ten  or  fifteen  feet  south  of 
Springfield  Avenue  going  north  on  First  Street;  that 


Page  4  Gen.  No.  9035 

the  taxicab  was  going  quite  fast,  and  that  Mrs.  Young 
■was  "walking  slowly  and.  was  just  a  bit  to  the  west  of 
the  center  line  of  First  Street  going  east;  that 
it  was  just  an  instant  until  she  saw  the  crash  and 
saw  Mrs.  Young  fall ;  that  she  heard  no  horn  sounded 
and  saw  no  other  cars  or  cabs  around  the  intersection ; 
that  the  taxicab  was  going  forty  or  forty-five  miles 
per  hour;  that  after  the  crash,  the  cab  swerved  to  the 
right.  In  her  judgment,  the  taxicab  was  closer  to  the 
center  line  than  to  the  east  curb  line  of  First  Street 
and  the  east  side  of  the  taxicab  was  seven  or  eight 
feet  from  the  east  curb  line  at  the  time  of  the  impact. 
The  witness  did  not  remember  seeing  headlights  on  the 
cab. 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  plaintiff  v/as  uncon- 
scious from  the  time  of  the  injury  until  the  following 
day,  and  that  she  sustained  severe  bodily  injuries  in- 
cluding a  bruised  cut  over  the  left  eye,  which  caused 
a  partial  drooping  of  the  lid;  two  jagged  cuts  at  the 
back  of  her  left  knee,  which  required  eighteen  stitches 
to  close;  the  large  muscle  at  the  back  of  the  knee  v,-as 
cut  entirely  in  two,  and  the  tissues  were  torn  loose  from 
the  bone;  that  she  sustained  several  bruises  and  con- 
cussions, and  that  her  body  was  practically'  black  and 
blue;  that  she  suffered  great  pain  and  still  suffered 
some  pain  at  the  time  of  the  trial;  that  her  physician's 
bill  amounted  to  $72.00 ;  that  her  hospital  bill  amounted 
to  $79.00;  and  that  she  was  confined  to  bed  for  over 
three  weeks. 

A.  E.  Annzzolin,  who  was  walking  on  the  east  side 
of  First  Street  near  Springfield  Avenue,  testified  on 
behalf  of  the  defendant  that  he  saw  the  plaintiff  when 
she  was  a  few  feet  from  the  west  curb  of  First  Street 
and  that  she  was  walking  east ;  that  he  saw  the  taxicab 
approaching  from  the  south,  and  that  as  she  was  cross- 
ing the  center  line,  the  taxicab  was  about  twenty  feet 
away;  that  she  took  two  or  three  steps  and  came  in 
contact  with  the  left  side  of  the  cab  and  was  struck  by 
the  tire  mount ;  that  he  noticed  that  the  lights  were  on 
dim.  He  fixed  the  speed  of  the  taxicab  at  about  thirty 
or  thirty-five  miles  per  hour.  He  testified  that  he  ob- 
served blood  spots  on  the  pavement  between  seven  and 
ten  feet  from  the  east  curb  and  some  blood  on  and 
north  of  the  expansion  joint. 

Joe  Stone,  also  a  University  student,  Avho  was  also 
walking  south  on  the  east  side  of  First  Street  and  was 
about  thirty-five  feet  north  of  Spring-field  Avenue,  tes- 
tified that  he  looked  up  and  saw  Mrs.  Young  come  in 
contact  with  the  west  side  of  the  cab  about  three  feet 


Page  5  Gen.  No.  9035 

behind  the  bumper;  that  she  fell  behind  the  cab  as  it 
passed ;  that  he  observed  blood  on  the  pavement  about 
a  foot  north  of  the  expansion  joint  and  between  iive 
and  eight  feet  west  of  the  curb  of  First  Street.  In  his 
judgment,  Mrs.  Young  was  north  of  the  expansion 
joint  at  the  time  of  the  collision. 

Louis  Fiedler,  also  a  student,  testified  that  he  was 
on  the  east  side  of  First  Street  walking  south  at  the 
time  of  the  collision;  that  he  happened  to  glance  up 
and  saw  the  plaintiff  come  in  contact  with  the  left  side 
of  the  cab  about  three  feet  behind  the  front  fender; 
that  she  fell  about  five  feet  north  of  the  expansion 
joint;  that  after  the  car  had  passed,  he  observed  her 
falling  and  Avhen  she  completed  falling,  her  head  was  to 
the  east  and  her  feet  to  the  west  and  she  was  approxi- 
mately two  feet  north  of  the  expansion  joint.  In  his 
opinion,  the  cab  was  traveling  between  thirty  and 
thirty-five  miles  per  hour. 

None  of  the  defendant's  witnesses  testified  as  to 
whether  or  not  a  horn  was  sounded. 

Peter  Palmisano,  one  of  the  defendants,  testified 
that  he  was  the  driver  of  the  cab  which  struck  the 
plaintiff;  that  he  had  turned  north  on  First  Street, 
about  two  blocks  south  of  the  scene  of  the  accident. 
His  cab  was  equipped  Avith  head  lights,  but  at  the  time 
of  the  accident  they  were  on  dim.  He  fixed  his  speed 
at  thirty  miles  per  hour  at  the  time  of  the  accident, 
and  said  that  when  he  was  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet 
south  of  Springfield  Avenue,  he  looked  to  the  northwest 
of  First  Street,  and  noticed  no  one;  that  he  saw  two 
boys  fifty  or  sixty  feet  north  of  Springfield  Avenue; 
that  when  he  was  forty  or  fifty  feet  from  the  south  line 
of  Springfield  Avenue,  he  saw  the  plaintiff  on  the  pave- 
ment, and  that  she  was  about  thirty  feet  north  of 
Springfield  Avenue,  and  about  five  feet  west  of  the 
center  of  First  Street,  and  that  she  was  walking  east. 

He  further  testified  that  he  blew  his  horn ;  that  Mrs. 
Young  paused ;  that  she  was  about  in  the  center  of  the 
street  when  he  was  at  the  intersection;  that  after  she 
paused,  she  continued  walking,  and  that  he  turned  his 
wheels  to  the  east,  and  that  Mrs.  Young  collided  Avith 
the  left  side  of  the  cab ;  that  he  then  bumped  the  curb 
between  twenty  and  thirty  feet  north  of  Springfield 
Avenue,  and  that  after  he  bumped  the  curb,  the 
steering  of  the  car  was  hard,  and  that  his  lights  were 
out.  It  was  necessary  to  push  the  car  to  the  garage 
of  the  company  on  First  Street. 

It  is  contended  on  the  part  of  the  defendants  that  the 
plaintiff  was  guilty  of  contributory  negligence,  and  was 


Pa£,e  6  Gen.  No.  9035 

not  in  the  exercise  of  due  care  for  her  own  safety.  The 
contentions  may  be  summarized  under  two  heads; 
namely,  that  it  ^vas  negligence  per  se  for  the  plaintiff 
to  cross  First  Street  at  any  point  other  than  within  a 
marked  cross  walk,  being  that  portion  of  a  roadway 
ordinarily  included  within  the  prolongation  or  connec- 
tion at  the  lateral  lines  of  sidewalks  at  intersections  as 
defined  in  paragraph  116,  Section  19,  of  Chapter  59i/o, 
Smith-Hurd  Eevised  Statutes  of  1935.  Secondly,  that 
she  was  negligent  in  not  looking  both  ways  in  crossing 
the  highway. 

It  is  contended  by  the  defendants  that  the  plaintiff 
walked  into  the  side  of  the  tasicab  while  the  plaintiff 
contends  that  she  was  struck  by  the  left  front  end  of 
the  taxicab.  A  fair  consideration  of  all  the  evidence 
would  lead  one  to  believe  that  the  mtnesses  for  the 
plaintiff,  who  were  walking  south  on  the  west  side  of 
First  Street  were  in  a  better  position  to  see  how,  and 
in  what  manner,  she  was  struck,  than  the  witnesses  for 
the  defendants,  who  were  on  the  east  side  of  First 
Street,  as  the  cab  immediately  after  it  struck  the  plain- 
tiff, would  be  between  the  plaintiff  and  the  witnesses 
and  would  obstruct  their  view. 

The  juiw  could  well  conclude  from  the  evidence  that 
plaintiff  was  within  the  crosswalk.  Defendant  Pal- 
misano  testified  that  after  plaintiff  collided  with  the 
taxicab,  he  struck  the  curb  twenty  to  thirty  feet  north 
of  Springfield  Avenue,  which  would  indicate  that  plain- 
tiff was  struck  some  place  near  the  intersection.  Two 
witnesses  had  previously  testified  that  he  did  not 
swerve  his  car  towards  the  curb  until  he  struck  the 
plaintiff.  The  Court,  at  the  request  of  the  defendants, 
submitted  a  special  verdict  to  the  jury,  namely,  "Was 
the  plaintiff,  Lillian  Young,  in  crossing  South  First 
Street,  at  and  just  prior  to  the  collision  in  question, 
within  the  cross  walk  line  of  the  sidewalk  along  the 
north  side  of  East  Springfield  Avenue?"  The  jury, 
by  the  special  verdict,  found  that  the  plaintiff  was  with- 
in the  cross  walk  at  the  time  of  the  collision. 

Plaintiff  testified  that  she  looked  in  both  directions 
before  she  left  the  curb  and  again  after  she  had  gone 
eight  or  ten  feet  across  First  Street;  that  when  she 
arrived  at  the  center  of  the  street,  she  looked  north, 
and  before  she  could  look  south,  she  was  struck  by  the 
taxicab. 

A  number  of  the  defendants '  witnesses  say  that  she 
paused  while  in  the  center  of  the  street.  Neither  the 
plaintiff  or  any  of  the  witnesses  for  the  plaintiff,  or 


Pao-e  7  Gen.  No.  9035 

for  defendants  corroborated  defendant  Palmisano  in 
his  testimony  that  he  blew  his  horn,  while  several  wit- 
nesses testified  that  no  horn  was  blown. 

In  Plewe  v.  Chicago  Motor  Coach  Co.,  283  111.  App., 
page  57,  we  said,  "It  is  the  duty  of  all  persons  operat- 
ing antomobiles  or  any  other  vehicle  upon  the  public 
streets  of  a  city,  to  use  ordinary  care  in  its  operation, 
to  move  at  a  reasonable  rate  of  speed,  and  cause  it  to 
sloAv  up  or  to  stop,  if  need  be,  where  danger  is  immi- 
nent, and  could  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care,  be 
seen  or  known  to  avoid  accident." 

It  is  also  the  settled  law  of  this  State,  that  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  or  not  a  person  was  guilty  of  con- 
tributory negligence  is  generally  one  of  fact  for  the 
jury,  and  becomes  a  question  of  law,  only  when  the 
evidence  so  clearly  fails  to  establish  due  care,  that  all 
reasonable  minds  would  reach  the  conclusion  that  there 
was  contril)utory  negligence. 

Defendant  Palmisano,  by  his  own  testimony,  saw  the 
plaintiff  when  she  was  five  or  six  feet  on  the  west  side 
of  the  center  of  First  Street,  at  the  time  he  was  forty 
or  fifty  feet  from  the  south  line  of  Springfield  Avenue, 
which  would  place  his  automobile  between  eighty  and 
ninety  feet  from  the  plaintiff.  According  to  his  testi- 
mony, his  lights  Avere  on  dim,  and  he  was  traveling 
thirty  miles  an  hour,  and  sounded  his  born.  No  other 
witness  heard  him  sound  his  horn. 

According  to  the  plaintiff's  witnesses,  his  speed  was 
between  fortj^  and  forty-five  miles  per  hour.  He  con- 
tinued at  the  same  rate  of  speed. 

After  carefully  considering  the  evidence  that  bears 
upon  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  plaintiff 
at,  and  just  prior,  to  the  time  of  the  accident,  was  in 
the  exercise  of  ordinary  care,  we  have  reached  the  con- 
clusion that  the  juiy  was  justified  in  finding  that  the 
plaintiff  was  not  guilty  of  contributory  negligence,  and 
in  view  of  the  finding  of  the  jury  in  their  special  ver- 
dict, we  have  also  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  jury 
was  justified  in  finding  the  defendants  guilty  of  negli- 
gence. Both  questions  being  strictly  questions  of  fact 
for  the  jury  to  decide  from  a  consideration  of  all  the 
evidence. 

The  driver  of  the  taxicab  testified  that  after  the  col- 
lision, he  went  over  to  the  curb,  and  the  impact  of  the 
taxicab  against  the  curb  broke  off  his  batteiy  cable 
and  disconnected  his  light  and  ignition.  The  defend- 
ants offered  to  prove  by  a  mechanic,  that  the  steering 
apparatus  was  buckled  and  bent.    It  was  urged  that  it 


Page  8  Gen.  No.  9035 

was  reversible  error  for  the  court  to  refuse  to  admit 
this  evidence.  In  the  state  of  this  record,  we  fail  to  see 
the  materiality  of  this  testimony. 

The  defendants  offered  to  prove  by  the  witness 
Annzzolin,  the  location  of  the  blood  spots  on  the  pave- 
ment, a  week  after  the  collision.  The  Court  refused 
to  permit  proof  by  this  witness  that  the  blood  stains 
on  the  pavement  were  in  the  same  location  a  week  after 
the  accident  as  they  were  on  the  night  of  the  accident. 
The  defendants  had  proved  the  location  of  the  blood 
spots  on  the  morning  after  the  accident  and  the  loca- 
tion of  the  spots  were  in  no  manner  controverted  by 
the  plaintiff. 

Defendants  earnestly  contend  that  the  Court  erred 
in  giving  Instruction  No.  7  for  the  plaintiff  and  in  re- 
fusing a  number  of  instructions  offered  by  the  de- 
fendant. Plaintiff's  instruction  No.  7  tells  the  jury 
in  substance  that  if  they  believe  from  a  preponderance 
of  the  evidence  that  there  were  no  trafSc  control  lights 
or  stop  lights  in  place,  or  in  operation  at  the  intersec- 
tion of  South  First  Street  and  East  Springfield  Ave- 
nue on  the  night  of  the  collision  in  question  and  that 
the  plaintiff  was  a  pedestrian  crossing  the  street  at  the 
intersection  and  that  the  plaintiff  was  using  ordinary 
care  and  caution  for  her  own  safety,  etc.,  it  then  be- 
came the  dutj'  of  the  defendant  "to  exercise  due  care 
to  avoid  injurying  plaintiff  at  said  time  and  place." 
This  instruction  does  not  undertake  to  set  out  the  pro- 
visions of  the  statute  concerning  the  rights  and  duties 
of  the  respective  parties,  and  merely  requires  the 
exercise  of  due  care  and  caution  by  both  of  them.  The 
reference  to  stop  or  traffic  lights  is  not  based  on  any 
evidence,  except  the  statement  of  defendant's  engi- 
neer witness  that  no  such  signals  nor  stop  lights  were 
so  located;  hence  the  reference  thereto  could  not  have 
prejudiced  either  party.  The  instruction  neither  di- 
rects a  verdict  nor  a  finding  on  the  issue  of  negligence 
or  contributory  negligence.  The  duty  of  the  parti^es  to 
exercise  due  care,  and  a  definition  of  that  term  was 
also  set  out  in  other  instructions  of  both  plaintiff  and 
defendant;  hence  in  the  opinion  of  this  Court,  the  al- 
leged error  was  harmless. 

Defendants'  refused  instruction  No.  1  undertook  to 
set  out  the  provisions  of  the  statute  concerning  the 
right-of-way  of  vehicles  over  pedestrians  in  crossing 
a  roadway  at  a  point  other  than  within  a  marked  or 
unmarked  crosswalk  at  a  street  intersection;  defining 
the  term  "right-of-way,"  and,  in  substance,  further 
instructing  the  jury  that  if  they   believed   from    the 


Page  9  Gen.  No.  9035 

evidence  that  the  plaintiff  crossed  First  Street  at  a 
point  other  than  the  crosswalli,  and  knew,  or  by  exer- 
cising due  care,  should  have  known,  that  defendant's 
cab  was  approaching  from  the  south  before  the  colli- 
sion in  question,  and  that  she  could  not  cross  safely 
before  arrival  of  said  cab ;  that  then  under  the  law  of 
Illinois,  defendant  would  have  the  right-of-way,  and 
that  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  plaintiff  to  yield  to 
the  defendant  the  privilege  of  the  immediate  use  of 
such  highway.  This  instruction  ignores  the  duty  of 
the  defendant  to  exercise  ordinary  care,  as  well  as 
the  surrounding  facts  and  circumstances  shown  by  the 
evidence,  and  was  properly  refused.  In  the  case  of 
Tuftle  V.  Checlcer  Taxi  Co.]  274  111  App.,  525,  in  pass- 
ing upon  a  similar  instruction  given  in  a  case  predi- 
cated upon  an  ordinance  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  later 
repealed,  this  Court  said: 

"The  instruction  is  also  objectionable  in  that  it  in 
effect  tells  the  jury  that  if  plaintiff  did  not  yield  the 
right  of  way  to  defendants'  cab  and  because  of  this 
was  injured,  she  could  not  recover.  It  ignores  the  iTile 
that  both  pedestrians  and  drivers  of  automobiles  on 
the  public  streets  are  required  by  law  to  use  care  to 
avoid  accidents.  Drivers  of  automobiles  on  the  streets 
must  use  ordinary  care  for  the  safety  of  pedestrians. 
The  ordinance  which  was  in  force  at  the  time  of  the 
accident  provides  that  under  like  circumstances  that 
the  operator  of  a  vehicle  shall  not  be  relieved  from  the 
duty  to  exercise  due  care."  (Traffic  Code  of  Julv  30, 
1931,  Art.  IV,  Sec.  15  (d) ;  Fickerle  v.  Seekmrp,  274 
111.  App.,  310;  Hafhaivatj  v.  Shannon,  265  111.  App.,  600; 
Chicago  City  By.  Co.  v.  Tuohy,  196  111.  410.) 

"The  instruction  was  also  erroneous  in  that  it  did  not 
teU  the  jury  under  what  circumstances  the  automobile 
had  the  right  of  way.  There  might  be  a  number  of  cir- 
cumstances, such  as  the  speed  of  the  automobile,  the 
gait  at  which  plaintiif  was  walking,  her  distance  away 
from  the  automobile  at  the  time  she  was  attempting  to 
cross  the  roadway  which  would  determine  the  right  of 
the  vehicle  to  proceed." 

The  same  objection  applies  to  defendants'  refused 
instruction  No.  2.  Furthermore,  at  the  instance  of  the 
defendant,  an  instruction  was  given  requiring  a  sep- 
arate verdict  by  the  jury  as  to  whether  or  not  the  plain- 
tiff was  ^vithin  the  line  of  the  cross  walk  at  the  time 
of  the  alleged  injury,  which  verdict  was  returned  in 
the  affirmative  on  that  issue. 

Not  having  otfered  any  instruction  correctly  stating 


Page  10  Gen.  No.  9035 

the  rule  of  law  as  to  the  provisions  of  the  statute  con- 
cerning relative  rights  and  duties  of  pedestrians  and 
vehicles  upon  crosswalks  and  upon  the  street  between 
crosswalks,  the  defendant  cannot  complain  on  that 
ground. 

Defendant's  refused  instruction  No.  3  was  a  correct 
statement  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  facts  in  this  case 
but  was  covered  in  principle  by  given  instruction  No. 
14.  Instruction  No.  4,  as  to  the  relative  duties  of  the 
parties  to  exercise  ordinary  care,  was  also  covered  by 
other  instructions  herein.  Instruction  No.  5  simply 
undertook  to  repeat  the  rule  as  to  contributory  negli- 
gence set  forth  in  several  other  instructions. 

As  to  defendant's  refused  instruction  No.  8,  it  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  no  claim  for  damages  for  future 
pain  and  suffering  was  made  in  the  complaint,  and  no 
evidence  was  offered  thereon;  hence  this  instruction 
is  not  applicable  nor  is  it  based  upon  the  evidence. 

Defendant's  instruction  No.  9  was  properly  refused 
because  the  complaint  alleged  future  loss  of  earnings, 
and  evidence  was  offered  on  that  issue  and  it  would 
have  been  improper  to  tell  the  jury  in  that  state  of  the 
record  that  they  could  consider  the  amount  of  loss  of 
wages  or  earnings,  if  any,  from  the  date  of  the  colli- 
sion to  the  date  of  the  trial  and  could  not  allow  any- 
thing for  such  loss  in  the  future.  Tlie  Chicago  Union 
Tractor  Co.  v.  Emil  Chugrin,  209  111.,  429.  The  amount 
of  the  verdict  was  not  excessive  and  was  fairly  re- 
sponsive to  the  evidence. 

The  Court  has  examined  both  the  abstract  and  the 
record  relative  to  the  ruling  of  the  Court  on  argument 
of  respective  counsel  to  the  jury  and  finds  no  prejudi- 
cial error  therein. 

Finding  no  reversible  error  in  the  record,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  lower  court  will  be  affirmed. 

Judgment  Affirmed. 
(Twelve  pages  in  original  Opinion.) 


(20360—1-37     14)  -.im^. 


Illinois  ynpuDxisnea 
— fcplnions 


288 


77727 


This  reserved  book  is  not  transferable  and 
must  not  be  taken  from  the  library,  except 
when  properly  charged  out  for  overnight  use. 


^^^ 


mmmm^