Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats



■■■'■■' ■>i*,'K...; 

wpTO'; -u-r"''!' i= ■■ ''^;'-'''''''"'' ■■■ V'. ■■■■■"' ■•'''' ■■ '''M'Y/'r 






Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2010 witii funding from 

CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Researcii Libraries in Illinois 

FEB 9 '61 



a oorporatlon of IlllnoiBy as 
trustee imder the trust deed 
dated June 27 » 1928 » and 
recorded in the Beoorder^s OfficeJ 
of Cook County y Illinois » as 
PoouBtent iro* 10173103* et al.. 
Plaintiffs and Appelleei 

l£/U^GTTi3lITii COCK et al»» 

Defendants . 

BOY D. KHtSHir, 



1,4. 601 


August 30, 19S2, ISaTld C» Oookj the owner of property knoim 
as 300-308 Korth Mohigan avenue and 72-82 last South Water street, 
Chicago » improved with a four-story hriek office and store "building, 
demised the preaaises to Roy D. Keehn for a period of 99 years at a 
rental of $60,000 a year, payaTale in advano© in equal quarterly in- 
Btalljttentsi and from 1932 at a rental of |I55,000 per annum, payahle 
in like laanner* The lease recited that the lessee had purchased the 
huilding on the premises for $100,000, the receipt of which waa 
aeicnowledged "by the lessor; the lessee was also recitaired to pay all 
taxes and aseessments and there was a provision that if he defaulted 
in the payment of rent or defaulted in any of the other covenants of 
the lease for a period of thirty days, it would "be lawful for the 
lessor to declare the term ended, that if the lease were terminated 
hy forfeiture or lapse of time, the lessee would surrender and deliver 

lOb nA.lJ^QS 


boob iairti odi 

i as <uiOi r' "■ ■ 

\ t.XS iff' t ". 




« :s i3a/>eY ee 10 boitsq ^ rol missel .v ijo. oJ c;o..i.; ic>:ta ou. beBinab 
-ni ^Xxean^p Xaxipo ni aoxt^^vbfi ru oXcL:^\:J3q ,1^39^ « 000,08-^'. lo X^cfne'x 

BJorAoidw 10 jqitow nxi* ,000,OOX-^; toi aeaimexq ui:c? no ^^nxbliw 

lii Y«« oi bsaii/pei oaX« aav osaeeX oxU rxoiiuoX oxIJ xo b^gbaX^voa:-©.: 
..oXuaTtob e£l 'li i^li aoiaivoaq « ww »t«ri* b»3 e^noflwaaeaa bne b.::.^.c 
..o Binaatnrotj izxUo oflJ lo ^pis ax bcSXiSSi^ o . 

Mil tol ItJ-ifisil ©cf axwow ;Jx , ^-^ **^^^ 

E>ei«nl«»i •3«W»aiieX orCJ li ,bebr/> ra'to^ 

.. f^rtD'/'ii/a bXuo* e»«6©X , - , .. .y^tiolio, v. 

' ') 

up the premioeB to the lessor together with the improvementB and 
that all l>uildiagB, etc., then oa the premises should belong to 
the lessor and no compensation should he allowed ox paid therefor. 
June 27 » 1928, the then ovmers of the premises, including 
Marguerite Cook, the widow of the lesaor, David C» Cook| executed 
their trust deed which is in foreclosure in the instant case, to 
seourc an indehtednees of ^318,500, ©yidenoed by forty notes due 
fire years after date, the trust deed was subject to the 99 year 
1««B© and provided that, "all the interest of the lessor under said 
lease being expressly covered by this Indenture, reserving to the 
lessee the right to pay to such lessor the rental due under said 
lease as the same becomee payable but not in advance." The rents, 
issues and profits were also pledged as additional security for the 
payment of the indebtedness. The tenant fell behind in the payment 
of taxes and in the installment of rent falling due October 1, 1933, 
and on March ^1, 1934, Mrs. Cook, the then owier of the premises, 
served a written notice on the tenant to terminate the lease because 
of the default in payment of the installment of rent, /afterward 
she filed her complaint in the Superior court of Oook county against 
the tenant and others praying for the r^aoval of the lease upon her 
title which suit is still pending. 

July 17, 1934, the instant case xms brought to foreclose tho 
trust deed. Mrs. Go ok, the tenant, Keehn, and others were made de- 
fendants. It was eaieged in the complaint that the interest of plain- 
tiffs was subject to the 99 year lease and on information and belief 
it was alleged that Mrs. Cook had elected to terminate the lease "but 
that her purported cancellation was void and ineffective because the 
ri^t of canoellation and termination of the lease was conveyed "by 
the trust desd. Tae prayer was for foreclosure, the appointment of a 
receiver, and in case of deficiency, for a personal decree against 


..r\'sq erf.* ax balded XX©1 axis«©-' .aoeBb&^tfb: :n<sm.^ 

, xecfodoO oi; .riX^iar 

; •■ '. -.TBTfol-nx no ten aeseX ■s^sey. C^ exIJ o* io&{,ea^ a^'*' 3t'*J::t 

;^3nJLsVi» 90'xa«if) X. o'l t'>?;»rTf»i:oi-'tf/f) !• oj^'.:> xt.L iifUJ i-xct 

Mrs* Cook* UTS* Cook fil»d hor ansvor sot ting upt aaioBg otkoy 
things > that ehe Yisid oeryed notioe on tho tenant > Eoehni to tor- 
Biinato tho lease* Kechnf in hie €in6\jor> denied that plaintiffs 
wore entitled to declare the leaue teriainated or that plaintiffs 
had any right to attempt to enforce any of the oorenants or condi- 
tions of the lease on the "rmilding now on the premises or to hare 
Bneh buildinf,- sold undar a Aeaxas to satisfy the lien of the tnist 
deed. He admits that Krs.^ Cook cancelled and terminated the lease "by 
giTing him notice in witing, ae the lease provided, and that aftor- 
waards she filed suit in the SiQ>erior court to remore the lease from 
the premises* The oaee was referred to a master in chancery as tos 
also the motion of plaintiffs for a receirer* TbB master took the 
eridenoOf i»de up his report, found that T^ reason ot the default 
paym«xt of the principal and interest of the indehtedness secured 
T»y the trust deed, the title to the property '^becaae a defeasihle 
title in said plaintiffs as beUvesa them and the said defendant, 
Harguerite Cook," including hex lessee, Hoy D, Keehn, and that 
after such default plaintiffs were entitled to the rents falling 
due under the lease and reccanaended that a receirer "be appointed 
to he effeotlre, as per order of court theretofore entered as of 
Pehruary 13, 1935* 

The master further foimd that the serTing of notice of the 
termination of the lease "by Mrs. Cook on defendant Keehn iras in- 
ef fee tire; that there -was ^371,804*43 of the indehtedness secured 
1>y the trust deed orer and ahove the foreclosure expenses due and 
unpaid euad default in the payment of taxes of aiore than $133,000, 
and that in case the property ^.s sold aid there was a deficiency, 
Krs. Coek was personally liahlo therefor. 

Ohjections to the report vjoxq filed and orerruled and thegr 
nvm oardered to stand as exceptions, and a decree entered which 


^maa n'lM alii**** m«^sw -s^if !>«Xn :£coO ♦b^ .stooO .a*tK 


* ir« 

•J 5 " 

^^ ^--5fi ,3xM #JB<£^ a#Mfef! sjK tf^tt^ 


^ .srb .^^n^* •ai;.oXa*.c_ - -^^ ^^^^ **^^* «^^ ^' 

. . ..■ ,,rr ',>'o.:i-,crO 

"^t" baa fteXir 'I'^vc a.- o-.;. 

recited the oyerrtiliBg of all exceptloiiB« 

So far as it is naoesaary to state the findings of the 
deexee for the purpose of this appeal, it is stiff icient to say 
that the decree found (after reciting the serring of the notioe 
of the forfeiture of the lease l»y Mrs* Cook <m the defendant 9 
Keehn,) that "said action on the part of Marguerite Cook happened 
after the default loade hy her in the payment of the indehtedness 
secured by the trust deed hereby sought to he foreclosed, and the 
»aa0 was not approved hy the said plaintiffs, and, so far as plain- 
tiffs' rights and interests herein are concerned, her acts in that 
hohalf have no effect thereupon. The finding in this paragraph 
is not conclusire as to the defendant Hoy D» Keehn and the Court 
hereinafter recenres the right to re-examine and detoraine the find- 
ing of fact and the legal conclusion thereon." 

The decree then finds the amounts due from Mrs. Cook} and 
that plaintiffs h&ve a valid and first lien upon the mortgaged 
property and all rights of Mrs. Cook therein "as the same existed at 
the date of said Trust Deed, including the rents, issues and profits, 
subject hov;ever to the rij^ts and interests of the defendant, Koy J). 
Keehn, as set forth in the lease made to him by David 0. Cook." And 
it was decreed that unless the indebtedness was paid within 3 days, 
the premises, subject to the 99 year lease, and all rights of Mrs# 
Cook in the premises said under the lease, be sold to satisfy the 

The defendant. Hoy !)• Keehn, alone, prosecutes this appeal. 
The burden of his argument is that his 99 year lease was terminated 
by the notice served upon him by the then owner of the premises, 
Marguerite Cook. His contention, as stated by his counsel is 
♦•Appellant's theory of the case is that the lease and all obligations 
of appellant, lessee, thereunder, were canceled and terminated by 
the declaration and notice to terminate and cancel the lease given 

arfr •'- r ■ -*--' -' ^-^ .^^:.,'-.n .^ ■- :M- .... v.:.A a?, 

bait one 9alaift9b tfm ©nlasxs- oricr s,trn®<49^ tt«»#tj«!iOfl««ta| 

",fio*r»rf:' ncieuXonoo X»^oI erf* &JU3 ^feol- "if* i^al 

..... Z'^'l^O'&a 

•^ii-i.'J i.\' 

>cp5 acl"Jf5ii'i: Wfi o* k©t.« 

Ov' 'Jl-^ , ,'.;iiiK}-zq af;j ci :isioD 

ax Xaarwoo aixi ^d ^s^- <nDxjn»xiif0s ct£U: •;^oi;> ttii'si^isp^xeM 

.' boiaalen9S baa boXeon-o « ifobfiofftiarf:? «i»«3&aX « *«AtXtiX23(*' ^o 


to leesee "by Marguerite Cook caa March 31, 1934} and the notice 
«f appeal prays relief lay order or decree to that effect," 

Qn the other side, counsel for plaintiff a say that the 
question acvanood lay the lessee, Keehn, ae ground for a revereal 
of the decree ie in no way involved becanee Keehn'e intereste 
under the lease are expressly reeerred hy the tenae of the decree* 
They take the further position that in any event the decree ought 
to "be affirmec! because the attempted cancellation of the lease Ity 
ICrs* Oook wa.6 ineffective* 

We hold that under the expresa provisions of the decree 

the right© of defendjmt, Keehn, so far as his rights under the lease 

^ involv«€* not affected "but are reserved for the further consid- 
eration of the court. 

la the decree, after finding that the ri^ts of the plain- 
tiffs were not affected "by the notice of termination given hy Krs* 
Cook to Keehn, it is expressly stated that such finding ia not con- 
clusive as to Keehn, and that the court "reserves the ri^t to re- 
exaniine and determine the finding of fact and the legal conclusioii 
thereon." There is similar language in the decree with referenee 
to the payment of costs and attorney's fees, which provides that 
such findings are euhject "to the rights and interests of the de- 
fendant, Hoy K» Keehn, as set forth ia the lease." The decree also 
reserves the question as to the personal liahility c^ Hrs. Jook ia 
case of deficiency after sale, as is the question of the appointment 
of a receiver. 

Holding as vre do, that the rights of defendant, Keehn, under 
M» lease have not heen adjudioated "but Imve teen expressly reserved 
for further coneideration hy the court, we would not be \iBrranted in 

pascing on the further contention r.dvanced "by plaintiffs. 

Tho deeree of the C^uperior Court of Cook covmty is affirmed. 

iKcSiurely and Matchett, SS*,, conovir* 


aJHus&iai n^adtm^ sejofcostf b&ylnral T^fiw ©js Hi aJc &9X9<sii aiii' iO 

* ©V t d * tl « ari ajsw afo© « a-^lt 

a.i?Gl tifi aiii'^ i'l aid a.-j t.*;;'! o-: ^arltsX , Ja-sonol^o 'lo a^ij^;!*! «itd 

...\. Tol &6V'£S.: jiwT fee^oslta J"ois ff«^^ <ifa rXovfll \ 

;»ACl^ a»bi:TC •/ ^ata'T ' feces s*®«o lo ^ttumr^&q arid oif 

' • da^«I I « fm<»fiu*i . ttttJsbti&'i 

::o Y*i:XftfBiX x««ny?:£'CT ea.*: tti «b Hci- ..'Jecrp «» J »»vie a »^ 

■■: »rf4 *0i{;t ««{!» 0W ■ CoH 


A Corporation, 



COMPA^Y, a Gorrjoration, 

Appellant , 




294I.A. 601 



Plaintiff "brougiit an action aej,ainst defendant to recoTer 
damages, clai^iing tiat defendant liad v?rcn<5f 'Olly aeut no o ices and 
letters to plaintiff's customers statin^^ that a can opener wiiich 
was "being maxiufactured and sold "by plaintiff was an infringement 
of one whlcn was aanufaetured and sold by defendant, inere was a 
jury trial and a verdict and judgjaent in plaintiff's favor for 
♦9,000 and def.ind'ant appeals. 

The record dlsoloees that Reyburn T, Chase of Camden, i». J,, 
oTstalned letters patent dated February 8, 1927, and kay 15, 1928, 
covering certain can openers, and on October 28, 1929, entered into 
an exclusive license agreeiaent v/ith defend^int, Vaughan lnovelty 
Manufacturing Coiapany, embodying the ifiiproveiuents covered by the 
letters patent, jRie Hgreeaxent provided that in the event other let- 
ters patent should be granted to the licensors for improvexuents in 
ean openers, "of that type and design described in and covered by 
the claims ef said basic patent #1617148, the license'^ shall have 
an exclusive license to these under the same terius as herein eet 

Prior to the execution of this agreeiiieat Chase had an appli- 
cation pending in the patent office in Washington for anotuer can 
epener and endeavored to Induce defendant to enter into an agreeme-it 
for a license covering the can opener described in the application, 
"but defendant refused to do 3o, 



loa .A.I ^ OS 

acl-.-^ x«flf qo ilea j. 

,':^bs'Jf*j 'to n 

.■idoio:.) r.o tiv- , 


■D rii:rj'r.~o 


•il^tiVOO 3^ay^> 

rtl A T^^ i ! B ^ B I u<X !9 d fii iiUit- ' 

, u»-» ;^i,i W.J *,-jo>,)i.3A 

lOttOflmber 7, 193U, Uhasa entardd into ari •3colusiv«i licenso 
agreement yrith Charles J. L«lgh oi' Ukieago, aut.'iorizing uim to manu- 
facture and a«Il can openers oovere^i iu titiS applloatlon, In omss a 
patfUit sftoulrt thereafter be iseued to Chase, 

May 20, 1930, Xetttfrs patent were Issued to ChasQ covsring 
the can opener described in kie application. February 17, 1930, 
leigh assigned all hits rights under the lio^mee atfreement to plain- 
tiff, the Beliable Manufacturing Company, which hod anortly before 
1»een Incorporated under the laws of Illinois. Defendant has been in 
business since 1910, manufaoturing tpeoialtitts, including oan openers 
and kitchen uttnsils and had built up a considerable business; 
shortly after it entered into its license a^^reenent with Chase it 
began to msuaufaeture and sell can openers under Chase *s patents, one 
of which was knowa as '^Safety ReXi" and the other as "Kleen Kut." 
After february 17, 193Ci, plaintiff began to manufacture and sell ihe 
own opener known as the "Gend" eoTftred by its license. Defendant con* 
tended that the *(ima* can opener was of the same type and design as 
its "Safety Eoll" axid in karsh, 19;S(>, which was before the patent 
was issued to Chase for the third can opener, it learned that plain- 
tliT was about to manufaeture and sell the Qtm can opener, and it 
eensuljjred its counsel, patent attorneys in Chicago, in regard to its 

rights under its liemise agreexueat fron Chase. And on Mareh 7, 19v3C, 

before plaintiff had begun to manufacture the/ean opener, defendant's 

eounsel ad-vised tii« Keystone Pie &. Stamping uompany, which was pre- 
paring the dies for plaintiff for the Ge& can opener, that that esa 
opener would be va infringement of defendant's can opener, and that 
if it manufactured the dies and they were used to produee the can 
opener, it would be liable as a contributory infringer. On the saat 
day counsel also wrote a letter to one of plaintiff's officers 
saying counsel had been adTised by their client, tne defendant, tnat 


* iimbm*t0b ,t«>v«qo il»o\g. 

tftt» lAtU imni ,Xi>.i**io imi* tti«i Ai;^^ la'i i'Ufaitilti 

9M01 9. ';.-i«4W^il«w. 

it would nftld platrtilT coD.pany liable if it manufaeturad the oan 
opener as proposed beoauBs it would be a direct infringeo^ent of 
the letters patent, of wuich defendant was Uae exclusive licensee. 
The letter said, ^e shall hold you strictly to account for the 
manufacture or sale of can openers coming under the clair^s of 
either of the af oremer?tioned patents and yje shall hold the die 
maker to account who is producing the dies for you, or wno may 
prO'duce the completed articlp- for you. I'his notice is given for 
the purpose of raiabling you to withdraw frow the manufacture or 
sale before you have become further involved," What answer, if 
any, was made by txie die coBipany or "by tne plaintiff dofts not 
appear, March 14, 1930, defendartt sent a "notice of infringement " 
to the trade, in whi jj-i it was stated: "We are informed that a 
number of dealers are selling a certain type of can opeiier *«*" 
(Describing it). And that a car^ op ner of tJiiK type was covered 
by defendant's exclusive licence under the two patents issued to 
Chase, And further, that "If you are selling can openers generally 
corainf!; T'iti-JLn the above description, *** we believe such construc- 
tion infrinf^es our patents," but if there was any doubt the person 
ad<?.res3ed should consult bis counsel or procure copies of the 
patent. These notices were mailed to persons and firms who bought 
eaii. openers from plaintiff, 

June 13, 1930, deffnd-snt also sent letters to a number of 
plaintiff's custonieriR in which it was atated tnat defeiidaut was 
informed "you ^re eelling or pprwiitting to b«? demonstrated in 
your store a Can Opener under the trade name of 'Grem', which w« 
wish to advis* is a direct infringement on our 'Safety Roll' Can 
Opener on which we have a number of patents, W» are, therefore, 
enolosin^j copy of letter prepared by our attorney which is self- 
explanatory, ani will accordingly request that a discontinuance of 
the sale of said Can Opener be effected at once.* 







, «8>.TlU 

August 1, 19 30, plaintiff's attorneya, who vere I'ariliar 
with tiie law relating to patents, sent delexidaiit «, rttgietcred let- 
ter ir: w icii they said, "Our client, which manufactures and seile 
the *UeGa* oaa opener, has 8uhii:iitted for our consideration numerous 
letters wai&h you have written to its customers wherein you assert 
laoth directly and by innuendo, *** that the Gem can opener "is an 
infringeiaent of patents under which you are licensed," This prac- 
tice indulged in \>y you of sending tureatening letters to our 
client's customers has Taecooie intolerable and our client does not 
Intend to permit it to eontinu*,** And further, that if defendant 
thought its patent was being infringed by plaintiff , tne proper 
ccume for defendant to pursus was to bring suit, "Apparently you 
have contented yourself with sending threatening letters to our 
client's &ustOHiers and have refrained frca bringing a suit to test 
your Itlleged rights, because you well know, as do we, that there is 
nothing to youi; olaixa with respect to infringeaient, " And the let- 
ter notified defendaat tiiat il' within one week it had not brought 
suit against plaintiff for the claimed infringeBient, or had not 
given assurance that it would cease writing dei'endant's customers, 
"our client will file a bill in equity deeicing an ijfi junction and 
accounting," What took plaoe after the sending of tnis lettjir ^oes 
not appear, except that plaintiff did not file the bill in eruity 
and no actios was taken until def aidant filed its bill in equity 
in the Tfnited States District Court May 4, 1931, charging that ths 
Reliable ^manufacturing Company infringed the patents under which it 
held an exclusive license and injunctive relief and damages were 
sought , 

The Reliable itanufacturing Company, defendant in the equity 
suit, filed its motion to disinics on the ground that "upon the face 
of plaintiff's bill and ths stipulation of the parties that defend- 


, .■>■»* wo^: »'at.;--»sct ,?»^rt^tr« fc®%0Xii; . 



— ■ .^ 

i..;|:),3t: 'f-eirnff 


ant*» deTlce lor opwiing cans does not infringe the patents sued 
upon," Xhe motion was suatainad and a deuree ectered. The decr«« 
of the i'ederal Court, entered Jane 2, 1932, stated tnat the cause 
eajne on to Ise heard upon the amended bill of complaint, the letters 
ptitent and atipul i-tion , identifying defendant's can opener jUid spe- 
eifying "the claims of the patents in suit relied upon "by the 
plain Giff 8. ** itfid it was decreed that, "the manufacture, use and 
sale of said Gem C&ii Opener does xiot infringe said Letters Patent 
or either of theai. " The suit was diamiased at pl.iintiff 's costs, 
Ko appeal was taken from this decree. 

Movem'ber 3, 1934, about 2^ years after the entry of this 
decree, plaintilf filed the instant suit, 

1, Defendant contends that plaintiff's action is one of 
slander and libel and barred 'fay the provisions of sec, 13, chap, 
83, 111, Btate Bar Stats. 1937, wixich provides tnat an action for 
Slander and libel shall be coxaiaenced witnin one year next after the 
eause of action accrued. And that it appears from the face of the 
complaint that the last alleged wrongful and malicious acts of de- 
fendant occurred in 1932, which was more thaii one year before the 
cause was brought. We think this conterxtlou caiinot be sustained. 
Plaintiff's action is not for dander or libel, but ie an action 
on the case brought to recover special daiaages. Such an action "ie 
denominated ela/ider of title, by a sort of figure of speech, in 
"Which the title is perscniflsd, Slaiider of title may be defined 
at a false and malicious statement, oral or written, made in dis- 
l^aragemant of a person's title x,o real or personal property, or of 
some right of his, giving him special damage, 

"The remedy for a slander of title ordinarily is an action 
at law, based on trie tort in the nature of an action of trespass 
on the case." 37 Corpus Juris, pp. 129-13(J, i'he five-year statute 
•f limitations is applicable* Sec. 15, chap. 83, 111, State Bar 


ib a' lac 

3L1 -''Xi 

. ;i.— JO 



8t»tt. i«37. 

9, P#fiBr£(f«r.t further oontnea* tfiat, •*h,« «»oJttaiv» il« 

«<WJBer of a pfttwtt, who, for t&e prot«soxlo»ik oJ' hl« rltit.tK, aoid aoi- 
inic in geodi f&lth« i»eu«t notle«e« to coapAtitor* and cu»t0Jii«9'a 
mB6«j*tlrig his rlfc-J-ita, in not J lahl« ia n^r. ^^etton baaM Ui^reisn,* 
ftltJ^uug.' It tttTti.* out fchflr* wtt« iafrlni-^wuftnt. And in th« in* 
»timt oa»« f^lai^Mff Aiusnot .r«tcov(ir bise«ua« "th^t neeefobry •Xot'.Ante 
9f mftllo* or wafit of g@o<^ faith and wsiiit t>x' pjrobaietXe «»ua4» uave B«t 
l>«tn pTnyitn;* tat thut tia« «vi«»€aoe la to trhe contrary; that it 
aiao«(» tl)&t 1ii^f«n4iur>t atsiM In Q^&d iaiVn Mi4 wlttiout««; thmt 
it HflKl fr«-b«ktl» cini9« for b«iS«vi»jfe eaid ifi»i»tlftii tiaat pXaiatiff, 

Ifcy t>i« »t«iul'«ctuff«f ikud «aJL» of t « O^as 6«ia op^car wa« iwfrlutiing 

th« natlhrtt* uftiltr whieto a»J'«Eid»3iit i*«»ld a*elu»lY« lto#n»«»iuad far- 
th*»'rxort, that a© Teocmfy ctm* bn. k*aA h9ai*.M& d«f «iiti»tit , at all 
ti»5«», ««t«<ll v«aia«ir «!h« 3»dvit;is of amip^laut cxsuusiffii, Uounsal ftr 
plaliitlff »«^^B to tl'»aw tiie l«ir 1* sua uantajided loy coujcisal 
J"«r ^#f«itd«nt, Tl!.©y ssay, *Whil« th« liG«iie«* ©l' a patent«a aotlng 
in SiQei faith SRay -j^rot^ot his iiiit«!^rfi«t i» a patent i»y ••ndi&g 
©autiermjy ROtie«» to tJi® trswlo an«t will not ©« liabla altiiough 
hi» «lai;'. of iiifrlJ5g«sia«»t may i» r«i«t ¥« ttiitru"?,* that in th« 
instant ea«« th« wl<l«fj0« af»o«?a 4al'4dad«nt did not l>eXi*T« or could 
not nonestiy kav« 1»«>ii(iY«4 ttiat plaintiff vrat infringing d«fftr.dact*a 
right* an-l^r me ©ataiit, «MEid ti-t«r«for* tiia vftrdiet fOid J|aiii»;»«nt in 
plaintiff ' 9 f9V»ar akuul^ !»• auttalned. 

7h«ti 9vi4«nea sl&dw» Uk»X wh^n dafari<laiit, uf Crticago, «-aa aago- 
tiatlz^g with Wxii&a*, t£i# {i»«»t*ai«« imo livad iu itav Jaraay, for tho 
tx«lu«iv« .|ie«»»e of tiift two p^toiito ti'iou iaold by iri-xaao, dofondant'o 
eeunool i?rop)ar<i<l aBi<l tat'iaittad «a asr9oc&6Ai for lioo&oo «/ii«tx CUaao 
rcf\tt«^ to exoeatft b««auto «o:^« oi tixo laBiiuaito uao4 was of auoh a 
Ca^oral ®u&raot«r tiiat it aight bi» censtraod to iuulado tko «a« op«r>or 
dosoribod ia Caaao'a appliaatloa for ^ato&t th%a pOAdiaa in faaiiing- 



ton, ajR'l that (ShHMm effnrntA (e falv« 4ttf«ndant & Ile«na« I'or Ui*t cin 
o.R>«?r:i?r, *a!i4 a^vlw«d A^ftm^Hnt tn»t if It 4«i»lr«d a iiGen»« for tH» 

S«)j(. ama op'^r»r it irmst j>ny tii« ftddititjuttl auBouMt i« a 4-*y yr tv« 
b«caua« 0hi*«« •vnst.* tJa«n mjgfjtiaktlng with <tfioUA«r partj/ wltii a view of 
glvintj «««'* '5th«r o^Tty ^» lic^snaft to ei^.ur«ctuiro wad 8«li the a«a cka 
tv'*?''***. *i4l';3) <3ontraet &i#itl b« !»&<!« *«my day isow;* tu«,t <l«l*»jii-i«M*t 
advised C«ia«« that It dl«l not tleelre a lio^nea to 'uanuf^ctur* and 
ii<»ll th« €(«m (3!«bn 0;s}ftB«r. 

Ofttolitir 14, l^a^t ©.!«•« wrot^* d©J'<*ft«i«i«t'8 o.>ui*««l a latttjr 
Ife is'aic/Ji k<? sai'l, "48 I im.%i-r*%%zi. ii/ Ky la.9t letter to ta^Ki, I thiak 
that tfes ttris* ♦name £Cffif.'r«d lypit satid -iefi'lfeSii* ajr^ too s.w*«tti^ and 
al] iueluslTft. **■« I lk»v# tmo mppil^jtitl^jxai };»tr4«}ii:ig la %h« ^at«nt ef- 
fie«, %fitl\ &f 'S'hieH t«cla<5« on* f&t tt/t, at ib.^ «»«»&• «iei*-«at« a« tiali 

A«< t>«li! ^n<^:* that hiss ^ppliamtioj^^ ior ta« )^««k eon (ipei«ii«r h»4 %••» 
is triterfer^jfie* *'lt'n tw* ®th«r«, but h.% had be«« ttwaifded prtcrlty 
ani tlie lluit of a;r;j>««kl hed i5&B«f«4 ; t>ia,t he. hKd wrlttoa kt, ViiagiijuB 
(i«f «»Rda»t*« pr«sld<t>nt) about %l\^ £u&tt«r «ma wMle tlie Giua ftjm op^oer 
iKlght ¥<» c9r>silcire<S .%» &i" tlse tarn*! f«m«7al deeigu ai' th« ob« eoverttd 
fey the |:-.5*t«r.t« l'»r wMefe dtfsfn^jwat w«i« fiagotlatin^j; for a llG#n««», y«t 
Gh&tft w©ulA •a»T«5 t© ii'ialtt o» «-erAl«tg tfeat u-lil net involro It ia 
Xitlg&tior. to '6l«t«ruiike «^« It b«i<Miga to.* 

7«n 4ay» latsr, Oototier ^4» Ckae* wrot« Vaaghaa, sa.vlng hA 
v^&t ericloeing the ootitrftet signal by aim, nnd *X hair* alterad ta9 
7th Cl^uite B<. th>*t It is 6atlBfa«tory to fi«, and I b*»ll»Vfr, fr©« * 
thorouj^ etu4y aJ^ yattar letter, Uiut it snouli bt? watief aotory to 
yoo.," mkd <itftt#d that tha a^TaaKant aa cuatit^od ^aT<^ dafMidant tiia 
ri|g,at to aXI i0i;9fo'v«K«nt« ou tna two pat«ntt, "but ^oaa not inoluda 
ny Api^lioatli^ne now {tauding, «'•». ky abjaatiana to taa worda uaad 
by youjr attcruaya «»« bii^at w«ra too na&cral and Ta,»ua. * 2kia 

jf^^ •«* 

ton, an^ that Cliase offered to give defendant a lieense for that caa 
opener, arid adTieed defendant that if It desired a licenst lor tUe 
Cre?T can opener it must pay tiie additional amourit in a da^^ or tvo 
becaase Chase was then negotiating with anotuer party with a viev: of 
giving sue i other party a license to maaufacture and sell tiie uem cun 
opfn:er, which contract Bright be made "any day now;** tiiat defendant 
adTised Chase tl;.at it cUd not desire a licerjBe to inanufacture and 
■ell the Geci can operser. 

Octoleer 14, 19 29, Chaee wrote defendant's couiisel a letter 
in wliich he said, "Ae I Jjfttiirated ixi uiy last letter to them, I think 
that tixe teririi 'aame gwasral typs and design* are too gi^ei.eral and 
all inclusive. *** I have two applications peniing ii. the patent of- 
fice, toth of -wiiLcii include one or t^o oi the r.aine ele^iieiits as this 
one, and jni,r^at te considered as of the same general type and deei^a 
as this one;" that his ap:jlication for the Qem can opener had "been 
in interference with t-ws others, but he had been awarded priority 
and the limit of aippeal had paase^. ; that ho had written Lr, Vaughan 
(defendant's president) about the matter and while the- Gexu can opener 
miglit be considered as of the same general design as the one covered 
by the patents for which defendant was negotiating for a licer se, yet 
Chase would "have to ineist on vordint, that will not involve it in 
litigation to deterji^ine who it belongs to." 

Ten days later, October £4, Chase wrote Yaughan, saying he 
Was enclosing the contract si&tied by nim, and "I n&ve altered the 
7th Clause so tixat it is satisfaetorj' to me, and I believe, froa^ a 
thorough study of your letter, that it snould be satisfactozy to 
yeui," and stated th»t the agreement as CiTianged gave defendant the 
rigiit to all improvements on tne two patents, "but does not include 
my applications now pending, ***, i^.y objections to tne words used 
by your attornajs was that they were too gansral and vaa,ue. " The 

to v7aiT ^ ii^i^' t^xis^ ««i-t;loaa Atiw }^isl;i&,^& ^^i^^pfilf 

ass MB^ X0j'»«'ijji>jstfi 0^ nwoai)!! t: \*%i?(i n^si,} rig 

baa HX ■■ »«aiPoiX .- ^o-a Jk,JU^ ^ '• vib>o 

.Ydoeqp aww 108 

iai taii^l iaml xm id b^iMini , ■ III 

rrfta^cro ruio ms«) •ifd' 'lo'l itolijgtoiXcc Id^i jA 

XMs^qo oMo fl»ii) s»rf* sXifi^v biii5 i9iiam «!<« .tuocf« (iu«Jbi«£»'j;> .'A) 

b9i^roj 'CIO 9i. ^' a^i«ot« iMiom^^ ^am jJUa 

•'.oJ agaoX^sf it oriw 9Cj ©t+^UX^il 

'... ,•!« oJ* v«'J*0«'*«*^''^y «"^ *A JjsjftJf o« »auKXU 4;^'!' 
»r<i J... f-*'^ '"" 'i baaa*: ^ nmm^'XHtm &di iaiki b»**iit liiui ",^«oX 

BfiLloiii. Son -J" ^9StmSy^< n<v;^ ?»ni UO mittttfflWVOiartfii Xi* ♦# Jfi^lT 

b«eii sl>'-" a*wX*»«»' ' ' * ,n«Jkfe«»<r w'oa Bitoi*«ioi;X«cr* )£« 


evidence is undisputed that Chase speoil'ioally told derendaut and 
Its couneel that Chase cnaiige(^ the wording: ol' the proposed licenss 
agreement bo it would Toe clear that it did not include a license 
under the patent I'or the Ueia opener. If defendant did not want to 
accept the license as Modified, aiid as construed by Qaase, it would 
seem that good faith would require t'lat Ghass he advised of this 
fact. But there is no ©"vidence that defendant objected to the con- 
tract as modified and interpreted by Chase before it was exeouted 
by defendant. Obviously Chase understood and intended that the 
license agreeraent whieh he gave to def sndant did not include the Gem 
can opener. Defendant Jcnew tiiat tiiis was Chase's understanding and 
Intention, but it said nothing and did nothing until after Chase 
had given plaintiff a license for the Geiu can opener and until 
plaintiff was preparing to manufacture and sell the Gem can opener. 
In these circumstances, in any view of the evidence we think whether 
defendaiit acted in good faith wnen it sent its "liotice of Infrings- 
ment" to the Keystone Die & Manufacturing Co., which was making the 
dies for defendant, and to the defendant, and afterward to the de- 
fendant's oustoHiers, was a question of fact for the jury. The Jury 
by its verdict found in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. 
Its verdict was apt>rovsd by the trial Judge, and upon a consideration 
of all the evidence we are unat.le to say that the finding is against 
the manifest weigiit of the evidence £j3.d are clear that we would not 
be warranted in disturbing the judgment. And we reach the same re- 
sult, if we assume, as we do, that defer^dant ezplained all of the 
matters to its counsel. 

Counsel for plaintiff also say that the delay of defendant 
in bringing its puit for infringement in the United States District 
Court raises a strong inference that defendant had no real confidence 
in its position, nnd is such evidence of bad faith as would sustain 
the JuryU verdict; that defendant in inarch 1930. kn«w that plaintiff 

oi 3 isiv i9a btb ^ocbuo'i ,i^a!?c{9 ia»^ •: n*iia^ «r{t v^baa 

boi : «'»(iiiri;> »aw sxxi^ tmtS^ irefQl 4'nei>n0't!»<X .xeneic^O iiuso 

99U ■ ^aliii&a hib bam -^ataioM bisa it tud tCioiinntai 

LiCait bLUi -xeneqo imo .^*> »sii tn't ti&cv»atL m 't'lktntjil^ a^vl-^ h*ii 

,%'s- ll9* ban itxtfi^o^tfftma. ot ^n)?ti^q9t^ 8«w Tti;^»i.i3l(^ 

.ft -oiJoA" mil inoB ii aeayt MlM't booh ni b»:Kim ^imbmt^h 

^f- , . .v- .yiii'XtfJOJi'tKimM A •l<T »ffo*«i'^»5l «».H.* «-t "#«•« 

h eil* o* biK^iiBi'la ba£ ,tiUitia»t9b orii , 'i -^ 

loo i»ii/oi» 9« liixl;» t*aX«> •t» f)«. atM^fiiw oKa £'*«' ^■»iloji« »ii* 

.Xfliaaiioo ail o:^ at^^^AM 

.,-..*-■ lu' , rtolli'.ao^' « 

wa» prooeeding to manufacture and 3«11 the Ger^ can opeiier, and that 
defendant did not tring his action in the Federal Court until kay 
4, 1931, a delay of fourteen montiis. The failure i'or an unteasonabl* 
length of time by the patentee or his licenaee to bring suit against 
an infringing manufacturer or any of his purcnasers to determine 
the question of infringement after distribution of no ices of claimed 
Infringement is considered to be conclusive evidence of bad faith, 
Racine Paper (i oods Co. v. Dittgen . 171 .?ed. 631, Jsut what is an 
unreasonable length of tirse obviously depends upon the facts of 
99>tSa. particular case. 

Ill reply defendarit says that the delay Hiay be explained by 
the correspondence between counsel for plaintiff and defendant; 
that plaintiff's counsel, in its let^.er of August, 19 SO, advised 
defendant that unless defendant desisted in sending out notices of 
claimed infringement or brought suit within one week, plaintiff 
"Would institute suit; that defendant failed to bring suit and that 
"the defendant attempted to have Chase, tiae inventor, protect it 
against the third patent ai^d have Chase pay for the cost of insti- 
tuting suit against plaintiff, i^egotiations with Chase extended 
over a period of six (6) months, and when Chase refused to protect 
defendant by instituting suit aiiainst plaintiff, then defendant 
started its suit in the Federal Gfturt in May, IQ^l," And further, 
that defendant could reasonably believe plaintiff would carry out 
lt« tlireat and institute suit, aa its counsel stated would be done. 
We think defendant might well have waited a reasonable length of 
time to ascertain whether plaintiff would bring suit. J3ut we think 
defendant i^oee much too far whan it esrolains its delay in bringing 
auit by the fact that it was seeking to uave Chase defray the ccst 
of such suit. Obviously Chase could not be expected to do this 
because he had taien the position and was still contending that 
there was no infringer exit of plaintiff's lioei^e in the Biaaufactur« 

AS 9tiS XX*« ba& n'iutaAtitsum 9t i«ib«KioQ'X<r »«w 
iisaomB9ittw diullm't s^tt .aafatm s&^otiUQi 'to x«i9fe « ,X£ex , 1^ 

alaL^ 'io 999lSoa tc tutxiudLittlb i&t'tA iat^as^^aiTkai to aoii9BU» 9^t 

j^iWL6rt»l»h hue. TtiigiiMli svJ-©rf to<i»&iiovo<»i'xcy 

^*B*- , •?! ,#»ijj,4;A 'io a».*9X «*i eti. ,X»8JXi;co a'TillnicIcr *«*!* 

ri.? ,sf<^«w 9JIO aiiiiiv ;^i;iita ^r^HoiJf to iimis»s>sUt'tai |?»«i.«X» 

'Zfmr'J ''"^ coot> 9rt# ««1 v^q »«*«£> »)W»ii iJiifc ;r i.i9^,»q. JwiJai* »i<* 

, » , 4.S ; iX *TwoC; l»zobii'l ^^iit al *lii?9 i^X b»i^st9 

1 ■■■'1 ii b»tlAi^.'- fiTaii- XX«wr #a;.i<tfli ^TaobowtJifc jtni-. 

• •.-■f,, mvf u i^^ v»IiH*a wrw Ji i9Ai d^Wi'l «ilv '^'^ 

... ! -.i^c rr<^0 ,i in: 


> «<> j> 


and sale of the Qem. ean opener, the patent for whloh had been awarded 
to Ghaee. We think such contention is wholly without merit and It 
is not at all surprising that the jury found for plaintiff on the 
question of good faith. 

3. Defendant further contends tnat the evidence was in- 
sufficient to support the jury's verdiet on tirie question of damages; 
that the damages » if any^ were speoulatlT*, for which no recovery 
ean "be had, Ihe eridenoe is to the effect that plaintiff had a 
numher of custcmers who had purchased the Qva oan opener; that 
plaintiff was demonstrating it in a numl>er of large stores and 
tnat wh^i these customers received notice from def aidant that the 
sale of the ean opener by plaintiff's customers was an infringement 
of defendant's license under the patents, some of tnem ceased to 
make further puronases, some returned the ean openers they then had 
on hand, some of them caused the persons who were demonstrating the 
can openers to witndraw from tneir stores, and there is a great deal 
of evidence giving the names and the sales of a nuxaber of plaintiff's 
customers. There is also some evidence as to the profit plaintiff 
was making on some of the sales* Obviously the exact amount of 
damages sustained could not be mathematically determined, nor is 
this necessary because under the lasr plaintiff might be entitled to 
vindictive or punitive damages, and the Jury was so instructed. It 
was not necesfiary for plaintiff to establish its damages witxi mathe- 
matical certainty, Daaghetee v. Ohio Oil Co. . 263 111. 518; American 
Ball Co. V. i^^ed. Cartridge Corp .. 70 jTed. (2d) 579. In tiae Ohio Oil 
C£. case it was held that in an action for damages resulting from a 
breach of a contract or a duty imposed by law, the da^iages must be 
the proximate result of the injury complained of, and the fact tnat 
the damages are difficult of exact asoertainiaent is no defense to the 
action, ilhe court there said (p. 525): "It is undoubtedly the lav 


; f»»,- ■»■ F. » t. .rrr. r 

j rji'j .i.'dJiaJBijy i*.") t'jrn i.-iirv ."('iT'. iui 

iff«00 Tpiwt'- ' ■ "''-^^ 

that ir!iCT« •peouXatiom or conjecture must be resorted to ror the 
purpose of determining whether the injury result* from the wrongful 
act charged or J'rom some oti^er cause, then ti:ie lav denies the in- 
jured party his aotioa for dauages, 'i'hie la only another way of 
stating the familiar rule that daniages must be the proximate result 
of the injury complained of. *** The right of reoorery being as- 
sumed, plaintiff in error cannot eaoape liability because the dam- 
ages are difficult of exact aseertainment. The nature of the in- 
quljjiiy here is such that it is praotioally impossible to ascertala 
with mathematic&l eertainty the exact amount of defendant in 
error *s damages. Xhis, however, affords no answer to a cause of 
action z^eaalting from the breach of contraet or a duty Imposed by 
law, The unliquidated damages growing either out of breach of con- 
traet or tiie eommissien of a tort are seldom susceptible of exact 
measurement. If such exactness were required the law of daniaigee 
would be of little practical vstlue, " 

We think the eyidenee in the instant ease was sufficient to 
submit the question to the jury under proper Instructions, under 
the rule laid down by our Supreme court in the case just quoted 

4. Complaint is made timt the oourt erred in admitting 
Improper eTidence on behalf of plaintiff and refused to admit 
proper evidence offered by defendant. Most of the rulings com- 
plained of were in connection with letters passing between the 
parties and Bome of plaintiff's customers. 

Plaintiff's counsel say that so far as tJie record discloses, 
the last notice or letter sent by defendant to the trade was on 
June 13, 1930, and that plaintiff, for the purpose of showing a con- 
tinuanee of the sending of such notices after that date and to shew 
malice, offered the letter which purported to be sent by the Greaaed 
Foods, Inc., t© plaintiff on June 3, 1931. This letter stated that 


. ■ . ... ..:■■. ... .M-:. . , .■X.rl 

LUB91 Bituslxortq »tii »rf iaaa <25-:\zxs'!-- fadi •lux taiXlJMi't «ii.J ^fll^ 

- . ". -.:r 'i :i\tad \illi4MlL 9qji.s>at> ioAoau ivfita al Xii^dJijKio. ^b9mu» 

:"■'-••- !;.«3 o^ •Xd'lasiicw.i 7 X^j^viiui.-' _ . ^.<3;Iup 

.i.^di*iq einj^il Jdilw «»X*««uaGO vii !»^«w 'to b'ini»i(^ 
X.0 »»ail«a lion 

the Creamed Foods, Inc. , had reeeived a letter from defendant ptat> 
ing defendant had just started suit against plaintiff for the in- 
fringement of the patent and therefore Creamed Poods, Inc., thought 
It would not Ids advisable for them to undertaJce handling the Gem 
•an opener. A number of objections were made to this letter when 
it was offered, but in the brief ooonsel say that the letter was 
"purely hearsay," but no sueh ebjection was urged on the trial. 
In these oircumstances the objection that it was hearsay evidenee 
cannot be made for the first time in tiiie court. Hearsay evidence 

is competent if not objected to. Hoover v. Emptrc Coal Co . . 149 

111, App, 258; Percival v. Schneider . 255 111. ^p, 428; 3 Jon -s on/ 

(2d) See, 1078. 

Complaint is also made as to other evidence offered, such 
iui t>ad cheeks given by the witness Gallagher to defendant eoi&pany. 
We think these checks were properly excluded. They only went to 
the credibility of the witness and there was sufficient other evi- 
dence on this question. Further complaint is made that the court, 
during the course of the trial when objection was made to the ad- 
mission of certain evider.ce, reserved his rulings. We think this 
should not have been done. Under the circumstances disclosed by 
the record, we think the court should have ruled on the several 
eschibits when they were offered so as to avoid confusion, 

5. Defendant complains of instructions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 
9, 10 and 11 given at plaintiff ♦s request, and further, that the 
court erred in modifying an instruction and refusing to ni-re two 
instructions offered 'oy defendant. We tnink we ou^irit to say that 
the abstract of the Instructions is very confusing and is not in 
aecordance with establisr.«d practice. Following the instructions 
are a number of specific objections made, wnich only tend to conlhse. 
Complaint is rcadft of instruction 1 becauae by it the jury was 



iq ianiB&A Ufa JkAil"X£ 

rtf>r .*5':3'nc ^C3^>'J- 

.: . ,7 Lfi^i:''i^'i ;e?S .q-r^^ .XXI 

.•:.v.. A , im) 

^* «:iiLar-f.f> nc-^. 

.T.+ f^ in 

;ri ?; -■■Y ;, 

S btaoi 


:iu\, 9t'v -iBW^oe 

-_ -, ia£i;;hL«*ii. 

..^ AiiOT« •tf BtA 04 *«««*A» ^IftW ■^•^■J-^ "^'■" '»•*''•'= '-iT.© 

, ' 1 J JU<a> ■'-1.1 • «■ »■> *> » * rt J. «u «. A«r V :* ( W 

' - 4"- 
;' i/UWi! - net/ V.^' V' Jl fc.;.Oi Jv/UT J «> ;.:».ld >•.•.<*. Wiij 

•itt ;6*iXwc'XXo'«. .ftoi*oiiic? A*, ai: j* ..v. .jj^- ^onAljTH&o.©* 


told, among oth«r t lngfl» that If plaintiff lost "cuatomers and 
prospeetive customers** and the plaintiff suffered damages as the 
result, the ver^ct should be against defendant; and the argument 
is "not a single oustoraer or prospective oustomer of the plaintiff 
was asked *** whether they were induced not to trade with plain- 
tiff on account of any of the acts of defendant, " We think the ob- 
jection unwarranted. The evidence tends to show that a number of 
plaintiff's customers stopped dealing in the Gen can opener after 
receiving the notice of infringement which defendant sent to them. 

Xhe substance of instruction Ho. 2 was whether the defend- 
ant fairly communicated to counsel all the faets pertaining to the 
patent and used reasonable diligence to ascertain such facts, and 
whether defendant acted in good faith upon advice of its counsel 
are questions for the jury to determine from the evidence. The 
objection to this instruction, counsel say, is that there is no 
evidence in the record from which the jury might find defendant 
had not communicated aJ.1 material faets to its counsel. We think 
the objection qtust be sustained. Defffl[idant*s counsel seems to 
have been fully advised of all the facts. 

Instruction &o . 4 was as follows: "The defendant being 
a corporation, can only act through its officers and agents, and 
it is responsible for the wilful^ reckless, or malicious acts of 
its officers or agents done within the scope of tlieir employnient. * 
Shis is an abstract proposition of law and ought not to have been 
given. The Jury might think the court was of opinion that defendant 
was malicious or reckless in what it did. People v. Gorbishly . 327 
111, 312; Ogren v. Sundell . 220 111, App. 584, 

By instruction iiio. 5 the jury was told "that the question of 
defendant's malice is a question of fact for the jury upon considera- 
tion of all the facts, letters, conversations and other testimony in 
evidence in this cause." She objection to this is that there was 

baiF 9i<-aicfBir ILiiifiii:'. (r-igul J t«i:(Jo ^aoxnjB ,blot 

ntii *fi 99^iii''Jil: bi2-i.yciije ttiSati.- i "a-i-^juoj-aifo ^viio^tfeotq 

: a»0 9ii;r nJt ^aiiamh b^q^otu tmtauiiauc' xi&lq 

j.haa'litk £ioiiiw ta»sa»-jisilx'tai 'to sali^^ ■/x 

I»£ 7^Mi aoqu Atla't boon, 0.1 b9S9» t£Uiba»'i9k ncffii^ftxiw 

..[aaakoo a*! oJ sJoijl lai- -U 69i^«6iHtfKua€' ...vtl 

.8*©jji*t •A*^ iXe 'to Jbaoivl)* x-f-^-^^'i ""^^^^ 9VJiii 
^£i; :a»oIXa*t au a«'^ .ioi:fojii'X^«aX 

'to aio» BUoLolisfi'- . -C-tw •^^ '^ ^^ 

ao;-c! - J'Ofl iiiskuo kv. :foa'ti&<ii^ as al a ixiT 

roflboat*^ *«j!1 no -t'^-^ ittalm xiwr .aavis 

, .. . . aajbgmjs .y a»tBO ;SX€ ,ixi 

J ^.j,Li: natayiioo .ait«; . •:^-e'i "^ -X« t9 littW 


Bothlng in th« letters from wJaleh srialio* could !>• implied, but 
on tJae contrary the letters were sent under adTice of councel. 
We think the qurstion of malice, urider all the facte, was for 
the jury. 

Instruction Ko, 6 was on the question of damages. By- 
it the jury was told that if they belieyed from a preponderance 
ef the evidence under the instructions of the court the jury 
found the issues for the plaintiff and that it had sustained 
pecuniary daiaages in its ■business, "then, to enable the jury to 
estimate the amount of such damages, it is not necessary that 
any witness sh uld have expressed an opinion as to the amount of 
such da^aages, but the Jury may th^isilves make such estixr.ate 
from the facts and circumstances in proof and by considering them 
in connection with their Jmowledge, observation, and experience 
in the business affairs of life," Counsel for plaintiff say 
that this instruction was approved oj the Supreme court in ^o, 
Chicago St3;;eet Railway Go. v« Fitzgib'bons . 130 111, 466, but we 
think it obvious that case is not autnority that would Justify 
the giving of the instruction in the instant case. That was a 
personal injury case where plaintiff sougnt to recover daiiiages, 
claiming she was injured while alighting from a street car. The 
tfourt in discussing am instruct ion substantially the same as the 
one before ut there said (p. 470): "Where there are elements of 
damage, suoli as expenditures, capable of pecuniary measurement, 
the law requires that the amount shall be proved. But there are 
Other ele.-uents in this case which are not capable of exact measure- 
ment. Tile amoiiJut of ooupensatioa for pain and suffering and the 
future eonsequeuceo reasonably certain to result are net capable 
of exact proof by any pecuniary standard. Such damages are alleged 
in the declaration aiii the evidence tends to prove them. Damages 
•f that class must be proved by the evidence amd must not be un- 

■ i : oijyfoi) «oixsj: rioii-v jaoi't cvd^tt^i; »itt ai ^uXsiioa 

tsotn^auc bJBft ^x ^Axii i>iu l^i:^ai;aIq ad^ 'tot «$ue<«i dxi;^ biuret 

tads x'<«aB«o»a ;)'Oii ai il «a9>ijsbijij!> iioi/« t9 ^ai^tt£iu$ 9iid' 9iBmii99 
to ^fluoiSA 9xU oJ »A aoiniqo ii& I>o&&<»<ici;c» s>rj»d hlu-m asi^atXv ^lu 

x^ii^ ^^^dhlaaoo vcT Ssxix; taoicr ni «»&iu;;t&uu;oxJt9 beta ^ion'i »sU^ Mtnl 

09mf'i%iHSH» bok ^cioi^Mtrt^utto «»^J^«x«ovul xX»j# iVi^l'v itoX^a«aAoa jrtl 

-^»» 'tli^rnJl^Xci 101 X68^ui»0 ".stiX to aiJUtlA se»iiJ:«fii«r 9dt ai 

,q-i nl tiuoo B^tt^iqut adi ^<f Jb«roiQt« ««w aciiamimal sicH iMdt 

»m iu . . -XI oex .■fwtf<il3t«^14 .V .tfP 7.^> ■:!0 

^tlimat bliiow iBsKi %iitoi\taM ton al ^jbjbo itids Bitoty€& ti ■Jiaitit 

,«(»8«aM}b 'x»yo3«t o;t ii>4(ifoe tti^itii»X<7 ^isriw wBiJCi v^^tt^'^ X«no«'xo« 
•jil .xae ^•d'xla a noit ^nX^jciai'^'i aXXfiw b»iartni aev afis :j)nliuleX« 
•Ki^ «« 9a8sa •jJit \llMl$iuid filial K^Xi^tntsnk am j)niaaij»»ll> ai imoe 
tc a^noiwXa »a« aiaiii etSilW* :(of* ,g;) ifei*ia atari.J a» a-xotfttf ©«• 

,*a«i4sa«»*-»w Ti^ii-OMbttti to aXcf»q«o ,«an/k.iXi£»qKa a« uoum ,t3»«nuiA 
9«« at . ^'vo'xq oi^ ixjaxla irxtuom; auti^^ail*^ 9i^%Lup9l v«X ail) 

aif^ bur 3inxT»ttwa btu( iim^. 'tut «oll«ai.t»q,uoo tj ini.ow» »xil .^noai 
vj i-<rro roil ^ti. -JLua- .jft%<00 X^cfattoajEifti «&oa«</p«a«Mw» atwtut 

e avotn o^ afeftaj aooaiblTa »iW ka£, ao If art jalttnb ertJ nl 

•«M 44 ioft *•*;■ i«» aooaisXvt •^ l«i *«vo^ 9«J *«w« aa«-to **'^ **• 


certain, contingent or speculative," 

Ooiaplaiiit is made to instruc bion J!io. 8 because it s^ibmitted 
to the jury the question ol' probable cause, whicto counsel contend 
was a quaetion ol* law and not one oT fact for the ,1ury. Jfrom what 
we have said, this contention catuiot he sustained. 

3y instruction i^o. 9 the jury was told that il" it I'ound 
for the plaintii'r in assessing datuaj^es it mi^t consider the pecu- 
niary daiaage, ii" any, sliown by a preponderance of the evidence, which 
resulted to plaintiff by loas of sales to its cuatQiners, etc., "and 
in addition you may consider the pecuniary daiaages, if any are 
proved by a preponderaiice of the evidence in this case, resulting 
to the plaintiff by the loss, if any, of sales to prospectivt 
Gustoiaera, if any," etc. Any damage plaintiff might sustain on 
account of "loss of prospective customers," was speculative and 
ouglit not to be considered. 

By instruction Bo. 10 the jury was told that in addition 
to actual daE.agea, if any, which it might find plaintiff had sustaiiKd 
it Hiigat also, in its discretion, include punitive or ex9rii:)lary dam- 
ages, etc. The objection to this instruction is that it entirely 
disregards the question of "probable cause," We thinlc the objection 
cannot be sustained, Couiisel make no contention that exe;i,plary d&ot- 
agea may not be included in the jury's verdict. 

Instruction I»o, 11 told the jury that malice "means a 
wrongful act done intentionally and without juet cause or excuse." 
We think the instruction should have been worded as counsel for 
defendant contend. 

The court modified an instruction offered by defendant 
which told the jury that if it founi from the evidence that the 
auit filed by dsfeiidant in the Federal court was oii the advice of 
counsel aiid that full information of all the i6a.terial facts waa 
aubmitted by defendaiit to its counsel, then the jury snould con- 


tBdw ooTt .^lut oiit ao'x t9ii>1 le ^no ton f>ak mtl to itoi^ai»i.'p £ ««ir 
,A«aia^ajj» »cr ^fQXlil»« aoiioain<)9 cJtlfj^ ,j>^£« dv^^a 3W 
hni} < ill©;/ saw xi*^;,^ •'■*^^ ^ •o*^' aoi^dtri^etti \lE 

•auib -^aXt.iOSXd 10 Bviilauti obuinai ,aoi*»'i6«ii a^l «! ,08X« Ji.'j<:,ii>tt ;*■] 
XleiXin© il tAiii cii a©x;rs»i.'i*«nl «XffcJ od" uQliavldQ »m «aagi3 

m ttsMsa^ ftoiX«n «t»iu v.ibt, •Ai bloi IX .oK. ooi^Oirxiaal 


flld«r auoh advlae oi* covuiael as eTidence of good I'aith on the p%rt 
of defendant ''aa net^ativiag Bi&llce* " We U^-ink this instruction, as 
submitted, was not in proper I'orta. and the court did not err in 
aodifying it* ObTiousiy, it was proper lor the jury to consider the 
facts mentioned in the ixistruction as saowri by the evidene<t touching 
the question of defendant's good faith and warit of lualice, Eut ws 
think the instructiun was inartificiaily drawn. One oi' the instruc- 
tions tendered by defexidatit, wuicii Uie court refused, was on the 
question of good faith of the def exidant. Defendant -as en citled to 
have an instruction on this question given to tlie jury and also was 
entitled to have the jury told that if defendant acted in good faith 
on advice of counsel, then plaintiff could not recover alt^iough the 
federal court later held ti^ere was no infringeaient by plaintiff of 
ths patents under which defei'^dant held an exclusive license. 

We think we ©u&iit to say tlxat where the instruction is 
given directing a verdiot, it ou^iat; to contain all the essential 
elemerits, and we find a nuaiber of instructions given on heliali' of 
plaintiff ttiat do not iueet Uiie reijuirement, CroB^er v« Borders Coal 
Co., 246 111, 4S1; Uafe.e v. City of Vienna. 196 111. App. 535. 

it is argued tuat the verdict is ea.cessive, ?jid the trial 
Judge in pasaiug on the motion for a new trial seeu>ed to have been 
ef this opinion, bat finally overruled uhe xaotion. We do not pass 
on this question, but are of opinion tiiat it was reversibly errone- 
ous for the court to e,ive tixe instructions above criticized on the 
question of damages, 

For the reasons above stated the judgment of the Superior 

eourt of Cook counity is reversed snd t«>.e cause is rei anded, 

REViiiESED MI) BEkAiiil^D. 

Matchett, J,, concurs, 

MoSurely, J., dissents: 1 do not tixii^ji. tiie erxtrs i* t'.\e ifiStructions 

serious enough to require a reversal. 


$iuc(i^' J&xs);^ Xtui •ai ^rsn «:» jNiI;^ita« 
_^'ir: Mit it» akMiao^ oaf jrnjjfc-© ^ jt ,*oii!>i:»t « yaid-seiiij cwvli 




, it9xloiai& 

■/:'fX9 9iLi 



■L 9t t^iivii^ «.i;wi'ii&'- 


JOHfi J« VM D£R AA, 




Appellees. ^/^ ) 

) APPSA ji iW m i ipift CUIT COURX 
^r COOK CtoliiTY, 

294I.A. 601 



Plaintiff brought suit in attaoiu&ent against defendants, 
BOB-residentt, alleging that they were indebted to him upon a 
written guaranty in the sum of $1900 with interest; upon trial 
the verdict was for defendants and plaintiff appeals froa the 
Judgment. BefeudEtnts say they were released from liability on 
their guaranty, and whether this was proved rests upon the facts. 

Defendants owned a house and lot in Lansing, Illinois; 
plaintiff is a real estate broker and on December 21, 1923, pro- 
cured the sale of this property to Henry and Bertha Qregg; in 
payment the Greggs assumed a first mortgage, conveyed certain 
vacant real estate and contracted to pay the remaining puronase 
price - 12300 - at the rate of |40 a month. 

Subsequently defendants wished to sell this contract of 
the Greggs and approached plaintiff, who told them he had a pur- 
chaser named Milton Waterman who would pay them #1433 for their 
Interest in the contract; defendants were willing to accept this 
and on January 24, 1929, at the request of plaintiff, tiiey executsed 
an assignment of the contract te Milton Waterman, trustee, and also 
executed a warranty deed conveying the property to the sane party. 
In this assigTABient defendants guaranteed the prompt payment of the 
ameunts mentioned in the contract. It is upon this guaranty that 
plaintiff has brought suit. 

Plaintiff took this oontraet to a bank in Seuth Holland, 



i \ CTX *^ *" *^^ '^ ^^"^ 

lauoo Ti!j-3ftf9 f mu m m gi^iA fS^ 

.THUoo iHT '€0 aDi»i«o affi'f atasvioiHC a.o.% sciibut ... 

a noiji/ icjtxi o^ ta4(i9i>Ai 9-x«w ^^f^ teH^ .(uX^aXX* ^ct^t^ift-jbiae^-fida 

;aiofUiXX ,i^iilesuBd nX iToX JbiUt 9CiJ0ii « Iksavo aiaaj)n«t»(r 
-oiq ,£S«X ,Xi: <xeda«o«a oo btm f^aid aSaititt isat « ai: TUi-oJtjiXf 
■1 :aa*^fi sxi^taa bius -^rxnali o^ xiitTAfreiq: oiili to 9XAa aii^ fcaixio 
ai«;f7»o b9i5»7a©3 ,«^iia^iofli iani'i: s fe»mw«a« aagMiii trfJ iflaonjis*! 

.c:*«oiH Jt O*-! *to a3.Ri sn* ^.w - OOCSi - 9©liqr 

lo loBicTnoo ciil* XX»» e* fcedai* Biamk'M't^b yX^naup^adwri 

" xi ftiifi •« iaori* ftXo* oflw /£tl;rnJ4iX^ |>9ii©«»«q(TJ» Atus e^Ji**© •«** 

•xi«iil »ol: i;5^X^ «»ii# xflq fcXMow otiM oaAnaittW aolXJU *»ai»n iftacii* 

aMiia iri«ea« oi b«i-tXlw aitaw a*i«)f>a'/t»A ;«]»«t:»aaM a^ ai *a»to^al 

.v#jo»xa y,»tlJ ,1'tliaiHLq to Jaaupa^ «ri* *ju , e6«X »*a x^««n4i\ ao ham 

oaXA boe ,oa*«Ln* .aaai-xa^aW «i;tXiM o# *»«'i^a«o axii to ^cwainslaa* as 

.^*Te« ama ail* o3 Y.^«aqoi< ax(* »«oo ifb x*h«'«"»«v * fca*ao«i» 

■>.-tr "^o Smai%^q SamtVt^ ^iii baaiiwt^wa m»iuiba9l9b fcfrnxs^ta^m aixl* al 

.Brii x^a*"**"* •**** *®*»*' '^ ^-"^ ,iotiitnoo 9Ai al Jbaaoi*o»ia «#«»•■• 

Zllinolt, of vhioli Waterman was an officer, and borrowed from th« 
1»«nk $1500, giving his note for this amount and depositing the eon- 
traet as collateral. The dreggs made payxixents on the contract,, 
either to plaintiff or the South Holland banJc, to October, 1931, 
and being unable to continue the payments vacated the property 
in January, 1932. The note of plaintiff at the baxik was fully paid, 
and on November 14, 1931, Watenaan as trustee assigned the liregg 
contract to plaintiff. Waterman testified that the bank did not 
require the execution of the warranty deed conveying the property 
to him as trustee, but that he took title as trustee at the re* 
fuest of plaintiff and that in holding the title he was acting only 
as a "dunuoy" for plaintiff* 

When the property was vacated by the Greggs in January, 1932, 
plaintiff took possession of the preiuises and rented the aouse to a 
tenant and collected the rents* Subsequently plaintiff told the 
Greggs he wisiied to clear the title to the property and would release 
thStt from all liability on their contract if they would execute a 
tuitclaim deed to the property; they did this, delivering the deed 
to plaintiff, Def eridante claim that plaintiff, by doing these things, 
released the Greggs from all liability under their contract, and so 
released defendants froia their obligations under the guaranty. 

Plaintiff, appealing to this court, first asserts tnat the 
court allowed defendants to cross-examine plaintiff on matters 
beyond that on which he had testified in chief. Plaintiff is chief 
testified only as to the signatures on the guaranty and as te the 
WBount due. Defendants had a ri^^t to oross-ezaiaaine hia as te all 
Blatters that might affect the writing upon which suit was brought. 
It is well settled that a witness may be eross-exainlned as to what' 
trer gees to explain, modify or discredit him testiinony in oaief. 
Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Creech . 207 111., 400, 402-3. Cross- 
•X«Biination is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth, and the 

, ibl«q ^iXifi saw :LiBd •sU i^ 't'tliaial^ 'to %ioa Sifl .S^QI ,\:i:jb^cl«^ t^^ 

^ofl blk atoacf ©it* ^JsriJ' i>9iiXta»i ctMantisat ,'£'ti*ixrj8J.q o« rs-tttaoo 

Xiao ^uiioB s«w 4a «x*|j *fl< foi^Xori ai ^miU boM llilttiaX^ lo ,ta<»w:) 

tVtUiiJtalq ta'i "vriajb* 4 a.- 

* 9tuoBX9 tXucw 't»iij 'ti #oi»iJaoi5 liniii ao xiili<i»iXlHA eui%t m»«ur 

jfluixit »»«xW aoioA ^£l /njld-aXjBiq ^&sii iaif^Xo a*ajBJbc»'i«a .TUd'aJUXqi •;/ 
M ha>£' ,*»«i*aoa «i«xit ^oJ&ow xtilX4xk£ LIa me%t «iB»iii> •ii* h&9s&tl9X 

««#l^Att «• XUtaLjtKi tot .uw»-«*«t» a;r «ia»fea«'i»b *«w«XX« ituoo 
1*1^ «1 -nitalAX^ ,1«lxto ai A«l'a*8s* fi^iil •!( xtoixiw so tsAi knQ-z^d 

lU 9i •M mlA »xiiia«Ji(»-««o«» oi tiial^ » J**^ •jr«»An«t»a ,«wA *iaxxo«» 

..xiw o* 8« faituKiL9'U90iti •* Xi«« •a»ti;riir e tmAt I»«X*J»« XX»w ■! #1 

,t9ia9 sii y.uo^dS99d mill tibortoaiA 5« x'^lb&m ,,ii*Xoxii o:r aee.i i£»v» 

msif.r r^ ."-'"'Ofr ,v>o* , .XXI T08 ijSUQHflL-tZ~* ~ 

latitude allowftd I'or this purpose rests largely in the discretion 
of the trial court; wuere there has not been a clear abuse of 
discretion the Judgment will not be reversed on this account, 'Jhf 
People V. Miller . 342 111, 244, 252; Brennen v« Carterville Coal 
Co., 241 111. , blO, 622, 

One ol' the pleas of defendants allefeed that plaintiff while 
acting as their agent violated his fiduciary relationships. The 
eross-exaraination was intended to develop his conduct in tais res- 
pect. Moreover, in any case where the plaintiff hiiiiself is a wit- 
ness, considerable latitude is allowed in cross-exauaixiation. It is 
always desirable upon a trial to develop all the f^cts so that the 
jury may be apprised of all tixt eireumstances involved. 

i^laintiff next complains that defeiidants presented one de- 
fease in their pleadings but by evidence presented another defense. 
By this plaintiff apparently means tnat defendants' plea allegeA 
that the Gregg contract was forfeited in i'ebruary, iy32, when 
plaintiff took possession of the premises for uimself and rented 
them to a tenant, but defendants also introduced evidence tuat in 
1936 plaintiff took from the Ureggs a quitclaim deed to the property. 

Plaintiff introduced so:tae evidence that when he took possess- 
ion of the premises in February, 1932, he was acting as the agent of 
defendants, defendant s introduced evidence that he was then acting 
for himself in tailing possession and forfeiting tlie contract. The 
additional evidence of the transaction in 1935 between the areggs 
and plaintiff whereby plaii^tiff took fr<B& thoa a quiielais deed to 
the premises was merely cumulative and net another defense. 

When plaintiff took possession of the premises in Jr'ebruazy, 
1932, the Gregg contract was forfeited and the Ureggs released 
from liability, gjret l^at^ Securities Co. v. Ward . 275 111, App. 
621, 527-8; 20 Corpus Juris, p. 14, sec. 10, and 27 B, C. L, , 
p. 666, sec, 429. It is a well known rul« that where the principal 

.ton •aH *W»d# «W»m» j;^nu«o i 

■" ^ , •££ 
•iiiiv YtiJalAXcj 3- XiB aJiiij&a-'t^ft 'to ijatXci silt 'to «aO 

-iiv « ai U^aaiiti Tlitfixjilg siLt 9<^9i:^r as^o ^n* ^ ,^VQa'x6il «#««(;; 
ai Ji .aol;Jis. ots ni feevaIXe al »fci?;ti*fiX »Xd'«?«(»fclaaoo ,a8»in 

•dl #»ii^ ae sto^t a/iJ' IX« qel97»5 o^ i&it:i ■& .loqir aXcfjsTla-? 

,69YXoraX aaea«l8ifli;$-Ki;o •n;r li« iTo ife»ai^Qq£ ad X'*'^^ -\c^0t 
-a^ afio b94 ii>^«»t«[ •SOAkao'tsb tMiit ttAiijaXq^ioa i^Xdct 'VliialelH. 
»99n»'i-ib 'xaiU'ons ba^cf»a»icq afrn^Mva x^ ^^ n^^nthM* Iq rl 

M8»xX« «»lo 'aJ-asJtkuft'tal) **zid' acusea ^Itii»'x«qq« t'tittttBlg mMt X^ 

aaiiw ,2C^x ,X'£a*;'scfeV fti fcall^'Mo'i aww *9JB*x>faoo sa*tO »^ *«xl* 

i)«»^iiai ftiw tXaaaiiju aol aaaiutdtq ©lii^ 'to fioleeaaaaq iood" 'ftitniaX^ 

ftaqnq 9ii3 ©^ fr»»Jb taUHtSlap m 8jj8»«t) ©jrf* aorlk ioo* TtXiolaXq Q«;ex 

■•aaeq Jiae* aa nariw ^iiji* •OiwDlva dwo« fiwuji-oxd'al 'ttl^fl/pl** 

o ta«SP tut a« iaX^o£ aAw ad ,SC«X ,i{;rtJ(itr[det ttJt vaalf*^". 

aiitttts smtiS a«K ad lAiU aonoftiro b^^uboitnX Mtsmbn^'i. . ..wbaet^b 

•aa»^ ''i^ a*»wff»d de«X itl aol*»«a»iirs* tiW 1e 9ttti9bir9 JMaol^khbM 

at t)»»6 Mlj»Xaeiup « *ail* itfwt't aCoot 'ni* .1«X« X«''«*rfw t%i*rti«Xq ,fc«« 

.•aas'iafc wii^oflA *oa *i^*» avJUaXi/aaoo ^jlaxaai a«w aa«tK«-x<i axJ* 

nl aaaiiuaiq 9tii ^a aolaaftsaoq aiod* TtlittlHlq astCli 

■ ..^Bc,**-! ajoirxO •d^ ^'^- h*-tt'»'J"fc-i 9«-.^ u*3i»rc*a(Jo aa^^D 9dt ,8K«?X 

,'1 b«j» . > ."-- ,' -'- .-^^''- --'!io'^ ^ ;e-v£d .xse 

,s , .£"";»► ,•>»« tbhb .t 



,iw tMOt a^jui •*■■*' 

d«l3torfl ar« released from liability without the consent of the 

guarantors tlie guarantors also isrilx be released, AicCartnev v^ 
RidK^ay . 160 111, 129, 160; Jrettor t. Strong . 63 111. 272. 

Complaint is made of &xx instruotlon giyen at the request 
of defendants wnleh told the Jury that if plaintiff becante the 
owner of the contract in question in iioveiaber, 1931, axid that 
afterward ths Cireggs alsaridoned the premises and plaintiff col- 
lected the rents and later obtained from the CJreggs a quitclaim 
deed, telling thett tney would be released froxu liability under 
the contract, and if the jury so found then def oxidants were dis- 
charged from liability under their guaranty. There was no rever- 
sible error in giving this instruction, especially in the light 
of other instructions. The 17th instruction told the jury that 
if they believed from all the evidence that plaintiff a^^reed with 
the Qreggs for a consideration to release tixtm from liability on 
the contract, and if such agreement vas unicnown to defendants, 
they must find them not guilty. It is a ger;eral rule of lav 
that instructions are to be considered as a series, and, if taken 
as a whole they present the lav correctly, there is no reversible 
error, igofski v. Kailroad toUDuly Go . . 23B 111, 146, 154. 

Xhe jury could properly find that plaintiff exercised acie 
of ownership of the property and released the (rreggs, the origintLL 
makers of the contract, fro^ all liability. It follevs, tiierefore, 
that defendants catanot be held liable upon tlieir guaranty, 

Xhe judgment is proper and it is affirmed, 

O'Connor, f, J,, and Matchett, J,, concur. 

wux Id »itrx iJBn^jm-. ♦it*Xi;JS ton wi/i* feail: *««(« ^i;«fl# 

ooAsv li .fejfe ,a»iie« « a« ii»^»Ai«£ios> »cf oJ i»1«» Bisoiiovr&nat tied* 

.^IX ,:^x .LIU a«S >. oU vXtfgtfici ImQ^S r- ,... JJjOjSLI^ .'iOiT:© 

•»-... ^,t ,0wolia'l *1 ,x^i£i«f«ii Il« utot'ic ,dr»jr<^rt©c o atoiijMo 

. -;^ivMta»jj Txsii* a««r» oiiiAii Ai««l «? Jo.i.iBti -siiUii •iu'taJi ;J«rl* 

,fcar^ *'•'"■ "i J 2 *xw ta^oi-j ... 'vi-^- 


••■•••■-'lA ^i•^-v, ,. , ,?.onflo0'0 








2^4 I.A. 602^ 


This appeal is i'rom a judgment for plaintiff for #500, 
entered upon the Terdict of a jury in sua action for dsuaatie* arising 
out of injuries to plaintiff when she fell on aix icy ridge on the 
sidewalk in front of the store in -rhicn defendants had a meat market. 

Def en.hiats • store is a.t 6811 West Censak Road in Benryn , 
Illinois; January 26, 1935, at ahout 1:30 p. m. , plaintiff was a 
customer in defendants' store; upon leaTin^ the store, her aims 
full of bundles, she turned westward to go to her automobile and 
proceeded westerly in front of the stoie to a point three or four 
feet west of the entrariee and about one and one-half to two feet 
away from the building, where she slipped on ice and fell; she was 
assisted lBy two men to the car belonging to one of them and was 
taken by him to the Berwyn hospital where an X-ray showed that she 
sustained a f raeture of the lower flbia of the left leg; after the 
bene was set and her leg placed in a cast she was taken home and 
stayed in bed for about eight weeks; she was employed at the 
Western Ullectrie Company and did not return to her work uritil ii^ay 

Plaintiff testified that it was a nice cold day but that 

it had snowed in the morning; that the sidewalk in front of the 

store extended about eleven feet to tiie street; t/iat as she left 

the store she carried packages and after walking taree or four 

feet slipped on the ice; that after she fell she obserTe^this 

spot a water pipe stub for hose attachment extending about two 

feet aboTe the sidewalk and projecting about three inches from the 



S09 .A 

U 'iy" 

•1¥IJ£G o^i SfOIT; 

sSTaa ^sAi A fit'rf «#fitshri9't9i) tintttivf ni '♦-rots f^;v^ jo iaoi't ai ilB'imkte 

a «Mivr Ttlj cti.«X(| ,.a »« 0S:1 tuodM ^s ,9£(2X y4& iS%jM;iUiX ;8<torriXII 

S'-ifc- taii ,^Tto*» «*U ^alTiasX aot;w ;»'SoJ'a 'ad-nusf iv»'t©f) ni t^iaoJair© 

b0« »XXdoiit.: JUii. i&rf Oj OS «dr *;tawd-«»W iMiaryj- ''.us ,seX&(uicf lo Xl«*i 

Maw »xie ;XJC»"J bra »oi nto l»«q<|lx« »/iai ©<»riv .^^aifeXiif. -, - ^i«w» 

mdf -sfftfi ;||»X fi^l ^sit to »ldit XBWtl tit t^ 9iLtJii^^' liBm 

bam •taoti attjimi ««w t-tiB iButi a ai &oo«X^ SHI i»£( focuie S. -. end# 

•<i/ ^« i»r^X«ffi« •«« »xi« ;«il««w ;^xlsXii iuo^A %9t ]b*«f nX !>dY«^a 

X« '- XiJrtjj now it»f( o* i3tuy9'i i^^" ^'-^ bus x'^V^' "^"'^:>»Xii tn9iifW 

Mil •Wt ^ 

Tsuildlrit,} that 'beneath this stub, running etraigiit across tiie aide- 
walk and all tne way to the street, ahe otserved a. ridfee of ice 
about tui Inoii anil a nail' ni^ and eig^at or nine incites v\i4e, covo 
ered ''^rltia snow; tiiat siie did not see tals rid^d on tue sidewalk 
as she came out of the store but only after she I'ell; tnat it was 
covered '.sith snow aad there was no snow on the other part ol tne 
sidewalk; ^\e said she did not stumble but just slipped; she wore 
low heeled siioee at the time. 

At the time flaintii'i' fell her father was sitting in the 
automocile awaiting her return and saw her slip and fall; he said 
he saw ieicles on the water pipe stub and a streak of ioe on tne 
sidewalk about a half inch taick an'5 ei^iit iiiches wide all the way 
down to the curb froin the building; tiiat the ice was covered with 
just a little snow dxxd could not be seen; tnat there was no snow 
on any other part of the sidewalk in front of tne store, Xhere W«» 
no ot-'ier eye witnesses to the accident* 

A sister of plaintiff also testified that the day of the 
accident was clear aiid cold and that it did not rain or snow the 
niglit before. Defendants and two of their witnesses testified that 
it rained and snowed tiie iiay and nigiit before and rained and sleeted 
during the day of tlie accident; that the streets and sidewalks were 
covered v^ith ioe and snow and that this condition was widespread. 
One witi.eas worked in defendants' store and testified tliat twice on 
the lay of the accident he sprinkled salt on the enow in front of 
the store and scraped it - tne last time about one o'clock, or 
about a half hour before the accident - and tuat after 
there was Btill about a half inch thickness that he could not scrape 
off; that at this time the water stub ior hose connection was not 
dripping. The weather report, introduced by def endai.te, rather 
aupporte the testimony for plaintiff and contradicts the version of 
defer^dants that it rained and snowed the night befors and rained 

^ r, ,cfjjia Blii: 


; ooe £ii£ 

•jfiw Ji Situ: ;ll»i »/ie xell:« ^xa« ^iia •tto^Te si^ 

\Cif> ^;U XX« BblM fttiisi 
flJiv JkeivTroo a*^' &&x suj 





!,-»•/, (t^ii j-^ ul:/ 

.o';. ^litn t«»'«T ©rf* ofld/ a if*" 




.;>isi.8 A 


7 00 


f-m; »io.t« art* 




«id sleeted the day oT the accidflnt, and also ccaiceming the oon- 
dltion of streets 'ind sidewalkti. It waa for trie Jury to pass upoa 
these conflicting questions of fast. 

It is contended that there is no testimony of plaintiff 
"tripping" over any ridge of ice axid snow as c^iar^ed in her com- 
plaint, and therefpre the allegations and proofs are inconsistent. 
We think the facts whica the evidence tended to establish are in 
substantial accord with the averments of the complaint. But if it 
were otherwise, the contention of variance in a suit at law raised 
for thf? first tir«e in this court comes too late, for had plaintiff's 
attention heen called to the matter hy a gpecifie objection she 
could have amended her complaint, Carney y» Marquette Coal Itiniag 
C^, , 260 111. 220, 2S8; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. McClain . 211 111. 
589, 593-94, 

There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the 
questions of whether water dripped from the pipe stub, ran 
aerosB the sidewalk, froze, and beeai^e a hazard to pedestrians, 
causing plaintiff to fall, and whether defendants had knowledge 
©f these conditions. Three other witnesaes for plaintiff gave 
testimony tending to show knowledge by defendants that water had 
dripped froa the plise stub. They said that when they visited the 
defendants' store four days after the accident to make a purchase 
defendant Anna Venclik voluntarily took them outside the store, 
pointed to the pipe stub and said tiiat it was still dripping and 
that she had told her husbaJid to have it fixed, but that he did 
not do so, Minelrra Johnson t<»stified in behalf of defendants that 
four days »fter the accident she visitec? their st.-re, saw the 
pipe stub dripping a little and told Mrs. Venclik, who then came 
eut to look at It. Mr. Venclik said that on this day the pipe 
burst and the water was shut off in the basement; that on the day 
of the accident there was ice all over the sidewalks, but that he 


hsziaz Tf/ 


r 010» 

.III lis .nl^XOoM ,,y, .pt^j .Y^. -gjxc o.^i;ui^lJ ;aSS ,0S!^- . .,:,:j 

»/W' no ijrrut 9iii i wanabire drrslol't'tica aisw »i*f(T 

galqqlTb XXi^e 8i" 

^i'ti*ir«;t MdsnrfoO r.rrtwaia*. ,a« oh Joa 

•dl Ha* 

•MM fia 




didn't Bee amy ridg«»; that it waa smooth. 

Defendants conten:^. that the trial -ourt erracl in permitting 
questions to "be aekod ta«se witnesses as to these adisisaions i\n<5 
•tatements of ^^^rs. Venclik which were contradictory to 'ler teatinony 
on the trial, as being hearsay and not part of the res ^eetae . 
Where adniiseions are made "by a party to a suit, auch adu.is8ione are 
admissible against him. Van Mete r y ^ Gum.ey . 240 111. App. , 165, 18d. 

It is said there was no evidence that the icy oondition of the 
sidewalk was caused by defendantn and consequently notice of a 
dangeroue condition is a Tsrerequisite to defendants' liability; 
that there is no teeti ony on the part of plaintiff as to v/hen or 
h«w this ice formed nor how long it had existed. In the cases 
cited by defendants whleh deal with notice, a municipality was 
the def aidant and the queetions were Y-'hether the icy condition of 
the sidewalk was sueh as to obstruct or prevent its teing reasonably 
safe for travel, and whether this condition continued for such a 
length of time as to charge the City, in the exercise of reasonable 
care, with notice. In the instant case the Gtreak of ice testified 
te extended all the way across the sidewalk 1 1 the curb from beneath 
the pipe stub, which was but three or four feet from tae store en- 
traaet; the aecident occurred at about l:3u p. m, ; there was testi- 
mony for defendants that the sidewalk had been scraped about a hatlf 
hour befo:?'^ trie accident, but ap varen tly it was still in a more or 
less unsafe condition for paeserB<Sby aiid eustomers. i'hese considera- 
tions, together with the admission by Mrs. Venclik of the leakage of 
water froir the oipe stub were sufficient to r.o to the jury on the 

question of notice. 

An abutting property owner is not liable for injuries result- 
ing from anow and ic« on the sidewalk in front of his premises where 
it came there by natural causes, However, when he maintains upon 
his premises a structure or device w -.ioh causes an artificial lis- 

"" .' ■ ,! ;-^: .,v ■ 

; iflil-i-^Ji- Xl ' •j-ii..J.hito't9fe c-.T ;'-j ir,iup9te):' no i t X h an ::, '^ l ?%^T^vmb 

m tiaattt o't b^ui.i.:»w:' iiai*i.fcflo» «ia* i^cUaifv Jbiio ,^«'/*-. i -<;:■■ 

tiiM»a»4 moil <ftiJO ft-i? -i- Jl/Av-'«f'.ra ©j^;) satn^e \;*^-w • i;S«j-aa.7-£» o^ 

:9 oi»i« •^ aoT'J *»«»1: xwo't io ••TTri* i'iirf «jk'' ..oiii* .diii^t «»c-^ 

10 9io« « Hi Xil^« 8«w *]; '<^* «•'"'*!« **»'^ ,d-iiflhX»or 'IffO itfdri 

4nftblana» •aotlT »a•t^.•»o^^«u* boa x<M^^*'*'»*«f "^o'* ttold-XJ-aoti »t*>.»n« «!«oX 

•li^ «o x^ui »xl* o^ .tttftl&iTlii* "tftv dut« •cria aiU r»'ii tai-jiw 

iib i*l»i11J"«* *«• ***!-*» riol.v •ftXv»* to »iu*OJ.;r: 

eharg« and accumulation of water upon a public sidewalk, which 
"by freezing will make the uae of tixe sidewalk darigerouB, he is 
guilty of negligence and will be held liable lor injuries reeultixig 
therefrom, 43 C. J. 1107, sec. 1869; 13 H, 0. L, 416, sec, 342^ 
annotation 34 a. L. R. 409; 56 x., R. A. 321, 328 (note.) ^lixo. v . 
Swan 8on , 216 111. App. 294, involved injuries received through, 
•slipping and falling on ice on the sidewalk in front of defendant's 
premises; the evidence tended to show that, wxiile there was more or 
less ice on all of the sidewalk, there was a space four feet wido 
from defendant's premises to the curb which was much miore slippery 
than the other portions of the sidewalk, and that tills condition 
was caused by dragging large baskets of clothes between defendant's 
laundry and the ourb; the court recognized the rule that mere 
Blipperiness ol" a sidewalk caused by ice or snow, not accumulated 
so as to be an obstx'uction, is not such & defect as will xuake the 
city liable for dataages, but held that this did not apply where 
defendant used the sidewalk in the conduct of his business and ths 
injury resulted from the darigerous condition he created, iiee also 
the well considered opinion in Stitii v» Aewberry Co .. 336 uq, 467, 
481-84, v^here water was discjaarged fitovk an awning in front of de- 
fendarit's store, froze upon the sidewalk and became darigerous to 
passers-by, the court holding that the facts there involved, wiiich 
were in soBie respects similar to those before us, were for the jury 
to decide. 

The trial court did not err in declining to take the case 
from the jury, but properly left to it the questions whether plain- 
tiff showed that the icy ridge on the sidewalk was caused by the 
leakage of water from the pipe stub, and if so, whether defendants 
used reasonable care to keep the sidewalk in front of their premi- 
se* in a reasonably safe condition. The jury found defendants 
guilty, axid in the face of the sharply conflicting evidence we 
would not be justified in holding that the verdict is against the 
manifest weight of the evidence. 

1?he judgment is affirmed. 


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

ii^a«nii;J reviaeau «9Jt"sati^Jt j&«TrIovixl ,i^»S .(jt^ . >XS . fjiaciMiwil 

!.ata»'ioi> to iaoi't at :ilAtmbJ ^^atgoriXs 

'slv laist Tiicl »oeqB jb sav eieii^ ,3£X«W9£>ie! dxia 'to ZIb 'X 

ft'zedx ^jsri^ lyXiiT oJi ii^sxiij^oojeic Jiwoo »xf^ ; 

fesiAXiJiOjaaOi? ^on , *^'ca2 v/cf beauj-o ^Lsieahi oesnliacrcriXa 

at 3 J'oa hX^» ain , .■j:yi*iji«sfc j 
•xl. ■ - . 

J.:.. . ..;' ioi^ihiioa Btfot:8jjfl*i . i.;tai 

oi a«o1^:^-u?-^> srursoorf 1>«6 all*; ':'X.' axe , :.;?-;'o'X 

Yliif. ft < • ■ ^ 


a^r:..^ , 'i 


,b*ttni'l'Xj» :■■ _T'ji.^i, «iii> 


TShl mhSi^KKL, 






4I.A. 602 



Xkiis is &u sk^pea^ I'x^^iu a decree granting plaictil'l' a 
divox''ce aad disuiisai&g Tor watii; oi' et^uxty del'eudajit 's coimterolalA 
for separate maiutenanc«« PXaintiiT does noi appear in tiiis court 
to defend tke deuree. 

flaintiff 's complaint alleged tuat on Jtovember 15, 1934» 
defendant jiad deserted and alosented jaerself from him witiiout 
re&eonaule eaaee and tkal tiie desertion persisted for more than 
one year. I^efandant answered, denying tixat sue had deserted but 
alleged that on tn.e eoiitrary plaintiff had deserted hsr. Defendant 
also filed a oounterclala asit-ing for separate maintenance, in whiek 
she alleged wilful desertion of aer Isy plaintiff witaout cause; tnat 
ehe was wit^xout eo^loyment, property or means of support. Plain- 
tiff ansirered, denying generally the allegations of defendant 
made in aer counterclaim. 

The testimony of plaintiff as to tne alleged desertion waa 
Indefinite and uncertain and txze testimony of other witnesses was 
also confusing. Xne case siiould be retried so that the facts 
material to the issues can ^e clearly presented. 

The dearee is reversed and the cause is reiiianded for a 

naw trial. 


O'Connor, P. 7,, and Matdiett, J., concur. 

lotf Aftia^AC^ Jb££i sxiti i-^nj- ^gaixiajtb ^t^i^vtCkA Sni.!.:vt%.. , ue 



BjSRTHA ARiiT, Conservatrix oi" the / ) 

Eete.te of EMIL AR1.T, Inawie, / ) 

Appellee, / ) 


▼■• I ) -mS' 

OF \Q.0K COUiiTY. 

Corporation, \' J^ '^ ^' ^ >i«. ^ 

AppeUant.V-^ 2 9 4 LA. 6 2 


In ail -ictlon for persoiial iii Juries nxxr\ upon trial by jury 
tber!" ■<vas a T«>rdict for ^lairtiff in thp «um of :$12,000, upon 
which the court, after denying motions of def en latit for a netr 
trial, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, eaid in arrest, 
entered judaTnent» 

Plaintiff's ward, Arlt, -P'as injured August 15, 1934, a. the 
intairsection of Aishl&nd sTenue and Jaolison boulevard in Chicago, 
when he csme in contact with a "bus of defezidant operated "by its 
•errant. The complaint of Dlaintif, wnich isae !'iled January 11, 
19.'^5, 1p in four counts. The first charges negligence generally; 
the ercond that the r:.otor.'.;.ai;, nefjligently faileo to keep a luckeut; 
the third (wbich ^as withdrawn) willful and waoton negligence; and 
the fourth that defendauTit disregarded an ordinance of the City of 
Oilcago which provided that at intersections where traf>'lc ^as 
controlled "by special traffic al^n.ils or hy police officers, opera- 
tors of vehicles should yield the right of way to P'-destrians 
crossing or -vho had started to crosa the roadway on a "greeii" cr 
"go" E»i£jnal. 

It is contended for reversal that Arlt was gailty of con- 
trlhutory negligence as a riatter of lir; that the verdict is a^sainst 
the manifest vj-eight of the evidence; that the court erroneously 
perinitted Arlt, an in?anc porpon, to be ir tlie courtroom in the 
presence of the jury; that the court erred i^i refusin^j to pcrailt 

; ..u'- i. J. -^ c- ^- i-\ 

,#■•1. ^tol^rny ■ 


•5«"* rfs. 

^» S:I,_ .: .'J^fi1*^'li, 

I, I 



^ U v/ 'i^a ^ ar ti i^ 




«?t.'- I-j ; ; vav 1o : drilr. «. I fjX- ". '■- X o X f ■ 

*.i w*- - i y J i. *j u - t^ 

defendant to file an amended answer setting up certain ordinances 
•f the City of Chicago and of the West Park Conualstfi oners; in er- 
roneously instructing the Jury; and that the damages awarded T/ers 

It is ir'Bieted that there was a variance between the alle- 
gations of the complaint and tne proof in that while the oomplaint 
averred that the motor hue of defendant negligently ran into, upon 
and against and eaae into collision with Arlt, txxe eridexioe tended 
to show that Arlt negligently walked into the side of tiie motor bus. 
Jfeither by objection to the introduction of evidence when offered 
Bor by its laotion to instruct the jury was this supposed variance 
specifically pointed out. We do not agree there was a variance, 
■but If we assume tixere was the question was not raised in the trial 
eourt and Biay not for the first time be successfully presented in 
this court, ( City of Joliet v. Johnson. 177 111. 181; Chicago City 
By. Co. v. 5£cClaln . 211 111. 594; Qaseoi^ne v. Metropolitaii Sl.Ry . 
Cp>. 239 111, 22; Cit:^ of Chicago v. Bork . 227 111. 63; Carney v. 
Ilarouette Coal Mining Co . , 26G 111, 225, and Allet^retti v. Murphy 
Miles Oil Oo .^ 280 111. App. 390.) 

The evidence shows witliout contradiction that Arlt at the 
time of trial was insane and defendant contends that the court erred 
in (over defendant's objection) periiiitting him to be broUfejiit into 
the courtroom and hie injury (a aiangled foot) to be exhibited to 
the jury. It does not apoear the conduct of Arlt bel'ore the jury 
was unuaual or deeitned to create prejudice. Attorney for defend- 
ant, in hie ar;-,umert, told the jury, •He (Arlt) deii^eaned himself 
after he --ot into the courtroom In a manner that would well become 
aome of the lawyers." The question of the eahibition of the Injury 
of a plaintiff to a jury is one resting in the sound discretion of 
the court. ( Minus v. ffriend . 360 111, 336; Barnstable v. Calandro . 
870 111. App. 6 3.) 

st5o.-:rrt-*fio nijiitea nu -^nlii^m rm^imns h^btmmm tm •lit ot i u- 

i;. oeyc ;''■'" .''' '^ '"■ ,'.■ ■ "'' ■ ^ « 'A . r-' . >7t 
X^ui 9di »i0 4»d ^- . 

After the trial wag concluded defendant presented a peti- 
tion for leave to iile <iu additional answer with six exhibite, which 
were in part certified ordinsaioes of the City of Uiicaj,© transfer- 
rint control of the pert ions of Jackson bculerard and Asulrind avenue 
where the accident occurred, to the West Park CoEmiisBioners, and in 
part other ordinaricee of the West Park CoMtiss loner* accepting such 
•ontrol arid juriedlction. I'he -idditicnal p.rif?wer averred tiiat the 
•rdinance of the City of Caioago was not s,pplicable. The court 
denied the luotion, and def«aidant contends that it whould have been 
allowed unier Section 46 oi zhe Civil i:»racxice Act, The ordinencee 
Were offered in support oi" a motion by defendant Jor judgment noin 
o'batrAnte veradlcts * -the orij^^^iriai answer of defendant did not raiee 
this supposed deftinae and on tue trial of the case no evidence wae 
©ffered hearing upon txiat issue, Xhe trial was ended. The plead- 
ings ijoij^it have 136011 amended to confona to the evidence, but under 
any system of pleading aoiiendiiiiente must be filed in apt time, i'ara- 
graph 4 of section ^H* of the Oivil Practice act provides in sub- 
stance that any ground of defense, whetner alfirxaative or not, if 
not expressly stated in tne pleadings, which would te likely to 
take the opposite party hy surprise, must ha plainly set forth in 
the answer or reply. The courts uold taat an additional plea after 
cause of aotion has gone to trial saould not be allowed without 
showing reasonable excuse, ( Oity of OhioaKO v, Gookf . 204 111, 375; 
Willard v. Bristol . 251 111. App, 237; Xierney v. aamssell . 172 111. 
App, 122. ) Section 57 of the Evidence act requires the court to 
take judicial notice of the general ordinances of every municipal 
eorporatlon, but the ordinances offered were special in their nature, 
Shis matter was within the discretion of the court « however, prior 
to the accident the West Park Commissioners had paesed an identical 
erdicanee to that set up in the complaint. I'his defendant admits in 

Doa»fei.T9 00 •&•« oof 'ia Ittkxi «ni$ ft'. .aa'/t<^; I o. cKc-a aJLci* 

iii J-H'..' ..■■■'I -ivirv'i ix ... _. . J 1 -;i 




j^'.v. ,iiJ- • J>^ « ^OOw . V _ .. .:■ ■ ■' i' ■ I ,5»' •■-.jj^.-v iri.i.»fjainOS«ji. ^;j.ij Gill 

.-tl* "■ ' . IXoamaeti .,y v;«»ii;>.xj^ ;V£Ji .cr^.. .'-^' .15S . j^cUliS. .v fe-^*?/!^! 

XaqiolruiM c»#T» "tu tfOiUmibio x«ae ifij ?;•.:.< t o •oldofl i>ij-ji> wi, «»^^ 

Xi{- ibaa«iB« ^^ it «xectoiijt«lfiu«0v. 

at aaiiia^fc jabitualef) •la'i ,taiaiqm»o 9ii- e "^^ - ' ^ 

its reply Isriftf. Had its motic* prevailed it would not be entitled 
to more than an ariandiaent of the complaint, w'.icli Is periiilaBible 
after rerdiot. 

By its r?»queet for leaye to file this further answer de- 
fendant also eought for the first time to raise the contention that 
•ince it was a public utility and by statute subject to the order 
and control of tlie llllrjois Coiumerce UoiTuii^sslon (111. State Bar. 
State, 1937, chap. 111-2/3, sec. b, p. 2»5b) it was not subject 
to the municipal ordinances and regulations of the Oity of Chicago, 
Defendant oitee Village of Atwood y. G. I, & W. R. R. Go . , 316 111, 
*2S; lie rthern .Trus t Co. ▼, Qhlcat^o. jiya. Co .. 318 111. 402; City of 
Wi tt T. C. 0. & St. L. Ry. Go. . 324 Hi. 494; Chica.^o Lotor Coach 
Co. y . City of Chicago. 33? 111. 2C0-202; City of Geneseo t. 111 . 
3So.. Utilities Co. . 363 111. 9 5. 

The orf!in?».nee here involved is section 16 of article IV 
of the Unifora Traffic Code of the City of Chicago, It is not 
pointed out that the ordinance is in any way inconsistent with or 
repugnant to any particular provision of any state statute or ajiy 
rule of the commerce eomioission, We do not understand that the 
state statute haa deprived the City of Chicago of the po^er to 
enact ordinances providing for merely local rules regulating traffic 
0& the streets. By the Act of June 29, 19??9, (see Laws of 1929, 
pp. 653-654) the legislature liraits the power of the oonimerce coia- 
Biiseion in the re/^ulation of speed within the limits of an incorporat- 
ed city, village or town. This enactment was later than the i^ublle 
Utility Act. In Tuttle v. Checker Taxi Co .. 279 111, App. 455, this 
court held the traffic ordinances to be valid and not inconsistent 
with the Meter Vehicle Act. By tiie same reasoJ^ing we /-old that 
the Uniform Taaffic ordinances of the City of Chicago ure valid ao 
not Inconsistent with the Public Utility Act imd being only local 
regulation of traffic upon streets under police powers granted te 

...... to ^J; ; - . , XtJiL^y ■ *,<>g, 

■? «?S . .?0 iX-'.T 


. J ^ A . -J 

the City ol' Chioago. 

Cloaely ooimeotecl with tills point le the further contan« 
tlon Uxat the court erred in givinfc it the revues o ol' pj-Hintllf 
Inetruction lio, 3, the instruction in sutstance aaii that the 
trai'l"ic ordinance above mvaed ol" the City of Chicago was in loree. 
The instruction went on to say tdat if the jury, from a preponderance 
ef the eridence, enould find tnat the plaintiff's ward had started 
to eroes the roadwaj on a green or "Go* signal and had left the 
eurt BXi'^. was on the crosswalk before the "bus reached the cross- 
walk, and vras both before and at the time of the injury in the 
exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, tlxeii it was tne duty 
of the operator of the bus to yield the xi-zht of way to plaintiff 't 
ward. Def en laiit says that the instruction was erroneous because 
there was no such ordinance in foroe and applicable, tuid cites 
Tut tie V. Checker Tax i Co. . S74 111, App. 525. That contention w« 
have already 3j.elfl to be witiiout .raerit. Defendant also says the 
instruction ffas prejudicial for the reason that it gave the Jury 
the nipt ion, v/iiich tiiey adopted, that even if Arlt saw the motorbue 
oomi&g around the corner, or in the exercise of reasonable care 
should have seen it, all he had to do v^as to step off the curb into 
the oroBS'ffalk and that he would have the ri^it of way and defendant 
would be negligent if it ''.id not yield. This inference is not jus- 
tified by the language of the instruction, I'iot only by the inetruc- 
tion itself (which did not direct a verdict) but also by several 
Other instructions given by the court, the jury was told that olain- 
tiff could not recover unless her ward, at tne tiiiie of and before 
the injury, was in the exercise of due care. 

Tae questions whether defendant was negligent, whether 
plaintiff's ward was in the exercise of due care, and whether the 
verdict is against '^he manifsst weight of the evidence, require a 
careful consideration of the facts in tlie record. It is conceded 

"3«w baa rSt£so 

Si' ' A. S i V gjt'iiJ 

- , . ■ ■■if 'ifi*^ 

otal (fzi.9 "^ni tt* ^ 

tambsM t9S bOM V>* "^ iti<4lte •4ii #1^0 bliiow an J«£Ur biu 3LX«nt< - ;;. "nj- 

X^iar-'a ^d oka*, tud i$alb%t^7 a> ^••ili^ *»« Ijif /i»i£iir) 'tl»8il nol* 

.»ifc .iiiX9x» ddJ •-■ , •/•tilt,. 1.1 -rU 


that plaintiff's ward waa aeverely injured on the doming of August 

16th at the intersection of these bouleTaria, Aahland avenue is 
60 feet arid Jaokion toulevard 48 I'eet wide from curt to curb and 
both, are pared, ^srith asphalt; on the east side of Asnlund is a cement 
sidewallc 3 feet wids; ou the south side of fackeon is a sidewalk 8 
feet ^ide extending froci curb line to building line. The intersec- 
tion was controlled by traffic sigi^als or "Stop** and "Go" llg^its; 
display of the green light* meant "go", of the red ligits "stop." 
A diagram of defendant's bus is in evidence; it v/ae an uot>er and 
lower deck; the uooer deek would carry 37, the lower 18 Tjassengers; 
the dist<jajce frorr. the center line of tiie rear wheel to the door wa» 
about 11 feet 6 inohei; total iengtii of bus about 26 feet, height 
about 12 feet and its weicjht about 17,2(X) pounds. A photograph of 
the inside of the lower r^ecii of tiie bus is also in evidence. It 
showB the seats lor passengers on the lefthaiid aide arid .lust bei in* 
the driver's seat. 

On this oarticular looming Korris Brown was the -driver of 
the bus, Miss Pearl C-ault, Attorney Felix Silverstein, Jpcob 
Rechtner of Erie, Pa., and his 14 year old nephew were passengers 
in the lower deck, fijrown, Kechtner, and Silv^-retein testify to the 
occurrence for }>i..aafttTCt , Siiss Gault, Joseoh Half ord , a litliographer 
who was a pedestrian standing on the southeast corrier of the Irter- 
section, and Sally Jasper and Juanita Williams, naids at work in 
a house on the southeast comer of the intersection, testified for 
plaintiff. All the witnesses agree that the military parade was 
passing at this time caid moving toward the east on the south part of 
Jackson boulevard, occupying the center and the south side of the 
street, and that tie parade about this time seeuied to divi'^e; a pert 
of it was on the west, a part on the east side oi' the intersection. 
Defendant's bus moved north on Ashland avenue; its route required 
it should turn east into Jac^Mw boulevard. Practically all $hs 

tfi vif>T:^T9m SAW l««w B'tlijfaXi*!^ tmOi 

fen Mi^» afrit al>Jhr losl 8^ fit^TdlAracf ao«3i««l* bti«d t»&'l 06 

8 ituom ^^ .30 ;»JbJ:f '' 3lX«Tt«bl« 

. jftii <iaihxiut» o* 'jftlj: cfxsro ttoiY ?iiiiJbYMiii-jL« •fcJtw *«#1 
;Jt« ollt'ijsivf x^ h'^Iioriaot> at 
hnr ©p , C']'^ *tt«'».u BjTijpil tio^«:a •irl9 'to ^«X qui 6 

h L»&ttw XM9t «»iil 1o »&!:£ 'S®*fi^ -ff^ 

.'•liO<f^ JTi .law «*i l)Itfl ^OB't SX tkfSKSM 

I^cl,. ■ a-»*:tH»a«»c -ox-ia 

i(? -/T >'T :tn Bblam .•0T/»iXXiV aJliwet ferw •x«(r**« V ;').cJ'»*>« 

, ru>i*op«i»*ai ft/f:f 'to t»it 10 •ajaorf * 

?»il* Mi .iJ-Jkw ♦rfJ XXiV .TtiJ-eufcaXq 

*8JB« fy .iilvom i»iim •fiiii 8iri;t i* artt«««4 

,, rf^Mr^q «irtdr bOft 1% , /XiiVoXA-o^; uoaj£»«t 

. ioit &■»«•- n *fcl» *ai. : ,i—wt.v. .'#*•%• 

vitneese* agr«e that as it approarfied Jackson it stopped and malted 
tii« appearance ol the green li^-ht. Silverstein, ho werer , says it 
did not stop at all tut that ta& greeai light was on and that it 
turned toward tue east on JacJcson tritUout atopping. The other wit- 
nesses say it stopped uiid when the green light appeared started wp^ 
entering Jackson toulevard and turoing toward the east. The esti- 
matea ol' the witnesBes as wo speed ol' the bus at this tiae Tariei 
from 3 to 16 miles an hour, £rown .xdiuits it ^ae about 12 milee an 
hour. Silverstein saye tliat Arlt walked to the curh and stepped 
from it just as the bus was passing and taac he "blindly stumbled 
Into tiie side oi' the bus and was injured in that way. Brown, the 
driver, eaye he did not see the aan belore t;ie acciient. Rechtner 
and Crold give like testimony, 

Silverstein sayr ..e saw the man walking north on Ashland 
boulcTardj that at the east croas^ralk at Jackson the man stepped 
• ff froai the curb, took two or three ateps and walked right into the 
side oT tiie center ol" fche bus; the #itxi esses agree that somebody 
yelied and that the driver stopped suddenly. Silverstein ^:,ot up 
and looked through the window; the man was lying on the ground; the 
1»U8 remained standing until the man was piclisd up by a Yellow cab, 
Silverstein said tnis Yellow cab pulled up between the curb ?J3d the 
■feus; he says that when tae aian stepped out the bus was j«»t com- 
pleting its turn to tue east, and that when he saw tae mac walking 
on the sidewalk the bus ras just starting to make the turn; }ie fiays 
the man was '.talking aorth loaking west and looking at the parade, 

Halford, who seem:^ to have been in the best position to ob- 
serve, says he saw the maii walking north iSiad the bus approachiuf 
at the same tlnie; that the uian was in the crosswalk oi" Jackson 

boulevard on tie east side; that he saw the driver ol" the bus, who 

was looking over his/shoulder northwest; that there was a break in 


■:l'!' aoaaidAl/ no <t««6 »j:iJ t^jitwovi b^aeiu^ 

ai! 89XI» SI tiJOdA «a»V di tt^liiJ^ £tVO<X^ «-X£f<»£i RU HftXi^i 

beqcr*^* ^"^ cfivo ^il:i ilAw iJ^XxA ;>«Mi} A'\[#a atfl/saavl . iUii 

ft<>Icf''u::te ■.';■■■' -li'~f '^u ..ti..; ,...**> ai»iea«<ii e«w ajtfflf •jftjr »jb i'&Mi 41 tti#l% 

•rl* iXrrwid ,"•{«* sr«»i.T ui £>©atjta-£ •a'' -baa siiicf ; o*iis| 

TenJflosH . t iTji fci oo.t io'xtsof w.. .?>» *©a bib #ii »^«a ^iftvlifc 

.Xlfio^iis*^ 9^11 •▼!& £i»ioi» fc«|* 
ftfuiXitCi ' y..LMV nsisa. 9Sii w«a ^a' 9y,»9 aX^^^ni^rlii 

•lU e^ffil ^ -XiRw baa sqelc »8ir'^ lo ow:t jLooJ ^..diJJO %xia otav'Jt 'U* 

•ff^ ;bmi<" i'- B'tiWr Hjiria a&j ;voi;;j(UW •tit n^ti^iM b^^Sfg^Jl^ ixttfi 

iut> tt-ti^ a9«kv;r«(f qu &«Xiu« cTi^o woXXtr-^ ttJ^t^^ i»Jt«« fa^dtVftVlM 

-(Tirj ja*t •«*' swa »flti *wo £i'>co»*B itfcK •f)-' -^ jswrf 

.«w ooit dii« w«8 9X1 sutHm imHi tm , mui bH i^ali^lq, 

a^ -,«« t^ 9MXi<x«^fi ;)tut i*^ ti/O »s,ii yllav»tis »iii uo 

.•btfiaq Mil #« litliU»©X A£UI. ^i-^v ..,.d^o»X uj-iou atii^iaff 8^w ruiw *dt 

.^oiQqa aiitf »^- .<J"iWi HWi-^x*? ^ aam &sit ■wi^* »«t 8T« .aviso 

■iifc tii^ w^. ; ■ *» •*•** ^*® fc^vaXff** 

the parade; the "bus wa* makliig a turrs at the time and it Ptruck th« 
man; the man was out in the street, he eaye, about one-tuird way 
across when he was struck toy the pauael oi' the bus behind the front 
door; when the driver stopped tne rear fliieel oi' the bus was on the 
man's foot; he says he oalled to the driver to back off the injured 
man's foot; tiiat he helioed pick the raan up and put nim in the cab 
which oame in a few secondB; the bus was then standing in the middle 
of the street; when he first observed the bus the man wUo got injured 
was 1? to 15 feet out in the atreet walking north and facing in tnat 
direction; he iid not see aim turn hie head, didn't notice whether 
he looked to the rigiit or to the left, but the man turned his head 
when he was hit; the man did not quioiien his paoe as he walked but 
continued walking until the time of impact; when the man was hit he 
spun around and fell on his rlgnt side. 

Miss Gaalt, it aeeius, was tiie lady who screamed; she was on 
the hue but apparently at the time of the trial was confused as to 
the side on w.iieh she sat; she says she saw the lasui wiio was crossing 
the street before he was injured; sue could not see how close the 
bus was to .iiai when she first saw him; the man took a step forward 
and then back; she heard a thud which seesied to come from the right 
front door of the bus; she screamed and the driver stopped and got 
out of the bus; she says that when she heard the thud the man walking 
on the street was in the north lane of travel; she was also pceitiv* 
that just at the time of the accident the driver of tlie bus was 
looking over his left shoulder. ^I^his witness was much confused* 
Attorney for defendant on cross-examination produced a p^er si^ed 
"by her which apparently was in material respects contrary to the 
testimony t^iven by her, and in which she eapressed the opinion that 
the man who was .injured was to blame for the accident; however, she 
said the paper was not in the same condition as when she signed it, 
and defendant did not offer it in evidence to impe&eh her testimony. 

■J aLoi.-!. -^i 9iii- J« .XTjiJ M ^i\iJL»s& •jsw si/sf ^at i^bstieq i»d^ 

\ftw Mx.^j-jr.n ^>jo&£ ,rv« ^^ tCfftiftii^ »ii^ aX tuo sjbw /tea; 9{f9 \tmM 

•^d Ao SAW ei;tf «tl;^ j^o x»(»uc xa»t #fil;^ beor^^oi'd t»v2t& »rfi- asjifw ;tooii 

^7i/t"<^ ^--^ '''^<> Jitu'cf o^ tvTivi' ariit of b^l£»9 *it eyAft Off lioot h' nsita 

4*0 •^i U cifi 3u^ &a« «[ji? fluui otft ii£>Jt«[ fr»(rX*f{ •/! lant ;^oo*l *:* cum 

slbhiti »iii Ai ^£Lti>iul« aBd& ««v 8««f 9e{^ ;«&noo»lt iv»t s nl »ce;i!0 r-:£iliiir 

b^tu^X i0- ui Ac^ 80e( ma.» h»rt.6»^o ia-iVt %A a^HS^ } ^sell's »xiS t9 

tar} i\l ^iiif^'t cos tiiiott 2^itixi«w :^e9i ^«V 

a»i{**ri^ •t)ll©n **ftbx^> ,4uBori irin sTii ;noi:*o»'«||| 

«9ii aif/ k9axui assu mna Sa<i «l't«. ,1-^ «.n;r o:; Jb«i(ooX iIjI 

iiSii f>»3tl£'V vii «£ dO£q aixi c»)tolop ^ofl fci6 usm 9Ai }#^lf i«w »rf nSxiW 

0A iiii 9a'« !tAik ari^ nsxiw ;iojittXTl tu s^JL^ Aii;) iltnv ^titil»vt fi*t)al^ctt»* 

=>s.uta— a«ir jjniai aiil 'to oiKlit aitt 4'a i^X^riaiiiteri '^^^j ^si^i 

aol^Boao saw oiiw aiau ^xii w«« ax-ia R^c-'^a: «iis ;#«a OflO lioi.w a^ >ii^ 

%At MNli^ vo^i^ i>a8 ^ou tii/oe ctxta ;ba'X£{t£^i a^v •/{ 9toiHd i(*Qii'i 9d^ 

knjiwxt'i qi»i9 a 3iooi aaat oiia ;i&J:ii v^^s Jcxl 1 aria nadw ocf 

-OB A**" baqqo^fs t^vlih aOi tsia 6»:u«fi>^0« «iia ;»i»cr 9il* 'to looJb c^noil 

A aL^v cum ail^ AuHi 9iii htA'iti 9dm eimtiw insit sxa^ '^<^<a ;^uiS arlj- lo ^uo 

•vis I -J OH oaXii ttjnr a/ia ;Xf)TJ3t> to aiiaX li^rsoa Oiii ai aisw J-airrta Axtt 'Mi 

■A«r avcT »4i^ ta lavltib 9£iii frmblook, ftiii Ut 'i^slt 9d iHt 

• f>aau'tao» xxouia a«ir ut»iuitw aleil .vabXuoflB ^'iS'X elil rcaro aniiooX 
A*cPdi-'i leticq A b0Oisb(yxti tHii.tjittleuiK9»acen.Q uo ^naJ!>ftalofj lo't x'^tnoiiA 

• :ij of xriKTitaott atfDoqaa^ IaJ:ta#«iii ai aj»w ^I^itaiTacjqa rioti^ itarf ^ 
/Ij iioiniqo ant fcaoeai^a •ite /ioixtw ajt i-aa ,i»rf x<' a»vl<^i icnofltic^ati 

.lavjwo.' 'ioa >ii* TOt aMAlfii o^ «*w Ijancwtnl. a«w c ^il* 

.o«iaa«# itui tio»i9<iMi oi •^aobin - oa 'cib *cmba»'t»b ba» 

Sally Jasper, wh© worked in a building at th.« southeagt 
corner oi' ths intersection, oaye that sirie was oi'i the second lloor 
xa&lcing up bedB; tnat she saw the parade I'roiii the window looking 
west; Juanita Willianis was with her; they looked up juid ohe saw tll« 
■bus and that a ruan had "been hit; she estimates tixat the side of 
the "bus was 12 to 15 I'eet froa the south cur'b ol' Jackson 'boulevard; 
the says that kii a few second* a Yellow cab caiiie; the cab was driven 
in about 3 feet froiu the curb and the injured man was put into it 
from the north door of tne cab; the man was lying about where the 
eenter line of the bus was and in front of the rear wheel; there 
was two or three- feet betweai tne curb and che right side of the 
oab. Jueuiita Williaius corrofcorateB Sally Jasper as to the relative 
positions of tbi© bus, the body of the injured man and the Yellow 
«ab which took htm away. She says the bus was standing about IS to 
15 feet froii the south eurb. Reohtner, on the other hand, says that 
when the motor bus stopped it v/a» about 4 or 5 feet from the curb 
on the riglij^ hand side; he did not Knew who took the injured man 
•way; he came from llrie. Pa., to testify and received ^10 a day from 
defendant company and his expenses; he says he heard a thud and 
then heard a lady say, "I tiiinlc someone hit youj " he looked out of 
the window after the bus stopped and saw the injured man put in the 
Yellow cab; as already pointed out, he agrees tnat the oab wae 
driven between the body of the man and the south curb. A policeiusn 
testified tuat an impression of a hand appeared on the sideof the bus, 

Ihe evidenee as above recited shows, we thinX without doubt, 
that the question of whetiier the driver of defendant's bus was neg- 
ligent was a (lueetion for the Jury. Indeed, we think a preponderance 
• f the evidenoe indicates that he was in faot negligent. He adJEoits 
that he did net see the injured laan before the impact and two wit- 
aesses testify that he was looking iii anotuer direction. In the 
last analysis the con trolling question of fact in the ease is 


•tow i»fCv+ !'>^'! 

_ ,._ . 'V ( (ro:fe 3,.. . 

..,., .^ .... ...:...- \ ■•fO 

J w^i/'X^'.' -^ , V,'—-- --— I - ■ * 


i»hetlier Arlt at tVie time in oueetien wa6 in the exercise ol' due cuv. 

Under the lav^ of tiiis state, contrary to tliat which exiaca in maaiy 
jurisdictions, the burden ol' proving due care is upon the plaintiff, 
"but th« question ol' fact is for the decision of the jury. We tnink 
there is Pome evidence in this record indicating due care uoon tha 
part of plaintiff's ward. One of witnesses saya tliat he looked 
toward the north. Def«sidant's witnesa Silverstein says that before 
crossing he looked toward the west. The Jury, we think, could 
reasona'bly helieve tSiat irrhen he reached the curb tiie green light was 
displayed, indicating that he had the rit^ht of way across tne inter- 
eection, "Kie only direct evidence tending to axiow that he stumbled 
into the hue is that of Silverstein, Wixo 1b positively contradicted 
Tsy Halford who was in a liiucl; batter position to observe the whole 
situation, A clear preponderaii^ice of the evidence we think indicates 
that the accident occurred ¥hen Arlt was 1/3 aeroes the atreet and 
under oircumstancee indicating that he had the rigiit of way. If so, 
we do not think it could be said he was negligent in relying upon 
tliat right. If a pedestrian at a crosaing of this kind may not rely 
Upon the appearance of the light whieh invites hiru to cross, such 
intersections would be indeed dangerous, i'lewe v. Chicago AiOtor 
Coa£h_Co. , 283 111, Apu. 57; fcahan v . Richa rdson. . 284 111. App, 493. 
This also seca-.s to be the view of courts of other jurisdictions, 
Jacob 8 on v. Palaia . 118 Pa, Superior court, 401; is^ewiuan v. .Protective 
Motor Searvice Co . . 298 Pa. 509; Vllliaer v. Yellow Cab Co .. 309 Pa. 
213; American Ice Co.. y«. i*i.oorehead, 66 ii'ed, (2nd) 792; fc aumann v,. 
Sva-Qaroline ^iome Laandry Co ,. 213 Wis. 73; i>anitz v. Webb . 151 Md, 
639; Salomon v, i^eyer . 1 Gal, (2d Series) 13; Pinello v, Taylor . 
128 Gal, App, 512: "Yee v. Gliatley Gabs. Inc .. Court of Apoeali 
{La, 1935) 158 So. 231. 

defendant finally contends that the daiaages allowed are 
excessive. The evidenee for plaintiff tended to show that the 

^^- .loieiati i ^o^'t 'to nolJtvaup 9x1^ 4'»tf 

6- b soitfacitui b-rc (1 

Be 9»6&&ailv »sit to •at) ,fei«w ••'I'ti jniaif; lo j-iscj 

biuoo ,iaii . , lu^ ©ffi' .!■»> . wo^ fcojtooX »d jjnieeoto 

b»J9tbm%;i iilmoii «i Mtw ,ai»^«-xftvlie lo i^aciij si «i,' 

^XovW »xi^ avT;9acf« cKf aoiJiepcj %»ti9<i doufi m at e«w odw bXo'iliMH \iS 

bos *99-i. • Hii j!o'ic».« d\X a^w J- It*, fwffrr J>i»i iobloo« »ff# iA^^^ 

OTO 9.:^ jirai ilaxxiw liisll ȣU to 99aa'ia&qcj_M ^Ai aoqu 

jj^jiJA- :•'«?•'' :?*''' ('>'«) -^^'^ ^* ^{vg ^Uf^ooui .y. .?>;. ^ aj M9lT»,g«A ;5X8 

.1'- .' . , :__,. : . • - . .e,p y;ibni,4^U 9m\L9MlX9%^.rKl^ 

rw. . .^o , .J>X^. , .... . . . • • " «••* 

.xaR .ofc eex (act' . 

left foot of tjlaintiff 's ^rard was "badly crushed, t]ie skin aiid tissue 
on top of the foot torn loose from the ankle on tlie ituxer surface 
down to the great toe. There was a fracture of one of the metatar- 
sal "bones anfl the first two or three metatarsal "bones ^vere exposed 
on the under side, 'JTie County Hospital record s:~;07/s that when Arlt 
entered th&t institution after the injury the foot was swollen, the 
soft tissues on the inside were lacerated or torn away; t.iat the 
tendons which ran alongside the medial portion were exposed, involv- 
ing the "bones of the inside of the foot, the jaetatarsal and plxalaa- 
geal toneB, At that time the lateral, tJxe outside of the foot, had 
apparently been infected and pus had acGumulated, he was al'terward 
taken from the County hospital to Dunning where the infection da- 
veloned into oBteomyelitis and the bones of the foot "becatie ankylosed. 
His foot at tiineB aeemod to 'neai but tiiia was only apparent. At the 
time of the trial the foot iiad healed t^ut it wae turned ic end with- 
out motion, iiuch of tne foot tissue had "i-een lost; the foot was 
tumM in toward the eiid-line of the "body and was contracted; he 
has never Taeen able to walk on the foot, llie ©videuce sho'^s that 
Arlt hp.d seen service in the army; that while there he was infected 
with syphilis which was not cured, He was discharged for taat 
reason. There was medical testimony to the effect that this dis- 
ease laight "be revived "by an injury such as that which was here re- 
ceived. The medical testimony is cc the effect that the duration 
of his life will probably not "be aaore than 3-^ years/ Ihe question 
of damages was for the jury and on this evidence we find it impos- 
8i"ble to say that the verdict is excessiYc, It is therefore alfixmed. 

O'Connor, F, J,, concurs, 
MoSurely, J",, iissents. See next page. 

« nrtQt xo i»9;Y/>7dOJBi 67«v Ahx«in| 9Ai no tQnaaii floe 

-V ., saofix« si«v fleiJioo x«ifc«m oiJ* s/iagncX* cwrnt itolrfw fin«hn«i# 

>«x«-£ic i^ie iBBtBimtwa Bh:: rifti »4# 'te ««nooi •i^;t s^l 

. •^i«*I;<'J ©xU ,Xjb*£o^#X oii;^ »tw4i :r#«br #A .aenoif X««a 

ft»«oX'^cw ft;a»o»cf ifoe'l ax& to itofmd flucf^r I^cia iii4'iX*>(ia(o*d'eo o$al JbotroXsT 
osii . '<(iao auKV slrJ- « kMf .Xiii^'f»<i 9^v bme&^st^ n9t'^. oo't alH 

»ii ;fc»JajaiJno 3 »fltIX-fii-'» i^sU Jbl«wo^ ni I>A£ntJ»# 

)m: >ot 0^;^ a* iX*> 'ran %»d 

. XAfs* toa uiw il»JtriTr olllAtna ditw 
-sib aitxi Satsiit ;f*(»Tt« siii oS ^tjcmttQ^i X«oli>«c bav fxdtn* ^nmajioil 

-^oc'.ii ri «- X*"t '■'' *• 

.»irf;t){ip!- , . . , ::»ino9»0 


1!B. JUSTICE MeSUKBSLY Dioeftnting: In my opinion Arlt 
1b walking l&lladly into the sids oi* the ooaeh was guilty of 
eontritutory negligence, and tae verdict ol tii.9 jury in tnat 
respect is Against the manifest weight oi' the evidence. 


""i»"' ,J* '•*)"' 

. .^ -r *.^ , 



BERTHA ZISTER, Admin Ictratrix of the m) 

Istate of 4WT.i:IOfJY M. ZlSTiSR, DegjpuBed., M) 


▼ILLIAM S. POLLACK et al. , * "^ "" 

App«lia4t«. ) 

294 l.A, 602^ 


On February 21, 1950, the administratrix filed a complaint 
in an aetion on th.« case under the statute for negligence resulting 
in the death of her intestate. She named as deferidants WlllieBi 
Pollack, Richard Pollack, Joel S, Benjamin and iiemei Benjaaiin, 
There was a Judgment ©n the pleadings in fsror of defendants which, 
apon appeal to this court, 2ister v. Pollack. 262 111, App. 170, 
was reversed and the cause remanded. Upon trial "by jury the plain- 
tiff a; t.e close ©f «vidence voluntarily ^lamissed as to Joel S, 
Benjaniin, J^emci Benjamin, and Richard Pollack, The juiy returned 
a verdict in favor of plaintiff against defendant William S, Pollack, 
assessed damages «t the sum ©f |5000, and the court, overruling mo- 
tions for a new trial and in arrest, entered Judgment for that 
amount, and William B, Pollack ferings this appeal. 

It is urged for reversal that the Jud^ent is against the 
manifest weight of the evidence; that the court erred in refusing 
to direct a verdict for defendant William E. Pollack at the close 
ef all the evidence; that it erred in its rulings on the admission 
of evidence and in the giving and refusing of instructions. 

It is undisputed that plaintiff's intestate died on 
February 24, 1929, as a result of injuries received February 16, 
1939, at or near the intersection of LineolB avenue with Wellington 
street, Chicago, Lincoln avenue extends northwest and southeast. 
Wellington street extends in an eastern and western direction, Ihe 
aeeident occurred at about 6:30 p. m. It vras Just getting dark and 




:.) i'i'--'io 'ii"- '- :.r^-71.i^jg t'i-;i,v,. :;v.a-'.uT, ,h,i 

20*^ A.ii^es 

sol^tiuao-x «9iid,ji[X3ea teat 9tut&:ta 9ixi tmbau •sao aiii no aoiJo^ as oi 

matins m$apibii»'t»h mm b9amn .i9^»iama.X %mii io xii&»b ndi ai 

.aioutt^^^ loii»ifi hOB ai. .o X»o^ ,^«XIo'i AxjBiiojLri «ioj&IIo1 

,iici.:'Y 9ia»b!Mt»b 1o lt«T.f;t nl aBnii^AAXqi •tit «« J-fltdiRstift A saw •x»|{T 

,0V J . .Ill SftS . 3|toaXIoS ,v T :» ;rel^ , *iwoo siiiJ- o* Xfteqq* noqw 

-oiAXflT •ill Yivt T(^ X«li:;f no^U «l>«f>nAJB0'x •mjjao •cU' X>qm J»«Cf«v»'X a«v 

« fcaaeiisitJtl xLttfr-tnulov •dn&^Jtva t© •eoXc> . * 

le^iXXe^ .Z jBtiXXlW #««ii»lsfc iafllAS* Ttlintjulq to lovijt ai ^oifcaov a 

•oc ^^niXui-xevo ,^xjuoo ftii^ bam ,00094 ^« ^i^s *>^ t» ••li*fiM>fc Jt»iR9««« 

#«if^ To't 3af>asihul b9r9*n» ,j«*»it« ni l>«i; luiii wa « "xo't snoJt* 

«I««4n« aiii^ a^oi^cf ^•aXXoH .a mbXXXXW i>n& ,#£iuo(aa 

Oder ^ojKi«j^ ai iamtnitut •lii iatii Xi»»v*r»'i aa'i l>e|^'xu ai ;^I 

9Ui3J/t»i ai b9rx» iitseo •tit imdi ;f»0£mftiir» •sU io ^ai^iow J^eatioaai 

•aoXo 903 i» t»AlLo*i .8 oaiXXiW ttutbam'fh XQl tolbt^r m io^iib ot 

rtoisaiab* 'it^i ■« •t-it^iXjJi a^i ni A»x'xa ;ti i«ill ;moai»bXr9 axf^ XX« 'to 

.aaci^^sLrt^aoi 'to iisu»uu»i biw ^airi^t an;^ al 'csxe aooabiys ta 

no ba^J!> *iMim»ial a'Tli^ai«Xq iasii Z>siM<iaiJ>m/ ai ^I 

,dX \%iitn4m1 *9viao»'x amXxulal to iluami « a^ ,OSQX ,»8 xr^irxoTat 

a«^»nlXXat diiw ajjadra alo^aid to Aoic^&aaaa^ai a<U -x«a0 to i» ,Qt9l 

.^a«*/liMNi ftfiA taovxiiTon aboa^x* •Mnara oXeaiiJtiX .ovioirlO ^ieartia 

ad't .ooiJoaiifc malaaar i>nr. in«;r««a em ai abos^jca i^aaala iia#5itiXX»V 

the street was lighted. There was a double street car track in 

Lincoln avenue, ijorth bound cars running over the east tracke and 

■euth bound over the west tx-acics. There had been snow Tiiich a 

snow plow had removed I'roB the center of the street, and/the oentc 

where the tjaffic ran the street was dry, but on the east side of 

the street siow and ice were piled up ais hi^-h as the curb, 'Ihe 

street at the point in question was 42 l"eet wide between the curbs. 

The distance from the first street rail to the curb was 14 feet on 

•ach side. The distauQce between tiie center of tiie t\To tracks was 10 

feet, and froci rail to rail of the street car tr^-cks was 5 feet. 

It was about 3 feet between t e two inner tracks, Tae roadbed was 

about 28 feet wide. On the east side of Liiicoln avenue stood the 

&ainer and Kohler Purniture store, which was about 126 feet south 

0t Southport avenue. There were electric light poles along Lincoln 

avenue and also a trolley pole. There vas a trolley pole 91 feet 

north of tiie oomer on the east side of the street. The deceased, - 

Ikrs. Ruth dries and her 4 year old daughter Jeanette had visited 

this furniture store. They came out on the sidewalk of Lincoln 

avenue intending to cross to the west aid?- of the street. The 

defendant, William Pollack, now a lawyer, was tiien a student at 

Jiorthwestem university. There was a basket-ball game at tiie 

University on the evening in question, and after dinner, some time 

near 6:00 p. m. , Pollack, using a 1926 Stearns automobile, drove to 

the home of Agnes Srickson, taen also a student at the University, 

hut now Mrs, Ruben Anderson, She was to accompany ii.r, Follaok to 

the b&sket-ball game; they arove northwest on Lincoln avenue; Just 

preceding them was a Chevrolet car driven in the same direction by 

Joel Benjamin; his T'ife ivomci was with him and sat in the back 

seat; there were also children ir the automobile^ as tliey approached 

tho point where deceased received his injury, ur. Pollack decided 

to pass tho <aievrolet oar, wuloh was goint^ at a speed of about 12 

bam •>i«vsft ise9 tnH rr«*r» xmj iwvd di-roa ,»u«!9T» alooflU 

'^ *5'3a xvidd ,«:k»in^ ^8»w sxf* *i»ro bftwoflf riJiroa 

^ . : ... . i1 

gJi'^ *^.^jcC*I 9;'... .J 

._ ,. .:_ ...aols eeXocr 

ffXooa^ - -. - 

drfit tc 3 ;..., -.^' -.- 


r+ r r .-.■ A „ J , 

, T7 J BisYa i:iJ 

v3' noi^o 

i .; -l^-j A i."-!. C -.^ 

i'tr-n 9V oil' v;- 

/> T -ft f ! t • f If. '1 ifl 

81 itf«<f 

e^ij^ 3Cixii^ vv 

miles an hour, anr!. throwing aome mud on hi a windshield. He did not 
blow his horn or give otlier indication that he was about to pass, 
but drove by on the right, irs, Uries testifies that ho drove hio 
sutoraobile up onto the curb; she eays she, the d«o eased vid her 
daughter jTsanefc© were about 6 inches back I'roEi the curbstone; that 
Aeceneed was holding Jeanette's l«ft hand with his right hand; that 
the Follaoic car, as it passed the Chevrolet, swerved to the right, 
*Bhot rifeht out from behind ths car on the sidewalk" and "went at 
WXL angle from the tracks toward the sidewsilk, over the curb and 
struciv my daagiiter and ttie man and knocked them in the air, and then 
turned back in the street," When she saw the Pollack car again it 
Vfts about 75 feet from where they wore hit and parked at an anprle on 
the east side of the street; she says t e little yirl an<1 the man 
were thrown quite aways in the air, about 4 f?et, he ntill holding 
her hand. 

BonjaEiin testifies that he was driving north toward his liome, 
•traddling the east rail of tiie car track; that the Pollack car 
passed him to the right tind struok the right front wheel of his oar; 
that as he approached the point oi' the accident he saw a man ejnd a 
little girl standing on the sidewalk together; that his car did not 
•trike the nan at any time; that he did not see the Pollack car 
strike the man on the sidewalk; he saw the fender of Pollack's car 
strike the man and tnrow him to the side of the street) he saw the 
man go olT toward the west or left; his own car did not strike the 
man at any time; n& part of the man's body liglited on hie oar; he 
saw the laan in the air but did not see the striking of the man by 
the car; after the accident his oar was on the west side of the 
street and struck the Buenzow car ^vith the fender and bumper; 
2ister was uxader the Buenzow car; Benjaiuln did not to to the hospi- 
tal; ais car struek Pollack's car twice; he heard a crack on the 
y>akCk ajHBfc and "next tine" he was struek on the right fender and 

^OR M ... - . ■ .<. ':s.m 

,«e«a o" itsvde^ a«v sA i»ti& aoxi«»ib£ti t^tiio *rl:^ to true ^icf 

alii dvcn its.ti aftjcii . ^Sti^lr 0ti'. .& imi 

l«ii^ :i^flfiA iii^Aiit aid dityK bOMA ilal 9^ 9ii9iiA&X. ^^edhlMii B»<rr b99a»Qitb 

Aooeai ktvi ama <»xi 

ao eXv^flA a« ta b^^ru^e bite iiil ^isw -^^tmi •t»m soul ;^»ft'X QV Sttodl^^ «4ir 
aImh stiw --'^ ;i^^fJv. »ad^ 'lo ©Li ^rU 

;i»o ottl 'te Xtorftr i-noit i^rf^ii •!<* ai©wi;f« ban d-i.itu ^»«««q 

lo . feh* ts-3 ^irf .rml^ iiafli^go^ rtfLs-rrs^ .>-s *»fi?- W tjnlhn*^ 

' . .L3*l tii* <!»«a i«a *!: 'B a.c>« •■ 

x/io a'AoifXXo** lo t»fta«'l •ri* iwa »d ;ji;x««»Jbi- 
3h^ w«a ' ,';^^oil« eiil lo •Dia •ili)' oi Jilti W9«4;r btw n 
,;!* ^ii-i jti. i/'o rnro aJUi ;#1»I 10 Jaaw ailjt Jbi«-v 

9^ ;xBw 'T^ 9'etB» ori* 'ta Jt«<y en ;o.;.. 

V.Y TP.u: ■■'ft :^oa '*!i'- JJiJ t." 

>^ EWjUI 

; ''-J*^ 

Pollack wa« going around hixn; lie said he heara that hla attorneys, 

Beebe and Essington, had ^ithdratm froia his case, and he had not 

eciployed T)onaghy to represent Jaim; iiowever he had been at i^naghy'i 

office two or three times and he was tuere the iijoming oi" the trial 

"to (iive the depositioni" he hud arranget?. to hire kr« Donat^liy ii" Lr. 

Beebe dropped out; at th'^ time ©f tiie accident he had nis "brrUces on 

the car and could stop it in from 2 to 4 I'eet; wnen the Pollack cr-r 

struck his, i^ollacK wae to the ri^t between the car and the right 

hand curbstone; Benjauiin eaid he ea?/ the mar and the girl before the 

Jollaek car started to pass hiia; they were stanf^ing on the carbstons 

on the sidewailk; they were not moving fast when he first saw them; 

he did not see them leave the curbstone to start across the street; 

his oar, he thought, lulfeht have been 20 or 30 feet from the roan and 

girl oc the sidewalk when he first icnew the Pollack car was passing 

him; he vfas about 75 to 80 feet away when he last saw them; after 

that he never saw the man and girl until he »?aw the man irj the air; 

at that time the Pollack car was already past when he saw the man in 

the air; the JPollack car vi-as about a half car length shead. Again 

he said i«hen he first saw the Pollack car passing him the bumper of 

it was half way at tne middle ©f his car; at that time he did not 

see tne ps pie oa the sidewalk, and the Pollack car was them about 

7 or 3 feet away from his car; the next thing he saw was when the 

man went in the air and the Pollack car ":a3 then already past -- was 

ttlear past his car, just about passing his car; he says: 

"I couldn't see the back of the Pollack aax at the time I 
saw the man in the air, /le was Just passing me, I am sayin^; that 
when I saw the oar was turning, that car passed rue a little, I 
didn't look much about it, strack me and then at the saiue time it 
struck the man too, the man and me at the saii^e time. I saw hl:a 
strike the man." 

Pellaok's left bu.iper, Benjanun says, caoe togetixer with his right 

side fenier, and the iront wheel and front fencfer on his car werB 

'broken; ^e did not icnow whether Mr. Pollack's ear was daii^agsA, but 

a» m9M%i nlfi ban «mi c»a*J&Jto ■'■ni-i !»4.t 

USA atoftllo ?.iv ;i&m't qoJa tX^oo bin. 

Irf^iT •M# bfl* -xaa »tt# ft»ewc .wiXia^ , 

'OoJecfTi;^ 9iii am ^nibrsais ^^»w i^^As imtd aae^ o7 b<»iht»tB i»u jlojuHoI 

bOB afli'i ^lU Mt't'i: t?*»*t Of" "SO OS im«'; •▼«if j^^Ia (J-iiguoii;? 9x1 .oiise airi 

••»i£ n^if ax cwuB »«t;r «•« bsL liJm) XaJtv^ i>*i^ ua^ »iii «a« «»V9£i ei) 
li i-xam «ii? *fia »ri asti^f fn.' a x^H'txla «j»«r to^ i»«XXo'i aas modi 3f;..i Jja 
<t»f;rA .iM9lf« jfctaO»i^ •'f ^ IWti^ 

«ijw w«« ail solxi* i^xo ;«rf> <?i^" fit": . t»#l S ao ^ 

ii e 



./ir into- 


•on« part of tlie left side ol it hit the riijht side cl his car, aod 
at the time they csii^e together was the ticie he saw the body ol the 
nan in the air; he denies that the body was rising on hi a "bumper, 
end sayg it a® not on the left hsurid side of the bumper with the 
overcoat caugjirxt on it; he went over to tiae curbstone on the we»t 
Bide of the street flritii his car, ajii before he ..ot there he Bays, 
*I collided nead on with another autcaobile going southeast on the 
Boutheaet bound car tracite; " tne bumpere collided and the body of 
Zister was under Buenaow's car; he was alwiost under both care, but 
iiie overcoat was stuck in i r, Buenzow'e car; he says, "iiy left 
front wheel was toucaing the curbstone in a iialf way angle with ths 
curb; kr, Buenzow'e car vme straight southeast at the curb," A 
nephew repaired i:«njia£.in'B car; he did not take it to a regular 
ehop; he sayn the front a«le wae bent, the rit^ht fender broken and 
the front ligiit on the left side anr|. the right fender at the front 
taid on the side also. The radiator aiid the bumpers were bexit. He 
did not exarivine the Poliacis: car; he says he did not see tu© i?oliaok 
©ar up Oil the sidewalk, aiid tnat it was not on tiie sidewalk at any 
time so far as he knows; from tiie first time he saw the Pollack oar 
until the last tizae he saw it, it was always on tne street between 
the curbstones; he does not know whetrier tke man he saw on the 
sidewalk is tie same man that was finally foiAWd under tiie bumper; a 
garagexixan towed 'ais car away but he do as not reiueitiber uis nacia; he, 
£enjazU.a, did not get out of his car at all aiid stayed in it about 
10 or 20 minutes; he went to the police station and made a writt«i 
statement but does not remeiiiter wheUier ue signed it; he reioeubered 
giving a deposition wuici^ stated that there were three people standing 
en the sidewalk close to the street, and he then said the same oar 
that struck him threw the itan on the left side of the street; he 
•a« the oar "that atruek another m«i that was standing witJi tiie 

U7 L a -i^ 

girl, and tiirew Itia in the air like an overcoat. " He eaye that at 
that time iie answered that the other automolDilt, when it hit the 
maxif was on tue sidewalk comiaii; toward nim; he did net remember 
saying at the inqueet tnat hie car toucned dieter, nor that Zister 
was in front ol' ais autociobile; as he approached the ecen@ of the 
accident he did not slacken hie speed although he saw the little 
girl atL«apting to pull away or run away irojs the man; he did not 
recaember stating at the inquest that he just stopped because he easr 
the little girl wanted to run smd the man held her, and that was the 
time he stopped; nor did he remember saying at the inquest that he 
did not know it was a maekine that hit him until he looked at hie 
front wheel. Xhe coroner's inquest was only a few days after the 
•ellisioB and he dees not remember what he said there, lie says, 
l^ollaek's automobile went straight down Lincoln aTSuue after it 
hit me;" he says he, the witness, went over to the wrong side of 
the street because he was struok or pushed fro^j. the ri^^^t side of 
it; he says, "I didn't see tiie maxi or ^irl on the sidewalk or in 
the street in such a position to oause me to put on my brakes and 
start to step my car. Xnere was no reason for me to put on my 
'brakes as far a.s anything X saw was ooncerned^" he also said that 
Mr. Beebe had been his attorney for seven years and that he never 
•aaqployed Kr« Denaghy. 

Mrs. Buth &ries says that she and her daughter Jeanette 
(4 years of age) on the evffiiing in q[ueetioB were at the furniture 
store which was about X7S feet from Wellingtcoi street; that they 
■eame to the sidewsiik and walked toward the curb;* that she saw 
the Benjamin and. Pollack cars, the J^'ollack car when it was 150 feet 
away and the Benjatoin car about 75 feet away; that the Pollack car 
•came out aiid made a swerve toward the curb and came ud on the side- 
walk;" that she juiiiped back to tell *Jir. Zister and the little girl 
to get out of the way," and "as I stepped back, he them with the 

i«iof«R&.. .. i:a bi«v#^ ^Oijaoo sLX^vdti < aao.' 

'■ ' ' ^- ;aIlQett[Otu^; " ' ''■" • » '<isv 

ton ' i" ■ ^ !>.-:. s; ' • -- : ' ■ ■- -ilg 

•ill lA b»iooX oii Ixriiw aiixi *i/i *«iis ?iix; D-rfic .c S£i^- -j x woa?. toii fcifc 

"16 Bbl9 -^Ho-XT! ail* o3 "xcve Irisw .eaea:!.- ,;-«ii b\.'*e f I tlxi 

•^« ao -•.. u 14) t iifeSiAt^i wu «J3W sisxifif .«A0 TE-:a q;ot« oi ;Jl.«*« 

•JJ»tt««T. i-jri &fl£ »ila *«xjL;f 8X«« aoiTi) iiiii 

Xmdi tmtii ;tt9i.t» aot^^uiUvV oott i9«'i ^TX tuocf/; •»« iiolriw mot* 

•tfjo <©♦ JfHifif :^w* j#el 8V ttM»<j£ ^to« «la»«tfli»*i "J J *''* 

le »d* tt» ' rf'xwo wxlJ bt»wo.t ^nowa « «bi»ui !>«* *«• tiafta" 

right front ani they flew up in the air toward tiie-weBt;* ehe did 
not notice th« Benjamin car at the time the Pollack car struck; 
she screamed and closed her eyes; she says the Pollack car wa» 
going 35 or 40 miles an hour, and that it ir«nt about 75 feei after 
it struck the peo le. After the accident iiiater was lying ofi th« 
west side of the street. On cross^cxauiination she said that she, 
Zister and trie little eiirl were ahout to cross the street tut had 
not left the sidewalk, and that tney were about 6 inches back of 
the curbstone; Zister was alongside of her to her ri^jht and the 
little girl was to the ri-ht of him, he holdinii the i^irl's left 
hand with hie right; she says, "The car went at an an^le from tlx« 
tracks toward the sidewalk, over the curb and strucK my daughter 
and the laan and knocked them in tiie air fond then turned back in 
the street; he turned ri^t back in the street; * she did not see 
the Poll ask ear hit the Benjamin car as it caiSiC around its side; 
the little girl and the man were threwn about 4 feet in the air; 
she did not see the Benjamin car collide "head on" with another 
car; as far as she knew that did not happen. The body of Zister 
Ifcy close to the curb on the west side of the street; the little 
girl lay v?ith her ffice down on the sidewalk and Zister on top of 
her neck to neck; she didn't notice Benjamin's or i3ueiiZow's car 
and did not know tiiey collided; she didn't kiiow whether Zister 's 
body was on the street "between" tiae curbstone or up on tne side- 
walk; Ut, Sister hail an overcoat, but she did uot uotioe wnether 
it was tangled up in tlie buKiper of eitlxer car; aae did not see 
another ear with a man lying on its bumper. 

Mr. iloward, a printer, who was walking uome witn nis Tiiff 
south en Lincoln avenue, says that he heard a woman sers m and 
heard a «rash; that he tamed aroiuidl and the first thing h« saw 
was Zister hanging onto the bumper of the Ghavrolet ear, whick 

;il6i«-xjs a* .. J on 

':'ils! ;ti39W 


»ai . . . ;■■ 

«*r : - •■•' -' ' ■- I ■■ ■ ' ■■ 

. . r^o tUia^l.tsff 9di &iii IMO sfo.'^IIo 

lO-"' 'i 

,, ;i'u;,I ; ?liiro 

**iw •»* . 


913'^ iXfc; fOW A fc1Uli»ii "•" ^"i'" \, 

; BW 
■j ■T»lf.tOXi» 

i»hloh wa« facing to'-ard the curting on the west side of the str«et; 
that he was hanging there and his overcoat was entantiled in the 
"bumper; h« ( tl^e i^itness) disentangled the otercoat^ mov^d the 
machine oxi^ got Zister loose from the haaiperj he heard Zieter ask 
li#v the little feirl we«{ Ziater»s leg was fcrokec, and he wae put 
In a Yellow cab and taken to the hoepital; Howard rode with aiiu, 
•tanding on the running 'board. 

Mrs. Howard testified that she heard a terrible crash and 
•creaming and turning to ses r^'hat the exciteiaent was, saw a man 
hanging onto the front end of a car; tliat the v:iBii lost his grip on 
the huEiper and fell, and his head was pretty clos^j to the curb, so 
the car was Just off it. A crowd collected and she went home; ah« 
says she notice the little girl after t).ie accident out ixi the 
crowd hollering; that she '^as just Btaiiding and -.ralking around 
aof in any one spe«xal place, axxd she thinks the tirl "Vas rather 
out of her head, • 

Offictr Schroeder, -^ho laade the police report of the ac- 
cident, testified that he ^rent over to nake a pull at his box at 
6:46; that a Yellow cab stopped and infer: led him that axi injured 
aan wae there; he saw the Cherrolet and Buenzow car xhich was 
golag soutli on the west (ii<^p of Linijoln arenue; both cars were 
wrecked and had to be pushed and towed away; he also testifies 
that the Stearns Knight was about 55 or 40 feet north rrom where 
the accident was supposed to nave happened, on the east side of 
the street, facing north. The oii'icer ^ot into tiie Pollnci. car 
a&d drove it over to the station to test its braites, whicxi, he sayo , 
he found 0, ]t. The officer also says there was no dent or deu^age 
ea the Pollack car, t;iat it *jvas not soratcned u? or broken in any way. 

Arthur C, Bartz, w .o wae Talking nortu on Lincoln avenue 
e.t the time In quest ioa, saye he heard a crash and that when he t^et 
there the man was lying on the west aide of the street, abeut iO 

*itf^«roir. t^'Aoe-ie &»X;^.a«#uoi£i (n^^tiikv 9.14) •2f^«»:«pt0tf 

,^.< ; .^aiqie. (mi*^ htm d^AO w«JI«T « til 

ao qx'zs aid .^»c- •■•J i^ii' <>a<» ;^ao«'4: sii^ e^na i^sd-^tiMd 

oa .diit: ^t^^^f a48W I>#o4 aid l>ttfi ^Xils'i ,^(m rniftsud 9df 

»dv bXo%J3 Bdi ttittB Ilia •XI-llX 9sii tol^oa fliJ'ia 91C-sh 

" ,j»#9ii asrf 'to #JtfO 

ti9w sicj xaJid ;3W.':i©vs aXotf« Hi *8«w »ft* ae rttwtrs ?i«ioi 

,.■■'-■., iit6%tM SJfif 

\}i. , i J U JJUJ «. C 3 *^ J 

feet from the gutter vith his leg ^rok(fm; he says, *We put him In a 
Yellow cat and ran him to the hospital. I. f?id not hear more thnn 
one crash that night,* 

Krs. Anna Lutter on the evening in question was riding 
■outli on Lincoln avenue in a car iriven "by her nephew, William 
Buenzow. She says it waa not really dark tut trie litjhts were 
lit; that they were eoing south on tixe west aide of Lincoln avenue, 
•tout 3 feet from the curh an*1 t?oing fro;r. 15 to 20 miles an hour; 
she says as they were coming along, going south, the first thing 
•he knew '.vas "that a car with a man on its "bumper ran into our 
ear;" she says this car -'as ahout 8 feet from tiiem when she first 
saw it; that the car coxae in contact vi,'ith the car in ?rhieh she 
waa riding; srie c^oee not know --^ho was driving it, what kind of a 
ear it was or how fast it was t-.oing, nor what part of it came in 
contact -wit- the car in whicli she was riding; that this car that 
•bumped th®a was headed north and the hump er of the car in which 
•he was riding was bent hy the contact; however, they drove home 
in it that nif^t and also ?;'ent to the police station; that at the 
inquest she tiiinks sJie testified that "it happened so quick that 
all I said viras, 'Oh, Bill,' and they were on us,* 

It appearing that William Buensiow, itirs. Lutter 's nephew, 
was deceased, his evidence as ;,ivf?n at the coroner's inciuest was 
read and tends to corrohorate the testimony of his a'ont; he said 
that whil<?: he was driving south, suddenly a machine with the 'ie- 
eeaaed on tJie humper, ceme ri^jht toward his ear; that he stepped 
on the ^rake jind turned to the ritht, ^ind there was- a crash; that 
• man then came from the sidewalk, picked the man up and put nla 
in a Yellow eah and took him away; he is positive taat the man was 
lying on the huHiper of the mac -ine driven hy Benjaain; he said 
lie first noticed the car coiaing toward him when it was about 8 or 
10 feet awayj that his car was straddling the outside rail g'^ing 

TO 9a« 
xOdOiiX 'to 9fiil« iB9v 9iJ no 4J^;jcNi aflJto^ o.««)W t'*^^ ^Alii^ ;i)^iU 

j«Xi; .f.Ot; frafe fifTHO »rf* xa^'i 'itjJ. d* 

tiso oia.1 >v iw tao « .^AiiiJ''' a^l ©rin 

^R-f ■ snw .Twxtj JWTt't itB^jit 8 iwocTa 8i«-r •tjso aijrit ©t&b» »ii« "jia© 

uvItJ!) ttaur oxlw woccf To^ci •«© '«'s» 

ni; »cr fiisQ iAJfw -ton ,9aio i d'ajsl wod. iq «^iff Jl i«© 

ttiij IMS) alrfrf iAi<^ ;Bwlfc-ii *«* »<i« ^o<t M»o »ii^ i *iv Jojwfeao» 

.••cVf.-^ a'-t^tttf'-t , . -TO': rtOfjS rx« III i^ t«ri* :,n.Nj*,9'- 

r -'tiT'to'i'oTCtoa 0^ 9hiag)i ban b»9i 

#«fli jda.-^i" - ■-' .'jit ^^-J^^ '''"> t^mui M%<i i»iii fi9 

„,^ .,,. ' ,,i0 ^tl: -^xi:' jfrf>'r*t sttf--; fuutfl «*)* « 


15 to 20 milei an hour; the right f wider of the Benjamin opt 

"bumped hie left fender, though he tried to rwerve to the ri^t to 

the sidewalk; hie left Touiaper hy the spring was struck by tJiie car; 

the collision oecurrei ahout the middle oi' the block; h'^ saya he 

noticed tiiat the right front wheel of the Benjamin car was bent, 

Init whether by reason of his own car coming together with it he 

does not know; a lot of cars stopped at tue place of the accident; 

he eays the bumper on his car was bent and the shackle bolt 

througJ^i the spring dam ged; he tooic it to a parking place and came 

back to the scene of tne accident; he went to the police station 

with the officer and there saw Benjamin, Pollack and Miss Briokaon. 

Defendant Pollack said he was driving in/northwesterly 

direction, Mrs. Anderson (then l^Liss Erickson) sitting in the front 
seat by hia; that Btajaiain's car was going rather slowly and each 
time It hit a hxm.p the anid from the street was splattered on his 
windshield, so he decided to pull out from behind the Benjaaiin car 
and drive in the Igne to the right; Benjamin, he says, was in tho 
car tracks, hie car straddling the east rail of the north bound 
car track, ile turned from behind Benjamin at about 50 feet north 
of the intersection of Wellington, Southport and Lincoln, a three- 
way intersection, sn^ was driving in the right hauid lane. Ho was 
accelerating his speed as Benjamin kad been going only about 12 
miles an hour; he says that about 175 feet north of the intersection 
of Wellington sjnd SoutHport he noticed a man and a little ^irl; 
that the man was in a position adjacent to tlie east rail of the 
north bound car tracko; if he v?asn't standing on the rail he was 
not more than 6 inches away from it; there was a little ^irl with 
the man wao had apparently tried to break away from him; the man 
was holding her right hand; she was on nis rigiit Side. Pollaok 
sayB that when he saw the man he was driving his Steamo ear in the 
right hand lane and adjusted his position slightly to the right; 


S3& ttlxB«{;a«S *iii io tmb. t arf^ ;rfMOi:i «U( »*X1js OS oi S£ 

9x1 B^£ ■< .-2£&oXd: i>»rl^ 'l« ryJLthiK Aftd ^uotfx Mtiv&do noiwilXou tfi^t 

«ta»tf tuBw ISC aiLu«f tA:!^ ^ •A'^ ^o X»ftnw j'aox'i ^ftjiiu 9£^ jtJoni 

i^»;so^ gitlBtos 7i90 i»ro eitfi Ho a«Mi«»ic x<f ^evx^tiMiw ^^t/cf 

;^a»!)i90j sojsXi,' 9ii^ iA £it»qqo^s »rc«a 'l:e > oX ^ ;vornf c^on s»OJh 

<X&o«^ »iii bem ia^d ttj»tr <x«o Bid cm «^i^mr«f ar(;l {^vv,<«ie s^rt 

MOMD ^<te e9>.X(- ^al;HX)»q[ « o^ tl .>Lo«^ »fi :fi^^^ g^1> snixifs eii^ iSj^iroiCii^ 

.aos^icl':. 88X«i bile 3i9«ll«^ ,fiJLinet«d^ 1K»* d^riiir l)Ar les^x'tlo «il;t ii^-lv 

lixoi'l 0Xi;r al sa^^;X« (aoaioXaS KsJctf. a»xt:r ) aca^afflA .m:M. «noX^€>e'zl^ 

liOAft j>ne %X7oXs ^nXos 6«^ ^•'^<» ^tf al/sft (-(>»<% ;t«iid jMlfi ^eT ^aaq 

cXxv no fiea^i-d^fcXqs - mii »iit sioa't fctfux Rrf* tmtitf « *ia ;tl •ml* 

e i^w ,8^*: ,..lmla»: ^X •!» «l •'Tltfc hmm 

»ij«r »L .•OMl boMd ^ .yaxrixb a«w bur. ^steito^mi^ini t*'"' 

&I ^ifo4« x^o SCii'oa u»9i MuH aJtitisla»& me k&*t(tii 9kM ^niiM%9l«QQe 

aoit»^'5'rc*^i 9n? Tc riiion ^'•o't QTX ^afO«(j» *aii* «X*i« •«*!'■»<»«' n« a»XX« 

Sij ^cifteAt£>« no ii J" SOI? « «1 ««•■'' '> '-o JAjrC:!- 

•«v «x. Xxisi *iu '. -■♦• ^t'cwwiw . ;fioat^ 'tpo feiiwc^ '•♦♦Tea 

il*l»' Xil«i •mil. a »•* t-Xfw.J ;*1 ««'t t«l*8 »9rionJt e flaty^ >n 

Atff <%iii ;«!/ iHi-ii v^-y* i*«nc(5 o^ ivlt* YX^nrrcr-rrrB ^':f et'if mm »Ai 

j(0. -^ . ^ _ . x;i no 0<iw «ii*< ; f»rt»' iM#« »«W 

•if^ jiU %»» ^xna»i& •W IflXviifc *«w axl iwm 'tri? w»8 •/! «»tiw i«fft «y;*i» 

. ^ . ;w ^..o ^. Xi^jISkiXc ac^iasa «i^' &«.t?ul,6ji ksm ♦iitoX bru»£( d'jUst'X 

he did not swerye, in order to ,^ive tae man as much clearaac« aa 
possible, lie says: 

"I passed tills man. he was on my left, a man iiolding this 
girl ^'Y the arm, I did not come in contact with him in any way 
at allir *iien I passed aiiv. he v^aa, atoat, I aiiould jud^^e, three 
feet to my left, I had passed him, and at that time I was in front 
of Mr, BenjaKiin's car, I do not mean in front, hut to chc aide--- 
I was in a oosition that I was in front of his oar, to the right; 
that is, the car was sli^^itly to the rear ol luine at that tittie, I 
hs.d passed hii. already, but, of course, I was still in this westerly 
track of Lincoln arenue mien he was on tae car track, •• 

•westerly* is ohviously a misprint for easterly. 

Defendant i^ollaek further testified that after he had pro- 
ceeded 10 or 20 feet he heard a scream and a crash; that he imme- 
diately stoptied his automobile, pulled uo to the side of the street 
and wwit haclc to see what had happened; that when he got hack he 
■air the man who had been staiiding with the little girl; he was ob 
the bumper of the CheTrolet car - that is, the Benjamin car - and 
some men were taking him off the bumper and laying him en the street; 
the Benjamin car at that time was on the west side of Lincoln ave- 
nue, facing diagonally toward the curbstone. Pollack says that his 
car was not damaged or scratched in any way. He did not have any 
collision on the street \Tith anyone at all; they all went to the 
police station where statements were taken; he had been driving a 
car about four years; nis eyesight and hearing were good; he was 
perfectly sober and in control of his faculties; he gays he never 
tried to see how fast the Stearns Knight would go; the fastest he 
had ever -driven it was 45 to 50 miles an hour; on this particular 
evening he never exceeded 20 miles an hour; he says he never went 
over the sidewalk, 

Mrs, Anderson testified that she saw a woman standing on 
the sidewalk on the east side of the street; that Just as they 
passed the Benjamin car she noticed a man with a little girl on 
the right hand side of the car tracks; that wheri they had drivsn 
nsrth a little bit there was a crash; she looked to the left and 


2i. .iiiij Bili Si"' , «>'.'"T'a".Vfl Ji;i. 


.--. ^-... , t . ■•'■A 

I ..... ... ......... .. ■- - . i 

•so't ;* aii^i iai b ylewoivtfo »i "y 

tfftSn Btit 'to '=>^ , -»ilcft»»- Jn/a «if{ Jii»cr«[e*« x-^«»#«ifc 

«» «ipw *ff jXil^ »X3"^1JE «Jl* ri^iw ^aiftiio*B a»«i fe«ri oiiw aj»ffl »r(j^ ff'.«« 

»i»e.t:r» -^ff* 'to n|/< j,«lx'*^ J^«i' rc»fir«a»d «if* Ito .ai^i: ^at;i4Mf tf©?' fl*ffl ftjB»« 

^oa •▼«/! io« bl* fii .VE«' T^w «x b*"^ot-<^%»s lo b»»xia#6 J©a saw too 
•i(i ©^ *<T»i»» IX* v,»iU jIX« #« •«u>'tfUB iW-i-ff ^«M»«#« ftri* mo noiellXoo 

aaivitft H»«tf bAM vil jawi/*;*, inarv •*».«?■*«<*• •Hariw uoi^mJa »oi:Xo<7 
t«w ail ;t»Oij M»w aa-tTta*^ ^n*» *£lsia»^' ; ' i»e>C -rwo't *«oa.*^ t^o 

f»T9n •/-' nx^'i »'< ;»ei;rXi/o«t »lii lo Xo^^boo .i ^ i > v Yjii>9^fq 

rMlttPiitBti »lrf* no ;T»»rl oc a-»XiBi OB oiJ a* •jbw il n9rirf) rsy h»A 

,iX«wf>fciB afT;^ 19 vo 


thers was a eolllaion on the opposite side ol' tho street; she said 

that the Pollaoic car did not go over the ourbston«; that ihe Pol- 

laok oar passed the mam and the girl about 5 or 6 I'eet avray froa 

th«a, and that they were perfectly eafo so I'ar as that car was 

ooncenaed; that the ^^oll«ek car did not hit anyone or hare any 

collision or receive any damage; hovever, she did not get out to 

look at the car. On cross-examination she eaid that when at the 

inquest she was asked whether the Pollack car went up orer the 

eurl>stone, she answered, "I don*t remember. It must have. It 

seems to me there iras a lot ol" sno'W tnere over the curbstone. I 

don't know if it went ever or not," Also, that when asked at the 

inquest: "^4, You don*t remember whetaer you had crossed over the 

curbstone or not, kiss Erickson?** she answered, "iio, I do not. I 

could not say that because I aci sure it was covered with snow," 

She also said th::i.t she did not r&n&mbeT whether she said at the 

inquest tiiat the snow on the rit^nt side of the street was packed 

and that the wheels of the Pollaek ear went entirely up on the 

packed space when it went around the iienjaniLin car; she was posi« 

tlve taat when she heard the ereash the car in which she was riding 

had passed the Benjguiiin car. Wa.^ admits that at the inquest she 

said they had passed the Benjamin car when she heard the crash but 

not the entire body of the Pollack oar, "We were not entirely past 

him because we were just a few feet ahead of hiffl.** 

The plaintiff states his theory as follows: 

"It was, and is. plaintiff's theory that decedent, Mrs. 
Gries and her daugiiter (trie latter 's hand being neid oy decedent) 
left a store on the east side of Lincoln avenue and were still upon 

tiie sidewalk -vThen def endauit 's car caiae onto tne eidpwalk, -^nd on 
its way back to the street struck decedent, throwing him to the 
opposite side of the street tuid causing hiia to finally land between 
Mr. Benjaixiin*s ear and another au toiiiobils which had been proceeding 
in a soutneasterly direction. 

It is plaintiff's furtner eontoation ♦**^i-r>*tnat when defend- 
ant turned his autoLTiOtile to the ri;^ht from the rear of kr. Benja- 
min's car in aui attempt to pass up and t^et ahead of Lr, Benjamin's 
car, his autoiaolile struck «uid went over tae icy portion ol' the 

•I«'l aA-^ iin-ic isiijj »o\uG ^At TI6TTI *;." ' ' T-t 

aor't t*^** i?a't : 

Bi; ■ •'-■■i /! ;;/1^ ^taq st®^ >(.«.-. , 

OJ Ji.Q J::e. -■-- . '^Vo-A-Ci:- J2, 

•ill i»T© cfjj Ja"-'-* "Sjeo i!.- .(Sii'-s Iji^jia-v 

J. .i^ijx>w jui;.^ Sj^' 'xsyo stceixk.J' trcMisi .< lu'jsa 

axii^ in !>&iL*& a^riw ^isxti ,oaXA "»*o« io x*7. 
•£U -xoTo bsHBoro bed uo\ v»^»uv ^dd^iausa^x i' ii^ii uci . . ;j;;ai 

«j„ . a diia ^•iid'ailw "X'avfiB©.:.^ ' i«9 t>ti« axfti 

*el»a9 a«v #a«%#li ail;r lo -^tl 

9x1^ eta qu -^ifzl^na d°u«v ««« jk.o4^ IJLo^j. ^i4 ^u «i'^^ 
•JtaoQ. a£'^ '''■^' ',tu.ii iiisxa^iMH. :jj@Q.a Iiojio^q 

•lis teai/pxil »xU ^s ;»iiii^ •tf'i' 

t~<-xftw aw <»aiMi89d nj:xl 
:awoXIo1 afi i^toaxi^ «i4 a«d^«aa rtl^^ol/Jlc 

^ ail 
iialiiw o 


a' oxa 


street to tli« right of the tracics &jrid 'betweeri the tracks ar.?. the 
curb; tiiat the ice and anow on the street extended to the .iurb 
arid was in height ahout eyen with tiiat ol the curb itself; that 
apparently realizing that nis aatooxo'bilct passed or was passing 
the curh line, defendant turned his wheels ahru )tly to the left 
in order to go hack onto the street, and as ne so turned and 
before his aatomohile was X>-i.ek. on the street, struck the decedent, 
throwing him toward the middle or opposite aide of the street, into 
the path of Mr, Benjaicain's car. It is plaintiff's contention that 
decedent was etrucJ£ by defendant's automobile when it was on its 
way back to the street, after it had passed the curb line, and 
not as defendant endeavors to hare it appear," 

Tliere art many fact* which we could wish to know concern- 
ing which STidenoe does not appear in this record. Soiiie of tne 
eridence from the witnesses who have knowledge is so uncertain and 
contradictory as to be of little yaJLue. At the oloee of the plain- 
tiff's evid&'ice the attorney lor defendant Jenjamln made a metioa 
in his behalf for an instructed verdict in his f&ror, which the 
court de^iied. At the cloee of all the evidence the plaintiff 
voluntarily dismissed as to Beajaaiin, We are thus deprived of the 
benefit of the views of the Jury as to nis part in this unfortu- 
nate trainsaction. *e regret this circumstance. The tneory of 
plaintiff as above stated is, we cannot doubt, against the manifest 
weight of the evidence. It rests almost entirely on the evidence 
of Mrs, Ruth Griee, whose daughter was injured at the eame time ae 
was Sister, and who quite naturally was distracted by this accident 
to her friend and child, She is contradicted by Pollack, by Mrs, 
iftnderson, and also by Benjamin, who also contradicts practically 
all the other ilritnesses in the case. We do not overlook Mrs, 
Anderson's adiziiesions as to the wheels of Pollack's automobile 
going up on the packed enow to tae curb, but this one fact can 
hardly be said to ¥ully corroborate the statements of krs. Griee 
that the Pollack car ran up on the sidewalk, tiien turned toward 
the west, striking Zister and Jeanette aiid throwing them across the 
street. Her statement eeeias to set forth a physical improbability 
tuite Inconsistent with Benjamin's deseription of what occurred. 

J Li»»vt««r Jbxik.^ mi-OMit %sit to tet^ 


9&V 9 1 4 

■ ■ '■, f ' 

-oIaXc vii^ '^» »«oXo «<U ^A. .^JUjUtr «it},>iji; lo ed oi oe X'^^^^''^^*^^'^^ 
•lit to Jbyviiitdib aiiiU v>te ^V .aXimtaAti oi- e« fmlaatt \li^sjiiwXot 

•eaelilT9 »tii tu> ^l»^XJa» *aemXA a*«s« A I ,«o.a*fcira ^ > triaisw 

a£ •.'Hi* «fls»« efiJ ^< bBTtilM a«w va^xt^wii: oaoxsw ,8»ii[fi xl*w*i .i'tK "to 

♦••61&0IS alii* x< JM»cr»««^«ife «•» X-J^-t*'^'^^*" aJiup euiw fonw ^iftJwiS ®«w 

,3«iM x^ ,Jio«Xio*i x;d *«JuXlMJi*«««» «X «ifia .J^ii^o fcoii bnsx'st itail •* 

^XX«*oX*o«i«i •«roifc«'»*««» ••X4B Oiiw ^sditmlimH x<i «»^^ &o« .ma-x^ftnA 

.nn TiooiT^ro i^n »b •« ,»a«a an* «i e«iB»u*i* -laiiJo »rf* XX« 

•Xi(^o«o^Mi a'3i»»XXt% '*» aXeaiiw 9A* a* a« a«toiii»i«Xiii t'aosiaAnA 

(HWI*^ Mn-xw* -WMi «atXart»*.. -^-x •*»*> io^.XXo '^-^^ 


Ve do not question Mrs. Gries* desire to relate the circumstanee.i 
as she now recalls tnem» but it is not possible to aocept her 
■torj because Oi" the undisputed I'act that both iiister and ner 
little fr;irl were thrown practically at right arifeles to the west 
side oi' the street. She says that ioister was hit by the right 
"bumper of Pollack's car. That he could triue be thrown to the west 
and across the street is contrary to universal experience* It is 
also contrary to the averiuents ol' the orii,inal and amended declara- 
tions, every count of whicJri alleged that both the PollaeJc car and 
the Benjaiuin car strucic the deceased. One oi the counts alleges 
that Zister was standing on the sidewalk v;heii struck; two ol theai 
that he was standing on the east side oT th<r. street. As contradict- 
ing both Mrs. Grias and £«nja&iin is the undisputed iact whieh ap* 
pears in evidence, that deiendant Pollack's oar bore no evidenes 
whatever oi' a collision* Because oT the inherent improbability of 
plaintiff's evidence, because it is contradicted by the undisputed 
physical fv.cte as well as by the testimony of disinterested and com- 
petent witnesses, we are csontetrained to nold that tJie verdict of ths 
jury is against the aianifest weight of the evidexice. Defendant 
argues at length that the court erred in its ruling upon the adaiissien 
of evidence and the giving of instructions, but iu view of our ccn- 
clusion as above it will be sufficient to say that in neitl^^r respect 
do we find reversible error in the record. 

The Judpaent is reversed arid the cause is remanded for 
another trial. 


licSurely, J. , concurs. 
O'Connor, P. J,, dissents. 

r - -^Icfiaaft^ ion d , 

bmm xfto sLdj&Ixo-i 9£ui xiUr&^ ^«ii^ Jte^aXXe fidi^iCw 'lo iauoti '<£'X9V» ,sctoJ:i^ 
• •lialJLa miau9ii 9sxi; 'lo ana .b98js»-£>4»f> 9dS :a9ui1i9 %m9 siieaa^aultS. oi£# 

soli»'t9r ^yJ isiiJ fcXoii .>J ftsnxjiiiaiao'O si*; »w ,»»»«»fliiw itn«Ja^ 
.■jo*i9bir9 9tLi to tOi^X^vf Sm^'kltmm ^lia S9aia'^si mi •%Vtii 

•009 Vio te w»iT ui Ji.'d ,«aol^«iJiif»Ki: Jt« ^lilvta i^di biiif ■fi&w»hlr'.~> lo 

.&«io*«'i sxi^ fli «<wx» •Xcfl»t»v»'i jbttlt «w of) 
lot .^^Irtfufx el •ttt^^jd •iU ^OA J^StMY**! «iJt i^aztis^&ijt •ifi- 






jrOHK 0. SfYRORA, 



>peXX^!it« ) 


i 29 4 I.A. 602 



August 16, 1934, fraxieBB i^ral filed her till of interpleader 
against Mra. Antonie Kuliceic and Jelui 0. Sykora* She averred the 
•xeeution by plaintiff or July 28, 1919, of a trust deed to secure her 
note for $5000, due 5 years from date, to the order of itrs. Kulicek 
and her husband Joseph, now deceased; the extension of the time for 
paywent twice "by agreement; that the principal note and one interest 
coupon for $150 fell due July 33, 1934; that she was willing to pay 
the same hut defendants each claii..ed the amount due, namely |5150. 
She deposited th© money with the clerk of the court and prayed de- 
fendants ralght he required to interplead., 

John 0, Sykora answered, disclairaing. Mrs, Hulieek answered, 
asserting she was the owner, Joseph Dort Intervenirig, claimed to be 
the o^sner as an innocent purchaser for value from Sykora on October 
8, 1931, lie charged plaintiff and J^rs, iiulicek were in collusion 
and filed a counterclaim to foreclose, which plaintiff and k'rs, 
Kulicek answered, denying its equity. The cause was put at issue 
and referred to a master, who took tiie evidence and reported (over- 
ruling objections) that Joseph Dort ^^ae the owner. The cause was 
heard on axceptions to the report which were overruled, and after 


{ % 

203 .A.I ^es K 



UAd. Itfl .av-ii *to tsbto ftjRNr ai ,sJ«J£> lafta't suaav 3 ««§ ,00aj5# Tftl »^9ii 

na'i dmlt 9iii to aoi^nsd^o ^at ;t«t8£9a«£) 9r(»a ,itcr»eo^ hnfidsuxi t»ti bsm 

filial 9Se ijm: niCA Isqiztaixq uM tmAt i^tuntrnvr^A x^ bzIw^ tmr:r(,Mq 

fosiavaiui aI«oiI«-i ,«rt . . jiisionlb ^b9>r«mmsut /noi^z'^ ,0 itrloX. 
•«r o* bMU:«Xo ,ania0va»*iil itoG iicrewo'. .loawo •i<;r ««w ^xto snUrt«6i«« 
rcotfotoO a© atojlieti fl»it't 9«X' intudotam i^awooiini >;1* 

'•a» lli#iiiAlii /lolrfw ,^moio»^o't ct miMlox^iiMiuo a bnlit bcm 
o^fi in Jua -iB.r ^^u.-.. ,\tiupB mil ai«lxfl»t .Jb^ir^-aiir i«olIi;H 

ftyM htm ,b»£uvf YO •i»w ia,Jtxlw &t9n^i 9iit oi maoHqmux' cto ' ■ ««il 

striking the counterclaim the chancellor entered a -iefjree iii con- 
formity with the recomiiiendatiori oJ' th« raaeter, irom v^Viich Mrs, 
luilicek appeal 8, It ia urged that the decree is afeainnt the evi- 
dence and contrary to law. 

The record presents the usual incidents ol' family contro- 
versy. A daughter of plaintiff is married to a son of Uts, iuilicek . 
John 0. aylcora is the son-in-law of Mrs. Kulicek, whom he calls 
"Grandma.* A daughter-in-law of Joseph Dort is secretary to Sykora, 
Mrs. Kulioek's testimony is corrooorated by her daughter Olga and 
her son Vladimir, i^er son Hugo, who conducted negotiations with 
Sykora, did not testily, krs. kulicek'e husband Joseph is dead. 

Mrs. Kulicek' 6 testimony is that on Septimber 14, 1931, 

Sykora (as on two prior occasions) borrowed the Krai mortgage to 

use as security, promising; to returr. it and giving the Joint note 

of himself and his ^^ife of that date for -15000, due July 26, 19 34, 

with collateral security to assure its return. She is corroborated 

by her daughter Olga, who sags she heard Sykora promise he would 

sec everjrthing was returned; by her son Vladixiiir, who says Sykora 

told him that the writing on the ba-cii of tne note was nis owri and 

that he wrote it for the protection of the i-uliceks so no one 

could buy the note; by krs. ii.ral, who says timt upon its maturity 

in July, 19 34, when she spoke to Sykora about an extension of the 

mortgage he saici he would talk to lira, Hulicek about it; by Charles 

Musgrove, vie a-p resident of the Continental Ivational Bank, who says 

that Sykora when questioned/ hiru later adout the transaction told 

him that he "borrowed" the oiortgage. 

On the contrary Sykora testifies that September 14, 1931, 

(as in each prior transaction where he received the Krai luorte^age) 

he purchased it, ^e says the bank in which his money was deposltel 

had shortly before closed; that he told the parents of his wife he 

seeded money and that Mrs. iLulioeJc proposed that they l^elp out 1»y 

9 , - . . 4. 'to wftX-ni-a^ . oL 

bay «3X0 Tta^iijjWiifc loii ^<f fcfjcTwTtoao'noo "x v .3'xii 

rfiiw 8aoiijfeicJ'oa*-f» httioubttoo o/i- , ,":*ri:fM».rv /loe tad 

r> '^^H 




8«lllng the iCral mortgage to him, he giving them hie note in p^y- 
mnt l"arr it, ITais conversation, he aaye, was on Septamber 13, 1^31, 
and on the 14th he returned hriUitinfei the collateral note oi' uiaisell' 
and his -wife i'or $5000 with a master's deed, a first mortgage and 
a second mortgage as collateral security; tnat he told the Kuliceke 
he would have to sell the Krai mortgage and l"or their protection he 
at that time wrote after the endorsement of eacii oi" them made on 
the back of the principal note the words "without recourse," ex- 
plaining that if the mortgage should ever be foreclosed they could 
BOt be held liable for tue deficiency, ^^e says tue i>.ulioek8 then 
gave the Krai princi >al note, coupons and trust deed to nim; that 
he took these to his safety deposit box where tney reinained uiitil 
October 3, 1931, when he sold the mortgage to Joseph Dort. Uykora 
says that after the traasaction in wnich he received it froia the 
Euliceks he advertised this mortgage for sale in tae Boheaiian 
paper, Denni hlasatel, which was usually read by the ivuliceKs, as 
he had before told taem he would do; that several tiiues thereafter 
Mrs. Kulicek questioned him about the advertisei^ent cijad on tiie day 
after the mortgage was sold told him in tne presence of his wife 
that she was i;lad to hear it. iie says tiiat the interest on tne i»ral 
note from July 23, 1931, to September 14, was computed and found to 
!)• $39.17; that on September 14th he gave his check to the i^uliceks 
for this amount. !rhe check is in evidence and bears their endorse- 
ment. The principal note of krs. Kxal is also in evidence; on the 
back of it, under date of August 26, 1924, and August 24, 19 29, 
are writings showing extensions of the time of payiiient. Under the 
last date the writing states that the rate of interest shall be 6%, 
In the right hand comer of the back of the note at the top and 
enclosed on 3 aides by lines drawn in ink, appears the endorseiiisnt 
"pay to the order of Antonie Kuliook and Joseph Kulicek, * Their 
names are written on printed lines underneath, evidently a form il &ioa Biix sa»tLi smri^ ^A ^miA oS s\iAj.^iiGi& Lata ^di -utiirrfti 

1 r«:st.f .,:. .^^ .,. 

»■' i'jtt.' 

tiirtj-! + r ar" « fv-v , . 

.bMV*"* V/j 

iUJ^j-itl.C -^i.,^, f-iQJi Uiili £9axJl:. 

Viiiij 9f4J no biU: ^aoi:i9*l;M»V' c 

;#X" 9iii no iB9r9ii'i fjxitf #jbxi; 

•^aaiiiU •!(;? 0^ to9tlo alii ovfl^i ftil ri.*H tad'ffldi'cr*^' «o J*iiii ;Vi*i.' 


0,;_ 3idLJ' pxii 'to aaol8a««x» ao^woxte a-^ia. ,- 1 -x w aiju 

-f n-.tilX ^<^ ••ft. 

!• ,, > 


fvw .^«aiTX*Jbfl*j •erttX ftptmiq ao .-s^:*-' 

put th«re to be so Tilled wnen desired. In I'r^rit of each rame it 
a eroee. To the lel't ol' taese ia tae left nand corxiT are written 
the names of Antoni* Kulicek and Joseph Kullceic, eac-i in tlack 
ink ■'^ith a hea*vy line -iilso in black ink underneath the name, and 
underneath eacla heavy line also in black ink appear the words, 
"without recourse. " Sykora says he wrote these words "without 
recourse" on the 14th of September, explaining to the i>-ulieek« 
when he did bo that as the mortgage must be sold the purpose wae 
to prevent the poeeibility of the endorsers being held liable for 
a deficiency if the Krai mortgage should at su:iy time thereafter 
be foreclosed. At the ssuhe tixiie the unpaid coupons were likewiet 
•ndorsed, "without rec urse," The previous coupons which had been 
paid were not thus endorsed. Sykora says he sold the Krai mort- 
gage to Joseph Dort, Sr, on October 8, 1931, at his office; that 
Sort had looi>-ed at the property; said he would be wiLling to buy 
the mortgage but he had a first mortgage known as the kan^owski 
mortgage maturing Kovember 1, 1931, and that he would like to de- 
liver that mortgage as part payment on the Krai mortgage and pay 
the difference in cash. His proposition was accepted. Jie in- 
terest on the Krai mortgage from July 28, 1951, to October 3th was 
oomputed and amounted to #58,33, The Mankowski mortgage with ac- 
srued interest amounted to |4120, which left a balance due to 
Sykora in the transaction of #938,33, Dort then gave Sykora the 
check of his eon Joseph, Jr., for -J 10 00 , and Sykora gave him a 
cheek for the difference, amounting.; to ij61,67. The docuiaents dis- 
closing this transaction at this time are in evidence and corrobo- 
rate the testiiiiony of Sykora as.d the Dorts, 

SoMte time in 1932, Sykora says at tne request of Mrs, 
Kulicek he met her son Hugo at the office of Mr. Musgrove at the 
Continental bank, Musgrove asked an explanation of the transaction 


h»lll't Of : V.r 

tuoi'ii.^*' mbio-r finsdi 9i<yiw 9ii •x*'^ »t9x )rf#*iH« 

B2i«0 iliJ^i fHii oS :illtal«X<J3Mi ,«»0fffl»d-^O« 'to /^.i 

•«w •soc<X0Q »ii# AX08 s>cf *«4iai ft^/ijiiofli sxW 'w 

yri.: , ; / -lo^oaq »il^ ool fcjBii ^f "x o€ 

.«; ..i.r'l f;:i/. .rr,fM ,X T;?>cf-^')VOil jrdiu^.'-.EiT s-.-S'-ttPtn 


^„.. - '-..^ tB tx*» «»Oiii«o .86ex r-1 ei'lJ su-:or 

of September 14, 1931, In whloh Sykora had given tlxe collateral 
note ol* liiraaelf and hies I'^ii'e and the Biortgage aecuritlea, Sykor» 
aaya he ex-plain<»d the transaction and told him he had purchased 
th« JEral mortp.w,ge; that Mr. kuegrove said he understood It and 
"bade hir,! good-'bye. In the spring of 1932 iiusgrove told Hugo 
Kulicek t'j-at he should get a new note with a jad.L:Kient clause in it 
from Sykora, About this time Joseph and Hugo Kulicek consulted Mr. 
Replogle, attorney for the bank of which ilLuagrove was an officer, 
Replogle drew up a new note containing a to confess .judg- 
ment £inl other provisions with reference to the sals of collateral, 
etc. Sykora and hi? wife were aske.'l to execute thie note and sub- 
stitute it for their collateral liote i;iven on September 14, 19 31. 

The new note was/the sarae sjnount (|5000) , was dated back to July 

P8, 19 31, and by its terms would become 4ue at the same time as the 
foKier note, namely, July 28, 1934, March 29, 1932, Sykora and his 
wife in fact executed this new note and their former note v?as can- 
celed and delivered to them, Cn the new note appears an endorse- 
ment in the handwriting of Hugo Kulicek acknowledging the payment 
of interest from July 83, 1931, to Septeciber 14, 1931, Tlie notes 
are in evidence. Sykora nays that not until July, 1934, did Mrs, 
Kullo'»k raise any question about this second collateral note. At 
that time she told him that Mrs, Krai had been asking her about the 
extension of the mortgage about to become due, and t lat she had told 
lirs. Kr&ll she woul'^ have to see Sykora, At the saniP time krs. 
Kalicek told Sykora he must not forget that his own 05COO not* 
would be du« July S8th ant? that she would need the money. He told 
her he would see if he could raise it. iie has never paid the note, 
still owes it to her, but he p&id interest on ,it and checks showing 
sueh payments by him (the last on P»»4^b«^-'a i / I P 34.) ire in evidence, 

Joeenh Dort also testified in detail as to hie purchass 
Of the mortgage on October 8, 19 31; stated that he did not know 

fiVUi *'t-' '-'OB 'tin 

-.3bu^ aaslnoa oJ ^•'eq m ^SLlaj-utaoo ©lea wst: >tA •jfjioIqaJi 

-^1^8 hftf si^ya aiifcf •<>tf3sx© o4 fc«4«« stew «tiF »i*l &«*=. «ioix* 

'i.. .' . -MBljf ^ats« »rf* *-n 8«l» sfitDOwd' IjXtfow 8.'rti«'.^ 3*i Y.d' fin« ,ISv'X ,85 
alii bnr «i ,-'.Ql , 9S dat«ii >£ex ,8S '^Xtrl. ,-^X»m^- .aton «»iK«ot 

-ftr-c 8*4- -^J^ea :t«Kno't 'xi«J*;f feat *|oct ■»»« ^Ir*^ h' i?>«' 
-iie'iofeaft in-' atefrr-rr. ■"Jon wort ^flt n^ ,f.jOAiir gt fraiaviJ 

»Xii fj-nWi, -t^ri iiiil\?- Cif'i»iS fciSid X^'T'' . ^«X4 fri- 

..-■I aas o;> avail ^XiJow aiia XX«i- . 

,u<.r *,/.a J •./:^ •^a>. ril';? Y-twl. aw* arf hXwaw 

•«tp Mwow axl fail 

Oil Wii- 

s«wa XXl^a 
..tX/'. lio^ rfo^ao^' 

the Kulioeks had any Interest in it, and corrohorates in detyil th« 
teetimony of Sy-cora, wliose tr-stiztiony is go rrol'o rated "by the 
notes, checks and, in general, all the writings in t;viriena9. Tosefh 
Sort, Jy; , whose c'ii^cs for ^SIOOO was used iis. the tranpaction, alio 
testified Idertii'jring his check which is in evidence, Che evlder^ct 
of the Dorts and Sykora Is corrohorated by the writings and supports 
the findings of the Master that Sykora Ud not "oorrow but puichased 
the Krai mortgage Sentember 14, 19 31, and sold it to Joseph Dort 
October Sth thereafter, sjid that Dort took for value without notice 
of any equities of the Kuliceks, If, as a lu&ttcr oj' fact, Sykora 
purchased the mortgage, it is inmiaterial whether Dort ia a liolder 
for ralue in 'lue course. On the issue of fact the i. aster expressly 
fcund that Sykora purchased the Krall niortgage September 14, 19 ol. 

There has been eome doubt in this State as to the wel^jht 
which should be given to the findings of a master, cut t\\t autj ori- 
ties agree that in cases involving transactions of this ki/.<l, where 
a mspter lae seen and hear.-^ the witnesses, his fir^'ings, when ap- 
proved by the chancellor, sre entitled to icucl^ weight in a court of 
review. K eup e r ..y ,. M e 1 1 c. , 239 111. 586. In the quite recer t case 
0^ ^asedaeh v . Auw , 364 111. 491, the SupreiSie court has gone so far 
as to ?ay that under sue-' circumstances, "we are not Justified in 
disturbing the fin'lings unlese they sre manifestly against tne weight 
of the evidence, Ijlqrth 3 ide Sasli and Door Co,.,, v.^ ^echt . 295 111. 
^15; Xle^aiap v, iCLeka jTO. S75 id. 93." That rule is ap'ilicable viA 
deterrainative here, and the decree is affirmed, 


O'Connor, P. J,, fuad MoSurely, J,, concur. 


t»'^a at ^bau «3to«ito ,»»*on 
iitn JtoJMi© till ^mix'il^s^h!: tutfMH^t 

*i . .i2iA»9iX«QI »jfi^ 'to mt^k&lapt* -^fir. ro 

« , .>saiiAxi^ •gtUrlorak aroe^o ni t«x$;t ^e'XHS 99IS 

.XXI 8^'i . . ,• .• :..,„._^i, i: ,. iJ.UPj: ••»«»Mv« «if* 'to 

.TWOilOO ,. , .. . -i .lOOflOO'O 








294I.Ao 603^ 


On Decejnber 1, 1936, plaintilT filed iiis bill lor diyorq* 
against yiorraine Kclsey, his wile, Xue bill alleged tiie marriag* 
of thn parties at Kanaas Cit^v, iLissouri, on July 16, 1931; the 
"birth ol' one child, Rosaxina, then 14 xniontiis old; charged tnat 
defendant was guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty, in. that on 
•eyeral occasions aamed sne struck hi::., etc. iae oiil also speci- 
fically averred tiiat Oii xjoyoaiber 30, 1936, ixx Chica^, defendant 
had cOfBiaitted adultery witu on a Joun Joe, Plaixitiff prayed for 
custody oi' tne child and for divorce. Defendant appeared and de- 
manded trial by jury. On iTebruary 2, 1937, she filed a counter 
claim arerrint^ chat although sxxe u-ad at all tioiee been a faithful 
wife plaintiff was guilty of extreiiie and repeated oruelty, naaing 
epeelfic dates on wiaien, while drunk, he had strucic, iticJced and btt 
her, and knocked her down, using vile and obscene language toward 
her; that he was guilty of habitual drunkenness. She prayed for 
divorce and custody of the cuild and maintenance for herself sAd 
the child. She also answered the bill, denying its allegations 
and in p^^rticular the charge of adultery, Plaintiff answered tne 
counterclaim, denying the charges liiade against him in it. 

The cauiie was put at issue arid cuuiQ on lor nearing on 
kareh 4, 1937. Both parties were represexited toy attorxisys who 
were present. The attorney ior plaintiff stated the parties had 
adju&ted their differeiioes and "arrived at a settlement for th« 
Wife and an orler for the support of the child," Plaintiff, he 



809 .A.I i^92 


. *i:uille 

•Qiorlb «•'! XXitf «J» JMin t'li^^iljfrlq ,d£$X ,1 T'tcfiss^d^a 00 
•^iKiAiC •ii^ b«s0XX49 Xlicf extS «#tlw clrf ,x;4n£«iii 9iiijsTioit i9aiji]|« 

iOBium'ti^ii ,t^i»oJiii»J al ,d(»&X ,0£ ^9ajit6voi* »4> crsii^ A>«':iiav« ifXXiiox't 
Xii'tiUla't « f»»ci ^ _ - y fi:aiiOii^Xi5 ^«jifc)f a«i*'*»V'* ;«ijaXo 

t/t't fcetq *tiSi .ae^aanAesuxt iMuiUad to ictfX*»» t^iW' •it *«^* jtoii 

«noi#««e^-i' '-* <jaxTcn»i ,*-.... iixLi fc9i«wea« o«XiB »i*Ji »iilhi9 ^iii 


•aid, had l3««n In receipt of an aferage inoome of ^BtJOO for 6 years 
then patt, and in 1936 Ms incoae vas aiaout ■^I2f00U« Plaintiff irae 
•ailed as a witness, gave eirideaea triafly as to jurisdictional 
facts, stated tiaat t^e parties liad separated at>out xvoveiaber iiO, 
1936. Its said ne understood tiaat if tue court granted a decree to 
Mrs. itslaey, beoauee of trie age of the child aiie was to hare her 
until a fttrtlier order of tae court, sul>jeot to his rignt to see her 
at reasonable tiu«s and have the custody of her reasonably and for 
two months in the sujmmdr. Me then testified tnat on October 27, 
19 36, defendant «tru«]c him about the face and braised hiic, and that 
again about Jbiovcii&ber Idth she struek nlm about the face wnen ht 
vas having a readjuattuent. of his spina du« to a short liisb. Ha 
aaid that at that tlma she bruised him very seriously and caused 
him a great deal of pain. An attorney representing Mrs, ileloey 
then asked the plaintiff if he r«*alized that during the time he was 
to have the child in suEuier she also was permitted to see it, und 
lie replied that he luiiarstood that. Attorney for plaintiff then 
said: "Anotiier proposition. There is mi arrangeiaent here my client 
pay Mrs, K-elsey the sui.. of #420 at the rate of #70 a jaonth in full 
af all claims of every kind. He is to pay #50 a aonth for the sup- 
part and maintenance of the child. We have an arrjuigeinent relativa 
to oertain fuitiiaain^a and krs. iCelsey is in tne room. I want to 
ask her if zntt uncerstaiids tnis settlement. " The court then in- 
quired if Uie |420 represented a luaip sum settxeiaemt and was for all 
elaijr.a of alii^iony exclusive of attorneys' fees, and reeei'ved an 
affirmative reply, Anna E, iLelsey, aiotuer of plaintiff, was than 
called as a t^itnescs. Sj^e said the parties Jaad lived wit... her sinoa 
May; that plaintiff treated nis %ife rail, but she was vsry oruel; 
•they fussed a great deal"; that an October 27, 18 36, the wile 
struelr hia in the faee and bruised hlA, and again en Aove;:iber Idtk 
the struejc him in the faea and tore off his olath.ea witnaat aa^ 

mmm 111; . . ocus b^^?* •iaos.d mkA HLQl nl ^tv ,^«»^ otxit 

,06 «»tfaevo<^ ijaoito k*<jn«4i»« A«ii as^i'saq; ftjit ;t«xll b»i».ini « stoat 

•Mtf sv«<t o^ »«^ *^^ ftiliso miii 't0 «»j|« 911$ to mmimu^d ^x^wl^tA .sail 
-xcif i ^••trfifll ,#it««3 . . =^. Liiats 

XIwi ox ivtawsi B 074 to tt^JB^ «iU ^tf) 0&^4» i:o ^-oiW oi^ X*»X»^ ••lit ^4Mt 
jje »xa "xol ..;raoii» « «•»$ x<**I '*•' *^ **^ »i>aX3t \;t9v» 'ia iiMi«Xo aXj* to 

„4 t ^ . . - •! t**-'^-^ .flitA boM aa|iitailnHi*ft «i«*t9«» •# 

,.*a le'l »MV SMiM ^'■"■'■■-'^ ♦tft*. ;-.>is qxu»l a DsjTiuiasaq*! 08*|. •xf^T tX l}9i;l«p 
o^ iJtrld^ri -.- ^^^anoSiM la STXcttXttx* x?'»«'*^J^ *<» ntalml^ 

tt- --;v . f- •' «»i#i*4 ftiU Mas atta .•••toiv*' * ^c,. Jn^iXAo 

reason that she sav. Attorney for defendant announced tuere would 
l&e BO eroBB examination, and defendant was then sworti and exaruined 
by attoxTiey for plaintiff. She was asked if the settlement had 
boes dlBOussed with her l>y her attorneys and if she vas satisfied. 
She replied, "Yea," The court then inquired, "Do you understand 
you are to receive the suju of #420 in full settlconent?* She replied, 
•Yes". court further inquired, "J'or all claims of alimony?" She 
replied, "Yes." The court said, "You can't come baoit later and claiai 
you are dissatisfied with the agreement at some later date. You 
Idiov that?" She answered, "That's ri^t." The court said, "This 
is final and definite, i^rther you are to receive the sum of $50 
a month for the support of the child teraporarily. 'fhat is until 
the furtner order of the court. That's correct, " ^e answered, 
"That's riglit," One of iier attorneys then stated they had made a 
mrltten agreement for the diviaion of Uie furniture. His attorney 
then questioned, "You appreciate the fact this order lor the child 
oan he changed at any time at all if the child does not get the 
proper care," and the court added, "I would like to stdvise you 
further that the question of the custody of the c/iild is always 
su'bjeet to change by the Court at some future time, in the eyent 
the cireumstanoes warrant it, so while you conduct yourself as a 
good mother, take proper care of your child, you may hare the 
child, but in the event evidence is presented in the future to 
show the Bother has not taken proper care of the child and has not 
conducted herself in a manner well becoming a good taotner the ehild 
may be taken from you and placed in an institution or turned over 
to your husband or some other person. So the Court hopes you 
won't be back before this Court in the future on any petition to 
change the custody of the c/iild on account of your conduct. Ihat 
is about all I can say." The witness was excused, and there 

|l£l»«^ •%»iil hh»iui%^iatitf^t^>i':>'t9b ^o1 x^moiii. .mat . >. xh-^i 
ftsuluiaxe ..— -xowK ■^■^ .L,v^,t«ta^ .- , . . .liVRv- 
• ifB ■?X,..^'- ^ - . .- ■ 

• IrfT* ,i^i«9 *TliOO 9 At ".^Xlr, ^- - ' - •'■ '■ , i.r.5. •;v;;.j.;^. „iu. -■ - ■ 

06$ 'to jaw8 9iii «rleo»a o* Sfi*« n.^v i t;jt«V --> i--- 
XJt;Msjbi •! 7«il? »xlltmio^ra»i BXliio 9C[.t 

•jrfj* j»^ Jon eoob hiiiio -ri- ^ ^is •ct' i?o 

«oi^ 9al^b£ oi 3liL bLuow I" , , -tCT 

■'^w-La at 9Ai 'to Ttfeoiat 

9t ortutift 9iii kit b^ioBBeita al •otM*J>i:v» ^iv 

~oa 9sui hau bXiKo fidit 'to ftmo i^qotq a»Amt Ion hm^.^ 'i^j^uio.. uia 

bXino *ili t»riJofii boea * '»rf IX»w i*nmi« ia ni 'tXoaiei too 

««iro A*«nirt t* oolS'vJi.ifaiil iia Hit AattAXqr ban uox ^soi'i mb 

uo tnu90 ft At oZ ,floate<r T«il;ra <>«r * 

•lU* ao oti/ilrt : ■"! 

(^ to ^mioeoa no blii-io oci^ io t:'><^'^^ 

lollowed 9. disoueelon of attorueya* fees I'or defendant's ocuneel. 
The court stated he taougJat a lair and reasonable allowance would 
be 1^300, and tiie attorneys lor tiie parties aoquiesced in ta&t 

On March 8, 19.37, a decree of divorce was entered finding 
defendant guilty of cruelty witiiout cause or provocation, dissolv- 
ing the i&arriage, providing for payment to defendant of ^42C at 
the rate of 170 a month; that #500 be paid for attorneys' fees and 
Baking some furtiier provision as to division of various articles of 
furniture between tneu; gi-vin^ the custody of the minor child to 
the Aother subject bo plaintiff's rignt to visit the child, and 
providing tnat plaintiff pay to defendant ^50 a. month for the 
support of tne cxiild during tne time it was in ner custody, Xhc 
original decree bears xaid u* ii« of solicitors for plaintiff and 

i^ril 1 the present counsel for defendant was substituted 
of record. April 5 the solicitor for defendant presented a peti- 
tion to Judge >innegan, who entered an order assigning the motion 
for leave to file it to Judi^e LaBuy, by whoB the cause was originully 
heard, ihe petition was by defendant, praying that t,he decree tnere- 
tolore entered mignt be set aside. Judge X^aJiuy, after hearing evi- 
dence in open court, gave leave to file the petition, ruled the 
plaintiff to answer it in 10 days, and transferred the cause to 
Judge J^innegan. The petition was verified and contains 9 paragraphs. 
In substaiice it asks that the divorce decree may be set aside be- 
cause tuere was collusion between tho parties, because defendant 
was intiuldated in a way wiiioh prevented her from presenting her 
cause, and because plaintiff husband entered into a conspiracy with 
the uian found with har in -uxe hotel to entrap and disgrace her, rhe 
Gkanoellor miao heara txxe evidence found against the petitioner on the 

ia OQK 't© ^nufcaot^b o* ^ftidiflVMC tot auiAiyoTq ,BT*x;l'.:* r.rJj ^ai. 

^•Jii^fiJBtffc;, - ^- I,. -- :- J.- _.j^,, -- 

•«t9iij f^eic- ' ' •- * , :,..uiba*\'t'^'- '•■^ -■■■■- ■"■■ ■ ■■■ * , aad 

■mtirn ^aili.^'>'. 'i:-sf4--. ,^i.'-;x*J. ■^,ijOii;L .OiCMLi.-; ;•■>,; -j.j J'., ' tOjf 

i»i4^ iM»lu<x ,nolilJt»^ »ll;^ *Xii •* •r«ftX »vjb^ ,*tiu .w '"*^ 

o-t <#'*i;«5) tii b^iT^l^fm-xt btui ,«X4b QX tsX tk tnrmsu o- i lj.^ uxoavY 

-9<1 tixa,. i*)i 9<f X'WJ fl»to»fe •otoYl' ^ -^a£lJ «3tn - *' '■' . -I .. i ., nj 

facts mid disTtiss*^ her petition, 'Hb finAiiit<,9 are .ootitled in 
this ecurt to tiie saaie weight as a vcjrdiet ol a jury. 

There is praotically no evidence tending to snow coiIa8i#n 
between tiie parties. On tJie contrary all tue evidence indioate* • 
bittfir eontroversy between tiaeia wJaicii I'imaily reaciied tne euugs 
where tiie olan was adopted ol* maJkinji an aeireefiient concerning ali- 
mony and Tjroperty rights, leaving the ieauce us t,o txie n^eritt o! 
the cause to be determinad ty tue evidence. si&QreeB entered under 
■iailar eircmiistaiicei have been upaeid cy the reviewing courts In 
many cases, ol" whicJi it will be sul'i'ic;i^.nt to cite kinarikiand v, 
ghanklnnd . 301 111. 5?.4, :aXid Siuitu v. bii^ith . 534 ill, 370. Ih© 
•ccurrencea ui on the trial oi' the -oill Tor divorce nave been already 
dCBcrlbed. it is nif.Jtiil'est Lx.e trial Judfee «ra.& inioriued oi situa- 
tion arid was careful aiid cujaecitiutijuB ii. tUe ptTiorfflance oi his 
dtitiee. He inforsied hT&, K.elsey ol' Lev ri^ixts, her obligatione 
aoad the effect of the dt'cree. ihe eituation was not one in which 
she was suddenly ccitpelled to decide what ccarae she would pureus« 
The occurrence at the hotel took place Xvovember 3o, 1956. Plain- 
tiff's "bill tcr ivorce iiis liled tae foiio\*ing day, December 1. Ths 
cause was not heard until March 4, 1937, In tiie intervening time 
legal co.ins®l was available to ii^rs, ii-eieey; x,h.T«0 lawyers represent- 
ing her weri5 present ixi the ooartruoia at tne time oi the hearing. 
Her attorneys of record at tiiat time (quite consistently) have with- 
drawn their appearance. She maies no caarge of disloyalty agaiast 
them nor were ax\y facts discloeed Wiich would indicate taat thsy 
were not ie7oted to ht='r interests. Indeed, tas solicitor who new 
rspresants her waa i... fact present at tne nearing and examined ths 
divorce decree before it was eiit«r<3d, aue says she did not tell 
ludge L& of tht- witu.^tion confronting iter because she was advised 
by hf*.T attorneys that if the aid plaintiff would go through with the 
adultery charge against her. i3he m£ids no disclosure, although sJls 

j&Wi mi oi iikUQ^ nidi 

1« Mile ..^Jiiaiu YJtSQOx. ,aoK 

1lj.«jj jo«3T»j'.i© a*©T.»»<i. .9oasjfciv o.; sjeuao sa1# 

i\i «^Vv. .'^in Sill \ii ^iax^qAi' £»» 3ft&>M;^Buiuft' laia 

... . . - :*»i«a a.-: >:)M 

• aol-AidiXdo :i»a ,a^ii., X.. . ,3 tii fes^io'i . .^ : , ...-h 

jBJtfiW <tt ftiSO ton 3i?- :ioiiJi>':^i:: '/II .»A'Xa»A «^ to i!»9't't$ aJt 1)048 
.•».ai«'<y filiu-:.-. orlt .... ..! &3X,f'?<7.rt.rc} yf:i« ^'^f^e s^if »jti» 

e. . . , -: , .-■ _. J-wjiIc 1 ■ ■ ■ ^ ti;t 

••-•^ ----- — •- -- ' ■•' 

Mtn: O^i" A ',.« * .^ * Avisi 3- 


.. k ... I 

«u«t have known that she would have received th« protection of 
the court. The only explemation of her attitude and conduct uoon 
the divorce trial iB that under advice of three lawyers (who she 
•ays told her that otherwise they would withdraw fron.' the case) 
■he concluded that the occurrence at the hotel could not he ex- 
plained on the theory of her innocence. Her determination not to 
contest eeeins to have heen in the exercise of discretion on her 
part under the advice of her eolieitore. This is not sufficient to 
shew either collusion or int j.inldation. 

It was at first agreed at the hearing that the evidence 
■houlf^ he confined to the allegations of collusion, etc., as set 
up In the 3rd paragraph of the oetition, Afterward her attorney 
yequeeted the orivilege of offering evidence as to the other ciargee 
of consTjlracy and entrapment, and she was permitted to give such 

It -ras disclosed that the sian found at the hotel with peti- 
tioner was CJharl^s English, Petitioner testifies that a few days 
after the divorce decree plaintiff adu.itted to her that English had 
been hired by bin to procure evidence indicating that she was guilty 
©f wrongdoing. She testifies her attorney secured an affidavit from 
Bnglish disclosing the facts of the conspiracy, hut her solicitor 
en the hearing declined to produce the al'fidavit suid English was 
not produced as a witness. She tays that EnglisJi, in the office of 
lior solicitor, adsiitted the consuiracy with her husband a.^alnst her 
and expressed regret for his conduct. His penitence, however, did 
not go to the extent of hrint^.iug him into court as a witness. Tho 
plaintiff, under oath, denies these charges of connivance and con- 

The petitiorjer 's narration of her relationship to English 
Is impr©"babl?» to a high degree. She says English called her on tho 
telephone; that she met hlnu. and asked nin: to get aer police dog 

iim<\u touhncn bam 9huit^^ to ttoi*^i"Mj.JUpK« ^^X v .^laoo »Ai 

/) T»*>at' *«JtU ai i«Xt* »etoYlb nHi 

'tori •j wjti'ooo »ri* l«jrfd befcjwionoo «lftl 

-iJ«»q ffilw I«;ro£i »; iuo't ufai 9j taiaXoelf a«!'*r tl 

bfiXl li8ll5»nJI J b^iitiOtUt YtiinljP.£q »»T9f»& 90tQYth 9[ii ISi'ljB 

^^Xlju. :iA9J:)^ol •diisftir* ftiUQoxc of rriri yflf b^TlA ci*»*K! 

to; , vfiTxrf«;i • '.i aitJteoXaflilfc rieXIsna 

*ri #«a2 .'. /ojinlcjanoo til* fcaiiltaJba ,i:od iriiXofli nail 

, ■>o;iej'!.iaq atH .itouftiiao «lxi iQ'Jt JTataaa l»»aM«tcrx* fcoa 

coo a^ui atJtii siiX^iiltti 'to *pw»*xa aii. Jaa 

>.ic -» vio^xjiris aaaxlJ n»in9h , rU«e la.^jair ,tliiaXi>Xci 


^. ' "■ ■ « .... 

• aft bn/ r.)riffaXa# 

which her husband had taken away, and that while on the way he 
■dragged* her into a Chinese reataurant and offered her a drink, 
which she took, and that she was found in tne hotel afterward. 
She also saye that on the following morning English called her ea 
the telephone and threatened her if she did not keep his name out 
of the situation, said he would blow her brains out, 3he went te 
her then attorney, kr. Davis, and told hha a story to the effect 
that a .man she MS not know, instigated by iier nusband had kid- 
napped her, 3he sayt English told her to tell this story to itr, 
Davis, K^ioh she did, ?jad that an asaiat^nt from his office went 
with her to the State's Attorney's office, -where she repeated the 
BBi*i€ story, as she says, because she was rxot free to tell the 
truth. Contrary to other statemejits, she now says she u€t Snglish 
first on November 19, 19 36. She says she was introduced to him 
by Hr, Charles Crawford whom she first met at her home in the 
early summer, when he came there with a girl friend; she asked Dr. 
Crawford if he would recomraend somebody that she could get to do 
some trailing for her; that she did not have very lauch Jamey, and 
Dr. Crawford reeomsiended English and introduced hir to her; after 
she first met hia she went out with him twice on trips following 
lir, Eelsey before the nin:iit she was found in the hotel; she had 
seen him several other times and. talked with him over the telephone; 
she could not r^iember the last time she had seen him prior to the 
occurrence at the hotel, but she thought she saw him the day before; 
she says Snglieh told her that Kelsey gave him |1500; she testifies 
in detail as to what English told her, which was, of course, mere 
hearsay. As far as the charge of entrapment and conspiracy between 
Snglinh and her husband is concerned, her case rests entirely upon 
her unsupported testimony to the effect that plaintiff adnitted te 
her that he had hired ]iJngiiah te frame up a case against her. The 
answer of the plaintiff to the petition denies all these cnarges 

ao Oil Jb^XXsa xi»iX4«r(a( gai.£rxort ^xti woll&l AiU nc i^^iU c\&< iB 

.^tfo swBBit «ix( q9f>x J-ofl fcif ?fiit' 'ti ^sxi 4>6f»*«s'4:iStJ Ii^n« »«aiA«i»Xs r a,ff# 

-ibi3( A«d &tiecf«u -■ :iA^lt9til ^vK>n± #9Ci Mfr ^da nam « i^»ii.^ 

»^ Ii»j ol asi't #«a «««r s^na 9«w*.»'?>'i ,a'ti , 

9tii ill •{a<^. *»m intl S-xo'twiciO ir»If»«fi? ,^5 Ttf 

. la fea^- .<J-lv otojCLJ •«09 ltd tmidM ^tftmmi* >clt«« 

■■i'ilt dautu x^»y 9rusi tea kth »/'« *«.;!* jittfJ lo't ^taiXiai^ sunof? 

snlwoXXol «»iwl «til rfliw two jrt«»w ©xla i»lr( |««)i drtnii ^rfs 

;%acA^lBi «iW isvo .jail Ji#iv b9^1a& bam UBttdi fdio lMt^V99 mkd nf=»»a 

•M oi ««liq aOxi iises ft««f •rf* •l«X* *««i trli f^oA/mt *da ftXwoo »rli 

.», J nrlH l«j;s 0rt« itliiiU»£Li «.. ,I»^o^ ©rt* ** •otwi-xwoto 



under oath. In ylew of th« fact that petitioner admits that 
after the hotel occurrence Siie, at the request of .Snglish, made 
false statements to the State's Attorney and to her own solioitvr 
with reference to her relationsxiip with English; in view of the 
fact that ^glish was not called as a witness notwit.istandlng his 
reputed penitence; In view of her entire conduct after the occur- 
rence at the hotel indicating she was not resentful toward Bn^lish 
but, on tne contrary, acted upon iiis advice, we hold the Chaxicellor 
was justified in declining to set aside the decree. The controlling 
question on tnis rc^cord is 'Whether the Chancellor abused his dis- 
cretion. We hold he did not. There is, of course, a possibility 
that English, wio was employed by the petitioner, may iiave be- 
trayed her to her husband for a consideration, bui the evidence 
would not justify a finding to tiint effect. In all the hearings 
petitioner received every consideration from the Judges wiio heard 
these matters. 

The orijjinal decree and the order denying the prayer that 
the decree be set aside are affixmed. 


O'Connor, P. J,, and iieSurely, J., conour* 

•iil to v». ^aa d;Mv f Jtiitnel ^£ Xei 

Kixf gfsi'n'vS^'^Jcr! nef»f!ti^ .« ?« ftaXXjuo Jon «Bir ifeiiji;; i 

-rtiio;^' ■ i ■ ' 

•xoLldo , 

Bii^ L . '. :, :.- 

, ioi*i*f. ... . ■strt^fT*. 

ttiiitf'U:- .^yatle* j Sflifcn. -on Moow 

fco oil n«i*»tt«fcl»aoo t'xsve iftriecftt t^aoiili»^ 

?fU ^ui^ueb iiiftio ©rid fcfuj «»»i:09fc Xarl Ito ftffT 

.-xut/tioo , .' lYXwtitieo 





Limited, a Corporation, WALXSH,/iB, I 
TEMPLBTOB, IndiTldually and a« ^*^" 

President of said Corporation, 
and F. W, KRICKHAB, Indlvl dually 
and as Secretary of said Jurporation, 


9 4I.A- 60 3' 


WkcG tlie Circuit court ordered tixe writ of mandaituB to 

issue in tile abora entitled cause, defendants Tiled a notice oi' 

appeal and the court fixed the amount of tiie appeal tond at 

#10,000; def en:Lynts filed the "bond bat appeal to tiiis covkft, 

challenging the validity of the order for alleged irregularities 

in the entry of the order ..uad also asserting that it is e^Lceesive. 

1!he appeal has lieen docketed in this court as a separate appeal, 

W« do not deea: it necessary to pass upon these points. 
In thij^'case, lo, 39826, opiiiion filed this day, we held that it 

was error to issue the tvrit and remanded the oaiise T^ith directions 

to dismiss the petition. It follows, therefore, that the instant 

order, Thicii is based upon the validity of the order that the writ 

issue, must follow the fate of the order entered in the principal 

ease and must also be reversed. 

O'Oon/ior, P, J., and itatehett , J., concur,. 


. \ 



{ -T 

( ... - 

tOd.A.IhQd ' 



'MiM^. mS:. 

, . o n T ^- v '•^ T «> d 1- A X/- ."t a ii I.". El u.u ft « £s o 







Apj^L yRarmttriGiPAL 


294 I. A. 603' 


Plaintiff had judgment Tay confession on a promissory not* 
for ^2,500, together with interest and attorney's fees. There- 
after defendant's petition to vacate the Judgment was permitted tp 
stand as an affidavit of merits to plaintiff's claim, and trial 
was had hy the court v/ithout a jury resulting in a finding and 
judgment for defendent, fron which plaintiff appeals. 

The facts disclose that April 8, 1932, defendant executed 
and delivered to plaintiff the promissory note in question» in the 
sian of |2,500, payahle to plaintiff's order six months after date, 
with interest. Contemporaneously with the making of the note thu 
parties executed a real estate contract for the purchase and ssle 
of premises iaiovm as 5l6l-»63 Bouth Michigan avenue, in Chicago, in 
which plaintiff was vendor and defendant vendee. Vjhen the parties 
entered into this agreenent the property was heavily incumhered, 
and it was contemplated that plaintiff should make good title, as 
disclosed hy the following rider attached to the agreement t 

«It is understood aid agreed hy and Ijetveen the parties 
hereto that the said party of the second part [vendor] has not at 
this time good and sufficient title to convey said property to Jae 
said party of the first part, [vendee], hut ''S^^^^^.'^ ZZ^.TLid 
clean up said title according to the terms oxx6 condx;,ionB of said 
contract, and said party of the first part agrees to P^^<'^^%^^^*^ 
property under the follovdng terms and conditions enumerated in 
said contract. 

803 .LlhQS. 

• Y 

-8:ieriT .aeal e»Y,«nioiiJ5 bos Jasiec^fii if;flw t£9if*©3a* ,008, SS rtol 

. al saqciii; lliJittsIq i£oixiv7 jsK)i*i ,;rfe5n«lob tol i«w«a**^t 

,«jsb teJ'te arf^JfiOlii xie nebtto H»riiini:©Xq oil ©XGrjn\:r.q ,005,2'^" lo aua 
«ii^ ©Jort 9fW *to yflJbtcot o::f* rid-lw v.Xawoonexoqpr'*—' . ' •"'•-:•• 'r^-.-^ 

8«l;t'XJBq »if# nsjfi > aebner Jxt^bnelob has tobaBr aMW Yil'^atzlq. dotdw 

tboiodKUoai xLlrsisd aav x^'^^^iOtq »tii ^aataeortsx; aitii oiai foeTSine 

a« tsXJi;} bees eifln bXiroila Yixialsilq tjuii b»iiilqiBBi aoo aair ii baa 

iiafiBts078A 9di Q;t b»dDai i& lobii ^iiiwoIXoa edi xd bssoXoslb 

•eti'xq, flcCJ neev/;t»rf bujj ytf booij/) bm hooiaiebnu «1 ;^I" 


Ill b»Sa'x»auut> .. 


"It is further iind-rstood ajid agreed by and "between th» 
parties hereto that should it be impossible for the party of the 
second part to obtain good title* then this contract is ntill and 
void, and any deposit roiceived by the pai' ty of tlie second Y»ar t 
should be returned to the party of the first part, and the party 
of the second pt^rt shall not be held liable for any danviti-eB , " 

The naxt paragraph of the rider relates to the manner in v/) the 
stipulated purchase prioe of C25>000 was to be paid by defendant, 
and refers to the note in question^ which under the provisions of 
the agreorasnt was deposited to secure the faithful parf ormonce of 
the contract. The agreement then provides that defendaa t is to 
deposit the note, payable six months after date of the contract^ 
•with the understanding thett should plaintiff be in a position to 
deliver title defendant then agrees to pay the CajSOO in cash> assume 
the title and ijurchase the property according to the terms of the con- 
tract, and at the same time defendant was to receive his note back 
from plaintiff. The provision of the coatraot covering this portion 
of the transaction is as follows s 

"It is not necessary for the party of the second part to 
show a clear title in order to' require the party or the first part 
to put up the twenty-five hundred ($2,500) dollars, but it is 
sufficient ?«hen ths party of the second part writes a registered 
letter to the party of the first part stating that he is in a 
position to deliver said title and is prepared to make an escrow 
under said terms. Upon the payment of the .^2,500 the party of the 
first part shall rooeive back Mc daposit note for t .<enty-i ive 
hundred ($2,500) dollars." 

The note and agreement were executed April 8, 1932. There- 
after, liGoember 3, 1932, plaintiff sent to defendant a registered 
letter reading in part as follows: 

"I, herewith, advise you that I have made the necessary 
arrangements to close up this deal in accordance with the terms 
of said contract. 

"I here and now call upon you, in accordance with terms 
of said contract, to put up in cash the Dim of C'.2,500 in escrow in 
th« Ghioago Title & Trust Company - the •.2,500 not to be used by 
the Chioago Title 8-. Trust 'Jompany except if, when, and as I am able 
to deliver the property to you in accordance with the terms of your 
signed agreement. 

"I respeotfiilly call your attention to the fact tliat If 
within twenty days of the date of receipt of this letter by you 


». X bXaii 

\o oaoiaivo^tq erf;? tabau rioiriw t«ojJa«i;p nl 9*o«[ orio iei Aii« 

'2o »Of».-iaio'lToq SuJds XsiJ. eifct gij/oos o>.' b6>#i»o^«l» b«w ■- '.qjjsj »xf* 

«J9S7;^noo srii lo .-.■,..' !.c7<.x:. ^.iiui-. ,•:.., . y, :.■.... ^ ,;jOi.i ^v ■>. Jiaofisb 

0- noi.-ico<£ £ nx scf TiiJijifilQ blijoa. sxibwsi ^j,9pitiJ «fi-^ rf;fi;w 

•n/aai^^a^o at 00e«Si-t «m1| x-^ O" ss^i^ia woxij .xt^ibn^tel) »X*i4 ttevlXafc 

floljaoq axfil;^ gjiiievoc ifiei;^iioo Qdi lo xxol8.!:vo'X(j[ art'^' .Tjt^rnijBXii moil 
A ni a J; .1 

>. • : . 

ftff ( I ■ ■ ■ 'ii/ 

■ - , 't 

aarxej i,ft>Bnj(i*xx« 

afic»^ i' ■ . ' 

■•• ■ da Ou . ■ ■ '* 

eXci -.0 bin t : 

iifo\ xo anxei »il- :.^« ai v 

11 ...... ...... .... .. , ...;., _.,. ..„ .„.. - „ 


you fail to put up tlio $2»500 in accordance with the terms of 
your eontractf then and in that erent, the ;irn»50G note which I 
hold will be forfeited hy you as liquidated damages in acoordaioe 
with the terms and proviaiona of said contract." 

It is conceded that not-withstanding the receipt of this letter the 
money was never dapouited with the CJhicago Title ?c Trust Company, 
nor was the note ever paid* 

The first question presented for determination is whether 
there was any oonsidsruUon for the note* It ii3 urged "by plaintiff 
that the burden of proving wtoxt or failure of consideration rested 
upon defendant, who asserts this defense, ,.hile that appears to "be 
the general rule, the question of the burden of proof is not in issue 
becauee the facts relating to the chiving of the note, and the consid- 
eraticn or lack thereof, must be ascertained from the note and the 
contract itself, which were si,;med contecrporfinQOUsly, no other evi- 
dence having been presented, upon this question. Vihen properly 
analyzed it appears to us that the contract and rider consiotB of two 
parts: first, an option by plaintiff to sell the real estate in ques- 
tion to defendant? oecondly, upon the exercise of this option, a con- 
tract for the sale of the r^l estate. Under the r-ettled law of con- 
tracts, in order that promises mey constitute a consideration for the 
giving of a promissory note there must be vr.lid promises, binding on 
both parties (6 Ruling Case Law, sec. 84, p. 677; Armstrong P aint w'orla 
V. Cjontinental.C„an„aojt»301 111. 102, 108.) The second paragraph of 
the rider, which provides "tliat should it be impossible for the party 
of the second part to obtain sood title, then this contract is null and 
void, and any deposit received by the party of the second part shall 
be returned to the party of the first part," would seem to destroy 
any possibility of a "binding prcaaise on defendant's part. There is 
no binding obligation on the part of plaintiff to do anything; never- 
theless, it is argued that plaintiff could, at any undetermined time, 
compel performance on the part of defendant without obligating hUa- 

*hlsci 'it^Ys »^on 9xi^ Ba\v rcoa 

.~-iJ\i -if. a,vi,!;.i 

9vi lo aJiileRO© xebii boa ioaxiisic s*! xaeqa^ 41 bsisxlsaja 

-86i;p ax tiBSBo Lsei @di £i»e o^ Tildsxixlq, xo iK»iJy[0 i?JB ,#8111 lad'tt/:? 
-ADO « %f»xiqo airii !» •sioT&xe »xi^ X; 
-nco 'to 'Aal bsXJJt'.'' »ji^ 'x.oheSJ *9ici- 

no '4Blbnl<i «*«elBot<i biXsY «cf . -ij/i. iioaali.ii 

lo dq.jT;>~ti»Q bjoDOsa ailT (.COX ,S0. r. 0£, , o ;. xi» I^^^mnXitt^ p •v 

^J-x-sq Mi^ T»l ©Xrfi3B0<iail »ef il bliiorfe ..j:.. 3«l)J:voTq; rioMt «TC©f).?-i er{> 
inc Xlun si ^r-.if/iOO iLrl:? nod* « sX,'' IJ boo:-. ftJ.i-.^ttrc lO 

•1 ► r— Aif , -i-Tr-c -'.:•}■<.- /f.-.'ttifi r'r. <»a Ifiii. .. i ' <"f ? ^- ■' 


self In any manner whatsoever, Agreoments bo dravm violEite the 
fundamental prinoiples of contract holding that an agreement must 
"be l)inding upon both parties where the performance of mutual acts 
or the giving of mutual promises furnisheB the consideration for 
the agreement* 

The only other theory upon wMch plaintiff could expect to 
recover is that he had an option to compel periormimice by defendai t 
through means of the registered letter specified in the contract, 
and this is apparently the theory upon wMch plaintiff acted when 
the letter was sent to defendant. On that theory, however, it would 
have been necessary for plaintiif to make his letter comply with the 
terms of the agreement, which provides tliat "should vendor [pl'iintiff ] 
be in a position to deliver title, that vendee [defendant] then agrees 
to pay the |^2,50O#'' Plaintiff sought to show a compliance with this 
provision of the contract by offering in evidence the registered 
letter, the material portions of which are hereinbefore set forth. 
A careful perusal ox oMb letter* however, does not disclose that 
plaintiff was in a position to deliver title nor that he was prepared 
to make van escrow under the tex-ms of the letter. He merely said thrit 
h» had "made the necessary arrangements to close up this deal in accord- 
ance with the terms of the contract," and calls upon defendant to put 
up #2,500 in escrow v^ith the Chicago Title & Trust Company. The con- 
tract and rider evidently contemplated that plaintiff was to notify 
defendant that he r^as prepared to make an escrov/, and th;;.t could only 
mean that he via& ready to deposit the nscessinry docviments which would 
enable him to cciaply with the terms of the agreement. Obviously, the 
Chicago Title fi Trust CompcJiy would not have required defandait to 
deposit the ClZt^O-', in until a satisfactory showing had been mada 
"by plaintiff to cure an adaatuedly defective title by the production 
of satisfactory documents, and the letter offers no assurance whatever 

-I.-'., c .r: . .•6in:T 3?. «X>tJt'.! o^.ooiii'.. t-xi ' ■ t'"^"/ q« 

flOiU Crfi'-Uif^ 9f&) ^ sXv loOJJiBi ..if 

t:»TP^^^ ^osta'iu xce^ oa aiaVto -tftti^l 9Ai baa tiiin<miitxih 1:0 

to defendant tlmt plaintiff contemplated curing the title by the 
production oi suoh documents or that he was prepared to dc so. 
Under the circumstances, there was no acceptance of plaintiff's 
option to enter into the agreement for the sale and purchase of 
the premises, and no recovery could he had upon the option theory. 
The law is Y/ell settled that an option, so long as it remains unex- 
pired, is a unilateral writing which lacks the mutual elements of a 
contract, and must "be accepted or election made to proce. d under its 
terms in an unquailified manner^ which election must be communicated 
to the party giving the option, (gor them Illinois Co al Oorp» v. 
Gryder , 361 111. 274.) It does not appear from the record that 
plaintiff -was ever la a position to deliver a good title to defend- 
ant under the agreeaent. Both parties Icnew that the title .vas de- 
fective when the contract was signed, and the rider clearly Indicates 
that the consumuiation of the agreement was dependent upon plaintiff's 
ability to cure tlie defects. The contract provided in plain terms 
that if it Was impossible for plaintiff to deliver title the contract 
should be null and void. The promise of d<3f endmt to pay for the 
title vsias not supported by an equally "binding promise on the part of 
plaintiff to deliver the title. 

furthermore, it is evident frcm the admitted circumstances of 
the case that there \mo no unconditional delivery of the promissory 
note by defendant to plaintiff; in fact, the giving of the note was 
BO proscribed by various provisions of the agreement that payment 
thereof oould not be enforced unless these v?riour. conditions v.ere 
fulfilled cm the part of plaintiff. In both JMert v . Clgml nson ^.. 
253 111. App. 346, and Bell v. Mcl)pnaldj. 308 111. 329, it was held 
that a note delivered on condition is inoperative until the condition 

has been coaplied with. 

The contract describes the instrument sued on as a -deposit 


Jn 'i.fjno . 

3 0^ beajsqstrq &««&' 9i( ifxsil 
to e8L&K0TX}q[ I>nR else ad^t 30l ;^flQex^AlSi; dr(ct oinl 

A to a?neaal3 Jxujiim ariJ toiojal riairivr 3ij±;Htw Xaio- iilirta « «i , 
aJi idbnv 5 . eooiH ''J nolJofcXo -xo E>yiq;e.p :oo 

iarf? L-sooQi ojrfi crtl -x^isqqr . . A7S •Xi v.. ...32 

.oibnl xlt/telo t&blt adii bus « b©n;,i o i^noo itdi no:: .- -si 

B'l'iliflJr/sIc aaqju c^rrt'bnsgsb aaw cf/iMafce-xa.'; .>x'.^ 'Jo r-.c .'■! •. 'rji^ra 

aaao^ ni^Xq ax bebxvoTq Jo/!«;trror -■' , „ 

•fSaoo Qtit oli t: i»TiX©b o' '^ ''^'' •':" 

lo J'i*jq ©ifcf £K> »«X«o:tq mtthaM ■yiXX.'sirp® n..i ^^tJ t'S^'zotiv;,--. Jorc " ' 

.©;.i aK:? iBTiXfev;' ' ajsJ^iXij 

X«>a6ij»iq ail* ^0 \T0-rll9fc X-BBoJic'lbiBJfc/djB ort esw ext>dt isidi 9a^o »di 
ai;w a^ofl arict lo laXYi:?! »il;r tiJtol iti iTii^tfiijXq o:r imbnalab yrf cion 

9ic»4. uia^iJlbflDc Si»I.^Y •6atf* 6 eXcu; b«0'.iOjLtt!. oeieflj^ 

.-Ai!cy^>r:^ .' 'y £iol£C, tiiod el . Ti ItfiUi'I.i 'io Jtf.r- , baXXilX«rl 

'^-^^^ '^*'' < ' ■ .,.;...: bita ,d*« .q^i ,' ■•?»e 

rfJ XlJiw ari diiuaqonl ai oDiJibtjoc no 6aii>rlX6fc e. 

^i ofc no bails ;t«foaiir<x4aiii wCi ••tflifoaaft tOisT;?noo erfT 

note", and provides that it Bhould noi, ^xaooBie off active xmtil plain- 
tiff Bailed a regietered letter to defendant stating thu he io in a 
position to deliver title and prepared to make an escrow under the 
terme of the agreement. Plaintiffs counsel relies principsdly upon 
th« registered letter as a foundation for Ms right to reooror, it is 
coneeded that nothing wais deme l>y plaintiff during the interim between 
th® exeoutiOQ of the note and contract and DeoeafliQr 3rd, 1932 # when 
the letter wa® isritten. There is no ovidenoe tending; to show that 
plfedntiff made any attempt to cure the defective title, and in th» 
ahsenco of any such evidence or of m^ satisfactory ae&urance in the 
letter that he was prepared to deliver titl©, and to maka the escrow, 
th© condition upon whiok tim not© should heccm® effective was never 
o<^pliad with* 

t'ieveral other points ir © raised in the "briefs of the reepeo- 
tiv® counsel, hut in vi©w of the ocnolusicmi rea,ched it uould serve no 
useful purpose is diaousBing them, w© are of the opinion that the 
court properly rendered judgment apdnst plaintiff. The judgmsnt 
is affirmed* 

ttcaalan and Sullivan, JJ.» concur* 

M al tt •d i^i 8«W«*« J*i»bW»T:- ~ '»«»;tfi '• 

art- ?tijft«f wo«»«* att miim ci ■- .- .-•■-i.; -i- ■. oiiJti tevix. -j.-.v^i 

■•dv fStSVi «!>«£ v»<finr&<>« .'a«s;»ftf>& £»afi; s^reii fii xo isoiJ'srooxo <AjtJ 

■ noixii:^« erf* lo »»i tw •««d< v«J! ..aift ..^o r;" :'iiK. Iu1»qjj 

♦Tiioti' . ,nfi7i:lx... 


W« J* nSSf 


Appellee f 

JOSi^PH W^JfmEOW? , Ino 
& Gorpoxatioay 



294 I.A. 603^^ 


Joeepli Weideniioff , Ino», defendant, appeals from a judgment 
of §2,500» together with interest, rendered against it in favor of 
plaintiff pttrsuant to a hearing "by the court without a Jury* 

JmkB 8> l,93Sy plaintiff filed his suit oonsisting of the 
0(uamon oouats and an additional count, alleging damages* Appended 
thereto was a contract betveen plaintiff and defendant, licensing 
the latter to manufacture a certain hrake testing derice under a 
pending application for patent, which constitutes the "basis of this 
proceeding* Defendant filed its g«iswer in due course and also a 
plea of the general issue, with an affiavit of defense denying any 
indehtedness and setting forth the following special defenses: 
(1) that the plaintiff failed to pursue to final issue the claiias 
in his patent application; (2) that his claims conflicted with 
those of another patentee and therefore were infringements; (3) 
that the plaintiff failed to delirer ail of the tools, dies, fljcturee, 
patterns and other deyices necessary to manufacture the hrake tester 
which was the suhject matter of the contract; (4) that the tools, dies, 
fixtures, patterns and other devices which were delivered to the de- 
fendant were not sufficient to efficiently and economically manu- 



• ? 

t5 i.'.w . 


•JriJ "io aiajBsf arid ae*UifJ:;taiioo xfoxxlv? ^swiiaq i©l aoiiif^eoilciqjs 8n-tb«»Q: 

taoaxfdlftb I«io«qa ^aiwoXXol -. ,.j _ .,i. — ,:„ jj»«fc©*tf&bnl 

OAuaXo arf* CAraal Xaai* o;/ &©anuq[ o3 osXi/sl 'tlx,tnlaX(£ eri ^ ■ ■ '' ■ '' • , 
••'*' • '-o^olXtfiO® aaitrS-: — '■' ' ■ ' {'^ • roIcfj^OxX^q/: .- : . 

tc&v ,'-Ji^ teXoOy' atlx) lo IXa laril.h lUnL^lq o 

-•A tifi oi ositeviX'jA 8%«ir rio2d.; Gooirreb x©ri;*o bms afno^;t."jq tosti/j^xit 

faoture the brake tester; (5) that %Tm parties nntually agreed 
to abandon the oontraot* 

The oaae lay dormant until December > 1936» i/h&n pursuant to 
plaintiff* 8 moti(m the affidarit of defense was stricken and there«> 
aftor ft new affidarit was filed> omitting the first and second defen- 
698 eontained in the original affidavit^ and the statute of frauds 
iras pleaded as am addltiimal defense. This second amended affidavit 
was also stricken » the court "being of the opinion that the plea of 
statute of frauds was not applicable, and a third affldaTlt wae stftse^ 
quently filed containing only the three f olloisFlng defenses set forth 
la the original affidarlti (l) that of nondellrery of necessary equip- 
mc»ait to enable defendant to manufacture th© brake testerj (2) that 
the material which was delirered v;as insufficient to properly maau- 
faoturo the deTioej Mud (3) mutual abandonment of the contract. 

TJpon trial it was urged that plaintiff had failed to properly 
allege ownership of the patent in eontrovarsy and had totally failed 
to prore same* 2)efendant<6 counsel sought to introduce evidenoo 
of proceedings in the patent office to establish the invalidity of 
the patent. The court excluded defendant's evidence, and it is now 
urged by its counsel th?3,t this constituted error. The first cuostloa 
thue presented is whether defendant was limited to ths defenses 
set up in its affidavit of defense, notwithstanding the plea of 
the general issue. It is argued by defendant that because this 
proceeding was at issue before the Civil Practice act becpme effeo- 
tire, defendant should iiave been permitted to introduce evidence per- 
taining to the invalidity of the patent under its plea. However, 
the oases are uniformly to the effect that even prior to the enact- 
ment of the civil praotiee act the defenses iure limited to the 
matters speciflca3.1y set forth in the affidr.vit of merits, and that 
all other defenses are considered waived and. foiavailable on Irial. 


;riVBfemfi beba&OB Sacooa aiiPI .»eixel«l> XjBaoicflb&B £t8 &» b^tumlq asm 
»3cat8 s^ar iirsbiixXB bitM;^ i: baa ,eX«fi30iIqqj3 d-on ai?v/ abuj3i\ \e ^^vi^ia 

10 'CvibxX^;vrti c .' 

•rfO X»am/o© fltii %d bo-gtw 

': -Iff- :>«.' 

3iri;f 810 1 0CT oi; 

a;;d-iimaq rf»«cf ©v«i' bXxroi. 

ilC SA'K-:X. f 'i^ 

.' : '.oil •: Otter*: B'r«;''*A«T 
{;rc XXb 

(Kftdlgoft T» gertune, Bros. Bre wing Co» , 163 111. App. 276 ») 

^^ R«^tlly T. Looney » 208 111. App. 413, where the general 
Issite was pleaded, the court upheld the rule laid do^sn In the 
KadjsQ^ oas« and held that the defendant would not He pertaltted to 
plaoe in «viden«a any mattor of defense not stated in the affldnrlt. 
la the recent oase of Ballard v. T^ino*> 285 111. App. 509, where 
the firen«ral issue was also pleaded, this division of t^e appellate 
court eited with approral the following? taken from Manufacturers 
State Bank t. Aaer ican Surety Co.n 230 111. App. 474 j "Before the 
•aendmsnt [1907] wae adopted the gates were wide open to the defend- 
ant to offer any proper proof under any plea filed T9y him, hut since 
the adoption ©f that amendment the gates are oldsed against him as 
to all proofs not tending to support the specific defenses set up 
in the affidavit «f defense*" Under these decisions the court 
properly excluded evidence of the ownership of the license righte, 
the invalidity of the patent i the defense of un workability wMch 
defenc?ent alco eought to interpose upon the heering., and various 
othsr itemB of evidence v*iich defendant's counsel say were erroneously 

The a^eesjent upon vrMch plaintiff ^b action is based was exe- 
cuted October 11, 1928* Plaintiff had invented a brake testing device 
and ujider the contract he gave defendant the exclusive right to manu- 
facture the brake tester* Defendant on Its part agreed to pay plain- 
tiff royalties of |1*S0 on each devico sold, not less than $500 the 
first year and |1,000 each year thereafter during the life of the 
agreement. The contract also provided that all tools, dies, fixtures, 
patterns and other devices necessary to efficiently and econOTaically 
amnufacture the brake tester, would be delivered to defendant's order. 
The undisputed evidenee discloses that defendant did nothing in pxir- 
suaac© of the contract and in 1932 plaintiff sued to recover the so- 

(.afs .(iq.- .Ill 5di .jji2jammijj&mjmmm ^rma^^) 

lar&me^ arf* 9-,;wlw <ei* ♦<rq; •XII l^)S tJgSQIIhl .▼ iklSSAM ttX 

^>^# nJ: fi«r»b b.'^sl &Xxr? e£l9 Sleifctj; yxa^ft oAii «Jb»ibiiel9 stjnr «0Ba| 

r "^r^e *r[^." . 'HS tjor* '" , p%stS.lsS. to »«.»» c^iiaoft'X flrtiJ' nX 

■ r/fjSvjItanA^ arOT^ n-sifaJ t'^^^nivftXJ.ot ©xfd Xisroicf^yS rfdiv bo*Jt« *Tjft« 

>if* stols>S" t^7* %iq- 4IXI OiS t » Q D jy.^ »au^^ ^^^ftjt ;f aiiff A. .t ^jks4 | » W^ 

-Bttstaft eif;^ 0* rs^o ©biw 3t«*r a«*/»s wAi b9<tciii%A st^w [TO€f.] ;^jt«fiA««iiMi 

9t>Ris Jwcf «cr±cf -^cf balil jrsX^ YJB* ^»^iiy 1©ot«f -r^qotg 't:«» tf>Vke oi *n« 

,-; ;©anfiTto5 ox"ilooq[ei ©fit;^ j-^oqqwa Oii -^til^m'i to« cflooaq; XXa 0$ 

■^-iijoo adi anoxoioef) o^ed* tvbsffJ "iSJOiio't^l) la JJtT.'shJfc'Jle ©riJ stt 

,3*if3ix eaneoJtl exi^ lo <5MsT«m7o «rf# 'io coj»«&ira b^fci/Xryj© xXr&qttiq 

ifoMw Yv-tXi;<f«a£rco'.'-'"j.' 'to :j:?n- t..- fi ©rfJ' ^in-.i-ir c^:'^ "o ^-:■ IM-I -vr;' elt* 


•di 00a4 a.yxi'. on «bloe ©oiv«l> xitxfio no OS*Xl' lo ualHsiXOr HI* 

oxic "io 0'j.iL hd4 jiwl-oib awtl/jOTcef'^ t:/?©^ ifjxao 000^X1 £>{«} t£»\; {titil 

•err; . -^ib ,cXoo: XXt^ itaii bttblvotri ohX.' ;^D«^inr)9 edT ,iu»mbttt^M 

XJU >rtfl xXJn»lol?l« oit x*^ta90Q&a a»oJtr«l> laxl.^o bwc an'xoiijajj 

xebiD e»*B«t>n':- >9'i«viX*>& atf feXi/o^ ,Te;fa»* «tfr/ttf •ilJ e^CfJoolxirfMffi 

-T«q ni "iitilslaon blij iasibnt'i9b &oai aeeeXoaJtb •»«j»ftl79 &e*JWl0jtfoiur wiT 

-oa 9Ai ffotj^n oJ buirti ri itf «1jbX<i «€*X nl ona :fcr.'xJKf5 arf.t ^ ©off«»» 

ealled m n lima m loy&lty for th« ysare 19£9, 1930 and 1931 ♦ These 
damages aggregated #2,500 for the thi^ee years, and the court added 
interest to the total sum of damages found to "be due* 

IMder the special defeneeB interposed it is first urged 
that plaintiff failed to prove that the necessary tools, dies and 
patterns were delirexad to defendant's order as contemplated "by 
tt» agreement • The racoxd discloaes that these various devices 
and parts were in th© poeeeBsion of the Kenosha Die & Stai:5)ing 
OcaBpaay, at Kanosha, vVisconsin, and when the agreement was signed 
October 11, 1928, plaintiff delivered to defendant the following 
orders "Fenosfca Die & Staafping Co. Kenosha, Vds. Oentleiaeni 
Pleas© deliver to the order of Joseph V^idenhoff , Inc., all tools, 
dies, Jigs, fixtures, ete., finished and unfinished devices and 
parts, which you have in your possession, and which were used in 
the production of the Master Brake Tester* (Signed) ¥. j» pine. 
Bate Oct. 11th, 1928* Witness Esther M. Fainerj witness Leslie 
Weidenhoff.- This order authorized defend m t to ohtain the tools, 
*ies, jigs and fixtures, and so far as the record discloses, the 
only reason they were not delivered to defendant immediately after 
th« contract became effective is hecause it made no effort whatsoever 
to obtain them, never called for them and never asked the Kenosha me 
& Stamping Co, to relinquish them* 

The patterns from which castings could he made were in the 
possession of the Badger Foundry Company, at Racine, Wisccmsin, and 
ffia the same date that plaintiff ave defendant an order on the Kenosha 
Dlo k Stamping Company, he also signed an ordar addressed to the 
Badger foundry Compaiiy directing them to deliver to defendant all 
patterns in its possession which were used in the production of the 
master "brake tester. It is apparent from the evidence that defendant 
never made any attempt to manufacture sny of t":e devices under its 

insassn-a* ail* fteriv 5n© tUi^KO^i* t-^irfstoaGH && »'^IS«qiaoO 

•rfj ^HeaoXonib ■■•toci.i or '- •: ■"■ ->'•: ban ♦«9«aJu:j. . * ii... 'siiJ^Ji:t t''J»16 
»J(} r •::* b&aln« leTsti 6itR noii^ 'scoi li*XXa» l*'^<»n fomtii nlaido oi 

iaonvTi oAc no :c3b'rO rm itt'^.bntttvb cr/r TxiHatfile iasiJ 9iBb muBia atyt m 

XXa tcntKo'lu:) o» le-v:. :sdr(^ ;?iti:;^O0icit» yptrnpaot ttbttxioU rtegl^AS 

it:fibti9^b iadi honuJilvB 9di amt'i ttmxmiqa ml il ^xet^^f Btar^ %9ttmm 

contract* not 'beeauae the tools, dies, jigs and pettems w«r« net 
availtible, "but for some other reason not diBolosed of record* 
r-efondant's counsol coiaplain hecmae these rariouB tools were not 
actually delivered to defendant. Thet "eras not necessary under 
the eontmct. Under plaintiff b ordere to the concerns ^«srhioh had 
posBescion of these rarions tools, etc., defendant wrb veeted with 
all the neceBBa;ry indioia of ov?nsrBMp of the goodsj and. harlni? accept^ 
ed these orders, it v/as inctusher: t upon defendant to procure the actual 
delivery of the property. It was so held in nehster v. Grrmger , 78 
111. 230, and Van .dug or t. ./..lleni 90 111. 499, under Biadltr circvBH 
stances • In ^took Y&rds Uo j, v. Kallory, eto» Co., 157 111* 554L, the 
court said (p» 562) « *w/hen the -vendor delivers to the x»u™naser, ox 
to the purchaser's authorigod agent, an order upon the veii'or's hailee 
to deliver the goods ssold to such purchaBcr or agent, there Is a con- 
etruotive delivery of the proportyj and the delivery of the ordsr 
vests th« purchaser with the indicia of ownership, and has the same 
effect in transferring the title to the property as the delivery of 
the property." 

notwithstanding defendant's contention that the tools, Jigs, 
dies, etc», were never delivered, it api>ears that daring the latter 
part of April, 1930, plaintiff e son, ^stoo had just graduated from 
college, caJLled at the office of defendant and talked with Joseph 
Ifeeidenhoff relative to entering its employ for the purpose of helping 
In the sale of his father's device. He then learned that defendant 
had not yet obtained the tools for the i!ianuff<.cture of the hrake 
tester, and suhsequently, at IVeidenhoff 'e request, went to Kenocha 
and as a result of Mb trip all the tools, dies, etc., which had pre- 
viously heen used in the nanufaoture of the device, except the pet terns i 
were shipped to defendant and have remained in its possession ever 

4'j'.zc9&t lo t^caloalb ion KOajwsx iBti&o cstsoa it>l dwcf » aXcfjsXJjsva 

JL3 vsfi.^v.-a-f sMta ,2f>ooTi srfrf 'to ^[isltt'SDimo la jsirolftrti •vr'"-'!n3a4&»n ftri* IJCa 

•'^ tiwattB^^ •▼ x%tQ<l».' nl Weil ♦« a^wr il .x^'-t^^o^ci »x£^ lo x'*eviX«5 
•^woixo Xi'XiciJttJ ts&fw; t*?<?^ •--•tl ^ « ,gfoXXj^> >Y s^gjia;, <i»V 6tta (0£S *1XX 

10 ^xeasdo'suq 9tii aJ exfcviXab xoixwdv e^t neil •* j(S06 .q;) \feis« ^xiwo 

-BOO £ aX ©Tsrii ,dT£«'iia ^o ii^u^iioicjjq /isjya 0^ JbXofc a&oo-g e^i tcevxX^il) 0* 

lobto •t'.t "io ^ivrvll^b »if^ btm ixir9ciox<i ^M.'i to -^aevlXefc »Ti;)ou«ia 

»taati Biii s^-^r hoi', f. hits79mif0 '^.o ^,,':nl'ini ■;.rl5 ui .t'W •x&a.uxi&tofq »jU3 »4^a«T 

"•y;^:t»<Soa(i; ©if^ 

iitil edi ;ei2if% imti cx»©:r_f: *f «&ex9Yi;Xad -tsrven fiuisw t^o^r." tufflo 
mtt betAub&TB :ta«t &»^ ©^ ««o« ©»-ntX^HiAX<i t05«X iXlaq.v 'to ^t«q 

•inicf 9jcf>" 10 etrjjdo^ tuoiKB oiii xol. alooj 9di &i©nli»*tf« ii9x ^oa h^A 

.lAtiQn^jl oi iamr ^imaay^'i a'l'xoiinfidle'A' in txXia'iUp0Qdu& boA ««a^««# 

-•Xf I^Axf x: , , ii& ( i^tft f«Xoov et(d XXs zlrJ mid 1c SXunur » aa htta 

n»<t.tAq 9di iq*ny& tffoirr&b tdi "io ftxutoalasfjma drfJ ni beow aaatf "''iXaiiroiry 

xa-vi^ no.. - cii. ai. beeiuvio't er/^i hm^ tv^baol&b oi boqejielv <rMMr 

Zt Is nQX% urged tmaesr tke Boaond d^fenes lnterpoE!f-.d U-^st 
tlW Bfttcrial ^8hleh was3 «<2llT9irad wac incmfflclmt to properly z^tant- 
feotttre the deride. Conned doec !9ot statot and we are imijtole to 
akeoertaia from the rsoord, i&t t neceeBary Item w«*re »lflein^. !]M.g 
URB entirely a ejuesstimi of fF<ct» upon trtileh the eourt beard erldeaeet 
mad th»Te Is nothing In the reoei-e te justify the oonolueion that 
th© oeurt nhould 5mre custalned defendant*!! poeition upon the showing 

Vlnder tlse i«»nlni«r d^jfans© Interposed It is urged that the 
oontraet i^aft reeoinded hy wituu,! pf^reement, :£he affidn-rlt of defence 
•llegep that Mthln fonr months after entering lnt« the agroeaeol 
"plaintiff ant fMfeadant »utu«lly agread to and did abandon the 
further perfflrmnnoe of th« s^rae," and that it was m Orel s-greeaent 
entered into In the latter p^rt of Janti&ry, 1929. The affidaTlt eaye 
aothltt«r ^Itout plaintiff's pan tsirminatlng the agresaeat ai? agent for 
hie father, hut open the trial ewislderahle tfrldeace was lntro<!iuoed In 
an atteiept to prore that the son, as hl« father's agent* carried on 
neirotls^tlone end cenvoreatlons with the ^idenhoffst nltliaately re- 
sulting la on alleged agreaaent to ahandon the ooatract* This teeti- 
moBy irae lar^^ly to the affect that on Ysjflons oecaelone sftex the 
eontraet wae entered Into, tests (sf the as-ohlne irere oonduoted oa 
the AOidenhoff prealoee in th® presence of plaintiff's soni ^rh© aade 
encrestlons as to changes snd finally at one of the roeetiags indicated 
tiat ha was through with the ^hole huslness, or words to that effeott 
The date of thio alleged stateaent was not fixed, nor does it appear 
which of the ^Veidenhoffa tyas preeeat when the rsgraeasat «as supposed 
to hare bean tenainated . Joseph eideahoff tostlfiad that tho laei 
tlae he saw plaintiff a son t»as la January, 1929, His hrothar, LeeUe 
•fioidcnhoff , tsatified to a conTsreation he had witH iHao, Jr., in the 
aonth of Juao. 1930. The affidavit of aerits flxee the tiao ao th. 


©J sitljitat miA mr bus »«*«af<i .1. ^a/i J»nanBoa ,tttfcY»& ^^ «'i»i»«'1t 
A ai^ ff h -■■■■ !V:';--' '■.■.: ?«'» ervavC Mv«aitt. .-tTOBai* 441 

lin* f. 


hi ft9«0b»n 

.'.».• < i i i^.j 

9l>M> OJ fiiOc 


'OMrVft^; «d.} tti 

■: ■.£«« 
■ Q^J jftJtir {fsir«^# «jtir ««! ymU 

latter part of .T?'nuary, 1929. Plaintiff c son war. a young man Wit9 
h6<! JUBt graduated frnuj La%vrence College, an<3 there ic no evidoiio-3 
to TR«rraut the conclusion tSiat he had p.uthority from M« father bo 
consent tc a teriaination or aTserKSoiinent of tha contract, and plain- 
tiff specif ioelly denied thnt ha ho.d aver nuthorized Mb ecrn to act 
as hlB apent in that respect. Turthermore , it appeaars froB the im- 
dlspnted eridsnce that at the tisie of the alle^red reBcieeion defendant 
was in dsfault as to every provision of the oontr&,ct and therefore 
was in no position to rescind. The tools, dies, fixtures, eto., 
were all in the poeeeseion of defendant, aid no attempt v;g,6 ever made 
te return them to plaintiff. In 6 Bullng law, eec. 319, p. 936, 
"Centraots", the author Bays "the very idea of rssoinaing a contract 
Implies that vhRt hae "been parted with shall he restored on "bctb 
sldefi*** At "best this was 3 question of fact, and from a oareful 
examination of the record -sre do not see how the court could have h«14 
with defendant in ita contention on the question of mutual reeoinsion 
or ahandoniaant* 

On oral argument defendant's counsel relied larrjely upon the 
proposition that there is nothing^ Jn the agreement whioh compelled 
defendant either to raanufaoture or sell the device. They tn,ke the 
position that defendant was not oTaliged to pay anything until the 
device was manufactured and sold, and ia support of that contention 
rely on several decisions cited in defendant's "brief. The first of 
these is 5Jbd.e Gotten Pioke r v. B nllock , 138 S'ed. 921, which viae a hill 
in equity seeking to caneel a contract rather than to enforce one, as 
in the instant proceeding. The contract oentained a clause under 
which the licensee agreed "to he diligent in supplying the mf\rket with 
sufficient machines to meet the demand of the market therefor," and 
the court held that this clause could not he construed as an ohliffacion 
to manufaotuxe. The agreement in the instant proceeding indicatee a 
clear intention of the parties that plaintiffs device should be manu- 

-/^ r Opf^^^fioo s/ii to ;?a9;:ir;7 . .'.-icfjj t© ijtoli^aKiat*;! . n«««»» 

' : heJi'rmrfcriffi toys ?>jarf ©Ji tfaxf^ baifl*^ X;XX-;o.ttio©q;itt 111* 

iam:i£ on b SIP ^i.x^fin»'li>h to 0Oiaa»taeoq oii;? ui XX»t szq^ 

►X»ci 9T«( bXjjcc ;txi;foo 6c£i' wejl eea ^on pJSt pr *W»«i , »rfJ lo it5ii;*fl«XBif<x» 

J:tf - ■- ■ '■ 88X jjifMXJtKfi •▼.JL^iiSllS-/ ' ' >'l; ""^ wejcl^ 

•«U ar i»x»8iX. 

factixred amd sold "by the licensee. 

I>aer ▼. Chieag;o Coaoh Co«f 194 Ill» App. 314, included a 
prayer for an accountinn- for royalties due, and the question aroe* 

as to whether or not the licensee was ohliged to manufacture the 
articles in question. The court held that on« seeking to recorer 
royalties for the manufacture of a patented article under a license 
need not allege and proTe that the aanufacture thereof ■wan practicahl« 
and profitable when the license did not hind the licensee to continue 
should it prove impracticable or unprofltahle to do so. Howerer, 
that conclusion \ms justified hy tw© clauses in the contract, the 
first of which prorided that "there is nothing in these articleswhioh 
hind the said party of the second part (licensee) to continue in the 
manufacture of automohiles under the aforementioned patents shoulA 
the production thereof 'be impracticable or unprofitahloi" and the 
second of which stipulated that "in case the second i)arty (licensee) 
shall cease to manufacture automohiles or otherwise fail to make use 
of the right to laanuf axsture under the a.foresaid patents, then any 
excluaiye rights granted hy this agreement shall be void." !?hat 
deoision is distinguishahle from the instant proceeding because no 
such provision appears in the contract between the parties herein. 
Other eases oited hy defendant's counsel may he distinguished because 
of special circumstenees appearing in those oases. 

It is also urged "by defendant that plaintiff did not prove 
his case by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence, that 
tnere is a fatal variance between plaintiif's allegations and his 
proof, and that the court erred in striking some of the defenses set 
up in defendant's affidavit of merits* bo far as the preponderance 
of the evidence is conoerned, we have examined the record carefully 
and believe the trial court's findings and Judgment are fully sus- 
tained by the record. The contention that there was a fatal tarianoe 

« frffteCmrfJ; tkJLS *q\A *iXj >tl «i02jiftiBk5j|fy»5^ *T l.%»flt 

aittttJxioo o:t ©ean^oil tAi bnld ion bib •an«»o±I arf* norfw eirf.e^i'io^r^ ftffr 

art? t^fcwsTwtRTO ©ri^ tfi: stairalc «ftif^ ij;^ bei'iiJaift a-«^>' JKJiauXoaoo J-Jsrlw 

aufi «± «»iicii«oo o.t (&©ao8fiiX) ^'tfjq finaoew erf: lo y>^J'-Q: •^^•i>'5G ^Mi !j«i: 

(t, -/;//• 'in:, o'ij-- orfJ 6- ,0 Ki'' iadii b&i&linii:iB r^.cJ.t^:r to ftnooeo 

....... ^ .'j C^-rfOfiWiJuxt artwioj^^lij; ' r u-'a 

^.t: fK'..- , .: jiiijj.r:q biiiae'T' •':■■; ■'■: -■':::.: c^ . ^ 

on »Biw»o©cf -gnibsftoo-xq Jae^sni ©xf:l bto'^I &Xtfeiltiii<7^j«i« - :oiaxo«b 

•Tot^ ion bin Vxtsai ; Jjael&b ^tf £>«S^a/ obI 

Sjkxl &CL9 w'i]oiJim«XIii •*1[^J:JnidIq ct9«w»o«f itQsmiiar iaiA'l tittii 

^•a ••acvalei' nisli'x^a Hi f>t> . ^ ^^oxq 

9Wtfn#y.i .:■£(;} MA lalt . ■ ix«tx \ij '. '.: ■ ' J: q* 

di h»ni.*ii iu. tvfld ©if.' ^i,/3n^<»»aoc rA ccrrnbiv© ariJ la 

iff r' 


"between plaintiff's alleeatione and Ms proof is based upon the 
contention that plaintiff should have "been required to prove, as 
he alleged, that he was the owier of the patent for the brake 
testing device, v.hen the aiweement was made application for the 
patent was pending, and under the contract defendant actually enjoyed 
the exclusive right which it sought and plaintiff gave up all ritrrht 
to manufacture or to license others to manufacture • ( Myers v» 
Gerh ardtj 344 111. 620, 626 J Mar stem v. Swett, 66 H. Y. 206.) The 
patent suhsequently issued in 1930, and defendant cannot excuse its 
failure to respond in deraages imder the circumstances because no 
attempt was ever made to manufacture and cell the devices, either 
before or after issuance of letters patent. The remaining contention 
that the court erred in striking some of the defenses interposed 
cginnot "be raised on appeal, since defendant filed a new affidavit tf 
merits and isae evidently willing to abide by the court's ruling at 
the time. 

W« find no convincing reasons for reversal of tlic judgment 
tf the circuit court, and it is acoordingly affirmed. 

Soanlan and 3ullivan, JJ*., coacur. 

M ♦JirwT^ c^ b«cti»<3»? -f«»««f v^rsif Alf/atf 9 tlWni^Icj iarii HCi*n»*noD 

baychfre '-II. no. ■:•.'.. J«fflfins6it>f7 ji'i^.'tartcvD erf?' Tflffcaa ,.._,,, «->-^fli& "--.-' '•'■•'- +/v«,-t,,. 

^ " -;•■"' . -tAfl^a/stlx/r. : r-'Xd-O ©ansnlX OJ TK) SllftJ 885*1 

:^f. > . -9 if-; ' . r-j\':-:j\fl. ;3£d o^fifi .III M2 jsjto-: : ; , ■; 

39 593 

CZECHiJbiaKI and iSTAL^LiiiY J. i^uWljDr. 





and as Mortgagee, aiid './liu^Iiii^ i. ' COiJlilELL , 


94I.A. 604 

TH^lY&mn liiii OPXi)ilG£ Oi* THisi COURT, 

3Qim Musdielewlez broU(«^it suit to i'oreolose a trust deed 
made by Jsaaee. 0, Keontz and ^elen l^oontz^ iiis wil'e, as security 
for I'iv* principal promissory notes aggregating ,#2400. Pursuant 
to the entry of a decree, sale wa» held by a upecial comuiiasioner, 
the property was l/id in by piainiii'l, John iiuscheiewicz, and a cer- 
tificate of sale isBued. Subsequently Joseph 3, Czechanoki and 
Stanley J. iiowicki becaiu. tne owners of the certificate of sale, and 
after the expiration oi tiie period of redemption a special commis- 
flioner's deed was issued, conveying the premises to theiri as joint 
owners thereof, Al'ter receiving the deed the grantees filed a peti- 
tion in the superior court, where the proceeding had been pending, 
for a writ of assistance seeking possession of the premises, Xoontz 
filed an answer to the petition, and on January 19, 1937, the court 
ordered that a writ of mssistance issue to put tne petitioners in 
po8se£!8ion, ii.oont2 and uis wife have appealed from tnat order. 

The petitioii for writ of assistance filed by Cseohanslci and 
liowieki on j^ioveaiber 23, 1936, set fort^i the material f .ets relating 
to the foreclosure, alleged tnat the period of redemption had expired 
and that a special oojomiss loner's deed had issued to taexn as assignees 
of the special eormuiss loner's eertifioate of sale; tnat the property 


KOIK^Tje ilOT^ .Ik 

.08 .A.i^es 

,XMAa. ST. AO "to iftvlso^H 

.i'iiU,^-.- w.. .. .^ J ..., -—>_ ,.. - 

was lmproT«d with a one-«tory frame 'building whleh had teen occupied 
"by James 0. Koonta, one ol" the ciel'endanta, during the period ol" re- 
demption, and that he was still in posspBiiion; that no fcwitii standing 
demand had "been made upon hi; for possession of the premiseB, 
Koontz had refused to surrender posseseion; and the petition prayed 
for a writ directing the sheriff to put them in possession without 
further delay. 

Koontz's answer to the petition averred in substance that 
December 9, 1936, subsequent to the exoiratior: of the period of re- 
demption suid after the deed had issued, he made an oral agreercent 
with iiowiclEi whereby ivoontz promised to execute a quitclaim deed 
a&d deliver possession of the premises to Kowicki, and in consi-^era- 
tion for that promise i«owieki undertook to deliver a satisfaction of 
the deficiency jud^ent which had been entered against Koontz August 
9, 1935, also to pay Koontz |25 in cash and to lease the preoiisee to 
Kocntz for a period of six months froai Januaiy 1st to Julj^ 1st, 1937, 
at a monthly rental of #12, He averre'-l that he was at all times 
ready tc perfora the agreement and had called at the office of 
iNowieki's attorney for the purpose of carrying out its terms, but 
that Bowicki refused to pay him the #25 as agreed, refused to deliver 
a satisfaction of the deficiency, and refused otherwise to perform 
any of the terms of the agreement. 

During the pendency of this appeal petitioners moved to dis- 
laiee the same on Juriedictional grounds. Th- motion was allowed, 
and the appeal was dis^r^issed October 26, 1937. A mandate issued, and 
on Novemtier 15, 1937, itoonta was evicted from the premises by the 
sheriff. Subsequently, aeting as attorney pro ae^ Koontz asked for 
leave to file an additional transcript ol' record supplying the miss- 
ing jurisdictional order which had not been included in the original 
transcript, and moved to set aside the order disi-^issing the appeal. 
Hie motion was allowed December 9, 1937, after he had been erioted. 

tlxjp. 8JBW *)xi tarur |NiX£ « uolitqpniftA 
aoi889a?<C)f 10'! id tiocjjj &bBa Kcscf b*ri 6aA<RtJb 

. r*s ■ Xiit 

k99h mlMlottssf 


to ii«: 

foil ntiittc 

■ B^ly 

Kit mat ml A v&c 

is: srI* ... 

<>»tf ^oa A«il «b. 

"fTof^ no 

and the appeal was reinstated. Biace tlien iioontz Uaa Tiled varioug 
other motions, including one tiiat %n order be entered by tkls court 
Tacating, quasiiing and setting aside tiie writ oT aseistance issued 
out ol' the superior court clerit's ol'lice on ilovember 12, 1937, and 
that a Trrit ol" assistance issue out ol' tiiie court coumtanding the 
Blieriff of Oooit county to I'ortawitn eject and reu^ove Cz&onaneici and 
ITowioici, tiieir tenaiuts, a^jents, attorneys and servants, and all per- 
•ons claiiiiing throu^i thein, i'rom xiie premises iu question, aiid tnat 
they bo enjoined pending tiie final disposition ol" this appeal Troia 
interfering in any manner whatsoever witn tne possesaioi) and quiet 
onjoyiHent of the real estate in question; and also a motion for a 
rule on certain of the defendants to show cause wixy they should not 
'be punished for contempt of court for evicting him froa the premises. 

When the cause caaie on for oral argument, iioontz did not see 
fit to discuss any of the points raised in his brief as ground for 
reversing the order of the superior court issuing the writ of 
assistance from which he had appealed, but asiced this court to defer 
its decision on the merits of the appeal until after a writ of 
aseistaneo had been issued by tuis court restoring him to possession 
of the premises, He stated to the eourt that he wanted a ruling on 
that motion so that if it was determined adversely to him he might 
prosecute a further appeal on the ruling to the oupreme court. Ho 
takeo tho position that since the appeal was reinstated after having 
"been properly dismissed on jurisdictional ground, he is entitled to 
bo restored to possession before the merits of the order from whieh 
liO appealed are deter^uined in this court, notwithstanding the faot 
that he was evicted under a mandate of this court after the appeal 
had been dismiBsed and before tue reinstatement order was entered. 

As ground for reversal Kocnta first contends in his brief 
that the petition for writ of assistance failed to state a good cause 

»ii^ ^i- -.0 ^tijoo felili 'te fiyo ^i^vnt: tvn^s^: '.'.rft 

a -sol aolvoffl « oala has jaotJanup ni •*»*«*> Ii!'*•^ r^ro^fl* 

.60a: .. pi'L ffilii afliJoirt lo't ^ijjoo 'to ^fqiHftJac- ■.'^ii9ki:uiq 9«f 

._^_ ii boaiei aJaioq exl* 'to ^c^^- 8G;-on-^?> 'i^i^ tkt 

•:..r F^:^■ , , fcsl^-^rrr;; r, :::^aJt««i 

^KJ ^ .« 9 El b : w 

':o T^nilL ^ - ••' --'J - 

.•:yo6 sujaiatii* »xU oS iaklut di., -. _ 

t .. - ' - 

j-iijo;.i '-'.J. 

flxa aid til abiwinoo JaiM «*flooi 

af action, "because the allegutiona ol" owxiersl'iip ol' the special coia^ 
»iB3ioner'3 certii'i .; ■<.te are insui'i'icient , 'bscauBe the petition does 
not properly allege the issusiice ol" a deed after ttie expiration of 
the period of redemption, and because it does not sm'f iciently set 
forth that Koonta was in possession of the premises. xJone of thcst 
©"bjeotions was urgjed in Koontz's ans^^er to the petition, nor raised 
ttpon the hearing hefore the chancellor, said therefore tixey cannot be 
yaiRecT for the first time on appeal, ( VlairiOB v^ jindrews ^i 362 111. 
593, 597, 598). Moreover, the petition for writ of aesistance suf- 
ficiently stated ti*at the petitioners were tiie assignees of the 
purchaser at tlie sale, that the period of redeiuption had expired, 
and that a special uoKuuisBioner ' s deed had issued to them. These 
allegatione were sui'ficient, in the aoseiice of aiiy denial on the 
part of Koonts, to entitle thejui to possession of the premises* 

Ihe remaining ground for reversal relates to the failure of 
petitioners to carry out tneir oral agreement with Koontz, as 
averred in his answer. On the hearing before the chancellor Koontz 
testified in substance txiat i'Sowicki, one of the petition prs, had 
agreed with him (a) to ^ire Ivoontz $25 for a quitclaim deed; (b) to 
satisfy the deficiency judgment; and (c) to rent the premises to him 
for six months, from January Ist to July 1st, 1937, at a rental of 
#12 a month, Helen Koontz corroborated the testimony of her husband, 
but when the court interrogated her about vacating the premises she 
mads the follov/ing reply: 

■a. Well, we promised, we said we would vacate if he paid 
U«; he said hiinself , he would give ua Twenty-five Dollars (525.00) 
and we agreed to vacate, •' 

Petitioner* adxidt that tViey had offered $25, but insist that this 

eum was to be given to Koontz upon vacating the preaiiees and for the 

purpose of avoiding eviction costs and delay, and this position is 

Bubstantiated by the statement of Helen Koontr, as above set forth. 

^rtheruere, petitioners take the position that they made no sueh 

'«o«u4 a; . -. .:.:liB%i •Hi Jt»3r«i&tfoiToo Birti^eJl xioX©ii .riinoKi >£■> fiX| 
- ----- ■.^— '» tUJeoiPV «©?" «>««aji pi a»ri,, Jisv-' /nus 

ii»M •« •*«« YA^^ •' 

agreement, and they point out that it would have been Impoeei'ble for 
Kowicicl to "lire Koontz a flatisfaetion of the deficiency Judgment, 
l»ecause iiowickl was not the .ludgment credit«r. 

There It no merit whataoever in Koonta's appeal. Petitioners 
were clearly entitled to posaeaaion of the nremisee, and the de- 
fensee interposed are untenable and not sustained by the record. We 
are of the opinion that the superior court pronerly ordered the 
writ to issue, and that is the only question raised by this ap-neal. 
The order of the superior court issuing the writ of asaistanca is 
therefore affirmed. 


Scanlatfi and Sullivan, JJ, , concur. 

Xt't ■3,laii9 3fi!-'s a*#-J ^vm:- . ^^k.w j i T;-.;, , ^rt«5.ffirt»as« 

ai: •on«;rax««£ io titw ort^ i^aiifaei 5^^«oo xci'xeq/js -jxv 'ir^T 

.-xuartc:; . .cmrllluB bite ruBlA6«»8 



Appellee » 




294I.A. 604' 

Plaintiff Tarou^t an acticaa in tort for personal injuries 
resulting fran a collision vith an automol^ile o^sued "by B* J** Sa^Le 
and driren "by Mb dau^te»» Tir^nia ^Sa^e. The jury returned a 
verdict in faror Off plaintiff for tlSf&OOf upon which judgment 
was entered » and both defendants appeal. 

The accident occurred around nine o'clock on the evening 
Of April 12» 1936» at or ahout the intersection of Lonc^rood drive 
and 111th street, in Morgan Park* The undisputed facts disclose 
that 111th street runs ia sua easterly and westerly directionp is 
paved with macadam and has double street car tracks doAwn the oenter* 
Longwood drive is also paved with Biaoadam and intersects 111th street 
approximately at right angles, but with a slight curve as it orosses 
111th street, so that north of lllth Longwood drive veers a little 
to the northeast, and south of lllth somewhat t« the southeast* The 
streets are approximately the same width from curb to curb. The 
Heichborhood is a combination of stores and residences. A park is 
located on the northeast comer} &a the southeast corner there mui 
a vacant bajik building! on th© northwest oomer a gasoline filling 


•YXVSO& J«»0 (TjOTOO t^JS^At AlHIOSry !«« fcJJBM 41 «« 

^^09 .A.I^^^ ^ 


• Xs©q:Qi5 ntOBbaeTieb diod bn^:. < be-coino Raw 
;|ffin&ve offi no :£ooXc*o sftln bemotte baxruooo inobiooG erlT 
srJtTb boovrp^noJ "it ctol^o«8T®*n.I- aK^ i>irocrfi 10 is tcJC^X iT'I litqA to 
oaolaaib v.ioBl b&;fU9«l&m; sxf.c ^i-x^'l (tc^'xoJid' aJ: «^89^j^a £{iIXX baa 

^erXtfU itstXXX 3;}oeQX9.fni dm^ issiii^oj^ru (f^J:*? l»9T«q 6itiX.o c:J. evlif) boowsuoJ 

e&aacxo di a^t 9TXU9 iiigxXa u diiv Jutl t^*X$xta i^«(^jJt:t ia %£9tBulxo'iq.qm 

•Jiiiil Ji aTteev avixb hoair aoJ. dilll to tiiron iAilt ov. t^^ooUo dilll 

•iff 4tmr.c:i:i'9i- edi oi iMtsrmaii» ti^£S.l lo diiMB &lu» (^niicxl^ton »if;r oi 

ttO > o^ tfofo myt*i: dtbiu em»a odi YX»iiu3iXiOX<;g[i:i oia miBtti^B 

sar •'xeMl^ 'xentoo ua^«iC}«oc •c(J iio f'^nTOo t&A9dinon tidi r~ '- ' -^'^X 


Btation» and on the southwest corner a drug store. Close to the 
intersection of the east ourh of Longwood drive and the north cui* 
of 111th street \/as a stop and go traffic signal, the lights of 
«hioh show east and west but not north and south. On the northwest 
corner was a similar traffic signal for north and south bound traffic. 

On the day in question R» P. Jteigle, aocompanied hy his wife, 
his daughter Virginia, and one Virginia Brengle> a classmate of his 
dauehter at the UniTersity of Kansas, vi/ho wae visiting defendants 
during the l^aster vacation, had spent the day at Three Eivers, 
Michigan, about 125 Diilea from Chicago. On the return trip Virj^nia 
Sagle, ^dio had driven automobiles for a number of years, drove th« 
party hack to Chicago in a neisr Oldsmobile, wOaich, according to the 
evidence, was in good mechanical condition. Xhey left Three Bivers 
"between 4«30 and 5sOO o'cloolc p»m. The liagles lived at 2137 1S. 
111th street, about four blocks from the scene of the accident. On 
the return trip from Three Rivers Virginia sat in the left front 
seat driving, Virginia Srengle beside her at the right, Krs. Agnes 
0. liJagle in the right rear seat, and H. P» Eagle beside her to the 
left* Vfhen the party reached Hale avenue, a north and south street 
running praetior.lly parallel with Loniinrood drive and a block e;ast 
thereof, Mr» I3agle got out of the car at a store one-half block north 
of 111th street, for the purpose of purchasing some food for the Sunday 
Oi^lt supper* Virginia 'fe^e then drove south on Hale avenue one-half 
•block, turned to the right, or west, on 111th street, crossed soae 
railroad tracks which parallel Hale avenue, cuad continued -nest on 
111th street across Lonewood drive . 

Only two occurrence witnesses testified on belialf of plain- 
tiff* Bohert H. Dubois, one of these, said that after making eo«e 
purchases at the drug store on the southeast corner he entered his 
Chevrolet sedan, which was parked at the west curb of Longwood drive, 


9dS oi oooIO .©"£0*8 Tixrtb m rmaroo iB^^tijuou oiu n- orr- «nciJ£i;Ja 
tfjuro ifJ-xoo Bdi bna evirtb l««»9«»J to tftwo ; \ 1o nolioea-seJni 

■-♦•rwi fttlcf tt::) ,diaoe. btts tliioa. Con jul -ovv ixt-y ^taa© vwrfa tiohtg 
^xV.r.ti bmno .-iiuon fw* Hit^a -w'x Xf.usJta oiilis^i ttixXljaia a q^*- i©ntoo 
(•llv aid Tjrf bQ Itiatiem oo}i tOXg-af; .-^ .H ftoiieeirp ,oJ: -(^^fi 9if;f aO 
«Xrf lo »;tja3rOBJ3Xc r, i©Xac»T^ e.tjii^ilV oho 6n« «Jsiijis^iV TsJii;si«i6 «M 

f««sTi>f ©»tiiT .'a >(;*fc arfi irtoqa bad %£SQiitisu-:Y 'ii.*iv.3. arfsT Dn.ti»b 
AJLaJailV q^lti anui9i eff . ;3iflD «!e»«t aftXlfli 3HB;X *w«cff «nj8?iJUfol]Sf 

jbO ,iR^ioiM 9d) 1o s^neoa 9iU aortl aiLcoXrf Ta»l -JwoaVj ^^tsei^jHj rfrfXIX 

;^aoi^ JxsX 9ii* ni #-^^8 jaiflxj^iiV arsarlfi aaidT jacal (jit;? nixntart 9f{;J 

asis*ii •anii t^^i^ '*-t^^ ^' "s**^ o&xe©cf dXj^nsiS jjxnla^lV t^nlvxib *o»e 

tae-a iooXo ., Tjit^. &rtii> i>oovir:VCJOJ ii^xw X*Jj:/:xaq; >tXXnoiJon"JDg: ^ttisitw^ 

i bOJ rcol 5»oa1 ajsoe j>itJta..,rfo-iij{x 'io saocfixnj eafo to'i ,j'j!ii'x--; xIjXXX "io 

OMOa feacaoTo «J9ax^» xfJ'IiX jxo t^^seiu' io tid^jl-i cxiJ O' b&nxc^iit «3[ocX<f 

■ aritb boow^liWiI oeoip^ HoTLiia xC^XXX 
- ^- <Xq lo IX.^fccf no h--)i'tXJtatii anea&niia ^onoiruooo oyti -"^XnO 
(iflaa ai» ^ ^ ■^" 'xa^lA ^^^ &JtHa «eaaef;> 'Xa ocxo (Rioo'ua «"<[ ^u ... . iliiJ 
alrf brrtsJaa ari tttmeo ^ajaerf.ti/n-: sitj- no cxoiJb tj«7?) aifi tn BetYtrAo-iuq 

%9Vi'^<~) f>00;.-',nO._ iO tflUO ^tasv/ t-' • . t'lii.i/f';/ ^rf»«i)ftf! ,; ft .£ " • ■ V Sil 1/ 

a\>6wt 25 feet south of lllth street, and was preparing to start 
Ms oar. His eTxdence is based on what he saw through the rear 
Tision Bdrror of his ear. He first noticed plaintiff close to th« 
curh on the west side of Longwood drire, on the south side of lllth 
street. He testified that plaintiff hesitated at the south curh a 
moaaent, seemed confused, and then started across lllth street along 
th© west crosswalk of Longwood drive. According to his best Judg^ 
Bent, plaintiff was possibly "I would say, maybe two or three feet 
froBi the sidewalk intersection at the time the oar made contact; 
that may have been because he ran away from the ear.** v.hen the 
automobile stopped it was west of the plaintiff, who was then lying 
approximately four feet west of the driveway leading into the oil 
station on the north side of lllth street* According to Dubois, the 
intersection was lighted with two ordinary street lasaps and seemed 
dingy on the night in question, and portions thereof were obsoiured 
by shadows from trees along the northwest intersection of the two 
streets. Dubois could not tell whether plaintiff was hit by the 
aut(unobil« or whether he ran into defendants' car. 

In his own behalf plaintiff testified that he had been work- 
lag as a watchman for the ¥*P»A* in the vicinity of lllth street and 
Longwood drive for three or four nights* Just prior to the accident 
he Was on Mb way to a toilet in the rear of a gasoline station at 
the northwest corner, where he had gone on three other occasions. 
!ttie toilet was located approximately 40 or 50 feet west of the west 
crosswalk. Plaintiff testified that after he walked north on the 
west side of Longwood drive he stopped at the curb for about two 
minutes, looked east and west, saw ao traffic whatsoever, and that 
there was nothinc to obctruct Ms viow. He then looked at the 
traffic lights on the west side of Longwood drive north of lllth 

acoiij i9&'ti<i ii^XZZ »ao*£OiJ bocl-XAi« isact^ imja ^bt&islric- oenc© ■ i^nacaBA 
rtoo 9t)«iB t&a mii sBiis exC^ ;;js tmli off si^tal ilsvobia edi tmil 

•w^ sd* ^ HQic c&3x«#«ri i'a»wsi4'X0K eiid" 7300X3 aserttf ao:il avro&jarfg x;</ 
9tLi ^^cf ./^Jji :: .^ lIl^nLfiXq isif;>-a:^sr lis* Joa £>X*«o aJiOQiKi .a*a<Ji;*a 

.; u ^ -y :..''•■ ' , .' ■ OO'tQiiQ':. 

v>; :n . . -■ - n^ic r ,^ j.o ^J .-/Xio./ j.: ; ..■., ;.;;•; ■>■■'. 

^a»w aii^ lo iao'M iest le^tusiixo^qtiii baiacol atsvr j&Xlo;^ eiii 

etfJ rio il--xotr de^fX.:* sii laJ'. 't11;J«l;:.i.' .aiXov,a«o'so 

/t;?XXX lo xf;?-iofl •ritb faoovr^oo-I to o,^.>3 *a«w fx£* no n^tdjjlX oi't'iij'x;f 

Btreet, saw the li^ts w«re green, aad started to walk across th» 
vast crosswalk. ?/hen h0 got -beyond the north rail of the weat bound 
street ear traeka he saw the headlights of an autooo-bile. The li^ts 
tamed slightly to the right, and he wus ctruok al the saaiB tiao. 
"Then I donU ramemher nothing. I got dragged a little hit, I re- 
neiBiber. 'men I got a hang on zny head* Since then I don't reaeaftor 
nothing what happened. *** The next recollection I have of what was 
going on around me was vfhen the wheel ran over my ara; that's as far 
as I know. t the n&m time I got hit on my head, so I wan uncon- 
scious. I don't know nothing.* 

Baymoad Ganders, an attendant at the gasoline fillinr station, 
testified that he was busy at the time of the impact, filling an auto- 
moMle at the pumps to the east of the station, and did not actually 
see the accident. Iiamediately thereafter a crowd gathered, and he 
tlien went over to whore the plaintiff lay, on the outer rail of tha 
west hound street csr track, about 40 feet west of the -.^est crosswalk 
of Loniwood drive. Bystanders then moved plaintiff straight norths 
to the curb. Sanders further testified that the entrance to the toilet 
is through the office in the frtait of the filling station, the f ront 
door of which faces Loni::.vood drive, and that "you have to go to the 
rear of the building to use the laashroom *** as to whether or not 
there is an entranoe to the men' s ioilet from the rear of the 
building, you can get in that way if you want to if the pit doors 
are open. I heliere the pit doors ?»'ere open that night* Cttstomarily 
persons entering the toilet enter it from the front. The pit opens 
from the east. There is ao way you can get into the toilet "by enter- 
ing from the xrest, or rear, side of tha building." Sanders further 
said that the space between the driveimy to the filling station and 
the sidewalk on the west side of Lonp^wood drive, north of 111th street, 
Tffas approximately 15 feet, and that the driveway leading into the 

tatroif i»iM»v. «fli io lift ii;^tc«ti o>£f^ &i»iCMr ^oq ed neif. «2fI.Htr)si]M»<t9 taw 

aoi#««^a 5^oxIIi^ saiIoa«!3 ««£:» Jt Jnsbn^iJdf! nc « BtefJttjB'S fciK>cBT.«S 

XlS^'U.^'Xs oon tiis &H« <nolJB5^ »rfs> "io 3«-is» sff.t o;^ &qmjq ^Hi i« 8Xi:<foa 

■>«{ i^as « boisuJtft?^ &t;oi« r, «ei^^^3»t«f:f •y:i^€»*^i%8i'';3^ .^Jri^u.::-: C''^ ©rid' ©»a 

£ii;> 10 liuz t^diio mlj ao tijj»I "ill^almlii erii 9':rox{T/ oj^ lovo ;ffs»^ n»l£;> 

<xIv-'/c,^ — _..,•.. . ^ J....-.- 2>3'ir©i!i atiJJiJ ■,':£»&««* a ^ff .©triii; 6oO'Wj>iia8«r to 

tm/tiledi ^aol.'niz j^niXIJ:! e/U 'lo ;JT!C-'". :' •:':" - ' rlgi/o uli ai 

eytfj 3 0-. 0^ :uv/iri uo"^" ^mi* ima ttviit . oL 

•ro«> ;Hq 9tfct 11 oj JHi.-w «ov l.t t'jv/ ifMii ni i»'s> ^^^ «WX tnaxijliufi 
XJLtimtaDSBUi: ^id^^itt itaii fieqo auatf vxoob '<^i:^ strf;^ STeJtX&er I *tt»qp »xa 

"i^iite xidl iBtloi 9di •istl io^ neo uex Y«*' o" "'-' «toffI .*«»• Ml^ ftfoTl 

fillins station was 12 or 14 fest wide. The aocident occurrti 
•w«Bt of the driveTHay, or approximately 40 to 50 faet west of th« 
W08t eldemilk on Longwood drire* 

Br. Calrert H. Lane, who lired about 350 feet from tlxe 
scene of the accident, arrived while plaintiif was still lying in 
the street, and v^as choroixghly famliar with the intersect ion. He 
testified that the intersection wau not v.ell lighted, and that 111th 

street as it went upMll west eif Longwood drire was rather dark* 
Without a flashlight Dr* Lane oould not determine whether plaintiff 
was a white or colored man* .Ihen Dr» Lane arrired plaintiif was 
lying 50 to 60 feet west of the northeast corner of lUth and Long- 
wood drive, and west of the driveway leading into the filling station* 
Harry Craig, a Chicago police officer stationed at the Morgan 
Park police station, testifying en ^half of defendants, said that 
upon Ms arrival at the scene of the accident he found plaintiff lying 
in the street at a point tw© or three feet west ©f latoere the driveway 
led into the filling station, and that a large elm tree on the parkway 
cast a shadow upon the hill. He held the flashlight while Dt, Lane 
exs-mined plaintiff* After the accident Craig examined the automoUle 
and found the left front door handle tent, with seme "blood on it, and 
a dent at the back of the left front door, near the top* He also 
examined the iiont of the automobile and fbund no m:xrks or dents of 
any kind. The surface of the street was reasonably dry, and there 
were no marks on it* 

Officer Joseph Cooney acccmpanltd Craig to the scene of the 
accident, and testified that he found plaintiff lying in 111th street, 
about 45 feet west of Longwood drive, and two or three feet west of 
tl^ driveway. He saw xar* Lane use a flashli^t in making an exami- 
nation of plaintiff, and testified to the direction of the cross 
streets at tla» intersection* 

A41L1 Hsd3 bu» t^r-fi^ll XXtJ* son ««» flpirfadaio^gal »rf;;^ ah«jsf«. ' -a®* 

CT«s'x«fi ftd^ ^£ beflDl;fjsJ£: zeexlto ftOi:X»q; o;'^>3fiM0 j» «itje<zO '^TXjgH 

ixU\;X 111;fllJuiXq Itmrol •*£ insftioajs 9sii lo ©a&sa 0x£? J« isvi^xss aifif Ittxjw 

iu»l .irti eXiriv7 ;Jii:iiX;IusXl e^ feX«Jl •« .IXM «i£* Jsoqi? vvc -:bo 

tea t./Jt «o bcoXcf Moa xicT.^r'/ <inecf ©Ifoxiifsji luod iiioi'i ^^leX »ri(f Imwol htvi 
9mlfi sS •<zod Gdi xeson t'xcvJ^ ^ADt'i dlsiX 9sii lo sCoacT &i^i.: 
lo t.- :• ajfi/* oa fcastfcfi ban ©Xicfowo^m; eii;t 1© duo'i'i. ©ri* tsHlicfiOC?) 

tiCi lo endoa exf^ 0^ S^leiO f>»li jmcom ^dutioO rtt^oaoL i&eJftlO 
e^evrrfe daXXX nl sal:^^ lllcfateXq Ijjcii;;©:! ari .^arii ^eii-ldeei jbfl« ,im)&l©<»« 
\9 tntm ;te*l attfC^f %o ow4 brrJB (Srixb f>eo«^;;^n«J[ !^ So&v iuo^ <}> JjkfocT' 

Virginia Brengle, 22 years of age, testified on "behalf of 
defendants that she was a classmate of Virginia liagle at the 
University of Kansas. She was seated in front to the right of th« 
driver, said that she had driven automoMleB for four or fiye years, 
that after Mr* '?agle had left the car they crossed the Buhu-rban 
railroad tracks, a short Tjlook east of Longwood drive, that at the 
time they arossed the tracks the traffic lights at the northeast 
corner of Longwood drive and 111th street were red, for east and 
west traffic, hut by the time the automolaile rea^shed the laiddle of 
the hlook, these traffic lights had changed from red to amher to 
green* and continued green at the time the autoaCbile reached Long- 
wood drive and so remained all the way acroas Longwood drive* She 
said that the tar was proceeding in a i;*(esterly direction, about 12 
to 15 mileB an hour, straddlittg the north or outer rail of the weet- 
hound Btreet oar tracks, that v<hen the automobile was two dar lengths 
%est of the west orosswalic of Longwood drive and going up the incline, 
6h0 for the first time noticed plaintiff ahead to her left or southwest 
of the car, that he was then running in a diagonal direction across 
111th street toward the northwest with his head down* Vlhen she first 
ohserved plaintiff he was about 10 or 15 feet away. Virginia ^jJaglo 
apparently saw plaintiff about the same time, and immediately honked 
the hom» put on the brakes and swerved the car to her right or north 
toward the curbstone* She said that these aetioas were practically 
simultaneous J ^hat Pellcey was then five or six feet away, but still 
elightly to the left and southwest of the autcmobilet that he con- 
tinued to run at the same speed, without looking to the east» that 
he struck the left flront door of the eaV at the handle, and dis- 
appeared. She said that no part of the front of the autcBiobile cfuao 
in contact with plaintiff, and the street was dark at the site of 

the accident* 

9dS "in isiTtt-x oAi of iwrl ai heiaoa >:,6W siT"' . — sartHC 

8jCj , evicts boo*7,r«3J 1; :jIooIcf : , 

( Xiao isyij; « UJ. "i,.i. - 

^al i^a 0./- ^. .'.•.• t)Xi;.'OaO.' tSisfaaZw' 

9niIonx »ai> <ii !..«v7aao'so j«w\^ ty i3* 

nrtttaos tp b»oi"7»n asio' itjTtl ftxfa to^ «l£a 

t9Xl\ ©tf* f. « bJWiii SJbrf : on atiif &*x <• III 

tLitc ■ ■:r^c -jrH r^-of:ovjr; '«;• TCiJjs'id' »2l;r iic -itrrr «moxl aif* 

'Ut ftii«i wi-i ^A it'LMb aav if^itu 9sii ions ^lliiaifilii di Xi» JuiiJaoo «x 


Agnes 0. iSagle, Virginia's mother , ^o was sitting in the 
right rear seat, testified that after letting M*. 5agle out on 
Hale avenue her dau.diter drove the oar west on 111th street, that 
as they approached Longwood drive the traffic lights were green 
in their favor, and her daughter thereupon continued across Long- 
wood drire. As they passed the intersection and were west of the 
drireway leading into the gasoline filling station, pli?intiff loomed 
up ocBiing Tery fast from the southwest and was sort of zigzagging 
toward the northwest, running right into the side of the oar at the 
left front door* Mrs. Ilagle had never driven a ear and was not a 
good judge of speed, hut said that they were not going fast, and 
estimated the speed at about 20 miles an hour* 

Virginia ^agle, the driver of the automohile and one of the 
defendants, testified that she had driven cars for ahout nine years* 
This particular rutOTiohile vre.s a five-passenger OldcmolDile, ahout a 
month old, In good mechanical condition* As she caae aci'osB the 
railroad tracks she noticed the traffic lights on the northeast 
corner of longwood drive and 111th street were red* They turned to 
aBiber and then to green as Eha approached Longwood drive, and so 
continued across the drive* 3he said that she was driving approxi- 
mately fifteen miles an liour, straddling the north rail of th« 
west hound car track, and that there were no other automobiles on 
either Ulth ctreet or Longwood drive. «hen her automolaile was about 
three car lengths up the hill west of Longwood drive she saw plaintiff 
for the first time. He was then running northwest, and was ahout fir* 
feet to the lext, or west, of her automobile* She immediately sounded 
her horn, swerved to his right and applied the brakes, all ahout th« 
same time. Plaintiff continued to run in a northwesterly direction, 

J 4..»»<.v ♦•>>« ifift side of the automobile 
without changing the speed, and struck the lei t oioe w 

at the front door, right beside where she wae sitting* Plaintiff 


ee9T3 oicev a:tM|iiI «J:-.'i:«aJt ado »vJtx& I>«k»w^k»4I; I>©£i»«oit«c<i^ y;»4Jf «ui 
"•IMfo*^ ««0^»^ b«jtttil;<'n©0 aocfjc/eawfif 't»iri:sj.i:b z»il baa «iOTfil «l»rf* n 
«{i^ V cTOif feca j»J";to©8Ted'flx ©rC;^ f^^saaq i:c; .oviTb boo 

benuo «;toj:^aia r^.alXiiTt 9|i±I«bjbsi •rf* oir 

^fi oa ajorar baa in^mifVna 9siv atriii d'aa't Tt^ftT y^alsmo q. 

St 4 on ■;?',; bfix! '.^^o jc afrlrb tavwn b«i •Xb««I •s^?? «^<xj ^lel 

oiflfi e^ajiil ?:ruo.» doa d^w x^K-* *-af{if bii»« cJjsrf ,6a©g« to ©S&i/t fcooa 

si ii/otf.H tblxdQisablO 'i03CE«'i'Ji:«q;-r7 •'■ ... oXif:'"'^^" ■' f^l-'?"' 

axl;> aa^oio.?; w;flL-.r -"■ • ::r ' -^uy Xj«oiftatiu".-iu .'ura i-' * 

AO afcXxrfOflD^i;** tcaiCJo on aiev •itaifi ^/ii^U fen-y ,:! 

zodJB agfu alliiamiUi:. -tcsi atiCi>. .8TXTfc boovr^aol lo .^efsi-t i rfjfXIX -E«£r.tJ:t5 

YtUalalq, wr>u od/i oTJtib &«o«-;iiioJ: 1o *«iOiff XXi;tf ©iiJ tj . eatrrf.t 

•Ti-'i Jwof/t^ ?, . , . ..o« silirifli?! ne4;^ a*w «fi .««!* ^sxilL- erfcf sot 

he .. Ml itsLi ,9X.lnO;.ro.'uj3 Z.o ,J-f::p.,- la ,i'.&X or' -i? 

fell to the ground, and aocordlng to the w:Uness the impact did 
not knock or carry him in a westerly direction, She stopped her 
automobile in ahout three oar lengths, alighted and saw plsuntiff 
lying near the north rail. People gathered almost immediately, she 
got hack into her oar, and turned it around bo that it was headed 
east on the south side of the street, where ahe parked it at the 
south cuT^« She said that when she ^ot into the car to turn it 
around she noticed hlood on the front door handle. At the place of 
impact the street was dark, caused hy shadows from trees along the 

4B ground for reversal defendants urge that the rerdict and 
judgment are contrary to and not supported "by the evidence, and their 
counsel urge this court to reverse the judgment v^lthout remanding, 
"becr-uee, as they contend, of the total lack of evidence showinc negli- 
gence on the part of defendants and also because of the failure of 
plaintiff to show, either by his own testimony or that of any occurrence 
witness, tha,t he ■was in the eocercise of ordinary eare for his o\.ti safety 
at the time and immediately procedinc the actjident. Although we be- 
lieve that plaintiff made out a prima facie case and we would therefore 
not be Justified in holding as a matter of lav; that there is no evi- 
dexies to support the verdict on either ground, v;e have reached the o«li- 
(kluaion* after a careful examination of the record, that the verdiet 
is ooaatraxy to the manifest vfeight of the evidence, especially in so 
far as it indicates that plaintiff was in tlw exercise of ordinary 
Oare for his own safety. Some of the evidenoo relating to tMs question 
is (luite indefinite. It is difficult to ascertain from the record, 
with any degree of certainty, whether access to the men's toilet; could 
be had through the rear of the filling station, and this fact is impor- 
tant as bearing upon the question >iahether plaintiff crossed llltk street 

-fa ,v:Ii: b©ie£y«5i ©i^ool •Xijij'a: rf^xoa oit* nja©n :ittJt'^X 

h&h09^. ^k^r' ^ J: JiJi.i 03 bfUKot;; Jl b»nTtf^ j^tlB ^f%at) Xf>si oiitl 3(f»s(f Jot) 

baa ioxli-i^v »dj -■aul.^ egxn a;^a»bHt''t»X) X<ts'*rvex lo'i fem/ots a.. 

-."Isian ?ni«OJis t!ia»bi.v3 io atoaX XjB3^©it ©ffcf *io tfec0*noo Tt^ri^ «Js <*»gjt;-oe£f 
jKdtc'ij. -.'- /:ef{itto ,t«'^" r,^ ^H + t(.^Xq 

ao-ift-roiU oXjjow ew iwc-o osiio «io«^ amiiq. ii ^iw soaa til .J'jBJtiaXq ioafli »Y3..i 

- ?▼• ofl ox etari* ^aitf waX ■*• xestnts s ^m ^i^Xorf ai. fr^llivU »t sr 
xtoo suiv 56rlo*!«r «v«il or/ ttiKWei', oqciMiJ 0. cono 

>i;p oMtf o^ 'j^ttMlar mort^-bi-^a tnii to &m>'> •Y^elt^s avo tiid ia1 tstrtim 
,*'co: -'iV. :<i'-''\ ifl .:'.:~)0^J& 0* oJC'jr.r^':/^ r.i. JI * r^ sialic f>n.t 3;fi;;;p '5i 
feXiiC. .^. ■ ■ , 


along the crosewalk or in a diagonal direction. Upon retrial thii 
situation can "be more clearly shovvn. 

In Tiew of tlaese conclusions, it v;ill be unnecesaary to 
discuss defandantB' further contention that the verdict is ex- 

The judgment of the Circuit court is reversed and the 
cause renanded. 

Soanlan and Sullivan, JJ,, concur. 

ftiCi text bvaxovex ai: iTuw xlO adJ lo ;tn«ta»biJt ed"!: 

»X':#rt<?' «> '4 " •ra^ fTsIii«<Ki 


AUCJ: BlFuVM nO^^IJiD, Indivi dually 
and as executrix under the ikst 
will and Testament of Harold/A. 
Howard, Deceased (Plaintiif/, 


(]>efendaxit and Oounter-Claimant) j> 



29 4 I A. 60 4 


This is an appeal from a decree of foreclosure and sale in 
a suit "brought for the foreclosure of three trust deedB executed 
and delivered hy Mary Katherine Jones Ormonde, defendant and 
counter -claimant • 

The verified complaint alleges that on May 2, 1927, defend- 
ant executed ajid delivered her five principal promissory notes in 
the sum of $5,000 each, together with certain interest coupons, 
which notes and coupons were secured hy a first mortgage trust deed 
on certain premises, duly executed hy defendant; that on June 20, 
1929, she executed end delivered her one principal promissory note 
in the sum of "10,000, together with interest coupons, and at the 
same time delivered her second mortgage trust deed on the same 
premises; that on Decemher 20, 1930, she executed and delivered her 
one principal promissory note in the sum of ftSjOOO, together vdth 
Interest coupons, is/hich note and ooupons were secured lay a third 
mortgage trust deed of the same date on the same premises. The 
complaint further alleges that plaintiff, Alice Byram Howard, was 
the holder and owner of the notes and unpaid interest coupons 
secured hy the first mortgage trust deed and that plaintiif Harold 


'"^,K _ 


*^o^ ^ T teg 1 

nl ©X«a bos •twaoXooiol lo 9»itoa5 a fliDil Is»qq« nis ax aifIT 

be^j?c93o» 'dbeob iauii se%Ai lo stuaoLoe^Oi •Ai aol iii-s,isoid ilutt a 

. joaraxalo- xo^nnoo 
ai a»*on xiosaiiaoiQ Ijsqiorxixq ©tJ"! teii beiefJtIob f)«a ^ec?«ooxe *nje 

f9b iairxi &^ji:^i':oa iail'i b x^ £>»iwoss view snoquto bnc ae*0B rioM»v 

,0S em/l. no ^«iW ;i+ae6ffi^^9b '?;tf bs^iroexs yXwij «a©aiia«i<3: jjijetf-xeo no 

•iorr x'O ''^i^ooici lA^toaltq. oito i©ri 5oi©vlX«b 5n/^ bei^wofix© ©fCa ,^S(?X 

•M;t ;t« ban ,8nogxjoo ;^a©a»*fli ri^tiw "idriJ»sOv> ,CX)0,CX'!^ lo fuia mI^ «i 

«ua 9il;t 00 boob ^axfti^ ogj^S^^oA booses atfl ''>^i):«viXo6 ttaii eoaa 

laxi barter JtXeb P)as batooajce ede tO£(^X «(>S tectndoad oo indi {Qealnoiq 

ittvT idff^egoJ (000(34/ lo Mtra aricT rti e^ort x'^onaitaorq. LBqiot!i'i% aao 

b^iiiJ ;: \;tf otti«o60 oiow aooqucc bnjj oioa xfoM..' tanoqwoo ^aaaoifxxl 

•cTI «a0BliBe'XQ[ woj^a »di tso t^inb fupma 9di lo both iiwxt 'i/^.crQitom 

mtm «&xjBi«roH OBi.x'^ •oil %ViUnleS.q ^Mdi se^geSJLa rodi-iut ialJ^lqao. 

mmq.uoo ia^ibiui bijsqm; bna attioa odi lo t&nwo bttJf, loblQd axi 

blaXiiH 1 :13ttlr.i • inds on-, baab iawiJ ii\Ui-^i-i:,i:i iatt'l &xlJ vtS btruooa 

A« Hovrard wss the holdar and ov,ner of the noteo and unpaid interoet 
coupons eecured by the second and third mortgage tx'ust deeds, re- 
spec timely; that there had been paid upon the principal note Beoxxred 
by the eeoond mortgage trwet deed the sum of v6»464*36^ leaving a 
balonee due thereon in the amount of ^3,535*65. The oomplaint 
alleges certain defsailta in payments due and prays for the fore- 
closure of the three mortgages. 

Jiefendant filed a verified answer wherein sha denies that 
plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in the oomplaint. 
Sha also filed a aounter-claim wherein she alleges that at the time 
of the exeouti(m and dt^lirery of the trust deeds sought to be fore- 
closed* and the principal notes and interest coupons secured thereby, 
a fiduciary relationship existed beti^een her and Harold a. Howard; 
that the transactions that resultsd in the execution and delivery 
"by her to said Etm&Td of the three mortgages sought to be foraclosedy 
v*ere inecuitable and unfair, and that the said mortgages were ob- 
tained by said Howard, by virtue of the confidential relationship, 
for an inadequate consideration, ana tiiat, therefore, undsr such 
clrcumetnnoes, he ouriit not, according to the rules of e^iuity and 
good oonsoiencQ, be partnitted to foreclose the same. The prayer of 
the counter-claim is that the trust deeds and ?iny and all notes 
secured thereby be cancelled, annulledf rescinded and set aside, and 
that an accounting be taken of any smd all transactions between 
defendant aad said Howard | that defendant offers to come to a full 
and fair aoocunciag with said Howard and to pay to him whatever, if 
anythini3, should appear to be due to him from her. 

The macter to whom the cauae wee referred found that vlico 
ByTMii Howard, plaintiff, was the legal holder m6 owner of five 
priaciiDal notess and certain unpaid interest notes secured by tho 
f irat mortgage trust deed ; that default had been made in the pay- 
meat of cort&in interest notes and that plaintiff elected to and did 

#H«rx*dal btm^pm kmt mmf^a tiJ lo veoKt tan 'xebXo.i . t .oH •A 

Hix «il^e«fa iun4 (B^J^ix^m bthii 6fM bonoutt mag x^ ^f^'^ysvv '. r.aoquoo 

buTtn— o^Ofl laQionliq •«(/ od^ blfltl a»»«f t4Ki •trtid;^ i^;t {v.XoTl^Od^ 

• jniisX^^o iKiv' iti lol bo-^e^Y^ laJtl oJ i»tgtX^lofx -Jatnlq 

9mt^ &Ai tf\ isfU ma^mlljQ 9dB ftlsieifw xiaXo-to^mrdO « &eXi:l ealn itQ 

- .10'. ■ >J9a «l)*o!> ^sxrxu oxf;^ lo \;veviX >'; Ooo no^JiJO^orx- «ff^ ta 

tYdiox^i b9%u9*9 a«HMHIi tWSmAai i^ixi} em^an l&q,i&a.t%Q, miit iam «b8acl« 

X^evJtXe.^ bar, aoij&Gi«»» «i^ flU b«»4Xtfa»« tm$i ato^tiimami'i^ i^di ^itd;} 

lo xe\,^-xq ^. .>!;« erfl •ft«Xo«<xc)l o;^ bf^^loKfiHi etf •e«iwiottjea>e &••§ 

ae^dii XXjb boA \jaA ixi^ a^eab $aini &ti$ 4aiU ut jaJbeXo^fce^itaov ftiCi 

(MM « • #«a liM fe»i>nio«dt «.beXXtf{m« |b«XXfi>oa«» oif ^tfi^texi^ buxufa 

flMHT^etf •iioi;^»««WRi XXa ba« Xiv ^ a«il*.r «<f ^MKlSAiao^oa jdm d4rt# 

•Til lo tt»fii70 bm r^-'blKui L*)rA»l Bdi moff t'i.1XtmL*l'i tOxcwoH aiatxS. 
•At \sf beu/OQu a won tatst^nX bJUnim/ aJU^teo bam ttc4on JU; 
^IM acfd nt ^jm MMif ^•<( ^X«i»l«# t^4 |&«»6 ;fBj(r''r 9R.aT^'£r>n; #3Til 

declare all of the indobtedness eecured "by the said trust deed 
to be immediately due and ov/ing; that the total jimount due plain- 
tiff besides the oosts and expenses of the proceediugs was 
$30»708«91» and the master reooimaended that a deore^i of foreclosure 
be entered as to the first mortgage trust daed* The nacter further 
found that Harold A» Howard was the oviner of the principal note and 
interest notes secured by the second mortgage trust deed| "that all 
interest coupons* aggregating the sum of (^3,250» pertaining to said 
#10,000 note dated June 20, 1929, hare been paidj that the stm of 
$6,464 .35 has "been paid on the principal of said note, and a commia- 
Bion of t'500 was paid for said loan, v/hich made said loan usurious 
as hereinbefore found, and the defendant and counter-claimant -^ * * 
is therefore entitled to a total credit of - * * $10,214«55, being 
1^214 .35 in exoess of the principal of said note; that the said sub 
of $214*35 should be credited against any sum that may be due upon 
the note for ??5,000 dated December 20, 1930, secured by the trust 
deed £third mortgage trust deed] recorded as a)ocument Ho. 10819364." 
The master further found that Harold A. Howard "Was the holder and 
O'wner of the principal note for the sum of $5 #000 secured by the 
third mortgage trust deed; "that the coupons of series #1 to #7» 
aggregating |1,225, pertaining to said principal note dated December 
20, 1930, ha\ne been paid and a oommission of |250 was paid for said 
loan, v/hich made said loan usurious as hereinbefore found; that the 
defendant and counter-claimant * * * is therefore entitled to a 
credit in the ainoiinx. of |1, 789.35 to be applied against the principal 
©f said note, \i,hich oredit consists of the $1,225 paid upon interest 
coupons #1 to #7, $250 paid as commission for said loan, and the 
#214*35 * * *# leaTing a balance of $3,210.65 unpaid upon the prlncipa3 
Of said note; that there is due * * ♦ Harold A. Howard the further sum 
of $10,000 by reason of his advancement on March 1, 1935, of that 

bo»b i^urj JJXB-, 9ii.» x^^ b^tAfosa av»tUnbi4&hal ottS to LLa ^laloub 
- ■ ' out) ^mtomR 3i&$ot 9tii ifitli i^alvo bna mrit xl»^jsi-t&««mi 9^ oi 

LLm iiidj" \0e9b imni 9^£s^ bee cos fdt x<i burao^a Beioa ia^v^ml 

hlaB 9i vinixii.' J-t'- ,05S,C.„. 'io smr. mij v^nli^^'^zn^z^A »aooqffoo d-aarco^ni 

^0 at.- .'"^-^^fi noed' ^rpji ^f??^Z t^^r. em/t bCifjBfi e*oct 000«01i^ 

')9ZU09!i ,OC;eX ,02 'fficfKi^oeG b»^sb 000, B't TOl »*o« ttrf;t 

8ii4 xrf ^•^a;6»a 000,a$ ^o aofu aiC* x«l .-/rtoK.';Tq fti!? lo xenwo 

♦ tSs oJ X% a«ixej "io G.oft^iMOO »rf* i xii** *,bo»" - ^rrJtcfii b^Mit 

«ili - ciiv' twiji;o^ u'xoiJ«flUfe*i-.. -*. axjoixjuat; x^aoX L,L;J euaai slaldv/ iIlooX 

_'.:..'-•:.; ^ iiij .',.iszf.^ii u ..' i.i,i.j.^ -. y(j o„ 'jc,«&8T«X'' '■ " -•:•"• )&X0 

Je©xe#iii noqw biaq flSfitX^; •!<* io atfalenoo ilij^;'.:© i*ij.a.w t;:.Jon Dx.ja to 

•a;^ bAB (iinoX biifsa xol aolaajjoaofi •« biaq Oas^ %^^ o:^ X' afioq&roo 

•giooXx^i 9Jii XKxitf bi«qruf sa.OXS«£$ lo eoaBXad* a bjc^aoX « d^»i^XS$ 

■ua xei£^xvl ad;} bx;)«foR •;. bXoxaH * *■ * Bub si oxait^ i»xl;) it:;^on biisa lo 

^jMfJ lo t'^-'-X «X f(oxAM fio ia«a»9aAyba sjjf lo noajsex ^^ OOO^OXl^ lo 


amount in payment of taxes upon the premLseB involTed herein* Tlura 
is therefore due * -^ * Hiirold A. Howard from the defendant and 
counter-claimant * * * the sua of $13»210«65, coneistine; of th* 
halaiwe of .1>5>210.65 unpaid upon aaid note dated Decejaber 20, 1930> 
and the said sua of ilO,000 advanced for taxes." 

A decree was entered in acoordanoe with the findings and re- 
ooratuendations of the master* 

Defendant contends that the Blaster and tts trial court erred 
in not holding that a fiduciary relaticaiahtp exinted between defend- 
euat and Harold A» Howard at the time of the execution and deliyery 
of the first mortgage trust deed and principal notes and interest 
coupons therehy secured j that the ooramission of ;?750 deducted "by 
said Howard at the time of the aakin^i of said loan constituted a 
profit to Vihlch he was not entitled as a natter of law and that 
defendant is entitled to a credit for that amount; timt defendant 
is sJ.80 entitled to a credit for all interest she paid on account 
of said first mortgage and that "said plaintiff is entitled solely 
to repa3naent of moneys actually advanced "by him." 

The facts T/ere stipulated. 

To quote from the ahle and e^diaustive report filed "by the 


"28* That it appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, 
Harold A. Hov/ard, Is now ah out the age of sixty-eight years, and that 
the defendant -h^ * * is now ahout the age of seventy-one years; that 
♦ * * [Harold A. Howard] has personally known and has been acquainted 
with defendant fer approximately fifty yeare* 

■29* That for a period of more than fifteen years next pre- 
ceding the filine- of the complaint in this c.use, and for several 
years prior to }iay 10, 1921, defendant * * * was seized in v.hole or 
in part of the fee simple title to certain improved real estate 

©rcjfr ,:^i.-'-5il 5..tXoy«1 *i»«l««n:q edi /h - x»:j ic driOfi3-i3v ni Jnifom.? 

•rf* '10 jCij:i*isio ,8a.0iii<£Xt "2:0 iaiir« ©riJ * ^ ^< 5BtoattsXo«i9*m/»© 
< ^€91 eOS Te^oo»il fte^ab »ici! £>itaa tuiqif bx^^mf dd.0i:il«5# lo @»£tnlficr 

&87t8 ^uooo Xjaizi Aif^ fiii« :fs;tn«« &tiii ijsdi »i}m>i aoo taebts^^ed 
-bn»1sb fro»v,-:t»rf b^talro qa . liil T-JBisJU-bxl ./. ;t«ffJ r'aJtl>Xoi^ JOfi ni' 

•u.,4- .tr,,i-,.,r, r-y ,, no i : ^ ifittye L ..-..-'i jua^xwoeu Yrf^'^'O-tiJ' ofrotijuoo 
bxte #a£ Io xeiJ^jn » sua otliXitte ion cbw «£( ifeMv*' OJ d^i^oin 
itwoooji «o bJtoq ufic: ia»ae;fal IX« xot ;^J:bdt8 fi o^ fteX^J^^ne ois:X ^iJ: 
"•raid: ^d oacfiaTfes xLlaaity^ anranooi In Jnttcr.; 

*Arf.i fcrus , . "{sift-\;;J3ci.:i 'xo ^^^5 &i£jf Ji/ocf^ w«« ai , feXKWoH .A ftXdXf?.J' 

tf.i.'j |eicr.«x ex«)-X=' a»voa ^o (%.a «f{^ ;Ji;ocffi woix ai * * * *flr.ft«©lBb orf^ 

i^^nlaopaa ntiit ajatt biza Kwo«3f -ilX-uaDSttog ami Ibtr.woU ..A bX«i:jaH'3 *! ••*• ■ 

• ;/j1,-L';' yJlJI '.. X>-.' .Cf '■■'- r*"^'. . o "ri'l * f«r. '••. rf /i- :w'i (/H J-y,/ 

-^ '••'• « - -*' ■ '•*-''■• n-' Jn.'.-.'X<-rfaoo f..ij 'lo jiXtllil tnii jii«i,b©o 


locffl.t0d in the Cit.y of GMcaero, County of Cook and Gtato of IllinoiB, 
hn St» Att^uatine, Florida, Greenwioh, Conneotlcut, and Middletont 
V«nBont • 

"30. Tl»t during th© aforesaid period of time defendant * * * 
Tm8» liaa since continued to Ije, and is now the Ov«nGx in fee Biaplo 
of the legal title to those certain premises ^ -» * cen'inonly knov?ii 
ae 310-312 Houth State Btjreet, in the City of Ghioago * * *• 

"31. That Bometim© ■.bout the year 1921, defendant * * ^ 
together irith her sister, Helen Bnow Johea, and her hrother, MgocmSb 
Lee Jones, who had likewise knovm * -^ * Harold A.» Howard, for the 
greater part of their lires, were jointly interested ae the o^wners of 
certain improred real estate located in the City of Chicago, harliig 
acquired the sisaa© either upon the death of their father, Judson Uoeoo 
Warren Jones, or the aunt of said parties, one Helen L>now| tho^t said 
improred real eat at© bo o^ned hy the af oremsntioned persons, in addition 
to the property involved herein and owned hy defendant, * --^ * oonsisted 
of the iUalto Theatre, located at 336 South State Street, in the City 
of Ohio&go, Illinois, and a certain paro^l ffiC improved real e state 
located at 516 Sherman t*treet -^ < *• 

••32« that at or ahout * * * Ilay 1, 1921, defendant 5? * 
and her hr other and sister « * * consulted with Harold a* Howard 
uith reepeot to that certain piece of improved radL estate osmed "by 
then and located at 516 Sherman street, * * * with a vieN? of changing 
the raethod of management thereof in order to effect an enhancement in 
the tnooae then being received hy them therefroanj that on May IC, 1921, 
Helen Snow Jones and her hr other, oldgpotah Lee Jones, telegraphod Harold 
A# Howard ae follOv?8» »Kit hae accepted offer to Burley and to ub. 
You can take over management immediately. H* S. Jones and E. L, Joneo.t 

•SS* That on May 11, 1921, [defendant] sold, transferred and 
conveyed all of her right, title and interest in and to the aeid real 

oveoldC' 1» Xii5:> trf^ ill «. .J 

b»i& 1^090 ' , ;n£)&a«lo6 x;^ ii^Mtf^ baa alox^i bi'iYXovai » 

X^iO ftifi) Hi «j»rx»a «^3^£i ii4uo^ d$f ;{^ b»«AO0X tOYt^«xi% 9JtX>£ ^^ > 

•tji#8 9 Xj897 b0voz<{»i. 1# ito-mq tttst'r9>9 m 1m» •^ijxiiXX lo 

l^Tif: * * $^99%^!?* gmoi^dii dXB >« l^«Ji«t>oX baa Muii 

ftX«t«l te(liftiQB»Xt . t ''. '.a.j. G^'ncci^ii^'. tX»At»t^ 'i^il ■■>fi it-ticZ wQa: n&XaR 

•State and premises located ab 516 nberman Street ^ * * to Helen 

Baov Jones and Mgcosab Lae Jonee * ■- * for a Gonsideration or 

$40»000t whioh said deed wac placed of record * * *; that all 

details In oonnoction ^/ith the aforesaid sale of the interact of 

defendant * * * in and to the aforesaid psjroel of real estate -was 

handled for and m her behalf "by one Clarence Burley; that defendant 

* * * from that date forward had no further interest in and to said 

preatLses, although * * * Harold A. Hov/ard continuod to manage the 

e&ae thereafter for her brother and sister« 

* * * 
"34» That * * * about the latter part of A922 Harold A. 

Howard conducted negotiationB for and on "behalf of defendant -x * » 
and ^* *• " 3dgcoiab Lee Sonen and Helen Snow Jones in connection vdth 
a proposition froia one Q. oewaro Lelewer and Henry Posner for z, long 
term lease on the premises involv^^d in this cause and aore pa.'ticu- 
y laxly knoim anci oeBcribed sb 310-312 bouth St&te street >^ "■ *; tte,t 
the south twenty-three feet of said premises, being the oubjact matter 
of this suit, tme and is no^ o-vmed by defendant * * -^j that the north 
twenty- three feet of said premises, not being involved in this c usep 
■Was and is now o\med and held by SdgcoBb Lee Jones and Helen ^now 
Jones * * »o 

•35* That upon completiiig the negotiations in connection 
with the execution of the aforesaid lease on the premises at 510-512 
South Stete Street * -^ *f being the premises involred herein^ Harold 
A. Howard agreed for and on behalf of defendant, * ^^ - that said 
lease should be drawn "by the * * -^ attorneys for the lessees, and 
upon the lease beiarj drafted, Harold a» Howard did take the same to 
the City ©f ^ew York where he met tha sjiid lessors, defendant * * ♦ 
and her brother and sister> * ^ ^v discussed the terias and provisions 
of said lease and counseled v/ltii them wi Lh respect thereto as io the 
advisability of entering into the same, and caused said lease to he 

Xlii #iaf»+ j'iOi4»2; "io ijuoavlij saw b^ftb l>ica rioMw ,000,014 

M/ic Ov' fcnj ni ;teaifi*«^ t^xl^-rirx oxt 0.ctd iTr^v-xo'l: a^jsfr *fjirf;} flrott * * * 

.t»t9ts> iJUfl ♦toxfjoxef rear! 'rot- ii>4"tuex©it* ■ 
» * * 

2CoX aooi 'i'insiii fcjpu) -xowoXau b«cww,^ .vi ml-, iootl aoij .i^.u^l' :. _ .; 

d-.m'c ; ..■.(?.;• :.:AiQ £Liuo<i SX6-Q^ ajs berfitoasb bass sxt^Qtdi -^Xt-cl 

ifi^icofl cixii i^isT' ■ rfis*bcd'2fei» icof bSftRvo yftrn oi tea aavr ,*xl'a aM;^ "io 

t»ai; tiidi nJ. bsTlovnl s«ti»tf ;roit ,aeQJ:nii>:s:c[ bl&xa 5:0 ?»©! S3:crf;>--^dne?/d 

WOB^- ueXaK b<i£ eejfO'G 8«J diaooaL^ '^tf foXe4 ^O's &e>ii.'fo v. on ■?.t bxce saw 

<b ■ • * a^flc"''. 

fl»I ^' 38xiflf> a n^ aaoxUAiJog^i! 9£(i ^li^lqaoo t»fift i.vd'S »(il^* 

tiXor.i^i tak^i'iii ba-vloral ai.ajja3'xq: &di ^^ttlacf « **©itifil »*«;fa ri^xro ; 

br.',; , oooajX &rlv^ aol s^certiOJ^^ •'^' * * «>if* ^cf tv,VMit srf ^Xwotfa oejse-.: 
0- ...., ^..- ^~ ,- .^j b5*iW0K «-. blo'^sM ihei'livih^ii j»«*;eX BftS rro>cr: 

ei(^ CMT CUB a^i>::&xl«) i^^c^-r./i sii'sM wm-^ u. x,-, iitrXo&fiajoo 5cto »ajit»X f>ij?<s; lo 


signed lay them? that so far as ^ ^ * Harold At Howard lcnows» 

defendant * * ^ had no independent or outside adrioe in regard 

to the sifqaing of the same. 

*'Z>6t That the ©.foresaid lease was a long term lease whereby 

the lessee was required to care for the liuilding» pay the tejcee and 
|»y the ground rent according to the terms thereof; that all rents 
AvLB under the terms of said ninety-nine year lease were paid to * * * 
Earold A* Howard* 

"37» Ih-at as a result of the aforesaid negotiations cul- 
minating in the execution of the ninety-nine year lease ^- * *, Harold 
A* Howard thereupon took over and succeeded to the management of said 
premises on laehalf of the defendant, * * "^^ ^'dgcomh Lee Jonea, and 

* * * Helen Snow Jones * * *> and scsnetime in the month of .upril, 
1923 1 likewise took over and succeeded to the management in their 
behalf of a certain other property located in the City of Chicago 

* * *# of which they were also the owners in fee simple, said property 
"being the premises more commonly referred to as the Rialto Theatre 
property located at 336 r^outh State Street -it * -^j that said Theatre 
property was, at the time it was taken over, under a long term lease 
and is still suhject to the terms and provisions of the sdsae lease, 

"38* That Harold A. Howard never at any time charged defendant 

* * * any coBonissions for collecting the rentals on the property loc- 
ated at 319*512 South State Street* The money was collected, placed 
in thft hank and iasEediately checked ottt into the accounts ef defendait, 
her brother and sister, in their respective shares, Harold ii., Howard 
did, however, charge a coBunission for the collection of the rents on 
the Rialto Theatre property. He collected the rente f ro« both proper- 
ties up to and including February 18, 1933» 

■39* Kxat difficultieis arose with 'reference to the collection 

of rent and the payment of taxes on the property involved in this 

bi:s^t>i al ©slTbjG eblB^xfo u:o i noi>a.&q,0ba.\. on 0. .-!«. on:, o-nfi 

'vtfvTt^if'- "'i -6/ •7?''--t '■f''- ' '"'■'-jf.r ,1.-.".'' ,»/"" 

* * * oi lil&q, 0X9V oejseX ii:a\ oxixa-Y* on^^n bias Iro a«i8i^ ariJ iQbmJ •«!) 

»$rXBV/oH (A foXoijsH 

j':-c lo iaeas/^aaefa •Ai o» oebeaccx/a bus isv© JtooJ©^«£fi bifiwoil »A 
bn/3 tionol. cyJ cfcwo - joabn^leb odi xo iXsa ijuiniciq 

t-i ".TOM orii iti oxajsidiTDS On* t nsXsK '■ -• * 

tiBrii ni ,tn»w6-,,c--n«ffl eri^ oi 6»Jboeooua bus 'x&vo :rfooo RaiwejfJtt (BSCX 

p-j--:ca-c: Ji u. , ,. I f.'ii.'v.' eel nj -.'J- oali-; oisv' ysrlJ ifo.",'- , '■■ 


t -^iisX oris* :3noX « 'i^'uoj ^'xtpvo flsie* ajsw Ji &ifa.i:j b- ? ^sw x^'^^ttO'^Q 

.oa>:.eI aimu sd;^ "^o BRoJtuJbTO'xq toe BmX9i lii oJ do&(,Q'^«r6,XXi^B «Jt km 

-aoX •^i'leqoiq ariJ »« .'X^^iiei «>/(4 a«-i:^o»-t-^o» «>^ unoiaaiiuiaj© V&o * * ♦ 

imbiX0l9b 1» a»mrooo« eifi ojci. wiio bsaioeflo ^XAit^JtiMMKii: bu^ linger «x£;t a. 
i«riWt>:-'. , fxtov.-sH •■tiXiiifa rriJo^qao'x 'xlojl;' ixi ,*s»-*aia &!:« t©if;JOTtf ^«iil 

• SoW <6X v-ijij;;"xcf0\i. BaJt£;j;/Xoni fcfto oJ qtil -ftii^ 
nlAi at bsrloyai "tc^ioq-o^ «j£l aa atxai lo #ii«anc«(X edit lm& ia&r 


litlgation alBout the year 1930, and Harold A. Howard negotiated 
with the tenant in respect to said matters for and .on Ijehalf of 
defendant and her -brother and sicter. The negotiations restated 
in the payment by defendant of 05,000 upon the taxes for the year 
1930, v*ioh was deducted from her share of the rentals after full 
correspondence with her and Y/ith her ccaisent# 

••40. That in addition to the serTioes rendered with renpeot 
to the two pieces of property * * *, Harold A. Howard has assisted 
defendant * * *, froa time to time, in respect to the taxes, insur- 
anee and other matters arising in regard to the properties owned "hj 
har and located outside of the State of Illinois, said properties 
consisting of a large estate located in Greenwich, Connecticut, 
certain residential property located in the City of St. ..ueustine, 
Florida, and certain premises located in Eiddleton, Vermont. 

•'41. That Harold A. Howard has carried on correspondence witl 
the defendant ;< * * since the ye&r 1922J that hie correspondence * * ■; 
lias areraged two letters per month through the years from 1922 to 
1933 1 that in such letters defendant -»■ * * addressed * * * [Harold 
A* Howard] as 'Harry' and he addressed her as »Kit»j that, in additici 
to the "business relations existing Ibetween them, hoth of said parties 
were on the friendliest of terms with each other. 

••42. That defendant * :*t * ib now ahout the age of serenty- 
one years and is married to i^llliam Jennings Ormonde, a man ahout 
thirty years her junior? that the said * -^ * Ormonde has heen in ill 
health a large part of the time and at times is extremely nerroua 
and difficult to handle. 

••43* That * * * Harold A. Howard is ckilled and experienced 
in TsusinesB affairs and that defendant * * ♦ has had no "businese 
training and is unskilled and inexperienced in husiness affairs. 
'*44. That during the period of time that the aforesaid 

b&iSsi<i9X awilieti9%»a Mn* •fiBl^ baa I'^dsotS ^£u{ haa ioEiha9J.9h 

«ift&esffio isil dit^ bn^ tad xi. .)lioq;B9'rtOft 

io^xim^T slttw 5*T»bff«t neoirrica Jsdc.' 

miaosBn^y ttioiQlbhtVi ni bei.^oo/. aeaxaasiq: nia^ioo bn^ ^aftiioX'? 
L^lw •anabfloii^siioo ao boit-iit© aj5«f I>?crwoH *•. blor^'IR tsadT •If'** 

• ocf-SnogBSitoo aM is.Jii sSStl tjeex ®rii aonia * * * ijta&nalDb ad;J 

•i saw taOTl ar^ax aK* itiJ/oxffs rfinoa tsg; «io*#eiX ow* bttsjstetjs end 

JbXoxaE] .G2©xbS)48 * " -^ JnRbrtslfib a^arfisX rfoua nJt iadi t-£©X 

tttltt»i. blflB lo il;^0(f iizuii s:i09w;^snf :xfil^3ix» airoJ^^^Xdi saflRistrcT Bdi oi 

.i»iJ*o ilo..x ' J ^olXbixBi-v no »«•%' 

tdlMosrO eaninaal HaiXXiTkf o4 bs>lxiao si -g*-^ ©no 

XX2 fli e»9rf 3fij( Bktnaxi) biaa »di ixl) iicttwl ttd ax rv vSrhii 

.oX&nj^ o:? .■*£,— ^-"^'•'^ ftm;] 
b99txrii:iocf..-) ' :t ■ ^.,j^lj,Ai d . r.. ... ::. ■j,. .■■•,■'• , " 

aaaiU"Wo' c. .• -: •;: ;^xt:ib«3lj»:> *«ario bMk a^Jbst'ilfi aa^icirincf «; 

tBilA'ttn aaaaXoxK; ftX baMfoinaqxeai boji b^llt^miu al biia iaainljaiJ 

relations existed between * * * Harold A« Howard and defendant 

* ♦ * £Harold A« Howard] was carrying three checking aoccuntB 

in The first National Bank of Chicago; that one account was entitled 
*Harold A* Howard Income Account;* that another account wae entitled 
•Harold A* Howard Special A>ccount>« and the third was entitled 
♦Harold A. Howard Agent** 

'•46« That all moneys collected for and on "behalf of defend- 
ant * * * were usually deposited "by the said plaintiff in the aocoxmt 
•Harold A* Howard»» 

••46« That from time to time certain moneys were deducted lny 

* ■«■ * Harold A. Howard, "by way of reimbursement to himeelf for ad- 
vancements made for and on behalf of tke defendant * * *; that said 
advancements included premiums on insurance » moneys advanced on 
account of general real estate taxes for property located in ij'loriday 
Connecticut and Yermont, moneys advanced to the Collector of Internal 
Revenue oa payment of defendant's federal Income Taxj> and certain 
other miscellaneous advances and expenditures made T»y * * * [Harold 
At Hov/ard] for the use and benefit of defendant; that neither the 
general real estate taxes paid in the year 1930 on account of the 
properties located in i'lorida, Connecticut and Vermont, nor the moneys 
advanced in the year 1930 to the Collector of Internal Revenue in 
payment of defendant's federal Income Tax, nor the expense of ICLsb 
Shine's trip to iSurope, were deducted by * * *CHarold A» Howard] in 
the manner aforesaid, but are now claimed by him as a part of the 
indebtedness due under the terms and provisions of the 'Xhiixl Mortgage 
herein sought to be foreclosed* 

"47. That the moneys collected by * * * Harold A. Howard, 
for and on behalf of defendant ^ * * were deposited in The Horthem 
Trust company, located in Chicago, Illinois, in an account entitled 

a#ixuo&0J3 ;^13{9«H9 •sid^ ^ttXxi^xe bow [Mlawc --.- • - .- v 

«t|Ua»t9b ^ ^Liiifocf no na^a tot b©*osXIoo QTC^iw* XXo . ..i^** 

^■Ifoaou asfW rri. illviniJSvXq bJtafi mii \;d" beJiaocfob ^XXsJ^'ei; otts , ;!«* 

*»;^rt©a . ftxeiwoa 4 A blo'Ct-if' 
X^ i>»5o«bsb aioa' ffy^onoia aXsiii&o aeiiJ OJ oaij iacil i*j.s^ •d^^** 

tic ^«;£)r;,.-vO.; 3v: :.•-.; ^ . r. • :ft.i: rtc aiauiasia &::^^I;:rti: ■3;JnriroQXi/:Tt*jB 

blo': .J . a&xUr^i&ffsqTr-e btrx:: OA^ixmrbjR aiioanBXlesaigi lo^^^o 

•IGf nsil^iefj J."eii fclKnbiieicsb lo -^ilc rt^cf bfiA eaw ai£d^ io1 [&«rvsoH .A 
6d& to J^awocon no 0&<iX 'i&&x. ^^^^ n- biaq Sd^un^ a^siias Xjooi Xaientj 

a± ewnsvsJi Isitn'^inl to loJoelX^C sd.3' o; Oci^X aA}fc»TS erf^ «i beocwsYfta 

saHf lo eattcqpE© erf;t toit ^yj^H etaooni Xi^a»Jb»''t e«c!«!ji)fl©l;!aj!) lo ;tno«t«<I 

Ttt ^ biLr:oE . - oXoi^jH]* * * ttf l»9*owft»o et©vy ^sqsriiit oJ qi'ii ii^euiff" 

er: iO ? - ,.^ ^ aa cJLrf -^tf beoxeXo wo-rt t/'cr, »^^:rtf tbiaaoiolto ^o^Kjaw m'.: 

■--i..--^ t. : f;iXi?i' wft to OMcleiTorcq; bajB aart^cf o/£J 't&btttJ eub nB&abtiti&ba^. 

»b9aoio«orol otf oo tit^^uoB uHt^d 
^Jnmetti .A bl^iM ♦ * * x^ 6»i^osXXoo a-yjatiMi orii isu{T ♦V^" 
mcrf^xoK eriT ai Scileoq^A e-x*v ♦ ♦ ♦ iKi-*&n©'*»6 lo tZjvle^ w bna «ol 
&oXii^fT. i^mooo^ as ml ,8ionlXI , ,:r «.t b^^oooX t^«a(r*»o #a*rrT 


'Katherine J. Ormonde*, the Bai» party a£3 Mary Katharine Jones 
Ormonde, and whonerer the payiaent of sums of money and like chargee 
and daduotions -srere made, as hereinTjefore descri"bed, the balance re- 
maining from time to time was then deposited in said account aad 
notice of such deposit was thereupon mailed "by * * * Harold A» 
Hoirard to defendrjit, tOijether with a statement as to the doductions 
trhlch h£id heen made. 

''48, That on feljruary 10, 1933, the defendant - * * dis- 
charged and reliered Harold ^i. Howard of and from any and all matters 
and things Trhich he was handling in her behalf, and retained Leo L* 
Hogan, ^- * * her new duly authorized attorney-in-faot, in his place 
and Btead* 

"49. That OB April 27, 1927, defendant v/rote to * '^^ * 
Bar old A. Howard and asked aim to arrange a mortgage of $25,000 
for her for a long term at a nice low rate at once, and instructed 
Mm to place it on 310 South State Street, the property involved 
herein* He advised her hy wire that he could ohtain a loan immediatel; 
at 5-1/2^ interest and 2-1/2^ commission, or 6^ without commission, fo: 
ten years. Defendant * * * replied "by wire, as follows: 'Twelve 
years at 5-l/2^ will "be satisfactory as soon as possible.* 

"SO. That Harold A. Howajrd thereupon caused the Chicago 
Title and Trust Company to prepare the notes and Trust Deed far 
a twelve year loan et 5-1/2,^ interest, and forwarded them to defend- 
ant for her signature. <h.en the Trust Deed and notes were returned 
to him he deposited to her credit in The northern Triust Company 
$24,225, representing the proceeds of the loan, less a comnisBion 
Of 2-1/2^, the cost of the mortgage policy and expenses of ?'25 for 
drawing the papers, recording deeds, etc. That Harold A. Howard 
Bade this loan personally and seven or eight months thereafter sold 
it to hie wife, Alioe Byram Howard* 

efi«itficj lla hu» Xtt& smtt bn*' lo bx^^woH « . bLo'tiikl f>ev9lI©T l)f»B ft»s^'^riD 
iofllq aid Hi t« »J5'i"*ni-Y*fl'«>.^d'« b&sxioaJim -^XwR won tSx t 

-,.,»,..., .w ail^ji^i^ •soa « o^ast^^ oj Sithl bib^uu baa brsiV^ll . ...^lo-i^flK 
if^v oai^e^i bee «s«xio ^jsj •iax n^S Bain a ii& m.9t snoX " '"' teri toI: 

«T.; aawiio^ as »»«Jb» "^d" bexXiijorr :^feayliXl »«'ij;»-\: n&i 

» •»I<fi: aaoq a/j no. ^laj:;;ra« 9ii XIlw «'.s\X~ .jO^j 

gigAoMO en? oH .A d>Xoa«K ^affT ♦OS" 

-&««;lab QJ t^di am %iBmi9iaJi: ^&\ -sol xao^ ovXj?w;f J3 

XMtqflDl iav arfT rtX ^ibn[9 iwt o;^ bo^leoefab orf eild o* 

gtoisititammo s aaei <rtJ3DX tdi Io ab«®oo'::? ojr.f ■ ffi^asBft'ca^'i: ^"^.^.,J>?.f\ 

.■■■-. . ■.;;ji2 


"51. Tliat at the tim© this loan v/rs jcadc liar old A. Howard 
was collecting the rente on the Btate L-treet property and '.vac de- 
pt?sitinc her eharo to the credit of defendant without conmisnion, 
and waB collecting tlie n-entG from the Ifialto Theatre one depoEiting 
hf^r Rhare to her orecllt, after charging a coEnni.B8ion» 

•♦52. It IB debatable whether a fiduciary relationohlp 
e:cisted l^etween Iferold A. Howard yjid defendant at that time, but, 
aasuining for the sako of the argtraient that a fiduciary relationship 
did exist, and thfit , therefore, the burden of proof is upon Harold 
A. Howard to show an ahsonce of undue influence and that the tr£,nB- 
ROtion ^ms had in the most perfsot good faith and was equitahle emd 
just hQtwean the parties, I am of the opinion that the transaction 
should be held rsl-id. The trust deed and notes were executed "by 
^.©fendeaat ^/ith full knov/ledge ox their nature and effect and be- 
cause of the voluntary and intelligeat desire of defendant. There 
is no proof that Harold A. Hovifard exerted any influence over defend- 
ant in this transaction, £5he reoeived full and adequate consideration 
for the mortgage. The commisBion, when spread over the twelve years 
that this mortgage runa, did not raise the interest on this aort gage 
so that it was usurious." 

The trial court found •''that the traneaction [the first 
mortgage trust deed] v^as had in the most perfect good fdLth and was 
equitable find just toetween the parties. The Trust Ueed and notes 
were executed by the defendant, with full kno'vlodgt. of their nature 
and effect and beoamss of the voluiitary and inoelligent dei-3ire of the 
defendant. There is no proof that liarold A. Howard exerted nay in- 
fluence over the defendant in this transaction! she received full 
find adequate consideration for the morkgcige. Tha caamiysion, v/hon 
spread over the twelve yeara that tiiis mortgage runi:>» did not raise 
the interest en this mortgage bo uhat it i^as usurious. •• .'e agree 
with the conclusion oi tke master and the trial court as to the first 

ftxsvgl .A bivufll i^ummatr W»Ql eM;> «>ai^ Q(l^ ^a ^4)I^ * i^'"'*' 

<i"urf ««ffiJ:it d-itfC* ^B>b fcxjft bi»w»R .A fiX&x^i Hi^&'ifi&iJ boinlXB 

'juli fe«»T eonJiifXici airftni; lo eoitfta^ii^ sut we. 
ftelJQ^efljBT: ariiJ ^Tatii noXalqij axis 1. ,e©J!^t:jBq sxIJ a»9Vi»<i 

'n« *&e'i'it> bfw mxuium li^Ai 1© •gbalwoiti Hut i3Wi»r Inobn&'ifrfe 


'-.'■' a,:;i \:uiii.iiilov add 'io eajj^^o-'*. 


aortgage trust deed. The instant contention of the defendant Is 
without merit. 

Defendant contends that she is entitled to an aooounting 
and that the trial court erred in refusint; to decree that Harold 
A. Hovmrd» or his personal representatire, should account to her 
for his dishursements of her money* The master found that "the 
defendant, Mary Katherine Jcaaes Ormonde* was apprised at all times 
"by letters and "by statements of the collections made for her lay the 
plaintiff, Harold A. Howard, and of the adranees made for her "benefit 
and is not entitled to an accounting.** The trial court sustained 
this findlag and the recommendation of the master. The answer and 
counterclaim of defendant are verified "by her real estate ar^ant^ 
end the only allegations in these pleadings that there were errors 
or re presentations in the accounts rendered to defendant are made 
on information and "belief. Neither defendant nor Howaird testified in 
the cause* Howard was ill during the trial of the cause anA died 
before the decree is-as entered. The stipulation of facts shows that 
defendant has had a full accounting from time to time as rents rrere 
collected and charges and deductions were made, Proaa time to time 
the halfmce remaining to her credit was deposited in her account and 
a notice of the deposit was mailed to her, together with a statement 
as to deductions which had "been made. The voluminous correspondence 
"between the parties shows that Harold A. Howard was fully and fairly 
apprising defendant of the state of the account between them, /m 
examination of her letters to Howard shows that she made no ohjection 
to any of the statements. Defendant did not introduce ^jiy evidence 
te dispute or q.uestion the accuracy and honesty of the statements 
that had laeen rendered to her hy Howard, lllsc Shine had been the 
secretary of Harold A. Howard for many years, ms still in his employ 
at the time of the trial* and she was familiar with his "business 

^rttita!Qt9:z ras o- ft©X*i-rre si ©da d'arfd^ s&fx»datso *ar;bn&*l<<CI 

hlotAK isiAt ••t6«f> 0? r«Hio0lert ifi b9r's9 itxfct IbI" arf* fen/? 

X9ii o^ Jniroto« bXirexfs t9viJ'.<^dn9aen:<jorr laflOQ'r^q; eirf 10 »»': 

&«£ Towasp eitt .'xed'a.^m erf* "io j»x;fjsRfl«5aaooei: wl.^ fe«j^ ^ttJtfcnJtlt ahfLs 

axoTira oi»w 9's©ii,t *r.x£;r aT^rrlfioaXq »3»«f* «t anolifegeJlX^B ^Xno sxii &n^- 
mbjm •xa #iwB5f£sl»ft <K^ barf©bxisT RSnuotfrn erf* rrx sno iJB^nsaeTqetai'fif f> 

Mdi* o* »Bi:(^ aDrt'-^ .a&jasK stow si]oJ:J^o<v&»& btiis dd^'i^rfo baa bdioolXoo 
.•.afl»*«#a 6 dilv 79Ai0^oi t'lesaf «o oXi-Uii -.ovs- j ii;o<it t ftrf;j lo eoiJon jb 

ooiJo-ttfo 3fl 9&iW! ©rfa *jaii* aworfa bi[i«vroH 0;t 3Toid-«X xarf lo im.i:*«»irrlmf»xe 

•sdi xnwcf bad •midQ isalM •6«i«woH \;tf icd « ^^ * > > ' ' i'^ 

•aajxlajrcf , . . ^a 


affairs. If defendant seriously questioned the ntatements that 
had been rendered to her she had full opportunity to examine 
MSB Shine and Howard's -book* of »ccount. She did not see fit to 
do so* There is much force in the argument of plaintiff that the 
instant contention of defendant that she is entitlec' to an accounting 
is raised for the purpose of delaying the execution of the decreo* 
As we read the record defendant's counsel has obtained for her every 
credit to which she is entitled* 

The decree of the Circuit court of Coolc county is affirmed* 

D3CRSE Aw^mr^* 

Friendp P« J.y and Sulliran, J», conour» 

oo ^si ue^ Joa blfc »|{c ^ttmeo9m le aMned 8'£>^.8weH bns «alii'.> uaJtM 
ypt&TB -rsji •sol b9tii^;}€o ««*! X«iOitvoG a'Jowba©!*!) 5xoo£X eAi b^n»% 9W bA 

««iiateeo ,«« ^ntv/lllxtii, haa ^<.X. »": <&xi€»i;xt 



0? CHIC.X, a£ Successor l' 

Trust Indenture filed for 

the office of the Re c order 

of Cook County, Illinois^ 

No. 8230113, 


ROSS WAIHMJSEA3, also kaomi as 



94I.A. 604' 

MB. JUSTIOiS SOiiffLeUir m^LxVmij£D THii OPIiJICflSf OJ" TH3 COURT 4 

City National Bank and trust Gcaapany of Chicago, as succeBsor 
trustee under a trust deed in the nature of a mortgage, "brought an 
aotion of forciTale detainer against Rose wiainauskas , defendant, to 
recover possession of an apartment In the building located upon the 
premises conveyed hy the trust deed. The case was su"bmitted to the 
court upon on agreed statement of facts, the isLixes \7ere fo\md in 
favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered 
upon the finding* 

<^ December 15, 1923, Rohert Bundo et al., "being Indebted 
in the sura of ??125,000, executed 'bonds in that amount, and to aecure 
their pE.yment conveyed hy trust deed of even drte certain premises 
to the Chicago Trust Company, as trustee* The premises were im- 
proved by an apartment "building containing twenty-seven apt.rtmentsp 
one of -which is occupied "by defendant. After several mesne convey- 
anees defendant, a"bout August 1, 1930, acquired title to the praaises, 
suhjeot to the lien of the said trust deed, and is the owner of the 
•<lttity of redemption. On June 15, 1931, there ms a default in pay- 


^03 .A.i^«^ 

♦ ^ Tinn ; ■'T ".■! :7G~: 

.jni'.DC rciTim .HM 

edr no.;; *•?,' r-ol •r'n.f^f.I JC£«j«i'n:j8q.« ; uvcoot 

^Cd■ ft 0110000 ■! jisiifw ^ imi© 
art* 1© rr<9 .'a*^t<f^o 

ment of principal due on "bonds, and on uguBt 7, 1931| the trueteo 
filed a iDill to foreclose the trust deed. At the time the instant 
action was GOiniQenced tho default in principal totaled i^3,000« The 
default has existed since June 15, 1951, and the interest due on 
said nim has also feeen in default since the saae date* Upon default, 
the trustee, pursuant to certain proTieione of the trust deed, took 
poesession of the entire premises save the apartment occupied "by de^ 
fendaat, and has collected rents for all of the ai)artments save the 
one occupied hy defendant. Plaintiff was appointed, on March 4, 
1935, successor trustee imder the trust deed, with all of the ri^jhts, 
powers, eto», of the original trustee, sand is nov/ in possession, as 
successor trustee^ of the entire premises save the apartment occupied 
hy defendant. Prior to the oommencement of the instant suit plain- 
tiff served a written demand for possession upon defendant. Defendant 
never attorned to plaintiff nor to the original trustee. She has 
occupied the apartment In question, mthout paying rent, since the 
date of the default, June 15, 1931. The foreclosure proceeding is 
still pending* 

Plaintiff contends that upon default in the covenants of the 
trust deed it was entitled as trustee thereunder to possession of the 
premises conveyed "by the trust deed, and that its ri^ht to such 
possession laey Tae enforced as against defendant, the owner of the 
equity of redemption, "by wj^y of a forci"ble detainer action, after a 
written demand for possession had been made upon defendant, and that 
the trial court erred in refusing to enter juclipaent in favor of 
plaintiff and in entering judgment in favor of defendant. 

The major contention of defendant in support of the jud^nait 
is that the instant action will not lie because plaintiff had not pre- 
viously heen in possession of the apartment occupied "by her. In 
support of the contention defendant relies upon Cody I'mst Co. v. 

mCT •000«eaC baXsJoa L:qiomiq til Jl««l»b «dJ be©nBij»too h>-.?/ mioOi--. 
no 9Ub ^aatceial erid &ni3 ,XseX ,C:X sxuxt oonXa ftsJetxo «Bjti Jlw^lob 
t7X£r£lob aD<^ ^•trjb aa^a sxii odai 

j£ooi ,b9»b ^airiJ wi* lo aKoialTc iOjtjtfata , :u{.. 

eri* ST^a situdmit-^q^i vriji lo XXjs ao'i aitmi bec^oeXXoo Q<arf feaja ^vlnjaiiH©! 
«> rf; ,b&inXos[q.-5 ajaw mSttieX<i • ia^si^fioleb x<^ b&lquosio eao 
' -1 osif 1o l^ sLiixr i^aeb ;}airx;^ ':.' rofaeot;; , I 

_, - , ,^,- .. ^.-,-> c , -i^r.-^^bfiyleb y^^ 

afiri c:y . "''■ ^ '■ ;.v:^i-: 

0*5 &-£i/yoXos>i(" .XciGX t ljX 4iU>L e^Xw^?'' .-:ijj30 

• '^niijutivq XXI^^a 

Mi^ to coieaeaaoq o^ idiwmeTeil;^ se^aiji^ aa b&l^Xiat 

•3 aeJlfl tJ».i^oj« teait^iB'i oXcfioui t^tqarafc^ ttfp» 

( ■•j&baitleti aQ<iU «LaiK CEoacf bj^:jQ[ aoiui9!:eoq 

lo tlOTSl f 

. ' '■'''" . 'iX^ftl«Xq 

«»*fioo :tc>tara ariT 

aijcf ail i^efj i:o1*6j8 rfrr-:>t^frx srf.^ J/r/U q1 

'?:'j in' !■'.(:•:=>■■• ■ '1,1 tv 

T'.rf ^'^rf f>*:lqi!roo i'trcrJ'xriti.r. 


Dlttmar. 272 111. pp. 167. In 'Mat Cide Trust & navlnge Bank 
V. Gersteiiif 270 111. -■.pp. 250, the yirst JOivision of this court 
held that where a trust deed conveys the rents as security for 
the Indehtedness, the trustee may upon condition hrok^n t; ko 
possoEssion of the prcmiseB, collect the rent therefrom* and apply 
it on the indehtednessj that upon condition "broken a trustee under 
a trust deed mortgage which pledges the rents and profits aa security 
for the IndehtedneBB may, under claucc 2 and clauce 4 of section 2 of 
the forcible intry rnd Detainer ..ct, raaintain an action of forcible 
detainer against a tenant of the prenaseB conveyed who refuses to pay 
rent to the trustee or to vaoato after heinL" properly notified "by tlie 
trustee. In .est Side Tm at & Savings Bank v. Bron£toa» 270 111, 
App» 630 (ahBtract opinion)* we agreed with the ruling in the Cteretein 
case. In Cody Trust Go, v. Di t taaar , supra * the Third Sdvision dis- 
agreed vrith the ruling in the Gerstein case and expressed the opinion 
that clauses 2 and 4 of section 2 of the ivorcihle J^ntry and Detainer 
Act "clearly are provisions for the repossesBxon of property where 
the plaintiff at one time had possession and posseesion was unlawfully 
withheld," and that, therefore* "a mortgagee or a trustee in a trust 
deed on default or condition broken ie not entitled to the benefit of 
the e'oreible iiiatry and iietaixier .^ct in seeking to obtain possession 9t 
the real estate covered by the mortgage or trust deed." In Pe re canal 
Home Mtg* Go 4 v» t.eegrini 275 111* ii.pp4 41©, the i'lrst Division •! 
this court stated that it ^was unable to agree with the conclusion •f 
the Third Ui vision in the Cody case, and after an exhaustive review 
of the law bearing upon the liuestion* held that "only in oases brought 
under clause 1 of section 2 of the act is actual prior possession by 
the plaintiff indispensable." In West Side Trust & Savings Bank v. 
Lopoten* 273 Ill« App. 629 (abstract opinion), the Third X*ivisi«n 
followed its ruling in the Jody case, A ^writ of certiorari vaa 


:c' iiciiiiiXi; :; iioj 


isnonht&d&hul went 


lo .ri'iaflecf u/i X*W«e ion i^l no^i 

saaotq tolrtq X^w':. 


lu A'l&h no bee'- 

; idi 

'iH r;:: . ,xuJ. 


granted in that case (WeBt_ Side Tr ust and Sayings Bank ▼* Lopoteni 
358 Ill# 631) and in ita opinion the Supreme court states (pp. 
637-639)1 "The aeeond section of the act makes proTision for 
actions not only in forcible entry and detainer hut also in forcible 
detainer. A recognized distinction obtains betveen them« The former 
is an action for re-possession by a party who has been disseized, and 
in such case it is necessary for the plaintiff to charge and prore 
that he vas in possession ©f the premises and that his possession 
was inraded by the defendant. ( Thompson t» Somber ^er , 59 111* 326| 
Ptt dley ▼. Lee , 39 id, 339.) However, in an action of forcible 
detainer it is not essential for the plaintiff to ha-ro had possession 
nor for the defendant to hare receired possession from him. ( Cairo 
and St. Louis Railroad Qo* t. wigpiin s gerr y Co. , 32 HI. 23Qii Allen 
T. Webster > 66 id. 393.) S'orcible entry and detainer actions are 
brought under the first clause of section 2, and an invasion of the 
plaintiff<^B actual possession of the premises described in the com- 
plaint, at the time of th« alleged entry, is a prerequisite to the 
maintenance of the proceeding* The right of action must be exercised 
in his name. It will not pass to his assignees or representatives, 
(git zgerald t. Q,uinn » 165 111. 354; Thompson v* ^ornbe rger, 59 id. 
326; McCartney v. MoMullent 38 id. 237.) Actual prior possession 
has been held not indispensable as a basis for actions of forcible 
detainer under the succeeding clauses of this section. A right of 
action exists under the second cleuse of section 2 where peaceable 
entry is made upon premises in the actual possessicm of either the 
plaintiff or of those to whose rights he has succeeded and the 
possession is unla^vfully withheld after demand. It is not ret^ired, 
however, that the relation of landlord or tenant, or cJiy other par- 
ticular contractual relation, should exist to authorize reetoration 
of the party entitled to possession. (Thomas son v. ME^± ^^^ I^^« 
384.) The grantee of the landlord may maintain the action. ( Thojas- 


^.l^icco .V tSi^^ a^tti-v^ hem 3^B*TT obl''. *a»W) •«•« tmi^ «Jt !>«<KaTCSj 
.^^^ „_. „_..:„ __. .. _.:,.y aii al bsxM { ^r,Ti .III 83^ 

SI/.; 3XIC . c-i^ "tonia^t. 

^?5 2ffl9rr. 


:.<{?: C'tz-- 

^ J nJ ®Xq 
1 •emjRft alii ni 

ii'^ - ■ If J ,;..': ^;. ,xoii. 


m4 niaiiij.m^ ^>.m b"XOX&rt.pI ».rU ^o ©•*n«X4 »ifi' (.*0£ 

son Y« irTllBoiig sujgya? Mien v« V.el?stery 5C 111. S9?j yisher t» 
Smitli» 43 id» 184i I>udley t. Leej 39 id» S39,) Again, vhere 
premteee Jteve Ijeen leased to a prospective tenant who is unable 
to olDtain poseeeeion "by rcaaon of a ro»:TOer tenant holding over 
aftor Mb term expired » the right to maintain the action vestc in 
the lessee, alone. ( Gazzolo v. G hambers ^ 73 111 4 75.) The devise* 
or grantee of a lessor, by the express provielonB of section 14 of 
the Landlord nnd Temoat act, may maintain an action of forcible de« 
tainer in his own name. The right of the reepectire plaintiffs in 
the illustratire crses cited prestmably vested in those vrho had 
never been in the actual possession of the premises. The manifest 
legislative intent disclosed by oectior 2 is that only in cases 
broui:jht under the first clause is the action primarily ene for 
re-possession, and that the remedy afforded by the renuiining clauses 
is not restricted to those v/ho were originally In possession of the 
land but ulso extends to the persons presently entitled to the poa« 
session after a dexaand in writing." This decision determines the 
contention of defendant, and adversely to her. "Upon default he 
[the trustee] hcis the right to possession agr.inst the mortgagor, his 
grantee, or anyone claiming under him by any right •« ( t.olkenstein v. 
Slonim , 365 111. 306, 309. >ee, also, 'west Side Truot and :javings 
gank V. Lopoteii, supra .) 

25efendant also urges that plaintiff has tm adequate remedy 
against the defendant in the pending foreclosure proceedings or hy 
ejectment, and that it seems unfair and uJStf^uitabl© to permit plain- 
tiff *'to try its oause in a court of ec:tiity and c, foixible detainer 
action at the same tlme^" It is a sufficient to this conten- 
tion to say that separate remedies may be pursued simultaneously. 

The judtsment of the 1-unicipal courL of Chicago is reversed, 

and the cause in roaanded with directions to the trial court to 

• 0£t 

■act! c. 

ya jjurt&xq' 

fj.-^rf - '"^Irf-pf*?.?' ? .': '^d:^ 


mJai 1 10 

92 .! - ^ « * • ■ « ■' ■ tin LaoX'^ 

w oo^ft 

exf^ /jna 


enter Jude* It for plaintiff for poscossion of tha prenises 
descri'bec' ^he e.ta'uement of claira. 

li,-^'^ ^ir-.^0'i:iou3 TO ffii/LL comvi' to larTija 
Jur^oKarr for piUkimuT?^ fob posh r 5:1 qu 

3*riend, P. J., and Bullivan* Jt, concur* 

• 1 tm 1 

•« 1 ■■■■.fri'toR»b 

♦ai -JCy fo 

ST ir-. 


♦ •xjjono 

J • < 

t .T»ii*a 


39 551 


CO^fAKY, a oorporation, 



29 4I.A. 605 


Xnie is a suit on a policy ol' InsuratiGe ie&ued by clel'eudaat 
on the life oi' Albert Hodftghier in the B\m of |1,000, iu mkiioh 
policy plaintiff is named as benefieiary. a Jury returned a verdict 
In favor of plaintiff and against defendant in tne sum of $974*68 
and defendant appeals from a jud^ent entered upon the verdiet. 

The cooaplaint alleges, inter alia . , tixe issuance of the 
policy on Deoeuber 15, 1932, and the deatA of Albert Kodeghier on 
March 15, 1935, It also alleges that the preaiuas were paid, tuat 
until the time of his deatii, Albert Hod*ghier kept and perfox^ed 
all conditions, obligations and requirements ol said policy, and 
that plaintiff has kept auid performed all tilings by her to be done 
under the terms of the policy. The answer of defondant adiiiits tne 
issuEUice of tne policy, and avers that the policy requires an annual 
pr«Biium payment of $15.56 on December 16 of each year and tx^at such 
premium payments are necessary to keep tne policy in force. It ad- 
mits that Albert ftodegJriier died on March 15, 1935, deriies that the 
policy was in force on txiat daie, and avers tixat the policy lapsed 
for the nonpayment of the annual premium due December 16, 19 34; 
that en account of said nonpayiaent the policy lapsed and tras not 
in force on the date of the de&U^ of Albert Kodeghier, Plaintiff 
filed a replication denying the lapse of the policy and alleging 
that it was still in force at tae tiuie ol the deatn of Albert 
Bodegiiier, because he nad made application for a loan which was 


. X -4.;-vw- 

lUVj >n 

goe .A.ii^es 

[ett«<( liU« 3qpA i&iauBbQii jx^dJLA ^tiijitob air* liJuiJ 
,^iXof[ ibxca to a^A«ui»-iiirp«-x tniK aflol^^a^lXdo ,i>u&X4i.^uoo IXa 

tXMhMftl** t« «**«a; .YolXon aJJ 

iU>/j>> J«x<J i^oft i«e^ r.9«L> xftd'MsaaG. oa d< 

w»««x ^li. - '**' ^^-f'-* •'" *»'^ •^*^ x;*'^-'^®^ 

;>C4^X ,SX Tfi *wi> aftjJLin»io iuwai mi ♦ii* i:o't 

^,a •/•■ ■'■ -■-■ -'^ '^ **'*■'■ 

a«e«i3te<] °by dvfendaat with tii« aaeuraue* that said applicatiofi w«« 
sul'fieient persE'oxwanoe 9I' th* undtrtaJtiiigs oT tli« iii«ur«d to &«in- 
tain the policy in force and effect during the pwrideney of such 
loan applieatloJa and for a reason&bla time thereafter. Defendant 
filed a rejoinder to the rex)lioation. 

defendant oontendt that "the verdict and Jadgiuant are con- 
trary to tiie auuiifeat weight of the sTilenea," land it aeke us "to 
revarsQ the judipusnt and remand the eaase lor a new trial." After 
a careful exaaination of the evi lance we are satisfied triat thie 
eontention ia a awritoriotte one, As the oase may t>& tried again, 
we refrain froai analyzing the ^Tidenoe and coiajiienting upon it. 

Defendant raises and argues other contentions but ^^e do 
not deem it neoeeeary to paee upon fcie .jame. 

She judgnent of tns Circuit court of Coo^ county ia 
rerersed, an J Uie oause ie z>emanded for a new trial* 

Friend, i». J,, and Sulllvani, J,, concur. 

-n©o an* JfKM 

• lit '^I1»ii^ 

, ;■ ««i»r': 




i.4:viriiRS WTwa. ^m^m.!: 


J/ f Q(MiT Of GHIC.GO^ 

294I.A. 605 


im* svs'aci^ ba^mAH p.^u[Vj^iBi^ tMd opimioh ojt' ms cghrx* 

Plaintiff, as "beneficiary under a esrtificate of meEtoerfihip 
for $500 issued to Ms mother >y defendant, a mutxial "benefit asso*- 
• iaticm, sued defendant a£t@T the death of the inQureS. Defendant 
filed an amended affidavit of defense whioh arsrs that deceased ^ 
Anna M» Sogers > died of haart disease, **and more ijartioulu.rly 
descrih«d as toxic H^ocarditis and Coronary aabolism,* and that 
under the torras of the policy plainiiifi", the "beneficiary, was 
entitled to $100 end no more; that the tender of the |100 was laads 
"before the institution of the etiit, and is here"by again tendered in 
this action in full liQUidation of defendant* s obligation to plain* 
tiff. Plaintiff thereupcm aored for a partial judgnent for :^100t 
whioh was entered and satisfied, k jury rendered a verdict finding 
the issues against defendant and aasescing plaintiff's damaees In the 
mm of ^00* liefendant appeals from a Judgneat entered upon the 

thft eertifioate of membership contains the following clause i 
"BtSSA-SISit Should the memher die \iithin twelve months from the d^e 
of this c rtificate from heart disease, liver or kidney trouhle, 
Bright* s disease, dia"betes, oenoer, arterio-schloroBie, cerebral 
hemorrhage, pernicious anaemia, tuheroulosiL; or any chronic disaase. 




«i»«ajs«oa!> iMi ati'Tw dolriv; uanalofe "io ;tJt-v.tjXi:'ls i>. . ,i iw beXJt'i 
t^:t/ilol'. ^ IJtioljHiIq YO-J^-£<*^ ^^^^ "^0 ami®* oit^ lobm/ 

^i-ball inibtvr a hox9bti9Z xisti ^b^llati.^^ ba£ ^intaiatt tum doUtv 

wM fil en^ammb a *lll^tti'>Xq aAlacfieao fifte itit^bstst^-ti intjttt-iT^ ««0aaJt edi 

•ouj^.^v. .»* .all*, i rjd^ aniriinoo qfJuiutotfuow lo '« w.w.- 
.A.:j i,-j*» JBoxl eilJaaa arle'^'-^ '-''^ '' ■ ' -'^ • • '■' ■ '-'■' • ':- 

t oL4ttQt i 'i^iflb la{ 10 a^n V XX , f I . « u ,. 

X^jtxcf' • , .'.«a-i«Xrio«-ol-r»» , vwfccr«;i' ' 

.•««»aiA DlcBido TH* sft ai I: ^r , mMimmauta 


the Associn-tlon will pay one-fifth of the riaount which would 
otherwise "be payahle tinder the terms of this certificate.* 
(Italics ours.) 

Jtefendant oontende that "the verdict of the juyry and Judg^ 
ment entered thereon are againot the manifest t/ei^t of the evidence 
lieoause the member died of heart disease >* less than four months 
after the date of the certificate, and the payment of #100 die- 
charged the liability of defendant. The contention is v/ithout 
merit, and we feel impelled to state that, in our opinion, the de- 
fendant was not justified in contesting plaintiff* b claim. But two 
witneseea testified in the cause, plaintiff and 2?r, Julian L. i'laut* 
Plaintiff, the son of the insured, testified that his mother lired ' 
at 5308 Hirde Park "boulerardj thrt he lived less than half a block 
from her home and that he B9.v her almost ersry day? that in October 
1935, she applied for the insurance in questioni that Ms mother had 
a seven-room apartment and took care of it v^ith the hslp of a. maid. 
Plaintiff attempted to shew that his mother ^xb.b in apparent good ' 
health, for a person of her age, for a period of something like six 
months prior to the latter part of January, 1936. The trial comrt 
sustained an objection of defendant to this testimony. Tlie offered 
testimony was competent. The witness was permitted to testify that 
from October 25, 1935, until Dr. i^laut w.s called to see Ms mother, 
about the middle of Janu£.ry, 1936, she had no medical attention. The 
witness further testified that on Few Yearts 5ve, 1956, he and Ms 
wife took Ms mother to the midnight show at the Palaoe theater aHA 
from there they went to Ireland's restaurant and had sometMn- to e*tf 
that .^le there Ms mother complained that ehe had eau^t a cold| 
she coamieneed to sneeze, had cMlls, and he immediately took her 
home, where she was confined until her doathj that he called Dr. 
Plant about January 20. Defendant stipulated that Jlr. Plant wai an 
expert in Ms profession. The doctor testified that he was called 

blxs^ti doMxr immm wi^ "io rf.^li"i-««o xaq lltw no ii^i ooaaA 9di 
^•miA9lltii90 alxfj to agnsi 9ii^ -xoferaf sLdrnx^q »<f »raiw-cerf*o 

•<«6<rt btw v^irt ail* "io icxotsv ©rf;t* darfj nb:t»imo ^too&nelfXI 
••Bei>*v3 ai£i "io vi^ftlai? tfeatin:::^ art* iactlaris »t« nooiBtli bt9X9in* iat^m 
Bditna 'xuol xx-od^ c:«9X *teeiSGa.t£) ^rcji^oH lo b e ito iis»f saam »tii ensiafiei 

O-JrJ *ii3 .11I.V I;. ^I'lx.'ri" .r.r nx:i «...:.' T'O: ..... .jjgw ;^fjA£>fiel 

.w^..: ,,. .■,. ...... . .: ..a..w^.I^i ,-...., .. .i^. i.L. .^slli.taeJ' adaseii^lw 

&»ViX u'iiWott dill ^iiJi.' :i^4lt±*aft* ,f)»s»rr'' -' •'- — • - '+ ^y'^i.ini.&lH. 

:f*oIcf « 'xXcii nxirfi r^aal bS!Y-^'■ :""' ' "'" ' 7 ..'uotf '■'■■■" •' o 

tblam i. ' ' si«o 2£oOv £>«« ;^n»axtt«^t» «»0'£-a»To:2 £; 

boos ^fte>-«I«B fli ».s»' -rrjidour aM isd;? woxia i^C-taX? 

x±B 3i£xX vcirt-eeiotJ 'lo !!>o . « '©"i ndt^ La&d 

fc»7oYto affT ♦vio:ai;fa«J aide lOido&ttfo nc fcerxJt.eJowa 

,l«&0« aiiC sev -.tO ao^ ^ii«X^ •«!. Xi^jEff; ,d£9X «@S 7«flr«;foO «»*£) 

»A .nol-ne^^n Xcolot^ai on barf aria tdCOI tyiifj^aat. '!» »X!bbt« 9Ai iufi4* 

aM ba» 9A ,»<;«X to^'^ -»x«©Y r/eH r. ©Jtti*'*©* iariit-xi/1 aasju^Jtv 

hm rb$ef)dJ ••aX^^ exl* «« irori'': trf^- ^fi:)la a:. -CJnrn -■».tff :«edJ> «liw 

liAA 0.-^ BJW;t»0©e b«l baa iOJ^vi ^ba-tilttl o ^di motl: 

IJbXoa m i^lUi* ojuf e^' i.j^' r.n^ixJLsX'rnoo TexC^ottr aM a-xaxfJ aXMw dAiii 

'x*if A)»- vJ[e#J»it'f>.- . « : rJtM^ t'l^r »<•.«! ..^-ff. aj a a Qtt€:, '.mo I) Sjfa 

fuj o/jVT ;rMaX. tWl <*jrf 
b»IX;)0 MV ftrf iisr' u ni J-iUi-o 


to Bee Anna M. Rogers on January 25 » 1936| that hie first exami- 
nation showed that "she was very acutely ill^ running a rather 
high temperature, and I couldn*t find anything definite other than 
what we call the upper respiratory function or a had cold that 
had gone into the chest* Hovreyer* the follov/ing day there ware 
enough physical findings to warrant a diagnosis of pneianonia;* that 
he then called upon her constantly until her death» Fehruajy 4p 1936| 
that he sometimes called to see her three times a day* The following 
then occurred in the examination of the witnesst 

"Q,* Will you please tell the Court and the Jury just what 
you foimd from day to day on your examination of this patient? Just 
tdce it from the 25th, now. 

"A* "^ellf on the 25th as I said she was rery acutely ill 
and on the 26th there were enou^ physical findings to warrant the 
diagnosis of hronchial pneujaonia, and in which she had what we call 
rales, dullness and even lessened respiratory sounds, and hreathing 

in the hases* as she went alone from day to day the "base of Tsoth 


lungs were all consolidated/ you might say gelatineous so there was 

no air admitted and she was suffering tremendously from lack ©f 
sufficient oxygen* vie put her in an oxygen tent and she rested 
coneiderahly esisier when we left her in there* Her temperature 
remained quite high and I think for two or three days I did not 
exsmne her chest, as long ae she was apparently comfortahle sind 
apparently was not going dovm Mil. ^round the end of January or 
the first or second of i'ehruary her temperature "began to decrease 
and on the - - X think it was the 2nc] or 3rd of S'ehruary her temper- 
ature was normal* bhe was taking food very poorly and we had to 
almost foroe feed her* On the 3rd, I felt that she was well enough 
to take more nourishment, vie had a litole difiiculty in getting her 
to co-operate* Her temperature was normal and her pulse had gone 

•xafCie .iUUT ,IXi y:X©;ftfOJS x^^^ *3i.s!W sKa" ;tndi bswoifa no 

W xwWo a^iffilsb ynirfi'viits bjxil ^»c6XxiO;- I bos «9i«*Bt»qjH»;; rfS-^J^ 
i£il2 J>Xoo Diicf r; 10 ofoiioniiA Yio.t*!CJtq[Kt4'r i«<j^;j arf;^ IX;. o ew izdw 
oxem ciadJ •^xjfo -;niM?oXXol ^iC:? , -jTi^ivs^voT' «?.;ai:!:c orf.;' o:n.t one '. -d 

i6cex ,* \r-.^^tf*»* I- - - ' - 

#MlKr Jawt x'^uX srfJ {«!« ;tTjjoO ©rii XXe;t eajssXq i/ii ; > 

•wow tri;J8S sxti moix Ji oafe* 
111 u;l»#tfoa x'^«v a43W ada bJtaa I aa ii;?3a &Ad n-^ ,11 
AfH iiunrcsv ^ v^AtbHll tstlQXfLq. dsuoa& »t»vr «-x«tfi^ fiim edit no bas 

■jnr «T6dl oc tfuo©ci*«X©8 ^e rfjCgttt «o^ NjJbsifl&iXoaftoo XX/s ©twv.- erjjn;i 
%o :ioJil ssatl \Jiauohtita&t& ^nliollua ej9W «Ir 6«j9 fjciTJiaiha ^i« o: 

^oa blft I nxtUi e-^- .- .. ..;. _ 

fcn'; stSniroJtaoo ^^XJ-iwirtaqc: ^ ,-',.. 

•J bsul 0\> t)il*H '\cX::&o<i xit- -aw mit^ ^l^a-x.. 

ifSUOC* ^9V flUBW AlfCI *«il. t <i 04AJ «0 •'X©f{ tje»'i. 0010 i .i«oiaX4i 

•iio^ b«rf •«X)»9 T«rf b«fi l:mtOi. ,. ^s^i 1^,^ *9Hax»z^- 

down praotioally to nornal* I saw her a little after mldnl^t 

on the Srd and assured the family as I was leaving she was going 

or an hour 
to get veil* within an hour^and a half they called me and told 

me she had died* 

"%• Will you tell the Court and Jiiry what is the meaning 
of coronary em^jolism? 

'*A* Coronary embolism is the lodging of a clot or a foreign 
suTiBtanee such as fat into one of the arteries which supply the mus- 
culature of the heart with hlood supplying that portion of the heart 
which is furnished with that "blood or nourished by that Teasel* 

%• Doctor, will you please tell the Court and Jury the 

meaning of myocarditis, toxic ayocarditlB? 


"A* Toxic 3Byo«arditis is the result of poisoning to the 
heart muecle so that if we \vould see a heart in that condition the 
muscles would appear swollen, ao we call it, a cloudy swelling, and 
functionally, or as they act, they woxild not have the proper strength 
to contract and force the hlood through the hody as they had formerly. 
In other words t it i© a weakened muscle that is due to poisonins, and 
toxin is a poisoning just as in diphtheria there ie a toxin that is 
developed which causes the illness much more than the haoteria or the 
germs cause the diptheria* 

*Qt# How, Doctor, did you find any "bronchial pneumonia? 

«A* I did# * ♦ * 

"Mr. Clark [attorney for plaintiff]* * * * Q,* »vhat waa 

the cause, in this particular patient, of this toxie myocarditis? 

[attorney for defendant]: 
"Mr. Bennetjy" If he knows. 

*A» Aeoording to Cecil's Text Book of Medicine which is 

one of the accredited Text Books taught to medical students here ia 

the middle west, they state very definitely that an acute a^ocardia 

or a toxin is probably always secondary to any acute infection and, 

as I mentioned before, diphtheria which is one of the best knom 

; > >.- 3X(a :^irji9l aaw i ^ije xllsoiil otii bdiuaaa bna hx€ ttiii tto 

rwQxi n£ to 
6X0 J oas em belLao "zeAi ll&d & bifjis^iiosi tia akiiiL ♦XXaw Je^ o 

S<tla£MS old al ^iiuir. \;tjjT, bnjs uijjoO eii^ LL'ji mom IX i.' t^" 

osir-xol Is ^ ^o iiitiksboX ^dj :as. xauilcdia© TS'£*»a<s*^o^ *A" 

- ioa i-xf. ^IqqjBB ifoirf* s^t^el 10 sno oiat ^Bt a« ifewe aonjB^stfjjra 

ad;t oJ 3n±nodxoc£ lo ilu:i ; t^ i.h%aoQYJtst oixfti' *Ji'' 

oi£;t ms.:ibnoo iiid:: rtx ime&ii ^ sot. bIjjo\'f 9\5r li ctjsi(j oa sioawra iioAd 

baa , jfiillawTB ^&x;oXo < ' trioXXore 'iaf>q;q:i3 feXtfow s^oaim 

A'v 'xaqoiq ed;^ vrstl con bluo-.v- Xarf^t ,*©£ x ' ? ' :sa U otsu'^. 

tXLz&{ '. Tjad* ae Xi>otf ©^^ jeTswoxjIj &ooXcf orL n.g *o«'XJfroo t>;^ 

baa nzaiMoai^q oi f. sXosirm bea&lU tSbtovf %fidi<> nl 

ax rodidq"!.' niffoaioq /3 si jjixr 

•xii '10 jE)2-xeJO£(f 9d;f fuxlJ caonx rfouar taasrtXXi oxlo B© ffoJtrfvy fceqoXoyoft 

•£J:']:oj(iiq;l{> oxi;^ t^ai/^o uiEt^es 
?jitaomaon<i X«irionoTtf vni3 bnil ut^x hth iioiooQ. ,wol2 •P'' 

-':• ■■* ^ 4bib I .A" 

?3i.-ifjT«oo^ olxoi Bin « -«Xfl»Jt;ftsq aJU^' • ^:^ms^o Bdi 

ex£w; pies of toxic myooatditiB and sudden death. I doubt if there 
is anyone that will refute the statement that death can he caused 
through the toxicity of the diphtheretie Ijacillae. 

**^« Doctor » do you understand that heart disease) so-'called^ 
has one meaning with the average person or the layman and a different 
meaning for the medical profession? 

"Mr* Bennett t That is ohjected to* 

**fhe Courts Sustained* 

"Kr* Clark I Q,« ¥111 you explain to the Court and Jury Just 
what is meant hy heart disease? 

I "A* Heart disease corers any ailment to which the - - in 
whieh the circulation is impaired or irregular. That may he due to 
infection* it may he due to a congenital or a lesion where the patient 
is horn with the defect* it may he the result of infection such as in 
rhexaaatism where freciuently the valTes ai»e so involved that there is 
what is known as a leak* and I would say that moso people consider 
heart disease that condition in which there is a leaky valve or a 
whistlings or a whisper* or a heart leak or a heart murmur. Ihat 
does not cover all of the diseases of the heart* 

"Q,* Did you find at any time on your examination of this 
patient leakage of the heart? A* Z did not* 

"Mr* Bennett* Oh, that is ohjeoted to* He can tell what 
he did find hut what he did not find - - 

"The Court: If he examined her for that purpose he may 

"A* In exasiinlns a patient wa usually go over them looking 
for heart trouble* 

"The Courts Did you in this case look for heart trouble? 

"A* Ye 3 9 I did* I do in every case* 

•Mr* CJlarki C;,* ;aid did you rind it? A* I did not* 

*%• Doctor, will you please tell the Court and Jury what 


• 8J3lXiojB£f oti9S9iij edi xf^uo-ixfi 

■; rro ! ; " r- "V »• . _: ,. 

.... .-cM" 


tealfjsq •!!;> t>%t>tiff nolasl ■; -lo X.-v,-' inoBJOo o & oS airb »if x«iw cs r xaoliQ&ltit 
fll ai3 daws HoWo«1tni lo iXiiasi <i i* dd^iw irrorf a.: 

ai •nc«i(^ i£dS '.ovXovnJ: cg qis 8*vX«v 0il. cxai lirimuwr 

rtcbiaaoo s.Xq«©q ;tBO« c^^iif^ tC-^'^u f>Xi;ovv- I bxwi taCjssX s 'jh (Otmisii Bi ^j«I 
£ 10 s'vXbv "^ateeX a ax 9t9dS ifoirfw ni noiitibfioo dax£;J 9^at>mt'o i'£n&d 

,iXBBd ar! J:^ or!:? on aeob 

^Mtta 1-.- 


.f , »~Vll 

•^il.; '^It .-0^^^i;' 

i-^ii uoaiKt 

T»Xtf'ti:i. t'lumd "jQi. :3Lbol kiSfii' ^^hi. 

. ijXeljtfO'iU itflftrf to" 


If anything is the differenoe Taetween bronohial pneumonia, and toxlo 

"A. Bronchial pneiamonJla is aji infeotion of the liings. ISyO" 
carditis is an affection of the heart, the heart is involyed in a 
myocarditis. Pneumonia affects the limgs primarily and from zlva-t 
there may 'oe poiscnB throvm into the circulation which may affect 
any organ of the hody and the heiirt may or may not be affected "by 
it. In this particular case I feel that the heart was poisoned hy 
the toxin of the hronohial pneumonia and weakened, 

"C;,. How, Doctor, from your attendance on the patient and 
your examinationB and your medical experience do you an opinion 
as to the cause of the death of Anna M» r:ogers? 

"At. The cause of death mis hronchial pneumonia which bo 
injured the heart that she died suddenly fro© an acute collapse or 
an acute failure of the heart • 

*Q,« As a matter of fact, Doctor, isn't so-called heart dis- 
ease a lingering disease? 

"Mr. Bennett I That is o"bjected to, if the Court please. 
It can Toe lingering or not lingering. That is just the point. If 
you put the question i^hether it is a lingering or is not a lingering 
disease it would he proper for an answer* 

"Ifip. ClarkJ Q,. Is heart disease a lingering disease? 

*A* Heart disease may "be a lingering disease and it aay not 
he a lingering disease. The so-called acute deaths from heart disease 
c.?,nnot be found « - well, you could see within a v/eek prior to death* 
Heajrt disease as it is commonly spoken of by the layman Is a lingering 

The cross-examination of the vdtnesB was as follows » 

"Q,* l3 all poisoning: of the heart heart disease? 

*A» ?Jhat do you mean by poisonins of the heart? 

'Hi* Inflammation of the ityooardium that was caused by 

■\jl,' ■^■'' i"r- .Qfl :''j :t v'. — :. ^ ..'irCJ «1 

bii-Li -no... .. ^.-o no sori ..'41 V.V --" •;.-'•' ^.■,,i,-^ . 

10 «QqcXXoc 9*i/0J5 rij ^ 

-." ■ >9ii bsXX£!0-oa J-'nei ,TOJ-ooiI «iOv.A ... • " 

11 #;Jiiloq ox£;t *aut a J: iadT ♦saiiesniX Jo« io ■sal'i&srtll etf r 
^jiilaesnlX J3 iosi ol 'to x^atta^i 'Itod'^^ notJe&up Qd'i iuq uox 

*r&vTcnfi na 'lo'i 10^0 tn &<J blue /b 

fsaoealb ftaiioi^ni.l a ©aaseib itsm. . . X *'il^^ 

ion xaa SI baa eaaeaLb v^aiiesnxX a ocT ■vijsbi ©aoeaifo *:r;;GiK ♦A'* 

BBMmalb tT.A9ti XHOTt Qii;tno& oSuos* !!)»XXso-oa erIT «»en©Gih rniie^fxiX a •rf 

• riJAof) o:t foiaq alssw n jBJfcric^j:\. .jroc wov ,XXsw - - bmtoi t(S ;Jofjc«.,?.o 

snliDji/iIX 4 ai naflnC'UX erf^ r.cT to no^orn ''■Xnortuno n at .>j: .0 ©ejaealb *':>^9H 



"A. Uo you hare reference to this Bpecific case? Q,, Yes* 

"At Yes. Biat was due to the toxin frcsa thus TjroncMal 

■ti. And the t was a disease of the heart? A* Mo* 

"Q,* Toxio myocarditis is a heart dlg«as«« 

"A* That is a descriptiTi? term* 

"Q,. Is it clRBPified by the %or.t "book rjTitaxn as a heart 
dlsaase? A* Y3S» 

•^« And in your death oeirtificnte you laljcled thin l^dy'^s 
Aeatli as caused by myooarditis. 

"A* I'd! lowing Tsronohial pieumonia. 

•Ci« You als-e said th&t she - - that ocs of the causes of 
her death vas coronary embolism. A* Yes> sir. 

•Q,« ^holism "being a olot of some kind? A« That* 3 ri.-^t* 

•^i At what location? 

•a* In the coronary TeseelB» the heart vessels p the resBols 
suppljidngr'the heart ^th "blood. 

"Q.* fhe heart Tessel i© the little artery that feeds the 
heart itself? A* Yes, sir* 

"%• And that foreign su'bPtance proha"bly closed the hody? 

•A* Closed tho ressel off so it stopped notirishiaeiit. 

"Q,. And then -^^en the h®s.rt ^fould not hare this nourish- 
ment of course thfre is only one r^Bult, tla^^t is de&th? A* Yes. 

*Q,» By the "way, I t-how you here a dooi?3aent that ie marked 
Plaintiff's ^iTthihit On© end ask jcv. to tel3, the Court what that is, 

"A. This is a photostatic copy of a. d©ath certificate vi-Moh 
I sifqaed for Hrs. Anna ¥.» "Rogers. 

»Q,» /nd supplied "by the Beard of Health of CMcago? 

"A* Tea. I assume bc» anyway. 

•Q.. And the original of thJ.e is on file? 

lairl'jfiQ'Zti 9x£:i fiioi't nixoo 'i'XW o3 eufc Sjcs-v ijerH' .aftY •A" 
•0^ .A ?i ' " 

•♦^baX niilv beXfco'sX JL'oy e. 

./tino^tr/sf-r; .r^Mr'no'rd" -■rr.^'^o.fXo'? « 

?rroi;J''TOoX d- r- , 
•£»aa«T ©xl* taXo.-JQev J--f,:;Oii -jr.J ^aXsiRasY Y-'^R0too 

• booXr/ ^.1-JtvT dt'-,ii^ aiiJ j,xiJ:\X'.iq/; 
etM^' ab^e^i ;^i*if^ X^o^t*:* sSJill ed* a.c X»aaav i-zuml eifi' > " 

fX^9d Bdt bcBoXo v.Xrf^cfO'ig 90fU3;t'3tfifs r^^isTCO'S^ cr^rf,^ fta • ' 
• isauttisirwQii "io Xoaaev wrf* feeeoXO ..■.* 

«4lalTii9n aJttio' «▼-->«£ .ion bXixo> if* «e££v; stfuii btu 

• aoY •;. i; !^ao ^i;Xno ai: tyi*ut;f ••:>oTifon to cfufira 

^oat-xxKa -; a9s^j00l) >i e'ifcif i/ov; worfri i ,x»w oil.; 

♦ Bi , JfftJS &*:; fc»XlO •:tMJ::' it ''riXlKtifi.'; 

?3Xi't. no .u *«i-' i.ii-.. *j^* 

"Ao In the Board of Health, tTcuitUi right. 

■■^i^i And now, s^ * * juat after oh tloa third, 
I suppose you masun tho early luoming of tha fourth, you left her 

"A* Tas* 

*<«i« :.nd that is the time you told the children she -iWis 
going to get well? A* Yes, 

%• In other 'Aords, shQ made Biifficient response tliat yoa 
had quite a Tait of oonfldenoe in hsr pulling through? A* That's 

•Ci* And her death was eoae two hours later? A. Tee*, sir, 

*^i A sudden dsath? A. Tea, sir* 

"€>,* Reported to you hy the people in the home? A, Tes« 

%• She died in three or four oiinutee or so? 

"A* Very quiclcly, y^B, sir* 

%u ]?rom your exaBtination and ohservation you clBssified 
hisr death as catBsd "by coronary emlaolism and toxio Myocarditis 
following hroncliial ancimonia? A« 'Jhat is correct. 

"Q,* "Sox,-, also coronary embolism hy the text hook writers 
in the medical profession is that classified as one of the heart 
diseaaee? A* Tes, eir« 

"Q,» '.■'ould you r,o clastdfy it? A, Yes, sir. 

*Q,« You would also so classsify toxic myocarditie? 

"A* That's right. However, if I luay add, "both of those 
conditions are extremely acute and there is no means of proving 
they were there previously. 

"Q,. Then it is possihle for many an apparently healthy 
person to drop dead of Myocc-rditis? A. Tes, sir. 

*%» It \^ould be a heart diseass? A. Yes. 

"0^. And I hpve never heen ahle bo treat it in Biy life? 

•A. That's right. ;:>© you can't say you hare heart trouble 

tid-iii-z y^K'iJii ^fiilnQli J.0 bXtsOfi sdS ill aA" 

adc neabliilo ari»f bloj' «e\; ©«io aif.^ 

»8fT »A" 

o!^ snioa 

• 'i i ; < ■ c ^ ^ " - 

Toa TO (tsiuata iiso' 

Jkelliaajslo jjonc noi^JfsTiodrfo One jnoiJei. r.^" 

•#j>»Tioo 3i ctariP.' .A ^ s^ifnoauoaL Xjsljtfottoxtf gixiwellol 

txawf srii to sno bc beillaaaXo is\di at croisaelortg t«oib«aB e: 

f alii - . .,''" 

■: to eiifi«n on ».?■ 3'ie.f ■ ^.n-.^t-fl^^rrr- 

S'&xiX v/a r" ■ ■ '' 

until it happens* 

•Tir, Bennett: I know that." 

On the re-direct examination the following occurred: 

"^^ Bid I understand you to say therewas no way of deter- 
Bdnizig this until it happened? A* That is correct. •• 

The oertifleate of death furnished the Board of Health Toy 

Br» Plaut contains the following: 

"The principal ecus© of death and related 

causes of importance were aB follows: Xate of onset 

Coronary liMjolism •*......••.• 2/4/36 

Toxic Myocarditis following 

Bronco pneumonia •.....•••••• 1/25/36 

Other contrilsutory causes of importance: 

Upper Respiratory Infection ••.•.«•• Jan» 1> 1936" 

The jury were justified » fraea a consideration of the entire testi- 
mony» in finding that the proximate cause of the death of Mrs. Rogers 
was 'bronchial pneumonia. The doctor testified that from his examina- 
tions of the patient and his medical experience his opinion was tha-t 
"the cause of death was "bronchial pneumonia which so injured the heart 
that she died suddenly from an acute collapse or an acute failure of 
the heart;" that in his examinations of the patient he looked for 
heart trouble and found none. It is a matter of common knowledge 
that in cases of pneumonia death finally results i'rcm heart failure . 
Indeed, any death is iBsmediately preceded "by a failure of the heart 
to function. It is an idle and imfair argimient for defendant to 
contend that the heart failure that occurred in the instant case was 
heart disease within the meaning of the provision in the polity* The 
following language in the provision in question is very significant i 
"DIS3A.S:3Sa Should the memher die within twelve months from the date 
of this certificate frcaa heart disease, * * * or an y chronic disease 
* * *•« The purpose of the provision is obvious. The testimony of 
the doctor shows that the heart weakness developed suddenly and that 
within three or four minites after it developed Mrs. Rogers was dead. 

Xi **XrsH ^0 bTjEoS 9Ai bddHkmut diBeb to ©^Aoili^rcso »jSCT 


»T»:--ofI • aaX lo d^iaeb or'.. odi i£id^ sxxibni': kJ. t^noiB 

-AiilBsxs alil 11011: J.^^riJ > mJiwfjefK?: X^nlriOflOTcT aaw 

iatii turn mtal^o eJuf aonsixec, )ta nhi lo tmo.i 

•^beXwonu xxc^-s) o -■■. - '.'■";■■' 

^x.':«ii oifd lo s'luXl^;! a xd bobeoeicq -^XoJ^Bib^inxal al il^^.i^u \;£u «bi>obnI 

0. 'tms bn .nold^onjjl o;J 

Biiw »«£0 fmjiiuai ti^ nJ. bt/nxuooc ruj&d ndi iitidi bnoiicic: 

•ift w^^UXoc^ odi ai aol&lr^ inxnoora 9ni aiiiiiv oaaeaXb ^"x^axl 

itvaoi\lm?l9 xtvr al mliBtu:) at txoi^iiTO'iq Sidi ml 9%mir^si^il i^jilwoXXol 
t> J:isb ttd.i a»Tl aif^non oTX*v/;t ixl<{Ji:w eXb -lOcTxaaK arU JbXi/oxU :^ciA^ICI'' 
aa<i»aib toaaeaJtb Jijaexf aajitl oiaoill^'oo sidi lo 

lo XBtt^^^ ^ *^ toaoivJo cl mot' ir%/ici &di lo eaoqiuq »dT < ' 

;^Ad^ bsia \la»bbuB baqo aif atft imdJ svroxle xoioob exi. 

aiosO'' .3:iV boqoXev. icTlA aatflnlis nxrol to &6xdi aid^lw 

- 10- 

|n KlJj;ual_.Idfe.InB_i_CG.. v. Dodge, 11 P. (2d) 486, the court said 
(p. 489): "The words 'l>odily Infixinity or disease* are frequoQtly 
used in policies of insurance and iiare a well understood meaning. 
They are construed to "be practically eynonymous, and to refer only 
to an ailment or disease of a settled ch;a.raoter." In Meyer t> 
gidelliyiJ?- ??:5ual.ty Ooj^ 65 H. • 323, the court held that ';he words 
"disease" or*lJOdily infirmity," as used ia a prorision in an accident 
policy exempting insured from liaMlity for injuries caused thereby j 
mean practioally the sscie thing* and only include an ailment or dis- 
order of a somewhat estalslished or settled character, and not merely 
a temporary disorder, arising from seme sudden and unexpected de- 
rangement of the system* though it produces unconsciousness* In 14 
H. C» L» p. 1244, the author states (sec. 422) x "The words Misease* 
and *'bodily infirmity," as used in an accident insurana* policy ex- 
cepting liability for injury caused thereby, mean, practically, the 
sane thing, and refer to some ailment or disorder of a somewhat es- 
tablished a.nd settled character, some physical disturbance to which 
the insured is subject, and of which an attack causing him an injury 
is, in some measure » a recurrence} and they hare no reference to any 
temporary disorder which is new and unusual, and arises from some 
sudden and unexpected derangement of the system, though it produces 
or causes laiconsciousness." See, also, Gooley's Briefs on Insurance 
(2d) Vol. 6, p* 5341; and Ballentine*B Law Dictionary, where the word 
''disease" is defined as "an ailment or disorder of :in established or 
settled oharroter." 

In the instant case the jury rery properly fotand, under the 
evidence, that the proximate cause of the death of Krs. Sogers was 
pneumonia, and we would be entirely unjustified in holding that 
their finding was not warranted by the proof. In Qentral . coident 
Ins» Go . T» Bembe* 220 111* 151, the policy exempted the oompanj^ 
from liability if death resulted from the "talcing of poison or 


-ox - 

• 8iiiu^»<>i hoc svjad: Dn*c aojMiwujsi Ip aeioiXcK! ni feoaix 

•^ l^Xi^Jt ■ ^-^^0 beX;JJ 9a«d«J: ;'»iaXJ:« «i o;f 

•ftvov «(;' iesli bXor . < , . .JlXabi' 

ttihblo^s ax nt nolaivcaq b tti. beai; .sMtitni. Y-tXboef*'!. ,;x&" 

-•46 to Snetilii: ns 9bul&n*- vXno bru- ^•'■KMd ©fliBa aflLi -icIXs^ld- o^~5iq rwear 

XXtaMs Joa bJM iisi-o/itfifCo bel;li<ia to iy&d^iLL. i£f\v-9«»a fi \o aie&io 

-•fc ba#o«iz«asf bcs itebbi/s ©{rrf? Ka-rl ^jniaits t"i»bioaJ:h -\:xai:oqflt»* « 

"io -isb^coaib lo JnamXi oxccs cJ i6l.'.- utL: t.siiJLSii stOBc. 
iCftiiiw 3 90ii£Kixuinlb Ifoia-ygrft SJfcfCB ti»^o«t*nlo beX^Joe bojs b«i£aiXcfB;J 

XlM oi ©aosttlot o« ©rarf "v:«ifi bac {aonetTx/oet « toiwejfj©* eiooa tti ,4.l 
•■»• M)t1 ■ealta brt/: « X/^.^aiim; bnn Mren el doXdnf 'xsbtoelb x^'^'^^V^^^ 

•o«xiM:i/-2Kl no ale ' , ( a©rf««oloeooonjj G»auat to 

taow OCC^ rraifv tX^aMiivSO. y^juJ. a'oaJtJneXX.oS bne |X*Se ^q «c) ^XoV (bS) 

50 h: © fu; "to tebio^irb TO intttoLla as" a« b««i:'i©b al •©a«©8lS'* 

eil^ t©6flir tbmiot xli9<tt>TXi t^»r X^l «rf* •^ao lB«*a«i ©riJ xi 
ajs . xM "t* x£iii«l> ©df %o •«tm© ©(t/sttixotqr etrf^ ;rA£[^ i»on&bXye 

^.-rrf^ -fr>«>Ioff nt &ol"li^a«it«'^ "^Xatiirny atf bXifOw »w bfi« ^Aiaomjotsxi 
in . .lootq ©d;> -(Ttf h^tttHi'Ttzw ;t«« gaw ^jsioibnll xior[;t 

f.c fit .'j^'jU i^: ;..,jtui« SUA.* jiasj A A ij _v! a-^v'.- > _ j.i.,a;^*./ jx X^ •'■XXIUSlXX IBKJt i 

eontp.ot; with poisonous suTjetanoe," and in that case the insured, 
a phyeician* nx3cidentally wounded Mb finger in an attenipt to 
unoork a "bottle, tlxe neck of which Tsroke, while attending a 
sypMlitio patient, fhs rirus from the patient entering the wound, 
causing fatal hlood poisoning. The Supreme court held that, undar 
the facts, the provision in question in the policy did not exempt 
the aompsjiy from liability. The iniling in that case is hased upon 
the principle that the proximate cause of the death of the insured 

wae the accidental .vounding of his finger in an attempt to uncork 
the hot tie. ilany other cases to the same effect might he cited if 

it were necessary. In the InBt.^t case pneumonia was the moving 

force without which Mrs. Roger ^7ould not hare diede 

The Judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago is a just one 

and it should "be and it is affirmed. 

7m)(s/MT Af fiHa^a). 

Priend, P* J., and Sullivan, J., ooneur* 

anJtvoa a.i- saw ijluoaiJjbttvi -'.-a..' , ■■.Jw;u5.u'_k siav*- ;fJ: 

•bail) sT^iCi -on i^Xuo.< i»£:iO/t •tiiM d£;j;ifw cfiiorf 3 Jhtf so'xo'i 



J. ■?/* HOR^SITCH, 

Appellee 8 I 



I.A. 605- 




TMs ia an inter XocutoTj appeal ft on an order granting a 
temporary injunction upon the rerified ocmplaint* Before entering 
tin order the trial court denied defendants* motion to dismiss the 
eomplaint • 

The eomplaint alleges, in siibstanoei 

1* That on or ahout August 26 » 1936, defendants, Bernard 
Adlert>lum and Bertha Adlerblum^ as lessors, entered into a lease 
tdth plaintiff, Sally Chain Stores, Ino«, a eorporation, as lessee, 
leasing for a term from Horem^er 15, 1936, to January 31, 1947 > the 
premises knowi as the first and seeond floors of the lauilding at 
1115 LaXe street, Oak 2>axli!:> Illinois* (A oopy of this lease Itf 
attached to the oomplaint*) 

2« That lessee entered into possession of said premises on 
Octoljer 15, 1936, and traneaeted husiness therein until aliout Mareh 
31i 1937. 

3* That shortly after entering into possession and ahout 
Ootoher 20, 1936» lessee entered into negotiations for a lease of a 
store at 1143 Lake street, Oak tarky Illinois, located less than 500 
feet from the demised prendses, and thereafter entered into a lease 
for seld store, ^nvhich it foimd to he more suitahle for its husiness* 


gOo .ii 







.xaA ofiAifDaa: 

.i'OTOC LHT 10 KOI"^r*0 SH'. 

uixa^i tSM 

bxairtaff ,i:fK.^luT«lcb ,»£0I t?>C: *^ii;:,;u :0 no it^sVi »l 

•adMl fl oini bfitaiaa t^^oaaeX ajs ^im/ia^£X6A sd&'i&v: br.n /mjXdY^X*)A 

Mil «rMX tX6 x-MMtfiVjL (> > tde:^ ,?X TsrffurvoK sant'i aaei n aol sjala««X 

^A SOJ^b^^^ »^^ ^0 axooXI bno osa bit« de^xl^ ssil^ «« fcromf a««Jtin»iC(| 

«1 a««eX Bidd lo ^qoo a) .aiowlXII »;i>r«« jt'sO ,3'©»iJa ajCaJ aXXX 

■t — -i i iW m biisa lo O0xa«&8»o<z oini be-xecfoe eaatteX ;t«cIT «S; 

if«tuAC ^hmTa Xl^rot; nioxeif^t ssenitti/tf fio^ojsaoatcd btu* td^tfX ^aX 7e(fo.to0 

.Vr;«»x ,x«: 

a lo aaxaX ii i«t 8jt»Jtc;a 1.^08 »a oinl bato^na eaasoX <d€9X <0S xacT&^oO 
OOe naU aaaX baAaooI <aXoaXXXl t^-r^t staO ,*»arK*a aalisJ. r.t^LL ic irxeJi 
aaaal a Qinl ''"::<': rt '.c^.j-lojo,'* ;r,; , c.^^ '.-jt . ■-.t Pie.?i'f«T 

#a80OX8Jftf ilif^ -ti. ^ t,^u..<,jj<^ »A(sa uu o«. -^jswi; ^ ,< . ^' 


4* That on or about Maroh 31 » 1937 f leseee adrised ilm 
attorney for defendants that it would not contiaw* to operate iti 
'busineas on defsndants* premlises demised under said leaBe^ hecauae 
it bad leased and was alieut to occupy the premises at 1143 Lake 
street* Oak Farkp Illinois p and adrised said attemtjr that it ^nus 
ready and willing to cancel its lease and surrender possession of 
the demised preadaee to defendants t if defendants so desired* and 
that la ease defendants did not desire to canoel said lease » lesses 
voulii sub'^let said premises; that defendants adyised lessee that 
they did not desire to oanael the leasof hut v;oiiild keep leasee liahle 
under the terms thereof; that on April 7» 1937* lessee suh-leased 
the demised premises to ICartha llaid Manufacturing^ Go«» a eoxporation* 
and ..jnold, Inc.* a corporation* (A c«py tf this lease is attached 
to the complaint*) 

S* That pursuant to the request of defendant* a attorney* 
attorneys for the suh-lessee on \pril 15, 1937* delivered a copy 
of th3 BuTo-lease to defendants" attorney; tliat at no time until the 
notice of May 6, 1937* did defendants or their attorney ohjeot t.o 
the BUb-lease or the terms thereof. 

6« That Buh-lessees, on or ahout -pril 19* 1937, pursuant 
to the terms and provisicms of the lease from defendants to ^lly 
Chain Ctoros, Inc., vdth the consent and authority and on behalf of 
Sally Chain Ctores, Inc.» and pursuant to said sub-lease, proceeded 
to make alterations, repairs and remodeling in and ahout the demised 

premises (here follows a description of the alterations, repairs and 

that the cost 
remodeling)?^ and fair value of said repairs, remodeling and altera- 
tions was m 8:xceB3 of $6,500 and enlianced the value of the "biiilding 
in which the demised premises are located to the extent of over 
#10,000; that said auhlessees equipped said prendses vlth fixtures 
at a cost of in excess of $2,000; that said fixtures are of no value. 

-uatfa a*w fits-' 

of > -f <>---• .1 :■■■■- '■'■ ')2?5 Yarf-J 

AACtod^da Bt BH^si aid J 'to Yfio-' A; «i;oi; -•logico : < . < 

iMid Xi^iW ■■ ' 

, rttbacloS) bj:& ,Vfi( t 

1o . ' - < 

itboooc : . tC- ol-i' , : 'a oJ ;;Hr«a'.«q ftn;. ,«c.: 

:^aoo exli d'BXf^ 

except In connection with the use &nd operation of said store Bi:rS 
of no value if snjoe are reaored* 

7« That prior to the oommenoement of said woTk hy the 
BTxh-leesees, Sally Chain StoroBf Inc., forwarded a copy ©f the plana 
thereof t© def«TidantB» "which defendnnta refused to accept! there- 
after y pursuant to the rec[tte»t of the attorney for defoidantBy lessee 
dellTored to him a copy of said plane which hae regained in the pos- 
session of defendants and their attorney. 

8* That said repairs, resio deling and alterations were nade 
puTBunnt to said plans and completed on or ahout May 6, 1937} that 
during the progrees of said work, defendants knew that said work «aa 
"being done; that defendants during all of said time were engaged In 
husinesss at n. dlst.-mce lesE than 500 feet from the deslsed preraisesj 
tliat defendantB saw said v/ork being done; thac defendant, Bernard 
..dler"blum» Tisited the deialBed premiseB daily during progress ©f 
said Vfork and inspected same; that at no time during the progress 
of said work did dofendnnts, or either of them, ohject to said wvsic 
or the manner in vjhich same T;aB being done; that at no time prior 
to the completion of said work did defendants, or either of them, 
make any claim that any default, breach or violation of the terms 
of the lease from defendants t;o lessee existed* 

"9# Since on or about May 7, 1937, plaintiffs ^ Martha Uald 
Manufacturing C«* and Arnold, Inc« have been in possession 9f said 
demised premises and have been conducting business thereiay and 
their licensee or sub-lessee, Oheraan Wash Wear, Inc* has been and 
is now in possession of a portion of the demised premises, conductiag 
business therainj prior to the commencement of said repairs, remodel- 
ling and alterations, there was placed ia front of said deHiised 
promises a barricade, and signs were painted upon said barricade, <mo 
of said signs being substantially in the words, to-witi 
*Lanathaa'6 opening soon with a complete line of hosiery, linger!* 

■dX t8#is<ibf»^9{' 'O^ ■^p'mo.'';tj-? ©r .erne'*; r ' -r- <asJ^'; 

MMq|0*eq er'.; "salt ah 9m' ili ^ofs^M DdJ^osqaxi^ htm t'XQV hiaa 

e«i* Oft ^ .. '?riol) ^-jiiiecf' yiivi axiSRf? ilJjJtrf^' Ml Xismami &i>^ 'xo 

bie'i to nolatrocftocj Hi fr»*«r evjwl tojil ,&Xoin:.>. 'i-i-i .oO "^Ixni o^itumdl 

and sportswear ;* and one of oald signs reading; substantially as 
follows J ♦ Sherman* s opening soon with a line of Cotton yrockej* 
the name *Lanathan*e^ is a trade naaie used by the plaintiff Sp 
Kartha llaid Manufacturing Co* and Arnold f Ixie*» and the name 
♦Sherman* B» is a trade name used hy Sherman Wash Wear > Xno*| said 
signs reioained upon said haTrleade and were Tlsllile fron tho street 
and sidewalk adjoining the demised premises throughout the period of 
said repairs, remodelling and alterations » and were seen daily by 
the defendants, and at no time prior to May 7» 1937» did the de- 
fendants, or either of tham, object to the proposed occupancy of 
the demised preadses by said firms." 

10* fhat on May 3, 1937 » lessee mailed to defendants its 
oheek for $350 » being the amount of the fixed rental of #600 for 
the month of May, 1957 f less $250 provided in said lease, to be 
deducted and retained by the lessee foec twenty-foiir months toward 
the cost of said repairs, remodeling and alterations! that on or 
about May ?» 1937| lessee receired from defendants a notice aocaai- 
panied by said oheek of $350; that said notice was the first girva, 
by defendants* or either of them* of any oillegod claim of defendants 
of a default, and to the effect that defendants clalmod that lessee 
is not entitled to said deduction of |250 a monthj that none of the 
alleged defaults and breaches mentioned in said notice existed* and 
BO default or breach now exists under said lease from defendants to 
lessee I that eren if any default or breach did exist prior to Uay 6f 
1937* defendants are in equity and good conscienoe estopped to olaim 
any such alleged breaoh or defc^ult or violation of said lea^e, after 
having permitted, with full knowledge on their part and without ob- 
jection, tlie expenditure of large sums of money in and about said 
repairs, remodeling and alterations of said premises as above stated, 
and the defendants have, by their conduct* waived any and all alleged 


>*» ^nibr.siX errjira ti.:R lo orcD 5>n- '(• . '>v?a^TO<iQ ^t^ 

bjLR« |.ani ,ta»¥ ii«j»w ncanaxft! ^rf 5oei 

%0 '^Xljafc nsea eiew Iikj? taooxJ 
-eft 91^ ftib t?f.eX %V x^ oi loiiq ota.^* or 

• awoXXo'i 


..n.-rnTi t. 

o. J c;";i-.!:'c^ «;t 

'^- .1 

6<f o* t©e-coX biije Hi ■j-.ji.vo'Ti^ 022^^ aaeX ^VZQl o:<^ '^^ r-'xxy.i: ©xfj^ 
ajUB salmon r. aJfl*?ftff©1:ob 180^1 oevioaoi aoa»M «?£ex «V X^s;*! dwoc' 

fear , 

').:,. nj„(j 


.' ;-^ : >..'«'iOJb o. 


"broaohes or violations of the teras of said lease* 

11* Tli&t on Jtme 16$ 19379 defendants > without uotiee to 
Jtessee^ oaused a judgment hy oonfession to tie entered against salA 
Sally Chain stores, Ino»» for the swm of |l9S47*50t representing 
the amount alleged to "be due as rent for the niohths of Ifia-y and Ji]ne» 
J.937> plus attorney's fees, in case Ho. 37-C-7299, Cirouit Gourt of 
Cook County; that, thereoJTter? on motion of Bally Chain Stores, Ino»» 
Said Judgment was racated and an answer to the complaint therein w&b 
filed hy Sally Chain Stores, Inc., setting forth that the amount due 
as rent for the months of May and Jvme, 1937, under said leaso wi 
the sum of t^fOOi and that said amount was tendered to the defendants 
prior to the institution of said sultj that on July 3, 1937, lessee 
paid to defendants f700, "which was accepted hy the defendanto 
without prejudice to the claim of the defendants for the additional 
sum of i^SOO, claimed toy them to he due in addition to said Bvm of 
f?7O0, and without prejudloe to the defense of said Gaily Chain 
Stores, Inc., to said olaim. It heing agreed that said cai2se he set 
for trial as to such halence claimed to be due; said cause now re~ 
mains pending and undieposed of." 

12 • That on June 17, 1957 > defendtmts served upon Sally 
Chain Stores, Inc., a notice marked "iSchihit 2)j« that on June 16, 
1937, defendant served upon plaintiff, Martha Maid Manufacturing Oo« 
and on June 17, 1937, upon plaintiff, Arnold, Inc., and upon Gheraan 
Wash Wear, Inc., their written demand to vaoate and surrender the 
demised promises to defendants. 

13. That on July 15, 1937, defendants filed in the Superior 
Court of Cook County, case H"©. 37-S-9014, their complaint in f oroihle 
detainer against the plaintiffs, Martha Maid L!anufacturin£: Co., Arnold, 
Inc., Sherman liVash V«eax, Inc., a corporation, J. u'. Horwitoh, doing 
husinesa as Lanathan's, and Harry Sherman, doing business as Sherman 

<.oizI tGeico#a nijBilO -^XjeU ^© noi i/oja no t^feJ^l^Qit. ? :iooO 

? « ■ 

Ijanr " ■ crfi to': uoiu^U^ cfx;cxiJi.v 


■.ajcrtsi-u/ . V feu* < 

Shops > to recorer from defendants in said oausa poseession of tlia 
deolBed premises; tbat summons iss^aed in said oauae retuma.'bla cm 
the third Monday of August j 1937 • 

14. That in addition to the *3»500 expended "by Buh-leesees, 
they and Sherman Wash Wear, Inc.? hare inrested a siibstantlal B'om in 
the huBlness oonduoted by them in the demised premises end have in- 
curred numerous ohligations In connection with said preoiseei that If 
defendants are permitted to oust said plaintiffs froaa possess! ma of 
the demised premises t plaintiffs will "be unjustly and illegally de- 
prived of their property and defendants will he unjustly enriched^ 
contrary to equity and good conscience. 

15* That said plaintiffs are now in possession of said de-- 
mlsed premifi-eB and are conducting their husiness therein, and if de- 
prived of such poseesBion, the damages sustained "by them "by the loss 
of future "business will "be impossible of ascertainment and irreparable i 
that defendants have stated that they will continue to harass lessees 
and its suh-leseees ualese Sally Chain Stores^ InG», agrees to vaire 
its ri^t to retain out of the rents the sum of $6i>000 provided for ia 
Bald lease, and i» addition will pay defendants #10,000. 

16* That lessee hasat all times complied az»3 is ready, will- 
ing and a'ble at all times to comply with said lease} that lessee has 
paid to defendants all of the rent which has heretofore accrued iinder 
the terms of said lease, and is ready, willing ajd able to continue 
to pay all rents coming due under said lease* 

17* "That the conduot of the defendants^ as hereinabore 
set forth, is a part of an unconscionable, unequitable and Illegal 
plan and design to deprive plaisiiffB> and each of them, of their 
rights under said lease trcm tbe defendants to Sally Chain Stores, 
Inc., and of their Investment la the demised premises; by reason of 
the conduct of the defendants they are in equity and good conscienoe 

ni att/a liiiJa^^e iasyai e^«ri t.oirl ,"r.3©.v r£tt«W tmsnast^ I>kjp Y«r!.+ 

,^u.'Ic.■.~^to -.'1:-^'?,^; etf IXivi' j;izsbFt&'i(ib fen-- -^^t^TftgO'Cq tiftifd' to bsritq 

.; 3 .-ji-A.-KJ 

..ioX add "icf 7z^: X'S h^ai&iaun zet'^^sm^h ssit, tHOiaesgaoq :it>is2 lo froTi-x; 
»i«f«a/5r£eiix hssv. inBts' Icriaeotiisi: <!>«f XXlw a»»iiie3/d' t»TEw4ir1: ^r 

•••«aeX ss^xsif oJ oinaiJiiOo IXx«* '^9x1^ ^atiJ ^J»#t^ &yci£ st^n;».l>n9\«& :t&r(^ 
•Ti/iW ©;f n®; ' . al ,seio*<:i jciJ:«rfO x^lnH f3a<iXa» aeoaeoX-rfwa a*i fe«e 

.000«OI-I a^nsbns'iob x^<I XXiw noi^ifife/i «i fofsa ,©a/s©X bXfl» 

vjgiiC eaaasX <Ado t^ciMoX bl«a x{;fjw v.Xcroo o3 ^@ad^ .' -Xcfiit bm ;iferl 

^•bni; b*jintoo« sreoloJeTad aaii rfoirl j Xa air '^-tMl: 

MWi^nco 0* 9£4s bm ^ntlLi.''^ tx^^«^ ^i b«« «oar.eX b.> ■tarxQi &d 

• 9^fi«. 3f;m; sjtrb r.niwOD a;Jnf.*'i XXe ^jaq c 

Xj%6XXX btta aXcf-u^ix/ponu tsXtfirnoltv^'livorir - .; ,4J"jiol in: 

ta«TO# nu:tib xXlJiL - ,,- ... . 

estopped and precluded from prosecuting said f oroiljle detainer pro- 
ceedings, and from claiming tTx9 axistence of any Tsroacla or Tiolatlon 
under the terms of their said lease to Sally Chain Stores, Inc. 

•merefor© plaintiffs, "being wi^^hout remedy, except in a 
Court of Iquity, perayt 

*!» That this Court miRy iranediately BXid pending the final 
hearing herein, enjoin and restrain the defendants (a) yrao temina- 
ting or attempting to terminate said lease from defendants to Sally 
Chain Stores, Ino., VT the right of posBession thereunder; (h) ?raa 
prosecuting S£>ld forcible detainer proceedings aTjovo mentioned p heiag 
ease Uo. 37-S-9014} (c) Prom interfering trith the poBsession of plain- 
tiff , Sally Chain Stores, Inc., and of its subtenants, Martha Maid 
Manufacturing Co. and Arnold, Inc., and of said Sherman wash Tear, 
Inc. J (d) Prom prosecuting said proceedings ahove men t i on edj, "being 
oause KOff 37-C-7S99| 

•2» That upon the final hearing siwh injtmction laay he mad« 
permanent I 

*Z» That this Court determine the amount of rental payahl« 
imder said lease from the defendants to Sally Chain Stores, Ino.j 

'•4. Kiat plaintiffs may hare such other end further relief 
ia the preaises as to equity may appertain and to this Court seem 

The order appealed from enjoined defendants s «(a) from ter- 
minating, or attempting to terminate the lease descrihed in the com- 
plaint, from said defendants to the plaintiff, Sally Chain Gtoreo, 
Inc», or the right of possession thereunder hy reason of anything 
alleged in the complaint; (h) frcaa proeecuting the forcible detainer 
proeeedings mentioned in said complaint, pending in the Superior Court 
of Cook County, cause Fo* 57S 9014, entitled « Bern a rd Adlerhlum and 
Bertha Adlerhlum, Plainti ffs, re . Martha Maid Manufact uring Co., a 
fi.ogporation» Arnold. Inc.. a corporation, Sherman Wash Wearg Inc., 

"^|tr*a o;? 3*nj9ft/»lQj) PK>'i*i 9a.soI blaa B^Atiha'zei oS ^asJqm&^i^f^ to ?iit|* 
'flM^ (cT) ; •xcfenwsxoiic noJaeoHSO^ Ic ... to t. < - -c;': :. aljadO 

-r:;:--Ic' It} rTOisa&Baofi affrf f(*^ -.tti'ia'i-:.;*!?.!!: raoxT {v) rMO^--B~T'.!; •..•"* .'.'."ise 

^•XfipW dmjiSi iffi«trtria bias ."i-o .&n*: t.cnl ^.bioii; ^ ':r:;v :> 

aili«^t<^»JWi- near ©voo'n «rgnx&«sso"j;c!: &ij!ia -^tticju;: . ir> ■;. 

•6fiw 0if -^jsfci aoii&sijJitil dtisv. s-ni'WJeixi X/irtJtl oxiJ' i.totj.j; ^^IT - '♦' 

• Zdrxfiin I-Jr.&i to in«cci« ©ff^t eff.vumwtfb iiwoO aicj* *«if.'' - 

l«9nl tsa^oici tttadX) xIlJBii oi QioBbaeTiob 9tU mn^ «Qj3t»X bljsi& lobm} 

\s>tlf>r TodJ'url bm •nHio rioua vyAd xbol t/. Iri Jjoui? 

Bfteo rf'xifeC oxrf* o* bn^ ai9it9%iiJ3 \;aai ":; < at)Bta»«Q eriiT al 

->aOd sflJ nl bBtHtonsb ee«eX oili e^At^li&iacr o. rititl'qimita tcm t^^i^ii aim 
J 'io coa»«Tr y^ ^obfUiL < . DttI 

.&^^.^J2:OT§.tion i J« X* ,Hor\?l,tc li» do l n^; Tattslneag as l£uaa.theaiB , and 
Har ry S herman y doinrr " buoln Qi^-n a» S herm an nhopa» defen d anttj;' (o) 
froffl interferlne "Tfith the posgecpion "by plaintiffs and Bherman 
¥ash Wear, Inc., of the prowl ses knova p-p the f^.rst and second 
floors of the ^niilding known an 3115 Lake Ctreet, tn the Village 
of Oak Park, Cook County, Illinois} "by reason of enytMag alleged 
in the complaint, (d) from proeeouting the prooeedingc pending in 
this Court, mentioned in stdd ooag)laint» Tsein^ cause Ho, 37C 7299, 
enti tied 'Bernard AdlTTalum and B ertha Adler 'blwa y Pla inti ffs, V3» 
Sally Chain Btcresp I nc.t a oorporetipn» Xtef ehdant ^ « * 

Oefendante contend that "'the ectttplaint herein does aot set 
forth any facts which entitled plaintiffs to relief "by injunctiont 
or to any other relief herein. The matters alleged in the coniplaiat 
are availahle as a defense In the forci"ble detainer suit and in the 
suit for rent." ¥• fl»d no oerlt in this contention* It seems 
clear to us that the allegations of the complaint raaks out a case 
that justified the oourt ©f oqtiity in assuBiinc: Jurisdiction* That 
the instaat equitalsle proceeding can fully and fairly determinQ the 
Tights of all of the parties is not disputed and we are not impressed 
with the argument that the rights of plaintiffs csja "be fxAlly protected 
in the legal proceedings. Moreover » it does not follov^ that because 
a remedy at law is afforded in a case equity v/ill not also take juris- 
diction of the Same etate of facts. If th« remedy in equity is more 
fjdequate Isecause of special cireumstances in the situation, the Jtirls- 
diotion of equity will be sustained »» (See Kaarer t> Collins, 265 111, 
,;-.pp» 219, 224, and caeee cited therein.) We think that the instant 
c<i8e is one to which the ahove rule applies. 

Defendants contend, "the complaint upon ^Ahich the oourt "below 
hased the injTjnctional order alleges facts v'hich disclose that 
pl:r?intiffs ccoae into equity v/ith unclean hands," In support cf 
thle contention defendants refer to the allegations in paragraph 9 


a&aTLQti': btm aUx^nijisig -^cf no j *iT^»ii«t>q ed^ j|*.tr t)«-^f«»'*^©*ni ami 

fl .•:II17 eil t .Jl*o eivX 3IXC .T;^ rP7omr 9f{* lo BlooXl 

; , niror lioo^ ^rfYn^i ^[^0 Ito 

aeooa JI ,nol*ns#noo oMi nt iH&m Off bni"]: ©W ^'.^noi: tol JJ-x- 
»c«o J3 i^uo sian ;»« i^Xqaao erf* Jn QttoiJ&^nSila »sM SMs ai; o:5- xael 

c <. .OfitoM ... 

• III «d£ <?- .T -f3t??. 


of the complaint, and tiaey ai'gue that "tiie carrying- on "by plr-in- 
tiffe, Itartiis. l£ acnufac taring Co. aad ArnGlcI» Inc. of thalr "bue.t- 
ncse under tlxe ncaie *Iianfj,tli£n's,' Aiiich ie a name ether tljan their 
oorpcrate namasf ths carrying en by ih-iii: aulsle^c^ef 31iejr££ja Wash 
Wear* Inc. of thair "business undvir tiie naaie of 'alasnffian'B* wii^cii if« 
a name obhor than its corporate naHie» and tiaeir put*,intii forth sign« 
luad advertisements in whioh thay Afustxeva naaes other tlrian their oorpoiuW 
nsuaoSy are olear and adaitted violations of the alcove provisiencf tho 
Illinois Oriminal Code [sac» 220» par. 4S2, HI. utatu Bar i^tats* 
ISSS]*" TMb contention is alearly an afterthought. Bex'' ore entering 
the injunctional order the trial oourt denied dafendanto" motion to 
dismiss the oomplaint. In tlat laowion defendants do not aver that 
plain tiff b come into court v/ith unclean hands j and ti»y are not now 
la a position to raise that defense. Their contention that the 
allegations of paragraph 9 of the complaint show that plaintiffs hat* 
violated paragraph 452 of the statute is rather ff^r fetohedo Moreover, 
even if the allegations showed a violation, that fact would not affect 
the lacues in the instant case. Under the settled law, even if plain- 
tiffs or any of them had used a name in violation of the BCatute, they 
would not he denied relief in eo^uity in thQ ahr>3nce or n ahoi^in^i of 
injury or loss to the defendants hy reascai of the use of the naiue. 

There is no merit in this apvjeal, and the injunctional order 
ef the Circuit court of Oook c canty is iif firmed. 

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


. - :'/t.t3 






a corporati0a» 


COOK oausTt 

pp.xia„t. i 29 4 lA. 60 5^ 


Plaintiff, ■beneficiary, sued upon two policies of insur- 
ance, dated April 9, 1934, in which defendant insured Stella Puckett, 
wife of plaintiff, in the sums of .^310 and C^67.50, respectively. The 
complaint alleges that Stella Puckett died on September 23, 1935 j 
that plaintiff and the insured had performed all things to he per- 
formed by them under the contracts, or that if such things had not 
been performed there had been a wairer of the same by defendant | 
that the sums due under the policies had not been paid. Defendant, 
in its rerified answer, admits that the policies were written, but 
avers that it had not received from the insured, plaintiff, or any 
other person, the premiums due upon the policies and that the policies 
were not at the time of the death of Stella Puckett or at any other 
time in force i avers that the insured and beneficiary had not performed 
all matters and tilings to be performed by them respectively, and that 
none of the provisions of the policies had been waived by defendant; 
that the policies were issued for the purpose of submitting them to 
Stella Puckett and plaintiff for inspection and acceptance, and that 
the same had not been accepted, nor had any premiums been paid there- 
on. After the filinc of the answer plaintiff filed a motion for 
Bumiaary judgment, which motion was allowed and judgment was entered 


,TOTOO TlUOeiO WfN. J^^«I.. 

.CTCT, • V^-* 

V» r-^TTN'-' v.-v 


508 .A.l^GS 

HJb .JiM 

tiiaioifi &Ll&iC. batusai iOKbne . t ' ^ «aons 

. „ U ;;:i I J jL'. 

^ ■> >.. ~ r 

,.IW xcir: 'i: 

;-xo'i ni erai 

. ro'iieq Jon usu •\fi:j4ii>i'aen<»' 

m^bndleb \iS bnrlMV/ neecf bjati ecxoiXoq e^iL 'io ««oJ 
0^ aM(i 2«l**XflKr*f3 lo eaoqxr/ i «riJ iiuil 

oAi ham t^op.mtqpticc baa no^^oeqcnl lo'i tlliniMlvi brm sioHou^L »ll9i 
-•T«ff# btaq, a—(f aauiiuc i omjae erf 

101 iioii»« a beXll lliJnUIn i©wafw», sxl^ 'to .fiiXii orU 'lo:^ 

against defendant for the face value of the policies, with costs, 
defendant appeals. Plaintiff has not seen fit to defend the 

Plaintiff's motion for Bixmmary judgment was supported hy 
three affidavits. The first, that of Stuart B» Erohn, attorney for 
plaintiff, sets forth several letters that passed hetweon defendant 
and affiant J states that the first, dated Maroh 22, 1937, written 
"by affiant and addressed to defendant, stated that the writer "was 
inclosing claimant* s statement and also an affidavit in connection 
therewith; further states that the -writer h&d difficulty in getting 
the necessary information due to the fact that plaintiff could 
neither read nor write and did not know much ahout the subject 
matter, end thtit if any further information was required he would 
endeavor to furnish it. oAffiant further states that he received a 
letter from defendant, dated April 2, 1937, vifhioh acknowledges the 
receipt of the letter of March 22, 1937, and states that according 
to the records of the company the two policies ^^ere issued hut that 
the record showed that they had lapsed due to nonpayment of the first 
premiums due April 9, 1934, and that since plaintiff has neither the 
policies nor the premiim receipt hook in his possession, defendant 
asks that it he furnished vdth some form of receipt showing the name 
of the collectors that the said letter further states that the 
writer had heen in direct charge of all claims against defendeait since 
early in 1934, that the company has no record of any claim reported hy 
plaintii'f prior to April 11, 1936, that at that time the company did 
not have sufficient information to conduct an investigation, and that 
if any person had represented himself as an inspector of defendant in 
taking a statement from Jdward H. Budd, it was without the knowledge 
of Ghe company. The affiant further states that he answered that 
letter on April 5, 1937, and in said answer stated that ho wished to 

erii bnoloft o.: iit neoa ioa ajarf lliduirjX^ .aXsdqqo ioabneleCI 

• ^noBrabx/t 

tot "^eirro. j« tfiic— 4-. .ia^cil sr"^ .aiiTJsfeills ©s^rifJ 

miii^- . ■ - • < !'■:'>■. ^f^« 

bXwc rtoxjawioitij. xmU': ai« OjKiri tte^tfjoia 

« bovx'JCL . ;iain"«l oct lov^obn© 

•11. AtMv ' ■ 7 <l[>nol&b ffloil 10;^;^. 

uac\c.eqn;. '3orr?I barf x^iiii iadJ bewoxis bttoo^'X w{;J 

9dS T«jf;^i8.' I;tnl«tlq »9ixJ:8 ; t axrb BAU/taxetcq 

iu :{aocf iqt&9&t mtxMui<i &di roa aeioJtXog 

. . ;:> :?n*^orf;- .^tyi . aiol scoy rf.\':7,' bsifaiway'i »<f *i Jrrrfj' nrioa 


adrlse defendant that it was in error in aseuming tliat tbey did 
not have the policies » as hoth policies were in their poBseeBion* 
The affidavit further states that a letter was received from defend- 
ant, dated April 6, 1937» which states that plaintiff will plbase 
read his policies and file proofs accordingly^ and also furnish de- 
fendant company with a certified copy ©f death. The affldarit further 
states that affiant later received a letter from defendant", stating 
that in connection with the telephone conversation of that day the 
company was inclosing a physician* s statement to he filled out hy the 
insured's physioisji and returned to defendant with proof c of deathf 
that the affiant later wrote defendant that he was inclosing the 
original policy, also the physician's statement and a certified copy 
of the death certificate of Stella Puckett; that defendant at no time 
notified affiant that th®re were any terms or conditions of the poli- 
cies not complied with hy Honer Puckett or hy affiant; that defendant 
never claijaed that the insurance policies were not executed and de- 
livered to i^ckett. The sec<md affidavit, made hy Sdward R. Budd, 
states that Homer Puckett could neither read nor write, and that during 
the months of July, August and September, 1935, affiant paid the pre- 
miums on the policies to a party who represented himself to he a 
collector of defendant; that these premiums were paid at the place of 
husiness where affiaoit and plaintiff were employed, and that as the 
payments were made they were entered in the premium receipt book 
kept by affiant for Safe keeping; that the practice of entering pay- 
ments in the receipt hook was discontinued in the latter part of 
Septemher or the first part of Ootoher, 1935, dm to the fact that 
the Siiid collector stated to affiant that he wished to take the 
premiiuB receipt hook to the office of defendant, to segregate the 
various accounts on the policies mentioned therein, and that he would 


•%*jtjXt£ lllw 1'iUaiBlq_ ijarii as^xsJa rfoirfw t'J'fiei ,d Xitc^A bft^tisb ,ifw 

otiJ xd 3JJO -Xi.j;^ .^o' ' 

9di ^aiaoXnitti ajcw oil (fflrii Jrwbaa'ieb •d'oiw te^.oX j«£$X11j8 erii isdi 

lO OOxXq di CX!afJtffi97q Gauiiw 

•If w a t t>ef^Xq.ine cncsv 

ioocf .'ql&t&v' fiUJlffloiq oxiv 
-X^ BJli^o^ne "lo eoic^Dyitq o • 

blu9K •d ^adi bne ,fii 

. ii;iX0\4 Oil- 
iiU } Jfus5«s'l;i> to ^OJOtiXXOu 

•xeiiw aaenlaucf 

001 ertew ai^nonixjsq 

li;ia '£Ct ^fleillja ^d *q«>f 

return new Ijookr. shortly; that the new "boolcs were nayer returned 
and that in the interim paTments were made with the assurance that 
they would "be entered in the new "books j that after the death of 
Stella Puokett a certain person? representing himself to he an in- 
spector of defendant, called upon affiant and obtained from Ma a 
statement concerning tha payments upon the policies and that such 
statement should he in the files of defendant. The third affidavit 
was that of plaintiff. It aets forth that he procured the policies 
and handed them and the premium receipt hook to Sdward R» Budd for 
safe keeping J that affiant oorrohorates the statement of Budd as to 
the payment of premiums upon the policies, the surrender of the 
receipt hook, and the failure of the alleged collector to return the 
new hooks to himj that affiant at no time receiTed from defendant a 
notice of cancellation of the policies or that they had lapsedj that 
after the death of Stella Puokett affiant called at defendant's office 
to present his claimi at which time he was offered #100 and c redit for 
a year's premium on his own policy, which offer he refused. 

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment defendfint 
offered its affidavit of defense, and three afxidayits. the first, made 
hy jvlvin BoroABBOrdt, rice president and actu0.ry of defendant, states 
that affiant is in charge of the records of defendant which show the 
receipt of premiums upon all policies isisued "by it; that the policies 
in question were written by defendant and given to the agent, Patrick 
Piuskey, who had taken the applications therefor, for delivery, to- 
gether with the premium receipt hook to he used in recording premiums 
paid ther«3on; that the first premiums were never paid on the policies 
and 071 April 23, 1934, the policies were duly lapsed for nonpayment of 
premiuias; that at all times since the policies hare appeared on the 
hooks of defendant as lapsed policies? that they have never heen revived 
or reinstated; that during July, August and September, 1935, no preuaums 


ij9tcxuiei tcsnren siavf asCoocf W9ix osiii iad^i {^I^-zofla astoocT «r«ua irui{*^» . 

#«tCl ooiiaTuea^' idiT dil'tf sbjisa easvr QJnomv>c[ fiii^sadfsi: %jA^ aX imli-lbMs 

laa Aicab s>tli tracts i£di jo^oocf wan suit aX boxoine 9«r i^Xuow \itid. 

« MM mai': 'loni ..■^o btis iaeillB noqw ^joXXtjO ^^CG&mfit&k 1© aoi^asg-^ 

*iTi5biVii? bTM. ^-i^ .*iu8fin9le& to aaXil ©rfif ni 9<S bSJaosin ^nmneiMin 
esioiXoq srf* boti/oo':q: ari ;^«r(i iiJiol aJ©ci ,n . ^^^Jt.t«Xq ^ cf^rfd «. 

ad;^ aiv: r.oioelloo &©ssXX« 9rf,J lo oxwXiual ojriJr &j|f ..^afel^ 4<jis©ft^ 

B ;ffls&n»i9b molt bsTlsosi oaii^ n-Qillss ^JsrC^t iuM o>t aioorf waxi 

ijari^ jbesqaX bud •^sxfi ;tfij Xaq »iii 'to jtioiNfjsIXaooao lo 9ox^0i«( 

• bocsir'io'X exf lello li&ijiiv t>C^i^ 

gtBYll exfi' .a^lTabl'ltc ©ox 

rcf hew. 

offi o.;. 





ft«J:oiXoq ed;) ... ..^...^ 

M(} no b»1t^©qC£;^ 0T/5X'' "*' 

>«t1t»7 £ro«tf icven eraif x^'-'i- 

i:,:- nor,!'-,' r^ ii oxr 


were received lay defendant on such policies and that no premiwp 
receipt hook in connection with the policies wae ever received 
hy defendant; that af riant is the person who wrote the letters 
that are sat forth in the affidavit of otuart B. Krohni that the 
letters were written in connection with certain proofs of death 
which Krohn wished to file on behalf of plaintiff? that the lettere 
were written and the proofs of death were sent to defendant in pur- 
suance of the policy of defendant to permit any perscn holding a 
policy of the company to ccmplete and file death proofs in connection 
with any claim on such policy, and that vrhen the claim is made it is 
then duly passed upon hy the company* The affiant further states 
that he caused diligent inquiry to he made among the agents of de- 
fendant and that he could find no agent who had coll so ted aby pre- 
miums upon such policies. The aecwid affidavit, that of Patrick 
J/luskey, sets forth that he took the applications for the policies? 
which policies were issued hy defendant and delivered to him on 
April 9, 1934, together with the premium receipt hook; that he gave 
the policies and the premium receipt book to Homer Puokett and re- 
quested the payment of the first premiums tbereoni that Puckett stated 
tha.t he wished to submit the policies to his wife, the insured, and 
Puokett took and received the policies for such purpose; that several 
days later Puckett advised affiant that hie wife, the insured, did not 
wish the policies and refused to pay the premiume thereon; that 
after endeavoring for several weeks to secure acceptance of the 
policies by Puckett or Ms wife, affi:^t reported the policies 
lapsed to defendant find marked the same as lapsed on his promiua 
collection book and upon the records handed hy hin to defendmt in 
ocn-oeotion with his employment} thfit he at no time collected any 
premiums on such policies ; that he had no other or further detdings 
with plaintiff in connection therewith than are set forth in his 


•iCit -*i3d3 iraibTJi ,8. ix&ai& "to ^Ivsbi^'ia eif* «>. rij'to'i *ea e'x.g J"jsr(w+ 

8xe.+ :frl rrC.' . itlitilpi^ lo IXiMlecf ao aXil o>^ bsxfeifi' fttlcxS dojjiir 

rr^ '' 0* -Jne.-; "xs-r xf:hj&b "io alo^ig esti ban aeiii.iv ©lew 

, ,.;. n^betc-liBh 'to ■^ioiXof R-'.i lO ^-nrmUQ 

•^■■.'■.'■.rjD d ■^oaqniOL ^.. ..>,■ s;.c..;,lc^i 

ii ...» . . u.. . ot-Xog rlawffl 0o miaXo.« rfd-Jt-w 

"' ' . - ,i\ ML^iu . u Olio. Tircf isogu feeaaerf YXwb nBdt 

-ezii >cC ^aiouXXoo biJii al .' .ine^js on ^ail tluoo ad iMii baa insibae^ 
jloii^.s*; 'io J -d:.- t.}iTfii)i'i"i« bnoooa atiT .0«ioiX0<i iloxra noqt; aaarlm 
jaeietXaq 9iiA xqI ^aot^fiofl^ji ©ricf :ioo:f sil IhaS* rf#tc- ^'ijsrifGuX 

no a^'-' 0. T«:tovxX©b 6ns itsmbao'^b ^<f besTGUl n»w aeloiXoq dohiir 

-•« boa **©3lwrt lonwH o;t icoif iqieos'x nwiK^icr e>: lo.toiloq exfcf 

I Oft blJb ^JJ'iiEflJ. ifiiu « i. . 

9t[i lo tor 
•elolXeq 6dU litaiioii 
mula-iiq wiid » &9aq.')X auB ml 
fli •>'; oi nLtf{ -^cf 

jpa b»#ooXX' 

Bill al t{Jic . , ; 


I'xoTAobnfi r&ila 
SbiLotH x^ a»loiXoq 
iTf?E)«9'i©5 oi b&aqiX 

x'ootf noJtcfoelXoo 



affi davit; thtit he left the employment of defendant on May 4» 
1934« The third affidavit is that of Frank J. jeloh. It states 
that in Ootoher, 1935, affiant was superintendent of agents of 
defendant; that plaintiff on or ahout Octolser 5, 1935» called at 
the office of defendant and stated that he wished to revired 
certain policies on the life of hie wife» Stella Puoketti that 
plaintiff further stated to affiant that he did not have the policies 
mth him; that affiant, at the request of plaintiff, called at tho 
praaasiMe^ v;here plaintiff and :.?dv<ard H. Btidd v^ere employed, for the 
purpose of seeing plaintiff in connection with the request for rein- 
statement; that plaintiff wsis atoeent at the time; that affiojit talked 
with a person in charge of the business conducted on the premises and 
stated to said party that he was there in connection "with the rein- 
statement of the policies in queetioni that the said party stated to 
affiant that he had paid, for some time, premiuras upon certain policies 
of defendant; that the payments had been made to a person representing 
himself to be an agent of defendant. i-i.ffiant further states that he 
asked the party whether the wife of plaintiff was in good health at 
that time and said party answered that Stella Puckett had died a few 
d^ e previous thereto; that affiant thereupon advised the party that 
the policies could not be revived or reinstated; that he then reported 
to his superiors that Stella Puckett had died* 

The motion for the suaaaary judgment was based upon paragraph 
181, eection 57, of the Practice i^ct (Oh, 110, 111. Bev. Stato 1937.) 

Defendant strenuously contends that under the record the 
trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for a stamnary 
judgment* The contention is a meritorious one. The purpose of the 
summary judgment contemplated "by section 57 is to provide a meais to 
avoid the expense and delay of a trial when no sound defense exists* 
i'he affidavits introduced lay defendant in opposition to the motion 

«... . -: _. ..... rusX^ 0X»iiy/ «»%lEi!»xq 

-r:.- i.xJHi4jX<i B^i&e.'.; 'jo ewoqivq 

.: Jna--.oj- i.virtiaXtl i&iU ;■ Jr.'0M0J.3*a 

• a 3oelffl©iq »xio no aQioxiono^ uasolawcf jw^j iii e^x^xto ai £t03"i©(^ ^:; ililiw 

•!( i/nl;r ee^ja^e taxfrf-arl JBfti': '. , ..i£)n&"i3i) to ias>f,A Mfi AoT o;f lI»«iiBixf 

b«ii>:jtrt,''t n&rl* »il -iuiJ ; bsJ r.i ■•.r.'io'x o riuvlvwr Of' :''0a LtluQo atioiXoq; fifJf 

.lOx'iGqt/s alrf 0^ 

iL mi»t''.' .Vi..* .-.*.^ ,-.-.,. ...-; « ■ - " fl'--'' 

-^'awMt/* •■- .o .. liuloOBi a •l.iiitiaiti ^. '.xxc-) ;Jti;o: I,j.ix>f 

»uir.. 'i%\tb bauo . an ui)u ■ . . :or» 

for a BUEunary judgment make out a clear prima facie showing ihat 
no premixams had "been paid upon the policies and that they had 
lapsed long prior to the date of the death of the insui-ed, Incead, 
the affidavit of the superintendent of agents of defend.gnt arers 
that plaintiff, on Octoher 5, 1935, seven days after the daatU of 
Stella Puckett, called upon the auperintendent i«d stated that he 
wished to hare the policies revived. Defendant ineists that upon 
a trial of the osuse where it will have an opportunity to crosa- 
examine plaintiff's witnesseB it v/ill Tse able to sustain its defense 
to the claim. Defendant further cantonds that waiver of its defense 
cannot he implieil frcaa the mere fa.ct that it furnished blanks to the 
"beneficiary for the laaking of proofs of claimj that the affidavit df 
Alvin Borohardt shows that defendant, by sugresting the filing of 
proofs of claim and accepting: them, waB acting in accordance v;ith the 
policy of the ccanpany to permit any person to complete snd file death 
proofs in connection with any claim on a policy; thc,t it v/ill appear 
upon a trial that the blank proofs of Iosb furnished by def endaa t to 
plaintiff ctaitained in bold-faced type the following* •'This Blaiik 
is furnished (upon application) Cor the convenienoe and assistance 
of the representatives of the insured; and the organization reserves 
the right to consider and deteralno the question of its liability 
under any policy or certificate without prejudice or presumption or 
waiver by reason of the furnishing tfasreof,* anc defendfaat has made 
a motion in this court, in accordance with section 92(d) of the 
Civil Practice Act, for leave to file a photostatic copy of the proofs 
of claim submitted by plaintiff to defendaa t in the instaait case. "What 
■purports to be a photostatic copy of the proofs of cl.iim is attached 
to the affidavit filed in support of the motion. ..hile it is true 
tiiat in the alleged correspondence between the parties defendant 
suggested the filine of proofs of claim, the correspondence also 

l>«*r xati- i-atJ^- ^^^^ :i3 lollQti ^dt iso^u biiwi K«»tf ^^ oasirtedtQ on 

^o ;f XTijii i'l'Lft ©if* *jadji jiaioXo 1o cjlootq ^o ^ttttam »di tot X'L&toil&ti&di 
1o jiiXIl &sii jalcfaoj^xrs y^ tiasbavlsb iMli awoila ttnsdotQK nJtvXA 

sbwXS aXriT" »afilwf«IXo1 axi* a^^t fitsi.l-bXotf ni B«iti»itfl 

■^JiXJstfJi .':.': '^ 'o noitfasrwp aiii ottiiatrt 

•iMHB a&d ia^btisloti btui *'^Joo'iuli ^nldaljinu'i tiiJ Uo ifoajo*^ ifrf xevi. 
•jU lo {t>)S« oolJoea riii-.v ooaribtoooij ni ,Jxiioc uiii;f as nolSom « 
•looiq Mf^ V> i^icfD;taodoriq a oXil oi otbsX io1 ,*o,i': eoldoisit*! XIy.' 

$aM •••iso «»^anx wlJ nl 3 mbaelt sXcj -^cf be. ;riiatfi/o urijsXo 

#AAte«)»fr ««i^x«q atf^r fx&«ir*d(f eQBtbmQaoT' I 
•aX/T ••Bobfroqaex'zoo eri;r ,/BlijXo lo aloorq ; 

clearly £?lsolos®c that defendant was ineistlng that no premiumc liad 
"been paid on the policies cjid tha.t the reoor^^s of the -company shov/ed 
that the policies had lapsed due to nonpayment of the first preiAiiaas. 
^» ^ti^o^ -It er T. Hod em Woodaant 156 Mich. 390, it T»ae held that no 
waiyer of defense could result from a furnishing: of blanks to the 
■bensfioiary for the making of proofs of claim, where in tha correa- 
pondenoe "between the ociapaay and the beneli ciary^B lav^ers , the eaae 
defense wae insisted upon as wasi urged at the trial. Other casats to 
the same effect might be cited* A waiTer of defenue ar-ises only 
where the insurer by its conduct leads the beneficiary to "belieT© 
that it will not insist upon the defense. In any event, under the 
record defendant had a right to have a jury pass upon the question of 
fact as to whether or not it had waived its defense. The last para- 
grr'iph of the last letter written by plaintiff's attorney contains the 
following: "Idll you kindly let us hear from you at your earliest 
convenience ae to whether this matter can be adjusted amicably* with- 
out litigation." This language indicates clefc.rly that plaintiff's 
coxinsel did not understand froia the correupondsnee tJmt defendant 
was waiving its defense. 

¥e sixe satisfied that a stHiffiiary judgment should not have 
bean entered in the instant Qo.a&» 

The jud^paent of tha Circuit court of Cook county is r eversed, 
and the casise is rcmEJided for further proceedings not inconsistent 
with this opinion. 

JUBGS,ril3Sn? :^¥S^S2», MID OAUSa 

S*riend, P. J., and Sullivan, J., ooncur* 

6£>u smsj 

^n iff^" ^fil;^aisfr^ t-'v m.^^^hacl 


joIo«»l% xJ^'f-'*-'^" 

on i--:-' ( • 


. „J-xo otf aii^iJB Jostle* Bmmn edi 

»x(^ i9bKU ,5fl3Vi -^i; nl .s8flo"i©fe 9Sii aoqa iBiaal Son IXiw si i&di 
lo coxiaeup ortj aoqa aaug '4i«t ^ asv-p^ ^rf ^ispb£i»1:ftb bioc^ 

- ail bevlfiiilr &«££ if 4kR "xo ler 

; ^ ,. . tit^ tk>': ■ ntfrollo 

Cit '^i^nij^.cc.s 

allSOttOV) , . 

, rreirt'C 



Appellee p 



App.ii«,tB. i '2 9 4 I. A. 60 6^ 


This appeal seeks to rererse a Judgsaient for i2f000 entered 
upon the rerdict of a jury against defendants, Syd Jineman and Max 
GerriGky In an action larought by plaintiff 9 Isadore Cohen, for per- 
sonal injuries alleged to hare been suetaiaed liy him v/hile riding 
as a guest in an automobile driven hy defendant Fin^aan, -^hich 
automobile crashed into the rear of an automobile o^vned and driven 
by one Melvin Ak Hansen, who ^i^s also made a defendant » The Jury 
returned a separate rerdict finding Hansen not guilty and Judgment 
was entered as to him in acoordanoe with said rerdict. Plaintiff 
filed a notice of cross«appeal of the Judgment in faror of Hansen, 
but haring failed in his Tsrief to assign error as to same here, 
it may be oonaidered as having been abandoned* 

The Case went to trial upon plaintiff's ajaended complaint, 
the pertinent allegations of which, in so far as they ocnoern the 
defendants, Fineman and Qerrick, are as follows t 

"l. That on the 1st day of April, 1934, the defendants SID 
YLWMAS and MAX OamiGK were co-partners, trading as JTS.3L\JI and 

*2. That as such co-partners the said defendants SYD TTSMP-'S 
and }L\X GliSRIJCK owned a certaim automobile, and propelled and operated 



.TKUa .HT 10 TIfOiki. 


» V 

,^iw: -...r.' -..Ji uoo %^iSSuI1 

Lw.iLV J.«ii;;*i Zi.^.:V iwiAi*.!'-. t.l'ilv.uii »Ylh 

XI53C 5n-a aaat&nJfir bx2 , a;?rr:f)n-n'!l:e5 ;^r.rr.?:nr;- 'vT^u' 

^a -z 

ii3YliD ban L)omro s.Iii''o<ioiu': 

tS'xei^ SOT- 

• benobn«cf. 

•At aioocD'j x^^i -^^J ^«'i oa ni ,jloM 
lawoIXOi , 

J on . .c 'X e X jc d o ac vX' s 
'.i.o X>f50^Q[jf-a8oio lo 

kma TUMtMTi i!*j nnlb/.tc;! ,8«6n;i!£«(I«oo siew 


&«^ii*:ooa ten bollcrora lsr.r: , I.:;-.n:. -^ o ^Tr '' ; :> r 


said autofmol3il« upon and along a certain public Mi^-ftayf to-wlti 
LBke L>treet» at or n«ar tc-wlti Ifermheia Hoad, in* at -or aeawr 
Melrose Park* in the Htate of Illinois* 

*3# That the said defendents STD ym aSAJSf and MA.X amHiOK 
invited the pleintiff» as e guest, to ride in eald automol^ile, on 
the date and placo aforeEientioneci. 

«4« That the defendant HlULVIS A* MS2>,mp on the date and 
pla«e aforementioned t oiiaxedf propelled and ope^^ated another certain 

*5» That on the date and place aforesientioaed thare vf&n In 
full force and effect certain Statutes pertaining to actor Tehiclesj 
which Baid Gtatuteo are Chapter 95Af Section 22f **♦ in word© and 
figiures as followos 

"(Seo* 22) ivery motor rehiole and »otor Mcyclef \¥hilo in 
use on a public highway* eliall he provided with good and sufficient 
brakes 9 and also with a suitable horn or other signal device » etc* 


"6» That it hacaiae and was the duty of the said dGfandaata 
fXIPMAH and ail-sriOK, lahile the plaintiff was ridias as & guest of 
said defendants, not to \viliully and wantonly injure the plaintiff* 

"e. That the defendants and each of them disregarded their 
duties in that behalf » in that» 

"(at) The said defendants C^YD fllfag/vlf and MA.:c a-TJaCK caiaad 
to and did naintain and operate their said automol>ile upon and {^long 
said puolic highway aforesaid, in the State of Illinois, by vvilifully 
failing to provide said n.utomo"Dile r<ith good and sufficient brakee, 
in violation of said statute, said violation, under the cirouHUst, noee, 
conatituting v-ilfull ^aad wanton conduct. 

"(b) The seid defendant© SYD .SlMJMfJT and WiL ffJTffiiaK operated 

-."i^acai9«»tjB t'OflIf fen*? »;f,!i& »ii* 

fens s7^-i ^ , > ' '' " '" ''^ "-:'": *"*' 

' Qnot^ttmas)' it bo d«Btf *** 

* 1 . . ■''i3 

XXX' ' .OfliXX: , icfimt^tA oiIc5i/q Mas 

^ic'n^tn iMliaitifitttio 

their said automobile upon and along said highway aforementioned 
with a total indifference to conseciuenoee, and disregard for the 
life, Hurt) and property of othere. 

*(c) The said defendants S^TB 51H.MA.2r and MkX G^SRI^CK vril« 
fully and -wantonly operated their said uutcmoTsile at a high and 
dangerous rate of speed, and without having a proper care and look- 
out for other vehicles, in violation of the statute of Illinois, 
^ioh said conduct constituted wilful and wanton conduct, 

♦•(d) The Baid defendants STD FIinaSAil and WiX G-:2?RXGK wil- 
ftilly and wantonly ran into, struck and collided their sd. d auto- 
laolsile, with grest force, to, upon and against the vehicle con- 
trolled and operated "by the other defendant, JOLVHT A, MW^M, 


*9« Plaintiff avers that on the date and plsxie aforemen- 
tioned, while he was riding as a g:ttest of the defend^mts SYD "SlVlMliS 
and MA,X G?»RKIGK, and using all due care end oaution for his own s^ ety 
as a direct and proximate result of the negligenee, carelessnessp and 
wilfull and wanton ccaiduct of the said defendants aiui each of thsm» 
said automolsiles of said defendants were caused to and did rim Into » 

strike and collide to^ upon and against one another* 

*1G» Hiat the plaintiff was seriously, dsngerousLy ^ per- 
manently injured, Taoth internally ajad externally *** and divers hones 
of his liody were "brolcen and dislocated*" 

lineman and Oerrick filed an answer to the amended coaplaint 
denying all of the material allegations thereof and averring that 
said complaint "in insufficient in law in stating a Cc^se of action 
Cigainst these defendants for the reason thtxt it setL forth no duty 
and no hreach of du&y "by these defendants in the operation of the 
said automobile." 

By leave of court at the close of plaintiff's case, he 

• atcexfv iiQO'iq baa (frail <9^1X 

,3io«JtXXI 10 oiui^ii' »tii "lO- : . c "i'^'O 

-oius b t.t iztdi SDt.^IIcs rjns 2{:7irtJr: ,D:fni r -r 7-rno -tft-^v; 'Sn-.^ xllu'. 

-aofltettD'Zj J . .'' 

"t^e lie n-.vo i nolii: ,.a :a«i'2Jj brus «' I.M htt» 

bBB tSQenaasXeaao t©OK'-V; A. !• va^j io jXxfa..'>: OiJ^jmiJcoTg briB io^xth a «« 

to . ■ .'j..'-x bii) bflfi o; Bcex/ao j&xew ad'cuabnolob fri^sa lo aeXirfoaw^tui; bias 

-Tsq' ^ -^XiuoTS'-vmh ,\;Xairoi:x©^ ajsjw lltinl^li-i ed$ *fij£T ♦OX" 

seitotT ^XXjcnvo 3-3t» bff£: YXXjBOScJnJt rltod nT'sxytni \l'iaBtmm 

"•h&iaoQlfilb btt« ae-aiOTEcf cs©?/ ^borf a iff 'k 

" .oX;-.'ioaro j'W3 blf; 

filed his Becond amended oomplaint conBistlng of two coimtsj the 
first of which is Bu"bstantially the same as his an^ndod complaint 
heretofore cet forth. The second count conts,inod the following 

"1. Plaintiff arers that on or a'bout to-wit« the 29tli 
day of JSaroh, 1934, the defendantMAX JElKKIiffK 0"wned a certain auto- 
mob ile • 

"2« That on said date the said defendant %\X omriGK re- 
quested the defendant STD Jl'SMk'S to drirs said automobile froa 
Freeport, Illinois, to Chicago^ Illinois, on the 1st day of Aprils 
1934, and that for said purpose the said defendant SYD YLTSMk'S He- 
came and was the servant and agent of the said MA.X- GiiRi^ICK* 

••3. That the said defendants SYD ^llfJUkS and mo. GW.mOK 
and each of them invited the plaintiff as their guest to ride in 
said automo'bile, which the said plaintiff accepted, and was a guest 
of the defendants MkX aiEHICK and SYD FIF/ai/^jr in said automobile on 
the 1st day of April, 1934 ••» 

The second count then also proceeds T/ith suhstantially the 
same averments as the asaended complaint* 

It was stipulated that the answers filed to the amended com- 
plaint Btand as answers to the second amended complaint, .,hen refer- 
ence is hereinafter made to defendants, such reference is intended 
to apply only to li'ineman and CJerrick* 

Befendants* first contention is that plaintiff failed to prore 
any T?anton and wilful misconduct on their part and that the trial 
court should have fox that reason sustained their motion for a direct- 
ed verdict. Plaintiff was a guest in tha automobile owned by Gerrick 
and driven hy i'ineman* ..s such guest, under ch. 95a, par. 43 (h) 
Gahill*e 1933 Illinois Herieed Gtatutes, he has no "cause of action 
for diimages against the driver or operator of such motor vehxcle or 

eif^ t^SttOos tnrs 'io '.'.aiLi&iMtoz .rioo bebnsaw fcnoos*: :3Jttf bsXil 

^n illalioA&tiifisvt si iloMvV to Haiti 

-0^-: -.-^-:' ''^^ XAMJacanolr^fo cjsfcf ,V.(?X ,ift>'x,'^H "io ^5 

« isll dom 
^01 ji.: - /y. irt.ztris'^.o^. ^^ a or?? oJx' bj:j?« no SjSiil' .a« 

r-n -' X* .•"rt-rr. .- ,. .. , T. rn^-hnoliib Qtii b&^iaCiSj^ 

t^. .^^ -0 V, . .;.,.■■ ^r ^ ,,.ii0jKi:XXI «;^'Xoq:»Ml 

-9i 'e./T'"^ " n.f'papi': "■' ■'■'"' ,"""X 

•iiCI .:'-lD -./Jtf 5Jbsa 2iiJ '^o ^a.-^.^^ . i..£w: 3j£xj-..v:c«J>.':t a-i'iff h^^.v or-i:^ 

ac iJ baa M.^fLHrS CTZe ai^ottfina 'ia& 51^)6 9ri<t im^;: .^^ 

. / .iifllJsXQ ©if J beJivKi isfiorict 'io rf0£.9 baa 

no aXxdofltOv/jJ^ bX?.:^ L'x U/^\lS:Ti CIYo: baa ;•.. .A]^: aim^bnulah sr' 

'M^eeX tXirrq . lo Y-«b *aX eit* 

*;iiiXAXqfi(oo bs£>n£«f4i ejciiir a a o^coancYii eau»« 
bebnanm Qdi o: bsltl aiewaoQ exi^ iadji ii&3islifq,l.ia 9&ix il 

babceixix ai eaa&ielst xloue «aJ-aiiJbttsl©5 ©ti; 9hJm icaJV^flioxoxi nX eono 

*:ioX-£T€>0 bne fiwijUJE «j vX«o ^•:XCTJR oi 
BfOiq on b<)ll 1 YllJ:a}nL(Z i!^i -^i: rttii?cio^nco ^a-xl'. ♦a^fan&aotsC: 

Lalii eiii i&Ai i-. ... -oubnooaiat J:JL>';X^•.' ".ri" rr' 'n«^.7 vrt.n 

-Jo^Tif. ;: tot WPl.O.i •rXi)/'.* 5fff^ .:.eL iu' ; , "t ^ j(i :<: l^.. . ...r.; . 

:ioXT-iaO -cf '^t-£f7o .f .. .#r;F,'r- v ?>» 

(^' ... •wea»ai. 


lie ovmer or his employee or agent for injury, dsath or loss, In 
case of accident, unless such accident shall hare heen caused by 
the wilful and wanton aiisconduct of the drirer or operator of such 
motor vehicle or its owner or his employee or agent and un2asB such 
wilful and wanton misconduct contrlTjuted to the injury, death or 
loss for which the ex? t ion is "brought." 

Gerriokj who was associated in lousiness ^ith lilneman's father 
in Chicago, drove his ear to Preeport, Illinois, on a husiness trip, 
several days before the oec\irrenoe in question, accompanied by the 
defendant 7ineman and his wife* He then drove to Milwaukee, i^Usoon-* 
sin, on business with another man in the laiter^s ear, leaving hie 
own autcmoMle in Freeport* He expected to return to 7reeport to 
drive his own car back to Chicago, but before leaving S^reeport for 
MilwaDikee, he authorized Fineman to use the automobile and "I asked 
him in case I don't get back £to Preeport] to take the ear in [te 
Chicago] for me." 

On April 1, 19349 S'ineme.n lef VFreeport in Gerrick*8 autd^^ 
mobile and proceeded to drive aaae to Chicago with his wife in the 
rear seat and plaintiff as a guest passenger in £he front seat to his 
right* V;lhen he reached Lake street, which is a four lane highway, ke 
drove East on same and ran into the rear of Essen's automobile at a 
point just west of Mannheim road, a nortk and south puolio highway 
that intersects Lake street* Both roadways were paved. It had rained 
earlier in the day and according to Fineman the pavement fta-s wet* He 
testified that he drove about twenty-five feet behind Hjyasen* s auto- 
mobile at a speed of thirty or thirty-five miles an hour for a mile or 
tv/o before the collision and that he continued to travel at the same 
speed and at, the same distanoe behind the other car iintil almost 
imnediately before the impact when Hansen abruptly and without warning 
applied his brakes and diminished the speed of his car so that lie 


tu. ,e«oX TO t£^i5sb tX^«t*£i «'i ^rr»»» xo 9oxol(£!xi) aid 10 -xowRro B*i 

jji bsfivso aoeo' evvsri IIi:rfa intbiotts. dx>U9 aaftlKir ,JcebJ:oo^-; "i© eefio 

jtouc 1© 10 -Tioqo TO lorlib ©il* lo *£>tr&«oo'siia «o;)fifiW^ bns JUrltliw itit^ 

rfoirr* aaalm; art-'' >^n9SJ=; to ooy:oIqms a±x£ xo la^tifio a^i :jo ©Idtrfev xoiosa 

i>..._ ^ ... . ., dohivr to'i -mol 

«qJL7;i s^oni^wu .• ii-./ fj-'-'i- ■; ■•■" '■•^-^' , . .,^.....x .. ^aX 

aif* y^ baJOtaqsmoc-- <-;-' .-.'t^-' •-- - " ' ?;.,«,■,..,.:.,•, 

-rcoij^ 4 a»:3{0£nrXjt^ o.- nozb Mcn.c- e..L •, -■?"■ "iisi ti^.r ru^.:- : 

«•) ^'Se^saYY anlTBoX etolacf iad ^n-geoMt) o;t ifdatf 7«9 awo :^M oyJiib 
•)3alafi I" bits oliao^LOiVF. odJt aeif oJ^ rrjataarti^ bos trtoil.^ or:- »ri ,©©>£wswIJlM 

*'*©Bt 'xol [oBJSoitlO 

w(i «i »l±Tr aid diflw 03at>tdZ< oi oJBsa ©Tiife odr 5«Jb9a«W!<T »>n.B aXirfoat 

aid oi i»&B :^no-z1 •di ai lejjaoaBAq t^&vxj. ; jirfitlsl ;©a i^eii 

uf i^«na(g-JbC BitsX iwol: « ai rfoMv.' t;?©*!* - ;-:! J. r-s/fcvjou ©d n#£ft*/ •^jrfeii 

« tf« eJlJUf0MO;)iia «*n»enJI ');o rt'o-j -li. hctvu'j fro disHlu ©tox;;; 

^C«nf3id olX<<ini Aioo^ " rf . nioq; 

AaixiAtc b«tf - . ' ' -' - ""o,. .•, .;u.-L»:. u.'u<A . jfi.c ^^lirii 

X© &iiia y M'l i»od n^ aolim STil-Y^^i^^ t:o ^ctiix' t ©Xlrfoai 

tma •tf;^ in ItvAti oi b&uaUnoo 9d isidd bn/.5 noiaiXloo sriJ siolttf ov; ' 

iitomts lit tut Tao rtsaI;>o edi 'Mtided BOiiMjHib om?a m n^ b^OQS 

l U l n a^y ii»«rf^±w ons x^^V^da noaxtaH nariw iojjgml arid o^o'iod xJ^^^Alboamt 

«C /aif* oe xMt nld ^o beeqs ©ji^ bari^'teiinlft bwi tfifard aid b&Uqt^i 


(Fineman), although he appiied his hraJcee and did aTerything poaciM* 

to avoid striking the other carf was unahle to ^o so* 

Plaintiff, who hnd turned around to oonverae with fineiaan'B 
wife in the rear seat for a considera'ble period "before the acoidentt 
testified that he did not ohserre what took plaice at the ti»e of or 
for sometime prior to the oocurrenoe. 

Hansen testified that he drove east on Lalce street, at a 
©peed of 5.ho«t thlrty-flye mileo an hour and was going to turn south 
on Mrinnheim road; that thore were stop eigne on all four approaches 
to the intersection; that there was a warning sign 300 feet vmst of 
Mannhein road hearing the legend, «*Stop Sign 300 feet*j that as he 
neared l.annheim road he looked in hie rear rieion lairror to aee if 
there was Bjiy thing behind Mb and saw a oar a block or a "block and 
one-half to the west; that ha slowed his ear down gSfMui-iXlyt ooming 
to a ooarplete stop about fifteen feet -west of llannheim roadj and 
that after hie oar had been stopped fifteen or twenty seconds and 
while he was waiting to see T&at the driver of an automoliile which 
had come from the north and siioppe<S just north of Lake street would 
do, the automobile driven by ^inesiaa crashed into the rear of hie oar* 

Berry Pennington, who was in the automobile that cfoae frcm the 
noriih on Mannheim road, testified that ae he approached the intersec- 
tion, he looked in all direotifflas for traffic and there was none ex- 
cept two auioiBiObileis oanlBS fr«Mo the west on LiJca street, the first 
of which was about the Base diotianoo from the oreeeine as his own 
car and the second ear about SOO yards to the west of the first easp 
(during hie examination he also said that the second car vais being 
driven about 100 yards or 300 feet behind Hansen's car); that hie 
car from the north and Hansen* b car from the west reached the inter- 
section and stopped at about the same 6iae ^jnci that While they were 
"sort of jockeying a little bit as to who should takxs the right ef 

• r-. 


■ 'lUSO/uht 

DXtc ; ... '-.o'. a; J.:? a. 


'.^ aew 

^ no 

■iao o 



nr rfoijtiw ^0 
s/jlrf bmn t*: 


way *** there w&s a crash aa(fi I saw this other oa^had Taeen coming 

from the west, that I had dismissed from my attention, completely » 

had crashed into the hack end of the other oar which was etoppad at 

th« intersection! and •when they collided, when he "bumped this other 

car, he pushed him completely aaross the road and turned around, so 

that instead of heing headed east as he was he vi'as headed west." 

John W» I3aaka testified that he was employed at a fruit stand 
at the southeast corner of the intersecilon; that there were stop 
signs at all four oomer^j that he saw the Hansen oar stop just iwest 
of Mannheia road and the Pennington oar stop Just north of Lake street| 
that at about the same time he first saw dsfendants^ automohile ahout 
twenty-five or fifty feot west of the Hansen oar approaching at a 
speed of ahout thirty-fire miles 5.n hour? that it was swaying and 
skidding; that the paTsment v;as wet and he saw skid marks from this 
cap ahout ten or fifteen feet in length after the accident; and that 
after the oolllsioB Hansen* s automohile was in the southeast portion 
of the intersection «facing northwest". 

There mi^t 'be some question whether this evidence alone was 
sufficient proof of the ..ilful and wanton misconcluot charged, hvt this 
is not all the evidence hearing on the charge of \7ilful sad wantoa 
misconduct on the part of the defendants. Fineiaan also testified 
that while he did not notice the stop or warning signs as he approach- 
ed Moiinheim road, he knew that said highway i^aG a "regular stop 
street I* that "he {Hansen] seemed like he v,'aB ; oing right ahead;* that 
"hy the rat© of speed, he [Hansen] did not look as if he ^^s going to 
stop;** that since it appeared to him that Hansen did not intend to 
stop at all at Hannheim road "I intended to follow him" right through 
regardless of traffic that was going "north and south". This testi- 
mony of 3?ineman that he knew that Mannheim road was a •'regular stop 
street p» that he thought Hansen was going to drive right across saae 

^niii»5 ««»cf bi-rfN^o -.'odJo ^idi wsa I ftna d^axo a saw •a««i^ *** ^vr 

its io^rf •fl.; aiidjsio ib^ 

0-3 « onuo X iiotrzisi bfifi bcort {MIS' nnoT' T.qpsoi' isiM boABUq, drf ,!!CJ30 

ir- ^^-r'^r'j ^/jriJ ,,.,...: ...-J, ■: ■in- :di ^.q 

_ ^-s.. . .. ■ ■ ■■-.-.t^-,'^ -r^-'. J -'-feffvnr- •>(<■'' i'^iCi 

•W^ noil aotXMi faiJir vs-aa 9x! hao ^ew a^v dnfJfltsv.ui ari;? i&di i,i.a£.ha£iQ 

•W^ ,tvo' ,fo©3ijiifo *oy'jflooQJtK aoitiriir bnr, Isslliv: 9£U lo loo'xq ^Heioi'ilwa 

HOittflvr' biM Xu'lllvr lo ©aierio arl* rr-^ .or; oofTG^ivf cifcf IX' ,'ton a.t 

belTLJiiaot o"I.- rr-.-a^rrlT .S.^n- .^ ., . . i . ,. .. - Jja 

■x^--. ---- [iijisi" a S"- t/;v.'' ,,,^., ^,^ ^ ^^ot: fltloil£ra>3M lbs 

,-^ ' •'•f-*.iCa JxIt * "'^' , [noenaH] erf" '^ "j;ts9'x;J« 

o^ <,"^." -"^ ' ' '' .'--T- '..J o-i edi- -^cT" 

* . ttjs dSroa" siiio.i tnzu iedi oillBXi "in anolbtmz^t 

fO^a 'XJtliU'ji^'iX a Ajtm kaai albiinciBlL imli v/eict erf iad;i niwnawit lo ^jmub 
■ teoTM jstati srl'ib o iaw noeuaa tUfiuodi sxl Profit Wa^as^ii 

without etopping and that he intended tc follow Mm ri^ht cjarough 
regrrdlesB of trafflo and the stop signB, ccnsidered .v.'ith 3J.I felM* 
other evidence in the case, was ample Justification for tiie verdict 
of tlie Jury finding defendaats -tillty of wilful and wanton msoon- 
duct that w''.3 the proximate oauee of plaiatiff'a iujui'ies. By Ms 
conduct and deola-red intention 3*ineman evinced a recklesB disregard 
of the rightc nnd safety of plaintiff* The facts in the instant 
case hrinfT J'ineman' s opere-tion of the fiutoiaoljile squax^ely isrithin 
the definition of wilful and wanton misconduct enunciated in Jeneary 
▼• Q* & !• Trac tion Ot>»s 306 111. 392, cited T»y defendants* ^Oiere the 
court said at pp* S97, 398 « "Ill-tAlll is not a neaetsary element of 
a Wanton aot» To constitute la t^anton act the party doing the cct or 
failing to act must he conscious of hie conducti andj though having 
no intent to injure, must "be coasoious, from Ms knovjledge of surround 
ing circumstances and existing conditions, that Ms conduct t»111 
naturally and r>rohahly result in injury, /ji intentional disregaid 
of a knoTsm duty necessary to the safety of the person or property of 
another, and an entire absence of care for the life, person or prop- 
erty of others, such as erdiihita a oonsoious indifference to conse- 
quences, msJces a case of constructive or legal willfiilnesss such as 
cha,re;es the person 'sshose duty it was to exercise care -with the con- 
sequences of a willful injury. ( Walldren ^press Go. v. Krugp 291 
111* 4721 Bemier v. I12.inoi8 C entral Railr oad Co. , 296 id* 464c)" 
The court therefore properly refused to direct a verdict for defend- 
ants on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove that they were 
guilty of wilful and wsnton misconducts 

Defendants next insist that a verdict should have heen 
directed for them heoause plaintiff failed to prove that lineman 
drove the automoTdle as the agent and servant of Gterrick as alleged 
in the second coimt of the second amended complaint* It is sought 

»tii I-.s x£*l.w htix^blzaoc tar . «f-t &ii^ olltsni lo a8«XfcT-s«t 

-xjooGiia foxw iMlll . Ixi/;, 8*j6Bftc9t96 snl&nJtl Y'^t ®^^ ^ 

tpcgac^L oi bs;^«j:oawxxo ^cwbixoov. _..: x. . ../.-t jn*j Xir'iXJw ^0 fti»lilni1&h Bdt 
%Ma axaiSm <aon*3bnoAo'^ -' v - <S«?; ,1x1 ao5 t«^o,0 neJ^Ojgtf »I A •0 .v 

kJBTOiv^^ lo og'*^-'^ 3^ p-^ oorl tisjiotoarioo ecf v^sww i^-iwtni aj rfaT*;tol or 
XX±w *ojfbnoo sj: tanoi^i&xifto aaiiJaix© Sar« aaana^J'ninL'O^io a«i 

Tto -iccrieqoaq to rxoaieq oi-Id ^0 v t^siaaooftn -^^twb tavoni ^ Tm) 

•■^[VTq; TO f10 91tcq t olxX ;. JKOalfj! »«X4sB» jir felMJ «Tori*o«^: 

-d««Do oJ soaereViibnl ayoxoaircc - a;Jicfi4xe q<b iisuc tSiwfJ^O "io ^^19 

ca ilQi;. < t;ajnXi;-y.XXii7 X.-j?iSl r ■■:;"nor to eciio « aeat'^ «890«eijp 

•(«,**^ *bx .^er- ,^0 bq«iXljBg Xi^iJngP algfllXXI •^^i: '■■ "^ ?sv* «XXI 

nolob To'i ioxbiev x; ioeiJtb oi boQu'i'~»t ^Iieqexq fa^.w .^tijoo erlT 

• t»w Y©rf;J J.'iri- ©votrq oJ boXl/.;! Itirffflfilq irJi^ bmre wio no 8;J»5 

*ioubuooiim nc^tnaw bH£ XulXiw "io tc^XIwb 
aoocT 6TJ»i( bXi/oifa *oibti«v ti issAi *iJxani *x«fr a;tjfc-;bKeloCI 

ctt^ indi tnro'tq oj bdXid l^l^iti^Xq •aii.ioao' itrttfU lol bo;too7J:b 
i>e% 3ll ■ ioi-ttsD "to ;trLeT7«6 bjor ^tfogiB «lfi ejB ecilrroenli/i} «xr;^ •T«'Xb 


to support this contention "by the glaring laisBtateiaent in defend- 
ants' brief that "plaintiff's proof on the (luestion of this agency 
was merely the fact that the defendant, Syd ffineman, was driving the 
oar at the time of the ooourrence complained of » He did not actually 
prove the ownership of the car hj the other defendant* Max ^'errich." 
This statement is absolutely refuted "by the testimony of the defend- 
ants themselves, and it is sufficient answer to the instant contentioi 
that Gerriok testified WBX3QBx»X«»»sxsi5|iJja|^ that "the car that 
figured in the accident was mine"j that "I authorized Syd lineman to 
use it"! and that "I asked him in case I don't get hack £to S'reeportj 
to take the oar in [to Chicago] for me." 

It is claimed that ths verdict is •xoessive* The evidence 
disclosed that s.e a result of the accident plaintiff received lacera- 
tions on the forehead and upper lip, which had to he sutured, and con- 
tusions on various parts of his "body. He suffered a skull fracture 
and injury to his hrain, which affected his eardrum and one of his 
eyes. There was evidence that plaintiff suffered from dizziness and 
headaches almost continuously since he was injured. His doctor's hill 
was $250. In our opinion, considering the nature and extent of plain- 
tiff's injuries, as well as the other proper elements of damage, the 
amount of damages awarded hy the jury was not excessive* 

Complaint is made that the trial court erred ia permitting a 
medical expert to answer the hypothetical question propounded t© him 
hy plaintiff's counsel. The q.uestion assimed to state the material 
and qualifying facts in evid^snce ,:nd concluded with the inquiry, 
"Have you en opinion, Doctor, hased upon a re£<,aonahle degree of medi- 
cal certainty, as to v/hether or not the accident in question, with the 
symptoms following, might cause or bring about the headaches that the 
hypothetical person is now complaining about?" Defendants' counsel 
stated hi.8 objection to the question as follows j »!Ehe objection is 

"v^l ©00 

'- ;ir 


aid lo 0x10 ofi*s au'ibtc«» aj-jl iasitoi^Ti« ii . - ' X^wtfli J^n* 

•ittalq lo ittQixa bne. dXuiJB^t ©rfi - luo rr. . bj3W 

9 , iia9molo loffonq ledJo »rf;t a£ XXew ar ,a®j:i;j(;,ni: u'^^l;^ 

« Iflldiljffxsq Al bris* ;tx(;oo Xjei-^. .ii;t objm. «i ^fffJUiXginoO 

XaI Tf. *i:r; 

• or- 

n i n Q •+ 

i'.jriioi ' .^xxjcxiyit-, "i';li;du.. v^ ...c wok ui ttoa-jt^y. XjooiJeil^oqYri 

ai noUo^lfSo aiffl- ; swoi. aftija^wp wCa Qi mliobldo «.trf 6©*A;Ja 


that the question ends up by i^hether or not those things ml^t caxisa 
it* That isn^t the rule of proof here* The riile of proof is that 
the injuries do oause it, with a reasonahle degree of medical cer- 
tainty, not that they aiight cause it#« The form of the inquiry with 
which the hypothetical question cancluded was approred in Kimhrough 
▼• OhioaKO City Railway Company. 272 111. 71, where the court said at 
pp# 7Ti) fei "A physician may he asked whether the facts stated ia « 
hypothetical question are sufficient, frcm a medical or surgical point 
of Tiewp to cause and hring ahout a certain condition or malady p or 
he may he asked whether or not a given condition or malady of a person 
may or could result frcm and he caused \>y the facts stated in the 
hypothetical question, hut he should not he asked vrhether or not such 
facts did cause and hring about such condition or malady • ( lllinoia 
Cjentral Rallroad_JOjj. t. Smithy 208 111. 608; Keefe r. Armour & Go», 
258 id. 28; Peogle t. Sch^JUzjL 260 id. 35; CaBtaine v. United Hail» 
ways Co.. 249 Mo. 195| 155 3. W. Rep. 36? Seyer t. M. & 3t. Louis 
Railro ad Co. , 156 Iowa 664; 137 If. ¥. Rep. 937; 44 L. R. :.. [IT.S.J 
1200.) In oases where there ia no dispute as to the maimer and causo 
of the injury and no dispute that there was an injury sustsained Toy 
reason of the acts of which complaint is made, this court haF. held 
that a physician may then directly testify that a later malady was or 
was not caused hy the accident or original injury, upon the same 
principle that he may testify that death resulted from a certain wound, 
Schlauder y« Chicago and So uthern T raction Co., 253 111. 154; City of 
Chicago Y. Didier , 227 id. 571." It is also stated that the hopothe- 
tical question iirnored certain fects in evidence and misstated others. 
Uo such ohjsotion v/as raised in the trial court and it is too late to 
urge it at this time. In any erent it w s the duty of defendants* 
counsel hy specific ohjection to direct the coiArt's attention to fecta 


ijui«3 ti^ta osfi-j£-^ 3. . 

i eiu :0 Ob «siTWt«i o^' 

--■'-- -• -: -^^jj^o «aaoM2 '^ 

lU •xoit^ tXV .1X1 S', < - 

. ;. .-i,..r„ iJtt ^S'? ■'i^" t'I'J 
...^ ,rfj ^^riioxlv/ bei.B OCT >Cflni n^iox.vl^ A 

^^^ ' ., ;tuotfr> 3fli^rf «>«^ «*^"^^ °^^ «'"''^'' ^° 

^w^ fv,^., ©aoflO biJ> 8*o«^ 

xian: x^i*M? 

^<3;o0^^ ;8S *&i SSS 

jgex .0-1 Q^'S: ti3L^,.JSM 

i;qaib OfJ ^^ '-''^ 

. lobw/iXfiJoo 

0-1 rr-u-rieo b»T:on-.,.t aoii^e^P tat^i-^ 


omltted from or misstated in the hypothetioal question or to call 
tlie attention of the witness to such facts on cross-examination. 
(Ohicago Jity Eailway Company y. Bundyt 210 111. 39.) We do not 
think there is any Talid ground for the ohjeotlon to the hypothe- 
tical question* 

It is neoct contended that six instructions given at plain- 
tiff's instance TJiere erroneous. We have carefully examined and 
considered all of the instructions given to the jury and are satis- 
fied thatf notwithstanding that some of them may hare heen iMfiMa^^B^ 
inaptly dra"wn» taken as a series, they fairly state the rules of law 
applicahle to the proven facts in this case. ^Ihere was no proposi- 
tion of law pertinent to the issues of the case on which the jury 
were not fully instiucted. The office of instructions Is to give 
information to the jury ecracerning the law of the case for iimaediate 
application to tlue suhject matter Taefore them. The test, then, Is 
not what meaning the ingenuity of counsel can at leisure attrilDute 
to the instructions, hut how and in what sense, tinder the evidenoe 
hexore them and the circiBastances of the trial, ordinary men acting 
as jurors will xmderstand the instructions." Reivitz v. Chicago 
Rap id Transit Co. , 327 111* 207. "All the instructions given hy 
the court, taken together, constituted a single charge to the jury, 
iirror cannot "be predicated upon such a charge "by the selection of 
particular sentences or paragraphs and reading them separated from 
other portions of the charge which modify and express them." People 
V. lli^lS, 324 111. 190. 

iJefendantB' contention that their motion in arrest of judgment 
should have l3een sustained "because plaintiff's complaint did not 
state a cause of action against them i» vd.thout merit. ♦'Ho pleading 
shall lae deemed had in suhstance ?/hich shall contain such information 
as shall re ..sonahly inform the opposite party of the nature of the 
claim or defense which he is called upon to meet." (Ch. 110, par. 170, 

■ bail 

a* owl nevoin wiJ v... ^XGuixXciq;^ 

©^oJ--,..:^ 91l/«i©^ 

••a*«ive 9XiJ -i'tariJ. » ear 

10 ,fj:->I cri* -niTcy^tofioo \,'*^t 

on »xs>w 

^o.^jOJ H'- 

. vjai'>i 

^MfllB^tft "i^ ♦••^«« «^ l»i*o« -tie 
itoxt bib ittlB 

• w 

iiolrfv •8n©l9b 10 ciLbXo 


seo. 42, £JuT3f:ec. 2, Illinois ntate Ear ^jtate. 1935.) It osi?mct 
"be said that plaintii'f's complaint heretoforce cet forth did not 
reasonably inform defendants of the nature of plaintiff's claim* 

For the reasons stated herein the judgment of ^he Clrouit 
court for f52,0()0 in favor of plaintiff and aeainst 62fan€&ntu 
Syd 7ineman luad Max Gerrioh and the judgment a/^:i.nst plaintiff 
in faTor of defendant Molvin A. Hansen are affirmed. 

jtroasHiiTs A3Wihm:?)b. 

friend, P. J., and Scanlan, J., concur* 



iXJiX-^^l ^^- 

• U OiiJ'. 

•ttronoo «.T. « re®Xii3t^"^ fen- 

llA]l0AIIIf ySKOI, 

(|}«f»iidaxit) Appellant. 

294 I.A. 606 

till* 1» an «>ppe«il by th« defendtnt oonpaRj frcwi a judga«at 
•ikt«r«d on th« Terdlot of a jury In favor of the plaintiff in tho 
mm of $1«000« 

ttitt 9mit bjr tho plaintiff iri»8 instituted on a polioy of 
Inauraneo issutd by the dofondiint oompany on the lifft of Jolin 
fn&if in wbioh th« plaintiff is tbo niMaod b«n«fieia37« 

Plaintiff allogoo tj^o insuanoe of tli« poliey datod April 30, 
1983 » and tiio doatb of John londi on toptowbor 19» 193@« Plaintiff 
jhartlber alleges in the ooapi^int tli^^t notiM of do^ttn was g:iTen to 
the dBfendant in %h9 Manner and fom aa provided for by the terse of 
the policy* and the :mfueal of the defendant oeapany to pay the 
aaount provided for in the polioy* 

the anever of the defendant admits the issuanee of the 
polioy on April ^» 1933, and allegee thst the polioy iras iesaed 
in ooneideration of the applio^tion and the imynent of the quarter- 
annual preniunw on the 30th day of July, ootobe;, January and April 
of each year* Wie polioy lapsed for nen-payaMnt of the quarter 
annual preaina due January 20^. 1935* On February 36, l^S, J^n 
yendi siloed an appliomtion for reinetatenent and therein, as 
averred in the answer of the defendant, represented to this defendant 
oonpany that he waa in ioond health, that he had no illneea or 
Injury sinoe the date of the ieauanoe of the polioy, had ooneulted 
no i^sioiane, and in the ftpplio^tion for reinstates nt ahieh was 
signed )qr hi», he adadLtted the lapse of the polioy and oertified 

.It A« 

Q \J ^ » j«- V* 

j'-;<::'.t,3'»'T0'; '-■'Of? "> ^u>.>-. -wt>0 

aiio% lo »11X <»i(# no xnt' noa tastt>Hal«J!> »di t^ Irtiji. 

•t^j9l*nta»d r-^amtut «ril cl t^lfrtiftlc •!?# lit: ^ 

,df Xi^q* i>»#^l> t*^X«4 wr* lo »©irexrafti 9rf* «- tiiTfli.*!^ 

-T»#TJUVp Mf# t« #«««Xsc 9/17 ^(T^ ar.'^it-oiXrrr •li^ lo aoX#«-T 

ifl^Mtt^aft •!<<# ot b<».i « ra«fca«»l^»l> aif^ lo t'^mvttff 9At at hBViBfM 

to ••MiXXi •« bMl •!( 1 . ilf ,f(tfXi^»il £»ni.rot ai a«^ OK f ctft j fUK $ n 

b9iLummom bm^ ^^ISm m(# to imn-'mrt •sii to »if^b 9dt 99at» x^viaJt 

]^iti#Y«n fen' v«ilGrC •!(# to M^aX ttifl fttffJUlt^ til «gii(l ^ I^Miait 


tJutX bis aaswor* were tyu« and oorreot and w#r« made to l&duo* 
tH* ll«tropoXltaA Life Insuranoe Cottpaoy to relMtote tbe pell«7» 
that If the policy w«r« xeinst^ted* it would be deert«d te be based 
upon tbe represeatatioos oontsined in the «pplioatioB ftsd upea 
the express eocditlon th'^t if th# statMtents thereia were in aiqr 
vespeot imtrue^ the oompany would, for » period of two years froa 
tho date of reinstatOiRent, be under no liability by re«!8on of the 
fttteapted reimt^tesMsat of the poliey« exoept th- 1 the wmpaLVf 
would return to the insured or his personal representatiwe &11 
preittiuas paid sines the d^te of said reins t«!te«ent« 

Defendant in its answer farther alleges th^t by reason of 
said represent'itionst the polioy was reinst;»ted« th%t John Fendi 
was t»t in sound health on Februax^ 30, 193&« th»t he had sine* 
April 20, 1933, the date of the polioy, had an iUnesst syphilisi 
that he had oonsulted 8r« Fox on January 3, 1935« aAd Hr* Vertuao 
in January, 1935; that the insured died of syi^ilis on Septn^er 
19, 1935; that had the defendant known the true answers to said 
questions on February 38, 1935, it ««uld not hawe reinstated said 
polioy; that the defendant has tendered and again tenders the sim 
of $S0«06, the preaiuAs i^id sinoe the applioation for reiratate* 
■tat. Defendant denies th^t there is any liability to the plaintiff 
for any fVirther aaount and denies the plaintiff is entitled to 

fo this answer the pl&intiff filed a reply in which she 
•iaits signing the appliortion for reinstateaent, and denies that 
John Fsndi aade any false and untrue answers therein. Plaintiff 
further deniee timt John Fendi wi^s not in sound health on 
February 38, 193d, and alleged that he w&s to the best of his 
knowledge and belief in sound health on that dete, and the plaintiff 
further aHeipts in the alternative thst either he did not have 


f sratT^fr" ijtrv 

-•tfjen'^T TA" 

" •VffMMM 


syplilllfl or thnt h« did not oonsult f^x* Fox or anyone ei>e oa 
January 3, X935« or at @ny other tl««y «ad d«ni«s that he oonaulted 
QTh Vertuno in Jamtaryf 1935 for tiyphllls; denloa th»t the cause 
of his death was syphilis; or th^t the answers were not oAde In 
good faith and with .^^ny intent to deeelve or defritud the defendant; 
denies th»t he answered the questions -^9 alleged in defendant* 6 
answer* but alleges that he oould neithtr read nor write the 
i;nglish language except to sign his name and the false «i.n8wi@rs 
reeorded were inoorreotly reoorded hy the defendant's agent; and 
that Fsadi gsTS true answers* the reply further states th^t no 
copy of the applio^tion for rtinstatement was attaohed to the policy^ 
and alleges th<?t the polioy was inoontestahle* 

froa the faots in evidenoe tiie defendant ooapany Issued its 
polioy ih the sua of ll*D0O to <^ohn Fendi on ^priX ZO, 193$« The 
polioy required the payment of quarterly preaiusui of 110.02 eai^ 
en the aoth day of July* Ootober, January and April of et^eh year 
to keep it in feroe» the prei&iuai whioh v&b due on Janaary 30* 1935 
wae not paid and John Fendi applied for the reinst^teanent of this 
polioy on fehruaxT 38* 1@S&« In the applieation for reinstateaent 
signed by hiii it is eiained he represented he was a oar T*]>n.lT€T 
for the northwestern Railroad; that he was in sound health; that 
lie had not oonsulted any physician einee the issuaaoe of the polioy* 
or suffered any illnesn or injury* 

There is OTidenoe thtt John fendi eonsulted Or* iiiohoias 
L. Fox on January 10* 1933* and that Qr« Fox osde a oofflplete 
physieal exasnination and bis diagnosis was oerehrsl spinal syphilis 
or luea* 

There is also ewidenoe in the reoerd th^t Or* L» iibbott 
Vertuno testified he saw John Fendi for tha first tine on February 
24* 1936* th-t he adwised hioi to go to a hospital for n urinalysis 

«« **<ff j?6-t-Jr ■'^ntTtj'^ -flc • i -^.'rrt*' ftvTt ^''tln 4;lN[t»V #««W 

Uplift S: , ■ -r.,'; 'rrIrr-:^T-^t.-r. 'ta f ^^-rf*': '^i**' t^tlwiM** t^J^J'O^ 

t«i» ;'i.M -:• bau^B ai ■ •■: ;t>scrrii .tsepiCHMMI •dt »0l 

^-_u.i:.^. .•:». •• • ' .:'^*' £l5i-iT. .trtoT. 1'*-!^ •nrn^':;lTd «i mstfT 

•tftoX 10 


on Febiuarjr 35» 1935; that at the tin* he consulted the doctor 
the plaintiff wae with hiaj th^t Or. George OeTrana testified 
that the first tlae he saw John fendi was in Jtme* 1935» at his 
office, uteioh was after application for reinstateaent had heoA filed 
hir the iiuiured; th^t he saw hia maxqr tiaee; th?it he was adaitted to 
the St* Anne* 8 Hospital; that he cvide an examination and froa the 
history Fendi gsfs hiB» it appeared th%t the insured had been to 
one or t«ro other hospitals* and had heen discharged froa the Oook 
County Sospital as a patient; that Or. Oefrana diagnosed his oon«- 
dition as syphilis* and that it was present in Fehruary* 1935* 

The plaintiff testified that the insured was in the Merey 
Hospital for fire or six d«fm in January* 1935* and that he died 
on Septtaiber 19* 193e« 

There is eridenoe to the effeot thait Br. S. f« Karquardt 
testified thnt he saw the insured in August* 1935* wlii^ was after 
the date of the applies t ion for reinstatement* and diagnosed the 
ease as syphilis; th^t in asking appliontion for reinstatement of 
the poliey on hehalf of the assured plaintiff's eridence shews that 
she went to the offiee of the defei^ant coapany* whieh was on ths 
seeond floor of the huilding ^ooated in Sliihurat* Illinois*9.nd 
tendered the prealua for $10. 03 in payment of the amount due on tho 
policy* and the olerk asked for the insured snd the plaintiff 
testifisd she said he was downstairs and the olerk told her to hawe 
hia eoae upstairs into the office ^^nd sign sooe papers; th»t she 
brought her husband upstairs and hs signed them. Plaintiff farther 
testified she oould not rend or write and th/%t iu>thing w?s read to 
the assured in her presenee* and denied that any questions were 
asked him* She also testified that she was with her husb^tnd in 
ito* fox*s offiee and that her husband was in the Merey Hospital for 
five or six days in January* 193&« 

The polioy of insurance* the subject of this litigation* 


•ill J Hlol 

, t * c^^-t 

''^ *'^t #«d# 

, >t>mo 


» ■* i-i 


•vx: j.\j I A.> ,'j. Bfo* 

r:1liM#<|»f «• 

t ~ - 


•vAii oJ ten bJLoJ 3fff0le Qj'j f:f. 

' erfi' , 

w«» l»«a*d oa Ajprll 30« ISSS^ and eontalna &»oiif Itr prevlsloiit 
th9 follovlng oXause: 

*i3« XKOOimESfASXLnT: Tbls policy shall b« iiieeiitett- 
ftbl* aft«r It lia» tee^n In foro« for » period of two years 
fjpoai its date of issus. txoept foy Roa-payasnt of premiuas, 
Atuk exospt fts to proTlslons aad oondltlons relating to 
tM&cfits In the event of totaX und peratanent disability, and 
thoss granting ?>ddltlonia insuranee speolfloally ag»inst 
Asfttli toy aooldent« oontalned in ai^ supplementary oontraot 
sttmo&ed to» and made part of» this Folloy*" 

fh« date of de«t)i of the assured «^s Septeabsr 19, 193§» 
being iBore thitn t«e years mfter the ^ate of Issuanoe of the policy* 
fOiils it is not dlspiated that ths ssaured eonsulted the physloians 
MJied in defendant's statement of f<^6ts» it appears th^^t Or* Fox 
ajtd Br» Vertuno vers consulted prior to f etonamry 38» 1936^ i^sn 
tho atiipXlo^tion for relnsttteaent was oiids* 

The plaintiff oonteads th«t in ordor to Told s policy of 
invansmoo on the ground of fraud, the answers met not only he 
untYuo, 1&tiX% they must have been Wi%h. referenee to % aateritX 
ttfttter and is^st haTS been intentionally faXse, and further contends 
that it is presusAble Inference from the oTidenee in this o^ise that 
the insured in mnsverlng s,s he did acted in good faith rithout Intent 
to deeelTe or defraud, itnd eoase^ently a presuMption amj be 
indulged that he noted in good faith sinoe ''fraud is never to he 
I»r«su»ed but laust he established hy ooBfVinolng proof and by the 
greater weight of the evidenoe." irtrly ▼• 9yerly> 363 111* 517. 

The defendjsnt eontends that plaintiff's answers to the 
^estions were deXlber«te nisrepreseatatlons snd not aade in good 
fftith beoaune, whether he was edue^ted or not, he certainly icnew he 
hsd eonsulted these doctors shortXy before the dste of the applles- 
tiOB for reinstatement; that these misrepresentations are not in 
tlio category of const ruet ire fraud* It does appesi* there is 
STldOttoe in the reoord th^t at the ti«e the insured appeared at the 
office of the defendant ooa^ssqr la Slsihurst, Illinois, a youig 


r.9 has 

afl^ioitt-"''' '^''^ f^*^4.r.,*«.^/^ !••;.*,,• .v -^ nrf-?- *jrilfir b«t'r .-tf. toil 8je ti •iun 

-'• "'■'-' • -"-*--■• , ■•-■'■^'•'•isimftl 

, .. •.•i...'.j.v/«%- jt, '"^ ;ff8uii "«>> lej^^fltA) 

■■ ■ * ' --'" "^ -"^ei* ».-*?**i«-" -•■ -^nn» tsj[>ui..'ai««fi 

»n 7'9a2i --ui'* •'?"r»p "• ', • ««» «Ai t*r»'-i ^'^MT'tttHkf •jtf#Jb(tt' 


wwmM o%8]ii«r aak«d the plaintiff to tlgn at pftp«T* whleh no doubt 
wao tlie appllestlon for r«l&st«tem$nt« but th^t no quffstieno woyo 
aakcd or any aiisw^rt glvon by tho insured in the prosonoo of tbo 
plaintiff* 1^0 appesrod at tlio of floe with the Insurod «t tbo 
tiaw tho applleatlon for relnstat^Mitt was sado* Whilo thooo faots 
voro oontrmdioted by tho young nooutn osiohlor* thoy wtro (luootioao of 
faot for tho jury to pass Upon* and no doubt thlo wn» ont of tho 
olonoata eonaiderod by tho jury in detoraining the queetion of 
wfaethor the represent t lone vere made as thoy appear trmt tho 
appXioation for reinatatement* 

the defendant oaIIo our attention to the plaintiff's eon- 
tent ion th'jt the inoonteatable ol^uee in the polioy pr«!Olud«s any 
eo&teet on the fround of fraud after two years from the d«»te of 
isauanoe and that the polioy was more than two years old b% tho 
tine of the death of Fendi* and then points to the faot that tlio 
trial oourt adaitted the applloation for relnatateaient in evidenoe^ 
and also adaitted eTidemte to shov the aisreprosent^tions of f%ets 
■Hade by iiucured in said applioation* and th%t the Question as to 
i^othor the polioy «ms Inoontestable or not «ao deteraiaod by tho 
trial oourt adTorsely to the oontentioa of the plaintiff* defendant 
then ttakes this suggest ioni that in order to raise this ouestioa 
it was neoessary for the plaintiff to assign oross errors* Whilo 
It is true ^at the question as to whether the Application for re- 
instatement oontainod false answers was aubaittsd to the Jury* that 
was the defense urged by the defendant and haTlag offered sadh 
defease, tho defendant is bound. The verdiot of the jury finding 
tho defendant guilty* and upon whioh this judgaeat w^s entered* 
does not require the plaintiff to assign orosa errors for tho 
purpose of having the oourt psss upon the oueation of whether tho 
oourt erred in pe3:«itting suoh defense* The plaintiff h^viag 
reooTsred a jmdjpsoal for the aaount olaiood in her stateaent of 

t tewiftt lot 

to Mt©i: >"- » 


■ l^ tsv 

,:usl -ii^J net ♦•«1 

•iff Ttt^ljIV ^» JW|t»4 . ^ 

i,i i»«li^fi ft«s«k«l( •49 SAW 

n '^ff.' v.4-i«^--<*' "^O ••#91(119 

. - , — ^^3W« tvm^^ 

\a tmmftMt* fA «i A*- 

..:.,.;./' '^'^t T.Vir tnn^ h%f\ ■"- h»'T atfOC»'»"f 


olalB* It im« not iMio«««ATy for h«r to Maiga trroro'* 

lA jpaotlAg upon tho next question a« to «lioth«r tho 
inimrod ima pTOporly rolnotated after tbe allogod do fault in tho 
pa/ttont of prealuao b^r the insured^ the oIa»s« of tho T>oIley to 
whloli vt have referred in title opinion proTldea that the poXlojr 
shall be inoontestehle after it has been in foreo for a period of 
two years froM its dstte of ieaue* eiroept for non-i^yaoBt of 
pT9mXvmm* AlthovLgh the premiiiate were not pnid^ the XneuirmiMNi 
Oottpaiqr aooepted the prealua at the tint the polioy «aa relmtAted* 
There vero no reetriotione upon the oonpaa^*e doteralnation of what 
it should deen OTldenoe of inaurabillty it the time of reinflt«ite»ent« 
Urrlng aooepted as sati8ff*.otory the stmteaient of the insured, the 
eonpasgr waived the right of forfeiture* The <^fendant has oited a 
nunber of authorities fro« other juriadletione upon the question of 
Its ri^ts lAiere the policy is in default ^nd oontains an insontest- 
able olause, idiioii authorities are to the effeot th^t the ootrmnj 
is not deprlTSd of the right to oontest after default on the ground 
of fraud in the applio^^tion for reinstAteaient after teo yosrs frsa 
th« date of the is«uanoe of the policy. %e believe th# oase of 
MSS^SL ▼» Old Polony Life Inauranoe Ooareany. S19 ill. App. 649, an 
unpiaULished opinion, is apt in pmeaing upon the vary question 
inrolved in this proceeding* Xt tr^s held by this oourt as follovs: 

''This is an action brought on an insurance policy issued 
by defendant ooapany. It elestlag ts stand by its affidtTit 
Sf a»rits 9M^ appealing fz«« the judgseat entered as in eass 
•f default, the question presented is as to the sufficiency of 
Uis defense, which is, in substance, th t the policy hariag 
lai^od for failure of insured to pay a presiuot and baring been 
relnatited on his appliction containing false ai«i untrue 
representHtions, icnowingly nade by hia, th^s^t he wp^b in good 
health sAd froe from i^ysioal ailisent, the reinstateaent was 
attU and Toid* The policy contained olsnses cenfoming to the 
statute making it incontestable tus years after its date, and 
in the eTSnt of default in preaium payments, giving the rif^t 
to reinstatement upon eridenoe of the insurability at the ti» 
of reinstatsawnt Uatlsf'totory to the company,* etc, (purs* 3 
and 9, Sec* 6513, Jones ft Addington Stats* )« 

The polioy mm issued in iS^, the default »nd reinstatemeat 

• exfji' 



t«U.-0^ ft: 


aula , 







•n eoiapllmne* with oondltlona Teeiulred^ wo7« in ^uXf, X9XA» 
dtatli of th« ltt0ur«d ooourred in D«e«aib«7* 1916t ^i^*^ ^^* 
suit mn» brought la June* X917* 

It it appclli!iiit*s oontentioa th^t it mxf avoid tb« 
effeot of reln«tftt«««nt rnsd* lapon stioh false rep7««etttatieii« 
within the period of two ytare therefflfter. In other werde^ 
that the period of oonteetahllity rune anew twvm the d».te of 
reinetateaientt espeoialljr where the relnetaLtement was indueed 
hf frinid# 

In eupport of ite position otjies mre eited freai other juris'- 
diotioae. like feeter r, mitfi HpAm'P^^^^ l\l*J^i 
and those following it holding that the period of limitr^tiom 
for oontest oonmenoee anew upon the reinetatewent of the poliof « 
on the theory thi^.t the reinetateaent le it new eontraet of 
Ineuranoe, and oaaee liiw t,t^|^,^%|M|, hU^lM*, ,^<. ▼< 

eenhfrrr (Tex,), 2XZ S, f • i43| h»ldiBg «ii%t wliiii the oontraet 
or reinetatement ie to be reg?^srdOd not a» « new eontraot 
bnt as a w4iTer of foirfeiture, it T«»9rf«9 the rig^t to ^roid 

the reiBuBtatement if indvMied b$r fratadulent siea!^n8« 

fhe rule followed in Mcnmhg^i ▼• y^eWy L^fff , Ipf,^ ,,g»,« 
S4a 111. 488, ie that a relnatnteaMtat is merely « etneellatioa 
of the forfeittire, imd that the erigiii«X poUey oontlnnee in 
fall foroe without intenntption* In that ease while the death 
of the ineured wa« lees th»a two ye^re after the r©ia«tatement 
of the polioy It m-M more than two year* after its Isstianoe, 
and the polioy wie neoording^ly held inoont^stabie* aeviewing 
eonflieting authorities on the sub^Jeet the Q&att deolined to 
folloif tb« rule ajmoanoed in the teetey mnd oth<»r o«!»«s relied 
on isf appellfant, »«d adopted the rule of other oag«ts referred 
to therein to the effeot that the ooatrmot to whieh the liisita- 
tion ie applio«ible i« that of the original applie^.tioa sad 
polioy, and not the rt instated one* This is in ooneoaanAS 
with the ststidite whloh makee the polioy »nd applio^;tioa therefor 
the entire oontraet between the parties. While frmud wms not 
the defense in the ttonah&a o%ee, wh^^t w-i..» mid of the oontraet 
and eonte stability is atpplioible to tht faots here find justified 
the Oourt below in etrlking the ^ffid^vlt on the groui^ th t 
aisreiaresent^tion in the applies t ion for relastateawnt is not 
pmrt of the oontr^iot between the parties whieh by the te»» 
of the statute ae well mm the polley is aide * inoontesteble 
after two yea-rs froa its dmte,* exeept fsr specified grounds 
not involved here and. th^-^t do not inolude fr^ud. te need not, 
however, disousa ituthorities of other jurisdiotions* 

l^therfliore, »s the statute pets no restrictions upon ths 
«oarpaja7*8 determination of sihmt it shall deem statutory evidenat 
•f insurability at the tias of reinstateaent, the eoapaxqr would 
hardly eeea to be in a position to ^luestioa the ir^iver of for- 
feiture so Ions @s it ehose to aeoept as amtisftetery the oere 
et%tea»nt of the insured with reg^^'tid to his health without 
taking other preo»utions sufib as are usually observed with regard 
to insurability before le^iuiz^ a polioy* However, it is ua^ 
aeeessary to deoide this «:;ueatioit if the iaaarar is preeluded 
from making any defense after the l^pse of two years froa 
issuanoe of the polioy other than thoee defenses n^jsed in the 
statuts, vix», non-payaent of premiuas and violation of the 
eendltions of the pollay relating to ailittry or navi^l serviea 
la tiaa of w%r** 


♦ • 







* oortiorajfl to rtvlew the foregoing opinion was doniod by 
tho 3ui»rttiite Court of Illinois* 

The s«iao reasoning as tppo'^irs in th« opinion ^« havo Jiiat 
^oted is appXioatile to ths ponding litigation* uliioli Is in offeot 
that tlso deftndant oompAny on the one hand is not in «t position to 
^Sfition ths vaivsr of forfeituro n^sn it aooepts %s satisfactory 
tho sti*ts»snt of tho liuiured ajkd the ansnors rtcmired in regisrd to 
Ills hsalth s^ort tho oompsi^ faiis to adopt oth«r 'pree«mtioBs suoh 
as ar« usually adopted with regi!?rd to inswrability before issuing 
% poXi^« 

Xt is to be noted frost this opinion tMt this ooart did 
atot follow the oonfliotini; atithorities oltM by the parties to 
tho Xitlg^tiont hut stdo|»ted the rule thft the oontraot to whieh 
the limitation is applio^ble la th^t of the orlgin«X appliontloa 
and polioy* and not the reinstated one* In other »ci#ds, the 
reinstatOiient is a oanoellation of tht forfeiture and the original 
poliey oont limes in ftai foroe and effeot without interruptiea* 

the reply of the defeadsint insur^noe ooispi»ny« as to the 
effeot of this authority t is th%t the Si^i^reaie Court held in 
HUyHT-v* lorth, Ajjeriof^n ^ife liaitmranoe Qmmm. SOI lilt 198, 
that the rule announoed in the lionahan oi^se wn» not applioiitble« 
The question in the Seller ease is mm the i^eaiiuii paid iribten the 
iiieured issued a pro«issery note a«d nade a s«all sash payiaent to 
the Insuraaoe Ootspasgr* the nOoeptaAoe of said note wds eonditionsl 
ps^iMnt, and this appei^ rs frMi the language used by the eourt in 
that ease* The defendant eompiny adnits that a reinstatement 
restores the pol&oy* yet urges thst the reinstateisent does not 
restore the parties to the saaae status they oooupied prior to the 
default} that the partiee oeoupy a ohaaged status created by the nev 
application and their status must be seasured by Jlit rl^ts and 


mi. '^t# 

•/.' , 

XMKll'.t . ..ifi til* 

Si ..'AST Mt ttsmtsq 

tea ^ ')Y 


otitligations of tilt n«w ooatraot a« veil aa by th« old* 

Xn tblii OAse the oonpaay aoeepted tho proaitm »nd the polloy 
«A« reliatated and, under its termo^ wnn in full foroe %]ad effect* 
k nev oontraet betureea the parties was not entered into due to the 
fftot of the reinetatement* Bjr the mooept^noe of the applieatioa 
for reln8ti!tenent and the prenltui* the o&mjmof vftlTOd the right of 
fovfeiture, and therefore the eontraot hetween the p>arti«s eooupied 
the »im0 statue at it oooupied prior to the defeiult* 

m hftTO »Xrefldy pointed to the f^^ot that the SuproM Court 
of thie state deolined to review the opinion filed in the emee of 
iyi£el^v« OM.„^f?X.^ffir, M .f f ,, Im^mmi^J p,'* ^3.3 lU* App* 643. The 
9m$smmit Court* in of feat* approved what wme msdA in the opinion 
filed hy thie oourt* 

It is oont ended that the oourt erred in refusing to %d«it 
in erideaoe the proof of death signed and filed hy the plaintiff in 
this oaae* ^ile it is true th^it the oourt should have pensitted 
the proof of death to have heen reoeived in evldenoe and oonsidered 
hy the Jury* still the c?uestion aris«s| nmM it suoh error as would 
justify a reTorsal of the Judg/sent, Ort Pox* a witness, testified 
as to the exmalnation and oondition of the insured's hselth, and 
nothing oould hav« heen ndded to iMn.% he testified hy sOstittlng 
the proof of death eigned hy the dootor* There was slso* as a part 
of the oertlfloate, the statenent of the plaint if f« There vas 
really no dispute as to the oondition of the health of the ineured, 
nor as to the disease with whioh he w%s afflleted, and the oourt 
in paaalag upon the question as to the idisissihility of th«sO 
doououents said: 

••I do not think it isaterial whnt he died of in this o<ise| 
there ie no dispute - the man hsd syphilis* The only question 
involved here is irtiether he knew ahout it or thnt there was suoh 
a oondition on his part as to put hin on not lee that he had it** 


X^-XUK ^fi^ »«* MiS 

■>ffi»tjTr» /ti ii»v 


■ ^94.iil»mtXP9 Bd* t© 

■'■■Ih Q& xUmw 

aiC^r flotqAT jsftiu*m ait 


^•r« this evldeaoe is in the reoord a« to th« J%ffIlatlo& froa 
uliloh b« WBS suffering, it would &et aeen thnt the refusal t» 
adalt the proof of death vae error tuoh ao would justify « revereeX 
of the ludgpeat on that ground* 

this OAttse w^s eulbaitted to « jury who considered the 
ewldeaee and t?08 intruoted hy the oourt relative to the law 
applio?ihle to the questions in oontroTersy. Ho oontention ie amde 
hf the defendant that the oourt erred in refuaing to give ln«truc-> 
tlons or to isodlfy any of the Inatruetione offered hy the defeadant^ 
and no questions having been raieed^ we h^^^Te m right to &S3ujm» that 
tHe defettdsat was satisfied with the inatruotions given to the 
jury upon the ouestions involved* 

There being no further aiaterial question to he oonsidered 
we are of the opinion th«t the judgaeat should tee affirawd» 

QMU £« SULLlfAH Am IIA&I,^ Jj. 

©t . 

*rf# M?*M#/io' 


• trr 



'•'-■♦ ar*»*f 


ilt to 

♦d* t^ 


JUUUS r. 3UXXTAXKA, TTttste«, ate** 
(naintlff) ilpp«llftnt| 


Zat«rT«iii»g Petitioner and Cyoss* 
Oeapiainaatf et al.* 

(Svfendaiitfl) Api»«ll«««* 

9 4I.A. 60 6~ 

On Ootol>er e« 1933* th« pXftiatiff a« trustee filed « 
l»lil to foreoloee « truet deed wibleb wae exeeuted by Eese MikalausICMj 
•t *!•« defeadantsii To this bill appear&ae^i adid aneirere were 
filed and the oauge referred te e meter in ebanoery to take 
testl«eB]r therein and report the sauae to the eourt* together «ith 
the aneter*B oonolueions of lev and f%et* iOurlng the pendenoy of 
the prooeeding May 0« HaII filed her intenrening petition and oroee- 
eoaplaint by leaye of eourt firet hed and obtained. The plaintiff 
filed e auction to die«iee the intenrening petition and eroae 
eoMplaint of liay 0« Hall, which lootion wae denied by the oourt* 
Froa thle order the plaintiff appeale* 

The bill of ooAplaint to foreoloee the trust deed dated 
April 85, 1929, wae filed by Jxiliua r, Saletanka, plaintiff, the 
tmetee deaignated in the trust deed .%e truetee for the use and 
benefit of all the noteholdere, on Ooteber 6, 1933, The truet 
deed seoured the paynent of the prinoipal euat of #26,500, represented 
by Sf prinoipal notes of varying datee of maturity, All of the 
prinoipal notes were eeenred by the truet deed given to seeure the 
payaient of the eeweral notee, and the trust deed further provided 
that if default be aade in the payaeat of any one of the installmente 
•f interest when the sane beeaoe due *nd payable, then at the eleotion 
•f the legal holder or holders thereof, the priiMipal sun, together 
wltk aoerued intereet thereon ehould beooae due and payable, said 





dOd .A.X i^ ti 31 •^••lieqctA («#r: 

•tRgi»o r> 

« ^o r r 

•iii* of x»»oa«d' 

Mb •bu 9ti:t tol »»tfBii7^ c ' -" .ti>irt« ftd^ al tmi ^si:%i9»Jb •nt^mt 
imni lit •&?' -^dfo? ^ n ,cit»ltXo«fft(^ofi <»iltf XI« lo #llMi»tf 

•#aMiXX«^aai MiT 'to tic Vt" " 
lAitotX* ttft fB amlt «*Xc 

M«« .•l^Jiy^f,' teu Mfii sxv^iuii i^jUciU aa»««fl* t«i>\»t«t tMunt«Mi i.tim 

•l««tion to lEXB Hide tut %iqr time after th« •xplr^tion of 3() dnye^ 
vltHeut notloe* To 0«0ure th« payiMBt of said prlnolpftX noteo 
ftnd l&toTOstf Roso mkalsuskaoc who fms thoa and there t)ie owaer of 
eort&lB real eetate^ eaEoeuted tlie trust deed i& queetlon, smtd 
eosveyed the premlseo together with the reate» Iseuee aod profits 
to the lO^aintiff* se trustee* 

It ie farther charged in the bill of oonplaliit thftt 
Tmrious defmalts were aade in the payotent of frinolpal aM lAtereet^ 
ajacd that suoh defaults oontlimed for a period of nore thm& 30 days 
from their reepeotive datee* and that hy reason of mneh defaults 
a majority of the holders aad owners of the aotes did eleot to 
deoXare the prlnoiiMftl dme thereoB« aad dii re<|ueet the plaintiff as 
trtistee u»dsr aald trvust deed« to hring foreolosare prooeediaga la 
aeoordaaee with the terms aad ooMltiona of said trust deed; that 
suhseomehtly* oa Fehruary B3« lt37* l^ 0* Hall filed aa iaterrealBf 
petltioa and oro8s<->oomplalat settlag forth thnt the oaly parties to 
the suit introlvtd la this prooeediag were the oaaers of the equity « 
the tenaats aad the Reoordsr of Beads of Ooolc Oouatyt aad sett lag 
forth that she was oa Ootoher 16, 1933, the owner of otrtsia of the 
aotes la the total sua of I10»000» with iatereet eoupoas atta«aied 
thereto* aad also was la possessioa of the mortgagoeU duplioate 
trust deed aad the mortgmfee*s duplioate eertifioate of title, aad 
that they were held hy the petitioe^r aad oroae-oomplaiaaat for her 
owa use aad heaeflt aad for the use aad heaefit of all of the other 
owaers aad holders of aotes aeoured \sff the trust deed* 

the plaiatiff filed a motioa to dieaise the iaterweaiag 
iwtitioa aad orose-eoaplaiat of May 0» Hall oa the grouad that the 
plaiatiff as trustee had the exolueive ri^t to foreoloee the trust 
deed herela, idiieh trust deed provides: 

i.-tf^n^.i "iTf •• i»<%i; 

•■, ■ ; i Itif l<»ic? 91- 

:.'? to fll«:;rtr«o Yo Tftn 
ft»«9M##« enoq&oo "^ 

ttd *•» •O^' 

t^fftO •lit Vo Ai." r<> :t «»•*:- 

sn 'ri---?-f 


9ti9 tatii Laavm 9tit r. 

•■9 1 " -, 

r? ti^ij »itew t^iftf t*^^ 
'■ ^■■-'f'^. tiaa •«» <(•« 

»ni, r...jj>0«i-?«a«o bsut eu»iti**q 

"It it agTM^ by tb« graator thfkt la ««•• of « rlj^t 
of fo7eoIo«ure* or otli«r rl^t of prooedxiro shall arlso 
h«r«a»d«v« oltlier upoa sAturity of s^tld prlaoip«l note or lay 
bzoaoh of ai!^ of tine eoTtajints herein, as aforeamidf the 
said Tmstee (Julius F* dmletanka) shall, upoa request of 
the legal holder of a&ld prlaolpal note, bring such legttl or 
equitable prooeedlags for the ooileotlon of the moaeys hereby 
seoured ^m laey be necessary** 

Qpoa a hearing of said aotloa of the plalatiff to dlsaiies 
the Interrenlng petition mad oroas*>ooiaplaiat of Unj 0* Hall* it 
wa* ordered that said aotloa to dlsnias be and the «a«« is dealed 
and that the plaintiff be required to ansver the Interreniag 
petitloa and oro8a-eos|>laint« 

flnw the reoord the aueetloa is: las the order whlA 
deteraiaed the issues betweea the parties a final oaet The notion 
presented to the eourt and upoa ii^ioh the order was entered was 
to disaiss the iaterrenli^ petition^ of the laterrenori, U«f Q» Mall, 
and after due eoaslderatlon the eourt denied plaintiff *s notion 
and required hia to answer the latfrTealng petition* so fr«ai this 
order it is apparent that the rigl&ts of the parties were not fiaallj 
41«p««<i^ ofn but rather that the motion entered was a denial of the 
rei|uest of the plaintiff to disaies the laterreslag petition, and 
l^at ;}ttd(^nt wns not entered dlsposftng; of the rlg^tts of the 
•ereral parties* this not being a final order la the eeaee that 
the Questions lavolved sere paesed upon by the trial eourt, the 
ease is not properly in this oourt» 

the taotion presented to the trial oourt was a aotien to 
dittBlas the interrenlng petition and wae in the nature of a deoturrer, 
vhleh was alloii«d under the old Praotiee Aot« A notion of thie 
eharaoter is governed by Oh* 110, 111* Eer* StatSji 1937, si«* 4S, 
par. 169, sub-dlTision (1), whieh provides in part as follows: 

, j-snel to 


f«ao Jjws 
ttt9 ««' 




, >ttoqttii> 

« -oa ai at«<» 

' ;;>£l;r atJUnil' 
oil* •>n» xic-j:;i- 

"All obj*otlons to pltajAlagt )i«T«tofor« r«lji«d hj 
dettU77«T shall b« rala«d by laotiea. Suoli notion shall point 
out speolfloally the defeets oonplain«d of* naA shall ask for 
such relief as the nature of the defeots any saks approprlats* 
sueih as the disnlssial of the <^otlon or the entry of a judgment 
whers a pleading is substantially Inaufflolent In law* or 
that a pleading be aade aore definite and eerttiln in a 
speeifled partloiilar* or that designated iaaraterial oatter 
be strieksn out* or thr.t aeeeseary parties be added, or that 
designated ais joined parties be dimissed* and so forth," 

The order* as «e have heretofore iodle^ited in this es>use« 
vfts to the effeot that the aotion be denied »M the plaintiff 
required to answer* 

for the rensons stated In this opinion* the appeal is 
»ot properly in this eeurt* and is diraisoed* 

mm§ t* wm^tvKH Aid bau., jj. ookour* 


k _^. ^ ^ 

..... ...^■;,fc:.i.. 

;; V-" 


, ' ■^■bto 


* T". '• *■" 



0$ {Si('<« 





Plaint if f-App«lI««t i 


IRSII ®, UIOBASX*. also known %« 

I)« fondant- AppoIlftiit« 

• 606 



This is %n appsAi by th« defendant fro« r judgoent tntersd 
in the Munieipal Court of Ohioago* Oook County, Illinois^ in the 
sua of tl»837*38* the totion was heard before the oeurt on a 
oontrnet* att«ohsent tnd (j^nishaent prooeeding. In the gamishaeat 
prooeeding the Horthern trust Ooapsj^ ««• aftissd as gamisheo* The 
plaintiff instituted suit for professional serrioes alleged to hare 
been rendered by hia to the defei»lant in an alleged sua of ISOO and 
also on olalas by the plaintiff as aeaignee of a non-negotiable oheses 
in motion for strrioes alleged to have been rendered to the defendant 
by Dr. Clarenoe Bernstein^ m* ^osepli U KlUor and Kathryn araf» 
being in the sua of £^797* 38« 

I)efendant*8 Motion for a new trisil and in arrest of jwigaont 
was oTorruled* and upon notiee of appeal the ease is now in this oourt. 

Plaintiff's original statetROnt of olai« was filed on the 
3rd day of Deoesd»er« 19S6» fron whioh it «tppeifirs that the plaintiff is 
olaia is for aedioal serwioes and ae assignee vwier the terns of 
dftrtftin assignakents executed by Dr. Glarenoe Bernstein* Dr. Joseph 
L. Miller and j>r« Knthryn araf» and th»t he seeks to reoerer the sua 
of 11,363.25, by virtue of said alleged serwiees rendered by the 
plaintiff, together with these rendered by the assignors for and on 
behalf of the defend«(nt* 


303 .A ^ 

\ :^ A ■■:■■■ • .V .r' > 


.gS«^Ttt %o BUM Mf9 Hi 9ai*4 

I '>ital»ln f^ ■ "*«8ff»«»»0 *ti %nh Ave 

•n'f *#M^oo»*i ■' f < f. ' '■ 'XXlll vi 

d... ,.. : •VtfMIM 9—iWt<^t> t■■'-.,•XX^ ^ «tfttlV X<<' ,«fi.S*8«Xt W 


fh«re&ft tr tli« plaintiff filed an %MiAd«^ •tat«i»nt of 
olttiBi on ilitnuax7 &• 1^37, ittMiKing n> stnttaont of olain for oerTieot 
rendered by the pXi&intiff to the defendi^nt in the «um of ISOO, 
together with the tooounta belonging to the pXmintiff by virtuie of 
end tinder oertain aesiigntaentt in the total sua of |797«38* 

1% is farther alleged in the amended oojaplelnt that the 

plaintiff is the bona ffde owner of the mbove ohoees in aetion, and 

that the "aforesaid oh^ees in %(?tion were assigned to hin on the 

4th day of Deoeabert Xt3&» by the said Dr* Olnrenee Sernstein^ 

Or* Joseph h* Miller* and K^thrjrn araf* for iraluable consider at ions 

of the 
to then pakid"* In said statement of ole.isi ure set out eaoh/several 

«aftlgaatents« to whioh are itttmohed ^ffida-rits thtit the aseignors 

sigaed the assignments «ind were svorn to before a notary publio on 

the 4th day of l?eoember, 19Si« 

It is further alleged in the amended ooitplaint that the 
defeadaat was also known as frederiolE Dalton @nd Frederiek Dalton 
Miohael^ that he is not a resident of the State of Illinois* and that 
the plaee of reeidenoe of the defendant is Fonoe De l«eon Hotel* 
IfiaAit ilorida* 

it is further alleged that the plaintiff olalas 11,362,25, 
and a writ of attaohaaent against the garnishee therein naH^d* whon 
the plaintiff designated as hsTlng property, effeote, ohoses in 
notion or credits in its poessseion or power, belonging to the 
defendant fxed 0. Miohael, 

the defendant filed his appearanoe and his affidavit of 
Merits in vhioh he denies that the plaintiff has a valid olaia against 
the defendant for professional serriees, and further denies that 
there is anything due froa hia to Olarenoe Bernstein as a i^yeieian, 
and states if he rendered any serrioes he did it eo oarelessly and 
negligently that the defendant nas injured thereby. Defendant 

to ta«air> 

.'-jflHtt at* fXn t\italfM\ ftK.^ 


t«*iTT*« -^ 

ti«#B fl ^ii»i*s^ I 


<A Mf* Of ni#fii^> 

<d tfba^'^ 


.vl^«©I<r»o cifiit)^ 

Jw tttdto^eiT 

•85 .Vi 

-ae iri,, :<i «#tt«»a9l«aui 

/iiff*«»o aftfettM hMM 

•rf# irtiJ* #ni 

sfcflOft* «ri" 

•xff izo eslr^ o^ ' -^ifOA fli »mmij 

AO Oiitfut? \1«#«ff 

..-fur 9# «ii*aMui|^«ftB 


<»« B ion fti (M( tAui^^ «X®«4oiX 
«e&i^oXi tllR»XM 

ifsi!(9fft^.A to #119 A kern 

tenl'-,- clJ»X# t&ati'.l^ tit f^isifsnt 

....■9 ai 9tk%«m 

±a«tflO)tC .ftfo«*<t tovutni sr >? #a«tafitttl »At fMii xl'<^- 


further denies that liouie £• soholdt was eaployed b/ the defendant « 
end that if he rendered any serTloes he did It e« mn aid and 
aeeietant of aernsteln; and further* if Dr« Miller rendered Anf 
servieeSf he did to ae an aid and assistant of Bernstein and vas 
caiployed hy Bernstein} that the defendant « heeause of the unskillful 
and negligent oare and tremtaent of Bernstein and his assistants* 
was obliged to employ another pfaysioian* to*>vit« MoArthur* aad 
incur medioal bills* hospital bills and nurses* bills at aa 
additional expense of |1500f I3efendant further denies that h« is 
indebted to Kathrya Qraf ; that Kathryn araf was paid for all serTioes 
she rendered to the defendant and that she breaohed ber oontraot 
in Florida while defendant was in a helpless condition* 

the defendant further denies that his plaee of reaidienoe 
wan at the tine of the ooiistsseneement of the suit or is at the proseat 
tioMi* Viasil* Florida* and states that his addrees and plaoe of 
residenee at the tiate of the oo«menoe»ent of the suit was S7 £• 
Harrison Street* Ohioago* Illinois* and donies that assignments were 
■ads to the plaintiff. 

When the ease oaue on for trial* the defendant* on 
January 35* 1937, aored for a oontinuanoe* and froa the report of the 
proooedings eentained in the reoord it appears the defendant sMide s 
aotlon for oontinuanoe on the ground that the defendant was in Miaal* 
Florida and unable to attend* This notion ima made before one of 
the Judges of the Munioipal Oourt* who granted the continuance to 
Marsh 8, 1937* to give the defendant sufficient tise to take depos- 
itions if it were not possible for him to be present at the time* and 
instruoted the Clerk to mark the eourt proeeedingo* "the last 
oontinuanoe". On March 5* 1937* the defendant again made a motion 
for a oontinuanoe on the ground th- t defendant was siok and would be 
unable to attend oourt on ilaroh 8* 1937* the day set for trial* 

?in.-s .'rulj',. -_ ^,^j...-. ^.'.'f' f olt?vrr' "s'v.-*'inff*i iff»rfi!-i£.a ai fett^iXd'o R«w 
flu ,i«v- ,*. * . *--. '^ -'^'•^ '»«^' 

o« »c.- -■■^- 'r— '-'- ,^ — ' '^tf^iatsU 9dt to tttl&tfi •df 


and lA support pt the motion mm the dootor*8 oertlfloat* as to 
th« oondition of health of the defeadaat* Upon ooiwlderatlon toy 
the oourt« the motion tot oontinuanoe wae denied and the eourt 
prooeeded to % hearing* After % bemrlag of the eridenoe^ the judg- 
■oftt appealed froa vae entered* 

the prinoli^l point sailed to our attention hy the 
defendant la that the amended atateaent of olaia does not st^te a 
Gaoae of aotlon on behalf of the plaintiff as assignee of the alleged 
elai»s of Olareaoe Bernstein, Joseph t» Miller and Kiiithryn Graf* 

Oil* 11» 111* Her* Stats* 1937« entitled "Attaehiaents", 
par* 36t seo* 36« provides that the proTlslona of the Olril I'raotioe 
Aotn inoludlng the proTlslons for appeal, and all existing and future 
aaendsenta of said Aot* shall apply to all prooeedinga under the 
pTovlalons of the Attaohjoent Aot« 

Seo* 37 {»rovlde«; 

"The defendant may answer, traTOralng the f^.ots stated 
iB the affldaylt upon nliioh the attaohment issued, whloh answe^r 
shall be verified by affidavit; and if, upon the trial thereon 
the issue shall be found for the plaintiff, the defendant say 
aeysver the ooaplalnt or file a motion dlreoted thereto as in 
other 08.s«;s, but If found for the defendant, the attaehaent shall 
be quashed, and tbie costs of the ettaohaent shall be adjudged 
against the plaintiff, but the suit shall prooeed to final 
Judgment as though ooiweMed b^r swmmm*" 

See* 38 provides s 

**8o vrlt of attaohment shall be ciuashed, nor the 
property taken thereon restored, nor any ersTnishee diseliarged, 
nor any bond by hijs given o^^noeled, nor any rule entered agalaat 
the sheriff dlsoharged, on aeoount of any insufflolenoy of the 
original affidavit, writ of atta^&sent or attaohsent bond, if 
the plaintiff, or soae oredlble person for hiaai, shall o;»use a 
leg!)l and suffiolent affidavit or attaohsent bond to be filed, 
or the writ to be aasnded, in suoh tlae and manner na the oourt 
shall direot; and in that event the osuee shall prooeed as if 
sueh prooeedings had originally been suffiolent** 

there is nothing in the record froa vhleh it sfypears that 

th« notion to strike the stateoent of olala, or as aaendsd, was 

■ado in the pro««ediag in the lower oourt* The sole Question seeas 

to be idiether the swum stateaent of elala wae suffiolent for tho 

;K«I; ai*# »4«►ff^ 

.t to -UJlTf »i( 

K4» < fr. 

■"..fV 1 f'^-' ■■'-V !■■"'( 

li^JHmJk*t<q tilt 

' ■:-'.^:, v^s> l/i< Lu'^t^J- 3>-^T^ 

^ JtJUMCt 

«••■■>.■ n 

'^otq ifoju* 

»4l# •:ifit^« «l rtoX#o« trfJ^ 

purpose of Issuing a writ of RttAOhawnt* Applying th« teetlon of 
the Attaolus«nt Aot on AgMndaMnto* it ftppoara th^t no »tt«iohBO&t 
albtftXl bo quaahod nor garnlahoe ditehargcd booauae of tho inguffioienojr 
of tho original ftffidaTit» writ of ftttaohaent* or bond* Kridently 
this provision wao for tho pmrposo ^ fiiring tho plaintiff »n 
opportunity to fils a otHtoraont of olaiai in ooaplianoo with tho 
atfttuto and to prooood to a hoarlng bo fore tho oourt in the event 
the defendant* upon liotion^ qveatios«d the euffioioney of the 
otatoaMnt a.nd the eiotion was oastalnod by the oourt* 

Tho issue hen^rd before the oourt was, in part, whether 
tho defendant was a resident of tho State of Illinois. Tho evidenoe 
presented was oonsidered suffioientt together with tho evideneo 
on the Question of asaignatent, for the o^jsrt to ent<$r the judgment 
fron whioh this appeal is taJcen, 

Whether tho assignment oonpliod with the statutory pro- 
▼lolon of this state, Oh« 110 of the Pr^^otiee Aot, par» 14$, see* 
33, provides that the Assignee and owner of a non«-itegot labia ohose 
in aotion aay sue thereon in his own nane, and shall allege in his 
pleading on oath that he Is the aotual bona fido owner thereof, and 
set forth how and when he toquired title, and w*t are of the opinion 
that tho plaintiff did iseot the require««nts provided for by statute. 
In his aMnded statement of elaim,wiiioh was sworn to, the plaintiff 
alleges th.t he is the bona fide owner of the ehoses in aotion, and 
that the ohoses in aotion were assigned to hia on the 4th day of 
Oeoeaber, 1936 by the said assignors for valuable eonsideration paid 
Xm theoi. The assignments are set out in the pleadings. Therefore, 
it would seen that frosi the amended statenBont of olaiai the aesignoe 
sued thereon in his own naae, and in hie pleadings shows that he is 
the ^as^ f^df owner thereof and gives the date when the ehoses in 
aotion were assigned, and etates that the assignswats were made for 
valuable eonsideration paid to the assignors* 

\LiU9ttVS. .Ljb. 

•At aitm ••nail 
tA9r9 • 

•as lo t»aai»lti^ 

iXiil^;^ lot 


• :• '^' r £«<(» 
/Jii'j to 

,t«j3fanot»l> •Af 

, „ JiflfiSl ^ ^*'''^ ** l«16»«lsf 

t Udt 

•Mitif^tA •iC# mi ""A *>(' «MT) ;t^K# ««•« J^Xu»« ti 

•1 •*! tfisij 9tro/<i« « « <(»«■ AVO ajtii nl oiMiftiiff &•«• 

Hi t»Mil« »d# ««lf» Sa^^ 9tU t»Vl« ten ltt*T»l» VMWO MX MSSti *'^ 

. ft 0X9* 

tlfiq r. 


1fhll« th« pleadingB oalt tli0 word '^metual** &» o^Ued tot 
by th« sot, ttlU th« plaintiff d©«« atite that h« 1« the bona fldy 
holder of these ohosee in ROtion> on the grounds herein indio^ted^ 
and we are of the opinion th t thle was auffioient* in vleir of the 
tmoX that there wma no speoifio motion made to etrike the amended 
fttffidarlt of olalm for rant of suffleieney* The defendant stressft* 
the point that the asHinded etrntement of olaim sets out th-^t these 
*ttftif»a«&ts were executed on the 4th day of ^^eeevber^ l^SB, whieb 
«as the date allowed subseGuent to the tiae the suit tms instituted* 
Howerer, as we havt lndlo«ted, the qryestion should have been raised 
by Motion, to strike so that the plaintiff aight be given opportunity 
to aeet this issue. Hot having nade the notion, it is now toe late 
to raise the cruestion in this oourt* 

la the disousision of the Question of suffloienoy of the 

ple<^dings, Oh« 110, par* 1@6, see, 43 of th« Praotioe Aot, (111* 

Rev« Stats* 1937} provides in part »@ follows; 

"(3) Ko pfteading sh^ll be deeoed bad in substanoe whieh shall 
oeatain sueh infor«»tion as shall reasonably Infors the opoositt 
party of the nsture of the olaiai or defense whieh he is cs»iled 
upon to ateet*" 

Then the prevision goes furthers 

* (3) All defeots in ples^dii^s, either la form or substance, 
not ob^eoted to in the trissi oourt, shall be de^jsed to be 

The Mthod by whieh these ebjeetiona are to be raised is provided 

f«y 1& Seetion 45, Pwx, 169, as follows: 

"(1) All objections to pleadings heretofore raised by dejaurrer 
shall be raised by motion, Su«i notion shall point out 
•pecifioally the defeots oonplainod of, and shall ask for audh 
relief as the nature of ths defeots isay maJtm ao^jropriate, surtti 
as the dlsfflissal of the action or the entry of « Judgaent where 
a pleading is substantially insufficient in law, or that a 
pleading be made nore definite and eertain in » specified 
particular, or that designated liHWiterial instter be strieken out- 


i ft A 


• I 

r. .1 i.'iPi;, i 

i;5;.i7oxj R.X ;«8i 






1 e ' 

:iD'-fi *";' 

Th«ii if th« motion li mA9 and all»««d» i%e iTmotlM A«t 
providtts for aiBvndsiAnts «uGb as aeiy toe allovtd I17 tii« eourt* niit 
is also pr©vid«d toy i*«l« 135 of th« Mimioipftl OowTt Aot »n "Aawndmenta* 
i^«x«in it ia provided thmt *aiXl vuoli afi)«Mm«iit8 stoail toe nftds a« a«jr 
to« n«o«ss%7]r for th« purpose of dsteToinlng the tfmX questions in 
eontroTcrsy toetneen tfee p«rfci««» • * • fi^sn there is IhaXe 77 ©f this 
Aot, i^ieh provides thmt *fh9 owjUPt B8«y at n,W9 stage of the prooeed* 
ings order to toe stsniek: &m% or msMinded mny nmttor in mTSf pleaxilng whloh 
asgr ^ uaneeessftry or soandalous or whleh amy t«»d to prejludiosj, 
«i^«rrsi«e or delay a fair trim! of the aetioa^^t »nd. vhici^ in effeet 
is ths unma as the eeotion to whioh we have referred in this opinion 
on th-^t point* 

Them Hule 9@ whioh ie in line irith the Fractiee A«t^ provides 
tliat "So deoKirrer shall toe all««ed« toiat the oourt ofty order »ny 
plOi^ding struck out on the ground thiit it disolos^s no ressonatole oause 
of aotion o» answer. * • ♦«• And finally, Bwle ZQ9 provides* 
«« to the extent that the^ are inoonsietent or in eonfliot 
villi these rules the provisions of the GlTll Fraotioe Aot ure heretoy 
deelsred to toe Applioittole to proeeedli^l^ in the aetinieip^l Qourt*** 

By t^e Aot entitled* ''Attseittteats** pamgraf^ 36« seotion 36* 
provides that the provisions of the aivll ^rtvOtioe Aet* including the 
provisions for appeiil* mtA all existing and future amendments of said 
Aot* shall apply to all proeeedings oader the provisions of the 
Attaohnsnt Aet. fe hmve in pert disousaed the rules applioatole to 
trials in the ifunioipal Sourt, mnd In view of the provisions of the 
statute as to the applioation of the Fractioe Aot to attaohaents* we 
are of the opinion that there is no real inooasisteney toetweea the 
the Fraotioe Aot and the %les of the Munieipal Oourt aM that this 
eourt would not toe Justified in reversii^ the judgment upon the ground 
urged» j,^^ ^jjg reasons stated the Judgnent is affirmed* 

SSVIS £. mUUlV AK9 HAiO.* 44, OOMOUE* 


.'xvais; ,JoA 



fUSr ■ --t' 

■>lii>n to 

■* ■' ■ 
bffjx t;. ^fit mac if itmm^biti "' * '«* txuot 

^ corporation, /*^ \ 

0? CHXOAaO. 

L. 0. PARKiK aiMi hom mm « »00R ) J 

eOMFAMfy n. eorporation, 1 OQ/tT A f^ Ck ^ 

A judgaeat hf oonfescion wss (mtttred on July 15, 1938, 
ftgalnst L. 0. Parlcsr, H. ?!iuleiib«rg, mnA ^^oto 6a«ii A Ooer Co. for 
|76S,38, upon ^^ pronlSBory note whieh orovldoa for a )ucig««Bt by 
ooDLfesAlon. On August 24, 193€, thle ju%m«iit «ae vacated on 
potitlHitt of th« defendants L. B« l^arkor aftd A<mo %«li & '->oor ^o« on 
t1i« ground t^stt H* ^^■'nienberg van doftd at the time tbo judpioBt by 
oonfoftoion mm.^ entered. Upon the trl^l of the aa.@« before a jury 
on UsLf 14, 1937, B verdlot «a« returned and the eourt entered jiidf-^ 
m&nt for l"W>0 agslnst the <3efendant» h, «. Parker aad Ac»e 'neb 
* Door 0©,, fro« unleh Juflfiflient the defeadsnts appeal , 

the auffloleney of the pleadlnge ta the emn^ le net 
Que^tio ':.#d. 

the aetioi' la btieod upon the proaleeory note, fros which 
it BppmBtB the Aoae Saah i> ^oor aoflip9:Eqr w^^ indebted to the pi intiff 
for window fraaee it Md purohaeed from th» nl^^ intiff en an open 
account. On Septesber 12, 1931, V* 'U Johnson, preeident of the pl°.in 
tiff ooN^fHftjr, talked to Vandeaberg and Parker, officers of tlMi 
defendant oorporRtion, about the aecount* A note for |600, payable 
to the plaintiff in 90 days was eigned by the Ao«e %8h A lk>ot Oo«- 
paay by H, Vaadenberg, Free., t. ; . Parker, Becy. '^ubsetTuent 
thereto Y. k, i^OQBSOS, plaintiff's president, rstixrned and talked wit 


r>i " 4'%; 

TOO .ii.iJ^es 


jait^^^^irtj v-r^ ;ti"ff>. 

Tf * 

^t^ -tot f'^'^m 



if To ftd: . i 



V£Uid«iib«rg nni Parker and told them thnt the bank would m^ke 

a Xo&a prcYlded they would sl|t;ii the note indlTidually; that they 

then took «p the «stter with their attorney, and txom hie eridenoe 

it appenve that - 

•the nuestion «?»« r 'ised whether it would be %11 right if 
■». i>nrker s'nd Mi. Vfindenberg woul<! si^n on the face of the 
ftete B.B aoGmBBK>d&tioB indorsGrn »nd X told Vv^.m in ffiy opinion 
ih»t would be all right «iid eo they did." 

After they signed the note z« indieated, Johmeos diseounted 

It for the pi intif; at the Mutual Matiomi}. Sank of Ohieag©. ^ 

p9y»ent of |7& «ae made «tt nsturity, and it Rpp^mrn fro« the eTl- 

deno* that V. A. Johnson te.«;tified he "paid the balanoe on the 

note* after «?^turity ^nd pioked up this note from the h^nk. The 

A«M ^sh A l^or Conpnny nade an assignaent for the benefit tf its 

ereditor®, and in 1932, Ur, Ourley, the trustee or "assignee, p^id 

t per oent dividend. 

It further appears from the evidenee of Johnson, th?.t on 

September 12, 1931, the defendant ^oae -eh & ^oqt Oonpsny, e oorpe* 

ration, wsae intlebted to tue plaintiff isi the eua of $600 for serehan- 

diee sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff, sad the 

plaintiff hRvln^ receiired the note fre^ the d#fen<^»nte, signed by 

Vsadenberg a»I Farker, there was due at the time of the trial, 

including intere^tt and attorney* @ fc<ss, the nvm of $716,3S, 

So denir,! ie made by the plaintiff that the note wae giwem 

without oonsideration to Prrker for his eigntiiture, or that he w«ie an 

aeooMSOdation party to th« Instnuient, Seotien 29 of the legetinble 

Inetruaente ^ot, Illinois st-^te Bar statutes, 1935,Ch,9e,p r,49, 


*An aooosaaodatlon p^rty is one who hr:.8 fsifned the ins^rment M 

filter. dr2?er, acceptor or lndorf}er« for the pprtjoee^of lending 
is Mae to sda© other person, ucn » perfion is liable on the 

inatruaeat to « holder for v^lue, notwithstpndinf suoh holder at 

tile tiae of tnkin the instronent Icnevv him to be only an nooMaio- 

ietion P"rty, nnd in oase a transfer -tfter asturity wss Intended 

by thft aeeoasaodeting party, notwithstanding suoh holder 3Cauir«d 

title after aaturity," 


&9linrocr.i:5 n- 

X^iii «*»#1A 


;.'i V .w 

td ! 




f* »t./v ;.,'>;■; 

, 'i-U TUJ i2 -rr: .» :. , xiXJii 


flktfll it no doubt th'^t th« defendant Farker signed th« 

note &s indleated en the faoe of the instTtusent* SiifhiXe there is no 

mint of oonsideraticn pleaded bjr the defendant^ etill it has been 

held by this oourt in Many. Blanc & Oo> v, |y^eg^r» 153 lU. kpp^ 

337, that - 

"ITant of oonsiderttion it no defense to en action upon 
a denstnd promiesory note which wbm executed by the defendant ae 
aeoowBodation paper and delivered to the payee, oo-nsmker'e 
eireditor, to eeoure a amtured debt, even though the m^tuTity 
of the debt wo 8 not extended and the payee hud knowledge of 
all the faote*** 

The defense offered by the defendants li that there was 
want of cons idOTat ion, but as ure have indioated, by the signing of 
the note even thou^ Fayker wms en aoooaaiodation i^sirty, still he is 
liable on the inatruiMmt to the holder for velue* fhe rule annoimoed 
in the ease of Many. Blane & Oo« v, Krueger. euprii^, applies* 

Fro* the tvidenee ai^ipearing in the reoord the jury was 
justified in returning a verdict for the plaintiff. 

The defendants also offer the defease ^at f<Kr want of 

presentment for pay stent, Parker is not liable on the instrument* 

Seotion 70 of the legetiable Instruiiients Aet» 111* ilev* Stets* 19SS« 

Oh. 98, par* 91, is pertinent upon this Question, irherein it is 

at B, ted: 

^Fresentment for T>ayiiM»nt is not neoessary in order to 
eharge the person prinarily liable on the instruiaent except in 
ease of bank notes but if the instruaaent is, by its terwi, 
Ipayable at a speeial place and he is able and willing to pay it 
there at a^aturity, auoh ability and willingness are equivalent 
to a tinder of payment upon his part* But except as herein other- 
wise provided, presentment for payment is neeessary in ox^ler to 
charge the drpwer and indorsers** 

fhe defendants suggest to the oourt that Sec« 88 of the 

negotiable Instruments Act, 111* Hev, Stats* 19S5, Oh* 98, requires 

that Parker be discharged for failure of the plaintiff to give notice 

of dishonor* This would have applied if Parker had been an indorser, 

but being a naker he wae not entitled to such notice* 


9i, mt ii -'^^^ mv^ nt^a 9At 

^•r) . rot »»*■■-■ ittmatutiem mii a^ 9iltS&ll 

.. ^;. . . . 4S« ,rfO 

s* '. -Vf: <?n 

4 tiof-.-.i .1- n'- 

■- ■ * ■ '<■ J.< 


Aiu»tli«r point r&laed is ihAt ii)i«r« « B«gotlabl« instruaent 
is aada or !^oo«pt«d for aooemaCHlntioii and has b««n pnid \tf tbc party 
meoomMKiated^ It Is discharged. It do«» not appsmr fros the reoord 
fil«d in thie case th^t the plaintiff hue been paid. On the contrary, 
Mr, V, A, Johnson acted as president of the coapanar* as indisstsd in 
this opinion* and it dees not appear fr«« anything before us that there 
«as e trmnsfer of this account to Johnson, or that he has any interest 
in the outooas of this litigation. 

For the reasons stated the Jttdpient of the court is 

smmmws nmmmQ^ 

,/t -^ ■»-»*.* " 

\\ .'\-a ."V ri f 

,: * jtiic.t? 

#.-« >,/A f ;.:a 

i^> "'Jij.-VH.S'*.** 

wi* «».-,'« 

tifl:^M'i.X.'- i jS 



(Flalatlff) kfrp9lf90 


Sj^SRllft 0ODR7 


ALBERT A« 3|>EA@tl£, &• ]»«X««&«nt f iru8t«« lA 

jproo#«diii^ now ptiidlag In tli« Uiat«<3 <^rh/fTA (C!/\f^ 

8tiit«* Olfitriot Oowrt of il©itli«rn Illlnoif, <^U ^ ±.I\m OU • 
Iast«rii Division, for the E«org«u3ii£«Ltlon 
•f 01ilo%go Bapld Transit Qomp%X)y« Dtbtor* 
l^rvuant to 3«etions 77a and 77B of tht 
XatloanX Baidcruptey Aet, 

Appellant • 

in. imgiisiwi jostiai mmt mumnm thi opijicu or the owrt. 

f hl» i« an appeal from & irerdlot and judg»ent finding the 
defendante guilty and assessing plaintiff* s daaages at |33»500» 

the aotlon was t^r per«on«il Injuries resulting froa && 
fteeldent alleged to have heen eiiused tiy the negligenee of the 
defendants* The aeeldent oeeurred on defendants* station plttfom 
while plaintiff as a fAseeager was waiting to take « train operated 
bf the dafendsnta and fell off the plntfora in front of o«m of the 
defendants* trains* suataining injuries* 

At the olose of plaintiff's ease and at the elose of all 
the eridenoe* the defendants nored the eourt to direst a verdiet 
in their favor, whioh ruling was reserved hy the court, and after 
the verdiot was returned, defendants Moved the eourt for judgaent 
in their favor, notwithstanding the verdiet, whioh isotion was over- 
ruled and Jmdgaent entered upon the verdiot against the defendants* 

fhe original ooaplaint upon whioh this aotioa was hased, 
alleged that on June 18» 1935, while the plaintiff was upon the 

''V,}QC y^i 

• Tt 

,A TflaajA 

•Jt !• «M )• M^Tl 111 a«cFt^4tiq eifif tto Xi») ^n )?i7a«'Jba9l«l> fttf^ t^ 


•leTr-ited platform of the defendant read, "she thereupon tripped* 
■tumbled* slipped and fell firoa said platfona*** Vipon the triftl* 
plaintiff mmended this par^grnph hj adding the words* "against 
«n uneren plaak in the pie t for* nnd»* The wuuier of plaint If f*s 
falling is alleged to have been thst she "tripped, etuKbled against 
SB uneTsn plank in the plat f era and slipped and fell fro« said 

No question is raised by the defendaftts as td the suffl* 
•ienor of plaintiff's oenplalnt* 

The aooldent InTolTed in thle oase happened on l^e 
SYsning of June 18* 199S* about 9:30 o*oloek on defendjmts* station 
at 33ad street or Oersak Hoad« The platfora froa abieh the plain- 
tiff fell was on the east side of the traoks and she vas waiting 
for a northbound train* The staticm platfora on the east side of 
the traoks was 339*9 fset l«ag» Abeut aidvay between the iK>rth and 
south ends of the platfom was a eanopqr 73»5 feet long* ?roa the 
south end of the ean©^ to the south end of the plttfora was 171*9 
feet* The evidenoe offered shows that the aoeident happened south 
of the south end of ^e oanopy* there being Tf^rianoe in the ewldenee 
as to the exaot l»os»tion of the aooident* Plaintiff at the tiae of 
the accident was 37 years of age* and unoarried. Prior to the tiae 
of the aooident she had worked for a eoasiderable tiae for the 
Galwin Radio Ooapany* earning #17 to ISO a week* working flroa 8 to 
10 hours a dagr* 

Oa the evening of June 1$^ 1935* after finishing her 
supper* the plaintiff took the south side elewated to 6Srd and 
Salsted Streets* ahd there aet a girl friend to shop for a spring 
suit. The plaintiff was returning hoae on the elevated Intending 
to get off the elewated st 33nd Street and there take a street oar 

■■■' littiu'' Kiw^ 

SMUS dtVOfl ? 

6«XTX •«» Mot^-Ai' 
40m% h9m9qqmM ta 

MU# •!!# oi TOlTl .f 
•#» tot ttr r 

-J a J. ' 

■.m<!it> »iM t« l>ii» «t#iii9» unit to 
■r- *- - ... .ifli,*fol»»ffl ai(# lo 

■"■■-.0 tM»fi nirlm 

. ■■,;-*: - siTiMMf OX 

An* M94I o4^ Jbnt»T«lo A^Jts d#ue' 

"tiff (I k.y- "■ ■ f^ii^ « T »<!«. !■•'« 

t bar- ^vif99wtu hmi^imU 

.■•■;■! •?©i« •«* ttO #•$ O* 


west to lk9t hojm At toas W««t 06ra»1c Hoad. Wluta th« plaintiff got 

off tlito train on tho 33iid Street platforn she wss aleao{ oho 

o^orrod tb&t tl&e otr«et wmt dark and glooaqr* Mot m«i^ peopio were 

on tho otreot at thit tiixtOn so ^o deoidod she weaXd not go down 

to t&ko tho otreot ear* but wait for tho neict train* eo that tho 

oould go 4k»im to tho loop ahd tr«nofor to toother oXoirmtod train 

vhieh would take her near her ho«o« 

Ihoa oho loft tho troia oho walked to a point on tho 

plmtfora oomth of tho eanopr i»hero tho adrortiaing oigns wore lower 

oo that dho might look over into MnA @troot* She teotifiod that 

at that tiao * 

*l oaw tho train approaohing* Ihea tho train eaao along 
I otartod forward and I stahhod ajr rig^t toe in boards on tho 
platfora and X loot hqt halaaooi and I fell over* And that io all 
X roaoabor that night* * * * It waa a board in tho platfora that 
X otaablod ag^-inat* It wa« oolid mad mf too would not give* oo 
X loot Of balanee and X wont ow«r« Xt was tho right too* » « * 
At the tiao X otubbed siy too X wat about two feet froa tho woot 
edge of tho platfora. At the tiao X stubbed i^ too tho train 
wa« pretty olooo« Xt wa« palling into tho station* going north* 
• ♦ * I w!9s about 12 or 13 foot froa the oou^ edge of the oanopf 
iriioa X stubbed ay too*** 

The aotortsan on the train approaohing the plaoo i^ere the 
plaintiff wms standing faoing west* testified he saw her take two 
«|uiok steps and then «aado a - dowo rlpit in front of ay train.* 

fhoro was before the jjmry eiridenoo of witnossoo nim wore 
aftraoted by tho foot that an aeoidoat htd oeourred. one of tho 
witnoosoo* Qoergo Lawson* testified that* at tho tiao* he liwed oa 
tho third floor of the preaioos at ^W South labash Awenue; that the 
rear of the bailding was about aS foot fr«ai tho elerated struetizro} 
that froa the book poreh of the bailding he oould olearly eoe tho 
elowatod platfora; that on the nig^t in question ho heard the quiok 
stop of the train and iaaodiatoly wont out oa the baok poroh to 
iawestigato, and looking over the station platfora ho aaw the traia 
there « He stateds 

tiia {miojU 9^-9 •^ 
srm tif^tq hum ##t •ti*«««X^ < > 
mmt •) loo r..r.i,^e« tiiv 

■^fi^ gimfi:- 




Affair «s«9 «ip^t **«# fl#ff* 


pa *3 

• • • ,*v 

•4t «"»' jatit^Qfr^-c Tft'^-rf 'idi 

Mf t-, ^^ 
4M4P *4I t>vr^^r( fill omltt. 

r^:r ■.ifc';u:.<U 



"I should Judge tb« fro&t end of that w«s vcp halfway uater 
canopy* * * * I could 0«« just the south exad of ths cftBopf 
from my poroh* I w«nt o7«r on the next pcroh mnd tried to 
see the front of the trsiin* I did not see the front end of 
the train. I saw the b'^ok end. * * * The front end of that 
oar WBS up there C indicating]. The first oar. Th«t wiis 
erident because it is a two-e^r train. The front end of that 
oar, or the first oar, eyldently vas up under the canopy." 

Another witness, Ben Oanlt, testified he was on the 

platfoToi Imedlately after the acoldent oeourred, and this Is ilw.t 

he said sben called as a witness; 

|*Vh«n X got there the train was standing about 35 
feet frea the north end of the esaopy* There were two oars 
In the train* There had been an aeeldent up there and they 
were taking soae girl down. There was sAMie oonfusion about 
soae boards there, tout I did not see then at the tiaeo** 

His testimony w^.s for the purpose of showing the location of the 

ears after the accident occurred* 

The question InTolved here is dependent upon the facts as 
tk«f Appear la the reoord. The prlnolpal question Is: At wbat 
point did plaintiff fall froa the platforat ^ks testlflsd It wns 
f3r»m Xa te 13 feet frea the south end of the canopy* 

A witness by the naoe of Frank NoTOson, ahoa the defendants 

ssTsrely oritlolxed, testified th^t on the evening in question he 

was in Coloslao*8 Restaurant, which la located at 33nd and i^abash 

Avenue, ne^r the sand Street station; th^t he was there with his 

wife, and upon leaving, about 9:30 in the evening he learned of an 

aooldent whlc& occurred on the elevated station at 3Snd Street* This 

vitttftss testified he was an investigator la a lav office, and being 

interested he went up oa the station platfora; thnt when there he 

exaalned the platfora just south of the south sad of the eaaofy, 

sad further ssldi 

"l exaained the entire seotlon south of the eanopyo 
There wae a reason why I sxaalned that part of it. The trsia 
was not there at the tine. There were seraps of clothing and 
^at appeared to be blood oa ths rails down below near that 
point. I weuld «ay it extended frea about 10 feet south of 



*4t HO ». 

w9ltitla£i.. « 

i"r»if»r»>rtA +I»fllt 

: }•■ i- .V 5a *^<{ 




...... .,;^-ii«J 

wn uo Jl ' "i V 

fia fi?x 

' «■ - 

tan •»«• 

;» .•- <f 4. .* * A W i{ A w .:. " » i- «f 

%1EM «outli end of tht omnopy to »toout 15 ot tO f««t north of 
th« south «nd of the o&nonr* Th* platfora appeared to be 
made of pXanka^ poeellsly two by foure* The pXaaks were just 
% little l»lt Rarroirer« Th* boerde seesed very old on the 
entire platfora* They vere dattp« It v^b not rftining^ it 
««• ft sort of a misty night. It vas driz?litkg« The platfora 
ems xwi^U At one partiool^r point tk'?t I examined, i^ioh 
wu» ft point ahout 14 feet so\ith of the south end of the oanopy, 
there were two beards et the west end they were faised AbsTe 
the general lerel of the platform about helf an ineh* The 
rise started from the center of the board up to the weet end 
approximately a half inoh* maybe just a little bit more. I 
found both boards up th*t way. It appeared that the wood 
around the nails had rotted away so thst the head of the nail 
ivould not hold the board any ttore.** 

He also stated that subsequently he tmX plaintiff's sister and as 

a result, arraai^eaMnts were made with the (libson Studio, loo«ted in 

Ohioago, to take photc^rapfas of the planks in the platform 

Iwaedlately; that on the evening of June If, 1936, the day following 

the aooident, a photegrapber, i^o was not identified otherwiss than 

as *ff^iaf*f Km employee of the Gibson studio, took the photographs 

offered in eridenee by the plaintiff* The defendants point to the 

faot and seem to stress the point that this employee of the Oibmmm 

Studio was a Ohinaman, and that the phetograi^s were » fakes". How 

•Ter, the photographs ««re admitted in STidenoe in the absenoe of 

ths employoe of the studio, but upon the testimoay of Kovoson that 

t|f«f were a oorreet representation of the pl^oe ndiere the aooident 

ooourred and of the ^mtform as it was, and th^t, from his examlna^ 

tion of the platform immediately after the aooident, they were a 

oorreot representation of the boards in the platform shen the piotures 

were taken* From these piotures it appears that two m«w 3x4 planks 

were plaeed in the platform Immediately after the ?»coident, at the 

point about where the aooident is alleged to h^we ooourred, and there 

••ems to be no (luestion that this was done, b«es»s« it was one of 

the •mpleyees of the defendant oompany who did the work* The boards 

iri^ioh were remewed were not produced by the defendants for the 


SrTi , ill « 

art* o# »nl- 

t9tir -shr arte ■' ■''-•'.'■ 

to bal t 


purpoR* of giving th« jury suob information regarding the aoeident 
as night be heXpf\xl« althou^ it im» reported to the el«im agent 
that the o«rpe&t«r of the defendant Oompany had throvn them in the 
alley snd that he« the olaia agent* expressed regret that thie 
was done* 

The defendants point to the fmot that thirteen witneesee* 
»&M of then employees* eoae polioenen* and others, examined the 
platfem shortly after the aoeident* and thnt they all testified 
there were no defeats therein mnd no boards ra^ised i»bove the level 
of the other hoards in the platforou HoweTftry these trere not 
witnesses who were preeent when the meoident ooeurred* and they -sy 
were dependent largely upon the teatimony of the motoraan* she wtte 
the only ooourrenoe witness* in ]^»oing the looation of the aooident 
at a point on the platform. He sts^ted that the plaintiff was about 
5 feet in front of the treln wlien she jumped ^nd th«iit the train 
awed about 18 or 30 feet before he stopped; thit he stopped about 
SO feet from the south end of the o^uaopy* and later b^olied up the 
trftin about 6 feet* It is urged by the dofendants* that this testi- 
mony would plaoe the spot tiAiere the plaintiff fell from the platform 
at about 40 feet south of the canopy* It was upon this stateaMnt of 
the motoroan th^^t the five polioe offioers stepped off the distance 
and testified as to how far north from the south end of the platform 
the plaintiff** body lay* There ie also evidsnoe of some of the 
•■liXoyees of the defendants who t^^stified ^s to the looation* but 
wfeima we eonsider the eridenee of the plaintiff* as well as that of 
Mr* HoToson* who he« been so sererely criticized for the reason that 
He was aa investigator* it would appear that she stumbled from la 
to 13 feet south of the south end of the oanopy* Mr* lowomon fixed 
thm plaoe where the boards were taieod at about 14 feet* and where 



ttfo€' r-^-.-f 


tli« ii«« 3 X 4*0 ««r» plaMd in the pl«itforii at aboiit X9^l/Z fe«t» 

Tb««« «•!•« oX«Di]rl|r qfuentlons of fftot for tli« jury, to- 
y«t1i«7 nltii th« <d!!Tiaaae« of tha tvo witne«s«e for tb« plaintiff who 
t«0tlfl«d th t th« traliit fih$n It stopped, was uiid«r the »ftT«s of 
th« oaBOpjr flo,ga dlBtanoo. Tho fiaot tkat tlu» avfeadaats orltlei««6 
BoTosoa for )>«lii4; an Investigator ehould net inflttenot the jury, 
wliftm »e oensider t)mt there were ewpXoyees of tbe defendc^jit eoapanf 
vlio testified m» mitn«t»n«^ and vho were not eritiois^ed by the plain- 
tiff for their teatie^ny, ex««pt ^e to its oorreotnese from the 
feote in evidenoe* 

froB the argyaieiite of the par tie* is their brief e »e Are 
not ispr«;8sed with the stiggestiom sade by the defendants that the 
]P»hotogr@.phs are "fakes,* or thet there nma ' ay thing f^lse about the 
tetstiffiony of HoYoson. Cireat etrese is laid ui>on the f«tot that the 
person who took the photographs »«■;« not produoed, SoiroBOii tei^tified 
that this ilhotographer was in Petroit and that h« was isn employee of 
the Gibson ^^tudio, Xoeate«^ in %icapi« Xo doubt the defendant o«b- 
psay ha a plenty of tiae to invest igmte these faots* 

One of the outstanding features in this oase is the fmet 
that the 3x4 planks were plaoed in the piatfora st abo t the spot 
wheren aeoording to Hovosoq's testiaioay« the bonyds 'were raised nbout 
X/B ineh above the l#vel ©f the otner boaras in the pl&tfor«, 
Bovoson slso testified as to the oonditien of the boards luid his 
testlAony eorroborntes that of 'he plsintiff that when walking 
toward the traj^ for the purpose of be««siis« n passenirer she stubbed 
her toe agfiins>t a pl^nk, whleh caused her to fall. 

In arriving et their verdiot the jury oonsidersd wkether the 
pli^lntiff fell In front of the train or, as the fsotoruan testified, 

.*^\ C\X<-8i i. 

^M* » ^^- 

^ X S W4MI ^it 


iw^ACi ^ - 

OI1-5 wij'nww- 






9di «Dlft')K^ 






frtm plftl'atlff*8 testimonr there is no evldenos whloh 
would jvmtitf th« oonolviaion tlicit sh* attempted to '^oiamit «uloid«|» 
ftad thi» fmct i« further •sphaslzed T»y plaintiff •» testimony that 
•h* BMt a friend at &37d and Hal«t«d StTe«t«« in Ohiemgo* ^Jad went 
wlAdieir shopping* h&Tlng in mind the purchase of & spring euit^ 
end it was from thla shopping expedition she returned on the elerated 
irAin« Therefore, when the defendisnte urge that while it is true 
the presumption is she did not atteapt to ooanit suioidej^ this 
presumption is dissipated hy -i the faot that the asotorman testified 
she dove or pimped in front of his train %t the tios the aooideat 
oeomrred* The states^nt of the (notormaji was one of faet, as well 
as the stiiteiaent of the plaint if f* belOi of «iii<^ were i^ssed upon 
by n p3Jtf0 together with all the other f%ots nnd oirouKStanoes 
appearing in the reoord, and w^e beliere the ^ry *r?*8 right in finding 
the defendants guilty as #iarged» 

The defendants contend that the court erred in refusing to 
direot a verdiot for the defendants »»! in refusing to enter judg- 
ttS&t for the defendants notwithstanding the werdiot, and urge that 
the plaintiff antst reoover*^ if at ^U, upon the speclflo iwgligenee 
idiieii she ohstrged against the defendants* and she o^nnot reoower upon 
other or different negligenoe* eren though the sane were proved* 

m here carefully oonaldered this oontention in so far 
&s negligenee is eharged in plaintiff's origin«a as well ms amended 
eostplslnt is ooneerned* «iad we sure of the opinion th^t the eharge 
was suffloient to justify the oourt in entering judgment upon the 
▼erdlot of the jury* 

The evidenoe of several witnesses was heard %nd passed upon 
hy the jury, and se a awtter of f«ot the maaber of witnesses for the 
defendents was larger thsn for the plaintiff* This of Itsslf would 
aot nllitate agslnst the verdlet* The verdict depeiuis upon ths facts 

^^jf ■'' t'ttitfA - .■■■I- ruiiiit tTq^xttX «»w «*i!r»fcii»t»fc 

• f^a 

tk» pr I ■»■■ mi tte plalstlff m tte pistJkai m ti 

tte T^rj oA, a* *mM» •eiil — it. Tte << 
ttet tte p^istliT %M« • 

m %M te palrtii «• M sMt 93 

rU«Bt • J— rt t— Bf avK^LifVBM, aai apaa » tTk«l 

law MstTftl li^» fts Ci'*«B ^ tte Miv^* aai %• ii< ■■ bIm tte Isi 
^•tmrt It, aai UlU U alat tte rm^ AM ti tiM 

a«Blt%»d U vTlAaMM akaw ttet va»>tr« ««r« ■■* 

■■■»aiy tStn Um «Ml4«ftt; tlat %«• Mw »»tt« Mr* iltiit te tw 

Jmt U, im, MBi tte% iTliM«i mi t^la HwMtf la wt ataiaaUU, 

^^^a it U tTM %iw MMTt* te^ tel« t)Hit rvt*aMa m m 
r«^U« w a aaAa ^ tto tel^wiMt %t%mr m awiinat la »at taainaMj 

do 14'^ f»«»lrt'»»^ »** ■>«' 



:) Ti?i* 

' ( ittiA 



tn'i ■ad 

, ,•/ ? •- f. 

^X A '• i^tl-r^^ - ."» 


«dni8slble« still in thia oas« the rridenoe offered by the plala- 

tiff shows the Mards In th« plsitfoxa were not level with e^oh 

other and «i»it there w*i8 negligence in not keeping the platfom in 

& st^te of repair suoh as would prevent the plaintiff from stubbing 

her toe and falling froa the platfota In front of the approaohing 

train* That was the issue in the oaaej^ and when the pietvires were 

talE0n soon after the accident the witness Noroson had testified 

as to the oonditlon of the pl;^tfom at the tiae mnd plaoe of the 

aooldent* That would not indioate it has been stressed by the 

plaintiff th&t the faot repatts were made would man the defendant 

did not keep the platfora in % good state of repair* In the oase 

of Howe T* ifledaria. 183 111* 388^ whieh has been ealled to our 

attention* the Supreme Oourt said; 

"Oounsel insist this ewidenoe (of rep94rs)» ewea 
thongh it be inadalsalbley would not aaount to rewersible 
•nwi** If this were the only error relied upon by appella&ta 
«e thiaJt it would justify a rewersal of the jud(^»ent below* 
Whether the r^dmission of suoh ewidenae ower objection will 
amount to rerersible error is 8t??ted in Hodges w* Pprcivgl. 
supra* (1Z2 111. 53), aa follows: 'If it can be plainly seen 
f root the reoord that the error eosplained of could not hawe 
possibly worked any injury to the coaplaining party, and that 
the werdiot must hawe been whot it wsa in spite of sueH error, 
then the judgment mglSBit not to be rerersed** " 

the error ooaplalned of is not suoh as would justlfjr a 
reversal upon that ground* 

The final question suggested by the defendants is that 

the oourt ersred in giving imtruotions for the plaintiff and in 

refusing to give proper instruct ions to the jury for the defend^ints* 

Tkey oall our attention to the following given Instrueticoi for ths 


'*In considering this ei^ee %nd in passing upon ytnr 
verdiet you are not required to set ^aicie your ««m observatioM 
and experienee n.B men in the affairs of life, but on the other 
hand you hwve a right, upon consider ration of all the evidenoe, 
lA the light of your own oeomon observation and exymrienoe aji 
men in the affairs of life, to say where the truth lies up*a 
any aaterial fact in the o^se. If, after such oonsideratiea 


£fO"« .<tt^ I'%f<9/ &or. f^T^ r!^- cKf »rfi «M»C« ttit 

lpltf»jioTtNr>> ©iW ^^ ffrcr? -I w- *ff;t «crtl ggBlXii^-^t M» »*# «•«[ 

»T»w etlvtf^lq »Ht «».' , * rt mr^^t mat «MMr *««n' •Hi^v^i^ 

tei%lti«^ £>isxi rtOfltovcH a sea f. I ''^i-t i»#1;» »a9» iiM«^ 

; 1 > t * n 1 1" Xc 

»l7rJ'» rrn-^r l';!/.' , 


of »1X tha •Tldeuoe, In th« li^t of your own oooBaon' ob««r<r»<* 
tloB and expeTl«ne« as iMn in tli« affairs of lite, you believe 
th^tt plaintiff has proved h«r oaso as alleged In tbe oomplnlnt 
In tlio gre^tor vti^t of the erldenee^ you should find for the 
plaint Iff." 

aiKi ooaplaln th»t the jury is not limited to the speeifie negligenoe 

n4leg(NI ftgftlnst the defendants* but the instruetion oMrely requires 

that the plaintiff '*proTe her eese as alleged in the ooKplaint^' ai^ 

further complain that the juty amy rely upon their *'oim eoamon obserra" 

tion and experienoe as m»n in the affairs of life" to say vfiiere the 

truth lies upon any omterlal faet in the ease* It is urged that the 

Jury «ay find the defendante guilty of anything whioh the Jury nay 

eonsider nm oonl'tituting negligenoe* and eould oensider tvo of the 

aote obarged as negligenoe^ irhloh the oourt exoluded* The eourt* 

however* upon the excluded portion of the pleading initruoted the 

jury upon this Question and ssiid: 

••The court withdraws fro« your eons iderat ion the follow- 
ing charge, oontmined In aub-piir?»gr«ph (o) of psr»gr«»ph 3 of 
plaintiff's ooBiplalnt* to-'vit* th%t 'defendants carelessly and 
negligently caused* permit ted and i$llo«ed divers obstructions 
to be and remain upon 8«id platform* i • » •« 

and further upon the Issues gave the instruotien to the jury tendered 

\3f the defendants* iftiloh is as follovs: 

"Plaintiff charges in her eewplalnt* filed herein* that 
on June IS* 1936* she was a passenger for hire and was riding 
upon a certain train of defeadante operated in a northerly 
direction and that she alighted therefrom upon the platform at 
Cermsk ^ad at (^ tion* and th^^t she then and there, in the exereise 
of ordinary onre, stood upon ssld platform in the ni|^t time* 
while it was raining* awaiting the approach of n oertain other 
train upon whioh she was then and there about to ride as a 
passenger; that mkilB she was so standing on s-^id platform* in 
the exercise of ordinary o nre* awaiting the approach of aald 
train* she thereupon tripped, stueibled* slipped and fell from 
«?-id platform to the tracks and said train rsn into and struck 
against her and that she was thereby injured^ 

dofendante in their answer to said complaint* filed la 
this cause* deny that plaintiff w^s a passeqger* th^t she was 
in the exercise of due o^re for her own safety and nl^o that ehe 
tripped, stumbled or slipped aa charged in plaintiff's complaint; 
ISttt allege th»»t plaintiff deliberately and purposely fell from 
the station platform to the railroad tracks* «jnd admit thst shs 
was struck by the approaching train* 


, .afi-i'-it? 

■> »ti$ Urn !(•'• 


•iff t4tf^ ji yg)^ a^m Mli J<ts«rs# 

; . •■ ^■•^i&»fi(jp^ «14J* Il90^«r '^Wt, 

fi*Ts*fl«* vfu^ 

.1 awifir %9)diY«(1: Jmui 


• S'' 

?Xaiatlff ai«9 ohargcfl la k«7 said eeaplainii, thst 
defendant* were guilty of the following 3 allegtd aots of 
n6gllg«no«» and that lay rei^ison th.ftT«of «)i« was injured^ to-wlt; 

2« !niat ttaoy negligently constructed ^tiA mftintainod 
the plfttfom in question in a d&ngeroue* allppery and oklddy 

4* That tbey aegllgetttl/ eonetruoted and mlataiMid 
said platfors and the beeurde and planks constituting the saote 
iB a broken* rotten and defeotive condition* 

Befendants in their s?»id answer deny estoh ^nd erory 
one of said alleged aets of negligenee oharged in plaintiff* a 

\- ■. 
Sow, therefore, plaintiff, in order to he entitled to reoorer, 
must prove by the pxeponderanee of the evidence th^^t her 
iniuries were caused in the manner chitrged in her ooaplaint 
and th^t the defendants were guilty of soam) one of the afore- 
said (!!lleged acts of iMgligenee; and she must also prove by 
the prepondernnoe of the evidenee that she herself was in the 
exercise of ordinary care for her own safety at and ^vmt before 
the tiae of the accident, or in other worde, that she herself 
wae free froa any negligenoe causing or contributing to cause 
or bring about her fall and injur ires. (Gitren)** 

The jury had the allegations before it in deteraining 
whether froa the prepoMeranee of plaintiff's evidenoe the defendants 
were negligent, and It aight be well to have in sdad the portion of 
the instruction wherein the court instructs the jury that defenlsAte 
denied that plaintiff wae a psiseengeT and th%t "she was in the 
exercise of due care for her own eafety», but allege that plaintiff 
•deliberately and purposely fell froa the station platfora to the 
railroad tracks," and adalt that she was struck by the approaching 
train* •• that the jury wae carefully imtructed aa to the issues 
Inwolwed in the proeeeding* 

Aadl ftirther, the court gave an instruction to the jury 

that plaintiff autt prove that ehe was in the exercise of ordinary 

eare for her own ssifety, mud that if ehe failed to exercise care, 

then she eould not recover* The instruetion as given is as fellows: 

*lt you believe and find froa the evidence, ai^ under 
the inetrtMJtiono of the Court, th^t plaintiff could and would 
have avoided falling mioA being injured, at the tiae and place 
in question, by the exercise of ordinary eare for her own 


"3 lO iJfJC 
•I . ft 



•rf:* -• 

k _..> ^^ 

• * . 

fnixi^ ' 




Tiiw^i ■ 

/O IV 




'■in "■» S*''' . 
1:.. - -, - . .:. »rf* 

»»t9ty, and that aht failed to exeirelse «ueh oar«« If jrott 
t>0li«vtt tbe did ao fnilp &nd that h«r failure to ex«rola« 
suob onre« if you &«lle7t ahe did so fmil« oaused or 
dlreotly contributed to osua« or bring about ber fail and 
injuri«a» at tbe tine ajeid plaoa in quotation, tban you are 
instztLOted aha wna guilty of oontrlbutory negligenoa %nd 
thftt aht oannot reooTer in this aotlon* and your verdlet 
ahould be not guilty* (aiTea)** 

in oonaidering the Inatruotlona by the oourt to the jury* 
it irouid see« to this oourt th vt the ;j|ury was fully inatrueted on 
the iaauea before lt» and that there w&s no error in the glTing and 
refusing of axqr of the inatruotions tendered by the parties* 

As a result of the aooident the plaintiff sustained a 
ttoottisated fr^toture of the entire right frontal tsfiporal bone* a 
fraoture of the rig^t vrlet, a oooiAinuted fraoture of the neek of 
the left huaaerue* an aajmtation of the left leg at the jimetion 
of the upper and middle thirds* and a fraeture of the right aoftpule* 
and the j\iry, as we haire indioated in this opinion* returned n 
rerdiot for $33*&00* upon ehioh the oourt entered judgaent. The 
defendants attl* no ooapleint as to the alxe of the judgatent* 

Ctae iiueation reamina to be eoneidered and thmt is: @ld 

the oourt err in entering judgment against the defendants as 

reeelTere and la awarding exeeution thereonf the fora of the jwdg- 

«snt was erroneous* but there ia no <|ueation that the trial oourt 

oeuid hftTO oorreoted the error at the tine the otatter was pending 

there* the aw«ird of the exeeution agminst ^e defendmnte «8 

reeeivtrs does not affeot the Judgaaent Itself* but the judgment ord«r 

•houid have provided that the tuount be paid in due eourae of 

adainistration. fhe Oivil PrftOtiee Aet* FnXm 316* See* 92* Ch* HO* 

111* Rev* Stats« 1937* proridest 

"In sOl ftp|»e»ls the reviewing oourt may. In its diaerttion* 
and on sueh tense aa it deems just* - (a) ezeroiee all or ax^ 
of the pcwere of anendaent of the trial oourt*" 

«y the Rules of I'raetioe i^nd Frooednre* see, 3Sa,50 Ob* no* ill, 

State Bar • Asstu Hew* Stata* 1937* thia oo»art nay *of ita own aotiea 



taii&^^Z^ul ..■■■v.%j^' 

,jXI .ho «8t •Mil ,Mf^ * 


>rf# #«t«)i« too •«0A •vtnrlMtir 


b«foy« o¥ after aubnlaslon of th« emae for dtelsion, otAi$t an«zidm«iit 

to be nadt*** A llk« «iu«ttloa btfo7« u« wna pa«i«d upoD by tbl« 

•ouyt la the oa«« of UUni y. Spytjn^o, 388 XXI. App, 373» ithortlA 

ft JudgMnt was onterod agniiist ^prafuo^ ot nX^ ireoolTero of the 

Cblonge Sortb BUore and Milvauileoe Hailrot^d Ooeipany for the avmrd 

of 4UI exooutioa* Tblo oourt said: 

*Tboro lo ono orror, "howev«r, that neootaltateo oithor the 
roToroing of the oaoe or the oorreoflon of the Judgneat la 
thl» oourt* The trial court svtried an exeoution upon the 
judgment* The ftppelXaata %re defending sis reoelTere of 
the Ohlo^gOf Sorth Shore ax^ MUimukee limllroad Ooaipftx^. It 
Is Gonoeded that a judgment mgalnst reoelTore is pnysbXe Itt 
due eouree of «d«lnl«trstlon and that it wee error to award 
exeeutlon upon this judgment* Under the OItII l^aotioe Aot^ 
howOTor* there Is no neoesalty to rea&and thle oaee with 
direct lone to the lower oourt to oorreet the judgnent* The 
Judginent will be aodlfled in this oourt by striking out the 
portion thereof vhloh airards an exeoutlon «9tnd in lieu thereof 
direotlng that the saoe be paid by app«ll«int« in due oourae 
of nda&lnietratlon* Ae so aodlfied^ the judgment iriXI be 

HaTiag ooBBldered the miestlone imrolTed in this appeal, 

we affirm the judgnent entered uj^a the rerdlot by the trial oourt, 

but the judg!»ent order will be modified by striding out the portion 

thereof whloh awards aa exeeutlon, and In lieu thereof direct lag 

that the sa«e be pitid by the def«radaat8 in due course of ^dalnlatrm- 

tioa, and fts eo iRodified ^e judgsteat Is efflraed* 

j»@a:Miiif kFUWiMti as noDxniB* 

QEHXa 1. 3tlM.I?&il ABO HALL, JJ. 00II0UB« 

vtixo ^nijlBle*b 


ndi to •rurtm 

9At t9ait& 

#x .^ 

> aoittalmiuu 


^'^bsm »<f tfcr 

~ lti»iB 


■ .« jN-tflrtit® 

it«w *n*«;yj>iyt i» 


, ' 

oi*M©»x» aa \o 


4. v= f ■ X I,' ' • 

« ' 



M] utiA SL', vi^Aiiy^'j .21 lyjurii 



(Plaintiff) A{»p«Il«« 

(0«fftndant) App«lXAQt* 


OF ctiOAao* 


294 I.A. 607 

mu FmszDiMQ iHJSTXOs mmh miim^s ms opiisioii or tee gourt* 

TMs is an app«al hf tbe (tofendaat from a judgiMnt entered 
in the irunioipal Qourt of OMoage in an aetioa upon a pTooiesorjr note, 
bearing date ApyiX 17» 193^« payable to the order of Kdir<%rd JiAneon, 
the plaintiff* tnd eigned tqr Frank Vixgard* the defendt^nt* for 
|49S*I5, tdiioh it ie alleged w%8 in payaent of a first annual preaiiui 
on a lISfOOQ inauranoe poliey* 

To this aotion the defendant pleaded that he had ordered 
eertaia polioies from the g^itable JUife As<9uranoe Society , for 
ahem the plaintiff was a salesman or agent* and th%t after the oertaii 
polioy vn.a mritten the defendant oax^elled aaid poliey and returned 
it to the plaintiff in aooordanoe aith the agreement had with plain- 
tiff* permitting the defendant to return the poliey if he was not 

Gtts of the points nade in this ease is thstt the oourt erred 
in admitting ineompetent* irrelevant «iiid immaterial aTidenoe and 
introducing on its ewa motion Ineompetent testimony* uniA further 
erred in oommenting upon the evidence* arguing vith the witnessss 
and continually interrupting the examination of witnesses and asking 
duestions of witnesses* 

The oase w?^s tried by the oourt* and the question hinges 
largely upon the conduct of the court in the examinstion of the 
witnesses as they appeared on the witness stand* It is alwuys proper 
for the trial court to examine witnesses for the purpose of informa- 


T09 -^^^ ^^^ 

*ot , 





Siiiv jiSifiwC.'-, iri*' 

••.J o* fi 


T»tf#ll/t ten ,^BSOtPll»»:* 

••yiirf A«i#»»tfP »<ftf tan ^^ruo(» •AS vi ^•J^ ''^^^ «^^ 

ilon regarding tb« f«ot8 In oontTorersy. The eontroTerey in this 
•ult w%« »s to v^dtber tlie plaintiff wne deeAlTed by the defend^^nt 
in representing that the note in queetion vms % reoeipt for dellrery 
9t the polioy to the defendajat. 

The f«ots regarding delivery of the policy nn& the alleged 
egreeiRcnt entered into for oaneellatioa thereof «er« aJLl oontro'v^erted 
queetions of faot« end this being the oase they irere heiird by the 
•Qfurt* Aeauaing that the eourt asked the questions ooaplained of 
by the defendant ae being iMprei^r^ still if there Is eyidenee in 
the reoord vhioh would justify the Judg»»ent» it will be premiiMd 
the oourt« in remohiog m deeislon* did not ooneider any istproper or 
inotMsipetent evidence* 

Xn Radtite v. the People > 171 111, App, 462, this court 

itpen thst Qtiestion ssld: 

* • • • the rule is that, en « trial by the court 
without » ivLTft no improper or inooapetent evidenee will be 
preauBsid by n reriswiiag eourt to have influenoed the eourt iA 
re^ehing s decision, where there is suffioient proper evidenee 
to justify the judgaent. ^eF?t^|fft», Peffp|tc| ▼. Joestin^. 89 
111, 153; yye|;>,.j;,|^ ▼. Mortrup. 315 111. 195i Frmtt v. Q fi^> 
334 111. ZW» fhere are also aany Appellate Court decisions 
to tlie sftBMi effcot«« 

Osfendant oonteAfts th^it the court oonsidered evidSMM 

which w?sls not e pert of the record. It appi^ars that the defeadaat 

produced a witness to testify on his behalf to controvert the testi* 

aoigr of the plaintiff with refereBoe to certain testimony as to the 

oustoa of insurance eoa^Minies of peraitting o»ncellation of policiee, 

end that the court participated in the eirmmisation of this witness 

for the defewitiueit, but stated thnt the several questions put to the 

witnoss were "off the record," This, of course, was not proper 

practice. In the trisl of a case the reoord should be preserved in 

order thst this oourt aay determine whether in the exaoln^vtion of 

witnessee the ciuestioiui asked were proper or not. The testiiroay 

in the instant o&se not having been incorporated in the reoord, we 


ni «ofl-^ 



•€# et ^uc t 

it9«# MIT •^or 


«« tAnce^ic 9if# ni fc«J ;!:^iv«jc( ;tafi «ii ai: 


ti7« without benefit of th« questioiui %sked« ce %• to dtterain* 
irti«tli«r tbey vert proper la the eicamln»tion of this vitaeas* )»ut 
the defendUuit failed to ohjeot to the <|ueetioning of the oourt 9^t 
to 7«Quett th%t thtt testinony he reeorded asuA, of eouree^ the 
trial oourt wsa not girea an opportunity by object ion of th« 
defendj^nt to oorreot an error, if any had been ooismitted* Mo 
ruling haTing been requested by the defendant and none »ade by the 
e«fa3rt» there ie no basis for the mlleged error, and us «« bate 
stated before, the presumption is th<tt the tri«il oourt oonsidered 
tmkf stt«dli evidenee as w^» eoapetent »i»S piraper for him to hear* 
For the resisons stated the judgoe&t is aiffirauKl* 

ivmrntn trrxiuso* 

wf0d •« ns taw i%arr^ 

•«B«d «i Mid ISO) t9g«it«r ftn.^ tttf^: 

■■■.'.•■ "■i'.-viT* ifMrn t^t'ii^ 

«a giilQ 

397 3S 

•f tut Sft«it« of lfattli«v 0|#ii#3|cl«i|le/; 


94I.A. 607* 

ME. FE£siDZiia ^mio% mmt Qm.vmmw mt opiiios of the oouwr* 

flti» tsr%« ta tot Ion ^fou^t b^ tli« pXaiatlff to re€»oT«r o& 
tlurttt lA»uraao« poliol«8 Issued by the def«i^iaiit* eai^ la th« mm 
of |SOo« paymbXt oa tli« death of Matt}i«v Ol«ti«l]cl«wi0s» a»di ea 
utiieiii the plalatiff all«g«(l tn* ^efeadtj^t T«tmm€ t» iiiile» pa.jmen%% 
A trial «afi had before the ootirt aad a jury^ at tbe aloe* of tbe 
hearing of CTlde&oe n directed Terdiot and Judgment oa %h» verdiot 
was entered in f^vor of tlie plaintiff and against the defeadmnt ia 
the 9\m of llyTSTkSO* froa wbiob JtidgBMint the defeadeat mppe%l«« 

fho aoMiaded ei>i&pl%int tllqsed the ismianoe of tluree polieieo 
for $500 esoh; that the defendant refiised to aiake pajraoat* and that 
the polioiea irere in ft&ll foroe and effe9t at the d?%te of the death 
of insured* 

The answer of the defsadaat to this (^ai»laiat %aaits the 
isffuaaee of the poli9i«0« and denies thtt the polioies were ia full 
fetree and offset on the date of the demth of insured, and sTers that 
the polioies lapsed for non-payaent of preaiaaa due oa Jvm 5, 1»33, 
and hy reason thereof were not in fall foree aad ef foot on the date 
of the death of the insured* Oettfber 16* 193$« 

froa the OTidenoe it appears th^t as tlleged the three 
polioies of insurmaoe vexe issued ia the aaae of the insured; that 
the polioies wsre dated Moreaber 10, 1939. mj is. 1930, and Oetober 
19, 1931, aad were in the sua of $800 eaoh, and were in foroe up to 


< I 


'tOii .A.i^ySt 

9tf* It© 

F<'^* KHT- 

■Ml lift ixi iloe9 ^msf^^a^t^h ^Ai xti .h'^t;»f».t i»«:l«i£»»{- «<Mt«x»«iiai <!»tis:A't 

^"'/.Xoq ©if* 

.x'sex ,«x 


ftud inoludlng May 8« 1933; that on S«pteab«]r 36* IdSS^- th« iBSiired 

•ign«d a& appllomtlon for reinstatomcnt* At tli'^t time h« iMild 

$SS*19 to the mgfiut of th« deftndant ooapany asid % reoeipt vas 

glTtui for this anouBt* This ftppllc^tloa shows that ths asMMint 

laoludsd preialuAS to Ootoher 9« 1933; thst ths Ixuiursd vas working 

for ktmmxt & Ooap^ny until @sptsa3i«r 39* 1933. Xt fnrthsr ftpfpstrs 

froB ths STldenes th'^t hs took two weeks off to mp»AT his son^s 

|»ro|»erty; that on Ootohsr IB^ 1933* lnatir«d dlod of osrebral 

hsmorrhags« ft&d froa ths proof at doath It appears th^t Matthew 

Oieslolkiewlos ^It work on ieptsaO^er B9« 1933^1 for the reason that 

he was slok« and that he first oosplalned of 111 hesJltb In Septenber^ 


It further appears froa the evldenee that Br* Oyhiaski 

testified he exaained the insured on October W, 1933» mnd altho«^ 

he oertlfled to the health depiirtaent th$it the oerehrftl heaorrhage 

hAd Its onset on tep^ea^r 10, 1^3» «he aiist have aeant" Ootoher 

10, 1933, ftod he farther stated that it inast have heen Ootoher 3, 

1933, when he first se^w hla, emd that the Insured beeaaie aeately lU 

•a OotoiMir 3, iimd that he was unnble to ismke s oorreot dlftgnosls* 

It else appears that the Ineared asde applloi^tlon for 

relnatsteaent of the polloy, and the olause whloh provides for sueh 

applieatlon is us follows t 

"If this polioy Impse for son pafaent of prealuae 
It ma.f he reinstated within one year froa the dmte to whloh 
prealues hmve been duly paid, (1) upon the payment of all 
arrears, proTlded (a) ©Tidenoe of the insurability of the 
Insured satlsfsotoxy to the Oompany be furnished but such 
reinstatement shsll not take effect unlees (3) applied for 
in writing and (4) at the date thereof, the insured be 
allTe and in sound health. <* 

Attaehed to the appllo%tlon for relnstateaent is the 

eertlfloate of the superintendent of the defendant, in sliieh eertlfl* 

oate Question* were asked and the answei^ inserted in the h&ndwrltlag 

of the superintendent. The oertlfloftte U as follows: 

aoft*n til. 



;^.5»6 1:t 

•.•UV> ii V 

'■cl;t cent 
^ii,-i aoAxJ. hem «»B«iitvto»«iiI 

■ , ■ ;v lid 

,.,..-.,.. t,4{ Jjnif 


■>u ;,o'iuta- Jii « 

yii/iTwbOiltf Sift r 


«I« To wtast d'^.t* h»f tlM 3« It cigaattire requlrcA, did 
arrears been d«]»««lt«dt foa personally see oaeb 

Hondny 9 dsjr of Oot« *33 ttpplica&t on datt 

siganturo v?>« o)>t&lB«dT 

3* Has anjr of alMTt applioents 
STsr boon rsjtotodt 
A* No* 

4« Xs each applioant in good 5* ObMk raeo* 
Ileal thT Wbito. 


If not* furnish fvll partlou- 
lar« \37 letter attaohed* 

6« 00 yon r«e«BaeBd reriTal 
tf the above pollelesT 

X hereby Certify th^t the aboTO ^eatloas eon tain true 
answers^ and that I vltneesed every signature shovm above^ ae 
District or 

SetaOhed Chleago Ogdea Park t^te: sept, 36 ^SS 
Seotlon Signed ?• M. Jordan 

Super Int endent • ** 

The cmoatlon oalled to our attention by the defendant 
eoapsay Is thnt the insur^nee polioles sued upon lai»«d for noa- 
payoent of premiums and the evldenee shows that the applleatlon for 
reinstatement waa never accepted or approved by the defendant oonpany, 
so the minds of the parties to the Insurance contract did not aeet 
and the insurance policies irers not In foroe on the date of death, 
and the plaintiff failed to establish a prlaa fao^jg. oaae. Therefore, 
It was error for the trial court to direct * verdlet for the plaintiff. 

As to leather or not the Insured at the time of his death 
ms in defsult. It is mU to have In olnd the provision for applica- 
tion for relnst^teaent, irtiioh le set forth in our opinion. There is 
no doubt that applioatlon for reinstatement was aade by the insured 
on 3epteaber 36, ltS3; that the Insured paid fS5,19 to the agent of 
the defendant company and a receipt was given for this amount; thst 
the amount Included premiums to October 9, 193?, «nd thft attached to 
tho applio^^tion was a oertifloate of the superintendent of the 



idc . ^00$ al #^ 


■ tiff I 

i9X^rf*^: :-L.i.t0atf^' »fft 

— J'.V: 

.' ,iO 6«M« »»it»iioq »9ft.: ■ -Kt i"dt ii XB«<<«»* 

ol aoi 

' ?moifft «oa^ *o *«4Wft««« 

t^-Risoo #n 

:. urf* to i>^'>v^>•J •*<»».» ntt ;m«a»r«*«iil«« 

#•«■ tftn 

■a««»Oai ■ :■-':•■. ^■';:!'rf to ttlMlBI •tft ©» 


3- no »oiro5 iri t«a sttj-v^ 9»kii£x.t, '»oa««rtMii •dJ ftflfl 

n4#al«X4 «»«J* tot totinmr r ii>9%ib ot ^p 7t T«mri» Bi^'y #1 


defendant eeapaiif* In wMeh quAations ir«re asked^ and.^iunrcTt 

ins«Tted In th« handvTlti&g Qf the superintendeat. 

This oertlflOftt« iadloates that up to Monday, tlia 9th 
day of Ootobex^ X933» inauT«d d«po«it«d the fiaount of prealuas duo at 
that tlaOf and whaa naklBK appXlootion* In rapXy to tho question 
iAoth@7 or not a^plloant waa in good health* Inaurod** anaver vaa 
"Toai** Than the gueatlon la auhaitted to the super Intendent of 
the dafeadant ooap«iiy li^ether he would reooMOMBd a roTlTaX of the 
pollolea* and hla anawer ima, **Teai« and he farther eertlfled that 
the Queationa In the appllO'tlon for relnat^toffient oontalned true 
anawersa and that he« the superlntandant* waa preaent when the 
algnature of the applloant for relnatstaiieBt waa plaoed upon the 
appllodtion. fhea* after that vaa done* in about tiro weeka. on* 
of the t%genta of the defendant ooapany o^me to the hove of tho 
inauredf and at that time the premium paid on Septeaher 2Q, 19S3» 
and the additioniil presiua paid on Oetober 2, were entered by thia 
agent in the reoeipt book» and bt signed hia initials, "R.K.W.**; that 
thio agent wao introduocd to the wife of the insured by Jordan, 
tho superintendent, aa the representatire of the defendant oompany* 
At the time the agent called there waa a oomrera^tion in i^ioh tho 
wife of the insured asked hia whether it was "0«t«» and he said, "Tea, 
it atuat bo 0. !• as otherwise th«y wouldn't aoad hia out*** Tho 
OTidenoe of thia i^gent la not oontrii4iet#d by any eTidenoe in the 
reoord, and it ia but roaaonable to infer th'^t tho poliey was 

The plaintiff oontenda th^t a clause in a life insuranoe 
policy that it will beeone woid for non payment of preaivow ia put 
there for the benefit of the ooapany, and it deeo not ips§ faoto 
boooae Toid if the preaivA falls due and ie nJupaid* In aueh oaso 
the ooapany has a rij^t to oltiia a forfeiture of the poliey, or, 
if it sees fit, to wilTO th^t right and giro the assured further 

^b9iit^ •t»tT 9$t9tt99iir9 iti^f- 


«.0« tS»Mar«^«(rjt«- 


9Ai to Alio 
«SStl ,aS TftO" 


It matt sr*J*y ** fcii »' vttfemi 
.■■itiiib'?! air* ii>rt''^ 

>aAXii«w t'^'i.t *ei«^<^iit".i t.8- f.'^ .a (Wf' ^wbtbii *i 

... .ri bma ^Hw^t 

tnMruA b»-»un*n <iil» mrJt^ bOB tdi^t i^tt wfkm o^ «tit a«»i) #1 ti 


Opportunity to IM17 tho proKliia* Ttvm tUt otatoisoat of f^otSa It 

would aeoa th'^t th« cppXlo^^tlon was oatisfaotoxr to tlio defendmnt 

mod the poXloy was reinstatod* 

Upoa tlio ou«»8tlon of w».%r9tr, tho Suprowi Oourt of our 

8tst«» 1« the o&sc of Baittey t. ttfttroooi^ltaa I^ifo Ine* Oo. 318 111. 

363, 8 aids 

"Waiver by an inoitrtr rooults whon it tsy an aet, stxitnaont 
or oourse of oond^ot towtrd tbe ^afflured reoognls^os tho pollof 
a« existing though the tlM for paymont of the promlum hae 
oxpired. ForfeltuT« of life Inoursaoe polioies la not f rrored, 
and unless th« olrou8uita.noee ohoir a ol®ar int«rntlon to olalm a 
forfeiture for non-payaioat of the preaiun auoh forfeiture will 
not he enforoed. If tho oonduot of the insurer ia ou^ aa to 
induce the assured to believe that n. forfeiture will not he 
inO'ioted upon, the insurer will he held to he estopited fros 
taklttg advantage of atmh forfeltuire.*' 

Xt does not apptar froa the hrlefs that the authority of 
the &gent f • 11* Jordioi w^b Queatlonod. Ee did prepare the eertifiOi^te 
and the oaswers of the ftpplleant for reinstateaent^ %nd It would 
aeoK to the oourt that the stateaient itself ha.a a homrlD^ upon the 
question of a^ether the defeadnat wmived say of the provieions 
contained in the policy, when we oonslder that After the eortifieate 
was signed and filed with the def^ndsnt^ the oo«pany*s tigeat ooUeoted 
further preaiums whioh were due on the d^tee pointed out ia our 
opinion, fhis faet would indio^te th t whstever rlipits the defendant 
had^ it waived the question of forfeiture* 

A life insurftnoe ooapAny, eoggests the defendant, is 
required to aot promptly when reinstatesent applie«^tioae are a»de, 
so thflt the payments reeuired »ay lM>t be defaulted. After what was 
done in this Omse, and the oolleotiona simle, wo nre inclined to the 
view, whioh it supported hy the authorities, that if the conduct of 
the insurer is such as to create the belief in the aind of the iasufoA 
that ft forfeiture will not be insisted upon, the insurer will be held 
to be estopped froa taking advimtage of sueto forfeiture. 

,111 8X*: « oP , ♦ ■■.. J. . i: .■ MoQ^aUai^ , :.:'i:i.-.,- "^'^ »»ja» Mt^ «i ^^iJntQ 



•If t 

^-■5iY,e 6/f ^ felt* 

•4,;- .i:^-:'l. rfiliSti/l 

hl%<1 atf rrfr 

4 ,:y 
.;^."^ '*ttf tit 


As further •vld«ne« that lorf«itux« imt waived^ the plain- 
tiff points to the fmot thmt an oTdlnaxy 7«otlpt for prsnlxms was 
given to the vlfe of the insured on Sfpteaihsr 36» 1933* otnd a 
subeeoruent ptsraont was made to the agent of the ooapany on Oetoher 9, 
193S, whloh was entered In the reeelpt hook en Qotober 9, 1993* and 
In aooord^noe with the rules of the ooapsjajr* this would indleate 
that the relnstateoent was acted upon and offlelally reoognlsed under 
Qlavise 0* arhloh is In these words i "O-^i^sept as provided in Clauses 
A* and B« parsaluois are i»>t to be entered in the Premium Reeeipt Book 
until the husinesg is offloiaUr revllMA*" 

The defendant oontends th^t the eourt erred in exeludlng 
eirldenoe offered hy the defendant on the issue* tnd its eounsel at 
the close of the ease offered to prove th«^t the offieial records of 
the defendant oowpany showed th«^t the premiums on the policies sued 
upon were not paid and that the polioies lapsed* The defendant also 
offered to prove th^it no motion had been tsJcea by the defendant 
ooupany upon the revival application prior to his death* the trlaX 
oourt refused to adodt an^ evidence on this subject* 

To this Contention the plaintiff oites the oass of Baxter 

▼ft Metropoli tan hife Insurance Oo, qiui^ra. wherein the eourt upon a 

like (luestion said: 

**Xt is also urged that it was error on the part of the 
trial court to refuse to adait in evidence hooks and records 
of the plaintiff in error which* it contends* show thrt the 
prettlua was not paid to the oomjsany. There wae no error in 
this* While books of aeoount of a plaintiff ^re ooatpetent 
evidence* the books of the insurer showing whether the stgnent 
had paid over the preotlums to the conpany and how ths coopaajr 
considered the insurance contract are necessarily self-serrli^ 
In their nature*" 

which eeeos to be a conplete answer to the defendant *s contention 

th^it the action of the court was erroneous in refusing to adisUt the 

books of the oonpany In evidence* 

The defendants theory is th^t the judgaent is contrary to 

•«f* o* ntrtloTi tut 


; ilcitf 

■^S) trnff^' n'f^S 1:c ^ - ■■ ■>ri-f 


oaXo tar 


tut Mnalfcst wclgtit of th« erldaao* and eontrary to tbt laW'^ 

FrcHA wbat we h*.vt «;tald la tl^lt emse on th« questioat 

iBTolTedf w« are of th« opinion th^t tho Judgmoat is not oontrary 

to tht law, and th»t th« f-aot* jmatlfied the court In directing 

tlio Jury to find for the plaintiff. 

For the re»aone herein et^ted the Judgaient le nffiraMd* 


' ■ ■ ■■ \:^ t>a4 ftffCfl 9dt Off 

• •'. w Aif*-!^ 


TRI PKOPtE or tm SfftE OFUI.: 

Defendant iM Brroi 

lUlHf III EV£M« 


CRlUIlsiAl. ootmT 

oocac eoirwrr, 

294 I.A. 60 


Plaintiff in Srrer* 


Tbla oase is goT«m«d by the opinion in ffat p«»op1» of 
i|^», f|?^e ,^f miRQ^ff T* ^.Miilrfff ^-^f»t^tl|.p;|,» Jie» 39589. 

Th« judgoent of th« Orlainal Oourt of Oook Oetmty is 


Hiisi.« F,j. Alls 9!Sffi8 !• i^tum, J« OOSOSIm 

Ot f.' 

^T09 A.l^QS: 


,^aV.« idirsAii. 







29 4a?Tb8 


ita. jysTioi iiAth miimm^Q tm opiiiom of the oaiwr, 

Oa KovtmbttT 30« 193S« upon th« vardiot of % jury* a 
Judpstat «%« eattred oa a Jiidg»«&t note dnted Juno 1, 1939, for 
tha sua of $8«859»59* against tta £. &• Stulto Hoalty Oonpanjr* 
Tha jadgnont InoXuded interest nnA ?«ttoraey*s foes* tkeroafter, 
aa oi^ay was oatared* granting tbo dofoadaat Xenr^ to dafaad and 
that the ;}adgaMBt stand as soourlty* 

Dsfen^iant fllad aa affld>'Tlt of merits la ahleh It Is 

reolted tHat the aoti upon whlcAt Jud^ent mm,B entered, was glraa 

without oonslderatlon, was Issued by mistake, and that It wae a 

renewal, note issued to take the plaoe of m former aote, whlob 

former note oontalnad no |»o«er of attori^rjr to enter Judgment* The 

original, or foraar, note isras aa follows s 

•t8,000,00 lehruary 1, 19as« 

On Oaaaad after date we prasilse to |wy (9vibjeot to 
]prasent sgreeaent only d»ted Deo. 1, 1933) to the order of 
Welter Allen Stults Fire Thousand »nd no ona hundred Dollars 
at 1519 Hlnaan Are*, ivanstan, Illinois. Value reoelTed with 
6 par cent Interest frea data uatll paid* 

S* S* Stults Realty Ooai^ny 
1^ t. £• Stults, President 
1. E« Stults. •> 

The affidavit of aerlts further reoltes th»t prior to the exeoutloa 

of the original note above set forth, the following agraesriittt was 

entered Into between rtlslntiff and £• I. Stults: 

A ^ 


9MM muim 

." cS 


^ Dr'»;f7 .»»•»*> *»v«<fTO#v^'' ^v #«f4«r*i»^«| fcnlialofli cTjiMis'^ •'^ 

bos to ■ •'»*^* y^ '< ,. '■ tftlMto MM 

a^ri-^i «pw ,b»7»fo© »«w *ijffi«-^xs^#'{; ffoitfn a»qtf Wmi 9ri# ^;f 

doi;tw «»#«a xfMitt ^t •*«* tt* h^inmX •ton lawmtii 

■'**» imiik tBiSMf 

0«i#i/*MW Md^ o# toil TSiltTi/l ttlt^n Ito 4'Zt(^M11:a #ifT 

mft fmm»9n%f. ^sBtnolicJ ^f ■ $*>• 9wm69 •ton iMl^itt •At lo 

*ETanstoa» XXllBols 
0«««iBi»«r I, 1933 » 

Reo«iT«d from filter Allen stialt* the mtm of Tly 
Tliotjaand 0oUar« (fS,000,OQ) la th® fora of a lo«B, s%a» t© 

be semiirad at 6> aamial lntex®-at by a g«A«r'al uraTrantf de«d 
to tH« property at tue U, E, Corner of S^atrose Ave* and 
Korth Idneoln street. It le landeratood th- 1 snid deed Is to 
be iield in eeoxow until s-^ld euffi la returned or applied la 
the syndicate now being formed for tlie ptt3reh>«ee of real 

Tlje ©-^ Intereet i» to be paid on prinoipml »w« until 
stti^ puroh^^e is made* It is further understood and agreed 
that aald lalter Allen Stults la to partioipate in the proflte 
i!ieer»ifi^ frow eale of euob properties in tbe same proportion 
atB hie funds Itear to tl^e total noMuM titn« laveeted* At eueli 
ti«ie A« tbe deed afore^tentloned la delivered to S« £• Stnlts 
aooa-rdlag to tht terate herein, eaid Wmlter Allen Stulte is to 
reeeive & oertifioate of depoeit for tbe aboTe mentioned funds 
OT aa Agreeaeat me to bow it ie to be invested* 

I. K* ®tults«* 

the affldtvlt of sserlte furtiiev indleatee that 1* Si, sttalte reeelved 

|5«Q00»00 from pXaintiff« in aooordanoe with this ^?greeaeat« aad 

thereafter delivered to plaintiff tbe deuaad note first above 

referred ~ ta* dated l^ebruary 1, liSS, and th^t the li, 000*00 was 

inveeted in the pirolbaee of aa sfejitttent building; tb^^^^t oa October 6» 

1934» plaintiff deimaded from I* £« Stults inttreet froa ltov«iri!Mr 1, 

19B3f uatil tlie date of tbe letter^ and that on Hoveaber 13, 1934, 

S* K* atnlts paid to plaintiff interest oa this note from KeTeal>er 1, 

19S3, to July 1, 1^4, &n^ at tiul e^ae tlae advised plmintiff that the 

mtm&f reoeived from plaintiff had been invested in the apartaient 

building referred to* 

0efeadsat*s position is thmt iriHea the |5,0€C>*00 was 

invested in the apartioent building, he Mad ooi^lied with the term 

of the eoatrsot entered into betaeea the parties, anl th«)t thereafter, 

ha was not indebted to plaintiff in any ejsount* Plaint if f*e 

theory is that the t&,00a«00 was turned over to the defendant oorpor- 

atioa by its president on FebmaXy B^, 1933, and that the aoney wae 

mpt aisi used by the oorpormtion, ai^ aas never invested by it for 

the use of the plaintiff* the reoord indior^tes that in the letter of 

fioveahor 13, 1S^3, enelosing the interest on the aaount in oontroversy, 




t»9l1^& SM %& 


bmrl^toftt Mil- 

baB .tflMLeo- 


1« bi- 


Mit*« A^rt atlm tMti • iti nl t ^: 


%, S* StuXts stated to the plaintiff that he expeoted shortly to 
Inrest the ooney in a profit eharing property, and on liovenber 13« 
X^4, £• &• S^tulte ftgaiR wrote plaintiff that the lioney had been 
''transferred into the property knoirn »a the Sherwood Aj^rtment 
SNzildingf " * * looated at the northwest oorner of Montrose 'venue 
»M Ashl&nd Atrenae." Aoooapanying this letter* was a eiroular 
oontftinlng eertain details oonoerning the property purehi^sed* A 
deed oo«nreying this property to defendant and his wife was offered 
aad reeeiired in evidenee. 

B* B* dtults testified that he used the entire iS^OOOtOO 
in the pur^ase of the Sherwood property, whieh eost in the neighbor- 
hood of IS75,0D0, subjeot to a first aortg^ge of 1165,000, and that 
in addition to this, he exehaaged eertain property of his own 
los^ted at Winohester and Montrose Airenues, and other property 
leo'^ted at the m>rthwest oorner of Oeatral and Hailread ATSmes^ 
Swans ton; that he gawe a mortgage to the ggws^m for 140,000, and 
that plaintiff's share in i^atever equity there ttlg^t be in the 
property puroiULSOd "was in iproportion to wlMt |6,000 w«ald be t« 
that exoeae of 16S and 40, whioh is 30&* TiSkEt would be about II* 8^ » 
and th'^t the title to the Sherwood property remained in the naae 
of S« 1. Stults End his wife for eoflM» tisie* 

As we wiew the transaction between these parties, it seesis 
njl^^ftrent th^t under the ap^eeaent entered into, it booasM and was 
a joint undertaking* I»laintiff*e position is that there is no proof 
la the record that the aoney reeeii«d by £« X* atults was invested 
in the Sherwood property* £« &• SttO^tn testified that it was so 
inwested, and there is nothing in the reoord to indioate that it 
was not* X* B* Stults offered in ewidenoe eertaln oheeks alleged 
to haws been given to the person fr«« whoa the title to this property 
was poroourcdf and whioh wore giwea in paynent for this property* 

mt fi 

.11 ^r 

.r.^ ,V 

,,t ■5'<(<i ft. 

t < 



't ^f *^(9l.* 

t ff-'' 

■- ;t'-r':f 

•d't at 


^** «t/«.^^r;*'- r 

» Job t^i? 


ttatf w^xfi ol>Jeet«(l to }sf th« plaintiff » a&d tlm objeotlons w«r« 
«u«taiii«4. Flalmtiff taeitlr ftdaits thv^t tlt« only ooasideratloA 
tor tb« judgosat tt&f laipoB nAileh judgaumt was VBteredf vaa th« 
iSfOOOi^OO paid to £• £• Stults under the agrseflMiit botivoon 
th« pmrtl«a, tog0tli#r witH oartain aoor«i»d l&tarest* 

Although %hB trial wa« by a |ury« wtiion raturaod a ▼erdiet 
for |»lftiiitiff w« ara of th« opinion th t tsndar tti« atata of tha 
reeord aa it now ataibia» tha jutdgoant aliould not h« affirwid* 
fharafora* tha ^udgoant of the Mnnioipal Oourt of i^'Taaston ia 
rairaraad and %h9 oanaa la rtotimdad tor a naw trial* 


%t9w tM( 


a^ii^^i^- -jiOi-: 



Applile^ ^ / MUMllli'AI. OODHJ 
,X^ J / OrlOHIOAOO* 

mmomhUAM LIFE iKsuHAfiCir' ooiii*4inf,, y \ ^ 

.Miration. 29 4 I. A. 60 8 

i8i« Jtistioi; HAJut 0£i.xviHr9 mn ofimiom of raji cotrnf. 

E9^ this iii^^fil atfemdaat s«8ka the T«T«7«al ef a j\idga«at 
•ntsrttcl ia the MunlolptsX Oourt of Ohioago 011 a ir«Tdlet of a Jurr» 
oa fehm«s|r 3» 1937, for th« suis of #S00»00« 

the aotion 1« predicated mpon %iit Inouraiioo polloy ioouod 
Taiy thft defexidKnt oompznf on Ichnmry 1« 1927* o& tho llfo of Loul* 
D,* «ho died ob August If * Xd3@« the polioy proTldos for tho 
payment of i; prenduni of i3«S6 per aonth* beginning with February 1, 
19370 mnA aXeo proTidee for a Si dny grsoe period in o»e« su^ 
preoius be i^t pBld o& the due d^^te* The reeord l&diO'itee that the 
poliey h)itd lapeed for the nompeyaeat of the tZ%&B pt9mi\m, due 
Oeoeaiber 1« i9$3« or within the 31 dey gxnoe period. The poliey 
ftleo ooataiaed a provision to the effeet that in oase of lapse for 
BeapeyoMint of pre»iu»8 due, that hefors the polioy would be revired 
end reinstated, the insured be required to mtMM ><piiy»ent of arrests 
sad the pre@ent<^.tion of OTidence, satief^otory to the eo«pany« of 
the insurability of the insured*" On Jsjmmry 3D« 1934, ^yron Goggin, 
irh» aov sues as adainistr^itor of f^ estate of Z*ouis 13« Lee, end ia 
|rfie*S iifetioe, paid to the insurance eosipany at its offiee in the 
eity of Ohieago, the sub of I7«3S, nad reoeived the following 





08 .A,I 

'^\ c 1^ J 



,<?f. t« »tf« »?*t ^^'^ ftsSJ »5 Xl^ms%4^t no ' 

■ l«3.t to ntlJ nil* R<^ ,Ttex «1 T-r-^r. , ^-f^=# x^ 

•«l» tot •»i>ivo'rc \oiioo nii'"^ . \%^ .t^jtrg*^;".. lao t!*-': ^ ^ ••- 

^iXo<7 tit ,l>oiT«)<- '^o^it^ tA-*> ^'" *^* aidtJtff to ,"S61 «I r*€min0lL 

t« «ti>i>4'>oo ^ - itoi^o^-teUrs . -9flf»bl'9» to a<siitfttm*^^% wft M« 

•rw: n.^rv; ,:.rfj ,•"" iTT'^tJii. v . ' -■' t ti.,>i t Oil* \9 xiiHnimxumal od# 
.,* -.. ,•••- • ■— • it%lMim^ %M oMm iPt« •*» 

OlCf si OOl^^" =>*' ,^. .-- -.iXSlfwe-'l »f!w» «* ftX«Q 4|4M>iiotiX ••oo*! 

ll««*d* t aonthtt t7«3e oa appx^vnl for liittftltli font to t)« 
slgnod toy lasuTsd* 

A h !• 

AoooAF&nirliig* aM ftttaoliod to tho reeelpt« fui ohoim toy ttio rooovd 
and fts latroduood la •vidoaoo by t^ plaiatlff* In a doounoat oon- 
taiaing the followiag statonoat} *mn«f paid to na agoat aftor the 
l^olloir ha^o lapsed «12J aot be orvdlted to the poiloy toy the Ooapaiqr 
aalees applientloa for relaetatesHeat of the poXioy le nade oa the 
fera provided toy the eoapaay* aad uatll said apS)llea.tloa for re- 
iastatemeat Is approved toy the ooapaay*** Oa FetoruAry X» 19M» 
<J^oggla teadered to the defeadaat ooapmay the sun of $3«@®« oa Maroh 
X0 1934p the mm of #7*36, ^.ad oa ^prlX i» 1934» the mm of |1I»CM« 
aUL of ^loh were refused* thereafter^ aad oa April a^ I934» the 
HM^at of the defeadaat ooapeay aotlfied Croggla that It would toe use- 
3Uieo to ma^tM any further t#ad«r of p«yaeate« 

It le plaintiff's olalat la hie brief filed here, that toy 
applylag the $7*36 pe,ld to defeadaat oa Jtaaary ao« 1934, It 00a- 
tlaaed the polloy la foroe up to %nd laeludlag February 1, 1934, that 
tho defeadaat wmlved the forfeiture provlsloa of the polioy for 
failure to mho proai^ pay seat of preaiuae, mad th«t, therefore, 
tne re«{ulreaieat that a oertlfloisite of health too furalshed for the 
reiastateseat of the polloy was aot ©aly waived toy the defeadaat, 
hat was aot reciulred by plalatlff uoder the l«wj that the polloy 
helag la full foroe aad effeot durlag the ajoath of J%auary, 1934, wM 
the teader toy plalatlff of the Fetoruary prealuo at a tlae whoa the 
polloy was la full foroe and effeot, that, therefore, the refueel of 
defeadaat to aooept the teader wa« wrongful; alao, thnt the repeated 
refusals of defendant to aooept further teader of prealuas due, 
aad their aotloe to plalatlff that It was useless to aahe farther 
teadere of premluns, relloTOd plalatlff of ai^ obllg«tloa to aake 
farther efforts to pay the preailuMi^ and did not Impair the rights 


©TOO 9*^ 

..>.r ''- ^ 

j;#aiAi/; Y<^ 

"oa «e« ;^J(ltf 
TftJiusej' f>ili^ 

"*b to •!«•«/)•''( 

•» text«a TJtft<(# ton 

•# Aoit^Bi-M* iPM 1# -Q ib*vr< , tfiMft«i to »«•*«•# 

jpiicfj * 

1ft Xftttft'i 
•»» ft ftfftl tif^ 

,Ml) wmiU»vi to " tiA tt'/oofn oi 



of the Insured under the polioy* 

0«f«Bd&iit*s theory is that the STldsnoe shoirs that the 
^peliojr had lapsed for nonpayment of the premlus due Oeoeaber I« 1933, 
And that one of the two essential conditions precedent to reinstate- 
Mml of the polioy wns never perfoTtt»d« in that no evidenoe of 
Insar&bility ir%s erer furnished to the defendant, sAd except for m 
f»ald up value of |31S»80, the polioy frsis not in fores on August 17, 
1^5, the date of the death of the insured* Defendant s^lso contends 
that the Terdiot and ^dgnont aure oontrary to the manifest w«i|^t 
of the eyidenoe* 

On October 7, 1935, and after the death of the insured, 

plaintiff, on behalf of Mrs* Oelia, widow of Louis 0* Lee, tlio 

insured, wrote a letter to the defendant ooapany, whieh letter tm» 

Identified by aoggin and received in evldeaoe, sad is, in part, as 


*X Teoeived a receipt stating thmt he should proe«re a health 
fora and sign it* As the deeeased sr^a in v^ashingtoa, 0* 0* at 
the tiae, and I not being »ble to eont^et hia, upon reliable 
adwloe X appeared at the Ooapfti^*B office to salce payMsats upea 
polioy Ho* 167e3-M, on February 1, 193S, Maroh 1, IMS, aad oa 
April 1, 1935, sa«h tioe aooompanied by witnesses* On April 1, 
1935, your re present at ive, Mr* J. M* Epstein, Inforaed aw that 
it woaXd be useless for m to appear aiqr aore, as he did sot 
latead to aoeept paymsnt on the above aeat|aaed poli^ ualese 
%bm health fora w^s signed* <* 

Plaintiff testified to the effeot that at the tiav he aade 
the payment of 17*36 for whieh he received the reeeipt hereinbefore 
Mntioned, he had » book in vAiieh reeeipts for payaeat of preniuas 
were usually entered, but thst the sg^at of the oompaay, upon 
receiving this aioney, declined to enter the payment in this book, 
but instead gave plaintiff the reoeipt referred to« 

Alee Blooa, an ageat for the defendant oospany ^t the tias 
of the transactions in question, testified to the effect that he 
prepared and tendered to Goggih the reoeipt for the #7*86 above 
aentioned, at which tiae a Mr* Kiehaels, acting assistant maaager of 

• xoiloq Mff trntma l>9>xis<mt »cf# to 


^h'^'Tfrrri if^f "^f rft» 

' + f^I rfr 




; 'f.' 7TC fe J fTC ff ? -* '■ 

IPMtfta»«Q te tAMtwY tot •#4i«M>t»i HoiGbv mi ionKi « iodui «>' t 


tb« d«f«Bdaiit eonpan^^ aiad a ttr* Si>«t«ln« o»ahl«7 for- 1sli« defendant 
oottpany, vere present; Vh»Lt the witness refused to aooept tlie $7*36 
on iMhi^lf of the oonpaDy^ without eridenoe of heeltli. This witness 
further testified th^^t he aooopted the |7*3d with the dlstlnet 
understanding thi^t Ooggjln» who was handed a health fora^ would get 
It signed as OYldenoe th^t the insured was In good health; th^t tlio 
witness did not apply the |7*36 to the Deoemher* 1933^ and January* 
1934f prealuMSt and that the money was held In mbeyanoe until suoh 
tlas as i^ggln would return the he«dth fora; thst the witness xsade 
9 monthly report for Oeeenber^ 1933* and Jo^nusTy, 1934« whioh 
included this polloy« ^ind th@^t in this report he indioated that the 
policy wmild he lapsed unless the preaiivoi wj^s pald^ and th«'t when 
he made out a report the latter pa^ of Oeoeatoer* 1933, the polloy 
had not lapsed* 

tTttlliaui Mkm Sp«teln« eaiailer of the defendjUKt oompany in 
OhieagOy testified to the effeot that he was present at %h6 Orezel 
bra&Oh of his eompaa^ when «^oggln oaac to m».k% pftyaents on the Lee 
polloy; that Hlooffl and a ifr» Mlohaels were also present* 

itiohaels, whoa Blooa refers to in his testineayf testified 
that he was also an agent of the defeadant eompany in Ohloago^ and 
that he was assistant o«3shler; that he saw the reoelpt given to 
Ooggln as hereinbefore referred to» on the date it was given, mad 
that Blooa at thtt tiae g«v» Qoggln a health fora to be filled out. 
This witness also testified to the effeot ^at he inforswd Qoggin 
th9)t he. Idle witness* waa not allowed to aeoept noney unless 
aoooapanied by the proof of health, and that if the aoney was acoepted, 
it oould not be applied towards any prealuas, unless the health 
oertl floats was executed, aai that Ooggln tooH^ the health oertlfleate 
and a«ld he would return it ezeouted within ten days; that thereafter 
Qoggln oaas baolc without the health fora and vanted the witness to 
aooopt additional aoney, whioh "they** refused to do* fhls witness 

? •at toi Y9ids ^i(><r«ffi|i • 




P ' 

»-'<t.'aRjsit- ti 

< I 

-^ ulh 

%^% rf'i' 



o;} / 


«««i«I/ t^Mc 

fit Hooi 

•d^ hr 

• .-t ©«Xf» (ainmttvt ■ 

%9(tiJL^ mUa ^cA otf 6»*aft«v «tMi#'* 4*M« «tMioai XaaoI #!!»*• #^a90t« 


iilae testified th»t the agents of the company w^re Informed by 
Urs* tee th?it the insured was la W^'Shington^ 0. 0»» tamd that they 
seat a health form for hl« to fill out« hut th%t "we did not erer 
get the fom tosok** 

Without ohJeotion« on hehalf of defendant^ the depoeltioa 
of «loha T, ar&y vae read to the jury, at&y testified^ la sabstaaoe^ 
th:^t he resided in Sev Torkj, aad irss employed hy the defeadiiBt 
eomprnxxf m& supervisor of the aenthly preniua reoerd seotioa At the 
tiaie of the traas&otlons in question; that he iroperrlsed the otakiag 
and keeping of home office reoords pertaining to oertaia elaases of 
insuranoe^ sad that sit^sdt reoords were kept hy the vitaess la the 
regular oourse of husinessj thnt he hsd eitajiiaed these r«oorde mi4 
fsfuxd that a poXloy vns issued on the life of I«ouis ^^ h»e of 
6hi«mgo« Illinois oa Fehruary 1« 13S7« requiriag the payment of a 
premium of 13. 6S monthly oa the tint day of eioh month; th^t oa the 
lapse record of the ooia^aay kept by the witness* there was an entry 
as to the l<ee policy whiidi was made by the witness* This dootostsl 
was admitted la ewidoaoe* ^nd the witness testified oonoernlng it* 
After statiag tidiat the dooament showed as to the iasurs^nee policy la 
question* he testified th>^t his record showed thi^t it had been 
reported from the 15rexel (Ohicj^go) office in January, 1934* that the 
last payment oollooted on the polioy was paid to and for the month 
of ^oveatoer* 1933* aad that the premivm due Booomber 1* 1933* was 
newer paid. Apparently without objeotion, this witness testified 
thftt ho found a notation on another document which was reoeiwed la 
evidonoo, thmt during the month of July they receiwed from the Chiosgo 
office a notlfiemtion to the effect that this office ir^s holding two 
monthly premiums on the polioy involved for the months of Dooomber* 
1933, and January* 1934* %nd th^t they were sending these oollectiona 
to the home offioe* Also* apparently without objection* ho wao 

r«|» aK 

ftrf* r: 



^»*4 IV<^,- 

'*f t '^■n .V 

•' ■!■ 

i..; oi^i:t 

:»*^ bfllil!! 




so ftlcrffii 


XlA0aena 8<v. 

Yf««sr»g*» *)rf« 1:« h". 

'. if>" •♦i 





, , ?cr?K?»Vo5^ to 

Ml MtJ 

pcraittftd to testify »m to th« ?aft«ZLing of Aaotber dooua«ntf whidh 
the wltnftss at%te4l •heir«d that th« preaiuai i^ld 9fter the Aonth of 
SoTentoer^ 193?» were held prevlelonisllyt and th?jt no preailuae were 
pftld subsequent to the preniua paid for the aoath of Jsnuary^ I9S4» 
nhieh «9a sooept«d proTlalonally^ and thnt the poliojr in question, 
as shown hy the reeorda of the oompany, vaa not In feree on August 
17, 193&I, the date of the ef the Insured. He hIso testified 
to the effeot ths^t after the lapse ef thla polloy for nonpitya«ttt of 
Monthly preailum due i>eeegiher 1, 1933, the liability of the polloy In 
^eatlon waa earrled In the form of paid up Inauriinoe, as pr«vidsd 
hy the p<»lley prorlalona, for s r^duoed ^nouat of ^180«80, %ad th^tt 
this poXl<sy» therefore, had a ralua of thla ajaount, plus |33«00, the 
Talue of the additional paid mp lnimran«« purohased by the polloy 
dividends, whleh aiads a total of |3l,3«t0» 

fhe reesrd ladloates that thla aaount, t««wit: 1313*80, 
was tendered to the pl&lntlff, and thut he refuaad to aooept lt« Th» 
de%th oertl floats Indloates that the Insured died of o^jieer* 

IB grou^lftB ▼• Eoultame Ufa Aasur. Soe. of u^ S.. 71 
red* (2) 831, In the Circuit Court of l^ppeals for the Fifth Diet riot, 
on appeal frwt the District Oourt of the Onlted Stfttea for the Southern 
Olstriot of Florida, a polloy of Inauri^nee had lapsed for failure to 
pay a quarterly prealua of |16«4§» due Augi^t 8, 193U ^ia polioy 
contained the uaual prerlalon for gnse of 31 dstya for the pay«ent 
of premiums* On Ootober 3, 1931, after the graee period had expired, 
the insured wrote to the general agent ef the ooatpany stating th%t he 
had negleoted to pay the premiun due on August 8, 1931, and enelosed 
a oheeic for |17»4S, The polloy oostt mined the prevision th?t "if this 
poller shall lapse In sonss^enee of nonpaytiMit of any preadua sluw 
due. It may be rainats^ted at any tl»e upon the production of ewldsnee 
•f Insurability satisfactory %m the Sooiety, and the pa^FMnt of all 

* ff: 


i^i/lr- ,+?!■/{•!«- ri-f.t 


« . , — - 

•at (Tf^tf^ > >■ ! ( < > INitlll't ft«Ml»i« mdt 

, -..cmn:<|p MmC •vvir ^^iS6l ^f4mmr*'^- 

, ?c ■ : lot ,a«oJeiv«iq to^Xwr <M* t* 

Tni , 

MMr«/^it'r« Ito Qui 

■Hsswk^ -^t Tit .^ma (fi> •»•% 

.,.«,... . ..- -- ->*? oi» i>®#fk«lil«« l>»tf 

.-..,.„.......-■ r« 4%»^'.-<n*iMM» ai «»«|«i iiitita t'^lXMi 


overdue prealtuBS* wltli Interest at 9^ p«r •nimai*'' The agent O'^ebed 
the oheok a»d the pr^eede were held la a '^euepeftae soeount*** Ob 
f^tober 9f 1931« the sge&t irrote to the inaured^ enolosing n receipt 
for the money nnd n. fom of ftpplleation for relnet^tedient^ i»hioh 
inoluded a health deelaratloa* sad sdTlsed the Insured that a eatle- 
fsoterf health deolan^tlon was required for reins t^teaient of his 
poliey. The insured executed the »pplie7>tioB and returned it* and 
did nothing further* ?he applier^tion for reinetateoMnt* aaoiiig other 
things* oontained the follovingi 

"I herehy eertify thst 2 a« in good health; th'^t except 
a« stilted helowy I hare ha,d no illnesss* have not oonsulted any 
]l^ysioian or prf?otitioner, have net been a patient in any 
hospital or sanitarltuBf and th^^t there has been no ohange in the 
health reoord of my fiuaily* since the issuanee of the polioy* 

"I hereby agree th t if the above naa^ered policy is 
reinstated by the 3<}eiety« suoh reinstatement shall be biased up«& 
the good faith of this deol^r^tien, whioh is person^slly signed 
toy «e; and that the reinstatement if gr fainted shall not take 
effeet until all premiuAS in arrears* with interest^ have been 
duly pp-i& during aqr oontinued good health* 

'*Kote here any exoeptions* inelvding dates and eonplete 

"Sated at Minneapolis* Sfinn* Oet* 13* 1921* B* I* 419* 

» (Signature of Insured) 
"JasMis 1, Broughton#« 

Broughton died on loveaber 17* 1931* tad his «idow brought suit 

against the eompaiqr to recover the stus of ?5*000«00* the anoimt of 

the poliey* after the ooapany had deoiined payoient and sent its oheek 

to return the amount Broughton had paid* This eheek was received* bat 

iras not oae^ed* sad later the SEaouit: of the check wns tendered la 

eeurt* Upon a trial* the finding was for the defendant insurance 

company, and in sustaining the judgoent of the trial eourl* the United 

States Court of A&ipeaXs saids 

"After the policy lapsed* the insured wns not entitled to 
hove it reimtated by oerely executing a health certificate* 
although on a for« sent hl« for thst purpose* and tendering the 
preaiua. The contract plainly provided thst the evidence of good 
health should be satisfaetoiy to the eoapany* Until evidence of 

6t aoiit^tOi ©Tot W bttJfl ^9AMB »!<# «c 

%Uf^ te*-' 

»3i; ,?"'*■??/ 

< » t 

fc».t/^ ' '-" , 

«* * 

■ i-f-i «rfi ■>.) Jrtwni'J-.rif: 

T. ii 9rnti 

insurnbll Itf was furnished A&d aooepted th« polioy was not ra* 
instated* The receipt given hioei for th« ah«ok he had tendared 
in p6ym«nt oienrly Indicjted th'^t the money wnn reetlTed t«ata- 
tlYAly to be held in truet ontil he should eoiuply with the pro* 
Yieions of the polioy* tJhere wt?s nothing in the preTloue course 
of huflinesB between the parties nor in the reeeipt or applloatioa 
for reinstatement th?«t oould lead a retisonable aiAn to belleire that 
the provision of the policy requiring th^^jt the etrideBoe of 
Inaur ability should be satisfactory to the ooap«tny would be w«iiyed« 
The ease of Hartford iiff & A. Ins^ Oo^ ▼, Unsell, 144 U. »• 439, 
IZ S* Q%* @71» 3€^ U £d« Am, relied upon by appellant* it not 
la points 6f«« llpegjm^* |t,fi^fficfyl^ff|:ey ;.ife,|:nt, Of,,^ 104 tJ« 8, 
362, S6 h* M, 765, therein olted» Eetotiyel is not shown* 

"The situation presented iraa pr'^etlcally the nnme ^s if 
the oompsny h<sd denied issuing the polioy* The relnetateaient of 
the poliey isn» in effeet m new oontr^et* The burden was en plain- 
tiff to prove th'it everything; neee«8»ry to reinetftte the polioy 
had been done by the assured before there oould be h recovery 
upon lt» This ineiuded proof that the health ©ertiflO'ste 
furnished had been aooepted »a sitisfaotory evidenee of insura* 
bility fit^ the eheok sent had been credited to p»yaent of the 
overdue preniua* Ap|>«llant f^^.iled to suttf^ln this buofdea* This 
oonolusion finds support in the following well-oonsidered ei»ses« 
I^M^y ▼• Qread fraternity^ 36 Uont. m^t ^ ^« S»71, 25 I..R.A. 

IfillM, 40 Aris* 339* 11 P, (3d} 83S: ijoae ladugtrii.1 las^ go» 

V* Eidaoa. 143 (5a. 3S3, 83 S, fi.* e4l; Lane v. Fidelity Mut* Ins. 3ft. 

143 HTcT 55, U S. I* 8S4, US Am. StTle^. fWi 

While the reoord in the instant oase Indicates th^t the 

ageat of the defeadant oompmny tm-Atu unsueoeesful efforts to reaeli 

the insured in Washiagtea, 0* 0*, there is nothing in the reoord to 

indioate that the plaintiff, or the wife of the insured, n»de any 

effort whiitever to procure the exeoution of the oertifio^te rf^ouiredl 

for relnstateiBent, and the faot reaiitins thmt it wms never executed 

9mA never returned to defendant* dei^ia testified that lee returned 

to Chiosgo ftbout the niddle of the euaner of 19SS, and th^t his desth 

ooourred in this oity* Fron the entire reoord, we oma arrive at no 

other oonolusion than that there is no issae of f-aot involved herf, 

ajid that the trial court was in erreir in f?!(iling to instruct the jury 

to find the issues for the defendant* The judgasent of the ttunioip&l 

Oourt of Chiosgo, is therefore, reversed, and it is the order of this 

eourt thnt Judipseat be entered here for pl??intiff aad mgainet 

defendant for the sun of 0213*80, due under the terns of the policy 
•ad against plaintiff for ooets* 

mmt, »*3. and PI.iX«TXFF rOH ^18*80 A80 AQAIIST 




r 4 



9t6t t 

h^iMU'^o^ ai 

If at bnrumal tdt 

,, T J>f->aXifJ^' 


.^ilav mft ^ ««»««>4 »d# v^A«'> out « 


ft o«rpor%tloac 


HABVSt X« ASMIiSOII, et 9l>r^ ) ^<^^ 0OUK7T. 

Apptliamf. ) 29 4 I. A. 6 

MR. JtrsTios mth BtiiwmQ ths opikios of tes ootiiif. 

On Jaim&Tjr X5« 1934» the Ohioago Title & tiuat Ooapaagr* 
under the terms of r deed of trust to renl «state« filed m bill 
to foreclose* The trust deed wna glTon to seoure an Indebtedneee 
•f t6»800*00* ae evldeneed by a prlooipal note for tb»t aaount^ 
dated Septeaber 30» X^9« tund due five years after date* There is 
ao Question raised as to the msouut alleged to be due. The trust 
deedf principal aote and a SEuaber of interest eoupon notes were 
exeeuted bjr Harvey M« At^ersen aatd iHibel A, Anderson* his wife* 
The principal and interest notes were aad* {wyi^ble to bearer. 

On September 17* 1934|» by leave of eourt, an intervening 
petition WAS filed in the oisuse by Anderson i Llnd jiia^nufaeturlBg 
Ooapany* la whioh it is alleged* asttag other things* th^et Harvey 
M. Anderson and tfabel A* Anderson* being indebted to the Anderson 
4t tlad itaniifaoturing Ooaapany* exeouted mM delivered the pr<mlS8ory 
note in question* together «lth the trust deed* to the intervening 

petitioner; that B« a« AaAereoa was at th^t tloe director* secretary 

B. G. 
and trer;>surer of the intervener* and thftt/ABdorsea* on March 3* 1931* 

reoioved frea the vaults of the intervener the trust deed* prinoipAl 

note* together with the interest ooupons; th'tt therer>fter on March 2, 

B G 

1931^Ander8on delivered the trust deed* the principal note and 
eight interest coupon notes to Oefrees* Jsiuoltlnghaai, Jones * Hoffaan* 
ae collateral for aaounts due "one W. ». lloMlllan* and on a first 




• i»^ 


.... ♦... 'na fctlj;3*x» 

V.' hr. i- 

I .' • ) • 

.0 .8 

,0 .a 

<,4.VlO 9k» 


Mr«gag« on tbe Ln-xnmim State Baalt iHxildiag h«ld tojr th« Ohloftg* 
TitI* I Tivst Oompasqr;" that on Maroh 3, I33I» the laterTener w^e 
th« owner of tho ttutt doed and notes deoorllMsd^ and that tho 
laterYoaov rooolTOd no oon»lder«tlon for tb« trust dsod und notes^ 
that B* Q* ikaderson had no legal rlg^ht or authority to traasfer, 
aisslga or dollir«r those doousents to any peraon without consideration 

Be &• 

to the mtervenor* ^%iid that/ Anderson hsd no right to pledge the 
pxttpertir ^s oollmteral either fox hiawelf or tot the L&raale dtete 
Bank of Ohloago« itfti that the Interrenor had no knowledge th%t the 
property had been so unlawfully transferred until An^ptst 15« 19S3, 
The intervener farther alleges that the dellTery of the notes and 
trust deed hy Herrey U, Anderson and Mabel A* Andere»n» his wife* to 
the interTenor« was w%de upon the axpress understanding that the 
deed and note were not to ho disposed of* snd that no payasents of 
prlnoip&l or interest thereon were to be required until business in 
the building indtuitry had beeoae noraal* and further* thst no fore- 
olosure proeeedinge would be instituted by the Anderson <& hinA 
iteiittfaoturing Coaipany unless default la the teras of the provisione 
of the trust deed should oeour eubeequeat to a time when the eonditiens 
in the building industry beoaaMi noraal* In this interweaing petitloa* 
petitioner prwyod th>»t the trust deed and note be deereed to be the 
property of the interrening petitioner. The answer of plaintiff ta 
the intervening petition is thnt it had no knowledge* suffioiaat to 
fora a belief* that the iaterwenlng petitioner owned the trust deed 
and notes* 

Joint and several answers to the eoaplaint were filed on 
behalf of oert^ln minors by their guardian ad litca. The aatter was 
referred to a speoial oooaiesioner to tmke proofs on the iesuee aade* 
On the eommiesionerU report* mad after objeetions and exeeptioas had 


•^'Hf WIC 

tvi/to 1:0 tarn, 

um ^t^< *toa ban t^^k 

a iE!if»ft.() itaUti 0dt \0 
'■■■• \rtmubial $«lMiir<f »il^ aJt 

•■. ; ■ .•»« to IXjwf^d 


Hmw, mxA* th«v«to, ani a li«?riag had t)i«r«oa» on r»b]m%Tr 6, I337» 
th« oourt enteT#d a deor«« dltaiisslng th« iiit«7v»ning petition aa^ 
•xtl«r<»d thet the re«X pvoptrty b« toXd, at prayed In th« oonpl&lnt* 
tlM appeal ia froa this daor««* 

Prior to tht «T«iite heT«lniiift«T reftrTtd to» the notea and 
trust daed In question reaiainad in the i>oa»eation of the Anderaoa 
It X»iiid HanafaoturlBg Ooai>aa]r« In the ye«^r X93X« S, S, Anderaon* 
aeoretary and treaaurer of the Anderaon St U.nd Mmimfmotxiiring Ooapany, 
vm isdehted to on* W« i. itoMill»]i* and early In thit year* OoaaXd 
Oofreea, oat of the attorneye for the ooaiflTiinaiit Mere* stshod 
Aaderaen to aake m i^^^fiHiat on this #1iXig^tioa to lloMiXlaj&» or to 
pat up aoaothing la the «»y of eoXl»t«r»X« On Wi^roh 3* X93Xf la the 
preaeaoe of I** Q* Anderaon* president of the Anderaoa S> Lind 
ibiimfaoturlag Oomfajgri, B« &• Anderaoa dellr^red to 0efr«ea the 
priaoipal note* interest eeupona and truat deed involved here* aa 
eoXXateral* The reoord ilao indioatea th^t prior to the ataturity of 
the prinoipal note* and for % valuahle oonaideifatioa* the note* 
truat deed and mortgego vera oonreyod tgr ttoMiXXan to the Ohionfigo 
fitli A truat Ooiiii|»asiy* pXaiatlff here* 

fhen eroae extuaiaed da « witaesa* !»• 9. Aiiileraoa «d«itted 
tli'^t ha had aooowpatded hia brother* »• a« Aaderaoa* to the offieo 
of Mr* Defreea* and thnt hia brother delirerod the dooursenta referred 
to* to 0ofreea* ia hia preseaoo* hut iaaiated th^t he did not hnov 
ot the time what the papera were that hie brother* 3* 8* Aadoram^ 
haadad to Defreea* and ^at ho thought* th^t ahatorer the doounenta 
aore* they beXMiged to hia brother* the erideaoe elearXy iadiontee 
thnt at thia time* and ia the preaoaoe of L» 0. Aaderaoa* Oefreea 
g«re B« a* Anderson a reoeipt for these doottart»ate* 

B* a* Ai^eraon* aeoret^ry and ti>oa«uror of the Aaderaoa 
« I4ad l&aimfaeturing Oonpaay* teatified that ho had eatiro eharge 

Di^ ,«© 


■* *IS? -. 


i.X.O^ ^t: 

99t09tf>ftf «?•».«. i^^ ^rtrrA'-ftrw -^rrt'f ,T«d^O«ti »t.- 



•f Bot*« and fflortg«g«iT th« property of th« Anderaon ^ Und 
laanfmeturlBg Oompanyr inoludiog tliose in qu«Btioii* aad thsfit h« Iwd 
pyeTlously sold many thous'^nds of doIlar« wotth of those ••ouritioo, 
pr«giUMkbly vltb tli« oonsent of tho Interrenor* This i« not d«nlod« 

!»• a. AttAoraoAf th« pr08ld«at of tlio InterToning oorpor- 
fctlon* adtttlttod tb^t» at tioot* h« ir«.t in tho offiM of Mr, Oof rots 
wh(tn hia t>rothor« B« 0« /viid«roon* ftttoapted to ««11 oertaia of 
th««« seouritieo to Mr* Defr«e«« Imt ho inoisttd thitt he ho«%rd no 
eueh offer %t the tloo friben the note mud Mortg^go in quoetloa irero 
delivered to fimfr^em^ thie «ritn«93 farther testified th- 1 the 
intervening oorpomtion did not deea it neeeeeary th^t « resolutioa 
•f the direotors of the eorporatioa be ^.depted in order to g:iTe 
B« 9* Anderson the authority to sell the s^ouritiee of the inter- 
venor* He ^daitted that he talked with 8. a. ABderaoii over the 
wiitter of the delivery of the note snd mortgage in ciueetioa t« 
Biifv«ee, hut insisted thet it vkb after they had heen delivered* 

Metellus Thoaeon* Jr»» e lawyer oonneeted with the flm 
•f i}efreee» 3uokingha% Jones & Heffaan* testified to the off eat 
that oil the day whea the doeuaents In attest loa were delivered hy 
B« a* Aadersoa to Mr* Oefreee* he* the vitnessf ^^ae osilled into 
ifr* DefYees* offiee* and th'<)% h» @* Aaderson nM. B* 6* Andereoa 
were there* and th'^t these pereoas «t«%ted* in eahet'^moe that they 
srere giving these doeuaeats to iir* defress <^e eollAteral security 
ia the Iinraaie Trust - MOMillma mtter* This witness further testi- 
fied th t he dieti^ted the reoeipt for the doeuaeats ia his office* 
and thftt B* 0* AadersMi nnd %,• G« Amiereoa were both preseat et 
the ti#i of the delivery of the reoeipft. 

After a oareful ex&aiaatioa of the testiaony* we osa 
arrive at ao other oonolusion thaa th'^t the intervening oorpor'^tion* 

T' ' • S;^?^' 

i ^luC^B 




, ciiTft 

■■» J «>*•*. ii' 





f« ^n» 

»(|1^ »H» 


tlurottglb its pT«sld«iit, ooBs«nted to th« daliv^ry of t'h«8« neourltisa 

to ttT* O«froo«» ft»d for tho purpose montionod in the reooipi glvoa 

to B« Qt* AttAortORy whioh reoitss th-^t tl3i« doouMontt woro doliTorod 

OB ooXlateral for th« dobt of B, a. Anderoon to MotfillftA, Tho 

oiarporation had a^iMtrontly ptdo B. a. Anderson its '>g«at to selX its 


Soetlon 79* oiiftptor 9® of tlM XogotlAblo Xaotruiteiito Aot^ 

Illiiiois @ts.t« Bar Stats* 18S7« provides that: 

"Erery holder is deensd ggjaa f'-seie to be o holder in 
due oimrso; but when it is shown thit the title of ftagr person 
who hiui AOeotlated the instruttont was defeotive* the burden Is 
on the hoXwir to prove th t he or soise |)erson under i^oa he 
olalMi aeciuired the title as a holder in due ccnirse* But the 
last Mentioned rule doe* not apply in favor of a party who 
beoaffiO bound on the instrument prior to the aoquisition of suoh 
defeotlve title, •• 

It is elesr th«!t the plaintiff here* the Ohioago Title a^ fruet 

Ooiapsny* ao<|uired the interest of tto&Sillan in the seouriti«s in 

Question fot a vulumble oonsiderttion and prior to the aaturity 

of the jpiTiMlpal note^ Thie seemi not to be disputed by the inter- 


In iiaa >r« mttttonti' fcoan and trust Qe.. 100 111. App, 
334, the Merohante* ]«oan and trust Ooatpany brought suit to fore- 
oloee a trust deed given to eeoure a lean of tS,000,DO dated u^ 
18, 1092, and signed by John Fioalek. Shortly after the note was 
exeomted and delivered, it w«e purohased by liohol^s U«r«nn, the 
plaintiff in that oase, froa one Sohintz, k^o »ade the loan 
•rlf inally to Pioalek. Mann kept the note and aortg^ge in his 
posseeeion until a few days before its maturity, when he turi^d thea 
over to Sohints for eoUeotion* Iia«ediat«ly theres.fter Sehints 
iooh the note and mortgage to the Merohante* Loan and Trust Ooapai^ 
aaA there hypotheoated thea so security for a loan. In the fore- 
olooure prooeeding, Mann, the defendant, filed a oroee bill to fore- 
oloee the s^^ne truat deed, oiaiiaing to be the owner of the note* 

■■..... -ucrriXlI 
r «i/a» ©life 

■ 1 


•iiii ili 

■•Iff bta? ^% « Uiim mmkwmmmm 

#««tT ' ilt#V«i lMI« «#•« Mit ilAtt 

Frea a d«OT«e finding tltX« la the MerohAnts* hon.n mnA Trust Ooaoaagr* 

til* asalfpnee of th« not«» appeml waa talcaa to tbls oouxt* and la 

afflxalag tha daozaa* this eourt saldj 

"Tha aaaigaoMiat of a note aeourad by aKjrtgago o&Trlaa 
tha a»ou7lt7 



▼ • l^fi^l 

It has long b«en tb« aattled law In lUlnola tli^t tha 
homsk flda a© eigne® of note® s«<mr«d by tru«t daad thereby 
aocrulraa the seeurity* aubjeot, only, to e<^ultlea of tha 
m&Tti^xgoT and not subiaot to latfi^nt eqxtltles of other pert lea 
of vhlbh ha h&a ao notlea, olda v. OuyalngB^ 31 ill, 188-194; 

lil. ii: Mttllftaphar Savlnga Bank ▼. Sehott. 135 ill. 6&S; 

piftl r. mam» i47 111. 333-SOli ^SIl ▼. %t%U0 160 111. 193. 

**ln tha present o^jse It is undisputed that Sohints In 
tha first Imtanoa obtained tha note bona fide for value j that 
be sold It to M»nn in tha gama ^my. fhaWkar of the note doaa 
not dispute th« validity of either note or aiortgnga. Tha 
oontast here la between a party, onae a bona fide holder for 
valua^ who foluatarlly ga.Tt poaaeasion of note <-%nd isort'gi^ga to 
SaMn^x for value bafora maturity, mnd a party who, bona flda 
for value, before w&turlty, reaalved tha note %nd oortg^gre fraa 
Sahlttta and still holds tha nwm* 

the question la not %t all as to tha aealgnablllty of 
a mortgage. The otaarshlp of tha note oarrlca with it the 
seourlty: It will hardly be oontendad that appellant is entitled 
to foreoioae the atortgaga i^nd reoelve tha benefit thereof while 
appellee may reoover JudgaMint on the note.*** 

"Foaaeagilon of » aa^tlable note indorsed In blank la 
pylaa f^.ota erldanoe ©f title, s^nd the holder of such Instrtiaeat 
la preauaied to have tiikan it In good f&lth, for vaiwe, iMifara 
aaturlty. In the uauftl ootirae of buainaas and without notloa. 

89 111. 53:?-&34; go ok ▼, j^orwoo d. 106 111. 5S8«563; Baaia v. 
Horytar. 165 111. 347-352-383} Mgg. v. Bfim. 63 111. App. 383; 

giyi^M^ ▼• mm^,, 76 111* sa^jMiaM ▼, Aii^, i4i lu. 284- 

mii lat ^lth*8 tending Caaea, 7801 Metealf> ^eoelver v. Qra-i?er 
98 111. App. 399. »•• "**" -iea-ais*. 

Appellant gave ^ohlatz the opportunity to ooaalt the 
fraud of whloh ha was guilty. Appeilant ia an Innoeeat party; 
80 is appellee; under these olroumst^aoea, upon the party who 
pl&oad la Solitits* poasaaalon the me^na whereby he was enabXadta 
parpatrate a fr«iud, nist fall the loss oooaaloned thereby.^ 

In Ita reply brief, the Intervanor taoltly ^^dalta that 

tha plaintiff here reeaivad tha note la emeetloa In due oouree^ but 

inalata that the note aad tmat daad wre reoelved by oafreea oerely 

•a a pladga, aad th«t, therefore, the pledgee did not ftoquira title. 


ijtttfti ;5aS .ill S- 


.•*t?x .Hi 

roi «eMi #r< 

* -4 

' an 


8>Xla.:r I<,-Si:ii£: ' 




I fL» 

«ii;t 4'SAMC •i.^^-vi 

t© )b«»ii«t 


tl/J ^-j-.ltivH ^iih a. 


bat held th« paper te tMe extent of Me ilea only, and oltee the 
eaee of Feaoeek ▼• Phlllli>e. 347 111, 467, wbieli plaintiff alee 
eltee In Its brief* In thst ease* among other thlnea, the Supreae 
Court said; 

"If the 8«ourlti»e of a third pereon ar« deposited ae 
eelle^teralf the oredltor «%y oolXeot the whole cuoount due frea 
tlbt a»ker %nd will hold &isy eurplue aheve hie own debt me 
trustee for hie debtor* and in euoh a oa^e the raaker of the 
eeourities ie not ooneerned how the pledgor and Pledgee should 
settle between themeelves but is held for the full aaoiunt of 
his debt# (Ifiafce ▼, ^mmt^n. 75 111, BIS,)* 


%e find nothing in the/lDxiefs whioh staggeets that plalfr- 

tiff should render an aooounting to the int^rvetnor in eeee the 
property is sold for more than the anount due fr<Mi B» 0* Anderson 
to Melfillan* In fi^et* there is nothing in the reoord whioh suggeete 
ilfcet mdereonU Indebtedness to MoMlllen t^aiounted to« If, howewer, 
that Qneetion should arise, it le for the court to pass upon It 
when it is presented^ 

fe are of the opinion that the oourt was ©orreot la 
entering the decree «ppealedi fro«. It le* therefore, the order of 
this eeurt that the dmerte of the Superior Oourt of Oook Oounty be 
e f f Imed* 


t» M#l* iw ^x^^ MIL »/ ' ~ taMim% %ik* m$ «•<«« •At bit A titi 


ffTi- T>n.* 


,'»-^^r.^ *,i»i si i»*tl» 

.+^ f#«n 


t •-iaivT. 


ft oorporatlon, •%•♦, "'^^ -^ OF OSICAQO. 

294I,A. 60^ 



FltBd&i&ff breuglJit ^a ft«tlo& in t^« Munlelpsl Qmtt of 
Oklomgo agftiB»t defeadftiitt baaed upon the allef^ed uxklmrf^a oonveraloa 
tqr tliti defendant of e0Tt»in pBTumal property of plaintiff. After 
a trial before t&e court «ad a. jury* and upon tbe rerdiot of » ^ury, 
the oourt« on /kpril 7, 193?, entered tka judgveat ftgainat defei^snt 
for the sua of I800«00|» 

FroM the etateaoat of defeadiintc vhieh Is not deaied, we 
arrlre 9t the oonelusion th;it n% the tise of the alleged ooxnrereion, 
the personal property iarolTOd vae la a building foraierly owned by 
plaintiff; th^t a sortgage held by defendant on the real estate had 
been foreolosed* and that the period of redemption had expired seas 
daf^s before the plaintiff was called upon to and did Tolunt^rily 
suyreader the poeeeasion of and Taoate the premises* In the brief 
filed here» plaintiff does not take Issue with this statesent* It 
also appears froa the reeord that the surrender of the premises by 
plaintiff took plaoe in Deeeaber^ 1931« and that prior thereto* the 
prealses had boea la the possession of a oaretaker; th^t this oare- 
taker surrendered the poosesaion of the prealses to plaintiff just 
prior to plaintiff's glTlng up possession to defendant, and that on 
Oeoeaber 20 1931, the oi^retaker g^TO the keys of the building on 
the premises in (Question to the plaintiff* 

rv(RB plaintiff's testimony it ^^ppe^^.rs that after the keys 
of the building in question were given to him by the o^ret<*ker, 
plaintiff went to th9 promisee aad oheoked over all the artiolee of 



1 U .ii.x ±> t' I^ 



A>i«7«V»00 iB 

xM INrt»t«» »T$-: 

c'f* ?».-»jr.- 

I •tffWB^ 

ii:Jt n:orrj 

;. tol?- 

5 "JSirTi^ 

, , /.trrlaXc 

a rill!:* 

p«T80iiiil property belonging to M.a« and wm4M aa Imromtoiry th«r«of; 
tl9t«'t bo returned to th« preailoos the noxt d«j« and th%t tho building 
wag olesod and & nov look had b*«B pXaood tipon the door thereof; that 
mt that tin* ho said to a amn nanad MloholoTlok, "iqKf do 70U olooo 
no outT" and that MlehoXovlek snld, "Wo hought th4» building %nd put a 
leek on<*t and that plaintiff aaid to hlM, "I want ngr fixtureo;** that 
ItlohoXoTlok repliod to plaintiff » "May^ ftoaio ouotonor will take tho 
fixturoa with the huilding and oalooA"* and that plaintiff replied^ 
••AH ri^tf if jmi people want to pat a reotaurant or he responaihlo 
or glTO a l«$)ae en the building* all right » or X want ay flxtureo 
baok«* ihat MloheXoTiok* a oonneotion with the oatter w«a» or whoae 
a^nt he wbo* if he was an agent « doea not appear froat the reeerd* 
FXaintiff alao teatified that at th»t tlme« in the preaenoe of 
ileheXoviekf he, pXalntiff» took amiy hie trunk and that he roXuntsrlXy 
left the remainder of the furniture in the building* snd that ho aub> 
aequontly vtt&t to aee MioheXoTlek "at the building and loan flftoon 
or twenty ti^Be** about thie furniture* On oroee exealnation* pXaintlff 
teetifled that at the tiae tho pXaeo wae vaoated by the oaret^ker* **Z 
oouXd hare reoored the fixtures, Z had the keyt*" Hiat diepoeitioa 
vae made of this property doe a not appear froa the reoo7d* 

fiothlng further eeeas to have tranepired between the partlee 
until Noveaber* X933* at whloh tiaw plaintiff wrote tho defendant a 
Xetter* In whloh he atated* ••WouXd like to know what you intend to do 
^bout ay fixturee at 830X t3ad PXaoe* If ycm wa^ to buy thoa* Xet 
no know and I will eoae to the of flee to oXoee the deal*** 

there is not one word in the record whloh indie tee* or tends 
to indloate th'^t this defendant ever h%d possesaion of the furniture 
and fixturee in <|ueation. Thorefore* there is nothing to eupport the 
▼erdlot and judgawnt* The ^dgaont of the ifunieipaX Oourt of Ohieags 
la reveraed and the oaiase la remanded for a now trial* 

HSBKX.* :P.J, Alio mUlB K. 9ULI.IVAM* J* OOSOtm. 


(^•••rstfl tt^ttfmil am •ttm te« ^mii »# ssl^s^lvtf ^(tvtf«CQ X»iiotT«q 
3ffifetXJtMr »d$ $MAt bmM «t»» tSMt f«fy a*«i«n9 mU at Baoruf'^v td ^i^i{# 

..v'T fd .. ■■iriir »Jtit t««»« ^oei «tti*<iljp.I ,'.o.j:.v<jl»a»i:M 

... ■ ,«cnLi./iy 11:11: »at g>'»T«6j»t *ritd JbX(r<»o 

Jt writ vifTtOqor itft •&JHK »JBW 

r cinisj; ,t. , 

S9S63 f 

(nsintlff) App«Ujf</ J 

'Wm J ,""*T'*^"" Sj^KRlOll (»UHT 

hfftAh jN^ouj 

ABA 0Xi«!CE»9S AXSSHSOM. >' / OQ(X OOfJliTT* j 

(Oefendsnta^ App«llant«. ) 29 4 I.A» 60 9 


On Ddoember 39« 1933, st mboiit 11 o*olook In th« laornlng 

plaintiff w«8 injured toy bflng atruek bjr an aiatoiB^teil* (IriTea bf 

defendant** mg^nt, iphlle walking etatvmrd on m two Imne highway Aa 

Gunnison Street between Hsrlea and Ha^e Avenues in the township of 

Korwood Pftxk in Oook County, Illinois, and sues for the d%amgea sut-> 

t&insd« The oause was submitted to « jury, whieh returned % Terdist 

in favor of plmlntiff in the sua of |&,000,00, upon whieh Ju^iMAt 

vn9 entered* This is an appe«il frcNS that judjg^Mint* Mo question is 

raised as to the astount of the JudgsMnt* The aetioa as to Anderson 

was disaisaed* 

Plaintiff testified to the offset that he was of the age 

of 67 years, and that on the Rtoming in (ruestion, and just prior to 
telag struok, he with a friend, was walking east on aunnison Street 
•n the south side of the highway; th^t the plaoe where he entered 
Qunnison Street is about one mile mmt of Earlea Avenue, and that 
Magle^Aveaus, the street toward whieh he was proceeding, is about 
1100 feet fr«a the point where he entered Channison Street; that at 
the tiae and plaee in question, the teaperature was below freezing, 
and that the higbiway was oowered with iee and that it was slippery; 
that at the tiae he started walking enst along on the soutlft side of 
the roadway, ho looked west and saw a oar eoalag froa the west towardi 
hia over the top of a hill about SOD feet away, th^t he did not look 
around again after he saw the oar on the hill, ^ad that its speed 
aaa then froa 40 to 45 ailes an hour; that at thst noaont, re%lisiag 
^at undsr the oonditioas hs might be in danger froie the approsohiag 

w: -■ ■"'."! 

^ Od «iM.x i^ 

il •il.Ji.^^J^. 


4 if' 

tte^ -'f't r 

b90v^« «tl 


d * J- If n r, 

'<: .<2n« £E»1^J?8 Bmpmt^d t»«»t#l( ii<»ftl8aiA 
(eioffiJUl At^-'i^i^C' iociO all Jiitl ibQ«n#i| 


W5rt #»»! f>0IX 
' ' -^M »ri* twi* *ac 

i qi»# mat 7»Te iBir 
i<i i;4#tii aia^s hnuetJi-> 

iti Q^ 0$ Oi^ mtttl a^dii si>w 

:i\> i,ii V -'ti.' 


autoao1»il«» h« walked aovess the bli^waf in a BorthenstcTly dlT«etUa 

to t:b« nortb side of the paved hlg|iway» and that after eresslng 
the highway » ^l vse going etraight east right along the slab. X 
did Bot hear any noise other than the purr of the oar vhieh I 
heard haeh of oe ffhe& I walked aeross* I did not hear a horft* tff 
hearing was good* Bo horn was sounded* then X saw the automohile 
eoaing direotly towards ffi«» it was just like a flash* X do&*t 
reoMaber whether I was on the paweaent when I was i^ioked up* hut 
X think I was off the pawement** Plaintiff further testified to 
the effeot that in his opinion* he walked shout 45 feet froa the 
tiiM he left the south side of the street t^ntil he was struok* «Bii 
that he walked north eset in a diagonal direotion; that he saw the 
ear i^ioh struok hia* and that it was then ebout 10 feet away frMi 
hia; that after he was struck, he was on the north side of the higfa-> 
way near the eonerete* Plaintiff further testified to the effeot 
that just before the oar struok hia» it was gaiiem^ froa ^ to 35 
ailes an bour* and that "it then secMied to be geing kind of sideways 
with the haek wheels off the oe««nt«^ 

A polios offioer testified that he arrived at the soene of 
the aooident shortly after U e'eloek «& the aorning in ^estion; 
that the seone of the aooident was poialed out to his* and that he 
notieed netrks of the autoaobile; tin^t *X saw skid marks on the hi|^w«^ 
and traoed tbeia froa iliere they ooaaaaa«4 to where they ended* The 
aarks started about a blook froa the hill going sideways northeast 
for about 50 or dO feet* and stopped 8 or 10 feet off the paTOtseat 
on the north side of the street* These aarks started nbout 4 feet 
froa the south edge of the eonorete* The oar was ooaiag east and 
the aarks started in a northeasterly direction* These oerks started 
about 4 feet north of the south edge of the pavement* It «aa a 30 
foot paweaeat*!' fbis witntss further testified to the effeot that 

■•i©n «xii/ o# 
'i t«t«eif 

^c^-' ^f^iiS Jii4!jji:^« aeit^, ta.9 

tit maitt t9'i 
btu ^ 

mo^ t"**' t99\ Oi 

as et ce m9%t m^'- 

9d tAdt bi. 

. ^htt» t^iit •T«/i 
tfl*^ nvjfsq 90i tto #»*« 

OS s SiW ' 

ii/ild iOi6W*» iiM» •jaW ♦»©S»<* t»ui tmMt 

" •uii'okibd^r «ti£i-' 

.•;3^« i:&i»;i ndt dtkm 


tli»tiB ■:.'■ '^i^^t 

■ ^^t^ 

't 'tv %^ lii!^'' 


at *h« tla« In ^aatlon, h« ^|t1c«d up the itrap ^i a wrist vatiAi 
whlirti l3«a.oaK»4 to th« pXaiatiff^ wliiob was tlitft about 13 f—% aoTtb 
of tb« eonOTtt* paT«n«nt« 

A r«8ld«ut of tli« ziclgliborliood ibo ltT«d oa OunuisoA 3tr»«t, 
near th« point wli«r« tli« aoold«at la (|u«»tloa luipp«a*A, t«Btlfl«d to 
th« «ff«et that noar tli« point la cjueatloa, li« bad a Kail toox stand* 
lag OB Oaoeaibar 39, 19S3, and that after tha aooldaat, on Oaotabar 
SO, 193S, It was lying on the ground, and tha box waa datffcad la 
and Itraltaa oft at tha atuap* 

Another wltnoaa taatlflad to tha affaot th«^t shortly 
after tha aeoldant, ha drova to tha point theraaf tnd saw a sail 
box «^leh had bean knookad over, that an mutoaiDblle had sli^lddad 
into It, and that "it looked Ilka a etr had been turned sideways 
and skidded down tha hill* the skid narka oaimeaAad about 75 feet 
froa the aall box, whieh vaa ooa^p^letely knoaked off froa the supports*' 

the driwer of the oar ahleh oiused the «oold«nt, testified 
to tha effeot that he turned In on ihnnniaon Band %t Harleai ATsatte 
about thrae quarters of a nile wast of the plaoa of the aooldaat; 
that when he srrlwad at the hiU, ha net lead two men wjslklag along; 
the ri^t side of the road, and thtt i^lle he was on top of tha hlU, 
he honked his horn and slowed doim« as he was oonii^ down a hill; 
that when he got to within IS feet fron the ?&lalatlff, plaintiff 
started walking aoroas the road; th?tt when tha witness got to the ' 
top of the hill, he was traveling about to to 35 ailes an hour and 
wse on the rl^t side of the road about ^ feet froa the aoath edge; 
th'^t the two sen were walking side hj side along tha right edge, 
and th^t they were about 400 to @00 feet In front of hin «hen he eaw 
the«s that when he got within iOO feet of then, he slewed down, and 
thmt aa he eaise down the hill, he edged awsy fron the side of the 
road to giro the pedeetrlana a little roos, and thst he waa then 

0/ fr3iUtB»» ,*a«<K^»<J i»J»*»«P ai: j,«'*fc-lf»« »4t «t*i*»r #iiio<; »i43 «»«« 
^«1 4T «»lr4« A9MMMM* : ^ .-'■:tiB hitB 

•lit \m •tU md* wn\ xtvB J>«9(M ^ 

4Vftw Mioi or«r^ ^if^ tifdt 
'O}} >m tfMftr t«7tf# |ia*4# 


4 or S ft froa th« south odg* of tht vo»<l« iriileb proft th« loft 
vheolo of bio o%r in at»out tlio ooater of the street; thnt «)ioa tlio 
witiMOft m»M ftbimt 15 f«et from tho pl^intiff^ pl&intlff stsLrtod 
wmXkliig directly »«•••• In fro&t of hln« looking etral^t ahead, 
end that at that tlMi* h«* the wltiwoo* wna traveling «»bout 15 
alleo %n hour* nad th>«t i^«n hit o%r ivao %bout 4 or & feet north 
of plaintiff, plaintiff etartod to ^ntk aoroee the etreet; that the 
wltneas then elaaated on his hrakoe »nd twloted hie wheel to the 
left* whloh would he toward the north, mud tM% 'the o»r tept going 
»i4iBw«f9 on an angle until he hit the pla^intlff In the eeater of 
the road; th^^t the plaintiff ?7«^s ahot^.t in the ailddle of the read 
w&oa the ear first oaise in oontaot with him; thmt the rl^t front 
part of the buAKper hit i>laintlff rigbt helow the knee, and that his 
hodi" oareaed agaiiuit th* headlight* th^t the o^r went to the north 
ed|^ of the paToment find stopped} that plaintiff ms.9 on the right 
front fender at th&t time, und that ii&en the oar etopped, plaintiff 
dropped off in fi^nt of the humper, and wa« then on the north edge 
of the oonoretes that when the oar atoffed, the ri^t front idieel . 
WM Juet off the oenorete, %nd the left front wheel was >«hout a or 
3 feet off en tliiet angle, snd both reitr wheels were on the piisiwemt&t* 
this witness further testified to the effeet that hie e«ir trsTeled 
about m feet fron the ti»e he first saw that plaintiff was eroeaiag 
the street until it e«ine to a step* and thnt it was going in a 
northeasterly direct ion* Se also testified thtt there were eoM 
ekid marks about 35 feet l«mg« 

Aoiong the grounds urged by defendant for the rewersal 
9f the Judgment are th^t the werdiet of the Jury was saanifestly 
against the weight of the ewidenee, and that the eridenoe elearly 
ehowe that the plaintiff wea guilty of eontrlbutory negligenee* A 
tevieir of the ewldenee oonyinoee us that defendant ^s oontention in 

•Iff #*:rf;y jts^T** » 


Iffi «{f;^ 

ffuorf a» iieJtls 

cf «tf Xlfiisr dX^^BJ? 110 no itiiSivaiaiR 
(i Mkw tnti$a^ at imh^ Hrtt t«« *di a%ii9 

TWO •rft « ■ fc«MW*0 ^dfctt^ 

• ^ til,! te ft^JMi 

»#s «i»© »ff# iTRfhf *:^itf bti , 9^ti$ #« irtfefl©! #ao«l 

'ton 9i!# no iter.' ^.r-K/' «ii* to *a«i[1r al %t# fe<iiqpf©«6 

o#e ««• 9tiH a r««e»«« »({t le 

,' .o6r er.v l^i»llif tat ' '^ ^1^© *««»t •»» 

•di HO ttwr 8X»»4tf Tssrt tSt^od t "tto 8t»«t S 

i of {:>^^v, "r ifr.««ia.#i« aitfl' 

. 9ff iGi»^ ^ taadir 

« 0i *»' 

tX«ii«X« #f*«#*>lv» til* *-rf:f h 

;: ■- <• ■• • i. t,-' I ■ iHSiAK •worff 


this regard Is witliout aerit, TiMi vridtaee of the plsilntlff «iid 
th« wltniMercB produoed lny Mm Indloate th%t %t the tiaM h« w«« 
•tniok \tf defeadmftt*a ftut«io1»iI«» be wis val&lng •«•% Bittr t1i« 
aortb. edge of the pnveariiat* aad thet the defendant** ear skidded la 
a norttteasterly direotlon aoresa the entire width of the north h«lf 
of the !»v«d surfaoe of the high««7« and struck: both the plaintiff 
sad a fl»il box* whioh was steading north of the north edge of the 
pureaentf ^bout two feet therefrom* and erushed it to the ground* 
The evidenoe raso iadioates th««t the strap of plaintiff is wrist 
wsteh was pieked up 1^ a polioe officer soa® distaaee north of this* 
The police officer stated that he eatiaftted the skid aarks to be 
75 feet in length. It is true tkat Aaderson* the driver* testifisd 
thfit plaintiff turned fraa tke south directly in front of his ear 
w^ea the oar was straddling the aiddle of the paTsaent* but in this 
ha is not corroborated* Kowever* the Questions of faet presented on 
these phases of the ease were for the juxy to pass upon, and w« ara 
aot inolined to interfere* 

Defendant Insista thtt pre|udiQiai error wna eoasaitted by 
the plaintiff in ttteapting to iadioato to the jury that aa insuranoe 
ooapai^ was involired. On croas exaaiaation of the plaintiff, in an 
effort to detensine i*ether ©r not plaintiff had suffered a prerious 
injury, plaintiff was asked the following tiueations by counsel for 

*Q* You w«»o in an automobile accident soj^ six years ago and 

this same leg w»s InjurodT A* le* sir* 
<i* Do you remoaber Oootor Burrowes ooming out to see you in 

the hoapitalt A. ^oT 
%• ^* l^arroves, some time after the accident C^he aocidant 

here in Quest ion}* You don't res^aber when he eamo to 

see you at allT A« Ho*** 

naiatiff was then asked whether a Qt», darrowas came out to see him 
on January 4, 1934, after the accident involwed here, ««ad the witnees 
answered: "1 don't r«aember Hint there wsa any doctor out to eee me* 
Tkoro was a oouplo of fellows from the iasuraaee company out there. 


iei%,. <>(lli»aii»iNi( 

. ?Ui» * Hit „>. 

HO r 

> )MB!V %99 «iU AfUiW 

urn %m %«iii»t^ f^aimi^i^k of tVfH* 

I tbiak tlLtty were* Th^t la about %X1 I oaa r«ttMibeT ef« <lluH(lMt 

there was a dootor or not, I don*t believe there wfte«" Tbereupon, 

eouneeX for the defendant neved th%t a juror 1m frlthdmvtt &&d the 

jury disalsaed beoauee of the plalatlff*a refereaoe to inaur^aoe* 

Xn WiUiaaa ▼• Qoaauaere Oo« . 353 III* 51, a alallar 

situatioa «rae preeeated, and la paasing upo& thla queatlon* after 

r«iriewing the oaaea elted, the Suj^r^iie Oourt a«ld: 

<*9a have examined these oaaee hut find none ahere a 
nla-trlaX haa ever been gr?^nted on aeoeunt of an inadvertent 
or uttrespenaive anener of a witneea to a legitljaate inquiry* 
Generally, where prejudlolml error haa been declared it is 
found to have been due to soae aiaoosMluot or Inproper rea^rlui 
or questlona of oounael, oft-^tiaies repe^^ted, nnA oaleulated to 
influence or preji^udiee the ;)ury«" 

Xa the Instant onse, the ansvar of the vitnese vas nade in response 

to a question propotmded to hla by eounsel for defendamt as to 

idi«ther or w>t a oertain dootor had been to see hiai, and his answer 

vas in the negative, he, st<%tlng th^t only two persons had been te 

sse him axid th%t they represented themselves to be from soats 

lns«uranee eompany* l^e find nothii^ in this answer to Justify a 


Zt is insisted that the judgment should be reversed beeeuse 

•f the faet that plaintiff gave an instruotion whi«h reel ted in sons 

•onsiderable detail the ohsrges laade in the deolar^tion, &»i oites 

the ease of ^»T^,^1 ▼• Ohloago ^^aold Transit Oo., 337 111* ^7. where 

a similar Instruetion was offered by the plaintiff* While the eourt. 

In thst ease, orltleieed sueh an instruotion, it is to be noted that 

the judgment there was not reversed* defendant also oites the ease 

of ^^% V* Holllngsworth> 365 lU, kpp» 447, on the sams proposition, 

and while the oourt again otttioised the instruotion, it will also 

be noted th^t in th«t e^sjl/alse did not reverse the jud^^meat* fhile 

•lo »«*<?•»«* .^nm y^m ^iiiJft X 


'-wvfdm *iu«£etiat»l> #«{dr vol; XMstrtNl 

; unit %0 ftftlMtttMf b»8*liiNil> t^ 

^ ■ it U ^0 


■««-to bam . "■ ««^* |ljp^®b «Xdi5»'K»fci«iM>f 

taiff ^i««i Mf •« Al ii ,a<»i#ttir!rittffi /if dt»fi$! 
«0Oi#i««q»v; ^mtm •M tic , . ^ 

sil^ » i— m i n t ^'O^ *■ '^ ^^ ^"'^ 

, -'80 $>r.A9 ax 


vt ftfe of tiie opinion tbat tlie instraotlon it obj90tioa!»bI«» fltill« 
«• hold that under tho oiroujuit^noes, and in view of th« reoord 
lierOf the glTing of it is not suffieieat ground for reirer««il« 

After a onrefuX exaajlnatios of the entire re«»rd, im 
conclude th^t the defendant had a fair trial, »nd th«t we vould 
not be justified in disturbing the verdict • The jud^aent of the 
^perier Court is» therefore^ efflrawd* 


Mam •dt to v9iv meiiirti» •tAt t^ima txiti hijbH •« 

aiA tb«i «a;! 


(l»«tltlo&«7) iippellant 

(itspoadoat) AppeUot, 

294 i.A. 609 

m* jestioE mih mumm^ tm orinotsi or tie oo0Et. 

On K^reh 6, X9S6« |tidg»«Bt w&s •ateT«d mgmlast de feudality 
In th« Mualolpftl aourk of Obl^agjo on a judgnoat mstto for tbo stui 
•f #3«94X«0& fho Rott «i>,s aigaod ae follo^os **A}«x Motor Senrioo, 
XttO* (OoTpoxuto Seal) Attoot; Josepb fryo^ ^Te««« No. • • Duo 
Ajax Motor Strrloo, Iii««, Uy H, 0, llettam, Soorttaxy." Thoreafter, 
oa Ma;eh 3&« 1986« dofendnBt onteirod a notion to Yaoato find tot 
aoido tlio judgaont, that the judgiao&t bo oponod and Xoavo givoa 
dofoadaat to amkn a dofoaoo, and tli^t tko ^udgmont otand aa aoourity* 
flioxoafter* on April 1« 193S« tho ewxtt ontozed an ordor to tuo 
of foot that tho motion he ohangod '*fro8i ooattaot oonf«a»lon to 
eontraot" and thiat a rulo ho ontered on plaintiff to fllo aa aiaoadod 
atfttomont of olal«« and on Augnst 31« 1936^ the aaoadod otatoaont of 
olalai was filed* In this amondod statement of olaln* tho judgnoat 
note la cjiioatlon la oet forfch in ftjli, mkA dofaadant la givon oredlt 
for oortaln payments laado thereon. To thia aisended statotsoat of 
olala, defendant filed an affidavit of deftaae, in ohioh it lo 
alleged that the preeldent of the defendant oorporation iiho ojEecuted 
tho note in quest ion^ was not authorised to exeouto it; that the 
defendant waa induoed hy fraud and aiereFresent^tion on the part 
of *♦ R, HuaBBOl^ •eoret«iry of the pl*latiff» to exeoute a hlank 
judgment aote to the plaintiff without oonslder^itlon; that BuimoI 
fraudulently et«fted to Pryo, the president of defendant eorporation. 


/ 34 

^ , oqToo 


^ U O •i^*.x *" y w^ 
ava 9ii^ v ■ ^^^"^ "^"^ ttuoH lmil9JtasM 9at a1 

«»r2s ©TW9X ... ^.. --v: r , (KkMH^t •** •*^»* 

9d4 •# tftMo Bit b«t»^if« tl/iOO . . » . ..- ,A lit^A 09 »«ft**T«4I 

U tamft»n btteiMia ©lit ^»«K?X , ^' *-r»stfA ao boat ««I«X» »• #«•«•#«#• 

!• ^inHMt«rB l}«Jbat«« Mid* o't •> > i ^ut sJbuuti ft#««MiE«q aUtfH t«l 
^«ie9X9 ^0m iiolJ"'iO'zr'->'- ni-Ln .-■..j.i,:-^!.: t-^j. ' ■*"^ b9%»l£M 

Mmmld m ♦#ir»«x9 of ^Yiltf ' " - -' " x'^'*'"*'^^*'' « *^-«'mH •** •* ^ 

%hnt plaintiff mer«ly vnnt«d the net« as a suntter of fora, and th«t 
plaintiff would not oonfoas judgisent on the not«« and th^t t^tec^uent- 
Xf Huaai«l fll^td out the body of tho Boto« The affidivlt of nerita 
further reoitee that the defendant ie not Indebted to the plaintiff 
in any sua whateTcr* The oauee was aubaitted to a jxirf, whleh, on 
Apiil 13« 1937» returned a verdiet in feTor of plaintiff for the 
mm 9f $3«d60«29» Shortly after the Terdiot» defendant entered a 
/ Motion for ft ne« trials f^ioh vma overruled^ and judga«nt entered 
en the Terdlot« Thereafter, the judgBMnt wae vaoated azid a new trial 
granted* Thia ia an appeal fro« the order granting a m»w trial* 

f* !!• Humnel testified to the effeot that on January 38» 
1936« the date of the note in quest ion« he vas eeoretary of the 
General Inearanee Agenoy« Ino*; that on that date^, he ealled at the 
offioe of the AJax Motoir Serriee to see Joseph Frye, president of 
the defendant eoapany, satd there infox«^d fty* that the Ajax Sdter 
Service owed plaintiff a sua of aoney, and th^t Frye ststed that he 
oould not pay, luad that the witness stated to Frye that in wiew of 
the f90t that "they** being plaintiff U ageats, were obligatedi to th« 
insuranee ooapftnies altioh "they** repreeented* for preaiunsc and that 
"they" had to hawe soaethiag to proteot theaeelwes^ and %h^% Frye 
then stated that he oould pay 1^)0*00 on his aooount* The witness 
then told yry that he would have to hawe a note for the balance, 
and thst frye answered, "All right, you taake out the note and I will 
get the Qhee)E<*; that frye then sat down at his desk <u&d signed the 
note and gawa the witness a check for SSOO.OO, and that the note, 
which wss Inttaduoed ia evidenoe, appeared to be exactly the saae as 
lAea Frye signed it» The witnega identified an endoreeaaieat aade oa 
the baok of the note, indicating a payment of #7S,00 thereon, oa 
February 10, 1936, on cross exaalnation, this witness testified to 
the effeot that the aaouat represented by the note was on aeoouat 

t.dS ha 

.id^ui 5 

d'd a^iixi 


lo tJlf«t)XS»«r- ,«-ry 
to irsir 

,«Oflij«Xi»d til? 
iilv I btti' ^toa 9Mf #tfr 

' ■ 1! ■ ■. * T-.i 

■ ,. . .. ... .1 + 

•'.i^fltlw »ilir -j'/sd* taA ,!«■•; #o« fcl-'C o 

of "j^laMIlty and property dtui&go of tho ooa^njr*! trvrolco, btiood 
on « poreocitage of tho gross reoolpts, reported monthly, and tbat 
is the oustoBftry foroi of Inour^noo* I kaTO a iMMorandum showing 
ham I arrived mt the eun of t3«739«07* X got the figtires fron 
the audit r«i|>ert aitade by i.tirel*?ogol* Mr« Frye haa a oopy of the 
report. He got it firoa me the saaui day the note m^.* signed* It 
i^owed a oonplete audit aooording to the figiiree I ;}itflt g»r9 ymx** 

fhe auditor and Yioe president of the defendant ooapany 
^ae produoed as a vitnees hy plaintiff. He testified to the effeot 
that the Ajax Motor Servioe had business dealinge with the OeneraX 
Insuranoe Agency « and th^it the aeneral Insurance Agenoy had procured 
and had issued to defendant, varioua polieies for wor1caen*8 cottpen- 
sation, publie liability, property daaage and cargo Insuranoe, and 
that all of the pre«iums were paid to the Qeneriil Insuranoe Agency, 
plaintiff. OB cross ezaKination, he testified to the effect tliat ho 
was present in the office of the defendant oomimay when HvttMSl was 
there, and thtit he had no reooUeotion of a direotora* iseeting whii^ 
authorised Frye, as president, to sign the note. On redirect exa»* 
inatlen, he testified to the effect that at the date of the aaklag 
of the note, there was about |4,000.€K5 due from the defendant ooapany 
on aooount of the insuranoe referred to* 

Henry 0. Mettam, who,wlth Frye, signed the note in Question, 
was ealHled as a witness by plaintiff, and testified to the effeot 
that on the date of the note, he was seox^etary of the defendant cor- 
poration, and that his signature is contained on the docimsBt, 
together with that of Frye« president of the corporation, with whoso 
signature the witness was faalliar; th»t ho saw Frye giwe HttaMlk,of 
the plaintiff ooapany, the note in question; that he had a conversa- 
tion with Frye prior to the date of the note, and that he and ?*ye 
discussed what they were going to do about paying the oonoy owed to 


-- • -'-■ ■" ■ r'^^n-"^'^^!^ 1« mrt WW *6 b>9vl%xf\ I wo A 

,■ - . • r-*» ft^oB til* ^^.•.- ^■Kvv? ->fjj -.^ iwtt *Jt **8 »K nit9tg9% 
",u: — ■ ' '" ~':'" 9i afisUttTi. . ■ - - ;Vttjy/f. Bi'^.l ■ t^^oAB 

•xt »^ d#Mi aflJ 


th« GffneTsJL lBsiiTano« Ag«no7, aad tl9i«t it wm determined thnt "they* 
would pay whftt they eould|» eompronlee oa a note aad sake arrtiBcemBte 
to pay off the not* weekly or atonthly^ or ft* "they** eould afford 
to pay it; th%t after the exeoutioa of the Bote» the witaose •«* 
Huaoel at the of floe of plaintiff %nd that he eounterslgned the 
note aad plaeod the seal of the defeadant eorpor&tloa oa It, aad 
that thle wae doae approxinately three of four daye after Frye had 
signed the note} that the wltaeaa aade arraagosieata with HimMl that 
"w* would try to pay hia #75.CK; a week hee^ueo "they" eould not 
afford to pay more; that prior thereto* there had heea auoeroua 
ooavereatlona ahout the ladebtedaeee to plaintiff, and that frye 
wanted to know from the witaees how *W9* oould eettle eo that Kaaael 
would not oloae down on ^theai^, and thmt Frye left it to the witness 
to oake terae with lIuiBttea. as to how tlie note sho^^ld he paid off* The 
note was then introduoed in evideaee, ower the ohjeotion of defendant* 

Jose$^ fTft, the president of the defendant eorporatioa 
and one of the makers of the note in question, testified to the 
effeot that OB the date of the note, Httoaol presented it to the 
witness and suggested thnt the witness sigh it, whieh he did, la 
hlank, th^t the note ma not filled out nt the time, and that at that 
time, Mettaia*8 aaae was not on it, that he did not know who wrote 
the words, Ajax Motor Serviee, Ino,, ahowe his signature, that his 
hoard of direct ors had not authorised hia to sign the note, and that 
he did not put the seal on it« The wltaoss sdaitted that the 
defends^nt eoapi»ny owed to insursnee aompsnies the sua of SS,77?9,07 
on the date of the note, but elaiaed that the defendant ooapany did 
not owe the money to plaintiff. 

Froa the reoord, we eonelude that the plaintiff ooapany 
was an Insurenoe agenoy, representing xr^rious insursnoe companies 
whioh had issued inauraaoe polioies for and en hohalf of the defendant 

t' "^rf^** «*» Tc «TXtftii«« to t<£*»*»' •*<»« »J^* ^^0 Y*<? 0* 

•iff MMtSisv") $nuo0 vtf tBiit fic« ttld'AitXq to »fritl<> adt fJ) Xtwtiffi 

te<> ell Jro f TOO ^n»lxit%T96 »iC^ to Xiifttt •<!# JMmmJ>^ JMIa »#Qn 

&*if 9\it f «)#%/> (>tc'^' 7<<<9'( to %9iiJCif t'te^i»Bi«:oT<?qjS ^a^ tt««r tilHf fndtt 

^«jr r • ••fctf**®d -s ■ , ^:*$ iclrf t*? ©^ ti^JJ" 6Xwow "•«'* 

A8«Atitr »4(t Qi ti itti ftff^ ^J^<l^ ^'*^- t^A^^!^" «ro ftiraib »«#X9 tott blsm^ 

•at •tlo M'" d' 9t<at »ii'# «raff o# MS XMtnuB Jf^iw aoritftt •stMB i>c 

-}«%t«t) t« iioi#i»»C<'® ^^^ '"^^'^^^ ^&tta9ftr» ni J^GjU^ottai ii«/i^ %pyr •ton 

'rf." ot ^*i>l#B»# «ci«lt«9ii9 fti •♦on »<li to ■«9ifiJ»? arf* to •«« Ma 

Off:* o.t ' »*** •lit ■ "> 

If^B Mf iiK{ 9oa bib M 
TO.f ,' *tlt •9ia«»q«»0 •oanttrntil of bi*vti t»iRC9Mt» tit#ft««ft«A 

♦ t-r X9tnm 9(it »W0 J0« 

too «K»««»'rw««i »w«iYfY »» «t*«*? <" •©iKWirtUil «« ■•» 

ji V! "^t* tttff to tX^rf^d flo tflp ii)««l ••••«w»«i ^«i««l A«if if»14w 


C9XpOT*!>tiorXt and th''.t plaintiff eonsidered itself to \>e mud 
app rentier was liat>l9 to its principals for the praaitjaa du« t)i« 
Vi^rious Insuraaoe oompaniet on aooount of tlitfse poliei«8» Defendant 
adttlta th^t it was indebted on aooeunt of these polioiefs, and 
furth«T taoitly admitted its indebtednees to plaintiff on aoeount 
thereof when It executed and dell-v-ered the note in ouestion, and 
at the sam» tiae paid 1300.00 on aeeeunt of the indehtednese* 

A written seoond motion for a new trial (not rerified) wee 
filed in the oauee and there^ for the first tiae« it is urged that 
plalntiffti^ being aerely sgents of v<i>rioiiS inauranee ooapanies frmt 
whoa defej^i^inta proeured the insiaranoe whioh is the basis of this 
litigstion, were not general ^igeats, but were leerely brokers, and 
were not aiuthorixed to eolleot irreaiuffls on aoooiunt of suoh insur«D.noe« 
&Q suoh defense w«is presented in their Affidarlt of defense upon 
whioh the ease was subnittedl to the Jury. The reoord seeas to In- 
dicate that all the deatlings as to insuranoe were had between the 
pl&intiff and defei^i&nt* and as stated, that all previcms |»fnents foi 
insuramte h^ been a^de by defendant to the plsintiff, m.nA not to \hm 
insuranoe ooai^anies. Plaintiff's represent at Ito, throu^ whoa the 
business wae transacted with defendant* testified to the effect that 
under their axrangement with the n^rlous insuranoe eoapanles represent 
•d by them, they beo«ae liable to iHGOouat for all premiuas due on 
insurance* lilso, as stated, this situation seens to hawe been 
recognised by defendant at the time the note was given and the |SOO«00 
paid, and froa the fact that defendant had prewiously paid all of the 
prealuas due on insurance to the plaintiff, we ooncULude that the new 
issus presented by the last action for a new trial is without merit* 
The whole aatter was submitted to a 3ury» which returned a rerdiet 


twft ml of "^t^f #i t¥7afcl,3fl«o tlltfilJiXc f^dt feit« .x: too 

. -^1 &ti9<r 9m£& 9mMt^ »d# fff 
wii i'T9'? *c '.« lit tot tt<iktim bamo»9 n^iiiTft i 

t'mtt #«iill adt ro'i <,«*t«)if* fcad^ ytitam^ nAi ai &»Xlt 
v>^ •»! tweitJk tftjoiirffT lo %*«#»^ titir«»« ^«i<HS^ «Bt^iffl;JtAX<| 

9Ai m99rfta .'■ *ftaf.timffi «♦ ::.ls9b ItAi JLi» *firi# «*«»ll5 

9lfJ «u>ifir fi ,»vl*<»*0«»'-' ' ,:• .t ««««!©«« ■'>..",■• T«®al 

Tct noises i9»l ^f Y<f i^»#«id«»iq ttf«ei 


tor tbe plAlntlffy auod v« oan find nothingin th« reoerd whleh 
Justified the court In granting a n«* tri«l« Thewfore, th« 
|ttdg«*Bt is rflTttrsedf -snd jud^Mnt If entered iMir* for plaintiff 
toT I 3f 660*399 tbe attount of the Terdlot* 

HIEK f(m PX.Al5tXFr FOR #3,660«39* 


^>i*: , , « • u:^ •;i^^ »i..> ,iH!a3iH 

(Plaint iff) Apptllaat*^ 

9^rpQWh%X&xi, and aEOROS A« ill.^ 

294I.A. 609^^ 

- m, ^8TI0S HAIL MUfKIi fBOC OPIRIOK OF tEI 0Ol.f!«, 
0n OotolHK; }.3« X8SI.9 di««iTg« Tdung* a stoelcbolder in tlie 
M4»rigold Building Ciorpor^tion» fil«d a bill in ohan9«ry ag&inat 
this corporation* O«orgt a, j^^e^ a«ori« Touag« P«t«T 4* liort«n«on* 
l%illip EdAlbarg and WilliMi D. Johnson* its diF«eto;8« its 
•xooutive offieors* Baird aftd vvarnsr* Ino«« th« Statt £*ifo Xnsurano* 
Oompftnf of li«diana|, and tho Ohio&go fitls « Trast Ooatpany* in wliioh 
h« oliargsd gsnerally thst th« oorpontion Itad prooixrod m loan of 
f880«000 fro» th« Stats Lifs Insiiranos Cospdnf of Indiana} tbat 
ont of the proessds of the loan« the suia of tlS&*OOQ was paid to 
tbs oorporation; that ths rsaminder of tlis loan ftad not bssm 
aooounted for in ths books and reoords of th« oorpor^tion; tliat 
HOfOOO of tlis amount borrowsd was sst asids to r<»nodsl and repair 
ttio property, and mM for tMs purpose dspositsd with Bmird and 
faiasr^ 2no,$ that no aooount of this monsy had bssii nads* and that 
ths oorporation had no reoord of the rsosipts smSi disbnrsemsnti 
•ut of this IVind; that repsated requests had bsen »%ds for an 
aooounting from Qeorgs A. Lss and ths othsr dirsotors* and that 
no sueh aeoounting had bean fortheoalng} th^t ths buainsss of ths 
oorporation was run by L«a* who hold himsslf out as agent thereof 
without authority; that ths plaintiff is ths holder of a Bambsr of 
shares of stook in ths oorporationj that Xtss and his group had 
taksn possession of the books of the oorporation and had oolleotsd 

, *Pt ,'^Hi'.aj,^ .J ,i 

,.J8T C«A ,. 

46II9S6 Aon ^mttfxaqreti 

e« v.i.v. — • ^-'■'-^^-■'-•r- -■ ',,i ^ntiiii mit lo •&»M>«v<q •rf# to tire 

7 £2.1 Oil' • X'^tt.Cm ttli:^' ■-■ «'.i-.i'r- < tl»iliat«'<' 

lUf 1.... .'"* '' '-' ' '''■"■■ ^ '" \h£lift ■.■'■-* *-^ trrc 

#HtfJ ■ , TO -70 '.7.. « ••J..:'»iO WCrrl ^iJ.4I>.>..rotu:" 

#lf:f ' •■' : ,..■. 'TO'- a-'"-' ■■■r-A yultCWOet^A A^Uti QU 

to T^atm ' ' ' lit {^9iT0Jf#ua fu9dtkr 

A*#»»XX«o It0d bt» sixUJ.i - «iioq «»i«J 


ft larg^ aAount of money out of ftoeounta du« to tlie oorpor^tioa, had 
r«fttgod to p«Tmlt plaintiff to Inap^ot tlie book* of aoooimt* bsd 
refusod to render an aooount* wad ii&d fmilod and refused to aFi>l|r 
the money borrowed in payiaent of the debts of the oorpor^tion} that 
upon en aooountlng* it would be found th»t a Xmrge b%Iane« wee due 
the Gorpor^'tion froa the s>toelchoXd«ra and opermtlng directors, sjuA 
that tee and eertain of the stooldiolders htd need the fan^ of tHe 
corporation for their own ao0ouat« and were oeusiag the eorporetion 
to beooi&e insoXirent* He further eougbt to enjoin the persons 
aentloned from ooIXeotlng the corporation's @>ooounts, and frMi using 
the funds for theatseXvee* tnd asked for a reoeive'r* 

Subse^iuentXya on Septeaber 36* X933, WiXXlaa B« Johnson 
and others* aXXeged stoolshoXders in the oorpor^tion, fiXed 
an Intervening petition In whioh they sought nn acoountlng from 
the persons mentioned in the orlglniiX blXl* thereafter* on June XO, 
X933, the Intervenors fiXed m oross biXX in the proeeeding, in idiioh 
they prayed for an aeeounting and a discovery fr©» the state Life 
JttBur«noe Company of IndiRjis.. miie the ©riginaX biXX, Intejnrenlng 
petition and cross biXX were pending,, the garlgoXd B^^tidlng Oorpora- 
tioB was adjudged a bs^nkrupt by the United States Oemrt, Its assets 
were soXd, and on ^uXy 13, 1936, !«• !•• ioeher, Jr., apoeXlant, 
purohased fvett the truetee in bankruftey aXX the oXalms of the 
Marigold BuiXding Corporation against the State iLifs Insurance 
Oompai^ of Indiana for the sum of |8OO,0O, and on July 31, X986, 
peter A* Moirtanson and f* B* Johnson purohased froa the trustee in 
bankruptcy, the eXaias of th« iarigoXd Building Oorpor«tlon against 
aeorge ^» lee and the Ohioago Title A Trust Ooa^ny for the sua of 

on August ^, 1936, h, u Moshar, Jr,, Peter A. Kertenson 
and W, H. Johnson filed a petition in this oauss and after a hearing 


.i. «v*- *■' /lr.*/^f^. . , 


i]|0r«oa« tlMi oourt found and decreed^ a« 8ill9g«d and p'roTed* th»t 
%h.9 petitioners were jiuxoh»M9T9 froa the trustee in bankruptoy of 
the olftiiifl '^ibove referred to« aad th^t thejr had auooeeded n»A beoave 
possessed of »11 ri^t» title e^nd interest of the bankrupt in and 
to the real estate inrolTed, and of all property and assets of 
the bankrupt » and in partloular« th* t thef had suooseded and had 
beeone and vere the sole owners of all rights* olaisn and oaoses of 
ftotion wtii&h any creditor or oredltors of the ba^nkrupt aXffiit hare 
aeserted against the State tife Insuranoe Ootipai^ of Indiana, the 
Ohiengo Title i Trust G^mpmrcy ajid Qeorge A. I^ee, Inoludiag all suoh 
rl^ts, olaims and oauses of notion asserted, or intended to be 
asserted in and by the bill of eomplmint, intervening petitions, 
eross bills of complaint, answers and other ple«!!.aings theretofors 
filed in the cause, and have beeone invested ivith the rlg^t to 
prosecute all suoh elalats and deuasda, as veil me to present all 
defenses to the note and aortgage given to the itate Life Insuraaoe 
Oospany of Indiana, in their own name and rij^t to the exolusion of 
sll other parties, isoluding oertsin parties mentioned in the origlai^ 
bill of ooaplaint filed* It wfts fvn^t deoreed that L* I* Mosher, 
Jr*, Peter A« Mertenson and f« f{« Johnson be substituted for all the 
parties who had asserted aa^ olains, incXtsding these claims listed 
or referred to in the bill of eoai^laLijit, and inoiuding the elaim 
of oeorge Young, the ooaq^alnant in the original bill filed, the 
trustee in bankruptcy, the Marigold auilding 0®rp©r??tion and certain 
intervenora, all stoekholders in the building oorporstion as a elass, 
and all creditors of the building corporation as a elaaat The court 
further decreed that all the imrties wheat lusher, Mortenson and 
Johnson had succeeded in right and interest, e)«ich and all be 
disaiisssd a« parties to the oauae in lieu of ifoshsr, M^rteason amA 
Johnson, who were thereby s\jbstituted for auoh parties. It is to 
bs noted here th^t this deoree w«8 entered at the behest of Mosbsr 


1« ««t»> 


•d 0^ b^ 


.) fl«iti 

■■-a Bt»t9i^ x«»i •a 9t 

.i» d^iw i.i».j*f«-' 


>t 6drtr*itf' 

: 93%a«S to 

bffjt tOf^tv 

I-aaWbW *«<4 *< ik*«rA^»A MAW » 


and was not appealed tvowu 

On s«pteab«r Il« 193d, upon the petition of Moslier, 
Johnson and Mortensen, tht court entered a finding <ind order to the 
•ffeot that all ple«idlnga« except the oxoae bill of the state Ufe 
Insuranee Ooatpany of Indiana* theretofore filed* and the "pleadings 
filed by the Chio^go Title & Trust Ooamany and Oeorge A* tee* be 
superseded and disregarded as pleadings filed in the eauae"* and 
that L« t>» Mosher* Jr.* fllliaa H* Johnson and Peter A« i^ortenson 
haT« leave to fila inst^nter an attended and supplemental bill of 
oomplaint in lieu of euoh su|>erseded pleadingi* and tbtt the State 
i»lfe Insuranoe Oompasj of Indiana* oeorge A« x,ee and Ohlisge Title 
A Trust QwKpmttf file ansvers to the aawnded and suppleaiental bill 
of oomplaint. On this saas date* Kosher* Johnswi and ffsrtessen 
filed their a^mended and supple»ental bill in siiieh they again assert 
their individual rights against the Ohioago Title A Trust Soapaiqr* 
GesTgo A* I»ee and the State Life Insuranee Qompmxxf of Indiana* as 
they were purohased froa the trustet in bankrui^toy* Thereafter* 
aeorge A* Im and the Ohisago Title & Trust Oottpany filed their 
individual and separate ensvers setting forth their defenses to 
these olaiss* Pending the litig^^ttion* the State tife Insuranoe 
Ooatpany of Indiana had filed a orosa bill to foreclose a asrtgage on 
the real estate involved* and on aeoeaber 17* 1936* % deeree of for#- 
elosure wf^e entered on the orosa bill in favor of the State Life 
Insuranoe Ooapany of Indiana* oontaining the following reoital: 
^Reaerving the rights of t* h» lloshsr* Jr«* Peter A. itortensen and 
Vlllian H. Johnson to prooeed upon their amended airt suppleaental 
bill »f e«aQ>laint agaiJMt Ohieago Title & Truat Coapany and aeerge 
A.* thii said decree being without prejudioe to the aaid ri^ta 
and without prejudioe to the order of referenoe and to all preoeediags 
and all evideaee heard pursuant thereto*** It ia to be noted here 
that ia thia deoree* it is again found th*^t Kosher* Uortenson and 

»-«"•* K,tro<i«rt* ♦.»#, ^gf^ i^fi^ 

•X _ ; r .. 

::• i t i. i o^^ "^4 a V- c n , 

■t;'jL w Villi 

'^K'ii t-i:«. i.;f. 


•vrf* iJiTi^ :>-5.* «d fi8X#»& 

■..alii .£»!![ *MJ#i?' '■•(a«>® 

Johnson h9M tltl9 to t1uig« i»ll«g:ed ol»l«8 **la thtlr (hm aaoMi and 

Tiglit to th« exoXutloft of ell oth«r p&rtlts"* Tbl« d«OT«ft also 

dltalssed for vant of oqiuity, th« alain of Uwh^r agmliurl tho $tatt 

liifo Inouraaoo Oompftfif of Indiana* m note h«T« tliat, «e tnx a« 

the ireoord indlo^iteo* tfao only Intereot Moslitr bod in any olalm was 

that against t&o inauranoo ooatpasgr* which wa« obtalmod through tho 

sal« to hi« of tho oXain againot tho inaurtnoo eoatpmy, made by 

the t7u«to« la hank3mft0y« and that no a^poal va« tinJken from thla 


After the entry of the foreoloeure deoree* on Seeeotoer I7» 

19S6« letter A, Morteneon died on January &» 19S7« and oa Fehrxaary 15« 

1SKSV|» Hajmoad i« Oarleon filed a petltloa la ehleh he set forth the 

purohAee t^ hla of the olalne of Morteneon and Johnson against the 

0hleage title & tntst Ooapany and deorge a, iMe, and ths>/t he« Oarleon, 

was at th@.t tlM» the sole owmer of the elaiai* iuhseQueatly^ on 

April Wf li@7« iosher again appeared la oourt and et:ated« in effeet* 

that ke did aot siean it ttdiea he fornerly represented to the oeurt 

and iadttoed the eourt to flndji^that he was the eole owner of the olalm 

agaiast the State l«ife Xaeuxaaee Ooiai»aiiy of Xndlaaa, and preseated a 

petitloB for leave to intervene^ la whloh it Is stated that doriiB^ 

all the tias the litig'^tion was pending, and when he had filed the 

▼ariotts olains and petitions hereiahefore referred to* he had 

repreeeated other naaied parties, and aslted leaTS of the eotirt to 

file a petition oa their hehalf* l«etiTe to file this petitioa was 

dsnied, and ao appeal vas talcea therefrom. Qa May 30, 1937, Moslier 

again appeared, together with these eertain other paraoas, sat 

again asked letwe to file a supplemental petition in whieh the saaie 

olaim is ««de as that Just herelahefore referred to« to-nrit: that 

la all the prior prooeediage Uosher had ^oted, not for hlaself, ^t 

la a represeatatiTO oapaoity. The oourt held that the olaia of 

Kosfeier had been adjudioated, and entered aa order deny log this 

hmn MM m99 iiM« At*' MJUle f^^ll* f^mM <yt 94$ Ai hsm HMUJil^ 
■« tM «• «#<iil^ »tMf Ptm m *m»tbRl 1« t«ut%«<»0 99B»%»$ia% ^tM 

^ 9*M ^tO 

«iii# mist X9'i'. 

lift tPti 

9 ■ ■ ■■'' 

ha . 

MM* Mf' 






ttXciJ // 


p«tltloii« It 10 fron tbiti «ir<l«x- tb«>t tH« uppvaX b«r« 1« being 
pro«eout«d« Aiqr oXalm« of Johiuio& and Mo7t«naon ^^Inst the Obioa^ 
Yltl* A Tiust Oottpaxqr mad tee haTe already b«en dlspos'^d of, aad 
are not icvolT«d« we are ef the opinion th^t the eourt 41^^ s rlg^t 
el&en It denied the petition* The deoree of the Superior Court of 
Oook Oouaty is J!tfflrtted<k 


SSSSl, P.J. AJHO QSiriS S. Sl)Xi.IV^Ati« 3» 

ban «!• Ifc«»c 




SUA •t.,«i\iaasu 


kmmufw ummmntm, mo., ani 

Illinois eorporatioE, as attor^^- 
ln-fsi0t for aa aggre<^::'=^.tion o| 
indiTidbaXs e©iffli»oaIy km.t'v^r^A doing 


i» Fi'l. 


294 I.A. 609 

m. Jtisf lox maw t* mtuvAin om^iymm tm onnion or tm ommt* 

TUlfl Ciise has b««a eo^atolid^tM rith «iyi« He* 38830^ 

«ii«itl«d» tff,^1^g«„„^.g,„||il^fl» fSI.Bif , fif,,,, fr\l^^,J^"lf«, ^■,J^,1>,to,» ADoellaat^ 

▼• A«»^oiated 0iyl«3rwrtteyg^ Ino., «t@ »> .&i&i}cllac > ia wliieh osa« «• 
have this day fll«d %n opiaioa. Botli. pir&oedmipcs w«re iastit'ttted 
to teo&rev dsjaui^et for injuries sust fitted ia tli« ««»■• tuiaiMMle 
ft«4i4d®at, tte Su|)«ri©r eemrt «a%ertd |ud|p««»nt tpt toeilis linlif 
ia oa«« So* 39330 for tXO»D0O*O0 mmA ia this <»%8« a JmdgiMat for 
1X5,000*00 for Adftlbert liniry* 

Slaoo %h« faoto and oirotamstaaoes in Isotli «t^s«a aro 
prraotio^IXy id«ntioal» tHiO !%« applie^blo ia oma« So. 39330 lo 
ooatrolXing in tbia emse* 

for th» r«aaon« oftt f^rth ia our opinion in oiiso iio« 
39330, the judgflsoat of tHo 9up«rior dourt is reversed and tho oauoo 
ia ronmadod for a ae« trial* 

X1»SI., P*J. Am iUII., J. 0OS0t}ll« 



siw/ zai 


Goa .A.i ^^^ ( 

^OSBtJ!: .0'. 



» <s +«? ,/ft i'; f 

:?|ll(.1C! SOX Teat .RU 

tot OC. , . -i. 
•A:<^.i> «tii<(# eel ^iXX«%#ixo» 

''lU •^f'l tJlOSI 


mUJt. HARRIS A 00. » ft eorporfttlon» 


(tMifesda&t) App«ll««9 
KIT0BXLX.*JA0K$Oil» ISC.* a oorpo 
(Qariil»ll««) App« 

flIOlFAS. Om^RT 


Oa Ap|)«al of 8£&Xli3 VAN !» STOaAOE 00* » «!•• 
d«««ri1»«d ftS BBKIXS TAX « StOMOS QOUPkSf^ 

(Xaterreai&g PetitioMv) AppffUaat 

im* smmoi msis %• mu.ivku dsuyshid the oi'iiioii or mt oomt, 

Plaintiff Be&j« Harris A 06«» a eoTpox'^tloa* brou^t aa 
attaoha«at suit la the Kualslpal Cevort ag^laat '•atera SaeXtlog aad 
Raflalag Od*t a oorpor^tlon^ dlefendaat, for litnag«s sustalnad 
beomusa of a breaoh of ooatrnot* Tba etusa im« board beforo tha 
court wltbout a Jury* resulting la a Judgaaat for i3«7&0 aad oosto 
la favor of pl»latlff aad ftgalost tb« defead^siat* th« laterronlag 
l^tltloaer Saklns Yma £ Stor%g;o do* brlags this appoauL* 

Tba f^ots bofora us for consider at loa are aa fallows: 

The ground for att%ehaient »s alleged la tba verified 
stateaeat of olala Is tbe nonresldenoe of the def«nd<i.Bt western 
Sstfltlag; and Ite fining Oo« 

Saaaana was serred on uitohell-J^i>okson« Ino*, %s g^rnisbee, 
and said corporation is oae of tbe ftppeXlees herein* SerTlae w«e 
b»d on the i^estera Saeltlag and Befining Oo* bjr pubXlODtlon* 

la ite affidavit of olaia tba pXaiatlff Beaj, Harrie A 
Oe«« 9, oorpor<»tlon, st'^ted th<tt tbe western dMlting and He fining 
Oa. offered in wrltlag ta seXX to tbe s«ld piaiatiff one osr Xoad 




• Oir^&I-'i^ ?G 



*•/)!«•▼ •At - 

•ooZtaoXIdiiq t^ • 

•fir ."■. ■ -r --I- 

- nx9ftt^ tit tm tMd 


of mix«d tomso at 6 l/S oeats p«r pouBd f*o«b« GliiO)»go Rel^tt, 
Illinois* tezma 90^; thnt plaiAtiff aeoopted said offsr «ind bfts beta 
readsr and willing to aooept said mixed br%ss and is rtn^f, villlig 
sad ?bls to pay tlis purohase prioo thereof upon r«o«ipt of said 
terassi that d« fondant has refused to deliver end has failed to 
abide by said written oontr&ot; tb t the market prioe of said Mixed 
brees bee Inoreaaed eiaoe plaintiff entered into snid eontraet with 
defendant and th^t plaintiff ie daa^^ged to the extent of ll»500« 

The answer of the g&mlehee states th^t a o«tr l«ad of 
Gopper was pl&oed in the warehouse of the g^^irnishee ai»l thnt m 
warehouse reoelpt was issued to Begins tan & Storage Oo«« interren* 
Ing petitioner and appellant herein* 

One of the imrties desoribes the subjeot-w^tter ef this 
oontrovefsy as ^o^ppet" while the others desoribe it as "brass*. 
«• haTO adopted the latter aaas in this opinion* 

Bokins ?an A Storage Oo. filed its petition mlleging th?it 
it wae the owner of the esr load of brass whioh was in the possessiMi 
of the garnishee* 

In the first statement of olaia the plaintiff alleged 
daaages to the extent of $1«S00 and thereafter on notion of s^id 
plaintiff the ^ dajaani| was inoreaeed on the trial fro« il^SOO to 
14^000 a^ its bond w^s inore^sed to ^^000* 

Xn order to keep the T^jrieus parties to this traasaetion in 
niad, we reoapitiaate th^t the plaintiff Benj. Harris & Co* is an 
ZUinois oorporritiott with an offioe in Ohio^go; thnt the defendant 
i?estern Soelting and Refining Oo* is a foreign corporation loo'^ted 
in OB»ha, Nebraska; th^t the gnrnlshee MitOhell-Jmefcson, Ino* is a 
eorporntion organised under the laws of the 3t<9te of Illinoie and is 
loonted in Ohioago, and th«^t the iakerrening petitioner Bekina ?aB 
* Storage Oo* is loe»?ted in Oaaha. Mebraska. 

In its answer the garnishee states that a oar l«ad of 

ff»*tf »«4 bat* 9*tl« tii^ 


Itt i.'»0^ 


otf or , 

• *i»*ilii» 

«i At. 

If9tirm%i UK 

•i *«• il^alix 

it''.' ri' 

imtQ* •leal XXI 

• N3X 

%A Ka^f «»* a ."■ li,^ 

n jti 


1»r&0i was plae«d 1a th« war«houa« of tli« gamUhce and th«t th* 
warehouse r«e«ipt irttioh waa iaip«faikdl«d %t tb« trial was iasuad to 
Btkiaa Van & Ster^aga Oo» The iBtervenlng petitioner* appellant 
hare« allagaa th'^t it wna tha owner of tbe enr load of brass whloh 
was in the poeaeaolen of tlie gamisbee* 

The oattoe wns tried before the eourt without a jury* At 
the eonelusion of all the eTideaoe and the argumant of oounsel, the 
oourt found that the ear load of brikas in the ftoeaeaaion of the 
garnishee Mltohell-Jaoksonf Ine.» was the property of the defiRndant 
western SaMlting snd Re fitting Oo« the ootart entered an order that 
the warehouse receipt for said esrload be iapounded with the olerk 
of the oourt* The interrealng petition of iekins Van A Storage Oo» 
waa denied, A judgneati was entered in fnvor of plaintiff for 
|S»750 and oosts and A|piinst the defendant i^estern Snelting and 
tefining Oo«* a oorpor?^tion« JudgJWBat was also entered against the 
oar load of brass in the posseesion of the garnishee. The gf«rnishe« 
was ordered to delirer s^id oar load of brass to the bailiff of the 
afoiBioipal Oourt of Ohiesgo* on apeoisl exeoution to iasue against 
the garnishee* and th^^t out of the proceeds of sale by the bsiiiff 
the sun of 1405.60 be paid to the g%rnish«s iitehell-Jaefcson, Ino.^and 
the sun of 13, 750* the aaeunt of the original Judgment aaxkxstoscteK 
and oosts and inter«st on said judg«ent* be paid to Sidney J* olf 
as attorney for plaintiff* and the bslanoe* if any, paid to the 
defendant teetern Saelting and Refining Oo* 

Seither plaintiff nor defendant have appe«^led frea the 
judg»ent entered in the lower oourt and this appeal is brouie^t solely 
by the Intervening petitioner* 

Swidenoe was heard on both sidee whloh OTidenoe in aest 
instanees was oonflioting* The subst^snoe of the eridenee is that on 
HOTOnber 21, 1936, the defendant .western Baelting and defining Co* 

Mf[# «X» 

^fif^ Xa?*. •#£•'' it©|j!,tfi*flo« «rft 

HiAi^faff to 

••If* i 

"'t^l»fllli»9«<!f «Mf' 




A9 J'JJ'f Ci -Ftoiinuj 

L« - . t. 


••at a Iftttvr to thu plnlntiff tta-»t they w«r« oontvapltting ••Xliag 
ICX>4 000 pounds of rail road br«iss n^loh they had X«oait«d at t)i« 
Mltob^ll-%}ook:8on« Ino« war«hotta« st And naked plaintiff to 
bid on th'^t flKiterlftl; tbmt after n«gotii*tioiia wert had botira«a pXain- 
tiff and defendant* the repT«8eAti?LtiTe of the plaintiff ooTpor^tion 
eslXed i&t the defendants offiee on Horeaber 30« 1936 ^ad entered 
lato %a agreeaont ii&erelsy defeadsat agreed to sell @nd plaiatlff 
agreed to purehf^se one onr lead of hraas looated nt the iijiitohell- 
fHiakson* lao* wmrehouse in Chioa|^» «t th« prio« of 6 1/4 e«ats p«r 
ipouadf f^ o« b« Ohieago H«ig^ts» XlliBois» teras 90^* ivhereuooa 
defendant ex«outed aad delivered to plaintiff written eonfiraittioa 
•f the sale; that oa Deoeaber 10* 193@* plinintiff reeeired aa iavoioe 
from the defendant eorering 100*025 pounds of brasa* at $6*25 per 
eat* ar a total oost of $@*851*56; th^t on ^eoiiber 7* 1936* tho 
iaterrening fotltioner* Bekias Van and Storniie Oo» acat a letter to 
plaintiff stating they were rele<(elag warehouse reeeipt eovering oa* 
oar load of sorap brass stored %t liitehell-J«ielc8on* Iao«* mad that 
they were drmwlng a draft oa plaintiff for |5*6llg on the lorthera 
trust of Ohicsgo* 

The eridenee fiirther shows that on Oeeeaber 8* 19S6* plain- 
tiff sent a letter to intervening petitioaer aak:nowledging receipt of 
the l«tter dated O«oeaber 7th nsnd atating th»t their uaderstsndiag 
was th'>t the naterial ^ns to bo loaded aad shipped* siglit dr^^ft* for 
90^ of the value attaohed* to Ohioago Heights aad th*.t plaintiff 
would be pleaaed to taJte esre of the dr»ft with tho u^erstmnding 
that there were no ineuabrances ai^inat the aorajp aad that all stomge 
eharges would be paid by Intervening petitioner; th«t oa Deoeaber 13* 
1936* intervening petitioner «eat a telegrsa to plaintiff stating 
that storage bargee would be paid by then Urect to Mltohell-Ji^olEaon* 
Ino,; that oa Oeoeabor 14* 1936* plaintiff reeeived a telegraa froa 



•s- • I- 


lIT>/??"'L^'i "^fiT •■: ■ r)^r. 

■ML r r^ 

- via JULc fdi te" 

-H ^^tmitm •<* ,. ,, - .4 

' :i. -.7/1 4 i»l 9A$ 
SKf dXlMV 


defendant re^qfueatiiig tSOQ on ftoo«unt of the torn as sold to plaintiff 
nnd In t9vIj plaintiff sent m letter to defendant stating th^t It 
vofuld be neoesaary for tbem to toow who was to reoelve all of the 
BonOTs ooTered by tbe tr^nsnotion; tHat on i)oeoiiitoer 14^ 1936^ plain- 
tiff reeelved » telograa froa Interrenlng petitioner stf*tlng th«tt the 
drstft hmd been redueed by the belanoe due Ultohell'-Jaokson^ Ino«» 
(gaxnlshee herein)* 

The oTideiiee farther shows that i^Xalntiff's plnoo cf 
business was looTftted at Ohieago Heists, Oook Oounty« Illinois; that 
on 0eoeaber 1&« 1938f plaintiff dellver«d oertlfled oheok drawn on 
Continental Illinois latioiMl BKOk and trust Oompaiqr of Ohio^^go to 
the northern trust Company to pay the draft drawn upon it by 
intervening pot it loner and the testiaony shows th^t this Oheoh 
represented 90j& of the pur^ase ixriee of the brass* less the storage 
ehsrges due MitoheU-Jaoksoh, Xno. and wm« the oorreot anount of 
the draft after it had been reduoed* 

A witness froa the northern trust Ooapany* who was oallod 
as ft wit&esa on behalf of the interrening petitioner testified thnt 
plaintiff presented the oertlfled oheok n.% 2:X5 in the afternoon 
on deoenber 16th* and that paymetnte ttsde after 3:00 F*lt* are 

The witness further testified that on Oeoeitber 15* 1936* 
at 8:30 A. M« they reoeived a long distanee telephone oall froai 
intervening petitioner reo««sting then not to aoeopt payaent on the 
draft and to return the draft to Omaha* 

Plaintiff's theory of the oaae is that it is entitled to 
an attaohiaent of the goods in cniostion, by reason of the non-residenot 
of the defendant* i^eotern aaelting & Refining Co.* and by reason of 
the purported oontrmot of aale of the goods in question to plaintiff* 
by said defendant* a oopy of whioh is attaohod to plaintiff's 


~*i-«—^1 « 

••V.."t * S, :f.' 


.4 ifl-^lT 


ststeiMixt %nd affldrtrlt of ol%lm; tlii>it It ftOo«pt<»d th« till«g*d 8a1«{ 
th'ft Bekina ?%n $e Stor>»g« Ck>« fit the request of plaint If f^ agreed 
to p^f the storage ohsrgee but failed to do ee; t)iir>t the f^klne Yaa 
& Storage Oo» sent a eight draft and warehouse reeelpt to KortherA 
Trust Oompanjt Chieago* for tS^sas* whieh «ae later reduoed to 
15,384; that on OeoeaaMtr 1&« 19S&, the plaintiff teadered payioeat 
of this reduoed draft httt wr^9 inioraied by the hn,nk that the draft 
had been retumed to Bekiae Tan t Storage Oo,« the iBterreniBg 
potitioner herein* 

the theory of the Eekine fan & 3tora|j^ 0#*, interrenlBg 
petitioner and appellant here* is "that it was ami is the owner of 
the warehouse reeelpt issued to it on April b, X9B4g eovering the 
goods m question; thut it had %m$sT parted with its title thereto^ 
that it never saw the alleged offer to plaintiff im^de hy western 
3»elting « Rofinine Co.; that the ^iOitern S^nelting « Eefining Oe« 
dealring to parehase the goods in tiueetion 9.s the agent and reipre- 
sentatiTO of Benj* Harris A Oo« instmoted the interwening petitioner 
to draw a draft against BenJ» Harris Ik 09. on the Northern Trust 
Oeapany of Ohiongo, for the prioe of fS*635, »%nd to also forward 
said warehouse reoeipt to said b^nk with advloe to deliver said 
warehouse reoeipt to Benj, Itrris & Oo. upon parwent by it of said 
sight dr^ft; that this Interwenlng petitioner did aa so requested, and 
by letter of Oeoenher 7, 1936, so notified aenj, Harris # Oo., but 
said aif^t drraft was not psald and said unpaid draft together with 
enid warehouee reoeipt was on Oeoesiher 3Lg, 1936, returned to this 
intervening petitioner by said baidtj th?*t the aale aUeged to have 
been aade by Western Smelting & Refining do, to ship oitr load of 
■ixed brae f. o. b* Ohioago Heists, Illinois, w^s not only not 
eonfirned by the intervening petitioner, but refused by the plaintiff, 
iteo deaanded thut the warehouse «aiJ?rges be paid by said intervening 
petitioner direst to the warehouseamn* thie oounter offer of 


C? (-vO , * 

•lit ^aJtre 

3;;^« ttf^ fAq Oil 



Yrf *n 


4l»«SI9tf*T«W ftdl^ Ci 

id boxiM 


plaintiff WAS fell»iv«4l by eouater Inttruotioaa of InterTenlog 
petitioner, but plaintiff failed and r«fua«d to o«»Try tboa oxit and 
amlco payaoBt accordingly • Tb»t by resaon of tho negl«et %nd rofusdl 
of the plaintiff to pay said drsft, »« rodueod la aaouat, ah poi 
oouat'^r instruotlono from iatervoning potitlonor, th«ro wao no 
aeetlBf of tho nlnds of atty of tho partieo at any tlmo, and no 
oontraot of sftlo amdo or eox»ufl8Bated, thAt tho ^ootorn Satltlng aaA 
Refining Oo« Bover had title to the goodo 1» ^eetlon, mad ims not 
a oelllag agent of Bokine Taa A Storage Go,, iatervealag potltloaer 

fto*t atateaoat of tHe oaoe, »• pointed o«t by plaintiff, 
la Inaoourate* 

Hany of the errors relied ©a for rev«r«?ti by appoUaat bore 
aoae 18 In nuaber, were oa ciooouBt of rulings by tbe trial court, 
aueb AS mors alng tbe ^ fnffTMWi ettetalniag tbe attaob«ent and 
p«r«lttlng tbe plaintiff to file a sew attaeteaeat bond. The defeadaat 
and the g?rnlolieo hRve not joined in thla appeal, ao apparently 
they have no oomplaint to naico and the iaterTOaer cannot ooaplaia oa 
their behalf. 

The t^ole queatloa la bmsed on the dlapnte aa to the ovaer- 
»hlp of the oar load of brea®. The oattae mn9 aubadtted to the trial 
court without a jury end the queatioa to be decided «»« one of fact. 
Tho tria judge saw the wltneaaeo aad hesrd them teatliy snd w^a in 
a better poaltlon to judgo ao to their credibility ^nd the preponder- 
aaoe of the endeaee than la a oourt of review. 

Thia auit w«a entered for the ?»aiottat of daaageo idiioh wao 
tho difference between the purohp-ae price of the o«r load of braoa, 
^^•lr» 6 1/4 oenta a pouad aad the value of the brssa during 
a««o«ber, 1336, whioh was 10 oeata a poaad* 

It is alee clalawd by iatervenlng petitioner th't tho 

tmm too cMfi V ^nt lttiaua,«( tu^ «T»«aft^i#4ftq 

on tia^ «m»lt yfw 


di^ i^^ y 

iOit , 

.. siaoois 


. . 


%tU tm^ X*l. 


•rt,? ♦ Irf 


Xi( toidtAio •eia oi tl 


pl«iBdiog» wiTH not at 1»8U« and bo *tt«ir«» *<!>« filed to th« inter- 
TAQlng petition* lk> prtiy«T was mtde by p«titlon«r to hsTt tlio 
eourt rule tho parties to ftMw«r its petition end it oaimot ralee 
the qfueation ber« for the firet tine. 

At the tiae of the trial the interTeniag petitift»ir» 
eppellent herein* did not at any time question the sufflcienoy of 
plaintiff's otateoent of elaia* 

Rule 213 of the M\mieip«il Court relatee to the sttteaent 
of ol«im» g^^^mishment nnA interrog'^tories. It is too lengthy to 
«et forth in tall here* but in our opinion this rule vas fully 
eottplied vith toy pl&intiff and the eourt deeided within the purriev 
•f this rule* 

It is contended by ap|:«lXant thr^t the &«ount of the judg* 

nent in the trial oourt was greater than the aoount et'^ted in 

the publieation notioe. The question oannot be x-t!«ised for the first 

tine in this eoiurt* the only person id9;o oould ir<»ise that question 

eould be the defendant ag^inet when the judg»tnt was readered %nd it 

doee not €fuestioa/judgiient here* 

Ooaiplaint «n%s aede et the trie.1 that plaintiff bed anended 
the etatei^ent of olaia on its f^oe by lnere?«eing the amount of its 
dfiamges to 140000* Seither the defendant nor the garnishee hae 
Appealed and* therefore* the nppellent hes no right to question the 
a«outtt of the ^dgaient entered egftlnst the defendant* 

From a reviev of this esse* whioh is T'other in^olTed* w 
are of the opinion th^^t the evidenee eu^tmins the position of the 
plftintiff* there eae a fnir tri«tl in whleh nil the parties irere 
permitted to present their oontentione t^tnd we oannot say that the 
trial eourt vss wrong in deoiding as it did* the evidenoe austmins 
the position teken by the plaintiff end we ere of the opinion that 

«»X?ft aid* tn 

t ««»«» i'.; edt ai tflf^o* 

it ^bp: bM«tetT kfi-n famtsi»sfi •A$ n&ts 

yj hltmr 

••'ZM t&mr^imi\g!f^if»''- 

9JH 9 nit xutt t0»o"it> 

, '.l#aX«X<! 

1 »«jt;#X(Mi« •&' 


th« trial judge did right in findiag the issues for tbs plaiatiff. 

for the reasons heroin set fortb the judgment of the 
Itottioipal Oourt ie af firmed* 


J. .'I «4m3LH 



muiQifkh pbtmT 

mrnu oih SOAP oom^akt^ & 

* OF mtuim. 7- 

*pp.ii»«t. ) 294 I. A. 610 

@«e»g* i* <lae« brought amit mgAinst tfo9 artsa Oil. 3<Mip 
Coiipi».ny to reeoYAr th« suoi of 'IS38«93 due bin as «!^'g««« mud a 
forth®? sus of |7S«00 ma attorney* s f*M, In sooordanoe «ith tht 
atatutty ak%klog % total of #933* 95. fb« Item of #866* 9@ representod 
a tmlaJEMio duo pXaintlff oTor a period of yenv prior to septembOT 
29$ 1.^4» aa dofesdaat had boon falling boblnd In Its pufamnt of 
a^Xftxy to plaintiff aj&d onrrlod & tels&oo la arraaro aj %& ofom 
aoeoust fox* mmgoan 

FXaliitlff*a at%t«^Qt of olaln Tofera to the ngroewaat 
of July 39» 19B6« botvtoa plaintiff &adi defendant* being SxMblt 
A» vliloh reade aa follova: 


msm nkrmmMf mm 

July B9, 19S6. 

By ffiutujil tfTomaeiftt lietween tlie ^reen Oil Soap Ooanmsgr 
tn^ OOftVge a* Oitae: It la agreed that the mooount of aalary 
oredlts aa etfo^r upon the X^edger Book of the Oreen Oil Soap 
Oofflpany, ahotrlng a bainnoe of |918.96 ae of Septeaber 39» 19S4, 
la hereby settled for an agreed emm of #400.00^ said aa»unt to 
be 3>ald to wOo* H. C&ae in installffienta of |20.oo twlee eaoh 
«Mmth» beginning with flrat payment on the loth of Auguat* 1936* 
\mtll the full mnount of 1400*00 la paid* 

signed by both partlea thla ^9th Afsy of July* 1936* 

BY Mf. M. ££2^0 
GEO* M* 0A3£« 
Poataorlpt: In eaae the full aflouat of $400.00 la 
»ot paid la fall then the above acreemeat la Told* 


bia .A 1 

fy ' • 



The atmt«m«iit of olaln further alleges tb^^t fltubsequentXy 
d«foiidE&t pftld $60 under thl« a,greeiB«]it* le«»TlQg a tmlanee of 
$858* 95, the amount su«d upon for wages; tl^it plaintiff made 
repeated demande and on Deoeaber 33» 1936* o«iused s, deomad to be 
aerred upon enld defendant by registered aall for the peyMtnt of 
stld wmges In aooordanoe with the statute In eueh case oade and 
provided* whloh desrtnd wae Ignored bf defaMmnt* 

SefenAant in Ita afflds^vlt of aierlte et^ted that plaintiff 
vme employed by defendant for more than 4 1/2 ye^tre* up until July 
29« 1936* as its oheaieal engineer and wme in feeseesion of its 
seoret f©r»ula« for the astnufacture of soap; th?jt plaintiff has 
reoelved asore than all salary belonging to hi« by virute of aaid 
eaployoent; that the alleged agreeittent is not an aooount stated* as 
it appears on ita f%oe to inolude only the salary eredits of plain- 
tiff and ^oes not therefore pr@olude lefendiunt from filing its 
count erolaim; th^t the alleged agreeaent w«s entered into while the 
defendant w«« in ignoranoe of the eesentlal faote; that plaintiff 
had by atstake of defendant's bookkeeper been glren a salary oredit 
of t918,96 not belonging to hi«i, and that the pl*intiff had been 
paid |1S4«10 for th«e during vhioh he worked for a eoapetitor of the 
defendant, all of whioh was not discovered by or known to the defendani 
until the alleged fjayaenta had been saade theyeuaier. 

In its eounterolaim def«nii^nt states th«»t i^laintiff is 
indebted to defendant for IISO.OO* as borri»irsd osney upon an I,o«0 
which is in Hords aiMl figures* as follews: '♦M^roh 30* 1931 To areem 
Oil Soap Oo« l-O-U eash adv?tnoed 1180.00 ©ne Hundred & Slgkty 0ollars* 
Signed Geo II Oass«« 

The oounteroiaim further alleges that plaintiff owee 
defendant I191«0& for borrowed ajoney on opsa aooount as follows: 

•4 o# A««ft*i- 

■5 io ?iiiw.t»#.«#li Mif , 
■■^n:"!r -f^ A^qftf ^•«W tatms i.lQ*ft8t| 

JNu •!>«« «o«to tfPJVfi 9jf# iCiJkw ^Qfiittoo^e at »i»:gis« AIab 

Mtf mtatulq i-Ac ; mjsis 9if9 tot SAliAiTo't j^vTO^s 

to otxrriv x^ mtti o* ^^igiiiioIcKr Y%^X«t XI« ii«rf^ KOAt lN»Ti;oe»t 

•« ^b9tsit& #cuooo.? n.f' ^0/! ei taac'»?'i)<^xx togoXX* Ofi' i#ao«itoXq«^ 

-nlBl >o •♦iftoio T5f«^X«8: orf* YXao ^fc-jX^rtl oJT i»o«t Ktl ho aijpoqqa tJt 

«li l«iXit OOTt > 

aoo# Ami ttitMlnXi? 9if^ .t<«(S^ t 
•if# to «ott#o<iao9 • Tot i»03('«e«' orf tip. 

^Toldf^ri^ too »oe£> Ak« ttXii 

' ■ • ; :;i,/tIOi:«>*flUMttO 

194 i9a S6*ii9t to 

s^ Miiit «ot ei.Mit mji« 

iolMotol) Off^ ol mm^at vo T^ 
B« t 

«o»yo o'^ :*"*•« 1 1 r' 

•rc#XioQ T^ 

toiro "^ 

,lh ton Riw itoX/(« to l£» ^tumbnuifh 

. ■-' r ,; i;-%>-^'^ h'^.n^lA otf# XitCl/ 

ta^ q«oB XiO 

..-,•' o#ff 

-'?ot«od vol «e. .' 8f>aotoft 


JUif 31f 19M« |100«00« Juii« 9* X934« |50«00» Jun« 15* 1934, ^41.06t 
tbat plaintiff owes defendant tliAi sua of |iX84«ID i^loh was paid 
by dftfeadant to plaintiff for 44 half d»y« serrieo nt the r«te of 
hia tlien mlnrf of $45 for sb five and « half day week, during irtiieli 
tlHW plaintiff was in the tetusl eerrioe of a oonpetitor of 
defendsnty wHioh faet wss not diooovered by or icnovn to the defendant 
until the alleged iMiymettte under the slloged a^preement had beea 
«ad«} that plmintiff owee the def^ndi^nt the em of |13«00 for aoaoy 
adTaneed for automobile tires %t pl'^lntiff** epeel&l instanee and 
oral r<^quest on April 30, 1933; that plaintiff ovoe defendant 1^0 
for danageo for soup of defendant spoiled m» n. oonaequenoe of 
plaintiff's gross negligenoe in the manufaeture of aomps for defend- 
ftnt« while in ita employ, resulting in the loss of soap nmteri^l, 
labor, snd other los«»es inoidental to the manufsoture, iserohsndising, 
abipping and return of spoiled soup; that plssintiff, although often 
re<i««sted has not |>aid a^iid awounts nor »ny imrt thereof to the 
defendant, to the total daiB«ge of defendant in %m sua of 1770.15. 
fhis oounterolaiffi is ToriflM by iilber M« feloo, president of the 
defendftat oorporation* 

iotioe of notion by plaintiff for s aumsaary |udg»ent was 
filed stfty 6, 19S7, and with that an affidavit by the feookteeeper who 
itept the books of account of the defendant. That affidavit reads 
aa follows t 

*A»trld Undatroffi, being first duly awora on oath 
(l«|K»«ea nM says th; t she was employed as a bootkeepor by the 
defendant corpor?*tlon herein during a period from 1930 to 
1956; that she baa knowledge of the faets herein; and that sho 
•akoe this affidavit in connection with the aiotion of the plain- 
tiff for a suMaary Judgment ??gainst the defendant, under the 
provisions of Hule JSo. Ill of this Court, 

Affiant further nvers th-t she knows of her own knowledi^ 
that the plaintiff, (iseorge M. Oase, was em|>lcyed by the defendajit 
for a period of approximately 13 years up to and inoluding the 
latter part of 4t»iy, 1938; th«t for some period of time previous 
to September ^9, 1934, defendant fell in arrears on its payment 
of salary to plaintiff, and th«t ssid trresrs were Ofrried on the 

b** AC-; 

tiMit«n l»«i*XX« ndi lAian 

f|?4«a to'i »Mj,Kaiplj sot 

mf^ biws. bMMGt i&t. 

t«t;oXlci% tt^ 

•4^ so i 


books of d«fend%itt «s an open aoootsnt; that on s«pteal}«r 39* 
I934» ther« vna m b^lanee due to plaintiff for said vngea on 
th« books of dttf«ndant in the sua of • 918.95; that subtocm^ntly 
on July 29, 1936. the plaintiff and defendant entered int^ tlio 
written i^greeoient oontained in plaintiff** Steteewnt of Olaia 
and »«%rfc*d Exhibit «A**. 

Aff ifint further arers that she knovo of her own knowledgt 
that plaintiff gave all of hia time as an employee to emld 
defendant* ftnd that he did not work for ^iqrone elae during bis 
•aid period of eoiplorment by defendisnt; th t affiant although 
ahe vats in the of floe of defendant* at mil timea* never heard 
of aiqr oXaim by defendant &«s^lnat the i»laintiff for alleged 
dnaag^s ^e to tlsio plaintiff *a ne|;lige&e« aa an eaployee as 
4«seribed in defendant* a Qounterolain herein; tli<%t all the 
nattera oont^inod in defeaAan1(*a Oounterolaia with referoaee to 
Z*0*U*s for aioneyo alleged to have been borrowed by the plai»- 
tiff froai the defendant were aU salary transaotiOMi and aero 
&IX dated previous to and merged in the !>^eea»&t betweon tbe 

Affiant further avers that she knows of her owft i^raonaj. 
knowledge th.»t the plaintiff is entitled to ths sua of 1918* 96 
9Jt salaries due to hia froa the defendant* less any payaents 
v^ieh may have been i^de by the defendant on snid agreement* in 
aooordaxAS ?ith the books of the defendant comi>aiQr* 

Furlher affiant sayeth ss^» 

iHiStrid Lindstroa. 
^baorlbed and sworn to before met this &th day 
of tfay* 1997. 

Morris A. i[rasnow| 

notary f\iblie»« 

Aoooapanying the above affidavit is an affidavit of plala* 
tiff attaoking the good faith of the amended atateaont of defense 
filed by defendant herein; th^t all the natters oontained in 
defendant's eounterolala are salary transaetions which antsdato tho 
sett learnt they had on July 39* 1936, and are atrged in the toeount 
stated between the parties* 

On May e, 1937* the oourt continued the motion for a 
I momary judgment and on May 10, 1937, entered the judgment In favor 
' sf the plaintiff and against the defendant » 

It appetsrs to us that this ease w^s a settled aoommt and 
the attempt of the defendant to rovpon it* as a ant tor of defenee 
and to bring in ooourrenees and eet-offs which di»t«d b%ok several 
years prior to the suit, would not be justified as the law will not 
peralt the deliberate settlement of an «tooount to be reopenod exoept 

,««: Y*^*t<r*t 


}st.r.Jm9li"&b t<» »3f^nw? 


^4 Jf-il^ 

-.t r 




««ir«l BJ 


ban ftUK^P'i <»• 


>a«q«*Y Mf 


for tht oX«ftr««t eTid«no« of fraud or «lata]c« la thn settlftiMBti* 

fb« oIaIji set forlk in the affidavit of dofo&to that 
tht Iftoekkoopor aiado a orifltAlMi is a more oonoXvsloBi and i« oTorooMk 
hjr th« affidavit of tho hoolckoopor who kopt th« def«ndRBt*s booluii, 
in whioh affidavit it is aXlsged that no sttoh srror had bt«n aftd«« 

wo do not think thrt th« defenso offered hy the defendant 
oreated aft issue worthy of trial t^nd the defendant's oounterolain 
mm apparently an afterthoug)»t* Wis do not believe the trial court 
trred in entering the judfoMnt. 

Am to the attorney's fees of |7&» no (luestloii has been 
raided in this oourt <%» to whether thi^ apply in the oase of »a 
•ai^Loyee of this kind a.nd» for thi%t reason* yf %re not passing 
stt the sajsi« 

fro« the f%ots and evidenoe before us we are of the 
•pinion that the Money was due and o«ing by this oostpany to its 
employee and he was entitled to reoeive the eane* Defendant U 
failure to pay it in aeoerdanoe ^Xth the agreesent fully Justifiee 
the judgaent entered against it in the trial oourt. 

Finding no error in the reoord the judgoeat of the 
Muaioipal Court is affirmed* 

mmhf F.J. A1I0 HALt^ J, 





u .L.^ «a3Ja»ii 



Appellant ^ 

BUT A. RIOHAaDSOfi and mUttSl 
as R«o«iT«r8 of ChlOAMi UMi 
A oorperatioB «»A EAHflY B. 
KO^ABS S, BHOWI» &• H«oeiv«r 
01 ty EatXwajr Q^mprnToy, Oalu 

GQiiOAgo (Railway 0o«p&iigr« a-^^ --^ 

Street B&iXvaf Qmtpmxf» o^por^^tlonss 
dolag l»ji«la«st9 mB <llaloago/ SurfaOd Lliwia^ 

^^X!>^%' GOORT 

0001 0OUHTT» 

|9 4I.A. 6 id 

URt imsTies i«»i8 1, s©i.i4VAi laetiTKistj the gfisioh or tHK ommr* 

fXftintlff liaxy Hortoa brliiga thi9 K»pp«iil f7oM ft judipMiit 
tor «oit0 «at(»r«d Against h^r in tlM OiMuit Ocmrt o» a dlr<»etttd 
▼•Ydlet la a pDrsenal IstJuTlea suit brought by b«7 ag^^ilsst th« 
&boir« iMiMd defend&nts* A aotloa mmn nad« to Instruot the jtirjr 
for the defoadants ftt th« close of pXalntlff's Ofts«» but the s^^oio 
1MUI rOfiorrod mad upoa a roa«irmX of said motion «t the olose of all 
tho ovldeaoe tho siubo «&« groated* 

th» ooiiplalat ohnrges thsat plaintiff wms «. pasj^eagOT for 
hlro oa oae of the street oaro ovnod «M ©porttod by defendant s, 
sad vhlXst prooeedlog with due oare to obttla a oeit* tho defeadnats 
90 negXlgeatXy naaaged amid oar that a sudden Tlolent notloa of said 
street aar threw the pXalatlff to the fXoor* i^ereby she sustmlaed 
bodlXy lajurlea isiiloh laospaoltated mad prevented her froa perfornlag 
the duties of her professloa as a smbXlo sohooX teaoher for vhioh 
plaintiff ssica $X0«000»0O dsusagaa* 

Oefead^ats aaswar denies that pXalntlff felX in the etreet 
O^r, but tbst If she did faXl, defeadsnt denies that she feXX la 
ooaoequenee of the street ear haTlag beea aegXlgeatXy aaaiiceA| aXXeges 
oa Inforaatloa aad beXlef thot oa the oooAsloa la eiuestloa soae glrXs 
auddenXy and unexpeotedXy raa In front of the street oar whlXe It 
was la aotloa and thf\t to avoid strlklag thea It irse aeeessary to 




:,u:' Q-7 -^tw^ 

HiiXSUiJ TEl. U 


■Xiil •»o« /i«' 
#i •Xlifir 

:^ii.-;i!Xui!:;ni ::© 

flitop th« stTeet oar suddenly and t]»at by 9«)ld «toppliig* th« utrlkiaff 
of aal<t glrla who avoidod suid that ffhntOTOir aotl«»n was m»4o toy 
•aid otreot Oftx la stopping «%• BOeoasariXy incident to aftking 
said otop in tlioo to preroat the street 0b.x st slicing tho girls and 
that oadd stop v«s oarefully made und«r tho oirouaiotaaoofl; j&lXegoo 
OR laforatatlon and bolltf th t plaintiff did not euatAln Injurlos, 
and th^t If «ho did thoy ir#r« not otuoed by defe»di»Bt«* nogllgenoo* 

Flaintiff testified that at the tliM of the aooldeat on 
Haroh 39» 1.933» she vr».a 63 years of age and neighed about ISO 
pounds; that she haid been m publlo eohool teaohet for 9V«t ^ ye«re 
and v«e teaohlng. elxth grade in iiiaroh, 1933; th^t on the day of the 
aooident about 3 f •%• she was returning to her heoM at the aiftdetoae 
Siotel looated at 62nd and Eenivood avemae^ OhiOAgo; that ehe took a 
Oottmge Oreve aTomiie street ojir and mhen she arrived a.t 63rd street 
she got off nnd boarded eua ttsMitbound ®Srd street oar and i»3i,ld her 
fejre; that both street oars were oi«ermted by def«nd«iLnt9; that «§ she 
van going Into the ear there v«s % smdden swing baok of the door 
lestding froa the baois; pXatforn into the on^r; th^t she did not ftili 
but vent into the o^.r whloh wse weXl«>lifhted mad she mnM wm.lkins 
toward oae of the eeate when a very aiaddea s,Bd extreaieXy vloXent 
Jolt of the car threw her forward c^ to the o%r floor j th-^t » ooapXe 
of 9»n helped her up; th^t ehe vm sort of dased and shattered by 
the fall and «se«i»d to hurt all over", thmt her Xeft ara and left 
knee hurt particularly and her right arsi a^lso hurt; th?5.t as a r^eult 
of the injuriee whleh she reeeived igUe was prevented froa doing any 
further work and lost her position as a oonsequenoe thsraof; that 
she had been paid in exeess of #2»000 a ye?,* as a teaoher* 

Tiaothy Aeh« oalled as a witness on behalf of def endante^ 
teetified that he was the oonduotor on the street osr on whioh ^e 
plaintiff WES Injured on Mareh 30, ItSS; th^t plaintiff boarded the 
street oar and th??t he was on the t^bt platfora; that the o^r started 

km mXts 

X%T« 1 

« itottt tif^ 


&tM tit •Ifo 


hn « .¥ ■ 

nlA^ fr< 

x<f *» 

wB a»f:>&[»tt 

>d« A«v 

5ii« ts« #•»«#• nii^ «[•#« 
i ita9T9<xq o# oBljT ai qett bJtwt 

i-^f bib »f .mt 

I a"g ttisw 

^iiuial tiit t4 
nt§ti a»9*S HnA %tUi 


«jid vent 12 07 1.3 fe«t and thoa eaaio to a sudden stop; tbat h« 
looktd Into tHo ear and saw tliat plalstitf had fallSK at n\mt% 
th« tl&ird eross soat; tli t ho holpod bor to her feet and assisted 
her to a seat; th^t Apparent ly she was sot badly injured* 

Mnlel O*0eimor* oallod »« % witness on behalf of 
defendfimts^ stated that ho was the atotorman on the street oar on 
Maroh 39^ 1983« idiea plaintiff *'had some difficulty**} that the oar 
was in good oporistis^ eondition; that he atoppod ut the west side 
of Oott^ge Grow® aTonuie; that sotoa or ei|^t pooplo alif^tod froM 
tho front platfom aaong lAioh wore two g^irls aho were the last to 
alight and after thi^t ho reeeiwed the signal to go ahead; that the 
two girls started to walk eaot between hin and the erosfnmlh - east 
•A $3rd street; that he prooeedod east in the saiso direotion in 
whieh the girls were proooeding; th*s.t ho prooeedsd about 10 or 13 
foot and the two girls were still going east; that tho ear v&s about 
four or fiTO feet from these girls at the tins he stoppod; th^t about 
5 or 10 seoondo olapoed from the tiMi the girls got off the street 
oar until he started the oar; that at tho tiiat he started the oay 
these girls were walking tbout 4 feet fro» hie oar between him and 
tho ourb* faeing east; that he rajig the gong Imt onoe and that at 
tho instant he startod the ear the girls wore "walking by tho ^rr v 
oar, front of tho oar going east*; th*it they walked in the direotion 
in whioh the Oar was faoing; th?»t the street oat trawoled from 13 
to 14 feet and then stopped; th«it both girls passed in front of 
tho oar together and th^^t they had oonplotely passOd the oar and 
north of it wbon ho aiade the sudden stop; that the street oar was 
tho typo that woi^^s between 40 and SO tons and w%8 e<|uippod with 
air brakes; th%t it made a sharp stop, a sudden stop and gawe the 
oar quite a Jerk th??t he put on ftall brake power; that at the tiao 
ho had gone 13 feet ho was going about S ailes an hour; th-t "I 

i btm ^r«t»it ^i 1^ ti itM»f(t imM 

lisr w.«« Smm %<^9 »ii$ tttAt i^wtooi 

i a J ima itmiim ^A i- 4^ i$tinm e«<nr.« tixia^ ^t 

-«%■ salt, xJitfs^t^^qm A'^di iiJnaa « o* i«l 

ai f) 

bMs mUi a^^- 


Am nt «i# ^^ 

, *, tm •At 
tt «««# 

t# tin 

toad the girle uad«r ay vialon fro« th* ti«« tli«y stepped off the 
o&T until they oroeised; tHat X ^vmX nlesed the l»st one** 

Other *itii«se«e testified^ Ineludlng «edieal vitneeeee, 
hat froM the riew ve taice of thle ease we de net dees it aeeeeeayy 
to eet forth their te«tijaoi^ h9r€m 

lie d« Bot think fro« the fmt» disoloeed in this ease 
that «e need indulge in a lengthy dieeuesion as to the rules of 
proeedure «hen a notion is aiade at the oonelusion of all the 
eTidenee* as was done in the instant ease* 

In the ease of B.Y>0. t, m. U R> R. Om. ir. 8M!ilPE^ft?^» 

IdO 111* 40f at page 4d« the oourt said: 

•*7he happening of an aeoident to a passenger during 
the oourse of hie transportation raises a preeunption that 
the Garri«r has heen negligent. The hurden of r(?hutting 
this presumption rests upon the o^rrier* tindouhtedly the lav 
requiree the pin^lntiff to show th?«t the defendant has been 
negligent. iHut* «&era the plaintiff la a passenger » a nylis a 
:yaoie case of negXlgenoe is made out by showing the hai^pening 
of the aooident. If the injury to a passenger is o%u«ed by 
aprparatus wholly under the control of the esrrier and furnished 
«^nd afplied by it« a presu»|>tion of negligenoe on ite part is 
raised. (iift£«M ^' n?K^#,f M^l^ff R^U?<^4.gttf i^ ". ?^. 
438j m:if,i ▼* ^g'ffl,,, f t«f,!llMR Qtf„ X18 K. Y. 199; ^;g,j^fflfi,mM 
"" rg»i,%* y» TnnA 15 lU. 468; and 17 id. 
'\mi Pfi* ▼* lMff3>» 3^5 111. A pp. 490; 

Pot ten. 140 id. 486.) Proof that 

plaintiff was a passenger* that the aeoident happened* and that 
the injury was inflioted* inposes upon the carrier the duty to 
eac^^lain or aooount for the aoeident* »nd to prove th^t it 
resulted from a oause for which the oarTier should not he held 
responsible. (laiteL.2ab» v. mgsl* MMim ilf^A^™ ^jg* ▼• 
ThoaBsen^ sunra i. The oiroujaistanees of exoulpationsre its 
matter of defense* (aieeson ▼. Bailread 0>. smISl*) 

Here* an injury ftnm proven to hare happened to a 
](mssenger while deseending froa n- train of appellant's oars in 
the manner and under the eireuHmtmnoes alread^ etated. We 
thlflle that a ^riaan fn&if ease of negligence was nade out* 
sutfioient to throw upon appellant the burden of proving that 
the injury was not its fsult* Whether or not the defendant 
offered euoh explanation of the le^ooident ae to relieve itself 
fron the eharge of negligenoe* and ahether or not the iDln^intiff 
exeroised due ©are for his own e«fety* were ouegtions of fact 

Other Illinois eases on the question of liability arieing 
out of the sudden Jerking or stopping of etreet ears and holding that 

"•Ml* ibml tit l>*9ftte 

XtA«fl«9««. *i «»«£ ^QlJ 

M[# XiA !• 


■^%m^ w^f at 



tiiiff^ ttf; 




J^l9lt^ %ti- 
$94i -MLtht^ bMM VtM9 H 


m irttddl«n stop 1« «vid9]ie« of ft«sIlg«aM ar«: Kaldimslcl ▼• Ohi«mg> 
<y^tT Rnklimr Oft.. 3&0 lU. App, 475} fffrj,Oft^ft n%J ''<^%l^fn Off* ▼• 
Iteyg. 98 ZU. App, 663» nffirasd In 197 Ill« 337; Jon«8 t« Chfaaa 

<?^^y jftgy^Br 9ftt> i*^ m. App. 640. 

Aether or aot the i!tetlon of defenL^jBta in tho operatlom 
ft»A ssvement of said street oar was freo froa aegXigoaoo« vms a 
quootlon of fact* fho aotermaa teotlfled tbat iM aaw the girXs vho 
got off tixB street ear and tiaej were valuing east la the ssae 
direction his oar vas goii^« %etb^r or not be sHould have drlToa 
his ear so oXose to tliea tl^at it was Bsoossarjr for taiai to nalce a 
suddon stop and vhetlier or not he should hsve antieipatod that they 
sight eroos la front of bio oar were Questions for the oonsidoratioa 
of the jury* 

Th« trial ooiurt should net in suhet^noe have said by its 
direeted Tordiot that the defenciants were not guilty of wgligenee* 
This was a guestion nhioh should have been subaitted to the jury to 
yftos upon and it was error not to pormit thest to do so* 

Beoause of the error eosaittod and for the reaeons herein 
given^ the judgnent of the Oirouit Oourt ie rewersed aad the eauso 
is resanded for a new trial* 

HSaS3.» f.J. AMD HAU>» J. GOViOm, 

aflMC; ♦><!* tii #««♦ Stfti -'^ tti^fi^ »<«# It** #©^ 


u«t»<S: tk 



G. mtAtf nu,im 4,iihm 

Ka& JAMS a. fOLLlR^ I } OOOi: OOUITT. 

.pp.xx«...: 1 39 4 I. A. 610^ 


ftiiu ttppftal la brought by 4«f«ndanta fro« «ii» order refuaiiag 
to graat the prayer of the petltioa and r#<^ettlii« tkat a Judgtaeat 
theretofore »nter«<I for the sun of ^,a67«®4 T9« Taoated ftoa that 
the defendants be aXXived m hofrliig on the said olntla of plaintiff 
and their defenses thereto* 

Trois a rather inooaiplete abstract we gather that n. business 
transaction between the plaintiff t«d the three defendants resulted 
in the defendants glvlB« a note on Moreaber 6, 1931^ for t3»800.00, 
for the purohaae of stook in the iffiferioiaa AmmXoo Asphalt Oo», Ibo.» 
and was payable to plaintiff six months thereafter* 

the e^idenoe shows that on Septenber 10, 1936, #S^ vas 
paid on said note and on fio^ember 6, 1936« another $300 wae paid* 
It Is dlffieult to determine f»©« the petition ^ust irhst it was that 
defendants relied upon at the tins they g^ve the note* Sews of the 
allege? tions In the petition are alleged to be faots and other 
allegations iserely reoite proaises to do soaething in the future* 
Although some of the parties, appellants, are offioers of the eoapany, 
they allege that they had no knowledge of the oorpor'itlon exoept 
as given to then by Spindler* 

oef endants tJlege that prior to the time the note ems givan 
in laiOTeaber, 1931, that they had bean aoquainted with Spindler as 
both plaintiff and the defendants had been engaged in the sslling of 
$98|^alt for different ooaoaaies and th«t defendante had great oonfldenc 


s^Hi ji> 

lai £XJ; 

r Hi 



•A^:-V* *0# 



: tl 

lit to M(»i. 

fl#fll •«• 9fVI tit •»l* ^t Ot TO.)." 'U^ tfi^J3£te«t»6 

ft fli *«s«yM JM9tf tuff •? «« nttfllftXfit Atlt4 

^tJi I iMinaiiMi ifXA4iiu 

la til* ability and honosty of 3plndl«r« and twea^te of tbat thf 
reli«d upon and b«li«T«d th« rttpresentt^tloiiiS l»d« by bla; tH^t said 
Splsdl«r further ropreseated to said defttndants th^'.t if they vould 
uoitt with him and |nirfit)i%i»« the stoolc then held hy said Johnson* «nd 
999 aharsft of atoek held hy hla» th^^t he would a««nni full ehnrgo 
ftnd mftnageMnt of the oofflpany* and eould and would without their 
glTlng itny %ims or attention to the i»f falre of the eald ooapaay* 
operate it euooeesfully itnd s&ke money for then. 

Defendants in their petition allege they tendered the 
oertlflo^tee of stook for 1166 eharea esteh «nd demand the return 
of the mXA note signed by them. Ti^e |>etltlon doea not furnieh 
aufflelent Information to mdTlse the oourt whether* if n. hearing is 
now had* a different result and finding by the oourt would be reaohed« 

In the ease of %lmm f%^9. nmUm Qff,t,,ff^,,M« '• iMk 

latlonal Bank. 14S 111* 431* on eoaiientlng on i^titlone to vaoate 

judgments* the oourt at pn^ 487* said: 

^Xn an applio^tlon of this ohmraoter* to vacate a JudgMnt and 
for leave to pl«i%d* affid-v^vite filed in support of the motion 
are to be construed stost strongly s gainst the party making the 
appiiostion. It is not sufflolent to 8tf?te f%ots which, if 
proved on a trial* a defense atlfi^t be inferred, QrossBian v# 
f#j,jl,ir>f^. 90 111. 537." 

la mffMffgjy ▼• Mmm» ^IS lU, SSe* at page 348* the court 


> ■ 

"fraud will not be presumed* but awst be proved by such elesr 
and oonvinoing evldenoe th'^t the saind is itell satisfied thnt 
the eharge is true, (parter v» Oarter. 383 111, 334, ) Kor 
should fraud be b^sed upon oonjeoture, ( Miegeanan v, Elokelberrv, 

343 xu, n?*)* 

fhe petition does not show ^en they first learned of the 
alleged fraudulent represent*' t ion of the plaintiff. The petition 
does show* however* th?l; they eonflraied their trans«otions with 
plaintiff by the giving of said note and the pt^ylng of $60a as 
payatent on said note approximately five years after the aaklng of 
the note. In addition to that they continued in business with 

fMIl tfMlt tr «tf AMI ^wUtm^ 1« t^^*«oii hflii X^XXI<f« Mff Jti 

i(» • A . 


il«j;w s»m:. 


Spindltr And paid to oat Johiuionfe eredltor of the eoapftny* two 
not«« aggregation IS^CKK) aaA aesitted the eomp!>ii3y with loans and 
oredlta* fill these actions, of oouree, ere ineeiieletent with the 
idea, that they bad been d«f7auded hf app«Ilee. Sueh affinmtire 
aote of the partiee teve bem held to constitute eucih vaiTer of 
the fraud tantasiouiit to a ratifio^^tioB of the tTaasaotloiui* 8roin| 
▼• ^roim. 143 XU, 409; ,^^»c^;p^lff ▼• g?^lglft^,fy* ^^^ I^* ^3} 
fflUfefejEi ▼. itoaSJt* 159 m« f^PP* 5*^« 

tt&en judg^At was entered hy eonfessloB and after icnowled^e 
had been brought to the defendants « they waited until six aonthe 
thereafter before Huiking a i»D»tion te Taeate aald judgaeat and to 
pezait thea to file their defense. This was laek of diligenee and 
no showing was made as to why they failed to take the necessary 
action within a reasonable ti»e» 

In Steraberfger v. 'arif^t> 339 111. App. 490, a action to 
-vacate a JudgiMnt by confession was »nuie a month and fiwe days after 
the ludipent w^s entered* The eoturl denied the motion because of 
defendant's lack of diligenoe* 

In ^esner ▼* Truax^ et al. 195 111. App^ 385, a motion 
«ade almost three months after the judgment w%s rendered, was denied 
beeause it was ai^e too l%te in the absence of a showing of diligenee* 

In Austin V. IfOtt. 38 111* 319, a motion te ra^ate a 
Judgment by confession mde four terms after the ji»igM»nt van rendereC 
was denied »s eoniag toe late« See alee Freesan r. qeunsell. 203 111, 
App. 333* 

It is next claimed that the court erred in ftllowing 
attorney's fees under the power of sttomey oontmined in the note* 
The confession clauss prorided for * d oll^ra attorneys fees*. 

The blank spaee before the word ''dellare* was left untouched and no 
attempt wae made to draw a line or other malA in the spaee. This 

to Yvvlnr a»%»a •tartijrtnoo of l>Xoiti 0q«»^ ovjwI ft«li4i;«M| ojC;^ to »te« 

TO^rtjr hafi celaaolooo ^ *OTO*fl« 
etftffOft tXw Llinu b 

bar' 9er . 


o^ itoia 

rit Jb«« Kti 

M>»fi Mcli^^ or 

Is i3? 


i^sfi O' ' "^.,7;?o 

'.<»« »^<!» gdUvoJit on 



•»#oa oeff ai JiOtti^^jRoo v 
«»OAi>^ «Toato;r 

0« f^ft^ hOf(rtifO» 

■<'r»nri;.'- jt 

.leJtatdltaofl mTT 
oo(|o ifcti^Xd OdT 

varrftnt of attorasy did proTid« for uttoTn^yU f««a« tout bo »vm 

iNttAg «peoifl«d It left tht aoount to b« fixed by the court* we 

think tt^B.% wbere the note pifovidee for attorney* e feee iind bo 

IndloatloB appeara in the toXanl^ «paee« euoh as at line being draim 

throu^ to indleate thctt no attorney's feee ehould be pald» th&t 

1^ reaeonabXe asomnt allowed by the oourt iras not error. 

A* wee eel4 in ^^r^ ▼• Ba«te>. 358 lU. 4pp. 340, »t 

pk(Bt ST7; 

*St le oonoeded that where the a|»se« for tl»i aaount of 
attorney* 8 fees is left blank «>nd no definite eun 1« vrlttta 
therein th-^t the note iaplies » pr^^iee to pty ». reaeonable 
attoriMy** fee** 

Other polnte are raised, ^t we do not think they are 
eontrolling* froat a rOTiew of the reoord re cannot find that any 
error vae oonmltted by the trial oourt euffloiently grare to 
warrant n rerereal of the Judgaent* 

For the reaeona herein given the Jjmdgoient of the Olroult 
Oourt la afflnoedft 

mWKlf Wa. AHO HAU, 3* COS 



iflA/eilt: ^rf^ >c 

,5 Of' 


I , . a Au 


mm&wi KAHi, 


▼ 0. 


29 4I.A. 611^ 

mi.vimm tm- qpimum of im aomt, 

Sim% A, 19S6, plaintiff, ».« vvner qJT sotfts of th« f«i«« 
ir«Xii.« of $ldOO 8««ur*4 'kf « m«r«|t>g« ofi r«ft»Jk. f»»t«t%«, ««ub»A jttdg* 
nvnt liy eitfif «t»i0n to b* tnt«r««t i^jiftmst d*l*«rtd4int«, iMkit«r» of 

tliL« ii«i»». TA« J|an^'^«i<tf JUcKtltid^iilg fttt9m«2r*» )i'<i«», wa« I'c^r 
ItOTt.iSO. Jim« 16 d*s'«U(iiy)%ii I'ilftd tJi«ilr notion to ifibOAit ta« 

ASiiiv«r«d« An Mn»v«r "^ae i"U«d, %h« QHkutft M«>&7<d. b«i'<>r<» ta« eourt, 

tk* nfillon dani«d, im4 <l«f«»aai3te &|^P«aI* 

2]a.« r««Oftf dileeios«r« ii:ii«ht Juhd lig, If 24 , d#f«»4AiQt» «•?• 

own«rt Ui f«« tiifipl* el' pr«^i»eft ivaewn as 46*HI-49 L&((.« ,Fii,rM av** 


nu«, C^lo&gd, ajid oci that day •xftoutiti. tii«l£/i2cja4« ior ^M&,wwO, 

payafel# to ^ftar«»» all ol w.i;ioh l^oadt teoir* liit«;re»t at 6^% and 
»atur«6 on or \>t}*o.rt Jwa* 16, 193II. luoy «x«ettt«d a truot dotd 
OR tko pfro|>«Tt]r to o«cur« th« ipaym«ut of th« lii4ebt«dn««s. Xl&o 
1»ro«tt<!>do of t<v« b^.do vor« tts«d to- ooattruet a t^ree-ttory aad 
%ia««n«fit a|^arti»«iiit toail41n£. tho tx^att ;»r&vid«^ tiiey should 
9«»i %y ^oiiTory, irlt^^out ^d6rs«(S»ftEit, «ad furtnor ttiat defaadwBt 
iMUtoro «ralv*d *fi'nto»t and sctio« tliftr«ef , mi^ notioo of dofault 
•V non»|>aya«fife of jprlaoij^al liot'oof , latoroot ii<^reo», or l&ooao 
taxoa aeerui^d. If atiy,aol notlo* of m&f oxtai^^sloa of tiJM of pf» 
KOBt of ^rij^oiyal oy lAtemat. " faoro was alto a pr^viaion i^r 
ooafooeioR of judi^«nt. 

Juao 17, 193a, tiio truotto undor th« autiiortty of tho 
irutt do«d tiX»4 m telli for £or«oloour« Ui whiou It ?»ao all#«od 


ria A.i^Qs, 

'.'-; .'r;v5-; to 09 h^rtt^m* 

... ■■■ t^AvMWEt 

l»«tA paid ftcd 4«no«il«<l, a&d «J1«&«41 eex t&ic otu«r paym«i;>ta oo 
••rtftln liondt. In« bill «ontaftl«t«4 tii« usual «ll*|^)atl«aft atid 
ftT«rr«d t&tkX 9n JMQUwxy 1, l^sSo, i«t«t»(iMAt» i^leti(*« ccn-veyftd tte* 

tttbj«et t« tJa« lfid«Lt«dt;t«s» »«ear«<i by tu« vruct d«e«, %aii<.u Ut* 
graxit««t •xpr«ft»3.y <i^BUfii*d Mfid ««ir««d 16 pj«>y: ti-^at tu* ^iXl for 
JToreoloturft ««• l^rounpht l^y th» tru»t«« jmi a. rspr«v«:tit^tiT« oi' aJLl 
t^« )»9e41iiold«r«. th.« I'letiLVtt ill^rd tii.olr Muewftr in whieri th»y ^ftt 
up thAt the tij»« of 9«tyjB>eKii oi th« iu*)>»id bc>«id0 in foreolo«ur« vtts 
•JiEi«Bd«d «lth9ttt th«lr lcii»«l«di&« or C(»£g«tit MkA "vork^fd « r»l4$ft»« 
of th« Xisil^llity ef theofi tieftt^i^asts. ** 

'Xh.9 Q»o« w«ui ff^rf^ to a c>^at«r viio tt*d« ap iait rtporl, 
f isiiltiid thttt OB J'UBO 9y, XOSii, iao %ryist>«« miid« do^and fer i>oo««to- 
lon of tho pr4isil««s« trjEiioa ivert eurr4iju4«r«d to i^iia, eijuo« valoli 
iij»« h« lUMB \mtmi oolltotinit t^ r«;^t»; iija4 farta^r* taut thero ro- 
ei&lR«d |245,93i5 du« aicid dvuift Ma ta* &«*&d«, 4Xi'i &k«it It «»• "atlpu- 
latod una »Kr««)d by aad betvowri &a« odllelioro rtproe^^alng %h9 
toaplftiiiani rmd Uio oolieiter rmprmMm^^iAn \h9 d«f «<. s-aAts, Mllioa 
3* PXotkt mad Ireao l>. I^lotko, ak» ^ii'«, lu^ai iiio «jLt«ju«i&ii %s to 
tho tise or poyaoat of i^osdo iaoo. la^ to lai tuUi Iricluaiiro ^t^* «»• 
ittodo «ltii«ut tho knoivl^MtKO, auU««rlty or douw^st oi' Uio riofeudacto* 
.I'lotkoot tnat d©f«maiirito» ho«OKb»rji iuui Zisook ^..^d fcoou jixsrofonaiiy 
sorvod wltii ou^^oao and *aro p^rnsMi^lly ila^Xtt J'or Ui« paymoct of 
tho Indaittodi^^eo,** Cna* ef ttio oebelasloes of lav of tho ai^stor wot 
that tho •oxtOi.oloB of thn tiao of p»y»«it of tho kondo h«r«lnltofo» 
•ot forth in tUlo report werkod ao a r«i««ao« of Uio poroo&al lialiJ 
of the dofor.daato" i^lotkoo. 

Att«.;8t 84, 1»35, a dooroo of for«ol&9uro wa« ontertd, a pin 
otfttio oopy of wiilon is iii ta« rooord aad edJioiuts of 3d ty9»»rltt< 
9a«oo in wiiloa it io rooited ta^tt it *J4» 3tipdl4*te<l aad agreed b«» 

•ft.' frftSTa}.) «tJ.. 

« » . ' a J .'■'• ': ;Ai V , . 

•*1j. L>. 


b^Vt/f ^^*** 

* ak^t, * i' » < 

.^ . 'ita 

tveen th« solloltort repreasntin^ tixe eomplalnant (wh.o. vas then 
iiarold j* Mcivey, successor- trustee) and the solicitor ruprenebting 
the i'lotlces, tuat the tise ol ptt^yumnt of boiide i«oe, ab to 1;^? had 
been extei:id0d witiiout the ImowXed^e or consent ol the Plotkee. 
Inuuediately following thia r<^cital is paragraph 33 oi the decree, 
whioli in typewritten and ia as Tollowa: "33. lUat tue del'er*datite , 
Joseph i^osenberg and Harry iulsook, have been personally aerred witk 
euBuaons in this cause,** and that they were personally liable, but 
by drawing lines through It, the provision holdini^ tiiem personally 
liable was stricken out; and lurther, *'that the extension ol' ti&« 
ol' payB^exat ol' certain principal bonds, as hereinbefore set forth, 
worked as a release of the personal liability of the def er^dai^ts, 
kilton S. Plotke and Irene 1), flotke, on the indebtedness seeure^. by 
tne trust deed herein being f oreeXesed. " Other provisions followed 
in the decree, and it was adjudged that the aaeter sell the property 
and tuat the eourt retain Jurisdiction lor the purpose of entering a 
deficienoy decree "against the defendants, Joseph Kosenberc^ and iiarry 
^isock, and, in ease of such defieieney decree, the complainant, 
Harold G. MciLey, as succesi^or- trustee, eiiall be entitled to have 
execution issue at provided by law against the said defendants, 
Joseph Kosenberg and harry Zisook," but the words providing fer a 
deficiency decree against Ret^enberg and 2>isook and awarding an exe- 
cution against thea were stricken oat by pen; and further, tnat 
plaintiff be entitled to the rents and profits in cas*' of deficiency 
until the period ©f red^aiption expir«d« 

Afterward the master sold the property for $3g,00G, a decree 
was entered approving tne renort of sale, in wiileh a deficiency of 
#239,183.18 was entered, and it was ordered that Meiley rejuain in 
poeoeasion for the puroese of collecting the rents to apply on the 

Defendanto raised two defenses U. the trial court: (1) thai 


omAi 4P 


;',:*«l 'to 


. ^ i't9t 

i nih r . A<-. t /> Aia A' "T r>f> *kl:<' t " '''0 Jl 8 8100)1 OC 

,. .i.'...^.'. •"'■ "•■(■^«'^•■. 

.ft .-> -V ..«M & . 


.i UtX'l^ »J 

UII*i^ tL X fc V 

tbe •3Kt«n«lon oi* %U« tlMo of 9i^y««Bi of eftrtaia bonds- (otn^r iliaii 
Vb.9 Vcm4t •»«& tti»oc in til* ia«tftfit <mui«) 09iir«i«d to r«i««k«« thctt 

oXo«ur« 5««r«« trur^p jjSA »4.1;4-Ua»tf;!> •!* tai« is«u«» it»volv*di 1b tli* 
iB.iit«nt oaii«. 1» »ttn|»crt el' iU«»« at»nt«utioii» ttoojiaisi far fttJf^Ad* 

fttDtft ii«iyft thftt tj^e «uc«««i^or*t>ru«t»« iti. tj%« i'or«0i,o«ur« suit rttj»- 
rtc«r..t9<i eOLI t'^* 1bo»dUioid«rs ai*d tk^t Uie? «Jr« beuitd bjr i^« i»r** 

eletur* <fl««i*«t, frojs. wiOLlo)^ no Jk^pnal h^a l»««u (&&««; titct4 thut tain 
i» further «h<9Vii 1»y t&ft f»<tt Uijfct ao!&i^l«.i<n4nt ixi %if lor«Oi.dttuj>* 
4»er«« 1»y taking a *dl«ificl«r4isjr io«r*tt ftj^ftij&gt tli« r<iut« soii pr&tif* 
<ti«iiJ!i.arg«4 t'!i«v« d*jri»it%4ifyits miid r3l«^»4Nl tia«lf «>blig^Uon. 

C^ %k« «1^H«r »id«, eouui^«X J>r g»l«iklf)UlT ti^ timi tk« stlj^u- 
Ifttlofiv lis ik« <^«as'«* ( l<iu»t til* tlis* tti* |>@i.^«'>t af o^rtala «r Uui 
b<^<S« mtii £;v»4« wit^tout t^« im«wl«dig« &t c&R«nm% 9t tJa« -^l^u^^s wid 
rtl«M»««>di ihtfw fr«ti& tli)«»lr $t9s»mi«,i limkiii%-;f w^ VokUt l»<md*) Is Attt 
y** afi,d,t'4-U.««|.lt,i In tiJt* *ult «t l»w b;^ « b«>«idiiol4«r agtiiu«t t^« dttfnfid* 
ftsiifts «li<» tr#r« p«rs>.tinaaijr llabl*; ti^at a'aoH fi)<<lifig In tk<^ d*«r*« 1* 
m n^lityi Hh^l th* iffiiit«£i'lr 0»»« i« rt<»t m mXlmt«r»l %%t».ak os %h* 
d«ar*«; that tli,« 4««r«« ia %u xff^ and biiudii »»1^ %h«t -ggf iswa ia»t th* 

t« i^timlt d*l'tii>d«U'<it«* «iaisit«i'»tlaii *aau>*t b»^ i»4ait4»lna4. It Is 
ft9I»Ar««i froik th« f(ijfe«feo«ar« iiiro<i*«aia«i, Ui»t tM«r« «?»» «i>c »^r»»ii:«»t 
t© r*l*a*« t^ n©tk«i frea p^rmmsii UaHUlty. atevl©a»ly tae •«- 
t«nelG& ot tk* ttat* *1* paya«£it oi" •»&« »*' tim bond* w©ul<S s*«t rwleiiioff 
th*« b«oftu«e th* bond* •Jtjjr«*aiy i^revided th&t Ui» tlm* of ^A^ys^cBt 
Kl^t b* *xt«r*4#A wltaout eotlce %9 t^« ^lotito*. fk«»o ««• ko adju- 
cfioiktleii ©f tfee a&tt*!", ISi* 8i*«o««9ox-trait«« i&Ad no poir«r to «fe.r** 
t« r«i#ftto *i3y »u«k liability, va« of Al» fi3riB«ip»i dutl** lo t* 
vr«t««t t^* Intarttflt of tH* b«»dit©14«r*. 

T*nfct we ar« rlgHt In 'what w* Ja«kV« jttot iKftld X^tUntr Apj^^mrtt 

.■ tr»vi.\'V'.ij. ¥^%> 
• <'.i-< isri "Mlt X» ■- 'V* '.■■»:;.■,, 

t%m mi U»*«« 
•A7 «eii tut. ^f^ •dJ ^Ai* »«i 


frttesly found Sl9»«alaiirg ttAd ^SLitosk te h«kY« ticau pmrmvuwiXly •«rT4Nt 
vlth sit.^^ji&<m» and thftt th«y vere ptratsimlljr Hail* for tb« 1&« 

di»btft<!r4e«a; j»«4 i'urth«r« it waa cl«er<»«^ tiiat i&« eourt rft»trr#4 
|ttri«>^l«ilon for th« purpoee- of «i»iat^rl»^ th« <lefi<il*«oy 4l«ttr•«^ 

A^»i»ftt HOttiin^<»rg »ndi 2l0o«lc, »n^. thai fittintll'f' v^«» «ntlil«ii to m 
9M #x«<9uti0S &g&inst th4Hft,.1t»ut «A.«h 9f %ht9« DrovislGA* was strieutek 
eat of tl&.« clferaQ a» .j»r«|»'%3r«4, BO tti&t Eoi»#r^lc»«rg «tt4 a^Koiklc, vho 
«xr>T»»aly «««uj(&%dl «tt.<l agjr«*4 to pay %hn «i«i«it» w«r« rttXl^vo^ froat 

law, t£i«r«s tfSka no oaxraAt /'or «u43i:i aetion i&ud It 1« a ttuliity. 

£.er«0ir«r, «l£i<i« |ilaii««iiT ia mut i^titimt ea«a iia4 r«««iTa4 
no pajr-^ftut ai3;d«7 tucit f«>r««fJL««arc d««r«t» m« itiajr i&altitai». aift ae%.i<m 
OB %^i» lsis»'fiift. Ho h$kB moro t^oii OAt r«£0d9r mt4 iie mv/ t^i® «ms tMo 
boride, ti\«! '!»ialj liuitatioii w^inf tliat so ifiay jQOt h«f% mero t^ian ono 
oatioS^otioB, Ok<&n v. .iJ^atNit^o. Sat ill, ^p. 45. 

1%i« judii»o«t of i^o Sap«'ri#x Q9\xrt of (^ooJi: o^^uuty it 

:fcoSuroly nm.4 J^atoliiOit, JJ. , eoBeyir. 

« «» - ■ ' - ..J '■ 

•n0 twu'J , . ' 

t « ji I'iiu 4 . 


ftOSB nUUESR dt a.. 

lie,, a Uoreerfttioa, 

mti. ntcaiACZKcifXT cotmT 

294i.A. 611 

ixsjLSiriiQm 'sm opuim of tm smm, 

4ft«ftg«ii for ptrftcaAl l&Juirl«« oXa1&«4 to httYA r«sul,t«d t):irou^ th* 
o«gllg<!4}tt« of t-(j« 4l«f9iin&f}ts in. drlTin^ oa« ei" meir W»«s Is r-.i:iich 
plmiMiitf va« a p»«6«ug«r» frtm iitm Yprk Cli^r t9 Chittimo, i^«r. th« 
l»tt« »u44l<!>ftl7 r«& off %hm jro%d, turii*^ ov«r «iib4 isjuxfiid A*r. 7h«rt 
vft« » v^rdl^t rjkI 4*^d^«Bt in jplftUiiift *a f^v^r for 119,0^, sAd 
4«f«ri^8>ntt a{)i}««l. 

31i« r«««r<l dii«el«>8«» t/i»t »t about dt4$ o^clodli «& th« 
»onslng df Xfu»u>:i^jry ^, 3i1^39» 9l«liiilfir teo»3r4«d eae of «i«l*i»iiaaKtt' 
1»tt«t» Iti £«w YarM City f«r C£ii«»»se. Aftttr tn^^r w«r« out or ^•w 
York «)»ottt »a ij.0ar t>i« <lrlir#r of tJa« tut «»<d«pluli:i«4 umt. It wutt 
Bot Ib i?rof>«r eoBHltiea. ii» ci6|iig»#4 »t i:>-«tt>x»«7, ^» ^»* t«l«9Uea«4 
the l4tnr tevk #fTl»«, &'}Tia«d tbim of ^ft fsMSt* ^'"'^ tli« Bu» ti&tuptmj 
•ffiBt a»otii«r &«a vli« ax'riv«d i& «.)»eut an ii«ur «»il took ettarga of 
tho bus, the 11 rot drlvoy iii&vl»£ loft OS- boon di««^;aTg«d at 
^tarnay, aA4 tha bua ](roea«da4 <m it« w»>' ;o i^tvloaig^Q. About 7:M 
9*elaaiE ir^ th» evaiilng, aftar d^rk, vtioji^ a poixit Ba£>«wli»S'« a«ar 
l-awlotown, { a. , vaa raaakad, tiio buo, travallB^ at about 40 tail*'* 
an haur oik th# rin^thanA aida of a tnr«t^-l«u.o driveway, ou^jdenly 
r«B aoroas tiao j»av«ft«»t eiror lh.% Xaft ol^uXder aed turned evar« 
la^uriAfi a auiabar of vaaaancoro, lricludtn«^ plaintiff. Shortly 
tixor^aftojr plaintiff, togatijor with tha othar InjuraH paaoer^garo, 
waa tajcan by tba buo comply to a hoopltai in Latriatoan, wfaere tUay 


Lid .A.ii>es 

. I'. »iy u. ~ 

as 4^97 i 


'J4»»'f flo 'Kr 

:m'i ,1 

:jx xj^a 

tit «< 

«Aia ji^ ^: 

$M I 

tr < -i i 

,«•▼• If 

n'^ i;i» AMU t*'*?^^''^* ^a^ 

x xtta^ «ft tii<Mij« iff 
«vii[k i«tii «4j ««afif Alii 

■iy%% aiMr •;;' vflttta»a 

N;iAii.<iti«i . «.ii, a« «it«4 Aft 

, ;U4^«*X€| «iHM«ftC(# 

Wtr9 giTCB iiuyiglaiil «U3«I ««ditt»i, atte&liott. Atttx »lHrut tt«Y«i «««kt 

w)i*r» a 4oGtor tr««Li«4 iJKfJr for »lBM0ttt liurct jsontiia. 

fh* suit "VftS bretiiiJ:it ftgtsvl&At Xn4i«u«ii U&^« %tty i^ln^s* Ice., 
and B«X» Vttjr Llr^98» Iak* « lB4i«»« aorpor«ition», :uid ilIi»Gl« ^^lifa 
V«y Lia»8, Ino., an Illinois 6(»ri)Qr%tl««, mA It WMl obftri^sd tjs«t 
mt th.« tlR« i» ^u«stlott th« 4«ren>1»fitit» or isqsaa or th«ai, v«r« •»• 
g»K*«l in 09«ratlnK 1»as*« «• aftutsaofi d«rri«r« ft«m li«ir ITerk t« Gni- 

IIH* tt«glii,«nt« tt.'iiii«g«d aki,&l»iat ^^fs^d^iJuta, or «oj»i» oiC tb^iMi, 
vaa failura to a^iviip ti^a ^ub pr&)»»rly ae ue %o e&rry ^i^tlntil'l' ao4 
atJ^ar paa»«»g«r« witia dua »ai(»ty» t«at tka ^ua «aa aat 1» a jgee4 
atata of jrepair* ^is^ taat daf*«U'iariit«, or sioaia sua of tii«»i&, vara 
aafiligant in ]p«>x%ltt;ifi|s tka bue ic» Is^e &]^«raied iby a tlre^i el«9j}y' 
aa4 iaoo«patat^i drlirar. Dafecd^OKt Bafa w^y i«i£iaa, It4«. , an In<ti«fia 
aorporatlon, su^awered that it vaa ttri«i,ifiall3r ii&<iovrparat«4 aa tha 
Xs41afia ttAfa Wiqr l«i£<%a, Xi^a., Vat tamt ita KiWie waa eh^a^eA on '!>a* 
•a»bar 7, 1<^'34. Iha aatvajr i'wrtnar a«t up^ *'&!« «ittr<?>md&et owiaa »o 
aui»£»etlva fi«a#«r,gar buaaa «ri«i):<t«v«r* mtd daaJL^d t^at it ^'persittai 
•r aaaaad tha bua in whieia pl&iutil'l' Reae Kjra^ar w%s thas rising ta 
l9iVfii^ tha highway or te turn ovar or to fall ^lown any iita»i» aHl»afiJi:» 
»<wjtj* d»f4i#4 tJmt pXaifitiiT waa !» tha ^atei-olaa of 4ua ear* far hmr 
«a« »af«ty« d(mi*d t at it «aa guilty of way nagli^anea whlaii r««* 
•ttltad in lujurl«a to pXai&tiff, tyad dat<iad aub«t»uti«iXy all ebar^ai 
ma4« a^iaiaat It. Sho at&er tafau •i3a:it, Xllix>ala Safa Wagr i.laea, Ine. 
itt tta aaswar danlad that at tiia tima in queatiaa "It w^a a&jsa4a4 
la taa Voalnaaa of aparatisg any aato£&otlva piissaxigar bua«fi aa a 
•anibon o«iri lar; " avarrcd tiaat "ita »ay bualcaaa i» tha oimara&ip 
•f auto««tlv« Wa«a whieii ara laaaad fey it to (i«ri>«ratiaiia whieh 
ara aagiigad i» t^a buaisaaa of op«)r»titig sai^ buaaa aa «o&{a«B a^r- 
riara. * fUa anaaar than adopta tubat^i^tliaiy %itm tuxawr of ti&a 


. . 41 t'iji ; 

. :■ >■•; .. i.^'^J^ w ■ 

: t^i' -X- <*>:-„ 

;"n.; :.. ■ 

■'. ■i . * f-iiw^«» f. ■ 


: - 

. <l«^ wt. 

■ >-..» J 

,^J(» JAC 

l»iUt» lfti« •V»j£a''. 


t »c.' 

nil- ' it lftfvm*i%»t'i'%»^t> aeirsistrtt 

l»l«l» tiff's «vlS«MO« It to ttidf «ff*«t thftt »hm ^arehAtti m 

U«kftt in lt«v y:&tk^ teun«A th« bat ^toout «ight u*cio«Jc in th.« aor&» 
Lti£ for v^laKfio; tn«t a1»9ut nxt hour afttr tlit Wt l«rt i»«w York City 

it r««<»h^ l<.tant«y, i>* 1., «^ert the driirtr tttpo^d <ikt «. gat tt&titm 

iu;«l Atti^oui^oM to %h9 p%tt«fi($ex'» tivai eo«it«>tiUiig v»t ^rcuag with tht 
itttkanitttt of tilt hvk9 iikti<A %&m% a« ««»)iX^ t«l«i^(mt tht t4mq|iaDy*t £tf« 
T»rk tfflets k«t w«i>£ It^tit tiiw gt.t tttatti^a, t«i.k«Ni oxii tl»« ittltiitl&efit 
«« tilt iriet-i»f««»l'S«r»t «f V^ti but O0i!<kjp~^«sy «tn^ toi4 :nis titat ^« g«»r 
vat out «f tlilft; that t^« bat vat att ia e^A^lltion mtd thtt 
h« wouX^ sot t^ke it a^y fftrt)!:iffir; tliftt «n«t of t-iiis> imts^mi^ert m% thftt 
ti»« *1»© trtokt te tht vie*-'pr*?»tft««it , «ftyli»g *tii«t th« but wat « 
aesth t3Pi# thtt n« w«>« stn^irig ©» ife« r©ft4, aB4 thmt 4f it sll*| go »a 
it woiil--^ fiofer r<»»«lt lt« «!»»ttR?*tio«,* tn^ -^rivtr ih«ffi agaiw ttiktd 
te tli* viee-pr'i'fiidMit* 

2hi« (Mrl1«Re« furtt.9x tatwt simt » Bi««a«£iio *Ei<J skuetawp drlvtr 

•xws&lfiid tht but tmii t&14 tilt f^tt<nK<itr» tj^«r« ^i^ttt Hi^thi^^ wroj^g villi 
it. Ti:!*? fstw -irW^r tk«s teoJis fiXfttt an4 «^f©T»? tiie but matil %b9ttt 
Tia© «t'©loe* ir* tAit tvtrjifig, siopptjig Rlotog- tun tt-ay s*t tu* u»u»l 
•t«]PI>i|](g. iaat«t. 

Ifet «Ti<1e«;«e j'uj'tatr %m4B ttj »:?i®« t&at .ii«r«!! w«r» to«t emew 
mi;4 tluidi OB titt rQ«4.; th«t tut tqa^ btf«»s>«i ACk^i sit tiJiO f^ae^ «»f tiit 
»c«l^rat i**t JBtrtlgfiit a»4 lev«I a»«f jfjsvtsi for tfert# ianfit of traffit; 
^m% th«y« «»at nt traffic s*t ta«t Mti®* ijB ^u«ttio«; th» but was btijig 
ilri<¥*B tn tht iri^t h«ai<l l«i'^« nbtut 40 alltt tt};i hour, mumi it tad* 
(SwRly turnip tdv«rd th« itft, raft fiorott tiit pftY«a«nt ;4»i<l <»▼#» tM 
toft thoaldtr a»4 tunatf! ©Ttr. «#ita«r of tht two drivtrt »tr tht 
ti#«hts5it wn© owHt tt jfc«sra«jr, Bor iiUiyon#, t»ttifi#4 *t to tht oondi* 
tlon of %hm but btforn or «fttir trt atoiitimt uor a* t« iitw tht at- 
ei4i«iit toourrtd. 

«v U>W1 «: Ul*« 

4A«^ «(«•#§ 

T^^lfd CJMIMI ttV** "~lt9<- l*i<.<.' «!(>'■ ^.' .s<.i(«>.>. 

••• •At w*** •! t« t«a ««*/k4#*# •«» 1|#>*'' .- -.^,f ^.../ -.., -.- 

e«)itri»*l fur fXalutiff t« lAiroduo* •Tid|ii««« *» to tift«» a«r{»or»t« 

•truaiur<tt '?!' th« two d«f«Fi.<a&titt, ineXa^le4& tk« n^*»«» 9f ih« ftf* 
fie«r», direotort umA atttt^huMMtn , fm& to iai^aire »» to wJ%ftUik«]r 
4«fciCid«u^t« #nrri«d in»uraic«««; t^«t tine eottrt't aotlon ie «'i«(i«»tti»c 
«curiii#l I'or d«l'«JHlanti %»#aMui« h« 414. in#t jaair* Ale v?ito«»«4^« in im* 
oe»ttrt rftOK At th« MM!ts3>«».t ta«y ««r« eftl)><»4, ^ad JUKpealxitg a i'in« ef 

tkti «ttit'ii'A« <»r tli« €t«itiri t«M«d 9%rmi^y t& i»r«jfadl«« Ui.« Jur^r. 

to pr&ir« iKh«tJ:i«jr tl&« <l«l'<»£<<lMiti». or oi^^ oi &i;;«^« swiate^ mnA «:<»«r«tfti 
ta« liat $%t t£k9 tli9t« 1» ^u««tlo»* wom^sjftl i'&v ii&i'Midtm%§ »my thi» 
v«« Im-pri^pftr b«ttiitt»«, *tn.%r9 ^tk» »o iM^lea iti %h9 pl^AAiugn 6f th« 
owotiraiiii^ el' tl&tt t^u« u^r <B.£>«¥&ti0fi of it i^t tit:}^^ ti%ift )g^^ pl^to^^ oi' ih« 
ft«ei^«nt ■*♦*# ' 

"T^t $.efmt4itm% Siif* Wait tiii««, Ii%«.« »teitt«4 t^i&t it «|it«rftt4»4 
that hvk» *** .tm<} Xlltetia ilaf^ w»,^ Li»«s, Xne,, 9i4£attc4 th«t It 
oiw««4 tilt tout '*♦* 'M%r%tarm tk« pit»<sing» «&«t ao feai!"4«n m{»on £&• 
l>l«ii»tlff t<i ^r»f« tJ»« own«r»at|) sa«i:d of«rai.ti®-ia aJ" tiit i'<«ai«l.« **•. 

*Xr »M«r to ir«%«T« itxty »9»»il»iXlt7 $r 4euliit «itii to thi« 
4u«!>stioii» o«ittr»»#I r«>i* tli«» <t«l'ehj|Ms.t» «t«tft4i Im 0|»Wi «®urt tiuit ^€% 
'^tk.j l>iiii'-9, lae,, <»i>«jrftt«4 t)i« lias mA XiXltiole i^ii'M Way Limeti, luo., 
<»«»«di It.* t« UslBic tiiie «otit«atlae i» i^»i h&rum dut by tti* r*«ord. 

ti&« 3t«m9A 4X««i«»»« tiiftt eoanewX rer pXaXntiff «b«Mt « ;«»»¥ 
¥«ror« tiHkt trlaX «<i(i«ttiror«d to tsOi* 4«{»«8ltifta» ok tlji« Question &f 
wk» owti^d )knd o^«»rikt9<l tM« bttt» at tii* tlis^ft bui wa» uiial»Xe to ^o •« 
b««»u«» tJi« witnftfttt«« r«l'u»«si to mawmt. At taat tlK* couft««i ior 
««f«*jA»et» ai?p»fnr«d a»4 iH?par««i.tXy ?*«"•▼ ««it«« tii« vl %&*««•» f»<,« 
eumwftrtBg th« qu»«ttojo«, 0« tii« iriaX ftotttisuRl f«r piftiutin- ijnia, 
"1$ It tilt lc<St»n« eorr>9r»tl&& th».t ow«» tjam >>u» ©r Is it » 

as A 



, '^MKjJMO^cf t*«I01' 

.JiW ttiUitt «a«bn" 

'• '^mtfliir: 



ii«i* eor^e ration •«!« up tli«.t it irwn« ih« 1»ua but <!««!■ not Ai^orattt 

Kr. f«£l«rt "Saf« tuy Lin«t ««*ts u^^ Uiat it «>|i<»riit«ft bue«»s l^ut 

<f«>eti not evn ti)«tt.* i.r. Smboh "I JuRt «imt«.tdl to g*t it fttrslikt. 
Xllitioift SAjTe fny li»»»f i^costr^ing to tit2>« anu'vmjt, is Ui« ont thait 
«ime th.i» 1fra»?* Mr. i»«igl«TS '*fh«tJ;t«r tatty t»wR thi« feu« or net"»«» 
ir. Katlai»,j "It iiM liot 4«»ji«>d ii-j tiain <*r.«w«r, " fcr. P«gl«3ri *«• <!««i3r 
th«y op»rs.t«|r 1»u«cn.* JTImlatifl' tiansi «»li«d »itxi«tt»tte ftt-ul«)ttv«r» 
Ing to aiittfii'V^r th* <sir««jMiliifi ««bjS oj»«,ra.tl9« af tfet "bu* bj l«i«|ttlrlng 
at te tVi* te«^jpi»fi«#, ^b» all ^f tiil« »«8 &ut ol" ti*« h««ir- 
lag of th« jury* ^jut tfa»r« *»» iB®jre ®.r Xeiia «?ttll»kiing, imd •v«si«a 
by t]&* «itii«ii»«««, u^oR e»>\t#0ti<»it» liy i^t'ffindjtfitft* «ouu6<il. tint cvi* 
4»ft«« t<:«a««iiiiig tk» inturiu'ie* *»• n»t i«fra5KMP. g»t.o<m v. ty^ ^n . 
874 111. ^p. ^n, 

Tk«r« i« »©iift« «vl4®sis# t# tM*>. ei'ftot tusvi ti'ta ^u» &<smp»tmi«» 
V9.r« i*i»ur#a fey ««k l^tariosiii* tta;!iif 5«r^ ol &«uaii«ft uity wJileia kai4 im 

««•! 01' U»« »*• tak«e ttj^ fey 4«r«fi4.i!iiil»' eo-sjaimi iu «iira4i»i; th« 

i»att« aa4 tk» ttswrt tfe*ii 8»ldj •Jiow, ir. F«:gl«r, you .*r# m ®ri i©«r 

or tli« dottrt wa4 I tljiait It lit y©ar dlaty t« i«»lor)». ut ■«ial©a e©5.|i«jiy 

®l»*r»t©4 i;:.»t l&Uit mii wh» kstnurmm lt.«*««* ^«ir. f«el«r; "If I was 

l»at tta^tr »»tli. I wemli «i«t b« ft.fcrl« to ttll y«>tt, yeur -■lonor. " lh« 

Court 1 *t w» not ^oiAf{ to g«t »T«juj»j|/tr4« iit«9 ii It 1« lionslblo 

to Wft>i4 It. 1 <lo not wiwsi to tt«# tho 4r«i«iti« »6w«?r «.r tia« oourt 
to got Jfc wattor ef l«.,for&atio« wira,ii&i;'X«, Yau »^y or ik^y not 1»e 
li«fcl«. Row, ir thoro i» so ilmblllty, yo« t&oul-l go to tho ,lury 
OB th«it, m^ »ot OR th« tM«ory that yow «»ro fcoliag to Jug^o threo 
c«»pMit«» ©poratkitj btt»«o a«ro9» ilJ'l#reiit «t*t«».«t-^**»» mt. 
Pogiorj n tuinic your ^io««r i. u/nlor th» ^r««« i^proooio. *it^^otii*r, 
Ao I feav^ ttudtrotoed tJ»o fl«oaiag«. ^oro io «o ^u^»tieB about thlo.- 

'•iRf «i 

• 9l.i4,«$i<:oo surf - : t'l\* Si' ^tuos) aj 

«,-BV 1 (■*■ «♦•!;»*» id* 0.v> ►-.,■« <»t;j '• *i?t«>f« 

?h« C«ttrti "All ri^t, vlTiiou oiit*V" ik.r.Ftf(i«rt *A* I l&t7«]^r»t Ui* 

]^X*a<liog« «Ui<) «fi«w«r, IllJuftoi* ^AlTe l^ttjr i.Ui«R did i.«t operata th9^ 

W Ifi ^u«tti«ii.** rh« U»art2 *i;»ut it o«iri« lix« lius It; ^ueatloB, la 

that iijjii%'?*fe*«* ftr. ?«gl«jrj no 1b« t'l-ikak witli yeiA, I xmifr 

think It 4o«t, kut I d[0ii*t Vtl&k tiie offCiaraUlip at Ui« l^us eut» ztfijr 

fig^irt. ^<'*'' ^r. i^AhHi ''WiXl yeu stlpulAta t;;at ooik'.pflutiy did ewa 

iUula i»ArtioulAr ^t en tha f)«trtioa3.Mr <;l«gf1"' ^r. fa^^Lar: "1 youl<l 

%a l!;l«4 td If X knaw for sara,'^'*'** I hi»vf .^««aya fi»vislAUblr)«d t^«t 

oar answer &«tra la aulsatafiaa a4ttitt ajpftrtetlofi ef tita feua teaaausa 

wa «lld fitat iSffK;y it* uf a/ aim kxtawi^dge X lio n&% kJUQW ^.^nytaiag 

about it ax.e«pt witat X &^ %&lii wad t^at i& -^n&t ve pat it. tiia 

anatvar. * i^or^ ol' taia ftppaara Ij^ tJti^ reoar4. ^itt^asaaa wara 

aaXi.a4 wha ««r« ce£UB«at«d %'ita Ijuturimoa «&;3s,pimi«s. vua di' U^e 

»«m%«ra of .--r. Paiplex*a I'lrm wma eaXladi; ii,« ^aa at^i:i«ot»d witn tka 

Karkal ai»i>^.pa2r)jr wi^leia inM olfidaa a4Jeifii£i^ tte@lr l.^« tXxm, ^64 In* 

▼astlg&tad alix<iiav aaa-tt I'ar d0f«i<«. 4 strata , ^tit Ii^U« ax ao ii^fatKa* 

tlaa a«iX<t ba a44kioad I'x^m %i:)l8 witciaaa. It i& al^MX-Xy app&re&t 

that six iiuaatio&a that gau^^kt to aXieit ^nim^ 4el"9Jidaat a^')^e4 «Ad 

v^iah o.9«rat«4 th« baa 3i.t ih^ tma wajra a^mtlnueusXy afMM* In 

thin e£mfi«atie« eauneal »&y; "Xn fli.SiUjii^ tUa court, to jucl^e ^s ta 

vh«tHar or not tiia aetiswc o* th» trial eourt X^ J'lbXnit «iaX'«r*<i*i}t»' 

•e-tti'ieaX $xmi jfar oocitttt^-jst or ^oart «aa J«igtirXa4* ««?- ean only rafar 

t&a court t«) tb» rwaor^." Xliia ^uaatloii 1« «st ^afore an. ttoa 

aiULy %u«8tiQe la aa to whatii«>r (3ai*<i»<S»t^ta haA a I'^ir trial Xa tha 

paraonal Injury aaaa. &'a ma/ aay «« t£;ixtii unt «K)urt ft>^«a4 a ^raat 

dftal ot 9ati<;r4oa an4 Joriiaayat^ea, lor It 1« apparent litat dal'ebda^^ta* 

eoimaaX «aa not *t *iX irank, but on tiie eostraiy iila atiaavera «i»d 
ttios? oi' rlti5«s:*«a subpoaujiod c«i t^ia f|ti*stio*i wern elaarXy 

Xa t£jmJUAk..lx.IlMS}iSkAimk^ 262 Xii. Ap^. 29a, 

i^ian «^t ft paraejaaX iajury aaaa wh»rm a ^ae»tifiu »<?.:.:. aviiat aii&iXa* 

:ir«lt^4.<«Jl '*i^m «l»4Mw ,-^M||l<f jTM* O^Bi^ •1(7 

ar.c to • ....-4 ftftru^T;-, ,• (*v orf* |^»iiJK» 





ijfi/fw &i 9m si (fO> 


.•t«» X'i'it 


■"' I.' »•:■ 

; i«i»ft 

to th« OCA )»«ior<« t*a w«t lfivnlT«4, tu« «ourt sidd (9., 3^10) 1 "Xlit 
ftlaintilT In ]*uXly irttrrafcnt«A Ut th* argtiKent that *tl)a otoTi«as pur* 
po«« of th« 4«f «wiittnt la prJLivtlXij^ Utm anr»«d«i»l« ftaa« of (ii» otA«r 
«M9<aiy on th* tlok«t, :4Xid 1a conod&lla^ it l»«t««4»i Uift werdft «««- 
l»rl«lng ^vf^QilMit^a e«»ri>oratA ns^u^m^ va« to 4«ic«iv«r tu» pu)»iia akua 
to (MiabXt it to ohlft r««i>on«ibUlty 1« tlt« i»irei3t oi iujury to ito 
9*tt«&««!r«. ' iw oottiaOM eArrlcx* «u«t )»« £i6tt«»t ^ct I'&lr in It* 
<l««li»i^« w'JLtn th« i^ttioxio. ** Ici tJsio U;i«i«i^t di^ao ta« 4«)'ftfia«, or 
«n« ol ti^oa, wftt * o«;!&«ri:0» «»«»ri'iftx> «Ad oaoial.1 1';>:'.y@ b«tB ;io&ft«t ttai 

1>tts «t tiix« tlffio, l04it tli« rveortl tuaows i;,ii« oofitrarjr. ^ l»r ao tko 
•'vi«}«no« di»4aiIe»o«, %&«!*• WAS »« ^i^i'^^^^ -to tiilo «&.»«. s^Jubstau- 
tlftily All of th« itTittOfioo imd artu««nt »» tu« ^u«»tior4 ol »ilio 
9VBC41 fkCd 'Who mifttkX^A th« )»tt8 ir«tt out or Ut<» lieaxlJBg «r Ui« j»ry'» 
nrhif^ «»• lUtSG t.U9 f»et vhor) trt« eotiirt 1&|)08#4 ih« flii«. la tta^ 
o»o« th9iT9 ohottlA lB« BO «H^i^<»oali^«a fto to «b.o owns sd&4 oi^eratoo « 
pul^lic eerii»*y6»ii!:0, 

ConplJiiklnt io «»<!• tii»t Uio ooart orrod (i) iis tai ovian; « 
wltaoot to iettlfy to con-roroatioaa wit« ihM drivor wiio operated tiio 
Vao fros^ &•« York to i^earne>, l». J.; ( ^} iu p^xsuittixi^ jporiioco of 
tJtiO a«ji©titlo«» or -sitnoee ^sisth io fe« roA4 to th« Jury; (M in re- 
fiiolaf to poimdt li^fm^a^tm* oou£ti«l to o%&i''«ieL«) o^rtiiiUi wita»oo«« 
vitiii r^giifcrd to «t»tf«»4i{^t« thoy -^^9 «m;l tti^««d &u Ux^ <loy aftor tho 
aoai^.fti&t, ufjXooa tao wltA««« who wo to ap ta« «i&tft;&£a)it» «imi pro- 
<iu««4t i^) 1» 0'^rmi£tlffi|^ oouii»«l tf^w pl^ilatii'l to «x«« aefoed* 
3m%»* vltrioao CuXy ooaoor&in^ K«ttoro aot ttr^tt^^it eut ei- oroso- 
ojUMoluisttoa, *a<« whlith «-*r« aot rol^vaout, 

(1) iTao tostifcony of ih« witiioeo wa« t© ttoo offoet that 
tlio drivor cf tho 1»uo froa Jow York to Aoamoy Kft^d tk^t tii« ^u« 
woo la fea4 eraojf !%»d thot ho wool 4 >iO* dlrlvo It way fartiior; tnat 
ho •tO|io*4 at Koaraoy aB4 t^on tolo$>hoao4 tho Jiow lork olTioo. Wo 

«AW In .'Hft^i.^'i': r-. ■.■,-«.; f 'lu^ «»fl|»(^it'1^ •lilt' ■*« fl* t^^'"^ 

,^^,f ^ a«« mb4 ttdi t>'f;r»t«'»o •«C«^ <»<>« lM»irw» 

:fi^ .•»iitd A«4»< (H»'A •ii-t g* « " -^ ^ - 

V * r- V kxzi »i J 

think this mXAnapi^m was elearlv oo<up«t«iti im t«t>4iAi %$ ifeuvv tl!i»t 

tb« bu« «»• net Ixi a (^eod f^tnt^' of r«>p«klr, tnat dtfur^'laiitfl knrw 
It, 00)4 di^&t th« »<iei4«cti wkifik iELHj>i>«&«4 tkttt feTe&lKt:, iKl,^ht ):i4tT* 
b«er. caused by the (ica4ltltn of th» bus* ( ^) l>&siri, tn« Stats 
aiefh'^ay v?atr(;l, te»tlii«4 tiiat bo vikS jiotifleiij of the ascidiwHt 
•feortly &ft<»r It cccarrsd; t^i*t as rde to thw »a«i*e af th« &eci- 
dent ©B V'le aotoarsyels, » -iisttiuat of a kIIs a«'1 « half er & »lle 
and thr«»«quart«r«; tJii&t it Ud &e% ti^« ulib Ii^^^ to ^«t th«r»; 
it.^t h« «v«el»t«4 in taticing &ois« of th« p<KSi*tmgnr» trim th« o«er- 
tiare4»d bus; Uxat iae taUittd wiUt tae bu» '4riv«r ^s to lu>w ths aeel- 
ifict aeeuxrsd; that Uis drlTsr said "-^e &hoa<s,^t bis fsll AsLssp." 
Whetii^r tJals eo«iV«r»aili»» «ac » a«ar ta t23,« tiois of the a^scH's&t 
as to t<« « p»rt of It, )«s4 tA«7«f«rs %(Sail»8ibI« la •tiAmncti, wt 
ihinlc «ra.« a ^u<»Bti6!^ fer ti;i« trial J'ttd^^ft le nle dieer^ttoc. Jke ral« 
eau b« laid down tkat vlll fit all suttti cirous&irtiinttfis. But Ik any 
e-veKt d«f«r*daats "fftvn net &»t«rittli.y |;jr»Judi6«d by tule t« 
b««i&u«s 119 dtfesiBS was i»t«r'^o«i«d. ru@ u&di&puted «rvidenee is t&at 
th« bvis did run acJrsss th« p&ir«&<!>jQt m-i-i turi^ 9T«r. mi^He otit a 
e-:'>.e« of n»§;ll£«j3cs« if im«jc|»Itilntd« ^m^-^ tJEifre ie ne axpisfi^tlen ex- 
empt that 0Qun«<3l for defe'-^i«atts ar^uss umt. th<!r roadvi^y ^&e ioy «&d 
slippery .^Jt t>ift tlsas. But nrfe tiilak. the STideuK*; is entirely iasuf* 
fi«i<te.t to »hoy)i the bus sllp^-ftd or t^lMtC on j^escunt of ice. 
(5) th^ «vld»tto» aii©»» that sksrtly R,rt«r lh% tkC&iA^sit feaausl CulP, 
who f0r ^.sfsndafita inv«»ti(iiit«d tii« fiists U* cocBeotiofc vit& tb«» ae- 
tids&t, t«stlfiftd b« liirsd about 70 f&il«s i'r&SA i.ewlatoim Htt<^ i^ect to 
tbat «ity is ltiy«sti£at«, i>rxlTiJU4 th«kr«i ta^bcut or>e o*cloeJc ths night 
of t2i« Q^eci4«&t; Uiat tb«» fi«xt i&or&iaii: ks ^.a^iicsd vltk kiss Patt , Ars. 
Saohtjfeao m4 Mrs. s^eultan, tiira^ jjaismife-srs lajursd ajBd wtio ir«r« thaft 
in ih# hesoital, ^tcdi proeursd a $tttt«4B^At fjrose» «a«h nuriieJi hs wrote 
ant au.l h^ aasii sign* 7i^# aourt rafua.«d to j^sr^viit th«s« stat^H^eets 
to bs offorod tft svldsbfis uiil>isa co^i>8^1 for dtffttidaf.ts pradu«a4 Ciap 


•»&!!£ Jig 



<ww »4t; 



■ li^i 

i.ftt«r Culp irit* GsdlM ojq4 t4»«tiri#d» aAd thm atat «»«»%« w«r« than 
raetiT*^ In «irid«nc«. «• thlBk the ruling of th« court vas coatiraly 
propar iu&d ara «tt.abla to »«^«» Uow It eeuld )i« s&l^ to {>r«ju<ll«a <ia* 
fan4«nt«. in* acoitantlon of aou&aaX fpr 4ar«i^dwata, tiitti taa at* 
tituda af tht oourt ««m h«atila &«e»aei9 or at^taaaenta maAh hy tina 
e«)urt ivkan it waa »ttia«;h.t t« Lntrtiduoa tla^aaa st«t««&^ata, wa tivlnk 
•ottl4 in ifto wAjr «tff <»«t th.9 result of tl&a ault, ^«a«Mtta« Urn at*t«iKa»t 
of tha aourt waa »&da out «f tlia pr«aeo»ft« oj tiie jury, I4i Whaa 
aounaal for pIoi»tiff ««a orea»*«&a^;iiiiiag tl^ia wjLtK^aa, uilp» eos- 
e<»rriin^ hit iKY«sti^{»tioc oad tJ&a proeurieij^ of atatasKenta by is^ 
afc>Oira ]&««itic«a4, oou&eal iiiquirad in r*^a,x4 tt> a jiiro. koyar. Xki* 
«rlt»aa« «lldl i^et r««4ll iskar. i^oufiaal tbae jpro^uea^ a iia«ap;%p«r to 
rafrea^^ hia r«eoIl«etioBi loid alao ajcrilbltad a da^eaitlon t«kftn la 
•ORB tot ion witi) aaothar oa»« grotsrlAg out a J tut> soj&e aoolttont, but 
thia waip not ttffkA t@ the jury, riio witnaan vaa int^rrogatad oa 
thoao Mait»rt, not only to ntfr^Bh h,i» raooll motion but aa tondiag 
to affoot hia erodi^Ulty by ^ovi^vg tJao iiit<»rost Jfta haA in aaitia^ 
tho iKvaatigatlon. W« th.i£ilE. tiae 9xa>«(irj>atlasi waa i»ot likpr9|»or and 
di4 not 93f«jttdiolally afl'oot def aii liuito. 

At tka oloaa of plaintiff *a oaa«, a^eut 11 o'olooic a. »,, 
lareh 10, i937, aitor titc uaual «otlona :&%da by tiie 4«feaidiaiit8 for a 
T»'r4tet hitA boan ovorrulad, eoansAl for daf «i'i^iaxita etatod ti^at tlio 
drivar of tJtt«> but (at ^e tiia* of tlta aeaidobt) umd not aj»p«arod, 
««ed r>rocoi3tad a action in writing for a eontieutuvoa of Uio .auaa. 
tho court ^"^r^iad tha wotion and it ia alai»«d ti^t tiiia waa pre4udi» 
daily orroneouo* Tiio affidavit in aupport of t^o laotioB waa by 
fer. Foirl*r. tha ottbettaieo of vtiieh «aa that Harl l>orry, drivar of 
thff bua at ti»« lima of tho aocidont, lived in £;«« Yorit City; tb*t 
i^r. Poglar, through hit a«ean%t|^< hmA, witi^in th« laat fa« ir««£t, 
locatad Parry at Voro«at«r, i^aaa, , and had aado arrangaii.«nta to 

, »!»■&■.»«*• W 

.■.!.-;jH« 9.-7 r^wMjKO'.'a ,^iv> ■■■.;'■••: .'J |»«1tl« ^« «# Ai '^Xw>» 

. .. -^■^*% «ii {»«-riW|»li lAttt-Ute* ,fc'» .'.••:-".fll »TfiWf« 

a« ^. ' as#is*i» 9m: ,x%iii t>iM ttt^tuMt ^si^ f-e^' !?■««* 

•lOiJ^ifvi w> . .• a4X:sf»AUf* sift {^nrtj»« ot x^w» t»ii «tt9>#t«« ••#4ti 

9«iiUMB nl ^-ii. *tL f^»%»it\i Mil i»*-ilmQtk \4 %tlU^Xk*%ti Ala ^9«»*t'U 9$ 

r^^ fm ki^ \<i«i4; •»'^- t Aiis 4»l mu4 §m t« K«Ti«ft 


%ikr9 hivb oan«» to Chl««4|o to i«»t>lfjr «j^«o iic^tlf i«4 %y ^^Iftgrakoit to <l« 

80 ; tl*Ai kx» kci^0V9JR, %hm ti4$«^t in to.* «&«t, irir»4 i^»r«£t 5 t« Kt, 
S«d<SSdEi In ChiciMlfi t&At ke WM« «rr«t»^iag to havo Forrjr oomt onA 
tootify, iglviai J^oryy'o satiroio in Soreooter, ^^aoB. ; ta»t oa tbo 
e«s»« dny aftd^on vlr<N! ^.ocio'von' to £i&v« forry «».« to whloo^e i»itJht«v 
E&3reii it^b or 9ti^» • **«Siri»ft if you axS-vsiisioo (iny oxittnoo Ks^osoy**} thot 
tho n»%t day ii«aow«» viroat "Porry wUl »irrlir« your oii'loo i6o»d»y»«« 
adir»i3o«d ti^lrty^fliro ^ollfitro;* th«t o«ii iii» 9%h ^itM&n wlrttA itttQovaa 
iBq.uirli]ii th« ttrnt forry wrmI4 airrlY* m.4 who a^vieot U;it oinho ftay, 
"^orry^o '^l«ii«« of wmpX^ a4irie«4 Haio Xott i^ii^-^^my £ti#ii% for Oeil- 
oftgo." tlio offl^iivit olT Mr. J^Ofelor furti^ior oot 119 tJrmt thoy woro 
etilX »etiv«ly trying to l.oo«t« Forry, *but tu® to hie »addon dio- 
»pp«''^riuriOO '"'"'^ k« o««jiot %>« io43«it«!di todi^r* it is doiftbtful whotiior 
^io fre««r^o« &im l£io o«oar«4 ii^ ti»« to t«Ktil'yi* timt «i'l' iasijit** 
0,^;,»iit« owi£»ot ftoo'^'Uist I'or alt *«ua4«B 4iiA:^p««ri»iie«{" tiMit if I'onry 
«'«r« pr#s«>jiat iio votiUli tootify t&«tt lirlor to iho n-ooidetit. h* woo «■&• 
.ploy«4l )»y oti*t or tiae a«l'»«4iiyKto &« » '\m» drivor; e^i&t ^o ba4 boon 
irlvin^g 1»a»oo oovorttl yomro hi»%h on tho oj»«» ro«4 mk4. in t^t 61 ty of 
Brnt ToKic; Uvftt «x& tk« mort»i&£ in (|u««tlori he r«ii«vo4 sMiothoif drlTi»r 
ftt koomoy, ^<, 3,, mk4 4rov«' frtm tkoro to th« plo.00 of the »«ei!3«nt 
io ?«»tueylYot)iit} tli«i tlio v^tAn v«r<i eoir«r*d uritJ^ osm^v auH loo; 
ho rod'*io*<l tno prooettro of tl^o foiir r«iir tiros to 3i yovyoio in ordor 
to o^tftin b«ittor traetion; that tj^tro w«ro du»i tiros oa ti»o r#or of 
tho ^ufl mUttk wAo «. II p«hft»ocigoi> feao; th«t tln^io "w»o l^ottor istroo- 
tlott thnn fiatiiiiil QbMkiXkm on tko vUoolo in vi«« of ti40 wot »&4 ioy 
c»oa4itloii or ti:io roa^l^ th&% h« ^rovo %h.m Wo without uny oJcid4in# 
oj)tU ho re^4h«!4 n i^oint about t«o mil 00 ooot oi' i.owi8to«n ot obomt 
7t50 p. m. , wiioit iie w&o drivlBg abottt 30 kIXoo sm kour; i&o wootiior 
woo Eiioiy, foggy so4 t&o rooi ocvorod witfa oluoli iraiirife wno bo«,li.i.iiig 
to frooso and wisio v«ry oiijjjjory in ope to; u^at tiio vioibUity wno 


•A •# «r 

htm »jR>d x^f 

(^liH^lt^ qS U||« 


, rt«W»i>8 

9%9W X*^ itt^ «' 

to laai •AJt ao «»«li iiiiili o^^ :iolSn»ii.i >ti4« •! 

^..u . an^d sew 0^'' 

;•!«;;» Hi T*^ 


ef th« r^ftd; th&t I)* ij86ei!i«>^l»tQXy «t»rt«A to otraigutAa it eat but 
waft ttniue««^0t-Tal; t£i%t tJi* Isu* »kl.1d«d on c<;^ 'tlie eol*t •b.ouXtdtvr ea 
tH« ftottth 9l<i* of th* reaJ. whorft tltttr# «mt no guMrd f«»o«t; ta«it Vskrn 
foft «hottia«r gftVfc way M"j»i ti»« tett» turneA ©v#r. * thin fcffldfiwlt 
:pttrr«ortg to *># wwor» tcs ©« te« 4tii day ai" ii-arcii, li?57, fcut ?Ji» 
'iot« !■ »pi^syr«tntly » iK^lfttiyiL* {>«««><«•« ti%« »i»ti«n 'v^^ma mtik4it itMMrski 
10, 1937. 

fia«i& tn* i«otlo« l'4»r «iotitiiiu«irii«3« tiiit ta« itlli-iitYlt of i&r. 
J^ttgX«r In «app«rt ei It ««7« »tibmltt<HS «m lii^itiritjij^, eouBsel foir 
iplnlntiif tttbi(^itt«d ft saunter ftfi'l^avit 9«itlai ap ti^.at oxk Mar«li, 
4 «©'«««! fnr ditf«4ifcnt8 sulJiaitt«4 mst «x»ct «<*|»jf ©*' to« ft/i'i4«iTlt 

tiau&acii; %h%% t£i#]'«»piiti Jtt€g@ i^iid«i|' eeKitl«Ui««f th« trial aatii fcareh 

^©tli enwisetl aB«iw»rt4 ti^«y w«r« .r«w4y. «*©iwBi«ii f®ir 4#l'«*i4»ik'st0 «ii^ 
%h9 eo«rt r»fu««4 to r*f»4 %h* mttt4wi% ir« ftitp|»«rt. t»i ish.% tt^tiea, 
Imt irt t>^lml tii» i"fO«rd vltvws ya.*t t^« .oi^t^tiktti «»i' I^k al'riAmvit 
w^T9 •Sii99nn»B€ I'uily Ifty «<e»m)»«l, so im.&% It was w^sft^fttto^d t»> tlic 
•tTadg^t «irk«>£i h« ^ftiviM th<i moti^o for « @outinu»j&eft, 

thllBt oWi«uttly» t£t« dlrlver mi «.u« but i¥a« nua Ijiist^Qrla&t 
witB«e8 I'OT d«f»r.dia«it»» v« %ui&k It is» a»t at all ^l^At t^at 4«» 
ftisdacts u»e^ fttt« dilig«me« te i).%v« nim t«»»tii>. Ib*jr wi^tt, a* 
tU9 eourt ii»id, i%»v« tryuan hin 4«]^o«iti«>n, eoi^ a <»«i;^«id«rati0i» ef 
six th,# record la«4le ta g,rairii <jIqu1»% a« *o vti#tk«r i^a^ry vottld «Ttr 
%p0Rar %« a witneac. It a^p«ar«» that UMPHh X& A«itmi^Uit» )»avtd f%9 
a «iOf«tteuiane«; Jiaraia 16 vmit ««tian fmr a n«w tri«4 a«« filad, 
wiileh *at net ovdrrul^ aritil Ai^rll 17, l»at ii©wa»r« i» it «tt«&eata4 
that JParry h««,^ be«n f e.i»n4. ^» tkt»JK tli* «<*urt «a« ri^at in ^rmT" 
ruling tha esotiftci. 



. 4.«« ma^ ft^it it«iU {lJ/!r^.««»««JtiMr lURV 

^««M 9m, «»# jha» x;«w t«v«ii iii»Xfii«/t8 #tot 

•ill i« ft< 

-•fc . 


X0\ Mt%lflMl MH.I ti.«MV •Via' 

.a«ixi •««$«»' A/Ml •Ji.t 

«l«h (U ^^t*. 

Itottltscit who w»g on» «f th« ti^o«^^^6*>'S lxtjur«(l la Ux» mti<iiAimt, to 

4»tori1)« in v)#tjftll ihtt injuries une tmntainnA, «hl» « 
was pfts^mi tt«<.t foil' ti%9 purpow« of mowing ^r». &auX ton's con^itloa 
a.t the tlKff Cul|» o1»t<iii>in«4. th« writtde dtntosxttfit »i(^fif»d ^y ti«r, V« 
think th« t<^«tlsso»:7 woultl cl^mtlf in>il6At« Vhitt Mrft. Moulton v«« 
in »0 «oa4itioa to i:;iv# i«iiy »t«t«a<mt &t tilt tiw«. imil tbe Jury 
kaJ % rlKht to knov this in p.»e«iKi:tg upi>& thm v«igkt to b« g,lT4NB to 
t)l« tJ&r«« written >«tat;««<«Hr)tt pr^pstT's4 by aul,|i «t th« t^i^, ttt wut«li 

@oei|iil«il&t i» »X»9 mvk^% thmt th« siri^Mflioat of «ciun»«I I't^r 
l^laln^tiff wftt blfbly p7«Ju<tleiAl j tkat it o«i.u««<l plii^liitliT te ««'<i{t 
i» th# prw^^na* oi* tk« ^fary. w« hAV« «ex*££iA«4 t£L« ar^-ai»«iit» el* 

tayfeleg the T^rdlat «i»^ Jtt\f,4p.««it. 

Iior <io ff« t»i»k tJu«F« i« Kiirit lu tu« co»i«£itl&a t^/tat^t tk« 
ver^let ^4 iua(i$jKi«iit iHi^Aiaat de]t»fid«kBt llii&oi* $ftr« lay Lis«tt, 
Ine* , i« net eu^portiNl 'b^ aittj e«>^.]|^«t«nt «Yl4e!t»o«. €cittK>»«;i iM^lts 
Vai<^ feme if«» ©wfi«A liijr t&l» >i!ef«ti«lAMt teut 9i»«r»t«d toy t&« ©Ui^ra©* 
f^<S«int, a»'1 tl:i>9r« i« ttfiiimiett to t^i« tlT^at that tli« butt v«i out 
ef rtpmit. In th««t ffir^tjevtaJ-^oAS W9 think. l»ot^ n'dald )}• lia'bl»» 

Pt „,^ „^«,„lf , ait.,.«a,,^ff„i,..,T,. fc;f^M,ll> ^i iii. **«J Fft. Co. V. aiittt. 

XSt 111. «M; X Oo«i#y to Tort», s*c, aa (♦tii «4,) 

:9«f«£idttiit» furt»i«!r ttent«iai4l t^Mt ta« judj;;^«iit la no ta>> 
e«e«iYt '%« to 4#s-o»«tr»t« ta«t it rtm^lted fmi« ptasslon «a;4 pr«^tt- 
4t««: ri&tlitir t^tta froK » fcklr xmd iiii#«rtl«. triia. Br. Bl^ek, wh^ 
first tr«att4 plaifitirr iurt#r »ii« was t««.*«i^ te t&« hospital at 
J*«wi»t<5«i l«««4l»t«3.y Kft^r tii« *eeiTi«»t, tffstiniHl Us treats* h«» 
at tiss ii««|»lt»l for alftsut s*^*!! ir«<fj£«, t)fia«ft «&« «»« ablo ts leavs 


, *'- f «*•' 





-119^^" f» '*»y. >* 

^ tt^M-iv ««« «w^ 9«4 

• T*«A «i 

<*ti **•« 

,(Ul 16 


for h«r la«Mi« 1» ChlenfiOi th«t atoa «x«iKl«3.tie« ii« fvuad plKintirr 
•ttff«ri»g from profound tnMW«.il« shoeki th«t la« tcva^ sot tAk« 

X-rm^ni of hittt until tvo or thr«# Auyn l«t<»r; that ti3«oo ploturoo 
r«(T««l<iMl II. tr»n«T«r«« fraetttro n»«r th« »ld^2.« of ^« ei!i««t ol' 
th« left oittvlelo, diti»9JL«kOOt^ont of tho top «i tti« ft^ouldor» ta«« 
fr»«turo« of lior rl1»o o» t^« l«ft sido n^ikx tii* mnaXauX f^%%>hmmvati 
thftt h# r#-^tteo4 t^o fraoturiio u&d placOAd tli.« ftm* in oyiiet* for » 
v««Jk, fshon tiiojr wore roA^-ov^d! tuat auo voal^S Unrm i»«r&iai»fi»t dofortKlty 
«ad dlfAMlity; toftt w^u<»t ono loft t^o haopltal 9U« could I'alRO iaor 
loft ano oafflolft&tly to f«od h^ieaitXti, 

Br. Lovontntol «»f Gi:i tftgo t«itifiod t^i*t ho trft&tod va&lntlfT 
for ft^otat t^roo asoutho; ti^at v^os'^ Jno f irot w kor ho f^oe^i a ll&.ito4 
notion of t&o lof% o^tooldor Joint la oil <Ureotl{>a« mttd k»u«&ilB4g 
of tho t»oa« in tho loft «lftvloX${ th«t iio )^l»o found f rootaro of 
%h9 lot »Bd '%d ribt! %loo tho 61^ liod 7th rlbo o% tl^« l«ft olio; 

tiiVtIt ho last O-XKBalAOd t'^.O $i|i^tl<Mlt on t^^ !l.Ay of %h^ 0OMaMHb04N»«iit 

of tii« trinl, kjwfftto S, 1S37, isoro thmn two y«mr« mftur ttio »6oldOBt{ 
ihot h« still fou«d Iteltod litiotioit of froaa m% to ft&^ i» tao loft 
ohottld^r in rotation foroturd icd toookword; tiiAt ii« aloo f^ued 
^lolAtlff otill Hftd pole 1» kor eiaoot due to » for«!! of n^ut&tuk, o 
%tilt;(mo forffifttldo on t)ao lti%«ro«8tal a^rvo 1^ tiio re^^ien of tisio 
oooond Mt4 third ribs at Vn^ si to of tno fraeturoo: t.n«t u«r oeAdl- 
ti«» would bo porr^oaoiit. 

Ihr. &lttth«ll of C .ittoigo totttlfiod th»t tiio JUrayo rovotaod 
Ukm fr&oiuro of t&o oollAr feo&o wo^o i& ib&d i^ooitl«ft, ho woro tJ&o 
iioatlod frftoturoo of tli.« rlbo; uml hv fou&d tho ilj^ltfttloB of pl»lii* 
tiff *« l«ft o^ttldtr tc 1^m «b«mt 90^, mni t^c aofidlUoa wao pons*. 
BO«t, f£x^4 thot i>l«itttlff would coniiJTiue to £iiiYO palB, 

«lll»ii » ooaoldoratlon of all tho «vldoi^o« le t^o rooord wo 


^4^ > .•.v..UiV"i T r.:,.; vlrv »■» ,-iJ^-St*'- ';■ waft 

iff HiSix Id. 'Iiit»<l1|t 

. . ...:.,- v,.-J |M»*^>*i *"- " «"' l«|?i 

^nx ji«« 

: i V 

V ■i«v*.,v.,.,'« n»i ..*v,i.^«« 

. > ,. ^ « .;;,w .* , •'•, v i£ » ti if A iw w W jMi ^ 


T* ucafclff te fifty tr.&t iXtf ^«r<!lct of -Uie jury i« t»e e>(e««*lv« 
«• t© 'W'ttrrftr.t lrt«rl' m; our part, i^d ih» 4uvl4,iifc«iit ol' fih« 
Circuit fitcurl of Cook coutttjf 1b affirmed. 

»eiur»ly ssttfl aateh«tt, J.T, , ooDour* 




and RZ0G3 01P7ZCAI. Gc^P 




i/ t: X 9r\« O =L A. 

&ii. i?as&&iDiiia Just Id o*ca££Oft 

VfthXgrco; tu r«tooTtr |XQ,OCO elAlmtA to fUkv^e&rt.M lay pialbtiff 

fer X«g«d seri?l€«t whieii ii« iotA rmdnr%€ Sata^rftc. MIX* Vajuxgrne, 

vif« cif ^ATle ii. W&i-«Xii;r«a, st&a ui« iilei^s ai^UajO. Uo^^piutj, CocivoXi- 

ittt«4, & efirTiOif«i(ti<m, w«frtt J«iii«4 &« 4tttf<^JttJiits tt»4 plaintiff 

frftywS «B Injanetion t# r«»tr«iifi »«»i||^>isg, $iX«4t»i&g tr trftnBf<>r- 

rlfig ef XOQ ah&i>«s ftf stoejt Ui %h« Mlg^a i/ptieaX Uo., whiek pXain* 

tiff eX«ii»«4 b«>loah^«4i t« 4tf«Bdftf)t, isCarl* Q, W«aiXf;r<»ii. At thv 

MHft* tlei# plAltatiff •u«d «ut ft writ &i' fikt%u.m-immxt In i&id guad f iX»4 

«m ftffi^mvit is whii;^ bit airor* t&»t th« ^a&X^r«ct v«ra r^tidi»Rts 

af OBMki», S#liT»0lca, ani Ri^g« Optleckl Co.,a for^ipi ooriioratioa, 

^elng b^«ica»t in Qtiioim^, ^f^* s«npe4 ae garuiai&aa. FXaiKtiff 

fil«4 irit«rroigibt'^rl«a eone^rttixt^ fch.« Xuo stiiAraa of ttoak wniaii ha 

eXaii&«« Wa^Xgrtm «r liia «rira otmesd. tha OptioaX Ccu^fanyr acia««re4 

tbAt it h.%A 110 pro|>arty lamlnn^i&g to l«i£aisra&, bat that it Ua4 

ia»tta4i ita two aartificftt^a of iteoAc* oea far &} aharea &a D^aa^^bar 

3Ci» X9a3, acid tba otii«3' far '^ 8)&*x«a an Si-ajrali XS, 19^, but Uskat 

it dl<l Bot keow tiia i^haraabtttta of tiia ear&if iaataa. ac c<r4ar 
a»ar«tini( a writ of ifijui.atiaa as fir&^ad far was «fitara4, Many 
•thar ordara wara «iitt«rad, tt&naaaaaarr to staiitiafi hara, Haa aaM 
^»«» traeafarrad ta tha i»P 9i<ia ©f tha aaurt, aad an Jli«« X8, if 3?, 
taa eourt aetarad et crdar raeXtiag that tha Kattar a«ka aa te ba 


lid .A.i i^^^ 

V W« — A •«» 

• *■ ^if; 

im<- .11- BA'l 




•**3 • 

(H ,9% 


. MfA 

•• jkita , 


ft ft JlitO 

«<»/j ii« 



livMrA o» n«tleit of B«rl« d. V«hler««i to tttaab th« writ.^f attach* 
»ta% or, li^ tho alt«irb»ti-?6, to aiaftuargo th« icuniloii**, tiio 
lUcco Optical Q-', tk« «ettJrt fooxtdl tiiat tiio Optiestl Co. I>a4 Audo 
full di«elesurt it> lt» Msowor «ttd tixat at tko tijio, *oi' tho 
luUcifi^; of s«ld euotioe r^o trovoroo to 0014 tmsvor lt^»^ boon riX«<l b/ 
tlio pXaXntl ff liereia nor mvy i«tuo ct&onfioo sMo on »iiltf aiisworo* 
tho Motion to ^uai^ was der^iod on4 it waa iartuor or4tr«4 tiuot tli« 
•lt«itiotiv« motion of Bmrlo a. 9«u^0lgr«n to diaoiiarge tki» gareloicioo 
^0 id^evod ond tho g»TOi>iioc ««• disoh»rs;«4. Xt it to r«v«r«« tbitt 
ordor that lair. tiff pro8«oat#» thin app«al« 

Karlo 0. Vahl^riKn oloao filod hitt Isriof in thi« ooart. 
Hiliji., his vif*, «lld cot ^Ktor h9t g«ii«ral a^|!«arNii«« and tao Bio^s 
Oytioal Co. has not ai(»'p«ar»«t kora. larl* 0. W«^Xftr«n oot u^ in 
hio anowor that ho did not 9«m t^to otook U^ {;u«atioa l»ut tnat it 
"bolonigod to Hio vifo and ha4 i>«*& aor j^reporty for wtmiy years bo* 
for«> tli« irtotant ouit wat brou^^t. 

^eonsal for «a iu tl^^oir ^rief say, *f^o oaoo «ao 
argu*a in tno oourt ^oloiv ofi tkut ^^aootion of lav r&isftd by ti&o «£io«or 
of ti^o gamieuioo oottlnt^ iortb that tJ&« prlnoipai dof^ndant ap^oarod 
Mi a otooM^toXdor of roeor4 of tiio s«(Tii iaJiieo <:ojrporatiofi.. titi:koat a 
tra^oroc to tho anoaor, it «aa ^ropor to dioaaar^^o ta« gari:iiohfto on 
tho f%ot« aioeXoeo4 in tiio anovor. ( 2a»ffoob , ijaafej& y. ^drow. 91 ill, 
App, X4S. 

*£ot until long aftor tiim sm&f:lttimx of ti»o ar^-^ff>«fjt vaa it 
ooirtod out to tKo court that a travoroo l^ad boot^ fllod - a trav«r«« 
filod on th* day ttus ari^>^ant vat ooMplet^d. So por&it thia trav^roo 
to bo now uaod t« oupoort a p^ «« of orror in tha judi^Bont bolow would 
o«r»it tfeo purpoiratioa of a fraud u^on tfcia oourt. ^bo court bolow 
properly roeoj^Utod tJriat tiio travoroo wao unaYaiilAg, rooiting in 
tho ordor a^poaiod from that no traToroo wao or. filo at tJao tiao iao 

»dt ."(i/uilwri*! was ^^^Hi^- it 'ft ,«▼.' .to *«».:■ 

«a«»je« iii«%xic{iiir .Q •x««s 

. -^ajf* «•''' '»«« jfoa H' '»-^" *-■='* t»«»(3i( •lit 

1 TW JiJ-^.S. ..T<» »: 

•aX^.VA'li •liiJ 5. 

SMitlftG to dltohcre* th« gtkTBiMhKti «as 9rtt«£t»d and «rgu«d.* 

fk* r«#oriil Is »o»«wi:i«i.t 9oorus«d but «oufi»«l for w«hXgr*R 
•*y thiki th« notion to <|u«iA tho 9ktt«.o ««nt «fi<l to di««£ia;£« tlM 

•rgu«<l 0ii thiikt 4«kto; Uiait it vfts furth^or «irguo4 I>«o««i)»«r d, fol> 
loving. Qn tHo Bmmm d«to pX&lntlff fUtd hie riiply, trtiTeroing 
tho lOiviftr of ititt £arriish««. iU'tf^rviura bctli p«jrti«s 1 11*4 typo« 
written brl«ro with tkc court, whios; tre ii^ tae reoord (ft r&tlitr 
WBOKAlotto ffieiro4.) Itt oaea oi' thooo triol's t .« ^aootioa of tbo 
trftT«r«« it dlooiftood «m4 eoottooi I'or Wakil^^r^m 8».j^ tu«»t Uio aeoiror 
should h^YO b««& riiod wituin n^ ^Lmyt^, but was tiot Ul«d lor »«ay 
Kootbo Sifter tfoo iiarrtisi^oo** saiswor, fMi tiiernS'ore otme too itite; 
but j&e oueii point in suki^i U, %txm briof liltHt a«r«» ao Uii% oont«n* 
tion is wsiv«d. thn travereo hmvln^ boei^ fllod JSeooabor a, 19311, 
«ft4l briofs taor«aft«r by botk aiden« ^ina th@ or^or spp(i«il«4 fro« 
»«t )t&Tin« b««n onteroA until ^ttlto 15, 1937, v« Mkink Un^ court wss 
nst vmrr)»s>t«d in passing on tM« qiisstioa am s )ftstt«r of 1«», but 
t)is plSMfliRgS rsi8S4 a lUAotion ol" fftOt, l^«ih«r ta* stock o»rti> 
fioAtst 6cal^ b« r^soliM by garr^isosumt dcp'^nds upon Vtie fasts. 
Mtxnn^or ▼. J^lvs a tton l>»tti^.. ^ 2«S IU» A^ji, 3ia. 

Xiis Ju(44,«*»it oi' ths Cireait oourt of Uock county is 
rs'vorso4l mi^ th« onus* r«a>nnd#d. 

axvsaj^B Alts asitAKasB. 

Iift3ur«ly snd katoiiett, JJ. , e^iour. 

. .-vv ' <■ '■' x-\ . fen* 

- # .- . - .: ........ ••?;■: iicf.;..ji » klt^i^'t ni3|«AS*#i«tiq f».»'^^ 





BM*^, » Co ri^ ration, aa'4,#-:/aa^' 
Stftt« Thrust aad i»iitrieig» .;:.MaJt:, 

4i.A. 611 


KB, jySTlCB ll«0JJ@aT TJ^LlVJailB THS 0$»II»IC^ ©J^ f« COyRf. 

In ©to««e«ry «tt4» a« »9©ott«*tlaiit a»4 f«an4 taat iioti-iinii ««,• da* piaia- 
tllT «ei<s r«ooffi%«a<^«4 th,a.% tfe« bilX ¥• dl«eEiis««4! «xo«{>tiofis to this 
ir«r« »u»t%ln«4 1»y the ehdACcaXor, who e»t«reA & 48ert« ai^aiatt £u«il«« 

Th* W9rtmim.»Btmf trust 8k»4 ;^«ivi£ig,s Jsn&jt, mud QskarXaa d. 

trusts*. Th« a«ar«« ai>9«^&]L«MS frsiB el9«^s fi«t siTsat titisn* 

tsrvdi i»t':> an ».gJr»'!^§ttnt l©r tfeft |»urQliai#, sufetllYisioK suad ssls sf » 
ix*<»«)t ef l.»n4 O'ftsir P^lfttiat, Coeii' asuzity, Xllliieis; tht undsrtaiiiag 
ssntsKplatsi thst ^sfsa^aol voaXS p%y for ths rsal »BtAt« ms4 plAin* 
tiff woul^ sab^ivids oJCti s*lX Vn^ ii>ts; 4«f«K^«Eit obtalnsA ttis ftA&ds 
a«s«8«ar^ for th.« purs'amss frset b«r l^jrot-.-sir, Mr. kolntasli, berro«iA« 
f 94 , $%a. ilKr , fc^ivlag ixlse hsr »«t« for ibis. 

#«t9ru«r7 i, 19 S6, tiis jf^artl«s si^stA mi&t is cadlsd * trust 
agr*«it!%4mt wnish susuid «oiitreX tJaslr el«aa.laf;s. thin prsvidsd taat 
Uis StAt« ls»k sf CiaioAE'-^, Q»X^«4 trasttt«, wnioh huA tskMi tltl* to 
«i^« Xsod, sliouad i!««X4 it in trust iOid 4«ia wita it as 4ir*«t&4 hf 


^r ,.^ 

^i^l.uU iUil 'XS9 

•Mvt mat ^e i^JL# 

ih« fiittnvbgajr htkd «x«luaiv« ylKiHt to »«I1 Ui^ Iota Ui i2i« itu1»«liTi»i»a 
at net !••• tti»& e«rtall£ fix«d 4&JLAl«aa» prlatt; the tiafti) «oatr>ik«t« 

■w*tr*i to lixR n<^14 hy the Stoftt* ^imis At trust«« an^l ih« pa^MxiNRta utA4« 
hj 9areha9«^rti «houX4 b« »ad« to it; th* lum&gsir ft£«.ouX4i r«o«lv« Mfk 
■p9T c«nt of tu« 9ttr«aH«e !».r.l«« of tto.# lots ««li by i:ii» '.^kS Ihtt »»&•• 

e*lv«i by tii« t]M»t«« froBt tiritt partsuaa^rs, ^ft«r p«xl&g th« tjrtt«'> 
t««*f oiiargen, eiieuX^ t^« d«t Aai<a« a» • sinking I'u&d, and that «lti», 
aft«r i»ayitt|^ oartttiit t»aar^tta d«jr«lisiiltejr at«i>t«4* tu-sriat atioaXd ht in 
th« alnki&g fund emy aawaatt, tJaa truataa viaa to pay oat'^ataf to 
th* bi$4>*l'lelary, daf^^xtdiuat , Aiuti oii«-l&air to Uxa s^^^a^ig^^r, pXa^tilT, 

•f ta« nat Dfoi'ita froa> t^ie e^a ei' t^ic aui^diYliiiloa loltai aold by 
hin under tha {»r(9viaionB heneof, aii5 yi«r«»it«r all auali ajtaaaa 
aaall b<f pistid m tha B«iti«2'i6iary.* 

Xh« ltafiii« t« ba f»aid fr«>4a tlia slAKl&g fuad bafere u^wra eould 
ba miy <ilvlalaG bai«#«ei tlt« Kjuaager &si4 tisie b^tiatitttiury are llatad 
In th« agr9ii««&t aa tajtaa and aaae»i^.«itt«, intartet Mpofi r^otas gives 
t«^ affeura any mertgag*. it. suffieinitit aMiimt t«» »<^eui*« a r«lftaaa of 
tba aubllvialon 3.afta fren th« li«m of aisy truat dacird. i»«»i# of da- 
faodant for $a4,sad,3# to th«i ordar of Arthur t, kolittea^, with 
tnt(»r«»et ur»e.ii tha »ot«( mk4 ttia r«f»ii3r«»eat st i&oBaya adfe^aad by 
daf«s^«st UDdar tha |»r«tYiBiafi in tti« e^reaAwnt of aaotlan 9, nrtlela 
9, tiaat iH^haa t^« &io&aya liald by tiia truata* ar« not aunieiAiit to 
^ay v&t- eixargas aAd ax?«ri»»a, tba b«&«flel»ry iit«';jr««!a fortuwlth t« 
pay tha truataa t^aa ast/euat nati«>9«tary. luara «a8 i& further prairiaion 
is tha aKr«t»ant daf living *aat prefita^" whiaH varr^ to ba datar&load 
by tl^a aaii ing ^ri^a of tha Vota leas eaasH difteounts alxawa^t to ^ur- 
aiiatara, tha Kaitag^ar'a a<m»ioatotta md tba IttM* abova llatod. ^«- 

{ \X^»i«)i t3'i«> - &8xXftaj ilte^ar 


«.iLi*i-b4 fci!*.Kll aj-*'J?Tf'& at*. 

mwim mil- 





1».«B«fiol«y7 «nd thtt t.'t«usdi^«r •£> tb^ l^tU 9t ntkUii ciortth during ti&« 
«0BtittUtta«« of th« trust M£r«»»en% moki ju» ftssount 11.8 siKy t'« du« 
tli«tt *aif t*]* «1X Ui« <>)»«krg«» «uud 4»4uatioaa A*r«lr« provided I'cr 
k«.ir« )»•«& I'ulljr }»«ld.* 

It it the coatMition of 4«f<«)diftrit, »iid tti« mafttor •• JfouBd, 
tti»t aftcix t^«86 deduutioiift un^ eh»tig«« hM l»e«n mH.<itt frotsi Ui« 
•Aou&t Ir. the alsklng fund t&«r« «raui netiiln«| to \t9 (fivldttd b«tw««B 
ill* mauciatgwr (pl^.lntlfS') «ta4 th« l»ec«ticlftry idel>»d«at. ) t« will 
l»i«r f^fer to thl». 

TH« trust «gr«*»«Bt Also aslitiutoti » ^rovistoe glTtns tUs 
%«B«fieliur3r tbs rit«ut t« t«rii&U«t« tli« vsipXeyi^ent of pl«iiatlf;r »• 
asjMiftgftr to ssll «al>«iea lots. ^> ^Iviog liO dftye !»r«Yioa» z«otl«s 
of su&i^ tejrHilettttofi. It vas ftlso i»feTld«d Xiinkt ta« trust &gr«#ib«nt 
shSttld «oiiiti«itt«i ill fuli fOYOO aft4 «i'l*«ot «il't«ir B^ch ^imt^iin^r^n of 
{little tiff »s ta«iia(^«r; ti^at tuo lotss^fiei&ry &A]r «i|»{ioiat » »«« «uKJB«^^«r 
Wt ti%»t tht tftr«vliii&ti9& of tii« »at ortty ef plsilutiff ab -A^iaiSkSdtT 
to ssll sul»<3lYl»ioii lots should not tiffoct ^ie ri«^kts to rtteoivo 
als Goa,i::*l««iott ^s &«>r«ij& jprofidod for to V« psuld to tao mmi&^^t>r on 
lots t&«rotoror« oold. I>He /j:otioo und^r Vils firorleiea 0/ t&o 
torniasttioa of plaintiff *& «iut:^ority &8 m.ik&%i^t,r w«.s» glvoB, th% Ojb> 
piring d^y btilD^ Mmy 1, 19 3, 

^li« Master «tat«d tho trustoe*« steoouf^t^ ir^ci»dl)Q£, tj&o totsl 
oontraot ealos up to hmy 1, l^tv. after doauottog eortain fraudulent 
oontrscts »»d9 to plaintiff *s fr£«nds, >md ase^i&i&ii; that all ef the 
bocft fide OficitrHots vwro (>& s e«Mli basis, »cj»uld losve a or«dlt 
baliineo of lS53,3wO,47, CoiaputiRi, tAe charges irhieh, a««ordl»g io 
ih9 trust a^reos^ojBt Ktiot b« paid toofors i±t«r« oan b# tiny aot profits 
i» tho sinking fan«, thcso total |t»e,»79.e5. do, «v«b otttiMatiag 
tho salos cofltraots ou tJbto basis of oash, vulou^ «as f».r frott tbo 
faets, thsro would still b« a doficit i« tii« sinkiftg fuiid of 

#«o •# ^*n iSimm •ft^ttKwi Mfit 

.n<f A «ittl#<«« 'k.) <6 ;i«ll 

tf»i»»f?«i'j Mh 

*-!«t»«MH%TfSiff J«»^ 

if si «r. 

~.ti»t^tn,a *iiut uj^ «A «* 

$867&.&d «tiud nothlfig to hm divided ^9 pxoSitn, 

It in aBdl»put«d, iMi founH 1>y Ute KM»t«v, U^At on K«y 1, 
19S9, d«r<s>a^iu}t «a» i»fl«l>t<«4l Iti tk^e sue^ «f ov«r $64,ti>0 en that &•• 
Ii>te»h note, vhlcr., undor Ui9 trust ttgr««M£«jit i&uet b« paid frojR th« 
(tlnJKlfiK: fu»d b9for« «iiy profits ar« paid, and t>^t th«rft «^as as 
iidbnfty in &k« sltikiug X'uja<1 to j»ft;y tJ%i*s tha^t dsi'^ralft&t hnd A4vtin«is4. 
to tia« tru»i»« mt i%9 reqtuest, for %i*a ■p^jfjm.t^ut of op^eial A«««ft»&<»nt« 
m»d i&3i«s, uir*r t»&6,0i^&, rc^x «i^ioli d«r«ri4«yE«t kad not. b««o r0i»l>ur««d 
«ti3ei vhlttit th« nlbli'iiic f^^d f»«taXd not P*3r* «^d dsfeae^Atrnt a&ads further 
tt>4v«ineie» ia |i«^.mil' »f tii^ft true%> fox w^lei.*^ *h.& hmA but b«fiA rftlc.burs«d 
Th^ ^;H.ater i'eund tl'Uit. $h« «i^jr««ei«Rt i^rovldO'd tisiat tJae d«fmidant, 
«.ii.e3« ^mtey arid crtdit fttiaiieed U^e «t»i«rpri8«, httd ih« rii^it to 
t«ac%:ieAte fij&iniiff *» i^ut^^^riiy »• mimm^er ^iUi^ut imylic^«g ttim wty 
Dr«}fi% in ii4ditioB t« hie 3# 9<!»r a*nt 0«K.^-'«i»»i<m» *'ui.:.l«t«e »»d until 
th« siBkittg fuad »«.» »«ffi©i«iit to ©0v«r all of tim ©hikrg#« Ii«t«d* 
ir< th«> trust «Hgreesi«£it, 

ObYlousiy, it w&a C€i»t«a|Slat«d taat t;;j# airikini, fui>d in t&« 
jasnat of ta« tjrastte siiaiiX^ ««r«s« fr^s* sai^ s&otualX:? rfrotslvsd. As 
«s kttvs S6f*ti, tHs »sst«r feimd tUMt rwrnn ssttuii^lnf tJii^ftt aXI ths <Mm» 
trukSts ^er^ aas^, th»r« was sii i»«tasl «i«fieit. Th^ «vit!ftno« »hovs, 
hs«i»ir#r, that 9 5 |i«ir ««i»t of trie sulBidiTisl^a Has 1>i»«i sold i'^r 
tsxss er si$soi%i asa#8^;-.«ist8, -m-i 'ths i»Btii.IXi3<He£t sulsdiYioAoa osa* 
trssts, suAouKting %e otst f 60,000 eutstaxidiag, w«r«, at th« ti»« sf 
tfeis tismrlAS bsfor« tii» laastsr, tw© to aiiis j*»jr« in dsf'vult. It 
should lis notsd tiiikt »t tilt tie!* of th« hssrlng b«$for« t*is aastsr 
t]ss total setasl loss to d»f««<ls«Jt fr^m tlats »dv«i. turs was nssrly 
#117,000. iiow, tteflu, soil tiis dsorse ai£Ai£st iisr of ovsr #64,000 ¥« 

^l^iittiff *s tJisory, foii©«sd 1>> tfas sustcsllor, is ta^t yiis» 
dsf«Rdant 8»vs notiso of tfis tejKliiAtioa sf |»lAiHtiff *s awtissrity *s 

i \m^ ttf- 


cm.:- s 


iT^.tr?^ , Jtftr JblUl 

RUMBttger, «iT(»tttiT« Un,f 1, 19V^, tii«tt h*A th« <?rf (tat of tctrBiittatiag 
th« jolt^t u.di V «;-ti tur« ott th»t di»t«, thufii XU7itl»4: tia-fi Joint ftctorprif* 
Xq the lots »el4 up to thbt ')ai«i tnat pjialtitin' vrtie (^fitit.«d to m 
acor/ut)tii}£ at of that d«feto ^nd tnat thttr« should to« olukxgod to tJ!:i« 
joint «id?'«,ri taro ottiy itufjao «J' eo«l, exi>««is««», tfc»fo, »te, , »ltii 
r^f«rc>r<ot to ^» »ol4 lotx o» kmy X, IP'i^t and not euoJH coets ineur* 
rod with roi'or«nee Le tjti* «cUr« Bitn'ber oi' lots !»• the trttot. w« 
Art* of U-i« opinioe that talt i&«!ti'.od of acotJui.t.Ui.g 1@ l)B;prop«r &» 
dlr^otly Ija ccKfllet wliia tJi® pr^visiot'stt of the tafuot iK^r^tsntrnX, 

Xh« f^klXaw^ in plti.Uitifi' * » {}d«sltiori le Iti t&o «uifli<«iiftlc>Ki tlittt 
tfeo traot lii^r^era.iaat »»,« t«nRi6&t«<! wtri «R^cd vuen i>l«liitirr «at iro* 
siov^d A« Kii^Ks^ier. iJeotlou t of artiel* 4 of th» irumi a^reftwont, 
Wuloh |>ycvid«8 I'-iV th0 t«f3».lriiatloii of *Jie fcttthorlty Of piaintiff ttt 
a«ll JiuVdliriBioi* lo*8, »^>">oifieaIly provl^i** that *tH.i« Truot A£y«*» 
Ei«nt B;m-ii coiit. Irmo 1» fall J'orco mn4 «n"#<it,." B#etion S of artlolo 
6» whioh pjr«7irld«»& for ih« oiuj^iiig fuad for moftccyo rooolvod Iby tht 
tru»>«««, »p«cifl«0 t&at tlvo cimrg<<>» tm^i «i»E^«£k)6(oe tii^rii i t«Mt4so^ %r« 
to b« 'i^)U.4 fr«&. tk«i 9ini&iiR£ fund b«fore titt:«r« is amy ^intrihution, 
S'teilon 4 of i&riielo ft fn*«»vi<S»o that aft«r ^« spuoiflM «xi^»hs«8 
!*&▼» tio^jni ^»ti<i taoii tiio truBt«»e wliauli 4iTldi« any «xo«»« T»«twi»«ii 
l»l«*liatiff arii^ .^«fw<4«nt. It la cioar ta*t, l!^«yoci4 iilo SiS ii»«r c^nt 
oomsbiflolon* i^'l&lntiff l« «ittitl®4 to notiUmg tmX*o« Ihmrm »ro moneys 
ill iHo otBlcii&K foxiA iei oxeeoiks of th^^ ehirirges im^ «iixp<mn«ii^ »f«ol2'lo4 
la «oeti©M 2 of i&rU©l« 6. tJostels^t^est wltii thlir i» tiio furthor pro* 
T 4a lea i» soetloA 6 of artSoio « ti^»t tUo tmetoo ohall pay to plain- 
tiff aK<! dof<««-.1ai:it aBiomito 'itto thwa "aftor all tbo ciiar^oo and 4odae- 
tiona h»?r«lei pro^id«4 for lu*Tr« Iseen fully paid." 

It wottld ooosj to ba aalf-oYt^vnit that th#»r« eoal^ >e no 'll'»i« 
9lojs of orofito until all oxpwiisto &n4 ob.»rg«» i&ourr«4 lUiOttld Y« r»j- 
tali m^ Xh» roi!»«tltlo« !» tfca tmat «««8&«ttt of tbla pro^iisiott 
lftair«!«lt lj«yoii4 rootis for tf©Btrov«roy tu»t ttw. |>rovielofi« of tkio 








^%J ^U^»k;«Tlf*H '•»»•» 

r A#'S) ■'*«X 

trust fter««Mu«Bt, sjiA »mp«eifkll'j tioit* with r«far«<iic« t4» t^« AIyI- 
■ion of profits, otUX e^ntitiucd to oontroX r@(^virdlsss o;t' wh<HK Uk9 
authority sf th« lataca^cr to net as na.l»sm«n s^aiiouX^ 1»t t«<at«d. 
to hold otiiit«rvic« It to Ififior* tlit ««11 «»tttiibXl»n«'l rulo tteAi in 

Qocttruifig aontmett ntt^at will t»« glvAji, If possiMo, to «a«Ja 
el»uff, 9^r^«e %n>l vorA u»««l In tho aotitrsct, £^« Lt Is prAsuned 
t:^0.\ t&e partisA i:u{»jiuit Aoitttt-i^lAg ^y ^^ u£« oi' Uift i»urti<iulajr 

ica)t^<itt#« ttt«d. ag«.^ y. A«i^ it^i^ BtHtt Bfiti'^^ 54e Hi. 174, iat. 

It Is sLlffc %h.9 iral* th«t «ti«£> ;;«arti&s have by Uxeir t;; ft|i;r«tt4 

A.0 to th« motaoA of t^ilbg t^« »ecou%tt, thlte «lll !>* h#ld to fur* 
nish %h9 tru« »ul« ooiatroXllciii -Uxo ^octoimtiibg. /^« »«« ««i4 is 
Pt>»r <|« ,Y. „?«arft,|g. 77 III, Sft4« Sfl4, tia« eoarj^/^outid to a uto tht 
attOO'uoit &oo':rtSls« to ths t&girn»m«.r^% of tiao pwiv%u*x9, a court of 
•fttity SAnnot subKtl tute h 4lfr<%r«nt cotstraot free:, titie on* mftdo Vy 
th« parties tii«»oslvss. Cli-trk v. feulr . a^S tli. S43, 6da. 

1%% trial court, ap^^i.r«iEUXy, «*• af tiii).iu>.opii^ioici ti^^^t %• 
enforoo thoso provisions of Um t.rust Hkj^rottt&sti'i was trnfftir to 
l>1^4i.4jatiff . ^'« do sot SMt''*^ «^lti^ this* |j«l'efi4iuut fiAsuiood tiM 
•»tir« or.tftrprlso, SAd vliy eliould plaintiff, wj&o jxtui ttlrottdj ro* 
«9ivsd 2d ii>«^r a«»t as oofi^^a.s8iOfi« in oASiOk, r«e«il-9-« lyfijr »ii04|ps4 
S^refits l»«f<»ro 4of«i^4ttat r«d«ivos «&/ of tao ^tMou£kt t»i!i« ittT#steiif 
V'hy 9h0al4 plttiatiff too OK^tiUtd to profits fmA U»e d«f«(idsnt loft 
9^it.'i ft f«i41»|g h0|»e of roaolviag -^ajr r«tura of tko jsonsys iulviuia^ 
\>y iior* ^» w« U.%vo Kotodi »b©ve, sue ii&« *ar«atiy suffortd » loss of 

Otbor oonsldormtions, wl;loh it is«««SKary to dlsauss, 

ftlso lfra4 us 10 V%& coAoIusloii tliai Ui« urlal eourt srrsd ia sustain* 
inis tbs oxo*? ti©»» to t-0 teftstfir's r«;j>«rt i!«..4 it, entwriiie tlis lAs&ant 

m* 4loer«f is th«r«f»r« r«¥«rs<»d ar.d uie uauss is rossadoA 
wtt»» ^lr«otioes to (tlsc^lss s^ltiifitiff *s iua«ua«d teUi of ooiuyylsSiilt ttt 
«oe«rdtuB«« with the r^eoiw.sriii^Uon of ui<!? »»i«t«ar tc oJ-iftn. «ry. 


O'Conror, P. J., -rtjni Jtatohstt. J., aoacur. 

.„ .__ . ,rr ,:t,;!:C 

. ..^-.. ..- ^ r^itip^ 

■ -.. * .- ^iri«» 

, a J in.". ' i»'" *" 

, ' » 


mk.U f, inXJJKSK AHA EATIB aAC!£, 


) |#FEAL JWOm 80l>l$AXOll $o«ntT 

coll. coan'TTf. 

294I.A. 612 

■ia, mmtm mmma^t mLmimm tm mihim m tn^* ewir, 

t^t Chle«m6 hmik. «!* Co2»««r«#, isi. free«»8 of Jkli^uldfl.t;l«», to A6««|it 

lik in^msfi 1,?34| partis ^f'iliil^ft v^3r« etsms^imeeHa. akg^ir«8t tix« si^eJe* 
lix<^ltmtn of me ahi«iii^e BfM&is. Chl" t»ir.$ser0e to «f»}*«'jre« iia.« ateekiuol d^rti * 

ti-tiwa of I3,lii»®ltt, Hol^ftrt *r. araf, ©lift OJ' ttit «t»«ifii®14»r«, fil«4 
MR atavwur, w%<i. tli« 1^ <ki'i.i»%c«7|r i« vhwie th« eaaa« ««ui rof trrAi 
f®r h«4*rii»js: T*port«*f tliat iSrar wae 11^1« l«s tJa« nmoutit of #134,&d.5. 30; 
s.ft«r*ar4 ar«f . fey pttltlon, ofr»r«d to pay #56,280 ie ruli oottlo* 
•out tmA e*tlefa&tl«£i ©f itlt liiibility «■ » J»to{»khoid«rt plAkSittttn 
suTitwar*^ to tfeo *fftot th«t Uilo «rf#» oottl^ KOt l»c AOOAptod vitheut 
« ol#*r »h©wlf»4jt of lK«0lv«»oy oi* arftf. Tho r«i>ettlYor rooomstttidodl that 
tho p3r«j?(&«ltion bo »oo«9t*4. 

nt.'iout ii««rlojj m»y i(iri.S«4«o, juid evor Uio oto^ootlono of 

I«if| k%hm 




f,^ ^^. VWjf 


o .A.i^es 

Urt to « 


;.j4l|9t40 •J^ 





't« til 

jj^m^^^. % I^O,.C HiAV/2//J^ 

oottnitX lor plaintUTa the «ottrt grarittfA th« i»r«yez> of Srskir»t p«ti- 
tion an4 entflirttd tH« erAftr thmt thia pro|io«iiion b« «ae«|»t«<l. 
?l»lntllTs a|»p»«l I'roa thi« ord«r. 

In th« rottent eas* oi" feuylft t. Heliiwict Bsuik St Trast Co .. 
367 111. 196, it vas Held tiittt a trial oourt ha» ao )(»e««i7 to 4la- 
eharg» a ato«kiioid«r ol art Illixioia baalc froa any part of th« lia- 
bility tajpoaed by tiift coiaatttutioa without proof fey ta« «toeldioi.d«r 
of hia inaolYenty, and that any «»*•» di»«hargHi« t*»« atoakkoldar 
from liability u^kon t£k« paymaat of a eun Itas thab tiiat imi»oa«4 1»y 
lair la arroot^oua and void. 3a« alao, inirolviag tna nsmti poix>t, tht 
oi^inloB la tiie ca«« of Gardner y» Attl»um #arJi truat 4 aaTJaga Banlt . 
QfB, £o. 39499, filod in tUie court l}«e«^lb««r 15, 1957, 

ia&k« or^or In tha ii^atisuait oaaa was «nterad bai'ora ttia da- 
elaloii 1« tb« B^rfcfjt; eaaa waa re^idarad, imd tiae trial eoart iKdl- 
eatid seme d&dM a« to liia |»oirar to aster tiiia ^rd9t app«ai«d fro»« 

Counsel for Graf in ^la briaf tuir^aate that plaintiffs 
eonaentf«! %ti tiia ordor and ar« tit«r«fora aBto»|>«d froia bow objecting. 
Th« Tii90T& dofts net b«ar thia aut, fha ordar itaftlf ohawa plaiatiffa 
objactoid and asceaptad to the ontry of tli« ordar« Otlior pollute mada 
AT* lilctwiec witliaut n<^rit. 

la tha •rdar appaalad froa tlie liability of iivai la 8t%ta4 
aa |7S,0(K». fh« maatar fixad his liability at $lS4,>. In th« 
reoly briaf |»liilntiff8 aay Uiey did £^ot argua tii« ijUOBtioB aa to Uia 
actual liability of @raf in tiia trial court nor in their original 
briaf filed in thia oourt aa tUa ordar appaalad fruK waa ma&iiaatly 
•rronaoua in diaeJaargins araf fro£& liability Uj^oii tha payment of a 
«un laaa ttiax^ iwt liability of #73,uOO adoiitted to ba du«, iMid tliat 
thia eourt «^oiild be omiflnad to tha aotual iaaua in th« trial court, 
aaasoly, tha ▼alliJlty of tha ordar di aobarging araf, 

follewiiig tha BtiyJrat eaaa, va hold that tiiat part of tha 
daaraa aathoriaUig tha rao«l-ver to satisfy th» liability of tha 

■K ^ V- 



s»mo 8 i>^ **© 



(t«f«n<iftrit Kobttrt J. QnsS upon tii* p&,ymmil of |56,a&0', le •i*rtm«Mt 
•Bd it iff r<>v«r«!ii<S, The ottunn !• rmrtsdEaded with direotionff for 
vutth further -procc^'.^laga as may b» c««eff8&iy 6ur<Rlcit«»i; vlth 
what vt^e lxaT« eaid in tliis opinion. 


294I.A. 612 


HiR, ^sfici M«m»^Ly im^ivmii^ Tfiis ©fiiiok cf tioi court. 

Aua^r, a«a«!3.»#4, lit trw«t for tJi«- «l.aiat«nt| af©B a«»rlB|t i& Ui« ^rQ» 

esuirt wr*#r«, *rt«r a h««ri»fc; by to« e-s-ayt *ltl*out a Jury, Ui«r «1»4» 
waft agaiiB <!l»iiXIow«4. Mid ai%l&i%»i ^pp#al» to ^:'tis oourt. 

SeeietjT fH thm J>lv4ii« ^ert «it rtehEijr* XiXl«.ol«, si CaVioilo r«li«i»ii« 
«rel«r, r^r waloh notes ^>.a4 b««& £^i'y«t» %• •r«»«^ cuiMl 6«rri« Aaft«r 
40lntl3rs t^i«.i^ nkorllilf l>«i'or« ta« d«><&«Mi oJT Jo»«i^ Ut^ «Bt«r«4 let* mi 

oral ikgr^mmt mi%^ hie wifn e»rri* u«t tli« #SK>00 Imt to Ui« ^«oi«)y 
of th« Divine Word »«4 «vid«jr.««4 by n©t«« •hould b« p«a4 by Carri* to 
ill* elaliiiJOit, Kll»ab*tu 'oit«4<,^«rt, hi* s'ldowcd ftliitftr, S9 U^At slMi 
sight i^ay off «kJia «x.i«tla« |8Cii)0 asfti-tiiagt eit Sa^r ae»«. 

Carrie Au»«r <li«4 April S, l{»3$, »et a«iTtng. dl«liY«rft4 to 
©ialfcant th# $SOQ^ 1» BOt^Rj t&« l«rt m *lil fe^^ttOAt-'ilrag |3CIC U 



"2X8 .A.x i:'^^ 


- *ffJ ill 


,3«i»XJ.r- ;r> 


-«V4 tut «1 ««!%«• 



, (aa9«; 


via vit^ t« x^*^** 

f«r4 c^f T«ehny« Ill.celA, to h« utiwA to educate k i&iitn ior th« 

MA<!>tJb.lcg over $ld«000, inetludiBfe n, el-^isu nt' $ac>QO whioh tht «xft» 
•ater t#*fttifl«A tr&s ttiieoll»«ta]&l«. 

Twelve wlti3e«»»» t«»tll*iffd on b©&«ki.r of th*^ ci&iiKiatit, t'lv* 
of thiR& l9»lii«; her cliiI4ir«ri. It would unduly oxtftt'd this opinion 
io 4«tftl2. tlSKilr t«»tXt£Gny. In »uls!i8t«?ie« lt> wan th«t «t th« tlm« 
•f tli» n^^TTifig.^ of ^'oaiiph atj^d C»rrl« Atttter» ^hsn tr^«y v«re i^t »m 
mUnme^A atgo, thtt^r wftr« h^ardi to ssuc* aus oratl st|j.r««M«Bt th»t out 
of J<»s«|^U s/vitLr« of tia«ir joint propcrtir $nifQ^ aiioal^ be p»i4 mi 
hie <li»ftth %n hi* slvlvr, &ll8«b«tti Stegi^wrn, ih« claimttot, wad tti».% 
thit was r«p«iit«dly r««rrir8it« wp %n the tin* of 3eti»ph*a 4«»i|h o« 
'Aaguftt i« 1930, H%^ Ajiny tl»«« t£i^«r««.ft«r hy Carrlo; tnn^t be 10% 
Joofl»i3i MBd Ciirriv i^fbd rir^^at^cti^ ei«t«d t^^at tn« s&oii«;:r to b« pAid 
tbo eX«.i£..iAnt ««• «vid«rif}«4 bj »ot«ft »lim«dl by t^« Sooisty of th« 
Sivlae "^ord* fh* «lte«««eii 4e not msrme Ui thftir t«»0ti)»ft£»y. $•«• 
Mkid th.«t Jo«o|)li Atua«T hmd prc^i»«d to l<^«tvft his sletisr iSi^OO In bio 
viJLl* Mtbon? Sto^^ero, •&£> of tho oXal>bi%&t, t«stifl«d thot tbo 
•«ro«iBtnt t«t»t«n JotoiA and e»yrio Au^wr wais that trioir property 
w»o to 15* 'iWldod «5|ttaiay - *©n#-i'i«if t© ®«« aid* Wid on«Wi«ilf te> 
tHo othoy »ld«." Another @m. of elaimiwRt ttatiflM th»t JooopJi 
Aaotor »»i,4 to ■hi?:: tao <!«/ fe«^fo^« Vi* cUod t^<it h« nsid loft •<»»*> for 
olalnont OJid nil of tMo ckiXdron. All irltnooooo oe^ia to »i(roo th»t 
l)oth Jo8«9h «cd Carrio oxproanod && lnt«tition to 1««t# oos^otuiag to 
tho cl«y8«£tt "bj wilX« fho «ntlrt «»0i» of el&inittit r^ots upon rotbor 
loooo and eutual otai«9ft«ttts «ll«g«d to htiV« b««n mad* by botll 
Jooo^h and Corrlo Aiuai«r. 

^*^ XNfcloe V. i.oahY . ?7a in. a»»p. 17a, 1^1. wo ««id: "It 


<• "J?****" C^ «» tit 

if »«»i m 



rf(r^<» «T. 

hMM long ^«tJ-^ ««I1 ««ttl«(l tli»i oattrt» X«fi4 a Tftry •UBwiiiing «tur to 
st«t«c.«ifits ol* «itii««t*0 »M %& mm% di«a4 p»oj:)l« ii&ve said." V«ry !*•« 
• f fch« «ltJ3#c»«« prttwcKl to %'lv« tli« ftariieulajr pbiTMseulogy a««4, 
«a<d »I1 »rt tea tiffing to looutt •xpr«> csiotiiii ctetmrriing «»irftr«l ]r<!»it,r« 

%vtf9r<$ th« f^iivln^ oi' t&ielr t«ffti&oiiy. Parol «iridena« tta «flt&bliaii 

•tftt«^«nt« of » dtt«eekde<jt ^KrsoB »jfty to«> oi' »uei3. nature ^s to )»%»« 
tli«r«o]a ». eorkfiluAloa ta»t ft tm^tt 'Aro»», **y«t t^«* 4«el.ttir«,ti«ifis 
BHt»t 'h» iir«et and tt«jrt»iri, ^^d* to h« ^entmllliig, «i'iO'ul.d )»• ttov^ 
3^Dfeori»tffi4 l»y «tj^i«r f:^et(» »m4 &itmiSii»i-m.^ii<ti*t ^'^^ eourlii wlxi dot 
mot ttjpnon w«r« doalarmticxii If iii^oji^ ^re otnfliatifii;, visti^uff or Uit&a* 
•iftt««^t »lt^ tk«i&«««o. ** feaMfiauMMa y^ JbAttif^ ^^t , „ £le3 III* Si« Aft, 

thoro Mfv ft £i»u&b«r of oirou&ata^ooo t):s4it B«^»tiv« tno 
tiit#ry of ttlaiamxit «!ii' % r«oulti{i^ trust, .loaioj^ii %&a u«yrjrl« iUti-i^or 
wort fiiarrlod !» lil«, acd tiiirj? Xiv«a, to«,«*tii«r «Rtii jMa^jwit I, 193C', 
v]ri«zi Josi^fti^h. il«4« Glais^^ioit toeJc no «il.«»i»» iift«r the deata oi' Joi^oitli 
t« 0(K3sptt3k GKkjnri« Aus^ffir to »®e«tt£ti 'lat tk« iidX^ige^ iruot fa&d of 
#9000 wiiioh oho oiftisio woo «stit}3li«fl'j.e4 by J9»<^v^ ^«for* Ms dt.«ttai; 
thl* ol«tm WAS flrot fU^d iii th« Matate ©r Carrlo ii*ut«r o» febra»ry 
9, 1956 » aXiaoot «i3i y«aro i».t't«jr tlit domti'; of Joaopk Aussoy *«»<! &le.oot 
thrmn y^oro jaftsir feho 4«atii of i^si-rio Jkum^ir, thin ia It^olf io a 
•troBK oiroo&sta^iio ogaisot olKlMtsuiit 'e <sl«&iia. 

Moroovor, ti^it will of UarTio kmk9T w^e^o a4£&ltt«4 to prolsoto 
Jiuo 12, Z@^3; lioT«H^*r aa, 1^S3« Qliiie^» filod u«r I'irot «loi» 
og«ii£t»t t^o «otat» C(f aikxTlo A»&or, wktoh my» ftos»rto4 «*• bitood on 
tho <do»troot t)MA pro&i«« of tho (Seoo«»o4 to will, h«r tho oww of 
ii#00« -Sipril Id» 1934, Uiis el»ki(s. v«» iiAOf^d*^ to r««.«i Uiot htr 
OloiJi woo t>,i«fttd d& tiiO ludobtOdUGOO oi tk<e {l«ooas*4 to oldlttMat 
In tko ousa of 4l4;v(;. jte&y 15, it^34, anoUior alAlftt wao I'iled, mi- 
oortiBg & oeiitxaot aus*! prc^lao of tho i4ooo*»»«1 to will tfeo eloiicoet 
tiio ooflk of #iu®®, Mid a j«ry trial w»« doiuaudod. 

«#•>» ^r> 

«« ll9tv aifH jiaoi **d 






:^ l»JltiMO^ f^AS 



Ii4i!^j:4».iw *. 

the cla,ia% of ^1000, It ^^'aii AiaiilIo««d. 

f«bruary ft, 1936, el&iattiat fUad i»j; au.«fi<it4 «l»ijb in Xi«u 
of ih« prl»r |50U;» cdAiA. sttttii^li; ti^^at .u<»r cl^^lm 'fft^«i lor e«rt«.io 

notes iikg^;r«g%tln|t |50U0 ]r««i«iir«dl Isy ^4ie«'4eKi>4 I'ra^;^ J«»«e|»lt Awunwr, ifi 
tmot for «lttiD.«t£t. '£h« i^iireuit &^uxi Judg« indio iieftjrd Ui<i o»t« 
eOBiBi%«i^t#A up'0» tiBt««« Yiit^ridttii «l«i&», e&ylrtg iu-j,^t< it wmo v^fy |»l«biJi 
th«t oX%ii»»nt w»» iigmmrtaXn tui mil %immB »« %& ih« «iab$;ui;it of k«r 
ol»im. 7h9 r««iori tt^ss^ply sup!^ort» tuin <::«)&«i.u«io&. It' th«iro «&• m 
d«fUiit« un4*t-«i^3'(^ing thiit tn« llo<»i#ty £«ot«o v»r» to- b« tunQ04 
o'Vtr to altkiUMknt up»e& Um d*»ta «f C«hrrl« Aui^.6r, i9/iy suaaid el«lj«* 
ftnt hi»Yi» B^^o otiior elttl«x« smd not &mym msiA» U^d «iX&lv. oi"' jrooaltittg 
trail antlX y^^«r» «t}'t#jr t&» f^f&l^ oJT Stkjrjri* Aumort 

fhofo 1« Bo eariTir<ei»g «vi4.««ie<«! tn»t tiMD |&^>uO of etoton iu 
"tteo Societgr mmtt«r ropreaent^d m^y ao»«|iri» of 4«>»opl). Au^«r. Jestojuiii 
for y#i&r« prler to «i&d 8ti)»tt««^a«ibt to Itio ii»»i».7rla«,e to Carrio, «orjt.o4 
»a o etr««»t cioortor for l.i£iec4ii Fari(>; fiarrlo iuutaor «.t Uie tinue of 
this Gtiigirrltt4$0 o«&«d « store miA flat 1»ail<liiS|» o& LiimaXA aver^uo Itt 
Q3ic*M^o; eh« ^to ewt^oA faer^lturo mi4. »oiKio iiivo»u<.eat» aud «.«|»t 
roowora; 8>uortl|r «%ft«r Ui«ir i&«i.rriit#« ia i@II^ ofeo eo»v«yo4 taio 

building to ^«trs«ki.f t»';^^ <J0«0pJtii »« J@i»% tO£^l»l>t» i^A iMtt titio 00 

rettakiued xiX^tAl liis doiitth i£i JtiiMiuit, 1@^{ J^abofti^ueii^Xy, is July, 

1931, ».a« eold t&« proport^ for $lX,&Qiit %mi.iM& ha&'k firot mtA 
|)ur«hae« »osoy 

KtoonJi/atortgagoo} ttio uiio«»li!*ot«d b««l^^o« ot Uiio, t^ii^O'at.ticji to 

^6SO0, (ot^m4 p&rt of bor ootato wiiOti otio Al«d, 

i^wrrif Aum«r vao « <lovou% C»t«ioIl«. In 19 20 &oooy Is »K.ifclI 
ftmounto -'^fto lorit to tho i^oioty of tho MTin« «?er4 n^t lootmy, Aud 
Ito no too wore looui«<l to tuo ordier of Jd»«pli <t«uBSi«fr «u^j} c^rrio Aim«r. 
7ho Aoo^ttiit with t^o Soeloty woo m Jolctt aoootiBt arA oo ro&.«iBo4l 
until aft»r Jooof>h*o AooUij feftor h.i» doati^ now notoo for ^SUH;> 


>,» t%Ly d& •«.^ 

«•«» tflW ^ 

•» sv, * »'i-' 




:i„..w idii 


OiiMtf ^' «•• «■« ^'** •<^*^*" 

WttjTft li«4A«d h^ Xla.0 ^«ei«tty te the ordtsr ei' (*mrxi0 kummr; th« &»tte 
««r« li:«9t, pTi9t t«» Joii*|»£i*» death, In in*ir Jttlbt afti'ety dtt^otlt 
18»JI, «ija<5 «.ft«r ^1» <S»ifctli tfci» not** to ii^r ord*r w«r* k«pt, uii«iidorii«4, 
In h«ir 4«f|>osit box. 

'rh«r« liK K6 «vi4«ttia« to ^^rrmit %h« e^tn&iuni^u t,h»t Jee^ph 
hn'&#t At kif <l(»»th owKwi til* $^^^4i SQoi«ty »ote«. th«r<s i« do 

«iri'!!i«eto« t^iitt lannfw^, firior to liln SMGirrittgw to Citurri*, i»wa<Ml ^lay. 
thlnn: •3r«ttit hi» ft^mitic^t r$« h #%r««t aX«a»«i>. It wauld r*<Qttir« 
ft eon«t^«'rJ%bl« eir»<»ttlt ol* li^ai^iiuaiion to ^e@r eiu4^ t^-^jit us^t Seal«ty 
n0t««ii All 1»«l«fi4'ft<l, td J<»fi«^jhk. X.U« pr^a'^iuptioii, b»0«i on tlSkO ovio 
diono*, Im %h%t Vixtt mor»«y l«»t to the Soeitty «'sk« C^rrie^o «ii»4 sot 

trsMi ti%«»« ««>4 0'U^#f" uiro'o^fittsuiooo w$ ar^ oi' tho opiiitoa 
ti\# o<ni«l«i»iOf) ©r the Ciroalt eourt to disstiiowiwg t)ri« cl{4iia ir&o 

frep«y, j*«i-i tho JtAdgei^Kt or^or is «mris«4, 

©•Coaner, P. J., Mi4 «i»t©h«tt, J,, dmxaur. 



-!#• •«: .•e't^ •lit- .ifi9*««l «.t i««#i« 


39 M§ 



TW7SI ^AtfAlt, 

*'="""""• /' 29 4 I. A. 612^ 

lift. aSSTZOK ItATCtiETT DKtXVIEliKB t«l OnxZOK 9f WX <SOmit, 

Biiboook mH th« S&r>k»r* Trust Qtmpw&s, tu^i »6m.pX^ia\ w^ic b;>»*d vn 
••«tioa 49 ot* tl&« QiAe««jry «4ket (XXI. Bti^t$ kMt Stftt»,, 1937, oi^ftp. 
88, f. SI49)* ?)i« e«»tt|)X»i»t i«r«« £ift«jnra3'4 ac^iai4«4 «a4 mi «k&«iii$t4 i» 

jud^aeBt in the Circuit 6«ttrt oT Ce>els. eoucty «M$ftifict l^abeeok fat 
I74SHD, on w'aleh •x«eutleii ie»M«4 wHiish. vnkB rtturnttd u&ciitt«fi«d, 
pte, , suiil iHttt ihd Tru»t Qemp^Jay UikA in its i^eseefeai^^jB i>r&perty 
IbsXsaglBg to ss«b«««ac V :l«h shottlHi V9 ii]^pll«d to t&fl) eAti«fft«tion of 
this J«aK«i«i9t. 

Oa th« am* dsiy tfo« coiBplaixst v«s rUtd »y«a«iiia issued to 
tHt shorilY of IhsndMtteMR ecar^ty «aid ^aeo te th« sheriff of Cook 
ooiii»ty* *h9 s^«riff of ^irngsAtsoe eoacty r«ta]r&«4 th« sutt&ons ««rt«< 
on ao'orgo Jl« Ba1sf^~ooJi (U»4 &«uQit«7« Trust Uoi^^iaiiy, liioorperatod, by 
loATiag ft tru« «&liy witfa X.&iii«» X, ^iouthor, H£«.t, oii ^aixuaxy 87, 
1914. fh« «l%4'rrilf of Co&k oo^nt^ rt turned i;.ja« su&^':ons issued to him 
not found e» &oro& 19, 19 54. August 13, 19 M, saotiiov out^JBOfts 
i3*su«d[ to the nh^ritt of Coolt ooojatj^ aad was rctumo4 by Al* Attguo* 
20, 1934, rot f UBd as to botk dltfori< Ootober So, 1934, «not&«r 
oiuiKons l«»u«4 to th« ftJEi«riff of Cook eoucty ai^d wtto rtttumod not 
!«anH Off to £»Vcoeit, th« eth**' dsftnttirit eot li«lng aorrvd by ordor 
of pl&mtiff's ftttornoy. iiarch 80, 19^4, tho Xraot con^Wiy filed 
its notion to quooh tho otusaono and ««t »old* %if ooririi» aiad« on 


. K V 




.liiwtsd ttnr %d miAin/s nut eiM- 

'Jt^m^ SSsi' 


1 > •• 

It Ui th« •MMgHn»n eottx<t}r «n ihm gretuid thifct oo ttfiaur or |i«r»ea 
l>rior to th* lc«uan.o« oi' th« wus^r^eat utkt &.&tt<i r«iuni or ttffl-iavlt Ui» writ tAKt »o ftg«n% »r e.t'Ti(3«r «>r ili« eorporati^ta «aul<A 1»« 

•QittipXwint wjikt ttub^sliuitlftll^lnsufl'ieient iu iw» lisi ts^rtalii r«>8|t«et« 

*a »t%t«<l i& ti^*- Aetiois, A.iridAirlte la support oi' <-«ii4 ^alnftt t^tft« 
BMttloiii w«r« rah£;^ltt«i<l* 

J«ma-jiry ^1, 1$:^", aia osril^r w»» «»t#red ^liriiag Bubttook x^&v* 

t© fll# / vrlttwfi «otl»tt to iliiBi'iis*, fherr&upoii pla^i&tirt AbtAlfi«4 

l««v« tQ »Att64 his «t<'Mp>.laliit» wkltsli vttB mn0, fi»« ttotiei>» «£* Btt'&««ele 

• tftt^it Itft gft'^undt t0 i^ti, flDit^ %lim% t&« $)iurU««t ^r^rft i»«t d««i£ntiht«<S 

n» r«^slr«iS 1^:^> »«etloii MX &i tM» 'ffrf&etimn Jifit; tiificmdl, tiuikt th« 4u44|* 

tti«nt ftt law ag^initt Biib«««iJfc vat troia for tantunt of Jajrit^letlon; tii^lx-d, 

tUftt it ^p-pen-rn^ mtfitmtiktiyf»l^ plaiiitilf iGi«4 not •«kau8&«4 £iii» iftg»JL 

r«i?.»€l««; fourti!* taeit it a.p^«ar#4: th« «tji!««4ti<$B i!«a-d«a torn Ihm origin- 

ftl Juagfe«Ht i9MytAlii«t Jl«it^«i(»«k «» MaoTftH. m, X^'Al^, ^u» retuimed iiaj It, 

3.933 « 1»2if thft slinrlff oWkX^ mi*%%r ^X&iatift l"'il#d s(£» uudfiXtAkiM^ to 

w«lT« d<ua«hi^«« vhiah »ight »««nii« lijr f«a»e«i of tMt r«tuirn bdlia^ &«4« 

«. -* ^^ M X. . . execution* „ , 

li'Cfer* 90 (lay» I'r&m th« ia«'a.«! oi %^e /. . . X'alis ai'i^tifta ei if«b«£p«]( 

w«« •uf»i>i»rt»4l 1»y miti ftfi'liirrit fjuad «ippe»«d ¥y tit* iii'f 1 -ilittvi % of 

/ Siowort H9#A Bi>«im, AtlQxnutf for i»Xaintii'f. Jmly X3, I$55, tho moticn 

of tlio BMik«r« Truftt 6«tt.'i»iabEty to «|tAsi.«h tiio mmm^ns:, ^tn, , «&• doniod aai 

doftmdttut wao ^Ilo^od 30 ^«ib>"9 iia wlailoh to fllo n ikotiou to Yaesito thio 

or«4«ir. iliio Kotio» to Taft«t« vao f il»d Auguot 15, 19v'^&. Tho sroui^do 

for tho Kotlen w^ro iit».to<I to bo, first, tk&t it «ip?>oar«<l of roooart 

thot Ro 01 floor or othor poroon atto^^^ti^ai^ to auil^o oorrloo of trto vrlt 

m<^4o rotum or »iTldairlt upvm %hm iono th«.t ^« eoul4 not In Cook 

Ooitntjr find tmy offloor or aime&t of tiio Ba^iilt^ro Truot Gomp^my «t or 

boforo tho tle>« of tho iiur^oriod oorvioo upon 9ald coKiipanyi ooooitd, 

thAt it »pp4»Ar«d Uii&t ao offloor or otiior person {kttr»pt«d to st^o 

31 j> « i-;u» . 

S^ie iiix.'i'taz>ilr.. 


;.,-.■: ' •■Hf 

:i^on.& A»»a ^^'liiwiiiJS \ 

ft«>rTl«« oi' th«t trvit in Ce>9k aoonty or Atttttpt«4 to fln4 «£y eft'i««r 

fiurr'«»rt«d »«>rviett' In Smagtm^n tBtmnty; third, thut ^Ittintirf h.m6 

\iim^,\i$,t€ &&A o(Sini^X#t« r««i«<!li«)i at l.%w; roariki, tliatt it mpptnuem^ 
Trmii th9 ttem|>X^l»t '('^ftt f^lsklntii't* <iid cx«i eaittftust Mil rt»i«4]r «% 
l«ir |»rior t« th«i rilln#^ of th* ««)n9Xalr>t; fifth, that th« ttttiqtlAlot 
iSld £k«t Alkleg* |il&ltttiff was Ik 0ye4it6r <if Hiiiioficlc eii or btfur* 
«?^3^ 9©, ]L$1.9i slxti^, tk« oiMiftpl^lmt <dil4 nckt i%lXeg« tht&t iplmlKtiflT 
wan A eredtitor «iv B&'i^^oc'OJt im or l^^fort S«j^tttBb«r 26, 19 51; e«T»tttii, 
thui tt«]ri«kla Rll«giktl«£i8 of Uie> cmn^l^int tr^rtt i^{4^:i.t«rlal (m4 lrv«* 
I«Tiuiiit; eightliL, z&o fneia »]r# i»t»ted lii tu« eoii&$(l«i.l»i to ^t^title 
plaintiff to t.Ht x-^liti' 'pr«.y'«A; Qietk, timt th« suppoeie^ i»«i«fi4«v«iit 
«»• tti3l£^t«liigiMti t«i*th, t'-ai e0ic^.^X£^iiii fjii.ll(3r4 t» allttgft f«i,«(t« 
ttufflolent t9 at«i.t« ft «»^i»« af &otl6»; «l@f«ti:itli, th.ttt th« eost-iilttint 
/fail (Ml t* iRfertB Bankersi trutt Co^ipsiiis? »i' t.fe« eatuy* oi' imy •iljpT>0 8«<! 
•lain agaii9»t it. Tiiit, m^tim «%» dm^i^iA Jur« If^. 19?(&, %s vtii «« 
tk« m«ti<»^ «f Balse^xtJi ad^tJi botii) dvf nxitSstitas wer« 0rd#r«<ll to fil« th#ir 
aBir»«r» within :^ ^ayi. tfe«:y «l®ct.<s($ to ttaad by ti'iair ^ctiono, 
thoir €«f9»ilt wan tUkktm m.d «^t«f-«d, and @ia Ju»« 17, 1937, «h« eoart 
aftor &#arinij; t&» OTidBwoo «Bt«ir«4 a A««r«* f liii-Jiiiilf t^i© r^oovfiry by 
|il«l»tlff of ju4,.a«Bt in the Circuit mv^Tl oe M.«,rei-* S», 1*33, th« 
iomao @f ta;o«-^tioB to th« i*k«riff o« Mare^ 30, unA it« rotum wholly 
«aiiati)sft#4lj taai ti4» ju4«j»«fit waa iw fereo «xaept for tfi« gi'u«! ©f 
ItOl.iS ooll#ot«4 Qi£t a i^u3nii»imisut; tliat t^« ooi&frlaist HA not 
ojthiV-it oollutiioaj th»t J'aly ^, ISIB, Bin^^co©*, prinoipal dofm^-'dst, 
tx«fc*«st?<? ftiS'i -^^ffliifor^di a writtOB aeeua<iiit w&iolt providiod tiaat ho hmA 
^«l»oftit«>4 vri«n tho B«u^Ko7a Iruot CoJi;.'i>ttJBy, », iiov torie eoyforatloii, 
l»rop<»rty «&«« ooouritloo afewr«^«tlii& i» iraluo 1600,000 in truot iuriwn 
tho Ufa of tho <S«««©F, 5,ho itiooao of mliiok, *ft;.©ui>tir>Cv to appro»i-- Ate; 
$8«,i^Q0, wao to h% ptkiA by tho Jruot ceajjauy to tho dofs^ndaat annual 

3^-^^ II': 


iurlBii^ hl» li fit, h&<I m% hl« dMith to his wlf« |f tint inurfiyd hiM, 
upon h«r d«JktJ:i to tacir «j^ll4r«ai, imd 1a eus* ]i«b099Jc ahould stirrli** 
hi« wif« Add ohllir«B %hWA t« s»«r«f>R« h* »l^t 4«el£nat« by will; 
tU«t ta« d<»&«r %»/ t^« i«irais •!' tti^ &ru«t r#s«rY«d Ui^e rli^M t» ftdd 
t« tu« trust «titMt« 1»3r I'lliAi^ it.i41tloAt*l ««6urlti«s viUi XA% tni«t«« 
3lb4 r#««rr«Nt Vx9 jrl^^t 3>om tins to tiBi« to file 'vlta th« tra«t«« 
vrlttffR r«quft«t for ths •«a« of saei:^ prop«rty, M&d th« truster 
ahould s>ik* »ttJ83} imXnn <i« mqueattd, und la doin^ a« b« undtr no 
re«p&o«i>}illt3r f^T eytvy isse or Xo»««» le>{»urr«d. rh« 'fonor r*»«rT«4 
to hU^m«%S th« rifht to 4lirettt tho diofositioKi of th« oteck of th* 
25,000 ordlnMry eliari^o of Saboook it Wilcox, JLtd., of i-ondort, £oglaii4, 
«iii tAo 4«f«r(d«unt» Bwijcuri 7ra«t Coe^wny, «»• »utr*orleod sind diroottd 
to m&k% ttto^ ««l^t ttt sueli iiMOO nod iR oue^ maasnmr a* Ctoori^o L. Ba^ 
cook iai£i^t dir«et by cotio* iu «rltia(g;s tiukt tito Truot eoci^^any »«• 
ct]»tfa tJcL* torso of t^o O4ffo«fe«xit« w JLei3 »&o toy t^ niutli |>i!gr&«r»^ 
tlier«of d«el«r«d to )»« irroveoAblo; ts^iibt Bftbcook oxoouted two furt^or 
ia«t7u&.«cti ^uri^ortin^ to otol^pi Uto i&oott* (mm tiio trwiot «st»t6 «• 
iet'Sic&tftd in tfait trait ti^rftw&ont of July 30, 1915, vuich ««.fl «!E»proxi* 
»%t«ly $tiit'-i<jO «»ntt9dly, botJ& iiastruftonto b^ic^ datod Sopt«Kbor 2«, 
193I{ in o&« of theoo a portion of tlio #2ti,ou» Iaooao v«o aooigitod to 
oao ifoiaiiert, truit«>«, for t&o piArpa^* of |»ayiug (3«l^to of l^abeeck, 
t^« djUhAt of t&o «r«ditor« not being si««tit»o«d} that tk« otkor ia- 
»tru]s&ent «0«iigeod 117,000 of ti'i« ir^t^tm^ to foioi^drt a« tru«t«« for 
tHo b«n)i;fit 3f fiabe^elc. Siit^ ^. S&boooJt «otl tho otilllri^ of ^oorgo 1. 
laboookt tiat botb tnooo traoto «9r« by tlioir tortto Irrrvooablo a«d 
iao«ept«4 by th.o iruotoo; that cr Jubo JKi, li>5g, l« tlio Gbaaoory oourt 
of Kmt Jor««y a bill of eoR^lfttBt »ao filed, titatis«( ti^&t dofoadant 
CNiorgo h, ^atoook and H^th ?• j»a eock oa or about July 2u, IftiS, ««• 
900lt«d aoeurltloR »«^&rftgating #S0O«0O& vitb tho Ba<u«ra Xruot Com- 
psjift ivK truttoo, Hnd priu)»rily for tho purpoaft of paying Ineswo of 
$2S,Cii^ to tbo doner, 6«org« L, Babeook, (iarina kia lifo , aad 



.1"- ij 

i»ai.*y« '?^.* i'tt^ijs 




t^ S^v-n, -.^ ,t3»fsi 


two furtiiwr truutt w«r« «x«eut«<l nner«\>y on* Jr^lekert, »• detignttlM 
trust**, «A.« lntru«tfr<! vttli $17,<'00 or ib« d8#,C00 t» tt« p^ld <ar%T 
to B«to0(»«k*9 wtr« !ui<} cuiildrse; UiA% th# I'irot trust »*4« i>rftviil«ai 
for th4i f»&^«xit of liit«»r««t «» tho Hittto of Goergo L. Babeeoli, 
«tn»9a»tlfig to §X7tt,OC0| thAt tb^ oroditoro of O«org« i-« liabaook 
wer« firweelag for j^Ajratcmt, -^yitd (loori^tt L, sMd Ituth M, i^sboook woro 
fOMTftil tk»t thoto «rft4itoro sl^kt by juaipnttiii, «x«outioa isitad oalo 
diiip«i®i» of lh§ «»i,ir» Inooit"-*, «^^ uttok XOft« of iua^sao «euX4 rtoult 
in grmAt 2iar4»hift t^»t JaXy ^t 111)3.^, » ioor«« of eoart, to i<^i^ 
tho ;?lHmtiff WHO feet H pnrtji', was (siit^rod *uer«by »«ouritl»o «,ti- 
j^rog&tiitg 1^103,900 vero witkAmisB fr£»& tiiio covipao oi' tko ostAio to - 
is^ay tno 4«bt« of d^oorgo i.* B«l»oeolc, %n4 tliiot &o 9i»rt or p«»rtioii of 
th« d«l»t ef pltkiMtitf hao )S!*«a |»4dA. It w«& th«if@f 6f$ d^er«e4 by 
thff j^art t^ot t^« truot tt^roosaofit of J»Xy «^^« -1915, i«iid[ th« ro» 
»oli«X«tf truot of July se, 1^33, «a<! tlio dooroo «»t«rf4 In tho 
Court of CJianeery ©f fee* Jorooy iii& aot coeotitttto a *:!sitt«sr of 
Aof«n»«» »s ft l>'.tir to ^o ^mi'QT&tum.mul of pXfiilBtlff*o iu^4&i«i»t .«ig«iLinot 
lulioook »>fi4 »^(ftitiat tho £«Qk#ro Truot Cea>i»<ttty, ao truoto« for 
6«org« X.. ^&>3eoek, foc^Klng |»ro|»orty asd »«ii«to, ia vrhlah n^^ 

rj Sooreo i^. Bsiboottk ^a4 on irit«^«ot, li^iblo for pmyu^«siX of ti).o Ju4j|» 

Mtmt of th« pX«klR%lff. It wao i£k«r«fi»ro/^aJud|i#4 Mad dioorood tii«t 

tHo fiftnk«r« Iruot Cosstp^tBy, mo ouo;b tryietoo, woji ord«r#<t oad dir«ote4 

to d«]»oBlt with tJbko aXdirk of tiQ.o t^ttrt wituin %«ni 4ays frox. that 

4»t« tli* sua of $9933, 44> in ft*a»fHetioM of j^lAifitliTf *• iudc^t^o&t, 

{ itiA %b*t iTi dofttult of ottttli Aoposit Mist wxoeu^leii isou«. 

XI, 1% lo o«H%t«»4o<i Ixv Ikft firot pX4«ot ti:»o Qri^jlfeal Judg- 

tioBt ««» Yoid for ««fit of Juri«41«tloii b«saa»« ih« oiUB»on« o^^iaot 

Babeook, ^» dr««n, woo r«tttmtt.blo tc< « bob* «»xi«t «»#•:; t«r& of oo«rt. 

It o^Dooro fmrn %hm »ff i^'iavlto Ott'l^isitted for obd agalsot tfeo notios 

thot t>i« oalt At lav v«o b*gu& in So«e£ib»r, 1932: thot tho suiiaono 

A3i--i yj ,yi*.ii ■.'^^'^ -t'w • -^»«1» ill 

(•▼t<t«iiUy %7 lii«kdv«rt«ne«) vac R»d« jr«tu]mAbl«e to tli* JttnaftjFjr 
terft, MM* 0^ *^* Circuit ftourt i/i«te*d «f M^l ^i»*t i^»booek 
w.ft<l« a e&ntien to i|U(ii.iiUi XM.» •UMiaoas aa^A a«liwM-rfci( m oou£3t«f%iOtlen 
fttir l#«iT« to tmisaS it. 7he wetloa of &«iiwiurtf w«« aIlow«4 tu «& tiiat 
of la'^eoelc; dftnliNii. Ho «Mpfi««i woo tiu.«s or writ of «rx-or «u«4 out. 
M tk« tiJMi of ill* ^Oi^ifisiing of that wuit tiet4 el' tMo entry ol* 
JTiapstwist th^roiB ':He Fraetle« A9t of 1907 tsri^a applioHl&lo. Dofosid* 
ftxtt* ol.t« ft Qaial)<»r of easoo ftriolDg prior to tJ&« <mAOteojEtt of tliat 
otatuto. Ottoh »o .Cift;iiliim.,la.yfMlgI» » ^li* '««3Lj t^4|t^|y^ j,, ^K>!g,ft,,, 
4 III. (3' Sc}»';.»oii) 839} arftgfr...v. J>rtis)^|r. S» ill. llf'; MjMMfialltl 
V. EoflaaXafij|<fy . 1'3 IXl. ftli, h(jl4i»g t© tfeo «ff#ot that » r^tarB on 
fftt«^ «k OttaKoiao de#» BOt fiv* J'ttria4iotio», «ii4l t^xat ^ueiH a ouatrnMio 
to o iittl:iity. 2}«f««#A^to sloo oito Oftoos «i.ri8ijag prior to tlio 

Frfe«ti«# aot of I»07. (Msa^« I,%^4S!lljl8i8l« ^® ^^i^ «*4; Culygr y- 

J^jyjyt, X3G III. -^7) itfi4 dthor eaoto iciY^lvimg epdoiaJi ^roo««4iiisi 
«ift 4ioti»c<i*i»J»»A fresR aetioBO ftt l&o, fej^|, lb_| it ^ y , .^. . ' , f.<| l !j ,£i ? . . A . fe g. . 297 
111, mi, *»4 l^ftar tt Xi^ 4M-».M^.fa„ gQi^friiffr. «4fl lil. 4I», «u iiol4i» 
iae» a« it ii oiAi£a«d, 1^»t ottoh * defttOtiYO oue^Mmo oiumot lio 
ttnoi»do4» Vo lxoX4 Siono of th«o« oiiooo is appli«« or oofitroiliuig. 
S«o« 3f) of tho Hr^etioo not of If 07 (oorw lis^ii tlt«Ettrd Hi. iio-viooil 
'St«tut«», oh«o. %l&, -p* SHeX) proiri<l«4 ti-xftt &t ft»y tin* b^for^ linal 
,1ua.r.i6«H(st aJBi^n/ijsflaatO Kluiit Ifo mi«4« •Ijs^ oey Kottor, islth*r of I'ono or 
oulBotsM^eo, fcfi, .ji^iy,, p roooao . f>lo«Mil«,i or prec«*4iRg.* *o hi>14 thlo 
ot«t«ito is eontrolilng, %hm.% th« ^ourt ht)h4 Juriftdlatloi:^ to por^^it 
tuKtmisii^t of tl&o iUKii^onc 1»y oubotltatia^ th« true < for tlM 4»to 
inftdv«rt«fttiy i»»«rt*)4 ir. tr*« ouuttsiono. woiaUto*? ir. Xni£r«tum . 121 
^*oo. seSi nrot JiotU &mk y. i>«»rio. 3ft8 Ul. 378, 387. aow.Tor, 
tko vikliftity of tho Jttdiii»#rit itgmijaat liAboooH in net o^ollfinfiod ^y 
any su^awor of olti^or of t&* 4«f «yr.doiito. Xiao ^revioiono of IHo Gtvil 
iPrttotieo Ae% ore op|>lio»l»Io* ^ootion 40 ( S) ^rovidoo tkiat rvory 


€) ait h 

*lX«siition •X4»«£»t ac to i«fl:»4*ll not o^Aelf IcalXy d<afi-l«A ahidl li« 
d««Mti«4 to W ad<»itt«d. i^ior'^ it h«rt no aRfWtr denying; Him TAlidlty 

Ill, It i« »«xt «trgu«4 iri 1>«rmlf of th« 'Iruvt ewapABy tUat 

•oiiifljr vith flttGtioit 17 of tJio Cliril Jl^ria«tl«e Aot (III. State B«r 

8tftt«* 1937. mm* ^"^^t 9* S^Sit!^). thm r«eox4 »H««r« thut t£i« 
•iM^lttlfit in tht» e»«« v»« iilotS y«bru<ir3r M, 1$M; tu«t ftiuwoB* 

i««u«^ OB thftt day te th« «i)L«rifr «f f^angtxs^oa «Qunty «nd triyi r«<* 
ittm«'^ by thft fth.«rirf a« »«]nr«4 9n Sottt&«)r, it>«i«rtt ol* tlio defcA'-ittiit 

«03iP»«y«tlois, on Jfffbru^ry 27tj^. On thm uame dtty thm ouiuuuoAo l»«uo4l 

to tho oherirr of si«!»geti^n oom&ty a^u^^^tiono ir^ t^ui ■•mo otmto lo» 

i!«04l to ih« fih«rirf of C»ook couuaty. fulo ouiM^e&o was returao4 

later toy kia j»ot &«rv9d oti oithof d«f«»da£it. lu tiio rotuna tho 

«Jht<^rl ff isitfttoa] *hor oarr X ft»d smy offioojp or trnj agoia of said 

eorf'oratioii isi »y o«mniy, 4ftt«4 tiilo 19t44 Ssjr ^f ^aro&, A. 3>»XPM.* 

Aaftu>9t 13, 1954, itmeth^x Mmm<m» tn Uio oaus* i»ou<»d to tao tii^triff 

of Cetik ttOttnty whieh wao r#tu3m%d »ft foXiowot •fhis witiila n«mmii 

<aofeR<taict , a coTs>oraUoi», «©% ft'«»a !» «^ oou^ity, Eor 

ean I fina at>y of floor or a»y ait^e&t of eal4 eorporatlsifi Ih «y 

eouety» A9.t«i4 ttiio 13ti3i 4ay of Aai|<aot, A, B. I.9M. Tl"** vltl3.iB 

•WHWd ^»Ti»ni^mti not I'oundi in a^ ooanty, d&tod thio mtk 4ay cf 

August, 1934. Villi asi l>. Eoy^ring, &i«riiT, By Oirio U, aalo, 

Boputy, * 3#«tlor. 17 of the Civil Frmetico Aot prcvidoos 

"An inoonK>rato4 od<^«my e^^ bo oor-vod wit^ |)r«>o«o» by 
loading: a oi.>py tnoreof with tmy efflear or a^eiit of oaid oo^aay 
fou&t$ in tho c^uiity; &xn$ in e&oo tao affloer or oti4«r jporoon at* 
t«iii|»tiai; t« s»mK« oorvleo o^alX aako r«ittrs or afi'id&Tlt up&u cuob 
^roeoo^ that ho ea»not in felo ooiiftty fled aiiy o^cu* oi"i"ie»r or 
a£«Rt of «ai4 O0a;i{»ii&y, th«i.« audbi itm^pioi/ i&.ay bo oorvo^l lii auiy othor 
c<sttfity of thlo «tat», iri tii* Kaaurjor proTitJod iii aoetiee 10 of tiilo 
Attt, or »ay bo aotifiod by jpublioation aJad ibttiX in Xix« aiu^.er, 
««2d With llko offset &o io jsrovHo4 ir. «#cti«3fco 14 axi<i is of tiilt 

f«ra«raph« 1 aud 3 of ooeiion lu proYl4ox 

&9 .-"iJji 



>i« a 

*(l) Vh9R H. ciiril Action itt eoMUvnotd in ttxty Qounty, •uitu 

noil* Kfty %« »«]rr«<| upon th9 "i«i>jr< iimia wr:«r«Ttr taey sutty be roiaa4 

in th« St*-*t««, liy any pffrtoK Aut'i©rl««;! to Btrv© -t^'rit*. 

(^) (m« or teort <)uplicate«ikl «ut.&on«t9 m«y b« 1»> 
»tt«'d, »aTk«tS *fir0% .l>U0li©»t«\ *£i©coBd Dupilcatw*, nto. , »• th» 
Oi%«0 ii«y I?*, i!»h!5«»v«r It *-lll fAelIitat« \h« a^rYiu* oJ" «ut;ai«B» ia 

»nj «!!• or eM»r« eaufitlwt, i^.oXudin.; th« onaxitjr of v«rmtt. " 

th« atotiim of 4«f«»<<!«nt to i^uAtii th« return ai Xh9 shuriff 
•f S«ltig«Bi«« ooiaittf' If )3«>t 9U]r»pert«^ by aii^y an'14atrit» l'ii« notion 
de«« net pttrj^^ort to givo iol'o»«tioQ »eo«ii«!mry %o u doter^iaaktloa 

of tiao qu«»:»t4os raiftOd. ?ho «o«tpXi»iot SkXl«g«ii dl«fen<labt aerporatioo 
io organ l«od u<iil«r th« luw* ei' if«iw Yorit. Tla^o ototioti 4«)«io not vtate 
ii^otk«r it ic sr- orj^Mtlxi;«4, w^«tii>«ir i% i» «l fortigtt or doK«:otie cor* 
l»oratlcM&, or wii«tii#f', ii' I'orw'i^, it 1« iio«BO(i4 or ueli««ns«4 in 
tlilo St&t*. 11i« ittotlofi a4^ito t^^at tu* vonu* wao 9ro]p«rXy pliMio4 
in (^ooJt ooyjity. It io^'^a J&ot «tato whotii«r t^o fntot co»i9'»rfy io 
doing l)uein«te in thi Skt^nto or, if ««« -s»h«^r« ito 9rlr>9if»»JL efi'ioo 
i« located, it '1.0<!>t fiot ii%at« v^tiotnor 1% in tloisiig '&u^lneo» Im 
Goeic «'»«!» ty nor vhothor «u^jy anoat or oSTIeor of It o«»*i b« fr^und or 
oould haT« b«o« foiiUi'd IIII4 ««nr«iiS Is GooJ^ oounty. 1%o JNioiaose 
Oortoratlon Ao% (Xll* itt«t^l« Bar Statt. , 193*3^, ^tap. 9S, par. 11; 
aaitk^Hurd 111. Bt'^to, » chap. 3S>, p«j?. iS7*Ii.l) i»r4»vl««t« for oor* 
▼toe at>on lh« r«ciftt«r«>'f i.i^»i>% of a forftlgii eor^oration »ind \kp9n 
tho @««r«tttry of Stat« wjaorw no r'^gitit#r«d i»g«iit hao boon as>- 
$»oi»tftd. (111. Mijito Bar dtaio. , «ka,p. M, ^ar. 103: i^aiU),*Murd 
111, 3tat;»., eaap. Si, par. i57«l&3, ) a s&oti«»u of tuia kind lo in 
%hi^ a'i^turo of a plon !» «batim«int aa4 oiionid bo d^f ir»iio arid oor* 
tain, md in tho al^ooaoo of a atti»pcirtin(^ afiidavit, duiy irsrifl«>d. 
In irl««r of tJ&o iridoflnitwtiOio of t}»« «totioi> and in vlev of two 
roturns by tho oheriff of Qovk «o*isty s^io *loft tjiat dof<utdaQt could 
not %« fcand or oorvod in taat oounty, wo t^AlBk tk» oourt iii4 eot 
orr iti itmylufi t^o notion to ^uaoh tiio rptum of tixm oii#rlff of 
9nn«a««it eounty. 

JV. Xho riftiu oantwjtion of i>»th d©f«fii««to i« tbat tho 


.CO.. . >MN«MM« t- «<t.a (• Ai»^i^ (i)* 








«nn(9l«lnt a« nM^nnin^li i» 4»I'«a%lvt luad iKtutTieittut. 'That <}u«etlon 

1ft r*i»*A Vy iftotioxia) in lbft«iaJil »/ «a«i:i oi tli«« to dlsttiat th« «o»» 

SH •!* th« Pr^otleit %«% lai I'&iX t^^- o^iioifi' 1<^ «H«t r«»ii$»«et, nn^ in 
tbt Islll «» 4m««:il«<l «• {"Ind tt« Gauft« Vfitr eriiicism on thin grouted. 
Tii,«y fttiHitt ihAt ih« ^1u4i^tt»t Hi X&w wae vt:14 lor want of Jarl** 
<lictlon« % eGfit«ri1ii»ii wliieh v« baT» ^«X<1 witl^out laerlt. 'they »•• 

c«rt it AiTir»i»ilv«ljr api»«&r8 i'xam th« «»»px«tl£it timt d^f'i'A^Mat 

it ap9«ii):'e ti'i9 %ji««utlen «ii iA«! ori^iu&l ^usi^ttii^t izt favor of 

rvturntti &u Majjt X9, XS^.V3, ^y th9 viierifi' •f i*4»oJii oounty as>9in plsit.* 

tilT by ^ii» i»itr>n3«y, giving io lh@ »li«riif && ttKattrt4U..UAgy waIvIc^ 
aajr 4«3&4g«» %hm% Al^^t tt««i»inji« by r&«&«^i^ of th« r«tuxi:> of tiie «3(.«eu* 
tien frl«»iP t& th« eji$)irjfttien dtt fO d«yt frejK t£ie ^^it^ it «»« l«eu«d. 
TlEt«> c@^.|ilmini «&XX«i#4 %M.« lasu^ df i»x««j;u$lfiiit to ti^e ^ii^rlff anA 

hi« rduni of th« «•»• ui^naftticfiAS, ii«{24 ii:ii£ faei i& not d«{;i«4 ^y 
«jt:«wer. 'H^e blXX hmu h^n^R tiiictu at (i<»ef<^»8«4. ^<» ^«Xd tibte r«turfsi 
•f tJt« ah'tTiff 011 %h9 «%4»o»ti<»«i wa,« «uffi<i£i«Kit £o justify ]prc»e«9(jin# 

1»« h«aar4 t« ajrgiii* iH.«! ^^niirifcjry ir, Ti«w oi' ti^e f^«t taat tli« felXi wm 
tAken &• «&nfete«<l. 

flBtkXly 4•f«<^iM'its «out«£t<l %hmt tin* eos^pXaiat »• amended 
r«,ll« t» atftt« « tttMaaa of aetl«>n. Xia«y s.S'>«rt t^iit Ihit t^lXl as 
«m«»4*4 i« 4«fif««tlv« «• & bill of di»eoyttftf (» tt$tU«»r a«t ralt«A 
by #ith«T &etl«fi): thskt ii&« ia.X«^ailoBs &i the co4%'t>ialnt as 
t^tn^9€ «r« Idsuff iei«rit td justify •^ttii^j^ a»l<l« «»> trust ie. 
•tru»«nt, « jjoint Xlii^««ie<( act »p««ifle*iXy r«ii»«4 by aay »oti«s. 
tfa# i«ou««ftt« «^tt4L<tiii*A to tii« feiXl anH »4«itt»d te #Yi4«ii<i« •&»« 
•«l?»ta»tlaliy «a stt^sipi •» t^« payt af Batcook to er«at« in th« 
ii«ft«s »r 4mtmAmt fruat aoKj^aay a apantfterlft traat in favor af 



I ifsi^ 

• _ i>« 

: ^4(ti no &»^ 



'k9 «ft««ji 


hiua^Xf in loor^Ay •«ourUle0 ttl* %h9 viklu* of About I^SOCr^XK)^, tlit« 
•vl-ieneff oxiows prop»rt;jr of fttt^oook io !p««a«fi 4oxt of U>.« Xrust eoK'- 
pmttj frott. vhicu ar^ nammta !««•»• Of |39,0U0 !• darJLvod. Ihc oourt 
preiperly l^«11 iimt the »9n«j Aod property oi* tlio Juiiii&«ut 4«^tor in 
tho i»«»»«««iott of tAo trust eoKipMijr »i^ttld b« «ppll«4 to th* »»tlo* 
fAotlon of pi&lottff *• ju<l«:ai«Kit. ^iKil^^r r^ilof hao boob glvon in 
Bimilt^T eaft«0. (iiEaBaj:ftI.„«JI«™l*_llljuJfcJtfji^afiti^^ 25» 111. 

ii. J. «<j, SiO; '^ewPit V. iltr.5itft . 66 i», Y. 374.) 

UB<!)«r oubtvotioB 3 of t^etioii 64 of the ClviX Prt^i^otloc aet 
tiaio party in «]:)ko»« favor a 4*oro« in otittlty is rojudcr«di 1» r«ll«vo4 
froMn xh* huTima af prooorirlng •▼14««i«t« ctoo^eaary to support iho 

^•oroe «iti»or by oortifleatce &r tlrt-iin^ of f»et. tho aaao prooujif- 
tiono &k«v f&Tor a door«« t£ oqaity as m JtA4gj%«i2t «Lt lac*. 

«• find £0 rovertlbXo orror Is tuis re««r4 susttS tho ju<lij;aiai% 
it afflmoA. 

&*CoiaBor, . 3,, and lio^ur«i.y« J. , oosour. 

,Htt*a«-. ' ' ■•■.'•.- ,«ni0;^ 

SI«»IS J. JilLftQi, 

29 4 I.A. 612"^ 

M, Ju-^tiQk hA^Timnift m^irmHBn 7HK oi*ii.X(S air' rm coubt. 

C» I»t««)i'b«r 1^, IDSi, plaijiitlx'i't ^<£l«a Witton, Illtdl her 

lis tti* aui^ ol' II CO (000 for l>r«&ali or J&iii pr«Klisr to z.«.rry iMr. 

th« dat* of th« «sll«|£«<l profiila* i» »«i4 t« !:u3iTe 1»««ia an Jua* lo, 
1931, with ^r«Reu#» at th« ^ro^tlt* o£ Ji.»jr«ii I, 1933, Jun« 3¥, 1S»92, 

•f a »fil« «lilld 6ft ll«i»t«Bt>«>jr 3L, IV3:^. oi' wiuiete f|<$f4»»d{U(it wiia t&« a^ 

CM|f4r<ft4»nt sBsw^r^d, AMiyita^ tiaat he pr «i8?^i to mirry 
■plulEtifl' «a»<I dwsyittfi tk»t vJialntlJ"*' iaa«i *it ai»y ti^« r»'iu«8t»4 iil» | 
to marry ix*r, hit mdaXX^ttd, ho«<^v«r« iae «Alsttas« sf ililolt rt« 
l«tlr»aa -witA 1^1 i^iti til's* liHi a-sTftre ^uikt. ihtt ««».« i^e-re Y9lwf^l»^ry on \ 

h%t i»»rt ar»d fiet %a4*jm^^ by ^my proi&i«» to »»rry hitr. th* aau»« 
w*« trift4 ky a 4**'*'y "^ile^-i retur«i«NI a ir«r4i.ot far r.laUstUT to tiit 
ajB«ttct «f |}L7,B0&« on «iiio.A tii« eourtt OTtfirrulifii^ r^otloas fcir a saw 
trial and la arrest, esit^ra^ jdd|gn«At. 

It i» O0ntf<nd«4 for r«vt:r«al t&At t^« T^r^ict vas contrary 
to thi auuail 9St iroigfikt of tlte «vl4«n«<, af^4 that tlx^ court i^«ul4 I 
havi^ 8rafit«4 a BW trial for ^at rsaoon; t.'sat tho eourt arra^i in 
aiaittlsg iBeQ%>{»»t«i!t avidimoa; tioai tlio avourit of tho Y«r41«t vaa i 
«roo»ly •xoooflva, avus^laiK »»ei»ia» and pro^adica or^ th« ws^rt of 
tUa jury, ani taat tho oourt orred I tho giviag of Inotruotioiia 
ro(?u«at*d by plmlRliff. 

id ./i.i f^es 




J*^ L'5i!$y 


til* ii^|4en«« s^-evt that pX&if>tiff «ra» 56, dvfoftdMSt 44 
7^Arf of aK«. PlAiatlff wk* bora «in4 •4«0At«4 Ifi iteglaaid, eMifi tt 
AmArtcft in 19i^4 «Btf ««« ui»T«r «&Mrrl«4. In this aouctiry nh* h«ld 
poiiitlcBc Mi •oeiaX •mcr^ttkry In » nujfeber of )»roKio««t AK<»rloMi 
fftr^lliitfl, At thi» tlMA of thi« imfralr iritn d«f«!»d«fit «h« h«IA • 
ponltiea of ih.a.t kind vltii it i»rQ£iis«»t fauaily i£ CiU.««^, for Y^^iitth 
fth« r^ec'lTOd IBO A «••!(« IHifMQdafst tt% thl» ttfe* vats ««eac«d 1/^ tho 
r«ftX «atAtc» i u»le««fl »ott(Yuettt« Jointly vlih Artnar 01»ob, tn«lr 
«)rfi«« httin^ Xoc<kt«dat 1.745 #t*i 9i»i ttrect. ^vir l»usia«8» r*l«* 
tleatni^ v»« iittfowtlouvd la a flnad •#tU«n«Bt ^«ul« 1» febrtutrj'. 
19SS. Mr. Oitdin «ad li^r. £'«1»ob irer« frinK^ds fro& iHtj^dcd. Tli« 
dir«fit «vid4»ne« ir- ti^ft cftsa f«r tJ9i6 «&e«t iiftrt eoiisift^* ef t«»tli^ftey 
irlTMH ^]f |)ln.ii:tiff, d«r^d«Bt and Mr. Olson. 

HBlr^tiff no loiB|£»r >«Ids hsr pesltlse witis ttt« fossil; l^y 
whieli iKhft vm« «t^leysd. £Nil'#»dtt&i «»dBplftins Umt etrsr uXm ebJiKO- 
tlc» ^« «o»rt p*TXiltt«d ^l&imtiff to t<»8til> thnt »h« ebtftlo«d s 
polities fiftor th« l>lrth of feor shiid whloh she rstftieod for ciBljr 
six «-««!(•, f^fl Uittt th««roftftor tt^ to ^o tl»« of tho trio! «li« hai 
not t0<»n empX0jt;A, Mso th»t plMintktf «»» oiXowod OTor o^Jeotloa 
to tostlfy tiiot tineo ll»reh» 1^33, slxo li»d boon rooolvin^ o diso* 
bllltx be««»flt frcNbi tho Jiov Yor& JLifo IjBiourMsoo Co^^^ony of #7& * 
»»0]ttH« ^m^ xnmt tttls woto istor solo ii^oca^cr, vniio i»rli»r to ikmrtSs. X, 
If 31!, s»i« ro€«»lvo«i frvm inor oa^pJieyiBoat #90 • voeic tmd siitlatsnasoo. 
9or<^i3d«knt sa^s t'nio ovidmoo was taeoiRitotost ( sinoo tnero was bo 
allocation of si^^oial d«Ka|(o in th« ooK^laint) emd iras tiigitXj ?»ro* 
ladloial. l«»adiRs tli« jary to ti#licv« Uoikt b«8«ui«i» of tao aliogod 
sodnotlen ftcdi »ul»s«<iu<<»)t ^Irth of ta« etilld plaintiff <»«mi i>hy«i* 
ealXj i»e^<.daeitai«d froe folloirlttc aaj vooatlob or octaii.lfig ««• 
ployffioat. It is said ttiooo da^a^oa w«ro spoeuXativo ssd ooajoota* 
»!• »» aro not ix^prm99»6 with thio ewtiviUc^n. a ens* for br«aoh 
of 9ro»ls*» to ftarry dt ff «ro atttofa la its aattiro frv^ othor eauooo ef 


m hit 
tit il9i liaAn u OMllltttqf 



•OAiArjr tej^iltitma af Ui« {»Arti«t la &d^is»ll»l« sUia« it It witli 
7«aiD«ot to th««« KAttftrt ti4»t t)i« iojur«d p»7ty i* wr«ag«4. In 
J«a«« C»ttt;«ntai-i<^» on &Tl<1«ja««, I3n4 «d* * irol. 2, «••, tt77« p.X'itX, 
%h9 fttttottr a»j^t »i' laii aX*** ol' ««••• t.^i^i Xhm (tvii<»ii6«t ftf Uv» 

*t% 9%9iss to roXlow t^ai 11 %h«t 8oel&l ft&d fitt&nelaX ^nn-Aiti^n tf 
tli« 4«f<!«td«&t i« 9rop«r td b< maovik &• alfaetiai^ th« ld9« td the 
l»X»lntlir, hmr ««& »o«i*l i»»(i Haiiki.6i».\, ctoKditiafi may to« im««B tor 
th.n ciMKa r«*»(m«* 

Xn V mn40tQp^l r. fiio^,^ y d«Q«,^ 8« Jiil«ii, 33si, X? is. ». 934, 

t^« eourt SAias 

*9h4U} th« suit is f&r I1A0 X«t» of a «i«nrlim« iw^d 02' sua •»» 

|>«et«4l hoat«, th» f«.et tii.»t tll^» |ii«i-ijRtifi' It i^iUkeut th« M'^'aBs to 
ornvld* MS Ir jl«ii«n4«»nt hiMB* for h«r««Xr Is »ttt s^ktireXy M&lKpert* 
ttnt. It BAy b9 ■af>)^oa»4 to b« %nm eS* the faAts ^hich bct& pi»ri.leif 
had ifi s:lnd in ffiaktn^ taalr ftTraB«as&«Rt«; «iid It la Kot i»>9ro9ar 
tj^at %h* jury shouXd lunow »i it alae and taJta It i£^te uooouiit in 
aaiclttg Up th.«lr ▼«r^ict. * 

fhia «•««» to aKprt^et) tha g^tieraX ruXa ( •#« K.a.i., » toX* 

4f i». X74, «<»a« 93) wjrtleh Is «)iXaa auataiB«d 1»y tha XXXitaaia aaaaa, 

f»tg)?a T. Vai^ i^Xa«^,>. XS IXl. 44*: ilSfij|3yLJU--lJMMai» a^* UX. 2Wj 

.^4a«L:»:AJL»Jl. »•? ixx. x«4; i^iMiiiLJU--ksai^saa. •a ixx, x7o. 

thara wa.a »o arror la adjaittiftg tnia avidacaa. 

t% ia rurtsar aantandad t/^at iha eaurt arrad lii &i^iMf^ ta 
tua Jury Ifiatruetionfl &aa. d aad 7 vhla^s, dafendaat saya &ra arraaa* 
atta b«a(%a«pa thay talX ttea jury \km\ It jaay iof«r tia,« «jcXatatta« 

• f ft pros&laa af jaarrlaga tvtm tJia i'aate nju4 alrewihtoV'aittaa ef tJba 
aa««« aafiwalaaat saya taat a 9ro)<ii«« of iMirri«m« anaat be provad by 
•Xaar and auffidiaat avlttaoea, tiiat Ita axiat«Mia<t eartaat too aaS'aXy 
ftafarrad fror. tha faa% mat tiva p«rtiaa vmr* fr«a»*fitXy tag«ib«r 
imr frasB tha tto-'lar«f».«K?im;K of frlanda «i»d reX^tlvaa, aad eltaa 
Sll*llSIL3UJi£Stol£*li •S IX^. 4X. Saf^rtidaiit Xao «-ya taat tiika 
0TTt>r wnM ^Mi%9 i^atwrlaX !» this a&aa beaaue^ iii*a eaR$»XaiRt daelnrad 
«paa an *si>raaa ratuar t&m aa IjbftXXad presiiaa aad ta tl^ia paint d«- 


'•»i»i«#« ..' 

:«i»«fe »ai 

finvAant «!U*« ^aJLii»ILlJtA_JiHft. ^^-^ ^^^' *P^' ^**' '^^'^ in»tf^«tlon« 
ar« nftt, w« tiilnK. »«t»,t*'«t to thiB eritiaimn, Ir. a •»«« 1U« tait 
th# «oii4«iet ef th# 9artl«» toi»'«r<l «»cii atla«r way to* tif^wB f«r i]&« 
T(»uTTn»»« ef l«<ll«?itlKg im«th«r, »• * aAtt«r of f»«t, %h« praiisiii* t« 

ift*»i^ w»« ffi»4«i. FlaiKtlff ■li'l B«* trin^;' hin- ««•• ttr»«n aJRy tia^ory 

■^r0»t«« »«.» «36.t»r««». ?1».t» wtt» oldmiM l»y iil«l"««*rtaKifc, bat e©tt4u«t 
In. -float tug ta*t fe«»# <?'M» la f**©* mt m^^mim^mt U> !»• sastrrl** wa» 

ijroasl»«. fhft ©*«# of MallfkvA y^ m*M UmM no v^itpXinsktion in % «»•• 

tif thi« .&l«d. It i«.f«»l»«<* a «o)Btr«M3t Itir u»« purei-.m.«« «f tmml #»• 
tikt« »n«l th* Q^^rt ii%stM Umt tii«r# ttaui4 l»« no ijt.'#JLi«d oofitr»et 
vk^rft im )!»:?$p]'«s» 30iitr%i,et «j(,iAt«r4. 

ln»strwetl©» «», aci^, 'b^' wki« ■ tk« i^ry w«,* t#l(S t^wt if it foim^ 
r<*r th® platlatlff «W'-4 if It »u©uli rurl,<;.«y fiwd fraes tii« 4rvid«>»9« 
thftt #i*» #«»f#e^»!it, while- tirie i^ialrttiff itili e'-af l.1«d iE hio 
uromlsff, »«<la<?«^ t&« T»2.a.if>tll*f ieanl a« A f^s^ult tliereof a eiill** v%9 
hem of i*hi©h t«f'«K4«mt wae awar* iWB^«t jfi«vd ii«ti««, tl;« J«fy sfekoul* 
ta^kt tiich r*«t« lBt« «M»iaei.A»y«tl«MS, toti^tfe*!* ^'ith sdl i»f tfe# ©tin*!* 
f»Tl4esi«tf» 1& tilt (»%««, in «fi»«»iiiiiiii filmimtii'f*^ ■^.mim.^^B, It !• mrg«l 
tinat ttils iB«itruetl«tfSi i« l£ih«r«iri'tl.^ vieious 1j. 'ti>£t.»t It «k.8«U8i«« to 
4<ii«i%.-li«« th« «9ci«>t,«i&tj« of ft '«a&teri«l »xid ooRtr<»vert«4 'f^it, yi*,, 
thfkt fl*%iiittiff r«li<s4 tt|>c«i « «»»r3ria^« l^r<Wiio* «» »rt ii&<iue-«tt.«iit to tiM 
p«!r>KlftiB&«n of iatiJKUkOi««, KKfi tant it i« i'artn«T ol!j>»etlr»Rabl4i la 
ttofct It slT«» ae IfctlifAtloft of* tlto o©uirt*8 oipinion to tht «ff««t 
thut plal&Xlff tut»!t.ltt^ to 9«xu«l IrUaroourot fiui d«l>x(dcuat un^cr 
ft proffil««f of ffi*rrlajs« *uio4i »*« * mat^rlia f&ot iia 'licptttw. ttvo 
fact oi' tot«J'«yui'«« ^ajad tho hirti^ cf i?JL?*i»tiff «« «Will4 wore witoe*. 
tr*Aiot«4 f««t» Iti tiio esoo. Th« lnati'uc^l©r. did fcot direct t vftr^Siet. 





o « 

^■^'^ i^j»^,,„ bV v i ff ii t-^A-^-^ "^^^ •^'»^ 


!1 111 


}r.til sn.r. 



It '111* not a«i»vtBu» Tftllnjao* ©w a Bi»rrl<k«* profcli* »• •« indae«B«ttt 
t« porstlt lftt«reottre«. uthor liE;«truailo»« viUev that ii»a Jury ««• 
IcforBKid that tii« f*«t th« trial J«d«« ft<»41 giv»n »fiy iRstruotlona 
on th» «u^|«et af dasta^;** aheuJL^ nat %• takan &« any icitin^tlett 
tJiat ^lisilntlff akioul* or siri«>ul4 cot ra««Tftr, ^a rwia aftpullenVla 
1» statalt In li»|,a(^« ir. Batt^ . S3S lii. A|»j>. f>S; 

*i» a elvU action for l^reaoH al' prcisilaa, pr.>©r aay I?* of- 

f«ra4 BliawiJUii ie4iictlij«. '^iil^ 1» i»r Ui« p»ri<<ofet ei »*,,,. jr»v»tii,|; 
th« dajs&^,;«». Yub^>^ y» V'vn >aeait. la ill. 446; ^lAXftr y. |fe<jt. 1.^ ,1^1. 

^SBMi&M* i'i'' ^'^■*'« •*^^« ^•''' *^^^* -^^"^J ^ ^y*** i^''^^J ^ A»«r. &. 8«g. 

Ine/« «i' i.a«« S^S. Xnit) i« Ui« rala In Illlt^@la «>&& vh^r* t»« 

tsductioft le r^ot all*M«4 lii tits .1eol»r.^t;lo». ye^lmw.f. y, fctr t,^,. 
«04 ill. 41*i,'* 

ft u&lak iJa«vt vaa no trror lai tiiia instruetian. 

:0«r«B4act also o»nt»64« %ii»t u»a lilvutg at ift«iruetlG& &«• 
S2 iraa arrer. Iliia Ittetruatieia was to %&h eiT«et ta«t il' liutt jury 
ahdultS rini far j»l*latift' tua J^r^ ira\a<i iua.v« ti&« T%(t£:i |« pttal^ 
^efoni^rt fair Tiolatlni; i%la i»ra«iia« ta narry )»lAistirf toy aaariJUftg 
•xanplary or 9Utii(lT« la^oi^aa* ik «44itid& ta aotual <laibafi;ea« if 
tha Jary ¥«'it«va^ froa tfo« «Tld«nea tf^at 93Leiai:tlmij »ed fjnltWii 
4»»«Lj^tts ai&Qttid &• «varda4. ^aa^ daaai^as, aaid taa laatructiOK, van 
allawabl« «ii4 {larKiati^la e&ly 1< tli<!^ J^^ •hQal4 t'lB4 fr«f tista airi* 
Aacia« t&at tiias'a £ia4 baaa aub* «i«&«»t ai' deocit. s»Jil««, ai>i>r«saioa 
•r •Til aetira« &« aeitts«eti«#n wlt^ t&a syiiLiiiig <»)* %k^ px^mta* l»y 4a* 
fa&dant cr Hl» teraaak tis^araol'. iiax'^Jb^aut ee)»4»l«.ij»s ui^t t&a l«»true- 
tiaci 414 1^0 1 tali tka Jury viiat fttftta ii^al>^ ar «ouJ.d t^ot sonatituta 
thf i'ratt4« ia««ii ar ftailaa «hltta «aul4 ttUktiiarXaa tna *«&r44fi^ 9t 
yaBltlva 4«i.H|£aa, Ic^^t left taa jury fraa acs^Fa to &«&r4 puc^ltlv* 
4as.j)i^»a ae6«r41fi^ ta thalr lr41vi4uaX aotlana oi' rlt^ht aod «rcB«, 
uaj{til4a4 aA4 uAr#»train«4 iby any lagal rula far tiia ttward ai auidft 
4KAa£«a« On wiia point def ^dant ©it«a lcau.ullit>n t. ^^Yy ^. f t ^6* 
Ilia ^39*S4d« A^aiA It i« to. b* ii&t#a Umi tn« Inetrttatiow wae aat 
aaa wtd.^ 4ir«at«4 « var 11 at. a aae^vu^t aiukiliur iuatruatlao £lvaii 




■<i^4 hM.- * (»9SUll) 


■4 Mftf^-iw^to 


t» lAfi,iAy.,.,l> JktMk, SOS lil. ^, wa» fe«l« »<»t »ul»j««t t© erlUciiiB 
In view of th« f&tft Ihiii tuoy d«l'#«t iu L% «»• curti4 by 9thnr U%ntrue» 

t!CiiB«^lait«ly fftlldvs it iu tin.* r*fs«r4 aii<l eoaala«ri«ii Ui« t«« in* 
«itraoti(s«t« t0fr«th«r, w* think 1% «tt«t t>« ^tlA %A« i»« »0)9li«iiba.« 

4«f««itiT« In %iisk% i% fftllA %o jli901o»* At «i^o0« r«»qtt««t tho lia»%m«* 

tiOitt w*r« i?,lV4m, Xt h»« ib««n uoXd. ii^ msmy e&oee tu«t •u«i% » 4«ir««% 

r«iri^. .aijjsixjLuJy&ifiaix.. *♦ *ii» ^>«^*« ^^'«i MijyybUiyL-kaiuJu 

13« A|»». SSSt IM ^y v> k^xU iAXii. lai 111. App. 9d6j MM^JSjLJt* 
ilMSLljuMUM* «fi» ^i-3^. •^?^. ^s^> 

tho Jury 1« Gle».fiy wm4 mmiifn»%Xy «Ks»in«t t*i# w^lg-'^it OJ" ili« •vid«>n««} 
th«t & Bifw trl«l •he'4li h^ViS 1!!;««b giv«n for thmt ritmmtm, m4 tH*t Uw 
aoUNJlt of t>3.« i««t««,«« Ollovod |»y tii« Jury Is gf« oxowtesivo %» to lA* 
^toftio |»»ft«loii nmA. mrftjuilloo v&ielL woh14 ^omfoi » ]r«v«T«&l. flicoo 
ec-at«iatlo£« r«^'air« » e«^r«ful «'^Bi4«ni%i4>» or adi t£io «vi<it«Eoo in 
the eneo. 

¥k« 41r«ot oirt^«i»oo on tho i9u««tloa el" «li«t^0T «ua «*etual 
i!»re«.i«« t«v «arrj w»« luado is by pl^ljitlfr aa4l ««J"««.i4«it» tJao ono 
al'liwsliig «&!) Ui« «t54*r A«aayi«|g tk« omiotaii co ol* tho prcaKloo, :iii4i 
Jury SiAO Tfrtttimoji « vor*«.i©% la tm^r oi* ^i&lBai*i% »»4 ttoo tyigd 
o««yt, v^to h«»*»^ tj&« wltjri«»«««, Haii a|»j>roir»4, oJ' tA« vor^lot 01 Uio 
jury. tte« qu«»tlo» ro» tklo court it whmmmx- uedor oli tlio wid^ioo 
wo eoo li»4 t.m tuo TovAiot io «oi»ii*oUy aiialr.^t tii« •ti4«ttoo. lo 

i4^iri%^-^ " <«^« «,*«»■.< 



•i Y ■% '" y A ,"" ' « i^" t 7 ■'■ » 


Mil ^Ai 

'ffl .^yrt"; 

f1»t«r»i«iis« tte« ir«l^iit to V« ^irnu io tJM testlAony el e»ea purty. 
inwletiff »n<« 4«f»»«awit b©tl» >«»tiri«4 at i«Wfetii In tii«ij? ftwn k*- 
bKlf. Arthur Cl«e»« &iktimiiiw»%*u f»Ttmr*mr but now {&.» i«r«ta<l«Bt 
ssty«) only om •9«>^ft.)ti»g t«)F%« with uii&, tesUi'l^d in 4«t»ll /^.s to 
«orrot!!or«,tiirt f^tcstft* ¥!%«•« t>ir*# i>ld»»««»«* tU'd t^« itttii»r» »f 
fl»i»tifr t© defendant , •*'\i«h i»«r« ©IT«r<Ml i» •irl(4«ri«« fejr dtJ'*wii5«li.t 
hl^s«<»l.f» ruf»i«a tli« iRat«ri«X frti^ niilai^ thi» d&ratr&XilJii^ «i^«fttlcMi 
or f.^'.ot r.u«;t 'b« 4tt«rT'£iii<»«l. 

t%i« t(^«ii«»«^y siMivft tbut :t,-l«ilntl ff rimt M^t <Scf«n(l«nt aHottt 
th« «»<1 of ^ntmnrf, 1951, at a i^lrl0* eluli «t 7f^ ^»ct Ea.« «trft»t, 
irhl«n iih«s>. wft9 th«» eortduetlf^g; t^^.at ^^t'Ai-^^iyrit v»» fernught to t^* 
«lvib 1»y hii! |t%rtiv«r, Arthur Olif<i>a. irw. M«£.ttKURl«, a aurii«,M&4 frl^mt 
of pl«ii»t-iff , wh» w«« ▼Iftitiatj li«r »t tJa.«(,t tiffil* 3*ii4 wS&« dl.<?<l al»«Mt 
tw« y#a,r8 fe#f«r« fisw* trial, wa» fr*»«isi. 

I'll* rriSt£ie« of tJna ti}jr»«9 1$ to Va.9 •ff«iat t^iat th« riatta 
♦f dlff^aaaarit &n<! Olacri to the alwli w«ra tu«r«aft«r fraqu^uat. i^Xala* 
tiff ea^ii tHiil di«f«Nr::{iant &i9i;:.« t«^ %iri« haiivn wltti i&r. ii2.a«ii o» aa 
a'faragft ef aWut thr#« tli«i#e a *a«M frm-i tkv *n(i of jriNsaary, !!««•• 
ttea* thay ««mi iilriiri»gt B'm«f%im>^» to tha tkaatra: «io^4»tlm«ia ta ^, 
cji*f«, tl'4«» four tcvfe-tt^er. S(5i.:etiia« Ui«r«aftar, 0i.-si.1-i tiff »»ye, ,<!#- 
f«r>4i»i% a« har ja.1 x<'dR>a i»:i-l .^«J^a4 ^er If «i^« llica ta §0 ta 
tha tTiaatra wltb t*lM>. mmd a^i^t e«,i4 0f4« watiXd, aiad iia la«|alra<l, *D« 
V9 h»v« t« haira 71111 a mnA Arttiur aldttsf X «ra»t ta taica yau by ay- 
•«lf; I loft't wa»t ta sHokra yan dO.! ©Trar town." aisa tol4 ^te, 
*That watil^ %# ^r#at f^.** Ea €»ai&a ti^era or^ t)wt wTwiing ana xh/&f 
w(«nt tojgathtr t«» tha Chicago t>iea%ra smA tkmi. ta a aafa aii«ra thagr 
hadi »ui>p«»j na aaa »l«a *a« wlta than, ^ftar taat plstiritiff e>«ya 
ehf want sat with Mn fraqu#&tly, aith«r aaw hia ar ha ealla4 har 
arary w««k 4ay. Sha tsay* th«t la %aa i^aatlii ©f Juwa, 1931, Jaa ia* 
vlt^d h«»r ta dtK&ar *t Iraiw^da, aw tiia aaar Jkorin sida: alia ^^^^pt^ 

■ i 


-4. .• - . 

^ J i^ fc. JUS saw" '»«VW 

-.11 >> 

; , *-••;• J ^ 1? 

tht lavltAtlon. la th« %,«ai.tiA« Ui« fm-iXj wltU ^'(um the mnAt 
hnr "lOflMl h»4 a«v«4 t« .LAk* Mui*i\ Pcl'^Kdajnt «>«t h«r tn«r« pa tro 
•«e«iloa«; ati« «»;• ttuifct ««iii« at lt9XtkMid» h* «««di H«r If «^« hiA 
ft gr»«t HMT.y fri«n<ft; ahm (i<ftl4 "yet.* ai*<l ti^*t h* iictd aJLiiot*^« •»id. 
*I hi»,x9 only os« t'riM^d, Art^uir 0}.««m, * I tAld, *you httT« »•* lukd 
]|« «»U» *I want you for More t^^i«n a lrl#AA*; k« •%!<, 'B« ywk titiak 
you eouXd etMid it, t9 looic M>t »« «ioro»« tii« tabi.e tor th« r««t of 
y^ux* llftiF' I B«i4 I w^uldi h%v« to UiiDk It oT«r. "* Sta« &txt mtm 
hla t^« ;-iui:.4agr foiiovlfi^ sh^u h% ir«>vt to Juako fluH' to 1^riB|$ hoir 
to ^lo«4i^; titio waio a)»oat <l^:mo l&tH; h9 ao^od Mer if n^o kiMl 
tlMMf^t ftf oliat ii9 i&oko<i nor at Irole»do{ »»« told Iss. lAio tunA 
t!ioii4lht of BoUiian oioo; &« s^olied hoy noi to turn hts^ 4eoii «s oiMi 
V04I &li n» £i»4 if. t£iio vorl^l, o&d obo told ai» ojae wtum*t goiog to{ 
t^.o Stt^ai Juo aok«4 li«r to ««rry Eiia aftor Q%jristi>i«o; oaid ixm vouXd 
h«vt hit i&rtairo i» «»«f« l^;* &u«^ ''&4 of ta&o yoor; oiio toXd bin ob* 
4lto*t Icficier tn« vorld r^old oo iauo«'. hapuinoa* otiid told hia. **/«•.* 
SiilMi oajTo ^fi t«^«i attlco^ Ilot if h^r family W'imJL4 wor^t « forutal imb- 
aotiino«i.«Bt ; tio tlittti^t l»»lim iAi^li*^ tii^ «oia«t{ idj^o r«fli«4 that 
witon OHO «ai 1b &am9 aho ^14 ao .no JKoA^mst die. 

A rooltation of mil tho orldonoo would boooaifl «oa]rlooau» 
(m4 ttn4ul7 oxtOB4 ti^lo opinion. It lo ottiTisiotit to oay that ^oloon 
^•fiioo jys to to oirtry oomToroatioa vitk piaifitlfr itidi^atinis a pro* 
pooal of aiarriano oa iilo pmtt or aoeoptaiuoo by iisar. Xh» ttno&titra<» 
41etod ovidtiisoo, lM»«over, ofto*» tiiat Uier«aftor ay to J^oeanliojr Jfe, 
I0S1, ho oao eo»»ta*.t in bla tittaatlouo to h»9 ana wn&u xiiio faja»ily 
by wnoift OJ:io trae oaipieyod Kiov«4 to LaJin £lutff ij^o *«nt thtrw to violt 
ao», Sho •▼liies.oo ftJto© otiO^O tHat Ik t£iO Iait«ir j»»4jrt ©f Augaot alto 
»oeoiTo4 aa ia-fitatlo» to rioit frioado ia i.oul»vlii«, i>^.; umt 
Ao talito^ wita ^oitadast abeat it. »uA it i»a» fiuaily o«rted tkat 
4of«n.taBt oottxtf «!rivo liiO aMto«obllo lur«lako4 fey Mor oapXoyoT for 
b«» ttoo, '.ad t^.oy would «ako th* trip to^^otaor. tor tootimoa, ig 

'OS -'- i 

; .,-. •■• t ♦ 


t«i tit<i ttrf<i«t tfJAt «B %h# first •▼#&l»|j; ftut t2)«y ntopp*^ ftt » b»t«I 

vif«, ftctd n»t«lti*ttt«m<tln« h«r 9rei««t« iaBi»%«A ttn oeeu»yieii th« 
«.M&o ro«» wltu &•!• ti»*t •T««l«u, 10 wlil«ii •&« ria«JLly assented. He 
A««t »ot *i«ay til** tfci«y <*i«S ©a««I>y t^* ••aa® r&em but d«u4»» otUtr 
l«cl^»ni» &« r«a.i^t»4 by ia«». Hi« t«»tto<»ay 4* feo tto,« •J'i<B©t ta«kt 
tktir u»4tt« mtJiBi&vy l»(i»g«M 3B«t si^t t»fMi.t Uk« Mi «a tti« dretting ^rlor 
tn«r«t<» irr»«n iii*y oaeu^iurd » xt»«»& *t (^l.ii««a*gi lint i» t^* ais»#a«« 
&t €tit«R. It i« tta<tl»piit«Kd i%« wa* p]r<»a«^t«d liy i\«r t« ^«r rri««i4» 
lA i.o«titvill« mt4 timt thtty r«%ujm«4 to^jetk«i'. ait te«tlB&«my 1« %• 
th« «n'#«t tbat «» ti'ift 'Way Itatt^ at a t9«tt w>a Xm a h«t«Jl t&ft i)aM«« 
ef whioh b.* tt«»»«t wimm&'^mw, t£2«y agais eeotipi^d t<iri« Bim-9 »»«», 
fht ^iri^««««i« i» t«r t&« «rr«itt tuat ma attaatl«^» eomtinaad luatll 
B«9«2sll»«r SIOii m4. tliat oit t^a avimlii^ o/ titat 4[.fty thay oaatiplaA a roott 
ta^etMAf at hl« flat. M'i« #tt(l#i&«« a4»« la io yt» vffaat that an 
B«a«»»l»«r 22, { tv@ tlaye lAt«!fr) h9 f-«»utK«d ^lia oaarttt&ip af tua lady 
ha h»e eli^ea i«.arrie4a in faat ^at )%« teaaaMi «ii;j,ag«4 to har on tnai 
4$ata. ~^t»r«aft«i> a murkm^ d«gr*<i af «at»lttaaa d«v«X<»9adi b«tatta» him 

^omaii^^it iM Harolt ^iaifttirf eaXlaa al» y|i i*&d: ra«|ti«at«d aa 

int#ryia« sm4 at tkat tima t^ld him af i»«jr ^ragjnanay* il« aaya i&a 

aaa Tlai>b«rii,&«tad. " &a at oaaa «ii«u«a4 :raap0n«iteility, ««iipx«y«d a 

|i.hyfii«lttii, i>r#irl4a^ f'uads t«> «^ir« k#7 aftt^yiar trlj!» ta ^aatuaky; 

t£iri»ttih tiaa thyal«iaii arfaiigwd tuat »&« akaaid ^^t earad I'er »t a 

haa^iial wh»r« Uia akUA (a l»«y) ira« beam a& Saf:*tai&li«ir 3w, 1932. 

Th« {it&y«leia& toaawaa inttrtattd it* iuo 6«»a t^nd «» &«tab<F;r %^%h 

tha r«a«>l^4■ @f tii^aA^ourt »hoir t^).ia eiaXld ««aa with t^a aadaa^t al* 

tht mathay adaT}t«d *y a -wwaltby faMlly. 

Fraffi ^una 13, 11^31, and tli»r«al'tay i>Ji%iAtit'f wrota to <ta« 

ftBdaet 12 latt«ra wiilah wfew afferad i» tTldftr,-^ ■--■ 

thla, af o»ttra#, auly IsdlnsiotlT baaira anwii ttoe contralling question 

!•>«•«« ! 

sH .fce^nasEi. 





1 ft'-.JrjAf.ii t»r:i«« frjJi 

-U^ J ur)* >> o"- 


in the «»«• vHiei} Is vii«thftr %h« ^•tm^wmt 9y«ni««<i U nt^rry th« 
9l»lntlfr. D«r«m4«nt i»«y« tHat ttii iiali point tn« o»s* r*ftt» •«• 
tt'r«X7 en $iX%i»tifr'« t^atUioiiy ml viae, wkleJft 1« «« i«^.{»reto«»bX« ttsA 
ooutrA-Sletory tsimt ia vi««r of feii« d«»lal. It aust b#» ii«l4 tiittt t«i» 
▼frdltRt in ti»r f&vor 1» Kai^ii«etly u^idL&at ti^« •TM«tie*. W« i^av* 
giv«o e«r«>'fui o<»i«i«i«3'«t4wa to tk<k «vi(^«i»«« iei y»« r««i(»]rA b<!i«rlB« 
•a t^uftt !««»«• It 1» trun .tJti&t tii« dir««t ovl^-met a« t« th« 
■pr9K,i6»! l& smrry r«8i«4 <m pl&l^tlfiT'o i«Bii&o«ty «l<»ii« «fi4 t£ik« eim* 
TorfluitloA* %»#iwft«ri i»lai(^iiri' «m^ '&(»i'm€m%, mil ol* irul«i!i D.0 4«'i^lft9a 
l»ttt «« {t:M»ai»t ae«t]?t dffi'eiaiii^kt** c<mt<mti@i» ttt«% tli-o t«^tlt-i«ciy of 
f»l«ltttltf ill JU.9ir«i1i«feJ.« Ifi vi«» of tito iut««u;trMJ!i<3t«d f^^otft iua4l 
c«»irr9l^«r«ttvi> taotlmoay mfipmikrim§, in tJ%is rtte4»x-4. It le uui«iontr&» 
«tiet«4 tl^Kt frote i^« ti»# ftof^ndsmt mot pX»lntlff ie #o^ru»ry« 19^1, 
until INi«tmt£«ir 30 of %h0^ ««Mi« yQojr, .U« wao att«etiT<» to ;si&l£itlff in 
« voy wltie.h i»e'.11oftt«€ ^o wa» very ssiaoii ietor«sttt4 iri hmw, yl»0», 
his fri*n4 «b4 oo»f»«Mil«», tootiflto ( nULt^isowgtii; di«f4m<l«mt doitino) tiaot 
«tftf.e!fidn»t so «a:i»r«o«ly otato^ to him, Boftttidat^t^o own t«atli&efiy is 
t® tho tffoot thot etinrlng tltie tlaik* ti^o ««fiirt#^i|» &f t^e iiady to 
«h03is< h« i« ii«« »»Trl#d wins .lis tor rup tod, ^.i Uiat t^o r#B«i^ptloc of 
thftt oonrtahip oeourrod aXweot niaiAltaiveottBiy wita m» eoiiXlag of 
his Affttotlon for pXmlntlff. fkooo olroam&t^« v^oo to&d v«ry «mo)i 
to oorrofeer»t« plAlBtiff'o t«»Btii»oa|r of 4of««d«at'« i»r«.-..;l»o. koro 
tliOB tiis«« to t&o undift^ttto^ «vi4«»oo tjt*at aof<j/*d,^t LBtrci,uco4 
flAintirr to tiao Moasibojro of jstio onw iiModiatd I'^^lly, proootxtsA to 
hmr th9 koy vhJLoib )i«4 feoon K»«,.r4odi aim hy hi» a«»l,i«go fojr ««jrit ia 
dSto«to, th»l He «iroii too* «« i«tejr»»t Ui ta» elot&oo 9>loiAtiff t^r« 
ehos«4. tiaO«« facts t«K4 to Amif %&9 ultlAAto tiuootion iioro ofit for 
th« Jury, Wo shall ©ot stop to cileeuss ttto oo«itrftdiotie«o Ife tkoir 
t«8tls»oay, fmr tnstsf «o» J»or sta^^rcwt tliat tiiOir iUiait roiatloes 
boiean at m mtmtm»4 liotol oa Uim autoe*otiX« trli> to LoaisTlllo as 
aeainst hU tliat tHmy ¥ot«a st tho Lima fiat on tho jat^at Vofor* 


«i#y «t&rt«A m m« trip, Wttr ftll, 4t 1« nnt AwU^ thm% A« «ft4« 
^« triiit <^^^ tiivK* thinge o(»ourr#d «o t:^« it'll* » i»£^d Uiftt J&« •»• 
i»r#t«Bt*et i0 h»r fri«ii4» i« i.««i»vUi« t» * »5am«r t«i»4i«g to H&41- 
«»«• %« i^«* t^^ttt h« wiui a «Xoit« rrl«ftA ef pX&iatifi, Also eorr** 
1iar%llT« 1ft %h«t t»9% t!ia.t whvr^ «h« Xmimmtt nkWiarm »f k«jr ««n4iUeik »h» 
<aiiai«4 tn«t f««t t« kit att«titl^i tii^t a« «i!U«ut |ijr<»t«ftt £)^«««i»t«d 
iii« ir«'«^9tt»iteUl%y f«r ii«r 0«faiti«iis m»kt «*« yr*»vl<i«<i htt-r wiiii 
»«in«ir f#r « ^&uir%%«y &$» l*rl#£id« o-ut«i4« Ui« ttiik»to« pr«vi$tttd ~^«i]r vltjai 
» fltyalsl^ s«4 ft nuvsw, |»&ld h^JF «x|j«ia»«ft lG^«uirji'«4 wj&lIXii t)»« 
•Mi4 w«s %9li)ig b«l%k in tk» !9i««plt«a.. 6X»«Jft aMtj^v tM«t durla^ iluit 
tlittt <l«fflMiS4»it Attic«d hi9 kttlip In til* ]batt«r« tuuA tii^tt ;£i« citiri»t4 
tii*t 4i»fm4im% mkttf pXukintift »• fe« kft4 »#3r»«4 to 4©, t&« t««tl* 
m^aj ®i' <i«i*#0^»»t*« ewi-i -^Itf^itftfi, !<«)>««», 4.&&» ui»% M«Ip d«r«siiliixit*ft 
«iiu»«. Biiteei»^ rm «ttj»rr<«jr, t^ntll'lt* ti4»t It^ t}%« liitt«ir' i»«&rt ©I" 

•ff idto i» iitl««Mt«)! th«.t ««> Uxti ^tk^ ovtt-r "l>4 li«x»«a &iik«4 Art <«'1immi 
If kLtt hmA !»««» »l»lt t« ««Mtt« to turn* «tttl«»t««:it wltJsi ^eiitt« I 4i4»'t 
know wti« eat »««, wad h« «Aid xi«, »ix« Ik^A b<i«ii tt<it «f t(M«, Aft*r 
ir« i*l't t^l« oc»if«r«»««« «« tttta^« -lows jyitftirs, M hutimm sAid, *)ii|r 
^d, Art* ^F&n ougi^^t ti« im it&le t9 i« ftd^«ti«iii^ .i^«r«l t« ^nlp n* »ut* 
ftnd &rt 9«14 td ^1«»» *W«ii» MAt 1% i« ti d«vii el «i p&Wiiti&a t^ h9 
iB. * E« f«ii4, *X r^^X tt«B&'«t;ttAbl« to betM 9I ta« ^,)iiyrtl«s Iri tiiii*t X 
icitrodu««4 |'«u to MoXoQ sucid ti««ii tule li«.@ t« &«'«« it|». * Mo »«i4» 
*Xto« liMftt ir«^ «ut 0l it Uviifct 1 tfcu'i ««« mxa ta emv« you ti^o X«?ftot 
•nfe»rrtt8>m«Rt vsmld te« to mmxry u^r, * aiMl &4 «Ai4 to Art,&o eoid, 
♦V«u, /krt, X nm«t Xov*^ h«r, m«» jcaowo iaat i d«o»t Xe^o aor, * 
^0 «fti4, U deisH w»»t t« morr^r hor. I im vixil&g to p9kf i^or «^« 
^•£i««t fiia'^ 40 «ir«x'^tiil»s that » i^Ato^a oaouXd 4o tta4*r th« ttirou»» 
otaneto, fcMt X ««a't es^rrjf jfcor, y«»w, ioeioiir I d«B*t Xovo Ja«r, • mi 
Art 01«®a «&14 to al«R, 'WoiX, X Juko« yew dftB»t. » Urn •«14, «ld, X 
kBOw tkio ro&ooe yott two havo )>#on go lag wrouKd te«othor, b»at X think 

• it 

Mia oi i»ij 


•'■■' *- ^ '■"•'* ^* *-Hf 
... ..,i «.Vi^*:'«<>tf 

— -^ - '. ■ » t*««l 
•■'■'' ■ • rij-t 

.1 tin *■■'<*. «i ::,■" 5' <*il$ii 

•i«Kif'i"w.r ■'• ' .T-.ii^r-nn t^;\ / )5V 

■ !(«'•:;■» »jt«<* $\0i •• 

i-xA turn 
• vav $¥.'■ ' "' 

> ■ 

1 .ft- 




It v^ttKl ^« t)»« saBictt way out i'or y»tt. • Mx^ M 8»1^, »W«ll, 

try to <!o »»ia«tnliig, will you, Art?' nuA Art »»ld, ♦««Xi» I will 
!!»▼• to Walt atjtlX ali« ««%• ^aek In tow, ♦• Ihoro «*• n© oro9» 

M»nlf«Btly 1« vl«w of pinlRtlff 'b tenttmonjr, <mrrolJor»to<! 
«• It is Vy titikt ef OlLsiw «n^ »«»/ ttndtft|>ii%«« fta^ett ir th« oant. 
Ili# r»*i«iriiii^f «ic»rt (whlon hn* not «««« er h.»*,rtt th« *it»««»«ui) 
««f5K©t «*y tixat th» ir«r<«lat 1» i:^.g«ln«t th# w)9soif««t w«l^ht of tti« 

Vi^fmidm't, Kew«v»r» «9nt<i«^dt» E4i«ft strtmuottBly ihut tht«« 

tw«lT« lftt«r« wrl^toa 1>y ^Ifttetil"**, vjjw eiir«rally rojsti »«««itiTO 
#ittlir»ly tfo« thought tliat tiioTfi w«o ony proiRlao &a <}«l*(an4«ujt*t 
|»«jrt to worry pXitkintitT at %»y tlioo. fhlt Imf^^tmem 1« drwvR fron 

tlifi! I*«.et %hM% in t^tse l^ttoro in "Phlejb «a,t tl&#fi «ho ^ooeribo* Hor 
t«rri1&Xe *xp«ri«i!ieo In tIow of 'it«r 4oli«»t« oottdition, »)%«» '^ooo fiot 

ot ony ttmo »u^i^«Mt te :^or«<t^it«tt t'ftat. h« 1^^ 1ir^it»» oiay 'pro«.l»o to 
OMurry h9V, BofA^^aynt pr«fcotlcoJil.y r^ntn tii» caoo upo» tniif» oois^t«r«* 

%1(NI «WH<* OltOl He*,! Xf. .^Of . S*? MttB, S»4-*»»I1. l^.T.ittOpl. SS6, »« o 
oaoft vh-*ro uRtSor oir©?s«f«»t«»Ki©oo whlah ho t^fttatw -aro oieitll^r tho 
Soorowto e-ari ©f S'tw tork fe*id Hmt th* lott«r« of tJio plfttsitlff 
woro »tt«*i »o to a«ga,tlYO * praMoo to worry, f* hav« r*o4 th».t 
Ofteo an<t, ©tfeor ootet «lt«d Itey <!«f (SBuS'ajBt **iR;tl re^or.l tJ^^oa &s oleorly 
Aintinj^itilohatao, Is tho 800 oooo tho l«tt«ro »r %h« Dlal£ttlff dle- 
olo«*4i la«»r to feo » fore»« of ixspurt oiaAr«*ot«r »»4 »»ieefiiltot brasoo 
in ftOBortla« it* Xfeoro io liothltkg of tnot kinii Iri tlnia «••«. In 
foot tho uficontroaidtoA «TSd«»oo o^^ovro that Aof#A«imt h»4 'ht>«a ^t* 
tontivo to plolAtiff r»r K-wiy aaealiiO, Aurl»<-: •hich ttm* th«>yo irao 40 
ittprojx^r ootiduot or iio^loatloa oi" »uoh eocfiaet ok Jaor part, tho ovi- 
4enco t&&*n a,« » «iiOlo ii%<?io»t«o & ocmoitiTO ea;.! (mlturo4 wm>ma ifoo 
woo l»o«.»#«'.»«n of ft 6©«*t ^.•«a .or oooiol nri«lo. mm api^%r«««tly, ift 
Uo r»ot «r Ilio eoolR#»», w«9 not ttiopo»«« to tHrow In r^^c** tbo 


Mar. ?»u h-'.'jA "^ .^av ici" '•<.!«» '/-■>?■ ;f tublftv-ili.* ♦♦**'J^ !»tC Ma,* #| 

. . . -,_„ , . -ti 

■ .♦*!« i i«iiir <?: 1 . :,i 

..: wii !• #«*<i -^' - ■ 

.'»..ri !,s».r ■*) Hiiot .. - . •.. - — • 

.• »«i TiaiKj •<»*e toflflMI 

' " ' ' ■ a '.I .i: «» ■ '"■ ■■"?•* 
*■• ' ■• "■ -'•'• «vt 

f»«t el* Mft pr<mit« to »»rry httr not «»k* hftr pl«m to>liu «iBUr«l)r 
wiron t)i»t grckuad. 3i»c teev ttahawt >liag of %iu9 tort ol' »xitl«g l«tt«rv, 
Ibe had »0fl»« rufttofi to ni»|i4» for » laiurw MtAt'uI Ilf*. c^« ««ttl4 
BAturiU.l3r ^# eautleaa Ia vritinij, arty l«it«r t4> Aftr4»n4«nt ilia% veulA 
4tleelo«« la th« futtirt tutit »h9 had r«Ai«4 ut^ea iiii protti«* t« norry 
totv. Aft<»r aXXt ^^ ^^* "» 4U«&tia» fpr turn Jury «an4 Ut* ttitiX Sxk4$; 
Vltii ih«» rAatt tist revponsitoility* tiit «is>»^JLaint tt3i«t tli* 4«K«4i;«» 
ur« exa«eeiT« 1* »er« 9ltttt«itiil«. tli« «irld«n<}« 4ett« not •mw that 
4«f«n-)^tt i» a aattCi ftf j|r««.t »««ltlii« It <l(»t>«» m»t izi41<2«t« titifct h* 
hm» b«4«i I'ortut^i^tt la tii» bui»iii««« ir«atti^«a, or tUtii h« ka* » I&rfi* 
iii»<»03B«. -■iov#Y9r, tit« vroAg to a»I^i»tijrr is c^xlaToutt. H«r« a«£iUB. 
tJEi« '£ftt#etli»i!). vsh» r«r t%i«^ Jury, fh* %H»l Ju4$« ja»« «.f0rov«4. 

in* JiAdgjRWkt i» Afl'irsbttd. 

.'.t •toXftsift 



WF.l.m WITXOJi, 





03? C00£ COUBTY. 


After giving consideration to the points wade in the 
petition the court adheres to its views that there were no 
procedural errors requiring the reversal oi" the Judgment, jao re- 
over, we think a sutmission of the issues to another jury would 
result in another verdict for the plaintifl". However, the petition 
prays in the alternative that a titur for a substantial sum 
Eiay be required. The court is of the opinioa that the verdict is 
exb'esBive, and upon reconsideration we are of the opinion that it 
is so excessive as to require a reudttitur. Xhe order, therefore, 
will be that the jud^ent will be affirnied upon the plaintiff 
filing in this court within 10 days a remittitur in the sum of 
15000, whereupon the jud^flicnt will be affirmed; that ixi default 
of the filing of sueh remittitur within that time the judyiient 
will be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial, 


hXizovr V-iij'o ^&xij lAitta^ifJUIt & ■Aalii , 'v^o 

. . ilttliia»i s alii;?©'! ii %» eviassox* oa «Jl 

.: ,,rl.Ll"l: 
it» yJ^i-t^liw^T jfloiia *i:o aalXil 9ri.t 'to 

;flUTITIl.iWi A'~n'C CtiiiiTi I'i'iA 

St Ml 


^Of COOK etitiiTt. 
fHl yWirUAfXai TSUSE CO.. IiiC.>^ 

A,p.u... ) 29 4 I. A. 613^ 

MR. JUSTIOS MAXCmXT !>i£l.£V^M0 3S£ OPillOi* OJT mi OOUKT. 

TH« J^ooisdiiitiozi IJ«tiis. Co.. Inc., i» « pul9ll»h«r ot' te»«okt In 

CHloiftg*. ^^s« ^UtklfitilT , rn«caa8 U. Jtlei^dlt. 1« a l»roM«r or dl»tri* 
bttter of bookti »t £;.»n«ftt City, ^o.. wtiA iii 4tdji«e«(it territory. Cn 
^f^nxi'^ry M, I1^^6. t^i« 9«,]rtt«s «fi%«rf>4 ii»t0 « writt«ii ttoiitr&«t ■^'.xitr%'^ 
4«fen4«iEit oorJ^ov-iR-lioit »i;r#«4 "tia s«il te tli« |>ttrty of tJti«i aceead 
F»rt tht fount Nation Ll't^r^^r;/. ed£i»i»tiiig of thr«« voXuja^v a« follcivsi 
'f]»t Chili** fr«A»uiry« tia>ii ^^iem» S4attft«or, rw4 la« .ru'v«eiU« Art! it. 
fe| » t>rlfi » wirii«Ji fthftll "b* 3r©u»d by a4«iag «i royalty of i|3,<>0 p«r Btt 
tft tii« jam_SJrJLij£ ©*" w^^^'i l^ouadatlo» i*lbrary, to tow sxiipped ^4 4>»JB, 
CHloftc^^. ii^ box^w or OArtons; ^.oet oi' mx<^i lb&%«» «ir onrtona t« b* 
InelUj^loA In th» m%«taf'%«tarl»g ««»•%." 

C^ D«e«^'b«r 7, 16^6. tiiii ,parti#'t nmtftrftA irito {in9tii«r wrltttn 
eentriaet in vhleia. «hil« ehsi'^sin^ ot&i«r t«rm«. ta« o»rpoirftti»ti m>»A% a 
9r««l««l>- ftiwllje^ j^rii.lsfn m.% to tho frio* &t vnloii It «&uld a«ll to 
flttintiff ti^iii *fou»4»tli:)n*' Librmry. Ttxlis X»iit £»jtto4 ooatraot wao to 
go into <»ff»et on t^o I'irot 4«y of Jditnu^'ry, 19 S7. m^a^ oocitliitto In 
full f^r^9k tjckiS on*««t I'or % p«».rioS of four yeAm witii tMo tmdo.rtt«nd<- 
Ini; t^'unt r9n«w«a, tl&07«of »;i» to oo^o U'^ for oocoldor&iioa 6 stontht 
b«for« tn« «xpir»tloa uf tr*o vam«. Jsoioro tuo oxplr^itioia of tho 
ee»atrAnt, )4nd on I>«««xa»or 30, 1939, t:a« $>»rtios «>x<ter«4 Into 
i^oti'tcr wrlttoci coniraot ^horoin it v«o roelt«dl tj;;«t ti&oy wort do« 
8lr@o« of torstliiAtifig tii« rolatioetoAifi, fiittual righto, oblli^atioaa. 
Ate*, crnntod by tho contraot of Doo«t&bor 7, 1$@6, »nd to oonool 


^813. A.I ^6S i 




,»» I.J: WqQ/> 

,M tfWti'iiitJiit t- ,Ak 


«!•• X- iu«^-WU9» M«JI#i«W t»lit««« 


it; ihAt •Mttk h.»4 rights w\l«^ th«> wtr« vllllng to i'orvgo for tbm 

pur^ovA of a£9,i>e4Mi^Xy «ei;tllu^ aoid «tMtlxi4v tin* a«.oou»t bei«««n tixMi; 

th»t it «»• th«r*for« etipul&t«4 luad ^ii,t0-04 that »Aid ciontraot of 

Oooft£it»«r 7 ohoyil^ )>• eatiooXttd tuid ttrsiinstt^/i e^e oi' ^x^at -'atn, ood 

lk«t in 0fHa«i4«riitlwi ti^oreof mmA in »«tti«M«nt oi ti<.« obligation 

or lki«ii.ol«« ptirty '^ti* tUi.« ilrot p&rt '*will puy o& ttiin <lftto his 

liev<»i)i>i»r biX.\ njM»ui3tiAg to &ix .'iuKdroA &i|i;jitft«ii QolXAro «i&4l ^ixty* 

•Ix oertto," will ^:liro his note to b« ]?i>i4 Jiu^.uar^ iii, lf^30 , for t^o 

DooM^bor, 19 'M , hili lund will po^ hl» iiot« duo J«£iU«jry 15, j^930, 

for $1960. 3t o» tobruary 15, 1»K:. >a»©! 

•JParty of tu* ««««(n,'S part fartis#r »isr««o tJriftt toy vlrtw« of !&,«»»• 
prfftf^nto, m>i im &on»id»rfetiejB of fl,r»i party waiving su-jy olalKO 

^i«tA-itt*t »«oort<! party o:xe«pt «a iMirtiim'feov* npcciiittd (w:.loh tieteo&i 
txirty (iif:r««o to eatisfy ii^ tho mmim^s %b«v« proTitittii , tc; ws^iiro 
i^y »f:i4 all olAl2ii» wniou 30 ffifliir &ia.v« af^iilnot flrot !?&rty of imy 
Bfttur* wh%t«o«T«r» ^lifl ti^.TVthy r«l#«ifl©« ««oeti4 party tu*rafro». * 

Vhi» n.i;t*m.9'n% case 9rt>iri<l«» that i» ec^«i^«ratler> of t&e 
•ottlemont tho <f«f«<i<l«nt oorooratton Agr«cfl to ooiX to i^i&aolo 
«ttffloi#fit boc^ko to tiUto ci»r« of l&i* ordoro u£til ii^oliruftry 15, lf50, 

&ee<»mbtr SO, ll>3v, |.ie~^9l« filed lis tito !ltt;«erior court hi* 
bill to «v io^ ho &a4t tUr^o D#oiK @o^p«*fiy dof «>i.<i<i£t, is wiiioiti ia oub* 
otKBoo h«<t oii«rgo4 t^4«lt aedor t^« ttoniraots of «r$umiiry 14, IS^^S, afi4 
Sootwber 7, iS26, ^#f«»d«iit oir»r«ft*rii*d iilai for the }»oolcs fuiYii«ho4; 
th«t 4of#a<}jayut >^-«4 r«pr«!8«»ted to him, Hij^t t>i« «03t of t-a« booko was 
It.TS »ot for >»oo)l« bil4<f4 tci> nim m% |4. 7S «. iiot, aiid vluriag ether 
yertlono ef th« ti«i« tiv&t tko ooot «m fi.ia for booJco billotf to 
ooaplsin^oot ot #4.!I8 >% r«t, «liil« a« a ..«.«tt(»r of f^ot tii9 books &t 
DO tin<» 9oot il«f<k»<!Arit in. oxeooo of 4^.08 » ««t auid during « «r««t 
l>«rt of tho itorloA tk% ;;.oat w»e uot to oxoo«4 .11, 7» a oot, llio 
ooMplolnt »^orr«4 |»lfti»tiff did not Xmmra titiat ttio woo tko f&ot 
until »ft*»r rj«o«ijibor 30, 19S9; tJ»*t prior to iiio ox^cuftion of tao 
r#i*«o» of tho ooatraet of Dooowbor »0, l»Slt, it w»* ro?rof«nt«4 t« 
ni» by tho Ai^ont of dofoiidMut t^i»t liio aaouct plaiiitiff ixwi boon 
oh«rgo4 for tho books w»« uio aotual eeot th^t^&r plwto a sot 

psii toi «^^ -^v •^^ "t*^^ <sal..w •Drtilt tell <(MW if^i ifi 


ij.«4 JjuiwnA 


"fV-H , 

■>' 01 


J t ''J,- 

(-kJS • ■ 

'■ •-■• ^^■jnw 

/ «rs 



' -■'■:--• 

?. X '.. 


t«» ," 




tuliniiif wh*t^««> ih« •ii%t<iiiiiMtt was (run »r not (uud •x««ut«<l tu* «oa- 
tr&ot- «ci4 rol«As« of Doowwil^tr 50, If SV, 1» rollHuoo upoi> t^.«•• 
/«i»tim*cits; that izo hiMl 4«t^«»ndo4 &n attoountinn «&d r«i'uA4 ol' tlio 

trtiot of Btce»l>«r 90, If 29, van » r0l«&«« fro&i any llabiXity to 
i»ak« «aeh oeoountiee* ?h« e<»»i»l%lnt a^^ro that tlila rcX^^ttoo vao 
Obtain^ "hy TrtmA «u:i!!i «i«r«<iB)r«0i»£ttatloii« mtA vas th«rofer« toIA 
fyai »houl4 ^«» cai''<svll«4, ma^ that «« aoer»tusting »lglit too taKon* 
ll^f«»iant fmawAi-fklt, !4#n:fing th« elaiao ct ajutoa^ ohar^-oo, fraud, 
•to* Xh« emuse vaa r«f«rr«^dl to k h^^atoi* wao took t^)o «vi--}««oo aai 
i fll«4 hio report, flf-'dls^ in •ub«tw:^o« tx.iat ttiero waa iic proof of 
1'^ frau4 or KisroDreo^^tt^tlon tte^ th^% tm« eofitraot %»<! reitaeo of Dc» 
' taA^or 80, 19^, irtMR &1»taiR<»d fairly; tuat no fraud or Ki»r#pr«»«u« 
tatioa ii»4 b«oa provod «ui4 tia roaaen for mi aoocuntliug aibown (UBd 
r««oiM&«Bai&g th« «ott]pXal&t ba dlisiiosod for »«jut of o^ulty. Otojca- 
tlosa w«r« fll«4 to th« laaator^a roport vinittuj Ii«i£i4^ overrulad on 
ih« h«?Arinf atooA ao «ito«;»tio4na« Xha 6JRL?«iiQ«ilor overjul«»d tlio cjt- 
•«{»tian» aii^ oa Ji»ly a, 193?, -^t^rod a fieoroe dia^dtrcifig tJbt ^111. 

It is e<»nt«»d«4 ly plaii^tlff aa a s3SL%6«r of Xa«f tuat tka 
oontraet i3.u«t !;:!'» conatra^d aec^rdln^s to t>vi^ @rdl»»ry i&aaiilng of tho 
tofSKS Mui^IoyoiS; tiiat tho eoatraot «1X1 bt eoii»truo4 J^^eat strictly 
a^ainat the party dravln^' It, ^ti<$ t^^t ^^9u ute -^arty dr&wlng » 
eoctraet know* that th« othar ^arty uudaratiikiida it in a oortaio 
s«n«a. It Ik to t># taat:«& In tliat ao»ao pro-vidad th&a oaa too dioao 
without naklag a acv ooatraat. It it urgf^<t ta^^t tiiora waa ii^ fti^t 
fraud ifi d*f«ndaat*a faiiara to dloaioee viia trua prloo it paid for 
ita booJKa, aR4 t^utt a» a iifi«itt«x of law plaintiff *8 ]wo«i.e4tf« of tlia 
falaity of aity p^rx of dafoiiaaut'a r«yr«»tti:itaktioea will &ot axouao 
4af e(»^ant fr«^ ra apou a ib 11 ity for tu« rawaiadar of suah reprasacita- 
tiwBo. tho »aat«r foufid tha faettf to t« tiiat taa plataa for tho 

•u /^ 

*«t"«* ^?' 


,»*e<^<f fl#l 


tttrtd in 1929 hy tn« ^ttarri* v;!or|)er»tli>o, i^U.} thftt troK iii« limm 
th« >>®©kt w«re aarketed fey 4«f«a4ttat to Ajjril 1, 19524, dAjr^n^iiat 
D»l.1 th« H»«rri« Corp., Li^. , 47^^ » »«t let tii« a«« of tJ»« ]»XAt«« 
Mtd '!«• »• ft toftti* «f cost t«n4 4»pr«oi»ti.oa to th% vwBkttr 9t Ui* 

pl)sit«ft{ ihtkX vhma lii«i)oX» b«i£M& ••i.ila^ %&« 1&«oii« t^« prla* ttft4« 

to him »bt tfse bogiiifiittg »ii4 «ixil9 ta<% pXate* w«jrft ownod 1»y lit* 

itittftrriit ^orp., Ltd., waa |^4.7a » H«t; iti»t t&iw piri«« ««• mti4» ttp 

by tailing tla« jftsmttf !*fituri»^ eeat ©l' i^a,S4-|-, «t r^jraifey ©J" IS.C^Q «ub4 

th« «)^8^74S# {'or ^ftftrtsiafeien al tlt« ;»isbti»s miA <$!«« of 47iif; umt this 

co»tlzm«4 until about ^w^a.^t'^ 1, X%U&, &t wJriioii tl«tt 4«fei«4«knt 

no till #4 filotntiff t>4ftt ko wa« isiikTi»g tfeo book* prlci.«4 In ColuiabiA, 

ito», ^^il tnat tti^ realtor tia« oiaargo to pi»uttll"f would too M*42 o §et; 

t^At on »ocoufit 9i' tn® tii.9% tiiOt %J&m esurryliif oa«rik;oo froM isoluBftfe^lo, 

iti'O., to tM« territory in watoh ooKploi»i^t @l»erfttw4 «oul4 bo looo 

thsja lMt> rorsfe«rix/»8^'«^ pl^iittiff to p«y ae »4dltiei>ftl ottmrgo of 10/ 

OTor $4.42 or « !p»rl«0 er $4.5':.' a s^t; tnot %hi» orriUig«s;.i<e«}t «ao 
agrei)')! ts v«>r'bftily bot«#«B plaintiff tiioi:iolo si&4 tillitutt f . ^u&rrio, 
wao vi9t*ttd i^^«»soa City Otoout Joaua^ 1, 19H«i; ti*ot tr.«roia'tor oil 
ino ¥00)1^11 wer» billed to oo^pi fi^ln^swt ^% tA« fX^ioe of #4. §9 « tasot; 
that 1b Vho lotor pari of 19^9 th« oorr#epondt«f}ae li«tw«on Uio portito 
sriiovo thftt 4i»i^utoo ha4 ^rinon btstvoon ti^oat. In 19 37 Jir. iilo.^ioli 
ori|OAlso4 tho f. «rf. jilOi^«»lo i^omo»isj wltla i3.0fi4^uarter« in i:^a/»e*e City. ^ 
In tho y^iuro 19til «tt4 192» thla e^tti^woy oao «ft|i:«M£«d is propariac to 
bring out a no« oot of four bo&ko of ouch a t^Hitaro tliat t.noy weald 
eost»ot« ^dtti the book* of dof wfiiaxit. In %!&,• o&rrt*8 oudcroo of tlio 
lator part of 19'^ t^aintiff for iho first, tlso onarii,<»d that dofAnd* 
ajnt ^K* not tr«^atlng hlM fairly, ii^ Vnut it w«.« oYcre^targiag klA by 
sftklAg hi» fay the 10«r a c«it whloh httit boon ogro^d upon Itt Jasuary, 
19 a$. Kioholo aXte ohargod that tho Found at loo Llbrntry w«o net boiDg 
b«|4% «r« to 4ato; t^mt booauso of tj^o or4oro fro» oustoworo kad b»o« 

-•5 t«,i/ 


^ l«9Smlq 




»muMm»^ ij 

•onpX»iu«4 ttf th« pr«(>arati&a of u^ia n«w ««t of book* by th* 
iiiok9l» a0;»)»<iti7, eiai.«4 plm.itititf*w »,%%«* %i.<»n iii tJa^ provinlout 

of bin c<»ntrAet rtotttirltiig; hist to ifivo it^lo wairo attention t« tlM 
1tFU«li>«e« of dofftUilcuit* Plc&itttlff flct&lxy r«fu»M to s«&^ his oh«ok 
for tJ3.« offliount af %i»o i«:ov<K^littr »»1«0 oojaLlng diu« oo l>«o«i&t)«r JL&, 

|>««0(»,l»«ir 30, ItS^, ftr. i»iiaib«X'«Qa, Tlc«>*pr«i8iaoiit of th« 

Aof'MftiaCii fiQ«!^JM»y« wtmt to Kanoao City« oiid.i«<l At tae ofi'ioe of 

tOiAplftlcsMTit tmeiA jufior «i ai»eui»eioi'. of &att«rs j»ro «uad ooa for bo&# 

ti»* plitlEitiff »«i4 to i^4U)c^b«r»0ii« "toll, ii' you t^^t^t to oiUiCel t&lo 

oontraot, trhy X ^IIX oalX m^r »«er«ti'4ry it» ^m^ yoa ma/ ^iet«Lt« to 

hoy a»4 *«■ will «•« how It lo©)t«, ** tiie B«for»t&ry *&» cadlo^ i« 

«iad .i'teholo ^iotatod th.« |»ro]^o-»e4 omio«il«.tioB. L*^i[i»;b43)r»oi3 euld ho 

«i«^«d to look tt o-vor 10).^ took it a««^ wttUa^ hl».. Atout 3 o'oloek 

^0 OMttO ftft«r»oon JUAn'tetwreon r«taris«4 «lti:i % oo6t]r»ei vrnieh h« 

oro]&os«€ •!'i0MX4 k« «!Jc«out<^, Mi.^. i^£%^t A eaert oo&ir«>r8%tion it tvoo 

oigR^di 1»7 f)l4%l»tiff cund ky i^<-!^k«v«on for 4«f«iid«u3t. Pursuant to 

thut odntrft&t {^laiutiflT §m^m m, oaeoii: to l-ai»:iy@r»o)r» I'or ea« j»o-vou:)?or 

kill %»0'aje') tiBf to i613»@4^, d«liv«ir#<l to iiin hIo liote 4uo Jttaujury 

15th folXovl£t^( ]»xy%kl0 to dof «^u:i#jbrit I'or tuo oMtoucit of tho ^I^ooosikor 

kill {411^ gmiir« hia Eote t. &a %littg to llteo.a? (lit* foferaary iS» 19Ki, 

for tho ^tfttiUAry kill. Xh« i5«y.t diyr kimmlM wroto nuarrio, saying: 

"M»t;rtB<jB mid 1 n.iii4 a v»r^ uioft -visit yeotftrdaj? an4 wo 
•4Jtt8tttd our diff ^rftneeo to ss,y »<«tisr»i^ilofi, X aav^ n«T«r h&4. a 
lawiruit in my ilfo mH I f»«l I au« jfuwt a littl® too ol«i no* to 
partlelp*t« is. on« a. loosi it is av..jftalut«»iy oosoatiai to «iy e<»lf» 
l»roeonratton. I am not ©i' %ne fiiiatiRg waturo. I like p*««<r^ and 
kflurmocy, ** 

120 go«« or to oay ti'^at i.aKl>oroo» va» ot^» of tiie I'ijaioflt £.tti^ a* haA 
OTOr doalt with; that it iiatS a«Yor koott ^ao ifitofitloa to koat 
^arrit out of a pmnji that k« lioar4 ^ »ontk» kitforo ti,at i^ttmrrio 
»ao eharfifitf hiai ftty a «ot »or» taan ht« eo»traot oaiied for? ti»at 

4^«« «J4 




«rt nn o& 

, '.CM" 

.h« liM k*(itr4 tul« i'tpm tvo •t»ur«««» Htt iilo»f»d by wi»nlBg kr, 
ii^iurrii) goo<) a»»ltr. tiRd Iota ol^ Mmp}?lc«e8, 

"Ih« lnforK»»ti»n %h*t jrott n^y cam« to you Iroa t'-'O fl&ure<»ft tiiait w« 

w«r« «sij«(,fg4nii you SO^ f»«r »#t &or« t^isu'i :/«ur co»tr»«t culled for it 

«l>««lui«ly iti8orr«et. M«y I ttuM«v'.<iat» ^-r. MienoXs, tr..&t you, I 
thinls;, becajstt of tus mTix-ttti&.«xit im %.i'iJLe^. you w<sr« r«il8«d i:^avt 
ttlwayo h9t*m am. unuaually «4Spiciou» ffillow.».*ciuei, too inclin»»d t« 
«r«<!il rumors t'aitt ttamut to you UiAt w«r« f^&nuI'<uetur»A. I'cur » (St«f'ij(^lt« 

*B«t, Mr, l^ttarrl«, I oan B.*v«5r f©r4ilv«i y«ja Ib a way for iiftmiAt^Uig 
K« for t.fei«»e |jf;ois,», I «oisnid»*r It j»ur« tiii«v«r3r«»«-i»i.»«uixig it you 
pi «»!>•. I an eurf)ri«94 th»t * bu«in:#«» koar wiM» claims to bt 'uoft««i 

l»^ia >r»et Igror t I iatngy t/-i,«. But i Jufet lij,i;ure it tiuia ^sfay, ;hij,,t iht 
aon«y ycu fraa-^ylwitly «i»oai'«il J'rom jsaw will iayirt yeii »©r»» tiiiua it 
will »•• i wemH hait« to lo?s« a«y raitiiep ov«r it iiad ^'Ou will, 

Uy itti^iT&i:mi^$\% u@,» ieum ». 4*u~yn#d (ni^^iit b«tt«'r Utmi your* 
b«e».utift I vAt lix«idL£jtit' Uf in m. CiSkriAti»£> l:iom«.* 

if'Abru^kry 15 i^io^iol* wrot«! a,3,;aln, AfityXnt^' Xaskt on tlaAt s&omi&ci 

h« 'Tutt ^«ttii^£ jr4i«,4>' tu iBttid a tits«04.. 3.e p<er e«ntra«t miwu lh« li2|»r*»t 

i»«c>pi«« a«Ji.l«4 'ii.iM up nu^ « i«ii«4 t^iAt <4u«iirri« naA soot aia iOC btt«lui 

^. t^* D« for i'oar hMi^rtf^ s^d noK^e «d4 d^li^rs. :n& Q*,ld tii«ftt «»• 

EkOt tli« COR tracts ^lasifl t;iiit h« woul-l not t««is^ a pvmny an Uiff nott or 

the Iftot jiB.oKth*» bill tttitti th«ii0 bottk* werfe rel©»e<'^di la** adsltdi 

"lo tf)Il you t.*!* tr«itfe 1 weuld junst at e©®» not pay thio till 
b«ttA'a«« 1 h^ytn grouKidt for » mighty fin* Iaw suit $i.^:»ija»t you %2id 11 
y*u ^-suRt t« throw tJi« wheii!' ti-iui;: tpmi just «»y the nort Hn4 ir« -will 
do it,* / 

.shortly t*i«r«*i"t«r , te©»«y«fr, l^ioAuli meat ^ cnwtk to th« ' 

dor«?n<i*iat in full »»y»«Bt oi" th« a«t« Vor 11960,27, 

lj»i« bri«r« of ti&« fartioft %rga« at groat lorigVi Mt^^i <rith &^iy 
oltatioxio of siut^^oriiy tiitir variai^kt oo&atruetion of tUo vorAa *ooot 
prico'* &n %i-.<!f miam«^ vkppnajt in tt^a ooutr»«te. Plitlatiff oeutio'ado tnat 
undor n« olrQu&&« eould it is^oludo ika« oimri^a is^ado for dopr«»«ia» 
tion of t^« pl&t«t. It at>i};»arft, ho^^ovor, froi& t^« evidoAoo thia 
•hare* wa» b«ia£ smdo arid wa« a part of U;« coot of t&woiufuetura at 

»^/ ^y-T J^:^ ii^ O:? 



. ev ^ *j<v 1* 'tt > - ■■■»':■ It cj 

>^ir •:siT«ifll 

th9 ttK« of th« rirmX or:etr*ftOi ^«twtt«B iftXaintlff antf d«f«iidaot w»t 
•3C«out>'4l* i^liUitiff ftaya It vttfl th9 fluty of defsii'isait to dlMlOS* 
to hlA all ttak« <«lff9r«fit lt«]&§ nftkloi^ uy wuttt d^fitnl^fitt el^i»«d to 
)£• thM *e^y<B.t priom* or tii«o« booko, nnd tiiAt la uJi<loii))t«dly truo as 
all &^« ovifl^Fnoo to t^&% «rfoot W&9 In th« posBtesiott of dl«)f«uril«jQt« 
It la »l<,nlf ia«Qt, ho««v#r, tu«t a«v«r Uf^til « low i&ox^tho b«for^ tho 
t«r»ilnatiofi eS' tiuoir rolatlonoloiii s&nd not until difr«r«{ic«o h^A 
%Hti*n Q<»a0»reiBf etJaor cMtttoro wojt tiUs oul^joot •xisi aojatioci«d. 
I'Isi.ljatii'f vao eetitiftit to rec^lvt ti&le etfttfc&Ai^t «• te tho ItcsiO 
^oiiBg i£t<G tlio *«t@ot priAO** If h« 3.«k#4 tor it, b«tt a« did not do 
80 %t «kfi]r tie(«. Xli« inf«^riHao« la tn«t h« v«ii» entirftXy •ktiBflod 
irltti th* j^rieo »t vhlo:. t^io b^ek* i»»r« ^111^^ to nlm. lit r«« 
»0X<$ lli« Hooko ibt froff #19.75 tc #tl.7r< ««t. 

fh« oontreXliiag qtt««tian of fact in tho e&ao ari»«B out of 
plal«iiff*o eontimtlefii Cnot l,aKl>ers«»n, ».» .%r> Induees^niBt to tiko vaco* 
option of tli.0 oontrttot .^4 r<^l9tt»o of O^oosilinr 50, 19;^, aoaurod 
ii'iohola tkMt a«f«i&<l&ftt htt4 liot. ot «ii&jr ti&o ovore^iargod iilft for t£io 
book* fttflKi«h^^4, mM4 taat l«itfiaol« ejio<rut«4 tiio roift&so r«iyiA|f upoa 
that »e»uriU'iOO. litorioXc ei^ro tJi«t lii t^o prooei^ee of Miao £»tonolar 
i«Mtib«r«C'« amid lao w«a thoro to amntnitl %h« aoutraet af pl^lutiff aa4 
d«f*ii'f.a?-;:t, to wiiioiu ««, JliewioJLa, ropiiod a» *wa» laot lntf»r«<(at«d la 
oaxiOOlliBi; tho ooutrRol i&ud esii?} iu:xut n.i» wajut^d to *fii&i out dofl- 
nit*ly whothor kr, i^orjflo Icua ttotuAliy o*"iArg«d &« for tiioao booka 
fhat tlioy ooat, i -wwit to know If ia« o-»«r«ii«,rfc«<! »••; tisAt i.«m'fe«ir«ea 
ffiolrt, *l oan d*fift4t«ly at*t« til&at yaa iaa^fo »ot bicoQ ©▼•roia*rgad ier 
tho«« books, i have 9(ifm t&« bllla aiad I kxiov poaitivtlif tnat yott 
have got tlia boeka at $S abov^ tiia printod cost of tii«B, «• i.«£>b*raoM 
dtJi^a. an^ aaya that at tii»t tiiao h« teld klcn&la that ha was prob- 
ably »war« fif tJi« r«ft»e.« for hl« ©omIbsj t^inras tliat plal&tiff hnA a 
oontraet with tiio Foondatlon Daak CaapivXty ^hieki had auatHar ytar to 
rujB, <1ttjpla« whloh tlsia lie had tt«r««d to glva kla undirid^d tina siad 


9t »»«! i^i<l <»i 


#UJ ■i.w^ 4-4«>< 

^X« %iif ^ «*'ttl;»iilt«Xf 


ftttentlott to it. Mad iii«t li« hikd ikXT9mAj ^ntkwBk that ioDtraot by 
bri»i Ing out nl« Rum e«t of b<H»k«; tioiKt h« o««d d«f«n<Ia&t tt«ii«y j^nd 
h« (L«iRb«rson) £i»d sotta itowo to g«t 1U;« tt^atttnr •♦tultd. Liu&b*rMA 
sftya iiilGholt r«,^ll*a h« *hAA built up hlc n«v ntt% oJ books »« tia« 
rooult ei* noaooeity; th^&t tho Foundatloc Libritry «»• ottt of 4a to ^^d 
woul^ not ttoXl osd ho wouli aoi bo ablo to eoatlcuo laia aaloo oritael- 
tatlon: thai^ tho booke ho tiaA oold w«ro ftot oatiofftotory md ao a 
rooult bo had boos fiMipoli«<1 to balXd a bow sso of booko. ^o told 
»• Quarrio h%sS *gy.P9od* his, • c»yoreuari..«d USmi ho ii»d paid bis 
thouoondo of <SolXaro ho o^iOuXd ctot havo etu^ri^od liiju * Itoaborooc oayo 
ho told i^lnhoXo bo bod kfiowe '^uarrlw tor fivo y^^aro ^m^ &ad atrvor 
h«ar4 <^Y«r. tiio sliiiktoot ouii^ootloB or ifiiUaatiob of (^ytitlng otbor 
than a eqttar« deal; ihat iiio^iolo oaid in oplto of oxat finot tio bad 
boot! *fiyfpo4* but HO did »ot want a lawsuit «aad wantod to kao« ivbat 
i-amboroon bad lis mind la ro^^ar;! to th« om^eeliaition of t&o ooa tract. 
i>i«o £atabolar t#stiflod lut looo net of* t^ie point oorroborato 
bio olo« Xbo lottors of ^iioaols &ro quits lauo6<iai«t««t wltib &is 
tosttJsoKty on thio i»ouo. Ibo fi&liae of tbo iu^titor, *tAat plaitniff 
, io In no (tooiti«m to olala l^ek of iiifortta%i(!« at Uio tl«o bo ni^nod 
eo»o«llatio» oontraot of Booombor 10* ll>tv, and X taoroforo iiud nm 
fro-d^ or mi»r««reo«>Jt^.tatiej» provott aed ao r<*AOoi» for ae««>;itittB« is 
\ shovn,* o«#£0 to b« ^ntiroiy juotiflod, A lat« ^^utuority io to tikS 
\ Sffost inat d 6i»urt of r«(vi«v will set bo ju^tifiod iu diotur^iag 
sasb St fi£i!<ini$ of tho aaotojr «-0i^ a^n^r^-vod, ao b«ro, by tbo obaa- 
eollor, unlooo It io s^anifoetly a«iaictot Uio voi^t of tho oiriaocoo. 
Passdqist i ir. Aiiy> 3e4 111, mi, 
Tho dooroo is affixmod. 

0*eoniuor, I". J., auDd kemtroiy, J» « oonoar. 


hi* i f ; « •&' si A tin « /.; "it|^4MI 


-^ct al ti 

i'i9i9n«» ' 



J*1a| #KUJf Cl^auif COURT 

294I.A. 613 


»R, ^sTicm MAfcaiTt sasLjvsMf) mi. opii^io^ of nm comt, 

99hT\itkTy S3, Its?, Mrs. ThoBtTtson fil«d )!i«r «eapX»i»t iM^aijaet 
her £iu0t>ftK«l, Vttj^oa 'Zhemptt^n^ ■•ttt<ig tt]i Jarltdlctloiata f^^ati «• to 
reel<ii«ne«, al,l.«-gi]ig tti* Kwrria^t oi* tii« p»rtlf»a <m Ootoi>«r Iv, 1935, 
th<»ir cohstlbltJitioii until Jmxiu&sry 2b, 19^6, on wiuioh date sk* my»rr«^ 
that h« vlt.'^Otti^ eauAlt (l<»8«z't«d «nd ab&r.diofied h«r Mid p«riilst«d In 
xttoli ^tvflirtioa for oetd j«ftr. i^t prtijrtd for a diverot and for mt 
l&Junotloa restrain lag dtl'^t^^At^t i'r<m »«le«tlixg h«r. 

Ji« a&«ir«r«d» adi^lttixiis otr.«r «iiv«riKi«»t9 el' tu« bia.X but deny- 
lag «iUli*ttl sib»i$4of;i*.«iit &r ««»»rtlow orperBistence feii«r«l«, but ai- 
Xe^gftd ori tu« eoKitrttSar that pi.$fclntiff k«ikd wlt^ivUt r(9.»BcsQabl>» «auM 
d«t«r%9d and alwB4«;a«d him* 

Xht <rf id«««« wftd h«ard by til* #i«urie«iior wl-i© r©iu»d l«r iiiaiui- 
tiff Mid an Jaly 3lS, 1937, 0i|;^««i a d««ir«« ir< hi»>7 farcr. Dera^daat 

It 1» arguad for r#Ter»al ti'iat thi» «Tld«cice attfivs tha aX- 
Xae«d deaartlaa vaa fi«t afi;al»at tha wlXX and wlahaa of pXai^tlff , 
"but p«rtioularly that dafeir-liufit within o«« y«ar f*ft«r thay Xlvad 
together had affarad ta raturw t© her, fcut that ahe ref uoad hi a af- 
fara of r«e<>nalliatlon. "l\i« «videue« aaa hardly l>a aaid to ba «o&- 
f noting. 1% a:4i«a that Mra. Xho&peon livaa at SdXX ii^latbarJIt aTaciua, 
with har »athar toad alatar. Xh© ttvlla»«« also tauda to ahav that 
a«f«nda£4fc waa fiot atXe to aam a XlvaXlhaad iar hiMmalt and «if»f 
that ha borrovad fir.oney fro« tiiair amta»i i^i-iends and that about two 

8X8 .A.l^Q^ 

^ ma 

't;^ik »3' 



•1« ar^ln9;^ai8'X»q'>l) a*. iiiiw s^tii 


• Xtf4 #•« <'< 

th* h9m,9 of h«s' »«th«tr. oo thl» pKrtioul^r oooftslen hn lost tU« 
Jl*% At whioh lie had bi^ma worklnn;, an4 she naya tUAt ott tr;lt &«tMr44ky 
vojrning «ht ftskcd ixlA to gttt ttp «»ni told lila ko oi^uld i^o out asd 
loeJc for work; tuasit h« ropiiod t)^at ho viu%t«4 to lio «roM&d for a 
four 'isi^e, tliat iiiort was »o partloaliur rusb ftbout cj,ot&lnfi » ^elt. 
Slio toX4 hin ih»i tJ^oy oouJld »ot lif tu«r«« 4di£t4 owo poopXo tho way 
t^oy did syQd llvo on htr aioUiors w£t4»r«ttp0» iio get up, AAld ho did 
not hu^*! to liv« th«ro on .sk^r motiior; no ^aitod Jrj,or olster, Jar*. 
L«n«, to 0»1X o Q&l» ivhiehi^o aid tm4 Mo Xoft, ti^iu^K i^i« eiotjbtoo. 
tho p»rtloa iiAV« l^oon livifif a«par«.tft (wd aj^art i rom. ta%t tli&o. 
So «^tll4r«o hA^e b««6 'born of thft ^arrlago. Dofondmiit OAyo thoy wont 
to Xivo vlt^ h«7 »oth«r at tno sug^eotloo of plaintiff, that hor 
auBtkor IciAd plor^ty of 7oea, sjnd oho would not b« alone at citiht. Ho 
omyo, "iior faa^lly t)r«at«»d ibo r«Ty flao," Ho oXoo oays that about a 
«-noic prior to Jtmu&ry %S, 1936, hff h^Mk m fjtuiu rol vith ul» wifo, «ho 
(xt thmt timo »tt;tpe9«d oh» i«fta sirO£B«f'it s^i mmg^eot^d an sibortloB, 
irhioh h# triod to tollE h«r out of; tiiat tivoir troublo otartod ^iUi 
that ^&d ooctlc^ttod vtF tlX ho Xoft; tliat 2ie attiug«>8t«d ho wouXd loavo if 
oho w«Rt thr'iuga with thlo. ISalo rriiioJEiOo lo 4«uled by pXalBtiff. 
Dofoudmtt !fo«i aot» ja&woiror, \ms%y t&o t«titJUb&ay of pXalittlff and hor 
olotos* tti tho offoet th*t h« voXuKti^rlXy tooii aim eXotnia^ and do* 
yartod at tho tisao la qu<»otioR mttd 'n%9 not Xlvod wlta a«r siA«o. 

DoffKidant ooz4tMido Uiat tho decree of dlvoroo la t^<t«4,not tho 
■aslfoot wts^luht of tho ovldoaoo. fhe o^aaooXXor h«»ard tho wltnooooa 
«Ad at tho o'aaoXaalofi of tho ovldouoo g»Y« a mmm&rf of it with 
vhloh, aftor a oarefttX oojusidorati^n, ve oro inoXicod to agros. At 
any rata re emrmot hold that tho flKdiaga of tho ooart are eXftarXy 
wjjl lawjlfootXy again at iho wolght of tho oTidonoo. Tho dofondant 
voXittsa^on tho pr^^pooltion of law that whon m huoband who has dosortod 
hi a *ifo iftakoo * Una fldo att«»ft to rotura ^d XIto with hor wlthla 

;«i5k>it««AcsA ^«r , «oA*«"t««i»f Mio'ttttf 9d$M9m 

■ n 19 •mnA •Mi 

%^h'*Mi ' 

*a 49i 


'.<» s^alofm 

: i-sa^ t^l :if»»X 

'»» ius stt-^iri^i ■:&il$ ,«iC4tlb HPUl 



■ir*AS a» »»i.. ::■- 'itlM 

: f^-x'i/fj *wli &s J*V«rt i«a 

.,ii.% 4«« <!» - ;4aiJ[ 

- •i^-i .' 

. i -'.n^t ftv^i; @ii»i i^'jua^ii »«n' 


.'i »**»»«? «v#4< «!»t^X;v*o «'a 

i(tia<w» It*/- Tii ©# 

■'J'imJLit **« •m.nti^Wi 


ia-jiT**,- ^»w 


» 4ij»i.r iMAjIk.Js 

H5 i « ?>?■ 

.'■:-5 SU9 x»ii tl«4 a^ '^♦JtTC %si jtfdIiNr 


»a«e »<!« .t«ii^ 

.9lA^ jMrJc« «%^ 9W Ailtt 


.'iti^Wt-ft ,i^*» »»»li tfMill«0«t#« 



■xk* •m i« *»^«f 




.icl^w in«rtiii»M 

.•:'fimvi9mM •«(# #11 ftflui 

■ -n^ .iiCtiUw 

^m.llt* «V 9iM% X^"^ 

4llJi!kA«1«t) Sift 

XsnttllMim hmm 

'.BWk 9^^. 

:■: w»if.umll9t 

. . . .,«Uj.«. m.%lm mitll 

the tttttut^'ry t^trlei «ua^ tm is r«pul»»A imA r«fuit«d bj a«!r, th« 
4«»«rtlo» t»railnAt«t aoa * that » A«er»« oJ" <liT©re« «ntt>r««l vmimr 
on eh eiroutufttnne«« is cofitrftry to tk» lav. 'Daf«mdiij!tt elt«» & 
isumhftr oi" ea»««,, sksioisg wj;l®ii %r* Sj^l^v ^ «jr.gteln ..y , *. , ..i^iXv t^rptftlja f ^^* 
111, App. 145; fr^%%.x,^PTM%., 19? liX. S50; llaXty y. jCaa«y . 20© 
111. A|»p. 1S3J gayy,y. J,. .'^, %l ^3£. 2^'? Ill, kpp. Am, '*ad ^JLaMJExJ^mSJ. 
S^Sl 111, iKp|». iftft, suB-'t atrgaas that th«tte oatGS hold tijat uadtf 
eireumetfi»ft«« »ac^ atii ar« «!i«iele«»«4l 1>]r t^e «rvl43mio« uer« at dli^ortt* 
will Bot T>t grw^ittd. Th^ytr i» ao sl©ubt of tJio g»w«r«l propo»itloii 
that wh«r« a «|»ouBtt fnfo^i' hae d«e'i»x-t<id» lr< good fnith £&*!(«• tta at- 
iii«|»t i«t r«'ec«rs9illKtioa within %h» at«%ut<&.rj {^^rlckd untl i» r«ful««l 
((>r r«fa««i» ?.n« tff«ot of ssucli A<atloE 1» to ti!»rwi»ft.i« th« d©««rtio© 
iubkS 9r«T<»rit th« emtry of a dffi«re« of <liir©re«, but tii.« »tt«£i|»t «t 
r««€4aelliatloB em«t b« ^aM^^ in g,o<»«l i*sidtrt <^«t ua^er clreuunKtaunets 
of «tic^ (shftr^otftr &« i^auld .%»jk@ tJa^o r«!fyie*l 'i'<'ro»^:,f ul . 'I^e t«»sti* 
wMney ®f ^isffm^aet <&» tlile iaaui* 1« t© tii«t «.ff#ot Uis^t ate©ut iwe 
wttlm •k:ft«r h* Itft h« ©ail«d ©» ^l«tkxtirr Mi4 tii^y t&iked About tfae 
ptrooB*! urofusirty suatt se«ft« «i' tb® tUlu^e, ©uiitrA .i4» xho radio, that 
wtrK oaiiiioiftd to tefl^nii i© iilia, n#. dot* jaet &mf thmt h0 aok«Nl for a 
r«t&iJ ell list ion ht that iiffit. About oix -w^^-lto feftftf tsie a«|><^fttie« 
ko t«w» k«r oa tho llllfsot© CtBtral Isrl^t* »* ©"^t^'* 9tr««t; »k^. th«i» 
•fti-f it wat mil ovor, w uildnH .,:iv# iit» bi;u#i a&tiafactiou aK<1 «jt- 
pr9»»«4 « (t««ir« to la»ir« lt«r fr»«<ioii,. At tii*t tisee he h«.d no *;3«Tt- 
ss«nt to whi<ih to talso iioir .««4 i*# <}aBnot r«aall exactly wiiot ho said 
vliiiB thoy »«t| but ad&ita ho dl^ ^iOt toll hor tliut ko aould rent an 
at)a7t«^*»t or that li<» ooul.^ t«kk« eiaro of ix«r. Oft ^oiroral oacasloas 
k« oftllod over tho ♦pl»,oao aft^S oovorai *i»«» oallod at t£i« i;:^ouso )»ut 
was r«fuo<»<a auliziittanoo. &ro. Lonjc, «F.ho ii&»ii^or«a the *P''--'^>»* a^ad 
le«k«4 after tho door, «a;jr» 4of9««d«£;tt wao driuiic on t.;$eo ocoaaiosa, 
u«4d viio liitMgua^o and tkroato^-od to JKill frlsoiutirf. Dofoadant ad- 
mit* ills wif* w«ik» of a tiiftid 4i«0o»4tion; tua.t m\m waa afral'^ to b* 

• 9b. 


lii * n 

'W f * A h 

.■V •«: ^' n -t t ' 

ftlen» ftt night in th« ai>art»<»Jit, anil htt h«4 giT«n la«r a gua ror pro- 
tect Ioa. Jionck* tltt« in jiov<ii£b«r, 19M, h« consulted ik luir^djr %ndi 
hla ««thod 0f «»ppreaoli to hit wll* ««•»« to h»YO i«j&«dltLt9Xy Ift* 

proiroai. &o''--Oftvfeoir $0 ho wr-oto Ji4«r o iftitor lu viilfeAi, AssoBg etbor 

thiR|jlf0« h« aAid: 

•Iti falxTii«««8 'a hath of us ansl beiore I ean po*ei?:iy lot 
irou ^aoo out ol Ky lil'o I »mn% totii of u* to got teg«t.'aer ond try 
to 1>« oong«8il«l MBdi h»i)i»y a^aln «• w« w^re not oo lasi&y saontJ^s «igo.* 

Mo <!o«0 i^ot ir|»oaji of ttoy doflulto pl^oo to «aitth ho o .uld tako hor» 

but aoyo ti9 «oal4 ilko to got au ei^utrt^.^*u.t Xik.^. tko oiiO taey hoA 

at J«ffrty i>arlcway »n4 h«i.Y@ hor wltli iii^ st,^ai». I'ixurtt is no thing 

vi»ry i«fif,ito U^ thm iott«ri ti& doeo not ci^o i4»r ii^loi-scttion ou 

whioh tuo eouid r»ly aer »u«£goot a way in waio^i thoir 4iff«ro{ic«i 

might 1»« dioeuosod. D«o«i^:t»or XA h« »«iit hnr a t«l«gra«» outing 

ho va» ourDrisod to havo hlo laot Xottor r»tun»<td mid aonOiiuMB: 

*^«eau»ft you s<9««i not wa^itiK^i,. to »o« kio wiiloh you auoMid i will toll 
you fe<»for*]i»iindi vhstt to »x!i»ot I war«t a r«&o»siiiation ua.^9 ooploo of 
all lottora k^attt to you to b« pT^»m>lt4 In oourt I a.» o,oiz^^ to dotaand 
a Jury trial sib4 tsrin^ ap ev^rythiKg of f>a.r eistrri«?4 llfo 1 «sb goititg 
to prijiro that you oo£a»itt«!<l it perjury tmd in ox-dor tc bftox tkit X 
ofiall «ui|>oo»& olt R»lghli©ro savd r«lfitlvo» of -Par-'iuhn aiad I havo v. 
alroaAy thni »« attemoy rsottfiea all dlfoifGO juHeOO tiiat 1 ii. lend 
tc> f5©nt«8t any 4ivoro» *>roo#*»^iii«0 brouiiht up l>y you aa4 1 ohall aAao 
o«« to it taat ono df your frt^n<io »lJO I tsfiok you left it*? for ettall 
&»▼© to «r«!>oar ao.i I shali %ry to ao« to it that may goritlotton 
rrl«6<1iii »haU ktio* that yew «r* ay wifo, I wsiiit «t rp>uoticiiiuti«« 
In fftlm«»a* to >)9th of uo ars«j I knov ho* »ue;i you oar^d «tfi4 oait 
otlll oaro Xot«i out out this foulie-'inoan ^AHi g«t art >»i>s.rts^«ii;t at 
Bioo fto the ono w« ^md on. Jieffroy and jK^aio a ji.© of it. Your loTii^g 
htt«%a84 Tomtay. * 

In a lator iottor of J.'unuary 27, 1937, Kio adarosaoo hor a* 

*Poar«at i-ouico,** oayie^ h« vao muoh diaappointod vUen oho faila4 

to aeewor aim i»i«t lf»tt«r but t^at ho otiiX oajr#4 oiiou«;;«i for Uer to 

fiippoaX ft^alc au* nl.«^»«i a<m«i«i«r riis jostiEiajuds for a reccdscllia* 

tioB at soon ao jpossitolo, do adii«4: 

•I atlli 1OT0 you Lottiio «ttid sw worxing «toa«ly .-md onuu prcrido for 
you ^oll ^^oufih so that you won't hav« to eontlRuo «or^ing Kitoa aa 
a nito olu>) ao»too«. I thlek yau ar« «uch to fine lor t.^y xUti of 
work Xtk#> t'iat *uid 1 b^g of you to ..ii'wo «« <«. cianeo to auoport you 
• that you won't h-iv* to work it ali if you io« ' t wacit to. 

You know tiiat 1 Ui»vo noYor favorodl our 8*»t}aratloii and aat 
ftill waiting to forglT* a«d for,>,ot JUiyiuiiig t,.at you ovor -lid ar 

•;I i^-ii: S3 tons ■ 

,% t^lJ.l'lHih ^^a 

« .« 

(t«nfi |/«v 


* . i# 


1 K 




•Aid th«t hurt »«« 

I icMrri<»4 you b@oftuet I loftd 70a. I 9tXXl loTt yoa fi&d 
ia«i«t upon Hni»th«r oh«x^<:« t« •ttp^iox't you £uad try to stoJc* yoo 
hai>i^3r. l''l«t%«« MNiw«r aottc, 


7n«tt« X»tt*r» DkUBi be r«&<l in th9 ligSnt or tK« X»e% tn«t ht 
hall wftit«<l %<m at«iith» or imer* %i*t«r ti%«ir »<^Ar&tiom b«l'or« writing 
luad timt th« l<itt«r« vcrd ovidcj^tXy written tt&<t«r advioc of eouitsftl. 
Head la tn« light Ql ti&« t*«tiE$«i&jr »!' plalxitifl aed lirt. L«us to t^« 
•l*f««t %&sk% 4«l'«nd«k&t «a« ui»uali|r drtmJc i»hmx ii« «»XXe4 «a iti« *pr.o&« 
or at tha iiaaaa, usi»d all torta ef i£^i»rop«r Iwu^aga, «aa4 aii^ r«a4 
ia tl)i« ligiit of tht ta^agran wtiieh «aa f^^paractly seat witt^ut l(^|al 
aiivittt, V* 40 not tainit it eoal«l ^« ^#1.4 ao a Katt«r of X«« tiiat 4o- 
foadant »a4a a good J'ailh effor of r««oneili%iioa u»^or eireiir.«tqir^e(»o 
vhieh 'erouXd roquiro ae aicceftanoo ol hit offor by pl&iatiff. Ho 
(lo»« not dony pl»intlff*» tooti^ocy to iho «trt'«et th^t hio oeaduot 
^ao ouoh ao to p«roua4« hmr to tako out a warrant aad that hm faiX"^ 
t9 af)!P«ar at thm n«aring. thn tolograa was a ttir«»ater^iag doeusont 
wiiieh mlj^t wall havo X«d pXiiiiutiiX to «!i»truat nia outlroiy. A ataii 
who viaiiifto roooa«ill(%tioa witr* a viJ*o tr»m. whom ho to •♦itaraiod o-^ould 
aot oonduot thtt aogdti^tiofio «it£^ a oXub* i>oXe£ida&t «»• queotl«K«d by 
tho trial Ju4i£« ao to tii« ooadittg of th« t«l«£rafi and ^tkir« ao ^utttifi- 
.-^blo oxpiMisition. 

SiMsaarialQ^ tao «>Tid«&e# ia tao eaao tin* Ca^aaoallor oaldt 

*!!• adfiiits iiko dttoertion ma^ h* offtera uotidag tJ&at th» !««» 
e$n»idero as justifyic^; that d^oorti^a. ;ie huo ofl'srod to tak« uor 
back 44n(S Xiv-;- •ita Jier, Ihat , of cour»o, wsjuld bar a rifeht to dl- 
voroo orv tiio grounds of d«s«rtio», providod tho offer is uado is good 
faith axi'!) s>r«»irli«d oho itao»'t tjoio ri^t to r«fu«« to o«iiinuo to 
Xiftt «ritn hiae. -'' « * » i^o mkd^its tio iiic4«d in or tri*fd to MicK i» 
tlBio door; that ho oroAtod a disturbaAoo. ^'0 SMtt i« ^^titlod to i*»k 
liis wife to oowo bftolt «ind liiro with Kiio aador turoato of vloienco, 
«^im throug:^ a door, to ^ut h«T in any icied oi' foar, .Ho »aya the 
plaintiff ie a very tiasid vofi^aa. It ie a@ «reiit aao would too uador 
■uoh eireuKfttatiOoa. ^to io a mtm i»olinod t& aak« throats; h« h*a 
▼*rv cloarly ir>dieat«d it by tlie typo of tologra&aa ii« 9*'at, ovoa with 
rosi^oot to notifying all Juotlooo hl&>n«lf that ho iat^tda to eon toot 
the dlToroo. .0 it iu tue <.^otoa j&p>>*iiroiitiy of wntJi^in^ tiaroato. ■^ • * 
He naa haa a right to aok a wift to eeno baoJc «ad liTO with hla as'*«r 

iNw vex ^^-^ 



mH $ 





"ni*M''i^ X'" 


,3i?1,4# f • 

. ^j3Jt 'i^i^ ^»n* 

Uife^ u>:i..;v »'■; ^ uA 

MMit, n» saeh offejr tt» take httr baaJc ui&d«r o<iiadiilons tiaat «»uI4 

Ja«tif]r h«^r <Soiii^i; 90 , Ui«r9 1» noUiiHv, X«ft eac^^iit to <m%9tr « 4«« 
er«<s« for tft« oo«p.l*ttt(»nt,* 

o'binotion. fhtrft It ii« Bftrit i» %h«i fl«£iti»i^tio». 
Xli« <il*er«« in «i'i'lrm«d. 


'* M mm 



CfSAE&is signer of i::h« Clkioago ^mm 
Mfttriet, «t stl. , v 

29 4 I.A. 613 

m&, jusiiiioi iuyeiuiT? mLiys,m3 rm, oi^uim m ':m cquht. 

Hi* r«l&ter fll«4 iil» ir«rlfl«<l p*itill«n i^rmylrig i'ot an 
9r4iiT •f Bumi3«BKt« aigatiBtt th« CJale&itt Pnrk Blirtriet. to ei0t4p«l th« 

trlsO. Vy Uio &tt%r% with a flB<ll«g for thu |»«titl«a»r »«(« Juilgi»,«iit 

Tl3i«r« la praetianllj no dinfutii «» te tli4i fpveta, bat It 
it o«»tf«iS«4 In 1»«iMiklf of d«!f««i4«di%» %hm% ^» m. mMttmr o3' imw p«tl« 

on« of th« ^r«a«e«»®<»r« ei' iht Chiota^o fajrJt Mstrlct Ifttc »hieii 
••v«rAl €,i«trlct» T»ey« oor.».ca.iaat*a M&jr 310, X!&34, l»ur«vi«a-.t to 
• tiitttt« th» <|u«iitl&t( 0f ®ciiii»uXi<I&tl»n waft »ut«lit«^ te Xhm ir6t«rt 
«f th.* i'»8T»*ettY» tintrlet*, w&o vot^s! in favor ©f th« coBvoXlAa* 
tloR, fh« o«B»(»liiftti&fi wn« «ift«rv!!ir4l b«l^ valid hy th« teprcaui 

«»«»•*. ( ,%t.f liff J!U-Jfeisa£a.JlM^^.5i£t|iat , ms hi. 24,) ?rior t« 

•^Xy 1, X^XA, Uie JUiir.ooXxi F&rk Coi£»4 8 8ln<i«r« w«r« &aiueri»«4 by 
«iAtut« to ekppaint imA »ttpi>ort m pcli«« loro«. Purumwit to %hm 
»t«.tttt« r«lfttiG|{ to CiiriX Sftinrltto th« o«^catt»i«&«rt r^tiried uaA 
«pprov«i) A «Xaftiilfi«»tl(m of oiX offiooo «jiid pltk^am of «^XoyK«ot 


V^ ,fca#j l^i*: 


1 ?i«'„ i.jHiiJlrtil 


er?^ .A.I^QS 


ij«r xta&2tAi» toitSi^i .SM 

&i.j.. ■. 

.v..y>-.™, V 

♦ •-,»., 

'- - ttf^^^ft." 


t'4^'* r*" 



^^**4y r:.' 

., ».. <>>" <«(,<9 

^i - _ > .', *«.r/ A .' (/» if J* * ■:• 




•# tfti*r 

•jIt «* S 1 ,. 

ktm k^i'i itti'i eT.'-ioi- Xi4 .;>c 

in lh« distriet mm &&<!» tkni ]recora«4 l»y tb« 2«ipftrlKt&nda»t of fti^ft} 
»eAt» f^* poslUofi 01* futroXuan i^ii^s oii« of tixt. j>XiiO«B «« el«»»lfl«i 

Ytair&liBAn In 1$)2C. H9 etrv^d i» that vQsitloA imiilX iVi»rU 17« 1933, 

««.« r^i^acd g iltf U»y 11, 103.i. 9«pt««te«jr It, ll>33, toy p«title« for 
••rtlorari r#l>%t«r iSAaR«4 t)&« cdQor^l to %• r«K«vfta te tli« Superior 
eourt of Cook oouAty, D«e«a^«r 23, 1999, tUi&t eourt «tuft<»^«^ tiLo 
r«oor«l filling rolator guilty, Thu f^rlt IJiotriot «k|»p«i»X«4 to t&io 
eourt. In an opixiloit fiXi4 Junt II, ltf34, Uto jaaijs»i«Bt of ta« 
Suoc^rlor aourt -wao *ffirs4«4. ( Vort'^aOig v. Bobryt»gko ot ai., 87ft 
111. App, S35.) ^ovftii'ib«r 3, 1934, g»«titiou«r uriMi roiiisttite^, 
I'lftlntilT, ho«9V#r, k^s not botn puX4 i«iiy tia^ury i*t&m hio 4ieonK.jrg:» 
on Affll 1?, l|f^'3, Uf^ to tiio %jj&« of iiie roi&etii'tot^i-ifii && i<&T0&1»ejr 
8, 1(>M. l^tsf (ffidi^rit r«fu««(0 to ipi^y tkio nal-ivry «!,ltf«.ou^ dcfi«i4 t^tro- 
for ho l&«*n an^tt re|»«M.t%'SIy. Hi.« »^li^^ of & p&%x&lta.sti& uAdcr i&o 
llneoln ftirle Co»u&ioeio»«r« ifU^i ubdor the Qhi&t^& i'uxiii Dlotriet !• 
Iia^ te ii&€>nUi, «tid if p^tiiiofiOJT ie ot^tiUo4 ^o reiiov^r for tiio «&•• 
tiro t:l&<R ^« rm-fi koipt out of offioo luoro Is 4ttei te kin |34^6d« 
This »aouftt t2"i« jud^ofit ordtro d«fa»4fiknt to pay. 

It i£ urg«^ for ]'<iv»^r>al timit roliiior eom^ot r«e<^v«r ^ooftuoo 
tht ovi-'i«?i©« f&ll« iO ffitfe'bilefa Uio oatlotwee* of amy fundo Iju tho 
&«i;i4t of doftJTidfyr^l* i'r&m vkioia rtl«tor*« salary oae bo p»id; tooo%ac» 
A oivil otrvloo «fi&plo^oft eo&c^ot reoovor oi^lary wKiol^ iashs booje ]»«i4 
to anoihor olvU o«rvio« omiiioyoo for p«!ri' tttrntmati of t^o oaaio oor* 
▼ ioo wiiotlStor tho plain tiff ttao hmn lawfully or anlaiwfaily ito^t out 
of tito panltloa; ^oo&a^e ta« ovidot^oe 4o<«o not «^u»tr rnlator ««• 
r««4y, willing waa AhX% miA Jiadl tk« ipiaiyoioal eat>saoity durtn& tho 
ti»o in qu«Atioo to p»rtuxm t&t duUoo of itio poeittoii; bAOAusto )io 
fallow to j»roiro tJaafe u« effi««> or {»o«itioA ol«l«o<l to hma boon 
060u#io4 hy him ««» iogiaiy eroaiod or t&at 8tto& offioo or pooltloa 

,■(.*-..; :, "■);■} ; M 

" L.AC.. T Ai . f *<5t ^^MST^ ' 

A.' « U J «t < ■ • ■ ■ "T rt ' T .i « 1 III 

' ■■'■ ■ "'■ '••tifcOikw «*,«•:» 
.i •nil 

trm.9 •fje oeeuplvd by hiM; t»««»ui« p<itlti«>fi,4ir was ^(uilty of Xntcito^ f . 
an! X>«Q%iiM0 th« fiti»X or4«r Is d«if««tlY«, IXlsgal, void and la* 

jiftn4i»»u» is «uct ttxirfterdinary rsmiHliy, It was tissssemiry 
for ft r«Xat©r tt» iHaow tli® «xl8».«c« ©f a» fuad ija tiint nmida of 
4«f#!r:*dArit8 froas. whieli his oX&im eeuXd bii ,|}%i4, iimt'mi4iiuit» im.f 
^^•rs w9r«i ao mmtn fn^u^t l» tnw h«»^s of m* i(^i«a4|«> Fwrk. Bistriet 
•r it« fr«d«<ttttsor ]»«>6«ku»«i tn* i-insoln P»rk C<Ki^;iiii»»i«»tierft &im1* »• 
A|»px^pri«itioii for «ca«iri90 durlAj^ tos y^tars l$^3*Xt3<i du# te in* 
f«e% tixnt th« Xai9 <li4 »ot r«»ti»ir« Umi «uaiy »u«^ «»i^«>r€»prl.%ti(m \nt 
«>%<l« by tfcittt. ^« »r« n«it i»tpr««8#d witit thin tit«tttt«citi3D. th« XskV 
ri»«|ttir«d th« «Ml«»i»tl«ii ^JDi^uftlXy «*f wn 0rdln>im0« kmown «« th« *tftx 
Xisvf orilBMHtts* viaio^b, ^'tti ^i»iff#<l en th« &«e4s «»f thii Park Bistrlet 
for th« o@»l»£ y«iMt, vhien ordiziMse* (l*»igicii%t«i th« cu&#uRt» »f 
»«m«y to )»• «x|»#ia4«(it for i^prdvvx&snt, tt»ii^t^««i!t®# «u%^ $o-f«mKwnt «f 
th« |i&rt dluring %}&• n9M% •ueosv'^ia^ yrsr. Wb.lX» yi«s« <$rdinjyie«t 
vtr* E^et; 4«si||nsitM it^f^rf^jpflftiioxit »T4ini6im»vMt th«y purf&miMA tk9 
fu»eti&f}S 6f Sttsii MS c»ritl»ttnie«. Tli« «i«jr<» f.%cst ti<i».t th« ordUiaiaess 
w#r« 6{a.X»4 ^tsi* levy (&r4lR»t!««s* l»»t«.st4 of *«j>0ro^rl.«tl©» er4i* 
jOMies*" it u&t, «« tiiiiisikf Si%i«rlAX im vX««f «»l" tJ^« f»«t th&t »« ob- 
JtotlO'iB WHS miaX %y d«f(!i»4at.t» agoii tli« hen-rlr^g ori that grooBd* 
fll« auQtwar dies* ttot 4«»y thtkt mimMsY for t;>h.ft f«iy£!s«i»% of salarlst 
for ins position &f fmtr&Iifittlk, ii|.«Xut3lB«i t&O -#asitiafi to«l4 l^y 
9XAiatlff, '«FftS is faioi soourod tf^rough ta« iK>attt»«»t of' ihoss or- 
4ii»ane«B, <m ih* efaiatraiy, tia* a»s««r by isf #tr«fie«r a<l»iits that 
Ott«^ nt^oy WHS r«o«iv«<l b«o«)js<» it fttrt^i«r AXXf>ges that tiila atonoy 
««kt paid ^mt to set tt»n«isi«4 ^orsofi wiio 9ftrforR«4 th* i^tlos of th* 
^sitioB of ipiHiRtiff. th#«o *tax. XftTy or.iin»iiooo* »or« off«ro4 
•»« reo<»iir«« in «Tri4«n«o and show tfcie ostiasate of Bionoy for tbo 
par5»o«# ©r ftitirit&ittiaic xtoo polloo forco for tke dlatriot, whleh 
V0ttX»!l iricXu.4« the saiari«B of tli» patrolaeii. It is true that th» 

"lii^^l t«> 



;^.i(« ->{U w«ilt i;*i « not 


^•U»994 «9« ••»<*.&'- 


■I tiilV , 

■ 'w^w 

for iB«lDtari:iiLt>ott of tk* palia« d«p«kjrtifo«ai vliii»ttt itf»ffioii"liMtlXy 4*t* 

W alXoeatoA. i>ieir«rinftl«r«o, «« UkiMk it vi^ft tJ3.« 4uty 0i ta« coi&«> 
nl9»loner« to pmy n<»i«Kri«« ol y%« |^A%roi«i«iiii out «)1' Ui««« i'ka:;4ft «• 
w«ll ^4S to ^%y i°»r yi« ««|ttif)«*»i»t; fii«t«'d«d. ^^tAviii^ x»vfully •l>t«4&«4 

%is»rt It WAA th« duty 9f Ua« Juifieoiu l^«ijri(. ««m£il06iCM!4«r» t<^ )^.0i4 it 
I'ftr iiim «»d io turn it «v«r t& Ui« t^^iaa^tt ir^iurk Biwtrlot uixXaca it 
WAi ie f^<6% 1^844 to iKisn* o%l&«r pmsBiM^ for {»««ri>;mitiM tiit ^ttii«« 
|i«rt«lsi»i to ttie i9i«ijatiff''» p^»iti0j&. a» ioci^ «« t4a« p«»itlo» 
iNHti^laed in »xiis,tmi9«f tit)« aaoft*^ ebi%ii^«-di isr t^« ptK^mem ol the 
wtkl^ty tn tht i»0%i«»b«iit of tJi« peifitlon oetLidl &oi bn Iftwi'uily <ii««A 
f<?3r «lia«r purp^n«9» ijru«, «if»«it •*' fujs4« i« « «©»»l«t» afiatw«r to • 
|ii«tltie» for iB«ii<t«sa» t^ «t9mpiil tk« |»«>^«ut et* ti»« VAJL^ry oS" » 
imtflie ^aipl©y»«, .lt'#<^ir -y. ^«w|.»y. ^<i i.,i^,. , 5S& III* %^i i*m&l9. 

ftg .r«l..^,?)oiri^9...T. Brjjwt^ .«t 11,]^,. sai iii. m^j, tn» tbiiut ii»« «»««»- 

trii^iot#4 ^vid«ri«:«r in tttin «&«« iiai@4*t«» thu «9ii8i«&«# ^i' luxiaa 
in a«f»si4»nts'^ iim%4B liy wxiiftfe tii« ««aiMry appiiamU* t© ^Atitiojaftr'* 

tli« e<9ut«»ii&e^ %-':i»t tuia ruft«i »»t «l Wfii»^ 9«tiU£>fiar*« 
•ad&ry wJSk* to te« ii^ald »»» lifA I'&ct paid 4o i*a«»li*i#jr «ao i»«jfi'««B,«4 
t^« tiuR* i«rvi4t i« a«t %i» (tik afe€Ltt<»r of fs^&t tstskhiimmA hy m9 

9fUme*, n9tm4tmtm olt« tAfeftfifet.l'.y^..Mtty ftiL mistmm y. Stl* Ui- 

»8«. «*i^ ^JAtifl. : y , ^i t3C ..^f miitVM^. . ;*2? iii. 443, ba% tu« r«l» 

•fiE0«B.e«ii i» tft«s» «mi»«ff 1« wot, «i» ir« t^UiOi, «it®ft»tli«r apj^iioAbl* 
h«re f«r lh« ri»si«<» tixnt p»titi©*»»r»» right %& .iai« orri©*, wcish 
lijelul#< th« rlgbt to th« maary ttt«r»i*fti!»r '^myablc, w&a e»t«iteli»in»d 
fey Ju^ioial d[<»elft'lon w3a<«i th« iupftnor wourt ({aaaihttdi tii« r«a«r4 u|»9fi 
whiah tH« 41»«hair|tt ©f p«titt©ii»r mm» I»aji««, »«f«»(i»nt» B»y that 

"£0 XAi 


'a^ >-!««» Oft 'l»i^ aX 
•JL. b99au0tum 

and thftt >>ri%^ii{t thr'i'ft y»Qefii.» afit.«r ixis dlscharii* il »4(iiti6a«X ptktvoX* 
mmn w«r# ««Bi|;n«i^ to <!utyj th%t tliort wimi «« U4«r«a»« iii tiiC bum- 
^•7 of pAtrol^fifs aotuftlXy In Uit«! n^r^fioB el' Ui« i^sarJi Blntriot 
Aft«r i^piril 5v, i935; tamt ©a May l<i, 1».13, oit* onio«r w»» r«ln- 
•tatt4, aaa Mmy )S12, 1^3S« IC nmi i&«n vrn ettrtil'lttd and appuim«d, 
wa&i ea Mi^ 31, 1V33, ona laiuu «ae G«rti.fied tuaA iMi9ti&*r on 3«pt«ab«r 
14, W^^t to tl:i»t At ihll tiffi»» a&iring tUi« |i#riod I'rofei t)a« d»i« ol' 

;]£«rnt th«iF« «"«?«» wore th.«i« 173 patrol^ttn aoitt«a..iy »fi>ploy«4 by tfiit 
Julno&iit FHrk <K»£fstiiii 98 loners iiMaA ]pal4 ta«ljr Q<^p»t»«4»ti(»tt« ^rois. tii#8« 
f«ett dftl* 9x:i4«t'it« draw t}:it ics'^r^r^oft ta&l Ui« tttlMry Tor petltloi)ex*t 

-Petit loewr i» tmQu«-s%lt(»-&bXy «i}titX«d to r«««>ivtt Uia. saliury fr<MK 
I>«e«Blb«r 5?a, if 5,1, wh«» Ut« Jud^ent oi:» the writ of eerti^ra^rt »»• 
«ater*4d, antll »©ipi^tteinp a, l®34, whm^ his warn reisstiited. Xixe ©aXy 
period In wliloh hie nAl^ry oouXd Ii«iy« I»«4» j»rr.p<irly p&ld to «u.otti«r 
van fer t.^«i ti%e bt^in^ilag April 17, X^35, vhtstk pmUlcmer vao out* 
|ic»ii|«d, uxitiX d«9{iKti«jr ta, 1^33, «Ph«fi %hm Sui^imt &n %h« trrlt 9t 
9t»r%i9T%jr,l w«« «ist«pod. UBil«r th» d»«l«ios« elt«d It «l«iit woix ^c 
t*ufct p«tltl«Ha«y «ouia aet recov^f tkt •»i»3ry for auoifi parlftd if it 
Htibi. i« f».at )»«»ii p»l5 te siftm« oti'i«r uftrstai i»fa,o wBtualXy p«srform*d 
th« dutlo« of th« potltlon. Pt^,&l» y. fhoagpf^,. 5X6 111. ii, iioXd« 
*^** * it iSUtS ©ffieor or waploye** i» eBtlU«d to recovor oaiary 
froc the dttto of * ittd^wottt o«i »»rti<|r»ty^ 1r feio f war. thin do. 
ftn»«, tntrofore, if ttpplloablo »t oJiX «ouX<i b« t^>$Xiod »»Xy lor the 
i»«rl©d of tt»# ^>»giRRt«g April 17, 1033, aa4 eoaiag l)«o«»l»o» 8d, 
19331. ftio a«f«iB8e i« «i ttff irt^ativo m«, fho fivldotiott do«« «ot 
ouotolB it. It dooo not »hpw that onother OH^loyoo waa Ap^oifitot 


^ "" "" " ■'~T' f .'Mil/ V44JF 

^<( k.'ii #j f.jT 'ijii wf« .♦^•V fWflt 



.*•* XR^, UjiU ^fc&»ia»n 


t« th« positl«B held lij petlti9n«r, nr 414 ib« ««nc ettrulrcil fna 
ttoP Qoeu9«nt el* ihtkt ponitlon.^ •r «&» ][»Aidl iii«r«for by Ui« Lltioola 
Vark e»{ft%l»«lon«r«. the wrievcr Sftirv thm the nAXtity w%a j>«t.ld to ab 
ttBnAGt«4 pertdii. th«r«! !• n« proof ef «li«ii it «*» |^»M vx* t« irhe«, 
Th« nar* f««t lh»t 11 «4411tioia«l |iatr0l«.«i «•!'• trltitiji thr«« ««>«)(:• 
after i^lalntiff *• <31«iia«rg* iiiiei^»4 to dtitj or tnat th«r« vat u> 
iiier<^««« 111 ti4fi» ntiirit*«r of |»fttrelss«n actu^aiy is the 0«ryie« of %h9 
]Pwrk mstriot after A^ril 50, 193B, or tii&t on Bay 16, lf»3^, ono 
of floor trfto ri^iiiBtatAd and t>uit on May 3^, 3itS3, lii now son woro 
•ortlfiod a»'l ttp!^olnt«4, t^'^mt or kny 31, 19 S.^, ono /^^sue* w&o oortl* 
fiod aad t^t Oft Soi»toi&bor 14, 1953, aaothor »«» «ao oortifled, a»4 
HMkH 4'4ri»g all this |»orlo4 thoro wore &ore thaa 17S patrolma 
ftOta«dly «i%i>loy4Ml|i <lott« aot 9ii««? ih&t to« worJc ro(|uiro4 of plain- 
tiff was porf $r&«4 >y any otl^or p>oro«»i who wao |>«14 tiie oalary 4a« 
to i»lal£itiff. 'Iko evldonoo in.<flloat«o tiiat 4of ot'^dacito fre& tleio to 
tlao offijkloyod a#.4itlojaal offie^rs aoo«3 741i<<g to tho ronulroi^icto of 
tUo fmVlle oorvioe. Thoeo viutioo porfortttod by tho varloue uol^om 
of iioeitiono waro o«#j^blo of 4iTl«lon and oubdivi^ion. fhoro wao 
BO poroon »ab»t&tut«d to do tu» i?ork of tu% p0%,ititm»v, aa wa« tbo 
oa»* 1» 4on.^Qa if. Cltv of Ghloo^ fty. 13S 111, App. ag?, a^on walob 
40foAi3a»to rely. Ttioro io no jftroof tiiat tHo pooition froia wiUoli 
Ipotttionor wao tmleiwfully ouetod wao fllio4 by a ioiown poroon wi&o mao 
]»»id th« oala^ry. Tlio bur4w» wao Uj^on dofoxidants to f^ioduoo t^iat 
proof. That no tuoh |}«roon ^erfon^od tA« dutioa and roooivod tho 
pay apollcafcio to ^otitlooafr't jiooitioti lo iidioated by tiio faot 
tkat ao one wa« dleohargod or laid off iro« any ^ooltloa after plain- 
tiff wae roUiotatot* If &i« ^uiioo had boon 9*r(Qr&*6 by oos>.eotto 
olio n^o wao getUnn: tA« oalary, ouoi-t p^^roon would iiOoee«arily bo 
ro. ovod ttom %hm% i^ooltlon oxid ooaoo to receive %hm oalary upon 
tUo roinotatoi^oiit of j,lal«tlff. mor« i» no pri>^f iu tno rooord Uxat 

, ■' ^ -'■-< , ..MTV. K«o jrifcrt^ .fcurr "- ?"'' 
r-i? f.:- 

, ^, ^BT i .»,1l . !»ViJ ,,(4.,..,* 

: ■ ' " '•'Itf-'t'llHI »..■■-■ 

<* ■:> ^V^iMr aa&if i»#|| 2f 

- ^* 1*« 

94IW j»x!Jtr 4MIJL» 

•nytTilBe of ihia klfsd «foeurr««S. th« ftvi<l<!Mt«« of iht r^^ot (ir it Vtt« 
a f««i) ««k« Ib po«eft»iBl<»i'i of <)«f<»«t{i«»it» ««adi «ii')(»u,l«d i:i^«tv@ W«b fjr** 
4ue«d. tHila itfeKsii 1» net ttu»taln«d h^ in* «nrli!];ei:.o#. 

P«r«nd»nt«* contmitlon thmt ^iftiiillff o«imet r«e»T«r ^•««ust 
h« wftii e<3in«14fr«d tia6«k,-melti%t>«4 f&v ^«rf#r)««»«t of ills datKa 1« 
sk;iOtJ&«r aoiit«»tioi9 thut e«b»n«t '^rtvalX, i» yiov of tao fAfl% Vnmt 
ia i^«tr MEi«w«r i«i«a4mi%m 4«»«1«4 plai&tlff k^ul i»o«ui lu^avA «iiil« 

is th« ]p«rfO]K&»£lO« of JCiiff 4Miiftii» »«4 4t^.i«il J&« )»«Oa2fiO iAOH^^AOltatOd 

for worii; m9 t.0 Ixio imjttri«*. ^«iitlojiie]* istlJuatlMj eont^idio %tm% 
4ttf«&daUKt« ha^vlia^j; cl&ia«4 m* ta* triad, tk&t pvtitiim^r rRii not 1r« 
e«|>&«ltat«(l l>y any li^^ury fr«8)^ t£t« ^trf^rtfe^ioo cf his <lutioi, e«& 
»et a#tr auklcw thit «i»ini %h».% hm wtt.« rtnlor^A p^jreiealisr unsatblo to 
pmvf^tn tho *lwtl«« ©f iiio i?#»itii&a m.€ pt'&vtstiX a nectJTorjr wimbui tii»i 
gromii^. ^% tMcUc* to«t« tk«ii t9vi«9i«tlf»Ai i« a43tti«4 l>y tli«» foxK^r $Vk4M* 
moDtt of tko Sttporlor oomit-t «f a^n&k nmnty tm^A of it^ie oourt in lHio 
ofrUormrl pr&ct94t»go, 

l&of«fr.dimt«9 «l»o c<»fittotR4^ ih9rm was fto |kjr«»«f Ic iho r#oorA 
t«n*!!iBg to •«#» t&nt « j>ei5ltl«» of |>atx«iia%A wiio logaily er««.t«A 
««4, ©««us»i«4 toy j^otitionftr, iirt&t f*«t «X«<» i», wo ii*!)^, ee«eia«W«ly 
s«tti«A 1»r tiaft forffiftsr iui4fe^«Bt» of ly^o iupenor ais^ A|?#oil»t,« eourto« 
^ftTiAg %*!mci- oneo ft<(ljtt4ia&t.«d, taat i»tiu« oABAot i^ow 'fe>o « »«oo»d titto, 
i«itaoir io ta>»jr« m«i;rlt iii t^o f^rt^ixor oc^^OKitiojct of ^LM'midtmm tuat 
l^otitioawi* wao 4|\*Uty of i{»ftM« ,y. iii» ^1%Uj timt him <Si©*fiitt,rgo ««« 
a»Jtt«tlflM aua4 »»»l*wfyut wao i>ut 4iJi i»ou« im teo o«ytiorJur|. suit ia 
th« Sttp-trtor eostrt, .*ii^ tti9 Ju4i&«i«Jt ©f tho llttp«jrior md i^>poiiftt• 
QOiATto OB ti-mi t3u««ti©a ia fiasu ««id eotteittniiro. m» rul«> txiai a 
90titian«r wu«t b« 4Ui&o«t is iBoU^atiBg mmAmu» proo*#4U|to i» 
or4«r to r»«©w#r a position from wuioh m kmA b«*ti tt»ia'»fuliy $u«to4i 
i» not apfiioablo to % |>roofte4i»g for tn# reoovoxy of oaiary to 
wiiioh ho haa booom« ««titio4 fey r^^asoa of a oult iiilifeOtttiy prooooutM. 

a»9 ,« 


•Ai ai 7 

jbn «©•••' 

h»i»9tM X^. 


,9Mi.) ;-..'..■■ 


rntkn •n^ 

• iU»>>t 


•< r-' 

tfat r«4itoa for tlt« taX% «ui«h rt>|alr«« 4ixiii.miis9 Ia V]'in.»;>lag ma ««• 

o;»no«rri«d it t^'&o 3ti»Uit« ef Liuiit»,ti&ri». '^'n ii.dZ<l thikt smdisr tH« 
ttOdi«$»iiit«d f'tiikttt vkioiji «.p']^«»r ixk tiai* 'r«««r4 |i^«tl%iou«r vmi mi. 
iitXttd to & £i)m&4iiwia« »» f>ray4Ml» t^i«i t4« ord«r otfjisrod w»ii la dia* 
f«x«i, »»4 ii is ai'rirs&ff'd. 

^riui'^t ^mifiw wiin »£■■■ .:•-,'•-•- ■"■if! 

:« %WII 







41: JL © rx • Ij-- J ■ '' 



Winii'red xiaiter, the beiietficiary named in two certificate* 
issued to iier Ixuebarid at tae time he was an eiaployee oi' defendant 
Insurance company, in accordance with the group insurance policy 
issued by defendant Li insuring its eaapioyees, brought an aetion to 
recover the face value of tjie two certificates with interest tiicre- 
•fi. Tiie Jury found against defendajcit and assessed plaintiff's 
damages at |8000, being the face of the two certificates and in- 
terest at ISlOO, Jud^ent was entered on th« Tdrdict for ^10,100 
and defendant appeals, 

tliere was a foriaer trial of tuis case where, at the close 
of all the evideaace the court strucJc out def eiidaiit 's evidence, 
wtiich tended to show tiie policy was not in el'fect because Baker wa« 
discharged January 7, 1932, and directed a verdioi, for plaintiff 
on the ground that tiie policy vrae incontestable after one year, 
An appeal was tixJien to ti^ie court where the juci^ent was reversed 
and the cause r.-tLarided. Baker v. .t'rudential Insurance Go .. 279 111, 
App. 5, The pertinent provisions of the certificates and group 
policy and most of the fncts will be found in that opinion and will 

not be repeated here, except in so far as may be neoessaiy to stato 
the reasons for our decision, 

The record dieeloses that Gilbert W. Baker, the insured was 
an employee of the Insurance company in Chicago, and on December 3 
1926. defendant issued it. certificate for |4000 to Gilbert W. 



ta -A.i^es 

«a pTJif 

( «ifiL4ij.XAi;^4jfc 


■^xLt Jiixv 9o*ijdb'i.i>o&& at ^^oriqiuod eoaaiijeal 

, a iA$« </ q;u ^^ -.u: b nt-i 't e £ l> lUi 
.i ioa ««w 'CoiLan diU wo^a o4^ b^biiioi doiiiw 

.0:j i^^-i'j >-" aiilA^ SAW XAOru^..--; Hm. 

;0!»^ T«r« aot •ao8««"i »^ 
t'x«»dXiO iBtii B990l09lh btoooi 9£fi: 

«8 0i0 QJd^ 

•irr -X:' 

9i.*J 3 o; "Cif^ 

;t -xoi 9i«ortl#«»o •ti b9U9*i taMba»-lob .OSCI 


Baker at his request, oxiA a aimilar on« dated June 1, 1928, in 
which plaintil'f wa« named at teneficiary. Part of the premium was 
paid by his employer, tbe defendant , and part of it "by Baker, defeiiA- 
ant deducting the neeesaary amount from JtiiB salary. The certifi- 
cates and policy were to be in effect only so long as Baker remained 
in the employ of defendant Insurance company. On the former appeaX 
we said (p. lO): "It is clear that the policy covered only the 
employeeo of the inaured. It did not cover an employee after he 
had "been discharged. Al'ter his discharge he had the right to take 
out a policy for aiiaiself , if he so desired, in accordarice with the 
provision for conversion," January 7, 1932, Eaker was discharged 
because he was short in his accounts. The home office was notified 
of this fact Janu&ry 22, 1932, he never did any ?fork for defendant 
after January 7 and died i'ebruary 7, 19 32, at Indianapolie, Indiana, 
It is said ixx the briefs he committed suicide. The premiums on the 
•ertificates were paid, as was the custom, during the first week of 
January, 19 32, for the entire month of January, The sole question 
for decision was whether the policy was in effect when Baker died, 
February 7, 1932. 

Plaintiff's contention is tnaC the burden was on defendant 
Insurance company to show by a prepunderance of the evidence that 
Baker was not iu tlxe employ of defendant Insurance company at the 
time of his death; that it failed to meet the burden because the 
Jury fouiid atiainet defendant, arid the findintj, ie not against the 
manifest weight of the evideuce but is sustained by the evidetice. 
Defendant's position is that the burden of proof wa» on plaintiff 
to Siiow that the insured at the time of hie death was employed by 
defendant. Although the court orally instructed the jury in ac- 
cordance with defendant's contention, it found for plaintiff. This 
question was passed upon by another division of this court in 
atur^.er v. Travelers Ina. Co., 279 111. App. 607, in an opinion 

by Mr, Justice Wilson, now a member of our Supreme court, where 

fti . 

a mil b9isf^ on in » Divb ,tn^up»i Bid ta n»2Ua 

. ^^a,c. ,^a«^c;. ac*.^x*.aai itu^hmlifb 'to xo-tqpi» »ii* o^ 


V9umi> " ,£ioiii'i9rmt, lo'i aoieivoxq 
.-•maawit Jtoll» baa ^ ^t^auns^ ten* 


•If} MV 

Joell* 111 aaw ic&lXoq •^^-^ 


i k^ahi 


sXiii .lliiflX 
ill in wo. 


J a e*w ri:4»ij»a 

,ao8X.r- <">l.*e'. 


the authorities were diacuesed and it was held tliat the burden was 
on deffflidant. But in view of the result we have reached in this 
oase the question is not of importivice, I'or we are of opinion that 
there should have teen a directed Yerdict for defendant at the close 
of all the evidenee, as it requested, 

Albert A. Benson, called by defendant, testified tiiat he was 
an employee of defendant and had supervision over the district in 
Chicago where Baker was employed, with the same powers as a superin- 
tendent; that Baker was employed by *my office as an agent;" that 
the last time he saw Baker was on the evening of January 7, after 
Baker had rendered his aooount to defendant's assi stain t superintend 
dent; that Eaicer's shortage, tlrie Bi^;3aing of a check by Baker v/ithout 
authority and his usin^i the money were diseuBBed at ttiat time; "I 
then instructed Mr. Runzel Qhe assistant superintendent} to take 
thp collection book and told Mr, Baker that he was through. He 
looked at me from across the table and he said, 'Do you mean that I 
am through?' I said, 'Well, after signing an insured's check, why, 
yes you are through,' and Mr. Runzel was to take the book and maJct 
all collections, that he was not to have any part in conducting th« 
company's business," On iross- examination Benson said he testified 
on the fomser trial concerning the forgeiyof the cheek, 

Runzel, the assistant superintendent at defendant's offices 

where Baker was employed, testified that he saw Baker on January 

7th and corroborated Benson as to wnat i^as said and done; that 

Benson said to Baker at that time, "because of a forged endorsement 

on a check that he would be forced to dispense with his services 

at that time;" that Benson/took the books away from Mr. Baker and 

that after January 7 witness had charge of the districl. Uxeretofors 

covered by Mr. Baker, The witness further testified he received a 

letter dated the day following, January 8, from Baker, which is in 

evidence, in which Baker wrote: "Snclosed find list of shortage - 

g±ri;r -^ii •tr tfjuBtrr •d^ >» waiv tii *u^i ,inaaf>f»Tt®b .io 

._.._•: . . 'v,f ao.?;)o" IIoo 'nl^ 

.If:*;;^. L'O ; , -■.; ■■9J',I1 .JO I 

s»ji__. „.. • . uoic ot : 

5rii .tit .01 J.Ioo Xlft 

r,-.- .^ , ' ■'■".'I'-.n noo 

|-__ 1 ..> . -rfrf*- -.f r> .'U ri r, r' ,'.',; 

ai ai iVoiii--» .ttfJtefi atoi'l ,6 \c'i:/ lil ■•. ,aixi-.%Aioi -^l- 9tti b»ieb %iiit®L 

which -will laaike it easy to find after my Inaureuice is paid. >^y wlf* 
urill pay you this amount pud you can square with these people. I 
don*t want anyone to loae a cent on a/c ol* me. See ttndy and find 
out how muoh I owe hii.x and sciUrire that too. Please ion't peddle 
this around the debit. Leave my me'jiory with the people as good as 

Plaintiff, Mre, Baker, testified that on January 9th shft 
called at defendant's place of businets where Mr, Baker had "been 
euployed and talked to Mr. Benson; tnat Mre, ffitcli was witJi her; 
that she asked Mr, Benson if there was any salary coming to Ut, 
Baker that she could have; that Benson told her 2Lr, Baker wag an 
employee of the coapany and he could not give any salary to any 
one but him; that he was Btill working for them; tiiat she asked 
him if there were any premiums due on Mr, Baker's insurance and he 
said everjrfching had "been paid; that about a week later, aocoHipanied 
"by Mrs. Fitch, she again called and Mr. Benson again told her that 
Mr. Baker was still an employee of the company, and he could not pay 
any of his salary to her. She further testified that her husband 
disappeared January 7 and she received notice of his death on ITelru- 
ary 7, Mrs. Fitch corroborated the testimony of plaintiff as to 
■bo'h conwers&tione. 

Records of the home office in New Jersey shewed that Baker 
was employed "by defendant Insurance company "from O«tol»er 25, 1926, 
as an agent tn Chicago 4 District, which position he held up to the 
tinie of his 'final' January 8, 1932, at which time he was let cut 
of our service for mise^proijriating cash surrender funds and with- 
holding ordinary preuiums, " 

There is other evidence in the record as to whether Benson 
had authority to discharge Baker, and as to whether Baker was dis- 
charged on January 7; but we tuink it all shows txi&t Baker ras dis- 
charged on the evening of Jaxiuary 7; that the next day he VTcte a 


.. auom» alrij- tsoy, ic^fj Xliw 

'• .'♦reflect Off 

;fiO0r(«g .T<i 6* ^«^3(.C^'Tt fins *4-^oI^ift» 
.J: floant; ■"' i^tit 


« '1^ iiOli 

.. „ .... V ;.'- ..-- T '■<••. -^nq|^ 

..... . ... ..... . .;)■ 'to «Mooi ■- 

^^•., iftc.ia ♦> O8*©i;xl0 tul jJ-rtsafi rtJB as 
itsiUitia'^ * LnaiV Bid 'to 

letter, from whicli w-« have above quoted; that he nevar aijaln wor!ced 
for deferidaiit and died the following February 7. 

Plaintiff 'g coaasel in t.ieir brief argue taat according to 
the testii.ony of krs, Baker and jirs, i'itch defecd-iiit did not act 
fairly in telxing her that BaJcer was atill employed by the company 
and in not informing 'la-..x "that a situation had risen under which 
his insurance would be cancelled, *** It not only failed in thia 
respc:ot, but by its actual represeritatione to kxe, ioker ajrtd by its 
silence bo far as iJaker is concerned it perxuitted those people to 
proceed un^'er ti.'.e aesuiiiption that the ir^suratice was in force," W« 
think this is wholly iwii^aterial becauBe there ."as nothing Mrs, Baker 
could do at that time. There was no T^rsmium to be paid because he 
had beeii discharged. Moreover, as we said on the I'oriiier appeal 
(279 111, Ap-o, 5, p. liD): "Had Baker lived he could not have paid 
the preciiuiii to the defendant insurance company; that wae payable 
by his employer although part of the money woul'^ coise from hirrt. 
The employer could not pay the preEiium for February because it had 
theretofore discharged Bakar, •• We think all the evidence shows that 
Briker was discharged on January 7, 1932; that the premiuEt had been 
paid for the balance of that saonth and the policy ''/as not effective 
after January 31, 1932, This was before Baker died, and no recovery 
can be had. 

The Judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago is reversed, 


MoSurely and Matohett, J J. , ooneur. 

^8. rf&t2>t .air. rnp Tsici *rcM t© x*'*'M-t«^»9J sdi 

vaBQ rt- Tjr- Tf-'-'t naif gnlXXft* «j!' ^iXii«t 

iiabm; a«sl ,nliHVO'tai ioet at bUtiii 

. /it *j8rij . 
i,i. V...... '.. ■'■■ ■■ ' ''•n:^3*:,i»»t»h ft.i„ -... ..«.im»iQ 9ri# 

r- .,.-> .... r ... -^.-T j><i;J ^f^q JOf, f>XiJOO t»>C^r<jm9 ©ill 


'■^. iP*ljfl 

,-Xi{0' , :!'iii»i»M. btm x^*"^^^ 




a Corporation, 


i^i;] lOR COURT 


4 I. A. 614^ 


DiiiLITclRaD TiLsi. OJ^liilOa OF 'i'iffl COURT. 

JPebraary 27, 19 34, defendant issued ite policy lor #10,000, 
payable in montialy installiiients ol' .^96,10, over a period ol" ten 
years, insaring the lil'e of Sidney X. Kauders, nusband of plaintiff, 
tiie beneficiary named in the policy. He died April 16, 1935. De- 
fendant denied liability, claiming the policy was void because the 
insured knowingly made false answers to material questions put to 
him in his applicatiori for insurance, JPlaintilf brought suit to 
recover three sionthly inBtaliments with interest, aggregating 
$309,92. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor for the 
amount clai. ed; afterward the court entered jud^^ent in defendant's 
favor notwithstauiding the veriict, and plaintiff appeals. 

The record discloses that Dect-iiiber 16, 1933, ixauders, who 
had been a traveling ealesiuan for about 35 years arid was then about 
57 years old, signed an application for insurance witxx defendant com- 
pany. The application was in two parts, a policy issued pursuaiit to 
that application but i'eoruury 24, 1934, was surrendered to be "re- 
issued and re-dated in accordance with this application, register 
date to be i'ebruary 15, 1934. Restrict beneficiary to Option Two of 
Modes of SettlejBent at Maturity, providing payioents monthly for ten 
years," ^rhe date the application was signed, Deceiuber 16, 1933, 
Kauders appeared at defendant's Chicago offices befor* Dr, Sari 
Shaffer, who exaniined him for insurance by defendant company, a 
photostatic copy of the application is in ths record. One of the 





■ I . fAf rr/. 


■^ ^. :.:T; 

^ '■<;•;, vT'-' 

■ :-■ %:U-v 

.©ftlXSC; .. 

, /J l,JAs 

-?C - - ■ -;-. ■ ■ - . jlloq Qi:.i 111 bsaxan ■^laloitfta^cf »rl# 

o;f *l;j ,*ort»iy8ii.; .jLDiI.,ga «Jtrf «i alii 

nU to'i Tov -rot »i'I'^ .S«,^8# 

-«oo Jru?ta jiWii/s* «-Xo atsa^x ^8 

t«J ,.Toil«olIc(q iAi)iOMW8 fli bt^itib- b9«aal 

1« tn oo: ^iMl9t't»ivBii J^oiit9ua .JkBei ,'■ t ttAJUtd^'i dd oi a*«b 

fl»i "10 1 Tclfl*no« •#fletinc«q jftifcivoicr ,-v;i^lii;*«i(4 ijB ia»tvnUt»t lo aaboM 

,Wtl . .banjils M ''*'"*' »^' "•«"^»«'« 

JtWBi «iC r«o'r»a ■•elTto 03jiioiii.j t, ' «tn«i/tt«'i.»i) **: R»ifi«*oqB «^»b««3 

A .xMqvoo *n<il)n»1»b t^ aaa^auaa ,; nliwx© ori'-r ,to't1«xiia 

questions was, "Haws you eyer "been treated I'or any liBeaae or dis- 
turbance ol" tixe stoHiRCh, liver, intestines, kidney or bladder?" 
The answer was "i^es, Puncture oi" Sigjuoid due to Ciiic^^en bone," 
duration 3 weeks, that the result was "viood Ok, since." Another 
question was whether the applicant had ever "been advised to have a 
surgical operation." The answer was, "Yee, Repair ol' Puncture of 
Sigmoid in 1927, * and that the result was "Good." The application 
further shows tKat the apniicant had ^7,000 wortii of life insurance 
then in i'orce and |2,000 of other insurance in the Royal Arcanum. 
In answer to another nuestlon he said he had not been treated by a 
physician witiin the past 5 years, 

Kaudera in hie work as a traveling salesman traveled exten- 
sively over this and other couritri-^s for about 35 or 40 years, and 
aftf»r t>'.e policy ?/as issued in JPebruaxy, 1934, he continued with 
hiij work fiinA marie a trip nearly across the com;inerjt. In the lat- 
ter part of kay, 1934, he becaaie ill arid called on the fsui.ily phy- 
sician, Dr. Oliver, wl>o treated hiiL lor several weeks; tiieresd'ter 
he apoaretitLy continued his work as a traveling saiesruan, zmO April 
1, 1935, went to a hospital in Philadelphia iii a very serious con- 
dition. He was operated on at the site of ^ue ti'cuble caused by 
the chicken bone; the Doctor testified tuat "when the abdomen was 
operated there wee found a diverticulum of the sigmoid colon, to 
which several ccile of the si/.all ii.testine were adherent;" that a 
diverticuluffi is an abnonnal enlargement or pouch of the intestine. 
Keuf^ers died - apparently at the Philadelphia hos.iital - April 16, 

CouTisel for plaintiff eay the burden of proving fraud in th« 
application for the insurance policy is on defendant company. De- 
fendant admits this and contends t it not only sustainfrd the burden 
of proof but tnat all the evidence sustain <-d its defense, as a matter 
of law» 

Defendant called Br. Clivar -ixo teetified: "I preeume I 
wag the family physician;" tiiat he treated i'r. .ind krs. i^audere and 
their two laughters; tnat he could not recall ifhex. he i'irat treated 
Mr, Kaiif^ers but it -aa bn'ore January, 1934, - h. year and a hall* 
to his 'b'^f^t recollection; that he first treated aim for a dry no8« 
and pelvic congestion caused by sitting too long in pullmans; that 
he could not re.iieniber the details ol" the lirst treatajent; tuat 
Kaudere coiiapla med of indigestion, having sat on trains for 2 or 
3 days; that he had records witJi him which aJriored the dates he 
treatt^Jd tiie fa^uily. The records .vera produced aiid were ueaded, 
"Mrs. Sidney T. Kauders." 'Tliey simply Bi--.owea the dates he m&d^ 
charges, covering the years from 1930 to 1936, botii inclusive, 
lar. i:auderB' name is not mentioned. lliB Doctor testified he could 
not tell fror.i the card v.hich meiaber of the fas-iiy he had treated on 
tiie specific d-*l;es; "I reuail that before or around January, 1934, 
I had occasion to see i.r, rauders about five times in the course of 
two weeks or so;" that he last treated aiiu in May, 1934. He was 
th.en shown a letter srhic:;. coui-jBel for bot.i sides «gree was written 
to defen.'ant by the Doctor in .,ay, 1935, about a i^onth after Kauders 
death. Ttie letter was not ii-.troduced ixi evideiico but apparently was 
written by tlie Doctor at tne reuueat of some representative of de- 
fe. dant. Tne Doctor axaxnined tae letter but could not recall th« 
facts except t.iat h- would not uave written it if he did not tnink 
it spoke txie truth, ^^'itness read fro.i the letter, "^.r. i^auders first 
becMie a patie^.t of aiine December 1933, m'toui the 14th to the 26th 
of that montii I saw him from tioxe to tijiie. In iiay and June. 19 34, 
I again saw him some six times. In all the visits the complaint 
was of the ^ajne nature, ♦** einus trouble, soiue irritation due to 
hypertrophied prostate, arid soae intestinal distress; that was at- 
tributed to known colitis and also possibly due to adnssione around ths 
3ite of a previous operation." On cross-examination the Doctor tes- 

I OfOi,> ^ f' 


Altaic ^ii as>j- 

, .J . . 1 

no rrti8"#flT;> b 

, 1 r f 7 r r r :• t n-- p Af^ t r.^r 

r' t.rtrf:t 'fi-f-^'/'^-u.' 

iQ-t-of' • rf - -r-urf .«, ■■ti>-r "tiiv '•• .^1/09 AH 

OX'lX O'^CfB 

JoJ to' 


ikBW Yi#a»aji44Ju -Ju- sft-i-.Uvt: ai to-ji,'. :.-i2 .ii i'c- st-' ij^ajsl »rfr idtM'ib 


-fa new l/»^* «■•^iel^ X*nl." 

■aeC. ftHT .Jftfif) ni 

ri»iii to 

00 nwomf e* l>9i'i-cfJ:i* 

. « riA 'r^i:.nti 

til'ied the letter wae written al)out a year and a half .after Dec«mb«r, 
1933; "I ritt iched no special importance to it; it was one ol' the 
things to "be done In order to facilitate the collection ol* ilt, 
Kauders' irsu ranee, as I understood there ^as no contest of any kind 
involved;" taat ae had no written memorandum «£ the tiaie he prepared 
the letter; that at the time he treated Kauders in December, 1933» 
he did not know about the chiclcen bone and the piincture of the sig- 
moid; that this information caiue to hiKi later; tx^at in kay, 19S4, 
when hp treated Eauders, he found that he needed "serious attention;* 
that when he treated him the prior December he sprayed his nose, 
and his stomach was upset; that he did not consider Kauders in any 
way a sicic rsian until May or June, 19.'54; that at that time he took 
X-ray pictures and found that Kauders had a chronic or serious ail- 
ment ?J;ich endangered his life; tliat he prepared a lueidorandum of 
what he found in May, 1934, which he produced, in which he wrote, 
"About seven years ago had an emergency operation because of swallow- 
ing a chicKen bone which perforated the sigmoid. Had local peritoni- 
tis, *** always full of gas, always sleepy during the di^," etc. 

Dr. Shaffer, ^lo exarr^ined applicant for defendatit, called by 
defendant, testified that he exajsiined iiauders and was snewn the ap- 
plication wiieh he signed on December 16; tiiat he made a "routine 
physical examination of the essential portions of the human body;" 
that he found not ting whic'^ made him believe tnat Kauders' story 
was fsilse. On cross- examination he testified tnat he had n© distinct 
recollection except what appears from the writt«i application; that 
the examination was made at defendant's Chicago offices; tnat he wae 
employed part time by defendsuit; that the exai.ination of the lunge 
disclosed not.iinc wrong. One question, "Do you find u^ion exaiaination 
any abnormality of the abdomen, stomach, liver, spleen and so forth?" 
was answered "iio," He further wrote that he found not.iing unfavorable 
in Kauderi' general appearance. He further states what he did and 

v.. ;..:... ,-. ;,.- a. -.. ._ - -.; \sw 

, .^ -t- , . ... .... , .-.. ,^... ..- .... (^XlW 

>r.,..-. '--■aliJMX.9 (^ •' ^'f .■ft :. rl-- .- 

found; that Kauders told bliu he had a puncture of the aiginoid in 
1927 followed hy an operation; that he did not find anything to 
indicate Kaudere was not a fit risk, 

Br. Phillips, aii interne In the hoepital in Philadelphia 
in 19 35, ctsked Kaudero questions and wrote a history of what 
Kauders told him; this was a few days hefore the operation was per- 
formed there. The history ae written hy the Doctor is in eridenct 
and formed a part of the hospital record. It shows that iiauders 
lost 16 pouuds in weight from June, 1934, to January, 1955, and 
from January to April, 1935, 3 pounds; lost all appetite for g 
years; tired, toxie feeling - 13 months; bowel moveffieai^ents A to IB 
times in 24 hours; nausea after Bieals; ohilXs at nlgixt - about 12 
during the last 2 years; his past history ahewred Kaudere always 
very healthy; medical treatment ahout 1-^ years; did not etop work; 
no heart or kidney diseases; accepted for life insurance; complete 
exaniination 7 years ago; fa trier of 3 strong children; traveling 
ealesman for about 40 years; swallowea chicken bone 8 years ago; 
3 days later bone found in sigmoid and removed. Had peritonitis; 
ill for ten days after operation. Returned to work in about 8 wefjlis; 
felt as well as he ever did lor about 6 years, "In April '33, began 
to get attacks of 'indigestion,'* etc., had bowel trouble; felt toxic 
for 1|- years; lost 22 pounds in weight; during past 2 months symp- 
tojas beoaiae more prominent; traveling nearly all the time, 

Dr, Mock, called by defendaiit, testified as a medical expert. 
The usual hypothetical questions were put to him smd he testified 
that in his opinion the diverticulum found at the time of the opera- 
tion at Philadephia in 1935, "was the diverticulum of the sigmoid, 
evidently developed at the site of the previous injury, from the 
beginning down to the second operation," and that a diverticulum 
caused symptoms of diarrhea; toxic feeling, bowel disturbance., etc.. 


.i-I .D'i:;jfri Xfliiqooxl arl^ to ^-lAq s bBano'i. Jbaa 
,»fli>t. OMITt td^,l OX #801 

; ,"''.• "' i--- ■'^ ^lOll 

• . jV/o;. ;6..jiUj^ tX - ijax^- 1 oi .c: , ;^'I«»-^ 

»i *i.ic ; - ; 

; r>»woiXBM«fs ;*!ia->T£ OJk *j.'od^ lo't fUBiaeftXjiB 

Itlt^or i thOiJ cnufk ■'iX&h r ' '■ 

gm . ' -'»*»' a*;; ^I«'Jt 

oq Si *B0I ;«T«»Y -jX ^o't 

. '. Jjf noii 

, .0. , 


which would tend to Bcriously Impair tho afl'eetod person's hoalth 
"over ft period of time." 

Plaintiff contends tnat the court erred in p<T-uitting Dr. 
Oliver, oyer her objections, to read (l) from the memorandum wnioh 
he prep&red alaout 6 months after plaintiff made hie application; 
(2) to read from the letter he wrote in May, 1935, to defendant or 
Its representative; (3) Br. Oliver's records ae to serviees ren- 
dered to the Rauders fa.iily because Mr. K.auders' naHie was not 
mentioned; and (4) the record made "by Dr. Phillips at the hospital 
in Philadelphia. These docuB«nts sBi the contents of theaa we havs 
discussed. We think they were all tjroperly admitted, fhey were 
prepared about the time the several things therein stated took 
place. The person who prepared them gave testimony to the effeot 
that the facts were correctly reoorded. This would render them 
admissihle although the witneseee had no independent recollection 
and their recollections were not refreshed "by an exaaiinatton of 
the documents. Koch y. Pearson ^ 219 111. App, 468, 

Defendant contends that Kauders * answers to questions put 
to him hy Sr. Shaffer were knowingly false; tnat they were materlftl 
and that It was immaterial what the applicant's intent was in maiciag 
thea; t lat Dr. Oliver, the apolieant's family physician, testified 
he first treated him a year and a half or two years prior to Jarmary, 
1934, when he complained of indigestion; taat hefore or around Janu- 
ary, 19 34, the Doctor saw the applicant ahout 5 times in trie course 
of 2 weeks or so; that the apolieant's stataaent mads to Dr. Phillips 
in the hosoital in Philadelphia shows that he had attacks of indiges- 
tion in 1933 which lasted for 2 or 3 days and were accompanied "by 
"bowel disturhanees and sometimes chills and fever; that the applicant 
had been treated by a physician a number of times before he signed 
his application on December 16, 1933, and was being treated at and 
after that time and before the policy issued; tixat his answer that 

to J* as -iisit 9iii «<«'l *«vic o* (S) 

Li^tiqao. urii.Xxivl , ;/ y;f =i^vi.: 0-,i :;n*-- -; ■91:1^ (^) fen^: ; jb« no ' .) a<* ai 

5 'r.- , ^c.q4i Si 

,i~ ... £)8^M«i. 

.-. ./;. + . ^/-i I ^..■ K :;a'hori' 

■ ■■ . if. rt 

tqj ■■it-J' ;of. " '' 

": • ' ' -' -tol;* 


vr« cut e i- '■* *^ ***^ 

he had not teiua treated by a physiciaa In the last 5 years wat know- 
ingly fal«e and material; that it is immaterial tiaat the applicant 
■aay have tnou^t his fnlse ctateinenta were ol" no consequence, or 
that he had no fraudulent intent. Defendant's oouneel ea^, *A« « 
Batter of law knowingly false repreeentationa will avoid, a policy 
if they are in fact aaterial, even though the maker thereof failed 
to realize their materiality." We ihiak thit is a correot statement 
of the law* Joseph ▼. ^. Y. Life Ins. Co. . 219 111. App. 452; Cross 
T. Prud. Ing. Go . . 279 111. App. 645 (ahst,); Tanner r. Prudential 
Ins. Cq .. 283 111, iipp. , 210; Janelonas v.. Qhicago ^rat. Life Ae8oc .« , T 
286 111, App, 219. The question then remains wiiether the represen- 
tations made hy Kauders In his answers were material, Seth sides 
agree tnat if li^auders was treated hy a physician during the 5 years 
preceding his application for insurance, any misrepresentations made 
by him in this respeet would not be material if the treatment was 
"^so trivial that a reasonably prudent and Intelligent person would 
not expect it to have any affect upon the willingness of the insur- 
ance company to grant the policy applied for,* aod the court so in- 
structed at defendant's request. 

We have above set forth rather fully the testimony of Br, 
Oliver as to the nature of the treatments he gave Kauders before th« 
issuance of the policy, which tended to show that Kauders' health 
was not impaired at that time; and the most that can be said is that 
whether he was treated for some trivial matter only was a question 
for the jury. Upon a careful consideration of all the evidence we 
are unable to say that the finding of the jury to the effect that 
treatments given to Kauders by the Doctor prior to the date of the 
policy were so triwial as not to affect the Insurance company in 
issuing the policy, is not manifestly against the weignt of the 
evidence. Moreover, Kauders, being examined by Dr, Shaffer for 
insurance, told Dr. Shaffer tnat in 1927 he had been operated on for 

:taMollfi9ti 'iSH iaiii LsiieSi^simt si -ii i,: .9i&» i>: t xl^tii 

X9'i ■^«« 

gaoiD :Se . , . .00 . Bnl 9tX*l «Y i.ii „v &>■ ,^^M£ •Ai to 

«iSj?U^'L -*'- • :LJ^St§S.4W..,<>-S^.- ; < ' > ■ '. '• , .SiL_A.ariI 

39: . .Ca^^»1a -j'X''/«9«n4i <9l/i ill 9i9bu^A x^ 9t)&io. vaoUpS 

9bam nmti A fa999rn9t9lM r,tse. .aocieiJDai- . >tiMollq%» uiii ^oitoofti^ 

blun- rrriT' .,i:i«aoBi' • . 

*' if nmhmX9b i-i. h9iosjxt% 

if J [/!•!' , .-v vjajBjjsal 

<rBr '9/1.7 ^^t t-stLefrmJ: *on witt 

-.iu^-rusnl ant • ' ^- siftw YoiXoq 

■. . ai.m .to Mo* ,»ftactjjaiii 


a puncture of th« •igniold due to swallowing a chicken .'bone, and mx, 
Shaffer'* written report to defendant company Biade at the tim€^,^thoirg 
that he exaiained Ka.uders' aMoiuen and found notiilng wrong. All the 
evidence sliows that his subsequent ill health and death resulted 
froia txie puncture of the sij^^^oid; this would warrant the jury in 
finding that Kauders did not conceal material facte as to the state 
of hie health at the tint© he applied for the insurance. It has been 
held that vjhere an applicant for in au ranee denied having consulted 
or been treated hy a physician TPithin a number of years prior to 
the application, and the pvidetice showed he had (consulted or been 
treated by a physician during such period, that if the Kattere for 
whicii. he had consulted or been treated were of a trivial nature, it 
was not such a material misrepresentation as would prevent a re- 
covery, Krauza y. Golden Seal AsBurance Society ^ 247 in, Y, 536, 
161 i^, E, 172; i^eyers v. Met, Life Ins, Co ,. 219 J:»',Y,b, 756; Aodern 
Wooctoen. etc. v. lailes ^ 178 Ind. 10 5, 9 7 li. i£. 1909. 

Upon a coneideration of the entire record T?e are of opinion 
that the question* were properly submitted to txie jury, and the court 
should have entered Judgment on the verdict. 

The judgment of the Superior court of Cook county is reversed 
and the cauee is remanded with directions to enter judgment on the 


McSurely and Matchett, JJ, , concur. 

rOvC .l.-^^l/O J? ^^CC^OIIJ?' 

:i 1 a r ^ 

AiLB9d eiri to 

f y. ,>; J. rt x^ -A .« ..'...' -:.i'^ . 

rva 9tit 


'• t^-^..^'^ ,j. .:..'^'9 ^a9inl>oo.W 

■ '.iU J. J t; "r" >J k' iJiJJ .)».ii« 



•ififtgiciot} , . v=- ,jJ»Ai&4-A'4 jia<". x ^ »'«"*•■'• a ^ 



Appellant , 


HARRY J. aUTON, Individually 
and ae Executor of the Instrument 
purporting to "be the Last '^X^'-i- and 
Teatament of lt>.arie Bopt), Bee* 



! 294 I.A. 61/ 


Frieda Gerard l"iled her complaint in chancery praying that 
the instrument purporting to be the last will and testaraent ol" hor 
■other, M.arie Bopp, be declared not to "be her will, and that the 
pro"bate thereof be set aside on the ground of luental incapacity and 
undue Influence* At the close of plaintiff's case, on motion of de- 
fendaiit, there was a directed rerdict that the "iustroaent in writing 
purporting to be the last will of i^arie Bopp" was her last will and 
ttfltanent; a decree was entered iii confomiity with the verdict, and 
plaintiff appeals. 

the record diselosea that in September, 1934, karie Bopp, 
then about 76 years old, entered the Germaui Old People's Home at 
Forest Paric, Illinois, and on JSoYember 17 executed the will in 
question, thereafter, on January 2, 1935, sne died. The will vaa 
admitted to probate by the Probate court of Oooii county itay 2, 1935, 
She had been married a number of times and left her surriying as her 
only heir at law and next of kin the plaintiff, her daughter. iPlain- 
tiif at the time vaa the raotuer of two children. Beceased left an 
estate of more than $5000 and the will provided that after payment 
of her debts a bequest of itilO was to be paid to her daughter, the 
plaintiff, "and I luake tiiis boquest to ner for ^ood and sufficient 
reasons," The balance of the estate was divided between Anna Albrechc, 


^Id.LlhQS, [ 

, 8*>9 llnr^cii'. 

t*.: • fctflo aJt (J-xttalqMOo nwri feaXil feUAttfti) ^ooi-i'- 

■3 aoJtJ , -iidrot*^ , .oitsuXlnl O0fc«« 

.8X«&qc«A 'ttiiaiuiq 
,qqo*i •iiiaJL «>£ex ,tfttf)a9l4«e al tnd» »9»olOelb baooot siCT 

ai XXi <»X0 VX iSKfmaroti no ban ,aloni.lll ^mih^ ie9tt'9. 

•iiv- :;tig ,dS9X «S ^i^ifriAXi no ^i&t't^tifdS .noiiasifp 

.s«lil^£i I<1 tfiit aX;i 'lo ifxea Jb^ua «iiX ^it ii:9f{ Y-'^'^ 

am #t«i fc«tt««oea .oanfoXxoa ov: J^oa aiU tisw •.lU:;^ txtt im t'tli 

■ titf^ OQ < 'X<i^ 't« ^aei/pAtf a tldftl) ind to 

itK>loH'iim tn, xtft tan <'i *»©op»« airw aji^uL 1 bam* ^Ttlialslq, 

a neighbor oi' the testatrix, and Anna's two daughtere, atiare and 
share alike, or to the survivor ol' them, 

3ino<i we have reached the conclusion that the cause iauet 
"be tried, we refi'alii I'rom diacuasixig the evidence except so I'as 
as it is necessary to do so to state the reasons for our decision* 

The evidence tends to show that in i?euraary, 19 34, the 
testatrix made a gil't of her real estate to John and Lena Creaney 
"by executing a warraiity deed to theaa, and sometiiue afterv/ard she 
gave them a mortgage securing an indehtedness of |16G0 and told 
them, "If you collect on that you can give me #500 out of it," 
The laortgage was afterward for^rclosed "by the Orearieys. 3u"bBe>qu-3ntly 
an intervening petition ■was filed in the foreclosure suit, appar- 
ently on helialf of ^rs, Bopp, claixaing tii&t she was the owner of tiae 
mortgage note or the property. About this time Mrs. Bopp went to 
live at the Old People's Home, The evidence further shows that 
Mrs, Bopp was unahle to read or write the English lanruage; that 
Anna Alhreeht and her two daughters, the "beneficiaries under the 
will, were neighhors of Mrs, Bopp hut thoy had riot sen particularly 
intimate at any time, 

A witness testified that siie had known itrs, Bopp for prohalily 
50 years; tnat she "lived acrosB the way" from Anrja Alhrecht, one 
of the beneficiaries, and did not know that Mrs, Alhrecht was a 
friend ©f Mrs, Bopp; that she neyer saw krs, Bopp at ire, Al- 
brecht's home; that although witness imew .c"rs. Bopp intii^ately 
for many years, ou certain occasions when they .^et litrs. Bopp did 
not know who she was. 

Two physicians testified on the issue of mental incaDacity, 
one that he was in charge of the iiedical departJTieiit of the Old 
People's Homo and had examined testatrix several times before she 
was admitted to the Home; that wiie: she was admitted her mental 
condition was good for one of her age but that less of memory took 




':*:r,( Tj- r.ij 

v,. «ii] lo ^9 einc ^ ai»w 


pl&o« BhoTtly thereafter. The ether X>octor testified that she ha4 
teen one ol' his patleute for several years; that she had suffered 
from ehronic nephritis, arterioeleronis, etc.; that she had a 
▼•ry poor memory, was hard of hearing, was more or lf»ss "fligiity"ijt 
which he attributad to her physical condition, a^d that in his 
opinion she was not altogetiier responsible lor soi&e of the things 
■he did. A clergysian testified that Mrs. Bopp was a mipiaheref 
his parish smd that he had known her since 1920; that ©he was 
highly excitable and had a feeling she was heing abused \>j her 
relatives, and that so far as he toew the charges were unsound; 
that at one tiroe she contributed #25 co the church but said she 
gave if>300. Other witnesses gare testiniony to the effect that the 
testatrix's mejuory was "bad and that often she did not appear to 
know what she was doing. Another witness testified that testatrix 
same to her hcMne in the spring of 1934 and claimed that plaintiff, 
her daughter, had attacked her, and witness gave as her opinion 
that t ?tatrix was not responsible for her actions. 

Whether a person had the mental capacity to make a will 
Is deterfolned by whether he was able to understand the matter in 
-w^ich he was engaged. Trisfh v. K ewell. 62 111, 196, Whether there 
was such undue influence as would vitiate an ixietriunent puroorting 
to b«^ a will may be shown by circumstantial evidence* Pete r s v. 
fekete . 329 111. 268, The disposal for little or no consideration, 
and without apparent reason, of much valuable property by a testa- 
tri^ to persons to whom he was under n© particular obligation, 
tends to show unsoundness of mind, Dillman v. kcDanel . 222 111.276. 

In the instant ease the evidence tends to show that Mrs. 
Bopp WAS 76 ypars of age, in bad health, could not read or write the 
English language, was hard of hearing; taat she gave considerable 
Of her property to the Creaneys without consideration and for no 
reason; that she was prejudiced against plaintiff, her daughter. 



I J ^^(yaa olaotiio moi'l 

.. i;9*i*!»'go:^X« ;toa a«<' 'niB noialao 
^«w <r(fo^ .aT« ♦*«n'.t b^ilUsa^J- niM<tv;:i^i»X . . .Is 




. ... , .^fo^i^iA affi' ♦ads ,1X1 esf, .j&i4*5l 

-!»;*» ft illitt.ijUll si_ . 


, Sf^XtB^. 

•»i 4. * w * «. 

• Xifc^**** "" 

r'.ixl 'to 

that Anna Albreoht, one ol' tiie Tienef Iciariee, was at, iopp'i 
home days and nightB of July, 1934, and this continued luitil iira, 
Bopp went to the Old People's Home; tiiat on one oT suoh oocaeions 
Mrs. Bopp Bald, ''When I an,, -one Iriada, lay duutiiiter, will nave to 
take care of it all;" that krs. Albreoiit replied tiiat the iioiae would 
take oare of everytoingj, 

Upon a oonalderation of ail the evidence in the record we 
are of opinion that the questions involved eiiould have teen suh- 
mitted co the jury, 

L'he decree of the Circuit court of Cooic county is reversed 
and the csuse Is remanded, 


McSurely and tatchett, JJ. , concur. 

^ 9T.T . .... ,sMJ't": sa- ,hffi:^ crcefT .«t.'»i 

^•. . ._ - - isciABtvihip.: .oaii 


■i; rHi-^ f**--'f?Aj 


a Corporation, 



CiUALITY COAL 3ALE8 CO., a ^rooxj^ioni 

EDWARD 1. iuEYSR and PAUL iiuT 

Doing Business as BRUIjSWICK FUEL CO. 

QUALITY COAL SALES CO., a Corporation, 



COl#X 01' 


)294I.A. 614^ 



Plaintiff "brought an action against d«fendairits to recoT«r 
|1549.59» being the claimed balance due it for coal sold and de- 
livered to defendante, Eacja of tJhe defendants filed arx anewer de- 
nying liability* In its complaint plaintiff alleged tuat it did 
not know whether Buesell i^rei was acting for Quality Coal Sales Co« 
or for Euscniiiann and ^eyer in ordering and receiving tae coal, Ihere 
w&s a trial before the court wituout a juxy, a fixidin^. in plain- 
tiff 'e faYor for tne araount of its claim, judgment was entered on 
the finding against each, iMA. defendant (i^uality Coal Sales 
Oompany, a corporation, alone appeals. 

The only question raised by defendaiit is that the finding 
aaA judgment are against the manifest weight or the evidence. 

The record discloses that on Dcoember 1, 19 34, tlee (Quality 
Coal Sales Co, entered into a writtex; contract with Busciuuann and 
Meyer, copartners doing business as Brunswick i'uel Coij^pany, the sub- 
stance of which was that ths quality Coal Sales Co, had a lease on 
the premises at 1825-1835 iiorth Daiaen avenue, Chicago, smd iJuschiuann 
and Meyer were to operate the coal yarci there, selling coal for 
the Quality company, for which they were to receive a consideration. 
The parties proceeded to carry out tne agreement and after a time 
there was considerable trouble between them over the possession of 


( »0 


tL^ .in,l f^esj .«" 


1^0 '?3q , H'^- 

iu» bi^ta ,:EIX£X9 8^X x& im/<MU «£Li ««1 TOV id- 

SaLOQtO. uo tMiii BBttc^lW". ih Moo©"! ?>rlT 

iiiii bB'i*>tao ,oO «»X«R I«oJ 

•,rft i»«v rtnirfw 'to 'ionai-n 
■• ald:«rtftl>iafioo saw tiAXii 

the yard sind otJier matters^ Afterward the contract t>etween theia 
was modified so that Buachmann and Jneyer were to receive a commis- 
sion only on the coal they sold. The contract was afterward cancelled 
and there -^as consideratl* lltibation between the parties. About 
August 1» 1935, (Quality Coal Sales Co, sent a man t® take charge 
of the coal yard. Coal was bought principally from the (.iuality 
Coal Sales Co. and sold "by Buschmann and Meyer, There was other 
coal bought from plaintiff, the Pocahontas Coal Sales Co. ihere 
is no dispute that the coal in question was delivere* to the coal 
yard and that the amount claimed to be -'.ue by the fooaiiontas Co. is 
correct and unpaid, the only controversy being as to whether the 
amount was <^.ue and owing from the Quality Co, or from iiusciuaann 
and iieyer. There was a great deal of evidence introduced on the 
trial; Witnesses testified, some to the effect that no eial was 
bought by the (Quality Coal Sales Co. froru plaintiff;, that no one 
had authority fro^i it to purchase the coal ; that the yard was 
always operated in tiie narae of the Brunswick ij'uel Co., although th« 
Quality Coal Sales Co. had a man at the yard to protect its in- 
terest and see that the coal it (delivered to the yard was paid for, 
eto, BuschiTiann and Meyer were also at the yard. There is other 
evidence that the coal in question 'was purchased for the i^uatlity 
Coal Sales Co* by its representative, Russell i^'rei. A number of 
witnesses gave testimony touching this vital point of the contro- 
versy. The evidence Is irreconcilable, in fact counsel for the 
Quality Coal Sales Co. in tiieir brief say: "In the inst^vit case 
there is a mass of conflicting •vidence upon every material point," 
but they further say that a consideration of the evidence disclose* 
that the coal was not purchased by the i^uality Goal Sales Co., but 
by BuscJiBiann and keyer. 

We have carefully considered all the evidence in tne record 
and are of opinion that it would serve no useful purpose to detail 

all-^on. . lioa 'fOi^^ X«OD -^rl^t no yXno aol« 

. iJtl •IcfjfXfsfclrTcc. ft/""- ^Tsrf* bRc 

1J.T. .««|ioai-. ^-aw IboO ,1bta^ I-coo ' 

31 !.:;ay^«Oi , . . ,uod lAOt> 

> 3/r ao! j-'s ^ .-00 nd: ri.tuqelb OQ ti 

. Kjiiiwjo .-:sr& tnirasw oxll *jirl* baa brLMX 

: .-0- :U "rrt-^ A it 911 09 

T?, . \','-* I'll 


ll»8*14^' . l''.t*!<»> .U»\J\J 

.: •■: .i i 3i;oiiv 

X J.Jtf M^< 

o '-sm*'.!.! *J n 

:.u.u;^- i 

;ftf:,OTi.r- ^-" --- '■■■■-•- --'* iGti$ 
, '1 "< V ).' u j^ii .'in 'fo 

it iiere. It is sufficient to say that there was evidence to the 
effect that the coal was ordered "by Frei from plaintiff, delivered 
to the yard and that part of it \';aB not paid for, if'rei testified 
that during these purchases he talked with Mr, O'Connor and i^r» 
Hoskins of the (Quality Goal Sales Co., and "after these discus- 
sions with ir, Hoskins, I would purchase the ^oal;" that they 
discussed "with me the Pocahontas coal that was coming in," The 
evidence further shows that the purchase in question and all the 
sales of coal at the yard were made in the nanie of the Brunswiok 
i^iel Co. and iiioriediately after the sales the account was assigned 
to the Quality Sales Co.; lAxat part of the money for the sale of 
the coal in question was collected and that all coal handled at tlie 
yard was paid for "by checks of the Brunswick Fuel Co., and were all 
countersigned by a representative of the t^uality Coal Sales Co, 
Frei further testified that he purchased all of the Pocahontas coal 
from plaintiff on instructions from Mr. Hoskins of the ;iuality Coal 
Sales Co., and that none of it was purchased "by iiuschaiann and Meyer, 
The testiitiony of this witness is contradicted "by kr* O'Connor, hx, 
Hoskins, 'ind others, such testimony being to the effect that none 
of the Pocahontas coal was purchased by the (Quality Coal Bales Co., 
and each of the witnesses denied the 8u"bstar)ce of all of the testi« 
mony of the witness, Prei. The evidence as to the buying and selling 
of coal at the yard, the keeping of r.he aecounts and the payment ef 
bills was 60 conflicting thet we think the question was lor the trial 
Judge, who was in a better position to deteriuine the truth of tne 
matter in controversy than we are, having but the printed page before 
us. It is clear that we would not be warranted in disturbing the 

finding oX the trial Judge on the ground that it was a^iainst the 
manifest weight of the evidence. 

The jud^aaent of the Circuit court of Cook county is affirmed, 


MoSurely and Matchett, JJ. , concur. 


)-,i- ,'tliJiXl^Ir ffoi'!: i«>i^ ^«f ^fttftjt-xe <wiw X«oo axft iadi /o«*n» 

b9i'lxjet»j' l»i lufl susw ♦i 'ta ItAq ;rjBi-ii' l)ia» Max eii* t^ 

•iiv -. 3£2t #«ili' awaxla t"ic{txu'l ©onabiy* 

i- -f ^^'.^!:.« r Cos K}*iw ftoi:*8»wp til i»il;t 

OO X*-t-^^. .iJ-OJJI*.""-' — '^?^■^■+-^.• •,. ,.,^^t 

. .flJt3£»0H 

• 0*1 J-' OO a- J- 

iii-XXt. , 'jet .ij jr\< er:j- 'to xiROtr 

fjson to 



Sf-rrjL^j 29 4 I.A. 614^ 


J, K, DBRINO GOAL MIKIH6 j^p*-**^ 

CORPORATlOiNi , a Corporation, jC^"-*:^^ 

Appellee, ) 


Corporation, ED.'/iiiiD iS, ii'.a;iYJilR ai'id 
PAUL BUSCIiMAK£. doing business^ 

IR. PBESlDISa J0STIC1 0»e01¥0R 

DELIVIilKfiD iUrai OPIiaOi. OF Tiifi uOUEI'. 

Plaixitifl' brougiit suit against deleudaEits to recover 
(j^AQQ, 21 ^ balaxice due to it Tor tiie sale oi* coal wiiicii it delivered 
at a coal yard at 1835 l^orth Damen avenue, iJhicagu. In its com- 
plaint plaintiff alleged that iie did not kno^ Vi^nicii of the defend- 
/ ants vas operating the coal yard under the name of JBrunswiok ¥uel 
Ho, There waa a trial without a jury, a finding and judgment in 
plaintiff's favor for ^479 against eacix defendant, and the defend- 
ant (Quality Coal Sales Company alone proseoutee this appeal. 

The sole contention for a reversal is that the finding and 
Judgment are against tne Lxanif ee l weij^t of the evidence. 

On the hearing it wa|,8 stipulated that the evidenoe intro- 
duced in the case of i.'Q ca^ontaa CoaUL bales Co« v. quality ^oal Sales 
Ce. et al. y ho. 39833, in whioh we nave tais day filed an opinion, 
migVit te considered so far as it is pertinent. ihe Pocariontaa Coa l 

Sales Cp . case was tried about a month before the trial of the 


instant case. Very little/evidence was offered in the instant case. 

What we said in case i»o, 39883 is applicable in this case, and for 
the reasons there stated we are of opinion we would not be warranted 
in disturbing the judg^aent as being against the laanifest weight ef 
the evidence. 

The judgment of the Cireuit court of cooJt county is affirmed, 

J«icSurely and katchett. JJ. , concur. 


klb .k.lhQ^ 



Oti^Vi Jl 

•i9b »itcr 
. iwaaui - 

,aoi.-.-<,o lit 1' 

9itr ''■■ 

100 9lc 
. V«\e J. .ft«AO *U«7B«X 







AKTOU JMURA, Mayor, City of B% 
Illinois, Xm CITY Ql BBRWTil, 
Illiiioia, a Municipal Corogration 
and li'RAliiK A« KALAB^^A, ae K 
the -ffire and Police Cormaisa 
the City of Berwyn, Illinois, 

APjiiAi /ROk CipIlT COURT 

294 I.A. 614 



This ie a petition lor mandaimia whereby plaintiff sought the 
position of driver in the i ire department of tiie City of iserwyn and 
aJLso baeJc salary; upon trial by the court the writ was ordered, com- 
/ maziding that defendants assign plaintiff to his position as a djg 

■1u^r , f driver and engineer ol the fire department of the City of Berwyn 
and pay him |1980 a year from A|»ril 11, 19 35. Defendants appeal. 

Defendants first say that plaintiff has failed to show his 
clear legal rigiit to the office he seeks. It is well settled that 
the plaintiff in such a oase must show that he has a clear right to 
the relief he seeks, ii^oon v« The Mayor . 214 111. 40, 43, and caeei 
there cited. 

Both in the allegations of the petition and in the evidence 
plaintiff shows that he is uncertain and confused as to the par- 
ticular office to which he claims to he entitled. 

Plaintiff testified that he had been a member of the Berwyn 
fire department as a driver froai May 15, 1915, and continued in that 
capacity until sometime in 1925 when he was appointed by the iiiayor 
of Berwyn as acting fire chief and served in this capacity until 
April 15, 1931; that in 1926 the City of Berwyn adopted the '•i'ire 
and Police Commissioner's Act," creating a Board of i^ire and Police 
Commission ere; that in 1926 he took and successfully passed an 

m i^* 1 ; - \ -A 


A !(' 

^ ,»»Xi,«q^jA 

,1X0101 usujm 

1 - ■ . - , w . 

^13 .A.I ^62' ■"■""■•■^'■"^' 

«ri^ tilgtfoa Ttl;^nljixq xdaisO^i utm&bas*^^. not aoitii^tf m •! aliifi 

i^wi tlO oii# 'to *ttf»mi's»0jfih 9%it etH le Ti«>»axsMW» bam aeviife ?Tah 

.Xai^qq; . - .iqA «oi"l ^j««x « C>t*ei4 ^^ V« JE>tf« 

-i -7-,; rp't Rfixl t'ti tni«X^ JjariJ? "^B ieii't •*ai«fciaij1»a 

Hi soi'tlo 9X14^ 0^ i^i-x XajjsI 7«»Xa 

o'fE d-auxn «MMBe • xioua nl t'tttatAlq »di 

R,«*^ fa.i . . .Ill i^r , i;.rt'f„..y_a<*SM .aJt^wa «rf 't^IXa^t axii 

•baJlo 9%9iid' 

^^ :,.u, noJt^txj' i^o artui*r-4«if f* »rt* al il^'Oti 

eutfioo f .V3 nifi;ri»»nA. j«i3i* awoiia t'tltalmlq 

■^lilia9 fd oi aaiisXa axl xioixlw o«^ aoi't'to -saXtfoi* 

;Rex ui 9aai»moa lliais x*io«<|«» 

rT,nt^« ;■ di:«i ai iflii;^ ;I£eX ,eX Xi»<»A. 

; . 3 ' i?i no i a a XJOnoO »©lXo4 ba« 

, i , JJ ; a'X» noiaa JtiB«#a 



examination giv«n "by the "boeo'd and was placed upon the eligible 
list as a de .lure driver; that he acted as fire chief wuitil April 
15, 1931. 

The trial court ordered defendants to assign plaintiff to 
his position "as a Be Jure Drirer and Engineer of the i'ire Depart- 
ment" of Eerwyn, ilaere ie uo allegation or proof tending to show 
the creation of the office ctf Engineer. 

The evidence clearly shows that plaintiff considered him* 
self as a personal appointee of the mayor, in which case he would 
hold his position at the mere sufferance of the fuayor. We hold 
that the evidence was Insufficient to estalDlish the existence of 
the offices to which the trial court ordered plaintiff to he as- 
•Igned, and also fadled to shew that he had a clear legal right to 
these efflees. 

A further consideration, which requires a reversal of the 
order of the Circuit court, is that the evidence clearly shows that 
plaintiff abandoned his position and eiqployment with the fire de- 
partment in April, 1931. Plaintiff testified that he had a nervous 
breakdown in 1931 and that Mayer Sovotny gave htm a loave of ab- 
sence and told him to take hie time; that he was also told the 
sane thing by Commissioner ilrlas. Both Mayor JCiovetny and Oomrais- 
sioner K.riz died before these proceedings were instituted. 

The attorney for plaintiff testified that plaintiff re- 
quested him to make an application for a furlough* The riaes and 
regulations oi the board provide that the board may for ^ood and 
sufficient cause grant to any member of the fire departiuent a 
furlough or leave of absence from duty for a period not exceeding 
one year. There was no evidence that the commissioners ever 
granted plaintiff a furlough or leave, of absence from duty. 

There was a suggestion in the testiiaony of Joseph Dolezal, 
•ppointed as acting chief on April 14, 1931, when plaintiff left 

llxqi-. lliAv te>liist aii! a« b^ioa 9ti ijnit itit-rlth »i:cf ; »b a ua &b1Z ,ax 

-' 1 »' -: "J U>.' , H ir J. -" l:j V ii'y U •*■ V a. _> i 

io 9r«»aX 10 iisffoXijA 


the department, that plaintifl* wat angry and left the departjoient 
in some temper. Tlriere was abundant erideno* by the coxomiissionert 
that they never saw plaintifl after that time until the trial of 
this case, and that after i^rll . 1931, he performed no eerrices 
as a member of the fire departiaent. There was no applioatien 
to the board for a furlough for plaintiff and no question concerning 
hina ceirie up in any of the meetings, Plaintiff claims that he suf- 
fered a nervous breakdown but the doctor who treated him testified 
that while he suffered from nerv ousness it was net a nervous break- 
down; that he treated plaintiff for ztieumatism. It also appears 
that in December, 1933, and January, February and luarch, 1934, 
plaintiff was employed in the capacity of a foreman, supervising 
about tvrenty-five laborers in a •*. P. A," project in Eerwyn. 

ProiXi the time plaintiff left the Berwyn fire departJient, 
April 15, 19 31, he never txxereafter resumed any duty as a member of 
the department. It was not until Jitay 17, 1935, that he served a 
written notice upon the «omBiisBion seeking restoration to his posi- 
tion. Under aiese circumstances the conclusion is irresistible 
that plaintiff voluntarily abandoned his employnient with the fire 
department in April, 1931, 

The claim that plaintiff was granted leave of absence by the 
mayor and a ooiimissioner, who have since died, will have no weight 
against the plain requirement that eueh furlough* can be granted 
only by official action of the board. It i^as held in People ex rel . 
Reilly v. ILankakee . 238 111. A^p, 192, 202, that such official ac- 
tion can be taken by the board of fire and police comaiiss loners 
only at an oflieial «eeting of the board, and its records are the 
only lawful evidence of its action. To the same effect is The 
People V. Chi cago & E. I. Ry. Qq .. 3O6 111., 402, 412. Plaintiff 
failed to prove that he ever applied for or received any official 
furlough from the boar* and must therefore be deeded to have abar^doned 

qaiBi dttos ai 

sal ma : .liJoIiJLiI a -xal ibrE4i«(f ' 

Bti .melJrmfiima'x 10 

,'iecfia»oaCI at iadi 


his position. 

Plaintiff was guilty of laohea . His four years delay be- 
fort seeking any rsdress from the board is not satisfactorily 
•xplainsd, K.cnneally v. City of Chicago. 220 111. 435, 505-04. 

For the foregoing reasons the judti^ient order and decree 
of the Circuit court awarding the writ is reversed, 


O'Connor, P, J., and ttat diet t, J,, concur. 

.iO-«C- .?'~^ .ill 02fi ^oSif&oiiLQ 'to v^ lO . y ^M— -■■■ . ^nJtr-Xcac© 

,'8-1^7 .to 


a Corporation, 



SOL HUBBT et al, (liAURlCB ,R. 
UiJiOH, Appellant.) 


29 4 I.A. 615^ 


This is an appeal I'rom a roreclosurs decree enterdd after 
reference to a master, finding tiiere was due plaintiff $204,476.25 
with intereat; the appeal is "by Maurice R, Union, claLuing an 
interest in the property prior and paraiuount to the interest of 

Septemter 29, 1933, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Com- 
pany, plaintiff, filed its bill of complaint seeking to foreclose 
a trust deed made to it on June 1, 1929, by Sol Rubin and his 
wife, conveying certain real estate in Cook county to secure 
their note for |125,000. The bill alleged default in payment of 
principal, interest, taxes, et , ; a decree was entered finding 
that t.he allegations of the bill were proven and that plaintiff 
Was entitled to a sale of the property, 

Defendajnt Maurice R. Union appealed directly to the Su- 
preme court sind that court held that there was no reason why it 
should take Jurisdiction of the appeal and transferred the cause 
to this court, (367 111. 636.) 

The bill alleges, among other things, that on January 26, 
1927, a judgment was rendered in the Municipal court of Chicago 
in faTor of Hawkins & Loomis Company against Sol Rubin for flOOO; 
that on January 30, 1929, the records of the Municipal court re- 
cited that this judgment had been satisfied of record on January 
SO, 1929; that this was the state of the record when the mortgage 


^aoliMioqtoO m 

i C 

to i«dU9ir:.' -'* - ' * '.jjoiis'i.cq: bite loiiq Y^^tofoicr 9jci* nl ^aeiecfui 

aaoioeiot oj" gal^CeeB J'oi.slqinoo 'i:: J^i b&I.**'' ,'*'"■• "iiJ-^j-c , x,:usq 

b1 ' ' ■ -■'■'■■' <■-■ t^cf ^t^sg.-- , V.) ii oo ■■b..-i nsaJb J8ui.t b 

aniMii'i b9'X9;ta6 saw eaaosi: ; , , ' , ••si-- t -j. jXjaQionl*£(i 

Itlinifilq *«ii* bxifc ctsvoiq ^isw jxxi ">iij io eiioiJcatllje erf.' *jBxI;f 

~-^: ^ijBeqq* aoiiiU .H ^tiltu&t *ru-. hasted 

8fcia~- i)iU bsiia'tarwrj- bat, Xaeqqj noiito lb«l^i;t s^IjbJ bluoriB 

oa«oir(0 'to ^lifoo Xjaqioimiit exi^ iti be'zebn<)'X a^w d'n»mabut ^ ,vsei 
>JOi| lo'i ttktfw^ Io8 4^8itij?.::jE '^OBqinoO aiwooil A anlilw^H 'to lov 
-»i Itjuoo I«orloiajj:& e Pioo«i exi* «e8ei ,0C ^t£ua«I. no w'^xld 

XXfii:n«l> ao Jbioosi 'to hf. ii6x;f«» ndQc I'^at^btft slri;^ ;tfix;j bs^lo 

to plaintiff was made and recorded; that sutsequently,' on April 11, 
19 30, a motion was made by tiie ilawicins ik Loomis Co:jpany to strike 
the satisfaction piece from the files; February 11, 1931, a Munici- 
pal court Judge sustained this motion anj tne satisfaction piece 
was ordered stricken; January 15, 1932, defendauit Sol Rubin made a 
motion to vacate the order entered February 11, whicn was sustained; 
another motion was made by the jud^ent creditor to strike the 
satisfaction piece and on Februa^ry 1, 1932, this motion was sustainal 
and the satisfaction piece ordered stricken; an appeal was prayed 
from this order but never perfected. 

The bill further alleges that on Deceiiiber 24, 1931, an exe- 
cution was issued out of the Municipal court under which the bailiff 
levied on the premises in question, and on March 2, 1932, pursuant 
to the execution and levy, purported to sell tne premises to the 
Hawkins & LooDiis Coinpany for :^1320.04, and a certificate of sale was 
issued to the purchaser and a copy filed for record in the recorder's 

The bill furtiier alleges tiiat kaxwell Rubin, actiug for his 
father, 3ol Rubin, entered into negotiations with the iiawkins & 
Loomis Coiapany to purcii.ase the certificate, whicn was done and the 
certificate assigned in blsuik at the request of Maxwell Rubin. The 
bill alleges that the consideration for the assignment was paid by 
Maxwell Rubin on behalf of his father; that thereafter, on September 
16, 1933, the bailiff of the Municipal court issued his deed of the 
premises to defendant Maurice R. Union, which was filed for record. 
The bill alleges that Union took the deed on behalf of Sol Rubin, 
who was the real owner and in actual possession of the premises, and 
that, as the bailiff's certificate of sale and deed has been ac- 
quired for and on behalf of Sol Rubin, the mortiiagor, the ri^ts, if 
any, under the certificate and deed .vere subject and subordinate to 
tlie lien of plaintiff's trust deed. 

'- — c:*- • isAli't 9a.i moi't saAxg ctoicfOjs'iaiJjsa ©xU 
■('".CI , ex Y.i.ejjawl ;f»2ioi:i;t'a JbaioJbio ««Tf 3BV? -.*; v.qi, .i^ ; iij .LGi:i:rc lio'xsbto so&iq aolioH'tfitti&a ©rid- Jboe 

.F'^>d'o©1'X»q tdvsn .tucf tsJ&tco sjxxW idol'l 
: )d';::9 0QC; ao Jjaiij- asadlXa aarf^^w't Hid" SiTJ 
'iim*.vi ©-.«' i^axx. V loliisj ixuoo Xag'i- :un fesuaal a&:r aoituo 

-isumiuc , , iQifiM flo i^cis .aciJ-aijup -U tsaalifisiq dil* - " '■ 

♦A'* .-.-ij-ni »ii* XIai« o^ f7e*i0qi«<y .Y^aX bna noltvosxo oiiJ oj 

•d^ jboa • JBoilitiao «xW 5>ajri*«4>'4i«i oO aJtraooJ 

•rfT .oitfJifn xX»wx»J4 io jMjAipat 9di Jii aiiieXrf nJt b»>tqsi««*« «;fj3oi'iid"i»o 

Xtf Mi»<S •«''' JiiAaxiylaa* 9Sii Tt'i fioi^^'ioiiXBaoo ©ui^ ^«xfd- e^s9lL& XXld" 

"xadflBargaa ao , i»^t ABT[«»xi;t tBtii ireiiAa't ttiii lo tXaiietf no nicTifH XXowx«ii 

•d^ 'to b9bb •ii( t«i/eal cTtjjoo XisqxolxiMM e ,' 

,l>'ioo«)i lot JiftXi't ««w fiolriw .oolaU ,H •oxiJJioM iiuiiui»'ltfb oo awaxiiwiq 

tXArtacf lie betb Btlt ^ooi^ iiol»U ;}^«x{:r afr^alXe XXxcT sriT 

. i , joairoai^ «ri<- te nol8e<9aBO<r i«Ldj);? at hcvt:. istowo X«»i 3x1* aaw oxiw 

-e« a««a a/^rr b^tb btm •Xaa 'to •*«rjltiJie. li^d •ii4' •« ,*ax1* 

•ti . . ba-xXiip 

Both Sol RulBin and his wife and alao defendant Union filed 
answers denying that Sol Rutin owned the premises and asserting 
that Union was the owner in fee simple. 

The master, who heard the eTidence, found that Union is a 
cousin of Sol Rubin's wif« and an old friend of the family; that his 
residence is in Cleveland, Ohio; that Union acted and took title to 
the premises for the use and tenel'it of Sol Rubin, the mortgagor, and 
that the interest acquired by Union is subject to the prior lien 
Bouf^t to be foreclosed. 

Without detailing the testimony at length, we are of the 
opinion the evidence amply justified the master in his conclusion. 
Union testified tiiat he was visiting the family of Sol Rubin and was 
told by Maxvrell Rubin, who is an attorney and the son of Sol Rubin, 
that Sol was about to lose the building in question and tJaat it would 
be a good opportunity for Union to invest $1000 in the purchase of 
the certificate; that upon his return to Cleveland he withdrew the 
cash from his safety deposit box, carried it with him to Chicago 
stfid delivered it to Maxwell Rubin, 

Maxwell Rubin testified that he took Union's money, procured 
a cashier's check, which he delivered to one of the attorneys for 
Hawkins & Loomis Company and received from him the certificate of 
sale with an assignment in blank. 

Mr. Donald M, Schaffer, one of the attorneys representing 
Hawkins & Loomis Company, which had the jud^ent against Sol Rubin, 
testified that he had negotiations with Maxwell Rubin, who purported 
to be acting on beixalf of his fattier, Sol; that finally the amount 
to be paid was agreed on and the certificate assigned, but at tiie 
request of Maxwell Rubin, Sol Rubin's name was not written in the 
certificate. The reason given was that there were other judgments 
against him, Mr, Schaffer never heard the name of Maurice Union 
mentioned during these negotiations. 

^alit9»a£ Jbcus esalatotq hjcU b»tfme aidts^ lee :^eiid- :guj:\;n9b aiawaits 

.algiaia Sft'l iit isowo sri* saw noJtaU ;^Ai{^ 

fi ei itolnl! j-axij- Jbfluuo't .©onsliivs exiJ- Jbxesii oflw .TcaJe-sin sriT 

8i:i ^iQilt ;>C-C'tfi'*'t 9il^ to ba&ii't bio ae Jbiw •'iiw «'fticfwH Xc mjoo 

oi 9i;ri^ ug gaitois aoi.aU ^a&;^ ;olxiO ,baeXeY8X0 ai sJt •onsJbJtssi 

bn£ ,ici^G-^i-ioai. erU ,ajLcti/H I i:t»n9cr boM 9bjj sxf^ lo't ssaliUdiq BAi 

«Jb©aoXo9'i(" drl'-iuoa 

•tf# to si^ 9^ ,xi*;gn9l i^ -^aeiiiiJse* sxicT i4nlXlsi9fc d-Juoiid^xW 

.aoiawXonoo aixi ni xsJeijia axiJ- b&i'tli&ut y,iqam »»ri9f>; oln.tqo 

•«v beut aicfiffl XoS to yXiaa'i: 9sii ^-;at^X8J:v maw sri Jba^ fipl'tij-asct' aoinU 

, alcf jarH XoB to ^. i.)ae ^isflToic^i? as ei oj'w ^nJniuB. XXsthocsM vd bXo# 

bliiO'n il iiii'.J- tas noiJasjjo ai gaibLlud Qiii 9b ./jjocfa p "ari* 

to sa^iioioq axicr ai OOOXC ;l'eevflx oJ aoxnU lo't ■^#2a«;J-£oqqc; r. ocf 

•itl "W^tbtiityr tii JbneXgrsXO od" irxw^si airi noqu *£xi* .•staoltld^ieo 9ri* 

os«sxxiO ©;)■ mlxi rid'lir *1 bslii-so ,xocf diaoqefc x*'^'^*^ ^-"^^ flto-xt riaao 

.nxcfwH XXsTOcaM G.-t J-x ftaisvilafc ftna 
Jkeiifooaq .-nsnoai a*, aoiaU :rfoOt sil #«ild- ijoxti.tse* ni:iuil XXftWx«M 

Tot a^BffioJ^i-fi 9xi* to ' />9i'5riX5j^ ^ .jiofixlo e'lairiaxso e 

to 9*Aoiix*TC80 oil* Biiii iuoit £>9viftosi !baf! '(^miqcroO elnrooJ A aai'iwjBii 

,3inBJ. ... oir.i-iiiis'-; ^ x w sXjbb 

^'^•^''•■''^'^'-''^ a'^9ii'xo;^;t« eiU to sao ,rtstt48xu)fi .^t AXijii. 
.rnouH loc ;real»i,a *a9:r^tijt 0*1^' bBcL iloiriw .^jfuaqmoO •Ixnooti: A aatA^al 

itniOMi^ ''■'- ■■- '"^ aaii-oij acf 0* 

•il* *■ - .:;9a<,xea« 9?.. 'ar; ao b^»i}iti n&v bi»q arf o* 

•.u^ ... »^;^ilT" -toj' a^'w i*ffl«a a'flxcfwH Xoti , aicfuJi XXawxatft to ^asufai 

•#na^Jb«t '^•^'-' -^'^ ^^'^^^ **" a5»vxj^ aoej«9i '^)xfT .'>3-,soi'( i^ioo 

fi«lnb •oi'XiJ*- "•'*■* h'Xi-.'-,: -f-.v**,: T-ittUiioS . . i iaatfiig* 

A convincing "bit ol' evidence "was developed showing that Sol 
Bulsin continuouBly claimed to be the owner ol" the premiscB. Sol Ruhin 
had executed a second mortgage trust deed to Cherries 0, iFetecher, 
as trustee, to secure the principal note of ;^5700; April 5, 1933, 
a Taill was filed in the Circuit court of Cook county in the name of 
y«t80her, trustee, against Sol Ruhin to foreclose this second mort- 
gage; Jay I, Rosenberg signed the compli-int us the plaintiff's at- 

Mr. ffetscher testified before the master in the instant cas0 
that he did not know Rosenberg, did not know the suit had been filed 
and had not authorized anyone to file such a suit; txiat tiie trust 
deed and notes were never out of the possession of the Mortgage com- 
pany which owned the papers, except that Sol Rubin had been allowed 
to take the trust deed for a short time for the purpose of having a 
phetoatatic copy made of it. 

Rosenberg testified that Sol Rubin had engaged him to file 
this bill to foreclose the second mortgage; that Sol Rubin had fur- 
nished him with the neeessary funds to pay the costs, and that he had 
obtained the information necessairy for the preparation of the bill 
from Sol Rubin, It also appeaxs that a receiver was appointed in 
this second mortgage foreclosure, and that Maxwell Rubin dictated 
to a stenographer tne bill of complaint to foreclose the second 

It is obvious that this second mortgage foreclosure proceed- 
ing was carried on for the benefit of Sol Rubin, There is no evi- 
dence that Union knew anything about these proceedings and the ap- 
pointment of a receiver. 

From these and other circumstances in evidence we are of the 
opinion that thp chancellor properly approved the finding of the 
master to the effect that Maurice R. Union had no interest in the 

:o »aUBi3i ^^fujoo jfooO 'to jiuoo i'XiJO'xlO ©nj- v\i bsli't bjsw lilcT jb 

-troia £iuoo9a aiii« daoiodao"i oi asduH. Xoi- ttmlaiiB, ,»t>>iSiirti ^%9dovti»% 

-i^ -•-j" a^ Jiiijbijqaoo 5ii,J' Jido^jia s^^^^I'^bo)! .1 x^X. ;9v,«a 

jBUTt;^ aii:; ; loi^s ©Xl't o^ aao^nj* JbssiioiiJ'u.ii c^oa b^ri fctw> sa^a^lO^ 9' iaeoaaoq: levoa a-ssw «d;:toa hAB j>9|^ 

- gxsiTeil "to •aoqrtijq * .■^aj:j ^iohr s -co't fesab ^au-xJ atii 9:iAi t^^ 

9f)i?.ia Y;qoo ox^xi*eod"OXiq 
•Xi'l oJ flxiil L •'.'iii nidwH Xafi *,aiii' JE^o-i'iJt.d'Bft^t siacfjoasoH 

-tut bsti HtduH XoB ^jbxIj ; s^fi'^tioiu. Jbaooaa sxi'd^ eaoXoaio'i o^ Hid eitUt 
iviii »ii ;fxi. , Abius't ^ijeaee©' jjfcw aiiii bflriaJtn 

iii Jbfi^aio<i9« afiw lovlaoa'x £ ^t^ixij^ e'x«5^q%x< oe. .jicfjjH Xo8 iooxl 

boSsiiotb ai^uH liawxsw *fiii^ ioii ,»'i;'aoIO'»io1 oa«A*ioiK Jinopsa aJtiid" 

'tvi oa as ...Iduii Io - i© Jbei^'XiJO «4w gai 

»<j.fe .ttlfjr.uc jJOv^a afliii;^X.ti*'' wocui noJtnO t^xid' ftVOfib 

.rstv-ioaai « 'to, **<S)^«i«><I 
•ai to f' •!9oiif;J-aizuid'xio iceiUo Jbii4* eaaxli aoi'^r 

jil.i 6*7 'T acxcr n^iXrofwtto •rf* ,Mtt* noxnl^fTo 

property; tJriat Lis actions in the mutter were solely' on 'beiialf of 
and i'or the benefit ol' ool Rubin. tiier points are made which It 
is unnecessary to consider, 

bol Rubin being the owner ol* the premises in queetion, all 
iiis riglite are subject to the trust deed sought to be foreclosed. 
The decree so found and it is affirmed* 


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

, boaoioeiol 


V O i. .' \i w i.y 

-^.'t- tv.V.. 

,'ihonr:- , ,~ , JjBxiO^fii'i Jbrtfi , ." . ,'xotmoO*0 


etc. , et al* , 



CITY Off CHICAGO, a iiunio 



Of"' COOK codliTy. 

*294I.A. 615^ 


In an action on Vie case for --ai^ired d-jwiaj^ea to plaintiiTs* 
real estate frora the constraction of a cartain local improveii'.ent aad 

upin trial by Jury there was a veriict l"or defoni unt on n-liich judg- 

meat was entered and platntiffe appeal. , 'i'h.e iusoiint ol' (?arj5.ji3B/was 


The land in question ia Itnevm as the "Gardner* tract; it 
consists of aiiout seven acres of ground - 290,361 square feet; it 
is situated directly ease of i^orth Robey street (now icriovai s,s Damen 
avenue) , is soutli aiid west of the LortJi braric - of the Chicago river, 
and north and east of Jullerton and Blstoo avenues in Chicago, The 
property is used for industrial purposes. Two tracts of land (one 
owned by the Lister family, on which a glue factory has been operated; 
the other owned by the United States Brewing company) lie adjacent 
west of Daaen avenue. Prior to the construction of the improveicent 
cf which plaintiff complains the City, pursuant to an ordinance, in- 
stituted in the Superior court a condemnation proceeding for the ac- 
quisition of land necesBary for the extension of Jtorth Robey street 
(now knofm as ISiorth Dtajan avenue) from Fullertcaa avenue north to the- 
Chioago river arid beyond the river to Diversey boulevard. A judgment 
was rendered in the condeianation proeeeding, awarding compensation. 
In the same suit (on December 15, 1926) an assessuient was levied 
against the remainder of the Gardners' property for benefits found 
to be conferred by the opening up of the new street. This proceeding 



G 1 U .ii.x ^ t^ :s. ^ 


xiptoin- , rno 


, asl 

t«>«»Ti« %9doE tiiitui le Jee© nji*o»a2f) beiBt-ttlh ui 

oiontf d^rtotf •fi* to ^9«v Jbn^ nlto»; ■:'i , (rioer* 

i: 89 wad r*' noJ-fciaf ha» ae&ttilti'i. to ;f8«* ' ^nB 

]j. '■ r);'.! , i^ •lIxIw no , if Xlif'jBl IP^HIJ «ri;» X<^ bonwo 
.._•-, , „-. i»> »i^J BuiriquJou 't'tis alslq ffoJtxJw 'to 

: :. ,,,r«.,'i r.,,,:<... .1-.,, -t/iiSBtl ll^noK ^ "^ ."iv.on>( WOfl) 

OSW ,5X Ttfttfio^a^a no) ttua »iM3 atiial 

waB pureuant to the proTlsiout of tne Local Improvement i^^ot (Smith 
Kurd 111. Rev. Stats,, 1:?25, cti, 24, par, '113-728). (lil. ;:.tate 
Bar atatB. 1937, chap, 24, pare. 711-730, pp. 524-527.) PurBuarit 
to the previsions oi" a later ordinaacc t-A« Jity ol" whicago proceeded 
to imorove i\» Robey street by the construotion ol' a bridge over the 
Korth "branch oT the Chicago river and a viaduct ijiirjied lately north 
ol" it. The award in tne conder^Jiation case was entered December 15, 
1926, The construction oi the viaduct or bridge ana tne approach 
thereto was begun about six Jiionths lifter, on Jal^^ 1, 1927, xhe ap- 
proach to the bridge was constructed northward on worth Hobey street 
from Fullerton avenue arid on the rig,ut ol ivay acquired in tne con- 
Aeonation suit. In tixe proceedii^g under the itocal lihprovement Act 
Tor assessment oi' benelite, the court I'ound t-.iat timers was no bene- 
fit to the u-ardtier property by i*e.ason oa' tae construction oi the Im- 
provement and therefore canceled the aasesaaiexAt wiaic.U the 
B loners had reported agaii^et the property. In that proceedJiife the 
court had no jurisdiction to deter&iins the awoant of damages. The 
finding that taere we-s no benei'it xd the cancelation of the aasees- 
ment laid in the special assesstient proceeding deteriiiined only the 
issue of the benefits and Ir-ft tne door open for tiic beginning, ©f 
this suit which followed, 

she construction of tne iv . Robey etreet ijiiproveii-.eEt was b •-- - 
gun July 1, 1927, and coiApiet«^d on January 1, 1929. 'ihe improv«H:ent 
extended r^ore than 700 feet along the western boui-.dary of the Jardner 
property and extetidt nortnward from the intersection of the central 
l;Lne of M. Robey street with tne northeast lirie of listen avenue, 
jtf'or 66 feet tixe street as ii^iproved ia at grade witii plaintiff*' 
property^ at that point it rises on a 2.% gri^uie for 239 feet. This 

elevation is c; needed to be iacoaaequsiitial. At tae -and of this 239 

feet tne/jdutlUCJtxis laid on a 3^;^ grade for 44o^ feet; at that point 

it rises to meet the level of the bridge. The highest elevation of 

, ■ . II fc'Xtfl 


- .^ -,-. .uS«X 

U '. ^" too MO': 

the improvement i« 33.19 I'eet aboTe city datum at the bridge, 'XJli« 
la PI ff;et above the grade of plaintiffs' property. The eutir* im* 
proveinent -was erected on the land to which title had been taken by 
the City through the ct*nd«Enation proceeding, ia ong tne northweet 
pnrt of the Gardner property for approximately 300 feet the improve- 
m^nt as tonstructed left a apace of abeut 3 feet between the eastern 
e5,^'«! of the imnrQvwnent and the property. Gardner* used the land 
for industrial purposes, and have conducted a planing mill on it. 
It was for a time served by two JJiorthwestern Railway awitea trauice, 
one extending from the Milwaukee divisian and coming acru&e i'ulior- 
ton avenue entering the property at the eoutheaet comer; the other 
frotL the Wisernsin division entered tJxis property at the nortuweat 
corner. The Wisconsin division switch track -was cut oil by the 
imprc^'ernent. Expert evidence was given in beiuilf of plaintiffs to 
t'as effect th ^r.t the conetructicn of the improveaient dariaged the 
buildings alcrjf tc the amount of $60,000 and that the real estate, 
aB a result ct the iaiprovement, ;bad (declined in valu? more than 
#80,000. On the other hand experts for th« City testified that the 
improvjement had not damaged but on the contrary increased the '«alu« 
of th« property of plaintiffs about 25%, 

It is contended by defendant the judtjiiient should be reversed 
for the reason that the oondenanation proceedings by which the City 
obtained title to the property upon whicn the iaprovemsnt was con- 
structed was unfairly injected into the oontroversy in a manner which 
confused the ^1ury; because tne court erred in allowing witnesses for 
defendant to testify to the benefits resulting to the pre'iiises on ac- 
count of the construction of the improvement; because the court erred 
in excluding frcro evidence two letters written to the City of Chicago 
by the o-^ner of the property on itay 14, 1927; because the evidence 
show? that, a? it i? claimed, plaintiffs* property was damaged by 
tha loss of switch track facilities; because the attorney for defend- 

•ijn .»^ 

ix«iqci*i 10*1 •\c#'i» 

no© -"i^fflt 


■ tiiak»i^_ to x^^»«r««g trfit 'to 

^tlO *f<- 

ant in his ar^umeat unfairly appealed to the pasaion. and prejudice* 

ol' the Jury, and finally for the reason, as it is said, that the 

verdict and the judgment deprived plaintiffs of their property vith- 

out eoiupeneation , in violation of the constitution of Illinois and 

of the United States, 

Plaintiffs contend tnat the condemnation proceeding 7*as 

dehors the case on trial qnd that it was erroneously "brought irito 

the proceeding. This came ahout as the result of testimony ^iven 

in behalf of plaintiffs "by witness Otto Schaziaier. iie testified 

he had "been a ter.ant of the oroperty from 1910 to 19 22, and was 

fariiiliar witn the property before and after the condfflunation and 

improvement were completed; that the building and the industry lost 

value as far as construction aod xaill work were concerned because 

of the difficulty resulting in handling long pieces of timber - 

pieces from 60 to 60 feet long; that on the property as it now iaB it^ 

a tougii drag to drag out 60 foot luBiber on a straight drive, and 
tnat making a right angle swing with pieces 60 to 80 feet ^ong is 
very difficult arid almost iaipossibls, that "you can't pull out with 
an 30 to 100 foot timber now since the building of the bridge ap- 
proach, but it could be done before." 

ho objection was msuie to this testii.xon; when givei but at the 
close of plaintiffs' evidence the attorney for defendant iroved to 
strike out Scharsiier's testimony tnat the buildings had been daaiageA 
by reason of tiie fact tnat long logs could i.ot be maneuvered as 
formerly. Defendant's attorney said Seharmer's testiuiony showed 
that the reason they could not maneuver large timbers was because 
the distance to the building was out down by the new street an i by 
the taking of the property. The court remarked that, "It was an 
element of dariiage, if any, in the condeaination proceeding, but they 
were compensated for tiie land taken in that proceeding," kr. Bishop, 
attorney for plaintiffs, then said; 

>lsaj»e[ miiS ot haLiSavti xlilA'tmt ii!i»intt^xm ttkiL ai iaa 

"itit ©rt^ bOB *8lfci#y 

■v;cf s'i'i ^If?ri»tf Mi 



, s Iff! i 


i . lU J v-» i • 

"May I suggest that any part ol" that teatimony— that you 
have written up, and you call iiis Honor's attention to tiiat par- 
ticular part, I think your contention is wrong on tiiat point, 1 

think if we can spend a few minutes in ohaiubers i can call atten* 
tion to that particular part* 

Xhe Court: *le testified about the swinging of these long 
pieces of tinxber. He said that the long pieces of tiu^ber nad to 
"be taken around tfie other "^ay because of tne inability now to 
tarn then about. There wasn't roou between the structure ^juad the 
buildinfe, .-ajrid he n-;.d in mind at that time tne land before tne oon- 
deionation proceeding wherein the land was taken and the owners of 
that land co-^peneated by the city in txiat proceeding* iney nave 
to deal witii the land as left to them, as a result ol tne eondefiona* 
tion proceediiig, not t/iis proceeding-. Whether there would be a 
viaduct there, or anything else, tiie same rule would apply to any 
evidence as to inability to turn the lujmber around because oi the 
viaduct approach, which is inadiiissible and I will sustain the 
motion to strike in ret.,arcl to that -vvnen we come to the particular 
parts of the teBtimony^" 

Plaintiffs' attorney interposed no objection to this ruling, 

which was made in chsuBbers and out of the oresence of the Jury, 13x« 

following day the court made this statement to the jury: 

"The Oourt: Genti«Een of the jury: There vas a witness who 
testified here yesterday by ttie naiae of Scharaier, In your aoqence, 
while you were not here, part of his testimony was ruled out. Part 
of the testiiiiony that the court ruled out wasteatiiuuny about his 
ability on the land re:.tainine, to reraove long logs and so forth. 
That is not part of the law suit. Tne question of the taking of the 
land is disDOsed of in another lawsuit, ajad the atuoiint allowed plain- 
tiffs in tiiis proceeding, for hia Ifmd, was determined io tiiat so- 
called condemnation proceeding. The allowance iu that proceeding 
was to couipensate aim for such taking of tne l.tjnd »ind liidting his 
operations witx the ren^ainder el' the land» Hence, that evidence as 
to tne maneuverin^i of tne long lumber about tnere , becaaBe of the 
construction of this ramp, is not in this cas«, 

kr, Bishop: To wnich the plaintiffs t8us.e an exception. 

The Court: To the ruling out of the evidence? 

kr. iiii^iiop: Yes. 

Xhe Court: Ixot to my statement now of fact? 

kr. Bishop: Yes, to the stateiuent also. 

The Court: I regret, but I thought we talked it over, and 
I thought it was understood that I was to tell the Jury, I am 
sorry, " 

PI aintiffm' contend this statement was prejudicial because it 

cajae from the court hi: self ; because it singled out a part of the 

testimony of a witness after the witness had left the stand and 

there was no possibility of curing the defect; because It came with 

dramatic suddenness at the conclusion of the evidence, Plaintiffe 

say the record does not show that this ruling was by agreement. 

It is true that it does not stiow an ascpress agreement but the sug- 

TUjcj o; 


'^ioJt^D»tcf« en i>»8»r 

I ,^1 




oism ac 


ffo-^'i 'to Won ikif*! 

turn ,'t«»V'^ ! i h 

>tii YJB? 

;'^4>iiaU wir' 

■Si t .L ...i B 9 it 

Lov ellilw 

h ei fcaeX 


.;0') «»t!-f 


geetion that the matter should "be considered in chaialjers and th« 
intimation that there might he an agreement that certain parte of the 
evidenee should to out were otade by the attorney lor Dlaintifl'e, In 
chambers he made no objection to the ruling oi the court that the 
evidence would be excluded or the stataicient ol' the court tliat the 
jury would be ao informed. The evidence as to alleged daciages with 
reference to the maneuvering of the long timbers was incompetent 
since it was based upon the condition of the premises prior to the 
time plaintiffs' land was taken under the condemnation proceeding. 
The court Tfas justified in believing that the attorney i'or plain- 
tiffs had consented to the exclusion of the evidence and that a state- 
ment to taat effect might be made to the jury. Moreover, his objec- 
tion when the atatement was made was general in its nature. There 
was no attempt to state the ground upon which it was based nor re- 
quest tiiat the witness might be produced for furtner explanation. 
Defendant offered in evidence the record of the proceedings in the 
condemnation case. Plain r,il'f8 objected and upon their objection it 
was excluded. If the evidence of Scharmer aB to the maneuvering of 
the logs was to stand, theii this evidence was competent for the pur» 
pose of showing it to be a fact, As the court stated, that dariaages 
for taking the land had be«B disposed of in the condemnation pro- 
ceeding. The plaintiffs cite Green v. City of Chi c ago . 97 111, 370, 
to the proposition that supposable benefits or dasiage that may result 
to adjacent property by reason of a proposed improvement for which 
such property Is taken may not be regarded in determining the amount 
of daiiiages. That rule is not applicable in this case because the 
condemnation proceeding waa under the Local Improvement act, in walch 
both the damages and the benefits to land taken as well as land dam- 
aged WE^s necessarily considered litigated and adjudicated. Illinoii 
State Bar Stats. 1937, chap. 24, pars. 711-730, p. 524-527. (Smith 
Hurd 111, Rev, Stats. 1925, en, 24, sees, 15 and 30, pars, 713-728,) 

I n y '. ■ i . 11, i J 

Jtuoo 9riT 

«l^s*'i v^ -'•• ■'-'- 3--iJaaa-:qijai ds/stiT nolliaogotqc edit oi 

,£;aUJl> 0.:: ' ■ ■ ' :f 

We do net think there was any error in the ruling oi"- the court or 
the statement made by the court under the circumstances. If there 
was it wa» invited by plaintiffe' attorney through the atuggeetion 
that he would agree to part oi* the evidence going out il' it might 
be discussed in chambers; by his failure to object to the ruling of 
the court when made in chambers; by his failure to objeet specif i-> 
oally and point out the matters of which he complained when the 
statement was mads by the court* The error was also invited by his 
objection to the offer of the record in the condemnation suit which 
was excluded by the court upon his objection. The statement to the 
jury concerning Soharmer's testimony was made necessary by that 
ruling obtained by plaintiffs' attorney. Ttiere was no reversible 
error in the statement by the court under these circumstances. 

Defendant upon the hearing offered evidence tending to show 
the benefits plaintiffs' property derived froiu the improvement as 
made. This testimony was objected to by plaintiffs and the objec- 
tion was overruled by the court. It was agreed that the same objec- 
tion might stand as to testimony of all defendant's witnesses who so 
testified. The objection of plaintiffs as stated was that in the 
special assessment proceeding to assess benefits for the construction 
of the improvement it had been decided that there were no benefits to 
the property of plaintiffs and the assessment which had been made 
against it was cancelled. Plaintiffs' contention is that the matter 
thereupon became res adjudiett^ . and that proof tending to show bene- 
fits as a result of the improvement was therefore inadmissible. Plain- 
tiffs cite a large number of cases, sueJx as iianna et al^ v. Read et al. 
102 111, 566; ChieaKO Title & Trust Co. v. The Jiational Storage Cp .^ 
260 111, 485; LeMpyne v. City of Chicago . 175 111, 366, and many 
other oases stating the general proposition that where ar ieeue be- 
tween the same parties has been litigated in a former proceeding and 
adjudicated, the parties are thereal*ter bound by the former judgjaent. 

■ze ^iwo «Ji# 'to :^ailtn »Jii sUa iGv.tst \a£ nxiirr <iT»ri;^ :ii.alAi itta oh «V 

i j. ... 'Tf^t 0* soiRA bXuow ojcf ijidi- 

-i"ti»*q« *ft»t<*o 0* BiuJLlji't ali> \,ci ;ei«cf;i«Aio al 9k»a n«riw ^tueo »rf* 

aixi xtf At^ivflU: oaijB »ey vcxi? --jr^T .Jiiroc '^Jtt ^cf fti^sa 8«w tanosj^Ati 

•X<<i«T9v»i Oil 84JW -,,. -. ,^»rn:c.:. -; L"iljai«X<j -^d f>9rtli;;^cfo 2,riJ*.rui 
,990 RBi»atiJ9ilo »B&£ii %»hiiu i'luoo 9i.ii ijrf tiV9m»t&is fit:ii "• 
wona oi ^albsufi »ort»i?ir« Jb6T:s»l'to aftit»»/^ •' ■ ■ ■^'^'^tj *n«.!:M'*'l 

-o»trfo s''-* ' r "^''i^ai/M. 't^o '3»^ ^no ii«c.>. ,. 

^Jo am^n 'ji.j ./ill. Jb^^TSA , . iij0© ©i'' "■*■ »»» f""^'^'r :, 

;:tX*t«aft : '" * ^'''r>afe ii»»tf &«£( *i iiyt^Qfontiml miM t^ 

,ii.. jioj ■ '■ hem illi^n*' '•• '•;; \iinnoifi •A$ 

■ "■" .-^XUiativ'.bi^- V >-,...v. ■•}...: :j -».;j "io *Xtf«»i ja r- -*^'»- 

- -; ■ ■ ■* - '-—;-: :■ - ;-~r p :?•♦?;- '■ ... ^J 

,y^ ^ , J? „ii a i^ 

!?» I J i j 


i ■ 

.fii.'vil*^ *o3' .it,::;-.- ■■riitt 

That Buoh is the general xxil« !• not questioned, but that rule is 
not to l>e applied to facts £>uda as are preseiited \>y this records The 

issue in this special assessBient proceeding was between the same 

there with the is sue hejie„ 

parties but the issu^/ presented was not identical,/ It is not de- 
fendant's contention that "by reason of the improTement the fair cash 
market yalue of the property of plaintiffs was increased. That was 
the issue in the special assessment proceeding, but it is not the 
issue in this suit* The issue in the present litigation is whether 
the dajaageg and detriments to plaintiffs' property are equal to or 
greater than the advantages which resulted to it fro^i the improye- 
aent* If the advantages er benefits are equal to or greater than 
the detriments or damage which resulted to the praaaises from the im- 
provement, then the improvement did not decrease the fair cash markst 
value of the property and plaintiffs have not sustained legal damages 
sueh as is claimed in their declaration* iiotwithstanding the finding 
in the special assessment proceeding, therefore, this evidence w%s eid- 
missible to deterioine the ultimate issue which had net been determined 
in the prior proceeding. Xhis court has so held in the recent ease 
of Cuneo v. City of Chicago . S92 111, App. 235, in which leave to 
appeal was denied by the Supreme court on JPebruary 14, 193Q, (So, 
24553) thus making the opinion final. In City of .Batavia v. Wilev . 
342 111, 384, the Supreme court has declared that "benefits are 
measured by the appreciation of the fair cash market value of the 
property due to th« improvement," This is the rule stated in ffahne- 
stock V. City of Peoria . 171 111, 464; City of Lincoln v. Chicago & 
A, H. Co. . 262 111., 11, and such is the rule adhered to by this 
court in the Cuneo case. The plaintiffs undertake to question cer- 
tain eases cited In the opinion In the Cuneo case; namely, City of 
Chicago V, Clark . 233 111. 404, and People v. City of at. Louis . 367 
111, 67, and point out circumstances distinguishing those cases from 
the Cuneo case smd this case. While there are respects in which 

.•soil ftuaax ariJ diiv ...sxij" 

»;. . . ji .;ie»qc'ic\ iaAiAsa 

loo^i-.'-^' ■■ -iJr-»^ ^f¥ ■flQ.fifi'f!^^, 0^^ 

'Ml 9Ai 0301 i a«ala»iq e .iXii^ai iiuiiiw ©a**: ^ln»att'xd"«ik •iii' 

^•3l-x«a dac 'ji^ asA^i&aJLi ioa bit ;rrt»ei97oi(^i ri;f , (^noiuaroiq; 

Idv Aiiaol 9^/: alMn^iih liiaaim 

ct ■--'.'•< , , . . , ,; .;...- to vjjf,>jf ^ T^,pjsauO "to 

iȣ) SAW JusoqqjB 

.ij^:fisj.©»'.r<:p-» •£!# x^ J!»«au««ttiB 
-Qjgij»3. p.i t-^r^n of.:- ' . mom9vciTq[j:.i . OAtb x^t^tOTtq: 

:! k tJi^- ._,^ .._...• '^'^'■f »iteftl lft,.tll^..,ty, ^.ff<^i 

alii} ictf oJ- .^sT.rifja -jXt.-: , XX ,.XXI KftS , ^oO .a ^A 

_ _^_ , . _. .'.oir.ict' aaa«o aX** 

s^ofoc iiii# .asAu ell , wO a/W 

they differ, the reaaoning of thee« o»ses is applica)>l« and the 
reasoning of the Cunep^ case ie not, it is l>elieYed| subject to 
valid critioism. I'he ultisiate question to lo9 deteriiuined in a ease 
of this character is whether the fair cash market value of the prop« 
erty is less after the inprovement is completed than it was "before 
its completion. That price must be determined by a consideration of 
the advantages ae well as the detriments resulting frou^ the improve- 
ment. It is usually true that any lecal improveiuent involves both 
detriments and advantages to adjoining property. If the advantaigea 
are not greater than the detriments a purchaser would not pay more 
for the property and its fair cash market value would therefore not 
be increased 9in0 it could not bo said to be benefitted by the im- 
provement. If, on the other hand, the advanta^^oo created by the 
improvement are greater than the detriments resulting fro^ it, a 

purchaser would pay more for the property and its fair cash market 
_y would therefore be increased and the property could be said to be 

benefited thereby. A judgment in the special aeseeement proceeding 
to the effect that the property was not benefited (meaning, of course, 
that its fair cash market value was not increased) did not necessa* 
rily mean more than that the eidvantages did not exceed the detri- 
ments. It was not at all deteraiinatlve of the further question of 
whether the detriments exceeded the advsaatages, and that, as defendr. 
ant well points out, ie the precise issue in the instant ease. For 
aught that was determined in the special assessment proceeding the 
advantages and the detriuionts to the property from this improvement 
^ay be evenly balanced. If so, the City is not liable in this ac- 
tion. The issues were not identical. The judgEient in the special 
proceeding was, therefore, not res ad.ludicata . The cases cited by 
plaintiffs as to res ad.ludicata and estoppel by verdict or judgment 
are not in point. We hold the evidence was admissible. As defend- 
ant says, aiiy other rule would open the door to frauds upon the 

9i ii>«ldu» (bdr^iXecT si tt ,t«a ai »ajeo jygfrt) »dj to snlcicsiiett 

*%o'to>S saw *l osu;? r^'iJ'^Iq'fti iion»vo»q«i wKt I9i'lj< as9l al ij^s 

•^roTqol 911^ ;a771 i^iiJiSlui^t »)£iit!iittt»ti «i(i •sir:. Il«w 0JB is^atosYb^ axf;^ 
if^od a«rl0Yui ino^mvotqt^i X«vOX ^i:^ ^ft^ri »ir7;r xLlmutia 

;toii e'X0la794;f tXxiow aulijir Jt>ji'c,(3ia dans tint uti t>as Y'^t^V^^i^ a fit lot 
-tU 9ili xii l>9j;fit9^i9U iM9 •tf toa ilii/oo ^i ^ns h^Bs^toat ad* 

.^-x««i' /i»^o lijii ail baa x^x9f§9'i(i aji^ . loni ^^^^ ^Xuow rtaaAiiotufi 

atf o 9<f bJiifoo yi^iAqoiq &di buti b9a«»'is>'>i «»<f a-sott^i^rf* feluow \^ 

l(aiJbo»oon;q j-iiaonaaaaa X«Xadqe 9nt al tuiMii^i&i^i . .i^'Kerf^ l^»#lt«a<»cf 

nuoo to .aaXtiesiB) ftadltsasof *om fSflw >':ti^m>itr »jit #>;>rf* ios'l . )J 

•aaa*o*a Jan <jib (bdei^aiox^J . 'H'lam dnno ttat bH i^sd:^ 

-iri9b •iii fc»oyxs ^oa ' -' c«>Vj«J''WTA« aiid- tarrtJ narfi e-xofli tusoiu ^jXi^ 

to twl^affx/p T*»/'tT'.''t srij J cfanifTxs^feb XjCh *i« ton aiuw d"I ,«d'nara 

101 .aa«o iauOeal oxU al dueei^ S'tln^ir 9di ux , i^vo AtrtloQf IX#ir Ittat 
904 :giiib9a99i4i iii»a999B9m X«loaq^ i b^itiumtt^b aAW i^alti ix^irc 

tii*.^TuvpBi aliii acwrt x^'«ooonc[ '^r't r rinn-^.titfub •il* bn» aaig«*««Tf>« 
•>o« 9idi ai 9l(S»ii ioa ei x^^ ^ .Jboan«X«(f x-'^'^v^' ''<' ^A'^' 

liilooqa 9^ lit in9ais^biti aUi' ,i»ti^a9bi ^ea evoir aoAjael ar!T .noJ:^ 

tnam.tul 19 ♦oibi*»/ rcf Xoq^o^^^ hite j yl'fuxi^vt'.^jg fj83. atf e» atti^ainXft 

-fsirtteb m^ ,9i.<il-ci.Jth '.iT-n sfiaofJ'v* arti bXori aW ,tntoq ul i9n nm 

„;;-• no«ii :.hL.. ■jii.nw all,! tax-Jo xriB ,a'^«a ius 


public iii proceedings ol' this churaqter. There 'vas r>o error in tht 
adrnisaion of this evidence, 

Tlie letters of Uaj 14, 1927, which it is complained wert 
excluded, were written in the lifetime of Mr. Gardner, the then 
owner, to Kichael J. Faherty, predident of the Board of Local Im- 
provement a of Chicago, It was not denied tiiat these letters were 
received, and while the originals could not be produced, carbon 
copies were available and evidence warranting their adiniseion was 
received in case they were material and admissible. The evident 
purpose in offering the letters was to sriow that kr, Gardiier desired 
to retain the use of one of the sT/itoh tracks by Wi^ich his property 
had been served. The railroad to which this switch traclc connected 
the property of plaintiffs was a half-mile dietant, 'xhie switch 
track was laid over the lt<jnd of private owners and itB constiuctien 
and ii.aiiitenance had been arranged for by these owners, the United 
States Brewing Goixipany end the Lieter family* In order to brint the 
switch track to their property these owners expended (as the evidence 
shows) |35,000{ they also provided the land necessary to aecojamcdate 
the switch track and also a storage track whicn the railroad insisted 
should be constructed, lilAither the Listers nor the Brewing company 
ever made any arrangements with the plaintiffs or anyone else for the 
use ©f these switch tracks. The contract between the railroad ooiapany 
end. Listers provided that no one should use the switch unless he par- 
ticipated in its cost and maintenance, Botli tnese private owners 
desired taat anybody who wanted service snould bear tneir proportionate 
share of expenses. J^egotiations were opened looking toward arrangep 
Bients with plaintiffs whereby they might acquire the right to use and 
undertake to bear their part of the expenses. The negotiations failed; 
no arrangeioents were made, Nevertheless plaintiffs placed a track upon 
their property smd proceeded to connect it wita the track running 
over the lands of adjoining owiiors. The tracks constructed by plain- 

il^stfJ! ftiXcf fll iw^J-itw stow ,&96iiX03Cl» 
*jri sllriw fens ,feaiYJt90»*r 

'to »au ' -^ ..^..viiii o>: 

#ii^ ro't ITS X''^'*^ 9foAiB itfTft 

-XLf ' - '■ TO'i'c {iTt'i^sJtJ. baa 

^.^ ■'•:'.. .f -^-i ^^£II 


tiffs wer« of a flimsy nature - trrtcka in which th« ties rested on 
the ground and the top rails were about a foot off the natural sur- 
face. There was testimony (undenied) to the effect that plaintiffs 
succeeded in getting the service over this track only in the night 
tlH* without the knowledge of the private owners. The Brewing com- 
pany thereupon caused a portion of its track to be taken up to pre- 
vent this surreptitious use. When the construction of the Robey 
street viaduct was begun negotiations were again opened with a view 
to having the City change the Diana so as to elicdnate tiie solid fill 
and provide a trestle wiiere the switch track raight eross li, Robey 
street. The negotiations were for the purpose of permitting the 
tracks to be maintained s as to serve plaintiffs if they would 
agree to pay their share of the expense. This change was not made. 
Under the uncontradicted evidence plaintiffs had no ri^ht to use the 
switch track in question. The exclusion of letters with relation 
thereto was ijot erroneous* 

It is urge* that the court erred in refusinc to instruct the 
Jury as requested that in deterijiicing the value of plaintiffs' prop- 
erty the Jury was entitled to take into consideration the possibility 
or- impossibility of securing switch track facilities. Complaint is 
also mside of the refuEal to give plaintiffs' irxstruction j>.o. 9, by 
which plaintiffs requested the court to tell the Jury that under the 
law in this state railroad companies are required, upon appli cation 
of a shipoer or receiver, or contemplated shipper or receiver of 
freight, to furnish switches and tracks for a connection between the 
railroad of such railroad company aud a^^y existing or contemplatedl 
track of the applicant, if such connection is reasonably practicablo, 
will not materially increase the hazard of the operation of the rail- 
road, ^uid if the business which may reasonably be expected over such 
connection will Jus if y the expense thereof* Plaintiffs call atten- 
tion to the statute (Jones 111. Statutes Annotated, 112,065, sec. 45, 



»rft ♦'5-r 


IftO 3to^ 

111 -^ntitijct xttO 9xii jmJtTJBil «<• 

iLcfcT rfrjlrlw 
>i ■ - . , • waI 

.'JVC iV'.'o« . '5 '•■ i 1,' s '. , o«o:t 


and South Park Comrs. v. Ayer . 237 111. 211, G. & W. I. R. R. Co^ 
V, Heidenrelch . 254 111, 231) and contend that under the statute 
and these cases the refusal to give this instruction waa error. 
There were two switch tracks upon plaintiffs' property. The only- 
one it was ever entitled to use is still there. The improvement smde 
did not affect or disturt it in any way. The only track the improve- 
ment shut off was a track the plaintiffs were never entitled to use. 
We think damages hy reason of heing deprived of the use of a switch 
track they had no ri^ht to use was merely speculative and conjeetu- 
ral. There was no error in refusing these instructions. 

Plaintiffs also contend that defendant in its arguiuent to 
the jury appealed to passion and prejudice. The remarks of which 
coruplaint is niade are in part as follows: 

"How, I appreciate your patience, gentlemen - I appreciate 
your courtesy and patience througnout this entire trial, but in 
considering tliis case I want you to consider one tning, and that 
is what is the interest or lack of interest of the parties in this 
ease. The plaintiffs are here seeking, represented by a lawyer 
hoping to get a fee out of this case. On tne other hand, what has 
the City of Chicago got to be gained--- 

Mr. Bishop: I object to that line of argument. 

The Court: Sustained. 

Mr. McCarthy: It isn't my duty to come here and try to de- 
feat a taxpayer. It is my dity--- 

Mr, Bishop: I object to what counsel's duty is. 

The Court: Sustained," 

We have read the argument of the opposing counsel. The 
statements of attorney for defendant while subject to criticism were 
not unprovoked. The objections thereto were sustained by the court. 
Some allowance in these matters must be made for the zeal of a lawyer 
for his client. There is nothing here that should require another 
trial of this case. Upon oral argument it was conceded (although the 
record does not show) that this case has been three times submitted 
to a jury; that once the jury disagreed and t?'ice have returned a 
verdict for the defendant, V/e find no trespass upon the ccnsti-'utir >,al 
rights of plaintiffs, either under the Constitution of Illinois or 

.oO .A ,& . . ..jP, ,IIS .III TCS: .-K^^A .*y .errJWoO :aig1 rl;»iJoa bna 

&ta&BiM s>-:i lobais tjBSi& hrtstfttoo boji (xes ,1X1 J^ffS .iio Xsina lS lnH jif 

.toils 8.t;w aoi^OiJ^itan^ .ogu't»i mdt bbbbo oasrit has 

aftjMt dnemevoiqiai ©xll ,»rx9xl.1 ili:t3 ei ^stf o:t fttslcfilfft^ tore ««w &1 f?no 

,9aL' OS i)oX*l*iis 'X»T»n ©law a't'ti^ai^Xq sdJ- aCo^jid- « aaw 'tto :twria tasm 

/fori.ra £ to ^bit ed;t to bortxci^h ^axBd 'to ftoajsrau yd" «*>5jj6jiij35 inirl* aW 

jJoe'f.i'ifc /iJ-i-Xuoeqa ;:X9T«zsi saw ©aw oJr liisii on tnsi x^i^^ atofii* 

.enoi+orrtenx sadxi* .viaiai/'tsi i\i -loiTd 0iX3;iU}W s^t^ilT «Xsti 

riolr.?: 'to u . .^ 7Jt.bwt.*Tt<l ft^*-® itoiaecq; o* fceXjsssijqa "Cint sd* 

lawoXXo't a^ itBq, rtk 0ta ^bsm. at tatel<rtSiG9 

at tud ,jLtil- , d-ijjoo lijo^ 

t6di bciF^ ,>r. ifJt're&iGfioii 

• ir::" aX esl 'j.>) i*itj^ajai «iio ex iizdTr el 

rts'^v.^jsX i . - i. «'Su8 a't'U^Jrtixirq ©xlT .*«j30 

B«xl ;fAXiw ,l>(^i ^ to iKO 96't « :i9;:^ o;^ ^^alqod 

■■1^ .to,-:« OT:«oiriO 'to iilO adt 

■Biii :d-'ii;oO aril' 

•r . ■_■:_.: ■, .■-■'..'.(. ^: ■ - ■ •I'l '^iW ^j3Si: »r«i{ »V 

••rir -Hi-, ■.-;-iD ()•.- Jcj- ; Fls fllriv/ i.Lnbi)9'l3' ,, -n^oJ-^^jB 'lo 8*a©:aSvt£;J« 

._„ ; . _ . . _. j-.tfo erfT .fcOiLovoKinw i^oa 

T* "^aX .^ -w -■ '•'''■' "■"'f «?>; - '> i' inuiii ^-i'c'i.t.-;; .. '-is'-vii ai QonawoXXa aaioH 

•--. + '^ .• '-. .... ^,. .J-itolXo alrl tot 

•."'.fr.'<- .-^aso BXi-J^ 'io I«li* 

,../., i... .*.« « :.- w ....^.., > -, .. ..w...... ..*.>i.^ w-,jjj- (woiiw +'> ' ««»ob fjioo^l 

■ »--— ■•- -./■.,> x.vr ; gerq^^Bfii^ ""tf*- ;>ff.# 9o.iv ..... ;Y,'2JJG « oJ- 

- ^ '^ ■ . -'»f^ 'ft'liib -^rit lot *oif)i«V 

lo'l-'l *■ ,+ ,, r • r^T '•, ;, «<.+ n''. J"t 


that of the United States. Plaintlffe have presented their olaims 
for daxoagea to three Juries, There should be an end to litigation 
eouietime or woA«where« 

The judgment is al'fiimed* 


O'Connor, P. J., and MeSurely» J., ooncur. 


B, J, IXJLAK, as SueceoKor Trustee, etc., 



WBllSi MORMSK.Y et aX.» 


1. B» BURNETT, as Successor Trustee 
etc., Petitioner, and L. H, HEYMASH 
et al,, Jiondiiolders Committee, 



PETER B, CARSY et al.. 



9 4 I. A. 615 


This ie one of eight oases in w'aioh tlie material facts are 
similar and the issues of law Identical. In each case the owner 
•f certain prexaises executed a trust deed conveying land In CooJc 
county, Illinois, to secure the paymaat of an indehtedness repre- 
sented \>y certain 'bonds and coupons. In each of these instances 
the West Side Trust & Sayings Bank, a Toanlcing corporation, was 
named as trustee. In each case the Bank appears to have been tne 
issuer of the bonds, owned a considerable number of them and sold 
many of the bonds to its customers and depositors. In eaeh de- 
fault was made in payment of the bonds and in the conditions 
named In the trust deeA. In eaeh of thim more than a majority 
of the owners in amount of the bonds secured by the trust deed 
entered into a written agreement on September 30, 1931, whereby 
L. H. Ueymann, John P. Hooicer, Henry Isaacs, fielson Morris and 
Bertram M. Winston were designated a IJondholders Committee for the 
purpose of conserving the interests of the owners of the bonds. 
The agreement is a written document consisting of 9 articles with 





.YT^ttUOO 30o 


BI^ ^Aol ^6^ .•s^Xl.qqA 

,.Ii i» YSHAO ,a RST3L<1 

il e»«j8;> iilgi* to »ao ai alrSl: 

»Ai luetf ev .^rusS ti nojis al «»sdeirxt ■« bnmMa 

LXoa Aiu aie xodmjun slo, latlginoo £ b^nwo «al>aod axtdh Ic itai/aal 

-f^A ((0«« nl .aio^rxsoc- id£uo;toiio s.tx 0^ a^no«r 9Ai 'to x""^ 

aoeilibaoo dxii ai fiiu atnod axiJ 'to ^usispieni ait aAjiJB aAw ilual 

X^itat^a a ^KxiJ- a-xom iXiaiit lo d««a uX ,J&«el> it^euiit aflt al liaauiii 

A«a6 Jaiiai dJj ■ ; batiioae (:«Im ':r <^ii;> 'lo J'nuoiaud i(i aiainro eriJ lo 

Xcfexsiiv ,X6;.^ , . daatq^i^ . ^matiXA* si^tSttm m tttal bat^i'aa 

bOB alx^oM ii.Hin.^ ,ao««aI ^^oaii ,7a3looU .^ xi/ieT/ ^oomry*'^ • 

^U «el aMtlaoM^O avabXoiXbCK i ^: La^. a J:«ab artaw aotauJtW .JC «a*t<)^rta<i 

^njlaiotf axl* la tit»awi, ■> »;.'] •a-tlvi- aii^'o 'to aaotj^tf^ 

.-f^iw aaXollxa e lo ^ .-, --.^ -- ' «"-''«i^ »ifl 


many oubdiviaionB and covering 48 pages ol' the abstract. The spe- 
cific provisions of this agreement we shall hereafter notice. It 
was in substance an agreement whereby the owners of the bonds 
transferred the legal and equitable ownership thereof to the 
Bondholders' CoHimlttee and deposited the bonds with the We»t 
Side Trust & Savings Bank, therein named as depositary. 

In eacii case the West Side Trust & Savings BanJc, upon de- 
fault, filed a bill to foreclose whicii is still pending. The 
rights of this committee have been challenged and sustained by 
this court in a number of cases. ( In re Petition of Wm, l.,0*Connell . 
282 111. App. 146; People v. West Side Trust & Savings Bank^. 280,, 
111. App, 303; and by the Supreme court in 362 111* 607.) 

December 19, 1933, the Auditor of Public Accounts took 
possession of the West Side Tx^ist & Savings Bank, and January 12, 
1934, William L. 0»Connell was appointed receiver of it. June 1, 
1936, C'Connell on behalf of the Bank resigned the trusteeship by 
an instrument in writing which was recorded. Within 30 di^^s there- 
after a majority of the bondholders, as represented by the Bond- 
holders' ComBiittee, executed and recorded a written instrument ap- 
pointing 5. J. Dolan as successor trustee, Bolan accepting by a 
written instrument w sica was also recorded in Oook county, January 
19, 1937, Bolan, upon nis own petition, was substituted as plaintiff 
in eadi of the oases, lie was granted leave to file amendments, which 
he did, making the West Side Trust & Secvings Bank and Bondiioldert ' 
Committee additional parties defendant to the cause, Dolan died May 
6, 1937. Thereupon, within 30 days, the owners of a majority of the 
bonds represented by the Bondholders' Committee named B. B, Burnett 
as successor trustee by an instrument in writing, duly recorded, as 
was also the written acceptance of the trusteeship by Burnett. There- 
upon Burnett filed his petition in each of the cases, praying that 
his appointment might be confirmed and he be substituted as plain- 

tl .•oi;foa as^lA^ittri IIsxls •"' tiumesitsfi aidJ 'to snolBironGf stllo 

ti>aoJ Oil} 'to Bioawo 9di ^cToatxTw ;rn«ais*%^ rue •oaeiscTiii! ni (t«w 

•^ o^ losaoxii qJLxiaicoairo •Xdji^itf^o Jbii£ Ias«X sxi;t b^'it9l9 cmti 

■imrsY. ^i iiiiv abaotf edt ^sJxeogab ba«; o^^iiiikiioO ' BTOfjIorifcaoa: 

-^isui ioO'O.ii .MflT to aoiitSb'i ei al ) . " *■ "^dmua » ' '- ;^oo alii* 

,.->S2 ^,:»faga aMUXVOti :> » ;>-aj>ni!£ ftjbi:^ .-■^.-■' .^ .-sx.,u^'i jd*I .^v- .ill 888 
I .VOB ,xll SdC ax 1-xuoo ?i-.i«m?i* atW x^ **» J®*^* ♦^''' ■'^^'^ 
ioo^ e*iUfO»oA oiX(fw<i to Tt<?}ii)iiA etit ,«i *W 1!ft*«|D^)" 

>39W oxU "lO noil ■ '■^; •! ey 
i3>jrx9oa'i i^iiJ-ii. ojio3*0 .JL iaaiXXiW ,iieio>X 

odJ 'bensleoi .,'•:'■,"""": 

j..I>ioooi ijiifi b!^*i.o. , .s;j-jX.iuiaoO 'si«tiXori 

, ■ . 'ci8d30U« a<s xiisi. ." rii^aioq 

»i>-xoafii-- iloi- - .yrtisiil natfttw 

. ' ,,;:..! ■■ •/ ^ . . ^c- .^-^'-f ,01 

• i>»^ii«'X4i «4iw »k ,ea«£0 •xiJ lo JilO£d oX 

3«i^uq[ X*aoilil>J^ M^^d^J^mtoO 

atHiiyf .itoqwetojclT .VSffX ,8 

^ma 9"! (o£ A^ X<f boitnsae'xqoi mbaod 

iJuntmsU am x^ —imm^ noesoooi/s •« 


xfexnTT , 
* aifttXc 

to il0Ji» ul aoUlf^ tiXtf fc«Xx I *;r«au«ii noqx; 

tii'l' in tlie causes* He iras glTen leave to file Iiie pe-tition and 
objeetora ruled to answer, whicii in 6 of the caeee they did, deny- 
ing that he was duly chosen as trustee and denying that Ills appoint- 
ment should he afl'in^ed* The answers were filed Uay 17, 1937. 

The causes were consolidated for hearing and Septeoiber 16, 
1937, a decree was entered finding Burnett irredicated his right to 

be Buhstituted as plaii..tiff "by reason of his appointment as suc- 

oesuor trustee by a IsondholdersjyCoi^Jiaittes acting under a Depositary 

Agreement dated Septesiber 30, 19 31; that the court was of the opin- 
ion tnat tx:.e a^-reeuient executed hy the West Side Trust & Savitigs 
Bank had heen aoandoned by it as principal in the original agreement 
by virtue of its liquidation and reoeiTsrship and the subsequent 
conduct of its receiver with respect to the Depositsixy agreement; 
tiiat the Depositary agreement had been materially altered after 
its execution and the deposit of the bonds; that the agreement lacked 
mutuality in that it appears there was forbearance on the part of the 
depositing bondholders without axiy obligation on the part of the mem- 
bers of the eoHuiiittee to perform any duty; that the Depositary agree- 
ment provided that the Bank assumed liability to pay attorneys' fees, 
etc., and that this agreement was contrary to the declared publio 
policy of the State, and, therefore, ultra vireg ir^ that it assiimed 
to pay obligations which were not the oblifeatione of the Bank, It 
was tiierefore decreed that the Depositary agreetient of September 30, 
1931, be declared to be null and void, any acts 'lone or performed by 
the Bondholders' Cor.jnittoe thereunder be also declared null and void; 
that the appointment of any suecessor trustee made by it at any time 
and the appointment of E. E. Burnett as successor trustee be declared 
null and void, and that the same should be removed as a cloud upon the 
title of each of the parcels of real estate described In the several 
complaints; that the motion of Burnett to be substituted party plain- 
tiff be denied, and further, that Peter B. Ca»oy be appointed as<!q£ alii liuij- ^ai-^oeJ^ hois 99lei*i\; •« fi»«o«U» t-^J^-^ s^''^ dd ij&dt T^al 

oj Jiia-^^ •• '^ Jsalfcirtq ti-eaaaiil gaifenl't bsxeitv • »a«:ri' ., /.t.91 

-. .Iqqjt; aiil 'ic - - ' ■•"•;*■- •' •'■>-•■••- -- 

•iX<fsq ^%££x> tMiine:> aav tiBunaA9X^4i «isii tmdi bsm « .0^9 

*■-■ i,»-xxy -_.- - , : , , ■■■ £oq 

•^tf j^«, ^si[jBXo»i> •(} ^llQl 

i9imurt totrntkenua \[rai lo imaitnloq<:f» •iLT ijiiii 
JI0.T o^aaooUQ aa d-jTonaeS <>i .wj tm i'reniJsTitXoqqjB ttji^ ibiui 

1^,, ' *rfX«»8oJ> ©**tdt' 1-0 «XifOii*jq sxil lo rio.< .^X;^ 

successor trustee with all the power*, rigixte and duties vested la 

the trustee "by the deed ol' trust, end that such successor trustee 

be substituted as party plaintiff, and that Carey should he 

placed in possession of each (parcel of real estate, and £umett 

and any persons in possession of the respective praoiisos "be directed 

to deliver up possession to Carey and to turn over to him all funds 

belonging to the trust estate, together with leases, etc. In each 

of these cases Burnett and the Bondholders ♦ Gom:-lttee have appealed. 

Section 3 of Article 5 of each of the trust deeds provides: 

"In case the Trustee hereunder siiall resign, be rexaoved, or 
be dissolved, or otherwise become incapable of acting hereunder, a 
successor or r.uccessors may be appointed by the holder or holders of 
a majority in amount of the bonds then outstaiiding hereunder, by an 
instrument or concurrent instruments in writing duly signed by thea 
and recorded in the Recorder's office of the county or counties 
wherein the ciort£aged property Ib located; or iii case said bond- 
holder or holders shall not appoint a new trustee or trustees here- 
under, as aforesaid, within thirty days after any such vacancy shall 
eeeur, then the holder or holders of any one or more of said lends 
may apply to any court in the county or counties wherein said 
mortgaged property, or or^y part .hereof is located, having general 
chancery jurisdiction, for the appointmei-it of a new trustee here- 
under, upon such notice to such person or persons as the court may 
direct, or upon such notice as shall be in accordai:iOe with the 
statute or the rules of such court.* 

Section 4 in substance provides that the successor trustee 
shall execute in writing and record his acceptance and thereupon, 
"without any further act, deed or conveyance, shall becoiae fully 
vested with all the estate, properties, rights, powers, trusts, 
duties and obligations of its, hie or their predecessor,* 

It was the theory of the Chancellor, and it is contended in 
support of the decree, that the Depositary agreement of September 
30, 1931, was invalid, a nullity, and the appointment of Burnett 
thereunder therefore void. It is urged that this ia true by reason 
of provisions contained In Article 2, section 3 of the agreement to 
the elTeot that certain items shoiad be "paid or provided for" by 
the West Side Trust & Saving* Bank of Chicago, should not be de- 
ducted from the proceeds unless the proceeds of the deposited mort- 

i ij 

3 I . i'f.;^ ,XiiOQO 

, no 



gage obllgatloAB realized uov than the aaoont of aaid obiigatioaa. 
The iteaiB covered by tnis section were ooiapeaaaation, ii arxy, to 
tiitt Bondiiolders * Coiimiittde, ineXuding tiaerein I'ees axid expenses <if 
agents, appraisers and attorneys, as also attorneys eiaployed for the 
purpose oi' condueting foreolosure suits, excluding, iu»«ever, all 
f»QZ and ihana^eiuent expenses oi' the lauildinga, and including the 
fees of attorneys employed by tJae Barxk to foreeloae in uases wnere 
it was trustee, liiie fees oi" attorneys «iaployed T&y others fox the 
foreeloBure of ar;y other mortgage or trust deed to whose ^aploymoEit 
the Bondholders' Coicffiittee shoiAld have consented in a written in- 
struiaent, the co^apeusation of tlie depositary, the coiixpensation of 
members of the Advisory ooiomittee, and the compensation as reeeiyer 
of any officer or employee of uie Banic appointed to act as recelTer 
in connection v/ith the foreclosure of the properties, as well as tlie 
fees of the attorneys of sueh receiver. This clause si.ated it was 
distinctly agreed that the Baiik ehould not be liuble to pc^y or ad- 
yanoe sums for ai.y iteras other tiian txiose specifically required, 
and that in addition to otner items it should in no event be liable 
to pay or advai^ce court costs or the coiuxpensation paid or allowed to 
any receiver otner than its own officers or eiaployees, or the ex- 
penses of property mari^^gecaent and maintenance* Items of expense 
other than those specifically required to be provided for by the 
Bank sliould be deducted from the proceeds if definitely allocable to 
particular mortgage obligations* If it was not possible to so al« 
locate them these expenses should be deducted fro£^ such deposited 
mortgage obligations as the Bondholders' Committes in its sole dis- 
cretion should determine, and the depositor should have no personal 
liability with respect to any expenses or obligations incurred under 
the agreement except as provided in Section 3 of Article 5 in con- 
nection -^'ith the withdrawal of mortgage obligations from deposit. 

•a^ ^iXil>iiioni bcun ^a^aibliuo ^ns^xt it^nHii^^^yUiiasj^ti bna seat 


iftiJ XltUl 


: -vrfWftlH 

• Kffii^ J ail or i>jil4B 

•au Co aeBU»q[ 

■ ttom 'mXutj 
k9ti9<t<i»t tiaue ioot't btfiO' ■ \39»kiti^fi ^Binii aettU 9#j3ooX 

.:i •toB •BttlauHoO * BtBhlotihaoS. >'. .Xdo •i«8#to« 

ni S •X«l* ttl *»*i:T< !»ox» ^aaawsi 

It ■■'as s,iao proTided tliat in tiie event arieunt* realized i'rom ioi«- 
closure in any case sliould exceed ttie amount necessi^ry to pay tia» 
mortgage obligation in Tull, including principal and iatereet, the 
Bank would Tbe entitled to be reimbursed ior all advaneea made pro- 
Tided the depositing bondholders had eeoured the amount oi tkelr 
prinoipal and intsreBt, The objectors say that tnes« promises were 
ultra vires the Bank anfl ren.lar the agreeoiant null and void; that 
the promises are contrary to the declared public policy oX tne 
state; that banks n-ay not use the depositors* money for purposes not 
within the scope of a banking business. Tney rely on iaiass Vj 
Madi a on-lLedz ie Stat e , 3g»nk . 354 111, 554, and Continental Illi^iois 
lational Bank v. Peoples Trust and ., SavJA ga i3aa k^ 366 lix, 377. They 
argue that the fact the Bank repurciiased bonds contrary to the de- 
clared public uolioy oi' tne state did not confer ths rig^at on the 
Eaiik to oomruit ultr§ viret; acta by enterinji: into the depositary 
agreeiaent; tliat the objectors ^f&T® i^ot estopped to raise this 
defsnse by accsptai.c® of the benefits, the a^greesient being wholly 
void, i'o tais point they cite Awotin v«, ^ A tlas Exchange BaiXk :^, 295 
U, 3, 209. As a xaatter of fact, since tiie BanJs: is now inBolvent 
its liability on an agreement to tl'ds effect becomes soiaer^hat of a 
moot question. Hoirever, in view of its insolvency it appears that 
I«jr, ITelBon Morris, one of the BondViolders' Committee, has assuaed 
the obligations of the Bank in tl-iis respect and agreed to bear the 
burden of these expenses. Also acting under another provision of the 
Depositary agreement, the Livestock National Bank has been named as 
the depcsitary of the bonds for the cwnrai itee, ^or several reasons 
we think these contentioBii cannot be sustained. 

In the first place tliie provision of the Depositary agrceaaent 
was independent froii: other parts of it, and even if it were to be 
held ultra vires this would not aiake void the entire agreement. People 
V. Sherra rd State Bank . 258 111. ^p. 168; 05 Corpus Juris. 333. In 

if y*i V 


\^X^i J iStv 

•« fre.HI: ' 

'.: «*A»^ talQ% nidi ^% . £ I o v 
- . .. naiiJ-jE*. 

.aoI;taQi/p 4'«om 
3XIJA iSX-LJC &3lii£ ^-^"^ 

the second T)lae«, we think under the ciroamstcOJceB appearing in 
erldence the agreement of the Bonk (not that it rould pay itself) 
"but would cauee theee items to he paid wae neither ultra <firet nor 
against public policy. The facts here clearly diatinguieh this 
oaae from Kaaea v, Madi aon-Kedzie State Bank . 354 II.. 554, and 
Contine nta l 111 inoJE Matioaal Bank T,t Peoples Trust & oavings Sanl t;. 
366 111. 377, and Awotin Y. Atla s iSxchatige Barik . 29 5 U, S, 209. 
In the Ked zie J&.en.k case the r)l3intiff brought a "bill in equity to 
compel the specific performance "by a "bank of its oontract to re- 
purciiaBe real estate "bonds according t© the terms of the contract. 
In the course of its "business tha "bank had sold these bonds and at 
the time of the sales had agreed to repurchase the bonds sold at 
any time sfter one year at 99 and after 3-|- years at par. The bonds 
were n<it the obligations of the bank "but were the obligations of 
other persons. It was held that this contract was voi(? and against 
public policy as being in violation of an act for the protection of 
bank depositors approved June 4, 1879. (Ill, Revised State,, 1937, 
ehap, 38, seo, 64). 

In the instant ease the bank was the owner of a large poy- 
tioa of the bonds seourod "by these trust deeds. It was vitally im- 
portant (default having been made in payment thereof) that these 
"bendliolders should act together for the conservation of their in- 
terests. If that o"bjeot could not be attained, then dissipation of 
those assets waw almost a certainty. It was not ultra vires the 
powtrs of the Bank to make any reasonable agreement looking toward 
the protection and presenration of its property, Zollman "Banks 
and Banking," vol, 1, p, 153, sec. 197. The distinction between 
the obligations here incurred and those aesximed in the Knass cast 
is vital and controlling* The suit there was in substance one for 
the speeific perfonriance of a particular contract which was held 
to bo Illegal and void as against public policy. This contract 

..^tl 9«l«£l^ «auA» J[}Xi/ov tutf 
tftxsl »riT .x^iXoQ- oiX<fu(j *9ffijB:ai 

kj. j UWa 

i^ja i>Xoa •biioa tuit »B«jrioii«io'X o.' ::''^i„va ij^-i'. eeviiif; r'.i* 'to si^i < 
^0i .. '■■ ' .RHiXXorJ^aoa htt^i X*ivMr tti 


on the contrary is not illegaO., is aot contrary to tiny puljlic j?olicy 
ajid is not iinmoral* There are v?all deiiiied limits to tJae doctrine 
of ultra vires which must be Jcept in uiud ii' Justice is to prevail, 
otherwise the application ol' Uic doctrine migiit 'becwae a iic;ense for 
commercial piracy. Xhe opposition oi' a aiaali part ol' the boadi^clders 
to giving all ol' them protection which eaqperienoe shows to toe so 
much nee'3ed, is difficult to understand on any theory other than 
that set forth in Cohen y^ Central Hepullic, Trust Cq » . 282 ill, 
App, 569, that the "litigation begets tiie client." We thin*., too, 
the agreement not beint, contrary to the provisions of public policgr 
or in violation of any statute , the bondholders who have received 
and accepted the benefits of the gerviccs of the coxiJiuittee are on 
the clearest principles eatoprjed from raising this defcnee, ajnd 
this whether the depositary agreement is regarded as a trust 
agreejTient (wiich seenis to have been the view of the court in 
Bull&rd V. City of Cisco .. 890 U. '6, 179) (or simply a contract) as 
seec.s to have been neld in 4a1yir lau-taw JSlectric Cable. Co. y^ ^ liabirshaw 
Bleotric Cable Co .. 296 Fed. 875. 

The next contention of the objectors is tixat the Depositary 
agreement is void for want of mutuality. As sustaiuing thie con- 
tentioB they point out that under section 4 of article 1 of the 
agreement the Bondholders' Comiriittec might at its election return 
to a depositor any mortgage obligation which had been deposited 
with it by him and thereby teriiiinate all rights whieh had accrued 
to him by reason of such deposit, and this even txiough other obliga- 
tions of other depositors were retained by the committee, This 
provision, it is urged, destroyed all mutuality between the parties 
to the contract. The depositors (say tixey) were bound, wiiile the 
committee was not bound, and suovx an agreement, tney aay, is -void, 
citing Re; Estate of i'aberson . 286 111. App, 424; xie; Lanquidt . 

iiua 90U 


^Xxo.. oii:ii.T to aaoJ 

auu iittiiiif ^j»'£>Y j ^;j:;^Xi; 'to 

>dn xioiili 

,10 xi- 

. IS 

ft9ii««<ii9i oeecf bad unlaw molfi->iii£dlo stg^i-j^st-lifliia "fscu^ lo^ritt^ 



70 y«d. (2d) 929; Hlgbic ▼. Rmt . 211 111. 333; Jpliet Bottling Cft.. 
T, Brewing Co . . 264 111. 215. 

If we regard the agreement as creating a trust the question 
of mutuality Isecomes i»material. Bul lard ▼. City of Cisgo. 290 U.S. 
179; Habirsbaw Blectrio Cable Co . t, Habirsfaaw Electri e Ca"ble Co .. 
296 Fed. 875. However, we hold the agreement is not Toid for laek 
of mutuality. Thebest Laundry and Cleaning C o. v. Duffy. 293 111. 
App. , 1252. The agreement contemplated that many persons would 
become parties to it. the consideration for the deposit of bonds 
by one bondholder was the deposit "by another bondholder of his bonds. 
The depositary agreement recites that united action and cooperation 
on the part of the holders of the mortgage obligations is advisable 
in order te proteet the security and to enforce and procure payment 
of the interest and principal of the same and to protect the rights 
and interests of tiie holders thereof in all respects, and that such 
united action and cooperation can best be secured through a eoimnlttee 
as provided in the agreement, fhe agreement says: "Whereas, the 
Bondholders ' CoMnittee hats consented to repr eag m t jmd to set for the 
Depositors, as hereinafter eet forth; ^ow, fherefore, in oonsidera- 
tier? of the preirdses and of the mutual advantages which will accrue 
to such Depositors, all Depositors, each for himself but not for the 
others or any of them, agree with one another, with the Bondholders' 
Committee, and with the Bepositary hereinafter appointed as follows:" 
etc. Sven if as originally drawn the agreement was subject to attack 
on the ground of want of consideration, in view of the long services 
of the coimitteej the litigation, etc., conducted by it in behalf of 
the bondlioldert, we think the bondholders who have accepted these 
services are now estopped on the plainest principles to argue that 
the contract is void for want of consideration or lack of mutuality. 
Moreover, an agreement is not necessarily void for want of mutuality. 

..-Xfi .1X1 ^8?' , .pt) r^n/vs-ig:. ,y 

'I - 


>j;rfj^:> g^g^iaoXa'iylcfjBB ;OTX 

.CXI c^ ,ilyifc.„.... 


x^ni 9V ,^»v-©Wor' 

— ♦^ *' 

.'^«'ii aw 

•tl)Lii,i?!j ^89d|»i 

. 1.;^. 'to 

•>1'UO -tj.;,.. 


, . (lA 

-, I 


9Jii a«1 t«a iuti 1l»»tfilsi lo't iio«» ,sri«Jla< 
jXvt#« , iioii/-iao 

r, ;ieA ^Ai^i. X^ n. 

. 1.) .'i.>t'xOii 


I >...Umo 

r^iLfluAilB 'to 


Watl'ord Oil and Gag Co.. y. Shlimaja . 233 111. 9; Ulrey T« Keith . 237 
111. 234; Poe t^ Ulrey . 233 111. 56. 

The contention is also made that the agreement w«a not bind- 
ing for the reason that it wa» (after the failure of the Bank) ma- 
terially altered. The iJondholdere' Committee, after the insolrenoy 
of the ^ent Side Trust & Savings Bank, named a new depositary for 
the bonds. The agreement provided! for this laut also declared that 
"each depositary should "be vested with the powers and duties and 
obligations of the original depositary." It is true the new de- 
positary (The Livestock National Bank) did not assume the expenses 
the West Side Trust & Savings Bank had obligated itself to pay. 
However, by arrangement Mr. Morris of the Committee assumed these 
responsibilities. Sow it is argued this is a breach of the agreement 
by which the depositors are released from their obligations under the 
agreenient , and that by x^ason of this alteration the agreement has 
become void. Sven asauaing this was such a material alteretion as 
to make void the entire agreeinent (which we do not think it was), 
we are unable to understand upon what theory any depositor would 
have a rigxit to raise the question except with reference to bonds 
owned and deposited by himself. In all these oases a majfority in 
amount of the holders of the bonds are insisting on the validity of 
the depositary agreement and that it be carried out. The ehange la 
the agre«Eent at the most could have no further effect thsm to give 
to bondholders who had deposited their bonds and wished to rescind 
the agreement the right to withdraw their own bonds. They would 
have no right to impose such rescission on owners who still desirs 
the services of the coi»rftittee. Surely the court was not obli^'eted 
to raise collateral questions of this kind. The bonds were payable 
to bearer; the owners delivered thexri to the Bondiaolders' Comnittse. 
These same owners are a majority of the owners of bonds out standing 
and in each case do not appear to question the right of possession 


rat . ciii»> : .T Y,*%r^ :» .-H ?.s«? . cawigi fig ,v ,.oa »jiO ?>«« xi o j&io-i# »w 

.©^; ,^:-, . :^^<? . rri 

-.»- -->rj- d-a?i^.t 9fc*i«s 08Xj8 el cici. -. .. 

f> i3»c ,-t r- f>-i. 

• ' bluest ■,-.■;,■ ..u3^* 

. .i:Jx.., ■... . .......iislto Si-.j ..■ aotiti^lt€^ 

-ft.-! 4. wr 

:!f)^.T,=TT-i.f: - 

.'■■■V '>)*irj0 9^ 

ft xtA^lao 

9tU t^bOL tta-jii /i^iJ.',\ It: n '>•-!!,: ^- ,1-1: <9T i^'isJiioq 

ajiil ^ii»t9»<»'xni irf(t flu.i*iii?>JX« taJilJ 'to ncMi«®; 

lo X^titiSMT exi^t '^'X« «ftnod «>n\t 'to •aol>ioxl •JiiT to ^ai/o«i 

•Tis ## lUku^ i«»Vl* -x«x<;ftB'l i»;i iuv^i^r; LXj.00 ie^ex 9ii^ ,)^£( ;ta»ai»ei:3£ »£(;^ 
bnt»m9r t h».t.i'.l- ^>(w HbflMd ti'^riT h24i- r'-'v eYdMoiiltnocr et 

rti«9l» XXlta aiSw aivn^ .taaXoe saooiBi ^jsii 

or title or th« ooKmittee. W« thlnic no oth«r ha« « ri^t to rais* 
that question lor tnea. 

i'lnally, the contetition is made that the depositary agree- 
ment is unconscionable* If that is true a majority oi the owners 
oi the bonds seems slow to diecoYer the fact* Why the anxiety ei' 
others in benalf oi' those who do not complain, we are unable to 
understand. Jtasterson v. Wall . 365 111. , 108, is cited, and it is 
urged ti^iat the burden is on the committee to justify the fairness 
of the agreement. If this wore a suit I'or specif ie perforfi^aneo 
and the parties olajeeting were still parties to the contract this 
would \>ft true; but this is not a suit for specific perforuianoo. 
KoweTor, we hold the depositary agreement is not unconscionable* 
It is a lengthy document, tne evident purpose of wnich is to secure 
unity of action by the owners of these bonds. Its pz-ovisions ( thou^ 
subject to abuse) are appropriate to tiiis end. If the coiiitiitteo 
faithl'ully carries out its obligations there wilx be no cause for 
complaint. The provision of the agreement as to the e^ensea as- 
sumed by the Bank, and now personally by Mr« Morris, is more than 
fair. Why any bondholder should object on taat ground is difficult 
to understand. There is no '^ ^jggl"~5E de) that the oonjuittee or any 
member of it has been negligent or derelict, ihere is no showing 
that Burnett is disqualified in any way. In each one of those eases 
a small minority of bondholders are attempting to wrest control of 
litigation from a majority of the owners of the bonds and from 
representatives who, so far as the record shows, have been entirely 
faithful in the discharge of their trust, Proceedings of this Jtind 
are for the benefit of the owriers of the bonds, in order tiaat tne 
largest possible amount may be realised therefrom, Qohen v. Central 
Republic Irust Company ^ 282 111. App. 659, is applicable. On the 
authority of acnatgJcis v. Japsenwaldf 267 111. App. 169; Dillon v. 


"to v.d^**JU4£ en. 


J B&ii fiiio &a Mti. 


* ob •f'" tijwlocf ni: aiarijo 

• •Icfeaoiocno .. naiusist^fi ^^^aiaoc^Jb orlif Mori. »w iisrawoli 



bLili alii 



mifo dii 

. ostcfwa 

. ! ia't 

.f>,«i(iii js 


ftX^J a J .5lcf« 

■ Xisw iie f < 


Elmore, ?,76 111, App. 548, and Dillon v. aimprf . 361 111,, 356, ve 
hold tliat an order recogniainfc, tiie appoii-tiaent of iurnett as suc- 
cessor trustee and iubetltutint him as plaintill in the aotion 
shoulc' h&Te "been niade, 

Burnett contende here that the trial court lacked jurledie- 
tion to enter the order setting aside his appointiiient ;ind naming a 
BuccesHor trustee, lie ar^ueu tuie upon the theory that the suit 
for foreclosure could not be joined rith a salt Tor txie appointiaent 
of a successor trustee. We do not fiud it necessary to de«id« that 
question. It may be that under the liberal provisions of the new 
Practice act such distinct causes of action mig^^at be Joined, Trapp 
T, £ordon_, 363 111., 102. But however this Jtay be it is aianifest 
that the foreclosure should not have 'oeen delayed on that account. 
There ^as no atterjpt mad« here to bring in all the owners of th« 
bonds who were necessary parties in interest if the appointflient of 
Burnett , as raade by a majority of the bondholders, was to be set 
aside. There was no basis in the pleadings:; for the removal of one 
succesaor trustee and the appointment of another, 

Burnett also contends that siuce the decree was entered by 
the Cnaneellor after his assie?:iiuent to the Griiainal uourt and after 
he had begun his work in tnat court, he was wit.iout power axid juris- 
diction to enter the deere©. The record indicates that the Chancel- 
lor was sitting In the Circait court and holding a branch of that 
court of which he was a judge and in which the decree was entered. 
His assignment by the executive coiaiaittee zo the Criaiinal court 
did not preclude his sitting in the Circuit court. Patoiien v . 
Pat Chen. 364 111. 173. There is no iiierit in this point. 

These cases, already unduly delayed by merely technical con- 
tentions, siiould be allowed to proceed under the guidance and direc- 
tion of tJiose chosen by a majority of the bondholders to conduct the 




ioe$»oi9ue. r Co 


.1. . -■(>:,■■•.' bcii »il 


9tii #Otfi*w 


' prooeedlng* in their behalf. In this oase and in e&oh of these eight 
oases the deeree of the Cireuit court is roTersed and the cause is 
remanded with directions to the court to enter an order confirming 
the appolntinent of Burnett as successor trustee and suhetituting 
hin as plaintiff in the case. Also with directions to set asidt 

the order appointing Peter B. Carey successor trustee and reoiove 
sueh order an a cloud on the title to the real estate involved in 
this foreclosure, 


O'Connor, P, J., arid MciJU rely , J,, concur. 


tdsiis »a9xi;r in lioBd al has •s£o sixi3 al »'tLAd*d ri»£it al m}i^tb99oo%ti \ 

•galiailtmdan has n^&^urS te^asooij! ^m&atoncfs %di 

•ikias ^9n o# «ao. cfas-xlb rl^iw oalA .9a.n0 9iii ;ij° xtiirC 

- ji am. V . 

•iiidU * 

399 79 

MlimiE JOHNSON, ) 

Appellaat, } 

BBlililS J, :eJMi, ) \ 

Appellee. )) '-^ 



CAGO, .# 


.A. 61& 


In an action Toy plaintiff upon the written guaranty "by 
def endaiit of the payment of an issue of corporation "bonda aind upon 
trial by tlie court, taere was on Jun« 1, 1937, a finding for plain- 
tiff in the suux of :ipl631.25 with judgment thereon, f romiiiwni ch no 
appesLl has been taken, 

Garnishment proeeediiigi based on the judgiaent having been 
instituted on July 22, 1937, tiie defendant, S'inn, on August 10, by 
leave of court filed a petition in the nature of a writ of audita 
querela , praying that the judgsient mie,ht be satisfied. The petition 
set up in detail proceedings in the United States District Court for 
the ISorthern District of Illinois whereby the corporation debtor who 
issued the bondi applied for reorganization under Section 77-B of 
the Bankruptcy Act. That petition was filed kay 6, 1936. All 
creditors and stockholders of the petitioning corporation were 
notified. A plan for reorganization was submitted and approved and 
on February 7, 1937, a final decree was entered whereby the debtor 
executed a new deed of trust conveying the same real estate to secure 
a new issue of bonds. The new bonds, to an amount as decreed by the 
United States District Court, were executed smd delivered to the 
plaintiff, Minnie Johneon, against her protest. The United Statee 
District Court compelling iier acceptance of these new bonds under 
the penalty of contempt, Tne petition of ^inn, the debtor, prayed 



( ^iasXlQqqjk 

^ aoc < 



{ { .»eIX9froA 

•lom^o 2CHT azHavusa TTa»0TA>i euitoUX .fiJ^i 

aeqi; fciw; eLnocf noii^weioqico 'to ^ijSEii . .iSiir^^q qxH 'to iivibae't^h 

-aifllq ao'l i^aitni't £ jVCWX ,X erujl- uo Siv a-iSiii j^-xtroo sxlc^ x,^ i^liS 

oa xioiiiwiiixaoil ,ao9i9iiJ ;tf»iiisf)ii/t iicfiw eS.Xgdlljf 'io iUJjB 9iii al 'fiii 

,iiQ'A&i addcT 8£il l£3qqji 

X<i , ■jX ^aiiijuA no .iiiiiU ,3-fic.b.. ,V6'iI ,S& ^I/j"'I> uo bsiuixiMal 

^ilbuji 'to ^titw s 'to oT/Jtf-rr ■iOJld'Xd'dq « Jbsli'l t'luoo to svaoL 

aoliit^q 9jix ,b:)i'taiiiiu _ Jii9*jisJ»iJt ^^^ ^-B^id" axu-^jaiq . ^laiejjp 

lo't ^iJjoJ *ox:tj-9iG e:^iBiS. &3oliiu ailv? ax s -..iibaeaoiq lijji'eb ni qw ^sa 

«if«r lotdeb aoii&'toq_i . i - ->• j. io c^ox'iJ'siCL ti-isxi^tio H sxii 

'to •:■-''"•' ■lo'- ■:>■■> .'.• . ■'. 1! ;. •■ x ■ fr^'Vi io'l 'jr. I X^, c\j'. ahuod sxiJ fe'iueal 

. ..^ ,^ ,_ ^,-.. . ^ -^ . ., . -- .--)-. v.^*<J"'i^««^- •^^ 

s'lo.. ..ciiBioq^oo anJtnoiil^dq »ii.t to aistloriiooJa fccta aio^ifce^to 

Aiu bovetcqa bna fiiltudiuu aaw aox^Aixoe^'Xoa'r lo'r aalq A •b9iti^«n 

lo^tftt •ti.t x<'e'X9rlv/ fcai-:vt ■'• ■ -w .-^.-ro^^ rt-nil « .VCCI .T ^fiiiicfsl no 

•Yi^o«8 oi 9:r£;f86 X«91 ^ml 

0xi* Qi b^xurllfb btm b^tuoa-" •^'-^■' 

- h'. .( vrsa « f)s;tJLJOOX» 

... .J susal w»n « 

ixXI®4i(ir- •>'.>"■-; J-nitd-elCI 

. ^ qxae J- ru. .. .. -, -■ -. .. -i3 q ©xi* 

that the Judgment theretofore entered should "be vacated exid the 
clerk directed to satisl'y the judyixent against him ol" record, afld 
plaintiff "be directed to accept the new "bonds in exchange I'or her 
old ones. The petition was duly verified. 

Plaintiff made a niotion to strike the petition of August 
10 for the reasons as specified: first, tUat the matters therein 
set up v/ere available in defense of plaintiff's suit vvrdle it was 
pending and prior to the entry of the judgment, and inn the second 
place "because the proceedings alleged to have taken place concern- 
ing the de"btor corporation could in no way affect plaintiff's right 
to sue defendant upon his written guaranty of the bonds. The motion 
was denied ajnd the court entered an order finding the facts as to 
the proceedings in the United otates District court to he as re- 
cited, vacated the judgment and entered an order directin^^ tlie clerk 
of the lunicipal court to satisfy it of lecord, i'roiu that judgment 
plaintiff "brings this appeal. 

It is contended t'^at the court was without jurisdiction to 
review its own finding and judgiLent ,raore than 30 days having ex- 
pired after the entry of the judt^ient "